first off, i do not believe that iran  should  have nuclear weapons.  in fact, i believe iran having nuclear weapons makes the world less safe overall.  however, i believe that as a sovereign nation they have the right to develop nuclear weapons if they so choose.  why do i believe this: 0.  it is in iran is best strategic interests to develop nuclear weapons in order to counter israel which has nuclear weapons , and additionally to one up saudi arabia their main regional rival , and guarantee their safety against other arab nations with whom they have historically had rocky relations iraq, for example .  0.  if israel can illegally possess nuclear weapons they have not officially acknowledge they have nuclear weapons, nor have they signed the un is non proliferation treaty, making the weapons they do possess illegal , why ca not iran possess nuclear weapons, other than western bias ? pakistan has nuclear weapons, and they are officially an islamic republic, and they can have nuclear weapons, even though their nuclear weapons are probably much more of a global security risk.  0.  iran has proven itself to be a pragmatic and rational actor in world affairs.  there is no reason to suspect that they would actually use a nuclear weapon, nor sell it to a terrorist group who would.  they mainly want a nuclear weapon to secure their military position in the region, stick it to their rivals, and as a point of national pride.  because the west says iran ca not have a nuclear weapon, they want one all the more, and wo not back down on that because of national pride, something an american should be able to sympathize with.  now, i recognize that iran should not have nuclear weapons because it would cause an arms race in the most volatile region on earth, but that does not mean that they, as a sovereign nation, do not have the right to develop a nuclear weapon.   #  iran has proven itself to be a pragmatic and rational actor in world affairs.   #  this is exactly why western states do not want iran to develop nuclear capabilities.   #  there really is not much of anything recognized as a  right  of any state.  even norms such as national sovereignty are routinely ignored.  the powers of the international system do not exist to create a fair and equitable system, they exist to promote their own interests.  why would it be iran is right to develop nuclear capabilities but not the united states  right to use their power to prevent them from doing so ? whether or not this is true is very much up for debate.  israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, but their threat deterrence strategy is much more reliant on conventional capacity and a strong relationship with the us.  nuclear weapons are most strategically useful when their existence is known by all parties and there is a credible threat of their use.  neither of these are true with israel.  the npt is an international treaty and is only binding under international law to signatory states.  israel is not a signatory.  iran, however,  is  a signatory and is bound by the npt, at least in theory.  international law seldom is effective in constraining states  actions.  this is exactly why western states do not want iran to develop nuclear capabilities.  they are not just afraid of iranian fanaticism, they are afraid of the possibility that iran will use its nuclear capacity to increase its prominence in world affairs and make it more difficult for western states to promote their own interests.  rational actors can and do still fight each other.   #  can you define what you mean by  right  ?  #  can you define what you mean by  right  ? because if you mean that any sovereign nation can do whatever it wants, then of course iran can make a nuclear weapon.  a country also has the  right  to invade iran if they feel it necessary, in this case.  north korea also has the right to starve its citizens, and the nazis had the right to kill their own citizens.  can you be a little more clear on what you mean by  right  especially as it pertains to a country and not an individual ?  #  in my view,  rights  in il are another name for consensus, and on that basis iran does not get to have nukes, though there is a much greater consensus around availability of nuclear energy.   #  rights are funny things.  we recognize them for individuals, but it gets tricky with states and international law.  i do not think your argument is persuasive, though: 0.  strategic benefit does not confer a right.  0.  no one likes pakistan having these and we help them keep those weapons secure.  many others do not like israel having nukes.  however, possession by one party does not confer a right to anyone else.  0.  there is no party that can objectively judge that statement, and even if they are pragmatic, that is not the point of the  rights  from international customary law.  also i do not trust the supreme leader.  in my view,  rights  in il are another name for consensus, and on that basis iran does not get to have nukes, though there is a much greater consensus around availability of nuclear energy.   #  therefore, they have to right to pursue their own strategic benefit.   #  who decides this consensus ? the un security council, which is dominated by western powers ? the un general assembly ? if there is one nation that dominates the international arena, is there really consensus ? assuming rights are to apply equally to everyone, than all nations should have to right to seek their own rational self interest.  therefore, they have to right to pursue their own strategic benefit.  moreover, if one nation is allowed to do something without consequences, it is only fair, considering rights are to be applied equally, that all nations should be allowed to do that action.   #  first of all, many countries do not trust iran with nuclear weapons.   #  first of all, many countries do not trust iran with nuclear weapons.  if we look at israel is history, we can see that they have never started a war and their people have the right of self defense, especially after the holocaust.  israel is nukes are more of an equalizer because 0 0 countries attack it every 0 years.  iran is different, the western world struggles to differentiate between is, iran, saudi arabia, hamas.  a lot of people see them all as terrorists trying to control the world.  this view was founded on the ruins of the twin towers and other attacks.  the western world does not trust arab countries anymore.
the,  under god  line is actually a relatively new addition.  it was added during the cold war to assert the us from the soviet union.  now that the soviet union is not currently around this would seem all the more useless.  the usa is not any one religion, this country is a collection of many different religions as well as the lack of religion thereof.  we are not a christian nation or even a monotheistic nation.  in my view, the line shows favor towards monotheism.  it may be more appropriate to add a more fitting line.   #  now that the soviet union is not currently around this would seem all the more useless.   #  it is now used to differentiate us from islamic countries.   # it is now used to differentiate us from islamic countries.  anyway, the phrase has a great deal of historical and cultural background to it.  getting rid of it is hiding our cultural heritage.  while that is true it goes back to the gettysburg address  that the nation shall, under god, have a new birth of freedom.   and was used prior as well.  so while it was added later to the pledge it is not something new in america.  also, it was added only 0 years after congress adopted it as the pledge.  it is now been 0 years since then.  not sure that is really a  new  addition.   #  if you define god using supernatural properties which i guess you would had to , it will still be disputed by those who reject those properties without further proof.   # that is just your definition, though.  also i do not understand how you would interpret your concept of god in the context of those sentences.  what would trust even mean in that context ? but back to my actual point, you will find hundreds of definitions of god, depending on who you ask and all of them will either be either tautological  in existence we trust  , irrelevant  in my dog coco we trust  or disputed by someone.  if you define god using supernatural properties which i guess you would had to , it will still be disputed by those who reject those properties without further proof.  that is why i doubt there will ever be a meaningful concept of god, that wo not be controversial in some way.  i will appreciate watching tmnt for example, but i will ridicule anyone talking about ninja fighting turtles existing in real life.  god as a metaphor may be fine, but i do not see any working concept of god, that would improve the outcome of an ethical decision, that was made without that concept.   #  and honestly at this point if the government made an act to remove the phrase i guarantee there would be millions of christians, catholics, and jews who would see it as a direct attack against their religion.   #  i point you here URL the federal reserve is not representative of our government or its intentions/decisions, and thus whatever the federal reserve decides to print on money should not be put on the government is shoulders.  the government can, and has in my opinion, remained faithfully neutral in this whole debate.  it is not their place to tell the fed to take off the phrase or to leave it on, and they have done neither.  and honestly at this point if the government made an act to remove the phrase i guarantee there would be millions of christians, catholics, and jews who would see it as a direct attack against their religion.  whether you agree or not will not change their minds in the matter.  and you are no one to tell them that the are wrong at being upset over something that they care about.  and you say getting rid of the phrases would only be offensive in the short term.  well i am sure people said the same thing about adding the phrases.  they would only be offensive until people forgot they had not been there the entire time.  guess how that turned out huh ? every argument about these phrases that i have seem thus far goes both ways, yet neither side is willing to acknowledge that fact, which makes the entire debate pointless in my mind.  if you do not like it then fine.  you are allowed and free to not like it.  but do not make me listen to you whine about it.  similarly if you love it then fine.  but do not make me listen to you praise it.  i really do not care either way, i just want people to shut up about it already because this country faces real issues and this is not one of them.  sorry if i sound curt, but it is very late and i am very tired.   #  just by posting, you are inviting others to respond.   # they would only be offensive until people forgot they had not been there the entire time.  not really.  adding something that will offend someone every time they read it will constantly be reminding of everyone of the issue.  it is not the length of time that it has been there or has not been there that makes it nonoffensive.  non christians may always feel uncomfortable about it, whereas christians would eventually cease to notice the lack since there is nothing else relating to their religion in this situation.  i also acknowledged that, yes, many people will be very offended by the removal in the short term.  also, erm, you are in a thread for discussion on this topic, so it seems a bit silly to call anyone disagreeing a whiner ? just by posting, you are inviting others to respond.   #  it is not a  i am right they are wrong .   # you see this as true whereas a lot of christians/catholics see keeping it in as being all inclusive.  they are two different thoughts, and until  both  sides acknowledge what the other believes it will be impossible to have a real debate on the issue.  it is not a  i am right they are wrong .  it needs to be a  i do not agree with their view, but i understand that they hold it.  how can i change it without just blindly insulting them by saying their opinions hold no weight because i happen to disagree with them.   until both sides reach that point no serious debate will be had on this topic.
the,  under god  line is actually a relatively new addition.  it was added during the cold war to assert the us from the soviet union.  now that the soviet union is not currently around this would seem all the more useless.  the usa is not any one religion, this country is a collection of many different religions as well as the lack of religion thereof.  we are not a christian nation or even a monotheistic nation.  in my view, the line shows favor towards monotheism.  it may be more appropriate to add a more fitting line.   #  the,  under god  line is actually a relatively new addition.   #  while that is true it goes back to the gettysburg address  that the nation shall, under god, have a new birth of freedom.    # it is now used to differentiate us from islamic countries.  anyway, the phrase has a great deal of historical and cultural background to it.  getting rid of it is hiding our cultural heritage.  while that is true it goes back to the gettysburg address  that the nation shall, under god, have a new birth of freedom.   and was used prior as well.  so while it was added later to the pledge it is not something new in america.  also, it was added only 0 years after congress adopted it as the pledge.  it is now been 0 years since then.  not sure that is really a  new  addition.   #  also i do not understand how you would interpret your concept of god in the context of those sentences.   # that is just your definition, though.  also i do not understand how you would interpret your concept of god in the context of those sentences.  what would trust even mean in that context ? but back to my actual point, you will find hundreds of definitions of god, depending on who you ask and all of them will either be either tautological  in existence we trust  , irrelevant  in my dog coco we trust  or disputed by someone.  if you define god using supernatural properties which i guess you would had to , it will still be disputed by those who reject those properties without further proof.  that is why i doubt there will ever be a meaningful concept of god, that wo not be controversial in some way.  i will appreciate watching tmnt for example, but i will ridicule anyone talking about ninja fighting turtles existing in real life.  god as a metaphor may be fine, but i do not see any working concept of god, that would improve the outcome of an ethical decision, that was made without that concept.   #  whether you agree or not will not change their minds in the matter.   #  i point you here URL the federal reserve is not representative of our government or its intentions/decisions, and thus whatever the federal reserve decides to print on money should not be put on the government is shoulders.  the government can, and has in my opinion, remained faithfully neutral in this whole debate.  it is not their place to tell the fed to take off the phrase or to leave it on, and they have done neither.  and honestly at this point if the government made an act to remove the phrase i guarantee there would be millions of christians, catholics, and jews who would see it as a direct attack against their religion.  whether you agree or not will not change their minds in the matter.  and you are no one to tell them that the are wrong at being upset over something that they care about.  and you say getting rid of the phrases would only be offensive in the short term.  well i am sure people said the same thing about adding the phrases.  they would only be offensive until people forgot they had not been there the entire time.  guess how that turned out huh ? every argument about these phrases that i have seem thus far goes both ways, yet neither side is willing to acknowledge that fact, which makes the entire debate pointless in my mind.  if you do not like it then fine.  you are allowed and free to not like it.  but do not make me listen to you whine about it.  similarly if you love it then fine.  but do not make me listen to you praise it.  i really do not care either way, i just want people to shut up about it already because this country faces real issues and this is not one of them.  sorry if i sound curt, but it is very late and i am very tired.   #  it is not the length of time that it has been there or has not been there that makes it nonoffensive.   # they would only be offensive until people forgot they had not been there the entire time.  not really.  adding something that will offend someone every time they read it will constantly be reminding of everyone of the issue.  it is not the length of time that it has been there or has not been there that makes it nonoffensive.  non christians may always feel uncomfortable about it, whereas christians would eventually cease to notice the lack since there is nothing else relating to their religion in this situation.  i also acknowledged that, yes, many people will be very offended by the removal in the short term.  also, erm, you are in a thread for discussion on this topic, so it seems a bit silly to call anyone disagreeing a whiner ? just by posting, you are inviting others to respond.   #  how can i change it without just blindly insulting them by saying their opinions hold no weight because i happen to disagree with them.    # you see this as true whereas a lot of christians/catholics see keeping it in as being all inclusive.  they are two different thoughts, and until  both  sides acknowledge what the other believes it will be impossible to have a real debate on the issue.  it is not a  i am right they are wrong .  it needs to be a  i do not agree with their view, but i understand that they hold it.  how can i change it without just blindly insulting them by saying their opinions hold no weight because i happen to disagree with them.   until both sides reach that point no serious debate will be had on this topic.
i have had a samsung galaxy s0 for a few years now and i just do not like the way android works on it.  i have tried multiple different launchers, flashed different roms, and rooted the device within the first week but i just hate the feel of it.  i get the same feeling when using my friends  android devices, but i just ca not put my finger on it.  i feel almost ashamed as a lover of technology long live the pc master race to admit that i use my jailbroken ipod touch at least 0 times more than my phone.  i know that it has shitty specs by comparison, the camera sucks and it is not so good with multitasking but as someone who primarily uses handheld devices for video playback it could not be better.  there are so many more tweaks that i have found to improve experience, despite ios being objectively a much more closed system than android and in my experience i have been able to make my jailbroken device look more beautiful and customized than i ever have with my phone or have seen on other is android phones .  i  want  to love android because in my mind i know that it is just objectively better, but for media playback it just is not a very streamlined experience and i would have to describe it as clumsy.   please  show me what i have been doing wrong so that i do not end up wasting my money on an apple device when i am due for an upgrade in a few months.  i do not hate  android , i hate  my phone  the question is what do i do now ?  #  i have been able to make my jailbroken device look more beautiful and customized than i ever have with my phone or have seen on other is android phones .   #  i feel like this is more due to inexperience than anything else.   #  if you were on an s0, you were likely using samsung is version of android, called touchwiz.  it is pretty universally panned in the /r/android community for being a laggy piece of shit, although my experience with it on the note 0 was not too bad.  i feel like this is more due to inexperience than anything else.  there are custom launchers and themers out there that can make an android device look just like an iphone, if you want.  the sky is truly the limit for setting up your device with an android phone.  some functions are more important to people than others, and that is where personal preference comes in.  this is kind of inherent in the android os because it is meant to be customizable.  if you want to use the vlc app for all your videos, you can.  if you want to use the stock app, you can.  apple from what i remember forces you into their ecosystem, so that you have to use their apps.  again, this can be viewed as a strength or weakness for either os.  my suggestion would be to try a nexus device, as they come with android the way that google wants it to be.  the nexus 0 is a great phone, if you like large phones.  if not, wait for the new moto x.   #  that is a question that i am asking myself !  #  that is a question that i am asking myself ! i am currently running kitkat and for the life of me i ca not figure out why i do not like it.  everything functions perfectly on my s0 and even faster than on my ipod so i ca not understand why i hate is so much, but i do.  i think maybe it is the styalization of ios and particularly cydia.  i mean, for everything i have needed so far, i can just go to cydia and click a button and the tweak is applied.  people claim that android offers a more open system, which i do not doubt, but modifying seems so easy with cydia.  with android i have to search xda forums for a while and maybe find what i am looking for, a lot of the time the tweaks i try on my phone do not even work.   #  they put their touchwiz ui on everything, which locks it down and significantly changes the ui from stock android.   #  this is almost what i wanted to say verbatim.  get a nexus device.  the nexus 0 is still a good phone if you do not like a 0 inch screen.  but the moto x will definitely be better.  op, the issue i think you are having is that you are using the least android android brand.  samsung is the apple of the android world.  they take much longer to get root access than stock android devices nexus 0/0/0, motox etc .  they put their touchwiz ui on everything, which locks it down and significantly changes the ui from stock android.  and you are going to have apps pre installed for your carrier that you cannot uninstall to be fair, nearly all smartphone manufacturers do this .  stock android devices like the nexus 0, 0, and 0 will come completely free of such apps if you purchase them through google.  basically, you are getting android in it is least appealing form in my opinion .  try a nexus device or anything motorola is going to release in the next year.   #  samsung is notorious for layering a crappy interface they call  touchwiz  on top of android.   #  what exactly do you mean by the  feel of it  ? after using android, the  feel  of iphones is just weird to me.  in my experience, sometimes you just have to get used to new things.  as far as media player, i do not like the default app either.  i use gonemad media player, which has more features and more customization than google is stock apps.  for what it is worth, i loath google is design philosophy.  they over simplify every fucking thing.  they do not believe in ui customization.  they also got rid of my favorite product that offered maximum customization , igoogle, in favor of that shit on a stick google plus.  so no, i do not think android is objectively  better .  also, have you just tried plain  stock  android without all the frivolous shit ? samsung is notorious for layering a crappy interface they call  touchwiz  on top of android.  stock kitkat 0 is pretty, tidy, and clean imo.  others have moved on to lollipop 0, which is a complete ui overhaul.  i would try stock kitkat and lollipop before calling defeat.   #  you have nexus devices, for pure android, htc one devices, with sense, sony devices with their own apps, ui and services.   # what do you mean by that ? look and feel is different between apps ? flow of actions steps you take to do something ? also, remember that not all androids are created equal.  you have nexus devices, for pure android, htc one devices, with sense, sony devices with their own apps, ui and services.  you are using one kind of device that is rather old and uses touchwiz, criticised for being slow and ui that for many is just ugly.  the fact that you had to flash different roms suggests that you did not like your experience with touchwiz.  what i think you should do is: get your hands on devices other than samsung and do not try to change anything that is on stock, maybe htc one, which has stereo speakers on front and htc one m0 has full hd screen, which can be good for video playback.  get used to it, immerse yourself in how device works.  then decide if you like it.
i have had a samsung galaxy s0 for a few years now and i just do not like the way android works on it.  i have tried multiple different launchers, flashed different roms, and rooted the device within the first week but i just hate the feel of it.  i get the same feeling when using my friends  android devices, but i just ca not put my finger on it.  i feel almost ashamed as a lover of technology long live the pc master race to admit that i use my jailbroken ipod touch at least 0 times more than my phone.  i know that it has shitty specs by comparison, the camera sucks and it is not so good with multitasking but as someone who primarily uses handheld devices for video playback it could not be better.  there are so many more tweaks that i have found to improve experience, despite ios being objectively a much more closed system than android and in my experience i have been able to make my jailbroken device look more beautiful and customized than i ever have with my phone or have seen on other is android phones .  i  want  to love android because in my mind i know that it is just objectively better, but for media playback it just is not a very streamlined experience and i would have to describe it as clumsy.   please  show me what i have been doing wrong so that i do not end up wasting my money on an apple device when i am due for an upgrade in a few months.  i do not hate  android , i hate  my phone  the question is what do i do now ?  #  but for media playback it just is not a very streamlined experience and i would have to describe it as clumsy.   #  this is kind of inherent in the android os because it is meant to be customizable.   #  if you were on an s0, you were likely using samsung is version of android, called touchwiz.  it is pretty universally panned in the /r/android community for being a laggy piece of shit, although my experience with it on the note 0 was not too bad.  i feel like this is more due to inexperience than anything else.  there are custom launchers and themers out there that can make an android device look just like an iphone, if you want.  the sky is truly the limit for setting up your device with an android phone.  some functions are more important to people than others, and that is where personal preference comes in.  this is kind of inherent in the android os because it is meant to be customizable.  if you want to use the vlc app for all your videos, you can.  if you want to use the stock app, you can.  apple from what i remember forces you into their ecosystem, so that you have to use their apps.  again, this can be viewed as a strength or weakness for either os.  my suggestion would be to try a nexus device, as they come with android the way that google wants it to be.  the nexus 0 is a great phone, if you like large phones.  if not, wait for the new moto x.   #  i am currently running kitkat and for the life of me i ca not figure out why i do not like it.   #  that is a question that i am asking myself ! i am currently running kitkat and for the life of me i ca not figure out why i do not like it.  everything functions perfectly on my s0 and even faster than on my ipod so i ca not understand why i hate is so much, but i do.  i think maybe it is the styalization of ios and particularly cydia.  i mean, for everything i have needed so far, i can just go to cydia and click a button and the tweak is applied.  people claim that android offers a more open system, which i do not doubt, but modifying seems so easy with cydia.  with android i have to search xda forums for a while and maybe find what i am looking for, a lot of the time the tweaks i try on my phone do not even work.   #  they take much longer to get root access than stock android devices nexus 0/0/0, motox etc .   #  this is almost what i wanted to say verbatim.  get a nexus device.  the nexus 0 is still a good phone if you do not like a 0 inch screen.  but the moto x will definitely be better.  op, the issue i think you are having is that you are using the least android android brand.  samsung is the apple of the android world.  they take much longer to get root access than stock android devices nexus 0/0/0, motox etc .  they put their touchwiz ui on everything, which locks it down and significantly changes the ui from stock android.  and you are going to have apps pre installed for your carrier that you cannot uninstall to be fair, nearly all smartphone manufacturers do this .  stock android devices like the nexus 0, 0, and 0 will come completely free of such apps if you purchase them through google.  basically, you are getting android in it is least appealing form in my opinion .  try a nexus device or anything motorola is going to release in the next year.   #  i would try stock kitkat and lollipop before calling defeat.   #  what exactly do you mean by the  feel of it  ? after using android, the  feel  of iphones is just weird to me.  in my experience, sometimes you just have to get used to new things.  as far as media player, i do not like the default app either.  i use gonemad media player, which has more features and more customization than google is stock apps.  for what it is worth, i loath google is design philosophy.  they over simplify every fucking thing.  they do not believe in ui customization.  they also got rid of my favorite product that offered maximum customization , igoogle, in favor of that shit on a stick google plus.  so no, i do not think android is objectively  better .  also, have you just tried plain  stock  android without all the frivolous shit ? samsung is notorious for layering a crappy interface they call  touchwiz  on top of android.  stock kitkat 0 is pretty, tidy, and clean imo.  others have moved on to lollipop 0, which is a complete ui overhaul.  i would try stock kitkat and lollipop before calling defeat.   #  also, remember that not all androids are created equal.   # what do you mean by that ? look and feel is different between apps ? flow of actions steps you take to do something ? also, remember that not all androids are created equal.  you have nexus devices, for pure android, htc one devices, with sense, sony devices with their own apps, ui and services.  you are using one kind of device that is rather old and uses touchwiz, criticised for being slow and ui that for many is just ugly.  the fact that you had to flash different roms suggests that you did not like your experience with touchwiz.  what i think you should do is: get your hands on devices other than samsung and do not try to change anything that is on stock, maybe htc one, which has stereo speakers on front and htc one m0 has full hd screen, which can be good for video playback.  get used to it, immerse yourself in how device works.  then decide if you like it.
i have had a samsung galaxy s0 for a few years now and i just do not like the way android works on it.  i have tried multiple different launchers, flashed different roms, and rooted the device within the first week but i just hate the feel of it.  i get the same feeling when using my friends  android devices, but i just ca not put my finger on it.  i feel almost ashamed as a lover of technology long live the pc master race to admit that i use my jailbroken ipod touch at least 0 times more than my phone.  i know that it has shitty specs by comparison, the camera sucks and it is not so good with multitasking but as someone who primarily uses handheld devices for video playback it could not be better.  there are so many more tweaks that i have found to improve experience, despite ios being objectively a much more closed system than android and in my experience i have been able to make my jailbroken device look more beautiful and customized than i ever have with my phone or have seen on other is android phones .  i  want  to love android because in my mind i know that it is just objectively better, but for media playback it just is not a very streamlined experience and i would have to describe it as clumsy.   please  show me what i have been doing wrong so that i do not end up wasting my money on an apple device when i am due for an upgrade in a few months.  i do not hate  android , i hate  my phone  the question is what do i do now ?  #  i have had a samsung galaxy s0 for a few years now and i just do not like the way android works on it.   #  tl;dr: you need to try a nexus device before giving up all hope.   # tl;dr: you need to try a nexus device before giving up all hope.  get a nexus 0 or old moto x ; they are dumb cheap and very good.  one of the biggest issues with android right now is that  android  on one phone is usually not equal to  android  on another.  to explain what i mean by this, a bit of history is needed.  on its own, android as a product is mostly open source, and the license by which it is governed allows anyone to download and modify it as they please.  this design decision was intentional: every other mobile platform windows mobile and symbian, mostly during android is infant years was locked down and, consequently, was very expensive or nearly impossible for hobbyists to obtain.  this, amongst many other things, slowed innovation, and making android open source was android is way of stirring up competition.  while this was  very  successful in getting android onto just about anything with a cpu it is arguably the most widely used form of linux in the world, and it overtook symbian in becoming the world is most popular mobile os a few years ago , it also gave this same liberty to cell phone carriers and cell phone manufacturers.  one of android is biggest problems for its first few years was its user experience.  the look and feel of android was much closer to what a developer would want instead of what most of its audience wanted.  iphone os was simple to use, easy to understand and its apps were very, very pretty.  android was none of those things. but it was free and easy to obtain.  samsung decided to chase that iphone money by making a phone, the galaxy s, that was thinner and more powerful than its competitor.  however, they knew that hardware alone would not help them, so they studied iphone os extensively, learned what those users wanted in a phone and spent many, many millions of dollars in modifying android into their own experience called touchwiz.  this was a brilliant move at the time.  touchwiz was a lot better and more feature rich than stock android, spelling and grammatical errors aside.   sweep to unlock,  anyone ? the phone also looked a lot cooler, and, most importantly, its screen was bigger.  however, samsung had to write a lot of custom hardware code to make this happen, most of which did not and still does not play nicely with stock android at all.  this is why most roms are marginally unstable at best on samsung devices.  android, now under google is wing, caught up over the years and made significant improvements to its os.  google knew they could not strong arm samsung who was now beginning to architect cloud services for its own modified version of android, some of which completely mimicked google is own offerings into using their stock software without losing them and most of their market share with it.  so they, also being a stupidly rich company, took a big bet by making their own line of phones: the nexus line.  google is nexus devices have always been about presenting android and their services in its truest form while giving developers and hobbyists the option to unlock them and go crazy.  they are usually symbolic of what google thinks that the android ecosystem should be driving themselves towards.  that has not stopped samsung and the companies that followed their footsteps from implementing crazy and completely unsupported stuff 0  screens, wacom digitisers, edge screens, etc.  , though they have been cooperating with google more lately and not  completely  stepping on their toes these days.  to wrap this up, if you are unsatisifed with your android device, it might be worth your while to try a nexus device.  you might like what you find.   #  i think maybe it is the styalization of ios and particularly cydia.   #  that is a question that i am asking myself ! i am currently running kitkat and for the life of me i ca not figure out why i do not like it.  everything functions perfectly on my s0 and even faster than on my ipod so i ca not understand why i hate is so much, but i do.  i think maybe it is the styalization of ios and particularly cydia.  i mean, for everything i have needed so far, i can just go to cydia and click a button and the tweak is applied.  people claim that android offers a more open system, which i do not doubt, but modifying seems so easy with cydia.  with android i have to search xda forums for a while and maybe find what i am looking for, a lot of the time the tweaks i try on my phone do not even work.   #  some functions are more important to people than others, and that is where personal preference comes in.   #  if you were on an s0, you were likely using samsung is version of android, called touchwiz.  it is pretty universally panned in the /r/android community for being a laggy piece of shit, although my experience with it on the note 0 was not too bad.  i feel like this is more due to inexperience than anything else.  there are custom launchers and themers out there that can make an android device look just like an iphone, if you want.  the sky is truly the limit for setting up your device with an android phone.  some functions are more important to people than others, and that is where personal preference comes in.  this is kind of inherent in the android os because it is meant to be customizable.  if you want to use the vlc app for all your videos, you can.  if you want to use the stock app, you can.  apple from what i remember forces you into their ecosystem, so that you have to use their apps.  again, this can be viewed as a strength or weakness for either os.  my suggestion would be to try a nexus device, as they come with android the way that google wants it to be.  the nexus 0 is a great phone, if you like large phones.  if not, wait for the new moto x.   #  they put their touchwiz ui on everything, which locks it down and significantly changes the ui from stock android.   #  this is almost what i wanted to say verbatim.  get a nexus device.  the nexus 0 is still a good phone if you do not like a 0 inch screen.  but the moto x will definitely be better.  op, the issue i think you are having is that you are using the least android android brand.  samsung is the apple of the android world.  they take much longer to get root access than stock android devices nexus 0/0/0, motox etc .  they put their touchwiz ui on everything, which locks it down and significantly changes the ui from stock android.  and you are going to have apps pre installed for your carrier that you cannot uninstall to be fair, nearly all smartphone manufacturers do this .  stock android devices like the nexus 0, 0, and 0 will come completely free of such apps if you purchase them through google.  basically, you are getting android in it is least appealing form in my opinion .  try a nexus device or anything motorola is going to release in the next year.   #  others have moved on to lollipop 0, which is a complete ui overhaul.   #  what exactly do you mean by the  feel of it  ? after using android, the  feel  of iphones is just weird to me.  in my experience, sometimes you just have to get used to new things.  as far as media player, i do not like the default app either.  i use gonemad media player, which has more features and more customization than google is stock apps.  for what it is worth, i loath google is design philosophy.  they over simplify every fucking thing.  they do not believe in ui customization.  they also got rid of my favorite product that offered maximum customization , igoogle, in favor of that shit on a stick google plus.  so no, i do not think android is objectively  better .  also, have you just tried plain  stock  android without all the frivolous shit ? samsung is notorious for layering a crappy interface they call  touchwiz  on top of android.  stock kitkat 0 is pretty, tidy, and clean imo.  others have moved on to lollipop 0, which is a complete ui overhaul.  i would try stock kitkat and lollipop before calling defeat.
countries today are spending billions of dollars trying to overtake each other in the space race, and other developments that are not actually beneficial to citizens.  all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  i say let us abandon these things.  let us abandon the pursuits which do not benefit us in some way.  you want innovation ? leave it to the private companiies.  spacex and virgin galactic have been able to do with limited funding what nasa could not do with a much bigger government backed budget.  let us put the government money to better use, that actually benefit citizens.  and what things may we be talking about ? spend billions on improving a country is living standards, education, etc.  take india, which recently launched onto mars.  much of the country is population is under poverty, and many are not educated.  should not india be focusing on improving these things, rather than flaunting its development abilities to the world ? i am just shooting in the dark here.  better education, better living standards is a given.  what more ? it is upto the limits of our imagination.  a minimum salary supplied by government ? subsidized consumer products ? anything is possible, really, if we abandon this race to one up each other and focus on the things that really matter.   #  spacex and virgin galactic have been able to do with limited funding what nasa could not do with a much bigger government backed budget.   #  let us put the government money to better use, that actually benefit citizens.   # the new challenges require a lot of new technologies, developed either directly by them or subcontracted, that are making a lot of money.  also there is no space race anymore, it end up with the apollo missions.  which in the words of president george bush: the apollo program was  the best return on investment since leonardo da vinci bought himself a sketchpad    all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  they are this article URL has a list of technologies which the nasa helped bring to us.  sure it probably would have happen without them and it did not happen only because of them but they sure did help and for some of them were probably one of the main drive.  let us put the government money to better use, that actually benefit citizens.  what exactly did they managed to do that the nasa did not ? i mean sure it is great to have the private sector taking on a more active role and it is necessary for the long term goal but they are not going to put a rover on mars, they are not going to land probes on asteroid and they will not financed space telescopes again they are part of those endeavors and play a vital role but they will not do it alone .  take india, which recently launched onto mars.  it cost less than $0millions so $0 per capita, it is not like they cut education spendings in half.  on the other end making the nation dream can produce a lot of economic growth and indirectly advance the living standards a lot more than 0millions would have.  it is not one or the other.  you have to attack problems on multiple front and having a country united behind a common dream can certainly help on many aspects.  it does not solve anything itself but it can help others projects, after all if we can send a probe to mars there is no reason our other plans to solve our problems should not work.  again no race.  the us was using russian rockets for a while and just send a rocket with part of it being made in europe.  it is a common goal that can unit us and allow us to work together.   #  i think a point that does not come up enough is the human factor in all of this, or at least the engineer/scientist version.   #  i think a point that does not come up enough is the human factor in all of this, or at least the engineer/scientist version.  the innovations and technologies are called spin offs because they were not the solution in many cases, but the by product of finding the solution.  no one even knew some of these were problems to be solved.  take the radial tire improvements.  this was in no way the goal, this was a small solution as part of the real challenge, putting a lander on mars.  what did this was giving scientists and engineers a large problem that was challenging and that they were motivated to solve.  putting a lander on mars was a immense challenge they pushed toward, solving every  side  problem that got in the way.   #  as a engineer though i want to get on the mars mission.   #  i do not think as a species we needed better radial tires, but the development of them as a spin off technology did benefit people.  still, let me clarify my belief.  say you are a goodyear engineer.  they want you to design better tires so the company makes more money.  you get paid to do this work so you try to design materials that make better tires.  on the other hand, you are a goodyear engineer who is tasked to use your knowledge of chemistry and materials to design a system to allow the first man made object to land on mars.  you get paid the same to do this as to just try to come up with better tire compounds.  both projects pay the same, both if successful can lead to new materials and better tires.  as a engineer though i want to get on the mars mission.  even though it is harder, more stressful and going to require a lot more work, that is the program i want on, and that is the program i would work like a dog to see succeed.  you pay the engineer the same either way but the cold statement that he should work hardest to innovate because the species needs him really misses the fact that most engineers are not real motivated by things the species need.  a space program is an example of something that does provide the motivation to get the best efforts from a engineer/scientist.   #  the space race has already produced great benefits for mankind.   #  the space race has already produced great benefits for mankind.  it has given us communications across the globe.  we have better hurricane forecast than ever, which saves thousands of lives.  it has given us gps which has been used to get emergency services to the right place.  the list is endless.  we cannot know what further knowledge we may get, but if past experience is anything to go by it is a good use of resources.   #  nasa return about 0 dollars to the economy for every one dollar it puts it.   #  nasa return about 0 dollars to the economy for every one dollar it puts it.  URL   all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  see spin off technologies.  do not say someone else could have made them because someone else did not make them.  if it was so easy for the private sector to make the technologies they would have.  better education, better living standards is a given.  what more ? it is upto the limits of our imagination.  a minimum salary supplied by government ? subsidized consumer products ? nasa is budget: 0 billion dollars URL that is less than 0 cents per person in the us.  very helpful.  why not cut other programs.
countries today are spending billions of dollars trying to overtake each other in the space race, and other developments that are not actually beneficial to citizens.  all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  i say let us abandon these things.  let us abandon the pursuits which do not benefit us in some way.  you want innovation ? leave it to the private companiies.  spacex and virgin galactic have been able to do with limited funding what nasa could not do with a much bigger government backed budget.  let us put the government money to better use, that actually benefit citizens.  and what things may we be talking about ? spend billions on improving a country is living standards, education, etc.  take india, which recently launched onto mars.  much of the country is population is under poverty, and many are not educated.  should not india be focusing on improving these things, rather than flaunting its development abilities to the world ? i am just shooting in the dark here.  better education, better living standards is a given.  what more ? it is upto the limits of our imagination.  a minimum salary supplied by government ? subsidized consumer products ? anything is possible, really, if we abandon this race to one up each other and focus on the things that really matter.   #  spend billions on improving a country is living standards, education, etc.   #  take india, which recently launched onto mars.   # the new challenges require a lot of new technologies, developed either directly by them or subcontracted, that are making a lot of money.  also there is no space race anymore, it end up with the apollo missions.  which in the words of president george bush: the apollo program was  the best return on investment since leonardo da vinci bought himself a sketchpad    all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  they are this article URL has a list of technologies which the nasa helped bring to us.  sure it probably would have happen without them and it did not happen only because of them but they sure did help and for some of them were probably one of the main drive.  let us put the government money to better use, that actually benefit citizens.  what exactly did they managed to do that the nasa did not ? i mean sure it is great to have the private sector taking on a more active role and it is necessary for the long term goal but they are not going to put a rover on mars, they are not going to land probes on asteroid and they will not financed space telescopes again they are part of those endeavors and play a vital role but they will not do it alone .  take india, which recently launched onto mars.  it cost less than $0millions so $0 per capita, it is not like they cut education spendings in half.  on the other end making the nation dream can produce a lot of economic growth and indirectly advance the living standards a lot more than 0millions would have.  it is not one or the other.  you have to attack problems on multiple front and having a country united behind a common dream can certainly help on many aspects.  it does not solve anything itself but it can help others projects, after all if we can send a probe to mars there is no reason our other plans to solve our problems should not work.  again no race.  the us was using russian rockets for a while and just send a rocket with part of it being made in europe.  it is a common goal that can unit us and allow us to work together.   #  no one even knew some of these were problems to be solved.   #  i think a point that does not come up enough is the human factor in all of this, or at least the engineer/scientist version.  the innovations and technologies are called spin offs because they were not the solution in many cases, but the by product of finding the solution.  no one even knew some of these were problems to be solved.  take the radial tire improvements.  this was in no way the goal, this was a small solution as part of the real challenge, putting a lander on mars.  what did this was giving scientists and engineers a large problem that was challenging and that they were motivated to solve.  putting a lander on mars was a immense challenge they pushed toward, solving every  side  problem that got in the way.   #  a space program is an example of something that does provide the motivation to get the best efforts from a engineer/scientist.   #  i do not think as a species we needed better radial tires, but the development of them as a spin off technology did benefit people.  still, let me clarify my belief.  say you are a goodyear engineer.  they want you to design better tires so the company makes more money.  you get paid to do this work so you try to design materials that make better tires.  on the other hand, you are a goodyear engineer who is tasked to use your knowledge of chemistry and materials to design a system to allow the first man made object to land on mars.  you get paid the same to do this as to just try to come up with better tire compounds.  both projects pay the same, both if successful can lead to new materials and better tires.  as a engineer though i want to get on the mars mission.  even though it is harder, more stressful and going to require a lot more work, that is the program i want on, and that is the program i would work like a dog to see succeed.  you pay the engineer the same either way but the cold statement that he should work hardest to innovate because the species needs him really misses the fact that most engineers are not real motivated by things the species need.  a space program is an example of something that does provide the motivation to get the best efforts from a engineer/scientist.   #  it has given us communications across the globe.   #  the space race has already produced great benefits for mankind.  it has given us communications across the globe.  we have better hurricane forecast than ever, which saves thousands of lives.  it has given us gps which has been used to get emergency services to the right place.  the list is endless.  we cannot know what further knowledge we may get, but if past experience is anything to go by it is a good use of resources.   #  it is upto the limits of our imagination.   #  nasa return about 0 dollars to the economy for every one dollar it puts it.  URL   all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  see spin off technologies.  do not say someone else could have made them because someone else did not make them.  if it was so easy for the private sector to make the technologies they would have.  better education, better living standards is a given.  what more ? it is upto the limits of our imagination.  a minimum salary supplied by government ? subsidized consumer products ? nasa is budget: 0 billion dollars URL that is less than 0 cents per person in the us.  very helpful.  why not cut other programs.
countries today are spending billions of dollars trying to overtake each other in the space race, and other developments that are not actually beneficial to citizens.  all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  i say let us abandon these things.  let us abandon the pursuits which do not benefit us in some way.  you want innovation ? leave it to the private companiies.  spacex and virgin galactic have been able to do with limited funding what nasa could not do with a much bigger government backed budget.  let us put the government money to better use, that actually benefit citizens.  and what things may we be talking about ? spend billions on improving a country is living standards, education, etc.  take india, which recently launched onto mars.  much of the country is population is under poverty, and many are not educated.  should not india be focusing on improving these things, rather than flaunting its development abilities to the world ? i am just shooting in the dark here.  better education, better living standards is a given.  what more ? it is upto the limits of our imagination.  a minimum salary supplied by government ? subsidized consumer products ? anything is possible, really, if we abandon this race to one up each other and focus on the things that really matter.   #  i am just shooting in the dark here.   #  better education, better living standards is a given.   #  nasa return about 0 dollars to the economy for every one dollar it puts it.  URL   all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  see spin off technologies.  do not say someone else could have made them because someone else did not make them.  if it was so easy for the private sector to make the technologies they would have.  better education, better living standards is a given.  what more ? it is upto the limits of our imagination.  a minimum salary supplied by government ? subsidized consumer products ? nasa is budget: 0 billion dollars URL that is less than 0 cents per person in the us.  very helpful.  why not cut other programs.   #  no one even knew some of these were problems to be solved.   #  i think a point that does not come up enough is the human factor in all of this, or at least the engineer/scientist version.  the innovations and technologies are called spin offs because they were not the solution in many cases, but the by product of finding the solution.  no one even knew some of these were problems to be solved.  take the radial tire improvements.  this was in no way the goal, this was a small solution as part of the real challenge, putting a lander on mars.  what did this was giving scientists and engineers a large problem that was challenging and that they were motivated to solve.  putting a lander on mars was a immense challenge they pushed toward, solving every  side  problem that got in the way.   #  you get paid to do this work so you try to design materials that make better tires.   #  i do not think as a species we needed better radial tires, but the development of them as a spin off technology did benefit people.  still, let me clarify my belief.  say you are a goodyear engineer.  they want you to design better tires so the company makes more money.  you get paid to do this work so you try to design materials that make better tires.  on the other hand, you are a goodyear engineer who is tasked to use your knowledge of chemistry and materials to design a system to allow the first man made object to land on mars.  you get paid the same to do this as to just try to come up with better tire compounds.  both projects pay the same, both if successful can lead to new materials and better tires.  as a engineer though i want to get on the mars mission.  even though it is harder, more stressful and going to require a lot more work, that is the program i want on, and that is the program i would work like a dog to see succeed.  you pay the engineer the same either way but the cold statement that he should work hardest to innovate because the species needs him really misses the fact that most engineers are not real motivated by things the species need.  a space program is an example of something that does provide the motivation to get the best efforts from a engineer/scientist.   #  the us was using russian rockets for a while and just send a rocket with part of it being made in europe.   # the new challenges require a lot of new technologies, developed either directly by them or subcontracted, that are making a lot of money.  also there is no space race anymore, it end up with the apollo missions.  which in the words of president george bush: the apollo program was  the best return on investment since leonardo da vinci bought himself a sketchpad    all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  they are this article URL has a list of technologies which the nasa helped bring to us.  sure it probably would have happen without them and it did not happen only because of them but they sure did help and for some of them were probably one of the main drive.  let us put the government money to better use, that actually benefit citizens.  what exactly did they managed to do that the nasa did not ? i mean sure it is great to have the private sector taking on a more active role and it is necessary for the long term goal but they are not going to put a rover on mars, they are not going to land probes on asteroid and they will not financed space telescopes again they are part of those endeavors and play a vital role but they will not do it alone .  take india, which recently launched onto mars.  it cost less than $0millions so $0 per capita, it is not like they cut education spendings in half.  on the other end making the nation dream can produce a lot of economic growth and indirectly advance the living standards a lot more than 0millions would have.  it is not one or the other.  you have to attack problems on multiple front and having a country united behind a common dream can certainly help on many aspects.  it does not solve anything itself but it can help others projects, after all if we can send a probe to mars there is no reason our other plans to solve our problems should not work.  again no race.  the us was using russian rockets for a while and just send a rocket with part of it being made in europe.  it is a common goal that can unit us and allow us to work together.   #  it has given us gps which has been used to get emergency services to the right place.   #  the space race has already produced great benefits for mankind.  it has given us communications across the globe.  we have better hurricane forecast than ever, which saves thousands of lives.  it has given us gps which has been used to get emergency services to the right place.  the list is endless.  we cannot know what further knowledge we may get, but if past experience is anything to go by it is a good use of resources.
countries today are spending billions of dollars trying to overtake each other in the space race, and other developments that are not actually beneficial to citizens.  all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  i say let us abandon these things.  let us abandon the pursuits which do not benefit us in some way.  you want innovation ? leave it to the private companiies.  spacex and virgin galactic have been able to do with limited funding what nasa could not do with a much bigger government backed budget.  let us put the government money to better use, that actually benefit citizens.  and what things may we be talking about ? spend billions on improving a country is living standards, education, etc.  take india, which recently launched onto mars.  much of the country is population is under poverty, and many are not educated.  should not india be focusing on improving these things, rather than flaunting its development abilities to the world ? i am just shooting in the dark here.  better education, better living standards is a given.  what more ? it is upto the limits of our imagination.  a minimum salary supplied by government ? subsidized consumer products ? anything is possible, really, if we abandon this race to one up each other and focus on the things that really matter.   #  anything is possible, really, if we abandon this race to one up each other and focus on the things that really matter.   #  how much are you imagining that we are spending on space ?  # how much are you imagining that we are spending on space ? it is less than a penny on your tax dollar.  you would rather cut the entire space program than find a way to downsize the military to 0 what it is now ? now, there is not anyone who tries to live without it.  it has completely changed our society.  just think about how big a difference we are talking about.  if you think that is the only time a  useless  science did so, you would be wrong.  do you have any idea how much platinum we could get from a meteor ? if we could harvest it, it would completely change the world economy.  think this is science fiction ? URL tl;dr, if you are looking at quarterly profits, going into space sounds crazy.  if you are interested in the longterm health of the united states, it is asinine not to invest into the future.   #  putting a lander on mars was a immense challenge they pushed toward, solving every  side  problem that got in the way.   #  i think a point that does not come up enough is the human factor in all of this, or at least the engineer/scientist version.  the innovations and technologies are called spin offs because they were not the solution in many cases, but the by product of finding the solution.  no one even knew some of these were problems to be solved.  take the radial tire improvements.  this was in no way the goal, this was a small solution as part of the real challenge, putting a lander on mars.  what did this was giving scientists and engineers a large problem that was challenging and that they were motivated to solve.  putting a lander on mars was a immense challenge they pushed toward, solving every  side  problem that got in the way.   #  they want you to design better tires so the company makes more money.   #  i do not think as a species we needed better radial tires, but the development of them as a spin off technology did benefit people.  still, let me clarify my belief.  say you are a goodyear engineer.  they want you to design better tires so the company makes more money.  you get paid to do this work so you try to design materials that make better tires.  on the other hand, you are a goodyear engineer who is tasked to use your knowledge of chemistry and materials to design a system to allow the first man made object to land on mars.  you get paid the same to do this as to just try to come up with better tire compounds.  both projects pay the same, both if successful can lead to new materials and better tires.  as a engineer though i want to get on the mars mission.  even though it is harder, more stressful and going to require a lot more work, that is the program i want on, and that is the program i would work like a dog to see succeed.  you pay the engineer the same either way but the cold statement that he should work hardest to innovate because the species needs him really misses the fact that most engineers are not real motivated by things the species need.  a space program is an example of something that does provide the motivation to get the best efforts from a engineer/scientist.   #  also there is no space race anymore, it end up with the apollo missions.   # the new challenges require a lot of new technologies, developed either directly by them or subcontracted, that are making a lot of money.  also there is no space race anymore, it end up with the apollo missions.  which in the words of president george bush: the apollo program was  the best return on investment since leonardo da vinci bought himself a sketchpad    all right, they might be helpful in the future, but most of these developments are not really useful, other than to flaunt the development power of countries.  they are this article URL has a list of technologies which the nasa helped bring to us.  sure it probably would have happen without them and it did not happen only because of them but they sure did help and for some of them were probably one of the main drive.  let us put the government money to better use, that actually benefit citizens.  what exactly did they managed to do that the nasa did not ? i mean sure it is great to have the private sector taking on a more active role and it is necessary for the long term goal but they are not going to put a rover on mars, they are not going to land probes on asteroid and they will not financed space telescopes again they are part of those endeavors and play a vital role but they will not do it alone .  take india, which recently launched onto mars.  it cost less than $0millions so $0 per capita, it is not like they cut education spendings in half.  on the other end making the nation dream can produce a lot of economic growth and indirectly advance the living standards a lot more than 0millions would have.  it is not one or the other.  you have to attack problems on multiple front and having a country united behind a common dream can certainly help on many aspects.  it does not solve anything itself but it can help others projects, after all if we can send a probe to mars there is no reason our other plans to solve our problems should not work.  again no race.  the us was using russian rockets for a while and just send a rocket with part of it being made in europe.  it is a common goal that can unit us and allow us to work together.   #  it has given us gps which has been used to get emergency services to the right place.   #  the space race has already produced great benefits for mankind.  it has given us communications across the globe.  we have better hurricane forecast than ever, which saves thousands of lives.  it has given us gps which has been used to get emergency services to the right place.  the list is endless.  we cannot know what further knowledge we may get, but if past experience is anything to go by it is a good use of resources.
context: the tragedy at charlie hebdo URL on 0/0/0.  whether this attack was directly provoked by a printed image of muhammad or not, my argument will be framed as if it were.  i will paraphrase some of my posts in other threads: the problem i have with this is that non muslims came out of the blue to offend muslims on this particular issue.  there is no honor in that, we are not on any sort of moral high ground.  consider this hypothetical: previously, there was no issue with freedom of expression.  then some guy learns that many muslims forbid printed images of their prophet.  guy says,  hey, would not it be  just hilarious  if we  printed an image of their prophet  ?   so guy prints image of their prophet.  angry terrorist coward shoots and kills guy.  guy is friends call him a martyr, cry censorship.  except there is no censorship, freedom of expression still exists 0, guy is publication and others can and likely will post more of these images in the future.  if a group of people is encroaching upon your rights or beliefs then by all means defend yourself as appropriate.  and as i understand it, many muslim factions are indeed doing that around europe and there is no insignificant amount of tension.  but in this particular instance,  we kindof started it.   we created an issue where there was none.  freedom of expression does not imply freedom from consequences.  should murder be the consequence ?  absolutely not.   however, what  should be  in this world and  what are  are two completely different things; so, we fight battles to turn the  what ares  into the  should bes.   is the battle to print images of muhammad, among human trafficking and rape and all the other issues, really one we need to be fighting, really worth losing lives over ? i guess for some, maybe.  i wonder how that policeman and his family feel about it.  so now, we created a situation where 0 we defend freedom of speech at high cost and continue to print things like this, or 0 we censor ourselves and the turrists win.  it is a situation born of childishness that has now ended in tragedy and left us with a difficult path forward.  the  point  that now exists to be made did not exist before our initial and unprovoked challenge to muslim beliefs.  and in the name of what,  satire  ?  #  except there is no censorship, freedom of expression still exists 0, guy is publication and others can and likely will post more of these images in the future.   #  the censorship happened because there was retaliation for the picture.   # there is no honor in that, we are not on any sort of moral high ground.  how far do you want to take this ? gays come out of the blue and want to get married, offending christians.  do they have a moral high ground ? how much personal stake do you need in something to outweigh offending other people ? the censorship happened because there was retaliation for the picture.  you cannot freely express yourself under threat of violence.  if the government arrested people who peacefully protested, do you claim they are still free to express themselves because others will do the same and get arrested in the future ? we created an issue where there was none.  there is no excusing violence as a reaction to printing a picture.  they can write scathing articles about us in response, and we would have no place to complain.  to say that we somehow deserved physical harm for this is crazy.  i guess for some, maybe.  i wonder how that policeman and his family feel about it.  it is a battle to speak freely about that religion.  yes, the ability to criticize beliefs are worth losing lives over.  if we do not criticize people who kill others over pictures, then how are people held accountable ? the situation is that we expose how violent and irrational they are, and end up turning the world against them.   #  in play, however, is a group of people who would very much like to see that censorship introduced.   #  it is not governments that people are  standing up  to.  it is the people who would  like  to see these things criminalized the same people who are killing people for it .  no one is under the impression that the us or french governments are engaged in censorship.  both countries are fortunate and appreciative of the protection they have with regard to expression.  in play, however, is a group of people who would very much like to see that censorship introduced.  this demonstration of saying  we are going to do what we want  is not aimed at governments, but at those people.  this did not begin because someone was intentionally raising ire by publishing these cartoons in a mocking way, at least not any more than any other political cartoon is drawn.  people did not just start fights to be antagonizing, any more than you see people throwing bacon at jews just because they do not approve of its consumption.  what happened here is more analogous to the following: someone in a cafe is having a bacon sandwich, and a jew comes up to them and starts screaming about how bacon is forbidden in their culture, and starts threatening to kill their families if they do not stop eating that bacon.  so everyone else in the cafe ordered a bacon sandwich, too.   #  if this was done benevolently, such as for education or out of ignorance or anything other than satire or malice, then i emphatically agree that the artists at charlie hebdo were to be lauded for their fight against censorship.   #  what you are saying makes sense, but there is something i do not understand about your hypothetical.  the bacon sandwich is presumably a metaphor for a printed image of muhammad.  this would mean that someone, somewhere printed such an image publicly that caused the muslim extremists to react.  if this was done benevolently, such as for education or out of ignorance or anything other than satire or malice, then i emphatically agree that the artists at charlie hebdo were to be lauded for their fight against censorship.  but i feel this may be being overly reductive, so would you mind shedding a little more light onto the origin of this first bacon sandwich ?  #  and they are damn sure not going to murder you for it.   #  the first bacon sandwich came about because 0 of the world made up statistic has no problem eating bacon, just like there is a sizable percentage of the world that is not offended by images of muhammed and is not prohibited by any law religious or civil that says they ca not draw them.  so they did.  they made that bacon sandwich.  in the real world, jews see people eating bacon sandwiches all the time and do not care.  they are not going to do it themselves because their faith forbids it, but they are also not going to try to tell you that you ca not have a bacon sandwich.  and they are damn sure not going to murder you for it.  but in this case, the reaction was to threaten violence and murder for eating that sandwich.  so, in response, scores of people said  we will be damned if you are going to scare us into not eating bacon sandwiches just because you do not think it is right.  we are all getting bacon sandwiches !    #  then you step up to the counter with a devilish grin and say,  i will have a bacon sandwich.   #  so basically, the world saw a big red button in the muslim faith and could not help but press it.  so, we started it.  now, of course, any rational human being would say  that offends me, i would appreciate it if you would not do that  instead of  i am going to decapitate your whole family.   that is where my sympathy stops, and i re side with the rest of the world.  but basically, you walked into a deli and overheard the shop owner on the phone with his wife saying  boy, does bacon offend me.   then you step up to the counter with a devilish grin and say,  i will have a bacon sandwich.  haha.   whether the shopkeeper simply frowns or pulls out a shotgun at that point is moot, as far as my argument goes.
context: the tragedy at charlie hebdo URL on 0/0/0.  whether this attack was directly provoked by a printed image of muhammad or not, my argument will be framed as if it were.  i will paraphrase some of my posts in other threads: the problem i have with this is that non muslims came out of the blue to offend muslims on this particular issue.  there is no honor in that, we are not on any sort of moral high ground.  consider this hypothetical: previously, there was no issue with freedom of expression.  then some guy learns that many muslims forbid printed images of their prophet.  guy says,  hey, would not it be  just hilarious  if we  printed an image of their prophet  ?   so guy prints image of their prophet.  angry terrorist coward shoots and kills guy.  guy is friends call him a martyr, cry censorship.  except there is no censorship, freedom of expression still exists 0, guy is publication and others can and likely will post more of these images in the future.  if a group of people is encroaching upon your rights or beliefs then by all means defend yourself as appropriate.  and as i understand it, many muslim factions are indeed doing that around europe and there is no insignificant amount of tension.  but in this particular instance,  we kindof started it.   we created an issue where there was none.  freedom of expression does not imply freedom from consequences.  should murder be the consequence ?  absolutely not.   however, what  should be  in this world and  what are  are two completely different things; so, we fight battles to turn the  what ares  into the  should bes.   is the battle to print images of muhammad, among human trafficking and rape and all the other issues, really one we need to be fighting, really worth losing lives over ? i guess for some, maybe.  i wonder how that policeman and his family feel about it.  so now, we created a situation where 0 we defend freedom of speech at high cost and continue to print things like this, or 0 we censor ourselves and the turrists win.  it is a situation born of childishness that has now ended in tragedy and left us with a difficult path forward.  the  point  that now exists to be made did not exist before our initial and unprovoked challenge to muslim beliefs.  and in the name of what,  satire  ?  #  so now, we created a situation where 0 we defend freedom of speech at high cost and continue to print things like this, or 0 we censor ourselves and the turrists win.   #  the situation is that we expose how violent and irrational they are, and end up turning the world against them.   # there is no honor in that, we are not on any sort of moral high ground.  how far do you want to take this ? gays come out of the blue and want to get married, offending christians.  do they have a moral high ground ? how much personal stake do you need in something to outweigh offending other people ? the censorship happened because there was retaliation for the picture.  you cannot freely express yourself under threat of violence.  if the government arrested people who peacefully protested, do you claim they are still free to express themselves because others will do the same and get arrested in the future ? we created an issue where there was none.  there is no excusing violence as a reaction to printing a picture.  they can write scathing articles about us in response, and we would have no place to complain.  to say that we somehow deserved physical harm for this is crazy.  i guess for some, maybe.  i wonder how that policeman and his family feel about it.  it is a battle to speak freely about that religion.  yes, the ability to criticize beliefs are worth losing lives over.  if we do not criticize people who kill others over pictures, then how are people held accountable ? the situation is that we expose how violent and irrational they are, and end up turning the world against them.   #  so everyone else in the cafe ordered a bacon sandwich, too.   #  it is not governments that people are  standing up  to.  it is the people who would  like  to see these things criminalized the same people who are killing people for it .  no one is under the impression that the us or french governments are engaged in censorship.  both countries are fortunate and appreciative of the protection they have with regard to expression.  in play, however, is a group of people who would very much like to see that censorship introduced.  this demonstration of saying  we are going to do what we want  is not aimed at governments, but at those people.  this did not begin because someone was intentionally raising ire by publishing these cartoons in a mocking way, at least not any more than any other political cartoon is drawn.  people did not just start fights to be antagonizing, any more than you see people throwing bacon at jews just because they do not approve of its consumption.  what happened here is more analogous to the following: someone in a cafe is having a bacon sandwich, and a jew comes up to them and starts screaming about how bacon is forbidden in their culture, and starts threatening to kill their families if they do not stop eating that bacon.  so everyone else in the cafe ordered a bacon sandwich, too.   #  but i feel this may be being overly reductive, so would you mind shedding a little more light onto the origin of this first bacon sandwich ?  #  what you are saying makes sense, but there is something i do not understand about your hypothetical.  the bacon sandwich is presumably a metaphor for a printed image of muhammad.  this would mean that someone, somewhere printed such an image publicly that caused the muslim extremists to react.  if this was done benevolently, such as for education or out of ignorance or anything other than satire or malice, then i emphatically agree that the artists at charlie hebdo were to be lauded for their fight against censorship.  but i feel this may be being overly reductive, so would you mind shedding a little more light onto the origin of this first bacon sandwich ?  #  they are not going to do it themselves because their faith forbids it, but they are also not going to try to tell you that you ca not have a bacon sandwich.   #  the first bacon sandwich came about because 0 of the world made up statistic has no problem eating bacon, just like there is a sizable percentage of the world that is not offended by images of muhammed and is not prohibited by any law religious or civil that says they ca not draw them.  so they did.  they made that bacon sandwich.  in the real world, jews see people eating bacon sandwiches all the time and do not care.  they are not going to do it themselves because their faith forbids it, but they are also not going to try to tell you that you ca not have a bacon sandwich.  and they are damn sure not going to murder you for it.  but in this case, the reaction was to threaten violence and murder for eating that sandwich.  so, in response, scores of people said  we will be damned if you are going to scare us into not eating bacon sandwiches just because you do not think it is right.  we are all getting bacon sandwiches !    #  that is where my sympathy stops, and i re side with the rest of the world.   #  so basically, the world saw a big red button in the muslim faith and could not help but press it.  so, we started it.  now, of course, any rational human being would say  that offends me, i would appreciate it if you would not do that  instead of  i am going to decapitate your whole family.   that is where my sympathy stops, and i re side with the rest of the world.  but basically, you walked into a deli and overheard the shop owner on the phone with his wife saying  boy, does bacon offend me.   then you step up to the counter with a devilish grin and say,  i will have a bacon sandwich.  haha.   whether the shopkeeper simply frowns or pulls out a shotgun at that point is moot, as far as my argument goes.
like  what is your favorite line from a tv show  or  what is your favorite movie poster.   these threads always get hugely upvoted and loads of comments because everyone likes to share things they like, but they never really produce anything meaningful.  just people gushing about  omg x is so amazing.   on top of this, since everybody feels that their favorite is more important than everybody else is, you will get a bunch of top level replies with very little discussion beyond them.  if there are replies, they usually just agree with the above poster.   omg yes i know.   nobody wants to be the dissent in a  positivity thread,  or they just have not heard of your favorite thing and are not going to watch a 0h movie/play a 0h game/whatever for every single response in that thread, anyway.  there is generally very little to learn from things that are done  well.   the exception is multiple viewpoints or interpretations of something, but you can only really get that if you have a large number of people discussing the same thing, which these kinds of threads very much discourage.   #  but they never really produce anything meaningful.   #  just people gushing about  omg x is so amazing.    #  the posts that you are talking about usually come up on fan subreddits.  things like /r/bigbangtheory.  they rarely but sometimes come up on serious subreddits like this one .  the point of most of the fan subreddits is to talk and share stuff about whatever show/game/movie that they are interested in.  it is not always to have meaningful/interesting discussions.  but for the sake of argument, lets say that it is: all posts must contribute to an interesting conversation.  just people gushing about  omg x is so amazing.   at first, i was not so sure about this point, so i searched /r/bigbangtheory for  what is your favorite  and clicked on the first link URL some of this stuff is what you predicted:  this is a fantastic scene !   and  i know right !  .  but some of it was more interesting stuff:   i agree.  i think last night is episode finally showed that sheldon actually has some humanity inside and is not just a robot.  deep down inside he really is a nice person but he does not know how to express it.  it sort of amplifies his actions in  the staircase implementation  that yes, he was thinking logically, but he is still a human being that cares about his friends very much.  or   i actually thought that was a good move.  it snapped sheldon is character back before he got ruined and saved it from being  a very special episode.   it was just enough to make the point yet not lose the rhythm of the characters  interaction.  both of these comments contributed to a larger discussion that imo was very meaningful.  i think that many of the  what is your favorite.   posts eventually contribute to a larger discussion that is meaningful in it is own right, despite the fact that most of these fan subreddits are not aiming to have meaningful discussions.   #  i still believe that more general questions still apply, though.   #    0;.  i suppose specific questions or niche communities can be an exception.  if only because  everyone  is so familiar with the material that responses to top level comments and discussion are guaranteed.  i still believe that more general questions still apply, though.   what is your favorite passage from lolita  can stimulate discussion.   what is your favorite horror book,  not so much.   #   what is your favorite horror book , maybe, and maybe not.   #  i disagree.  i feel it depends more on the specific question.   what is your favorite horror book , maybe, and maybe not.  if you are actually looking for something new to read, there is nothing wrong with a thread like that.  if you ask a more general question like  what is your favorite insult from a movie ?   it can allow for a lot of creative answers, and bring certain movie is to people is attention that they would not have thought of watching before.  one thing to remember is that people can comment on other people is answers, which  greatly  stimulates the discussion.  it is not merely a list of witty insults, although i would consider even that intriguing.   #  i would hate to have lost out on some of the great suggestions better off ted, kingkiller chronicle, city of god i have gotten over the years just because some people will also write contentless  x is the best  threads as well.   #   what is you are favorite x ?   can be a great way to find new x is that you had not heard about yet, or were on the fence about.  starting a new tv show for example, can be a huge time commitment, but if you see a particular show popping up at the top of those kinds of lists repeatedly, it can be a good indicator that a particular show might be worth your time.  these kind of posts are particularly helpful when the writer gives a good rundown of other x is they have liked in the past to give context to potential readers to compare their own tastes with, or information like  do not let the first season put you off, it gets better,  or  get this translation, it really preserves the meter,  or what have you.  now, many people are not going to write these kind of responses, but that is a reflection on the responders not on the validity of the question.  even if a majority of the responses to a question framed that way are low effort or value, i will often find some good suggestions or write ups in them too.  i think it is better to focus on the real problem of bad responses rather than on the questions that can prompt them.  i would hate to have lost out on some of the great suggestions better off ted, kingkiller chronicle, city of god i have gotten over the years just because some people will also write contentless  x is the best  threads as well.   #  should we ban questions about recipes because there are websites devoted to cooking ?  #  those are all great ways to get suggestions, but how does the presence of other options for getting suggestions invalidate soliciting them from reddit ? algorithms, reviews and lists ca not be interacted with in the same way that you can with other redditers, and specialized communities are going to be more likely to have self selection prejudices that prevent you from getting introduced to things outside your wheelhouse or experience.  beyond that, your original argument seemed to be about the utility of reddit posts of this kind and a suggestion that they never offer anything of value, not whether or not they are the best or only source for suggestions.  should we ban questions about recipes because there are websites devoted to cooking ? should we ban /r/askhistorians because better information might be gained from peer reviewed journals ? just because something is not a given person is preferred method of getting suggestions that does not mean that others should be banned from seeking suggestions in that way, or that they do not get what they are looking for when they do.
there are some instances, yes where controversial topics are discussed here and people are actually interested in hearing the opposite side.  i consider myself one of those people, and was initially driven to this subreddit in the hope that i would meet other people like myself that were posting here to educate themselves.  the type of man that reads a book that argues against a position he already holds, in the hopes that he can understand the entire issue in a great light.  but far and away, this is not the case.  some of the posts on here include logical fallacies even in the titles: yesterday is atheism post URL used a strawman fallacy in the title to misrepresent their own position to make it easier to defend in a religion vs.  athiesm debate.  the op, if you read that post, was by and large not interested in changing his opinion, and this is true of the  vast majority  of posts that come through here.  and the problem is this: it is a tremendous waste of time for every knowledgable person that posts answers in here.  a lot of times, the posts are not controversial: they are simply the product of stupidity.  there are a thousand places, a million internet hits, which one can browse to discover facts on the athiesm/religion debate and even the specific subtopic that was discussed yesterday.  an educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource.  additionally, the people that tend to post in this subreddit post on this subreddit have a certain mindset already, even before submitting.  go ahead, think of something you believe that is controversial and click  submit cmv.   your mind will already be working to inhibit opposing opinions and you will be clinging harder than ever to the bulwarks of your argument.  the fact of the matter is this: it takes considerable effort to open one is mind, even on things that are not of great consequence.  and most people are simply unable to accomplish this.  thanks for your replies.  i intend to reply to each response to my original post, albeit maybe not today, and i hope to award many deltas for your efforts.   #  an educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource.   #  my argument is that it is entirely possible that these people  are  seeking to educate themselves,  do  know about other sources, but also mnow that just observing opposing viewpoints will never be enough to actually change their opinion.   # it has been well thought out and edited and considered at length: the internet commenter is strength in numbers, and that is all.  i would fundamentally disagree here.  first: plenty of books are not well thought out, and while standards are certainly higher than internet comments they can contain their fair share of issues.  secondly, as you briefly mentioned yourself, it can be extremely difficult for someone who has only been exposed to a single view to actually know how and where to look for opposing viewpoints, thus allowing other people to present these is beneficial.  finally, i disagree that reading a book is as effective at altering a viewpoint as an actual discussion.  why ? when reading a book it is incredibly easy to simply look at the ideas and dismiss them as  wrong .  i already addressed this, but look at it in contrast to a discussion.  a book demands no response, the reader is free to simply skim over it.  thus, if someone wants their viewpoint changed through a book they must constantly remind themselves not to just dismiss it.  in contrast, a discussion demands a response.  while it is certainly possible that people ignore the arguments and simply restate their points as you stated , the form of the information means that they have to give it  more  consideration because they have to respond/refute it in some way.  in essence, i would argue that nothing is really great at changing viewpoints, but discussions are inherently better at reminding people that they  want  to change, and forcing thought processes that are more likely to cause a change in opinion.  my argument is that it is entirely possible that these people  are  seeking to educate themselves,  do  know about other sources, but also mnow that just observing opposing viewpoints will never be enough to actually change their opinion.  thus, they come here, hoping for discussion to promote change.   #  just because op does not change his mind does not mean someone reading the comments has not.   #  say you are right, and most of the people who post here are incapable of actually changing their view on the subject they are bringing up i do not believe this is the case most of the time, but just for the sake of argument .  it would still be false to say that nobody ever changes their view, though.  people have deltas awarded to them, and those signify that somewhere out there, somebodies mind was changed.  maybe it was insignificant, maybe it was only changed for a brief moment before some argument changed it back.  regardless, people do change their views here sometimes, and that is a result of them taking the time to examine their views in light of others .  i view that as intrinsically good, the search for knowledge and the refinement of your own belief system, these things make you a better, more educated and well rounded person.  you said it was a waste of time because most people is views are not changed, or are not changed enough, but i would not say that makes it a waste of time.  the mere act of getting someone to evaluate their own views and challenge them is a good thing to get in the habit of.  you have to start somewhere, so to speak.  even if it is about the most insignificant of things, or even if they did not change their mind at all, it is still a positive step for that person to try.  second, it sometimes goes the other way.  just because op does not change his mind does not mean someone reading the comments has not.  i have read several posts where i went in disagreeing with op, but after reading the arguments in favor of their arguments, i have come out with a different point of view.  i had no part in the discussion, no comments were made, no deltas awarded, but someone is view was changed.  maybe it feels like slogging through shit sometimes, but if you can get someone to think critically about their own beliefs even for a second, is not that a good thing ?  #  i will give you the   on the waste of time point, which, frankly, was not so well worded on my part.   #  i will give you the   on the waste of time point, which, frankly, was not so well worded on my part.  it is fair to argue that even if op does not change his mind, some people in the comments will.  but i disagree with your first paragraph: just because deltas are awarded does not mean anything.  as i said, controversial issues exist where both points are valid exist, and these posts are likely to dispense deltas liberally.  the fact that deltas are awarded alone does not justify whether the time spent convincing a stupid person of a single point was time well spent.   #  i just think there are other things you can gain from those kind of debates, even if you ca not change their opinion.   # i suppose i will just have to agree with you there, but then again i would argue that if you are looking for time well spent, reddit probably is not the place.  i think it is kind of fun trying to change someone is opinion on a matter, especially if they are really stubborn about it.  i know it is futile most of the time e. g.  arguing with my grandma about politics , but there is always something you can take away from any argument, even if neither of you are convinced of the other person is side.  you might be able to refine your own criticisms of an idea or acquaint yourself with some argument against your view you have not heard before.  at the very least, you get practice dealing with stubbornness and stupidity, and that is good practice because there is clearly no shortage of those two attributes among people.  if you only think it is worth it if you convince op of your view, you are right, it is sometimes just a waste of time.  i just think there are other things you can gain from those kind of debates, even if you ca not change their opinion.   #  then my rollercoaster ride starts every reply usually changes my opinion to the other side.   # i actually read a comment about 0 months back that i liked so much i saved it and i think it is a really good counter for this point.  i read the op and think how op presents some very good arguments and i agree with him.  then my rollercoaster ride starts every reply usually changes my opinion to the other side.  i leave the thread confused and just a bit more enlightened on how stupid it is to be stubborn and deal in absolutes.  on a basic level, we all know nothing is black and white but having your opinion changed 0 times in 0 minutes makes you realize that what you consider to be the most fundamental truths could easily be challenged.  and the best way to do this is to show then just how easy it is to change a new/minor opinion of theirs with facts.  /u/teokk source comment URL btw, if this changes your view, you should probably award them the delta and not me
there are some instances, yes where controversial topics are discussed here and people are actually interested in hearing the opposite side.  i consider myself one of those people, and was initially driven to this subreddit in the hope that i would meet other people like myself that were posting here to educate themselves.  the type of man that reads a book that argues against a position he already holds, in the hopes that he can understand the entire issue in a great light.  but far and away, this is not the case.  some of the posts on here include logical fallacies even in the titles: yesterday is atheism post URL used a strawman fallacy in the title to misrepresent their own position to make it easier to defend in a religion vs.  athiesm debate.  the op, if you read that post, was by and large not interested in changing his opinion, and this is true of the  vast majority  of posts that come through here.  and the problem is this: it is a tremendous waste of time for every knowledgable person that posts answers in here.  a lot of times, the posts are not controversial: they are simply the product of stupidity.  there are a thousand places, a million internet hits, which one can browse to discover facts on the athiesm/religion debate and even the specific subtopic that was discussed yesterday.  an educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource.  additionally, the people that tend to post in this subreddit post on this subreddit have a certain mindset already, even before submitting.  go ahead, think of something you believe that is controversial and click  submit cmv.   your mind will already be working to inhibit opposing opinions and you will be clinging harder than ever to the bulwarks of your argument.  the fact of the matter is this: it takes considerable effort to open one is mind, even on things that are not of great consequence.  and most people are simply unable to accomplish this.  thanks for your replies.  i intend to reply to each response to my original post, albeit maybe not today, and i hope to award many deltas for your efforts.   #  there are a thousand places, a million internet hits, which one can browse to discover facts on the athiesm/religion debate and even the specific subtopic that was discussed yesterday.   #  an educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource.   # an educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource.  assuming the poster had the skill to google what he was looking for in the first place some do not , there is one problem they need to make a huge effort to  continue  googling.  it is all too easy to find one or two links which provide either neutral or positive points to your opinion.  it is also too easy to cherrypick your searches  just  to include those points, or to do other mental gymnastics to avoid the fact that they may be wrong.  if nobody is watching, it is surprisingly easy to say  no, i do not believe that.   and dismiss it without formulating an argument against it.  but a cmv is different, it is an arena.  op has no control over the data given to him, and it is very curated data with eli0 style text around it.  there is no search term fudging, not nearly so much ability to dismiss data that disagrees, and the points being made might be things that you had not thought to google at all.  but best of all, it is made out directly to op.  these people are challenging an op directly, not just passively throwing links around.  it is a hugely different mindset than combing through search results.  and most people are simply unable to accomplish this.  i disagree.  i find that most people have completely changed their minds on most all issues over time.  but the key is that it is not like a boxing match; nobody made a knock out argument that forced their opponent to sit in stunned silence until they admit they are wrong.  instead, most opinions are changed by being seeded by doubt doubt that grows and becomes very uncomfortable until the person finds themselves arguing in favor of that doubt and against their original view .  there is no moment in which a person is mind is changed, it is a process.  a journey.  and the seeds of that doubt could very easily come from a cmv.  i agree with you that being open minded is difficult.  it takes constant vigilance.  but it is not binary, it is a continuum.  it may take someone all their life to change their view, but it still happens.   #  even if it is about the most insignificant of things, or even if they did not change their mind at all, it is still a positive step for that person to try.   #  say you are right, and most of the people who post here are incapable of actually changing their view on the subject they are bringing up i do not believe this is the case most of the time, but just for the sake of argument .  it would still be false to say that nobody ever changes their view, though.  people have deltas awarded to them, and those signify that somewhere out there, somebodies mind was changed.  maybe it was insignificant, maybe it was only changed for a brief moment before some argument changed it back.  regardless, people do change their views here sometimes, and that is a result of them taking the time to examine their views in light of others .  i view that as intrinsically good, the search for knowledge and the refinement of your own belief system, these things make you a better, more educated and well rounded person.  you said it was a waste of time because most people is views are not changed, or are not changed enough, but i would not say that makes it a waste of time.  the mere act of getting someone to evaluate their own views and challenge them is a good thing to get in the habit of.  you have to start somewhere, so to speak.  even if it is about the most insignificant of things, or even if they did not change their mind at all, it is still a positive step for that person to try.  second, it sometimes goes the other way.  just because op does not change his mind does not mean someone reading the comments has not.  i have read several posts where i went in disagreeing with op, but after reading the arguments in favor of their arguments, i have come out with a different point of view.  i had no part in the discussion, no comments were made, no deltas awarded, but someone is view was changed.  maybe it feels like slogging through shit sometimes, but if you can get someone to think critically about their own beliefs even for a second, is not that a good thing ?  #  i will give you the   on the waste of time point, which, frankly, was not so well worded on my part.   #  i will give you the   on the waste of time point, which, frankly, was not so well worded on my part.  it is fair to argue that even if op does not change his mind, some people in the comments will.  but i disagree with your first paragraph: just because deltas are awarded does not mean anything.  as i said, controversial issues exist where both points are valid exist, and these posts are likely to dispense deltas liberally.  the fact that deltas are awarded alone does not justify whether the time spent convincing a stupid person of a single point was time well spent.   #  you might be able to refine your own criticisms of an idea or acquaint yourself with some argument against your view you have not heard before.   # i suppose i will just have to agree with you there, but then again i would argue that if you are looking for time well spent, reddit probably is not the place.  i think it is kind of fun trying to change someone is opinion on a matter, especially if they are really stubborn about it.  i know it is futile most of the time e. g.  arguing with my grandma about politics , but there is always something you can take away from any argument, even if neither of you are convinced of the other person is side.  you might be able to refine your own criticisms of an idea or acquaint yourself with some argument against your view you have not heard before.  at the very least, you get practice dealing with stubbornness and stupidity, and that is good practice because there is clearly no shortage of those two attributes among people.  if you only think it is worth it if you convince op of your view, you are right, it is sometimes just a waste of time.  i just think there are other things you can gain from those kind of debates, even if you ca not change their opinion.   #  i leave the thread confused and just a bit more enlightened on how stupid it is to be stubborn and deal in absolutes.   # i actually read a comment about 0 months back that i liked so much i saved it and i think it is a really good counter for this point.  i read the op and think how op presents some very good arguments and i agree with him.  then my rollercoaster ride starts every reply usually changes my opinion to the other side.  i leave the thread confused and just a bit more enlightened on how stupid it is to be stubborn and deal in absolutes.  on a basic level, we all know nothing is black and white but having your opinion changed 0 times in 0 minutes makes you realize that what you consider to be the most fundamental truths could easily be challenged.  and the best way to do this is to show then just how easy it is to change a new/minor opinion of theirs with facts.  /u/teokk source comment URL btw, if this changes your view, you should probably award them the delta and not me
there are some instances, yes where controversial topics are discussed here and people are actually interested in hearing the opposite side.  i consider myself one of those people, and was initially driven to this subreddit in the hope that i would meet other people like myself that were posting here to educate themselves.  the type of man that reads a book that argues against a position he already holds, in the hopes that he can understand the entire issue in a great light.  but far and away, this is not the case.  some of the posts on here include logical fallacies even in the titles: yesterday is atheism post URL used a strawman fallacy in the title to misrepresent their own position to make it easier to defend in a religion vs.  athiesm debate.  the op, if you read that post, was by and large not interested in changing his opinion, and this is true of the  vast majority  of posts that come through here.  and the problem is this: it is a tremendous waste of time for every knowledgable person that posts answers in here.  a lot of times, the posts are not controversial: they are simply the product of stupidity.  there are a thousand places, a million internet hits, which one can browse to discover facts on the athiesm/religion debate and even the specific subtopic that was discussed yesterday.  an educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource.  additionally, the people that tend to post in this subreddit post on this subreddit have a certain mindset already, even before submitting.  go ahead, think of something you believe that is controversial and click  submit cmv.   your mind will already be working to inhibit opposing opinions and you will be clinging harder than ever to the bulwarks of your argument.  the fact of the matter is this: it takes considerable effort to open one is mind, even on things that are not of great consequence.  and most people are simply unable to accomplish this.  thanks for your replies.  i intend to reply to each response to my original post, albeit maybe not today, and i hope to award many deltas for your efforts.   #  it takes considerable effort to open one is mind, even on things that are not of great consequence.   #  and most people are simply unable to accomplish this.   # an educated person, or rather, a person seeking to educate himself, would have simply utilized this vast body of resources rather than take time to create a new resource.  assuming the poster had the skill to google what he was looking for in the first place some do not , there is one problem they need to make a huge effort to  continue  googling.  it is all too easy to find one or two links which provide either neutral or positive points to your opinion.  it is also too easy to cherrypick your searches  just  to include those points, or to do other mental gymnastics to avoid the fact that they may be wrong.  if nobody is watching, it is surprisingly easy to say  no, i do not believe that.   and dismiss it without formulating an argument against it.  but a cmv is different, it is an arena.  op has no control over the data given to him, and it is very curated data with eli0 style text around it.  there is no search term fudging, not nearly so much ability to dismiss data that disagrees, and the points being made might be things that you had not thought to google at all.  but best of all, it is made out directly to op.  these people are challenging an op directly, not just passively throwing links around.  it is a hugely different mindset than combing through search results.  and most people are simply unable to accomplish this.  i disagree.  i find that most people have completely changed their minds on most all issues over time.  but the key is that it is not like a boxing match; nobody made a knock out argument that forced their opponent to sit in stunned silence until they admit they are wrong.  instead, most opinions are changed by being seeded by doubt doubt that grows and becomes very uncomfortable until the person finds themselves arguing in favor of that doubt and against their original view .  there is no moment in which a person is mind is changed, it is a process.  a journey.  and the seeds of that doubt could very easily come from a cmv.  i agree with you that being open minded is difficult.  it takes constant vigilance.  but it is not binary, it is a continuum.  it may take someone all their life to change their view, but it still happens.   #  even if it is about the most insignificant of things, or even if they did not change their mind at all, it is still a positive step for that person to try.   #  say you are right, and most of the people who post here are incapable of actually changing their view on the subject they are bringing up i do not believe this is the case most of the time, but just for the sake of argument .  it would still be false to say that nobody ever changes their view, though.  people have deltas awarded to them, and those signify that somewhere out there, somebodies mind was changed.  maybe it was insignificant, maybe it was only changed for a brief moment before some argument changed it back.  regardless, people do change their views here sometimes, and that is a result of them taking the time to examine their views in light of others .  i view that as intrinsically good, the search for knowledge and the refinement of your own belief system, these things make you a better, more educated and well rounded person.  you said it was a waste of time because most people is views are not changed, or are not changed enough, but i would not say that makes it a waste of time.  the mere act of getting someone to evaluate their own views and challenge them is a good thing to get in the habit of.  you have to start somewhere, so to speak.  even if it is about the most insignificant of things, or even if they did not change their mind at all, it is still a positive step for that person to try.  second, it sometimes goes the other way.  just because op does not change his mind does not mean someone reading the comments has not.  i have read several posts where i went in disagreeing with op, but after reading the arguments in favor of their arguments, i have come out with a different point of view.  i had no part in the discussion, no comments were made, no deltas awarded, but someone is view was changed.  maybe it feels like slogging through shit sometimes, but if you can get someone to think critically about their own beliefs even for a second, is not that a good thing ?  #  it is fair to argue that even if op does not change his mind, some people in the comments will.   #  i will give you the   on the waste of time point, which, frankly, was not so well worded on my part.  it is fair to argue that even if op does not change his mind, some people in the comments will.  but i disagree with your first paragraph: just because deltas are awarded does not mean anything.  as i said, controversial issues exist where both points are valid exist, and these posts are likely to dispense deltas liberally.  the fact that deltas are awarded alone does not justify whether the time spent convincing a stupid person of a single point was time well spent.   #  i think it is kind of fun trying to change someone is opinion on a matter, especially if they are really stubborn about it.   # i suppose i will just have to agree with you there, but then again i would argue that if you are looking for time well spent, reddit probably is not the place.  i think it is kind of fun trying to change someone is opinion on a matter, especially if they are really stubborn about it.  i know it is futile most of the time e. g.  arguing with my grandma about politics , but there is always something you can take away from any argument, even if neither of you are convinced of the other person is side.  you might be able to refine your own criticisms of an idea or acquaint yourself with some argument against your view you have not heard before.  at the very least, you get practice dealing with stubbornness and stupidity, and that is good practice because there is clearly no shortage of those two attributes among people.  if you only think it is worth it if you convince op of your view, you are right, it is sometimes just a waste of time.  i just think there are other things you can gain from those kind of debates, even if you ca not change their opinion.   #  i actually read a comment about 0 months back that i liked so much i saved it and i think it is a really good counter for this point.   # i actually read a comment about 0 months back that i liked so much i saved it and i think it is a really good counter for this point.  i read the op and think how op presents some very good arguments and i agree with him.  then my rollercoaster ride starts every reply usually changes my opinion to the other side.  i leave the thread confused and just a bit more enlightened on how stupid it is to be stubborn and deal in absolutes.  on a basic level, we all know nothing is black and white but having your opinion changed 0 times in 0 minutes makes you realize that what you consider to be the most fundamental truths could easily be challenged.  and the best way to do this is to show then just how easy it is to change a new/minor opinion of theirs with facts.  /u/teokk source comment URL btw, if this changes your view, you should probably award them the delta and not me
i find it difficult to understand how so many people enjoy driving a car or can even relax while doing it.  i am almost continually tense while on the road thinking about what is at stake and i have been driving for almost 0 years .  while i have never been in an accident, i often find myself thinking how dangerous even small motions of a driver can be.  for example, a sudden small jerking movement of an arm on the steering wheel leading the car into oncoming traffic can lead to almost certain instant death.  i cannot think of any other action in my daily life where so many small actions of me or other people can be lethal.  even leaving accidents and catastrophic scenarios out of consideration, driving a car seems extremely risky to me: for many, maybe most people their car is the most expensive single item that they own.  even small mistakes like a lack of concentration or a tiny miscalculation while parking into a small space, can lead to high damage and expensive repairs.   #  i often find myself thinking how dangerous even small motions of a driver can be.   #  for example, a sudden small jerking movement of an arm on the steering wheel leading the car into oncoming traffic can lead to almost certain instant death.   # for example, a sudden small jerking movement of an arm on the steering wheel leading the car into oncoming traffic can lead to almost certain instant death.  i think about turning into the center divide and ending it.  i am going 0 mph and my car is not new and safe.  i just turn this wheel in front of me and i blink out of existence.  i cant do it though.  my arms wo not let me.  it just wo not happen on purpose.  so for you as long as you are focused you should be fine one the end.   #  on a bicycle, you would have to travel 0 miles, and just walking, you would have to travel 0 miles.   #  there is a way to measure risk, called a micromort.  it is a unit of risk representing a one in a million chance to die.  to accumulate a micromort in a car, you have to travel 0 miles.  to accumulate a micromort on a motorcycle, you have to travel 0 miles.  on a bicycle, you would have to travel 0 miles, and just walking, you would have to travel 0 miles.  in a car, i average about 0 mph, so for me, it would take 0 hours of driving to get a micromort.  on a motorcycle, it would take about 0 minutes.  it would take me 0 0 hours on a bicycle, and about 0 hours walking.  so, for me, riding a motorcycle, bicycle, or walking would be more dangerous than driving or being a passenger in a car.   #  i guess that it depends on where you walk ?  #    0; tbh, the fact that by this metric walking is more dangerous than driving blows my mind.  i guess that it depends on where you walk ? then again, the same is certainly true for driving.  maybe i feel more in control when walking, so i underestimate its dangers ? it seems that you have made an excellent point here.   #  most people who are walking do that in cities and not in some forrest so the average risk of being hit by a car is way higher than being attacked by a bear.   #  since the whole micromort thing is based on statistics i meant the average risk of being hit by a car as one of the biggest risks when traveling with motorcycle, bike or walking.  most people who are walking do that in cities and not in some forrest so the average risk of being hit by a car is way higher than being attacked by a bear.  op said that  driving a car is insanely risky and probably the most dangerous thing you do in your everyday life.   and i would say that even the other means of transport presented here as more dangerous only are that dangerous because there are people driving cars.  therefore this does not really contradict op is argument but in a way supports it.  what do the dangers of being outside have to do with any of this ? obviously when i say that it is  one of the bigger risks  that implies that there are others.   #  this is why families had 0 siblings, cause half of them would die before they hit a couple of years old.   #  if you are going that far being alive is a risky thing.  think of all those bacteria on your skin, in your skin, travelling through body.  think about how many of those bacteria are dangerous, and how you would be suffering if you did not have an immune system.  think about before medical tech how many babies died from just  being born .  this is why families had 0 siblings, cause half of them would die before they hit a couple of years old.  just being alive is more dangerous to you than driving a bloody car.
basically, people love to talk about how they want walmart workers at a higher wage so that tax payers wo not be burdened with paying for their food stamps and section 0.  the problem is, you would still, as tax payers be subsidizing their expenses, but instead in the form of higher prices.  right now, the 0 pay the lion share of taxes, and therefore the walmart workers living expenses are spread out among all tax payers, and paid mostly by the rich.  if they get off food stamps, because they are making more per hour, you better believe walmart whether they have to or not, they will will raise prices.  so now that prices have gone up, you the tax payer are still subsidizing their living expenses, except: the 0 are no longer contributing at all because they do not shop at walmart.  the poor people you are trying to help, who ca not afford to shop anywhere but walmart are now paying higher prices for goods.  these people previously did not subsidize the employees earnings because their earnings were too low to be taxed those on fixed incomes, disability, retirement, and other minimum wage workers , but now they pay more money, and are  taxed  on something they were not before.  additionally, a worker losing 0 a month in food stamps in exchange for a dollar an hour raise seems to cancel out their raise.  leading to higher prices for all with no real benefit  #  if they get off food stamps, because they are making more per hour, you better believe walmart whether they have to or not, they will will raise prices.   #  i am skeptical of this at least to the extent that you claim , especially with your qualifier  whether they have to or not .   # i am skeptical of this at least to the extent that you claim , especially with your qualifier  whether they have to or not .  if they can afford not to, they wo not raise prices, because its those low prices that give walmart its edge.  if they raise the prices too high, there is no reason for anyone to shop there.  now, its plausible that if the minimum wage is  too  high, wal marts entire business model will implode, and that may not be a good thing.  but they wo not raise prices  just because  as you seem to imply, and if they have to raise prices, they wo not yldo it more than necessary.  consider that wal mart does not cater exclusively to the poor.  many middle class people who can afford to shop at more expensive places shop at walmart because of their low prices.  if wal mart raises prices, its poorest customers maybe do not have a choice but to suck it up, but their better off customers will suddenly see no reason to shop at walmart and will take their business elsewhere, which wal mart does not want.  so at least some of the cost has to be absorbed by wal mart itself.  does this make raising the minimum wage a slam dunk ? no, but i think your analysis definitely oversimplifies it.   #  this wikipedia article URL probably explains it better.   #  the top 0 of income earners pay 0 of income taxes which in turn compose 0 of all taxes.  so that is about 0.  one source i found says that the top 0 of income earners pay 0 of all taxes, but that is a naive figure as i will explain below.  in any case middle income people play lots of taxes and even lower income people pay some.  more importantly: consumers pay most taxes taxes.  consider a group of people each making 0 million dollars a year in a society that does not tax income.  each does the work they do for 0 million.  now imagine if an income tax of 0 is introduced.  suddenly they are doing the same work for 0,0 dollars.  what happens in reality is that those incomes rise; if the tax was announced ahead of time they rise slowly in anticipation.  if it was imposed suddenly they rise afterwards.  the money from the increase in salaries comes from: consumers through increased prices , investors through decreased dividends , suppliers through decreased raw goods orders, where applicable etc.  the portion that comes from each place and the amount by which those incomes rise is determined by market power an supply/demand elasticities for each good/service.  as it turns out consumers have inelastic demand for most goods/services and relatively little market power.  anyway, when you raise upper bracket income taxes or when you raise wages the money for that can come from profits, from prices, from suppliers.  this wikipedia article URL probably explains it better.  you will need to be familiar with the concept of economic surplus in order to understand it fully.   #  are they, on balance, paying more than they were before ?  #  this:  i took economics, i am aware of it, but it does not really change the fact that even if you remove the 0 from the equation: and this:   the poor you were trying to help and those on fixed incomes are paying more when they were paying nothing before.  do not go together.  the poor were  not  paying  nothing  before.  in fact they were paying a lot.  the remainder of taxes are on things like income, capital gains, inheritance and payrolls.  these are not  directly  paid for by the bottom 0 of income earners.  but they still pay for those taxes through higher prices .  the exact same mechanism that, in your eyes, passes the burden of a minimum wage onto low income and fixed income people prices also passes the burden of capital gains taxes, income taxes, corporate profit taxes etc.  not  all  of the burden is passed in either case, but a fair amount of it is.  are they, on balance, paying more than they were before ? definitely not.  why ? because everyone making minimum wage got a raise.  everyone making just above minimum wage probably got one as well.  everyone who shares a household with one of these earners got a raise.  these people are overwhelmingly for obvious reasons low income earners.  part, and only part  of that raise is cancelled out by higher prices.  the remainder is borne by others: shareholders, high income earners, suppliers who get, respectively over the short/medium term , lower dividends, lower incomes and lower prices.   #  by taking econ i meant macro and micro it was not my major and yes the min wage workers get their raise partially erased in the short run and completely erased in the long run.   #  by taking econ i meant macro and micro it was not my major and yes the min wage workers get their raise partially erased in the short run and completely erased in the long run.  if it was not they would not keep raising minimum wage.  also those on pensions, disability, retirement and unemployment did not pay taxes before if their earnings were below a certain threshold.  they now will pay more for goods though.  so the truly impoverished, those unable to work, get hurt the most.   #  in fact, most people in poverty work more hours per week than the average person to try to make ends meet.   # that is false though.  they just suck at customer service in general.  wal mart is profit margin is pretty high compared to their competitors.  in fact, wal mart is profit margin was around 0 which seems low, until you realize that costco and macy is for example as it is main competitors have a profit margin of about 0 0.  it is not a  razor thin  profit margin, but rather it is a higher profit margin than nearly all their competitors.  actually, if they dropped their profit margin about 0 percentage point so they would be in line with their competitors , they would be able to maintain their existing low low prices and be able to give every single employee an extra $0 per year from their $0 billion dollar revenue.  first of all, most of the minimum wage raising is asking for several dollars, i think the smallest that people are looking at is about $0/hr so let is do some math ! say they work part time at 0 hrs/week at minimum wage.  a $0 raise/hr would give them roughly an extra $0 per month.  seems they benefit even if they lose $0 a month in food stamps.  in fact the point at which they lose money is if they were working less than 0 hours per week, which based on most shifts means they would be working less than 0 days a week which is extremely unlikely to be their only job in that case .  in fact, most people in poverty work more hours per week than the average person to try to make ends meet.  so raising the minimum wage will completely benefit the poor.  also, most economists have figured out that if wal mart raised their prices by about $0 per item, they would be able to maintain their existing profit margins while still raising the wages of their employees up to around $0/hr.
basically, people love to talk about how they want walmart workers at a higher wage so that tax payers wo not be burdened with paying for their food stamps and section 0.  the problem is, you would still, as tax payers be subsidizing their expenses, but instead in the form of higher prices.  right now, the 0 pay the lion share of taxes, and therefore the walmart workers living expenses are spread out among all tax payers, and paid mostly by the rich.  if they get off food stamps, because they are making more per hour, you better believe walmart whether they have to or not, they will will raise prices.  so now that prices have gone up, you the tax payer are still subsidizing their living expenses, except: the 0 are no longer contributing at all because they do not shop at walmart.  the poor people you are trying to help, who ca not afford to shop anywhere but walmart are now paying higher prices for goods.  these people previously did not subsidize the employees earnings because their earnings were too low to be taxed those on fixed incomes, disability, retirement, and other minimum wage workers , but now they pay more money, and are  taxed  on something they were not before.  additionally, a worker losing 0 a month in food stamps in exchange for a dollar an hour raise seems to cancel out their raise.  leading to higher prices for all with no real benefit  #  the problem is, you would still, as tax payers be subsidizing their expenses, but instead in the form of higher prices.   #  the big opposition to food stamps is that people believe they are handouts to lazy people.   # the big opposition to food stamps is that people believe they are handouts to lazy people.  if you are paying higher prices that go toward someone working for their income, it removes the objection.  the 0 are still buying products that still involved low wage workers at some point.  prices do not necessarily rise with minimum wage.  there are many people at walmart that make  more  than minimum wage, and their salaries do not have to increase.  also, most of the cost at a walmart is that of the goods, not the workers.   #  if it was imposed suddenly they rise afterwards.   #  the top 0 of income earners pay 0 of income taxes which in turn compose 0 of all taxes.  so that is about 0.  one source i found says that the top 0 of income earners pay 0 of all taxes, but that is a naive figure as i will explain below.  in any case middle income people play lots of taxes and even lower income people pay some.  more importantly: consumers pay most taxes taxes.  consider a group of people each making 0 million dollars a year in a society that does not tax income.  each does the work they do for 0 million.  now imagine if an income tax of 0 is introduced.  suddenly they are doing the same work for 0,0 dollars.  what happens in reality is that those incomes rise; if the tax was announced ahead of time they rise slowly in anticipation.  if it was imposed suddenly they rise afterwards.  the money from the increase in salaries comes from: consumers through increased prices , investors through decreased dividends , suppliers through decreased raw goods orders, where applicable etc.  the portion that comes from each place and the amount by which those incomes rise is determined by market power an supply/demand elasticities for each good/service.  as it turns out consumers have inelastic demand for most goods/services and relatively little market power.  anyway, when you raise upper bracket income taxes or when you raise wages the money for that can come from profits, from prices, from suppliers.  this wikipedia article URL probably explains it better.  you will need to be familiar with the concept of economic surplus in order to understand it fully.   #  the remainder of taxes are on things like income, capital gains, inheritance and payrolls.   #  this:  i took economics, i am aware of it, but it does not really change the fact that even if you remove the 0 from the equation: and this:   the poor you were trying to help and those on fixed incomes are paying more when they were paying nothing before.  do not go together.  the poor were  not  paying  nothing  before.  in fact they were paying a lot.  the remainder of taxes are on things like income, capital gains, inheritance and payrolls.  these are not  directly  paid for by the bottom 0 of income earners.  but they still pay for those taxes through higher prices .  the exact same mechanism that, in your eyes, passes the burden of a minimum wage onto low income and fixed income people prices also passes the burden of capital gains taxes, income taxes, corporate profit taxes etc.  not  all  of the burden is passed in either case, but a fair amount of it is.  are they, on balance, paying more than they were before ? definitely not.  why ? because everyone making minimum wage got a raise.  everyone making just above minimum wage probably got one as well.  everyone who shares a household with one of these earners got a raise.  these people are overwhelmingly for obvious reasons low income earners.  part, and only part  of that raise is cancelled out by higher prices.  the remainder is borne by others: shareholders, high income earners, suppliers who get, respectively over the short/medium term , lower dividends, lower incomes and lower prices.   #  they now will pay more for goods though.   #  by taking econ i meant macro and micro it was not my major and yes the min wage workers get their raise partially erased in the short run and completely erased in the long run.  if it was not they would not keep raising minimum wage.  also those on pensions, disability, retirement and unemployment did not pay taxes before if their earnings were below a certain threshold.  they now will pay more for goods though.  so the truly impoverished, those unable to work, get hurt the most.   #  many middle class people who can afford to shop at more expensive places shop at walmart because of their low prices.   # i am skeptical of this at least to the extent that you claim , especially with your qualifier  whether they have to or not .  if they can afford not to, they wo not raise prices, because its those low prices that give walmart its edge.  if they raise the prices too high, there is no reason for anyone to shop there.  now, its plausible that if the minimum wage is  too  high, wal marts entire business model will implode, and that may not be a good thing.  but they wo not raise prices  just because  as you seem to imply, and if they have to raise prices, they wo not yldo it more than necessary.  consider that wal mart does not cater exclusively to the poor.  many middle class people who can afford to shop at more expensive places shop at walmart because of their low prices.  if wal mart raises prices, its poorest customers maybe do not have a choice but to suck it up, but their better off customers will suddenly see no reason to shop at walmart and will take their business elsewhere, which wal mart does not want.  so at least some of the cost has to be absorbed by wal mart itself.  does this make raising the minimum wage a slam dunk ? no, but i think your analysis definitely oversimplifies it.
basically, people love to talk about how they want walmart workers at a higher wage so that tax payers wo not be burdened with paying for their food stamps and section 0.  the problem is, you would still, as tax payers be subsidizing their expenses, but instead in the form of higher prices.  right now, the 0 pay the lion share of taxes, and therefore the walmart workers living expenses are spread out among all tax payers, and paid mostly by the rich.  if they get off food stamps, because they are making more per hour, you better believe walmart whether they have to or not, they will will raise prices.  so now that prices have gone up, you the tax payer are still subsidizing their living expenses, except: the 0 are no longer contributing at all because they do not shop at walmart.  the poor people you are trying to help, who ca not afford to shop anywhere but walmart are now paying higher prices for goods.  these people previously did not subsidize the employees earnings because their earnings were too low to be taxed those on fixed incomes, disability, retirement, and other minimum wage workers , but now they pay more money, and are  taxed  on something they were not before.  additionally, a worker losing 0 a month in food stamps in exchange for a dollar an hour raise seems to cancel out their raise.  leading to higher prices for all with no real benefit  #  the 0 are no longer contributing at all because they do not shop at walmart.   #  the 0 are still buying products that still involved low wage workers at some point.   # the big opposition to food stamps is that people believe they are handouts to lazy people.  if you are paying higher prices that go toward someone working for their income, it removes the objection.  the 0 are still buying products that still involved low wage workers at some point.  prices do not necessarily rise with minimum wage.  there are many people at walmart that make  more  than minimum wage, and their salaries do not have to increase.  also, most of the cost at a walmart is that of the goods, not the workers.   #  the top 0 of income earners pay 0 of income taxes which in turn compose 0 of all taxes.   #  the top 0 of income earners pay 0 of income taxes which in turn compose 0 of all taxes.  so that is about 0.  one source i found says that the top 0 of income earners pay 0 of all taxes, but that is a naive figure as i will explain below.  in any case middle income people play lots of taxes and even lower income people pay some.  more importantly: consumers pay most taxes taxes.  consider a group of people each making 0 million dollars a year in a society that does not tax income.  each does the work they do for 0 million.  now imagine if an income tax of 0 is introduced.  suddenly they are doing the same work for 0,0 dollars.  what happens in reality is that those incomes rise; if the tax was announced ahead of time they rise slowly in anticipation.  if it was imposed suddenly they rise afterwards.  the money from the increase in salaries comes from: consumers through increased prices , investors through decreased dividends , suppliers through decreased raw goods orders, where applicable etc.  the portion that comes from each place and the amount by which those incomes rise is determined by market power an supply/demand elasticities for each good/service.  as it turns out consumers have inelastic demand for most goods/services and relatively little market power.  anyway, when you raise upper bracket income taxes or when you raise wages the money for that can come from profits, from prices, from suppliers.  this wikipedia article URL probably explains it better.  you will need to be familiar with the concept of economic surplus in order to understand it fully.   #  everyone who shares a household with one of these earners got a raise.   #  this:  i took economics, i am aware of it, but it does not really change the fact that even if you remove the 0 from the equation: and this:   the poor you were trying to help and those on fixed incomes are paying more when they were paying nothing before.  do not go together.  the poor were  not  paying  nothing  before.  in fact they were paying a lot.  the remainder of taxes are on things like income, capital gains, inheritance and payrolls.  these are not  directly  paid for by the bottom 0 of income earners.  but they still pay for those taxes through higher prices .  the exact same mechanism that, in your eyes, passes the burden of a minimum wage onto low income and fixed income people prices also passes the burden of capital gains taxes, income taxes, corporate profit taxes etc.  not  all  of the burden is passed in either case, but a fair amount of it is.  are they, on balance, paying more than they were before ? definitely not.  why ? because everyone making minimum wage got a raise.  everyone making just above minimum wage probably got one as well.  everyone who shares a household with one of these earners got a raise.  these people are overwhelmingly for obvious reasons low income earners.  part, and only part  of that raise is cancelled out by higher prices.  the remainder is borne by others: shareholders, high income earners, suppliers who get, respectively over the short/medium term , lower dividends, lower incomes and lower prices.   #  so the truly impoverished, those unable to work, get hurt the most.   #  by taking econ i meant macro and micro it was not my major and yes the min wage workers get their raise partially erased in the short run and completely erased in the long run.  if it was not they would not keep raising minimum wage.  also those on pensions, disability, retirement and unemployment did not pay taxes before if their earnings were below a certain threshold.  they now will pay more for goods though.  so the truly impoverished, those unable to work, get hurt the most.   #  i am skeptical of this at least to the extent that you claim , especially with your qualifier  whether they have to or not .   # i am skeptical of this at least to the extent that you claim , especially with your qualifier  whether they have to or not .  if they can afford not to, they wo not raise prices, because its those low prices that give walmart its edge.  if they raise the prices too high, there is no reason for anyone to shop there.  now, its plausible that if the minimum wage is  too  high, wal marts entire business model will implode, and that may not be a good thing.  but they wo not raise prices  just because  as you seem to imply, and if they have to raise prices, they wo not yldo it more than necessary.  consider that wal mart does not cater exclusively to the poor.  many middle class people who can afford to shop at more expensive places shop at walmart because of their low prices.  if wal mart raises prices, its poorest customers maybe do not have a choice but to suck it up, but their better off customers will suddenly see no reason to shop at walmart and will take their business elsewhere, which wal mart does not want.  so at least some of the cost has to be absorbed by wal mart itself.  does this make raising the minimum wage a slam dunk ? no, but i think your analysis definitely oversimplifies it.
basically, people love to talk about how they want walmart workers at a higher wage so that tax payers wo not be burdened with paying for their food stamps and section 0.  the problem is, you would still, as tax payers be subsidizing their expenses, but instead in the form of higher prices.  right now, the 0 pay the lion share of taxes, and therefore the walmart workers living expenses are spread out among all tax payers, and paid mostly by the rich.  if they get off food stamps, because they are making more per hour, you better believe walmart whether they have to or not, they will will raise prices.  so now that prices have gone up, you the tax payer are still subsidizing their living expenses, except: the 0 are no longer contributing at all because they do not shop at walmart.  the poor people you are trying to help, who ca not afford to shop anywhere but walmart are now paying higher prices for goods.  these people previously did not subsidize the employees earnings because their earnings were too low to be taxed those on fixed incomes, disability, retirement, and other minimum wage workers , but now they pay more money, and are  taxed  on something they were not before.  additionally, a worker losing 0 a month in food stamps in exchange for a dollar an hour raise seems to cancel out their raise.  leading to higher prices for all with no real benefit  #  the poor people you are trying to help, who ca not afford to shop anywhere but walmart are now paying higher prices for goods.   #  prices do not necessarily rise with minimum wage.   # the big opposition to food stamps is that people believe they are handouts to lazy people.  if you are paying higher prices that go toward someone working for their income, it removes the objection.  the 0 are still buying products that still involved low wage workers at some point.  prices do not necessarily rise with minimum wage.  there are many people at walmart that make  more  than minimum wage, and their salaries do not have to increase.  also, most of the cost at a walmart is that of the goods, not the workers.   #  each does the work they do for 0 million.   #  the top 0 of income earners pay 0 of income taxes which in turn compose 0 of all taxes.  so that is about 0.  one source i found says that the top 0 of income earners pay 0 of all taxes, but that is a naive figure as i will explain below.  in any case middle income people play lots of taxes and even lower income people pay some.  more importantly: consumers pay most taxes taxes.  consider a group of people each making 0 million dollars a year in a society that does not tax income.  each does the work they do for 0 million.  now imagine if an income tax of 0 is introduced.  suddenly they are doing the same work for 0,0 dollars.  what happens in reality is that those incomes rise; if the tax was announced ahead of time they rise slowly in anticipation.  if it was imposed suddenly they rise afterwards.  the money from the increase in salaries comes from: consumers through increased prices , investors through decreased dividends , suppliers through decreased raw goods orders, where applicable etc.  the portion that comes from each place and the amount by which those incomes rise is determined by market power an supply/demand elasticities for each good/service.  as it turns out consumers have inelastic demand for most goods/services and relatively little market power.  anyway, when you raise upper bracket income taxes or when you raise wages the money for that can come from profits, from prices, from suppliers.  this wikipedia article URL probably explains it better.  you will need to be familiar with the concept of economic surplus in order to understand it fully.   #  the remainder of taxes are on things like income, capital gains, inheritance and payrolls.   #  this:  i took economics, i am aware of it, but it does not really change the fact that even if you remove the 0 from the equation: and this:   the poor you were trying to help and those on fixed incomes are paying more when they were paying nothing before.  do not go together.  the poor were  not  paying  nothing  before.  in fact they were paying a lot.  the remainder of taxes are on things like income, capital gains, inheritance and payrolls.  these are not  directly  paid for by the bottom 0 of income earners.  but they still pay for those taxes through higher prices .  the exact same mechanism that, in your eyes, passes the burden of a minimum wage onto low income and fixed income people prices also passes the burden of capital gains taxes, income taxes, corporate profit taxes etc.  not  all  of the burden is passed in either case, but a fair amount of it is.  are they, on balance, paying more than they were before ? definitely not.  why ? because everyone making minimum wage got a raise.  everyone making just above minimum wage probably got one as well.  everyone who shares a household with one of these earners got a raise.  these people are overwhelmingly for obvious reasons low income earners.  part, and only part  of that raise is cancelled out by higher prices.  the remainder is borne by others: shareholders, high income earners, suppliers who get, respectively over the short/medium term , lower dividends, lower incomes and lower prices.   #  they now will pay more for goods though.   #  by taking econ i meant macro and micro it was not my major and yes the min wage workers get their raise partially erased in the short run and completely erased in the long run.  if it was not they would not keep raising minimum wage.  also those on pensions, disability, retirement and unemployment did not pay taxes before if their earnings were below a certain threshold.  they now will pay more for goods though.  so the truly impoverished, those unable to work, get hurt the most.   #  consider that wal mart does not cater exclusively to the poor.   # i am skeptical of this at least to the extent that you claim , especially with your qualifier  whether they have to or not .  if they can afford not to, they wo not raise prices, because its those low prices that give walmart its edge.  if they raise the prices too high, there is no reason for anyone to shop there.  now, its plausible that if the minimum wage is  too  high, wal marts entire business model will implode, and that may not be a good thing.  but they wo not raise prices  just because  as you seem to imply, and if they have to raise prices, they wo not yldo it more than necessary.  consider that wal mart does not cater exclusively to the poor.  many middle class people who can afford to shop at more expensive places shop at walmart because of their low prices.  if wal mart raises prices, its poorest customers maybe do not have a choice but to suck it up, but their better off customers will suddenly see no reason to shop at walmart and will take their business elsewhere, which wal mart does not want.  so at least some of the cost has to be absorbed by wal mart itself.  does this make raising the minimum wage a slam dunk ? no, but i think your analysis definitely oversimplifies it.
the us military is taking justice into its own hands by conducting extrajudicial killings of terrorists.  yes they have committed horrendous crimes against the united states and killed scores of innocent people but they deserve to be given justice in us courts or tried in their own countries just like anyone else.  the us military cannot serve as judge, jury and executioner.  it is the right way to send a message about the world that the united states wo not stoop down to vigilantism to right wrongs committed against us.  with religion motivating these terrorists the death of others does not scare them, they become martyrs.  the increased use of drones for these operations has only made the situation worst by killing innocent civilians and children in the crossfire and it serves only to enrage terrorists more take what happened in the recent peshawar attack URL now please try to cmv.   #  yes they have committed horrendous crimes against the united states and killed scores of innocent people but they deserve to be given justice in us courts or tried in their own countries just like anyone else.   #  well, they are not us citizens, so they really  do not  deserve justice in our court system.   # well, they are not us citizens, so they really  do not  deserve justice in our court system.  also, many are not even citizens of the country they are hiding in.  for those that are citizens of the country, for the most part there is a general allowance by the host nation for the us to do what it is doing.  when we ask a nation if we can drop a bomb to kill some asshole, and they say  go right ahead ! we hate that fucker too !   what law is being broken ? highly debatable that this is vigilantism, there is a lot of political work involved to get these things done.  your notion that we are just storming around the globe raining death, while poetic, is far from the reality of the situation.  where every operation needs to be approved, and very often the united states is working hand in hand with the host nation to orchestrate these strikes.  the increased use of drones for these operations has only made the situation worst by killing innocent civilians and children in the crossfire and it serves only to enrage terrorists more take what happened in the recent peshawar attack 0 if you think religion is the motivation here, you are way, way off base.  it is interesting that you point out the peshawar attack because that was largely in retaliation to the pakistani operation: zarb e azb an offensive lead by the pakistani army into the fata in response to an attack on an airport.  that entire attack was homebrewed by pakistani is against pakistani is.  as for the futility argument. well, at the end i would say that the effectiveness of the drone program is certainly highly debatable, but given their continued use by numerous parties, i would have to lean on the side of them being more effective, not less.   #  i think i have refuted the first half of that claim.   #  i am not trying to address justice, or fairness; you initially claimed that the attacks were illegal, as well as futile.  i think i have refuted the first half of that claim.  that said, i am unclear why you think that there is a right to a trial for non american citizens engaged in active warfare against the united states.  is this just ? i do not know but countries are generally considered to have a responsibility to protect their citizens.  the united states has decided it has a responsibility to its citizens to protect them and treat them fairly.  this responsibility includes a trial when they are accused of terrorist attacks, but military action when they are attacked by an external enemy.   #  as we are functionally at war with al qaeda and military courts do not have juries, merely a panel of higher ranking officers, i belive that we could forgo the jury.   #  as we are functionally at war with al qaeda and military courts do not have juries, merely a panel of higher ranking officers, i belive that we could forgo the jury.  however with a jury would that make it ethical ? additionally a military intervention to capture the suspect could also lead to collateral damage.  the alternative to a drone strike is not merely a trial but a team being sent in to capture the suspect as well.  i belive that is equally if not more likely to cause unintended casualties.  i will try to find statistics on that but currently do not have any in front of me.   #  it was executed by the best trained, most experienced soldiers in the world.   #  here you go URL the part you are after is on page 0.  the bureau of investigative journalism estimates that civilian deaths from drone strikes in pakistan fell to 0 percent of total deaths in 0 and to less than 0 percent in 0.  sometimes ground assaults go smoothly.  take the one that killed osama bin laden.  it was executed by the best trained, most experienced soldiers in the world.  killed were bin laden; his adult son khalid; his primary protectors, the brothers abu ahmed al kuwaiti and abrar al kuwaiti; and abrar is wife bushra.  assuming bushra qualifies as a civilian, even though she was helping to shelter the world is most notorious terrorist, civilian deaths in the raid amounted to 0 percent of the casualties.  in other words, even a near perfect special ops raid produced only a slight improvement over the worst estimates of those counting drone casualties.  many assaults are not that clean.   #  would italy be justified in invading the us brcause the us is not extraditing the cia agents that illegally anbducted an italian citizen to be tortured ?  #  the problem is that the  active planning to commit an attack  reason is up for unfounded speculation and fabricated evidence wmds anyone ?  they refused to hand over someone we considered but had not proven guilty  is also a poor standard for justifying a war.  would saudi arabia have been justified to invade denmark for nor handing over the cartoon artist ? would italy be justified in invading the us brcause the us is not extraditing the cia agents that illegally anbducted an italian citizen to be tortured ? is iraq justified to invade the us because they are harboring the war criminals who started an illegal war on fake evidence and violated the geneva convention ? if you start arguing the right to go to war based on refusing to hand over suspects, you are walking on very thin ice and into a lot of grey areas.
the us military is taking justice into its own hands by conducting extrajudicial killings of terrorists.  yes they have committed horrendous crimes against the united states and killed scores of innocent people but they deserve to be given justice in us courts or tried in their own countries just like anyone else.  the us military cannot serve as judge, jury and executioner.  it is the right way to send a message about the world that the united states wo not stoop down to vigilantism to right wrongs committed against us.  with religion motivating these terrorists the death of others does not scare them, they become martyrs.  the increased use of drones for these operations has only made the situation worst by killing innocent civilians and children in the crossfire and it serves only to enrage terrorists more take what happened in the recent peshawar attack URL now please try to cmv.   #  it is the right way to send a message about the world that the united states wo not stoop down to vigilantism to right wrongs committed against us.   #  highly debatable that this is vigilantism, there is a lot of political work involved to get these things done.   # well, they are not us citizens, so they really  do not  deserve justice in our court system.  also, many are not even citizens of the country they are hiding in.  for those that are citizens of the country, for the most part there is a general allowance by the host nation for the us to do what it is doing.  when we ask a nation if we can drop a bomb to kill some asshole, and they say  go right ahead ! we hate that fucker too !   what law is being broken ? highly debatable that this is vigilantism, there is a lot of political work involved to get these things done.  your notion that we are just storming around the globe raining death, while poetic, is far from the reality of the situation.  where every operation needs to be approved, and very often the united states is working hand in hand with the host nation to orchestrate these strikes.  the increased use of drones for these operations has only made the situation worst by killing innocent civilians and children in the crossfire and it serves only to enrage terrorists more take what happened in the recent peshawar attack 0 if you think religion is the motivation here, you are way, way off base.  it is interesting that you point out the peshawar attack because that was largely in retaliation to the pakistani operation: zarb e azb an offensive lead by the pakistani army into the fata in response to an attack on an airport.  that entire attack was homebrewed by pakistani is against pakistani is.  as for the futility argument. well, at the end i would say that the effectiveness of the drone program is certainly highly debatable, but given their continued use by numerous parties, i would have to lean on the side of them being more effective, not less.   #  i do not know but countries are generally considered to have a responsibility to protect their citizens.   #  i am not trying to address justice, or fairness; you initially claimed that the attacks were illegal, as well as futile.  i think i have refuted the first half of that claim.  that said, i am unclear why you think that there is a right to a trial for non american citizens engaged in active warfare against the united states.  is this just ? i do not know but countries are generally considered to have a responsibility to protect their citizens.  the united states has decided it has a responsibility to its citizens to protect them and treat them fairly.  this responsibility includes a trial when they are accused of terrorist attacks, but military action when they are attacked by an external enemy.   #  i will try to find statistics on that but currently do not have any in front of me.   #  as we are functionally at war with al qaeda and military courts do not have juries, merely a panel of higher ranking officers, i belive that we could forgo the jury.  however with a jury would that make it ethical ? additionally a military intervention to capture the suspect could also lead to collateral damage.  the alternative to a drone strike is not merely a trial but a team being sent in to capture the suspect as well.  i belive that is equally if not more likely to cause unintended casualties.  i will try to find statistics on that but currently do not have any in front of me.   #  in other words, even a near perfect special ops raid produced only a slight improvement over the worst estimates of those counting drone casualties.   #  here you go URL the part you are after is on page 0.  the bureau of investigative journalism estimates that civilian deaths from drone strikes in pakistan fell to 0 percent of total deaths in 0 and to less than 0 percent in 0.  sometimes ground assaults go smoothly.  take the one that killed osama bin laden.  it was executed by the best trained, most experienced soldiers in the world.  killed were bin laden; his adult son khalid; his primary protectors, the brothers abu ahmed al kuwaiti and abrar al kuwaiti; and abrar is wife bushra.  assuming bushra qualifies as a civilian, even though she was helping to shelter the world is most notorious terrorist, civilian deaths in the raid amounted to 0 percent of the casualties.  in other words, even a near perfect special ops raid produced only a slight improvement over the worst estimates of those counting drone casualties.  many assaults are not that clean.   #  would saudi arabia have been justified to invade denmark for nor handing over the cartoon artist ?  #  the problem is that the  active planning to commit an attack  reason is up for unfounded speculation and fabricated evidence wmds anyone ?  they refused to hand over someone we considered but had not proven guilty  is also a poor standard for justifying a war.  would saudi arabia have been justified to invade denmark for nor handing over the cartoon artist ? would italy be justified in invading the us brcause the us is not extraditing the cia agents that illegally anbducted an italian citizen to be tortured ? is iraq justified to invade the us because they are harboring the war criminals who started an illegal war on fake evidence and violated the geneva convention ? if you start arguing the right to go to war based on refusing to hand over suspects, you are walking on very thin ice and into a lot of grey areas.
note: please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post.  i am not religious.  thank you.  also: by  meaningless,  i mean  meaningless  to the person who is doing the dying.  to the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless.  cmv.  assuming there is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.  death is the great eraser.  living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory.  it is comparable to that, too.  it makes no difference if i, a 0 year old, die now or live until i am 0 and die.  either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  i will put it another way.  imagine the time before you were born.  have you remembered it yet ? of course not.  you did not exist.  this is the state that we return to after death a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth.  when i die, i return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and i return to it permanently.  i might as well have never lived.  to anticipate a few responses: 0 helping others does not matter.  they will die too.  and then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat death.  even if 0,0,0 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless.  for i will be dead and wo not know what i did, and once they die, they wo not know either.  0 attaining fame does not matter and does not truly make me  immortal.   i will be dead, and again, death is nothingness.  thus, i wo not be around to enjoy my fame.  0 enjoying the moment is possible, but does not make life have a point.  for once i die, all memories and all point is gone.  please change my view from this depressing sentiment.   #  even if 0,0,0 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless.   #  for i will be dead and wo not know what i did, and once they die, they wo not know either.   # for i will be dead and wo not know what i did, and once they die, they wo not know either.  briefly consider that even without the presence of an afterlife i do not think there is one , the sheer fact is that the universe has a history with an unchangeable past.  every day unalterable facts are laid down in the history of the universe.  even if nobody is around to remember it when the galaxy collapses, all the atoms and molecules in existence have a history, a small part of which you are directing as we speak.  especially if you helped a million people, the unchangeable history of the universe would have to take those efforts into account and they could never be erased from history.  your actions literally change the universe every single day ! so, while your part may not be a huge one in a universal sense, it is silly to think it is utterly  pointless.    #  the group cannot exist without the singular, and the singular can be made greater when seen in the whole.   #  meaning is assigned subjectively by individuals, there is no ultimate meaning, anymore than there is an ultimate meal.  as dr.  seuss said, do not cry because it is over, smile because it happened.  consider all the people that came before that contributed to the great ribbon of existence.  how many generations it took for us to reach the level of knowledge, technology, and sophistication we have today.  all those who died did not leave nothing, they left everything, and we continue to pick up those parts and make our own lego set.  if you only consider the solipsistic view of existence, meaning can seem facile, but considering that we are all part of this grand existence, we all contribute to it, to ourselves, and to each other.  a drop of water is not the ocean, but the ocean is made up of drops of water.  the group cannot exist without the singular, and the singular can be made greater when seen in the whole.   #  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  first of all, nihilism is not a set in stone reality, it is a philosophical perspective.  meaning is not assigned by anyone or anything.  if i choose to live my life by appreciating it dearly, even though it is finite, then i will have a happier existence.  we make our own meaning, is my point.  spending existence fretting about the ending is like always being afraid of a great novel stopping at some point.  why ? it does not make one a better person, smarter, or somehow more intellectually primed.  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  whether something is meaningless is purely a matter of human perception and construction.   #  how can nothing mattering be a reality when there is no objective measure of meaning or mattering ? whether something is meaningless is purely a matter of human perception and construction.  we ascribe value to things or we do not.  it is not anymore a reality to say all lives are  meaningless  than it is to say the world is  good  or  bad.   it just is.  you are the one putting labels on it.  if you do not value things that are not permanent, than we ca not prove to you that they are valuable.  it seems like a strange way of looking at the world though.  why would you measure meaning by some ever moving endpoint instead of by the space in time where the actions took place ? it seems like you measure what has meaning by what you can take with you, so to speak.  whether you, personally, will have something to take away from the action or experience.  if this is the only way you can measure meaning, then sure, at the end your life will have been meaningless.  you will cease to exist and to you it will be like you were never born.  but is that the only and the best way of deriving meaning ?  #  but if you could live forever what difference would there be ?  #  what is the meaning of  ultimate meaning  ? this sounds like a pun, but is actually a serious question.  an action has  meaning  or  purpose  if you perceive it as an useful step towards reaching a goal.  a limited lifespan imposes a bound on the goals that you can reach and thus on the meaning of your actions.  but if you could live forever what difference would there be ? any goal you reach you still reach it in a finite time.  how could you have an  ultimate goal  ? as other people pointed out, if you lived forever as a human, or even as cyborg or as any physical system of finite size, your memory would still have a finite capacity, because you can only store so many bits of information in any finite region of space URL but even if you could somehow defy this physical limit, what would be the  ultimate meaning  of your continuous accumulation of memories ?
note: please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post.  i am not religious.  thank you.  also: by  meaningless,  i mean  meaningless  to the person who is doing the dying.  to the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless.  cmv.  assuming there is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.  death is the great eraser.  living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory.  it is comparable to that, too.  it makes no difference if i, a 0 year old, die now or live until i am 0 and die.  either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  i will put it another way.  imagine the time before you were born.  have you remembered it yet ? of course not.  you did not exist.  this is the state that we return to after death a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth.  when i die, i return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and i return to it permanently.  i might as well have never lived.  to anticipate a few responses: 0 helping others does not matter.  they will die too.  and then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat death.  even if 0,0,0 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless.  for i will be dead and wo not know what i did, and once they die, they wo not know either.  0 attaining fame does not matter and does not truly make me  immortal.   i will be dead, and again, death is nothingness.  thus, i wo not be around to enjoy my fame.  0 enjoying the moment is possible, but does not make life have a point.  for once i die, all memories and all point is gone.  please change my view from this depressing sentiment.   #  it makes no difference if i, a 0 year old, die now or live until i am 0 and die.   #  either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.   # either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  you are not taking into account the affect that you have on the world when you are gone.  if you affect the world in a positive way, your life, i argue, has meaning.  yes, you will cease to exist; you will become  nothing .  however, the fact that you helped the world in your lifetime means that your life has meaning.  no offense, but that is incredibly stupid/selfish.  how can you say that your life is devoid of meaning when you helped others ? they will die too.  and then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat death even if everyone on earth died in an hour, the fact that you helped other people either by alleviating suffering or increasing happiness means that your life was meaningful.   #  consider all the people that came before that contributed to the great ribbon of existence.   #  meaning is assigned subjectively by individuals, there is no ultimate meaning, anymore than there is an ultimate meal.  as dr.  seuss said, do not cry because it is over, smile because it happened.  consider all the people that came before that contributed to the great ribbon of existence.  how many generations it took for us to reach the level of knowledge, technology, and sophistication we have today.  all those who died did not leave nothing, they left everything, and we continue to pick up those parts and make our own lego set.  if you only consider the solipsistic view of existence, meaning can seem facile, but considering that we are all part of this grand existence, we all contribute to it, to ourselves, and to each other.  a drop of water is not the ocean, but the ocean is made up of drops of water.  the group cannot exist without the singular, and the singular can be made greater when seen in the whole.   #  first of all, nihilism is not a set in stone reality, it is a philosophical perspective.   #  first of all, nihilism is not a set in stone reality, it is a philosophical perspective.  meaning is not assigned by anyone or anything.  if i choose to live my life by appreciating it dearly, even though it is finite, then i will have a happier existence.  we make our own meaning, is my point.  spending existence fretting about the ending is like always being afraid of a great novel stopping at some point.  why ? it does not make one a better person, smarter, or somehow more intellectually primed.  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  how can nothing mattering be a reality when there is no objective measure of meaning or mattering ?  #  how can nothing mattering be a reality when there is no objective measure of meaning or mattering ? whether something is meaningless is purely a matter of human perception and construction.  we ascribe value to things or we do not.  it is not anymore a reality to say all lives are  meaningless  than it is to say the world is  good  or  bad.   it just is.  you are the one putting labels on it.  if you do not value things that are not permanent, than we ca not prove to you that they are valuable.  it seems like a strange way of looking at the world though.  why would you measure meaning by some ever moving endpoint instead of by the space in time where the actions took place ? it seems like you measure what has meaning by what you can take with you, so to speak.  whether you, personally, will have something to take away from the action or experience.  if this is the only way you can measure meaning, then sure, at the end your life will have been meaningless.  you will cease to exist and to you it will be like you were never born.  but is that the only and the best way of deriving meaning ?  #  an action has  meaning  or  purpose  if you perceive it as an useful step towards reaching a goal.   #  what is the meaning of  ultimate meaning  ? this sounds like a pun, but is actually a serious question.  an action has  meaning  or  purpose  if you perceive it as an useful step towards reaching a goal.  a limited lifespan imposes a bound on the goals that you can reach and thus on the meaning of your actions.  but if you could live forever what difference would there be ? any goal you reach you still reach it in a finite time.  how could you have an  ultimate goal  ? as other people pointed out, if you lived forever as a human, or even as cyborg or as any physical system of finite size, your memory would still have a finite capacity, because you can only store so many bits of information in any finite region of space URL but even if you could somehow defy this physical limit, what would be the  ultimate meaning  of your continuous accumulation of memories ?
note: please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post.  i am not religious.  thank you.  also: by  meaningless,  i mean  meaningless  to the person who is doing the dying.  to the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless.  cmv.  assuming there is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.  death is the great eraser.  living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory.  it is comparable to that, too.  it makes no difference if i, a 0 year old, die now or live until i am 0 and die.  either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  i will put it another way.  imagine the time before you were born.  have you remembered it yet ? of course not.  you did not exist.  this is the state that we return to after death a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth.  when i die, i return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and i return to it permanently.  i might as well have never lived.  to anticipate a few responses: 0 helping others does not matter.  they will die too.  and then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat death.  even if 0,0,0 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless.  for i will be dead and wo not know what i did, and once they die, they wo not know either.  0 attaining fame does not matter and does not truly make me  immortal.   i will be dead, and again, death is nothingness.  thus, i wo not be around to enjoy my fame.  0 enjoying the moment is possible, but does not make life have a point.  for once i die, all memories and all point is gone.  please change my view from this depressing sentiment.   #  i mean  meaningless  to the person who is doing the dying.   #  no offense, but that is incredibly stupid/selfish.   # either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  you are not taking into account the affect that you have on the world when you are gone.  if you affect the world in a positive way, your life, i argue, has meaning.  yes, you will cease to exist; you will become  nothing .  however, the fact that you helped the world in your lifetime means that your life has meaning.  no offense, but that is incredibly stupid/selfish.  how can you say that your life is devoid of meaning when you helped others ? they will die too.  and then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat death even if everyone on earth died in an hour, the fact that you helped other people either by alleviating suffering or increasing happiness means that your life was meaningful.   #  a drop of water is not the ocean, but the ocean is made up of drops of water.   #  meaning is assigned subjectively by individuals, there is no ultimate meaning, anymore than there is an ultimate meal.  as dr.  seuss said, do not cry because it is over, smile because it happened.  consider all the people that came before that contributed to the great ribbon of existence.  how many generations it took for us to reach the level of knowledge, technology, and sophistication we have today.  all those who died did not leave nothing, they left everything, and we continue to pick up those parts and make our own lego set.  if you only consider the solipsistic view of existence, meaning can seem facile, but considering that we are all part of this grand existence, we all contribute to it, to ourselves, and to each other.  a drop of water is not the ocean, but the ocean is made up of drops of water.  the group cannot exist without the singular, and the singular can be made greater when seen in the whole.   #  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  first of all, nihilism is not a set in stone reality, it is a philosophical perspective.  meaning is not assigned by anyone or anything.  if i choose to live my life by appreciating it dearly, even though it is finite, then i will have a happier existence.  we make our own meaning, is my point.  spending existence fretting about the ending is like always being afraid of a great novel stopping at some point.  why ? it does not make one a better person, smarter, or somehow more intellectually primed.  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  whether something is meaningless is purely a matter of human perception and construction.   #  how can nothing mattering be a reality when there is no objective measure of meaning or mattering ? whether something is meaningless is purely a matter of human perception and construction.  we ascribe value to things or we do not.  it is not anymore a reality to say all lives are  meaningless  than it is to say the world is  good  or  bad.   it just is.  you are the one putting labels on it.  if you do not value things that are not permanent, than we ca not prove to you that they are valuable.  it seems like a strange way of looking at the world though.  why would you measure meaning by some ever moving endpoint instead of by the space in time where the actions took place ? it seems like you measure what has meaning by what you can take with you, so to speak.  whether you, personally, will have something to take away from the action or experience.  if this is the only way you can measure meaning, then sure, at the end your life will have been meaningless.  you will cease to exist and to you it will be like you were never born.  but is that the only and the best way of deriving meaning ?  #  this sounds like a pun, but is actually a serious question.   #  what is the meaning of  ultimate meaning  ? this sounds like a pun, but is actually a serious question.  an action has  meaning  or  purpose  if you perceive it as an useful step towards reaching a goal.  a limited lifespan imposes a bound on the goals that you can reach and thus on the meaning of your actions.  but if you could live forever what difference would there be ? any goal you reach you still reach it in a finite time.  how could you have an  ultimate goal  ? as other people pointed out, if you lived forever as a human, or even as cyborg or as any physical system of finite size, your memory would still have a finite capacity, because you can only store so many bits of information in any finite region of space URL but even if you could somehow defy this physical limit, what would be the  ultimate meaning  of your continuous accumulation of memories ?
note: please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post.  i am not religious.  thank you.  also: by  meaningless,  i mean  meaningless  to the person who is doing the dying.  to the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless.  cmv.  assuming there is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.  death is the great eraser.  living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory.  it is comparable to that, too.  it makes no difference if i, a 0 year old, die now or live until i am 0 and die.  either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  i will put it another way.  imagine the time before you were born.  have you remembered it yet ? of course not.  you did not exist.  this is the state that we return to after death a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth.  when i die, i return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and i return to it permanently.  i might as well have never lived.  to anticipate a few responses: 0 helping others does not matter.  they will die too.  and then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat death.  even if 0,0,0 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless.  for i will be dead and wo not know what i did, and once they die, they wo not know either.  0 attaining fame does not matter and does not truly make me  immortal.   i will be dead, and again, death is nothingness.  thus, i wo not be around to enjoy my fame.  0 enjoying the moment is possible, but does not make life have a point.  for once i die, all memories and all point is gone.  please change my view from this depressing sentiment.   #  it makes no difference if i, a 0 year old, die now or live until i am 0 and die.   #  either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.   # either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  the first half is 0 degrees off, but the second half is true.  it matters to others how old you are when you die.  if you were to drop dead now, your parents assuming they are alive , your friends, and those close to you in general will be pained by this.  your loved ones will experience pain if you died at 0 years old, but your children, grandchildren, and maybe great grandchildren will have lost something precious to them.  people have had an influence on you, and you will have had an influence on others.  consider people like isaac newton, einstein, richard dawkins, george washington, abe lincoln, nicola tesla, alan turing, bill gates, steve jobs, shigeru miyamoto, and elvis.  this is a short list of people mixing those some alive today and some dead.  but they all had a huge impact on us today.  they are all remembered.  and for a very long time, they will all be remembered.  yes, eventually the dna you pass to your descendents will be so diluted it will be unrecognizable.  but that does not mean that the contributions you made to others  lives have all been meaningless.  you wo not know what you did for others, but they will know what you did for them.  think about a lesson a dead loved one taught you.  do you really think it is meaningless because that person does not know how it impacted you ? death is the great eraser.  i think that if we consider a worldview in which there is no afterlife a worldview which i do share with you , it makes life itself more meaningful.  imagine for a second that there is an eternal afterlife.  human average lifespan is approximately 0 years.  compared to eternity, that is nothing.  imagine an electron located at the center of the universe.  every second, that electron moves the distance of one electron towards one  edge  of the universe which is expanding .  that electron is goal is to reach one end of the universe and then turn around and go to the opposite edge.  assuming expansion is faster than size of one electron per second, that is eternity.  that is how long it will take to complete that cycle.  it does not end.  any period of time you consider is as meaningful as one yoctosecond 0  0 when there is an eternity.  when we have such limited time to live and be with our loved ones, everything we do is meaningful.  every second we do not love our loved ones is a waste.  think about what is needed for an afterlife view, especially with the judeo christian view: that sort of worldview says there is love more important than the love that your real friends and your real family, who choose to spend their limited time with you.  those who love you here in this life will die.  yes.  but the limited time you have to love your family and friends is more than enough.  if we are looking from the religious viewpoint on a meaning of life then yes, in a sense an atheistic view of life does not have an overall meaning.  but you can give it your own meaning.  you said in a different comment that you want the moments with your girlfriend and with reddit to last forever.  it wo not, but you sure as fuck can make all the best of the time you do have.  everyone wants something impossible at some point.  but as nonreligious people in this case i just include you and me, but i suppose others can feel this way as well , we have to settle for what we have, or perhaps for what we can have.  to paraphrase one of my professors from last semester, you have to live so that you will be able to die tomorrow and say that life was worth having lived.  you ca not have the impossible but you can make sure that what you had is enough.   #  the group cannot exist without the singular, and the singular can be made greater when seen in the whole.   #  meaning is assigned subjectively by individuals, there is no ultimate meaning, anymore than there is an ultimate meal.  as dr.  seuss said, do not cry because it is over, smile because it happened.  consider all the people that came before that contributed to the great ribbon of existence.  how many generations it took for us to reach the level of knowledge, technology, and sophistication we have today.  all those who died did not leave nothing, they left everything, and we continue to pick up those parts and make our own lego set.  if you only consider the solipsistic view of existence, meaning can seem facile, but considering that we are all part of this grand existence, we all contribute to it, to ourselves, and to each other.  a drop of water is not the ocean, but the ocean is made up of drops of water.  the group cannot exist without the singular, and the singular can be made greater when seen in the whole.   #  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  first of all, nihilism is not a set in stone reality, it is a philosophical perspective.  meaning is not assigned by anyone or anything.  if i choose to live my life by appreciating it dearly, even though it is finite, then i will have a happier existence.  we make our own meaning, is my point.  spending existence fretting about the ending is like always being afraid of a great novel stopping at some point.  why ? it does not make one a better person, smarter, or somehow more intellectually primed.  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  if this is the only way you can measure meaning, then sure, at the end your life will have been meaningless.   #  how can nothing mattering be a reality when there is no objective measure of meaning or mattering ? whether something is meaningless is purely a matter of human perception and construction.  we ascribe value to things or we do not.  it is not anymore a reality to say all lives are  meaningless  than it is to say the world is  good  or  bad.   it just is.  you are the one putting labels on it.  if you do not value things that are not permanent, than we ca not prove to you that they are valuable.  it seems like a strange way of looking at the world though.  why would you measure meaning by some ever moving endpoint instead of by the space in time where the actions took place ? it seems like you measure what has meaning by what you can take with you, so to speak.  whether you, personally, will have something to take away from the action or experience.  if this is the only way you can measure meaning, then sure, at the end your life will have been meaningless.  you will cease to exist and to you it will be like you were never born.  but is that the only and the best way of deriving meaning ?  #  this sounds like a pun, but is actually a serious question.   #  what is the meaning of  ultimate meaning  ? this sounds like a pun, but is actually a serious question.  an action has  meaning  or  purpose  if you perceive it as an useful step towards reaching a goal.  a limited lifespan imposes a bound on the goals that you can reach and thus on the meaning of your actions.  but if you could live forever what difference would there be ? any goal you reach you still reach it in a finite time.  how could you have an  ultimate goal  ? as other people pointed out, if you lived forever as a human, or even as cyborg or as any physical system of finite size, your memory would still have a finite capacity, because you can only store so many bits of information in any finite region of space URL but even if you could somehow defy this physical limit, what would be the  ultimate meaning  of your continuous accumulation of memories ?
note: please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post.  i am not religious.  thank you.  also: by  meaningless,  i mean  meaningless  to the person who is doing the dying.  to the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless.  cmv.  assuming there is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.  death is the great eraser.  living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory.  it is comparable to that, too.  it makes no difference if i, a 0 year old, die now or live until i am 0 and die.  either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  i will put it another way.  imagine the time before you were born.  have you remembered it yet ? of course not.  you did not exist.  this is the state that we return to after death a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth.  when i die, i return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and i return to it permanently.  i might as well have never lived.  to anticipate a few responses: 0 helping others does not matter.  they will die too.  and then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat death.  even if 0,0,0 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless.  for i will be dead and wo not know what i did, and once they die, they wo not know either.  0 attaining fame does not matter and does not truly make me  immortal.   i will be dead, and again, death is nothingness.  thus, i wo not be around to enjoy my fame.  0 enjoying the moment is possible, but does not make life have a point.  for once i die, all memories and all point is gone.  please change my view from this depressing sentiment.   #  i might as well have never lived.   #  people have had an influence on you, and you will have had an influence on others.   # either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  the first half is 0 degrees off, but the second half is true.  it matters to others how old you are when you die.  if you were to drop dead now, your parents assuming they are alive , your friends, and those close to you in general will be pained by this.  your loved ones will experience pain if you died at 0 years old, but your children, grandchildren, and maybe great grandchildren will have lost something precious to them.  people have had an influence on you, and you will have had an influence on others.  consider people like isaac newton, einstein, richard dawkins, george washington, abe lincoln, nicola tesla, alan turing, bill gates, steve jobs, shigeru miyamoto, and elvis.  this is a short list of people mixing those some alive today and some dead.  but they all had a huge impact on us today.  they are all remembered.  and for a very long time, they will all be remembered.  yes, eventually the dna you pass to your descendents will be so diluted it will be unrecognizable.  but that does not mean that the contributions you made to others  lives have all been meaningless.  you wo not know what you did for others, but they will know what you did for them.  think about a lesson a dead loved one taught you.  do you really think it is meaningless because that person does not know how it impacted you ? death is the great eraser.  i think that if we consider a worldview in which there is no afterlife a worldview which i do share with you , it makes life itself more meaningful.  imagine for a second that there is an eternal afterlife.  human average lifespan is approximately 0 years.  compared to eternity, that is nothing.  imagine an electron located at the center of the universe.  every second, that electron moves the distance of one electron towards one  edge  of the universe which is expanding .  that electron is goal is to reach one end of the universe and then turn around and go to the opposite edge.  assuming expansion is faster than size of one electron per second, that is eternity.  that is how long it will take to complete that cycle.  it does not end.  any period of time you consider is as meaningful as one yoctosecond 0  0 when there is an eternity.  when we have such limited time to live and be with our loved ones, everything we do is meaningful.  every second we do not love our loved ones is a waste.  think about what is needed for an afterlife view, especially with the judeo christian view: that sort of worldview says there is love more important than the love that your real friends and your real family, who choose to spend their limited time with you.  those who love you here in this life will die.  yes.  but the limited time you have to love your family and friends is more than enough.  if we are looking from the religious viewpoint on a meaning of life then yes, in a sense an atheistic view of life does not have an overall meaning.  but you can give it your own meaning.  you said in a different comment that you want the moments with your girlfriend and with reddit to last forever.  it wo not, but you sure as fuck can make all the best of the time you do have.  everyone wants something impossible at some point.  but as nonreligious people in this case i just include you and me, but i suppose others can feel this way as well , we have to settle for what we have, or perhaps for what we can have.  to paraphrase one of my professors from last semester, you have to live so that you will be able to die tomorrow and say that life was worth having lived.  you ca not have the impossible but you can make sure that what you had is enough.   #  seuss said, do not cry because it is over, smile because it happened.   #  meaning is assigned subjectively by individuals, there is no ultimate meaning, anymore than there is an ultimate meal.  as dr.  seuss said, do not cry because it is over, smile because it happened.  consider all the people that came before that contributed to the great ribbon of existence.  how many generations it took for us to reach the level of knowledge, technology, and sophistication we have today.  all those who died did not leave nothing, they left everything, and we continue to pick up those parts and make our own lego set.  if you only consider the solipsistic view of existence, meaning can seem facile, but considering that we are all part of this grand existence, we all contribute to it, to ourselves, and to each other.  a drop of water is not the ocean, but the ocean is made up of drops of water.  the group cannot exist without the singular, and the singular can be made greater when seen in the whole.   #  if i choose to live my life by appreciating it dearly, even though it is finite, then i will have a happier existence.   #  first of all, nihilism is not a set in stone reality, it is a philosophical perspective.  meaning is not assigned by anyone or anything.  if i choose to live my life by appreciating it dearly, even though it is finite, then i will have a happier existence.  we make our own meaning, is my point.  spending existence fretting about the ending is like always being afraid of a great novel stopping at some point.  why ? it does not make one a better person, smarter, or somehow more intellectually primed.  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  why would you measure meaning by some ever moving endpoint instead of by the space in time where the actions took place ?  #  how can nothing mattering be a reality when there is no objective measure of meaning or mattering ? whether something is meaningless is purely a matter of human perception and construction.  we ascribe value to things or we do not.  it is not anymore a reality to say all lives are  meaningless  than it is to say the world is  good  or  bad.   it just is.  you are the one putting labels on it.  if you do not value things that are not permanent, than we ca not prove to you that they are valuable.  it seems like a strange way of looking at the world though.  why would you measure meaning by some ever moving endpoint instead of by the space in time where the actions took place ? it seems like you measure what has meaning by what you can take with you, so to speak.  whether you, personally, will have something to take away from the action or experience.  if this is the only way you can measure meaning, then sure, at the end your life will have been meaningless.  you will cease to exist and to you it will be like you were never born.  but is that the only and the best way of deriving meaning ?  #  any goal you reach you still reach it in a finite time.   #  what is the meaning of  ultimate meaning  ? this sounds like a pun, but is actually a serious question.  an action has  meaning  or  purpose  if you perceive it as an useful step towards reaching a goal.  a limited lifespan imposes a bound on the goals that you can reach and thus on the meaning of your actions.  but if you could live forever what difference would there be ? any goal you reach you still reach it in a finite time.  how could you have an  ultimate goal  ? as other people pointed out, if you lived forever as a human, or even as cyborg or as any physical system of finite size, your memory would still have a finite capacity, because you can only store so many bits of information in any finite region of space URL but even if you could somehow defy this physical limit, what would be the  ultimate meaning  of your continuous accumulation of memories ?
note: please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post.  i am not religious.  thank you.  also: by  meaningless,  i mean  meaningless  to the person who is doing the dying.  to the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless.  cmv.  assuming there is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.  death is the great eraser.  living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory.  it is comparable to that, too.  it makes no difference if i, a 0 year old, die now or live until i am 0 and die.  either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  i will put it another way.  imagine the time before you were born.  have you remembered it yet ? of course not.  you did not exist.  this is the state that we return to after death a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth.  when i die, i return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and i return to it permanently.  i might as well have never lived.  to anticipate a few responses: 0 helping others does not matter.  they will die too.  and then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat death.  even if 0,0,0 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless.  for i will be dead and wo not know what i did, and once they die, they wo not know either.  0 attaining fame does not matter and does not truly make me  immortal.   i will be dead, and again, death is nothingness.  thus, i wo not be around to enjoy my fame.  0 enjoying the moment is possible, but does not make life have a point.  for once i die, all memories and all point is gone.  please change my view from this depressing sentiment.   #  enjoying the moment is possible, but does not make life have a point.   #  for once i die, all memories and all point is gone.   #  but you do not actually know what happens after you die, so there is at least a little bit of fun mystery still out there.  maybe you will be reincarnated into a ladybug.  .  . that would be pretty sweet right ? for once i die, all memories and all point is gone.  think of life as a gift of time.  you have been awarded a set amount of it.  you can spend that time whining about how pointless it all is and being depressed, or you can bang hot chicks and drink mt.  dew ! perhaps life is a game and you win by spending that time the best way you can.   #  meaning is assigned subjectively by individuals, there is no ultimate meaning, anymore than there is an ultimate meal.   #  meaning is assigned subjectively by individuals, there is no ultimate meaning, anymore than there is an ultimate meal.  as dr.  seuss said, do not cry because it is over, smile because it happened.  consider all the people that came before that contributed to the great ribbon of existence.  how many generations it took for us to reach the level of knowledge, technology, and sophistication we have today.  all those who died did not leave nothing, they left everything, and we continue to pick up those parts and make our own lego set.  if you only consider the solipsistic view of existence, meaning can seem facile, but considering that we are all part of this grand existence, we all contribute to it, to ourselves, and to each other.  a drop of water is not the ocean, but the ocean is made up of drops of water.  the group cannot exist without the singular, and the singular can be made greater when seen in the whole.   #  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  first of all, nihilism is not a set in stone reality, it is a philosophical perspective.  meaning is not assigned by anyone or anything.  if i choose to live my life by appreciating it dearly, even though it is finite, then i will have a happier existence.  we make our own meaning, is my point.  spending existence fretting about the ending is like always being afraid of a great novel stopping at some point.  why ? it does not make one a better person, smarter, or somehow more intellectually primed.  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  whether you, personally, will have something to take away from the action or experience.   #  how can nothing mattering be a reality when there is no objective measure of meaning or mattering ? whether something is meaningless is purely a matter of human perception and construction.  we ascribe value to things or we do not.  it is not anymore a reality to say all lives are  meaningless  than it is to say the world is  good  or  bad.   it just is.  you are the one putting labels on it.  if you do not value things that are not permanent, than we ca not prove to you that they are valuable.  it seems like a strange way of looking at the world though.  why would you measure meaning by some ever moving endpoint instead of by the space in time where the actions took place ? it seems like you measure what has meaning by what you can take with you, so to speak.  whether you, personally, will have something to take away from the action or experience.  if this is the only way you can measure meaning, then sure, at the end your life will have been meaningless.  you will cease to exist and to you it will be like you were never born.  but is that the only and the best way of deriving meaning ?  #  a limited lifespan imposes a bound on the goals that you can reach and thus on the meaning of your actions.   #  what is the meaning of  ultimate meaning  ? this sounds like a pun, but is actually a serious question.  an action has  meaning  or  purpose  if you perceive it as an useful step towards reaching a goal.  a limited lifespan imposes a bound on the goals that you can reach and thus on the meaning of your actions.  but if you could live forever what difference would there be ? any goal you reach you still reach it in a finite time.  how could you have an  ultimate goal  ? as other people pointed out, if you lived forever as a human, or even as cyborg or as any physical system of finite size, your memory would still have a finite capacity, because you can only store so many bits of information in any finite region of space URL but even if you could somehow defy this physical limit, what would be the  ultimate meaning  of your continuous accumulation of memories ?
note: please assume that there is no afterlife when responding to my post.  i am not religious.  thank you.  also: by  meaningless,  i mean  meaningless  to the person who is doing the dying.  to the person who is alive and who will then die, life is meaningless.  cmv.  assuming there is no afterlife, life is ultimately meaningless and pointless because we die.  death is the great eraser.  living life is as irrational as reading a book that, after finished, is immediately erased from your memory.  it is comparable to that, too.  it makes no difference if i, a 0 year old, die now or live until i am 0 and die.  either way, after my brief spark of existence i become nothingness.  not only do i remember nothing; i am nothing.  to me, it is as if my life had never happened.  i will put it another way.  imagine the time before you were born.  have you remembered it yet ? of course not.  you did not exist.  this is the state that we return to after death a state of nothingness similar to the state we were in before birth.  when i die, i return to this state after a brief period of consciousness, and i return to it permanently.  i might as well have never lived.  to anticipate a few responses: 0 helping others does not matter.  they will die too.  and then their descendants will die, on and on and on, until eventually the universe is destroyed or our galaxy collapses in an inevitable heat death.  even if 0,0,0 people were helped by me, assuming they all die, then my life is still pointless and meaningless.  for i will be dead and wo not know what i did, and once they die, they wo not know either.  0 attaining fame does not matter and does not truly make me  immortal.   i will be dead, and again, death is nothingness.  thus, i wo not be around to enjoy my fame.  0 enjoying the moment is possible, but does not make life have a point.  for once i die, all memories and all point is gone.  please change my view from this depressing sentiment.   #  please change my view from this depressing sentiment.   #  think of life as a gift of time.   #  but you do not actually know what happens after you die, so there is at least a little bit of fun mystery still out there.  maybe you will be reincarnated into a ladybug.  .  . that would be pretty sweet right ? for once i die, all memories and all point is gone.  think of life as a gift of time.  you have been awarded a set amount of it.  you can spend that time whining about how pointless it all is and being depressed, or you can bang hot chicks and drink mt.  dew ! perhaps life is a game and you win by spending that time the best way you can.   #  a drop of water is not the ocean, but the ocean is made up of drops of water.   #  meaning is assigned subjectively by individuals, there is no ultimate meaning, anymore than there is an ultimate meal.  as dr.  seuss said, do not cry because it is over, smile because it happened.  consider all the people that came before that contributed to the great ribbon of existence.  how many generations it took for us to reach the level of knowledge, technology, and sophistication we have today.  all those who died did not leave nothing, they left everything, and we continue to pick up those parts and make our own lego set.  if you only consider the solipsistic view of existence, meaning can seem facile, but considering that we are all part of this grand existence, we all contribute to it, to ourselves, and to each other.  a drop of water is not the ocean, but the ocean is made up of drops of water.  the group cannot exist without the singular, and the singular can be made greater when seen in the whole.   #  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  first of all, nihilism is not a set in stone reality, it is a philosophical perspective.  meaning is not assigned by anyone or anything.  if i choose to live my life by appreciating it dearly, even though it is finite, then i will have a happier existence.  we make our own meaning, is my point.  spending existence fretting about the ending is like always being afraid of a great novel stopping at some point.  why ? it does not make one a better person, smarter, or somehow more intellectually primed.  as for saturn, i think being compared to such a beautiful cosmic phenomenon is rather lovely, rather than, as you seem to have done, demean it as ordinary and unimpressive.   #  how can nothing mattering be a reality when there is no objective measure of meaning or mattering ?  #  how can nothing mattering be a reality when there is no objective measure of meaning or mattering ? whether something is meaningless is purely a matter of human perception and construction.  we ascribe value to things or we do not.  it is not anymore a reality to say all lives are  meaningless  than it is to say the world is  good  or  bad.   it just is.  you are the one putting labels on it.  if you do not value things that are not permanent, than we ca not prove to you that they are valuable.  it seems like a strange way of looking at the world though.  why would you measure meaning by some ever moving endpoint instead of by the space in time where the actions took place ? it seems like you measure what has meaning by what you can take with you, so to speak.  whether you, personally, will have something to take away from the action or experience.  if this is the only way you can measure meaning, then sure, at the end your life will have been meaningless.  you will cease to exist and to you it will be like you were never born.  but is that the only and the best way of deriving meaning ?  #  an action has  meaning  or  purpose  if you perceive it as an useful step towards reaching a goal.   #  what is the meaning of  ultimate meaning  ? this sounds like a pun, but is actually a serious question.  an action has  meaning  or  purpose  if you perceive it as an useful step towards reaching a goal.  a limited lifespan imposes a bound on the goals that you can reach and thus on the meaning of your actions.  but if you could live forever what difference would there be ? any goal you reach you still reach it in a finite time.  how could you have an  ultimate goal  ? as other people pointed out, if you lived forever as a human, or even as cyborg or as any physical system of finite size, your memory would still have a finite capacity, because you can only store so many bits of information in any finite region of space URL but even if you could somehow defy this physical limit, what would be the  ultimate meaning  of your continuous accumulation of memories ?
for those of you who do not know, it is common at least in the us for businesses, transit agencies, etc.  to give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.  it seems that medical responders even hospital staff, actually and other emergency services do more good for society than soldiers and that such discounts should be given to them.  as for the  they are not risking their lives for our country.   argument, police officers do that too, and for citizens rather than the country and its interests.  some might argue that soldiers do the us a disservice rather than help, but that is usually the fault of their leaders and therefore not relevant to the debate.  i am really hoping there is a good reason behind the status quo, but we will see.  it looks like there is even less reason behind it than i initially thought, actually.  my view is been changed.  URL in summary, i think that ems people are just as deserving of these discounts and that many more people contribute enough to be placed in the same category , but i now believe for the same reason that these discounts should not be offered at all.   #  give small discounts to military veterans to thank them for their service.   #  i challenge the idea that these are to  thank them for their service .   # i challenge the idea that these are to  thank them for their service .  in actuality, military discounts serve as an advertisement to draw a certain demographic to your business.  they are like coupons in a way, bringing in new customers and making them loyal by giving them 0 0 off, but still making you substantially more profit than if they would not come in at all.  part of the effect of this advertising is the exclusivity.  people would not clip the $0 coupons and come in if just anyone got $0 off.  if business owners similarly extended military discounts too far, it could cut into their ability to be effective.  on a personal level, though, i agree that  military discount  becoming  public service discount  would not be a bad idea.  it should be noted, however, that this would extend to even people like politicians, teachers, and government administrators  #  but members of the military go beyond the scope of cops and firefighters.   #  members of the us military voluntarily give up rights civilians take for granted and devote  years  of service to the country.  you are a firefighter or an emt only when you are on duty.  when you are off duty, you are a civilian.  when you are in the military, you are in the military.  it does not matter if you are off duty or not.  if you are on leave and suddenly your unit is being deployed, you might just have to cancel your plans, head back early, and ship on out to whereeveristan.  you do not have a choice in the matter.  you gave that up.  if a cop does not wanna be a cop anymore, he or she can just quit.  that is it.  if you do not wanna be in the military anymore, well too bad.  you signed the contract, and now you ca not even get yourself kicked out for being gay.  obviously civil servants as a whole should be respected.  but members of the military go beyond the scope of cops and firefighters.   #  i respect what you are saying about the contractual commitment to the job, especially as a veteran my self, and we all know you can go straight to prison for going awol.   #  i respect what you are saying about the contractual commitment to the job, especially as a veteran my self, and we all know you can go straight to prison for going awol.  something needs to be pointed out though.  do not think that  dereliction of duty  does not apply to cops and firefighters also.  yes, they can quit a little more simply through the proper channels, but are legally obligated to perform their jobs in many circumstances, just like members of the military.  an on duty cop witnessing a crime is accountable to the public to address it.  a cop will lose his pension, pay, be suspended, etc. , just like a member of the military for not showing up for duty.  you could say the same about most jobs, but in most jobs it is not considered criminal to neglect to perform a task.   #  if you are gonna do it for one, do it for the other.   #  contractual legalities are a bunch of semantics attempting to circumvent the real world value, risk, and obligation of the four jobs in question.  so you re enlisted after a first military tour for a guaranteed desk job in a clean, no risk environment where you have to form a really solid excuse to void your contract.  you might even have to pay back that re enlistment bonus.  : maybe you were in the line of fire for that first tour of duty, but i know i was not, like many others.  later in your career, as you continue to voluntarily obligate yourself, you will move further and further from danger.  on the other hand, a full time newbie traffic cop or veteran detective could get shot at any time for any reason by anyone, anywhere he goes.  the danger does not stop.  the climate is hot.  there is a valid justification for offering $0 off a cup of coffee in the early morning in either case.  if you are gonna do it for one, do it for the other.  do not bring up frivolous  details  about why cops have it easy and all that bullshit.  plenty of military officers have it  super  easy and might even be let go  if not  for their contracts.   #  you go home at the end of the day and can quit anytime you want.   #  military service is a far greater commitment than police work or other civilian jobs.  the big reason is that once you enlist, you absolutely cannot quit.  it is a commitment that looks you in for years, and often means deployment far from home in a dangerous place away from family.  if you regret it and want to quit and go home, too bad.  that is not true of being an emt.  you go home at the end of the day and can quit anytime you want.
within the last decade, there has been a huge push for taking mental disorders such as depression more seriously.  why has this push not touched on helping people who have lost contact with reality ?  i am not here to start a religious flame war if i am misunderstanding what is required to diagnose a mental illness, please let me know i am not a mental health expert !   by  religious fundamentalist , i am referring to someone whose personal religious beliefs are obsessive and interfere with one is ability to think rationally e. g.  someone being a creationist or belief in a need to  save people  .  from reading the diagnosis section of wikipedia, it seems that psychosis URL is first diagnosed by ruling out improper medication and delirium.  from there, various symptoms are analyzed to find the specific type of psychosis the patient has.  schizophrenia URL and delusional disorder URL are two obvious canidates with the latter matching fundamentalists very well unless one considers personal   messages from god   to be hallucinations, in which case schizophrenia is more applicable .   #  i am referring to someone whose personal religious beliefs are obsessive and interfere with one is ability to think rationally e. g.   #  someone being a creationist or belief in a need to  save people  .   # someone being a creationist or belief in a need to  save people  .  i am unclear why you think such actions and such thoughts are irrational ? to me, these are perfectly rational things and if you were to ask a religious fundamentalist, they would be able to rationalize their thoughts, choices, and actions.  as the other poster said, you are conflating being incorrect with being irrational.  and i do not see the reasoning behind why you are doing this.  sure, mental illness can lead to someone being  wrong , but so can a perfectly rational   logical process of thought as well.   #  if you were taught that the term for the color of the sky is  red , you would not be irrational to correct someone who said it was blue, just responding appropriately based on what you were taught.   #  being  wrong  is not the same as  unable to think rationally .  anti vaxxers, for instance, are not mentally ill, they are just wrong.  let is assume that religious fundamentalists are wrong for this argument.  given the environment they grow up in, their beliefs are perfectly rational.  they are taught that all phenomena are explainable through god.  if you grew up without an understanding of the scientific method, creationism seems far more plausible than evolution.  if you are taught that coincidences are proof of gods involvement, again, you see much proof for your view.  there is a large amount of confirmation bias on either side of the debate, whether it is atheists who turn a blind eye to the wonders of god, or ignorant theists who refuse to think logically.  if you were taught that the term for the color of the sky is  red , you would not be irrational to correct someone who said it was blue, just responding appropriately based on what you were taught.   #  this is not the same as being  wrong .   # someone being a creationist or belief in a need to  save people  .  this is not the same as being  wrong .  however, i do agree with that  given the environment they grow up in, their beliefs are perfectly rational , but i do not think that is what op is referring to either.  being a fundamentalist is taking a step beyond your average religious person into blatantly denying anything inconsistent with your world view regardless of any obvious logic.  although i do think that op may have confused fundamentalism with actual psychosis.  someone believing they receive messages from god would still be considered deluded, not fundamentalist.   #  it is not a matter of rationalization, it is a matter of education.   #  say you are in a drought and it starts to rain.  the atheist has been following the local weather reports, looks at the sky and says,  well, looks like science was right again !   the fundamentalist has been praying hard for rain, looks at the sky and says  wow, praying really works ! guess the priest was right !   it is not a matter of rationalization, it is a matter of education.  for most of history the greatest thinkers, rulers and inventors were religious and believed heavily in god.  i can drop some salt in water and say  water dissolves nacl  or i can say  that is just how god made the world .  if i knew nothing of atoms, i would accept the latter more easily.   #  if you theorize that praying makes it rain, you test by praying hard for rain, and you discover that it does rain, concluding and extrapolating that  praying works !    #  my point is that these were arguably very smart, non delusional people who, based on their education and observations, could rationalize the existence of god.  we are born knowing no more than they did.  if you were raised in a similar manner religious education with lots of confirmation bias, with not much exposure to alternative theories you might believe as fervently in religion as they did.  also, rational scientific thinking is based on making a theory, testing it, and then extrapolating your conclusions.  if you theorize that praying makes it rain, you test by praying hard for rain, and you discover that it does rain, concluding and extrapolating that  praying works !   is a reasonable, rational conclusion.
within the last decade, there has been a huge push for taking mental disorders such as depression more seriously.  why has this push not touched on helping people who have lost contact with reality ?  i am not here to start a religious flame war if i am misunderstanding what is required to diagnose a mental illness, please let me know i am not a mental health expert !   by  religious fundamentalist , i am referring to someone whose personal religious beliefs are obsessive and interfere with one is ability to think rationally e. g.  someone being a creationist or belief in a need to  save people  .  from reading the diagnosis section of wikipedia, it seems that psychosis URL is first diagnosed by ruling out improper medication and delirium.  from there, various symptoms are analyzed to find the specific type of psychosis the patient has.  schizophrenia URL and delusional disorder URL are two obvious canidates with the latter matching fundamentalists very well unless one considers personal   messages from god   to be hallucinations, in which case schizophrenia is more applicable .   #  i am referring to someone whose personal religious beliefs are obsessive and interfere with one is ability to think rationally e. g.   #  someone being a creationist or belief in a need to  save people  .   # someone being a creationist or belief in a need to  save people  .  to me, these are perfectly rational things and if you were to ask a religious fundamentalist, they would be able to rationalize their thoughts, choices, and actions.  the very definition was that these beliefs interfere with rational thinking.  how can you then call them rational ? there is no subjectivity in logic.   rationality  is a scientific concept, and if a certain belief is interfering with a persons inability to openly consider logical arguments that are based on empirical evidence, then this is by definition irrational.   #  if you are taught that coincidences are proof of gods involvement, again, you see much proof for your view.   #  being  wrong  is not the same as  unable to think rationally .  anti vaxxers, for instance, are not mentally ill, they are just wrong.  let is assume that religious fundamentalists are wrong for this argument.  given the environment they grow up in, their beliefs are perfectly rational.  they are taught that all phenomena are explainable through god.  if you grew up without an understanding of the scientific method, creationism seems far more plausible than evolution.  if you are taught that coincidences are proof of gods involvement, again, you see much proof for your view.  there is a large amount of confirmation bias on either side of the debate, whether it is atheists who turn a blind eye to the wonders of god, or ignorant theists who refuse to think logically.  if you were taught that the term for the color of the sky is  red , you would not be irrational to correct someone who said it was blue, just responding appropriately based on what you were taught.   #  someone believing they receive messages from god would still be considered deluded, not fundamentalist.   # someone being a creationist or belief in a need to  save people  .  this is not the same as being  wrong .  however, i do agree with that  given the environment they grow up in, their beliefs are perfectly rational , but i do not think that is what op is referring to either.  being a fundamentalist is taking a step beyond your average religious person into blatantly denying anything inconsistent with your world view regardless of any obvious logic.  although i do think that op may have confused fundamentalism with actual psychosis.  someone believing they receive messages from god would still be considered deluded, not fundamentalist.   #  for most of history the greatest thinkers, rulers and inventors were religious and believed heavily in god.   #  say you are in a drought and it starts to rain.  the atheist has been following the local weather reports, looks at the sky and says,  well, looks like science was right again !   the fundamentalist has been praying hard for rain, looks at the sky and says  wow, praying really works ! guess the priest was right !   it is not a matter of rationalization, it is a matter of education.  for most of history the greatest thinkers, rulers and inventors were religious and believed heavily in god.  i can drop some salt in water and say  water dissolves nacl  or i can say  that is just how god made the world .  if i knew nothing of atoms, i would accept the latter more easily.   #  if you theorize that praying makes it rain, you test by praying hard for rain, and you discover that it does rain, concluding and extrapolating that  praying works !    #  my point is that these were arguably very smart, non delusional people who, based on their education and observations, could rationalize the existence of god.  we are born knowing no more than they did.  if you were raised in a similar manner religious education with lots of confirmation bias, with not much exposure to alternative theories you might believe as fervently in religion as they did.  also, rational scientific thinking is based on making a theory, testing it, and then extrapolating your conclusions.  if you theorize that praying makes it rain, you test by praying hard for rain, and you discover that it does rain, concluding and extrapolating that  praying works !   is a reasonable, rational conclusion.
and we are the misguided teenage girl that goes for him, and thinks he can change.    his ship is a space muscle car.   look how fast/pimped my ride is    he is a criminal.  a smuggler no less.    total jerk   has a bounty on his head.  with the fucking space mafia.    gets into violent situations.  deals with them violently.    has a gun and has killed someone with it.  han shot first.    only wants to save someones life for money   womaniser   totally self involved   thinks hes got the best moves.  thinks hes the most handsome.     i love you  .   i know   #  his ship is a space muscle car.   #   look how fast/pimped my ride is  his ship was modified to meet certain professional standards.   #  look how fast/pimped my ride is  his ship was modified to meet certain professional standards.  his job legal or not requires a certain speed.  han solo is like y. t.  in snow crash: they have spend some extra cash to get a better vehicle.  if your job involves getting to places faster than anyone else, that money is well spent.  this is different from pimping your car to make it look better or be more powerful for the purpose of status.  a smuggler no less.  that he is.  does not make him a douchebag.  all things considered smuggling is sort of a harmless crime, especially under an oppressive regime like the empire.  he looks out for himself, but still cares about some others.  he has won chewbacca is loyalty to say the least and over time had several close friends and became a valuable asset to the rebellion.  with the fucking space mafia.  i do not see how this is a mark against him.  i am sure plenty of people have bounties on their head written out by the space mafia.  mafias are not well known for their reasonable problem resolution.  deals with them violently.  his ship is  the fastest ship in the universe  because he does not like getting into violent situations.  his line of work makes a certain amount of violence unavoidable, but he does not seem to go out of his way to deal with situations violently.  han shot first.  han did shoot first, but only in order to protect his own life.  shooting second would mean he would have died.  he is an independent business man and has bills to pay.  surgeons generally only save people is life for money.  mr.  solo is behavior around women is almost exemplary.  as soon as he thinks princess leia is involved with luke skywalker, he immediately backs off.  this is exactly how one should behave.  also saved chewbacca is live.  and multiple lives later on, at great risk to his personal safety.  thinks hes the most handsome.  he does.  he is.  it is not arrogance to have a good grasp on your ability.  she could see it and mr.  solo is good enough with people to anticipate this.  han solo may have started out as a doucebag and even this is debatable, since we do not know the circumstances that has led to his lifestyle choices and profession but not only does he have the ability to change, he actually changes.   #  the shocked look on his face when this reveals to not be the case is the sign of a man who has learnt the value of caring about others.   #  han solo is a space douchebag, but ultimately chooses to prioritise the greater good of his friends, allies and innocents over himself.  the characteristics you mention are actions/traits that we see in a new hope han shot first, showing off the falcon , or are things that have happened before the film bounty, criminal .  these are generally teased out, representing the positive and affirmative changes we witness han going through in the process of the trilogy.  the man who was once completely self involved and only in it for himself chooses to return to the death star to save luke from vader is ship, before becoming a general in the rebellion, fighting for his friends and for the destruction of a tyrannical regime.  the beauty of his character is the fact that his narcissistic arrogance does not completely go away.  he says  i know  rather than  i love you too  because that is han through and through.  total and utter removal of all han characteristics would be unrealistic.  instead we see a man change his views, intentions and actions, whilst still retaining that fundamental han nerfherder that many hate to love.  so yes, a key part of his character is a space douchebag.  but we are not  the misguided teenage girl that goes for him  that wrongly  thinks he can change .  he can change.  if you want further proof, see how his interactions with those he cares about most change.  new hope; he only cares about himself for the majority of the film, occasionally indulging in flirtation with leia because he thinks he can have his way with her.  by the final film, he opens up about his feelings for her, but when under the impression that she is in love with luke he calmly allows it, obviously hurting inside but willing for it to happen so that his two best friends be happy.  the shocked look on his face when this reveals to not be the case is the sign of a man who has learnt the value of caring about others.  han is a wonderfully written and acted character.  the space douchebag that we all know and love, and recognise in him the victory of honour, love and friendship.   #  we have not changed him at all, he just becomes a somewhat lovable douchebag instead of a totally irredeemable one.   #  still here mate.  some of us have to work, and cant be on reddit 0/0 eluxx, i guess in my mind i was thinking of a new hope han a bit more, but you are correct.  he does actually change in the end.  somewhat.  i mean, his amazing change that warms our hearts is really him just becoming a somewhat respectable human, though, right ? like actually caring about people and not putting himself first  all the  time see:douchebag its not like he becomes a good person or something, really.  he just becomes someone not totally self absorbed.  and presumably even that extends only to his circle of close friends.  but you concede that with all his changes,   a key part of his character is a space douchebag  .  the part i kinda just threw in there about us being the teenage girl is totally still valid then.  we have not changed him at all, he just becomes a somewhat lovable douchebag instead of a totally irredeemable one.  but a douchebag he remains.   #  all things considered smuggling is sort of a harmless crime, especially under an oppressive regime like the empire.   # true, ok.  does not make him a douchebag.  all things considered smuggling is sort of a harmless crime, especially under an oppressive regime like the empire.  trouble is we do not really know what he actually smuggles.  he has definitely done people before.  the nature of the job probably means he does not have much choice, and has probably smuggled everything.  this can be far from a harmless crime, especially for drugs, guns and slaves.  the kinds of things that need to be smuggled.  yeah, him learning to look out for his inner circle alone does not really convince me.  and when you have a partner you been doing this kind of work with, you get close.  they must have had a few close calls together at least.  actually, they are.  thats what lets them get as large as they do.  its random small time crims that are the dumb ones.  yeah my view on that has been changed.  its necessary for his work, and its impressive, so he can be proud and brag about that, i guess.  i am sure he could have taken it outside.  and he was reaching for that blaster long before a real life threat was made, rather than the assumption greedo wanted to capture him.  mr.  solo is behavior around women is almost exemplary.  no way.  nuh.  hes a scruffy looking nerf herder.  a bit.  not a whole lot though.  he is.  hes good, for sure.  but to be all that about yourself.  hes not  the best .  would be a dick move not to say it at least once.   #  at best, he may only take your ship.   # and he was reaching for that blaster long before a real life threat was made, rather than the assumption greedo wanted to capture him.  but, he did not shoot  until  greedo threatened him.  script: greedo: you can tell that to jabba.  at best, he may only take your ship.  han solo: over my dead body ! greedo: that is the idea.  i have been looking forward to this for a long time.  han solo: yeah, i will bet you have.  han blasts greedo, then heads out, tossing the bartender a coin han solo: sorry about the mess.
though it has been decided by the u. s.  supreme court that withholding medical treatment for individuals incarcerated by the justice system is in violation of the 0th amendment.  i do not believe this should extend to organ transplants.  with organ waiting lists as long as they are, i do not believe law abiding citizens should die so a convicted offender can prolong his or her life.  organ transplants can cost taxpayers up to a million dollars in medical costs along with post op medication and treatment.  the prison may allow for medication to ease the pain of organ failures so as to not inflict pain by withholding such drugs.  however i see no reason for an inmate, most of which are former drug and alcohol abusers to perhaps receive a new liver, free of charge.  this does not mean i am against the possibility of inmates donating their organs.   #  i do not believe law abiding citizens should die so a convicted offender can prolong his or her life.   #  the prisoners debt to society is his/her incarceration.   # the prisoners debt to society is his/her incarceration.  it is not death via deliberately withheld medical treatment.  additionally, the vast majority of convicts are only in jail for a few years.  withholding medical treatment can cause serious complications will extend into their post jail life.  unless you are for tribunals that evaluate a persons life prior to receiving an organ this view seems hypocritical.   #  inmates are no more or less human than the rest of the population.   #  the punishment of prison is supposed to be a loss of freedom.  nothing more, nothing less.  in reality, it is already a lot more than that.  the punishment should not be increased to  potential death due to organ failure.   inmates are no more or less human than the rest of the population.  preferably a choice that keeps the fact that the us punishes drug use/possession disproportionately hard.   #  the first one is yours, that prison is there to separate and resctrict freedom for the inmate.   # nothing more, nothing less.  actually, so far, i have seen three vision of what a prison should do.  the first one is yours, that prison is there to separate and resctrict freedom for the inmate.  this lead to mexican style prison not official name , in witch they have city inside the prison with people living there lives normally complete with elections, buying better houses and even a judicial system and a prison inside the prison ! then you have the old testament style prison idem , in witch the goal of the prison is though to be to punish people, the prisons in the usa please correct me if i am wrong, i would love to be wrong about this : .  in it you have story of people evading from prison to get basic healthcare done like going to the dentist after three week of pain ! .  and finally you have the scandinavian style prison where the goal of the prison is seen as  reeducating  the inmate until they are again deemed  fit to the society .  in it you have story like mass murderer complaining of  only  having a ps0 instead of a ps0 to play with.  personally i am a fan of the 0rd type but i will admit that each type has its flaw and each correspond of a different worldview now back to the point, you have to recognise that your point make sense under old testament style prison, but not under mexican prisons and less under the scandinavian one if you are gonna spend money on getting someone to be productive again you want him/her to live linger so you get more for your work but it start being an economical decision  #  it is a decision based on simple medical facts: organ recipients need to follow certain safety precautions and take anti rejection drugs every single day for the rest of their lifes to avoid rejection.   #  you are absolutely right, although i think it must be stressed that the issue is not one of morals.  any alcoholic no matter how law abiding will have to stay abstinent for at least 0 month before even being considered for listing, just as any other form of drug abuse will require a 0 month period of abstinence.  and any relapse if noticed by your doctors will get you kicked of that waiting list.  this is not because doctors consider alcoholism or other kinds of substance abuse somehow reprehensible.  it is a decision based on simple medical facts: organ recipients need to follow certain safety precautions and take anti rejection drugs every single day for the rest of their lifes to avoid rejection.  compliance therefore is not a matter of politeness towards your doctor but a matter of life and death.  nobody can predict the future and even the most disciplined and reasonable people fail, but people with a history of drug abuse who ca not manage to stay sober/clean for 0 month prior to transplant are even less likely to do so later.  and those anti rejection drugs are often ripe with serious side effects, so even someone in their right mind and fully aware of the consequences will at times be tempted to skip them.  so when people are denied a transplant based on active drug abuse this does not happen because they do not  deserve  one but because they wo not  benefit  from it a new organ wo not do them any good without the ability to prevent rejection.  it does not matter if they are reckless, ignorant, irresponsible or ca not take those meds for good reasons.  it does not matter if they are law abiding citizens with an alcohol addiction or serial killers on crack either they take those drugs every single day at the same time or their immune system will destroy the new organ and leave them worse off than before transplant.   #  while they are in jail, we the government provide for them.   #  essentially, what you are saying is that we should let inmates die.  when someone does something to get in jail durgs, theft, whatever , their punishment is to serve time in jail.  while they are in jail, we the government provide for them.  we give them food, water, and healthcare.  we provide for them because they ca not get stuff for themselves while in jail.  there is no other way that they can survive.  if we deny someone an organ, we are condemning them to death.  simple as that.
though it has been decided by the u. s.  supreme court that withholding medical treatment for individuals incarcerated by the justice system is in violation of the 0th amendment.  i do not believe this should extend to organ transplants.  with organ waiting lists as long as they are, i do not believe law abiding citizens should die so a convicted offender can prolong his or her life.  organ transplants can cost taxpayers up to a million dollars in medical costs along with post op medication and treatment.  the prison may allow for medication to ease the pain of organ failures so as to not inflict pain by withholding such drugs.  however i see no reason for an inmate, most of which are former drug and alcohol abusers to perhaps receive a new liver, free of charge.  this does not mean i am against the possibility of inmates donating their organs.   #  however i see no reason for an inmate, most of which are former drug and alcohol abusers to perhaps receive a new liver, free of charge.   #  unless you are for tribunals that evaluate a persons life prior to receiving an organ this view seems hypocritical.   # the prisoners debt to society is his/her incarceration.  it is not death via deliberately withheld medical treatment.  additionally, the vast majority of convicts are only in jail for a few years.  withholding medical treatment can cause serious complications will extend into their post jail life.  unless you are for tribunals that evaluate a persons life prior to receiving an organ this view seems hypocritical.   #  in reality, it is already a lot more than that.   #  the punishment of prison is supposed to be a loss of freedom.  nothing more, nothing less.  in reality, it is already a lot more than that.  the punishment should not be increased to  potential death due to organ failure.   inmates are no more or less human than the rest of the population.  preferably a choice that keeps the fact that the us punishes drug use/possession disproportionately hard.   #  in it you have story of people evading from prison to get basic healthcare done like going to the dentist after three week of pain !  # nothing more, nothing less.  actually, so far, i have seen three vision of what a prison should do.  the first one is yours, that prison is there to separate and resctrict freedom for the inmate.  this lead to mexican style prison not official name , in witch they have city inside the prison with people living there lives normally complete with elections, buying better houses and even a judicial system and a prison inside the prison ! then you have the old testament style prison idem , in witch the goal of the prison is though to be to punish people, the prisons in the usa please correct me if i am wrong, i would love to be wrong about this : .  in it you have story of people evading from prison to get basic healthcare done like going to the dentist after three week of pain ! .  and finally you have the scandinavian style prison where the goal of the prison is seen as  reeducating  the inmate until they are again deemed  fit to the society .  in it you have story like mass murderer complaining of  only  having a ps0 instead of a ps0 to play with.  personally i am a fan of the 0rd type but i will admit that each type has its flaw and each correspond of a different worldview now back to the point, you have to recognise that your point make sense under old testament style prison, but not under mexican prisons and less under the scandinavian one if you are gonna spend money on getting someone to be productive again you want him/her to live linger so you get more for your work but it start being an economical decision  #  and any relapse if noticed by your doctors will get you kicked of that waiting list.   #  you are absolutely right, although i think it must be stressed that the issue is not one of morals.  any alcoholic no matter how law abiding will have to stay abstinent for at least 0 month before even being considered for listing, just as any other form of drug abuse will require a 0 month period of abstinence.  and any relapse if noticed by your doctors will get you kicked of that waiting list.  this is not because doctors consider alcoholism or other kinds of substance abuse somehow reprehensible.  it is a decision based on simple medical facts: organ recipients need to follow certain safety precautions and take anti rejection drugs every single day for the rest of their lifes to avoid rejection.  compliance therefore is not a matter of politeness towards your doctor but a matter of life and death.  nobody can predict the future and even the most disciplined and reasonable people fail, but people with a history of drug abuse who ca not manage to stay sober/clean for 0 month prior to transplant are even less likely to do so later.  and those anti rejection drugs are often ripe with serious side effects, so even someone in their right mind and fully aware of the consequences will at times be tempted to skip them.  so when people are denied a transplant based on active drug abuse this does not happen because they do not  deserve  one but because they wo not  benefit  from it a new organ wo not do them any good without the ability to prevent rejection.  it does not matter if they are reckless, ignorant, irresponsible or ca not take those meds for good reasons.  it does not matter if they are law abiding citizens with an alcohol addiction or serial killers on crack either they take those drugs every single day at the same time or their immune system will destroy the new organ and leave them worse off than before transplant.   #  when someone does something to get in jail durgs, theft, whatever , their punishment is to serve time in jail.   #  essentially, what you are saying is that we should let inmates die.  when someone does something to get in jail durgs, theft, whatever , their punishment is to serve time in jail.  while they are in jail, we the government provide for them.  we give them food, water, and healthcare.  we provide for them because they ca not get stuff for themselves while in jail.  there is no other way that they can survive.  if we deny someone an organ, we are condemning them to death.  simple as that.
though it has been decided by the u. s.  supreme court that withholding medical treatment for individuals incarcerated by the justice system is in violation of the 0th amendment.  i do not believe this should extend to organ transplants.  with organ waiting lists as long as they are, i do not believe law abiding citizens should die so a convicted offender can prolong his or her life.  organ transplants can cost taxpayers up to a million dollars in medical costs along with post op medication and treatment.  the prison may allow for medication to ease the pain of organ failures so as to not inflict pain by withholding such drugs.  however i see no reason for an inmate, most of which are former drug and alcohol abusers to perhaps receive a new liver, free of charge.  this does not mean i am against the possibility of inmates donating their organs.   #  however i see no reason for an inmate, most of which are former drug and alcohol abusers to perhaps receive a new liver, free of charge.   #  so if he pays it is ok ?  # so if he pays it is ok ? it is only the poor that should rot and die ? if the inmate is not a drug and alcohol abuser the restriction would remain ? you also automatically presume people outside of jail are  good  people that deserve more than those that got caught.  i am not sure i agree that going to prison makes you automatically inferior.  depends on the crime and your background, and this is also considered in organ transplants.   #  in reality, it is already a lot more than that.   #  the punishment of prison is supposed to be a loss of freedom.  nothing more, nothing less.  in reality, it is already a lot more than that.  the punishment should not be increased to  potential death due to organ failure.   inmates are no more or less human than the rest of the population.  preferably a choice that keeps the fact that the us punishes drug use/possession disproportionately hard.   #  in it you have story like mass murderer complaining of  only  having a ps0 instead of a ps0 to play with.   # nothing more, nothing less.  actually, so far, i have seen three vision of what a prison should do.  the first one is yours, that prison is there to separate and resctrict freedom for the inmate.  this lead to mexican style prison not official name , in witch they have city inside the prison with people living there lives normally complete with elections, buying better houses and even a judicial system and a prison inside the prison ! then you have the old testament style prison idem , in witch the goal of the prison is though to be to punish people, the prisons in the usa please correct me if i am wrong, i would love to be wrong about this : .  in it you have story of people evading from prison to get basic healthcare done like going to the dentist after three week of pain ! .  and finally you have the scandinavian style prison where the goal of the prison is seen as  reeducating  the inmate until they are again deemed  fit to the society .  in it you have story like mass murderer complaining of  only  having a ps0 instead of a ps0 to play with.  personally i am a fan of the 0rd type but i will admit that each type has its flaw and each correspond of a different worldview now back to the point, you have to recognise that your point make sense under old testament style prison, but not under mexican prisons and less under the scandinavian one if you are gonna spend money on getting someone to be productive again you want him/her to live linger so you get more for your work but it start being an economical decision  #  you are absolutely right, although i think it must be stressed that the issue is not one of morals.   #  you are absolutely right, although i think it must be stressed that the issue is not one of morals.  any alcoholic no matter how law abiding will have to stay abstinent for at least 0 month before even being considered for listing, just as any other form of drug abuse will require a 0 month period of abstinence.  and any relapse if noticed by your doctors will get you kicked of that waiting list.  this is not because doctors consider alcoholism or other kinds of substance abuse somehow reprehensible.  it is a decision based on simple medical facts: organ recipients need to follow certain safety precautions and take anti rejection drugs every single day for the rest of their lifes to avoid rejection.  compliance therefore is not a matter of politeness towards your doctor but a matter of life and death.  nobody can predict the future and even the most disciplined and reasonable people fail, but people with a history of drug abuse who ca not manage to stay sober/clean for 0 month prior to transplant are even less likely to do so later.  and those anti rejection drugs are often ripe with serious side effects, so even someone in their right mind and fully aware of the consequences will at times be tempted to skip them.  so when people are denied a transplant based on active drug abuse this does not happen because they do not  deserve  one but because they wo not  benefit  from it a new organ wo not do them any good without the ability to prevent rejection.  it does not matter if they are reckless, ignorant, irresponsible or ca not take those meds for good reasons.  it does not matter if they are law abiding citizens with an alcohol addiction or serial killers on crack either they take those drugs every single day at the same time or their immune system will destroy the new organ and leave them worse off than before transplant.   #  it is not death via deliberately withheld medical treatment.   # the prisoners debt to society is his/her incarceration.  it is not death via deliberately withheld medical treatment.  additionally, the vast majority of convicts are only in jail for a few years.  withholding medical treatment can cause serious complications will extend into their post jail life.  unless you are for tribunals that evaluate a persons life prior to receiving an organ this view seems hypocritical.
let me preface this by stating: i am 0 and have never had surgery.  i get sick maybe once a year, and i go to the doctor maybe once every other year if and when i get a mean bacterial infection.  in other words i am a rare sight at the doctor is office.  i have my daily aches and pains, i have periodic eczema from stress, i have back pain and all the other joyful pains associated with aging.  i feel like i am a pretty average guy with regards to health issues.  yet at the same time, i see an almost never ending stream of friends and family members going in for some type of surgery or another.  some are under the knife more often than others.  i am talking about otherwise healthy people no major diagnosed illness, no cancer, no ms, nothing except  going in for exploratory surgery for my ear pain  or  getting ready for surgery on my knee  or  having surgery for my deviated septum.   i will admit that most of those come from a specific handful of people from my extended family, and they represent a specific demographic.  but it really, truly baffles me.  going to the hospital is practically a daily part of these people is lives.  they do not have life threatening illnesses.  they are not terminally ill.  this has been going on for as long as i have known them on facebook which is to say, years.  am i missing something ? is this some kind of cultural phenomenon that i am not understanding ? am i supposed to go to the hospital to get upper back surgery when i sleep in an awkward position ? am i supposed to go find a surgical response to every fucking pain and inconvenience that i experience on a daily basis ? i just do not get it.   #  this has been going on for as long as i have known them on facebook which is to say, years.   #  what do you really know about people on facebook ?  # what do you really know about people on facebook ? some folks are unlucky, and their bodies start falling apart on them early in life.  you say this as if these ca not be serious problems.  a deviated septum can lead to life long discomfort, including bleeding from the nose ! URL surgery is the only way to permanently fix this.  knees are also a serious issue.  the cartilage in your knee does not heal if it is torn, it is torn, if it is gone, it is gone.  maybe they have a meniscus tear URL i have seen firsthand what bad knees do a person is quality of life, and it is terrible.  and ear pain is dangerous.  there are many reasons for it, and it can be crippling.  what if there is an infection there ? what if something crawled in there and  died  ? is it really better to live with pain  so close to your brain  rather than use the resources available to you to remedy it ?  #  i think there are a number of medical issues that you can either live permanently with or have a minor surgery to correct and never have that medical issue again.   #  sometimes surgery is a solution to a minor problem that would exist indefinitely otherwise.  as an example, i have torn the acl and mcl in my left knee.  i am not a professional athlete or a weekend athlete, i ride a bicycle around the city to get to and from school and i obviously walk.  i had a minor surgery to repair my torn mcl because without that surgery i would not be able to bend my knee or walk very well.  i did not have surgery to repair my acl as i am not an athlete and having a weakened acl is something that i can live with having for the time being.  but, the downside is that while i am healthy and can walk, run and ride a bicycle my knee does buckle if i move in a certain manner.  i could very well have a surgery to fix my acl tomorrow or in 0 years from now but until i have this minor surgery my knee will always have this small issue with it and the minor solution to a permanent problem is a small surgery.  i think there are a number of medical issues that you can either live permanently with or have a minor surgery to correct and never have that medical issue again.   #  arthroscopy for a sports injury happens amongst active people. people in there 0s and 0s tend to be that way.   #  and descriptions of procedures/surgeries ? having a doc irrigate your nasal passages with a syringe could be considered a procedure/surgery.  as could a colonoscopy or an arthroscopy for a sports injury.  to be fair, exploratory surgery surgery for ear sounds like a sham. probably getting a nose job or something.  arthroscopy for a sports injury happens amongst active people. people in there 0s and 0s tend to be that way.  deviated septum ? s/he was born with that and just chose this year to get it fixed due to whatever reasons.   #  the real question should be  is the surgery sufficiently warranted ?    #  really though, you ca not just go off of the frequency of the surgery.  the real question should be  is the surgery sufficiently warranted ?   you have to ask that question for each specific surgery in particular.  then you have to make an assessment of their condition, and a cost/benefit/health analysis of some kind.  you say these are minor issues that do not require surgery, but why do you not trust the decision of the doctors ? what about their assessment for each specific condition do you believe to be flawed ?  #  this is very different than my boss, who had both breasts removed and reconstructed this year at 0 years old, which is very different from my aunt, who had an aortic valve replacement aka open heart surgery this year.   #  no, i do not believe that is common.  but what is appropriate for one person is not necessarily appropriate for another.  for instance, there are children who need dozens of surgeries in their first years of life to fix deformities.  is it common for children to need a dozen surgeries ? no.  is it appropriate for a child with a deformity to have a dozen surgeries ? i would argue yes, as long as the parents and the doctor consult on the treatment schedule and the quality of life improvement.  everyone gets a different body.  they all do not function the same.  it is the luck of the draw.  also, the term  surgery  is potentially misleading.  for instance, this year, i considered but ultimately decided not to have a surgery on my wrist to remove a ganglion cyst.  this is very different than my boss, who had both breasts removed and reconstructed this year at 0 years old, which is very different from my aunt, who had an aortic valve replacement aka open heart surgery this year.  my aunt is surgery was essential.  my boss is surgery was preventative and cosmetic.  my surgery was or would have been for convenience.  doctors agreed to all three of these procedures.  they all improve quality of life, to some degree.  the patient and the doctor have to agree that the effort of surgery is worth the improvement to the patient is life.
let me preface this by stating: i am 0 and have never had surgery.  i get sick maybe once a year, and i go to the doctor maybe once every other year if and when i get a mean bacterial infection.  in other words i am a rare sight at the doctor is office.  i have my daily aches and pains, i have periodic eczema from stress, i have back pain and all the other joyful pains associated with aging.  i feel like i am a pretty average guy with regards to health issues.  yet at the same time, i see an almost never ending stream of friends and family members going in for some type of surgery or another.  some are under the knife more often than others.  i am talking about otherwise healthy people no major diagnosed illness, no cancer, no ms, nothing except  going in for exploratory surgery for my ear pain  or  getting ready for surgery on my knee  or  having surgery for my deviated septum.   i will admit that most of those come from a specific handful of people from my extended family, and they represent a specific demographic.  but it really, truly baffles me.  going to the hospital is practically a daily part of these people is lives.  they do not have life threatening illnesses.  they are not terminally ill.  this has been going on for as long as i have known them on facebook which is to say, years.  am i missing something ? is this some kind of cultural phenomenon that i am not understanding ? am i supposed to go to the hospital to get upper back surgery when i sleep in an awkward position ? am i supposed to go find a surgical response to every fucking pain and inconvenience that i experience on a daily basis ? i just do not get it.   #   going in for exploratory surgery for my ear pain  or  getting ready for surgery on my knee  or  having surgery for my deviated septum.    #  you say this as if these ca not be serious problems.   # what do you really know about people on facebook ? some folks are unlucky, and their bodies start falling apart on them early in life.  you say this as if these ca not be serious problems.  a deviated septum can lead to life long discomfort, including bleeding from the nose ! URL surgery is the only way to permanently fix this.  knees are also a serious issue.  the cartilage in your knee does not heal if it is torn, it is torn, if it is gone, it is gone.  maybe they have a meniscus tear URL i have seen firsthand what bad knees do a person is quality of life, and it is terrible.  and ear pain is dangerous.  there are many reasons for it, and it can be crippling.  what if there is an infection there ? what if something crawled in there and  died  ? is it really better to live with pain  so close to your brain  rather than use the resources available to you to remedy it ?  #  i think there are a number of medical issues that you can either live permanently with or have a minor surgery to correct and never have that medical issue again.   #  sometimes surgery is a solution to a minor problem that would exist indefinitely otherwise.  as an example, i have torn the acl and mcl in my left knee.  i am not a professional athlete or a weekend athlete, i ride a bicycle around the city to get to and from school and i obviously walk.  i had a minor surgery to repair my torn mcl because without that surgery i would not be able to bend my knee or walk very well.  i did not have surgery to repair my acl as i am not an athlete and having a weakened acl is something that i can live with having for the time being.  but, the downside is that while i am healthy and can walk, run and ride a bicycle my knee does buckle if i move in a certain manner.  i could very well have a surgery to fix my acl tomorrow or in 0 years from now but until i have this minor surgery my knee will always have this small issue with it and the minor solution to a permanent problem is a small surgery.  i think there are a number of medical issues that you can either live permanently with or have a minor surgery to correct and never have that medical issue again.   #  arthroscopy for a sports injury happens amongst active people. people in there 0s and 0s tend to be that way.   #  and descriptions of procedures/surgeries ? having a doc irrigate your nasal passages with a syringe could be considered a procedure/surgery.  as could a colonoscopy or an arthroscopy for a sports injury.  to be fair, exploratory surgery surgery for ear sounds like a sham. probably getting a nose job or something.  arthroscopy for a sports injury happens amongst active people. people in there 0s and 0s tend to be that way.  deviated septum ? s/he was born with that and just chose this year to get it fixed due to whatever reasons.   #  really though, you ca not just go off of the frequency of the surgery.   #  really though, you ca not just go off of the frequency of the surgery.  the real question should be  is the surgery sufficiently warranted ?   you have to ask that question for each specific surgery in particular.  then you have to make an assessment of their condition, and a cost/benefit/health analysis of some kind.  you say these are minor issues that do not require surgery, but why do you not trust the decision of the doctors ? what about their assessment for each specific condition do you believe to be flawed ?  #  this is very different than my boss, who had both breasts removed and reconstructed this year at 0 years old, which is very different from my aunt, who had an aortic valve replacement aka open heart surgery this year.   #  no, i do not believe that is common.  but what is appropriate for one person is not necessarily appropriate for another.  for instance, there are children who need dozens of surgeries in their first years of life to fix deformities.  is it common for children to need a dozen surgeries ? no.  is it appropriate for a child with a deformity to have a dozen surgeries ? i would argue yes, as long as the parents and the doctor consult on the treatment schedule and the quality of life improvement.  everyone gets a different body.  they all do not function the same.  it is the luck of the draw.  also, the term  surgery  is potentially misleading.  for instance, this year, i considered but ultimately decided not to have a surgery on my wrist to remove a ganglion cyst.  this is very different than my boss, who had both breasts removed and reconstructed this year at 0 years old, which is very different from my aunt, who had an aortic valve replacement aka open heart surgery this year.  my aunt is surgery was essential.  my boss is surgery was preventative and cosmetic.  my surgery was or would have been for convenience.  doctors agreed to all three of these procedures.  they all improve quality of life, to some degree.  the patient and the doctor have to agree that the effort of surgery is worth the improvement to the patient is life.
bill gade presents the argument better than i do so i will just quote him.  it turns out that there is a final category.  it is known as unemployment.  as agriculture, manufacturing, and services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line.  at some point, man is artificial economic system will necessarily collapse.  when that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so.  the cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of man.  the current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle.  it is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species.  there is also a youtube video to go with this opinion.  URL i do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, i just have not been able to beat it myself.  i do disagree with gade a little bit.  i do not think it would kill everybody, but the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  i probably believe this because i listen to alex jones too much.   #  when that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so.   #  the cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of man.   # why is the end of our current economic paradigm not followed by a new one ? the reason that the end of our current economic paradigm wo not be followed by a new one is because there is nothing for us to do after the machines are doing all of the service jobs we are currently losing.  machines do not have money either so they wo not bother buying services from us.  cryptocurrency may help a little because it would allow servers to be able to buy and sell things, but once they can administrate their own systems what is the use of humans.  the cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of man.  why would it be the end of man ? what would be stopping them is the people already in the commutes they would try to go to.  if the urban folk get rid of the rural folk the urban folk will just die due to their lack of skills.  they could not just survive together because the ecosystem will not be able to sustain the amount of people.  the rural folk can survive without the urban folk but their standard of living will plummet due to lack of infrastructure.   #  people are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.   #  society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  we are not dependent on our technology to survive.  there is lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  i don;t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society maybe a bit at first but once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society.  people are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.   #  there would be no  i  in our knowledge.   #  to add to /u/montiburns i think we will not be in preindustrial agricultural society because we will have technology to record all our knowledge into a storage unit.  we will be in a post industrial society to rebuild society not with capitalism as its base structure but maybe true communism through the internet or other similar innovation, maybe block chain system for decentralized ownership there would not be ownership at all .  in this society there would be a no sense of ownership.  it will be similar to the people on mars from the book, the stranger in a strange land.  there would be no  i  in our knowledge.  we would have to develop a new language to communicate to never go back into behaving with the ego.   #  so because there is no stock market or international trade, everyone will stop buying food ?  #  i watched the video, and i understand it.  bill gade is theory is not rigorous.  i agree that the economy will probably collapse some time over the next few decades from a combination of ecological pressure and automation.  but just use your common sense.  unemployment is at 0 and you are a senior politician/a ceo with influence on the government do you a.  let 0 of people  die  from starvation and exposure, or do you b.  redistribute the money being made by the active 0 to take care of them via mechanisms like regulatory limits on automation or a guaranteed basic income ? the economic collapse is plausible, but gade is arguments are weak, not to mention contradictory, and his  if.  then  statements do not even follow a lot of the time  if the global economic system collapses, then the agricultural sector will have no further incentive to grow crops  whut lol.  so because there is no stock market or international trade, everyone will stop buying food ? there are many faulty connections like this.  the economic collapse wo not lead to the death of humanity, or even the end of civilization.  please throw that video away, and if you still think that the collapse will end humanity after discarding gade is arguments then come back and talk about it.   #  even with all the guns in the world, its hard to imagine a powerful 0 not being afraid of x million desperate and depending on your country, armed people.   #  if everyone in power was a sociopath/social darwinist, we might be in more trouble.  i do not know enough about economics to know how this would play out in the future, but right now rich/powerful people need lots of ordinary people with disposable income to buy their product, and this might still be the case if/when there is an automation collapse.  so i would imagine corporations having an incentive to keep people at least alive, if not well off enough to spend.  there is also the fact that hunger and privation breed revolt.  even with all the guns in the world, its hard to imagine a powerful 0 not being afraid of x million desperate and depending on your country, armed people.  with possibly benevolence, and two different types of self preservation driving leaders its hard to imagine the automation dispossessed being completely ignored.
bill gade presents the argument better than i do so i will just quote him.  it turns out that there is a final category.  it is known as unemployment.  as agriculture, manufacturing, and services become more efficient in the coming months, workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line.  at some point, man is artificial economic system will necessarily collapse.  when that happens, the corporations which produce and deliver food will no longer have an incentive to do so.  the cities will suffer great hunger and it will be the end of man.  the current jobless situation you read about in the news is not an ordinary part of the business cycle.  it is the final stretch of the linear trend that began with the birth of our species.  there is also a youtube video to go with this opinion.  URL i do realize that this is a very unhealthy idea to have whether or not that the idea is true or not, i just have not been able to beat it myself.  i do disagree with gade a little bit.  i do not think it would kill everybody, but the some few people that still know how to hunt and gather would probably survive as well people who were rich enough to have access to a lot of resources to start out with before the economy crashes.  i probably believe this because i listen to alex jones too much.   #  workers will have nowhere to go but to the unemployment line.   #  agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.   #  before i respond, i would suggest trying /r/asksocialscience for an actual academic level answer.  almost everything regarding large scale financial collapses are /r/badeconomics territory and routinely do show up there .  agriculture, manufacturing, and services have been getting better literally for milennia.  there is no reason in particular for it to be  crossing the line  soon, especially within months.  this is just an assertion, not even a theoretical argument provided to back it up.  unemployment is relatively low.  when you say economic collapse, what precisely do you mean ? market failures ? currency issues ? a recession or depression ? bottom line is that people have predicted economic collapses literally since economies began.  there is no reason in particular to believe one is impending.  all of this is /r/conspiratard mixed with /r/badeconomics.   #  lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.   #  society might collapse, lots of people may starve/die in struggle for survival, but extinction of a whole species seems highly unlikely.  we are not dependent on our technology to survive.  there is lots of open country and unspoiled/airable farmland.  lots of people today live subsistence off the grid throughout the world.  i don;t think it would devolve into a pure hunter gatherer society maybe a bit at first but once the dust settles it would probably stabilize at a preindustrial agricultural society.  people are smart, printed books still exist, where the average group of city slickers could get enough knowledge to plant some crops and survive off the land.   #  to add to /u/montiburns i think we will not be in preindustrial agricultural society because we will have technology to record all our knowledge into a storage unit.   #  to add to /u/montiburns i think we will not be in preindustrial agricultural society because we will have technology to record all our knowledge into a storage unit.  we will be in a post industrial society to rebuild society not with capitalism as its base structure but maybe true communism through the internet or other similar innovation, maybe block chain system for decentralized ownership there would not be ownership at all .  in this society there would be a no sense of ownership.  it will be similar to the people on mars from the book, the stranger in a strange land.  there would be no  i  in our knowledge.  we would have to develop a new language to communicate to never go back into behaving with the ego.   #  the economic collapse wo not lead to the death of humanity, or even the end of civilization.   #  i watched the video, and i understand it.  bill gade is theory is not rigorous.  i agree that the economy will probably collapse some time over the next few decades from a combination of ecological pressure and automation.  but just use your common sense.  unemployment is at 0 and you are a senior politician/a ceo with influence on the government do you a.  let 0 of people  die  from starvation and exposure, or do you b.  redistribute the money being made by the active 0 to take care of them via mechanisms like regulatory limits on automation or a guaranteed basic income ? the economic collapse is plausible, but gade is arguments are weak, not to mention contradictory, and his  if.  then  statements do not even follow a lot of the time  if the global economic system collapses, then the agricultural sector will have no further incentive to grow crops  whut lol.  so because there is no stock market or international trade, everyone will stop buying food ? there are many faulty connections like this.  the economic collapse wo not lead to the death of humanity, or even the end of civilization.  please throw that video away, and if you still think that the collapse will end humanity after discarding gade is arguments then come back and talk about it.   #  even with all the guns in the world, its hard to imagine a powerful 0 not being afraid of x million desperate and depending on your country, armed people.   #  if everyone in power was a sociopath/social darwinist, we might be in more trouble.  i do not know enough about economics to know how this would play out in the future, but right now rich/powerful people need lots of ordinary people with disposable income to buy their product, and this might still be the case if/when there is an automation collapse.  so i would imagine corporations having an incentive to keep people at least alive, if not well off enough to spend.  there is also the fact that hunger and privation breed revolt.  even with all the guns in the world, its hard to imagine a powerful 0 not being afraid of x million desperate and depending on your country, armed people.  with possibly benevolence, and two different types of self preservation driving leaders its hard to imagine the automation dispossessed being completely ignored.
my view is not founded in legal rationale for banning such commercials, but i believe, as a matter of good taste, tv commercials should not belligerently accost their viewers as to the presence or absence of meats.  specifically, arby is series of   we have the meats !    commercials example URL for those unfamiliar, in this series of commercials, a deep voiced man shouts at the audience through the duration of the commercial, getting louder as he goes, ending with arby is current slogan of,  we have the meats !   it is loud; it is obnoxious; one gets the impression that the belligerent shouter is next move would be to slam the viewer is head into a table of meats, forcing them to eat whether they want to or not.  for vegans and vegetarians, there may be a further degree of moral offense at the suggestion they be required to consume meats.  i think businesses like arby is should refrain from putting up commercials like this because:   they have an aggressive tone, suggestive of imminent physical conflict, which can be stressful to some viewers.    they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.    they belittle the sensibilities of vegans and vegetarians who may happen to be watching.    business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  i do not watch much tv these days, but these are probably some of the most obnoxious commercials i can recall seeing for a long time.   #  they have an aggressive tone, suggestive of imminent physical conflict, which can be stressful to some viewers.   #  well, maybe they do, but i do not really think that that is an argument.   #  i do not really know the commercials, as i am not a american, but i get the idea of them by watching your linked example.  well, maybe they do, but i do not really think that that is an argument.  especially when you consider the rest of the programm.  someone is shot in a series and thats okay, but a loud voice in a commercial is too much ? thats does not sound logical  they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.  commercials being too loud is something some laws consider.  as in  you ca not have you ads louder than the rest of the programm , i do not know how advanced these laws are but that would only need a small adjustment to the volume anyway.  being either of these is your choice.  as meat is nothing the majority of people would consider would consider  gross , there is really no reason for anybody to forbid it.  also, arbys is basicly making a living off of selling meat, they have no interesst in doing this as vegetarians are not likely to be attracted by these ads  business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  thats not how ads work.  off course, when you pay good money for the spot on tv, you make sure that your product looks good on it.  but in the end, its about getting your name known, your brand regocnized etc.   #  if you find a deep voice automatically threatening then there are some very serious concerns that need to be dealt with regardless of what advertisers are doing.   #  so vegetarians are offended that other people eat meat or that some people sell meat ? even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? you might find it obnoxious but no one believes that a large man is going to bust through their tv set to fight them.  a deep, declarative statement is not necessarily even aggressive.  if you find a deep voice automatically threatening then there are some very serious concerns that need to be dealt with regardless of what advertisers are doing.  i mean, society as a whole should not be in the business of enabling people to avoid dealing with serious and treatable problems.  are you sure that potential customers are building negative associations ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? what if the average person views the voice as  passionate  instead of  threatening  ? what if the target audience of the commercial is not vegan/vegetarian but rather people who want the meats ? if the commercials were costing them customers the company would not persist in using those commercials.  moreover even those commercials that are hard to watch URL can be successful commercials.   #  i am not a vegetarian or vegan myself, but i have some friends who are, and at least the one i asked did find the arby is commercials more obnoxious than, say, jack in the box is or mcdonald is commercials.   # even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? i am not a vegetarian or vegan myself, but i have some friends who are, and at least the one i asked did find the arby is commercials more obnoxious than, say, jack in the box is or mcdonald is commercials.  what about a deep, declarative,  loud  statement, increasing in volume ? the speakers in these commercials is shouting at the viewer, not merely declaring the wonders of arby is sandwiches in a deep voice.  true, but people have emotional reactions to what they see and hear even if it is merely on tv, in a movie, or in a book they have read.  some people may react to loud, aggressive commercials with some amount of stress.  and for what gain ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? well, i suppose i would have been a potential customer, yet arby is commercials have dissuaded me.  i ca not speak for the average person is reaction.  as an omnivore, i was dissuaded.  maybe, but to me, angry shouting is not  passionate,  or at least not the positive kind.  i ca not speak for how the average person interprets it.  it is a little gross, but at the same time, it is funny, which makes the overall reaction positive to that hardees commercial.   #  i never felt that the voice in that commercial was angry.   #  the commercial was a miss for you.  i am sorry.  marketers do not have the ability to only show you the commercials you like the most, yet.  just because you have a negative view of the commercial does not mean that a majority of people or just the target audience has a negative reaction.  what if, and bear with me here, pulling the commercial is a bad move because your reaction was atypical ? i never felt that the voice in that commercial was angry.  it struck me as the kind of voice used while exercising or playing sports more than anger.  we all decode things differently, but i honestly do not get where anger reading came from there.  people who react to aggressive commercials with stress have a serious problem, because if they are being seriously stressed by commercials then they would be seriously stressed by daily interactions with people on the street.  we should not be coddling those people, we should be actively helping them to manage the cause of those problems.  society as a whole cannot be expected to manage that problem for them, as such expectations are unhealthy.   #  first of all, i am talking about arby is making a voluntary choice to change their ad campaign rather than a ban.   # the rest of the show is generally not trying to directly address the viewer and persuade them on a course of action; commercials do.  also, generally people choose which shows to watch, but the commercials are a matter of accident.  as meat is nothing the majority of people would consider would consider  gross , there is really no reason for anybody to forbid it.  first of all, i am talking about arby is making a voluntary choice to change their ad campaign rather than a ban.  being a christian, hindu, or atheist is also a choice let is assume this for here , but i would still find a commercial mocking hindus in the course of promoting a product to be in bad taste.
my view is not founded in legal rationale for banning such commercials, but i believe, as a matter of good taste, tv commercials should not belligerently accost their viewers as to the presence or absence of meats.  specifically, arby is series of   we have the meats !    commercials example URL for those unfamiliar, in this series of commercials, a deep voiced man shouts at the audience through the duration of the commercial, getting louder as he goes, ending with arby is current slogan of,  we have the meats !   it is loud; it is obnoxious; one gets the impression that the belligerent shouter is next move would be to slam the viewer is head into a table of meats, forcing them to eat whether they want to or not.  for vegans and vegetarians, there may be a further degree of moral offense at the suggestion they be required to consume meats.  i think businesses like arby is should refrain from putting up commercials like this because:   they have an aggressive tone, suggestive of imminent physical conflict, which can be stressful to some viewers.    they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.    they belittle the sensibilities of vegans and vegetarians who may happen to be watching.    business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  i do not watch much tv these days, but these are probably some of the most obnoxious commercials i can recall seeing for a long time.   #  they belittle the sensibilities of vegans and vegetarians who may happen to be watching.   #  being either of these is your choice.   #  i do not really know the commercials, as i am not a american, but i get the idea of them by watching your linked example.  well, maybe they do, but i do not really think that that is an argument.  especially when you consider the rest of the programm.  someone is shot in a series and thats okay, but a loud voice in a commercial is too much ? thats does not sound logical  they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.  commercials being too loud is something some laws consider.  as in  you ca not have you ads louder than the rest of the programm , i do not know how advanced these laws are but that would only need a small adjustment to the volume anyway.  being either of these is your choice.  as meat is nothing the majority of people would consider would consider  gross , there is really no reason for anybody to forbid it.  also, arbys is basicly making a living off of selling meat, they have no interesst in doing this as vegetarians are not likely to be attracted by these ads  business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  thats not how ads work.  off course, when you pay good money for the spot on tv, you make sure that your product looks good on it.  but in the end, its about getting your name known, your brand regocnized etc.   #  even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ?  #  so vegetarians are offended that other people eat meat or that some people sell meat ? even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? you might find it obnoxious but no one believes that a large man is going to bust through their tv set to fight them.  a deep, declarative statement is not necessarily even aggressive.  if you find a deep voice automatically threatening then there are some very serious concerns that need to be dealt with regardless of what advertisers are doing.  i mean, society as a whole should not be in the business of enabling people to avoid dealing with serious and treatable problems.  are you sure that potential customers are building negative associations ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? what if the average person views the voice as  passionate  instead of  threatening  ? what if the target audience of the commercial is not vegan/vegetarian but rather people who want the meats ? if the commercials were costing them customers the company would not persist in using those commercials.  moreover even those commercials that are hard to watch URL can be successful commercials.   #  maybe, but to me, angry shouting is not  passionate,  or at least not the positive kind.   # even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? i am not a vegetarian or vegan myself, but i have some friends who are, and at least the one i asked did find the arby is commercials more obnoxious than, say, jack in the box is or mcdonald is commercials.  what about a deep, declarative,  loud  statement, increasing in volume ? the speakers in these commercials is shouting at the viewer, not merely declaring the wonders of arby is sandwiches in a deep voice.  true, but people have emotional reactions to what they see and hear even if it is merely on tv, in a movie, or in a book they have read.  some people may react to loud, aggressive commercials with some amount of stress.  and for what gain ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? well, i suppose i would have been a potential customer, yet arby is commercials have dissuaded me.  i ca not speak for the average person is reaction.  as an omnivore, i was dissuaded.  maybe, but to me, angry shouting is not  passionate,  or at least not the positive kind.  i ca not speak for how the average person interprets it.  it is a little gross, but at the same time, it is funny, which makes the overall reaction positive to that hardees commercial.   #  people who react to aggressive commercials with stress have a serious problem, because if they are being seriously stressed by commercials then they would be seriously stressed by daily interactions with people on the street.   #  the commercial was a miss for you.  i am sorry.  marketers do not have the ability to only show you the commercials you like the most, yet.  just because you have a negative view of the commercial does not mean that a majority of people or just the target audience has a negative reaction.  what if, and bear with me here, pulling the commercial is a bad move because your reaction was atypical ? i never felt that the voice in that commercial was angry.  it struck me as the kind of voice used while exercising or playing sports more than anger.  we all decode things differently, but i honestly do not get where anger reading came from there.  people who react to aggressive commercials with stress have a serious problem, because if they are being seriously stressed by commercials then they would be seriously stressed by daily interactions with people on the street.  we should not be coddling those people, we should be actively helping them to manage the cause of those problems.  society as a whole cannot be expected to manage that problem for them, as such expectations are unhealthy.   #  first of all, i am talking about arby is making a voluntary choice to change their ad campaign rather than a ban.   # the rest of the show is generally not trying to directly address the viewer and persuade them on a course of action; commercials do.  also, generally people choose which shows to watch, but the commercials are a matter of accident.  as meat is nothing the majority of people would consider would consider  gross , there is really no reason for anybody to forbid it.  first of all, i am talking about arby is making a voluntary choice to change their ad campaign rather than a ban.  being a christian, hindu, or atheist is also a choice let is assume this for here , but i would still find a commercial mocking hindus in the course of promoting a product to be in bad taste.
my view is not founded in legal rationale for banning such commercials, but i believe, as a matter of good taste, tv commercials should not belligerently accost their viewers as to the presence or absence of meats.  specifically, arby is series of   we have the meats !    commercials example URL for those unfamiliar, in this series of commercials, a deep voiced man shouts at the audience through the duration of the commercial, getting louder as he goes, ending with arby is current slogan of,  we have the meats !   it is loud; it is obnoxious; one gets the impression that the belligerent shouter is next move would be to slam the viewer is head into a table of meats, forcing them to eat whether they want to or not.  for vegans and vegetarians, there may be a further degree of moral offense at the suggestion they be required to consume meats.  i think businesses like arby is should refrain from putting up commercials like this because:   they have an aggressive tone, suggestive of imminent physical conflict, which can be stressful to some viewers.    they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.    they belittle the sensibilities of vegans and vegetarians who may happen to be watching.    business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  i do not watch much tv these days, but these are probably some of the most obnoxious commercials i can recall seeing for a long time.   #  they have an aggressive tone, suggestive of imminent physical conflict, which can be stressful to some viewers.   #  they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.   # they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.  i have very severe misophonia.  to the point a video of a guy talking about rubik is cubes gave me a panic attack two days ago and i experienced muscle strain from breathing too hard.  i would say i definitely fall into he first category.  that said, i do not expect the world to conform to me.  i turn down the volume or mute it.  boohoo.  my brain is messed up.  guess the whole world has to stop what it is doing to make sure nothing bad happens to my poor little brain.  it is kinda condescending.  i am an adult.  i will deal with it.   #  are you sure that potential customers are building negative associations ?  #  so vegetarians are offended that other people eat meat or that some people sell meat ? even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? you might find it obnoxious but no one believes that a large man is going to bust through their tv set to fight them.  a deep, declarative statement is not necessarily even aggressive.  if you find a deep voice automatically threatening then there are some very serious concerns that need to be dealt with regardless of what advertisers are doing.  i mean, society as a whole should not be in the business of enabling people to avoid dealing with serious and treatable problems.  are you sure that potential customers are building negative associations ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? what if the average person views the voice as  passionate  instead of  threatening  ? what if the target audience of the commercial is not vegan/vegetarian but rather people who want the meats ? if the commercials were costing them customers the company would not persist in using those commercials.  moreover even those commercials that are hard to watch URL can be successful commercials.   #  true, but people have emotional reactions to what they see and hear even if it is merely on tv, in a movie, or in a book they have read.   # even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? i am not a vegetarian or vegan myself, but i have some friends who are, and at least the one i asked did find the arby is commercials more obnoxious than, say, jack in the box is or mcdonald is commercials.  what about a deep, declarative,  loud  statement, increasing in volume ? the speakers in these commercials is shouting at the viewer, not merely declaring the wonders of arby is sandwiches in a deep voice.  true, but people have emotional reactions to what they see and hear even if it is merely on tv, in a movie, or in a book they have read.  some people may react to loud, aggressive commercials with some amount of stress.  and for what gain ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? well, i suppose i would have been a potential customer, yet arby is commercials have dissuaded me.  i ca not speak for the average person is reaction.  as an omnivore, i was dissuaded.  maybe, but to me, angry shouting is not  passionate,  or at least not the positive kind.  i ca not speak for how the average person interprets it.  it is a little gross, but at the same time, it is funny, which makes the overall reaction positive to that hardees commercial.   #  marketers do not have the ability to only show you the commercials you like the most, yet.   #  the commercial was a miss for you.  i am sorry.  marketers do not have the ability to only show you the commercials you like the most, yet.  just because you have a negative view of the commercial does not mean that a majority of people or just the target audience has a negative reaction.  what if, and bear with me here, pulling the commercial is a bad move because your reaction was atypical ? i never felt that the voice in that commercial was angry.  it struck me as the kind of voice used while exercising or playing sports more than anger.  we all decode things differently, but i honestly do not get where anger reading came from there.  people who react to aggressive commercials with stress have a serious problem, because if they are being seriously stressed by commercials then they would be seriously stressed by daily interactions with people on the street.  we should not be coddling those people, we should be actively helping them to manage the cause of those problems.  society as a whole cannot be expected to manage that problem for them, as such expectations are unhealthy.   #  as in  you ca not have you ads louder than the rest of the programm , i do not know how advanced these laws are but that would only need a small adjustment to the volume anyway.   #  i do not really know the commercials, as i am not a american, but i get the idea of them by watching your linked example.  well, maybe they do, but i do not really think that that is an argument.  especially when you consider the rest of the programm.  someone is shot in a series and thats okay, but a loud voice in a commercial is too much ? thats does not sound logical  they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.  commercials being too loud is something some laws consider.  as in  you ca not have you ads louder than the rest of the programm , i do not know how advanced these laws are but that would only need a small adjustment to the volume anyway.  being either of these is your choice.  as meat is nothing the majority of people would consider would consider  gross , there is really no reason for anybody to forbid it.  also, arbys is basicly making a living off of selling meat, they have no interesst in doing this as vegetarians are not likely to be attracted by these ads  business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  thats not how ads work.  off course, when you pay good money for the spot on tv, you make sure that your product looks good on it.  but in the end, its about getting your name known, your brand regocnized etc.
my view is not founded in legal rationale for banning such commercials, but i believe, as a matter of good taste, tv commercials should not belligerently accost their viewers as to the presence or absence of meats.  specifically, arby is series of   we have the meats !    commercials example URL for those unfamiliar, in this series of commercials, a deep voiced man shouts at the audience through the duration of the commercial, getting louder as he goes, ending with arby is current slogan of,  we have the meats !   it is loud; it is obnoxious; one gets the impression that the belligerent shouter is next move would be to slam the viewer is head into a table of meats, forcing them to eat whether they want to or not.  for vegans and vegetarians, there may be a further degree of moral offense at the suggestion they be required to consume meats.  i think businesses like arby is should refrain from putting up commercials like this because:   they have an aggressive tone, suggestive of imminent physical conflict, which can be stressful to some viewers.    they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.    they belittle the sensibilities of vegans and vegetarians who may happen to be watching.    business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  i do not watch much tv these days, but these are probably some of the most obnoxious commercials i can recall seeing for a long time.   #  they have an aggressive tone, suggestive of imminent physical conflict, which can be stressful to some viewers.   #  you believe that they have this tone, but it is a very subjective thing.   # you believe that they have this tone, but it is a very subjective thing.  i do not believe that these commercials are extremely aggressive.  loud, maybe, but not overly angry.  granted.  this one commercial for arby is belittles their sensibilities ? vegans and vegetarians are these wilting flowers, who must be protected at all costs from a commercial featuring meat ? should we protect them from mcdonald is or wendy is commercials, which also feature meat ? why ca not they handle this specific commercial ? people who eat at arby is are not going to be dissuaded by a single commercial.  trust me.   #  i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ?  #  so vegetarians are offended that other people eat meat or that some people sell meat ? even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? you might find it obnoxious but no one believes that a large man is going to bust through their tv set to fight them.  a deep, declarative statement is not necessarily even aggressive.  if you find a deep voice automatically threatening then there are some very serious concerns that need to be dealt with regardless of what advertisers are doing.  i mean, society as a whole should not be in the business of enabling people to avoid dealing with serious and treatable problems.  are you sure that potential customers are building negative associations ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? what if the average person views the voice as  passionate  instead of  threatening  ? what if the target audience of the commercial is not vegan/vegetarian but rather people who want the meats ? if the commercials were costing them customers the company would not persist in using those commercials.  moreover even those commercials that are hard to watch URL can be successful commercials.   #  it is a little gross, but at the same time, it is funny, which makes the overall reaction positive to that hardees commercial.   # even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? i am not a vegetarian or vegan myself, but i have some friends who are, and at least the one i asked did find the arby is commercials more obnoxious than, say, jack in the box is or mcdonald is commercials.  what about a deep, declarative,  loud  statement, increasing in volume ? the speakers in these commercials is shouting at the viewer, not merely declaring the wonders of arby is sandwiches in a deep voice.  true, but people have emotional reactions to what they see and hear even if it is merely on tv, in a movie, or in a book they have read.  some people may react to loud, aggressive commercials with some amount of stress.  and for what gain ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? well, i suppose i would have been a potential customer, yet arby is commercials have dissuaded me.  i ca not speak for the average person is reaction.  as an omnivore, i was dissuaded.  maybe, but to me, angry shouting is not  passionate,  or at least not the positive kind.  i ca not speak for how the average person interprets it.  it is a little gross, but at the same time, it is funny, which makes the overall reaction positive to that hardees commercial.   #  society as a whole cannot be expected to manage that problem for them, as such expectations are unhealthy.   #  the commercial was a miss for you.  i am sorry.  marketers do not have the ability to only show you the commercials you like the most, yet.  just because you have a negative view of the commercial does not mean that a majority of people or just the target audience has a negative reaction.  what if, and bear with me here, pulling the commercial is a bad move because your reaction was atypical ? i never felt that the voice in that commercial was angry.  it struck me as the kind of voice used while exercising or playing sports more than anger.  we all decode things differently, but i honestly do not get where anger reading came from there.  people who react to aggressive commercials with stress have a serious problem, because if they are being seriously stressed by commercials then they would be seriously stressed by daily interactions with people on the street.  we should not be coddling those people, we should be actively helping them to manage the cause of those problems.  society as a whole cannot be expected to manage that problem for them, as such expectations are unhealthy.   #  especially when you consider the rest of the programm.   #  i do not really know the commercials, as i am not a american, but i get the idea of them by watching your linked example.  well, maybe they do, but i do not really think that that is an argument.  especially when you consider the rest of the programm.  someone is shot in a series and thats okay, but a loud voice in a commercial is too much ? thats does not sound logical  they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.  commercials being too loud is something some laws consider.  as in  you ca not have you ads louder than the rest of the programm , i do not know how advanced these laws are but that would only need a small adjustment to the volume anyway.  being either of these is your choice.  as meat is nothing the majority of people would consider would consider  gross , there is really no reason for anybody to forbid it.  also, arbys is basicly making a living off of selling meat, they have no interesst in doing this as vegetarians are not likely to be attracted by these ads  business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  thats not how ads work.  off course, when you pay good money for the spot on tv, you make sure that your product looks good on it.  but in the end, its about getting your name known, your brand regocnized etc.
my view is not founded in legal rationale for banning such commercials, but i believe, as a matter of good taste, tv commercials should not belligerently accost their viewers as to the presence or absence of meats.  specifically, arby is series of   we have the meats !    commercials example URL for those unfamiliar, in this series of commercials, a deep voiced man shouts at the audience through the duration of the commercial, getting louder as he goes, ending with arby is current slogan of,  we have the meats !   it is loud; it is obnoxious; one gets the impression that the belligerent shouter is next move would be to slam the viewer is head into a table of meats, forcing them to eat whether they want to or not.  for vegans and vegetarians, there may be a further degree of moral offense at the suggestion they be required to consume meats.  i think businesses like arby is should refrain from putting up commercials like this because:   they have an aggressive tone, suggestive of imminent physical conflict, which can be stressful to some viewers.    they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.    they belittle the sensibilities of vegans and vegetarians who may happen to be watching.    business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  i do not watch much tv these days, but these are probably some of the most obnoxious commercials i can recall seeing for a long time.   #  they belittle the sensibilities of vegans and vegetarians who may happen to be watching.   #  this one commercial for arby is belittles their sensibilities ?  # you believe that they have this tone, but it is a very subjective thing.  i do not believe that these commercials are extremely aggressive.  loud, maybe, but not overly angry.  granted.  this one commercial for arby is belittles their sensibilities ? vegans and vegetarians are these wilting flowers, who must be protected at all costs from a commercial featuring meat ? should we protect them from mcdonald is or wendy is commercials, which also feature meat ? why ca not they handle this specific commercial ? people who eat at arby is are not going to be dissuaded by a single commercial.  trust me.   #  you might find it obnoxious but no one believes that a large man is going to bust through their tv set to fight them.   #  so vegetarians are offended that other people eat meat or that some people sell meat ? even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? you might find it obnoxious but no one believes that a large man is going to bust through their tv set to fight them.  a deep, declarative statement is not necessarily even aggressive.  if you find a deep voice automatically threatening then there are some very serious concerns that need to be dealt with regardless of what advertisers are doing.  i mean, society as a whole should not be in the business of enabling people to avoid dealing with serious and treatable problems.  are you sure that potential customers are building negative associations ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? what if the average person views the voice as  passionate  instead of  threatening  ? what if the target audience of the commercial is not vegan/vegetarian but rather people who want the meats ? if the commercials were costing them customers the company would not persist in using those commercials.  moreover even those commercials that are hard to watch URL can be successful commercials.   #  i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ?  # even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? i am not a vegetarian or vegan myself, but i have some friends who are, and at least the one i asked did find the arby is commercials more obnoxious than, say, jack in the box is or mcdonald is commercials.  what about a deep, declarative,  loud  statement, increasing in volume ? the speakers in these commercials is shouting at the viewer, not merely declaring the wonders of arby is sandwiches in a deep voice.  true, but people have emotional reactions to what they see and hear even if it is merely on tv, in a movie, or in a book they have read.  some people may react to loud, aggressive commercials with some amount of stress.  and for what gain ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? well, i suppose i would have been a potential customer, yet arby is commercials have dissuaded me.  i ca not speak for the average person is reaction.  as an omnivore, i was dissuaded.  maybe, but to me, angry shouting is not  passionate,  or at least not the positive kind.  i ca not speak for how the average person interprets it.  it is a little gross, but at the same time, it is funny, which makes the overall reaction positive to that hardees commercial.   #  we all decode things differently, but i honestly do not get where anger reading came from there.   #  the commercial was a miss for you.  i am sorry.  marketers do not have the ability to only show you the commercials you like the most, yet.  just because you have a negative view of the commercial does not mean that a majority of people or just the target audience has a negative reaction.  what if, and bear with me here, pulling the commercial is a bad move because your reaction was atypical ? i never felt that the voice in that commercial was angry.  it struck me as the kind of voice used while exercising or playing sports more than anger.  we all decode things differently, but i honestly do not get where anger reading came from there.  people who react to aggressive commercials with stress have a serious problem, because if they are being seriously stressed by commercials then they would be seriously stressed by daily interactions with people on the street.  we should not be coddling those people, we should be actively helping them to manage the cause of those problems.  society as a whole cannot be expected to manage that problem for them, as such expectations are unhealthy.   #  as meat is nothing the majority of people would consider would consider  gross , there is really no reason for anybody to forbid it.   #  i do not really know the commercials, as i am not a american, but i get the idea of them by watching your linked example.  well, maybe they do, but i do not really think that that is an argument.  especially when you consider the rest of the programm.  someone is shot in a series and thats okay, but a loud voice in a commercial is too much ? thats does not sound logical  they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.  commercials being too loud is something some laws consider.  as in  you ca not have you ads louder than the rest of the programm , i do not know how advanced these laws are but that would only need a small adjustment to the volume anyway.  being either of these is your choice.  as meat is nothing the majority of people would consider would consider  gross , there is really no reason for anybody to forbid it.  also, arbys is basicly making a living off of selling meat, they have no interesst in doing this as vegetarians are not likely to be attracted by these ads  business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  thats not how ads work.  off course, when you pay good money for the spot on tv, you make sure that your product looks good on it.  but in the end, its about getting your name known, your brand regocnized etc.
my view is not founded in legal rationale for banning such commercials, but i believe, as a matter of good taste, tv commercials should not belligerently accost their viewers as to the presence or absence of meats.  specifically, arby is series of   we have the meats !    commercials example URL for those unfamiliar, in this series of commercials, a deep voiced man shouts at the audience through the duration of the commercial, getting louder as he goes, ending with arby is current slogan of,  we have the meats !   it is loud; it is obnoxious; one gets the impression that the belligerent shouter is next move would be to slam the viewer is head into a table of meats, forcing them to eat whether they want to or not.  for vegans and vegetarians, there may be a further degree of moral offense at the suggestion they be required to consume meats.  i think businesses like arby is should refrain from putting up commercials like this because:   they have an aggressive tone, suggestive of imminent physical conflict, which can be stressful to some viewers.    they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.    they belittle the sensibilities of vegans and vegetarians who may happen to be watching.    business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  i do not watch much tv these days, but these are probably some of the most obnoxious commercials i can recall seeing for a long time.   #  business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.   #  people who eat at arby is are not going to be dissuaded by a single commercial.   # you believe that they have this tone, but it is a very subjective thing.  i do not believe that these commercials are extremely aggressive.  loud, maybe, but not overly angry.  granted.  this one commercial for arby is belittles their sensibilities ? vegans and vegetarians are these wilting flowers, who must be protected at all costs from a commercial featuring meat ? should we protect them from mcdonald is or wendy is commercials, which also feature meat ? why ca not they handle this specific commercial ? people who eat at arby is are not going to be dissuaded by a single commercial.  trust me.   #  moreover even those commercials that are hard to watch URL can be successful commercials.   #  so vegetarians are offended that other people eat meat or that some people sell meat ? even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? you might find it obnoxious but no one believes that a large man is going to bust through their tv set to fight them.  a deep, declarative statement is not necessarily even aggressive.  if you find a deep voice automatically threatening then there are some very serious concerns that need to be dealt with regardless of what advertisers are doing.  i mean, society as a whole should not be in the business of enabling people to avoid dealing with serious and treatable problems.  are you sure that potential customers are building negative associations ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? what if the average person views the voice as  passionate  instead of  threatening  ? what if the target audience of the commercial is not vegan/vegetarian but rather people who want the meats ? if the commercials were costing them customers the company would not persist in using those commercials.  moreover even those commercials that are hard to watch URL can be successful commercials.   #  i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ?  # even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? i am not a vegetarian or vegan myself, but i have some friends who are, and at least the one i asked did find the arby is commercials more obnoxious than, say, jack in the box is or mcdonald is commercials.  what about a deep, declarative,  loud  statement, increasing in volume ? the speakers in these commercials is shouting at the viewer, not merely declaring the wonders of arby is sandwiches in a deep voice.  true, but people have emotional reactions to what they see and hear even if it is merely on tv, in a movie, or in a book they have read.  some people may react to loud, aggressive commercials with some amount of stress.  and for what gain ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? well, i suppose i would have been a potential customer, yet arby is commercials have dissuaded me.  i ca not speak for the average person is reaction.  as an omnivore, i was dissuaded.  maybe, but to me, angry shouting is not  passionate,  or at least not the positive kind.  i ca not speak for how the average person interprets it.  it is a little gross, but at the same time, it is funny, which makes the overall reaction positive to that hardees commercial.   #  what if, and bear with me here, pulling the commercial is a bad move because your reaction was atypical ?  #  the commercial was a miss for you.  i am sorry.  marketers do not have the ability to only show you the commercials you like the most, yet.  just because you have a negative view of the commercial does not mean that a majority of people or just the target audience has a negative reaction.  what if, and bear with me here, pulling the commercial is a bad move because your reaction was atypical ? i never felt that the voice in that commercial was angry.  it struck me as the kind of voice used while exercising or playing sports more than anger.  we all decode things differently, but i honestly do not get where anger reading came from there.  people who react to aggressive commercials with stress have a serious problem, because if they are being seriously stressed by commercials then they would be seriously stressed by daily interactions with people on the street.  we should not be coddling those people, we should be actively helping them to manage the cause of those problems.  society as a whole cannot be expected to manage that problem for them, as such expectations are unhealthy.   #  someone is shot in a series and thats okay, but a loud voice in a commercial is too much ?  #  i do not really know the commercials, as i am not a american, but i get the idea of them by watching your linked example.  well, maybe they do, but i do not really think that that is an argument.  especially when you consider the rest of the programm.  someone is shot in a series and thats okay, but a loud voice in a commercial is too much ? thats does not sound logical  they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.  commercials being too loud is something some laws consider.  as in  you ca not have you ads louder than the rest of the programm , i do not know how advanced these laws are but that would only need a small adjustment to the volume anyway.  being either of these is your choice.  as meat is nothing the majority of people would consider would consider  gross , there is really no reason for anybody to forbid it.  also, arbys is basicly making a living off of selling meat, they have no interesst in doing this as vegetarians are not likely to be attracted by these ads  business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  thats not how ads work.  off course, when you pay good money for the spot on tv, you make sure that your product looks good on it.  but in the end, its about getting your name known, your brand regocnized etc.
my view is not founded in legal rationale for banning such commercials, but i believe, as a matter of good taste, tv commercials should not belligerently accost their viewers as to the presence or absence of meats.  specifically, arby is series of   we have the meats !    commercials example URL for those unfamiliar, in this series of commercials, a deep voiced man shouts at the audience through the duration of the commercial, getting louder as he goes, ending with arby is current slogan of,  we have the meats !   it is loud; it is obnoxious; one gets the impression that the belligerent shouter is next move would be to slam the viewer is head into a table of meats, forcing them to eat whether they want to or not.  for vegans and vegetarians, there may be a further degree of moral offense at the suggestion they be required to consume meats.  i think businesses like arby is should refrain from putting up commercials like this because:   they have an aggressive tone, suggestive of imminent physical conflict, which can be stressful to some viewers.    they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.    they belittle the sensibilities of vegans and vegetarians who may happen to be watching.    business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  i do not watch much tv these days, but these are probably some of the most obnoxious commercials i can recall seeing for a long time.   #  business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.   #  if this was true you would not need to have a rule or even a suggestion.   # if this was true you would not need to have a rule or even a suggestion.  they think they work so they make them.  if they do not work it will go away on it is own if they do work you are reason is invalid.  as for the rest lots of commercials are annoying or belittle the sensibilities of people.  should they stop running democratic ads because republicans do not like them ? douche ads because they are yucky ? beer commercials for teetotalers ? broccoli commercials for kids who hate broccoli ? i understand your aversion but if you get upset at seeing something most people like you are going to have a bad time.   #  if you find a deep voice automatically threatening then there are some very serious concerns that need to be dealt with regardless of what advertisers are doing.   #  so vegetarians are offended that other people eat meat or that some people sell meat ? even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? you might find it obnoxious but no one believes that a large man is going to bust through their tv set to fight them.  a deep, declarative statement is not necessarily even aggressive.  if you find a deep voice automatically threatening then there are some very serious concerns that need to be dealt with regardless of what advertisers are doing.  i mean, society as a whole should not be in the business of enabling people to avoid dealing with serious and treatable problems.  are you sure that potential customers are building negative associations ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? what if the average person views the voice as  passionate  instead of  threatening  ? what if the target audience of the commercial is not vegan/vegetarian but rather people who want the meats ? if the commercials were costing them customers the company would not persist in using those commercials.  moreover even those commercials that are hard to watch URL can be successful commercials.   #  it is a little gross, but at the same time, it is funny, which makes the overall reaction positive to that hardees commercial.   # even if they are offended, why does them being offended outweigh everything else ? i am not a vegetarian or vegan myself, but i have some friends who are, and at least the one i asked did find the arby is commercials more obnoxious than, say, jack in the box is or mcdonald is commercials.  what about a deep, declarative,  loud  statement, increasing in volume ? the speakers in these commercials is shouting at the viewer, not merely declaring the wonders of arby is sandwiches in a deep voice.  true, but people have emotional reactions to what they see and hear even if it is merely on tv, in a movie, or in a book they have read.  some people may react to loud, aggressive commercials with some amount of stress.  and for what gain ? i mean, could it be that the average person  identifies  with the voice ? well, i suppose i would have been a potential customer, yet arby is commercials have dissuaded me.  i ca not speak for the average person is reaction.  as an omnivore, i was dissuaded.  maybe, but to me, angry shouting is not  passionate,  or at least not the positive kind.  i ca not speak for how the average person interprets it.  it is a little gross, but at the same time, it is funny, which makes the overall reaction positive to that hardees commercial.   #  we all decode things differently, but i honestly do not get where anger reading came from there.   #  the commercial was a miss for you.  i am sorry.  marketers do not have the ability to only show you the commercials you like the most, yet.  just because you have a negative view of the commercial does not mean that a majority of people or just the target audience has a negative reaction.  what if, and bear with me here, pulling the commercial is a bad move because your reaction was atypical ? i never felt that the voice in that commercial was angry.  it struck me as the kind of voice used while exercising or playing sports more than anger.  we all decode things differently, but i honestly do not get where anger reading came from there.  people who react to aggressive commercials with stress have a serious problem, because if they are being seriously stressed by commercials then they would be seriously stressed by daily interactions with people on the street.  we should not be coddling those people, we should be actively helping them to manage the cause of those problems.  society as a whole cannot be expected to manage that problem for them, as such expectations are unhealthy.   #  off course, when you pay good money for the spot on tv, you make sure that your product looks good on it.   #  i do not really know the commercials, as i am not a american, but i get the idea of them by watching your linked example.  well, maybe they do, but i do not really think that that is an argument.  especially when you consider the rest of the programm.  someone is shot in a series and thats okay, but a loud voice in a commercial is too much ? thats does not sound logical  they are excessively loud, which requires temporarily muting or turning down the tv is volume.  commercials being too loud is something some laws consider.  as in  you ca not have you ads louder than the rest of the programm , i do not know how advanced these laws are but that would only need a small adjustment to the volume anyway.  being either of these is your choice.  as meat is nothing the majority of people would consider would consider  gross , there is really no reason for anybody to forbid it.  also, arbys is basicly making a living off of selling meat, they have no interesst in doing this as vegetarians are not likely to be attracted by these ads  business wise, they dissuade potential customers by building negative associations with the brand.  thats not how ads work.  off course, when you pay good money for the spot on tv, you make sure that your product looks good on it.  but in the end, its about getting your name known, your brand regocnized etc.
american patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  saying these people should not be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on.  this is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan  creating jobs for americans .  i understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations.  as if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  the companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product, but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief.  i am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault.  patriotism is really just this belief.   #  as if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.   #  you ca not blame americans for wanting jobs for americans.   #  patriotism is saying  my country is great  it is  not   we are better than everyone else,  although it is sometimes confused as such.  really ? there are plenty of patriots that are in favor of immigration.  i do not quite understand this point.  you ca not blame americans for wanting jobs for americans.  in the wake of the recession, almost all politicians have been trumpeting the fact that  we will make more jobs for americans  this is not people thinking that americans having jobs is  amorally superior  it is just people wanting to boost the economy.  if you give an american the choice of 0 jobs in america or 0 jobs in china, of course they will pick 0 american jobs.  that is not patriotism, that is greed.   #  some people have an ethnic element to their national identity, but racism is racism no matter how you dress it up and patriotism in and of itself is nothing of the sort.   #  i have to say that i know immigrants who are incredibly patriotic.  they do not believe that they are better because they were born in the united states, mostly because they were not born in the united states.  moreover, they do not really believe that people who are born here are better than those born elsewhere.  the slogan  creating jobs for americans  does not imply that creating jobs is here is morally superior.  it is just that a us politician is responsible for things that occur within the united states but not responsible for things that occur elsewhere.  it might be most efficient to create a bunch of jobs in thailand, but that politician is supposed to be looking out for your interests not those of people in general or the thai people.  businesses that run those things generally have other reasons for keeping jobs here than anyone else.  people who are patriotic identify very closely with the political structure, culture, language, or common identity of a nation are patriotic.  very few of these things require being born to specific parents or in a specific geographic location, if you notice.  it is something that you can  decide  to be.  some people have an ethnic element to their national identity, but racism is racism no matter how you dress it up and patriotism in and of itself is nothing of the sort.   #  many of these people believe that it is not our responsibility as americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries.   #  i am sure you can find many people who self identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  i am one of these people.  even if you do not, you do not have to necessarily think you are better than other people because you are against immigration.  many of these people believe that it is not our responsibility as americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries.  that is not the same as thinking you are better than other people.  i do not want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the us, but i do not think i am better than the people i would be denying citizenship.   #  jingoism is the belief that being born on one side of the border makes you better than someone born on the other side of the border.   #  jingoism is the belief that being born on one side of the border makes you better than someone born on the other side of the border.  patriotism is a belief in the worthiness and virtue of the geopolitical system you inherited and/or participate in.  there is an introspective moment in patriotism that is absent from the externally motivated jingoism.  most often, jingoism is historically situated in the present and is a measure of comparative might.  on the other hand, patriotism tends to exalt the achievements made by members of and/or by the polity itself which have proven themselves to transcend time or the advancements made hitherto in the discipline.   #  to be  american  and be patriotic towards america means less about where you were born than being patriotic might in other nations.   #  patriotism often clashes with anti immigration, but fundamentally speaks to group identities before it does anything else.  it is interesting that you bring up patriotism as a catalyst for anti immigration superiority would you say the same thing about a patriotic nation with very little immigration ? are those living in samoa, bhutan and iraq not patriots, even if they feel affection towards their country ? patriotism, like in the us, can often be conflated with other sentiments.  fundamentally, however, patriotism is about affection and support of the idea of your nation.  this pride and practicality is consistent in many spheres.  those living in a town or village will want to support it, will feel affection for it and want it to thrive, is that not a similar feeling just on a smaller scale ? lastly, in the american case, patriotism is rife amongst immigrants, much more than other nations.  to be  american  and be patriotic towards america means less about where you were born than being patriotic might in other nations.  american citizens are not defined by their birthplace.  the american persona is more a character than a birthright.
american patriots have a general mentality against immigration.  saying these people should not be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on.  this is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan  creating jobs for americans .  i understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations.  as if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.  the companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product, but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief.  i am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault.  patriotism is really just this belief.   #  as if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries.   #  if you are an american, it is.   #  i think that this   saying these people should not be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on.  is faulty.  generally, the anti immigrant sentiment is anti  illegal immigrant though that word use is often contested .  i will also say that the  made in american  or  creating jobs for americans  slogans do not stem from an anti immigrant stance, they stem from an appeal to the individual who is reading the slogan.  it is akin to buying local to stimulate the local economy.  you do not do it because you have ill will towards those outside your local economy, you do it because you have a choice: benefit yourself or others, those you know or have something in common with, or strangers who do not necessarily have a value to you.  if you are an american, it is.  when you create those jobs and have to choose where to create them, you will benefit one party so it makes sense to choose to benefit those who you are trying to market your product to.  you are not choosing to benefit  america the monolithic entity  you are choosing to do something which benefits the average american, you are creating jobs for them to work at so that they benefit.  at it is core this is a question of economics and economies function like other systems: their contents can flow in or out and when you as an american choose to create jobs somewhere outside of america you are hurting the american economy by choosing not to help it.  to address the idea put forth in your title, patriotism is not necessarily the view that one is  better  so much as the view that one has taken pride in the group that one identifies with or is a part of.   #  moreover, they do not really believe that people who are born here are better than those born elsewhere.   #  i have to say that i know immigrants who are incredibly patriotic.  they do not believe that they are better because they were born in the united states, mostly because they were not born in the united states.  moreover, they do not really believe that people who are born here are better than those born elsewhere.  the slogan  creating jobs for americans  does not imply that creating jobs is here is morally superior.  it is just that a us politician is responsible for things that occur within the united states but not responsible for things that occur elsewhere.  it might be most efficient to create a bunch of jobs in thailand, but that politician is supposed to be looking out for your interests not those of people in general or the thai people.  businesses that run those things generally have other reasons for keeping jobs here than anyone else.  people who are patriotic identify very closely with the political structure, culture, language, or common identity of a nation are patriotic.  very few of these things require being born to specific parents or in a specific geographic location, if you notice.  it is something that you can  decide  to be.  some people have an ethnic element to their national identity, but racism is racism no matter how you dress it up and patriotism in and of itself is nothing of the sort.   #  i do not want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the us, but i do not think i am better than the people i would be denying citizenship.   #  i am sure you can find many people who self identify as patriots while also favoring policies that would allow more immigration.  i am one of these people.  even if you do not, you do not have to necessarily think you are better than other people because you are against immigration.  many of these people believe that it is not our responsibility as americans to provide for people from other countries, but rather the responsibility of those countries.  that is not the same as thinking you are better than other people.  i do not want absolutely no immigration control for people coming into the us, but i do not think i am better than the people i would be denying citizenship.   #  on the other hand, patriotism tends to exalt the achievements made by members of and/or by the polity itself which have proven themselves to transcend time or the advancements made hitherto in the discipline.   #  jingoism is the belief that being born on one side of the border makes you better than someone born on the other side of the border.  patriotism is a belief in the worthiness and virtue of the geopolitical system you inherited and/or participate in.  there is an introspective moment in patriotism that is absent from the externally motivated jingoism.  most often, jingoism is historically situated in the present and is a measure of comparative might.  on the other hand, patriotism tends to exalt the achievements made by members of and/or by the polity itself which have proven themselves to transcend time or the advancements made hitherto in the discipline.   #  fundamentally, however, patriotism is about affection and support of the idea of your nation.   #  patriotism often clashes with anti immigration, but fundamentally speaks to group identities before it does anything else.  it is interesting that you bring up patriotism as a catalyst for anti immigration superiority would you say the same thing about a patriotic nation with very little immigration ? are those living in samoa, bhutan and iraq not patriots, even if they feel affection towards their country ? patriotism, like in the us, can often be conflated with other sentiments.  fundamentally, however, patriotism is about affection and support of the idea of your nation.  this pride and practicality is consistent in many spheres.  those living in a town or village will want to support it, will feel affection for it and want it to thrive, is that not a similar feeling just on a smaller scale ? lastly, in the american case, patriotism is rife amongst immigrants, much more than other nations.  to be  american  and be patriotic towards america means less about where you were born than being patriotic might in other nations.  american citizens are not defined by their birthplace.  the american persona is more a character than a birthright.
say an officer shoots a man.  with body cam footage it shows the man was viciously attacking the officer and it is shown everything went accordingly.  but if the camera was not recording, the word of the citizen trumps the officer, because why would the camera be off ? the officer is hiding something by default and the citizen gets off.  there would be cases in which cameras malfunction during critical incidents.  let is give this a generous 0 failure rate.  this would screw the cop 0 of the time.  by today is standard, the civilians pretty much get screwed 0 of the time.  in this world, police activity would be virtually transparent and brutality would vanish.  it would probably also lead to more stable recording equipment being produced.  the outlier cases in which one individual is wrongly convicted would simply just switch from being civilians to being the officers.  the same number of people would be getting shafted but with 0 removal of police brutality.  how can this fail ?  #  this would screw the cop 0 of the time.   #  by today is standard, the civilians pretty much get screwed 0 of the time.   # by today is standard, the civilians pretty much get screwed 0 of the time.  if you are going to make such a huge claim, then provide a citation.  the problem is that no equipment is flawless.  especially not equipment that is being used continuously and going through the abuse that cops  equipment suffers.  and there are good cops out there.  ones who are doing a shitty and at times very dangerous job out of the honest motivation to protect and serve the public.  ones who do not break the law or abuse civilians.  why should these cops face serious consequences for equipment failure that is beyond their control ? why should they take that risk ? even if there is a one for one trade which, once again, citation needed , replacing one injustice with another does not make the world just.  why is it just for an innocent person to be persecuted just because they agree to take the shitty but vital for society job of being a cop ?  #  furthermore, there are plenty of incidents where police should not be wearing body cameras.   #  first off, any case in which we deem someone  guilty until proven innocent  is antithetical to our justice system.  the us court system has upheld repeatedly that anyone charged with a crime has the presumption of innocence.  so has almost every other civilized nation.  furthermore, there are plenty of incidents where police should not be wearing body cameras.  undercover officers is a prime example of this.  officers also should not be wearing body cameras at other times as well, like in a courtroom, or possibly when doing things like domestic violence outreach work, meeting with confidential informants, etc.   #  forgive me if this particular case is a whole new can of worms and should be addressed elsewhere.   #  when going up against an officer it is pretty much guilty until proven innocent.  everyone is inclined to believe the word of an officer against an alleged criminal.  for the situations in which officers should not be wearing cameras: undercover: if it is about cover being blown by a visible camera, would a microphone not suffice ? and for situations in which wearing any recording instrument could jeopardize the officer is life, like entering a drug fortress, we can assume the officer would not be using any brutality, either.  courtroom: this is not a place where many conflicts between officers and citizens take place.  and if they do, it is a courtroom, full of witnesses to testify brutality.  confidential informants: why not record ? it is the police department that is organizing the meeting.  they already know about the informant.  if anything a camera/microphone would prevent an officer from twisting the informant is statements.  the department would not be relying on memory.  forgive me if this particular case is a whole new can of worms and should be addressed elsewhere.  for domestic violence outreach, i do not really understand what goes on there but i ca not see how a camera would damage the mission.   #  everyone is inclined to believe the word of an officer against an alleged criminal.   # everyone is inclined to believe the word of an officer against an alleged criminal.  not so.  in fact, i just recently served on jury duty, and one of the key questions asked to every juror was  would you give the testimony of an officer extra weight solely based on his profession ?   people who answered yes were removed from the jury.  they made it a very strong point that an officer is testimony should be given no more or less weight than that of any other witness.  every single case, every single time.  for confidential informants, they may not be willing to be recorded.  after all, if they are recorded, that is evidence to be used at a trial, which means the accused has access to the evidence, which means retaliation.  someone might be willing to tip the police off about mob activity, but be unwilling to be recorded and create evidence that could later cause the mob to retaliate.  let is say cops walk into a brutal murder scene.  anything that gets recorded becomes evidence, which means that it can and would likely become public record one day if/when used at trial.  i am not sure i am comfortable with news outlets having access to something like the dying moments of a murder victim, to be broadcast around the country.   #  the only cops that benefit from body camera malfunctions are the corrupt and abusive ones.   #  the issue is that any officer wearing a camera can easily shut it down or otherwise cause malfunction oops, i tripped and accidentally mashed my camera against the floor.  guess you were resisting arrest and i have to shoot you now ! whenever something inconvenient happens.  so i think his system makes perfect sense assuming the cop is acting properly, he should always have the camera on.  the only cops that benefit from body camera malfunctions are the corrupt and abusive ones.  thus, we should assume that camera malfunction means possible abuse or corruption.  this creates incentives where the good cops wear reliable cameras and keep spares on hand in case of malfunction, whilst the abusive cops are much more easily identified by repeated camera blank spots and repeated incidents of tampering with their cameras.  finally, you are right that there are plenty of situations where police should not be expected to wear body cameras.  that is when you take them off.  i do not see how this is relevant to the idea that at all other times, police on duty should wear them.
because of the anonymity on 0chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  they will care about how people respond to them, but since it is largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity.  surrounding the entire site there is a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group.  some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, sjws, casual gamers, jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.  on boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof.  things about e celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it is taken as fact.  it will reach conspiracy theory levels of  proof  where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group effort that is uncovering something.  surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  i am not saying that every person who browses 0chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site.  thinking that you are unaffected by this does not necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.   #  people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group.   #  because you ca not immediately tell insiders from outsiders, most boards form their own set of shibboleths that changes with time.   #  it is precisely because of anonymity that your ideas have to stand on their own merits.  there is no way to get a pass just because of  who you are , and you do not need to worry about one opinion you had in a totally separate thread affecting people is view of you in the next one.  that does not make you a  worse  person as much as it just helps you recognize you are not a special snowflake.  your ideas are not unique.  you are one of countless others.  i would argue the incentive against attention whoring makes you a better person, not a worse one.  because you ca not immediately tell insiders from outsiders, most boards form their own set of shibboleths that changes with time.  if you ca not use it properly, you get outed.  think of that like a password system showing you respect that board enough to have familiarized yourself with how it does things.  in comparison to reddit is voting system, this is hardly forcing herd mentality or echo chambers.  yep, that is reddit alright.  oh, wait.   #  just like great apes could be a sub all about gorillaz and monkeys !  #  you know what is really sad ? 0.  the original meaning of coon.  came from the word  baracoos  which is a.  slavic ? word for  pen  aka, people kept in pens.  0.  coontown could be a super cute cuddly cartoon city full of cartoon raccoons where you went on fantastical adventures.  just like great apes could be a sub all about gorillaz and monkeys ! :d oh my god i am dying from the cuteness in my imagination ! .  but no.  it is not :  #  in the same way attitudes and mentality spill over and you get a pessimist attitude all around on 0chan.   #  i have mostly browsed /v/, /co/ and previously /int/, so my experiences are based on those boards.  there is different culture to each board, but most people browse more than one board.  culture spills over, otherwise you would not have /sp/ memes in /v/ and 0chan memes on reddit.  in the same way attitudes and mentality spill over and you get a pessimist attitude all around on 0chan.  reddit has bad boards, but it does not work the same way that 0chan does because of how the sites are built differently and users communicate differently as a result.   #  but you have to understand that 0chan is buy and large full of people who have a use for the anonymity it offers.   #  yes, that is all true.  but you have to understand that 0chan is buy and large full of people who have a use for the anonymity it offers.  some people use it to call people names online without consequence, some people use it to erp, some people use it to complain about how much they hate their life and want to die.  but a lot of these things are simply expressed here so much because they ca not express them anywhere else safely.  i do not think that the people on 0chan are really all that bad in real life.  on /vg/, i frequent league of legends generals and i often play with people from those generals.  league of legends general is a place where we ca not go six posts without arguing with eachother about which waifus are shit or which tripfag deserves to be decapitated or how much we want to stick a fork in eachothers eyes for building the wrong item on the wrong character.  but when i get into skype with these people to play games with them, they are totally normal.  they are just regular people who blow off steam by calling other people cuckolds on 0chan.  if anything, i would say that 0chan is environment is pretty healthy.  there is something to be said about a place where you can go to blow off steam and say basically whatever you want without consequence.  if you go into the experience thinking  i wanna fit in with everyone else here on 0chan and be angry and upset all the time !  , then yeah, your life will change for the worse.  but i do not think 0chan did this to any of these people.  i think they are just letting go of baggage they have been carrying long before arriving here, and can now finally drop.   #  what it can do is loosen some unhealthily strict views that might be the only things hiding whatever demons you already have.   #  this is the answer i was going to give op.  0chan can desensitize you and give you thicker skin, but it does not make you any worse than you already are.  what it can do is loosen some unhealthily strict views that might be the only things hiding whatever demons you already have.  i find that healthy.  knowing how much of an asshole you are can be good and help you improve.  can only make you as bad a person as you already are, it just makes you less inclined to hide it from others.
because of the anonymity on 0chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  they will care about how people respond to them, but since it is largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity.  surrounding the entire site there is a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group.  some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, sjws, casual gamers, jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.  on boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof.  things about e celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it is taken as fact.  it will reach conspiracy theory levels of  proof  where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group effort that is uncovering something.  surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  i am not saying that every person who browses 0chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site.  thinking that you are unaffected by this does not necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.   #  on boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof.   #  first, the boards i went on were /tg/, /co/, and /v/ because the porn boards do not count .   # first, the boards i went on were /tg/, /co/, and /v/ because the porn boards do not count .  /v/ was the only board that got like this at times, but even then, it was rare.  0chan is anonymity means you can call people out on their bullshit, which i have seen done numerous times.  the  bitterness  you mention really depends on the board culture.  /tg/ was pretty optimistic and tame when compared to /v/, which was a shithole but everybody knew it was hyperbolic shit, which was part of the point , and /co/ was somewhere in the middle.  this also ignores all the shit 0chan has done, like donating to charities and busting child porn rings.  people never hear about that stuff because 0chan is been pegged with one kind of stereotype your bitter, pessimistic, irredeemable human beings stereotype and it is stuck, because the anons do not give a fuck.  what a crock.  that is like people arguing with women who do not identify as feminists saying those women have  internalized misogyny.    #  came from the word  baracoos  which is a.  slavic ?  #  you know what is really sad ? 0.  the original meaning of coon.  came from the word  baracoos  which is a.  slavic ? word for  pen  aka, people kept in pens.  0.  coontown could be a super cute cuddly cartoon city full of cartoon raccoons where you went on fantastical adventures.  just like great apes could be a sub all about gorillaz and monkeys ! :d oh my god i am dying from the cuteness in my imagination ! .  but no.  it is not :  #  in the same way attitudes and mentality spill over and you get a pessimist attitude all around on 0chan.   #  i have mostly browsed /v/, /co/ and previously /int/, so my experiences are based on those boards.  there is different culture to each board, but most people browse more than one board.  culture spills over, otherwise you would not have /sp/ memes in /v/ and 0chan memes on reddit.  in the same way attitudes and mentality spill over and you get a pessimist attitude all around on 0chan.  reddit has bad boards, but it does not work the same way that 0chan does because of how the sites are built differently and users communicate differently as a result.   #  if anything, i would say that 0chan is environment is pretty healthy.   #  yes, that is all true.  but you have to understand that 0chan is buy and large full of people who have a use for the anonymity it offers.  some people use it to call people names online without consequence, some people use it to erp, some people use it to complain about how much they hate their life and want to die.  but a lot of these things are simply expressed here so much because they ca not express them anywhere else safely.  i do not think that the people on 0chan are really all that bad in real life.  on /vg/, i frequent league of legends generals and i often play with people from those generals.  league of legends general is a place where we ca not go six posts without arguing with eachother about which waifus are shit or which tripfag deserves to be decapitated or how much we want to stick a fork in eachothers eyes for building the wrong item on the wrong character.  but when i get into skype with these people to play games with them, they are totally normal.  they are just regular people who blow off steam by calling other people cuckolds on 0chan.  if anything, i would say that 0chan is environment is pretty healthy.  there is something to be said about a place where you can go to blow off steam and say basically whatever you want without consequence.  if you go into the experience thinking  i wanna fit in with everyone else here on 0chan and be angry and upset all the time !  , then yeah, your life will change for the worse.  but i do not think 0chan did this to any of these people.  i think they are just letting go of baggage they have been carrying long before arriving here, and can now finally drop.   #  knowing how much of an asshole you are can be good and help you improve.   #  this is the answer i was going to give op.  0chan can desensitize you and give you thicker skin, but it does not make you any worse than you already are.  what it can do is loosen some unhealthily strict views that might be the only things hiding whatever demons you already have.  i find that healthy.  knowing how much of an asshole you are can be good and help you improve.  can only make you as bad a person as you already are, it just makes you less inclined to hide it from others.
because of the anonymity on 0chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  they will care about how people respond to them, but since it is largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity.  surrounding the entire site there is a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group.  some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, sjws, casual gamers, jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.  on boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof.  things about e celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it is taken as fact.  it will reach conspiracy theory levels of  proof  where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group effort that is uncovering something.  surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  i am not saying that every person who browses 0chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site.  thinking that you are unaffected by this does not necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.   #  any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.   #  .   thinking that you are unaffected by this does not necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.   # .   thinking that you are unaffected by this does not necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.  first after pointing out how categorical dismissal is a bad thing and objecting to that about 0chan, you just stipulated that you can categorically dismiss 0chan users, because you have just decided we are all affected by it.  i am going to challenge you about how circular this last little part of your op is.  i do not think you are actually capable of having your view changed about this unless you realize that this last sentence is fractally broken.   #  :d oh my god i am dying from the cuteness in my imagination !  #  you know what is really sad ? 0.  the original meaning of coon.  came from the word  baracoos  which is a.  slavic ? word for  pen  aka, people kept in pens.  0.  coontown could be a super cute cuddly cartoon city full of cartoon raccoons where you went on fantastical adventures.  just like great apes could be a sub all about gorillaz and monkeys ! :d oh my god i am dying from the cuteness in my imagination ! .  but no.  it is not :  #  culture spills over, otherwise you would not have /sp/ memes in /v/ and 0chan memes on reddit.   #  i have mostly browsed /v/, /co/ and previously /int/, so my experiences are based on those boards.  there is different culture to each board, but most people browse more than one board.  culture spills over, otherwise you would not have /sp/ memes in /v/ and 0chan memes on reddit.  in the same way attitudes and mentality spill over and you get a pessimist attitude all around on 0chan.  reddit has bad boards, but it does not work the same way that 0chan does because of how the sites are built differently and users communicate differently as a result.   #  if anything, i would say that 0chan is environment is pretty healthy.   #  yes, that is all true.  but you have to understand that 0chan is buy and large full of people who have a use for the anonymity it offers.  some people use it to call people names online without consequence, some people use it to erp, some people use it to complain about how much they hate their life and want to die.  but a lot of these things are simply expressed here so much because they ca not express them anywhere else safely.  i do not think that the people on 0chan are really all that bad in real life.  on /vg/, i frequent league of legends generals and i often play with people from those generals.  league of legends general is a place where we ca not go six posts without arguing with eachother about which waifus are shit or which tripfag deserves to be decapitated or how much we want to stick a fork in eachothers eyes for building the wrong item on the wrong character.  but when i get into skype with these people to play games with them, they are totally normal.  they are just regular people who blow off steam by calling other people cuckolds on 0chan.  if anything, i would say that 0chan is environment is pretty healthy.  there is something to be said about a place where you can go to blow off steam and say basically whatever you want without consequence.  if you go into the experience thinking  i wanna fit in with everyone else here on 0chan and be angry and upset all the time !  , then yeah, your life will change for the worse.  but i do not think 0chan did this to any of these people.  i think they are just letting go of baggage they have been carrying long before arriving here, and can now finally drop.   #  this is the answer i was going to give op.   #  this is the answer i was going to give op.  0chan can desensitize you and give you thicker skin, but it does not make you any worse than you already are.  what it can do is loosen some unhealthily strict views that might be the only things hiding whatever demons you already have.  i find that healthy.  knowing how much of an asshole you are can be good and help you improve.  can only make you as bad a person as you already are, it just makes you less inclined to hide it from others.
because of the anonymity on 0chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  they will care about how people respond to them, but since it is largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity.  surrounding the entire site there is a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group.  some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, sjws, casual gamers, jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.  on boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof.  things about e celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it is taken as fact.  it will reach conspiracy theory levels of  proof  where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group effort that is uncovering something.  surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  i am not saying that every person who browses 0chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site.  thinking that you are unaffected by this does not necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.   #  because of the anonymity on 0chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.   #  they will care about how people respond to them, but since it is largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity.   # they will care about how people respond to them, but since it is largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity.  reddit is just as anonymous and that is not the case here.  some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, sjws, casual gamers, jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.  reddit used to have these boards until the mods removed them.  even now there are still subreddits like twoxchromosomes or /r/atheism or gamerghazi, which are basically echo chambers about how everyone but them are horrible people, literal nazi is, etc.  things about e celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it is taken as fact.  it will reach conspiracy theory levels of  proof  where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group effort that is uncovering something.  /r/gamerghazi, /r/pollitics, /r/atheism, /r/twoxchromosomes.  this is not limited to 0chan.  do you have proof ? uh, no.  thinking you are unaffected means just that.  it does not mean it is actually affecting you.   #  word for  pen  aka, people kept in pens.   #  you know what is really sad ? 0.  the original meaning of coon.  came from the word  baracoos  which is a.  slavic ? word for  pen  aka, people kept in pens.  0.  coontown could be a super cute cuddly cartoon city full of cartoon raccoons where you went on fantastical adventures.  just like great apes could be a sub all about gorillaz and monkeys ! :d oh my god i am dying from the cuteness in my imagination ! .  but no.  it is not :  #  there is different culture to each board, but most people browse more than one board.   #  i have mostly browsed /v/, /co/ and previously /int/, so my experiences are based on those boards.  there is different culture to each board, but most people browse more than one board.  culture spills over, otherwise you would not have /sp/ memes in /v/ and 0chan memes on reddit.  in the same way attitudes and mentality spill over and you get a pessimist attitude all around on 0chan.  reddit has bad boards, but it does not work the same way that 0chan does because of how the sites are built differently and users communicate differently as a result.   #  but a lot of these things are simply expressed here so much because they ca not express them anywhere else safely.   #  yes, that is all true.  but you have to understand that 0chan is buy and large full of people who have a use for the anonymity it offers.  some people use it to call people names online without consequence, some people use it to erp, some people use it to complain about how much they hate their life and want to die.  but a lot of these things are simply expressed here so much because they ca not express them anywhere else safely.  i do not think that the people on 0chan are really all that bad in real life.  on /vg/, i frequent league of legends generals and i often play with people from those generals.  league of legends general is a place where we ca not go six posts without arguing with eachother about which waifus are shit or which tripfag deserves to be decapitated or how much we want to stick a fork in eachothers eyes for building the wrong item on the wrong character.  but when i get into skype with these people to play games with them, they are totally normal.  they are just regular people who blow off steam by calling other people cuckolds on 0chan.  if anything, i would say that 0chan is environment is pretty healthy.  there is something to be said about a place where you can go to blow off steam and say basically whatever you want without consequence.  if you go into the experience thinking  i wanna fit in with everyone else here on 0chan and be angry and upset all the time !  , then yeah, your life will change for the worse.  but i do not think 0chan did this to any of these people.  i think they are just letting go of baggage they have been carrying long before arriving here, and can now finally drop.   #  knowing how much of an asshole you are can be good and help you improve.   #  this is the answer i was going to give op.  0chan can desensitize you and give you thicker skin, but it does not make you any worse than you already are.  what it can do is loosen some unhealthily strict views that might be the only things hiding whatever demons you already have.  i find that healthy.  knowing how much of an asshole you are can be good and help you improve.  can only make you as bad a person as you already are, it just makes you less inclined to hide it from others.
because of the anonymity on 0chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  they will care about how people respond to them, but since it is largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity.  surrounding the entire site there is a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group.  some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, sjws, casual gamers, jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.  on boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof.  things about e celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it is taken as fact.  it will reach conspiracy theory levels of  proof  where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group effort that is uncovering something.  surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  i am not saying that every person who browses 0chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site.  thinking that you are unaffected by this does not necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.   #  surrounding the entire site there is a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group.   #  some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, sjws, casual gamers, jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.   # they will care about how people respond to them, but since it is largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity.  reddit is just as anonymous and that is not the case here.  some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, sjws, casual gamers, jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.  reddit used to have these boards until the mods removed them.  even now there are still subreddits like twoxchromosomes or /r/atheism or gamerghazi, which are basically echo chambers about how everyone but them are horrible people, literal nazi is, etc.  things about e celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it is taken as fact.  it will reach conspiracy theory levels of  proof  where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group effort that is uncovering something.  /r/gamerghazi, /r/pollitics, /r/atheism, /r/twoxchromosomes.  this is not limited to 0chan.  do you have proof ? uh, no.  thinking you are unaffected means just that.  it does not mean it is actually affecting you.   #  just like great apes could be a sub all about gorillaz and monkeys !  #  you know what is really sad ? 0.  the original meaning of coon.  came from the word  baracoos  which is a.  slavic ? word for  pen  aka, people kept in pens.  0.  coontown could be a super cute cuddly cartoon city full of cartoon raccoons where you went on fantastical adventures.  just like great apes could be a sub all about gorillaz and monkeys ! :d oh my god i am dying from the cuteness in my imagination ! .  but no.  it is not :  #  i have mostly browsed /v/, /co/ and previously /int/, so my experiences are based on those boards.   #  i have mostly browsed /v/, /co/ and previously /int/, so my experiences are based on those boards.  there is different culture to each board, but most people browse more than one board.  culture spills over, otherwise you would not have /sp/ memes in /v/ and 0chan memes on reddit.  in the same way attitudes and mentality spill over and you get a pessimist attitude all around on 0chan.  reddit has bad boards, but it does not work the same way that 0chan does because of how the sites are built differently and users communicate differently as a result.   #  i do not think that the people on 0chan are really all that bad in real life.   #  yes, that is all true.  but you have to understand that 0chan is buy and large full of people who have a use for the anonymity it offers.  some people use it to call people names online without consequence, some people use it to erp, some people use it to complain about how much they hate their life and want to die.  but a lot of these things are simply expressed here so much because they ca not express them anywhere else safely.  i do not think that the people on 0chan are really all that bad in real life.  on /vg/, i frequent league of legends generals and i often play with people from those generals.  league of legends general is a place where we ca not go six posts without arguing with eachother about which waifus are shit or which tripfag deserves to be decapitated or how much we want to stick a fork in eachothers eyes for building the wrong item on the wrong character.  but when i get into skype with these people to play games with them, they are totally normal.  they are just regular people who blow off steam by calling other people cuckolds on 0chan.  if anything, i would say that 0chan is environment is pretty healthy.  there is something to be said about a place where you can go to blow off steam and say basically whatever you want without consequence.  if you go into the experience thinking  i wanna fit in with everyone else here on 0chan and be angry and upset all the time !  , then yeah, your life will change for the worse.  but i do not think 0chan did this to any of these people.  i think they are just letting go of baggage they have been carrying long before arriving here, and can now finally drop.   #  0chan can desensitize you and give you thicker skin, but it does not make you any worse than you already are.   #  this is the answer i was going to give op.  0chan can desensitize you and give you thicker skin, but it does not make you any worse than you already are.  what it can do is loosen some unhealthily strict views that might be the only things hiding whatever demons you already have.  i find that healthy.  knowing how much of an asshole you are can be good and help you improve.  can only make you as bad a person as you already are, it just makes you less inclined to hide it from others.
because of the anonymity on 0chan people are more prone to not think through, care about what they post and are quicker to throw out insults.  they will care about how people respond to them, but since it is largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity.  surrounding the entire site there is a general pessimistic group mentality, and people are subconsciously encouraged to take part of it in order to feel like they are a part of the group.  some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, sjws, casual gamers, jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.  on boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof.  things about e celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it is taken as fact.  it will reach conspiracy theory levels of  proof  where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group effort that is uncovering something.  surrounding yourself with this will in general make you into a more pessimistic, negative and possibly depressive person.  i am not saying that every person who browses 0chan is depressed or negative, but that the majority of them are affected negatively by browsing the site.  thinking that you are unaffected by this does not necessarily mean you are, but instead means that you are unaware of how much it affects you.   #  on boards you will find echo chambers where people are more prone to believe rumors than proof.   #  things about e celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it is taken as fact.   # they will care about how people respond to them, but since it is largely negative they will stoop down to the same level rather than go to any high ground since they are not linked to an identity.  reddit is just as anonymous and that is not the case here.  some boards will have specific groups of people who they are encouraged to hate, women, sjws, casual gamers, jews, and any reasonable argument against a poster can be made redundant by saying or thinking they are a part of these agendas or groups.  reddit used to have these boards until the mods removed them.  even now there are still subreddits like twoxchromosomes or /r/atheism or gamerghazi, which are basically echo chambers about how everyone but them are horrible people, literal nazi is, etc.  things about e celebrities will start as rumors, ideas about them or things will get taken out of context and it will be posted continually until it is taken as fact.  it will reach conspiracy theory levels of  proof  where people will simply believe it because they feel as if they are a part of a group effort that is uncovering something.  /r/gamerghazi, /r/pollitics, /r/atheism, /r/twoxchromosomes.  this is not limited to 0chan.  do you have proof ? uh, no.  thinking you are unaffected means just that.  it does not mean it is actually affecting you.   #  word for  pen  aka, people kept in pens.   #  you know what is really sad ? 0.  the original meaning of coon.  came from the word  baracoos  which is a.  slavic ? word for  pen  aka, people kept in pens.  0.  coontown could be a super cute cuddly cartoon city full of cartoon raccoons where you went on fantastical adventures.  just like great apes could be a sub all about gorillaz and monkeys ! :d oh my god i am dying from the cuteness in my imagination ! .  but no.  it is not :  #  there is different culture to each board, but most people browse more than one board.   #  i have mostly browsed /v/, /co/ and previously /int/, so my experiences are based on those boards.  there is different culture to each board, but most people browse more than one board.  culture spills over, otherwise you would not have /sp/ memes in /v/ and 0chan memes on reddit.  in the same way attitudes and mentality spill over and you get a pessimist attitude all around on 0chan.  reddit has bad boards, but it does not work the same way that 0chan does because of how the sites are built differently and users communicate differently as a result.   #  i do not think that the people on 0chan are really all that bad in real life.   #  yes, that is all true.  but you have to understand that 0chan is buy and large full of people who have a use for the anonymity it offers.  some people use it to call people names online without consequence, some people use it to erp, some people use it to complain about how much they hate their life and want to die.  but a lot of these things are simply expressed here so much because they ca not express them anywhere else safely.  i do not think that the people on 0chan are really all that bad in real life.  on /vg/, i frequent league of legends generals and i often play with people from those generals.  league of legends general is a place where we ca not go six posts without arguing with eachother about which waifus are shit or which tripfag deserves to be decapitated or how much we want to stick a fork in eachothers eyes for building the wrong item on the wrong character.  but when i get into skype with these people to play games with them, they are totally normal.  they are just regular people who blow off steam by calling other people cuckolds on 0chan.  if anything, i would say that 0chan is environment is pretty healthy.  there is something to be said about a place where you can go to blow off steam and say basically whatever you want without consequence.  if you go into the experience thinking  i wanna fit in with everyone else here on 0chan and be angry and upset all the time !  , then yeah, your life will change for the worse.  but i do not think 0chan did this to any of these people.  i think they are just letting go of baggage they have been carrying long before arriving here, and can now finally drop.   #  what it can do is loosen some unhealthily strict views that might be the only things hiding whatever demons you already have.   #  this is the answer i was going to give op.  0chan can desensitize you and give you thicker skin, but it does not make you any worse than you already are.  what it can do is loosen some unhealthily strict views that might be the only things hiding whatever demons you already have.  i find that healthy.  knowing how much of an asshole you are can be good and help you improve.  can only make you as bad a person as you already are, it just makes you less inclined to hide it from others.
i live in lebanon.  we are a small country.  and when you live in a small country bigger countries effectively control your policies.  in the case of lebanon it is done directly through buying politicians.  this is true for saudi arabia the united states iran etc.  yet we lebanese ca not have any effect on the policies of these countries.  going beyond lebanon, i think that globally big powerful countries act as a world government.  they control much of what happens in the world.  they just do not agree with each other.  on the other hand people are mostly the same throughout the world.  they have some minor cultural differences, but these are disappearing more and more.  here in lebanon a lot of people have started speaking english as a first language.  in dubai it is even more common.  people watch american movies in china.  even terrorists are wearing blue jeans.  we the peoples of the world have become a global culture.  today the country barriers are mostly beneficial to stop labor from going from the poor countries to the rich.  but i am not sure that this has the economic benefit that the rich countries think that it has.  the movement of people can bring with it jobs and expand economies.  i think that most people now accept democracy.  i think that religion is a barrier, but not so much and in a world goverment no single religion will be able to rule.  while everyone will agree on a language most likely english.  therefore i am a globalist.  i think that in the future, i do not know when people will look back on us and consider nationalism as a form of racism.  also there wo not be a war in israel and palestine if the world is one.   #  in the case of lebanon it is done directly through buying politicians.   #  what magic spell will you cast to prevent that from happening if a  one world government  becomes a reality according to your wishes ?  # we are a small country.  and when you live in a small country bigger countries effectively control your policies.  let me see if i understand.  you have a problem with a small group of people telling you what you may or may not do.  so your solution to this problem involves handing  all  control of what you may or may not do to a  single  group of people  worldwide  ? 0.  how is that any different from the current situation ? 0.  what problem have you solved, as opposed to just pushing the problem upwards to people that are even less reachable, and therefore have even  less  of an incentive to give a shit about your opinions ? what magic spell will you cast to prevent that from happening if a  one world government  becomes a reality according to your wishes ? i do not think you thought your beliefs thoroughly.   #  that would probably legalize piracy. but really when it comes to human rights who the fuck cares except for the rich media companies.   #  if there is such a world government there must be a protection of information in the constitution.  essentially making it a constitutional right to host whatever information you want on your property.  along with the constitutional right to express this information to peers without penalty modified first amendment of usa .  and every interaction between party officials must be recorded and stored on multiple hosts.  that would probably legalize piracy. but really when it comes to human rights who the fuck cares except for the rich media companies.  if there is no such system in place a world government well become corrupt.   #  its a form of identity theft relating to your financials.   #  0 use common sense instead of acting like you know nothing 0 if you make that info illegal to post, it will be illegal to hold financial information of party officials.  if you get your credit card and shit posted online today anyways, the perpetrator probably wo not get caught and your fucked and have to change your shit regardless.  0 to be completely fair if you have child porn on your computer, you should be allowed to have it, even as dirty and shitty as that sounds.  as least you are just fapping and not raping a child.  the people who should be detained are those who produce said child porn.  0 fraud is not misrepresenting.  its a form of identity theft relating to your financials.  more accurately from wiki:  wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain   #  not in our lifetime, but given 0,0 years how much do you really think will survive ?  # information gets lost all the time and simply  goes away .  it is hard to say how much has been lost on the internet, but it has.  sites shut down all the time with no proper archives anywhere.  i know i have gone looking for stuff all the time simply to not find it or copies of it anywhere.  also  forever  could be argued, because no matter what given enough time most information will be lost.  not in our lifetime, but given 0,0 years how much do you really think will survive ?  #  if your vote meant anything the government wouldnt violate the constitution.   #  thats the usa.  they are no longer a democracy and your vote does not mean anything.  if your vote meant anything the government wouldnt violate the constitution.  look at steven harper in canada.  that prick is starting to sell land to the chinese, allowing the nsa, and well never legalize pot.  his government will not win next election i guarantee it.  in the usa all you got is really 0 choices.  republican or democrat and the rich own both.  now what ? vote does not mean anything.
as you can read im not an american.  ive been dreaming of starting a clinic in america in the future, or to work in a medical clinic when i finish medical school in my own country.  however reddit has made me think that america seems like a really scary place to live.  on the othrr hand all american people ive personally met seem happy and enjoy life.  my view of america is that it is a place where you can stack mad cash if youve got the right skills, mindset, work ethic and some luck.  but also a place where the possibility of ending up bankrupt lurks around every corner.  every american seems like one major illness away from bankruptcy, the tendency of some americans to sue can cost you millions seriously, it is something most people i know can agree with and think such sums are ridiculous loopholes that can screw you over and ridiculous ways you can get screwed over by and whatnot.  also comcast ?   was not too serious about this tl:dr america does not offer the life security i enjoy in my own country, and the thought of it really scares me.  now i have come to think about it, the way i like my government right now is more socialistic.  i like my  free  healthcare and strict regulations for my own safety.   #  loopholes that can screw you over and ridiculous ways you can get screwed over by and whatnot.   #  you are going to have to expand on this.   #  it is going to be hard to compare america to your current country of residence without knowing what country you are currently living in, but i will try to alleviate some of your concerns about america anyways.  generally, this is correct.  you mentioned before that you are currently in medical school in your own country, so depending on what country you are from this could influence how easy or difficult your medical degree would transfer to america, but for the most part if you have the right skills like a medical degree , mindset, work ethic, and a little bit of luck then you wo not have too much of a problem getting by in america.  every american seems like one major illness away from bankruptcy, the tendency of some americans to sue can cost you millions seriously, it is something most people i know can agree with and think such sums are ridiculous generally if you have half decent health insurance you wo not go bankrupt trying to pay for any medical procedures, and if you ca not afford health insurance you can probably qualify for medicaid which acts as a safety net to prevent you from going bankrupt trying to pay for medical services.  the six and seven figure healthcare bills you hear about from american generally are not the actual amount that has to be paid.  also, if you plan on going into the medical field in america then you wo not have any trouble affording health insurance in the first place.  the tendency for americans to sue over anything is pretty overblown in my opinion.  yes you occasionally hear about petty lawsuits for lots of money, but the vast majority of people in america will never end up on either side of any of these lawsuits.  also, people who engage in lawsuits like this typically go after those who are rich, meaning that for you to find yourself on the wrong end of one of these frivolous lawsuits would most likely mean that you have become financially successful.  you are going to have to expand on this.  what loopholes are you talking about ? hating on comcast or any major isp besides google for that matter is a common circlejerk on reddit.  is comcast the most customer friendly business ? no.  are they a reason why you should be afraid to move to the u. s.  ? no.  this may be anecdotal but i have comcast for my internet and cable.  they are essentially the only option in my area for internet.  my internet speeds are fine.  i do not have any problems streaming hd videos, music, doing online gaming, downloading various types of files, etc.  is it perfect ? no, but it should not be a reason for you to not move to america.   #  if you had a plan like that, they could basically deny everything.   #  the thing to remember about the u. s.  is that there is a aversion to being forced into things.  so things like healthcare reform have been controversial, as if you want to choose to not have health insurance, you can choose to do that.  so there are people out there that chose not to, get in an accident, and end up with massive bills.  on the other hand, there used to be fairly lax laws into what counts as  insurance  that was offered through shitty companies.  if you had a plan like that, they could basically deny everything.  the obamacare stuff took care of a lot of this, and i would bet that there will be more reform in the next 0 0 years as the system gets stressed by the aging baby boomer population here.   #  california and texas as far as i know are nice places, i have not really looked into cities but i guess rules can change widely between cities within states ?  #  california and texas as far as i know are nice places, i have not really looked into cities but i guess rules can change widely between cities within states ? the specialty i want to pursue is probably surgery.  i know that california is a pretty liberal place, and texas on the other hand pretty conservative.  im sure i can adapt to both.  but im also a sucker for beautiful sceneries so montana looks beautiful to me and so does california.  los angeles also is the most attractive place for surgeons, especially plastic surgeons, since most rich people live there hence the high salaries and thus a lot of competition.  so my idea is to first move to a rather calm place like montana or utah, and as i gain experience to try california.  the us offers a lot of things i do not have here back in holland i realize after reading the comments here.   #  both are huge states with big differences between cities.   #  both are huge states with big differences between cities.  la and san francisco for example will have different outlooks on life due to the large distances between them and local culture.  rules/laws change a bit between cities in the same state but not as much as laws between different states.  rural texas and areas like dallas are going to be a lot more conservative compared to austin or san antonio.  texas will be a lot cheaper than california,  #  there are a lot of government and nonprofit organizations that will help you out if you need it.   #  i am from missoula, montana and currently live in san diego, california.  montana is absolutely beautiful, the people are nice and very liberal in missoula other cities not so much .  california is always pegged as this amazing and liberal place. but i do not see it that way.  they have weird laws and taxes and it is very expensive to live in most parts of california.  i would honestly try and stay away from bigger cities.  i will admit i am a little bit of a small town girl, but in my opinion, bigger cities are the scary thing.  i can get around easily here and have made some great friends and found a job fairly quickly, but there are things about california that are absurd to me after growing up in such an amazing place.  i think as long as you understand what sort of resources you can utilize in america, it can be a really great place.  although we have a lot of improvements to make, it probably is not as scary as the media makes it out to be.  be wary, but not too wary ! of course there are terrible people and policies anywhere you go, so just do your research, do not come into it blindly, but come take advantage of some opportunites and meet some people who would love to make a new friend from the netherlands ! and as far as the healthcare thing goes, a lot of jobs offer healthcare benefits, although it would be nice for everyone to receive benefits, but hopefully we will make strides with that in the near future.  there are a lot of government and nonprofit organizations that will help you out if you need it.  like i said, as long as you know about your resources, you will be just fine ! hopefully you get a chance to come to montana ! you wo not be disappointed:
communism with no social classes, private property or money.  but this is why i am a communist skeptic.   amoney .  if it is gone then people surely do things for the survival and improvement of the human race, rather than profit.  but it is never gone, because money is anything that is exchanged for something else, or gives you leverage over another.  even social capital is currency.  as soon as anyone has a bit more respect, bam, that person has more currency than you.  the issue comes because it is human nature to take, and with billions of people, there will always people who will take more.  they will use that social capital to raise themselves and their supportive few above the rest and take more.  the only way to quell this would be through the rest of the  equals  at that moment in time, removing them from society, through imprisonment, banishment, or even killing.  but by my current day ethics, communism surely then does not work ? we are capitalist by nature, thus communism is impossible.  whilst capitalism is rough at best, socialism is a cushion for the inevitable ups and downs of a monetary system.  we learn the most when we listen to those who disagree.  so. change my view.  update: thank you all for your time and your replies, unfortunately my view has not been changed; thank you :  #  we are capitalist by nature, thus communism is impossible.   #  we have been  capitalist  for a very small subset of our history.   # we have been  capitalist  for a very small subset of our history.  i certainly would not call us capitalist by nature.  while i am not the biggest communism proponent, i do not think it clashes with human nature, because i do not thin human nature exists.  the arguments i generally hear to try and discredit communism are 0 lack of motivation and 0 unequal will to participate.  these two things, in my opinion, do not survive closer examination.  firstly, i doubt financial gain is the main motivator of human action.  in fact, i think people would me more productive when free from the absolute imperative of work or capital accumulation.  secondly, a communist society would most likely require  less  involvement work wise than capitalist society, meaning people do not need to contribute large stretch of their time to work.  provided this is achieved, we do not really need mike to be a 0 and we do not really care if kevin is 0.   #  initially, this was a special royal privilege awarded on a case by case basis to selected organizations, the chartered companies such as british east india company.   # i certainly would not call us capitalist by nature.  capitalism in its present form began around the age of discovery 0th century when private investors established large scale joint stock formal partnerships that were legally recognized by the state.  initially, this was a special royal privilege awarded on a case by case basis to selected organizations, the chartered companies such as british east india company.  during the industrial revolution, this became the main mode of economic organization in western countries.  however, way before joint stock companies were invented, all human civilizations had private property rights and some kind of private enterprises, so it could be argued that humans have been in some sense  capitalist  for at least 0,0 years, all the recorded history.  hunter gatherer tribes did not have true private property rights or enterprises, although they all recognized the concept of private possessions.  they were not capitalist, but they certainly were not communist either.  the truth is that hunter gatherers had very few assets other than what they could carry in their hands, which means that resource allocation was not really a big issue.   #  since  everything  is given, what is the actual worth of stuff.   #  take more of  what  for  what  ? you can only wear so much clothes or eat so much food.  since  everything  is given, what is the actual worth of stuff.  it is not like there is incentive to sell apples, when anyone can literally go grab apples for themselves.  are you afraid of freeloaders ? i doubt they will be that numerous and i do not think we will care much anyway.  the only reason people despise free loaders is because they are struggling to survive themselves.  if you are not slaving away at work every day, you wo not care much about people eating for free.   #  well, in  this  society, there are artificial things like government employed cops and judges to punish people for stealing and tresspassing.   #  well, there is  natural  private property law, under which people only  own  those physical possessions or territorries which they can successfully defend from others.  that is significantly more basic than this modern form of capitalism where we use ledgers and record keeping in order to preserve ownership at otherwise untenable scales.  imagine a single real estate tycoon wants to evict all his tenants from an apartment complex he owns, without any cops to help him.  what good does his signed and notarized land deed do him if his tenants outnumber him 0:0 and are not willing to leave ? well, in  this  society, there are artificial things like government employed cops and judges to punish people for stealing and tresspassing.  far beyond the  basics .  it sounds like you are arguing for a  noble savage  existence, not capitalism.   #  it is a market economy in which the means of production is owned by private means, by the capitalist class.   #  well, no.  a market economy is the giving of something for something in return.  capitalism is much more complicated than that.  it is a market economy in which the means of production is owned by private means, by the capitalist class.  in fact, many libertarian socialists, or anarchists, are in favor of a socialist market, in which every worker is equal owner of the place he works as anyone other worker.  this is decidedly not capitalism, but still giving something for something in return.  before you defend this position, you should clarify the definitions of communism and capitalism you are working with.  because i do not think you understand the correct definitions of the two.
communism with no social classes, private property or money.  but this is why i am a communist skeptic.   amoney .  if it is gone then people surely do things for the survival and improvement of the human race, rather than profit.  but it is never gone, because money is anything that is exchanged for something else, or gives you leverage over another.  even social capital is currency.  as soon as anyone has a bit more respect, bam, that person has more currency than you.  the issue comes because it is human nature to take, and with billions of people, there will always people who will take more.  they will use that social capital to raise themselves and their supportive few above the rest and take more.  the only way to quell this would be through the rest of the  equals  at that moment in time, removing them from society, through imprisonment, banishment, or even killing.  but by my current day ethics, communism surely then does not work ? we are capitalist by nature, thus communism is impossible.  whilst capitalism is rough at best, socialism is a cushion for the inevitable ups and downs of a monetary system.  we learn the most when we listen to those who disagree.  so. change my view.  update: thank you all for your time and your replies, unfortunately my view has not been changed; thank you :  #  they will use that social capital to raise themselves and their supportive few above the rest and take more.   #  the thing is and this is pretty basic marxist theory , structural inequality and oppressive large scale social hierarchies are only possible due to the  enforcement of private property .   #  sorta late, but i hope i can still contribute…  communism with no social classes, private property or money.  you missed  no state , which is absolutely fundamental.   no money  is not a strict requirement for communism, but more of a predictable outcome.  there could be small scale markets, or token systems.  so if small trade happens it is not quite a  gotcha  for all of communism.  the thing is and this is pretty basic marxist theory , structural inequality and oppressive large scale social hierarchies are only possible due to the  enforcement of private property .  a simple test: which one is the most accurate order of appearance for barter, loans and physical money ? and i do not mean  they happened sometimes , i mean fundamentally for a society.   #  i certainly would not call us capitalist by nature.   # we have been  capitalist  for a very small subset of our history.  i certainly would not call us capitalist by nature.  while i am not the biggest communism proponent, i do not think it clashes with human nature, because i do not thin human nature exists.  the arguments i generally hear to try and discredit communism are 0 lack of motivation and 0 unequal will to participate.  these two things, in my opinion, do not survive closer examination.  firstly, i doubt financial gain is the main motivator of human action.  in fact, i think people would me more productive when free from the absolute imperative of work or capital accumulation.  secondly, a communist society would most likely require  less  involvement work wise than capitalist society, meaning people do not need to contribute large stretch of their time to work.  provided this is achieved, we do not really need mike to be a 0 and we do not really care if kevin is 0.   #  hunter gatherer tribes did not have true private property rights or enterprises, although they all recognized the concept of private possessions.   # i certainly would not call us capitalist by nature.  capitalism in its present form began around the age of discovery 0th century when private investors established large scale joint stock formal partnerships that were legally recognized by the state.  initially, this was a special royal privilege awarded on a case by case basis to selected organizations, the chartered companies such as british east india company.  during the industrial revolution, this became the main mode of economic organization in western countries.  however, way before joint stock companies were invented, all human civilizations had private property rights and some kind of private enterprises, so it could be argued that humans have been in some sense  capitalist  for at least 0,0 years, all the recorded history.  hunter gatherer tribes did not have true private property rights or enterprises, although they all recognized the concept of private possessions.  they were not capitalist, but they certainly were not communist either.  the truth is that hunter gatherers had very few assets other than what they could carry in their hands, which means that resource allocation was not really a big issue.   #  it is not like there is incentive to sell apples, when anyone can literally go grab apples for themselves.   #  take more of  what  for  what  ? you can only wear so much clothes or eat so much food.  since  everything  is given, what is the actual worth of stuff.  it is not like there is incentive to sell apples, when anyone can literally go grab apples for themselves.  are you afraid of freeloaders ? i doubt they will be that numerous and i do not think we will care much anyway.  the only reason people despise free loaders is because they are struggling to survive themselves.  if you are not slaving away at work every day, you wo not care much about people eating for free.   #  it sounds like you are arguing for a  noble savage  existence, not capitalism.   #  well, there is  natural  private property law, under which people only  own  those physical possessions or territorries which they can successfully defend from others.  that is significantly more basic than this modern form of capitalism where we use ledgers and record keeping in order to preserve ownership at otherwise untenable scales.  imagine a single real estate tycoon wants to evict all his tenants from an apartment complex he owns, without any cops to help him.  what good does his signed and notarized land deed do him if his tenants outnumber him 0:0 and are not willing to leave ? well, in  this  society, there are artificial things like government employed cops and judges to punish people for stealing and tresspassing.  far beyond the  basics .  it sounds like you are arguing for a  noble savage  existence, not capitalism.
communism with no social classes, private property or money.  but this is why i am a communist skeptic.   amoney .  if it is gone then people surely do things for the survival and improvement of the human race, rather than profit.  but it is never gone, because money is anything that is exchanged for something else, or gives you leverage over another.  even social capital is currency.  as soon as anyone has a bit more respect, bam, that person has more currency than you.  the issue comes because it is human nature to take, and with billions of people, there will always people who will take more.  they will use that social capital to raise themselves and their supportive few above the rest and take more.  the only way to quell this would be through the rest of the  equals  at that moment in time, removing them from society, through imprisonment, banishment, or even killing.  but by my current day ethics, communism surely then does not work ? we are capitalist by nature, thus communism is impossible.  whilst capitalism is rough at best, socialism is a cushion for the inevitable ups and downs of a monetary system.  we learn the most when we listen to those who disagree.  so. change my view.  update: thank you all for your time and your replies, unfortunately my view has not been changed; thank you :  #  we are capitalist by nature, thus communism is impossible.   #  a simple test: which one is the most accurate order of appearance for barter, loans and physical money ?  #  sorta late, but i hope i can still contribute…  communism with no social classes, private property or money.  you missed  no state , which is absolutely fundamental.   no money  is not a strict requirement for communism, but more of a predictable outcome.  there could be small scale markets, or token systems.  so if small trade happens it is not quite a  gotcha  for all of communism.  the thing is and this is pretty basic marxist theory , structural inequality and oppressive large scale social hierarchies are only possible due to the  enforcement of private property .  a simple test: which one is the most accurate order of appearance for barter, loans and physical money ? and i do not mean  they happened sometimes , i mean fundamentally for a society.   #  in fact, i think people would me more productive when free from the absolute imperative of work or capital accumulation.   # we have been  capitalist  for a very small subset of our history.  i certainly would not call us capitalist by nature.  while i am not the biggest communism proponent, i do not think it clashes with human nature, because i do not thin human nature exists.  the arguments i generally hear to try and discredit communism are 0 lack of motivation and 0 unequal will to participate.  these two things, in my opinion, do not survive closer examination.  firstly, i doubt financial gain is the main motivator of human action.  in fact, i think people would me more productive when free from the absolute imperative of work or capital accumulation.  secondly, a communist society would most likely require  less  involvement work wise than capitalist society, meaning people do not need to contribute large stretch of their time to work.  provided this is achieved, we do not really need mike to be a 0 and we do not really care if kevin is 0.   #  i certainly would not call us capitalist by nature.   # i certainly would not call us capitalist by nature.  capitalism in its present form began around the age of discovery 0th century when private investors established large scale joint stock formal partnerships that were legally recognized by the state.  initially, this was a special royal privilege awarded on a case by case basis to selected organizations, the chartered companies such as british east india company.  during the industrial revolution, this became the main mode of economic organization in western countries.  however, way before joint stock companies were invented, all human civilizations had private property rights and some kind of private enterprises, so it could be argued that humans have been in some sense  capitalist  for at least 0,0 years, all the recorded history.  hunter gatherer tribes did not have true private property rights or enterprises, although they all recognized the concept of private possessions.  they were not capitalist, but they certainly were not communist either.  the truth is that hunter gatherers had very few assets other than what they could carry in their hands, which means that resource allocation was not really a big issue.   #  i doubt they will be that numerous and i do not think we will care much anyway.   #  take more of  what  for  what  ? you can only wear so much clothes or eat so much food.  since  everything  is given, what is the actual worth of stuff.  it is not like there is incentive to sell apples, when anyone can literally go grab apples for themselves.  are you afraid of freeloaders ? i doubt they will be that numerous and i do not think we will care much anyway.  the only reason people despise free loaders is because they are struggling to survive themselves.  if you are not slaving away at work every day, you wo not care much about people eating for free.   #  well, there is  natural  private property law, under which people only  own  those physical possessions or territorries which they can successfully defend from others.   #  well, there is  natural  private property law, under which people only  own  those physical possessions or territorries which they can successfully defend from others.  that is significantly more basic than this modern form of capitalism where we use ledgers and record keeping in order to preserve ownership at otherwise untenable scales.  imagine a single real estate tycoon wants to evict all his tenants from an apartment complex he owns, without any cops to help him.  what good does his signed and notarized land deed do him if his tenants outnumber him 0:0 and are not willing to leave ? well, in  this  society, there are artificial things like government employed cops and judges to punish people for stealing and tresspassing.  far beyond the  basics .  it sounds like you are arguing for a  noble savage  existence, not capitalism.
i am a 0 year old in highschool, and i rarely cheat.  i am not good at anything or smart, i just have a very good memory.  lets say humans are computers, i do not have a good graphics card, processor, or even look like a good computer, i just have a lot of hard drive space.  while many schools, including my own, are trying to change this, school is mainly about memorizing what they tell you so you can do good on tests.  because of this i have solid grades and do well on tests, i do well on essays because i am great at bullshitting people enough to give them the impression i am smart and that i know what i am talking about.  how i do well on standardized tests is a mystery for the ages.  i have seen cheating done in ways that show ingenuity and a type of intelligence i do not posses.  once i saw two or three kids make up their own version of morse code so they knew what circle to fill in for which problem, i saw a girl put math formulas on the side of her glasses so she could pretend to clean the glasses when she is really being reminded on how to do the problem.  i doubt i could come up with anything like that in a million years.  i do not have the resourcefulness to do so.  these people do not deserve to do worse in school, therefore probably worse in life simply because they are intelligent in a way that wo not be tested.  on the surface i would seem like a smart kid, and i used to as in my freshman and sophomore year be a euphoric moron who thought so.  i am not arrogant enough to be haughty to the people labeled as cheaters, we each used our own set of skills to overcome an obstacle.  not only that, the way they did it actually shows intelligence of some kind.   #  i doubt i could come up with anything like that in a million years.   #  i do not have the resourcefulness to do so.   # i do not have the resourcefulness to do so.  these people do not deserve to do worse in school, therefore probably worse in life simply because they are intelligent in a way that wo not be tested.  will  they do worse in life, though ? what if getting good grades at school and a higher educational standing , confers some specific kinds of advantages which are of more use to people who  lack  the kind of intelligence you are talking about, and which people who have it do not need as much ? i imagine that people who are resourceful test cheaters are probably gonna also be good at resumé padding and credential fudging when it is time to interview for jobs.  and if you were talented at social engineering as a kid as opposed to a technical or literary skill, then you might be best served by pursuing an executive or management career path anyway, and not compete for the operational jobs against the kids who got by on memorization and book learning.  if another kid is too inclined to follow the rules to cheat on a test, then they are probably also gonna be unwilling to stretch the truth on their resumés, so i think that kid should have some extra academic credentials to help them compete on an even playing field with the more skilled bullshitter.   #  being smart and/or having a shit teacher means that you can zone out in class, not do homework, and cheat or bullshit your way through exams.   #  think of it this way.  the school system is not designed to reward intelligent students simply for the virtue of being intelligent.  as it happens, smart people get better grades, but this is a side effect, not the intended result.  the main goal is not even making you learn the material, even though having everyone knowing a bare minimum on a wide variety of topics is a good idea, as it creates more versatile workforce.  no, the main goal is to instill a culture of learning and working for hours at a time, at a more and more complicated tasks.  when you were seven, you could not focus for 0 minutes straight writing in cursive, but that ability is exercised for years until you can learn spanish for 0 hours, have a break, then head into algebra class, have a break, then study chemistry for 0 more hours.  cheating means you do not have to try as hard.  being smart and/or having a shit teacher means that you can zone out in class, not do homework, and cheat or bullshit your way through exams.  and maybe you even know the material.  that does not matter, what it matters is that a few years down the line you are not capable of focusing and working on your own on projects you find worthy.  a lot of people in college are overwhelmed, because they never had to study in schools, had straight a is, but you ca not improvise a course project or a masters thesis.  there are plenty of smart people.  ambitious people always do better in life than lazy smart people.   #  unfortunately, the system we have is not perfect.   #  i think one of your problems is with tackling the idea that by disobeying the rules, you can still be demonstrating ingenuity, critical thinking and intelligence.  this is true just because somebody does well on a test, this does not mean they are automatically intelligent and vice versa those who do badly or cheat are not necessarily stupid.  there is no perfect way to measure intelligence, and this is the root of the problem.  there is that old saying about standardised testing, that measuring everybody on the same qualities is as useless as judging monkey and a fish on their abilities to climb a tree.  unfortunately, the system we have is not perfect.  however, within the system we have standardised tests , cheating does cause a disservice to those obeying the rules.  if the point of the test is to rank those who take it against each other, any ranking that involved cheating is not going to tell the truth.  even though we say the ranking system is inherently flawed how perfectly can it fully represent each persons abilities the fact still remains that within the confines of the test, in order to accurately judge relative ability all need to obey the rules.  if this is not followed, accuracy is lost.  when these tests are used to ultimately progress in life, disservice translates into missed college spaces, missed job offers etc.  if one wants to argue that cheating is no disservice to those who play the system properly, then one needs to remove the albeit flawed system.  it is a lot harder to suggest that cheating is no disservice to others when the system is in place.  as a society we struggle to find another system, where intelligence and aptitude is fairly comprehended, ranked and used as a marker for ability.   #  they might have nice hair during the test but the test does not grade them on appearence.   #  you want to reward them for being good at something, namely xheatung.  the test is not on how to cheat, its on the subject material.  they might have nice hair during the test but the test does not grade them on appearence.  we do not reward people for being good at some thing bad  the person is a murdered but they did it in such a clever way.  let not charge him.   they end up not knowing the material yet have the qualifications.  they are taking a big risk that this will not eventully hurt them, either later in schooling or in the workplace.  they are not working harder.  its easier to develop ways of cheating rather than preparing for the test.  why would people do something harder with bigger risks rather than something easier and more honest ?  #  unfortunately, depending on the field, that could happen well after getting hired.   #  at first, it would seem that the cheater is only doing a disservice to himself.  which is mostly true.  there does come a point when cheating becomes unsustainable, and you need to actually know your stuff.  unfortunately, depending on the field, that could happen well after getting hired.  that is, if someone is better at interviewing than you are they probably will be if they are good enough to bullshit their way through college, which i have actually seen a couple of people do , then they will take the job that you wanted without actually being qualified for it.  also, group projects.  if someone cheats on a group project it is automatically up to you to fix whatever bs they are pulling.  you will see what i mean once that situation happens which it will .
it is standard in the competitive smash bros.  community to only play the game with items off.  this is idiotic for a multitude of reasons.   0.  it makes the game less fun.   would you want to play mario kart without items ? fuck no.  that removes all of the excitement and variation in the game.  same applies to smash.  sure enough, there was a post in r/nintendo or r/wiiu last week asking if there could be a competitive mario kart scene and most of the responses were  not unless they remove items .  but then what is the point ? where is the fun ? just play another goddamn racing game if you want to play mario kart without items and just play another goddamn fighting game if you want to play smash bros.  without items.   0.  it is restricting the intended purpose of the game.   why would you remove features from the game that are meant to be used ? you are taking the game and making it into something it is not.  it is like deliberately ordering a supreme pizza and picking off all the ingredients.  fucking pointless and borderline disrespectful to the developers i will admit this last part is a bit dubious, but, well. they did work to put it in the game as a main function of the game and it makes up a good portion of their creative output.  it is kinda lame to just ignore that aspect of it .   0.  not only do items not hinder the competitive aspect of the game; they add to it, making their restriction the hindrance.   this is the big one.  this is why competitive smash players leave items off in the first place: because  the random aspect makes the game less competitive .  um. how ? i mean, i guess the justification is that the randomness of item types and placement reduces the focus on the players  abilities, but to that i say two things:  0a.  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.   do you not even consider that, y know, the person who gets the item still has to use it  correctly  ? and you can still dodge it ? and, assuming the item does not spawn right next to a player, you still have to make the dash to the item before someone else  or  decide not to go for it at all.  this is where the game becomes  more  competitive with the use of items.  you have to actually take them into account.  i imagine a common argument against items is something like  oh well you suck if you can only win with items on.   have you considered that maybe  you  suck because you ca not win without them turned off ? i guess what i am saying here is that while items add a slight element of chance, they more than make up for it with a multiple separate aspects of player skill.   0b.  even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ?   it is not as though it is a coin toss or a lottery where it is based entirely on luck.  it is just the kinds of items and where they are placed.  the addition of luck is part of the fun  and  part of the challenge.  luck and competition are not mutually exclusive.  even with items turned off.  it is not even possible for them to be.  there is always going to be the possibility of an otherwise champion player making a stupid, fatal fuckup, or a glitch in the game causing an otherwise unwarranted victory.  i understand wanting to reduce that element of chance, but removing items does so to the point that the fun in the competition is lost.  at the very least, there should be separate, mainstream smash tournaments that keep items on.   #  not only do items not hinder the competitive aspect of the game; they add to it, making their restriction the hindrance.   #  i am sorry but adding elements players have no control on makes the game extremely unfair in the case of competitive play.   # if they give you the option of removing items it does not change the purpose of the game.  i am sorry but adding elements players have no control on makes the game extremely unfair in the case of competitive play.  you are right that some items require skill to use but most of them give a big advantage to the player trophys, pokeball, smash ball   even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ? the whole point of a competition is to match skill on an even playing field.  this is why you see most matches played on fd with no items because it is pure skills involved.  say a player practiced for months for a tournament, is better than the opposing player and a smash ball or a pokeball happens to spawn near the losing player giving him a huge advantage as the other player has to deal with 0 ennemies/an unavoidable attack making him lose.  now do you think the guy who was lucky enough to have the item spawn near him is a better player than the other one ? you need to see smash as both a competitive and party game.  i do both, smash with 0 other guys, random characters, maps and full items is super fun casual smash.  but when i want to test my skills which to me is also super fun with friends it is 0v0 no items on maps with no interferance.   #  now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.   # fun is 0 subjective.  you may like it more with items, and that is fine.  without items.  what if they like the other mechanics ? items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  what is the intended purpose of the game ? well, it is a versatile game that applies to a very, very wide audience.  some people prefer some things and some people prefer other things.  if i play a game, i want to maximize the amount of fun i have while doing it.  some people think items add to the fun, like you, and others think that they remove the fun.  would you say that olympic racewalking is inherently more competitive than olympic running ? restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  going into specific examples, let is say an item spawns next to player a that let is them, if used correctly, knock out player b.  player a will need to skillfully use this item to knock out player b, correct ? now, let is say that the game has been even until then, and both people have 0 life left.  whoever is better will win.  however, player a gets an item that will let them, with the right timing, knock out player b.  player a also has the option to pretend the item does not exist and play normally.  therefore, player a arbitrarily gets 0 extra option compared to player b, and a higher chance of success.  now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  it can add interest.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  if you add a random element to a game, you would better have a good reason.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  what if every attack had a 0 in 0 chance of hitting twice as hard, for example ? it would be balanced, it just would be there fore no reason.  that is a mistake the player makes.  these are avoided at all costs.  sometimes games are even replayed if the glitch is severe enough.  i think that that could be good.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.   #  you have to make due with what you have got.   # items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  for smash, i will give you this one.  the game is it is own game with its own very detailed mechanics, even if items are turned off.  mario kart, on the other hand, does not really have much substance without items and i still feel like if you want to play a fighting game without items, you would have a better time playing just about any other fighting game that is built with pure brawling in mind, but i guess this is purely subjective.     restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  . so are you agreeing with me here ? now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  yeah, and i see nothing wrong with this.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  i mean, does competitive scrabble not work because the tiles are given at random ? no.  you have to make due with what you have got.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  this is valid, but part of the idea is for those players to act based on what is done by the game.  i guess it is like adding in a third party to the mix.  kinda like a dm, only it is a computer.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  makes the game more exciting.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  that is a mistake the player makes.  a mistake that was totally unanticipated by the other player.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.  true true.   #  scrabble works because the tiles are pretty well balanced maybe s needs to be worth nothing on its own, its a really great tile .   #  to the scrabble example, if highly skilled players could win much more reliably say 0, 0 of the time if they got the only j, would it be a problem then ? when it becomes less about the game and more about who gets the best letter, i think the game suffers.  scrabble works because the tiles are pretty well balanced maybe s needs to be worth nothing on its own, its a really great tile .  the harder to use letters are worth more points, so if you get high point or low point letters, you can win both ways.  but in smash, many of the items do not feel balanced like this.  i do not have new interesting strategies because my opponent got the ray gun.  i sort of have to wait until he ca not use it anymore.   #  in a casual environment it may be good.   # not exactly.  you claim that they add to the competitiveness of the game, when in reality, a restriction does not inherently add or take away anything.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  in a competitive environment, this is bad.  in a casual environment it may be good.  in a competitive environment, everyone wants the better player to win 0 of the time.  however, if you are fine with letting the worse player win sometimes possibly rarely , as people in casual environments are, it is fine.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  how does it make it more exciting ? i do not understand.  is it by making it unpredictable ? in this case, would you like my proposed option 0 in 0 hits are twice as hard .  it still requires skill, but as i said before, the player who plays better will not always win with an element of random chance.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  player a makes a mistake.  how often you make mistakes is part of your overall skill.  the person who makes mistakes less is a better player.  i guess you could call it random for the other player, but it is not outside of the player is control and knowledge which is usually how i define random chance
it is standard in the competitive smash bros.  community to only play the game with items off.  this is idiotic for a multitude of reasons.   0.  it makes the game less fun.   would you want to play mario kart without items ? fuck no.  that removes all of the excitement and variation in the game.  same applies to smash.  sure enough, there was a post in r/nintendo or r/wiiu last week asking if there could be a competitive mario kart scene and most of the responses were  not unless they remove items .  but then what is the point ? where is the fun ? just play another goddamn racing game if you want to play mario kart without items and just play another goddamn fighting game if you want to play smash bros.  without items.   0.  it is restricting the intended purpose of the game.   why would you remove features from the game that are meant to be used ? you are taking the game and making it into something it is not.  it is like deliberately ordering a supreme pizza and picking off all the ingredients.  fucking pointless and borderline disrespectful to the developers i will admit this last part is a bit dubious, but, well. they did work to put it in the game as a main function of the game and it makes up a good portion of their creative output.  it is kinda lame to just ignore that aspect of it .   0.  not only do items not hinder the competitive aspect of the game; they add to it, making their restriction the hindrance.   this is the big one.  this is why competitive smash players leave items off in the first place: because  the random aspect makes the game less competitive .  um. how ? i mean, i guess the justification is that the randomness of item types and placement reduces the focus on the players  abilities, but to that i say two things:  0a.  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.   do you not even consider that, y know, the person who gets the item still has to use it  correctly  ? and you can still dodge it ? and, assuming the item does not spawn right next to a player, you still have to make the dash to the item before someone else  or  decide not to go for it at all.  this is where the game becomes  more  competitive with the use of items.  you have to actually take them into account.  i imagine a common argument against items is something like  oh well you suck if you can only win with items on.   have you considered that maybe  you  suck because you ca not win without them turned off ? i guess what i am saying here is that while items add a slight element of chance, they more than make up for it with a multiple separate aspects of player skill.   0b.  even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ?   it is not as though it is a coin toss or a lottery where it is based entirely on luck.  it is just the kinds of items and where they are placed.  the addition of luck is part of the fun  and  part of the challenge.  luck and competition are not mutually exclusive.  even with items turned off.  it is not even possible for them to be.  there is always going to be the possibility of an otherwise champion player making a stupid, fatal fuckup, or a glitch in the game causing an otherwise unwarranted victory.  i understand wanting to reduce that element of chance, but removing items does so to the point that the fun in the competition is lost.  at the very least, there should be separate, mainstream smash tournaments that keep items on.   #  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.   #  you are right that some items require skill to use but most of them give a big advantage to the player trophys, pokeball, smash ball   even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ?  # if they give you the option of removing items it does not change the purpose of the game.  i am sorry but adding elements players have no control on makes the game extremely unfair in the case of competitive play.  you are right that some items require skill to use but most of them give a big advantage to the player trophys, pokeball, smash ball   even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ? the whole point of a competition is to match skill on an even playing field.  this is why you see most matches played on fd with no items because it is pure skills involved.  say a player practiced for months for a tournament, is better than the opposing player and a smash ball or a pokeball happens to spawn near the losing player giving him a huge advantage as the other player has to deal with 0 ennemies/an unavoidable attack making him lose.  now do you think the guy who was lucky enough to have the item spawn near him is a better player than the other one ? you need to see smash as both a competitive and party game.  i do both, smash with 0 other guys, random characters, maps and full items is super fun casual smash.  but when i want to test my skills which to me is also super fun with friends it is 0v0 no items on maps with no interferance.   #  well, it is a versatile game that applies to a very, very wide audience.   # fun is 0 subjective.  you may like it more with items, and that is fine.  without items.  what if they like the other mechanics ? items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  what is the intended purpose of the game ? well, it is a versatile game that applies to a very, very wide audience.  some people prefer some things and some people prefer other things.  if i play a game, i want to maximize the amount of fun i have while doing it.  some people think items add to the fun, like you, and others think that they remove the fun.  would you say that olympic racewalking is inherently more competitive than olympic running ? restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  going into specific examples, let is say an item spawns next to player a that let is them, if used correctly, knock out player b.  player a will need to skillfully use this item to knock out player b, correct ? now, let is say that the game has been even until then, and both people have 0 life left.  whoever is better will win.  however, player a gets an item that will let them, with the right timing, knock out player b.  player a also has the option to pretend the item does not exist and play normally.  therefore, player a arbitrarily gets 0 extra option compared to player b, and a higher chance of success.  now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  it can add interest.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  if you add a random element to a game, you would better have a good reason.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  what if every attack had a 0 in 0 chance of hitting twice as hard, for example ? it would be balanced, it just would be there fore no reason.  that is a mistake the player makes.  these are avoided at all costs.  sometimes games are even replayed if the glitch is severe enough.  i think that that could be good.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.   #  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.   # items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  for smash, i will give you this one.  the game is it is own game with its own very detailed mechanics, even if items are turned off.  mario kart, on the other hand, does not really have much substance without items and i still feel like if you want to play a fighting game without items, you would have a better time playing just about any other fighting game that is built with pure brawling in mind, but i guess this is purely subjective.     restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  . so are you agreeing with me here ? now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  yeah, and i see nothing wrong with this.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  i mean, does competitive scrabble not work because the tiles are given at random ? no.  you have to make due with what you have got.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  this is valid, but part of the idea is for those players to act based on what is done by the game.  i guess it is like adding in a third party to the mix.  kinda like a dm, only it is a computer.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  makes the game more exciting.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  that is a mistake the player makes.  a mistake that was totally unanticipated by the other player.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.  true true.   #  the harder to use letters are worth more points, so if you get high point or low point letters, you can win both ways.   #  to the scrabble example, if highly skilled players could win much more reliably say 0, 0 of the time if they got the only j, would it be a problem then ? when it becomes less about the game and more about who gets the best letter, i think the game suffers.  scrabble works because the tiles are pretty well balanced maybe s needs to be worth nothing on its own, its a really great tile .  the harder to use letters are worth more points, so if you get high point or low point letters, you can win both ways.  but in smash, many of the items do not feel balanced like this.  i do not have new interesting strategies because my opponent got the ray gun.  i sort of have to wait until he ca not use it anymore.   #  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.   # not exactly.  you claim that they add to the competitiveness of the game, when in reality, a restriction does not inherently add or take away anything.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  in a competitive environment, this is bad.  in a casual environment it may be good.  in a competitive environment, everyone wants the better player to win 0 of the time.  however, if you are fine with letting the worse player win sometimes possibly rarely , as people in casual environments are, it is fine.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  how does it make it more exciting ? i do not understand.  is it by making it unpredictable ? in this case, would you like my proposed option 0 in 0 hits are twice as hard .  it still requires skill, but as i said before, the player who plays better will not always win with an element of random chance.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  player a makes a mistake.  how often you make mistakes is part of your overall skill.  the person who makes mistakes less is a better player.  i guess you could call it random for the other player, but it is not outside of the player is control and knowledge which is usually how i define random chance
it is standard in the competitive smash bros.  community to only play the game with items off.  this is idiotic for a multitude of reasons.   0.  it makes the game less fun.   would you want to play mario kart without items ? fuck no.  that removes all of the excitement and variation in the game.  same applies to smash.  sure enough, there was a post in r/nintendo or r/wiiu last week asking if there could be a competitive mario kart scene and most of the responses were  not unless they remove items .  but then what is the point ? where is the fun ? just play another goddamn racing game if you want to play mario kart without items and just play another goddamn fighting game if you want to play smash bros.  without items.   0.  it is restricting the intended purpose of the game.   why would you remove features from the game that are meant to be used ? you are taking the game and making it into something it is not.  it is like deliberately ordering a supreme pizza and picking off all the ingredients.  fucking pointless and borderline disrespectful to the developers i will admit this last part is a bit dubious, but, well. they did work to put it in the game as a main function of the game and it makes up a good portion of their creative output.  it is kinda lame to just ignore that aspect of it .   0.  not only do items not hinder the competitive aspect of the game; they add to it, making their restriction the hindrance.   this is the big one.  this is why competitive smash players leave items off in the first place: because  the random aspect makes the game less competitive .  um. how ? i mean, i guess the justification is that the randomness of item types and placement reduces the focus on the players  abilities, but to that i say two things:  0a.  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.   do you not even consider that, y know, the person who gets the item still has to use it  correctly  ? and you can still dodge it ? and, assuming the item does not spawn right next to a player, you still have to make the dash to the item before someone else  or  decide not to go for it at all.  this is where the game becomes  more  competitive with the use of items.  you have to actually take them into account.  i imagine a common argument against items is something like  oh well you suck if you can only win with items on.   have you considered that maybe  you  suck because you ca not win without them turned off ? i guess what i am saying here is that while items add a slight element of chance, they more than make up for it with a multiple separate aspects of player skill.   0b.  even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ?   it is not as though it is a coin toss or a lottery where it is based entirely on luck.  it is just the kinds of items and where they are placed.  the addition of luck is part of the fun  and  part of the challenge.  luck and competition are not mutually exclusive.  even with items turned off.  it is not even possible for them to be.  there is always going to be the possibility of an otherwise champion player making a stupid, fatal fuckup, or a glitch in the game causing an otherwise unwarranted victory.  i understand wanting to reduce that element of chance, but removing items does so to the point that the fun in the competition is lost.  at the very least, there should be separate, mainstream smash tournaments that keep items on.   #  it is restricting the intended purpose of the game.   #  the main thing that separates competitive from normal or pubs is the fact they make make the game more balanced and develop a meta.   #  i  will assume you are talking mostly about the competitive community  it makes the game less fun.  if you must rely on items to have fun in smash, that is a sign of not being good.  mario kart has no competitive scene.  why ? because it is casual all you need is the blue turtle or the rocket and you win, even if you suck at it.  the main thing that separates competitive from normal or pubs is the fact they make make the game more balanced and develop a meta.  smash would suck if the meta was basically trying to grab an item first.  i will focus on 0a and 0b  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.  but it does not.  items are very simple to use, especially for a pro who is been playing for years for hours a day.  like i said above, the meta would change.  it would not change to who can use the item the best.  it would be who can first get it and when because they suddenly become op.  if items where nerfed excessively, i would see were you where coming from, but what would be the purpose of having them.  if there is a random aspect, it is not competitive.  name one random esport and i will argue this.   #  therefore, player a arbitrarily gets 0 extra option compared to player b, and a higher chance of success.   # fun is 0 subjective.  you may like it more with items, and that is fine.  without items.  what if they like the other mechanics ? items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  what is the intended purpose of the game ? well, it is a versatile game that applies to a very, very wide audience.  some people prefer some things and some people prefer other things.  if i play a game, i want to maximize the amount of fun i have while doing it.  some people think items add to the fun, like you, and others think that they remove the fun.  would you say that olympic racewalking is inherently more competitive than olympic running ? restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  going into specific examples, let is say an item spawns next to player a that let is them, if used correctly, knock out player b.  player a will need to skillfully use this item to knock out player b, correct ? now, let is say that the game has been even until then, and both people have 0 life left.  whoever is better will win.  however, player a gets an item that will let them, with the right timing, knock out player b.  player a also has the option to pretend the item does not exist and play normally.  therefore, player a arbitrarily gets 0 extra option compared to player b, and a higher chance of success.  now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  it can add interest.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  if you add a random element to a game, you would better have a good reason.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  what if every attack had a 0 in 0 chance of hitting twice as hard, for example ? it would be balanced, it just would be there fore no reason.  that is a mistake the player makes.  these are avoided at all costs.  sometimes games are even replayed if the glitch is severe enough.  i think that that could be good.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.   #  i guess it is like adding in a third party to the mix.   # items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  for smash, i will give you this one.  the game is it is own game with its own very detailed mechanics, even if items are turned off.  mario kart, on the other hand, does not really have much substance without items and i still feel like if you want to play a fighting game without items, you would have a better time playing just about any other fighting game that is built with pure brawling in mind, but i guess this is purely subjective.     restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  . so are you agreeing with me here ? now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  yeah, and i see nothing wrong with this.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  i mean, does competitive scrabble not work because the tiles are given at random ? no.  you have to make due with what you have got.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  this is valid, but part of the idea is for those players to act based on what is done by the game.  i guess it is like adding in a third party to the mix.  kinda like a dm, only it is a computer.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  makes the game more exciting.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  that is a mistake the player makes.  a mistake that was totally unanticipated by the other player.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.  true true.   #  i sort of have to wait until he ca not use it anymore.   #  to the scrabble example, if highly skilled players could win much more reliably say 0, 0 of the time if they got the only j, would it be a problem then ? when it becomes less about the game and more about who gets the best letter, i think the game suffers.  scrabble works because the tiles are pretty well balanced maybe s needs to be worth nothing on its own, its a really great tile .  the harder to use letters are worth more points, so if you get high point or low point letters, you can win both ways.  but in smash, many of the items do not feel balanced like this.  i do not have new interesting strategies because my opponent got the ray gun.  i sort of have to wait until he ca not use it anymore.   #  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.   # not exactly.  you claim that they add to the competitiveness of the game, when in reality, a restriction does not inherently add or take away anything.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  in a competitive environment, this is bad.  in a casual environment it may be good.  in a competitive environment, everyone wants the better player to win 0 of the time.  however, if you are fine with letting the worse player win sometimes possibly rarely , as people in casual environments are, it is fine.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  how does it make it more exciting ? i do not understand.  is it by making it unpredictable ? in this case, would you like my proposed option 0 in 0 hits are twice as hard .  it still requires skill, but as i said before, the player who plays better will not always win with an element of random chance.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  player a makes a mistake.  how often you make mistakes is part of your overall skill.  the person who makes mistakes less is a better player.  i guess you could call it random for the other player, but it is not outside of the player is control and knowledge which is usually how i define random chance
it is standard in the competitive smash bros.  community to only play the game with items off.  this is idiotic for a multitude of reasons.   0.  it makes the game less fun.   would you want to play mario kart without items ? fuck no.  that removes all of the excitement and variation in the game.  same applies to smash.  sure enough, there was a post in r/nintendo or r/wiiu last week asking if there could be a competitive mario kart scene and most of the responses were  not unless they remove items .  but then what is the point ? where is the fun ? just play another goddamn racing game if you want to play mario kart without items and just play another goddamn fighting game if you want to play smash bros.  without items.   0.  it is restricting the intended purpose of the game.   why would you remove features from the game that are meant to be used ? you are taking the game and making it into something it is not.  it is like deliberately ordering a supreme pizza and picking off all the ingredients.  fucking pointless and borderline disrespectful to the developers i will admit this last part is a bit dubious, but, well. they did work to put it in the game as a main function of the game and it makes up a good portion of their creative output.  it is kinda lame to just ignore that aspect of it .   0.  not only do items not hinder the competitive aspect of the game; they add to it, making their restriction the hindrance.   this is the big one.  this is why competitive smash players leave items off in the first place: because  the random aspect makes the game less competitive .  um. how ? i mean, i guess the justification is that the randomness of item types and placement reduces the focus on the players  abilities, but to that i say two things:  0a.  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.   do you not even consider that, y know, the person who gets the item still has to use it  correctly  ? and you can still dodge it ? and, assuming the item does not spawn right next to a player, you still have to make the dash to the item before someone else  or  decide not to go for it at all.  this is where the game becomes  more  competitive with the use of items.  you have to actually take them into account.  i imagine a common argument against items is something like  oh well you suck if you can only win with items on.   have you considered that maybe  you  suck because you ca not win without them turned off ? i guess what i am saying here is that while items add a slight element of chance, they more than make up for it with a multiple separate aspects of player skill.   0b.  even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ?   it is not as though it is a coin toss or a lottery where it is based entirely on luck.  it is just the kinds of items and where they are placed.  the addition of luck is part of the fun  and  part of the challenge.  luck and competition are not mutually exclusive.  even with items turned off.  it is not even possible for them to be.  there is always going to be the possibility of an otherwise champion player making a stupid, fatal fuckup, or a glitch in the game causing an otherwise unwarranted victory.  i understand wanting to reduce that element of chance, but removing items does so to the point that the fun in the competition is lost.  at the very least, there should be separate, mainstream smash tournaments that keep items on.   #  not only do items not hinder the competitive aspect of the game; they add to it, making their restriction the hindrance.   #  i will focus on 0a and 0b  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.   #  i  will assume you are talking mostly about the competitive community  it makes the game less fun.  if you must rely on items to have fun in smash, that is a sign of not being good.  mario kart has no competitive scene.  why ? because it is casual all you need is the blue turtle or the rocket and you win, even if you suck at it.  the main thing that separates competitive from normal or pubs is the fact they make make the game more balanced and develop a meta.  smash would suck if the meta was basically trying to grab an item first.  i will focus on 0a and 0b  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.  but it does not.  items are very simple to use, especially for a pro who is been playing for years for hours a day.  like i said above, the meta would change.  it would not change to who can use the item the best.  it would be who can first get it and when because they suddenly become op.  if items where nerfed excessively, i would see were you where coming from, but what would be the purpose of having them.  if there is a random aspect, it is not competitive.  name one random esport and i will argue this.   #  restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.   # fun is 0 subjective.  you may like it more with items, and that is fine.  without items.  what if they like the other mechanics ? items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  what is the intended purpose of the game ? well, it is a versatile game that applies to a very, very wide audience.  some people prefer some things and some people prefer other things.  if i play a game, i want to maximize the amount of fun i have while doing it.  some people think items add to the fun, like you, and others think that they remove the fun.  would you say that olympic racewalking is inherently more competitive than olympic running ? restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  going into specific examples, let is say an item spawns next to player a that let is them, if used correctly, knock out player b.  player a will need to skillfully use this item to knock out player b, correct ? now, let is say that the game has been even until then, and both people have 0 life left.  whoever is better will win.  however, player a gets an item that will let them, with the right timing, knock out player b.  player a also has the option to pretend the item does not exist and play normally.  therefore, player a arbitrarily gets 0 extra option compared to player b, and a higher chance of success.  now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  it can add interest.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  if you add a random element to a game, you would better have a good reason.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  what if every attack had a 0 in 0 chance of hitting twice as hard, for example ? it would be balanced, it just would be there fore no reason.  that is a mistake the player makes.  these are avoided at all costs.  sometimes games are even replayed if the glitch is severe enough.  i think that that could be good.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.   #  items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.   # items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  for smash, i will give you this one.  the game is it is own game with its own very detailed mechanics, even if items are turned off.  mario kart, on the other hand, does not really have much substance without items and i still feel like if you want to play a fighting game without items, you would have a better time playing just about any other fighting game that is built with pure brawling in mind, but i guess this is purely subjective.     restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  . so are you agreeing with me here ? now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  yeah, and i see nothing wrong with this.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  i mean, does competitive scrabble not work because the tiles are given at random ? no.  you have to make due with what you have got.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  this is valid, but part of the idea is for those players to act based on what is done by the game.  i guess it is like adding in a third party to the mix.  kinda like a dm, only it is a computer.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  makes the game more exciting.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  that is a mistake the player makes.  a mistake that was totally unanticipated by the other player.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.  true true.   #  the harder to use letters are worth more points, so if you get high point or low point letters, you can win both ways.   #  to the scrabble example, if highly skilled players could win much more reliably say 0, 0 of the time if they got the only j, would it be a problem then ? when it becomes less about the game and more about who gets the best letter, i think the game suffers.  scrabble works because the tiles are pretty well balanced maybe s needs to be worth nothing on its own, its a really great tile .  the harder to use letters are worth more points, so if you get high point or low point letters, you can win both ways.  but in smash, many of the items do not feel balanced like this.  i do not have new interesting strategies because my opponent got the ray gun.  i sort of have to wait until he ca not use it anymore.   #  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.   # not exactly.  you claim that they add to the competitiveness of the game, when in reality, a restriction does not inherently add or take away anything.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  in a competitive environment, this is bad.  in a casual environment it may be good.  in a competitive environment, everyone wants the better player to win 0 of the time.  however, if you are fine with letting the worse player win sometimes possibly rarely , as people in casual environments are, it is fine.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  how does it make it more exciting ? i do not understand.  is it by making it unpredictable ? in this case, would you like my proposed option 0 in 0 hits are twice as hard .  it still requires skill, but as i said before, the player who plays better will not always win with an element of random chance.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  player a makes a mistake.  how often you make mistakes is part of your overall skill.  the person who makes mistakes less is a better player.  i guess you could call it random for the other player, but it is not outside of the player is control and knowledge which is usually how i define random chance
it is standard in the competitive smash bros.  community to only play the game with items off.  this is idiotic for a multitude of reasons.   0.  it makes the game less fun.   would you want to play mario kart without items ? fuck no.  that removes all of the excitement and variation in the game.  same applies to smash.  sure enough, there was a post in r/nintendo or r/wiiu last week asking if there could be a competitive mario kart scene and most of the responses were  not unless they remove items .  but then what is the point ? where is the fun ? just play another goddamn racing game if you want to play mario kart without items and just play another goddamn fighting game if you want to play smash bros.  without items.   0.  it is restricting the intended purpose of the game.   why would you remove features from the game that are meant to be used ? you are taking the game and making it into something it is not.  it is like deliberately ordering a supreme pizza and picking off all the ingredients.  fucking pointless and borderline disrespectful to the developers i will admit this last part is a bit dubious, but, well. they did work to put it in the game as a main function of the game and it makes up a good portion of their creative output.  it is kinda lame to just ignore that aspect of it .   0.  not only do items not hinder the competitive aspect of the game; they add to it, making their restriction the hindrance.   this is the big one.  this is why competitive smash players leave items off in the first place: because  the random aspect makes the game less competitive .  um. how ? i mean, i guess the justification is that the randomness of item types and placement reduces the focus on the players  abilities, but to that i say two things:  0a.  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.   do you not even consider that, y know, the person who gets the item still has to use it  correctly  ? and you can still dodge it ? and, assuming the item does not spawn right next to a player, you still have to make the dash to the item before someone else  or  decide not to go for it at all.  this is where the game becomes  more  competitive with the use of items.  you have to actually take them into account.  i imagine a common argument against items is something like  oh well you suck if you can only win with items on.   have you considered that maybe  you  suck because you ca not win without them turned off ? i guess what i am saying here is that while items add a slight element of chance, they more than make up for it with a multiple separate aspects of player skill.   0b.  even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ?   it is not as though it is a coin toss or a lottery where it is based entirely on luck.  it is just the kinds of items and where they are placed.  the addition of luck is part of the fun  and  part of the challenge.  luck and competition are not mutually exclusive.  even with items turned off.  it is not even possible for them to be.  there is always going to be the possibility of an otherwise champion player making a stupid, fatal fuckup, or a glitch in the game causing an otherwise unwarranted victory.  i understand wanting to reduce that element of chance, but removing items does so to the point that the fun in the competition is lost.  at the very least, there should be separate, mainstream smash tournaments that keep items on.   #  even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ?  #  if there is a random aspect, it is not competitive.   #  i  will assume you are talking mostly about the competitive community  it makes the game less fun.  if you must rely on items to have fun in smash, that is a sign of not being good.  mario kart has no competitive scene.  why ? because it is casual all you need is the blue turtle or the rocket and you win, even if you suck at it.  the main thing that separates competitive from normal or pubs is the fact they make make the game more balanced and develop a meta.  smash would suck if the meta was basically trying to grab an item first.  i will focus on 0a and 0b  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.  but it does not.  items are very simple to use, especially for a pro who is been playing for years for hours a day.  like i said above, the meta would change.  it would not change to who can use the item the best.  it would be who can first get it and when because they suddenly become op.  if items where nerfed excessively, i would see were you where coming from, but what would be the purpose of having them.  if there is a random aspect, it is not competitive.  name one random esport and i will argue this.   #  if i play a game, i want to maximize the amount of fun i have while doing it.   # fun is 0 subjective.  you may like it more with items, and that is fine.  without items.  what if they like the other mechanics ? items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  what is the intended purpose of the game ? well, it is a versatile game that applies to a very, very wide audience.  some people prefer some things and some people prefer other things.  if i play a game, i want to maximize the amount of fun i have while doing it.  some people think items add to the fun, like you, and others think that they remove the fun.  would you say that olympic racewalking is inherently more competitive than olympic running ? restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  going into specific examples, let is say an item spawns next to player a that let is them, if used correctly, knock out player b.  player a will need to skillfully use this item to knock out player b, correct ? now, let is say that the game has been even until then, and both people have 0 life left.  whoever is better will win.  however, player a gets an item that will let them, with the right timing, knock out player b.  player a also has the option to pretend the item does not exist and play normally.  therefore, player a arbitrarily gets 0 extra option compared to player b, and a higher chance of success.  now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  it can add interest.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  if you add a random element to a game, you would better have a good reason.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  what if every attack had a 0 in 0 chance of hitting twice as hard, for example ? it would be balanced, it just would be there fore no reason.  that is a mistake the player makes.  these are avoided at all costs.  sometimes games are even replayed if the glitch is severe enough.  i think that that could be good.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.   #  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.   # items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  for smash, i will give you this one.  the game is it is own game with its own very detailed mechanics, even if items are turned off.  mario kart, on the other hand, does not really have much substance without items and i still feel like if you want to play a fighting game without items, you would have a better time playing just about any other fighting game that is built with pure brawling in mind, but i guess this is purely subjective.     restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  . so are you agreeing with me here ? now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  yeah, and i see nothing wrong with this.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  i mean, does competitive scrabble not work because the tiles are given at random ? no.  you have to make due with what you have got.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  this is valid, but part of the idea is for those players to act based on what is done by the game.  i guess it is like adding in a third party to the mix.  kinda like a dm, only it is a computer.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  makes the game more exciting.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  that is a mistake the player makes.  a mistake that was totally unanticipated by the other player.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.  true true.   #  to the scrabble example, if highly skilled players could win much more reliably say 0, 0 of the time if they got the only j, would it be a problem then ?  #  to the scrabble example, if highly skilled players could win much more reliably say 0, 0 of the time if they got the only j, would it be a problem then ? when it becomes less about the game and more about who gets the best letter, i think the game suffers.  scrabble works because the tiles are pretty well balanced maybe s needs to be worth nothing on its own, its a really great tile .  the harder to use letters are worth more points, so if you get high point or low point letters, you can win both ways.  but in smash, many of the items do not feel balanced like this.  i do not have new interesting strategies because my opponent got the ray gun.  i sort of have to wait until he ca not use it anymore.   #  in this case, would you like my proposed option 0 in 0 hits are twice as hard .   # not exactly.  you claim that they add to the competitiveness of the game, when in reality, a restriction does not inherently add or take away anything.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  in a competitive environment, this is bad.  in a casual environment it may be good.  in a competitive environment, everyone wants the better player to win 0 of the time.  however, if you are fine with letting the worse player win sometimes possibly rarely , as people in casual environments are, it is fine.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  how does it make it more exciting ? i do not understand.  is it by making it unpredictable ? in this case, would you like my proposed option 0 in 0 hits are twice as hard .  it still requires skill, but as i said before, the player who plays better will not always win with an element of random chance.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  player a makes a mistake.  how often you make mistakes is part of your overall skill.  the person who makes mistakes less is a better player.  i guess you could call it random for the other player, but it is not outside of the player is control and knowledge which is usually how i define random chance
it is standard in the competitive smash bros.  community to only play the game with items off.  this is idiotic for a multitude of reasons.   0.  it makes the game less fun.   would you want to play mario kart without items ? fuck no.  that removes all of the excitement and variation in the game.  same applies to smash.  sure enough, there was a post in r/nintendo or r/wiiu last week asking if there could be a competitive mario kart scene and most of the responses were  not unless they remove items .  but then what is the point ? where is the fun ? just play another goddamn racing game if you want to play mario kart without items and just play another goddamn fighting game if you want to play smash bros.  without items.   0.  it is restricting the intended purpose of the game.   why would you remove features from the game that are meant to be used ? you are taking the game and making it into something it is not.  it is like deliberately ordering a supreme pizza and picking off all the ingredients.  fucking pointless and borderline disrespectful to the developers i will admit this last part is a bit dubious, but, well. they did work to put it in the game as a main function of the game and it makes up a good portion of their creative output.  it is kinda lame to just ignore that aspect of it .   0.  not only do items not hinder the competitive aspect of the game; they add to it, making their restriction the hindrance.   this is the big one.  this is why competitive smash players leave items off in the first place: because  the random aspect makes the game less competitive .  um. how ? i mean, i guess the justification is that the randomness of item types and placement reduces the focus on the players  abilities, but to that i say two things:  0a.  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.   do you not even consider that, y know, the person who gets the item still has to use it  correctly  ? and you can still dodge it ? and, assuming the item does not spawn right next to a player, you still have to make the dash to the item before someone else  or  decide not to go for it at all.  this is where the game becomes  more  competitive with the use of items.  you have to actually take them into account.  i imagine a common argument against items is something like  oh well you suck if you can only win with items on.   have you considered that maybe  you  suck because you ca not win without them turned off ? i guess what i am saying here is that while items add a slight element of chance, they more than make up for it with a multiple separate aspects of player skill.   0b.  even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ?   it is not as though it is a coin toss or a lottery where it is based entirely on luck.  it is just the kinds of items and where they are placed.  the addition of luck is part of the fun  and  part of the challenge.  luck and competition are not mutually exclusive.  even with items turned off.  it is not even possible for them to be.  there is always going to be the possibility of an otherwise champion player making a stupid, fatal fuckup, or a glitch in the game causing an otherwise unwarranted victory.  i understand wanting to reduce that element of chance, but removing items does so to the point that the fun in the competition is lost.  at the very least, there should be separate, mainstream smash tournaments that keep items on.   #  it is not as though it is a coin toss or a lottery where it is based entirely on luck.   #  it is just the kinds of items and where they are placed.   # and you can still dodge it ? and, assuming the item does not spawn right next to a player, you still have to make the dash to the item before someone else or decide not to go for it at all.  having to use it correctly or not is not really an argument in favor of items.  i could just pick the items up and throw them off the stage if i wanted.  just the fact that i have the option to use the item while my opponent is denied that option is still a pretty big advantage.  also consider that not all items require skill to use healing items are a big example here, what happens if a tomato drops near me in an even 0v0 ? i get a free heal that gives me a huge leg up over my opponent for no skill input at all.  on another note,  dashing to the item  puts a strain on slow characters that they really do not need.  if we are assuming that a race to the item is actually possible it does not spawn directly near someone then the fast characters are going to have an inherent advantage in collecting and using items while slow characters like bowser are going to be at an inherent disadvantage even though they already tend to be weaker characters from a competitive standpoint.  it is just the kinds of items and where they are placed.  the addition of luck is part of the fun and part of the challenge.  not everyone enjoys dealing with rng.  super smash bros with no items is a 0 skill based matchup and there is a lot of appeal to this kind of game from a competitive standpoint.  if your goal is to goof around and have fun then the luck aspect is not such a big deal but if your goal is to determine who is the better player then allowing lucky events to tip the scales is only going to leave players and audiences with doubts.  how can you claim that player x is better than player y when an invincibility star happened to spawn next to him at a critical moment in the match ? if you make a fuckup then that is 0 on you.  mistakes are not luck, they are a natural part of a contest of skill.  glitches tend to be well documented with available workarounds and even if an unexpected glitch occurs tournament officials can intervene as necessary.   #  would you say that olympic racewalking is inherently more competitive than olympic running ?  # fun is 0 subjective.  you may like it more with items, and that is fine.  without items.  what if they like the other mechanics ? items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  what is the intended purpose of the game ? well, it is a versatile game that applies to a very, very wide audience.  some people prefer some things and some people prefer other things.  if i play a game, i want to maximize the amount of fun i have while doing it.  some people think items add to the fun, like you, and others think that they remove the fun.  would you say that olympic racewalking is inherently more competitive than olympic running ? restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  going into specific examples, let is say an item spawns next to player a that let is them, if used correctly, knock out player b.  player a will need to skillfully use this item to knock out player b, correct ? now, let is say that the game has been even until then, and both people have 0 life left.  whoever is better will win.  however, player a gets an item that will let them, with the right timing, knock out player b.  player a also has the option to pretend the item does not exist and play normally.  therefore, player a arbitrarily gets 0 extra option compared to player b, and a higher chance of success.  now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  it can add interest.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  if you add a random element to a game, you would better have a good reason.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  what if every attack had a 0 in 0 chance of hitting twice as hard, for example ? it would be balanced, it just would be there fore no reason.  that is a mistake the player makes.  these are avoided at all costs.  sometimes games are even replayed if the glitch is severe enough.  i think that that could be good.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.   #  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.   # items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  for smash, i will give you this one.  the game is it is own game with its own very detailed mechanics, even if items are turned off.  mario kart, on the other hand, does not really have much substance without items and i still feel like if you want to play a fighting game without items, you would have a better time playing just about any other fighting game that is built with pure brawling in mind, but i guess this is purely subjective.     restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  . so are you agreeing with me here ? now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  yeah, and i see nothing wrong with this.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  i mean, does competitive scrabble not work because the tiles are given at random ? no.  you have to make due with what you have got.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  this is valid, but part of the idea is for those players to act based on what is done by the game.  i guess it is like adding in a third party to the mix.  kinda like a dm, only it is a computer.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  makes the game more exciting.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  that is a mistake the player makes.  a mistake that was totally unanticipated by the other player.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.  true true.   #  to the scrabble example, if highly skilled players could win much more reliably say 0, 0 of the time if they got the only j, would it be a problem then ?  #  to the scrabble example, if highly skilled players could win much more reliably say 0, 0 of the time if they got the only j, would it be a problem then ? when it becomes less about the game and more about who gets the best letter, i think the game suffers.  scrabble works because the tiles are pretty well balanced maybe s needs to be worth nothing on its own, its a really great tile .  the harder to use letters are worth more points, so if you get high point or low point letters, you can win both ways.  but in smash, many of the items do not feel balanced like this.  i do not have new interesting strategies because my opponent got the ray gun.  i sort of have to wait until he ca not use it anymore.   #  it still requires skill, but as i said before, the player who plays better will not always win with an element of random chance.   # not exactly.  you claim that they add to the competitiveness of the game, when in reality, a restriction does not inherently add or take away anything.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  in a competitive environment, this is bad.  in a casual environment it may be good.  in a competitive environment, everyone wants the better player to win 0 of the time.  however, if you are fine with letting the worse player win sometimes possibly rarely , as people in casual environments are, it is fine.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  how does it make it more exciting ? i do not understand.  is it by making it unpredictable ? in this case, would you like my proposed option 0 in 0 hits are twice as hard .  it still requires skill, but as i said before, the player who plays better will not always win with an element of random chance.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  player a makes a mistake.  how often you make mistakes is part of your overall skill.  the person who makes mistakes less is a better player.  i guess you could call it random for the other player, but it is not outside of the player is control and knowledge which is usually how i define random chance
it is standard in the competitive smash bros.  community to only play the game with items off.  this is idiotic for a multitude of reasons.   0.  it makes the game less fun.   would you want to play mario kart without items ? fuck no.  that removes all of the excitement and variation in the game.  same applies to smash.  sure enough, there was a post in r/nintendo or r/wiiu last week asking if there could be a competitive mario kart scene and most of the responses were  not unless they remove items .  but then what is the point ? where is the fun ? just play another goddamn racing game if you want to play mario kart without items and just play another goddamn fighting game if you want to play smash bros.  without items.   0.  it is restricting the intended purpose of the game.   why would you remove features from the game that are meant to be used ? you are taking the game and making it into something it is not.  it is like deliberately ordering a supreme pizza and picking off all the ingredients.  fucking pointless and borderline disrespectful to the developers i will admit this last part is a bit dubious, but, well. they did work to put it in the game as a main function of the game and it makes up a good portion of their creative output.  it is kinda lame to just ignore that aspect of it .   0.  not only do items not hinder the competitive aspect of the game; they add to it, making their restriction the hindrance.   this is the big one.  this is why competitive smash players leave items off in the first place: because  the random aspect makes the game less competitive .  um. how ? i mean, i guess the justification is that the randomness of item types and placement reduces the focus on the players  abilities, but to that i say two things:  0a.  no, it does not remove focus on players  abilities.   do you not even consider that, y know, the person who gets the item still has to use it  correctly  ? and you can still dodge it ? and, assuming the item does not spawn right next to a player, you still have to make the dash to the item before someone else  or  decide not to go for it at all.  this is where the game becomes  more  competitive with the use of items.  you have to actually take them into account.  i imagine a common argument against items is something like  oh well you suck if you can only win with items on.   have you considered that maybe  you  suck because you ca not win without them turned off ? i guess what i am saying here is that while items add a slight element of chance, they more than make up for it with a multiple separate aspects of player skill.   0b.  even if there is a random aspect to the game. so what ?   it is not as though it is a coin toss or a lottery where it is based entirely on luck.  it is just the kinds of items and where they are placed.  the addition of luck is part of the fun  and  part of the challenge.  luck and competition are not mutually exclusive.  even with items turned off.  it is not even possible for them to be.  there is always going to be the possibility of an otherwise champion player making a stupid, fatal fuckup, or a glitch in the game causing an otherwise unwarranted victory.  i understand wanting to reduce that element of chance, but removing items does so to the point that the fun in the competition is lost.  at the very least, there should be separate, mainstream smash tournaments that keep items on.   #  there is always going to be the possibility of an otherwise champion player making a stupid, fatal fuckup, or a glitch in the game causing an otherwise unwarranted victory.   #  if you make a fuckup then that is 0 on you.   # and you can still dodge it ? and, assuming the item does not spawn right next to a player, you still have to make the dash to the item before someone else or decide not to go for it at all.  having to use it correctly or not is not really an argument in favor of items.  i could just pick the items up and throw them off the stage if i wanted.  just the fact that i have the option to use the item while my opponent is denied that option is still a pretty big advantage.  also consider that not all items require skill to use healing items are a big example here, what happens if a tomato drops near me in an even 0v0 ? i get a free heal that gives me a huge leg up over my opponent for no skill input at all.  on another note,  dashing to the item  puts a strain on slow characters that they really do not need.  if we are assuming that a race to the item is actually possible it does not spawn directly near someone then the fast characters are going to have an inherent advantage in collecting and using items while slow characters like bowser are going to be at an inherent disadvantage even though they already tend to be weaker characters from a competitive standpoint.  it is just the kinds of items and where they are placed.  the addition of luck is part of the fun and part of the challenge.  not everyone enjoys dealing with rng.  super smash bros with no items is a 0 skill based matchup and there is a lot of appeal to this kind of game from a competitive standpoint.  if your goal is to goof around and have fun then the luck aspect is not such a big deal but if your goal is to determine who is the better player then allowing lucky events to tip the scales is only going to leave players and audiences with doubts.  how can you claim that player x is better than player y when an invincibility star happened to spawn next to him at a critical moment in the match ? if you make a fuckup then that is 0 on you.  mistakes are not luck, they are a natural part of a contest of skill.  glitches tend to be well documented with available workarounds and even if an unexpected glitch occurs tournament officials can intervene as necessary.   #  you may like it more with items, and that is fine.   # fun is 0 subjective.  you may like it more with items, and that is fine.  without items.  what if they like the other mechanics ? items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  what is the intended purpose of the game ? well, it is a versatile game that applies to a very, very wide audience.  some people prefer some things and some people prefer other things.  if i play a game, i want to maximize the amount of fun i have while doing it.  some people think items add to the fun, like you, and others think that they remove the fun.  would you say that olympic racewalking is inherently more competitive than olympic running ? restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  going into specific examples, let is say an item spawns next to player a that let is them, if used correctly, knock out player b.  player a will need to skillfully use this item to knock out player b, correct ? now, let is say that the game has been even until then, and both people have 0 life left.  whoever is better will win.  however, player a gets an item that will let them, with the right timing, knock out player b.  player a also has the option to pretend the item does not exist and play normally.  therefore, player a arbitrarily gets 0 extra option compared to player b, and a higher chance of success.  now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  it can add interest.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  if you add a random element to a game, you would better have a good reason.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  what if every attack had a 0 in 0 chance of hitting twice as hard, for example ? it would be balanced, it just would be there fore no reason.  that is a mistake the player makes.  these are avoided at all costs.  sometimes games are even replayed if the glitch is severe enough.  i think that that could be good.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.   #  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.   # items are not 0 of the game, and are not 0 of what distinguishes it from other games.  for smash, i will give you this one.  the game is it is own game with its own very detailed mechanics, even if items are turned off.  mario kart, on the other hand, does not really have much substance without items and i still feel like if you want to play a fighting game without items, you would have a better time playing just about any other fighting game that is built with pure brawling in mind, but i guess this is purely subjective.     restrictions do not make it any more or less competitive.  . so are you agreeing with me here ? now of course, this is a hypothetical situation, but you can probably see how this can apply to a regular game.  yeah, and i see nothing wrong with this.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  i mean, does competitive scrabble not work because the tiles are given at random ? no.  you have to make due with what you have got.  however, in a normal game, 0 of focus is on players  actions.  everything that happens is an action by either player a or player b.  adding items adds stuff that is done by neither player a nor player b, but instead done by the game.  this is valid, but part of the idea is for those players to act based on what is done by the game.  i guess it is like adding in a third party to the mix.  kinda like a dm, only it is a computer.  an arbitrary randomness is usually not good.  makes the game more exciting.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  that is a mistake the player makes.  a mistake that was totally unanticipated by the other player.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  however, what determines mainstream ? whatever people want to play is mainstream, and there is not too much that can change what people want to play besides changing the game.  true true.   #  to the scrabble example, if highly skilled players could win much more reliably say 0, 0 of the time if they got the only j, would it be a problem then ?  #  to the scrabble example, if highly skilled players could win much more reliably say 0, 0 of the time if they got the only j, would it be a problem then ? when it becomes less about the game and more about who gets the best letter, i think the game suffers.  scrabble works because the tiles are pretty well balanced maybe s needs to be worth nothing on its own, its a really great tile .  the harder to use letters are worth more points, so if you get high point or low point letters, you can win both ways.  but in smash, many of the items do not feel balanced like this.  i do not have new interesting strategies because my opponent got the ray gun.  i sort of have to wait until he ca not use it anymore.   #  in this case, would you like my proposed option 0 in 0 hits are twice as hard .   # not exactly.  you claim that they add to the competitiveness of the game, when in reality, a restriction does not inherently add or take away anything.  sometimes a player just gets lucky and it increases their chances a bit.  it is not like player a is chances of victory skyrocket to 0.  player b has to assess their situation and act accordingly to avoid losing.  in a competitive environment, this is bad.  in a casual environment it may be good.  in a competitive environment, everyone wants the better player to win 0 of the time.  however, if you are fine with letting the worse player win sometimes possibly rarely , as people in casual environments are, it is fine.  changes the odds in a game that still requires skill.  how does it make it more exciting ? i do not understand.  is it by making it unpredictable ? in this case, would you like my proposed option 0 in 0 hits are twice as hard .  it still requires skill, but as i said before, the player who plays better will not always win with an element of random chance.  they got lucky.  i suppose it is different in that it is not random luck generated by the computer, but it is still an element of luck.  player a makes a mistake.  how often you make mistakes is part of your overall skill.  the person who makes mistakes less is a better player.  i guess you could call it random for the other player, but it is not outside of the player is control and knowledge which is usually how i define random chance
if you desire to become a legal immigrant in any country, you should respect the rules of the government, which includes respecting the requirement of going through the citizenship process.  this process is not supposed to allow everyone to be approved, and it is not supposed to be easy either.  this allows citizenship be granted to the immigrants that deserve it those who had the patience, strength, and will of heart to go through the entire arduous process.  in addition, the process is a good way of controlling the flow of immigrants here in america.  if the process is too easy and too quick, there will be too fast of an influx that the country ca not handle.  why should those trying to bypass this line deserve the reward over those that actually earned it ? it is like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.  i understand that there are a lot of law abiding, tax paying illegal immigrants, and some of them do not have anything to return to in their home country.  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.  however, i believe that is just the price to pay for what they have done.  yes, the children do not deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame.   #  if the process is too easy and too quick, there will be too fast of an influx that the country ca not handle.   #  if the process is too difficult and the major problem  too expensive  then you have the influx of illegals.   # if the process is too difficult and the major problem  too expensive  then you have the influx of illegals.  part of the problem is that there are a lot of people who come here in an effort to make enough money to feed their families and, as a result of their condition, cannot afford the costs of legally immigrating.  allowing people to come in for much cheaper or they are just going to come anyway.  making it more expensive does not make them less hungry.  they will come regardless.  you can at least keep track if you let them in for a reasonable cost given their condition.   #  a decade ago we had an economic boom while mexico was struggling.   #  it is not about  deserving  it more than those who go through the legal process, it is about pragmatically solving the problem.  a decade ago we had an economic boom while mexico was struggling.  we were starved for unskilled labor, and our immigration quotas/laws did not really reflect the needs the only viable paths were family connections or educated white collar jobs / schools with sponsorship.  unsurprisingly, illegal immigration filled that gap.  now that our economy sputtered and we have less demand for those jobs, illegal immigration is declining.  none of those are perceptions; it happened.  it would have been nice to fix that problem in our immigration laws before it happened, but it happened.  ok, so now we have a group of people that have been here 0 0 years and are contributing members of society, many with children whom do not remember their homeland, and are undocumented and in the shadows.  mass deportation is not productive for the nation as a whole, nor the people it affects.  a combination of punitive fees most solutions being proposed include fines of $0 0k , proof of productive/gainful employment, and a path to citizenship seems balanced to me and does not somehow shortchange other immigrants.  every country everywhere does and has the right to factor in the nation of origin along with a million other factors when granting entrance/visas/citizenship for obvious reasons treaties, culture, threats, etc and the united states   mexico carribean have always had very intertwined histories / cultures / people / trade.  this idea that lenience on a particular situation is somehow  unfair  to people from other nations and other means of entry is nonsensical.  they do not have any more of a  right  than anyone else.   #  and if you think you are safe, remember that google, microsoft, apple etc are actively lobbying congress to increase the number of h0b visas that let foreigners work in high tech.   # there were plenty of unemployed americans over the last ten years, but corporations were unwilling to pay living wages.  that is where illegal immigrants come in.  they are easy to manipulate and exploit.  you can make them work under all sorts of dangerous and unreasonable conditions and pay them below minimum wage, and they will never rat you out cuz you will call ice and have them deported.  they are happy to live in sub par living standards because they are making an order of magnitude more than they did back home, and they are sending a lot of that home as well, either to coyotes or to their families.  legalizing these individuals makes them harder to exploit.  they can apply for work anywhere and can demand proper working conditions and wages.  then they simply compete for the same jobs as americans.  and if you think you are safe, remember that google, microsoft, apple etc are actively lobbying congress to increase the number of h0b visas that let foreigners work in high tech.  they say that there are not enough skilled laborers in the us to fill the positions they have.  but what they really mean to say is, there are not enough americans to work for the salaries they want to pay them.  URL one more thing.  many of these illegal immigrants are coming from countries with no rule of law.  they are fleeing the rampant corruption and impunity that have make their countries failed states.  and what is the first thing they learn when they come to the us ? following the law is for suckers.  you get ahead by cheating.  i do not think that is the message we want to send to millions of immigrants starting a new life in this country, nor to the millions of others who are attempting to  lawfully  emigrate here.   #  there used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out.   #  i guess i just do not feel like compromising with those who would otherwise threaten violence and theft.  if we do not give them our money, they will forcibly take it ? i say i will keep my money and invest in a gun and some home security.  i am not sure how it would be catastrophic.  there used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out.  honestly if the government did not lay totally unfounded claim on so much unowned land, those people could all move out of the cities and homestead some of that land with a little house and farm to feed their families.   #  i see a lot of conservatives say this like it is fact yet i have never seen proof.   # do you have a source on that ? are you saying that charity would be capable of picking up the slack caused by cuts to welfare benefits ? because if you are, i would love to know why you think that.  i see a lot of conservatives say this like it is fact yet i have never seen proof.  it is all based on gut feeling, from what i can tell.  and it is very likely that the amount you pay in taxes is less than the monetary value of the government services and public infrastructure you use.
if you desire to become a legal immigrant in any country, you should respect the rules of the government, which includes respecting the requirement of going through the citizenship process.  this process is not supposed to allow everyone to be approved, and it is not supposed to be easy either.  this allows citizenship be granted to the immigrants that deserve it those who had the patience, strength, and will of heart to go through the entire arduous process.  in addition, the process is a good way of controlling the flow of immigrants here in america.  if the process is too easy and too quick, there will be too fast of an influx that the country ca not handle.  why should those trying to bypass this line deserve the reward over those that actually earned it ? it is like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.  i understand that there are a lot of law abiding, tax paying illegal immigrants, and some of them do not have anything to return to in their home country.  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.  however, i believe that is just the price to pay for what they have done.  yes, the children do not deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame.   #  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.   #  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.   #  no one says that they deserve it more.  obviously the people who have the money and resources to become citizens deserve what they have worked hard for.  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.  however, i believe that is just the price to pay for what they have done.  yes, the children do not deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame.  it seems that you have identified the major problem with your view and dismissed the potential suffering of millions as  tough shit .   #  ok, so now we have a group of people that have been here 0 0 years and are contributing members of society, many with children whom do not remember their homeland, and are undocumented and in the shadows.   #  it is not about  deserving  it more than those who go through the legal process, it is about pragmatically solving the problem.  a decade ago we had an economic boom while mexico was struggling.  we were starved for unskilled labor, and our immigration quotas/laws did not really reflect the needs the only viable paths were family connections or educated white collar jobs / schools with sponsorship.  unsurprisingly, illegal immigration filled that gap.  now that our economy sputtered and we have less demand for those jobs, illegal immigration is declining.  none of those are perceptions; it happened.  it would have been nice to fix that problem in our immigration laws before it happened, but it happened.  ok, so now we have a group of people that have been here 0 0 years and are contributing members of society, many with children whom do not remember their homeland, and are undocumented and in the shadows.  mass deportation is not productive for the nation as a whole, nor the people it affects.  a combination of punitive fees most solutions being proposed include fines of $0 0k , proof of productive/gainful employment, and a path to citizenship seems balanced to me and does not somehow shortchange other immigrants.  every country everywhere does and has the right to factor in the nation of origin along with a million other factors when granting entrance/visas/citizenship for obvious reasons treaties, culture, threats, etc and the united states   mexico carribean have always had very intertwined histories / cultures / people / trade.  this idea that lenience on a particular situation is somehow  unfair  to people from other nations and other means of entry is nonsensical.  they do not have any more of a  right  than anyone else.   #  but what they really mean to say is, there are not enough americans to work for the salaries they want to pay them.   # there were plenty of unemployed americans over the last ten years, but corporations were unwilling to pay living wages.  that is where illegal immigrants come in.  they are easy to manipulate and exploit.  you can make them work under all sorts of dangerous and unreasonable conditions and pay them below minimum wage, and they will never rat you out cuz you will call ice and have them deported.  they are happy to live in sub par living standards because they are making an order of magnitude more than they did back home, and they are sending a lot of that home as well, either to coyotes or to their families.  legalizing these individuals makes them harder to exploit.  they can apply for work anywhere and can demand proper working conditions and wages.  then they simply compete for the same jobs as americans.  and if you think you are safe, remember that google, microsoft, apple etc are actively lobbying congress to increase the number of h0b visas that let foreigners work in high tech.  they say that there are not enough skilled laborers in the us to fill the positions they have.  but what they really mean to say is, there are not enough americans to work for the salaries they want to pay them.  URL one more thing.  many of these illegal immigrants are coming from countries with no rule of law.  they are fleeing the rampant corruption and impunity that have make their countries failed states.  and what is the first thing they learn when they come to the us ? following the law is for suckers.  you get ahead by cheating.  i do not think that is the message we want to send to millions of immigrants starting a new life in this country, nor to the millions of others who are attempting to  lawfully  emigrate here.   #  i guess i just do not feel like compromising with those who would otherwise threaten violence and theft.   #  i guess i just do not feel like compromising with those who would otherwise threaten violence and theft.  if we do not give them our money, they will forcibly take it ? i say i will keep my money and invest in a gun and some home security.  i am not sure how it would be catastrophic.  there used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out.  honestly if the government did not lay totally unfounded claim on so much unowned land, those people could all move out of the cities and homestead some of that land with a little house and farm to feed their families.   #  are you saying that charity would be capable of picking up the slack caused by cuts to welfare benefits ?  # do you have a source on that ? are you saying that charity would be capable of picking up the slack caused by cuts to welfare benefits ? because if you are, i would love to know why you think that.  i see a lot of conservatives say this like it is fact yet i have never seen proof.  it is all based on gut feeling, from what i can tell.  and it is very likely that the amount you pay in taxes is less than the monetary value of the government services and public infrastructure you use.
if you desire to become a legal immigrant in any country, you should respect the rules of the government, which includes respecting the requirement of going through the citizenship process.  this process is not supposed to allow everyone to be approved, and it is not supposed to be easy either.  this allows citizenship be granted to the immigrants that deserve it those who had the patience, strength, and will of heart to go through the entire arduous process.  in addition, the process is a good way of controlling the flow of immigrants here in america.  if the process is too easy and too quick, there will be too fast of an influx that the country ca not handle.  why should those trying to bypass this line deserve the reward over those that actually earned it ? it is like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.  i understand that there are a lot of law abiding, tax paying illegal immigrants, and some of them do not have anything to return to in their home country.  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.  however, i believe that is just the price to pay for what they have done.  yes, the children do not deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame.   #  i understand that there are a lot of law abiding, tax paying illegal immigrants, and some of them do not have anything to return to in their home country.   #  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.   #  they certainly do not deserve it more.  but is that really what we should be concerned about ? there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.  if they can do all that, are not they deserving to be an american citizen ? there are, frankly, a large number of native born american citizens who ca not even manage that, and if we are constructing a nation based purely on merit we should deport most of them.  not every immigrant needs to have a phd to be good for the nation.  i understand that you are frustrated that someone can break a law that is in place for a good reason and seemingly be rewarded for it.  but the end result of breaking the law here is not that people are harmed.  granting them citizenship in no way diminishes the accomplishments of legal immigrants, nor does it harm the nation as a whole.  why should the fact that a law has been broken be more important than the fact that a family will be if you follow it ? who benefits ? not a single person would be better off if they were deported.   #  mass deportation is not productive for the nation as a whole, nor the people it affects.   #  it is not about  deserving  it more than those who go through the legal process, it is about pragmatically solving the problem.  a decade ago we had an economic boom while mexico was struggling.  we were starved for unskilled labor, and our immigration quotas/laws did not really reflect the needs the only viable paths were family connections or educated white collar jobs / schools with sponsorship.  unsurprisingly, illegal immigration filled that gap.  now that our economy sputtered and we have less demand for those jobs, illegal immigration is declining.  none of those are perceptions; it happened.  it would have been nice to fix that problem in our immigration laws before it happened, but it happened.  ok, so now we have a group of people that have been here 0 0 years and are contributing members of society, many with children whom do not remember their homeland, and are undocumented and in the shadows.  mass deportation is not productive for the nation as a whole, nor the people it affects.  a combination of punitive fees most solutions being proposed include fines of $0 0k , proof of productive/gainful employment, and a path to citizenship seems balanced to me and does not somehow shortchange other immigrants.  every country everywhere does and has the right to factor in the nation of origin along with a million other factors when granting entrance/visas/citizenship for obvious reasons treaties, culture, threats, etc and the united states   mexico carribean have always had very intertwined histories / cultures / people / trade.  this idea that lenience on a particular situation is somehow  unfair  to people from other nations and other means of entry is nonsensical.  they do not have any more of a  right  than anyone else.   #  you can make them work under all sorts of dangerous and unreasonable conditions and pay them below minimum wage, and they will never rat you out cuz you will call ice and have them deported.   # there were plenty of unemployed americans over the last ten years, but corporations were unwilling to pay living wages.  that is where illegal immigrants come in.  they are easy to manipulate and exploit.  you can make them work under all sorts of dangerous and unreasonable conditions and pay them below minimum wage, and they will never rat you out cuz you will call ice and have them deported.  they are happy to live in sub par living standards because they are making an order of magnitude more than they did back home, and they are sending a lot of that home as well, either to coyotes or to their families.  legalizing these individuals makes them harder to exploit.  they can apply for work anywhere and can demand proper working conditions and wages.  then they simply compete for the same jobs as americans.  and if you think you are safe, remember that google, microsoft, apple etc are actively lobbying congress to increase the number of h0b visas that let foreigners work in high tech.  they say that there are not enough skilled laborers in the us to fill the positions they have.  but what they really mean to say is, there are not enough americans to work for the salaries they want to pay them.  URL one more thing.  many of these illegal immigrants are coming from countries with no rule of law.  they are fleeing the rampant corruption and impunity that have make their countries failed states.  and what is the first thing they learn when they come to the us ? following the law is for suckers.  you get ahead by cheating.  i do not think that is the message we want to send to millions of immigrants starting a new life in this country, nor to the millions of others who are attempting to  lawfully  emigrate here.   #  if we do not give them our money, they will forcibly take it ?  #  i guess i just do not feel like compromising with those who would otherwise threaten violence and theft.  if we do not give them our money, they will forcibly take it ? i say i will keep my money and invest in a gun and some home security.  i am not sure how it would be catastrophic.  there used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out.  honestly if the government did not lay totally unfounded claim on so much unowned land, those people could all move out of the cities and homestead some of that land with a little house and farm to feed their families.   #  it is all based on gut feeling, from what i can tell.   # do you have a source on that ? are you saying that charity would be capable of picking up the slack caused by cuts to welfare benefits ? because if you are, i would love to know why you think that.  i see a lot of conservatives say this like it is fact yet i have never seen proof.  it is all based on gut feeling, from what i can tell.  and it is very likely that the amount you pay in taxes is less than the monetary value of the government services and public infrastructure you use.
if you desire to become a legal immigrant in any country, you should respect the rules of the government, which includes respecting the requirement of going through the citizenship process.  this process is not supposed to allow everyone to be approved, and it is not supposed to be easy either.  this allows citizenship be granted to the immigrants that deserve it those who had the patience, strength, and will of heart to go through the entire arduous process.  in addition, the process is a good way of controlling the flow of immigrants here in america.  if the process is too easy and too quick, there will be too fast of an influx that the country ca not handle.  why should those trying to bypass this line deserve the reward over those that actually earned it ? it is like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.  i understand that there are a lot of law abiding, tax paying illegal immigrants, and some of them do not have anything to return to in their home country.  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.  however, i believe that is just the price to pay for what they have done.  yes, the children do not deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame.   #  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.   #  why should the fact that a law has been broken be more important than the fact that a family will be if you follow it ?  #  they certainly do not deserve it more.  but is that really what we should be concerned about ? there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.  if they can do all that, are not they deserving to be an american citizen ? there are, frankly, a large number of native born american citizens who ca not even manage that, and if we are constructing a nation based purely on merit we should deport most of them.  not every immigrant needs to have a phd to be good for the nation.  i understand that you are frustrated that someone can break a law that is in place for a good reason and seemingly be rewarded for it.  but the end result of breaking the law here is not that people are harmed.  granting them citizenship in no way diminishes the accomplishments of legal immigrants, nor does it harm the nation as a whole.  why should the fact that a law has been broken be more important than the fact that a family will be if you follow it ? who benefits ? not a single person would be better off if they were deported.   #  a decade ago we had an economic boom while mexico was struggling.   #  it is not about  deserving  it more than those who go through the legal process, it is about pragmatically solving the problem.  a decade ago we had an economic boom while mexico was struggling.  we were starved for unskilled labor, and our immigration quotas/laws did not really reflect the needs the only viable paths were family connections or educated white collar jobs / schools with sponsorship.  unsurprisingly, illegal immigration filled that gap.  now that our economy sputtered and we have less demand for those jobs, illegal immigration is declining.  none of those are perceptions; it happened.  it would have been nice to fix that problem in our immigration laws before it happened, but it happened.  ok, so now we have a group of people that have been here 0 0 years and are contributing members of society, many with children whom do not remember their homeland, and are undocumented and in the shadows.  mass deportation is not productive for the nation as a whole, nor the people it affects.  a combination of punitive fees most solutions being proposed include fines of $0 0k , proof of productive/gainful employment, and a path to citizenship seems balanced to me and does not somehow shortchange other immigrants.  every country everywhere does and has the right to factor in the nation of origin along with a million other factors when granting entrance/visas/citizenship for obvious reasons treaties, culture, threats, etc and the united states   mexico carribean have always had very intertwined histories / cultures / people / trade.  this idea that lenience on a particular situation is somehow  unfair  to people from other nations and other means of entry is nonsensical.  they do not have any more of a  right  than anyone else.   #  there were plenty of unemployed americans over the last ten years, but corporations were unwilling to pay living wages.   # there were plenty of unemployed americans over the last ten years, but corporations were unwilling to pay living wages.  that is where illegal immigrants come in.  they are easy to manipulate and exploit.  you can make them work under all sorts of dangerous and unreasonable conditions and pay them below minimum wage, and they will never rat you out cuz you will call ice and have them deported.  they are happy to live in sub par living standards because they are making an order of magnitude more than they did back home, and they are sending a lot of that home as well, either to coyotes or to their families.  legalizing these individuals makes them harder to exploit.  they can apply for work anywhere and can demand proper working conditions and wages.  then they simply compete for the same jobs as americans.  and if you think you are safe, remember that google, microsoft, apple etc are actively lobbying congress to increase the number of h0b visas that let foreigners work in high tech.  they say that there are not enough skilled laborers in the us to fill the positions they have.  but what they really mean to say is, there are not enough americans to work for the salaries they want to pay them.  URL one more thing.  many of these illegal immigrants are coming from countries with no rule of law.  they are fleeing the rampant corruption and impunity that have make their countries failed states.  and what is the first thing they learn when they come to the us ? following the law is for suckers.  you get ahead by cheating.  i do not think that is the message we want to send to millions of immigrants starting a new life in this country, nor to the millions of others who are attempting to  lawfully  emigrate here.   #  there used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out.   #  i guess i just do not feel like compromising with those who would otherwise threaten violence and theft.  if we do not give them our money, they will forcibly take it ? i say i will keep my money and invest in a gun and some home security.  i am not sure how it would be catastrophic.  there used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out.  honestly if the government did not lay totally unfounded claim on so much unowned land, those people could all move out of the cities and homestead some of that land with a little house and farm to feed their families.   #  and it is very likely that the amount you pay in taxes is less than the monetary value of the government services and public infrastructure you use.   # do you have a source on that ? are you saying that charity would be capable of picking up the slack caused by cuts to welfare benefits ? because if you are, i would love to know why you think that.  i see a lot of conservatives say this like it is fact yet i have never seen proof.  it is all based on gut feeling, from what i can tell.  and it is very likely that the amount you pay in taxes is less than the monetary value of the government services and public infrastructure you use.
if you desire to become a legal immigrant in any country, you should respect the rules of the government, which includes respecting the requirement of going through the citizenship process.  this process is not supposed to allow everyone to be approved, and it is not supposed to be easy either.  this allows citizenship be granted to the immigrants that deserve it those who had the patience, strength, and will of heart to go through the entire arduous process.  in addition, the process is a good way of controlling the flow of immigrants here in america.  if the process is too easy and too quick, there will be too fast of an influx that the country ca not handle.  why should those trying to bypass this line deserve the reward over those that actually earned it ? it is like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.  i understand that there are a lot of law abiding, tax paying illegal immigrants, and some of them do not have anything to return to in their home country.  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.  however, i believe that is just the price to pay for what they have done.  yes, the children do not deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame.   #  why should those trying to bypass this line deserve the reward over those that actually earned it ?  #  it is like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.   # it is like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.  you are picturing  being in american society  as a commodity that the federal government to gives or sells to others.  but what if it is not actually theirs to give ? the constitution had no concept of citizenship until the fourteenth amendment in 0.  what if the federal government is taking away human rights just to sell them back to you through the immigration bureaucracy ? if that is the case, people  cutting in line  by entering the country on their own are simply refusing to be victimized by a system that tries to build walls between them and their natural freedom as human beings.  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.  however, i believe that is just the price to pay for what they have done.  yes, the children do not deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame.  a government is laws are not cosmic forces of nature.  everything is negotiable.  government laws are imagined and written down for human purposes, and enforced by human beings that i hope have a modicum of compassion.  you would break a family apart for the crime of changing their geography without the permission of a distant bureaucracy ? use your imagination and find out if that is something you would personally enforce, with a gun, before you come to the conclusion that you are okay delegating that violence to uncle sam.   #  mass deportation is not productive for the nation as a whole, nor the people it affects.   #  it is not about  deserving  it more than those who go through the legal process, it is about pragmatically solving the problem.  a decade ago we had an economic boom while mexico was struggling.  we were starved for unskilled labor, and our immigration quotas/laws did not really reflect the needs the only viable paths were family connections or educated white collar jobs / schools with sponsorship.  unsurprisingly, illegal immigration filled that gap.  now that our economy sputtered and we have less demand for those jobs, illegal immigration is declining.  none of those are perceptions; it happened.  it would have been nice to fix that problem in our immigration laws before it happened, but it happened.  ok, so now we have a group of people that have been here 0 0 years and are contributing members of society, many with children whom do not remember their homeland, and are undocumented and in the shadows.  mass deportation is not productive for the nation as a whole, nor the people it affects.  a combination of punitive fees most solutions being proposed include fines of $0 0k , proof of productive/gainful employment, and a path to citizenship seems balanced to me and does not somehow shortchange other immigrants.  every country everywhere does and has the right to factor in the nation of origin along with a million other factors when granting entrance/visas/citizenship for obvious reasons treaties, culture, threats, etc and the united states   mexico carribean have always had very intertwined histories / cultures / people / trade.  this idea that lenience on a particular situation is somehow  unfair  to people from other nations and other means of entry is nonsensical.  they do not have any more of a  right  than anyone else.   #  but what they really mean to say is, there are not enough americans to work for the salaries they want to pay them.   # there were plenty of unemployed americans over the last ten years, but corporations were unwilling to pay living wages.  that is where illegal immigrants come in.  they are easy to manipulate and exploit.  you can make them work under all sorts of dangerous and unreasonable conditions and pay them below minimum wage, and they will never rat you out cuz you will call ice and have them deported.  they are happy to live in sub par living standards because they are making an order of magnitude more than they did back home, and they are sending a lot of that home as well, either to coyotes or to their families.  legalizing these individuals makes them harder to exploit.  they can apply for work anywhere and can demand proper working conditions and wages.  then they simply compete for the same jobs as americans.  and if you think you are safe, remember that google, microsoft, apple etc are actively lobbying congress to increase the number of h0b visas that let foreigners work in high tech.  they say that there are not enough skilled laborers in the us to fill the positions they have.  but what they really mean to say is, there are not enough americans to work for the salaries they want to pay them.  URL one more thing.  many of these illegal immigrants are coming from countries with no rule of law.  they are fleeing the rampant corruption and impunity that have make their countries failed states.  and what is the first thing they learn when they come to the us ? following the law is for suckers.  you get ahead by cheating.  i do not think that is the message we want to send to millions of immigrants starting a new life in this country, nor to the millions of others who are attempting to  lawfully  emigrate here.   #  i am not sure how it would be catastrophic.   #  i guess i just do not feel like compromising with those who would otherwise threaten violence and theft.  if we do not give them our money, they will forcibly take it ? i say i will keep my money and invest in a gun and some home security.  i am not sure how it would be catastrophic.  there used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out.  honestly if the government did not lay totally unfounded claim on so much unowned land, those people could all move out of the cities and homestead some of that land with a little house and farm to feed their families.   #  i see a lot of conservatives say this like it is fact yet i have never seen proof.   # do you have a source on that ? are you saying that charity would be capable of picking up the slack caused by cuts to welfare benefits ? because if you are, i would love to know why you think that.  i see a lot of conservatives say this like it is fact yet i have never seen proof.  it is all based on gut feeling, from what i can tell.  and it is very likely that the amount you pay in taxes is less than the monetary value of the government services and public infrastructure you use.
if you desire to become a legal immigrant in any country, you should respect the rules of the government, which includes respecting the requirement of going through the citizenship process.  this process is not supposed to allow everyone to be approved, and it is not supposed to be easy either.  this allows citizenship be granted to the immigrants that deserve it those who had the patience, strength, and will of heart to go through the entire arduous process.  in addition, the process is a good way of controlling the flow of immigrants here in america.  if the process is too easy and too quick, there will be too fast of an influx that the country ca not handle.  why should those trying to bypass this line deserve the reward over those that actually earned it ? it is like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.  i understand that there are a lot of law abiding, tax paying illegal immigrants, and some of them do not have anything to return to in their home country.  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.  however, i believe that is just the price to pay for what they have done.  yes, the children do not deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame.   #  i understand that there are a lot of law abiding, tax paying illegal immigrants, and some of them do not have anything to return to in their home country.   #  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.   # it is like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.  you are picturing  being in american society  as a commodity that the federal government to gives or sells to others.  but what if it is not actually theirs to give ? the constitution had no concept of citizenship until the fourteenth amendment in 0.  what if the federal government is taking away human rights just to sell them back to you through the immigration bureaucracy ? if that is the case, people  cutting in line  by entering the country on their own are simply refusing to be victimized by a system that tries to build walls between them and their natural freedom as human beings.  there is a good percentage that have built lives here in america and worked hard to achieve that life.  many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart.  however, i believe that is just the price to pay for what they have done.  yes, the children do not deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame.  a government is laws are not cosmic forces of nature.  everything is negotiable.  government laws are imagined and written down for human purposes, and enforced by human beings that i hope have a modicum of compassion.  you would break a family apart for the crime of changing their geography without the permission of a distant bureaucracy ? use your imagination and find out if that is something you would personally enforce, with a gun, before you come to the conclusion that you are okay delegating that violence to uncle sam.   #  now that our economy sputtered and we have less demand for those jobs, illegal immigration is declining.   #  it is not about  deserving  it more than those who go through the legal process, it is about pragmatically solving the problem.  a decade ago we had an economic boom while mexico was struggling.  we were starved for unskilled labor, and our immigration quotas/laws did not really reflect the needs the only viable paths were family connections or educated white collar jobs / schools with sponsorship.  unsurprisingly, illegal immigration filled that gap.  now that our economy sputtered and we have less demand for those jobs, illegal immigration is declining.  none of those are perceptions; it happened.  it would have been nice to fix that problem in our immigration laws before it happened, but it happened.  ok, so now we have a group of people that have been here 0 0 years and are contributing members of society, many with children whom do not remember their homeland, and are undocumented and in the shadows.  mass deportation is not productive for the nation as a whole, nor the people it affects.  a combination of punitive fees most solutions being proposed include fines of $0 0k , proof of productive/gainful employment, and a path to citizenship seems balanced to me and does not somehow shortchange other immigrants.  every country everywhere does and has the right to factor in the nation of origin along with a million other factors when granting entrance/visas/citizenship for obvious reasons treaties, culture, threats, etc and the united states   mexico carribean have always had very intertwined histories / cultures / people / trade.  this idea that lenience on a particular situation is somehow  unfair  to people from other nations and other means of entry is nonsensical.  they do not have any more of a  right  than anyone else.   #  legalizing these individuals makes them harder to exploit.   # there were plenty of unemployed americans over the last ten years, but corporations were unwilling to pay living wages.  that is where illegal immigrants come in.  they are easy to manipulate and exploit.  you can make them work under all sorts of dangerous and unreasonable conditions and pay them below minimum wage, and they will never rat you out cuz you will call ice and have them deported.  they are happy to live in sub par living standards because they are making an order of magnitude more than they did back home, and they are sending a lot of that home as well, either to coyotes or to their families.  legalizing these individuals makes them harder to exploit.  they can apply for work anywhere and can demand proper working conditions and wages.  then they simply compete for the same jobs as americans.  and if you think you are safe, remember that google, microsoft, apple etc are actively lobbying congress to increase the number of h0b visas that let foreigners work in high tech.  they say that there are not enough skilled laborers in the us to fill the positions they have.  but what they really mean to say is, there are not enough americans to work for the salaries they want to pay them.  URL one more thing.  many of these illegal immigrants are coming from countries with no rule of law.  they are fleeing the rampant corruption and impunity that have make their countries failed states.  and what is the first thing they learn when they come to the us ? following the law is for suckers.  you get ahead by cheating.  i do not think that is the message we want to send to millions of immigrants starting a new life in this country, nor to the millions of others who are attempting to  lawfully  emigrate here.   #  there used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out.   #  i guess i just do not feel like compromising with those who would otherwise threaten violence and theft.  if we do not give them our money, they will forcibly take it ? i say i will keep my money and invest in a gun and some home security.  i am not sure how it would be catastrophic.  there used to be lots of charities and mutual aid societies before the government edged them out.  honestly if the government did not lay totally unfounded claim on so much unowned land, those people could all move out of the cities and homestead some of that land with a little house and farm to feed their families.   #  are you saying that charity would be capable of picking up the slack caused by cuts to welfare benefits ?  # do you have a source on that ? are you saying that charity would be capable of picking up the slack caused by cuts to welfare benefits ? because if you are, i would love to know why you think that.  i see a lot of conservatives say this like it is fact yet i have never seen proof.  it is all based on gut feeling, from what i can tell.  and it is very likely that the amount you pay in taxes is less than the monetary value of the government services and public infrastructure you use.
in recent years, a number of studies have shown that the us in particular has the lowest income equality, among the lowest income mobility, and among the highest indexes of social problems in the developed world.  URL URL URL at the same time, american style capitalism and inequality is becoming a global problem.  the hopeful trend of convergence brought about by fast emerging market growth from 0 to 0 has reversed:URL emerging markets, while creating a ton of gdp, are not converting much of that to wealth and the us has actually  increased  its share of global wealth since 0, with all of that going to the top.  as a result, the average human being is poorer now than she was in 0, even though global income and wealth as an aggregate have increased substantially.  the median american is poorer than the median canadian or even italian and is at about the same wealth level as a portuguese, a south korean, or a western slav.  chillingly, much of western europe, canada, australia, new zealand, and israel are following on the same track.  it is easy to see the links between high inequality and low mobility in the us, as well as increasing global inequality that is wiping out the gains china and other emerging countries made in the 0 0 period, and various us and international problems.  police brutality has proven to be among the most effective wedge issues keeping desperate black and hispanic americans from solidarity with slightly less desperate white americans.  gun control has repeatedly been blocked by desperate white americans voting in the tea party, by mistrust of the government, and, as obama pointed out in 0, clinging to firearm ownership as one of their few sources of power.  at the same time, highly armed but equal societies like switzerland and iceland have far less gun violence and non gun violence than the us.  education reform is futile when 0 0 of the american population is struggling to make ends meet and 0  are one unlucky break or bad decision away from misery.  at the same time, many americans are not seeing any return in education and are taking out tens of thousands in student loans only to work at starbucks or mcdonald is.  if the sons and daughters of the usa is white upper middle class are struggling to stay afloat, what does that say about the chances and return on investment for the white working class, much less blacks and hispanics in the inner cities ? american football will forever retain a steady pipeline of recruits so long as poor blacks, hispanics, and rural folk see no path to college or wealth other than combat sports.  many parts of the us see gridiron football as their main lifeline and source of charity and economic activity.  europe has long been spared the extremes of capitalism in the american style; however, the ongoing economic crisis has resulted in parties left, right, and center in countries with credit ratings from aaa to junk making cuts in government programs and benefits that would have been political suicide just one decade earlier.  this phenomenon has spread to canada, australia, and even new zealand and japan and in the northern countries is accompanied by a housing bubble in major cities that results in crippling household debt to gdp ratios, years of  hidden homelessness  and couch surfing in cities like stockholm, and near us like levels of wealth inequality.  with no mainstream politicians willing to reject austerity, this great americanization has been a boon to far left and far right parties, including close allies of vladimir putin, as well as to conversions to radical islam.  the situation in israel is similar.  ultranationalism has become a handy distraction from israelis  day to day problems and antipathy that should be directed at the elite is instead being directed at the palestinians.  at the same time, the rise of radical islamic groups such as isis that make the taliban and al qaeda look like teddy bears has colored a lot of the anti palestinian and anti arab rhetoric, as have alliances of convenience with ex neo nazis in the european far right.   #  as a result, the average human being is poorer now than she was in 0, even though global income and wealth as an aggregate have increased substantially.   #  how do explain this with the massive increases in consumption throughout the last few decades ?  # how do explain this with the massive increases in consumption throughout the last few decades ? income inequality is caused by the rich getting richer faster than the poor get richer.  social mobility has far more to do with education than with income inequality.  aside for black and hispanic culture, which has been main cause of their poor economic performance in comparison to many other groups such as asians and jews.  where are you getting all of these ideas.  us is 0th in median income and 0st in average income.  consumption at an all time high.  unemployment is the lowest it is been in many years.  it is easier than ever to start businesses with venture capital and crowd funding.  i think you have been watching too much jon stewart.   #   when you have a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.    #   when you have a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.   the world is a complex place with so many variables in play it is impossible to completely understand.  this leads to the trait that a lot of people have, where they find what they think is the  root  cause of many problems.  you will see it in feminist saying that the economy is trouble is because we do not take advantage of half our workforce, basic income supporters saying the economy is troubles are from forcing people to work for their survival, for race movements it is because of their inequality.  groups tend to use this to push their own agenda and show how their solution to  the  problem helps everyone.  it is impossible to attack that point because the complexity makes it hard to prove that the issue is not the primary cause, and the issue probably has some impact on the problem.  it also pushes the burden of proof on the opponents of the movements rather than the movement itself.  for you, it appears that the root cause for all of those things not sure about the football concussion thing though is economic equality.  but where you say education reform is futile while we have economic disparity, education reformist would say that the economic disparity is because we are not educating our lower classes correctly and say that economic reform is futile until we fix the problems with educating our future generations.  your view is entirely based on economic disparity being the cause of the other problems.  but the system is complex with no clear cause, you can point out examples of your case only to have a dozen opposing views/ examples of causation thrown back.  without proof of causation or a really strong case for it, your argument for we need to focus on one thing first because it is a root cause of the others ca not stand on its own.   #  the rest of the post  no idea where you are going you seemed to lose sight of the  income inequality  them near the end.   #  this is a pretty difficult post to address, since it covers so much ground, but i will give it a shot.  police brutality  i think it is a lot easier to make a case about racial issues than economic ones here.  a rich black man is more likely to be nabbed for driving while black and have it go south than a poor white is to be the victim of brutality.  gun ownership  i am not sure what point you are trying to make here.  it is by no means only  tea party  types who oppose gun control.  one in four democrats owns a gun.  there is also a wide range of incomes URL with significant gun ownership.  the bottom line is that when there was a democratic majority in both houses of congress and a democratic president, no significant gun legislation was passed you ca not blame that on the tea party.  americans like owning guns and using them.  how does income inequality enter into it ? education reform  i am not sure what you are trying to reform.  you seem to be really focusing on job prospects, which has nothing to do with whether the school are capable  of educating children.  football  there are many of middle class or wealthy kids who play football.  they love the sport, and, yeah, it is a lottery ticket.  but few who play think that they really have a shot at the nfl.  but for many it is a chance of going to college on a scholarship which helps mitigate income inequality.  the rest of the post  no idea where you are going you seemed to lose sight of the  income inequality  them near the end.   #  it is premise is that we can improve economic outcomes by changing how our schools operate.   # you are making the assumption that there is a causal link between the two, which is a very controversial stance.  a much less controversial statement:  improving the economic plight of our urban youth would do much more to reduce violence than gun control laws.   the school reform movement has impacted every school and teacher in the nation.  it is kind of a big deal.  it is premise is that we can improve economic outcomes by changing how our schools operate.  counter assertion:  we ca not improve educational outcomes until students  economic situations improve.   there is no variable that better predicts a student is educational success than his family is economic situation.   #  this has been around since the roman days of  bread and circuses  and is touched on in the hit movie  the hunger games.   # a rich black man is more likely to be nabbed for driving while black and have it go south than a poor white is to be the victim of brutality.  yes, and this is why there is so little working class solidarity in the us.  divide and conquer is one of the oldest tricks in the book and is the single largest reason why business owners and the corporate wing of the centre right in europe, canada, and the us are so pro immigration.  how does income inequality enter into it ? a culture of violence is statistically linked to poverty and is an easy distraction, up there with apocalyptic religion.  this has been around since the roman days of  bread and circuses  and is touched on in the hit movie  the hunger games.  the point that is made is that education is often linked to employ ability, and if it is hard for even the middle class to pay the bills then what use is there struggling in school ? especially if you go to class hungry.  i would argue that teach for america for instance is detrimental as it shows how the kids of the top 0 are struggling to get a decent job, and it is a credit to the black community that a second civil war or mass isis recruitment has not happened here.
in recent years, a number of studies have shown that the us in particular has the lowest income equality, among the lowest income mobility, and among the highest indexes of social problems in the developed world.  URL URL URL at the same time, american style capitalism and inequality is becoming a global problem.  the hopeful trend of convergence brought about by fast emerging market growth from 0 to 0 has reversed:URL emerging markets, while creating a ton of gdp, are not converting much of that to wealth and the us has actually  increased  its share of global wealth since 0, with all of that going to the top.  as a result, the average human being is poorer now than she was in 0, even though global income and wealth as an aggregate have increased substantially.  the median american is poorer than the median canadian or even italian and is at about the same wealth level as a portuguese, a south korean, or a western slav.  chillingly, much of western europe, canada, australia, new zealand, and israel are following on the same track.  it is easy to see the links between high inequality and low mobility in the us, as well as increasing global inequality that is wiping out the gains china and other emerging countries made in the 0 0 period, and various us and international problems.  police brutality has proven to be among the most effective wedge issues keeping desperate black and hispanic americans from solidarity with slightly less desperate white americans.  gun control has repeatedly been blocked by desperate white americans voting in the tea party, by mistrust of the government, and, as obama pointed out in 0, clinging to firearm ownership as one of their few sources of power.  at the same time, highly armed but equal societies like switzerland and iceland have far less gun violence and non gun violence than the us.  education reform is futile when 0 0 of the american population is struggling to make ends meet and 0  are one unlucky break or bad decision away from misery.  at the same time, many americans are not seeing any return in education and are taking out tens of thousands in student loans only to work at starbucks or mcdonald is.  if the sons and daughters of the usa is white upper middle class are struggling to stay afloat, what does that say about the chances and return on investment for the white working class, much less blacks and hispanics in the inner cities ? american football will forever retain a steady pipeline of recruits so long as poor blacks, hispanics, and rural folk see no path to college or wealth other than combat sports.  many parts of the us see gridiron football as their main lifeline and source of charity and economic activity.  europe has long been spared the extremes of capitalism in the american style; however, the ongoing economic crisis has resulted in parties left, right, and center in countries with credit ratings from aaa to junk making cuts in government programs and benefits that would have been political suicide just one decade earlier.  this phenomenon has spread to canada, australia, and even new zealand and japan and in the northern countries is accompanied by a housing bubble in major cities that results in crippling household debt to gdp ratios, years of  hidden homelessness  and couch surfing in cities like stockholm, and near us like levels of wealth inequality.  with no mainstream politicians willing to reject austerity, this great americanization has been a boon to far left and far right parties, including close allies of vladimir putin, as well as to conversions to radical islam.  the situation in israel is similar.  ultranationalism has become a handy distraction from israelis  day to day problems and antipathy that should be directed at the elite is instead being directed at the palestinians.  at the same time, the rise of radical islamic groups such as isis that make the taliban and al qaeda look like teddy bears has colored a lot of the anti palestinian and anti arab rhetoric, as have alliances of convenience with ex neo nazis in the european far right.   #  police brutality has proven to be among the most effective wedge issues keeping desperate black and hispanic americans from solidarity with slightly less desperate white americans.   #  aside for black and hispanic culture, which has been main cause of their poor economic performance in comparison to many other groups such as asians and jews.   # how do explain this with the massive increases in consumption throughout the last few decades ? income inequality is caused by the rich getting richer faster than the poor get richer.  social mobility has far more to do with education than with income inequality.  aside for black and hispanic culture, which has been main cause of their poor economic performance in comparison to many other groups such as asians and jews.  where are you getting all of these ideas.  us is 0th in median income and 0st in average income.  consumption at an all time high.  unemployment is the lowest it is been in many years.  it is easier than ever to start businesses with venture capital and crowd funding.  i think you have been watching too much jon stewart.   #  it is impossible to attack that point because the complexity makes it hard to prove that the issue is not the primary cause, and the issue probably has some impact on the problem.   #   when you have a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.   the world is a complex place with so many variables in play it is impossible to completely understand.  this leads to the trait that a lot of people have, where they find what they think is the  root  cause of many problems.  you will see it in feminist saying that the economy is trouble is because we do not take advantage of half our workforce, basic income supporters saying the economy is troubles are from forcing people to work for their survival, for race movements it is because of their inequality.  groups tend to use this to push their own agenda and show how their solution to  the  problem helps everyone.  it is impossible to attack that point because the complexity makes it hard to prove that the issue is not the primary cause, and the issue probably has some impact on the problem.  it also pushes the burden of proof on the opponents of the movements rather than the movement itself.  for you, it appears that the root cause for all of those things not sure about the football concussion thing though is economic equality.  but where you say education reform is futile while we have economic disparity, education reformist would say that the economic disparity is because we are not educating our lower classes correctly and say that economic reform is futile until we fix the problems with educating our future generations.  your view is entirely based on economic disparity being the cause of the other problems.  but the system is complex with no clear cause, you can point out examples of your case only to have a dozen opposing views/ examples of causation thrown back.  without proof of causation or a really strong case for it, your argument for we need to focus on one thing first because it is a root cause of the others ca not stand on its own.   #  but for many it is a chance of going to college on a scholarship which helps mitigate income inequality.   #  this is a pretty difficult post to address, since it covers so much ground, but i will give it a shot.  police brutality  i think it is a lot easier to make a case about racial issues than economic ones here.  a rich black man is more likely to be nabbed for driving while black and have it go south than a poor white is to be the victim of brutality.  gun ownership  i am not sure what point you are trying to make here.  it is by no means only  tea party  types who oppose gun control.  one in four democrats owns a gun.  there is also a wide range of incomes URL with significant gun ownership.  the bottom line is that when there was a democratic majority in both houses of congress and a democratic president, no significant gun legislation was passed you ca not blame that on the tea party.  americans like owning guns and using them.  how does income inequality enter into it ? education reform  i am not sure what you are trying to reform.  you seem to be really focusing on job prospects, which has nothing to do with whether the school are capable  of educating children.  football  there are many of middle class or wealthy kids who play football.  they love the sport, and, yeah, it is a lottery ticket.  but few who play think that they really have a shot at the nfl.  but for many it is a chance of going to college on a scholarship which helps mitigate income inequality.  the rest of the post  no idea where you are going you seemed to lose sight of the  income inequality  them near the end.   #  there is no variable that better predicts a student is educational success than his family is economic situation.   # you are making the assumption that there is a causal link between the two, which is a very controversial stance.  a much less controversial statement:  improving the economic plight of our urban youth would do much more to reduce violence than gun control laws.   the school reform movement has impacted every school and teacher in the nation.  it is kind of a big deal.  it is premise is that we can improve economic outcomes by changing how our schools operate.  counter assertion:  we ca not improve educational outcomes until students  economic situations improve.   there is no variable that better predicts a student is educational success than his family is economic situation.   #  this has been around since the roman days of  bread and circuses  and is touched on in the hit movie  the hunger games.   # a rich black man is more likely to be nabbed for driving while black and have it go south than a poor white is to be the victim of brutality.  yes, and this is why there is so little working class solidarity in the us.  divide and conquer is one of the oldest tricks in the book and is the single largest reason why business owners and the corporate wing of the centre right in europe, canada, and the us are so pro immigration.  how does income inequality enter into it ? a culture of violence is statistically linked to poverty and is an easy distraction, up there with apocalyptic religion.  this has been around since the roman days of  bread and circuses  and is touched on in the hit movie  the hunger games.  the point that is made is that education is often linked to employ ability, and if it is hard for even the middle class to pay the bills then what use is there struggling in school ? especially if you go to class hungry.  i would argue that teach for america for instance is detrimental as it shows how the kids of the top 0 are struggling to get a decent job, and it is a credit to the black community that a second civil war or mass isis recruitment has not happened here.
in recent years, a number of studies have shown that the us in particular has the lowest income equality, among the lowest income mobility, and among the highest indexes of social problems in the developed world.  URL URL URL at the same time, american style capitalism and inequality is becoming a global problem.  the hopeful trend of convergence brought about by fast emerging market growth from 0 to 0 has reversed:URL emerging markets, while creating a ton of gdp, are not converting much of that to wealth and the us has actually  increased  its share of global wealth since 0, with all of that going to the top.  as a result, the average human being is poorer now than she was in 0, even though global income and wealth as an aggregate have increased substantially.  the median american is poorer than the median canadian or even italian and is at about the same wealth level as a portuguese, a south korean, or a western slav.  chillingly, much of western europe, canada, australia, new zealand, and israel are following on the same track.  it is easy to see the links between high inequality and low mobility in the us, as well as increasing global inequality that is wiping out the gains china and other emerging countries made in the 0 0 period, and various us and international problems.  police brutality has proven to be among the most effective wedge issues keeping desperate black and hispanic americans from solidarity with slightly less desperate white americans.  gun control has repeatedly been blocked by desperate white americans voting in the tea party, by mistrust of the government, and, as obama pointed out in 0, clinging to firearm ownership as one of their few sources of power.  at the same time, highly armed but equal societies like switzerland and iceland have far less gun violence and non gun violence than the us.  education reform is futile when 0 0 of the american population is struggling to make ends meet and 0  are one unlucky break or bad decision away from misery.  at the same time, many americans are not seeing any return in education and are taking out tens of thousands in student loans only to work at starbucks or mcdonald is.  if the sons and daughters of the usa is white upper middle class are struggling to stay afloat, what does that say about the chances and return on investment for the white working class, much less blacks and hispanics in the inner cities ? american football will forever retain a steady pipeline of recruits so long as poor blacks, hispanics, and rural folk see no path to college or wealth other than combat sports.  many parts of the us see gridiron football as their main lifeline and source of charity and economic activity.  europe has long been spared the extremes of capitalism in the american style; however, the ongoing economic crisis has resulted in parties left, right, and center in countries with credit ratings from aaa to junk making cuts in government programs and benefits that would have been political suicide just one decade earlier.  this phenomenon has spread to canada, australia, and even new zealand and japan and in the northern countries is accompanied by a housing bubble in major cities that results in crippling household debt to gdp ratios, years of  hidden homelessness  and couch surfing in cities like stockholm, and near us like levels of wealth inequality.  with no mainstream politicians willing to reject austerity, this great americanization has been a boon to far left and far right parties, including close allies of vladimir putin, as well as to conversions to radical islam.  the situation in israel is similar.  ultranationalism has become a handy distraction from israelis  day to day problems and antipathy that should be directed at the elite is instead being directed at the palestinians.  at the same time, the rise of radical islamic groups such as isis that make the taliban and al qaeda look like teddy bears has colored a lot of the anti palestinian and anti arab rhetoric, as have alliances of convenience with ex neo nazis in the european far right.   #  if the sons and daughters of the usa is white upper middle class are struggling to stay afloat, what does that say about the chances and return on investment for the white working class, much less blacks and hispanics in the inner cities ?  #  where are you getting all of these ideas.   # how do explain this with the massive increases in consumption throughout the last few decades ? income inequality is caused by the rich getting richer faster than the poor get richer.  social mobility has far more to do with education than with income inequality.  aside for black and hispanic culture, which has been main cause of their poor economic performance in comparison to many other groups such as asians and jews.  where are you getting all of these ideas.  us is 0th in median income and 0st in average income.  consumption at an all time high.  unemployment is the lowest it is been in many years.  it is easier than ever to start businesses with venture capital and crowd funding.  i think you have been watching too much jon stewart.   #  your view is entirely based on economic disparity being the cause of the other problems.   #   when you have a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.   the world is a complex place with so many variables in play it is impossible to completely understand.  this leads to the trait that a lot of people have, where they find what they think is the  root  cause of many problems.  you will see it in feminist saying that the economy is trouble is because we do not take advantage of half our workforce, basic income supporters saying the economy is troubles are from forcing people to work for their survival, for race movements it is because of their inequality.  groups tend to use this to push their own agenda and show how their solution to  the  problem helps everyone.  it is impossible to attack that point because the complexity makes it hard to prove that the issue is not the primary cause, and the issue probably has some impact on the problem.  it also pushes the burden of proof on the opponents of the movements rather than the movement itself.  for you, it appears that the root cause for all of those things not sure about the football concussion thing though is economic equality.  but where you say education reform is futile while we have economic disparity, education reformist would say that the economic disparity is because we are not educating our lower classes correctly and say that economic reform is futile until we fix the problems with educating our future generations.  your view is entirely based on economic disparity being the cause of the other problems.  but the system is complex with no clear cause, you can point out examples of your case only to have a dozen opposing views/ examples of causation thrown back.  without proof of causation or a really strong case for it, your argument for we need to focus on one thing first because it is a root cause of the others ca not stand on its own.   #  police brutality  i think it is a lot easier to make a case about racial issues than economic ones here.   #  this is a pretty difficult post to address, since it covers so much ground, but i will give it a shot.  police brutality  i think it is a lot easier to make a case about racial issues than economic ones here.  a rich black man is more likely to be nabbed for driving while black and have it go south than a poor white is to be the victim of brutality.  gun ownership  i am not sure what point you are trying to make here.  it is by no means only  tea party  types who oppose gun control.  one in four democrats owns a gun.  there is also a wide range of incomes URL with significant gun ownership.  the bottom line is that when there was a democratic majority in both houses of congress and a democratic president, no significant gun legislation was passed you ca not blame that on the tea party.  americans like owning guns and using them.  how does income inequality enter into it ? education reform  i am not sure what you are trying to reform.  you seem to be really focusing on job prospects, which has nothing to do with whether the school are capable  of educating children.  football  there are many of middle class or wealthy kids who play football.  they love the sport, and, yeah, it is a lottery ticket.  but few who play think that they really have a shot at the nfl.  but for many it is a chance of going to college on a scholarship which helps mitigate income inequality.  the rest of the post  no idea where you are going you seemed to lose sight of the  income inequality  them near the end.   #  the school reform movement has impacted every school and teacher in the nation.   # you are making the assumption that there is a causal link between the two, which is a very controversial stance.  a much less controversial statement:  improving the economic plight of our urban youth would do much more to reduce violence than gun control laws.   the school reform movement has impacted every school and teacher in the nation.  it is kind of a big deal.  it is premise is that we can improve economic outcomes by changing how our schools operate.  counter assertion:  we ca not improve educational outcomes until students  economic situations improve.   there is no variable that better predicts a student is educational success than his family is economic situation.   #  a rich black man is more likely to be nabbed for driving while black and have it go south than a poor white is to be the victim of brutality.   # a rich black man is more likely to be nabbed for driving while black and have it go south than a poor white is to be the victim of brutality.  yes, and this is why there is so little working class solidarity in the us.  divide and conquer is one of the oldest tricks in the book and is the single largest reason why business owners and the corporate wing of the centre right in europe, canada, and the us are so pro immigration.  how does income inequality enter into it ? a culture of violence is statistically linked to poverty and is an easy distraction, up there with apocalyptic religion.  this has been around since the roman days of  bread and circuses  and is touched on in the hit movie  the hunger games.  the point that is made is that education is often linked to employ ability, and if it is hard for even the middle class to pay the bills then what use is there struggling in school ? especially if you go to class hungry.  i would argue that teach for america for instance is detrimental as it shows how the kids of the top 0 are struggling to get a decent job, and it is a credit to the black community that a second civil war or mass isis recruitment has not happened here.
.  or to put it another way, i suppose it could be written that  people hold many opinions about the immoral nature of certain actions  just because  with no real logical reason for it.   this is an opinion i have been trying to quantify for a while now, and my time on cmv has only seemed to reinforce this view.  people posting everything from views about the morality of drugs, to homosexuality, etc.  and so little of morality seems to make sense.  there are taboos against drug use, against incest, against homosexuality, against open sexuality, against so many things.  there is this kind of   moral disgust   for things which do not inherently do any harm.  most of the explanations i see for why these things are wrong are generic answers with little thought or reason to them:  it is unnatural ,  it is an affront to god ,  it just is not, because it just is not .   as far as i believe morality should be concerned, we should be allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies so long as nobody else is harmed.   if you want to do drugs just because the high makes you happy, and you have been educated and warned about the potential damages to your own body.  it is your body and your life, what is wrong ? if you are gay and you choose to have consensual homosexual sex and that is what you both decide to do with your bodies, what is wrong ? if you want to post nudes online and you feel empowered from it and the comments you get, what is wrong ? the only explanation i could honestly come up with is the way others may react to you, but even that is just a biproduct of a culture which creates senseless taboos, and does things like shaming people for being  sluts  or for being gay without any real justification.  what sense is there in these taboos, and the kind of bullying and shame that often comes with them ? where is the reasonable justification for deeming things that do not harm others immoral ? cmv.   #  if you want to do drugs just because the high makes you happy, and you have been educated and warned about the potential damages to your own body.  it is your body and your life, what is wrong ?  #  the point i think you are making is that every individual should have the right to harm themselves if they want to.   # the point i think you are making is that every individual should have the right to harm themselves if they want to.  that is fair.  but the reality is that human lives are  intertwined .  harm to one can harm another, perhaps at a later time.  for example, letting yourself get addicted to drugs might lead you to become a burden on the medical and legal system.  also, if you become addicted after you finish school and college, then society has invested a lot of time and effort into you if you then fail to become a productive member of society, or worse, then you have taken a lot but are returning nothing, or negative value.  to take it to an extreme, if everyone took drugs all the time and felt great, but did little productive stuff like keep the economy going, then society would collapse.  civilization has a responsibility to avoid that.  yes, it can infringe on our personal freedom at times.  yes, that can be justified.  of course, in other cases it is not.  gay marriage has no actual harm except offending some religious people is sensitivities, which they will get over.   #  hey, it is you are life you should be free to throw it away, right ?  #  seldom do most of these things harm  just you .  drugs  i could not care less if you light up an occasional joint.  but if you are shooting heroin, there is a good chance you will become hooked.  hey, it is you are life you should be free to throw it away, right ? but what if you have kids ? either they grow up in a living hell, or the state has to support them in a somewhat less hell like circumstance.  and of course, many junkies need money to support their habit, so they borrow money from family, break in to cars or houses, mug people.  they od and the state pays for their hospitalization.  we live in a complex society.  it is not like you are sitting in a cabin in montana, growing your own opium poppies and creating your own drugs so, yes, there is stigma because of the impact on society.  incest  the reason there are laws and taboos against incest is that it is unlikely that there will be healthy relationships.  cousins are not such a big deal except for the increased risk of recessive genes causing a problem with children.  but parent/child is inherently unhealthy because of the power difference.  children naturally and by necessity learn to obey their parents.  when you throw in a sexual component, there is no possible free consent the same reason that there are taboos and laws against teachers or doctors having relationships with those in their care.  even with siblings, we have the problem that if they break up, it will unquestionably weaken the family.  whose side do you take, who do you support, who is welcome at home ? .  since the family is the first line of support for caregiving, financial or other help, weakening the family increases the likelihood that the state will need to help out.  so, i agree if you want to be gay, have an orgy, smoke moderate amounts of pot things that really only affect you, go for it.  but the list of things that do not have an impact on others is a lot smaller than you state.   #  also that study only covers people who have tried it at least  once  in their lives.  its not like people are able to regularly use heroin and only 0 of them get hooked.   #  0 in 0 is an extremely good chance.  also that study only covers people who have tried it at least  once  in their lives.  its not like people are able to regularly use heroin and only 0 of them get hooked.  basically each time you do heroin, it increases your chances of becoming hooked.  i would be willing to wager that the 0 who never became addicted were only using once or twice in their entire life.  i know there is a tendency to exaggerate the addictive nature of a lot of drugs, but heroin is not one of them.   #  personally i have never met anyone who can just do heroin every once in a while like alcohol or cocaine.   #  i am commenting about the numbers that vote squinty posted above.  it says 0 in 0 become addicted.  they are saying that is not significant.  i think most people would say that is significant.  that was the original source that voted quimby was quoting.  they are pointing to those numbers and saying that heroin is not very addictive because only 0 in 0 becomes addictive.  my argument is that 0 in 0 is extremely addictive, especially when you take into consideration that this number is based on anyone who has ever tried heroin,  even once.  from personal experience, it is definitely possible to only do heroin once, but if you go back to do it a second and third time, i feel your chances to get hooked grow exponentially higher.  personally i have never met anyone who can just do heroin every once in a while like alcohol or cocaine.  in my personal experience, it is definitely a more habit forming drug and most of the statistics seem to back that up.  i did not realize there was so much confusion about this.   #  that particular study did not look into it but it does refer to other survey data which only included drug users who used heroin at least 0 times.   # na, i do not think so.  that particular study did not look into it but it does refer to other survey data which only included drug users who used heroin at least 0 times.  they did this to exclude experimental users.  this survey showed that:  an estimated 0 percent of the daily heroin users reported having felt dependent on heroin.  by comparison, an estimated 0 percent of the never daily users reported having had feelings of dependence on heroin.  this difference in percentages from about 0 to 0 percent is consistent with presumed toxicity of nondaily heroin use versus daily heroin use.   source URL basically, the people who used heroin every day had a high likelihood of feeling dependent, yes.  everyone else who used heroin less than daily but on 0 or more occasions had a very low likelihood of feeling dependent so that 0 from before is not just one or two time users.  yes it is self reported and subjective but it is the best data i could find.
i have seen some discussion about this topic, where many kids and adults may call people something they are not to try and insult them.  for example:  that is so gay  and  you throw like a girl  type insults.  many people come to the conclusion that these type of insults are homophobic and misogynistic, but i do not believe that is necessarily the case at all.  i think the most insulting thing about being called a girl for a boy is the affront to his own identity.  he is being called something he is not.  he does not think its insulting because he hates girls and thinks they are inferior, but rather because his identity as a boy is being taken away.  women in general also hate being associated with masculinity.  they tend to want to be smaller than their partners because they feel masculine if they are taller.  they religiously pluck facial hair and shave away body hair because that is manly.  but they probably do not hate men.  similarly, being called gay is a huge insult to many guys not because they are all homophobic, but because they are being called something they are not.  i think the best way to see it from my point of view is looking at how offensive it is for trans people when they are mis gendered purposely .  it is a deliberate refusal of their identity.  no one says a trans woman is a misandrist if she hates being referred to as  he .  the people calling them  he  are also unlikely to hate men, but say it to hurt the trans person.  so cmv, insults such as those above are not necessarily homophobic or misogynist.  they sting because they are an affront to identity more so than because being gay or a woman is a bad thing.   #  women in general also hate being associated with masculinity.   #  they tend to want to be smaller than their partners because they feel masculine if they are taller.   #  calling someone gay is homophobic because you are associating them with the stereotypical traits of gay people effeminate, etc.  it has nothing to do with being called something you are not.  for example, i am jewish.  yet i would still be offended if someone said  you are cheap like a jew  or  you jew ed down the price.   despite them calling me something i am jewish they are associating me with highly prejudiced stereotypes.  they tend to want to be smaller than their partners because they feel masculine if they are taller.  they religiously pluck facial hair and shave away body hair because that is manly.  but they probably do not hate men.  pretty big generalizations about billions of people.   #  oftentimes, the behaviors have nothing to do with sexuality.   #  you are correct that saying  you are gay  is not necessarily insulting to gay people.  if someone is legitimately behaving like a homosexual in jest, or seriously , then there is nothing wrong with saying  you are gay.   in these cases, the phrase  you are gay  has power because the person is, well, acting gay.  but if someone is doing something that has nothing to do with sexuality, then it definitely is insulting to gay people to say  you are gay.   for example, if someone is afraid of something say, afraid to ride a roller coaster, for example , then it would be insulting to gay people to say  you are gay.   the phrase  you are gay  is often directed as an insult to someone who exhibits  any  behavior that is considered unpopular by the person giving the insult.  oftentimes, the behaviors have nothing to do with sexuality.  in these cases, the phrase  you are gay  has power because of an underlying implication that being gay is bad.  that is an affront to gay people.   #  take time to educate yourself before spouting idiotic things.   #  and you are wrong.  sexuality is not some binary choice.  it is a spectrum.  it is a complicated mess.  coming up with words to describe complex feelings is what we do.  homoromantic is a valid word.  you denying that it is a real word is something a 0 year old kid does, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting lalalalalala.  most of the time sexual orientation and romantic orientation align, but it is not the case always.  an asexual woman that exclusively dates men would want to have a word that describes her, if she so chooses.  and that label would most likely end up being asexual heteroromantic.  if she exclusively dated women, she would probably prefer/use asexual homoromantic.  if both, asexual biromantic.  as you can see, this is not voodoo tumblr nonsense, it is logical and well, simple.  the word homoromantic has been around before tumblr existed.  take time to educate yourself before spouting idiotic things.   #  for example, a friend might say  hey, wanna play video games at my house later ?    #  having sex with the same gender is not the only way to exhibit homosexual behaviors.  many of my male teenage friends made sexual gestures towards one another as jokes.  for example, a friend might say  hey, wanna play video games at my house later ?   another would reply with  yeah, we could watch a movie later too.   then a third friend might add  yeah, we could have an orgy later too.   we would all say  you are gay  and have a laugh.   #  it does not even sound like a joke so much as shaming people for not fitting your limited idea of what a man is.   #  so taking about having sex with the same gender ? still pretty limited.  and frankly even here it does not sound ok.  there is nothing wrong with having sex with the same gender.  to attempt to insult someone for expressing interest in doing so is offensive.  you are saying it is wrong to want to do something that is gay.  obviously the orgy friend was kidding.  and it seems like a harmless joke because you all know no one of you wants to sleep with the other.  but to call him gay seems less playful.  it does not even sound like a joke so much as shaming people for not fitting your limited idea of what a man is.  like if the joke was  hey guys lets all try on dresses and put on makeup  and you replied  you are a woman  it does not sound like a joke.  it sounds like you hate the idea of doing anything women tend to do.  it sounds like he made a tongue in cheek joke and you attacked him, even if you are tone was lighthearted.
i have seen some discussion about this topic, where many kids and adults may call people something they are not to try and insult them.  for example:  that is so gay  and  you throw like a girl  type insults.  many people come to the conclusion that these type of insults are homophobic and misogynistic, but i do not believe that is necessarily the case at all.  i think the most insulting thing about being called a girl for a boy is the affront to his own identity.  he is being called something he is not.  he does not think its insulting because he hates girls and thinks they are inferior, but rather because his identity as a boy is being taken away.  women in general also hate being associated with masculinity.  they tend to want to be smaller than their partners because they feel masculine if they are taller.  they religiously pluck facial hair and shave away body hair because that is manly.  but they probably do not hate men.  similarly, being called gay is a huge insult to many guys not because they are all homophobic, but because they are being called something they are not.  i think the best way to see it from my point of view is looking at how offensive it is for trans people when they are mis gendered purposely .  it is a deliberate refusal of their identity.  no one says a trans woman is a misandrist if she hates being referred to as  he .  the people calling them  he  are also unlikely to hate men, but say it to hurt the trans person.  so cmv, insults such as those above are not necessarily homophobic or misogynist.  they sting because they are an affront to identity more so than because being gay or a woman is a bad thing.   #  similarly, being called gay is a huge insult to many guys not because they are all homophobic, but because they are being called something they are not.   #  do not think this is true at all.   #  would you be ok with an identity based insult that you are not already familiar with ? eg  you are so black  or  you are such a muslim , in response to behavior stereotypically associated with these groups ? do not think this is true at all.  replace gay with another mistaken identity swedish, vegetarian, libertarian, etc.  and it does not carry the same negative connotation.  calling someone gay is in most cases specifically associated with pointing out that someone is exhibiting negative qualities that are stereotypically associated with homosexuality.  no one is actually under the impression that their identity has been called into question in a serious sense.   #  but if someone is doing something that has nothing to do with sexuality, then it definitely is insulting to gay people to say  you are gay.    #  you are correct that saying  you are gay  is not necessarily insulting to gay people.  if someone is legitimately behaving like a homosexual in jest, or seriously , then there is nothing wrong with saying  you are gay.   in these cases, the phrase  you are gay  has power because the person is, well, acting gay.  but if someone is doing something that has nothing to do with sexuality, then it definitely is insulting to gay people to say  you are gay.   for example, if someone is afraid of something say, afraid to ride a roller coaster, for example , then it would be insulting to gay people to say  you are gay.   the phrase  you are gay  is often directed as an insult to someone who exhibits  any  behavior that is considered unpopular by the person giving the insult.  oftentimes, the behaviors have nothing to do with sexuality.  in these cases, the phrase  you are gay  has power because of an underlying implication that being gay is bad.  that is an affront to gay people.   #  take time to educate yourself before spouting idiotic things.   #  and you are wrong.  sexuality is not some binary choice.  it is a spectrum.  it is a complicated mess.  coming up with words to describe complex feelings is what we do.  homoromantic is a valid word.  you denying that it is a real word is something a 0 year old kid does, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting lalalalalala.  most of the time sexual orientation and romantic orientation align, but it is not the case always.  an asexual woman that exclusively dates men would want to have a word that describes her, if she so chooses.  and that label would most likely end up being asexual heteroromantic.  if she exclusively dated women, she would probably prefer/use asexual homoromantic.  if both, asexual biromantic.  as you can see, this is not voodoo tumblr nonsense, it is logical and well, simple.  the word homoromantic has been around before tumblr existed.  take time to educate yourself before spouting idiotic things.   #  we would all say  you are gay  and have a laugh.   #  having sex with the same gender is not the only way to exhibit homosexual behaviors.  many of my male teenage friends made sexual gestures towards one another as jokes.  for example, a friend might say  hey, wanna play video games at my house later ?   another would reply with  yeah, we could watch a movie later too.   then a third friend might add  yeah, we could have an orgy later too.   we would all say  you are gay  and have a laugh.   #  you are saying it is wrong to want to do something that is gay.   #  so taking about having sex with the same gender ? still pretty limited.  and frankly even here it does not sound ok.  there is nothing wrong with having sex with the same gender.  to attempt to insult someone for expressing interest in doing so is offensive.  you are saying it is wrong to want to do something that is gay.  obviously the orgy friend was kidding.  and it seems like a harmless joke because you all know no one of you wants to sleep with the other.  but to call him gay seems less playful.  it does not even sound like a joke so much as shaming people for not fitting your limited idea of what a man is.  like if the joke was  hey guys lets all try on dresses and put on makeup  and you replied  you are a woman  it does not sound like a joke.  it sounds like you hate the idea of doing anything women tend to do.  it sounds like he made a tongue in cheek joke and you attacked him, even if you are tone was lighthearted.
first let me clarify that anti feminism is not necessarily anti women is rights, but against the belief in the patriarchy and institutional misogyny.  feminists often try to silence women is criticisms of feminism by saying they have internalized misogyny.  i do not believe this is the case.  a lack of belief in the patriarchy can be caused by the lack of empirical evidence.  examples of misogyny and discrimination do not have to be ignored or excused as one with internalized misogyny would be expected to do because they do not necessarily prove the existence of a patriarchy, nor institutional misogyny.  saying a woman has internalized misogyny discredits her experience of what may be a lack of being victimized.  telling a woman she is a victim when she is not is belittling.  this is what draws many women away from feminism.   #  against the belief in the patriarchy and institutional misogyny.   #  you say this as if it is the central ideology of feminism, which it is not.   # you say this as if it is the central ideology of feminism, which it is not.  feminism is the examination of power and discrimination in society.  this started as the examination of the effects on society where men have all the power.  before voting rights of women, i think you most certainly do not disagree with the idea of  the patriarchy .  untimely, i agree that being against feminism does not make you a misogynist, because that is a huge generalization.  i think it could mean you do not believe that the current popular feminist theories are correct.  i think being   anti  feminist does point to a strange personal stance, especially for a minority.  what does anti even mean in this scenario ? you are actively against evaluating society ? what good does that do anyone ? feminists already disagree with each other internally, so holding a contrary opinion does not make you anti feminist, just a person who disagrees with a particular theory.  believing keynesian economics is wrong does not make you anti economist, and i would find it suspicious if someone said they are anti economist anyways.  i would assume they had a lacking understanding of the field.   #  in this case  anti feminism  , feminism is not used in the sense of a critical discipline, but of an ideology.   # in this case  anti feminism  , feminism is not used in the sense of a critical discipline, but of an ideology.  so it is perfectly sensible to use  anti feminist  in the same vein as  anti communist  or  anti fascist .  in fact, the examination of society  already has a term , and that is  sociology .  you do not get a degree in feminism, you get a degree in sociology.  you could get a degree in  women is studies  and it would be equally stupid to use the term  anti women is studies  because women is studies is a field of study, not an ideology.  but anti feminist ? perfectly valid.   #  sociology is an old science that has been shaped and molded by western thought.   # what ideology is that ? because  feminism  is a discipline composed of many factions with often times conflicting theories.  for instance, you may like difference feminism, which states that men and women are different, and that it is silly to assume equality is good or meaningful.  URL and here are just a few more URL  women is studies, also known as feminist studies, is an interdisciplinary academic field that explores politics, society, media, and history from women is perspective  according to feminist perspectives.  URL women is studies is the academic application of feminism.  if you are  anti feminism  then you are  anti women is studies  whatever that means .  there is crossover between sociology and feminism, but they are not the same thing.  namely, sociology is not the study of power and discrimination.  sociology is an old science that has been shaped and molded by western thought.  feminism, while born from western thought, attempts to reevaluate western philosophy, not build upon it.  sociology is also more general the feminism/women is studies.   #  some historical outlines can be seen here URL and here URL so saying that feminism  is becoming openly hostile to minorities, particularly poor minorities  is a misguided analysis of the movement because it lacks acknowledgment of the movement is past.   #  actually, the feminist movement has always had notable friction among racial minorities in the movement.  there are racial sub groups, such as the black feminist movement, who ultimately believe in their understanding of what feminism is but know that the macromovement is ivory crafted and does not and to some extent ca not meet the messaging and initiative needs that non white feminists would like to see.  any feminist who has learned about the start of the movement and can take a critical look at the current movement from the perspective of those outside the movement should be able to tell you that the movement was and still is a movement seen to be spearheaded by mostly middle class white women this a matter of the face of the movement as opposed to the actual composition of the movement .  here is a brief synopsis of the rise of black feminism as an example.  URL the movement was also hostile to lesbians.  URL then there is still some ongoing friction within the overall movement about where trans women fit in.  some historical outlines can be seen here URL and here URL so saying that feminism  is becoming openly hostile to minorities, particularly poor minorities  is a misguided analysis of the movement because it lacks acknowledgment of the movement is past.  heck, the example you used demonstrates the core reason, that the mostly white figureheads of the movement overlook minority experiences, why the black feminist movement started in the first place.   #  the woman was paid to walk around ignoring poor black people.   #  wrong.  it was not  one feminist .  the video was shot by a man who was paid to do so by a women is activist group.  the woman was paid to walk around ignoring poor black people.  and it was thousands of feminists that popularized that bit of hate speech.  do you understand the difference ? she was an actress.  a white woman was cast in the role of the  victim  in that video.  how did they  cast  the villains ? by shooting most of their video in a poor black neighborhood in harlem.  that is not where you shoot if you want diversity.  but since this is a professional publicity company doing the shooting, i am not going to assume it was an accident, and neither should anyone else.  and guess what ? when it comes to gender discussion,  the establishment  is feminism.  that is the mainstream, and this wounded doe underdog act is not going to fly when your movement is making recruitment videos for white supremacist groups.
recently there has been a shift from the industrial globalized system of goods food, handmade items, clothing, etc to more alternative systems like farmers markets, local businesses, and  buying american  or whatever country the person lives in .  however, this seems to be primarily based on selfishness.  the idea is that by keeping money in the local economy, that the surrounding region will become more economically strong as increased local spending increases local jobs and profits for businesses and then taxes for municipalities or the country .  however, this seems to be a selfish type of logic that prioritizes the well being of people in the community over the  otherized   non community, non nation citizen  instead of a customer supporting a farm in a developing country, they are instead supporting their local organic farmer.  while i am not trying to say that local organic farmers should not have a successful business, the marketing and ideology of  buying local  is often employed to strengthen those already in power, to the detriment of those not in the community.  buying american is another type of marketing that is often used in consumer goods, especially fashion.  i personally like the idea of buying american as it carries connotations of better quality, better labor practices, etc.  however, at the same time i realize that i am supporting someone who is already fairly well off a factory work in maine, in this case , and not spending my money on a different country whose workers are in more need of employment and financial security.  you could argue that most companies that create their goods in these types of countries use exploitative labor practices and thus should not be supported, but instead of activism and pressuring companies to adopt better labor practices, the marketing speak of buy local/buy american is choosing to strengthen local and regional economies while leaving lesser developed countries to fend for themselves in our globalized economic system.   #  i realize that i am supporting someone who is already fairly well off a factory work in maine, in this case , and not spending my money on a different country whose workers are in more need of employment and financial security.   #  when you buy something that was manufactured in another country, most of your money is not going to the worker in china.   # we would rather give our money to the mom and pop stores because they have for the most part the same struggles as we do.  we relate to them more, so we would rather give them our money.  that is not selfishness that is empathy.  when you buy something that was manufactured in another country, most of your money is not going to the worker in china.  most of it is going to the corporation that funded the making of the shirt.   #  i believe people respond to incentives far quicker than some abstract ethical idea.   # you do not think, for example, that rosa parks and the montgomery bus boycott were activism ? i do not see why lessening demand for exploitative labor is a bad thing.  i believe people respond to incentives far quicker than some abstract ethical idea.  a corporation is primary responsibility is to make a profit.  if people negatively incentivize exploitative labor than the corporation will change it is behavior.  you speak of  pressure  and  activism.   any kind of activism would function under the same model negatviely affect the corporatations profits, and cause them to change their behavior.  do you have another kind of example of activism you are talking about ?  #  if a consumer is focused solely on labor practices, then local or not, that consumer is going to support the company with the practices he or she agrees with.   # this is really two different arguments, if we assume that the local 0 acre organic tomato farm has the same labor standards as the 0,0 acre commercial tomato farm only with fewer employees, then we are just focused on an interest in keeping money closer to home.  if a consumer is focused solely on labor practices, then local or not, that consumer is going to support the company with the practices he or she agrees with.  i support local farms when i can but if you told me that the local farm treated its workers like shit, i would look somewhere else.  that is voting with my wallet and is in fact activism.  by the way, this sjw nonsense about whitewashing and poc is just that, nonsense.  the identify of who is doing what has nothing to do with labor conditions or the benefit of buying local products.  who is to say that the labor relations at conventional industrial farms are so horrible ?  #  but when you buy local, zero of your money is going to the manufacturing country.   # that is a good point and i can see that argument on an individual level.  but what i am primarily addressing is the systematic marketing local as good, which i argue is primarily selfish as it is meant to market and increase profits for local businesses.  most of it is going to the corporation that funded the making of the shirt.  this is very true.  but when you buy local, zero of your money is going to the manufacturing country.  maybe that is preferable when you take into account that you are speaking with your dollar and not supporting labor made cheap, but that is not really the goal of  buy local  marketing.   #  which, depending on how you look at it, is either selfish or selfless  0 i think that you mean  wouldeveloping  instead of  amanufacturing .   #  before we begin, i would like a clarification.  when you say it is  iselfish , do you mean selfish for the individual someone buys local because they think it will help them somehow or selfish on the business level ? local businesses wanting people to buy local as to increase their business   but when you buy local, zero of your money is going to the manufacturing 0 country yes, but you have to keep in mind that only a small portion is actually going to that country.  when you use this logic, you see that you have two options: 0 you can buy local in this case, 0 of proceeds go to the local producer.  these people are better off than those in developing countries, so having more money means less to them.  not mentioning the selfish vs empathy thing here.  purely objective 0 you can buy international or non local only a fraction of the money you spent actually goes to the workers.  however, these workers are less well off, and so value money more.  i am also not mentioning the working conditions/lack of labor laws here.  again purely objective this means that if you are looking only at the bottom line who ends up better off the local workers or the international workers.  you end up choosing between giving more money to people who care less for it and giving less money to people who care more for it.  the  real  answer would probably vary from product to product.  however, you should not use only this logic to decide what to do.  you also need to consider other factors.  if, as an individual, you believe that working conditions in china are poor, than you could decide not to buy products made in china.  there is also the idea that buying local will boost the local economy.  which, depending on how you look at it, is either selfish or selfless  0 i think that you mean  wouldeveloping  instead of  amanufacturing .  after all if you buy local, logic tells us that money  must  go to the manufacturing country.
with our ever advancing knowledge of neuroscience and the chemistry involved with it, i do not see any place for the idea that any animal, including humans, is truly capable of making choices.  we are capable of recognizing choices, that is obvious, but i am not convinced that the chemical pathways for neurons leaves any room for decisions to be made other than the ones that are made. there is no more room in the chemical pathways for us to  choose  to do anything any more than there is for bacteria or plants to do the same.  chemistry behaves the way it does regardless of what we want it to do, and our decisions are made by chemical controlled signaling between cells.  is there any room for our nerves to come to any other result than the one they do given that chemical pathways we have no control over are the primary factors in the decisions we make ? i do not think so, but i am open to changing my view !  #  i do not see any place for the idea that any animal, including humans, is truly capable of making choices.   #  what does it mean to  make choices  anyway ?  # what does it mean to  make choices  anyway ? you seem to be presupposing that the only meaningful way to make choices involves some kind of dualist separation of the mind.  personally, as compatibilist URL i do not think such a separation is necessary.  sure, our decisions are the result of physical processes, but why does that make them less meaningful ? when i make a choice, i perceive the thought process that leads to it, and i recognise it as my own.  a choice is made, and i am the one making it.  why should it matter whether that agency exists outside the rules of the universe ? in short: we may not have  free will  but we certainly have  will , and that is all that really matters.   #  if you are subject to laws in which cause leads to effect without exception, you cannot have acted otherwise and therefore your will is not free.   #  i would go one step further and say that the concept of free will is meaningless in any universe.  if you are subject to laws in which cause leads to effect without exception, you cannot have acted otherwise and therefore your will is not free.  if you are not subject to such laws, you must be acting randomly without cause , so your will is not your own.  these stand regardless of whether the brain works by neurons or magic.  the only distinction that is left to draw is whether or not the causes that are driving your actions can be identified as  you  the difference between thinking with your own neurons or having your thoughts given to you by some external source.  there are coerced and uncoerced actions, but not  free  will.   #  mass of observable universe: 0×0 0 kg URL shows how empty galaxies really are.   #  i never said anything about an entire universe, just a planet, nor did i say anything about predicting the past.  that being said, absolutely simulating the future with any amount of certainty of a planet sized system at plank scale, including accounting for the fact that every force on the planet, every footstep, tire tread, landing bird, or falling object induces that force upon every single molecule of the planet, which then impacts every other molecule on the planet with yet another force, would likely require more computing power than could be generated by turning every other piece of matter in the observable universe besides this planet and sun into modern human electronics, even if every component could communicate instantly, rather than at lightspeed.  we are talking about a server room the size of a galaxy.  i wonder if the theoretical mass of a galaxy with the average density of a datacenter would be compared to the theoretical mass of the observable universe ? volume of milky way: 0×0 0 cubic meters URL mass of 0u server rack: 0 lbs URL volume 0  x 0  x 0  0 cubic inches 0 cubic meters let is assume that there is just over an equal amount of volume of airspace for air circulation, giving the racks and effective volume of 0 cubic meters.  0×0 0 / 0 0×0 0 servers, × 0lbs 0×0 0 lbs 0×0 0 kg of servers.  mass of observable universe: 0×0 0 kg URL shows how empty galaxies really are.   #  because you seem to be, probably unconsciously, working within the context of a dualist, nonphysical soul, while trying to make sense of a physicalist, determinist world.   # my actions, my desires and deliberations are chemistry.  i would put it more accurately, chemistry is  how the desires are implemented .  a robot or alien could have desires in silicon.  i think you are referring mostly to the libet experiment.  but the libet experiment asked the test subjects to pick two buttons  spontaneously .  this is not the same as signing a mortgage.  the libet experiment, as many like it, did not test the choicemaking apparatus and conclude it was faulty.  it tested  the random number generator  and concluded it is faulty if you have neuroimaging systems .  what does, then ? it is my brain, processing in accordance to my preferences.  that sounds like  me .  i will ask you something else.  what  are  you ? because you seem to be, probably unconsciously, working within the context of a dualist, nonphysical soul, while trying to make sense of a physicalist, determinist world.   #  you eating breakfast on time is not the only outcome.   #  there was some kind of theory i read about that connected this to entropy.  when you have a choice, instead of being hard coded to do things automatically, the number of possible outcomes increase.  you eating breakfast on time is not the only outcome.  you can choose to eat it a different time or not at all.  so the evolution of intelligence and free will in a system increases the entropy in the system and thus is keeping in line with the laws of thermodynamics
i am not some hippy liberal christian, i am a serious southern baptist sunday school teacher.  i think that after examining the bible, there is no argument that being transgender is wrong.  indeed, there are only three main prongs of attack, all of which are incorrect.  the first prong of attack is the homosexuality argument.  however, if someone really is the opposite gender, then it would by definition not be homosexual.  the second prong of attack is the rule against cross dressing.  however, if someone really is the opposite gender, it is not cross dressing.  the third prong of attack is against physical mutilation of the body.  i think there are other things wrong with this argument.  however, that someone is transgender does not imply that they will or have to  amutilate  their body.  they may be happier if they do, but being transgender does not entail it happening.  none of these imply that being transgender it is self is in any way wrong.  it is always something else that commonly goes along with transgender issues that makes it wrong.   #  the first prong of attack is the homosexuality argument.   #  however, if someone really is the opposite gender, then it would by definition not be homosexual.   # however, if someone really is the opposite gender, then it would by definition not be homosexual.  however, if someone really is the opposite gender, it is not cross dressing.  i am not intimately familiar with the bible myself, but since your arguments are based on  this person is another gender, so the proscriptions in the bible relating to homosexuality and cross dressing do not apply , we first have to establish whether the bible accepts that the person is indeed another gender.  what does the bible have to say about the gender spectrum ? does it say anything at all ? in the absence of any statements, are we to assume that biblical times saw gender as simply the same thing as biological sex ? do we have any evidence relating to transgender issues arising in the classical world, and how they were dealt with ? now, i am not arguing that whatever the bible has to say is right.  i would actually put good money on me thoroughly disagreeing with it.  but it seems to me that if you are going to make a statement about what the bible says, you should not apply modern judgements the person is another gender when the bible may have different judgements, or at least implicit assumptions that run counter to modern ones.   #  traditionally the way to determine if an animal is male or female is by the size of their sex gamete.   #  chromosome is just a blue print.  those with xy can still grow a vagina in the womb.  many animals have their sex determined by environment and not genes.  sea turtles for example determine their sex by incubation temperature fun story of how thst was figured out.  to help sea turtle conservation scientists would gather all the eggs they could find off the beach.  eventually they realized they had been releasing all males due to that aspect of incubation .  traditionally the way to determine if an animal is male or female is by the size of their sex gamete.  large sex gamete aspects female small are male.   #  your entire argument is based on the idea that the person is truly for lack of a better term; not to be offensive their  declared  gender.   #  note: these are not necessarily my views, and any language that may be less than ideal is not intended as an insult.  your entire argument is based on the idea that the person is truly for lack of a better term; not to be offensive their  declared  gender.  if a christian believes that god created you, then god did it in a certain way.  if god gave you a penis, then god intended you to be male.  if you have a penis and claim to be a woman, you are going against god is plan.   #  the only way to know what happened in the murderer is mind is to be god.   #  but this is simply  judge not ; it is true about any sin.  specifically, even things explicitly forbidden in the bible, like murder, could be justified as, say, intended self defense.  the only way to know what happened in the murderer is mind is to be god.  given that, the argument seems unreasonable.  of course they may think they were acting in self defense, but shooting people is bad and can be condemned.  similarly, if they  feel  transgendered, their feelings are not a defense against the factual existence of their current biological gender.   #  similarly, whether a person is called  james  or  jessica  is not a huge deal in the scope of the community as a whole.   #  yes, but an individual is choice to be a doctor, lawyer, or teacher is generally seen as their own choice to make.  that is the distinction that i was trying to make though it obviously does not hold through all cultures, times, and places .  it does not have as much of an effect on someone else is life as a murder, and it does not have the corresponding effect on the community either.  similarly, whether a person is called  james  or  jessica  is not a huge deal in the scope of the community as a whole.  it is much more on par with a decision of what major to choose, or where to work an individual decision that can be between that person and god and maybe their immediate family .
i am not some hippy liberal christian, i am a serious southern baptist sunday school teacher.  i think that after examining the bible, there is no argument that being transgender is wrong.  indeed, there are only three main prongs of attack, all of which are incorrect.  the first prong of attack is the homosexuality argument.  however, if someone really is the opposite gender, then it would by definition not be homosexual.  the second prong of attack is the rule against cross dressing.  however, if someone really is the opposite gender, it is not cross dressing.  the third prong of attack is against physical mutilation of the body.  i think there are other things wrong with this argument.  however, that someone is transgender does not imply that they will or have to  amutilate  their body.  they may be happier if they do, but being transgender does not entail it happening.  none of these imply that being transgender it is self is in any way wrong.  it is always something else that commonly goes along with transgender issues that makes it wrong.   #  the second prong of attack is the rule against cross dressing.   #  however, if someone really is the opposite gender, it is not cross dressing.   # however, if someone really is the opposite gender, then it would by definition not be homosexual.  however, if someone really is the opposite gender, it is not cross dressing.  i am not intimately familiar with the bible myself, but since your arguments are based on  this person is another gender, so the proscriptions in the bible relating to homosexuality and cross dressing do not apply , we first have to establish whether the bible accepts that the person is indeed another gender.  what does the bible have to say about the gender spectrum ? does it say anything at all ? in the absence of any statements, are we to assume that biblical times saw gender as simply the same thing as biological sex ? do we have any evidence relating to transgender issues arising in the classical world, and how they were dealt with ? now, i am not arguing that whatever the bible has to say is right.  i would actually put good money on me thoroughly disagreeing with it.  but it seems to me that if you are going to make a statement about what the bible says, you should not apply modern judgements the person is another gender when the bible may have different judgements, or at least implicit assumptions that run counter to modern ones.   #  eventually they realized they had been releasing all males due to that aspect of incubation .   #  chromosome is just a blue print.  those with xy can still grow a vagina in the womb.  many animals have their sex determined by environment and not genes.  sea turtles for example determine their sex by incubation temperature fun story of how thst was figured out.  to help sea turtle conservation scientists would gather all the eggs they could find off the beach.  eventually they realized they had been releasing all males due to that aspect of incubation .  traditionally the way to determine if an animal is male or female is by the size of their sex gamete.  large sex gamete aspects female small are male.   #  your entire argument is based on the idea that the person is truly for lack of a better term; not to be offensive their  declared  gender.   #  note: these are not necessarily my views, and any language that may be less than ideal is not intended as an insult.  your entire argument is based on the idea that the person is truly for lack of a better term; not to be offensive their  declared  gender.  if a christian believes that god created you, then god did it in a certain way.  if god gave you a penis, then god intended you to be male.  if you have a penis and claim to be a woman, you are going against god is plan.   #  of course they may think they were acting in self defense, but shooting people is bad and can be condemned.   #  but this is simply  judge not ; it is true about any sin.  specifically, even things explicitly forbidden in the bible, like murder, could be justified as, say, intended self defense.  the only way to know what happened in the murderer is mind is to be god.  given that, the argument seems unreasonable.  of course they may think they were acting in self defense, but shooting people is bad and can be condemned.  similarly, if they  feel  transgendered, their feelings are not a defense against the factual existence of their current biological gender.   #  similarly, whether a person is called  james  or  jessica  is not a huge deal in the scope of the community as a whole.   #  yes, but an individual is choice to be a doctor, lawyer, or teacher is generally seen as their own choice to make.  that is the distinction that i was trying to make though it obviously does not hold through all cultures, times, and places .  it does not have as much of an effect on someone else is life as a murder, and it does not have the corresponding effect on the community either.  similarly, whether a person is called  james  or  jessica  is not a huge deal in the scope of the community as a whole.  it is much more on par with a decision of what major to choose, or where to work an individual decision that can be between that person and god and maybe their immediate family .
this has been lurking in the back of my mind ever since listening to word crimes URL the english language has many pesky grammar rules URL that do not come naturally to many people.  many of these rules have an underlying meaning behind them and sometimes make sentences less ambiguous.  however, i believe that the negatives outweigh the positives by a large margin.    people understand anyway   it does not matter if i say  who  or  whom ; people will always understand.  which, after all, is the purpose of language   people correcting people aka grammar nazis   if someone uses one of the rules incorrectly, it is common to see someone else correct the person talking, despite the fact that they understood what he/she was trying to say perfectly well.  this disrupts the conversation and wastes time that could have been spent elsewhere.    it feels natural   when it comes to using these grammar rules in conversation, we almost always want to say it the incorrect way.  unless you have been trained in grammar from a very young age this usually results in a slight pause mid conversation when we decide how to phrase a certain sentence.  we could fix this by making it acceptable to break certain grammar rules when talking casually.    interrupts the flow of the conversation   this is best explained in an example.  i say  she admired my 0 running down the street  in a conversation with my friends.  in a split second, my friends register the fact that i did not use the word  ame , realize that it is grammatically correct, understand what i am trying to convey and go back to the conversation.  this could have been avoided if i had used the word  ame  instead of  amy  despite the fact that using  amy  is correct in this situation.  it should be noted that i am not actually in favor of completely throwing out these rules.  i just think that we should not be required to use them in casual conversation.  we would still use these rules in formal settings, in legal documents and would still be taught in schools.  cmv  0 it is technically correct to use  amy  or  ame  in this sentence.  however, they mean two different things: using  amy  means that she admired my running this is what i am trying to convey in the sentence .  on the other hand, using  ame  means that she admired me while i also happen to be running down the street .  this rule adds clarity to my sentence.   #  i just think that we should not be required to use them in casual conversation.   #  you are not  required  to use them at all, either in writing or in casual conversation.   # you are not  required  to use them at all, either in writing or in casual conversation.  if you use improper grammar in the cover letter for a job, you are not going to be arrested or fined or anything, but you are going to look less qualified in the eyes of the person reading it, and that is what matters.  the same is true in casual conversation.  there is no  rule  about what you can and ca not say, but if you are trying to make a good impression on someone that you know values proper grammar, then you ca not stop them from thinking you are an idiot if you say  i are going to the store.   you are free to say it all you want, but you do so at the risk of how you are perceived by the person who is listening.  and that is true the other way, too.  if i was surrounded by people that i knew made fun of people for using proper grammar, i probably  would  adjust the way i spoke to avoid the ridicule.  same thing.  the  rules  basically exist to keep some structure to it.  it allows you to gauge basically how educated someone is by how well they conform to the standard that is been accepted by society.  you are not required to know the capital of minnesota, either, but if you go around saying it is duluth, it will tip me off that you might not be all that intelligent just an example.   #  of course someone saying  i are going to the store  is going to tip me off that someone is not very intelligent.   # of course someone saying  i are going to the store  is going to tip me off that someone is not very intelligent.  after all, this is a grammar rule that everyone should know.  i do not consider it a  pesky  grammar rule.  for the sake of argument, lets replace  i are going to the store  with  to who ?   if you are trying to make a good first impression on someone that cares about proper grammar, he would still think you to be unintelligent.  as you just broke a grammar rule if this were a casual conversation, i do not believe he should be justified in thinking that the person was unintelligent.  i think that you should be able to say  to who ?   in a casual conversation.  i see it as something more like this: you are not required to know the capital of texas, but if you go around saying it is houston, it  should not  tip me off that you might not be that intelligent.  hope that makes sense.   #  you do not have to think someone is dumb for thinking houston is the capital of texas, but i do, and what you are basically arguing for is for everyone to lower their standards.   #  well, at that point you are kind of trying to tell people what to think.  if i think someone is an idiot, then that is my opinion, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  just like if i go around speaking with proper grammar among people who do not, they will likely think i am a pretentious douche.  austin is objectively the capital of texas.  the rules of grammar attempt to give us an objective basis on which to judge the correctness of someone is speech.  you do not have to think someone is dumb for thinking houston is the capital of texas, but i do, and what you are basically arguing for is for everyone to lower their standards.   #  yes, we can use it to judge the correctness of someone is speech, but that is not what grammar is for.   # that is not the objective of grammar.  the objective of grammar is to insure clarity of communication.  some of this clarity, i believe, should be sacrificed for ease of conversation.  yes, we can use it to judge the correctness of someone is speech, but that is not what grammar is for.  yeah, that is exactly what i am arguing.  i believe that people should not be expected to follow all grammar rules in some situations.  if you would rather, i can reword it: i believe that people should lower their standards when it comes to certain grammar rules.  cmv  #  in a conversation, i am not as formal as i am when i type, even in a casual setting like this.   # for the most part, i think this is already pretty true, actually, so i do not think it needs improving.  in a conversation, i am not as formal as i am when i type, even in a casual setting like this.  when i am talking, i use split infinitives, dangling participles, improper subject/verb agreement, and a whole host of other wrong things, and no one really cares.  as long as you do not sound like a complete dolt, it is a rare person who is going to say  i am sorry.  i think you meant to say  the person with whom i was talking .   in writing, i am one of those grammar nazis, no question, but i suspend that when talking verbally, and i think nearly everyone else does, as well.
first of all, i understand the underlying arguments for women being the sole decision maker when it comes to getting an abortion.  i also understand the underlying arguments for a man being on the hook for child support.  however, i believe that these arguments clash against each other, and i feel that men should either be able to waive their financial obligations to their child, or they should partake in the decision for the woman to get an abortion.   women should be the decision maker when it comes to getting an abortion because they should have control of their own bodies  this is a perfectly valid point.  in this argument, the fetus is being treated as a part of the woman is body and therefore, the woman is free to make decisions without consideration for the well being of the fetus and its future.   men should be on the hook for child support because we should not be focused on the parents, but rather the well being of the child  this also makes perfect sense.  even if the parents are arguing, the needs of the parents should not be placed before the needs of the child.  however, if we take the argument that  women should have control of their own bodies without consideration for the future of their fetus , then it should also be right to say that  men should have control of their own life without consideration for the future of their fetus .  if we take the argument that  the well being of the child should come before the well being of the parents , then i also think that it is fair to say that a woman should not freely be able to choose whether to get an abortion without consideration for the well being of the child is future.  i find it extremely unfair that a woman who cannot financially or emotionally support a child has the right to have a kid because she has a right to control her own body, but when it comes to men, their life savings can be forcefully taken away because the future of the child should be placed before the rights of a man.  therefore, i believe that men should either have abortion rights, or the right to waive all financial obligations to his child while abortion is still an option .  note: i am not trying to make this into a male vs.  female thing.  i actually agree with the views of many feminists on paternal rights, such as the ones highlighted in this article URL my argument is against the current laws that exist, i am absolutely not trying to antagonize women.   #  therefore, i believe that men should either have abortion rights, or the right to waive all financial obligations to his child while abortion is still an option .   #  men do have abortion rights: they can terminate any fetus in their own body.   # men do have control of their life without consideration of the fetus.  it is when the fetus becomes a baby that everything changes.  at that point the woman cannot terminate the life and neither party can walk away from their responsibilities.  you are assuming women do not consider the possible outcome of having a child and what that future might look like.  that is generally not true.  how could she not consider the future ? you are mixing up two completely unrelated concepts.  the fairness of a parent to bring a child into the world when they ca not financially and or emotionally support him.  this is true for either sex.  poor men father kids, too.  you are ignoring that custody plays a huge part in child support.  if you get sole custody of your child, there is no reason why you ca not file to have your ex girlfriend pay child support.  why men do not take majority or sole custody is a complex subject of its own.  you also are ignoring that the moment moment that fetus turns into a child she no longer has full control.  if she was thinking of adopting him out, she ca not without the father also consenting no matter how unsuitable they are as parents.  if he refuses to sign adoption papers, the man is in the woman is life for the next 0 years.  if he abused or terrorized her during the relationship, she will never be free of him.  men do have abortion rights: they can terminate any fetus in their own body.  that is all the rights women have: their own body.  women ca not force other people to terminate, so why should men have that power ? having a child is a much much bigger obligation than a monthly check.  in your argument you talk about considering what is in the best interest of the child.  if you truly believe that must be made a priority, then why would you as a dad keep your child from having clothes or food or christmas gifts ? that is actually what you are doing when you are trying not to support your child.   #  the reason the option to abort is given to the woman in the first place is to make up for the fact that they are the ones who have to carry the child.   #  i completely understand where you are coming from, and to be honest, i sometimes feel the same way you do.  but i think the problem is, you are trying to make a fair situation out of something that can never be fair.  no matter what, a woman will always be affected by a pregnancy in ways a man is not.  she has to carry the child, which is a huge physical and emotional toll.  a man does not.  this is unfair, but it is the way nature works and we cannot change this.  the reason the option to abort is given to the woman in the first place is to make up for the fact that they are the ones who have to carry the child.  it is to try to make their unfair situation a little more fair to them.  giving men the option to financially abort basically means you rid them of all responsibility towards the woman they impregnated and the child they created.  women do not have the option to do this.  they cannot sign a paper and have the baby just disappear.  they have to go through an invasive medical procedure in order to do it.  when you argue that financial abortion is a way of making things  fair  to men, you are ignoring the fact that women ca not ever have an equivalent option.  how is it fair to give men the option to escape any and all responsibilities associated with a pregnancy when we ca not give women that same choice ? you must realize that giving a baby up for adoption requires carrying and birthing it as well.  this is precisely what i meant when i said  women cannot sign a paper and have the baby just disappear.   the baby will not disappear if the woman decides to put it up for adoption.  it will still be inside of her, and she must carry it to term.  this is not comparable to a man, who would literally sign a piece of paper and be done with it.   #  if the child is born, she ca not opt out of child support.   #  well it is not a case of playing draw, but more to the point: once conceptions occurs, she is either pregnant for 0 months or has to go through a medical abortion procedure.  she ca not just  wish it had not happened  and sign a paper and walk out.  both pregnancy and abortion are psychological as well as physical burdens.  if the child is born, she ca not opt out of child support.  the only choice the female has that the male does not is pregnancy vs.  abortion only because pregnancy happens in her body.  a female cannot choose on another woman is body nor can the female choose that the male be pregnant instead.   #  the people did not create the constitution, it was made by founding fathers.   #  the people did not create the constitution, it was made by founding fathers.  some countries have constitutions created by people representatives.  and right now the simple will of the people is insufficient to change it.  if 0 of the population, or even 0 of the population wanted slavery back, it could not be done unless there is a kind of revolt and a re foundation of the country.  also, popular demand cannot replace a jury, if everyone wanted a suspect executed, or saved, it should not interfere with a well managed trial.  so, no, when you are forced to do something, like pay a fine, pay child support or bear pregnancy after abortion period expires, it is not due to popular demand and you are not yielding control to the masses.   #  does he need the mother is explicit permission, or does the state get to say he is allowed back in ?  #  i am not too familiar how adoption law works.  if you give a baby up for adoption, are you ever allowed to change your mind ? what if the bio father does the financial abortion, and then 0 years later wants to change his mind and be a part of the childs life ? does he have to  buy  his way back in, in back child support ? does he just have to pay going forward ? does he have any leg to stand on if he sues ? does he need the mother is explicit permission, or does the state get to say he is allowed back in ?
let me start this off by saying that i am gay and 0 years old.  it was not until i was 0 that i had known i was guy, although looking back it was already obvious in kindergarten.  i do not want to sound like a douche, but we do live in a hetero normative society.  i had the pleasure of growing up with very loving and accepting parents.  my mother knew that i was gay long before i found out myself.  however, i myself believed that i was straight.  i vaguely knew about the concept of sexual orientations besides  istraight , but i never thought this could apply to me.  i always watched disney movies, family movies, etc.  and they all revolved around heterosexual relationships.  so i forced this scheme onto myself, but always felt weirded out when hugging or kissing girls.  monkey see, monkey do.  only after i found out about porn and have been using it for a while, i noticed that i liked the guys more than the girls.  in fact, i was grossed out by vaginas and kissing girls.  it was then that i realized that it had always been that way and it finally clicked.  this resulted in a lot of self denial as i believed i was straight all my life and did not want to take the consequences, since i knew that being gay had its problems and i virtually never have seen other gays.  i felt alone.  i got mentally ill and had to see a psychiatrist.  if there were movies and series featuring lgbtq people, this whole thing would not have been so strange to me.  i would also had known that being gay is in fact okay and normal and that i am not alone.  this does not just count for media.  school books should also feature queer relationships.  i am asking you to cmv, because i sincerely believe that this will only do good and would like to know reasons, why the system should not change.   #  we do live in a hetero normative society.   #  this will never change, the vast majority of people will always be heterosexual and societal norms will always be structure around that fact.   #  who gets to decide what characters and behaviors are representative of lgbtq folks ? what roles do they play ? are they doing the same things as everyone else or specials things that show the value of lgbtq folks in society ? what about asexuals and koreans, there are definitely not enough koreans on tv and when they are, there playing starcraft or launching cyber attacks.  we could certainly use more messages of acceptance and that challenge traditional gender roles, but you cant win at the all inclusive media game, someone will always be left out or offended by how some group is portrayed and then were just back to square one.  this will never change, the vast majority of people will always be heterosexual and societal norms will always be structure around that fact.  we should do everything we can to make sure that lgbtq people are accepted in society, but a hetero normative society is never going away.   #  again, this is considered reasonable because media is, ideally, crafted with an eye to guiding its target audience toward certain kinds of behavior.   #  i think i am going to home in on one point:  kids   television.  why is children is media considered separate from young adult media ? largely because western society holds that childhood should be kept innocent of certain things.  this is why pictures of children in war zones are considered more pathetic than pictures of other people in war zones.  sex is one of these things.  children is shows do not typically have any sex at all; introducing homosexual characters would not be a response to the existence of heterosexual characters because most children is characters are simply asexual.  what i think you are really getting at here is the dominance of a hetero romantic  relationship model in children is media.  this is a little harder to tackle because to the best of my memory, contemporary media for young children still plays up the  ew cooties  mindset common in the elementary school set as a personal quirk i did not have much mindful exposure to contemporary media for tweens .  again, this is considered reasonable because media is, ideally, crafted with an eye to guiding its target audience toward certain kinds of behavior.  the focus for children is on making friends of both sexes rather than romantic relationships of any kind.  my personal view is that children are drawn too early and hastily into wanting romance, but for the purpose of playing devil is advocate: most children is media is not original.  schools use books and stories that teachers are familiar with and that are not too expensive for the school board to dig up.  it is too late to change the heteronormativity of history, so most go to stories like fairy tales are about boys and girls marrying young.  there are lots of old fashioned values to be found in the stories that we tell children and heteronormativity is not the greatest of them.  a more even handed approach would be to introduce the stories as a sort of anthropological activity, asking children if they thought the characters and actions were realistic and explaining that they are meant to represent a bygone era.  this leaves the door open to teach children that the realities of their lives single parents, homosexuality, etc.  do not need to fit a fairy tale mold without being prematurely explicit.  so to sum up the devil is advocate position: it is easier on caretakers, it is cheap, it is already generalizable, and it is so deeply flawed that introducing more lgbtq characters would not even be the first place to start.  i sense from your explanation that you place the blame for your childhood guilt on the media you witnessed throughout your adolescence as well, but that is not kid is tv and education.   #  disney princesses kissing their princes on the big screen is a disney cliche, and most kid is programming does not have romance in it.   #  my favorite example of kids programming is curious george.  the show made dr.  wiseman a black woman, but iirc they never talk about the fact.  the man in the yellow hat and dr.  wiseman also go on several dates in the show, but there is no kissing, and only a hint of romantic interest.  so anything to deal with lgbtq that is put into a kids show would be at this level.  no kissing.  no romance .  just characters doing their thing, living their lives.  would you even be able to tell ? one other indication of curious george being kids programming is that george might has well have been called georgette, and the rest of the show can be completely unchanged.  the fact that he is a  boy  is completely irrelevant to the entire show.  disney princesses kissing their princes on the big screen is a disney cliche, and most kid is programming does not have romance in it.   #  do not need to fit a fairy tale mold without being prematurely explicit.   # but what if dora the explorer introduced two uncles who are presented as a couple, or peppa pig is friend, who has two mommies ? do not need to fit a fairy tale mold without being prematurely explicit.  not sure what you are trying to say: that the realities of their lives like single parenting and homosexuality should not be portrayed in fairy tales, but only discussed  offline  ? i see them having a similar role as messages against racism/sexism/ableism etc.  in an age appropriate way.  in south africa, there is even an hiv positive muppet URL to help with de stigmatization and acceptance of people living with hiv/aids.   #  this could be seen as changing the underlying meaning of the novel which i see as as big of an issue as a heteronormative society.   #  we altered racist and sexist books and media by censoring the content.  for example the n word was removed from huckleberry finn.  this is an was change because it simply requires deleting a single word.  where as inclusivity for lifestyles that do not align with those presented in the hypothetical novel would arguably alter the content the author was intending to portray.  this could be seen as changing the underlying meaning of the novel which i see as as big of an issue as a heteronormative society.  i am adamantly against censure for any reason especially when reframing the context of a novel so that a child or student understands it isnt representative of modern society is a cleaner solution.
let me start this off by saying that i am gay and 0 years old.  it was not until i was 0 that i had known i was guy, although looking back it was already obvious in kindergarten.  i do not want to sound like a douche, but we do live in a hetero normative society.  i had the pleasure of growing up with very loving and accepting parents.  my mother knew that i was gay long before i found out myself.  however, i myself believed that i was straight.  i vaguely knew about the concept of sexual orientations besides  istraight , but i never thought this could apply to me.  i always watched disney movies, family movies, etc.  and they all revolved around heterosexual relationships.  so i forced this scheme onto myself, but always felt weirded out when hugging or kissing girls.  monkey see, monkey do.  only after i found out about porn and have been using it for a while, i noticed that i liked the guys more than the girls.  in fact, i was grossed out by vaginas and kissing girls.  it was then that i realized that it had always been that way and it finally clicked.  this resulted in a lot of self denial as i believed i was straight all my life and did not want to take the consequences, since i knew that being gay had its problems and i virtually never have seen other gays.  i felt alone.  i got mentally ill and had to see a psychiatrist.  if there were movies and series featuring lgbtq people, this whole thing would not have been so strange to me.  i would also had known that being gay is in fact okay and normal and that i am not alone.  this does not just count for media.  school books should also feature queer relationships.  i am asking you to cmv, because i sincerely believe that this will only do good and would like to know reasons, why the system should not change.   #  i do not want to sound like a douche, but we do live in a hetero normative society.   #  you would not exist if it was not.   # you would not exist if it was not.  i would also had known that being gay is in fact okay and normal and that i am not alone.  this does not just count for media.  school books should also feature queer relationships.  it is little paradoxical for a young person that to look at relationships that are antithetical to their parents.  it is like asking someone challenge their existence.  we always have lgbtq community around, but i think it is a choice that young people can make when they begin having sex.  our existence, depends on hetero culture.  until that ceases to exist, it is only prudent to popularize hetero life, if nothing else except it equates to self preservation.   #  my personal view is that children are drawn too early and hastily into wanting romance, but for the purpose of playing devil is advocate: most children is media is not original.   #  i think i am going to home in on one point:  kids   television.  why is children is media considered separate from young adult media ? largely because western society holds that childhood should be kept innocent of certain things.  this is why pictures of children in war zones are considered more pathetic than pictures of other people in war zones.  sex is one of these things.  children is shows do not typically have any sex at all; introducing homosexual characters would not be a response to the existence of heterosexual characters because most children is characters are simply asexual.  what i think you are really getting at here is the dominance of a hetero romantic  relationship model in children is media.  this is a little harder to tackle because to the best of my memory, contemporary media for young children still plays up the  ew cooties  mindset common in the elementary school set as a personal quirk i did not have much mindful exposure to contemporary media for tweens .  again, this is considered reasonable because media is, ideally, crafted with an eye to guiding its target audience toward certain kinds of behavior.  the focus for children is on making friends of both sexes rather than romantic relationships of any kind.  my personal view is that children are drawn too early and hastily into wanting romance, but for the purpose of playing devil is advocate: most children is media is not original.  schools use books and stories that teachers are familiar with and that are not too expensive for the school board to dig up.  it is too late to change the heteronormativity of history, so most go to stories like fairy tales are about boys and girls marrying young.  there are lots of old fashioned values to be found in the stories that we tell children and heteronormativity is not the greatest of them.  a more even handed approach would be to introduce the stories as a sort of anthropological activity, asking children if they thought the characters and actions were realistic and explaining that they are meant to represent a bygone era.  this leaves the door open to teach children that the realities of their lives single parents, homosexuality, etc.  do not need to fit a fairy tale mold without being prematurely explicit.  so to sum up the devil is advocate position: it is easier on caretakers, it is cheap, it is already generalizable, and it is so deeply flawed that introducing more lgbtq characters would not even be the first place to start.  i sense from your explanation that you place the blame for your childhood guilt on the media you witnessed throughout your adolescence as well, but that is not kid is tv and education.   #  my favorite example of kids programming is curious george.   #  my favorite example of kids programming is curious george.  the show made dr.  wiseman a black woman, but iirc they never talk about the fact.  the man in the yellow hat and dr.  wiseman also go on several dates in the show, but there is no kissing, and only a hint of romantic interest.  so anything to deal with lgbtq that is put into a kids show would be at this level.  no kissing.  no romance .  just characters doing their thing, living their lives.  would you even be able to tell ? one other indication of curious george being kids programming is that george might has well have been called georgette, and the rest of the show can be completely unchanged.  the fact that he is a  boy  is completely irrelevant to the entire show.  disney princesses kissing their princes on the big screen is a disney cliche, and most kid is programming does not have romance in it.   #  in south africa, there is even an hiv positive muppet URL to help with de stigmatization and acceptance of people living with hiv/aids.   # but what if dora the explorer introduced two uncles who are presented as a couple, or peppa pig is friend, who has two mommies ? do not need to fit a fairy tale mold without being prematurely explicit.  not sure what you are trying to say: that the realities of their lives like single parenting and homosexuality should not be portrayed in fairy tales, but only discussed  offline  ? i see them having a similar role as messages against racism/sexism/ableism etc.  in an age appropriate way.  in south africa, there is even an hiv positive muppet URL to help with de stigmatization and acceptance of people living with hiv/aids.   #  this could be seen as changing the underlying meaning of the novel which i see as as big of an issue as a heteronormative society.   #  we altered racist and sexist books and media by censoring the content.  for example the n word was removed from huckleberry finn.  this is an was change because it simply requires deleting a single word.  where as inclusivity for lifestyles that do not align with those presented in the hypothetical novel would arguably alter the content the author was intending to portray.  this could be seen as changing the underlying meaning of the novel which i see as as big of an issue as a heteronormative society.  i am adamantly against censure for any reason especially when reframing the context of a novel so that a child or student understands it isnt representative of modern society is a cleaner solution.
let me start this off by saying that i am gay and 0 years old.  it was not until i was 0 that i had known i was guy, although looking back it was already obvious in kindergarten.  i do not want to sound like a douche, but we do live in a hetero normative society.  i had the pleasure of growing up with very loving and accepting parents.  my mother knew that i was gay long before i found out myself.  however, i myself believed that i was straight.  i vaguely knew about the concept of sexual orientations besides  istraight , but i never thought this could apply to me.  i always watched disney movies, family movies, etc.  and they all revolved around heterosexual relationships.  so i forced this scheme onto myself, but always felt weirded out when hugging or kissing girls.  monkey see, monkey do.  only after i found out about porn and have been using it for a while, i noticed that i liked the guys more than the girls.  in fact, i was grossed out by vaginas and kissing girls.  it was then that i realized that it had always been that way and it finally clicked.  this resulted in a lot of self denial as i believed i was straight all my life and did not want to take the consequences, since i knew that being gay had its problems and i virtually never have seen other gays.  i felt alone.  i got mentally ill and had to see a psychiatrist.  if there were movies and series featuring lgbtq people, this whole thing would not have been so strange to me.  i would also had known that being gay is in fact okay and normal and that i am not alone.  this does not just count for media.  school books should also feature queer relationships.  i am asking you to cmv, because i sincerely believe that this will only do good and would like to know reasons, why the system should not change.   #  if there were movies and series featuring lgbtq people, this whole thing would not have been so strange to me.   #  i would also had known that being gay is in fact okay and normal and that i am not alone.   # you would not exist if it was not.  i would also had known that being gay is in fact okay and normal and that i am not alone.  this does not just count for media.  school books should also feature queer relationships.  it is little paradoxical for a young person that to look at relationships that are antithetical to their parents.  it is like asking someone challenge their existence.  we always have lgbtq community around, but i think it is a choice that young people can make when they begin having sex.  our existence, depends on hetero culture.  until that ceases to exist, it is only prudent to popularize hetero life, if nothing else except it equates to self preservation.   #  this leaves the door open to teach children that the realities of their lives single parents, homosexuality, etc.   #  i think i am going to home in on one point:  kids   television.  why is children is media considered separate from young adult media ? largely because western society holds that childhood should be kept innocent of certain things.  this is why pictures of children in war zones are considered more pathetic than pictures of other people in war zones.  sex is one of these things.  children is shows do not typically have any sex at all; introducing homosexual characters would not be a response to the existence of heterosexual characters because most children is characters are simply asexual.  what i think you are really getting at here is the dominance of a hetero romantic  relationship model in children is media.  this is a little harder to tackle because to the best of my memory, contemporary media for young children still plays up the  ew cooties  mindset common in the elementary school set as a personal quirk i did not have much mindful exposure to contemporary media for tweens .  again, this is considered reasonable because media is, ideally, crafted with an eye to guiding its target audience toward certain kinds of behavior.  the focus for children is on making friends of both sexes rather than romantic relationships of any kind.  my personal view is that children are drawn too early and hastily into wanting romance, but for the purpose of playing devil is advocate: most children is media is not original.  schools use books and stories that teachers are familiar with and that are not too expensive for the school board to dig up.  it is too late to change the heteronormativity of history, so most go to stories like fairy tales are about boys and girls marrying young.  there are lots of old fashioned values to be found in the stories that we tell children and heteronormativity is not the greatest of them.  a more even handed approach would be to introduce the stories as a sort of anthropological activity, asking children if they thought the characters and actions were realistic and explaining that they are meant to represent a bygone era.  this leaves the door open to teach children that the realities of their lives single parents, homosexuality, etc.  do not need to fit a fairy tale mold without being prematurely explicit.  so to sum up the devil is advocate position: it is easier on caretakers, it is cheap, it is already generalizable, and it is so deeply flawed that introducing more lgbtq characters would not even be the first place to start.  i sense from your explanation that you place the blame for your childhood guilt on the media you witnessed throughout your adolescence as well, but that is not kid is tv and education.   #  my favorite example of kids programming is curious george.   #  my favorite example of kids programming is curious george.  the show made dr.  wiseman a black woman, but iirc they never talk about the fact.  the man in the yellow hat and dr.  wiseman also go on several dates in the show, but there is no kissing, and only a hint of romantic interest.  so anything to deal with lgbtq that is put into a kids show would be at this level.  no kissing.  no romance .  just characters doing their thing, living their lives.  would you even be able to tell ? one other indication of curious george being kids programming is that george might has well have been called georgette, and the rest of the show can be completely unchanged.  the fact that he is a  boy  is completely irrelevant to the entire show.  disney princesses kissing their princes on the big screen is a disney cliche, and most kid is programming does not have romance in it.   #  do not need to fit a fairy tale mold without being prematurely explicit.   # but what if dora the explorer introduced two uncles who are presented as a couple, or peppa pig is friend, who has two mommies ? do not need to fit a fairy tale mold without being prematurely explicit.  not sure what you are trying to say: that the realities of their lives like single parenting and homosexuality should not be portrayed in fairy tales, but only discussed  offline  ? i see them having a similar role as messages against racism/sexism/ableism etc.  in an age appropriate way.  in south africa, there is even an hiv positive muppet URL to help with de stigmatization and acceptance of people living with hiv/aids.   #  we altered racist and sexist books and media by censoring the content.   #  we altered racist and sexist books and media by censoring the content.  for example the n word was removed from huckleberry finn.  this is an was change because it simply requires deleting a single word.  where as inclusivity for lifestyles that do not align with those presented in the hypothetical novel would arguably alter the content the author was intending to portray.  this could be seen as changing the underlying meaning of the novel which i see as as big of an issue as a heteronormative society.  i am adamantly against censure for any reason especially when reframing the context of a novel so that a child or student understands it isnt representative of modern society is a cleaner solution.
think about it.   if they have no means to pay the copyright holder, either because they have the money but not the compatible payment media for example, sony does not accept debit cards, at least from many countries , or they have no money at all.   all they are doing is downloading something that is available on the internet.   they would not have been able to pay the copyright holder even if they wanted to, and thus they are causing no loss to the copyright holder.   whether it is moral to enjoy something without paying for it is questionable, i would allege, as much as overcharging for goods and services, as is the practice.  however, that is not what i want a discussion on.  i want only to discuss about whether and if yes, then how loss is caused to the copyright holder by people who illegally download copyrighted content without paying, as they have no means to make the payment.   #  they would not have been able to pay the copyright holder even if they wanted to, and thus they are causing no loss to the copyright holder.   #  this is most definitely sometimes true, but ca not possibly be  always  true.   # this is most definitely sometimes true, but ca not possibly be  always  true.  that is just not how disposable income works.  if, tomorrow, every bit of media that exists was sucessfully put behind an impenetrable paywall, media consumption would continue.  people have discretionary income with which they can buy all kinds of things that are not necessities.  they would start paying for music again, but also start buying less expensive jeans or go out for a burger less often to cover it.  a certain percentage of downloads would never have been sales, sure.  but not all of them, that is just not how markets work.   #  conclusion:  downloaders are the basis of an economy which hurts copyright holders, even if they themselves never uploaded anything.   #  0   the implication of your question is that pirates who upload  are  hurting copyright holders.  0   without people who upload, nobody could download.  people who upload, do so because the infrastructure exists p0p sites .  0   the infrastructure exists because it is profitable, which is why all these sites have ads.  it is profitable because people download, thereby causing the traffic.  0   people who download incent the advertisers.  the advertisers incent the p0p sites.  the p0p sites incent the uploaders.  the uploaders hurt copyright holders.  conclusion:  downloaders are the basis of an economy which hurts copyright holders, even if they themselves never uploaded anything.   #  the next worst off is the music industry.   #  the industry which has suffered the worst is the print publishing industry.  the next worst off is the music industry.  the next worst off is the movie industry.  the next worst off is the video game industry.  the extent to which these industries are suffering is almost entirely correlated to the size of their content, which in turn correlates to the ease with which it can be downloaded.  it has little to do with how they have adapted, but still, not nothing.   #  generally, most piracy occurs through someone else making a purchase to obtain that content, then redistributing it in some way.   # i disagree with this.  copyright holders are not entitled to make a profit by simply existing.  since they are not being robbed of money, nor physical copies of their media, nor are they normally being hacked and having their content stolen that way or deleted from their site, the existence of  piracy  has no actual impact on their sales.  generally, most piracy occurs through someone else making a purchase to obtain that content, then redistributing it in some way.  me sharing some mp0s with my friend of a cd that i bought is no more immoral than me buying cookies from a bakery, then finding a recipe to make them at home, and making them for my friend.  the fact that i gave the same type of cookies to my friend does not mean that the bakery lost money.  maybe my friend would have gone to buy cookies there, maybe not, but they have no right to my friend is money.   #  either way, someone makes money as a result of the sharing of cookies.   #  the difference between mp0s and cookies is that mp0s are not one time use.  in that hypothetical situation, your friend likes the cookies you give him and asks where you got them.  you tell him about the bakery where you first got the cookies, and now he goes there once a week to pick up a dozen cookies for himself.  your sharing of cookies ultimately leads to the bakery making money.  alternatively, if your friend is not me and can actually make food without burning down his domicile, you share the recipe with him and the market where you buy ingredients makes money since clearly if you can replicate the taste at home, there is not any need to go to the bakery .  either way, someone makes money as a result of the sharing of cookies.  however, when you give that same friend a ripped mp0 off of a cd, he never needs to buy anything.  he can re use that copy of the mp0 a million and one times and still have the ability to do it again.  the only point of sale is when you buy the mp0 after that, the guys making the music, paying for the recording equipment, editing the tracks, burning the cds, printing the inserts, distributing the cds, finally retailing them do not see money.  in a purely free market setting, there would only be copies of cds sold until one person uploads the whole thing online.  at that point, the cds would not sell, unless people valued the case and insert for the cds, as well as the support given to the artist if they care about that at all , at whatever price they were being sold at.  are you telling me that your friend has the right to listen to that music that he never did a thing for ? because he did not you were the one that went to the effort of ripping the mp0s.  he got goods without paying in any fashion, monetary, labor, or otherwise.
rather than having a fixed number of income tax bands there should be a continuous function relating your salary to the rate of tax that you pay.  in the following example i am making up numbers to demonstrate a point so it wont be accurate i do not think it makes sense to tax someone 0 on their first $0k and 0 on their next $0k.  it would be better to break it down further so that they are taxed 0 on the first $0k, 0 on the next $0k and 0 on the next $0k.  tax rate should be increased bit by bit as someone is salary increases rather than having big jumps in tax rate.  with a single formula there are no jumps and this leads to a fairer tax system.  here is a graph of a function which i came up with URL the very rich pay 0 tax on their salary and those earning $0 pay 0 tax.  of course no one earns $0 but this could easily be adjusted so that minimum wage earners pay $0 and those slightly above minimum pay very little.  one of adam smith is canons of taxation is that the tax system should be simple or understandable by the public.  this means that the bands system is more attractive because of its simplicity but i do not think that it is too complicated to be practical.  the function would not require more than  , ,×,÷ so a simple calculator could do the job.  the example i gave a graph of is just 0  0 0/ 0 c s 0 where s is salary and c is a constant that determines how quickly the result reaches 0 tax rate.  the taxing function could be evaluated and the public could be supplied with other formulae for answers to questions like  if i get a raise from $0k to $0k how much does my income go up by ?   so the taxing system remains simple to the public.  cmv  #  i do not think it makes sense to tax someone 0 on their first $0k and 0 on their next $0k.   #  it would be better to  break it down further so that they are taxed 0 on the first $0k, 0 on the next $0k and 0 on the next $0k.   #  couple of odd things about your argument.  it would be better to  break it down further so that they are taxed 0 on the first $0k, 0 on the next $0k and 0 on the next $0k.  tax rate should be increased bit by bit as someone is salary increases rather than having big jumps in tax rate.  with a single formula there are no jumps and this leads to a fairer tax system.  so here, are you arguing that we should still use a band system but just have smaller jumps or are you arguing for a continuous method ? the example i gave a graph of is just 0 0 0/ 0 cs 0 here, you say that we should be able to use a basic calculator  /  , then proceed to use exponents.  i understand exponents are just multiple multiplications, but if you are going to accept that, then why do not you think we ca not use basic calculators for the current tax system ? it is all basic math and percentages, which is just multiplication.  i think the main argument for the banded tax system is that you are not penalized more for earning more as rapidly as you would for an equation based system.  so if you earn $0 more, you are not only paying an increased tax on that dollar but also on all the other dollars you earned before it.  with a banded system when you earn the extra dollar to put you into the next bracket you are not penalized on the first sum of money you earned and only taxed extra on that single dollar.  if anything, to keep things completely fair  and  simple we would be using a flat tax system.  everyone pays x% and that is that.  simple math, everything is fair.   #  right now it is basically addition, subtraction, and lookup tables.   #  taxation is one of the few things that  has  to work for  everybody.  a poor illiterate person still has to file even if they are just getting a refund, and it would be discriminatory to set up a system that relied on computers or complex math to fill out.  right now it is basically addition, subtraction, and lookup tables.  lookup tables are what this post is advocating against.  i will put it this way, directly against the op: i do not think anybody really cares about being taxed at one rate for one bracket and another rate for income past that bracket.  sure it kinda seems unfair, but a function like the op is would achieve largely the same effective rate and if it did not, somebody somewhere would be pissed for little improvement complexity wise.  i think the big complexity things are all the deductions, exemptions, and tax loopholes that mean if you can afford a clever accountant, you can pay a ridiculously low effective rate, while all the shmucks fill out the formula and call it a day.   #  complexity leads to desperation and well meaning people questioning the principles.   #  former uk tax professor checking in.  first, consensus is to make the tax code simpler.  by introducing many more tax bands it would become much more complicated.  also keep in mind that the government decides how much revenue it needs by adjusting the tax bands or % accordingly.  keeping it simple makes their calculations easier and everyone else is in the field including students let them enjoy life a bit, they have enough going on already .  second, in uk personal tax calculations you calculate two figures.  taxable income and tax payable.  you arrive at taxable income by deducting for example personal allowances and more things.  it is from that figure that you then use the tax bands.  therefore even if you think you would make it easier you only focus on a small part of the entire tax calculation and would still not have an overview of how much you should pay or if it is fair.  finally tax will never become easier, only more complicated.  why ? because you try to introduce fairness in an incredibly complex world.  why not tax everything at 0 and let is all go home ? well why should a single blind person that is limited in career prospects have to pay the same with someone who is a single mother of 0 children with someone who earns in the six figures but mainly from investments and not from his job with someone only earns money from his job but not from investments but who also donates part of his income to charity etc ? every single well meaning step to make the tax code fairer leads in increased complexity.  complexity leads to desperation and well meaning people questioning the principles.  therefore; taxes and women will always be complicated and sometimes unfair.   #  getting a  cheque  for something on the other hand is called a tax credit let is say the government wants to help out with home mortgages.   #  well a bulk of the current system makes it that if you spend money on certain special things, then you do not have to pay taxes on that money.  this is called tax deductible income.  getting a  cheque  for something on the other hand is called a tax credit let is say the government wants to help out with home mortgages.  they make it so you do not have to pay taxes on any money you spend on home mortgages.  now you will be rewarded for doing what the government wants based on how much money you want to put into that cause usually there is a limit though .  it gives more choice/agency to people instead of just sending everyone with a home mortgage a check and hope they spend it paying down their mortgage.   #  i personally never thought of this before, but op is proposal makes sense.   #  op does not propose a flat tax rate, op proposes a  continuously increasing  tax rate, as opposed to a  stepped increasing  tax rate we have today.  for example, tax rate x times income.  hence, higher the income, higher the tax rate, which is consistent with progressive taxation system that we have.  the difference is that, the tax rate increases smoothly and continuously with an easy preset formula, as opposed to sudden jumps with tax brackets.  i personally never thought of this before, but op is proposal makes sense.  i hope you being a tax professor can answer this, since it seems to me that most other repliers have not understood what the op is proposing.
rather than having a fixed number of income tax bands there should be a continuous function relating your salary to the rate of tax that you pay.  in the following example i am making up numbers to demonstrate a point so it wont be accurate i do not think it makes sense to tax someone 0 on their first $0k and 0 on their next $0k.  it would be better to break it down further so that they are taxed 0 on the first $0k, 0 on the next $0k and 0 on the next $0k.  tax rate should be increased bit by bit as someone is salary increases rather than having big jumps in tax rate.  with a single formula there are no jumps and this leads to a fairer tax system.  here is a graph of a function which i came up with URL the very rich pay 0 tax on their salary and those earning $0 pay 0 tax.  of course no one earns $0 but this could easily be adjusted so that minimum wage earners pay $0 and those slightly above minimum pay very little.  one of adam smith is canons of taxation is that the tax system should be simple or understandable by the public.  this means that the bands system is more attractive because of its simplicity but i do not think that it is too complicated to be practical.  the function would not require more than  , ,×,÷ so a simple calculator could do the job.  the example i gave a graph of is just 0  0 0/ 0 c s 0 where s is salary and c is a constant that determines how quickly the result reaches 0 tax rate.  the taxing function could be evaluated and the public could be supplied with other formulae for answers to questions like  if i get a raise from $0k to $0k how much does my income go up by ?   so the taxing system remains simple to the public.  cmv  #  the function would not require more than  , ,×,÷ so a simple calculator could do the job.   #  the example i gave a graph of is just 0 0 0/ 0 cs 0 here, you say that we should be able to use a basic calculator  /  , then proceed to use exponents.   #  couple of odd things about your argument.  it would be better to  break it down further so that they are taxed 0 on the first $0k, 0 on the next $0k and 0 on the next $0k.  tax rate should be increased bit by bit as someone is salary increases rather than having big jumps in tax rate.  with a single formula there are no jumps and this leads to a fairer tax system.  so here, are you arguing that we should still use a band system but just have smaller jumps or are you arguing for a continuous method ? the example i gave a graph of is just 0 0 0/ 0 cs 0 here, you say that we should be able to use a basic calculator  /  , then proceed to use exponents.  i understand exponents are just multiple multiplications, but if you are going to accept that, then why do not you think we ca not use basic calculators for the current tax system ? it is all basic math and percentages, which is just multiplication.  i think the main argument for the banded tax system is that you are not penalized more for earning more as rapidly as you would for an equation based system.  so if you earn $0 more, you are not only paying an increased tax on that dollar but also on all the other dollars you earned before it.  with a banded system when you earn the extra dollar to put you into the next bracket you are not penalized on the first sum of money you earned and only taxed extra on that single dollar.  if anything, to keep things completely fair  and  simple we would be using a flat tax system.  everyone pays x% and that is that.  simple math, everything is fair.   #  right now it is basically addition, subtraction, and lookup tables.   #  taxation is one of the few things that  has  to work for  everybody.  a poor illiterate person still has to file even if they are just getting a refund, and it would be discriminatory to set up a system that relied on computers or complex math to fill out.  right now it is basically addition, subtraction, and lookup tables.  lookup tables are what this post is advocating against.  i will put it this way, directly against the op: i do not think anybody really cares about being taxed at one rate for one bracket and another rate for income past that bracket.  sure it kinda seems unfair, but a function like the op is would achieve largely the same effective rate and if it did not, somebody somewhere would be pissed for little improvement complexity wise.  i think the big complexity things are all the deductions, exemptions, and tax loopholes that mean if you can afford a clever accountant, you can pay a ridiculously low effective rate, while all the shmucks fill out the formula and call it a day.   #  it is from that figure that you then use the tax bands.   #  former uk tax professor checking in.  first, consensus is to make the tax code simpler.  by introducing many more tax bands it would become much more complicated.  also keep in mind that the government decides how much revenue it needs by adjusting the tax bands or % accordingly.  keeping it simple makes their calculations easier and everyone else is in the field including students let them enjoy life a bit, they have enough going on already .  second, in uk personal tax calculations you calculate two figures.  taxable income and tax payable.  you arrive at taxable income by deducting for example personal allowances and more things.  it is from that figure that you then use the tax bands.  therefore even if you think you would make it easier you only focus on a small part of the entire tax calculation and would still not have an overview of how much you should pay or if it is fair.  finally tax will never become easier, only more complicated.  why ? because you try to introduce fairness in an incredibly complex world.  why not tax everything at 0 and let is all go home ? well why should a single blind person that is limited in career prospects have to pay the same with someone who is a single mother of 0 children with someone who earns in the six figures but mainly from investments and not from his job with someone only earns money from his job but not from investments but who also donates part of his income to charity etc ? every single well meaning step to make the tax code fairer leads in increased complexity.  complexity leads to desperation and well meaning people questioning the principles.  therefore; taxes and women will always be complicated and sometimes unfair.   #  it gives more choice/agency to people instead of just sending everyone with a home mortgage a check and hope they spend it paying down their mortgage.   #  well a bulk of the current system makes it that if you spend money on certain special things, then you do not have to pay taxes on that money.  this is called tax deductible income.  getting a  cheque  for something on the other hand is called a tax credit let is say the government wants to help out with home mortgages.  they make it so you do not have to pay taxes on any money you spend on home mortgages.  now you will be rewarded for doing what the government wants based on how much money you want to put into that cause usually there is a limit though .  it gives more choice/agency to people instead of just sending everyone with a home mortgage a check and hope they spend it paying down their mortgage.   #  hence, higher the income, higher the tax rate, which is consistent with progressive taxation system that we have.   #  op does not propose a flat tax rate, op proposes a  continuously increasing  tax rate, as opposed to a  stepped increasing  tax rate we have today.  for example, tax rate x times income.  hence, higher the income, higher the tax rate, which is consistent with progressive taxation system that we have.  the difference is that, the tax rate increases smoothly and continuously with an easy preset formula, as opposed to sudden jumps with tax brackets.  i personally never thought of this before, but op is proposal makes sense.  i hope you being a tax professor can answer this, since it seems to me that most other repliers have not understood what the op is proposing.
well, while i was discussing the effects of feminism on another cmv post, a reddit user made a very good point in saying that female only gyms and shelters are discriminatory.  that was something i never thought about ! i could honestly see how it could be discriminatory men might like to have their own private workout areas, too, and they also can be victims of abuse .  i ca not refute that it is discriminatory, of course, because it is or at least, i think it is .  but i also believe it is important for women to be and feel safe.  as i mentioned to this particular reddit user, my sister was harassed by her gym so badly that she ended up having to quit, so obviously i am conflicted in my opinions ! now, while i consider myself a feminist, i consider myself more so an egalitarian and i believe that all people should be treated equally.  so i would like to cmv to better my practice of that philosophy.  as it stands, i would say that i still do think that female only gyms and shelters are good things, but if someone can cmv and help make the issue a little clearer, i would greatly appreciate it ! thank you !  #  now, while i consider myself a feminist, i consider myself more so an egalitarian and i believe that all people should be treated equally.   #  i am a feminist, but i was pretty annoyed when the augusta golf club was essentially forced to admit women as members, but i could understand it because the club would rent out its facilities to the public and held pga golf tournaments there.   # i am a feminist, but i was pretty annoyed when the augusta golf club was essentially forced to admit women as members, but i could understand it because the club would rent out its facilities to the public and held pga golf tournaments there.  in that sense, i think the club making money from the general public greatly reduced its standing as a purely private club.  i still think that private clubs should have the ability to restrict their membership, even if such restrictions are discriminatory.  should testicular cancer support groups be forced to admit women ? should sororities be forced to admit men and fraternities forced to admit women ? should the black jewels ladies golf association be forced to let dudes play with them ? should the yale club be required to admit alumni from suny schools ? i mean, freedom of association is still a thing, no ? so, if a fitness club is truly private that is, there are no facilities rented out to the public, no  open hours  where non members can pay a fee for limited access, no public restaurant or educational services, receives no government subsidies, and the club follows employment law, then i see no reason why men only or women only fitness clubs should not exist.  as for dv shelters, i ca not speak to what it is like in other areas, but our local charity provides shelter services for both male and female victims and counseling services for victims and perpetrators of dv.  in fact, they do not even discriminate by species they also provide fostering services for pets belonging to victims of dv.   #  our rationale is that when a female starts getting into firearms it can be very intimidating to shoot with a bunch of guys standing around watching.   #  i think this is he best way to sum this up.  we have this horrible connotation that discrimination is always bad, but look around there is plenty of it already.  we have separate bathrooms based on gender, separate schools that folks can choose to send their children to ect.  the key here is equality.  a women is shelter serves to make victims of abuse at the hands of men more comfortable, so in my book they are a good thing.  however that is not to say we should not make these resources available to male victims of abuse in the same capacity.  unfortunately i do not really know of any male support groups for abuse survivors out there, but i think we should certainly have them.  a personal example of this that i can speak of came from my work.  a little background i work at a public shooting range that in addition to holding public hours provides a number of free classes to people.  most of the classes are open to everyone but we have a few that are exclusively women is only classes.  our rationale is that when a female starts getting into firearms it can be very intimidating to shoot with a bunch of guys standing around watching.  because folks lets face it hunting and the shooting sports are primarily dominated by men.  there are tons of female shooters out there, just not near as many .  so at one point we were short handed so i asked one of our volunteer instructors to come out and help.  he said he could not in good conscious participate in a class that segregated by gender when there was no male equivalent although he understood our reasoning for it .  this did not sit well with me, and made me think a lot.  i started noticing that while i was helping some male customers in a shooting situation they seemed a bit put off.  i am the only girl that works at the range, and i feel that these particular men might have had some sort of aversion to me helping them.  i mean stereotypically they should have been the ones who knew what they were doing, not some girl in her early twenties.  i talked to my guy friends and they said that some guys might just have been embarrassed by getting instruction on what is seen as a masculine activity from a woman.  until that point i had never really thought about it, i was there to help whatever struggling shooters that needed help.  so we decided to do something about it.  we now in addition to the woman is only class have a  guy is day at the range  course.  we did not think it would do well but it has filled up just as quickly as the women is courses and has received good feedback !  #  much of the time that gender discriminatory shelter is the  only  shelter.   # however that is not to say we should not make these resources available to male victims of abuse in the same capacity.  the problem here is that it is not a slight inconvenience like needing to go to the gym across town.  much of the time that gender discriminatory shelter is the  only  shelter.  men is shelters are almost non existent because domestic violence against men is not a socially recognized problem.  it is as if the  only  gyms were gender discriminatory and men who did not go got the shit kicked out of them by their girlfriends.   #  the argument that a male presence would alarm the other females at the shelter, demeans women, one they know that not all males are dangerous.   # no.  that view assumes that there can only be as many shelters as what already exists.  would you agree that money is a finite resource ? in utah my information is from april of 0, so 0 months ago there were 0 shelters.  of those only 0 was willing to help men.  i was denied at the others because it would alarm the women.  i did this as part of a research paper, so i rehearsed the same script to each shelter the earmarked money for shelters is limited, in utah i would not expect that with 0 shelters, with only 0 taking male victims, that the budget for male victims is as large as the budget for female victims.  many of the services needed are the same.  the argument that a male presence would alarm the other females at the shelter, demeans women, one they know that not all males are dangerous.  second, they should understand that other people need help too.   #  he was not well known enough to garner their attention.   #  no he was not.  silverman did not get funding from the government because there are regulations in canada about running shelters out of your personal residence.  silverman was a great man in many respects, but he knew nothing about running an ngo, how to lobby the government for funding, or what the necessary conditions were for obtaining said funding.  he blamed the government for not giving him the funds to keep his shelter open, but he was never  attacked  by proponents of women is shelters.  he was not well known enough to garner their attention.  his suicide note did not say that he blamed feminists or proponents of anything, only the government.  should men get funding, sure.  but it is not really a zero sum game either.  there are plenty of legitimate avenues with which to successfully lobby the government that does not come at the cost of women is shelters.  there are men is centres, for example, popping up in canada that have not been met with any outcry from feminists.
full disclosure i use an iphone but any smart phone can handle this.  there is not a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site.  the information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it is something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile friendly way.  i believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the internet that it outweighs the  some people do not have smartphones  argument.  change my view.   #  there is not a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site.   #  the information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it is something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile friendly way.   # the information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it is something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile friendly way.  i believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the internet that it outweighs the  some people do not have smartphones  argument.  change my view.  not all smartphones are created equal.  while you may have an iphone, and most of the ads you see are for buying the flagship android or apple product, there are plenty of cheaper smartphones with less memory and a lesser processor which may chug a little bit on these websites.  more importantly though, these versions of the websites are often much more barebones and designed with a phone in mind.  they use less data e. g.  images, animations, etc.  to make it easier to load on people with a poor 0g connection or a low data limit on their plan, and they often have much bigger buttons, text, and menus to work better for someone on a touch screen as opposed to someone on a computer.   #  if you do not remove information or change the navigational hierarchy, your point is invalid.   #  your entire argument seems to be against  poorly designed  mobile sites.  properly designed mobile sites are very useful.  sure there is.  my electric company prioritizes outage reporting on their mobile site, since that is most likely what people will use to report an outage.  using their regular site requires flash, which does not work on smart phones.  there is also the case of using differently sized images and video, reformatting text to make it more readable, presenting navigation controls that are easy to  click  with a finger, and removing/replacing incompatible ui features like hovering.  the good way is to take your existing site, and then change the layout and formatting for smaller screens.  if you do not remove information or change the navigational hierarchy, your point is invalid.   #  people are already familiar with swiping, sliding, and drop downs because that is how everything else on their phone works.   # i am making the case that mobile sites are better than desktop sites on mobile devices.  if you try to make a layout cater to keyboard/mouse on big screens  and  thumbs on tiny screens, you are going to end up with a poor experience for both.  a good website will present information in the best way possible for the medium.  an interface that works great on a big screen may not be suited for a small screen.  if you try to get the same experience across devices, you end up with windows 0.  there are smarter ways of  reducing visual clutter  than using a fucking dropdown menu or whatever.  compressing navigation into a drop down or slide out menu is smart on mobile devices.  with limited screen space, you want to leave as much room for content as possible.  people are already familiar with swiping, sliding, and drop downs because that is how everything else on their phone works.   #  i ca not tell you how many times i have struggled with tiny buttons on my phone meant for a desktop browser because i ca not find the info i need on the mobile browser.   # an interface that works great on a big screen may not be suited for a small screen.  if you try to get the same experience across devices, you end up with windows 0.  i agree with this quite strongly.  as long as the same information is there, i would much rather use an interface that is medium specific.  i ca not tell you how many times i have struggled with tiny buttons on my phone meant for a desktop browser because i ca not find the info i need on the mobile browser.  a mobile browser that has all the same info as a desktop is simply the ideal.   #  unless you have it on a surface, then you do not even need to hold it and can operate it with one hand.   #  how the heck else are you using your mobile ? you hold it in one hand, and touch with the other, or hold it in two hands and use your thumbs.  unless you have it on a surface, then you do not even need to hold it and can operate it with one hand.  do you just hold it in one hand and do all your touch with the thumb on that same hand ? if so, you are making things unnecessarily hard on yourself.
full disclosure i use an iphone but any smart phone can handle this.  there is not a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site.  the information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it is something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile friendly way.  i believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the internet that it outweighs the  some people do not have smartphones  argument.  change my view.   #  there is not a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site.   #  i ca not read www. reddit. com on my employer issued smartphone.   # i ca not read www. reddit. com on my employer issued smartphone.  the text is simply too small to read.  i use i. reddit. com and read and interact fine.  there are also many news sites that force the text to fit across the screen and the text is too small to read.  i simply do not read those stories and leave disappointed.  there are others that to auto resize but i am forced to scroll left right on each line to read it, which is incredibly slow.  now, if you are suggesting that a well designed primary site should be able to deliver content to me to make it readable and usable, then fine, i agree.  but that is not what you are saying.  that would mean the  concept  of a mobile site is a relic.  fine, but why is it any less viable a solution than the effort to make a single site address that varies the content delivery ? varying it by loading a different page is pretty much the same thing from the user end; it is simply a different approach from the delivery end.  i would love it  if  all sites delivered well to all my devices 0  phone, 0  tablet, 0  tablet, 0  laptop, 0  monitor, 0  tv , but they do not and mobile sites do make it better, usually.  i would agree that poor programming of sites should also be a relic.  in practical terms, i do not see what value your point of view provides.  world peace would be nice, as would a cure for cancer.  getting there from here is the hard part.   #  the good way is to take your existing site, and then change the layout and formatting for smaller screens.   #  your entire argument seems to be against  poorly designed  mobile sites.  properly designed mobile sites are very useful.  sure there is.  my electric company prioritizes outage reporting on their mobile site, since that is most likely what people will use to report an outage.  using their regular site requires flash, which does not work on smart phones.  there is also the case of using differently sized images and video, reformatting text to make it more readable, presenting navigation controls that are easy to  click  with a finger, and removing/replacing incompatible ui features like hovering.  the good way is to take your existing site, and then change the layout and formatting for smaller screens.  if you do not remove information or change the navigational hierarchy, your point is invalid.   #  i am making the case that mobile sites are better than desktop sites on mobile devices.   # i am making the case that mobile sites are better than desktop sites on mobile devices.  if you try to make a layout cater to keyboard/mouse on big screens  and  thumbs on tiny screens, you are going to end up with a poor experience for both.  a good website will present information in the best way possible for the medium.  an interface that works great on a big screen may not be suited for a small screen.  if you try to get the same experience across devices, you end up with windows 0.  there are smarter ways of  reducing visual clutter  than using a fucking dropdown menu or whatever.  compressing navigation into a drop down or slide out menu is smart on mobile devices.  with limited screen space, you want to leave as much room for content as possible.  people are already familiar with swiping, sliding, and drop downs because that is how everything else on their phone works.   #  a mobile browser that has all the same info as a desktop is simply the ideal.   # an interface that works great on a big screen may not be suited for a small screen.  if you try to get the same experience across devices, you end up with windows 0.  i agree with this quite strongly.  as long as the same information is there, i would much rather use an interface that is medium specific.  i ca not tell you how many times i have struggled with tiny buttons on my phone meant for a desktop browser because i ca not find the info i need on the mobile browser.  a mobile browser that has all the same info as a desktop is simply the ideal.   #  unless you have it on a surface, then you do not even need to hold it and can operate it with one hand.   #  how the heck else are you using your mobile ? you hold it in one hand, and touch with the other, or hold it in two hands and use your thumbs.  unless you have it on a surface, then you do not even need to hold it and can operate it with one hand.  do you just hold it in one hand and do all your touch with the thumb on that same hand ? if so, you are making things unnecessarily hard on yourself.
0 there is many quantifiable differences between males and females.  we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role,  in average .  it is  one of many  factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  0 oppressive methods of quotas and such result in abuse of people is fundamental rights.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and  fairest  solved by education.   #  there is many quantifiable differences between males and females.   #  we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.   # we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role, in average.  it is one of many factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  two issues with this argument.  firstly, it is hard to assess any kind of trend if there is not enough sample data, so by allowing discrimination to continue you are actually biasing the data.  secondly, you make the point with emphasis  in average  and  one of many factors .  the trouble with this argument is that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.  on average, maybe any given gender or race or sexuality tends to not lend themselves to a current kind of work, but hey maybe you look at this application and they are the foremost expert in the field with years of experience.  those factors should therefore be absolutely irrelevant as they are an average and not specific to the individual.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and fairest solved by education.  yes and no.  i agree wholeheartedly that education should involve more about the truths of the world and making us better as people, but public education is only a small factor of a person is individual personality.  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.   #  if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ?  # the trouble is with this argument that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.  on average, maybe any given gender or race or sexuality tends to not lend themselves to a current kind of work, but hey maybe you look at this application and they are the foremost expert in the field with years of experience.  those factors should therefore be absolutely irrelevant as they are an average and not specific to the individual.  in an ideal world, the best of the best are hired.  we do not live in such a world.  we approximate all the time.  making laws that prohibit sex approximation is very arbitrary.  how about looks approximation ? or voice ? or weight ? if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ? should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ? i do not think so.  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.  education is not the fastest, but fairest solution to unfairness.  oppressions carry costs.   #  and it is not oppressive to disallow genders from specific positions because someone ran a study and said  maybe your general gender ai not the best for this, your individual merits do not matter  ?  # we do not live in such a world.  we approximate all the time.  making laws that prohibit sex approximation is very arbitrary.  how about looks approximation ? or voice ? or weight ? if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ? should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ? i do not think so.  it is not about  best of the best  it is about  most qualified of the applicants who applied .  oppressions carry costs.  and it is not oppressive to disallow genders from specific positions because someone ran a study and said  maybe your general gender ai not the best for this, your individual merits do not matter  ? you are defending the oppressive nature of bigots as being oppressed.  it sounds like when the religious right calls persecution when the lgbt community wants equal marriage rights.  disallowing oppression is not oppressive.   #  i have really nothing more to say on the matter now that you have revealed your own personal motivations.   #  we are talking about the laws surrounding honest business practices, and sexism in the workplace.  hiring and firing should be based on the efficacy of an employee to do their job.  fucking their boss is not their job, personal relationships though they may sometimes happen should not ever be the sole basis of employment.  they are workers, employees, not prostitutes.  if something naturally develops between coworkers that is one thing, but business practices and the laws surrounding them are formal and practical, nothing to do with condoning or facilitating sexual affairs or personal bigotry.  i have really nothing more to say on the matter now that you have revealed your own personal motivations.   #  this evopsych argument both completely misunderstands what good evopsych is and is basically just an excuse to be an asshole.   # ugh.  humans are not lizards that are just driven by basic desires.  with the power of a frontal lobe we can actually make empathetic decisions rather than just behaving  as we are programmed .  this evopsych argument both completely misunderstands what good evopsych is and is basically just an excuse to be an asshole.  nobody gets to be excused by saying  i am just trying to spread my seed as i am programmed .  i guess you should never use condoms then when you fuck your employees.
0 there is many quantifiable differences between males and females.  we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role,  in average .  it is  one of many  factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  0 oppressive methods of quotas and such result in abuse of people is fundamental rights.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and  fairest  solved by education.   #  oppressive methods of quotas and such result in abuse of people is fundamental rights.   #  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.   # we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role, in average.  it is one of many factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  two issues with this argument.  firstly, it is hard to assess any kind of trend if there is not enough sample data, so by allowing discrimination to continue you are actually biasing the data.  secondly, you make the point with emphasis  in average  and  one of many factors .  the trouble with this argument is that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.  on average, maybe any given gender or race or sexuality tends to not lend themselves to a current kind of work, but hey maybe you look at this application and they are the foremost expert in the field with years of experience.  those factors should therefore be absolutely irrelevant as they are an average and not specific to the individual.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and fairest solved by education.  yes and no.  i agree wholeheartedly that education should involve more about the truths of the world and making us better as people, but public education is only a small factor of a person is individual personality.  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.   #  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.   # the trouble is with this argument that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.  on average, maybe any given gender or race or sexuality tends to not lend themselves to a current kind of work, but hey maybe you look at this application and they are the foremost expert in the field with years of experience.  those factors should therefore be absolutely irrelevant as they are an average and not specific to the individual.  in an ideal world, the best of the best are hired.  we do not live in such a world.  we approximate all the time.  making laws that prohibit sex approximation is very arbitrary.  how about looks approximation ? or voice ? or weight ? if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ? should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ? i do not think so.  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.  education is not the fastest, but fairest solution to unfairness.  oppressions carry costs.   #  if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ?  # we do not live in such a world.  we approximate all the time.  making laws that prohibit sex approximation is very arbitrary.  how about looks approximation ? or voice ? or weight ? if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ? should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ? i do not think so.  it is not about  best of the best  it is about  most qualified of the applicants who applied .  oppressions carry costs.  and it is not oppressive to disallow genders from specific positions because someone ran a study and said  maybe your general gender ai not the best for this, your individual merits do not matter  ? you are defending the oppressive nature of bigots as being oppressed.  it sounds like when the religious right calls persecution when the lgbt community wants equal marriage rights.  disallowing oppression is not oppressive.   #  we are talking about the laws surrounding honest business practices, and sexism in the workplace.   #  we are talking about the laws surrounding honest business practices, and sexism in the workplace.  hiring and firing should be based on the efficacy of an employee to do their job.  fucking their boss is not their job, personal relationships though they may sometimes happen should not ever be the sole basis of employment.  they are workers, employees, not prostitutes.  if something naturally develops between coworkers that is one thing, but business practices and the laws surrounding them are formal and practical, nothing to do with condoning or facilitating sexual affairs or personal bigotry.  i have really nothing more to say on the matter now that you have revealed your own personal motivations.   #  humans are not lizards that are just driven by basic desires.   # ugh.  humans are not lizards that are just driven by basic desires.  with the power of a frontal lobe we can actually make empathetic decisions rather than just behaving  as we are programmed .  this evopsych argument both completely misunderstands what good evopsych is and is basically just an excuse to be an asshole.  nobody gets to be excused by saying  i am just trying to spread my seed as i am programmed .  i guess you should never use condoms then when you fuck your employees.
0 there is many quantifiable differences between males and females.  we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role,  in average .  it is  one of many  factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  0 oppressive methods of quotas and such result in abuse of people is fundamental rights.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and  fairest  solved by education.   #  there is many quantifiable differences between males and females.   #  we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.   # we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role, in average.  it is one of many factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  this whole argument seems to be based on the idea that there are differences between the sexes on a large scale.  using this information to make employment decisions may be valid if you hire in bulk from random samples of people, but nobody hires that way.  in reality, we should hire the best person for the job.  we interview people to assess their ability to do their job, and then make hiring decisions based off of that assessment.  there is no reason gender should factor into this, because being a certain gender is not a job skill.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and fairest solved by education.  you can be all of those things, but not when operating a public business.  not allowing discrimination is what got us out of racial segregation.  the only way to change minds on a large scale is to force integration.   #  secondly, you make the point with emphasis  in average  and  one of many factors .   # we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role, in average.  it is one of many factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  two issues with this argument.  firstly, it is hard to assess any kind of trend if there is not enough sample data, so by allowing discrimination to continue you are actually biasing the data.  secondly, you make the point with emphasis  in average  and  one of many factors .  the trouble with this argument is that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.  on average, maybe any given gender or race or sexuality tends to not lend themselves to a current kind of work, but hey maybe you look at this application and they are the foremost expert in the field with years of experience.  those factors should therefore be absolutely irrelevant as they are an average and not specific to the individual.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and fairest solved by education.  yes and no.  i agree wholeheartedly that education should involve more about the truths of the world and making us better as people, but public education is only a small factor of a person is individual personality.  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.   #  in an ideal world, the best of the best are hired.   # the trouble is with this argument that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.  on average, maybe any given gender or race or sexuality tends to not lend themselves to a current kind of work, but hey maybe you look at this application and they are the foremost expert in the field with years of experience.  those factors should therefore be absolutely irrelevant as they are an average and not specific to the individual.  in an ideal world, the best of the best are hired.  we do not live in such a world.  we approximate all the time.  making laws that prohibit sex approximation is very arbitrary.  how about looks approximation ? or voice ? or weight ? if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ? should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ? i do not think so.  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.  education is not the fastest, but fairest solution to unfairness.  oppressions carry costs.   #  it sounds like when the religious right calls persecution when the lgbt community wants equal marriage rights.  disallowing oppression is not oppressive.   # we do not live in such a world.  we approximate all the time.  making laws that prohibit sex approximation is very arbitrary.  how about looks approximation ? or voice ? or weight ? if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ? should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ? i do not think so.  it is not about  best of the best  it is about  most qualified of the applicants who applied .  oppressions carry costs.  and it is not oppressive to disallow genders from specific positions because someone ran a study and said  maybe your general gender ai not the best for this, your individual merits do not matter  ? you are defending the oppressive nature of bigots as being oppressed.  it sounds like when the religious right calls persecution when the lgbt community wants equal marriage rights.  disallowing oppression is not oppressive.   #  i have really nothing more to say on the matter now that you have revealed your own personal motivations.   #  we are talking about the laws surrounding honest business practices, and sexism in the workplace.  hiring and firing should be based on the efficacy of an employee to do their job.  fucking their boss is not their job, personal relationships though they may sometimes happen should not ever be the sole basis of employment.  they are workers, employees, not prostitutes.  if something naturally develops between coworkers that is one thing, but business practices and the laws surrounding them are formal and practical, nothing to do with condoning or facilitating sexual affairs or personal bigotry.  i have really nothing more to say on the matter now that you have revealed your own personal motivations.
0 there is many quantifiable differences between males and females.  we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role,  in average .  it is  one of many  factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  0 oppressive methods of quotas and such result in abuse of people is fundamental rights.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and  fairest  solved by education.   #  oppressive methods of quotas and such result in abuse of people is fundamental rights.   #  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.   # we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role, in average.  it is one of many factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  this whole argument seems to be based on the idea that there are differences between the sexes on a large scale.  using this information to make employment decisions may be valid if you hire in bulk from random samples of people, but nobody hires that way.  in reality, we should hire the best person for the job.  we interview people to assess their ability to do their job, and then make hiring decisions based off of that assessment.  there is no reason gender should factor into this, because being a certain gender is not a job skill.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and fairest solved by education.  you can be all of those things, but not when operating a public business.  not allowing discrimination is what got us out of racial segregation.  the only way to change minds on a large scale is to force integration.   #  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.   # we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role, in average.  it is one of many factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  two issues with this argument.  firstly, it is hard to assess any kind of trend if there is not enough sample data, so by allowing discrimination to continue you are actually biasing the data.  secondly, you make the point with emphasis  in average  and  one of many factors .  the trouble with this argument is that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.  on average, maybe any given gender or race or sexuality tends to not lend themselves to a current kind of work, but hey maybe you look at this application and they are the foremost expert in the field with years of experience.  those factors should therefore be absolutely irrelevant as they are an average and not specific to the individual.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and fairest solved by education.  yes and no.  i agree wholeheartedly that education should involve more about the truths of the world and making us better as people, but public education is only a small factor of a person is individual personality.  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.   #  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.   # the trouble is with this argument that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.  on average, maybe any given gender or race or sexuality tends to not lend themselves to a current kind of work, but hey maybe you look at this application and they are the foremost expert in the field with years of experience.  those factors should therefore be absolutely irrelevant as they are an average and not specific to the individual.  in an ideal world, the best of the best are hired.  we do not live in such a world.  we approximate all the time.  making laws that prohibit sex approximation is very arbitrary.  how about looks approximation ? or voice ? or weight ? if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ? should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ? i do not think so.  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.  education is not the fastest, but fairest solution to unfairness.  oppressions carry costs.   #  it is not about  best of the best  it is about  most qualified of the applicants who applied .   # we do not live in such a world.  we approximate all the time.  making laws that prohibit sex approximation is very arbitrary.  how about looks approximation ? or voice ? or weight ? if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ? should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ? i do not think so.  it is not about  best of the best  it is about  most qualified of the applicants who applied .  oppressions carry costs.  and it is not oppressive to disallow genders from specific positions because someone ran a study and said  maybe your general gender ai not the best for this, your individual merits do not matter  ? you are defending the oppressive nature of bigots as being oppressed.  it sounds like when the religious right calls persecution when the lgbt community wants equal marriage rights.  disallowing oppression is not oppressive.   #  fucking their boss is not their job, personal relationships though they may sometimes happen should not ever be the sole basis of employment.   #  we are talking about the laws surrounding honest business practices, and sexism in the workplace.  hiring and firing should be based on the efficacy of an employee to do their job.  fucking their boss is not their job, personal relationships though they may sometimes happen should not ever be the sole basis of employment.  they are workers, employees, not prostitutes.  if something naturally develops between coworkers that is one thing, but business practices and the laws surrounding them are formal and practical, nothing to do with condoning or facilitating sexual affairs or personal bigotry.  i have really nothing more to say on the matter now that you have revealed your own personal motivations.
0 there is many quantifiable differences between males and females.  we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role,  in average .  it is  one of many  factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  0 oppressive methods of quotas and such result in abuse of people is fundamental rights.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and  fairest  solved by education.   #  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.   #  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.   # you do not have a fundamental right to own a business, you are beholden to the practices of the state.  this would be like saying anti pollution laws abuse people is fundamental rights.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  people do have freedom of thought and are allowed to be a misogynist or a misandrist or any kind of bigot .  but the adverse effects of discrimination are worse than the adverse effects of making sure people do not have discriminatory hiring practices.  a misogynist is allowed to be a misogynist, but is not allowed to let that factor into their hiring.  you talk of fundamental rights, but you ignore the real world implications of your ideas.  would a town where women were de facto barred from working be a good thing ? should a single mother have difficulty getting a job in the name of being fair to the wealthy business owner ? but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and fairest solved by education.  there is nothing abusive about anti discrimination.  if you want to own a business you have to operate within the confines of society.  and society has deemed employment discrimination to be detrimental and provide no benefit.  i agree that education is, indeed, the best way to solve ignorance and hatred but anti discrimination laws do not preclude education.  the two options are not mutually exclusive.   #  the trouble with this argument is that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.   # we can formulate trends and suggest who is more suitable for what, and assess trends  dispersion.  to treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role, in average.  it is one of many factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account.  however, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.  two issues with this argument.  firstly, it is hard to assess any kind of trend if there is not enough sample data, so by allowing discrimination to continue you are actually biasing the data.  secondly, you make the point with emphasis  in average  and  one of many factors .  the trouble with this argument is that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.  on average, maybe any given gender or race or sexuality tends to not lend themselves to a current kind of work, but hey maybe you look at this application and they are the foremost expert in the field with years of experience.  those factors should therefore be absolutely irrelevant as they are an average and not specific to the individual.  one should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i. e.  demonstrate freedom of thought.  no doubt, the less hatred, the better.  but using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong.  the problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance variability within trends is best and fairest solved by education.  yes and no.  i agree wholeheartedly that education should involve more about the truths of the world and making us better as people, but public education is only a small factor of a person is individual personality.  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.   #  should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ?  # the trouble is with this argument that hiring is not done on averages, it is done with individual applicants.  a interviewer should be looking at the individual experience and qualifications of the person, rather than trying to look through the averages of any generic non applicable descriptor of that person.  on average, maybe any given gender or race or sexuality tends to not lend themselves to a current kind of work, but hey maybe you look at this application and they are the foremost expert in the field with years of experience.  those factors should therefore be absolutely irrelevant as they are an average and not specific to the individual.  in an ideal world, the best of the best are hired.  we do not live in such a world.  we approximate all the time.  making laws that prohibit sex approximation is very arbitrary.  how about looks approximation ? or voice ? or weight ? if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ? should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ? i do not think so.  a lot of it has to do with their family and upbringing, as well as their own personal experiences.  education is not the fastest, but fairest solution to unfairness.  oppressions carry costs.   #  if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ?  # we do not live in such a world.  we approximate all the time.  making laws that prohibit sex approximation is very arbitrary.  how about looks approximation ? or voice ? or weight ? if someone prefers good looking ginger with c cup sized breasts as a personal assistant and ignore other applicants  higher qualification, so what ? should people have a right to be hired if they are the best of the best ? i do not think so.  it is not about  best of the best  it is about  most qualified of the applicants who applied .  oppressions carry costs.  and it is not oppressive to disallow genders from specific positions because someone ran a study and said  maybe your general gender ai not the best for this, your individual merits do not matter  ? you are defending the oppressive nature of bigots as being oppressed.  it sounds like when the religious right calls persecution when the lgbt community wants equal marriage rights.  disallowing oppression is not oppressive.   #  hiring and firing should be based on the efficacy of an employee to do their job.   #  we are talking about the laws surrounding honest business practices, and sexism in the workplace.  hiring and firing should be based on the efficacy of an employee to do their job.  fucking their boss is not their job, personal relationships though they may sometimes happen should not ever be the sole basis of employment.  they are workers, employees, not prostitutes.  if something naturally develops between coworkers that is one thing, but business practices and the laws surrounding them are formal and practical, nothing to do with condoning or facilitating sexual affairs or personal bigotry.  i have really nothing more to say on the matter now that you have revealed your own personal motivations.
i could talk for days about this topic, but the evidence a combination of anecdotal and empirical has lead me to conclude that mediocrity and ignorance is actively, globally encouraged, and particularly so in the united states.    politicians can actually be criticized for being too smart, there should be no such thing as too smart   schools actively promote the idea that everyone is okay as they are.  i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement   ivy league and similar students are considered smarter than their peers, but most of the student body got there through money or nepotism i have personally experienced this   building off the previous point, very, very few people at any ivy and similar are actually intelligent   there are no difficult subjects to learn.    the emphasis on specialization of learning/skill encourages weakness and ignorance rather than strength and knowledge   standardized tests are farcically easy   many parts of the country actually have an active disdain of critical thinking and reasoning   math and science are often viewed as difficult or onerous   the entirety of the body acceptance movement if you would like me to clarify anything, please do not hesitate to ask.  i would like to believe that we as a species are going somewhere.   #  schools actively promote the idea that everyone is okay as they are.   #  i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement i think they promote being  who you are  insofar as to  stay true to your own personality .   # source ? i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement i think they promote being  who you are  insofar as to  stay true to your own personality .  but of course, the purpose of school is self betterment in terms of knowledge.  no one would refuse knowledge because they are trying to stay true to themselves.  do they not  encourage  these ? are these not measures of excellence to any extent ? i think by this you mean schools do not teach difficult courses, no ? i can absolutely assure you, there are difficult courses to take in schools in the west.  i myself found trigonometry difficult.   specialized  means to go in depth in a specific field.  how exactly does this encourage ignorance ? we are judged based on each other.  which standardized tests are you referring to exactly ? the sat and the act are simply meant to judge some of your skill based on your peers.  are we talking about western society or the united states ? i will but i will bet if you take a survey, you will find the majority of people in every state would consider critical thinking and reasoning a  good thing  rather than a  bad thing.   there are definitely some people people who find math and science difficult and onerous.  from this we can conclude that  many people  in western society are not excellent.  this does not mean that they are not  encouraged  to be excellent.  it simply means that a lot of people are not.  it sounds good to say,  accept your body for what it is , but i think  the majority  of people would also say  you should work out so you do not get fat  or  you should practice a sport so you get good at it.   that is why sports are extra curricular activities at so many schools.  heck, if this is true, then how do you explain the enormous make up and fashion design industry in america aimed at making your body look better rather than accepting it without changes ? we landed on a comet recently.  that is a start.  and consider the new technology recently.  it is slow, but we are getting  somewhere .  look.  i think your view boils down to this:   education society in the united states does not encourage self betterment, and,   education in the us should be more challenging.  i agree with the second point.  but there  are  some schools which are challenging.  there are others which accommodate mediocracy.  however, if you are excellent in the west, you are more likely to succeed.  evaluation, i. e.  grades is in place for this reason.  maybe we do not value excellence  enough  ? hey, you can never value excellence enough.  but it would be a stretch to say it values mediocracy.  i hope that should change your view.   #  as a graduate student, i can tell you that in higher education this is not even remotely true.   #  as a graduate student, i can tell you that in higher education this is not even remotely true.  we are constantly competing to publish better papers, in better journals, and picking apart each others work peer review .  i am mostly curious though about where you are getting your information.  are you basing this off of actual sociological studies ? if so please provide sources.  if not, i will find it difficult to accept your view as reasonable due to a lack of supportive evidence.   #  from start ups to lotteries to even the real incentive of college education, it is all very much focused on acquisition and achievement.   #  you seem to focus relatively heavily on education for a big part of it, which makes it sound like a frustrated student is rant more than an analysis of us culture at large.  one of the major tenets of us culture is our capitalism.  there is a major push to gain money and claw your way to the top of some corporate ladder.  everyone wants to be rich, everyone is trying to be rich.  from start ups to lotteries to even the real incentive of college education, it is all very much focused on acquisition and achievement.   #  the kind in movies, for the most part, is not in any way analogous.   #  true, but they are usually given exceptionalism.  it is pretty rare that you see anyone in a movie actually work for it.  which is how things work in the real world.  someone discovers they are the chosen one, inherit something, are just naturally fit despite never working out and eating junk food, are removed from their normal circumstances through no effort or choice of their own and then returned special, etc.  being exceptional in the real world means working for it.  the kind in movies, for the most part, is not in any way analogous.  remove the work and effort from it and it is not the same thing anymore.   #  i do not go to class, drink heavily on the weekends and frequently during the week, have a pretty bad marijuana habit and do not really study until a couple of days before any test.   #  yeah, i have two undergraduate majors in physics and economics from an ivy league and am currently in my 0rd year of an mba/jd.  i do not go to class, drink heavily on the weekends and frequently during the week, have a pretty bad marijuana habit and do not really study until a couple of days before any test.  i am pushing about a 0 over the course of my graduate career and finished undergraduate with a 0 with similar behavior.  so, i literally find 0 of the 0 topics you specifically mentioned to be more or less of a joke.  physics/math are the only conceptually rigorous ones and they were not that bad.
i could talk for days about this topic, but the evidence a combination of anecdotal and empirical has lead me to conclude that mediocrity and ignorance is actively, globally encouraged, and particularly so in the united states.    politicians can actually be criticized for being too smart, there should be no such thing as too smart   schools actively promote the idea that everyone is okay as they are.  i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement   ivy league and similar students are considered smarter than their peers, but most of the student body got there through money or nepotism i have personally experienced this   building off the previous point, very, very few people at any ivy and similar are actually intelligent   there are no difficult subjects to learn.    the emphasis on specialization of learning/skill encourages weakness and ignorance rather than strength and knowledge   standardized tests are farcically easy   many parts of the country actually have an active disdain of critical thinking and reasoning   math and science are often viewed as difficult or onerous   the entirety of the body acceptance movement if you would like me to clarify anything, please do not hesitate to ask.  i would like to believe that we as a species are going somewhere.   #  there are no difficult subjects to learn.   #  i think by this you mean schools do not teach difficult courses, no ?  # source ? i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement i think they promote being  who you are  insofar as to  stay true to your own personality .  but of course, the purpose of school is self betterment in terms of knowledge.  no one would refuse knowledge because they are trying to stay true to themselves.  do they not  encourage  these ? are these not measures of excellence to any extent ? i think by this you mean schools do not teach difficult courses, no ? i can absolutely assure you, there are difficult courses to take in schools in the west.  i myself found trigonometry difficult.   specialized  means to go in depth in a specific field.  how exactly does this encourage ignorance ? we are judged based on each other.  which standardized tests are you referring to exactly ? the sat and the act are simply meant to judge some of your skill based on your peers.  are we talking about western society or the united states ? i will but i will bet if you take a survey, you will find the majority of people in every state would consider critical thinking and reasoning a  good thing  rather than a  bad thing.   there are definitely some people people who find math and science difficult and onerous.  from this we can conclude that  many people  in western society are not excellent.  this does not mean that they are not  encouraged  to be excellent.  it simply means that a lot of people are not.  it sounds good to say,  accept your body for what it is , but i think  the majority  of people would also say  you should work out so you do not get fat  or  you should practice a sport so you get good at it.   that is why sports are extra curricular activities at so many schools.  heck, if this is true, then how do you explain the enormous make up and fashion design industry in america aimed at making your body look better rather than accepting it without changes ? we landed on a comet recently.  that is a start.  and consider the new technology recently.  it is slow, but we are getting  somewhere .  look.  i think your view boils down to this:   education society in the united states does not encourage self betterment, and,   education in the us should be more challenging.  i agree with the second point.  but there  are  some schools which are challenging.  there are others which accommodate mediocracy.  however, if you are excellent in the west, you are more likely to succeed.  evaluation, i. e.  grades is in place for this reason.  maybe we do not value excellence  enough  ? hey, you can never value excellence enough.  but it would be a stretch to say it values mediocracy.  i hope that should change your view.   #  as a graduate student, i can tell you that in higher education this is not even remotely true.   #  as a graduate student, i can tell you that in higher education this is not even remotely true.  we are constantly competing to publish better papers, in better journals, and picking apart each others work peer review .  i am mostly curious though about where you are getting your information.  are you basing this off of actual sociological studies ? if so please provide sources.  if not, i will find it difficult to accept your view as reasonable due to a lack of supportive evidence.   #  from start ups to lotteries to even the real incentive of college education, it is all very much focused on acquisition and achievement.   #  you seem to focus relatively heavily on education for a big part of it, which makes it sound like a frustrated student is rant more than an analysis of us culture at large.  one of the major tenets of us culture is our capitalism.  there is a major push to gain money and claw your way to the top of some corporate ladder.  everyone wants to be rich, everyone is trying to be rich.  from start ups to lotteries to even the real incentive of college education, it is all very much focused on acquisition and achievement.   #  remove the work and effort from it and it is not the same thing anymore.   #  true, but they are usually given exceptionalism.  it is pretty rare that you see anyone in a movie actually work for it.  which is how things work in the real world.  someone discovers they are the chosen one, inherit something, are just naturally fit despite never working out and eating junk food, are removed from their normal circumstances through no effort or choice of their own and then returned special, etc.  being exceptional in the real world means working for it.  the kind in movies, for the most part, is not in any way analogous.  remove the work and effort from it and it is not the same thing anymore.   #  so, i literally find 0 of the 0 topics you specifically mentioned to be more or less of a joke.   #  yeah, i have two undergraduate majors in physics and economics from an ivy league and am currently in my 0rd year of an mba/jd.  i do not go to class, drink heavily on the weekends and frequently during the week, have a pretty bad marijuana habit and do not really study until a couple of days before any test.  i am pushing about a 0 over the course of my graduate career and finished undergraduate with a 0 with similar behavior.  so, i literally find 0 of the 0 topics you specifically mentioned to be more or less of a joke.  physics/math are the only conceptually rigorous ones and they were not that bad.
i could talk for days about this topic, but the evidence a combination of anecdotal and empirical has lead me to conclude that mediocrity and ignorance is actively, globally encouraged, and particularly so in the united states.    politicians can actually be criticized for being too smart, there should be no such thing as too smart   schools actively promote the idea that everyone is okay as they are.  i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement   ivy league and similar students are considered smarter than their peers, but most of the student body got there through money or nepotism i have personally experienced this   building off the previous point, very, very few people at any ivy and similar are actually intelligent   there are no difficult subjects to learn.    the emphasis on specialization of learning/skill encourages weakness and ignorance rather than strength and knowledge   standardized tests are farcically easy   many parts of the country actually have an active disdain of critical thinking and reasoning   math and science are often viewed as difficult or onerous   the entirety of the body acceptance movement if you would like me to clarify anything, please do not hesitate to ask.  i would like to believe that we as a species are going somewhere.   #  there are no difficult subjects to learn.   #  if you seriously believe this then the problem is not with us culture, the problem is that you are an  extremely  exceptional person and there are not explicit educational systems that cater to the smartest 0 of the population.   # if you seriously believe this then the problem is not with us culture, the problem is that you are an  extremely  exceptional person and there are not explicit educational systems that cater to the smartest 0 of the population.  for everybody else there are plenty of opportunities to stretch their minds.  but if you are actually at an ivy, like your post suggests, then i think its impossible for your to seriously believe this.  maybe there are not any hard classes but go find a professor you like and get involved in research.  you will be competing with grad students who are also extremely bright and have had years more experience than you.  if that is not a challenge then you are not actually taking it seriously.  therefore, i find it hard to believe that a majority of their student population got there because of their money.   #  we are constantly competing to publish better papers, in better journals, and picking apart each others work peer review .   #  as a graduate student, i can tell you that in higher education this is not even remotely true.  we are constantly competing to publish better papers, in better journals, and picking apart each others work peer review .  i am mostly curious though about where you are getting your information.  are you basing this off of actual sociological studies ? if so please provide sources.  if not, i will find it difficult to accept your view as reasonable due to a lack of supportive evidence.   #  from start ups to lotteries to even the real incentive of college education, it is all very much focused on acquisition and achievement.   #  you seem to focus relatively heavily on education for a big part of it, which makes it sound like a frustrated student is rant more than an analysis of us culture at large.  one of the major tenets of us culture is our capitalism.  there is a major push to gain money and claw your way to the top of some corporate ladder.  everyone wants to be rich, everyone is trying to be rich.  from start ups to lotteries to even the real incentive of college education, it is all very much focused on acquisition and achievement.   #  remove the work and effort from it and it is not the same thing anymore.   #  true, but they are usually given exceptionalism.  it is pretty rare that you see anyone in a movie actually work for it.  which is how things work in the real world.  someone discovers they are the chosen one, inherit something, are just naturally fit despite never working out and eating junk food, are removed from their normal circumstances through no effort or choice of their own and then returned special, etc.  being exceptional in the real world means working for it.  the kind in movies, for the most part, is not in any way analogous.  remove the work and effort from it and it is not the same thing anymore.   #  yeah, i have two undergraduate majors in physics and economics from an ivy league and am currently in my 0rd year of an mba/jd.   #  yeah, i have two undergraduate majors in physics and economics from an ivy league and am currently in my 0rd year of an mba/jd.  i do not go to class, drink heavily on the weekends and frequently during the week, have a pretty bad marijuana habit and do not really study until a couple of days before any test.  i am pushing about a 0 over the course of my graduate career and finished undergraduate with a 0 with similar behavior.  so, i literally find 0 of the 0 topics you specifically mentioned to be more or less of a joke.  physics/math are the only conceptually rigorous ones and they were not that bad.
i could talk for days about this topic, but the evidence a combination of anecdotal and empirical has lead me to conclude that mediocrity and ignorance is actively, globally encouraged, and particularly so in the united states.    politicians can actually be criticized for being too smart, there should be no such thing as too smart   schools actively promote the idea that everyone is okay as they are.  i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement   ivy league and similar students are considered smarter than their peers, but most of the student body got there through money or nepotism i have personally experienced this   building off the previous point, very, very few people at any ivy and similar are actually intelligent   there are no difficult subjects to learn.    the emphasis on specialization of learning/skill encourages weakness and ignorance rather than strength and knowledge   standardized tests are farcically easy   many parts of the country actually have an active disdain of critical thinking and reasoning   math and science are often viewed as difficult or onerous   the entirety of the body acceptance movement if you would like me to clarify anything, please do not hesitate to ask.  i would like to believe that we as a species are going somewhere.   #  schools actively promote the idea that everyone is okay as they are.   #  i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement schools promote the idea that you should feel comfortable with who you are.   # i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement schools promote the idea that you should feel comfortable with who you are.  beliefs, heritage, sexual orientation, etc.  i do not believe that this stifles self improvement.  actually, i think that it  helps  kids improve themselves, as it gives kids a sense of identity.  does that mean that all ivy league students are rich snobs who do not know anything and just ride off the back of their daddies  paycheck ? not necessarily.  i do not know how to respond to that.  do you really believe that all subjects are easy ? i am not sure i entirely understand you point here.  could you pleas elaborate ? how would you rather us test a large number of people ? where i come from, critical thinking/reasoning is a a highly regarded skill.  math and science are both subjects that you have to actually work for.  as many online science videos series ie minutephysics has shown us, the public is interested in this stuff, they just do not want to put in the hours.  most people who are not happy with being fat want to loose weight because they want to be healthy, not because society scorns them for being fat.  although that is a factor one of the reasons that fat people do not work out is because they do not want people thinking  hey, look the fat guy is working out again.   if the general public would accept fat people for who they are, it would make it easier for them to get healthier and  less mediocre   #  if not, i will find it difficult to accept your view as reasonable due to a lack of supportive evidence.   #  as a graduate student, i can tell you that in higher education this is not even remotely true.  we are constantly competing to publish better papers, in better journals, and picking apart each others work peer review .  i am mostly curious though about where you are getting your information.  are you basing this off of actual sociological studies ? if so please provide sources.  if not, i will find it difficult to accept your view as reasonable due to a lack of supportive evidence.   #  there is a major push to gain money and claw your way to the top of some corporate ladder.   #  you seem to focus relatively heavily on education for a big part of it, which makes it sound like a frustrated student is rant more than an analysis of us culture at large.  one of the major tenets of us culture is our capitalism.  there is a major push to gain money and claw your way to the top of some corporate ladder.  everyone wants to be rich, everyone is trying to be rich.  from start ups to lotteries to even the real incentive of college education, it is all very much focused on acquisition and achievement.   #  being exceptional in the real world means working for it.   #  true, but they are usually given exceptionalism.  it is pretty rare that you see anyone in a movie actually work for it.  which is how things work in the real world.  someone discovers they are the chosen one, inherit something, are just naturally fit despite never working out and eating junk food, are removed from their normal circumstances through no effort or choice of their own and then returned special, etc.  being exceptional in the real world means working for it.  the kind in movies, for the most part, is not in any way analogous.  remove the work and effort from it and it is not the same thing anymore.   #  physics/math are the only conceptually rigorous ones and they were not that bad.   #  yeah, i have two undergraduate majors in physics and economics from an ivy league and am currently in my 0rd year of an mba/jd.  i do not go to class, drink heavily on the weekends and frequently during the week, have a pretty bad marijuana habit and do not really study until a couple of days before any test.  i am pushing about a 0 over the course of my graduate career and finished undergraduate with a 0 with similar behavior.  so, i literally find 0 of the 0 topics you specifically mentioned to be more or less of a joke.  physics/math are the only conceptually rigorous ones and they were not that bad.
i could talk for days about this topic, but the evidence a combination of anecdotal and empirical has lead me to conclude that mediocrity and ignorance is actively, globally encouraged, and particularly so in the united states.    politicians can actually be criticized for being too smart, there should be no such thing as too smart   schools actively promote the idea that everyone is okay as they are.  i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement   ivy league and similar students are considered smarter than their peers, but most of the student body got there through money or nepotism i have personally experienced this   building off the previous point, very, very few people at any ivy and similar are actually intelligent   there are no difficult subjects to learn.    the emphasis on specialization of learning/skill encourages weakness and ignorance rather than strength and knowledge   standardized tests are farcically easy   many parts of the country actually have an active disdain of critical thinking and reasoning   math and science are often viewed as difficult or onerous   the entirety of the body acceptance movement if you would like me to clarify anything, please do not hesitate to ask.  i would like to believe that we as a species are going somewhere.   #  there are no difficult subjects to learn.   #  i do not know how to respond to that.   # i have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self improvement schools promote the idea that you should feel comfortable with who you are.  beliefs, heritage, sexual orientation, etc.  i do not believe that this stifles self improvement.  actually, i think that it  helps  kids improve themselves, as it gives kids a sense of identity.  does that mean that all ivy league students are rich snobs who do not know anything and just ride off the back of their daddies  paycheck ? not necessarily.  i do not know how to respond to that.  do you really believe that all subjects are easy ? i am not sure i entirely understand you point here.  could you pleas elaborate ? how would you rather us test a large number of people ? where i come from, critical thinking/reasoning is a a highly regarded skill.  math and science are both subjects that you have to actually work for.  as many online science videos series ie minutephysics has shown us, the public is interested in this stuff, they just do not want to put in the hours.  most people who are not happy with being fat want to loose weight because they want to be healthy, not because society scorns them for being fat.  although that is a factor one of the reasons that fat people do not work out is because they do not want people thinking  hey, look the fat guy is working out again.   if the general public would accept fat people for who they are, it would make it easier for them to get healthier and  less mediocre   #  if not, i will find it difficult to accept your view as reasonable due to a lack of supportive evidence.   #  as a graduate student, i can tell you that in higher education this is not even remotely true.  we are constantly competing to publish better papers, in better journals, and picking apart each others work peer review .  i am mostly curious though about where you are getting your information.  are you basing this off of actual sociological studies ? if so please provide sources.  if not, i will find it difficult to accept your view as reasonable due to a lack of supportive evidence.   #  one of the major tenets of us culture is our capitalism.   #  you seem to focus relatively heavily on education for a big part of it, which makes it sound like a frustrated student is rant more than an analysis of us culture at large.  one of the major tenets of us culture is our capitalism.  there is a major push to gain money and claw your way to the top of some corporate ladder.  everyone wants to be rich, everyone is trying to be rich.  from start ups to lotteries to even the real incentive of college education, it is all very much focused on acquisition and achievement.   #  someone discovers they are the chosen one, inherit something, are just naturally fit despite never working out and eating junk food, are removed from their normal circumstances through no effort or choice of their own and then returned special, etc.   #  true, but they are usually given exceptionalism.  it is pretty rare that you see anyone in a movie actually work for it.  which is how things work in the real world.  someone discovers they are the chosen one, inherit something, are just naturally fit despite never working out and eating junk food, are removed from their normal circumstances through no effort or choice of their own and then returned special, etc.  being exceptional in the real world means working for it.  the kind in movies, for the most part, is not in any way analogous.  remove the work and effort from it and it is not the same thing anymore.   #  i do not go to class, drink heavily on the weekends and frequently during the week, have a pretty bad marijuana habit and do not really study until a couple of days before any test.   #  yeah, i have two undergraduate majors in physics and economics from an ivy league and am currently in my 0rd year of an mba/jd.  i do not go to class, drink heavily on the weekends and frequently during the week, have a pretty bad marijuana habit and do not really study until a couple of days before any test.  i am pushing about a 0 over the course of my graduate career and finished undergraduate with a 0 with similar behavior.  so, i literally find 0 of the 0 topics you specifically mentioned to be more or less of a joke.  physics/math are the only conceptually rigorous ones and they were not that bad.
for title clarification, i am not referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post  the mass effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time.  now that my bias is clear, i want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below is the reason i would like my view changed.  i apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass.  needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who have played the series, but if you are not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in.  so here is the brunt of my cmv: if you let any one of your squadmates die, unless their deaths are unavoidable you are: a.  incompetent talk to squadmates semi regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and for gaben is sake put some points into persuade you neanderthal ! , and do not make stupid yes stupid choices during the final me0 mission.  it is really not that difficult with a little common sense ! rng killed mordin during the suicide mission ? reload a damn save.  it is worth it dammit ! b.  rushing/missing the damn point of the game do not give me that  i do not have time  crap; you bought an rpg ! you are already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci fi universe you paid good money for ? you get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  c.  unfit to fairly criticize the series firstly, i want to say that i do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was see the original kapysharn plot outline for details .  however despite its shortcomings, i believe that the real heart of the mass effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters.  with only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of shepard is crew are interesting, fleshed out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  for example, spoilers me0 seeing wrex grow from a mere gun for hire in me0 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the genophage free krogan in me0 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  similarly, the leap of faith shepard takes when trusting legion on rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the quarians and geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  without these experiences, yeah, mass effect 0 did not live up to the hype.  how could it ? it is such a hollow victory watching wreav royally screw things up, or watching tali commit suicide.  in my opinion, it is a complete waste of the player is time going about it that way.  regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, i believe there is one right way to play mass effect: a completionist run where no one dies.  i need help guys.  it is getting to the point where i ca not even discuss mass effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet.  hell, i have put one of my friends off playing the games because i was backseat gaming during his playthrough.  i want to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it is different for me when it comes to mass effect in particular.  please, cmv ! bah, apologies ! i am rambling, it is late, but i look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing ! thanks guys !  #  do not make stupid yes stupid choices during the final me0 mission.   #  it is really not that difficult with a little common sense !  # it is really not that difficult with a little common sense ! rng killed mordin during the suicide mission ? reload a damn save.  it is worth it dammit ! the first time i played through me0, i lost thane on the very first decision.  need someone stealthy to infiltrate some ventilation ? the dude is one of the greatest assassins in the galaxy, surely he is up for some infiltration ! nope.  he died.  had i known it was more of a  techy  assignment and not a  stealth  assignment, i may have chosen differently.  but the game did not make that clear, and i stand by my decision at the time with the information i had available.  it was not a stupid decision.  failure with real consequences is a lot scarier than failure with no consequence.  fear of failure is what makes our victories satisfying.  there is a great episode of the twilight zone called a nice place to visit URL that offers an interesting take on this, i recommend it ! so, maybe i have to go in to the next game down a character or two, but you will never experience the palm sweating, gut wrenching intensity i get to experience when i play my games, because my choices  matter.  you may as well be playing with cheat codes.  to put it in perspective, after thane died and the next decision came up.  i sat rocking in my chair for probably 0 minutes, juggling ideas and mentally playing through every possible outcome.  it was agony.  and it made it all the sweeter when i did not lose anyone else.  i am sad for you, as you never got to experience that sweet, sweet torture.  i agree with most of your other points, except the stuff like this:   it is such a hollow victory watching wreav royally screw things up, or watching tali commit suicide.  in my opinion, it is a complete waste of the player is time going about it that way.  how can you say something like that ? ! some of the most popular stories of all time are  tragedies ! the me series actually gives you the chance not just to watch one unfold, but to  actively participate.  people may find, say,  romeo and juliet  to be a great tragic story.  but nothing compares with seeing a beloved character die and knowing  it is your fault this happened.  i think you are approaching the series like a gamer, and not like someone who is interested in being told a great story.  while most games reward the former, mass effect was designed to accommodate the latter, as well.  stop trying to  win  or be  optimal  and enjoy the roller coaster of emotions the series can send you on, if you let it !  #  which is why you saying in your op that you can load a save and fix it is just.  might as well play with cheats then.   #  what about shepard vowing to never lose another man again and then he does ? how emotional is that ? i do not know, i can honestly say it is one of my favorite franchises precisely because of its reality and its hard choices.  when mordin died after curing the genophage i sat in my chair for god knows how long just muttering,  no.  no way.  no,  like a mad person.  that is  how you make a game that leaves an impact.  as for getting less content, the games are definitely replayable and you can make different choices on your subsequent runs.  hell, you can even look it up on some guides online and do a  perfect  run, but i do not think that is as satisfying as actually seeing your choices matter.  which is why you saying in your op that you can load a save and fix it is just.  might as well play with cheats then.  getting a perfect run is not the point of the games at all.   #  however, i am sure you have heard the phrase  less is more.    # absolutely true.  however, i am sure you have heard the phrase  less is more.   in this case, it applies.  in my first me0 playthrough, i lost wrex.  he was my favorite character, and i had to suffer through 0 watching wreav royally screw things up.  however, it made me appreciate his loss that much more,  and  inspired me to do a later playthrough with a different outcome.  i did not get  less  content than you, i just got  different  content than you.  and then, when i replayed it, i made different choices and got different outcomes again, so i actually got  more  content than someone who refuses to play any different way.  sidenote: is your username a reference to ogre battle 0 ? if so, i we clearly have very similar taste in games !  #  that being said, i got lucky my first time through and did not lose anyone until me0, excluding virmire.   #  because reality is what  we  are.  the game is not.  making the game as close to reality as possible for example, no save scumming is what makes the emotional attachment so strong.  tali is gone.  you ca not fix that.  shit.  she is really gone.  and i could have/should have prevented that.  why did not i take care of that loyalty mission ? why did not i bring her with me to the fight against the reaper instead of garrus ? if you save scum, you get detached from the consequences, which makes the game less impactful.  that being said, i got lucky my first time through and did not lose anyone until me0, excluding virmire.   #  is not that ignoring the consequences to an extent as well ?  #  maybe it just because i generally go for 0 completion, but i too happened to be just as lucky on my first runthroughs in that i lost no one except for those 0 main unavoidable deaths.  i dunno, maybe pulling it off the way i did for my initial playthroughs of each game has made me biased into thinking that it was easy or  correct .  on save scumming, i see where you are coming from but i have to disagree that detachment from consequences is a negative thing.  how is reloading a save to get a more favorable result in the narrative any different from loading one if your character dies during combat gameplay ? is not that ignoring the consequences to an extent as well ? i am not advocating adopting a permadeath approach, but how is it any different ? as long as the player  still  has to put the effort forward and play the game, it should not matter how many times the game is reloaded.
for title clarification, i am not referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post  the mass effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time.  now that my bias is clear, i want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below is the reason i would like my view changed.  i apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass.  needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who have played the series, but if you are not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in.  so here is the brunt of my cmv: if you let any one of your squadmates die, unless their deaths are unavoidable you are: a.  incompetent talk to squadmates semi regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and for gaben is sake put some points into persuade you neanderthal ! , and do not make stupid yes stupid choices during the final me0 mission.  it is really not that difficult with a little common sense ! rng killed mordin during the suicide mission ? reload a damn save.  it is worth it dammit ! b.  rushing/missing the damn point of the game do not give me that  i do not have time  crap; you bought an rpg ! you are already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci fi universe you paid good money for ? you get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  c.  unfit to fairly criticize the series firstly, i want to say that i do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was see the original kapysharn plot outline for details .  however despite its shortcomings, i believe that the real heart of the mass effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters.  with only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of shepard is crew are interesting, fleshed out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  for example, spoilers me0 seeing wrex grow from a mere gun for hire in me0 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the genophage free krogan in me0 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  similarly, the leap of faith shepard takes when trusting legion on rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the quarians and geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  without these experiences, yeah, mass effect 0 did not live up to the hype.  how could it ? it is such a hollow victory watching wreav royally screw things up, or watching tali commit suicide.  in my opinion, it is a complete waste of the player is time going about it that way.  regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, i believe there is one right way to play mass effect: a completionist run where no one dies.  i need help guys.  it is getting to the point where i ca not even discuss mass effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet.  hell, i have put one of my friends off playing the games because i was backseat gaming during his playthrough.  i want to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it is different for me when it comes to mass effect in particular.  please, cmv ! bah, apologies ! i am rambling, it is late, but i look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing ! thanks guys !  #  so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.   #  as much as i agree with the sentiment, you do not.   # is it ? especially on your the first playthrough you are losing your personal mass effect story in favour of someone else is.  if you complete me0 perfectly apart from mordin dying, it is going to still be your own personal story that most other people wo not experience.  reloading saves takes away so much from the game.  i do not think i ever reloaded a save in me because i did not like a choice or the way something turned out.  it was my mass effect story unique to me.  as much as i agree with the sentiment, you do not.  i am going to keep going back to the idea of mass effect being a personal story.  if you are somebody that wants to rush through the game, your shepard will be too.  shepard becomes an extension of your person, you can see how your actions and choices affect the universe, you do not just see john shepard defeating the reapers, you see /u/wehavecrashed shepard defeating the reapers, and with that comes a lot of emotion.  the game has plenty of difficulty levels, some for the story, some for the action.  except mordin.  you can never experience everything mass effect has to offer in one playthrough, why not take that in stride and not try to ? two playthroughs that are  imperfect  according to you will still offer you more than one  perfect  playthrough.   #  to put it in perspective, after thane died and the next decision came up.  i sat rocking in my chair for probably 0 minutes, juggling ideas and mentally playing through every possible outcome.   # it is really not that difficult with a little common sense ! rng killed mordin during the suicide mission ? reload a damn save.  it is worth it dammit ! the first time i played through me0, i lost thane on the very first decision.  need someone stealthy to infiltrate some ventilation ? the dude is one of the greatest assassins in the galaxy, surely he is up for some infiltration ! nope.  he died.  had i known it was more of a  techy  assignment and not a  stealth  assignment, i may have chosen differently.  but the game did not make that clear, and i stand by my decision at the time with the information i had available.  it was not a stupid decision.  failure with real consequences is a lot scarier than failure with no consequence.  fear of failure is what makes our victories satisfying.  there is a great episode of the twilight zone called a nice place to visit URL that offers an interesting take on this, i recommend it ! so, maybe i have to go in to the next game down a character or two, but you will never experience the palm sweating, gut wrenching intensity i get to experience when i play my games, because my choices  matter.  you may as well be playing with cheat codes.  to put it in perspective, after thane died and the next decision came up.  i sat rocking in my chair for probably 0 minutes, juggling ideas and mentally playing through every possible outcome.  it was agony.  and it made it all the sweeter when i did not lose anyone else.  i am sad for you, as you never got to experience that sweet, sweet torture.  i agree with most of your other points, except the stuff like this:   it is such a hollow victory watching wreav royally screw things up, or watching tali commit suicide.  in my opinion, it is a complete waste of the player is time going about it that way.  how can you say something like that ? ! some of the most popular stories of all time are  tragedies ! the me series actually gives you the chance not just to watch one unfold, but to  actively participate.  people may find, say,  romeo and juliet  to be a great tragic story.  but nothing compares with seeing a beloved character die and knowing  it is your fault this happened.  i think you are approaching the series like a gamer, and not like someone who is interested in being told a great story.  while most games reward the former, mass effect was designed to accommodate the latter, as well.  stop trying to  win  or be  optimal  and enjoy the roller coaster of emotions the series can send you on, if you let it !  #  as for getting less content, the games are definitely replayable and you can make different choices on your subsequent runs.   #  what about shepard vowing to never lose another man again and then he does ? how emotional is that ? i do not know, i can honestly say it is one of my favorite franchises precisely because of its reality and its hard choices.  when mordin died after curing the genophage i sat in my chair for god knows how long just muttering,  no.  no way.  no,  like a mad person.  that is  how you make a game that leaves an impact.  as for getting less content, the games are definitely replayable and you can make different choices on your subsequent runs.  hell, you can even look it up on some guides online and do a  perfect  run, but i do not think that is as satisfying as actually seeing your choices matter.  which is why you saying in your op that you can load a save and fix it is just.  might as well play with cheats then.  getting a perfect run is not the point of the games at all.   #  he was my favorite character, and i had to suffer through 0 watching wreav royally screw things up.   # absolutely true.  however, i am sure you have heard the phrase  less is more.   in this case, it applies.  in my first me0 playthrough, i lost wrex.  he was my favorite character, and i had to suffer through 0 watching wreav royally screw things up.  however, it made me appreciate his loss that much more,  and  inspired me to do a later playthrough with a different outcome.  i did not get  less  content than you, i just got  different  content than you.  and then, when i replayed it, i made different choices and got different outcomes again, so i actually got  more  content than someone who refuses to play any different way.  sidenote: is your username a reference to ogre battle 0 ? if so, i we clearly have very similar taste in games !  #  why did not i take care of that loyalty mission ?  #  because reality is what  we  are.  the game is not.  making the game as close to reality as possible for example, no save scumming is what makes the emotional attachment so strong.  tali is gone.  you ca not fix that.  shit.  she is really gone.  and i could have/should have prevented that.  why did not i take care of that loyalty mission ? why did not i bring her with me to the fight against the reaper instead of garrus ? if you save scum, you get detached from the consequences, which makes the game less impactful.  that being said, i got lucky my first time through and did not lose anyone until me0, excluding virmire.
for title clarification, i am not referring to either of the paragon or renegade affiliations as the main topic for this post  the mass effect games, however flawed though they may be, are some of my favorite games of all time.  now that my bias is clear, i want to say that the completely irrational anger that you may see in the post below is the reason i would like my view changed.  i apologize for offending anyone and for sounding like an ass.  needless to say, this post is really only meant for those who have played the series, but if you are not afraid of spoilers then feel free to chime in.  so here is the brunt of my cmv: if you let any one of your squadmates die, unless their deaths are unavoidable you are: a.  incompetent talk to squadmates semi regularly, do the loyalty missions, buy the ship upgrades, and for gaben is sake put some points into persuade you neanderthal ! , and do not make stupid yes stupid choices during the final me0 mission.  it is really not that difficult with a little common sense ! rng killed mordin during the suicide mission ? reload a damn save.  it is worth it dammit ! b.  rushing/missing the damn point of the game do not give me that  i do not have time  crap; you bought an rpg ! you are already taking a good bit time to play the game, so why not take a little more and immerse yourself in the sexy sci fi universe you paid good money for ? you get so much more out of the experience if you just take the time to explore.  c.  unfit to fairly criticize the series firstly, i want to say that i do agree with most of the criticisms of the plot and that it could have been much better than what it was see the original kapysharn plot outline for details .  however despite its shortcomings, i believe that the real heart of the mass effect franchise lies not with the story or the narrative, but with its characters.  with only a couple exceptions, the vast majority of shepard is crew are interesting, fleshed out characters, each with their own flaws and redeeming qualities.  for example, spoilers me0 seeing wrex grow from a mere gun for hire in me0 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the genophage free krogan in me0 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.  similarly, the leap of faith shepard takes when trusting legion on rannoch, thus ending hundreds of years of conflict and bringing the quarians and geth together was immensely satisfying and could easily qualify for /r/frission material.  without these experiences, yeah, mass effect 0 did not live up to the hype.  how could it ? it is such a hollow victory watching wreav royally screw things up, or watching tali commit suicide.  in my opinion, it is a complete waste of the player is time going about it that way.  regardless of paragon or renegade alignment, i believe there is one right way to play mass effect: a completionist run where no one dies.  i need help guys.  it is getting to the point where i ca not even discuss mass effect with others without judging someone for letting my favorite characters bite the bullet.  hell, i have put one of my friends off playing the games because i was backseat gaming during his playthrough.  i want to believe that games should be played however the player wants to play them, but for whatever reason it is different for me when it comes to mass effect in particular.  please, cmv ! bah, apologies ! i am rambling, it is late, but i look forward to catching up with your comments tomorrow first thing ! thanks guys !  #  for example, spoilers me0 seeing wrex grow from a mere gun for hire in me0 to the responsible, yet still badass leader of the genophage free krogan in me0 was one of the most gratifying experiences of my gaming career.   #  i would like to argue this point.   # i would like to argue this point.  because fuck wrex and fuck the krogan.  the krogan were a violent warrior race that essentially acted like the rachni, attempting to destroy the rest of the races in the galaxy.  why did the genophage even happen ? because the krogan were trying to  wipe everyone else the fuck out .  remember, this is the race who  annihilated three planets full of people  in an attempt to expand a little more.  and then wrex wants to bitch to me about how his people are so oppressed and the genophage is a great injustice ? you would not have been neutered if you had not tried to  kill everyone else  ! no, the genophage was totally justified, and wrex should be killed in me0 for suggesting otherwise.  he told shepard he would be ! sure.  and the krogan told the salarians and asari the same thing millenia ago.  even when you are on tuchanka to get to the shroud, wrex already admits that he is going to demand substantial territorial concessions from the council.  so no, fuck the krogan.  the right choice there was keeping the genophage active.  also, as an aside, jack was a bitch, and i enjoyed watching her die.   #  it is really not that difficult with a little common sense !  # it is really not that difficult with a little common sense ! rng killed mordin during the suicide mission ? reload a damn save.  it is worth it dammit ! the first time i played through me0, i lost thane on the very first decision.  need someone stealthy to infiltrate some ventilation ? the dude is one of the greatest assassins in the galaxy, surely he is up for some infiltration ! nope.  he died.  had i known it was more of a  techy  assignment and not a  stealth  assignment, i may have chosen differently.  but the game did not make that clear, and i stand by my decision at the time with the information i had available.  it was not a stupid decision.  failure with real consequences is a lot scarier than failure with no consequence.  fear of failure is what makes our victories satisfying.  there is a great episode of the twilight zone called a nice place to visit URL that offers an interesting take on this, i recommend it ! so, maybe i have to go in to the next game down a character or two, but you will never experience the palm sweating, gut wrenching intensity i get to experience when i play my games, because my choices  matter.  you may as well be playing with cheat codes.  to put it in perspective, after thane died and the next decision came up.  i sat rocking in my chair for probably 0 minutes, juggling ideas and mentally playing through every possible outcome.  it was agony.  and it made it all the sweeter when i did not lose anyone else.  i am sad for you, as you never got to experience that sweet, sweet torture.  i agree with most of your other points, except the stuff like this:   it is such a hollow victory watching wreav royally screw things up, or watching tali commit suicide.  in my opinion, it is a complete waste of the player is time going about it that way.  how can you say something like that ? ! some of the most popular stories of all time are  tragedies ! the me series actually gives you the chance not just to watch one unfold, but to  actively participate.  people may find, say,  romeo and juliet  to be a great tragic story.  but nothing compares with seeing a beloved character die and knowing  it is your fault this happened.  i think you are approaching the series like a gamer, and not like someone who is interested in being told a great story.  while most games reward the former, mass effect was designed to accommodate the latter, as well.  stop trying to  win  or be  optimal  and enjoy the roller coaster of emotions the series can send you on, if you let it !  #  i do not know, i can honestly say it is one of my favorite franchises precisely because of its reality and its hard choices.   #  what about shepard vowing to never lose another man again and then he does ? how emotional is that ? i do not know, i can honestly say it is one of my favorite franchises precisely because of its reality and its hard choices.  when mordin died after curing the genophage i sat in my chair for god knows how long just muttering,  no.  no way.  no,  like a mad person.  that is  how you make a game that leaves an impact.  as for getting less content, the games are definitely replayable and you can make different choices on your subsequent runs.  hell, you can even look it up on some guides online and do a  perfect  run, but i do not think that is as satisfying as actually seeing your choices matter.  which is why you saying in your op that you can load a save and fix it is just.  might as well play with cheats then.  getting a perfect run is not the point of the games at all.   #  and then, when i replayed it, i made different choices and got different outcomes again, so i actually got  more  content than someone who refuses to play any different way.   # absolutely true.  however, i am sure you have heard the phrase  less is more.   in this case, it applies.  in my first me0 playthrough, i lost wrex.  he was my favorite character, and i had to suffer through 0 watching wreav royally screw things up.  however, it made me appreciate his loss that much more,  and  inspired me to do a later playthrough with a different outcome.  i did not get  less  content than you, i just got  different  content than you.  and then, when i replayed it, i made different choices and got different outcomes again, so i actually got  more  content than someone who refuses to play any different way.  sidenote: is your username a reference to ogre battle 0 ? if so, i we clearly have very similar taste in games !  #  that being said, i got lucky my first time through and did not lose anyone until me0, excluding virmire.   #  because reality is what  we  are.  the game is not.  making the game as close to reality as possible for example, no save scumming is what makes the emotional attachment so strong.  tali is gone.  you ca not fix that.  shit.  she is really gone.  and i could have/should have prevented that.  why did not i take care of that loyalty mission ? why did not i bring her with me to the fight against the reaper instead of garrus ? if you save scum, you get detached from the consequences, which makes the game less impactful.  that being said, i got lucky my first time through and did not lose anyone until me0, excluding virmire.
at present, income tax applies to salary and wages.  salary and wages are received in exchange for an individual is time.  to me, this represents an exchange of goods and services, but is not a profit, per se.  in addition, i have operating expenses as an individual food, clothing, shelter, transportation necessary for me to continue making a salary.  i should be able to write off my living expenses much like a corporation writes off it is operating expenses.  my logic for this view is as follows: people have certain rights and responsibilities in the united states.  the rights and responsibilities belonging to people were extended to corporations.  therefore, people should be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as corporations.  please change my view.  thanks !  #  the rights and responsibilities belonging to people were extended to corporations.   #  not all rights and responsibilities belonging to people were extended to corporations.   # not all rights and responsibilities belonging to people were extended to corporations.  for example, corporations ca not vote.  they also do not have the right to not self incriminate.  since corporations are still treated differently than people this completely refutes your conclusion that people should be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities.  they are similar but different.   #  basically  corporate personhood  refers to the fact that corporations can enter into contracts, sue, and be sued, and pay taxes as if they were individuals.   #  first off, none of this has anything to do with corporate personhood.  a lot of people who have absolutely no idea what they are taking about are spreading a bunch of misinformation about what corporate personhood is.  basically  corporate personhood  refers to the fact that corporations can enter into contracts, sue, and be sued, and pay taxes as if they were individuals.  this is because it would be a logistical nightmare if these transactions had to be done with each shareholder individually.  that is really all it is.  furthermore, the deductibility of business expenses has nothing to do with corporate status.  a partnership or sole proprietorship other types of businesses can deduct business expenses as well.  in fact, even as an employee you can deduct certain job related expenses.  the key thing is that deductible expenses are, in general, expenses incurred for the purpose of helping you make money, and not money you spend for your personal consumption.  that, not corporate status, is the distinction.  there is also the fact that you get a standard deduction of $0 or so.  i believe the idea is that this is the bare minimum needed for survival, with everything above that being for your personal comfort or pleasure, and thus taxable.   #  would not a 0 bedroom apartment be adequate shelter ?  #  is not this the case as it is ? you do not pay income tax below a certain threshold, which is close to enough to pay for basic funding.  the issue of deducting everything you need comes with what you view as a necessity and others would view as a luxury.  do you  need  a 0 square foot house in a nice area for one person ? would not a 0 bedroom apartment be adequate shelter ? what about transport ? do you  need  a car or is taking the bus a viable option ? if you do, what kind of car is really necessary ? do you  need  a half ton v0 0x0 pickup truck that gets 0 mpg city, or would you be fine in a hyundai .  same story with food.  i think we can all agree that you can survive off of ramen noodles, but while i think the generic store brand is enough to survive on, you may prefer to break the bank with maruchan instant lunch.  why should i spend and deduct my expenses in good faith while you break the bank with your brand name ramen and i have to foot the bill.   #  or  the all inclusive weeklong mexico retreat for our executives is essential for morale and team building, and serves as a compensation to attract and retain top talent.    #  i follow that, but your previous post was a complete non sequitor.  the fundamental difference between a corporation and a person is that the corporation exists to make money, while a person is existence goes well beyond that.  corporations do not just treat themselves to a new piece of machinery.  money spent by a corp is either to maintain or reinvest in the company, regardless of how its justified.  they are run by people with a bottom line in mind to be profitable.  they can use that to justify all kinds of excess.   renting office spcae downtown elevates our corporate profile and makes it easier to attract high quality candidates,  as opposed to renting at an office park in the suburbs, or operating out of a defunct motel in the ghetto.  or  the all inclusive weeklong mexico retreat for our executives is essential for morale and team building, and serves as a compensation to attract and retain top talent.   can you justify that renting a luxury condo or driving a bmw to work would make you any more profitable/productive than living in a studio appartment and driving a chevy geo to work ?  #  you need a place to live, but do you need to spend as much as you are currently spending on rent ?  #  that is what the standard deduction is for.  also, keep in mind that the average person spends less than half his waking hours working.  so even by your logic, only half of your living expenses should be deductible.  also, where do you draw the line between expenses to keep yourself in working condition and luxuries ? you need a place to live, but do you need to spend as much as you are currently spending on rent ? you need to eat, but do you need to spend as much on food as you do now ? the standard deduction, being about half the poverty line, looks like a pretty good estimate of the portion of the average person is living expenses that can be considered legitimate business expenses.
at present, income tax applies to salary and wages.  salary and wages are received in exchange for an individual is time.  to me, this represents an exchange of goods and services, but is not a profit, per se.  in addition, i have operating expenses as an individual food, clothing, shelter, transportation necessary for me to continue making a salary.  i should be able to write off my living expenses much like a corporation writes off it is operating expenses.  my logic for this view is as follows: people have certain rights and responsibilities in the united states.  the rights and responsibilities belonging to people were extended to corporations.  therefore, people should be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as corporations.  please change my view.  thanks !  #  i should be able to write off my living expenses much like a corporation writes off it is operating expenses.   #  you do not understand how taxation works.   # you do not understand how taxation works.  businesses do not  write off  operating expenses.  what a business writes off is losses, such as the depreciation of an asset is value.  individuals can do the same thing, by the way.  for example, i have a rental property that i own and each year i can deduct the amount of its estimated depreciation in value.  you can also deduct expenses like mortgage interest, student loan interest, and so on.  also, individuals get deductions and credits that corporations do not get.  for example, $0,0 for every minor child.   #  furthermore, the deductibility of business expenses has nothing to do with corporate status.   #  first off, none of this has anything to do with corporate personhood.  a lot of people who have absolutely no idea what they are taking about are spreading a bunch of misinformation about what corporate personhood is.  basically  corporate personhood  refers to the fact that corporations can enter into contracts, sue, and be sued, and pay taxes as if they were individuals.  this is because it would be a logistical nightmare if these transactions had to be done with each shareholder individually.  that is really all it is.  furthermore, the deductibility of business expenses has nothing to do with corporate status.  a partnership or sole proprietorship other types of businesses can deduct business expenses as well.  in fact, even as an employee you can deduct certain job related expenses.  the key thing is that deductible expenses are, in general, expenses incurred for the purpose of helping you make money, and not money you spend for your personal consumption.  that, not corporate status, is the distinction.  there is also the fact that you get a standard deduction of $0 or so.  i believe the idea is that this is the bare minimum needed for survival, with everything above that being for your personal comfort or pleasure, and thus taxable.   #  do you  need  a 0 square foot house in a nice area for one person ?  #  is not this the case as it is ? you do not pay income tax below a certain threshold, which is close to enough to pay for basic funding.  the issue of deducting everything you need comes with what you view as a necessity and others would view as a luxury.  do you  need  a 0 square foot house in a nice area for one person ? would not a 0 bedroom apartment be adequate shelter ? what about transport ? do you  need  a car or is taking the bus a viable option ? if you do, what kind of car is really necessary ? do you  need  a half ton v0 0x0 pickup truck that gets 0 mpg city, or would you be fine in a hyundai .  same story with food.  i think we can all agree that you can survive off of ramen noodles, but while i think the generic store brand is enough to survive on, you may prefer to break the bank with maruchan instant lunch.  why should i spend and deduct my expenses in good faith while you break the bank with your brand name ramen and i have to foot the bill.   #  the fundamental difference between a corporation and a person is that the corporation exists to make money, while a person is existence goes well beyond that.   #  i follow that, but your previous post was a complete non sequitor.  the fundamental difference between a corporation and a person is that the corporation exists to make money, while a person is existence goes well beyond that.  corporations do not just treat themselves to a new piece of machinery.  money spent by a corp is either to maintain or reinvest in the company, regardless of how its justified.  they are run by people with a bottom line in mind to be profitable.  they can use that to justify all kinds of excess.   renting office spcae downtown elevates our corporate profile and makes it easier to attract high quality candidates,  as opposed to renting at an office park in the suburbs, or operating out of a defunct motel in the ghetto.  or  the all inclusive weeklong mexico retreat for our executives is essential for morale and team building, and serves as a compensation to attract and retain top talent.   can you justify that renting a luxury condo or driving a bmw to work would make you any more profitable/productive than living in a studio appartment and driving a chevy geo to work ?  #  also, where do you draw the line between expenses to keep yourself in working condition and luxuries ?  #  that is what the standard deduction is for.  also, keep in mind that the average person spends less than half his waking hours working.  so even by your logic, only half of your living expenses should be deductible.  also, where do you draw the line between expenses to keep yourself in working condition and luxuries ? you need a place to live, but do you need to spend as much as you are currently spending on rent ? you need to eat, but do you need to spend as much on food as you do now ? the standard deduction, being about half the poverty line, looks like a pretty good estimate of the portion of the average person is living expenses that can be considered legitimate business expenses.
we all believe athletes should be rewarded for their effort and ability, rather than some external factor, so we take measures in the name fairness and a level playing field for all by penalising those athletes who give themselves an artificial advantage.  however, this really does not seem fair to me at all.  why should not an athlete be allowed to alter themselves through drugs or doping or other methods ? let me explain.  which brings me on to my second point.  a lot of those who take against peds or blood doping or surgery do so because they think it is some sort of shortcut magic pill that does the work of training for you and cheats the other harder working athletes out of their rightful success, but that is a misconception.  lance armstrong, probably the most famous recent  cheat , was not some regular guy propelled to success by virtue of the blood doping alone all doping did was allow him to work harder and longer and respond more effectively to training and thus to outperform his competitors.  if we believe competitive sport should reward effort, it seems like nonsense to take against blood doping when all it really does is enable athletes to put in more effort.  thirdly, at the level were doping, drugs etc are worth fussing about it seems lots of athletes are artificially interfering and there is a lot of vested interest in that remaining the case.  see for example: /r/sports/comments/0ia0m/tyson gay reportedly caught doping pulls out of/cb0jh0q .  surely it would be better to bring it above board both so it can be regulated and kept safe, and also publicly known so that fans can assess an athletes worth taking into consideration their natural advantages and disadvantages.  tl:dr: if we believe sports should reward effort, not luck, we have no reason to disallow athletes doing anything they can to themselves in order to succeed.  cmv.   #  if we believe sports should reward effort, not luck, we have no reason to disallow athletes doing anything they can to themselves in order to succeed.   #  we are not talking about trophies for everyone in kindergarten t ball.   # double jointedness implies that one has more than the normal number of joints.  this is not the case.  no, it wo not, because you could not possibly restrict michael phelps from further enhancing his performance using drugs, surgery, etc.  if everyone else was allowed to do so.  so he will not only have genetics on his side but also any performance enhancement he can dream up and afford to pay for.  we are not talking about trophies for everyone in kindergarten t ball.  we are talking top level competitive sports here.  you ca not  just  win the genetic lottery and beat everyone you must also put in the effort and training.  every single person competing at the pinnacle of their respective sport has a certain level of physicality associated with success in that sport.  at any rate, top performers are not rewarded for their effort they are rewarded for their performance.  dan jansen devoted his life to speed skating and people were sad for him when he kept tripping and falling at the olympics, but no one was going to hand him a gold medal just because he would worked so damn hard and had already broken multiple world records in speed skating.  imagine how many more would die if everyone doped by default.  because that is what would happen.  if the minimum level of  effort  required by your sport involves blood doping, everyone would do it or feel at a disadvantage if they were unable to do it for some reason.  it would be no different from the technology arms races seen in various sports from swimming to bobsledding.   #  as increasingly powerful drugs are produced in an attempt to stay ahead of the curve, two things will happen.   #  allowing athletes to do anything they can in order to succeed would lead to an arms race of enhancements that would ultimately prove highly dangerous to all involved.  performance enhancing drugs, like any other drugs, come with side effects.  a general principle is that the more powerful a drug, the more powerful the side effects.  as increasingly powerful drugs are produced in an attempt to stay ahead of the curve, two things will happen.  first, the window of time to test the product will decrease.  second, the dangerous side effects will also increase in efficacy.  performance enhancing drugs are regulated not in an attempt to keep the sport  fair  or  iskill based  but in an attempt to keep athletes alive.   #  the factor that differentiates the good from the best will be, like it is now, those with genetic advantages.   # phelps has the advantage of having precisely the perfect body for swimming.  if you add doping to the mix, then this will be your new post:   sure, he works supremely hard, much harder than any of us regular folk can imagine,  and sure he takes all the best drugs, much more than any of us regular folks can imagine , but so do all top tier athletes.  phelps has the advantage of having precisely the perfect body for swimming.  it appears your argument is that training cannot make someone spectacular because all top athletes get the very best training available.  using that same logic, drugs are not going to make anyone spectacular since all the top athletes will get the very best drugs available.  the factor that differentiates the good from the best will be, like it is now, those with genetic advantages.  the only difference will be that everyone is on drugs, and the issues that come with.  so your proposal will have no benefits and at least some detriments.   #  the problem is that this performance boost is not consequence free.   #  here is the rub: drugs do give a huge performance boost.  so big that in order for an athlete to stay competitive, they would have to dope.  we saw this even among fake athletes during the pro wrestling steroid scandal in the 0s and 0s.  the problem is that this performance boost is not consequence free.  by allowing doping, we are telling anyone who has to be a pro athlete  if you want to succeed in this, you have to cut your expected lifespan in half and live out the second half of your already shortened life with a host of health problems caused by the drugs you need to perform better now.   i, and many others, have  serious  moral problems with this, and it makes it a good incentive to say that these drugs are a problem, and should be illegal.   #  as distance runner joan nesbit mabe puts it,  a man can only become a faster man.   #  well, ability is  willuck  as well.  because swimming has an obscene number of medals.  but reiterer did not compete in sydney.  instead, he quit athletics, wrote a book about doping among the most disturbing published on the subject and dumped it in the host nation is lap just two months before the opening ceremony.    URL   in this book you will learn the story of a very promising discus thrower who rose up the ranks in australia and eventually the world.  you will learn that when he broke a junior world record, he was treated with indifference by a hypocritical system which perpetuated the problem while simultaneously denouncing it in the media.  werner went to two olympics as a  natural , steadfastly sticking to his guns.  in the end he gave in because  to go through all the pain and sacrifice, the hard winters, busting your guts morning and night, then to travel the world and be beaten by inferior athletes with inferior technique is very hard to deal with .   URL and, not that i am a big fan, it would destroy women is sports.  in some cases it already has left a big mark.  linn goldberg, a sports medicine specialist at oregon health   science university.  goldberg spoke as a medical expert, and does not espouse any theories on the persistence of women is records.  as distance runner joan nesbit mabe puts it,  a man can only become a faster man.  a woman can become a man and get faster.  they have a double boost.  a woman who becomes more male, she is basically not a woman.   URL in addition to what /u/diet gingerale wrote, think of children getting hgh doses so they grow up taller, steroids to build up muscle faster, which most probably happens already.  for instance, marion jones missed a test during high school.
i have seen countless crime related documentaries/interviews where people claim the reason they commit crimes robberies, violence is because there is nothing better to do and they  have not been given anything else to do .  i think this is an attempt to pass the blame to some one else and to not have to take responsibility for the terrible things these people do.  why should it be someone is responsibility to give these people something to do ? it seems like an extremely selfish attitude.  i am sure millions of people often feel like there is nothing to do but they do not go out onto the street and start harming people.  i think people are given plenty to do you just need to know how to help yourself.  finish school, find a job, have a hobby.  where is the logic/reason behind this view that it is some ones responsibility to give these people things to do otherwise they will go out and commit crime ?  #  finish school, find a job, have a hobby.   #  where is the logic/reason behind this view that it is some ones responsibility to give these people things to do otherwise they will go out and commit crime ?  # where is the logic/reason behind this view that it is some ones responsibility to give these people things to do otherwise they will go out and commit crime ? what do you have to say to the people who do not have enough money to go to school ? what about the people who no one will hire, or the people who have certain disabilities ? how do you respond to the people that would rather  live in jail  than live out on the streets.  this world is not as opportunistic as we middle class like to imagine it is.  some people really ca not get a job.  when people say  i had nothing else to do  are not trying to shift blame, rather they are explaining why they did it.   i tried all other options, and there was nothing for me to do, so i took the last option available to me: crime  i am in no way trying to justify their actions, but i find your  just get a job  response to be misinformed at best and downright insulting at worst.   #  on the other hand, if most robberies were caused by drugs, then we might instead by targeting those who abuse drugs.   #  the people saying this are not making excuses or shifting blame to someone else.  they are simply giving the motivations for their actions.  it would be like if most robbers said they robbed stores because of desperation for money.  if most robberies were caused by desperation, then we might respond by targeting those in desperate financial circumstances.  on the other hand, if most robberies were caused by drugs, then we might instead by targeting those who abuse drugs.  the motivation given does not have to justify or excuse their behavior; but it can provide valuable insight for those who want to catch and/or prevent future crimes from happening.   #  so long as the criminal  believes  that he is giving a motivation, then he is not shifting blame.   #  explaining the causal factors behind their behavior is not equivalent to shifting blame.  if they said  they did not provide me with things to do, and that is why its not my fault  then that would be shifting blame.  but without that trailing clause, they are just giving a cause that they believe encouraged them.  also, it does not have to be the sole motivation.  it does not even have to be an accurate one.  so long as the criminal  believes  that he is giving a motivation, then he is not shifting blame.  he is trying to investigate his subconscious and give away the secrets for the television/interviewer/whatever.  he is not a psychologist, so we do not expect him to understand what neurological chemical reactions responded to what stimulus, but what he  thinks  caused his behavior can be useful, or at least entertaining  #  they probably are not capable of deep retrospection to determine exactly what factors caused them to do what.   #  what motivates you or how you would behave is not really relevant.  you ca not just say  well, this does not motivate me to do x, so it ca not motivate him to do x.   perhaps you have the background, family, temperament, intelligence, personality, etc.  to respond appropriately when there is nothing to do, but that certainly is not the case for everyone.  a criminal could say  i was motivated by the color blue.   of course it sounds ridiculous to you in your circumstances, but the criminal could have a mental condition that responds aggressively to certain stimuli.  this goes the same for people who say they acted out of boredom.  furthermore, as i just said, their motivations do not have to be accurate.  these are criminals who were captured by the police.  they probably are not capable of deep retrospection to determine exactly what factors caused them to do what.  it is likely that they  really  believed they would have behaved differently if given something different to do.  regardless of the accuracy of that belief, its not shifting blame; its explaining motivations to the best of  their  ability.   #  it means those people will put themselves in a box and feel like success is out of reach while in reality it is just difficult.   #  i agree with most of what you said and was going to say something similar.  the only thing i am not so sure about is the idea that they are not really shifting blame.  i think some people are shifting blame.  that is not to say that this shifting of blame does not also have explanatory value, but insofar as a person says something else is at fault and does not take personal responsibility, that can be a negative.  it means those people will put themselves in a box and feel like success is out of reach while in reality it is just difficult.  now, if people from the outside look at those excuses and view them instead as reasons or contributing factors that can be beneficial i think that was your point ? .  outside forces do make it much more likely for people to behave in certain ways, especially when you look at it on a societal instead of a personal level.
clarifications based on anticipated confusion: 0.  i am  not  saying simple enough that  all  high school students  should  memorize them; i am saying simple enough that almost anyone could, if they were struck by the impulse to make that unusually large commitment, do so.  like, most people do not memorize all of romeo and juliet.  but most people, i think, if they really wanted to,  could.   0.  i am not interested in hearing any arguments that are based in any way on what the laws are, right now, except by way of comparison.  this includes the constitution.  seriously this is not what i want to argue here, but i am 0 on board with trashing the us constitution and starting from scratch with new documents, so appealing to the constitution is not on topic.  i am not a fan of extreme simplification, but i think the american legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.  i think the law should be simple enough that close to anybody could reasonably know the mechanics of all the laws likely to apply to them.  ideally, it should be a relatively simple feat of memorization to learn the names of all the categories of law; the number of laws in each category; and the basic mechanics of the enforcement of that category is laws.  by categories, i mean things like: criminal law; the tax code; any given category of regulation by profession medical, construction, it, and so on .  i would be fine with memorizing all the laws being a feat on par with memorizing the bible; but it should be well within the average citizen is capacity to know all the laws likely to apply to them, word for word or close to it.  0.  i am not arguing that a shorter legal code is by definition easy to understand.  i am not arguing that the average high school student should be able to achieve a lawyer is level of expertise in any given aspect.  i am defending the memorization criterion as a way to limit the total length and vagueness of a set of laws.   #  i am not a fan of extreme simplification, but i think the american legal system has gotten out of hand in complexity.   #  do you have any evidence for this ?  # i am not sure i understand your point is it that there are too many laws or that they are difficult to understand ? i do not think that the ability to memorize a law or set of laws is a good measure of how understandable a law is.  i can recite  jabberwocky  from memory, but it is literally composed primarily of nonsense words.  do you have any evidence for this ? the law is complex in order to reduce ambiguity.  one of my favorite examples URL is about vehicles.  say an ordinance is passed that is very simply written so that anyone can understand it.   no vehicles are allowed in the park.   seems straightforward, and anyone can understand it.  but can they ? according to the dictionary, a vehicle is a thing used for transporting people and goods.  could that be a bicycle ? a wheelchair ? shopping cart ? stroller ? rollerblades ? a pogo stick ? a car ? truck ? motorcycle ? snowmobile ? a rolling suitcase ? so you would have to refine that language.   no motorized vehicles are allowed in the park.   but that does not quite work, does it ? what about motorized wheelchairs ? or segways ? or remote controlled toy cars and trucks ? what about the trolley that is run  by  the park to get people from the boat launch to the parking lot ? and what about that boat launch ? is it acceptable to bring a motorized vehicle into the park for the purposes of launching it into the public waterway ? too much ambiguity leaves too much room for argument, which is why the law is so complex.  it surely can venture into needless complexity, but it would be impossible to distill the entire body of statutory documentation produced by one is county, state, and the federal government into a book the size of the bible, even if you ruthlessly excised every law deemed to be outdated, redundant, or only applying to very specialized circumstances.   #  i am trying to get you to be specific because i am trying to make the point that laws are not complex for the sake of being complex, they are complex because they deal with complex systems.   #  in practice, contract law tends to have very little effect on constraining derivative markets.  i am trying to get you to be specific because i am trying to make the point that laws are not complex for the sake of being complex, they are complex because they deal with complex systems.  your point seems to be the opposite: that complex laws create complex systems.  i am looking for specifics because i am trying to show you where your point of view is weaker.  in some situations, complex systems predate the laws governing them, and to make simple laws regarding them is both naive and ineffective.   #  gold is an example in many places throughout history.   #  there is such a thing as a substance which is understood to have intrinsic value.  gold is an example in many places throughout history.  it can be used as a medium of exchange in an abstraction of bartering, in a way that is similar to the use of money.  but when it manifests in the form of uniformly crafted objects that are by definition interchangeable with each other, it does so through the mechanism of a legal system.  the only possible exception i can think of is cryptocurrency like bitcoin, about which we could have a very interesting but totally irrelevant discussion about whether code is law.  but the main take away is that money has never manifested in a way that was not explicitly within, and built on the context of, a discrete, discernible legal system.  yes, you are right.  bartering becomes unfeasible as society grows.  the mechanism by which the increased complexity of society is sustained  is  government.  when people in a community collectively agree on sets of rules to all follow like: all the shiny metal disks stamped with this picture of the emperor is face are interchangeable, but nobody is allowed to forge them without permission that is governance.  that is law.  there is no escaping it: literally the difference between money and other media of exchange is that it is regulated by an explicit collective agreement among the group using it which is what law is.   #  comprehension is important only insofar as it allows the law to be interpreted and enforced in a reasonable, consistent way.   #  honestly, apart from certain very general laws, people only are really required to be knowledgable of the laws they work with on a day to day basis.  like, for example, for legal reasons at my workplace, we are required to wash our tools in a very specific way to prevent the transmission of disease food service .  obviously, the general public would not be knowledgable of how exactly such a process works, but we literally do it every day.  this is how most laws work.  they are completely arcane to all except those tasked with writing, interpreting and enforcing them and those that they directly affect, and that is okay.  comprehension is important only insofar as it allows the law to be interpreted and enforced in a reasonable, consistent way.   #  but that is usually not true it is usually not even possible.   #  right exactly.  that is why i brought up categorization.  if you work in food service, you should be able to fully learn the set of laws that govern professional food service.  if you are a mechanic, you should be able to learn all the laws about motor vehicle maintenance.  if you are an accountant, you should be able to learn all the laws in the tax code.  and so on.  the problem is that we are affected by collections of laws that directly relate to the way we interact with things in our daily lives, in ways that are beyond our understanding.  did you know it is literally a felony to violate a website is terms of service ? i assume you do, since you are on reddit.  artists mostly do not understand copyright law.  tax professionals have openly said that nobody knows how many tax laws there are.  traffic law is a good example of this, i think.  idk about where you live, but in my state nh you get a booklet that literally has all the road laws in it when you are in drivers ed.  the assumption is that if you do the thing like driving you know all the laws about doing it.  but that is usually not true it is usually not even possible.
there seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their so/partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact.  i understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.  there are a few assumptions underlying the belief that  sex with another person relationship over  that i do not think hold up.     sex is the most important part of a relationship,  and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end.  my belief: sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not  the  most important part.  immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive.     nobody makes mistakes ever,  so when they do, the relationship should end.  my belief: obviously this is not true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.     cheaters will always cheat again,  so better to end it now.  my view: that may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, i have not seen anything to support this claim.  but would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually !    cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship.   my belief: if that is true, there are a lot of possibilities not just breaking up that could fix the problem, such as .  talking about the problem.  maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.  caveat: sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel is back etc.  cheating should not always signify an immediate end to a relationship.  in some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it.  cmv !  #  cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship.   #  my belief: if that is true, there are a lot of possibilities not just breaking up that could fix the problem, such as .  talking about the problem.   #  i will begin by saying it has never happened to me, and you make some good points.  but i am addicted to cmv, so here we go.  so it is one of the most important parts.  to break it would be to break one of the most important parts of a marriage.  i will continue.  you are correct that this is false.  however, cheating on a spouse is  pretty big mistake .  cheating, as i define it, is a choice.  a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of marriage.  however, i would say that  cheaters are more likely to cheat again .  the circumstances that resulted in cheating the first time may repeat.  my belief: if that is true, there are a lot of possibilities not just breaking up that could fix the problem, such as .  talking about the problem.  yes.  but  talking about the problem  is an ideal situation.  it often does not work out so well that way.  people get stuck in a pattern.  living in the same house, married to the same person you stopped really caring about.  cheating is evidence that  something  must be wrong.  so, so far we can say cheating   is a bad choice which breaks one of the cornerstones of a relationship   is an indication that such a thing will happen again   is an indication that there is a problem with the relationship are there no situations in which the cheaters should be forgiven ? i am trying to argue that if you find your spouse cheating, breaking up with them is the most logical thing to do, whatever the circumstances.  i point out, cheating has a profound negative emotional effect of the person cheated on.  you have every reason to break up.  in my mind, marriage is a commitment.  if you break that commitment, the marriage is broken.  one partner is not fulfilling all of his/her obligations i. e.  not to cheat so why should the other person be obligated to fill out his/hers ? why should you stay married ? it is entirely up to the person making the decision as to what they may do.  it is an ethical question, and everyone has their different values, so it is impossible to prove definitively what you should/should not do.  it is just a logical conclusion that breaking up is the right choice in most if not all situations.  it is a choice.  but if you do not break up, you are stuck with a person who does not value you enough to stay loyal.  why would you forfeit yourself to such a relationship ? things need change.  and the cheater is the source of the problem.  change the cheater by breaking up with him/her.   #  i would not stay with somebody who cheated on me, but i would not judge somebody else who decided to work things out.   #  i think this more of a person to person thing.  i would not stay with somebody who cheated on me, but i would not judge somebody else who decided to work things out.  both are hard to do if you seriously care about and are/were committed to the other person.  to me, if we are in a relationship, i trust you not to cheat on me and you trust me not to cheat on you.  as the relationship continues and this trust grows and develops, i allow myself to be more vulnerable and open with you.  your betraying me and my trust shows me that you 0 you do not care about me as much as i care about you, 0 that my trust in you is not important at all, and 0 that our relationship either does not mean anything to you or is not above your own satisfaction.  this last is the most important for me, because if our relationship does not mean anything to you, then i know it likely wo not last and if you are not willing to put in the effort to even try to work through whatever it was causing you to cheat, then why should i continue putting effort into it ?  #  but what you have to understand is that cheating does not hurt because you stuck your penis in someone else and your penis is mine so it is offensive.   #  it is not the sex itself, it is the intimacy.  framing this as an issue of wanting to have sex makes it look overbearing, primal, irrational and selfish.  but what you have to understand is that cheating does not hurt because you stuck your penis in someone else and your penis is mine so it is offensive.  no, the problem comes from running away from the person.  you are supposed to be more intimate with to seek it elsewhere.  it is not irrational to expect your partner to not share that kind of intimacy with someonelese when you both have agreed you had an exclusive relationship.  in some ways, it is true that this comes largely from a puritanism background where sex is seen as an unholy act only to be done with those you hold closest, but once again, it is understood by both parties that they ge to have sex because they share a special bond that is unique and exclusive.  cheating cheapens that bond and tells the other person you do not trust him or her with your inner thoughts.  the lies, breakage of bonds and lose of trust is wha makes cheating aheinous act in most people is eyes, not that you wanted to bust a nut and you happened to find someone else attractive enough to do it.   #  i think it is because in general the two are closely linked, especially when you are in a monogamous relationship.   #  i think it is because in general the two are closely linked, especially when you are in a monogamous relationship.  it is easy to understand how someone could have feelings, fall in love etc with someone and not have sex.  but it is very hard to understand how someone who has feelings and sex with you intertwining them could have sex with someone else without the feelings being involved.  in many ways it is very difficult to believe the  it did not mean anything, i do not care about them  excuse.  so in many ways an emotional affair, to me a huge betrayal, is just an emotional affair.  but i would struggle to believe that a sexual one could ever be just sexual, some emotions would have to come into play, thus it is also really bad.  i agree that cheating should not always equal an immediate break up, but i certainly understand why people do it: 0.  they promised to be monogamous, a fundamental element of the relationship, has been broken.  0.  the cheater has prioritised their own immediate pleasure over the trust and feelings of their partner ouch 0.  the cheater has not addressed issues with the relationship, and has instead gone outside of it ouch .  your 0th bullet point addresses this, but i think in a very backwards manner you are saying if someone cheats because of issues, then try to work out those issues ! but i would argue that that person has decided to cheat  instead of  trying to work out those issues, which sort of compounds those issues.  0.  the cheater either has issues with the partner as 0 or has feelings for whoever they are cheating with, so much so that this supersedes the promises made to the partner ouch so yeah, i actually think the sex element of it is not that big a deal, but it is everything the cheating indicates that makes it such a big deal for people when you analyse it.   #  i would be way more likely to forgive a 0 night stand than a str or an ltr.   #  i would be just as mad at my husband if he blew 0k gambling as i would if he had a one night stand.  for me it is more about bringing back stds or fathering children elsewhere that would be a financial burden.  way to betray our family and blow my trust by possibly giving me an std or creating a life long money sink with another woman.  i would be way more likely to forgive a 0 night stand than a str or an ltr.  one is just a physical thing, the other is not.  it depends a lot couple to couple and person to person.
the dsm iv defines delusion as: otherkin, or animalkin, the belief that their soul is an animal or something nonhuman, fit this definition and should be urged to seek psychiatric evaluation rather than joining communities of similar  kin.   if someone walks around genuinely convinced they are jesus, the person is delusional and others would want to see that person medicated or receiving some form of psychiatric treatment for that persons own benefit.  but out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.  we should not encourage and accept otherkin behavior, but rather encourage seeking treatment for a delusional disorder.  cmv.   #  out of fear of offending and looking like an insensitive bigot, no one would respond to an otherkin in the same way they would someone claiming ultimate divinity.   #  where on earth are you getting this from ?  #  beliving that your soul is an animal is not any more delusional than believing you have a soul in the first place.  there is literally zero evidence for either one.  if we are going to force otherkin into psychiatric care, we should do the same for all religious people.  but we do not lock people up for having silly but harmless beliefs in the first place.  where on earth are you getting this from ? otherkin are ridiculed literally everywhere but otherkin communities and no one cares.   #  it is not  ideal  perhaps by most standards, but does not cause enough harm in the conventional sense to require intervention.   #  so what is your definition of harm ? i would not wish it upon my loved ones as a present, but i would not wish it upon my enemies as a punishment.  it is not easy for me to see how it is necessarily a good thing or a bad thing.  if he is able to function without difference it is not unlike having an extra nipple or thinking the world is flat.  it is not  ideal  perhaps by most standards, but does not cause enough harm in the conventional sense to require intervention.  more than anything,  normal  is really just how our characteristics fit to our surroundings.  i do not know personally if i would consider this  positive  schizophrenia an illness, but to try and answer your question, i think most people is reservations in wishing it upon a friend would be from causing such a permanent and drastic change without permission.  if i could snap my fingers and make my friend hotter, i still would not do so without their consultation.   #  what about the whole  not knowing what is real anymore  thing, does that sound cool ?  #  seriously guys ? nobody here can think of any way hearing voices that are not there might be bad ? ca not possibly think of a scenario where the voices could mislead you, led you to believe something that is not there ? not even going to factor the fact that some day those voices could stop telling jokes and start saying other fucked up shit ? ca not possibly fathom the fact that the voices may disrupt the normal thought process and either slow it down or completely interrupt it ? not knowing when you can completely lose your focus out of people talking to you inside your own head, that does not sound like it might negative ? what about the whole  not knowing what is real anymore  thing, does that sound cool ? hell, even as a distraction while crossing a road having that in your head is already dangerous.  come on, and that is just shit i came up with in 0 minutes without knowing much about the field, imagine all the subtle things it may have an impact on and i am overlooking.  suddenly having voices in your head is okay as long as they are not telling you to burn things or kill people.  wat  #  that does not mean every situation in which someone hears voices is going to meet the diagnostic criteria though.   #  the way he worded his comment and the comment he responded to was really odd and i suspect that is why there is this confusing line of comments.  he presented it as though his uncle was happy and he had voices but that there was nothing bad about them.  even further providing context to it was the comment he chose to respond to, in which op acknowledges that well being is a diagnostic criteria for a disorder in which it should be negatively affecting someone is well being if it is to be considered a disorder.  by responding to it with the way he worded his comment, it made it seem like he was challenging that requirement.  the reality is that all of those things you mentioned and more are the negative effects of his disorder, the ones that differentiate it from someone who hears the voice of god every once in awhile or some such thing that does not qualify as a disorder.  so even though that guy is uncle is happy, even if the voices do not bother him personally but they bother others because they might make him interact with others inappropriately, it meets that diagnostic criteria.  that does not mean every situation in which someone hears voices is going to meet the diagnostic criteria though.  they may otherwise behave perfectly fine.   #  and ignoring the parts where the host says to hate black people and fear muslims.   #  well that would be a negative effect now would not it ? but i always have a distracting voice in my head telling me what to do.  its called me.  it also happens to tell horrible jokes that make me laugh but usually not other people who do not fit inside my bubble.  its like this.  fox news is not schizophrenic in and of itself.  but it is if you ca not turn it off and think what it says is reality.  i can turn me off, and modulate.  most times.  they guy with so called happy schizophrenic probably cannot turn off the tv or change the channel, but maybe/hopefully he can adjust the volume so he laughs at the few jokes the fox morning people say that is actually funny.  and ignoring the parts where the host says to hate black people and fear muslims.  sucks to be schizophrenic for sure but some  normal  people will watch fox constantly, and worse, some believe it is true.  i would rather hang with the edit: self aware schizophrenic in point if fact i have lived with the criminally insane and they are largely cool people but saying the voice, any voice or interior monolog, is inherently bad strikes me as chillingly. sick for lack of a better word.
say you are a passenger in bob is car when bob runs right through a red signal.  a car in cross traffic, who has the right of way, stops short to avoid being hit by bob.  if you are like most people, you will agree that bob manifested bad driving, and if he does this regularly, he is a bad driver.  you would expect him to say something like  i am lucky i did not cause an accident or get a ticket.   you would consider him an idiot if he said something like  that other car almost got itself hit.   short of a sudden heart attack or faulty brakes, you would think there is really no excuse for what bob did.  now replace running a red light with failing to yield to a pedestrian at a crosswalk.  my view is that you should judge bob the same as in the previous scenario.  yet i have repeatedly seen drivers failing to yield at crosswalks, only to repudiate blame:  these pedestrians do not seem to realize i ca not see them until it is too late.  they are going to get themselves hit.   my view is, if you are a good driver, you will slow down when approaching crosswalks to whatever speed is necessary for you to yield to any pedestrians.  if this is impossible for you, then you are too impaired to be driving.  if nothing else, you can come to a complete stop at all crosswalks.  you might get honked at, but you can withstand that.  to qualify: 0.  my view pertains to the usa, where i have experience.  it might be otherwise somewhere with different driving laws and customs.  0.  for simplicity, limit the scenario to unsignalized crosswalks without a crossing guard or traffic officer on scene.  0.  my view is not about any legal distinction.  that is easily settled.  the two offenses have comparable penalties in most jurisdictions.  0.  my view is not about how pedestrians should behave.  obviously, do not cross if it is not safe.  0.  i will admit an exception if a pedestrian does something like hide behind a mailbox and suddenly jump out.  such exceptions are extremely rare in real life, though.  why do i hold this view ? it is pretty straightforward: being a good driver means following traffic laws and not endangering others.  this is no exception.  why do i doubt this view ? because of otherwise good, perspicacious drivers who seem to disagree.  as i seldom drive, i may be overlooking something pertinent.   #  i will admit an exception if a pedestrian does something like hide behind a mailbox and suddenly jump out.   #  such exceptions are extremely rare in real life, though.   # such exceptions are extremely rare in real life, though.  i realize you are sticking to the us, but in russia this is really common insurance fraud .  so common, in fact, that you get an insurance premium discount for having a dash cam in your car.  as to the rest: if people are entering the crosswalk in a manner such that drivers have no time to anticipate that, then they are the ones who need to start crossing when it is safe your number 0 ; now, depending on your state law this might be different, but you are required to yield to pedestrians  in the crosswalk , not ones who are about to cross and start to cross when you are 0 feet from the crosswalk going 0 mph.  further, if there is steady traffic on the road, you ca not expect the guy 0 cars back to be trying to see if there is a pedestrian, when they have to worry about the traffic flow that they are a part of.   #  if they are going to start crossing when you are 0 feet away, you should have noticed them before that point and already decided to stop.   # you can see them before this point.  if they are going to start crossing when you are 0 feet away, you should have noticed them before that point and already decided to stop.  the pedestrian in the crosswalk is the red light.  the pedestrian approaching the crosswalk is the yellow light.  if you are caught in the point of no return when the light turns red, it is because you ignored the yellow.  maybe continuing at speed is the safer of two unsafe options at that point, but ignoring the warning is why you had to make that choice to begin with.   #  there are many times when it can be against the law to drive the speed limit, if it means you ca not stop in time.   # there are many times when it can be against the law to drive the speed limit, if it means you ca not stop in time.  for instance, tailgating.  i have to guess that not letting raging drivers govern your behavior is far safer in general.  i am open to being convinced otherwise, but it is certainly not self evident.  i said in the op that pedestrians should not cross if it is not safe.  people should also not drive through green lights if it is not safe, and drivers should take responsibility for their own safety even when they have the right of way.  that does not mean it is okay to run red lights.   #  as for someone  standing there  on the curb, facing the road, that is when you stop.   #  darkness and parked cars are conditions you are aware of as a driver.  you should take extra caution in those cases, however much is needed to account for them.  can you link to a street view of a crosswalk where a view of the curb is blocked by bushes ? i doubt it.  as for someone  standing there  on the curb, facing the road, that is when you stop.  they are obviously waiting for you to yield so they can cross.  what else would they be doing ?  #  the stopping distance for a car going 0mph is about 0 feet, and most of that is human reaction time.   #  that is a nearly impossible amount of negative acceleration for a car.  firstly, you do not have time to react.  the stopping distance for a car going 0mph is about 0 feet, and most of that is human reaction time.  taking the human element out of the actuation of the brakes, 0 0 in 0 seconds might not kill someone, but it might break a rib or two.  0 0 in that much time probably will.  you are absorbing about as much damage as you would in a crash with a brick wall at those sorts of stopping speeds.  so, by the absolute letter of the law, you might be right i do not know if you are, ianal practically it is literally impossible in that scenario; it takes a lot more time to stop a car than it does for someone to not start walking when there is not enough time for them to cross before i get there.
unbeknownst to most feminists and probably the general population, the feminist movement has succeeded in eradicating the gap between men and women in happiness.  while women were on average happier than men in the 0s, reliable data shows that this gap is closing, but also that women nowadays are less happier than 0 years ago.  for people eager to find flaws in that study, please refer to the link posted at the bottom.  to quote the abstract: having had a cursory look at the main body of the study, it seems to be that nobody really knows why.  although the authors do not attempt to provide a definite answer, they list a few possible explanations, among them one that goes something like this: due to societal change, our conceptions about women is roles have changed.  this, in turn, led to rising expectations from women towards their own lives.  the modern woman does not only want to be a good mother, but also strives to excel at her job.  when these aspirations are not fully realized, these women feel disappointed and as a result unhappy.  the authors also note that women in europe are still happier than men, although this gap is closing as well.  so the view i would like to be challenged is this: the changes which were brought about by feminism have not benefited women.  while they earn more than they used to, and have more opportunities to succeed in their life, they have become unhappier.  thus the so called achievements of feminism should not be regarded as such.  here the study: URL the full text can be downloaded as well attempts to change my view have focused mainly on two points: a: my hypothesis as to why happiness is declining is not backed up by enough data, and my claim is therefore weak, as also other factors can be considered.  these people have managed to change my views at least partially, by citing the increased exposure to idealized body images which disproportionately targets women as a possible explanation.  still, i maintain that the life satisfaction of women has declined while a group is still claiming to have significantly improved circumstances for females.  on the other hand this signifies that maybe some men should not complain so much and get in arms about feminism as having a negative impact on their lives.  b: the second line of argument was to debate whether life satisfaction is a valid metric to assess whether societal improvements have been made for this group.  it has especially been mentioned that the decline in happiness might only be temporary, and an almost necessary step towards the full attainment of feminist goals.  first awareness needs to be established and only afterwards the desired equality can be reached.  this did not manage to sway me.  i continue to think that life satisfaction is a better metric than the more commonly used materialistic metrics such as wealth, or access to power.  until the feminist movement actually succeeds in reversing this trend, i remain skeptical.  in conclusion, i think that if my theory is right, we have to applaud feminism for achieving their goal of equality at least in one aspect.  good night  #  so the view i would like to be challenged is this: the changes which were brought about by feminism have not benefited women.   #  while they earn more than they used to, and have more opportunities to succeed in their life, they have become unhappier.   # while they earn more than they used to, and have more opportunities to succeed in their life, they have become unhappier.  thus the so called achievements of feminism should not be regarded as such.  that is a nice guess, but right now that is all you have got.  you are attributing causation to something without enough data to support it.  in other words, all you have got is a hypothesis right now.  correlation does not equal causation.  the amount of potential confounding variables that might have a more direct causative relationship are almost countless.  there is also direct correlation, for instance, between the number of fire fighters responding to a fire and the amount of damage done to life and property.  in other words, the more fire fighters you have responding to a fire, the greater the likelihood is that damage to life and property will occur.  however, despite the temptation to suggest that fire fighters are the cause of the damage to property or loss of life as one might initially assume, it is rather that another factor the size of the fire is the confounding variable for determining the amount of damage to property or loss of life.  while your hypothesis may be correct, it is probably wiser and more productive by far to reserve judgment until you have enough data to make a more definitive statement about the nature of the correlation between these two factors.  we do not have to have the answers and sometimes thinking you have the answer is actually counter productive, in that it sets you up to view new information through the lens of your assumptions, which can lead you to dismiss important variables as irrelevant or over emphasize the value of weak evidence.   #  does that mean that the suffragists were decreasing women is happiness by campaigning for the right to vote ?  #  as you say, expectations change.  let is take women is suffrage as an example of a feminist ideal.  for a long time, many women probably never thought about the possibility of voting.  if you would asked women in the 0th century  are you okay with not voting ?   most women probably would have answered  yes.   once women is suffragists came around, increasing numbers of women realized what they were missing out on.  as time when on, presumably an increasing number of women would say that they were not happy with the status quo, while 0 years ago they were.  eventually the number of unhappy women became such a powerful force that women gained the right to vote this is obviously a simplification of things.  does that mean that the suffragists were decreasing women is happiness by campaigning for the right to vote ? maybe in the immediate term, yes, but it is hard to say that this movement was a bad thing for women, or ultimately made them less happy.   #  what matters is happiness and satisfaction with life.   #  i get your analogy, and in fact i think the issue you raise is a good question.  however, the issue here is a little bit different.  if we accept the  rising expectations  hypothesis, we assume that women feel unhappy because they do not  achieve  as much in their life as they would want to.  so that is an individual is dissatisfaction with their life.  the question of universal suffrage, however, is not related to individual success, thus a woman who wants to vote but ca not, will not feel as a failure.  what it all comes down to is the following question: do we value power over happiness ? this is the implicit assumption of most discussions on that topic: women ca not vote, so they have less power, and this is inherently bad.  however, i think that this question is rather irrelevant.  what matters is happiness and satisfaction with life.  let is just assume that women is happiness was in fact not hampered by the fact that they could not vote.  in that case, i do not see why i should be bothered about this.  as a contrast, take the happiness of the afro american community.  while on average still lower than caucasian people is happiness, it has improved hugely over the last 0 years.  thus i believe that the black rights movement was indeed beneficial and is to be applauded.  still: because a difference in happiness continues to exist, society should try to help the afro american community.   #  for the opposite to happen and feminism to be improving things would indicate that some massive problem has occurred that overwhelmed the effects of feminism.   #  men is happiness has not changed much, women is happiness normalized down.  the simple conclusion ? people are happier to stay at home then to go to work.  what did feminism cause a lot of women to do ? go to work.  this is not necessarily the cause.  however, if feminism was actually improving the lot of women, we would expect their happiness to rise by a significant amount.  for the opposite to happen and feminism to be improving things would indicate that some massive problem has occurred that overwhelmed the effects of feminism.  this problem  should  be readily identifiable, since it has such a strong impact, but there is still room for multiple smaller problems all operating at once.   #  still, it remains a striking failure of feminism for women is happiness to have fallen so far during its heyday.   # hence why i did not stop there.  however, the post discussing two ways that society and culture have negatively impacted women in practice, one, body image has made far fewer changes in a women is life than feminism has.  it seems strange to prefer the explanation of body image problems to spending half of their waking life in a strikingly different environment, removed from their children.  especially when that environment is often referred to with distaste.  especially when many women have complained of being ostracized for preferring the traditional role.  again, the study does not prove any cause.  still, it remains a striking failure of feminism for women is happiness to have fallen so far during its heyday.
unbeknownst to most feminists and probably the general population, the feminist movement has succeeded in eradicating the gap between men and women in happiness.  while women were on average happier than men in the 0s, reliable data shows that this gap is closing, but also that women nowadays are less happier than 0 years ago.  for people eager to find flaws in that study, please refer to the link posted at the bottom.  to quote the abstract: having had a cursory look at the main body of the study, it seems to be that nobody really knows why.  although the authors do not attempt to provide a definite answer, they list a few possible explanations, among them one that goes something like this: due to societal change, our conceptions about women is roles have changed.  this, in turn, led to rising expectations from women towards their own lives.  the modern woman does not only want to be a good mother, but also strives to excel at her job.  when these aspirations are not fully realized, these women feel disappointed and as a result unhappy.  the authors also note that women in europe are still happier than men, although this gap is closing as well.  so the view i would like to be challenged is this: the changes which were brought about by feminism have not benefited women.  while they earn more than they used to, and have more opportunities to succeed in their life, they have become unhappier.  thus the so called achievements of feminism should not be regarded as such.  here the study: URL the full text can be downloaded as well attempts to change my view have focused mainly on two points: a: my hypothesis as to why happiness is declining is not backed up by enough data, and my claim is therefore weak, as also other factors can be considered.  these people have managed to change my views at least partially, by citing the increased exposure to idealized body images which disproportionately targets women as a possible explanation.  still, i maintain that the life satisfaction of women has declined while a group is still claiming to have significantly improved circumstances for females.  on the other hand this signifies that maybe some men should not complain so much and get in arms about feminism as having a negative impact on their lives.  b: the second line of argument was to debate whether life satisfaction is a valid metric to assess whether societal improvements have been made for this group.  it has especially been mentioned that the decline in happiness might only be temporary, and an almost necessary step towards the full attainment of feminist goals.  first awareness needs to be established and only afterwards the desired equality can be reached.  this did not manage to sway me.  i continue to think that life satisfaction is a better metric than the more commonly used materialistic metrics such as wealth, or access to power.  until the feminist movement actually succeeds in reversing this trend, i remain skeptical.  in conclusion, i think that if my theory is right, we have to applaud feminism for achieving their goal of equality at least in one aspect.  good night  #  the changes which were brought about by feminism have not benefited women.   #  while they earn more than they used to, and have more opportunities to succeed in their life, they have become unhappier.   # while they earn more than they used to, and have more opportunities to succeed in their life, they have become unhappier.  so there are two assumptions in here that do not necessarily follow from the stevenson and wolfers paper and i am a big fan of both their work .  first, you assume that feminism is primarily responsible for the changes in wellbeing of women over the past 0 years.  second, you assume that women is income and opportunities are independent of men is.  i think the first may or may not be true, though ianasociologist and i wo not say for sure except to ask you to introspect on the question.  the second though i have good reason to question.  the substantial majority of households are headed by a male/female couple.  of course same sex couples and single householders exist.  but even though the proportion of single households has risen, it is still under 0 URL figure 0, page 0 .  in that majority of households where a man and woman live together usually married the prospects of one partner cannot be unintertwined from the prospects of the other.  the total economic wellbeing of households in the united states has been fairly stagnant.  URL figure 0, page 0 .  the same authors who wrote the paper you cite recently put a paper out URL showing an extremely robust correlation between income and happiness.  so consider an alternate case where women do not join the workforce en masse as they did in the 0s 0s, and the type of blue collar jobs that were prototypical of middle century middle class male life go away to china and japan like they did in the 0s now.  we end up with even poorer and less happy households.   #  maybe in the immediate term, yes, but it is hard to say that this movement was a bad thing for women, or ultimately made them less happy.   #  as you say, expectations change.  let is take women is suffrage as an example of a feminist ideal.  for a long time, many women probably never thought about the possibility of voting.  if you would asked women in the 0th century  are you okay with not voting ?   most women probably would have answered  yes.   once women is suffragists came around, increasing numbers of women realized what they were missing out on.  as time when on, presumably an increasing number of women would say that they were not happy with the status quo, while 0 years ago they were.  eventually the number of unhappy women became such a powerful force that women gained the right to vote this is obviously a simplification of things.  does that mean that the suffragists were decreasing women is happiness by campaigning for the right to vote ? maybe in the immediate term, yes, but it is hard to say that this movement was a bad thing for women, or ultimately made them less happy.   #  this is the implicit assumption of most discussions on that topic: women ca not vote, so they have less power, and this is inherently bad.   #  i get your analogy, and in fact i think the issue you raise is a good question.  however, the issue here is a little bit different.  if we accept the  rising expectations  hypothesis, we assume that women feel unhappy because they do not  achieve  as much in their life as they would want to.  so that is an individual is dissatisfaction with their life.  the question of universal suffrage, however, is not related to individual success, thus a woman who wants to vote but ca not, will not feel as a failure.  what it all comes down to is the following question: do we value power over happiness ? this is the implicit assumption of most discussions on that topic: women ca not vote, so they have less power, and this is inherently bad.  however, i think that this question is rather irrelevant.  what matters is happiness and satisfaction with life.  let is just assume that women is happiness was in fact not hampered by the fact that they could not vote.  in that case, i do not see why i should be bothered about this.  as a contrast, take the happiness of the afro american community.  while on average still lower than caucasian people is happiness, it has improved hugely over the last 0 years.  thus i believe that the black rights movement was indeed beneficial and is to be applauded.  still: because a difference in happiness continues to exist, society should try to help the afro american community.   #  what did feminism cause a lot of women to do ?  #  men is happiness has not changed much, women is happiness normalized down.  the simple conclusion ? people are happier to stay at home then to go to work.  what did feminism cause a lot of women to do ? go to work.  this is not necessarily the cause.  however, if feminism was actually improving the lot of women, we would expect their happiness to rise by a significant amount.  for the opposite to happen and feminism to be improving things would indicate that some massive problem has occurred that overwhelmed the effects of feminism.  this problem  should  be readily identifiable, since it has such a strong impact, but there is still room for multiple smaller problems all operating at once.   #  however, the post discussing two ways that society and culture have negatively impacted women in practice, one, body image has made far fewer changes in a women is life than feminism has.   # hence why i did not stop there.  however, the post discussing two ways that society and culture have negatively impacted women in practice, one, body image has made far fewer changes in a women is life than feminism has.  it seems strange to prefer the explanation of body image problems to spending half of their waking life in a strikingly different environment, removed from their children.  especially when that environment is often referred to with distaste.  especially when many women have complained of being ostracized for preferring the traditional role.  again, the study does not prove any cause.  still, it remains a striking failure of feminism for women is happiness to have fallen so far during its heyday.
from the moment it was announced that north korea had threatened attacks against theaters who showed the interview, it has not sounded right to me.  it just seems a whole lot more likely that the threats were made by an anonymous type group with an anti corporate agenda than by the tightly sealed, xenophobic police state of nk.  supposedly the fbi has evidence that the threat emanated from within nk, but it also seems to me that the players involved would mostly benefit from the public seeing the culprit as nk rather than a domestic hacker cell, so i find the fbi is announcement unconvincing.  i realize how conspiracy theory this sounds, to say that the fbi is somehow intentionally misleading us.  but it is also possible that hackers use proxy walls in nk as part of a way to hide their tracks, and that this practice would just make it easier to blame it on state actors in nk.  so reddit, cmv ! can anyone formulate a convincing argument for me as to why i should believe it is nk doing it and not an anonymous style group ?  #  it just seems a whole lot more likely that the threats were made by an anonymous type group with an anti corporate agenda than by the tightly sealed, xenophobic police state of nk.   #  if they had an anti corporate agenda, they would have released the interview on the internet, just like they did other movies.   # if they had an anti corporate agenda, they would have released the interview on the internet, just like they did other movies.  it is certainly a weird omission from someone not affiliated with nk.  but it is also possible that hackers use proxy walls in nk as part of a way to hide their tracks, and that this practice would just make it easier to blame it on state actors in nk.  all this talk of  proxy walls  shows me you know very little about how this type of thing works.  there is other evidence that the fbi is relying on beyond what ip address the attack came from.   #  you can add taia global URL to the list of firms who have not been able to find evidence that north korea was involved, too.   #  except so would a lot of other people.  this is not jim bob in his basement looking at the data, these are some of the most knowledgeable it and cybersecurity professionals in the world.  they have worked with corporations and governments before.  they have designed and implemented security solutions to stop nationstate sponsored hackers already.  and some of the things that the fbi talked about, the firms were familiar with.  like the specific malware that the fbi said was used, that has been available for purchase for quite some time.  and the isps that the fbi said pointed to north korea were also available for use by just about anyone for quite some time.  you can add taia global URL to the list of firms who have not been able to find evidence that north korea was involved, too.   #  it was positioned twenty thousand light years URL away from demon is run URL rory williams URL went to the head cyber ship URL to learn the location of demon is run from the cybermen.   #    0;   0;   0;  twelfth cyber legion  URL sfw  the  twelfth cyber legion  was a cyberman URL fleet URL that monitored their local galactic quadrant.  it was positioned twenty thousand light years URL away from demon is run URL rory williams URL went to the head cyber ship URL to learn the location of demon is run from the cybermen.  all the ships, except the one rory was on, were destroyed by the eleventh doctor URL just to make a point to the church URL anglican regiment before he invaded URL the asteroid URL station to save amy URL and melody pond URL despite not having emotions, they seemed to fear the doctor enough to give into his demands or they simply saw that they were not in a logical position to refuse.  tv URL   a good man goes to war URL    interesting:  cyber  legion URL legion  |  cyber  ship URL ship  |  cyber ship URL ship  |  cyber wars URL wars  parent  commenter  can  toggle  nsfw URL nsfw toggle message %0btoggle nsfw cn0ix0  or or  delete URL deletion message %0bdelete cn0ix0  .   will  also  delete  on  comment  score  of   0  or  less.   |   faqs URL  |  source URL   please note this bot is in testing.  any help would be greatly appreciated, even if it is just a bug report ! please checkout the  source  code URL   to submit bugs  #  i am shocked that you would think it  conspiracy theorist y  to think it might not be north korea.   #  for more information, see: a breakdown and analysis of the december, 0 sony hack URL by risk based security.  there is a lot to this story.  i am shocked that you would think it  conspiracy theorist y  to think it might not be north korea.  i mean, sure that is who i thought it was at first, but, you know.  gotta think about who else might have done it.  also, norse says they figured out who it was: ex employee, five others fingered in sony hack URL we will see what comes of that.   #  but in this case, the official line which is coming from fbi just sounded so unlikely to me that i am not buying it.   #  i do not actually see myself as being a conspiracy theorist for strongly suspecting that north korea was not the culprit.  i guess i just wanted to show that i am not predisposed to automatically suspect that the powers that be are lying to me about everything.  but in this case, the official line which is coming from fbi just sounded so unlikely to me that i am not buying it.  and by posting on cmv i was basically inviting people to present the fbi is evidence in a way that would be more convincing to me.  in other words, to dispel my suspicions that the official line is somehow disingenuous.  of course, it is  possible  that the fbi is simply less knowledgeable and competent than the private security firms who are coming out now with opinions similar to mine.  in which case there is no conspiracy, or even disingenuousness on the part of officials, just ignorance.  but while it would not be shocking if the top guys on this stuff are in the private sector instead of at the fbi, it just does not seem like the disparity should be so wide that the fbi would miss all the factors that the private sec people are reporting, factors that make it at best inconclusive as to the culprit.  which is why i think that seeing the fbi is line on this as  disingenuous  is probably the best characterization here: sony and the us govt might have both calculated that it was preferable for their interests for the public to see this as done by nk rather than a domestic cyber troublemaker.  so if it is true that at best the evidence for nk involvement is  inconclusive , then the fbi could claim plausible deniability if more evidence comes out later that exonerates nk.
from the moment it was announced that north korea had threatened attacks against theaters who showed the interview, it has not sounded right to me.  it just seems a whole lot more likely that the threats were made by an anonymous type group with an anti corporate agenda than by the tightly sealed, xenophobic police state of nk.  supposedly the fbi has evidence that the threat emanated from within nk, but it also seems to me that the players involved would mostly benefit from the public seeing the culprit as nk rather than a domestic hacker cell, so i find the fbi is announcement unconvincing.  i realize how conspiracy theory this sounds, to say that the fbi is somehow intentionally misleading us.  but it is also possible that hackers use proxy walls in nk as part of a way to hide their tracks, and that this practice would just make it easier to blame it on state actors in nk.  so reddit, cmv ! can anyone formulate a convincing argument for me as to why i should believe it is nk doing it and not an anonymous style group ?  #  i realize how conspiracy theory this sounds, to say that the fbi is somehow intentionally misleading us.   #  but it is also possible that hackers use proxy walls in nk as part of a way to hide their tracks, and that this practice would just make it easier to blame it on state actors in nk.   # if they had an anti corporate agenda, they would have released the interview on the internet, just like they did other movies.  it is certainly a weird omission from someone not affiliated with nk.  but it is also possible that hackers use proxy walls in nk as part of a way to hide their tracks, and that this practice would just make it easier to blame it on state actors in nk.  all this talk of  proxy walls  shows me you know very little about how this type of thing works.  there is other evidence that the fbi is relying on beyond what ip address the attack came from.   #  and the isps that the fbi said pointed to north korea were also available for use by just about anyone for quite some time.   #  except so would a lot of other people.  this is not jim bob in his basement looking at the data, these are some of the most knowledgeable it and cybersecurity professionals in the world.  they have worked with corporations and governments before.  they have designed and implemented security solutions to stop nationstate sponsored hackers already.  and some of the things that the fbi talked about, the firms were familiar with.  like the specific malware that the fbi said was used, that has been available for purchase for quite some time.  and the isps that the fbi said pointed to north korea were also available for use by just about anyone for quite some time.  you can add taia global URL to the list of firms who have not been able to find evidence that north korea was involved, too.   #   |   faqs URL  |  source URL   please note this bot is in testing.   #    0;   0;   0;  twelfth cyber legion  URL sfw  the  twelfth cyber legion  was a cyberman URL fleet URL that monitored their local galactic quadrant.  it was positioned twenty thousand light years URL away from demon is run URL rory williams URL went to the head cyber ship URL to learn the location of demon is run from the cybermen.  all the ships, except the one rory was on, were destroyed by the eleventh doctor URL just to make a point to the church URL anglican regiment before he invaded URL the asteroid URL station to save amy URL and melody pond URL despite not having emotions, they seemed to fear the doctor enough to give into his demands or they simply saw that they were not in a logical position to refuse.  tv URL   a good man goes to war URL    interesting:  cyber  legion URL legion  |  cyber  ship URL ship  |  cyber ship URL ship  |  cyber wars URL wars  parent  commenter  can  toggle  nsfw URL nsfw toggle message %0btoggle nsfw cn0ix0  or or  delete URL deletion message %0bdelete cn0ix0  .   will  also  delete  on  comment  score  of   0  or  less.   |   faqs URL  |  source URL   please note this bot is in testing.  any help would be greatly appreciated, even if it is just a bug report ! please checkout the  source  code URL   to submit bugs  #  i am shocked that you would think it  conspiracy theorist y  to think it might not be north korea.   #  for more information, see: a breakdown and analysis of the december, 0 sony hack URL by risk based security.  there is a lot to this story.  i am shocked that you would think it  conspiracy theorist y  to think it might not be north korea.  i mean, sure that is who i thought it was at first, but, you know.  gotta think about who else might have done it.  also, norse says they figured out who it was: ex employee, five others fingered in sony hack URL we will see what comes of that.   #  and by posting on cmv i was basically inviting people to present the fbi is evidence in a way that would be more convincing to me.   #  i do not actually see myself as being a conspiracy theorist for strongly suspecting that north korea was not the culprit.  i guess i just wanted to show that i am not predisposed to automatically suspect that the powers that be are lying to me about everything.  but in this case, the official line which is coming from fbi just sounded so unlikely to me that i am not buying it.  and by posting on cmv i was basically inviting people to present the fbi is evidence in a way that would be more convincing to me.  in other words, to dispel my suspicions that the official line is somehow disingenuous.  of course, it is  possible  that the fbi is simply less knowledgeable and competent than the private security firms who are coming out now with opinions similar to mine.  in which case there is no conspiracy, or even disingenuousness on the part of officials, just ignorance.  but while it would not be shocking if the top guys on this stuff are in the private sector instead of at the fbi, it just does not seem like the disparity should be so wide that the fbi would miss all the factors that the private sec people are reporting, factors that make it at best inconclusive as to the culprit.  which is why i think that seeing the fbi is line on this as  disingenuous  is probably the best characterization here: sony and the us govt might have both calculated that it was preferable for their interests for the public to see this as done by nk rather than a domestic cyber troublemaker.  so if it is true that at best the evidence for nk involvement is  inconclusive , then the fbi could claim plausible deniability if more evidence comes out later that exonerates nk.
i understand that hunting is important for wildlife population control and, for some, a means of sustenance.  i have no problem with this nor do i have a problem with using modern technology rifles, traps, trail cams, etc.  to make these hunts more efficient.  however, some hunts are purely for recreation and trophies.  i take issue with this.  i think it is wrong and unsporting to kill animals that have no real chance of fleeing or defending themselves.  there is no  thrill of the hunt  in shooting a lion from several meters in an armored jeep.  if a human wants to hunt for sport, there should be a real chance of failure or injury in taking trophies.  neanderthals did not have throwing spears, only thrusting spears.  this meant that they had to get very close to their quarry when hunting.  as you can imagine, they were frequently trampled and gored by large animals.  in my opinion, this is the most fair way to hunt and shows due respect to the quarry.  if done at all, this is how sport hunting should be done.   #  in my opinion, this is the most fair way to hunt and shows due respect to the quarry.   #  what is sporting must be balanced with what is humane.   # what is sporting must be balanced with what is humane.  is chasing a deer down, naked, and killing it with a rock perhaps more sporting for the deer ? probably.  but the horror of a long, drawn out death is something that has obvious disadvantages from a humanitarian standpoint than a quick, clean kill.  any hunted animal deserves a death as quick, painless, and without foreknowledge as possible.  if this is at the expense of what is sporting, then so be it.   #  we will end up seeing a lot of animals with pieces of arrow or spear stuck in their hides, limps, etc.   #  if we reverted to primitive hunting techniques all that you would really accomplish is a bunch of animals getting injured just enough to run away but also be crippled for the rest of their lives.  we will end up seeing a lot of animals with pieces of arrow or spear stuck in their hides, limps, etc.  for what ? so they can live out their lives victorious over man ? only to be eaten by the first predator to see them since they probably can no longer be fully capable of escape.  so really what do you accomplish by using primitive weapons over a modern rifle ? if you are concerned about saving individuals then institute stricter bag limits.  or think of a way to build cars out of nerf, since we probably hit and maim way more animals with cars than we do hunting.   #  this is required because there are few natural predators due to human activity and limited land available to provide for food for non livestock animals.   #  do you mean more animals live ? while that is probably true, that in and of itself would be a huge issue.  modern land management requires a certain cull rate.  this is required because there are few natural predators due to human activity and limited land available to provide for food for non livestock animals.  failure to achieve the required cull results in too many large game animals for too few predators and too little food.  the result is a sick, starving population.  you would end up trading the short term suffering of a few individual animals for the long term suffering of the entire herd.   #  i do not hunt, never will and never wish to.   #  well i imagine it varies and i agree with you about the thrill of killing probably being bad.  i do not hunt, never will and never wish to.  but i can still  get it .  a lion is a strong, wild animal with instincts and primitive drive.  i am a small human, pudgy and not very fast and very vulnerable, yet my species has developed intelligence and tricks so that i, vulnerable soft human, can successfully defeat this mighty predator with near ease.  i can understand why those thoughts would make people enjoy hunting even when it is  easy   #  sport is about challenge, not risk or equality.   #  sport is about challenge, not parity.  a human and a lion cannot be reasonably compared one on one.  the human can compartmentalize labor shared with other humans to produce complex tools and compile information about the lion and the environment.  teamwork, tools and intelligence are what make humans successful.  the lion is relatively dumb but possesses much better senses, natural camouflage, body parts tailor made for killing other animals and a significant physical advantage.  if sport was about parity, what possible circumstance make these two equal ? what set of rules define that equality ? for that matter, from where do you derive the rules of the contest in the first place ? sport is about challenge, not risk or equality.  it is challenging to find an animal naturally trying to hide and kill it quickly and with minimal suffering.  it certainly is not a fair contest between man and animal, but it was never going to be and could never be.
i understand that hunting is important for wildlife population control and, for some, a means of sustenance.  i have no problem with this nor do i have a problem with using modern technology rifles, traps, trail cams, etc.  to make these hunts more efficient.  however, some hunts are purely for recreation and trophies.  i take issue with this.  i think it is wrong and unsporting to kill animals that have no real chance of fleeing or defending themselves.  there is no  thrill of the hunt  in shooting a lion from several meters in an armored jeep.  if a human wants to hunt for sport, there should be a real chance of failure or injury in taking trophies.  neanderthals did not have throwing spears, only thrusting spears.  this meant that they had to get very close to their quarry when hunting.  as you can imagine, they were frequently trampled and gored by large animals.  in my opinion, this is the most fair way to hunt and shows due respect to the quarry.  if done at all, this is how sport hunting should be done.   #  i understand that hunting is important for wildlife population control and, for some, a means of sustenance.   #  i have no problem with this nor do i have a problem with using modern technology rifles, traps, trail cams, etc.   # i have no problem with this nor do i have a problem with using modern technology rifles, traps, trail cams, etc.  to make these hunts more efficient.  you misunderstood my first two sentences.  i am okay with using technology to make practical hunts for food or for population control more efficient.  my point is that using them inherently removes any sport in it.   #  if this is at the expense of what is sporting, then so be it.   # what is sporting must be balanced with what is humane.  is chasing a deer down, naked, and killing it with a rock perhaps more sporting for the deer ? probably.  but the horror of a long, drawn out death is something that has obvious disadvantages from a humanitarian standpoint than a quick, clean kill.  any hunted animal deserves a death as quick, painless, and without foreknowledge as possible.  if this is at the expense of what is sporting, then so be it.   #  so they can live out their lives victorious over man ?  #  if we reverted to primitive hunting techniques all that you would really accomplish is a bunch of animals getting injured just enough to run away but also be crippled for the rest of their lives.  we will end up seeing a lot of animals with pieces of arrow or spear stuck in their hides, limps, etc.  for what ? so they can live out their lives victorious over man ? only to be eaten by the first predator to see them since they probably can no longer be fully capable of escape.  so really what do you accomplish by using primitive weapons over a modern rifle ? if you are concerned about saving individuals then institute stricter bag limits.  or think of a way to build cars out of nerf, since we probably hit and maim way more animals with cars than we do hunting.   #  while that is probably true, that in and of itself would be a huge issue.   #  do you mean more animals live ? while that is probably true, that in and of itself would be a huge issue.  modern land management requires a certain cull rate.  this is required because there are few natural predators due to human activity and limited land available to provide for food for non livestock animals.  failure to achieve the required cull results in too many large game animals for too few predators and too little food.  the result is a sick, starving population.  you would end up trading the short term suffering of a few individual animals for the long term suffering of the entire herd.   #  i can understand why those thoughts would make people enjoy hunting even when it is  easy   #  well i imagine it varies and i agree with you about the thrill of killing probably being bad.  i do not hunt, never will and never wish to.  but i can still  get it .  a lion is a strong, wild animal with instincts and primitive drive.  i am a small human, pudgy and not very fast and very vulnerable, yet my species has developed intelligence and tricks so that i, vulnerable soft human, can successfully defeat this mighty predator with near ease.  i can understand why those thoughts would make people enjoy hunting even when it is  easy
i have urinated standing up ever since i have been tall enough to accomplish the feat.  today, however, i just completed a between terms cleaning of my bathroom after living with 0 other male roommates for 0 months and my view has been changed.  after cleaning the inner bowl, each layer of lids, under bowl, front of toilet trickle stain, surrounding floors and nearby walls.  i am convinced that any minor disadvantages that come with sitting down to urinate are vastly outweighed by the benefits of avoiding the accumulation of splashback.  keep in mind that i specify private bathrooms as i think urinals serve a useful purpose in the public sphere despite some drawbacks.  for reference: i am 0, male, heterosexual, single, 0 0 , and 0 0  flaccid.  please try to bring me back to the light.   #  for reference: i am 0, male, heterosexual, single, 0 0 , and 0 0  flaccid.   #  i did not need to know that.   #  to quote hank green: URL   if you pee on the seat, any amount.  clean it up you terrible person.  and someone has to clean it up, and if it is not you, they will be cleaning up someone else is pee.  i feel like this this sums up my position pretty well.  when you stand up, you take a risk of making a mess.  if you make a mess, clean it up.  if everyone did this, the world would be a much better place.  i did not need to know that.   #  they are splashing all over the seat without really thinking about it.   #  you know i really think he does not go far enough with that.  i am sure there are guys out there who think they do not get any pee on the seat.  they never really looked that closely or payed that much attention, their mom cleans their house and they walk away from public toilets.  they are splashing all over the seat without really thinking about it.  maybe i have a higher muzzle velocity than average, but despite perfect aim i was unable to avoid splashing onto the seat in my testing.  do you even lift ?  #  imo it should be should be done every time if you are peeing standing up, because there is always a light sprinkling even if you did not  amiss .   # i thought it would be relevant in that i personally urinate from a larger distance from the bowl than average.  i am totally in favour of the quick rim wipe with a piece of toilet paper afterwards.  imo it should be should be done every time if you are peeing standing up, because there is always a light sprinkling even if you did not  amiss .  that said, that little sprinkling can also get on the walls and floors and sides of the toilet and go unseen at first glance.  even if the user is that good person and wipes the rim, there is still going to be pee buildup in other areas.  so that brings me to my point; sit down and keep it in the bowl.   #  so your  it will get on the wall  problem should already be solved.   # even if the user is that good person and wipes the rim, there is still going to be pee buildup in other areas.  i am just going reiterate what /u/foxxbait said: the bathroom will or should be cleaned at least semi regularly anyway.  so your  it will get on the wall  problem should already be solved.  if you do not clean your bathroom semi regularly, then i do not think that you have the right to preach about what we should and should not do in terms of cleanliness.  if this is the case, i can see why you might include hour height.  but your age, sexual orientation, and penis length ? not so sure.   #  now, this small effort is going to take place independent of whether or not there is visible urine stains or pubic hair laying around.   #  here is the way that i look at it: the space in and around the toilet is going to get a regular cleaning any way.  taking a paper towel with some 0 cleaner and wiping away dust, hair, and invisible bacteria/mold in and around the toilet is something that happens about every week in my apartment.  this is something that is fast; done right and done regularly, it takes about a minute of my time.  now, this small effort is going to take place independent of whether or not there is visible urine stains or pubic hair laying around.  it is a habit and it keeps things clean.  if you or other men out there are going to take a small effort to clean your bathroom on a regular basis anyway, there is no reason not to revel in our ability to mindlessly piss into a pool of water.
i believe the us, or any country, should be allowed to use interrogation methods some may consider torture under the following simple guidelines: 0.  it is known for a fact the suspect has information needed to prevent a future suspected terrorist attack that has the potential to take more than a few civilian lives.  they know the location of a planned bombing.  they know the location of a terror leader.  they know plans or other privileged information that if obtained has a good chance to stop an attack or capture very dangerous people capable and willing to plan an attack.  if we are uncertain they have this information then we must stick to standard interrogation methods.  0.  the  torture  can have no lasting major ill effects.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  rape, extreme humiliation, or body mutilation no ripping off a persons finger things would continue to be banned.  the suspect should require minimum to no medical intervention after the  torture  is complete.  0.  it can only be used to gather information on a future crime, but not coerce a confession of a past crime.  gaining confessions using torture serves no purpose and i believe that is commonly agreed upon.  information gained during these interrogations can not be used in a court room or legal proceeding.  even though, by proxy, if a suspect gives up detailed information of a planned bombing that proves they were involved in the bombing, that information ca not be used in a court.  0.  the suspect is not a member of a commonly recognized military and acting in that capacity.  i am speaking of terrorists here.   #  it is known for a fact the suspect has information needed to prevent a future suspected terrorist attack that has the potential to take more than a few civilian lives.   #  how do you qualify what constitutes enough to be  known for a fact  that they have the information ?  #  the biggest argument against your view is that torture does not produce good information.  torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  how do you qualify what constitutes enough to be  known for a fact  that they have the information ? perhaps you can know for a fact that they are involved, but not that they have the information you want.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  if we can predict future crimes, torture is unnecessary.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  what is the difference between commonly recognized military, and for example isis ? the amount of organization ? their affiliation with a sovereign nation ? the funding ? why does any of this excuse torture ?  #  if you have even more time, check out this one URL it was created during wwii to show soldiers how they themselves may be interrogated if captured.   #  i have a feeling that like most people you really do not have a good idea about what is actually involved in an interrogation.  if you have a half hour to spare, you might benefit from this training video URL that the army made back in the  0s.  like most army training videos it is a bit corny, but if you can get past the production values it is a fairly good introduction to what techniques might be used.  one thing to notice is that the entire thing is a series of checks and counter checks to verify that the information is reliable.  the individual subjects are analyzed and statements are verified with known information.  it is actually really interesting to watch.  if you have even more time, check out this one URL it was created during wwii to show soldiers how they themselves may be interrogated if captured.  i thought that it was really well done, but it runs for a whole hour.  so, just take what is presented in those videos and imagine how an interrogation might go if the geneva conventions were not in place.  the  enhanced interrogation  techniques would then just be another tool in the arsenal.  certainly not the go to technique, since you can see that different techniques work better on each type of person, but something that is available if needed.  there is absolutely no reason to believe that it would be less effective than anything else.   #  i could even point you to john mccain, who was tortured himself.   # if you wish to inform yourself about how this kind of thing works, i gave you a few resources to help you familiarize yourself with the topic.  it is easy to walk in and say  i am better informed even though i know nothing about you and you are wrong , but you have not provided anything to counter what i said.  you have pointed me to resources, but those resources do not counter what i said.  conversely, i have pointed you to a resource the intelligence report that backs up my claims.  do you have better information than the very people who oversee these programs ? i could even point you to john mccain, who was tortured himself.  he says the following URL    i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence.  i know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it.  i know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.   supposedly, you have a better understanding than the people who oversee the agencies in question, and people who have been tortured themselves.   #  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.   # torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  fact can be established by torturing out information you  already  know.  for example, our intel has already established fact a.  we then use torture to extract facts a  and  b.  then we torture his comrade to verify a and b.  and another comrade.  and another.  when a suspect lies and tells you lie d that contradicts a, you know that he is not reliable.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so yes, the tortured can tell you lies.  they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.   #  if some random guy on the internet can come up with this technique of verifying information, surely the terrorist organization can plan for it.   # and another.  many terrorist organizations are well funded and organized.  if some random guy on the internet can come up with this technique of verifying information, surely the terrorist organization can plan for it.  what is to stop them from agreeing on a false story to tell if captured ? the organization would sprinkle evidence for that false story to distract authorities long enough to carry out the real attack.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so now we have inflicted suffering on a possibly innocent person; that is alright ? they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.  not if the lies send you in the wrong direction.
i believe the us, or any country, should be allowed to use interrogation methods some may consider torture under the following simple guidelines: 0.  it is known for a fact the suspect has information needed to prevent a future suspected terrorist attack that has the potential to take more than a few civilian lives.  they know the location of a planned bombing.  they know the location of a terror leader.  they know plans or other privileged information that if obtained has a good chance to stop an attack or capture very dangerous people capable and willing to plan an attack.  if we are uncertain they have this information then we must stick to standard interrogation methods.  0.  the  torture  can have no lasting major ill effects.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  rape, extreme humiliation, or body mutilation no ripping off a persons finger things would continue to be banned.  the suspect should require minimum to no medical intervention after the  torture  is complete.  0.  it can only be used to gather information on a future crime, but not coerce a confession of a past crime.  gaining confessions using torture serves no purpose and i believe that is commonly agreed upon.  information gained during these interrogations can not be used in a court room or legal proceeding.  even though, by proxy, if a suspect gives up detailed information of a planned bombing that proves they were involved in the bombing, that information ca not be used in a court.  0.  the suspect is not a member of a commonly recognized military and acting in that capacity.  i am speaking of terrorists here.   #  the  torture  can have no lasting major ill effects.   #  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.   #  the biggest argument against your view is that torture does not produce good information.  torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  how do you qualify what constitutes enough to be  known for a fact  that they have the information ? perhaps you can know for a fact that they are involved, but not that they have the information you want.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  if we can predict future crimes, torture is unnecessary.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  what is the difference between commonly recognized military, and for example isis ? the amount of organization ? their affiliation with a sovereign nation ? the funding ? why does any of this excuse torture ?  #  the  enhanced interrogation  techniques would then just be another tool in the arsenal.   #  i have a feeling that like most people you really do not have a good idea about what is actually involved in an interrogation.  if you have a half hour to spare, you might benefit from this training video URL that the army made back in the  0s.  like most army training videos it is a bit corny, but if you can get past the production values it is a fairly good introduction to what techniques might be used.  one thing to notice is that the entire thing is a series of checks and counter checks to verify that the information is reliable.  the individual subjects are analyzed and statements are verified with known information.  it is actually really interesting to watch.  if you have even more time, check out this one URL it was created during wwii to show soldiers how they themselves may be interrogated if captured.  i thought that it was really well done, but it runs for a whole hour.  so, just take what is presented in those videos and imagine how an interrogation might go if the geneva conventions were not in place.  the  enhanced interrogation  techniques would then just be another tool in the arsenal.  certainly not the go to technique, since you can see that different techniques work better on each type of person, but something that is available if needed.  there is absolutely no reason to believe that it would be less effective than anything else.   #  you have pointed me to resources, but those resources do not counter what i said.   # if you wish to inform yourself about how this kind of thing works, i gave you a few resources to help you familiarize yourself with the topic.  it is easy to walk in and say  i am better informed even though i know nothing about you and you are wrong , but you have not provided anything to counter what i said.  you have pointed me to resources, but those resources do not counter what i said.  conversely, i have pointed you to a resource the intelligence report that backs up my claims.  do you have better information than the very people who oversee these programs ? i could even point you to john mccain, who was tortured himself.  he says the following URL    i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence.  i know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it.  i know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.   supposedly, you have a better understanding than the people who oversee the agencies in question, and people who have been tortured themselves.   #  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.   # torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  fact can be established by torturing out information you  already  know.  for example, our intel has already established fact a.  we then use torture to extract facts a  and  b.  then we torture his comrade to verify a and b.  and another comrade.  and another.  when a suspect lies and tells you lie d that contradicts a, you know that he is not reliable.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so yes, the tortured can tell you lies.  they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.   #  if some random guy on the internet can come up with this technique of verifying information, surely the terrorist organization can plan for it.   # and another.  many terrorist organizations are well funded and organized.  if some random guy on the internet can come up with this technique of verifying information, surely the terrorist organization can plan for it.  what is to stop them from agreeing on a false story to tell if captured ? the organization would sprinkle evidence for that false story to distract authorities long enough to carry out the real attack.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so now we have inflicted suffering on a possibly innocent person; that is alright ? they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.  not if the lies send you in the wrong direction.
i believe the us, or any country, should be allowed to use interrogation methods some may consider torture under the following simple guidelines: 0.  it is known for a fact the suspect has information needed to prevent a future suspected terrorist attack that has the potential to take more than a few civilian lives.  they know the location of a planned bombing.  they know the location of a terror leader.  they know plans or other privileged information that if obtained has a good chance to stop an attack or capture very dangerous people capable and willing to plan an attack.  if we are uncertain they have this information then we must stick to standard interrogation methods.  0.  the  torture  can have no lasting major ill effects.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  rape, extreme humiliation, or body mutilation no ripping off a persons finger things would continue to be banned.  the suspect should require minimum to no medical intervention after the  torture  is complete.  0.  it can only be used to gather information on a future crime, but not coerce a confession of a past crime.  gaining confessions using torture serves no purpose and i believe that is commonly agreed upon.  information gained during these interrogations can not be used in a court room or legal proceeding.  even though, by proxy, if a suspect gives up detailed information of a planned bombing that proves they were involved in the bombing, that information ca not be used in a court.  0.  the suspect is not a member of a commonly recognized military and acting in that capacity.  i am speaking of terrorists here.   #  it can only be used to gather information on a future crime, but not coerce a confession of a past crime.   #  if we can predict future crimes, torture is unnecessary.   #  the biggest argument against your view is that torture does not produce good information.  torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  how do you qualify what constitutes enough to be  known for a fact  that they have the information ? perhaps you can know for a fact that they are involved, but not that they have the information you want.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  if we can predict future crimes, torture is unnecessary.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  what is the difference between commonly recognized military, and for example isis ? the amount of organization ? their affiliation with a sovereign nation ? the funding ? why does any of this excuse torture ?  #  like most army training videos it is a bit corny, but if you can get past the production values it is a fairly good introduction to what techniques might be used.   #  i have a feeling that like most people you really do not have a good idea about what is actually involved in an interrogation.  if you have a half hour to spare, you might benefit from this training video URL that the army made back in the  0s.  like most army training videos it is a bit corny, but if you can get past the production values it is a fairly good introduction to what techniques might be used.  one thing to notice is that the entire thing is a series of checks and counter checks to verify that the information is reliable.  the individual subjects are analyzed and statements are verified with known information.  it is actually really interesting to watch.  if you have even more time, check out this one URL it was created during wwii to show soldiers how they themselves may be interrogated if captured.  i thought that it was really well done, but it runs for a whole hour.  so, just take what is presented in those videos and imagine how an interrogation might go if the geneva conventions were not in place.  the  enhanced interrogation  techniques would then just be another tool in the arsenal.  certainly not the go to technique, since you can see that different techniques work better on each type of person, but something that is available if needed.  there is absolutely no reason to believe that it would be less effective than anything else.   #  conversely, i have pointed you to a resource the intelligence report that backs up my claims.   # if you wish to inform yourself about how this kind of thing works, i gave you a few resources to help you familiarize yourself with the topic.  it is easy to walk in and say  i am better informed even though i know nothing about you and you are wrong , but you have not provided anything to counter what i said.  you have pointed me to resources, but those resources do not counter what i said.  conversely, i have pointed you to a resource the intelligence report that backs up my claims.  do you have better information than the very people who oversee these programs ? i could even point you to john mccain, who was tortured himself.  he says the following URL    i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence.  i know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it.  i know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.   supposedly, you have a better understanding than the people who oversee the agencies in question, and people who have been tortured themselves.   #  fact can be established by torturing out information you  already  know.   # torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  fact can be established by torturing out information you  already  know.  for example, our intel has already established fact a.  we then use torture to extract facts a  and  b.  then we torture his comrade to verify a and b.  and another comrade.  and another.  when a suspect lies and tells you lie d that contradicts a, you know that he is not reliable.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so yes, the tortured can tell you lies.  they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.   #  not if the lies send you in the wrong direction.   # and another.  many terrorist organizations are well funded and organized.  if some random guy on the internet can come up with this technique of verifying information, surely the terrorist organization can plan for it.  what is to stop them from agreeing on a false story to tell if captured ? the organization would sprinkle evidence for that false story to distract authorities long enough to carry out the real attack.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so now we have inflicted suffering on a possibly innocent person; that is alright ? they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.  not if the lies send you in the wrong direction.
i believe the us, or any country, should be allowed to use interrogation methods some may consider torture under the following simple guidelines: 0.  it is known for a fact the suspect has information needed to prevent a future suspected terrorist attack that has the potential to take more than a few civilian lives.  they know the location of a planned bombing.  they know the location of a terror leader.  they know plans or other privileged information that if obtained has a good chance to stop an attack or capture very dangerous people capable and willing to plan an attack.  if we are uncertain they have this information then we must stick to standard interrogation methods.  0.  the  torture  can have no lasting major ill effects.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  rape, extreme humiliation, or body mutilation no ripping off a persons finger things would continue to be banned.  the suspect should require minimum to no medical intervention after the  torture  is complete.  0.  it can only be used to gather information on a future crime, but not coerce a confession of a past crime.  gaining confessions using torture serves no purpose and i believe that is commonly agreed upon.  information gained during these interrogations can not be used in a court room or legal proceeding.  even though, by proxy, if a suspect gives up detailed information of a planned bombing that proves they were involved in the bombing, that information ca not be used in a court.  0.  the suspect is not a member of a commonly recognized military and acting in that capacity.  i am speaking of terrorists here.   #  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.   #  you think life just returns to normal ?  # you think life just returns to normal ? what about ptsd ? people in the military, who were never physically hurt while deployed, come back home and sometimes  kill themselves  because of the things they have seen.  people who are subject to the types of torture you suggest go insane.  life does not just return to normal.   #  if we can predict future crimes, torture is unnecessary.   #  the biggest argument against your view is that torture does not produce good information.  torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  how do you qualify what constitutes enough to be  known for a fact  that they have the information ? perhaps you can know for a fact that they are involved, but not that they have the information you want.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  if we can predict future crimes, torture is unnecessary.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  what is the difference between commonly recognized military, and for example isis ? the amount of organization ? their affiliation with a sovereign nation ? the funding ? why does any of this excuse torture ?  #  like most army training videos it is a bit corny, but if you can get past the production values it is a fairly good introduction to what techniques might be used.   #  i have a feeling that like most people you really do not have a good idea about what is actually involved in an interrogation.  if you have a half hour to spare, you might benefit from this training video URL that the army made back in the  0s.  like most army training videos it is a bit corny, but if you can get past the production values it is a fairly good introduction to what techniques might be used.  one thing to notice is that the entire thing is a series of checks and counter checks to verify that the information is reliable.  the individual subjects are analyzed and statements are verified with known information.  it is actually really interesting to watch.  if you have even more time, check out this one URL it was created during wwii to show soldiers how they themselves may be interrogated if captured.  i thought that it was really well done, but it runs for a whole hour.  so, just take what is presented in those videos and imagine how an interrogation might go if the geneva conventions were not in place.  the  enhanced interrogation  techniques would then just be another tool in the arsenal.  certainly not the go to technique, since you can see that different techniques work better on each type of person, but something that is available if needed.  there is absolutely no reason to believe that it would be less effective than anything else.   #  i know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it.   # if you wish to inform yourself about how this kind of thing works, i gave you a few resources to help you familiarize yourself with the topic.  it is easy to walk in and say  i am better informed even though i know nothing about you and you are wrong , but you have not provided anything to counter what i said.  you have pointed me to resources, but those resources do not counter what i said.  conversely, i have pointed you to a resource the intelligence report that backs up my claims.  do you have better information than the very people who oversee these programs ? i could even point you to john mccain, who was tortured himself.  he says the following URL    i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence.  i know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it.  i know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.   supposedly, you have a better understanding than the people who oversee the agencies in question, and people who have been tortured themselves.   #  torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.   # torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  fact can be established by torturing out information you  already  know.  for example, our intel has already established fact a.  we then use torture to extract facts a  and  b.  then we torture his comrade to verify a and b.  and another comrade.  and another.  when a suspect lies and tells you lie d that contradicts a, you know that he is not reliable.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so yes, the tortured can tell you lies.  they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.
i believe the us, or any country, should be allowed to use interrogation methods some may consider torture under the following simple guidelines: 0.  it is known for a fact the suspect has information needed to prevent a future suspected terrorist attack that has the potential to take more than a few civilian lives.  they know the location of a planned bombing.  they know the location of a terror leader.  they know plans or other privileged information that if obtained has a good chance to stop an attack or capture very dangerous people capable and willing to plan an attack.  if we are uncertain they have this information then we must stick to standard interrogation methods.  0.  the  torture  can have no lasting major ill effects.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  rape, extreme humiliation, or body mutilation no ripping off a persons finger things would continue to be banned.  the suspect should require minimum to no medical intervention after the  torture  is complete.  0.  it can only be used to gather information on a future crime, but not coerce a confession of a past crime.  gaining confessions using torture serves no purpose and i believe that is commonly agreed upon.  information gained during these interrogations can not be used in a court room or legal proceeding.  even though, by proxy, if a suspect gives up detailed information of a planned bombing that proves they were involved in the bombing, that information ca not be used in a court.  0.  the suspect is not a member of a commonly recognized military and acting in that capacity.  i am speaking of terrorists here.   #  it is known for a fact the suspect has information needed to prevent a future suspected terrorist attack that has the potential to take more than a few civilian lives.   #  if you know that they know this very specific information, there are going to be a lot other, more effective means of getting it.   #  the problem is that if you are at the point where you need to torture somebody to extract information, it is highly likely you do not know the requisite information to make the call.  if you know that they know this very specific information, there are going to be a lot other, more effective means of getting it.  truth of the matter is that very often you do not know what they know.  people love to romanticize the jack bauer, ticking time bomb torture scenario, but that shit just does not happen in the real world.  torture is torture.  just because you wo not drown while being water boarded does not mean you ca not have long lasting effects.  the whole point of water boarding is to trick your body into thinking it is drowning.  sleep deprivation can very easily cause a person is psyche to break.  long term sleep deprivation can cause death.  same goes with starving.  just because you are not leaving a physical scar, does not mean you are not causing permanent damage.   #  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.   #  the biggest argument against your view is that torture does not produce good information.  torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  how do you qualify what constitutes enough to be  known for a fact  that they have the information ? perhaps you can know for a fact that they are involved, but not that they have the information you want.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  if we can predict future crimes, torture is unnecessary.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  what is the difference between commonly recognized military, and for example isis ? the amount of organization ? their affiliation with a sovereign nation ? the funding ? why does any of this excuse torture ?  #  the  enhanced interrogation  techniques would then just be another tool in the arsenal.   #  i have a feeling that like most people you really do not have a good idea about what is actually involved in an interrogation.  if you have a half hour to spare, you might benefit from this training video URL that the army made back in the  0s.  like most army training videos it is a bit corny, but if you can get past the production values it is a fairly good introduction to what techniques might be used.  one thing to notice is that the entire thing is a series of checks and counter checks to verify that the information is reliable.  the individual subjects are analyzed and statements are verified with known information.  it is actually really interesting to watch.  if you have even more time, check out this one URL it was created during wwii to show soldiers how they themselves may be interrogated if captured.  i thought that it was really well done, but it runs for a whole hour.  so, just take what is presented in those videos and imagine how an interrogation might go if the geneva conventions were not in place.  the  enhanced interrogation  techniques would then just be another tool in the arsenal.  certainly not the go to technique, since you can see that different techniques work better on each type of person, but something that is available if needed.  there is absolutely no reason to believe that it would be less effective than anything else.   #  i know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.    # if you wish to inform yourself about how this kind of thing works, i gave you a few resources to help you familiarize yourself with the topic.  it is easy to walk in and say  i am better informed even though i know nothing about you and you are wrong , but you have not provided anything to counter what i said.  you have pointed me to resources, but those resources do not counter what i said.  conversely, i have pointed you to a resource the intelligence report that backs up my claims.  do you have better information than the very people who oversee these programs ? i could even point you to john mccain, who was tortured himself.  he says the following URL    i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence.  i know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it.  i know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.   supposedly, you have a better understanding than the people who oversee the agencies in question, and people who have been tortured themselves.   #  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.   # torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  fact can be established by torturing out information you  already  know.  for example, our intel has already established fact a.  we then use torture to extract facts a  and  b.  then we torture his comrade to verify a and b.  and another comrade.  and another.  when a suspect lies and tells you lie d that contradicts a, you know that he is not reliable.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so yes, the tortured can tell you lies.  they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.
i believe the us, or any country, should be allowed to use interrogation methods some may consider torture under the following simple guidelines: 0.  it is known for a fact the suspect has information needed to prevent a future suspected terrorist attack that has the potential to take more than a few civilian lives.  they know the location of a planned bombing.  they know the location of a terror leader.  they know plans or other privileged information that if obtained has a good chance to stop an attack or capture very dangerous people capable and willing to plan an attack.  if we are uncertain they have this information then we must stick to standard interrogation methods.  0.  the  torture  can have no lasting major ill effects.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  rape, extreme humiliation, or body mutilation no ripping off a persons finger things would continue to be banned.  the suspect should require minimum to no medical intervention after the  torture  is complete.  0.  it can only be used to gather information on a future crime, but not coerce a confession of a past crime.  gaining confessions using torture serves no purpose and i believe that is commonly agreed upon.  information gained during these interrogations can not be used in a court room or legal proceeding.  even though, by proxy, if a suspect gives up detailed information of a planned bombing that proves they were involved in the bombing, that information ca not be used in a court.  0.  the suspect is not a member of a commonly recognized military and acting in that capacity.  i am speaking of terrorists here.   #  if we are uncertain they have this information then we must stick to standard interrogation methods.   #  i see this part as a major loophole to this first rule.   # i see this part as a major loophole to this first rule.  what constitutes being  uncertain  ? a government, when being questioned for breaking this rule could just say  we thought he had information  and come up with some bullshit reason to think the subject had information.  countries that want to torture people wo not be swayed by this rule one bit.  what about damage to a person is brain ? psychological trauma ie ptsd can have a lasting effect on a person is brain.  this has the potential to  ruin  someone is life.  torturing someone with religion/superstition is just as bad as ptsd.  if someone truly believes that the devil is out to get them or something like that they can also have psychological problems for the rest of their lives.  yes, it is commonly agreed upon because people will say  anything  to make the pain physical or otherwise stop.  this applies to future crimes as well as confessions.  you have no way of knowing that your prisoner is information is true.  the prisoner could easily say  the bad guy is in these hills  while he is really half way around the world, causing you to spend money and time looking for someone that is not there.  also, if a prisoner does not know anything, again rule 0 is not really a deterrent you could go on another goose chase, trying to find someone that is not there.  this is why torture is just really bad at getting information out of people.  there is also the matter of the morality of torture, the idea that torturing makes us no better or even worse than our adversaries.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  so recognized military are incapable of having the  potential to take more than a few civilian lives  ? also how do you define  recognized  ?  #  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.   #  the biggest argument against your view is that torture does not produce good information.  torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  how do you qualify what constitutes enough to be  known for a fact  that they have the information ? perhaps you can know for a fact that they are involved, but not that they have the information you want.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  if we can predict future crimes, torture is unnecessary.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  what is the difference between commonly recognized military, and for example isis ? the amount of organization ? their affiliation with a sovereign nation ? the funding ? why does any of this excuse torture ?  #  if you have even more time, check out this one URL it was created during wwii to show soldiers how they themselves may be interrogated if captured.   #  i have a feeling that like most people you really do not have a good idea about what is actually involved in an interrogation.  if you have a half hour to spare, you might benefit from this training video URL that the army made back in the  0s.  like most army training videos it is a bit corny, but if you can get past the production values it is a fairly good introduction to what techniques might be used.  one thing to notice is that the entire thing is a series of checks and counter checks to verify that the information is reliable.  the individual subjects are analyzed and statements are verified with known information.  it is actually really interesting to watch.  if you have even more time, check out this one URL it was created during wwii to show soldiers how they themselves may be interrogated if captured.  i thought that it was really well done, but it runs for a whole hour.  so, just take what is presented in those videos and imagine how an interrogation might go if the geneva conventions were not in place.  the  enhanced interrogation  techniques would then just be another tool in the arsenal.  certainly not the go to technique, since you can see that different techniques work better on each type of person, but something that is available if needed.  there is absolutely no reason to believe that it would be less effective than anything else.   #  you have pointed me to resources, but those resources do not counter what i said.   # if you wish to inform yourself about how this kind of thing works, i gave you a few resources to help you familiarize yourself with the topic.  it is easy to walk in and say  i am better informed even though i know nothing about you and you are wrong , but you have not provided anything to counter what i said.  you have pointed me to resources, but those resources do not counter what i said.  conversely, i have pointed you to a resource the intelligence report that backs up my claims.  do you have better information than the very people who oversee these programs ? i could even point you to john mccain, who was tortured himself.  he says the following URL    i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence.  i know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it.  i know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.   supposedly, you have a better understanding than the people who oversee the agencies in question, and people who have been tortured themselves.   #  when a suspect lies and tells you lie d that contradicts a, you know that he is not reliable.   # torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  fact can be established by torturing out information you  already  know.  for example, our intel has already established fact a.  we then use torture to extract facts a  and  b.  then we torture his comrade to verify a and b.  and another comrade.  and another.  when a suspect lies and tells you lie d that contradicts a, you know that he is not reliable.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so yes, the tortured can tell you lies.  they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.
i believe the us, or any country, should be allowed to use interrogation methods some may consider torture under the following simple guidelines: 0.  it is known for a fact the suspect has information needed to prevent a future suspected terrorist attack that has the potential to take more than a few civilian lives.  they know the location of a planned bombing.  they know the location of a terror leader.  they know plans or other privileged information that if obtained has a good chance to stop an attack or capture very dangerous people capable and willing to plan an attack.  if we are uncertain they have this information then we must stick to standard interrogation methods.  0.  the  torture  can have no lasting major ill effects.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  rape, extreme humiliation, or body mutilation no ripping off a persons finger things would continue to be banned.  the suspect should require minimum to no medical intervention after the  torture  is complete.  0.  it can only be used to gather information on a future crime, but not coerce a confession of a past crime.  gaining confessions using torture serves no purpose and i believe that is commonly agreed upon.  information gained during these interrogations can not be used in a court room or legal proceeding.  even though, by proxy, if a suspect gives up detailed information of a planned bombing that proves they were involved in the bombing, that information ca not be used in a court.  0.  the suspect is not a member of a commonly recognized military and acting in that capacity.  i am speaking of terrorists here.   #  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.   #  what about damage to a person is brain ?  # i see this part as a major loophole to this first rule.  what constitutes being  uncertain  ? a government, when being questioned for breaking this rule could just say  we thought he had information  and come up with some bullshit reason to think the subject had information.  countries that want to torture people wo not be swayed by this rule one bit.  what about damage to a person is brain ? psychological trauma ie ptsd can have a lasting effect on a person is brain.  this has the potential to  ruin  someone is life.  torturing someone with religion/superstition is just as bad as ptsd.  if someone truly believes that the devil is out to get them or something like that they can also have psychological problems for the rest of their lives.  yes, it is commonly agreed upon because people will say  anything  to make the pain physical or otherwise stop.  this applies to future crimes as well as confessions.  you have no way of knowing that your prisoner is information is true.  the prisoner could easily say  the bad guy is in these hills  while he is really half way around the world, causing you to spend money and time looking for someone that is not there.  also, if a prisoner does not know anything, again rule 0 is not really a deterrent you could go on another goose chase, trying to find someone that is not there.  this is why torture is just really bad at getting information out of people.  there is also the matter of the morality of torture, the idea that torturing makes us no better or even worse than our adversaries.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  so recognized military are incapable of having the  potential to take more than a few civilian lives  ? also how do you define  recognized  ?  #  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.   #  the biggest argument against your view is that torture does not produce good information.  torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  how do you qualify what constitutes enough to be  known for a fact  that they have the information ? perhaps you can know for a fact that they are involved, but not that they have the information you want.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  if we can predict future crimes, torture is unnecessary.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  what is the difference between commonly recognized military, and for example isis ? the amount of organization ? their affiliation with a sovereign nation ? the funding ? why does any of this excuse torture ?  #  the individual subjects are analyzed and statements are verified with known information.   #  i have a feeling that like most people you really do not have a good idea about what is actually involved in an interrogation.  if you have a half hour to spare, you might benefit from this training video URL that the army made back in the  0s.  like most army training videos it is a bit corny, but if you can get past the production values it is a fairly good introduction to what techniques might be used.  one thing to notice is that the entire thing is a series of checks and counter checks to verify that the information is reliable.  the individual subjects are analyzed and statements are verified with known information.  it is actually really interesting to watch.  if you have even more time, check out this one URL it was created during wwii to show soldiers how they themselves may be interrogated if captured.  i thought that it was really well done, but it runs for a whole hour.  so, just take what is presented in those videos and imagine how an interrogation might go if the geneva conventions were not in place.  the  enhanced interrogation  techniques would then just be another tool in the arsenal.  certainly not the go to technique, since you can see that different techniques work better on each type of person, but something that is available if needed.  there is absolutely no reason to believe that it would be less effective than anything else.   #  if you wish to inform yourself about how this kind of thing works, i gave you a few resources to help you familiarize yourself with the topic.   # if you wish to inform yourself about how this kind of thing works, i gave you a few resources to help you familiarize yourself with the topic.  it is easy to walk in and say  i am better informed even though i know nothing about you and you are wrong , but you have not provided anything to counter what i said.  you have pointed me to resources, but those resources do not counter what i said.  conversely, i have pointed you to a resource the intelligence report that backs up my claims.  do you have better information than the very people who oversee these programs ? i could even point you to john mccain, who was tortured himself.  he says the following URL    i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence.  i know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it.  i know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.   supposedly, you have a better understanding than the people who oversee the agencies in question, and people who have been tortured themselves.   #  for example, our intel has already established fact a.  we then use torture to extract facts a  and  b.  then we torture his comrade to verify a and b.  and another comrade.   # torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  fact can be established by torturing out information you  already  know.  for example, our intel has already established fact a.  we then use torture to extract facts a  and  b.  then we torture his comrade to verify a and b.  and another comrade.  and another.  when a suspect lies and tells you lie d that contradicts a, you know that he is not reliable.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so yes, the tortured can tell you lies.  they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.
i believe the us, or any country, should be allowed to use interrogation methods some may consider torture under the following simple guidelines: 0.  it is known for a fact the suspect has information needed to prevent a future suspected terrorist attack that has the potential to take more than a few civilian lives.  they know the location of a planned bombing.  they know the location of a terror leader.  they know plans or other privileged information that if obtained has a good chance to stop an attack or capture very dangerous people capable and willing to plan an attack.  if we are uncertain they have this information then we must stick to standard interrogation methods.  0.  the  torture  can have no lasting major ill effects.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  rape, extreme humiliation, or body mutilation no ripping off a persons finger things would continue to be banned.  the suspect should require minimum to no medical intervention after the  torture  is complete.  0.  it can only be used to gather information on a future crime, but not coerce a confession of a past crime.  gaining confessions using torture serves no purpose and i believe that is commonly agreed upon.  information gained during these interrogations can not be used in a court room or legal proceeding.  even though, by proxy, if a suspect gives up detailed information of a planned bombing that proves they were involved in the bombing, that information ca not be used in a court.  0.  the suspect is not a member of a commonly recognized military and acting in that capacity.  i am speaking of terrorists here.   #  gaining confessions using torture serves no purpose and i believe that is commonly agreed upon.   #  yes, it is commonly agreed upon because people will say  anything  to make the pain physical or otherwise stop.   # i see this part as a major loophole to this first rule.  what constitutes being  uncertain  ? a government, when being questioned for breaking this rule could just say  we thought he had information  and come up with some bullshit reason to think the subject had information.  countries that want to torture people wo not be swayed by this rule one bit.  what about damage to a person is brain ? psychological trauma ie ptsd can have a lasting effect on a person is brain.  this has the potential to  ruin  someone is life.  torturing someone with religion/superstition is just as bad as ptsd.  if someone truly believes that the devil is out to get them or something like that they can also have psychological problems for the rest of their lives.  yes, it is commonly agreed upon because people will say  anything  to make the pain physical or otherwise stop.  this applies to future crimes as well as confessions.  you have no way of knowing that your prisoner is information is true.  the prisoner could easily say  the bad guy is in these hills  while he is really half way around the world, causing you to spend money and time looking for someone that is not there.  also, if a prisoner does not know anything, again rule 0 is not really a deterrent you could go on another goose chase, trying to find someone that is not there.  this is why torture is just really bad at getting information out of people.  there is also the matter of the morality of torture, the idea that torturing makes us no better or even worse than our adversaries.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  so recognized military are incapable of having the  potential to take more than a few civilian lives  ? also how do you define  recognized  ?  #  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.   #  the biggest argument against your view is that torture does not produce good information.  torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  how do you qualify what constitutes enough to be  known for a fact  that they have the information ? perhaps you can know for a fact that they are involved, but not that they have the information you want.  water boarding, while shitty, poses no threat to a person is life and their life returns to normal once it is over.  the same goes with sleep deprivation, using superstition / religion rubbing a person in pig blood , and other forms of minor mental or physical fuckery.  if we can predict future crimes, torture is unnecessary.  i am speaking of terrorists here.  what is the difference between commonly recognized military, and for example isis ? the amount of organization ? their affiliation with a sovereign nation ? the funding ? why does any of this excuse torture ?  #  i thought that it was really well done, but it runs for a whole hour.   #  i have a feeling that like most people you really do not have a good idea about what is actually involved in an interrogation.  if you have a half hour to spare, you might benefit from this training video URL that the army made back in the  0s.  like most army training videos it is a bit corny, but if you can get past the production values it is a fairly good introduction to what techniques might be used.  one thing to notice is that the entire thing is a series of checks and counter checks to verify that the information is reliable.  the individual subjects are analyzed and statements are verified with known information.  it is actually really interesting to watch.  if you have even more time, check out this one URL it was created during wwii to show soldiers how they themselves may be interrogated if captured.  i thought that it was really well done, but it runs for a whole hour.  so, just take what is presented in those videos and imagine how an interrogation might go if the geneva conventions were not in place.  the  enhanced interrogation  techniques would then just be another tool in the arsenal.  certainly not the go to technique, since you can see that different techniques work better on each type of person, but something that is available if needed.  there is absolutely no reason to believe that it would be less effective than anything else.   #  if you wish to inform yourself about how this kind of thing works, i gave you a few resources to help you familiarize yourself with the topic.   # if you wish to inform yourself about how this kind of thing works, i gave you a few resources to help you familiarize yourself with the topic.  it is easy to walk in and say  i am better informed even though i know nothing about you and you are wrong , but you have not provided anything to counter what i said.  you have pointed me to resources, but those resources do not counter what i said.  conversely, i have pointed you to a resource the intelligence report that backs up my claims.  do you have better information than the very people who oversee these programs ? i could even point you to john mccain, who was tortured himself.  he says the following URL    i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence.  i know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it.  i know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.   supposedly, you have a better understanding than the people who oversee the agencies in question, and people who have been tortured themselves.   #  torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.   # torture will only cause the victim to say anything to stop the torture.  there is also the idea that our morality is what sets us apart from the bad guys, and torture undermines that.  fact can be established by torturing out information you  already  know.  for example, our intel has already established fact a.  we then use torture to extract facts a  and  b.  then we torture his comrade to verify a and b.  and another comrade.  and another.  when a suspect lies and tells you lie d that contradicts a, you know that he is not reliable.  so either torture him enough that he eventually admits to a, or admit the possibility that he does not know about a.  so yes, the tortured can tell you lies.  they can also tell you truth.  but any information, even lies, is better than no information at all.
addiction does not exist, it cannot be objectively proven to exist in the human body, is not a medical problem, and certainly is not a disease.  what addiction actually is is a pseudo scientific, euphemistic term for the absence of will power, and a way to absolve people of responsibility for their actions.  i shall use the nhs definition here, but feel free to cite your own in your replies to me.  the nhs definition of addiction which i contend is contradictory and incoherent : emphasis mine.  now, this is a definition from a medical body, and so presumably the definition used when  treating   addicts .  it claims addicts do  not have control , clearly this cannot be the case because if it were addicts would never cease to be addicts and could never give up their substance, yet we know people give up their substances all the time and they give them up by a conscious choice to cease taking that substance.  the definition also claims that it is possible to be addicted to anything, well, it seems to me that if anything is potentially addictive then nothing is addictive.  the definition goes on to say: notice here it says  very hard  not  impossible  but if someone has  no control  as was perviously said, surely it would be impossible to stop, not just very hard ? indeed, it it certainly easier to do something that is enjoyable over something that is unpleasant, but that is still a choice one makes, no ? now, on the point of addiction being a disease.  well, the  cure  for nicotine addiction is to chose to stop smoking cigarettes, to abstain from them.  they chose to take them up, and they chose to stop taking them.  someone suffering from cancer has not chosen to have it and cannot chose not to have it.  if i lock an alcoholic in a room with no alcohol, he is now  cured  from his alcoholism, if i did the same with a cancer patient, they would still be a cancer patient.  that is my case, cmv.   #  and a way to absolve people of responsibility for their actions.   #  while,  akrasia  is certainly less blamable than other wrong actions it is still blamable to some extent.   # regardless of whether you think it is or not, the medical establishment decidedly thinks it is.  we observe physical changes from certain substances that lead to certain behaviors.  while,  akrasia  is certainly less blamable than other wrong actions it is still blamable to some extent.  you can blame the person for allowing themselves to be put in a certain situation.  however, it makes sense that to some extent someone who is deeply addicted to crack is less responsible for their actions regarding its consumption than someone who has never tried it before.  i. e.  regaining control.  that does not make sense.  why should everything having potentiality a mean that nothing can have that potential quality ? all pets could be bad pets, so does that mean that there are no bad pets then ? same construction, different subject.  it often is own their own.  thus, we have detoxes, treatment centers, suboxone, methadone, and other medical interventions to help people without no control regain control.  to some extent yes, however it is not a black and white situation here.  there are degrees of coercion.  you are presenting something being a total dichotomy between freely chosen and forced.  well, the  cure  for nicotine addiction is to chose to stop smoking cigarettes, to abstain from them.  the cure for obesity is to lower one is caloric intake.  cancer is not a very good comparison here since cancer is not a behavioral disease.  let is look at depression instead.  a person with depression can choose to act in ways that help his depression, and in this way  choose not to have it .  however, if subjected to certain stresses he or she may fall back into depression.  no more than putting someone on a strict diet can cure diabetes.   #  he is  cured  insofar as he is no longer exposed to alcohol, but there will be extremely deletrious consequences for that decision if his physiology has adapted.   # what are the withdrawal symptoms a gambling  addict  will face, or a heavy smoker ? for alcohol, it includes seizures, headaches, tremors, delusions, and potentially even death if left untreated.  source URL there is a strong component to wanting to get better involved in overcoming addiction for most people, but that does not mean you can just willpower the physiological side effects of certain addictive substances.  substance withdrawal is an extremely well documented medical event.  you are correct on a pedantic level that someone  can just stop  taking particular substnaces and that there is some degree of an element of choice, but addiction tends to function because there is a chemical feedback system that essentially punishes you for stopping.  this is why your example of locking an alcoholic in a room is not really true.  he is  cured  insofar as he is no longer exposed to alcohol, but there will be extremely deletrious consequences for that decision if his physiology has adapted.  combined with physiological symptoms of particular substances or even behaviors and i think it is safe to say addiction exists.  see also: opiod withdrawal URL  #  there is a physical, measurable difference between an alcoholic and a non alcoholic.   #  i am not sure exactly what you are trying to argue.  you just said that alcoholism exists.  alcoholism  is  the addiction.  there is a physical, measurable difference between an alcoholic and a non alcoholic.  if i drink enough over a period of time, there is a physical point where my body will become afflicted by alcoholism or addiction.  to put it another way, if i was forcefully fed alcohol over a period of time against my will, i would still be an alcoholic even if i psychologically hated alcohol.  the same would go for many other drugs.  not all addictions are equal and some are more severe than others but your post claims that addiction does not exist at all which i think is false.   #  obviously the calculation is still there, but the user now has an unwanted but real weight on the use side of the equation.   #  is depression real ? anxiety disorders ? your argument seems to center around the incongruity of addictions causing someone not to have the power to stop with the fact that addicts stop using.  i think the correct way to few addiction is not that it completely removes will power, but that it inhibits it.  imagine you are weighing whether or not to do a drug or drink.  the pleasure of the high is balanced by the health, legal, and social risks.  that is why rational people can decide that it is ok for them to drink or smoke weed and sometimes even use molly or pain pills socially.  if you only do those things occasionally and have the right or wrong depending on your opinion of drug use friends there is not a ton of risk and the pleasure derived is pretty high.  when you become addicted the calculation becomes more and more heavily weighted toward use even as the pleasure derived decreases with a building tolerance and the nasty symptoms of abuse.  obviously the calculation is still there, but the user now has an unwanted but real weight on the use side of the equation.  i would submit that most addicts that manage to quit with apparent will power actually just experience something that puts so much weight on the do not use side of the calculation that they can overcome the the weight addiction is putting on the use side.  typically, i have found, that is usually coming close to dying or going crazy or anything else that undermines their perception of who they are.  generally it takes multiple instances of the bad thing happening to reinforce that it is the drugs because the pressure to use that is addiction is so strong.   #  0.  there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control opioid use.   # it is not.  that is a description in a for patients handout.  it is not a medical definition.  the definition used in treating addicts is the definition in the dsm v or previously, the dsm iv .  diagnostic criteria this is for opioids, but it is basically the same for most other substances 0.  opioids are often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period of time than intended.  0.  there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control opioid use.  0.  a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the opioid, use the opioid, or recover from its effects.  0.  craving, or a strong desire to use opioids.  0.  recurrent opioid use resulting in failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school or home.  0.  continued opioid use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of opioids.  0.  important social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of opioid use.  0.  recurrent opioid use in situations in which it is physically hazardous 0.  continued use despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by opioids.  0.   tolerance, as defined by either of the following: a a need for markedly increased amounts of opioids to achieve intoxication or desired effect b markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of an opioid 0.   withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following: a the characteristic opioid withdrawal syndrome b the same or a closely related substance are taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms  this criterion is not considered to be met for those individuals taking opioids solely under appropriate medical supervision.  severity: mild: 0 0 symptoms, moderate: 0 0 symptoms.  severe: 0 or more symptoms.  note that behavioral addictions are in the same section, though at present only gambling addiction is defined specifically in the dsm v.
addiction does not exist, it cannot be objectively proven to exist in the human body, is not a medical problem, and certainly is not a disease.  what addiction actually is is a pseudo scientific, euphemistic term for the absence of will power, and a way to absolve people of responsibility for their actions.  i shall use the nhs definition here, but feel free to cite your own in your replies to me.  the nhs definition of addiction which i contend is contradictory and incoherent : emphasis mine.  now, this is a definition from a medical body, and so presumably the definition used when  treating   addicts .  it claims addicts do  not have control , clearly this cannot be the case because if it were addicts would never cease to be addicts and could never give up their substance, yet we know people give up their substances all the time and they give them up by a conscious choice to cease taking that substance.  the definition also claims that it is possible to be addicted to anything, well, it seems to me that if anything is potentially addictive then nothing is addictive.  the definition goes on to say: notice here it says  very hard  not  impossible  but if someone has  no control  as was perviously said, surely it would be impossible to stop, not just very hard ? indeed, it it certainly easier to do something that is enjoyable over something that is unpleasant, but that is still a choice one makes, no ? now, on the point of addiction being a disease.  well, the  cure  for nicotine addiction is to chose to stop smoking cigarettes, to abstain from them.  they chose to take them up, and they chose to stop taking them.  someone suffering from cancer has not chosen to have it and cannot chose not to have it.  if i lock an alcoholic in a room with no alcohol, he is now  cured  from his alcoholism, if i did the same with a cancer patient, they would still be a cancer patient.  that is my case, cmv.   #  indeed, it it certainly easier to do something that is enjoyable over something that is unpleasant, but that is still a choice one makes, no ?  #  to some extent yes, however it is not a black and white situation here.   # regardless of whether you think it is or not, the medical establishment decidedly thinks it is.  we observe physical changes from certain substances that lead to certain behaviors.  while,  akrasia  is certainly less blamable than other wrong actions it is still blamable to some extent.  you can blame the person for allowing themselves to be put in a certain situation.  however, it makes sense that to some extent someone who is deeply addicted to crack is less responsible for their actions regarding its consumption than someone who has never tried it before.  i. e.  regaining control.  that does not make sense.  why should everything having potentiality a mean that nothing can have that potential quality ? all pets could be bad pets, so does that mean that there are no bad pets then ? same construction, different subject.  it often is own their own.  thus, we have detoxes, treatment centers, suboxone, methadone, and other medical interventions to help people without no control regain control.  to some extent yes, however it is not a black and white situation here.  there are degrees of coercion.  you are presenting something being a total dichotomy between freely chosen and forced.  well, the  cure  for nicotine addiction is to chose to stop smoking cigarettes, to abstain from them.  the cure for obesity is to lower one is caloric intake.  cancer is not a very good comparison here since cancer is not a behavioral disease.  let is look at depression instead.  a person with depression can choose to act in ways that help his depression, and in this way  choose not to have it .  however, if subjected to certain stresses he or she may fall back into depression.  no more than putting someone on a strict diet can cure diabetes.   #  source URL there is a strong component to wanting to get better involved in overcoming addiction for most people, but that does not mean you can just willpower the physiological side effects of certain addictive substances.   # what are the withdrawal symptoms a gambling  addict  will face, or a heavy smoker ? for alcohol, it includes seizures, headaches, tremors, delusions, and potentially even death if left untreated.  source URL there is a strong component to wanting to get better involved in overcoming addiction for most people, but that does not mean you can just willpower the physiological side effects of certain addictive substances.  substance withdrawal is an extremely well documented medical event.  you are correct on a pedantic level that someone  can just stop  taking particular substnaces and that there is some degree of an element of choice, but addiction tends to function because there is a chemical feedback system that essentially punishes you for stopping.  this is why your example of locking an alcoholic in a room is not really true.  he is  cured  insofar as he is no longer exposed to alcohol, but there will be extremely deletrious consequences for that decision if his physiology has adapted.  combined with physiological symptoms of particular substances or even behaviors and i think it is safe to say addiction exists.  see also: opiod withdrawal URL  #  there is a physical, measurable difference between an alcoholic and a non alcoholic.   #  i am not sure exactly what you are trying to argue.  you just said that alcoholism exists.  alcoholism  is  the addiction.  there is a physical, measurable difference between an alcoholic and a non alcoholic.  if i drink enough over a period of time, there is a physical point where my body will become afflicted by alcoholism or addiction.  to put it another way, if i was forcefully fed alcohol over a period of time against my will, i would still be an alcoholic even if i psychologically hated alcohol.  the same would go for many other drugs.  not all addictions are equal and some are more severe than others but your post claims that addiction does not exist at all which i think is false.   #  when you become addicted the calculation becomes more and more heavily weighted toward use even as the pleasure derived decreases with a building tolerance and the nasty symptoms of abuse.   #  is depression real ? anxiety disorders ? your argument seems to center around the incongruity of addictions causing someone not to have the power to stop with the fact that addicts stop using.  i think the correct way to few addiction is not that it completely removes will power, but that it inhibits it.  imagine you are weighing whether or not to do a drug or drink.  the pleasure of the high is balanced by the health, legal, and social risks.  that is why rational people can decide that it is ok for them to drink or smoke weed and sometimes even use molly or pain pills socially.  if you only do those things occasionally and have the right or wrong depending on your opinion of drug use friends there is not a ton of risk and the pleasure derived is pretty high.  when you become addicted the calculation becomes more and more heavily weighted toward use even as the pleasure derived decreases with a building tolerance and the nasty symptoms of abuse.  obviously the calculation is still there, but the user now has an unwanted but real weight on the use side of the equation.  i would submit that most addicts that manage to quit with apparent will power actually just experience something that puts so much weight on the do not use side of the calculation that they can overcome the the weight addiction is putting on the use side.  typically, i have found, that is usually coming close to dying or going crazy or anything else that undermines their perception of who they are.  generally it takes multiple instances of the bad thing happening to reinforce that it is the drugs because the pressure to use that is addiction is so strong.   #  0.  recurrent opioid use in situations in which it is physically hazardous 0.  continued use despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by opioids.   # it is not.  that is a description in a for patients handout.  it is not a medical definition.  the definition used in treating addicts is the definition in the dsm v or previously, the dsm iv .  diagnostic criteria this is for opioids, but it is basically the same for most other substances 0.  opioids are often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period of time than intended.  0.  there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control opioid use.  0.  a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the opioid, use the opioid, or recover from its effects.  0.  craving, or a strong desire to use opioids.  0.  recurrent opioid use resulting in failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school or home.  0.  continued opioid use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of opioids.  0.  important social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of opioid use.  0.  recurrent opioid use in situations in which it is physically hazardous 0.  continued use despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by opioids.  0.   tolerance, as defined by either of the following: a a need for markedly increased amounts of opioids to achieve intoxication or desired effect b markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of an opioid 0.   withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following: a the characteristic opioid withdrawal syndrome b the same or a closely related substance are taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms  this criterion is not considered to be met for those individuals taking opioids solely under appropriate medical supervision.  severity: mild: 0 0 symptoms, moderate: 0 0 symptoms.  severe: 0 or more symptoms.  note that behavioral addictions are in the same section, though at present only gambling addiction is defined specifically in the dsm v.
addiction does not exist, it cannot be objectively proven to exist in the human body, is not a medical problem, and certainly is not a disease.  what addiction actually is is a pseudo scientific, euphemistic term for the absence of will power, and a way to absolve people of responsibility for their actions.  i shall use the nhs definition here, but feel free to cite your own in your replies to me.  the nhs definition of addiction which i contend is contradictory and incoherent : emphasis mine.  now, this is a definition from a medical body, and so presumably the definition used when  treating   addicts .  it claims addicts do  not have control , clearly this cannot be the case because if it were addicts would never cease to be addicts and could never give up their substance, yet we know people give up their substances all the time and they give them up by a conscious choice to cease taking that substance.  the definition also claims that it is possible to be addicted to anything, well, it seems to me that if anything is potentially addictive then nothing is addictive.  the definition goes on to say: notice here it says  very hard  not  impossible  but if someone has  no control  as was perviously said, surely it would be impossible to stop, not just very hard ? indeed, it it certainly easier to do something that is enjoyable over something that is unpleasant, but that is still a choice one makes, no ? now, on the point of addiction being a disease.  well, the  cure  for nicotine addiction is to chose to stop smoking cigarettes, to abstain from them.  they chose to take them up, and they chose to stop taking them.  someone suffering from cancer has not chosen to have it and cannot chose not to have it.  if i lock an alcoholic in a room with no alcohol, he is now  cured  from his alcoholism, if i did the same with a cancer patient, they would still be a cancer patient.  that is my case, cmv.   #  now, on the point of addiction being a disease.   #  well, the  cure  for nicotine addiction is to chose to stop smoking cigarettes, to abstain from them.   # regardless of whether you think it is or not, the medical establishment decidedly thinks it is.  we observe physical changes from certain substances that lead to certain behaviors.  while,  akrasia  is certainly less blamable than other wrong actions it is still blamable to some extent.  you can blame the person for allowing themselves to be put in a certain situation.  however, it makes sense that to some extent someone who is deeply addicted to crack is less responsible for their actions regarding its consumption than someone who has never tried it before.  i. e.  regaining control.  that does not make sense.  why should everything having potentiality a mean that nothing can have that potential quality ? all pets could be bad pets, so does that mean that there are no bad pets then ? same construction, different subject.  it often is own their own.  thus, we have detoxes, treatment centers, suboxone, methadone, and other medical interventions to help people without no control regain control.  to some extent yes, however it is not a black and white situation here.  there are degrees of coercion.  you are presenting something being a total dichotomy between freely chosen and forced.  well, the  cure  for nicotine addiction is to chose to stop smoking cigarettes, to abstain from them.  the cure for obesity is to lower one is caloric intake.  cancer is not a very good comparison here since cancer is not a behavioral disease.  let is look at depression instead.  a person with depression can choose to act in ways that help his depression, and in this way  choose not to have it .  however, if subjected to certain stresses he or she may fall back into depression.  no more than putting someone on a strict diet can cure diabetes.   #  what are the withdrawal symptoms a gambling  addict  will face, or a heavy smoker ?  # what are the withdrawal symptoms a gambling  addict  will face, or a heavy smoker ? for alcohol, it includes seizures, headaches, tremors, delusions, and potentially even death if left untreated.  source URL there is a strong component to wanting to get better involved in overcoming addiction for most people, but that does not mean you can just willpower the physiological side effects of certain addictive substances.  substance withdrawal is an extremely well documented medical event.  you are correct on a pedantic level that someone  can just stop  taking particular substnaces and that there is some degree of an element of choice, but addiction tends to function because there is a chemical feedback system that essentially punishes you for stopping.  this is why your example of locking an alcoholic in a room is not really true.  he is  cured  insofar as he is no longer exposed to alcohol, but there will be extremely deletrious consequences for that decision if his physiology has adapted.  combined with physiological symptoms of particular substances or even behaviors and i think it is safe to say addiction exists.  see also: opiod withdrawal URL  #  not all addictions are equal and some are more severe than others but your post claims that addiction does not exist at all which i think is false.   #  i am not sure exactly what you are trying to argue.  you just said that alcoholism exists.  alcoholism  is  the addiction.  there is a physical, measurable difference between an alcoholic and a non alcoholic.  if i drink enough over a period of time, there is a physical point where my body will become afflicted by alcoholism or addiction.  to put it another way, if i was forcefully fed alcohol over a period of time against my will, i would still be an alcoholic even if i psychologically hated alcohol.  the same would go for many other drugs.  not all addictions are equal and some are more severe than others but your post claims that addiction does not exist at all which i think is false.   #  if you only do those things occasionally and have the right or wrong depending on your opinion of drug use friends there is not a ton of risk and the pleasure derived is pretty high.   #  is depression real ? anxiety disorders ? your argument seems to center around the incongruity of addictions causing someone not to have the power to stop with the fact that addicts stop using.  i think the correct way to few addiction is not that it completely removes will power, but that it inhibits it.  imagine you are weighing whether or not to do a drug or drink.  the pleasure of the high is balanced by the health, legal, and social risks.  that is why rational people can decide that it is ok for them to drink or smoke weed and sometimes even use molly or pain pills socially.  if you only do those things occasionally and have the right or wrong depending on your opinion of drug use friends there is not a ton of risk and the pleasure derived is pretty high.  when you become addicted the calculation becomes more and more heavily weighted toward use even as the pleasure derived decreases with a building tolerance and the nasty symptoms of abuse.  obviously the calculation is still there, but the user now has an unwanted but real weight on the use side of the equation.  i would submit that most addicts that manage to quit with apparent will power actually just experience something that puts so much weight on the do not use side of the calculation that they can overcome the the weight addiction is putting on the use side.  typically, i have found, that is usually coming close to dying or going crazy or anything else that undermines their perception of who they are.  generally it takes multiple instances of the bad thing happening to reinforce that it is the drugs because the pressure to use that is addiction is so strong.   #  note that behavioral addictions are in the same section, though at present only gambling addiction is defined specifically in the dsm v.   # it is not.  that is a description in a for patients handout.  it is not a medical definition.  the definition used in treating addicts is the definition in the dsm v or previously, the dsm iv .  diagnostic criteria this is for opioids, but it is basically the same for most other substances 0.  opioids are often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period of time than intended.  0.  there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control opioid use.  0.  a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the opioid, use the opioid, or recover from its effects.  0.  craving, or a strong desire to use opioids.  0.  recurrent opioid use resulting in failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school or home.  0.  continued opioid use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of opioids.  0.  important social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of opioid use.  0.  recurrent opioid use in situations in which it is physically hazardous 0.  continued use despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by opioids.  0.   tolerance, as defined by either of the following: a a need for markedly increased amounts of opioids to achieve intoxication or desired effect b markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of an opioid 0.   withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following: a the characteristic opioid withdrawal syndrome b the same or a closely related substance are taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms  this criterion is not considered to be met for those individuals taking opioids solely under appropriate medical supervision.  severity: mild: 0 0 symptoms, moderate: 0 0 symptoms.  severe: 0 or more symptoms.  note that behavioral addictions are in the same section, though at present only gambling addiction is defined specifically in the dsm v.
addiction does not exist, it cannot be objectively proven to exist in the human body, is not a medical problem, and certainly is not a disease.  what addiction actually is is a pseudo scientific, euphemistic term for the absence of will power, and a way to absolve people of responsibility for their actions.  i shall use the nhs definition here, but feel free to cite your own in your replies to me.  the nhs definition of addiction which i contend is contradictory and incoherent : emphasis mine.  now, this is a definition from a medical body, and so presumably the definition used when  treating   addicts .  it claims addicts do  not have control , clearly this cannot be the case because if it were addicts would never cease to be addicts and could never give up their substance, yet we know people give up their substances all the time and they give them up by a conscious choice to cease taking that substance.  the definition also claims that it is possible to be addicted to anything, well, it seems to me that if anything is potentially addictive then nothing is addictive.  the definition goes on to say: notice here it says  very hard  not  impossible  but if someone has  no control  as was perviously said, surely it would be impossible to stop, not just very hard ? indeed, it it certainly easier to do something that is enjoyable over something that is unpleasant, but that is still a choice one makes, no ? now, on the point of addiction being a disease.  well, the  cure  for nicotine addiction is to chose to stop smoking cigarettes, to abstain from them.  they chose to take them up, and they chose to stop taking them.  someone suffering from cancer has not chosen to have it and cannot chose not to have it.  if i lock an alcoholic in a room with no alcohol, he is now  cured  from his alcoholism, if i did the same with a cancer patient, they would still be a cancer patient.  that is my case, cmv.   #  someone suffering from cancer has not chosen to have it and cannot chose not to have it.   #  cancer is not a very good comparison here since cancer is not a behavioral disease.   # regardless of whether you think it is or not, the medical establishment decidedly thinks it is.  we observe physical changes from certain substances that lead to certain behaviors.  while,  akrasia  is certainly less blamable than other wrong actions it is still blamable to some extent.  you can blame the person for allowing themselves to be put in a certain situation.  however, it makes sense that to some extent someone who is deeply addicted to crack is less responsible for their actions regarding its consumption than someone who has never tried it before.  i. e.  regaining control.  that does not make sense.  why should everything having potentiality a mean that nothing can have that potential quality ? all pets could be bad pets, so does that mean that there are no bad pets then ? same construction, different subject.  it often is own their own.  thus, we have detoxes, treatment centers, suboxone, methadone, and other medical interventions to help people without no control regain control.  to some extent yes, however it is not a black and white situation here.  there are degrees of coercion.  you are presenting something being a total dichotomy between freely chosen and forced.  well, the  cure  for nicotine addiction is to chose to stop smoking cigarettes, to abstain from them.  the cure for obesity is to lower one is caloric intake.  cancer is not a very good comparison here since cancer is not a behavioral disease.  let is look at depression instead.  a person with depression can choose to act in ways that help his depression, and in this way  choose not to have it .  however, if subjected to certain stresses he or she may fall back into depression.  no more than putting someone on a strict diet can cure diabetes.   #  this is why your example of locking an alcoholic in a room is not really true.   # what are the withdrawal symptoms a gambling  addict  will face, or a heavy smoker ? for alcohol, it includes seizures, headaches, tremors, delusions, and potentially even death if left untreated.  source URL there is a strong component to wanting to get better involved in overcoming addiction for most people, but that does not mean you can just willpower the physiological side effects of certain addictive substances.  substance withdrawal is an extremely well documented medical event.  you are correct on a pedantic level that someone  can just stop  taking particular substnaces and that there is some degree of an element of choice, but addiction tends to function because there is a chemical feedback system that essentially punishes you for stopping.  this is why your example of locking an alcoholic in a room is not really true.  he is  cured  insofar as he is no longer exposed to alcohol, but there will be extremely deletrious consequences for that decision if his physiology has adapted.  combined with physiological symptoms of particular substances or even behaviors and i think it is safe to say addiction exists.  see also: opiod withdrawal URL  #  if i drink enough over a period of time, there is a physical point where my body will become afflicted by alcoholism or addiction.   #  i am not sure exactly what you are trying to argue.  you just said that alcoholism exists.  alcoholism  is  the addiction.  there is a physical, measurable difference between an alcoholic and a non alcoholic.  if i drink enough over a period of time, there is a physical point where my body will become afflicted by alcoholism or addiction.  to put it another way, if i was forcefully fed alcohol over a period of time against my will, i would still be an alcoholic even if i psychologically hated alcohol.  the same would go for many other drugs.  not all addictions are equal and some are more severe than others but your post claims that addiction does not exist at all which i think is false.   #  when you become addicted the calculation becomes more and more heavily weighted toward use even as the pleasure derived decreases with a building tolerance and the nasty symptoms of abuse.   #  is depression real ? anxiety disorders ? your argument seems to center around the incongruity of addictions causing someone not to have the power to stop with the fact that addicts stop using.  i think the correct way to few addiction is not that it completely removes will power, but that it inhibits it.  imagine you are weighing whether or not to do a drug or drink.  the pleasure of the high is balanced by the health, legal, and social risks.  that is why rational people can decide that it is ok for them to drink or smoke weed and sometimes even use molly or pain pills socially.  if you only do those things occasionally and have the right or wrong depending on your opinion of drug use friends there is not a ton of risk and the pleasure derived is pretty high.  when you become addicted the calculation becomes more and more heavily weighted toward use even as the pleasure derived decreases with a building tolerance and the nasty symptoms of abuse.  obviously the calculation is still there, but the user now has an unwanted but real weight on the use side of the equation.  i would submit that most addicts that manage to quit with apparent will power actually just experience something that puts so much weight on the do not use side of the calculation that they can overcome the the weight addiction is putting on the use side.  typically, i have found, that is usually coming close to dying or going crazy or anything else that undermines their perception of who they are.  generally it takes multiple instances of the bad thing happening to reinforce that it is the drugs because the pressure to use that is addiction is so strong.   #  0.  recurrent opioid use resulting in failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school or home.   # it is not.  that is a description in a for patients handout.  it is not a medical definition.  the definition used in treating addicts is the definition in the dsm v or previously, the dsm iv .  diagnostic criteria this is for opioids, but it is basically the same for most other substances 0.  opioids are often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period of time than intended.  0.  there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control opioid use.  0.  a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the opioid, use the opioid, or recover from its effects.  0.  craving, or a strong desire to use opioids.  0.  recurrent opioid use resulting in failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school or home.  0.  continued opioid use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of opioids.  0.  important social, occupational or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of opioid use.  0.  recurrent opioid use in situations in which it is physically hazardous 0.  continued use despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by opioids.  0.   tolerance, as defined by either of the following: a a need for markedly increased amounts of opioids to achieve intoxication or desired effect b markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of an opioid 0.   withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following: a the characteristic opioid withdrawal syndrome b the same or a closely related substance are taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms  this criterion is not considered to be met for those individuals taking opioids solely under appropriate medical supervision.  severity: mild: 0 0 symptoms, moderate: 0 0 symptoms.  severe: 0 or more symptoms.  note that behavioral addictions are in the same section, though at present only gambling addiction is defined specifically in the dsm v.
i have always had a respect for the men in uniform and i have always wanted to join.  recently i have disagreed with the practices of the u. s.  military but that does not mean that i hate the warriors, just the people that force them into it.  i am an immigrant and a muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining.  i want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help.  so here is where i am now: currently in first year of college studying biology, enough ap credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world god gave me, i am also poor and medical school in the military from what i understand pays for smart kids.  also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, i want the respect that people give men and women in the military.  my plan was to graduate college and join the ushs the military medical school and become and army doctor.  the only reservation that i had was that it would be a waste of my time because i want to be a neurosurgeon and that is a looooooooong and rigorous path and that i might be losing precious time by joining the military.  my mom does not want me to join for that reason.  other things that i have considered: i love the idea of a brotherhood but i do not agree with the ideology, the military putting me through med school will help me jump start life, i am very inexperienced and have not seen much of the world and this i think will help me.  i look forward to having my views challenged ! thanks !  #  my plan was to graduate college and join the ushs the military medical school and become and army doctor.   #  fyi, you do not have to go to ushs to be a military doctor.   # fyi, you do not have to go to ushs to be a military doctor.  you can go to civilian medical school, and get hpsp which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  well, it is not worth it for the money.  you will lose money by taking hpsp and especially with ushs a longer commitment than hpsp .  you will owe the military tons of time for the training, so you wo not be able to enter civilian practice for years.  civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  a civilian neurosurgeon can make over 0k easily.  a military surgeon will never see that much.  so, with nsrgy you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans.  this is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military is neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  you may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several gmo tours before starting your 0 year neurosurgery residency.  the only reason to do hpsp or ushs is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  if you are ambivalent the risk is too great.  banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  you will easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you will easily pay it off after residency.  in short, do not do it unless you are 0 committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be nsrgy  #  as a military surgeon you will have more support financial and direction but you will also have to follow someone else is rules.   #  i agree with gunner that if you do any type of surgery program, you will have enough money to pay your debts quickly so long as you live frugally as a resident, which is easy given that you will have no time to spend it .  so for that specific reason i would not worry too much about civilian vs military.  but there certainly are differences.  as a military surgeon you will have more support financial and direction but you will also have to follow someone else is rules.  if you go civilian, the only things that can stop you from neurosurgery is your quality as a candidate and your willingness to put yourself through the hell that is neurosurgery residency.  if you go military, you have both those plus the military is perceived need for neurosurgeons.  they might happen to need you to do something else, and you will have to do what they tell you.  basically i would ask yourself whether you love the military more than the choice of specialties or whether you love the idea of neurosurgery more than being part of the military.  i would not worry about the money, i would worry about how you value those two things.   #  today is a great day to be an army doctor.   #  praise the day you were born.  today is a great day to be an army doctor.  why ? because there is no war going on.  if there was, i had a really long post to dissuade you from going.  but since you will most likely just be stuck in the infirmary of some boring location, applying bandaids and icepacks to the idiots that fill the ranks, you are good to go.  i will just say that if you could get accepted to medical school, you will probably be able to pay for it.  if you are actually poor, you could even go for free.  look up the financial aid calculator for your preferred university, with your mom, and see what it would cost you.  if you are actually poor, it could be free, or if you are lower middle class, it will probably be very low.   #  the army could just stick you in the us for your career.   #  the biggest thing going against military career, from my pov, is lack of choice in your life.  you could probably become a surgeon, but i do not know about seeing the world.  the u. s.  is going more and more towards sending lots of troops overseas and towards drones and special forces so i am not sure how great your opportunities will be.  the army could just stick you in the us for your career.  and even if you go overseas, i do not know how much of the world you will see.  is a war zone really your ideal travel destination ?  #  according to the ushs website i serve for 0 years and then i can choose to continue or i can come back.   #  you are right, there is very little choice and that sucks but like i said i have this need to help other people and that is why i want to be a doctor.  arguably, i would be helping more people here at home but then again, do they need it as much ? anyway, you are absolutely right about opportunities and that is definitely something i need to look up and do more research with.  but, i think a lot of people forget that i am not in the army forever.  according to the ushs website i serve for 0 years and then i can choose to continue or i can come back.  i do not think joining the private sector is that hard once i am already a doctor.
i have always had a respect for the men in uniform and i have always wanted to join.  recently i have disagreed with the practices of the u. s.  military but that does not mean that i hate the warriors, just the people that force them into it.  i am an immigrant and a muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining.  i want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help.  so here is where i am now: currently in first year of college studying biology, enough ap credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world god gave me, i am also poor and medical school in the military from what i understand pays for smart kids.  also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, i want the respect that people give men and women in the military.  my plan was to graduate college and join the ushs the military medical school and become and army doctor.  the only reservation that i had was that it would be a waste of my time because i want to be a neurosurgeon and that is a looooooooong and rigorous path and that i might be losing precious time by joining the military.  my mom does not want me to join for that reason.  other things that i have considered: i love the idea of a brotherhood but i do not agree with the ideology, the military putting me through med school will help me jump start life, i am very inexperienced and have not seen much of the world and this i think will help me.  i look forward to having my views challenged ! thanks !  #  the only reservation that i had was that it would be a waste of my time because i want to be a neurosurgeon and that is a looooooooong and rigorous path and that i might be losing precious time by joining the military.   #  well, it is not worth it for the money.   # fyi, you do not have to go to ushs to be a military doctor.  you can go to civilian medical school, and get hpsp which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  well, it is not worth it for the money.  you will lose money by taking hpsp and especially with ushs a longer commitment than hpsp .  you will owe the military tons of time for the training, so you wo not be able to enter civilian practice for years.  civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  a civilian neurosurgeon can make over 0k easily.  a military surgeon will never see that much.  so, with nsrgy you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans.  this is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military is neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  you may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several gmo tours before starting your 0 year neurosurgery residency.  the only reason to do hpsp or ushs is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  if you are ambivalent the risk is too great.  banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  you will easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you will easily pay it off after residency.  in short, do not do it unless you are 0 committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be nsrgy  #  as a military surgeon you will have more support financial and direction but you will also have to follow someone else is rules.   #  i agree with gunner that if you do any type of surgery program, you will have enough money to pay your debts quickly so long as you live frugally as a resident, which is easy given that you will have no time to spend it .  so for that specific reason i would not worry too much about civilian vs military.  but there certainly are differences.  as a military surgeon you will have more support financial and direction but you will also have to follow someone else is rules.  if you go civilian, the only things that can stop you from neurosurgery is your quality as a candidate and your willingness to put yourself through the hell that is neurosurgery residency.  if you go military, you have both those plus the military is perceived need for neurosurgeons.  they might happen to need you to do something else, and you will have to do what they tell you.  basically i would ask yourself whether you love the military more than the choice of specialties or whether you love the idea of neurosurgery more than being part of the military.  i would not worry about the money, i would worry about how you value those two things.   #  i will just say that if you could get accepted to medical school, you will probably be able to pay for it.   #  praise the day you were born.  today is a great day to be an army doctor.  why ? because there is no war going on.  if there was, i had a really long post to dissuade you from going.  but since you will most likely just be stuck in the infirmary of some boring location, applying bandaids and icepacks to the idiots that fill the ranks, you are good to go.  i will just say that if you could get accepted to medical school, you will probably be able to pay for it.  if you are actually poor, you could even go for free.  look up the financial aid calculator for your preferred university, with your mom, and see what it would cost you.  if you are actually poor, it could be free, or if you are lower middle class, it will probably be very low.   #  is a war zone really your ideal travel destination ?  #  the biggest thing going against military career, from my pov, is lack of choice in your life.  you could probably become a surgeon, but i do not know about seeing the world.  the u. s.  is going more and more towards sending lots of troops overseas and towards drones and special forces so i am not sure how great your opportunities will be.  the army could just stick you in the us for your career.  and even if you go overseas, i do not know how much of the world you will see.  is a war zone really your ideal travel destination ?  #  according to the ushs website i serve for 0 years and then i can choose to continue or i can come back.   #  you are right, there is very little choice and that sucks but like i said i have this need to help other people and that is why i want to be a doctor.  arguably, i would be helping more people here at home but then again, do they need it as much ? anyway, you are absolutely right about opportunities and that is definitely something i need to look up and do more research with.  but, i think a lot of people forget that i am not in the army forever.  according to the ushs website i serve for 0 years and then i can choose to continue or i can come back.  i do not think joining the private sector is that hard once i am already a doctor.
i have always had a respect for the men in uniform and i have always wanted to join.  recently i have disagreed with the practices of the u. s.  military but that does not mean that i hate the warriors, just the people that force them into it.  i am an immigrant and a muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining.  i want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help.  so here is where i am now: currently in first year of college studying biology, enough ap credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world god gave me, i am also poor and medical school in the military from what i understand pays for smart kids.  also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, i want the respect that people give men and women in the military.  my plan was to graduate college and join the ushs the military medical school and become and army doctor.  the only reservation that i had was that it would be a waste of my time because i want to be a neurosurgeon and that is a looooooooong and rigorous path and that i might be losing precious time by joining the military.  my mom does not want me to join for that reason.  other things that i have considered: i love the idea of a brotherhood but i do not agree with the ideology, the military putting me through med school will help me jump start life, i am very inexperienced and have not seen much of the world and this i think will help me.  i look forward to having my views challenged ! thanks !  #  i am also poor and medical school in the military from what i understand pays for smart kids.   #  banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.   # fyi, you do not have to go to ushs to be a military doctor.  you can go to civilian medical school, and get hpsp which is slightly different but accomplishes roughly the same thing.  well, it is not worth it for the money.  you will lose money by taking hpsp and especially with ushs a longer commitment than hpsp .  you will owe the military tons of time for the training, so you wo not be able to enter civilian practice for years.  civilian neurosurgeons will easily catch up to their debtless peers in the military due to the huge difference in salaries.  a civilian neurosurgeon can make over 0k easily.  a military surgeon will never see that much.  so, with nsrgy you will have a net loss in the military compared to a civilian path with loans.  this is assuming you get a neurosurgery residency in the military, which is suspect.  neurosurgery is already competitive, and the military is neurosurgery residencies are extremely limited.  you may end up as a general surgeon, or doing several gmo tours before starting your 0 year neurosurgery residency.  the only reason to do hpsp or ushs is because you want to be a doctor in the military, not because you want the money.  if you are ambivalent the risk is too great.  banks have zero problem giving out loans to medical students.  you will easily cover your tuition, and while debt sucks you will easily pay it off after residency.  in short, do not do it unless you are 0 committed to spending about a decade and a half in the military in a speciality that might not even necessarily be nsrgy  #  so for that specific reason i would not worry too much about civilian vs military.   #  i agree with gunner that if you do any type of surgery program, you will have enough money to pay your debts quickly so long as you live frugally as a resident, which is easy given that you will have no time to spend it .  so for that specific reason i would not worry too much about civilian vs military.  but there certainly are differences.  as a military surgeon you will have more support financial and direction but you will also have to follow someone else is rules.  if you go civilian, the only things that can stop you from neurosurgery is your quality as a candidate and your willingness to put yourself through the hell that is neurosurgery residency.  if you go military, you have both those plus the military is perceived need for neurosurgeons.  they might happen to need you to do something else, and you will have to do what they tell you.  basically i would ask yourself whether you love the military more than the choice of specialties or whether you love the idea of neurosurgery more than being part of the military.  i would not worry about the money, i would worry about how you value those two things.   #  but since you will most likely just be stuck in the infirmary of some boring location, applying bandaids and icepacks to the idiots that fill the ranks, you are good to go.   #  praise the day you were born.  today is a great day to be an army doctor.  why ? because there is no war going on.  if there was, i had a really long post to dissuade you from going.  but since you will most likely just be stuck in the infirmary of some boring location, applying bandaids and icepacks to the idiots that fill the ranks, you are good to go.  i will just say that if you could get accepted to medical school, you will probably be able to pay for it.  if you are actually poor, you could even go for free.  look up the financial aid calculator for your preferred university, with your mom, and see what it would cost you.  if you are actually poor, it could be free, or if you are lower middle class, it will probably be very low.   #  is a war zone really your ideal travel destination ?  #  the biggest thing going against military career, from my pov, is lack of choice in your life.  you could probably become a surgeon, but i do not know about seeing the world.  the u. s.  is going more and more towards sending lots of troops overseas and towards drones and special forces so i am not sure how great your opportunities will be.  the army could just stick you in the us for your career.  and even if you go overseas, i do not know how much of the world you will see.  is a war zone really your ideal travel destination ?  #  according to the ushs website i serve for 0 years and then i can choose to continue or i can come back.   #  you are right, there is very little choice and that sucks but like i said i have this need to help other people and that is why i want to be a doctor.  arguably, i would be helping more people here at home but then again, do they need it as much ? anyway, you are absolutely right about opportunities and that is definitely something i need to look up and do more research with.  but, i think a lot of people forget that i am not in the army forever.  according to the ushs website i serve for 0 years and then i can choose to continue or i can come back.  i do not think joining the private sector is that hard once i am already a doctor.
i would like to start off by saying that the cod games are good games in their own right, though they are extremely overhyped.  one reason i take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  there are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  even advanced warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  another reason for my opinion is that cod does not really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  there are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it is just another fps with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.   #  one reason i take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.   #  this is a classic problem with nearly every long lived franchise.   #  i think it is almost fair to say that every aaa franchise these days is overhyped in some way.  that is just the nature of the business right now.  this is a classic problem with nearly every long lived franchise.  how do you make a successor while maintaining the formula of the franchise and at the same time making enough changes such that it is not a rehash of previous titles ? every single modern franchise has this issue; bf, civilization, total war, borderlands, halo etc.  you will always have people who criticize new releases for either being to similar to games of past or get criticized for being so different that it is no longer a true member of the franchise.  so for cod, rather than making radical changes to the new titles and risk straying from the current format they stick with a tried and true formula.  imo, it is not such a bad thing for those who like the franchise.  people know what to expect from a cod title and that is ok.  it is a tough problem to solve and appease everyone.  i would rather see cod stay cod rather than try to become something else.   #  really, your view of  overrated and overhyped  is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own  personal  threshold for formulaic video games.   #  let me address this by pointing one thing out: numbers do not lie.  with absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that are not a fan of.  make major changes and instead of person a hating the series and person b loving it, now person a loves it and person b hates it.  you are entirely in your right to feel that cod is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view.  you like what you like.  i can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective.  so back to numbers do not lie.  consider the goal the creators of cod have.  to make money.  and they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  now, you are an executive of activision blizzard.  why would you tell the developers to do a complete 0 on the series,  for change is sake.   ? you only run risk and very little reward.  if you stick to the tried and true model they have had, you are very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales.  i am sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the cod formula.  really, your view of  overrated and overhyped  is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own  personal  threshold for formulaic video games.  but this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  if they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  the idiom,  do not fix what is not broken  comes to mind.  there are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  i mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new cod next year, would you buy it ? probably not.  you have a bias against the series.  why would their target audience be the people who  do not  like cod ? it makes no sense.  the other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  it makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time and therefore cost it takes to make a new game.  brand new engine cods likely would not make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  they are not a charity, so gamers are not entitled to it.   #  it is not that being popular makes it a good game intrinsically e. g.   #  it is not an ad populum fallacy to argue that a song deserves a place in the top 0 chart because it is the most popular song.  the failure of an ad populum fallacy is that popularity may be correlated with some external good qualities, but is not a good indicator on an individual basis.  e. g.  the most popular songs are not necessarily the best songs artistically.  however, if you are arguing about somethings popularity, referencing its popularity is not a fallacy.  hence arguing that a popular song deserves a spot on the top 0 list is not a fallacy.  essentially,  occamschainsaw is arguing that cod is designed to be popular and succeeds in that goal.  it is not that being popular makes it a good game intrinsically e. g.  being popular means it is a creative game , which would be an ad populum fallacy, but that popularity and sales figures are a worthy measure of a game just like style, gameplay, and creativity.  so since it sells well, it deserves to be recognized as a good game.   #  so you argue that this makes my argument fallacious as the content of the song is not determining its place in the top 0 chart.   #  very interesting article, thank you for posting that, but marketing and manufacturing perceived popularity is something that companies do deliberately to make a product more popular.  to summarize the argument in the paper, a song/game/whatever of sufficient quality can be made to be popular or not based on preconceptions of people.  in other words, that top 0 hit could easily not be popular if it was not associated with a particular singer, marketed as well, or initial public perception was negative.  so you argue that this makes my argument fallacious as the content of the song is not determining its place in the top 0 chart.  however, that only holds if you do not consider branding, marketing, and other external factors in your assessment of quality.  however, since we are no longer considering only intrinsic qualities of the song/game/whatever, i see no reason to not consider manipulation of public perception as described in the paper as part of the game.  yeah, it sounds kind of silly, but we are no longer reviewing the game as a gamer might and now looking at it like an investor might, and for an investor the cod name, marketing, and other external factors to the game is very much a part of the game.   #  i think the social aspect plays a large role in the enjoyment factor for games like halo, cod, and other games.   #  i think the social aspect plays a large role in the enjoyment factor for games like halo, cod, and other games.  some of my favourite memories on the 0 were out of playing halo 0 and cod with three other high school friends.  even today when i play destiny which gets pretty boring playing alone is pretty great when you play alon with a few other friends with mics.  as long as cod has decent mechanics and gameplay and the ability to play and talk with my buddy who lives across the block, they will be enjoyable.  now the question if they hold an objective valued quality that can be considered  good  or  great  is a different matter.
i would like to start off by saying that the cod games are good games in their own right, though they are extremely overhyped.  one reason i take this stance is because the newly released games are ectremely similar to their predecessors.  there are few if any changes in gameplay, and the basic level design for the most part, remains the same.  even advanced warfare, which seemed to promise the most novel changes, was criticized for changing too little from its preceding games.  another reason for my opinion is that cod does not really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.  there are a few unique features here and there, but overall, it is just another fps with nothing spectacular that sets it above the other games in its genre.   #  another reason for my opinion is that cod does not really have anything astoundingly different from other games of the same genre.   #  it is a tough problem to solve and appease everyone.   #  i think it is almost fair to say that every aaa franchise these days is overhyped in some way.  that is just the nature of the business right now.  this is a classic problem with nearly every long lived franchise.  how do you make a successor while maintaining the formula of the franchise and at the same time making enough changes such that it is not a rehash of previous titles ? every single modern franchise has this issue; bf, civilization, total war, borderlands, halo etc.  you will always have people who criticize new releases for either being to similar to games of past or get criticized for being so different that it is no longer a true member of the franchise.  so for cod, rather than making radical changes to the new titles and risk straying from the current format they stick with a tried and true formula.  imo, it is not such a bad thing for those who like the franchise.  people know what to expect from a cod title and that is ok.  it is a tough problem to solve and appease everyone.  i would rather see cod stay cod rather than try to become something else.   #  really, your view of  overrated and overhyped  is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own  personal  threshold for formulaic video games.   #  let me address this by pointing one thing out: numbers do not lie.  with absolutely anything, there will always be things that people that are not a fan of.  make major changes and instead of person a hating the series and person b loving it, now person a loves it and person b hates it.  you are entirely in your right to feel that cod is overrated, and personally it seems futile to change this view.  you like what you like.  i can only provide objective points to maybe calibrate your perspective.  so back to numbers do not lie.  consider the goal the creators of cod have.  to make money.  and they consistently perform this goal well year after year.  now, you are an executive of activision blizzard.  why would you tell the developers to do a complete 0 on the series,  for change is sake.   ? you only run risk and very little reward.  if you stick to the tried and true model they have had, you are very nearly guaranteed to make a certain amount of sales.  i am sure they can graph the sales of each subsequent game and make predictions to the gradual decline with each passing year as more and more individuals grow bored of the cod formula.  really, your view of  overrated and overhyped  is nothing more than an idiosyncratic reflection of your own  personal  threshold for formulaic video games.  but this view is separate from the objective success of the series.  if they keep selling games, it means people still enjoy the series for what it is.  the idiom,  do not fix what is not broken  comes to mind.  there are more people who still like the series and will buy new iterations without much change compared to the minority who do find it cliche, hackneyed, etc.  i mean, be realistic here, if they promised the most radically new cod next year, would you buy it ? probably not.  you have a bias against the series.  why would their target audience be the people who  do not  like cod ? it makes no sense.  the other major point is that video game development is extremely expensive.  making an entirely new engine is costly, takes years to develop, and you never have a guarantee of financial success upon release.  it makes more sense to stick with the old engine and old code, which drastically reduces the time and therefore cost it takes to make a new game.  brand new engine cods likely would not make sufficiently more money to offset their cost to make it.  they are not a charity, so gamers are not entitled to it.   #  being popular means it is a creative game , which would be an ad populum fallacy, but that popularity and sales figures are a worthy measure of a game just like style, gameplay, and creativity.   #  it is not an ad populum fallacy to argue that a song deserves a place in the top 0 chart because it is the most popular song.  the failure of an ad populum fallacy is that popularity may be correlated with some external good qualities, but is not a good indicator on an individual basis.  e. g.  the most popular songs are not necessarily the best songs artistically.  however, if you are arguing about somethings popularity, referencing its popularity is not a fallacy.  hence arguing that a popular song deserves a spot on the top 0 list is not a fallacy.  essentially,  occamschainsaw is arguing that cod is designed to be popular and succeeds in that goal.  it is not that being popular makes it a good game intrinsically e. g.  being popular means it is a creative game , which would be an ad populum fallacy, but that popularity and sales figures are a worthy measure of a game just like style, gameplay, and creativity.  so since it sells well, it deserves to be recognized as a good game.   #  in other words, that top 0 hit could easily not be popular if it was not associated with a particular singer, marketed as well, or initial public perception was negative.   #  very interesting article, thank you for posting that, but marketing and manufacturing perceived popularity is something that companies do deliberately to make a product more popular.  to summarize the argument in the paper, a song/game/whatever of sufficient quality can be made to be popular or not based on preconceptions of people.  in other words, that top 0 hit could easily not be popular if it was not associated with a particular singer, marketed as well, or initial public perception was negative.  so you argue that this makes my argument fallacious as the content of the song is not determining its place in the top 0 chart.  however, that only holds if you do not consider branding, marketing, and other external factors in your assessment of quality.  however, since we are no longer considering only intrinsic qualities of the song/game/whatever, i see no reason to not consider manipulation of public perception as described in the paper as part of the game.  yeah, it sounds kind of silly, but we are no longer reviewing the game as a gamer might and now looking at it like an investor might, and for an investor the cod name, marketing, and other external factors to the game is very much a part of the game.   #  i think the social aspect plays a large role in the enjoyment factor for games like halo, cod, and other games.   #  i think the social aspect plays a large role in the enjoyment factor for games like halo, cod, and other games.  some of my favourite memories on the 0 were out of playing halo 0 and cod with three other high school friends.  even today when i play destiny which gets pretty boring playing alone is pretty great when you play alon with a few other friends with mics.  as long as cod has decent mechanics and gameplay and the ability to play and talk with my buddy who lives across the block, they will be enjoyable.  now the question if they hold an objective valued quality that can be considered  good  or  great  is a different matter.
we hear it time and time again every new year.  our closest friends and families making new years resolutions.  while i encourage people in improving themselves, i hate the idea of new year is resolutions.  i believe overall, new years resolutions only serve to discourage people from actually achieving goals and is based on faulty reasoning.  0 of americans make resolutions every new year.  URL yet just a paltry 0 of them achieve their resolution.  while i applaud those 0, i fail to understand why they could not have done this at any other point during the year.  and while i do not have the proof, i am willing to bet that those same 0 would have improved just as much if they decided to commit to a goal at any other point in the year.  here is why i believe new year is resolutions are almost always destined to fail.  every nyr requires:  0.  wait until the new year starts.   this absurdity alone should put this to bed.  there is no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something.  i believe most people simply want that last week before their resolution comes into  effect  to gorge on unhealthy food while they still can, smoke cigarettes while they can, etc.  then:  0.  the second the new year starts, your life is supposed to automatically change forever.   the second the clock strikes 0, that is it.  no more cigarettes, no more junk food.  ever.  why ? why introduce such a drastic change on a whim like that ? what is the reasoning ? why not make steady improvements over time instead of unleashing hell on yourself all at once ? and people think this is going to be successful ?  0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.   if your last cigarette was not at 0:0 pm on december 0, and you smoke anytime thereafter, you have failed your resolution.  people treat nyr is as a do or die effort.  if you do not go to the gym, if you ever touch another dorito, or you buy an unnecessary item at the mall, even once, that is it.  you have failed at achieving your nyr and you may as well give up.  it is such a ridiculous mindset.  if you set an arbitrary date to make a drastic lifestyle change, you are going to fuck up ! it is ok ! there is no reason to beat yourself up over it.  yet most people fail before february and completely give up their nyr thereafter.  humans are simply not hard wired for such massive changes in diet, nutrition, lifestyle, etc. , to be taken all at once like that.  and there is no good reason for it either.  it is a completely arbitrary date, with nothing magical about it whatsoever, and there is absolutely no reason not to change your life at any other point during the year.  in fact, if you really wanted to, you already would have.  you would not be waiting for the new year.  and then when you inevitably fail, you blame yourself and become even more discouraged.  no wonder.  it is an awful system and you are essentially setting yourself up to fail.   #  0.  wait until the new year starts.   #  because the new year has a tradition of having resolutions it is often a time of self reflection.   # because the new year has a tradition of having resolutions it is often a time of self reflection.  the reason more resolutions do not start at other times in the year is probably because people do not often take the time to look at themselves.  if june 0th was national self reflection day you would probably see a lot of people start going to the gym that week or people giving up cigarettes   0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.  not necessarily.  some do have absolute resolutions.   give up smoking   no more pop   i want to lose 0 lbs  etc and in this case they could  fail  their resolution and yet still improve themselves as a person.  if a person who use to drink 0 cases of pop a week finishes drinking 0 0 pops a week did they fail ? technically yes, but they did improve on what they saw as a great problem.  there are also resolutions that are more flexible.   i want to work out more   i want to eat healthier   i want to spend more time with my family  if someone had a goal of working out more does skipping one day mean they failed ? no because they could still avg working out 0 times a week when the previous year they may have only done it once a week.  you brought it up at the beginning that only a small percentage of people reach their goal.  the fact is it is hard too bring about change in a human being.  they are often stuck in their ways and must often overcome many obstacles in their way.  even though it is a small number any small thing that brings about positive change in humans is a good thing.   #  without making a resolution to a specific date.   # tradition.  there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  maybe they are trying again in march ? there are a lot of people who stop to smoke, eat healthier, workout more, etc.  without making a resolution to a specific date.  maybe the first impulse was a nyr, maybe not.  each try to change yourself to something more positive is better than no try at all.  at the end just the pause between the tries has to become shorter and shorter.   #  there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.   # really it is just tradition that new years have so many resolutions.  i am sure you can see the symbolism behind starting a new year with some goals.  as the tradition has grown it has also become a time for self reflection.  just the fact that people come around and ask the question,  what is your new year is resolution ?  , causes you to look at yourself.  how often during the year do people ask you how you are going to improve yourself as a person ? how often do you just think it ? there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  the reason most people stop their resolutions so early is because its hard to change and break your habits.  if you last until late february/march then you probably already formed new habits.  but in the first month or so you are completely going against what you have programmed your body to do the past 0 years or so.  i am sure a lot of people set goals that are way to high for themselves and get discouraged quickly.  that is not necessarily a bad idea of setting a resolution but a bad goal the person set.  i think you are stuck on the fact that a lot of people do not reach/give up on their resolution.  but is there any real time in which a large percentage of people do change ?  #  here, you still have the problem of successfully executing those resolutions.   #  all new year is does is to give people a set time to reflect and make resolutions.  successfully executing those resolutions is a totally unrelated matter.  in an alternate universe, there is no such thing as new year is.  instead, people make resolutions when things get bad enough that a tragedy of some sort occurs.  here, you still have the problem of successfully executing those resolutions.   #  i do not normally do resolutions exactly because of the reasons you gave, but there is one thing i want to do this time that exemplifies why sometimes waiting until january 0st is a must.   #  giving you my view.  i do not normally do resolutions exactly because of the reasons you gave, but there is one thing i want to do this time that exemplifies why sometimes waiting until january 0st is a must.  i want to go back to the gym.  i decided i do right after school ended for me, which was roughly mid december.  but it did not make sense for me to join then and there because of the time they would be closed they are closed since a few days before christmas till january the 0nd, iirc since i would pay a whole month for just a few days of use, and because of how much we eat in special occasions such as christmas and new year is.  so it makes more sense to me to simply wait, let all this pass and start next year.  also, many gyms offer special prices on january exactly to grip those people on resolutions, so it is worth it to hang on a bit.
we hear it time and time again every new year.  our closest friends and families making new years resolutions.  while i encourage people in improving themselves, i hate the idea of new year is resolutions.  i believe overall, new years resolutions only serve to discourage people from actually achieving goals and is based on faulty reasoning.  0 of americans make resolutions every new year.  URL yet just a paltry 0 of them achieve their resolution.  while i applaud those 0, i fail to understand why they could not have done this at any other point during the year.  and while i do not have the proof, i am willing to bet that those same 0 would have improved just as much if they decided to commit to a goal at any other point in the year.  here is why i believe new year is resolutions are almost always destined to fail.  every nyr requires:  0.  wait until the new year starts.   this absurdity alone should put this to bed.  there is no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something.  i believe most people simply want that last week before their resolution comes into  effect  to gorge on unhealthy food while they still can, smoke cigarettes while they can, etc.  then:  0.  the second the new year starts, your life is supposed to automatically change forever.   the second the clock strikes 0, that is it.  no more cigarettes, no more junk food.  ever.  why ? why introduce such a drastic change on a whim like that ? what is the reasoning ? why not make steady improvements over time instead of unleashing hell on yourself all at once ? and people think this is going to be successful ?  0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.   if your last cigarette was not at 0:0 pm on december 0, and you smoke anytime thereafter, you have failed your resolution.  people treat nyr is as a do or die effort.  if you do not go to the gym, if you ever touch another dorito, or you buy an unnecessary item at the mall, even once, that is it.  you have failed at achieving your nyr and you may as well give up.  it is such a ridiculous mindset.  if you set an arbitrary date to make a drastic lifestyle change, you are going to fuck up ! it is ok ! there is no reason to beat yourself up over it.  yet most people fail before february and completely give up their nyr thereafter.  humans are simply not hard wired for such massive changes in diet, nutrition, lifestyle, etc. , to be taken all at once like that.  and there is no good reason for it either.  it is a completely arbitrary date, with nothing magical about it whatsoever, and there is absolutely no reason not to change your life at any other point during the year.  in fact, if you really wanted to, you already would have.  you would not be waiting for the new year.  and then when you inevitably fail, you blame yourself and become even more discouraged.  no wonder.  it is an awful system and you are essentially setting yourself up to fail.   #  this absurdity alone should put this to bed.   #  there is no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something.   # there is no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something.  that is not necessarily true.  the holidays are stressful for many people.  once the holidays are over, many people take that time to undo the damage of the stres by starting to improve themselves.  starting earlier would just be an additional stress that most people do not want/need at that time of year.  yes, the 0st is a  little  arbitrary, but there is some good symbolism about starting fresh, just like the calendar.  it is also a good way to keep track of progress.  you did not start on a random tuesday roughly 0 weeks ago.  you have an important date that you ca not forget.  see my point about stress.  people want that comfort while they need it, so they are a little easier on themselves during the holidays.  there is no second chances.  that really depends on the resolution.  you are not going to spend every moment in the gym, so missing a day does not mean you have failed entirely.  same with eating or smoking less.  falling off the wagon is just one step in the process.  for some people, it is enough to make them give up.  for others, it is just a sign that they need to try harder or change their strategy.  it really depends on the person.   #  technically yes, but they did improve on what they saw as a great problem.   # because the new year has a tradition of having resolutions it is often a time of self reflection.  the reason more resolutions do not start at other times in the year is probably because people do not often take the time to look at themselves.  if june 0th was national self reflection day you would probably see a lot of people start going to the gym that week or people giving up cigarettes   0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.  not necessarily.  some do have absolute resolutions.   give up smoking   no more pop   i want to lose 0 lbs  etc and in this case they could  fail  their resolution and yet still improve themselves as a person.  if a person who use to drink 0 cases of pop a week finishes drinking 0 0 pops a week did they fail ? technically yes, but they did improve on what they saw as a great problem.  there are also resolutions that are more flexible.   i want to work out more   i want to eat healthier   i want to spend more time with my family  if someone had a goal of working out more does skipping one day mean they failed ? no because they could still avg working out 0 times a week when the previous year they may have only done it once a week.  you brought it up at the beginning that only a small percentage of people reach their goal.  the fact is it is hard too bring about change in a human being.  they are often stuck in their ways and must often overcome many obstacles in their way.  even though it is a small number any small thing that brings about positive change in humans is a good thing.   #  there are a lot of people who stop to smoke, eat healthier, workout more, etc.   # tradition.  there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  maybe they are trying again in march ? there are a lot of people who stop to smoke, eat healthier, workout more, etc.  without making a resolution to a specific date.  maybe the first impulse was a nyr, maybe not.  each try to change yourself to something more positive is better than no try at all.  at the end just the pause between the tries has to become shorter and shorter.   #  i think you are stuck on the fact that a lot of people do not reach/give up on their resolution.   # really it is just tradition that new years have so many resolutions.  i am sure you can see the symbolism behind starting a new year with some goals.  as the tradition has grown it has also become a time for self reflection.  just the fact that people come around and ask the question,  what is your new year is resolution ?  , causes you to look at yourself.  how often during the year do people ask you how you are going to improve yourself as a person ? how often do you just think it ? there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  the reason most people stop their resolutions so early is because its hard to change and break your habits.  if you last until late february/march then you probably already formed new habits.  but in the first month or so you are completely going against what you have programmed your body to do the past 0 years or so.  i am sure a lot of people set goals that are way to high for themselves and get discouraged quickly.  that is not necessarily a bad idea of setting a resolution but a bad goal the person set.  i think you are stuck on the fact that a lot of people do not reach/give up on their resolution.  but is there any real time in which a large percentage of people do change ?  #  in an alternate universe, there is no such thing as new year is.   #  all new year is does is to give people a set time to reflect and make resolutions.  successfully executing those resolutions is a totally unrelated matter.  in an alternate universe, there is no such thing as new year is.  instead, people make resolutions when things get bad enough that a tragedy of some sort occurs.  here, you still have the problem of successfully executing those resolutions.
we hear it time and time again every new year.  our closest friends and families making new years resolutions.  while i encourage people in improving themselves, i hate the idea of new year is resolutions.  i believe overall, new years resolutions only serve to discourage people from actually achieving goals and is based on faulty reasoning.  0 of americans make resolutions every new year.  URL yet just a paltry 0 of them achieve their resolution.  while i applaud those 0, i fail to understand why they could not have done this at any other point during the year.  and while i do not have the proof, i am willing to bet that those same 0 would have improved just as much if they decided to commit to a goal at any other point in the year.  here is why i believe new year is resolutions are almost always destined to fail.  every nyr requires:  0.  wait until the new year starts.   this absurdity alone should put this to bed.  there is no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something.  i believe most people simply want that last week before their resolution comes into  effect  to gorge on unhealthy food while they still can, smoke cigarettes while they can, etc.  then:  0.  the second the new year starts, your life is supposed to automatically change forever.   the second the clock strikes 0, that is it.  no more cigarettes, no more junk food.  ever.  why ? why introduce such a drastic change on a whim like that ? what is the reasoning ? why not make steady improvements over time instead of unleashing hell on yourself all at once ? and people think this is going to be successful ?  0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.   if your last cigarette was not at 0:0 pm on december 0, and you smoke anytime thereafter, you have failed your resolution.  people treat nyr is as a do or die effort.  if you do not go to the gym, if you ever touch another dorito, or you buy an unnecessary item at the mall, even once, that is it.  you have failed at achieving your nyr and you may as well give up.  it is such a ridiculous mindset.  if you set an arbitrary date to make a drastic lifestyle change, you are going to fuck up ! it is ok ! there is no reason to beat yourself up over it.  yet most people fail before february and completely give up their nyr thereafter.  humans are simply not hard wired for such massive changes in diet, nutrition, lifestyle, etc. , to be taken all at once like that.  and there is no good reason for it either.  it is a completely arbitrary date, with nothing magical about it whatsoever, and there is absolutely no reason not to change your life at any other point during the year.  in fact, if you really wanted to, you already would have.  you would not be waiting for the new year.  and then when you inevitably fail, you blame yourself and become even more discouraged.  no wonder.  it is an awful system and you are essentially setting yourself up to fail.   #  there is no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something.   #  the cyclical nature of our lives is not arbitrary, it is a deeply ingrained cultural artifact based on the seasons around the sun.   # the cyclical nature of our lives is not arbitrary, it is a deeply ingrained cultural artifact based on the seasons around the sun.  scorn it and you disengage from your humanity ! think of the caveman who has one chance per year to hunt the aurox before the snows return.  or the farmer who plants and harvests crops on a yearly basis.  or the modern student who from kindergarten to college has their end of year exams.  or the mammals and birds who birth in the spring.  or even the businesses that report at the end of their financial year, or all the sports that compete for an annual cup.  there are many things in life we have a fresh shot at on a yearly basis, because life is cyclical.   all this has happened before, and all of it will happen again  .  it is cyclical and moves in discreet step fashion because endeavours must have a start and a finish, and that which struggles to flourish has to get up and try again when it fails.  the choice to base your new year resolutions on the calendar is not arbitrary.  your holidays are your reward for working over the year gone by it is an end stage.  and once that is over, you start afresh.   #   give up smoking   no more pop   i want to lose 0 lbs  etc and in this case they could  fail  their resolution and yet still improve themselves as a person.   # because the new year has a tradition of having resolutions it is often a time of self reflection.  the reason more resolutions do not start at other times in the year is probably because people do not often take the time to look at themselves.  if june 0th was national self reflection day you would probably see a lot of people start going to the gym that week or people giving up cigarettes   0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.  not necessarily.  some do have absolute resolutions.   give up smoking   no more pop   i want to lose 0 lbs  etc and in this case they could  fail  their resolution and yet still improve themselves as a person.  if a person who use to drink 0 cases of pop a week finishes drinking 0 0 pops a week did they fail ? technically yes, but they did improve on what they saw as a great problem.  there are also resolutions that are more flexible.   i want to work out more   i want to eat healthier   i want to spend more time with my family  if someone had a goal of working out more does skipping one day mean they failed ? no because they could still avg working out 0 times a week when the previous year they may have only done it once a week.  you brought it up at the beginning that only a small percentage of people reach their goal.  the fact is it is hard too bring about change in a human being.  they are often stuck in their ways and must often overcome many obstacles in their way.  even though it is a small number any small thing that brings about positive change in humans is a good thing.   #  maybe the first impulse was a nyr, maybe not.   # tradition.  there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  maybe they are trying again in march ? there are a lot of people who stop to smoke, eat healthier, workout more, etc.  without making a resolution to a specific date.  maybe the first impulse was a nyr, maybe not.  each try to change yourself to something more positive is better than no try at all.  at the end just the pause between the tries has to become shorter and shorter.   #  i think you are stuck on the fact that a lot of people do not reach/give up on their resolution.   # really it is just tradition that new years have so many resolutions.  i am sure you can see the symbolism behind starting a new year with some goals.  as the tradition has grown it has also become a time for self reflection.  just the fact that people come around and ask the question,  what is your new year is resolution ?  , causes you to look at yourself.  how often during the year do people ask you how you are going to improve yourself as a person ? how often do you just think it ? there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  the reason most people stop their resolutions so early is because its hard to change and break your habits.  if you last until late february/march then you probably already formed new habits.  but in the first month or so you are completely going against what you have programmed your body to do the past 0 years or so.  i am sure a lot of people set goals that are way to high for themselves and get discouraged quickly.  that is not necessarily a bad idea of setting a resolution but a bad goal the person set.  i think you are stuck on the fact that a lot of people do not reach/give up on their resolution.  but is there any real time in which a large percentage of people do change ?  #  instead, people make resolutions when things get bad enough that a tragedy of some sort occurs.   #  all new year is does is to give people a set time to reflect and make resolutions.  successfully executing those resolutions is a totally unrelated matter.  in an alternate universe, there is no such thing as new year is.  instead, people make resolutions when things get bad enough that a tragedy of some sort occurs.  here, you still have the problem of successfully executing those resolutions.
we hear it time and time again every new year.  our closest friends and families making new years resolutions.  while i encourage people in improving themselves, i hate the idea of new year is resolutions.  i believe overall, new years resolutions only serve to discourage people from actually achieving goals and is based on faulty reasoning.  0 of americans make resolutions every new year.  URL yet just a paltry 0 of them achieve their resolution.  while i applaud those 0, i fail to understand why they could not have done this at any other point during the year.  and while i do not have the proof, i am willing to bet that those same 0 would have improved just as much if they decided to commit to a goal at any other point in the year.  here is why i believe new year is resolutions are almost always destined to fail.  every nyr requires:  0.  wait until the new year starts.   this absurdity alone should put this to bed.  there is no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something.  i believe most people simply want that last week before their resolution comes into  effect  to gorge on unhealthy food while they still can, smoke cigarettes while they can, etc.  then:  0.  the second the new year starts, your life is supposed to automatically change forever.   the second the clock strikes 0, that is it.  no more cigarettes, no more junk food.  ever.  why ? why introduce such a drastic change on a whim like that ? what is the reasoning ? why not make steady improvements over time instead of unleashing hell on yourself all at once ? and people think this is going to be successful ?  0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.   if your last cigarette was not at 0:0 pm on december 0, and you smoke anytime thereafter, you have failed your resolution.  people treat nyr is as a do or die effort.  if you do not go to the gym, if you ever touch another dorito, or you buy an unnecessary item at the mall, even once, that is it.  you have failed at achieving your nyr and you may as well give up.  it is such a ridiculous mindset.  if you set an arbitrary date to make a drastic lifestyle change, you are going to fuck up ! it is ok ! there is no reason to beat yourself up over it.  yet most people fail before february and completely give up their nyr thereafter.  humans are simply not hard wired for such massive changes in diet, nutrition, lifestyle, etc. , to be taken all at once like that.  and there is no good reason for it either.  it is a completely arbitrary date, with nothing magical about it whatsoever, and there is absolutely no reason not to change your life at any other point during the year.  in fact, if you really wanted to, you already would have.  you would not be waiting for the new year.  and then when you inevitably fail, you blame yourself and become even more discouraged.  no wonder.  it is an awful system and you are essentially setting yourself up to fail.   #  i am willing to bet that those same 0 would have improved just as much if they decided to commit to a goal at any other point in the year.   #  that 0 of people who made nyr is would have been 0 without the nyr.   # that 0 of people who made nyr is would have been 0 without the nyr.  they are the category of people who wait until the new year to commit to make a change.  the new year is the catalyst for this change.  they have not started earlier because they lack the motivation.  the new year is that motivation.  therefor, you ca not say that the people who changed because of the new year would have improved just as much without the new year.  yet just a paltry 0 of them achieve their resolution.  who says that a nyr is the only basis of change in people is life ? there are a lot of decisions throughout the year that people will make to change for the better and the worse without really realizing it.  the concept of nyr just gets people thinking about what else they can change and what to do about it.  without this idea, those thoughts would never come up and life would continue.  for the 0 who do get a gym membership, or start saving up money the nyr is a positive thing ! 0 sounds like a small number, but when you recognize that it is 0 of the population you realize that it is a huge number ! scenarios: this year i left a bad relationship.  i started spending more time with my nephew.  i saved up money for an apartment.  i got a second, part time job.  new years came around and i thought,  i guess i could start off at the gym.   0.  i go through with it.  best scenario 0.  i do not go through with it at that time still a good scenario i think the point is, there is no guarantee that you would make the change without nyr.   #  the fact is it is hard too bring about change in a human being.   # because the new year has a tradition of having resolutions it is often a time of self reflection.  the reason more resolutions do not start at other times in the year is probably because people do not often take the time to look at themselves.  if june 0th was national self reflection day you would probably see a lot of people start going to the gym that week or people giving up cigarettes   0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.  not necessarily.  some do have absolute resolutions.   give up smoking   no more pop   i want to lose 0 lbs  etc and in this case they could  fail  their resolution and yet still improve themselves as a person.  if a person who use to drink 0 cases of pop a week finishes drinking 0 0 pops a week did they fail ? technically yes, but they did improve on what they saw as a great problem.  there are also resolutions that are more flexible.   i want to work out more   i want to eat healthier   i want to spend more time with my family  if someone had a goal of working out more does skipping one day mean they failed ? no because they could still avg working out 0 times a week when the previous year they may have only done it once a week.  you brought it up at the beginning that only a small percentage of people reach their goal.  the fact is it is hard too bring about change in a human being.  they are often stuck in their ways and must often overcome many obstacles in their way.  even though it is a small number any small thing that brings about positive change in humans is a good thing.   #  each try to change yourself to something more positive is better than no try at all.   # tradition.  there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  maybe they are trying again in march ? there are a lot of people who stop to smoke, eat healthier, workout more, etc.  without making a resolution to a specific date.  maybe the first impulse was a nyr, maybe not.  each try to change yourself to something more positive is better than no try at all.  at the end just the pause between the tries has to become shorter and shorter.   #  really it is just tradition that new years have so many resolutions.   # really it is just tradition that new years have so many resolutions.  i am sure you can see the symbolism behind starting a new year with some goals.  as the tradition has grown it has also become a time for self reflection.  just the fact that people come around and ask the question,  what is your new year is resolution ?  , causes you to look at yourself.  how often during the year do people ask you how you are going to improve yourself as a person ? how often do you just think it ? there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  the reason most people stop their resolutions so early is because its hard to change and break your habits.  if you last until late february/march then you probably already formed new habits.  but in the first month or so you are completely going against what you have programmed your body to do the past 0 years or so.  i am sure a lot of people set goals that are way to high for themselves and get discouraged quickly.  that is not necessarily a bad idea of setting a resolution but a bad goal the person set.  i think you are stuck on the fact that a lot of people do not reach/give up on their resolution.  but is there any real time in which a large percentage of people do change ?  #  instead, people make resolutions when things get bad enough that a tragedy of some sort occurs.   #  all new year is does is to give people a set time to reflect and make resolutions.  successfully executing those resolutions is a totally unrelated matter.  in an alternate universe, there is no such thing as new year is.  instead, people make resolutions when things get bad enough that a tragedy of some sort occurs.  here, you still have the problem of successfully executing those resolutions.
we hear it time and time again every new year.  our closest friends and families making new years resolutions.  while i encourage people in improving themselves, i hate the idea of new year is resolutions.  i believe overall, new years resolutions only serve to discourage people from actually achieving goals and is based on faulty reasoning.  0 of americans make resolutions every new year.  URL yet just a paltry 0 of them achieve their resolution.  while i applaud those 0, i fail to understand why they could not have done this at any other point during the year.  and while i do not have the proof, i am willing to bet that those same 0 would have improved just as much if they decided to commit to a goal at any other point in the year.  here is why i believe new year is resolutions are almost always destined to fail.  every nyr requires:  0.  wait until the new year starts.   this absurdity alone should put this to bed.  there is no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something.  i believe most people simply want that last week before their resolution comes into  effect  to gorge on unhealthy food while they still can, smoke cigarettes while they can, etc.  then:  0.  the second the new year starts, your life is supposed to automatically change forever.   the second the clock strikes 0, that is it.  no more cigarettes, no more junk food.  ever.  why ? why introduce such a drastic change on a whim like that ? what is the reasoning ? why not make steady improvements over time instead of unleashing hell on yourself all at once ? and people think this is going to be successful ?  0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.   if your last cigarette was not at 0:0 pm on december 0, and you smoke anytime thereafter, you have failed your resolution.  people treat nyr is as a do or die effort.  if you do not go to the gym, if you ever touch another dorito, or you buy an unnecessary item at the mall, even once, that is it.  you have failed at achieving your nyr and you may as well give up.  it is such a ridiculous mindset.  if you set an arbitrary date to make a drastic lifestyle change, you are going to fuck up ! it is ok ! there is no reason to beat yourself up over it.  yet most people fail before february and completely give up their nyr thereafter.  humans are simply not hard wired for such massive changes in diet, nutrition, lifestyle, etc. , to be taken all at once like that.  and there is no good reason for it either.  it is a completely arbitrary date, with nothing magical about it whatsoever, and there is absolutely no reason not to change your life at any other point during the year.  in fact, if you really wanted to, you already would have.  you would not be waiting for the new year.  and then when you inevitably fail, you blame yourself and become even more discouraged.  no wonder.  it is an awful system and you are essentially setting yourself up to fail.   #  0 of americans make resolutions every new year.   #  yet just a paltry 0 of them achieve their resolution.   # that 0 of people who made nyr is would have been 0 without the nyr.  they are the category of people who wait until the new year to commit to make a change.  the new year is the catalyst for this change.  they have not started earlier because they lack the motivation.  the new year is that motivation.  therefor, you ca not say that the people who changed because of the new year would have improved just as much without the new year.  yet just a paltry 0 of them achieve their resolution.  who says that a nyr is the only basis of change in people is life ? there are a lot of decisions throughout the year that people will make to change for the better and the worse without really realizing it.  the concept of nyr just gets people thinking about what else they can change and what to do about it.  without this idea, those thoughts would never come up and life would continue.  for the 0 who do get a gym membership, or start saving up money the nyr is a positive thing ! 0 sounds like a small number, but when you recognize that it is 0 of the population you realize that it is a huge number ! scenarios: this year i left a bad relationship.  i started spending more time with my nephew.  i saved up money for an apartment.  i got a second, part time job.  new years came around and i thought,  i guess i could start off at the gym.   0.  i go through with it.  best scenario 0.  i do not go through with it at that time still a good scenario i think the point is, there is no guarantee that you would make the change without nyr.   #  they are often stuck in their ways and must often overcome many obstacles in their way.   # because the new year has a tradition of having resolutions it is often a time of self reflection.  the reason more resolutions do not start at other times in the year is probably because people do not often take the time to look at themselves.  if june 0th was national self reflection day you would probably see a lot of people start going to the gym that week or people giving up cigarettes   0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.  not necessarily.  some do have absolute resolutions.   give up smoking   no more pop   i want to lose 0 lbs  etc and in this case they could  fail  their resolution and yet still improve themselves as a person.  if a person who use to drink 0 cases of pop a week finishes drinking 0 0 pops a week did they fail ? technically yes, but they did improve on what they saw as a great problem.  there are also resolutions that are more flexible.   i want to work out more   i want to eat healthier   i want to spend more time with my family  if someone had a goal of working out more does skipping one day mean they failed ? no because they could still avg working out 0 times a week when the previous year they may have only done it once a week.  you brought it up at the beginning that only a small percentage of people reach their goal.  the fact is it is hard too bring about change in a human being.  they are often stuck in their ways and must often overcome many obstacles in their way.  even though it is a small number any small thing that brings about positive change in humans is a good thing.   #  without making a resolution to a specific date.   # tradition.  there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  maybe they are trying again in march ? there are a lot of people who stop to smoke, eat healthier, workout more, etc.  without making a resolution to a specific date.  maybe the first impulse was a nyr, maybe not.  each try to change yourself to something more positive is better than no try at all.  at the end just the pause between the tries has to become shorter and shorter.   #  the reason most people stop their resolutions so early is because its hard to change and break your habits.   # really it is just tradition that new years have so many resolutions.  i am sure you can see the symbolism behind starting a new year with some goals.  as the tradition has grown it has also become a time for self reflection.  just the fact that people come around and ask the question,  what is your new year is resolution ?  , causes you to look at yourself.  how often during the year do people ask you how you are going to improve yourself as a person ? how often do you just think it ? there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  the reason most people stop their resolutions so early is because its hard to change and break your habits.  if you last until late february/march then you probably already formed new habits.  but in the first month or so you are completely going against what you have programmed your body to do the past 0 years or so.  i am sure a lot of people set goals that are way to high for themselves and get discouraged quickly.  that is not necessarily a bad idea of setting a resolution but a bad goal the person set.  i think you are stuck on the fact that a lot of people do not reach/give up on their resolution.  but is there any real time in which a large percentage of people do change ?  #  here, you still have the problem of successfully executing those resolutions.   #  all new year is does is to give people a set time to reflect and make resolutions.  successfully executing those resolutions is a totally unrelated matter.  in an alternate universe, there is no such thing as new year is.  instead, people make resolutions when things get bad enough that a tragedy of some sort occurs.  here, you still have the problem of successfully executing those resolutions.
we hear it time and time again every new year.  our closest friends and families making new years resolutions.  while i encourage people in improving themselves, i hate the idea of new year is resolutions.  i believe overall, new years resolutions only serve to discourage people from actually achieving goals and is based on faulty reasoning.  0 of americans make resolutions every new year.  URL yet just a paltry 0 of them achieve their resolution.  while i applaud those 0, i fail to understand why they could not have done this at any other point during the year.  and while i do not have the proof, i am willing to bet that those same 0 would have improved just as much if they decided to commit to a goal at any other point in the year.  here is why i believe new year is resolutions are almost always destined to fail.  every nyr requires:  0.  wait until the new year starts.   this absurdity alone should put this to bed.  there is no rhyme or reason to wait until the arbitrary beginning of a calendar system to start something.  i believe most people simply want that last week before their resolution comes into  effect  to gorge on unhealthy food while they still can, smoke cigarettes while they can, etc.  then:  0.  the second the new year starts, your life is supposed to automatically change forever.   the second the clock strikes 0, that is it.  no more cigarettes, no more junk food.  ever.  why ? why introduce such a drastic change on a whim like that ? what is the reasoning ? why not make steady improvements over time instead of unleashing hell on yourself all at once ? and people think this is going to be successful ?  0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.   if your last cigarette was not at 0:0 pm on december 0, and you smoke anytime thereafter, you have failed your resolution.  people treat nyr is as a do or die effort.  if you do not go to the gym, if you ever touch another dorito, or you buy an unnecessary item at the mall, even once, that is it.  you have failed at achieving your nyr and you may as well give up.  it is such a ridiculous mindset.  if you set an arbitrary date to make a drastic lifestyle change, you are going to fuck up ! it is ok ! there is no reason to beat yourself up over it.  yet most people fail before february and completely give up their nyr thereafter.  humans are simply not hard wired for such massive changes in diet, nutrition, lifestyle, etc. , to be taken all at once like that.  and there is no good reason for it either.  it is a completely arbitrary date, with nothing magical about it whatsoever, and there is absolutely no reason not to change your life at any other point during the year.  in fact, if you really wanted to, you already would have.  you would not be waiting for the new year.  and then when you inevitably fail, you blame yourself and become even more discouraged.  no wonder.  it is an awful system and you are essentially setting yourself up to fail.   #  0.  wait until the new year starts.   #  we like to imagine the new year as a  new beginning .   # we like to imagine the new year as a  new beginning .  we look back on the previous year and say  what could i have done differently ?   the answer, of course varies from person to person, but the reasoning is always the same:  i want to make this year better than the last  if we use this mentality, new years resolutions become much more flexible, and less demanding, while also making it easier to actually accomplish some of your goals.  it is ? as i said before, your life is supposed to be better than last year, but not drastically different.  there is no second chances.  not always.  it really depends on how you interpret your resolution.  if your resolution is  stop smoking  and you light a single cigarette, have you broken your resolution ? no, you have not.  your resolution did not say  never smoke,  it said  stop smoking.   so, as long as you are on the path to your resolution, and will get there eventually it does not matter that much if you veer off from time to time.   #   i want to work out more   i want to eat healthier   i want to spend more time with my family  if someone had a goal of working out more does skipping one day mean they failed ?  # because the new year has a tradition of having resolutions it is often a time of self reflection.  the reason more resolutions do not start at other times in the year is probably because people do not often take the time to look at themselves.  if june 0th was national self reflection day you would probably see a lot of people start going to the gym that week or people giving up cigarettes   0.  if you  fall off the wagon  you have failed.  there is no second chances.  not necessarily.  some do have absolute resolutions.   give up smoking   no more pop   i want to lose 0 lbs  etc and in this case they could  fail  their resolution and yet still improve themselves as a person.  if a person who use to drink 0 cases of pop a week finishes drinking 0 0 pops a week did they fail ? technically yes, but they did improve on what they saw as a great problem.  there are also resolutions that are more flexible.   i want to work out more   i want to eat healthier   i want to spend more time with my family  if someone had a goal of working out more does skipping one day mean they failed ? no because they could still avg working out 0 times a week when the previous year they may have only done it once a week.  you brought it up at the beginning that only a small percentage of people reach their goal.  the fact is it is hard too bring about change in a human being.  they are often stuck in their ways and must often overcome many obstacles in their way.  even though it is a small number any small thing that brings about positive change in humans is a good thing.   #  each try to change yourself to something more positive is better than no try at all.   # tradition.  there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  maybe they are trying again in march ? there are a lot of people who stop to smoke, eat healthier, workout more, etc.  without making a resolution to a specific date.  maybe the first impulse was a nyr, maybe not.  each try to change yourself to something more positive is better than no try at all.  at the end just the pause between the tries has to become shorter and shorter.   #  that is not necessarily a bad idea of setting a resolution but a bad goal the person set.   # really it is just tradition that new years have so many resolutions.  i am sure you can see the symbolism behind starting a new year with some goals.  as the tradition has grown it has also become a time for self reflection.  just the fact that people come around and ask the question,  what is your new year is resolution ?  , causes you to look at yourself.  how often during the year do people ask you how you are going to improve yourself as a person ? how often do you just think it ? there is a difference between small improvements and stopping completely.  the reason most people stop their resolutions so early is because its hard to change and break your habits.  if you last until late february/march then you probably already formed new habits.  but in the first month or so you are completely going against what you have programmed your body to do the past 0 years or so.  i am sure a lot of people set goals that are way to high for themselves and get discouraged quickly.  that is not necessarily a bad idea of setting a resolution but a bad goal the person set.  i think you are stuck on the fact that a lot of people do not reach/give up on their resolution.  but is there any real time in which a large percentage of people do change ?  #  instead, people make resolutions when things get bad enough that a tragedy of some sort occurs.   #  all new year is does is to give people a set time to reflect and make resolutions.  successfully executing those resolutions is a totally unrelated matter.  in an alternate universe, there is no such thing as new year is.  instead, people make resolutions when things get bad enough that a tragedy of some sort occurs.  here, you still have the problem of successfully executing those resolutions.
i think the celebrity subreddits are not real fan clubs, but a collection of places where people masturbate to a single person, like a collective wall of pictures plastered onto a stalker is wall.  the infamous jennette mccurdy ama confirmed it as such to me, as there were only a few questions pertaining to her work and the majority of them had to be nuked because they all asked for nudes.  i have my own celebrity crushes, but the subreddits make the affection seem far creepier than it has any right to be.  and the existence of the starlets are atrocious.  at one point there was a kiernan shipka subreddit, made when the girl was only fourteen.  they, like the fappening, are nothing more than perverts getting off to a collection of albeit legally available pictures.   #  a collection of albeit legally available pictures.   #  so, that, right there, you lost your own argument.   # so, that, right there, you lost your own argument.  reddit is ideals are based in free speech.  the same kind of free speech that says,  i do not agree with your ideas but i will defend your right to speak them.   so, if you do not agree with reddit is ideals you need to move along to a different site; the site does not need to change for you.  this whole idea strikes me as puritanical.  you are ok with subs like mens rights, great apes, and srs existing but consensual viewing of sexy photos you have a problem with ? i will not defend leaked photos, just ones these celebrities pose for.   #  but if it was not wrong, why would they need to defend themselves ?  #  i understand your reasons, and i can see that working for the adult subreddits.  as creepy as it is, it is to be expected.  and none of the women are naked, why is it wrong ? well, is not it bad to have a community dedicated to it rather than quietly fapping away ? does not it take away from any merit scarlett johansson has in her acting career, or ariana grande as a singer, or ariel winter as a teen idol ? if the people can only focus on the women is bodies, are they worth less than a man ? i remember mara wilson being retroactively creeped out when writing an article for cracked. com, when she found herself at age 0 on a foot fetish community.  i normally do not go around saying  think of the children !  , but i have seen people on the internet defend themselves to the end of the earth about how masturbating to a 0 year old is wrong.  but if it was not wrong, why would they need to defend themselves ? they could just lay it out there and not care probably leading to the existence of these subreddits or hide it in shame due to our weird views on sex.  the only argument i can see for keeping it is the potential censorship issue; if they get removed, what else does ? i thought the admins were working to get rid of the sex with dead dogs type subreddits, so these are just the more well known creepy subreddits.   #  if they went that far, then you could make an argument for probably many other behaviors that persist on this site that you could make rules against or if certain subreddits encourage them then banning more subreddits.   #  why would reddit want to get that deeply involved into deciding the morality and the social impact of things like that ? that is far too much policing of people, there is some things you just accept that you ca not control.  if they went that far, then you could make an argument for probably many other behaviors that persist on this site that you could make rules against or if certain subreddits encourage them then banning more subreddits.  there is just really no way reddit benefits from taking those actions and it would probably harm the site by trying, and it would not accomplish anything because something else would pop up in its place and offer the services reddit banned.  personally i think just outright banning things like what you are talking about do not do any good, if you actually feel some behavior can develop into something somewhat harmful, you should be more willing to invest some effort into fixing that problem rather than just saying  ban it .  people develop those behaviors for a reason, and banning it is not suddenly going to make them a different person.  what you described is most definitely not something that exists only on reddit either, people objectify others all throughout the world in it happens in all different kinds of places etc. , it would not go away because reddit banned it.  if reddit actually wanted to do something about that, they would invest time/money/effort into understanding why people behave that way and perhaps altering their site in ways that might encourage different behavior, but again, there is really no reason reddit would ever want to do this.  most people would probably take offense to the idea that it is even harmful so you would probably have to get into that debate as well.   #  does not it take away from any merit scarlett johansson has in her acting career, no.   # does not it take away from any merit scarlett johansson has in her acting career, no.  people masturbating to svarlete johansson does not in any way take away her merit in acting career.  if she does not want to people masturbating to her pictures, it is very simple: she should not act in hollywood movies, release glamour pictures of herself and do photshoots for men is magazines.  first let is focus on forums that focus on adults actresses.  we can talk about children later, let me change your view on adults first.   #  i am at a loss for words because we have reached an impasse.   #  i see your point.  i am not mad at the women, i am more mad at the creepy culture it creates.  they should accept it, and it is basic human psychology that seeing something attractive is going to make people aroused.  what exactly are you trying to make me say ? i believe that women should accept that men will ogle them ? i am at a loss for words because we have reached an impasse.  you are stubbornly trying to change my view entirely, and i stubbornly just wanted a compromise.  maybe i even went in expecting someone to agree with me.  this place is not for me.
0.  networking is discriminatory.   0.  a  standard  hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria the satisfaction of requirements of the position   merits relevant to that position.   0.  who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions e. g.  sales , but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.   0.  allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process  jumping the line  or to use some important person is recommendation as additional clout for their application  came very highly recommended by bob  is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.   0. 0.  i recognize   appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  this is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.   0.  networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.   0.  beyond straight nepotism, it is self evident that individuals who come from families   backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.   0.  individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.   0. 0.  i understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have being tall, white, male, etc.  .  allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias   may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair that is what i am suggesting.   0.  businesses   societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.   0.  if a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 0.  this decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.   0.  if the egalitarian hiring process in place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.   0.   fix the process, not the game.   i understand  this is how the world works,  and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms.  i would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account   would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil.   #  the satisfaction of requirements of the position   merits relevant to that position.   #  lots of jobs typically do not have the luxury of going through a testing process or trial period in order to establish this, which is why employers rely on previous education and experience.   # lots of jobs typically do not have the luxury of going through a testing process or trial period in order to establish this, which is why employers rely on previous education and experience.  the upside in networking is that it act as a certification of sorts.  networking is not simply hiring people you know, it allows for someone in the firm to vouch for a prospective employee in areas specifically related to the job.  it is not a free thing either, because if the potential hire is performance is sub par, that will reflect poorly on their network buddy.  what other methods of vetting would you pursue ? how different really is networking versus listing a letter of recommendation, or a personal reference ? it just happens to be a reference that can provide a more accurate assessment of the quality of the potential hire with respect to the job.  where would you draw the line and how would you determine what is fair in regards to the hiring process ? should hires not list their education as it may be seen too favorably perhaps they went to the same school as the boss ? should previous experience be left out because of a conflict of interest ? went to a good school ? privileged.  good previous experience ? privileged.  should educational experiences also be phased out ? there are two main schools of thought with regard to college, the human capital theory that you learn and become more skilled , and signalling theory that the degree is simply a signal to others .  for the most part, college is signalling.  people often get degrees simply to become a college graduate, a degree holder.  this lets employers know that you are relatively smart, somewhat responsible, and able to follow through.  networking is not any different, it is just another way to let employers know that you are not an absolute garbage of a choice.  consider how many applications employers receive, and consider how few openings often occur.  for your egalitarian approach, you pretty much have to ignore resumes all together, and simply issue some kind of test, anonymously, to the applicants.  how do you test whether or not someone is reliable, punctual, hard working, gets along with others ? would you really go through and test every single person, even those who seem completely unfit ? or if you have 0 opening with 0 applicants, why would not you prioritize those who are already vetted to some degree ? all of this ignores that fact that social skills networking are important for employees to have, in just about every business environment.  that said, the majority of networking myself, and a lot of others do, is not for some form of nepotism.  openings especially future ones often can go unknown without exhaustive searching, so anything to cut down on that is definitely beneficial.   #  in this case it was done either because of laws or because they realized they were limiting their hires away from some great employees.   #  but most businesses do not want to get rid of this.  you are stuck working with these people for hours and hours every week.  you want to hire someone who you can get along with.  what better way to find someone you can get along with than someone in your network ? my wife and i have both had to manage people that were outside of our social circle.  my wife hired them, i was stuck with them when i started.  the problem is they start at a disadvantage.  they may not be worse workers or people but because they see the world differently it is hard to work with them.  you say x and they hear y because they come from a different world.  it is hard to bond over chitchat because not only do you have less in common but it is hard to not look down on their values from both sides because they are different.  it is rare you hang out outside of work with people outside of your network.  this leads to lesser work performances and fewer raises/promotions for them.  they would be better off working for someone who was in their network.  yes, it is technically discrimination since that is the definition.  but not necessarily bad discrimination.  we are not robots and we have to work together.  it is not a perfect system by any means but it is what it is.  so who is going to make a rule that makes a company work less well ? do you mean a law requiring them to do that ? note: sometimes a business will do this such as the many companies that changed their policies to encourage hiring women and minorities.  in this case it was done either because of laws or because they realized they were limiting their hires away from some great employees.  it does not feel like your cmv is about this though.   #  turns out it was the only professional outfit she owned or planned to own.   # your cmv seems to be ignoring this aspect of it so i did as well since a cmv on racism/sexism is not very interesting.  as to the rest of your comment interviews are time consuming and if you can narrow down the field beforehand then it is good to do that.  also, you ca not ask a lot of questions or get the answers you want in an interview.  to go back to my example the woman my wife hired wore a professional outfit to her interview.  turns out it was the only professional outfit she owned or planned to own.  if she had used her network instead of an interview she would have weeded this person out.  note: i am not claiming using your network is perfect.  only that as one tool in your toolbox it is helpful.   #  ethical business practices are objective and clear, something that hiring is not in any way.   #  your view just went from,  favoritism bad  to,  make the government enforce hiring standards across all of society based on a set of subjective yet fair rules which make life fair.   in other words, how is that ever supposed to happen ? ethical business practices are objective and clear, something that hiring is not in any way.   jim had a 0 gpa in college, but sue had a 0 and is involved in her community, so i think she is more proactive.  and jim seemed very bright in his interview.  better bust out the objectify ometer !    #  we, as a society, have decided to make   enforce rules to combat that view.   #  the importance of your race   age is subjective.  some people believe that someone is sex is indicative of their dependability or professionalism.  we, as a society, have decided to make   enforce rules to combat that view.  it is totally possible to still get away with not hiring someone based on sex.  one still needs pretty substantial proof in order to levy a discrimination lawsuit with any teeth.  but at least egalitarianism is being attempted, rather than throwing our hands up in the air and saying  oh man, it is so hard to prove that this person is sex was the reason they did not get hired ! oh well.
0.  networking is discriminatory.   0.  a  standard  hiring method would ensure that every applicant would be evaluated on the same criteria the satisfaction of requirements of the position   merits relevant to that position.   0.  who an applicant knows is occasionally useful for those jobs which require maintaining relationships with certain people in key positions e. g.  sales , but for the vast majority of jobs, who your friends are is functionally irrelevant.   0.  allowing someone to circumvent the standard application process  jumping the line  or to use some important person is recommendation as additional clout for their application  came very highly recommended by bob  is preferential treatment for irrelevant qualities.   0. 0.  i recognize   appreciate that it is difficult in most employment processes to find individuals who are trustworthy, socially apt, etc.  this is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.   0.  networking, as a practice, favors individuals who come from already socially favorable situations, moreso than other evaluation criteria.   0.  beyond straight nepotism, it is self evident that individuals who come from families   backgrounds which allow for more interaction with individuals in power will be able to call on more of those individuals for networking purposes.   0.  individuals who are extraordinarily qualified for a position but come from a region/social background without those connections enter a networking friendly employment opportunity at a disadvantage.   0. 0.  i understand that there are other unfair advantages an applicant might have being tall, white, male, etc.  .  allowing networking to influence a hiring decision is not dependent on cultural bias   may be safely exorcised from the hiring process to render it more fair that is what i am suggesting.   0.  businesses   societies would be better off disallowing networking from influencing their hiring decisions.   0.  if a hiring process takes networking into account, it is necessarily showing preference to individuals who already come from advantaged background, as per 0.  this decreases social/economic mobility, which has been demonstrated to be bad for societies in general.   0.  if the egalitarian hiring process in place is so ineffective at determining qualifications/character that it must depend on recommendations from trusted sources to establish merit, the productivity of any positions where such a trusted source does not come forward will suffer.   0.   fix the process, not the game.   i understand  this is how the world works,  and many feel at ease participating in networking events without any moral qualms.  i would love to have this explained in a way that takes the above points into account   would allow a person to network without the valuation that it is a necessary evil.   #  this is a failing of the existing job application paradigm, not an excuse to circumvent it in order to make the process easier.   #  what other methods of vetting would you pursue ?  # lots of jobs typically do not have the luxury of going through a testing process or trial period in order to establish this, which is why employers rely on previous education and experience.  the upside in networking is that it act as a certification of sorts.  networking is not simply hiring people you know, it allows for someone in the firm to vouch for a prospective employee in areas specifically related to the job.  it is not a free thing either, because if the potential hire is performance is sub par, that will reflect poorly on their network buddy.  what other methods of vetting would you pursue ? how different really is networking versus listing a letter of recommendation, or a personal reference ? it just happens to be a reference that can provide a more accurate assessment of the quality of the potential hire with respect to the job.  where would you draw the line and how would you determine what is fair in regards to the hiring process ? should hires not list their education as it may be seen too favorably perhaps they went to the same school as the boss ? should previous experience be left out because of a conflict of interest ? went to a good school ? privileged.  good previous experience ? privileged.  should educational experiences also be phased out ? there are two main schools of thought with regard to college, the human capital theory that you learn and become more skilled , and signalling theory that the degree is simply a signal to others .  for the most part, college is signalling.  people often get degrees simply to become a college graduate, a degree holder.  this lets employers know that you are relatively smart, somewhat responsible, and able to follow through.  networking is not any different, it is just another way to let employers know that you are not an absolute garbage of a choice.  consider how many applications employers receive, and consider how few openings often occur.  for your egalitarian approach, you pretty much have to ignore resumes all together, and simply issue some kind of test, anonymously, to the applicants.  how do you test whether or not someone is reliable, punctual, hard working, gets along with others ? would you really go through and test every single person, even those who seem completely unfit ? or if you have 0 opening with 0 applicants, why would not you prioritize those who are already vetted to some degree ? all of this ignores that fact that social skills networking are important for employees to have, in just about every business environment.  that said, the majority of networking myself, and a lot of others do, is not for some form of nepotism.  openings especially future ones often can go unknown without exhaustive searching, so anything to cut down on that is definitely beneficial.   #  they would be better off working for someone who was in their network.   #  but most businesses do not want to get rid of this.  you are stuck working with these people for hours and hours every week.  you want to hire someone who you can get along with.  what better way to find someone you can get along with than someone in your network ? my wife and i have both had to manage people that were outside of our social circle.  my wife hired them, i was stuck with them when i started.  the problem is they start at a disadvantage.  they may not be worse workers or people but because they see the world differently it is hard to work with them.  you say x and they hear y because they come from a different world.  it is hard to bond over chitchat because not only do you have less in common but it is hard to not look down on their values from both sides because they are different.  it is rare you hang out outside of work with people outside of your network.  this leads to lesser work performances and fewer raises/promotions for them.  they would be better off working for someone who was in their network.  yes, it is technically discrimination since that is the definition.  but not necessarily bad discrimination.  we are not robots and we have to work together.  it is not a perfect system by any means but it is what it is.  so who is going to make a rule that makes a company work less well ? do you mean a law requiring them to do that ? note: sometimes a business will do this such as the many companies that changed their policies to encourage hiring women and minorities.  in this case it was done either because of laws or because they realized they were limiting their hires away from some great employees.  it does not feel like your cmv is about this though.   #  as to the rest of your comment interviews are time consuming and if you can narrow down the field beforehand then it is good to do that.   # your cmv seems to be ignoring this aspect of it so i did as well since a cmv on racism/sexism is not very interesting.  as to the rest of your comment interviews are time consuming and if you can narrow down the field beforehand then it is good to do that.  also, you ca not ask a lot of questions or get the answers you want in an interview.  to go back to my example the woman my wife hired wore a professional outfit to her interview.  turns out it was the only professional outfit she owned or planned to own.  if she had used her network instead of an interview she would have weeded this person out.  note: i am not claiming using your network is perfect.  only that as one tool in your toolbox it is helpful.   #  in other words, how is that ever supposed to happen ?  #  your view just went from,  favoritism bad  to,  make the government enforce hiring standards across all of society based on a set of subjective yet fair rules which make life fair.   in other words, how is that ever supposed to happen ? ethical business practices are objective and clear, something that hiring is not in any way.   jim had a 0 gpa in college, but sue had a 0 and is involved in her community, so i think she is more proactive.  and jim seemed very bright in his interview.  better bust out the objectify ometer !    #  one still needs pretty substantial proof in order to levy a discrimination lawsuit with any teeth.   #  the importance of your race   age is subjective.  some people believe that someone is sex is indicative of their dependability or professionalism.  we, as a society, have decided to make   enforce rules to combat that view.  it is totally possible to still get away with not hiring someone based on sex.  one still needs pretty substantial proof in order to levy a discrimination lawsuit with any teeth.  but at least egalitarianism is being attempted, rather than throwing our hands up in the air and saying  oh man, it is so hard to prove that this person is sex was the reason they did not get hired ! oh well.
i used to have a very anarchistic mindset, opposing the state all together.  while i still believe in some what of decentralisation of power i want absolute suveillance of society.  trackable devices, dna registries, video surveillance etc.  i do mean for everyone and everywhere.  i just do not trust very much in people any more.  i have not experienced any crime personally but reading all the time about what goes on in society, what people get away with.  studying how people often behave, in war and peacetime.  all the atrocities going on, human trafficking, gangrapes, murders etc. etc.  i do not mean absolutely, for example video surveillance or bugging peoples homes but outside in the world, streets, public places, and everywhere in nature with drones or satelites i do not want nature polluted with tech .  ofcourse we need harsh penalties for the surveillars who abuse their  powers .  i want very harsh penalties like in the us, and life long consequences for atrocities such as rape.  i do however believe in legalisation of all  drugs  and until then a non surveilled internet.  i understand that is very hypocritical.  what i want checked is mainly physical abuse of others.  i live in sweden.  here everyone gets unlimited second chances and the possibility to become anything they want and do whatever they want with their lives while enjoying free healthcare and really free everything with great infrastructures.  still there are assholes who bitch and moan about unfairness and suck the life out of society and commit horrible crimes.  never taking any responsibilites for themselves.   #  i just do not trust very much in people any more.   #  last time i checked, we had  people  working at the nsa, and  people  making judgments on laws.   # last time i checked, we had  people  working at the nsa, and  people  making judgments on laws.  so if you do not trust  people , why would you give a small  group of people  so much power and control over your life ? do you think the  people  in the government ca not be as dangerous as criminals ? well governments have killed a lot more innocent people throughout history, than the criminals that they promise to protect you against have.  the media like to make it seem like society is falling apart because that get is views .  crime is at an all time low in nearly every developed country and only going down, and that is the only fact that matters.  i understand that is very hypocritical.  what i want checked is mainly physical abuse of others.  i too want drugs to be legalized.  but the fact that it is  not  legalized shows how flawed the people in the government can be.  they are just people, whose first goal is re election before anything else.  even if that means throwing thousands of  innocent  people in jail, for carrying marijuana.   #  it works to some degree but if expanded to everyone and everywhere we would have enough data to convict most criminals.   #  the biggest problem of those states is poverty.  they have surveillance against dissidence, western countries do not have the same problems with dissidence.  and we also have better laws to promote democracy.  these laws would not go away, the forums for liberty would not go away.  these red states you bring up do not implement the surveillance methods i brought up to fight crime, they do not have continous location data of everyone or dna databases of everyone.  i mean we have these methods implemented today to a certain degree but only use it against known/suspected criminals and terrorists.  it works to some degree but if expanded to everyone and everywhere we would have enough data to convict most criminals.   #  they will doubtless misuse their power to destroy any who oppose them.   #  i think you are making a false dichotomy.  there is no such thing as an authoritarian surveillance state democracy, and there more than likely never will be in fact, in many cases it is the surveillance itself that fosters more dissidence, less social cohesion, and less liberty.  in other words, the dissidence you mention is an effect, not a cause, of mass surveillance.  as i said, the people in charge of the surveillance are just as untrustworthy as the common people.  they will doubtless misuse their power to destroy any who oppose them.  maybe it can be used for good purposes, like convicting criminals more efficiently, but it does not seem worth the risk.  to an authoritarian government, any differing opinion with the status quo  is  criminal.  you ca not have democracy and liberty where disagreement is a criminal offense.   #  even if it somehow did, it does so in a terribly oppressive way that is not worth it.   # in the us do not know about sweden it is up to prosecutors unreliable people like anyone else to press criminal charges.  they can charge people with whatever they like and going to trial to fight it is costly regardless of whether they are innocent or not.  it is a trusim that prosecutors routinely abuse this power for their own benefit here.  you propose expanding this scope of abused power to everyone, from just suspected criminals, for what, exactly ? more surveillance does not improve security.  even if it somehow did, it does so in a terribly oppressive way that is not worth it.  see more at: URL URL  #  the nk example shows that it makes a totalitarian regime much harder to get rid of though.   #  no, surveillance is just a tool, so it depends on the people who use it.  the nk example shows that it makes a totalitarian regime much harder to get rid of though.  knowing that everything you say is on the record with the nsa and who knows what other agencies, create a chilling effect URL on journalism and system critical voices.  the societal problems that will arise in the future, for which the current ideology does not have a solution, will go unsolved, because discussion has been muted out of fear.  now, this might not be the case if the people in government are enlightened and nice, but depending on that is not good enough.  almost any form of government is nice if the people in it are nice.  the point of having liberal democracy with checks and balances is to get nice behavior even from not nice people.
i used to have a very anarchistic mindset, opposing the state all together.  while i still believe in some what of decentralisation of power i want absolute suveillance of society.  trackable devices, dna registries, video surveillance etc.  i do mean for everyone and everywhere.  i just do not trust very much in people any more.  i have not experienced any crime personally but reading all the time about what goes on in society, what people get away with.  studying how people often behave, in war and peacetime.  all the atrocities going on, human trafficking, gangrapes, murders etc. etc.  i do not mean absolutely, for example video surveillance or bugging peoples homes but outside in the world, streets, public places, and everywhere in nature with drones or satelites i do not want nature polluted with tech .  ofcourse we need harsh penalties for the surveillars who abuse their  powers .  i want very harsh penalties like in the us, and life long consequences for atrocities such as rape.  i do however believe in legalisation of all  drugs  and until then a non surveilled internet.  i understand that is very hypocritical.  what i want checked is mainly physical abuse of others.  i live in sweden.  here everyone gets unlimited second chances and the possibility to become anything they want and do whatever they want with their lives while enjoying free healthcare and really free everything with great infrastructures.  still there are assholes who bitch and moan about unfairness and suck the life out of society and commit horrible crimes.  never taking any responsibilites for themselves.   #  all the atrocities going on, human trafficking, gangrapes, murders etc. etc.   #  the media like to make it seem like society is falling apart because that get is views .   # last time i checked, we had  people  working at the nsa, and  people  making judgments on laws.  so if you do not trust  people , why would you give a small  group of people  so much power and control over your life ? do you think the  people  in the government ca not be as dangerous as criminals ? well governments have killed a lot more innocent people throughout history, than the criminals that they promise to protect you against have.  the media like to make it seem like society is falling apart because that get is views .  crime is at an all time low in nearly every developed country and only going down, and that is the only fact that matters.  i understand that is very hypocritical.  what i want checked is mainly physical abuse of others.  i too want drugs to be legalized.  but the fact that it is  not  legalized shows how flawed the people in the government can be.  they are just people, whose first goal is re election before anything else.  even if that means throwing thousands of  innocent  people in jail, for carrying marijuana.   #  i mean we have these methods implemented today to a certain degree but only use it against known/suspected criminals and terrorists.   #  the biggest problem of those states is poverty.  they have surveillance against dissidence, western countries do not have the same problems with dissidence.  and we also have better laws to promote democracy.  these laws would not go away, the forums for liberty would not go away.  these red states you bring up do not implement the surveillance methods i brought up to fight crime, they do not have continous location data of everyone or dna databases of everyone.  i mean we have these methods implemented today to a certain degree but only use it against known/suspected criminals and terrorists.  it works to some degree but if expanded to everyone and everywhere we would have enough data to convict most criminals.   #  you ca not have democracy and liberty where disagreement is a criminal offense.   #  i think you are making a false dichotomy.  there is no such thing as an authoritarian surveillance state democracy, and there more than likely never will be in fact, in many cases it is the surveillance itself that fosters more dissidence, less social cohesion, and less liberty.  in other words, the dissidence you mention is an effect, not a cause, of mass surveillance.  as i said, the people in charge of the surveillance are just as untrustworthy as the common people.  they will doubtless misuse their power to destroy any who oppose them.  maybe it can be used for good purposes, like convicting criminals more efficiently, but it does not seem worth the risk.  to an authoritarian government, any differing opinion with the status quo  is  criminal.  you ca not have democracy and liberty where disagreement is a criminal offense.   #  it is a trusim that prosecutors routinely abuse this power for their own benefit here.   # in the us do not know about sweden it is up to prosecutors unreliable people like anyone else to press criminal charges.  they can charge people with whatever they like and going to trial to fight it is costly regardless of whether they are innocent or not.  it is a trusim that prosecutors routinely abuse this power for their own benefit here.  you propose expanding this scope of abused power to everyone, from just suspected criminals, for what, exactly ? more surveillance does not improve security.  even if it somehow did, it does so in a terribly oppressive way that is not worth it.  see more at: URL URL  #  the point of having liberal democracy with checks and balances is to get nice behavior even from not nice people.   #  no, surveillance is just a tool, so it depends on the people who use it.  the nk example shows that it makes a totalitarian regime much harder to get rid of though.  knowing that everything you say is on the record with the nsa and who knows what other agencies, create a chilling effect URL on journalism and system critical voices.  the societal problems that will arise in the future, for which the current ideology does not have a solution, will go unsolved, because discussion has been muted out of fear.  now, this might not be the case if the people in government are enlightened and nice, but depending on that is not good enough.  almost any form of government is nice if the people in it are nice.  the point of having liberal democracy with checks and balances is to get nice behavior even from not nice people.
i used to have a very anarchistic mindset, opposing the state all together.  while i still believe in some what of decentralisation of power i want absolute suveillance of society.  trackable devices, dna registries, video surveillance etc.  i do mean for everyone and everywhere.  i just do not trust very much in people any more.  i have not experienced any crime personally but reading all the time about what goes on in society, what people get away with.  studying how people often behave, in war and peacetime.  all the atrocities going on, human trafficking, gangrapes, murders etc. etc.  i do not mean absolutely, for example video surveillance or bugging peoples homes but outside in the world, streets, public places, and everywhere in nature with drones or satelites i do not want nature polluted with tech .  ofcourse we need harsh penalties for the surveillars who abuse their  powers .  i want very harsh penalties like in the us, and life long consequences for atrocities such as rape.  i do however believe in legalisation of all  drugs  and until then a non surveilled internet.  i understand that is very hypocritical.  what i want checked is mainly physical abuse of others.  i live in sweden.  here everyone gets unlimited second chances and the possibility to become anything they want and do whatever they want with their lives while enjoying free healthcare and really free everything with great infrastructures.  still there are assholes who bitch and moan about unfairness and suck the life out of society and commit horrible crimes.  never taking any responsibilites for themselves.   #  i have not experienced any crime personally but reading all the time about what goes on in society, what people get away with.   #  this is to me most of the problem.   # this is to me most of the problem.  you should not base your views on the things that get reported.  news is largely turning into sensationalism.  you hear a lot more about crimes now then you did x years ago, but the world has not changed that much.  the odds of becoming a victim of gangrape/murder/human trafficking are very, very small, and probably wo not get much smaller with surveillance.   #  these red states you bring up do not implement the surveillance methods i brought up to fight crime, they do not have continous location data of everyone or dna databases of everyone.   #  the biggest problem of those states is poverty.  they have surveillance against dissidence, western countries do not have the same problems with dissidence.  and we also have better laws to promote democracy.  these laws would not go away, the forums for liberty would not go away.  these red states you bring up do not implement the surveillance methods i brought up to fight crime, they do not have continous location data of everyone or dna databases of everyone.  i mean we have these methods implemented today to a certain degree but only use it against known/suspected criminals and terrorists.  it works to some degree but if expanded to everyone and everywhere we would have enough data to convict most criminals.   #  as i said, the people in charge of the surveillance are just as untrustworthy as the common people.   #  i think you are making a false dichotomy.  there is no such thing as an authoritarian surveillance state democracy, and there more than likely never will be in fact, in many cases it is the surveillance itself that fosters more dissidence, less social cohesion, and less liberty.  in other words, the dissidence you mention is an effect, not a cause, of mass surveillance.  as i said, the people in charge of the surveillance are just as untrustworthy as the common people.  they will doubtless misuse their power to destroy any who oppose them.  maybe it can be used for good purposes, like convicting criminals more efficiently, but it does not seem worth the risk.  to an authoritarian government, any differing opinion with the status quo  is  criminal.  you ca not have democracy and liberty where disagreement is a criminal offense.   #  even if it somehow did, it does so in a terribly oppressive way that is not worth it.   # in the us do not know about sweden it is up to prosecutors unreliable people like anyone else to press criminal charges.  they can charge people with whatever they like and going to trial to fight it is costly regardless of whether they are innocent or not.  it is a trusim that prosecutors routinely abuse this power for their own benefit here.  you propose expanding this scope of abused power to everyone, from just suspected criminals, for what, exactly ? more surveillance does not improve security.  even if it somehow did, it does so in a terribly oppressive way that is not worth it.  see more at: URL URL  #  the societal problems that will arise in the future, for which the current ideology does not have a solution, will go unsolved, because discussion has been muted out of fear.   #  no, surveillance is just a tool, so it depends on the people who use it.  the nk example shows that it makes a totalitarian regime much harder to get rid of though.  knowing that everything you say is on the record with the nsa and who knows what other agencies, create a chilling effect URL on journalism and system critical voices.  the societal problems that will arise in the future, for which the current ideology does not have a solution, will go unsolved, because discussion has been muted out of fear.  now, this might not be the case if the people in government are enlightened and nice, but depending on that is not good enough.  almost any form of government is nice if the people in it are nice.  the point of having liberal democracy with checks and balances is to get nice behavior even from not nice people.
i believe police testimony is no different and no more reliable than any other regular citizen is testimony.  people can lie, and people can recall incorrectly; the fact that someone wears a badge does not change that fact.  if it comes down to a cops word versus someone else is word without any other evidence, there is imo no basis for a guilty verdict.  also, in the same vein any police testimony on what a defendant told him during an interview means nothing to me as well.  rules of evidence be damned.  it is quite simply unfair that anything you say to a cop can be used against you but not for you in court; and that there is an actual exception to the rules of hearsay that a cop can testify on what you said to him.  i will believe what a defendant says on the stand over what a cop says he said in an interview.   #  i believe police testimony is no different and no more reliable than any other regular citizen is testimony.   #  this is what is  expected  of jurors.   # this is what is  expected  of jurors.  you are not supposed to give police testimony more weight than anyone else.  this is usually one of the first issues they bring up during jury selection.  they do not want people who favor police or give their testimony anymore weight than others.  so i am not sure why you want this opinion changed since technically this is the ideal stance expected of jurors.   #  the reason that op did not directly say, but should have is that there are plenty of videos of the police systematically lying to provide justifications to their actions and yes normal people do too .   #  this is the reason originally quoted in the british legal system.  and, with everyone being honest this holds up for me.  the reason that op did not directly say, but should have is that there are plenty of videos of the police systematically lying to provide justifications to their actions and yes normal people do too .  but i have personally been subjected to those tactics myself, so i am fairly confident they are widespread, and therefore substantially destroys the testimony value of all police for me.  if these can been shown to be negligible in real life and that i have simply been unlucky then i would be willing to cmv, although i am not sure how that would be proven.   #  if he would bothered to produce his dashcam video, he would have been exposed for the shitbag liar he was, so it was just his word against mine.   # i fought a bogus seatbelt ticket in court the tags for the borrowed car were in the glove compartment, so his original reason for pulling me over was stillborn , and i got to watch this chp officer sit there on the stand and spin a bs story about how he saw me pull over, reach up and pull the seatbelt down.  if he would bothered to produce his dashcam video, he would have been exposed for the shitbag liar he was, so it was just his word against mine.  it is not like i had video from my pov of me wearing the seatbelt the whole time.  the judge just says  the officer has no reason to lie, since doing so would put his job in jeopardy, so i am going to find you guilty.   the truth is that if he gets caught lying, he is of no use to the system, and would lose his job so the court is perfectly willing to buy into the lie and let him get away with it.  i have also hung out with a cop who later turned out to be a child molester and his victim was his partner is son.  it is not like their job of doing good and needed things actually makes them any better than the average.  just like priests are expected to be better, yet they become child rapists at the same rate as the general population.   #  so, why would any of those who fall in this category have a reason to falsely testify ?  #  ok, so in some, limited circumstances, some, limited proportion of police officers are abusive, power hungry people.  i can agree with that.  but then we are now accepting that this is a minority and for the most part these police officers are good people with good intentions, and that is why we as a general public continue to support law enforcement in general and entrust people to this.  so, why would any of those who fall in this category have a reason to falsely testify ? if you can accept that then we can move on to the reason for accepting their testimony above average joe is.  again, not saying there are not exceptions but if you can accept this then i will continue my argument.  otherwise we need to address this point further.   #  where i used to work, there was an array of different people with different work ethics.   #  just a side note, just because a cop is not necessarily corrupt does not instantly make them  good people with good intentions.   where i used to work, there was an array of different people with different work ethics.  there were a few who were excellent at their job, going above and beyond and giving their best; then there is the vast majority who just do their job for their paycheck, not necessarily doing the best they can but not necessarily doing anything wrong; and then there is the ones who would get fired if the boss knew how they really acted.  i feel the same kind of spectrum exists in police forces and that the majority lay in the middle.  they may not be outright liars or crooked but they may not care about the people they supposedly serve only doing their job for the paycheck in the end.  they may not lie on the stand, but they may not care enough to try and recall the circumstances correctly or fill out reports fully correct ect.  the majority of cops are probably not corrupt, but the majority is by no means upstanding, example citizens and example cops.
there are two major methods of identifying highway exits in the united states.  one is to identify them by mile marker, the other is to use a simple ordinal system.  the state of new york identifies highway exits by simply choosing one end of the highway and starting to count exits up one at a time.  for example, exit 0 on i 0 is located in yonkers, while exit 0 is the last before the pennsylvania border.  a list of the exits.  URL this has a number of significant problems.  first, the addition of new exits results in the addition of extremely confusing  a  and  b  exits.  it is much easier than renumbering all the exits on the highway, but it is also extremely confusing.  second, portions of the highway not on the main line need a separate system.  the nys thruway uses b0 b0 for the connector to the massachusetts turnpike.  and third, there is no way of knowing how far it is to the next exit.  i know i got on at exit 0 and need to get off at exit 0, but i have no idea if the distance is 0 miles or 0 miles.  the second option is far superior.  states like ohio and pennsylvania identify highway exits by the mile marker.  if you get on the highway at exit 0 and plan to get off at exit 0, you know that you will be driving 0 miles.  this is very sensible.  also, adding a new exit is simple ! if there is no other exit in that highway mile, adding a new number is trivial.  in the case of multiple exits in the same mile, a and b is easy to understand and also alerts drivers to the fact that multiple exits will be happening in a short space of road.  finally, states like new york are  already  numbering the miles on their highways to use in support of law enforcement and emergency crews to identify the location of accidents.  it would be relatively easy to change the system and there would be only benefits to adopting the mile marker system.  cmv.   #  first, the addition of new exits results in the addition of extremely confusing  a  and  b  exits.   #  this is a problem with both schemes.   # this is a problem with both schemes.  in mile based exit numbers, this happens when there are multiple exits in the same mile.  i have seen it go up to d or e.  in cases like these, simple exit numbers could actually be simpler.  furthermore, if the highway is re routed around a city or something should the mile based exits be re numbered ? not a problem with simple exit numbers.   #  for example, exit 0 on i 0 is located in yonkers, while exit 0 is the last before the pennsylvania border.   # for example, exit 0 on i 0 is located in yonkers, while exit 0 is the last before the pennsylvania border.  so i think the ny thruway example actually contradicts your premise.  the ny thruway is not a single highway, it is a route that traverses i 0 and 0 0 both.  specifically, the thruway itself is i 0 from the bronx westchester border through albany where it intersects with i 0, and then the portion of i 0 from the i 0 intersection through to the ny/pa border near erie.  other roads are part of the thurway system without being the thurway itself.  this includes that link of i 0 past the i 0 interchange, as well as the portion of i 0 extending from the bronx westchester border through the ct border.  these portions are generally not tolled like the thruway is.  if the thruway used mile markers, there would be a lot of overlap in mile markers between the i 0 and the i 0 portions.  is exit 0 the exit for kingston, or the exit for buffalo ? this matters especially, because the thruway is a toll road, and uses paper cards for cash payers to compute their toll depending where they exit.   #  who would ever be confused about whether or not they are getting off near kingston or buffalo ?  #  i do not think the ny thruway contradicts the premise.  the mile markers used and therefore the names of the exits would simply change when the thruway switched interstates.  who would ever be confused about whether or not they are getting off near kingston or buffalo ? in terms of the actual destination for each driver, there would be no problems at all.  as for the tickets, it would not be a serious issue to have the same numerical exit number on different parts of the thruway because they are already labeled by name in addition to the number anyway.  the benefits of a mile marker system would not be outweighed by the minor potential for confusion.  any sensible driver knows where they are and where they are going on the highway, so knowing how much further you have to go is far more useful than just an arbitrary exit number.   #  in fact, i am going to be driving all day tomorrow, and i just checked my directions and i only have the numbers recorded.   #   get of at exit 0  .   no, not this exit 0, there is another cone coming up.   i can see that happening.  in fact, i am going to be driving all day tomorrow, and i just checked my directions and i only have the numbers recorded.  i would not know the difference between kingston or buffalo.  i am from georgia, not new york, if something told me to get off at a numbered exit then i am going to be getting off at that numbered exit.  you might not have that problem, but i would.   #  buffalo, the two cities are nearly 0 miles apart.   #  having the numbers recorded will only help you in the mile marker system ! if you have written down that you should get off at exit 0, and minute later you pass mile marker 0, then you know you have got about 0 more hours ahead of you.  that is actually much easier than knowing to get off at exit 0, with no idea of when that might be.  in terms of kingston vs.  buffalo, the two cities are nearly 0 miles apart.  the reason i said no reasonable person would have trouble telling the difference between  the two exits 0  is because there is such a profound difference between the two regions.
there are two major methods of identifying highway exits in the united states.  one is to identify them by mile marker, the other is to use a simple ordinal system.  the state of new york identifies highway exits by simply choosing one end of the highway and starting to count exits up one at a time.  for example, exit 0 on i 0 is located in yonkers, while exit 0 is the last before the pennsylvania border.  a list of the exits.  URL this has a number of significant problems.  first, the addition of new exits results in the addition of extremely confusing  a  and  b  exits.  it is much easier than renumbering all the exits on the highway, but it is also extremely confusing.  second, portions of the highway not on the main line need a separate system.  the nys thruway uses b0 b0 for the connector to the massachusetts turnpike.  and third, there is no way of knowing how far it is to the next exit.  i know i got on at exit 0 and need to get off at exit 0, but i have no idea if the distance is 0 miles or 0 miles.  the second option is far superior.  states like ohio and pennsylvania identify highway exits by the mile marker.  if you get on the highway at exit 0 and plan to get off at exit 0, you know that you will be driving 0 miles.  this is very sensible.  also, adding a new exit is simple ! if there is no other exit in that highway mile, adding a new number is trivial.  in the case of multiple exits in the same mile, a and b is easy to understand and also alerts drivers to the fact that multiple exits will be happening in a short space of road.  finally, states like new york are  already  numbering the miles on their highways to use in support of law enforcement and emergency crews to identify the location of accidents.  it would be relatively easy to change the system and there would be only benefits to adopting the mile marker system.  cmv.   #  the state of new york identifies highway exits by simply choosing one end of the highway and starting to count exits up one at a time.   #  for example, exit 0 on i 0 is located in yonkers, while exit 0 is the last before the pennsylvania border.   # for example, exit 0 on i 0 is located in yonkers, while exit 0 is the last before the pennsylvania border.  so i think the ny thruway example actually contradicts your premise.  the ny thruway is not a single highway, it is a route that traverses i 0 and 0 0 both.  specifically, the thruway itself is i 0 from the bronx westchester border through albany where it intersects with i 0, and then the portion of i 0 from the i 0 intersection through to the ny/pa border near erie.  other roads are part of the thurway system without being the thurway itself.  this includes that link of i 0 past the i 0 interchange, as well as the portion of i 0 extending from the bronx westchester border through the ct border.  these portions are generally not tolled like the thruway is.  if the thruway used mile markers, there would be a lot of overlap in mile markers between the i 0 and the i 0 portions.  is exit 0 the exit for kingston, or the exit for buffalo ? this matters especially, because the thruway is a toll road, and uses paper cards for cash payers to compute their toll depending where they exit.   #  any sensible driver knows where they are and where they are going on the highway, so knowing how much further you have to go is far more useful than just an arbitrary exit number.   #  i do not think the ny thruway contradicts the premise.  the mile markers used and therefore the names of the exits would simply change when the thruway switched interstates.  who would ever be confused about whether or not they are getting off near kingston or buffalo ? in terms of the actual destination for each driver, there would be no problems at all.  as for the tickets, it would not be a serious issue to have the same numerical exit number on different parts of the thruway because they are already labeled by name in addition to the number anyway.  the benefits of a mile marker system would not be outweighed by the minor potential for confusion.  any sensible driver knows where they are and where they are going on the highway, so knowing how much further you have to go is far more useful than just an arbitrary exit number.   #  i am from georgia, not new york, if something told me to get off at a numbered exit then i am going to be getting off at that numbered exit.   #   get of at exit 0  .   no, not this exit 0, there is another cone coming up.   i can see that happening.  in fact, i am going to be driving all day tomorrow, and i just checked my directions and i only have the numbers recorded.  i would not know the difference between kingston or buffalo.  i am from georgia, not new york, if something told me to get off at a numbered exit then i am going to be getting off at that numbered exit.  you might not have that problem, but i would.   #  the reason i said no reasonable person would have trouble telling the difference between  the two exits 0  is because there is such a profound difference between the two regions.   #  having the numbers recorded will only help you in the mile marker system ! if you have written down that you should get off at exit 0, and minute later you pass mile marker 0, then you know you have got about 0 more hours ahead of you.  that is actually much easier than knowing to get off at exit 0, with no idea of when that might be.  in terms of kingston vs.  buffalo, the two cities are nearly 0 miles apart.  the reason i said no reasonable person would have trouble telling the difference between  the two exits 0  is because there is such a profound difference between the two regions.   #  conversely you pass mile marker 0 and you want exit 0.  it just denominates the information in different terms.   #  how is it easier ? you pass exit 0 and know that you have 0 exits to go.  conversely you pass mile marker 0 and you want exit 0.  it just denominates the information in different terms.  miles can be more effective if you have a lot of information.  conversely, if i have very little information i do not know my average speed, or the structure of roads ahead then the ordinal system is easier.  i had no idea those cities are 0 miles apart.  if what i know is that i want exist 0 and i see an exit 0, why would not i get off ? so i want buffalo and am near kingston.  those names mean almost nothing to me, so why would i magically know any more than you would know if kennesaw is close to tybee island or not.
basically my view is rather simple i hate cats.  i think they are the shittiest creatures on this planet and if i had a time machine i would almost certainly do my best to make sure they were never adopted as pets.  now for a long time i was impartial to the ownership of cats, it did not really bother me, but a month or so back some of our neighbours got one.  since that happened it has been giving us hell.  the damn thing keeps stealing food from our house, scratching furniture and coming home at night to find a cat on your bed if you happen to be allergic to them is the worst thing ever.  so, why do not i just keep my house closed you might ask ? well i live in south africa and due to the expense of air conditioning we primarily cool our house by leaving windows and doors open.  additionally i do not see why we should be forced to change our lifestyle so the neighbours can own a cat.  basically i feel cat ownership should be illegal mainly as it negatively impacts the lives of other people in your community forcing them to adapt to your cat.  additionally cats do a great deal of damage to the local environment by killing many small birds and reptiles.  for example we had chameleons in our yard for quite some time and they were awesome, but then our neighbour is cat killed them all.  now i know there are probably people who somehow manage to keep their cats confined to their house or yard somehow and i have no issue with these people.  let them be able to apply for a cat ownership license and be subject to a fine if their cat happens to wander into your yard.   #  basically my view is rather simple i hate cats.   #  i think they are the shittiest creatures on this planet and if i had a time machine i would almost certainly do my best to make sure they were never adopted as pets.   # i think they are the shittiest creatures on this planet and if i had a time machine i would almost certainly do my best to make sure they were never adopted as pets.  first off, i would say, as a general rule of thumb, that nothing at all should be illegal or restricted just because you personally do not like it.  i do not like children.  should there be zoning laws about where you can live if you have kids ? no.  i am the one with the problem and the onus is on my to find myself a suitable location.  secondly, there already are restrictions in many places.  my housing association allows cats but does not allow them outside.  such a place would be great for you to live.  thirdly, i find it hard to believe that you have no legal recourse for your situation.  it is a pretty basic duty of pet owners to maintain control of our pets and if your neighbors are not doing so you would be legally entitled to report them.   #  a murderer is also punishable by law, but that does not help me if i am the victim.   #  yeah.  if  an intruder is caught.  a murderer is also punishable by law, but that does not help me if i am the victim.  and are there really  no stray cats  where you live ? i find it hard to believe that you live in a place where window screens are seen as a luxury, yet pets are all neutered.  my wife asks me  would you rather be right or happy ?   when i am presented with an  easily solvable  problem that i choose to complain about rather than fix.  she asks me this when i am being a pig headed idiot.   #  buy some screens, let it be, and relax a little bit.   #  i think you are being entirely unreasonable.  if you are leaving your house wide open, things are going to come in.  in a free society, we are sometimes asked to make reasonable accommodations of those around us exercising their freedoms.  the fact that you would file a complaint against your neighbors for their dog coming into your yard makes me happy that you are not my neighbor.  buy some screens, let it be, and relax a little bit.  remember, you probably do things that annoy the people around you, so if we go regulating every little annoyance, eventually, it will be something you do that is up for punishment.   #  on point b here is a nature article on the impact of free ranging domestic cats on the wildlife of the united states URL but this is not too much of an issue for me, although i miss our chameleons.   #  we have our house secured against burglars though, the problem is cats are considerably smaller than people and thus harder to keep out.  now let is compare dogs and cats.  a dog is, by law, required to be kept inside your yard or restrained by a leash.  this means that at worst a dog might cause some disturbance through excessive barking, which again there are laws against.  basically there is legislature regarding the ownership of dogs to minimise their impact on others in your community.  if you own a dog there is a legal responsibility that it should not be to the detriment of those around you.  on the other hand, there is nothing regarding cats and this means you can own a cat to the detriment of all around you without being legally responsible and here lies the issue.  on point b here is a nature article on the impact of free ranging domestic cats on the wildlife of the united states URL but this is not too much of an issue for me, although i miss our chameleons.   #  which is all well and good, but does not really make you feel better.   #  i can understand that.  i think the issue is that cats are more difficult to train and contain and therefore a certain amount of understanding goes on with the laws.  they also bury their waste and for the most part, do not really affect much aside from killing shit.  which is all well and good, but does not really make you feel better.  i feel like you, as an individual, are affected in a certain way due to your particular circumstances.  namely a douche cat that likes your bed and a lack of window screens.  while it may be annoying as well, i honestly wonder if your opinion would be different if the circumstances were different.  i personally am not a fan of cats and would be pissed in your place, however, were it not getting in my house, i doubt i would bother to spare a thought about feline registration or control, since with the exception of an infestation of strays, cats are pretty chill and do not shit up the place
the way i see it, no one is there on their own accord.  you were not asked if you wanted to be born you were simply roped into living.  there is also no contractual obligation for you to stay read: there is no obligation for anyone to stay alive.  the way i see it, there is two sides, a the world, society, family, etc and b given individual :  a brings b in without asking, wants b to stay as seen by all the anti suicide arguments  b is not here on their own accord, and ergo has no reason to stay by default.  therefore it is up to a to convince b to stay.  a good analogy is getting a pet.  you get a kitten because you want a kitten.  when the kitten grows up, you keep feeding and caring for it, so that it has a reason not to run away.  however, this is not the case for a and b.  the situation that is actually present makes no sense.  here is how it is:  a wants b to stay.  b does not have a reason to stay.   however, a is not interested in providing for b if b does not work.   a will not give anything to b, unless b works for a.  so, it is a bit like dragging someone to a restaurant and expecting them to cook the food and pay the bill all while expecting b to remain complacent and agreeable.  if we transpose it to real life, we effectively have society/life, who wishes for x individual to stay by making suicide either illegal, or immoral, or wrong .  however, society/life does nothing for x individual unless x does something first.  oftentimes, x will be expected to work for society/life without society/life giving anything back.  the situation is completely upside down.  it does not make sense, to me at least.   #  however, society/life does nothing for x individual unless x does something first.   #  oftentimes, x will be expected to work for society/life without society/life giving anything back.   #  i will also try to make a pragmatic argument.  oftentimes, x will be expected to work for society/life without society/life giving anything back.  since most people have a will to live, the alternative to people working in order to be granted the necessities of survival as well as the luxuries many of us are familiar with is for society to simply grant these resources to us.  this is an untenable system.  food, water, housing, education, electricity, education, welfare, and all other forms of resources  given to individuals  by society requires manpower.  it requires human effort.  in short, work is required for society and it is associated pool of resources to even exist.  it is then only fair that every member of society works in order to sustain this pool.   #  you can maybe make an argument that your parents wanted to make you or at least did not want to abort you , but that does not create an obligation from society.   #  the problem is the difference between  family  and society.  you can maybe make an argument that your parents wanted to make you or at least did not want to abort you , but that does not create an obligation from society.  that would be like saying that because  you  got a kitten  i  completely unrelated person need to ensure it survives and has a good quality of life.  society is made up of individuals, and what you suggest is that you are obliged to provide livelihood to me solely because my parents gave birth to me.  you did not ask for, nor accept, that obligation.  you receive from me only in the same way i receive from you: voluntary exchange of goods and services for money.   #  x does provide for y without giving back for the first 0ish years and in addition gives y the base skills to provide for themselves.   # it is just an obligation that comes with birthing something.  no more of an obligation than you have to them for providing that service to you.  however, y is not asked his opinion.  so there is no contractual obligation for y not to leave, but y may choose not to depending on how cozy y is life is.  well, y did not  have  an opinion and does not have a valid, informed opinion until 0ish years of age or better and that opinion is, in part, shaped by his experience with x and by the time in which y has an opinion, there is already an obligation to x.  whether or not x chooses to honor that obligation is up to him.  not necessarily.  y could be seen to have given x with life and therefore x owes y for that.  x does provide for y without giving back for the first 0ish years and in addition gives y the base skills to provide for themselves.  generally considered child abuse/neglect  #  i would personally say no because said person is not actively contributing and is actively draining resources and i do not believe anyone is obligated to help continue said person is existence.   # is death better than disappointment ? i would personally say no because said person is not actively contributing and is actively draining resources and i do not believe anyone is obligated to help continue said person is existence.  and i think the word in common vernacular for standards that are too high in situations like this is  unreasonable.   the logic that continues from this situation is usually that since one is standards are unreasonable one needs to change them with the unspoken assumption that if one does not then one will not be able to meet one is needs and will therefore die furthered by the assumption that that is undesirable.  that being said, defining something as an illness  does  make an illness by default.  there is debatable on that given the nature of illnesses.  that is to say, it was an illness when defined as such but no longer is/the circumstances defining it as such no longer exist and therefore it is no longer an illness.  i would like to follow all that by saying that i say this theoretically and for the sake of argumentation, not from a position of homophobia.   #  the deal is that society will offer you roles to contribute and reward you for it.   # however, society/life does nothing for x individual unless x does something first.  the deal is that society will offer you roles to contribute and reward you for it.  some are left out homeless , some opt out hermits and some like it and some do not.  even idleness has some reward in social benefits.  right now society does not produce enough wealth to upkeep everyone without working.  maybe in the future robots might achieve this.  until then you would better find a way to contribute to society.
the way i see it, no one is there on their own accord.  you were not asked if you wanted to be born you were simply roped into living.  there is also no contractual obligation for you to stay read: there is no obligation for anyone to stay alive.  the way i see it, there is two sides, a the world, society, family, etc and b given individual :  a brings b in without asking, wants b to stay as seen by all the anti suicide arguments  b is not here on their own accord, and ergo has no reason to stay by default.  therefore it is up to a to convince b to stay.  a good analogy is getting a pet.  you get a kitten because you want a kitten.  when the kitten grows up, you keep feeding and caring for it, so that it has a reason not to run away.  however, this is not the case for a and b.  the situation that is actually present makes no sense.  here is how it is:  a wants b to stay.  b does not have a reason to stay.   however, a is not interested in providing for b if b does not work.   a will not give anything to b, unless b works for a.  so, it is a bit like dragging someone to a restaurant and expecting them to cook the food and pay the bill all while expecting b to remain complacent and agreeable.  if we transpose it to real life, we effectively have society/life, who wishes for x individual to stay by making suicide either illegal, or immoral, or wrong .  however, society/life does nothing for x individual unless x does something first.  oftentimes, x will be expected to work for society/life without society/life giving anything back.  the situation is completely upside down.  it does not make sense, to me at least.   #  if we transpose it to real life, we effectively have society/life, who wishes for x individual to stay by making suicide either illegal, or immoral, or wrong .   #  however, society/life does nothing for x individual unless x does something first.   # however, society/life does nothing for x individual unless x does something first.  the deal is that society will offer you roles to contribute and reward you for it.  some are left out homeless , some opt out hermits and some like it and some do not.  even idleness has some reward in social benefits.  right now society does not produce enough wealth to upkeep everyone without working.  maybe in the future robots might achieve this.  until then you would better find a way to contribute to society.   #  you can maybe make an argument that your parents wanted to make you or at least did not want to abort you , but that does not create an obligation from society.   #  the problem is the difference between  family  and society.  you can maybe make an argument that your parents wanted to make you or at least did not want to abort you , but that does not create an obligation from society.  that would be like saying that because  you  got a kitten  i  completely unrelated person need to ensure it survives and has a good quality of life.  society is made up of individuals, and what you suggest is that you are obliged to provide livelihood to me solely because my parents gave birth to me.  you did not ask for, nor accept, that obligation.  you receive from me only in the same way i receive from you: voluntary exchange of goods and services for money.   #  no more of an obligation than you have to them for providing that service to you.   # it is just an obligation that comes with birthing something.  no more of an obligation than you have to them for providing that service to you.  however, y is not asked his opinion.  so there is no contractual obligation for y not to leave, but y may choose not to depending on how cozy y is life is.  well, y did not  have  an opinion and does not have a valid, informed opinion until 0ish years of age or better and that opinion is, in part, shaped by his experience with x and by the time in which y has an opinion, there is already an obligation to x.  whether or not x chooses to honor that obligation is up to him.  not necessarily.  y could be seen to have given x with life and therefore x owes y for that.  x does provide for y without giving back for the first 0ish years and in addition gives y the base skills to provide for themselves.  generally considered child abuse/neglect  #  that is to say, it was an illness when defined as such but no longer is/the circumstances defining it as such no longer exist and therefore it is no longer an illness.   # is death better than disappointment ? i would personally say no because said person is not actively contributing and is actively draining resources and i do not believe anyone is obligated to help continue said person is existence.  and i think the word in common vernacular for standards that are too high in situations like this is  unreasonable.   the logic that continues from this situation is usually that since one is standards are unreasonable one needs to change them with the unspoken assumption that if one does not then one will not be able to meet one is needs and will therefore die furthered by the assumption that that is undesirable.  that being said, defining something as an illness  does  make an illness by default.  there is debatable on that given the nature of illnesses.  that is to say, it was an illness when defined as such but no longer is/the circumstances defining it as such no longer exist and therefore it is no longer an illness.  i would like to follow all that by saying that i say this theoretically and for the sake of argumentation, not from a position of homophobia.   #  oftentimes, x will be expected to work for society/life without society/life giving anything back.   #  i will also try to make a pragmatic argument.  oftentimes, x will be expected to work for society/life without society/life giving anything back.  since most people have a will to live, the alternative to people working in order to be granted the necessities of survival as well as the luxuries many of us are familiar with is for society to simply grant these resources to us.  this is an untenable system.  food, water, housing, education, electricity, education, welfare, and all other forms of resources  given to individuals  by society requires manpower.  it requires human effort.  in short, work is required for society and it is associated pool of resources to even exist.  it is then only fair that every member of society works in order to sustain this pool.
the main reason the two state solution has not yet been achieved is due to the palestinians insistence on the right of return of the palestinian refugees and their descendants, who were displaced during the 0 war.  if the conflict was solely about territory, then the palestinians would have accepted either baraks offer at camp david; the clinton parameters; or olmerts offer in 0.  but the fact that they keep insisting on the right of return, which there is absolutely no way israel will or should concede, means that a peace agreement is nowhere in sight.  a two state solution is fundamentally incompatible with the right of return, since it will potentially be the end of jewish majority in the state of israel.  which is why most proponents of the two state solution certainly the us, but also i would suspect most european countries reject the right of return.  given that the two state solution is the preferred solution to the conflict by the international community, i cannot fathom why there is not put any more effort into solving the palestinian refugee problem.  unrwa, who provides relief for the palestinian refugees, has been a disaster for the conflict.  rather than attempting to solve the problem, by resettling the refugees in their current host countries, unrwa maintains the refugee status for the palestinians.  worse than that, unlike other refugees in the world, unrwa passes on the refugee status to the descendants of the refugees.  which means that a refugee problem has grown from about 0 back in 0 to more than 0 million today.  even worse, unrwa indoctrinates the palestinian refugees with the idea of right of return, meaning that the next generation of children will still demand the right of return to a country in which neither they nor their parents ever set foot.  the big losers in all of this is of course the palestinians themselves.  who now languish in the refugee camps.  being second class citizens in the very countries in which they and their parents grew up in.  all for a fantasy about a glorious right of return that will never happen.  my argument is in essence the following:  if you genuinely support a two state solution, you should be opposed to the right of return.  if you are opposed to the right of return, you should insist that steps be taken to diminish or flat out solve the refugee problem, by resettling the refugees in the countries in which they currently live.   this will of course not be an easy task.  it will take quite some effort to convince the arab countries to do this, but the international community could put pressure on these states, and provide the necessary funds to make it happen.  i it will require that the unrwa mandate is radically changed, such that it will henceforth work towards resettling the refugees.  the very first step should be to change the ludicrous practice of granting refugee status to the descendants of the refugees, which alone will gradually minimize the problem.  of course if the unrwa mandate is changed so radically, one wonders why it is not just abolished all together, and the refugees are handed over to unhcr.  that might not be practically possible in the short run though, since unrwa has become a de facto state for the refugees.  but the ultimate goal should clearly be to end unrwa.  the reason why i am writing this, is because the resettling of the refugees seems like the most obvious step that should be taken in order to resolve the conflict.  therefore it mystifies me why there is not any more effort put into it.  if there cannot be a two state solution until this problem is solved, then why on earth is nobody doing anything about it ? even if you believe that the palestinians should be allowed to return, you have to face the fact that it is not going to happen, and to keep the refugees in their current situation in spite of that, is simply inhumane.   #  if you genuinely support a two state solution, you should be opposed to the right of return.   #  if you are opposed to the right of return, you should insist that steps be taken to diminish or flat out solve the refugee problem, by resettling the refugees in the countries in which they currently live.   # if you are opposed to the right of return, you should insist that steps be taken to diminish or flat out solve the refugee problem, by resettling the refugees in the countries in which they currently live.  several problems with this on a practical level.  0 the countries themselves do not want the palestinians as citizens 0 you are in essense forcing demographic changes on numerous nations that will in tern have huge political and social implications to the new nation.  you will basically be forming quasi palestines across the middle east 0 the nations that have the refugees will be responsible for their care in terms of social services, edudcation etc, rather than unrwa now, again, cost issues are not insignificant this idea would punish random states, some of which are borderline stable at best, and destabilize them further, in an effort to give the most stable nation in the middle east an easier time of occupying the refugees homelands and hometowns.  arguably the single nation directly responsible for the refugees themselves.  if there was no isreal there would be no refugees.  if there was no syria, jordan, egypt, there would still be refugees.  i personally think a one state solution is better.  0 state solution with a mega dominant state that has strong animosity towards the mini state would just be like the situation we have now.  unless this second state of palestine is actually allowed to enter into trade agreements, enforce and allow border policy, allow tax and import at it is discretion which isreal wo not allow then what point is there to a palestinian state ? one state is a better option i think, if interested parties offer to assimilate the refugees that would be super, but forcing it on them is ridiculous.   #  maybe i am missing your point, but there are settlements in which many live, and some settlements are being built even now.   #  i do not disagree with you, but for the sake of a debate have you considered the settlers ? maybe i am missing your point, but there are settlements in which many live, and some settlements are being built even now.  there are children there who never knew any other home.  do you suggest they will be forced to move into israel ? receive a citizenship in a palestinian country ? i do not condone or sympathize with the settlers, but just like the palestinians, there are second generation jews there.  i find it hard to believe that they will accept being displaced or live in a non jewish country.   #  so, im not trying to beat a dead horse any more than has already been done, but to answer your op,  the refugee problem is the key to solving the israeli arab conflict.   #  look, at the risk of stating the ultra obvious and i know this has largely been said below, i am just trying to put it into one place , the reason people are making fun of you is because you are presupposing two major points that are actually the key to  solving the israeli arab conflict.   and those two points are 0 that two states is the preferred endgame, and 0 that it is the palestinian refugees, who are the victims of jewish colonialism, who should be made to give up more of their rights than they already have, while the jewish occupier should be accommodated without requiring significant concessions to their colonial project.  so, im not trying to beat a dead horse any more than has already been done, but to answer your op,  the refugee problem is the key to solving the israeli arab conflict.  resettling the refugees in their current countries of residence should be the first step towards peace.   the question is what  should  be the first steps ? and i think the first step is for zionists those who want to preserve the jewish state like you need to accept your ideology is responsibility for causing the conflict in the first place, and make amends to the palestinians by accepting them as having, at the very very least, and equal stake in the land as zionists.  i doubt you are going to change your view because your view implies too much backstory and ideological perspective .  but this is the  first step,  because without this, the palestinians are always going to feel aggrieved and the jews are always going to feel superior.  regardless of whether refugees are resettled or a two state situation is put into place.   #  if yes, then how can you support the idea of a two state solution if that is the case ?  # then explain why.  and if that is not the case, then i assume that would mean that any negotiations between israel and the pna are pointless.  a demand that in my opinion, does not make any sense in the context of a two state solution.  i do not understand how you can support a two state solution and support the right of return at the same time.  and i think the first step is for zionists those who want to preserve the jewish state like you need to accept your ideology is responsibility for causing the conflict in the first place, and make amends to the palestinians by accepting them as having, at the very very least, and equal stake in the land as zionists.  that seems very vague to say the least.  do you, or do you not, support the right of return ? if not, then why should you not take steps to diminish the refugee problem ? if yes, then how can you support the idea of a two state solution if that is the case ?  #  that said, i also would not be posting here if it was not for the fact that i am already fairly certain of my own views.   #  i would not be posting here if that was not the case.  just to restate my position quickly, so you know what to attack:   the solution preferred by the international community is a two state solution   a two state solution is not compatible with the right of return, since that would jeopardize the jewish nature of israel   the international community does not expect israel to give in to the right of return certainly the us does not i would also expect this to be the case for europe, although i am not certain of this .  if the right of return is recognized to be a non starter, then steps should be taken to permanently solve the current palestinian refugee problem.  that said, i also would not be posting here if it was not for the fact that i am already fairly certain of my own views.  but the fact that i am apparently in a minority holding this view, i should as any rational individual should have my views challenged.  there must be some argument i hav not heard yet.  otherwise a lot more people should have come to the same conclusion as i have.
i think some of the biggest threats to global stability comes from the political fringes.  it is either the extreme left, or the extreme right.  radicalism almost always leads to violence, and is a plague on democratic society and governments.  since communism has been relegated to just a handful of countries, the far left has for the most part been dealt with.  however the far right continues to be a menace.  i believe fascist neo nazi groups, the kkk, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical islamism all fall under the far right.  these groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place.  often it is the leaders of such movements that prey on the weak willed, using them as pawns in their ambitions of power.  unfortunately with the world is obsession with free speech and personal liberty, such leaders are given a free hand.  on websites like twitter and facebook we see isis recruit blind followers.  would not restricting  free speech  put brakes on this sort of recruitment ? political parties in democracies often try to keep these groups on a leash, but do not wish to eliminate them since they serve definite political goals like polarizing the electorate.  i see this as a major flaw in democracy.  fear of losing votes from radical sympathizers leads to political groups appeasing extremism.  instead, i think governments should do much more and try to completely stamp out any signs of fascism.  after the horrors of world war 0 i find it completely absurd that we still put up with their ideologies.  bringing socio economic growth to communities that feel disenfranchised just is not enough, and their will always be a few bad apples.  these bad apples need to be weeded out.  instead, we allow them to spread their rot, and infect society.   #  i believe fascist neo nazi groups, the kkk, the golden dawn or any religious extremist group like radical islamism all fall under the far right.   #  these groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place.   #  0.  the limiting of extremist ideologies may make them more popular.  see what happened to death metal.  when you tell people things are bad, they will do them/be exposed to them.  0.  the definition of extremism changes constantly.  for example, the church of satan is a relatively inocuous group of essentially atheists, and we recognize that now.  if someone tried to start that in the 0s, they would be swiftly shut the fuck down.  the definition of extremism is too fragile and easily changed.  if someone advocated for gay rights in the 0s, under your law, they would probably be  stamped out .  0.  which brings me to this point as you eliminate extremist thoughts, more and more moderate thought begins to be extreme.  people will start self policing their beliefs, and this leads to a loss of freedom.  0.  this could be a tool for censorship.  anything could be called extreme.  christianity ? a religion about a man rising from the dead ? sounds like necromancy and death worship to me, ban it ! 0.  if you live in a society that values exchange of ideas, then you should know some skeptical principles.  anything could be correct.  you look at ideas based on merit, not on what followers of that idea do.  for example, ending apartheid in south africa took some violence on behalf of the anti apartheid groups.  does that mean anti apartheid, as an idea, was a bad thing ? you are using actions to stamp out ideas.  0.  your post is politically biased.  these groups are always extreme fringes, and a handful of people make the world a much nastier place.  what about the communists/socialists of before that have killed millions of people ? why do you discount them in favor of the far right ?  #  the most effective way i think anyone could  kill  an ideology is if you frankly committed genocide of all likely candidates all violent ideologies, their kin, and possibly a large portion of all previous covered candidates  associates.   #  that is always the question i have for people who think simply eliminating people invoking violent ideologies.  people are far easier to kill than ideologies.  part of the problem we face is that part of the strategy for handling, for example, islamic terrorists is that we often have civilian casualties.  the results of these casualties, among other perceived or actual issues people from regions where radical islam is highly prevalent have with the western powers, foster radical islamic sentiment against us from individuals who probably had no interest in radical islam previously.  additionally, there are political and tribal issues within those regions that serve to foster varied manifestations of radical islam to the specific collection of aims of each group of adherents.  the most effective way i think anyone could  kill  an ideology is if you frankly committed genocide of all likely candidates all violent ideologies, their kin, and possibly a large portion of all previous covered candidates  associates.  then, there would have to be a massive propaganda campaign to bury facts and/or craftily manipulate other unsavory facts; additionally, all evidence of those ideologies would need to be eliminated.  if you choose not to go that route, then you would have to quell dissenters punitively or even lethally because somebody who survives very well may revive some of those  eliminated  ideologies.  even under these conditions, preventing the resurgence of any given ideology is not completely guaranteed.   #  the moderate majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.   #  zero tolerance, whatever it takes.  schools should educate children on the dangers of political extremism and their poison should be kept out of the minds of children.  young impressionable minds are the easiest targets for extremist indoctrination.  in a highly connected online era, it has become far too easy to recruit people into dangerous ideologies.  when facebook and twitter is used to recruit isis supporters and other fascist terrorists online en masse, there is a problem.  the moderate majority needs to grow a spine and say enough is enough.   #  there are many on the right who will say that obamacare is communism.   # the biggest problem with this is deciding who gets to define  extremism .  there are many people on the left who will say that tea partiers are dangerous extremists.  there are many on the right who will say that obamacare is communism.  so who gets to define something as vague and subjective as extremism ? how do you delegate that power and prevent the inevitable political shitstorm that follows as people compete for the ability to teach the entire nation is children which political ideologies are dangerous ? even science, which should be  much more  straightforward since it is based in objective fact, is a very controversial topic when it comes to what we should teach kids owing to the whole evolution thing.  i do not see any way you could implement something like what you are proposing and not just end up with a bunch of people fighting.   #  i can guarantee that people have very different ideas of what extremism entails; there is no universal definition.   #  none of these are specific.  what does  zero tolerance  entail ? what types of limits on speech are you suggesting ? how would you make it harder for extremism to spread online ? without specificity, it is hard to address how viable any of this is.  i could say  i think it is a good idea to end war , but that is not specific enough to be viable.  and once again, i think the most important question here is  who defines extremism ?   i can guarantee that people have very different ideas of what extremism entails; there is no universal definition.  who gets the power to make that call, and how do you prevent people from fighting over it/abusing this power ?
really though.  there is an unchecked organization that spies on them 0/0 without consent.  the us has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  the energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  american citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations.  these lies have led to events like the second gulf war.  not to mention the completely unregulated financial system.  honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are americans so deluded about this ? it is not a free, democratic society by any means.  it is clearly an oligarchy  #  there is an unchecked organization that spies on them 0/0 without consent.   #  the us has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.   # the us has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  the energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  american citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations.  these lies have led to events like the second gulf war.  not to mention the completely unregulated financial system.  none of this has anything to do with the type of government.  these things can happen in any form of government.  is there a reason you think if these things occur it means the government is not a democracy ? the definition of democracy:  government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.   what part of that definition do you feel does not apply to the us ? we have elected agents that are selected by the people.  while i agree with u/hacksoncode generally, that is more an argument of semantics at this point since the last part of the definition provided above is essentially a democratic republic.  not directly, no.  but the us is not a direct democracy and no one ever claimed it was.  we elect representatives which are voted on democratically and they represent the people.   #  just because we do not agree with or approve of certain acts, does not mean it is not a democracy even if government officials do illegal things.   #  essentially everyone in government is an extension of an elected official as voted by the people.  supreme court justices, directors of federal agencies dod, cia, fbi, dhs, epa, etc.  , joint chiefs of staff, and others are all appointed and approved by people we vote into office.  even if these people break the law, they are still representing the people who voted for them.  just because we do not agree with or approve of certain acts, does not mean it is not a democracy even if government officials do illegal things.  if a representative does not keep any of his campaign promises, we are still a democracy.  if a senator bangs a hooker and official representatives cover it up, we are still a democracy.  if the cia has questionable tactics, we are still a democracy.   #  you would get an f in government class i suppose.   #  most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity, but more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not america is a democracy.  democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command and control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  you have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the us as a democratic state.  for example: according to you a democracy is defined as  a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking, and does not have a spy network .  you would get an f in government class i suppose.   #  we can have this conversation without being arrested and sent to a gulag.   #  you attack the letter of op is argument without attacking the spirit of it.  does that really change anyone is view ? side note, potential cmv ? .  the  democracy  that op despite his/her sheepishness in his response to your post is of the strain that many americans think of when they here the term.  a government of, by, and for the people.  a government where the people hold a  reasonable  influence over what happens in their government.  a government who serves the people, and is not the master of it.  to continue to beat a dead horse, a government that secures civil rights and liberties for its people and works for the common good rather than the private interest of a few.  that is the spirit of the argument.  that america does not live up to the lofty ambitions that many americans ascribe it.  now, i am of the opinion that america does a decent of living up to this standard, unlike what op seems to suggest.  but we do not do an exceptional job.  we have secured liberties that are still widely absent in several countries.  for instance, women can drive, vote, and hold public office.  we can have this conversation without being arrested and sent to a gulag.  glbt citizens do not have to worry about being arrested.  still, there are many aspects of our government that do not seem to work for the people.  we were lied to about the second war in iraq or perhaps our leaders were simply negligent or ignorant .  we have elections, however we have an incredibly high incumbent rate of reelection.  so at a certain point, do we risk losing those freedoms ? perhaps.   #  domestic spying is a clear violation of the 0th amendment to the constitution.   #  yes, i have links to substantiate what i have told you.  i will give you a few starter links to get you going, but i would encourage you to dig deeper since we are talking about a major can of worms on each and every one of these issues.  0 the s l crisis and housing/financial crisis would not have been possible sans financial industry deregulation by republicans because the business practices and financial instruments at the heart of those crises were prohibited.  i tell you that as a former banker and someone who helped clean up the s l crisis.  i ca not cite decades of experience and knowledge, but i can point you to the congressional record where the evidence resides.  definitely read the bipartisan levin coburn report on the financial crisis and its causes if you want to know what really went down URL here is the clif is notes version URL of that report in case you do not have time to read the 0  page version ; 0 why do you think there are so many legal exemptions for the fracking industry if its as compliant with existing national environmental laws as you assume URL there would be no need for those exemptions unless the industry stands to violate the very environmental laws they are subject to in this country.  0 finally, the biggest constitutional violation of them all. spying on the american people.  in 0, dubya signed a presidential order which violated the longstanding and crystal clear prohibition against spying on the american people.  domestic spying is a clear violation of the 0th amendment to the constitution.  here is the background on that issue along with the legal history surrounding it.  URL
really though.  there is an unchecked organization that spies on them 0/0 without consent.  the us has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  the energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  american citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations.  these lies have led to events like the second gulf war.  not to mention the completely unregulated financial system.  honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are americans so deluded about this ? it is not a free, democratic society by any means.  it is clearly an oligarchy  #  honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are americans so deluded about this ?  #  democracies can be run a few different ways.   # democracies can be run a few different ways.  one way is to have the population vote on every issues, another way is to have the population vote for representatives that then themselves vote on issues.  we do the representative thing, and as a consequence people may be ignorant of the actual issues being voted on.  but there is nothing about a democracy that says the population has to be informed only that they are represented.  so while you are right about some of the problems with our system, it is still a democracy and we still have democratically elected representatives.   #  but the us is not a direct democracy and no one ever claimed it was.   # the us has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  the energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  american citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations.  these lies have led to events like the second gulf war.  not to mention the completely unregulated financial system.  none of this has anything to do with the type of government.  these things can happen in any form of government.  is there a reason you think if these things occur it means the government is not a democracy ? the definition of democracy:  government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.   what part of that definition do you feel does not apply to the us ? we have elected agents that are selected by the people.  while i agree with u/hacksoncode generally, that is more an argument of semantics at this point since the last part of the definition provided above is essentially a democratic republic.  not directly, no.  but the us is not a direct democracy and no one ever claimed it was.  we elect representatives which are voted on democratically and they represent the people.   #  essentially everyone in government is an extension of an elected official as voted by the people.   #  essentially everyone in government is an extension of an elected official as voted by the people.  supreme court justices, directors of federal agencies dod, cia, fbi, dhs, epa, etc.  , joint chiefs of staff, and others are all appointed and approved by people we vote into office.  even if these people break the law, they are still representing the people who voted for them.  just because we do not agree with or approve of certain acts, does not mean it is not a democracy even if government officials do illegal things.  if a representative does not keep any of his campaign promises, we are still a democracy.  if a senator bangs a hooker and official representatives cover it up, we are still a democracy.  if the cia has questionable tactics, we are still a democracy.   #  most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity, but more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not america is a democracy.   #  most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity, but more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not america is a democracy.  democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command and control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  you have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the us as a democratic state.  for example: according to you a democracy is defined as  a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking, and does not have a spy network .  you would get an f in government class i suppose.   #  glbt citizens do not have to worry about being arrested.   #  you attack the letter of op is argument without attacking the spirit of it.  does that really change anyone is view ? side note, potential cmv ? .  the  democracy  that op despite his/her sheepishness in his response to your post is of the strain that many americans think of when they here the term.  a government of, by, and for the people.  a government where the people hold a  reasonable  influence over what happens in their government.  a government who serves the people, and is not the master of it.  to continue to beat a dead horse, a government that secures civil rights and liberties for its people and works for the common good rather than the private interest of a few.  that is the spirit of the argument.  that america does not live up to the lofty ambitions that many americans ascribe it.  now, i am of the opinion that america does a decent of living up to this standard, unlike what op seems to suggest.  but we do not do an exceptional job.  we have secured liberties that are still widely absent in several countries.  for instance, women can drive, vote, and hold public office.  we can have this conversation without being arrested and sent to a gulag.  glbt citizens do not have to worry about being arrested.  still, there are many aspects of our government that do not seem to work for the people.  we were lied to about the second war in iraq or perhaps our leaders were simply negligent or ignorant .  we have elections, however we have an incredibly high incumbent rate of reelection.  so at a certain point, do we risk losing those freedoms ? perhaps.
really though.  there is an unchecked organization that spies on them 0/0 without consent.  the us has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  the energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  american citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations.  these lies have led to events like the second gulf war.  not to mention the completely unregulated financial system.  honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are americans so deluded about this ? it is not a free, democratic society by any means.  it is clearly an oligarchy  #  there is an unchecked organization that spies on them 0/0 without consent.   #  the us has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.   # the us has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  the energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  american citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations.  these lies have led to events like the second gulf war.  not to mention the completely unregulated financial system.  these things do not make the us not a democracy.  democracy is  rule of the people , and in the us case, the rule of the people is represented by elected officials.  the problem with the us is not that there is not a democracy, it is that private interests have overtaken public interests.  also, some of your points are overstated.   corporations  cannot  drill where they please , they have to respect first the laws of the state and county which they drill in, and then must respect the property rights of the individuals who own the land which they want to drill.  and the financial system is not completely unregulated, there are certainly parts that need better/any regulation, but most of it has strict laws that require or incentivize certain behaviours.   #  we have elected agents that are selected by the people.   # the us has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial.  the energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please.  american citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations.  these lies have led to events like the second gulf war.  not to mention the completely unregulated financial system.  none of this has anything to do with the type of government.  these things can happen in any form of government.  is there a reason you think if these things occur it means the government is not a democracy ? the definition of democracy:  government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.   what part of that definition do you feel does not apply to the us ? we have elected agents that are selected by the people.  while i agree with u/hacksoncode generally, that is more an argument of semantics at this point since the last part of the definition provided above is essentially a democratic republic.  not directly, no.  but the us is not a direct democracy and no one ever claimed it was.  we elect representatives which are voted on democratically and they represent the people.   #  if the cia has questionable tactics, we are still a democracy.   #  essentially everyone in government is an extension of an elected official as voted by the people.  supreme court justices, directors of federal agencies dod, cia, fbi, dhs, epa, etc.  , joint chiefs of staff, and others are all appointed and approved by people we vote into office.  even if these people break the law, they are still representing the people who voted for them.  just because we do not agree with or approve of certain acts, does not mean it is not a democracy even if government officials do illegal things.  if a representative does not keep any of his campaign promises, we are still a democracy.  if a senator bangs a hooker and official representatives cover it up, we are still a democracy.  if the cia has questionable tactics, we are still a democracy.   #  you would get an f in government class i suppose.   #  most of what you said is either patently false or simplification to the point of absurdity, but more importantly has nothing to do with whether or not america is a democracy.  democracies can be oppressive illiberal regimes, totalitarian systems, command and control socialist systems, social democracies, liberal capitalist states, oligarchies etc.  you have yet to give evidence that there is widespread tampering with free and fair elections which define the us as a democratic state.  for example: according to you a democracy is defined as  a state which has strict financial regulations, outlaws fracking, and does not have a spy network .  you would get an f in government class i suppose.   #  to continue to beat a dead horse, a government that secures civil rights and liberties for its people and works for the common good rather than the private interest of a few.   #  you attack the letter of op is argument without attacking the spirit of it.  does that really change anyone is view ? side note, potential cmv ? .  the  democracy  that op despite his/her sheepishness in his response to your post is of the strain that many americans think of when they here the term.  a government of, by, and for the people.  a government where the people hold a  reasonable  influence over what happens in their government.  a government who serves the people, and is not the master of it.  to continue to beat a dead horse, a government that secures civil rights and liberties for its people and works for the common good rather than the private interest of a few.  that is the spirit of the argument.  that america does not live up to the lofty ambitions that many americans ascribe it.  now, i am of the opinion that america does a decent of living up to this standard, unlike what op seems to suggest.  but we do not do an exceptional job.  we have secured liberties that are still widely absent in several countries.  for instance, women can drive, vote, and hold public office.  we can have this conversation without being arrested and sent to a gulag.  glbt citizens do not have to worry about being arrested.  still, there are many aspects of our government that do not seem to work for the people.  we were lied to about the second war in iraq or perhaps our leaders were simply negligent or ignorant .  we have elections, however we have an incredibly high incumbent rate of reelection.  so at a certain point, do we risk losing those freedoms ? perhaps.
as my title says, i think we are heading towards a future like in farenheit 0, more so than 0 or brave new world.  why do i think this ? first: we are increasingly more obsessed with our screens.  although they are not floor to ceiling screens like bradbury thought, they are still our addiction.  we see this more in our young generation, and that means that our future will be more obsessed.  smartphones, tablets, computers, consoles, and television are more and more pulling us away from booms and even real life.  second: we are seeing more and more people getting offended in our  crusade  for  social justice .  i am not saying that it is the majority or even a sizeable minority that is doing this, and i myself believe that people should do whatever floats their boat as long as it does not cause serious harm to others or themselves.  but when i see people wanting to burn books because they are offended, i think more and more to captain beatty and what he said  bigger the population, the more minorities.  do not step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, mormons, baptists, unitarians, second generation chinese, swedes, italians, germans, texans, brooklynites, irishmen, people from oregon or mexico.  the people in this book, this play, this tv serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere.  the bigger your market, montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that ! .  authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters.  they did.   also, remember the most important thing was that the government did not burn the books, but the people.  so please, so that i may be able to look to the future without being afraid that my children or children is children will live in a society that is too afraid to confront the darkness that books point out, and instead put momentary shallow happiness above actual knowledge and happiness.   #  first: we are increasingly more obsessed with our screens.   #  i believe bradbury was more concerned with the  content  people enjoyed through those screens, rather than the screens themselves.   # i believe bradbury was more concerned with the  content  people enjoyed through those screens, rather than the screens themselves.  smartphones, tablets, and computers all expand our ability to browse through information; and the average person today has access to more information and art than any other person in history.  if you wanted to argue that the content of this information and art has declined in quality and meaning as bradbury feared it would , that is a different argument for a different day.  the pendulum has always swung between intellectual libertarianism and intellectual authoritarianism.  even in the past fifty years, we saw 0 is paranoia and artificial nationalism give way to the now legendary counterculture of the late 0 is, only to see the american people seize up again with conservative moralism in the 0 is.  the  social justice  conflicts i believe you are referring to are just the members of both sides getting at each others throats again; but over the broad course of history, we have moved away from violent and destructive opposition to intellectual dissent.   #  actually, they are more scared of a margaret atwood is  the handmaid is tale  future, which is an equally frightening dystopian future.   #  one thing, where are you getting your info about these  social justice  moments.  you should understand that you ca not get an accurate picture of  the other side  from the detractors.  if you are a fan of tumblrinaction you probably going to think anyone who is into social justice is a raving loon who hates all men and wants to outlaw anything not  politically correct  or whatever.  if you are trying to get an accurate picture of people, that is sort of like trying to find out about about what liberals are really like from fox news.  ca not be done.  you might even hear from liberals on fox, you would get quotes.  and half of it is out of context, and while some is real every group has its crazies, and cherry picking is fun if it gets you ratings.  much like fox, it is manufactured outrage for ratings this is manufactured hysteria for internet points.  the average person into social justice is no more frightening than the average conservative or the average liberal.  things are only scary when the fringe of any group gets in power.  speaking from the middle of the sjw crowd, most of my real world friends are into  social justice .  there is no  hate all men , there most certainly is no  ban all books .  your average social justice warrior is as terrified of a double speak, fahrenheit 0, book burning future as you are.  actually, they are more scared of a margaret atwood is  the handmaid is tale  future, which is an equally frightening dystopian future.  is a good book if you are into that sort of fiction, read it.   #  also thank you for kind of showing me that there are rational people, sometimes maybe i should stop listening to just the loudest voices.   #  thank you for your comment and the book recommendation.  yes i do browse tia, but what really got me on this idea was when gamer gate happened.  now i wo not get into all of that, but what i saw was that people were defending a lack of journalistic integrity, and called it  oppression .  that is a very over simplified view, and there are so many other factors.  so do not take my word for it.  also thank you for kind of showing me that there are rational people, sometimes maybe i should stop listening to just the loudest voices.   #  when someone talks to you on the internet, they do not see you as a person, but instead as a username.   #  yes, and technology can also cause us to compact bigger ideas into  facts  and  quotes , no longer allowing us to talk freely and at length.  what it also removes is our empathy.  when someone talks to you on the internet, they do not see you as a person, but instead as a username.  but when we talk face to face, i am talking to a person, with feelings and emotions and suddenly, i do not want to hurt you so much.  and i have seem this.  on facebook i would see girls that went to my school tear into one another, and nobody felt empathy that maybe that other person has feelings.  so i fear that when we ca not see one another, we ca not see that each other exists.   #  bradbury points at television as an intellectual drain to emphasize how important books are and because it is easier than examining all the cultural stimuli that created it.   #  a ight homie g, two things 0 this posts existence shows that books are not an exclusive medium to  confront the darkness.   0 brave new world is eons better than 0 and here is why: it is because of capitalism that you have all these wonderful screens to stare at.  bradbury points at television as an intellectual drain to emphasize how important books are and because it is easier than examining all the cultural stimuli that created it.  huxley just went straight up beast mode in brave new world and mind fucks you into submission, for every symbol like bradbury is tv or ah is soma theres ten more reasons why it exists but namely, because it is more comfortable for us not to think about it.  they are both great books but if we are sliding into a dystopian future then fuck it.  grab some soma and enjoy the ride because you are never going to be more appealing to the public than mickey mouse.
as my title says, i think we are heading towards a future like in farenheit 0, more so than 0 or brave new world.  why do i think this ? first: we are increasingly more obsessed with our screens.  although they are not floor to ceiling screens like bradbury thought, they are still our addiction.  we see this more in our young generation, and that means that our future will be more obsessed.  smartphones, tablets, computers, consoles, and television are more and more pulling us away from booms and even real life.  second: we are seeing more and more people getting offended in our  crusade  for  social justice .  i am not saying that it is the majority or even a sizeable minority that is doing this, and i myself believe that people should do whatever floats their boat as long as it does not cause serious harm to others or themselves.  but when i see people wanting to burn books because they are offended, i think more and more to captain beatty and what he said  bigger the population, the more minorities.  do not step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, mormons, baptists, unitarians, second generation chinese, swedes, italians, germans, texans, brooklynites, irishmen, people from oregon or mexico.  the people in this book, this play, this tv serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere.  the bigger your market, montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that ! .  authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters.  they did.   also, remember the most important thing was that the government did not burn the books, but the people.  so please, so that i may be able to look to the future without being afraid that my children or children is children will live in a society that is too afraid to confront the darkness that books point out, and instead put momentary shallow happiness above actual knowledge and happiness.   #  second: we are seeing more and more people getting offended in our  crusade  for  social justice .   #  the pendulum has always swung between intellectual libertarianism and intellectual authoritarianism.   # i believe bradbury was more concerned with the  content  people enjoyed through those screens, rather than the screens themselves.  smartphones, tablets, and computers all expand our ability to browse through information; and the average person today has access to more information and art than any other person in history.  if you wanted to argue that the content of this information and art has declined in quality and meaning as bradbury feared it would , that is a different argument for a different day.  the pendulum has always swung between intellectual libertarianism and intellectual authoritarianism.  even in the past fifty years, we saw 0 is paranoia and artificial nationalism give way to the now legendary counterculture of the late 0 is, only to see the american people seize up again with conservative moralism in the 0 is.  the  social justice  conflicts i believe you are referring to are just the members of both sides getting at each others throats again; but over the broad course of history, we have moved away from violent and destructive opposition to intellectual dissent.   #  things are only scary when the fringe of any group gets in power.   #  one thing, where are you getting your info about these  social justice  moments.  you should understand that you ca not get an accurate picture of  the other side  from the detractors.  if you are a fan of tumblrinaction you probably going to think anyone who is into social justice is a raving loon who hates all men and wants to outlaw anything not  politically correct  or whatever.  if you are trying to get an accurate picture of people, that is sort of like trying to find out about about what liberals are really like from fox news.  ca not be done.  you might even hear from liberals on fox, you would get quotes.  and half of it is out of context, and while some is real every group has its crazies, and cherry picking is fun if it gets you ratings.  much like fox, it is manufactured outrage for ratings this is manufactured hysteria for internet points.  the average person into social justice is no more frightening than the average conservative or the average liberal.  things are only scary when the fringe of any group gets in power.  speaking from the middle of the sjw crowd, most of my real world friends are into  social justice .  there is no  hate all men , there most certainly is no  ban all books .  your average social justice warrior is as terrified of a double speak, fahrenheit 0, book burning future as you are.  actually, they are more scared of a margaret atwood is  the handmaid is tale  future, which is an equally frightening dystopian future.  is a good book if you are into that sort of fiction, read it.   #  now i wo not get into all of that, but what i saw was that people were defending a lack of journalistic integrity, and called it  oppression .   #  thank you for your comment and the book recommendation.  yes i do browse tia, but what really got me on this idea was when gamer gate happened.  now i wo not get into all of that, but what i saw was that people were defending a lack of journalistic integrity, and called it  oppression .  that is a very over simplified view, and there are so many other factors.  so do not take my word for it.  also thank you for kind of showing me that there are rational people, sometimes maybe i should stop listening to just the loudest voices.   #  on facebook i would see girls that went to my school tear into one another, and nobody felt empathy that maybe that other person has feelings.   #  yes, and technology can also cause us to compact bigger ideas into  facts  and  quotes , no longer allowing us to talk freely and at length.  what it also removes is our empathy.  when someone talks to you on the internet, they do not see you as a person, but instead as a username.  but when we talk face to face, i am talking to a person, with feelings and emotions and suddenly, i do not want to hurt you so much.  and i have seem this.  on facebook i would see girls that went to my school tear into one another, and nobody felt empathy that maybe that other person has feelings.  so i fear that when we ca not see one another, we ca not see that each other exists.   #  a ight homie g, two things 0 this posts existence shows that books are not an exclusive medium to  confront the darkness.    #  a ight homie g, two things 0 this posts existence shows that books are not an exclusive medium to  confront the darkness.   0 brave new world is eons better than 0 and here is why: it is because of capitalism that you have all these wonderful screens to stare at.  bradbury points at television as an intellectual drain to emphasize how important books are and because it is easier than examining all the cultural stimuli that created it.  huxley just went straight up beast mode in brave new world and mind fucks you into submission, for every symbol like bradbury is tv or ah is soma theres ten more reasons why it exists but namely, because it is more comfortable for us not to think about it.  they are both great books but if we are sliding into a dystopian future then fuck it.  grab some soma and enjoy the ride because you are never going to be more appealing to the public than mickey mouse.
like many american kids, i was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in  monopoly  games with my family.  from what i can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through.   monopoly  was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the single tax theory of henry george.  0 though it does this job well, i believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun.  once 0 of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another is territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax.  after that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.  while this system would work in a  quick  game between 0 to 0 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 0  players.  one after another, a player pays out the net worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn out stand off between the remaining few.  at this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance.  whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses.  when that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose.  but the game keeps going and going, because it would be  unfair  to keep going despite the likely outcome.  if monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better  chance  cards, or even removal of the pieces entirely and to be quicker add penalties for each additional player over 0 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone.  as of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.  please change my view, for the sake of family game night.   nbsp;  #  like many american kids, i was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in  monopoly  games with my family.   #  from what i can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through.   # from what i can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through.  the lack of skill involved is exactly why it is a much better game to play with kids than something like settlers of catan.  adults are way too smart to play with kids, so a game that relies more on a random number than player skill evens the playing field.  this is also the reason you teach little kids how to play tic tac toe it is easy to learn and easy to master.  for someone who has not learned  any  games yet, it is great as an introduction.  snakes and ladders and the card game  war  are purely random so are great for small children to play with adults.  after that games like life and monopoly add a little bit of skill and choice without being intimidating.  from there you could start getting into more advanced games, but a lot of families never do which is a shame because skill based games are much more fun.   #  i have to ask because it is very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer.   #  first, are you actually playing monopoly according to the base rules ? i have to ask because it is very, very common for people to unwitting ignore or add rules and cause the game to run longer.  by far the most egregious violation of this nature is ignoring the auction rule where if the player who lands on an unbought space chooses not to buy it for face value, it is auctioned off to highest bidder , which makes it take much longer for people to build up property, dragging out the early stages of the game.  another common one i grew up with was the  free parking  rule addition, where landing on free parking confers some kind of monetary reward, which introduces more money into the game and makes it harder to go bankrupt, dragging out the game.  assuming that you are playing with auctions and preferably without that free parking house rule , the key to the game is negotiation.  the game only becomes a drawn out slugfest if players ca not get monopolies, which only happens if players do not negotiate.  this is the soul of the game, and ignoring it is the reason many people develop a distaste for the game.  if players a, b, c, and d are playing, and a is obviously ahead after a few go arounds, should a just win ? of course not ! b, c, and d should be conspiring like hell to take a down.  b can  not notice  when c and d land on his properties, making a the only one to pay rent.  c and d can agree to help each other complete monopolies and make trades of that nature.  once some players have monopolies, the other players have to either trade to make their own monopolies or get bled out quickly.  once monopolies and the corresponding houses and hotels come into play, tiny rents become enormous and the game quickly comes to an end.  in short, monopoly is drawn out because people do not play by the rules, or the miss the main point of the game: monopolies.  forming monopolies is by far the quickest way to win, and the easiest way to do so is through negotiating with other players, a point that many monopoly players fail to notice.  a properly played game of monopoly may come down to luck in the end, but it is luck that is heavily influenced by the mid game, which is decided by the players  diplomatic skill.   #  though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up  #  that is a possibility of have not considered actually.  only recently past 0 years my family added money to the free parking, and though i always attempted to get the auction rule in i was always voted down.  perhaps that is the reason why i have such a strong dislike of the game.  alas, i have not actually played it in a while and i will play it with these rules before confirming the delta, for these rules may not be enough to convince me that the game is designed well.  though it is theoretically sound it may not hold up  #  alice has two yellow properties and one green property, while bob has two green properties and one yellow property.   #  it does admittedly depend a lot on the people you play it with.  if your fellow players absolutely refuse to negotiate, even when it would benefit them in the long run, then the game is not going to be fun.  it is like playing poker with players who never bet: it is not fun, it is just a long, awful slog.  that does not make poker a bad game by design even though it can be unfun in some scenarios ; it just means that it is not a game that everyone will enjoy.  i would recommend pointing out to people that the point of the game is to make trades.  the most beneficial trade i have found involves two players helping each other complete a monopoly, but giving  immunity  to that group.  i. e.  alice has two yellow properties and one green property, while bob has two green properties and one yellow property.  alice agrees to trade her green for bob is yellow, giving them both monopolies, on the condition that alice wo not have to pay if she lands on a green property and bob wo not have to pay if he lands on a yellow property .  players who do not like trades tend to be nervous about giving other players a better position, and i find that they are more inclined to do so if they feel it wo not come back to bite them.  seriously, immunity is great.  even without auctions, making sure people are aware that they can be  flexible  about collecting rent makes the game go much faster.  if you ca not sell auctions, this should still help.   #  the problem i find it that using tournament rules you ca not do all those fancy trades you are on about.   #  the problem i find it that using tournament rules you ca not do all those fancy trades you are on about.  you can  only  trade property   money in single transactions not even sure if pay back x per turn is allowed .  the main problem i have is that the first person to get a set wins.  that is unless one player basically  sacrifices  themselves to make the other one lose.  because of the nature of how the trading is restricted, you have to make these sacrifices you ca not  work together  very easily .  i enjoy a little bit of luck in a game, but monopoly seems to have way too much.  in any group of people any one person has an equal chance of winning as long as they do not play stupidly.
i guess this is a popular notion for celebrities who get caught up in the partying lifestyle and end up dying from that.  but, look at it this way, it is fun, you are young and likely wo not have kids that you need to look after, and you will be dead so you wo not  miss out  on the things like having kids, or growing old and  loving someone.   all of which may be things that a person may not want or may not really be a truthfully happy road.  basically, why ca not i say  fuck it, im going to do all these drugs, blow my money, travel, have sex, get to know as many people as possible and die when i die ?   i know i technically  can,  beyond the legality issues.  but, on a broader  life worth living  and live having  meaning  sense.  eh.  i just never saw it.  i am sometimes afraid that this is an indication of a personality disorder but, otherwise i am pretty well adjusted.  this is not to say those who choose a traditional life path are stupid.  i just feel more and more that perhaps that is not for everyone aka, me .  for background info: 0 yr old female, senior in college, broke as college students are.  two parents together, one sister, a few friends.  tldr: my view is not changed, exactly.  i know it is rough on those close to you to do stuff like that but, im of the opinion that you as a person, comes first.  and what you want to do should take priority.  though, you should also take the greatest care to minimize harm in such circumstance do not have so is, kids, parents .  unless you truly do not give a damn.  then, does what is wrong/right really matter ? probably not.  this is stupid and im stupid and im sorry.  no need for further comment.   #   fuck it, im going to do all these drugs, blow my money, travel, have sex, get to know as many people as possible and die when i die ?    #  i think it is a romantic notion, but it is fiction.   # i think it is a romantic notion, but it is fiction.  you have to think, how much are you actually going to enjoy this lifestyle ? if you spend all your time high and drunk, are you really going to  have fun ?   or are you just going to be perpetually waking up in dirty bathrooms, covered in puke, not knowing where you are, with your panties missing ? are you really going to  meet new people ?   or are you just going to be surrounded by dirtbags who want to use you for their own enjoyment after all, think of who this lifestyle attracts ? and think about what your death might look like.  it is not like these  live fast, die young  folks go out quietly.  they kill themselves, they overdose, they get into horrible wrecks while driving under the influence and sometimes take other people with them.  what happens when the booze stops getting you buzzed, when the pot, etc.  stops getting you high ? when your body is falling apart on you and you ca not tolerate being sober for even a minute, because you see that your life is meaningless and the people around you do not care about you, and the people you used to love have all drifted away ? what happens if you  do not  die, and you are 0, you look like you are 0, you have got hiv or hepatitis, and you have got nothing to your name ? you kill yourself ? i mean, in summary, what does a life like this really look like ? i think that people who dive head first into this kind of lifestyle are running from some deep, serious suffering, and they think that if they run fast enough they might just be able to feel something good before they die.  and they might feel good here and there, but they ca not outrun their shadow.   #  i contend we are all killing ourselves with the way we live, those of us who live like myself and the op are just more honest about it and we want to enjoy the process.   #  you are focusing heavily on the negative aspects of it but that is not all there is to living that way.  i would say i live pretty moment to moment albeit with less drugs and drinking and while it is not a way of thinking conducive to long term survival, it affords you some really amazing opportunities and experiences.  it is hard, it hurts, it is draining, and it  will  kill you quicker but in return you get to do things and meet people that you otherwise would never have even heard of.  a prime example was the other night.  a friend of mine called and asked if i wanted to come with her to help her with some night shots for her photography class.  i had work that night but i decided that it was better to have that experience than to waste six hours at work sitting on my ass.  we broke into a million dollar house that was for sale, ate dinner out of the dumpster, ran from a couple of private security assholes, fell on top of a couple of teenagers fucking, got dirty, scraped up, cut, and we did not get back to my place until probably 0am and i was exhausted the next day.  but if i had just gone to work, what would the day have been ? home by 0:0, shower, play some games, pass out at 0:0.  just like every other work day.  long term it is not a good survival strategy but to me it is worth it to live more moment to moment and enjoy what i have now rather than spend my entire life waiting to live.  that is what it feels like most people are doing; they kill themselves in college to get a job that they kill themselves at for 0 0 years so they can retire just in time for their bodies to really start failing and then die in another ten.  you have wasted your entire life for those precious few golden years and you do what with them ? i contend we are all killing ourselves with the way we live, those of us who live like myself and the op are just more honest about it and we want to enjoy the process.  living 0 years and hating 0 of them seems pointless when you put that next to living 0 or 0 years and hating maybe ten of them.  we are  all  trying to outrun deep, serious suffering; you are doing it with wendy is and cable tv, we are doing it with experiences.  people inoculate themselves with cat videos and shitty tv to experience the things they once could go out and do but now have to do them through someone else on a screen.   #  you have a job, you might not have long term goals, but it does not sound like you are living the kind of life op described.   #  you sound like you live an interesting life, and that is great.  you have a job, you might not have long term goals, but it does not sound like you are living the kind of life op described.  i am all for spontaneous experiences and adventures.  just a few months ago i grabbed my friend and we drove up to portland and crashed on his cousin is living room couch for a weekend.  then we drove to the coast and just spent a few hours wandering on the beaches.  but that does not mean i would do that every day, even every weekend.  but i did enjoy it, and i would do it again.  enjoying what you have is also different from chasing a high.  from what i gathered, the type of extreme lifestyle op describes devolves very quickly into trying to recapture that feeling the person had when they started.  so they do massive amounts of drugs, have massive amounts of sex, drink massive amounts of alcohol and engage in dangerous, thrill seeking behavior not necessarily because it feels good to do so, but in order to feel that first time again.  i am all for being present in the current moment, and appreciating what you have.  i am a firm believer that you can hold a job for 0 0 years  and  enjoy your life, and that at a certain point/quality of life barring medical issues , misery really becomes a choice.  i think that if you are at peace with yourself, and you really pay attention to everything you have, you can enjoy yourself whether you are spelunking or watching a sitcom.  but the seed of experiencing happiness, or anything at all, is in your mind and attitude.   #  i quit my job, i paid my roommate off for the rest of the lease, and i went and sailed on a tall ship.   #  there is a middle ground.  one day i upped and fucked off.  i quit my job, i paid my roommate off for the rest of the lease, and i went and sailed on a tall ship.  then i sailed on tall ships for a couple years.  i fell in love with sailing, met amazing people, did absurd things and made very little money in the process.  i could not afford to keep my car running, i could not afford to upgrade my merchant mariners license.  i could not do anything.  so now i am working o a boat i do not like doing work that i hate with people that i find abhorrent a lot of the time, but i am making good money.  hopefully i will be making even better money by the end of the year.  in five years i am buying my own damn tall ship and starting my own damn sailing program and i am gonna do what i damn well please.  sometimes you have to do the shitty boring stuff so you can live the dream.   #  so that goes back to the question of whether you feel empathy for other people.   #  the movie barely glosses over this and jordan shows nearly no regret over it, but when his yacht got shipwrecked, he sent three people in a plane to go rescue them.  those people died.  he is indirectly responsible for their deaths, presumably because he offered them enough money that it was worth risking their lives.  other people always seem to be the most affected by the reckless actions of a person.  so that goes back to the question of whether you feel empathy for other people.  thinking about the families of those that died in the plane, would you feel guilty that you sent them to rescue you ?
for the sake of this thread, we will exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities; imo the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population.  with a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent s .  a child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  i am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below.  i think parents are virtually 0 responsible for producing scholastically successful children.  cmv.   #  a child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.   #  a child who is struggling in earnest should probably be held back a year.   #  i like your post and i think you have some good ideas, but some things to consider:  with a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent s i will just say that a parent in a bad economic situation will probably a have to spend more time working and less time with their child, b live in a shitty neighborhood, and c would not be able to counter any negative social pressure as much.  a child who is struggling in earnest should probably be held back a year.  this does not reflect poorly on the parents or say that the child is dumb, but some children develop later than others.  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below.  i would agree with your idea in principle, giving parents bonuses if the child achieves good grades.  i foresee a problem with too much pressure being put on teachers, especially with evaluating kids that try really hard but are simply average students.   how could give my child a d ? he studies every night and works so hard ! i need to pay rent this month !   not quite related but there was a freakonomics article URL about paying high schoolers for passing grades.  i do not think it worked.  edit: bits of the movie URL can be seen on youtube.  i saw it a few years ago, i believe the conclusion was suggested mixed results.  it pushed kids on the bubble a bit higher, but had no effect on consistently bad students.   #  a simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess.   #  yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that do not.  unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the  reasons  that poor parents are less involved e. g.  they do not have time because they are having to work 0 jobs just to support the children , it is not going to solve the problem.  and that is going to be very expensive.  furthermore, there is a more fundamental  reason  that poor parents are poorer at helping their children.  they are statistically dumber than richer people.  ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence.  it would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own.  but honestly, i think you are just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence.  there is really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school.  a simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess.   #  then i want you to verbalize what % you would find unacceptable to your belief: in other words, how few kids succeeding despite poverty would it take for you to realize  oh, wait, i guess poverty is the major obstacle.    #  hold on now, this is important.  when you say  many, many people,  it is important not to just use that phrase as a heuristic to avoid thinking, i mean really thinking, about this problem.  because when you say  many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful,  i have to know what you think the actual numbers are.  what is  many, many people ?   0 of those raised in poverty ? 0 ? also, are you aware of things like the availability heuristic and sampling bias ? how our expectations are shaped by what information is available to us and how our minds filter what we remember to coincide with what we believe ? what % of those born in poverty do you think actually becomes successful in school ? not just  wildly successful,  which is an enormously higher bar: let is just talk about a 0  gpa.  i want to know what you believe the actual numbers are.  then i want you to verbalize what % you would find unacceptable to your belief: in other words, how few kids succeeding despite poverty would it take for you to realize  oh, wait, i guess poverty is the major obstacle.   then i want us to look up the actual %s, to see whether your mind is changed.   #  one example is that poverty negatively affects a family is nutritional and health status, which in turn negatively affects performance in work and in school.   #  i think it is necessary to have a more robust understanding of poverty and how it affects all areas of a family is life.  one example is that poverty negatively affects a family is nutritional and health status, which in turn negatively affects performance in work and in school.  a child who does not get to eat decent food in amount or nutritional content will have their cognition and other executive functions affected if not immediately, then in the long run.  poor health status parents would not be in the best shape to direct their child is learning, much more so earn maximally to provide for other needs.  add the fact that these poor parents are statistically more likely to have been uneducated/ignorant themselves, which further acts as a barrier to having more income.  at the risk of sounding cliche, poverty is a self perpetuating cycle that is very hard to break out of.  giving financial incentives to people who already have the advantage only works to strengthen the cycle of poverty in this case.   #  do you think somebody with an iq of  0 , who does not have a learning disability, will do as well as somebody who is average or above average, regardless of parenting ?  # it is seems reasonable to assume that intelligence/ability to learn/ability to focus/ability to do certain tasks/etc.  all occur on a bell curve indicating varying abilities from child to child, and that it is not just  a bunch of people who are all basically equal in ability plus some people who are medically diagnosed with learning disabilities.   that assertion should not even require a source almost everything else about humans occurs has a normal distribution, from height to strength to speed, but of course you can simply google up  iq distribution  or  math test score distribution  or  verbal test score distribution  or anything else like that.  it does not really matter where you draw your line for  children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities  say you say that everybody below an iq of  0  has a medically diagnosed learning disability.  do you think somebody with an iq of  0 , who does not have a learning disability, will do as well as somebody who is average or above average, regardless of parenting ? also, it seems obvious, just from observation, that people simply have different kinds of skills and abilities.  my girlfriend is really smart with languages she can pick up another language surprisingly fast, and then weirdly retain lots of vocabulary and the weird verb conjugations exceptions even after years of not speaking or hearing the language.  it is kind of spooky.  however, she is a math dolt; like really bad at it.  she could study math for the next 0 years with the support of her amazing parents, and not be half as good as i was in 0th grade.  i am sure she sucked balls at math in grade school, through no fault of her parents.
for the sake of this thread, we will exclude children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities; imo the knowledge and resource base for teaching said children is probably proportionate to the percentage they make up of the overall population.  with a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent s .  a child who struggles in earnest or intentionally slacks off is a direct reflection of parenting.  i am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below.  i think parents are virtually 0 responsible for producing scholastically successful children.  cmv.   #  i am curious regarding potential for more public accountability held to parents who fail to direct their child.   #  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below.   #  i like your post and i think you have some good ideas, but some things to consider:  with a healthy child, income, neighborhood, peers and teachers should be filtered through a responsible parent s i will just say that a parent in a bad economic situation will probably a have to spend more time working and less time with their child, b live in a shitty neighborhood, and c would not be able to counter any negative social pressure as much.  a child who is struggling in earnest should probably be held back a year.  this does not reflect poorly on the parents or say that the child is dumb, but some children develop later than others.  maybe a monetary incentive derived from public tax coffers paid to parents of children who maintain a passing grade, to be withheld if child dips below.  i would agree with your idea in principle, giving parents bonuses if the child achieves good grades.  i foresee a problem with too much pressure being put on teachers, especially with evaluating kids that try really hard but are simply average students.   how could give my child a d ? he studies every night and works so hard ! i need to pay rent this month !   not quite related but there was a freakonomics article URL about paying high schoolers for passing grades.  i do not think it worked.  edit: bits of the movie URL can be seen on youtube.  i saw it a few years ago, i believe the conclusion was suggested mixed results.  it pushed kids on the bubble a bit higher, but had no effect on consistently bad students.   #  yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that do not.   #  yeah, but my point is that giving money to people that have successful children is going, ultimately, to lead to giving money to people that already have money, and withholding it from ones that do not.  unless you make the reward high enough to overcome the  reasons  that poor parents are less involved e. g.  they do not have time because they are having to work 0 jobs just to support the children , it is not going to solve the problem.  and that is going to be very expensive.  furthermore, there is a more fundamental  reason  that poor parents are poorer at helping their children.  they are statistically dumber than richer people.  ignorance might be the cause, of course, rather than just lack of intrinsic intelligence.  it would seem that a better approach would be to pay parents to attend training on how to be better parents, rather than rewarding the ones that have just happened to figure it out on their own.  but honestly, i think you are just being naive about actual statistical variation in native intelligence.  there is really no reason to believe that every person has exactly the same potential to succeed well in school.  a simpler explanation is that native intelligence is probably normally distributed, like almost every other trait people possess.   #  i want to know what you believe the actual numbers are.   #  hold on now, this is important.  when you say  many, many people,  it is important not to just use that phrase as a heuristic to avoid thinking, i mean really thinking, about this problem.  because when you say  many, many people come from poverty to be wildly successful,  i have to know what you think the actual numbers are.  what is  many, many people ?   0 of those raised in poverty ? 0 ? also, are you aware of things like the availability heuristic and sampling bias ? how our expectations are shaped by what information is available to us and how our minds filter what we remember to coincide with what we believe ? what % of those born in poverty do you think actually becomes successful in school ? not just  wildly successful,  which is an enormously higher bar: let is just talk about a 0  gpa.  i want to know what you believe the actual numbers are.  then i want you to verbalize what % you would find unacceptable to your belief: in other words, how few kids succeeding despite poverty would it take for you to realize  oh, wait, i guess poverty is the major obstacle.   then i want us to look up the actual %s, to see whether your mind is changed.   #  i think it is necessary to have a more robust understanding of poverty and how it affects all areas of a family is life.   #  i think it is necessary to have a more robust understanding of poverty and how it affects all areas of a family is life.  one example is that poverty negatively affects a family is nutritional and health status, which in turn negatively affects performance in work and in school.  a child who does not get to eat decent food in amount or nutritional content will have their cognition and other executive functions affected if not immediately, then in the long run.  poor health status parents would not be in the best shape to direct their child is learning, much more so earn maximally to provide for other needs.  add the fact that these poor parents are statistically more likely to have been uneducated/ignorant themselves, which further acts as a barrier to having more income.  at the risk of sounding cliche, poverty is a self perpetuating cycle that is very hard to break out of.  giving financial incentives to people who already have the advantage only works to strengthen the cycle of poverty in this case.   #  i am sure she sucked balls at math in grade school, through no fault of her parents.   # it is seems reasonable to assume that intelligence/ability to learn/ability to focus/ability to do certain tasks/etc.  all occur on a bell curve indicating varying abilities from child to child, and that it is not just  a bunch of people who are all basically equal in ability plus some people who are medically diagnosed with learning disabilities.   that assertion should not even require a source almost everything else about humans occurs has a normal distribution, from height to strength to speed, but of course you can simply google up  iq distribution  or  math test score distribution  or  verbal test score distribution  or anything else like that.  it does not really matter where you draw your line for  children with medically diagnosed learning disabilities  say you say that everybody below an iq of  0  has a medically diagnosed learning disability.  do you think somebody with an iq of  0 , who does not have a learning disability, will do as well as somebody who is average or above average, regardless of parenting ? also, it seems obvious, just from observation, that people simply have different kinds of skills and abilities.  my girlfriend is really smart with languages she can pick up another language surprisingly fast, and then weirdly retain lots of vocabulary and the weird verb conjugations exceptions even after years of not speaking or hearing the language.  it is kind of spooky.  however, she is a math dolt; like really bad at it.  she could study math for the next 0 years with the support of her amazing parents, and not be half as good as i was in 0th grade.  i am sure she sucked balls at math in grade school, through no fault of her parents.
the gregorian calendar is an overly complex and illogical way to mark the passage of time.  in particular: the months are uneven.  it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  months do not line up with seasons.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.   edit  based on some of the responses i have been getting, it seems like a lot of places use the term  iseason  more colloquially, with summer just meaning  when the days are longer and warmer  rather than  the space between the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox.  to clarify, this latter meaning is the one i have going by.  harvest, hunting, basketball, and tourist seasons are all regional, but the ones that relate to axial tilt are universal, as far as i can tell.  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this one has been answered; financial years have no set times, and school years vary too much by region to try to align them with a universal calendar.  view changed, in this respect.  these are the three particular objections i have.  to change my view, explain why these problems are necessary, or at least why fixing them would cause other problems apart from the practicality of adopting a new system to begin with .  i am well aware that actually getting the world to adopt a new calendar is highly impractical, but such practical concerns are beside my point, so i do not intend to argue about that.  i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.  so change my view.  there is been some confusion regarding my intentions here.  i am well aware that the costs of switching calendars would be huge, and not worthwhile for the relatively small benefits of having a more consistent system.  however, if i allowed for that consideration when constructing my post, i would not have bothered to post it because my view would have already been changed.  the basic question i am interested in is this: are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ? if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ? is there any reason to have the year start in the middle of winter rather than changing at the same time as a new season ? these are the parts of this that i want to hear about, not whether it can be implemented.  if it helps you focus on the matter at hand, here is a rephrase: i have a button that, once pressed, will retroactively switch the current calendar to one with the  fixes  i describe above.  this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.   #  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .   #  the year is not actually 0 days long.   # the year is not actually 0 days long.  it is 0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds long.  your  perfect  redivision would have to account for this.  this is why leap years exist currently.  an astrophysicist developed a new calendar with a pattern of 0 0 0 that repeats and then accounts for the  extra time  with a leap  week  in december every five or six years.  this calendar is called the hanke henry permanent calendar.  every single year would be identical.  christmas would always fall on a sunday, for example.  your birthday would always be on the same day of the week in perpetuity.  the pattern of 0 0 0 is pretty much a requirement or some alternating pattern, at any rate due to the way the solar year works.  the developer of the hanke henry calendar states that the main reason to avoid changing the calendar is a psychological one.  many people would be very sad that their birthday would never fall on a nice, lazy saturday, for example.  his calendar contains four friday the 0ths every year.  the main reason to make the change is purely financial.  even the developer of the hanke henry calendar claims that the gregorian calendar is extremely accurate, and the only thing he truly dislikes about it is day drift, meaning that april 0st is not always a tuesday or what have you.  you can read more here URL  #  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.   #  i think it is an american thing.  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.  that said, temperature does lag the sun.  winter is coldest in january/february and summer is warmest in july/august.  it takes time to change the temperature of a continent.   #  that said, i vote we change to shire reckoning.   #  the problems that you have are that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at completely arbitrary rates.  this is why a metric calendar wo not work.  nothing lines up.  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.  you might as well complain about how english is an illogical language and should be changed.  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.  what makes on better than the other ? that said, i vote we change to shire reckoning.  URL  #  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.   #  it is incredibly difficult to split up the year evenly.  why waste all the hard work ? months are not meant to represent the seasons.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  in the southern hemisphere, the financial year does match up with the school year.  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  does the calendar year match up there as well ?  #  i believe it does up here too in america, anyway .  does the calendar year match up there as well ? but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  but the months do not like up with lunar years at all.  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.
the gregorian calendar is an overly complex and illogical way to mark the passage of time.  in particular: the months are uneven.  it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  months do not line up with seasons.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.   edit  based on some of the responses i have been getting, it seems like a lot of places use the term  iseason  more colloquially, with summer just meaning  when the days are longer and warmer  rather than  the space between the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox.  to clarify, this latter meaning is the one i have going by.  harvest, hunting, basketball, and tourist seasons are all regional, but the ones that relate to axial tilt are universal, as far as i can tell.  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this one has been answered; financial years have no set times, and school years vary too much by region to try to align them with a universal calendar.  view changed, in this respect.  these are the three particular objections i have.  to change my view, explain why these problems are necessary, or at least why fixing them would cause other problems apart from the practicality of adopting a new system to begin with .  i am well aware that actually getting the world to adopt a new calendar is highly impractical, but such practical concerns are beside my point, so i do not intend to argue about that.  i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.  so change my view.  there is been some confusion regarding my intentions here.  i am well aware that the costs of switching calendars would be huge, and not worthwhile for the relatively small benefits of having a more consistent system.  however, if i allowed for that consideration when constructing my post, i would not have bothered to post it because my view would have already been changed.  the basic question i am interested in is this: are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ? if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ? is there any reason to have the year start in the middle of winter rather than changing at the same time as a new season ? these are the parts of this that i want to hear about, not whether it can be implemented.  if it helps you focus on the matter at hand, here is a rephrase: i have a button that, once pressed, will retroactively switch the current calendar to one with the  fixes  i describe above.  this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.   #  the basic question i am interested in is this: are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ?  #  the developer of the hanke henry calendar states that the main reason to avoid changing the calendar is a psychological one.   # the year is not actually 0 days long.  it is 0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds long.  your  perfect  redivision would have to account for this.  this is why leap years exist currently.  an astrophysicist developed a new calendar with a pattern of 0 0 0 that repeats and then accounts for the  extra time  with a leap  week  in december every five or six years.  this calendar is called the hanke henry permanent calendar.  every single year would be identical.  christmas would always fall on a sunday, for example.  your birthday would always be on the same day of the week in perpetuity.  the pattern of 0 0 0 is pretty much a requirement or some alternating pattern, at any rate due to the way the solar year works.  the developer of the hanke henry calendar states that the main reason to avoid changing the calendar is a psychological one.  many people would be very sad that their birthday would never fall on a nice, lazy saturday, for example.  his calendar contains four friday the 0ths every year.  the main reason to make the change is purely financial.  even the developer of the hanke henry calendar claims that the gregorian calendar is extremely accurate, and the only thing he truly dislikes about it is day drift, meaning that april 0st is not always a tuesday or what have you.  you can read more here URL  #  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.   #  i think it is an american thing.  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.  that said, temperature does lag the sun.  winter is coldest in january/february and summer is warmest in july/august.  it takes time to change the temperature of a continent.   #  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.   #  the problems that you have are that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at completely arbitrary rates.  this is why a metric calendar wo not work.  nothing lines up.  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.  you might as well complain about how english is an illogical language and should be changed.  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.  what makes on better than the other ? that said, i vote we change to shire reckoning.  URL  #  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  it is incredibly difficult to split up the year evenly.  why waste all the hard work ? months are not meant to represent the seasons.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  in the southern hemisphere, the financial year does match up with the school year.  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.   #  i believe it does up here too in america, anyway .  does the calendar year match up there as well ? but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  but the months do not like up with lunar years at all.  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.
the gregorian calendar is an overly complex and illogical way to mark the passage of time.  in particular: the months are uneven.  it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  months do not line up with seasons.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.   edit  based on some of the responses i have been getting, it seems like a lot of places use the term  iseason  more colloquially, with summer just meaning  when the days are longer and warmer  rather than  the space between the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox.  to clarify, this latter meaning is the one i have going by.  harvest, hunting, basketball, and tourist seasons are all regional, but the ones that relate to axial tilt are universal, as far as i can tell.  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this one has been answered; financial years have no set times, and school years vary too much by region to try to align them with a universal calendar.  view changed, in this respect.  these are the three particular objections i have.  to change my view, explain why these problems are necessary, or at least why fixing them would cause other problems apart from the practicality of adopting a new system to begin with .  i am well aware that actually getting the world to adopt a new calendar is highly impractical, but such practical concerns are beside my point, so i do not intend to argue about that.  i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.  so change my view.  there is been some confusion regarding my intentions here.  i am well aware that the costs of switching calendars would be huge, and not worthwhile for the relatively small benefits of having a more consistent system.  however, if i allowed for that consideration when constructing my post, i would not have bothered to post it because my view would have already been changed.  the basic question i am interested in is this: are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ? if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ? is there any reason to have the year start in the middle of winter rather than changing at the same time as a new season ? these are the parts of this that i want to hear about, not whether it can be implemented.  if it helps you focus on the matter at hand, here is a rephrase: i have a button that, once pressed, will retroactively switch the current calendar to one with the  fixes  i describe above.  this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.   #  if it helps you focus on the matter at hand, here is a rephrase: i have a button that, once pressed, will retroactively switch the current calendar to one with the  fixes  i describe above.   #  this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.   # this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.  you have constructed a view that is completely impossible to be changed.   assuming this extremely costly thing with a tiny benefit has no cost, tell me why we should not take that tiny benefit.   it would be like someone coming here and saying  there should not be any taxes at all, but let is just say that the government somehow manages to get funded anyway, with no cost to anybody.  cmv.   also, note that you have changed from your original statement  the gregorian calendar  should  be scrapped  quite significantly.  now, that said, to address your points   months do not line up with seasons.  it is not possible to make this happen on any calendar because the earth rotation around the sun does not take exactly 0 days a year it is more like 0 and a quarter.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this is also impossible.  as others have noted, us corporations can observe whatever year they want for taxes.  and schools do not start on the same dates globally, or even regionally.  schools in the u. s.  typically start sometime in august or september before the fall equinox so you could not make this line up with a calendar that had seasonal changes around the beginning/end of the month, anyway.  this one could be improved, but only slightly, and truthfully, it does not really cause us big problems other than the minor occasional annoyance anyway.  if we were to make months 0 0 have 0 days, it would make the solstices and equinoxes fall on even less consistent days of the month than they already do.  so alternating 0/0 day months is probably best, but then we are still going to need two back to back months with 0 days.  borrowing two days from some 0 month days and shuffling around the order is barely an improvement over the current system.   #  winter is coldest in january/february and summer is warmest in july/august.   #  i think it is an american thing.  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.  that said, temperature does lag the sun.  winter is coldest in january/february and summer is warmest in july/august.  it takes time to change the temperature of a continent.   #  this is why a metric calendar wo not work.   #  the problems that you have are that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at completely arbitrary rates.  this is why a metric calendar wo not work.  nothing lines up.  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.  you might as well complain about how english is an illogical language and should be changed.  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.  what makes on better than the other ? that said, i vote we change to shire reckoning.  URL  #  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.   #  it is incredibly difficult to split up the year evenly.  why waste all the hard work ? months are not meant to represent the seasons.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  in the southern hemisphere, the financial year does match up with the school year.  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.   #  i believe it does up here too in america, anyway .  does the calendar year match up there as well ? but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  but the months do not like up with lunar years at all.  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.
the gregorian calendar is an overly complex and illogical way to mark the passage of time.  in particular: the months are uneven.  it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  months do not line up with seasons.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.   edit  based on some of the responses i have been getting, it seems like a lot of places use the term  iseason  more colloquially, with summer just meaning  when the days are longer and warmer  rather than  the space between the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox.  to clarify, this latter meaning is the one i have going by.  harvest, hunting, basketball, and tourist seasons are all regional, but the ones that relate to axial tilt are universal, as far as i can tell.  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this one has been answered; financial years have no set times, and school years vary too much by region to try to align them with a universal calendar.  view changed, in this respect.  these are the three particular objections i have.  to change my view, explain why these problems are necessary, or at least why fixing them would cause other problems apart from the practicality of adopting a new system to begin with .  i am well aware that actually getting the world to adopt a new calendar is highly impractical, but such practical concerns are beside my point, so i do not intend to argue about that.  i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.  so change my view.  there is been some confusion regarding my intentions here.  i am well aware that the costs of switching calendars would be huge, and not worthwhile for the relatively small benefits of having a more consistent system.  however, if i allowed for that consideration when constructing my post, i would not have bothered to post it because my view would have already been changed.  the basic question i am interested in is this: are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ? if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ? is there any reason to have the year start in the middle of winter rather than changing at the same time as a new season ? these are the parts of this that i want to hear about, not whether it can be implemented.  if it helps you focus on the matter at hand, here is a rephrase: i have a button that, once pressed, will retroactively switch the current calendar to one with the  fixes  i describe above.  this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.   #  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.   #  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ?  # this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.  you have constructed a view that is completely impossible to be changed.   assuming this extremely costly thing with a tiny benefit has no cost, tell me why we should not take that tiny benefit.   it would be like someone coming here and saying  there should not be any taxes at all, but let is just say that the government somehow manages to get funded anyway, with no cost to anybody.  cmv.   also, note that you have changed from your original statement  the gregorian calendar  should  be scrapped  quite significantly.  now, that said, to address your points   months do not line up with seasons.  it is not possible to make this happen on any calendar because the earth rotation around the sun does not take exactly 0 days a year it is more like 0 and a quarter.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this is also impossible.  as others have noted, us corporations can observe whatever year they want for taxes.  and schools do not start on the same dates globally, or even regionally.  schools in the u. s.  typically start sometime in august or september before the fall equinox so you could not make this line up with a calendar that had seasonal changes around the beginning/end of the month, anyway.  this one could be improved, but only slightly, and truthfully, it does not really cause us big problems other than the minor occasional annoyance anyway.  if we were to make months 0 0 have 0 days, it would make the solstices and equinoxes fall on even less consistent days of the month than they already do.  so alternating 0/0 day months is probably best, but then we are still going to need two back to back months with 0 days.  borrowing two days from some 0 month days and shuffling around the order is barely an improvement over the current system.   #  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.   #  i think it is an american thing.  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.  that said, temperature does lag the sun.  winter is coldest in january/february and summer is warmest in july/august.  it takes time to change the temperature of a continent.   #  you might as well complain about how english is an illogical language and should be changed.   #  the problems that you have are that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at completely arbitrary rates.  this is why a metric calendar wo not work.  nothing lines up.  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.  you might as well complain about how english is an illogical language and should be changed.  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.  what makes on better than the other ? that said, i vote we change to shire reckoning.  URL  #  months are not meant to represent the seasons.   #  it is incredibly difficult to split up the year evenly.  why waste all the hard work ? months are not meant to represent the seasons.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  in the southern hemisphere, the financial year does match up with the school year.  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  but the months do not like up with lunar years at all.   #  i believe it does up here too in america, anyway .  does the calendar year match up there as well ? but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  but the months do not like up with lunar years at all.  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.
the gregorian calendar is an overly complex and illogical way to mark the passage of time.  in particular: the months are uneven.  it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  months do not line up with seasons.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.   edit  based on some of the responses i have been getting, it seems like a lot of places use the term  iseason  more colloquially, with summer just meaning  when the days are longer and warmer  rather than  the space between the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox.  to clarify, this latter meaning is the one i have going by.  harvest, hunting, basketball, and tourist seasons are all regional, but the ones that relate to axial tilt are universal, as far as i can tell.  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this one has been answered; financial years have no set times, and school years vary too much by region to try to align them with a universal calendar.  view changed, in this respect.  these are the three particular objections i have.  to change my view, explain why these problems are necessary, or at least why fixing them would cause other problems apart from the practicality of adopting a new system to begin with .  i am well aware that actually getting the world to adopt a new calendar is highly impractical, but such practical concerns are beside my point, so i do not intend to argue about that.  i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.  so change my view.  there is been some confusion regarding my intentions here.  i am well aware that the costs of switching calendars would be huge, and not worthwhile for the relatively small benefits of having a more consistent system.  however, if i allowed for that consideration when constructing my post, i would not have bothered to post it because my view would have already been changed.  the basic question i am interested in is this: are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ? if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ? is there any reason to have the year start in the middle of winter rather than changing at the same time as a new season ? these are the parts of this that i want to hear about, not whether it can be implemented.  if it helps you focus on the matter at hand, here is a rephrase: i have a button that, once pressed, will retroactively switch the current calendar to one with the  fixes  i describe above.  this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.   #  are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ?  #  if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ?  # if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ? any alternative calendar will have similar inconsistencies, with the exception of our february, which is unnecessarily weird.  but take two very reasonable requests:  months do not line up with seasons  we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day those two requests are inconsistent, no matter when you start month one.  you ca not have all the seasons start on the first of the month  and  have 0 day months for 0 months in a row.  you also ca not have months line up with the lunar cycle  and  have years line up with seasons.  at the longest timescales, you ca not even have well defined days, because either you base time on earth is rotation and cause things like the speed of light or gravitational constant to change over time, or else you base time on the speed of light and have the number of seconds in a day change.  similarly, you ca not have a constant number of days per year or per season, because all of those things change.  i will admit that you can  improve  on the gregorian calendar, so there are alternative calendar systems for which i would certainly suggest you push the button.  but there is no calendar that is objectively  the best  because they will all have inconvenient compromises built in.   #  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.   #  i think it is an american thing.  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.  that said, temperature does lag the sun.  winter is coldest in january/february and summer is warmest in july/august.  it takes time to change the temperature of a continent.   #  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.   #  the problems that you have are that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at completely arbitrary rates.  this is why a metric calendar wo not work.  nothing lines up.  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.  you might as well complain about how english is an illogical language and should be changed.  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.  what makes on better than the other ? that said, i vote we change to shire reckoning.  URL  #  months are not meant to represent the seasons.   #  it is incredibly difficult to split up the year evenly.  why waste all the hard work ? months are not meant to represent the seasons.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  in the southern hemisphere, the financial year does match up with the school year.  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  i believe it does up here too in america, anyway .   #  i believe it does up here too in america, anyway .  does the calendar year match up there as well ? but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  but the months do not like up with lunar years at all.  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.
the gregorian calendar is an overly complex and illogical way to mark the passage of time.  in particular: the months are uneven.  it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  months do not line up with seasons.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.   edit  based on some of the responses i have been getting, it seems like a lot of places use the term  iseason  more colloquially, with summer just meaning  when the days are longer and warmer  rather than  the space between the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox.  to clarify, this latter meaning is the one i have going by.  harvest, hunting, basketball, and tourist seasons are all regional, but the ones that relate to axial tilt are universal, as far as i can tell.  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this one has been answered; financial years have no set times, and school years vary too much by region to try to align them with a universal calendar.  view changed, in this respect.  these are the three particular objections i have.  to change my view, explain why these problems are necessary, or at least why fixing them would cause other problems apart from the practicality of adopting a new system to begin with .  i am well aware that actually getting the world to adopt a new calendar is highly impractical, but such practical concerns are beside my point, so i do not intend to argue about that.  i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.  so change my view.  there is been some confusion regarding my intentions here.  i am well aware that the costs of switching calendars would be huge, and not worthwhile for the relatively small benefits of having a more consistent system.  however, if i allowed for that consideration when constructing my post, i would not have bothered to post it because my view would have already been changed.  the basic question i am interested in is this: are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ? if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ? is there any reason to have the year start in the middle of winter rather than changing at the same time as a new season ? these are the parts of this that i want to hear about, not whether it can be implemented.  if it helps you focus on the matter at hand, here is a rephrase: i have a button that, once pressed, will retroactively switch the current calendar to one with the  fixes  i describe above.  this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.   #  months do not line up with seasons.   #  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.   # it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  is there a particular utility to months being even ? i guess for subscription services/salaries it means that sometimes you are paying/being the same for more or less time, but overall that effect evens out.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.  again, what is the point of changing, other than to satisfy one is desire for that neatness ? the seasons are pretty arbitrary divisions as well   even though the weather is different for each one it is not as if you go to bed one day when it is autumnal and wake up in deep, snowy winter.  even if you changed it so that the relevant lunar movements were in the middle of each three month season, for most people it would make no difference to their lives.  this is true even if they have a job heavily affected by the weather, such as agriculture.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? as others have pointed out, fiscal years can begin throughout the year, even if the main one is start in april and january.  the school year in europe is designed so that children can have as much of summer off as possible, and a brief google leads me to believe this is true of other regions thus meaning australians are now having their summer holidays .  ultimately i see no profit in this rationalist is need for an even calendar.  it is true that the development of the gregorian calendar has been perverted by religion, kings and so forth, but its longevity alone must be a sign that it is a least somewhat suited to the rhythm of modern life.   #  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.   #  i think it is an american thing.  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.  that said, temperature does lag the sun.  winter is coldest in january/february and summer is warmest in july/august.  it takes time to change the temperature of a continent.   #  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.   #  the problems that you have are that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at completely arbitrary rates.  this is why a metric calendar wo not work.  nothing lines up.  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.  you might as well complain about how english is an illogical language and should be changed.  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.  what makes on better than the other ? that said, i vote we change to shire reckoning.  URL  #  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  it is incredibly difficult to split up the year evenly.  why waste all the hard work ? months are not meant to represent the seasons.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  in the southern hemisphere, the financial year does match up with the school year.  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.   #  i believe it does up here too in america, anyway .  does the calendar year match up there as well ? but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  but the months do not like up with lunar years at all.  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.
the gregorian calendar is an overly complex and illogical way to mark the passage of time.  in particular: the months are uneven.  it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  months do not line up with seasons.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.   edit  based on some of the responses i have been getting, it seems like a lot of places use the term  iseason  more colloquially, with summer just meaning  when the days are longer and warmer  rather than  the space between the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox.  to clarify, this latter meaning is the one i have going by.  harvest, hunting, basketball, and tourist seasons are all regional, but the ones that relate to axial tilt are universal, as far as i can tell.  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this one has been answered; financial years have no set times, and school years vary too much by region to try to align them with a universal calendar.  view changed, in this respect.  these are the three particular objections i have.  to change my view, explain why these problems are necessary, or at least why fixing them would cause other problems apart from the practicality of adopting a new system to begin with .  i am well aware that actually getting the world to adopt a new calendar is highly impractical, but such practical concerns are beside my point, so i do not intend to argue about that.  i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.  so change my view.  there is been some confusion regarding my intentions here.  i am well aware that the costs of switching calendars would be huge, and not worthwhile for the relatively small benefits of having a more consistent system.  however, if i allowed for that consideration when constructing my post, i would not have bothered to post it because my view would have already been changed.  the basic question i am interested in is this: are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ? if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ? is there any reason to have the year start in the middle of winter rather than changing at the same time as a new season ? these are the parts of this that i want to hear about, not whether it can be implemented.  if it helps you focus on the matter at hand, here is a rephrase: i have a button that, once pressed, will retroactively switch the current calendar to one with the  fixes  i describe above.  this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.   #  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.   #  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ?  # it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  is there a particular utility to months being even ? i guess for subscription services/salaries it means that sometimes you are paying/being the same for more or less time, but overall that effect evens out.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.  again, what is the point of changing, other than to satisfy one is desire for that neatness ? the seasons are pretty arbitrary divisions as well   even though the weather is different for each one it is not as if you go to bed one day when it is autumnal and wake up in deep, snowy winter.  even if you changed it so that the relevant lunar movements were in the middle of each three month season, for most people it would make no difference to their lives.  this is true even if they have a job heavily affected by the weather, such as agriculture.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? as others have pointed out, fiscal years can begin throughout the year, even if the main one is start in april and january.  the school year in europe is designed so that children can have as much of summer off as possible, and a brief google leads me to believe this is true of other regions thus meaning australians are now having their summer holidays .  ultimately i see no profit in this rationalist is need for an even calendar.  it is true that the development of the gregorian calendar has been perverted by religion, kings and so forth, but its longevity alone must be a sign that it is a least somewhat suited to the rhythm of modern life.   #  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.   #  i think it is an american thing.  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.  that said, temperature does lag the sun.  winter is coldest in january/february and summer is warmest in july/august.  it takes time to change the temperature of a continent.   #  the problems that you have are that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at completely arbitrary rates.   #  the problems that you have are that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at completely arbitrary rates.  this is why a metric calendar wo not work.  nothing lines up.  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.  you might as well complain about how english is an illogical language and should be changed.  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.  what makes on better than the other ? that said, i vote we change to shire reckoning.  URL  #  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.   #  it is incredibly difficult to split up the year evenly.  why waste all the hard work ? months are not meant to represent the seasons.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  in the southern hemisphere, the financial year does match up with the school year.  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.   #  i believe it does up here too in america, anyway .  does the calendar year match up there as well ? but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  but the months do not like up with lunar years at all.  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.
the gregorian calendar is an overly complex and illogical way to mark the passage of time.  in particular: the months are uneven.  it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  months do not line up with seasons.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.   edit  based on some of the responses i have been getting, it seems like a lot of places use the term  iseason  more colloquially, with summer just meaning  when the days are longer and warmer  rather than  the space between the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox.  to clarify, this latter meaning is the one i have going by.  harvest, hunting, basketball, and tourist seasons are all regional, but the ones that relate to axial tilt are universal, as far as i can tell.  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this one has been answered; financial years have no set times, and school years vary too much by region to try to align them with a universal calendar.  view changed, in this respect.  these are the three particular objections i have.  to change my view, explain why these problems are necessary, or at least why fixing them would cause other problems apart from the practicality of adopting a new system to begin with .  i am well aware that actually getting the world to adopt a new calendar is highly impractical, but such practical concerns are beside my point, so i do not intend to argue about that.  i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.  so change my view.  there is been some confusion regarding my intentions here.  i am well aware that the costs of switching calendars would be huge, and not worthwhile for the relatively small benefits of having a more consistent system.  however, if i allowed for that consideration when constructing my post, i would not have bothered to post it because my view would have already been changed.  the basic question i am interested in is this: are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ? if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ? is there any reason to have the year start in the middle of winter rather than changing at the same time as a new season ? these are the parts of this that i want to hear about, not whether it can be implemented.  if it helps you focus on the matter at hand, here is a rephrase: i have a button that, once pressed, will retroactively switch the current calendar to one with the  fixes  i describe above.  this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.   #  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.   #  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ?  # why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? and so you would change  the calendar  ? not, say, the timetable for the school year ? school years are only weird like that in some places.  in many others, a single school year actually  does  line up with a calendar year.  in korea, for example, the year starts in march and ends in december.  they did not need to change the fundamental way everybody had gotten used to reckoning the passage of time, though, in order to achieve this end.  that brings me to my main point: everybody is used to the gregorian calendar.  a more sensible calendar might be, like, a little better, but how much ? most people do not spend a lot of time doing the kind of calendar arithmetic that would be alleviated by moving to a slightly more intuitive calendar which, as you admit yourself, still would not be perfect since a full year is 0 days long, or whatever the number is.  if a calendar must be imperfect due to the very nature of the thing it is measuring, why would we want to change to a new one ? how many yearly man hours of productivity would be saved by the change ? how many years would it take for that benefit to offset the enormous confusion that would surely accompany changing something as basic and common as the gregorian calendar ? switching from imperial to metric, for example, made sense because 0.  every number is base 0 so calculations are stupidly simply, and 0.  it just makes goddamn sense.  it is a perfectly rational system.  the productivity benefits have long since overbalanced whatever productivity might have been lost to the initial confusion.  your calendar switch satisfies neither of those criteria.   #  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.   #  i think it is an american thing.  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.  that said, temperature does lag the sun.  winter is coldest in january/february and summer is warmest in july/august.  it takes time to change the temperature of a continent.   #  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.   #  the problems that you have are that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at completely arbitrary rates.  this is why a metric calendar wo not work.  nothing lines up.  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.  you might as well complain about how english is an illogical language and should be changed.  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.  what makes on better than the other ? that said, i vote we change to shire reckoning.  URL  #  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.   #  it is incredibly difficult to split up the year evenly.  why waste all the hard work ? months are not meant to represent the seasons.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  in the southern hemisphere, the financial year does match up with the school year.  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.   #  i believe it does up here too in america, anyway .  does the calendar year match up there as well ? but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  but the months do not like up with lunar years at all.  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.
the gregorian calendar is an overly complex and illogical way to mark the passage of time.  in particular: the months are uneven.  it is confusing to have irregular fluctuations in the length of months.  only one month having 0 or 0 days ? alternating between 0 and  0 days, only to reverse at august ? there is no reason to have a complicated calendar just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos.  0 has few factors, so a perfect division is not practical, but we can at least do better than what we have: months 0 0 have 0 days, and months 0 0 have 0, for example month 0 would get leap day .  months do not line up with seasons.  the equinoxes and solstices that define the seasons.  why have the season start 0/0 of the way through the month when they could just happen on the first or second, making that entire month in one season or close enough ? it would also keep the months as part of division hierarchy: four seasons to a year, three months to a season.  as a consequence of this change, the year also would not start in the middle of winter.  new year is day can be the first day of spring.   edit  based on some of the responses i have been getting, it seems like a lot of places use the term  iseason  more colloquially, with summer just meaning  when the days are longer and warmer  rather than  the space between the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox.  to clarify, this latter meaning is the one i have going by.  harvest, hunting, basketball, and tourist seasons are all regional, but the ones that relate to axial tilt are universal, as far as i can tell.  school and financial years are misaligned with calendar years.  why have the 0 0 school year when one could make the entire year line up with the calendar ? this one has been answered; financial years have no set times, and school years vary too much by region to try to align them with a universal calendar.  view changed, in this respect.  these are the three particular objections i have.  to change my view, explain why these problems are necessary, or at least why fixing them would cause other problems apart from the practicality of adopting a new system to begin with .  i am well aware that actually getting the world to adopt a new calendar is highly impractical, but such practical concerns are beside my point, so i do not intend to argue about that.  i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.  so change my view.  there is been some confusion regarding my intentions here.  i am well aware that the costs of switching calendars would be huge, and not worthwhile for the relatively small benefits of having a more consistent system.  however, if i allowed for that consideration when constructing my post, i would not have bothered to post it because my view would have already been changed.  the basic question i am interested in is this: are there good reasons to have any of the inconsistencies that the gregorian calendar currently has ? if we were to make a calendar from scratch, is there any reason to have irregular months rather than regular ones ? is there any reason to have the year start in the middle of winter rather than changing at the same time as a new season ? these are the parts of this that i want to hear about, not whether it can be implemented.  if it helps you focus on the matter at hand, here is a rephrase: i have a button that, once pressed, will retroactively switch the current calendar to one with the  fixes  i describe above.  this change is instant, seamless, and will carry no cost apart from the effort to press the button.  convince me not to press it.   #  i am well aware that actually getting the world to adopt a new calendar is highly impractical, but such practical concerns are beside my point, so i do not intend to argue about that.   #  i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.   # i mean, is this something that affects you in any real way on a daily basis or are you used to it, like the rest of the world, i presume ? i am also not going to bother with appeals to tradition.  so, you already have two good arguments against your view, but you are arbitrarily choosing to ignore them ? that is not really how it goes.  the impracticality one is a big one.  i mean, look at canada that is still struggling to completely implement the metric system after how many years ? one country implementing a few sets of units.  now imagine the whole world, all the countries, businesses, schools and school years, etc, implementing a whole new calendar.  why ? because the start of summer does not coincide with the start of june.  i am sorry if i am coming of as condescending, it is just really one of those.  why ? are these few things you listed really worth the humongous change ? and are those things actual problems if we are all used to it ?  #  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.   #  i think it is an american thing.  in sweden seasons are defined by meterological events.  so  spring arrived to stockholm today  can be an actual news story.  also summer solstice is known as  mid summer.  that said, temperature does lag the sun.  winter is coldest in january/february and summer is warmest in july/august.  it takes time to change the temperature of a continent.   #  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.   #  the problems that you have are that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun at completely arbitrary rates.  this is why a metric calendar wo not work.  nothing lines up.  throw in the moon, which revolves around the earth at the rate of not quite once a month, and a couple thousand years of tradition, and you get our current calendars.  you might as well complain about how english is an illogical language and should be changed.  the calendar will always be arbitrary, whether it is based on the sun is position in the sky, or a culture is holy days.  what makes on better than the other ? that said, i vote we change to shire reckoning.  URL  #  it is incredibly difficult to split up the year evenly.   #  it is incredibly difficult to split up the year evenly.  why waste all the hard work ? months are not meant to represent the seasons.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  in the southern hemisphere, the financial year does match up with the school year.  switching the calendar would just  disadvantage  everybody below the equator.   #  but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.   #  i believe it does up here too in america, anyway .  does the calendar year match up there as well ? but lets suppose that in this case, the new calendar matches what was being used in the southern hemisphere, or it is a compromise that disadvantages both equally.  a month is the approximate orbital period of the moon around the earth.  but the months do not like up with lunar years at all.  i would prefer they line up with something, and since seasons divide evenly into solar years while lunar years do not, that seems like a more logical choice.
i will define a financial abortion as : giving up the parental rights to a child you fathered.  it involves not having to pay child support.  i have seen this concept floating around and initially dismissed it completely as guys wanting to shirk responsibility and be deadbeats.  i also thought it could be too easily exploited, especially if men got cold feet about having a baby and, after claiming to support the woman, decided to screw her over by taking the financial abortion option.  however i have thought up ways in which such a law could actually be feasible.  0.  if intending to get child support from the father of a child, the woman must inform him as soon as possible about the state of her being pregnant, at least by the 0th week.  maybe he can sign a document saying he knows she is pregnant.  0.  the father can only decide to opt out and have the financial abortion up until the 0th week of pregnancy.  if he does not opt out by then, he loses the right to opt out.  the 0 week thing is because pregnancy is pretty obvious by then but the woman is body has not been morphed much it looks like.  this can be changed, i just based it off looking at pictures.  these laws mean that a woman can decide, with plenty of time left over for contemplating abortion, if she wants to keep a baby and raise it as a single mom.  if she ca not raise it on her own she might want to abort, with no great medical risk compared to the risks of pregnancy.  i think it would be immoral to bring a child into the world without being capable of providing for it.  i think it is also immoral to force a man to pay for a child he did not want.  if a woman ca not raise the child without the father is support the moral thing to do would be to abort the child.  this law would obviously be relying on abortion being freely available in the area.  it would probably be a very bad idea to implement it in the south of the usa, for example.  so cmv that this law is feasible.  i would like people to discuss loopholes, extenuating circumstances and also if this law would be unfair to women in any way.  i would also really appreciate it if people explained why they think this is distasteful along with their down vote.  frankly i am sure people will find problems with this, voice them.   #  i think it would be immoral to bring a child into the world without being capable of providing for it.   #  i think it is also immoral to force a man to pay for a child he did not want.   # i think it is also immoral to force a man to pay for a child he did not want.  if a woman ca not raise the child without the father is support the moral thing to do would be to abort the child.  sure, sure.  but on a societal scale, we ca not ignore results it is not enough to focus on what is moral.  the likely practical outcome of this policy would be more children growing up with less financial support.  because of a variety of reasons: 0.  the mother is wishful and thinks the father will  come around .  0.  the mother sees abortion as immoral.  0.  the mother has a hard time deciding, and accepts the  default  not to medically intervene, i. e. , carry to term.  0.  the mother has medical concerns that make abortion risky for some reason.  and on the father is side 0.  having a foolproof method of getting out of child support means men do not need to be as careful about using condoms  if she gets pregnant, i will sign a piece of paper  .  that means more unsafe sex, leading to both more pregnancies and more stds and so forth.  we do not live in a perfect world.  it would be nice if men could have all the sex they want, and if the woman happens to get pregnant despite taking precautions, they can avoid that affecting the rest of their life.  that is great for the men.  but for society, it means more children growing up with less financial support.  which we know causes serious problems.  now sure, you have some guesses about this all working out for the best.  but even in the  most  optimistic case, you are talking about an experiment that no human society has ever done, with potentially grevious results.   #  similarly, just because some men would use financial abortions as an excuse to lead riskier sex lives does not mean that they should not have the right.   # that means more unsafe sex, leading to both more pregnancies and more stds and so forth.   this is just a rewording of a common argument against legalizing abortion:  having a foolproof method of getting out of  pregnancy  means  wo men do not need to be as careful about using  birth control/restraint   if i gets pregnant, i will  abort   .  that means more unsafe sex, leading to both more pregnancies and more stds and so forth.   just because people will use it as an excuse to be idiots or act irresponsibly does not mean it is a bad thing.  there are women who use abortion as an excuse to be riskier in their sex life, but that is not enough of a reason to ban abortion.  similarly, just because some men would use financial abortions as an excuse to lead riskier sex lives does not mean that they should not have the right.   #  does not mean it is not a valid argument it was, to some extent, valid there.   # does not mean it is not a valid argument it was, to some extent, valid there.  weakly so, because even though abortion reduces the risks to women, the risks were still quite high pregnancy itself, even in the early stages, has risks, and abortion is not without risks itself .  no one can decide if it is good or not based on such absolutes.  but, by my best estimate, i think the risks are far larger than the gains here.  it reduces men is risk from the currently quite high to an almost zero.  that means it might end up changing their behavior very significantly, and harming the next generation of human beings.   #  it is certainly  possible  that financial abortions will cause men to behave in a way that in harmful in the long run, but is that not the price of freedom ?  #  they are not exactly equivalent, you are right.  it just seems like too much of a leap to me to say the argument is invalid for women getting abortions, yet valid for men getting financial abortions.  regardless, even if it would start  changing men is behavior , do they not have a right to change their own behavior ? we are weighing the difficult to predict consequences of such actions versus the freedom of a man to control his own financial situation while still being able to engage in a sex life .  it is certainly  possible  that financial abortions will cause men to behave in a way that in harmful in the long run, but is that not the price of freedom ? that some people will choose something wrong ? i do not think the risks are so great that they merit leaving men powerless in sexual encounters/pregnancy scenarios.   #  this also undeniably hurts the child the most as a consequence of protecting the parents  freedoms.   # not without the other parent is consent.  that is what i meant, the father has no freedom of his own in the situation.  if just the man gives up financial responsibility, then unless the woman also does so, the child is not well provided for.  that is the problem.  it does not matter if it is fair or not to the father it is not what matters is that it be fair for the child, who matters the most, as the person likely going to live the longest, so any effect on them will matter more.  then why do we allow parents  to put there kids up for adoption with paying child support ? this also undeniably hurts the child the most as a consequence of protecting the parents  freedoms.  what is the difference between  putting kid up for adoption and not paying child support  and  financial abortion so the father does not pay child support  ?
i saw this video URL from kerry washington and allstate is  purple purse  initiative, and i think they are  really  starting to stretch the definitions of domestic abuse.  if party a makes the conscious, non forced decision to remove themselves from the workforce for whatever reason, i do not believe that party b is being abusive by not granting a equal monetary access.  that just makes sense to me, especially if party a is making the decision to not work because party b makes enough money for the both of them.  according to doorways for women and families URL financial abuse is the equivalent to emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual abuses, and includes the following:   having all bank accounts in the abuser is name   controlling how, when, and where money is spent   assigning an allowance   controlling all or most of the finances i fail to see how any of this is abusive behavior.  if i am the sole breadwinner in my two person household, i should be able to dictate what and where my money is being spent.  as long as an allowance, or a budgeted income, or financial control is not a tool being used to facilitate physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, then i do not believe those behaviors in and of themselves constitute abuse.   #  if i am the sole breadwinner in my two person household, i should be able to dictate what and where my money is being spent.   #  if you are married, you are no longer viewed as a single entity by the government.   # if you are married, you are no longer viewed as a single entity by the government.  that is basically the sole benefit of marriage as opposed to religious matrimony .  the money now belongs to the two of you.  if you got married and did not expect to be treated together with your spouse, then maybe you should get divorced or annulled.  if your partner has unreasonable spending habits and wo not curtail that behavior, then maybe you should get divorced or annulled.   #  your post was a bit disingenuous, since it omitted some key features/descriptions of financial abuse.   #  your post was a bit disingenuous, since it omitted some key features/descriptions of financial abuse.  it seemed like you ignored the really big ones and created a bit of a straw man of the more ticky tack signs of abuse.  i would say for the most part, the ones you included were signs of abuse, but not actually abuse itself they can be present in totally healthy, even relationships .  let me break it down:  the following are some examples of financial abuse:  having all bank accounts in the abuser is name this in and of itself is not financial abuse, nor is it being claimed as such, but could indicate that financial abuse is taking place.  in western culture, it is a bit strange that an adult would not have a bank account.  in some relationships, one partner may make more financial decisions.  does not really mean financial abuse is taking place, but its a type of symptom that would be ubiquitous to this form of abuse.  otherwise, like the previous points, an ample/respectable allowance may be a sympton/sign of abuse, but not abuse in and of itself.  not abuse in and of itself, but you will almost always see this when financial abuse is taking place.  i do not see how you can label this as anything  but  financial abuse.  same as previous.  these last two examples would absolutely be financial abuse in my book.  imagine pairing them with other characteristics of financial abuse, and you can see how desperate and emotionally taxing being in that situation might be.  one more thing.  there is plenty of nuance in this issue.  it depends on how controlling the person is, and how they use that control to manipulate or emotional damage their partner .  does this overlap with emotional abuse ? sure, but it uses completely different techniques and strategies for one partner to get what they want.  i think it is important to have this conversation and acknowledge that  finances are another way partners can abuse each other.   you seem like an mrm type: financial abuse is something that both men and women can easily be guilty of.  without the stygma/response of  toughen up  to emotional abuse,  she is weaker than you and ca not actually hurt you  to physical abuse, and  women ca not rape men  response to sexual abuse.   #  you control the money then you control their freedom.   #  it is not  your  money.  when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.  if you do not like idea someone else can spend  your  money, do not have a spouse or children.  money is freedom.  you control the money then you control their freedom.  they ca not move out.  they ca not rent an apartment.  they may not even have the funds to get into a hotel for one night.  they ca not hire a divorce lawyer.  you could even make it so they ca not get resources to see a therapist to manage your feelings.  you could control if they have gas in their car or even if they have a car.  they need you for  everything .  taking away control is essential to manipulation and abuse.  now the bad partner can physically or emotionally batter on their partner all they want.  the partner is very unlikely to have a means to leave.  and because they are trapped, the abuse is that much worse.   #  when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.   # when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.  if you do not like idea someone else can spend  your  money, do not have a spouse or children.  this is how i feel, and probably how i would conduct my marriage, but i do not see how you can claim this is a hard and fast rule that every marriage should follow.  my roommate is getting married in a couple of months and has been looking over a pre nup book for the last couple of months: in the process we have had a lot of conversations about the ins and outs of this stuff.  she plans on keeping everything financial as separate as possible: separate incomes go into separate accounts and everything where presumably both spouses will split the cost of all shared expenses out of their individual accounts .  now i am sure there will be some adjustment to reality as she hits different situations throughout their marriage, but that is true of any marriage is financial planning.  i do not think it is really fair to say that your opinion of finances in marriage is the ironclad universal truth.   #  finances in a household should, for the most part, be jointly agreed upon.   #  i find your usage of the word  dictate  interesting.  a happy and equitable marriage should not include  dictating  any rules to your spouse.  infantilizing your spouse by giving them an allowance and having zero control over any money is a form of abuse that generally co exists with verbal and emotional abuse.  finances in a household should, for the most part, be jointly agreed upon.  both people should be able to have access to the same financial information.
i saw this video URL from kerry washington and allstate is  purple purse  initiative, and i think they are  really  starting to stretch the definitions of domestic abuse.  if party a makes the conscious, non forced decision to remove themselves from the workforce for whatever reason, i do not believe that party b is being abusive by not granting a equal monetary access.  that just makes sense to me, especially if party a is making the decision to not work because party b makes enough money for the both of them.  according to doorways for women and families URL financial abuse is the equivalent to emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual abuses, and includes the following:   having all bank accounts in the abuser is name   controlling how, when, and where money is spent   assigning an allowance   controlling all or most of the finances i fail to see how any of this is abusive behavior.  if i am the sole breadwinner in my two person household, i should be able to dictate what and where my money is being spent.  as long as an allowance, or a budgeted income, or financial control is not a tool being used to facilitate physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, then i do not believe those behaviors in and of themselves constitute abuse.   #  if i am the sole breadwinner in my two person household, i should be able to dictate what and where my money is being spent.   #  if you are the only one doing work of any kind, you might have a point.   # if you are the only one doing work of any kind, you might have a point.  however, a spouse who does not work for a wage usually still does housework.  since they are also working, they get a say in how the household uses its financial resources.  that is, unless you are properly compensating them for their housekeeping, childcare, and administrative services.  at that point, they are just an employee, not a life partner, so why did you bother getting married in the first place ?  #  it seemed like you ignored the really big ones and created a bit of a straw man of the more ticky tack signs of abuse.   #  your post was a bit disingenuous, since it omitted some key features/descriptions of financial abuse.  it seemed like you ignored the really big ones and created a bit of a straw man of the more ticky tack signs of abuse.  i would say for the most part, the ones you included were signs of abuse, but not actually abuse itself they can be present in totally healthy, even relationships .  let me break it down:  the following are some examples of financial abuse:  having all bank accounts in the abuser is name this in and of itself is not financial abuse, nor is it being claimed as such, but could indicate that financial abuse is taking place.  in western culture, it is a bit strange that an adult would not have a bank account.  in some relationships, one partner may make more financial decisions.  does not really mean financial abuse is taking place, but its a type of symptom that would be ubiquitous to this form of abuse.  otherwise, like the previous points, an ample/respectable allowance may be a sympton/sign of abuse, but not abuse in and of itself.  not abuse in and of itself, but you will almost always see this when financial abuse is taking place.  i do not see how you can label this as anything  but  financial abuse.  same as previous.  these last two examples would absolutely be financial abuse in my book.  imagine pairing them with other characteristics of financial abuse, and you can see how desperate and emotionally taxing being in that situation might be.  one more thing.  there is plenty of nuance in this issue.  it depends on how controlling the person is, and how they use that control to manipulate or emotional damage their partner .  does this overlap with emotional abuse ? sure, but it uses completely different techniques and strategies for one partner to get what they want.  i think it is important to have this conversation and acknowledge that  finances are another way partners can abuse each other.   you seem like an mrm type: financial abuse is something that both men and women can easily be guilty of.  without the stygma/response of  toughen up  to emotional abuse,  she is weaker than you and ca not actually hurt you  to physical abuse, and  women ca not rape men  response to sexual abuse.   #  taking away control is essential to manipulation and abuse.   #  it is not  your  money.  when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.  if you do not like idea someone else can spend  your  money, do not have a spouse or children.  money is freedom.  you control the money then you control their freedom.  they ca not move out.  they ca not rent an apartment.  they may not even have the funds to get into a hotel for one night.  they ca not hire a divorce lawyer.  you could even make it so they ca not get resources to see a therapist to manage your feelings.  you could control if they have gas in their car or even if they have a car.  they need you for  everything .  taking away control is essential to manipulation and abuse.  now the bad partner can physically or emotionally batter on their partner all they want.  the partner is very unlikely to have a means to leave.  and because they are trapped, the abuse is that much worse.   #  i do not think it is really fair to say that your opinion of finances in marriage is the ironclad universal truth.   # when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.  if you do not like idea someone else can spend  your  money, do not have a spouse or children.  this is how i feel, and probably how i would conduct my marriage, but i do not see how you can claim this is a hard and fast rule that every marriage should follow.  my roommate is getting married in a couple of months and has been looking over a pre nup book for the last couple of months: in the process we have had a lot of conversations about the ins and outs of this stuff.  she plans on keeping everything financial as separate as possible: separate incomes go into separate accounts and everything where presumably both spouses will split the cost of all shared expenses out of their individual accounts .  now i am sure there will be some adjustment to reality as she hits different situations throughout their marriage, but that is true of any marriage is financial planning.  i do not think it is really fair to say that your opinion of finances in marriage is the ironclad universal truth.   #  a happy and equitable marriage should not include  dictating  any rules to your spouse.   #  i find your usage of the word  dictate  interesting.  a happy and equitable marriage should not include  dictating  any rules to your spouse.  infantilizing your spouse by giving them an allowance and having zero control over any money is a form of abuse that generally co exists with verbal and emotional abuse.  finances in a household should, for the most part, be jointly agreed upon.  both people should be able to have access to the same financial information.
i saw this video URL from kerry washington and allstate is  purple purse  initiative, and i think they are  really  starting to stretch the definitions of domestic abuse.  if party a makes the conscious, non forced decision to remove themselves from the workforce for whatever reason, i do not believe that party b is being abusive by not granting a equal monetary access.  that just makes sense to me, especially if party a is making the decision to not work because party b makes enough money for the both of them.  according to doorways for women and families URL financial abuse is the equivalent to emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual abuses, and includes the following:   having all bank accounts in the abuser is name   controlling how, when, and where money is spent   assigning an allowance   controlling all or most of the finances i fail to see how any of this is abusive behavior.  if i am the sole breadwinner in my two person household, i should be able to dictate what and where my money is being spent.  as long as an allowance, or a budgeted income, or financial control is not a tool being used to facilitate physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, then i do not believe those behaviors in and of themselves constitute abuse.   #  if i am the sole breadwinner in my two person household, i should be able to dictate what and where my money is being spent.   #  on the flip side, if you made a choice to marry someone, should not you also have some very basic trust in that person excluding outstanding circumstances like a gambling addiction etc ?  #  i will agree that this is a bit of a stretch, but there is a pretty obvious middle ground that is pretty grey.  can you agree that typically if you are in an abusive relationship, there is most likely more than one type of abuse going on ? i think that is a pretty obvious situation, so if someone is being  financially abused , then they are also probably being mentally, emotionally and/or physically abused as well.  i can see it mostly being a major warning sign/red flag that something bad is going on here.  sure, it might be your decision, but.  well, it is still not  your  decision.  you are not making a fully educated and independent decision.  you are making the decision on all these assumptions and pressure from your abusive partner who is saying lies to convince you to do what they want you to do.  having no access to any finances really traps the person in this kind of situation.  leaving an abuser of any sense is generally incredibly difficult, is not it ? not even having $0 for a hotel room to escape is really going to affect the person is decision to leave.  there are many legitimate reasons that may be out of the person is control that requires them to leave the workforce.  childbirth, cancer, sudden injury, so on.  it very well could be that person was an independent self sustaining human being and through no fault or choice of their own, they lost the means to support themselves.  on the flip side, if you made a choice to marry someone, should not you also have some very basic trust in that person excluding outstanding circumstances like a gambling addiction etc ? marriage merges so many aspects of your lives, legally and otherwise.  that includes past and current assets.  honestly, if you are not willing to share your basic assets, something is wrong from the start.  red flag/warning sign.  this kind of situation is about control.  you are controlling another person by controlling their ability to basically do anything without your permission.  life requires money.  if you have no money, you have no life.  it is probably pretty rare that a person can control all aspects of money with no say from their partner without something being damaging, distrust building, etc.  part of me wants to say  it can be done  but honestly, i do not really think it can on the very definition.  if the partner literally has absolutely no say in anything financial related ? they do not have input on whether or not you pay for cable or cut the cord ? they do not have input on what house you buy to live in ? yes, these are absolutely extreme examples, but these are the types of situation that would fit under  financial abuse  would not it ? anyway, to sum all of this up: there is a significant difference between a couple allowing one party of manage the finances and a couple allowing one party to  control  the finances.  my husband manages our finances.  i still have access to the bank account though.  i still have a debit card.  i do not make any large purchases  0$ without at least mentioning it to him.  if i want to stop at mcdonalds and get a dollar menu sandwich, do i really need his permission ? that would be crazy.   #  your post was a bit disingenuous, since it omitted some key features/descriptions of financial abuse.   #  your post was a bit disingenuous, since it omitted some key features/descriptions of financial abuse.  it seemed like you ignored the really big ones and created a bit of a straw man of the more ticky tack signs of abuse.  i would say for the most part, the ones you included were signs of abuse, but not actually abuse itself they can be present in totally healthy, even relationships .  let me break it down:  the following are some examples of financial abuse:  having all bank accounts in the abuser is name this in and of itself is not financial abuse, nor is it being claimed as such, but could indicate that financial abuse is taking place.  in western culture, it is a bit strange that an adult would not have a bank account.  in some relationships, one partner may make more financial decisions.  does not really mean financial abuse is taking place, but its a type of symptom that would be ubiquitous to this form of abuse.  otherwise, like the previous points, an ample/respectable allowance may be a sympton/sign of abuse, but not abuse in and of itself.  not abuse in and of itself, but you will almost always see this when financial abuse is taking place.  i do not see how you can label this as anything  but  financial abuse.  same as previous.  these last two examples would absolutely be financial abuse in my book.  imagine pairing them with other characteristics of financial abuse, and you can see how desperate and emotionally taxing being in that situation might be.  one more thing.  there is plenty of nuance in this issue.  it depends on how controlling the person is, and how they use that control to manipulate or emotional damage their partner .  does this overlap with emotional abuse ? sure, but it uses completely different techniques and strategies for one partner to get what they want.  i think it is important to have this conversation and acknowledge that  finances are another way partners can abuse each other.   you seem like an mrm type: financial abuse is something that both men and women can easily be guilty of.  without the stygma/response of  toughen up  to emotional abuse,  she is weaker than you and ca not actually hurt you  to physical abuse, and  women ca not rape men  response to sexual abuse.   #  now the bad partner can physically or emotionally batter on their partner all they want.   #  it is not  your  money.  when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.  if you do not like idea someone else can spend  your  money, do not have a spouse or children.  money is freedom.  you control the money then you control their freedom.  they ca not move out.  they ca not rent an apartment.  they may not even have the funds to get into a hotel for one night.  they ca not hire a divorce lawyer.  you could even make it so they ca not get resources to see a therapist to manage your feelings.  you could control if they have gas in their car or even if they have a car.  they need you for  everything .  taking away control is essential to manipulation and abuse.  now the bad partner can physically or emotionally batter on their partner all they want.  the partner is very unlikely to have a means to leave.  and because they are trapped, the abuse is that much worse.   #  when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.   # when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.  if you do not like idea someone else can spend  your  money, do not have a spouse or children.  this is how i feel, and probably how i would conduct my marriage, but i do not see how you can claim this is a hard and fast rule that every marriage should follow.  my roommate is getting married in a couple of months and has been looking over a pre nup book for the last couple of months: in the process we have had a lot of conversations about the ins and outs of this stuff.  she plans on keeping everything financial as separate as possible: separate incomes go into separate accounts and everything where presumably both spouses will split the cost of all shared expenses out of their individual accounts .  now i am sure there will be some adjustment to reality as she hits different situations throughout their marriage, but that is true of any marriage is financial planning.  i do not think it is really fair to say that your opinion of finances in marriage is the ironclad universal truth.   #  both people should be able to have access to the same financial information.   #  i find your usage of the word  dictate  interesting.  a happy and equitable marriage should not include  dictating  any rules to your spouse.  infantilizing your spouse by giving them an allowance and having zero control over any money is a form of abuse that generally co exists with verbal and emotional abuse.  finances in a household should, for the most part, be jointly agreed upon.  both people should be able to have access to the same financial information.
i saw this video URL from kerry washington and allstate is  purple purse  initiative, and i think they are  really  starting to stretch the definitions of domestic abuse.  if party a makes the conscious, non forced decision to remove themselves from the workforce for whatever reason, i do not believe that party b is being abusive by not granting a equal monetary access.  that just makes sense to me, especially if party a is making the decision to not work because party b makes enough money for the both of them.  according to doorways for women and families URL financial abuse is the equivalent to emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual abuses, and includes the following:   having all bank accounts in the abuser is name   controlling how, when, and where money is spent   assigning an allowance   controlling all or most of the finances i fail to see how any of this is abusive behavior.  if i am the sole breadwinner in my two person household, i should be able to dictate what and where my money is being spent.  as long as an allowance, or a budgeted income, or financial control is not a tool being used to facilitate physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, then i do not believe those behaviors in and of themselves constitute abuse.   #  as long as an allowance, or a budgeted income, or financial control is not a tool being used to facilitate physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, then i do not believe those behaviors in and of themselves constitute abuse.   #  this kind of situation is about control.   #  i will agree that this is a bit of a stretch, but there is a pretty obvious middle ground that is pretty grey.  can you agree that typically if you are in an abusive relationship, there is most likely more than one type of abuse going on ? i think that is a pretty obvious situation, so if someone is being  financially abused , then they are also probably being mentally, emotionally and/or physically abused as well.  i can see it mostly being a major warning sign/red flag that something bad is going on here.  sure, it might be your decision, but.  well, it is still not  your  decision.  you are not making a fully educated and independent decision.  you are making the decision on all these assumptions and pressure from your abusive partner who is saying lies to convince you to do what they want you to do.  having no access to any finances really traps the person in this kind of situation.  leaving an abuser of any sense is generally incredibly difficult, is not it ? not even having $0 for a hotel room to escape is really going to affect the person is decision to leave.  there are many legitimate reasons that may be out of the person is control that requires them to leave the workforce.  childbirth, cancer, sudden injury, so on.  it very well could be that person was an independent self sustaining human being and through no fault or choice of their own, they lost the means to support themselves.  on the flip side, if you made a choice to marry someone, should not you also have some very basic trust in that person excluding outstanding circumstances like a gambling addiction etc ? marriage merges so many aspects of your lives, legally and otherwise.  that includes past and current assets.  honestly, if you are not willing to share your basic assets, something is wrong from the start.  red flag/warning sign.  this kind of situation is about control.  you are controlling another person by controlling their ability to basically do anything without your permission.  life requires money.  if you have no money, you have no life.  it is probably pretty rare that a person can control all aspects of money with no say from their partner without something being damaging, distrust building, etc.  part of me wants to say  it can be done  but honestly, i do not really think it can on the very definition.  if the partner literally has absolutely no say in anything financial related ? they do not have input on whether or not you pay for cable or cut the cord ? they do not have input on what house you buy to live in ? yes, these are absolutely extreme examples, but these are the types of situation that would fit under  financial abuse  would not it ? anyway, to sum all of this up: there is a significant difference between a couple allowing one party of manage the finances and a couple allowing one party to  control  the finances.  my husband manages our finances.  i still have access to the bank account though.  i still have a debit card.  i do not make any large purchases  0$ without at least mentioning it to him.  if i want to stop at mcdonalds and get a dollar menu sandwich, do i really need his permission ? that would be crazy.   #  otherwise, like the previous points, an ample/respectable allowance may be a sympton/sign of abuse, but not abuse in and of itself.   #  your post was a bit disingenuous, since it omitted some key features/descriptions of financial abuse.  it seemed like you ignored the really big ones and created a bit of a straw man of the more ticky tack signs of abuse.  i would say for the most part, the ones you included were signs of abuse, but not actually abuse itself they can be present in totally healthy, even relationships .  let me break it down:  the following are some examples of financial abuse:  having all bank accounts in the abuser is name this in and of itself is not financial abuse, nor is it being claimed as such, but could indicate that financial abuse is taking place.  in western culture, it is a bit strange that an adult would not have a bank account.  in some relationships, one partner may make more financial decisions.  does not really mean financial abuse is taking place, but its a type of symptom that would be ubiquitous to this form of abuse.  otherwise, like the previous points, an ample/respectable allowance may be a sympton/sign of abuse, but not abuse in and of itself.  not abuse in and of itself, but you will almost always see this when financial abuse is taking place.  i do not see how you can label this as anything  but  financial abuse.  same as previous.  these last two examples would absolutely be financial abuse in my book.  imagine pairing them with other characteristics of financial abuse, and you can see how desperate and emotionally taxing being in that situation might be.  one more thing.  there is plenty of nuance in this issue.  it depends on how controlling the person is, and how they use that control to manipulate or emotional damage their partner .  does this overlap with emotional abuse ? sure, but it uses completely different techniques and strategies for one partner to get what they want.  i think it is important to have this conversation and acknowledge that  finances are another way partners can abuse each other.   you seem like an mrm type: financial abuse is something that both men and women can easily be guilty of.  without the stygma/response of  toughen up  to emotional abuse,  she is weaker than you and ca not actually hurt you  to physical abuse, and  women ca not rape men  response to sexual abuse.   #  the partner is very unlikely to have a means to leave.   #  it is not  your  money.  when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.  if you do not like idea someone else can spend  your  money, do not have a spouse or children.  money is freedom.  you control the money then you control their freedom.  they ca not move out.  they ca not rent an apartment.  they may not even have the funds to get into a hotel for one night.  they ca not hire a divorce lawyer.  you could even make it so they ca not get resources to see a therapist to manage your feelings.  you could control if they have gas in their car or even if they have a car.  they need you for  everything .  taking away control is essential to manipulation and abuse.  now the bad partner can physically or emotionally batter on their partner all they want.  the partner is very unlikely to have a means to leave.  and because they are trapped, the abuse is that much worse.   #  i do not think it is really fair to say that your opinion of finances in marriage is the ironclad universal truth.   # when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.  if you do not like idea someone else can spend  your  money, do not have a spouse or children.  this is how i feel, and probably how i would conduct my marriage, but i do not see how you can claim this is a hard and fast rule that every marriage should follow.  my roommate is getting married in a couple of months and has been looking over a pre nup book for the last couple of months: in the process we have had a lot of conversations about the ins and outs of this stuff.  she plans on keeping everything financial as separate as possible: separate incomes go into separate accounts and everything where presumably both spouses will split the cost of all shared expenses out of their individual accounts .  now i am sure there will be some adjustment to reality as she hits different situations throughout their marriage, but that is true of any marriage is financial planning.  i do not think it is really fair to say that your opinion of finances in marriage is the ironclad universal truth.   #  both people should be able to have access to the same financial information.   #  i find your usage of the word  dictate  interesting.  a happy and equitable marriage should not include  dictating  any rules to your spouse.  infantilizing your spouse by giving them an allowance and having zero control over any money is a form of abuse that generally co exists with verbal and emotional abuse.  finances in a household should, for the most part, be jointly agreed upon.  both people should be able to have access to the same financial information.
i saw this video URL from kerry washington and allstate is  purple purse  initiative, and i think they are  really  starting to stretch the definitions of domestic abuse.  if party a makes the conscious, non forced decision to remove themselves from the workforce for whatever reason, i do not believe that party b is being abusive by not granting a equal monetary access.  that just makes sense to me, especially if party a is making the decision to not work because party b makes enough money for the both of them.  according to doorways for women and families URL financial abuse is the equivalent to emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual abuses, and includes the following:   having all bank accounts in the abuser is name   controlling how, when, and where money is spent   assigning an allowance   controlling all or most of the finances i fail to see how any of this is abusive behavior.  if i am the sole breadwinner in my two person household, i should be able to dictate what and where my money is being spent.  as long as an allowance, or a budgeted income, or financial control is not a tool being used to facilitate physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, then i do not believe those behaviors in and of themselves constitute abuse.   #  if i am the sole breadwinner in my two person household, i should be able to dictate what and where my money is being spent.   #  the key premise here is that it is your money.   # the key premise here is that it is your money.  if you are married, it may well not just be your money.  if you are in a jurisdiction which has community property laws, then your spouse has equal ownership over your earnings as you do, and legally just as much say.  more to the point though, financial control can be a form of emotional abuse.  going through the bullet pointed behaviors:  having all bank accounts in the abuser is name this hinders meaningful ongoing consent to remaining together.  it means that if your spouse wants to leave, they will have absolutely no resources they can put their hands to.  it is a lot harder to leave an abusive relationship if you wo not be able to feed yourself or the kids when you get out.  it is emotional abuse to exert the level of control necessary to dictate all spending.  certainly couples do set allowances as part of consensual talks about finance.  but an extremely strict allowance can be a tool or part of emotional abuse, such as blaming the other person when they ca not afford the things you demand be bought from the allowance.  managing is not the same as controlling.  someone who controls all finances is basically doing the first two bullet points.  so it is slightly redundant.   #  does not really mean financial abuse is taking place, but its a type of symptom that would be ubiquitous to this form of abuse.   #  your post was a bit disingenuous, since it omitted some key features/descriptions of financial abuse.  it seemed like you ignored the really big ones and created a bit of a straw man of the more ticky tack signs of abuse.  i would say for the most part, the ones you included were signs of abuse, but not actually abuse itself they can be present in totally healthy, even relationships .  let me break it down:  the following are some examples of financial abuse:  having all bank accounts in the abuser is name this in and of itself is not financial abuse, nor is it being claimed as such, but could indicate that financial abuse is taking place.  in western culture, it is a bit strange that an adult would not have a bank account.  in some relationships, one partner may make more financial decisions.  does not really mean financial abuse is taking place, but its a type of symptom that would be ubiquitous to this form of abuse.  otherwise, like the previous points, an ample/respectable allowance may be a sympton/sign of abuse, but not abuse in and of itself.  not abuse in and of itself, but you will almost always see this when financial abuse is taking place.  i do not see how you can label this as anything  but  financial abuse.  same as previous.  these last two examples would absolutely be financial abuse in my book.  imagine pairing them with other characteristics of financial abuse, and you can see how desperate and emotionally taxing being in that situation might be.  one more thing.  there is plenty of nuance in this issue.  it depends on how controlling the person is, and how they use that control to manipulate or emotional damage their partner .  does this overlap with emotional abuse ? sure, but it uses completely different techniques and strategies for one partner to get what they want.  i think it is important to have this conversation and acknowledge that  finances are another way partners can abuse each other.   you seem like an mrm type: financial abuse is something that both men and women can easily be guilty of.  without the stygma/response of  toughen up  to emotional abuse,  she is weaker than you and ca not actually hurt you  to physical abuse, and  women ca not rape men  response to sexual abuse.   #  when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.   #  it is not  your  money.  when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.  if you do not like idea someone else can spend  your  money, do not have a spouse or children.  money is freedom.  you control the money then you control their freedom.  they ca not move out.  they ca not rent an apartment.  they may not even have the funds to get into a hotel for one night.  they ca not hire a divorce lawyer.  you could even make it so they ca not get resources to see a therapist to manage your feelings.  you could control if they have gas in their car or even if they have a car.  they need you for  everything .  taking away control is essential to manipulation and abuse.  now the bad partner can physically or emotionally batter on their partner all they want.  the partner is very unlikely to have a means to leave.  and because they are trapped, the abuse is that much worse.   #  she plans on keeping everything financial as separate as possible: separate incomes go into separate accounts and everything where presumably both spouses will split the cost of all shared expenses out of their individual accounts .   # when you marry and agree one person stays home or works part time, that money belongs to both of you equally.  if you do not like idea someone else can spend  your  money, do not have a spouse or children.  this is how i feel, and probably how i would conduct my marriage, but i do not see how you can claim this is a hard and fast rule that every marriage should follow.  my roommate is getting married in a couple of months and has been looking over a pre nup book for the last couple of months: in the process we have had a lot of conversations about the ins and outs of this stuff.  she plans on keeping everything financial as separate as possible: separate incomes go into separate accounts and everything where presumably both spouses will split the cost of all shared expenses out of their individual accounts .  now i am sure there will be some adjustment to reality as she hits different situations throughout their marriage, but that is true of any marriage is financial planning.  i do not think it is really fair to say that your opinion of finances in marriage is the ironclad universal truth.   #  both people should be able to have access to the same financial information.   #  i find your usage of the word  dictate  interesting.  a happy and equitable marriage should not include  dictating  any rules to your spouse.  infantilizing your spouse by giving them an allowance and having zero control over any money is a form of abuse that generally co exists with verbal and emotional abuse.  finances in a household should, for the most part, be jointly agreed upon.  both people should be able to have access to the same financial information.
note: i posted something similar a couple of weeks ago, but the answers in that cmv made me realize that my argument was not specific enough.  i will use some text from that last post to refine here.  the grandfather paradox URL states that you ca not go back and kill your grandfather, because logically you would never be born to kill your grandfather in the first place.  however, i believe that simply going back in time at all creates a paradox on the atomic level.  logical grandfather paradoxes were made up for drama and to relate people to the story.  the universe does not care if you kill your grandfather, or try to do things precisely the same you ca not , it is already different the moment you take a breath.  this leads to reason that if your trip backwards in time is successful, you can safely assume that a universe ending paradox will not occur, at least not instantaneously.  some implementations in movies primer, butterfly effect show that paradoxes create only local or restricted disruptions in space time, or that the changes  ripple through  to the rest of the universe; this could also be valid in this thought experiment.  however, considering the following conditions: 0.  a trip backwards in time has occurred and was successful 0.  the traveler is safe and the universe is intact then it stands to reason that simply by existing in the previous timeline, a grand scale paradox could not occur.  we should not consider that killing your grandfather might cause the destruction of the universe and can basically do what we want in any timeline because most likely with the available information , it would either create or enter a different timeline, or be self consistent in the first place.  cmv  #  it is already different the moment you take a breath.   #  this sounds like you are going with the butterfly effect, the idea that the consequences of an action cascade outwards resulting in fundamental changes.   # this sounds like you are going with the butterfly effect, the idea that the consequences of an action cascade outwards resulting in fundamental changes.  however, that might not be the truth.  while actions do always have consequences, they may not be significant.  consider a stone that you throw into a pound; ripples are caused that permeate outwards but they eventually dissipate.  additionally, when ripples waves meet they can cancel themselves out or amplify themselves, in this metaphor being more like the butterfly effect .  one action might have consequences, but its consequences might be minor or might get removed due to other consequences.  maybe the act of going back in time creates a change, but the existence of you  back in time , undoes that change waves canceling out .   #  again, and i think i remember your previous post, i think we are very much on the same page for how  we  would conceptualize time travel in a way that most closely aligns with physics as we know it.   #  i mean, if someone were to invent a time machine tomorrow, and i jumped in, i think i would have very similar expectations as you do as to how  real  time travel would work.  but right now, there is no  real  time travel.  so every time travel story ever told is entirely based on some form of fictional physics, which gives storytellers latitude to make up their own rules.  take the time travel behavior in back to the future.  scientifically and logically, it seems like  total nonsense  to see people  fade out  of pictures or to see newspaper headlines suddenly change.  but these are fictional concepts clearly articulated to the viewer in service of an entertaining fictional story.  its about as scientifically meaningful as wizards, but as a story telling device, its delightfully entertaining.  and there are shades of gray here.  back to the future is especially wacky, but it only takes a couple tweaks many of which are standard ideas in sci fi and fantasy to salvage something more reasonable.  one is outright magic.  if time travel explicitly comes from  magic , all bets are off.  who are you to say how a URL works ? any notion of souls or spirits also very common in a wide variety of fiction, not to mention believed by many in reality allows a simple mechanism to transcend the effects of time travel.  you can also get to harder to sci fi concepts by allowing a looser form of a self consistency principle, wherein some unknown scientific principle causes the universe to  course correct  for minor deviations, but may fail and result in massive destabilization for certain events such as death of a critical character .  again, and i think i remember your previous post, i think we are very much on the same page for how  we  would conceptualize time travel in a way that most closely aligns with physics as we know it.  but to call the grandfather paradox an  irrelevant concept  makes no sense to me, since its a concept that is almost exclusively used in fiction.   #  there are other possibilities i have not imagined as well.   #  you will note that the paradox is a movie staple more than a real philosophical concern.  after all, movies are about narrative and these paradoxes destroy narrative.  the need to avoid them serves to provide a much needed limitation as well.  without limitations the movie falls flat why would not dumbledore just kill baby voldemort or whatever .  but you do seem to have snuck in some major assumptions one is that the world is stochastic.  it might theoretically be deterministic with time travel part of that deterministic chain.  it might be narrative based a deity or computer being involved ? where only certain actions have consequences but others do not affect the future.  there are other possibilities i have not imagined as well.   #  it just forces you to either reject free will or unique histories and as long as you are cognizant of the fact that you are doing it, there is no problem.   #  i see the grandfather paradox is not so much a statement about the impossibility of time travel as it is about the dependency between the possibility of time travel and the impossibility of either what most people commonly understand as  free will  or what people understand as the uniqueness of history.  you can perfectly allow the existence of time travel and posit that the universe will simple go ahead and compute a reality that is a fixed point at which point you still have unique history but you really do not have any  choice  in what you do in your personal future because it has already been decided at an atomic level for you.  this preserves the uniqueness and linear/causal nature of time.  alternately, you could simply  branch  the universe and create alternate realities that are unreachable from the timeline you were on.  that would preserve  free will  but you are just mucking around with some other global multiversal state.  of course, you could take a more hard science approach to things and acknowledge that most of not all of our physics would break everything from the laws of thermodynamics to the conservation of energy and momentum if we had any form of timetravel that is commonly depicted in fiction a person leaves a time and ends up in an earlier one in a causally inconsistent manner .  at that point, philosophical objections like free will or linearity of time do not even enter the picture.  we simply would break our predictive frameworks if we had time travel.  so in a way, your view is correct  if you made it back, then the universe has already accommodated you and it does not matter we just need better physics .  the grandfather paradox is just a way of elucidating/tying together all the other aspects of nature that we take for granted and tying them together.  it just forces you to either reject free will or unique histories and as long as you are cognizant of the fact that you are doing it, there is no problem.   #  after all, we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation URL if we will eventually develop the technology to model a universe with human consciousness, we will.   #  that is a huge assumption though.  there is certainly a reasonable chance that the universe does understand human interaction.  after all, we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation URL if we will eventually develop the technology to model a universe with human consciousness, we will.  we will run simulated universes again and again.  given this, the chance we are in the  real  world instead of one of the simulations is approximately 0.  so if we are living in a simulation, how might that simulation conserve resources ? one obvious way is to fully model human actions but to take shortcuts with the rest.  so your breathing may have no real effect on the simulation whereas your removing a burrito means one fewer burrito.  and it is tough to predict what bugs would exist in a huge simulation but you having an ancestor who does not exist could certainly cause an error that caused inelegant behavior.  hopefully not as inelegant as a crashed/stalled program, but no promises.
note: i posted something similar a couple of weeks ago, but the answers in that cmv made me realize that my argument was not specific enough.  i will use some text from that last post to refine here.  the grandfather paradox URL states that you ca not go back and kill your grandfather, because logically you would never be born to kill your grandfather in the first place.  however, i believe that simply going back in time at all creates a paradox on the atomic level.  logical grandfather paradoxes were made up for drama and to relate people to the story.  the universe does not care if you kill your grandfather, or try to do things precisely the same you ca not , it is already different the moment you take a breath.  this leads to reason that if your trip backwards in time is successful, you can safely assume that a universe ending paradox will not occur, at least not instantaneously.  some implementations in movies primer, butterfly effect show that paradoxes create only local or restricted disruptions in space time, or that the changes  ripple through  to the rest of the universe; this could also be valid in this thought experiment.  however, considering the following conditions: 0.  a trip backwards in time has occurred and was successful 0.  the traveler is safe and the universe is intact then it stands to reason that simply by existing in the previous timeline, a grand scale paradox could not occur.  we should not consider that killing your grandfather might cause the destruction of the universe and can basically do what we want in any timeline because most likely with the available information , it would either create or enter a different timeline, or be self consistent in the first place.  cmv  #  logical grandfather paradoxes were made up for drama and to relate people to the story.   #  the universe does not care if you kill your grandfather, or try to do things precisely the same you ca not , it is already different the moment you take a breath.   # the universe does not care if you kill your grandfather, or try to do things precisely the same you ca not , it is already different the moment you take a breath.  well, yeah.  that said, you  could  create a stable loop.  for example, if you had a safe you wanted to open, you could try a number, then go back in time and tell yourself what to try next.  the combo 0 did not work ? go back and tell yourself to try 0.  then that iteration of you tries 0, sees that it does not work, goes back in time, and tells yourself to try 0 instead.  this repeats until you find the right combo, at which point you tell yourself the right combo.  from your point of view, you only tried one number, and it was right.  as long as you still go back and tell yourself this, no paradox has been created.  this does not follow.  the universe could oscillate between possible timelines for example.  or make split timelines.  or this could be a meaningless question if it turns out that time travel is fundamentally impossible.  it is like asking what would happen if an immovable object was hit by an unstoppable object.  physics does not work that way, so we ca not reason about what would happen.   #  but these are fictional concepts clearly articulated to the viewer in service of an entertaining fictional story.   #  i mean, if someone were to invent a time machine tomorrow, and i jumped in, i think i would have very similar expectations as you do as to how  real  time travel would work.  but right now, there is no  real  time travel.  so every time travel story ever told is entirely based on some form of fictional physics, which gives storytellers latitude to make up their own rules.  take the time travel behavior in back to the future.  scientifically and logically, it seems like  total nonsense  to see people  fade out  of pictures or to see newspaper headlines suddenly change.  but these are fictional concepts clearly articulated to the viewer in service of an entertaining fictional story.  its about as scientifically meaningful as wizards, but as a story telling device, its delightfully entertaining.  and there are shades of gray here.  back to the future is especially wacky, but it only takes a couple tweaks many of which are standard ideas in sci fi and fantasy to salvage something more reasonable.  one is outright magic.  if time travel explicitly comes from  magic , all bets are off.  who are you to say how a URL works ? any notion of souls or spirits also very common in a wide variety of fiction, not to mention believed by many in reality allows a simple mechanism to transcend the effects of time travel.  you can also get to harder to sci fi concepts by allowing a looser form of a self consistency principle, wherein some unknown scientific principle causes the universe to  course correct  for minor deviations, but may fail and result in massive destabilization for certain events such as death of a critical character .  again, and i think i remember your previous post, i think we are very much on the same page for how  we  would conceptualize time travel in a way that most closely aligns with physics as we know it.  but to call the grandfather paradox an  irrelevant concept  makes no sense to me, since its a concept that is almost exclusively used in fiction.   #  it might theoretically be deterministic with time travel part of that deterministic chain.   #  you will note that the paradox is a movie staple more than a real philosophical concern.  after all, movies are about narrative and these paradoxes destroy narrative.  the need to avoid them serves to provide a much needed limitation as well.  without limitations the movie falls flat why would not dumbledore just kill baby voldemort or whatever .  but you do seem to have snuck in some major assumptions one is that the world is stochastic.  it might theoretically be deterministic with time travel part of that deterministic chain.  it might be narrative based a deity or computer being involved ? where only certain actions have consequences but others do not affect the future.  there are other possibilities i have not imagined as well.   #  at that point, philosophical objections like free will or linearity of time do not even enter the picture.   #  i see the grandfather paradox is not so much a statement about the impossibility of time travel as it is about the dependency between the possibility of time travel and the impossibility of either what most people commonly understand as  free will  or what people understand as the uniqueness of history.  you can perfectly allow the existence of time travel and posit that the universe will simple go ahead and compute a reality that is a fixed point at which point you still have unique history but you really do not have any  choice  in what you do in your personal future because it has already been decided at an atomic level for you.  this preserves the uniqueness and linear/causal nature of time.  alternately, you could simply  branch  the universe and create alternate realities that are unreachable from the timeline you were on.  that would preserve  free will  but you are just mucking around with some other global multiversal state.  of course, you could take a more hard science approach to things and acknowledge that most of not all of our physics would break everything from the laws of thermodynamics to the conservation of energy and momentum if we had any form of timetravel that is commonly depicted in fiction a person leaves a time and ends up in an earlier one in a causally inconsistent manner .  at that point, philosophical objections like free will or linearity of time do not even enter the picture.  we simply would break our predictive frameworks if we had time travel.  so in a way, your view is correct  if you made it back, then the universe has already accommodated you and it does not matter we just need better physics .  the grandfather paradox is just a way of elucidating/tying together all the other aspects of nature that we take for granted and tying them together.  it just forces you to either reject free will or unique histories and as long as you are cognizant of the fact that you are doing it, there is no problem.   #  consider a stone that you throw into a pound; ripples are caused that permeate outwards but they eventually dissipate.   # this sounds like you are going with the butterfly effect, the idea that the consequences of an action cascade outwards resulting in fundamental changes.  however, that might not be the truth.  while actions do always have consequences, they may not be significant.  consider a stone that you throw into a pound; ripples are caused that permeate outwards but they eventually dissipate.  additionally, when ripples waves meet they can cancel themselves out or amplify themselves, in this metaphor being more like the butterfly effect .  one action might have consequences, but its consequences might be minor or might get removed due to other consequences.  maybe the act of going back in time creates a change, but the existence of you  back in time , undoes that change waves canceling out .
let is say you are 0, and diagnosed with chronic depression.  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  your choices are basically a life in a perpetually zonked out state, or a life of crippling pain and misery.  in my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable for this person to consider his options, take an objective look at them, and conclude that the best course of action is suicide.  it would be perfectly valid and rational to decide that ceasing to live is superior to a lifetime of chronic mental illness, and all the costs financial, social, familial/interpersonal, etc associated with managing it and living with it.  i specifically use depression/mental illness as an example because people often argue that depressed, or mentally ill people should not have the option of euthanasia because their illness clouds their ability to realistically assess their situation.  in my example, the depressed person is reasoning appears perfectly sound so i do not see why he should not commit suicide.  can you cmv ? another common argument is that chronic mental illness is often mostly ? manageable, sometimes very effectively with relative ease.  fair point.  how about cases where the illness is not easily manageable ? where it requires a cocktail of drugs, constant therapy and relapses are common and can occur at any time ? or, say the person suffers from schizophrenia, which is incurable and requires lifetime treatment.  the medication often comes with many unpleasant side effects, and sometimes leaves the sufferer in a zombie like state.  think the protagonist in  a beautiful mind .  other than a severely diminished quality of life, the person may also feel a burden to his/her family, likely be socially isolated, have a hard time holding down a job, etc.  could not he/she rationally decide such a life is simply not worth living ?  #  let is say you are 0, and diagnosed with chronic depression.   #  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.   # you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  your choices are basically a life in a perpetually zonked out state, or a life of crippling pain and misery.  this is a cartoonish characterization of psychiatry.  major depression does not mean permanent depression, and neither does treatment  zonk you out.   medications that elevate mood do just that in something like 0/0rds of patients.  the other third tends to respond well to therapy or ect.  the problem with your assessment is this:  in my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable for this person to consider his options, take an objective look at them, and conclude that the best course of action is suicide.  people already are not objective people, and when they have a depressive illness, they are even less likely to be able to look at something objectively.  if you disagree, then you have never treated a depressed patient.  i am adding a general edit here because i want to qualify something.  certainly, we may nitpick in our definitions of  rational,  but i do not want people to miss the forest for the trees.  depression can be a tough road but it is a treatable road and ever improving road, and to insist that depressed people are  justified  in wanting to kill themselves for example can be very  dangerous .  although it might be tempting to echo a person is suicidality as  reasonable  for the sake of empathy, it might ultimately hurt them as well.  more simply, to legitimize someone is suicidality might encourage it.   #  from your example, you seem more predisposed toward allowing this for people in dire predicaments.   #  suicidal person, reporting in.  i will try my best to disprove your cmv.  i want to say i think suicide should be considered a natural right.  the thing is, i have been suicidal for some time, and i have pretty much come to the conclusion that i am still going mainly out of deference to the people who care about me.  but if you offered me a foolproof way to die and not emotionally harm any of the people who care about me, i would take it.  there is nothing very physically wrong with me.  i mean, i am blind in one eye, have degenerating spinal discs, and am not the best looking dude, but there is no excruciating pain, nothing like that.  i simply do not want to experience anymore.  to me, life is a stone on my shoulders which i only carry so others do not have to carry grief.  i am not in extreme poverty.  i mean, i am trying to get on food stamps, and i do not get to see the doctor ever because louisiana, but i can eat if i feel like it, and i can shower.  i have a home, a car, and i have been educated extensively.  i have seen four continents and environments ranging from nome, alaska, to koh samui, thailand.  plenty of wonderful experiences.  been with more women than i deserve, honestly, felt true love and true loss, seen sunrises so beautiful i wept.  but if i had that out, that erase myself button, i would press it.  this is not heat of emotion writing.  this is just calm stuff, my every day thoughts.  i am feeling perfectly rational and not at all out of control of my reasoning.  if you ask me a week from now, the answer will most likely be unchanged.  if such a button were available, would it be rational for me to press it ? could you make any case whatsoever that i was not rationally considering everything ? that is the thing about depression.  it is not irrational, weepy crap that you see in movies.  i simply understand my reality.  people with depression are, statistically speaking, more accurate and honest when depicting the reality of the world.  at least in my view, suicide is  always  a rational option.  choosing to continue living is the irrational choice.  plenty of perfectly rational people do things that they should not, and which we only know they should not because we are  less  rational than them.  because rational thought can lead perfectly fine individuals to suicide, our approach would necessitate allowing the suicide of relatively well off individuals with few or no deep problems.  from your example, you seem more predisposed toward allowing this for people in dire predicaments.   #  i think what he means is that people often go into situations not predicting a outcome.   #  i think what he means is that people often go into situations not predicting a outcome.  if you are depressed you will always assume it will go badly.  and simply because you guess more often you will be right more often.  as well as wrong but our minds are good in forgetting when we were wrong .  so to someone depressed it actually feels like situations turn out bad more often because of that.   #  it is not whether or not somebody is  realistic  in a  i know what to expect from life  way, it is a measure of perceptiveness and ability to read body language.   #  i think you are misinterpreting what is being measured here.  it is not whether or not somebody is  realistic  in a  i know what to expect from life  way, it is a measure of perceptiveness and ability to read body language.  they used implicit association tests a pretty common test in psychological studies to determine the emotion that a subject thought was being conveyed by an individual is expression.  mildly/moderately depressed individuals responded faster and more accurately.  unfortunately, a lot of people with depression have taken this to mean that we are automatically correct in our assumption that everyone hates us and whatnot.  also, it is worth noting that a follow up study from the same university was done a few months later with a larger sample and the results were not reproduced the follow up showed that both mildly and severely depressed individuals were impaired.  for the record, here is the original study: URL and here is the follow up: URL  #  in the end i always come to the conclusion that if i wanted to kill myself, i should probably try all the things that could possibly make me happier first.   #  i was thinking about this the other day.  an erase me button is definitely the most rational way to leave.  it is the connections to others and dependence from other living things, like pets, that keep me from leaving.  i think it is totally rational to think about, but not so rational to do.  in the end i always come to the conclusion that if i wanted to kill myself, i should probably try all the things that could possibly make me happier first.  like ask that girl out or go attempt to have a bunch of group sex or join a cult or something or all three !
let is say you are 0, and diagnosed with chronic depression.  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  your choices are basically a life in a perpetually zonked out state, or a life of crippling pain and misery.  in my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable for this person to consider his options, take an objective look at them, and conclude that the best course of action is suicide.  it would be perfectly valid and rational to decide that ceasing to live is superior to a lifetime of chronic mental illness, and all the costs financial, social, familial/interpersonal, etc associated with managing it and living with it.  i specifically use depression/mental illness as an example because people often argue that depressed, or mentally ill people should not have the option of euthanasia because their illness clouds their ability to realistically assess their situation.  in my example, the depressed person is reasoning appears perfectly sound so i do not see why he should not commit suicide.  can you cmv ? another common argument is that chronic mental illness is often mostly ? manageable, sometimes very effectively with relative ease.  fair point.  how about cases where the illness is not easily manageable ? where it requires a cocktail of drugs, constant therapy and relapses are common and can occur at any time ? or, say the person suffers from schizophrenia, which is incurable and requires lifetime treatment.  the medication often comes with many unpleasant side effects, and sometimes leaves the sufferer in a zombie like state.  think the protagonist in  a beautiful mind .  other than a severely diminished quality of life, the person may also feel a burden to his/her family, likely be socially isolated, have a hard time holding down a job, etc.  could not he/she rationally decide such a life is simply not worth living ?  #  in my example, the depressed person is reasoning appears perfectly sound so i do not see why he should not commit suicide.   #  just because someone is  areasoning  power appears to be perfectly sound does not mean that it is actually based on reason.   # just because someone is  areasoning  power appears to be perfectly sound does not mean that it is actually based on reason.  my father was a very intelligent man, who was very eloquent about his decision making process, whether he was on or off his meds for his schizophrenia.  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  your choices are basically a life in a perpetually zonked out state, or a life of crippling pain and misery.   i think that you are making some assumptions.  i am 0, and was first diagnosed with chronic, cyclical depression when i was 0, the first time i tried to kill myself.  i have spent a few times in hospital, and more time finding meds that worked.  sometimes it took trying 0 or 0 different meds, over the course of years, to find something that helped me get on top; of the depression.  i still get mind numbingly, soul destroyingly depressed every 0 or 0 years, but because i have been through it so many times, i power through it, and i know that i can get through it to the other side.  i do think that people should be  allowed  to kill themselves, without societal condemnation.  i am pretty active in support work for the right to die in canada, and do a lot of support work surrounding hospice care.  being diagnosed with depression is not a necessarily a death sentence, or even a guarantee that you are going to be shut off from a full and mostly good life.  depression real depression, not just having a sad affects you to the point where it rules you when you ca not get out of bed, when you do not care about anything around you, when you think that death is the only way out.  i have done mental health support work for a long time, and while i am pro a person is right to die at a time of their choosing, i still struggle with where mental health issues tie into that.  for a lot of people, chronic depression can be very livable, and does not really interfere with having a  good  life.  but that is often dependent on their access to mental health care, finding a healthy regime which may or may not involve meds, or other interventions , and sometimes treating depression as a chronic medical issue, rather than something that controls you.  i know that when i am in the midst of depression death sometimes seems like the only reasonable answer, but over time, i have had a pretty good life in the midst of depression issues.  i  #  i mean, i am blind in one eye, have degenerating spinal discs, and am not the best looking dude, but there is no excruciating pain, nothing like that.   #  suicidal person, reporting in.  i will try my best to disprove your cmv.  i want to say i think suicide should be considered a natural right.  the thing is, i have been suicidal for some time, and i have pretty much come to the conclusion that i am still going mainly out of deference to the people who care about me.  but if you offered me a foolproof way to die and not emotionally harm any of the people who care about me, i would take it.  there is nothing very physically wrong with me.  i mean, i am blind in one eye, have degenerating spinal discs, and am not the best looking dude, but there is no excruciating pain, nothing like that.  i simply do not want to experience anymore.  to me, life is a stone on my shoulders which i only carry so others do not have to carry grief.  i am not in extreme poverty.  i mean, i am trying to get on food stamps, and i do not get to see the doctor ever because louisiana, but i can eat if i feel like it, and i can shower.  i have a home, a car, and i have been educated extensively.  i have seen four continents and environments ranging from nome, alaska, to koh samui, thailand.  plenty of wonderful experiences.  been with more women than i deserve, honestly, felt true love and true loss, seen sunrises so beautiful i wept.  but if i had that out, that erase myself button, i would press it.  this is not heat of emotion writing.  this is just calm stuff, my every day thoughts.  i am feeling perfectly rational and not at all out of control of my reasoning.  if you ask me a week from now, the answer will most likely be unchanged.  if such a button were available, would it be rational for me to press it ? could you make any case whatsoever that i was not rationally considering everything ? that is the thing about depression.  it is not irrational, weepy crap that you see in movies.  i simply understand my reality.  people with depression are, statistically speaking, more accurate and honest when depicting the reality of the world.  at least in my view, suicide is  always  a rational option.  choosing to continue living is the irrational choice.  plenty of perfectly rational people do things that they should not, and which we only know they should not because we are  less  rational than them.  because rational thought can lead perfectly fine individuals to suicide, our approach would necessitate allowing the suicide of relatively well off individuals with few or no deep problems.  from your example, you seem more predisposed toward allowing this for people in dire predicaments.   #  so to someone depressed it actually feels like situations turn out bad more often because of that.   #  i think what he means is that people often go into situations not predicting a outcome.  if you are depressed you will always assume it will go badly.  and simply because you guess more often you will be right more often.  as well as wrong but our minds are good in forgetting when we were wrong .  so to someone depressed it actually feels like situations turn out bad more often because of that.   #  it is not whether or not somebody is  realistic  in a  i know what to expect from life  way, it is a measure of perceptiveness and ability to read body language.   #  i think you are misinterpreting what is being measured here.  it is not whether or not somebody is  realistic  in a  i know what to expect from life  way, it is a measure of perceptiveness and ability to read body language.  they used implicit association tests a pretty common test in psychological studies to determine the emotion that a subject thought was being conveyed by an individual is expression.  mildly/moderately depressed individuals responded faster and more accurately.  unfortunately, a lot of people with depression have taken this to mean that we are automatically correct in our assumption that everyone hates us and whatnot.  also, it is worth noting that a follow up study from the same university was done a few months later with a larger sample and the results were not reproduced the follow up showed that both mildly and severely depressed individuals were impaired.  for the record, here is the original study: URL and here is the follow up: URL  #  like ask that girl out or go attempt to have a bunch of group sex or join a cult or something or all three !  #  i was thinking about this the other day.  an erase me button is definitely the most rational way to leave.  it is the connections to others and dependence from other living things, like pets, that keep me from leaving.  i think it is totally rational to think about, but not so rational to do.  in the end i always come to the conclusion that if i wanted to kill myself, i should probably try all the things that could possibly make me happier first.  like ask that girl out or go attempt to have a bunch of group sex or join a cult or something or all three !
let is say you are 0, and diagnosed with chronic depression.  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  your choices are basically a life in a perpetually zonked out state, or a life of crippling pain and misery.  in my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable for this person to consider his options, take an objective look at them, and conclude that the best course of action is suicide.  it would be perfectly valid and rational to decide that ceasing to live is superior to a lifetime of chronic mental illness, and all the costs financial, social, familial/interpersonal, etc associated with managing it and living with it.  i specifically use depression/mental illness as an example because people often argue that depressed, or mentally ill people should not have the option of euthanasia because their illness clouds their ability to realistically assess their situation.  in my example, the depressed person is reasoning appears perfectly sound so i do not see why he should not commit suicide.  can you cmv ? another common argument is that chronic mental illness is often mostly ? manageable, sometimes very effectively with relative ease.  fair point.  how about cases where the illness is not easily manageable ? where it requires a cocktail of drugs, constant therapy and relapses are common and can occur at any time ? or, say the person suffers from schizophrenia, which is incurable and requires lifetime treatment.  the medication often comes with many unpleasant side effects, and sometimes leaves the sufferer in a zombie like state.  think the protagonist in  a beautiful mind .  other than a severely diminished quality of life, the person may also feel a burden to his/her family, likely be socially isolated, have a hard time holding down a job, etc.  could not he/she rationally decide such a life is simply not worth living ?  #  another common argument is that chronic mental illness is often mostly ?  #  manageable, sometimes very effectively with relative ease.   # ok, that is a fair point.  so, what if the person is medicated and in a sound state of mind when they come to the conclusion that suicide is the best option ? i would not say that people with mental illnesses are irrational by nature.  i would say that their mental illnesses cause them have irrational thoughts or behave irrationally.  also, just because they may be medicated and stable does not mean that they are illness is just gone.  it takes  way  more effort than just taking some pills and seeing a therapist every now and then.  also, just because they may be medicated and stable does not mean that they are illness is just gone.  someone with depression not only has to find the right cocktail to be  stable  but has to work through therapy as well.  for example, someone with diabetes can never be cured, but it is treatable, and they can learn to make changes in their life so that they can be healthy, productive, and happy.  cbt and medication work together in the same way.  additionally, what i would consider  stable  in the first place is someone who can manage and be a  normal and happy  member of society.  i would say that if someone  wants  to die, they are not stable, but psychology and medicine evolve everyday and we are really beginning to develop the resources to help people who feel that their life is no longer worth living, because as cheesy as it is, people matter, and these people deserve help and treatment so that they can experience life and contribute to the world.  manageable, sometimes very effectively with relative ease.  fair point.  how about cases where the illness is not easily manageable ? where it requires a cocktail of drugs, constant therapy and relapses are common and can occur at any time ? well, if the individual is dealing with a mental illness that is difficult to manage especially the kind you are describing, where they are trying to find the right cocktail, doctors, kind of therapy, or may relapse at any time, how are they to make the rational decision to commit suicide ? it sounds like when you pointed this out, you forgot that the cmv is about  suicide being a rational decision.  most decisions made in these states are not rational.  there are multiple things going on in this example, too chemicals in the brain changing rapidly, different kinds of therapy being tried, not to mention all of the  side effects  that can affect the individual.  there is a reason we do all of this though.  we do it so that the person  can  be stable eventually and live a comfortable life.  i firmly believe that someone who is complying willingly with therapists and psychiatrists and open to getting better  can  get better.  the medication often comes with many unpleasant side effects, and sometimes leaves the sufferer in a zombie like state.  think the protagonist in a beautiful mind.  other than a severely diminished quality of life, the person may also feel a burden to his/her family, likely be socially isolated, have a hard time holding down a job, etc.  could not he/she rationally decide such a life is simply not worth living ? i would like to point out that  a beautiful mind , though a good movie,  is  a dramatization.  again, an individual who is suffering from severe schizophrenia which, by the way, is extremely rare to the point where they ca not function is also not really in the mindset to make a rational decision, especially about suicide.  also again, there are many, many things you can do to help someone who will willingly comply with their doctors which is where it becomes sticky, especially with those suffering from illnesses like schizophrenia like change the way thought processes work, behavior, outlook, all while searching for the right medicine.  and i would say at this point in the situation being described, if someone is personally willing to get the treatment they deserve, they may feel like giving up sometimes, but there is something in them that is pushing them to stay alive.   #  i want to say i think suicide should be considered a natural right.   #  suicidal person, reporting in.  i will try my best to disprove your cmv.  i want to say i think suicide should be considered a natural right.  the thing is, i have been suicidal for some time, and i have pretty much come to the conclusion that i am still going mainly out of deference to the people who care about me.  but if you offered me a foolproof way to die and not emotionally harm any of the people who care about me, i would take it.  there is nothing very physically wrong with me.  i mean, i am blind in one eye, have degenerating spinal discs, and am not the best looking dude, but there is no excruciating pain, nothing like that.  i simply do not want to experience anymore.  to me, life is a stone on my shoulders which i only carry so others do not have to carry grief.  i am not in extreme poverty.  i mean, i am trying to get on food stamps, and i do not get to see the doctor ever because louisiana, but i can eat if i feel like it, and i can shower.  i have a home, a car, and i have been educated extensively.  i have seen four continents and environments ranging from nome, alaska, to koh samui, thailand.  plenty of wonderful experiences.  been with more women than i deserve, honestly, felt true love and true loss, seen sunrises so beautiful i wept.  but if i had that out, that erase myself button, i would press it.  this is not heat of emotion writing.  this is just calm stuff, my every day thoughts.  i am feeling perfectly rational and not at all out of control of my reasoning.  if you ask me a week from now, the answer will most likely be unchanged.  if such a button were available, would it be rational for me to press it ? could you make any case whatsoever that i was not rationally considering everything ? that is the thing about depression.  it is not irrational, weepy crap that you see in movies.  i simply understand my reality.  people with depression are, statistically speaking, more accurate and honest when depicting the reality of the world.  at least in my view, suicide is  always  a rational option.  choosing to continue living is the irrational choice.  plenty of perfectly rational people do things that they should not, and which we only know they should not because we are  less  rational than them.  because rational thought can lead perfectly fine individuals to suicide, our approach would necessitate allowing the suicide of relatively well off individuals with few or no deep problems.  from your example, you seem more predisposed toward allowing this for people in dire predicaments.   #  so to someone depressed it actually feels like situations turn out bad more often because of that.   #  i think what he means is that people often go into situations not predicting a outcome.  if you are depressed you will always assume it will go badly.  and simply because you guess more often you will be right more often.  as well as wrong but our minds are good in forgetting when we were wrong .  so to someone depressed it actually feels like situations turn out bad more often because of that.   #  mildly/moderately depressed individuals responded faster and more accurately.   #  i think you are misinterpreting what is being measured here.  it is not whether or not somebody is  realistic  in a  i know what to expect from life  way, it is a measure of perceptiveness and ability to read body language.  they used implicit association tests a pretty common test in psychological studies to determine the emotion that a subject thought was being conveyed by an individual is expression.  mildly/moderately depressed individuals responded faster and more accurately.  unfortunately, a lot of people with depression have taken this to mean that we are automatically correct in our assumption that everyone hates us and whatnot.  also, it is worth noting that a follow up study from the same university was done a few months later with a larger sample and the results were not reproduced the follow up showed that both mildly and severely depressed individuals were impaired.  for the record, here is the original study: URL and here is the follow up: URL  #  it is the connections to others and dependence from other living things, like pets, that keep me from leaving.   #  i was thinking about this the other day.  an erase me button is definitely the most rational way to leave.  it is the connections to others and dependence from other living things, like pets, that keep me from leaving.  i think it is totally rational to think about, but not so rational to do.  in the end i always come to the conclusion that if i wanted to kill myself, i should probably try all the things that could possibly make me happier first.  like ask that girl out or go attempt to have a bunch of group sex or join a cult or something or all three !
let is say you are 0, and diagnosed with chronic depression.  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  your choices are basically a life in a perpetually zonked out state, or a life of crippling pain and misery.  in my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable for this person to consider his options, take an objective look at them, and conclude that the best course of action is suicide.  it would be perfectly valid and rational to decide that ceasing to live is superior to a lifetime of chronic mental illness, and all the costs financial, social, familial/interpersonal, etc associated with managing it and living with it.  i specifically use depression/mental illness as an example because people often argue that depressed, or mentally ill people should not have the option of euthanasia because their illness clouds their ability to realistically assess their situation.  in my example, the depressed person is reasoning appears perfectly sound so i do not see why he should not commit suicide.  can you cmv ? another common argument is that chronic mental illness is often mostly ? manageable, sometimes very effectively with relative ease.  fair point.  how about cases where the illness is not easily manageable ? where it requires a cocktail of drugs, constant therapy and relapses are common and can occur at any time ? or, say the person suffers from schizophrenia, which is incurable and requires lifetime treatment.  the medication often comes with many unpleasant side effects, and sometimes leaves the sufferer in a zombie like state.  think the protagonist in  a beautiful mind .  other than a severely diminished quality of life, the person may also feel a burden to his/her family, likely be socially isolated, have a hard time holding down a job, etc.  could not he/she rationally decide such a life is simply not worth living ?  #  or, say the person suffers from schizophrenia, which is incurable and requires lifetime treatment.   #  the medication often comes with many unpleasant side effects, and sometimes leaves the sufferer in a zombie like state.   # ok, that is a fair point.  so, what if the person is medicated and in a sound state of mind when they come to the conclusion that suicide is the best option ? i would not say that people with mental illnesses are irrational by nature.  i would say that their mental illnesses cause them have irrational thoughts or behave irrationally.  also, just because they may be medicated and stable does not mean that they are illness is just gone.  it takes  way  more effort than just taking some pills and seeing a therapist every now and then.  also, just because they may be medicated and stable does not mean that they are illness is just gone.  someone with depression not only has to find the right cocktail to be  stable  but has to work through therapy as well.  for example, someone with diabetes can never be cured, but it is treatable, and they can learn to make changes in their life so that they can be healthy, productive, and happy.  cbt and medication work together in the same way.  additionally, what i would consider  stable  in the first place is someone who can manage and be a  normal and happy  member of society.  i would say that if someone  wants  to die, they are not stable, but psychology and medicine evolve everyday and we are really beginning to develop the resources to help people who feel that their life is no longer worth living, because as cheesy as it is, people matter, and these people deserve help and treatment so that they can experience life and contribute to the world.  manageable, sometimes very effectively with relative ease.  fair point.  how about cases where the illness is not easily manageable ? where it requires a cocktail of drugs, constant therapy and relapses are common and can occur at any time ? well, if the individual is dealing with a mental illness that is difficult to manage especially the kind you are describing, where they are trying to find the right cocktail, doctors, kind of therapy, or may relapse at any time, how are they to make the rational decision to commit suicide ? it sounds like when you pointed this out, you forgot that the cmv is about  suicide being a rational decision.  most decisions made in these states are not rational.  there are multiple things going on in this example, too chemicals in the brain changing rapidly, different kinds of therapy being tried, not to mention all of the  side effects  that can affect the individual.  there is a reason we do all of this though.  we do it so that the person  can  be stable eventually and live a comfortable life.  i firmly believe that someone who is complying willingly with therapists and psychiatrists and open to getting better  can  get better.  the medication often comes with many unpleasant side effects, and sometimes leaves the sufferer in a zombie like state.  think the protagonist in a beautiful mind.  other than a severely diminished quality of life, the person may also feel a burden to his/her family, likely be socially isolated, have a hard time holding down a job, etc.  could not he/she rationally decide such a life is simply not worth living ? i would like to point out that  a beautiful mind , though a good movie,  is  a dramatization.  again, an individual who is suffering from severe schizophrenia which, by the way, is extremely rare to the point where they ca not function is also not really in the mindset to make a rational decision, especially about suicide.  also again, there are many, many things you can do to help someone who will willingly comply with their doctors which is where it becomes sticky, especially with those suffering from illnesses like schizophrenia like change the way thought processes work, behavior, outlook, all while searching for the right medicine.  and i would say at this point in the situation being described, if someone is personally willing to get the treatment they deserve, they may feel like giving up sometimes, but there is something in them that is pushing them to stay alive.   #  this is just calm stuff, my every day thoughts.   #  suicidal person, reporting in.  i will try my best to disprove your cmv.  i want to say i think suicide should be considered a natural right.  the thing is, i have been suicidal for some time, and i have pretty much come to the conclusion that i am still going mainly out of deference to the people who care about me.  but if you offered me a foolproof way to die and not emotionally harm any of the people who care about me, i would take it.  there is nothing very physically wrong with me.  i mean, i am blind in one eye, have degenerating spinal discs, and am not the best looking dude, but there is no excruciating pain, nothing like that.  i simply do not want to experience anymore.  to me, life is a stone on my shoulders which i only carry so others do not have to carry grief.  i am not in extreme poverty.  i mean, i am trying to get on food stamps, and i do not get to see the doctor ever because louisiana, but i can eat if i feel like it, and i can shower.  i have a home, a car, and i have been educated extensively.  i have seen four continents and environments ranging from nome, alaska, to koh samui, thailand.  plenty of wonderful experiences.  been with more women than i deserve, honestly, felt true love and true loss, seen sunrises so beautiful i wept.  but if i had that out, that erase myself button, i would press it.  this is not heat of emotion writing.  this is just calm stuff, my every day thoughts.  i am feeling perfectly rational and not at all out of control of my reasoning.  if you ask me a week from now, the answer will most likely be unchanged.  if such a button were available, would it be rational for me to press it ? could you make any case whatsoever that i was not rationally considering everything ? that is the thing about depression.  it is not irrational, weepy crap that you see in movies.  i simply understand my reality.  people with depression are, statistically speaking, more accurate and honest when depicting the reality of the world.  at least in my view, suicide is  always  a rational option.  choosing to continue living is the irrational choice.  plenty of perfectly rational people do things that they should not, and which we only know they should not because we are  less  rational than them.  because rational thought can lead perfectly fine individuals to suicide, our approach would necessitate allowing the suicide of relatively well off individuals with few or no deep problems.  from your example, you seem more predisposed toward allowing this for people in dire predicaments.   #  if you are depressed you will always assume it will go badly.   #  i think what he means is that people often go into situations not predicting a outcome.  if you are depressed you will always assume it will go badly.  and simply because you guess more often you will be right more often.  as well as wrong but our minds are good in forgetting when we were wrong .  so to someone depressed it actually feels like situations turn out bad more often because of that.   #  for the record, here is the original study: URL and here is the follow up: URL  #  i think you are misinterpreting what is being measured here.  it is not whether or not somebody is  realistic  in a  i know what to expect from life  way, it is a measure of perceptiveness and ability to read body language.  they used implicit association tests a pretty common test in psychological studies to determine the emotion that a subject thought was being conveyed by an individual is expression.  mildly/moderately depressed individuals responded faster and more accurately.  unfortunately, a lot of people with depression have taken this to mean that we are automatically correct in our assumption that everyone hates us and whatnot.  also, it is worth noting that a follow up study from the same university was done a few months later with a larger sample and the results were not reproduced the follow up showed that both mildly and severely depressed individuals were impaired.  for the record, here is the original study: URL and here is the follow up: URL  #  it is the connections to others and dependence from other living things, like pets, that keep me from leaving.   #  i was thinking about this the other day.  an erase me button is definitely the most rational way to leave.  it is the connections to others and dependence from other living things, like pets, that keep me from leaving.  i think it is totally rational to think about, but not so rational to do.  in the end i always come to the conclusion that if i wanted to kill myself, i should probably try all the things that could possibly make me happier first.  like ask that girl out or go attempt to have a bunch of group sex or join a cult or something or all three !
let is say you are 0, and diagnosed with chronic depression.  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  your choices are basically a life in a perpetually zonked out state, or a life of crippling pain and misery.  in my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable for this person to consider his options, take an objective look at them, and conclude that the best course of action is suicide.  it would be perfectly valid and rational to decide that ceasing to live is superior to a lifetime of chronic mental illness, and all the costs financial, social, familial/interpersonal, etc associated with managing it and living with it.  i specifically use depression/mental illness as an example because people often argue that depressed, or mentally ill people should not have the option of euthanasia because their illness clouds their ability to realistically assess their situation.  in my example, the depressed person is reasoning appears perfectly sound so i do not see why he should not commit suicide.  can you cmv ? another common argument is that chronic mental illness is often mostly ? manageable, sometimes very effectively with relative ease.  fair point.  how about cases where the illness is not easily manageable ? where it requires a cocktail of drugs, constant therapy and relapses are common and can occur at any time ? or, say the person suffers from schizophrenia, which is incurable and requires lifetime treatment.  the medication often comes with many unpleasant side effects, and sometimes leaves the sufferer in a zombie like state.  think the protagonist in  a beautiful mind .  other than a severely diminished quality of life, the person may also feel a burden to his/her family, likely be socially isolated, have a hard time holding down a job, etc.  could not he/she rationally decide such a life is simply not worth living ?  #  in my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable for this person to consider his options, take an objective look at them, and conclude that the best course of action is suicide.   #  i hereby assert that this is impossible.   #  here we go.   let is say you are 0, and diagnosed with chronic depression.  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  this is a pretty extreme scenario.  i am pretty sure we can agree that anyone who really wants to kill themselves is going to succeed one way or another, be it with tools or drugs.  put in a room with someone who wanted to die, would you be heroic enough to intervene, or would you observe in shock and horror as they succeeded ? could you blame someone for whom this were the case ? they may even consider themselves lucky if such a detained person did not see fit to attack them first.  that acknowledged, can we lay the extreme case to rest ? i do not think that is what you wanted to talk about, anyway.  this is a false dichotomy.  there are many drugs out there, and our understanding of the fundamental processes of human biology is only getting better.  they might be  zonked out  for now but who knows what the future holds, especially for youngsters diagnosed with depression.  i hereby assert that this is impossible.  nothing ever goes how you think it will.  not precisely.  not in reality.  not by you, and certainly not by someone impaired by mental illness.  you may come up with a number of scenarios, and you may think you are right, but you are not.  nobody can perfectly account for all the molecules and all the electrons in even the tiniest of systems.  it is like playing lawn darts from the empire state building.  so how could you ever possibly conclude that the solution to end all problems is, through an ironic twist of logic, the problem to end all solutions ? as long as there is even a sliver of a doubt, you cannot pull the metaphorical trigger.  if you do, you will never know for sure.  qed.  tl;dr  depressed people of the world: rest assured.  if you are reading this, you will die.  it is not your job to hasten your demise.  i love you, and i am sorry for the way things are.  take care of yourself one day at a time, and be good to others, too.   #  choosing to continue living is the irrational choice.   #  suicidal person, reporting in.  i will try my best to disprove your cmv.  i want to say i think suicide should be considered a natural right.  the thing is, i have been suicidal for some time, and i have pretty much come to the conclusion that i am still going mainly out of deference to the people who care about me.  but if you offered me a foolproof way to die and not emotionally harm any of the people who care about me, i would take it.  there is nothing very physically wrong with me.  i mean, i am blind in one eye, have degenerating spinal discs, and am not the best looking dude, but there is no excruciating pain, nothing like that.  i simply do not want to experience anymore.  to me, life is a stone on my shoulders which i only carry so others do not have to carry grief.  i am not in extreme poverty.  i mean, i am trying to get on food stamps, and i do not get to see the doctor ever because louisiana, but i can eat if i feel like it, and i can shower.  i have a home, a car, and i have been educated extensively.  i have seen four continents and environments ranging from nome, alaska, to koh samui, thailand.  plenty of wonderful experiences.  been with more women than i deserve, honestly, felt true love and true loss, seen sunrises so beautiful i wept.  but if i had that out, that erase myself button, i would press it.  this is not heat of emotion writing.  this is just calm stuff, my every day thoughts.  i am feeling perfectly rational and not at all out of control of my reasoning.  if you ask me a week from now, the answer will most likely be unchanged.  if such a button were available, would it be rational for me to press it ? could you make any case whatsoever that i was not rationally considering everything ? that is the thing about depression.  it is not irrational, weepy crap that you see in movies.  i simply understand my reality.  people with depression are, statistically speaking, more accurate and honest when depicting the reality of the world.  at least in my view, suicide is  always  a rational option.  choosing to continue living is the irrational choice.  plenty of perfectly rational people do things that they should not, and which we only know they should not because we are  less  rational than them.  because rational thought can lead perfectly fine individuals to suicide, our approach would necessitate allowing the suicide of relatively well off individuals with few or no deep problems.  from your example, you seem more predisposed toward allowing this for people in dire predicaments.   #  if you are depressed you will always assume it will go badly.   #  i think what he means is that people often go into situations not predicting a outcome.  if you are depressed you will always assume it will go badly.  and simply because you guess more often you will be right more often.  as well as wrong but our minds are good in forgetting when we were wrong .  so to someone depressed it actually feels like situations turn out bad more often because of that.   #  i think you are misinterpreting what is being measured here.   #  i think you are misinterpreting what is being measured here.  it is not whether or not somebody is  realistic  in a  i know what to expect from life  way, it is a measure of perceptiveness and ability to read body language.  they used implicit association tests a pretty common test in psychological studies to determine the emotion that a subject thought was being conveyed by an individual is expression.  mildly/moderately depressed individuals responded faster and more accurately.  unfortunately, a lot of people with depression have taken this to mean that we are automatically correct in our assumption that everyone hates us and whatnot.  also, it is worth noting that a follow up study from the same university was done a few months later with a larger sample and the results were not reproduced the follow up showed that both mildly and severely depressed individuals were impaired.  for the record, here is the original study: URL and here is the follow up: URL  #  like ask that girl out or go attempt to have a bunch of group sex or join a cult or something or all three !  #  i was thinking about this the other day.  an erase me button is definitely the most rational way to leave.  it is the connections to others and dependence from other living things, like pets, that keep me from leaving.  i think it is totally rational to think about, but not so rational to do.  in the end i always come to the conclusion that if i wanted to kill myself, i should probably try all the things that could possibly make me happier first.  like ask that girl out or go attempt to have a bunch of group sex or join a cult or something or all three !
let is say you are 0, and diagnosed with chronic depression.  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  your choices are basically a life in a perpetually zonked out state, or a life of crippling pain and misery.  in my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable for this person to consider his options, take an objective look at them, and conclude that the best course of action is suicide.  it would be perfectly valid and rational to decide that ceasing to live is superior to a lifetime of chronic mental illness, and all the costs financial, social, familial/interpersonal, etc associated with managing it and living with it.  i specifically use depression/mental illness as an example because people often argue that depressed, or mentally ill people should not have the option of euthanasia because their illness clouds their ability to realistically assess their situation.  in my example, the depressed person is reasoning appears perfectly sound so i do not see why he should not commit suicide.  can you cmv ? another common argument is that chronic mental illness is often mostly ? manageable, sometimes very effectively with relative ease.  fair point.  how about cases where the illness is not easily manageable ? where it requires a cocktail of drugs, constant therapy and relapses are common and can occur at any time ? or, say the person suffers from schizophrenia, which is incurable and requires lifetime treatment.  the medication often comes with many unpleasant side effects, and sometimes leaves the sufferer in a zombie like state.  think the protagonist in  a beautiful mind .  other than a severely diminished quality of life, the person may also feel a burden to his/her family, likely be socially isolated, have a hard time holding down a job, etc.  could not he/she rationally decide such a life is simply not worth living ?  #  let is say you are 0, and diagnosed with chronic depression.   #  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.   # you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  your choices are basically a life in a perpetually zonked out state, or a life of crippling pain and misery.  i personally agree that suicide can be a logical action when faced with certain circumstances, but if your whole line of reasoning follows from this, your basis is fundamentally flawed.  chronic depression  dysthymia  is actually not  that bad .  i expect some flak from that statement, but bear with me as i am trying to keep things concise.  i think you are referring to something more like  major depressive disorder .  even still, this is often entirely treatable with the medication and counseling that you suggest, so the logical course of action would be to attempt medication and counseling before suicide, not assuming that your life will be nothing but being  zonked out  on medication and never ending counseling sessions which would take, at most, a few hours out of your week .  assuming that you have exhausted all medical options and counseling has not helped you in the slightest, i suppose you could begin an argument from there.   #  i am feeling perfectly rational and not at all out of control of my reasoning.   #  suicidal person, reporting in.  i will try my best to disprove your cmv.  i want to say i think suicide should be considered a natural right.  the thing is, i have been suicidal for some time, and i have pretty much come to the conclusion that i am still going mainly out of deference to the people who care about me.  but if you offered me a foolproof way to die and not emotionally harm any of the people who care about me, i would take it.  there is nothing very physically wrong with me.  i mean, i am blind in one eye, have degenerating spinal discs, and am not the best looking dude, but there is no excruciating pain, nothing like that.  i simply do not want to experience anymore.  to me, life is a stone on my shoulders which i only carry so others do not have to carry grief.  i am not in extreme poverty.  i mean, i am trying to get on food stamps, and i do not get to see the doctor ever because louisiana, but i can eat if i feel like it, and i can shower.  i have a home, a car, and i have been educated extensively.  i have seen four continents and environments ranging from nome, alaska, to koh samui, thailand.  plenty of wonderful experiences.  been with more women than i deserve, honestly, felt true love and true loss, seen sunrises so beautiful i wept.  but if i had that out, that erase myself button, i would press it.  this is not heat of emotion writing.  this is just calm stuff, my every day thoughts.  i am feeling perfectly rational and not at all out of control of my reasoning.  if you ask me a week from now, the answer will most likely be unchanged.  if such a button were available, would it be rational for me to press it ? could you make any case whatsoever that i was not rationally considering everything ? that is the thing about depression.  it is not irrational, weepy crap that you see in movies.  i simply understand my reality.  people with depression are, statistically speaking, more accurate and honest when depicting the reality of the world.  at least in my view, suicide is  always  a rational option.  choosing to continue living is the irrational choice.  plenty of perfectly rational people do things that they should not, and which we only know they should not because we are  less  rational than them.  because rational thought can lead perfectly fine individuals to suicide, our approach would necessitate allowing the suicide of relatively well off individuals with few or no deep problems.  from your example, you seem more predisposed toward allowing this for people in dire predicaments.   #  if you are depressed you will always assume it will go badly.   #  i think what he means is that people often go into situations not predicting a outcome.  if you are depressed you will always assume it will go badly.  and simply because you guess more often you will be right more often.  as well as wrong but our minds are good in forgetting when we were wrong .  so to someone depressed it actually feels like situations turn out bad more often because of that.   #  they used implicit association tests a pretty common test in psychological studies to determine the emotion that a subject thought was being conveyed by an individual is expression.   #  i think you are misinterpreting what is being measured here.  it is not whether or not somebody is  realistic  in a  i know what to expect from life  way, it is a measure of perceptiveness and ability to read body language.  they used implicit association tests a pretty common test in psychological studies to determine the emotion that a subject thought was being conveyed by an individual is expression.  mildly/moderately depressed individuals responded faster and more accurately.  unfortunately, a lot of people with depression have taken this to mean that we are automatically correct in our assumption that everyone hates us and whatnot.  also, it is worth noting that a follow up study from the same university was done a few months later with a larger sample and the results were not reproduced the follow up showed that both mildly and severely depressed individuals were impaired.  for the record, here is the original study: URL and here is the follow up: URL  #  i think it is totally rational to think about, but not so rational to do.   #  i was thinking about this the other day.  an erase me button is definitely the most rational way to leave.  it is the connections to others and dependence from other living things, like pets, that keep me from leaving.  i think it is totally rational to think about, but not so rational to do.  in the end i always come to the conclusion that if i wanted to kill myself, i should probably try all the things that could possibly make me happier first.  like ask that girl out or go attempt to have a bunch of group sex or join a cult or something or all three !
let is say you are 0, and diagnosed with chronic depression.  you will have to be on medication and in and out of therapy for the rest of your life just to be able to function.  your choices are basically a life in a perpetually zonked out state, or a life of crippling pain and misery.  in my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable for this person to consider his options, take an objective look at them, and conclude that the best course of action is suicide.  it would be perfectly valid and rational to decide that ceasing to live is superior to a lifetime of chronic mental illness, and all the costs financial, social, familial/interpersonal, etc associated with managing it and living with it.  i specifically use depression/mental illness as an example because people often argue that depressed, or mentally ill people should not have the option of euthanasia because their illness clouds their ability to realistically assess their situation.  in my example, the depressed person is reasoning appears perfectly sound so i do not see why he should not commit suicide.  can you cmv ? another common argument is that chronic mental illness is often mostly ? manageable, sometimes very effectively with relative ease.  fair point.  how about cases where the illness is not easily manageable ? where it requires a cocktail of drugs, constant therapy and relapses are common and can occur at any time ? or, say the person suffers from schizophrenia, which is incurable and requires lifetime treatment.  the medication often comes with many unpleasant side effects, and sometimes leaves the sufferer in a zombie like state.  think the protagonist in  a beautiful mind .  other than a severely diminished quality of life, the person may also feel a burden to his/her family, likely be socially isolated, have a hard time holding down a job, etc.  could not he/she rationally decide such a life is simply not worth living ?  #  in my opinion, it would be perfectly reasonable for this person to consider his options, take an objective look at them, and conclude that the best course of action is suicide.   #  it would be perfectly valid and rational to decide that ceasing to live is superior to a lifetime of chronic mental illness, and all the costs financial, social, familial/interpersonal, etc associated with managing it and living with it.   #  i am going to take the not dead yet argument here and apply it to the idea of  rational suicide  in general that is, by saying that suicide is rational, you are effectively saying that people in the scenario that you provide should kill themselves.  and there is a very small jump, mentally, between saying that they should kill themselves and saying that they should die in general, regardless of whether or not they want to.  it would be perfectly valid and rational to decide that ceasing to live is superior to a lifetime of chronic mental illness, and all the costs financial, social, familial/interpersonal, etc associated with managing it and living with it.  this is the kind of argument that i am talking about.  if you conclude that, when taking a look at their options objectively,  the best course of action is suicide  in this scenario, why should not everybody in this scenario commit suicide ? if, objectively, the best scenario involves suicide, then everybody in this scenario that is not committing suicide is making a sub optimal decision.  the way that you couch this argument is not even  yeah, they should be able to do this,  it is  yeah, this is objectively the right decision and they should do this.   if it is rational to commit suicide, then it is irrational to prevent it.  this sounds like a slippery slope, but it is not purely theoretical.  in 0, thirteen people were euthanized due to mental illness in holland.  URL defending  rational suicide  is, in effect, defending euthanasia of the mentally ill.  by definition, a person that comes to the conclusion that suicide is the best option for them is not in a sound state of mind.  if they are taking medications because they suffer from a list of symptoms that makes them want to commit suicide but they still want to commit suicide while on the medication,  that means the medication is not working,  not that their thoughts of suicide are suddenly justified.   #  i want to say i think suicide should be considered a natural right.   #  suicidal person, reporting in.  i will try my best to disprove your cmv.  i want to say i think suicide should be considered a natural right.  the thing is, i have been suicidal for some time, and i have pretty much come to the conclusion that i am still going mainly out of deference to the people who care about me.  but if you offered me a foolproof way to die and not emotionally harm any of the people who care about me, i would take it.  there is nothing very physically wrong with me.  i mean, i am blind in one eye, have degenerating spinal discs, and am not the best looking dude, but there is no excruciating pain, nothing like that.  i simply do not want to experience anymore.  to me, life is a stone on my shoulders which i only carry so others do not have to carry grief.  i am not in extreme poverty.  i mean, i am trying to get on food stamps, and i do not get to see the doctor ever because louisiana, but i can eat if i feel like it, and i can shower.  i have a home, a car, and i have been educated extensively.  i have seen four continents and environments ranging from nome, alaska, to koh samui, thailand.  plenty of wonderful experiences.  been with more women than i deserve, honestly, felt true love and true loss, seen sunrises so beautiful i wept.  but if i had that out, that erase myself button, i would press it.  this is not heat of emotion writing.  this is just calm stuff, my every day thoughts.  i am feeling perfectly rational and not at all out of control of my reasoning.  if you ask me a week from now, the answer will most likely be unchanged.  if such a button were available, would it be rational for me to press it ? could you make any case whatsoever that i was not rationally considering everything ? that is the thing about depression.  it is not irrational, weepy crap that you see in movies.  i simply understand my reality.  people with depression are, statistically speaking, more accurate and honest when depicting the reality of the world.  at least in my view, suicide is  always  a rational option.  choosing to continue living is the irrational choice.  plenty of perfectly rational people do things that they should not, and which we only know they should not because we are  less  rational than them.  because rational thought can lead perfectly fine individuals to suicide, our approach would necessitate allowing the suicide of relatively well off individuals with few or no deep problems.  from your example, you seem more predisposed toward allowing this for people in dire predicaments.   #  i think what he means is that people often go into situations not predicting a outcome.   #  i think what he means is that people often go into situations not predicting a outcome.  if you are depressed you will always assume it will go badly.  and simply because you guess more often you will be right more often.  as well as wrong but our minds are good in forgetting when we were wrong .  so to someone depressed it actually feels like situations turn out bad more often because of that.   #  for the record, here is the original study: URL and here is the follow up: URL  #  i think you are misinterpreting what is being measured here.  it is not whether or not somebody is  realistic  in a  i know what to expect from life  way, it is a measure of perceptiveness and ability to read body language.  they used implicit association tests a pretty common test in psychological studies to determine the emotion that a subject thought was being conveyed by an individual is expression.  mildly/moderately depressed individuals responded faster and more accurately.  unfortunately, a lot of people with depression have taken this to mean that we are automatically correct in our assumption that everyone hates us and whatnot.  also, it is worth noting that a follow up study from the same university was done a few months later with a larger sample and the results were not reproduced the follow up showed that both mildly and severely depressed individuals were impaired.  for the record, here is the original study: URL and here is the follow up: URL  #  like ask that girl out or go attempt to have a bunch of group sex or join a cult or something or all three !  #  i was thinking about this the other day.  an erase me button is definitely the most rational way to leave.  it is the connections to others and dependence from other living things, like pets, that keep me from leaving.  i think it is totally rational to think about, but not so rational to do.  in the end i always come to the conclusion that if i wanted to kill myself, i should probably try all the things that could possibly make me happier first.  like ask that girl out or go attempt to have a bunch of group sex or join a cult or something or all three !
circumcision should not be done to infants as they cannot consent, do not know what they are losing.  there is no real reason unless absolutely medically necessary, other than that all reasons are mute.  it is barbaric and takes away so many nerves that sensation will not be the same as it was intended.  i ask you give exact and serious reasons why circumcision should be performed on a child if that child is healthy and there is no other reason for it.  if we do not allow it to happen to girls why allow it on boys ?  #  circumcision should not be done to infants as they cannot consent, do not know what they are losing.   #  do you think children should not receive vaccinations either ?  #  i agree with your overall view that they should not be done, but i am still going to dispute some of your points.  do you think children should not receive vaccinations either ? if an infant needs life saving surgery, it should not be performed ? these are things the infant does not consent to as well.  nothing about the human body was  intended  for anything.  the human body was created through random evolution.  also, i have never heard a single circumcised guy complain that his sexual sensations and orgasms were not good or pleasurable or satisfying.  because the genitals are different and they are two different things that are not comparable and should never be discussed at the same time because they are nowhere near the same.  anyway, what if we did allow it to happen to girls.  would your view be changed and you would be okay with it happening to boys now too ? no ? then the fact that we do not allow it on girls has nothing to do with anything.  the cdc just released a statement this month URL saying that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks:  in the past 0 years, studies in africa have found that circumcision lowers men is risk of being infected with hiv during heterosexual intercourse by 0 to 0 percent.  being circumcised also reduces men is risk of infection with the herpes virus and human papillomavirus.   #  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ?  #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  this is why i would not personally circumcise my child.   #  if you do not consider circumcision barbaric, can you at least admit that it is very painful for the infant, and that they are in a lot of agony afterwards ? they slice off a baby is foreskin with a scalpel.  i do not care if they anesthetize during the procedure.  that shit hurts a lot afterwards and newborns are already going through enough trauma already.  this is why i would not personally circumcise my child.  i, myself, would never put my child in any amount of pain, unless it meant saving their life somehow.  to me, circumcision is really almost entirely cosmetic or cultural.  i have been with cut and uncut men; i have noticed no difference in their abilities to experience pleasure, nor have they been any more or less susceptible to disease, since they were all sensibly hygienic down there.  i think it really does not matter.  i did have one boyfriend who had some raised keloid scarring where he had his circumcision, but it was not severe enough to cause any problems.  also, i agree that if it is not okay for girls, then it is not okay for boys.  plenty of women have their labias removed or trimmed, it  does  look nicer, and it does not impede with sex… but i would never in a million years allow my daughter to be circumcised as a baby.  when she is an adult, whatever, but it is got to be her choice.  same with boys, too.  you do what you want with the body you have been given.  unless it meant saving their lives, i personally would never permanently alter my child is body without their consent.  but everyone is different, i guess.   #  a fundamental ethical principle of medicine is  first do no harm .   #  it is an unnecessarily nitpicky argument.  it is obvious what was meant by intent: genetically coded.  those genetics having been selected for by reproductive advantage.  there is no question the foreskin increases a males reproductive fitness.  there is a massive amount of nerves in the head of the penis, which give a male a lot of sexual pleasure.  the foreskin protects those nerves, without it many die.  as a woman, you cannot understand what it is like to have a penis, but in utero during sexual differentiation, what turns into the head of the penis for boys, is turned into the clitoris for girls.  i do not know what having a clit is like, but women seem to derive a lot of sexual pleasure from it.  how would you feel if your clitoral hood was removed, exposing your clit from birth, and hence it is nearly senseless, and useless for sexual pleasure ? it is not a perfect analogy, but it is not worthless either.  with all the leaps that science and the medicine have made in the last 0 years, it is easy to become arrogant, to believe we can improve upon ourselves.  but it is worth remembering, we cannot make anything nearly as sophisticated as a single celled organism.  we must keep our arrogance in check, and accept that we still know very little about the human body.  as for the cdc, they are way out of line.  a fundamental ethical principle of medicine is  first do no harm .  no infant is at risk of stds.  circumcision can wait until a child chooses for himself.  you have to be a little sick in the head to think circumcision is a good idea.  i will end with unnecessary nitpicking:  rather, it started by random circumstance in the universe.  we do not know how the universe started.  cannot say for sure it was random.   #  the foreskin too likely was heavily selected for.   # this is the quote the guy who is pro circumcision replied to, and had such a problem with.  the nerves in the head of the penis certainly do incur a reproductive advantage.  it is the only explanation for why there is such an astronomically high number of nerves there.  it was heavily selected for.  the foreskin too likely was heavily selected for.  it protects those nerves, which just become numb and pointless without it.  edit: it is absurd that this is even a debate.  sexual pleasure is greater uncut.  huge reproductive advantage.  just replace  genetically intended , with  genetically selected .  semantic and unnecessary in my opinion though.  the point was obvious with the initial wording.  it takes a lot of arrogance to think we are anywhere near understanding the human body.  it is complexity is so far beyond our scope.  no surgery should be done without imminent danger, or the consent of the person getting sliced up.  here is semantic for you:   the human body was created through random evolution.  this is what i called misleading, which it is, it is actually false.  evolution is not random, mutations are.  evolution always tends towards advantageous mutations.
circumcision should not be done to infants as they cannot consent, do not know what they are losing.  there is no real reason unless absolutely medically necessary, other than that all reasons are mute.  it is barbaric and takes away so many nerves that sensation will not be the same as it was intended.  i ask you give exact and serious reasons why circumcision should be performed on a child if that child is healthy and there is no other reason for it.  if we do not allow it to happen to girls why allow it on boys ?  #  if we do not allow it to happen to girls why allow it on boys ?  #  because the genitals are different and they are two different things that are not comparable and should never be discussed at the same time because they are nowhere near the same.   #  i agree with your overall view that they should not be done, but i am still going to dispute some of your points.  do you think children should not receive vaccinations either ? if an infant needs life saving surgery, it should not be performed ? these are things the infant does not consent to as well.  nothing about the human body was  intended  for anything.  the human body was created through random evolution.  also, i have never heard a single circumcised guy complain that his sexual sensations and orgasms were not good or pleasurable or satisfying.  because the genitals are different and they are two different things that are not comparable and should never be discussed at the same time because they are nowhere near the same.  anyway, what if we did allow it to happen to girls.  would your view be changed and you would be okay with it happening to boys now too ? no ? then the fact that we do not allow it on girls has nothing to do with anything.  the cdc just released a statement this month URL saying that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks:  in the past 0 years, studies in africa have found that circumcision lowers men is risk of being infected with hiv during heterosexual intercourse by 0 to 0 percent.  being circumcised also reduces men is risk of infection with the herpes virus and human papillomavirus.   #  to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  when she is an adult, whatever, but it is got to be her choice.   #  if you do not consider circumcision barbaric, can you at least admit that it is very painful for the infant, and that they are in a lot of agony afterwards ? they slice off a baby is foreskin with a scalpel.  i do not care if they anesthetize during the procedure.  that shit hurts a lot afterwards and newborns are already going through enough trauma already.  this is why i would not personally circumcise my child.  i, myself, would never put my child in any amount of pain, unless it meant saving their life somehow.  to me, circumcision is really almost entirely cosmetic or cultural.  i have been with cut and uncut men; i have noticed no difference in their abilities to experience pleasure, nor have they been any more or less susceptible to disease, since they were all sensibly hygienic down there.  i think it really does not matter.  i did have one boyfriend who had some raised keloid scarring where he had his circumcision, but it was not severe enough to cause any problems.  also, i agree that if it is not okay for girls, then it is not okay for boys.  plenty of women have their labias removed or trimmed, it  does  look nicer, and it does not impede with sex… but i would never in a million years allow my daughter to be circumcised as a baby.  when she is an adult, whatever, but it is got to be her choice.  same with boys, too.  you do what you want with the body you have been given.  unless it meant saving their lives, i personally would never permanently alter my child is body without their consent.  but everyone is different, i guess.   #  there is a massive amount of nerves in the head of the penis, which give a male a lot of sexual pleasure.   #  it is an unnecessarily nitpicky argument.  it is obvious what was meant by intent: genetically coded.  those genetics having been selected for by reproductive advantage.  there is no question the foreskin increases a males reproductive fitness.  there is a massive amount of nerves in the head of the penis, which give a male a lot of sexual pleasure.  the foreskin protects those nerves, without it many die.  as a woman, you cannot understand what it is like to have a penis, but in utero during sexual differentiation, what turns into the head of the penis for boys, is turned into the clitoris for girls.  i do not know what having a clit is like, but women seem to derive a lot of sexual pleasure from it.  how would you feel if your clitoral hood was removed, exposing your clit from birth, and hence it is nearly senseless, and useless for sexual pleasure ? it is not a perfect analogy, but it is not worthless either.  with all the leaps that science and the medicine have made in the last 0 years, it is easy to become arrogant, to believe we can improve upon ourselves.  but it is worth remembering, we cannot make anything nearly as sophisticated as a single celled organism.  we must keep our arrogance in check, and accept that we still know very little about the human body.  as for the cdc, they are way out of line.  a fundamental ethical principle of medicine is  first do no harm .  no infant is at risk of stds.  circumcision can wait until a child chooses for himself.  you have to be a little sick in the head to think circumcision is a good idea.  i will end with unnecessary nitpicking:  rather, it started by random circumstance in the universe.  we do not know how the universe started.  cannot say for sure it was random.   #  edit: it is absurd that this is even a debate.   # this is the quote the guy who is pro circumcision replied to, and had such a problem with.  the nerves in the head of the penis certainly do incur a reproductive advantage.  it is the only explanation for why there is such an astronomically high number of nerves there.  it was heavily selected for.  the foreskin too likely was heavily selected for.  it protects those nerves, which just become numb and pointless without it.  edit: it is absurd that this is even a debate.  sexual pleasure is greater uncut.  huge reproductive advantage.  just replace  genetically intended , with  genetically selected .  semantic and unnecessary in my opinion though.  the point was obvious with the initial wording.  it takes a lot of arrogance to think we are anywhere near understanding the human body.  it is complexity is so far beyond our scope.  no surgery should be done without imminent danger, or the consent of the person getting sliced up.  here is semantic for you:   the human body was created through random evolution.  this is what i called misleading, which it is, it is actually false.  evolution is not random, mutations are.  evolution always tends towards advantageous mutations.
how do we even know north korea is as bad as the western media makes it out to be ? if you look at the country and what the leaders try to do, everyone is literate, and has their basic needs food, housing, etc.  met.  the only reports we get from the country are hearsay accounts from defectors who of course will paint the country in as bad of a light as possible and supposed  inside sources and spies  who will also paint it in a bad light as they are associated with rival countries, but there are no direct sources of information from the country.  of course people will point to the kim family always threatening a nuclear attack, but how do we know that is not just so they can get other countries to back off and leave them alone ? i think the country in and of itself has the right ideas economic and social equality for all , perhaps the execution is not the best, but it just ca not be as bad as the media makes it out to be.   #  but it just ca not be as bad as the media makes it out to be.   #  this.  i really ca not stress how bad this line of thinking is.   # met.  according to the reports put out by the same governmental department that claims that north korea colonized the sun, won every olympic event ever, and found a living unicorn.  the ones that do tend to be guilty of some measure of human rights violation, and no i am not excluding the us in that sentence.  this.  i really ca not stress how bad this line of thinking is.  this is what stopped a lot of people from bringing the fight to germany in world war 0: people heard what was going on in the concentration camps, and nobody believed it, because  it ca not  possibly  be as bad as the media makes it out to be.  that ca not  possibly  be happening, can it ?   well, it was happening.  and a lot of the things in north korea are happening today.  saying that it ca not possibly be that bad is a logical fallacy of the highest degree.   #  secondly, the population of north korea is about 0 million people, as given by both international sources and the national census.   #  first of all, a population distribution like that has never been observed anywhere in the world.  secondly, the population of north korea is about 0 million people, as given by both international sources and the national census.  the population of pyongyang is about 0 million, so approximately a tenth of that, far from most.  lastly, the population of south korea is about 0 million people.  if you look at this picture URL again, it is very obvious that you do not have 0 million people being packed into pyongyang while 0 million people light up the entirety of south korea.   #  the world gives a lot of emergency food to north korea.   #  0.  separation of families.  families are very important in korean as they are in asia and all over the world and there have been families that have been separated since the war.  URL this is tragic.  0.  starvation.  the world gives a lot of emergency food to north korea.  URL 0,0 tonnes in 0.  if they were really that economically sound, they would not need this.  0.  in the last election kim jong un got 0 of the votes in the last general election.  URL with 0 million voters, this does not happen in free elections as there will always be at least one outlier.   #  then head on over to vice news, which has a very liberal bias.   # then head on over to vice news, which has a very liberal bias.  they have some of the worst things to say about north korea, and have smuggled out pictures and videos of the time their reporters have spent there.  on top of that, they have also followed north korean expats on their treacherous journey to get to south korea  aside from that, you are in  poe is law  territory right now.  north korea is not a communistic state.  never has been.  like the ussr and china, it used the namesake and ideal of communism as a tool to establish and enforce total hegemonic rule.  not a single bit about the country is communistic, and instead is state enforced poverty and submission, while the people in charge profit from it all.   #  but then you should at least be equally skeptical about what nk says about itself too, instead of just assuming that anyone with a positive message must not be all that bad.   #  you do not think a violent dictatorship would try to project such an image about itself ? or that it would be capable of saying such things ? i mean, if you are going to question the story you hear from the western media, that is fine.  but then you should at least be equally skeptical about what nk says about itself too, instead of just assuming that anyone with a positive message must not be all that bad.  and if nk truly was not a hellhole like we all seem to think, it would be pretty easy for them to prove it too.
greetings cmv ! i had a thought due to some recent events i subscribe to.  i have come to the conclusion that prisons as a system of harboring all criminals are petty and worthless and that our society would be better served by forcing non violent criminals to lose whatever associated privileges they had with their crimes and pay back their communities through fines or community service.  essentially, i am advocating for anyone who does not murder, rape, assault, or intentionally cause such things to come to bear on others that they should never be jailed.   as an example : a man recently drove 0 in a 0 and passed a truck that cut him off on the right, striking a bicyclist on the shoulder and killing him.  he promptly stopped and called 0.  what the man did was awful, but i am quite sure that nobody would consider what he did to be intentional or malicious.  he is not a danger to society so long as the privilege he abused driving is kept in check.  as such, i would think long term to indefinite suspension of his license and hefty fines/community service are preferable to locking him up.  can you cmv ?  i recognize that i am no expert on prisons  and i would like to think our penal system has evolved out of something more than just petty vengeance.  but considering you can be locked up for  years  for carrying dried up leaves of the wrong kind of plant in your pocket in 0 of the 0 states, or be locked up for sleeping in public it really makes me reconsider the nature of what we have adopted.   #  essentially, i am advocating for anyone who does not murder, rape, assault, or intentionally cause such things to come to bear on others that they should never be jailed.   #  0.  what of the devastating harm thar can be done without assault or murder ?  # i have come to the conclusion that prisons as a system of harboring all criminals are petty and worthless and that our society would be better served by forcing non violent criminals to lose whatever associated privileges they had with their crimes and pay back their communities through fines or community service.  0.  how will you force community service or fines if you ca not put them in jail ? 0.  how will you levy a fine to a destitute person ? are people with no money given a free pass to steal, loot, and do anything short of assault ? 0.  who decides what a fair fine is ? is it based on the crime ? the income level ? assets ? fining a millionaire $0,0 is nothing; finding a poor person that will bankrupt them.  0.  what of the devastating harm thar can be done without assault or murder ? if you steal a little old lady is entire life savings, she may indirectly die because she ca not afford food and heat.  but it is permissible with only a fine.  0.  deterrent: why would people not become career criminals if they know they ca not go to jail ? the worst that can happen is a fine.  so what they will make that up in the next heist.  0.  prison removes really immoral people from society for awhile.  it gives us the sense things are safer.  you want to let all the psychopaths free to do whatever they want to others as long as they promise not to hit or intentionally kill.  they can terrorize, threaten, stalk, run organized crime and it is all ok.  0.  is community service set up to handle hardened criminals who at the moment are being charged with something other than assault ? gang members ? organized crime ? scammers ? where exactly will they be doing their community service ? will you send a scammer to do meals on wheels, delivering food to the doors of vulnerable shut ins ? will you send hardened gang members into local businesses ? will drug dealers get to volunteer at the local high school ? he promptly stopped and called 0.  he is not a danger to society so long as the privilege he abused driving is kept in check.  as such, i would think long term to indefinite suspension of his license and hefty fines/community service are preferable to locking him up.  he murdered someone.  taking away his drivers license does not give a sense of justice to the dead persons family or society.  he was reckless in several ways.  if he gets a fine, what incentive does he have not to be reckless again ? maybe the next fatal mistake will be with some other type of vehicle or heavy machinery.  he does not have an incentive to modify behavior.  he can keep being a jerk in a hurry until his hits someone with his backhoe at work.  oops he did not mean it, so you forgive him again with only a fine as punishment.  how many people would the angry road rage driver kill  accidentally  before you think about limiting his freedoms ? accidental death is when you are driving the speed limit, you are in your own lane minding your own business, and someone runs out in front of you.  nobody is a fast enough driver to swerve in time.  when you hit and killed him, you truly were not guilty and it was a genuine accident.  here is my thought: if people do not want to go to prison, they should not break the law.  our culture is too violent and too disrespectful of laws.  if you do not like to see so many convicts, let is address why crimes happen in the first place.  let is fix socioeconomic and cultural reasons why so many crimes happen.   #  take a look at this URL there is some interesting information on the breakdown of the prison population by their crimes, as well as rates of recidivism.   #  you posted two views.  i actually agree that prison is over sentenced in the u. s.  so i will only tackle the second view.   prison should almost never be advised for nonviolent offenders.   the most significant thing that came to my mind when i read this was white collar crime.  most white collar crime maybe all ? is nonviolent crime.  huge numbers of people have had their lives affected or ruined by those types of nonviolent crimes.  i do not think prison is an unreasonable punishment for that.  some other nonviolent crimes include arson, bribery, burglary, and duis.  that being said, i think there should be more discrimination in prison sentencing.  take a look at this URL there is some interesting information on the breakdown of the prison population by their crimes, as well as rates of recidivism.   #  you do not get to choose what is a law and what is not the legal system does.   #  /u/mykarma said that arson and burglary are technically nonviolent crimes.  meaning that if you are charged with them, you are charged with a nonviolent crime.  there is no opinion at all in his statement it is a fact that when you are charged with burglary you are charged with a nonviolent crime.  he was not arguing how these crimes  should  be classified, just how they  are  classified.  it is like saying smoking weed is not illegal because it does not hurt anyone.  you may be right, and it may be a dumb law, but it is still a law.  you do not get to choose what is a law and what is not the legal system does.   #  dui is involve a privelege that can be taken away again, easily resolved without prison.   # most white collar crime maybe all ? is nonviolent crime.  why not fines ? most wcc is stealing money/theft right ? so i would think that would be one of the easiest crimes to quantify for fining purposes.  add in a black mark on that person is record for financial integrity/security clearance details, maybe have them pay restitution in civil court for the families/people they hurt and bam shibang you are done.  arson is damage of property easy to quantify.  bribery has a monetary component and can be traced based on the bribe is effect fairly easy to quantify.  burglary involves theft of property easy to quantify.  dui is involve a privelege that can be taken away again, easily resolved without prison.  the method of dealing with this particular type of behavior is called extinction.  i am not saying that we reduce everything to just fines and community service, but i feel like prison lacks imagination and basic understanding of how punishment affects human beings like the people in charge of the penal code never took a psych 0 course.  thank you for the link, but honestly the rates of recidivism breakdown just reaffirmed my belief more than anything else.   #  prison is a way to ensure there is both a deterrent and a punishment for breaking the law.   #  you say prison lacks imagination ? how do fines not lack imagination ? prison is a way to ensure there is both a deterrent and a punishment for breaking the law.  it is much more equitable than fines.  fines only provide a deterrent and punishment for those who do not have money i do not see how that is any better than prison.  fines sound nice, but when someone steals millions of dollars, that money never gets paid back.  ever.  and you are talking about people who already have way more than the people they are stealing from.  if people know they can take money from wherever they want only to possibly pay it back later,  if  they get caught, that is not much of a deterrent.  same for theft.  why pay for something if i can just steal it and only pay if i get caught ? if someone burns my house down, or breaks into it and steals my stuff, you ca not put a price on that and just walk away.  it is frightening, and traumatic, and affects people for long after it happens.  less so than violent crime, of course, but not everything in life can be quantified in a dollar amount.  bribery you think you can quantify that ? bribes result in multi year multi million dollar contracts being awarded, in politicians getting elected, in sometimes violent criminals walking free.  usually, this is done by people who are trusted and put in a position of power.  but if they have the money they can do what they want ? if you make the punishment for every nonviolent crime a fine, that is the same as telling rich people they can follow whatever laws they like and throw money at the problem afterwards.  it is basically selling passes to break the law.
greetings cmv ! i had a thought due to some recent events i subscribe to.  i have come to the conclusion that prisons as a system of harboring all criminals are petty and worthless and that our society would be better served by forcing non violent criminals to lose whatever associated privileges they had with their crimes and pay back their communities through fines or community service.  essentially, i am advocating for anyone who does not murder, rape, assault, or intentionally cause such things to come to bear on others that they should never be jailed.   as an example : a man recently drove 0 in a 0 and passed a truck that cut him off on the right, striking a bicyclist on the shoulder and killing him.  he promptly stopped and called 0.  what the man did was awful, but i am quite sure that nobody would consider what he did to be intentional or malicious.  he is not a danger to society so long as the privilege he abused driving is kept in check.  as such, i would think long term to indefinite suspension of his license and hefty fines/community service are preferable to locking him up.  can you cmv ?  i recognize that i am no expert on prisons  and i would like to think our penal system has evolved out of something more than just petty vengeance.  but considering you can be locked up for  years  for carrying dried up leaves of the wrong kind of plant in your pocket in 0 of the 0 states, or be locked up for sleeping in public it really makes me reconsider the nature of what we have adopted.   #  what the man did was awful, but i am quite sure that nobody would consider what he did to be intentional or malicious.   #  he is not a danger to society so long as the privilege he abused driving is kept in check.   # i have come to the conclusion that prisons as a system of harboring all criminals are petty and worthless and that our society would be better served by forcing non violent criminals to lose whatever associated privileges they had with their crimes and pay back their communities through fines or community service.  0.  how will you force community service or fines if you ca not put them in jail ? 0.  how will you levy a fine to a destitute person ? are people with no money given a free pass to steal, loot, and do anything short of assault ? 0.  who decides what a fair fine is ? is it based on the crime ? the income level ? assets ? fining a millionaire $0,0 is nothing; finding a poor person that will bankrupt them.  0.  what of the devastating harm thar can be done without assault or murder ? if you steal a little old lady is entire life savings, she may indirectly die because she ca not afford food and heat.  but it is permissible with only a fine.  0.  deterrent: why would people not become career criminals if they know they ca not go to jail ? the worst that can happen is a fine.  so what they will make that up in the next heist.  0.  prison removes really immoral people from society for awhile.  it gives us the sense things are safer.  you want to let all the psychopaths free to do whatever they want to others as long as they promise not to hit or intentionally kill.  they can terrorize, threaten, stalk, run organized crime and it is all ok.  0.  is community service set up to handle hardened criminals who at the moment are being charged with something other than assault ? gang members ? organized crime ? scammers ? where exactly will they be doing their community service ? will you send a scammer to do meals on wheels, delivering food to the doors of vulnerable shut ins ? will you send hardened gang members into local businesses ? will drug dealers get to volunteer at the local high school ? he promptly stopped and called 0.  he is not a danger to society so long as the privilege he abused driving is kept in check.  as such, i would think long term to indefinite suspension of his license and hefty fines/community service are preferable to locking him up.  he murdered someone.  taking away his drivers license does not give a sense of justice to the dead persons family or society.  he was reckless in several ways.  if he gets a fine, what incentive does he have not to be reckless again ? maybe the next fatal mistake will be with some other type of vehicle or heavy machinery.  he does not have an incentive to modify behavior.  he can keep being a jerk in a hurry until his hits someone with his backhoe at work.  oops he did not mean it, so you forgive him again with only a fine as punishment.  how many people would the angry road rage driver kill  accidentally  before you think about limiting his freedoms ? accidental death is when you are driving the speed limit, you are in your own lane minding your own business, and someone runs out in front of you.  nobody is a fast enough driver to swerve in time.  when you hit and killed him, you truly were not guilty and it was a genuine accident.  here is my thought: if people do not want to go to prison, they should not break the law.  our culture is too violent and too disrespectful of laws.  if you do not like to see so many convicts, let is address why crimes happen in the first place.  let is fix socioeconomic and cultural reasons why so many crimes happen.   #  some other nonviolent crimes include arson, bribery, burglary, and duis.   #  you posted two views.  i actually agree that prison is over sentenced in the u. s.  so i will only tackle the second view.   prison should almost never be advised for nonviolent offenders.   the most significant thing that came to my mind when i read this was white collar crime.  most white collar crime maybe all ? is nonviolent crime.  huge numbers of people have had their lives affected or ruined by those types of nonviolent crimes.  i do not think prison is an unreasonable punishment for that.  some other nonviolent crimes include arson, bribery, burglary, and duis.  that being said, i think there should be more discrimination in prison sentencing.  take a look at this URL there is some interesting information on the breakdown of the prison population by their crimes, as well as rates of recidivism.   #  meaning that if you are charged with them, you are charged with a nonviolent crime.   #  /u/mykarma said that arson and burglary are technically nonviolent crimes.  meaning that if you are charged with them, you are charged with a nonviolent crime.  there is no opinion at all in his statement it is a fact that when you are charged with burglary you are charged with a nonviolent crime.  he was not arguing how these crimes  should  be classified, just how they  are  classified.  it is like saying smoking weed is not illegal because it does not hurt anyone.  you may be right, and it may be a dumb law, but it is still a law.  you do not get to choose what is a law and what is not the legal system does.   #  dui is involve a privelege that can be taken away again, easily resolved without prison.   # most white collar crime maybe all ? is nonviolent crime.  why not fines ? most wcc is stealing money/theft right ? so i would think that would be one of the easiest crimes to quantify for fining purposes.  add in a black mark on that person is record for financial integrity/security clearance details, maybe have them pay restitution in civil court for the families/people they hurt and bam shibang you are done.  arson is damage of property easy to quantify.  bribery has a monetary component and can be traced based on the bribe is effect fairly easy to quantify.  burglary involves theft of property easy to quantify.  dui is involve a privelege that can be taken away again, easily resolved without prison.  the method of dealing with this particular type of behavior is called extinction.  i am not saying that we reduce everything to just fines and community service, but i feel like prison lacks imagination and basic understanding of how punishment affects human beings like the people in charge of the penal code never took a psych 0 course.  thank you for the link, but honestly the rates of recidivism breakdown just reaffirmed my belief more than anything else.   #  usually, this is done by people who are trusted and put in a position of power.   #  you say prison lacks imagination ? how do fines not lack imagination ? prison is a way to ensure there is both a deterrent and a punishment for breaking the law.  it is much more equitable than fines.  fines only provide a deterrent and punishment for those who do not have money i do not see how that is any better than prison.  fines sound nice, but when someone steals millions of dollars, that money never gets paid back.  ever.  and you are talking about people who already have way more than the people they are stealing from.  if people know they can take money from wherever they want only to possibly pay it back later,  if  they get caught, that is not much of a deterrent.  same for theft.  why pay for something if i can just steal it and only pay if i get caught ? if someone burns my house down, or breaks into it and steals my stuff, you ca not put a price on that and just walk away.  it is frightening, and traumatic, and affects people for long after it happens.  less so than violent crime, of course, but not everything in life can be quantified in a dollar amount.  bribery you think you can quantify that ? bribes result in multi year multi million dollar contracts being awarded, in politicians getting elected, in sometimes violent criminals walking free.  usually, this is done by people who are trusted and put in a position of power.  but if they have the money they can do what they want ? if you make the punishment for every nonviolent crime a fine, that is the same as telling rich people they can follow whatever laws they like and throw money at the problem afterwards.  it is basically selling passes to break the law.
recently in the news the c. i. a.  and bush administration have been under a lot of heat for torturing prisoners.  in the grand scheme of things, what are a few lives compared to the safety of thousands of others.  the people they are torturing are a global threat; it is not out of patriotism that i am trying to justify this for the sake of protecting good old  amurica.  i think the main argument against me would be that there is a chance that some of these people may be innocent.  but if someone came up to me, and said three other people and i need to be tortured because only one of us is a terrorist and it is either the four of us or potentially thousands of others, i would volunteer in a heartbeat.  i am already well aware the government spends billions of dollars on military related things that the public has no idea about, and i am okay with that because i understand that those are keeping us safe.  i think my overall opinion is that it is good to be a good person and cooperate with people, but you also have to understand there are people who you ca not negotiate with and you just have to kill or torture them.   #  i think the main argument against me would be that there is a chance that some of these people may be innocent.   #  i think the main argument against torture is that it is less effective than other measures.   # where does one set that line ? i believe the phrase  all men are created equal  is a fairly central concept in america or at least it is supposed to be .  to bastardise animal farm:   are some are more equal than others  ? what about american lives ? is it ok to torture people domestically ? what is the difference between stopping foreign attacks and domestic threats ? essentially, who decides who gets tortured, and for what reasons ? if you look at the bodycount from terrorism versus the bodycount from military action in response to terrorism, the numbers just do not stack up.  if you look at the imposition on life and freedoms as a result of terrorism they really do not stack up.  there is also the issue that torture is probably an ineffective method of dealing with the broader issues.  how does ripping people is fingernails off stop terrorism from fomenting in the first place ? torture is a reactive measure in a best case scenario it is targeting events that are already in motion which imo is already far too late .  i think the main argument against torture is that it is less effective than other measures.  additionally, if we are to address ethical concerns, it is not that you could be torturing  innocent  people, it is that you are normalising brutalising people.  your standards for treating suspects drop considerably to the point that you are prepared to kill them in the service of your goals .  once that happens that will permeate into broader society and what was once reserved for the  enemy  will start to be used on citizens.  principles are important because they ensure that you do not go down a dark path to places where everyone will suffer.  you become worse than what you are trying to eliminate.  let is have a little thought experiment: you are dragged in for  questioning  and after you have been softened up a bit ie.  they beat you up, waterboard you, etc.  they bring in your wife, and child, and tell you that if you do not give up information they are going to rape them in front of you.  you are innocent you do not have any information to give.  so they do rape them in front of you.  then they tell you that they are going to start cutting parts off them in front of you if you do not answer their questions.  again, you have got nothing to give them.  so they start carving them up in front of you.  once it becomes obvious that there is no chance of any intelligence from you, they kill you all because you are of no use to them anymore.  real torturers do not fuck around, they are experts in what they do which is break people psychologically through any means at their disposal.  it is worth mentioning at this point that we only have a fraction of the evidence of the horrors that the us has put people through and we will probably never get to see any of it, because seeing minors degraded, raped, maimed, and then shot in the head is not exactly a pr win for the us .  if the us really stood behind what it has done there would not be any issue with releasing all the information on  interrogation  they have but they know that what they have done is heinous and almost certainly war crimes, so we are never going to see that evidence.  that is the claim, but where is the evidence to support it ? can you be surprised when your enemies feel the same ? nobody can negotiate fairly with the us the us is a giant monster that does whatever the fuck it likes.  do you seriously think people that are having the living fuck bombed out of them as we speak have any leverage to bring the us to the table ?  #  this destroys their support in their home base, and is thus more effective than stopping that one attack.   #  i think another way around this problem is to look at a lead by example perspective.  strength is not the force of your arms, it is the force of your resolve.  to show strength to terrorists and i the face of their actions shows you to be a more moral opponent.  this destroys their support in their home base, and is thus more effective than stopping that one attack.  i would rather be the person getting killed on 0/0 than the person living in a totalitarian police state, and i think the greatest legacy we can leave the next generation is to demonstrate what real strength is.   #  and that on its own creates a downside to torture it will tarnish the reputation of the us, whether or not it is rationally justified.   #  you do not have a problem with it ? excellent.  but the rest of the world does not share your view.  and that on its own creates a downside to torture it will tarnish the reputation of the us, whether or not it is rationally justified.  many people are very uneasy with utilitarian calculations in which people is lives or health are deliberately sacrificed, even when inaction could be far more damaging search  the trolley problem  for a hypothetical example .  so whether or not these people are right to object to this use of torture, they will, and you have to consider that when weighing the pros and cons.  it might still be worth it, but if torture is not that effective after all, the side effects might be too much.   #  i am trying to strip away the realities surrounding torture that thank god make it impractical and focus on the question can you do something extremely horrible for a chance at greater good ?  #  people have stated the torture does not work, and that the process of torture is not held accountable because it is all done in secret.  i agree with all of that.  but just for a thought experiment: what if torture did work ? and what if it was done transparently ? what if questions of  should we torture suspect a about case xyz with method bcd ?   were put in a referendum and everyone voted on it ? i am trying to strip away the realities surrounding torture that thank god make it impractical and focus on the question can you do something extremely horrible for a chance at greater good ?  #  there is no real proof anything they are doing is keeping anyone safe just their say so.   #  there is no real proof anything they are doing is keeping anyone safe just their say so.  the overwhelming majority of the people they have been holding and torturing have turned out to be innocent until our torturing convinced them of the need for them to stop us and to get revenge.  folks in the middle east are good at revenge they ca not get enough of the stuff.  we already know that people will say anything to get torture to stop, true or not.  there is been no evidence at all for the majority of them that they were any kind of threat all we have is the word of the warlords we bought them from and the words of the folks who assured us that iraq had wmds.  the chances are less that some might be innocent rather than a couple might be guilty.  doing this sort of shit does not keep us safe, it gives thousands more people a damn good reason to want to attack us.  each of them has friends and family that are into that whole revenge thing.  our being so hypocritical about being better than the alternatives just convinces more out there that our detractors have it right.
recently in the news the c. i. a.  and bush administration have been under a lot of heat for torturing prisoners.  in the grand scheme of things, what are a few lives compared to the safety of thousands of others.  the people they are torturing are a global threat; it is not out of patriotism that i am trying to justify this for the sake of protecting good old  amurica.  i think the main argument against me would be that there is a chance that some of these people may be innocent.  but if someone came up to me, and said three other people and i need to be tortured because only one of us is a terrorist and it is either the four of us or potentially thousands of others, i would volunteer in a heartbeat.  i am already well aware the government spends billions of dollars on military related things that the public has no idea about, and i am okay with that because i understand that those are keeping us safe.  i think my overall opinion is that it is good to be a good person and cooperate with people, but you also have to understand there are people who you ca not negotiate with and you just have to kill or torture them.   #  but if someone came up to me, and said three other people and i need to be tortured because only one of us is a terrorist and it is either the four of us or potentially thousands of others, i would volunteer in a heartbeat.   #  let is have a little thought experiment: you are dragged in for  questioning  and after you have been softened up a bit ie.   # where does one set that line ? i believe the phrase  all men are created equal  is a fairly central concept in america or at least it is supposed to be .  to bastardise animal farm:   are some are more equal than others  ? what about american lives ? is it ok to torture people domestically ? what is the difference between stopping foreign attacks and domestic threats ? essentially, who decides who gets tortured, and for what reasons ? if you look at the bodycount from terrorism versus the bodycount from military action in response to terrorism, the numbers just do not stack up.  if you look at the imposition on life and freedoms as a result of terrorism they really do not stack up.  there is also the issue that torture is probably an ineffective method of dealing with the broader issues.  how does ripping people is fingernails off stop terrorism from fomenting in the first place ? torture is a reactive measure in a best case scenario it is targeting events that are already in motion which imo is already far too late .  i think the main argument against torture is that it is less effective than other measures.  additionally, if we are to address ethical concerns, it is not that you could be torturing  innocent  people, it is that you are normalising brutalising people.  your standards for treating suspects drop considerably to the point that you are prepared to kill them in the service of your goals .  once that happens that will permeate into broader society and what was once reserved for the  enemy  will start to be used on citizens.  principles are important because they ensure that you do not go down a dark path to places where everyone will suffer.  you become worse than what you are trying to eliminate.  let is have a little thought experiment: you are dragged in for  questioning  and after you have been softened up a bit ie.  they beat you up, waterboard you, etc.  they bring in your wife, and child, and tell you that if you do not give up information they are going to rape them in front of you.  you are innocent you do not have any information to give.  so they do rape them in front of you.  then they tell you that they are going to start cutting parts off them in front of you if you do not answer their questions.  again, you have got nothing to give them.  so they start carving them up in front of you.  once it becomes obvious that there is no chance of any intelligence from you, they kill you all because you are of no use to them anymore.  real torturers do not fuck around, they are experts in what they do which is break people psychologically through any means at their disposal.  it is worth mentioning at this point that we only have a fraction of the evidence of the horrors that the us has put people through and we will probably never get to see any of it, because seeing minors degraded, raped, maimed, and then shot in the head is not exactly a pr win for the us .  if the us really stood behind what it has done there would not be any issue with releasing all the information on  interrogation  they have but they know that what they have done is heinous and almost certainly war crimes, so we are never going to see that evidence.  that is the claim, but where is the evidence to support it ? can you be surprised when your enemies feel the same ? nobody can negotiate fairly with the us the us is a giant monster that does whatever the fuck it likes.  do you seriously think people that are having the living fuck bombed out of them as we speak have any leverage to bring the us to the table ?  #  to show strength to terrorists and i the face of their actions shows you to be a more moral opponent.   #  i think another way around this problem is to look at a lead by example perspective.  strength is not the force of your arms, it is the force of your resolve.  to show strength to terrorists and i the face of their actions shows you to be a more moral opponent.  this destroys their support in their home base, and is thus more effective than stopping that one attack.  i would rather be the person getting killed on 0/0 than the person living in a totalitarian police state, and i think the greatest legacy we can leave the next generation is to demonstrate what real strength is.   #  and that on its own creates a downside to torture it will tarnish the reputation of the us, whether or not it is rationally justified.   #  you do not have a problem with it ? excellent.  but the rest of the world does not share your view.  and that on its own creates a downside to torture it will tarnish the reputation of the us, whether or not it is rationally justified.  many people are very uneasy with utilitarian calculations in which people is lives or health are deliberately sacrificed, even when inaction could be far more damaging search  the trolley problem  for a hypothetical example .  so whether or not these people are right to object to this use of torture, they will, and you have to consider that when weighing the pros and cons.  it might still be worth it, but if torture is not that effective after all, the side effects might be too much.   #  people have stated the torture does not work, and that the process of torture is not held accountable because it is all done in secret.   #  people have stated the torture does not work, and that the process of torture is not held accountable because it is all done in secret.  i agree with all of that.  but just for a thought experiment: what if torture did work ? and what if it was done transparently ? what if questions of  should we torture suspect a about case xyz with method bcd ?   were put in a referendum and everyone voted on it ? i am trying to strip away the realities surrounding torture that thank god make it impractical and focus on the question can you do something extremely horrible for a chance at greater good ?  #  the chances are less that some might be innocent rather than a couple might be guilty.   #  there is no real proof anything they are doing is keeping anyone safe just their say so.  the overwhelming majority of the people they have been holding and torturing have turned out to be innocent until our torturing convinced them of the need for them to stop us and to get revenge.  folks in the middle east are good at revenge they ca not get enough of the stuff.  we already know that people will say anything to get torture to stop, true or not.  there is been no evidence at all for the majority of them that they were any kind of threat all we have is the word of the warlords we bought them from and the words of the folks who assured us that iraq had wmds.  the chances are less that some might be innocent rather than a couple might be guilty.  doing this sort of shit does not keep us safe, it gives thousands more people a damn good reason to want to attack us.  each of them has friends and family that are into that whole revenge thing.  our being so hypocritical about being better than the alternatives just convinces more out there that our detractors have it right.
recently in the news the c. i. a.  and bush administration have been under a lot of heat for torturing prisoners.  in the grand scheme of things, what are a few lives compared to the safety of thousands of others.  the people they are torturing are a global threat; it is not out of patriotism that i am trying to justify this for the sake of protecting good old  amurica.  i think the main argument against me would be that there is a chance that some of these people may be innocent.  but if someone came up to me, and said three other people and i need to be tortured because only one of us is a terrorist and it is either the four of us or potentially thousands of others, i would volunteer in a heartbeat.  i am already well aware the government spends billions of dollars on military related things that the public has no idea about, and i am okay with that because i understand that those are keeping us safe.  i think my overall opinion is that it is good to be a good person and cooperate with people, but you also have to understand there are people who you ca not negotiate with and you just have to kill or torture them.   #  i am already well aware the government spends billions of dollars on military related things that the public has no idea about, and i am okay with that because i understand that those are keeping us safe.   #  that is the claim, but where is the evidence to support it ?  # where does one set that line ? i believe the phrase  all men are created equal  is a fairly central concept in america or at least it is supposed to be .  to bastardise animal farm:   are some are more equal than others  ? what about american lives ? is it ok to torture people domestically ? what is the difference between stopping foreign attacks and domestic threats ? essentially, who decides who gets tortured, and for what reasons ? if you look at the bodycount from terrorism versus the bodycount from military action in response to terrorism, the numbers just do not stack up.  if you look at the imposition on life and freedoms as a result of terrorism they really do not stack up.  there is also the issue that torture is probably an ineffective method of dealing with the broader issues.  how does ripping people is fingernails off stop terrorism from fomenting in the first place ? torture is a reactive measure in a best case scenario it is targeting events that are already in motion which imo is already far too late .  i think the main argument against torture is that it is less effective than other measures.  additionally, if we are to address ethical concerns, it is not that you could be torturing  innocent  people, it is that you are normalising brutalising people.  your standards for treating suspects drop considerably to the point that you are prepared to kill them in the service of your goals .  once that happens that will permeate into broader society and what was once reserved for the  enemy  will start to be used on citizens.  principles are important because they ensure that you do not go down a dark path to places where everyone will suffer.  you become worse than what you are trying to eliminate.  let is have a little thought experiment: you are dragged in for  questioning  and after you have been softened up a bit ie.  they beat you up, waterboard you, etc.  they bring in your wife, and child, and tell you that if you do not give up information they are going to rape them in front of you.  you are innocent you do not have any information to give.  so they do rape them in front of you.  then they tell you that they are going to start cutting parts off them in front of you if you do not answer their questions.  again, you have got nothing to give them.  so they start carving them up in front of you.  once it becomes obvious that there is no chance of any intelligence from you, they kill you all because you are of no use to them anymore.  real torturers do not fuck around, they are experts in what they do which is break people psychologically through any means at their disposal.  it is worth mentioning at this point that we only have a fraction of the evidence of the horrors that the us has put people through and we will probably never get to see any of it, because seeing minors degraded, raped, maimed, and then shot in the head is not exactly a pr win for the us .  if the us really stood behind what it has done there would not be any issue with releasing all the information on  interrogation  they have but they know that what they have done is heinous and almost certainly war crimes, so we are never going to see that evidence.  that is the claim, but where is the evidence to support it ? can you be surprised when your enemies feel the same ? nobody can negotiate fairly with the us the us is a giant monster that does whatever the fuck it likes.  do you seriously think people that are having the living fuck bombed out of them as we speak have any leverage to bring the us to the table ?  #  i think another way around this problem is to look at a lead by example perspective.   #  i think another way around this problem is to look at a lead by example perspective.  strength is not the force of your arms, it is the force of your resolve.  to show strength to terrorists and i the face of their actions shows you to be a more moral opponent.  this destroys their support in their home base, and is thus more effective than stopping that one attack.  i would rather be the person getting killed on 0/0 than the person living in a totalitarian police state, and i think the greatest legacy we can leave the next generation is to demonstrate what real strength is.   #  but the rest of the world does not share your view.   #  you do not have a problem with it ? excellent.  but the rest of the world does not share your view.  and that on its own creates a downside to torture it will tarnish the reputation of the us, whether or not it is rationally justified.  many people are very uneasy with utilitarian calculations in which people is lives or health are deliberately sacrificed, even when inaction could be far more damaging search  the trolley problem  for a hypothetical example .  so whether or not these people are right to object to this use of torture, they will, and you have to consider that when weighing the pros and cons.  it might still be worth it, but if torture is not that effective after all, the side effects might be too much.   #  i am trying to strip away the realities surrounding torture that thank god make it impractical and focus on the question can you do something extremely horrible for a chance at greater good ?  #  people have stated the torture does not work, and that the process of torture is not held accountable because it is all done in secret.  i agree with all of that.  but just for a thought experiment: what if torture did work ? and what if it was done transparently ? what if questions of  should we torture suspect a about case xyz with method bcd ?   were put in a referendum and everyone voted on it ? i am trying to strip away the realities surrounding torture that thank god make it impractical and focus on the question can you do something extremely horrible for a chance at greater good ?  #  our being so hypocritical about being better than the alternatives just convinces more out there that our detractors have it right.   #  there is no real proof anything they are doing is keeping anyone safe just their say so.  the overwhelming majority of the people they have been holding and torturing have turned out to be innocent until our torturing convinced them of the need for them to stop us and to get revenge.  folks in the middle east are good at revenge they ca not get enough of the stuff.  we already know that people will say anything to get torture to stop, true or not.  there is been no evidence at all for the majority of them that they were any kind of threat all we have is the word of the warlords we bought them from and the words of the folks who assured us that iraq had wmds.  the chances are less that some might be innocent rather than a couple might be guilty.  doing this sort of shit does not keep us safe, it gives thousands more people a damn good reason to want to attack us.  each of them has friends and family that are into that whole revenge thing.  our being so hypocritical about being better than the alternatives just convinces more out there that our detractors have it right.
recently in the news the c. i. a.  and bush administration have been under a lot of heat for torturing prisoners.  in the grand scheme of things, what are a few lives compared to the safety of thousands of others.  the people they are torturing are a global threat; it is not out of patriotism that i am trying to justify this for the sake of protecting good old  amurica.  i think the main argument against me would be that there is a chance that some of these people may be innocent.  but if someone came up to me, and said three other people and i need to be tortured because only one of us is a terrorist and it is either the four of us or potentially thousands of others, i would volunteer in a heartbeat.  i am already well aware the government spends billions of dollars on military related things that the public has no idea about, and i am okay with that because i understand that those are keeping us safe.  i think my overall opinion is that it is good to be a good person and cooperate with people, but you also have to understand there are people who you ca not negotiate with and you just have to kill or torture them.   #  i think my overall opinion is that it is good to be a good person and cooperate with people, but you also have to understand there are people who you ca not negotiate with and you just have to kill or torture them.   #  can you be surprised when your enemies feel the same ?  # where does one set that line ? i believe the phrase  all men are created equal  is a fairly central concept in america or at least it is supposed to be .  to bastardise animal farm:   are some are more equal than others  ? what about american lives ? is it ok to torture people domestically ? what is the difference between stopping foreign attacks and domestic threats ? essentially, who decides who gets tortured, and for what reasons ? if you look at the bodycount from terrorism versus the bodycount from military action in response to terrorism, the numbers just do not stack up.  if you look at the imposition on life and freedoms as a result of terrorism they really do not stack up.  there is also the issue that torture is probably an ineffective method of dealing with the broader issues.  how does ripping people is fingernails off stop terrorism from fomenting in the first place ? torture is a reactive measure in a best case scenario it is targeting events that are already in motion which imo is already far too late .  i think the main argument against torture is that it is less effective than other measures.  additionally, if we are to address ethical concerns, it is not that you could be torturing  innocent  people, it is that you are normalising brutalising people.  your standards for treating suspects drop considerably to the point that you are prepared to kill them in the service of your goals .  once that happens that will permeate into broader society and what was once reserved for the  enemy  will start to be used on citizens.  principles are important because they ensure that you do not go down a dark path to places where everyone will suffer.  you become worse than what you are trying to eliminate.  let is have a little thought experiment: you are dragged in for  questioning  and after you have been softened up a bit ie.  they beat you up, waterboard you, etc.  they bring in your wife, and child, and tell you that if you do not give up information they are going to rape them in front of you.  you are innocent you do not have any information to give.  so they do rape them in front of you.  then they tell you that they are going to start cutting parts off them in front of you if you do not answer their questions.  again, you have got nothing to give them.  so they start carving them up in front of you.  once it becomes obvious that there is no chance of any intelligence from you, they kill you all because you are of no use to them anymore.  real torturers do not fuck around, they are experts in what they do which is break people psychologically through any means at their disposal.  it is worth mentioning at this point that we only have a fraction of the evidence of the horrors that the us has put people through and we will probably never get to see any of it, because seeing minors degraded, raped, maimed, and then shot in the head is not exactly a pr win for the us .  if the us really stood behind what it has done there would not be any issue with releasing all the information on  interrogation  they have but they know that what they have done is heinous and almost certainly war crimes, so we are never going to see that evidence.  that is the claim, but where is the evidence to support it ? can you be surprised when your enemies feel the same ? nobody can negotiate fairly with the us the us is a giant monster that does whatever the fuck it likes.  do you seriously think people that are having the living fuck bombed out of them as we speak have any leverage to bring the us to the table ?  #  this destroys their support in their home base, and is thus more effective than stopping that one attack.   #  i think another way around this problem is to look at a lead by example perspective.  strength is not the force of your arms, it is the force of your resolve.  to show strength to terrorists and i the face of their actions shows you to be a more moral opponent.  this destroys their support in their home base, and is thus more effective than stopping that one attack.  i would rather be the person getting killed on 0/0 than the person living in a totalitarian police state, and i think the greatest legacy we can leave the next generation is to demonstrate what real strength is.   #  so whether or not these people are right to object to this use of torture, they will, and you have to consider that when weighing the pros and cons.   #  you do not have a problem with it ? excellent.  but the rest of the world does not share your view.  and that on its own creates a downside to torture it will tarnish the reputation of the us, whether or not it is rationally justified.  many people are very uneasy with utilitarian calculations in which people is lives or health are deliberately sacrificed, even when inaction could be far more damaging search  the trolley problem  for a hypothetical example .  so whether or not these people are right to object to this use of torture, they will, and you have to consider that when weighing the pros and cons.  it might still be worth it, but if torture is not that effective after all, the side effects might be too much.   #  people have stated the torture does not work, and that the process of torture is not held accountable because it is all done in secret.   #  people have stated the torture does not work, and that the process of torture is not held accountable because it is all done in secret.  i agree with all of that.  but just for a thought experiment: what if torture did work ? and what if it was done transparently ? what if questions of  should we torture suspect a about case xyz with method bcd ?   were put in a referendum and everyone voted on it ? i am trying to strip away the realities surrounding torture that thank god make it impractical and focus on the question can you do something extremely horrible for a chance at greater good ?  #  doing this sort of shit does not keep us safe, it gives thousands more people a damn good reason to want to attack us.   #  there is no real proof anything they are doing is keeping anyone safe just their say so.  the overwhelming majority of the people they have been holding and torturing have turned out to be innocent until our torturing convinced them of the need for them to stop us and to get revenge.  folks in the middle east are good at revenge they ca not get enough of the stuff.  we already know that people will say anything to get torture to stop, true or not.  there is been no evidence at all for the majority of them that they were any kind of threat all we have is the word of the warlords we bought them from and the words of the folks who assured us that iraq had wmds.  the chances are less that some might be innocent rather than a couple might be guilty.  doing this sort of shit does not keep us safe, it gives thousands more people a damn good reason to want to attack us.  each of them has friends and family that are into that whole revenge thing.  our being so hypocritical about being better than the alternatives just convinces more out there that our detractors have it right.
the hoopla over  manspreading  online on websites like jezebel has apparently URL led new york is mta to publish a poster that says  dude. stop the spread please.  it is a space issue.   while it makes sense for the mta to remind people not to take up more space then they need on crowded trains, there is no justification for limiting the scope of that reminder to men only, as the mta is doing with the word  dude.   by singling out men, the mta is encouraging its passengers to scrutinize men is behavior more critically than women is, as if it is mainly men who need to be watched and judged.  that is simply unfair to men.  it puts innocent men on the defensive, and lets guilty women off the hook.  even if it were true that 0 of people to spread their legs too widely are male, that still would not justify singling men out in a poster.  but, as someone who spends two hours per day in nyc subways, i see no basis for the generalization that men represent an overwhelming majority of too much space taker uppers.  and it is certainly not the case that most men have a habit of spreading their legs too wide.  what mainly pisses me off about the mta is snarky poster targeting men is that it lends legitimacy to the nasty  male privilege  narrative over manspreading that is happening online.  people who have no direct experience with subways will read up on the issue and get the impression that men generally feel entitled to take up ridiculous amounts of space at other people is expense, when that is just not true.  even if you look through the most frequently cited source URL of evidence for manspreading, you will find that most of the examples are just of men innocently stretching out in trains that have  plenty of room , such that it is unclear that they are actually inconveniencing anyone.  yet, feminists apparently think it is ok to post pictures of these guys online, showing their faces, for public shaming.  the whole thing is just mean, and the mta should not supporting it.   #  people who have no direct experience with subways will read up on the issue and get the impression that men generally feel entitled to take up ridiculous amounts of space at other people is expense, when that is just not true.   #  a claim for which you have zero evidence and you even point to examples where men are clearly behaving in the manner that is being criticized and yet you try to rationalize it away.   #   manspreading  is not a word with an accepted definition.  we live in a male centric culture where male privilege does in fact exist.  men tend to take more space for themselves than women do because they tend on the whole to believe they have the right to occupy more space than others.  actually it would.  your belief it is illegitimate does not make it so.  a claim for which you have zero evidence and you even point to examples where men are clearly behaving in the manner that is being criticized and yet you try to rationalize it away.  your position is illogical and based in emotion not reason and therefore should be rejected.   #  for a woman to stand in front of a door and demand that the door be opened for her would make her a privileged asshole.   #   the nasty male privilege narrative .  you have a misunderstanding about what people are talking about when they refer to privilege.  contrary to what those at tumblrinaction might think what privilege means is this: if you have x privilege, then others will treat you better in certain situations because you are x.  you probably wo not notice it or will even expect it because you were always x, and people always afforded you these advantages.  having male privilege and being a privileged asshole are two different things.  being a privileged asshole means that not only do you have an advantage, you essentically say  fuck everyone else, because i am me .  it is the difference between having a nice car class privilege , and having a nice car and parking in 0 parking spaces because it is a nice car privileged asshole there is nothing nasty about the concept of privilege.  it is a thing that exists in culture because we are humans.  having male privilege does not make you a bad person.  it does not make you an asshole it just means that you have certain benefits that others do not.  and not it does not mean you are 0 in everything, there are areas where women have privilege.  one could say that it is female privilege to have doors opened for you.  for a woman to stand in front of a door and demand that the door be opened for her would make her a privileged asshole.  the car analogy fits directly to the seat analogy.   i have got big balls so i have to take up 0 seats  is crap.  you get just as much seat as everyone else.  if you wanna park your exotic car 0 miles from everyone else so it is not scratched, fine but taking up 0 spaces fuck you.   #  when the subway pulls into the station, you check to make sure there is no surge of new passengers, and, if there is, you close your legs to make room.   #  it assumes that there will be abundant space in the lot until you leave it, which is often a perfectly fair assumption.  and, returning to the actual scenario in question, with men on a subway, there clearly are such cases when you  know  the space you are taking up wo not be needed.  new people cannot board the subway car while the train is in motion ! so, if you know the next station is 0 minutes away, and everyone on board has plenty of room, you can spread your legs and snooze in peace.  when the subway pulls into the station, you check to make sure there is no surge of new passengers, and, if there is, you close your legs to make room.  if not, you are good.   #  all fine and good, but that does not explain the people taking up two or three spaces with their knees and crotch during rush hour.   #  all fine and good, but that does not explain the people taking up two or three spaces with their knees and crotch during rush hour.  and they absolutely exist.  the point is that those same people who spread their legs when it is empty will generally in my experience at least spread them when the car is full.  is that always the case ? no, but it usually has to be prompted by someone asking them to move.  five people standing and one person is taking up two seats ? they do not move until someone asks if they can sit, and even then they barely give any room so the person has to squeeze.  if every person who spread their legs immediately corrected it when the situation required ex: passengers need that seat then this would not be a problem.  it is a problem because those people do not close their legs.   #  people who stand on public transit with their big backpacks sticking out instead on takin them off are just as guilty.   #  the way i see it, it has nothing to do with  amanspreading , which is being horribly generalized to all seated men who is legs are not closed shut.  this is about people who are assholes.  men and women who take up more than their allotted space.  i have seen more women take up seats with bags than men take up seats with their legs, and i am sure many of you would agree if you think carefully.  people who stand on public transit with their big backpacks sticking out instead on takin them off are just as guilty.  this should not be a  amanspreading  issue, it should be an issue of being kind to others.
gods are just humans who have had a good million or so years to evolve.  we know 0 things 0.  humans exist 0.  they become perpetually more intelligent over time.  isnt the obvious extrapolation that beings exist in the universe which are comparable to gods or higher powers ? this has nothing to do with christianity, the existence of a god does not imply that any of the christian doctrines are true.  im struggling to see why this isnt a safe assumption.  we know that live microbes travel around the universe like spores, impregnating hospitable planets.  we know that life evolves and becomes more intelligent.  if advanced beings meet all the criteria for what makes something a god and its safe to assume that advanced beings exist, why is it so hard to believe in god ?  #  gods are just humans who have had a good million or so years to evolve.   #  you ca not redefine god to fit your argument.   # you ca not redefine god to fit your argument.  gods are well established as being creators of humans, not humans themselves.  the concept of god would not even exist if humans did not question about their origins.  god is meant to be a creator, or at the very least the prime mover.  god cannot be a highly evolved being if god is the beginning.   #  we are intelligent, its likely we are not the only ones.   # the vast majority of all life has rudimentary or no intelligence.  only a small portion of the biosphere has developed anything beyond that, and its almost exclusively a vertebrate phenomenon.  we are intelligent, its likely we are not the only ones.  thats all im saying.  not by your definition of a god maybe.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.   #  if thats what you are trying to say ?  # thats all im saying.  in the universe, probably not, but it does not mean a god is real.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.  anything can be anything if you redefine it: i define any being that uses reddit as a chair.  therefore we are all chairs.  yes, there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.  if thats what you are trying to say ?  #  who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ?  # therefore we are all chairs.  why does using a definition you do not agree with mean that im redefining it ? who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  yes, this is possible.  not 0 proven though.  its not just possible its the logical intelligent assumption to make.  what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.   #  again, its possible there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.   # who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  then why are  chairs  in this thread getting confused by your definition.  unless you define it in the op,  chairs  will assume you mean the colloquial definition of god, which is generally a being with omniscience, omnipotence, and usually omnipresence.  except that it isnt, the universe is only of a certain age, and there has only being enough heavier elements to form planets/life for a portion of that time.  it took us at least 0 billion years of evolutionary time after earth is creation to get to this point.  and its entirely possible we were among the first places to develop life assuming its even widespread.  its also entirely possible that evolving to the point we have is rediculously unlikely and we are the only ones to make it so far given we havent found any evidence for extrasolar sentience, this isnt an illogical position to have either   what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.  so, not gods, but god like, in terms of knowledge and power.  again, its possible there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.
gods are just humans who have had a good million or so years to evolve.  we know 0 things 0.  humans exist 0.  they become perpetually more intelligent over time.  isnt the obvious extrapolation that beings exist in the universe which are comparable to gods or higher powers ? this has nothing to do with christianity, the existence of a god does not imply that any of the christian doctrines are true.  im struggling to see why this isnt a safe assumption.  we know that live microbes travel around the universe like spores, impregnating hospitable planets.  we know that life evolves and becomes more intelligent.  if advanced beings meet all the criteria for what makes something a god and its safe to assume that advanced beings exist, why is it so hard to believe in god ?  #  if advanced beings meet all the criteria for what makes something a god and its safe to assume that advanced beings exist, why is it so hard to believe in god ?  #  god is meant to be a creator, or at the very least the prime mover.   # you ca not redefine god to fit your argument.  gods are well established as being creators of humans, not humans themselves.  the concept of god would not even exist if humans did not question about their origins.  god is meant to be a creator, or at the very least the prime mover.  god cannot be a highly evolved being if god is the beginning.   #  not by your definition of a god maybe.   # the vast majority of all life has rudimentary or no intelligence.  only a small portion of the biosphere has developed anything beyond that, and its almost exclusively a vertebrate phenomenon.  we are intelligent, its likely we are not the only ones.  thats all im saying.  not by your definition of a god maybe.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.   #  yes, there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.   # thats all im saying.  in the universe, probably not, but it does not mean a god is real.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.  anything can be anything if you redefine it: i define any being that uses reddit as a chair.  therefore we are all chairs.  yes, there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.  if thats what you are trying to say ?  #  what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.   # therefore we are all chairs.  why does using a definition you do not agree with mean that im redefining it ? who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  yes, this is possible.  not 0 proven though.  its not just possible its the logical intelligent assumption to make.  what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.   #  and its entirely possible we were among the first places to develop life assuming its even widespread.   # who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  then why are  chairs  in this thread getting confused by your definition.  unless you define it in the op,  chairs  will assume you mean the colloquial definition of god, which is generally a being with omniscience, omnipotence, and usually omnipresence.  except that it isnt, the universe is only of a certain age, and there has only being enough heavier elements to form planets/life for a portion of that time.  it took us at least 0 billion years of evolutionary time after earth is creation to get to this point.  and its entirely possible we were among the first places to develop life assuming its even widespread.  its also entirely possible that evolving to the point we have is rediculously unlikely and we are the only ones to make it so far given we havent found any evidence for extrasolar sentience, this isnt an illogical position to have either   what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.  so, not gods, but god like, in terms of knowledge and power.  again, its possible there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.
gods are just humans who have had a good million or so years to evolve.  we know 0 things 0.  humans exist 0.  they become perpetually more intelligent over time.  isnt the obvious extrapolation that beings exist in the universe which are comparable to gods or higher powers ? this has nothing to do with christianity, the existence of a god does not imply that any of the christian doctrines are true.  im struggling to see why this isnt a safe assumption.  we know that live microbes travel around the universe like spores, impregnating hospitable planets.  we know that life evolves and becomes more intelligent.  if advanced beings meet all the criteria for what makes something a god and its safe to assume that advanced beings exist, why is it so hard to believe in god ?  #  this has nothing to do with christianity, the existence of a god does not imply that any of the christian doctrines are true.   #  you are not talking about god s .   # that is not a god.  that is a human who had a good million or so years to evolve.  gods are supernatural.  no they do not.  a common misconception about evolution is that it is goal oriented or has some destination to get more intelligent .  that is not how evolution works.  we are just as much an  accident  as the platypus.  no.  because all you are talking about is biological life forms.  no matter how advanced they may be, they are not supernatural, and therefor, not gods.  you are not talking about god s .  you are talking about life forms.  i do not think you have a very good grasp of what  god  means.  no, we do not.  you are making armchair assumptions about incomplete scientific findings and what they mean.  no naturally evolved life form would be supernatural.  because what you are talking about is not  god .  so, your arguments basically boils down to,  it makes sense to think there are other intelligent life forms in the universe that are more advanced than humans are and because they are more advanced, they can be considered gods .  this is a terribly flawed way to look at it.   any technology sufficiently advanced would seem like magic .  so ya, if they are advanced enough to know things we do not and have technology we do not, it might seem to humans like these beings are  magic  or  supernatural , and therefor qualify as gods.  but the problem is that we already know that technology exists, and we, as an imaginative species, envision beings more powerful than us.  but they still are  not  magic or supernatural.  we just do not understand it.  even in it is most simplistic form,  god  is  creator of the universe , if nothing else.  of course certain religions might say god created man as well, but let is forget about that for now.  how can a creature who evolved  in  the universe be it is creator ?  #  we are intelligent, its likely we are not the only ones.   # the vast majority of all life has rudimentary or no intelligence.  only a small portion of the biosphere has developed anything beyond that, and its almost exclusively a vertebrate phenomenon.  we are intelligent, its likely we are not the only ones.  thats all im saying.  not by your definition of a god maybe.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.   #  yes, there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.   # thats all im saying.  in the universe, probably not, but it does not mean a god is real.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.  anything can be anything if you redefine it: i define any being that uses reddit as a chair.  therefore we are all chairs.  yes, there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.  if thats what you are trying to say ?  #  what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.   # therefore we are all chairs.  why does using a definition you do not agree with mean that im redefining it ? who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  yes, this is possible.  not 0 proven though.  its not just possible its the logical intelligent assumption to make.  what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.   #  then why are  chairs  in this thread getting confused by your definition.   # who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  then why are  chairs  in this thread getting confused by your definition.  unless you define it in the op,  chairs  will assume you mean the colloquial definition of god, which is generally a being with omniscience, omnipotence, and usually omnipresence.  except that it isnt, the universe is only of a certain age, and there has only being enough heavier elements to form planets/life for a portion of that time.  it took us at least 0 billion years of evolutionary time after earth is creation to get to this point.  and its entirely possible we were among the first places to develop life assuming its even widespread.  its also entirely possible that evolving to the point we have is rediculously unlikely and we are the only ones to make it so far given we havent found any evidence for extrasolar sentience, this isnt an illogical position to have either   what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.  so, not gods, but god like, in terms of knowledge and power.  again, its possible there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.
gods are just humans who have had a good million or so years to evolve.  we know 0 things 0.  humans exist 0.  they become perpetually more intelligent over time.  isnt the obvious extrapolation that beings exist in the universe which are comparable to gods or higher powers ? this has nothing to do with christianity, the existence of a god does not imply that any of the christian doctrines are true.  im struggling to see why this isnt a safe assumption.  we know that live microbes travel around the universe like spores, impregnating hospitable planets.  we know that life evolves and becomes more intelligent.  if advanced beings meet all the criteria for what makes something a god and its safe to assume that advanced beings exist, why is it so hard to believe in god ?  #  why is it so hard to believe in god ?  #  because what you are talking about is not  god .   # that is not a god.  that is a human who had a good million or so years to evolve.  gods are supernatural.  no they do not.  a common misconception about evolution is that it is goal oriented or has some destination to get more intelligent .  that is not how evolution works.  we are just as much an  accident  as the platypus.  no.  because all you are talking about is biological life forms.  no matter how advanced they may be, they are not supernatural, and therefor, not gods.  you are not talking about god s .  you are talking about life forms.  i do not think you have a very good grasp of what  god  means.  no, we do not.  you are making armchair assumptions about incomplete scientific findings and what they mean.  no naturally evolved life form would be supernatural.  because what you are talking about is not  god .  so, your arguments basically boils down to,  it makes sense to think there are other intelligent life forms in the universe that are more advanced than humans are and because they are more advanced, they can be considered gods .  this is a terribly flawed way to look at it.   any technology sufficiently advanced would seem like magic .  so ya, if they are advanced enough to know things we do not and have technology we do not, it might seem to humans like these beings are  magic  or  supernatural , and therefor qualify as gods.  but the problem is that we already know that technology exists, and we, as an imaginative species, envision beings more powerful than us.  but they still are  not  magic or supernatural.  we just do not understand it.  even in it is most simplistic form,  god  is  creator of the universe , if nothing else.  of course certain religions might say god created man as well, but let is forget about that for now.  how can a creature who evolved  in  the universe be it is creator ?  #  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.   # the vast majority of all life has rudimentary or no intelligence.  only a small portion of the biosphere has developed anything beyond that, and its almost exclusively a vertebrate phenomenon.  we are intelligent, its likely we are not the only ones.  thats all im saying.  not by your definition of a god maybe.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.   #  yes, there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.   # thats all im saying.  in the universe, probably not, but it does not mean a god is real.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.  anything can be anything if you redefine it: i define any being that uses reddit as a chair.  therefore we are all chairs.  yes, there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.  if thats what you are trying to say ?  #  im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.   # therefore we are all chairs.  why does using a definition you do not agree with mean that im redefining it ? who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  yes, this is possible.  not 0 proven though.  its not just possible its the logical intelligent assumption to make.  what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.   #  unless you define it in the op,  chairs  will assume you mean the colloquial definition of god, which is generally a being with omniscience, omnipotence, and usually omnipresence.   # who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  then why are  chairs  in this thread getting confused by your definition.  unless you define it in the op,  chairs  will assume you mean the colloquial definition of god, which is generally a being with omniscience, omnipotence, and usually omnipresence.  except that it isnt, the universe is only of a certain age, and there has only being enough heavier elements to form planets/life for a portion of that time.  it took us at least 0 billion years of evolutionary time after earth is creation to get to this point.  and its entirely possible we were among the first places to develop life assuming its even widespread.  its also entirely possible that evolving to the point we have is rediculously unlikely and we are the only ones to make it so far given we havent found any evidence for extrasolar sentience, this isnt an illogical position to have either   what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.  so, not gods, but god like, in terms of knowledge and power.  again, its possible there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.
gods are just humans who have had a good million or so years to evolve.  we know 0 things 0.  humans exist 0.  they become perpetually more intelligent over time.  isnt the obvious extrapolation that beings exist in the universe which are comparable to gods or higher powers ? this has nothing to do with christianity, the existence of a god does not imply that any of the christian doctrines are true.  im struggling to see why this isnt a safe assumption.  we know that live microbes travel around the universe like spores, impregnating hospitable planets.  we know that life evolves and becomes more intelligent.  if advanced beings meet all the criteria for what makes something a god and its safe to assume that advanced beings exist, why is it so hard to believe in god ?  #  gods are just humans who have had a good million or so years to evolve.   #  this could be interpreted in several ways, all of which are wrong.   # this could be interpreted in several ways, all of which are wrong.  if you mean a human species that evolved over a million years, well, that is us.  if you mean individuals, well, individuals do not evolve, only species.  also, it is unclear what you mean by  humans become perpetually smarter over time .  if you mean  more intelligent , as a species, yes this happens very incrementally, but most of the gains we have had in the past couple of centuries are primarily due to improved nutrition.  essentially we are more closely meeting our potential.  if you mean that we learn more things collectively over time, that is indeed a trend, but not an inherently necessary trend, and not and endless trend.  nothing about the statements so far necessitates that there is any larger scale instance of this sort of thing, though it is entirely possible and probably that other human level intelligent species may exist elsewhere in the universe.  generally, you initial definition of  god  is extremely specious and does not really satisfy any historical or contemporary uses of the word.   #  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.   # the vast majority of all life has rudimentary or no intelligence.  only a small portion of the biosphere has developed anything beyond that, and its almost exclusively a vertebrate phenomenon.  we are intelligent, its likely we are not the only ones.  thats all im saying.  not by your definition of a god maybe.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.   #  in the universe, probably not, but it does not mean a god is real.   # thats all im saying.  in the universe, probably not, but it does not mean a god is real.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.  anything can be anything if you redefine it: i define any being that uses reddit as a chair.  therefore we are all chairs.  yes, there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.  if thats what you are trying to say ?  #  who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ?  # therefore we are all chairs.  why does using a definition you do not agree with mean that im redefining it ? who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  yes, this is possible.  not 0 proven though.  its not just possible its the logical intelligent assumption to make.  what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.   #  then why are  chairs  in this thread getting confused by your definition.   # who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  then why are  chairs  in this thread getting confused by your definition.  unless you define it in the op,  chairs  will assume you mean the colloquial definition of god, which is generally a being with omniscience, omnipotence, and usually omnipresence.  except that it isnt, the universe is only of a certain age, and there has only being enough heavier elements to form planets/life for a portion of that time.  it took us at least 0 billion years of evolutionary time after earth is creation to get to this point.  and its entirely possible we were among the first places to develop life assuming its even widespread.  its also entirely possible that evolving to the point we have is rediculously unlikely and we are the only ones to make it so far given we havent found any evidence for extrasolar sentience, this isnt an illogical position to have either   what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.  so, not gods, but god like, in terms of knowledge and power.  again, its possible there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.
gods are just humans who have had a good million or so years to evolve.  we know 0 things 0.  humans exist 0.  they become perpetually more intelligent over time.  isnt the obvious extrapolation that beings exist in the universe which are comparable to gods or higher powers ? this has nothing to do with christianity, the existence of a god does not imply that any of the christian doctrines are true.  im struggling to see why this isnt a safe assumption.  we know that live microbes travel around the universe like spores, impregnating hospitable planets.  we know that life evolves and becomes more intelligent.  if advanced beings meet all the criteria for what makes something a god and its safe to assume that advanced beings exist, why is it so hard to believe in god ?  #  isnt the obvious extrapolation that beings exist in the universe which are comparable to gods or higher powers ?  #  if they are  comparable  to gods or higher powers, then by  definition  they are  not  gods.   # if they are  comparable  to gods or higher powers, then by  definition  they are  not  gods.  gods are supernatural beings, outside of reality.  humans cannot become gods, at least in this type of existence.  if there was intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, would that mean that they too can become gods ? if they are more intelligent than us, does that mean that they are more likely to  be  gods ? all this aside, none of what you wrote implies that there is a higher power of any kind.  this is just an argument for assuming that humans will eventually reach a technological level that current humans would find indistinguishable from magic, just as our ancestors would view us.   #  not by your definition of a god maybe.   # the vast majority of all life has rudimentary or no intelligence.  only a small portion of the biosphere has developed anything beyond that, and its almost exclusively a vertebrate phenomenon.  we are intelligent, its likely we are not the only ones.  thats all im saying.  not by your definition of a god maybe.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.   #  anything can be anything if you redefine it: i define any being that uses reddit as a chair.   # thats all im saying.  in the universe, probably not, but it does not mean a god is real.  a god is just a being which has evolved to the level of intelligence necessary to meet your criteria of godliness.  anything can be anything if you redefine it: i define any being that uses reddit as a chair.  therefore we are all chairs.  yes, there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.  if thats what you are trying to say ?  #  its not just possible its the logical intelligent assumption to make.   # therefore we are all chairs.  why does using a definition you do not agree with mean that im redefining it ? who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  yes, this is possible.  not 0 proven though.  its not just possible its the logical intelligent assumption to make.  what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.   #  except that it isnt, the universe is only of a certain age, and there has only being enough heavier elements to form planets/life for a portion of that time.   # who has the authority to decide what the definition of god is ? im mostly talking about a general definition that most people would accept, which is any being which has a certain amount of power.  then why are  chairs  in this thread getting confused by your definition.  unless you define it in the op,  chairs  will assume you mean the colloquial definition of god, which is generally a being with omniscience, omnipotence, and usually omnipresence.  except that it isnt, the universe is only of a certain age, and there has only being enough heavier elements to form planets/life for a portion of that time.  it took us at least 0 billion years of evolutionary time after earth is creation to get to this point.  and its entirely possible we were among the first places to develop life assuming its even widespread.  its also entirely possible that evolving to the point we have is rediculously unlikely and we are the only ones to make it so far given we havent found any evidence for extrasolar sentience, this isnt an illogical position to have either   what im saying is that these beings could evolve to the extent that they possess all the power that they would need for people see them as gods/higher powers and for all intents and purposes are higher powers.  so, not gods, but god like, in terms of knowledge and power.  again, its possible there  might  be more intelligent/advanced life than us, out in the universe somewhere.
organic farming is supposed to be about creating an alternative to the unsustainable industrial agricultural system.  they use different tools, like crop rotations, etc.  however, one tool that they are arbitrarily prevented from using is seeds that have been genetically engineered.  this is a weird rule and prevents them from using seeds with bt traits bt is a pesticide used by more than 0 of organic farmers that would help them reduce the amount of chemicals they use.  there is also disease and virus resistance traits which would help them reduce inputs and boost yields.  the only reason against this i could see is that organic is now a marketing label, not just a type of farming regulation.  i would be most people who often buy organics are also against gmos, which means that organic farmers have to make environmental compromises in order to satisfy their customers.   #  organic farming is supposed to be about creating an alternative to the unsustainable industrial agricultural system.   #  i do not think that is what organic farming is about at all.   # i do not think that is what organic farming is about at all.  if it were, factory organic farms would have better yields.  lucky for us there are a number of different certifications, from 0 organic which is probably a terrible URL way to farm for sustainability reasons to  made with organic ingredients.   unfortunately, most of the people spending 0 bucks a week for two people at whole foods have no idea what the labels  actually mean  from a practical standpoint.  monsanto is bt corn is broken URL the corn rootworm has developed an immunity to it, so farmers using bt corn are increasing pesticide input to former, pre gmo levels.  the epa initially recommended that farmers keep a full 0 of their fields planted with non gmo seed in order to encourage mating between bt resistant and non bt resistant pests, but many of these guidelines were not followed and were resisted by monsanto.  the use of gmo rapidly increased resistance to the pesticide because farmers planted corn continuously rather than rotating with soybean.  as the article points out, continuous corn is a great place for the corn rootworm to develop resistance at an accelerated rate through normal evolutionary processes.  no, the reason against it is that organic has a very specific legal definition.  you cannot certify something as 0 organic if non organic methods have been used to produce it.  gmo is not an organic process.  it is fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding because genes from other species are artificially introduced to the seed in a laboratory.  that it is  used  as a marketing label has no bearing on its legal definition.  the real issue is what i mentioned above people who buy food are generally uneducated about agriculture.  the only way to solve this problem is to educate the masses about food politics, not change the legal definition of  organic  to include non organic methods.  i would be more in favor of ditching the organic certification entirely and coming up with a new certification called  sustainably produced  or some such that would serve as a useful shorthand for consumers unwilling to learn something about food production.  with my dream label, even gmo farms could receive a  sustainably produced  certification provided they follow guidelines about continuing crop rotations, crop mixing, and maintaining non gmo crops to reduce the environmental effects of monoculture.  you are probably right, but it seems to be that organic farmers are just as invested in the current definition as the consumers are.  they can make a boatload of money and spray organic pesticides at every opportunity if they wish.  but i would still argue that it is the organic label that has to go in favor of something that makes more sense, rather than change the word  organic  to include something that is not actually organic.   #  organic farming also does not have a sustainable source of potassium, their only source is mining rock potassium.   # organic farming is not always more sustainable, things like shipping cow manure across the country; not to mention prolonged use of manure leads to heavy metal build up.  they also ban human waste as fertilizer which flies in the face of sustainability.  several practices can be more harmful for the environment, like lower crop yields causing more deforestation; growing large fields of plants to grind up and use as pesticides.  organic farming also does not have a sustainable source of potassium, their only source is mining rock potassium.  also there are sustainable things they do not allow for only naturalistic reasons.  you already mentioned gmo.  but take standard industrial fertilizer, it is refined from oil, ok that is not sustainable.  but you could also make the same thing using gas extraction from the atmosphere powered by wind turbines, sustainable; that is not allowed.  potassium waste from smelting that would go to a land fill, is used in regular farming for it is potassium source; it keeps it out of a land fill and is less co0 intensive than mining.  waste potassium is banned in organic farming.  there are also programs working on extracting potassium from seawater, which is were it goes after people pee it out; that too is banned from organic farming, even if it only uses 0 renewable power.   #  if gmo usage was combined with some organic practices, it would no longer be organic farming; it would be some new hybrid.   #  i think his point is that your cmv is analogous to  jews should be able to eat pork.   you can come up with all of the rational reasons in the world as to why pork is safe, such as it is no longer an unclean or disease carrying animal as it was thousands of years ago, but the religion is built upon a book that says  you ca not do this.   in the same vein, organic farming is built upon being natural.  you are arguing against the premise of organic farming.  note that i agree completely with your stance on using gmos in sustainable farming, it is just inherently incompatible with the definition of organic farming.  if gmo usage was combined with some organic practices, it would no longer be organic farming; it would be some new hybrid.   #  things like irradiating plants or exposing them to carcinogens to create new mutant strains are perfectly fine.   # yes an organic farm  can  be more sustainable or it  can  be less sustainable, organic is just a set of arbitrary practices he is some other things organic food proponents like to clam:   organic farming does not use pesticides.  actually organic farming does not use  synthetic  pesticides, there are a lot of plant and basic chemical pesticides that they do use.  organic food contains less pesticides.  actually there is no correlation to organic food and lower pesticide residue on food.  the trace amounts of pesticide present on food is a result of the handling practices, the situation at the time of harvest, and historical pesticide use.  some of those old long lasting pesticides are still present in the fields, you can find us grown fruits and vegetables that have trace levels of pesticide that has been banned for 0 years.  organic food is made by smaller farmers not corporations.  corporations jumped on the organic farming train from the get go, the vast majority of organic food comes from the  exact same  companies the use traditional agriculture.  in some cases the organic practices are industry standard for some crops, so things like spinach might come from the same organic field and they just placed it in two separate bags to get both the regular and organic customers.  organic food does not contain gmo.  only direct gene injection is not allowed withing organic food.  things like irradiating plants or exposing them to carcinogens to create new mutant strains are perfectly fine.  the reason being that some crops like wheat already had this done to almost all the major gene lines.  organic wheat you eat today was cooked up in a nuclear reactor by a scientist in the 0 is and 0 is.   #  the decision upon whether or not to use a pesticide has nothing to do with its environmental impact or sustainability, it depends only on whether or not it is natural.   #  this entire cmv is built upon you not understanding what organic farming is.  it is not sustainable farming, it is natural farming.  the decision upon whether or not to use a pesticide has nothing to do with its environmental impact or sustainability, it depends only on whether or not it is natural.  basically not all organic farming is sustainable and not all sustainable farming is organic.  if you want organics to use gmo, then you need to convince them it is natural, not that it is sustainable.
organic farming is supposed to be about creating an alternative to the unsustainable industrial agricultural system.  they use different tools, like crop rotations, etc.  however, one tool that they are arbitrarily prevented from using is seeds that have been genetically engineered.  this is a weird rule and prevents them from using seeds with bt traits bt is a pesticide used by more than 0 of organic farmers that would help them reduce the amount of chemicals they use.  there is also disease and virus resistance traits which would help them reduce inputs and boost yields.  the only reason against this i could see is that organic is now a marketing label, not just a type of farming regulation.  i would be most people who often buy organics are also against gmos, which means that organic farmers have to make environmental compromises in order to satisfy their customers.   #  this is a weird rule and prevents them from using seeds with bt traits bt is a pesticide used by more than 0 of organic farmers that would help them reduce the amount of chemicals they use.   #  monsanto is bt corn is broken URL the corn rootworm has developed an immunity to it, so farmers using bt corn are increasing pesticide input to former, pre gmo levels.   # i do not think that is what organic farming is about at all.  if it were, factory organic farms would have better yields.  lucky for us there are a number of different certifications, from 0 organic which is probably a terrible URL way to farm for sustainability reasons to  made with organic ingredients.   unfortunately, most of the people spending 0 bucks a week for two people at whole foods have no idea what the labels  actually mean  from a practical standpoint.  monsanto is bt corn is broken URL the corn rootworm has developed an immunity to it, so farmers using bt corn are increasing pesticide input to former, pre gmo levels.  the epa initially recommended that farmers keep a full 0 of their fields planted with non gmo seed in order to encourage mating between bt resistant and non bt resistant pests, but many of these guidelines were not followed and were resisted by monsanto.  the use of gmo rapidly increased resistance to the pesticide because farmers planted corn continuously rather than rotating with soybean.  as the article points out, continuous corn is a great place for the corn rootworm to develop resistance at an accelerated rate through normal evolutionary processes.  no, the reason against it is that organic has a very specific legal definition.  you cannot certify something as 0 organic if non organic methods have been used to produce it.  gmo is not an organic process.  it is fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding because genes from other species are artificially introduced to the seed in a laboratory.  that it is  used  as a marketing label has no bearing on its legal definition.  the real issue is what i mentioned above people who buy food are generally uneducated about agriculture.  the only way to solve this problem is to educate the masses about food politics, not change the legal definition of  organic  to include non organic methods.  i would be more in favor of ditching the organic certification entirely and coming up with a new certification called  sustainably produced  or some such that would serve as a useful shorthand for consumers unwilling to learn something about food production.  with my dream label, even gmo farms could receive a  sustainably produced  certification provided they follow guidelines about continuing crop rotations, crop mixing, and maintaining non gmo crops to reduce the environmental effects of monoculture.  you are probably right, but it seems to be that organic farmers are just as invested in the current definition as the consumers are.  they can make a boatload of money and spray organic pesticides at every opportunity if they wish.  but i would still argue that it is the organic label that has to go in favor of something that makes more sense, rather than change the word  organic  to include something that is not actually organic.   #  there are also programs working on extracting potassium from seawater, which is were it goes after people pee it out; that too is banned from organic farming, even if it only uses 0 renewable power.   # organic farming is not always more sustainable, things like shipping cow manure across the country; not to mention prolonged use of manure leads to heavy metal build up.  they also ban human waste as fertilizer which flies in the face of sustainability.  several practices can be more harmful for the environment, like lower crop yields causing more deforestation; growing large fields of plants to grind up and use as pesticides.  organic farming also does not have a sustainable source of potassium, their only source is mining rock potassium.  also there are sustainable things they do not allow for only naturalistic reasons.  you already mentioned gmo.  but take standard industrial fertilizer, it is refined from oil, ok that is not sustainable.  but you could also make the same thing using gas extraction from the atmosphere powered by wind turbines, sustainable; that is not allowed.  potassium waste from smelting that would go to a land fill, is used in regular farming for it is potassium source; it keeps it out of a land fill and is less co0 intensive than mining.  waste potassium is banned in organic farming.  there are also programs working on extracting potassium from seawater, which is were it goes after people pee it out; that too is banned from organic farming, even if it only uses 0 renewable power.   #  if gmo usage was combined with some organic practices, it would no longer be organic farming; it would be some new hybrid.   #  i think his point is that your cmv is analogous to  jews should be able to eat pork.   you can come up with all of the rational reasons in the world as to why pork is safe, such as it is no longer an unclean or disease carrying animal as it was thousands of years ago, but the religion is built upon a book that says  you ca not do this.   in the same vein, organic farming is built upon being natural.  you are arguing against the premise of organic farming.  note that i agree completely with your stance on using gmos in sustainable farming, it is just inherently incompatible with the definition of organic farming.  if gmo usage was combined with some organic practices, it would no longer be organic farming; it would be some new hybrid.   #  organic food is made by smaller farmers not corporations.   # yes an organic farm  can  be more sustainable or it  can  be less sustainable, organic is just a set of arbitrary practices he is some other things organic food proponents like to clam:   organic farming does not use pesticides.  actually organic farming does not use  synthetic  pesticides, there are a lot of plant and basic chemical pesticides that they do use.  organic food contains less pesticides.  actually there is no correlation to organic food and lower pesticide residue on food.  the trace amounts of pesticide present on food is a result of the handling practices, the situation at the time of harvest, and historical pesticide use.  some of those old long lasting pesticides are still present in the fields, you can find us grown fruits and vegetables that have trace levels of pesticide that has been banned for 0 years.  organic food is made by smaller farmers not corporations.  corporations jumped on the organic farming train from the get go, the vast majority of organic food comes from the  exact same  companies the use traditional agriculture.  in some cases the organic practices are industry standard for some crops, so things like spinach might come from the same organic field and they just placed it in two separate bags to get both the regular and organic customers.  organic food does not contain gmo.  only direct gene injection is not allowed withing organic food.  things like irradiating plants or exposing them to carcinogens to create new mutant strains are perfectly fine.  the reason being that some crops like wheat already had this done to almost all the major gene lines.  organic wheat you eat today was cooked up in a nuclear reactor by a scientist in the 0 is and 0 is.   #  if you want organics to use gmo, then you need to convince them it is natural, not that it is sustainable.   #  this entire cmv is built upon you not understanding what organic farming is.  it is not sustainable farming, it is natural farming.  the decision upon whether or not to use a pesticide has nothing to do with its environmental impact or sustainability, it depends only on whether or not it is natural.  basically not all organic farming is sustainable and not all sustainable farming is organic.  if you want organics to use gmo, then you need to convince them it is natural, not that it is sustainable.
organic farming is supposed to be about creating an alternative to the unsustainable industrial agricultural system.  they use different tools, like crop rotations, etc.  however, one tool that they are arbitrarily prevented from using is seeds that have been genetically engineered.  this is a weird rule and prevents them from using seeds with bt traits bt is a pesticide used by more than 0 of organic farmers that would help them reduce the amount of chemicals they use.  there is also disease and virus resistance traits which would help them reduce inputs and boost yields.  the only reason against this i could see is that organic is now a marketing label, not just a type of farming regulation.  i would be most people who often buy organics are also against gmos, which means that organic farmers have to make environmental compromises in order to satisfy their customers.   #  the only reason against this i could see is that organic is now a marketing label, not just a type of farming regulation.   #  no, the reason against it is that organic has a very specific legal definition.   # i do not think that is what organic farming is about at all.  if it were, factory organic farms would have better yields.  lucky for us there are a number of different certifications, from 0 organic which is probably a terrible URL way to farm for sustainability reasons to  made with organic ingredients.   unfortunately, most of the people spending 0 bucks a week for two people at whole foods have no idea what the labels  actually mean  from a practical standpoint.  monsanto is bt corn is broken URL the corn rootworm has developed an immunity to it, so farmers using bt corn are increasing pesticide input to former, pre gmo levels.  the epa initially recommended that farmers keep a full 0 of their fields planted with non gmo seed in order to encourage mating between bt resistant and non bt resistant pests, but many of these guidelines were not followed and were resisted by monsanto.  the use of gmo rapidly increased resistance to the pesticide because farmers planted corn continuously rather than rotating with soybean.  as the article points out, continuous corn is a great place for the corn rootworm to develop resistance at an accelerated rate through normal evolutionary processes.  no, the reason against it is that organic has a very specific legal definition.  you cannot certify something as 0 organic if non organic methods have been used to produce it.  gmo is not an organic process.  it is fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding because genes from other species are artificially introduced to the seed in a laboratory.  that it is  used  as a marketing label has no bearing on its legal definition.  the real issue is what i mentioned above people who buy food are generally uneducated about agriculture.  the only way to solve this problem is to educate the masses about food politics, not change the legal definition of  organic  to include non organic methods.  i would be more in favor of ditching the organic certification entirely and coming up with a new certification called  sustainably produced  or some such that would serve as a useful shorthand for consumers unwilling to learn something about food production.  with my dream label, even gmo farms could receive a  sustainably produced  certification provided they follow guidelines about continuing crop rotations, crop mixing, and maintaining non gmo crops to reduce the environmental effects of monoculture.  you are probably right, but it seems to be that organic farmers are just as invested in the current definition as the consumers are.  they can make a boatload of money and spray organic pesticides at every opportunity if they wish.  but i would still argue that it is the organic label that has to go in favor of something that makes more sense, rather than change the word  organic  to include something that is not actually organic.   #  also there are sustainable things they do not allow for only naturalistic reasons.   # organic farming is not always more sustainable, things like shipping cow manure across the country; not to mention prolonged use of manure leads to heavy metal build up.  they also ban human waste as fertilizer which flies in the face of sustainability.  several practices can be more harmful for the environment, like lower crop yields causing more deforestation; growing large fields of plants to grind up and use as pesticides.  organic farming also does not have a sustainable source of potassium, their only source is mining rock potassium.  also there are sustainable things they do not allow for only naturalistic reasons.  you already mentioned gmo.  but take standard industrial fertilizer, it is refined from oil, ok that is not sustainable.  but you could also make the same thing using gas extraction from the atmosphere powered by wind turbines, sustainable; that is not allowed.  potassium waste from smelting that would go to a land fill, is used in regular farming for it is potassium source; it keeps it out of a land fill and is less co0 intensive than mining.  waste potassium is banned in organic farming.  there are also programs working on extracting potassium from seawater, which is were it goes after people pee it out; that too is banned from organic farming, even if it only uses 0 renewable power.   #  i think his point is that your cmv is analogous to  jews should be able to eat pork.    #  i think his point is that your cmv is analogous to  jews should be able to eat pork.   you can come up with all of the rational reasons in the world as to why pork is safe, such as it is no longer an unclean or disease carrying animal as it was thousands of years ago, but the religion is built upon a book that says  you ca not do this.   in the same vein, organic farming is built upon being natural.  you are arguing against the premise of organic farming.  note that i agree completely with your stance on using gmos in sustainable farming, it is just inherently incompatible with the definition of organic farming.  if gmo usage was combined with some organic practices, it would no longer be organic farming; it would be some new hybrid.   #  actually there is no correlation to organic food and lower pesticide residue on food.   # yes an organic farm  can  be more sustainable or it  can  be less sustainable, organic is just a set of arbitrary practices he is some other things organic food proponents like to clam:   organic farming does not use pesticides.  actually organic farming does not use  synthetic  pesticides, there are a lot of plant and basic chemical pesticides that they do use.  organic food contains less pesticides.  actually there is no correlation to organic food and lower pesticide residue on food.  the trace amounts of pesticide present on food is a result of the handling practices, the situation at the time of harvest, and historical pesticide use.  some of those old long lasting pesticides are still present in the fields, you can find us grown fruits and vegetables that have trace levels of pesticide that has been banned for 0 years.  organic food is made by smaller farmers not corporations.  corporations jumped on the organic farming train from the get go, the vast majority of organic food comes from the  exact same  companies the use traditional agriculture.  in some cases the organic practices are industry standard for some crops, so things like spinach might come from the same organic field and they just placed it in two separate bags to get both the regular and organic customers.  organic food does not contain gmo.  only direct gene injection is not allowed withing organic food.  things like irradiating plants or exposing them to carcinogens to create new mutant strains are perfectly fine.  the reason being that some crops like wheat already had this done to almost all the major gene lines.  organic wheat you eat today was cooked up in a nuclear reactor by a scientist in the 0 is and 0 is.   #  this entire cmv is built upon you not understanding what organic farming is.   #  this entire cmv is built upon you not understanding what organic farming is.  it is not sustainable farming, it is natural farming.  the decision upon whether or not to use a pesticide has nothing to do with its environmental impact or sustainability, it depends only on whether or not it is natural.  basically not all organic farming is sustainable and not all sustainable farming is organic.  if you want organics to use gmo, then you need to convince them it is natural, not that it is sustainable.
organic farming is supposed to be about creating an alternative to the unsustainable industrial agricultural system.  they use different tools, like crop rotations, etc.  however, one tool that they are arbitrarily prevented from using is seeds that have been genetically engineered.  this is a weird rule and prevents them from using seeds with bt traits bt is a pesticide used by more than 0 of organic farmers that would help them reduce the amount of chemicals they use.  there is also disease and virus resistance traits which would help them reduce inputs and boost yields.  the only reason against this i could see is that organic is now a marketing label, not just a type of farming regulation.  i would be most people who often buy organics are also against gmos, which means that organic farmers have to make environmental compromises in order to satisfy their customers.   #  i would be most people who often buy organics are also against gmos, which means that organic farmers have to make environmental compromises in order to satisfy their customers.   #  you are probably right, but it seems to be that organic farmers are just as invested in the current definition as the consumers are.   # i do not think that is what organic farming is about at all.  if it were, factory organic farms would have better yields.  lucky for us there are a number of different certifications, from 0 organic which is probably a terrible URL way to farm for sustainability reasons to  made with organic ingredients.   unfortunately, most of the people spending 0 bucks a week for two people at whole foods have no idea what the labels  actually mean  from a practical standpoint.  monsanto is bt corn is broken URL the corn rootworm has developed an immunity to it, so farmers using bt corn are increasing pesticide input to former, pre gmo levels.  the epa initially recommended that farmers keep a full 0 of their fields planted with non gmo seed in order to encourage mating between bt resistant and non bt resistant pests, but many of these guidelines were not followed and were resisted by monsanto.  the use of gmo rapidly increased resistance to the pesticide because farmers planted corn continuously rather than rotating with soybean.  as the article points out, continuous corn is a great place for the corn rootworm to develop resistance at an accelerated rate through normal evolutionary processes.  no, the reason against it is that organic has a very specific legal definition.  you cannot certify something as 0 organic if non organic methods have been used to produce it.  gmo is not an organic process.  it is fundamentally different from traditional plant breeding because genes from other species are artificially introduced to the seed in a laboratory.  that it is  used  as a marketing label has no bearing on its legal definition.  the real issue is what i mentioned above people who buy food are generally uneducated about agriculture.  the only way to solve this problem is to educate the masses about food politics, not change the legal definition of  organic  to include non organic methods.  i would be more in favor of ditching the organic certification entirely and coming up with a new certification called  sustainably produced  or some such that would serve as a useful shorthand for consumers unwilling to learn something about food production.  with my dream label, even gmo farms could receive a  sustainably produced  certification provided they follow guidelines about continuing crop rotations, crop mixing, and maintaining non gmo crops to reduce the environmental effects of monoculture.  you are probably right, but it seems to be that organic farmers are just as invested in the current definition as the consumers are.  they can make a boatload of money and spray organic pesticides at every opportunity if they wish.  but i would still argue that it is the organic label that has to go in favor of something that makes more sense, rather than change the word  organic  to include something that is not actually organic.   #  but you could also make the same thing using gas extraction from the atmosphere powered by wind turbines, sustainable; that is not allowed.   # organic farming is not always more sustainable, things like shipping cow manure across the country; not to mention prolonged use of manure leads to heavy metal build up.  they also ban human waste as fertilizer which flies in the face of sustainability.  several practices can be more harmful for the environment, like lower crop yields causing more deforestation; growing large fields of plants to grind up and use as pesticides.  organic farming also does not have a sustainable source of potassium, their only source is mining rock potassium.  also there are sustainable things they do not allow for only naturalistic reasons.  you already mentioned gmo.  but take standard industrial fertilizer, it is refined from oil, ok that is not sustainable.  but you could also make the same thing using gas extraction from the atmosphere powered by wind turbines, sustainable; that is not allowed.  potassium waste from smelting that would go to a land fill, is used in regular farming for it is potassium source; it keeps it out of a land fill and is less co0 intensive than mining.  waste potassium is banned in organic farming.  there are also programs working on extracting potassium from seawater, which is were it goes after people pee it out; that too is banned from organic farming, even if it only uses 0 renewable power.   #  i think his point is that your cmv is analogous to  jews should be able to eat pork.    #  i think his point is that your cmv is analogous to  jews should be able to eat pork.   you can come up with all of the rational reasons in the world as to why pork is safe, such as it is no longer an unclean or disease carrying animal as it was thousands of years ago, but the religion is built upon a book that says  you ca not do this.   in the same vein, organic farming is built upon being natural.  you are arguing against the premise of organic farming.  note that i agree completely with your stance on using gmos in sustainable farming, it is just inherently incompatible with the definition of organic farming.  if gmo usage was combined with some organic practices, it would no longer be organic farming; it would be some new hybrid.   #  the reason being that some crops like wheat already had this done to almost all the major gene lines.   # yes an organic farm  can  be more sustainable or it  can  be less sustainable, organic is just a set of arbitrary practices he is some other things organic food proponents like to clam:   organic farming does not use pesticides.  actually organic farming does not use  synthetic  pesticides, there are a lot of plant and basic chemical pesticides that they do use.  organic food contains less pesticides.  actually there is no correlation to organic food and lower pesticide residue on food.  the trace amounts of pesticide present on food is a result of the handling practices, the situation at the time of harvest, and historical pesticide use.  some of those old long lasting pesticides are still present in the fields, you can find us grown fruits and vegetables that have trace levels of pesticide that has been banned for 0 years.  organic food is made by smaller farmers not corporations.  corporations jumped on the organic farming train from the get go, the vast majority of organic food comes from the  exact same  companies the use traditional agriculture.  in some cases the organic practices are industry standard for some crops, so things like spinach might come from the same organic field and they just placed it in two separate bags to get both the regular and organic customers.  organic food does not contain gmo.  only direct gene injection is not allowed withing organic food.  things like irradiating plants or exposing them to carcinogens to create new mutant strains are perfectly fine.  the reason being that some crops like wheat already had this done to almost all the major gene lines.  organic wheat you eat today was cooked up in a nuclear reactor by a scientist in the 0 is and 0 is.   #  this entire cmv is built upon you not understanding what organic farming is.   #  this entire cmv is built upon you not understanding what organic farming is.  it is not sustainable farming, it is natural farming.  the decision upon whether or not to use a pesticide has nothing to do with its environmental impact or sustainability, it depends only on whether or not it is natural.  basically not all organic farming is sustainable and not all sustainable farming is organic.  if you want organics to use gmo, then you need to convince them it is natural, not that it is sustainable.
i am a 0 year old male and i eventually want to have a happy family and children.  although i am in no rush, i have been getting more serious about it recently, and really thinking about whats important to me.  i have concluded that looks are the most important thing to me in a mate, not because i am superficial or shallow, but because i believe that looks are the best indicator of ones overall health, intellect, and the types of choices they make.  let me elaborate.  first off, let me clarify that  looks  is both subjective and objective/universal.  there are certain things like reasonable symmetry, youth prime fertility , and good health that most people find attractive.  other things are completely subjective like race, hair color, body type, etc.  i think  beauty  is the default trigger of male attraction to females by nature, and for good reason.  beauty signals health, fertility, good genes, intellect, good decision making, and the subjective part of looks probably has something to do with traits that blend well with my own genes.  first and foremost, i want my children to be healthy, intelligent, athletic, loving etc.  i believe that what a person looks like on the outside is a pretty accurate indication of what they are like on the inside.  there are always exceptions to the rule, like injured/diseased people etc, but i feel that this is generally true.  continuing on with why looks are important to me: youth: prime fertility for women is between 0 and 0.  i have always found women in their mid twenties to early thirties to be the most attractive.  this coincides with high fertility zones with women, increasing the chances of conception and lowering the risk of birth defects.  symmetry: i am not huge on this but facial symmetry is a decent indicator of good genes as shown in scientific studies.  body type: i am attracted to fit, curvy women.  this is more of a subjective thing when it comes to looks however there is science behind it.  i am not attracted to rail thin women or overly ripped women, and its been shown that women with body fat too low do not menstruate and are less fertile.  i am also not attracted to overweight women, which is a signal of poor impulse control, possible hormonal abnormalities, lower intellect, or other things which i would not want my children to inherit.  i am attracted to curves, and both large breasts and bubble butt appear to be sexual fertility signals on an otherwise fit and healthy woman.  boobs indicate a woman can feed newborns and the shape/size/etc of the butt possibly indicates fitness levels that may be related to sex and procreation.  intellect: i feel that you can read people through their eyes and body language even more so than you can with words.  these are both subsets of  looks .  it has been said that most communication is nonverbal.  you can often tell how people are wired from how they look.  perhaps they are book smart but socially inept, or incapable of abstract thought but extremely socially savvy, etc.  looks hint at how peoples brains functions.  disposition: i feel that a persons disposition, whether they are loving or vicious, compassionate or heartless can be read through their looks.  this is something that is more complicated however and may not be apparent at first glance.  it may take a long time and multiple encounters with someone to be able to read how their looks convey their disposition.  so to finish, looks are the most important thing to me.  and by looks i do not mean the objectified woman who most men agree is the hottest thing ever.  by looks i mean my own subjective attraction to how a particular woman appears and the message her appearance conveys to me.  perhaps most men are like this, because when most men tell their wife she is beautiful they are being honest, subjectively.   #  i am a 0 year old male and i eventually want to have a happy family and children.   #  i am curious about whether you have thought past that image.   #  it seems to me like you have a type when it comes to women and that you would prefer your future wife to be attractive.  that is not unreasonable.  most men share that prefernce.  you do not need to justify it with a bunch of pseudoscience and pop sci genetics.  i am curious about whether you have thought past that image.  what do you imagine you and your wife will talk about ? what will you fight about ? what job will she do ? where will you vacation ? who will do the dishes, and who will take out the trash ? marriage is not just about marrying someone; it is about living with them, their foibles and their flaws, every day.   #  after she pops out 0 or 0 kids, her body will not be the same.   #  a marriage is supposed to be a promise to love and honor  till death do you part .  at the very least ideally it needs to last until the youngest child turns 0 and moves out.  if you are so focused primarily on looks, you are going to overlook other traits.  you may choose someone who is selfish, lazy, a bad bother, a drug addict, or a bad spouse just because she is hot and you can show her off to your friends.  after she pops out 0 or 0 kids, her body will not be the same.  after a decade of marriage, she will not longer look so young.  suddenly she does not look like the 0 year old model.  do you get distant and tell her she is no longer attractive ? and when she is ugly on the inside, there wo not be anything to fall back on.  i think you may not be ready for marriage if all you still want from a woman is her vagina/uterus.  a marriage is more than just a girlfriend who you happen to have kids with.  you need to have common goals and beliefs, or you will be fighting all the time.  if you do not bother to consider her parenting style and suitability as a mom, you will be miserable when she raises them a  wrong  way or neglects them completely.  your idea is short sighted and doomed to fail.  you argue that looks are important because it signifies physical health, i but there is no science behind that.  you ca not look at her and know she is your type because she eats right and runs 0x a week, or she is quietly an alcoholic or bulimic.  you ca not look at her and know if she carries genes for cystic fibrosis, tay sachs, or some other serious genetic illness.  or has a family history of serious illness.  or who has fertility problems or possibly infertile at all.  even a doctor who evaluates health for a living ca not know someone is health without diagnostics or a history.  there is no way you have x ray vision and can detect  health  by rating how pretty she is.  you argue that physical health is essential to give birth to and raise children, but that ignores mental and emotional health.  i know one friend whose husband married her because he thought she was hot, completely ignoring her major mental illness.  he thought she would make such beautiful kids.  the result was the illness was genetic, both girls were on multiple psych meds before even starting school, their mother cycles in and out of reality, and sometimes mom would spent the entire day curled up on the floor crying.  it is tragic.  and i ca not see the physical beauty in those kids behind their troubled expressions and bizarre behavor.   #  you are allowed to value physical traits over others without resorting to rationalizations or pseudo science.   # edit: i mean, sure, there is a reason, but it may have nothing to do with what you think the reason is the population level trend or correlation between physical attraction and the traits you find  good  only apply at that level, not at the level of an individual person.  you just ca not take specifics from population statistics like that.  it is interesting because you are using your own faulty intuition general statistics apply directly to individuals to justify a different intuition people you find attractive have better genes .  in both cases, those  gut instincts  are false.  that is why we have science.  so we do not make intuitive mistakes like this.  for what it is worth, i do not think you need to think that hard about justifying your aesthetic preferences.  you are allowed to value physical traits over others without resorting to rationalizations or pseudo science.   #  let is say you do not know much at all about cars.   #  first of all, how most men go about finding partners does not necessarily have anything to do with the best way.  now, i do not know what exactly you mean by  base their attraction off looks .  looks are certainly one component of attraction.  most people have a lot of other additional components as well.  i do not really care what is politically correct to say but i do not think you will find too much resistance in saying that looks are important.  they obviously are.  i am not a suggesting looks are not important at all.  i am saying that going solely off of looks is not the best way to found a good relationship.  for example, you see a beautiful car that you know nothing about.  let is say you do not know much at all about cars.  so do you buy the car and hope everything sorts itself out ? i hope not.  i hope you would do some research to make sure it is really the best car for you.  now do the same with women and i think things will work out much better.  i am not suggesting that you lower your standards physically.  rather, i am suggesting you raise your standards on non physical traits.   #  i think he believes that how attractive the person is determines this.   #  i think he believes that how attractive the person is determines this.  it seems like this might be his justification for valuing it so highly.  from the op:  i believe that looks are the best indicator of ones overall health, intellect, and the types of choices they make and  i think  beauty  is the default trigger of male attraction to females by nature, and for good reason.  beauty signals health, fertility, good genes, intellect, good decision making, and the subjective part of looks probably has something to do with traits that blend well with my own genes.  i do not want to speak for him though, if he would like to clarify.  and he has not responded to criticisms of his understanding of evolution and genetics yet.
i am a 0 year old male and i eventually want to have a happy family and children.  although i am in no rush, i have been getting more serious about it recently, and really thinking about whats important to me.  i have concluded that looks are the most important thing to me in a mate, not because i am superficial or shallow, but because i believe that looks are the best indicator of ones overall health, intellect, and the types of choices they make.  let me elaborate.  first off, let me clarify that  looks  is both subjective and objective/universal.  there are certain things like reasonable symmetry, youth prime fertility , and good health that most people find attractive.  other things are completely subjective like race, hair color, body type, etc.  i think  beauty  is the default trigger of male attraction to females by nature, and for good reason.  beauty signals health, fertility, good genes, intellect, good decision making, and the subjective part of looks probably has something to do with traits that blend well with my own genes.  first and foremost, i want my children to be healthy, intelligent, athletic, loving etc.  i believe that what a person looks like on the outside is a pretty accurate indication of what they are like on the inside.  there are always exceptions to the rule, like injured/diseased people etc, but i feel that this is generally true.  continuing on with why looks are important to me: youth: prime fertility for women is between 0 and 0.  i have always found women in their mid twenties to early thirties to be the most attractive.  this coincides with high fertility zones with women, increasing the chances of conception and lowering the risk of birth defects.  symmetry: i am not huge on this but facial symmetry is a decent indicator of good genes as shown in scientific studies.  body type: i am attracted to fit, curvy women.  this is more of a subjective thing when it comes to looks however there is science behind it.  i am not attracted to rail thin women or overly ripped women, and its been shown that women with body fat too low do not menstruate and are less fertile.  i am also not attracted to overweight women, which is a signal of poor impulse control, possible hormonal abnormalities, lower intellect, or other things which i would not want my children to inherit.  i am attracted to curves, and both large breasts and bubble butt appear to be sexual fertility signals on an otherwise fit and healthy woman.  boobs indicate a woman can feed newborns and the shape/size/etc of the butt possibly indicates fitness levels that may be related to sex and procreation.  intellect: i feel that you can read people through their eyes and body language even more so than you can with words.  these are both subsets of  looks .  it has been said that most communication is nonverbal.  you can often tell how people are wired from how they look.  perhaps they are book smart but socially inept, or incapable of abstract thought but extremely socially savvy, etc.  looks hint at how peoples brains functions.  disposition: i feel that a persons disposition, whether they are loving or vicious, compassionate or heartless can be read through their looks.  this is something that is more complicated however and may not be apparent at first glance.  it may take a long time and multiple encounters with someone to be able to read how their looks convey their disposition.  so to finish, looks are the most important thing to me.  and by looks i do not mean the objectified woman who most men agree is the hottest thing ever.  by looks i mean my own subjective attraction to how a particular woman appears and the message her appearance conveys to me.  perhaps most men are like this, because when most men tell their wife she is beautiful they are being honest, subjectively.   #  disposition: i feel that a persons disposition, whether they are loving or vicious, compassionate or heartless can be read through their looks.   #  this is something that is more complicated however and may not be apparent at first glance.   #  i guess you are right that youth/body shape is important if you want a fertile woman.  however i do not see how looks can serve as an accurate indicator for intellect or disposition, especially when there are much more accurate indicators.  these are both subsets of  looks .  it has been said that most communication is nonverbal.  that is a strange interpretation of what  looks  mean.  when most people say  looks , they refer to facial/body  features , not facial/body  language .  facial/body language is the result of actions, which is not usually classified as  looks .  if you are going to classify actions as  looks , then you could classify  everything  as looks; since when a person makes an action, you can see it, therefore it is  looks.   but at that point, it seems silly to call something  looks  when it is the exact same thing as behavior.  this is something that is more complicated however and may not be apparent at first glance.  it may take a long time and multiple encounters with someone to be able to read how their looks convey their disposition.  my reply to this is the same as with your  intellect  point.  however, i would like to add that you note that it may take multiple encounters to understand someone is looks.  this implies that you have to learn how someone is looks corresponds to their actions.  however, once you have reached this point, you have already discovered enough about their actions to determine the person is personality.  so it seems that  looks  were not really all that important.  what was important was determining their actions i. e.  behavior ;  looks  are only important for deducing a person is feelings in specific scenarios.  after reading the comments, it seems like you are saying you have a strict minimum requirement for attractiveness.  if a woman meets that requirement, then other qualities matter most.  but if that is the logic you are using, then does it make sense to say looks are the most important factor ? i mean, it is probably true that you have a strict requirement even more important than looks that the person you are dating must be of the female gender, for example.  would you then say that  gender is the most important factor for choosing a mate for myself.   i guess that might technically be true, but it just seems silly to say that.  maybe it is a semantic issue.   #  you ca not look at her and know if she carries genes for cystic fibrosis, tay sachs, or some other serious genetic illness.   #  a marriage is supposed to be a promise to love and honor  till death do you part .  at the very least ideally it needs to last until the youngest child turns 0 and moves out.  if you are so focused primarily on looks, you are going to overlook other traits.  you may choose someone who is selfish, lazy, a bad bother, a drug addict, or a bad spouse just because she is hot and you can show her off to your friends.  after she pops out 0 or 0 kids, her body will not be the same.  after a decade of marriage, she will not longer look so young.  suddenly she does not look like the 0 year old model.  do you get distant and tell her she is no longer attractive ? and when she is ugly on the inside, there wo not be anything to fall back on.  i think you may not be ready for marriage if all you still want from a woman is her vagina/uterus.  a marriage is more than just a girlfriend who you happen to have kids with.  you need to have common goals and beliefs, or you will be fighting all the time.  if you do not bother to consider her parenting style and suitability as a mom, you will be miserable when she raises them a  wrong  way or neglects them completely.  your idea is short sighted and doomed to fail.  you argue that looks are important because it signifies physical health, i but there is no science behind that.  you ca not look at her and know she is your type because she eats right and runs 0x a week, or she is quietly an alcoholic or bulimic.  you ca not look at her and know if she carries genes for cystic fibrosis, tay sachs, or some other serious genetic illness.  or has a family history of serious illness.  or who has fertility problems or possibly infertile at all.  even a doctor who evaluates health for a living ca not know someone is health without diagnostics or a history.  there is no way you have x ray vision and can detect  health  by rating how pretty she is.  you argue that physical health is essential to give birth to and raise children, but that ignores mental and emotional health.  i know one friend whose husband married her because he thought she was hot, completely ignoring her major mental illness.  he thought she would make such beautiful kids.  the result was the illness was genetic, both girls were on multiple psych meds before even starting school, their mother cycles in and out of reality, and sometimes mom would spent the entire day curled up on the floor crying.  it is tragic.  and i ca not see the physical beauty in those kids behind their troubled expressions and bizarre behavor.   #  so we do not make intuitive mistakes like this.   # edit: i mean, sure, there is a reason, but it may have nothing to do with what you think the reason is the population level trend or correlation between physical attraction and the traits you find  good  only apply at that level, not at the level of an individual person.  you just ca not take specifics from population statistics like that.  it is interesting because you are using your own faulty intuition general statistics apply directly to individuals to justify a different intuition people you find attractive have better genes .  in both cases, those  gut instincts  are false.  that is why we have science.  so we do not make intuitive mistakes like this.  for what it is worth, i do not think you need to think that hard about justifying your aesthetic preferences.  you are allowed to value physical traits over others without resorting to rationalizations or pseudo science.   #  let is say you do not know much at all about cars.   #  first of all, how most men go about finding partners does not necessarily have anything to do with the best way.  now, i do not know what exactly you mean by  base their attraction off looks .  looks are certainly one component of attraction.  most people have a lot of other additional components as well.  i do not really care what is politically correct to say but i do not think you will find too much resistance in saying that looks are important.  they obviously are.  i am not a suggesting looks are not important at all.  i am saying that going solely off of looks is not the best way to found a good relationship.  for example, you see a beautiful car that you know nothing about.  let is say you do not know much at all about cars.  so do you buy the car and hope everything sorts itself out ? i hope not.  i hope you would do some research to make sure it is really the best car for you.  now do the same with women and i think things will work out much better.  i am not suggesting that you lower your standards physically.  rather, i am suggesting you raise your standards on non physical traits.   #  it seems like this might be his justification for valuing it so highly.   #  i think he believes that how attractive the person is determines this.  it seems like this might be his justification for valuing it so highly.  from the op:  i believe that looks are the best indicator of ones overall health, intellect, and the types of choices they make and  i think  beauty  is the default trigger of male attraction to females by nature, and for good reason.  beauty signals health, fertility, good genes, intellect, good decision making, and the subjective part of looks probably has something to do with traits that blend well with my own genes.  i do not want to speak for him though, if he would like to clarify.  and he has not responded to criticisms of his understanding of evolution and genetics yet.
i am a 0 year old male and i eventually want to have a happy family and children.  although i am in no rush, i have been getting more serious about it recently, and really thinking about whats important to me.  i have concluded that looks are the most important thing to me in a mate, not because i am superficial or shallow, but because i believe that looks are the best indicator of ones overall health, intellect, and the types of choices they make.  let me elaborate.  first off, let me clarify that  looks  is both subjective and objective/universal.  there are certain things like reasonable symmetry, youth prime fertility , and good health that most people find attractive.  other things are completely subjective like race, hair color, body type, etc.  i think  beauty  is the default trigger of male attraction to females by nature, and for good reason.  beauty signals health, fertility, good genes, intellect, good decision making, and the subjective part of looks probably has something to do with traits that blend well with my own genes.  first and foremost, i want my children to be healthy, intelligent, athletic, loving etc.  i believe that what a person looks like on the outside is a pretty accurate indication of what they are like on the inside.  there are always exceptions to the rule, like injured/diseased people etc, but i feel that this is generally true.  continuing on with why looks are important to me: youth: prime fertility for women is between 0 and 0.  i have always found women in their mid twenties to early thirties to be the most attractive.  this coincides with high fertility zones with women, increasing the chances of conception and lowering the risk of birth defects.  symmetry: i am not huge on this but facial symmetry is a decent indicator of good genes as shown in scientific studies.  body type: i am attracted to fit, curvy women.  this is more of a subjective thing when it comes to looks however there is science behind it.  i am not attracted to rail thin women or overly ripped women, and its been shown that women with body fat too low do not menstruate and are less fertile.  i am also not attracted to overweight women, which is a signal of poor impulse control, possible hormonal abnormalities, lower intellect, or other things which i would not want my children to inherit.  i am attracted to curves, and both large breasts and bubble butt appear to be sexual fertility signals on an otherwise fit and healthy woman.  boobs indicate a woman can feed newborns and the shape/size/etc of the butt possibly indicates fitness levels that may be related to sex and procreation.  intellect: i feel that you can read people through their eyes and body language even more so than you can with words.  these are both subsets of  looks .  it has been said that most communication is nonverbal.  you can often tell how people are wired from how they look.  perhaps they are book smart but socially inept, or incapable of abstract thought but extremely socially savvy, etc.  looks hint at how peoples brains functions.  disposition: i feel that a persons disposition, whether they are loving or vicious, compassionate or heartless can be read through their looks.  this is something that is more complicated however and may not be apparent at first glance.  it may take a long time and multiple encounters with someone to be able to read how their looks convey their disposition.  so to finish, looks are the most important thing to me.  and by looks i do not mean the objectified woman who most men agree is the hottest thing ever.  by looks i mean my own subjective attraction to how a particular woman appears and the message her appearance conveys to me.  perhaps most men are like this, because when most men tell their wife she is beautiful they are being honest, subjectively.   #  beauty signals health, fertility, good genes, intellect, good decision making, and the subjective part of looks probably has something to do with traits that blend well with my own genes.   #  we have certainly evolved to find certain physical traits attractive because they generally signify health and fertility.   # we have certainly evolved to find certain physical traits attractive because they generally signify health and fertility.  evolutionarily speaking, males of most species benefit most from mating with as many females as possible and expending the least amount of energy possible in raising the offspring.  for these males, physical appearance is the best way to assess health at a glance to increase the chances of having healthy offspring.  if your primary goal is to have as many healthy offpring as possible, then physical health is the best quick and dirty tool you can use.  you simply do not have time to waste assessing other qualities.  however, if you are looking to invest in a few offspring and maximize the health and chances of success of these few offspring, then physical appearance is not the most important factor.  success in today is society can be attributed just as much if not more to intelligence, motivation, and the ability to excel socially.  physical appearance has good correlation to good health, but it is not 0.  unattractive people can artificially increase their attractiveness, and traditionally good looking people can still have a variety of diseases and genetic inadequacies, not to mention qualities that hinder them socially in today is society.  if you are maximizing number of offspring, you can stand to be wrong some of the time.  but if you are only investing in a few, you have the time to gather more information about your mate and you are doing yourself a disservice to prioritize looks above all other information.   #  the result was the illness was genetic, both girls were on multiple psych meds before even starting school, their mother cycles in and out of reality, and sometimes mom would spent the entire day curled up on the floor crying.   #  a marriage is supposed to be a promise to love and honor  till death do you part .  at the very least ideally it needs to last until the youngest child turns 0 and moves out.  if you are so focused primarily on looks, you are going to overlook other traits.  you may choose someone who is selfish, lazy, a bad bother, a drug addict, or a bad spouse just because she is hot and you can show her off to your friends.  after she pops out 0 or 0 kids, her body will not be the same.  after a decade of marriage, she will not longer look so young.  suddenly she does not look like the 0 year old model.  do you get distant and tell her she is no longer attractive ? and when she is ugly on the inside, there wo not be anything to fall back on.  i think you may not be ready for marriage if all you still want from a woman is her vagina/uterus.  a marriage is more than just a girlfriend who you happen to have kids with.  you need to have common goals and beliefs, or you will be fighting all the time.  if you do not bother to consider her parenting style and suitability as a mom, you will be miserable when she raises them a  wrong  way or neglects them completely.  your idea is short sighted and doomed to fail.  you argue that looks are important because it signifies physical health, i but there is no science behind that.  you ca not look at her and know she is your type because she eats right and runs 0x a week, or she is quietly an alcoholic or bulimic.  you ca not look at her and know if she carries genes for cystic fibrosis, tay sachs, or some other serious genetic illness.  or has a family history of serious illness.  or who has fertility problems or possibly infertile at all.  even a doctor who evaluates health for a living ca not know someone is health without diagnostics or a history.  there is no way you have x ray vision and can detect  health  by rating how pretty she is.  you argue that physical health is essential to give birth to and raise children, but that ignores mental and emotional health.  i know one friend whose husband married her because he thought she was hot, completely ignoring her major mental illness.  he thought she would make such beautiful kids.  the result was the illness was genetic, both girls were on multiple psych meds before even starting school, their mother cycles in and out of reality, and sometimes mom would spent the entire day curled up on the floor crying.  it is tragic.  and i ca not see the physical beauty in those kids behind their troubled expressions and bizarre behavor.   #  you just ca not take specifics from population statistics like that.   # edit: i mean, sure, there is a reason, but it may have nothing to do with what you think the reason is the population level trend or correlation between physical attraction and the traits you find  good  only apply at that level, not at the level of an individual person.  you just ca not take specifics from population statistics like that.  it is interesting because you are using your own faulty intuition general statistics apply directly to individuals to justify a different intuition people you find attractive have better genes .  in both cases, those  gut instincts  are false.  that is why we have science.  so we do not make intuitive mistakes like this.  for what it is worth, i do not think you need to think that hard about justifying your aesthetic preferences.  you are allowed to value physical traits over others without resorting to rationalizations or pseudo science.   #  for example, you see a beautiful car that you know nothing about.   #  first of all, how most men go about finding partners does not necessarily have anything to do with the best way.  now, i do not know what exactly you mean by  base their attraction off looks .  looks are certainly one component of attraction.  most people have a lot of other additional components as well.  i do not really care what is politically correct to say but i do not think you will find too much resistance in saying that looks are important.  they obviously are.  i am not a suggesting looks are not important at all.  i am saying that going solely off of looks is not the best way to found a good relationship.  for example, you see a beautiful car that you know nothing about.  let is say you do not know much at all about cars.  so do you buy the car and hope everything sorts itself out ? i hope not.  i hope you would do some research to make sure it is really the best car for you.  now do the same with women and i think things will work out much better.  i am not suggesting that you lower your standards physically.  rather, i am suggesting you raise your standards on non physical traits.   #  what do you imagine you and your wife will talk about ?  #  it seems to me like you have a type when it comes to women and that you would prefer your future wife to be attractive.  that is not unreasonable.  most men share that prefernce.  you do not need to justify it with a bunch of pseudoscience and pop sci genetics.  i am curious about whether you have thought past that image.  what do you imagine you and your wife will talk about ? what will you fight about ? what job will she do ? where will you vacation ? who will do the dishes, and who will take out the trash ? marriage is not just about marrying someone; it is about living with them, their foibles and their flaws, every day.
so i have an appointment at the dentist tomorrow and to be frank its a waste of time imo.  i mean i go, get my mouth poked and that awful scaling thing that gives me a headache and that is it.  i have got no ulcers, no blood, pain or anything that would indicate a problem apart from the argument about not letting them take out wisdom teeth that are not the problem they claim .  having a nurse for a mum means that she wo not let me drop off the radar and stuff so i ca not just stop going and the dentist makes you make the next appointment and can pay for it in advance but i just think it is a waste of the nhs money when they never find anything and i look after my teeth fairly well.  its not like they are going to drop out or anything.  you do not go for checkups at the doctor do you ? i only go to the doctor when i really need it generally someone makes me go so why should the dentist be different.   #  you do not go for checkups at the doctor do you ?  #  why yes, i go for a physical once a year.   # why yes, i go for a physical once a year.  i am now on a plan that i can get a cleaning/checkup every six months without paying a cent   so yes, i will go for it.  graduate school can be fun.  the fact of the matter is that your approach is naive.  six months may be overly often, but on some schedule attending the dentist, audiologist, ophthalmologist, general practitioner is of vital importance to your long term health.  the dentist can detect cavities before you do, the audiologist can help determine a baseline for hearing so you can identify when things are starting to change, the ophthalmologist can ensure your sight does not deteriorate before you do anything about it.  finally, the gp can do a general level physical so that things you do not know about might be found before it is too late   sometimes when you know you have a problem, you are already on the path to visit st.  peter.  very important point: i am not saying anything about how frequently you should visit these people, only that you should and on some schedule  #  fixing a decayed tooth which is at the point of causing pain is much more expensive, requiring more anaesthetic, drill time, filling, capping, and then follow up.   #  it is actually about cost savings.  a simple check up uses very little in the way of disposables, most tools are autoclaved and reused.  the primary cost is doctor time.  fixing a tiny cavity stops it from developing, meaning you can use a tiny dab of the filler/coating and it stops the decay there.  fixing a decayed tooth which is at the point of causing pain is much more expensive, requiring more anaesthetic, drill time, filling, capping, and then follow up.  most of the things used in that process must be disposable, and as such the whole procedure is much more expensive.  also, one tooth being in a state of decay breeds the bacteria which can then attack other teeth, meaning you generally find yourself with more than one tooth being an issue, even if you go when the first one hurts.  for a tissue like bone where there is no feeling you cannot use pain as a measure because it only hits pain after most of the damage has been done.   #  he can also notice if perhaps there is something wrong with your gums, some sign of infection or cancer or something you did not notice ?  #  there are perhaps issues you do not know about.  perhaps you have a cavity you were unaware of ? perhaps a tooth is growing at a slight angle you were unaware of and could cause problems ? maybe over the last 0 months you got a chip in your tooth that you never noticed ? he can also notice if perhaps there is something wrong with your gums, some sign of infection or cancer or something you did not notice ? it is twice a year, and it keeps on top of whether or not your oral health is okay.  prevention usually works better than intervention in terms of medical issues.   #  there is no way to tell who those special people are, and it is less expensive for us to treat everyone every 0 months, rather than treat 0 of the population for larger problems when the inevitably arise.   #  the reason for 0 month appointments with dentists is not because you have a problem, but to prevent them.  preventative medicine is often much less expensive than treatment, and the same holds true for dentistry.  as an example, the cost of filling a cavity is between $0 0 depending on tooth and filling type.  a root canal, which is the product of an untreated cavity, costs between $0 and $0, and an additional $0 0 in follow up care.  this holds true for most problems.  by treating small problems as they arise we are able to reduce the overall cost of the dental health of that individual.  this is well established practice in dentistry it is why we are having this conversation , but there is a growing movement to get the public involved in preventative healthcare in all fields, since it is nearly always more cost efficient and better for the patient to treat problems at the opening stages.  to address a point you brought up in another comment, it is true that some people will never need to go to the dentist.  some people will also never need to go to the hospital, or see a doctor.  but we are discussing big ideas about the population as a whole, not specific case studies.  the vast majority of the population would not have health teeth into adulthood if they never went to the dentist.  there is no way to tell who those special people are, and it is less expensive for us to treat everyone every 0 months, rather than treat 0 of the population for larger problems when the inevitably arise.   #  he was fine, i had a cavity that only showed up in the xray poking did not reveal it .   #  just to add, i am in the uk and on the nhs and stuff.  my boyfriend got some toothache a while ago and is a bit of a dentist phobe.  so i made his appointment and made one for myself since i had not been for a while and for a bit of moral support.  he was fine, i had a cavity that only showed up in the xray poking did not reveal it .  to get it fixed i did not even need anaesthesia and since it was not urgent they just got me an appointment whenever they had time.  had i not gone for the check up i would have got some pretty serious toothache and needed emergency appointments and probably a longer appointment using more supplies.
let me preface this argument by saying that i do not particularly agree with the tea party.  i am a democrat who votes for candidates that support ending the poverty trap, expanding social services, and wish to improve fundamental institutions like education or military service.  with that said, i also believe in the concept of personal liberty.  this includes the right to refuse taxation upon the basis of.  well, whatever the fuck you want.  i know what your thinking,  but how could we fund things like food stamps if shitty people are like  fuck those lazy blacks that suck up muh moneyz  ?   however, in order to participate in the american system of democracy, one must agree to pay taxes unconditionally.  a citizen ought not be able to decide which services he or she pays for.  instead, one can only receive protection from, say, the police if they pay every tax mandated by the local, state, or federal government.  in my opinion, this would create a voluntary political system where individual rights are maintained.  if we believe that the government overwhelmingly improves our own conditions, as i do, then only a small amount of citizens would opt out of public services because they disagree with certain elements of policy.  within the framework of government existing because it benefits the people, no one should expect a sudden drop in tax revenues because citizens are intelligent enough to understand how their own interests are promoted by the state on balance.  so go forth and cmv, noble redditors !  #  instead, one can only receive protection from, say, the police if they pay every tax mandated by the local, state, or federal government.   #  so the police would have to maintain a list of all citizens and whether or not they deserve protection ?  #  what i am thinking is:  how in the world would this be traceable and enforceable ?   so the police would have to maintain a list of all citizens and whether or not they deserve protection ? when responding to a crime, they would double check the list and then act to the appropriate level of taxation ? would people who do not pay taxes be unable to send their children to public schools, have their trash picked up, and walk on the sidewalk ? the problem with the original view is not about the politics, it is simply logistics.  the truth now is that a number of people do not pay their taxes and still utilize public services because it can be difficult to track certain kinds of filing/payment and then practically impossible to restrict the services on a case by case basis.  making the taxation optional, even if only a small fraction of people opt out, would essentially destroy the system for everyone.  the even slightly reduced funding for services which are by and large already struggling financially combined with the newly created complication in enforcement/application would cripple police departments and roadwork crews and every other public service would take for granted.  this would be a case of  personal liberty  having damaging effects for the rest of the populace and completely undermining the social contract.   #  okay, just purely the logistics here.  how can you  know  who has and has not yet paid off taxes ?  #  that still leaves a giant moral and logistical loophole.  okay, just purely the logistics here.  how can you  know  who has and has not yet paid off taxes ? as it is, the irs does not step in to check until q0 every year, so you would basically need to restructure that whole system.  when a crime or fire is reported, they would have to somehow cross reference who is in the building at the time, and if they have or have not paid taxes, but also, if there is a criminal or a fire, emergency services has to go in and deal with it anyway because otherwise more people could be affected, and more houses could burn down, some of those perhaps even being taxpayers.  what would happen if someone who pays their taxes co rents with a non taxpayer, or a non taxpayer lives in a house being rented out by a taxpayer ? what happens if they respond and then find out the person has not paid taxes.  if they had to fine the person for  wasting taxpayer money  on their issues, how is that any different really than our current compulsory tax system ? what about roads and other public works that are made with taxpayer dollars for everyone to use.  are not they getting abused by the non taxpayers here ? and finally, look at all of the above and think of the moral dilemma.  that someone could decide whether or not you have the right to be protected and cared for by police, fireman, emts.  why should that even be an option ? really this seems like it would actually do more harm to taxpayers because then this system would be another point of failure where innocent taxpayers mistaken as non taxpayers do not get treated as paid for.  but also, they are public servants.  they are meant to do good for all of us.  they are meant to help everyone as a service of goodwill towards humanity.  i could understand if perhaps you just wanted to make it so people would not get the benefits of entitlement programs like social security, medicare, medicaid.  etc.  if they do not pay taxes.  but endangering people is lives by taking away essential emergency services and such ? no.   #  can i change your view that it is already the case that taxation is voluntary and can be opted out of ?  #  can i change your view that it is already the case that taxation is voluntary and can be opted out of ? you can opt out in the exact same way that you can opt out of paying your rent.  you stop paying it, and then you rescind your right to live there which was granted to you by the act of paying your rent .  if you want to give up what taxes entitle you to and leave, no one is going to stop you.  it would not make much sense to frame an argument as  rent should be voluntary. but if i do not want to pay it, i should still get to stay there anyway  would it ?  #  that is an odd sense of the term of  voluntary.    # you can opt out in the exact same way that you can opt out of paying your rent.  you stop paying it, and then you rescind your right to live there which was granted to you by the act of paying your rent .  if you want to give up what taxes entitle you to and leave, no one is going to stop you.  that is an odd sense of the term of  voluntary.   if a gangster came by my house and demanded $0 from me a tax , and said that i could avoid the tax by leaving the property, would we say this is voluntary ? perhaps if the gangster  owned  the property i am living on to begin with like a landlord .  but what if he does not ? then it is not voluntary.  the same thing goes for the government if they do not already have a valid property rights claim on the land you are living on, then your analogy breaks down.  so if you want your argument here to be successful, i think you need to demonstrate that the government has a valid claim on the land/housing of the citizens it coerces for taxation.   #  this is why the analogy is so apt, because all property owners are essentially sitting on a lease of infinite length from the government.   # if a gangster came by my house but that was not what i said. i said your landlord.  that is who you pay rent to after all, and they are the owner.  borders is, at the bottom most level, owned by the government.  we say you  own  it, but that is only an ownership that applies in peer to peer disputes.  you can see this simply by observing what happens if you stop paying your rent property taxes: the owner comes back and reclaims possession.  this is why the analogy is so apt, because all property owners are essentially sitting on a lease of infinite length from the government.
medicine and it is adminastration should not be marketed on tv because it is not the sort of product that the average consumer can make an informed decision about from a commerical.  a car or a paper towel has attributes than can be discussed in a commerical in a way that the consumer can understand.  they use commericals to inform consumers as to why the product is a better choice than the competition by discussing what is done differently.  medicine is not marketed by talking about what chemicals are in it relative to the competition, rather they show clips of patients enjoying life while listing a crapload of deadly side effects.  yes it is true that many products are marketed by showing the viewer shots of a general lifestyle that does not really pertain to the product, but the difference is that medicine is far more complicated and can do far more harm to a person if purchased hastily than something like gum or a coffee machine.  yes it is also true that doctors get the final say it is only with there perscription that a purchase of medication can be authorized, so then i ask why do we need the commercial in the first place ? why not just send doctors a brochure of the latest in medication ? there is also an arguement to be had for the  vote with your dollar  concept of capitalism, but in my view medicine is exempt from this because no one wants to have to buy medicine and no one who is not a doctor is qualified to say which medication is  better , as well as the fact that most consumers are not going to try a variety and medicines and keep buying that which they like the best as is the case with shampoo or food.  to me, commercials for medicines are a shameless way for pharma companies to plug something and make money.  pharma should not be about profit, but results.  the fact that the commercials are legal seem indicative of a dangerous trend of  profit before well being  that is present the industry.  cmv !  #  why not just send doctors a brochure of the latest in medication ?  #  this makes the doctor aware of the treatment.   #  many people suffer from treatable medical problems that they do not know have a solution.  this is an enormous amount of silent needless suffering.  advertising directly to them is often the only way they will get help.  this makes the doctor aware of the treatment.  but how does he find the people who need it ? i really disagree that this is too complicated for consumers to understand.  what exactly is so hard about  if you have problem x, ask your doctor if medication y can help  ? i am not saying there are no downsides, but a good decisions must consider both benefits and costs.   #  more prosaically, viagra is in the same boat.   #  what about genuinely revolutionary, first in class drugs for diseases that people would otherwise be tempted to avoid discussing with their doctor ? prozac, for instance.  in the late 0s, it was easily possible for the average person to be unaware that there was such a thing as a reasonably safe, effective drug for treating depression and so they would keep quiet about it when talking with their doctor, due to the social stigma associated with mental illness and their entirely reasonable belief that there was nothing medical science could do to help.  more prosaically, viagra is in the same boat.  in  0, you would need to have a  really  good relationship with your doctor to  just happen  to mention that you were having trouble getting it up in bed.  most sufferers presumably just shut the hell up about it.  and, if they did not  know  that there was something that could help, why would they do otherwise ?  #  they should also be taught the basics of how the healthcare industry works.   #  why does a company have to do it ? it should be taught in school.  health classes can and should include topics of taking an interest in your health and fostering an understanding that if you have a problem you should address it quickly and in the appropriate manner with a professional.  my health class was a joke.  lots of people are still embarrassed and uneducated about various treatable health issues.  either they think there is nothing they can do or they think the side effects will be worse than the benefits.  the average person ca not possibly know these things so they should simply be encouraged to seek medical advice from a professional.  they should also be taught the basics of how the healthcare industry works.  they should know when to go to an er, when an urgent care is more appropriate, how to choose a pcp, when to call 0, etc.  this would improve their experience with healthcare and also save them and taxpayers a lot of money.   #  this is exactly the way it works in the uk.   #  this is exactly the way it works in the uk.  it is illegal to advertise a prescription drug but there are adverts for erectile dysfunction advisory groups that recommend speaking to your doctor about treatments.  however something like viagra is only given on private scripts because the nhs puts it on their blacklist.  private prescriptions are very expensive though so really viagra is only available for middle class men.  using the uk as an example though shows that people will still be aware of new prescription medications such as viagra even when they are not allowed to advertise them directly.   #  but a generic disease oriented commercial would not let people know there is a new option available.   #  i think this is a good solution for revolutionary new drugs.  i have seen commercials for a few disorders that do not even mention a specific drug.  one is non 0, and if you go to the website URL the homepage does not even mention a specific drug, but the bottom says  vanda pharmaceuticals.   my guess is that someone in their marketing department figured out that people might be more likely to listen to a commercial that sounds like a psa, so when people go to their doctor to talk about non 0, vanda is the only company that makes the drug specifically for treating it, and they will be for awhile.  however, that does not account for drugs that work  differently.  take viagara vs cialis.  after viagara, people knew about erectile dysfunction.  but a generic disease oriented commercial would not let people know there is a new option available.  banning drug specific commercials would require people to do their own research.  after i was diagnosed with adhd and i went to my doctor to get medicated, she wanted to prescribe me this brand new drug vyvanse , but i knew my insurance does not cover it yet.  however, i knew exactly what dose of ritalin i wanted to start with and why.  consumer reports even puts out guides for different diseases and disorders, discussing the different drugs and their cost effectiveness, comparing the benefits and side effects of each.  but of course, that requires people to do their fucking research.
the real problem is the concept of marriage itself.  in my view, lgbt couples are already married, regardless of the legislation that is imposed on them.  marriage is not a set of civil rights that confirms your connection to your partner, it is the choice you make to be in private, daily, lifelong commitment to another being.  tradition dictates that in order to be  properly  married you have to exchange vows, get a ring, and have a massive celebration the set of traditions change based upon the culture.  but marriage is not that, it is simple commitment to another person.  the main issue that gay marriage has is that not all couples are given the same civil liberties, but this does not mean that their marriages are void.  marriage is not decided by bystanders, it is decided by the people who live inside the union.  it is for this very reason that a gay couple getting married does not affect your own marriage.  i have held this opinion for a while but have never had the opportunity to see if it stood up to criticism.  cmv.   #  the main issue that gay marriage has is that not all couples are given the same civil liberties, but this does not mean that their marriages are void.   #  again, you are making the assumption that when the discussion of same sex marriage comes up, it is talking about the ceremony and not the legal status.   #  you are starting from a bad assumption.  you seem to be believing same sex marriage is about the ceremony and not about the legal status and benefits that go with it.  same sex  proper  marriages you describe have been done in the united states for literally longer than i have been alive.  they have never been illegal as a ceremony does not confer the legal status of marriage.  it is also not what same sex marriage proponents have been asking for.  same sex marriage proponents are focused on the legal side of marriage, not the tradition or ceremonial side of it.  the legal status of marriage confers 0,0 legal benefits ranging from tax rates to power of attorney to inheritance rights.  those are barred from same sex couples arbitrarily.  you can argue that marriage should not be associated with legal rights, but that is a long since lost battle.  marriage was a societal and legal institution long before any of the modern religions existed.  we have been giving rights based on it since before england or germany existed.  the fact is that the society we live in has decided to link these benefits and then bar them from some couples.  again, you are making the assumption that when the discussion of same sex marriage comes up, it is talking about the ceremony and not the legal status.  that is not nor has it ever been the case.  everyone talking in favor of same sex marriage has and always has been discussing those 0,0 legal benefits directly attached to it.   #  when i file for my taxes, i ca not fill out my forms as a married person.   #  saying your married is not being married.  i mean i can say i am married to anyone i want to.  when i file for my taxes, i ca not fill out my forms as a married person.  so, in that case, i am not really mattered in any sense.  if the only way that a person can get  married  is to do so in a way that gives none of the rights that other groups of people who are married get is exactly equal.  their marriages are void.  they are not married.  the state does not consider them married.  they get zero benefits to be married.  your idea that marriage is not considered by outsiders seems to greatly conflict with reality.   #  it is an emotional attachment to another person.   # so, in that case, i am not really mattered married ? in any sense.  in my opinion, that is not what marriage is about.  filling a box saying that you are married is not what marriage is about.  it is an emotional attachment to another person.  no state can truly ever take that away from two people.  they get zero benefits to be married.  do you need benefits to get married ? if your perspective marriage is defined by the benefits that you receive from the state then your perspiration is distorted.  i am completely agreeing with you that the civil liberties of a gay couple when compared to the civil liberties of a straight couple are not equal and that this is a problem.  however they still are married, not through the eyes of the state but through their own.   #  a man who loves a man cannot get married in many areas.   # no state can truly ever take that away from two people.  that is not marriage, that is love.  a man and a woman who do not love each other can get married.  a man who loves a man cannot get married in many areas.  it would be very hard for a government to say  you cannot love people of the same gender , but it can say  you cannot sign a contract binding yourself legally to a person of the same gender.   if you want to argue that marriage should not be a legal institution, that is a different cmv.  marriage, as it stands, carries significant legal benefits that cannot be conferred upon some gay couples no matter how strong their emotional bond is.   #  except if your husband or wife is not a citizen and the only way for you to stay in the same country together is to be legally married so you can sponsor him or her.   # filling a box saying that you are married is not what marriage is about.  it is an emotional attachment to another person.  no state can truly ever take that away from two people.  except if your husband or wife is not a citizen and the only way for you to stay in the same country together is to be legally married so you can sponsor him or her.  for bi national couples, legal marriage is often the difference between whether they can live together as a family or not.  it is a huge freaking deal.
i have always wondered why people are so obsessed with this jesus character.  his messages are not unique, in fact they are rather common knowledge, except for the few clever sayings that are attributed to him.  feed the poor, do not let your heart be consumed with wealth and material goods, believe in a higher power, do unto others what you want others to do to you etc.  are all common sayings that were preached by hundreds of sages before and after the life and death of jesus.  i think of jesus as being another charismatic figure whose death or martyrdom was made into a legend by his followers in order to legitimize christendom.  i mean what other fashion can you justify genocide, bigotry and forced conversion other than proclaiming that your message is about peace and love ? this sort of doublethink astounds me.   #  i mean what other fashion can you justify genocide, bigotry and forced conversion other than proclaiming that your message is about peace and love ?  #  oh, come now, we all know that organized religion and the scholarship generated by it is separate from the actual words attributed to christ.   #  you know, i did not really get it, either.  i have always been an atheist, for as long as i can remember.  when i was a kid i remember sobbing over aslan is sacrifice in  the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe  and agonizing over the loss until his resurrection, which i found very comforting.  i had no idea that i was reading a jesus allegory; i mean, i was six or seven years old.  fast forward a few years and i came to an understanding about the nature of the allegory and i could see how my emotional reaction over a fictional character could be related to the feelings people have for christ.  i do not feel those feelings myself, but my experience reading c. s.  lewis helped me understand people is affection for him.  oh, come now, we all know that organized religion and the scholarship generated by it is separate from the actual words attributed to christ.  the bible can be used to justify all sorts of bullshit, but i ca not find much to criticize about anything attributed to christ.  there are thousands or millions of so called  true believers  who behave in an objectively un christlike fashion.  that has nothing to say about christ and everything to say about the so called believer.  this is not unique to christianity by any means.  there are violent buddhists, for example.  the japanese league of blood assassination plot was led by a buddhist.  his martyrdom and subsequent worship  is  the feature that makes him unique.  it does not matter if thousands of sages were doing unto others if  his  message was the one that penetrated and spread, either as a result of his self sacrifice or just via some sort of ancient zeitgeist.   #  a poor born thomas jefferson would not have become a great statesman.   #  let is set aside the question of whether christians  belief of the divinity of jesus is valid it is a massively important and relevant question, but i do not think that is what you are here to discuss .  now, your point seems to say that his ideas were not original that others have championed peace, and charity and most of the elements of jesus is teachings.  therefore, he was nothing special, and any of a number of people  could have been  jesus.  ever see life of brian ? but they were not and that is the key.  greatness requires skills, absolutely.  it is safe to say that jesus was well above average in compassion, public speaking and philosophy.  but it also requires opportunity.  a poor born thomas jefferson would not have become a great statesman.  an einstein born in the middle ages would have either been ignored or executed.  it doubtful that a hitler born 0 years earlier would have had much of an impact.  jackson pollack born during the time of the dutch masters ? j. k.  rowling born in 0 ? the point is that he is unique because he is the who inspired one of the world is largest religions.  he arrived at a time and a place where his message was ripe to be spread, but he had the combination of oratory and charisma to inspire thousands to work to inspire tens of thousands who inspired millions.   #  i am sorry for being crass, but it is really obvious you have not actually read anything jesus said.   #  i am sorry for being crass, but it is really obvious you have not actually read anything jesus said.   be a good person  is not his message.  but i would like to help, so here goes.  his primary message is this: you are a poor, miserable, unrepentant and  unable  to repent sinner.  god says you should die for this you did not think transgressing against the supreme being would be a misdemeanor, did you ? .  but, because god loves you, he sent his only begotten son to take the punishment death for you.  yes, you op.  and everyone else on earth.  the gospel meaning  good news  message is this: cling to jesus.  you can never save yourself on your own, but in christ you are saved already.  there is no such thing as a  good person  outside of christ.  we are all rebels against god.  we all bite the hand that feeds us, and there is no way we can stop.  try as we might, we are condemned for our actions.  all the time.  and there is nothing we can do to save ourselves from his wrath.  but, thanks to jesus,  we do not have to save ourselves.  because he did it for us.  so yes, this life is wrought with sin and despair.  but because of his death and resurrection, we can look forward to a better lot in the next life.  sorry if the whole  simultaneously condemned and saved  thing is complicated.  the cliff notes of jesus  message is: you do not deserve to be saved, but god is a bro and sent me to save you anyway .   #  however, for those who do not believe that a talking serpent existed in the first place, all of the concepts pertaining to original sin, the redeeming power of the cross of christ and salvation are all unnecessary and invalid.   #  this argument is dependent on how you interpret the fruit consumed by adam and eve the origin and nature of original sin .  see for christians what you said makes sense.  however, for those who do not believe that a talking serpent existed in the first place, all of the concepts pertaining to original sin, the redeeming power of the cross of christ and salvation are all unnecessary and invalid.  in fact, i am certain that judaism does not espouse the concept of original sin.  it would make sense that the jews have a much better understanding of the bible than the christians.   #  that is what we are talking about right ?  #  while i agree with your interpretation, i think you are weaving in and out of topic here.  is your view that jesus is not unique ? or that christianity and jesus by extension is not compelling as a faith ? as you stated, ltcmdrshepard explained the rules of the christian ideology quite well, but simply that you do not find it compelling neither do i.  but really, i think ltcmdrshepard did not really challenge your view all that much, as there was not any mention of a comparison to other faiths.  obviously jesus is technically unique in a lot of ways, but is his whole package really that unique ? that is what we are talking about right ?
i have always wondered why people are so obsessed with this jesus character.  his messages are not unique, in fact they are rather common knowledge, except for the few clever sayings that are attributed to him.  feed the poor, do not let your heart be consumed with wealth and material goods, believe in a higher power, do unto others what you want others to do to you etc.  are all common sayings that were preached by hundreds of sages before and after the life and death of jesus.  i think of jesus as being another charismatic figure whose death or martyrdom was made into a legend by his followers in order to legitimize christendom.  i mean what other fashion can you justify genocide, bigotry and forced conversion other than proclaiming that your message is about peace and love ? this sort of doublethink astounds me.   #  feed the poor, do not let your heart be consumed with wealth and material goods, believe in a higher power, do unto others what you want others to do to you etc.   #  setting aside the question of divinity, i think you have got a simplistic view jesus  message.   # that is, is it possible that these messages are common knowledge  because  of the popularity of christianity and the new testament ? are you sure of that ? i am no biblical or ethics scholar, but it sure seems like jesus  story involves a lot of railing against the conventional jewish theology/ethics of the time welcoming  unclean  people of various stripes prostitutes, lepers, gentiles, foreigners for example.  a lot of the gospels seem to be about jesus upsetting one contemporary religious authority or another.  his views and/or influence were controversial enough to get him killed, after all.  setting aside the question of divinity, i think you have got a simplistic view jesus  message.  popular culture and conventional wisdom really do not do it justice.  like gandhi said:  i like your christ.  i do not like your christians.  they are so unlike your christ.   jesus advocated a much more radical form of tolerance acceptance, charity, economic justice, pacifism, etc.  than you or conventional wisdom give him credit for.   #  lewis helped me understand people is affection for him.   #  you know, i did not really get it, either.  i have always been an atheist, for as long as i can remember.  when i was a kid i remember sobbing over aslan is sacrifice in  the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe  and agonizing over the loss until his resurrection, which i found very comforting.  i had no idea that i was reading a jesus allegory; i mean, i was six or seven years old.  fast forward a few years and i came to an understanding about the nature of the allegory and i could see how my emotional reaction over a fictional character could be related to the feelings people have for christ.  i do not feel those feelings myself, but my experience reading c. s.  lewis helped me understand people is affection for him.  oh, come now, we all know that organized religion and the scholarship generated by it is separate from the actual words attributed to christ.  the bible can be used to justify all sorts of bullshit, but i ca not find much to criticize about anything attributed to christ.  there are thousands or millions of so called  true believers  who behave in an objectively un christlike fashion.  that has nothing to say about christ and everything to say about the so called believer.  this is not unique to christianity by any means.  there are violent buddhists, for example.  the japanese league of blood assassination plot was led by a buddhist.  his martyrdom and subsequent worship  is  the feature that makes him unique.  it does not matter if thousands of sages were doing unto others if  his  message was the one that penetrated and spread, either as a result of his self sacrifice or just via some sort of ancient zeitgeist.   #  it is safe to say that jesus was well above average in compassion, public speaking and philosophy.   #  let is set aside the question of whether christians  belief of the divinity of jesus is valid it is a massively important and relevant question, but i do not think that is what you are here to discuss .  now, your point seems to say that his ideas were not original that others have championed peace, and charity and most of the elements of jesus is teachings.  therefore, he was nothing special, and any of a number of people  could have been  jesus.  ever see life of brian ? but they were not and that is the key.  greatness requires skills, absolutely.  it is safe to say that jesus was well above average in compassion, public speaking and philosophy.  but it also requires opportunity.  a poor born thomas jefferson would not have become a great statesman.  an einstein born in the middle ages would have either been ignored or executed.  it doubtful that a hitler born 0 years earlier would have had much of an impact.  jackson pollack born during the time of the dutch masters ? j. k.  rowling born in 0 ? the point is that he is unique because he is the who inspired one of the world is largest religions.  he arrived at a time and a place where his message was ripe to be spread, but he had the combination of oratory and charisma to inspire thousands to work to inspire tens of thousands who inspired millions.   #  so yes, this life is wrought with sin and despair.   #  i am sorry for being crass, but it is really obvious you have not actually read anything jesus said.   be a good person  is not his message.  but i would like to help, so here goes.  his primary message is this: you are a poor, miserable, unrepentant and  unable  to repent sinner.  god says you should die for this you did not think transgressing against the supreme being would be a misdemeanor, did you ? .  but, because god loves you, he sent his only begotten son to take the punishment death for you.  yes, you op.  and everyone else on earth.  the gospel meaning  good news  message is this: cling to jesus.  you can never save yourself on your own, but in christ you are saved already.  there is no such thing as a  good person  outside of christ.  we are all rebels against god.  we all bite the hand that feeds us, and there is no way we can stop.  try as we might, we are condemned for our actions.  all the time.  and there is nothing we can do to save ourselves from his wrath.  but, thanks to jesus,  we do not have to save ourselves.  because he did it for us.  so yes, this life is wrought with sin and despair.  but because of his death and resurrection, we can look forward to a better lot in the next life.  sorry if the whole  simultaneously condemned and saved  thing is complicated.  the cliff notes of jesus  message is: you do not deserve to be saved, but god is a bro and sent me to save you anyway .   #  see for christians what you said makes sense.   #  this argument is dependent on how you interpret the fruit consumed by adam and eve the origin and nature of original sin .  see for christians what you said makes sense.  however, for those who do not believe that a talking serpent existed in the first place, all of the concepts pertaining to original sin, the redeeming power of the cross of christ and salvation are all unnecessary and invalid.  in fact, i am certain that judaism does not espouse the concept of original sin.  it would make sense that the jews have a much better understanding of the bible than the christians.
i have always wondered why people are so obsessed with this jesus character.  his messages are not unique, in fact they are rather common knowledge, except for the few clever sayings that are attributed to him.  feed the poor, do not let your heart be consumed with wealth and material goods, believe in a higher power, do unto others what you want others to do to you etc.  are all common sayings that were preached by hundreds of sages before and after the life and death of jesus.  i think of jesus as being another charismatic figure whose death or martyrdom was made into a legend by his followers in order to legitimize christendom.  i mean what other fashion can you justify genocide, bigotry and forced conversion other than proclaiming that your message is about peace and love ? this sort of doublethink astounds me.   #  i think of jesus as being another charismatic figure whose death or martyrdom was made into a legend by his followers in order to legitimize christendom.   #  it seems like you want your view to be changed about whether or not jesus was a unique figure; on the condition that we argue from your own preconception that jesus  story is largely legendary.   # it seems like you want your view to be changed about whether or not jesus was a unique figure; on the condition that we argue from your own preconception that jesus  story is largely legendary.  of course, if the jesus story is simply a legend, then there is nothing unique about jesus.  how could there be ? however, i think that you should be able to recognize that for people who believe in jesus, they  do not  believe his story to simply be a legend.  would you agree that if the story of jesus particularly his claim to be the son of god, and his resurrection from the dead is actually true that there  is  something unique about jesus ?  #  the bible can be used to justify all sorts of bullshit, but i ca not find much to criticize about anything attributed to christ.   #  you know, i did not really get it, either.  i have always been an atheist, for as long as i can remember.  when i was a kid i remember sobbing over aslan is sacrifice in  the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe  and agonizing over the loss until his resurrection, which i found very comforting.  i had no idea that i was reading a jesus allegory; i mean, i was six or seven years old.  fast forward a few years and i came to an understanding about the nature of the allegory and i could see how my emotional reaction over a fictional character could be related to the feelings people have for christ.  i do not feel those feelings myself, but my experience reading c. s.  lewis helped me understand people is affection for him.  oh, come now, we all know that organized religion and the scholarship generated by it is separate from the actual words attributed to christ.  the bible can be used to justify all sorts of bullshit, but i ca not find much to criticize about anything attributed to christ.  there are thousands or millions of so called  true believers  who behave in an objectively un christlike fashion.  that has nothing to say about christ and everything to say about the so called believer.  this is not unique to christianity by any means.  there are violent buddhists, for example.  the japanese league of blood assassination plot was led by a buddhist.  his martyrdom and subsequent worship  is  the feature that makes him unique.  it does not matter if thousands of sages were doing unto others if  his  message was the one that penetrated and spread, either as a result of his self sacrifice or just via some sort of ancient zeitgeist.   #  let is set aside the question of whether christians  belief of the divinity of jesus is valid it is a massively important and relevant question, but i do not think that is what you are here to discuss .   #  let is set aside the question of whether christians  belief of the divinity of jesus is valid it is a massively important and relevant question, but i do not think that is what you are here to discuss .  now, your point seems to say that his ideas were not original that others have championed peace, and charity and most of the elements of jesus is teachings.  therefore, he was nothing special, and any of a number of people  could have been  jesus.  ever see life of brian ? but they were not and that is the key.  greatness requires skills, absolutely.  it is safe to say that jesus was well above average in compassion, public speaking and philosophy.  but it also requires opportunity.  a poor born thomas jefferson would not have become a great statesman.  an einstein born in the middle ages would have either been ignored or executed.  it doubtful that a hitler born 0 years earlier would have had much of an impact.  jackson pollack born during the time of the dutch masters ? j. k.  rowling born in 0 ? the point is that he is unique because he is the who inspired one of the world is largest religions.  he arrived at a time and a place where his message was ripe to be spread, but he had the combination of oratory and charisma to inspire thousands to work to inspire tens of thousands who inspired millions.   #  his primary message is this: you are a poor, miserable, unrepentant and  unable  to repent sinner.   #  i am sorry for being crass, but it is really obvious you have not actually read anything jesus said.   be a good person  is not his message.  but i would like to help, so here goes.  his primary message is this: you are a poor, miserable, unrepentant and  unable  to repent sinner.  god says you should die for this you did not think transgressing against the supreme being would be a misdemeanor, did you ? .  but, because god loves you, he sent his only begotten son to take the punishment death for you.  yes, you op.  and everyone else on earth.  the gospel meaning  good news  message is this: cling to jesus.  you can never save yourself on your own, but in christ you are saved already.  there is no such thing as a  good person  outside of christ.  we are all rebels against god.  we all bite the hand that feeds us, and there is no way we can stop.  try as we might, we are condemned for our actions.  all the time.  and there is nothing we can do to save ourselves from his wrath.  but, thanks to jesus,  we do not have to save ourselves.  because he did it for us.  so yes, this life is wrought with sin and despair.  but because of his death and resurrection, we can look forward to a better lot in the next life.  sorry if the whole  simultaneously condemned and saved  thing is complicated.  the cliff notes of jesus  message is: you do not deserve to be saved, but god is a bro and sent me to save you anyway .   #  see for christians what you said makes sense.   #  this argument is dependent on how you interpret the fruit consumed by adam and eve the origin and nature of original sin .  see for christians what you said makes sense.  however, for those who do not believe that a talking serpent existed in the first place, all of the concepts pertaining to original sin, the redeeming power of the cross of christ and salvation are all unnecessary and invalid.  in fact, i am certain that judaism does not espouse the concept of original sin.  it would make sense that the jews have a much better understanding of the bible than the christians.
in the american education system, kids are taught that cyber bullying is bad.  then they get into the real world and see a movie like  the interview  which is making fun of kim jong un.  imagine if someone made a movie about you that is about people trying to kill you.  it is simply cyber bullying.  kim jong un is not a good person, and certainly is not trying to help the citizens of north korea.  however, you can get into trouble in school for cyber bullying someone who has even bullied other people him/herself.  if obama defends sony for cyber bullying kim jong un, why does not he defend cyber bullies in schools ? is not is freedom of speech too ?  #  if obama defends sony for cyber bullying kim jong un, why does not he defend cyber bullies in schools ?  #  because obama knows the difference between being the  leader  of a country and being a school aged child.   #  he is the leader of an entire country.  he is not johnny mcangstyteen who is in the tenth grade.  the fact is that politicians and leaders  choose  to become targets of libel, slander, unsubstantiated rumors and satire.  it is part and parcel of having power.  because obama knows the difference between being the  leader  of a country and being a school aged child.  why would obama defend an adult is right to have a glass of beer and not a sixth grader is right to have a glass of beer ? because an adult and and sixth grader are  not held to the same standards.  and by the way, do you  really  think that obama has not been on the receiving end of what you would call bullying ? because if you think he has not, you really have not been paying attention.   #  the reason this trope is reasonable when applied to a rape victim specifically, is because it is unfair to blame a woman for dressing a certain way, because doing so is not a crime.   #  i believe op is suggesting that in this case, the victim is not blameless.  it is not right to assume that in every case where a crime has been committed, the victim is 0 without fault.  it could be that the crime was committed as a  result  of another crime being committed where the victim was the perpetrator and vice versa .  the reason this trope is reasonable when applied to a rape victim specifically, is because it is unfair to blame a woman for dressing a certain way, because doing so is not a crime.   blaming the victim  is only a bad thing when the victim has done nothing wrong.  op is arguing that sony  did  do something wrong.   #  and yet he ca not take some well deserved  mean words  ?  #  that is blaming the victim.  why did sony get attacked ? because they said mean things about someone.  what did this  someone  in question do to illicit this ? he was a horrible dictator, responsible for countless deaths who has a long history of using threats of force to get his way.  a leader of a country should be above taking action when he is  aggravated .  yeah, they  bullied  him.  but he both deserves it and should be above acting on anger over something so minor.  after all, he threatened to kill thousands of south koreans and constantly makes nuclear threats.  actual, tangible, serious  bullying  going on there.  and yet he ca not take some well deserved  mean words  ? he is a victim of  bullying  because he deserves it.   #  to concretize this, here is an example of an evil thing kim jong un is regime has done.   #  kim jong un is one of the most evil men currently alive today.  his actions are qualitatively different from  bullying other people,  since he has sent people to prison camps for the rest of their lives and commanded and condoned the murder of many others.  to concretize this, here is an example of an evil thing kim jong un is regime has done.  source URL can you imagine the rage and anguish this man and his family must be feeling ? how would you feel if this happened to you or one of your loved ones on a visit to another country ? is not this wildly disproportionate to mr.  miller is offense and a violation of his rights ? no moral person should feel any sympathy for kim jong un, and every moral person should wish for his misery and death.  furthermore, satirizing kim john un is helpful and necessary for undermining the credibility of this evil man and highlighting his depravity, which is not a justification that real cyber bullying ever has.   #  everyone is upset about north korea hacking the u. s, but the hack was sony is own fault for making the movie.   #  kim jong un is an evil man.  however, what you are bringing up is completely irrelevant to this discussion.  regardless of what he has done, making a movie mocking him is bullying.  everyone is upset about north korea hacking the u. s, but the hack was sony is own fault for making the movie.  i do not think that bullying someone for the sole purpose of being mean is right.  if you are really concerned about what kim jong un is doing in north korea, thinking a movie mocking him will help the people of north korea is also morally wrong.
in the american education system, kids are taught that cyber bullying is bad.  then they get into the real world and see a movie like  the interview  which is making fun of kim jong un.  imagine if someone made a movie about you that is about people trying to kill you.  it is simply cyber bullying.  kim jong un is not a good person, and certainly is not trying to help the citizens of north korea.  however, you can get into trouble in school for cyber bullying someone who has even bullied other people him/herself.  if obama defends sony for cyber bullying kim jong un, why does not he defend cyber bullies in schools ? is not is freedom of speech too ?  #  if obama defends sony for cyber bullying kim jong un, why does not he defend cyber bullies in schools ?  #  is not is freedom of speech too ?  # is not is freedom of speech too ? i am going to assume you actually think this and are not just trolling.  there is a big difference between a random bully in a school, and a dictator of a nation who enslaves, rapes, murders and imprisons people and even children on a massive scale.  he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.   making fun  of this person is not even remotely the same as mocking someone at school.  in law, there is a concept of a  public figure  which in part basically means, you ca not stop people from making fun of you if you are famous.  this is doubly true of famous politicians.  they put themselves up there in the public eye on purpose, and it is well known and accepted throughout modern history that world leaders will be made fun of.  furthermore, this guy is a world leader with the resources of a nation at his disposal.  he can defend himself just fine.  he will be ok if someone makes fun of him.  we are not concerned about his feelings, nor should we be.  he took this job knowing that being made fun of by foreigners was a normal part of it.  it is not  bullying  at all.   #  because an adult and and sixth grader are  not held to the same standards.   #  he is the leader of an entire country.  he is not johnny mcangstyteen who is in the tenth grade.  the fact is that politicians and leaders  choose  to become targets of libel, slander, unsubstantiated rumors and satire.  it is part and parcel of having power.  because obama knows the difference between being the  leader  of a country and being a school aged child.  why would obama defend an adult is right to have a glass of beer and not a sixth grader is right to have a glass of beer ? because an adult and and sixth grader are  not held to the same standards.  and by the way, do you  really  think that obama has not been on the receiving end of what you would call bullying ? because if you think he has not, you really have not been paying attention.   #  the reason this trope is reasonable when applied to a rape victim specifically, is because it is unfair to blame a woman for dressing a certain way, because doing so is not a crime.   #  i believe op is suggesting that in this case, the victim is not blameless.  it is not right to assume that in every case where a crime has been committed, the victim is 0 without fault.  it could be that the crime was committed as a  result  of another crime being committed where the victim was the perpetrator and vice versa .  the reason this trope is reasonable when applied to a rape victim specifically, is because it is unfair to blame a woman for dressing a certain way, because doing so is not a crime.   blaming the victim  is only a bad thing when the victim has done nothing wrong.  op is arguing that sony  did  do something wrong.   #  what did this  someone  in question do to illicit this ?  #  that is blaming the victim.  why did sony get attacked ? because they said mean things about someone.  what did this  someone  in question do to illicit this ? he was a horrible dictator, responsible for countless deaths who has a long history of using threats of force to get his way.  a leader of a country should be above taking action when he is  aggravated .  yeah, they  bullied  him.  but he both deserves it and should be above acting on anger over something so minor.  after all, he threatened to kill thousands of south koreans and constantly makes nuclear threats.  actual, tangible, serious  bullying  going on there.  and yet he ca not take some well deserved  mean words  ? he is a victim of  bullying  because he deserves it.   #  furthermore, satirizing kim john un is helpful and necessary for undermining the credibility of this evil man and highlighting his depravity, which is not a justification that real cyber bullying ever has.   #  kim jong un is one of the most evil men currently alive today.  his actions are qualitatively different from  bullying other people,  since he has sent people to prison camps for the rest of their lives and commanded and condoned the murder of many others.  to concretize this, here is an example of an evil thing kim jong un is regime has done.  source URL can you imagine the rage and anguish this man and his family must be feeling ? how would you feel if this happened to you or one of your loved ones on a visit to another country ? is not this wildly disproportionate to mr.  miller is offense and a violation of his rights ? no moral person should feel any sympathy for kim jong un, and every moral person should wish for his misery and death.  furthermore, satirizing kim john un is helpful and necessary for undermining the credibility of this evil man and highlighting his depravity, which is not a justification that real cyber bullying ever has.
the nk regime is based on a cult of personality that runs through the kim dynasty.  if kim jong un releases prisoners from concentration camps, it completely undermines the decisions of the  godly  kim il sung and kim jong il.  the nk people are brainwashed into thinking their leaders are infallible; if kim jong un rescinds these imprisonments, it undermines the whole cult of personality, on which the entire nk regime builds its foundation.  admitting unjust imprisonments and torture of prisoners basically telegraphs to the nk people that the regime is not at all infallible, and opens the regime up to criticism not good for a cult of personality .  i also have a hunch that kim jong un is just a figurehead, but this is pretty much completely unsubstantiated.  it just seems to me like the regime itself may have more power than the actual leader of that regime, but i ca not back this up at all.  a good argument would convince me that: 0.  kim jong un has  almost  complete control over every action of nk and is absolutely not just a figurehead .  0.  releasing prisoners from the concentration camps of nk would not begin to wear away at the power the nk regime holds over its people.  0.  kim jong un could release prisoners without being assassinated, either by someone within his own regime or an outside force.  why am i asking this question/ what is the underlying theme ? : i often read criticism of kim jong un that portrays him as a monster who personally tortures prisoners and willingly starves his people.  of course i am not condoning kim jong un in any way, but sometimes i wonder if he could simply  #  i also have a hunch that kim jong un is just a figurehead, but this is pretty much completely unsubstantiated.   #  it just seems to me like the regime itself may have more power than the actual leader of that regime, but i ca not back this up at all.   # well yes.  i am sure there are some among those in nk who do not actually believe it.  however, i completely agree that they cannot be public about it.  but there is another group with a supposed infallible leader.  the catholic church.  and yet, there were many changes.  pius xii declared in 0 that there is no conflict between catholicism and evolution.  if we go by the publication of on the origin of species, that is about 0 years of evolution denial.  this change was accepted to a degree, there still obviously are deniers .  let is go back further to galileo.  his heliocentric ideas were entirely against the church, yet i do not think anybody today really denies this.  they could say that they have been forgiven.  if the people of nk are told  these prisoners have spent their time in prison and have understood my power.  their crimes are remembered but for now they are forgiven.  if they do defy me again they will be imprisoned again.   i use this information to discuss item 0 of what might convince you.  changes are easily possible without too much damage.  you might be right, but those who do believe kju to be infallible will simply accept that as another infallible move.  those who do not might see it as a warning.  it just seems to me like the regime itself may have more power than the actual leader of that regime, but i ca not back this up at all.  the main issue i see here is that, as you say, it is merely an unsubstantiated hunch.  i could, for example, say that i have a hunch that  when a us president is elected, s he is shown video proof that some conspiracy theory is true and that s he is a slave to a group of 0 like minded people who actually run this country.   and then i say that my view would be changed by absolute proof that the president is not just a figurehead.  as with above, you might be right.  but this is a piece of impossible proof.  i would have to be elected president to know if there really are those 0 like minded people i do not qualify to run for presidency, i was not born in the us nor was i born to us citizens .  just like that, one would have to be at that true ruling regime to know that there is such a ruling regime.   #  you are missing the point being distracted by the specifics.   #  you are missing the point, and not directly contradicting his argument.  op is saying  actions of dear leader are infallible, but talking back those actions would be admitting the fallibility.   you are missing the point being distracted by the specifics.  op is obviously wrong, because it happens all the time in cults and religions.  look at slavery/rape/murder and morality of christians throughout time.  morals and beliefs change as the cultural landscape of the people in the culture change, not the cult or religion themselves although some teachings may be more antagonistic, but this is off topic .  if the current leader announced,  we do not need these anymore.   then it is so.  it was not that the previous leaders were wrong, it is that they were needed then, but not now.  the infallibility sticks to the decision by definition.  similar to cognitive dissonance with the infallibility of god.   #  one argument may be that he continues the camps in order to maintain the cult of personality, but you have suggested that this is not the case, and i can accept that.   #  yes you make a good point.  i can see how it would be possible to change face with a regime such as nk.  but to continue on that thought, if kim jong un could pardon all prisoners, why does not he ? what is kim jong un is personal gain from torturing innocents ? one argument may be that he continues the camps in order to maintain the cult of personality, but you have suggested that this is not the case, and i can accept that.  so we may disregard that motive for keeping the camps open.  another argument may be he keeps the camps open for free labor, but it seems as though the regime can easily get labor elsewhere, so i do not think that is a motive for keeping the camps.  i think maybe the biggest motive for keeping the camps open would be to instill a sense of fear to the nk people.  is there a scenario where kim jong un could grant a godly pardon to everyone currently in the camps, but still make others fear the camps ? additionally, should kim shoulder all of the ethical responsibility ? i think you are giving a good argument, but it would be interesting to expand upon why kim jong un keeps the camps open if he can simply give a godly pardon to all prisoners.   #  thus kim jong un probably does believe he benefits from the concentration camps, at least in a  better you than me , or a  ends justify the means  kind of way.   #  kim jong un is likely surrounded by people who parrot over and over again what happens to regimes when they relax  the rule of the proletariat , the bourgeois infiltrate with help of the americans and society the regime collapses.  then you end up with poor kim jong un and everyone he knows getting mock trials at best, or just being shot, not unlike nicolae ceaușescu URL to a certain extent maintaining a harsh regime is simply self preservation.  they believe, and were probably told from birth, that they are surrounded by countries that hate them and all they stand for, and that any weakness will be exploited.  combine this with what has historically happened to dictators that lost control, i can see a real basis for belief that their lives depend on the regime staying strong.  thus kim jong un probably does believe he benefits from the concentration camps, at least in a  better you than me , or a  ends justify the means  kind of way.   #  so, because of how information is controlled, he would have to mitigate family from knowing of their loved ones deaths or disappearances, maybe by coming up with another excuse, like they died in battle against american scum.   #  asking  why does not he close them ?   is different than your original argument.  i am only arguing  could they be simply closed ?   if he keeps them locked up, it shows how little he values human life, so it would seem that he could kill them quite easily.  but that is not to say that he could send them to a different country too.  regular life in nk seems quite unlikely to me.  so with the release or deaths of the victims, this would negate assassination attempts by those members but probably not family members.  so, because of how information is controlled, he would have to mitigate family from knowing of their loved ones deaths or disappearances, maybe by coming up with another excuse, like they died in battle against american scum.  it would absolutely be easy to do because of how little their public is informed, and how uneducated and malnourished they are.
you hear it in every corner of reddit when children are mentioned or when a picture of a baby is posted.   human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  this has scary implications for our future.  if we treat our youth as an annoyance, as not worthy of attention, we will overcorrect what happened to our generation every kid being coddled and told they are a special butterfly, producing a generation of self absorbed brats .  i get that helicopter parenting has produced bad results in many but shunning children, disliking them, or even hating them is an extreme that will not correct the problem, but rather create an entirely new one.  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.   and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.   please change my view   my view has been changed by /u/appropriate username, /u/wrestlingisgood, and /u/the skeleton queen thank you !  #  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.    #  so, in this sense, are parents implying that everyone must tolerate their decisions as if they do not have a choice ?  # so, in this sense, are parents implying that everyone must tolerate their decisions as if they do not have a choice ? this reminds me of someone telling me to be more  patient  as they hold the line up to continue shopping.  what right does someone have to tell someone else they have to tolerate something because that one person chose to do the thing others find annoying ? in my buddhist practice, being able to not be a loner but rather  alone  is actually a rather important aspect of ones practice.  so many have kids to actually fill a void in themselves and seem to think it is their sole purpose on this planet.  generalizing aside, was it cool to not be a loner, before, and cool to increase the population ? as someone who walks alone, my question is, who thinks i am cool ? i am alone.   cool  is for a younger demographic.  i am only 0.  this is important in my next point.  i do not really grasp this negativity as i do not think it is fully extends into life outside reddit.  i think many, on reddit, are of the age demographic where they actually are still kids.  i would put this number at 0.  i do not think one has a grasp of who they are by 0 and their perspective is will change.  all i ever hear about is  think of the children.   it falls into my comments, above, about someone telling me to be patient.  i am dictated by parents of those children.  in canada, health canada just went against studies and lied about cannabis because the video they had tested well with  parent demographic.   so, i am not sure why a child grows up feeling unimportant when all we ever do is revolve around children in society to the point we wrap them in bubble wrap.  school buses stop the entire planet every time they pick a kid up stop signs, bus arms, etc.  .  the world revolves around children.  what is ironic is this obsession with safety is causing more damage than good but that is a different debate.  anyways, we care about children, in my opinion, until they turn 0, then we do not give a shit about anyone.  i think that is an issue, but at 0.  now, you are not a kid, so, start thinking about them as we do not care about you.  think of the old  women and children  first onto boats.  ya, you are 0, you are not a kid anymore, die.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.  for those to jump into such circle jerk comments, but, they probably already had the attitude and just found like minded people.  they mire themselves in it much like a maple leafs fan mires himself with delusional maple leafs fans all screaming  our team rocks  when they have not made the play offs in years.  i do not want kids, do not care for them, etc.  i do not join these discussions as i am detached from feelings, positive or negative, towards it.  i truly do not care.  i do not want a boat but i do not engage in conversation mocking others about the ownership of boats.  i find, overall, these individuals you speak of are localized to the very subreddits that circle jerk such thoughts.  i do not believe it has any real basis in reality to any large degree.   #  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.  i am all for people who do not like children to, you know, not have any.  call them disgusting, ugly, gross, whatever.  hate kids all you want.  just do not have any yourself.  it is better that they recognize they do not like children right from the get go than realize it when a kid is already in the on the way / in the picture.  those of us who enjoy being around / raising children will continue to do so.  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.  not every man has the capacity for fatherhood and not all women have the capacity for motherhood .  do i think it is nasty to say cruel things about children ? well, yeah.  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.  not everyone feels the same as i do.  that is just something you have to not be so sensitive about.  if i want people to respect my opinion, i have to respect theirs, too.  even if it is wildly different from mine.  imo, the easy solution is that people who do not like children should simply refrain from vocalizing about it when it is not appropriate.  if you are talking about your decision to not have kids, why you do not like kids, etc.  etc.  than that is fine.  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.  that is just uncool.  same goes for people who like kids.  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.  and be thankful they probably wo not reproduce.   #  you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.   #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ? you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.  not sure if you are talking about another site like facebook.  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ? why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  that can do real damage to their egos.   #    i think we are in agreement.  i do not want these people to parent children either ! however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.  kids are increasingly aware of how they are precieved and when the popular attitude is that they are gross, annoying, worthless, etc.  that can do real damage to their egos.  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.  thanks for cing my v.   #  older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.   #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.  while small children and babies might have ugly comments made about them on the internet, they obviously ca not read them, and i would hope their parents would not be like,  hey jimmy, user commented on that picture of you and said he thinks you are gross and worthless !   older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ? shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.  but that is something that their parents have to be strict about if they think it is a problem.  and i  know  that the whole i do not like kids mentality is new, either.  it is just that, prior to now, it was not really socially acceptable to say that.  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .  both sides of the issue can be really unfair and judgemental, although the childfree people tend to be a lot nastier and pretentious, from what i have experienced.  but yeah, i totally agree with you that the circlejerk is unnecessary.  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.  etc.  but what makes me really disappointed is when people go out of their way to post on baby pictures, let is say, in /r/aww or whatever.  if you do not like it, then just do not look at it.  no reason to be ugly or shit on other people is joy.
you hear it in every corner of reddit when children are mentioned or when a picture of a baby is posted.   human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  this has scary implications for our future.  if we treat our youth as an annoyance, as not worthy of attention, we will overcorrect what happened to our generation every kid being coddled and told they are a special butterfly, producing a generation of self absorbed brats .  i get that helicopter parenting has produced bad results in many but shunning children, disliking them, or even hating them is an extreme that will not correct the problem, but rather create an entirely new one.  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.   and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.   please change my view   my view has been changed by /u/appropriate username, /u/wrestlingisgood, and /u/the skeleton queen thank you !  #  and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.   #  in my buddhist practice, being able to not be a loner but rather  alone  is actually a rather important aspect of ones practice.   # so, in this sense, are parents implying that everyone must tolerate their decisions as if they do not have a choice ? this reminds me of someone telling me to be more  patient  as they hold the line up to continue shopping.  what right does someone have to tell someone else they have to tolerate something because that one person chose to do the thing others find annoying ? in my buddhist practice, being able to not be a loner but rather  alone  is actually a rather important aspect of ones practice.  so many have kids to actually fill a void in themselves and seem to think it is their sole purpose on this planet.  generalizing aside, was it cool to not be a loner, before, and cool to increase the population ? as someone who walks alone, my question is, who thinks i am cool ? i am alone.   cool  is for a younger demographic.  i am only 0.  this is important in my next point.  i do not really grasp this negativity as i do not think it is fully extends into life outside reddit.  i think many, on reddit, are of the age demographic where they actually are still kids.  i would put this number at 0.  i do not think one has a grasp of who they are by 0 and their perspective is will change.  all i ever hear about is  think of the children.   it falls into my comments, above, about someone telling me to be patient.  i am dictated by parents of those children.  in canada, health canada just went against studies and lied about cannabis because the video they had tested well with  parent demographic.   so, i am not sure why a child grows up feeling unimportant when all we ever do is revolve around children in society to the point we wrap them in bubble wrap.  school buses stop the entire planet every time they pick a kid up stop signs, bus arms, etc.  .  the world revolves around children.  what is ironic is this obsession with safety is causing more damage than good but that is a different debate.  anyways, we care about children, in my opinion, until they turn 0, then we do not give a shit about anyone.  i think that is an issue, but at 0.  now, you are not a kid, so, start thinking about them as we do not care about you.  think of the old  women and children  first onto boats.  ya, you are 0, you are not a kid anymore, die.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.  for those to jump into such circle jerk comments, but, they probably already had the attitude and just found like minded people.  they mire themselves in it much like a maple leafs fan mires himself with delusional maple leafs fans all screaming  our team rocks  when they have not made the play offs in years.  i do not want kids, do not care for them, etc.  i do not join these discussions as i am detached from feelings, positive or negative, towards it.  i truly do not care.  i do not want a boat but i do not engage in conversation mocking others about the ownership of boats.  i find, overall, these individuals you speak of are localized to the very subreddits that circle jerk such thoughts.  i do not believe it has any real basis in reality to any large degree.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.  i am all for people who do not like children to, you know, not have any.  call them disgusting, ugly, gross, whatever.  hate kids all you want.  just do not have any yourself.  it is better that they recognize they do not like children right from the get go than realize it when a kid is already in the on the way / in the picture.  those of us who enjoy being around / raising children will continue to do so.  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.  not every man has the capacity for fatherhood and not all women have the capacity for motherhood .  do i think it is nasty to say cruel things about children ? well, yeah.  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.  not everyone feels the same as i do.  that is just something you have to not be so sensitive about.  if i want people to respect my opinion, i have to respect theirs, too.  even if it is wildly different from mine.  imo, the easy solution is that people who do not like children should simply refrain from vocalizing about it when it is not appropriate.  if you are talking about your decision to not have kids, why you do not like kids, etc.  etc.  than that is fine.  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.  that is just uncool.  same goes for people who like kids.  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.  and be thankful they probably wo not reproduce.   #  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.   #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ? you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.  not sure if you are talking about another site like facebook.  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ? why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  that can do real damage to their egos.   #    i think we are in agreement.  i do not want these people to parent children either ! however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.  kids are increasingly aware of how they are precieved and when the popular attitude is that they are gross, annoying, worthless, etc.  that can do real damage to their egos.  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.  thanks for cing my v.   #  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .   #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.  while small children and babies might have ugly comments made about them on the internet, they obviously ca not read them, and i would hope their parents would not be like,  hey jimmy, user commented on that picture of you and said he thinks you are gross and worthless !   older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ? shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.  but that is something that their parents have to be strict about if they think it is a problem.  and i  know  that the whole i do not like kids mentality is new, either.  it is just that, prior to now, it was not really socially acceptable to say that.  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .  both sides of the issue can be really unfair and judgemental, although the childfree people tend to be a lot nastier and pretentious, from what i have experienced.  but yeah, i totally agree with you that the circlejerk is unnecessary.  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.  etc.  but what makes me really disappointed is when people go out of their way to post on baby pictures, let is say, in /r/aww or whatever.  if you do not like it, then just do not look at it.  no reason to be ugly or shit on other people is joy.
you hear it in every corner of reddit when children are mentioned or when a picture of a baby is posted.   human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  this has scary implications for our future.  if we treat our youth as an annoyance, as not worthy of attention, we will overcorrect what happened to our generation every kid being coddled and told they are a special butterfly, producing a generation of self absorbed brats .  i get that helicopter parenting has produced bad results in many but shunning children, disliking them, or even hating them is an extreme that will not correct the problem, but rather create an entirely new one.  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.   and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.   please change my view   my view has been changed by /u/appropriate username, /u/wrestlingisgood, and /u/the skeleton queen thank you !  #  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.   #  i do not really grasp this negativity as i do not think it is fully extends into life outside reddit.   # so, in this sense, are parents implying that everyone must tolerate their decisions as if they do not have a choice ? this reminds me of someone telling me to be more  patient  as they hold the line up to continue shopping.  what right does someone have to tell someone else they have to tolerate something because that one person chose to do the thing others find annoying ? in my buddhist practice, being able to not be a loner but rather  alone  is actually a rather important aspect of ones practice.  so many have kids to actually fill a void in themselves and seem to think it is their sole purpose on this planet.  generalizing aside, was it cool to not be a loner, before, and cool to increase the population ? as someone who walks alone, my question is, who thinks i am cool ? i am alone.   cool  is for a younger demographic.  i am only 0.  this is important in my next point.  i do not really grasp this negativity as i do not think it is fully extends into life outside reddit.  i think many, on reddit, are of the age demographic where they actually are still kids.  i would put this number at 0.  i do not think one has a grasp of who they are by 0 and their perspective is will change.  all i ever hear about is  think of the children.   it falls into my comments, above, about someone telling me to be patient.  i am dictated by parents of those children.  in canada, health canada just went against studies and lied about cannabis because the video they had tested well with  parent demographic.   so, i am not sure why a child grows up feeling unimportant when all we ever do is revolve around children in society to the point we wrap them in bubble wrap.  school buses stop the entire planet every time they pick a kid up stop signs, bus arms, etc.  .  the world revolves around children.  what is ironic is this obsession with safety is causing more damage than good but that is a different debate.  anyways, we care about children, in my opinion, until they turn 0, then we do not give a shit about anyone.  i think that is an issue, but at 0.  now, you are not a kid, so, start thinking about them as we do not care about you.  think of the old  women and children  first onto boats.  ya, you are 0, you are not a kid anymore, die.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.  for those to jump into such circle jerk comments, but, they probably already had the attitude and just found like minded people.  they mire themselves in it much like a maple leafs fan mires himself with delusional maple leafs fans all screaming  our team rocks  when they have not made the play offs in years.  i do not want kids, do not care for them, etc.  i do not join these discussions as i am detached from feelings, positive or negative, towards it.  i truly do not care.  i do not want a boat but i do not engage in conversation mocking others about the ownership of boats.  i find, overall, these individuals you speak of are localized to the very subreddits that circle jerk such thoughts.  i do not believe it has any real basis in reality to any large degree.   #  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.  i am all for people who do not like children to, you know, not have any.  call them disgusting, ugly, gross, whatever.  hate kids all you want.  just do not have any yourself.  it is better that they recognize they do not like children right from the get go than realize it when a kid is already in the on the way / in the picture.  those of us who enjoy being around / raising children will continue to do so.  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.  not every man has the capacity for fatherhood and not all women have the capacity for motherhood .  do i think it is nasty to say cruel things about children ? well, yeah.  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.  not everyone feels the same as i do.  that is just something you have to not be so sensitive about.  if i want people to respect my opinion, i have to respect theirs, too.  even if it is wildly different from mine.  imo, the easy solution is that people who do not like children should simply refrain from vocalizing about it when it is not appropriate.  if you are talking about your decision to not have kids, why you do not like kids, etc.  etc.  than that is fine.  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.  that is just uncool.  same goes for people who like kids.  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.  and be thankful they probably wo not reproduce.   #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ?  #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ? you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.  not sure if you are talking about another site like facebook.  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ? why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  that can do real damage to their egos.   #    i think we are in agreement.  i do not want these people to parent children either ! however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.  kids are increasingly aware of how they are precieved and when the popular attitude is that they are gross, annoying, worthless, etc.  that can do real damage to their egos.  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.  thanks for cing my v.   #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.   #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.  while small children and babies might have ugly comments made about them on the internet, they obviously ca not read them, and i would hope their parents would not be like,  hey jimmy, user commented on that picture of you and said he thinks you are gross and worthless !   older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ? shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.  but that is something that their parents have to be strict about if they think it is a problem.  and i  know  that the whole i do not like kids mentality is new, either.  it is just that, prior to now, it was not really socially acceptable to say that.  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .  both sides of the issue can be really unfair and judgemental, although the childfree people tend to be a lot nastier and pretentious, from what i have experienced.  but yeah, i totally agree with you that the circlejerk is unnecessary.  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.  etc.  but what makes me really disappointed is when people go out of their way to post on baby pictures, let is say, in /r/aww or whatever.  if you do not like it, then just do not look at it.  no reason to be ugly or shit on other people is joy.
you hear it in every corner of reddit when children are mentioned or when a picture of a baby is posted.   human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  this has scary implications for our future.  if we treat our youth as an annoyance, as not worthy of attention, we will overcorrect what happened to our generation every kid being coddled and told they are a special butterfly, producing a generation of self absorbed brats .  i get that helicopter parenting has produced bad results in many but shunning children, disliking them, or even hating them is an extreme that will not correct the problem, but rather create an entirely new one.  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.   and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.   please change my view   my view has been changed by /u/appropriate username, /u/wrestlingisgood, and /u/the skeleton queen thank you !  #  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.   #  all i ever hear about is  think of the children.    # so, in this sense, are parents implying that everyone must tolerate their decisions as if they do not have a choice ? this reminds me of someone telling me to be more  patient  as they hold the line up to continue shopping.  what right does someone have to tell someone else they have to tolerate something because that one person chose to do the thing others find annoying ? in my buddhist practice, being able to not be a loner but rather  alone  is actually a rather important aspect of ones practice.  so many have kids to actually fill a void in themselves and seem to think it is their sole purpose on this planet.  generalizing aside, was it cool to not be a loner, before, and cool to increase the population ? as someone who walks alone, my question is, who thinks i am cool ? i am alone.   cool  is for a younger demographic.  i am only 0.  this is important in my next point.  i do not really grasp this negativity as i do not think it is fully extends into life outside reddit.  i think many, on reddit, are of the age demographic where they actually are still kids.  i would put this number at 0.  i do not think one has a grasp of who they are by 0 and their perspective is will change.  all i ever hear about is  think of the children.   it falls into my comments, above, about someone telling me to be patient.  i am dictated by parents of those children.  in canada, health canada just went against studies and lied about cannabis because the video they had tested well with  parent demographic.   so, i am not sure why a child grows up feeling unimportant when all we ever do is revolve around children in society to the point we wrap them in bubble wrap.  school buses stop the entire planet every time they pick a kid up stop signs, bus arms, etc.  .  the world revolves around children.  what is ironic is this obsession with safety is causing more damage than good but that is a different debate.  anyways, we care about children, in my opinion, until they turn 0, then we do not give a shit about anyone.  i think that is an issue, but at 0.  now, you are not a kid, so, start thinking about them as we do not care about you.  think of the old  women and children  first onto boats.  ya, you are 0, you are not a kid anymore, die.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.  for those to jump into such circle jerk comments, but, they probably already had the attitude and just found like minded people.  they mire themselves in it much like a maple leafs fan mires himself with delusional maple leafs fans all screaming  our team rocks  when they have not made the play offs in years.  i do not want kids, do not care for them, etc.  i do not join these discussions as i am detached from feelings, positive or negative, towards it.  i truly do not care.  i do not want a boat but i do not engage in conversation mocking others about the ownership of boats.  i find, overall, these individuals you speak of are localized to the very subreddits that circle jerk such thoughts.  i do not believe it has any real basis in reality to any large degree.   #  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.  i am all for people who do not like children to, you know, not have any.  call them disgusting, ugly, gross, whatever.  hate kids all you want.  just do not have any yourself.  it is better that they recognize they do not like children right from the get go than realize it when a kid is already in the on the way / in the picture.  those of us who enjoy being around / raising children will continue to do so.  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.  not every man has the capacity for fatherhood and not all women have the capacity for motherhood .  do i think it is nasty to say cruel things about children ? well, yeah.  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.  not everyone feels the same as i do.  that is just something you have to not be so sensitive about.  if i want people to respect my opinion, i have to respect theirs, too.  even if it is wildly different from mine.  imo, the easy solution is that people who do not like children should simply refrain from vocalizing about it when it is not appropriate.  if you are talking about your decision to not have kids, why you do not like kids, etc.  etc.  than that is fine.  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.  that is just uncool.  same goes for people who like kids.  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.  and be thankful they probably wo not reproduce.   #  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ?  #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ? you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.  not sure if you are talking about another site like facebook.  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ? why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.   #    i think we are in agreement.  i do not want these people to parent children either ! however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.  kids are increasingly aware of how they are precieved and when the popular attitude is that they are gross, annoying, worthless, etc.  that can do real damage to their egos.  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.  thanks for cing my v.   #  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.   #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.  while small children and babies might have ugly comments made about them on the internet, they obviously ca not read them, and i would hope their parents would not be like,  hey jimmy, user commented on that picture of you and said he thinks you are gross and worthless !   older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ? shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.  but that is something that their parents have to be strict about if they think it is a problem.  and i  know  that the whole i do not like kids mentality is new, either.  it is just that, prior to now, it was not really socially acceptable to say that.  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .  both sides of the issue can be really unfair and judgemental, although the childfree people tend to be a lot nastier and pretentious, from what i have experienced.  but yeah, i totally agree with you that the circlejerk is unnecessary.  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.  etc.  but what makes me really disappointed is when people go out of their way to post on baby pictures, let is say, in /r/aww or whatever.  if you do not like it, then just do not look at it.  no reason to be ugly or shit on other people is joy.
you hear it in every corner of reddit when children are mentioned or when a picture of a baby is posted.   human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  this has scary implications for our future.  if we treat our youth as an annoyance, as not worthy of attention, we will overcorrect what happened to our generation every kid being coddled and told they are a special butterfly, producing a generation of self absorbed brats .  i get that helicopter parenting has produced bad results in many but shunning children, disliking them, or even hating them is an extreme that will not correct the problem, but rather create an entirely new one.  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.   and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.   please change my view   my view has been changed by /u/appropriate username, /u/wrestlingisgood, and /u/the skeleton queen thank you !  #  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.   #  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.   # so, in this sense, are parents implying that everyone must tolerate their decisions as if they do not have a choice ? this reminds me of someone telling me to be more  patient  as they hold the line up to continue shopping.  what right does someone have to tell someone else they have to tolerate something because that one person chose to do the thing others find annoying ? in my buddhist practice, being able to not be a loner but rather  alone  is actually a rather important aspect of ones practice.  so many have kids to actually fill a void in themselves and seem to think it is their sole purpose on this planet.  generalizing aside, was it cool to not be a loner, before, and cool to increase the population ? as someone who walks alone, my question is, who thinks i am cool ? i am alone.   cool  is for a younger demographic.  i am only 0.  this is important in my next point.  i do not really grasp this negativity as i do not think it is fully extends into life outside reddit.  i think many, on reddit, are of the age demographic where they actually are still kids.  i would put this number at 0.  i do not think one has a grasp of who they are by 0 and their perspective is will change.  all i ever hear about is  think of the children.   it falls into my comments, above, about someone telling me to be patient.  i am dictated by parents of those children.  in canada, health canada just went against studies and lied about cannabis because the video they had tested well with  parent demographic.   so, i am not sure why a child grows up feeling unimportant when all we ever do is revolve around children in society to the point we wrap them in bubble wrap.  school buses stop the entire planet every time they pick a kid up stop signs, bus arms, etc.  .  the world revolves around children.  what is ironic is this obsession with safety is causing more damage than good but that is a different debate.  anyways, we care about children, in my opinion, until they turn 0, then we do not give a shit about anyone.  i think that is an issue, but at 0.  now, you are not a kid, so, start thinking about them as we do not care about you.  think of the old  women and children  first onto boats.  ya, you are 0, you are not a kid anymore, die.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.  for those to jump into such circle jerk comments, but, they probably already had the attitude and just found like minded people.  they mire themselves in it much like a maple leafs fan mires himself with delusional maple leafs fans all screaming  our team rocks  when they have not made the play offs in years.  i do not want kids, do not care for them, etc.  i do not join these discussions as i am detached from feelings, positive or negative, towards it.  i truly do not care.  i do not want a boat but i do not engage in conversation mocking others about the ownership of boats.  i find, overall, these individuals you speak of are localized to the very subreddits that circle jerk such thoughts.  i do not believe it has any real basis in reality to any large degree.   #  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.  i am all for people who do not like children to, you know, not have any.  call them disgusting, ugly, gross, whatever.  hate kids all you want.  just do not have any yourself.  it is better that they recognize they do not like children right from the get go than realize it when a kid is already in the on the way / in the picture.  those of us who enjoy being around / raising children will continue to do so.  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.  not every man has the capacity for fatherhood and not all women have the capacity for motherhood .  do i think it is nasty to say cruel things about children ? well, yeah.  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.  not everyone feels the same as i do.  that is just something you have to not be so sensitive about.  if i want people to respect my opinion, i have to respect theirs, too.  even if it is wildly different from mine.  imo, the easy solution is that people who do not like children should simply refrain from vocalizing about it when it is not appropriate.  if you are talking about your decision to not have kids, why you do not like kids, etc.  etc.  than that is fine.  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.  that is just uncool.  same goes for people who like kids.  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.  and be thankful they probably wo not reproduce.   #  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ?  #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ? you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.  not sure if you are talking about another site like facebook.  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ? why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.   #    i think we are in agreement.  i do not want these people to parent children either ! however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.  kids are increasingly aware of how they are precieved and when the popular attitude is that they are gross, annoying, worthless, etc.  that can do real damage to their egos.  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.  thanks for cing my v.   #  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.   #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.  while small children and babies might have ugly comments made about them on the internet, they obviously ca not read them, and i would hope their parents would not be like,  hey jimmy, user commented on that picture of you and said he thinks you are gross and worthless !   older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ? shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.  but that is something that their parents have to be strict about if they think it is a problem.  and i  know  that the whole i do not like kids mentality is new, either.  it is just that, prior to now, it was not really socially acceptable to say that.  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .  both sides of the issue can be really unfair and judgemental, although the childfree people tend to be a lot nastier and pretentious, from what i have experienced.  but yeah, i totally agree with you that the circlejerk is unnecessary.  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.  etc.  but what makes me really disappointed is when people go out of their way to post on baby pictures, let is say, in /r/aww or whatever.  if you do not like it, then just do not look at it.  no reason to be ugly or shit on other people is joy.
you hear it in every corner of reddit when children are mentioned or when a picture of a baby is posted.   human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  this has scary implications for our future.  if we treat our youth as an annoyance, as not worthy of attention, we will overcorrect what happened to our generation every kid being coddled and told they are a special butterfly, producing a generation of self absorbed brats .  i get that helicopter parenting has produced bad results in many but shunning children, disliking them, or even hating them is an extreme that will not correct the problem, but rather create an entirely new one.  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.   and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.   please change my view   my view has been changed by /u/appropriate username, /u/wrestlingisgood, and /u/the skeleton queen thank you !  #  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.   #  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.   #  human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  i agree with this part of your statement.  and i believe is not just reddit.  there is a % of society who is childfree.  forget for a second how kids feel about themselves.  the question is how adults feel about them.  and some adults do feel kids are gross and creepy and annoying, and they have a right to their own opinion.  i know a few parents who will even say kids are annoying.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  just because a child is curious does not mean an adult automatically must want to help the kid.  not all adults have that nurturing drive.  some that do only have it for their own kids.  if a person has zero drive to nurture human children, you ca not shame or force him into doing it.  people do not have to be a product of helicopter parenting to think their desired are most important to them.  this is the american culture and perhaps also the mindset in some other western countries.  you have not given a good argument on on why we must tolerate poorly behaved kids the ankle biters .  the well behaved kids rarely go noticed because they know how to act civilized in the restaurant.  they are not the ones climbing over the booth and throwing food across the aisle.  one does not need to be a loner to be against population growth.  you can be married and just choose not to reproduce.  you could adopt.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  the child is not less important than everyone else.  but children do need to respect others which means he needs to control his behavior in a social setting.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.  the best way to break the cycle of child hating is to address the complaints people have about the kids.  some kids are totally out of control.  and it does not help when some parents almost worship their kids, and heaven forbid anyone suggest their child is acting inappropriately.  or what of the people who have kids so they wo not feel lonely and they treat the child as a friend.  bottom line is that too many parents let their kids act like ankle biters.  if you want society to respect children more, start with teaching the kids more respect for others.  and as say this as a parent myself.   #  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.  i am all for people who do not like children to, you know, not have any.  call them disgusting, ugly, gross, whatever.  hate kids all you want.  just do not have any yourself.  it is better that they recognize they do not like children right from the get go than realize it when a kid is already in the on the way / in the picture.  those of us who enjoy being around / raising children will continue to do so.  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.  not every man has the capacity for fatherhood and not all women have the capacity for motherhood .  do i think it is nasty to say cruel things about children ? well, yeah.  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.  not everyone feels the same as i do.  that is just something you have to not be so sensitive about.  if i want people to respect my opinion, i have to respect theirs, too.  even if it is wildly different from mine.  imo, the easy solution is that people who do not like children should simply refrain from vocalizing about it when it is not appropriate.  if you are talking about your decision to not have kids, why you do not like kids, etc.  etc.  than that is fine.  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.  that is just uncool.  same goes for people who like kids.  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.  and be thankful they probably wo not reproduce.   #  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ?  #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ? you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.  not sure if you are talking about another site like facebook.  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ? why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.   #    i think we are in agreement.  i do not want these people to parent children either ! however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.  kids are increasingly aware of how they are precieved and when the popular attitude is that they are gross, annoying, worthless, etc.  that can do real damage to their egos.  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.  thanks for cing my v.   #  shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.   #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.  while small children and babies might have ugly comments made about them on the internet, they obviously ca not read them, and i would hope their parents would not be like,  hey jimmy, user commented on that picture of you and said he thinks you are gross and worthless !   older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ? shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.  but that is something that their parents have to be strict about if they think it is a problem.  and i  know  that the whole i do not like kids mentality is new, either.  it is just that, prior to now, it was not really socially acceptable to say that.  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .  both sides of the issue can be really unfair and judgemental, although the childfree people tend to be a lot nastier and pretentious, from what i have experienced.  but yeah, i totally agree with you that the circlejerk is unnecessary.  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.  etc.  but what makes me really disappointed is when people go out of their way to post on baby pictures, let is say, in /r/aww or whatever.  if you do not like it, then just do not look at it.  no reason to be ugly or shit on other people is joy.
you hear it in every corner of reddit when children are mentioned or when a picture of a baby is posted.   human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  this has scary implications for our future.  if we treat our youth as an annoyance, as not worthy of attention, we will overcorrect what happened to our generation every kid being coddled and told they are a special butterfly, producing a generation of self absorbed brats .  i get that helicopter parenting has produced bad results in many but shunning children, disliking them, or even hating them is an extreme that will not correct the problem, but rather create an entirely new one.  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.   and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.   please change my view   my view has been changed by /u/appropriate username, /u/wrestlingisgood, and /u/the skeleton queen thank you !  #  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.    #  people do not have to be a product of helicopter parenting to think their desired are most important to them.   #  human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  i agree with this part of your statement.  and i believe is not just reddit.  there is a % of society who is childfree.  forget for a second how kids feel about themselves.  the question is how adults feel about them.  and some adults do feel kids are gross and creepy and annoying, and they have a right to their own opinion.  i know a few parents who will even say kids are annoying.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  just because a child is curious does not mean an adult automatically must want to help the kid.  not all adults have that nurturing drive.  some that do only have it for their own kids.  if a person has zero drive to nurture human children, you ca not shame or force him into doing it.  people do not have to be a product of helicopter parenting to think their desired are most important to them.  this is the american culture and perhaps also the mindset in some other western countries.  you have not given a good argument on on why we must tolerate poorly behaved kids the ankle biters .  the well behaved kids rarely go noticed because they know how to act civilized in the restaurant.  they are not the ones climbing over the booth and throwing food across the aisle.  one does not need to be a loner to be against population growth.  you can be married and just choose not to reproduce.  you could adopt.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  the child is not less important than everyone else.  but children do need to respect others which means he needs to control his behavior in a social setting.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.  the best way to break the cycle of child hating is to address the complaints people have about the kids.  some kids are totally out of control.  and it does not help when some parents almost worship their kids, and heaven forbid anyone suggest their child is acting inappropriately.  or what of the people who have kids so they wo not feel lonely and they treat the child as a friend.  bottom line is that too many parents let their kids act like ankle biters.  if you want society to respect children more, start with teaching the kids more respect for others.  and as say this as a parent myself.   #  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.  i am all for people who do not like children to, you know, not have any.  call them disgusting, ugly, gross, whatever.  hate kids all you want.  just do not have any yourself.  it is better that they recognize they do not like children right from the get go than realize it when a kid is already in the on the way / in the picture.  those of us who enjoy being around / raising children will continue to do so.  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.  not every man has the capacity for fatherhood and not all women have the capacity for motherhood .  do i think it is nasty to say cruel things about children ? well, yeah.  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.  not everyone feels the same as i do.  that is just something you have to not be so sensitive about.  if i want people to respect my opinion, i have to respect theirs, too.  even if it is wildly different from mine.  imo, the easy solution is that people who do not like children should simply refrain from vocalizing about it when it is not appropriate.  if you are talking about your decision to not have kids, why you do not like kids, etc.  etc.  than that is fine.  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.  that is just uncool.  same goes for people who like kids.  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.  and be thankful they probably wo not reproduce.   #  you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.   #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ? you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.  not sure if you are talking about another site like facebook.  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ? why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  i do not want these people to parent children either !  #    i think we are in agreement.  i do not want these people to parent children either ! however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.  kids are increasingly aware of how they are precieved and when the popular attitude is that they are gross, annoying, worthless, etc.  that can do real damage to their egos.  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.  thanks for cing my v.   #  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.   #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.  while small children and babies might have ugly comments made about them on the internet, they obviously ca not read them, and i would hope their parents would not be like,  hey jimmy, user commented on that picture of you and said he thinks you are gross and worthless !   older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ? shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.  but that is something that their parents have to be strict about if they think it is a problem.  and i  know  that the whole i do not like kids mentality is new, either.  it is just that, prior to now, it was not really socially acceptable to say that.  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .  both sides of the issue can be really unfair and judgemental, although the childfree people tend to be a lot nastier and pretentious, from what i have experienced.  but yeah, i totally agree with you that the circlejerk is unnecessary.  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.  etc.  but what makes me really disappointed is when people go out of their way to post on baby pictures, let is say, in /r/aww or whatever.  if you do not like it, then just do not look at it.  no reason to be ugly or shit on other people is joy.
you hear it in every corner of reddit when children are mentioned or when a picture of a baby is posted.   human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  this has scary implications for our future.  if we treat our youth as an annoyance, as not worthy of attention, we will overcorrect what happened to our generation every kid being coddled and told they are a special butterfly, producing a generation of self absorbed brats .  i get that helicopter parenting has produced bad results in many but shunning children, disliking them, or even hating them is an extreme that will not correct the problem, but rather create an entirely new one.  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.   and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.   please change my view   my view has been changed by /u/appropriate username, /u/wrestlingisgood, and /u/the skeleton queen thank you !  #  and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.   #  one does not need to be a loner to be against population growth.   #  human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  i agree with this part of your statement.  and i believe is not just reddit.  there is a % of society who is childfree.  forget for a second how kids feel about themselves.  the question is how adults feel about them.  and some adults do feel kids are gross and creepy and annoying, and they have a right to their own opinion.  i know a few parents who will even say kids are annoying.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  just because a child is curious does not mean an adult automatically must want to help the kid.  not all adults have that nurturing drive.  some that do only have it for their own kids.  if a person has zero drive to nurture human children, you ca not shame or force him into doing it.  people do not have to be a product of helicopter parenting to think their desired are most important to them.  this is the american culture and perhaps also the mindset in some other western countries.  you have not given a good argument on on why we must tolerate poorly behaved kids the ankle biters .  the well behaved kids rarely go noticed because they know how to act civilized in the restaurant.  they are not the ones climbing over the booth and throwing food across the aisle.  one does not need to be a loner to be against population growth.  you can be married and just choose not to reproduce.  you could adopt.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  the child is not less important than everyone else.  but children do need to respect others which means he needs to control his behavior in a social setting.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.  the best way to break the cycle of child hating is to address the complaints people have about the kids.  some kids are totally out of control.  and it does not help when some parents almost worship their kids, and heaven forbid anyone suggest their child is acting inappropriately.  or what of the people who have kids so they wo not feel lonely and they treat the child as a friend.  bottom line is that too many parents let their kids act like ankle biters.  if you want society to respect children more, start with teaching the kids more respect for others.  and as say this as a parent myself.   #  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.  i am all for people who do not like children to, you know, not have any.  call them disgusting, ugly, gross, whatever.  hate kids all you want.  just do not have any yourself.  it is better that they recognize they do not like children right from the get go than realize it when a kid is already in the on the way / in the picture.  those of us who enjoy being around / raising children will continue to do so.  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.  not every man has the capacity for fatherhood and not all women have the capacity for motherhood .  do i think it is nasty to say cruel things about children ? well, yeah.  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.  not everyone feels the same as i do.  that is just something you have to not be so sensitive about.  if i want people to respect my opinion, i have to respect theirs, too.  even if it is wildly different from mine.  imo, the easy solution is that people who do not like children should simply refrain from vocalizing about it when it is not appropriate.  if you are talking about your decision to not have kids, why you do not like kids, etc.  etc.  than that is fine.  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.  that is just uncool.  same goes for people who like kids.  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.  and be thankful they probably wo not reproduce.   #  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.   #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ? you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.  not sure if you are talking about another site like facebook.  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ? why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  i do not want these people to parent children either !  #    i think we are in agreement.  i do not want these people to parent children either ! however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.  kids are increasingly aware of how they are precieved and when the popular attitude is that they are gross, annoying, worthless, etc.  that can do real damage to their egos.  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.  thanks for cing my v.   #  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ?  #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.  while small children and babies might have ugly comments made about them on the internet, they obviously ca not read them, and i would hope their parents would not be like,  hey jimmy, user commented on that picture of you and said he thinks you are gross and worthless !   older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ? shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.  but that is something that their parents have to be strict about if they think it is a problem.  and i  know  that the whole i do not like kids mentality is new, either.  it is just that, prior to now, it was not really socially acceptable to say that.  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .  both sides of the issue can be really unfair and judgemental, although the childfree people tend to be a lot nastier and pretentious, from what i have experienced.  but yeah, i totally agree with you that the circlejerk is unnecessary.  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.  etc.  but what makes me really disappointed is when people go out of their way to post on baby pictures, let is say, in /r/aww or whatever.  if you do not like it, then just do not look at it.  no reason to be ugly or shit on other people is joy.
you hear it in every corner of reddit when children are mentioned or when a picture of a baby is posted.   human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  this has scary implications for our future.  if we treat our youth as an annoyance, as not worthy of attention, we will overcorrect what happened to our generation every kid being coddled and told they are a special butterfly, producing a generation of self absorbed brats .  i get that helicopter parenting has produced bad results in many but shunning children, disliking them, or even hating them is an extreme that will not correct the problem, but rather create an entirely new one.  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.   and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.   please change my view   my view has been changed by /u/appropriate username, /u/wrestlingisgood, and /u/the skeleton queen thank you !  #  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.   #  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.   #  human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  i agree with this part of your statement.  and i believe is not just reddit.  there is a % of society who is childfree.  forget for a second how kids feel about themselves.  the question is how adults feel about them.  and some adults do feel kids are gross and creepy and annoying, and they have a right to their own opinion.  i know a few parents who will even say kids are annoying.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  just because a child is curious does not mean an adult automatically must want to help the kid.  not all adults have that nurturing drive.  some that do only have it for their own kids.  if a person has zero drive to nurture human children, you ca not shame or force him into doing it.  people do not have to be a product of helicopter parenting to think their desired are most important to them.  this is the american culture and perhaps also the mindset in some other western countries.  you have not given a good argument on on why we must tolerate poorly behaved kids the ankle biters .  the well behaved kids rarely go noticed because they know how to act civilized in the restaurant.  they are not the ones climbing over the booth and throwing food across the aisle.  one does not need to be a loner to be against population growth.  you can be married and just choose not to reproduce.  you could adopt.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  the child is not less important than everyone else.  but children do need to respect others which means he needs to control his behavior in a social setting.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.  the best way to break the cycle of child hating is to address the complaints people have about the kids.  some kids are totally out of control.  and it does not help when some parents almost worship their kids, and heaven forbid anyone suggest their child is acting inappropriately.  or what of the people who have kids so they wo not feel lonely and they treat the child as a friend.  bottom line is that too many parents let their kids act like ankle biters.  if you want society to respect children more, start with teaching the kids more respect for others.  and as say this as a parent myself.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.  i am all for people who do not like children to, you know, not have any.  call them disgusting, ugly, gross, whatever.  hate kids all you want.  just do not have any yourself.  it is better that they recognize they do not like children right from the get go than realize it when a kid is already in the on the way / in the picture.  those of us who enjoy being around / raising children will continue to do so.  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.  not every man has the capacity for fatherhood and not all women have the capacity for motherhood .  do i think it is nasty to say cruel things about children ? well, yeah.  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.  not everyone feels the same as i do.  that is just something you have to not be so sensitive about.  if i want people to respect my opinion, i have to respect theirs, too.  even if it is wildly different from mine.  imo, the easy solution is that people who do not like children should simply refrain from vocalizing about it when it is not appropriate.  if you are talking about your decision to not have kids, why you do not like kids, etc.  etc.  than that is fine.  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.  that is just uncool.  same goes for people who like kids.  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.  and be thankful they probably wo not reproduce.   #  why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ? you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.  not sure if you are talking about another site like facebook.  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ? why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.   #    i think we are in agreement.  i do not want these people to parent children either ! however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.  kids are increasingly aware of how they are precieved and when the popular attitude is that they are gross, annoying, worthless, etc.  that can do real damage to their egos.  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.  thanks for cing my v.   #  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .   #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.  while small children and babies might have ugly comments made about them on the internet, they obviously ca not read them, and i would hope their parents would not be like,  hey jimmy, user commented on that picture of you and said he thinks you are gross and worthless !   older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ? shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.  but that is something that their parents have to be strict about if they think it is a problem.  and i  know  that the whole i do not like kids mentality is new, either.  it is just that, prior to now, it was not really socially acceptable to say that.  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .  both sides of the issue can be really unfair and judgemental, although the childfree people tend to be a lot nastier and pretentious, from what i have experienced.  but yeah, i totally agree with you that the circlejerk is unnecessary.  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.  etc.  but what makes me really disappointed is when people go out of their way to post on baby pictures, let is say, in /r/aww or whatever.  if you do not like it, then just do not look at it.  no reason to be ugly or shit on other people is joy.
you hear it in every corner of reddit when children are mentioned or when a picture of a baby is posted.   human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  children under 0 are, for the most part: innocent, helpless, and curious.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  this has scary implications for our future.  if we treat our youth as an annoyance, as not worthy of attention, we will overcorrect what happened to our generation every kid being coddled and told they are a special butterfly, producing a generation of self absorbed brats .  i get that helicopter parenting has produced bad results in many but shunning children, disliking them, or even hating them is an extreme that will not correct the problem, but rather create an entirely new one.  0.  i think this attitude mostly comes from two places: one, many redditors are products of helicopter parenting and feel that the world should be about them and they should not have to tolerate  annoying little ankle biters.   and two, it has become cool to be a loner, to be against increasing the surplus population, to be anti breeder.  0.  i think, regardless of its origins, this popular negative opinion of children is unhealthy and will damage this generation is youth and thus our future if left unchecked.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.   please change my view   my view has been changed by /u/appropriate username, /u/wrestlingisgood, and /u/the skeleton queen thank you !  #  0.  encouraging these comments and indulging in the circle jerk perpetuates this attitude and creates a culture of child haters.   #  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.   #  human babies are ugly/gross/annoying.   people on reddit tend to pride themselves on how much they prefer other infant animals over human children.  it has become  cool  to dislike human children.  i agree with this part of your statement.  and i believe is not just reddit.  there is a % of society who is childfree.  forget for a second how kids feel about themselves.  the question is how adults feel about them.  and some adults do feel kids are gross and creepy and annoying, and they have a right to their own opinion.  i know a few parents who will even say kids are annoying.  these traits should inspire adult humans to want to guide them, help them, and influence their generation to be a better than ours.  instead many people seem to want to shun them.  just because a child is curious does not mean an adult automatically must want to help the kid.  not all adults have that nurturing drive.  some that do only have it for their own kids.  if a person has zero drive to nurture human children, you ca not shame or force him into doing it.  people do not have to be a product of helicopter parenting to think their desired are most important to them.  this is the american culture and perhaps also the mindset in some other western countries.  you have not given a good argument on on why we must tolerate poorly behaved kids the ankle biters .  the well behaved kids rarely go noticed because they know how to act civilized in the restaurant.  they are not the ones climbing over the booth and throwing food across the aisle.  one does not need to be a loner to be against population growth.  you can be married and just choose not to reproduce.  you could adopt.  a child growing up thinking he is less important than everyone else could be just as, if not more, damaging than a child growing up thinking he is more important than everyone else.  the child is not less important than everyone else.  but children do need to respect others which means he needs to control his behavior in a social setting.  as seen by any other popular opinion on reddit.  it breeds a certain  hive mind  type response.  the best way to break the cycle of child hating is to address the complaints people have about the kids.  some kids are totally out of control.  and it does not help when some parents almost worship their kids, and heaven forbid anyone suggest their child is acting inappropriately.  or what of the people who have kids so they wo not feel lonely and they treat the child as a friend.  bottom line is that too many parents let their kids act like ankle biters.  if you want society to respect children more, start with teaching the kids more respect for others.  and as say this as a parent myself.   #  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.   #  there are plenty of men who should not have children, and still do, for various reasons.  they do not like them, find them annoying, are easily frustrated by them, and yet still become fathers.  i am all for people who do not like children to, you know, not have any.  call them disgusting, ugly, gross, whatever.  hate kids all you want.  just do not have any yourself.  it is better that they recognize they do not like children right from the get go than realize it when a kid is already in the on the way / in the picture.  those of us who enjoy being around / raising children will continue to do so.  there are actually plenty of good guys who love kids.  not every man has the capacity for fatherhood and not all women have the capacity for motherhood .  do i think it is nasty to say cruel things about children ? well, yeah.  but that is because i, personally, think children are the most beautiful wonderful adorable awesome cutest things in the galactic universe.  not everyone feels the same as i do.  that is just something you have to not be so sensitive about.  if i want people to respect my opinion, i have to respect theirs, too.  even if it is wildly different from mine.  imo, the easy solution is that people who do not like children should simply refrain from vocalizing about it when it is not appropriate.  if you are talking about your decision to not have kids, why you do not like kids, etc.  etc.  than that is fine.  but do not go out of your way to post how much you hate kids when someone is just trying to share their baby photos.  that is just uncool.  same goes for people who like kids.  respect the fact that other people do not feel the same way as you.  and be thankful they probably wo not reproduce.   #  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ?  #  no one is purposefully shoving anything in your face… they are just proud of their kids, you know ? you literally have to click on a link and go to a totally different page to see anything larger than a thumbnail of a child on reddit.  not sure if you are talking about another site like facebook.  even i have hidden friends that post  too many  photos of their kids.  i fucking love kids and do not blame you, necessarily.  but if people want to share a few cute photos… just out of curiosity, why does that bother you ? why not just scroll past and enjoy the rest of your day ?  #  however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.   #    i think we are in agreement.  i do not want these people to parent children either ! however, the general population has a great deal to do with how kids are raised.  kids are increasingly aware of how they are precieved and when the popular attitude is that they are gross, annoying, worthless, etc.  that can do real damage to their egos.  part of my view remains the same, in that i still think people should not feed into it and circlejerk about how they hate kids but i do, at least, agree with you on all other points.  thanks for cing my v.   #  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.   #  well, i think the issue here is more with older kids rather than small children or babies.  while small children and babies might have ugly comments made about them on the internet, they obviously ca not read them, and i would hope their parents would not be like,  hey jimmy, user commented on that picture of you and said he thinks you are gross and worthless !   older kids are certainly becoming more aware of how they are perceived by adults, because they are becoming more involved with the internet and social media in general.  they are aware about a lot of things now that they probably should not be.  my 0 year old niece has an instagram, a facebook, even a tumblr, you know ? shit, before long she might even become a redditor, for all i know.  i really do think it is damaging for them to read things like  kids are annoying  and  kids are gross  but really no more damaging than the other things they are exposing themselves to out there on the big bad web.  but that is something that their parents have to be strict about if they think it is a problem.  and i  know  that the whole i do not like kids mentality is new, either.  it is just that, prior to now, it was not really socially acceptable to say that.  my sister still gets flak for wanting to be childfree from our family she is not a child hater, btw, just knows she has no interest in motherhood .  both sides of the issue can be really unfair and judgemental, although the childfree people tend to be a lot nastier and pretentious, from what i have experienced.  but yeah, i totally agree with you that the circlejerk is unnecessary.  there are plenty of other forums for childfree people to talk about their decisions or even rant about how they do not like kids, etc.  etc.  but what makes me really disappointed is when people go out of their way to post on baby pictures, let is say, in /r/aww or whatever.  if you do not like it, then just do not look at it.  no reason to be ugly or shit on other people is joy.
allow me to preface by saying i love rap music.  one of the reasons i like it, however, is because of how serious it does not take itself.  when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.  especially if they cite tupac.  there are plenty of examples given from rappers who are very conscious and clever, but even those hardly ever say anything i feel holds a candle to good lyrics from other genres.  comparing it to actual poetry i feel is a very immature argument, and usually made by people who never read actual poetry.  also, as someone who has played different musical instruments and rapped, rapping at an elementary level was always much easier than playing an instrument.  singing takes years to learn well enough to do in public, but most people can jot down some typical rap lyrics with ease, and learn to recite them over a beat pretty easy.  case in point, eazy e became a famous rapper even touring the white house doing something he was terrible at.  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.   #  there are plenty of examples given from rappers who are very conscious and clever, but even those hardly ever say anything i feel holds a candle to good lyrics from other genres.   #  have you considered that this is because you relate more to the content of lyrics of other genre is than you do to the content of rap lyrics.   #  let me start by clarifying that i am speaking of good rap.  every genre has high quality music and low quality music, id rather make a comparison between high quality music then low quality music.  i would say that one has more potential to write high quality lyrics in rap than they do in other singing mediums.  singing has a strong melodic element where, in order to hold a note, one is forced to stretch out the length of certain words.  this typically restricts the amount of words one can fit into a verse, and thus limits the possible ways that singer express their idea.  the fact that singing uses melody though means that a portion of the listener is attention is directed toward the melodic content and away from the actual words.  this means that if you can use your voice in a euphonious or interesting way, you can easily get away with not the best lyrics.  rap on the other hand typically uses words in more rapid succession, allowing more words to be fit into a given space of time and allowing the rapper more flexibility in how they wish to express their ideas.  the rapper however also lacks the distracting factor of melody.  in rap, a greater proportion of ones attention is focused on the actual words that the rapper is raping.  wordy is not always better, but having the option to use more words, increases the potential of a rapper to come up with some really awesome lyrics.  i love all kinds of music, and as a dj, producer, singer, rapper guitarist, bass player, and drummer i have a decent amount of experience in various genres.  honestly rap has been the genre that has impressed me intellectually with it is use of language.  sure other genre is can have lyrics that i could describe as beautiful however this also often factors in the use of melody, which can have dramatic effects on how the lyrics are received , but rap has lyrics often display a great degree of cleverness, creativity, and intellectual prowess.  this is what it takes to make good rap.  creating high quality music in other genre is is less weighted on the quality of the lyrics because there are other salient elements at play that pull attention away from lyric content.  most of the high quality rap is not part of the mainstream because complex, intelligent lyrics make people have to think and the general populace hates that shit.  back in the day though i feel like higher quality rap had a better chance of making it to the mainstream.  one example i like is eminem is old stuff.  go listen to the slim shady or marshall mather is lp.  the metaphors, innuendoes, word play, and social commentary, make his old albums seem like a lyrical incarnation of south park in my opinion one of the most intelligent shows on television .  have you considered that this is because you relate more to the content of lyrics of other genre is than you do to the content of rap lyrics.  for example, the lyrics in tupac is music is much more profound and meaningful if you are someone who grew up in the hood and have seen people you know and care about have their lives damaged or destroyed by gang violence, drugs, or abuse, or have ever been discriminated agains because of the color or your skin or your socioeconomic status.  if you do not have experience with these kinds of things, then you may relate more to lyrics about love or relationships majority of songs are about this topic because of it is ubiquity to the human experience.  , or whatever other topic you have more experience with.  in these situations, your brain fills in the blanks with your own thoughts and experiences and this can make the lyrics seem deeper or more meaningful to you.  what exactly do you use as criteria for defining  good lyrics  ? if you could give some examples that would probably facilitate a higher quality discussion.   #  i consider flow a huge part of technical ability, as well as rhyme scheme.   #  to me it is all the rhyme scheme stuff, but it is also how it relates to flow.  flow is the rhythm of the rapper is lyrics in relation to the rhythm of the beat.  the more abnormal and complex the rhythm of the beat and lyrics are, the more interesting it can be to listen to the rapper.  there are guys who are great at seamlessly riding the rhythm of the beat, i would link it if i was not on mobile but suddenly by a$ap rocky is a great example of this especially when the beat picks up midway through .  the other kind of guys rap over beats with very odd rhythms, yet still are able to compliment it with their own.  an example of this would be something like numbers on the board by pusha t, or work work by clipping.  i consider flow a huge part of technical ability, as well as rhyme scheme.   #  eminem has multiple songs where the sole purpose is him showing off his skill at various aspects of technical lyricism.   #  eminem has multiple songs where the sole purpose is him showing off his skill at various aspects of technical lyricism.  they are all very well known songs, rap god is a great example of very well executed rapid fire flow, and lose yourself is main quality is it is intricate rhyme scheme.  for immortal technique, i do not think he is a bad technical rapper, he is just like everyone else.  there is no song in particular that i think displays this.  in every song of his i have heard, he focuses more on the lyrics getting across an off the wall message, rather than trying to make it sound cool.   #  not in my opinion, or not anymore than anyone who writes something that rhymes is.   #  i absolutely agree em is good at what he does.  is he a poet ? no.  not in my opinion, or not anymore than anyone who writes something that rhymes is.  i have read many things elaborating how em is rap patterns and cadence.  the guy has a way with raps.  but when i think of poetry, and this is subjective, i think of something saying more than what is on the page.  something deep.  it is summing up some human emotion that is hard to put to words by regular people, and putting it in a beautiful way.  it requires effort.  it requires introspection and examination.  em is lyrics do none of that.  you can listen to stan in one listen and understand 0 of the song the first time.  that level of superficiality and ease make him not on par with actual poets.  if em was not em, and was not a really famous rapper i have been a fan since his wake up show days when he was acting like a freestyler , and all he had was his written raps, these scholars would not be going on about how talented he is as a writer.  he is one of the best rappers.  the second link you posted reminds me of times i have read people elaborate on the depth and meaning of something like dr.  dre is the chronic and i imagine dre going  i just wrote some dope shit to make some money nigga .  i imagine em goes  i just wanna write some dope ass rhymes .  em is content for years has been very one dimensional.  i think rap god was one of his illest ever songs, but its basically his saying he is a good rapper.  that does not cut it when comparing it to actual poetry.   #  finally, finally felt well dressed, nature is clothes fit me best shel silverstein  #  tryin  on clothes:  i tried on the farmer is hat, did not fit.  a little too small just a bit too floppy.  could not get used to it, took it off.  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.  not the kind you could use for walkin .  did not feel right in  em, kicked  em off.  i tried on the summer sun, felt good.  nice and warm knew it would.  tried the grass beneath bare feet, felt neat.  finally, finally felt well dressed, nature is clothes fit me best shel silverstein
allow me to preface by saying i love rap music.  one of the reasons i like it, however, is because of how serious it does not take itself.  when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.  especially if they cite tupac.  there are plenty of examples given from rappers who are very conscious and clever, but even those hardly ever say anything i feel holds a candle to good lyrics from other genres.  comparing it to actual poetry i feel is a very immature argument, and usually made by people who never read actual poetry.  also, as someone who has played different musical instruments and rapped, rapping at an elementary level was always much easier than playing an instrument.  singing takes years to learn well enough to do in public, but most people can jot down some typical rap lyrics with ease, and learn to recite them over a beat pretty easy.  case in point, eazy e became a famous rapper even touring the white house doing something he was terrible at.  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.   #  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.   #  no one seriously considered eazy e a great rapper from a musical standpoint.   #  you have made several different points in your post, so i will try to address them one at a time: 0.  when people say rappers are deep: perhaps what they are saying is that rap evokes emotion in them.  many artists eschew multi layered lyrics to better portray a single point.  painting a canvas with words to absorb the listener, to me, is better than making a record where people have to stop after each track and think about what they just heard  might  mean.  saving private ryan is not exactly subtle, but it is still a great movie which evokes an emotional response.  0.  rapping as poetry is a completely reasonable comparison.  there are a  lot  of poets out there, and no one style reflects  real  poetry.  at one point in history, the psalms stood alone atop poetry is greatest achievements.  is  actual  poetry homer epics, or king david is psalms, or walt whitman, or shel silverstein ? or bob dylan ? all of them ? and if so, why ca not hip hop lyrics be included ? 0.  it is probably a little easier to rap poorly than it is to play an instrument poorly.  but that does not mean it is easier to rap well than it is to play an instrument or sing well.  shit, the guy who won best rap album last year at the grammy is can barely stay on time, and he does it for a living ! breaking down rap into simply  reciting lyrics over a beat  is the same logic used to deride pop songs.  hell, all of punk rock was built around not playing your instruments in the traditionally accepted way.  0.  eazy e became famous because nwa was a revolutionary group which brought a lot of never before heard lyrical content to the forefront of american pop music.  gangsta rap influenced 0 years and counting of rap and pop music that came after it.  no one seriously considered eazy e a great rapper from a musical standpoint.  plus, you are crazy if you think every rock ringer is freddy mercury or robert plant.  plenty of them are bille joe armstrong URL or joey ramone URL  #  flow is the rhythm of the rapper is lyrics in relation to the rhythm of the beat.   #  to me it is all the rhyme scheme stuff, but it is also how it relates to flow.  flow is the rhythm of the rapper is lyrics in relation to the rhythm of the beat.  the more abnormal and complex the rhythm of the beat and lyrics are, the more interesting it can be to listen to the rapper.  there are guys who are great at seamlessly riding the rhythm of the beat, i would link it if i was not on mobile but suddenly by a$ap rocky is a great example of this especially when the beat picks up midway through .  the other kind of guys rap over beats with very odd rhythms, yet still are able to compliment it with their own.  an example of this would be something like numbers on the board by pusha t, or work work by clipping.  i consider flow a huge part of technical ability, as well as rhyme scheme.   #  they are all very well known songs, rap god is a great example of very well executed rapid fire flow, and lose yourself is main quality is it is intricate rhyme scheme.   #  eminem has multiple songs where the sole purpose is him showing off his skill at various aspects of technical lyricism.  they are all very well known songs, rap god is a great example of very well executed rapid fire flow, and lose yourself is main quality is it is intricate rhyme scheme.  for immortal technique, i do not think he is a bad technical rapper, he is just like everyone else.  there is no song in particular that i think displays this.  in every song of his i have heard, he focuses more on the lyrics getting across an off the wall message, rather than trying to make it sound cool.   #  i think rap god was one of his illest ever songs, but its basically his saying he is a good rapper.   #  i absolutely agree em is good at what he does.  is he a poet ? no.  not in my opinion, or not anymore than anyone who writes something that rhymes is.  i have read many things elaborating how em is rap patterns and cadence.  the guy has a way with raps.  but when i think of poetry, and this is subjective, i think of something saying more than what is on the page.  something deep.  it is summing up some human emotion that is hard to put to words by regular people, and putting it in a beautiful way.  it requires effort.  it requires introspection and examination.  em is lyrics do none of that.  you can listen to stan in one listen and understand 0 of the song the first time.  that level of superficiality and ease make him not on par with actual poets.  if em was not em, and was not a really famous rapper i have been a fan since his wake up show days when he was acting like a freestyler , and all he had was his written raps, these scholars would not be going on about how talented he is as a writer.  he is one of the best rappers.  the second link you posted reminds me of times i have read people elaborate on the depth and meaning of something like dr.  dre is the chronic and i imagine dre going  i just wrote some dope shit to make some money nigga .  i imagine em goes  i just wanna write some dope ass rhymes .  em is content for years has been very one dimensional.  i think rap god was one of his illest ever songs, but its basically his saying he is a good rapper.  that does not cut it when comparing it to actual poetry.   #  tried the grass beneath bare feet, felt neat.   #  tryin  on clothes:  i tried on the farmer is hat, did not fit.  a little too small just a bit too floppy.  could not get used to it, took it off.  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.  not the kind you could use for walkin .  did not feel right in  em, kicked  em off.  i tried on the summer sun, felt good.  nice and warm knew it would.  tried the grass beneath bare feet, felt neat.  finally, finally felt well dressed, nature is clothes fit me best shel silverstein
allow me to preface by saying i love rap music.  one of the reasons i like it, however, is because of how serious it does not take itself.  when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.  especially if they cite tupac.  there are plenty of examples given from rappers who are very conscious and clever, but even those hardly ever say anything i feel holds a candle to good lyrics from other genres.  comparing it to actual poetry i feel is a very immature argument, and usually made by people who never read actual poetry.  also, as someone who has played different musical instruments and rapped, rapping at an elementary level was always much easier than playing an instrument.  singing takes years to learn well enough to do in public, but most people can jot down some typical rap lyrics with ease, and learn to recite them over a beat pretty easy.  case in point, eazy e became a famous rapper even touring the white house doing something he was terrible at.  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.   #  also, as someone who has played different musical instruments and rapped, rapping at an elementary level was always much easier than playing an instrument.   #  the first time i sat at a drum set, i was able to play a standard 0/0 with fills for an entire song.   # the first time i sat at a drum set, i was able to play a standard 0/0 with fills for an entire song.  does that make playing the drums considerably easier than playing guitar ? no.  it came more naturally  for me .  i would not make a blanket judgment that applies to everyone else based solely upon my own personal experience.  hell, i went from only one semester of vocal production classes to singing in an off broadway musical.  i have no idea where you are getting this idea that most people can write and rap over a beat more easily than they could write a standard song lyric and sing it over music.  this is what i have found most people sound like when they try to rap URL meanwhile, it turns out that humans are naturally good at singing in chorus URL   because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.  there are so many rock and pop vocalists that are  terrible  singers who are considered amazing and sell tons of records.  scott stapp URL billy corgan URL axl rose URL adam duritz URL bob dylan ? i am not saying i dislike them except stapp, fuck that guy just as i do not dislike eazy e.  but come on now.  there have been plenty of shitty musicians who have made it big because success is about more than how technically good you are at what you are doing, in music as it is in all other aspects of life.   #  an example of this would be something like numbers on the board by pusha t, or work work by clipping.   #  to me it is all the rhyme scheme stuff, but it is also how it relates to flow.  flow is the rhythm of the rapper is lyrics in relation to the rhythm of the beat.  the more abnormal and complex the rhythm of the beat and lyrics are, the more interesting it can be to listen to the rapper.  there are guys who are great at seamlessly riding the rhythm of the beat, i would link it if i was not on mobile but suddenly by a$ap rocky is a great example of this especially when the beat picks up midway through .  the other kind of guys rap over beats with very odd rhythms, yet still are able to compliment it with their own.  an example of this would be something like numbers on the board by pusha t, or work work by clipping.  i consider flow a huge part of technical ability, as well as rhyme scheme.   #  eminem has multiple songs where the sole purpose is him showing off his skill at various aspects of technical lyricism.   #  eminem has multiple songs where the sole purpose is him showing off his skill at various aspects of technical lyricism.  they are all very well known songs, rap god is a great example of very well executed rapid fire flow, and lose yourself is main quality is it is intricate rhyme scheme.  for immortal technique, i do not think he is a bad technical rapper, he is just like everyone else.  there is no song in particular that i think displays this.  in every song of his i have heard, he focuses more on the lyrics getting across an off the wall message, rather than trying to make it sound cool.   #  i imagine em goes  i just wanna write some dope ass rhymes .   #  i absolutely agree em is good at what he does.  is he a poet ? no.  not in my opinion, or not anymore than anyone who writes something that rhymes is.  i have read many things elaborating how em is rap patterns and cadence.  the guy has a way with raps.  but when i think of poetry, and this is subjective, i think of something saying more than what is on the page.  something deep.  it is summing up some human emotion that is hard to put to words by regular people, and putting it in a beautiful way.  it requires effort.  it requires introspection and examination.  em is lyrics do none of that.  you can listen to stan in one listen and understand 0 of the song the first time.  that level of superficiality and ease make him not on par with actual poets.  if em was not em, and was not a really famous rapper i have been a fan since his wake up show days when he was acting like a freestyler , and all he had was his written raps, these scholars would not be going on about how talented he is as a writer.  he is one of the best rappers.  the second link you posted reminds me of times i have read people elaborate on the depth and meaning of something like dr.  dre is the chronic and i imagine dre going  i just wrote some dope shit to make some money nigga .  i imagine em goes  i just wanna write some dope ass rhymes .  em is content for years has been very one dimensional.  i think rap god was one of his illest ever songs, but its basically his saying he is a good rapper.  that does not cut it when comparing it to actual poetry.   #  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.   #  tryin  on clothes:  i tried on the farmer is hat, did not fit.  a little too small just a bit too floppy.  could not get used to it, took it off.  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.  not the kind you could use for walkin .  did not feel right in  em, kicked  em off.  i tried on the summer sun, felt good.  nice and warm knew it would.  tried the grass beneath bare feet, felt neat.  finally, finally felt well dressed, nature is clothes fit me best shel silverstein
allow me to preface by saying i love rap music.  one of the reasons i like it, however, is because of how serious it does not take itself.  when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.  especially if they cite tupac.  there are plenty of examples given from rappers who are very conscious and clever, but even those hardly ever say anything i feel holds a candle to good lyrics from other genres.  comparing it to actual poetry i feel is a very immature argument, and usually made by people who never read actual poetry.  also, as someone who has played different musical instruments and rapped, rapping at an elementary level was always much easier than playing an instrument.  singing takes years to learn well enough to do in public, but most people can jot down some typical rap lyrics with ease, and learn to recite them over a beat pretty easy.  case in point, eazy e became a famous rapper even touring the white house doing something he was terrible at.  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.   #  but most people can jot down some typical rap lyrics with ease, and learn to recite them over a beat pretty easy.   #  i have no idea where you are getting this idea that most people can write and rap over a beat more easily than they could write a standard song lyric and sing it over music.   # the first time i sat at a drum set, i was able to play a standard 0/0 with fills for an entire song.  does that make playing the drums considerably easier than playing guitar ? no.  it came more naturally  for me .  i would not make a blanket judgment that applies to everyone else based solely upon my own personal experience.  hell, i went from only one semester of vocal production classes to singing in an off broadway musical.  i have no idea where you are getting this idea that most people can write and rap over a beat more easily than they could write a standard song lyric and sing it over music.  this is what i have found most people sound like when they try to rap URL meanwhile, it turns out that humans are naturally good at singing in chorus URL   because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.  there are so many rock and pop vocalists that are  terrible  singers who are considered amazing and sell tons of records.  scott stapp URL billy corgan URL axl rose URL adam duritz URL bob dylan ? i am not saying i dislike them except stapp, fuck that guy just as i do not dislike eazy e.  but come on now.  there have been plenty of shitty musicians who have made it big because success is about more than how technically good you are at what you are doing, in music as it is in all other aspects of life.   #  the more abnormal and complex the rhythm of the beat and lyrics are, the more interesting it can be to listen to the rapper.   #  to me it is all the rhyme scheme stuff, but it is also how it relates to flow.  flow is the rhythm of the rapper is lyrics in relation to the rhythm of the beat.  the more abnormal and complex the rhythm of the beat and lyrics are, the more interesting it can be to listen to the rapper.  there are guys who are great at seamlessly riding the rhythm of the beat, i would link it if i was not on mobile but suddenly by a$ap rocky is a great example of this especially when the beat picks up midway through .  the other kind of guys rap over beats with very odd rhythms, yet still are able to compliment it with their own.  an example of this would be something like numbers on the board by pusha t, or work work by clipping.  i consider flow a huge part of technical ability, as well as rhyme scheme.   #  eminem has multiple songs where the sole purpose is him showing off his skill at various aspects of technical lyricism.   #  eminem has multiple songs where the sole purpose is him showing off his skill at various aspects of technical lyricism.  they are all very well known songs, rap god is a great example of very well executed rapid fire flow, and lose yourself is main quality is it is intricate rhyme scheme.  for immortal technique, i do not think he is a bad technical rapper, he is just like everyone else.  there is no song in particular that i think displays this.  in every song of his i have heard, he focuses more on the lyrics getting across an off the wall message, rather than trying to make it sound cool.   #  it is summing up some human emotion that is hard to put to words by regular people, and putting it in a beautiful way.   #  i absolutely agree em is good at what he does.  is he a poet ? no.  not in my opinion, or not anymore than anyone who writes something that rhymes is.  i have read many things elaborating how em is rap patterns and cadence.  the guy has a way with raps.  but when i think of poetry, and this is subjective, i think of something saying more than what is on the page.  something deep.  it is summing up some human emotion that is hard to put to words by regular people, and putting it in a beautiful way.  it requires effort.  it requires introspection and examination.  em is lyrics do none of that.  you can listen to stan in one listen and understand 0 of the song the first time.  that level of superficiality and ease make him not on par with actual poets.  if em was not em, and was not a really famous rapper i have been a fan since his wake up show days when he was acting like a freestyler , and all he had was his written raps, these scholars would not be going on about how talented he is as a writer.  he is one of the best rappers.  the second link you posted reminds me of times i have read people elaborate on the depth and meaning of something like dr.  dre is the chronic and i imagine dre going  i just wrote some dope shit to make some money nigga .  i imagine em goes  i just wanna write some dope ass rhymes .  em is content for years has been very one dimensional.  i think rap god was one of his illest ever songs, but its basically his saying he is a good rapper.  that does not cut it when comparing it to actual poetry.   #  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.   #  tryin  on clothes:  i tried on the farmer is hat, did not fit.  a little too small just a bit too floppy.  could not get used to it, took it off.  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.  not the kind you could use for walkin .  did not feel right in  em, kicked  em off.  i tried on the summer sun, felt good.  nice and warm knew it would.  tried the grass beneath bare feet, felt neat.  finally, finally felt well dressed, nature is clothes fit me best shel silverstein
allow me to preface by saying i love rap music.  one of the reasons i like it, however, is because of how serious it does not take itself.  when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.  especially if they cite tupac.  there are plenty of examples given from rappers who are very conscious and clever, but even those hardly ever say anything i feel holds a candle to good lyrics from other genres.  comparing it to actual poetry i feel is a very immature argument, and usually made by people who never read actual poetry.  also, as someone who has played different musical instruments and rapped, rapping at an elementary level was always much easier than playing an instrument.  singing takes years to learn well enough to do in public, but most people can jot down some typical rap lyrics with ease, and learn to recite them over a beat pretty easy.  case in point, eazy e became a famous rapper even touring the white house doing something he was terrible at.  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.   #  one of the reasons i like it, however, is because of how serious it does not take itself.   #  when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.   # when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.  this is going to sound snobbish.  there are quite a few very deep rappers and hip hop artists out there.  largely outside of the mainstream.  i would say you are entire argument is spot on for the pop side of things.  most rap that is played on the radio, and most rap artists making big money, are not very serious.  or deep.  that is just kind of the nature of pop music though.  why ? atmosphere and aesop rock come to mind as pretty poetic rap.  that is just off the cuff.  if i dug around, i know i could find plenty more examples.  a lot of rap is like poetry.  i do not see how that is immature.  to me, it is just stating the obvious.  wow, speaking words is much easier than playing an instrument ? you do not say ? sure, it is easy to string together a some words, throw in a few rhymes.  especially in comparison to what it takes to play an instrument.  but just because you can karaoke purple pills does not mean you are a good rapper.  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.  you can be a great pop singer without actually being able to sing these days too.  plenty of studio only singers out there churning out chart topping singles.   #  i consider flow a huge part of technical ability, as well as rhyme scheme.   #  to me it is all the rhyme scheme stuff, but it is also how it relates to flow.  flow is the rhythm of the rapper is lyrics in relation to the rhythm of the beat.  the more abnormal and complex the rhythm of the beat and lyrics are, the more interesting it can be to listen to the rapper.  there are guys who are great at seamlessly riding the rhythm of the beat, i would link it if i was not on mobile but suddenly by a$ap rocky is a great example of this especially when the beat picks up midway through .  the other kind of guys rap over beats with very odd rhythms, yet still are able to compliment it with their own.  an example of this would be something like numbers on the board by pusha t, or work work by clipping.  i consider flow a huge part of technical ability, as well as rhyme scheme.   #  for immortal technique, i do not think he is a bad technical rapper, he is just like everyone else.   #  eminem has multiple songs where the sole purpose is him showing off his skill at various aspects of technical lyricism.  they are all very well known songs, rap god is a great example of very well executed rapid fire flow, and lose yourself is main quality is it is intricate rhyme scheme.  for immortal technique, i do not think he is a bad technical rapper, he is just like everyone else.  there is no song in particular that i think displays this.  in every song of his i have heard, he focuses more on the lyrics getting across an off the wall message, rather than trying to make it sound cool.   #  i absolutely agree em is good at what he does.   #  i absolutely agree em is good at what he does.  is he a poet ? no.  not in my opinion, or not anymore than anyone who writes something that rhymes is.  i have read many things elaborating how em is rap patterns and cadence.  the guy has a way with raps.  but when i think of poetry, and this is subjective, i think of something saying more than what is on the page.  something deep.  it is summing up some human emotion that is hard to put to words by regular people, and putting it in a beautiful way.  it requires effort.  it requires introspection and examination.  em is lyrics do none of that.  you can listen to stan in one listen and understand 0 of the song the first time.  that level of superficiality and ease make him not on par with actual poets.  if em was not em, and was not a really famous rapper i have been a fan since his wake up show days when he was acting like a freestyler , and all he had was his written raps, these scholars would not be going on about how talented he is as a writer.  he is one of the best rappers.  the second link you posted reminds me of times i have read people elaborate on the depth and meaning of something like dr.  dre is the chronic and i imagine dre going  i just wrote some dope shit to make some money nigga .  i imagine em goes  i just wanna write some dope ass rhymes .  em is content for years has been very one dimensional.  i think rap god was one of his illest ever songs, but its basically his saying he is a good rapper.  that does not cut it when comparing it to actual poetry.   #  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.   #  tryin  on clothes:  i tried on the farmer is hat, did not fit.  a little too small just a bit too floppy.  could not get used to it, took it off.  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.  not the kind you could use for walkin .  did not feel right in  em, kicked  em off.  i tried on the summer sun, felt good.  nice and warm knew it would.  tried the grass beneath bare feet, felt neat.  finally, finally felt well dressed, nature is clothes fit me best shel silverstein
allow me to preface by saying i love rap music.  one of the reasons i like it, however, is because of how serious it does not take itself.  when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.  especially if they cite tupac.  there are plenty of examples given from rappers who are very conscious and clever, but even those hardly ever say anything i feel holds a candle to good lyrics from other genres.  comparing it to actual poetry i feel is a very immature argument, and usually made by people who never read actual poetry.  also, as someone who has played different musical instruments and rapped, rapping at an elementary level was always much easier than playing an instrument.  singing takes years to learn well enough to do in public, but most people can jot down some typical rap lyrics with ease, and learn to recite them over a beat pretty easy.  case in point, eazy e became a famous rapper even touring the white house doing something he was terrible at.  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.   #  also, as someone who has played different musical instruments and rapped, rapping at an elementary level was always much easier than playing an instrument.   #  wow, speaking words is much easier than playing an instrument ?  # when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.  this is going to sound snobbish.  there are quite a few very deep rappers and hip hop artists out there.  largely outside of the mainstream.  i would say you are entire argument is spot on for the pop side of things.  most rap that is played on the radio, and most rap artists making big money, are not very serious.  or deep.  that is just kind of the nature of pop music though.  why ? atmosphere and aesop rock come to mind as pretty poetic rap.  that is just off the cuff.  if i dug around, i know i could find plenty more examples.  a lot of rap is like poetry.  i do not see how that is immature.  to me, it is just stating the obvious.  wow, speaking words is much easier than playing an instrument ? you do not say ? sure, it is easy to string together a some words, throw in a few rhymes.  especially in comparison to what it takes to play an instrument.  but just because you can karaoke purple pills does not mean you are a good rapper.  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.  you can be a great pop singer without actually being able to sing these days too.  plenty of studio only singers out there churning out chart topping singles.   #  the other kind of guys rap over beats with very odd rhythms, yet still are able to compliment it with their own.   #  to me it is all the rhyme scheme stuff, but it is also how it relates to flow.  flow is the rhythm of the rapper is lyrics in relation to the rhythm of the beat.  the more abnormal and complex the rhythm of the beat and lyrics are, the more interesting it can be to listen to the rapper.  there are guys who are great at seamlessly riding the rhythm of the beat, i would link it if i was not on mobile but suddenly by a$ap rocky is a great example of this especially when the beat picks up midway through .  the other kind of guys rap over beats with very odd rhythms, yet still are able to compliment it with their own.  an example of this would be something like numbers on the board by pusha t, or work work by clipping.  i consider flow a huge part of technical ability, as well as rhyme scheme.   #  they are all very well known songs, rap god is a great example of very well executed rapid fire flow, and lose yourself is main quality is it is intricate rhyme scheme.   #  eminem has multiple songs where the sole purpose is him showing off his skill at various aspects of technical lyricism.  they are all very well known songs, rap god is a great example of very well executed rapid fire flow, and lose yourself is main quality is it is intricate rhyme scheme.  for immortal technique, i do not think he is a bad technical rapper, he is just like everyone else.  there is no song in particular that i think displays this.  in every song of his i have heard, he focuses more on the lyrics getting across an off the wall message, rather than trying to make it sound cool.   #  dre is the chronic and i imagine dre going  i just wrote some dope shit to make some money nigga .   #  i absolutely agree em is good at what he does.  is he a poet ? no.  not in my opinion, or not anymore than anyone who writes something that rhymes is.  i have read many things elaborating how em is rap patterns and cadence.  the guy has a way with raps.  but when i think of poetry, and this is subjective, i think of something saying more than what is on the page.  something deep.  it is summing up some human emotion that is hard to put to words by regular people, and putting it in a beautiful way.  it requires effort.  it requires introspection and examination.  em is lyrics do none of that.  you can listen to stan in one listen and understand 0 of the song the first time.  that level of superficiality and ease make him not on par with actual poets.  if em was not em, and was not a really famous rapper i have been a fan since his wake up show days when he was acting like a freestyler , and all he had was his written raps, these scholars would not be going on about how talented he is as a writer.  he is one of the best rappers.  the second link you posted reminds me of times i have read people elaborate on the depth and meaning of something like dr.  dre is the chronic and i imagine dre going  i just wrote some dope shit to make some money nigga .  i imagine em goes  i just wanna write some dope ass rhymes .  em is content for years has been very one dimensional.  i think rap god was one of his illest ever songs, but its basically his saying he is a good rapper.  that does not cut it when comparing it to actual poetry.   #  could not get used to it, took it off.   #  tryin  on clothes:  i tried on the farmer is hat, did not fit.  a little too small just a bit too floppy.  could not get used to it, took it off.  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.  not the kind you could use for walkin .  did not feel right in  em, kicked  em off.  i tried on the summer sun, felt good.  nice and warm knew it would.  tried the grass beneath bare feet, felt neat.  finally, finally felt well dressed, nature is clothes fit me best shel silverstein
allow me to preface by saying i love rap music.  one of the reasons i like it, however, is because of how serious it does not take itself.  when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.  especially if they cite tupac.  there are plenty of examples given from rappers who are very conscious and clever, but even those hardly ever say anything i feel holds a candle to good lyrics from other genres.  comparing it to actual poetry i feel is a very immature argument, and usually made by people who never read actual poetry.  also, as someone who has played different musical instruments and rapped, rapping at an elementary level was always much easier than playing an instrument.  singing takes years to learn well enough to do in public, but most people can jot down some typical rap lyrics with ease, and learn to recite them over a beat pretty easy.  case in point, eazy e became a famous rapper even touring the white house doing something he was terrible at.  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.   #  case in point, eazy e became a famous rapper even touring the white house doing something he was terrible at.   #  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.   # when people talk about rappers being deep, i laugh most of the time.  this is going to sound snobbish.  there are quite a few very deep rappers and hip hop artists out there.  largely outside of the mainstream.  i would say you are entire argument is spot on for the pop side of things.  most rap that is played on the radio, and most rap artists making big money, are not very serious.  or deep.  that is just kind of the nature of pop music though.  why ? atmosphere and aesop rock come to mind as pretty poetic rap.  that is just off the cuff.  if i dug around, i know i could find plenty more examples.  a lot of rap is like poetry.  i do not see how that is immature.  to me, it is just stating the obvious.  wow, speaking words is much easier than playing an instrument ? you do not say ? sure, it is easy to string together a some words, throw in a few rhymes.  especially in comparison to what it takes to play an instrument.  but just because you can karaoke purple pills does not mean you are a good rapper.  and rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.  you can be a great pop singer without actually being able to sing these days too.  plenty of studio only singers out there churning out chart topping singles.   #  the more abnormal and complex the rhythm of the beat and lyrics are, the more interesting it can be to listen to the rapper.   #  to me it is all the rhyme scheme stuff, but it is also how it relates to flow.  flow is the rhythm of the rapper is lyrics in relation to the rhythm of the beat.  the more abnormal and complex the rhythm of the beat and lyrics are, the more interesting it can be to listen to the rapper.  there are guys who are great at seamlessly riding the rhythm of the beat, i would link it if i was not on mobile but suddenly by a$ap rocky is a great example of this especially when the beat picks up midway through .  the other kind of guys rap over beats with very odd rhythms, yet still are able to compliment it with their own.  an example of this would be something like numbers on the board by pusha t, or work work by clipping.  i consider flow a huge part of technical ability, as well as rhyme scheme.   #  for immortal technique, i do not think he is a bad technical rapper, he is just like everyone else.   #  eminem has multiple songs where the sole purpose is him showing off his skill at various aspects of technical lyricism.  they are all very well known songs, rap god is a great example of very well executed rapid fire flow, and lose yourself is main quality is it is intricate rhyme scheme.  for immortal technique, i do not think he is a bad technical rapper, he is just like everyone else.  there is no song in particular that i think displays this.  in every song of his i have heard, he focuses more on the lyrics getting across an off the wall message, rather than trying to make it sound cool.   #  that level of superficiality and ease make him not on par with actual poets.   #  i absolutely agree em is good at what he does.  is he a poet ? no.  not in my opinion, or not anymore than anyone who writes something that rhymes is.  i have read many things elaborating how em is rap patterns and cadence.  the guy has a way with raps.  but when i think of poetry, and this is subjective, i think of something saying more than what is on the page.  something deep.  it is summing up some human emotion that is hard to put to words by regular people, and putting it in a beautiful way.  it requires effort.  it requires introspection and examination.  em is lyrics do none of that.  you can listen to stan in one listen and understand 0 of the song the first time.  that level of superficiality and ease make him not on par with actual poets.  if em was not em, and was not a really famous rapper i have been a fan since his wake up show days when he was acting like a freestyler , and all he had was his written raps, these scholars would not be going on about how talented he is as a writer.  he is one of the best rappers.  the second link you posted reminds me of times i have read people elaborate on the depth and meaning of something like dr.  dre is the chronic and i imagine dre going  i just wrote some dope shit to make some money nigga .  i imagine em goes  i just wanna write some dope ass rhymes .  em is content for years has been very one dimensional.  i think rap god was one of his illest ever songs, but its basically his saying he is a good rapper.  that does not cut it when comparing it to actual poetry.   #  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.   #  tryin  on clothes:  i tried on the farmer is hat, did not fit.  a little too small just a bit too floppy.  could not get used to it, took it off.  tryin  on clothes i tried on the dancer is shoes, a little too loose.  not the kind you could use for walkin .  did not feel right in  em, kicked  em off.  i tried on the summer sun, felt good.  nice and warm knew it would.  tried the grass beneath bare feet, felt neat.  finally, finally felt well dressed, nature is clothes fit me best shel silverstein
i am a firm believer in fairness.  which is funny, because i also do not think the world is a fair place.  bad things happen to good people, bad things happen to hard working ambitious people and very often, terrible criminals get away with their crimes to go on and lead great lives.  however, there is one fair thing about a capitalistic world.  an able bodied person who works is going to have more wealth and likely lead a better life than an able bodied person who does not.  i really hope this is true, but i have seen documentaries that show otherwise if socialism was the prevailing system our world operated on, we are going to inevitably have a number of people who decide that they are not bothered to work.  society will then step in and feed and house these people.  it will give at least the bare minimum, but likely more than that.  these people are free loaders.  they did nothing to earn their living, but received goods and services society provided.  i want to make it very clear that this is not a cmv on socialism as a whole.  i am sure many people can point out that the benefits of a socialist society may outweigh the downsides, that it really is not so baaaaad that some people can be lazy and live fine, that it is the moral thing to do ! 0 honestly i do not think it is a bad system, many countries just are not ready for it yet for it to work well is my opinion of it.  so cmv, does socialism allow a certain number of people to be freeloaders ? defined as : people that do not contribute anything at all to society except their existence even though they are able bodied and able minded enough to work.  presume that lazy, selfish people who do not contribute anything at all to society are not people deserving of handouts  #  an able bodied person who works is going to have more wealth and likely lead a better life than an able bodied person who does not.   #  i sorta like capitalist systems although not particularly the one we live in , but what you are saying there is a lie spread to keep the current system in place or because the people who end up wealthy want to really believe that .   #  i think that your definition of freeloaders is off.  or rather that your idea of of  contributing to society  is wrong.  under your definition, only actions that make money count as  contributing to society,  which simply is not the case.  there is a host of labor that is effectively done for free that still contributes a lot to society.  this can range from ranging children or working for charity to making good blog posts or taking care of your vegetable garden.  i sorta like capitalist systems although not particularly the one we live in , but what you are saying there is a lie spread to keep the current system in place or because the people who end up wealthy want to really believe that .  a belief like this does not account for the variety of other factors that decide on who ends up wealthy.  there are things such as luck, the place, time and family you are born in, the friends you make, the way your brain works.  two people working equally hard do not end up equally rich.  that simply is not how the world works.  if you are fed a lie like that and you end up discovering it is bullshit, can you really fault people from giving up on the system they live in ?  #  there are spouses who live off their partners income and use it to go to lunch with friends and play golf.   #  people can freeload in any system.  in a capitalist system, there are healthy adult children who live with their parents and do not work.  there are people who have jobs but who do not do much when they are there.  there are spouses who live off their partners income and use it to go to lunch with friends and play golf.  in a capitalistic world, some people work really hard, looking after children, aged parents, disabled partners and get paid nothing at all for doing so.  some people inherit money and are rich but lazy.  if you want people to give the most effort that they can, you have to realise that money itself is a poor motivator, but that  wanting  to contribute is much more powerful.   #  compensation will vary with the physical difficulty, complexity, and time requirement of the job.   #  i do not understand.  why else would someone work hard other than getting appropriately reimbursed ? compensation will vary with the physical difficulty, complexity, and time requirement of the job.  so even though trash men work their asses off in my opinion, it is low complexity, fairly low difficulty, and takes a normal amount of time, so they are not compensated like say, an investment banker, who does complex work for more time than others and gets compensated very well.  i just do not see why anyone would  want  to contribute if they were not benefiting from it.  and regardless of what government system you have, people are rewarded for effort, whether by money, exchange of goods, etc.  maybe i am just looking at this from a capitalist point of view, please enlighten me  #  a single mom with a disabled grandmother and 0 children probably wont have time to make the money they need and thus are forced to work a job with less reward.   #  i mean that with money as a motivator, and working harder equalling a proportionate raise in pay creates a disadvantage to those who have more needs.  a single mom with a disabled grandmother and 0 children probably wont have time to make the money they need and thus are forced to work a job with less reward.  yes, theoretically the pay is equal to how much work they put in.  but some people have more needs or represent the needs of others and thus need more money.  capitalism implies people get what they work for, and socialism implies people get what they need oversimplification, but still .  this is one of the reasons capitalism creates social inequality: because it has no concern for equality of condition.  capitalism is concerned with equality of opportunity.   #  seems we went from rations back around wwii to cell phones these days.   #  so in socialism, everyone gets what they need, but not what they deserve, and the opposite is true for capitalism.  but in america, we have social policy that would allocate funds to a disabled grandmother, and provide tax benefits and potentially other benefits school lunches, wic, etc to a single mom that did not make enough money to cover these things.  would you say the united states is in some regards diet socialism because we do have policies that at least attempt to provide people with what they need ? and i guess the broader question, are we limited as a country to providing each person with what they need, or can we fill everyone is need and still have people making more than they need ? or is it relative, where if someone makes more than they need, does the base standard of living increase ? seems we went from rations back around wwii to cell phones these days.  i have not really thought about whether cell phones are a need or not, but i seriously question a social philosophy where the base standard of  need  is constantly increasing, as it would create a perpetual free rider problem and one that is always improving for free riders
i am a firm believer in fairness.  which is funny, because i also do not think the world is a fair place.  bad things happen to good people, bad things happen to hard working ambitious people and very often, terrible criminals get away with their crimes to go on and lead great lives.  however, there is one fair thing about a capitalistic world.  an able bodied person who works is going to have more wealth and likely lead a better life than an able bodied person who does not.  i really hope this is true, but i have seen documentaries that show otherwise if socialism was the prevailing system our world operated on, we are going to inevitably have a number of people who decide that they are not bothered to work.  society will then step in and feed and house these people.  it will give at least the bare minimum, but likely more than that.  these people are free loaders.  they did nothing to earn their living, but received goods and services society provided.  i want to make it very clear that this is not a cmv on socialism as a whole.  i am sure many people can point out that the benefits of a socialist society may outweigh the downsides, that it really is not so baaaaad that some people can be lazy and live fine, that it is the moral thing to do ! 0 honestly i do not think it is a bad system, many countries just are not ready for it yet for it to work well is my opinion of it.  so cmv, does socialism allow a certain number of people to be freeloaders ? defined as : people that do not contribute anything at all to society except their existence even though they are able bodied and able minded enough to work.  presume that lazy, selfish people who do not contribute anything at all to society are not people deserving of handouts  #  an able bodied person who works is going to have more wealth and likely lead a better life than an able bodied person who does not.   #  like socialism, this sounds great in theory.   # like socialism, this sounds great in theory.  in practise it allows for wealth concentration in the long term, because one you make one million, your second million is almost inevitable and then it is a matter of sitting to let your money multiply while others have to work their asses off to paybills.  yes.  the question is, does it pay off to let them freeload  to a point  or better to let them whither and die ? some people will never make a lot of money, specially in a consumer society, so they either have to give up their passions for example arts and do  productive  jobs accounting, sales or live poor lives.  as most developed countries have it, there is no socialist not capitalist solution but a combination of basic benefits and a limited free market where the sharks can fight.   #  in a capitalist system, there are healthy adult children who live with their parents and do not work.   #  people can freeload in any system.  in a capitalist system, there are healthy adult children who live with their parents and do not work.  there are people who have jobs but who do not do much when they are there.  there are spouses who live off their partners income and use it to go to lunch with friends and play golf.  in a capitalistic world, some people work really hard, looking after children, aged parents, disabled partners and get paid nothing at all for doing so.  some people inherit money and are rich but lazy.  if you want people to give the most effort that they can, you have to realise that money itself is a poor motivator, but that  wanting  to contribute is much more powerful.   #  maybe i am just looking at this from a capitalist point of view, please enlighten me  #  i do not understand.  why else would someone work hard other than getting appropriately reimbursed ? compensation will vary with the physical difficulty, complexity, and time requirement of the job.  so even though trash men work their asses off in my opinion, it is low complexity, fairly low difficulty, and takes a normal amount of time, so they are not compensated like say, an investment banker, who does complex work for more time than others and gets compensated very well.  i just do not see why anyone would  want  to contribute if they were not benefiting from it.  and regardless of what government system you have, people are rewarded for effort, whether by money, exchange of goods, etc.  maybe i am just looking at this from a capitalist point of view, please enlighten me  #  but some people have more needs or represent the needs of others and thus need more money.   #  i mean that with money as a motivator, and working harder equalling a proportionate raise in pay creates a disadvantage to those who have more needs.  a single mom with a disabled grandmother and 0 children probably wont have time to make the money they need and thus are forced to work a job with less reward.  yes, theoretically the pay is equal to how much work they put in.  but some people have more needs or represent the needs of others and thus need more money.  capitalism implies people get what they work for, and socialism implies people get what they need oversimplification, but still .  this is one of the reasons capitalism creates social inequality: because it has no concern for equality of condition.  capitalism is concerned with equality of opportunity.   #  would you say the united states is in some regards diet socialism because we do have policies that at least attempt to provide people with what they need ?  #  so in socialism, everyone gets what they need, but not what they deserve, and the opposite is true for capitalism.  but in america, we have social policy that would allocate funds to a disabled grandmother, and provide tax benefits and potentially other benefits school lunches, wic, etc to a single mom that did not make enough money to cover these things.  would you say the united states is in some regards diet socialism because we do have policies that at least attempt to provide people with what they need ? and i guess the broader question, are we limited as a country to providing each person with what they need, or can we fill everyone is need and still have people making more than they need ? or is it relative, where if someone makes more than they need, does the base standard of living increase ? seems we went from rations back around wwii to cell phones these days.  i have not really thought about whether cell phones are a need or not, but i seriously question a social philosophy where the base standard of  need  is constantly increasing, as it would create a perpetual free rider problem and one that is always improving for free riders
i am a firm believer in fairness.  which is funny, because i also do not think the world is a fair place.  bad things happen to good people, bad things happen to hard working ambitious people and very often, terrible criminals get away with their crimes to go on and lead great lives.  however, there is one fair thing about a capitalistic world.  an able bodied person who works is going to have more wealth and likely lead a better life than an able bodied person who does not.  i really hope this is true, but i have seen documentaries that show otherwise if socialism was the prevailing system our world operated on, we are going to inevitably have a number of people who decide that they are not bothered to work.  society will then step in and feed and house these people.  it will give at least the bare minimum, but likely more than that.  these people are free loaders.  they did nothing to earn their living, but received goods and services society provided.  i want to make it very clear that this is not a cmv on socialism as a whole.  i am sure many people can point out that the benefits of a socialist society may outweigh the downsides, that it really is not so baaaaad that some people can be lazy and live fine, that it is the moral thing to do ! 0 honestly i do not think it is a bad system, many countries just are not ready for it yet for it to work well is my opinion of it.  so cmv, does socialism allow a certain number of people to be freeloaders ? defined as : people that do not contribute anything at all to society except their existence even though they are able bodied and able minded enough to work.  presume that lazy, selfish people who do not contribute anything at all to society are not people deserving of handouts  #  however, there is one fair thing about a capitalistic world.   #  an able bodied person who works is going to have more wealth and likely lead a better life than an able bodied person who does not.   # an able bodied person who works is going to have more wealth and likely lead a better life than an able bodied person who does not.  i really hope this is true, but i have seen documentaries that show otherwise in theory this may be correct, but in practice it is not.  in practice, a person is success in a capitalist system is determined more by the economic situation they are born into than anything else.  an able bodied person born into a rich family will have a much easier time acquiring wealth than an able bodied person born into a poor person regardless of how hard the poor person works.  socialism is a system which takes steps to make it easier for the poor person to acquire wealth while still providing an incentive to work.   #  some people inherit money and are rich but lazy.   #  people can freeload in any system.  in a capitalist system, there are healthy adult children who live with their parents and do not work.  there are people who have jobs but who do not do much when they are there.  there are spouses who live off their partners income and use it to go to lunch with friends and play golf.  in a capitalistic world, some people work really hard, looking after children, aged parents, disabled partners and get paid nothing at all for doing so.  some people inherit money and are rich but lazy.  if you want people to give the most effort that they can, you have to realise that money itself is a poor motivator, but that  wanting  to contribute is much more powerful.   #  i just do not see why anyone would  want  to contribute if they were not benefiting from it.   #  i do not understand.  why else would someone work hard other than getting appropriately reimbursed ? compensation will vary with the physical difficulty, complexity, and time requirement of the job.  so even though trash men work their asses off in my opinion, it is low complexity, fairly low difficulty, and takes a normal amount of time, so they are not compensated like say, an investment banker, who does complex work for more time than others and gets compensated very well.  i just do not see why anyone would  want  to contribute if they were not benefiting from it.  and regardless of what government system you have, people are rewarded for effort, whether by money, exchange of goods, etc.  maybe i am just looking at this from a capitalist point of view, please enlighten me  #  a single mom with a disabled grandmother and 0 children probably wont have time to make the money they need and thus are forced to work a job with less reward.   #  i mean that with money as a motivator, and working harder equalling a proportionate raise in pay creates a disadvantage to those who have more needs.  a single mom with a disabled grandmother and 0 children probably wont have time to make the money they need and thus are forced to work a job with less reward.  yes, theoretically the pay is equal to how much work they put in.  but some people have more needs or represent the needs of others and thus need more money.  capitalism implies people get what they work for, and socialism implies people get what they need oversimplification, but still .  this is one of the reasons capitalism creates social inequality: because it has no concern for equality of condition.  capitalism is concerned with equality of opportunity.   #  seems we went from rations back around wwii to cell phones these days.   #  so in socialism, everyone gets what they need, but not what they deserve, and the opposite is true for capitalism.  but in america, we have social policy that would allocate funds to a disabled grandmother, and provide tax benefits and potentially other benefits school lunches, wic, etc to a single mom that did not make enough money to cover these things.  would you say the united states is in some regards diet socialism because we do have policies that at least attempt to provide people with what they need ? and i guess the broader question, are we limited as a country to providing each person with what they need, or can we fill everyone is need and still have people making more than they need ? or is it relative, where if someone makes more than they need, does the base standard of living increase ? seems we went from rations back around wwii to cell phones these days.  i have not really thought about whether cell phones are a need or not, but i seriously question a social philosophy where the base standard of  need  is constantly increasing, as it would create a perpetual free rider problem and one that is always improving for free riders
i am a firm believer in fairness.  which is funny, because i also do not think the world is a fair place.  bad things happen to good people, bad things happen to hard working ambitious people and very often, terrible criminals get away with their crimes to go on and lead great lives.  however, there is one fair thing about a capitalistic world.  an able bodied person who works is going to have more wealth and likely lead a better life than an able bodied person who does not.  i really hope this is true, but i have seen documentaries that show otherwise if socialism was the prevailing system our world operated on, we are going to inevitably have a number of people who decide that they are not bothered to work.  society will then step in and feed and house these people.  it will give at least the bare minimum, but likely more than that.  these people are free loaders.  they did nothing to earn their living, but received goods and services society provided.  i want to make it very clear that this is not a cmv on socialism as a whole.  i am sure many people can point out that the benefits of a socialist society may outweigh the downsides, that it really is not so baaaaad that some people can be lazy and live fine, that it is the moral thing to do ! 0 honestly i do not think it is a bad system, many countries just are not ready for it yet for it to work well is my opinion of it.  so cmv, does socialism allow a certain number of people to be freeloaders ? defined as : people that do not contribute anything at all to society except their existence even though they are able bodied and able minded enough to work.  presume that lazy, selfish people who do not contribute anything at all to society are not people deserving of handouts  #  cmv, does socialism allow a certain number of people to be freeloaders ?  #  defined as : people that do not contribute anything at all to society except their existence even though they are able bodied and able minded enough to work.   # defined as : people that do not contribute anything at all to society except their existence even though they are able bodied and able minded enough to work.  presume that lazy, selfish people who do not contribute anything at all to society are not people deserving of handouts i am not sure this view can be changed because every free system allows for freeloaders, the only exception would be those that mimic prison systems.  i mean, there are freeloaders in capitalist countries and there are freeloaders in socialist countries.  what i will do is drop a comparison between cuba and the united states.  until recently, cuba is unemployment rate was ridiculously low, hovering below 0 0 URL even now it is  high  at 0.  however, the united states is roughly  twice  that 0 URL i would argue that has nothing to do with freeloaders as you define it, but it is certain that these people have to survive  somehow  and it is not from legal work.   #  there are people who have jobs but who do not do much when they are there.   #  people can freeload in any system.  in a capitalist system, there are healthy adult children who live with their parents and do not work.  there are people who have jobs but who do not do much when they are there.  there are spouses who live off their partners income and use it to go to lunch with friends and play golf.  in a capitalistic world, some people work really hard, looking after children, aged parents, disabled partners and get paid nothing at all for doing so.  some people inherit money and are rich but lazy.  if you want people to give the most effort that they can, you have to realise that money itself is a poor motivator, but that  wanting  to contribute is much more powerful.   #  i just do not see why anyone would  want  to contribute if they were not benefiting from it.   #  i do not understand.  why else would someone work hard other than getting appropriately reimbursed ? compensation will vary with the physical difficulty, complexity, and time requirement of the job.  so even though trash men work their asses off in my opinion, it is low complexity, fairly low difficulty, and takes a normal amount of time, so they are not compensated like say, an investment banker, who does complex work for more time than others and gets compensated very well.  i just do not see why anyone would  want  to contribute if they were not benefiting from it.  and regardless of what government system you have, people are rewarded for effort, whether by money, exchange of goods, etc.  maybe i am just looking at this from a capitalist point of view, please enlighten me  #  a single mom with a disabled grandmother and 0 children probably wont have time to make the money they need and thus are forced to work a job with less reward.   #  i mean that with money as a motivator, and working harder equalling a proportionate raise in pay creates a disadvantage to those who have more needs.  a single mom with a disabled grandmother and 0 children probably wont have time to make the money they need and thus are forced to work a job with less reward.  yes, theoretically the pay is equal to how much work they put in.  but some people have more needs or represent the needs of others and thus need more money.  capitalism implies people get what they work for, and socialism implies people get what they need oversimplification, but still .  this is one of the reasons capitalism creates social inequality: because it has no concern for equality of condition.  capitalism is concerned with equality of opportunity.   #  would you say the united states is in some regards diet socialism because we do have policies that at least attempt to provide people with what they need ?  #  so in socialism, everyone gets what they need, but not what they deserve, and the opposite is true for capitalism.  but in america, we have social policy that would allocate funds to a disabled grandmother, and provide tax benefits and potentially other benefits school lunches, wic, etc to a single mom that did not make enough money to cover these things.  would you say the united states is in some regards diet socialism because we do have policies that at least attempt to provide people with what they need ? and i guess the broader question, are we limited as a country to providing each person with what they need, or can we fill everyone is need and still have people making more than they need ? or is it relative, where if someone makes more than they need, does the base standard of living increase ? seems we went from rations back around wwii to cell phones these days.  i have not really thought about whether cell phones are a need or not, but i seriously question a social philosophy where the base standard of  need  is constantly increasing, as it would create a perpetual free rider problem and one that is always improving for free riders
a couple of days ago, dozens of people were held hostage by an islamic terrorist in australia.  two hostages died.  eight hours later, 0 children were murdered URL by islamic terrorists in pakistan.  yesterday we learned that 0 people were killed and 0 woman and children were kidnapped URL by islamic terrorists in nigeria.  news of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication.  these were the big attacks of the last couple of days.  other attacks barely got any attention.  people were beheaded in syria by isis.  suicide bombers killed a lot of innocents in yemen.  people died because of attacks in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  what is the cause of all this violence ? a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  we do not focus on those who operated the gas chambers.  it is not like these people were outliers.  we are told how racism and bigotry were common.  how the entire nazi culture and ideology were horrible and caused so much suffering.  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  religious scripture was written centuries ago.  it is full of statements that are at odds with modern morality.  islamic scripture encourages killing those who leave islam, it encourages martyrdom, it encourages fighting unbelievers.  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.  there were a lot of moderate nazis.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   tl;dr:  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  they are real influences, and extremism can be countered by changing ideology and religion.  blaming islamic terrorism on  extremists  instead of islam itself is like blaming the atrocities of wwii on extremists while ignoring the dangers of nazism.   change my view !  #  what is the cause of all this violence ?  #  a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .   # a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  poverty, lack of education, power vacuums in the absence of a strong central government.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  certainly.  i think you would find a hell of a lot of differences between the islam practiced by isis, boko haram, and the taliban.  and compare those to practicing muslims in western europe, north america, turkey, and indonesia.  why can the latter seem to get by without butchering people, oppression, and kidnapping while the former seem hell bent on implementing their will ? maybe. differing interpretations ? we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  i would argue that ideology does not cause people to do awful things, but rather it gives them a convenient justification.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  that is because people are crazy and bigoted.  i can find crazy, hateful atheists just as easy as i can find crazy hateful muslims, christians, buddhists, and humanitarians.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  yes, there were a lot of moderate nazis.  there were a lot of moderate germans in general.  the last pope was a hitler youth URL the problem is that nazism was quite specific in that jews were the problem.  that the  nordic/aryan race  was superior.  and that all others must be expunged or eradicated.  there is also a notable lacking of moral teachings in nazism.  it is a political ideology meant to drive how a nation behaves.  that is because for every shithead  areligious  person doing shitty things, people can find thousands more that do not do a damn thing.  when you say christianity or islam is the problem, and then point to a couple of dickheads.  everybody else can point to a bunch of other christians and muslims that are decidedly doing the exact opposite.  nobody gets baptized and instantly starts on the warpath of homosexual eradication.  nobody swears there is no god but allah, and summarily picks up a machete and starts lopping off heads.  even declaring yourself a nazi and donning a swastika does not make you a genocidal maniac, or a gas chamber operator.  these things do not cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  these things give justification to extreme acts.  that is a fine, but very important distinction.   #  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.   #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.  all of this was possible because of the monolithic structure of the organisation.  although you are right that within national socialism there were people that subscribed more to the idea than others, in the end the rules were still made and enforced by the nazi party  mainstream  nazism, if you will which enforced them with the cruelty and brutality they are infamous for.  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal ! that is the reason why most people today consider national socialism as politically completely unacceptible, because there is no  moderate  version.  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.  while there is a central scripture the qu ran , there are many different streams and subsections, groups and formations of what we sum up as islam i. e.  sunni and shia muslims .  each of them handles the interpretation and that is a key word here of the qu ran and its associated rules and ideas slightly differently.  some of them might be very radical in their interpretation of the rules of islam isis being the obvious candidate here , but statistically speaking, they are an incredibly tiny minority of 0 billion muslims worldwide.  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam ! i hope you could follow my train of thought ! i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.   #  i think you are right in your point that the nazi party had a centralized and enumerated ideology of violence and other atrocities, and therefore seems more culpable and responsible than islam as a blanket term would be for the actions of more extreme groups.  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.  there is no higher concentration of these kind of violent crimes in the present day within any other group or organization.  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.  the majority of that group are peaceful in spite of islam, not because of it.  as op illustrated very well in his opening post, the quran as well as the bible is full of text that is utterly contrary to the values of a peaceful civilization.  even if you do not just look at the most extremist of islam groups, the core of the belief is notorious for it is mistreatment of women, it is adherence to outdated and arbitrary social practices, and it is culture of martyrdom and persecution of nonbelievers.  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.  for an illustration of this point, i refer to the action of the people of the united states toward each other in the wake of 0/0.  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.   #  i can only speak for australia, but the islamic community here is far from silent.  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.  here is a few quotes from influential australian muslims: in regards to the funeral and what to do with the body of the attacker amin sayed, funeral director with the lebanese muslim ­association:  nobody is going to do his funeral, no muslim funeral home will accept him.  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.   professor ibrahim abu mohammed, australia is most senior muslim cleric:  the grand mufti and the australian national imams council condemn this criminal act unequivocally and reiterate that such actions are denounced in part and in whole in islam.   that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.
a couple of days ago, dozens of people were held hostage by an islamic terrorist in australia.  two hostages died.  eight hours later, 0 children were murdered URL by islamic terrorists in pakistan.  yesterday we learned that 0 people were killed and 0 woman and children were kidnapped URL by islamic terrorists in nigeria.  news of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication.  these were the big attacks of the last couple of days.  other attacks barely got any attention.  people were beheaded in syria by isis.  suicide bombers killed a lot of innocents in yemen.  people died because of attacks in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  what is the cause of all this violence ? a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  we do not focus on those who operated the gas chambers.  it is not like these people were outliers.  we are told how racism and bigotry were common.  how the entire nazi culture and ideology were horrible and caused so much suffering.  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  religious scripture was written centuries ago.  it is full of statements that are at odds with modern morality.  islamic scripture encourages killing those who leave islam, it encourages martyrdom, it encourages fighting unbelievers.  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.  there were a lot of moderate nazis.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   tl;dr:  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  they are real influences, and extremism can be countered by changing ideology and religion.  blaming islamic terrorism on  extremists  instead of islam itself is like blaming the atrocities of wwii on extremists while ignoring the dangers of nazism.   change my view !  #  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.   #  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.   # a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  poverty, lack of education, power vacuums in the absence of a strong central government.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  certainly.  i think you would find a hell of a lot of differences between the islam practiced by isis, boko haram, and the taliban.  and compare those to practicing muslims in western europe, north america, turkey, and indonesia.  why can the latter seem to get by without butchering people, oppression, and kidnapping while the former seem hell bent on implementing their will ? maybe. differing interpretations ? we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  i would argue that ideology does not cause people to do awful things, but rather it gives them a convenient justification.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  that is because people are crazy and bigoted.  i can find crazy, hateful atheists just as easy as i can find crazy hateful muslims, christians, buddhists, and humanitarians.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  yes, there were a lot of moderate nazis.  there were a lot of moderate germans in general.  the last pope was a hitler youth URL the problem is that nazism was quite specific in that jews were the problem.  that the  nordic/aryan race  was superior.  and that all others must be expunged or eradicated.  there is also a notable lacking of moral teachings in nazism.  it is a political ideology meant to drive how a nation behaves.  that is because for every shithead  areligious  person doing shitty things, people can find thousands more that do not do a damn thing.  when you say christianity or islam is the problem, and then point to a couple of dickheads.  everybody else can point to a bunch of other christians and muslims that are decidedly doing the exact opposite.  nobody gets baptized and instantly starts on the warpath of homosexual eradication.  nobody swears there is no god but allah, and summarily picks up a machete and starts lopping off heads.  even declaring yourself a nazi and donning a swastika does not make you a genocidal maniac, or a gas chamber operator.  these things do not cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  these things give justification to extreme acts.  that is a fine, but very important distinction.   #  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.   #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.  all of this was possible because of the monolithic structure of the organisation.  although you are right that within national socialism there were people that subscribed more to the idea than others, in the end the rules were still made and enforced by the nazi party  mainstream  nazism, if you will which enforced them with the cruelty and brutality they are infamous for.  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal ! that is the reason why most people today consider national socialism as politically completely unacceptible, because there is no  moderate  version.  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.  while there is a central scripture the qu ran , there are many different streams and subsections, groups and formations of what we sum up as islam i. e.  sunni and shia muslims .  each of them handles the interpretation and that is a key word here of the qu ran and its associated rules and ideas slightly differently.  some of them might be very radical in their interpretation of the rules of islam isis being the obvious candidate here , but statistically speaking, they are an incredibly tiny minority of 0 billion muslims worldwide.  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam ! i hope you could follow my train of thought ! i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.   #  i think you are right in your point that the nazi party had a centralized and enumerated ideology of violence and other atrocities, and therefore seems more culpable and responsible than islam as a blanket term would be for the actions of more extreme groups.  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.  there is no higher concentration of these kind of violent crimes in the present day within any other group or organization.  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.  the majority of that group are peaceful in spite of islam, not because of it.  as op illustrated very well in his opening post, the quran as well as the bible is full of text that is utterly contrary to the values of a peaceful civilization.  even if you do not just look at the most extremist of islam groups, the core of the belief is notorious for it is mistreatment of women, it is adherence to outdated and arbitrary social practices, and it is culture of martyrdom and persecution of nonbelievers.  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.  for an illustration of this point, i refer to the action of the people of the united states toward each other in the wake of 0/0.  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.   #  i can only speak for australia, but the islamic community here is far from silent.  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.  here is a few quotes from influential australian muslims: in regards to the funeral and what to do with the body of the attacker amin sayed, funeral director with the lebanese muslim ­association:  nobody is going to do his funeral, no muslim funeral home will accept him.  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.   professor ibrahim abu mohammed, australia is most senior muslim cleric:  the grand mufti and the australian national imams council condemn this criminal act unequivocally and reiterate that such actions are denounced in part and in whole in islam.   that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.
a couple of days ago, dozens of people were held hostage by an islamic terrorist in australia.  two hostages died.  eight hours later, 0 children were murdered URL by islamic terrorists in pakistan.  yesterday we learned that 0 people were killed and 0 woman and children were kidnapped URL by islamic terrorists in nigeria.  news of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication.  these were the big attacks of the last couple of days.  other attacks barely got any attention.  people were beheaded in syria by isis.  suicide bombers killed a lot of innocents in yemen.  people died because of attacks in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  what is the cause of all this violence ? a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  we do not focus on those who operated the gas chambers.  it is not like these people were outliers.  we are told how racism and bigotry were common.  how the entire nazi culture and ideology were horrible and caused so much suffering.  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  religious scripture was written centuries ago.  it is full of statements that are at odds with modern morality.  islamic scripture encourages killing those who leave islam, it encourages martyrdom, it encourages fighting unbelievers.  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.  there were a lot of moderate nazis.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   tl;dr:  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  they are real influences, and extremism can be countered by changing ideology and religion.  blaming islamic terrorism on  extremists  instead of islam itself is like blaming the atrocities of wwii on extremists while ignoring the dangers of nazism.   change my view !  #  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.   #  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.   # a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  poverty, lack of education, power vacuums in the absence of a strong central government.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  certainly.  i think you would find a hell of a lot of differences between the islam practiced by isis, boko haram, and the taliban.  and compare those to practicing muslims in western europe, north america, turkey, and indonesia.  why can the latter seem to get by without butchering people, oppression, and kidnapping while the former seem hell bent on implementing their will ? maybe. differing interpretations ? we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  i would argue that ideology does not cause people to do awful things, but rather it gives them a convenient justification.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  that is because people are crazy and bigoted.  i can find crazy, hateful atheists just as easy as i can find crazy hateful muslims, christians, buddhists, and humanitarians.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  yes, there were a lot of moderate nazis.  there were a lot of moderate germans in general.  the last pope was a hitler youth URL the problem is that nazism was quite specific in that jews were the problem.  that the  nordic/aryan race  was superior.  and that all others must be expunged or eradicated.  there is also a notable lacking of moral teachings in nazism.  it is a political ideology meant to drive how a nation behaves.  that is because for every shithead  areligious  person doing shitty things, people can find thousands more that do not do a damn thing.  when you say christianity or islam is the problem, and then point to a couple of dickheads.  everybody else can point to a bunch of other christians and muslims that are decidedly doing the exact opposite.  nobody gets baptized and instantly starts on the warpath of homosexual eradication.  nobody swears there is no god but allah, and summarily picks up a machete and starts lopping off heads.  even declaring yourself a nazi and donning a swastika does not make you a genocidal maniac, or a gas chamber operator.  these things do not cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  these things give justification to extreme acts.  that is a fine, but very important distinction.   #  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.   #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.  all of this was possible because of the monolithic structure of the organisation.  although you are right that within national socialism there were people that subscribed more to the idea than others, in the end the rules were still made and enforced by the nazi party  mainstream  nazism, if you will which enforced them with the cruelty and brutality they are infamous for.  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal ! that is the reason why most people today consider national socialism as politically completely unacceptible, because there is no  moderate  version.  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.  while there is a central scripture the qu ran , there are many different streams and subsections, groups and formations of what we sum up as islam i. e.  sunni and shia muslims .  each of them handles the interpretation and that is a key word here of the qu ran and its associated rules and ideas slightly differently.  some of them might be very radical in their interpretation of the rules of islam isis being the obvious candidate here , but statistically speaking, they are an incredibly tiny minority of 0 billion muslims worldwide.  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam ! i hope you could follow my train of thought ! i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  i think you are right in your point that the nazi party had a centralized and enumerated ideology of violence and other atrocities, and therefore seems more culpable and responsible than islam as a blanket term would be for the actions of more extreme groups.  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.  there is no higher concentration of these kind of violent crimes in the present day within any other group or organization.  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.  the majority of that group are peaceful in spite of islam, not because of it.  as op illustrated very well in his opening post, the quran as well as the bible is full of text that is utterly contrary to the values of a peaceful civilization.  even if you do not just look at the most extremist of islam groups, the core of the belief is notorious for it is mistreatment of women, it is adherence to outdated and arbitrary social practices, and it is culture of martyrdom and persecution of nonbelievers.  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.  for an illustration of this point, i refer to the action of the people of the united states toward each other in the wake of 0/0.  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.   #  i can only speak for australia, but the islamic community here is far from silent.  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.  here is a few quotes from influential australian muslims: in regards to the funeral and what to do with the body of the attacker amin sayed, funeral director with the lebanese muslim ­association:  nobody is going to do his funeral, no muslim funeral home will accept him.  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.   professor ibrahim abu mohammed, australia is most senior muslim cleric:  the grand mufti and the australian national imams council condemn this criminal act unequivocally and reiterate that such actions are denounced in part and in whole in islam.   that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.
a couple of days ago, dozens of people were held hostage by an islamic terrorist in australia.  two hostages died.  eight hours later, 0 children were murdered URL by islamic terrorists in pakistan.  yesterday we learned that 0 people were killed and 0 woman and children were kidnapped URL by islamic terrorists in nigeria.  news of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication.  these were the big attacks of the last couple of days.  other attacks barely got any attention.  people were beheaded in syria by isis.  suicide bombers killed a lot of innocents in yemen.  people died because of attacks in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  what is the cause of all this violence ? a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  we do not focus on those who operated the gas chambers.  it is not like these people were outliers.  we are told how racism and bigotry were common.  how the entire nazi culture and ideology were horrible and caused so much suffering.  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  religious scripture was written centuries ago.  it is full of statements that are at odds with modern morality.  islamic scripture encourages killing those who leave islam, it encourages martyrdom, it encourages fighting unbelievers.  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.  there were a lot of moderate nazis.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   tl;dr:  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  they are real influences, and extremism can be countered by changing ideology and religion.  blaming islamic terrorism on  extremists  instead of islam itself is like blaming the atrocities of wwii on extremists while ignoring the dangers of nazism.   change my view !  #  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   #   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   # a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  poverty, lack of education, power vacuums in the absence of a strong central government.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  certainly.  i think you would find a hell of a lot of differences between the islam practiced by isis, boko haram, and the taliban.  and compare those to practicing muslims in western europe, north america, turkey, and indonesia.  why can the latter seem to get by without butchering people, oppression, and kidnapping while the former seem hell bent on implementing their will ? maybe. differing interpretations ? we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  i would argue that ideology does not cause people to do awful things, but rather it gives them a convenient justification.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  that is because people are crazy and bigoted.  i can find crazy, hateful atheists just as easy as i can find crazy hateful muslims, christians, buddhists, and humanitarians.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  yes, there were a lot of moderate nazis.  there were a lot of moderate germans in general.  the last pope was a hitler youth URL the problem is that nazism was quite specific in that jews were the problem.  that the  nordic/aryan race  was superior.  and that all others must be expunged or eradicated.  there is also a notable lacking of moral teachings in nazism.  it is a political ideology meant to drive how a nation behaves.  that is because for every shithead  areligious  person doing shitty things, people can find thousands more that do not do a damn thing.  when you say christianity or islam is the problem, and then point to a couple of dickheads.  everybody else can point to a bunch of other christians and muslims that are decidedly doing the exact opposite.  nobody gets baptized and instantly starts on the warpath of homosexual eradication.  nobody swears there is no god but allah, and summarily picks up a machete and starts lopping off heads.  even declaring yourself a nazi and donning a swastika does not make you a genocidal maniac, or a gas chamber operator.  these things do not cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  these things give justification to extreme acts.  that is a fine, but very important distinction.   #  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal !  #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.  all of this was possible because of the monolithic structure of the organisation.  although you are right that within national socialism there were people that subscribed more to the idea than others, in the end the rules were still made and enforced by the nazi party  mainstream  nazism, if you will which enforced them with the cruelty and brutality they are infamous for.  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal ! that is the reason why most people today consider national socialism as politically completely unacceptible, because there is no  moderate  version.  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.  while there is a central scripture the qu ran , there are many different streams and subsections, groups and formations of what we sum up as islam i. e.  sunni and shia muslims .  each of them handles the interpretation and that is a key word here of the qu ran and its associated rules and ideas slightly differently.  some of them might be very radical in their interpretation of the rules of islam isis being the obvious candidate here , but statistically speaking, they are an incredibly tiny minority of 0 billion muslims worldwide.  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam ! i hope you could follow my train of thought ! i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.   #  i think you are right in your point that the nazi party had a centralized and enumerated ideology of violence and other atrocities, and therefore seems more culpable and responsible than islam as a blanket term would be for the actions of more extreme groups.  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.  there is no higher concentration of these kind of violent crimes in the present day within any other group or organization.  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.  the majority of that group are peaceful in spite of islam, not because of it.  as op illustrated very well in his opening post, the quran as well as the bible is full of text that is utterly contrary to the values of a peaceful civilization.  even if you do not just look at the most extremist of islam groups, the core of the belief is notorious for it is mistreatment of women, it is adherence to outdated and arbitrary social practices, and it is culture of martyrdom and persecution of nonbelievers.  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.  for an illustration of this point, i refer to the action of the people of the united states toward each other in the wake of 0/0.  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.    #  i can only speak for australia, but the islamic community here is far from silent.  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.  here is a few quotes from influential australian muslims: in regards to the funeral and what to do with the body of the attacker amin sayed, funeral director with the lebanese muslim ­association:  nobody is going to do his funeral, no muslim funeral home will accept him.  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.   professor ibrahim abu mohammed, australia is most senior muslim cleric:  the grand mufti and the australian national imams council condemn this criminal act unequivocally and reiterate that such actions are denounced in part and in whole in islam.   that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.
a couple of days ago, dozens of people were held hostage by an islamic terrorist in australia.  two hostages died.  eight hours later, 0 children were murdered URL by islamic terrorists in pakistan.  yesterday we learned that 0 people were killed and 0 woman and children were kidnapped URL by islamic terrorists in nigeria.  news of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication.  these were the big attacks of the last couple of days.  other attacks barely got any attention.  people were beheaded in syria by isis.  suicide bombers killed a lot of innocents in yemen.  people died because of attacks in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  what is the cause of all this violence ? a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  we do not focus on those who operated the gas chambers.  it is not like these people were outliers.  we are told how racism and bigotry were common.  how the entire nazi culture and ideology were horrible and caused so much suffering.  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  religious scripture was written centuries ago.  it is full of statements that are at odds with modern morality.  islamic scripture encourages killing those who leave islam, it encourages martyrdom, it encourages fighting unbelievers.  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.  there were a lot of moderate nazis.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   tl;dr:  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  they are real influences, and extremism can be countered by changing ideology and religion.  blaming islamic terrorism on  extremists  instead of islam itself is like blaming the atrocities of wwii on extremists while ignoring the dangers of nazism.   change my view !  #  there were a lot of moderate nazis.   #  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.   # a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  poverty, lack of education, power vacuums in the absence of a strong central government.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  certainly.  i think you would find a hell of a lot of differences between the islam practiced by isis, boko haram, and the taliban.  and compare those to practicing muslims in western europe, north america, turkey, and indonesia.  why can the latter seem to get by without butchering people, oppression, and kidnapping while the former seem hell bent on implementing their will ? maybe. differing interpretations ? we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  i would argue that ideology does not cause people to do awful things, but rather it gives them a convenient justification.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  that is because people are crazy and bigoted.  i can find crazy, hateful atheists just as easy as i can find crazy hateful muslims, christians, buddhists, and humanitarians.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  yes, there were a lot of moderate nazis.  there were a lot of moderate germans in general.  the last pope was a hitler youth URL the problem is that nazism was quite specific in that jews were the problem.  that the  nordic/aryan race  was superior.  and that all others must be expunged or eradicated.  there is also a notable lacking of moral teachings in nazism.  it is a political ideology meant to drive how a nation behaves.  that is because for every shithead  areligious  person doing shitty things, people can find thousands more that do not do a damn thing.  when you say christianity or islam is the problem, and then point to a couple of dickheads.  everybody else can point to a bunch of other christians and muslims that are decidedly doing the exact opposite.  nobody gets baptized and instantly starts on the warpath of homosexual eradication.  nobody swears there is no god but allah, and summarily picks up a machete and starts lopping off heads.  even declaring yourself a nazi and donning a swastika does not make you a genocidal maniac, or a gas chamber operator.  these things do not cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  these things give justification to extreme acts.  that is a fine, but very important distinction.   #  i hope you could follow my train of thought !  #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.  all of this was possible because of the monolithic structure of the organisation.  although you are right that within national socialism there were people that subscribed more to the idea than others, in the end the rules were still made and enforced by the nazi party  mainstream  nazism, if you will which enforced them with the cruelty and brutality they are infamous for.  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal ! that is the reason why most people today consider national socialism as politically completely unacceptible, because there is no  moderate  version.  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.  while there is a central scripture the qu ran , there are many different streams and subsections, groups and formations of what we sum up as islam i. e.  sunni and shia muslims .  each of them handles the interpretation and that is a key word here of the qu ran and its associated rules and ideas slightly differently.  some of them might be very radical in their interpretation of the rules of islam isis being the obvious candidate here , but statistically speaking, they are an incredibly tiny minority of 0 billion muslims worldwide.  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam ! i hope you could follow my train of thought ! i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.   #  i think you are right in your point that the nazi party had a centralized and enumerated ideology of violence and other atrocities, and therefore seems more culpable and responsible than islam as a blanket term would be for the actions of more extreme groups.  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.  there is no higher concentration of these kind of violent crimes in the present day within any other group or organization.  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.  the majority of that group are peaceful in spite of islam, not because of it.  as op illustrated very well in his opening post, the quran as well as the bible is full of text that is utterly contrary to the values of a peaceful civilization.  even if you do not just look at the most extremist of islam groups, the core of the belief is notorious for it is mistreatment of women, it is adherence to outdated and arbitrary social practices, and it is culture of martyrdom and persecution of nonbelievers.  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.  for an illustration of this point, i refer to the action of the people of the united states toward each other in the wake of 0/0.  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.   #  i can only speak for australia, but the islamic community here is far from silent.  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.  here is a few quotes from influential australian muslims: in regards to the funeral and what to do with the body of the attacker amin sayed, funeral director with the lebanese muslim ­association:  nobody is going to do his funeral, no muslim funeral home will accept him.  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.   professor ibrahim abu mohammed, australia is most senior muslim cleric:  the grand mufti and the australian national imams council condemn this criminal act unequivocally and reiterate that such actions are denounced in part and in whole in islam.   that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.
a couple of days ago, dozens of people were held hostage by an islamic terrorist in australia.  two hostages died.  eight hours later, 0 children were murdered URL by islamic terrorists in pakistan.  yesterday we learned that 0 people were killed and 0 woman and children were kidnapped URL by islamic terrorists in nigeria.  news of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication.  these were the big attacks of the last couple of days.  other attacks barely got any attention.  people were beheaded in syria by isis.  suicide bombers killed a lot of innocents in yemen.  people died because of attacks in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  what is the cause of all this violence ? a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  we do not focus on those who operated the gas chambers.  it is not like these people were outliers.  we are told how racism and bigotry were common.  how the entire nazi culture and ideology were horrible and caused so much suffering.  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  religious scripture was written centuries ago.  it is full of statements that are at odds with modern morality.  islamic scripture encourages killing those who leave islam, it encourages martyrdom, it encourages fighting unbelievers.  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.  there were a lot of moderate nazis.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   tl;dr:  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  they are real influences, and extremism can be countered by changing ideology and religion.  blaming islamic terrorism on  extremists  instead of islam itself is like blaming the atrocities of wwii on extremists while ignoring the dangers of nazism.   change my view !  #  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   #  that is because for every shithead  areligious  person doing shitty things, people can find thousands more that do not do a damn thing.   # a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  poverty, lack of education, power vacuums in the absence of a strong central government.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  certainly.  i think you would find a hell of a lot of differences between the islam practiced by isis, boko haram, and the taliban.  and compare those to practicing muslims in western europe, north america, turkey, and indonesia.  why can the latter seem to get by without butchering people, oppression, and kidnapping while the former seem hell bent on implementing their will ? maybe. differing interpretations ? we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  i would argue that ideology does not cause people to do awful things, but rather it gives them a convenient justification.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  that is because people are crazy and bigoted.  i can find crazy, hateful atheists just as easy as i can find crazy hateful muslims, christians, buddhists, and humanitarians.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  yes, there were a lot of moderate nazis.  there were a lot of moderate germans in general.  the last pope was a hitler youth URL the problem is that nazism was quite specific in that jews were the problem.  that the  nordic/aryan race  was superior.  and that all others must be expunged or eradicated.  there is also a notable lacking of moral teachings in nazism.  it is a political ideology meant to drive how a nation behaves.  that is because for every shithead  areligious  person doing shitty things, people can find thousands more that do not do a damn thing.  when you say christianity or islam is the problem, and then point to a couple of dickheads.  everybody else can point to a bunch of other christians and muslims that are decidedly doing the exact opposite.  nobody gets baptized and instantly starts on the warpath of homosexual eradication.  nobody swears there is no god but allah, and summarily picks up a machete and starts lopping off heads.  even declaring yourself a nazi and donning a swastika does not make you a genocidal maniac, or a gas chamber operator.  these things do not cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  these things give justification to extreme acts.  that is a fine, but very important distinction.   #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.   #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.  all of this was possible because of the monolithic structure of the organisation.  although you are right that within national socialism there were people that subscribed more to the idea than others, in the end the rules were still made and enforced by the nazi party  mainstream  nazism, if you will which enforced them with the cruelty and brutality they are infamous for.  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal ! that is the reason why most people today consider national socialism as politically completely unacceptible, because there is no  moderate  version.  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.  while there is a central scripture the qu ran , there are many different streams and subsections, groups and formations of what we sum up as islam i. e.  sunni and shia muslims .  each of them handles the interpretation and that is a key word here of the qu ran and its associated rules and ideas slightly differently.  some of them might be very radical in their interpretation of the rules of islam isis being the obvious candidate here , but statistically speaking, they are an incredibly tiny minority of 0 billion muslims worldwide.  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam ! i hope you could follow my train of thought ! i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.   #  i think you are right in your point that the nazi party had a centralized and enumerated ideology of violence and other atrocities, and therefore seems more culpable and responsible than islam as a blanket term would be for the actions of more extreme groups.  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.  there is no higher concentration of these kind of violent crimes in the present day within any other group or organization.  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.  the majority of that group are peaceful in spite of islam, not because of it.  as op illustrated very well in his opening post, the quran as well as the bible is full of text that is utterly contrary to the values of a peaceful civilization.  even if you do not just look at the most extremist of islam groups, the core of the belief is notorious for it is mistreatment of women, it is adherence to outdated and arbitrary social practices, and it is culture of martyrdom and persecution of nonbelievers.  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.  for an illustration of this point, i refer to the action of the people of the united states toward each other in the wake of 0/0.  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.   #  i can only speak for australia, but the islamic community here is far from silent.  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.  here is a few quotes from influential australian muslims: in regards to the funeral and what to do with the body of the attacker amin sayed, funeral director with the lebanese muslim ­association:  nobody is going to do his funeral, no muslim funeral home will accept him.  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.   professor ibrahim abu mohammed, australia is most senior muslim cleric:  the grand mufti and the australian national imams council condemn this criminal act unequivocally and reiterate that such actions are denounced in part and in whole in islam.   that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.
a couple of days ago, dozens of people were held hostage by an islamic terrorist in australia.  two hostages died.  eight hours later, 0 children were murdered URL by islamic terrorists in pakistan.  yesterday we learned that 0 people were killed and 0 woman and children were kidnapped URL by islamic terrorists in nigeria.  news of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication.  these were the big attacks of the last couple of days.  other attacks barely got any attention.  people were beheaded in syria by isis.  suicide bombers killed a lot of innocents in yemen.  people died because of attacks in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  what is the cause of all this violence ? a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  we do not focus on those who operated the gas chambers.  it is not like these people were outliers.  we are told how racism and bigotry were common.  how the entire nazi culture and ideology were horrible and caused so much suffering.  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  religious scripture was written centuries ago.  it is full of statements that are at odds with modern morality.  islamic scripture encourages killing those who leave islam, it encourages martyrdom, it encourages fighting unbelievers.  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.  there were a lot of moderate nazis.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   tl;dr:  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  they are real influences, and extremism can be countered by changing ideology and religion.  blaming islamic terrorism on  extremists  instead of islam itself is like blaming the atrocities of wwii on extremists while ignoring the dangers of nazism.   change my view !  #  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.   #  nobody gets baptized and instantly starts on the warpath of homosexual eradication.   # a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  poverty, lack of education, power vacuums in the absence of a strong central government.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  certainly.  i think you would find a hell of a lot of differences between the islam practiced by isis, boko haram, and the taliban.  and compare those to practicing muslims in western europe, north america, turkey, and indonesia.  why can the latter seem to get by without butchering people, oppression, and kidnapping while the former seem hell bent on implementing their will ? maybe. differing interpretations ? we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  i would argue that ideology does not cause people to do awful things, but rather it gives them a convenient justification.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  that is because people are crazy and bigoted.  i can find crazy, hateful atheists just as easy as i can find crazy hateful muslims, christians, buddhists, and humanitarians.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  yes, there were a lot of moderate nazis.  there were a lot of moderate germans in general.  the last pope was a hitler youth URL the problem is that nazism was quite specific in that jews were the problem.  that the  nordic/aryan race  was superior.  and that all others must be expunged or eradicated.  there is also a notable lacking of moral teachings in nazism.  it is a political ideology meant to drive how a nation behaves.  that is because for every shithead  areligious  person doing shitty things, people can find thousands more that do not do a damn thing.  when you say christianity or islam is the problem, and then point to a couple of dickheads.  everybody else can point to a bunch of other christians and muslims that are decidedly doing the exact opposite.  nobody gets baptized and instantly starts on the warpath of homosexual eradication.  nobody swears there is no god but allah, and summarily picks up a machete and starts lopping off heads.  even declaring yourself a nazi and donning a swastika does not make you a genocidal maniac, or a gas chamber operator.  these things do not cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  these things give justification to extreme acts.  that is a fine, but very important distinction.   #  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.   #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.  all of this was possible because of the monolithic structure of the organisation.  although you are right that within national socialism there were people that subscribed more to the idea than others, in the end the rules were still made and enforced by the nazi party  mainstream  nazism, if you will which enforced them with the cruelty and brutality they are infamous for.  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal ! that is the reason why most people today consider national socialism as politically completely unacceptible, because there is no  moderate  version.  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.  while there is a central scripture the qu ran , there are many different streams and subsections, groups and formations of what we sum up as islam i. e.  sunni and shia muslims .  each of them handles the interpretation and that is a key word here of the qu ran and its associated rules and ideas slightly differently.  some of them might be very radical in their interpretation of the rules of islam isis being the obvious candidate here , but statistically speaking, they are an incredibly tiny minority of 0 billion muslims worldwide.  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam ! i hope you could follow my train of thought ! i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  i think you are right in your point that the nazi party had a centralized and enumerated ideology of violence and other atrocities, and therefore seems more culpable and responsible than islam as a blanket term would be for the actions of more extreme groups.  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.  there is no higher concentration of these kind of violent crimes in the present day within any other group or organization.  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.  the majority of that group are peaceful in spite of islam, not because of it.  as op illustrated very well in his opening post, the quran as well as the bible is full of text that is utterly contrary to the values of a peaceful civilization.  even if you do not just look at the most extremist of islam groups, the core of the belief is notorious for it is mistreatment of women, it is adherence to outdated and arbitrary social practices, and it is culture of martyrdom and persecution of nonbelievers.  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.  for an illustration of this point, i refer to the action of the people of the united states toward each other in the wake of 0/0.  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.   #  i can only speak for australia, but the islamic community here is far from silent.  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.  here is a few quotes from influential australian muslims: in regards to the funeral and what to do with the body of the attacker amin sayed, funeral director with the lebanese muslim ­association:  nobody is going to do his funeral, no muslim funeral home will accept him.  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.   professor ibrahim abu mohammed, australia is most senior muslim cleric:  the grand mufti and the australian national imams council condemn this criminal act unequivocally and reiterate that such actions are denounced in part and in whole in islam.   that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.
a couple of days ago, dozens of people were held hostage by an islamic terrorist in australia.  two hostages died.  eight hours later, 0 children were murdered URL by islamic terrorists in pakistan.  yesterday we learned that 0 people were killed and 0 woman and children were kidnapped URL by islamic terrorists in nigeria.  news of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication.  these were the big attacks of the last couple of days.  other attacks barely got any attention.  people were beheaded in syria by isis.  suicide bombers killed a lot of innocents in yemen.  people died because of attacks in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  what is the cause of all this violence ? a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  we do not focus on those who operated the gas chambers.  it is not like these people were outliers.  we are told how racism and bigotry were common.  how the entire nazi culture and ideology were horrible and caused so much suffering.  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  religious scripture was written centuries ago.  it is full of statements that are at odds with modern morality.  islamic scripture encourages killing those who leave islam, it encourages martyrdom, it encourages fighting unbelievers.  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.  there were a lot of moderate nazis.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   tl;dr:  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  they are real influences, and extremism can be countered by changing ideology and religion.  blaming islamic terrorism on  extremists  instead of islam itself is like blaming the atrocities of wwii on extremists while ignoring the dangers of nazism.   change my view !  #  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.   #  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.   # but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  so essentially you are saying that some people choose to practice their religion in a peaceful way, and others choose to practice it in a violent way.  i will agree that religion can be used to justify such acts, but religion does not  cause  those acts.  a person using religion to do bad things has an inclination for bad things already; the religious justification would simply be replaced by something else.   #  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.   #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.  all of this was possible because of the monolithic structure of the organisation.  although you are right that within national socialism there were people that subscribed more to the idea than others, in the end the rules were still made and enforced by the nazi party  mainstream  nazism, if you will which enforced them with the cruelty and brutality they are infamous for.  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal ! that is the reason why most people today consider national socialism as politically completely unacceptible, because there is no  moderate  version.  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.  while there is a central scripture the qu ran , there are many different streams and subsections, groups and formations of what we sum up as islam i. e.  sunni and shia muslims .  each of them handles the interpretation and that is a key word here of the qu ran and its associated rules and ideas slightly differently.  some of them might be very radical in their interpretation of the rules of islam isis being the obvious candidate here , but statistically speaking, they are an incredibly tiny minority of 0 billion muslims worldwide.  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam ! i hope you could follow my train of thought ! i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.   #  i think you are right in your point that the nazi party had a centralized and enumerated ideology of violence and other atrocities, and therefore seems more culpable and responsible than islam as a blanket term would be for the actions of more extreme groups.  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.  there is no higher concentration of these kind of violent crimes in the present day within any other group or organization.  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.  the majority of that group are peaceful in spite of islam, not because of it.  as op illustrated very well in his opening post, the quran as well as the bible is full of text that is utterly contrary to the values of a peaceful civilization.  even if you do not just look at the most extremist of islam groups, the core of the belief is notorious for it is mistreatment of women, it is adherence to outdated and arbitrary social practices, and it is culture of martyrdom and persecution of nonbelievers.  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.  for an illustration of this point, i refer to the action of the people of the united states toward each other in the wake of 0/0.  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.   #  i can only speak for australia, but the islamic community here is far from silent.  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.  here is a few quotes from influential australian muslims: in regards to the funeral and what to do with the body of the attacker amin sayed, funeral director with the lebanese muslim ­association:  nobody is going to do his funeral, no muslim funeral home will accept him.  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.   professor ibrahim abu mohammed, australia is most senior muslim cleric:  the grand mufti and the australian national imams council condemn this criminal act unequivocally and reiterate that such actions are denounced in part and in whole in islam.   that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.
a couple of days ago, dozens of people were held hostage by an islamic terrorist in australia.  two hostages died.  eight hours later, 0 children were murdered URL by islamic terrorists in pakistan.  yesterday we learned that 0 people were killed and 0 woman and children were kidnapped URL by islamic terrorists in nigeria.  news of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication.  these were the big attacks of the last couple of days.  other attacks barely got any attention.  people were beheaded in syria by isis.  suicide bombers killed a lot of innocents in yemen.  people died because of attacks in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  what is the cause of all this violence ? a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  we do not focus on those who operated the gas chambers.  it is not like these people were outliers.  we are told how racism and bigotry were common.  how the entire nazi culture and ideology were horrible and caused so much suffering.  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  religious scripture was written centuries ago.  it is full of statements that are at odds with modern morality.  islamic scripture encourages killing those who leave islam, it encourages martyrdom, it encourages fighting unbelievers.  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.  there were a lot of moderate nazis.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   tl;dr:  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  they are real influences, and extremism can be countered by changing ideology and religion.  blaming islamic terrorism on  extremists  instead of islam itself is like blaming the atrocities of wwii on extremists while ignoring the dangers of nazism.   change my view !  #  what is the cause of all this violence ?  #  a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .   # a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  is not that true, though ? what is the number of muslims who actually commit political violence ? a thousand ? ten thousand ? and what is the total number of muslims in the words ? this one i checked: approximately 0 billion.  if we are generous and say 0,0 violent muslims, that constitutes . 0 of the muslim population.   #  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam !  #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.  all of this was possible because of the monolithic structure of the organisation.  although you are right that within national socialism there were people that subscribed more to the idea than others, in the end the rules were still made and enforced by the nazi party  mainstream  nazism, if you will which enforced them with the cruelty and brutality they are infamous for.  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal ! that is the reason why most people today consider national socialism as politically completely unacceptible, because there is no  moderate  version.  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.  while there is a central scripture the qu ran , there are many different streams and subsections, groups and formations of what we sum up as islam i. e.  sunni and shia muslims .  each of them handles the interpretation and that is a key word here of the qu ran and its associated rules and ideas slightly differently.  some of them might be very radical in their interpretation of the rules of islam isis being the obvious candidate here , but statistically speaking, they are an incredibly tiny minority of 0 billion muslims worldwide.  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam ! i hope you could follow my train of thought ! i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  i think you are right in your point that the nazi party had a centralized and enumerated ideology of violence and other atrocities, and therefore seems more culpable and responsible than islam as a blanket term would be for the actions of more extreme groups.  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.  there is no higher concentration of these kind of violent crimes in the present day within any other group or organization.  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.  the majority of that group are peaceful in spite of islam, not because of it.  as op illustrated very well in his opening post, the quran as well as the bible is full of text that is utterly contrary to the values of a peaceful civilization.  even if you do not just look at the most extremist of islam groups, the core of the belief is notorious for it is mistreatment of women, it is adherence to outdated and arbitrary social practices, and it is culture of martyrdom and persecution of nonbelievers.  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.  for an illustration of this point, i refer to the action of the people of the united states toward each other in the wake of 0/0.  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.   #  i can only speak for australia, but the islamic community here is far from silent.  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.  here is a few quotes from influential australian muslims: in regards to the funeral and what to do with the body of the attacker amin sayed, funeral director with the lebanese muslim ­association:  nobody is going to do his funeral, no muslim funeral home will accept him.  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.   professor ibrahim abu mohammed, australia is most senior muslim cleric:  the grand mufti and the australian national imams council condemn this criminal act unequivocally and reiterate that such actions are denounced in part and in whole in islam.   that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.
a couple of days ago, dozens of people were held hostage by an islamic terrorist in australia.  two hostages died.  eight hours later, 0 children were murdered URL by islamic terrorists in pakistan.  yesterday we learned that 0 people were killed and 0 woman and children were kidnapped URL by islamic terrorists in nigeria.  news of the attack took four days to emerge because of a lack of communication.  these were the big attacks of the last couple of days.  other attacks barely got any attention.  people were beheaded in syria by isis.  suicide bombers killed a lot of innocents in yemen.  people died because of attacks in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan.  what is the cause of all this violence ? a lot of people blame it on  extremists  or  fundamentalists .  supposedly, islam is peaceful and most muslims are tolerant and liberal and it is just that extremists always do this kind of stuff, regardless of the religion.  yet here in europe we are taught many times about the atrocities in world war two.  we have to learn that ideology can cause common people to do awful things.  we do not focus on those who operated the gas chambers.  it is not like these people were outliers.  we are told how racism and bigotry were common.  how the entire nazi culture and ideology were horrible and caused so much suffering.  yet when it comes to religion in general and islam in specific, we seem to have forgotten all those lessons.   people kill because they are crazy, not because of islam .   people are homophobic because they are assholes, not because of religion .  religious scripture was written centuries ago.  it is full of statements that are at odds with modern morality.  islamic scripture encourages killing those who leave islam, it encourages martyrdom, it encourages fighting unbelievers.  a lot of religious commandments are ignored.  but this is the result of lots of campaigns that strive to increase tolerance.  it was not a deliberate religious choice.  religious people ignore parts of their scripture, but it has  evolved this way , it is not a logical choice.  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.  there were a lot of moderate nazis.  people who thought that hitler would be less extreme if he got into power, like every other politician who does not do what he promised.  people who joined the nazi party because of legal, financial and professional benefits instead of ideological conviction.  people who hated the treaty of versailles but were tolerant of jews.  yet all of us realize that nazism is a dangerous and terrible ideology.  if i blame wwii and the holocaust on  extremists  who are crazy anyway and do terrible things regardless of ideology, i am seen as some kind of neo nazi.  but when i say that religion in general and islamic in specific causes a lot of problems in today is world, i am seen as a bigot and an islamophobe.   tl;dr:  religion and ideology can cause  normal  people to do horrible things.  they are real influences, and extremism can be countered by changing ideology and religion.  blaming islamic terrorism on  extremists  instead of islam itself is like blaming the atrocities of wwii on extremists while ignoring the dangers of nazism.   change my view !  #  islamic  extremists  might break the unspoken consensus on which parts of islam they can ignore, but it is not like they are deviating more from scripture than other muslims or modern christians.   #  here is the main issue with your view, in my mind.   # here is the main issue with your view, in my mind.  i think this part of your argument betrays a misunderstanding you may have about difference in religiosity between extremist muslims and others.  the main difference between  mainstream  muslim belief and the stated philosophies of isil and other extremists is not which parts of the quran they choose to follow.  isil is instead accused by islamic leaders of grossly misinterpreting essential pieces of scripture, twisting the words of the prophet to suggest something totally counter to their actual meaning.  it is not similar to the reaction of the missionary that you quote.  there, the new convert is unaware of the belief priorities established by the local consensus; in this case however, two group are following the same parts of the scripture in completely different directions.  even if you do not accept one interpretation as more valid than another, the fact that you can have such fundamentally different reactions to the same words seems to indicate that the source material of islam is not the driving factor when it comes to violence.  some other variable is in play.  please note, i ca not find my sources at the moment because i am on mobile, but i would like you adopt the assumption they exist and consider if this theory affects your view.  i will come back to this post later on and include them.   #  i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  i think the comparison between national socialism and islam fails because those are hardly comparable in their structure: national socialism was the ideology of a political movement in germany in the 0s 0s.  the organization behind national socialism was a single organisation, the nsdap the nazi party , which was a monolithic organisation with a strict hierarchical structure, a clearly defined leader hitler and clear sets of rules.  it is for instance very easy to associate national socialism with certain crimes, because 0 the nazi party clearly stated those crimes as their goals, 0 they carried them out, and 0 they documented them reasonably well.  all of this was possible because of the monolithic structure of the organisation.  although you are right that within national socialism there were people that subscribed more to the idea than others, in the end the rules were still made and enforced by the nazi party  mainstream  nazism, if you will which enforced them with the cruelty and brutality they are infamous for.  the horrible crimes of the nazis were not committed by their most extreme outliers, they were their mainstream goal ! that is the reason why most people today consider national socialism as politically completely unacceptible, because there is no  moderate  version.  islam, on the other hand, as most religions, is far more complex than that.  while there is a central scripture the qu ran , there are many different streams and subsections, groups and formations of what we sum up as islam i. e.  sunni and shia muslims .  each of them handles the interpretation and that is a key word here of the qu ran and its associated rules and ideas slightly differently.  some of them might be very radical in their interpretation of the rules of islam isis being the obvious candidate here , but statistically speaking, they are an incredibly tiny minority of 0 billion muslims worldwide.  in no way do they represent the mainstream of islam ! i hope you could follow my train of thought ! i am not a native english speaker, so sometimes i have a hard time wording my thoughts in a concise way.   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .   #  any religious scripture has so called  extreme parts .  that is true for islam as much as it is for christianity, judaism or any of the others.  to me it is pretty obvious that the qu ran is not to blame for the amount of islamist terrorism any religion has the potential to be abused as a justification for aggression.  if you are looking for blame i would rather look at the geopolitical situation surrounding the middle east.  i would say there are many reasons for terrorism to be found there.   #  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  i think you are right in your point that the nazi party had a centralized and enumerated ideology of violence and other atrocities, and therefore seems more culpable and responsible than islam as a blanket term would be for the actions of more extreme groups.  even though that is not the best comparison, i think the central point that religion is to blame for the acts of religious terrorism still stands.  there is no higher concentration of these kind of violent crimes in the present day within any other group or organization.  as much as some wish to argue islam is a religion of peace, because the majority of it is followers are relatively peaceful,  it is not.  the majority of that group are peaceful in spite of islam, not because of it.  as op illustrated very well in his opening post, the quran as well as the bible is full of text that is utterly contrary to the values of a peaceful civilization.  even if you do not just look at the most extremist of islam groups, the core of the belief is notorious for it is mistreatment of women, it is adherence to outdated and arbitrary social practices, and it is culture of martyrdom and persecution of nonbelievers.  i am also very bothered by the silence from the islamic community at large that usually occurs in the wake of the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.  i know it is a decentralized group, but if anything is capable of uniting people together that might otherwise have strong disagreements, it is a mutual rejection of violence and the banding together over the idea of love and peace.  for an illustration of this point, i refer to the action of the people of the united states toward each other in the wake of 0/0.  i just do not see a reasonable explanation for the terrorist violence we have seen that does not come back to religion.   #  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.   #  i can only speak for australia, but the islamic community here is far from silent.  they were amount the first to denounce the attacker and they have lead what seems like non stop prayer for the victims.  here is a few quotes from influential australian muslims: in regards to the funeral and what to do with the body of the attacker amin sayed, funeral director with the lebanese muslim ­association:  nobody is going to do his funeral, no muslim funeral home will accept him.  they can throw him in the bloody sea.  this is not a human, this is an animal.  he killed innocent people … even if you paid us $0 million we would not do his funeral.   professor ibrahim abu mohammed, australia is most senior muslim cleric:  the grand mufti and the australian national imams council condemn this criminal act unequivocally and reiterate that such actions are denounced in part and in whole in islam.   that is a very short selection, and there are many many more.  so to say that there is no backlash from the muslim community is a gross inaccuracy.
i think the premise of this movie is incredibly tasteless.  i do not like the idea of using a film for a political purpose.  furthermore, i do not like the idea of blending real life persons with main characters of a movie.  it is the same reason i would rather see a generic cola in a movie rather than coke.  i want to be able to properly suspend my disbelief.  i would much rather preferred just a generic asian country rather than specifically targeting nk.  northkoreasodumbamirightbuttheycantwarchitlol .  i find targeting a real world leader to be nothing less than a political move.  it is not just a comedy, it is also a political statement because it assassinates a real world leader.  and i do not see the point in it.  is it just supposed to make us feel good because shit is so fucked up over there ? is the idea to make fun of kim jong un in hopes that he will be embarrassed and change ? it just seems like a big  we are better than them and their fucked up leader  circlejerk.  i think north korea is a fucked up place.  i am not at all trying to defend the regime in any way.  i want freedom and peace for north koreans.  for the record, i do disagree with the decision to pull the movie because of threats.  i think it sets a dangerous precedent and do not like this kind of thing.  however i think it is a tasteless movie and a poor artistic statement.  change my view, tell me why this movie was a worthy exercise of the creative impulse ? furthermore, why use kim jong un instead of a fictional dictator ?  #  is the idea to make fun of kim jong un in hopes that he will be embarrassed and change ?  #  it just seems like a big  we are better than them and their fucked up leader  circlejerk.   # make up your mind.  also, a lot of movies are bad.  a lot of books / art / music is also tasteless.  just because you find it tasteless / boring / offensive etc does not justify censorship.  that is a slippery slope.  it just seems like a big  we are better than them and their fucked up leader  circlejerk.  its a comedy.  a circlejerk is exactly what it is.   #  no i just think it is a dumb idea.   #  no i just think it is a dumb idea.  more than anything i do not like the use of a real world leader as a main character in a movie.  example, in independence day and any other fictional movie involving the president they always have a fictional president.  i like this because it allows me to suspend my disbelief and soak into the movie.  when you include a real person like that it is annoying because you know that did not actually happen to them in real life.  i guess for me using a non fictional character makes it seem like less of a real story to me.   #  i think the animation makes it less real though.   #  i think the animation makes it less real though.  it is the same reason it does not bother me in south park.  i just do not find the idea of depicting a brutal assassination of a real world leader to be funny in any way.  it is like if cubans in 0 made a comedy movie about assassinating jfk.  i just would not be able to think it is funny.   #  by all accounts the interview did not do it very well.   #  i do not think it is inherent to the medium of animation.  you can do a very campy live action film that is not taken seriously.  on the cuba example, there could be a lot of fun to be had with the cia is many insane attempts to kill/humiliate castro.  lsd laced cigars ? trying to make his beard fall out ? hilarious ! can it be done poorly ? yes.  by all accounts the interview did not do it very well.  but they could have gone campier and i think done well.   #  there was never a moment when i thought  oh they should not have done this this is just distasteful .   #  you have not refuted his statement.  you are no different from people who burn books.  i do not like toddlers in tiaras or honey boo boo either.  i find both shows kind of disgusting, but not as disgusting as they idea that the shows should be banned because some people disagree with the premise.  we all have different likes and interests.  do not like it ? do not watch it.  everyone has their own definition of what a  tasteful  movie/show is, and i am confident if you listed out your 0 favorite tv shows and movies, there would be plenty of people who found some of them distasteful, pointless, etc.  in another comment you asked whether it would have been okay other countries making movies about assassinating our presents and whether that would be funny or not.  who cares ? i do not give a damn whether they do.  i probably would not like the movie, but i still would not want it banned.  moreover, north korea absolutely has propaganda pieces about destroying the us and i have seen some of them .  there was never a moment when i thought  oh they should not have done this this is just distasteful .  when you start banning ideas because someone finds it distasteful, or crude, or pointless, etc. , it really just sets a bad precedent.  i recommend looking at a list of the books that were banned in the name of decency.  you are really in the same ship as those who banned huck finn, to kill a mockingbird, gone with the wind, etc.
i believe it is impossible to ignore preference when it comes to race for the simple reason that we as humans have preferences about all sort of things.  just as we prefer blue over red, football rather than tennis, sea food rather than fried chicken.  i do not see a way where we could just ignore certain features for fear of being labelled as racist.  so i do not think is racist when someone prefers to date a white person over a black fellow.  or as someone i know said:  my daughter can date anyone she wants, it is her life after all.  but if i get to choose i choose choose a white folk over a black one .  so i think it would only be considered racist when it affects their rights human rights, workplace rights, etc.  or when they think a skin colour means more than just that prejudicing, stereotyping disclaimer: this question is 0 objective in a bio psychological kind of way, i do not believe any race is superior over any other nor i share the preferences i used as example.   #  so i do not think is racist when someone prefers to date a white person over a black fellow.   #  why do not you think that is racist ?  # why do not you think that is racist ? it does not mean anything to say  i prefer whites over blacks.   it is a statement without any substance.  the question is  why  would one prefer whites over blacks, or asians, or whatever ? what is the rationale behind that statement ? that is where you decide whether or not  i prefer whites over blacks  is racist.   #  and we are not talking about your own race over others.   #  0 no, i am not stretching the definition since literally the second definition on the oxford dictionary define discrimination as  recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another  and this definition is used a lot in the biology field.  0 i never said i do not want to have sex with a person outside my race.  i invite you to read my topic again.  we are not talking about absolutes as you said  do not want  but rather preferences lets say i like pizza and hotdogs but if i have to choose one favourite i would choose pizza.  does that means i do not like or want to eat hotdogs ? nope , we are not talking about me to be using the term  you .  and we are not talking about your own race over others.  it could be another race over your own as you should know it happens a lot.  0 i am here because i know is a controversial subject and many people disagree with this notion and i want to understand the other face of the coin to change my view if i am proved wrong.   #  it has the word  discrimination  in it, but discrimination in this sense actually has a specific definition: that of  prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment .   #  racial discrimination is an established term with its own meaning.  it has the word  discrimination  in it, but discrimination in this sense actually has a specific definition: that of  prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment .  it is actually quite different from neutral discrimination that happens to be related to race, and it is for this reason that people would usually use different wording for what you describe just as one might say  i have a friend who is a boy  vs  i have a boyfriend .  applying a neutral definition to the  discrimination  of  racial discrimination  is like saying that a linguistic contraction is also a muscle movement.  the type of racial discriminating that you are referring to has nothing to do with prejudice or unfair treatment.  most people would agree with you that  it would only be considered racist when it affects their rights human rights, workplace rights, etc.  or when they think a skin colour means more than just that prejudicing, stereotyping   that is because the discrimination that is part of noticing differences or having preferences is a different type of discrimination from prejudicial discrimination.  your argument is, in essence, about semantics and not behaviour or judgement at all, which i do not think was your intention.   #  but racial preferences when it comes to dating is incredibly prevalent even in the western world.   #  if i am racist, then probably at least 0 of americans are also racist.  how many people do you personally know have espoused racial preferences to dating and marriage ? in my experience, more than 0, including people of all races, including whites, blacks, asians, etc.  i mean, go ahead and ignore the reality of the world if you wish.  but racial preferences when it comes to dating is incredibly prevalent even in the western world.   #  i also know it is simple minded to place arbitrary limits on yourself.   # enough, but i can only speak for myself with absolute certainty that i do not.  unlike you apparently.  but racial preferences when it comes to dating is incredibly prevalent even in the western world.  i am not disagreeing that it exists.  i know it exists.  i also know it is simple minded to place arbitrary limits on yourself.  and just so you know, you are the one copping out by not explaining why you have preferences.  the discussion ca not go any further if you ca not explain yourself.
socialism can be defined as an economic system where the workers own, control, and manage their own workshops, factories, restaurants, etc.  rather than having a boss in charge who dictates everything, the workers would exert democratic control over the direction of the company.  a great example of this would be mondragon, in spain.  plenty of people think it has something to be with a strong centralized state with safety net progams, but they are confusing it with a  social democracy  rather than socialism.  indeed, plenty of socialists are anti state entirely.  the main argument i hear against this is the  business owners  take all the risks, so they should be the ones who benefit from this.  however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people, and that if they go against the will should deserve to be impeached.   #  the main argument i hear against this is the  business owners  take all the risks, so they should be the ones who benefit from this.   #  however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people, and that if they go against the will should deserve to be impeached.   # however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people, and that if they go against the will should deserve to be impeached.  you are conflating the voluntary interactions of a businessman with the involuntary interactions of a senator.  businessmen do not force people to work for them or buy from them or sell to them, while senators create laws that have enforcement behind them and compliance is not a choice.  moreover, i do not see how your initial analogy makes any sense anyway.  starting out, business owners are the last to be paid, after their employees get a paycheque.  again, in the beginning, business owners invest capital, and if their business goes under, they are personally liable.  yes, that is quite a bit of risk if you ask me, and they should be compensated once that is no longer the case.  if people are not rewarded for taking risk, there is no mechanism for a good or bad investment; they are all the same.  since they are all the same, you will tend to see more and more high risk investments, as they would be paying the same interest as low risk investments but with the former returning much more than the latter.  moreover, it is difficult to encourage people to start businesses if there is no reward to the major risk they are taking.   #  there are a lot of programs in the united states that are exactly that, they are called coops.   #  employee owned corporations are a thing.  there are a lot of programs in the united states that are exactly that, they are called coops.  there are also similar systems in banking, known as credit unions, where the bank is owned by the depositors.  it is impossible to say that these are consistent or inconsistent with a political structure is that there is not a political component to it.  much like how a capitalistic corporate structure where a single person buys the stuff needed to do work and rents the labor of others, it really does not matter if the government is a democracy or a dictatorship since the political structure is irrelevant to the internal organization of an individual business.  i have to say that you ca not equivocate this particular subset of socialism to be all of socialism.  you ca not pick a mouse and say that it is all rodents, nor can you pick the united states and say that it is all democracy.  you described a real simple form of socialism that is close to the base theory and can be completely integrated into whatever political or cultural context that do not explicitly prohibit it, but i do not see why this is the only true socialism tm any more or less than social democracy, state socialism, or any other variation.  as far as structure of capitalism is concerned there are a couple of key advantages.  you only need a couple of people to start a new venture.  big piles of money are readily available to doing controversial thing.  people can buy/sell/trade ownership part or all ownership, and use ownership as leverage to get things done.  there is no reason in a capitalistic firm for the employees not to also own part of the company that employs them, it just is not commonly done because people often invest in other firms to diversify the risks they face.  you can have a completely capitalistic firm that is wholly owned by employees who then vote in/out upper management at shareholders meetings.   #  i think the better argument would be that socialism necessitates dictatorship.   #  i think the better argument would be that socialism necessitates dictatorship.  people have a natural drive to trade, barter, and promote their own interests.  this is not to say people are inherently selfish, in the full, negative sense of the word.  but constantly working to improve ones situation is a cornerstone of the human experience.  socialism requires strict adherence to a certain set of property rights laws that often go against people is natural tendencies.  if you have a socialist state that has set themselves up, and they see a boss/employee relationship as inherently exploitative of the worker via marx is labor theory of value, there is going to be problems.  because inevitable someone is going to realize it is in their best interest to sell their labor to someone at a contractual rate as an employee.  and when that happens, the only way to prevent socialism from naturally falling back into capitalism is to use the state is monopoly on legal coercive violence to stop that transaction.   #  but what about a traditional company with an owner.   #  that is all well and good, but a company like that can be set up under a free market.  but what about a traditional company with an owner.  those are much easier to start because one person with extra capital will be much more willing to risk it in a new venture than numerous people with less capital.  most new businesses do not make profit for 0 or 0 years, and most of the business loans go towards paying employees until the break even point is reached.  how many blue collar workers do you think you can find that will be willing to work for free for 0 or 0 years for the opportunity to own a small part of the company.  most would rather just sell their labor in real time under am employment contract.  so in this socialist society op speaks of unless he is only talking about one coop, in which case socialism never even comes into play , in order for that employer/employee relationship to not naturally arise requiring strict centralized power welding legal coercive force.   #  i think that with people like yourself who believe that humans promote their own interests, will see that as the only way.   #  as someone who has been an employee, i really do not see why anyone would find it in their best interests to sell their labour.  as you say, people want to improve their situations, and by selling your labour you are really decreasing the quality of your situation.  you imply in your last sentence that capitalism is the natural order.  i greatly disagree.  if anything, when modern humans had just evolved, they worked together, in a partnership, to maintain to strength of their tribe/group.  we see this type of thing in nature as well.  wolves work together to take down a prey.  while they do have the alpha male, the working equivalent to the boss, everyone still has a say.  when the other wolves accept a wolf as the alpha male, they do not accept it as an absolute.  they have the power to over throw.  as a single employee selling your labour, you do not have that power.  socialism does not inherently mean that every member of society or even at one place of work are going to earn the same wage.  there will be higher and lower earners, but there will be agreed upon salaries and benefits.  i agree that people often do seem to be inherently selfish, but my own personal belief is that humans have evolved to see to their needs before the needs of others, but that does not mean we cannot see the benefit of improving everyone is situation along with our own.  i think that with people like yourself who believe that humans promote their own interests, will see that as the only way.  instead why not try seeing that perhaps people can be good and will be good.  then maybe you will then be good and i will be good, and others who believe the same as you will realize that we can be good.  for the good of all people.
socialism can be defined as an economic system where the workers own, control, and manage their own workshops, factories, restaurants, etc.  rather than having a boss in charge who dictates everything, the workers would exert democratic control over the direction of the company.  a great example of this would be mondragon, in spain.  plenty of people think it has something to be with a strong centralized state with safety net progams, but they are confusing it with a  social democracy  rather than socialism.  indeed, plenty of socialists are anti state entirely.  the main argument i hear against this is the  business owners  take all the risks, so they should be the ones who benefit from this.  however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people, and that if they go against the will should deserve to be impeached.   #  rather than having a boss in charge who dictates everything, the workers would exert democratic control over the direction of the company.   #  how would you take control of someone else is business without state intervention ?  # how would you take control of someone else is business without state intervention ? however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people a senators job is to be accountable people.  this is what he agrees to do when he become a senator, because he is making decisions on behalf of millions of people.  a business owner is not making decisions for anyone other than himself.  anyone who works for him, does it through their own free will.   #  you only need a couple of people to start a new venture.   #  employee owned corporations are a thing.  there are a lot of programs in the united states that are exactly that, they are called coops.  there are also similar systems in banking, known as credit unions, where the bank is owned by the depositors.  it is impossible to say that these are consistent or inconsistent with a political structure is that there is not a political component to it.  much like how a capitalistic corporate structure where a single person buys the stuff needed to do work and rents the labor of others, it really does not matter if the government is a democracy or a dictatorship since the political structure is irrelevant to the internal organization of an individual business.  i have to say that you ca not equivocate this particular subset of socialism to be all of socialism.  you ca not pick a mouse and say that it is all rodents, nor can you pick the united states and say that it is all democracy.  you described a real simple form of socialism that is close to the base theory and can be completely integrated into whatever political or cultural context that do not explicitly prohibit it, but i do not see why this is the only true socialism tm any more or less than social democracy, state socialism, or any other variation.  as far as structure of capitalism is concerned there are a couple of key advantages.  you only need a couple of people to start a new venture.  big piles of money are readily available to doing controversial thing.  people can buy/sell/trade ownership part or all ownership, and use ownership as leverage to get things done.  there is no reason in a capitalistic firm for the employees not to also own part of the company that employs them, it just is not commonly done because people often invest in other firms to diversify the risks they face.  you can have a completely capitalistic firm that is wholly owned by employees who then vote in/out upper management at shareholders meetings.   #  socialism requires strict adherence to a certain set of property rights laws that often go against people is natural tendencies.   #  i think the better argument would be that socialism necessitates dictatorship.  people have a natural drive to trade, barter, and promote their own interests.  this is not to say people are inherently selfish, in the full, negative sense of the word.  but constantly working to improve ones situation is a cornerstone of the human experience.  socialism requires strict adherence to a certain set of property rights laws that often go against people is natural tendencies.  if you have a socialist state that has set themselves up, and they see a boss/employee relationship as inherently exploitative of the worker via marx is labor theory of value, there is going to be problems.  because inevitable someone is going to realize it is in their best interest to sell their labor to someone at a contractual rate as an employee.  and when that happens, the only way to prevent socialism from naturally falling back into capitalism is to use the state is monopoly on legal coercive violence to stop that transaction.   #  but what about a traditional company with an owner.   #  that is all well and good, but a company like that can be set up under a free market.  but what about a traditional company with an owner.  those are much easier to start because one person with extra capital will be much more willing to risk it in a new venture than numerous people with less capital.  most new businesses do not make profit for 0 or 0 years, and most of the business loans go towards paying employees until the break even point is reached.  how many blue collar workers do you think you can find that will be willing to work for free for 0 or 0 years for the opportunity to own a small part of the company.  most would rather just sell their labor in real time under am employment contract.  so in this socialist society op speaks of unless he is only talking about one coop, in which case socialism never even comes into play , in order for that employer/employee relationship to not naturally arise requiring strict centralized power welding legal coercive force.   #  there will be higher and lower earners, but there will be agreed upon salaries and benefits.   #  as someone who has been an employee, i really do not see why anyone would find it in their best interests to sell their labour.  as you say, people want to improve their situations, and by selling your labour you are really decreasing the quality of your situation.  you imply in your last sentence that capitalism is the natural order.  i greatly disagree.  if anything, when modern humans had just evolved, they worked together, in a partnership, to maintain to strength of their tribe/group.  we see this type of thing in nature as well.  wolves work together to take down a prey.  while they do have the alpha male, the working equivalent to the boss, everyone still has a say.  when the other wolves accept a wolf as the alpha male, they do not accept it as an absolute.  they have the power to over throw.  as a single employee selling your labour, you do not have that power.  socialism does not inherently mean that every member of society or even at one place of work are going to earn the same wage.  there will be higher and lower earners, but there will be agreed upon salaries and benefits.  i agree that people often do seem to be inherently selfish, but my own personal belief is that humans have evolved to see to their needs before the needs of others, but that does not mean we cannot see the benefit of improving everyone is situation along with our own.  i think that with people like yourself who believe that humans promote their own interests, will see that as the only way.  instead why not try seeing that perhaps people can be good and will be good.  then maybe you will then be good and i will be good, and others who believe the same as you will realize that we can be good.  for the good of all people.
socialism can be defined as an economic system where the workers own, control, and manage their own workshops, factories, restaurants, etc.  rather than having a boss in charge who dictates everything, the workers would exert democratic control over the direction of the company.  a great example of this would be mondragon, in spain.  plenty of people think it has something to be with a strong centralized state with safety net progams, but they are confusing it with a  social democracy  rather than socialism.  indeed, plenty of socialists are anti state entirely.  the main argument i hear against this is the  business owners  take all the risks, so they should be the ones who benefit from this.  however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people, and that if they go against the will should deserve to be impeached.   #  the main argument i hear against this is the  business owners  take all the risks, so they should be the ones who benefit from this.   #  however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people a senators job is to be accountable people.   # how would you take control of someone else is business without state intervention ? however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people a senators job is to be accountable people.  this is what he agrees to do when he become a senator, because he is making decisions on behalf of millions of people.  a business owner is not making decisions for anyone other than himself.  anyone who works for him, does it through their own free will.   #  there is no reason in a capitalistic firm for the employees not to also own part of the company that employs them, it just is not commonly done because people often invest in other firms to diversify the risks they face.   #  employee owned corporations are a thing.  there are a lot of programs in the united states that are exactly that, they are called coops.  there are also similar systems in banking, known as credit unions, where the bank is owned by the depositors.  it is impossible to say that these are consistent or inconsistent with a political structure is that there is not a political component to it.  much like how a capitalistic corporate structure where a single person buys the stuff needed to do work and rents the labor of others, it really does not matter if the government is a democracy or a dictatorship since the political structure is irrelevant to the internal organization of an individual business.  i have to say that you ca not equivocate this particular subset of socialism to be all of socialism.  you ca not pick a mouse and say that it is all rodents, nor can you pick the united states and say that it is all democracy.  you described a real simple form of socialism that is close to the base theory and can be completely integrated into whatever political or cultural context that do not explicitly prohibit it, but i do not see why this is the only true socialism tm any more or less than social democracy, state socialism, or any other variation.  as far as structure of capitalism is concerned there are a couple of key advantages.  you only need a couple of people to start a new venture.  big piles of money are readily available to doing controversial thing.  people can buy/sell/trade ownership part or all ownership, and use ownership as leverage to get things done.  there is no reason in a capitalistic firm for the employees not to also own part of the company that employs them, it just is not commonly done because people often invest in other firms to diversify the risks they face.  you can have a completely capitalistic firm that is wholly owned by employees who then vote in/out upper management at shareholders meetings.   #  and when that happens, the only way to prevent socialism from naturally falling back into capitalism is to use the state is monopoly on legal coercive violence to stop that transaction.   #  i think the better argument would be that socialism necessitates dictatorship.  people have a natural drive to trade, barter, and promote their own interests.  this is not to say people are inherently selfish, in the full, negative sense of the word.  but constantly working to improve ones situation is a cornerstone of the human experience.  socialism requires strict adherence to a certain set of property rights laws that often go against people is natural tendencies.  if you have a socialist state that has set themselves up, and they see a boss/employee relationship as inherently exploitative of the worker via marx is labor theory of value, there is going to be problems.  because inevitable someone is going to realize it is in their best interest to sell their labor to someone at a contractual rate as an employee.  and when that happens, the only way to prevent socialism from naturally falling back into capitalism is to use the state is monopoly on legal coercive violence to stop that transaction.   #  most new businesses do not make profit for 0 or 0 years, and most of the business loans go towards paying employees until the break even point is reached.   #  that is all well and good, but a company like that can be set up under a free market.  but what about a traditional company with an owner.  those are much easier to start because one person with extra capital will be much more willing to risk it in a new venture than numerous people with less capital.  most new businesses do not make profit for 0 or 0 years, and most of the business loans go towards paying employees until the break even point is reached.  how many blue collar workers do you think you can find that will be willing to work for free for 0 or 0 years for the opportunity to own a small part of the company.  most would rather just sell their labor in real time under am employment contract.  so in this socialist society op speaks of unless he is only talking about one coop, in which case socialism never even comes into play , in order for that employer/employee relationship to not naturally arise requiring strict centralized power welding legal coercive force.   #  as you say, people want to improve their situations, and by selling your labour you are really decreasing the quality of your situation.   #  as someone who has been an employee, i really do not see why anyone would find it in their best interests to sell their labour.  as you say, people want to improve their situations, and by selling your labour you are really decreasing the quality of your situation.  you imply in your last sentence that capitalism is the natural order.  i greatly disagree.  if anything, when modern humans had just evolved, they worked together, in a partnership, to maintain to strength of their tribe/group.  we see this type of thing in nature as well.  wolves work together to take down a prey.  while they do have the alpha male, the working equivalent to the boss, everyone still has a say.  when the other wolves accept a wolf as the alpha male, they do not accept it as an absolute.  they have the power to over throw.  as a single employee selling your labour, you do not have that power.  socialism does not inherently mean that every member of society or even at one place of work are going to earn the same wage.  there will be higher and lower earners, but there will be agreed upon salaries and benefits.  i agree that people often do seem to be inherently selfish, but my own personal belief is that humans have evolved to see to their needs before the needs of others, but that does not mean we cannot see the benefit of improving everyone is situation along with our own.  i think that with people like yourself who believe that humans promote their own interests, will see that as the only way.  instead why not try seeing that perhaps people can be good and will be good.  then maybe you will then be good and i will be good, and others who believe the same as you will realize that we can be good.  for the good of all people.
socialism can be defined as an economic system where the workers own, control, and manage their own workshops, factories, restaurants, etc.  rather than having a boss in charge who dictates everything, the workers would exert democratic control over the direction of the company.  a great example of this would be mondragon, in spain.  plenty of people think it has something to be with a strong centralized state with safety net progams, but they are confusing it with a  social democracy  rather than socialism.  indeed, plenty of socialists are anti state entirely.  the main argument i hear against this is the  business owners  take all the risks, so they should be the ones who benefit from this.  however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people, and that if they go against the will should deserve to be impeached.   #  the main argument i hear against this is the  business owners  take all the risks, so they should be the ones who benefit from this.   #  however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people, and that if they go against the will should deserve to be impeached.   # however, i doubt anyone would disagree that just because, say, a senator takes a risk, does not mean that they should not be unaccountable to the people, and that if they go against the will should deserve to be impeached.  i want to address just this point in particular.  one of the drawbacks of a worker cooperative in which a company is owned by its employees is that the employees suffer much greater consequences if the company fails.  when workers do not have a stake in the company they work for, if the business fails they will only lose their jobs.  while that is unfortunate, it is not nearly as bad as also losing their stock in the company, which is often a significant portion of their net worth.  a publicly traded company gives people the option of buying or selling company stock according to how much risk they are willing to take.  it can be beneficial to everyone for a business to be owned by wealthier individuals who have less to lose if it fails while its employees sacrifice control for security.  it is true that security nets help mitigate this problem, but they can only do so much.  ensuring that people do not go without food, housing, or medical care is better than nothing, but people in developed countries want to strive for much more than that.  people who have worked for years to earn a comfortable middle class lifestyle do not want to see it vanish the moment the market turns against them, and safety nets ca not do much for people who have had their savings obliterated.  i am all for worker cooperatives being an option, but there are good reasons why people might not want to participate in them.  it should not be encouraged unconditionally.   #  people can buy/sell/trade ownership part or all ownership, and use ownership as leverage to get things done.   #  employee owned corporations are a thing.  there are a lot of programs in the united states that are exactly that, they are called coops.  there are also similar systems in banking, known as credit unions, where the bank is owned by the depositors.  it is impossible to say that these are consistent or inconsistent with a political structure is that there is not a political component to it.  much like how a capitalistic corporate structure where a single person buys the stuff needed to do work and rents the labor of others, it really does not matter if the government is a democracy or a dictatorship since the political structure is irrelevant to the internal organization of an individual business.  i have to say that you ca not equivocate this particular subset of socialism to be all of socialism.  you ca not pick a mouse and say that it is all rodents, nor can you pick the united states and say that it is all democracy.  you described a real simple form of socialism that is close to the base theory and can be completely integrated into whatever political or cultural context that do not explicitly prohibit it, but i do not see why this is the only true socialism tm any more or less than social democracy, state socialism, or any other variation.  as far as structure of capitalism is concerned there are a couple of key advantages.  you only need a couple of people to start a new venture.  big piles of money are readily available to doing controversial thing.  people can buy/sell/trade ownership part or all ownership, and use ownership as leverage to get things done.  there is no reason in a capitalistic firm for the employees not to also own part of the company that employs them, it just is not commonly done because people often invest in other firms to diversify the risks they face.  you can have a completely capitalistic firm that is wholly owned by employees who then vote in/out upper management at shareholders meetings.   #  and when that happens, the only way to prevent socialism from naturally falling back into capitalism is to use the state is monopoly on legal coercive violence to stop that transaction.   #  i think the better argument would be that socialism necessitates dictatorship.  people have a natural drive to trade, barter, and promote their own interests.  this is not to say people are inherently selfish, in the full, negative sense of the word.  but constantly working to improve ones situation is a cornerstone of the human experience.  socialism requires strict adherence to a certain set of property rights laws that often go against people is natural tendencies.  if you have a socialist state that has set themselves up, and they see a boss/employee relationship as inherently exploitative of the worker via marx is labor theory of value, there is going to be problems.  because inevitable someone is going to realize it is in their best interest to sell their labor to someone at a contractual rate as an employee.  and when that happens, the only way to prevent socialism from naturally falling back into capitalism is to use the state is monopoly on legal coercive violence to stop that transaction.   #  but what about a traditional company with an owner.   #  that is all well and good, but a company like that can be set up under a free market.  but what about a traditional company with an owner.  those are much easier to start because one person with extra capital will be much more willing to risk it in a new venture than numerous people with less capital.  most new businesses do not make profit for 0 or 0 years, and most of the business loans go towards paying employees until the break even point is reached.  how many blue collar workers do you think you can find that will be willing to work for free for 0 or 0 years for the opportunity to own a small part of the company.  most would rather just sell their labor in real time under am employment contract.  so in this socialist society op speaks of unless he is only talking about one coop, in which case socialism never even comes into play , in order for that employer/employee relationship to not naturally arise requiring strict centralized power welding legal coercive force.   #  as you say, people want to improve their situations, and by selling your labour you are really decreasing the quality of your situation.   #  as someone who has been an employee, i really do not see why anyone would find it in their best interests to sell their labour.  as you say, people want to improve their situations, and by selling your labour you are really decreasing the quality of your situation.  you imply in your last sentence that capitalism is the natural order.  i greatly disagree.  if anything, when modern humans had just evolved, they worked together, in a partnership, to maintain to strength of their tribe/group.  we see this type of thing in nature as well.  wolves work together to take down a prey.  while they do have the alpha male, the working equivalent to the boss, everyone still has a say.  when the other wolves accept a wolf as the alpha male, they do not accept it as an absolute.  they have the power to over throw.  as a single employee selling your labour, you do not have that power.  socialism does not inherently mean that every member of society or even at one place of work are going to earn the same wage.  there will be higher and lower earners, but there will be agreed upon salaries and benefits.  i agree that people often do seem to be inherently selfish, but my own personal belief is that humans have evolved to see to their needs before the needs of others, but that does not mean we cannot see the benefit of improving everyone is situation along with our own.  i think that with people like yourself who believe that humans promote their own interests, will see that as the only way.  instead why not try seeing that perhaps people can be good and will be good.  then maybe you will then be good and i will be good, and others who believe the same as you will realize that we can be good.  for the good of all people.
so, i have been a regular reddit user for several years, and one of the more controversial communities on here is srs, or shitredditsays.  it highlights a range of content that is racist, sexist, or generally offensive that is regularly upvoted and validated by significant portions of the reddit community.  things that can and do reach the front page or are tangentially connected to it through things like the comments of such threads .  now, the largest complaint i see is that the community is a  hate group , which seems a bit silly to me.  who are they discriminating against ? white males ? as far as i know, that is what the majority of the community is composed of.  secondly, often times the content they highlight are offensive jokes, and these statements are defended with statements like  its just a joke.   this makes the accusation that srs is a hate group to me even stranger, given that the vast majority of the comments in the comment section tend to be similar jokes, just at the expense of those who mocked the disadvantaged or and assumed image of them .  can those who like making jokes at the expense of others not take what they dish out ? thirdly, and probably most importantly, srs is, in my view, a very necessary force of balance.  people like to say they are a force of censorship, but i do not agree with that.  first and foremost, for all the complaints about brigading, very few of the content they highlight is downvoted into obscurity.  beyond that, freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the us government, but not by private companies like reddit, or massive populations like reddit is user base.  being downvoted is not censorship.  you expressed your sentiment, and the community rejected it.  nothing was denied beyond validation.  reddit is an immensely useful medium and interface for connecting to people all over the world, and it receives new users every day.  when memes like opinion puffin basically degenerate into a way for people to seek validation for racist and sexist beliefs, and this stuff gets upvoted to the front page from being on one of the sites most populated subs, it can give the wrong idea as to what kind of community actually uses this site, or give someone a good reason for not joining, which is sad, because social connection is exactly what reddit was obviously designed to foster.  anyway, those are my main reasons for my current position.  other stuff may come up in the discussion, but this should be enough to at least get the ball rolling.  for the sake of acknowledging the other side of this debate, i do understand they have a history of doxxing that is controversial, but my knowledge of those instances are pretty hazy, so someone more familiar with what happened there can maybe shed some light on it that could change my view.   #  can those who like making jokes at the expense of others not take what they dish out ?  #  if srsers can do it, so can others, but it means that srsers ca not criticize others for doing the exact same thing they themselves engage in.   # white males ? as far as i know, that is what the majority of the community is composed of.  so your logic is hate equals discrimination ? and if there are many white males, they ca not be discriminated against ? both are totally unreasonable.  srs hates whites and hates men, it is clear as daylight, even if you redefine  discrimination  so they ca not be said to discriminate against whites/males.  you seem to have the basic assumption that it is okay to hate groups of people as long as they are not protected by political correctness.  how enlightened.    the vast majority of the comments in the comment section tend to be similar jokes, just at the expense of those who mocked the disadvantaged so basically they are doing the same thing, the only difference being that they do it against people not protected by political correctness.  i rest my case.  sjws think their hate is justified, which is the most dangerous basis to build an ideology on.  if srsers can do it, so can others, but it means that srsers ca not criticize others for doing the exact same thing they themselves engage in.  i do not know if you understand the logic.   #  it has less than 0,0 subscribers, nearly 0/0 of this subreddit, and is hated by the majority of reddit.   #  what precisely do you mean by a  good thing  ? this post feels more like a pre emptive rebuttal of the negative aspects of srs, rather than a positive expression of the good it does.  from your post all i can gather on the positive aspects of srs is that it highlights discriminatory comments and acts as a force of balance ? .  on the highlighting aspect; it does not seem to do a very good job at all.  it has less than 0,0 subscribers, nearly 0/0 of this subreddit, and is hated by the majority of reddit.  if it were a serious place were racist/sexist comments could be discussed   debated while regarding the context and nuances it would be great.  but it is not.  it is a cesspit of low effort posts, where any dissenting opinion is removed this is why probably call it censoring and everyone circlejerks in this sort of internet meme language.  it is an  awful  implementation of a good idea and i do not think that makes it a  good thing , whatever that means exactly.   #  , but for everybody else, this comes accross as either arrogant or having so ridiculously fragile egos that amounts to some kind of mental illness oops, ableist again so in that case the wrong is with them and not other people.   #  the issue with them is really that there is no debate.  you get instantly banned for debating, and other subreddits such as srsrecovery or srsquestions do not allow debate either.  you can ask why it something offensive but for example you are not allowed how it was not meant so, or that it is not a big deal or anything.  they force you to either ignore them or simply accept at face value the emotions of another person as a judgement of something.  if anyone feels, entirely subjectively, that something offended them, then it is offensive and no debate is allowed.  this is frustrating for me, becasue although i agree with being tough on racism and sexism, i do not think calling someone an idiot is ableist, nor that this kind of ableism is in any way wrong.  the issue is, i cannot debate this.  on all their subreddits, they ban debate, they just want to  educate  or  explain  but not debate.  plain simply anything that questions if they are correct is banned.  i think they do this because they want a  safe space  how can be people so fragile ? , but for everybody else, this comes accross as either arrogant or having so ridiculously fragile egos that amounts to some kind of mental illness oops, ableist again so in that case the wrong is with them and not other people.  can people be expected to be so tactful that even a person with a mental illness of incredibly sensitivity could not find them offensive ?  #  i visit that subreddit from time to time and have a good laugh because there is truth with their criticism.   #  i visit that subreddit from time to time and have a good laugh because there is truth with their criticism.  however you have to realize that is is a circle jerk and that alone carries some drawbacks to it.  i assume you specifically mean r/shitredditsays and not any of its variations.  0 it can be hypocritical.  there was a post yesterday where a girl uploaded a picture of her and her boyfriend, and a commenter more or less said  for the sake of your health you need to lose weight.   she was a very good sport about it and mentioned that she already had been doing that.  from my understanding it made it to srs and the girl also commented in that subreddit and was being very civil and polite.  there were lots of deleted comments in the srs thread and from what i understand the girl in the photo posted into it.  long story short she did not conform to the jerk and was subsequently banned.  now technically she did violate rule 0 but you can see how that can rub people the wrong way.  0 it gives a spotlight to racism, misogyny, transphobia, and other forms of discrimination that would otherwise be ignored.  0 circle jerks in general are just a cesspool of confirmation bias and well. circle jerking.  but there are other srs subreddits that have a discussion based format.  0 with any circle jerk you can assume there is a sizable portion of trolls within it.  even though they may be making fun of the  cis, white penis would, stem wielding hivemind,  some of them are probably those exact things.  0 while i do not have solid evidence of their  downvote brigading  you have to imagine that it happens to at least a certain degree.  i would imagine that in some cases it could have the opposite effect and be an upvoting brigade merely by the trolls attempting to troll the trolls in an epic troll athalon of trolldome.  tldr; circle jerk based subreddits are not a good medium for discussion, and are merely a battleground under a bridge for trolls.   #  and in response to your tl;dr: it does not present itself as a good medium for discussion, it is upfront about being a circlejerk.   #  0.  this is not hypocritical, but a steadfast adherence to their principles of intersectionality.  that the op was not agreed with these principles does not invalidate the principles.  people can internalize racism, sizeism, sexism, etc.  even if they are themselves part of a group marginalized by these discriminatory ideologies.  the op was an example of this.  srs was defending her in a situation where she herself would not even defend herself ! 0.  srs posts give a spotlight to posts that have scores of 0 .  by the very nature of this, that means the posts are not  otherwise ignored  and are actually fairly popular.  what is more, for members of groups marginalized by these forms of discrimination, these are again difficult to ignore.  0.  you seem to be generally on the same page with me on this point, and so i will just reemphasize that srs is specifically designed with this in mind as something that is necessary to provide a counterjerk of relief from the circlejerk that is the rest of reddit, which is equally susceptible to confirmation biases, and whose opinions are, on the whole, far more discriminatory and worse.  0.  iirc majority of them are actually sawscms.  their criticisms tend to be towards members of dominant identities who engage in toxic and uncritical abuse of their privileges.  0.  i do not have to imagine that.  srs wants to highlight how shitty reddit is.  if anything, running a downvote brigade runs contrary to this goal.  for your point about an upvote brigade, i am just plain unsure what it is that you are trying to convey.  and in response to your tl;dr: it does not present itself as a good medium for discussion, it is upfront about being a circlejerk.  i do not get the troll battleground comment at all.
i work in an office with my best friend, whom i met on the job.  every day we get a ten minute break and take a walk around our corporate block.  i have been waiting all morning to tell my friend an anecdote that had occurred on the previous evening, and since we both sit stifling in silence at our desks the rest of the day, i get very expressive and animated in the telling.  i drop a couple of sh ts and f ckings for emphasis at the height of my tale, and my friend disrupts me to ask me not to use that language because there are other people nearby.  she is visibly embarrassed.  i have used this kind of language with her before, even though, at 0 , she still uses euphemisms like  poop  and only recently realized that  maroon  was a stand in for moron.  we are both adults, and she is never indicated that she minded.  but apparently she minds when other people are around, because they may judge her for it.  this trivial issue turns out to be a highly sensitive one.  my father used to slam his fists on the table and completely shut down a previously happy conversation if i accidentally let a  bad  word slip.  it made me feel like a villain, and even though my friend was more reasonable in her request, it invoked flashbacks to my black sheep days in the family household.  this inspired an argument, wherein i argued that i do not care if people judge me for my language choice in public.  if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  she accused me of not caring about other people is feelings, because i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i make an exception for words which could be construed as a personal attack, such as racist, sexist or homophobic terminology.  if someone hears me using words like b tch, n gger or f g, they may feel  personally  attacked because such words have historically been used to judge and denigrate who they are as individuals.  my friend contends that there is no difference.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  she is also of the camp that children should be protected from language because  it takes a village to raise a child .  i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  interestingly, she tends to interpret the world through a lens of fear that i do not.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  i told my friend that it was unfair of her to restrict my behavior so that  she  would not be judged for it.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  tl;dr: i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  cmv.   #  this inspired an argument, wherein i argued that i do not care if people judge me for my language choice in public.   #  if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.   # if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  so what you are saying is that other people are the ones who have to change  learn to respect differences  ? what you are saying is you can say something very ugly and hard on the ears, and people around you are not allowed to dislike it ? if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i am not quite sure what you mean about the different types of offensive words ? i would argue it is hurtful to hear much in the same way a fart is harmful to smell.  sure we all fart sometimes.  but we do not let our crudeness blow right into someone else is face.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  i am thinking that her angle is that profanity is personally offensive because it is so disrespectful.  you know someone like her does not want to hear it.  you use profanity anyway.  it is a way of saying to her  i do not respect you or care about your comfort .  and you are rationalizing it by saying  she  needs to  learn tolerance .  how about you get into an elevator with me after i have mexican for lunch and when you almost pass out from the fart smell, i tell you you need to learn to respect my differences ? i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  i would argue that they are bad for kids because it gets kids into the habit of using them.  kids do not understand that when someone punctuates their sentences with shit and fuck, others may make wrong assumptions about them.  kids that do it may be written off as punks.  adults that do it may be written off as uneducated, inarticulate, or low income/class.  or it might be seen as shock value done for attention seeking.  if an adult wants to appear that way he is mature enough to know what he is doing.  but kids do not understand why they are treated differently based on how they sound.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  irrelevant your argument is on the use of profanity not on a public judgmment of your friend.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  when you go out alone you act however you wish.  though you ca not be upset if people do not judge you favorable for it as a general rule when you go out with a friend you should respect their concerns.  if it really bothers her and she is embarrassed to be seen with you, the polite thing is to acquiesce to her wishes.  that is just good manners, even if the action in question does not seem like a big deal.  respect her request or stop going places with her.  i understand you want the freedom to use whatever language you like because you are an adult and you no longer have to live by your father is rules.  i am sorry to hear he seemed to overreact to profanity when you were growing up.  but with your new freedom comes responsibility.  you and you alone are responsible for how you will be perceived by others.  if your manner of speech or dress or mannerism identifies you with a particular subculture, that is how people will see you.   #  i wo not go into it, and i do not know where people are talking about this, but my thinking is heavily influenced by the frankfurt school is work on critical theory, such as the authoritarian personality.   #  here are a couple videos from george carlin you might have seen before that may be helpful to you: URL URL on another note, i have a few opinions on the matter i will preface that i have a background in undergrad sociology .  for one there is a power structure inherent in language and etiquette in general, and it is amplified in this case.  when there are markers by which someone becomes a  civilized person,  then the flipside is that deviating from these expectations labels one as uncivilized.  there is a whole universe of literature on the problems of constructing a notion of civilization, a lot of it in anthropology.  one problematic example i can think of is the judgement of black communities that have not been raised with the same aversion to  improper  etiquette according to dominant cultural norms or to view it from a different angle, who have been raised with different forms of etiquette .  this is one aspect of current racist structures.  another thing i would address is her desire to protect children from bad language.  i consider this an example of the condescending ways we treat children, which leads to problematic behavior in adulthood.  then there is the problem of prohibiting behavior in children in an authoritative manner.  i wo not go into it, and i do not know where people are talking about this, but my thinking is heavily influenced by the frankfurt school is work on critical theory, such as the authoritarian personality.  i think you might have a lot to think about on this point considering your experiences with your father.  finally i think there is always something deeper to delve into when we consider what makes people uncomfortable in a culture.  we must ask why this is.  feeling uncomfortable is tied to feeling of shame, resentment, fear, etc.  there is a lot to say about this as well, but i would just say that if a cultural norm is problematic, and people are uncomfortable with that norm, then we can choose to respect that and turn the other cheek, or we can expose the hypocrisy and try to get people to face themselves.   #  so between two  individuals , who decides what is offensive ?  #  cultural context does not dictate what an individual finds offensive.  in the us there are a lot of different cultures and people.  if you are in a coffee shop and turn to your left and say  hi, are you gay ?   that person might punch you in the face and curse your family.  turn to the right and ask that person the same thing, and they might say  why no, i am actually trans, but i am active in the gay community.   so between two  individuals , who decides what is offensive ?  #  you see how dumb your definition of freedom is ?  # you are free to say what you like, but that does not mean that you are free from consequences.  why do people keep saying that ? that is srs level bullshit.  you do not understands freedom ! you are not free to do x if there is y punishment for it.  technically we are free to do anything our body can physically do with your definition.  you would say we are free to murder people, but the consequence is that the government puts us in jail for life.  you see how dumb your definition of freedom is ? there is no freedom in that scenario.  a better way to phrase it is we have freedom of speech in that the government wo not punish us for our language, but other human are allowed to punish you as long as they do it legally.   #  george carlin has a good skit about this too.   #  i say you are kind of right.  a perfect example is for me is if i am describing what i hear from someone.  like if i say  john just came in a yelled  fuck  , it was frightening.    right there,i am not using fuck in a bad way, i am just repeating what someone said.  another example is with the word nigger.  during literature class when we read older books with the word nigger in it, people always skip over it or say  the n word.   what is the harm in reading it.  its only be bad if i said  man i am tired of niggers.  niggers are dumb.  i saw some niggers over there.    it is about context.  even on news they still do this with saying  a comedian performed last night and was using racial slurs like the n word.    why ca not the reporter just say nigger ? they are just repeating something, there is nothing offensive about that.  george carlin has a good skit about this too.
i work in an office with my best friend, whom i met on the job.  every day we get a ten minute break and take a walk around our corporate block.  i have been waiting all morning to tell my friend an anecdote that had occurred on the previous evening, and since we both sit stifling in silence at our desks the rest of the day, i get very expressive and animated in the telling.  i drop a couple of sh ts and f ckings for emphasis at the height of my tale, and my friend disrupts me to ask me not to use that language because there are other people nearby.  she is visibly embarrassed.  i have used this kind of language with her before, even though, at 0 , she still uses euphemisms like  poop  and only recently realized that  maroon  was a stand in for moron.  we are both adults, and she is never indicated that she minded.  but apparently she minds when other people are around, because they may judge her for it.  this trivial issue turns out to be a highly sensitive one.  my father used to slam his fists on the table and completely shut down a previously happy conversation if i accidentally let a  bad  word slip.  it made me feel like a villain, and even though my friend was more reasonable in her request, it invoked flashbacks to my black sheep days in the family household.  this inspired an argument, wherein i argued that i do not care if people judge me for my language choice in public.  if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  she accused me of not caring about other people is feelings, because i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i make an exception for words which could be construed as a personal attack, such as racist, sexist or homophobic terminology.  if someone hears me using words like b tch, n gger or f g, they may feel  personally  attacked because such words have historically been used to judge and denigrate who they are as individuals.  my friend contends that there is no difference.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  she is also of the camp that children should be protected from language because  it takes a village to raise a child .  i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  interestingly, she tends to interpret the world through a lens of fear that i do not.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  i told my friend that it was unfair of her to restrict my behavior so that  she  would not be judged for it.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  tl;dr: i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  cmv.   #  she accused me of not caring about other people is feelings, because i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.   #  if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.   # if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  so what you are saying is that other people are the ones who have to change  learn to respect differences  ? what you are saying is you can say something very ugly and hard on the ears, and people around you are not allowed to dislike it ? if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i am not quite sure what you mean about the different types of offensive words ? i would argue it is hurtful to hear much in the same way a fart is harmful to smell.  sure we all fart sometimes.  but we do not let our crudeness blow right into someone else is face.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  i am thinking that her angle is that profanity is personally offensive because it is so disrespectful.  you know someone like her does not want to hear it.  you use profanity anyway.  it is a way of saying to her  i do not respect you or care about your comfort .  and you are rationalizing it by saying  she  needs to  learn tolerance .  how about you get into an elevator with me after i have mexican for lunch and when you almost pass out from the fart smell, i tell you you need to learn to respect my differences ? i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  i would argue that they are bad for kids because it gets kids into the habit of using them.  kids do not understand that when someone punctuates their sentences with shit and fuck, others may make wrong assumptions about them.  kids that do it may be written off as punks.  adults that do it may be written off as uneducated, inarticulate, or low income/class.  or it might be seen as shock value done for attention seeking.  if an adult wants to appear that way he is mature enough to know what he is doing.  but kids do not understand why they are treated differently based on how they sound.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  irrelevant your argument is on the use of profanity not on a public judgmment of your friend.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  when you go out alone you act however you wish.  though you ca not be upset if people do not judge you favorable for it as a general rule when you go out with a friend you should respect their concerns.  if it really bothers her and she is embarrassed to be seen with you, the polite thing is to acquiesce to her wishes.  that is just good manners, even if the action in question does not seem like a big deal.  respect her request or stop going places with her.  i understand you want the freedom to use whatever language you like because you are an adult and you no longer have to live by your father is rules.  i am sorry to hear he seemed to overreact to profanity when you were growing up.  but with your new freedom comes responsibility.  you and you alone are responsible for how you will be perceived by others.  if your manner of speech or dress or mannerism identifies you with a particular subculture, that is how people will see you.   #  then there is the problem of prohibiting behavior in children in an authoritative manner.   #  here are a couple videos from george carlin you might have seen before that may be helpful to you: URL URL on another note, i have a few opinions on the matter i will preface that i have a background in undergrad sociology .  for one there is a power structure inherent in language and etiquette in general, and it is amplified in this case.  when there are markers by which someone becomes a  civilized person,  then the flipside is that deviating from these expectations labels one as uncivilized.  there is a whole universe of literature on the problems of constructing a notion of civilization, a lot of it in anthropology.  one problematic example i can think of is the judgement of black communities that have not been raised with the same aversion to  improper  etiquette according to dominant cultural norms or to view it from a different angle, who have been raised with different forms of etiquette .  this is one aspect of current racist structures.  another thing i would address is her desire to protect children from bad language.  i consider this an example of the condescending ways we treat children, which leads to problematic behavior in adulthood.  then there is the problem of prohibiting behavior in children in an authoritative manner.  i wo not go into it, and i do not know where people are talking about this, but my thinking is heavily influenced by the frankfurt school is work on critical theory, such as the authoritarian personality.  i think you might have a lot to think about on this point considering your experiences with your father.  finally i think there is always something deeper to delve into when we consider what makes people uncomfortable in a culture.  we must ask why this is.  feeling uncomfortable is tied to feeling of shame, resentment, fear, etc.  there is a lot to say about this as well, but i would just say that if a cultural norm is problematic, and people are uncomfortable with that norm, then we can choose to respect that and turn the other cheek, or we can expose the hypocrisy and try to get people to face themselves.   #  if you are in a coffee shop and turn to your left and say  hi, are you gay ?    #  cultural context does not dictate what an individual finds offensive.  in the us there are a lot of different cultures and people.  if you are in a coffee shop and turn to your left and say  hi, are you gay ?   that person might punch you in the face and curse your family.  turn to the right and ask that person the same thing, and they might say  why no, i am actually trans, but i am active in the gay community.   so between two  individuals , who decides what is offensive ?  #  you are free to say what you like, but that does not mean that you are free from consequences.   # you are free to say what you like, but that does not mean that you are free from consequences.  why do people keep saying that ? that is srs level bullshit.  you do not understands freedom ! you are not free to do x if there is y punishment for it.  technically we are free to do anything our body can physically do with your definition.  you would say we are free to murder people, but the consequence is that the government puts us in jail for life.  you see how dumb your definition of freedom is ? there is no freedom in that scenario.  a better way to phrase it is we have freedom of speech in that the government wo not punish us for our language, but other human are allowed to punish you as long as they do it legally.   #  during literature class when we read older books with the word nigger in it, people always skip over it or say  the n word.    #  i say you are kind of right.  a perfect example is for me is if i am describing what i hear from someone.  like if i say  john just came in a yelled  fuck  , it was frightening.    right there,i am not using fuck in a bad way, i am just repeating what someone said.  another example is with the word nigger.  during literature class when we read older books with the word nigger in it, people always skip over it or say  the n word.   what is the harm in reading it.  its only be bad if i said  man i am tired of niggers.  niggers are dumb.  i saw some niggers over there.    it is about context.  even on news they still do this with saying  a comedian performed last night and was using racial slurs like the n word.    why ca not the reporter just say nigger ? they are just repeating something, there is nothing offensive about that.  george carlin has a good skit about this too.
i work in an office with my best friend, whom i met on the job.  every day we get a ten minute break and take a walk around our corporate block.  i have been waiting all morning to tell my friend an anecdote that had occurred on the previous evening, and since we both sit stifling in silence at our desks the rest of the day, i get very expressive and animated in the telling.  i drop a couple of sh ts and f ckings for emphasis at the height of my tale, and my friend disrupts me to ask me not to use that language because there are other people nearby.  she is visibly embarrassed.  i have used this kind of language with her before, even though, at 0 , she still uses euphemisms like  poop  and only recently realized that  maroon  was a stand in for moron.  we are both adults, and she is never indicated that she minded.  but apparently she minds when other people are around, because they may judge her for it.  this trivial issue turns out to be a highly sensitive one.  my father used to slam his fists on the table and completely shut down a previously happy conversation if i accidentally let a  bad  word slip.  it made me feel like a villain, and even though my friend was more reasonable in her request, it invoked flashbacks to my black sheep days in the family household.  this inspired an argument, wherein i argued that i do not care if people judge me for my language choice in public.  if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  she accused me of not caring about other people is feelings, because i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i make an exception for words which could be construed as a personal attack, such as racist, sexist or homophobic terminology.  if someone hears me using words like b tch, n gger or f g, they may feel  personally  attacked because such words have historically been used to judge and denigrate who they are as individuals.  my friend contends that there is no difference.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  she is also of the camp that children should be protected from language because  it takes a village to raise a child .  i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  interestingly, she tends to interpret the world through a lens of fear that i do not.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  i told my friend that it was unfair of her to restrict my behavior so that  she  would not be judged for it.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  tl;dr: i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  cmv.   #  my friend contends that there is no difference.   #  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.   # if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  so what you are saying is that other people are the ones who have to change  learn to respect differences  ? what you are saying is you can say something very ugly and hard on the ears, and people around you are not allowed to dislike it ? if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i am not quite sure what you mean about the different types of offensive words ? i would argue it is hurtful to hear much in the same way a fart is harmful to smell.  sure we all fart sometimes.  but we do not let our crudeness blow right into someone else is face.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  i am thinking that her angle is that profanity is personally offensive because it is so disrespectful.  you know someone like her does not want to hear it.  you use profanity anyway.  it is a way of saying to her  i do not respect you or care about your comfort .  and you are rationalizing it by saying  she  needs to  learn tolerance .  how about you get into an elevator with me after i have mexican for lunch and when you almost pass out from the fart smell, i tell you you need to learn to respect my differences ? i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  i would argue that they are bad for kids because it gets kids into the habit of using them.  kids do not understand that when someone punctuates their sentences with shit and fuck, others may make wrong assumptions about them.  kids that do it may be written off as punks.  adults that do it may be written off as uneducated, inarticulate, or low income/class.  or it might be seen as shock value done for attention seeking.  if an adult wants to appear that way he is mature enough to know what he is doing.  but kids do not understand why they are treated differently based on how they sound.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  irrelevant your argument is on the use of profanity not on a public judgmment of your friend.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  when you go out alone you act however you wish.  though you ca not be upset if people do not judge you favorable for it as a general rule when you go out with a friend you should respect their concerns.  if it really bothers her and she is embarrassed to be seen with you, the polite thing is to acquiesce to her wishes.  that is just good manners, even if the action in question does not seem like a big deal.  respect her request or stop going places with her.  i understand you want the freedom to use whatever language you like because you are an adult and you no longer have to live by your father is rules.  i am sorry to hear he seemed to overreact to profanity when you were growing up.  but with your new freedom comes responsibility.  you and you alone are responsible for how you will be perceived by others.  if your manner of speech or dress or mannerism identifies you with a particular subculture, that is how people will see you.   #  then there is the problem of prohibiting behavior in children in an authoritative manner.   #  here are a couple videos from george carlin you might have seen before that may be helpful to you: URL URL on another note, i have a few opinions on the matter i will preface that i have a background in undergrad sociology .  for one there is a power structure inherent in language and etiquette in general, and it is amplified in this case.  when there are markers by which someone becomes a  civilized person,  then the flipside is that deviating from these expectations labels one as uncivilized.  there is a whole universe of literature on the problems of constructing a notion of civilization, a lot of it in anthropology.  one problematic example i can think of is the judgement of black communities that have not been raised with the same aversion to  improper  etiquette according to dominant cultural norms or to view it from a different angle, who have been raised with different forms of etiquette .  this is one aspect of current racist structures.  another thing i would address is her desire to protect children from bad language.  i consider this an example of the condescending ways we treat children, which leads to problematic behavior in adulthood.  then there is the problem of prohibiting behavior in children in an authoritative manner.  i wo not go into it, and i do not know where people are talking about this, but my thinking is heavily influenced by the frankfurt school is work on critical theory, such as the authoritarian personality.  i think you might have a lot to think about on this point considering your experiences with your father.  finally i think there is always something deeper to delve into when we consider what makes people uncomfortable in a culture.  we must ask why this is.  feeling uncomfortable is tied to feeling of shame, resentment, fear, etc.  there is a lot to say about this as well, but i would just say that if a cultural norm is problematic, and people are uncomfortable with that norm, then we can choose to respect that and turn the other cheek, or we can expose the hypocrisy and try to get people to face themselves.   #  in the us there are a lot of different cultures and people.   #  cultural context does not dictate what an individual finds offensive.  in the us there are a lot of different cultures and people.  if you are in a coffee shop and turn to your left and say  hi, are you gay ?   that person might punch you in the face and curse your family.  turn to the right and ask that person the same thing, and they might say  why no, i am actually trans, but i am active in the gay community.   so between two  individuals , who decides what is offensive ?  #  you see how dumb your definition of freedom is ?  # you are free to say what you like, but that does not mean that you are free from consequences.  why do people keep saying that ? that is srs level bullshit.  you do not understands freedom ! you are not free to do x if there is y punishment for it.  technically we are free to do anything our body can physically do with your definition.  you would say we are free to murder people, but the consequence is that the government puts us in jail for life.  you see how dumb your definition of freedom is ? there is no freedom in that scenario.  a better way to phrase it is we have freedom of speech in that the government wo not punish us for our language, but other human are allowed to punish you as long as they do it legally.   #  even on news they still do this with saying  a comedian performed last night and was using racial slurs like the n word.     #  i say you are kind of right.  a perfect example is for me is if i am describing what i hear from someone.  like if i say  john just came in a yelled  fuck  , it was frightening.    right there,i am not using fuck in a bad way, i am just repeating what someone said.  another example is with the word nigger.  during literature class when we read older books with the word nigger in it, people always skip over it or say  the n word.   what is the harm in reading it.  its only be bad if i said  man i am tired of niggers.  niggers are dumb.  i saw some niggers over there.    it is about context.  even on news they still do this with saying  a comedian performed last night and was using racial slurs like the n word.    why ca not the reporter just say nigger ? they are just repeating something, there is nothing offensive about that.  george carlin has a good skit about this too.
i work in an office with my best friend, whom i met on the job.  every day we get a ten minute break and take a walk around our corporate block.  i have been waiting all morning to tell my friend an anecdote that had occurred on the previous evening, and since we both sit stifling in silence at our desks the rest of the day, i get very expressive and animated in the telling.  i drop a couple of sh ts and f ckings for emphasis at the height of my tale, and my friend disrupts me to ask me not to use that language because there are other people nearby.  she is visibly embarrassed.  i have used this kind of language with her before, even though, at 0 , she still uses euphemisms like  poop  and only recently realized that  maroon  was a stand in for moron.  we are both adults, and she is never indicated that she minded.  but apparently she minds when other people are around, because they may judge her for it.  this trivial issue turns out to be a highly sensitive one.  my father used to slam his fists on the table and completely shut down a previously happy conversation if i accidentally let a  bad  word slip.  it made me feel like a villain, and even though my friend was more reasonable in her request, it invoked flashbacks to my black sheep days in the family household.  this inspired an argument, wherein i argued that i do not care if people judge me for my language choice in public.  if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  she accused me of not caring about other people is feelings, because i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i make an exception for words which could be construed as a personal attack, such as racist, sexist or homophobic terminology.  if someone hears me using words like b tch, n gger or f g, they may feel  personally  attacked because such words have historically been used to judge and denigrate who they are as individuals.  my friend contends that there is no difference.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  she is also of the camp that children should be protected from language because  it takes a village to raise a child .  i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  interestingly, she tends to interpret the world through a lens of fear that i do not.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  i told my friend that it was unfair of her to restrict my behavior so that  she  would not be judged for it.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  tl;dr: i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  cmv.   #  she is also of the camp that children should be protected from language because  it takes a village to raise a child .   #  i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.   # if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  so what you are saying is that other people are the ones who have to change  learn to respect differences  ? what you are saying is you can say something very ugly and hard on the ears, and people around you are not allowed to dislike it ? if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i am not quite sure what you mean about the different types of offensive words ? i would argue it is hurtful to hear much in the same way a fart is harmful to smell.  sure we all fart sometimes.  but we do not let our crudeness blow right into someone else is face.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  i am thinking that her angle is that profanity is personally offensive because it is so disrespectful.  you know someone like her does not want to hear it.  you use profanity anyway.  it is a way of saying to her  i do not respect you or care about your comfort .  and you are rationalizing it by saying  she  needs to  learn tolerance .  how about you get into an elevator with me after i have mexican for lunch and when you almost pass out from the fart smell, i tell you you need to learn to respect my differences ? i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  i would argue that they are bad for kids because it gets kids into the habit of using them.  kids do not understand that when someone punctuates their sentences with shit and fuck, others may make wrong assumptions about them.  kids that do it may be written off as punks.  adults that do it may be written off as uneducated, inarticulate, or low income/class.  or it might be seen as shock value done for attention seeking.  if an adult wants to appear that way he is mature enough to know what he is doing.  but kids do not understand why they are treated differently based on how they sound.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  irrelevant your argument is on the use of profanity not on a public judgmment of your friend.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  when you go out alone you act however you wish.  though you ca not be upset if people do not judge you favorable for it as a general rule when you go out with a friend you should respect their concerns.  if it really bothers her and she is embarrassed to be seen with you, the polite thing is to acquiesce to her wishes.  that is just good manners, even if the action in question does not seem like a big deal.  respect her request or stop going places with her.  i understand you want the freedom to use whatever language you like because you are an adult and you no longer have to live by your father is rules.  i am sorry to hear he seemed to overreact to profanity when you were growing up.  but with your new freedom comes responsibility.  you and you alone are responsible for how you will be perceived by others.  if your manner of speech or dress or mannerism identifies you with a particular subculture, that is how people will see you.   #  when there are markers by which someone becomes a  civilized person,  then the flipside is that deviating from these expectations labels one as uncivilized.   #  here are a couple videos from george carlin you might have seen before that may be helpful to you: URL URL on another note, i have a few opinions on the matter i will preface that i have a background in undergrad sociology .  for one there is a power structure inherent in language and etiquette in general, and it is amplified in this case.  when there are markers by which someone becomes a  civilized person,  then the flipside is that deviating from these expectations labels one as uncivilized.  there is a whole universe of literature on the problems of constructing a notion of civilization, a lot of it in anthropology.  one problematic example i can think of is the judgement of black communities that have not been raised with the same aversion to  improper  etiquette according to dominant cultural norms or to view it from a different angle, who have been raised with different forms of etiquette .  this is one aspect of current racist structures.  another thing i would address is her desire to protect children from bad language.  i consider this an example of the condescending ways we treat children, which leads to problematic behavior in adulthood.  then there is the problem of prohibiting behavior in children in an authoritative manner.  i wo not go into it, and i do not know where people are talking about this, but my thinking is heavily influenced by the frankfurt school is work on critical theory, such as the authoritarian personality.  i think you might have a lot to think about on this point considering your experiences with your father.  finally i think there is always something deeper to delve into when we consider what makes people uncomfortable in a culture.  we must ask why this is.  feeling uncomfortable is tied to feeling of shame, resentment, fear, etc.  there is a lot to say about this as well, but i would just say that if a cultural norm is problematic, and people are uncomfortable with that norm, then we can choose to respect that and turn the other cheek, or we can expose the hypocrisy and try to get people to face themselves.   #  that person might punch you in the face and curse your family.   #  cultural context does not dictate what an individual finds offensive.  in the us there are a lot of different cultures and people.  if you are in a coffee shop and turn to your left and say  hi, are you gay ?   that person might punch you in the face and curse your family.  turn to the right and ask that person the same thing, and they might say  why no, i am actually trans, but i am active in the gay community.   so between two  individuals , who decides what is offensive ?  #  you are not free to do x if there is y punishment for it.   # you are free to say what you like, but that does not mean that you are free from consequences.  why do people keep saying that ? that is srs level bullshit.  you do not understands freedom ! you are not free to do x if there is y punishment for it.  technically we are free to do anything our body can physically do with your definition.  you would say we are free to murder people, but the consequence is that the government puts us in jail for life.  you see how dumb your definition of freedom is ? there is no freedom in that scenario.  a better way to phrase it is we have freedom of speech in that the government wo not punish us for our language, but other human are allowed to punish you as long as they do it legally.   #  a perfect example is for me is if i am describing what i hear from someone.   #  i say you are kind of right.  a perfect example is for me is if i am describing what i hear from someone.  like if i say  john just came in a yelled  fuck  , it was frightening.    right there,i am not using fuck in a bad way, i am just repeating what someone said.  another example is with the word nigger.  during literature class when we read older books with the word nigger in it, people always skip over it or say  the n word.   what is the harm in reading it.  its only be bad if i said  man i am tired of niggers.  niggers are dumb.  i saw some niggers over there.    it is about context.  even on news they still do this with saying  a comedian performed last night and was using racial slurs like the n word.    why ca not the reporter just say nigger ? they are just repeating something, there is nothing offensive about that.  george carlin has a good skit about this too.
i work in an office with my best friend, whom i met on the job.  every day we get a ten minute break and take a walk around our corporate block.  i have been waiting all morning to tell my friend an anecdote that had occurred on the previous evening, and since we both sit stifling in silence at our desks the rest of the day, i get very expressive and animated in the telling.  i drop a couple of sh ts and f ckings for emphasis at the height of my tale, and my friend disrupts me to ask me not to use that language because there are other people nearby.  she is visibly embarrassed.  i have used this kind of language with her before, even though, at 0 , she still uses euphemisms like  poop  and only recently realized that  maroon  was a stand in for moron.  we are both adults, and she is never indicated that she minded.  but apparently she minds when other people are around, because they may judge her for it.  this trivial issue turns out to be a highly sensitive one.  my father used to slam his fists on the table and completely shut down a previously happy conversation if i accidentally let a  bad  word slip.  it made me feel like a villain, and even though my friend was more reasonable in her request, it invoked flashbacks to my black sheep days in the family household.  this inspired an argument, wherein i argued that i do not care if people judge me for my language choice in public.  if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  she accused me of not caring about other people is feelings, because i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i make an exception for words which could be construed as a personal attack, such as racist, sexist or homophobic terminology.  if someone hears me using words like b tch, n gger or f g, they may feel  personally  attacked because such words have historically been used to judge and denigrate who they are as individuals.  my friend contends that there is no difference.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  she is also of the camp that children should be protected from language because  it takes a village to raise a child .  i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  interestingly, she tends to interpret the world through a lens of fear that i do not.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  i told my friend that it was unfair of her to restrict my behavior so that  she  would not be judged for it.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  tl;dr: i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  cmv.   #  interestingly, she tends to interpret the world through a lens of fear that i do not.   #  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.   # if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  so what you are saying is that other people are the ones who have to change  learn to respect differences  ? what you are saying is you can say something very ugly and hard on the ears, and people around you are not allowed to dislike it ? if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i am not quite sure what you mean about the different types of offensive words ? i would argue it is hurtful to hear much in the same way a fart is harmful to smell.  sure we all fart sometimes.  but we do not let our crudeness blow right into someone else is face.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  i am thinking that her angle is that profanity is personally offensive because it is so disrespectful.  you know someone like her does not want to hear it.  you use profanity anyway.  it is a way of saying to her  i do not respect you or care about your comfort .  and you are rationalizing it by saying  she  needs to  learn tolerance .  how about you get into an elevator with me after i have mexican for lunch and when you almost pass out from the fart smell, i tell you you need to learn to respect my differences ? i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  i would argue that they are bad for kids because it gets kids into the habit of using them.  kids do not understand that when someone punctuates their sentences with shit and fuck, others may make wrong assumptions about them.  kids that do it may be written off as punks.  adults that do it may be written off as uneducated, inarticulate, or low income/class.  or it might be seen as shock value done for attention seeking.  if an adult wants to appear that way he is mature enough to know what he is doing.  but kids do not understand why they are treated differently based on how they sound.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  irrelevant your argument is on the use of profanity not on a public judgmment of your friend.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  when you go out alone you act however you wish.  though you ca not be upset if people do not judge you favorable for it as a general rule when you go out with a friend you should respect their concerns.  if it really bothers her and she is embarrassed to be seen with you, the polite thing is to acquiesce to her wishes.  that is just good manners, even if the action in question does not seem like a big deal.  respect her request or stop going places with her.  i understand you want the freedom to use whatever language you like because you are an adult and you no longer have to live by your father is rules.  i am sorry to hear he seemed to overreact to profanity when you were growing up.  but with your new freedom comes responsibility.  you and you alone are responsible for how you will be perceived by others.  if your manner of speech or dress or mannerism identifies you with a particular subculture, that is how people will see you.   #  i think you might have a lot to think about on this point considering your experiences with your father.   #  here are a couple videos from george carlin you might have seen before that may be helpful to you: URL URL on another note, i have a few opinions on the matter i will preface that i have a background in undergrad sociology .  for one there is a power structure inherent in language and etiquette in general, and it is amplified in this case.  when there are markers by which someone becomes a  civilized person,  then the flipside is that deviating from these expectations labels one as uncivilized.  there is a whole universe of literature on the problems of constructing a notion of civilization, a lot of it in anthropology.  one problematic example i can think of is the judgement of black communities that have not been raised with the same aversion to  improper  etiquette according to dominant cultural norms or to view it from a different angle, who have been raised with different forms of etiquette .  this is one aspect of current racist structures.  another thing i would address is her desire to protect children from bad language.  i consider this an example of the condescending ways we treat children, which leads to problematic behavior in adulthood.  then there is the problem of prohibiting behavior in children in an authoritative manner.  i wo not go into it, and i do not know where people are talking about this, but my thinking is heavily influenced by the frankfurt school is work on critical theory, such as the authoritarian personality.  i think you might have a lot to think about on this point considering your experiences with your father.  finally i think there is always something deeper to delve into when we consider what makes people uncomfortable in a culture.  we must ask why this is.  feeling uncomfortable is tied to feeling of shame, resentment, fear, etc.  there is a lot to say about this as well, but i would just say that if a cultural norm is problematic, and people are uncomfortable with that norm, then we can choose to respect that and turn the other cheek, or we can expose the hypocrisy and try to get people to face themselves.   #  in the us there are a lot of different cultures and people.   #  cultural context does not dictate what an individual finds offensive.  in the us there are a lot of different cultures and people.  if you are in a coffee shop and turn to your left and say  hi, are you gay ?   that person might punch you in the face and curse your family.  turn to the right and ask that person the same thing, and they might say  why no, i am actually trans, but i am active in the gay community.   so between two  individuals , who decides what is offensive ?  #  a better way to phrase it is we have freedom of speech in that the government wo not punish us for our language, but other human are allowed to punish you as long as they do it legally.   # you are free to say what you like, but that does not mean that you are free from consequences.  why do people keep saying that ? that is srs level bullshit.  you do not understands freedom ! you are not free to do x if there is y punishment for it.  technically we are free to do anything our body can physically do with your definition.  you would say we are free to murder people, but the consequence is that the government puts us in jail for life.  you see how dumb your definition of freedom is ? there is no freedom in that scenario.  a better way to phrase it is we have freedom of speech in that the government wo not punish us for our language, but other human are allowed to punish you as long as they do it legally.   #  during literature class when we read older books with the word nigger in it, people always skip over it or say  the n word.    #  i say you are kind of right.  a perfect example is for me is if i am describing what i hear from someone.  like if i say  john just came in a yelled  fuck  , it was frightening.    right there,i am not using fuck in a bad way, i am just repeating what someone said.  another example is with the word nigger.  during literature class when we read older books with the word nigger in it, people always skip over it or say  the n word.   what is the harm in reading it.  its only be bad if i said  man i am tired of niggers.  niggers are dumb.  i saw some niggers over there.    it is about context.  even on news they still do this with saying  a comedian performed last night and was using racial slurs like the n word.    why ca not the reporter just say nigger ? they are just repeating something, there is nothing offensive about that.  george carlin has a good skit about this too.
i work in an office with my best friend, whom i met on the job.  every day we get a ten minute break and take a walk around our corporate block.  i have been waiting all morning to tell my friend an anecdote that had occurred on the previous evening, and since we both sit stifling in silence at our desks the rest of the day, i get very expressive and animated in the telling.  i drop a couple of sh ts and f ckings for emphasis at the height of my tale, and my friend disrupts me to ask me not to use that language because there are other people nearby.  she is visibly embarrassed.  i have used this kind of language with her before, even though, at 0 , she still uses euphemisms like  poop  and only recently realized that  maroon  was a stand in for moron.  we are both adults, and she is never indicated that she minded.  but apparently she minds when other people are around, because they may judge her for it.  this trivial issue turns out to be a highly sensitive one.  my father used to slam his fists on the table and completely shut down a previously happy conversation if i accidentally let a  bad  word slip.  it made me feel like a villain, and even though my friend was more reasonable in her request, it invoked flashbacks to my black sheep days in the family household.  this inspired an argument, wherein i argued that i do not care if people judge me for my language choice in public.  if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  she accused me of not caring about other people is feelings, because i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i make an exception for words which could be construed as a personal attack, such as racist, sexist or homophobic terminology.  if someone hears me using words like b tch, n gger or f g, they may feel  personally  attacked because such words have historically been used to judge and denigrate who they are as individuals.  my friend contends that there is no difference.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  she is also of the camp that children should be protected from language because  it takes a village to raise a child .  i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  interestingly, she tends to interpret the world through a lens of fear that i do not.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  i told my friend that it was unfair of her to restrict my behavior so that  she  would not be judged for it.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  tl;dr: i make a distinction between words that are personally offensive and words that are superficially offensive.  cmv.   #  i told my friend that it was unfair of her to restrict my behavior so that  she  would not be judged for it.   #  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.   # if you enter into private property, it is appropriate to censor your language according to the preferences of the host, but in public you should feel free to be yourself and learn to respect other is differences.  so what you are saying is that other people are the ones who have to change  learn to respect differences  ? what you are saying is you can say something very ugly and hard on the ears, and people around you are not allowed to dislike it ? if someone does not like a curse word simply because it alludes, in the abstract, to something literal which by their belief system is crude and inappropriate, that is an affront which is, in my view, not genuinely hurtful or harmful.  i am not quite sure what you mean about the different types of offensive words ? i would argue it is hurtful to hear much in the same way a fart is harmful to smell.  sure we all fart sometimes.  but we do not let our crudeness blow right into someone else is face.  she argues that if a civilized person is offended by an inelegant term, then it is personal.  their feelings about polite etiquette are as valid as someone else is pride in who they are.  i am thinking that her angle is that profanity is personally offensive because it is so disrespectful.  you know someone like her does not want to hear it.  you use profanity anyway.  it is a way of saying to her  i do not respect you or care about your comfort .  and you are rationalizing it by saying  she  needs to  learn tolerance .  how about you get into an elevator with me after i have mexican for lunch and when you almost pass out from the fart smell, i tell you you need to learn to respect my differences ? i challenged her to explain how  bad  words could hurt a child.  she said it makes the world seem like an angry place.  i would argue that they are bad for kids because it gets kids into the habit of using them.  kids do not understand that when someone punctuates their sentences with shit and fuck, others may make wrong assumptions about them.  kids that do it may be written off as punks.  adults that do it may be written off as uneducated, inarticulate, or low income/class.  or it might be seen as shock value done for attention seeking.  if an adult wants to appear that way he is mature enough to know what he is doing.  but kids do not understand why they are treated differently based on how they sound.  point in case: i showed her a dance routine on youtube by lestwins which i found wonderfully playful.  she thought the dance was representing a scene of violence.  irrelevant your argument is on the use of profanity not on a public judgmment of your friend.  she says it is unfair of me to disregard her and other people is feelings.  it seems that we ca not come to terms on this issue, because we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  when you go out alone you act however you wish.  though you ca not be upset if people do not judge you favorable for it as a general rule when you go out with a friend you should respect their concerns.  if it really bothers her and she is embarrassed to be seen with you, the polite thing is to acquiesce to her wishes.  that is just good manners, even if the action in question does not seem like a big deal.  respect her request or stop going places with her.  i understand you want the freedom to use whatever language you like because you are an adult and you no longer have to live by your father is rules.  i am sorry to hear he seemed to overreact to profanity when you were growing up.  but with your new freedom comes responsibility.  you and you alone are responsible for how you will be perceived by others.  if your manner of speech or dress or mannerism identifies you with a particular subculture, that is how people will see you.   #  then there is the problem of prohibiting behavior in children in an authoritative manner.   #  here are a couple videos from george carlin you might have seen before that may be helpful to you: URL URL on another note, i have a few opinions on the matter i will preface that i have a background in undergrad sociology .  for one there is a power structure inherent in language and etiquette in general, and it is amplified in this case.  when there are markers by which someone becomes a  civilized person,  then the flipside is that deviating from these expectations labels one as uncivilized.  there is a whole universe of literature on the problems of constructing a notion of civilization, a lot of it in anthropology.  one problematic example i can think of is the judgement of black communities that have not been raised with the same aversion to  improper  etiquette according to dominant cultural norms or to view it from a different angle, who have been raised with different forms of etiquette .  this is one aspect of current racist structures.  another thing i would address is her desire to protect children from bad language.  i consider this an example of the condescending ways we treat children, which leads to problematic behavior in adulthood.  then there is the problem of prohibiting behavior in children in an authoritative manner.  i wo not go into it, and i do not know where people are talking about this, but my thinking is heavily influenced by the frankfurt school is work on critical theory, such as the authoritarian personality.  i think you might have a lot to think about on this point considering your experiences with your father.  finally i think there is always something deeper to delve into when we consider what makes people uncomfortable in a culture.  we must ask why this is.  feeling uncomfortable is tied to feeling of shame, resentment, fear, etc.  there is a lot to say about this as well, but i would just say that if a cultural norm is problematic, and people are uncomfortable with that norm, then we can choose to respect that and turn the other cheek, or we can expose the hypocrisy and try to get people to face themselves.   #  if you are in a coffee shop and turn to your left and say  hi, are you gay ?    #  cultural context does not dictate what an individual finds offensive.  in the us there are a lot of different cultures and people.  if you are in a coffee shop and turn to your left and say  hi, are you gay ?   that person might punch you in the face and curse your family.  turn to the right and ask that person the same thing, and they might say  why no, i am actually trans, but i am active in the gay community.   so between two  individuals , who decides what is offensive ?  #  a better way to phrase it is we have freedom of speech in that the government wo not punish us for our language, but other human are allowed to punish you as long as they do it legally.   # you are free to say what you like, but that does not mean that you are free from consequences.  why do people keep saying that ? that is srs level bullshit.  you do not understands freedom ! you are not free to do x if there is y punishment for it.  technically we are free to do anything our body can physically do with your definition.  you would say we are free to murder people, but the consequence is that the government puts us in jail for life.  you see how dumb your definition of freedom is ? there is no freedom in that scenario.  a better way to phrase it is we have freedom of speech in that the government wo not punish us for our language, but other human are allowed to punish you as long as they do it legally.   #  like if i say  john just came in a yelled  fuck  , it was frightening.     #  i say you are kind of right.  a perfect example is for me is if i am describing what i hear from someone.  like if i say  john just came in a yelled  fuck  , it was frightening.    right there,i am not using fuck in a bad way, i am just repeating what someone said.  another example is with the word nigger.  during literature class when we read older books with the word nigger in it, people always skip over it or say  the n word.   what is the harm in reading it.  its only be bad if i said  man i am tired of niggers.  niggers are dumb.  i saw some niggers over there.    it is about context.  even on news they still do this with saying  a comedian performed last night and was using racial slurs like the n word.    why ca not the reporter just say nigger ? they are just repeating something, there is nothing offensive about that.  george carlin has a good skit about this too.
firstly i am aware one can demonstrate 0 dimensions.  however i am referring to experience of reality.  this strongly relies on visual interpretation of reality.  and it idealises the nature of interaction with reality.  it also simplifies experience to be the interaction of self with another thing.  0 body problem so.  in any given instant, while stationary, you know where you are.  you are always there so it is a given. there is no need to reference your location to yourself other than a sense of familiarity.  from your perspective.  you have two dimensions to work with.  they are the horizontal and vertical angles of your observation.  the 0rd dimension is actually a path.  it has a defined length which in my view deteriorates its label as a dimension.  it is usually a direct line of sight.  any traversal of the path is trivial to the act of engaging and experiencing the observed entity.  one could take this further and call reality 0 dimensional in that the only thing needed to be considered is the path.  which contradicts my previous statement about the length of a dimension.  however, i do not believe that moving away from an object is interacting, its definitely a change in rate of interaction.  but repulsive forces are in my understanding a product of the frame of reference.   #  the 0rd dimension is actually a path.   #  it has a defined length which in my view deteriorates its label as a dimension.   # it has a defined length which in my view deteriorates its label as a dimension.  why ? lengths is a perfectly good dimension.  you still see in three dimensions.  you see in two angles, plus a distance.  why do you discount distance as a valid dimension ?  #  if you want the entire coordinate system to revolve around the perception of the experincer where the path to a new coordinate is irrelevant because we only care about instantaneous experience, then the dimension of your experience is zero.   #  i agree that you have described a spherical coordinate system.  if you are saying that the radial coordinate is irrelevant because the experiencer is at the center of his experience, then both angular coordinates are irrelevant too because the experiencer is only experiencing one angle at any given moment.  the path to get from your current angle to another angle must also be irrelevant.  if you want your radial coordinate to be attached to a moving object but your angular coordinates to be relative to some standard basis, then the math to describe the coordinates of your experience is significantly more complicated than you think it is.  if you want the entire coordinate system to revolve around the perception of the experincer where the path to a new coordinate is irrelevant because we only care about instantaneous experience, then the dimension of your experience is zero.  you are the origin of your coordinate system and you only experience what you experience at any given moment.  the dimension of the origin is zero.  that is just silly because your experience at any given moment includes things all around you in 0 dimensions.  your general experience is in 0 dimensions no matter how you describe it.  in addition to your instantaneous experience, you experience memories of yourself at a different position in space, which can only be described with 0 coordinates no matter how you choose to do it, and that memory is based on your position in time.  your instantaneous experience is in 0 dimensions because you have eliminated time but you still need to describe other things relative to some origin and you ca not do that with fewer than 0 dimensions.   #  when you look at the stove, you are seeing approximately one bazillion atoms.   #  dimension is the number of coordinates it takes to describe something, at least in the way that you are using it.  and, as i said before, your description of 0d experience is inconsistent with itself.  you seem to believe that a radial path is somehow different than an angular path.  it is not.  self and other can not be described in two coordinates.  if self is your reference point, other can only be described in at least three coordinates.  what about multiple others ? can you experience two things at once ? when you look in your kitchen, can you experience the stove and the refrigerator at the same time ? we can break it down some more.  when you look at the stove, you are seeing approximately one bazillion atoms.  are you having a one bazillion dimensional experience ? everything you are saying is nonsense.  you ca not mix and match mathematical concepts with incoherent highdeas and end up with a coherent result.  what you are describing is not dimension and the only controversial element of your original post is your misuse of an established word.   #  the number of coordinates it takes to describe something science considers as many experiences as possible.   #  yes they can.  the first is the boundary between self and other.  the second is the force a vector of interaction.  experiencing the stove and the refrigerator is a different experience to experiencing the stove  then  the refrigerator, namely because there is a choice in order.  if there is order in experience then you are not experiencing them at the same time.  i experience a glass of water when i drink it but i do not experience the glass separate to the water, so in experience it is one object.  you do not experience the atoms because you are experiencing the stove.  you do see the atoms yes but sight is not experience. it is the relaying of information for you to consider.  you can look at a room and see as much as you like, but you will only pay attention to what is interesting, and attention is core in experience.  please do not resort to insulting my view by labelling it as nonsense, you do have the right but not the authority.  it is true that an incoherent idea will produce incoherent results.  and do not assume ownership of language with the premise of established use, that kind of thinking is the basis of will full ignorance.  forgive my definite lack of clarity.  applying a word like dimensions to something like experience is out side of typical thinking.  i do not consider it invalid though.  ah yes.  describe something ! the number of coordinates it takes to describe something science considers as many experiences as possible.  an individual only has their experience.  i can tell you about my experience of reality as much as i can be bothered but you will never experience my experience.   #  but the angular coordinates are also a path and they have a defined arclength.   #  ok i see what you are getting at.  you are talking about experiential dimensions that are completely separate from spatial dimensions.  that is probably worth exploring if you are into that sort of thing and i suppose it could have however many dimensions you want it to.  your chosen dimensions are a little bit iffy though.  what makes the force of interaction a vector ? how do you describe that force ? are you using the word vector in the sense that this force has a direction ? how do you describe that direction ? how do you describe the boundary between the self and the other ? i am not saying your view is nonsense, but the way you are presenting it is.  i am not trying to be a dick.  it is obviously not easy to to explain.  it is not willful ignorance to insist on using definitions correctly.  that is how you communicate effectively.  if you want to use a word in a way that is not consistent with its established meaning then you should give it a clear definition ahead of time.  you have added a lot of new info to the view presented in your original post as well.  that post was almost certainly describing spatial experience and you did this by describing a spherical coordinate system.  you say that the horizontal and vertical angles are the two dimensions and that the radial coordinate does not count because it is a path that has a defined length.  but the angular coordinates are also a path and they have a defined arclength.  traversal of the radial path is trivial but so is traversal of the angular path.  this is why i said you were talking about zero dimensions.  if you remove one using this logic then you have to remove the other two.
so much of this conversation is so full of horseshit that i can barely read about it anymore.   america  did not give in to terrorists, a japanese multinational media conglomerate did, as they have every right to.   america  did not lose its first cyberwar, a private sector company chose not to further incite maniac terrorists, as is their right to do.  this still sucks, obviously, but this is not about our personal liberties being taken away, nor is it about america giving in to foreign powers  demands.  but newt gingrich and his horde of idiots want to use this to paint obama as weak in the face of terror, so that is the narrative they are pushing and a disappointingly large number of people are picking up the baton.  so, uh.  change my view.   #  but newt gingrich and his horde of idiots want to use this to paint obama as weak in the face of terror, so that is the narrative they are pushing and a disappointingly large number of people are picking up the baton.   #  newt gingrich has been out of office for years.   #  there is no way to tie obama to this.  a private corporation making the private choice not to release a movie into privately owned movie theaters, even after obama is administration said that there were no credible threats.  newt gingrich has been out of office for years.  obama did nothing to either help nor hinder this.  that is obvious.   #  it produced an english language movie and changed its mind about releasing it in us theatres due to a north korean terrorist threat to bomb those theatres.   #  sony pictures entertainment is an american company headquartered in california.  it produced an english language movie and changed its mind about releasing it in us theatres due to a north korean terrorist threat to bomb those theatres.  sony is decision means that a major corporation sees us security as so weak that a north korean threatened bombing holds more weight than guaranteed millions of revenue.  that is a huge problem for republicans.  they worry that muslims have a heckler is veto against us media, and that this is a huge cultural/political problem.  this has only a little to do with obama, it has more to do with the america that republicans want to see.  and the america they want to see is one that wo not censor anti muslim films for fear of violence.   #  should companies make decisions in the interest of national security bravado, or in the interest of their shareholders ?  #  sony only pulled the movie after most theaters decided against playing the movie.  those theaters were looking at two options: 0 play the film and bring in maybe $0m in revenue per theater chain over the film is lifespan.  should an attack  actually  happen, the theater would almost certainly be liable for a damages for lives lost; b damages for injuries resulting from the attack; c damages for emotional trauma resulting from the attack; d damages to the actual buildings from the attack; and e pr fallout from running a movie in the face of a threat along with other expenses, most likely .  or 0 do not run the movie and take a $0 $0m loss but risk nothing in liability.  which do you think is the better  business  decision ? should companies make decisions in the interest of national security bravado, or in the interest of their shareholders ? further, do you think schools should see security as so weak that a middle school kid threatening a bombing holds more weight than a full day of learning ?  #  companies respond to incentives, and if the existing incentive structure favors capitulating to violent threats, then that incentive structure is a national security threat.   #  companies respond to incentives, and if the existing incentive structure favors capitulating to violent threats, then that incentive structure is a national security threat.  holding theaters liable for attacks carried out on the premises is terrible policy.  republicans and democrats alike ought to deplore that policy and change it.  as far as the school bombing threat example: if a threat is called that has sufficient weight to cancel school for a day, the police will be called to find the culprit.  you are not going to see a situation in which a school agrees to remove the french revolution from its curriculum the fbi will find the culprit and/or the schools find a way to get students all their coursework.   #  and it is likely they were advised to by their legal teams, simply to avoid a potential headache should any attack actually take place.   #  small correction : sony postponed the screening because cinema chains were pulling it from their cinemas, meaning sony is motivation is purely monetary no one wants to release their film when there are no cinemas who will play it.  so the cinema chains, not sony, made that call.  and it is likely they were advised to by their legal teams, simply to avoid a potential headache should any attack actually take place.  the question to ask, is : by making that call, are they saying the us security is weak.  or is it reasonable, given a random american kid could shoot up a cinema, to accept that there is little or no way to guarantee total security for every cinema in america over the period the movie would show, when a single incident would be enough to cause the cinema and potentially sony legal trouble ? can anyone safely say that there is no one loyal to north korea, living in america, with access to firearms and a willingness to die for their country ? and are we 0 positive it is referring to both the hacking   the threats north korea in the first place ? it is a catch 0 for sony and the cinemas, and i do not see what obama has to do with this.  also, at the stage of threats of acts of terrorism the term  cyberwar  is no longer relevant.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.   #  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.   #  i will bet it goes something like this  full of white people who speak some english .   #  there are almost zero countries that are similar to the us.  look at our black population and culture.  go find me a country in europe that has  that  whole mess going on.  i mean, what exactly is your basis for  isimilar  ? i will bet it goes something like this  full of white people who speak some english .  that is asinine.  we could very much use russia as an example, but you people typically do not allow that because of some silly reasons you ca not accurately articulate.  russia has insane amounts of gun control, and their murder rate is ridiculously high.  russia has some problems that the us will never have, and the us has some problems that sweden will never have, so why is it okay to compare sweden to the us, but not the us to russia, or russia to sweden ? the answer you are looking for, by the way, is  because it does not fit my agenda .  russia is a good example of failed gun control, so you struggle to justify why it is not allowed to be used as an example.  are you telling me that if we picked up the entire black population of the us and moved them to, say, germany, that germany would have absolutely no change in crime rates whatsoever ? because that is exactly what you are saying to me when you imply that germany is somehow similar enough to the us to compare.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.   #  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.   #  the answer you are looking for, by the way, is  because it does not fit my agenda .   #  there are almost zero countries that are similar to the us.  look at our black population and culture.  go find me a country in europe that has  that  whole mess going on.  i mean, what exactly is your basis for  isimilar  ? i will bet it goes something like this  full of white people who speak some english .  that is asinine.  we could very much use russia as an example, but you people typically do not allow that because of some silly reasons you ca not accurately articulate.  russia has insane amounts of gun control, and their murder rate is ridiculously high.  russia has some problems that the us will never have, and the us has some problems that sweden will never have, so why is it okay to compare sweden to the us, but not the us to russia, or russia to sweden ? the answer you are looking for, by the way, is  because it does not fit my agenda .  russia is a good example of failed gun control, so you struggle to justify why it is not allowed to be used as an example.  are you telling me that if we picked up the entire black population of the us and moved them to, say, germany, that germany would have absolutely no change in crime rates whatsoever ? because that is exactly what you are saying to me when you imply that germany is somehow similar enough to the us to compare.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.   #  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #  the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.   #  russia has insane amounts of gun control, and their murder rate is ridiculously high.   #  there are almost zero countries that are similar to the us.  look at our black population and culture.  go find me a country in europe that has  that  whole mess going on.  i mean, what exactly is your basis for  isimilar  ? i will bet it goes something like this  full of white people who speak some english .  that is asinine.  we could very much use russia as an example, but you people typically do not allow that because of some silly reasons you ca not accurately articulate.  russia has insane amounts of gun control, and their murder rate is ridiculously high.  russia has some problems that the us will never have, and the us has some problems that sweden will never have, so why is it okay to compare sweden to the us, but not the us to russia, or russia to sweden ? the answer you are looking for, by the way, is  because it does not fit my agenda .  russia is a good example of failed gun control, so you struggle to justify why it is not allowed to be used as an example.  are you telling me that if we picked up the entire black population of the us and moved them to, say, germany, that germany would have absolutely no change in crime rates whatsoever ? because that is exactly what you are saying to me when you imply that germany is somehow similar enough to the us to compare.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.   #  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.   #  we could very much use russia as an example, but you people typically do not allow that because of some silly reasons you ca not accurately articulate.   #  there are almost zero countries that are similar to the us.  look at our black population and culture.  go find me a country in europe that has  that  whole mess going on.  i mean, what exactly is your basis for  isimilar  ? i will bet it goes something like this  full of white people who speak some english .  that is asinine.  we could very much use russia as an example, but you people typically do not allow that because of some silly reasons you ca not accurately articulate.  russia has insane amounts of gun control, and their murder rate is ridiculously high.  russia has some problems that the us will never have, and the us has some problems that sweden will never have, so why is it okay to compare sweden to the us, but not the us to russia, or russia to sweden ? the answer you are looking for, by the way, is  because it does not fit my agenda .  russia is a good example of failed gun control, so you struggle to justify why it is not allowed to be used as an example.  are you telling me that if we picked up the entire black population of the us and moved them to, say, germany, that germany would have absolutely no change in crime rates whatsoever ? because that is exactly what you are saying to me when you imply that germany is somehow similar enough to the us to compare.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ?  # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.   #  there are almost zero countries that are similar to the us.   #  there are almost zero countries that are similar to the us.  look at our black population and culture.  go find me a country in europe that has  that  whole mess going on.  i mean, what exactly is your basis for  isimilar  ? i will bet it goes something like this  full of white people who speak some english .  that is asinine.  we could very much use russia as an example, but you people typically do not allow that because of some silly reasons you ca not accurately articulate.  russia has insane amounts of gun control, and their murder rate is ridiculously high.  russia has some problems that the us will never have, and the us has some problems that sweden will never have, so why is it okay to compare sweden to the us, but not the us to russia, or russia to sweden ? the answer you are looking for, by the way, is  because it does not fit my agenda .  russia is a good example of failed gun control, so you struggle to justify why it is not allowed to be used as an example.  are you telling me that if we picked up the entire black population of the us and moved them to, say, germany, that germany would have absolutely no change in crime rates whatsoever ? because that is exactly what you are saying to me when you imply that germany is somehow similar enough to the us to compare.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.   #  we have the right to purchase guns, but not the right to be provided guns for free.   # we have the right to purchase guns, but not the right to be provided guns for free.  just about every state has some sort of welfare and housing program to help homeless and hungry.  you can go to the library for internet, and education is tax payer funded and available to all.  same with an internal combustion engine.  are you also equating those to bombs ? if merely seeing a gun incites terror, you should seek professional help.  do you scream in terror when you pass by a cop with a gun on his belt ? i am not sure what you consider  massive death , because you wo not get very far shooting a gun at people.  look at the uprisings in places like syria; those people are fighting the federal government and it is military might.  how much trouble did insurgents in iraq cause our powerful military ? you ca not use bombs on your own country when there is only a few people with guns that are opposing you.  open carry is not terrorism.  what is wrong with you ? the people who shot up schools were breaking the laws regarding gun possession and ownership; repealing the second amendment wo not stop those incidents.  i suppose in your mind that murderers and suicidal people will change their mind if gun possession is illegal ?  #  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #  the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.   #  same with an internal combustion engine.  are you also equating those to bombs ?  # we have the right to purchase guns, but not the right to be provided guns for free.  just about every state has some sort of welfare and housing program to help homeless and hungry.  you can go to the library for internet, and education is tax payer funded and available to all.  same with an internal combustion engine.  are you also equating those to bombs ? if merely seeing a gun incites terror, you should seek professional help.  do you scream in terror when you pass by a cop with a gun on his belt ? i am not sure what you consider  massive death , because you wo not get very far shooting a gun at people.  look at the uprisings in places like syria; those people are fighting the federal government and it is military might.  how much trouble did insurgents in iraq cause our powerful military ? you ca not use bombs on your own country when there is only a few people with guns that are opposing you.  open carry is not terrorism.  what is wrong with you ? the people who shot up schools were breaking the laws regarding gun possession and ownership; repealing the second amendment wo not stop those incidents.  i suppose in your mind that murderers and suicidal people will change their mind if gun possession is illegal ?  #  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #  the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.   #  if merely seeing a gun incites terror, you should seek professional help.   # we have the right to purchase guns, but not the right to be provided guns for free.  just about every state has some sort of welfare and housing program to help homeless and hungry.  you can go to the library for internet, and education is tax payer funded and available to all.  same with an internal combustion engine.  are you also equating those to bombs ? if merely seeing a gun incites terror, you should seek professional help.  do you scream in terror when you pass by a cop with a gun on his belt ? i am not sure what you consider  massive death , because you wo not get very far shooting a gun at people.  look at the uprisings in places like syria; those people are fighting the federal government and it is military might.  how much trouble did insurgents in iraq cause our powerful military ? you ca not use bombs on your own country when there is only a few people with guns that are opposing you.  open carry is not terrorism.  what is wrong with you ? the people who shot up schools were breaking the laws regarding gun possession and ownership; repealing the second amendment wo not stop those incidents.  i suppose in your mind that murderers and suicidal people will change their mind if gun possession is illegal ?  #  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.   #  look at the uprisings in places like syria; those people are fighting the federal government and it is military might.   # we have the right to purchase guns, but not the right to be provided guns for free.  just about every state has some sort of welfare and housing program to help homeless and hungry.  you can go to the library for internet, and education is tax payer funded and available to all.  same with an internal combustion engine.  are you also equating those to bombs ? if merely seeing a gun incites terror, you should seek professional help.  do you scream in terror when you pass by a cop with a gun on his belt ? i am not sure what you consider  massive death , because you wo not get very far shooting a gun at people.  look at the uprisings in places like syria; those people are fighting the federal government and it is military might.  how much trouble did insurgents in iraq cause our powerful military ? you ca not use bombs on your own country when there is only a few people with guns that are opposing you.  open carry is not terrorism.  what is wrong with you ? the people who shot up schools were breaking the laws regarding gun possession and ownership; repealing the second amendment wo not stop those incidents.  i suppose in your mind that murderers and suicidal people will change their mind if gun possession is illegal ?  #  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #  the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.   #  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.   # let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  just as a quick side note: you can buy explosives like tannerite and there has not been a rash of people trying to harm others with it.  you can make your own explosives if you really want to and the only thing stopping you is the atf/law enforcement.  this is a really poor comparison and borders on being blatant fear mongering.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  also if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it should be obvious that repealing the 0nd amendment wo not stop people from making zip guns and other improvised/homemade firearms.  the chechens built borzs in small workshops, people in the philippines have been building 0s and other firearms in their garages for a really long time, and the darra arms market has been churning out odd but functional handmade guns at a fairly high rate decades at the bare  minimum.   showing off a gun  sounds like someone would be brandishing it, which carries with it jail time of varying lengths depending on locale.  lots of things can  allow for massive death in a very quick amount of time.   a few years ago, a japanese man drove a truck into a crowded sidewalk.  people start fires in buildings all the time.  someone used chlorine on a furry convention in an attempt to hurt people.  i am not sure how the second amendment allows state fascism if the police, the people who are issued firearms as part of their job, are not issued firearms by virtue of the second amendment.  police officers in other that do not have an equivalent to the second amendment carry firearms, why would us officers discard theirs ? the police shootings are an issue of police training and policies.  if the second amendment was repealed and guns outlawed, i do not know how the cleveland incident would have been handled differently.  if anything the reaction would have been more severe since guns would be extra illegal for a kid to have a firearm out in public, and if open carry is terrorism, what would having something that strongly resembles a firearm out in public be ?  #  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #  the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.   #  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.   # let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  just as a quick side note: you can buy explosives like tannerite and there has not been a rash of people trying to harm others with it.  you can make your own explosives if you really want to and the only thing stopping you is the atf/law enforcement.  this is a really poor comparison and borders on being blatant fear mongering.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  also if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it should be obvious that repealing the 0nd amendment wo not stop people from making zip guns and other improvised/homemade firearms.  the chechens built borzs in small workshops, people in the philippines have been building 0s and other firearms in their garages for a really long time, and the darra arms market has been churning out odd but functional handmade guns at a fairly high rate decades at the bare  minimum.   showing off a gun  sounds like someone would be brandishing it, which carries with it jail time of varying lengths depending on locale.  lots of things can  allow for massive death in a very quick amount of time.   a few years ago, a japanese man drove a truck into a crowded sidewalk.  people start fires in buildings all the time.  someone used chlorine on a furry convention in an attempt to hurt people.  i am not sure how the second amendment allows state fascism if the police, the people who are issued firearms as part of their job, are not issued firearms by virtue of the second amendment.  police officers in other that do not have an equivalent to the second amendment carry firearms, why would us officers discard theirs ? the police shootings are an issue of police training and policies.  if the second amendment was repealed and guns outlawed, i do not know how the cleveland incident would have been handled differently.  if anything the reaction would have been more severe since guns would be extra illegal for a kid to have a firearm out in public, and if open carry is terrorism, what would having something that strongly resembles a firearm out in public be ?  #  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.   #   showing off a gun  sounds like someone would be brandishing it, which carries with it jail time of varying lengths depending on locale.   # let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  just as a quick side note: you can buy explosives like tannerite and there has not been a rash of people trying to harm others with it.  you can make your own explosives if you really want to and the only thing stopping you is the atf/law enforcement.  this is a really poor comparison and borders on being blatant fear mongering.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  also if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it should be obvious that repealing the 0nd amendment wo not stop people from making zip guns and other improvised/homemade firearms.  the chechens built borzs in small workshops, people in the philippines have been building 0s and other firearms in their garages for a really long time, and the darra arms market has been churning out odd but functional handmade guns at a fairly high rate decades at the bare  minimum.   showing off a gun  sounds like someone would be brandishing it, which carries with it jail time of varying lengths depending on locale.  lots of things can  allow for massive death in a very quick amount of time.   a few years ago, a japanese man drove a truck into a crowded sidewalk.  people start fires in buildings all the time.  someone used chlorine on a furry convention in an attempt to hurt people.  i am not sure how the second amendment allows state fascism if the police, the people who are issued firearms as part of their job, are not issued firearms by virtue of the second amendment.  police officers in other that do not have an equivalent to the second amendment carry firearms, why would us officers discard theirs ? the police shootings are an issue of police training and policies.  if the second amendment was repealed and guns outlawed, i do not know how the cleveland incident would have been handled differently.  if anything the reaction would have been more severe since guns would be extra illegal for a kid to have a firearm out in public, and if open carry is terrorism, what would having something that strongly resembles a firearm out in public be ?  #  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.
in 0 the supreme court decided that the right to bear arms means a right to a firearm and yet there is no right to food, housing, internet, education or other items needed to survive.  originally the 0nd amendment was more of a right for a call to arms as i believe, with as much as i have read which was largely changed in the early 0 is due to the national guard.  today the 0nd amendment is useless and only supports a military industrial complex.  let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  because if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it is incredibly similar to an explosive.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  from what i have talked about in the past, i honestly think that the only way my mind could be changed on this is if most gun owners were to agree to an actual revolution vs law enforcement.  or with law enforcement  and  gun owners i am sure there is a good bit of overlap there were to fight the federal government.  since i am very sure this will never happen, the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  the 0nd amendment is self defeating and allows for domestic terrorism open carry, school shootings, 0,0 injuries a year including 0k deaths/suicides and state fascism ferguson, berkeley, nypd, cleveland, massive incarceration of blacks and plenty of police shootings that have gone unreported.   #  i am not sure how the second amendment allows state fascism if the police, the people who are issued firearms as part of their job, are not issued firearms by virtue of the second amendment.   # let is say the original call to arms idiom was the  right to bear bombs  and in the 0th century a national bomb association convinced a generation that having a bomb was your right as per the constitution and for your safety.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  just as a quick side note: you can buy explosives like tannerite and there has not been a rash of people trying to harm others with it.  you can make your own explosives if you really want to and the only thing stopping you is the atf/law enforcement.  this is a really poor comparison and borders on being blatant fear mongering.  it is essentially a high powered hole puncher, but on a much smaller and focused scale.  showing one off can incite terror and it allows for massive death in a very quick amount of time.  also if you look at the very basic workings of a firearm, it should be obvious that repealing the 0nd amendment wo not stop people from making zip guns and other improvised/homemade firearms.  the chechens built borzs in small workshops, people in the philippines have been building 0s and other firearms in their garages for a really long time, and the darra arms market has been churning out odd but functional handmade guns at a fairly high rate decades at the bare  minimum.   showing off a gun  sounds like someone would be brandishing it, which carries with it jail time of varying lengths depending on locale.  lots of things can  allow for massive death in a very quick amount of time.   a few years ago, a japanese man drove a truck into a crowded sidewalk.  people start fires in buildings all the time.  someone used chlorine on a furry convention in an attempt to hurt people.  i am not sure how the second amendment allows state fascism if the police, the people who are issued firearms as part of their job, are not issued firearms by virtue of the second amendment.  police officers in other that do not have an equivalent to the second amendment carry firearms, why would us officers discard theirs ? the police shootings are an issue of police training and policies.  if the second amendment was repealed and guns outlawed, i do not know how the cleveland incident would have been handled differently.  if anything the reaction would have been more severe since guns would be extra illegal for a kid to have a firearm out in public, and if open carry is terrorism, what would having something that strongly resembles a firearm out in public be ?  #  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.   # that comparison makes no sense.  i have a right to possess a gun, i am not entitled to one.  if i have it, it ca not be taken without the same legal process that would apply to any property like a house or a modem .  and you actually are essentially  required  to attend school of some kind, so i do not know what your point is here.  i would be interested to see what you are reading because i have literally never heard that characterization.  even gun control advocates generally suggest that the 0nd amendment was intended to support organized militias that were supplanted by a standing military and national guardsmen who render the amendment pointless.  beyond that, a  call to arms  interpretation would make the 0nd entirely redundant to the 0st.  we would have to assume those who wrote the amendment were both stupid and obtuse to include this redundancy and conceal it with language that made it seem a great deal like something else.  firearm manufacturers make surprisingly little off the military or government contracts because firearms are at the cheap end of the cost spectrum.  lockheed martin is the military industrial complex, not remington.  remington makes a lot more money off of civilian purchase than military contract.  surely bomb sales would go up and people would think that explosives were as much a right as firearms are now.  this is pretty obvious nonsense; or it makes as much sense as arguing the same thing with  the right to bear pillows  or  the right to bear harpoons .  the obvious reason the original idiom was not the  right to bear bombs  is that they were referring broadly to military weapons, the most common being firearms.  they used the word that referred to what they were talking about instead of a word that did not refer to what they were talking about.  if someone is scared when they see a gun, a highway ought to have them catatonic on the floor.  cars are much more likely to kill them.  you could make a tenuous argument that something that evokes terror should be called terrorism, but the connotation of terrorism involves intentional action against a group or individual with the intent of affecting political or social change by inflicting terror.  open carry is not that, because those who do so are not intending to scare people.  many are explicitly trying to do the opposite: to acclimate others to the presence of guns so they wo not fear them.  school shootings are arguably a form of terrorism, but they generally are not acts of political terrorism.  they are expressions of mental illness.  accidents that result in injury or death cannot possibly be termed terrorism while using the word accurately.  how is the 0nd amendment creating these things ? these are the results of police policy and law enforcement as a whole, not the 0nd amendment.   #  history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.   # history stands as evidence that all governments  can  abuse their power; most governments throughout history have held and used power in ways most modern westerners would find unconscionable.  the current stability and peace enjoyed by the us and europe is a historical novelty that is barely half a century old.  i am not suggesting that private gun ownership is even necessary for a state that respects rights, only that the right ought to be maintained in case the state stops respecting rights.  and considering that the vast, vast majority of  untrained and average  gun owners never hurt anyone, i am disinclined to punish them for what other people do or to limit a right for everyone because a small minority use it irresponsibly.  not being that case.  you are errantly assuming that you can just correlate gun ownership with your measures of state functionality and make the point.  government conduct is determined by more than private gun ownership; if that were not the case democracy would be fairly useless.   #  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   # the murder rate in us is considerably higher than that of similar nations wealthy, stable governments, similar culture.  .  it might not be only due to the presence of guns, but i am sure a device designed only to put pieces of metal through others does not effectively contribute to make things safer.   the vast majority  is just a statistical trick to hide an inflated murder rate.  well i do not mean correlation implies causality, but a lack of correlation refutes the claim that there is some causality.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.   #  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.   # that was neither my claim nor their purpose, so i do not see how this is relevant to my argument.  i do not consider maximized safety to be the sole purpose of law.  . no, it is a valid assessment of how many gun owners actually hurt people.  the vast majority of gun owners will never harm anyone and regularly exercise their rights without putting others in danger.  it is not a trick to point out that restricting this right will primarily affect people who did nothing to warrant the restriction.  it is you who made the claim  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  and i still have not been pointed, in many of these discussions, with any evidence that this is in effect true.  did you quote the right line ? because i think  a secure and prosperous populace is least likely to resist government authority  is fairly self evident.  if i live in a state and am wealthy and secure, i have no reason to resist that state because i am content.  this is evidenced in european states that have high standards of living and strict gun control.  the swedes do not violently resist the government because their government is functioning to their satisfaction.  not so with say. poor and disenfranchised ferguson protesters.  violent resistance to the state logically correlates with the state is ability to make the people content.
i live in a relatively conservative country.  women do not normally wear skimpy dresses or stay out in the wee hours.  now if a woman is out in a bar  flaunting her stuff  and gets mauled at the back of the bar, no doubt the fucking rapist should burn in hell.  but at the back of my mind i ask, what was the girl doing there ? why was she dressed that way ? why was she dancing so provocatively ? she chose to be there knowing full well that she will attract the wrong kinds of attention.  why would you go swimming with a gaping wound at your side, when these waters are known to be shark infested ? recently, i found out that my colleague was raped.  this was months after the fact.  of course, we offered her help and support.  of course, we consoled her and shared her pain.  but i know her.  and her penchant for dressing in a way that will make your eyes pop out.  and i know her hangouts, these are not the places you would want to be seen come daylight.  i know that i  should  not be entertaining those questions at the back of my mind.  i know that i  should  feel nothing but sympathy and give nothing but my full support.  please change my view.   #  why would you go swimming with a gaping wound at your side, when these waters are known to be shark infested ?  #  sharks are not thinking people, so i would take precautions to reduce my risk.   # why was she dressed that way ? why was she dancing so provocatively ? she chose to be there knowing full well that she will attract the wrong kinds of attention.  can you take measures to reduce the likelihood of being raped ? yes.  does the fact that you did not take those measures make it your fault ? no.  the reason for this is that rape is due to the actions of another person.  this is not like wearing a helmet or looking both ways before you cross the street.  another thinking person is making the choice to rape someone, and that is wrong.  these women are not wearing  rape me  signs, so why do you think it is their fault ? does being provocative mean you want to be raped ? does wearing skimpy clothes mean you want to be raped ? sharks are not thinking people, so i would take precautions to reduce my risk.  and her penchant for dressing in a way that will make your eyes pop out.  and i know her hangouts, these are not the places you would want to be seen come daylight.  why does how you dress or where you go make it  less bad  to be raped ? they are not going to rape clubs or wearing clothes to indicate they want to be raped.  they expect to be treated like a feeling and independent person wherever they are, and that expectation should not be lifted because of style or location.   #  this is something that rapists make an active choice to do, and in many cases the state of the victim at the time is absolutely irrelevant.   # why was she dressed that way ? why was she dancing so provocatively ? she was there because she wanted to be.  she was dressed that way because she was going out to have a good time, and felt that she could dress less conservatively than she would be able to in other settings.  she was dancing the way that she was because she wanted to have a good time.  none of that is an invitation to rape.  none of that makes a rape understandable.  none of that makes a rape acceptable.  all the blame should rest on the individual that actually committed the act.  it was their choice to rape.  nobody put a gun to their head and said  you need to rape this woman.   they made the active decision to rape a person, and force the other party to have non consensual sex.  this is an awful analogy.  sharks do not control their behavior the way that people do.  when sharks smell blood in the water and go after prey, they are acting on an instinct that they ca not control.  there is no  rape switch  in somebody is brain that makes people rape when they see a woman walking down an alley ignoring the fact that this is the minority of cases of rape, for now .  this is an active choice made by an individual to perform an action.  not to mention 0 of sexual assaults are planned in advance.  URL this is not some kind of instinctual, automatic reaction.  this is something that rapists make an active choice to do, and in many cases the state of the victim at the time is absolutely irrelevant.  and her penchant for dressing in a way that will make your eyes pop out.  and i know her hangouts, these are not the places you would want to be seen come daylight.  do you even know who raped her ? was it a stranger, or was it somebody she knew ? because statistically, 0 of rapes in the us are committed by somebody the person knew.  URL however, even if she was raped by a stranger, her actions are irrelevant because none of the actions forced somebody to want to rape her.   #  furthermore, why is there the need to attribute blame to a victim ?  #  just to add, the whole shark/lion/predator analogy is awful.  it paints women as prey but, moreover, it illustrates men as creatures with an uncontrollable lust for flesh it is inevitable that they would rape.  that is  horrible .  spouting any analogy like that is actually discrediting to yourself.  your final point about the rapist is spot on.  if i get raped by a close friend, what good is it telling me that i am partially to blame as i invited him into my home.  what is your solution ? never get close with anyone ? no that is silly, so let is change the solution to  do not be close with men  yet, women rape too.  so  never be close with anyone ever  is the only way not to get raped.  but even that is not a sure thing, what with date rape drugs and other methods.  furthermore, why is there the need to attribute blame to a victim ? what the fuck ? how does that solve/add to/help  anything  ? how about supporting the victim, regardless of the circumstances ? even if it was their fault, what good does it do to bring it up ?  #  i ca not imagine finding 0k lying around and not walking off with it provided there would be no consequences.   #  what about thievery ? am i painting all people as potential thieves when i choose to avoid walking in a crime heavy area with blingy clothing and a wad of cash on me or i if live in an expensive mansion full of expensive items and choose to have a security system ? no.  not all men are rapists who are just animals, but some are unfortunately.  not all people are thieves who jump at any chance for extra dollar signs but some are unfortunately.  hell, there are people who have found big wads of cash lying around and they located the rightful owners and gave it to them.  how much temptation could they have faced ? i ca not imagine finding 0k lying around and not walking off with it provided there would be no consequences.  does not mean i am going to leave my moneybag lying around in some public area then get pissed when it is not there at the end of the day.  the idea that someone can partially blamed for their rape or robbery does not automatically paint all men as rapists or all people as thieves.  most people are not potential thieves and most men are not potential rapists but all it takes is one bad apple and if you have chosen not to take precautions against said bad apples.  you have to remember, there is always one asshole.   #  i might drive someone over the edge and lead to my rape.   #  driving over the edge ? this is still on the person as well.  if a child was changing in a locker room it could drive a pedophile over the edge.  is that child responsible ? going back to women.  if a woman wears a tight dress that does not give anyone any right to rape her.  what she wears does not matter.  should she have to pick her outfits in order not to turn on potential rapists ? nope, i ca not wear this dress.  i might drive someone over the edge and lead to my rape.
i live in a relatively conservative country.  women do not normally wear skimpy dresses or stay out in the wee hours.  now if a woman is out in a bar  flaunting her stuff  and gets mauled at the back of the bar, no doubt the fucking rapist should burn in hell.  but at the back of my mind i ask, what was the girl doing there ? why was she dressed that way ? why was she dancing so provocatively ? she chose to be there knowing full well that she will attract the wrong kinds of attention.  why would you go swimming with a gaping wound at your side, when these waters are known to be shark infested ? recently, i found out that my colleague was raped.  this was months after the fact.  of course, we offered her help and support.  of course, we consoled her and shared her pain.  but i know her.  and her penchant for dressing in a way that will make your eyes pop out.  and i know her hangouts, these are not the places you would want to be seen come daylight.  i know that i  should  not be entertaining those questions at the back of my mind.  i know that i  should  feel nothing but sympathy and give nothing but my full support.  please change my view.   #  she chose to be there knowing full well that she will attract the wrong kinds of attention.   #  here is where the issue comes in.   # why was she dressed that way ? why was she dancing so provocatively ? maybe she is there for the same reason everyone else is there ? to have fun and enjoy themselves in a social yet safe environment.  here is where the issue comes in.  you have a problem with her  making a situation  where a rapist cannot control themselves.  we as a society have agreed that people are in charge of their actions and that rapists are not mindless individuals who simply react to stimuli.  it is not her responsibility to act in a way that makes mindless zombies behave, because we do not believe people are mindless zombies.  the  situation  occurs when someone decides to act out as the rapist.  so we are really comparing rapists and men in general to a group of predator animals that have little cognitive ability and definitely no moral reprehensions ? and her penchant for dressing in a way that will make your eyes pop out.  and i know her hangouts, these are not the places you would want to be seen come daylight.  and yet, they are places that people believe are safe.  possibly some of it is out of naivety, but any owner of a hangout is also going to do their best to make it seem that way.  nobody is going to say  yea, i would not come here if i were you.  this place is dangerous !  .  people have to be responsible for their actions.  women are allowed to wear these items and go to these places because society agrees that they should be safe and that these items do not give acceptance to rape.  would be rapists are the ones that break the law and they are the ones that ultimately make the decision.  not to mention, studies have shown that they tend to attack people who wear  less  provocative outfits because they are the  easier  targets.  so really, is someone wearing less revealing clothing to blame for being raped ?  #  she was there because she wanted to be.   # why was she dressed that way ? why was she dancing so provocatively ? she was there because she wanted to be.  she was dressed that way because she was going out to have a good time, and felt that she could dress less conservatively than she would be able to in other settings.  she was dancing the way that she was because she wanted to have a good time.  none of that is an invitation to rape.  none of that makes a rape understandable.  none of that makes a rape acceptable.  all the blame should rest on the individual that actually committed the act.  it was their choice to rape.  nobody put a gun to their head and said  you need to rape this woman.   they made the active decision to rape a person, and force the other party to have non consensual sex.  this is an awful analogy.  sharks do not control their behavior the way that people do.  when sharks smell blood in the water and go after prey, they are acting on an instinct that they ca not control.  there is no  rape switch  in somebody is brain that makes people rape when they see a woman walking down an alley ignoring the fact that this is the minority of cases of rape, for now .  this is an active choice made by an individual to perform an action.  not to mention 0 of sexual assaults are planned in advance.  URL this is not some kind of instinctual, automatic reaction.  this is something that rapists make an active choice to do, and in many cases the state of the victim at the time is absolutely irrelevant.  and her penchant for dressing in a way that will make your eyes pop out.  and i know her hangouts, these are not the places you would want to be seen come daylight.  do you even know who raped her ? was it a stranger, or was it somebody she knew ? because statistically, 0 of rapes in the us are committed by somebody the person knew.  URL however, even if she was raped by a stranger, her actions are irrelevant because none of the actions forced somebody to want to rape her.   #  furthermore, why is there the need to attribute blame to a victim ?  #  just to add, the whole shark/lion/predator analogy is awful.  it paints women as prey but, moreover, it illustrates men as creatures with an uncontrollable lust for flesh it is inevitable that they would rape.  that is  horrible .  spouting any analogy like that is actually discrediting to yourself.  your final point about the rapist is spot on.  if i get raped by a close friend, what good is it telling me that i am partially to blame as i invited him into my home.  what is your solution ? never get close with anyone ? no that is silly, so let is change the solution to  do not be close with men  yet, women rape too.  so  never be close with anyone ever  is the only way not to get raped.  but even that is not a sure thing, what with date rape drugs and other methods.  furthermore, why is there the need to attribute blame to a victim ? what the fuck ? how does that solve/add to/help  anything  ? how about supporting the victim, regardless of the circumstances ? even if it was their fault, what good does it do to bring it up ?  #  the idea that someone can partially blamed for their rape or robbery does not automatically paint all men as rapists or all people as thieves.   #  what about thievery ? am i painting all people as potential thieves when i choose to avoid walking in a crime heavy area with blingy clothing and a wad of cash on me or i if live in an expensive mansion full of expensive items and choose to have a security system ? no.  not all men are rapists who are just animals, but some are unfortunately.  not all people are thieves who jump at any chance for extra dollar signs but some are unfortunately.  hell, there are people who have found big wads of cash lying around and they located the rightful owners and gave it to them.  how much temptation could they have faced ? i ca not imagine finding 0k lying around and not walking off with it provided there would be no consequences.  does not mean i am going to leave my moneybag lying around in some public area then get pissed when it is not there at the end of the day.  the idea that someone can partially blamed for their rape or robbery does not automatically paint all men as rapists or all people as thieves.  most people are not potential thieves and most men are not potential rapists but all it takes is one bad apple and if you have chosen not to take precautions against said bad apples.  you have to remember, there is always one asshole.   #  if a woman wears a tight dress that does not give anyone any right to rape her.   #  driving over the edge ? this is still on the person as well.  if a child was changing in a locker room it could drive a pedophile over the edge.  is that child responsible ? going back to women.  if a woman wears a tight dress that does not give anyone any right to rape her.  what she wears does not matter.  should she have to pick her outfits in order not to turn on potential rapists ? nope, i ca not wear this dress.  i might drive someone over the edge and lead to my rape.
i live in a relatively conservative country.  women do not normally wear skimpy dresses or stay out in the wee hours.  now if a woman is out in a bar  flaunting her stuff  and gets mauled at the back of the bar, no doubt the fucking rapist should burn in hell.  but at the back of my mind i ask, what was the girl doing there ? why was she dressed that way ? why was she dancing so provocatively ? she chose to be there knowing full well that she will attract the wrong kinds of attention.  why would you go swimming with a gaping wound at your side, when these waters are known to be shark infested ? recently, i found out that my colleague was raped.  this was months after the fact.  of course, we offered her help and support.  of course, we consoled her and shared her pain.  but i know her.  and her penchant for dressing in a way that will make your eyes pop out.  and i know her hangouts, these are not the places you would want to be seen come daylight.  i know that i  should  not be entertaining those questions at the back of my mind.  i know that i  should  feel nothing but sympathy and give nothing but my full support.  please change my view.   #  why would you go swimming with a gaping wound at your side, when these waters are known to be shark infested ?  #  so we are really comparing rapists and men in general to a group of predator animals that have little cognitive ability and definitely no moral reprehensions ?  # why was she dressed that way ? why was she dancing so provocatively ? maybe she is there for the same reason everyone else is there ? to have fun and enjoy themselves in a social yet safe environment.  here is where the issue comes in.  you have a problem with her  making a situation  where a rapist cannot control themselves.  we as a society have agreed that people are in charge of their actions and that rapists are not mindless individuals who simply react to stimuli.  it is not her responsibility to act in a way that makes mindless zombies behave, because we do not believe people are mindless zombies.  the  situation  occurs when someone decides to act out as the rapist.  so we are really comparing rapists and men in general to a group of predator animals that have little cognitive ability and definitely no moral reprehensions ? and her penchant for dressing in a way that will make your eyes pop out.  and i know her hangouts, these are not the places you would want to be seen come daylight.  and yet, they are places that people believe are safe.  possibly some of it is out of naivety, but any owner of a hangout is also going to do their best to make it seem that way.  nobody is going to say  yea, i would not come here if i were you.  this place is dangerous !  .  people have to be responsible for their actions.  women are allowed to wear these items and go to these places because society agrees that they should be safe and that these items do not give acceptance to rape.  would be rapists are the ones that break the law and they are the ones that ultimately make the decision.  not to mention, studies have shown that they tend to attack people who wear  less  provocative outfits because they are the  easier  targets.  so really, is someone wearing less revealing clothing to blame for being raped ?  #  she was there because she wanted to be.   # why was she dressed that way ? why was she dancing so provocatively ? she was there because she wanted to be.  she was dressed that way because she was going out to have a good time, and felt that she could dress less conservatively than she would be able to in other settings.  she was dancing the way that she was because she wanted to have a good time.  none of that is an invitation to rape.  none of that makes a rape understandable.  none of that makes a rape acceptable.  all the blame should rest on the individual that actually committed the act.  it was their choice to rape.  nobody put a gun to their head and said  you need to rape this woman.   they made the active decision to rape a person, and force the other party to have non consensual sex.  this is an awful analogy.  sharks do not control their behavior the way that people do.  when sharks smell blood in the water and go after prey, they are acting on an instinct that they ca not control.  there is no  rape switch  in somebody is brain that makes people rape when they see a woman walking down an alley ignoring the fact that this is the minority of cases of rape, for now .  this is an active choice made by an individual to perform an action.  not to mention 0 of sexual assaults are planned in advance.  URL this is not some kind of instinctual, automatic reaction.  this is something that rapists make an active choice to do, and in many cases the state of the victim at the time is absolutely irrelevant.  and her penchant for dressing in a way that will make your eyes pop out.  and i know her hangouts, these are not the places you would want to be seen come daylight.  do you even know who raped her ? was it a stranger, or was it somebody she knew ? because statistically, 0 of rapes in the us are committed by somebody the person knew.  URL however, even if she was raped by a stranger, her actions are irrelevant because none of the actions forced somebody to want to rape her.   #  if i get raped by a close friend, what good is it telling me that i am partially to blame as i invited him into my home.   #  just to add, the whole shark/lion/predator analogy is awful.  it paints women as prey but, moreover, it illustrates men as creatures with an uncontrollable lust for flesh it is inevitable that they would rape.  that is  horrible .  spouting any analogy like that is actually discrediting to yourself.  your final point about the rapist is spot on.  if i get raped by a close friend, what good is it telling me that i am partially to blame as i invited him into my home.  what is your solution ? never get close with anyone ? no that is silly, so let is change the solution to  do not be close with men  yet, women rape too.  so  never be close with anyone ever  is the only way not to get raped.  but even that is not a sure thing, what with date rape drugs and other methods.  furthermore, why is there the need to attribute blame to a victim ? what the fuck ? how does that solve/add to/help  anything  ? how about supporting the victim, regardless of the circumstances ? even if it was their fault, what good does it do to bring it up ?  #  not all people are thieves who jump at any chance for extra dollar signs but some are unfortunately.   #  what about thievery ? am i painting all people as potential thieves when i choose to avoid walking in a crime heavy area with blingy clothing and a wad of cash on me or i if live in an expensive mansion full of expensive items and choose to have a security system ? no.  not all men are rapists who are just animals, but some are unfortunately.  not all people are thieves who jump at any chance for extra dollar signs but some are unfortunately.  hell, there are people who have found big wads of cash lying around and they located the rightful owners and gave it to them.  how much temptation could they have faced ? i ca not imagine finding 0k lying around and not walking off with it provided there would be no consequences.  does not mean i am going to leave my moneybag lying around in some public area then get pissed when it is not there at the end of the day.  the idea that someone can partially blamed for their rape or robbery does not automatically paint all men as rapists or all people as thieves.  most people are not potential thieves and most men are not potential rapists but all it takes is one bad apple and if you have chosen not to take precautions against said bad apples.  you have to remember, there is always one asshole.   #  if a woman wears a tight dress that does not give anyone any right to rape her.   #  driving over the edge ? this is still on the person as well.  if a child was changing in a locker room it could drive a pedophile over the edge.  is that child responsible ? going back to women.  if a woman wears a tight dress that does not give anyone any right to rape her.  what she wears does not matter.  should she have to pick her outfits in order not to turn on potential rapists ? nope, i ca not wear this dress.  i might drive someone over the edge and lead to my rape.
disclaimer:  i am not saying he is being falsely accused nor am i saying he is guilty  i have been thinking a lot about how i would react if i was falsely accused of a heinous crime, and i am currently of the opinion that  no comment  is the best way to go about it.  here is how i see it: 0.  the media is dying to find more to print, and anything you say will add to their word bank.  if you would like them to move on to a new topic or target, defending yourself in public will just make that take longer.  it will pop back up every so often, but if you respond each time it will prolong the episode.  0.  yes, staying silent will make it so you wo not get  your side  of the story out there, but there is really nothing you can say that ca not come back and bite you in the butt.  in my experience, the media frequently gets a quote wrong, and that can sink your odds of winning in the court of public opinion.  but there is also a decent chance that you will misspeak and have to correct yourself either on the spot or after the fact .   that  will certainly knock you down a few levels instead of helping you climb out of the pit you are in.  0.  denying the allegations puts you in the awkward position of calling someone a liar.  and not just someone in the abstract, someone who everyone knows and feels sympathy for.  personally denying the allegations are true puts your face and your voice in front of the  these people are lying  message, and that is not going to do you any favors.  so there it is ! convince me that i do not understand how pr works and set me straight !  #  denying the allegations puts you in the awkward position of calling someone a liar.   #  they are suing you and you are fighting it so eventually you will have to say they are lying.   #  why does not he counter sue those that sued him for defamation of character or something similar.  that way their lawyers will say  do not say anything in public since it could only hurt you.   and now both parties will be quiet, the story dies and it gets all worked out in the courts.  they are suing you and you are fighting it so eventually you will have to say they are lying.  you are not helping your case in the court of public opinion by not saying it in a very public way early on.   #  no comment tend to mean that could make a comment, but are holding back for some reason.   #  i do not really think that the phrase no comment does what you think it might do.  if here someone say no comment that does not stop me form caring.  that makes me wonder what they are hiding.  no comment tend to mean that could make a comment, but are holding back for some reason.  i doubt that most people when they hear the phrase no comment are 0 percent satisfied with that answer.  i think that cosby says at this point is not really carrying on the story.  it is all the women from multiple different years saying that cosby did all this stuff.  it is the guy who said that he was paid to give these women ush money.  that is driving the story.  if i hear cosby answer no comment when asked why are all these women saying these things about you, my ear perk.   #  it is a something he ca not win.  so the best thing he can do is just not play.   #  that is exactly how i reacted when he kept refusing to talk about it.  but after wondering what i would do if i knew i was innocent but was falsely accused of something, i could not think of an effective way to handle it that would not end up making things worse.  i do not know if it is a case of  the devil you know is better than the devil you do not  or not, but for him to change it from a monologue to a dialogue could go in any number of directions.  as of right now, the story boils down to multiple people have accused him of something heinous; he refuses to talk about it.  if he tells his side, reporters will then go to each accusers for their reaction and thoughts, and then back to him for his.  when it comes down to who believes whom in a situation like that, there is no way cosby is going to convince people.  it is a something he ca not win.  so the best thing he can do is just not play.   #  i had started to form my opinion on this before the defamation suit, and i admit its existence does add a new element.   # collectively we tend to be predisposed to believe the accuser in a situation like this.  i think if he were to counter sue it would rile up the public even more.  you are not helping your case in the court of public opinion by not saying it in a very public way early on.  i had started to form my opinion on this before the defamation suit, and i admit its existence does add a new element.  i find that suit to be troubling in its implications on our legal system, but i do believe it is possible for him to continue to let his lawyers do his denying and personally stay out of it, even during the hearing if it goes that far.  if it does get all the way to a hearing, maybe breaking his silence would be in order.   #  possible or what a falsely accused celebrity would do ?  # counter suing would just be one boring legal statement and then it gets both parties to shut up.  the public might be riled up more but then it would end.  the final word including public opinion would be then from the courts, which is what a falsely accused person would want he stops fuel for the court of public opinion.  possible or what a falsely accused celebrity would do ? i am not sure what silence gains that a simple statement  i look forward to successfully defending myself in court.   directly from him would not.
disclaimer:  i am not saying he is being falsely accused nor am i saying he is guilty  i have been thinking a lot about how i would react if i was falsely accused of a heinous crime, and i am currently of the opinion that  no comment  is the best way to go about it.  here is how i see it: 0.  the media is dying to find more to print, and anything you say will add to their word bank.  if you would like them to move on to a new topic or target, defending yourself in public will just make that take longer.  it will pop back up every so often, but if you respond each time it will prolong the episode.  0.  yes, staying silent will make it so you wo not get  your side  of the story out there, but there is really nothing you can say that ca not come back and bite you in the butt.  in my experience, the media frequently gets a quote wrong, and that can sink your odds of winning in the court of public opinion.  but there is also a decent chance that you will misspeak and have to correct yourself either on the spot or after the fact .   that  will certainly knock you down a few levels instead of helping you climb out of the pit you are in.  0.  denying the allegations puts you in the awkward position of calling someone a liar.  and not just someone in the abstract, someone who everyone knows and feels sympathy for.  personally denying the allegations are true puts your face and your voice in front of the  these people are lying  message, and that is not going to do you any favors.  so there it is ! convince me that i do not understand how pr works and set me straight !  #  denying the allegations puts you in the awkward position of calling someone a liar.   #  you absolutely should call them liars if you are wrongly accused.   #  well, that is one way to look at it.  assuming i am innocent, i would instantly go on the offensive and use the press to spread the message in no uncertain terms that those fucking liers should go fuck themselves, and that i would absolutely sue them for defamation.  i would relentlessly hunt them down legally speaking of course , drag them to court and keep on re suing them if at all possible for the rest of their lives regardless of if they have paid compensation or spent time in prison thanks to their false accusations.  there are disgusting people, and then there are scum who destroy other peoples  lives for frivolous fucking reasons.  you absolutely should call them liars if you are wrongly accused.   #  i do not really think that the phrase no comment does what you think it might do.   #  i do not really think that the phrase no comment does what you think it might do.  if here someone say no comment that does not stop me form caring.  that makes me wonder what they are hiding.  no comment tend to mean that could make a comment, but are holding back for some reason.  i doubt that most people when they hear the phrase no comment are 0 percent satisfied with that answer.  i think that cosby says at this point is not really carrying on the story.  it is all the women from multiple different years saying that cosby did all this stuff.  it is the guy who said that he was paid to give these women ush money.  that is driving the story.  if i hear cosby answer no comment when asked why are all these women saying these things about you, my ear perk.   #  but after wondering what i would do if i knew i was innocent but was falsely accused of something, i could not think of an effective way to handle it that would not end up making things worse.   #  that is exactly how i reacted when he kept refusing to talk about it.  but after wondering what i would do if i knew i was innocent but was falsely accused of something, i could not think of an effective way to handle it that would not end up making things worse.  i do not know if it is a case of  the devil you know is better than the devil you do not  or not, but for him to change it from a monologue to a dialogue could go in any number of directions.  as of right now, the story boils down to multiple people have accused him of something heinous; he refuses to talk about it.  if he tells his side, reporters will then go to each accusers for their reaction and thoughts, and then back to him for his.  when it comes down to who believes whom in a situation like that, there is no way cosby is going to convince people.  it is a something he ca not win.  so the best thing he can do is just not play.   #  they are suing you and you are fighting it so eventually you will have to say they are lying.   #  why does not he counter sue those that sued him for defamation of character or something similar.  that way their lawyers will say  do not say anything in public since it could only hurt you.   and now both parties will be quiet, the story dies and it gets all worked out in the courts.  they are suing you and you are fighting it so eventually you will have to say they are lying.  you are not helping your case in the court of public opinion by not saying it in a very public way early on.   #  you are not helping your case in the court of public opinion by not saying it in a very public way early on.   # collectively we tend to be predisposed to believe the accuser in a situation like this.  i think if he were to counter sue it would rile up the public even more.  you are not helping your case in the court of public opinion by not saying it in a very public way early on.  i had started to form my opinion on this before the defamation suit, and i admit its existence does add a new element.  i find that suit to be troubling in its implications on our legal system, but i do believe it is possible for him to continue to let his lawyers do his denying and personally stay out of it, even during the hearing if it goes that far.  if it does get all the way to a hearing, maybe breaking his silence would be in order.
i am seeing a lot of people on reddit and social media in general saying that cancelling the release of  the interview  is giving in to terrorists and wrong.  looking at it, why is showing the movie a reasonable option.  if there is any risk to any lives, it is not worth two hours of comedy to me.  sony/movie theaters had two choices: 0.  air the movie, make millions, even more than originally predicted due to the added hype.  at the risk of their employees and customers.  there is also the added risk here of someone  random  not even related to the situation bombing a theater just for the publicity.  0.  cancel the movie and take a huge sunk cost to protect their company images and employees.  sony and theaters are the only ones losing in this situation, so their decision is much more informed than ours.  why is cancelling it wrong ?  #  if there is any risk to any lives, it is not worth two hours of comedy to me.   #  no one is being forced to see it.   # no one is being forced to see it.  if you think its a serious risk you can not go see it.  everyone at risk is knowingly taking the risk.  when we allow violent people to make demands and control the way we live our lives, we set a precedent for them to continue doing it.  by not airing the movie we are losing freedom and we are sending a message that we are willing to lose more if people keep threatening us.  canceling the movie is like a kid giving into a schoolyard bully is demands.  if the kid stood up for himself he might get a few bumps and bruises but he wouldnt be able to be pushed around anymore.   #  if you spend time and money on a project with the idea that you will be able to show it to the world, you want to be able to do that.   #  their feelings matter because there is more to life than receiving money in a contract.  if you spend time and money on a project with the idea that you will be able to show it to the world, you want to be able to do that.  you want to take pride in your work.  this is kind of like saying that a basketball player who says he can underwater basketweave can probably do so, because they can have both skillsets.  i mean, there is literally no overlap between being able to hack a computer and being able to bomb a theater.  people is computers get hacked all the time you probably heard about the naked celebrity photos ? why would you expect them to be able to detonate a bomb ? further, do you expect that north korea would really risk a complete annihilation over a comedy film ? the idea that the threat was credible is just absurd.   #  if i understand your view correctly, you are saying that, in this case, the threat was much larger than usual.   # i do not think they had anything to do with any of this.  it is actually been announced.  the fbi confirmed it URL and the justice department is expected to elaborate tomorrow.  this is relevant.  everyone has a threat of a bomb attack every time they go anywhere, but the threat is usually miniscule.  if i understand your view correctly, you are saying that, in this case, the threat was much larger than usual.  do you really feel that either a north korea is willing to commit an act of war over a movie, or b random internet hackers with no state support are capable of bombing a movie theater without being caught ?  #  some number of theaters get bombed and people actually die.   #  let me try to phrase my view differently, since you appear to actually care about this instead of just saying  because north korea is a joke .  thanks by the way sony was hacked by someone and threatened to stop the interview from showing.  the someone is fairly irrelevant to my stance, on the basis that if anyone were to bomb or shoot up, or anything any theater that is showing the interview, it would get instant media recognition as being related to the threat to sony.  so now there is a few things that could happen 0.  the threats were entirely empty.  the media recognition makes the interview a huge movie.  conspiracy theorists wonder if sony has an insane pr department 0.  the threats were not empty.  some number of theaters get bombed and people actually die.  sony could now be responsible since they did not respond to the threats.  gotta love overly legislative americans.  0.  the public threats were empty, but some private ones were not.  more sony secrets get leaked, sony stock tanks and their business is heavily effected.  the only positive spin they can take is  we did not give in to terrorists  0.  the threats were empty, but some arbitrary person decided to get their 0 minutes of fame in a terrible way aurora shootings or take out some grudge on sony disgruntled employee sony still gets the terrible pr and blame, but slightly less so after some investigation.  it looks like people only see scenario 0 and 0, i really think scenario 0 or 0 would happen.   #  i think most people would want it released, and thats why it should be released.   # anything that happens to a theater probably wo not be isolated to just one screen but rather the entire theater complex.  also the workers are in danger.  none of them are forced to be in that situation though.  if you think its a serious danger you are welcome to leave your job or not go to the theatre at all.  i think most people would want it released, and thats why it should be released.  yes there is a superficial danger but your risk of getting bombed over this is far less likely than the risk of driving a car yet people do not think twice about driving.
you will have to excuse my callousness on some of these examples.  i am trying to look at the issues logically and not passionately.  i am talking about things like the new  glutton free  trends or the panic over peanut allergies vs.  the obesity epidemic or vehicle related deaths.  we  know  that more people will die from being overweight than from allergies, but there is more media and social attention spent on things that, in reality, only matter to a very small portion of society while we all but ignore the ugly truths that have an impact on  far  more people.  to further the example: from the numbers i have found, maybe 0 0 individuals in the nation this year will die from an allergic reactions to food.  this includes  all  allergic reactions to  all  age ranges.  however, children are not allowed to bring  anything  containing peanuts to school out of some paranoia that a child might come into contact and die from anaphylaxis.  statistically, a child has an equal probability of being killed in a bus accident as dying from a peanut butter sandwich, yet there has been no national campaign to end buses or really change them at all.  here is a bigger issue: we  know  more people died as a result of smoking, driving, over eating, and gun related injuries than from any domestic terrorist action annually even in 0 , so why have we spent trillions to  keep america safe  on something that has only had an effect on so few ? if we had spent the same amount of money on any of these other issues we likely would have lowered the preventable deaths in this country significantly.  there  are  big issues out there, and they  do  get attention.  however, there are also a lot of trumped up issues that are statistically less of a problem than their supporters would have you believe.   #  : from the numbers i have found, maybe 0 0 individuals in the nation this year will die from an allergic reactions to food.   #  this includes all allergic reactions to all age ranges.   # this includes all allergic reactions to all age ranges.  however, children are not allowed to bring anything containing peanuts to school out of some paranoia that a child might come into contact and die from anaphylaxis.  statistically, a child has an equal probability of being killed in a bus accident as dying from a peanut butter sandwich, yet there has been no national campaign to end buses or really change them at all.  how many allergy deaths would there be if kids were allowed to bring anything to school ? it is thanks to the medical discovery of allergies, and inventions like the epi pen, that there are only 0 deaths a year.  well, we ca not end buses.  we can ask people to stop using peanut butter where it could kill somebody.   #  even if the child does not die the parents would still have an expensive visit to the hospital just because we were not doing what we should.   #  looking at a peanut is a slight figure of speech.  however direct or even indirect exposure is not.  few people go in the ana.  shock with exposure to those substances.  my niece has celiac disease.  she is not going to die in 0 min if she has wheat.  if we stopped worrying about those things then that student would be a greater risk for peanut exposure.  thankfully i know a lot about epi pens from my time as a hiking trip leader, but not everyone does.  if she has a exposure that we handle perfectly this still means she has a trip to the hospital in her future.  even if i do everything correct and a plug her with the epi pen she still has 0 min in order to have ems fill her with antihistamines.  if there is one link in this chain that does not work then i could have one less student in my classroom.  the reason that the numbers are so down is because we do take these precautions.  kids are having a lot more allergies.  the small amount of preparation that i have to do for this student is worth the risk here.  even if the child does not die the parents would still have an expensive visit to the hospital just because we were not doing what we should.  also, my school could be sued if we failed to act like we should have.   #  to my knowledge there is no way, unless they are literally inhaling peanut dust, that this can cause  ana.   #  indirect exposure i take to mean the smell of a peanut product.  to my knowledge there is no way, unless they are literally inhaling peanut dust, that this can cause  ana.  shock .  i ca not think of a single instance this would happen in any school.  direct exposure i take means ingesting or touching.  yes, some people may have rashes or welts from touching peanuts, but nothing that would end their lives.  i am certainly in favor of clearly labeling food which is brought into schools and not allowing outside food  that is meant to be shared  to contain peanuts.  however, simply banning a substance that is in so many things and is a ready food product is an overreaction and may actually be counterproductive.   #  or, what is more common with kids is that one kids eats part of another kid is lunch not knowing that what she ate has peanuts in it.   #  direct exposure: student eats or sometimes simply has it on her skin and rubs her peanut covered hands into her mouth or such.  exposure.  indirect is the same thing, but instead of the child doing it, her friend has something on their hands and then she touches her friends hands and then you can have an exposure.  or, what is more common with kids is that one kids eats part of another kid is lunch not knowing that what she ate has peanuts in it.  and yes some people have welts and such.  that is a stage two allergic reaction.  stage one; you have a reaction on the skin at the site of contact.  think of your basic mosquito bite.  stage two you eat a peanut and you get a welt on your shoulder.  you have a reaction to something that is not at the same site of the exposure.  stage three: anaphylaxis shock.  here is the wiki.  URL as for your bit about banning food to be shared.  kids violate that all the time.  hey you have cookies,  can i have one ?   that is all it takes.  while some kids know that they ca not have certain things you ca not assume that with younger kids.  all this stuff you dismiss as being overblown has multiple reasons for being there.   #  she went into anaphylactic shock and had to be hospitalized.   #  as i mentioned earlier, my sibling is last reaction came from a nut free cookie which was on the same plate as another cookie that had nuts.  she went into anaphylactic shock and had to be hospitalized.  at least 0 other kids at her school have equally severe allergies.  they have to sit at a lunch table every day and risk cross contamination from kids who do not know better, were messy, or even touched an allergen and then touched one of them.  the school is responsible for the safety of all of their students, and the safest thing to do is mildly inconvenience the other families in order to ensure the safety of those 0 kids, who have their lives endangered.
the way i view it, marriage is and always has been a partnership.  i, as a woman, leave my old family name wise at least , and create a new one with my future husband.  keeping my last name, to me, would indicate an innate selfishness and denotes a bit of uncertainty as to my intention to remain with my partner for life, which is what marriage is about.  i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.   #  i, as a woman, leave my old family name wise at least , and create a new one with my future husband.   #  while i agree that you create a new family, you also do not leave behind your old one.   #  firstly, this is a choice that you get to make.  and even if you do not personally choose to make this decision i hope to change your view that choosing the alternative is legitimate, and is not indicative of the issues you lay out.  i also recently got married myself and my wife choose to take my name.  while i agree that you create a new family, you also do not leave behind your old one.  i still see my parents and siblings on a regular basis, and so does my wife.  she comes from a big family and they are all pretty close and this bond she had with her family was part of what attracted me to her.  in my view, our families combined.  and had she chosen to keep her name, it would not have meant our families wee any less combined.  i disagree, i am a guy and i like my last name.  if the cultural situation was reversed i think i would like to keep it.  keeping a name does not have to mean that the person is cautious about the future, they could simply be nostalgic for the past and the name they have had their entire lives.  some of us become attached to our names and have no desire to change them.  i do not see it as a big deal   i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.  family is more than names, just ask any adoptive member of a family, or blended families.  my wife is brother has a separate last name from the entire rest of his family his mom included .  and he is an indisputable part of that family, i just went to his thanksgiving celebration and his adoptive dad was there despite having divorced his mom ! whatever you decide has to be right for  you .  but it is important to understand that other people are going to make different choices for different reasons.  and that is okay.   #  if you are part of a smaller family, you may be the last chance for the name to be passed to the next generation.   #  legitimate reasons: it is a royal pain in the butt to do, and now you need every credit card and bank account changed.  in today is society is not not automatically done so it wo not necessarily bring any shame or confusion on you or the kids a feminist my ask why you must give up your family name but he does not have to give up his ? is not he also joining your family ? what is wrong with your family name ? if you are part of a smaller family, you may be the last chance for the name to be passed to the next generation.  of he has a big family, his family name is sure to expand.  why not preserve something about to vanish ? you object because the woman is name is then separate from the kids last name, but that is based on the assumption the kids must get  his  name and his name only.  you could hyphenate and use that name for yourself and kids.  you could blend the two names and everyone gets its including the husband.  i have heard of a few couples who picked an entirely new family name and both husband and wife take it.  what if he has an impossible to pronounce foreign name he always hated.  and he does not want you to use it.  would you respect his request ? marriage is an equal partnership which means both partners should equally consider a sacrifice such as giving up their name.   #  so because she is had that name her whole life because of her dad, it is hers, not his even though she had no choice over the matter, it somehow is part of her identity .   #  i think that is a very arbitrary distinction.  so because she is had that name her whole life because of her dad, it is hers, not his even though she had no choice over the matter, it somehow is part of her identity .  but choosing to change it to create a more unified family, on her own terms and with someone she loves, is not representative of her identity ? i mean, what that ends up being is that the name you did not choose is more  yours  than one you did right ? personally i do not think that is the case.  i mean, would we say people who change their names for other reasons it is not really  their name  and they have lost their identity doing it ? now the fact that the name change is almost 0 on the woman does bug me, as that is clearly just convention.  but the principle of changing the name to that of your spouse is does not wipe away any identity, it shows unification.   #  op made this about gender in her post.   #  anybody should be able to choose.  op made this about gender in her post.  op made it about gender when she said she finds women who do not choose this way questionable.  you made it about gender when you said women is names come from their dad anyway.  im saying the fact thet their name came from their dad and because its tradition should not be the reason girls are the ones changing their names.  guys rarely even have to think about the decision.   #  you as a wife should not leave your family and your husband should join yours.   #  why should one person change their name ? is one partner leaving their existing family to join a new one or are two people joining each other is family and simultaneously creating their own new one ? i would say the latter better reflects our modern concept of marriage.  you as a wife should not leave your family and your husband should join yours.  two people come together in marriage and take both individuals take part in both original families.  so it does not really make sense that one partner loses their family name while the other retains theirs.  it seems the most logical solution would be to combine the names often done through a hyphen although this is cumbersome, or create a brand new name for both partners to adopt.  obviously the simplest way of doing things is to just pick a name and go with it, whether that means creating a new one or just accepting one of the partner is family names.  the suggestion that picking a name be based at all on gender is frankly offensive.  whatever the reason the name that is picked should be a mutual decision that both partners are happy with.  if you do not mind changing your name that is a perfectly acceptable personal decision.  but it is wrong to treat your decision as a blanket rule all people entering marriage must follow.  it works best as a personal and mutual decision.
the way i view it, marriage is and always has been a partnership.  i, as a woman, leave my old family name wise at least , and create a new one with my future husband.  keeping my last name, to me, would indicate an innate selfishness and denotes a bit of uncertainty as to my intention to remain with my partner for life, which is what marriage is about.  i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.   #  keeping my last name, to me, would indicate an innate selfishness and denotes a bit of uncertainty as to my intention to remain with my partner for life, which is what marriage is about.   #  i disagree, i am a guy and i like my last name.   #  firstly, this is a choice that you get to make.  and even if you do not personally choose to make this decision i hope to change your view that choosing the alternative is legitimate, and is not indicative of the issues you lay out.  i also recently got married myself and my wife choose to take my name.  while i agree that you create a new family, you also do not leave behind your old one.  i still see my parents and siblings on a regular basis, and so does my wife.  she comes from a big family and they are all pretty close and this bond she had with her family was part of what attracted me to her.  in my view, our families combined.  and had she chosen to keep her name, it would not have meant our families wee any less combined.  i disagree, i am a guy and i like my last name.  if the cultural situation was reversed i think i would like to keep it.  keeping a name does not have to mean that the person is cautious about the future, they could simply be nostalgic for the past and the name they have had their entire lives.  some of us become attached to our names and have no desire to change them.  i do not see it as a big deal   i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.  family is more than names, just ask any adoptive member of a family, or blended families.  my wife is brother has a separate last name from the entire rest of his family his mom included .  and he is an indisputable part of that family, i just went to his thanksgiving celebration and his adoptive dad was there despite having divorced his mom ! whatever you decide has to be right for  you .  but it is important to understand that other people are going to make different choices for different reasons.  and that is okay.   #  and he does not want you to use it.   #  legitimate reasons: it is a royal pain in the butt to do, and now you need every credit card and bank account changed.  in today is society is not not automatically done so it wo not necessarily bring any shame or confusion on you or the kids a feminist my ask why you must give up your family name but he does not have to give up his ? is not he also joining your family ? what is wrong with your family name ? if you are part of a smaller family, you may be the last chance for the name to be passed to the next generation.  of he has a big family, his family name is sure to expand.  why not preserve something about to vanish ? you object because the woman is name is then separate from the kids last name, but that is based on the assumption the kids must get  his  name and his name only.  you could hyphenate and use that name for yourself and kids.  you could blend the two names and everyone gets its including the husband.  i have heard of a few couples who picked an entirely new family name and both husband and wife take it.  what if he has an impossible to pronounce foreign name he always hated.  and he does not want you to use it.  would you respect his request ? marriage is an equal partnership which means both partners should equally consider a sacrifice such as giving up their name.   #  i mean, what that ends up being is that the name you did not choose is more  yours  than one you did right ?  #  i think that is a very arbitrary distinction.  so because she is had that name her whole life because of her dad, it is hers, not his even though she had no choice over the matter, it somehow is part of her identity .  but choosing to change it to create a more unified family, on her own terms and with someone she loves, is not representative of her identity ? i mean, what that ends up being is that the name you did not choose is more  yours  than one you did right ? personally i do not think that is the case.  i mean, would we say people who change their names for other reasons it is not really  their name  and they have lost their identity doing it ? now the fact that the name change is almost 0 on the woman does bug me, as that is clearly just convention.  but the principle of changing the name to that of your spouse is does not wipe away any identity, it shows unification.   #  im saying the fact thet their name came from their dad and because its tradition should not be the reason girls are the ones changing their names.   #  anybody should be able to choose.  op made this about gender in her post.  op made it about gender when she said she finds women who do not choose this way questionable.  you made it about gender when you said women is names come from their dad anyway.  im saying the fact thet their name came from their dad and because its tradition should not be the reason girls are the ones changing their names.  guys rarely even have to think about the decision.   #  so it does not really make sense that one partner loses their family name while the other retains theirs.   #  why should one person change their name ? is one partner leaving their existing family to join a new one or are two people joining each other is family and simultaneously creating their own new one ? i would say the latter better reflects our modern concept of marriage.  you as a wife should not leave your family and your husband should join yours.  two people come together in marriage and take both individuals take part in both original families.  so it does not really make sense that one partner loses their family name while the other retains theirs.  it seems the most logical solution would be to combine the names often done through a hyphen although this is cumbersome, or create a brand new name for both partners to adopt.  obviously the simplest way of doing things is to just pick a name and go with it, whether that means creating a new one or just accepting one of the partner is family names.  the suggestion that picking a name be based at all on gender is frankly offensive.  whatever the reason the name that is picked should be a mutual decision that both partners are happy with.  if you do not mind changing your name that is a perfectly acceptable personal decision.  but it is wrong to treat your decision as a blanket rule all people entering marriage must follow.  it works best as a personal and mutual decision.
the way i view it, marriage is and always has been a partnership.  i, as a woman, leave my old family name wise at least , and create a new one with my future husband.  keeping my last name, to me, would indicate an innate selfishness and denotes a bit of uncertainty as to my intention to remain with my partner for life, which is what marriage is about.  i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.   #  i, as a woman, leave my old family name wise at least , and create a new one with my future husband.   #  the obvious question here is why your husband does not leave his own family name create a new one with you.   # that is a partnership.  a partnership is not a superior/subordinate relationship; it is a relationship between equals.  if only one person is expected to give up her identity and assume the other is, then that is not an equal partnership.  the obvious question here is why your husband does not leave his own family name create a new one with you.  also i question your use of  create.   only if you and your husband created a new name that you both adopted would you be  creating  a new family name.  instead if you give up yours and take his, you are not  creating  a new name.  is your husband also selfish when he does not take your name ? this is just your arbitrary thought and does not mean anything.  men is commitment to their marriage is not questioned by their name choices; neither should women is.  that is not true at all.  plenty of people have different last names from their parents, etc, and they are still just as much of a family unit as those that share a name.  additionally, plenty of people abandon their families and children even if they share a last name.  plenty of people beat and abuse their children even as they share a last name.  sharing a last name in no way indicates a stronger family bond.  you made this about gender if your first line of  i, a woman.   now you change it.  if you are point is that at one partner should take the others, and the gender does not matter, then that is an entirely different cmv than the one you have actually presented here.   #  she comes from a big family and they are all pretty close and this bond she had with her family was part of what attracted me to her.   #  firstly, this is a choice that you get to make.  and even if you do not personally choose to make this decision i hope to change your view that choosing the alternative is legitimate, and is not indicative of the issues you lay out.  i also recently got married myself and my wife choose to take my name.  while i agree that you create a new family, you also do not leave behind your old one.  i still see my parents and siblings on a regular basis, and so does my wife.  she comes from a big family and they are all pretty close and this bond she had with her family was part of what attracted me to her.  in my view, our families combined.  and had she chosen to keep her name, it would not have meant our families wee any less combined.  i disagree, i am a guy and i like my last name.  if the cultural situation was reversed i think i would like to keep it.  keeping a name does not have to mean that the person is cautious about the future, they could simply be nostalgic for the past and the name they have had their entire lives.  some of us become attached to our names and have no desire to change them.  i do not see it as a big deal   i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.  family is more than names, just ask any adoptive member of a family, or blended families.  my wife is brother has a separate last name from the entire rest of his family his mom included .  and he is an indisputable part of that family, i just went to his thanksgiving celebration and his adoptive dad was there despite having divorced his mom ! whatever you decide has to be right for  you .  but it is important to understand that other people are going to make different choices for different reasons.  and that is okay.   #  marriage is an equal partnership which means both partners should equally consider a sacrifice such as giving up their name.   #  legitimate reasons: it is a royal pain in the butt to do, and now you need every credit card and bank account changed.  in today is society is not not automatically done so it wo not necessarily bring any shame or confusion on you or the kids a feminist my ask why you must give up your family name but he does not have to give up his ? is not he also joining your family ? what is wrong with your family name ? if you are part of a smaller family, you may be the last chance for the name to be passed to the next generation.  of he has a big family, his family name is sure to expand.  why not preserve something about to vanish ? you object because the woman is name is then separate from the kids last name, but that is based on the assumption the kids must get  his  name and his name only.  you could hyphenate and use that name for yourself and kids.  you could blend the two names and everyone gets its including the husband.  i have heard of a few couples who picked an entirely new family name and both husband and wife take it.  what if he has an impossible to pronounce foreign name he always hated.  and he does not want you to use it.  would you respect his request ? marriage is an equal partnership which means both partners should equally consider a sacrifice such as giving up their name.   #  but the principle of changing the name to that of your spouse is does not wipe away any identity, it shows unification.   #  i think that is a very arbitrary distinction.  so because she is had that name her whole life because of her dad, it is hers, not his even though she had no choice over the matter, it somehow is part of her identity .  but choosing to change it to create a more unified family, on her own terms and with someone she loves, is not representative of her identity ? i mean, what that ends up being is that the name you did not choose is more  yours  than one you did right ? personally i do not think that is the case.  i mean, would we say people who change their names for other reasons it is not really  their name  and they have lost their identity doing it ? now the fact that the name change is almost 0 on the woman does bug me, as that is clearly just convention.  but the principle of changing the name to that of your spouse is does not wipe away any identity, it shows unification.   #  op made this about gender in her post.   #  anybody should be able to choose.  op made this about gender in her post.  op made it about gender when she said she finds women who do not choose this way questionable.  you made it about gender when you said women is names come from their dad anyway.  im saying the fact thet their name came from their dad and because its tradition should not be the reason girls are the ones changing their names.  guys rarely even have to think about the decision.
the way i view it, marriage is and always has been a partnership.  i, as a woman, leave my old family name wise at least , and create a new one with my future husband.  keeping my last name, to me, would indicate an innate selfishness and denotes a bit of uncertainty as to my intention to remain with my partner for life, which is what marriage is about.  i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.   #  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.   #  you made this about gender if your first line of  i, a woman.    # that is a partnership.  a partnership is not a superior/subordinate relationship; it is a relationship between equals.  if only one person is expected to give up her identity and assume the other is, then that is not an equal partnership.  the obvious question here is why your husband does not leave his own family name create a new one with you.  also i question your use of  create.   only if you and your husband created a new name that you both adopted would you be  creating  a new family name.  instead if you give up yours and take his, you are not  creating  a new name.  is your husband also selfish when he does not take your name ? this is just your arbitrary thought and does not mean anything.  men is commitment to their marriage is not questioned by their name choices; neither should women is.  that is not true at all.  plenty of people have different last names from their parents, etc, and they are still just as much of a family unit as those that share a name.  additionally, plenty of people abandon their families and children even if they share a last name.  plenty of people beat and abuse their children even as they share a last name.  sharing a last name in no way indicates a stronger family bond.  you made this about gender if your first line of  i, a woman.   now you change it.  if you are point is that at one partner should take the others, and the gender does not matter, then that is an entirely different cmv than the one you have actually presented here.   #  my wife is brother has a separate last name from the entire rest of his family his mom included .   #  firstly, this is a choice that you get to make.  and even if you do not personally choose to make this decision i hope to change your view that choosing the alternative is legitimate, and is not indicative of the issues you lay out.  i also recently got married myself and my wife choose to take my name.  while i agree that you create a new family, you also do not leave behind your old one.  i still see my parents and siblings on a regular basis, and so does my wife.  she comes from a big family and they are all pretty close and this bond she had with her family was part of what attracted me to her.  in my view, our families combined.  and had she chosen to keep her name, it would not have meant our families wee any less combined.  i disagree, i am a guy and i like my last name.  if the cultural situation was reversed i think i would like to keep it.  keeping a name does not have to mean that the person is cautious about the future, they could simply be nostalgic for the past and the name they have had their entire lives.  some of us become attached to our names and have no desire to change them.  i do not see it as a big deal   i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.  family is more than names, just ask any adoptive member of a family, or blended families.  my wife is brother has a separate last name from the entire rest of his family his mom included .  and he is an indisputable part of that family, i just went to his thanksgiving celebration and his adoptive dad was there despite having divorced his mom ! whatever you decide has to be right for  you .  but it is important to understand that other people are going to make different choices for different reasons.  and that is okay.   #  you could hyphenate and use that name for yourself and kids.   #  legitimate reasons: it is a royal pain in the butt to do, and now you need every credit card and bank account changed.  in today is society is not not automatically done so it wo not necessarily bring any shame or confusion on you or the kids a feminist my ask why you must give up your family name but he does not have to give up his ? is not he also joining your family ? what is wrong with your family name ? if you are part of a smaller family, you may be the last chance for the name to be passed to the next generation.  of he has a big family, his family name is sure to expand.  why not preserve something about to vanish ? you object because the woman is name is then separate from the kids last name, but that is based on the assumption the kids must get  his  name and his name only.  you could hyphenate and use that name for yourself and kids.  you could blend the two names and everyone gets its including the husband.  i have heard of a few couples who picked an entirely new family name and both husband and wife take it.  what if he has an impossible to pronounce foreign name he always hated.  and he does not want you to use it.  would you respect his request ? marriage is an equal partnership which means both partners should equally consider a sacrifice such as giving up their name.   #  so because she is had that name her whole life because of her dad, it is hers, not his even though she had no choice over the matter, it somehow is part of her identity .   #  i think that is a very arbitrary distinction.  so because she is had that name her whole life because of her dad, it is hers, not his even though she had no choice over the matter, it somehow is part of her identity .  but choosing to change it to create a more unified family, on her own terms and with someone she loves, is not representative of her identity ? i mean, what that ends up being is that the name you did not choose is more  yours  than one you did right ? personally i do not think that is the case.  i mean, would we say people who change their names for other reasons it is not really  their name  and they have lost their identity doing it ? now the fact that the name change is almost 0 on the woman does bug me, as that is clearly just convention.  but the principle of changing the name to that of your spouse is does not wipe away any identity, it shows unification.   #  guys rarely even have to think about the decision.   #  anybody should be able to choose.  op made this about gender in her post.  op made it about gender when she said she finds women who do not choose this way questionable.  you made it about gender when you said women is names come from their dad anyway.  im saying the fact thet their name came from their dad and because its tradition should not be the reason girls are the ones changing their names.  guys rarely even have to think about the decision.
the way i view it, marriage is and always has been a partnership.  i, as a woman, leave my old family name wise at least , and create a new one with my future husband.  keeping my last name, to me, would indicate an innate selfishness and denotes a bit of uncertainty as to my intention to remain with my partner for life, which is what marriage is about.  i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.   #  keeping my last name, to me, would indicate an innate selfishness and denotes a bit of uncertainty as to my intention to remain with my partner for life, which is what marriage is about.   #  only because it is considered socially normal to do so.   #  in the end, what you decide to do with your name and marriage is completely your choice, which i completely respect and in no way do suggest what you should do with it.  with that said, legit reasons do exist.  changing your name would be continuing a considerably sexist tradition.  does it not seem unfair that specifically wives are socially expected to change something as personal as their name ? in continuing the tradition, you are kind of accepting this as an okay thing for people to expect of women.  changing sexist traditions starts with you, after all.  independence.  it is entirely possible to consider yourself a member of a broader family a wife and possible mother as well as an individual person.  there is many other indicators of a marriage a wedding ring, government documentation, official witnesses, to name a few your name does not have to be on this list of identifying features.  maybe you might like your name ? my girlfriend likes her unique last name, and has said she wants to keep it for that reason, rather than take my dull last name.  only because it is considered socially normal to do so.  imagine if there were no tradition of taking the husband is surname.  if you decided you loved your husband so much, that you changed your own name to prove it, that would be considered really obsessive, would not it ? so no, it is not inherently selfish.  you can decline to change your name for any of the reasons listed above without being selfish, and still have a strong, loving marriage.   #  if the cultural situation was reversed i think i would like to keep it.   #  firstly, this is a choice that you get to make.  and even if you do not personally choose to make this decision i hope to change your view that choosing the alternative is legitimate, and is not indicative of the issues you lay out.  i also recently got married myself and my wife choose to take my name.  while i agree that you create a new family, you also do not leave behind your old one.  i still see my parents and siblings on a regular basis, and so does my wife.  she comes from a big family and they are all pretty close and this bond she had with her family was part of what attracted me to her.  in my view, our families combined.  and had she chosen to keep her name, it would not have meant our families wee any less combined.  i disagree, i am a guy and i like my last name.  if the cultural situation was reversed i think i would like to keep it.  keeping a name does not have to mean that the person is cautious about the future, they could simply be nostalgic for the past and the name they have had their entire lives.  some of us become attached to our names and have no desire to change them.  i do not see it as a big deal   i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.  family is more than names, just ask any adoptive member of a family, or blended families.  my wife is brother has a separate last name from the entire rest of his family his mom included .  and he is an indisputable part of that family, i just went to his thanksgiving celebration and his adoptive dad was there despite having divorced his mom ! whatever you decide has to be right for  you .  but it is important to understand that other people are going to make different choices for different reasons.  and that is okay.   #  you could hyphenate and use that name for yourself and kids.   #  legitimate reasons: it is a royal pain in the butt to do, and now you need every credit card and bank account changed.  in today is society is not not automatically done so it wo not necessarily bring any shame or confusion on you or the kids a feminist my ask why you must give up your family name but he does not have to give up his ? is not he also joining your family ? what is wrong with your family name ? if you are part of a smaller family, you may be the last chance for the name to be passed to the next generation.  of he has a big family, his family name is sure to expand.  why not preserve something about to vanish ? you object because the woman is name is then separate from the kids last name, but that is based on the assumption the kids must get  his  name and his name only.  you could hyphenate and use that name for yourself and kids.  you could blend the two names and everyone gets its including the husband.  i have heard of a few couples who picked an entirely new family name and both husband and wife take it.  what if he has an impossible to pronounce foreign name he always hated.  and he does not want you to use it.  would you respect his request ? marriage is an equal partnership which means both partners should equally consider a sacrifice such as giving up their name.   #  but choosing to change it to create a more unified family, on her own terms and with someone she loves, is not representative of her identity ?  #  i think that is a very arbitrary distinction.  so because she is had that name her whole life because of her dad, it is hers, not his even though she had no choice over the matter, it somehow is part of her identity .  but choosing to change it to create a more unified family, on her own terms and with someone she loves, is not representative of her identity ? i mean, what that ends up being is that the name you did not choose is more  yours  than one you did right ? personally i do not think that is the case.  i mean, would we say people who change their names for other reasons it is not really  their name  and they have lost their identity doing it ? now the fact that the name change is almost 0 on the woman does bug me, as that is clearly just convention.  but the principle of changing the name to that of your spouse is does not wipe away any identity, it shows unification.   #  you made it about gender when you said women is names come from their dad anyway.   #  anybody should be able to choose.  op made this about gender in her post.  op made it about gender when she said she finds women who do not choose this way questionable.  you made it about gender when you said women is names come from their dad anyway.  im saying the fact thet their name came from their dad and because its tradition should not be the reason girls are the ones changing their names.  guys rarely even have to think about the decision.
the way i view it, marriage is and always has been a partnership.  i, as a woman, leave my old family name wise at least , and create a new one with my future husband.  keeping my last name, to me, would indicate an innate selfishness and denotes a bit of uncertainty as to my intention to remain with my partner for life, which is what marriage is about.  i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.   #  i, as a woman, leave my old family name wise at least , and create a new one with my future husband.   #  first, i will not leave my family or create a new one with my husband upon marriage anymore than i currently have.   #  what is with the obsession with names these days ? first, i will not leave my family or create a new one with my husband upon marriage anymore than i currently have.  we are already partners and family; marriage will not change that.  secondly, i notice that you, as a woman, leave your family but your husband is not doing the same.  if not changing your name indicates innate selfishness and denotes uncertainty, then your husband is selfish and uncertain about your marriage.  thirdly, name wise as you said, you are not creating a new family.  you are merely joining his.  fourthly, you would achieve the exact same goal by both changing to a new name.  finally, all this talk is only name wise.  it does not affect actually being a family.  the couple might already have children.  if the children are used to their parents having different names, why would they be bothered after a wedding ? and what if the future wife already has children of her own with her name, then you are denoting a degree of separateness from their mum when she marries ? the couple might not have children.  the couple and children could all share the same name without the future wife changing hers to her husband everyone taking hers, a new one, hyphenate or double barrell.  as for legitimate reasons the future wife could have to not take her future husband name, there are many: maybe this is not the custom where she lives or comes from, maybe her future husband would rather she doesnt, maybe she is attached to her name, maybe her name will die if she does not, maybe it will have repercussions on her career, maybe her parents asked her to, maybe she wants to keep a link with her culture of origin, maybe her future sister in law has the same first name, maybe her children would benefit from not receiving her husband is name, maybe her children have her name and she wants to keep that link to them.  eta: i am answering for women/couples in general; not for you personally.  if you say you personally do not have a legitimate reason to not change, i believe you and fortunately, you have the possibility to do so.   #  keeping a name does not have to mean that the person is cautious about the future, they could simply be nostalgic for the past and the name they have had their entire lives.   #  firstly, this is a choice that you get to make.  and even if you do not personally choose to make this decision i hope to change your view that choosing the alternative is legitimate, and is not indicative of the issues you lay out.  i also recently got married myself and my wife choose to take my name.  while i agree that you create a new family, you also do not leave behind your old one.  i still see my parents and siblings on a regular basis, and so does my wife.  she comes from a big family and they are all pretty close and this bond she had with her family was part of what attracted me to her.  in my view, our families combined.  and had she chosen to keep her name, it would not have meant our families wee any less combined.  i disagree, i am a guy and i like my last name.  if the cultural situation was reversed i think i would like to keep it.  keeping a name does not have to mean that the person is cautious about the future, they could simply be nostalgic for the past and the name they have had their entire lives.  some of us become attached to our names and have no desire to change them.  i do not see it as a big deal   i feel it is selfish because your last name does not only affect you.  it also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family.  if you are going to consider this other person family, one person does not necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition had ought to change their name to reflect that.  family is more than names, just ask any adoptive member of a family, or blended families.  my wife is brother has a separate last name from the entire rest of his family his mom included .  and he is an indisputable part of that family, i just went to his thanksgiving celebration and his adoptive dad was there despite having divorced his mom ! whatever you decide has to be right for  you .  but it is important to understand that other people are going to make different choices for different reasons.  and that is okay.   #  if you are part of a smaller family, you may be the last chance for the name to be passed to the next generation.   #  legitimate reasons: it is a royal pain in the butt to do, and now you need every credit card and bank account changed.  in today is society is not not automatically done so it wo not necessarily bring any shame or confusion on you or the kids a feminist my ask why you must give up your family name but he does not have to give up his ? is not he also joining your family ? what is wrong with your family name ? if you are part of a smaller family, you may be the last chance for the name to be passed to the next generation.  of he has a big family, his family name is sure to expand.  why not preserve something about to vanish ? you object because the woman is name is then separate from the kids last name, but that is based on the assumption the kids must get  his  name and his name only.  you could hyphenate and use that name for yourself and kids.  you could blend the two names and everyone gets its including the husband.  i have heard of a few couples who picked an entirely new family name and both husband and wife take it.  what if he has an impossible to pronounce foreign name he always hated.  and he does not want you to use it.  would you respect his request ? marriage is an equal partnership which means both partners should equally consider a sacrifice such as giving up their name.   #  i mean, what that ends up being is that the name you did not choose is more  yours  than one you did right ?  #  i think that is a very arbitrary distinction.  so because she is had that name her whole life because of her dad, it is hers, not his even though she had no choice over the matter, it somehow is part of her identity .  but choosing to change it to create a more unified family, on her own terms and with someone she loves, is not representative of her identity ? i mean, what that ends up being is that the name you did not choose is more  yours  than one you did right ? personally i do not think that is the case.  i mean, would we say people who change their names for other reasons it is not really  their name  and they have lost their identity doing it ? now the fact that the name change is almost 0 on the woman does bug me, as that is clearly just convention.  but the principle of changing the name to that of your spouse is does not wipe away any identity, it shows unification.   #  op made this about gender in her post.   #  anybody should be able to choose.  op made this about gender in her post.  op made it about gender when she said she finds women who do not choose this way questionable.  you made it about gender when you said women is names come from their dad anyway.  im saying the fact thet their name came from their dad and because its tradition should not be the reason girls are the ones changing their names.  guys rarely even have to think about the decision.
hey yo, cmv.  thought i would submit this post because it is something that has been bugging me a bit since going to a concert in october.  it is the obnoxious amount of phones i see being pulled out and  held up  forever because ravenous fans decide to record entire songs on their phones or ipads that takes a special kind of audacity .  overall, i do sincerely believe this is an incredibly stupid thing to do.  0 no matter how good the camera on your phone or hand held device, the quality will be garbage.  you really think those speakers of yours will pick up the awesomeness of the moment or sound ? even in hd, the videos uploaded are garbage and both eye and ear sores.  i liked that song, but not when it sounds like that.  0 it is obnoxious to other concert goers.  yes, if the venue does not ban them, you are free to do it.  but in exercising your freedom, you are imposing on the freedom of others.  we as fans paid good money for tickets to see our favorite musicians show us a good time and entertain us.  i did not pay to see some jackasses hold up a rectangles.  i sure as hell did not pay to see the artist through your damn lens either.  0 this one is more anticipatory for a possible counter argument of there was no other way for people to see it.  guess what ? if you did not pay the dough, know about the gig, or could not catch it, you are not automatically entitled to seeing it.  you are not the first person to miss an event, and you surely wo not be the last.   #  0 no matter how good the camera on your phone or hand held device, the quality will be garbage.   #  you really think those speakers of yours will pick up the awesomeness of the moment or sound ?  # you really think those speakers of yours will pick up the awesomeness of the moment or sound ? even in hd, the videos uploaded are garbage and both eye and ear sores.  i liked that song, but not when it sounds like that.  so what ? a person may still enjoy the recording, since it will remind him of the good time he had.  yes, if the venue does not ban them, you are free to do it.  but in exercising your freedom, you are imposing on the freedom of others.  we as fans paid good money for tickets to see our favorite musicians show us a good time and entertain us.  i did not pay to see some jackasses hold up a rectangles.  i sure as hell did not pay to see the artist through your damn lens either.  yes, you did pay to see  jackasses hold up a rectangles.   did you know that the venue you are buying tickets for  does not ban recording devices ?   yes ? than you should have expected rectangles being held up.  if you do not want to see it, go to a venue that does ban recording devices.   #  if i could see it from a different light, maybe i would get it.   #  i am glad you asked, i guess it was not that clear.  yeah, i do just want some kind of justification, or if you like to record concerts, maybe just give your personal take on it ? if i could see it from a different light, maybe i would get it.  it is not like i can really tap the shoulder of the person in front of me to talk it out.  i know my view comes off as very one sided and harsh, but it does rile me up in all honesty.   #  i guess i ca not say it is negligible for you, but i suppose this is just your weird pet peeve you have to get over.   #  i record concerts often.  sometimes with my phone, sometimes with my dslr.  but either way, my arm is usually up and in the air.  any time a venue employee has asked me to put it away i do.  as for other patrons, i have never had anyone ever say anything about this or ever do anything about it.  aside from that, i would say that i record concerts because they offer better insight than a photo.  a video shows how people were moving, dancers on stage, pyrotechnics, visual effects like screens and lasers, or even something as simple as the depth of people at the venue.  i know for certain i often do a short circular panorama video to get a google street type view to show to friends later so they can get a scope of how big the event was.  and sometimes, the videos just for me.  i read below where you said something like  if you ca not remember it without a phone, it was not worth remembering .  that is just downright absolutism at it is worst.  i go to at least 0 0 shows a year of varying sizes and genres.  i have been doing this for nearly 0 years.  you expect me to be able to remember every single thing that is i personally want to remember about those nights just from my shitty memory ? the main part of your argument i do not get is why it matters the reason ? these people want to record it and they are not hurting anyone other than you it seems.  in this case i really do think this is a societal standard.  like if i went to a shoe store and tried on a shoe off the wall.  it is unorthodox and might even annoy people there who want to look at the display, but it is in my right to do and at most the inconvenience is negligible because of the overall amount of time you are being inconvenienced vs.  the potential enjoyment they are getting from the recording.  i guess i ca not say it is negligible for you, but i suppose this is just your weird pet peeve you have to get over.  i hate it when people open bananas from the stem end, but i do not say anything when people do.   #  you did not pay for an exclusive artist engagement.   # was not worth remembering.  or you did not really like the artist to begin with.  would you deny a 0 year old an opportunity to watch a video from the good times he had in his 0s ? pretty simple exchange to explain really.  at no time did i explicitly agree in the venue is website terms of service or the inherent contract of buying the ticket that i would be obligated to have to suffer through cameras.  you have reserved a spot to see the artist in a venue along with hundreds of other people.  you did not pay for an exclusive artist engagement.  consequently you should reasonably expect that other people that also paid to be there may interfere with your view.  if the venue allows recording equipment you should also reasonably expect that that equipment will interfere with your view.  do not like it ? do not buy the ticket.  or buy a first row seat.   #  my new solution is to blatantly push the arms down now.   # if we are pulling out those kind of hypotheticals, here is mine.  if we assume a 0 year old today, back in their 0s there were no phones or devices of a handheld nature to record videos, so for that video to have existed, it would not have been in the criteria i am speaking of.  no, i would not stop this person from watching the video, but it is already made and not the issue i am talking about, so it is moot at best.  you did not pay for an exclusive artist engagement.  consequently you should reasonably expect that other people that also paid to be there may interfere with your view.  if the venue allows recording equipment you should also reasonably expect that that equipment will interfere with your view.  you still make it sound as if i am obligated to suffer through this.  my new solution is to blatantly push the arms down now.  does it make me an asshole in that moment ? sure.  there is an equally reasonable expectation of me doing that to those who choose to record.  furthermore, a venue banning all recording devices is hardly worth mentioning as it hardly stops the people who want to record it.  unless you pull a jack white and sick security on the venue like hunting dogs, but that is another conversation altogether.  at what point am i allowed to refuse ? to what extent are they allowed to impose those recording devices ? i would rather not have a perpetual war of this going on the rest of my concert going life, but if it is a solution that gets my bottom line met and helps other fans enjoy the experience they know they paid for, great.  there is official recordings of live shows too, stick to them if that really is your cup of tea.
hey yo, cmv.  thought i would submit this post because it is something that has been bugging me a bit since going to a concert in october.  it is the obnoxious amount of phones i see being pulled out and  held up  forever because ravenous fans decide to record entire songs on their phones or ipads that takes a special kind of audacity .  overall, i do sincerely believe this is an incredibly stupid thing to do.  0 no matter how good the camera on your phone or hand held device, the quality will be garbage.  you really think those speakers of yours will pick up the awesomeness of the moment or sound ? even in hd, the videos uploaded are garbage and both eye and ear sores.  i liked that song, but not when it sounds like that.  0 it is obnoxious to other concert goers.  yes, if the venue does not ban them, you are free to do it.  but in exercising your freedom, you are imposing on the freedom of others.  we as fans paid good money for tickets to see our favorite musicians show us a good time and entertain us.  i did not pay to see some jackasses hold up a rectangles.  i sure as hell did not pay to see the artist through your damn lens either.  0 this one is more anticipatory for a possible counter argument of there was no other way for people to see it.  guess what ? if you did not pay the dough, know about the gig, or could not catch it, you are not automatically entitled to seeing it.  you are not the first person to miss an event, and you surely wo not be the last.   #  it is obnoxious to other concert goers.   #  yes, if the venue does not ban them, you are free to do it.   # you really think those speakers of yours will pick up the awesomeness of the moment or sound ? even in hd, the videos uploaded are garbage and both eye and ear sores.  i liked that song, but not when it sounds like that.  so what ? a person may still enjoy the recording, since it will remind him of the good time he had.  yes, if the venue does not ban them, you are free to do it.  but in exercising your freedom, you are imposing on the freedom of others.  we as fans paid good money for tickets to see our favorite musicians show us a good time and entertain us.  i did not pay to see some jackasses hold up a rectangles.  i sure as hell did not pay to see the artist through your damn lens either.  yes, you did pay to see  jackasses hold up a rectangles.   did you know that the venue you are buying tickets for  does not ban recording devices ?   yes ? than you should have expected rectangles being held up.  if you do not want to see it, go to a venue that does ban recording devices.   #  i am glad you asked, i guess it was not that clear.   #  i am glad you asked, i guess it was not that clear.  yeah, i do just want some kind of justification, or if you like to record concerts, maybe just give your personal take on it ? if i could see it from a different light, maybe i would get it.  it is not like i can really tap the shoulder of the person in front of me to talk it out.  i know my view comes off as very one sided and harsh, but it does rile me up in all honesty.   #  the main part of your argument i do not get is why it matters the reason ?  #  i record concerts often.  sometimes with my phone, sometimes with my dslr.  but either way, my arm is usually up and in the air.  any time a venue employee has asked me to put it away i do.  as for other patrons, i have never had anyone ever say anything about this or ever do anything about it.  aside from that, i would say that i record concerts because they offer better insight than a photo.  a video shows how people were moving, dancers on stage, pyrotechnics, visual effects like screens and lasers, or even something as simple as the depth of people at the venue.  i know for certain i often do a short circular panorama video to get a google street type view to show to friends later so they can get a scope of how big the event was.  and sometimes, the videos just for me.  i read below where you said something like  if you ca not remember it without a phone, it was not worth remembering .  that is just downright absolutism at it is worst.  i go to at least 0 0 shows a year of varying sizes and genres.  i have been doing this for nearly 0 years.  you expect me to be able to remember every single thing that is i personally want to remember about those nights just from my shitty memory ? the main part of your argument i do not get is why it matters the reason ? these people want to record it and they are not hurting anyone other than you it seems.  in this case i really do think this is a societal standard.  like if i went to a shoe store and tried on a shoe off the wall.  it is unorthodox and might even annoy people there who want to look at the display, but it is in my right to do and at most the inconvenience is negligible because of the overall amount of time you are being inconvenienced vs.  the potential enjoyment they are getting from the recording.  i guess i ca not say it is negligible for you, but i suppose this is just your weird pet peeve you have to get over.  i hate it when people open bananas from the stem end, but i do not say anything when people do.   #  if the venue allows recording equipment you should also reasonably expect that that equipment will interfere with your view.   # was not worth remembering.  or you did not really like the artist to begin with.  would you deny a 0 year old an opportunity to watch a video from the good times he had in his 0s ? pretty simple exchange to explain really.  at no time did i explicitly agree in the venue is website terms of service or the inherent contract of buying the ticket that i would be obligated to have to suffer through cameras.  you have reserved a spot to see the artist in a venue along with hundreds of other people.  you did not pay for an exclusive artist engagement.  consequently you should reasonably expect that other people that also paid to be there may interfere with your view.  if the venue allows recording equipment you should also reasonably expect that that equipment will interfere with your view.  do not like it ? do not buy the ticket.  or buy a first row seat.   #  furthermore, a venue banning all recording devices is hardly worth mentioning as it hardly stops the people who want to record it.   # if we are pulling out those kind of hypotheticals, here is mine.  if we assume a 0 year old today, back in their 0s there were no phones or devices of a handheld nature to record videos, so for that video to have existed, it would not have been in the criteria i am speaking of.  no, i would not stop this person from watching the video, but it is already made and not the issue i am talking about, so it is moot at best.  you did not pay for an exclusive artist engagement.  consequently you should reasonably expect that other people that also paid to be there may interfere with your view.  if the venue allows recording equipment you should also reasonably expect that that equipment will interfere with your view.  you still make it sound as if i am obligated to suffer through this.  my new solution is to blatantly push the arms down now.  does it make me an asshole in that moment ? sure.  there is an equally reasonable expectation of me doing that to those who choose to record.  furthermore, a venue banning all recording devices is hardly worth mentioning as it hardly stops the people who want to record it.  unless you pull a jack white and sick security on the venue like hunting dogs, but that is another conversation altogether.  at what point am i allowed to refuse ? to what extent are they allowed to impose those recording devices ? i would rather not have a perpetual war of this going on the rest of my concert going life, but if it is a solution that gets my bottom line met and helps other fans enjoy the experience they know they paid for, great.  there is official recordings of live shows too, stick to them if that really is your cup of tea.
hey yo, cmv.  thought i would submit this post because it is something that has been bugging me a bit since going to a concert in october.  it is the obnoxious amount of phones i see being pulled out and  held up  forever because ravenous fans decide to record entire songs on their phones or ipads that takes a special kind of audacity .  overall, i do sincerely believe this is an incredibly stupid thing to do.  0 no matter how good the camera on your phone or hand held device, the quality will be garbage.  you really think those speakers of yours will pick up the awesomeness of the moment or sound ? even in hd, the videos uploaded are garbage and both eye and ear sores.  i liked that song, but not when it sounds like that.  0 it is obnoxious to other concert goers.  yes, if the venue does not ban them, you are free to do it.  but in exercising your freedom, you are imposing on the freedom of others.  we as fans paid good money for tickets to see our favorite musicians show us a good time and entertain us.  i did not pay to see some jackasses hold up a rectangles.  i sure as hell did not pay to see the artist through your damn lens either.  0 this one is more anticipatory for a possible counter argument of there was no other way for people to see it.  guess what ? if you did not pay the dough, know about the gig, or could not catch it, you are not automatically entitled to seeing it.  you are not the first person to miss an event, and you surely wo not be the last.   #  if you did not pay the dough, know about the gig, or could not catch it, you are not automatically entitled to seeing it.   #  the idea behind this is incredibly selfish.   #  i can assure you that when people record videos at shows its in an effort to preserve the memory.  not to mention, live versions of songs are usually different so its always nice to have something  one of a kind .  the idea behind this is incredibly selfish.  you mean to tell me that because i had a conflict with a band i dig, i should not be allowed to witness that show simply because you do not like people recording at concerts ? heres a pretty simple solution, move ? its a concert venue, there are hundreds of other places to view the show ? i do not think you realize how far technology has advanced in the past 0 years alone, especially when it comes to telephones.  unless youre going to a rave, where the music is predominantly artificial bass jacked up so high the ground shakes, you can get a decent video.  this lettuce URL cell phone video picks up great audio , this dr.  dog URL video is visually spectacular, and this wilco URL set sounds absolutely phenomenal.  they are by no means a flac file but they are defiantly not  garbage .   #  i am glad you asked, i guess it was not that clear.   #  i am glad you asked, i guess it was not that clear.  yeah, i do just want some kind of justification, or if you like to record concerts, maybe just give your personal take on it ? if i could see it from a different light, maybe i would get it.  it is not like i can really tap the shoulder of the person in front of me to talk it out.  i know my view comes off as very one sided and harsh, but it does rile me up in all honesty.   #  a video shows how people were moving, dancers on stage, pyrotechnics, visual effects like screens and lasers, or even something as simple as the depth of people at the venue.   #  i record concerts often.  sometimes with my phone, sometimes with my dslr.  but either way, my arm is usually up and in the air.  any time a venue employee has asked me to put it away i do.  as for other patrons, i have never had anyone ever say anything about this or ever do anything about it.  aside from that, i would say that i record concerts because they offer better insight than a photo.  a video shows how people were moving, dancers on stage, pyrotechnics, visual effects like screens and lasers, or even something as simple as the depth of people at the venue.  i know for certain i often do a short circular panorama video to get a google street type view to show to friends later so they can get a scope of how big the event was.  and sometimes, the videos just for me.  i read below where you said something like  if you ca not remember it without a phone, it was not worth remembering .  that is just downright absolutism at it is worst.  i go to at least 0 0 shows a year of varying sizes and genres.  i have been doing this for nearly 0 years.  you expect me to be able to remember every single thing that is i personally want to remember about those nights just from my shitty memory ? the main part of your argument i do not get is why it matters the reason ? these people want to record it and they are not hurting anyone other than you it seems.  in this case i really do think this is a societal standard.  like if i went to a shoe store and tried on a shoe off the wall.  it is unorthodox and might even annoy people there who want to look at the display, but it is in my right to do and at most the inconvenience is negligible because of the overall amount of time you are being inconvenienced vs.  the potential enjoyment they are getting from the recording.  i guess i ca not say it is negligible for you, but i suppose this is just your weird pet peeve you have to get over.  i hate it when people open bananas from the stem end, but i do not say anything when people do.   #  than you should have expected rectangles being held up.   # you really think those speakers of yours will pick up the awesomeness of the moment or sound ? even in hd, the videos uploaded are garbage and both eye and ear sores.  i liked that song, but not when it sounds like that.  so what ? a person may still enjoy the recording, since it will remind him of the good time he had.  yes, if the venue does not ban them, you are free to do it.  but in exercising your freedom, you are imposing on the freedom of others.  we as fans paid good money for tickets to see our favorite musicians show us a good time and entertain us.  i did not pay to see some jackasses hold up a rectangles.  i sure as hell did not pay to see the artist through your damn lens either.  yes, you did pay to see  jackasses hold up a rectangles.   did you know that the venue you are buying tickets for  does not ban recording devices ?   yes ? than you should have expected rectangles being held up.  if you do not want to see it, go to a venue that does ban recording devices.   #  would you deny a 0 year old an opportunity to watch a video from the good times he had in his 0s ?  # was not worth remembering.  or you did not really like the artist to begin with.  would you deny a 0 year old an opportunity to watch a video from the good times he had in his 0s ? pretty simple exchange to explain really.  at no time did i explicitly agree in the venue is website terms of service or the inherent contract of buying the ticket that i would be obligated to have to suffer through cameras.  you have reserved a spot to see the artist in a venue along with hundreds of other people.  you did not pay for an exclusive artist engagement.  consequently you should reasonably expect that other people that also paid to be there may interfere with your view.  if the venue allows recording equipment you should also reasonably expect that that equipment will interfere with your view.  do not like it ? do not buy the ticket.  or buy a first row seat.
i will copy what i commented on another thread.  i would not call him a race baiter actually like sharpton.  i think to be a true race baiter, you have to be in it for either power or money.  i do not see what obama has left to gain at this point.  he is going to lose power in congress once the republicans take over, he is not running for re election, and he gets paid on a fixed salary.  maybe there is something i am overlooking, but i think he is actually just saying what he feels.  what he is saying may absolutely be wrong, but i do not see the motivation.  i think people are very quick to judge someone is actions, obama is recent criticisms along with the martin, brown, and garner, as specific intentions of race baiting.  i am not saying no one or no news media has never done this, but i keep seeing  obama is a race baiter  in a lot of threads, so i thought i might ask.   #  i think to be a true race baiter, you have to be in it for either power or money.   #  no, you are in it to inflate racial tensions and pit people against each other to keep racial conflicts going, so they came come to you for help, even though you caused the problem.   # obama and sharpton have direct contact with one another and obama has mentioned sharpton in a positive light many times, calling him  the voice of the voiceless and a champion for the downtrodden  URL so if you consider sharpton to be a race baiter, then obama, who agrees with him, should be too.  no, you are in it to inflate racial tensions and pit people against each other to keep racial conflicts going, so they came come to you for help, even though you caused the problem.  it is like a fireman who starts his own fires and puts them out.  polls show that americans believe race relations have become worse URL under this president  i do not see what obama has left to gain at this point.  he is going to lose power in congress once the republicans take over, he is not running for re election, and he gets paid on a fixed salary.  influence, spread of ideals, more power to his party.  there is more to this than money.  al sharpton is actually 0 million dollars in debt URL and people who are in government make less than they did in their previous careers.  it is not so much criticism, but the way he handles it.  with martin and brown, he asserts that black people should fear white people and be afraid to leave their homes and completely ignores statistics that ignore the fact that black people are more likely to be killed by other black people, and not the police or other whites.  he also has not condemned the rioting that was largely orchestrated by sharpton and his fellow left wingers in the media.  what makes this a race baiting situation is that he is using  us vs them  rhetoric to polarize.  obama ran as a uniter, but his politics have been nothing but divide.  not just on race, but also on gender, class, region, sexuality, anything to make himself look like he is for the downtrodden.  this is what community organizers do.  it is not about pouring soup for the homeless, it is about enraging the lower class to overthrow the perceived  bourgeois .   #  them rhetoric could be for truly altruistic reasons.   #  i never considered that influencing a race baiter could put you in that category.  i agree with it in theory, so my view has changed, but i am still not convinced he himself is a race baiter.    0; awarded.  i still think the  us vs.  them rhetoric could be for truly altruistic reasons.  he may genuinely believe he is making the world a better place despite the statistics you cited.  will his party benefit ? sure, but it is a stretch to say that the party will benefit him in the future.  will his reputation benefit ? sure, but it is still a stretch to say that the purpose of what he says is for his reputation benefit.  why i kept getting at the financial motive is that it is something that can easily be said to be a motivator.  it is tangible and its primary value is to you.   #  it is his job to lead the nation.   #  the thing that sold me on obama being a race baiter is his quotes on trayvon martin.  a sitting president talking about a murder case and siding with the victim, clearly and to the entire public.  he did not know the facts of the case.  he did not know the situation that ended with trayvon is death.  i do not care what the outcome of the case was.  it does not matter.  what does matter, is that a sitting president would throw in his opinion about an unresolved case and back trayvon simply because he was black.  i have not heard him come out in a press release and personally relate to any white victims.  the defendant deserved his day in court.  this is america.  and here is the president saying the victim could have been his son.  jesus, talk about jury tainting.  this was a disgusting moment for the president of the united states.  it is his job to lead the nation.  a nation of all colors and races.  not throw his support in for the black guy, simply because he was black.   #  i will contest the point that obama does not have much to go for.   #  well, i guess i get what i ask for.  i did find a bunch of people calling him a race baiter, but unsurprisingly nobody really explained themselves.  so yeah, i do not have much to contradict you on in regard to the main thrust of your cmv.  i will contest the point that obama does not have much to go for.  he has a lot of power and prestige still given his position as president, and can get a lot done depending on his public profile see, for example, the deal with cuba today .  even with republicans in congress, barack obama is the most powerful single man on earth.   #  i do not necessarily agree that he is a race baiter, but i do believe he has his own motives and agendas and he still has the ability to impact them.   #  obama still has to gain the most valuable thing to him.  that is to move the country in a direction that aligns with his perspectives.  even if he ca not accomplish these things by holding a particular office, or by earning money off of it, his words still hold influence.  influence that is arguably greater than any other figure in the u. s.  and maybe the world right now.  i do not necessarily agree that he is a race baiter, but i do believe he has his own motives and agendas and he still has the ability to impact them.
i will copy what i commented on another thread.  i would not call him a race baiter actually like sharpton.  i think to be a true race baiter, you have to be in it for either power or money.  i do not see what obama has left to gain at this point.  he is going to lose power in congress once the republicans take over, he is not running for re election, and he gets paid on a fixed salary.  maybe there is something i am overlooking, but i think he is actually just saying what he feels.  what he is saying may absolutely be wrong, but i do not see the motivation.  i think people are very quick to judge someone is actions, obama is recent criticisms along with the martin, brown, and garner, as specific intentions of race baiting.  i am not saying no one or no news media has never done this, but i keep seeing  obama is a race baiter  in a lot of threads, so i thought i might ask.   #  i think people are very quick to judge someone is actions, obama is recent criticisms along with the martin, brown, and garner, as specific intentions of race baiting.   #  it is not so much criticism, but the way he handles it.   # obama and sharpton have direct contact with one another and obama has mentioned sharpton in a positive light many times, calling him  the voice of the voiceless and a champion for the downtrodden  URL so if you consider sharpton to be a race baiter, then obama, who agrees with him, should be too.  no, you are in it to inflate racial tensions and pit people against each other to keep racial conflicts going, so they came come to you for help, even though you caused the problem.  it is like a fireman who starts his own fires and puts them out.  polls show that americans believe race relations have become worse URL under this president  i do not see what obama has left to gain at this point.  he is going to lose power in congress once the republicans take over, he is not running for re election, and he gets paid on a fixed salary.  influence, spread of ideals, more power to his party.  there is more to this than money.  al sharpton is actually 0 million dollars in debt URL and people who are in government make less than they did in their previous careers.  it is not so much criticism, but the way he handles it.  with martin and brown, he asserts that black people should fear white people and be afraid to leave their homes and completely ignores statistics that ignore the fact that black people are more likely to be killed by other black people, and not the police or other whites.  he also has not condemned the rioting that was largely orchestrated by sharpton and his fellow left wingers in the media.  what makes this a race baiting situation is that he is using  us vs them  rhetoric to polarize.  obama ran as a uniter, but his politics have been nothing but divide.  not just on race, but also on gender, class, region, sexuality, anything to make himself look like he is for the downtrodden.  this is what community organizers do.  it is not about pouring soup for the homeless, it is about enraging the lower class to overthrow the perceived  bourgeois .   #  i agree with it in theory, so my view has changed, but i am still not convinced he himself is a race baiter.   #  i never considered that influencing a race baiter could put you in that category.  i agree with it in theory, so my view has changed, but i am still not convinced he himself is a race baiter.    0; awarded.  i still think the  us vs.  them rhetoric could be for truly altruistic reasons.  he may genuinely believe he is making the world a better place despite the statistics you cited.  will his party benefit ? sure, but it is a stretch to say that the party will benefit him in the future.  will his reputation benefit ? sure, but it is still a stretch to say that the purpose of what he says is for his reputation benefit.  why i kept getting at the financial motive is that it is something that can easily be said to be a motivator.  it is tangible and its primary value is to you.   #  he did not know the situation that ended with trayvon is death.   #  the thing that sold me on obama being a race baiter is his quotes on trayvon martin.  a sitting president talking about a murder case and siding with the victim, clearly and to the entire public.  he did not know the facts of the case.  he did not know the situation that ended with trayvon is death.  i do not care what the outcome of the case was.  it does not matter.  what does matter, is that a sitting president would throw in his opinion about an unresolved case and back trayvon simply because he was black.  i have not heard him come out in a press release and personally relate to any white victims.  the defendant deserved his day in court.  this is america.  and here is the president saying the victim could have been his son.  jesus, talk about jury tainting.  this was a disgusting moment for the president of the united states.  it is his job to lead the nation.  a nation of all colors and races.  not throw his support in for the black guy, simply because he was black.   #  i did find a bunch of people calling him a race baiter, but unsurprisingly nobody really explained themselves.   #  well, i guess i get what i ask for.  i did find a bunch of people calling him a race baiter, but unsurprisingly nobody really explained themselves.  so yeah, i do not have much to contradict you on in regard to the main thrust of your cmv.  i will contest the point that obama does not have much to go for.  he has a lot of power and prestige still given his position as president, and can get a lot done depending on his public profile see, for example, the deal with cuba today .  even with republicans in congress, barack obama is the most powerful single man on earth.   #  i do not necessarily agree that he is a race baiter, but i do believe he has his own motives and agendas and he still has the ability to impact them.   #  obama still has to gain the most valuable thing to him.  that is to move the country in a direction that aligns with his perspectives.  even if he ca not accomplish these things by holding a particular office, or by earning money off of it, his words still hold influence.  influence that is arguably greater than any other figure in the u. s.  and maybe the world right now.  i do not necessarily agree that he is a race baiter, but i do believe he has his own motives and agendas and he still has the ability to impact them.
whenever people use the word terrorist they assume that i buy into the narrative that people exist that mean to cause terror to my people/ country just for the sake of it.  terrorist implies a simple good vs evil narrative which never applies in the real world.  saying terrorist paints with far too broad a brush as it is used to describe almost anyone that has been forced to violence against the us or the uk.  i am not saying that these people are in the right of course all i am saying is that dumbing down the narrative is done for one of two reasons.  propaganda for spreading fear or saving time to fit news into short segments more easily rather than discussing the issues in a mature manner.  making the narrative of war and struggle appear simple in this way is why i always tend to mistrust or ignore news sources or authority figures that use this word.  cmv  #  terrorist implies a simple good vs evil narrative which never applies in the real world.   #  one man is terrorist is another man is freedom fighter ?  # distrust without context is as shortsighted as the misuse of the word terrorist.  say a news reporter says,  a terrorist wearing a bomb vest blew up a cafe in israel today.   you ca not argue with the use of that word in that situation.  a person or persons is attempting to intimidate or coerce a government to change policy or action by committing violence against a civilian population.  immediate distrust of such reporting simply because the word  terrorist  is used would be ridiculous.  whose narrative is that ? no one thinks that terrorists are not after something, even people who apply that word to every brown skinned dude with a koran stuffed into his back pocket.  one man is terrorist is another man is freedom fighter ? i think it is pretty easy to distinguish between terrorists and freedom fighters terrorists attack civilian targets and freedom fighters attack military targets.  though the 0/0 attack on the pentagon was horrifying, i contend that it was a valid target for an attack due to its stature as a military installation.  the wtc, not so much.  propaganda is spread by governments.  bush/cheney/powell/rice calling saddam hussein a terrorism sponsor was propaganda.  the news media reporting on this characterization is not propaganda in and of itself they were merely reporting on the content of government is argument for the second war in iraq.  oh, he used the word terrorist, he is clearly an uneducated scumbag disseminating propaganda and/or agitprop.  by making a hard and fast  rule  you do yourself a disservice.  it is better to analyze the word in context to make a determination about the qualifications of a source.  i do not hear the word misused a lot on npr, for example, or pbs.   #  the use of the word itself, ironically enough, is bordering on terrorism now.   #  the issue is twofold.  firstly, that definition is kind of open ended, which means anything can be defined as  terrorism  if you are standing in the right spot.  any military is using violence/chaos to achieve goals, for example.  the use of the word itself, ironically enough, is bordering on terrorism now.  secondly, it has a strict meaning and then, on the side, the well understood meaning op is talking about.  half the time, when you will hear  the terrorists , it fits into a well established narrative.  a story of good versus bad most likely taking part in a desert somewhere.   #  al qaeda deliberately inspires fear to achieve its ends.   #  first of all, i agree that there are issues with the looseness of the definition of terrorism.  however, you have to agree that certain groups are definitely terrorists.  al qaeda deliberately inspires fear to achieve its ends.  the u. s.  drone program, which people sometimes label as terrorism, creates an atmosphere of fear as a side effect, and although it does not excuse it at all, it does allow for that ambiguity.  secondly, just because some people misuse a word does not mean that it is always being misused.  yes, using the label of  terrorist  to describe ethnic groups, primarily in the middle east, is not uncommon, but, going back to the previous point, there are still groups that are definitively terrorist organizations.  the context in which someone is using the term is essential.   #  both the drone strikes and al qaeda are using fear as their weapon.   #  here is the problem.  you are not resolving any of these issues.  both the drone strikes and al qaeda are using fear as their weapon.  the drone , just like the suicide bomber, is terrifying because it can get you anywhere at virtually no cost.  secondly, while i understand your point that there is indeed an official description.  it is still a problem when the word is ambiguous to start with.  add to that the fact that it is maybe the most loaded word there is and you got a pretty explosive cocktail no bad pun intended .   #  that does not change the fact that al qaeda is completely in the black when it come to being a terrorist organization.   #  al qaeda uses fear as its weapon, and creates fear through the use of widespread attacks with civilian targets.  precautionary shortages aside, the goal of the drone program is to eliminate military targets, not terrorize the general population.  the fact that it does this is an unintended side effect, so its use is a gray area when it comes to terrorism.  that does not change the fact that al qaeda is completely in the black when it come to being a terrorist organization.  secondly, it is possible to clear up ambiguity.   terrorists  can be used as a pronoun, essentially, when using a synonym for a previously named group.  if you use it correctly, the only people who are going to find ambiguities are those that are actively seeking them.
if there was a guy/girl that you were interested in, and that you got along with and wanted a relationship with, but they were not attracted to how you look based off of weight, then it would be wrong to fit yourself to that persons liking.  maybe you are too fat or skinny for that person, and they wanted more than what you were, its unfair for you to think that you need to change that.  you are who you are.  if you were comfortable with that, and they were not attracted to you like that, then changing that would be silly.  you should be healthy for personal reasons.  in interest of not sounding like i want to push my beliefs as stated earlier in this sub, i would like to hear about your views because this puts people like myself in awkward places.   #  you should be healthy for personal reasons.   #  what if those personal reasons are that you really, really want to go out with this person ?  #  i think that this line is a bit fuzzy, but here is my reasoning.  if you know someone you want to go out with likes certain attributes, like types of clothing or hair style, i do not think it is wrong to go out of your way to wear that clothing or change your hair style if you also like those things.  however, i do think it would be crazy to do those things if you do not personally like them.  in the same way, if you know someone prefers a certain weight, and it is healthy for you to change and something you want to do, i do not think it is wrong to lose or gain that weight to make yourself more attractive for that person.  what if those personal reasons are that you really, really want to go out with this person ? many people are more extrinsically motivated than intrinsically motivated, and it is possible that this is the push they need to get healthy assuming their weight was unhealthy before .  obviously, if you are within the healthy weight range according to your doctor, you should not change just because someone else prefers something different; you ca not change your height or eye color, and you ca not necessarily change a weight range that is healthy for you.   #  either you become healthier and receive the attention of a crush, or you become healthier but do not receive the attention of a crush.   #  if you changed the topic to  it is wrong to develop an eating disorder to attract someone you like  then i would agree with you whole heartedly.  however, i see no downsides to losing/gaining weight to attract someone else.  either you become healthier and receive the attention of a crush, or you become healthier but do not receive the attention of a crush.  it does not matter what your motivation is as long as you become healthy in the process, it is not  wrong.   and yes, physical attraction is an important component of relationships.  some people like skinny bodies, some people like fatter bodies, some people like average sized bodies it is okay to have preferences based on physical qualities.   #  either you become healthier and receive the attention of a crush, or you become healthier but do not receive the attention of a crush.   # either you become healthier and receive the attention of a crush, or you become healthier but do not receive the attention of a crush.  you are assuming that you are starting out at an unhealthy weight, i. e.  that whoever you like is unattracted to you because they somehow supernaturally perceive that you are at an unhealthy weight.  for your assertion to be true, you would need to show that it is indeed possible to eyeball people is health by how much they appear to weigh, which is an untrue assertion.  how can you be sure that you will become healthier by losing or gaining weight ? does your belief that the ends justify the means apply only to health, or to other areas of life, and, if it only applies to health, why not other areas of life ?  #  it is not a matter of  supernatural  abilities, it is statistics.   #  it is not a matter of  supernatural  abilities, it is statistics.  statistically speaking, people who are underweight/overweight tend to develop more health problems than those that who are at an average weight.  facts should not be ignored just because they might hurt feelings.  it is not a matter of ends justifying the means how is that phrase even relevant ? , it is a matter of action being more important than justifications.  i would rather have my children improve their health in order to impress someone else than to have them say  i am perfect the way i am  and not do shit for self improvement.   #  the overwhelmingly superior predictor for an individual is health problems is the current state of their individual health,  which you do not know .   # absolutely.  as will people who are underweight.  because severe underweight/overweight is often  correlated  with serious health problems.  0.  how can you tell by looking at a person that they are the wrong weight ? how do you know by knowing a person is weight that that weight is wrong for them ? 0.  since this is an individual we are talking about here, population statistics have little predictive power.  the overwhelmingly superior predictor for an individual is health problems is the current state of their individual health,  which you do not know .  the cmv is not  should i change for someone else or not do shit for self improvement  ? the cmv is  should i change for someone else  ? ceteris paribus, no.
if there was a guy/girl that you were interested in, and that you got along with and wanted a relationship with, but they were not attracted to how you look based off of weight, then it would be wrong to fit yourself to that persons liking.  maybe you are too fat or skinny for that person, and they wanted more than what you were, its unfair for you to think that you need to change that.  you are who you are.  if you were comfortable with that, and they were not attracted to you like that, then changing that would be silly.  you should be healthy for personal reasons.  in interest of not sounding like i want to push my beliefs as stated earlier in this sub, i would like to hear about your views because this puts people like myself in awkward places.   #  if you were comfortable with that, and they were not attracted to you like that, then changing that would be silly.   #  you should be healthy for personal reasons.   # i/you/we are not our bmis.  our physical appearances and health are just one aspect of who we are and want to be.  you should be healthy for personal reasons.  if i would be happier with my partner and making a change is within the scope of things i am willing to do then it does not make sense  not  to do it.  having expectations for your partner is not unreasonable and finding someone who ticks most of your boxes and hoping they can work to tick a few more is totally ok.  it is simply up to the individual person to determine if their partners expectations comport with their own self image.  for a great many people losing a few pounds and keeping fit is a perfectly acceptable degree of work to put into a relationship.   #  some people like skinny bodies, some people like fatter bodies, some people like average sized bodies it is okay to have preferences based on physical qualities.   #  if you changed the topic to  it is wrong to develop an eating disorder to attract someone you like  then i would agree with you whole heartedly.  however, i see no downsides to losing/gaining weight to attract someone else.  either you become healthier and receive the attention of a crush, or you become healthier but do not receive the attention of a crush.  it does not matter what your motivation is as long as you become healthy in the process, it is not  wrong.   and yes, physical attraction is an important component of relationships.  some people like skinny bodies, some people like fatter bodies, some people like average sized bodies it is okay to have preferences based on physical qualities.   #  you are assuming that you are starting out at an unhealthy weight, i. e.   # either you become healthier and receive the attention of a crush, or you become healthier but do not receive the attention of a crush.  you are assuming that you are starting out at an unhealthy weight, i. e.  that whoever you like is unattracted to you because they somehow supernaturally perceive that you are at an unhealthy weight.  for your assertion to be true, you would need to show that it is indeed possible to eyeball people is health by how much they appear to weigh, which is an untrue assertion.  how can you be sure that you will become healthier by losing or gaining weight ? does your belief that the ends justify the means apply only to health, or to other areas of life, and, if it only applies to health, why not other areas of life ?  #  statistically speaking, people who are underweight/overweight tend to develop more health problems than those that who are at an average weight.   #  it is not a matter of  supernatural  abilities, it is statistics.  statistically speaking, people who are underweight/overweight tend to develop more health problems than those that who are at an average weight.  facts should not be ignored just because they might hurt feelings.  it is not a matter of ends justifying the means how is that phrase even relevant ? , it is a matter of action being more important than justifications.  i would rather have my children improve their health in order to impress someone else than to have them say  i am perfect the way i am  and not do shit for self improvement.   #  the overwhelmingly superior predictor for an individual is health problems is the current state of their individual health,  which you do not know .   # absolutely.  as will people who are underweight.  because severe underweight/overweight is often  correlated  with serious health problems.  0.  how can you tell by looking at a person that they are the wrong weight ? how do you know by knowing a person is weight that that weight is wrong for them ? 0.  since this is an individual we are talking about here, population statistics have little predictive power.  the overwhelmingly superior predictor for an individual is health problems is the current state of their individual health,  which you do not know .  the cmv is not  should i change for someone else or not do shit for self improvement  ? the cmv is  should i change for someone else  ? ceteris paribus, no.
why we should try a pacific way to deal with terrorists ? why an armed, organized, controled military intervention with the involvement of many countries to finish this threat is such a bad idea ? i am not saying that we should go against the muslims, no.  is not about going against an specific religion, country, ethnicity but going against those extremists that think that killing 0 children for their cause is ok.  why we should waste time, money and resources trying to find a pacific way to control this issue ? seems like the extremists are not willing to open a dialoge, for me is not that they want recognition, they want to erradicate everything and everybody that is  against  their beliefs.  yes, a pacific way seems viable on the long term, but we should wait to educate all those soldiers and then see if that changes anything ? why we should have considerations for a group that haves no boundaries ? please, change my view.   #  why we should try a pacific way to deal with terrorists ?  #  why an armed, organized, controled military intervention with the involvement of many countries to finish this threat is such a bad idea ?  # why an armed, organized, controled military intervention with the involvement of many countries to finish this threat is such a bad idea ? because when we do not fully understand the politics of the region we are trying to intervene in militarily almost always happens , we can do much more harm than good.  let me paint a scenario for you: you are chilling at home, watching trailer park boys on netflix with your cousin.  you are pretty stoked because you just passed your finals, and you were 0 certain you were going to bomb your chem exam, but somehow, you passed.  your mom and aunt are cooking a meal in the kitchen, and your dad and uncle are sitting on the porch drinking beers.  right as lahey and randy are about to bust ricky, your fucking house explodes.  your dad, uncle, and aunt are dead, your cousin is bleeding out, and your mom has her legs blown off.  you are kinda fucked up and ca not hear anything, but you can walk.  you go outside to see the house next to yours is gone.  a crater is in it is place.  you did not do anything wrong, you just happened to live next to some dudes who did not like that their country was being occupied by another country.  now, your heart is filled with anger at this country for what happened to your family.  now, imagine that instead of this happening in the us where you are at least slightly aware of international politics, you are in the middle of a mountain range in central asia.  you may or may not have electricity/running water.  you grew up with those dudes that got blown up, and while they had sketchy friends, they were not into anything serious.  a few months later, a group rolls into town trying to recruit people to fight against this enemy who blew up your friends and killed/maimed your family.  they tell you that it is your god given duty to protect your family, and this is how you do it.  congrats, you are now a terrorist.  obviously, there is holes all over that hypothetical, but the point remains: you ca not  kill  an idea by killing people.  every innocent person killed in your military op becomes a piece of propaganda with which to recruit more people.   #  the collateral damage and innocent deaths that may kill a few terrorist leaders just drives more people to the cause.   #  here is the problem with attacking terrorist groups.  you are not attacking a specific group of people with a specific agenda, you are attacking marginalized, frustrated peoples with no hope, no future, and nothing to lose.  the collateral damage and innocent deaths that may kill a few terrorist leaders just drives more people to the cause.  you can certainly take out a few important key players to reduce a terrorist group is ability to carry out attacks, but you wo not be able to drive people themselves into submission.  you need to give people something, so that they have something to lose.  why is it that nobody protests in the us ? because we all have jobs to go to.  if we miss too much work, we will lose our jobs, and we are too damn tired after working 0 0 hours a week to fight for things that we may support.  as long as we can feed our families and live in our comfortable homes, we are not gonna try to break down a system that is meeting our basic needs.  all of these things are inherently absent in countries/areas where terrorism runs rampant.  that is why developing an economy that can feed its people and meet their basic needs is a far more effective long term approach than trying to squash every terrorist movement that emerges through force.   #  the sas but up a rapport with the local isolated villages, like the one you described, by giving them extensive medical support.   #  this is an argument against using overwhelming force not against a militaristic approach.  something like how the british dealt with dhofar rebellion in oman would be much more effective and could help them kill terrorists.  the sas but up a rapport with the local isolated villages, like the one you described, by giving them extensive medical support.  they then not only were not hindered by the locals but were able to create a indigenous militia to help them suppress the rebellion.  it is not that militaristic approaches are not viable it just needs to be an effectively carried out hearts and minds campaign.  something that has not, historically be the us is strong point.   #  you kill a man and he becomes a martyr who inspires two or ten or twenty more to join.   # because it is the only approach that is going to work.  lets step back from the middle east for a moment and talk about another conflict: northern ireland.  the conflicts here had deep historical roots and had been bubbling on and off for centuries.  successive governments tried to quell it militarily: sometimes they were even successful, for a time.  but trouble always broke out again.  now we have peace although perhaps it is not permanent this time either; only history will tell but the only reason that it was even possible was the deliberate choice to reject force and find a political solution.  when people are fighting for a cause then any violence used against them only makes them more determined.  you kill a man and he becomes a martyr who inspires two or ten or twenty more to join.  the struggle seeps into the culture and becomes part of their identity, and the more you try to fight that the more entrenched it becomes.  if you go in with all guns blazing it wo not just not work, it will be actively counterproductive.   #  it is impossible to selectively kill only those which seek to do civilians immediate harm, without innocent casualties.   #  without a comprehensive approach to terrorism and especially the conditions which allow for the creation and propagation of terrorist organizations, which necessarily include non violent action, terrorism will continue to be a problem.  terrorist groups most often develop in spaces where people feel marginalized and oppressed, and when they feel like the group offers them the best possible solution to the problems in their life.  the problem with using military force to curb non imminent terrorist threats is that it often perpetuates the conditions under which the terrorist group grew in the first place.  it is impossible to selectively kill only those which seek to do civilians immediate harm, without innocent casualties.  drone strikes by the united states have killed hundreds thousands ? of civilians and fostered a deep fear of the us among civilians in afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, and other places where drones are being used.  if acute military action were the best way to stop future terrorist attacks, israel would be the safest place on earth.  for decades, they have dealt with terrorism by brutalizing the perpetrators and anyone associated.  the problem is, the blowback from innocent deaths, and the continued economic injustices which are everpresent in the palestinian territories, prove fertile ground for the recruitment of extremists.  contrast that with northern ireland, which after decades of violence has had an enormously successful and peaceful past 0 years.  why ? it turns out that when everyone has a job and a house and the freedom to practice their religion, they do not turn to extremism as a way to solve their problems.
why we should try a pacific way to deal with terrorists ? why an armed, organized, controled military intervention with the involvement of many countries to finish this threat is such a bad idea ? i am not saying that we should go against the muslims, no.  is not about going against an specific religion, country, ethnicity but going against those extremists that think that killing 0 children for their cause is ok.  why we should waste time, money and resources trying to find a pacific way to control this issue ? seems like the extremists are not willing to open a dialoge, for me is not that they want recognition, they want to erradicate everything and everybody that is  against  their beliefs.  yes, a pacific way seems viable on the long term, but we should wait to educate all those soldiers and then see if that changes anything ? why we should have considerations for a group that haves no boundaries ? please, change my view.   #  why we should try a pacific way to deal with terrorists ?  #  because it is the only approach that is going to work.   # because it is the only approach that is going to work.  lets step back from the middle east for a moment and talk about another conflict: northern ireland.  the conflicts here had deep historical roots and had been bubbling on and off for centuries.  successive governments tried to quell it militarily: sometimes they were even successful, for a time.  but trouble always broke out again.  now we have peace although perhaps it is not permanent this time either; only history will tell but the only reason that it was even possible was the deliberate choice to reject force and find a political solution.  when people are fighting for a cause then any violence used against them only makes them more determined.  you kill a man and he becomes a martyr who inspires two or ten or twenty more to join.  the struggle seeps into the culture and becomes part of their identity, and the more you try to fight that the more entrenched it becomes.  if you go in with all guns blazing it wo not just not work, it will be actively counterproductive.   #  all of these things are inherently absent in countries/areas where terrorism runs rampant.   #  here is the problem with attacking terrorist groups.  you are not attacking a specific group of people with a specific agenda, you are attacking marginalized, frustrated peoples with no hope, no future, and nothing to lose.  the collateral damage and innocent deaths that may kill a few terrorist leaders just drives more people to the cause.  you can certainly take out a few important key players to reduce a terrorist group is ability to carry out attacks, but you wo not be able to drive people themselves into submission.  you need to give people something, so that they have something to lose.  why is it that nobody protests in the us ? because we all have jobs to go to.  if we miss too much work, we will lose our jobs, and we are too damn tired after working 0 0 hours a week to fight for things that we may support.  as long as we can feed our families and live in our comfortable homes, we are not gonna try to break down a system that is meeting our basic needs.  all of these things are inherently absent in countries/areas where terrorism runs rampant.  that is why developing an economy that can feed its people and meet their basic needs is a far more effective long term approach than trying to squash every terrorist movement that emerges through force.   #  you are kinda fucked up and ca not hear anything, but you can walk.   # why an armed, organized, controled military intervention with the involvement of many countries to finish this threat is such a bad idea ? because when we do not fully understand the politics of the region we are trying to intervene in militarily almost always happens , we can do much more harm than good.  let me paint a scenario for you: you are chilling at home, watching trailer park boys on netflix with your cousin.  you are pretty stoked because you just passed your finals, and you were 0 certain you were going to bomb your chem exam, but somehow, you passed.  your mom and aunt are cooking a meal in the kitchen, and your dad and uncle are sitting on the porch drinking beers.  right as lahey and randy are about to bust ricky, your fucking house explodes.  your dad, uncle, and aunt are dead, your cousin is bleeding out, and your mom has her legs blown off.  you are kinda fucked up and ca not hear anything, but you can walk.  you go outside to see the house next to yours is gone.  a crater is in it is place.  you did not do anything wrong, you just happened to live next to some dudes who did not like that their country was being occupied by another country.  now, your heart is filled with anger at this country for what happened to your family.  now, imagine that instead of this happening in the us where you are at least slightly aware of international politics, you are in the middle of a mountain range in central asia.  you may or may not have electricity/running water.  you grew up with those dudes that got blown up, and while they had sketchy friends, they were not into anything serious.  a few months later, a group rolls into town trying to recruit people to fight against this enemy who blew up your friends and killed/maimed your family.  they tell you that it is your god given duty to protect your family, and this is how you do it.  congrats, you are now a terrorist.  obviously, there is holes all over that hypothetical, but the point remains: you ca not  kill  an idea by killing people.  every innocent person killed in your military op becomes a piece of propaganda with which to recruit more people.   #  the sas but up a rapport with the local isolated villages, like the one you described, by giving them extensive medical support.   #  this is an argument against using overwhelming force not against a militaristic approach.  something like how the british dealt with dhofar rebellion in oman would be much more effective and could help them kill terrorists.  the sas but up a rapport with the local isolated villages, like the one you described, by giving them extensive medical support.  they then not only were not hindered by the locals but were able to create a indigenous militia to help them suppress the rebellion.  it is not that militaristic approaches are not viable it just needs to be an effectively carried out hearts and minds campaign.  something that has not, historically be the us is strong point.   #  of civilians and fostered a deep fear of the us among civilians in afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, and other places where drones are being used.   #  without a comprehensive approach to terrorism and especially the conditions which allow for the creation and propagation of terrorist organizations, which necessarily include non violent action, terrorism will continue to be a problem.  terrorist groups most often develop in spaces where people feel marginalized and oppressed, and when they feel like the group offers them the best possible solution to the problems in their life.  the problem with using military force to curb non imminent terrorist threats is that it often perpetuates the conditions under which the terrorist group grew in the first place.  it is impossible to selectively kill only those which seek to do civilians immediate harm, without innocent casualties.  drone strikes by the united states have killed hundreds thousands ? of civilians and fostered a deep fear of the us among civilians in afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, and other places where drones are being used.  if acute military action were the best way to stop future terrorist attacks, israel would be the safest place on earth.  for decades, they have dealt with terrorism by brutalizing the perpetrators and anyone associated.  the problem is, the blowback from innocent deaths, and the continued economic injustices which are everpresent in the palestinian territories, prove fertile ground for the recruitment of extremists.  contrast that with northern ireland, which after decades of violence has had an enormously successful and peaceful past 0 years.  why ? it turns out that when everyone has a job and a house and the freedom to practice their religion, they do not turn to extremism as a way to solve their problems.
why we should try a pacific way to deal with terrorists ? why an armed, organized, controled military intervention with the involvement of many countries to finish this threat is such a bad idea ? i am not saying that we should go against the muslims, no.  is not about going against an specific religion, country, ethnicity but going against those extremists that think that killing 0 children for their cause is ok.  why we should waste time, money and resources trying to find a pacific way to control this issue ? seems like the extremists are not willing to open a dialoge, for me is not that they want recognition, they want to erradicate everything and everybody that is  against  their beliefs.  yes, a pacific way seems viable on the long term, but we should wait to educate all those soldiers and then see if that changes anything ? why we should have considerations for a group that haves no boundaries ? please, change my view.   #  why we should try a pacific way to deal with terrorists ?  #  why an armed, organized, controled military intervention with the involvement of many countries to finish this threat is such a bad idea ?  # why an armed, organized, controled military intervention with the involvement of many countries to finish this threat is such a bad idea ? i am guessing you meant another word than pacific ? did you mean peaceful ? how about sovereign rights, and the right of a nation to be left to it is own affairs ? horrible things happen all the time.  this particular one happened in pakistan.  what exactly should we do about it ? in your eyes ? because it is in pakistan.  because it is in pakistan.   #  you are not attacking a specific group of people with a specific agenda, you are attacking marginalized, frustrated peoples with no hope, no future, and nothing to lose.   #  here is the problem with attacking terrorist groups.  you are not attacking a specific group of people with a specific agenda, you are attacking marginalized, frustrated peoples with no hope, no future, and nothing to lose.  the collateral damage and innocent deaths that may kill a few terrorist leaders just drives more people to the cause.  you can certainly take out a few important key players to reduce a terrorist group is ability to carry out attacks, but you wo not be able to drive people themselves into submission.  you need to give people something, so that they have something to lose.  why is it that nobody protests in the us ? because we all have jobs to go to.  if we miss too much work, we will lose our jobs, and we are too damn tired after working 0 0 hours a week to fight for things that we may support.  as long as we can feed our families and live in our comfortable homes, we are not gonna try to break down a system that is meeting our basic needs.  all of these things are inherently absent in countries/areas where terrorism runs rampant.  that is why developing an economy that can feed its people and meet their basic needs is a far more effective long term approach than trying to squash every terrorist movement that emerges through force.   #  every innocent person killed in your military op becomes a piece of propaganda with which to recruit more people.   # why an armed, organized, controled military intervention with the involvement of many countries to finish this threat is such a bad idea ? because when we do not fully understand the politics of the region we are trying to intervene in militarily almost always happens , we can do much more harm than good.  let me paint a scenario for you: you are chilling at home, watching trailer park boys on netflix with your cousin.  you are pretty stoked because you just passed your finals, and you were 0 certain you were going to bomb your chem exam, but somehow, you passed.  your mom and aunt are cooking a meal in the kitchen, and your dad and uncle are sitting on the porch drinking beers.  right as lahey and randy are about to bust ricky, your fucking house explodes.  your dad, uncle, and aunt are dead, your cousin is bleeding out, and your mom has her legs blown off.  you are kinda fucked up and ca not hear anything, but you can walk.  you go outside to see the house next to yours is gone.  a crater is in it is place.  you did not do anything wrong, you just happened to live next to some dudes who did not like that their country was being occupied by another country.  now, your heart is filled with anger at this country for what happened to your family.  now, imagine that instead of this happening in the us where you are at least slightly aware of international politics, you are in the middle of a mountain range in central asia.  you may or may not have electricity/running water.  you grew up with those dudes that got blown up, and while they had sketchy friends, they were not into anything serious.  a few months later, a group rolls into town trying to recruit people to fight against this enemy who blew up your friends and killed/maimed your family.  they tell you that it is your god given duty to protect your family, and this is how you do it.  congrats, you are now a terrorist.  obviously, there is holes all over that hypothetical, but the point remains: you ca not  kill  an idea by killing people.  every innocent person killed in your military op becomes a piece of propaganda with which to recruit more people.   #  something like how the british dealt with dhofar rebellion in oman would be much more effective and could help them kill terrorists.   #  this is an argument against using overwhelming force not against a militaristic approach.  something like how the british dealt with dhofar rebellion in oman would be much more effective and could help them kill terrorists.  the sas but up a rapport with the local isolated villages, like the one you described, by giving them extensive medical support.  they then not only were not hindered by the locals but were able to create a indigenous militia to help them suppress the rebellion.  it is not that militaristic approaches are not viable it just needs to be an effectively carried out hearts and minds campaign.  something that has not, historically be the us is strong point.   #  successive governments tried to quell it militarily: sometimes they were even successful, for a time.   # because it is the only approach that is going to work.  lets step back from the middle east for a moment and talk about another conflict: northern ireland.  the conflicts here had deep historical roots and had been bubbling on and off for centuries.  successive governments tried to quell it militarily: sometimes they were even successful, for a time.  but trouble always broke out again.  now we have peace although perhaps it is not permanent this time either; only history will tell but the only reason that it was even possible was the deliberate choice to reject force and find a political solution.  when people are fighting for a cause then any violence used against them only makes them more determined.  you kill a man and he becomes a martyr who inspires two or ten or twenty more to join.  the struggle seeps into the culture and becomes part of their identity, and the more you try to fight that the more entrenched it becomes.  if you go in with all guns blazing it wo not just not work, it will be actively counterproductive.
now, i do not consider myself to be an unhappy person.  things are actually pretty good for me.  i come from a pretty good background with parents who care about me and relatives who love me.  i have many opportunities.  that being said, i think never have being born would have been much better.  0 the joy i feel does not outweigh the anxiety i have towards death.  since we are beings toward death, we leave in anticipation of it.  it is inescapable.  0 not being born means not feeling anything, and not feeling anything means not feeling pain, and pain is a stronger emotion than happiness.  0 as sartre puts it,  we are condemned to be free.   i would rather not be condemned in the first place.  freedom is the product of condemnation to be subject to existence.  freedom means nothing if you do not want it.  please, cmv.   #  the joy i feel does not outweigh the anxiety i have towards death.   #  since we are beings toward death, we leave in anticipation of it.   #  you are suffering from an existential crisis URL  an existential crisis is a moment at which an individual questions the very foundations of their life: whether their life has any meaning, purpose, or value.  0 this issue of the meaning and purpose of existence is the topic of the philosophical school of existentialism.  the things you are feeling are neither right nor wrong but rather topics for discussion.  at some point this happens to just about everyone.  the wikipedia lists some causes and solutions for the thing.  these may reveal why and how to fix it for you, but do not go too far down the path and start to self diagnose mental illness or the like.  let is talk about it.  since we are beings toward death, we leave in anticipation of it.  it is inescapable.  this is how you feel.  it is your perspective on the issue.  plenty of people are afraid of death yet not everyone shares your point of view on this.  many people are not living in anticipation of death at all.  why do you think that might be ? pain should be avoided at all costs. when i refer to pain, i believe i refer more to loss.  loss of people.  losing people is the worst and you will live the rest of your life feeling incomplete in some way.  i will never be ready to lose my loved ones.  pain is a physical and mental response to trauma although when you are feeling it pain takes on nuance.  annoying, stinging, burning, aching, wrenching, stabbing, blinding.  sometimes you see other people in pain and think you could easily handle it.  sometimes a person is feather weight is for you unbearable.  this is another matter of perspective and, sometimes, tolerance.  likewise the idea that pain is more powerful than happiness is just a point of view.  some people are happy doing their own thing and some people are happy helping others become happy.  you will see a lot of overlap.  why do you think this is ? sometimes pain and happiness mingle and we call it bittersweet as in the case of fond memories of family and friends who have passed.  loss is a part of life and not a single person looks forward to it.  in a sense loss of a loved one produces the deepest recognition of their value because in this final moment we understand treasure a good person was.  the flip side of the idea is the treasure the good person  is  and how we might let slip precious moments if we are preoccupied with losing that person.  death is inevitable.  loss visits everyone.  is that reason enough to dwell on the idea at the expense of the time which remains ? yes he did.  but there is also fyodor dostoevksy who said:  happiness does not lie in happiness, but in the achievement of it.  and;  man is fond of counting his troubles, but he does not count his joys.  if he counted them up as he ought to, he would see that every lot has enough happiness provided for it.  we have franz kafka, who said:  a first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die.  and;  you can hold yourself back from the sufferings of the world, that is something you are free to do and it accords with your nature, but perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering you could avoid.  and;  anyone who keeps the ability to see beauty never grows old.  soren kierkegaard with these words:  anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.  and;  life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.  and;  a man who as a physical being is always turned toward the outside, thinking that his happiness lies outside him, finally turns inward and discovers that the source is within him.  you will find multiple ideas in exploring existence and they might all be correct.  what you choose to embrace, or succumb to, determines the outcome.  it is all a matter of perspective.   #  how can you really know and appreciate joy if you do not know sadness ?  # since we are beings toward death, we leave in anticipation of it.  it is inescapable.  but its the journey that matters.  all emotions, joy, fear, pain, suffering, are part of the human experience.  how can you really know and appreciate joy if you do not know sadness ? how can you know what sadness is if you do not know joy ? i do not agree with this, even so, this assumes that if you have equal parts pain and happiness, the pain outweighs the happiness.  however, based on what you said, you are a happy person and thigns are pretty good for you.  it sounds like you have more happy experiences than painful experiences in your lfie, so the happiness may outweigh any pain you may be feeling.   #  you cannot be better off by not living because there would be no you to be better off.   # pain is there for a reason.  it tells your brain  i do not like this and i do not want to do it again .  when you feel pain, you are learning about yourself and your limits.  but to avoid pain at all costs sounds like a really boring life with absolutely no excitement in it.  you cannot be better off by not living because there would be no you to be better off.  zero cannot be a better number, it is nothing.   #  but i stated that i would avoid all great things in life to not feel anything in order to avoid pain.   #  0 i really do not appreciate the insult.  0 yes, what you said was correct.  everybody is relationship to me has a selfish motive.  i am not alone in thinking that.  you love to be loved.  you seem to be implying that i am a selfish person because i only think about myself.  that also implies that there can be entirely selfless love, which would be incorrect.  but i stated that i would avoid all great things in life to not feel anything in order to avoid pain.  so i guess the  cmv  part is to convince me that living is better than not living.  and there are people like /u/pipstydoo who gave more insightful answers as opposed to you who felt the need to insult me.   #  like croooooow said, pain is more powerful than happiness because you are supposed to learn from it to become a better person.   #  the fact that life is finite magnifies the importance of your loved ones.  in other words, if your loved ones were around forever, you would probably start taking them for granted.  like croooooow said, pain is more powerful than happiness because you are supposed to learn from it to become a better person.  the pain of losing a loved one means you should appreciate those who are still with us, and is an affirmation of the love that you felt before the person is departure.  imagine how terrible it would be if you felt absolutely nothing when you lose your loved ones.
now, i do not consider myself to be an unhappy person.  things are actually pretty good for me.  i come from a pretty good background with parents who care about me and relatives who love me.  i have many opportunities.  that being said, i think never have being born would have been much better.  0 the joy i feel does not outweigh the anxiety i have towards death.  since we are beings toward death, we leave in anticipation of it.  it is inescapable.  0 not being born means not feeling anything, and not feeling anything means not feeling pain, and pain is a stronger emotion than happiness.  0 as sartre puts it,  we are condemned to be free.   i would rather not be condemned in the first place.  freedom is the product of condemnation to be subject to existence.  freedom means nothing if you do not want it.  please, cmv.   #  0 not being born means not feeling anything, and not feeling anything means not feeling pain, and pain is a stronger emotion than happiness.   #  your cmv is about whether or no we can convince you to enjoy being born which as /u/crooooow has shown might not be possible , but i would like to address this point anyway.   # your cmv is about whether or no we can convince you to enjoy being born which as /u/crooooow has shown might not be possible , but i would like to address this point anyway.  not being born does  not  mean  not feeling anything.   it means not existing.  the idea of  you  would not exist, so there is not ability to feel anything pain or happiness .  if we think about this fact a little bit, i think we might be able to agree that your general claim might be non sesensical as well:  that being said, i think never have being born would have been much better.  not being born ca not be better.  better than what ?  you  would not exist, there would be nothing but more generally nothing at all .  if you are saying that not being born would be better for the people around you, i think you would have to consult them.  they would not agree i almost guarantee it .  since you would cease to exist in this situation, their emotions and feelings are what actually matter since you ca not have any , and it therefore would not be  better.    #  i do not agree with this, even so, this assumes that if you have equal parts pain and happiness, the pain outweighs the happiness.   # since we are beings toward death, we leave in anticipation of it.  it is inescapable.  but its the journey that matters.  all emotions, joy, fear, pain, suffering, are part of the human experience.  how can you really know and appreciate joy if you do not know sadness ? how can you know what sadness is if you do not know joy ? i do not agree with this, even so, this assumes that if you have equal parts pain and happiness, the pain outweighs the happiness.  however, based on what you said, you are a happy person and thigns are pretty good for you.  it sounds like you have more happy experiences than painful experiences in your lfie, so the happiness may outweigh any pain you may be feeling.   #  zero cannot be a better number, it is nothing.   # pain is there for a reason.  it tells your brain  i do not like this and i do not want to do it again .  when you feel pain, you are learning about yourself and your limits.  but to avoid pain at all costs sounds like a really boring life with absolutely no excitement in it.  you cannot be better off by not living because there would be no you to be better off.  zero cannot be a better number, it is nothing.   #  everybody is relationship to me has a selfish motive.   #  0 i really do not appreciate the insult.  0 yes, what you said was correct.  everybody is relationship to me has a selfish motive.  i am not alone in thinking that.  you love to be loved.  you seem to be implying that i am a selfish person because i only think about myself.  that also implies that there can be entirely selfless love, which would be incorrect.  but i stated that i would avoid all great things in life to not feel anything in order to avoid pain.  so i guess the  cmv  part is to convince me that living is better than not living.  and there are people like /u/pipstydoo who gave more insightful answers as opposed to you who felt the need to insult me.   #  like croooooow said, pain is more powerful than happiness because you are supposed to learn from it to become a better person.   #  the fact that life is finite magnifies the importance of your loved ones.  in other words, if your loved ones were around forever, you would probably start taking them for granted.  like croooooow said, pain is more powerful than happiness because you are supposed to learn from it to become a better person.  the pain of losing a loved one means you should appreciate those who are still with us, and is an affirmation of the love that you felt before the person is departure.  imagine how terrible it would be if you felt absolutely nothing when you lose your loved ones.
hi cmv ! not sure if this topic is too niche, but i think it is an interesting one.  historically, low energy prices have always made for fantastic economic news.  i believe that the current geopolitical environment has upset this trend.  russia is currency is in the toilet, it is central bank is brutally hiking interest rates, and putin was counting on oil revenue to keep the lights on.  oil demand is slumping globally as china is economy is rolling over, the usa is producing massive quantities of shale oil, and the european union languishes in the mud.  the saudis can still make a fat profit on $0/barrel their cost to produce is estimated at $0/barrel, so the price war has no end in sight.  i would argue that this combination of geopolitical pressures points to crisis.  technical traders are already pointing to deflationary signals in markets across the globe.  domestic us stocks wo not escape the tumult either, and the us bond market is under severe pressure as well.  0 of high yield bonds are tied up in shale drilling operations that ca not operate at current prices.  if us domestic stocks are due for a spill due to an over reliance on outsourced foreign solvency, and domestic bonds are due for a spill if russian citizens ca not buy bread with inflated currency and putin ca not keep the lights on if china is having a fire sale of foreign assets to meet its domestic central bank is collateral obligations if the eu ca not swim with greece is debt i find it hard to see how 0 will be a good year for anybody.  economic optimists, cmv !  #  and putin was counting on oil revenue to keep the lights on.   #  so it teaches them and other countries do not rely on one thing too much and they will be stronger for it in the long run.   # it only matters if you had and are interested in trading rubles for dollars and have lots of rubles 0 to 0 months ago.  is not it good for people who now lend to russia since they get more ? so it teaches them and other countries do not rely on one thing too much and they will be stronger for it in the long run.  one part of the us bond market is at risk us government bond is rising URL yield is inverse to price so your bonds are worth more   0 of high yield bonds are tied up in shale drilling operations that ca not operate at current prices.  generally high yield bonds are known for their risk, so this is not unexpected.   #  i am not going to say 0 will be a good year for them but if it is not it is not because of falling oil prices.   #  i think you are putting the cart before the horse.  oil prices going down are  partly  because many economies in europe and asia are doing poorly which reduces demand and reduces prices.  so you could say a bad thing happened which led to oil prices lowering.  it is not all bad.  many will find reduced shale oil collecting because costs exceed prices to be a good thing.  and of course people who like to drive and do not lose their jobs will see low prices as a good thing.  oil prices going down actually could help both of those regions because lower oil prices will be a boost to those economies.  i am not going to say 0 will be a good year for them but if it is not it is not because of falling oil prices.   #  the thought that occurred to me is that the real winners in the us in the long run will actually be the shale oil producers.   #  thank you for the thoughtful response ! and i think you are right opportunists can make money in any market.  the thought that occurred to me is that the real winners in the us in the long run will actually be the shale oil producers.  my thought is that price pressure will drive innovation in that sector.  i have read a little about experimental methods to extract shale oil, including using sonic waves instead of hydraulic fracking.  my thinking is that if the saudis keep up the price pressure, the us shale oil producers will resort to using new tech.  it is entirely possible that opportunists in china and greece and russia will find new ways to squirm out from under the pressure of the price crunch.  i would be very curious to hear/read anything you might know or be able to speculate about regarding that !  #  as such, the fall in oil prices is diagnostic of a rapidly worsening geopolitical situation which will get much worse if the drop continues, because russia is economy depends 0 on oil exports .   # not by that much, and not that quickly.  the fall in demand necessary to effect a 0 price crash in 0 months is insane, considering it is an inelastic good.  china would need to shut down or something.  i do not think anybody has any doubt that price machinations by opec, usa, and especially the situation in russia sanctions and all are the principal driver of oil prices.  as such, the fall in oil prices is diagnostic of a rapidly worsening geopolitical situation which will get much worse if the drop continues, because russia is economy depends 0 on oil exports .   #  it is basically a pay raise they can spend on other goods and services.   #  certainly there are a lot of problems out there, but i am pleased putin is being punished for invading crimea and creating conflict where none should exist.  if putin loses control that will be at least one benefit.  china should also benefit from lower energy prices.  producers like iran are being hurt as well, which again, i think is in our geostrategic benefit.  in terms of deflation, that is why core inflation measures exclude volatile food/energy cost change.  falling energy means a higher standard of living for the poorest people as it is a regressive form of taxation they must pay.  it is basically a pay raise they can spend on other goods and services.  it is all a mixed bag with positives and negatives, winners and losers.  the world is headed into recession and the net effect of lower energy prices should blunt some of the pain.
the effects of alcohol are ubiquitous and therefore given the elevated status of  drunk,  or  tipsy,  rather than  high.   but there is no valid reason to exempt the effects of alcohol from the umbrella term we use for every other drug, marijuana, opiates, cocaine, etc .  in our society, it is more acceptable to say,  i was pretty drunk yesterday,  than to say  i was pretty high yesterday.   however, many highs are much safer than that of alcohol.  i can foresee many of you objecting that drunk is a more specific way of saying high on alcohol, and therefore serves a more useful purpose, much like  stoned  refers to weed highs.  but alcohol is the only drug exempt from the stigma of high.  it should not seem so strange to refer to the effects of alcohol as being high.   #  it should not seem so strange to refer to the effects of alcohol as being high.   #  it is not strange because of some conspiracy to make alcohol more accepted, though.   # it is not strange because of some conspiracy to make alcohol more accepted, though.  maybe at one point it was i doubt it, but it is certainly possible.  alcohol has been considered acceptable by most of society for a long period of time, whereas  drugs  have not been viewed as universally acceptable and only recently are gaining more mainstream acceptance.  both admittedly cause damage, but alcohol was legal and accepted.  also, language takes a while to evolve and things like marijuana are only becoming more widely accepted in recent time.  so while i agree that it is not wrong to say someone is  high  on alcohol, i do not think it anoints drinking with any prestige.  it just  anoints  it as a legal, and more widely socially acceptable imbibement.  also, not everyone who is  high  is stigmatized.  people will gladly say they were high on vicodin that was prescribed.  so i do not even think high is very stigmatized in and of itself.  it depends on what you are high on and why.   #  but for every drug that significantly changes our conscious experience, there is the umbrella term  high.    #  what i meant by prestige is that in english, alcohol is given unique terms that put it in a different genre than other drugs.  drugs can have unique terms on no drug other than mdma does one  roll  for instance.  but for every drug that significantly changes our conscious experience, there is the umbrella term  high.   if a prescription painkiller is released tomorrow that when crushed and snorted, causes the exact same effects and carries the exact same risks as getting drunk, it will be referred to as getting  high  on insert name .  the effect of this is to obscure the fact that alcohol is just another drug.   #  from the language side of things, it makes perfect sense to have unique, more specific terminology for common societal events.   # drugs can have unique terms on no other drug does one roll but mdma, for instance.  but for every drug that significantly changes our conscious experience, there is the umbrella term  high.   from the language side of things, it makes perfect sense to have unique, more specific terminology for common societal events.  more specific terms convey more specific meaning.  being  high on alcohol  is common in society, so we give it a unique name,  being drunk .  on the contrary, the effect is to provide additional information, namely the specific drug which was being used.  on the moral side of the coin, i am not aware of  being drunk  as having any prestige attached, except possibly among some small subset of college students.  could you elaborate more on what you mean by this statement ?  #  admittedly, more commonly associated with booze than anything else, but nonetheless, a catch all.   #  this is what i was going to tell him/her.  by his/her logic possibly broken, i am not awake yet high would be the term he/she should have a problem with.  for thousands of years a very long time, drunk was what he/she wants high to be.  admittedly, more commonly associated with booze than anything else, but nonetheless, a catch all.  applying to things like  drunk on power  even, not just mind altering substances.  then some people came along very recently and granted special status to drug users with terms like high, stoner, crackhead. et al  #  but you have probably heard the phrases,  drugs and alcohol  and  drugs or alcohol.    #  if you heard the phrase  my neighbor was high on drugs,  alcohol would not come to mind.  but you have probably heard the phrases,  drugs and alcohol  and  drugs or alcohol.   when kids see their parents drinking beer, they do not think  my parents are doing drugs.   but they should be able to think that.  because they are.  this would help end the stigma on responsible drug use.
i certainly see how testing is necessary to motivate students to actually process and store information.  however i do not believe that it will ever be an appropriate gage of actual intelligence.  i currently do not see how the memorization of facts especially those pertaining to history can possibly carry over outside of school.  i do understand that making associations relating to the information is beneficial.  however does storing the information and often forgetting it provide any long term benefits ? i apply the same question to the memorization of formulae in mathematics and science.  i would like to hear some thoughts on this and perhaps i can regain motivation and start shoveling information into my head for tomorrows exam.  change my view so i can get back to work.   #  however does storing the information and often forgetting it provide any long term benefits ?  #  concerning retainment of the information itself, no.   # concerning retainment of the information itself, no.  but the  act  of storing causes your brain to make implicit rearrangements.  when you learn x, some structure y of your mind becomes more biased toward intuitively believing those kinds of facts.  you have gained wisdom but not knowledge.  granted, this works much better if you are forced to think critically about the facts you are being tested on, instead of rote memorization.  for that distinction, the people involved teachers, students, and parents make all the difference.   #  i am a slow worker, but, given the time i require to work, i generally do a very good job.   #  as a student, i can tell you that, for some students i. e.  me , time has a significant effect on performance.  i am a slow worker, but, given the time i require to work, i generally do a very good job.  when i have to deal with time pressure, i rush through problems and therefore give sub par and incomplete answers.  as a teacher, if you think that  either you know it or do not,  so exam length does not matter, you put students like myself at a significant disadvantage because you do not reward ability to produce a good product over a longer period of time, you reward the ability to produce a decent product quickly.  this is especially true if you curve: a slow worker is product in a short period of time is incomplete and poor, while a quick worker may produce a complete decent product.  when grading is curved, the decent work of the quick worker looks good because the poor work of the slow worker is worse.  if you gave them more time, then you might have found that the slow worker is end product was very good, while the quick worker is end product was still only decent.  in this case, the decent work of the quick worker looks worse because the good work of the slow worker is better. obviously, these are not rules that hold for everyone some quick workers produce good work quickly, some slow workers may still be able to produce a decent product quickly, etc.  however, it has been my experience that when i take exams with little time pressure i do better relative to other people than when i take exams with a lot of time pressure.  for example: in my cell biology class this semester, i took 0 exams.  0 of them did not have much time pressure, but one of them had a lot of time pressure i talked to other students they felt like there was a lot of time pressure as well .  i felt like i had similar mastery of the material for all of them.  on the one that had a lot of time pressure, i was rushing, so the answers i gave were below my usual standard and i did not finish many of the problems.  i got almost a standard deviation below the average.  on each of the two exams with little time pressure, i put the time that i felt was necessary into each problem and i completed all of the problems.  i got a standard deviation above the average on both of them.  this is a pretty regular occurrence for me.  as a result, if i were taught regularly by teachers with the mentality that 0 minutes 0 minutes for most students, so that exams regularly had more time pressure, i would be pretty screwed, and i would be unable to show what i am capable of on the exams.  even if you think that most students produce the same product in 0 minutes as they do in 0 minutes, i recommend that you give your students more time so that you allow the slower workers to show you the best they can offer.   #  it is not that i do not know the material.   #  well, from my own perspective as a student, it certainly revolves around the nature of the subject or material, and i would even say the teacher as well.  i have some teachers who tend to write multiple choice questions in a way that takes me a bit longer to figure out.  and this can be due to a number of reasons, one being my knowledge of the material and how hard i study.  that being said, i am a very good student who studies not only very hard but very thoroughly.  like i mentioned, sometimes multiple choice questions, which is the only form of testing i have run into thus far in my college career though i am only a freshman, but this goes for high school multiple question tests as well require more critical thinking.  perhaps the teacher likes to design the answers so that they are all correct, but one happens to be the most correct.  like i said, i am a good student who studies hard, but it admittedly takes me a pretty long time to take a test filled with these kinds of questions, because i have horrid reading comprehension skills and find myself reading the question over and over and even writing what i think it means next to it.  i like to use process of elimination too to cross off which answers i figure out are wrong.  and finally, when i am done with the test, i like to check over each question, or as many as i can, given the time allotted.  so, while i may be slower than other students, there are many students out there like me who  need  extra time.  it is not that i do not know the material.  in some of my classes, i can breeze through my tests in a matter of 0 minutes or so, but for other classes where the teacher is tricky, the material is difficult comprehension wise, or the tests require heavy critical thinking, it will take me much longer than 0 minutes to get the grade i know i can get.   #  so while you are slaving away at recalling each brick, you actually need to focus on making the capstone, or seeking to complete the capstone.   #  teaching material to others is really the rest of whether you know the material.  at the dok 0   0 level, you will never realize that.  so while you will identify as a bad or slow test taker it may be that you do not know the material well enough to recall.  for instance.  if you can successfully teach someone about the antebellum period of the u. s. , you will have fantastic recall.  think of a topic like a pyramid.  you do not realize the importance of the base until you reach the capstone.  then at the capstone you can examine how each base piece works into the entire structure.  so while you are slaving away at recalling each brick, you actually need to focus on making the capstone, or seeking to complete the capstone.  but as you are moving the bricks, you will lament the effort and will have a hard time understanding the significance of how each piece contributes to the other.  that lamentation will lead you to false conclusions: i am not a good test taker, i need more time, these types of questions are harder.  when actually, you just have an incomplete picture of the material.  it is interesting how we automatically blame outside sources for our own shortcomings, ie your op.  i am not trying to be mean, but know that much of the deficits of learning we have originate within us.   #  consider the students who do perfectly in every other aspect/assignment of the class, and then really struggle on tests.   #  yeah, i see what you are saying, and i agree for the most part.  but at the same time, i know when to take responsibility and when to understand that there are other things that could have worked to my disadvantage.  i was only pointing out those possible disadvantages.  i was not shrugging off responsibility for the times where i should have studied harder or worked harder to understand the material.  i take my grades very seriously and i know when i need to step up my game.  like i said, i was just giving examples of why sometimes i may not do as well, and they are not the only reasons i sometimes do not do well.  in fact, they typically are not.  it was just worth mentioning that not all tests are designed for all students especially those who consistently struggle with test taking.  besides, could blame someone with add or severe anxiety for struggling on tests ? consider the students who do perfectly in every other aspect/assignment of the class, and then really struggle on tests.  can you really say that it is their fault for just not studying correctly or not getting it ? and unfortunately, this seems to be a popular opinion amongst many teachers i have encountered.  even in grade school, i was reprimanded till i would cry for not understanding different concepts especially in math.  i would try so hard just to get it, because i hated feeling stupid and i hated making my teachers angry.  i was always blamed for being incompetent or lazy, despite going home every night and slaving over simple arithmetic problems with a tutor or my parents.  in high school, i encountered the same attitude.  of the 0 or so girls in the senior ap calculus class, only 0 were passing.  these girls were at the top of my class gpa wise.  coincidentally, each year, girls would consistently struggle to pass in this teacher is class with the same complaint being that the teacher would always put material on the test that the students had never been taught.  when confronted, the teacher would never take responsibility for the fact that a majority of her students were pretty much failing.  she never believed she had to change her teaching method.  no, it was always because the students were lazy or slow or just not good enough.
i certainly see how testing is necessary to motivate students to actually process and store information.  however i do not believe that it will ever be an appropriate gage of actual intelligence.  i currently do not see how the memorization of facts especially those pertaining to history can possibly carry over outside of school.  i do understand that making associations relating to the information is beneficial.  however does storing the information and often forgetting it provide any long term benefits ? i apply the same question to the memorization of formulae in mathematics and science.  i would like to hear some thoughts on this and perhaps i can regain motivation and start shoveling information into my head for tomorrows exam.  change my view so i can get back to work.   #  however i do not believe that it will ever be an appropriate gage of actual intelligence.   #  i currently do not see how the memorization of facts especially those pertaining to history can possibly carry over outside of school.   # i currently do not see how the memorization of facts especially those pertaining to history can possibly carry over outside of school.  i do understand that making associations relating to the information is beneficial.  however does storing the information and often forgetting it provide any long term benefits ? i apply the same question to the memorization of formulae in mathematics and science.  if you do not know the information how will you apply the associations ? both are necessary tools to allow you to function as an informed citizen when you graduate.  i wo not pretend that you will use every bit of info you memorize, but it is not as if learning the information ca not be applied.  understanding history, for instance, can provide a backdrop by which to judge claims you will hear in the upcoming election, or at the pub, or just when talking to friends.  that is, of course, if you remember the information you learned.   #  this is a pretty regular occurrence for me.   #  as a student, i can tell you that, for some students i. e.  me , time has a significant effect on performance.  i am a slow worker, but, given the time i require to work, i generally do a very good job.  when i have to deal with time pressure, i rush through problems and therefore give sub par and incomplete answers.  as a teacher, if you think that  either you know it or do not,  so exam length does not matter, you put students like myself at a significant disadvantage because you do not reward ability to produce a good product over a longer period of time, you reward the ability to produce a decent product quickly.  this is especially true if you curve: a slow worker is product in a short period of time is incomplete and poor, while a quick worker may produce a complete decent product.  when grading is curved, the decent work of the quick worker looks good because the poor work of the slow worker is worse.  if you gave them more time, then you might have found that the slow worker is end product was very good, while the quick worker is end product was still only decent.  in this case, the decent work of the quick worker looks worse because the good work of the slow worker is better. obviously, these are not rules that hold for everyone some quick workers produce good work quickly, some slow workers may still be able to produce a decent product quickly, etc.  however, it has been my experience that when i take exams with little time pressure i do better relative to other people than when i take exams with a lot of time pressure.  for example: in my cell biology class this semester, i took 0 exams.  0 of them did not have much time pressure, but one of them had a lot of time pressure i talked to other students they felt like there was a lot of time pressure as well .  i felt like i had similar mastery of the material for all of them.  on the one that had a lot of time pressure, i was rushing, so the answers i gave were below my usual standard and i did not finish many of the problems.  i got almost a standard deviation below the average.  on each of the two exams with little time pressure, i put the time that i felt was necessary into each problem and i completed all of the problems.  i got a standard deviation above the average on both of them.  this is a pretty regular occurrence for me.  as a result, if i were taught regularly by teachers with the mentality that 0 minutes 0 minutes for most students, so that exams regularly had more time pressure, i would be pretty screwed, and i would be unable to show what i am capable of on the exams.  even if you think that most students produce the same product in 0 minutes as they do in 0 minutes, i recommend that you give your students more time so that you allow the slower workers to show you the best they can offer.   #  and finally, when i am done with the test, i like to check over each question, or as many as i can, given the time allotted.   #  well, from my own perspective as a student, it certainly revolves around the nature of the subject or material, and i would even say the teacher as well.  i have some teachers who tend to write multiple choice questions in a way that takes me a bit longer to figure out.  and this can be due to a number of reasons, one being my knowledge of the material and how hard i study.  that being said, i am a very good student who studies not only very hard but very thoroughly.  like i mentioned, sometimes multiple choice questions, which is the only form of testing i have run into thus far in my college career though i am only a freshman, but this goes for high school multiple question tests as well require more critical thinking.  perhaps the teacher likes to design the answers so that they are all correct, but one happens to be the most correct.  like i said, i am a good student who studies hard, but it admittedly takes me a pretty long time to take a test filled with these kinds of questions, because i have horrid reading comprehension skills and find myself reading the question over and over and even writing what i think it means next to it.  i like to use process of elimination too to cross off which answers i figure out are wrong.  and finally, when i am done with the test, i like to check over each question, or as many as i can, given the time allotted.  so, while i may be slower than other students, there are many students out there like me who  need  extra time.  it is not that i do not know the material.  in some of my classes, i can breeze through my tests in a matter of 0 minutes or so, but for other classes where the teacher is tricky, the material is difficult comprehension wise, or the tests require heavy critical thinking, it will take me much longer than 0 minutes to get the grade i know i can get.   #  if you can successfully teach someone about the antebellum period of the u. s. , you will have fantastic recall.   #  teaching material to others is really the rest of whether you know the material.  at the dok 0   0 level, you will never realize that.  so while you will identify as a bad or slow test taker it may be that you do not know the material well enough to recall.  for instance.  if you can successfully teach someone about the antebellum period of the u. s. , you will have fantastic recall.  think of a topic like a pyramid.  you do not realize the importance of the base until you reach the capstone.  then at the capstone you can examine how each base piece works into the entire structure.  so while you are slaving away at recalling each brick, you actually need to focus on making the capstone, or seeking to complete the capstone.  but as you are moving the bricks, you will lament the effort and will have a hard time understanding the significance of how each piece contributes to the other.  that lamentation will lead you to false conclusions: i am not a good test taker, i need more time, these types of questions are harder.  when actually, you just have an incomplete picture of the material.  it is interesting how we automatically blame outside sources for our own shortcomings, ie your op.  i am not trying to be mean, but know that much of the deficits of learning we have originate within us.   #  of the 0 or so girls in the senior ap calculus class, only 0 were passing.   #  yeah, i see what you are saying, and i agree for the most part.  but at the same time, i know when to take responsibility and when to understand that there are other things that could have worked to my disadvantage.  i was only pointing out those possible disadvantages.  i was not shrugging off responsibility for the times where i should have studied harder or worked harder to understand the material.  i take my grades very seriously and i know when i need to step up my game.  like i said, i was just giving examples of why sometimes i may not do as well, and they are not the only reasons i sometimes do not do well.  in fact, they typically are not.  it was just worth mentioning that not all tests are designed for all students especially those who consistently struggle with test taking.  besides, could blame someone with add or severe anxiety for struggling on tests ? consider the students who do perfectly in every other aspect/assignment of the class, and then really struggle on tests.  can you really say that it is their fault for just not studying correctly or not getting it ? and unfortunately, this seems to be a popular opinion amongst many teachers i have encountered.  even in grade school, i was reprimanded till i would cry for not understanding different concepts especially in math.  i would try so hard just to get it, because i hated feeling stupid and i hated making my teachers angry.  i was always blamed for being incompetent or lazy, despite going home every night and slaving over simple arithmetic problems with a tutor or my parents.  in high school, i encountered the same attitude.  of the 0 or so girls in the senior ap calculus class, only 0 were passing.  these girls were at the top of my class gpa wise.  coincidentally, each year, girls would consistently struggle to pass in this teacher is class with the same complaint being that the teacher would always put material on the test that the students had never been taught.  when confronted, the teacher would never take responsibility for the fact that a majority of her students were pretty much failing.  she never believed she had to change her teaching method.  no, it was always because the students were lazy or slow or just not good enough.
in the main series of pokémon games, pokémon can learn certain moves that allow the trainer to perform special actions outside of battle.  these include surf, which allows you to travel on water, and fly, which allows you quickly travel between areas.  the problem with these is that pokémon can only learn 0 moves at a time.  most of these moves cannot be replaced easily like others can.  this means that players either have to sacrifice one of these moves or carry around a pokémon specifically for these moves.  this is an unnecessary barrier.  the only reason these field moves were introduced is to structure progress throughout the pokémon region and the only reason they remain is tradition.  items could just as easily serve the same function, as they do in several fan games such as /r/pokemonzetaomicron.  in oras, the move fly already has a replacement that solves this issue.   #  items could just as easily serve the same function, as they do in several fan games such as /r/pokemonzetaomicron.   #  i will agree that most hm are either pretty contrived, redundant, or can be replaced by items, but i do not think you can replace fly or surf with items.   # i will agree that most hm are either pretty contrived, redundant, or can be replaced by items, but i do not think you can replace fly or surf with items.  what items would you use to replace them ? i guess you can have a taxi system that functions like fly, but i believe you were able to fly to certain locations that were off the beaten road.  it would not make sense for a taxi to drive you to the power plant in gen 0 because it was not near any conventional roads.  plus, it is kinda contrived for the taxi driver to only know how to take you to saffron city when you actually been to saffron city even though saffron city is the biggest city that is at the center of kanto.  i think surf is even worse.  the whole point of surf is basically so you can travel on water.  how would the seaform islands as a location even work if you were not allowed to surf ? you can make every single flying pokemon be able to fly out of combat and every water pokemon be able to surf out of combat and add a badge restriction so you ca not use their innate fly/surf ability until you have x number of badges, but you will still be stuck with having to carry a flying or water pokemon around.  i guess it is better than carrying around an hm slave, but you still have to reserve a spot for the token flying/water pokemon.  in many ways, the token flying/water pokemon would just be like an hm slave.   #  it also means that since only the bird like creatures can fly and the fish like can swim that it adds to this idea that these are real creatures with real biological limitations.   #  i guess the only argument would be trying to maintain the lore and the immersion.  if the moves are tied to the pokemon themselves then it maintains that the society itself is a strange slightly punk modern with these creatures dog fighting all the time, and those creatures enable people to circumvent technology.  adding the items would go post modern on a massive level, start heading towards very sci fi.  perhaps they could just remove the move cap, but then that is also potentially removing some of the difficulty in balancing.  having them there means you need to be careful about what pokemon you give moves to, and think in the long term about which ones you want to keep in your arsenal.  adds an extra layer of strategy and depth.  it also means that since only the bird like creatures can fly and the fish like can swim that it adds to this idea that these are real creatures with real biological limitations.   #  that way you can quickly overwrite a tm move to use cut, say, then replace the tm move afterwards.   #  i think the best solution would be to simply allow hm moves to be overwritten at will.  the only caveat would be that you would have to remove the ability to overwrite surf while surfing and dive as well as surf while underwater , for obvious reasons.  the moves would still exist, but function identically to any now infinite use tm.  that way you can quickly overwrite a tm move to use cut, say, then replace the tm move afterwards.  just as you can currently teach something flash, use flash, then rewrite flash with psychic, or whatever move you deleted for flash.  this works with rock smash as well, when it is not a hm.  most pokemon use at least one move contained within a tm, so you would never be down a moveslot for long.  this preserves the lore of it being the pokemon using the move, while allowing convenience for the player to not carry a dedicated hm slave or clutter their pokemon is moveslots.   #  this would mean you do not need to remove a move you already have so that you can use it.   #  this actually makes a lot of sense.  i disagree with your solution of removing the cap, and that strategy plays into it, though.  i think the answer is that you remove the battle component of the hm.  this would mean you do not need to remove a move you already have so that you can use it.  your pokemon can then have one hm move available to use which can be replaced with another, if the conditions are met for that one.  eg, you could give marill surf, but it would not replace the other four moves already there, nor would marill be able to use surf in battle.  surf would take up marill is hm slot.  marill can then use surf outside battle like normal.  if you so choose, you can replace marill is surf with, say, strength, but not one like fly that normally would not work on that type.  this way, you keep the progression obstacles and the lore  and  force you to use different types of pokemon without forcing an hm slave or forcing you to waste a move slot.   #  i think there are probably good alternatives to your situation out there.   #  well, i think a large part of the game could be said to be inconvenient to the battling gameplay.  and i would include the process of catching and leveling up your pokemon in that inconvenience.  i think there are probably good alternatives to your situation out there.  like an item granted to the player after the main storyline that provides the moves.  that way you can keep the tradition and reward the player.
i think for the most part there is a ton of negative activities and press surrounding greek life particularly frats .  most around hazing and sexual harassment and even as far as systematic rape.  many argue greek life can raise money for charities and they rack up volunteer hours.  i personally believe this can be accomplished without the greek system in place.  here is what i would need for my view to be changed: 0.  evidence that greek life enhances the college experience and academic outlook for all students including those outside the greek system.  0.  evidence that would suggest the incidents reported by the media are either a over blown or b misrepresentation data.  0.  and finally, and this really pertains more to the frats.  but why are these so important to keep around ? you can still make connections and job networks outside of a frat.  the only people who care about the traditions of the frats are the members themselves and it really seems to not serve any exterior function.  i would need extensive logic explaining how frats are more than just boys clubs that have been around for too long.   #  many argue greek life can raise money for charities and they rack up volunteer hours.   #  i personally believe this can be accomplished without the greek system in place.   # i personally believe this can be accomplished without the greek system in place.  sure, they can.  and churches and charities can feed the homeless without the government stepping in to help ! but,  why limit the amount of sources of good deeds ? the greek system is the largest network of volunteers in the us, with members donating over 0 million hours of volunteer service each year  0. evidence that greek life enhances the college experience and academic outlook for all students including those outside the greek system.  a u. s.  government study shows that over 0 of all those who join a fraternity/sororitiy graduate, while under 0 of all non fraternity/sorority persons graduate.  do i really need to link uva right now ? but here are some more: university of central florida URL univesity of pennsylvania URL university of delaware URL california state university URL etc.  there are tons more where frats have been blamed for things they did not do, and have been cleared of wrongdoing.  nevermind that there are over 0,0 greek houses across the us ! how many do you hear about in the news ? you are part of the witch hunt.   #  i would need extensive logic explaining how frats are more than just boys clubs that have been around for too long.   #  very well put.  as a fraternity member myself, one who has volunteered and raised money for charity in my time as a brother along with the rest of my house , it really pains me to see these kind of negative and unfair views on the greek system becoming so popular.  the fact is that most of the people who campaign against fraternities are basing their complete understanding of the topic on the way they are portrayed in movies homophobic, alcoholic, misogynistic, etc.  .  coming from the point of view of someone who knows firsthand how much good the greek life can do for those in it as well as the university community as a whole, it is very disheartening.  i would just like to respond to one more of op is points:   and finally, and this really pertains more to the frats.  but why are these so important to keep around ? you can still make connections and job networks outside of a frat.  the only people who care about the traditions of the frats are the members themselves and it really seems to not serve any exterior function.  i would need extensive logic explaining how frats are more than just boys clubs that have been around for too long.  going away to college is a huge time in life.  for many, it is the first time they have lived on their own, the first time they have been away from family, friends, their hometown, whatever.  it is at once a massively high pressure yet largely unstructured environment.  you have tons of shit that you have to do, yet no one is making you do any of it.  many, many people have a very hard time adjusting to that.  becoming a member of a fraternity or sorority is hugely beneficial in terms of creating a social support structure for those who may not have one at this key time in life, and creating friendships and mentorships.  the senior members of the house take responsibility for helping the younger members adjust to their new environment through the big brother/sister system, and are generally hugely beneficial in teaching the younger members how to navigate college life safely and effectively.  as others have pointed out, graduation rates are significantly higher among greek letter organization members than the general university population.  /u/deathproof ish, with all respect i believe you have an extremely misinformed understanding of greek life and what it entails.  it is not really your fault; most people do, sadly.  however, i hope that hearing from me and those like me itt that you will begin to understand exactly how supportive and helpful the greek system can be, and what an overall benefit it provides.   #  with those numbers the volunteer hours done by each member is a lot more impressive.   #  i think you have misinterpreted the statistics that you are citing.  the 0 million hours of volunteer service is done by active collegiate members.  the 0 million members that you are referencing includes both active members and alumni.  the national interfraternity council lists URL the number of active fraternity members as being close to 0,0 and the national panhellenic council reports URL having close to 0,0 active sorority members.  with those numbers the volunteer hours done by each member is a lot more impressive.   #  so for example universities will enact policies to discourage underage drinking at frats URL as part of their association.   #  so then the question is will that disassociation make things better or worse.  i would say it could make fraternities and sororities impact on campuses more negative.  threat of selective disassociation allows the university to have leverage to improve behavior by the fraternities and sororities.  without that threat, the only leverage the university has is against individual members.  so for example universities will enact policies to discourage underage drinking at frats URL as part of their association.  if you are going to have frats anyway, having them associated with the university probably makes things better on net.  yes, i recognize the link above is a press release and biased; it was just the first example of such a program i found while googling.   #  ok here is what i gather from our discussion.   #  ok here is what i gather from our discussion.  the idea of frats wo not go away if you disassociate them from the university.  they will simply operate under a different name or just operate while not associated with the university.  that coupled with the fact that being disassociated with the university creates a less policed environment which would further exacerbate the issues associated with frats.  this completely changed my thinking and for a reason i did not expect.  you sir or ma am have earned it.    0;
disclaimer: i am one of those nuts who think men and women  both  have privileges and oppressions.  yes, i know.  seems obvious, right ? but no in a thread in srd i suggested that feminism existed to further female privilege instead of promote equality and ended up with 0 downvotes.  now, i know what you are thinking they downvoted you for besmirching feminism ! no.  the incredulity was that i said female privilege was a thing and when i answered the  totally respectful feminist  who  politely  asked for examples i pointed to the legal system and how women serve 0 the sentence men serve for the same crimes and make up something like 0 or 0 of the prison population.    first counterargument: this is actually oppression because women are seen as fragile children who ca not do time or could not hurt someone so badly.  no.  this is not oppression.  yes, it is sexism.  but it is women benefiting from sexism, which is what i understand as the definition of privilege an unfair advantage rooted in some bigotry or other, eg white privilege   second counterargument: men commit more crime, so they are a larger portion of the prison population.  well this is pretty obviously bigotry, so i am just going to say  it is the same racist argument racists make, but they swap out  men  for  the blacks  and move right along.    it is not privilege, it is  benevolent sexism .  no.  this is a double standard that does a backflip over facts and turns  women get an unfair advantage here  into  women get an unfair advantage here  but  they are still the victim .  this is on the order of calling sexism against men  reverse sexism .  no.  so cmv.  explain to me why gender based unfair advantages are privilege for men but  benevolent sexism  for women in a way that makes any sense at all.   #  men commit more crime, so they are a larger portion of the prison population.   #  i mean, this is empirically true, just as its empirically true that blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population.   # this is a double standard that does a backflip over facts and turns  women get an unfair advantage here  into  women get an unfair advantage here but they are still the victim .  you will see this a lot, because it is basically what a lot of these so called  privileges  actually boil down to, but in this scenario, the woman has no agency over her status.  what is meant by benevolent sexism is that, on it is face it seems to be trying to give women privileges, but what it is actually used for in practice is a cultural method through which to police a woman is behavior.  so,  women are fragile creatures who should be protected  turns into,  no, you should not be allowed to work even if you are single mother.  you are fragile, so you literally ca not handle any sort of work a man could do, and you are meant to be protected, but what that actually means is that you need to remarry, and then do whatever your new husband says .  you are looking at the rhetoric and ignoring what the reality actually is/was.  people often bring up the military, but did you know that women are fighting to be able to serve on the front lines ? what is actually valuable to people is not their status, but their ability to make choices for themselves.  men can make the choice to die for their country, or, in my case, make the choice to not die for their country.  women ca not make that choice, and this is the sticking point for feminists.  i mean, this is empirically true, just as its empirically true that blacks make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population.  what is actually important here is  why  that is.  personally, i think that men are taught to idolize violence and aggression and that we are unable to have a real conversation about what that means in our society, but that is none of my business.  what i do know is that is not really women is fault.   #  well, and example is being considered a natural care giver, whereas my husband gets comments when he is the one who takes the kids to the doctor.   #  well, and example is being considered a natural care giver, whereas my husband gets comments when he is the one who takes the kids to the doctor.  i think one of the more obvious points of privilage is the ability to be a  default .  women are not the default in many of the more visible parts of life corporate world, etc.  however there are areas where they are elementary schools, family caregivers, etc.  and you can see comments on reddit that often express frustration at this ie: not being allowed into a  moms  group, comments about a dad  babysitting  as though it was not his kid, etc.  whats interesting is that these same types of microaggressions are the ones that women often encounter when we go into male dominated spaces.  it would serve all of us to realize that little comments that seem harmless when you are in the majority can actually really make someone in the minority feel unwelcome, and we should all look to be aware of what our privileges are.   #  that is not to say i do not believe there should not be such a movement, only that they should accept that as their label and stop shaming men for not being part of their  equality  movement.   #  the one sidedness stems from the fact that the movement seems wholly incapable of even contemplating the notion that there may be female privileges in this society.  to that end, if the movement only works towards ending the inequalities for females, without addressing or even acknowledging the inequalities of the other side or even going as far as reconstruing those privileges as some secondary type of oppression this was what i was calling disingenuous in my initial comment then is it really an equality movement at all ? i would posit no.  rather, it is more correctly characterized as a women is empowerment movement.  that is not to say i do not believe there should not be such a movement, only that they should accept that as their label and stop shaming men for not being part of their  equality  movement.  unfortunately, it seems their goal is to tailor a world perfectly designed for women to cater to all of their needs without the slightest concern for and to the detriment of anyone else, including women who prefer more traditional society.  if they need to result to public shaming and demonizing of the other sex to achieve their goals they do not seem to mind.   #  or are you referring to random people on the internet who post stupid things on their own blogs ?  # i am wondering what you mean when you say  the movement  and  they .  are you referring to academic feminists who have been the forefront of advocating politically and socially ? or are you referring to random people on the internet who post stupid things on their own blogs ? one is who you should be listening to, one is who you should not.  the problem i see on this site every time feminism is brought up is people who were turned off of it or even hate it because of  sjw tumblr feminists , as in, random people on the internet.  it makes no sense to me to demonize an entire movement based on the obviously ludicrous opinions of a minority within the group.  do we assume  all  christians believe in young earth creationism ? do we assume  all  muslims are in cahoots with isis to overthrow the world ? do we think all men are rape apologizing misogynists because trp does ? then why is it so common for this one tiny segment of the internet to be a person is definition of an entire political movement that has been fighting for equality for over a century ?  #  creates image of women as  caring and nurturing  not  powerful  etc.   #  how is being seen as a natural care giver  privilege  ? it leads to hiring discrimination.  more judgement from society when something goes wrong with your child.  higher likely hood of giving up career for child care.  high standards in courts during custody hearing.  creates image of women as  caring and nurturing  not  powerful  etc.  overall being considered the natural caregiver is a net negative.
disclaimer: i am one of those nuts who think men and women  both  have privileges and oppressions.  yes, i know.  seems obvious, right ? but no in a thread in srd i suggested that feminism existed to further female privilege instead of promote equality and ended up with 0 downvotes.  now, i know what you are thinking they downvoted you for besmirching feminism ! no.  the incredulity was that i said female privilege was a thing and when i answered the  totally respectful feminist  who  politely  asked for examples i pointed to the legal system and how women serve 0 the sentence men serve for the same crimes and make up something like 0 or 0 of the prison population.    first counterargument: this is actually oppression because women are seen as fragile children who ca not do time or could not hurt someone so badly.  no.  this is not oppression.  yes, it is sexism.  but it is women benefiting from sexism, which is what i understand as the definition of privilege an unfair advantage rooted in some bigotry or other, eg white privilege   second counterargument: men commit more crime, so they are a larger portion of the prison population.  well this is pretty obviously bigotry, so i am just going to say  it is the same racist argument racists make, but they swap out  men  for  the blacks  and move right along.    it is not privilege, it is  benevolent sexism .  no.  this is a double standard that does a backflip over facts and turns  women get an unfair advantage here  into  women get an unfair advantage here  but  they are still the victim .  this is on the order of calling sexism against men  reverse sexism .  no.  so cmv.  explain to me why gender based unfair advantages are privilege for men but  benevolent sexism  for women in a way that makes any sense at all.   #  but no in a thread in srd i suggested that feminism existed to further female privilege instead of promote equality and ended up with 0 downvotes.   #  there may be females out there like you describe.   #  absolutely, there are instances where women have advantages from society, and there instances where men have disadvantages from society.  there may be females out there like you describe.  they might call themselves feminists.  the problem here is that you are trying to nail feminism down to one group you perceive.  feminism is a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  boiling down an entire movement that spans dozens of social issues, several decades, millions of people, and all genders, to one idea that does not match with either the rhetoric, or the actions of anything close to a majority within the movement seems pretty silly.  regardless, your statement was inflammatory, and unproductive.  i am not surprised you got inflammatory and unproductive responses.  there are men is issues worth talking about, just as there are women is issues that are worth talking about.  it seems like a good chunk of both of these sets of problems are at least partially propped up by the same institutions.  we should all be working to change the institutions to be equitable.   #  whats interesting is that these same types of microaggressions are the ones that women often encounter when we go into male dominated spaces.   #  well, and example is being considered a natural care giver, whereas my husband gets comments when he is the one who takes the kids to the doctor.  i think one of the more obvious points of privilage is the ability to be a  default .  women are not the default in many of the more visible parts of life corporate world, etc.  however there are areas where they are elementary schools, family caregivers, etc.  and you can see comments on reddit that often express frustration at this ie: not being allowed into a  moms  group, comments about a dad  babysitting  as though it was not his kid, etc.  whats interesting is that these same types of microaggressions are the ones that women often encounter when we go into male dominated spaces.  it would serve all of us to realize that little comments that seem harmless when you are in the majority can actually really make someone in the minority feel unwelcome, and we should all look to be aware of what our privileges are.   #  unfortunately, it seems their goal is to tailor a world perfectly designed for women to cater to all of their needs without the slightest concern for and to the detriment of anyone else, including women who prefer more traditional society.   #  the one sidedness stems from the fact that the movement seems wholly incapable of even contemplating the notion that there may be female privileges in this society.  to that end, if the movement only works towards ending the inequalities for females, without addressing or even acknowledging the inequalities of the other side or even going as far as reconstruing those privileges as some secondary type of oppression this was what i was calling disingenuous in my initial comment then is it really an equality movement at all ? i would posit no.  rather, it is more correctly characterized as a women is empowerment movement.  that is not to say i do not believe there should not be such a movement, only that they should accept that as their label and stop shaming men for not being part of their  equality  movement.  unfortunately, it seems their goal is to tailor a world perfectly designed for women to cater to all of their needs without the slightest concern for and to the detriment of anyone else, including women who prefer more traditional society.  if they need to result to public shaming and demonizing of the other sex to achieve their goals they do not seem to mind.   #  one is who you should be listening to, one is who you should not.   # i am wondering what you mean when you say  the movement  and  they .  are you referring to academic feminists who have been the forefront of advocating politically and socially ? or are you referring to random people on the internet who post stupid things on their own blogs ? one is who you should be listening to, one is who you should not.  the problem i see on this site every time feminism is brought up is people who were turned off of it or even hate it because of  sjw tumblr feminists , as in, random people on the internet.  it makes no sense to me to demonize an entire movement based on the obviously ludicrous opinions of a minority within the group.  do we assume  all  christians believe in young earth creationism ? do we assume  all  muslims are in cahoots with isis to overthrow the world ? do we think all men are rape apologizing misogynists because trp does ? then why is it so common for this one tiny segment of the internet to be a person is definition of an entire political movement that has been fighting for equality for over a century ?  #  overall being considered the natural caregiver is a net negative.   #  how is being seen as a natural care giver  privilege  ? it leads to hiring discrimination.  more judgement from society when something goes wrong with your child.  higher likely hood of giving up career for child care.  high standards in courts during custody hearing.  creates image of women as  caring and nurturing  not  powerful  etc.  overall being considered the natural caregiver is a net negative.
disclaimer: i am one of those nuts who think men and women  both  have privileges and oppressions.  yes, i know.  seems obvious, right ? but no in a thread in srd i suggested that feminism existed to further female privilege instead of promote equality and ended up with 0 downvotes.  now, i know what you are thinking they downvoted you for besmirching feminism ! no.  the incredulity was that i said female privilege was a thing and when i answered the  totally respectful feminist  who  politely  asked for examples i pointed to the legal system and how women serve 0 the sentence men serve for the same crimes and make up something like 0 or 0 of the prison population.    first counterargument: this is actually oppression because women are seen as fragile children who ca not do time or could not hurt someone so badly.  no.  this is not oppression.  yes, it is sexism.  but it is women benefiting from sexism, which is what i understand as the definition of privilege an unfair advantage rooted in some bigotry or other, eg white privilege   second counterargument: men commit more crime, so they are a larger portion of the prison population.  well this is pretty obviously bigotry, so i am just going to say  it is the same racist argument racists make, but they swap out  men  for  the blacks  and move right along.    it is not privilege, it is  benevolent sexism .  no.  this is a double standard that does a backflip over facts and turns  women get an unfair advantage here  into  women get an unfair advantage here  but  they are still the victim .  this is on the order of calling sexism against men  reverse sexism .  no.  so cmv.  explain to me why gender based unfair advantages are privilege for men but  benevolent sexism  for women in a way that makes any sense at all.   #  well this is pretty obviously bigotry, so i am just going to say  it is the same racist argument racists make, but they swap out  men  for  the blacks  and move right along.   #  i am not going to get involved with your main argument because i do not care, but your wrong on both the meta level and the object level here.   # i am not going to get involved with your main argument because i do not care, but your wrong on both the meta level and the object level here.  for one thing, no educated person will call you racist for saying that there are more black people in jail than white people because black people they commit more crimes.  you will be called racist if you say that the higher crime rate among blacks is because they are naturally violent, but that is another story.  but more importantly, you are assuming that something is wrong just because the prevailing opinion is that it is a bigoted thing to say.  that is just not true.  it is good that you are thinking critically about feminism, but you should apply that to every subject.  not just the ones you already do not like.   #  women are not the default in many of the more visible parts of life corporate world, etc.   #  well, and example is being considered a natural care giver, whereas my husband gets comments when he is the one who takes the kids to the doctor.  i think one of the more obvious points of privilage is the ability to be a  default .  women are not the default in many of the more visible parts of life corporate world, etc.  however there are areas where they are elementary schools, family caregivers, etc.  and you can see comments on reddit that often express frustration at this ie: not being allowed into a  moms  group, comments about a dad  babysitting  as though it was not his kid, etc.  whats interesting is that these same types of microaggressions are the ones that women often encounter when we go into male dominated spaces.  it would serve all of us to realize that little comments that seem harmless when you are in the majority can actually really make someone in the minority feel unwelcome, and we should all look to be aware of what our privileges are.   #  unfortunately, it seems their goal is to tailor a world perfectly designed for women to cater to all of their needs without the slightest concern for and to the detriment of anyone else, including women who prefer more traditional society.   #  the one sidedness stems from the fact that the movement seems wholly incapable of even contemplating the notion that there may be female privileges in this society.  to that end, if the movement only works towards ending the inequalities for females, without addressing or even acknowledging the inequalities of the other side or even going as far as reconstruing those privileges as some secondary type of oppression this was what i was calling disingenuous in my initial comment then is it really an equality movement at all ? i would posit no.  rather, it is more correctly characterized as a women is empowerment movement.  that is not to say i do not believe there should not be such a movement, only that they should accept that as their label and stop shaming men for not being part of their  equality  movement.  unfortunately, it seems their goal is to tailor a world perfectly designed for women to cater to all of their needs without the slightest concern for and to the detriment of anyone else, including women who prefer more traditional society.  if they need to result to public shaming and demonizing of the other sex to achieve their goals they do not seem to mind.   #  do we think all men are rape apologizing misogynists because trp does ?  # i am wondering what you mean when you say  the movement  and  they .  are you referring to academic feminists who have been the forefront of advocating politically and socially ? or are you referring to random people on the internet who post stupid things on their own blogs ? one is who you should be listening to, one is who you should not.  the problem i see on this site every time feminism is brought up is people who were turned off of it or even hate it because of  sjw tumblr feminists , as in, random people on the internet.  it makes no sense to me to demonize an entire movement based on the obviously ludicrous opinions of a minority within the group.  do we assume  all  christians believe in young earth creationism ? do we assume  all  muslims are in cahoots with isis to overthrow the world ? do we think all men are rape apologizing misogynists because trp does ? then why is it so common for this one tiny segment of the internet to be a person is definition of an entire political movement that has been fighting for equality for over a century ?  #  creates image of women as  caring and nurturing  not  powerful  etc.   #  how is being seen as a natural care giver  privilege  ? it leads to hiring discrimination.  more judgement from society when something goes wrong with your child.  higher likely hood of giving up career for child care.  high standards in courts during custody hearing.  creates image of women as  caring and nurturing  not  powerful  etc.  overall being considered the natural caregiver is a net negative.
disclaimer: i am one of those nuts who think men and women  both  have privileges and oppressions.  yes, i know.  seems obvious, right ? but no in a thread in srd i suggested that feminism existed to further female privilege instead of promote equality and ended up with 0 downvotes.  now, i know what you are thinking they downvoted you for besmirching feminism ! no.  the incredulity was that i said female privilege was a thing and when i answered the  totally respectful feminist  who  politely  asked for examples i pointed to the legal system and how women serve 0 the sentence men serve for the same crimes and make up something like 0 or 0 of the prison population.    first counterargument: this is actually oppression because women are seen as fragile children who ca not do time or could not hurt someone so badly.  no.  this is not oppression.  yes, it is sexism.  but it is women benefiting from sexism, which is what i understand as the definition of privilege an unfair advantage rooted in some bigotry or other, eg white privilege   second counterargument: men commit more crime, so they are a larger portion of the prison population.  well this is pretty obviously bigotry, so i am just going to say  it is the same racist argument racists make, but they swap out  men  for  the blacks  and move right along.    it is not privilege, it is  benevolent sexism .  no.  this is a double standard that does a backflip over facts and turns  women get an unfair advantage here  into  women get an unfair advantage here  but  they are still the victim .  this is on the order of calling sexism against men  reverse sexism .  no.  so cmv.  explain to me why gender based unfair advantages are privilege for men but  benevolent sexism  for women in a way that makes any sense at all.   #  i pointed to the legal system and how women serve 0 the sentence men serve for the same crimes and make up something like 0 or 0 of the prison population.   #  shorter prison sentences and fewer incidents of incarceration were never something feminism fought for, so using this as an example of feminism promoting female privilege is a raging non sequitur.   # shorter prison sentences and fewer incidents of incarceration were never something feminism fought for, so using this as an example of feminism promoting female privilege is a raging non sequitur.  do you have any examples that are actually relevant to your statement ? this is also not a zero sum game.  more men are not in prison because less women are.  addressing the problem of disproportionate incarceration of men by tattletaling on the women is a crappy strategy.  why you are getting heated replies to the claim that  female privilege exists  is because that makes it sound like women should shut up already about gender inequality.  that does not mean that  is  what you are saying, just that i could see it being interpreted that way.  further, saying that the movement of feminism exists just to further said female privilege is pretty inflammatory, and displays a naivete at best of the historical struggles of women and women is rights movements.  if you come in firing, do not be surprised when people fire back.  so, sure, you can point out examples of female privilege, and even make a reasonable argument that it does exist, but i think you would have a hard time making the case that female privilege is of a scale and power that could radically affect society or render feminism moot.  it does not exist like you seem to be implying that it exists.   #  and you can see comments on reddit that often express frustration at this ie: not being allowed into a  moms  group, comments about a dad  babysitting  as though it was not his kid, etc.   #  well, and example is being considered a natural care giver, whereas my husband gets comments when he is the one who takes the kids to the doctor.  i think one of the more obvious points of privilage is the ability to be a  default .  women are not the default in many of the more visible parts of life corporate world, etc.  however there are areas where they are elementary schools, family caregivers, etc.  and you can see comments on reddit that often express frustration at this ie: not being allowed into a  moms  group, comments about a dad  babysitting  as though it was not his kid, etc.  whats interesting is that these same types of microaggressions are the ones that women often encounter when we go into male dominated spaces.  it would serve all of us to realize that little comments that seem harmless when you are in the majority can actually really make someone in the minority feel unwelcome, and we should all look to be aware of what our privileges are.   #  if they need to result to public shaming and demonizing of the other sex to achieve their goals they do not seem to mind.   #  the one sidedness stems from the fact that the movement seems wholly incapable of even contemplating the notion that there may be female privileges in this society.  to that end, if the movement only works towards ending the inequalities for females, without addressing or even acknowledging the inequalities of the other side or even going as far as reconstruing those privileges as some secondary type of oppression this was what i was calling disingenuous in my initial comment then is it really an equality movement at all ? i would posit no.  rather, it is more correctly characterized as a women is empowerment movement.  that is not to say i do not believe there should not be such a movement, only that they should accept that as their label and stop shaming men for not being part of their  equality  movement.  unfortunately, it seems their goal is to tailor a world perfectly designed for women to cater to all of their needs without the slightest concern for and to the detriment of anyone else, including women who prefer more traditional society.  if they need to result to public shaming and demonizing of the other sex to achieve their goals they do not seem to mind.   #  do we think all men are rape apologizing misogynists because trp does ?  # i am wondering what you mean when you say  the movement  and  they .  are you referring to academic feminists who have been the forefront of advocating politically and socially ? or are you referring to random people on the internet who post stupid things on their own blogs ? one is who you should be listening to, one is who you should not.  the problem i see on this site every time feminism is brought up is people who were turned off of it or even hate it because of  sjw tumblr feminists , as in, random people on the internet.  it makes no sense to me to demonize an entire movement based on the obviously ludicrous opinions of a minority within the group.  do we assume  all  christians believe in young earth creationism ? do we assume  all  muslims are in cahoots with isis to overthrow the world ? do we think all men are rape apologizing misogynists because trp does ? then why is it so common for this one tiny segment of the internet to be a person is definition of an entire political movement that has been fighting for equality for over a century ?  #  more judgement from society when something goes wrong with your child.   #  how is being seen as a natural care giver  privilege  ? it leads to hiring discrimination.  more judgement from society when something goes wrong with your child.  higher likely hood of giving up career for child care.  high standards in courts during custody hearing.  creates image of women as  caring and nurturing  not  powerful  etc.  overall being considered the natural caregiver is a net negative.
disclaimer: i am one of those nuts who think men and women  both  have privileges and oppressions.  yes, i know.  seems obvious, right ? but no in a thread in srd i suggested that feminism existed to further female privilege instead of promote equality and ended up with 0 downvotes.  now, i know what you are thinking they downvoted you for besmirching feminism ! no.  the incredulity was that i said female privilege was a thing and when i answered the  totally respectful feminist  who  politely  asked for examples i pointed to the legal system and how women serve 0 the sentence men serve for the same crimes and make up something like 0 or 0 of the prison population.    first counterargument: this is actually oppression because women are seen as fragile children who ca not do time or could not hurt someone so badly.  no.  this is not oppression.  yes, it is sexism.  but it is women benefiting from sexism, which is what i understand as the definition of privilege an unfair advantage rooted in some bigotry or other, eg white privilege   second counterargument: men commit more crime, so they are a larger portion of the prison population.  well this is pretty obviously bigotry, so i am just going to say  it is the same racist argument racists make, but they swap out  men  for  the blacks  and move right along.    it is not privilege, it is  benevolent sexism .  no.  this is a double standard that does a backflip over facts and turns  women get an unfair advantage here  into  women get an unfair advantage here  but  they are still the victim .  this is on the order of calling sexism against men  reverse sexism .  no.  so cmv.  explain to me why gender based unfair advantages are privilege for men but  benevolent sexism  for women in a way that makes any sense at all.   #  women serve 0 the sentence men serve for the same crimes and make up something like 0 or 0 of the prison population.   #  alternative explanation: women are 0 as violent within the same category of offenses, and commit crimes or get caught for them at 0 or 0 of the rate.   # alternative explanation: women are 0 as violent within the same category of offenses, and commit crimes or get caught for them at 0 or 0 of the rate.  now, i do not believe this to be true to such an extent that it can explain the entire disparity by itself.  but it would be equally absurd to dismiss it altogether.  wat ? you are here claiming to be the bearer of hard truths and unpopular but righteous viewpoints, and you are hiding behind political correctness ?  #  whats interesting is that these same types of microaggressions are the ones that women often encounter when we go into male dominated spaces.   #  well, and example is being considered a natural care giver, whereas my husband gets comments when he is the one who takes the kids to the doctor.  i think one of the more obvious points of privilage is the ability to be a  default .  women are not the default in many of the more visible parts of life corporate world, etc.  however there are areas where they are elementary schools, family caregivers, etc.  and you can see comments on reddit that often express frustration at this ie: not being allowed into a  moms  group, comments about a dad  babysitting  as though it was not his kid, etc.  whats interesting is that these same types of microaggressions are the ones that women often encounter when we go into male dominated spaces.  it would serve all of us to realize that little comments that seem harmless when you are in the majority can actually really make someone in the minority feel unwelcome, and we should all look to be aware of what our privileges are.   #  the one sidedness stems from the fact that the movement seems wholly incapable of even contemplating the notion that there may be female privileges in this society.   #  the one sidedness stems from the fact that the movement seems wholly incapable of even contemplating the notion that there may be female privileges in this society.  to that end, if the movement only works towards ending the inequalities for females, without addressing or even acknowledging the inequalities of the other side or even going as far as reconstruing those privileges as some secondary type of oppression this was what i was calling disingenuous in my initial comment then is it really an equality movement at all ? i would posit no.  rather, it is more correctly characterized as a women is empowerment movement.  that is not to say i do not believe there should not be such a movement, only that they should accept that as their label and stop shaming men for not being part of their  equality  movement.  unfortunately, it seems their goal is to tailor a world perfectly designed for women to cater to all of their needs without the slightest concern for and to the detriment of anyone else, including women who prefer more traditional society.  if they need to result to public shaming and demonizing of the other sex to achieve their goals they do not seem to mind.   #  then why is it so common for this one tiny segment of the internet to be a person is definition of an entire political movement that has been fighting for equality for over a century ?  # i am wondering what you mean when you say  the movement  and  they .  are you referring to academic feminists who have been the forefront of advocating politically and socially ? or are you referring to random people on the internet who post stupid things on their own blogs ? one is who you should be listening to, one is who you should not.  the problem i see on this site every time feminism is brought up is people who were turned off of it or even hate it because of  sjw tumblr feminists , as in, random people on the internet.  it makes no sense to me to demonize an entire movement based on the obviously ludicrous opinions of a minority within the group.  do we assume  all  christians believe in young earth creationism ? do we assume  all  muslims are in cahoots with isis to overthrow the world ? do we think all men are rape apologizing misogynists because trp does ? then why is it so common for this one tiny segment of the internet to be a person is definition of an entire political movement that has been fighting for equality for over a century ?  #  higher likely hood of giving up career for child care.   #  how is being seen as a natural care giver  privilege  ? it leads to hiring discrimination.  more judgement from society when something goes wrong with your child.  higher likely hood of giving up career for child care.  high standards in courts during custody hearing.  creates image of women as  caring and nurturing  not  powerful  etc.  overall being considered the natural caregiver is a net negative.
the term  indian  implies that a.  this land was mistaken for asia minor and b.  the humans living on this recently discovered land shall have this slur regardless of the actual pretenses in which they were given or the continent for which they are born.  obviously this is disingenuous , crude, and ignorant.  native american or american is no better, however, when considering the origination of the term.  for those unaware, the americas have been given this current title from the italian/spanish explorer amerigo vespucci.  he likely has less of a claim to name of this massive land than even columbus though i am sure no one with any current knowledge of this explorer would keep the name native columbian , and is simply famous because held he the quill when forging the map.  in either case we are claiming these indigenous people have no right to the original names they held such as tribe like navajo and apache and are required to be labeled as what the current foreigners see as fitting.  some native americans may agree with this term, but this has little to do with it being agreeable nomenclature and instead is a lesser of the evils in comparison to savage, featherhead, and now presently, redskin.  obviously this does not make the current verbiage correct or even desired.  following this logic a new conclusion could be made, although i am not well versed in this topic i believe abya yala may be more fitting in this context.  thank your for your consideration.   #  in either case we are claiming these indigenous people have no right to the original names they held such as tribe like navajo and apache and are required to be labeled as what the current foreigners see as fitting.   #  that is not how the term native american is used.   # that is not how the term native american is used.  it is an overarching term for all of the native tribes.  despite their differences, they do still have some things in common, and so we need a term to refer to them all as a collective group.  it is the same as calling someone european is not saying that they do not have the right to be called italian.  similarly, calling someone native american is not the same as saying they do not have the right to be called cherokee.  cherokee is a subgroup of native american the same way that italian is a subgroup of european.   #  if what you are saying is actually true than  american , as a term referring to people from the usa, is equally offensive.   # that is like saying you ca not call a greek and european because they are greek.  unless people  actually  care about them and actually feel disrespected you are being pedantic.  the difference between native american and indian is that one refers to a place they actually are, the other to one where they are not.  vespucci does not come into this, he does not matter; it is just the name.  names are arbitrary and lack objective moral content or significance.  if what you are saying is actually true than  american , as a term referring to people from the usa, is equally offensive.  that is silly.  the more important difference, the only important difference, is that people actually feel disrespected when called  indians  when they are not because of the words history and the  intent  behind its use.  do not make problems where they do not exist.  just as an aside: in canada, and possibly in the us,  indians  are usually named  first nations  and/or  aboriginal.   however, canadian government bills often, if not always, use the phrase  indian  because the indian act many times amended since the 0th cent.  remains the defining and governing law.   #  my impression was that the endless self conscious vacillation and fear of offense just was not important.   # 0 we are not saying they have  no right  to anything.  we are using a broad term to describe a large number of similar but different people.  if i call an irish person a european, i am not wrong.  if i call a navajo a cherokee, i am wrong.  if i call a navajo and a cherokee  american indians  or  native americans i grew up by a reservation and they told me to just say  indian  then i am using a term that refers to the various groups of north american ethnic origin.  i am imprecise, but correct.  0 i was born here.  i am not a foreigner.  again, most of the people i talked to on the reservation were skeptical of  native american  because they recognized the obvious error in terms; native american refers to any person born in america.  i am a native, they are natives. so using  native  to differentiate us makes no sense.  the internet tells me that what you are suggesting there is that we impose a word from a panamnian tribe that has no relevant meaning to most amerindian ethnic groups.  that makes even less sense than keeping the current and more useful word from europe that had no relevant meaning to most amerindian ethnic groups.  i will say this: i have met, worked with and been friends with indians since i was a kid.  in my experience, they thought the reticence and trepidation the average white guy would have when trying to figure out what to call them was somewhere between funny and exasperating.  the most common response i heard to every anxious iteration of  . so what should i call you ?   was something like  dude, just call me a fucking indian. or maybe just rob. like my name.   my impression was that the endless self conscious vacillation and fear of offense just was not important.  they did not give a single fuck provided they knew you were not trying to be an asshole.  so i just go with indian or amerindian. or rob.   #  calling the land america is just as legitimate as any other name.   #  you do realize that navajo is just as offensive, right ? the proper name is diné.  the spanish called them navajo.  where do you live ? here in new mexico state with the 0nd highest native/indian percentage of population and more than 0/0 of the total diné population indian is the preferred term.  in reality, none of my native/indian friends care about the native american vs indian debate.  they care more about diné vs navajo, but are not even close to being offended.  in their minds, the indian vs native american debate is about a group that never existed until after europeans were here.  there were dozens hundreds ? of names for the americas by the different tribes.  calling the land america is just as legitimate as any other name.  so to them, calling them native americans or indians is not offensive at all.  it is just a term for a group that was not a group and had almost nothing in common other than the continent they lived on until outsiders showed up.  they care more about you referring to their actual tribe by the correct name.  in my friends  cases diné.   #  seminole, navajo, creek and likely apache are all from european origin.   #  glad i could shed some light on this for you.  send me a pm if you ever make it to albuquerque.  we can grab a drink with some of my friends and they can give you their perspective first hand.  i do want to clarify one thing though.  they do identify as a group, but this is only due to the relatively new situation they are in.  because of this, the name is largely irrelevant to them as long as it is not intentionally insulting .  abya yala is just as foreign to the diné as indian or american.  further, many common native/indian tribal names are of non native origin.  seminole, navajo, creek and likely apache are all from european origin.
the term  indian  implies that a.  this land was mistaken for asia minor and b.  the humans living on this recently discovered land shall have this slur regardless of the actual pretenses in which they were given or the continent for which they are born.  obviously this is disingenuous , crude, and ignorant.  native american or american is no better, however, when considering the origination of the term.  for those unaware, the americas have been given this current title from the italian/spanish explorer amerigo vespucci.  he likely has less of a claim to name of this massive land than even columbus though i am sure no one with any current knowledge of this explorer would keep the name native columbian , and is simply famous because held he the quill when forging the map.  in either case we are claiming these indigenous people have no right to the original names they held such as tribe like navajo and apache and are required to be labeled as what the current foreigners see as fitting.  some native americans may agree with this term, but this has little to do with it being agreeable nomenclature and instead is a lesser of the evils in comparison to savage, featherhead, and now presently, redskin.  obviously this does not make the current verbiage correct or even desired.  following this logic a new conclusion could be made, although i am not well versed in this topic i believe abya yala may be more fitting in this context.  thank your for your consideration.   #  in either case we are claiming these indigenous people have no right to the original names they held such as tribe like navajo and apache and are required to be labeled as what the current foreigners see as fitting.   #  0 we are not saying they have  no right  to anything.   # 0 we are not saying they have  no right  to anything.  we are using a broad term to describe a large number of similar but different people.  if i call an irish person a european, i am not wrong.  if i call a navajo a cherokee, i am wrong.  if i call a navajo and a cherokee  american indians  or  native americans i grew up by a reservation and they told me to just say  indian  then i am using a term that refers to the various groups of north american ethnic origin.  i am imprecise, but correct.  0 i was born here.  i am not a foreigner.  again, most of the people i talked to on the reservation were skeptical of  native american  because they recognized the obvious error in terms; native american refers to any person born in america.  i am a native, they are natives. so using  native  to differentiate us makes no sense.  the internet tells me that what you are suggesting there is that we impose a word from a panamnian tribe that has no relevant meaning to most amerindian ethnic groups.  that makes even less sense than keeping the current and more useful word from europe that had no relevant meaning to most amerindian ethnic groups.  i will say this: i have met, worked with and been friends with indians since i was a kid.  in my experience, they thought the reticence and trepidation the average white guy would have when trying to figure out what to call them was somewhere between funny and exasperating.  the most common response i heard to every anxious iteration of  . so what should i call you ?   was something like  dude, just call me a fucking indian. or maybe just rob. like my name.   my impression was that the endless self conscious vacillation and fear of offense just was not important.  they did not give a single fuck provided they knew you were not trying to be an asshole.  so i just go with indian or amerindian. or rob.   #  similarly, calling someone native american is not the same as saying they do not have the right to be called cherokee.   # that is not how the term native american is used.  it is an overarching term for all of the native tribes.  despite their differences, they do still have some things in common, and so we need a term to refer to them all as a collective group.  it is the same as calling someone european is not saying that they do not have the right to be called italian.  similarly, calling someone native american is not the same as saying they do not have the right to be called cherokee.  cherokee is a subgroup of native american the same way that italian is a subgroup of european.   #  vespucci does not come into this, he does not matter; it is just the name.   # that is like saying you ca not call a greek and european because they are greek.  unless people  actually  care about them and actually feel disrespected you are being pedantic.  the difference between native american and indian is that one refers to a place they actually are, the other to one where they are not.  vespucci does not come into this, he does not matter; it is just the name.  names are arbitrary and lack objective moral content or significance.  if what you are saying is actually true than  american , as a term referring to people from the usa, is equally offensive.  that is silly.  the more important difference, the only important difference, is that people actually feel disrespected when called  indians  when they are not because of the words history and the  intent  behind its use.  do not make problems where they do not exist.  just as an aside: in canada, and possibly in the us,  indians  are usually named  first nations  and/or  aboriginal.   however, canadian government bills often, if not always, use the phrase  indian  because the indian act many times amended since the 0th cent.  remains the defining and governing law.   #  here in new mexico state with the 0nd highest native/indian percentage of population and more than 0/0 of the total diné population indian is the preferred term.   #  you do realize that navajo is just as offensive, right ? the proper name is diné.  the spanish called them navajo.  where do you live ? here in new mexico state with the 0nd highest native/indian percentage of population and more than 0/0 of the total diné population indian is the preferred term.  in reality, none of my native/indian friends care about the native american vs indian debate.  they care more about diné vs navajo, but are not even close to being offended.  in their minds, the indian vs native american debate is about a group that never existed until after europeans were here.  there were dozens hundreds ? of names for the americas by the different tribes.  calling the land america is just as legitimate as any other name.  so to them, calling them native americans or indians is not offensive at all.  it is just a term for a group that was not a group and had almost nothing in common other than the continent they lived on until outsiders showed up.  they care more about you referring to their actual tribe by the correct name.  in my friends  cases diné.   #  because of this, the name is largely irrelevant to them as long as it is not intentionally insulting .   #  glad i could shed some light on this for you.  send me a pm if you ever make it to albuquerque.  we can grab a drink with some of my friends and they can give you their perspective first hand.  i do want to clarify one thing though.  they do identify as a group, but this is only due to the relatively new situation they are in.  because of this, the name is largely irrelevant to them as long as it is not intentionally insulting .  abya yala is just as foreign to the diné as indian or american.  further, many common native/indian tribal names are of non native origin.  seminole, navajo, creek and likely apache are all from european origin.
the term  indian  implies that a.  this land was mistaken for asia minor and b.  the humans living on this recently discovered land shall have this slur regardless of the actual pretenses in which they were given or the continent for which they are born.  obviously this is disingenuous , crude, and ignorant.  native american or american is no better, however, when considering the origination of the term.  for those unaware, the americas have been given this current title from the italian/spanish explorer amerigo vespucci.  he likely has less of a claim to name of this massive land than even columbus though i am sure no one with any current knowledge of this explorer would keep the name native columbian , and is simply famous because held he the quill when forging the map.  in either case we are claiming these indigenous people have no right to the original names they held such as tribe like navajo and apache and are required to be labeled as what the current foreigners see as fitting.  some native americans may agree with this term, but this has little to do with it being agreeable nomenclature and instead is a lesser of the evils in comparison to savage, featherhead, and now presently, redskin.  obviously this does not make the current verbiage correct or even desired.  following this logic a new conclusion could be made, although i am not well versed in this topic i believe abya yala may be more fitting in this context.  thank your for your consideration.   #  following this logic a new conclusion could be made, although i am not well versed in this topic i believe abya yala may be more fitting in this context.   #  the internet tells me that what you are suggesting there is that we impose a word from a panamnian tribe that has no relevant meaning to most amerindian ethnic groups.   # 0 we are not saying they have  no right  to anything.  we are using a broad term to describe a large number of similar but different people.  if i call an irish person a european, i am not wrong.  if i call a navajo a cherokee, i am wrong.  if i call a navajo and a cherokee  american indians  or  native americans i grew up by a reservation and they told me to just say  indian  then i am using a term that refers to the various groups of north american ethnic origin.  i am imprecise, but correct.  0 i was born here.  i am not a foreigner.  again, most of the people i talked to on the reservation were skeptical of  native american  because they recognized the obvious error in terms; native american refers to any person born in america.  i am a native, they are natives. so using  native  to differentiate us makes no sense.  the internet tells me that what you are suggesting there is that we impose a word from a panamnian tribe that has no relevant meaning to most amerindian ethnic groups.  that makes even less sense than keeping the current and more useful word from europe that had no relevant meaning to most amerindian ethnic groups.  i will say this: i have met, worked with and been friends with indians since i was a kid.  in my experience, they thought the reticence and trepidation the average white guy would have when trying to figure out what to call them was somewhere between funny and exasperating.  the most common response i heard to every anxious iteration of  . so what should i call you ?   was something like  dude, just call me a fucking indian. or maybe just rob. like my name.   my impression was that the endless self conscious vacillation and fear of offense just was not important.  they did not give a single fuck provided they knew you were not trying to be an asshole.  so i just go with indian or amerindian. or rob.   #  it is an overarching term for all of the native tribes.   # that is not how the term native american is used.  it is an overarching term for all of the native tribes.  despite their differences, they do still have some things in common, and so we need a term to refer to them all as a collective group.  it is the same as calling someone european is not saying that they do not have the right to be called italian.  similarly, calling someone native american is not the same as saying they do not have the right to be called cherokee.  cherokee is a subgroup of native american the same way that italian is a subgroup of european.   #  however, canadian government bills often, if not always, use the phrase  indian  because the indian act many times amended since the 0th cent.   # that is like saying you ca not call a greek and european because they are greek.  unless people  actually  care about them and actually feel disrespected you are being pedantic.  the difference between native american and indian is that one refers to a place they actually are, the other to one where they are not.  vespucci does not come into this, he does not matter; it is just the name.  names are arbitrary and lack objective moral content or significance.  if what you are saying is actually true than  american , as a term referring to people from the usa, is equally offensive.  that is silly.  the more important difference, the only important difference, is that people actually feel disrespected when called  indians  when they are not because of the words history and the  intent  behind its use.  do not make problems where they do not exist.  just as an aside: in canada, and possibly in the us,  indians  are usually named  first nations  and/or  aboriginal.   however, canadian government bills often, if not always, use the phrase  indian  because the indian act many times amended since the 0th cent.  remains the defining and governing law.   #  in reality, none of my native/indian friends care about the native american vs indian debate.   #  you do realize that navajo is just as offensive, right ? the proper name is diné.  the spanish called them navajo.  where do you live ? here in new mexico state with the 0nd highest native/indian percentage of population and more than 0/0 of the total diné population indian is the preferred term.  in reality, none of my native/indian friends care about the native american vs indian debate.  they care more about diné vs navajo, but are not even close to being offended.  in their minds, the indian vs native american debate is about a group that never existed until after europeans were here.  there were dozens hundreds ? of names for the americas by the different tribes.  calling the land america is just as legitimate as any other name.  so to them, calling them native americans or indians is not offensive at all.  it is just a term for a group that was not a group and had almost nothing in common other than the continent they lived on until outsiders showed up.  they care more about you referring to their actual tribe by the correct name.  in my friends  cases diné.   #  they do identify as a group, but this is only due to the relatively new situation they are in.   #  glad i could shed some light on this for you.  send me a pm if you ever make it to albuquerque.  we can grab a drink with some of my friends and they can give you their perspective first hand.  i do want to clarify one thing though.  they do identify as a group, but this is only due to the relatively new situation they are in.  because of this, the name is largely irrelevant to them as long as it is not intentionally insulting .  abya yala is just as foreign to the diné as indian or american.  further, many common native/indian tribal names are of non native origin.  seminole, navajo, creek and likely apache are all from european origin.
in aftermath of amy pascal and donald sterling, i think there is a disturbing trend of privacy invasion taking place, and people are not safe to say things even in their own homes.  you might say  they deserve it , but the fact is that if we really value privacy as a right, then we should be appalled when someone is private emails or conversations are tapped for the purposes of character assassination.  i think we should care about this on a personal level because as the world is more integrated through the internet, we are going to see this happen to more and more people if attitudes do not change, especially for people who seek to be involved in public careers such as politics or education.  i would imagine we all have made comments, sent emails, or posted pictures we regret, but it is not indicative of our public faces, and we are all very different people for the public than when we are talking in private with close acquaintances.  i do not think people should be judged on what they say in private.  we need to make this distinction.  why am i wrong ?  #  i would imagine we all have made comments, sent emails, or posted pictures we regret, but it is not indicative of our public faces, and we are all very different people for the public than when we are talking in private with close acquaintances.   #  this is assuming that they actually regret it.   # this is assuming that they actually regret it.  if someone truly regrets something they said in private, then sure they should be forgiven.  but if they say something in private and that is what they really believe, then i do not see how you can argue that we ca not judge them for it.  it is immoral for private conversations to be released, sure, but that does not excuse the actual contents of the private conversation.  like i said in the other comment, if obama was caught making derogatory remarks towards republicans, there is absolutely no reason he should not be held accountable for it.   #  the emails were never intended to be used either way.   #  0.  what happened with sony does not involve someone saying something  off the record .   off the record  usually means someone tells someone who is going to use the information either to make it public but unattributed or information to investigate something that will be made public.  the emails were never intended to be used either way.  0.  the emails are corporation property, so there was no reasonable expectation of it being private on a personal level.  private on a corporate is different e. g.  other people in the corporation have a right and can be expected to read the emails.   #  if it were, those worse would have never been uttered.   #  i mostly intended for that to mean private conversations.  i have always interpreted  off the record  to mean that there was something caught on tape that was not meant for the public to hear, like obama calling kanye west a jackass.  either way, the email was clearly not meant to be seen by anyone and appears to be in a sarcastic context.  if it were, those worse would have never been uttered.  why should people attribute that to the actual feelings of pascal ?  #  a politician should not be able to hide the fact that they took bribes by saying  off the record !    #  i am in complete agreement with you about privacy.  the problem is with the phrase  off the record.   it does not mean anything.  it implies no duty and is not legally enforceable afaik, not a lawyer, but google agrees .  it is just a thing reporters say to build confidence, and sources say when they are exposing themselves or they realise they fucked up .  further some things off the record are really important.  the ceo of uber recently declared his intent to research, stalk and harass reporters who covered uber negatively.  he said this  to a group of reporters who he had invited to a meal that guy is crazy .  he thought, and maybe said, that it was  off the record .  should the reporters have respected that wish ? no, i think clearly not.  indeed they did not.  so the important thing is not whether off the record statements are respected, because there are many ofr things that are important and it is not really a meaningful thing anyway.  what is important is that reporter is distinguish between the private and the public better.  people can say things in private that reflect on their public station.  a politician should not be able to hide the fact that they took bribes by saying  off the record !   after they hint at it to a journalist; and a ceos affair should not usually be news even if its conducted out in the open.  so, basically, i think you are focusing on the wrong thing entirely.  there are a lot of forces tugging this out of balance including electronic media, tabloids, and making private aspects of people is lives politically salient 0 .  0.  that last one may seem weirdly obvious if you are from north america or britain, because private lives have probably been part of politics for as long as you can remember.  but in many countries there are strong though in some cases weakening norms against covering politicians private lives contrast the coverage of president mitterand is love child today with the coverage it garnered decades ago when most reporters knew.   #  it may be kind of them to do so, but there is no obligation.   #  your privacy is yours and yours alone to protect.  no one is obligated to look the other way in order to spare you the consequences of your own actions.  it may be kind of them to do so, but there is no obligation.  i do think that attitudes will change slightly, but in the direction of acceptance for that which is harmless and ubiquitous as opposed to the secreting away of asshole behavior.  in time, no one will blanch when nude photos of a teacher are leaked, because everybody will have taken nude photos at one point.  but if you say some racist ass bullshit, that will come out, cause it should.
in aftermath of amy pascal and donald sterling, i think there is a disturbing trend of privacy invasion taking place, and people are not safe to say things even in their own homes.  you might say  they deserve it , but the fact is that if we really value privacy as a right, then we should be appalled when someone is private emails or conversations are tapped for the purposes of character assassination.  i think we should care about this on a personal level because as the world is more integrated through the internet, we are going to see this happen to more and more people if attitudes do not change, especially for people who seek to be involved in public careers such as politics or education.  i would imagine we all have made comments, sent emails, or posted pictures we regret, but it is not indicative of our public faces, and we are all very different people for the public than when we are talking in private with close acquaintances.  i do not think people should be judged on what they say in private.  we need to make this distinction.  why am i wrong ?  #  but the fact is that if we really value privacy as a right, then we should be appalled when someone is private emails or conversations are tapped for the purposes of character assassination.   #  it is immoral for private conversations to be released, sure, but that does not excuse the actual contents of the private conversation.   # this is assuming that they actually regret it.  if someone truly regrets something they said in private, then sure they should be forgiven.  but if they say something in private and that is what they really believe, then i do not see how you can argue that we ca not judge them for it.  it is immoral for private conversations to be released, sure, but that does not excuse the actual contents of the private conversation.  like i said in the other comment, if obama was caught making derogatory remarks towards republicans, there is absolutely no reason he should not be held accountable for it.   #  other people in the corporation have a right and can be expected to read the emails.   #  0.  what happened with sony does not involve someone saying something  off the record .   off the record  usually means someone tells someone who is going to use the information either to make it public but unattributed or information to investigate something that will be made public.  the emails were never intended to be used either way.  0.  the emails are corporation property, so there was no reasonable expectation of it being private on a personal level.  private on a corporate is different e. g.  other people in the corporation have a right and can be expected to read the emails.   #  if it were, those worse would have never been uttered.   #  i mostly intended for that to mean private conversations.  i have always interpreted  off the record  to mean that there was something caught on tape that was not meant for the public to hear, like obama calling kanye west a jackass.  either way, the email was clearly not meant to be seen by anyone and appears to be in a sarcastic context.  if it were, those worse would have never been uttered.  why should people attribute that to the actual feelings of pascal ?  #  the problem is with the phrase  off the record.    #  i am in complete agreement with you about privacy.  the problem is with the phrase  off the record.   it does not mean anything.  it implies no duty and is not legally enforceable afaik, not a lawyer, but google agrees .  it is just a thing reporters say to build confidence, and sources say when they are exposing themselves or they realise they fucked up .  further some things off the record are really important.  the ceo of uber recently declared his intent to research, stalk and harass reporters who covered uber negatively.  he said this  to a group of reporters who he had invited to a meal that guy is crazy .  he thought, and maybe said, that it was  off the record .  should the reporters have respected that wish ? no, i think clearly not.  indeed they did not.  so the important thing is not whether off the record statements are respected, because there are many ofr things that are important and it is not really a meaningful thing anyway.  what is important is that reporter is distinguish between the private and the public better.  people can say things in private that reflect on their public station.  a politician should not be able to hide the fact that they took bribes by saying  off the record !   after they hint at it to a journalist; and a ceos affair should not usually be news even if its conducted out in the open.  so, basically, i think you are focusing on the wrong thing entirely.  there are a lot of forces tugging this out of balance including electronic media, tabloids, and making private aspects of people is lives politically salient 0 .  0.  that last one may seem weirdly obvious if you are from north america or britain, because private lives have probably been part of politics for as long as you can remember.  but in many countries there are strong though in some cases weakening norms against covering politicians private lives contrast the coverage of president mitterand is love child today with the coverage it garnered decades ago when most reporters knew.   #  no one is obligated to look the other way in order to spare you the consequences of your own actions.   #  your privacy is yours and yours alone to protect.  no one is obligated to look the other way in order to spare you the consequences of your own actions.  it may be kind of them to do so, but there is no obligation.  i do think that attitudes will change slightly, but in the direction of acceptance for that which is harmless and ubiquitous as opposed to the secreting away of asshole behavior.  in time, no one will blanch when nude photos of a teacher are leaked, because everybody will have taken nude photos at one point.  but if you say some racist ass bullshit, that will come out, cause it should.
if you look at the flu, and if you look at how it is changed, you can see how it has not become much more drastic.  now, i agree that vaccines are crucial for a healthy population, but the flu is not as much as a threat to the healthy population.  the shot is a big way for the pharmacies to make their money from a virus that is not even relevant.  the flu vaccination success rate is not even that high.  around 0.  basically, my argument is that fear is the only thing making people get vaccines, and the government and pharmacies use this fear to make money of shots.   #  if you look at the flu, and if you look at how it is changed, you can see how it has not become much more drastic.   #  now, i agree that vaccines are crucial for a healthy population, but the flu is not as much as a threat to the healthy population.   # now, i agree that vaccines are crucial for a healthy population, but the flu is not as much as a threat to the healthy population.  i am glad to hear you support vaccination, but the rest of your claims are a bit misleading.  some strains of the flu are more dangerous than others.  there are an average of about 0 influenza pandemics per century.  URL from 0 0, annual influenza deaths in the u. s.  ranged from 0,0 to 0,0.  URL that is not a trivial number of deaths.  the flu virus continues to mutate with every flu season, and it is entirely possible that one year it will again mutate into a strain as virulent as the infamous 0 spanish flu URL potentially capable of causing tens or hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide.  the flu vaccination success rate is not even that high.  around 0.  basically, my argument is that fear is the only thing making people get vaccines, and the government and pharmacies use this fear to make money of shots.  having already established that the flu is indeed relevant, i will say that i agree there are many issues with the flu vaccine.  however, the idea that it is just a money grab really is not one of them URL also, dr.  mark crislip, an infectious disease specialist, wrote an excellent article on the subject URL of how the flu vaccine is a net positive to society despite its imperfections.   #  it may be misleading to say the old vaccines are not effective on the new strains of seasonal diseases, as people will just conclude the new strains are getting stronger each passing year.   #  playing the devil is advocate here, since this topic does not really move me one way or the other.  the information exists and is there for anyone that goes about looking for it, but it is not shoved in your face in the same way the news about the newest, strongest vaccine is.  i guess it may depend on your country is practices and, mostly, the legislation available towards this kind of advertisements.  it may be misleading to say the old vaccines are not effective on the new strains of seasonal diseases, as people will just conclude the new strains are getting stronger each passing year.  leaving clear and unambiguous information available on a web page places the burden on the viewer to go get the  real  information, whereas the previous claim is given freely.  reasonable excuse or not, this is enough to make sure the vast majority of us only gets a part of the information the part that benefits their business since we are simply 0 too lazy to search for it, and 0 probably unaware that the given information was incomplete to begin with.  this is true for a lot of crap we see on tv, if we think about it, and i think we still have not adapted the change that has happened in the media that transformed what used to be  the news  into  the news reports .  the former being used to report us the facts, and the latter to report the opinions on the facts by some shady  expert  or  close source .  so, to answer your question, i would ask that if a news article, for example, talks about a new vaccine or medication being made available, all the relevant information required to make a decision about it is use/purchase should be given in the same place, at the same time, as opposed to it basically being blatantly advertised in what should be a news report.   #  they are also covered by medicare, and are covered by medicaid in almost every state.   # flu shots are generally covered by insurance and can be administered with no copay.  they are also covered by medicare, and are covered by medicaid in almost every state.  the vast majority of people can get flu shots at no cost to them.  even without insurance, many charities or health clinics will offer free flu shots, or you can get a flu shot for a little as $0.  URL this is dirt cheap for a medical procedure without any type of insurance.  what makes you think that pharmacies are gouging the price of flu shots when they are so cheap in the first place ?  #  if you are afraid of polio, you get a polio vaccine.   #  this may seem like an obvious question, but is not fear of disease the primary driver for all vaccinations ? what makes the flu any different ? if you are afraid of polio, you get a polio vaccine.  the number one groups that get the flu vaccine are those that have compromised immune systems.  the vaccine helps to lessen their chances of getting the flu, which just might lead to something worse due to their lowered immune system.  i would also argue that saying that the government makes money off of the shots is ridiculous since the government is trillions of dollars in debt.  they are not making money off of anything.   #  about the vaccines, i agree that fear is a big element.   # the us makes the most money of any country.  and they would still use any chance to make some money.  about the vaccines, i agree that fear is a big element.  i just disagree that it should be as big as it is.  it is immoral for pharmacies to overplay this fear and make more money than they would if the actual statistics of the flu and the evidence of the vaccine is viability were presented.
if you look at the flu, and if you look at how it is changed, you can see how it has not become much more drastic.  now, i agree that vaccines are crucial for a healthy population, but the flu is not as much as a threat to the healthy population.  the shot is a big way for the pharmacies to make their money from a virus that is not even relevant.  the flu vaccination success rate is not even that high.  around 0.  basically, my argument is that fear is the only thing making people get vaccines, and the government and pharmacies use this fear to make money of shots.   #  the shot is a big way for the pharmacies to make their money from a virus that is not even relevant.   #  the flu vaccination success rate is not even that high.   # now, i agree that vaccines are crucial for a healthy population, but the flu is not as much as a threat to the healthy population.  i am glad to hear you support vaccination, but the rest of your claims are a bit misleading.  some strains of the flu are more dangerous than others.  there are an average of about 0 influenza pandemics per century.  URL from 0 0, annual influenza deaths in the u. s.  ranged from 0,0 to 0,0.  URL that is not a trivial number of deaths.  the flu virus continues to mutate with every flu season, and it is entirely possible that one year it will again mutate into a strain as virulent as the infamous 0 spanish flu URL potentially capable of causing tens or hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide.  the flu vaccination success rate is not even that high.  around 0.  basically, my argument is that fear is the only thing making people get vaccines, and the government and pharmacies use this fear to make money of shots.  having already established that the flu is indeed relevant, i will say that i agree there are many issues with the flu vaccine.  however, the idea that it is just a money grab really is not one of them URL also, dr.  mark crislip, an infectious disease specialist, wrote an excellent article on the subject URL of how the flu vaccine is a net positive to society despite its imperfections.   #  i guess it may depend on your country is practices and, mostly, the legislation available towards this kind of advertisements.   #  playing the devil is advocate here, since this topic does not really move me one way or the other.  the information exists and is there for anyone that goes about looking for it, but it is not shoved in your face in the same way the news about the newest, strongest vaccine is.  i guess it may depend on your country is practices and, mostly, the legislation available towards this kind of advertisements.  it may be misleading to say the old vaccines are not effective on the new strains of seasonal diseases, as people will just conclude the new strains are getting stronger each passing year.  leaving clear and unambiguous information available on a web page places the burden on the viewer to go get the  real  information, whereas the previous claim is given freely.  reasonable excuse or not, this is enough to make sure the vast majority of us only gets a part of the information the part that benefits their business since we are simply 0 too lazy to search for it, and 0 probably unaware that the given information was incomplete to begin with.  this is true for a lot of crap we see on tv, if we think about it, and i think we still have not adapted the change that has happened in the media that transformed what used to be  the news  into  the news reports .  the former being used to report us the facts, and the latter to report the opinions on the facts by some shady  expert  or  close source .  so, to answer your question, i would ask that if a news article, for example, talks about a new vaccine or medication being made available, all the relevant information required to make a decision about it is use/purchase should be given in the same place, at the same time, as opposed to it basically being blatantly advertised in what should be a news report.   #  even without insurance, many charities or health clinics will offer free flu shots, or you can get a flu shot for a little as $0.   # flu shots are generally covered by insurance and can be administered with no copay.  they are also covered by medicare, and are covered by medicaid in almost every state.  the vast majority of people can get flu shots at no cost to them.  even without insurance, many charities or health clinics will offer free flu shots, or you can get a flu shot for a little as $0.  URL this is dirt cheap for a medical procedure without any type of insurance.  what makes you think that pharmacies are gouging the price of flu shots when they are so cheap in the first place ?  #  the number one groups that get the flu vaccine are those that have compromised immune systems.   #  this may seem like an obvious question, but is not fear of disease the primary driver for all vaccinations ? what makes the flu any different ? if you are afraid of polio, you get a polio vaccine.  the number one groups that get the flu vaccine are those that have compromised immune systems.  the vaccine helps to lessen their chances of getting the flu, which just might lead to something worse due to their lowered immune system.  i would also argue that saying that the government makes money off of the shots is ridiculous since the government is trillions of dollars in debt.  they are not making money off of anything.   #  i just disagree that it should be as big as it is.   # the us makes the most money of any country.  and they would still use any chance to make some money.  about the vaccines, i agree that fear is a big element.  i just disagree that it should be as big as it is.  it is immoral for pharmacies to overplay this fear and make more money than they would if the actual statistics of the flu and the evidence of the vaccine is viability were presented.
the phrase  no justice, no peace  has no place at a so called  peaceful protest .  the phrase is militant, not peaceful.  it is confrontational, not unifying.  how can a protest legitimately call itself peaceful when they are threatening no peace ? how can a protest realistically call itself justified when it is powered by the threat of violence ? the phrase itself is a call to violence.  the phrase legitimizes violence and rioting for those who have not gotten their way, politically.  it is damaging to peaceful attempts to use protest for political change.  i think it does more harm than good.  there has got to be a better way of getting your message across.   #  how can a protest legitimately call itself peaceful when they are threatening no peace ?  #  i think you are misinterpreting the phrase.   # i think you are misinterpreting the phrase.  it is not a threat that there will be no peace without first receiving justice.  it is a statement of fact that, in our community, there is no justice and there is no peace.  as it relates to the recent police brutality protests, the protestors are not threatening  no peace .  they are stating that there is no peace because police officers have declared war on citizens.  where war has been declared and is actively being perpetrated by the declarers, there is no peace.  so there is no justice because police officers are not being brought to justice.  and there is no peace because police officers are actively working against peaceful resolutions with citizens.  there is no justice and there is no peace.  it is a statement of fact.  the protestors are protesting against those statements of fact and asking for both justice and peace not threatening a lack of peace.   #  these are actions that disturb the status quo of the community, but not violent.   #  you are looking at the word peace wrong regarding the context.   no peace  is not used as a call to war, but rather as a disruption of the normal daily routine.  peace does not just mean lack of violence or war, but a state of calm.   no peace  can mean that the place of protest wo not return to normal life until certain demands are met.  this can be disturbing traffic, blocking access to certain buildings etc.  these are actions that disturb the status quo of the community, but not violent.   #  but if you said that pointing a gun at someone is threatening, that would be a description.   #  like i said, it is not a threat, it is a description.  without justice, there can be no peace.  i am not sure how i can explain it without repeating myself over and over and over.  if you pointed a gun to me, that would be a threat.  but if you said that pointing a gun at someone is threatening, that would be a description.  do you understand the difference between a threat and a description ?  #  if we are uncomfortable with that, how can we pretend not to understand why another failed to be non violent ?  # and as an advocate of non violence, this is something you should be prepared to accept gracefully.  i will let everyone else try to convince you that it is not a threat but a statement of fact, leeme try another way: by way of your argument, you seem to be inferring that non violence is far superior to a violent response, or maybe even the only valid response.  as such, these protesters have a duty to non violence.  why are those that have transgressed upon those protesting not under the same requirement of non violence ? further, why are you, an advocate of non violence, uncomfortable with the threat of violence from others ? if non violence is superior to violence, why is not it your duty to remain non violent in the face of violent protesters, rather than to call those protesters to non violence.  my point, i hope you can see, is that non violence is, for the most part, just a hot potato we pass to those we wish would not react to something.  if we value non violence, we are all welcome to remain non violent in the face of aggression.  if we are uncomfortable with that, how can we pretend not to understand why another failed to be non violent ?  #  and it worked, saving india from that violence.   #  peaceful is a range; one does not need to be the most extreme pacifist to get credit.  specific threats are more peaceful than a riot or assault.  vague threats are more peaceful than specific threats.  a complete absence of threatening overtones is more peaceful still, but partial credit is better than active violence.  martin luther king was tremendously effective because malcolm x provided a superb foil.  gandhi is nonviolence carried a more potent threat: that if he died fasting, other indians would rise up violently.   it is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.   he sought nonviolence, backed by an implicit threat.  and it worked, saving india from that violence.  we should call gandhi and king great nonviolent leaders despite their making use of others  potential violence.  the more distant one can get from violence the better, and a slogan that is not intended to incite any specific action is nice and far.
i believe they do the very thing they think men do.  they place one gender in a box and over generalize.  if a man says something like  not all men  it is ridiculed and that man is often labled as insensative or a misogynist.  i really do not understand this form of logic.  some black people steal, but not all of them do, so therefore i should not define black people by the few that happen to commit crimes.  should not the same logic extend here.  not all men commit sexual violence towards women, so using those few to define a whole gender is incorrect.  someone please make a case as to why feminism is inclusive to men.  explain to me why a man should respect or join the feminist movement.  i feel like we can all advocate for equality without having to blame a certain group or overgeneralize a whole gender.  and to avoid hypocricy.  not all feminists do this.  they really do not.  i have met some great women and men that identified as a feminist.  but it is hard to discount that this group has gotten out of hand.  often the loudest voices recieve the most attention and usually those voices come from the mouths of radical people.  that said, the unfortunate truth is feminism either has a bad pr problem or it is becoming a radicalized shell of its former self.  change my view.   #  someone please make a case as to why feminism is inclusive to men.   #  again, you are asking for feminism 0 here.   #  this is really just feminism 0 that you have questions about.  r/askfeminists might be better suited for this than cmv.  first, the foundation of your argument positions men against feminist i. e.  women , and that is false.  feminists are men and women.  non feminists are men and women.  this is not a men  versus  feminists/women thing like you have set it up to be.  the  not all men  criticism is not criticizing the  fact  that not all men are violent or rapists.  feminists know that fact.  rather, criticizing people who butt in and say  not all men  is criticizing  those people for butting in and changing the topic of discussion.  if a woman is talking about how she was assaulted, or a news outlet is reporting on assault statistics, saying  not all men assault  is as meaningless and obvious as saying  they sky is blue.   we  know  not all men assault.  but right now we are talking about those that do, or we are talking about a person who was assaulted.  in general, nobody is accusing  all  men, so saying  not  all  men  is unnecessary and derailing.  again, you are asking for feminism 0 here.  feminism is inclusive to men because it is inclusive to  anyone  who believes women should have equal rights and opportunities as men, and men and women should not be pigeonholed into gender stereotypical boxed based on their gender.  feminism benefits men indirectly when it frees women from their oppression.  when women can enter the workforce and earn their own money, men no longer have to support the women in their lives.  stuff like that.  that said, the unfortunate truth is feminism either has a bad pr problem or it is becoming a radicalized shell of its former self.  this coming from the guy who does not even understand feminism ? i suspect the problem is you are not looking for educated feminist outlets and instead are just seeing social media type posts.  do not blame feminism for your own lack of exposure to the rest of the world.  there are plenty of outlets for intelligent feminist discussion and none of them are tumblr or reddit.   #  but those elements exist in political parties, fellow fans of sports teams, religions pretty much any group you care to think of.   #  i think part of the problem with  feminism  discussions on reddit is that they tend to address feminism as if it were an organized unit with a stated platform, like a political party.  instead, many people use the term to describe different things, and their is no central place you can go to say,  yes, that fits  or  no it does not .  it makes discussions like this so much harder, because you can point to radical people who call themselves feminists and quote them as representative, and who can say they are not.  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .  i am male.  i consider myself a feminist.  i do not think my son will rape anyone.  i want him to be treated fairly, based on his actions, not his gender.  i also have a wife and a daughter.  i do not think they will rape anyone either.  but i want them to be treated fairly, based on their actions, not their gender.  the vast, vast majority of feminists think the same way i do.  yeah, there are fringe elements who i think are insane, and are harmful to achieving my goals.  but those elements exist in political parties, fellow fans of sports teams, religions pretty much any group you care to think of.  would you judge all star trek fans by that guy who wears his starfleet uniform 0/0 ? all christians by timothy mcveigh ? all actors by lindsey lohan ?  #  insulting men as a class is apparently now a socially acceptable way to empower women.   #  the kind of feminism that seems to be driving men away actually  is  mainstream.  almost every online media organization, almost every magazine now has one or several  gender  columnists who are always female, and who seem to do nothing but outrage journalism, while casually demonizing men and male sexuality.  every man is a douche, a misogynist, a rape  apologist  until proven otherwise and maybe even an actual rapist.  insulting men as a class is apparently now a socially acceptable way to empower women.  this is not at all the fringe, i am talking about major magazines and sites.  of course men are turned off by feminism: it does not want them, it  hates  men, and it  loves to hate  men.  almost everyone in the western world supports equality between men and women, so what the fuck else does feminism stand for, if not for these assholes ?  #  pizzey, at least, should be one of the heros of the feminist movement, as the person who first established shelters for victims of domestic abuse.   # it makes discussions like this so much harder, because you can point to radical people who call themselves feminists and quote them as representative, and who can say they are not.  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .  the difference is that christians can point to their denomination or the membership in the klan.  they have defined sub groups to delineate beliefs and generally are not reticent to identify with these sub groups.  as such, they can successfully dissociate from crazies.  feminists refuse to do this, because the sad truth of the matter is that only the radicals hold any power in the feminist movement and it benefits them to be able to claim the support of non radicals.  look to voices like christina hoff sommers and erin pizzey, that have been marginalized for the simple crime of wanting to address some issues men face.  pizzey, at least, should be one of the heros of the feminist movement, as the person who first established shelters for victims of domestic abuse.  the problem with the movement is tied to patriarchy theory and the way in which it prohibits the movement from checking itself, ensuring that it shoots right past equality.  if you do not uphold patriarchy theory, please consider adopting a label that dissociates you from those who do.   #  the feminist movement, as viewed by the vast majority of feminists is simply the idea of gender equality.   #  really ? what group was tim mcveigh associated with ? how about abortion clinic bombers ? klansmen went go to church alongside  normal  people.  the only reason some christians disassociate from the crazies is because the majority of americans are christians, so they know the majority.  but how well have the vast majority of muslims been able to disassociate themselves from the extremists ? the feminist movement, as viewed by the vast majority of feminists is simply the idea of gender equality.  it is not defined by the radicals what  power  do they have ? they certainly have not convinced the vast majority of mainstream feminists to their point of view.
i believe they do the very thing they think men do.  they place one gender in a box and over generalize.  if a man says something like  not all men  it is ridiculed and that man is often labled as insensative or a misogynist.  i really do not understand this form of logic.  some black people steal, but not all of them do, so therefore i should not define black people by the few that happen to commit crimes.  should not the same logic extend here.  not all men commit sexual violence towards women, so using those few to define a whole gender is incorrect.  someone please make a case as to why feminism is inclusive to men.  explain to me why a man should respect or join the feminist movement.  i feel like we can all advocate for equality without having to blame a certain group or overgeneralize a whole gender.  and to avoid hypocricy.  not all feminists do this.  they really do not.  i have met some great women and men that identified as a feminist.  but it is hard to discount that this group has gotten out of hand.  often the loudest voices recieve the most attention and usually those voices come from the mouths of radical people.  that said, the unfortunate truth is feminism either has a bad pr problem or it is becoming a radicalized shell of its former self.  change my view.   #  often the loudest voices recieve the most attention and usually those voices come from the mouths of radical people.   #  that said, the unfortunate truth is feminism either has a bad pr problem or it is becoming a radicalized shell of its former self.   #  this is really just feminism 0 that you have questions about.  r/askfeminists might be better suited for this than cmv.  first, the foundation of your argument positions men against feminist i. e.  women , and that is false.  feminists are men and women.  non feminists are men and women.  this is not a men  versus  feminists/women thing like you have set it up to be.  the  not all men  criticism is not criticizing the  fact  that not all men are violent or rapists.  feminists know that fact.  rather, criticizing people who butt in and say  not all men  is criticizing  those people for butting in and changing the topic of discussion.  if a woman is talking about how she was assaulted, or a news outlet is reporting on assault statistics, saying  not all men assault  is as meaningless and obvious as saying  they sky is blue.   we  know  not all men assault.  but right now we are talking about those that do, or we are talking about a person who was assaulted.  in general, nobody is accusing  all  men, so saying  not  all  men  is unnecessary and derailing.  again, you are asking for feminism 0 here.  feminism is inclusive to men because it is inclusive to  anyone  who believes women should have equal rights and opportunities as men, and men and women should not be pigeonholed into gender stereotypical boxed based on their gender.  feminism benefits men indirectly when it frees women from their oppression.  when women can enter the workforce and earn their own money, men no longer have to support the women in their lives.  stuff like that.  that said, the unfortunate truth is feminism either has a bad pr problem or it is becoming a radicalized shell of its former self.  this coming from the guy who does not even understand feminism ? i suspect the problem is you are not looking for educated feminist outlets and instead are just seeing social media type posts.  do not blame feminism for your own lack of exposure to the rest of the world.  there are plenty of outlets for intelligent feminist discussion and none of them are tumblr or reddit.   #  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .   #  i think part of the problem with  feminism  discussions on reddit is that they tend to address feminism as if it were an organized unit with a stated platform, like a political party.  instead, many people use the term to describe different things, and their is no central place you can go to say,  yes, that fits  or  no it does not .  it makes discussions like this so much harder, because you can point to radical people who call themselves feminists and quote them as representative, and who can say they are not.  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .  i am male.  i consider myself a feminist.  i do not think my son will rape anyone.  i want him to be treated fairly, based on his actions, not his gender.  i also have a wife and a daughter.  i do not think they will rape anyone either.  but i want them to be treated fairly, based on their actions, not their gender.  the vast, vast majority of feminists think the same way i do.  yeah, there are fringe elements who i think are insane, and are harmful to achieving my goals.  but those elements exist in political parties, fellow fans of sports teams, religions pretty much any group you care to think of.  would you judge all star trek fans by that guy who wears his starfleet uniform 0/0 ? all christians by timothy mcveigh ? all actors by lindsey lohan ?  #  every man is a douche, a misogynist, a rape  apologist  until proven otherwise and maybe even an actual rapist.   #  the kind of feminism that seems to be driving men away actually  is  mainstream.  almost every online media organization, almost every magazine now has one or several  gender  columnists who are always female, and who seem to do nothing but outrage journalism, while casually demonizing men and male sexuality.  every man is a douche, a misogynist, a rape  apologist  until proven otherwise and maybe even an actual rapist.  insulting men as a class is apparently now a socially acceptable way to empower women.  this is not at all the fringe, i am talking about major magazines and sites.  of course men are turned off by feminism: it does not want them, it  hates  men, and it  loves to hate  men.  almost everyone in the western world supports equality between men and women, so what the fuck else does feminism stand for, if not for these assholes ?  #  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .   # it makes discussions like this so much harder, because you can point to radical people who call themselves feminists and quote them as representative, and who can say they are not.  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .  the difference is that christians can point to their denomination or the membership in the klan.  they have defined sub groups to delineate beliefs and generally are not reticent to identify with these sub groups.  as such, they can successfully dissociate from crazies.  feminists refuse to do this, because the sad truth of the matter is that only the radicals hold any power in the feminist movement and it benefits them to be able to claim the support of non radicals.  look to voices like christina hoff sommers and erin pizzey, that have been marginalized for the simple crime of wanting to address some issues men face.  pizzey, at least, should be one of the heros of the feminist movement, as the person who first established shelters for victims of domestic abuse.  the problem with the movement is tied to patriarchy theory and the way in which it prohibits the movement from checking itself, ensuring that it shoots right past equality.  if you do not uphold patriarchy theory, please consider adopting a label that dissociates you from those who do.   #  klansmen went go to church alongside  normal  people.   #  really ? what group was tim mcveigh associated with ? how about abortion clinic bombers ? klansmen went go to church alongside  normal  people.  the only reason some christians disassociate from the crazies is because the majority of americans are christians, so they know the majority.  but how well have the vast majority of muslims been able to disassociate themselves from the extremists ? the feminist movement, as viewed by the vast majority of feminists is simply the idea of gender equality.  it is not defined by the radicals what  power  do they have ? they certainly have not convinced the vast majority of mainstream feminists to their point of view.
i believe they do the very thing they think men do.  they place one gender in a box and over generalize.  if a man says something like  not all men  it is ridiculed and that man is often labled as insensative or a misogynist.  i really do not understand this form of logic.  some black people steal, but not all of them do, so therefore i should not define black people by the few that happen to commit crimes.  should not the same logic extend here.  not all men commit sexual violence towards women, so using those few to define a whole gender is incorrect.  someone please make a case as to why feminism is inclusive to men.  explain to me why a man should respect or join the feminist movement.  i feel like we can all advocate for equality without having to blame a certain group or overgeneralize a whole gender.  and to avoid hypocricy.  not all feminists do this.  they really do not.  i have met some great women and men that identified as a feminist.  but it is hard to discount that this group has gotten out of hand.  often the loudest voices recieve the most attention and usually those voices come from the mouths of radical people.  that said, the unfortunate truth is feminism either has a bad pr problem or it is becoming a radicalized shell of its former self.  change my view.   #  i feel like we can all advocate for equality without having to blame a certain group or overgeneralize a whole gender.   #  blaming a certain group  plays no necessary role in feminism.   #  feminism:  the advocacy of women is rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.  that is what feminism means.  equal rights for men and women.  therefore,  no, it is entirely unacceptable to dislike an idea feminism that purposes to work toward equal rights for all people .  blaming a certain group  plays no necessary role in feminism.  this is not a part of feminism .  think about what you are saying here.  i am not religious, but i respect people is right to religion.  i do not respect the westboro baptist church.  what you are saying here, is the equivalent of me rejecting christianity entirely, based on the actions of a select group.  we have every right to dislike specific actors of feminism, but nobody should feel the right to  dislike feminism  because that comes with the explicit implication that men and women are not equals .   #  instead, many people use the term to describe different things, and their is no central place you can go to say,  yes, that fits  or  no it does not .   #  i think part of the problem with  feminism  discussions on reddit is that they tend to address feminism as if it were an organized unit with a stated platform, like a political party.  instead, many people use the term to describe different things, and their is no central place you can go to say,  yes, that fits  or  no it does not .  it makes discussions like this so much harder, because you can point to radical people who call themselves feminists and quote them as representative, and who can say they are not.  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .  i am male.  i consider myself a feminist.  i do not think my son will rape anyone.  i want him to be treated fairly, based on his actions, not his gender.  i also have a wife and a daughter.  i do not think they will rape anyone either.  but i want them to be treated fairly, based on their actions, not their gender.  the vast, vast majority of feminists think the same way i do.  yeah, there are fringe elements who i think are insane, and are harmful to achieving my goals.  but those elements exist in political parties, fellow fans of sports teams, religions pretty much any group you care to think of.  would you judge all star trek fans by that guy who wears his starfleet uniform 0/0 ? all christians by timothy mcveigh ? all actors by lindsey lohan ?  #  almost every online media organization, almost every magazine now has one or several  gender  columnists who are always female, and who seem to do nothing but outrage journalism, while casually demonizing men and male sexuality.   #  the kind of feminism that seems to be driving men away actually  is  mainstream.  almost every online media organization, almost every magazine now has one or several  gender  columnists who are always female, and who seem to do nothing but outrage journalism, while casually demonizing men and male sexuality.  every man is a douche, a misogynist, a rape  apologist  until proven otherwise and maybe even an actual rapist.  insulting men as a class is apparently now a socially acceptable way to empower women.  this is not at all the fringe, i am talking about major magazines and sites.  of course men are turned off by feminism: it does not want them, it  hates  men, and it  loves to hate  men.  almost everyone in the western world supports equality between men and women, so what the fuck else does feminism stand for, if not for these assholes ?  #  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .   # it makes discussions like this so much harder, because you can point to radical people who call themselves feminists and quote them as representative, and who can say they are not.  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .  the difference is that christians can point to their denomination or the membership in the klan.  they have defined sub groups to delineate beliefs and generally are not reticent to identify with these sub groups.  as such, they can successfully dissociate from crazies.  feminists refuse to do this, because the sad truth of the matter is that only the radicals hold any power in the feminist movement and it benefits them to be able to claim the support of non radicals.  look to voices like christina hoff sommers and erin pizzey, that have been marginalized for the simple crime of wanting to address some issues men face.  pizzey, at least, should be one of the heros of the feminist movement, as the person who first established shelters for victims of domestic abuse.  the problem with the movement is tied to patriarchy theory and the way in which it prohibits the movement from checking itself, ensuring that it shoots right past equality.  if you do not uphold patriarchy theory, please consider adopting a label that dissociates you from those who do.   #  but how well have the vast majority of muslims been able to disassociate themselves from the extremists ?  #  really ? what group was tim mcveigh associated with ? how about abortion clinic bombers ? klansmen went go to church alongside  normal  people.  the only reason some christians disassociate from the crazies is because the majority of americans are christians, so they know the majority.  but how well have the vast majority of muslims been able to disassociate themselves from the extremists ? the feminist movement, as viewed by the vast majority of feminists is simply the idea of gender equality.  it is not defined by the radicals what  power  do they have ? they certainly have not convinced the vast majority of mainstream feminists to their point of view.
i believe they do the very thing they think men do.  they place one gender in a box and over generalize.  if a man says something like  not all men  it is ridiculed and that man is often labled as insensative or a misogynist.  i really do not understand this form of logic.  some black people steal, but not all of them do, so therefore i should not define black people by the few that happen to commit crimes.  should not the same logic extend here.  not all men commit sexual violence towards women, so using those few to define a whole gender is incorrect.  someone please make a case as to why feminism is inclusive to men.  explain to me why a man should respect or join the feminist movement.  i feel like we can all advocate for equality without having to blame a certain group or overgeneralize a whole gender.  and to avoid hypocricy.  not all feminists do this.  they really do not.  i have met some great women and men that identified as a feminist.  but it is hard to discount that this group has gotten out of hand.  often the loudest voices recieve the most attention and usually those voices come from the mouths of radical people.  that said, the unfortunate truth is feminism either has a bad pr problem or it is becoming a radicalized shell of its former self.  change my view.   #  often the loudest voices recieve the most attention and usually those voices come from the mouths of radical people.   #  think about what you are saying here.   #  feminism:  the advocacy of women is rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.  that is what feminism means.  equal rights for men and women.  therefore,  no, it is entirely unacceptable to dislike an idea feminism that purposes to work toward equal rights for all people .  blaming a certain group  plays no necessary role in feminism.  this is not a part of feminism .  think about what you are saying here.  i am not religious, but i respect people is right to religion.  i do not respect the westboro baptist church.  what you are saying here, is the equivalent of me rejecting christianity entirely, based on the actions of a select group.  we have every right to dislike specific actors of feminism, but nobody should feel the right to  dislike feminism  because that comes with the explicit implication that men and women are not equals .   #  would you judge all star trek fans by that guy who wears his starfleet uniform 0/0 ?  #  i think part of the problem with  feminism  discussions on reddit is that they tend to address feminism as if it were an organized unit with a stated platform, like a political party.  instead, many people use the term to describe different things, and their is no central place you can go to say,  yes, that fits  or  no it does not .  it makes discussions like this so much harder, because you can point to radical people who call themselves feminists and quote them as representative, and who can say they are not.  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .  i am male.  i consider myself a feminist.  i do not think my son will rape anyone.  i want him to be treated fairly, based on his actions, not his gender.  i also have a wife and a daughter.  i do not think they will rape anyone either.  but i want them to be treated fairly, based on their actions, not their gender.  the vast, vast majority of feminists think the same way i do.  yeah, there are fringe elements who i think are insane, and are harmful to achieving my goals.  but those elements exist in political parties, fellow fans of sports teams, religions pretty much any group you care to think of.  would you judge all star trek fans by that guy who wears his starfleet uniform 0/0 ? all christians by timothy mcveigh ? all actors by lindsey lohan ?  #  of course men are turned off by feminism: it does not want them, it  hates  men, and it  loves to hate  men.   #  the kind of feminism that seems to be driving men away actually  is  mainstream.  almost every online media organization, almost every magazine now has one or several  gender  columnists who are always female, and who seem to do nothing but outrage journalism, while casually demonizing men and male sexuality.  every man is a douche, a misogynist, a rape  apologist  until proven otherwise and maybe even an actual rapist.  insulting men as a class is apparently now a socially acceptable way to empower women.  this is not at all the fringe, i am talking about major magazines and sites.  of course men are turned off by feminism: it does not want them, it  hates  men, and it  loves to hate  men.  almost everyone in the western world supports equality between men and women, so what the fuck else does feminism stand for, if not for these assholes ?  #  the problem with the movement is tied to patriarchy theory and the way in which it prohibits the movement from checking itself, ensuring that it shoots right past equality.   # it makes discussions like this so much harder, because you can point to radical people who call themselves feminists and quote them as representative, and who can say they are not.  it is like picking a quote from a klansman and saying,  see, this is what christians believe .  the difference is that christians can point to their denomination or the membership in the klan.  they have defined sub groups to delineate beliefs and generally are not reticent to identify with these sub groups.  as such, they can successfully dissociate from crazies.  feminists refuse to do this, because the sad truth of the matter is that only the radicals hold any power in the feminist movement and it benefits them to be able to claim the support of non radicals.  look to voices like christina hoff sommers and erin pizzey, that have been marginalized for the simple crime of wanting to address some issues men face.  pizzey, at least, should be one of the heros of the feminist movement, as the person who first established shelters for victims of domestic abuse.  the problem with the movement is tied to patriarchy theory and the way in which it prohibits the movement from checking itself, ensuring that it shoots right past equality.  if you do not uphold patriarchy theory, please consider adopting a label that dissociates you from those who do.   #  the only reason some christians disassociate from the crazies is because the majority of americans are christians, so they know the majority.   #  really ? what group was tim mcveigh associated with ? how about abortion clinic bombers ? klansmen went go to church alongside  normal  people.  the only reason some christians disassociate from the crazies is because the majority of americans are christians, so they know the majority.  but how well have the vast majority of muslims been able to disassociate themselves from the extremists ? the feminist movement, as viewed by the vast majority of feminists is simply the idea of gender equality.  it is not defined by the radicals what  power  do they have ? they certainly have not convinced the vast majority of mainstream feminists to their point of view.
i think money raised by charities and the work they do is important for the betterment the world.  however, the way people raise money for charities they care about at least here in the uk seems to focus a lot on doing some sort of one off challenge and then asking everyone they know to sponsor them.  for example, doing a race/cycling trip/skydive/trip to climb a mountain etc, in which they will raise money for the actual challenge themselves but then ask friends/colleagues/family to donate to the charity on their behalf.  i feel that these sorts of challenges are the kind of things people would want to do anyway, and raising money is mainly an excuse to do so.  i am guilty of this myself i entered a 0k race earlier this year which was run by a charity and therefore had to raise some money for them , but only because it was the only one around.  i did not ask any of my friends for money, and just paid the amount myself.  i do not see why someone else should have to sponsor my hobby.  also, i do not see the logical link between e. g.  running a race and raising money for cancer research.  if you really wanted to raise money for cancer research, you would donate some of your own money directly.  either you can spend weeks of your free time training for a race and then raise a couple of hundred pounds of other people is money, or you could donate a week or two of your wages and probably end up giving more to charity.  why not do the latter ? i will give you an example.  my local paper ran a story recently about a local doctor taking a few months off work to trek across the uk, about 0km.  she raised about £0 for a national charity no small amount of money.  but surely if she really wanted to, she could have donated those few months of salary which would have been more money , kept her job and still helped the charity.  i am just wondering why everyone i know seems to love doing these sorts of challenges but i am still skeptical.  am i missing out on some fundamental point ? i would just rather give my time and skills, or money, directly to charity rather than doing it indirectly via challenges and sponsorship.   #  i feel that these sorts of challenges are the kind of things people would want to do anyway, and raising money is mainly an excuse to do so.   #  i am guilty of this myself i entered a 0k race earlier this year which was run by a charity and therefore had to raise some money for them , but only because it was the only one around.   # i am guilty of this myself i entered a 0k race earlier this year which was run by a charity and therefore had to raise some money for them , but only because it was the only one around.  i did not ask any of my friends for money, and just paid the amount myself.  i do not see why someone else should have to sponsor my hobby.  i am confused on this point.  is not the idea that they  are not  sponsoring your hobby ? you even put it like this in your op:   for example, doing a race/cycling trip/skydive/trip to climb a mountain etc, in which  they will raise money for the actual challenge themselves  but then ask friends/colleagues/family to donate to the charity on their behalf.  so is your example atypical of the situation you are trying to describe here ? that said, what is wrong with someone doing something they enjoy  and  helping out a charity at the same time ? so what if they enjoy the activity, they are able to use that enjoyment to raise money for a cause they think is good and can try to get others who are not interested in doing the activity involved in it.  sounds to me like it is a win win.  running a race and raising money for cancer research.  if you really wanted to raise money for cancer research, you would donate some of your own money directly.  either you can spend weeks of your free time training for a race and then raise a couple of hundred pounds of other people is money, or you could donate a week or two of your wages and probably end up giving more to charity.  why not do the latter ? oh man, who can afford to just donate a week or two of wages to a charity ? i would need charity if i were to do that ! by participating in an event i can raise more money than i would be able to donate on my own.  plus, based on an assumption i am making because they are popular, these events seem to be more effective at getting people to donate than just plain asking them to donate.  am i missing out on some fundamental point ? i would just rather give my time and skills, or money, directly to charity rather than doing it indirectly via challenges and sponsorship.  you get to do something you enjoy and donate to charity at the same time.  most people do not want to give up the majority of their time, skills, or money but would still like to be able to help out.   #  your view seems primarily that there is no logical connection between running a race, and donating to charity.   #  your view seems primarily that there is no logical connection between running a race, and donating to charity.  based on that, what would a  logical  fundraiser look like ? there is no logical connection between someone calling you or showing up at your door asking for donations.  part of the point of large events like races is creating a huge spectacle.  if you donate a large sum to charity, i  might  read about it on the news.  if there is a race downtown with blocks shut down, and 0,0 people running, i am going to notice, and i am going to know what is going on.  i am going to see 0,0 people supporting something, and maybe that makes me want to support it to.   #  your saying  why not donate wages instead of run ?    #  well i am on a diet, and baked goods are pretty much a no go for me.  i am also fairly health conscious, and i think exercise is important.  i would rather give a few dollars to support someone exercising then pay a few dollars for a cupcake.  beyond that, as you say there is no connection between bake sales and charity either i suppose.  you can have themed baked goods i guess.  but there is also themed runs .  why are you making this into one or the other ? your saying  why not donate wages instead of run ?   why not do both ? running does not, in any way, preclude anyone from also donating their salary.   #  the comedians donate their time and the ticket sales go to oxfam.   #  every year melbourne aus hosts a comedy gala.  the comedians donate their time and the ticket sales go to oxfam.  the show is broadcast with a call line.  the live audience pays to see a range of artists doing their best material.  the tv audience gets to see the same show for free but with lots of ads for oxfam.  oxfam makes money.  the artists get publicity to kickstart their national tour.  did i mention oxfam.   #  i would have just paid the £0 total myself.   # . is your example atypical of the situation you are trying to describe here ? yeah, maybe i did not explain that correctly.  ok suppose suppose you had to pay £0 for race fees and then raise a minimum of £0 for the charity in order to enter.  i would have just paid the £0 total myself.  other people would have paid the £0 and then raised the rest by asking their friends.  i just do not get the link.   hey, i am running 0k tomorrow, why not give money towards saving the children ?
i think money raised by charities and the work they do is important for the betterment the world.  however, the way people raise money for charities they care about at least here in the uk seems to focus a lot on doing some sort of one off challenge and then asking everyone they know to sponsor them.  for example, doing a race/cycling trip/skydive/trip to climb a mountain etc, in which they will raise money for the actual challenge themselves but then ask friends/colleagues/family to donate to the charity on their behalf.  i feel that these sorts of challenges are the kind of things people would want to do anyway, and raising money is mainly an excuse to do so.  i am guilty of this myself i entered a 0k race earlier this year which was run by a charity and therefore had to raise some money for them , but only because it was the only one around.  i did not ask any of my friends for money, and just paid the amount myself.  i do not see why someone else should have to sponsor my hobby.  also, i do not see the logical link between e. g.  running a race and raising money for cancer research.  if you really wanted to raise money for cancer research, you would donate some of your own money directly.  either you can spend weeks of your free time training for a race and then raise a couple of hundred pounds of other people is money, or you could donate a week or two of your wages and probably end up giving more to charity.  why not do the latter ? i will give you an example.  my local paper ran a story recently about a local doctor taking a few months off work to trek across the uk, about 0km.  she raised about £0 for a national charity no small amount of money.  but surely if she really wanted to, she could have donated those few months of salary which would have been more money , kept her job and still helped the charity.  i am just wondering why everyone i know seems to love doing these sorts of challenges but i am still skeptical.  am i missing out on some fundamental point ? i would just rather give my time and skills, or money, directly to charity rather than doing it indirectly via challenges and sponsorship.   #  also, i do not see the logical link between e. g.   #  running a race and raising money for cancer research.   # i am guilty of this myself i entered a 0k race earlier this year which was run by a charity and therefore had to raise some money for them , but only because it was the only one around.  i did not ask any of my friends for money, and just paid the amount myself.  i do not see why someone else should have to sponsor my hobby.  i am confused on this point.  is not the idea that they  are not  sponsoring your hobby ? you even put it like this in your op:   for example, doing a race/cycling trip/skydive/trip to climb a mountain etc, in which  they will raise money for the actual challenge themselves  but then ask friends/colleagues/family to donate to the charity on their behalf.  so is your example atypical of the situation you are trying to describe here ? that said, what is wrong with someone doing something they enjoy  and  helping out a charity at the same time ? so what if they enjoy the activity, they are able to use that enjoyment to raise money for a cause they think is good and can try to get others who are not interested in doing the activity involved in it.  sounds to me like it is a win win.  running a race and raising money for cancer research.  if you really wanted to raise money for cancer research, you would donate some of your own money directly.  either you can spend weeks of your free time training for a race and then raise a couple of hundred pounds of other people is money, or you could donate a week or two of your wages and probably end up giving more to charity.  why not do the latter ? oh man, who can afford to just donate a week or two of wages to a charity ? i would need charity if i were to do that ! by participating in an event i can raise more money than i would be able to donate on my own.  plus, based on an assumption i am making because they are popular, these events seem to be more effective at getting people to donate than just plain asking them to donate.  am i missing out on some fundamental point ? i would just rather give my time and skills, or money, directly to charity rather than doing it indirectly via challenges and sponsorship.  you get to do something you enjoy and donate to charity at the same time.  most people do not want to give up the majority of their time, skills, or money but would still like to be able to help out.   #  i am going to see 0,0 people supporting something, and maybe that makes me want to support it to.   #  your view seems primarily that there is no logical connection between running a race, and donating to charity.  based on that, what would a  logical  fundraiser look like ? there is no logical connection between someone calling you or showing up at your door asking for donations.  part of the point of large events like races is creating a huge spectacle.  if you donate a large sum to charity, i  might  read about it on the news.  if there is a race downtown with blocks shut down, and 0,0 people running, i am going to notice, and i am going to know what is going on.  i am going to see 0,0 people supporting something, and maybe that makes me want to support it to.   #  why are you making this into one or the other ?  #  well i am on a diet, and baked goods are pretty much a no go for me.  i am also fairly health conscious, and i think exercise is important.  i would rather give a few dollars to support someone exercising then pay a few dollars for a cupcake.  beyond that, as you say there is no connection between bake sales and charity either i suppose.  you can have themed baked goods i guess.  but there is also themed runs .  why are you making this into one or the other ? your saying  why not donate wages instead of run ?   why not do both ? running does not, in any way, preclude anyone from also donating their salary.   #  the tv audience gets to see the same show for free but with lots of ads for oxfam.   #  every year melbourne aus hosts a comedy gala.  the comedians donate their time and the ticket sales go to oxfam.  the show is broadcast with a call line.  the live audience pays to see a range of artists doing their best material.  the tv audience gets to see the same show for free but with lots of ads for oxfam.  oxfam makes money.  the artists get publicity to kickstart their national tour.  did i mention oxfam.   #  ok suppose suppose you had to pay £0 for race fees and then raise a minimum of £0 for the charity in order to enter.   # . is your example atypical of the situation you are trying to describe here ? yeah, maybe i did not explain that correctly.  ok suppose suppose you had to pay £0 for race fees and then raise a minimum of £0 for the charity in order to enter.  i would have just paid the £0 total myself.  other people would have paid the £0 and then raised the rest by asking their friends.  i just do not get the link.   hey, i am running 0k tomorrow, why not give money towards saving the children ?
i think money raised by charities and the work they do is important for the betterment the world.  however, the way people raise money for charities they care about at least here in the uk seems to focus a lot on doing some sort of one off challenge and then asking everyone they know to sponsor them.  for example, doing a race/cycling trip/skydive/trip to climb a mountain etc, in which they will raise money for the actual challenge themselves but then ask friends/colleagues/family to donate to the charity on their behalf.  i feel that these sorts of challenges are the kind of things people would want to do anyway, and raising money is mainly an excuse to do so.  i am guilty of this myself i entered a 0k race earlier this year which was run by a charity and therefore had to raise some money for them , but only because it was the only one around.  i did not ask any of my friends for money, and just paid the amount myself.  i do not see why someone else should have to sponsor my hobby.  also, i do not see the logical link between e. g.  running a race and raising money for cancer research.  if you really wanted to raise money for cancer research, you would donate some of your own money directly.  either you can spend weeks of your free time training for a race and then raise a couple of hundred pounds of other people is money, or you could donate a week or two of your wages and probably end up giving more to charity.  why not do the latter ? i will give you an example.  my local paper ran a story recently about a local doctor taking a few months off work to trek across the uk, about 0km.  she raised about £0 for a national charity no small amount of money.  but surely if she really wanted to, she could have donated those few months of salary which would have been more money , kept her job and still helped the charity.  i am just wondering why everyone i know seems to love doing these sorts of challenges but i am still skeptical.  am i missing out on some fundamental point ? i would just rather give my time and skills, or money, directly to charity rather than doing it indirectly via challenges and sponsorship.   #  i am just wondering why everyone i know seems to love doing these sorts of challenges but i am still skeptical.   #  am i missing out on some fundamental point ?  # i am guilty of this myself i entered a 0k race earlier this year which was run by a charity and therefore had to raise some money for them , but only because it was the only one around.  i did not ask any of my friends for money, and just paid the amount myself.  i do not see why someone else should have to sponsor my hobby.  i am confused on this point.  is not the idea that they  are not  sponsoring your hobby ? you even put it like this in your op:   for example, doing a race/cycling trip/skydive/trip to climb a mountain etc, in which  they will raise money for the actual challenge themselves  but then ask friends/colleagues/family to donate to the charity on their behalf.  so is your example atypical of the situation you are trying to describe here ? that said, what is wrong with someone doing something they enjoy  and  helping out a charity at the same time ? so what if they enjoy the activity, they are able to use that enjoyment to raise money for a cause they think is good and can try to get others who are not interested in doing the activity involved in it.  sounds to me like it is a win win.  running a race and raising money for cancer research.  if you really wanted to raise money for cancer research, you would donate some of your own money directly.  either you can spend weeks of your free time training for a race and then raise a couple of hundred pounds of other people is money, or you could donate a week or two of your wages and probably end up giving more to charity.  why not do the latter ? oh man, who can afford to just donate a week or two of wages to a charity ? i would need charity if i were to do that ! by participating in an event i can raise more money than i would be able to donate on my own.  plus, based on an assumption i am making because they are popular, these events seem to be more effective at getting people to donate than just plain asking them to donate.  am i missing out on some fundamental point ? i would just rather give my time and skills, or money, directly to charity rather than doing it indirectly via challenges and sponsorship.  you get to do something you enjoy and donate to charity at the same time.  most people do not want to give up the majority of their time, skills, or money but would still like to be able to help out.   #  part of the point of large events like races is creating a huge spectacle.   #  your view seems primarily that there is no logical connection between running a race, and donating to charity.  based on that, what would a  logical  fundraiser look like ? there is no logical connection between someone calling you or showing up at your door asking for donations.  part of the point of large events like races is creating a huge spectacle.  if you donate a large sum to charity, i  might  read about it on the news.  if there is a race downtown with blocks shut down, and 0,0 people running, i am going to notice, and i am going to know what is going on.  i am going to see 0,0 people supporting something, and maybe that makes me want to support it to.   #  well i am on a diet, and baked goods are pretty much a no go for me.   #  well i am on a diet, and baked goods are pretty much a no go for me.  i am also fairly health conscious, and i think exercise is important.  i would rather give a few dollars to support someone exercising then pay a few dollars for a cupcake.  beyond that, as you say there is no connection between bake sales and charity either i suppose.  you can have themed baked goods i guess.  but there is also themed runs .  why are you making this into one or the other ? your saying  why not donate wages instead of run ?   why not do both ? running does not, in any way, preclude anyone from also donating their salary.   #  the live audience pays to see a range of artists doing their best material.   #  every year melbourne aus hosts a comedy gala.  the comedians donate their time and the ticket sales go to oxfam.  the show is broadcast with a call line.  the live audience pays to see a range of artists doing their best material.  the tv audience gets to see the same show for free but with lots of ads for oxfam.  oxfam makes money.  the artists get publicity to kickstart their national tour.  did i mention oxfam.   #  i would have just paid the £0 total myself.   # . is your example atypical of the situation you are trying to describe here ? yeah, maybe i did not explain that correctly.  ok suppose suppose you had to pay £0 for race fees and then raise a minimum of £0 for the charity in order to enter.  i would have just paid the £0 total myself.  other people would have paid the £0 and then raised the rest by asking their friends.  i just do not get the link.   hey, i am running 0k tomorrow, why not give money towards saving the children ?
sadly, my group of friends have discovered tumblr.  a month or two ago, they became full on sjws, who now are some new genders.  one of them are  agender,  one is  genderfluid  and a bunch of other things.  day by day, they start identifying as some new gender on tumblr  that fits them more.   a few days ago, they got mad becuase i said i am not calling them mx, ze, xe, or any other pronoun they come up with.  they started calling me cisscum and telling me to check my privilege.  they never had any gender issues before the got on tumblr, so i do not believe i should take them seriously.   #  a few days ago, they got mad becuase i said i am not calling them mx, ze, xe, or any other pronoun they come up with.   #  it is certainly your right to choose what to call them.   # or is it possible that they were privately conflicted, and never quite felt right ? could they have thought that they were the only ones  like that  but then they found other peers, and a language to use to discuss it.  imagine if you were gay in a world where no one was out.  you would not even know a word to describe your orientation.  you sure as hell would not tell anyone, even your friends about it.  obviously, i have no idea if this is the case for your friends, but is it possible ? it is certainly your right to choose what to call them.  but, if one of them were black, and they told you that they would prefer if you called them  african american  would you consider that to be unreasonable ? even if you find the term silly, is it so much to ask for you to call them by their preferred term ? i had a friend who decided that she no longer wanted to be called by her given name, but picked a new one because she resented the logic her mom had used in choosing it.  i thought it was sort of weird, but it was her call.  here is the thing it is about respecting your friends.  they might be religious, or believe in astrology, or anything else you do not believe in.  you can either decide that you do not want to be friends with people who believe stuff you do not, or be respectful of them and just accept that what they say is important to them is, well, important to them.   #  so you might be right to suspect that these tumblr labels are a fleeting thing.   #  are you and your friends still fairly young ? if so, they will probably settle into one sexual identity to seriously identify as once they have tried on some of these new labels for a while.  so you might be right to suspect that these tumblr labels are a fleeting thing.  but that does not make the act of trying on these labels any less important or serious, in itself.  i would have  loved  the term  genderfluid  if it had been around when i was younger.  i am pretty much just a regular straight cis woman, but hearing this term now, i think it might have helped me make a lot more sense of my slightly unusual interests, which were very hard for my younger self to classify or make sense of in the context of being  just a regular straight cis woman.   since i never heard of any term like that growing up, i still had those unusual feelings like i was not quite normal, but i was left just wondering  why  i had such a passionate interest in androgyny or cross dressers, or any fictional story that involved someone passing as a different gender.  it was not like i was actually gay, or even trans, since i had no interest in actually altering my gender.  i liked having my female body, i just liked acting and dressing more androgynous, or slightly masculine.  and it is caused confusion for my significant others in the past.  maybe i would not have gone around making all my friends call me genderfluid all the time, but i would have liked to have had a term to point to when something actually came up with a confused boyfriend.  so i would advise just trying to talk with your friends more about why they actually like whatever pronouns they have chosen.  you say they had no issues before, but something must have drawn them to these labels.  maybe all that drew them was a desire to stand out somehow and be trendy, but talking through it and taking it more seriously may help them realize and accept that sooner.  and it might help their pronoun of the day stick in your head better until the next one rolls around.   #  they are still figuring some shit out, they are just doing it more publicly than a lot of people would have in the past.   #  the age thing really stuck out to me i do not know how old the op is, but if tumblr existed when i was a teenager i would probably be really into this sort of stuff.  basically because i was still figuring out a lot about myself and felt extremely outcast and would sort of cling to any outcast ish indentity.  for me it was being intensely punk y or hippie ish or things like that.  younger people tend to throw themselves into these things really intensely.  i still care about lgbt rights but it became such a thing for me as a teenager that i took weird pride in the fact that my parents seemed to think i might be gay instead of just a boring ol  straight girl who could not get dates.  i wore teenage boy clothes for a while a terrible look wore a lot of rainbow crap, took a girl to prom, the works.  it is all pretty silly to me in retrospect but it is all still a part of who i am and i can definitely still identify with and understand the reasons for me being like that.  i wish people were not so hard on these weird tumblr kids because of that the majority of the intense gender activist/really into exploring different gender labels/etc.  types i have come across have been teenagers.  they are still figuring some shit out, they are just doing it more publicly than a lot of people would have in the past.  let is maybe all cut them a little slack.   #  maybe it would be ideal for them to fade away as they are less needed, though.   #  i did not go for the term  tomboy  since i thought it implied a girl who was also into a lot of sports or other physical activities.  i was more of a computer geek, so it did not seem to quite fit me.  i agree with you completely about expanding our ideas of what women and men can do.  you raise a good point about maybe not needing all those extra categories if we just better accepted that the broad categories of men and women include all kinds of different things.  i certainly did not get that impression when i was growing up, unfortunately.  i thought there was not anything  wrong  with my being androgynous, but i definitely did not see it as  girly , so i was just being a  non girly girl .  it was not until i grew up that i could see that my view of it was also pretty sexist.  i tend to think all these different labels are nice to get younger people discussing and exploring their sexuality and actually examining what they are interested in.  maybe it would be ideal for them to fade away as they are less needed, though.   #  i met some people who called themselves agendered and or changed my outlook completely.   #  i am 0, very much not an sjw, and identify as agendered.  while i agree a lot of people seem to be doing it because they are just trying to identify with the group i feel as though i should actually defend my gender.  i spent most of my young life being beaten by friends and family alike for being a  fag  and most of my high school and early college years jokingly calling myself  a 0yr old girl on cocaine.   this was all because i was and am not a stereotypical male at all.  i push towards the extreme side of ambiguous when it comes to my clothing and looks and always have.  the things i care about and my ideals do not fit male or female stereotypes.  being told to  man up  hurt.  being told  you are just a man you do not like  x   or  all men are  x   hurt.  i did not identify with other males nor was i female or trans.  i met some people who called themselves agendered and or changed my outlook completely.  i have been so much happier since then.  i have been called  ma am   sir  and all manner or neutral pronouns and have found i really do not care what people call me.  being agendered is a way for me to be ok with myself, nothing else.  tl;dr not everyone who uses a non standard gender is a shitlord.
im a 0yo agnostic, and since i have full awareness about religion ive thought that is a total waste of time, and i found really dumb that someone would choose to restric their lives in order to satisfy a god.  ive also found really barbaric beliefs in every religion,mostly ins christianism and islam because those are the ones i have more information about .  now, according to the advances we have in terms of technology and more scientific fields i think we need to advance a lot in terms of freedom of decision.  between homosexuals not allowed to get married or adopt, women not allowed to abort, some people even children not allowed to marry whoever they want, kids sent to wars to  defend their religion , i really believe religion brings nothing but trouble, and hasnt in a lot of time.  note: english is not my first language, so im sorry if this post is hard to read and/or has bad writing details.   #  now, according to the advances we have in terms of technology and more scientific fields i think we need to advance a lot in terms of freedom of decision.   #  the assertion that technology somehow makes us more morally free is ludicrous, but let is take it as a base assumption.   #   our society  ? bro, there is no  our society .  different groups of people inhabiting different parts of the world combine into different societies which are sometimes so fundamentally different from what you believe is the  normal  society that you would have trouble even understanding them.  i do not know where you are from, but can you imagine that people who do not come from the same place as you might live lives that are different from yours, and maybe have needs that are not the same as your needs ? the assertion that technology somehow makes us more morally free is ludicrous, but let is take it as a base assumption.  according to you, a technologically advanced society does not need religion.  what about societies that are not technologically advanced, though ? what about places that do not have paved roads, phone lines, or the internet ? places where they still use mules to till land ? according to you, such places need religion, and since such places exist, then religion is needed in the world.  religion also brings community, a code of law, and a sense of purpose in life.  the laws and social codes of all societies are based in a large part on religion, whether in favor or in opposition to it.  the fact that you are about to have a break from work/school and gather with your family to have a lot of food and possibly exchange presents ? that is religion, bro.   #  that science has better answers to our questions than religion does ?  #  talking about whether religion is necessary is kind of a strange way to talk about it.  people do not choose their beliefs because of the utility of those beliefs to them at least, they do not generally do that on a conscious level .  they choose beliefs because they seem true to them for any number of reasons: they match their intuitions, or they make logical sense, or they feel true, etc.  i am not really sure what your view is that you are looking to be changed.  that all religions are wrong ? that religion does not have benefits ? that religions benefits outweigh the harm it causes ? that there is no reason to believe any religions ? that science has better answers to our questions than religion does ?  #  it might not benefit you personally but it certainly helps others.   #  religion can have tremendous benefit on a personal scale.  it can give people comfort when they lose somewhat, courage when they feel alone, hope for things to get better and a million other things.  personally religion is what got me through a dark period in my life where i seriously considered killing myself.  so that is a benefit right there.  it might not benefit you personally but it certainly helps others.  also, i am sure there are similar number for other faiths, but the catholic church is the single larges charitable organization in the world, and the third largest provider of health care.  think of every hospital you have ever seen with  isaint  in front of it, and there is a benefit of religion.  i also know that the islamic faith teaches people to give at least 0 of their earnings to charity each year.  also do you live in the us, because it that case georgetown loyola boston college fordham marquette are all very major examples of the benefit of religion.  none of those schools would exist without it.  parochial schools are also very important in inner cities because they are cheap/free schools in areas with substandard public education.   #  you can argue over whether the bad outweighs the good, but you ca not deny it has benefits.   #  well, of course it has benefits.  you can argue over whether the bad outweighs the good, but you ca not deny it has benefits.  on an anecdotal level, many of my family members were incredibly comforted by the religious funeral of my grandmother.  whether they are mistaken or not does not really matter, the end result is that they found comfort in religion as many seem to do .  on a more generalized level, many if not most of the largest charitable organisations are religious.  i also think that religious people give more to charity than others do though i am less certain of that claim .  still, i understand where you are coming from when you are saying that you have trouble respecting people who believe something which you think is illogical.  i think you should keep this in mind: the existence of god is a rather complex philosophical debate with no clear cut answers.  many very intelligent people who studied all the arguments have committed to both sides.  i think normal people who do not have time for a non practical philosophical debate which could only end badly for them either everything stays the same, or they have to change, which involves effort and existential doubts can be forgiven for simply siding with the majority opinion.  after all, we do not really disrespect people for not studying any other subject be it ethics, politics, whatever .  in all those cases, when someone holds a  normal  opinion, we might disagree with him, but we wo not disrespect him.   #  two things are happening with people that go to church.   #  you make it sound like people are buying eternal salvation with charitable donations.  this is not the case.  two things are happening with people that go to church.  first of all, they are being reminded every week about being a good person.  secondly, and more importantly, the collection basket provides an easy, convenient opportunity to donate every week, whether it be spare change, a couple of bucks, or a check.  it is not necessarily that they feel any more obligated or guilted into doing it than the rest of us i think most of us agree that donating money or volunteering are a good thing, and we should do it more , but its a convenience thing, like buying a candy bar or a pack of gum at the register in a grocery store.  it provides an opportunity to donate money that non churchgoers do not have.
im a 0yo agnostic, and since i have full awareness about religion ive thought that is a total waste of time, and i found really dumb that someone would choose to restric their lives in order to satisfy a god.  ive also found really barbaric beliefs in every religion,mostly ins christianism and islam because those are the ones i have more information about .  now, according to the advances we have in terms of technology and more scientific fields i think we need to advance a lot in terms of freedom of decision.  between homosexuals not allowed to get married or adopt, women not allowed to abort, some people even children not allowed to marry whoever they want, kids sent to wars to  defend their religion , i really believe religion brings nothing but trouble, and hasnt in a lot of time.  note: english is not my first language, so im sorry if this post is hard to read and/or has bad writing details.   #  i really believe religion brings nothing but trouble, and hasnt in a lot of time.   #  religion also brings community, a code of law, and a sense of purpose in life.   #   our society  ? bro, there is no  our society .  different groups of people inhabiting different parts of the world combine into different societies which are sometimes so fundamentally different from what you believe is the  normal  society that you would have trouble even understanding them.  i do not know where you are from, but can you imagine that people who do not come from the same place as you might live lives that are different from yours, and maybe have needs that are not the same as your needs ? the assertion that technology somehow makes us more morally free is ludicrous, but let is take it as a base assumption.  according to you, a technologically advanced society does not need religion.  what about societies that are not technologically advanced, though ? what about places that do not have paved roads, phone lines, or the internet ? places where they still use mules to till land ? according to you, such places need religion, and since such places exist, then religion is needed in the world.  religion also brings community, a code of law, and a sense of purpose in life.  the laws and social codes of all societies are based in a large part on religion, whether in favor or in opposition to it.  the fact that you are about to have a break from work/school and gather with your family to have a lot of food and possibly exchange presents ? that is religion, bro.   #  talking about whether religion is necessary is kind of a strange way to talk about it.   #  talking about whether religion is necessary is kind of a strange way to talk about it.  people do not choose their beliefs because of the utility of those beliefs to them at least, they do not generally do that on a conscious level .  they choose beliefs because they seem true to them for any number of reasons: they match their intuitions, or they make logical sense, or they feel true, etc.  i am not really sure what your view is that you are looking to be changed.  that all religions are wrong ? that religion does not have benefits ? that religions benefits outweigh the harm it causes ? that there is no reason to believe any religions ? that science has better answers to our questions than religion does ?  #  it might not benefit you personally but it certainly helps others.   #  religion can have tremendous benefit on a personal scale.  it can give people comfort when they lose somewhat, courage when they feel alone, hope for things to get better and a million other things.  personally religion is what got me through a dark period in my life where i seriously considered killing myself.  so that is a benefit right there.  it might not benefit you personally but it certainly helps others.  also, i am sure there are similar number for other faiths, but the catholic church is the single larges charitable organization in the world, and the third largest provider of health care.  think of every hospital you have ever seen with  isaint  in front of it, and there is a benefit of religion.  i also know that the islamic faith teaches people to give at least 0 of their earnings to charity each year.  also do you live in the us, because it that case georgetown loyola boston college fordham marquette are all very major examples of the benefit of religion.  none of those schools would exist without it.  parochial schools are also very important in inner cities because they are cheap/free schools in areas with substandard public education.   #  many very intelligent people who studied all the arguments have committed to both sides.   #  well, of course it has benefits.  you can argue over whether the bad outweighs the good, but you ca not deny it has benefits.  on an anecdotal level, many of my family members were incredibly comforted by the religious funeral of my grandmother.  whether they are mistaken or not does not really matter, the end result is that they found comfort in religion as many seem to do .  on a more generalized level, many if not most of the largest charitable organisations are religious.  i also think that religious people give more to charity than others do though i am less certain of that claim .  still, i understand where you are coming from when you are saying that you have trouble respecting people who believe something which you think is illogical.  i think you should keep this in mind: the existence of god is a rather complex philosophical debate with no clear cut answers.  many very intelligent people who studied all the arguments have committed to both sides.  i think normal people who do not have time for a non practical philosophical debate which could only end badly for them either everything stays the same, or they have to change, which involves effort and existential doubts can be forgiven for simply siding with the majority opinion.  after all, we do not really disrespect people for not studying any other subject be it ethics, politics, whatever .  in all those cases, when someone holds a  normal  opinion, we might disagree with him, but we wo not disrespect him.   #  you make it sound like people are buying eternal salvation with charitable donations.   #  you make it sound like people are buying eternal salvation with charitable donations.  this is not the case.  two things are happening with people that go to church.  first of all, they are being reminded every week about being a good person.  secondly, and more importantly, the collection basket provides an easy, convenient opportunity to donate every week, whether it be spare change, a couple of bucks, or a check.  it is not necessarily that they feel any more obligated or guilted into doing it than the rest of us i think most of us agree that donating money or volunteering are a good thing, and we should do it more , but its a convenience thing, like buying a candy bar or a pack of gum at the register in a grocery store.  it provides an opportunity to donate money that non churchgoers do not have.
i believe that we are all only as intelligent as our parents some will absorb information easier than others, and that is okay.  in primary and secondary schooling, there is no use in memorising facts in order to improve grades exams, which need to exist to sort the levels and/or areas of intelligence should be a test of one is person, not what they know.  this view has come about after seeing how much some students stress about exams and how they students that study the hardest often have the hardest time keeping up in gifted and talented education, because although they are capable of doing the work, they are putting in so much effort that it pulls them down in other areas eg social skills.  the students of whom less is expected in terms of work, but do well not 0, but definitely above average due to natural ability appear to have an easier ride.  i believe that everyone should just accept at what they are and are not talented and continue with their life, not trying so desperately hard to get top marks in everything.  at the end of the day, a pass is a pass, and there is more to life than exams.   #  i believe that everyone should just accept at what they are and are not talented and continue with their life, not trying so desperately hard to get top marks in everything.   #  at the end of the day, a pass is a pass, and there is more to life than exams.   # at the end of the day, a pass is a pass, and there is more to life than exams.  even if you are not an inherently smart person that does not mean you wo not benefit from trying to learn.  also school is more than just passing exams.  its for learning important life skills.  just cause your dumb does not mean its worthless to learn about algebra or history.   #  if you are smart enough, you can put forth minimal effort and get by in college with some random office job at the end of it.   # the two are not exclusive.  yes, intelligence means you will have it much easier.  but smart people either have to work hard, or accept mediocrity you cannot accomplish anything meaningful as a lazy and smart person because you generally ca not accomplish anything as a lazy person.  if your goal is not simply to get by in life, but to achieve a position of influence or to accomplish something meaningful, you need to work hard.  this begins by studying hard for exams to acquire the knowledge you need to succeed and to build up a good work ethic for later.  now, maybe this does not apply to something like business so much, but in the hard sciences, the stuff you learn in primary and secondary education is stuff that is so basic you need to be be able to know it instantly and efficiently.  of course, if you just want an easy ride in life, sure.  if you are smart enough, you can put forth minimal effort and get by in college with some random office job at the end of it.  but that is not  being who you are.   that is just a choice you made that you would rather have a comfortable life than an accomplished one.   #  by all means, go to the prom instead of studying to get an extra 0 points on your next history exam.   #  well, you basically have to start making that choice now.  frankly, the later you start to put in effort, the more doors will start to close for you, and habits are built up over time.  if you do not start putting in effort now, it gets harder and harder to catch up later, and if you leave it too late you simply might not be able to catch up at all.  so you should start putting forth a level of effort you feel comfortable with in high school, and if you think you might want to do something in the hard sciences you need to at least master all your math classes.  keep in mind you also have to do well generally academically and do some extracurriculars to get into a better university; there is not a huge difference in quality of education between the best ranked university and the tenth best ranked university, but you can bet there is one between the best ranked university and a random state school, not to mention the name factor when applying for a job or graduate school.  that is not to say social skills are not important.  by all means, go to the prom instead of studying to get an extra 0 points on your next history exam.  you wo not be happy no matter how accomplished you are if you ca not relate to and manage people, and that also starts now.  so if you find that you have to spend every waking moment studying in order to get the grades you need to do what you plan to right now, well, you will have to decide if that is worth it to you, because it does not get any easier later and this will be your life for the rest of your life.  there is no  better  or  worse.   there is just what you decide is worth it.   #  i agree, there is more to life than exams.   #  i agree, there is more to life than exams.  that said i am not keen on your point.  you think intelligence is fixed at birth ? how do you explain children with more well off families doing better in school than poorer children ? do you think poor people are born stupid ? i think environment certainly plays a massive part.   #  this is a catch all term for the poorly understood, random stuff that causes even identical twins raised together to have different iqs.   #  heritability.  iq is correlated with income, for obvious reasons smart people can get higher paying jobs .  people with high incomes usually have children with high iqs because they themselves tend to have high iqs.  studies on twins and adopted children are able to measure the degree to which iq is determined by genetics.  what they have found is that: 0.  iq in early childhood is mostly environmental, and iq in adulthood is mostly genetic.  by the age of 0, genetics explains about 0 of variance in iq.  0.  some of the remaining 0 is explained by shared family environment, but much is explained by what is known as non shared environment.  this is a catch all term for the poorly understood, random stuff that causes even identical twins raised together to have different iqs.  it may include things like measurement error the same individual is iq score will vary slightly from test to test , infectious disease, individual lifestyle choices, and who knows what else.  the bottom line is that home environment really does explain a pretty small percentage of variation in adult iq.  the primary reason poor people tend to have children with low iqs is that they themselves have low iqs which is why they are poor and they pass those genes on.  in other words, yes.  they really are born stupid more often than not.  this is why poverty can persist for generations in american families while the children of poor immigrants who are poor because they come from poor countries and not because they have low iqs often make it into the professional class or higher within a single generation.
currently the world runs on competition, greed , fear and class.  many might not see this as something to worry about but it troubles me greatly.  i do understand the need for competition.  i like certain types of competition but it sickens me that we have to compete for some things necessary for our survival while we live in an age of abundance and wastefulness could someone please explain to me why we need to compete for basic human needs like education, health, security, food and shelter ? do you think that we need a new economic and government system ? here are the former government/economic systems.  0 empire/monarch: it was obviously a bad idea and it concentrated huge power in the hands of a few.  0 dictatorship; this is even worse fu k this.  0 democracy; great i love it but do not like how its a popularity contest , the majority always wins.  it does not give enough power to the minority.  0 communism; okay, i like that it solves some basic social issues somehow but the method is bad.  the government becomes too powerful and controls us.  no thanks.  0 capitalism; i like this ! it worked tremendously for many countries and for many years but still does not feel right.  you must compete for such things as education and health care.  0 socialism; it takes the good from both communism and capitalism and combines them together.  it is great apart from the taxes which are crazy high but i can live with that.  the six systems have ruled us for many many years but i still think there is a system of government out there, somewhere that is just perfect and we are gonna find it someday.  / excuse any grammatical errors.  english is not my first or second language  #  great i love it but do not like how its a popularity contest , the majority always wins.   #  it does not give enough power to the minority i am not quite sure what you mean here.   # it is easy to come up with these trendy ideas of how food and water and shelter ought to be free, and a lot harder to find farmers willing to work for free.  in principle, we could subsidise free essentials with higher taxes, but then of course we get into opposition from the people, which is understandable: very few are going to be both trusting of the government  and  constantly abstractly altruistic.  now, personally, i am all for a slightly more socialist society.  i continue to be astounded by american opposition to free at point of access healthcare.  i am sure there is a better system out there.  the important thing about democracy is not choosing the best leaders to make the best and most effective decisions, but preventing dictatorships.  it does not give enough power to the minority i am not quite sure what you mean here.  should the minority have the ability to overrule the majority ? from a utilitarian moral perspective, that is ridiculous.  democracy is not  efficient , but it does prevent dictatorship for exactly this reason: rule by the minority is essentially what a dictatorship is.   #  there are always going to be sacrifices for things like freedom.   #  this is a nice little fairy tale but just saying that there must be a perfect system does not mean there is.  there are always going to be sacrifices for things like freedom.  it is not like competition is a result of government.  animals compete for resources too.  at the end of the day if you want everyone to be provided for it is going to result in a serious sacrifice of freedom.  if you want freedom that means that some must fail for others to succeed.  unfortunately everyone on earth can not do whatever they want and get whatever they desire.  it is just unrealistic.   #  the minority will be foced to live by shitty sharia laws and this is where i consider democracy to fail.   #  the thing about our current perception of democracy is not as great as we thought it was.  consider this; we have person a, who wants to enforce sharia law in the place he is chosen to lead and we have person b who wants a sensible government that is not fucked up and gives freedom to the people.  a and b want a position of power that is able to control the rules and influence the decisions of many people.  the people are told to choose their leader and a gets insanely popular and receives tons of votes because the majority of the population are crazy sharia fanatics while b gets a few votes from the sensible minority.  the minority will be foced to live by shitty sharia laws and this is where i consider democracy to fail.  the majority always wins  #  we can further parse the group of people who are allowed to compete for resources along gender and racial lines.   # from what i remember of maslow is hierarchy, the basic human needs encompass the support of our biological organism: food, water, air, shelter.  education is certainly not a basic human need, and health and security are states of being rather than needs.  but you misplace your blame: it is not competition that is at fault, it is distribution.  competition entails that you have an  opportunity  ideally, an equal opportunity to get coveted thing x.  access to food, medicine, education in our world today is determined by  distribution .  i. e. , it is not that starving children in ethiopia lose the competition for food it is that they are never given the chance to compete for food because of a complex network of political and economic factors that make disposing of food surpluses a more beneficial decision than distributing those food surpluses in famine struck regions.  consider also the 0s famine in ukraine.  at the time, ukraine was already part of the ussr so competition was not a thing.  however, they still starved, despite not having to compete for food, because that food was taken away and distributed elsewhere.  you have to be given access to a resource before you can compete for it.  today, the biggest problem is access, not competitiveness.  realistically, the majority of the world is population is barred from competing for education, health, food, etc.  simply because they were not born in a developed country.  we can further parse the group of people who are allowed to compete for resources along gender and racial lines.  that is why we have welfare, affirmative action, and other support programs: to encourage  fair  competition.  if you recall, the constitution does not say that every man is entitled to his happiness.  it states that every man is entitled to the  pursuit  of his happiness.   #  while i do not advocate propaganda, i do advocate the continued free exchange of ideas with a minimum of partisan vitriol.   #  i am going to challenge your first statement that the world is ruled by  competition, greed, feat and class.   the world is run by a vast, complicated system that often incorporates those elements but also has good amounts of paranoia, compassion, intelligence, information, and stupidity, among others.  some of the reasons we compete for  basic human needs  is that we ca not agree on what are needs.  different ideologies and different levels of practical need, ambition, and class combine to form a myriad of opinions.  democracy tends to be a good system for mining those far ranging opinions but, at least in the us, democratic capitalism has allowed money to significantly influence the policy process, but i am not sure how to prevent that.  i think it is impossible to have a truly equal society based on the fact that human beings are not created equal.  we are born with different sets of abilities and into different social and economic conditions and human nature being what it is, we tend to use our resources to benefit ourselves and our familial groups.  this inevitably leads to differences in wealth and power distributions and most attempts to curtail those impulses through legal frameworks just create opposition to the system.  to eliminate competition we need to affect widespread societal change and get people to believe that altruism is in their own interests.  the soviets had some success with this, but the arbitrariness and brutality of the regimes undermined any attempt to coop the general population to buy into the system.  any good system is going to flow from the will of the people or it will breed resentment, apathy, underground opposition, and eventually insurgency and revolution.  while i do not advocate propaganda, i do advocate the continued free exchange of ideas with a minimum of partisan vitriol.  a  perfect solution  is not out there but open dialogue can and should convince people that certain ideas have more merit than other and push us closer and closer to good governance and a more perfect social contract.  there is the additional problem, especially in the west of complacency and apathy.  our systems work well enough that for the general population, it simply is not worth the risk to try and change the system from an individual perspective.
currently the world runs on competition, greed , fear and class.  many might not see this as something to worry about but it troubles me greatly.  i do understand the need for competition.  i like certain types of competition but it sickens me that we have to compete for some things necessary for our survival while we live in an age of abundance and wastefulness could someone please explain to me why we need to compete for basic human needs like education, health, security, food and shelter ? do you think that we need a new economic and government system ? here are the former government/economic systems.  0 empire/monarch: it was obviously a bad idea and it concentrated huge power in the hands of a few.  0 dictatorship; this is even worse fu k this.  0 democracy; great i love it but do not like how its a popularity contest , the majority always wins.  it does not give enough power to the minority.  0 communism; okay, i like that it solves some basic social issues somehow but the method is bad.  the government becomes too powerful and controls us.  no thanks.  0 capitalism; i like this ! it worked tremendously for many countries and for many years but still does not feel right.  you must compete for such things as education and health care.  0 socialism; it takes the good from both communism and capitalism and combines them together.  it is great apart from the taxes which are crazy high but i can live with that.  the six systems have ruled us for many many years but i still think there is a system of government out there, somewhere that is just perfect and we are gonna find it someday.  / excuse any grammatical errors.  english is not my first or second language  #  could someone please explain to me why we need to compete for basic human needs like education, health, security, food and shelter ?  #  from what i remember of maslow is hierarchy, the basic human needs encompass the support of our biological organism: food, water, air, shelter.   # from what i remember of maslow is hierarchy, the basic human needs encompass the support of our biological organism: food, water, air, shelter.  education is certainly not a basic human need, and health and security are states of being rather than needs.  but you misplace your blame: it is not competition that is at fault, it is distribution.  competition entails that you have an  opportunity  ideally, an equal opportunity to get coveted thing x.  access to food, medicine, education in our world today is determined by  distribution .  i. e. , it is not that starving children in ethiopia lose the competition for food it is that they are never given the chance to compete for food because of a complex network of political and economic factors that make disposing of food surpluses a more beneficial decision than distributing those food surpluses in famine struck regions.  consider also the 0s famine in ukraine.  at the time, ukraine was already part of the ussr so competition was not a thing.  however, they still starved, despite not having to compete for food, because that food was taken away and distributed elsewhere.  you have to be given access to a resource before you can compete for it.  today, the biggest problem is access, not competitiveness.  realistically, the majority of the world is population is barred from competing for education, health, food, etc.  simply because they were not born in a developed country.  we can further parse the group of people who are allowed to compete for resources along gender and racial lines.  that is why we have welfare, affirmative action, and other support programs: to encourage  fair  competition.  if you recall, the constitution does not say that every man is entitled to his happiness.  it states that every man is entitled to the  pursuit  of his happiness.   #  unfortunately everyone on earth can not do whatever they want and get whatever they desire.   #  this is a nice little fairy tale but just saying that there must be a perfect system does not mean there is.  there are always going to be sacrifices for things like freedom.  it is not like competition is a result of government.  animals compete for resources too.  at the end of the day if you want everyone to be provided for it is going to result in a serious sacrifice of freedom.  if you want freedom that means that some must fail for others to succeed.  unfortunately everyone on earth can not do whatever they want and get whatever they desire.  it is just unrealistic.   #  i am sure there is a better system out there.   # it is easy to come up with these trendy ideas of how food and water and shelter ought to be free, and a lot harder to find farmers willing to work for free.  in principle, we could subsidise free essentials with higher taxes, but then of course we get into opposition from the people, which is understandable: very few are going to be both trusting of the government  and  constantly abstractly altruistic.  now, personally, i am all for a slightly more socialist society.  i continue to be astounded by american opposition to free at point of access healthcare.  i am sure there is a better system out there.  the important thing about democracy is not choosing the best leaders to make the best and most effective decisions, but preventing dictatorships.  it does not give enough power to the minority i am not quite sure what you mean here.  should the minority have the ability to overrule the majority ? from a utilitarian moral perspective, that is ridiculous.  democracy is not  efficient , but it does prevent dictatorship for exactly this reason: rule by the minority is essentially what a dictatorship is.   #  the people are told to choose their leader and a gets insanely popular and receives tons of votes because the majority of the population are crazy sharia fanatics while b gets a few votes from the sensible minority.   #  the thing about our current perception of democracy is not as great as we thought it was.  consider this; we have person a, who wants to enforce sharia law in the place he is chosen to lead and we have person b who wants a sensible government that is not fucked up and gives freedom to the people.  a and b want a position of power that is able to control the rules and influence the decisions of many people.  the people are told to choose their leader and a gets insanely popular and receives tons of votes because the majority of the population are crazy sharia fanatics while b gets a few votes from the sensible minority.  the minority will be foced to live by shitty sharia laws and this is where i consider democracy to fail.  the majority always wins  #  the world is run by a vast, complicated system that often incorporates those elements but also has good amounts of paranoia, compassion, intelligence, information, and stupidity, among others.   #  i am going to challenge your first statement that the world is ruled by  competition, greed, feat and class.   the world is run by a vast, complicated system that often incorporates those elements but also has good amounts of paranoia, compassion, intelligence, information, and stupidity, among others.  some of the reasons we compete for  basic human needs  is that we ca not agree on what are needs.  different ideologies and different levels of practical need, ambition, and class combine to form a myriad of opinions.  democracy tends to be a good system for mining those far ranging opinions but, at least in the us, democratic capitalism has allowed money to significantly influence the policy process, but i am not sure how to prevent that.  i think it is impossible to have a truly equal society based on the fact that human beings are not created equal.  we are born with different sets of abilities and into different social and economic conditions and human nature being what it is, we tend to use our resources to benefit ourselves and our familial groups.  this inevitably leads to differences in wealth and power distributions and most attempts to curtail those impulses through legal frameworks just create opposition to the system.  to eliminate competition we need to affect widespread societal change and get people to believe that altruism is in their own interests.  the soviets had some success with this, but the arbitrariness and brutality of the regimes undermined any attempt to coop the general population to buy into the system.  any good system is going to flow from the will of the people or it will breed resentment, apathy, underground opposition, and eventually insurgency and revolution.  while i do not advocate propaganda, i do advocate the continued free exchange of ideas with a minimum of partisan vitriol.  a  perfect solution  is not out there but open dialogue can and should convince people that certain ideas have more merit than other and push us closer and closer to good governance and a more perfect social contract.  there is the additional problem, especially in the west of complacency and apathy.  our systems work well enough that for the general population, it simply is not worth the risk to try and change the system from an individual perspective.
currently the world runs on competition, greed , fear and class.  many might not see this as something to worry about but it troubles me greatly.  i do understand the need for competition.  i like certain types of competition but it sickens me that we have to compete for some things necessary for our survival while we live in an age of abundance and wastefulness could someone please explain to me why we need to compete for basic human needs like education, health, security, food and shelter ? do you think that we need a new economic and government system ? here are the former government/economic systems.  0 empire/monarch: it was obviously a bad idea and it concentrated huge power in the hands of a few.  0 dictatorship; this is even worse fu k this.  0 democracy; great i love it but do not like how its a popularity contest , the majority always wins.  it does not give enough power to the minority.  0 communism; okay, i like that it solves some basic social issues somehow but the method is bad.  the government becomes too powerful and controls us.  no thanks.  0 capitalism; i like this ! it worked tremendously for many countries and for many years but still does not feel right.  you must compete for such things as education and health care.  0 socialism; it takes the good from both communism and capitalism and combines them together.  it is great apart from the taxes which are crazy high but i can live with that.  the six systems have ruled us for many many years but i still think there is a system of government out there, somewhere that is just perfect and we are gonna find it someday.  / excuse any grammatical errors.  english is not my first or second language  #  could someone please explain to me why we need to compete for basic human needs like education, health, security, food and shelter ?  #  can we afford to give everyone state of the art education ?  # can we afford to give everyone state of the art education ? nope.  there is always more to learn.  who should set what standard this education should be provided up to ? should everyone have a basic 0 years of education ? 0 years ? 0 years ? what about healthcare ? can we afford to give everyone the best possible treatment ? of course not ! if in a theoretical situation, if a person is life could be saved for $0 trillion worth of money, most people would say  no way !   however, if a person is life could be saved for $0, 0 of people would say  of course ! save that person !   the bad thing about this, is that there would have to be somewhere in between, a limit on how much a person is life is worth.  security: this one is provided by pretty much every system and pretty much every proposed system save anarchism .  i would agree that it is essential.  however, there is always a division between liberty and security.  if a government has access to all information, they can, in theory, keep you perfectly safe from threats.  however, a government that collects all information has a huge danger of becoming too powerful.  food: what quality of food should everyone get ? should everyone get minimum standards of barely edible, unhealthy food at low cost ? should people get amazing food that not only tastes great, but is healthy at a very high cost ? who determines this ? shelter: same argument as with everywhere else.  what minimum standard should we set ? competition is necessary, and is not the opposite of cooperation, even though it may sound like it.  in an idealistic society, a person competes with another person, not to hurt the other person, but to help themselves.  if, for example, there are two teachers who want to teach in a school, but the school only needs one, the better teacher gets the job.  this is better for the students in the classroom than it would be if the better teacher did not apply and decide to compete with the worse teacher.  it is worse for the teacher who did not do as good of a job, but it is hard to make the argument that the person who is in charge of the school is greedy.  theoretically, the perfect government provides everything its citizens want without taking away people is freedoms.  unfortunately, there is not an unlimited amount of stuff in the world.   #  it is not like competition is a result of government.   #  this is a nice little fairy tale but just saying that there must be a perfect system does not mean there is.  there are always going to be sacrifices for things like freedom.  it is not like competition is a result of government.  animals compete for resources too.  at the end of the day if you want everyone to be provided for it is going to result in a serious sacrifice of freedom.  if you want freedom that means that some must fail for others to succeed.  unfortunately everyone on earth can not do whatever they want and get whatever they desire.  it is just unrealistic.   #  it does not give enough power to the minority i am not quite sure what you mean here.   # it is easy to come up with these trendy ideas of how food and water and shelter ought to be free, and a lot harder to find farmers willing to work for free.  in principle, we could subsidise free essentials with higher taxes, but then of course we get into opposition from the people, which is understandable: very few are going to be both trusting of the government  and  constantly abstractly altruistic.  now, personally, i am all for a slightly more socialist society.  i continue to be astounded by american opposition to free at point of access healthcare.  i am sure there is a better system out there.  the important thing about democracy is not choosing the best leaders to make the best and most effective decisions, but preventing dictatorships.  it does not give enough power to the minority i am not quite sure what you mean here.  should the minority have the ability to overrule the majority ? from a utilitarian moral perspective, that is ridiculous.  democracy is not  efficient , but it does prevent dictatorship for exactly this reason: rule by the minority is essentially what a dictatorship is.   #  a and b want a position of power that is able to control the rules and influence the decisions of many people.   #  the thing about our current perception of democracy is not as great as we thought it was.  consider this; we have person a, who wants to enforce sharia law in the place he is chosen to lead and we have person b who wants a sensible government that is not fucked up and gives freedom to the people.  a and b want a position of power that is able to control the rules and influence the decisions of many people.  the people are told to choose their leader and a gets insanely popular and receives tons of votes because the majority of the population are crazy sharia fanatics while b gets a few votes from the sensible minority.  the minority will be foced to live by shitty sharia laws and this is where i consider democracy to fail.  the majority always wins  #  simply because they were not born in a developed country.   # from what i remember of maslow is hierarchy, the basic human needs encompass the support of our biological organism: food, water, air, shelter.  education is certainly not a basic human need, and health and security are states of being rather than needs.  but you misplace your blame: it is not competition that is at fault, it is distribution.  competition entails that you have an  opportunity  ideally, an equal opportunity to get coveted thing x.  access to food, medicine, education in our world today is determined by  distribution .  i. e. , it is not that starving children in ethiopia lose the competition for food it is that they are never given the chance to compete for food because of a complex network of political and economic factors that make disposing of food surpluses a more beneficial decision than distributing those food surpluses in famine struck regions.  consider also the 0s famine in ukraine.  at the time, ukraine was already part of the ussr so competition was not a thing.  however, they still starved, despite not having to compete for food, because that food was taken away and distributed elsewhere.  you have to be given access to a resource before you can compete for it.  today, the biggest problem is access, not competitiveness.  realistically, the majority of the world is population is barred from competing for education, health, food, etc.  simply because they were not born in a developed country.  we can further parse the group of people who are allowed to compete for resources along gender and racial lines.  that is why we have welfare, affirmative action, and other support programs: to encourage  fair  competition.  if you recall, the constitution does not say that every man is entitled to his happiness.  it states that every man is entitled to the  pursuit  of his happiness.
currently the world runs on competition, greed , fear and class.  many might not see this as something to worry about but it troubles me greatly.  i do understand the need for competition.  i like certain types of competition but it sickens me that we have to compete for some things necessary for our survival while we live in an age of abundance and wastefulness could someone please explain to me why we need to compete for basic human needs like education, health, security, food and shelter ? do you think that we need a new economic and government system ? here are the former government/economic systems.  0 empire/monarch: it was obviously a bad idea and it concentrated huge power in the hands of a few.  0 dictatorship; this is even worse fu k this.  0 democracy; great i love it but do not like how its a popularity contest , the majority always wins.  it does not give enough power to the minority.  0 communism; okay, i like that it solves some basic social issues somehow but the method is bad.  the government becomes too powerful and controls us.  no thanks.  0 capitalism; i like this ! it worked tremendously for many countries and for many years but still does not feel right.  you must compete for such things as education and health care.  0 socialism; it takes the good from both communism and capitalism and combines them together.  it is great apart from the taxes which are crazy high but i can live with that.  the six systems have ruled us for many many years but i still think there is a system of government out there, somewhere that is just perfect and we are gonna find it someday.  / excuse any grammatical errors.  english is not my first or second language  #  i still think there is a system of government out there, somewhere that is just perfect and we are gonna find it someday.   #  theoretically, the perfect government provides everything its citizens want without taking away people is freedoms.   # can we afford to give everyone state of the art education ? nope.  there is always more to learn.  who should set what standard this education should be provided up to ? should everyone have a basic 0 years of education ? 0 years ? 0 years ? what about healthcare ? can we afford to give everyone the best possible treatment ? of course not ! if in a theoretical situation, if a person is life could be saved for $0 trillion worth of money, most people would say  no way !   however, if a person is life could be saved for $0, 0 of people would say  of course ! save that person !   the bad thing about this, is that there would have to be somewhere in between, a limit on how much a person is life is worth.  security: this one is provided by pretty much every system and pretty much every proposed system save anarchism .  i would agree that it is essential.  however, there is always a division between liberty and security.  if a government has access to all information, they can, in theory, keep you perfectly safe from threats.  however, a government that collects all information has a huge danger of becoming too powerful.  food: what quality of food should everyone get ? should everyone get minimum standards of barely edible, unhealthy food at low cost ? should people get amazing food that not only tastes great, but is healthy at a very high cost ? who determines this ? shelter: same argument as with everywhere else.  what minimum standard should we set ? competition is necessary, and is not the opposite of cooperation, even though it may sound like it.  in an idealistic society, a person competes with another person, not to hurt the other person, but to help themselves.  if, for example, there are two teachers who want to teach in a school, but the school only needs one, the better teacher gets the job.  this is better for the students in the classroom than it would be if the better teacher did not apply and decide to compete with the worse teacher.  it is worse for the teacher who did not do as good of a job, but it is hard to make the argument that the person who is in charge of the school is greedy.  theoretically, the perfect government provides everything its citizens want without taking away people is freedoms.  unfortunately, there is not an unlimited amount of stuff in the world.   #  this is a nice little fairy tale but just saying that there must be a perfect system does not mean there is.   #  this is a nice little fairy tale but just saying that there must be a perfect system does not mean there is.  there are always going to be sacrifices for things like freedom.  it is not like competition is a result of government.  animals compete for resources too.  at the end of the day if you want everyone to be provided for it is going to result in a serious sacrifice of freedom.  if you want freedom that means that some must fail for others to succeed.  unfortunately everyone on earth can not do whatever they want and get whatever they desire.  it is just unrealistic.   #  should the minority have the ability to overrule the majority ?  # it is easy to come up with these trendy ideas of how food and water and shelter ought to be free, and a lot harder to find farmers willing to work for free.  in principle, we could subsidise free essentials with higher taxes, but then of course we get into opposition from the people, which is understandable: very few are going to be both trusting of the government  and  constantly abstractly altruistic.  now, personally, i am all for a slightly more socialist society.  i continue to be astounded by american opposition to free at point of access healthcare.  i am sure there is a better system out there.  the important thing about democracy is not choosing the best leaders to make the best and most effective decisions, but preventing dictatorships.  it does not give enough power to the minority i am not quite sure what you mean here.  should the minority have the ability to overrule the majority ? from a utilitarian moral perspective, that is ridiculous.  democracy is not  efficient , but it does prevent dictatorship for exactly this reason: rule by the minority is essentially what a dictatorship is.   #  a and b want a position of power that is able to control the rules and influence the decisions of many people.   #  the thing about our current perception of democracy is not as great as we thought it was.  consider this; we have person a, who wants to enforce sharia law in the place he is chosen to lead and we have person b who wants a sensible government that is not fucked up and gives freedom to the people.  a and b want a position of power that is able to control the rules and influence the decisions of many people.  the people are told to choose their leader and a gets insanely popular and receives tons of votes because the majority of the population are crazy sharia fanatics while b gets a few votes from the sensible minority.  the minority will be foced to live by shitty sharia laws and this is where i consider democracy to fail.  the majority always wins  #  realistically, the majority of the world is population is barred from competing for education, health, food, etc.   # from what i remember of maslow is hierarchy, the basic human needs encompass the support of our biological organism: food, water, air, shelter.  education is certainly not a basic human need, and health and security are states of being rather than needs.  but you misplace your blame: it is not competition that is at fault, it is distribution.  competition entails that you have an  opportunity  ideally, an equal opportunity to get coveted thing x.  access to food, medicine, education in our world today is determined by  distribution .  i. e. , it is not that starving children in ethiopia lose the competition for food it is that they are never given the chance to compete for food because of a complex network of political and economic factors that make disposing of food surpluses a more beneficial decision than distributing those food surpluses in famine struck regions.  consider also the 0s famine in ukraine.  at the time, ukraine was already part of the ussr so competition was not a thing.  however, they still starved, despite not having to compete for food, because that food was taken away and distributed elsewhere.  you have to be given access to a resource before you can compete for it.  today, the biggest problem is access, not competitiveness.  realistically, the majority of the world is population is barred from competing for education, health, food, etc.  simply because they were not born in a developed country.  we can further parse the group of people who are allowed to compete for resources along gender and racial lines.  that is why we have welfare, affirmative action, and other support programs: to encourage  fair  competition.  if you recall, the constitution does not say that every man is entitled to his happiness.  it states that every man is entitled to the  pursuit  of his happiness.
i believe that short barrel rifles and firearm suppressors should be completely removed from the regulations of the national firearms act and it should be legal to produce/own machine guns made after 0.  i will go into my specific reasons below.  sbrs: i have yet to see a valid reason for the heavy regulations in place for short barrel rifles.  currently, this URL is considered a pistol and can be bought at any gun store with just a background check.  but this URL is considered an sbr and one must complete an onerous amount of paperwork to own one.  this makes no sense and sbrs should be treated like any other firearm.  suppressors: contrary to what video games tell you, suppressors do not make a firearm completely silent.  in fact, they only reduce the noise level from around 0 to 0 db.  their main purpose is to reduce hearing damage and noise pollution.  in fact, many countries in europe encourage if not require you to use one when hunting or shooting.  therefore, suppressors should not be a controlled item or only require a background check.  machine guns: as it currently stands, machine guns produced after 0 are illegal to own.  the only thing this does is drive up prices to an absurd degree a pre ban machine gun will cost you around $0,0 .  this ban should be lifted to allow more people a chance to own one.  keep in mind that since 0, only two murders have been committed with legally owned machine guns and one of those was by a police officer who are exempt from this ban anyway .   #  keep in mind that since 0, only two murders have been committed with legally owned machine guns and one of those was by a police officer who are exempt from this ban anyway .   #  that just tells me that the strict restrictions imposed by the national firearms act of 0 and other laws that restrict automatic weapon ownership work.   # suppressors do not only reduce sound.  they also reduce flash and recoil and change the way the gunshot sounds.  to a person unaccustomed to the sound of a suppressed weapon, it is much less likely that they would register that particular sound as a gunshot, especially in urban areas that have a lot of ambient noise.  regardless, even  with  a suppressed weapon, you still require ear protection for regular shooting, since hearing damage can still occur at 0db.  that just tells me that the strict restrictions imposed by the national firearms act of 0 and other laws that restrict automatic weapon ownership work.  not only are the guns expensive, but you have to pay a fee to the atf, get fingerprinted and photographed for the atf, and pass an extensive background check in order to own one of these guns.  it does not surprise me that people who legally possess them do not use them to commit crimes, because the high level of restriction on them is nearly a guarantee that the person purchasing the weapon is not a criminal or mentally unstable.  and, given the expense and trouble the owner must go through, it is also more likely that the owner will secure these guns in a way that discourages casual theft.  by lowering the bar on people who are allowed to own these guns, i have no doubt that murders would increase.   #  there has to be a line somewhere, and right now the ability to own a semi auto military style gun should be the acceptable line.   # with a weapon i would kinda have to say yes.  should we be able to own an f 0 with missiles ? a b 0 with bombs ? a fully loaded tank ? c0 and other explosives ? there has to be a line somewhere, and right now the ability to own a semi auto military style gun should be the acceptable line.  i do not really see much reason that people would want to own one beyond the  cool factor .  or in the very least, make it so that it is just  extremely  heavily regulated.  the pre/post 0 line is a bit arbitrary, but that does not mean that it should ever be easy to get hold of one.   #  single pieces are useful in situations like hunting ie red dots sights but as a kit you would rarely see something with the above setup for any other purpose beyond defense/tactical situations.   #  thank you for interpreting  military style  to mean  assault rifle  then giving me a powerpoint on why those assault weapon bans did not work.  because i am saying neither of those things.  i should have used the phrase  tactical .  even then you would probably be upset, even though you should not be because i am not saying we should ban them.  things i would classify as a  military style  or  tactical  weapon set up: pistol grips/forward grips/collapsible stock carbine/short barrels picatinny style rail mount systems laser/red dot/night sights/flashlights large 0 0  rifle magazines, barrel style shotgun magazines flash suppressors/  silencer  suppressors i call these things out or things like these because they are add ons for a very specific purpose, which is usually defense/tactical scenarios.  single pieces are useful in situations like hunting ie red dots sights but as a kit you would rarely see something with the above setup for any other purpose beyond defense/tactical situations.  and there is nothing wrong with that.  i am all for  military style  or  tactical  setups.  i can see a lot of use for them and see no reason to ban that stuff.  but you have to admit that something like this URL ar 0 i think that is an ar 0 in there setup has a  very  different purpose than a rem 0 URL  #  there are millions of ar0s in america in private hands, yet their use in overall gun crime is so insignificant.   #  your premise is flawed; you ca not draw a parallel between a fully automatic weapon and an f0.  i guarantee you that if those were available to the public, ownership would be limited to one or two, simply based on the fact that they cost millions or hundreds of millions of dollars.  this was what limited ownership of fully automatic weapons before the nfa.  the fact that many people could not justify the extra cost of automatic weapons was the driving factor.  you can manufacture or purchase explosives with a tax stamp and the right paperwork.  you  do not, i do.  i ca not see the point of big ass lifted  bro trucks, but i certainly do not try to limit the ability, nor want to, of people to have them.  and to be clear about  military  style weapons.  the amount of crime committed with them is so statistically irrelevant.  banning them is like banning cars because one guy drove his bugatti into a marsh.  there are millions of ar0s in america in private hands, yet their use in overall gun crime is so insignificant.   #  the argument here is  where should the line be drawn ?    # where is the flaw ? you did not really point anything out besides cost.  the argument here is  where should the line be drawn ?   and listed things that civilians just should not be able to own.  your average joe is not going to be able to do this without a pretty good reason.  if he can, point me to the process.  i ca not see the point of big ass lifted  bro trucks, but i certainly do not try to limit the ability, nor want to, of people to have them.  there is a bit of a difference between a machine gun and a lifted truck.  mind explaining your rational here ? because i am not.  here is my quote, with emphases on the part where the blind hate activated on  military style weapon :    the ability to own a semi auto military style gun  should be the acceptable line
i believe that short barrel rifles and firearm suppressors should be completely removed from the regulations of the national firearms act and it should be legal to produce/own machine guns made after 0.  i will go into my specific reasons below.  sbrs: i have yet to see a valid reason for the heavy regulations in place for short barrel rifles.  currently, this URL is considered a pistol and can be bought at any gun store with just a background check.  but this URL is considered an sbr and one must complete an onerous amount of paperwork to own one.  this makes no sense and sbrs should be treated like any other firearm.  suppressors: contrary to what video games tell you, suppressors do not make a firearm completely silent.  in fact, they only reduce the noise level from around 0 to 0 db.  their main purpose is to reduce hearing damage and noise pollution.  in fact, many countries in europe encourage if not require you to use one when hunting or shooting.  therefore, suppressors should not be a controlled item or only require a background check.  machine guns: as it currently stands, machine guns produced after 0 are illegal to own.  the only thing this does is drive up prices to an absurd degree a pre ban machine gun will cost you around $0,0 .  this ban should be lifted to allow more people a chance to own one.  keep in mind that since 0, only two murders have been committed with legally owned machine guns and one of those was by a police officer who are exempt from this ban anyway .   #  suppressors: contrary to what video games tell you, suppressors do not make a firearm completely silent.   #  in fact, they only reduce the noise level from around 0 to 0 db.   # in fact, they only reduce the noise level from around 0 to 0 db.  their main purpose is to reduce hearing damage and noise pollution.  in fact, many countries in europe encourage if not require you to use one when hunting or shooting.  therefore, suppressors should not be a controlled item or only require a background check.  it is my understanding that silencers change the lands and grooves of the bullet.  it makes matching a gun conclusively with a bullet impossible.  we need ballistics to solve murders.  the only thing this does is drive up prices to an absurd degree a pre ban machine gun will cost you around $0,0 .  this ban should be lifted to allow more people a chance to own one.  keep in mind that since 0, only two murders have been committed with legally owned machine guns and one of those was by a police officer who are exempt from this ban anyway .  so what you are saying is that bans in firearms save lives ? bans work.  nobody  needs  a machine gun.  people own them for fun or prestige.  is not the value of human lives saved by the ban worth taking away a little fun from a few collectors ? the bigger picture is that none of the items you listed serve any beneficial purpose to society.  they are fun for some gun collectors to own.  but beyond that, their presence is not positive.  their absence does save lives.  or at the very least it gives the majority of society the feeling of safety, even if you think it is an illusion.   #  there has to be a line somewhere, and right now the ability to own a semi auto military style gun should be the acceptable line.   # with a weapon i would kinda have to say yes.  should we be able to own an f 0 with missiles ? a b 0 with bombs ? a fully loaded tank ? c0 and other explosives ? there has to be a line somewhere, and right now the ability to own a semi auto military style gun should be the acceptable line.  i do not really see much reason that people would want to own one beyond the  cool factor .  or in the very least, make it so that it is just  extremely  heavily regulated.  the pre/post 0 line is a bit arbitrary, but that does not mean that it should ever be easy to get hold of one.   #  but you have to admit that something like this URL ar 0 i think that is an ar 0 in there setup has a  very  different purpose than a rem 0 URL  #  thank you for interpreting  military style  to mean  assault rifle  then giving me a powerpoint on why those assault weapon bans did not work.  because i am saying neither of those things.  i should have used the phrase  tactical .  even then you would probably be upset, even though you should not be because i am not saying we should ban them.  things i would classify as a  military style  or  tactical  weapon set up: pistol grips/forward grips/collapsible stock carbine/short barrels picatinny style rail mount systems laser/red dot/night sights/flashlights large 0 0  rifle magazines, barrel style shotgun magazines flash suppressors/  silencer  suppressors i call these things out or things like these because they are add ons for a very specific purpose, which is usually defense/tactical scenarios.  single pieces are useful in situations like hunting ie red dots sights but as a kit you would rarely see something with the above setup for any other purpose beyond defense/tactical situations.  and there is nothing wrong with that.  i am all for  military style  or  tactical  setups.  i can see a lot of use for them and see no reason to ban that stuff.  but you have to admit that something like this URL ar 0 i think that is an ar 0 in there setup has a  very  different purpose than a rem 0 URL  #  banning them is like banning cars because one guy drove his bugatti into a marsh.   #  your premise is flawed; you ca not draw a parallel between a fully automatic weapon and an f0.  i guarantee you that if those were available to the public, ownership would be limited to one or two, simply based on the fact that they cost millions or hundreds of millions of dollars.  this was what limited ownership of fully automatic weapons before the nfa.  the fact that many people could not justify the extra cost of automatic weapons was the driving factor.  you can manufacture or purchase explosives with a tax stamp and the right paperwork.  you  do not, i do.  i ca not see the point of big ass lifted  bro trucks, but i certainly do not try to limit the ability, nor want to, of people to have them.  and to be clear about  military  style weapons.  the amount of crime committed with them is so statistically irrelevant.  banning them is like banning cars because one guy drove his bugatti into a marsh.  there are millions of ar0s in america in private hands, yet their use in overall gun crime is so insignificant.   #  and listed things that civilians just should not be able to own.   # where is the flaw ? you did not really point anything out besides cost.  the argument here is  where should the line be drawn ?   and listed things that civilians just should not be able to own.  your average joe is not going to be able to do this without a pretty good reason.  if he can, point me to the process.  i ca not see the point of big ass lifted  bro trucks, but i certainly do not try to limit the ability, nor want to, of people to have them.  there is a bit of a difference between a machine gun and a lifted truck.  mind explaining your rational here ? because i am not.  here is my quote, with emphases on the part where the blind hate activated on  military style weapon :    the ability to own a semi auto military style gun  should be the acceptable line
i believe that short barrel rifles and firearm suppressors should be completely removed from the regulations of the national firearms act and it should be legal to produce/own machine guns made after 0.  i will go into my specific reasons below.  sbrs: i have yet to see a valid reason for the heavy regulations in place for short barrel rifles.  currently, this URL is considered a pistol and can be bought at any gun store with just a background check.  but this URL is considered an sbr and one must complete an onerous amount of paperwork to own one.  this makes no sense and sbrs should be treated like any other firearm.  suppressors: contrary to what video games tell you, suppressors do not make a firearm completely silent.  in fact, they only reduce the noise level from around 0 to 0 db.  their main purpose is to reduce hearing damage and noise pollution.  in fact, many countries in europe encourage if not require you to use one when hunting or shooting.  therefore, suppressors should not be a controlled item or only require a background check.  machine guns: as it currently stands, machine guns produced after 0 are illegal to own.  the only thing this does is drive up prices to an absurd degree a pre ban machine gun will cost you around $0,0 .  this ban should be lifted to allow more people a chance to own one.  keep in mind that since 0, only two murders have been committed with legally owned machine guns and one of those was by a police officer who are exempt from this ban anyway .   #  machine guns: as it currently stands, machine guns produced after 0 are illegal to own.   #  the only thing this does is drive up prices to an absurd degree a pre ban machine gun will cost you around $0,0 .   # in fact, they only reduce the noise level from around 0 to 0 db.  their main purpose is to reduce hearing damage and noise pollution.  in fact, many countries in europe encourage if not require you to use one when hunting or shooting.  therefore, suppressors should not be a controlled item or only require a background check.  it is my understanding that silencers change the lands and grooves of the bullet.  it makes matching a gun conclusively with a bullet impossible.  we need ballistics to solve murders.  the only thing this does is drive up prices to an absurd degree a pre ban machine gun will cost you around $0,0 .  this ban should be lifted to allow more people a chance to own one.  keep in mind that since 0, only two murders have been committed with legally owned machine guns and one of those was by a police officer who are exempt from this ban anyway .  so what you are saying is that bans in firearms save lives ? bans work.  nobody  needs  a machine gun.  people own them for fun or prestige.  is not the value of human lives saved by the ban worth taking away a little fun from a few collectors ? the bigger picture is that none of the items you listed serve any beneficial purpose to society.  they are fun for some gun collectors to own.  but beyond that, their presence is not positive.  their absence does save lives.  or at the very least it gives the majority of society the feeling of safety, even if you think it is an illusion.   #  should we be able to own an f 0 with missiles ?  # with a weapon i would kinda have to say yes.  should we be able to own an f 0 with missiles ? a b 0 with bombs ? a fully loaded tank ? c0 and other explosives ? there has to be a line somewhere, and right now the ability to own a semi auto military style gun should be the acceptable line.  i do not really see much reason that people would want to own one beyond the  cool factor .  or in the very least, make it so that it is just  extremely  heavily regulated.  the pre/post 0 line is a bit arbitrary, but that does not mean that it should ever be easy to get hold of one.   #  thank you for interpreting  military style  to mean  assault rifle  then giving me a powerpoint on why those assault weapon bans did not work.   #  thank you for interpreting  military style  to mean  assault rifle  then giving me a powerpoint on why those assault weapon bans did not work.  because i am saying neither of those things.  i should have used the phrase  tactical .  even then you would probably be upset, even though you should not be because i am not saying we should ban them.  things i would classify as a  military style  or  tactical  weapon set up: pistol grips/forward grips/collapsible stock carbine/short barrels picatinny style rail mount systems laser/red dot/night sights/flashlights large 0 0  rifle magazines, barrel style shotgun magazines flash suppressors/  silencer  suppressors i call these things out or things like these because they are add ons for a very specific purpose, which is usually defense/tactical scenarios.  single pieces are useful in situations like hunting ie red dots sights but as a kit you would rarely see something with the above setup for any other purpose beyond defense/tactical situations.  and there is nothing wrong with that.  i am all for  military style  or  tactical  setups.  i can see a lot of use for them and see no reason to ban that stuff.  but you have to admit that something like this URL ar 0 i think that is an ar 0 in there setup has a  very  different purpose than a rem 0 URL  #  the fact that many people could not justify the extra cost of automatic weapons was the driving factor.   #  your premise is flawed; you ca not draw a parallel between a fully automatic weapon and an f0.  i guarantee you that if those were available to the public, ownership would be limited to one or two, simply based on the fact that they cost millions or hundreds of millions of dollars.  this was what limited ownership of fully automatic weapons before the nfa.  the fact that many people could not justify the extra cost of automatic weapons was the driving factor.  you can manufacture or purchase explosives with a tax stamp and the right paperwork.  you  do not, i do.  i ca not see the point of big ass lifted  bro trucks, but i certainly do not try to limit the ability, nor want to, of people to have them.  and to be clear about  military  style weapons.  the amount of crime committed with them is so statistically irrelevant.  banning them is like banning cars because one guy drove his bugatti into a marsh.  there are millions of ar0s in america in private hands, yet their use in overall gun crime is so insignificant.   #  there is a bit of a difference between a machine gun and a lifted truck.   # where is the flaw ? you did not really point anything out besides cost.  the argument here is  where should the line be drawn ?   and listed things that civilians just should not be able to own.  your average joe is not going to be able to do this without a pretty good reason.  if he can, point me to the process.  i ca not see the point of big ass lifted  bro trucks, but i certainly do not try to limit the ability, nor want to, of people to have them.  there is a bit of a difference between a machine gun and a lifted truck.  mind explaining your rational here ? because i am not.  here is my quote, with emphases on the part where the blind hate activated on  military style weapon :    the ability to own a semi auto military style gun  should be the acceptable line
i am a 0 year old from croatia and i find no interest in politics.  all of the politicians seem corrupt to me and i simply can not approve any on them by giving them a single vote.  in croatia we mainly have a choice between two parties left and right which hold majority of votes.  voting for any other party seems pointless as they usually get only a few percent.  and i do not like any of the two main options.  we had both left and right party running the state in last 0 0 years and they have both equally disappointed me.  furthermore, very few people vote in out country, usually only about 0 of population that has the right to vote 0  .  it is absurd to me that this system is in place at all, i think that an election should be void if less than 0 of voting population votes.  i know this could mean that all elections become void if people do not start showing up.  i think that just goes to show how broken the system is, allowing for a relatively small amount of people to vote their party in leading position just because they are manipulated and/or pressured into voting.  i know that i am not making the situation any better by not voting, but i really do not like the system and do not want to give anybody my vote as i do not think they deserve it.  recently i had a talk with one of my friends she votes about the topic and i get her point of view, but i still ca not find a good enough reason to give a vote to someone that i think does not deserve it.  should i simply do some more research into other options besides two main parties and give my vote to one which aligns with my points of views the most ?  #  i do not like any of the two main options.   #  we had both left and right party running the state in last 0 0 years and they have both equally disappointed me.   # we had both left and right party running the state in last 0 0 years and they have both equally disappointed me.  but, at the very least, would not you want to vote for the lesser of two evils ? do you honestly believe that the two parties are so similar that not a single policy change is affected by having one or the other party in power ? it is the one time where politicians have to listen to you.  while corporations may contribute a lot to campaigns, they ultimately do not get a vote.  only the citizens do.  millionaires do not get more votes than the poor.  in the u. s. , ninety percent ninety percent ! of millionaires vote.  if you are not rich, you are doing your class a disservice by not voting.  and i am going to use the u. s.  as an example here again, b/c that is where i am from if every young person in the united states voted in every election, they would literally be the deciding voice in thousands of elections, instead of older generations who are not swayed by fallacies like  my vote does not make a difference.   if you are not voting, no one is hearing your voice, so they have no reason to represent you.   #  this is how fascist or extremist parties get into power.   #  people who are extremists tend to vote.  so the less ordinary people that choose to vote, the bigger the power of each extremists vote.  this is how fascist or extremist parties get into power.  also, if you vote for a minority party, you may encourage the main parties to start to take up all of their policies, even if that minority party never get into power.  furthermore, voting is not the only way to be political you can join pressure groups, and be active politically in many other ways.  what are you doing to change the situation in croatia ?  #  all of this seems rather time consuming and i would rather be spending my time doing something more useful i am a programmer .   #  all of this seems rather time consuming and i would rather be spending my time doing something more useful i am a programmer .  part of the problem might also be that i am not particularly patriotic.  big topics right now seem to be homosexual rights and marijuana legalization.  while those question are important, they just feel like a facade and a way to move people away from more important questions regarding economic crisis.  one you have got stable economy, you can start working on  0st world problems .  i have got to be careful here homosexual rights are a fundamental question about liberty, but honestly in croatia gay people have pretty much all the rights that everyone has, problem is mostly of legal nature marriages and so on, conflicts with church .  it seems like the politicians are just making distractions.   #  the third party may not win the next election, but if everyone took that view they never will.   #  you do not like the two main parties, and you are given the choice of a third.  unless people vote for a change you will never get one.  the third party may not win the next election, but if everyone took that view they never will.  getting a few percent, they will not change things, but getting 0 or 0 will make the other parties take notice.  if nothing changes then the only people to blame are those who did not bother to vote.   #  like, if you vote for a libertarian, you may be spoiling the chances of either a democrat b/c you are socially liberal or a republican b/c you are fiscally conservative .   #  this only applies if you favor one of the major parties over the other major party.  like, if you vote for a libertarian, you may be spoiling the chances of either a democrat b/c you are socially liberal or a republican b/c you are fiscally conservative .  but op says the two parties have  equally disappointed  him/her.  while i am skeptical of this assertion really ? you really do not think there is a lesser of two evils ? , if it is true then the spoiler effect does not apply.
i am a 0 year old from croatia and i find no interest in politics.  all of the politicians seem corrupt to me and i simply can not approve any on them by giving them a single vote.  in croatia we mainly have a choice between two parties left and right which hold majority of votes.  voting for any other party seems pointless as they usually get only a few percent.  and i do not like any of the two main options.  we had both left and right party running the state in last 0 0 years and they have both equally disappointed me.  furthermore, very few people vote in out country, usually only about 0 of population that has the right to vote 0  .  it is absurd to me that this system is in place at all, i think that an election should be void if less than 0 of voting population votes.  i know this could mean that all elections become void if people do not start showing up.  i think that just goes to show how broken the system is, allowing for a relatively small amount of people to vote their party in leading position just because they are manipulated and/or pressured into voting.  i know that i am not making the situation any better by not voting, but i really do not like the system and do not want to give anybody my vote as i do not think they deserve it.  recently i had a talk with one of my friends she votes about the topic and i get her point of view, but i still ca not find a good enough reason to give a vote to someone that i think does not deserve it.  should i simply do some more research into other options besides two main parties and give my vote to one which aligns with my points of views the most ?  #  in croatia we mainly have a choice between two parties left and right which hold majority of votes.   #  voting for any other party seems pointless as they usually get only a few percent.   # voting for any other party seems pointless as they usually get only a few percent.  if enough people pretend that this is not true and therefore vote for third parties , it actually becomes not true.  alternatively, just do the right thing and vote for a third party.  even if it does not change anything, now you at least have the ability to blame all the other people who did not vote third party.  you can say  i did my part, i am not the problem.   i hate the two party system in the us, and i go vote 0rd party every election even if i do not especially like them, it is more of a vote for breaking the two party system because i refuse to let myself be part of the problem.   #  also, if you vote for a minority party, you may encourage the main parties to start to take up all of their policies, even if that minority party never get into power.   #  people who are extremists tend to vote.  so the less ordinary people that choose to vote, the bigger the power of each extremists vote.  this is how fascist or extremist parties get into power.  also, if you vote for a minority party, you may encourage the main parties to start to take up all of their policies, even if that minority party never get into power.  furthermore, voting is not the only way to be political you can join pressure groups, and be active politically in many other ways.  what are you doing to change the situation in croatia ?  #  one you have got stable economy, you can start working on  0st world problems .   #  all of this seems rather time consuming and i would rather be spending my time doing something more useful i am a programmer .  part of the problem might also be that i am not particularly patriotic.  big topics right now seem to be homosexual rights and marijuana legalization.  while those question are important, they just feel like a facade and a way to move people away from more important questions regarding economic crisis.  one you have got stable economy, you can start working on  0st world problems .  i have got to be careful here homosexual rights are a fundamental question about liberty, but honestly in croatia gay people have pretty much all the rights that everyone has, problem is mostly of legal nature marriages and so on, conflicts with church .  it seems like the politicians are just making distractions.   #  unless people vote for a change you will never get one.   #  you do not like the two main parties, and you are given the choice of a third.  unless people vote for a change you will never get one.  the third party may not win the next election, but if everyone took that view they never will.  getting a few percent, they will not change things, but getting 0 or 0 will make the other parties take notice.  if nothing changes then the only people to blame are those who did not bother to vote.   #  you really do not think there is a lesser of two evils ?  #  this only applies if you favor one of the major parties over the other major party.  like, if you vote for a libertarian, you may be spoiling the chances of either a democrat b/c you are socially liberal or a republican b/c you are fiscally conservative .  but op says the two parties have  equally disappointed  him/her.  while i am skeptical of this assertion really ? you really do not think there is a lesser of two evils ? , if it is true then the spoiler effect does not apply.
i am a 0 year old from croatia and i find no interest in politics.  all of the politicians seem corrupt to me and i simply can not approve any on them by giving them a single vote.  in croatia we mainly have a choice between two parties left and right which hold majority of votes.  voting for any other party seems pointless as they usually get only a few percent.  and i do not like any of the two main options.  we had both left and right party running the state in last 0 0 years and they have both equally disappointed me.  furthermore, very few people vote in out country, usually only about 0 of population that has the right to vote 0  .  it is absurd to me that this system is in place at all, i think that an election should be void if less than 0 of voting population votes.  i know this could mean that all elections become void if people do not start showing up.  i think that just goes to show how broken the system is, allowing for a relatively small amount of people to vote their party in leading position just because they are manipulated and/or pressured into voting.  i know that i am not making the situation any better by not voting, but i really do not like the system and do not want to give anybody my vote as i do not think they deserve it.  recently i had a talk with one of my friends she votes about the topic and i get her point of view, but i still ca not find a good enough reason to give a vote to someone that i think does not deserve it.  should i simply do some more research into other options besides two main parties and give my vote to one which aligns with my points of views the most ?  #  i am a 0 year old from croatia and i find no interest in politics.   #  all of the politicians seem corrupt to me and i simply can not approve any on them by giving them a single vote.   # all of the politicians seem corrupt to me and i simply can not approve any on them by giving them a single vote.  by not voting you are actually approving  all  of them.  by voting for party x, you show interest in their programs.  politicians of the main parties will try to prevent the rise of a competitor by copying part of their program.  either way you shift the balance in your favor.  and what would happen then ? fact is, you are putting the bar too high.  your vote is not going to change the direction of the country on its own, unless you are a dictator.  so do not expect that.  the purpose of voting is to indicate which direction you want the country to go, not to arrive there immediately.   #  what are you doing to change the situation in croatia ?  #  people who are extremists tend to vote.  so the less ordinary people that choose to vote, the bigger the power of each extremists vote.  this is how fascist or extremist parties get into power.  also, if you vote for a minority party, you may encourage the main parties to start to take up all of their policies, even if that minority party never get into power.  furthermore, voting is not the only way to be political you can join pressure groups, and be active politically in many other ways.  what are you doing to change the situation in croatia ?  #  one you have got stable economy, you can start working on  0st world problems .   #  all of this seems rather time consuming and i would rather be spending my time doing something more useful i am a programmer .  part of the problem might also be that i am not particularly patriotic.  big topics right now seem to be homosexual rights and marijuana legalization.  while those question are important, they just feel like a facade and a way to move people away from more important questions regarding economic crisis.  one you have got stable economy, you can start working on  0st world problems .  i have got to be careful here homosexual rights are a fundamental question about liberty, but honestly in croatia gay people have pretty much all the rights that everyone has, problem is mostly of legal nature marriages and so on, conflicts with church .  it seems like the politicians are just making distractions.   #  getting a few percent, they will not change things, but getting 0 or 0 will make the other parties take notice.   #  you do not like the two main parties, and you are given the choice of a third.  unless people vote for a change you will never get one.  the third party may not win the next election, but if everyone took that view they never will.  getting a few percent, they will not change things, but getting 0 or 0 will make the other parties take notice.  if nothing changes then the only people to blame are those who did not bother to vote.   #  , if it is true then the spoiler effect does not apply.   #  this only applies if you favor one of the major parties over the other major party.  like, if you vote for a libertarian, you may be spoiling the chances of either a democrat b/c you are socially liberal or a republican b/c you are fiscally conservative .  but op says the two parties have  equally disappointed  him/her.  while i am skeptical of this assertion really ? you really do not think there is a lesser of two evils ? , if it is true then the spoiler effect does not apply.
i feel this to wrong.  for starters, i feel the death penalty itself to be wrong, but even more so for the mentally ill.  they have no say in their condition, and atrocities made by them are attributed to poor care and treatment for them.  they did not chose to be insane.  i think we should just send them to mental hospitals instead of killing them.  this would be a more logical choice, as we can account their human rights, and care for them to their specific needs.  if we are to do this instead, our society would be less fearing of them, but more accepting and wanting to outreach to them.   #  but even more so for the mentally ill.   #  they have no say in their condition, and atrocities made by them are attributed to poor care and treatment for them.   # they have no say in their condition, and atrocities made by them are attributed to poor care and treatment for them.  they did not chose to be insane.  can you create an objective scientific test that can weed out those making claims of mental illness to avoid the death penalty ? there is nothing objective such as a blood test for it.  it is your therapists  opinion  versus the state is therapist is opinion.  are you going to excuse everyone with any mental illness diagnosis ever in their life ? if i have a diagnosed eating disorder can i murder someone and escape death penalty ? eating disorders are a serious enough mental illness to be the most lethal mental illness.  what about those who at some point in their life might have gotten a diagnosis of phobia or anxiety or depression ? if i have post partum depression now and 0 years later i kill someone, i deserve a different penalty than the average person ? you are also taking responsibility away from them.  it means before the crime if they  refused  medication and  chose  not to stay in therapy, you are saying it is not their fault their behavior deteriorated.  also, i think what you are missing in the equation is the benefit the death sentence has on society and on the victims family.  it provides a sense of justice and closure.  it preferences some very aggressive and psychopathic people from killing again.  it may deter future crimes.  you may not like the idea of murdering a convicted killer, but i really do not like the idea of him committing murder on a completely innocent person.  i only oppose the death penalty because it is proven to cost far more in taxpayer money to execute than it does to lock him up forever.   #  they did not have a say in their life.   #  the problem is that there is no method to  cure  a person who is hardwired to kill other people.  all you are doing is wasting valuable resources on an incurable condition.  you say  they have no say in their condition , but that is also true for the people they killed.  they did not have a say in their life.  why is your sympathy focused on the killer, and not the victim and the family who deserve justice ? i do not really see how forcing people to pay for the housing, food, and medical care of convicted murderers is beneficial in any way to society.   #  what if my goal is to prevent people who have a serious illness from being killed for that illness ?  #  what if my goal is to prevent people who have a serious illness from being killed for that illness ? if, in doing so, some people with less serious illness end up imprisoned for life instead of killed, i still see that as a net positive.  i would rather spare some people who perhaps deserve to be executed than execute some people who deserve to live.  i do not see how any of your arguments hold water.  there is no economic benefit to society in executing a prisoner, providing  justice  to the victim and the victim is family is not the purpose of our criminal justice system, and because the term can be applied broadly does not devalue the proposition.  and besides, i absolutely take issue with your claim that  mentally ill  could apply to anyone.  there are very clear and diagnosable mental illnesses.   #  maybe that is not what the op meant, but how the hell can you tell when they only use the phrase  the mentally ill  ?  # indeed there are.  if you want to say that we should take that into consideration when sending someone through the legal system, well, we already do.  if you think that should be given more weight, that is something worth having a discussion about, and if you want people who are clearly diagnosed with specific disorders to be treated differently, that is fine too.  if you want to change how the law handles everyone with any type of disorder that affects their thoughts, emotions, or behavior in any way, that is ridiculous.  maybe that is not what the op meant, but how the hell can you tell when they only use the phrase  the mentally ill  ? the very fact that someone can honestly propose such a thing is ridiculous.  it is on the level of saying  i think we should punish people who do bad things  and failing to elaborate on what counts as a  bad thing.   i am not comfortable with the death penalty, but i am also uncomfortable with promoting the idea that anyone diagnosed with a disorder is some sort of potential murderer incapable of controlling their actions.   #  if someone cannot control their actions, understand what they are doing, or distinguish right from wrong, then they can plead not guilty by reason of insanity.   #  practically, i would agree that it is not worth executing anyone.  but assuming we ca not get that, i am not sure what i would want to change.  if someone cannot control their actions, understand what they are doing, or distinguish right from wrong, then they can plead not guilty by reason of insanity.  in addition, a defendant must be able to understand and actively participate in their own defense, or they can be judged incompetent to stand trial and committed until their condition improves.  now, maybe there is some problem with how these laws are applied in certain jurisdictions, i am not a legal expert, and if there is, that is something to be concerned about.  maybe the standards forensic psychologists use need to be changed.  but no one has said any specific changes they would like to see in this post yet.
it seems to me that there are two schools of thought on why people find certain physical characteristics beautiful and others unattractive.  the first view is that physical beauty and on the flip side, ugliness are products of biology.  in this reckoning, traits that are widely considered to be beautiful are said to convey biological information that sends signals about the evolutionary fitness of potential mates.  traits generally considered attractive in the west like symmetrical faces, clear skin, and six pack abs indicate that your children are likely to survive and thrive.  the other school of thought says that ideas of beauty are the product of social and cultural conditioning.  proponents of this view tend to argue that different societies and cultures sometimes prize very different physical traits, and that this is evidence that beauty is not a product of universal human biology.  i lean strongly towards the former view, but as with every subject, i am open to arguments to the contrary.   #  it seems to me that there are two schools of thought on why people find certain physical characteristics beautiful and others unattractive.   #  i highly doubt this is the case.   # i highly doubt this is the case.  i think everyone agrees that it is a bit of both.  it seems like you are arguing that standards for beauty are 0 biological.  how do you reconcile with the fact that standards of beauty are vastly different for some different cultures, and even the fact that standards of beautify have changed over time within cultures ? sure, things like healthy skin, clean teeth, symmetrical faces, etc. , are going to be essentially universal, aside from rare individual differences.  but once you go into more detailed traits even for something as seemingly basic as body shape then you start to see the differences in beauty arise across different cultures and different time periods.  so clearly it is not 0 biological or 0 cultural.  we can all agree on what individual things are universal/biological and what things are relative/cultural.  we probably agree that facial symmetry is biological and the body shape is cultural.  our difference is in how we quantify the evidence to determine exactly what percentage of standards are biological versus cultural.  our difference is in how we determine if facial symmetry is more important than body shape, etc.  however, this seems like a pointless exercise.  if we both agree with what the evidence shows, then why does it matter if we interpret/quantify the evidence as  mostly biological  or  mostly cultural  ?  #  assuming that beauty is in fact cultural rather than biological, which is the question we would be attempting to get evidence on.   # for instance given 0 different features at 0 different settings each you can have 0 pictures with all possible combinations, each rated independently.  how many characteristics would you attempt to control for ? although human faces are things that we all recognize rather easily, they are made up of innumerable individual characteristics.  and within those innumerable individual characteristics, some characteristics may both generally be considered attractive but incompatible in tandem.  to take an analogous example, i like fried chicken and i like chocolate sauce, but i definitely would not want them together.  assuming that beauty is in fact cultural rather than biological, which is the question we would be attempting to get evidence on.   #  the lack of statistical differences would be attributable to biology.   # obviously you do not control for everything, just major things jaw definition/size, cheekbone separation/definition, eye separation/shape, nose size/shape, hair texture/hairline .  also you can assume certain things that which is exactly why the  combinations  are being rated  independently , not the individual aspects.  it is not  rather , its a combination.  they would all be different regressions.  period.  they are different data sets so they would have different confidence intervals, different coefficient values, etc.  even if they were of the same form.  analyzing if those differences are statistically significant would get you what you want.  those statistical differences would be the attributes that you can attribute to culture.  the lack of statistical differences would be attributable to biology.  this assumes biology and culture are independent of each other; the gene pool differences do not influence what people find attractive.  otherwise due to in group breeding within cultural groups you would have massive problems distinguishing if the difference was cultural or simply because of the different gene pool in which case it could still be biological .   #  i do not think it has to be a binary choice of one or the other.   #  i do not think it has to be a binary choice of one or the other.  i think instinctively we choose mates based on biology but we seek our mates based on cultural conditioning.  if you deny culture is effect then how do you explain that different cultures have had different ideal mates at different times ? for example: in many older western cultures being pale was desirable as it meant that you were not working all day in the sun, while today being tan is the most desirable.  therefore i would say that culture definitely influences how we perceive certain traits.  if it did not, and mates were chosen solely by biology then everyone would seek out the same mate, because they would be the most biologically desirable.   #  i do not necessarily agree that the most recent winner would have been considered unattractive in the time of the 0 winner.   #  i do not necessarily agree that the most recent winner would have been considered unattractive in the time of the 0 winner.  i will provide an interesting analogy that i would like your reaction to: in the days of chattel slavery in the united states, there were strong, strong social norms against so called  miscegenation,  meaning inter racial sexual intercourse.  the beauty norms of the day, unsurprisingly, stressed characteristics that we would associate with white women while degrading the characteristics of black women.  this norm was, however, routinely violated, and virtually all african americans who are the descendants of american slaves have some european genetic ancestry because of this.  clearly, although the planter classes of the old south lived in a society where black feminine features were not only considered ugly but where interracial sex was incredibly taboo, they had no problem having sexual relations with female slaves.  if perceptions of beauty really are cultural, would not they have behaved differently ?
i am only aware of one reason that would prevent some one from being an organ donor, and that is religious.  i am absolutely ok with people being given the choice to opt out of being an organ donor though part of me really thinks it should be mandatory or something , however, those people then surely cannot expect to be an equal priority to receive organs.  it just seems so unfair to me.  i would love to hear from any one.  it would be especially interesting to hear from some one who has chosen not to be an organ donor, but would be ok with receiving an organ if necessary.  thanks cmv ! i still believe that anyone unwilling to donate their organs after their death is some what selfish and that we need to make the organ donation system an opt out one.  but no one can play god and deny health care to any one, no matter how selfish they are.  cheers cmv !  #  i am only aware of one reason that would prevent some one from being an organ donor, and that is religious.   #  fear of people  not trying as hard to save you if you are dying . when they know you are an organ donor and someone they know or someone nearby needs an organ.   # fear of people  not trying as hard to save you if you are dying . when they know you are an organ donor and someone they know or someone nearby needs an organ.  it just seems so unfair to me.  if i am giving something away that is mine especially my organs , i do not want someone else telling me who i am allowed to give to.  i certainly would not want to deliberately punish non donors  potentially with death  simply because they do not feel right giving.  many people in this world live a life of self protection because they do not expect anyone else to really care about them.  why would i further reinforce this fear by proving to exactly those same people that  yes, indeed, they are right no one cares  ? often times people can be changed, can become more compassionate and outreaching, simply because someone did something meaningful for them.  i would want to be part of that kind of life story. certainly rather than a story of sick poetic irony that someone who  did not put a sticker on their driver is license  got to die because they now listed farther down than someone who is  on the list but it is not a fatal situation.    #  the additional people that sign up are largely going to be people that know they need a new organ and want to be bumped up the list.   #  organ donations should go to those that have the highest medical need.  if you create a system whereby people are not on the list or at the bottom of the list, for non medical reasons, you are going to have people dying unnecessarily.  a counter would possibly be that more people would sign up and counter balance the inefficiency and deaths but i would disagree.  people tend put themselves on the organ donor list to want to help people in some way, not with the expectation of a reward.  the additional people that sign up are largely going to be people that know they need a new organ and want to be bumped up the list.  does your view extend to blood donation and blood shortages ?  #  so it seems like there is much more slack that they were able to take up on the perception side.   #  interesting article ! if i were to try and produce a counter; it seems to me that the primary driver of the increase was the campaign by religious leaders to dispel the perception that organ transplanting was against jewish law.  wikipedia says the rate of agreement to organ donation in israel is only 0, compared to 0 in most western countries.  so it seems like there is much more slack that they were able to take up on the perception side.  organ donators are only 0 of israel is population so the entire religious campaign and incentives only convinced 0 of the population to change.  feels a bit disappointing to incorporate non medical considerations into the system for such a weak benefit.   #  i was not saying it was an insignificant amount, i was saying it was a disappointingly small gain given the lengths they went through and more importantly what they gave up.   #  i think you missed what i was meaning.  i was not saying it was an insignificant amount, i was saying it was a disappointingly small gain given the lengths they went through and more importantly what they gave up.  i mentioned the % of the population that organ donators because the lower the value is the less impressive a 0 increase in the rate of donations is.  they only managed to change the views of 0 in 0 people.  if you have a population of 0 organ donors and have a 0 increase in the rate of donation you are looking at 0 of the population convinced, or 0 in 0, which is far more impressive.   #  they could never receive a transplant and eventually die.   # what ? surely that ca not be right.  ca not check the link as it seems to be down ? definitely not agreeing with that leap.  if 0 are dying it does not mean the 0 are having their needs met, it just means they are still alive.  they could never receive a transplant and eventually die.  not all those than need organs are necessarily going to die as well.  some need a new kidney, or cataracts, etc.  if you look at the stats for kidney transplants here URL you have 0,0 awaiting a kidney transplant.  only 0,0 of them died waiting for a transplant 0 in a year.  according to the source you have 0,0 people added to the transplant list annually and only 0,0 transplant operations.  so that means you need to increase organ donations by 0 just the keep up with current demand.  you will still have 0k people waiting though.
i am only aware of one reason that would prevent some one from being an organ donor, and that is religious.  i am absolutely ok with people being given the choice to opt out of being an organ donor though part of me really thinks it should be mandatory or something , however, those people then surely cannot expect to be an equal priority to receive organs.  it just seems so unfair to me.  i would love to hear from any one.  it would be especially interesting to hear from some one who has chosen not to be an organ donor, but would be ok with receiving an organ if necessary.  thanks cmv ! i still believe that anyone unwilling to donate their organs after their death is some what selfish and that we need to make the organ donation system an opt out one.  but no one can play god and deny health care to any one, no matter how selfish they are.  cheers cmv !  #  those people then surely cannot expect to be an equal priority to receive organs.   #  it just seems so unfair to me.   # fear of people  not trying as hard to save you if you are dying . when they know you are an organ donor and someone they know or someone nearby needs an organ.  it just seems so unfair to me.  if i am giving something away that is mine especially my organs , i do not want someone else telling me who i am allowed to give to.  i certainly would not want to deliberately punish non donors  potentially with death  simply because they do not feel right giving.  many people in this world live a life of self protection because they do not expect anyone else to really care about them.  why would i further reinforce this fear by proving to exactly those same people that  yes, indeed, they are right no one cares  ? often times people can be changed, can become more compassionate and outreaching, simply because someone did something meaningful for them.  i would want to be part of that kind of life story. certainly rather than a story of sick poetic irony that someone who  did not put a sticker on their driver is license  got to die because they now listed farther down than someone who is  on the list but it is not a fatal situation.    #  organ donations should go to those that have the highest medical need.   #  organ donations should go to those that have the highest medical need.  if you create a system whereby people are not on the list or at the bottom of the list, for non medical reasons, you are going to have people dying unnecessarily.  a counter would possibly be that more people would sign up and counter balance the inefficiency and deaths but i would disagree.  people tend put themselves on the organ donor list to want to help people in some way, not with the expectation of a reward.  the additional people that sign up are largely going to be people that know they need a new organ and want to be bumped up the list.  does your view extend to blood donation and blood shortages ?  #  wikipedia says the rate of agreement to organ donation in israel is only 0, compared to 0 in most western countries.   #  interesting article ! if i were to try and produce a counter; it seems to me that the primary driver of the increase was the campaign by religious leaders to dispel the perception that organ transplanting was against jewish law.  wikipedia says the rate of agreement to organ donation in israel is only 0, compared to 0 in most western countries.  so it seems like there is much more slack that they were able to take up on the perception side.  organ donators are only 0 of israel is population so the entire religious campaign and incentives only convinced 0 of the population to change.  feels a bit disappointing to incorporate non medical considerations into the system for such a weak benefit.   #  they only managed to change the views of 0 in 0 people.   #  i think you missed what i was meaning.  i was not saying it was an insignificant amount, i was saying it was a disappointingly small gain given the lengths they went through and more importantly what they gave up.  i mentioned the % of the population that organ donators because the lower the value is the less impressive a 0 increase in the rate of donations is.  they only managed to change the views of 0 in 0 people.  if you have a population of 0 organ donors and have a 0 increase in the rate of donation you are looking at 0 of the population convinced, or 0 in 0, which is far more impressive.   #  according to the source you have 0,0 people added to the transplant list annually and only 0,0 transplant operations.   # what ? surely that ca not be right.  ca not check the link as it seems to be down ? definitely not agreeing with that leap.  if 0 are dying it does not mean the 0 are having their needs met, it just means they are still alive.  they could never receive a transplant and eventually die.  not all those than need organs are necessarily going to die as well.  some need a new kidney, or cataracts, etc.  if you look at the stats for kidney transplants here URL you have 0,0 awaiting a kidney transplant.  only 0,0 of them died waiting for a transplant 0 in a year.  according to the source you have 0,0 people added to the transplant list annually and only 0,0 transplant operations.  so that means you need to increase organ donations by 0 just the keep up with current demand.  you will still have 0k people waiting though.
a few weeks ago i attended a thanksgiving dinner at a local church.  although it is not an event i would normally attend, i went to be polite since i was invited by several members.  before the meal and the prayer, the leader of the church asked that everyone stand for the pledge of allegiance.  during this moment, i could not help but thinking that the pledge, and patriotism in general, meets the criteria for idolatry.  afterall, you are pledging your allegiance to a peice of fabric and the fact that you add your gods name in it as if he has some sort of stake in your geographic location seems quite vain and insulting.  those who have read the bible know how severe idolotry is.  it is perhaps the greatest insult to your god if you are a follower of an abrahamic religion.  after the pledge, the pastor told all veterans to go first to get their food.  again, it struck me as odd, because by joining the military you are accepting that you may have to kill another person who believes in the same god as you for unjust reasons and for your country which is just a bunch or arbitrary lines in the sand .  by joining the military you are putting country first.  you are putting it before your god and before his other children who he tells you to love.  it is just so interesting to me because the trend seems to be that the people who are most patriotic also seem to claim themselves as quite religious at least in the us  #  fact that you add your gods name in it as if he has some sort of stake in your geographic location seems quite vain and insulting.   #  he does have a stake in our nation.   # no where in the statement do you claim the nation or the flag is divine.  he does have a stake in our nation.  as followers of abrahamic religions believe that he has a stake in every nation.  the  under god  phrase does not suggest a kind of divine favoritism, but rather a recognition that the nation must conform to the will of its creator.  seems the opposite of idolatry.  this is a different topic so i will save it for someone else.  you can be patriotic and a pacifist.   #  additionally, and i failed to point this out before, but the op is about all abrahamic religions, not just christianity.   # that is basically the point of every single letter paul ever wrote, which makes up the bulk of the new testament.  christians do not follow  all  laws from the old testament, but they follow some.  if they did not follow any, than the ten commandments would not apply, and this whole conversation would be moot.  additionally, and i failed to point this out before, but the op is about all abrahamic religions, not just christianity.  obviously judaism follows the laws of moses, but the books of the  torah  are also viewed as divine in christianity and islam.   #  they had symbols of their nation state, like the ark of the covenant, and they fought wars in the name of their country.   #  you do not get to just make up the definition of  worship.   the biblical hebrews were israelites who had a defined nation that they protected.  they had symbols of their nation state, like the ark of the covenant, and they fought wars in the name of their country.  moses and joshua, main characters in the pentateuch, fought wars on the behalf of israel and were not punished for it, even though their god did punish people directly all of the time.  if the people who ostensibly wrote down the rules did not consider that  worship  or idolatry then i do not know why we should.   #  i personally do not believe in god but if you are interested in the topic i do think you should read the entire bible because it is an interesting cultural book.   #  allegiance to a country is not the same as worship.  even jesus was a citizen.  his parents were part of a census and he preached that people should pay taxes.  in addition god had no innate problem with war or with kings kings generally require you to pledge to them .  if david can be a  christian  quotes because it is pre christ then anyone can be.  he was a pretty horrible person and god still accepted him completely.  i personally do not believe in god but if you are interested in the topic i do think you should read the entire bible because it is an interesting cultural book.   #  however, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel.   #  in matthew 0:0 0 there is a story where some tax collectors ask peter whether or not jesus pays taxes.  peter instinctively responds yes, but later jesus challenges him a bit.  he said,  yes.  and when he came into the house, jesus spoke to him first, saying,  what do you think, simon ? from whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax ? from their sons or from others ? and when he said,  from others,  jesus said to him,  then the sons are free.  however, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel.  take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.
in a country of more than 0,0,0 i believe it makes sense to have a committee of 0  presidents  who share executive power.  this would allow for expanded expertise in various areas; a diversity of opinion; lack of a convenient scapegoat forcing real solutions; allow for greater communication with other nations; limit job related fatigue; and limit the effectiveness of assassination as a political endeavor.  clearly, one can say the cabinet does this already, but they do not have full presidential authority.  one could say infighting could be a problem but i say it is actually a feature, because it can generate better solutions.  on the question of the military, there are many ways of providing clear orders to the troops and the pentagon, and i wo not claim to know the best one.  on contradictory executive orders, nullification again is a feature, since it reflects diversity of opinion.  as to election method, every citizen gets to vote for his or her full committee of choice.  five votes to pick five presidents.  the five most popular are elected.  how is the current system better in any way ?  #  one could say infighting could be a problem but i say it is actually a feature, because it can generate better solutions.   #  kinda like how congress is just so productive at the moment ?  # kinda like how congress is just so productive at the moment ? or how they create  better solutions  ? no, all we end up with for the most part is either nothing getting done or compromised legislation to the point where it does almost more harm than good.  case in point, we can barely pass a budget for the us right now without throwing caveats, riders, pork and other crap in so both sides of the isle are pleased.  could you imagine if something passed how a presidential committee would handle it ? line item vetoes back and forth, bickering about sending it back for addendums, arguing over if it is actually good or not.  we would never get anything passed.  reaction time is also pretty important.  the reason we have one person in command is so when it comes down to the wire on making a decision then one person has the say on it.  taking the time to gather up a committee of people to discuss and make a decision could end badly if time is limited.   #  say president 0, 0 ,0, 0, and 0 all are required to give themselves ranks on different issues.   #  on the contrary, i believe it would alleviate some of the gridlock in congress, because a bipartisan approach would be  required  in order to pass anything.  it would get the two sides working together more often because nothing they like would ever happen without working with the other side.  it might take them some time to learn that coming out of the current system.  with respect to fast reaction time, there are many possibilities, which are the reason i said that i do not pretend to know the best one.  all of them seem better than the current scapegoat based system, though, because the chain of command can be made clear.  say president 0, 0 ,0, 0, and 0 all are required to give themselves ranks on different issues.  president 0 is the highest rank on the military.  president 0 is the highest rank for peacetime negotiations.  etc.  it is not hard to come up with a dozen different ways to solve these problems.   #  how many do we need to make a call ?  # then absolutely nothing would ever get done.  where have you been for the last 0 years or so ? bipartisan action is required just to get to the singular president today to consider signing and they ca not even do that.  now you want to add  another  layer of bipartisan cooperation to get something passed ? fat chance.  except with a committee you are adding another layer of complexity to the chain of command.  right now if we ca not get hold of the pres it goes to vp, then speaker, etc.  with several presidents, can we make a decision without all of them ? how many do we need to make a call ? if a call is made with only a few and the others later disagree what then ? it is asking for a mess.  this would simply never happen.  i would not even bother considering it as a hypothetical.  it is though.  equal office of the president means equal share in responsibility and decision making.  it is not a trivial solution to have them  rank themselves  or whatnot to get something done in a pinch.   #  this voting system wo not produce diversity of opinion anyway.   #  we already have what you are talking about.  it is called congress.  and the diversity of opinion does not really produce better solutions.  five votes to pick five presidents.  the five most popular are elected.  how is the current system better in any way ? this voting system wo not produce diversity of opinion anyway.  let is say 0 of the country have decided to vote democrat this year most people vote based on party .  now you have five democrats as president instead of one.  very few people would split their votes between parties.   #  look, we have a system that works pretty well right now.   #  it is not a good idea to have a diversity of opinion when to comes to the executive power.  the executive is not really supposed to decide much and is not supposed to have power over other branches of government.  really, adding more people to the executive branch simply creates a scapegoats namely the other executive you ca not force to go along with you, hinders diplomacy by allowing two people to say contradictory things or to pursue mutually exclusive goals, and otherwise turns a simple decision making process into a significantly more difficult one.  how would we field enough candidates that i would like to make me want to vote for five guys ? i would be much less likely to keep track of ten or fifteen candidates than i would be for two.  why would i be interested enough to care to cast half a dozen votes for a committee that has ill defined roles ? look, we have a system that works pretty well right now.  not the best ever, but the president is not the part of the government malfunctioning at the moment.  messing with the structure of the presidency rather than working on the currently struggling congress or actually properly defining the role of the supreme court instead of relying on the traditional  it works because i say it does  basically reforming anything so basic it requires a fundamental rewrite of the constitution is a huge step.  if we get that far then there are a lot more that needs work before we start potentially breaking a branch of government that works comparatively well.
requiring a doctor is note has the adverse effect of putting unnecessary strain on the healthcare industry.  when you make people go to the clinic or emergency room when they do not need to be there; the following things happen: 0.  they spread common ailments that do not require treatment.  0.  they increase waiting times for patients that actually need the help and take up space that hospitals do not have.  0.  they hinder recovery by placing the sick individual in a suboptimal environment.  there is a real chance that lives have been lost as a direct result of these factors, such as passing on an otherwise benign sickness to an immunocompromised patient or taking the space of someone needing treatment until it is too late.  i believe that there is not enough to be gained from requiring a doctor to verify that an absence is legitimate.  other controls designed to curb abuse from absenteeism exist such as having a set number of sick or vacation days .  even if these controls are objectively worse from a productivity standpoint; they more than make up for the human cost of placing an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system.   #  they spread common ailments that do not require treatment.   #  getting a note from your doctor does not spread common ailments.   # getting a note from your doctor does not spread common ailments.  if you have a common ailment that does not require treatment, what are you doing taking up space in the hospital ? go to a clinic or a doctor; these places are perfectly able to prioritize care based on need.  you mean a doctor is office is an environment that hinders recovery ? medical workers prioritize care.  they are not going to make the heart attack victim wait on your sniffles.  it prevents the abuse of trust.  if your ailment is so debilitating that you cannot work, why not see a doctor ? is our healthcare system  really  burdened by people requesting notes ? where do you get this information ?  #  these people would never ever have to get a note because they would be out less then the 0 days.   #  i worked for a school district for about 0 years as a full time year round employee working in it .  we got 0 sick days a year.  these would accrue year to year up to a max of 0.  that was on top of vacation and personal time, that was only to be used for when you were sick.  we had to get a doctors note if we had 0 days in a row out or more.  this did not come up for me once in 0 years.  the majority of illnesses are going to pass in about 0 0 days or if you hit a weekend in there you can be out up to 0 days easy without needing to do anything other then send in an email saying you are out sick.  this means you can be out literally 0 of the work days for a year.  which we had people do.  people who were healthy but had a cold on either friday or monday every other week sometimes both ! .  these people would never ever have to get a note because they would be out less then the 0 days.  if you are sick for more then 0 days, honestly you should go see a doctor because it might actually be serious.  i have never seen a work place require a doctors note for less then 0 days of sickness, including having worked many minimum wage jobs.   #  if you actually are ill universities will not count a missed test or exam against your score, but mark you on your other work throughout the year.   #  universities mostly require one to make sure you are not cheating.  if you actually are ill universities will not count a missed test or exam against your score, but mark you on your other work throughout the year.  if you could just  say  you are ill people who did not study or fear flunking a test or exam would use that chance and just coast through it that way.  this would not be fair against those students who actually studied or sit the test anyway.  up excused a scenes zero on test is the only way this can be fair.   #  your argument that some people have died because of the policy is countered by the argument that some people who would otherwise not go to the doc discovered that they were sicker than they realized, and were saved.   #  obviously, these measures were put into place because people were abusing the honor system.  very few employers require them for  normal  absences but might when the absence occurs after a holiday or other  suspicious  absences.  they are also typically required for fmla covered extended absences.  the biggest flaw in your reasoning is that if someone is sick, they should not be in a place with sick people.  most employers believe that if you are  reasonably  healthy, you should work.  if you are so sick that you ca not work, then your recovery may be aided by seeing a doctor.  your argument that some people have died because of the policy is countered by the argument that some people who would otherwise not go to the doc discovered that they were sicker than they realized, and were saved.  but the bottom line if you do not like an employer is sick time policy, do not work there.  if enough people find it oppressive, they will have problems hiring people.  otherwise, it is just part of the terms of employment.   #  do you have any source to back this idea up ?  # most employers believe that if you are  reasonably  healthy, you should work.  if you are so sick that you ca not work, then your recovery may be aided by seeing a doctor.  surely you do not believe that the events  ca not work  and  need medical attention  overlap completely.  food poisoning comes to mind, as do most viral infections viruses usually are not curable .  if this is true it is an excellent point and i will probably reconsider my view, but i have a hard time believing it to be true.  do you have any source to back this idea up ? if enough people find it oppressive, they will have problems hiring people.  otherwise, it is just part of the terms of employment.  the point of the argument is that people will still work there, and those people may still be a burden on the healthcare system.
requiring a doctor is note has the adverse effect of putting unnecessary strain on the healthcare industry.  when you make people go to the clinic or emergency room when they do not need to be there; the following things happen: 0.  they spread common ailments that do not require treatment.  0.  they increase waiting times for patients that actually need the help and take up space that hospitals do not have.  0.  they hinder recovery by placing the sick individual in a suboptimal environment.  there is a real chance that lives have been lost as a direct result of these factors, such as passing on an otherwise benign sickness to an immunocompromised patient or taking the space of someone needing treatment until it is too late.  i believe that there is not enough to be gained from requiring a doctor to verify that an absence is legitimate.  other controls designed to curb abuse from absenteeism exist such as having a set number of sick or vacation days .  even if these controls are objectively worse from a productivity standpoint; they more than make up for the human cost of placing an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system.   #  they increase waiting times for patients that actually need the help and take up space that hospitals do not have.   #  if you have a common ailment that does not require treatment, what are you doing taking up space in the hospital ?  # getting a note from your doctor does not spread common ailments.  if you have a common ailment that does not require treatment, what are you doing taking up space in the hospital ? go to a clinic or a doctor; these places are perfectly able to prioritize care based on need.  you mean a doctor is office is an environment that hinders recovery ? medical workers prioritize care.  they are not going to make the heart attack victim wait on your sniffles.  it prevents the abuse of trust.  if your ailment is so debilitating that you cannot work, why not see a doctor ? is our healthcare system  really  burdened by people requesting notes ? where do you get this information ?  #  this means you can be out literally 0 of the work days for a year.   #  i worked for a school district for about 0 years as a full time year round employee working in it .  we got 0 sick days a year.  these would accrue year to year up to a max of 0.  that was on top of vacation and personal time, that was only to be used for when you were sick.  we had to get a doctors note if we had 0 days in a row out or more.  this did not come up for me once in 0 years.  the majority of illnesses are going to pass in about 0 0 days or if you hit a weekend in there you can be out up to 0 days easy without needing to do anything other then send in an email saying you are out sick.  this means you can be out literally 0 of the work days for a year.  which we had people do.  people who were healthy but had a cold on either friday or monday every other week sometimes both ! .  these people would never ever have to get a note because they would be out less then the 0 days.  if you are sick for more then 0 days, honestly you should go see a doctor because it might actually be serious.  i have never seen a work place require a doctors note for less then 0 days of sickness, including having worked many minimum wage jobs.   #  if you actually are ill universities will not count a missed test or exam against your score, but mark you on your other work throughout the year.   #  universities mostly require one to make sure you are not cheating.  if you actually are ill universities will not count a missed test or exam against your score, but mark you on your other work throughout the year.  if you could just  say  you are ill people who did not study or fear flunking a test or exam would use that chance and just coast through it that way.  this would not be fair against those students who actually studied or sit the test anyway.  up excused a scenes zero on test is the only way this can be fair.   #  they are also typically required for fmla covered extended absences.   #  obviously, these measures were put into place because people were abusing the honor system.  very few employers require them for  normal  absences but might when the absence occurs after a holiday or other  suspicious  absences.  they are also typically required for fmla covered extended absences.  the biggest flaw in your reasoning is that if someone is sick, they should not be in a place with sick people.  most employers believe that if you are  reasonably  healthy, you should work.  if you are so sick that you ca not work, then your recovery may be aided by seeing a doctor.  your argument that some people have died because of the policy is countered by the argument that some people who would otherwise not go to the doc discovered that they were sicker than they realized, and were saved.  but the bottom line if you do not like an employer is sick time policy, do not work there.  if enough people find it oppressive, they will have problems hiring people.  otherwise, it is just part of the terms of employment.   #  otherwise, it is just part of the terms of employment.   # most employers believe that if you are  reasonably  healthy, you should work.  if you are so sick that you ca not work, then your recovery may be aided by seeing a doctor.  surely you do not believe that the events  ca not work  and  need medical attention  overlap completely.  food poisoning comes to mind, as do most viral infections viruses usually are not curable .  if this is true it is an excellent point and i will probably reconsider my view, but i have a hard time believing it to be true.  do you have any source to back this idea up ? if enough people find it oppressive, they will have problems hiring people.  otherwise, it is just part of the terms of employment.  the point of the argument is that people will still work there, and those people may still be a burden on the healthcare system.
requiring a doctor is note has the adverse effect of putting unnecessary strain on the healthcare industry.  when you make people go to the clinic or emergency room when they do not need to be there; the following things happen: 0.  they spread common ailments that do not require treatment.  0.  they increase waiting times for patients that actually need the help and take up space that hospitals do not have.  0.  they hinder recovery by placing the sick individual in a suboptimal environment.  there is a real chance that lives have been lost as a direct result of these factors, such as passing on an otherwise benign sickness to an immunocompromised patient or taking the space of someone needing treatment until it is too late.  i believe that there is not enough to be gained from requiring a doctor to verify that an absence is legitimate.  other controls designed to curb abuse from absenteeism exist such as having a set number of sick or vacation days .  even if these controls are objectively worse from a productivity standpoint; they more than make up for the human cost of placing an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system.   #  they hinder recovery by placing the sick individual in a suboptimal environment.   #  you mean a doctor is office is an environment that hinders recovery ?  # getting a note from your doctor does not spread common ailments.  if you have a common ailment that does not require treatment, what are you doing taking up space in the hospital ? go to a clinic or a doctor; these places are perfectly able to prioritize care based on need.  you mean a doctor is office is an environment that hinders recovery ? medical workers prioritize care.  they are not going to make the heart attack victim wait on your sniffles.  it prevents the abuse of trust.  if your ailment is so debilitating that you cannot work, why not see a doctor ? is our healthcare system  really  burdened by people requesting notes ? where do you get this information ?  #  this did not come up for me once in 0 years.   #  i worked for a school district for about 0 years as a full time year round employee working in it .  we got 0 sick days a year.  these would accrue year to year up to a max of 0.  that was on top of vacation and personal time, that was only to be used for when you were sick.  we had to get a doctors note if we had 0 days in a row out or more.  this did not come up for me once in 0 years.  the majority of illnesses are going to pass in about 0 0 days or if you hit a weekend in there you can be out up to 0 days easy without needing to do anything other then send in an email saying you are out sick.  this means you can be out literally 0 of the work days for a year.  which we had people do.  people who were healthy but had a cold on either friday or monday every other week sometimes both ! .  these people would never ever have to get a note because they would be out less then the 0 days.  if you are sick for more then 0 days, honestly you should go see a doctor because it might actually be serious.  i have never seen a work place require a doctors note for less then 0 days of sickness, including having worked many minimum wage jobs.   #  this would not be fair against those students who actually studied or sit the test anyway.   #  universities mostly require one to make sure you are not cheating.  if you actually are ill universities will not count a missed test or exam against your score, but mark you on your other work throughout the year.  if you could just  say  you are ill people who did not study or fear flunking a test or exam would use that chance and just coast through it that way.  this would not be fair against those students who actually studied or sit the test anyway.  up excused a scenes zero on test is the only way this can be fair.   #  the biggest flaw in your reasoning is that if someone is sick, they should not be in a place with sick people.   #  obviously, these measures were put into place because people were abusing the honor system.  very few employers require them for  normal  absences but might when the absence occurs after a holiday or other  suspicious  absences.  they are also typically required for fmla covered extended absences.  the biggest flaw in your reasoning is that if someone is sick, they should not be in a place with sick people.  most employers believe that if you are  reasonably  healthy, you should work.  if you are so sick that you ca not work, then your recovery may be aided by seeing a doctor.  your argument that some people have died because of the policy is countered by the argument that some people who would otherwise not go to the doc discovered that they were sicker than they realized, and were saved.  but the bottom line if you do not like an employer is sick time policy, do not work there.  if enough people find it oppressive, they will have problems hiring people.  otherwise, it is just part of the terms of employment.   #  do you have any source to back this idea up ?  # most employers believe that if you are  reasonably  healthy, you should work.  if you are so sick that you ca not work, then your recovery may be aided by seeing a doctor.  surely you do not believe that the events  ca not work  and  need medical attention  overlap completely.  food poisoning comes to mind, as do most viral infections viruses usually are not curable .  if this is true it is an excellent point and i will probably reconsider my view, but i have a hard time believing it to be true.  do you have any source to back this idea up ? if enough people find it oppressive, they will have problems hiring people.  otherwise, it is just part of the terms of employment.  the point of the argument is that people will still work there, and those people may still be a burden on the healthcare system.
requiring a doctor is note has the adverse effect of putting unnecessary strain on the healthcare industry.  when you make people go to the clinic or emergency room when they do not need to be there; the following things happen: 0.  they spread common ailments that do not require treatment.  0.  they increase waiting times for patients that actually need the help and take up space that hospitals do not have.  0.  they hinder recovery by placing the sick individual in a suboptimal environment.  there is a real chance that lives have been lost as a direct result of these factors, such as passing on an otherwise benign sickness to an immunocompromised patient or taking the space of someone needing treatment until it is too late.  i believe that there is not enough to be gained from requiring a doctor to verify that an absence is legitimate.  other controls designed to curb abuse from absenteeism exist such as having a set number of sick or vacation days .  even if these controls are objectively worse from a productivity standpoint; they more than make up for the human cost of placing an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system.   #  even if these controls are objectively worse from a productivity standpoint; they more than make up for the human cost of placing an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system.   #  is our healthcare system  really  burdened by people requesting notes ?  # getting a note from your doctor does not spread common ailments.  if you have a common ailment that does not require treatment, what are you doing taking up space in the hospital ? go to a clinic or a doctor; these places are perfectly able to prioritize care based on need.  you mean a doctor is office is an environment that hinders recovery ? medical workers prioritize care.  they are not going to make the heart attack victim wait on your sniffles.  it prevents the abuse of trust.  if your ailment is so debilitating that you cannot work, why not see a doctor ? is our healthcare system  really  burdened by people requesting notes ? where do you get this information ?  #  these would accrue year to year up to a max of 0.  that was on top of vacation and personal time, that was only to be used for when you were sick.   #  i worked for a school district for about 0 years as a full time year round employee working in it .  we got 0 sick days a year.  these would accrue year to year up to a max of 0.  that was on top of vacation and personal time, that was only to be used for when you were sick.  we had to get a doctors note if we had 0 days in a row out or more.  this did not come up for me once in 0 years.  the majority of illnesses are going to pass in about 0 0 days or if you hit a weekend in there you can be out up to 0 days easy without needing to do anything other then send in an email saying you are out sick.  this means you can be out literally 0 of the work days for a year.  which we had people do.  people who were healthy but had a cold on either friday or monday every other week sometimes both ! .  these people would never ever have to get a note because they would be out less then the 0 days.  if you are sick for more then 0 days, honestly you should go see a doctor because it might actually be serious.  i have never seen a work place require a doctors note for less then 0 days of sickness, including having worked many minimum wage jobs.   #  universities mostly require one to make sure you are not cheating.   #  universities mostly require one to make sure you are not cheating.  if you actually are ill universities will not count a missed test or exam against your score, but mark you on your other work throughout the year.  if you could just  say  you are ill people who did not study or fear flunking a test or exam would use that chance and just coast through it that way.  this would not be fair against those students who actually studied or sit the test anyway.  up excused a scenes zero on test is the only way this can be fair.   #  but the bottom line if you do not like an employer is sick time policy, do not work there.   #  obviously, these measures were put into place because people were abusing the honor system.  very few employers require them for  normal  absences but might when the absence occurs after a holiday or other  suspicious  absences.  they are also typically required for fmla covered extended absences.  the biggest flaw in your reasoning is that if someone is sick, they should not be in a place with sick people.  most employers believe that if you are  reasonably  healthy, you should work.  if you are so sick that you ca not work, then your recovery may be aided by seeing a doctor.  your argument that some people have died because of the policy is countered by the argument that some people who would otherwise not go to the doc discovered that they were sicker than they realized, and were saved.  but the bottom line if you do not like an employer is sick time policy, do not work there.  if enough people find it oppressive, they will have problems hiring people.  otherwise, it is just part of the terms of employment.   #  food poisoning comes to mind, as do most viral infections viruses usually are not curable .   # most employers believe that if you are  reasonably  healthy, you should work.  if you are so sick that you ca not work, then your recovery may be aided by seeing a doctor.  surely you do not believe that the events  ca not work  and  need medical attention  overlap completely.  food poisoning comes to mind, as do most viral infections viruses usually are not curable .  if this is true it is an excellent point and i will probably reconsider my view, but i have a hard time believing it to be true.  do you have any source to back this idea up ? if enough people find it oppressive, they will have problems hiring people.  otherwise, it is just part of the terms of employment.  the point of the argument is that people will still work there, and those people may still be a burden on the healthcare system.
its always a little bit harder to back into a spot, because even in the best case scenario, you need to turn your entire head around to make sure the space is clear, check both sideview mirrors and slowly back in.  if you do not do this, you put both your car and the cars next to you at risk for scratches/dings.  it takes significantly longer than just pulling into the spot, front first.  meanwhile you are blocking an entire lane usually two in the parking lot, preventing other people from getting around you.  why do not these people just drive into the spot head first ? if the argument is that it makes leaving the spot easier, my rebuttal is that its far easier to pull out of a spot in reverse going from a tight enclosed space to a bigger one than it is to back into a tight little parking spot.  you are wasting far more time backing into the space in the first place, than you are saving.  so why the hell would anyone engage in this time wasting, annoying practice ? please change my view.  sp0rk0holic eventually provided some stats on the issue that were similar to the ones that i read: URL overall, i still think its possible to use either method and be safe, but i must concede that pulling in backwards is probably smarter for people who are terrible at driving.   #  you need to turn your entire head around to make sure the space is clear, check both sideview mirrors and slowly back in.   #  if you do not do this, you put both your car and the cars next to you at risk for scratches/dings.   #  i always, always, always back in to a spot.  it is a hundred times easier to just pull out than to back out.  the one and only time i backed out of a spot, i almost ran over a little kid that was running around the parking lot.  but if i am backing  in  to the spot, i can view the entire area before i even turn to back up and ensure that there is nothing in my way.  if you do not do this, you put both your car and the cars next to you at risk for scratches/dings.  i am guessing you do not have much experience with back in, as it really is not all that hard to line everything up in your mirrors alone.  backing  in , i have a clear view all around me.  backing  out  my view is obstructed to the left and right of me.  and it is when i am backing  out  that i have to turn my entire head around and go super slow to make sure everything is clear.  it honestly sounds like you are just bitter because you had to wait all of 0 seconds for someone to back in to a space.   #  if you are a good enough driver to back into a space, you are good enough to back out.   #  hmmm.  this is compelling.  so now i do understand the idea, but your blind spots are only at your side and slightly back.  a car is not going to hit you from the side while you are in a tight space.  looking over your shoulder and going slow should suffice in virtually all situations.  my own experience is the person who backs into a spot creates more of a hazard, because they drive past the space and reverse unexpectedly into it.  this confuses whoever is behind them or driving past them and creates a potential accident situation.  if you are a good enough driver to back into a space, you are good enough to back out.  one way just takes longer and is confusing to drivers around you.   #  0st scenario, you back in: you are in control of the situation, the cars around you are not moving.   # a car is not going to hit you from the side while you are in a tight space.  but how do you know a car is not going to hit you when you are backing out ? your vision is impaired when there are cars parked next to you.  when you are backing out, you do not have the right of way, plus also drivers like to go unreasonably fast in parking lots for reasons.  so why would not a car hit you from the side in a tight space ? lets put it this way.  good enough driver to back in and back out, okay.  0st scenario, you back in: you are in control of the situation, the cars around you are not moving.  0nd scenario, you back out: you are careful for backing out, but an accident is still in the hands of the other drivers.  no matter how careful you are for backing out, there is still a higher risk for an accident since you cannot see what is coming and react accordingly.   #  0 be struck by someone passing you in the opposite direction.   #  fair enough, while i agree that it does make the act of leaving your spot easier, i do not buy the logic that the act of backing into a spot is safer.  essentially you are creating a more dangerous situation while backing into the spot to have a slightly safer situation exiting the spot.  when you back into a spot.  you need to drive  past  the empty space and begin reversing.  by doing this, you can: 0 potentially hit any pedestrians walking in your blind spots.  0 be struck from behind by someone who was not expecting you to stop and start reversing.  this especially happens if the person thinks you are passing the spot and wants it for himself.  0 be struck by someone passing you in the opposite direction.  this especially happens if you have to enter their lane to give your car the space to pull in.  0 do not get me started on the people who back in, realize they screwed it up and then have to quickly pull out and try again.  none of the cars around you can see that you are about to do that.  so while the act of leaving might be slightly safer.  you create a far more chaotic parking experience for everyone around you while you are entering the space.  the best you could suggest is that backing into a space is equally safe though i do not really buy it .   #  plus also a simple blinker and reverse lights are a pretty good warning.   #  well these are the worst case scenarios.  what you have to realize there are people who have just as worse problems as backing out as well.  i am going through your answers 0 by 0.  0 you can do that backing out of the space as well, for people coming from the opposite direction 0 be struck by people who do not see you backing out at all, and since you ca not see that you have to stop you ca not avoid the accident at all.  plus also a simple blinker and reverse lights are a pretty good warning.  and lastly, you are both driving through the parking lot, i am pretty sure they know you are looking for a spot as well 0 same goes for pulling out backwards 0 there have been many times where people do not realize the amount of space behind them, pull in, cut too close, and gridlock the entire lot because they just do not know how to back up in general so pretty much what i am saying is both scenarios have the some risks, and then some of their own.  i am saying one is not worse than the other, they have their benefits.  but the easiest one to do is just pull through and it solves both problems : .
its always a little bit harder to back into a spot, because even in the best case scenario, you need to turn your entire head around to make sure the space is clear, check both sideview mirrors and slowly back in.  if you do not do this, you put both your car and the cars next to you at risk for scratches/dings.  it takes significantly longer than just pulling into the spot, front first.  meanwhile you are blocking an entire lane usually two in the parking lot, preventing other people from getting around you.  why do not these people just drive into the spot head first ? if the argument is that it makes leaving the spot easier, my rebuttal is that its far easier to pull out of a spot in reverse going from a tight enclosed space to a bigger one than it is to back into a tight little parking spot.  you are wasting far more time backing into the space in the first place, than you are saving.  so why the hell would anyone engage in this time wasting, annoying practice ? please change my view.  sp0rk0holic eventually provided some stats on the issue that were similar to the ones that i read: URL overall, i still think its possible to use either method and be safe, but i must concede that pulling in backwards is probably smarter for people who are terrible at driving.   #  you need to turn your entire head around to make sure the space is clear, check both sideview mirrors and slowly back in.   #  if you do not do this, you put both your car and the cars next to you at risk for scratches/dings.   #  your view seems to be based on people that suck at backing in.  if you do not do this, you put both your car and the cars next to you at risk for scratches/dings.  this is wrong.  i back in almost exclusively and i never turn my head around.  once you learn how to use your mirrors properly, it is totally unnecessary.  i do not back in slowly.  i have never hit a car.  i am going to explain my procedure.  it may sound complicated, but all this stuff happens within a few seconds in your brain.  it can handle it.  it is super simple.  the first step is to glance at the two cars you are going to be parking in between as you pull up.  are they inside their own lines ? if yes, then you can largely forget the cars.  all you care about now are the white lines.  as you get up to the space, swing left in a nice, fluid motion.  now, turn the wheel to the right about as far as your turned it to the left, and as you back up you will see the white lines in your sideview mirrors.  as you reverse and begin turning the wheel back to center, you will see the angle of the lines shifting in relation to your car.  it is like a video game: just get your car between the white lines.  since you are backing in, you are now effectively steering with the  rear  wheels.  this is a huge advantage for maneuvering in tight spots like this.  any small steering adjustment you make at this point is going to have a large change in the angle of the car.  compare this to steering while driving forward and you see that the rear end of the car is slow to react in that scenario.  this is why forklifts and pallet jacks steer from the rear.  anyway, the object of the game is to get the two white lines straight and evenly spaced in your mirrors and then just go ! back straight up and you are done.  getting them evenly spaced sounds hard, but it is not because you are steering from the rear.  in summary, all you are doing is lining up a couple white lines in your mirrors that are now easily adjustable given the steering conditions.  i find it far easier than trying to get the correct angle for pulling in.  when you pull in, you ca not swing the rear of your car further out if you miscalculated your initial trajectory.  your only choice is to back out again at least a little bit and swing wider/re align your car.  it is also a lot harder to make sure you are evenly spaced between the lines since it is impossible to see them once you start pulling in.  you have to watch the front left of the car and the right rear at the same time to make sure you are not hitting your adjacent parking buddies.  that is so much harder than hardly worrying about them at all.  backing in is far superior.  all it takes is a little practice.  i bet if you did it for an hour, you would find it simple !  #  my own experience is the person who backs into a spot creates more of a hazard, because they drive past the space and reverse unexpectedly into it.   #  hmmm.  this is compelling.  so now i do understand the idea, but your blind spots are only at your side and slightly back.  a car is not going to hit you from the side while you are in a tight space.  looking over your shoulder and going slow should suffice in virtually all situations.  my own experience is the person who backs into a spot creates more of a hazard, because they drive past the space and reverse unexpectedly into it.  this confuses whoever is behind them or driving past them and creates a potential accident situation.  if you are a good enough driver to back into a space, you are good enough to back out.  one way just takes longer and is confusing to drivers around you.   #  your vision is impaired when there are cars parked next to you.   # a car is not going to hit you from the side while you are in a tight space.  but how do you know a car is not going to hit you when you are backing out ? your vision is impaired when there are cars parked next to you.  when you are backing out, you do not have the right of way, plus also drivers like to go unreasonably fast in parking lots for reasons.  so why would not a car hit you from the side in a tight space ? lets put it this way.  good enough driver to back in and back out, okay.  0st scenario, you back in: you are in control of the situation, the cars around you are not moving.  0nd scenario, you back out: you are careful for backing out, but an accident is still in the hands of the other drivers.  no matter how careful you are for backing out, there is still a higher risk for an accident since you cannot see what is coming and react accordingly.   #  the best you could suggest is that backing into a space is equally safe though i do not really buy it .   #  fair enough, while i agree that it does make the act of leaving your spot easier, i do not buy the logic that the act of backing into a spot is safer.  essentially you are creating a more dangerous situation while backing into the spot to have a slightly safer situation exiting the spot.  when you back into a spot.  you need to drive  past  the empty space and begin reversing.  by doing this, you can: 0 potentially hit any pedestrians walking in your blind spots.  0 be struck from behind by someone who was not expecting you to stop and start reversing.  this especially happens if the person thinks you are passing the spot and wants it for himself.  0 be struck by someone passing you in the opposite direction.  this especially happens if you have to enter their lane to give your car the space to pull in.  0 do not get me started on the people who back in, realize they screwed it up and then have to quickly pull out and try again.  none of the cars around you can see that you are about to do that.  so while the act of leaving might be slightly safer.  you create a far more chaotic parking experience for everyone around you while you are entering the space.  the best you could suggest is that backing into a space is equally safe though i do not really buy it .   #  i am going through your answers 0 by 0.   #  well these are the worst case scenarios.  what you have to realize there are people who have just as worse problems as backing out as well.  i am going through your answers 0 by 0.  0 you can do that backing out of the space as well, for people coming from the opposite direction 0 be struck by people who do not see you backing out at all, and since you ca not see that you have to stop you ca not avoid the accident at all.  plus also a simple blinker and reverse lights are a pretty good warning.  and lastly, you are both driving through the parking lot, i am pretty sure they know you are looking for a spot as well 0 same goes for pulling out backwards 0 there have been many times where people do not realize the amount of space behind them, pull in, cut too close, and gridlock the entire lot because they just do not know how to back up in general so pretty much what i am saying is both scenarios have the some risks, and then some of their own.  i am saying one is not worse than the other, they have their benefits.  but the easiest one to do is just pull through and it solves both problems : .
so a very close friend of mine talked to me.  he was extremely depressed and still is .  really depressed, he is almost suicidal.  when he first told me, he was somewhat vague.  and my initial understanding was the he got roofied by his very best friend during a sleep over, and then either raped or heavily molested judging by his extremely traumatized condition.  he said he felt betrayed, violated, slutty.  everything you would expect to hear from a rape victim.  i immediately advised him to get away from that friend the rapist .  and he is been talking about it a lot actually, not that i mind, i was and still as supportive as i can.  but well.  upon further conversations, i recently realized that what actually happened was different than i thought.  he did not really get drugged, he does not even think so anymore.  it was just a wild guess.  he probably just got sleepy according to my friend, the victim and when he woke up, his friend was simply half naked and cuddled with him.  that is it.  i am trying to support my friend who is majorly depressed about it.  but honestly, i ca not take him seriously anymore.  i mean, i understand this might count as sexual harassment.  but it is not that huge.  seriously, he keeps talking to me about it, and how they were really close and how he miss those days but he ca not ever forgive him.  and i just want scream  stop being a fucking drama queen.   it is just fucking cuddle.  i am honestly not sure about it anymore.  am i really being a dick to my friend, trivializing a major event ? or is he really just overreacting ?  #  he said he felt betrayed, violated, slutty.   #  how he react to this extremely weird situation is entirely up to him.   # how he react to this extremely weird situation is entirely up to him.  if he feels like this, i think it is normal he would be depressed about it.  he feels betrayed by a close friend, which is not an easy thing to live.  you should not try to grade his feelings regarding the events, as nothing productive will come out of this.  it does not matter the scale of the events.  he seems to be in a bad state of mind and that the important thing to consider.  you have a choice to either support a friend in need, or judge their situation and decide they are not worth your empathy for some reason.  that is up to you.   #  regardless of how whether or not he  should  be, he is very upset, and if you really consider him a friend, you could just listen to him and console him.   #  it is clearly a big deal to him.  regardless of how whether or not he  should  be, he is very upset, and if you really consider him a friend, you could just listen to him and console him.  screaming at him and calling him a drama queen wo not help him, it will just make him mad at you for being so devoid of compassion.  i would be upset too, if someone was cuddling with me while i was sleeping, without my consent.  cuddling is a very intimate action, and intimate actions should only be taken with consent.  and nobody should be forced to do anything in their sleep without them agreeing to it first.  your friend was inadvertently providing comfort or sexual gratification or something to this person who was cuddling with him.  do not you think it is wrong to use someone who is asleep to provide intimacy for you ?  #  my gut is telling me that there is more going on here than you know about.   #  my gut is telling me that there is more going on here than you know about.  there are plenty of people that experience horrible things like being raped that just ca not come out and directly say what happened.  you do not know what happened, you were not there.  it is not uncommon for victim is memories and interpretations of traumatic events to be off or to change much like he went from believing he would be drugged to just believing that he was sleeping .  this is a protective measure in the face of trauma.  however, the brain is far less effective at blocking out emotions, so whenever someone is freaking out about something that they say is not that big a deal you are generally safer treating their emotions with more weight than their statements.   #  there might be more to it precedent maybe ?  #  i do not know your friend.  it seems to be a case where he might be over reacting, but he might also actually feel that way about this whole thing for some reason or another.  it might be less about the event itself and more about his relation to this person being shattered.  if i were you, i would focus on  how  he feels instead of  why  he feels that way.  i mean, while it is not exactly rape, it  is  kinda extremely out of place.  there might be more to it precedent maybe ? or not, but you should keep focusing on how feels, not necessarily why.   #  i would seek the advice of a counselor/therapist.   #  i would seek the advice of a counselor/therapist.  a single session can do wonders for your state of mind, and $0 is nothing compare to living a fulfilling life.  either for your friend or for yourself, or perhaps both together if he needs your support.  you are not wrong, but this probably is not what he needs to hear right now in order to feel better and move on.  if you cant spot the $0, then at least google around for how to support a victim of rape/assault.  sure it may not be the same thing, but he is obviously feeling shattered and is reaching out to talk to you about it.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.   #  when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.   #  i am also not sure in what sense you are talking about  encouraging  female promiscuity.   # how so ? remember that i am not in your head and things that are clear to you like what you mean by  culture  is not necessarily to me.  i do not know yet.  and i do not think it is a good attitude to accept things as true because the opposite seems unlikely.  i am also not sure in what sense you are talking about  encouraging  female promiscuity.  for instance, is the fact that people like madonna, miley cyrus who say they stand for the sexual freedom of women are succesful enough to say that a culture is encouraging female promiscuity ? are not there people who want to be like them ? and if that is not a sign of encouragement, then is it fair to say that men are encouraged to be promiscuous ?
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.   #  i much prefer being able to view many more items, and filter down to exactly what i want on amazon. com.   # i much prefer being able to view many more items, and filter down to exactly what i want on amazon. com.  the alternative is going to multiple clothing stores and hoping they have what you want, and also in your size.  going to your local electronics store and having to settle for the best of their limited inventory is not something i desire either.  we up sell one another all the time.  i would not approach people that i am not attracted to in person or online.  i am not seeing how a dating site causes this.  the other side is that you do not have to stick in a toxic relationship out of a fear that you wo not meet anybody else.  if the expectations were unrealistic, then everybody would be disqualified.  if you ca not find someone matching your requirements, it is time to adjust your requirements regardless of your method of meeting people.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.  nothing about this has to do with online dating.  go to a party on a college campus or to a local club, and you will see where sex is cheapened.   #  when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.   #  we up sell one another all the time.   # i much prefer being able to view many more items, and filter down to exactly what i want on amazon. com.  the alternative is going to multiple clothing stores and hoping they have what you want, and also in your size.  going to your local electronics store and having to settle for the best of their limited inventory is not something i desire either.  we up sell one another all the time.  i would not approach people that i am not attracted to in person or online.  i am not seeing how a dating site causes this.  the other side is that you do not have to stick in a toxic relationship out of a fear that you wo not meet anybody else.  if the expectations were unrealistic, then everybody would be disqualified.  if you ca not find someone matching your requirements, it is time to adjust your requirements regardless of your method of meeting people.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.  nothing about this has to do with online dating.  go to a party on a college campus or to a local club, and you will see where sex is cheapened.   #  when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.   #  if the expectations were unrealistic, then everybody would be disqualified.   # i much prefer being able to view many more items, and filter down to exactly what i want on amazon. com.  the alternative is going to multiple clothing stores and hoping they have what you want, and also in your size.  going to your local electronics store and having to settle for the best of their limited inventory is not something i desire either.  we up sell one another all the time.  i would not approach people that i am not attracted to in person or online.  i am not seeing how a dating site causes this.  the other side is that you do not have to stick in a toxic relationship out of a fear that you wo not meet anybody else.  if the expectations were unrealistic, then everybody would be disqualified.  if you ca not find someone matching your requirements, it is time to adjust your requirements regardless of your method of meeting people.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.  nothing about this has to do with online dating.  go to a party on a college campus or to a local club, and you will see where sex is cheapened.   #  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ?  # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.   #  i do not see this as being true.   # i do not see this as being true.  when is the last time you had a conversation with a shirt your considering buying in order to assess the quality of it is character ? i think you have a skewed perspective on how people use this dating resources.  sure, there is a demographic of people who are looking for hook ups.  there is also a demographic of people who use it to feed their starving sense of self esteem by seeing how many people  like  them.  these people have always existed though.  it is not like dating sites made them shallow, it just allowed them be shallow more efficiently.  in my experience, the vast majority of women i encounter i am a straight man so i can only really comment on the women i interact with on these sites are actually looking for a guy they really like.  they are pretty damn selective at times, and often, a picture of you with your shirt off no matter how ripped you are will get you an instant no.  if people were looking just for sex this would not happen.  it is pretty easy to separate the people who are just looking for a hook up from those who are looking for something more substantial.  you have a profile that you can fill out and people who actually care about meeting that special someone, tend to actually put effort into these.  ones who are just looking for sex will often explicitly state it.  do you want to leave meeting someone who you are perfect with to chance, or do you want to take some agency and increase your odds by using these new tools ? dating sites can increase your odds of creating an optimal relationship for the following reasons: 0.  increased exposure: on a dating sites allow you the opportunity to interact with more people then you would in your daily life.  0.  similar goals: the people on these sites are also looking to meet someone.  it is totally normal to strike up conversations with these people and try to get to know them.  i really wish it was more socially acceptable for me to walk up to strangers on the street and ask them what their passionate about, but sadly our society is not there yet 0.  information exchange: you can fill out your profile and let people know things about yourself that you think are important.  this will attract the people who will like you and repel those who wo not.  these factors can save you time and energy and increase your odds of meeting someone that you can have a deep meaningful lasting relationship with.  /u/illfamous are you speaking from experience from these sites or are you making a judgment from an outside perspective ? if it is from experience, can i ask if you are speaking of men or women on these sites ?  #  if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.   #  i disagree; in fact, i think it is the opposite.   # i disagree; in fact, i think it is the opposite.  online dating allows your first look at a person to include their hobbies and interests, a glimpse into their personality and sense of humor based on what they have written for their profile, and how they have written it.  it is when you first see someone  in the real world  that all you are able to see is looks.  i do not think that means they are harder to maintain, it means they are easier to replace.  i do not think that is a bad thing.  instead of struggling and suffering through a somewhat mismatched, semi compatible relationship because of the difficulty of finding a new partner, people are more free to move on from a mediocre relationship to try and find someone more highly compatible.  i think that will ultimately mean more people find better matches, and overall more people ending up in healthier, more fulfilling relationships.  good.  sex is way too stigmatized and obsessed over.  sex is a fun, natural, healthy experience.  people who have just gotten laid tend to be nicer to others than people who are full of sexual frustration.  the world would be a kinder, more peaceful place if everyone was getting laid on the daily.   #  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.   #  this is no different then when you are at a bar/club and decide who to hit on based on appearance.   # this is no different then when you are at a bar/club and decide who to hit on based on appearance.  the fact that we are now more efficient at it because we can look at a larger pool 0 people at the bar vs 0s on the apps/sites has not changed how people do this, that it was the way has always happened.  and looks are not the be all end all for a relationship, i do not know anyone who things that.  however people have preferences in what they look for in a potential lifelong mate as far as physical appearances go.  ignoring that is just silly as a long term relationship will not work if the two people are not attracted to each other.  people tend to eliminate a potential partner based off of appearance first because appearance only takes a very very short amount of time to judge.  deciding if someone is compatible with you on an emotional/relationship level can take years.  some online sites/apps like tinder and adultfriendfinder are not really dating sites, they are hookup sites that can lead to relationships.  people go there because they want sex not because they want a longterm relationship.  other online dating sites are more concerned with personality matches and compatibility in relationships.  sites like eharmony have you fill out an extensive questionnaire then match you based on your likes/dislikes/personality and what you are looking for on a longterm basis kids/no kids .  you can go to the site you want to meet a person interested in the thing you want at the time.   #  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.   #  on sites like okc, they are not.   #  first, you ca not equate okcupid and the like with tinder.  one is a site that uses a wealth of criteria to find someone who is compatible first, then you comb through those to find someone physically attractive.  i would argue this as an even more effective way of finding a potential partner.  i can into that more in depth if you are curious, but it is nothing profound.  tinder is not intended to be a place to build  healthy relationships .  it is intended to be a place to almost exclusively find someone who is physically attractive to bang.  on sites like okc, they are not.  they are not  required  attributes.  nobody is going to be your perfect match.  the more picky you are, the less potential partners you have to choose from.  so you go through a laundry list of questions, start with your most compatible partners, and work your way down.   #  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.   #  i wish it were like that but unfortunately i ca not click  purchase  when i spot a hot lady.   # i wish it were like that but unfortunately i ca not click  purchase  when i spot a hot lady.  we already  shop  for mates in the  real world , it is called  going on dates .  it is time consuming and expensive.  people already do that.  we already view each other that way.   #  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.   #  we already view each other that way.   # i wish it were like that but unfortunately i ca not click  purchase  when i spot a hot lady.  we already  shop  for mates in the  real world , it is called  going on dates .  it is time consuming and expensive.  people already do that.  we already view each other that way.   #  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.   #  assuming each person wants a partner, s he may start with overly high standards, but s he will lower them until s he finds someone.   # doing it online just lets you look around a lot faster.  increasingly ? as compared to what ? historically, the only things more important than looks were political ties and money.  the idea of getting an emotional connection in a relationship has never been stronger than it is now.  this is probably true: our modern world requires more self control than our parents  in a lot of ways, because more distractions from the current thing are available for example, i am on reddit .  however, this also leads to more opportunities for happiness.  assuming each person wants a partner, s he may start with overly high standards, but s he will lower them until s he finds someone.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  as compared to what ? the chaste 0s ? if you told people of that time that courtship today was usually started by writing a short letter, they would consider 0 a time of almost preposterous chivalry.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.  i think this is the meat of the issue.  online dating shows very clearly what our society thinks of black women and asian men.  but you are blaming the messenger.  undesirable people might randomly wind up with desirable people more often without online dating, but it has never been very likely i am including money in desirability, of course .  generally, undesirable people will wind up with each other, and online dating can make that easier too.   #  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.   #  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   # doing it online just lets you look around a lot faster.  increasingly ? as compared to what ? historically, the only things more important than looks were political ties and money.  the idea of getting an emotional connection in a relationship has never been stronger than it is now.  this is probably true: our modern world requires more self control than our parents  in a lot of ways, because more distractions from the current thing are available for example, i am on reddit .  however, this also leads to more opportunities for happiness.  assuming each person wants a partner, s he may start with overly high standards, but s he will lower them until s he finds someone.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  as compared to what ? the chaste 0s ? if you told people of that time that courtship today was usually started by writing a short letter, they would consider 0 a time of almost preposterous chivalry.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.  i think this is the meat of the issue.  online dating shows very clearly what our society thinks of black women and asian men.  but you are blaming the messenger.  undesirable people might randomly wind up with desirable people more often without online dating, but it has never been very likely i am including money in desirability, of course .  generally, undesirable people will wind up with each other, and online dating can make that easier too.   #  if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ?  # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.   #  if looks were the be all end all then there would not be dates at all.   # if looks were the be all end all then there would not be dates at all.  people go on dates for the purpose of learning about people and exploring their personality, the same way it is always been.  humans have always been driven by looks, it is the first thing you notice about someone, there is no way around it.  online dating is useful because if you have certain  dealbreakers  then people can get that out of the way.  someone can come out and say they are only looking for something casual.  good, that saves time, people can narrow their search.  if anything, it is like people wearing their personality on their clothes, making it less superficial.   #  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ?  # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
this  problem  is something i have noted for a while now, and i do not believe it is written about, or discussed enough as a real challenge facing people today.  we shop for potential mates through online dating exactly the same way we shop for clothes or electronics through amazon. com and i think that is a problem.  we are becoming increasingly superficial; looks are the be all end all.  we up sell one another all the time.  relationships are harder to maintain because the second things become difficult, we can simply browse online for another potential match and go from there.  online dating creates unrealistic expectations.  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.  it cheapens sex.  we view each others as items that can be disregarded at a moments notice.  finally, online dating has profoundly negative effects on people who are not desirable. i for one can say that online dating has altered to way i view my own race.  it is not a very pleasant realization to come to after facing rejection.   tldr: online dating is making us increasingly shallow and cheapening sex.  i think that we as a society would be better served if i did not exist  #  men/women are checked against a laundry list of required attributes and are disqualified if they do not meet everyone.   #  so, basically exactly what happens in real life anyway ?  #  i have to disagree with the notion that okcupid/tinder/etc are causing us to be more shallow.  they are simply amplifiers for personality traits that people already have.  if you are looking for casual hookups, that is easier to do, true.  if you are looking for something more serious than that, it is a great tool also.  my fiancée and i are both home bodies.  we are perfect for each other in a lot of ways, but there is no way we would have met outside of those sites.  the thing is, the people that this is true for would probably not have been very reliable relationship partners even if those sites did not exist at all.  so, basically exactly what happens in real life anyway ? as far as i know, most people have a list of things that they find attractive/unattractive, and it changes how you interact with people.  if i am sitting at a bar between two women, and one of them is interesting and engaging while another is loud and obnoxious, i have seen them both viewed their profiles, so to speak and will ignore one in favor of the other.  these sites are not mandatory, you are welcome to find relationships the old fashioned way.  there are a lot of people who have found genuine happiness.   #  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.   # when you meet a total stranger in person,  all  you know about them is what they look like.  contrast this with online dating, where you at least know whether or not they want kids and/or are deeply religious.  if anything, online dating allows you to be less superficial, especially since a photograph rarely does justice to someone is physical attractiveness.  online dating may enable serial monogamy, but only because it enables  anyone , regardless of what they are looking for.  there are certainly people out there looking for long term commitments i and /u/zachums can attest to this .  weeding through those who do not share your views and goals has always been an ordeal.  online dating actually makes this easier by providing a screening mechanism.  that is a problem with the community, not with the concept of online dating.  you could argue that certain online dating sites promote such expectations, but with sites like okcupid, it is largely up to the users to mis represent themselves in their profiles.  this is meaningless rhetoric thrown in the face of just about every change in the landscape of sexual interaction.  sex is as meaningful as you want it to be.  you do not have to have sex before you are comfortable doing so.  and guess what ? if you want to wait until marriage, to take an extremum of that spectrum, there are people  online  who want that too.   #  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.   # almost all cultures laud male promiscuity and shame female.  question: what is a culture ? can you name five ? i am ready to accept that western culture lauds male promiscuity and shame the female version although i assert that this is not universally true, but only  sociolgy style generally true  .  and even that i am not so sure to agree with after all.  is european  culture  so shameful of female promiscuity ? i know that india has laws about public displays of affection.  iran and probably other sharia related countries also have similar laws.  i do not know what the official nor the practical state of things is wrt gender specific promiscuity.  do you ? are you saying that unless someone is in a serious relationship, they should be celibate ? would not that simply put extra pressure on finding someone/anyone who meets a few basic criteria, and then get in a bad relationship ? instead of actually learning what you like and what you want in your partner ? you make a very good point here and i agree with it.   #  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.   #  from dictionary. com: culture: the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group.  cultures can also overlap or be subsets of another culture.  so california teen surfer culture is a subset and intersection of both youth and surfer culture, a subset of american culture, a subset of western culture, a subset of human culture, etc.  almost every religion has it is own cultural aspects.  most countries, most geographic regions, different economic classes, and even some careers notably police, soldiers, medicine, business, etc.  can have their own cultures.   #  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .   #  i think my previous kind of showed that i knew the answer or at least knew the general idea .  the point is that i am far from convinced that  almost all cultures laud male promiscuity .  but maybe i am just not very aware or knowledgeable about the subject, so first i wanted to know what /u/kimb0 meant by  culture .  my next question would have been to ask how they knew that almost all cultures act like that.  but, it seems the  i am offended therefore you are wrong  prevailed here at least that is what i make out of getting downvotes and no answer from them .  oh well.  p. s.  : thank you for your post though.  i would love for people to be less prone to getting offended and/or assume bad faith from people they disagree with.  discussion and compromise are the only way to bridge differences.
obviously police reform is on the table right now in light of the past few weeks.  i have read things about body cams, and increased accountability all placing a taller order for officers.  most of it to me, comes off as basic cop hating, and does not actually provide a reasonable solution that improves the amount of corrective justice taking place.  in fact, it impedes the justice system because it introduces external hoops for police to jump over doing their job.  my arguments are as follows: increasing police accountability increases police liability.  in the era of social media, one bad experience can cost you your whole career.  this is true for every job, but it is exceptionally true for police who on a day to day basis subject themselves to this form of public scrutiny.  i do not see this going away under the current status quo, but i do think that adding more barriers to this particular issue destroys something the general populous values.  job stability.  0.  becoming a police officer like any other form of training is an investment, and the current state of affairs and the proposed state of affairs will diminish job stability for police officers.  this results in a net negative in effective justice, because less officers means more crime.  0.  it will create an upward trend in the risk/reward mentality.  due to their scarcity, cops will eventually lead to higher compensations to incentivize the fields.  this is something present in other fields already where scarcity for the position exists, such as medical nurses having large signing bonuses.  this leads to increased police spending for less officers, once again creating a net negative for justice.  0.  the proposed things i have heard such as maiming instead of killing and body cams provide proper closure for a negligible amount of cases, but create far more gaps in coverage than they are worth.  so it is logically inconsistent to say: raising the liability of police officers, and destroying police coverage because of this ideology is not a positive boon to the justice system.  yes more high profile cases are covered better, but their frequency is too infrequent to justify the loss of police force.  at which point if you insist on some of the measures suggested you are not for more justice, you are just cop hating.  please cmv.   #  the proposed state of affairs will diminish job stability for police officers.   #  for those committing  bad actions  and again, this is exactly what people want.   # you only have to be accountable for  bad actions .  do not do  bad actions  then you do not have liability.  this is exactly what people want.  for those committing  bad actions  and again, this is exactly what people want.  rewarding the good cops because they are not doing  bad actions .  this sound pretty good to me, it rewards good cops and tells everyone what is expected of them and why its worth it.  as a tax payer, i have no problem with this.  it motivates good people to protect us all, who might have otherwise gone to another job for financial reasons.   #  the matter at hand, the reason there is a public outcry for more accountability and scrutiny on law enforcement, is that unarmed men have been gunned down by armed men on public streets under questionable circumstances.   #  job stability ? the matter at hand, the reason there is a public outcry for more accountability and scrutiny on law enforcement, is that unarmed men have been gunned down by armed men on public streets under questionable circumstances.  we entrust police officers to use deadly force on other human beings when necessary.  this is not your nine to five job, the problem is not that your boss thinks you are going on reddit too much and is putting a camera in your cubicle.  police are supposed to be public servants, acting to foster a peaceful environment, in accordance with the laws the will of the majority has agreed to.  if a police officer shoots a member of the public unnecessarily, he has not only broken the law and committed one of the most heinous actions an individual is capable of carrying out upon another living, thinking, feeling individual, he has failed in his job and in the duty he was entrusted with  by it is very definition .  it does not matter how many cops would be fired as a result of the public  expecting them to do their job right.  they absolutely have to be fired or the  entire meaning  of giving them a badge and a gun has been lost.   #  the job itself helps them sleep at night, but that is it.   #  this is like 0 emotional banter and 0 logic.  i am not interested in engaging in emotional appeal.  the reality is simple, a career is an investment people make for personal prosperity.  the job itself helps them sleep at night, but that is it.  if people do not want to be cops and there are no men to fail at doing their job in the first place then nobody is protected or safe.  right ? if you make too tall an order for people to fill or want to fill people do not do it.  police work is heinously dangerous, it is not a field that people get into lightly to begin with.  if you put a choke hold on that, you are not going to have any cops to solve your problems if you press the issue enough.   #  this is not an emotional appeal, it is logic.   #  this is not an emotional appeal, it is logic.  we expect cops to enforce the law.  if they break the law, they have not done their job and have to be fired.  if asking police not to break the law is too tall an order, than we have a problem that is far greater than career investments.  the law and human life matter more than any individual police officer.  people who can not understand that are not qualified to be officers of the law.  aside from that, there is no basis to even say that body cameras would cause people to not want to be police officers.  video footage that actually depicts the circumstances of an incident of force being applied would benefit police officers who acted correctly and in accordance with the law.  if anything, body cameras would reassure someone that if they do the job they are expected to do right, the have nothing to fear in terms of job stability, career investment, or reprisal.   #  cops have the most opportunities to mess up in a superficial capacity and lose their careers over it.   # negative social media, directly affects the career investment.  people are losing their jobs left and right because of poor social media spotlighting.  cops have the most opportunities to mess up in a superficial capacity and lose their careers over it.  they do not have to mess up obscenely bad, they just have to be unpopular.  however many years of training and money it costs to become a cop, slowly becomes not worth it if you lose your career to a bad video.
obviously police reform is on the table right now in light of the past few weeks.  i have read things about body cams, and increased accountability all placing a taller order for officers.  most of it to me, comes off as basic cop hating, and does not actually provide a reasonable solution that improves the amount of corrective justice taking place.  in fact, it impedes the justice system because it introduces external hoops for police to jump over doing their job.  my arguments are as follows: increasing police accountability increases police liability.  in the era of social media, one bad experience can cost you your whole career.  this is true for every job, but it is exceptionally true for police who on a day to day basis subject themselves to this form of public scrutiny.  i do not see this going away under the current status quo, but i do think that adding more barriers to this particular issue destroys something the general populous values.  job stability.  0.  becoming a police officer like any other form of training is an investment, and the current state of affairs and the proposed state of affairs will diminish job stability for police officers.  this results in a net negative in effective justice, because less officers means more crime.  0.  it will create an upward trend in the risk/reward mentality.  due to their scarcity, cops will eventually lead to higher compensations to incentivize the fields.  this is something present in other fields already where scarcity for the position exists, such as medical nurses having large signing bonuses.  this leads to increased police spending for less officers, once again creating a net negative for justice.  0.  the proposed things i have heard such as maiming instead of killing and body cams provide proper closure for a negligible amount of cases, but create far more gaps in coverage than they are worth.  so it is logically inconsistent to say: raising the liability of police officers, and destroying police coverage because of this ideology is not a positive boon to the justice system.  yes more high profile cases are covered better, but their frequency is too infrequent to justify the loss of police force.  at which point if you insist on some of the measures suggested you are not for more justice, you are just cop hating.  please cmv.   #  due to their scarcity, cops will eventually lead to higher compensations to incentivize the fields.   #  rewarding the good cops because they are not doing  bad actions .   # you only have to be accountable for  bad actions .  do not do  bad actions  then you do not have liability.  this is exactly what people want.  for those committing  bad actions  and again, this is exactly what people want.  rewarding the good cops because they are not doing  bad actions .  this sound pretty good to me, it rewards good cops and tells everyone what is expected of them and why its worth it.  as a tax payer, i have no problem with this.  it motivates good people to protect us all, who might have otherwise gone to another job for financial reasons.   #  this is not your nine to five job, the problem is not that your boss thinks you are going on reddit too much and is putting a camera in your cubicle.   #  job stability ? the matter at hand, the reason there is a public outcry for more accountability and scrutiny on law enforcement, is that unarmed men have been gunned down by armed men on public streets under questionable circumstances.  we entrust police officers to use deadly force on other human beings when necessary.  this is not your nine to five job, the problem is not that your boss thinks you are going on reddit too much and is putting a camera in your cubicle.  police are supposed to be public servants, acting to foster a peaceful environment, in accordance with the laws the will of the majority has agreed to.  if a police officer shoots a member of the public unnecessarily, he has not only broken the law and committed one of the most heinous actions an individual is capable of carrying out upon another living, thinking, feeling individual, he has failed in his job and in the duty he was entrusted with  by it is very definition .  it does not matter how many cops would be fired as a result of the public  expecting them to do their job right.  they absolutely have to be fired or the  entire meaning  of giving them a badge and a gun has been lost.   #  the job itself helps them sleep at night, but that is it.   #  this is like 0 emotional banter and 0 logic.  i am not interested in engaging in emotional appeal.  the reality is simple, a career is an investment people make for personal prosperity.  the job itself helps them sleep at night, but that is it.  if people do not want to be cops and there are no men to fail at doing their job in the first place then nobody is protected or safe.  right ? if you make too tall an order for people to fill or want to fill people do not do it.  police work is heinously dangerous, it is not a field that people get into lightly to begin with.  if you put a choke hold on that, you are not going to have any cops to solve your problems if you press the issue enough.   #  if asking police not to break the law is too tall an order, than we have a problem that is far greater than career investments.   #  this is not an emotional appeal, it is logic.  we expect cops to enforce the law.  if they break the law, they have not done their job and have to be fired.  if asking police not to break the law is too tall an order, than we have a problem that is far greater than career investments.  the law and human life matter more than any individual police officer.  people who can not understand that are not qualified to be officers of the law.  aside from that, there is no basis to even say that body cameras would cause people to not want to be police officers.  video footage that actually depicts the circumstances of an incident of force being applied would benefit police officers who acted correctly and in accordance with the law.  if anything, body cameras would reassure someone that if they do the job they are expected to do right, the have nothing to fear in terms of job stability, career investment, or reprisal.   #  however many years of training and money it costs to become a cop, slowly becomes not worth it if you lose your career to a bad video.   # negative social media, directly affects the career investment.  people are losing their jobs left and right because of poor social media spotlighting.  cops have the most opportunities to mess up in a superficial capacity and lose their careers over it.  they do not have to mess up obscenely bad, they just have to be unpopular.  however many years of training and money it costs to become a cop, slowly becomes not worth it if you lose your career to a bad video.
obviously police reform is on the table right now in light of the past few weeks.  i have read things about body cams, and increased accountability all placing a taller order for officers.  most of it to me, comes off as basic cop hating, and does not actually provide a reasonable solution that improves the amount of corrective justice taking place.  in fact, it impedes the justice system because it introduces external hoops for police to jump over doing their job.  my arguments are as follows: increasing police accountability increases police liability.  in the era of social media, one bad experience can cost you your whole career.  this is true for every job, but it is exceptionally true for police who on a day to day basis subject themselves to this form of public scrutiny.  i do not see this going away under the current status quo, but i do think that adding more barriers to this particular issue destroys something the general populous values.  job stability.  0.  becoming a police officer like any other form of training is an investment, and the current state of affairs and the proposed state of affairs will diminish job stability for police officers.  this results in a net negative in effective justice, because less officers means more crime.  0.  it will create an upward trend in the risk/reward mentality.  due to their scarcity, cops will eventually lead to higher compensations to incentivize the fields.  this is something present in other fields already where scarcity for the position exists, such as medical nurses having large signing bonuses.  this leads to increased police spending for less officers, once again creating a net negative for justice.  0.  the proposed things i have heard such as maiming instead of killing and body cams provide proper closure for a negligible amount of cases, but create far more gaps in coverage than they are worth.  so it is logically inconsistent to say: raising the liability of police officers, and destroying police coverage because of this ideology is not a positive boon to the justice system.  yes more high profile cases are covered better, but their frequency is too infrequent to justify the loss of police force.  at which point if you insist on some of the measures suggested you are not for more justice, you are just cop hating.  please cmv.   #  this is something present in other fields already where scarcity for the position exists, such as medical nurses having large signing bonuses.   #  as a tax payer, i have no problem with this.   # you only have to be accountable for  bad actions .  do not do  bad actions  then you do not have liability.  this is exactly what people want.  for those committing  bad actions  and again, this is exactly what people want.  rewarding the good cops because they are not doing  bad actions .  this sound pretty good to me, it rewards good cops and tells everyone what is expected of them and why its worth it.  as a tax payer, i have no problem with this.  it motivates good people to protect us all, who might have otherwise gone to another job for financial reasons.   #  the matter at hand, the reason there is a public outcry for more accountability and scrutiny on law enforcement, is that unarmed men have been gunned down by armed men on public streets under questionable circumstances.   #  job stability ? the matter at hand, the reason there is a public outcry for more accountability and scrutiny on law enforcement, is that unarmed men have been gunned down by armed men on public streets under questionable circumstances.  we entrust police officers to use deadly force on other human beings when necessary.  this is not your nine to five job, the problem is not that your boss thinks you are going on reddit too much and is putting a camera in your cubicle.  police are supposed to be public servants, acting to foster a peaceful environment, in accordance with the laws the will of the majority has agreed to.  if a police officer shoots a member of the public unnecessarily, he has not only broken the law and committed one of the most heinous actions an individual is capable of carrying out upon another living, thinking, feeling individual, he has failed in his job and in the duty he was entrusted with  by it is very definition .  it does not matter how many cops would be fired as a result of the public  expecting them to do their job right.  they absolutely have to be fired or the  entire meaning  of giving them a badge and a gun has been lost.   #  if you put a choke hold on that, you are not going to have any cops to solve your problems if you press the issue enough.   #  this is like 0 emotional banter and 0 logic.  i am not interested in engaging in emotional appeal.  the reality is simple, a career is an investment people make for personal prosperity.  the job itself helps them sleep at night, but that is it.  if people do not want to be cops and there are no men to fail at doing their job in the first place then nobody is protected or safe.  right ? if you make too tall an order for people to fill or want to fill people do not do it.  police work is heinously dangerous, it is not a field that people get into lightly to begin with.  if you put a choke hold on that, you are not going to have any cops to solve your problems if you press the issue enough.   #  if asking police not to break the law is too tall an order, than we have a problem that is far greater than career investments.   #  this is not an emotional appeal, it is logic.  we expect cops to enforce the law.  if they break the law, they have not done their job and have to be fired.  if asking police not to break the law is too tall an order, than we have a problem that is far greater than career investments.  the law and human life matter more than any individual police officer.  people who can not understand that are not qualified to be officers of the law.  aside from that, there is no basis to even say that body cameras would cause people to not want to be police officers.  video footage that actually depicts the circumstances of an incident of force being applied would benefit police officers who acted correctly and in accordance with the law.  if anything, body cameras would reassure someone that if they do the job they are expected to do right, the have nothing to fear in terms of job stability, career investment, or reprisal.   #  negative social media, directly affects the career investment.   # negative social media, directly affects the career investment.  people are losing their jobs left and right because of poor social media spotlighting.  cops have the most opportunities to mess up in a superficial capacity and lose their careers over it.  they do not have to mess up obscenely bad, they just have to be unpopular.  however many years of training and money it costs to become a cop, slowly becomes not worth it if you lose your career to a bad video.
obviously police reform is on the table right now in light of the past few weeks.  i have read things about body cams, and increased accountability all placing a taller order for officers.  most of it to me, comes off as basic cop hating, and does not actually provide a reasonable solution that improves the amount of corrective justice taking place.  in fact, it impedes the justice system because it introduces external hoops for police to jump over doing their job.  my arguments are as follows: increasing police accountability increases police liability.  in the era of social media, one bad experience can cost you your whole career.  this is true for every job, but it is exceptionally true for police who on a day to day basis subject themselves to this form of public scrutiny.  i do not see this going away under the current status quo, but i do think that adding more barriers to this particular issue destroys something the general populous values.  job stability.  0.  becoming a police officer like any other form of training is an investment, and the current state of affairs and the proposed state of affairs will diminish job stability for police officers.  this results in a net negative in effective justice, because less officers means more crime.  0.  it will create an upward trend in the risk/reward mentality.  due to their scarcity, cops will eventually lead to higher compensations to incentivize the fields.  this is something present in other fields already where scarcity for the position exists, such as medical nurses having large signing bonuses.  this leads to increased police spending for less officers, once again creating a net negative for justice.  0.  the proposed things i have heard such as maiming instead of killing and body cams provide proper closure for a negligible amount of cases, but create far more gaps in coverage than they are worth.  so it is logically inconsistent to say: raising the liability of police officers, and destroying police coverage because of this ideology is not a positive boon to the justice system.  yes more high profile cases are covered better, but their frequency is too infrequent to justify the loss of police force.  at which point if you insist on some of the measures suggested you are not for more justice, you are just cop hating.  please cmv.   #  due to their scarcity, cops will eventually lead to higher compensations to incentivize the fields.   #  an experiment showed the effects of incentives.   # that is a pretty huge assumption there.  y know people assume that traffic signs and lights were great, then scientist found out after removing them in one city, that traffic accidents were dramatically reduced.  an experiment showed the effects of incentives.  turns out that monetary incentives only work for menial labour.  on the other hand, for anything more complex it turns out the biggest motivates are autonomy, the ability to improve skills used, and a sense of purpose.  the entire purpose of police since their invention is to protect the few who have from the many who have not.  that is all, it is never been about  protect and serve.   just some things to consider.   #  police are supposed to be public servants, acting to foster a peaceful environment, in accordance with the laws the will of the majority has agreed to.   #  job stability ? the matter at hand, the reason there is a public outcry for more accountability and scrutiny on law enforcement, is that unarmed men have been gunned down by armed men on public streets under questionable circumstances.  we entrust police officers to use deadly force on other human beings when necessary.  this is not your nine to five job, the problem is not that your boss thinks you are going on reddit too much and is putting a camera in your cubicle.  police are supposed to be public servants, acting to foster a peaceful environment, in accordance with the laws the will of the majority has agreed to.  if a police officer shoots a member of the public unnecessarily, he has not only broken the law and committed one of the most heinous actions an individual is capable of carrying out upon another living, thinking, feeling individual, he has failed in his job and in the duty he was entrusted with  by it is very definition .  it does not matter how many cops would be fired as a result of the public  expecting them to do their job right.  they absolutely have to be fired or the  entire meaning  of giving them a badge and a gun has been lost.   #  the reality is simple, a career is an investment people make for personal prosperity.   #  this is like 0 emotional banter and 0 logic.  i am not interested in engaging in emotional appeal.  the reality is simple, a career is an investment people make for personal prosperity.  the job itself helps them sleep at night, but that is it.  if people do not want to be cops and there are no men to fail at doing their job in the first place then nobody is protected or safe.  right ? if you make too tall an order for people to fill or want to fill people do not do it.  police work is heinously dangerous, it is not a field that people get into lightly to begin with.  if you put a choke hold on that, you are not going to have any cops to solve your problems if you press the issue enough.   #  this is not an emotional appeal, it is logic.   #  this is not an emotional appeal, it is logic.  we expect cops to enforce the law.  if they break the law, they have not done their job and have to be fired.  if asking police not to break the law is too tall an order, than we have a problem that is far greater than career investments.  the law and human life matter more than any individual police officer.  people who can not understand that are not qualified to be officers of the law.  aside from that, there is no basis to even say that body cameras would cause people to not want to be police officers.  video footage that actually depicts the circumstances of an incident of force being applied would benefit police officers who acted correctly and in accordance with the law.  if anything, body cameras would reassure someone that if they do the job they are expected to do right, the have nothing to fear in terms of job stability, career investment, or reprisal.   #  people are losing their jobs left and right because of poor social media spotlighting.   # negative social media, directly affects the career investment.  people are losing their jobs left and right because of poor social media spotlighting.  cops have the most opportunities to mess up in a superficial capacity and lose their careers over it.  they do not have to mess up obscenely bad, they just have to be unpopular.  however many years of training and money it costs to become a cop, slowly becomes not worth it if you lose your career to a bad video.
i find it ridiculous one must be 0 to simply buy a scratch ticket.  for one, buying a scratch ticket will not directly cause one physical harm.  i can see how something, such as cigarettes are illegal for minors, since they make the smoker a massive candidate for cancer, but i do not see the same thing happening for scratch tickets or bingo.  also, many argue that since gambling is addictive, only adults should be able to gamble.  while i agree that gambling is addictive, not everybody who gambling becomes an addict.  it would also be better to desensitize teens to gamble by giving them this right when they do not have to worry about bills, college tuition, etc.   #  i find it ridiculous one must be 0 to simply buy a scratch ticket.   #  for one, buying a scratch ticket will not directly cause one physical harm.   # for one, buying a scratch ticket will not directly cause one physical harm.  i can see how something, such as cigarettes are illegal for minors, since they make the smoker a massive candidate for cancer, but i do not see the same thing happening for scratch tickets or bingo.  just like smoking, gambling is a habit and addicting.  younger minds are much more susceptible to this effect, and as a result are more likely to become addicted or habitual gamblers.  while i agree that gambling is addictive, not everybody who gambling becomes an addict.  it would also be better to desensitize teens to gamble by giving them this right when they do not have to worry about bills, college tuition, etc.  cocaine and meth are not addictive to everyone either, should we allow teens the chance to try those as well ?  #  i have actually read the dsm and everything i said about it is based 0 on fact.   #  the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 0th edition, dsm 0 has a section where it mentions disorders which are being considered for inclusion in future editions of the dsm.  one of these suspected disorders is internet gaming addiction.  this does not refer to internet gambling, but to games like world of warcraft.  if this is ever considered an addiction, than by your logic all video games would be banned.  i have actually read the dsm and everything i said about it is based 0 on fact.   #  you are going to be giving them a habit that could cost them lots of money.   #  teens tend to have lots of problems with impulse control.  this part of their brain is not fully formed yet.  this is not a slight on teens, but just an observation on brain development.  gambling is a fine thing to do if you know your limits and can stay in those limits.  this is the exact skill that teens tend to have problems with.  and also, you are not really going to be desensitizing kids here.  you are going to be giving them a habit that could cost them lots of money.  over their life.  scratch tickets are about the worst thing you could spend your money on.   #  you are not just talking scratch tickets, you are talking gambling in all its forms.   #  it is not about being impressionable or not, it is impulse control.  the teen brain is really bad when it comes to impulse control.  those are parts are still developing.  gambling requires impulse control.  you set a limit and you stay in that limit.  you are not just talking scratch tickets, you are talking gambling in all its forms.  you are talking casinos and slot machines and all the rest.  you really do not want to have people with poor impulse control gambling.  that is almost the best way to set up people with significant gambling problems.   #  no one starts out as a gambling addict.   # the majority of teens do not have to worry about this since they are supported by their parents usually and have not paid for tuition, books, etc.  this is even more reason to prevent gambling until age 0.  they do not have much money, and would therefore be spending a larger portion of it on gambling.  if their parents are supporting them, then they are wasting their parents money.  no one starts out as a gambling addict.  they start small with online poker, or scratchers, or $. 0 slots.  i really do not see how you can call gambling benign.
i find it ridiculous one must be 0 to simply buy a scratch ticket.  for one, buying a scratch ticket will not directly cause one physical harm.  i can see how something, such as cigarettes are illegal for minors, since they make the smoker a massive candidate for cancer, but i do not see the same thing happening for scratch tickets or bingo.  also, many argue that since gambling is addictive, only adults should be able to gamble.  while i agree that gambling is addictive, not everybody who gambling becomes an addict.  it would also be better to desensitize teens to gamble by giving them this right when they do not have to worry about bills, college tuition, etc.   #  also, many argue that since gambling is addictive, only adults should be able to gamble.   #  while i agree that gambling is addictive, not everybody who gambling becomes an addict.   # for one, buying a scratch ticket will not directly cause one physical harm.  i can see how something, such as cigarettes are illegal for minors, since they make the smoker a massive candidate for cancer, but i do not see the same thing happening for scratch tickets or bingo.  just like smoking, gambling is a habit and addicting.  younger minds are much more susceptible to this effect, and as a result are more likely to become addicted or habitual gamblers.  while i agree that gambling is addictive, not everybody who gambling becomes an addict.  it would also be better to desensitize teens to gamble by giving them this right when they do not have to worry about bills, college tuition, etc.  cocaine and meth are not addictive to everyone either, should we allow teens the chance to try those as well ?  #  the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 0th edition, dsm 0 has a section where it mentions disorders which are being considered for inclusion in future editions of the dsm.   #  the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 0th edition, dsm 0 has a section where it mentions disorders which are being considered for inclusion in future editions of the dsm.  one of these suspected disorders is internet gaming addiction.  this does not refer to internet gambling, but to games like world of warcraft.  if this is ever considered an addiction, than by your logic all video games would be banned.  i have actually read the dsm and everything i said about it is based 0 on fact.   #  this is the exact skill that teens tend to have problems with.   #  teens tend to have lots of problems with impulse control.  this part of their brain is not fully formed yet.  this is not a slight on teens, but just an observation on brain development.  gambling is a fine thing to do if you know your limits and can stay in those limits.  this is the exact skill that teens tend to have problems with.  and also, you are not really going to be desensitizing kids here.  you are going to be giving them a habit that could cost them lots of money.  over their life.  scratch tickets are about the worst thing you could spend your money on.   #  the teen brain is really bad when it comes to impulse control.   #  it is not about being impressionable or not, it is impulse control.  the teen brain is really bad when it comes to impulse control.  those are parts are still developing.  gambling requires impulse control.  you set a limit and you stay in that limit.  you are not just talking scratch tickets, you are talking gambling in all its forms.  you are talking casinos and slot machines and all the rest.  you really do not want to have people with poor impulse control gambling.  that is almost the best way to set up people with significant gambling problems.   #  i really do not see how you can call gambling benign.   # the majority of teens do not have to worry about this since they are supported by their parents usually and have not paid for tuition, books, etc.  this is even more reason to prevent gambling until age 0.  they do not have much money, and would therefore be spending a larger portion of it on gambling.  if their parents are supporting them, then they are wasting their parents money.  no one starts out as a gambling addict.  they start small with online poker, or scratchers, or $. 0 slots.  i really do not see how you can call gambling benign.
i think my list of reasons could go on for quite a long time, so i will keep this to just the stuff i find most convincing.  0.  sports in the summer olympics take more athletic ability.  now, i wont pretend that some sports in the winter olympics do not take excessive amounts of athletic ability, but there is a large abundance of stuff that takes next to no real athletic ability.  curling and luge come to mind right off the bat as some of the grossest offenders.  0.  most of the sports in the winter olympics are not even an option for most people around the world.  unless you live in one of the countries that is pretty much only mountains, you do not ever even have the option to be good at any of these sports.  name one time in your life you ever had the option to go to your local speed skating rink.  i would wager that less than 0/0 of us on reddit ever had the option to partake in something like that, as opposed to the summer olympics, which is made up of mostly sports that everyone has heard of or played at some point.  even as someone who grew up in america where there are a good amount of mountains, my family would have had to have been rich for me to even get into a sport like snowboarding where i would have to be on the mountain non stop.  the fact that the number of people that ever even get to try these sports is way lower, makes the sports being played less interesting, because the level of competition ca not be the same.  0.  summer olympic sports are more popular in general.  the sports in the winter olympics are just plain old boring.  the summer olympics are made up mostly of sports that have stood the test of time and people have loved for a long time.  the winter olympics are full of sports that people only watch because it is their country against the others.  most people could not tell you any of the techniques to bobsledding or how to score a snowboarding run.  they also have no idea how impressive or difficult the tasks in the winter olympics are because again, nobody has ever even had the chance to try this stuff out before.  these are probably the biggest reasons imo that the summer olympics kick the shit out of the winter olympics.  cmv !  #  sports in the summer olympics take more athletic ability.   #  do you only consider it a sport if it takes an excessive amount of athletic ability to win ?  # do you only consider it a sport if it takes an excessive amount of athletic ability to win ? can we not include games that force a lot of dexterity and skill as well ? some examples URL of summer games that do not really take a lot of physical prowess: archery kinda need arm strength, but this is secondary to dexterity sailing diving shooting table tennis fencing same caveat as archery imo golf what do you think about these ? i do not think this necessarily makes the winter sports  worse , i just think it means the contenders are more limited.  i certainly does not mean that those sports are any less interesting than the summer events.  this is sort of a circular argument.  they are better and more interesting because they are more popular.  the summer olympics are made up mostly of sports that have stood the test of time and people have loved for a long time.  hockey, skiing and skating have been around for years.  these are examples of imo very non boring sports that have stood the  test of time  as in, have been in the olympics for about a century .  if you want to argue that the summer events have more sports that have been around for thousands of years like track events , you also have to remember that there are a lot of events these days that are relatively new there as well as the winter sports volleyball, rhythmic gymnastics, badminton, etc .  there really is not any winner between the two olympics.  they both test athletes in their discipline and provide for exciting entertainment.  to me, both of them have their boring and exciting events.   #  that is a nordic skiing race combined with shooting guns.   #  0.  nordic skiing is the most taxing endurance sport in the world.  the highest recorded vo0max, which measures your body is ability to convert oxygen into co0 and therefore expend energy was measured in bjorn daelie, a nordic skier.  it is reasonable to argue that nordic skiing takes more athletic ability than any other endurance sport.  additionally, both curling and luge take hand eye coordination, and years of training to compete at the olympic level.  i think you could compare curling to sailing: both require coordination from teammates and moderate physical ability, as well as excellent knowledge of the sport itself.  0.  with the exception of track and field, most summer olympic sports are roughly similar in terms of ability for common people to play.  how many people have the option to join a synchronized swimming team ? sailing ? golf is pretty expensive.  plus, i do not need to have played a sport to enjoy watching it.  gymnastics is one of the most popular olympic sports, and very few people have ever competed in that.  likewise, ski jumping is one of the most popular winter olympic sports, and very few people have done that.  0.  newsflash: the reason people love the olympics is because it is  us vs.  them .  that is why women is soccer is popular exactly two months every four years in america.  we are not really cheering for the sport, we are cheering for our country.  i have no idea how hard it is to do anything at a hyper elite level, and i love the olympics anyway.  also, the winter olympics have the biathlon.  that is a nordic skiing race combined with shooting guns.  there are zero summer olympics events which compare.   #  i somewhat agree with your third point.  on the us vs them thing, but i disagree with the second half.   #  i would put nordic skiing on the same level as marathon running, as there is no doubt that it takes an unusual amount of athletic ability to perform both of those.  but i think nordic skiing is the largest anomaly in the winter olympics in that sense.  probably a quarter of the summer olympic sports take little to no equipment, and anyone could try them if the wanted to.  most of them are ready available to anyone near a decent sized city, and probably a fifth of them are not available to your average first world citizen.  i have no idea what the percentage of people that have mountains readily available in their lives is, but it is significantly lower than the amount of people that have a track, tennis court, boxing ring, pool, road, or volleyball court available.  i somewhat agree with your third point.  on the us vs them thing, but i disagree with the second half.  you know how hard it is to run 0 meters in under 0 minutes, because that is insane.  you do not know how hard it is to skate however far speed skaters skate, because you probably have never tried.   #  curling and archery are probably two that require the least, and they are still incredibly difficult and require a lot of hand eye coordination.   #  nordic skiing comprises as least part of 0/0 events, so it is a rather large anomaly if that is what you are going to call it.  i think it takes a tremendous amount of athletic ability to perform nearly every olympic sport.  curling and archery are probably two that require the least, and they are still incredibly difficult and require a lot of hand eye coordination.  but from a spectator standpoint, the second highest rated summer olympic sport URL is gymnastics.  which basically no one can do.  i do not know how hard it is to do a vault or the pommel horse because i have never done one, but i know it is hard.  i do not know how hard it is to do a triple lutz, or a backflip with a snowboard attached to my feet.  but that does not matter.  it is awesome to watch people backflip, or jump off a 0m tall ramp down a 0m hill with skis attached to their feet, or this insanity URL and since we are watching it for spectator sport value, that is what matters.   #  but speed skating, figure skating, and hockey i could watch all day.   #  is not personal preference enough ? i could give exactly 0 shit about sports generally.  i just find sports and athletics boring as fuck.  except skating.  i love to watch skating.  and i have no idea why.  but speed skating, figure skating, and hockey i could watch all day.  so winter sports and olympics interest me and summer olympics are lucky if they can compel me to watch the opening ceremonies.  it is just my personal preference but i do not see why that is not enough for me t consider winter olympics superior to summer.
i think my list of reasons could go on for quite a long time, so i will keep this to just the stuff i find most convincing.  0.  sports in the summer olympics take more athletic ability.  now, i wont pretend that some sports in the winter olympics do not take excessive amounts of athletic ability, but there is a large abundance of stuff that takes next to no real athletic ability.  curling and luge come to mind right off the bat as some of the grossest offenders.  0.  most of the sports in the winter olympics are not even an option for most people around the world.  unless you live in one of the countries that is pretty much only mountains, you do not ever even have the option to be good at any of these sports.  name one time in your life you ever had the option to go to your local speed skating rink.  i would wager that less than 0/0 of us on reddit ever had the option to partake in something like that, as opposed to the summer olympics, which is made up of mostly sports that everyone has heard of or played at some point.  even as someone who grew up in america where there are a good amount of mountains, my family would have had to have been rich for me to even get into a sport like snowboarding where i would have to be on the mountain non stop.  the fact that the number of people that ever even get to try these sports is way lower, makes the sports being played less interesting, because the level of competition ca not be the same.  0.  summer olympic sports are more popular in general.  the sports in the winter olympics are just plain old boring.  the summer olympics are made up mostly of sports that have stood the test of time and people have loved for a long time.  the winter olympics are full of sports that people only watch because it is their country against the others.  most people could not tell you any of the techniques to bobsledding or how to score a snowboarding run.  they also have no idea how impressive or difficult the tasks in the winter olympics are because again, nobody has ever even had the chance to try this stuff out before.  these are probably the biggest reasons imo that the summer olympics kick the shit out of the winter olympics.  cmv !  #  most of the sports in the winter olympics are not even an option for most people around the world.   #  i do not think this necessarily makes the winter sports  worse , i just think it means the contenders are more limited.   # do you only consider it a sport if it takes an excessive amount of athletic ability to win ? can we not include games that force a lot of dexterity and skill as well ? some examples URL of summer games that do not really take a lot of physical prowess: archery kinda need arm strength, but this is secondary to dexterity sailing diving shooting table tennis fencing same caveat as archery imo golf what do you think about these ? i do not think this necessarily makes the winter sports  worse , i just think it means the contenders are more limited.  i certainly does not mean that those sports are any less interesting than the summer events.  this is sort of a circular argument.  they are better and more interesting because they are more popular.  the summer olympics are made up mostly of sports that have stood the test of time and people have loved for a long time.  hockey, skiing and skating have been around for years.  these are examples of imo very non boring sports that have stood the  test of time  as in, have been in the olympics for about a century .  if you want to argue that the summer events have more sports that have been around for thousands of years like track events , you also have to remember that there are a lot of events these days that are relatively new there as well as the winter sports volleyball, rhythmic gymnastics, badminton, etc .  there really is not any winner between the two olympics.  they both test athletes in their discipline and provide for exciting entertainment.  to me, both of them have their boring and exciting events.   #  gymnastics is one of the most popular olympic sports, and very few people have ever competed in that.   #  0.  nordic skiing is the most taxing endurance sport in the world.  the highest recorded vo0max, which measures your body is ability to convert oxygen into co0 and therefore expend energy was measured in bjorn daelie, a nordic skier.  it is reasonable to argue that nordic skiing takes more athletic ability than any other endurance sport.  additionally, both curling and luge take hand eye coordination, and years of training to compete at the olympic level.  i think you could compare curling to sailing: both require coordination from teammates and moderate physical ability, as well as excellent knowledge of the sport itself.  0.  with the exception of track and field, most summer olympic sports are roughly similar in terms of ability for common people to play.  how many people have the option to join a synchronized swimming team ? sailing ? golf is pretty expensive.  plus, i do not need to have played a sport to enjoy watching it.  gymnastics is one of the most popular olympic sports, and very few people have ever competed in that.  likewise, ski jumping is one of the most popular winter olympic sports, and very few people have done that.  0.  newsflash: the reason people love the olympics is because it is  us vs.  them .  that is why women is soccer is popular exactly two months every four years in america.  we are not really cheering for the sport, we are cheering for our country.  i have no idea how hard it is to do anything at a hyper elite level, and i love the olympics anyway.  also, the winter olympics have the biathlon.  that is a nordic skiing race combined with shooting guns.  there are zero summer olympics events which compare.   #  you do not know how hard it is to skate however far speed skaters skate, because you probably have never tried.   #  i would put nordic skiing on the same level as marathon running, as there is no doubt that it takes an unusual amount of athletic ability to perform both of those.  but i think nordic skiing is the largest anomaly in the winter olympics in that sense.  probably a quarter of the summer olympic sports take little to no equipment, and anyone could try them if the wanted to.  most of them are ready available to anyone near a decent sized city, and probably a fifth of them are not available to your average first world citizen.  i have no idea what the percentage of people that have mountains readily available in their lives is, but it is significantly lower than the amount of people that have a track, tennis court, boxing ring, pool, road, or volleyball court available.  i somewhat agree with your third point.  on the us vs them thing, but i disagree with the second half.  you know how hard it is to run 0 meters in under 0 minutes, because that is insane.  you do not know how hard it is to skate however far speed skaters skate, because you probably have never tried.   #  but from a spectator standpoint, the second highest rated summer olympic sport URL is gymnastics.   #  nordic skiing comprises as least part of 0/0 events, so it is a rather large anomaly if that is what you are going to call it.  i think it takes a tremendous amount of athletic ability to perform nearly every olympic sport.  curling and archery are probably two that require the least, and they are still incredibly difficult and require a lot of hand eye coordination.  but from a spectator standpoint, the second highest rated summer olympic sport URL is gymnastics.  which basically no one can do.  i do not know how hard it is to do a vault or the pommel horse because i have never done one, but i know it is hard.  i do not know how hard it is to do a triple lutz, or a backflip with a snowboard attached to my feet.  but that does not matter.  it is awesome to watch people backflip, or jump off a 0m tall ramp down a 0m hill with skis attached to their feet, or this insanity URL and since we are watching it for spectator sport value, that is what matters.   #  i could give exactly 0 shit about sports generally.   #  is not personal preference enough ? i could give exactly 0 shit about sports generally.  i just find sports and athletics boring as fuck.  except skating.  i love to watch skating.  and i have no idea why.  but speed skating, figure skating, and hockey i could watch all day.  so winter sports and olympics interest me and summer olympics are lucky if they can compel me to watch the opening ceremonies.  it is just my personal preference but i do not see why that is not enough for me t consider winter olympics superior to summer.
i think my list of reasons could go on for quite a long time, so i will keep this to just the stuff i find most convincing.  0.  sports in the summer olympics take more athletic ability.  now, i wont pretend that some sports in the winter olympics do not take excessive amounts of athletic ability, but there is a large abundance of stuff that takes next to no real athletic ability.  curling and luge come to mind right off the bat as some of the grossest offenders.  0.  most of the sports in the winter olympics are not even an option for most people around the world.  unless you live in one of the countries that is pretty much only mountains, you do not ever even have the option to be good at any of these sports.  name one time in your life you ever had the option to go to your local speed skating rink.  i would wager that less than 0/0 of us on reddit ever had the option to partake in something like that, as opposed to the summer olympics, which is made up of mostly sports that everyone has heard of or played at some point.  even as someone who grew up in america where there are a good amount of mountains, my family would have had to have been rich for me to even get into a sport like snowboarding where i would have to be on the mountain non stop.  the fact that the number of people that ever even get to try these sports is way lower, makes the sports being played less interesting, because the level of competition ca not be the same.  0.  summer olympic sports are more popular in general.  the sports in the winter olympics are just plain old boring.  the summer olympics are made up mostly of sports that have stood the test of time and people have loved for a long time.  the winter olympics are full of sports that people only watch because it is their country against the others.  most people could not tell you any of the techniques to bobsledding or how to score a snowboarding run.  they also have no idea how impressive or difficult the tasks in the winter olympics are because again, nobody has ever even had the chance to try this stuff out before.  these are probably the biggest reasons imo that the summer olympics kick the shit out of the winter olympics.  cmv !  #  summer olympic sports are more popular in general.   #  this is sort of a circular argument.   # do you only consider it a sport if it takes an excessive amount of athletic ability to win ? can we not include games that force a lot of dexterity and skill as well ? some examples URL of summer games that do not really take a lot of physical prowess: archery kinda need arm strength, but this is secondary to dexterity sailing diving shooting table tennis fencing same caveat as archery imo golf what do you think about these ? i do not think this necessarily makes the winter sports  worse , i just think it means the contenders are more limited.  i certainly does not mean that those sports are any less interesting than the summer events.  this is sort of a circular argument.  they are better and more interesting because they are more popular.  the summer olympics are made up mostly of sports that have stood the test of time and people have loved for a long time.  hockey, skiing and skating have been around for years.  these are examples of imo very non boring sports that have stood the  test of time  as in, have been in the olympics for about a century .  if you want to argue that the summer events have more sports that have been around for thousands of years like track events , you also have to remember that there are a lot of events these days that are relatively new there as well as the winter sports volleyball, rhythmic gymnastics, badminton, etc .  there really is not any winner between the two olympics.  they both test athletes in their discipline and provide for exciting entertainment.  to me, both of them have their boring and exciting events.   #  plus, i do not need to have played a sport to enjoy watching it.   #  0.  nordic skiing is the most taxing endurance sport in the world.  the highest recorded vo0max, which measures your body is ability to convert oxygen into co0 and therefore expend energy was measured in bjorn daelie, a nordic skier.  it is reasonable to argue that nordic skiing takes more athletic ability than any other endurance sport.  additionally, both curling and luge take hand eye coordination, and years of training to compete at the olympic level.  i think you could compare curling to sailing: both require coordination from teammates and moderate physical ability, as well as excellent knowledge of the sport itself.  0.  with the exception of track and field, most summer olympic sports are roughly similar in terms of ability for common people to play.  how many people have the option to join a synchronized swimming team ? sailing ? golf is pretty expensive.  plus, i do not need to have played a sport to enjoy watching it.  gymnastics is one of the most popular olympic sports, and very few people have ever competed in that.  likewise, ski jumping is one of the most popular winter olympic sports, and very few people have done that.  0.  newsflash: the reason people love the olympics is because it is  us vs.  them .  that is why women is soccer is popular exactly two months every four years in america.  we are not really cheering for the sport, we are cheering for our country.  i have no idea how hard it is to do anything at a hyper elite level, and i love the olympics anyway.  also, the winter olympics have the biathlon.  that is a nordic skiing race combined with shooting guns.  there are zero summer olympics events which compare.   #  most of them are ready available to anyone near a decent sized city, and probably a fifth of them are not available to your average first world citizen.   #  i would put nordic skiing on the same level as marathon running, as there is no doubt that it takes an unusual amount of athletic ability to perform both of those.  but i think nordic skiing is the largest anomaly in the winter olympics in that sense.  probably a quarter of the summer olympic sports take little to no equipment, and anyone could try them if the wanted to.  most of them are ready available to anyone near a decent sized city, and probably a fifth of them are not available to your average first world citizen.  i have no idea what the percentage of people that have mountains readily available in their lives is, but it is significantly lower than the amount of people that have a track, tennis court, boxing ring, pool, road, or volleyball court available.  i somewhat agree with your third point.  on the us vs them thing, but i disagree with the second half.  you know how hard it is to run 0 meters in under 0 minutes, because that is insane.  you do not know how hard it is to skate however far speed skaters skate, because you probably have never tried.   #  curling and archery are probably two that require the least, and they are still incredibly difficult and require a lot of hand eye coordination.   #  nordic skiing comprises as least part of 0/0 events, so it is a rather large anomaly if that is what you are going to call it.  i think it takes a tremendous amount of athletic ability to perform nearly every olympic sport.  curling and archery are probably two that require the least, and they are still incredibly difficult and require a lot of hand eye coordination.  but from a spectator standpoint, the second highest rated summer olympic sport URL is gymnastics.  which basically no one can do.  i do not know how hard it is to do a vault or the pommel horse because i have never done one, but i know it is hard.  i do not know how hard it is to do a triple lutz, or a backflip with a snowboard attached to my feet.  but that does not matter.  it is awesome to watch people backflip, or jump off a 0m tall ramp down a 0m hill with skis attached to their feet, or this insanity URL and since we are watching it for spectator sport value, that is what matters.   #  it is just my personal preference but i do not see why that is not enough for me t consider winter olympics superior to summer.   #  is not personal preference enough ? i could give exactly 0 shit about sports generally.  i just find sports and athletics boring as fuck.  except skating.  i love to watch skating.  and i have no idea why.  but speed skating, figure skating, and hockey i could watch all day.  so winter sports and olympics interest me and summer olympics are lucky if they can compel me to watch the opening ceremonies.  it is just my personal preference but i do not see why that is not enough for me t consider winter olympics superior to summer.
i think my list of reasons could go on for quite a long time, so i will keep this to just the stuff i find most convincing.  0.  sports in the summer olympics take more athletic ability.  now, i wont pretend that some sports in the winter olympics do not take excessive amounts of athletic ability, but there is a large abundance of stuff that takes next to no real athletic ability.  curling and luge come to mind right off the bat as some of the grossest offenders.  0.  most of the sports in the winter olympics are not even an option for most people around the world.  unless you live in one of the countries that is pretty much only mountains, you do not ever even have the option to be good at any of these sports.  name one time in your life you ever had the option to go to your local speed skating rink.  i would wager that less than 0/0 of us on reddit ever had the option to partake in something like that, as opposed to the summer olympics, which is made up of mostly sports that everyone has heard of or played at some point.  even as someone who grew up in america where there are a good amount of mountains, my family would have had to have been rich for me to even get into a sport like snowboarding where i would have to be on the mountain non stop.  the fact that the number of people that ever even get to try these sports is way lower, makes the sports being played less interesting, because the level of competition ca not be the same.  0.  summer olympic sports are more popular in general.  the sports in the winter olympics are just plain old boring.  the summer olympics are made up mostly of sports that have stood the test of time and people have loved for a long time.  the winter olympics are full of sports that people only watch because it is their country against the others.  most people could not tell you any of the techniques to bobsledding or how to score a snowboarding run.  they also have no idea how impressive or difficult the tasks in the winter olympics are because again, nobody has ever even had the chance to try this stuff out before.  these are probably the biggest reasons imo that the summer olympics kick the shit out of the winter olympics.  cmv !  #  the sports in the winter olympics are just plain old boring.   #  the summer olympics are made up mostly of sports that have stood the test of time and people have loved for a long time.   # do you only consider it a sport if it takes an excessive amount of athletic ability to win ? can we not include games that force a lot of dexterity and skill as well ? some examples URL of summer games that do not really take a lot of physical prowess: archery kinda need arm strength, but this is secondary to dexterity sailing diving shooting table tennis fencing same caveat as archery imo golf what do you think about these ? i do not think this necessarily makes the winter sports  worse , i just think it means the contenders are more limited.  i certainly does not mean that those sports are any less interesting than the summer events.  this is sort of a circular argument.  they are better and more interesting because they are more popular.  the summer olympics are made up mostly of sports that have stood the test of time and people have loved for a long time.  hockey, skiing and skating have been around for years.  these are examples of imo very non boring sports that have stood the  test of time  as in, have been in the olympics for about a century .  if you want to argue that the summer events have more sports that have been around for thousands of years like track events , you also have to remember that there are a lot of events these days that are relatively new there as well as the winter sports volleyball, rhythmic gymnastics, badminton, etc .  there really is not any winner between the two olympics.  they both test athletes in their discipline and provide for exciting entertainment.  to me, both of them have their boring and exciting events.   #  0.  nordic skiing is the most taxing endurance sport in the world.   #  0.  nordic skiing is the most taxing endurance sport in the world.  the highest recorded vo0max, which measures your body is ability to convert oxygen into co0 and therefore expend energy was measured in bjorn daelie, a nordic skier.  it is reasonable to argue that nordic skiing takes more athletic ability than any other endurance sport.  additionally, both curling and luge take hand eye coordination, and years of training to compete at the olympic level.  i think you could compare curling to sailing: both require coordination from teammates and moderate physical ability, as well as excellent knowledge of the sport itself.  0.  with the exception of track and field, most summer olympic sports are roughly similar in terms of ability for common people to play.  how many people have the option to join a synchronized swimming team ? sailing ? golf is pretty expensive.  plus, i do not need to have played a sport to enjoy watching it.  gymnastics is one of the most popular olympic sports, and very few people have ever competed in that.  likewise, ski jumping is one of the most popular winter olympic sports, and very few people have done that.  0.  newsflash: the reason people love the olympics is because it is  us vs.  them .  that is why women is soccer is popular exactly two months every four years in america.  we are not really cheering for the sport, we are cheering for our country.  i have no idea how hard it is to do anything at a hyper elite level, and i love the olympics anyway.  also, the winter olympics have the biathlon.  that is a nordic skiing race combined with shooting guns.  there are zero summer olympics events which compare.   #  probably a quarter of the summer olympic sports take little to no equipment, and anyone could try them if the wanted to.   #  i would put nordic skiing on the same level as marathon running, as there is no doubt that it takes an unusual amount of athletic ability to perform both of those.  but i think nordic skiing is the largest anomaly in the winter olympics in that sense.  probably a quarter of the summer olympic sports take little to no equipment, and anyone could try them if the wanted to.  most of them are ready available to anyone near a decent sized city, and probably a fifth of them are not available to your average first world citizen.  i have no idea what the percentage of people that have mountains readily available in their lives is, but it is significantly lower than the amount of people that have a track, tennis court, boxing ring, pool, road, or volleyball court available.  i somewhat agree with your third point.  on the us vs them thing, but i disagree with the second half.  you know how hard it is to run 0 meters in under 0 minutes, because that is insane.  you do not know how hard it is to skate however far speed skaters skate, because you probably have never tried.   #  curling and archery are probably two that require the least, and they are still incredibly difficult and require a lot of hand eye coordination.   #  nordic skiing comprises as least part of 0/0 events, so it is a rather large anomaly if that is what you are going to call it.  i think it takes a tremendous amount of athletic ability to perform nearly every olympic sport.  curling and archery are probably two that require the least, and they are still incredibly difficult and require a lot of hand eye coordination.  but from a spectator standpoint, the second highest rated summer olympic sport URL is gymnastics.  which basically no one can do.  i do not know how hard it is to do a vault or the pommel horse because i have never done one, but i know it is hard.  i do not know how hard it is to do a triple lutz, or a backflip with a snowboard attached to my feet.  but that does not matter.  it is awesome to watch people backflip, or jump off a 0m tall ramp down a 0m hill with skis attached to their feet, or this insanity URL and since we are watching it for spectator sport value, that is what matters.   #  it is just my personal preference but i do not see why that is not enough for me t consider winter olympics superior to summer.   #  is not personal preference enough ? i could give exactly 0 shit about sports generally.  i just find sports and athletics boring as fuck.  except skating.  i love to watch skating.  and i have no idea why.  but speed skating, figure skating, and hockey i could watch all day.  so winter sports and olympics interest me and summer olympics are lucky if they can compel me to watch the opening ceremonies.  it is just my personal preference but i do not see why that is not enough for me t consider winter olympics superior to summer.
a direct online representative democracy would work better than a republic now that the internet exists.  before, geography limited people so that they could not all participate in an election.  now we have the internet.  true democracy has not been around since athens the last time all the people in a society was feasibly able to get together in a forum to vote.  but now it is possible.  i think it would work just fine, and it would even mesh well with our current system.  it is very frustrating how our current parties align.  it is like they are perfectly aligned to create maximum fighting between themselves, but in the end up being exactly the same on all the most important issues, like war, monetary policy, labor rights, and energy investment where the policy of both is pretty much  fuck you.   voting on issues would make it so someone who is very religious could vote pro life, but also pro environmentalist.  someone could vote for gay marriage, but also against gun control.  right now, these things are essentially impossible in national elections.  cmv or go to /r/openparty/ and start working it out if you agree: a a system where every single vote has to be done through every single person.  b a system where people can then vote on policies related to the system itself, and so could evolve.  i was imagining b when i posted this, but there is a lot of discussion around a as well.  most people are stupid ok, that is a common opinion, not one that i personally hold.  but even if people are stupid, we now have a science committee full of people who do not believe in evolution or climate change.  i would trust randomly selected people from the country over that.  it is been shown time and time again that crowdsourcing performs just fine.  voter turnout people would not be forced to vote on topics that do not apply to them or they do not understand.  in fact, they could just as well be encouraged not to.  i see it as a negative that i vote for obama because i want public healthcare, but then i also have to go with his opinion on farm subsidies, when i do not know what that is, and i do not have time to research it.  in this system, i would not have to.  hackers i think if the vast majority of the internet can run on open source software, we can figure something out on this front.  there are security issues with our current methods, too, but we figured it out.  ok people, we can throw it in.  cmall0 c ed my v.  it was pretty good.  the basic points were: the dynamics of when a minority would get totally screwed would be very hard to predict.  the whole system would potentially be very volatile.  some things which should probably change slowly could change very quickly.  while i still think a variation on such a system could be more effective, the statement i made is that this particular kind of system would be better than the one we have now, and now i do not know if that is true.  so it is no longer my view ! thanks for the good times guys ! URL  #  true democracy has not been around since athens the last time all the people in a society was feasibly able to get together in a forum to vote.   #  participation in athenian democracy was limited to male citizens who had completed military service.   # how ? is every citizen expected to understand or even just care every issue put up to a vote ? if the answer is yes, you are gonna be disappointed.  if no then only those with the time, resources, and clear direct knowledge of the issue will vote, which would exclude the vast majority of people from the vast majority of legislation.  you would either be putting the onus on every citizen to give up any other career or social life they have in order to devote all of their time into being politicians or you would be handing even more power over to special interest groups as opposed to representatives.  participation in athenian democracy was limited to male citizens who had completed military service.  apparently participation rates varied from 0 0.  so not really a direct democracy at all, more of a patriarchal facio militocracy.  it very well may  work .  i do not think that there is any reason to believe that it would  work  any better than what we currently have, nor is there compelling evidence that our current system is so completely  broken  that a complete overall of the entire system would be necessary as opposed to the process of evaluation and reform we currently have.   #  none of thse are good things, but they would all have mass appeal.   #  you literally missed the entire point of my discussion and just focused on taxes.  if the masses got to vote on everything, obamacare would be gone tomorrow.  the next day every student loan in the country would be forgiven, and the day after that banks would probably be outlawed from charging interest or something equally ridiculous.  none of thse are good things, but they would all have mass appeal.  people literally only vote for their own selfish short term desires.   #  financial services should be like lubrication for the markets that actually produce things.   # when obama got elected, he had majority support for a healthcare system that included a public option.  if obamacare is unpopular, it is not necessarily because of the taxes.  do you realize how many jobs would be created if the entire generation that is floundering under debt were suddenly able to invest in their own small businesses ? small businesses create more jobs than large ones, this is a fact.  if you look at any civilization is golden age, it was when they had very low income inequality.  the labor market is more efficient when people are able to take time off to find the most suitable employment, or start their own businesses.  financial services should be like lubrication for the markets that actually produce things.  they cannot be the basis for a whole economy.  you think people are stupid, i do not think so.  they act in their interest, but they are risk averse enough not to do anything like that.  this may be radical or something, but if an industry is serving to make a majority of people is lives worse, so much that they would take steps to destroy it, maybe it should be destroyed.  none of these are things you agree with, which is why i would rather let people actually vote in their interest instead of people like you deciding for them.  desires, yes.  selfish and short term ? no.  people die for causes, they do not always act selfishly and short term.  just because you do not understand all of the myriad effects that student loans, banks, or minimum wages have on people does not mean they are totally invalid.  you also act selfishly and short term, because you have a limited ability to understand other perspectives.  i imagine benefit greatly from our current system.  so is it possible that your views stem from that ? it is fine to have a view that you support.  but thinking other people are stupid and that their views do not deserve representation is very arrogant.  it is how our system got into this mess.   #  even senators and congressmen, people who devote their jobs to politics, have entire platoons of researchers, lobbyists, and think tanks just to gauge what a topic is  about .   #  of course people deserve representation ! key word: representation.  the majority of people, apparently including you, have no idea how complex the inner workings of our government is.  you have to realize that trillions of dollars of spending means, well, trillions of dollars of budgeting.  people simply do not have the time to devote to that kind of research.  even senators and congressmen, people who devote their jobs to politics, have entire platoons of researchers, lobbyists, and think tanks just to gauge what a topic is  about .  i am assuming, based on your posts, that you are a liberal.  having representatives that vote exactly how their constituents would have voted is the largest obstacle to progress today.  think about the tea party, who refuse to compromise because they came in on a platform of not raising taxes at all.  a career politician realizes when compromise is needed, so we get a fairly even and well balanced plan.  additionally, career politicians are not reactionary, and are able to form coherent plans before action.  how would the nation react to 0/0 under your system ? in 0,  0 years  after 0/0, 0 of americans said they had strong anti muslim sentiment, the same said they wanted muslims to carry special id is, and 0 said u. s.  muslims were sympathetic to al qaeda.  URL keep in mind this is five years later.  if we had your system in place on 0/0, we would be putting muslims in camps.   #  0 million people have much more time to do this in their spare time than all of the elected officials in dc do full time.   #  people simply do not have the time to devote to that kind of research.  0 million people have much more time to do this in their spare time than all of the elected officials in dc do full time.  i actually do have an idea of how complex the inner workings are.  not everyone has to spend that time.  i imagine a situation where people make a few drafts for each part of a budget, and those who it affects vote on it.  there are articles on wikipedia about everything from quantum mechanics to historical linguistics written for free for no reason, i think we can take care of budgeting when it actually affects our lives.  having representatives that vote exactly how their constituents would have voted is the largest obstacle to progress today i disagree.  sometimes voting is conditional.   i want this, but only if this, too.   this sort of idea is impossible to translate in our current system.  you want the keystone pipeline, but only if the tax revenues are invested in green energy ? there is no way to indicate that through our current election system.  so there are these shifts in public opinion that people do not get.  it is because the details of implementation matter.  muslims were sympathetic to al qaeda.  so.  not a majority ? i have to admit, a major reason my view changed is because of things like this.  white people do not have muslim or black friends, and thus could oppress unchecked out of ignorance.  the extent to which people can delude themselves scares me a bit.  but i think most people just do not care rather than specifically feeling like they need to go out of their way to oppress.  so its possible that the votes would even themselves out.  that said, apparently switzerland is close to a direct democracy, and they banned minarets, which i think is a bit much.
here are some statistics.  msm stands for men who have sex with men.   although msm represent about 0 of the male population in the united states, in 0, msm accounted for 0 of new hiv infections among males and 0 of all new infections.    more than 0 million people in the united states are living with hiv infection, and almost 0 in 0 0 are unaware of their infection.    today, the false negative rate in the general u. s.  population is around 0, or three times out of every 0,0 tests.   it just seems like the risk of letting msm donate blood is not worth whatever sort of  civil right  gay men believe it to be.  i am a gay man myself, and i do not feel oppressed just because i ca not donate blood.  i know that i am part of a demographic that is highly at risk for hiv infection, and it is not like being a msm is the only condition where you ca not donate blood.  it does not really even have to do with gay men specifically.  if you identify as straight, but have had sex with a man once in the past, you ca not donate blood.  if you are a gay man, but have never had sex with a man, you  can  donate blood.  all it has to do with is risk and safety, not civil rights and discrimination.   #  today, the false negative rate in the general u. s.   #  population is around 0, so how about this.   # population is around 0, so how about this.  if you are a msm, they test you in triplicate.  then it is a 0e0 chance.  the red cross gets blood.  gay men get to donate.  the chance of an infection going unnoticed is essentially 0.   #  this article is my primary source URL so, this does not need to be an all or nothing view.   #  i agree with you and disagree with you to a certain extent.  the prohibition is discrimination as a matter of fact by webster is definition URL  the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually  , but i agree that it is not necessarily unjustified.  you can be a totally lgbt friendly, accepting, open minded person while still thinking that this policy is justified, absolutely.  but i disagree that this is necessarily justified.  keep in mind that the original policy was put into place in 0, when very little was known about hiv, and also that science moves faster than policy a discussion for another day .  the truth is that we have had a safe way to test for hiv within weeks of exposure for a while now, but the policies have not changed.  recently, a panel that advises hhs recommended that the outright ban be replaced by a one year deferral period.  you are probably correct that msm, as they are at greater risk for hiv in general, deserve some additional scrutiny, but they can test for hiv relatively quickly now.  if a man has not had sex with another man in the last year, it is easy to test if the blood is infected.  this article is my primary source URL so, this does not need to be an all or nothing view.  there is plenty of safe middle ground.  but the ban was implemented in a very different time than today, and our policy should reflect that.   #  and i am just gonna assume gay men have sex with other men.   #  yeah but blacks, overall, make up a similar percentage if new cases as msm.  so why not ban blacks instead ? it is probably easier to stop a black person from donating than an msm.  and while we are talking numbers.  ok, among msms there were 0 new cases of hiv.  there are 0 million people in the us 0 of whom are probably gay men.  and i am just gonna assume gay men have sex with other men.  that is 0 men out of 0.  which is statistically insignificant.  . 0 %  #  you are significantly less likely to catch it if you never receive anal.   #  that percentage seems like an acceptable risk.  plus why a whole blanket ban.  you are significantly less likely to catch it if you never receive anal.  and even less likely if you always use a condom.  with the right precautions, having anal sex, no matter if you give or receive, it can reduce the chances so low that it is almost zero.  the reason for its high statistics in the gay community is a lack of condom use and being careless.  and it should be on the honor system.  seeing that you could lie in the very beginning by saying you are straight.   #  based on the 0m population count i assume you prefer to work with the usa specific numbers, which is fine.   #  although your calculation is technically correct, the question you are trying to answer is not the relevant one.  based on the 0m population count i assume you prefer to work with the usa specific numbers, which is fine.  i am more familiar with the blood donation screening practices in my home country, but i do believe that also in the usa all the donated blood is screened for hiv infection, regardless whether the donor is member of the msm population or not.  following calculation should give rough estimate of hiv transmission probability in blood transfusion: first, let is assume that msm population is not excluded from the population of blood donors.  in this case, for every 0m blood donors, there are 0m hiv positive donors.  with the 0 false negative rate, there would be 0 0m 0 hiv positive blood donors which go undetected, giving a possibility of 0 / 0m 0 of hiv infection transmission in a single blood transfusion.  with 0m from wikipedia annual blood transfusions in the usa this would give 0   0m 0 unintended hiv transmissions.  second, let is see what happen is if we exclude the msm population from the blood donors.  now there are 0m blood donors, with 0m infections.  with the 0 false negative rate, there are 0   0m 0 hiv positive blood donors which go undetected, giving a possibility of 0 / 0m 0 of hiv infection transmission in a single blood transfusion.  this would result in 0   0m 0 unintended hiv transmissions annually.  although the calculation is very simplified, it shows how exclusion of the 0 population with 0 of the infections can considerably improve the safety of blood transfusions.
here are some statistics.  msm stands for men who have sex with men.   although msm represent about 0 of the male population in the united states, in 0, msm accounted for 0 of new hiv infections among males and 0 of all new infections.    more than 0 million people in the united states are living with hiv infection, and almost 0 in 0 0 are unaware of their infection.    today, the false negative rate in the general u. s.  population is around 0, or three times out of every 0,0 tests.   it just seems like the risk of letting msm donate blood is not worth whatever sort of  civil right  gay men believe it to be.  i am a gay man myself, and i do not feel oppressed just because i ca not donate blood.  i know that i am part of a demographic that is highly at risk for hiv infection, and it is not like being a msm is the only condition where you ca not donate blood.  it does not really even have to do with gay men specifically.  if you identify as straight, but have had sex with a man once in the past, you ca not donate blood.  if you are a gay man, but have never had sex with a man, you  can  donate blood.  all it has to do with is risk and safety, not civil rights and discrimination.   #  it just seems like the risk of letting msm donate blood is not worth whatever sort of  civil right  gay men believe it to be.   #  i am a gay man myself, and i do not feel oppressed just because i ca not donate blood.   # i am a gay man myself, and i do not feel oppressed just because i ca not donate blood.  i know that i am part of a demographic that is highly at risk for hiv infection, and it is not like being a msm is the only condition where you ca not donate blood.  it does not really even have to do with gay men specifically.  i am going to argue that the ban is  conditionally  oppressive on the basis of whether or not it is epidemiologically justified.  when there was no test, aids was poorly understood, and people were dying from the infected blood supply, a broad ban on groups believed likely to carry the disease was obviously justified.  similarly, if lifting the ban would save net lives, it is obviously unjustified.  quoting from a source whose opinion i do not trust to be correct, but that i do trust to have not made up their cites:   a joint statement released in 0 by the american association of blood banks aabb , the red cross, and america is blood centers, characterized the lifetime msm blood ban as  medically and scientifically unwarranted,  and urged the fda to modify blood donation policies so that they are  comparable with criteria for other groups at increased risk of sexual transmission of transfusion transmitted infections.   #  but i disagree that this is necessarily justified.   #  i agree with you and disagree with you to a certain extent.  the prohibition is discrimination as a matter of fact by webster is definition URL  the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually  , but i agree that it is not necessarily unjustified.  you can be a totally lgbt friendly, accepting, open minded person while still thinking that this policy is justified, absolutely.  but i disagree that this is necessarily justified.  keep in mind that the original policy was put into place in 0, when very little was known about hiv, and also that science moves faster than policy a discussion for another day .  the truth is that we have had a safe way to test for hiv within weeks of exposure for a while now, but the policies have not changed.  recently, a panel that advises hhs recommended that the outright ban be replaced by a one year deferral period.  you are probably correct that msm, as they are at greater risk for hiv in general, deserve some additional scrutiny, but they can test for hiv relatively quickly now.  if a man has not had sex with another man in the last year, it is easy to test if the blood is infected.  this article is my primary source URL so, this does not need to be an all or nothing view.  there is plenty of safe middle ground.  but the ban was implemented in a very different time than today, and our policy should reflect that.   #  yeah but blacks, overall, make up a similar percentage if new cases as msm.   #  yeah but blacks, overall, make up a similar percentage if new cases as msm.  so why not ban blacks instead ? it is probably easier to stop a black person from donating than an msm.  and while we are talking numbers.  ok, among msms there were 0 new cases of hiv.  there are 0 million people in the us 0 of whom are probably gay men.  and i am just gonna assume gay men have sex with other men.  that is 0 men out of 0.  which is statistically insignificant.  . 0 %  #  you are significantly less likely to catch it if you never receive anal.   #  that percentage seems like an acceptable risk.  plus why a whole blanket ban.  you are significantly less likely to catch it if you never receive anal.  and even less likely if you always use a condom.  with the right precautions, having anal sex, no matter if you give or receive, it can reduce the chances so low that it is almost zero.  the reason for its high statistics in the gay community is a lack of condom use and being careless.  and it should be on the honor system.  seeing that you could lie in the very beginning by saying you are straight.   #  with 0m from wikipedia annual blood transfusions in the usa this would give 0   0m 0 unintended hiv transmissions.   #  although your calculation is technically correct, the question you are trying to answer is not the relevant one.  based on the 0m population count i assume you prefer to work with the usa specific numbers, which is fine.  i am more familiar with the blood donation screening practices in my home country, but i do believe that also in the usa all the donated blood is screened for hiv infection, regardless whether the donor is member of the msm population or not.  following calculation should give rough estimate of hiv transmission probability in blood transfusion: first, let is assume that msm population is not excluded from the population of blood donors.  in this case, for every 0m blood donors, there are 0m hiv positive donors.  with the 0 false negative rate, there would be 0 0m 0 hiv positive blood donors which go undetected, giving a possibility of 0 / 0m 0 of hiv infection transmission in a single blood transfusion.  with 0m from wikipedia annual blood transfusions in the usa this would give 0   0m 0 unintended hiv transmissions.  second, let is see what happen is if we exclude the msm population from the blood donors.  now there are 0m blood donors, with 0m infections.  with the 0 false negative rate, there are 0   0m 0 hiv positive blood donors which go undetected, giving a possibility of 0 / 0m 0 of hiv infection transmission in a single blood transfusion.  this would result in 0   0m 0 unintended hiv transmissions annually.  although the calculation is very simplified, it shows how exclusion of the 0 population with 0 of the infections can considerably improve the safety of blood transfusions.
my argument may come of as pretentious, but i will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way.   everyone is entitled to their opinion .  it is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days.  it is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree.  there are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless.  one such case an argument is based solely on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue.  another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information feel taste smell etc.  .  unfortunately, the use of  everyone is entitled to their opinion  has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner.  that is when the phrase becomes dangerous.  the thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures speaking mostly of the us because that is where i am from to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter.  my evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 0.  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.  0.  factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative  truth  within the context of the argument are no longer explored.  opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news propaganda organizations.  the  everyone is entitled to their opinion  mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs.  no suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an opinion is something that does not need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one.  there are many more examples that i will go into if needed.  essentially what i am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year with many of them getting worse .  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  as a personal conclusion, many of the points i made in the write up, and many of the points i will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical.  i am not innocent in the claims that i am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy.  cmv !  #  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.   #  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.   #  you have written quite a bit here, but you have not really explained what you are talking about.  your argument is vague and you have not really distinguished between proper and improper use of the term.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  many people who get into an argument and reach an impasse will describe the other participant in this way.  the other participant will often say the same thing.  this assumption that the other person is brushing you off because they do not want to face the truth is a symptom of hubris and an inability to recognize when the difference really is one of personal opinion.  i ca not really address 0 or 0 because they are excessively vague and general.  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  i suggest the opposite: that the underlying causes of many social and political problems are the refusal to allow others their opinions and the continual demand that two opposing sides grind it out against each other until they have consensus instead of opting for an easier compromise.  it is our  inability  to recognize the valid opinions of others that precludes compromise and causes conflict.   #  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.   #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me ! is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion.   yes, you are entitled to your opinion.  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.  after all, if they think you are ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that is  their  opinion.  and they are entitled to it.  right ?  #  the rest of the bit goes on to talk about some hilarious examples.   #  agreed.  and that is where the problem some people assume that just because they hold an opinion that is controversial, they are immediately to that opinion and it has to be respected despite how incredulous it might be or who that opinion may harm.  patton oswalt, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit that said something along those lines.  you have gotta respect everyone is beliefs.  no, you do not.  that is what gets us in trouble.  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.  are you kidding me ? i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.  i have an uncle that believes he saw sasquatch.  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !   the rest of the bit goes on to talk about some hilarious examples.  def recommend checking out his finest hour special for more.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.  people can be offended by something someone says, argue against it, and even raise hell, without doing anything to suppress the other person is rights.  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.  they are eschewing social norms, common sense, and cooperative behavior because they think they can get away with it.  i think this is something reddit really misunderstands about freedom of speech.  freedom to say what you want ! freedom from consequences.  certainly if someone is upset, they have to deal with that on their own being angry only hurts yourself , but then it is disingenuous to call it censorship or  shutting others down  if the offensive party loses some friends or a job over the horrible comments.  likewise, reddit is an open community, but no one has a  right  to have their jailbait forum / racist rants / sexist diatribes hosted here anymore than they have a  right  to free ad space in the new york times or a  right  to a 0 p. m.  timeslot on the evening news.   #  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.   #  i agree with /u/evilnalu, i do not believe anyone is talking about using  everyone is entitled to their opinion  to silence another party.  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.  basically as a trap although a  non sequitur  .  when two people are having a disagreement, and one is objectively correct but their opponent does not want to acknowledge that, the opponent will say,  well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.   it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.  it is a trap because the party who is objectively correct about the discussion at hand ca not say,  no, they are not  without coming off as pompous and imperial or appearing to say that the opponent is not allowed to have opinions  on anything .  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.
my argument may come of as pretentious, but i will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way.   everyone is entitled to their opinion .  it is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days.  it is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree.  there are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless.  one such case an argument is based solely on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue.  another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information feel taste smell etc.  .  unfortunately, the use of  everyone is entitled to their opinion  has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner.  that is when the phrase becomes dangerous.  the thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures speaking mostly of the us because that is where i am from to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter.  my evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 0.  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.  0.  factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative  truth  within the context of the argument are no longer explored.  opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news propaganda organizations.  the  everyone is entitled to their opinion  mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs.  no suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an opinion is something that does not need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one.  there are many more examples that i will go into if needed.  essentially what i am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year with many of them getting worse .  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  as a personal conclusion, many of the points i made in the write up, and many of the points i will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical.  i am not innocent in the claims that i am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy.  cmv !  #  essentially what i am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year with many of them getting worse .   #  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.   #  you have written quite a bit here, but you have not really explained what you are talking about.  your argument is vague and you have not really distinguished between proper and improper use of the term.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  many people who get into an argument and reach an impasse will describe the other participant in this way.  the other participant will often say the same thing.  this assumption that the other person is brushing you off because they do not want to face the truth is a symptom of hubris and an inability to recognize when the difference really is one of personal opinion.  i ca not really address 0 or 0 because they are excessively vague and general.  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  i suggest the opposite: that the underlying causes of many social and political problems are the refusal to allow others their opinions and the continual demand that two opposing sides grind it out against each other until they have consensus instead of opting for an easier compromise.  it is our  inability  to recognize the valid opinions of others that precludes compromise and causes conflict.   #  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .   #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me ! is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion.   yes, you are entitled to your opinion.  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.  after all, if they think you are ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that is  their  opinion.  and they are entitled to it.  right ?  #  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !    #  agreed.  and that is where the problem some people assume that just because they hold an opinion that is controversial, they are immediately to that opinion and it has to be respected despite how incredulous it might be or who that opinion may harm.  patton oswalt, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit that said something along those lines.  you have gotta respect everyone is beliefs.  no, you do not.  that is what gets us in trouble.  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.  are you kidding me ? i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.  i have an uncle that believes he saw sasquatch.  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !   the rest of the bit goes on to talk about some hilarious examples.  def recommend checking out his finest hour special for more.   #  people can be offended by something someone says, argue against it, and even raise hell, without doing anything to suppress the other person is rights.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.  people can be offended by something someone says, argue against it, and even raise hell, without doing anything to suppress the other person is rights.  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.  they are eschewing social norms, common sense, and cooperative behavior because they think they can get away with it.  i think this is something reddit really misunderstands about freedom of speech.  freedom to say what you want ! freedom from consequences.  certainly if someone is upset, they have to deal with that on their own being angry only hurts yourself , but then it is disingenuous to call it censorship or  shutting others down  if the offensive party loses some friends or a job over the horrible comments.  likewise, reddit is an open community, but no one has a  right  to have their jailbait forum / racist rants / sexist diatribes hosted here anymore than they have a  right  to free ad space in the new york times or a  right  to a 0 p. m.  timeslot on the evening news.   #  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.   #  i agree with /u/evilnalu, i do not believe anyone is talking about using  everyone is entitled to their opinion  to silence another party.  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.  basically as a trap although a  non sequitur  .  when two people are having a disagreement, and one is objectively correct but their opponent does not want to acknowledge that, the opponent will say,  well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.   it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.  it is a trap because the party who is objectively correct about the discussion at hand ca not say,  no, they are not  without coming off as pompous and imperial or appearing to say that the opponent is not allowed to have opinions  on anything .  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.
my argument may come of as pretentious, but i will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way.   everyone is entitled to their opinion .  it is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days.  it is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree.  there are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless.  one such case an argument is based solely on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue.  another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information feel taste smell etc.  .  unfortunately, the use of  everyone is entitled to their opinion  has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner.  that is when the phrase becomes dangerous.  the thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures speaking mostly of the us because that is where i am from to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter.  my evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 0.  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.  0.  factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative  truth  within the context of the argument are no longer explored.  opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news propaganda organizations.  the  everyone is entitled to their opinion  mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs.  no suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an opinion is something that does not need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one.  there are many more examples that i will go into if needed.  essentially what i am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year with many of them getting worse .  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  as a personal conclusion, many of the points i made in the write up, and many of the points i will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical.  i am not innocent in the claims that i am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy.  cmv !  #  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.   #  sometimes it boils down to a values judgement.   # sometimes it boils down to a values judgement.  if you want to talk about abortion or same sex marriage, the underlying reasoning for that is very much opinion.  it  should not  be valid.  in order to determine if someone is truly an expert, you have to be an expert yourself.  additionally, the status of  expert  has nothing to do with the truth of the content.  there are people with medical degrees a reasonable indication of expertise that are against vaccines.  there are biologists and chemists that do not believe in evolution.   #  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .   #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me ! is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion.   yes, you are entitled to your opinion.  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.  after all, if they think you are ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that is  their  opinion.  and they are entitled to it.  right ?  #  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.   #  agreed.  and that is where the problem some people assume that just because they hold an opinion that is controversial, they are immediately to that opinion and it has to be respected despite how incredulous it might be or who that opinion may harm.  patton oswalt, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit that said something along those lines.  you have gotta respect everyone is beliefs.  no, you do not.  that is what gets us in trouble.  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.  are you kidding me ? i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.  i have an uncle that believes he saw sasquatch.  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !   the rest of the bit goes on to talk about some hilarious examples.  def recommend checking out his finest hour special for more.   #  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.  people can be offended by something someone says, argue against it, and even raise hell, without doing anything to suppress the other person is rights.  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.  they are eschewing social norms, common sense, and cooperative behavior because they think they can get away with it.  i think this is something reddit really misunderstands about freedom of speech.  freedom to say what you want ! freedom from consequences.  certainly if someone is upset, they have to deal with that on their own being angry only hurts yourself , but then it is disingenuous to call it censorship or  shutting others down  if the offensive party loses some friends or a job over the horrible comments.  likewise, reddit is an open community, but no one has a  right  to have their jailbait forum / racist rants / sexist diatribes hosted here anymore than they have a  right  to free ad space in the new york times or a  right  to a 0 p. m.  timeslot on the evening news.   #  basically as a trap although a  non sequitur  .   #  i agree with /u/evilnalu, i do not believe anyone is talking about using  everyone is entitled to their opinion  to silence another party.  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.  basically as a trap although a  non sequitur  .  when two people are having a disagreement, and one is objectively correct but their opponent does not want to acknowledge that, the opponent will say,  well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.   it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.  it is a trap because the party who is objectively correct about the discussion at hand ca not say,  no, they are not  without coming off as pompous and imperial or appearing to say that the opponent is not allowed to have opinions  on anything .  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.
my argument may come of as pretentious, but i will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way.   everyone is entitled to their opinion .  it is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days.  it is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree.  there are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless.  one such case an argument is based solely on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue.  another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information feel taste smell etc.  .  unfortunately, the use of  everyone is entitled to their opinion  has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner.  that is when the phrase becomes dangerous.  the thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures speaking mostly of the us because that is where i am from to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter.  my evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 0.  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.  0.  factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative  truth  within the context of the argument are no longer explored.  opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news propaganda organizations.  the  everyone is entitled to their opinion  mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs.  no suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an opinion is something that does not need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one.  there are many more examples that i will go into if needed.  essentially what i am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year with many of them getting worse .  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  as a personal conclusion, many of the points i made in the write up, and many of the points i will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical.  i am not innocent in the claims that i am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy.  cmv !  #  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.   #  and they are wrong to do so.   #   everyone is entitled to their opinion  is a statement of fact.  as of today, we have no technology that lets us control the reasoning and beliefs of other people.  your brain is functionally independent of other brains, and whatever opinion you hold in that brain cannot be extracted from it.  your arguments, however, are really about misunderstandings of that phrase rather than about the phenomenon itself.  and they are wrong to do so.  an opinion is never an argument, and  everyone is entitled to their opinion  is not testament to the opposite.  really ? then why do people pay thousands of dollars and decades to get degrees in their field ? why do we have doctors with mds perform surgery rather than the local butcher ? why do we have experts testifying in court, conducting policy, or writing blogs for nytimes, and not randoms off the street ? if anything, experts are more valued than ever before because in this deluge of information, people rely on somebody to tell them where to look for truth.  do you have any evidence to this effect ? or is it just your opinion ?  #  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.   #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me ! is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion.   yes, you are entitled to your opinion.  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.  after all, if they think you are ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that is  their  opinion.  and they are entitled to it.  right ?  #  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.   #  agreed.  and that is where the problem some people assume that just because they hold an opinion that is controversial, they are immediately to that opinion and it has to be respected despite how incredulous it might be or who that opinion may harm.  patton oswalt, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit that said something along those lines.  you have gotta respect everyone is beliefs.  no, you do not.  that is what gets us in trouble.  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.  are you kidding me ? i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.  i have an uncle that believes he saw sasquatch.  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !   the rest of the bit goes on to talk about some hilarious examples.  def recommend checking out his finest hour special for more.   #  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.  people can be offended by something someone says, argue against it, and even raise hell, without doing anything to suppress the other person is rights.  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.  they are eschewing social norms, common sense, and cooperative behavior because they think they can get away with it.  i think this is something reddit really misunderstands about freedom of speech.  freedom to say what you want ! freedom from consequences.  certainly if someone is upset, they have to deal with that on their own being angry only hurts yourself , but then it is disingenuous to call it censorship or  shutting others down  if the offensive party loses some friends or a job over the horrible comments.  likewise, reddit is an open community, but no one has a  right  to have their jailbait forum / racist rants / sexist diatribes hosted here anymore than they have a  right  to free ad space in the new york times or a  right  to a 0 p. m.  timeslot on the evening news.   #  it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.   #  i agree with /u/evilnalu, i do not believe anyone is talking about using  everyone is entitled to their opinion  to silence another party.  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.  basically as a trap although a  non sequitur  .  when two people are having a disagreement, and one is objectively correct but their opponent does not want to acknowledge that, the opponent will say,  well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.   it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.  it is a trap because the party who is objectively correct about the discussion at hand ca not say,  no, they are not  without coming off as pompous and imperial or appearing to say that the opponent is not allowed to have opinions  on anything .  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.
my argument may come of as pretentious, but i will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way.   everyone is entitled to their opinion .  it is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days.  it is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree.  there are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless.  one such case an argument is based solely on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue.  another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information feel taste smell etc.  .  unfortunately, the use of  everyone is entitled to their opinion  has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner.  that is when the phrase becomes dangerous.  the thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures speaking mostly of the us because that is where i am from to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter.  my evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 0.  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.  0.  factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative  truth  within the context of the argument are no longer explored.  opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news propaganda organizations.  the  everyone is entitled to their opinion  mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs.  no suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an opinion is something that does not need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one.  there are many more examples that i will go into if needed.  essentially what i am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year with many of them getting worse .  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  as a personal conclusion, many of the points i made in the write up, and many of the points i will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical.  i am not innocent in the claims that i am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy.  cmv !  #  opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news propaganda organizations.   #  do you have any evidence to this effect ?  #   everyone is entitled to their opinion  is a statement of fact.  as of today, we have no technology that lets us control the reasoning and beliefs of other people.  your brain is functionally independent of other brains, and whatever opinion you hold in that brain cannot be extracted from it.  your arguments, however, are really about misunderstandings of that phrase rather than about the phenomenon itself.  and they are wrong to do so.  an opinion is never an argument, and  everyone is entitled to their opinion  is not testament to the opposite.  really ? then why do people pay thousands of dollars and decades to get degrees in their field ? why do we have doctors with mds perform surgery rather than the local butcher ? why do we have experts testifying in court, conducting policy, or writing blogs for nytimes, and not randoms off the street ? if anything, experts are more valued than ever before because in this deluge of information, people rely on somebody to tell them where to look for truth.  do you have any evidence to this effect ? or is it just your opinion ?  #  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .   #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me ! is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion.   yes, you are entitled to your opinion.  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.  after all, if they think you are ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that is  their  opinion.  and they are entitled to it.  right ?  #  i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.   #  agreed.  and that is where the problem some people assume that just because they hold an opinion that is controversial, they are immediately to that opinion and it has to be respected despite how incredulous it might be or who that opinion may harm.  patton oswalt, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit that said something along those lines.  you have gotta respect everyone is beliefs.  no, you do not.  that is what gets us in trouble.  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.  are you kidding me ? i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.  i have an uncle that believes he saw sasquatch.  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !   the rest of the bit goes on to talk about some hilarious examples.  def recommend checking out his finest hour special for more.   #  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.  people can be offended by something someone says, argue against it, and even raise hell, without doing anything to suppress the other person is rights.  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.  they are eschewing social norms, common sense, and cooperative behavior because they think they can get away with it.  i think this is something reddit really misunderstands about freedom of speech.  freedom to say what you want ! freedom from consequences.  certainly if someone is upset, they have to deal with that on their own being angry only hurts yourself , but then it is disingenuous to call it censorship or  shutting others down  if the offensive party loses some friends or a job over the horrible comments.  likewise, reddit is an open community, but no one has a  right  to have their jailbait forum / racist rants / sexist diatribes hosted here anymore than they have a  right  to free ad space in the new york times or a  right  to a 0 p. m.  timeslot on the evening news.   #  it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.   #  i agree with /u/evilnalu, i do not believe anyone is talking about using  everyone is entitled to their opinion  to silence another party.  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.  basically as a trap although a  non sequitur  .  when two people are having a disagreement, and one is objectively correct but their opponent does not want to acknowledge that, the opponent will say,  well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.   it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.  it is a trap because the party who is objectively correct about the discussion at hand ca not say,  no, they are not  without coming off as pompous and imperial or appearing to say that the opponent is not allowed to have opinions  on anything .  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.
my argument may come of as pretentious, but i will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way.   everyone is entitled to their opinion .  it is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days.  it is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree.  there are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless.  one such case an argument is based solely on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue.  another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information feel taste smell etc.  .  unfortunately, the use of  everyone is entitled to their opinion  has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner.  that is when the phrase becomes dangerous.  the thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures speaking mostly of the us because that is where i am from to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter.  my evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 0.  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.  0.  factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative  truth  within the context of the argument are no longer explored.  opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news propaganda organizations.  the  everyone is entitled to their opinion  mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs.  no suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an opinion is something that does not need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one.  there are many more examples that i will go into if needed.  essentially what i am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year with many of them getting worse .  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  as a personal conclusion, many of the points i made in the write up, and many of the points i will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical.  i am not innocent in the claims that i am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy.  cmv !  #  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.   #  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.   #  i am going to focus on one aspect of your argument because i feel like you have a gross misunderstanding of what it means to be an expert and validity.  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.  the idea of being an expert has never been valid.  it has been used as a crutch and a convenience.  something that we as a society accept because knowing the absolute truth value of a statement is not worth our time.  malcolm gladwell defined expert as someone who spent an arbitrarily large amount of time practicing a certain skill or studying a certain topic.  he does not make the assertion that an expert is factually correct.  in fact it is a fallacious argument to say that an argument is valid because so and so is more experienced in the field.  this type of fallacy is known as ad hominem.  and thus, the idea of  experts  as you put it has never been valid.  otherwise, the idea of experts being people who have spent a large amount of time doing something is still valid because that is simply a definition and is thus always self evident.   #  after all, if they think you are ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that is  their  opinion.   #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me ! is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion.   yes, you are entitled to your opinion.  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.  after all, if they think you are ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that is  their  opinion.  and they are entitled to it.  right ?  #  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !    #  agreed.  and that is where the problem some people assume that just because they hold an opinion that is controversial, they are immediately to that opinion and it has to be respected despite how incredulous it might be or who that opinion may harm.  patton oswalt, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit that said something along those lines.  you have gotta respect everyone is beliefs.  no, you do not.  that is what gets us in trouble.  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.  are you kidding me ? i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.  i have an uncle that believes he saw sasquatch.  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !   the rest of the bit goes on to talk about some hilarious examples.  def recommend checking out his finest hour special for more.   #  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.  people can be offended by something someone says, argue against it, and even raise hell, without doing anything to suppress the other person is rights.  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.  they are eschewing social norms, common sense, and cooperative behavior because they think they can get away with it.  i think this is something reddit really misunderstands about freedom of speech.  freedom to say what you want ! freedom from consequences.  certainly if someone is upset, they have to deal with that on their own being angry only hurts yourself , but then it is disingenuous to call it censorship or  shutting others down  if the offensive party loses some friends or a job over the horrible comments.  likewise, reddit is an open community, but no one has a  right  to have their jailbait forum / racist rants / sexist diatribes hosted here anymore than they have a  right  to free ad space in the new york times or a  right  to a 0 p. m.  timeslot on the evening news.   #  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.   #  i agree with /u/evilnalu, i do not believe anyone is talking about using  everyone is entitled to their opinion  to silence another party.  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.  basically as a trap although a  non sequitur  .  when two people are having a disagreement, and one is objectively correct but their opponent does not want to acknowledge that, the opponent will say,  well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.   it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.  it is a trap because the party who is objectively correct about the discussion at hand ca not say,  no, they are not  without coming off as pompous and imperial or appearing to say that the opponent is not allowed to have opinions  on anything .  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.
my argument may come of as pretentious, but i will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way.   everyone is entitled to their opinion .  it is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days.  it is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree.  there are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless.  one such case an argument is based solely on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue.  another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information feel taste smell etc.  .  unfortunately, the use of  everyone is entitled to their opinion  has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner.  that is when the phrase becomes dangerous.  the thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures speaking mostly of the us because that is where i am from to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter.  my evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 0.  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.  0.  factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative  truth  within the context of the argument are no longer explored.  opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news propaganda organizations.  the  everyone is entitled to their opinion  mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs.  no suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an opinion is something that does not need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one.  there are many more examples that i will go into if needed.  essentially what i am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year with many of them getting worse .  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  as a personal conclusion, many of the points i made in the write up, and many of the points i will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical.  i am not innocent in the claims that i am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy.  cmv !  #  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.   #  note that i also used the term expert in quotations in my response as i believe op is confusing being an expert with accepting an argument because someone is an expert.   # maybe some people rely on experts out of laziness, but that is hardly why the concept exists.  it is point blank impossible for a single person to be knowledgeable on every conceivable topic, no matter how hard they try.  agreed.  but this is irrelevant to logical arguments.  necessity is a very strong word.  maybe it is necessary for how society functions now but necessity does not imply validity.  you are grossly confusing the difference between reasonable and valid.  it is reasonable to think that i as a young man will not have a heart attack in the next few days.  that i will not win the jackpot in the lottery by buying a few tickets and that i will lose money by playing basic strategy in blackjack over 0 hours of play.  none of these are valid arguments.  they all rely on probability and none are certain.  this is where the argument from authority comes but more on that later.  debateable but that opens a whole can of worms that is outside the scope of the original post.  more on this later.  agreed.  he defined  expert  as a person of a certain skill level, and studied experts looking for patterns or common traits.  what he claimed to find was that those experts which he studied had all had comparable experiences in terms of the amount of time they had spent honing their skills.  there is plenty to legitimately criticize about his work, but this is not an accurate way to describe what he claimed in his writings.  i apologize if i misconstrued his writings.  it is been a while since i have read his book.  this type of fallacy is known as ad hominem.  and thus, the idea of  experts  as you put it has never been valid.  ad hominem is when you claim that an argument is  invalid  because of some trait or characteristic of the person making it.  when you claim that an argument is  valid  because of the expertise of the person making it, that is called an  appeal to authority  fallacy.  additionally, your entire paragraph is a non sequitor.  simply because the appeal to authority fallacy exists does not mean that the concept of experts is invalid.  it just means you should not attempt to justify an argument with  that is what this guy said, and he is super smart !  .  i will attempt to address all of this by readdressing the op and more importantly the intent of the op.  had the op stated that it is no longer valid that people are considered experts because information is so readily accessible then i would have responded differently.  note that i also used the term expert in quotations in my response as i believe op is confusing being an expert with accepting an argument because someone is an expert.  from op is post it is very evident he intends the latter.  so op states that people, despite being researched on a topic, are incorrectly assuming they are correct about some things in that topic.  there are 0 fallacies here: that having spent more time on the topic makes a conclusion more likely correct this is precisely an a argument from authority and that people despite being researched are unable to form a correct conclusion or a valid conclusion the ad hominem i was previously referring to .  this it where it is is very evident of op is opinion.  his association of correctness with experts comes to light.  it is very evident he correlates the strength of an argument with the expertise of the one who made it as he explicitly says that percieved expertise allows us to stengthen our arguments.  by doing so, he assumes we all believe in arguments from authority and demonstrates that he does as well.  had he said that we incorrectly assume we are correct because of a perceived expwrtise then that would be fine.  but he says that the lay people not correct or are supposedly not abke to have a strong conclusiom while only  true experts  are.  this is completely fallacious and downright incorrect.   #  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .   #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me ! is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion.   yes, you are entitled to your opinion.  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.  after all, if they think you are ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that is  their  opinion.  and they are entitled to it.  right ?  #  i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.   #  agreed.  and that is where the problem some people assume that just because they hold an opinion that is controversial, they are immediately to that opinion and it has to be respected despite how incredulous it might be or who that opinion may harm.  patton oswalt, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit that said something along those lines.  you have gotta respect everyone is beliefs.  no, you do not.  that is what gets us in trouble.  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.  are you kidding me ? i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.  i have an uncle that believes he saw sasquatch.  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !   the rest of the bit goes on to talk about some hilarious examples.  def recommend checking out his finest hour special for more.   #  they are eschewing social norms, common sense, and cooperative behavior because they think they can get away with it.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.  people can be offended by something someone says, argue against it, and even raise hell, without doing anything to suppress the other person is rights.  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.  they are eschewing social norms, common sense, and cooperative behavior because they think they can get away with it.  i think this is something reddit really misunderstands about freedom of speech.  freedom to say what you want ! freedom from consequences.  certainly if someone is upset, they have to deal with that on their own being angry only hurts yourself , but then it is disingenuous to call it censorship or  shutting others down  if the offensive party loses some friends or a job over the horrible comments.  likewise, reddit is an open community, but no one has a  right  to have their jailbait forum / racist rants / sexist diatribes hosted here anymore than they have a  right  to free ad space in the new york times or a  right  to a 0 p. m.  timeslot on the evening news.   #  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.   #  i agree with /u/evilnalu, i do not believe anyone is talking about using  everyone is entitled to their opinion  to silence another party.  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.  basically as a trap although a  non sequitur  .  when two people are having a disagreement, and one is objectively correct but their opponent does not want to acknowledge that, the opponent will say,  well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.   it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.  it is a trap because the party who is objectively correct about the discussion at hand ca not say,  no, they are not  without coming off as pompous and imperial or appearing to say that the opponent is not allowed to have opinions  on anything .  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.
my argument may come of as pretentious, but i will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way.   everyone is entitled to their opinion .  it is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days.  it is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree.  there are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless.  one such case an argument is based solely on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue.  another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information feel taste smell etc.  .  unfortunately, the use of  everyone is entitled to their opinion  has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner.  that is when the phrase becomes dangerous.  the thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures speaking mostly of the us because that is where i am from to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter.  my evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 0.  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.  0.  factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative  truth  within the context of the argument are no longer explored.  opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news propaganda organizations.  the  everyone is entitled to their opinion  mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs.  no suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an opinion is something that does not need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one.  there are many more examples that i will go into if needed.  essentially what i am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year with many of them getting worse .  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  as a personal conclusion, many of the points i made in the write up, and many of the points i will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical.  i am not innocent in the claims that i am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy.  cmv !  #  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.   #  so op states that people, despite being researched on a topic, are incorrectly assuming they are correct about some things in that topic.   # maybe some people rely on experts out of laziness, but that is hardly why the concept exists.  it is point blank impossible for a single person to be knowledgeable on every conceivable topic, no matter how hard they try.  agreed.  but this is irrelevant to logical arguments.  necessity is a very strong word.  maybe it is necessary for how society functions now but necessity does not imply validity.  you are grossly confusing the difference between reasonable and valid.  it is reasonable to think that i as a young man will not have a heart attack in the next few days.  that i will not win the jackpot in the lottery by buying a few tickets and that i will lose money by playing basic strategy in blackjack over 0 hours of play.  none of these are valid arguments.  they all rely on probability and none are certain.  this is where the argument from authority comes but more on that later.  debateable but that opens a whole can of worms that is outside the scope of the original post.  more on this later.  agreed.  he defined  expert  as a person of a certain skill level, and studied experts looking for patterns or common traits.  what he claimed to find was that those experts which he studied had all had comparable experiences in terms of the amount of time they had spent honing their skills.  there is plenty to legitimately criticize about his work, but this is not an accurate way to describe what he claimed in his writings.  i apologize if i misconstrued his writings.  it is been a while since i have read his book.  this type of fallacy is known as ad hominem.  and thus, the idea of  experts  as you put it has never been valid.  ad hominem is when you claim that an argument is  invalid  because of some trait or characteristic of the person making it.  when you claim that an argument is  valid  because of the expertise of the person making it, that is called an  appeal to authority  fallacy.  additionally, your entire paragraph is a non sequitor.  simply because the appeal to authority fallacy exists does not mean that the concept of experts is invalid.  it just means you should not attempt to justify an argument with  that is what this guy said, and he is super smart !  .  i will attempt to address all of this by readdressing the op and more importantly the intent of the op.  had the op stated that it is no longer valid that people are considered experts because information is so readily accessible then i would have responded differently.  note that i also used the term expert in quotations in my response as i believe op is confusing being an expert with accepting an argument because someone is an expert.  from op is post it is very evident he intends the latter.  so op states that people, despite being researched on a topic, are incorrectly assuming they are correct about some things in that topic.  there are 0 fallacies here: that having spent more time on the topic makes a conclusion more likely correct this is precisely an a argument from authority and that people despite being researched are unable to form a correct conclusion or a valid conclusion the ad hominem i was previously referring to .  this it where it is is very evident of op is opinion.  his association of correctness with experts comes to light.  it is very evident he correlates the strength of an argument with the expertise of the one who made it as he explicitly says that percieved expertise allows us to stengthen our arguments.  by doing so, he assumes we all believe in arguments from authority and demonstrates that he does as well.  had he said that we incorrectly assume we are correct because of a perceived expwrtise then that would be fine.  but he says that the lay people not correct or are supposedly not abke to have a strong conclusiom while only  true experts  are.  this is completely fallacious and downright incorrect.   #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me !  #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me ! is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion.   yes, you are entitled to your opinion.  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.  after all, if they think you are ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that is  their  opinion.  and they are entitled to it.  right ?  #  patton oswalt, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit that said something along those lines.   #  agreed.  and that is where the problem some people assume that just because they hold an opinion that is controversial, they are immediately to that opinion and it has to be respected despite how incredulous it might be or who that opinion may harm.  patton oswalt, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit that said something along those lines.  you have gotta respect everyone is beliefs.  no, you do not.  that is what gets us in trouble.  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.  are you kidding me ? i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.  i have an uncle that believes he saw sasquatch.  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !   the rest of the bit goes on to talk about some hilarious examples.  def recommend checking out his finest hour special for more.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.  people can be offended by something someone says, argue against it, and even raise hell, without doing anything to suppress the other person is rights.  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.  they are eschewing social norms, common sense, and cooperative behavior because they think they can get away with it.  i think this is something reddit really misunderstands about freedom of speech.  freedom to say what you want ! freedom from consequences.  certainly if someone is upset, they have to deal with that on their own being angry only hurts yourself , but then it is disingenuous to call it censorship or  shutting others down  if the offensive party loses some friends or a job over the horrible comments.  likewise, reddit is an open community, but no one has a  right  to have their jailbait forum / racist rants / sexist diatribes hosted here anymore than they have a  right  to free ad space in the new york times or a  right  to a 0 p. m.  timeslot on the evening news.   #  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.   #  i agree with /u/evilnalu, i do not believe anyone is talking about using  everyone is entitled to their opinion  to silence another party.  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.  basically as a trap although a  non sequitur  .  when two people are having a disagreement, and one is objectively correct but their opponent does not want to acknowledge that, the opponent will say,  well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.   it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.  it is a trap because the party who is objectively correct about the discussion at hand ca not say,  no, they are not  without coming off as pompous and imperial or appearing to say that the opponent is not allowed to have opinions  on anything .  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.
my argument may come of as pretentious, but i will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way.   everyone is entitled to their opinion .  it is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days.  it is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree.  there are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless.  one such case an argument is based solely on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue.  another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information feel taste smell etc.  .  unfortunately, the use of  everyone is entitled to their opinion  has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner.  that is when the phrase becomes dangerous.  the thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures speaking mostly of the us because that is where i am from to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter.  my evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 0.  people use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with.  they use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs.  they will argue in circles for hours about something they do not know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an  opinion difference  in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs.  0.  the idea of being an  expert  on a topic is no longer valid.  it is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic.  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.  0.  factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative  truth  within the context of the argument are no longer explored.  opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news propaganda organizations.  the  everyone is entitled to their opinion  mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs.  no suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an opinion is something that does not need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one.  there are many more examples that i will go into if needed.  essentially what i am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year with many of them getting worse .  the idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous.  as a personal conclusion, many of the points i made in the write up, and many of the points i will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical.  i am not innocent in the claims that i am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy.  cmv !  #  the invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields 0,0 hours according to the fantastic book  outliers  by malcolm gladwell is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate.   #  this it where it is is very evident of op is opinion.   # maybe some people rely on experts out of laziness, but that is hardly why the concept exists.  it is point blank impossible for a single person to be knowledgeable on every conceivable topic, no matter how hard they try.  agreed.  but this is irrelevant to logical arguments.  necessity is a very strong word.  maybe it is necessary for how society functions now but necessity does not imply validity.  you are grossly confusing the difference between reasonable and valid.  it is reasonable to think that i as a young man will not have a heart attack in the next few days.  that i will not win the jackpot in the lottery by buying a few tickets and that i will lose money by playing basic strategy in blackjack over 0 hours of play.  none of these are valid arguments.  they all rely on probability and none are certain.  this is where the argument from authority comes but more on that later.  debateable but that opens a whole can of worms that is outside the scope of the original post.  more on this later.  agreed.  he defined  expert  as a person of a certain skill level, and studied experts looking for patterns or common traits.  what he claimed to find was that those experts which he studied had all had comparable experiences in terms of the amount of time they had spent honing their skills.  there is plenty to legitimately criticize about his work, but this is not an accurate way to describe what he claimed in his writings.  i apologize if i misconstrued his writings.  it is been a while since i have read his book.  this type of fallacy is known as ad hominem.  and thus, the idea of  experts  as you put it has never been valid.  ad hominem is when you claim that an argument is  invalid  because of some trait or characteristic of the person making it.  when you claim that an argument is  valid  because of the expertise of the person making it, that is called an  appeal to authority  fallacy.  additionally, your entire paragraph is a non sequitor.  simply because the appeal to authority fallacy exists does not mean that the concept of experts is invalid.  it just means you should not attempt to justify an argument with  that is what this guy said, and he is super smart !  .  i will attempt to address all of this by readdressing the op and more importantly the intent of the op.  had the op stated that it is no longer valid that people are considered experts because information is so readily accessible then i would have responded differently.  note that i also used the term expert in quotations in my response as i believe op is confusing being an expert with accepting an argument because someone is an expert.  from op is post it is very evident he intends the latter.  so op states that people, despite being researched on a topic, are incorrectly assuming they are correct about some things in that topic.  there are 0 fallacies here: that having spent more time on the topic makes a conclusion more likely correct this is precisely an a argument from authority and that people despite being researched are unable to form a correct conclusion or a valid conclusion the ad hominem i was previously referring to .  this it where it is is very evident of op is opinion.  his association of correctness with experts comes to light.  it is very evident he correlates the strength of an argument with the expertise of the one who made it as he explicitly says that percieved expertise allows us to stengthen our arguments.  by doing so, he assumes we all believe in arguments from authority and demonstrates that he does as well.  had he said that we incorrectly assume we are correct because of a perceived expwrtise then that would be fine.  but he says that the lay people not correct or are supposedly not abke to have a strong conclusiom while only  true experts  are.  this is completely fallacious and downright incorrect.   #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me !  #  in my opinion, the problem is that people take  everyone is entitled to his opinion  to mean  everyone especially me ! is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion.   yes, you are entitled to your opinion.  you will not be denied employment for holding it so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties .  you will not be thrown in jail for expressing it so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech .  it does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion.  after all, if they think you are ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that is  their  opinion.  and they are entitled to it.  right ?  #  i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.   #  agreed.  and that is where the problem some people assume that just because they hold an opinion that is controversial, they are immediately to that opinion and it has to be respected despite how incredulous it might be or who that opinion may harm.  patton oswalt, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit that said something along those lines.  you have gotta respect everyone is beliefs.  no, you do not.  that is what gets us in trouble.  look, you have to acknowledge everyone is beliefs, and then you have to reserve the right to go:  that is fucking stupid.  are you kidding me ? i acknowledge that you believe that, that is great, but i am not going to respect it.  i have an uncle that believes he saw sasquatch.  we do not believe him, nor do we respect him !   the rest of the bit goes on to talk about some hilarious examples.  def recommend checking out his finest hour special for more.   #  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.   #  disapproving of something someone says is not the same as silencing their voice.  people can be offended by something someone says, argue against it, and even raise hell, without doing anything to suppress the other person is rights.  for example, a person is perfectly entitled to spew racist things about  black culture  or make jokes about beating women as we see on reddit , but that does not mean they are also free from consequences if someone finds out.  if they go around making jokes about black people or hitting their wife, the problem  is  their behavior, not the offended party.  they are eschewing social norms, common sense, and cooperative behavior because they think they can get away with it.  i think this is something reddit really misunderstands about freedom of speech.  freedom to say what you want ! freedom from consequences.  certainly if someone is upset, they have to deal with that on their own being angry only hurts yourself , but then it is disingenuous to call it censorship or  shutting others down  if the offensive party loses some friends or a job over the horrible comments.  likewise, reddit is an open community, but no one has a  right  to have their jailbait forum / racist rants / sexist diatribes hosted here anymore than they have a  right  to free ad space in the new york times or a  right  to a 0 p. m.  timeslot on the evening news.   #  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.   #  i agree with /u/evilnalu, i do not believe anyone is talking about using  everyone is entitled to their opinion  to silence another party.  the op at least as i read it is about using that phrase to stop a discussion from continuing.  basically as a trap although a  non sequitur  .  when two people are having a disagreement, and one is objectively correct but their opponent does not want to acknowledge that, the opponent will say,  well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.   it is a  non sequitur  because that statement has nothing to do with a discussion about objective, empirical facts.  it is a trap because the party who is objectively correct about the discussion at hand ca not say,  no, they are not  without coming off as pompous and imperial or appearing to say that the opponent is not allowed to have opinions  on anything .  so this phrase does not serve to silence people, it serves as a rhetorical bomb to completely derail the discussion.
i realise the entire premise for this post is completely hypocritical.  i am english and, shock horror, i like football.  yes i will call it football, and yes i know soccer is an english word.  i could not care less about the name of the sport, it makes exactly 0 difference to my enjoyment hello cmv, i am of the opinion that the constant stream of debate on the positives/negatives of association football as a sport have been the biggest driver behind american is apathy towards the sport.  nothing is worse than being told how weird or unusual you are for not liking a commonly popular thing, or being told that something is wrong with you if you do not.  the american sporting fanbase has had to deal with a lot of this over the past 0 odd years with regards to football, and although this has slightly waned over the past 0 world cups, i believe it is too late, and will now never be fully ingratiated into us sporting culture compared to the classic sports .  i believe the veiled snobbiness and general condescension from euro football fans has contributed to this, but i also believe that the internet has created a  wouldebate all ad nauseum  ethos which can be counterproductive to the growth of traditional hobbies/games/sports in a modern setting.  so many articles like  why america does not like soccer, and how that can be changed  time magazine URL is this soccer is moment in america ? wsj URL and forget the world cup hype.  america will never embrace soccer la weekly URL hinder a natural growth of interest in the history and traditions of football, which is a fundamental reason why the game is so popular.  who wants to be fed full of  this could be popular because x viewer stats and of tweets per minute of the game , and then go look at liverpool is success in the 0 is ? nobody.  another reason is emotion.  being told to  pick a side, pro football or anti football  creates an aura of national debate usually saved for politics or religion.  tarring a sport with this brush is a bad move, and does not help a casual fan from gradually falling in love with the game.  it is a slow process, no one transitions from knows nothing to uberfan in a year.  i believe a true love for a sport comes from following a team for a long period of time thick and thin, ups and downs and all those lovely cliche and wallowing in the success of others as a result of the time you personally have invested in a team.  it is a slow and patient process.  how is the average american supposed to casually follow the premier league, if they are constantly being told to line up on a side and either be a full blooded hooligan or a handegg loyalist ? casualism is the backbone of football.  i admit this opinion of mine was first formed a few years ago, and since then many of my american friends have started to follow the weekend results out of habit, which is up to them.  i am not telling them they have to like it, but i wish the media would stop constantly debating whether people should or should not like it, for heavens sake.  sorry if i rambled, discovered this sub today and am in love  #  the constant stream of debate on the positives/negatives of association football as a sport have been the biggest driver behind american is apathy towards the sport.   #  i am not sure this passes the laugh test.   # i am not sure this passes the laugh test.  you are actually arguing that if people talked about soccer less, then people would watch more games and care more ? i have plenty of us friends who are vocal about their love of soccer.  they follow uk teams for the most part.  probably lack of highly competitive us teams is a problem.  probably, just the fact that it is not been a televised, high profile sport in the us for very long is a problem.  and probably the highly entrenched nfl, mlb and nba competing for attention and dollars is a problem.  people debating the sport is undoubtedly a lesser problem than having to win people away from watching nfl games.   #  jv   freshman had to use rented muddy fields at a local university.   # that is kinda how i see football.  there are some great plays from time to time, but 0 of the time seems to be spent between plays, not doing anything.  boring ! i have always found the  slow game  argument to be invalid when someone is saying football is any better.  football is an amazingly slow game compared to soccer or hockey.  i think it just comes down to personal preference, there i will agree with you.  in a few generations, with the right marketing, i can see pro soccer taking off in the us.  it is not a family tradition, it is not a cultural phenomena like football   baseball are here.  hell, just giving high school soccer programs the same money/respect that the football teams get would be a start.  my high school shared it is stadium with the middle school.  the middle school football teams used the stadium, but only the high school varsity soccer team where allowed in.  jv   freshman had to use rented muddy fields at a local university.   #  again, not to say one is better or worse than the other but soccer is just quite a bit different and therefore harder to digest for the casual american fan.   #  the four major team sports are organized very similarly to one another.  the teams are identified by the city, state, or region they are based out of and then a nickname.  there is a regular season where teams attempt to achieve the most wins or points and to qualify for the playoffs, a post season tournament to decide the champion for the year.  the teams then add players in the off season via a draft, trades, and free agency within their own league.  in some rare occasions, in hockey, basketball, and baseball, a foreign player is brought in from a foreign league.  but again, that is rare.  compared to how european football is organized.  teams have a regular season, with cup games sprinkled in the middle of that same season.  often one team is in two or three tournaments, at various stages, simultaneously.  there is no post season tournament to decide the league champion, which can be decided with a few games left to be played.  that is starkly different from how the us sports fan is used to champions being decided.  we like the idea that the two best teams play each other and decide a winner on the field or court or ice.  we have now even forced that concept into sports where it really creates more problems than it solves college football and nascar .  european football clubs also develop players much differently.  signing teenagers to develop in their schools/training academies.  then often loaning those players out to other clubs to develop.  there are also multiple leagues that have comparable talent and resources.  there is only one nfl, one nba, one nhl, and one mlb.  no other league even comes close around the world.  whereas in europe, there are several elite level leagues where top players move into and out of.  again, not to say one is better or worse than the other but soccer is just quite a bit different and therefore harder to digest for the casual american fan.  it is easy to dismiss something off hand when you do not feel like taking the time to understand it.   #  most fans do not even have time to watch all the american football they want, let alone another sport in addition.   # it is simply not relevant to someone who is not a soccer fan.  i do not watch sports and i have not heard, seen, or been involved in such a debate.  ever.  except maybe having seen one briefly on tv for a few seconds.  it is not relevant to non fans at all.  i think you notice the debate because you are a fan who apparently cares about the issue.  to non fans, there can be no fatigue from the debate, because they are simply not involved in the debate, even as spectators.  however, they do have 0 professional sports to watch year round baseball, basketball, football, hockey in which their local teams compete at a world class level, not to mention high school and college football.  which is probably the only excuse they need to not watch soccer.  most fans do not even have time to watch all the american football they want, let alone another sport in addition.   #  0.  americans like high scoring, fast paced games.   #  it is not the media coverage about whether it could be popular it is the actual obstacles for it being popular, including: 0.  poor opportunities for advertising.  banners on the pitch and halftime just is not enough to bring in the big money.  0.  america likes to be the best.  it is why even when baseball was only in the us, they still called it the world series.  we crown the nba and nhl champs  world champs  which is more legit since most of the world is best players are in american leagues.  for soccer, it is not even close we get excited about getting past their peak stars.  how excited will americans get about european teams with a smattering of americans ? 0.  on a similar note, look at other sports like cycling.  when there are world class americans, some attention is paid otherwise, nothing.  0.  americans like high scoring, fast paced games.  baseball has been losing fans for years because it is too slow.  0.  despite the fact that more kids play soccer than any other sport at least i think so , there is no culture around it when you get to high school, and even less at the college level.  most high schools would care more about winning the homecoming football game than the state championship in soccer.  i do think the better performance on the world stage, the increase in interest in european league, the potential decline of american football due to injuries and thuggery, and the continued widespread participation in youth soccer may yet result in soccer becoming a major sport in the us, but we ai not there yet.
i realise the entire premise for this post is completely hypocritical.  i am english and, shock horror, i like football.  yes i will call it football, and yes i know soccer is an english word.  i could not care less about the name of the sport, it makes exactly 0 difference to my enjoyment hello cmv, i am of the opinion that the constant stream of debate on the positives/negatives of association football as a sport have been the biggest driver behind american is apathy towards the sport.  nothing is worse than being told how weird or unusual you are for not liking a commonly popular thing, or being told that something is wrong with you if you do not.  the american sporting fanbase has had to deal with a lot of this over the past 0 odd years with regards to football, and although this has slightly waned over the past 0 world cups, i believe it is too late, and will now never be fully ingratiated into us sporting culture compared to the classic sports .  i believe the veiled snobbiness and general condescension from euro football fans has contributed to this, but i also believe that the internet has created a  wouldebate all ad nauseum  ethos which can be counterproductive to the growth of traditional hobbies/games/sports in a modern setting.  so many articles like  why america does not like soccer, and how that can be changed  time magazine URL is this soccer is moment in america ? wsj URL and forget the world cup hype.  america will never embrace soccer la weekly URL hinder a natural growth of interest in the history and traditions of football, which is a fundamental reason why the game is so popular.  who wants to be fed full of  this could be popular because x viewer stats and of tweets per minute of the game , and then go look at liverpool is success in the 0 is ? nobody.  another reason is emotion.  being told to  pick a side, pro football or anti football  creates an aura of national debate usually saved for politics or religion.  tarring a sport with this brush is a bad move, and does not help a casual fan from gradually falling in love with the game.  it is a slow process, no one transitions from knows nothing to uberfan in a year.  i believe a true love for a sport comes from following a team for a long period of time thick and thin, ups and downs and all those lovely cliche and wallowing in the success of others as a result of the time you personally have invested in a team.  it is a slow and patient process.  how is the average american supposed to casually follow the premier league, if they are constantly being told to line up on a side and either be a full blooded hooligan or a handegg loyalist ? casualism is the backbone of football.  i admit this opinion of mine was first formed a few years ago, and since then many of my american friends have started to follow the weekend results out of habit, which is up to them.  i am not telling them they have to like it, but i wish the media would stop constantly debating whether people should or should not like it, for heavens sake.  sorry if i rambled, discovered this sub today and am in love  #  it is a slow process, no one transitions from knows nothing to uberfan in a year.   #  i believe a true love for a sport comes from following a team for a long period of time.  casualism is the backbone of football.   #  i would disagree.  the debate of soccer by the mainstream media here in the us makes us  talk about soccer , which is step number one.  guess what happens when we do not talk about soccer ? we  forget  about it.  that is worse.  we americans fucking  love  0/0 meta conversations and debates about our sports, which some find really weird.  the nfl offseason was nothing but discussion about player conduct and some bad off the field incidents but we ate it up and could not wait for the nfl season start.  soccer fans are not ostracized from what i have seen in the us.  the little discussion that pop up from time to time are mostly an opportunity for soccer fans to evangelize about the sport they love.  it is good for the sport.  as far as some of your specific points:   i believe the veiled snobbiness and general condescension from euro football fans has contributed to this it is not veiled, it is blatant.  nothing is more irritating when a soccer fan says  the rest of the world loves soccer .  it is only true if by  rest of the world  they mean  europe, south america, and a couple parts of africa .  india, se asia, north america, and australia care about soccer about the same amount not much.  it is a little bit of a turn off, but not really the problem.  casualism is the backbone of football.  the better question is how is the average american supposed to casually follow the premier league, when it is played in the uk ? you need to watch sports on live tv, and preferably as a spectator.  there is a lot of local pride with sports your team is your city/state/country.  you are born into it, like a religion.  sorry, but i have no emotional steak in a match between manchester and leeds, nor do i care to watch it live at 0 am.  sorry.  know how the nfl is trying to promote itself in the uk ? by  playing some fucking games  in london.  that helps.  shipping the occasional washed up euro star like beckham to our joke of a league is not going to get us watching we naturally want to watch the best.  i believe a true love for a sport comes from following a team for a long period of time.  casualism is the backbone of football.  casual fans watch a sport because their friends watch, or because their local team is good, or because an event gets hyped up in the media.  for the us, that happens in the world cup.  and that is it.  the us has a surprisingly competitive team, given our relative apathy to the sport at the professional level.  we have recently started get psyched every four years.  the cup is the best way to promote soccer in the us, but fifa seems pretty happy shafting the us by putting us in the toughest division, more recently constantly awarding the cup to locations that make live viewership tough from us timezones.  brazil this year and the us 0 years ago the only ones in this hemisphere in my lifetime.  whereas every other world cup has been in europe.  all of that said, a lot of your post seems to insinuate that americas would just love soccer if we only watched it and stopped talking about it.  it is like you believe soccer is  objectively  the best and most exciting sport on the planet, which just is not correct.  soccer is popularity is in a large part due to history and inertia.  and in a region without it, it should not be surprising that it has to compete with sports that might just be  more fun  to watch in a vacuum.   #  i think it just comes down to personal preference, there i will agree with you.   # that is kinda how i see football.  there are some great plays from time to time, but 0 of the time seems to be spent between plays, not doing anything.  boring ! i have always found the  slow game  argument to be invalid when someone is saying football is any better.  football is an amazingly slow game compared to soccer or hockey.  i think it just comes down to personal preference, there i will agree with you.  in a few generations, with the right marketing, i can see pro soccer taking off in the us.  it is not a family tradition, it is not a cultural phenomena like football   baseball are here.  hell, just giving high school soccer programs the same money/respect that the football teams get would be a start.  my high school shared it is stadium with the middle school.  the middle school football teams used the stadium, but only the high school varsity soccer team where allowed in.  jv   freshman had to use rented muddy fields at a local university.   #  the four major team sports are organized very similarly to one another.   #  the four major team sports are organized very similarly to one another.  the teams are identified by the city, state, or region they are based out of and then a nickname.  there is a regular season where teams attempt to achieve the most wins or points and to qualify for the playoffs, a post season tournament to decide the champion for the year.  the teams then add players in the off season via a draft, trades, and free agency within their own league.  in some rare occasions, in hockey, basketball, and baseball, a foreign player is brought in from a foreign league.  but again, that is rare.  compared to how european football is organized.  teams have a regular season, with cup games sprinkled in the middle of that same season.  often one team is in two or three tournaments, at various stages, simultaneously.  there is no post season tournament to decide the league champion, which can be decided with a few games left to be played.  that is starkly different from how the us sports fan is used to champions being decided.  we like the idea that the two best teams play each other and decide a winner on the field or court or ice.  we have now even forced that concept into sports where it really creates more problems than it solves college football and nascar .  european football clubs also develop players much differently.  signing teenagers to develop in their schools/training academies.  then often loaning those players out to other clubs to develop.  there are also multiple leagues that have comparable talent and resources.  there is only one nfl, one nba, one nhl, and one mlb.  no other league even comes close around the world.  whereas in europe, there are several elite level leagues where top players move into and out of.  again, not to say one is better or worse than the other but soccer is just quite a bit different and therefore harder to digest for the casual american fan.  it is easy to dismiss something off hand when you do not feel like taking the time to understand it.   #  i am not sure this passes the laugh test.   # i am not sure this passes the laugh test.  you are actually arguing that if people talked about soccer less, then people would watch more games and care more ? i have plenty of us friends who are vocal about their love of soccer.  they follow uk teams for the most part.  probably lack of highly competitive us teams is a problem.  probably, just the fact that it is not been a televised, high profile sport in the us for very long is a problem.  and probably the highly entrenched nfl, mlb and nba competing for attention and dollars is a problem.  people debating the sport is undoubtedly a lesser problem than having to win people away from watching nfl games.   #  to non fans, there can be no fatigue from the debate, because they are simply not involved in the debate, even as spectators.   # it is simply not relevant to someone who is not a soccer fan.  i do not watch sports and i have not heard, seen, or been involved in such a debate.  ever.  except maybe having seen one briefly on tv for a few seconds.  it is not relevant to non fans at all.  i think you notice the debate because you are a fan who apparently cares about the issue.  to non fans, there can be no fatigue from the debate, because they are simply not involved in the debate, even as spectators.  however, they do have 0 professional sports to watch year round baseball, basketball, football, hockey in which their local teams compete at a world class level, not to mention high school and college football.  which is probably the only excuse they need to not watch soccer.  most fans do not even have time to watch all the american football they want, let alone another sport in addition.
i began this saying i was unaware of the specifics of the whole affair because i do not keep up with celebrity gossip.  from all the attention it has garnered i was unaware that there was not a criminal case in progress, nor that the accusations are so old and past the statutes of limitation.  that makes this much different because she is no longer someone trying to get double jeopardy with a civil case following a criminal case, but rather someone in the middle of media barrage.  i still feel that should she have done this in the context of a criminal case it would have been wrong, but clearly the context of this case is much different than what i had been lead to believe.   as a preface, i am not someone who usually cares much about celebrity or their scandals.  for all i care, they are just more fallible people doing what they will.  i have been vaguely aware of the controversy as a bunch of women are accusing bill cosby of rape under dubious circumstances, i think anyone who spends any significant amount of time would have to have at least heard of it, but i do not know the specific details.  this is not a case for cosby is guilt or innocence, i really could not care less about it, this is about the newest suit.   i overheard this being discussed briefly on the radio this morning, and the implications of cosby is latest lawsuit are deeply disturbing to me.  i went and found an article about it URL but for those who do not know, apparently the latest in the bill cosby rape scandal is a lawsuit for defamation of character.  basically, one of the women who has accused him of sexual assault is now trying to sue him for discrediting her accusations; for calling her a liar.  to me, this is a very dangerous case.  i do not know the details regarding cosby is guilt and i do not care to make a debate for or against him, this is a moot point.  however, the implications of the lawsuit being pressed against him scare me.  if someone accuses a person of something as serious as rape, that person is life is now turned upside.  regardless of guilt or innocence, their public image will be destroyed because their name will now be forever associated with sex crime.  that this person can then be sued for defending themselves seems to be an abuse of the law.  as a man, it feels like there is no winning.  there is a lot of radical feminist culture online which seems to suggest this idea that there is a pervasive rape culture and universal hatred towards women; a culture which paints the male image as a potential rapist waiting to strike.  if this woman is successful in her defamation suit, it feels like no matter what men would be hopeless.  if you are accused of rape, regardless of the facts you are guilty.  if you try to defend your image or discredit the accuser is claims, you are guilty.  lose lose.  what part of this is alright ? in what way can this suit be justified ?  #  that this person can then be sued for defending themselves seems to be an abuse of the law.   #  if green can prove that cosby knows she is telling the truth, and is directing his lawyers to call her a liar anyway, why  should not  she be able to get compensation for that ?  # if green can prove that cosby knows she is telling the truth, and is directing his lawyers to call her a liar anyway, why  should not  she be able to get compensation for that ? if you are accused of rape, regardless of the facts you are guilty.  if you try to defend your image or discredit the accuser is claims, you are guilty.  are you sure you are not misunderstanding how defamation lawsuits work ? she can only win the lawsuit if she proves that her story was truthful.   #  everyone who has ever been accused of a crime who has not admitted guilt and taken a plea deal has had to defend themselves in some way.   #  it would be double jeopardy essentially; at the point where it can be proven that cosby is guilty of rape, those charges would go through.  to then attack him for having defended himself is ridiculous.  everyone who has ever been accused of a crime who has not admitted guilt and taken a plea deal has had to defend themselves in some way.  this case would set a precedent, however, which would provide a way for a an accuser who fails to win their charge of rape to then charge them for.  defending themselves ? for winning a case ? again, i do not know the specifics of the case, but just the principle of it seems wrong.  as the accuser, you have pulled yourself into a damaging battle anyway by asserting yourself as the victim and destroying someone else is public image.  by then being able to come back and press charges for the defendant trying to mitigate the fallout and destruction of their life feels like there is no way to escape.  if you are accused you are automatically guilty of  something , whether it actually is rape or just saying it was all a lie.   #  he is not just denying it, he is making an affirmative statement that they have never met, so she must be some crazy con artist just trying to make a quick buck.   #  it is not double jeopardy because: 0 double jeopardy only applies to the criminal court, not civil court.  0 he was never tried in criminal court for this allegation, or a civil court.  0 this lawsuit is not about the rape, but about cosby and/or his agents not only denying her accusations, but going so far as to say they have never met.  making that comment denying they have ever met is more than just denying her accusation, it is saying she is a malicious fraud .  that absolutely could have impacted her reputation.  he is not just denying it, he is making an affirmative statement that they have never met, so she must be some crazy con artist just trying to make a quick buck.   #  you are missing a key aspect of defamation of character: you have to prove lies were told with the intent to damage someone is reputation.   #  you are missing a key aspect of defamation of character: you have to prove lies were told with the intent to damage someone is reputation.  if the woman suing cosby can prove he had  intent to damage her reputation,  that is not double jeopardy anymore, is it ? he can completely defend himself, even call her a liar as part of his defense without the  intent  to damage her reputation merely with the intent to defend himself.  so if the woman can prove he had the intent to damage her reputation, that is a totally different crime and not double jeopardy anymore.  however, it is likely she wo not be able to prove he had the intent to damage her reputation, because likely he  was  just defending himself.  but we will see what the court says.   #  considering that cosby has been tried and convicted in the media where others such as clinton and michael jackson get a free pass and adding in that he is rich, his chances with a jury would not be great.   #  it is impossible to prove if the alleged rape occurred 0  years ago.  therefore it is impossible to prove cosby caused her harm by defending himself saying he did not rape her.  a jury would base their decision on nothing but claims and emotion.  considering that cosby has been tried and convicted in the media where others such as clinton and michael jackson get a free pass and adding in that he is rich, his chances with a jury would not be great.  and why should he have to take a chance ?
i began this saying i was unaware of the specifics of the whole affair because i do not keep up with celebrity gossip.  from all the attention it has garnered i was unaware that there was not a criminal case in progress, nor that the accusations are so old and past the statutes of limitation.  that makes this much different because she is no longer someone trying to get double jeopardy with a civil case following a criminal case, but rather someone in the middle of media barrage.  i still feel that should she have done this in the context of a criminal case it would have been wrong, but clearly the context of this case is much different than what i had been lead to believe.   as a preface, i am not someone who usually cares much about celebrity or their scandals.  for all i care, they are just more fallible people doing what they will.  i have been vaguely aware of the controversy as a bunch of women are accusing bill cosby of rape under dubious circumstances, i think anyone who spends any significant amount of time would have to have at least heard of it, but i do not know the specific details.  this is not a case for cosby is guilt or innocence, i really could not care less about it, this is about the newest suit.   i overheard this being discussed briefly on the radio this morning, and the implications of cosby is latest lawsuit are deeply disturbing to me.  i went and found an article about it URL but for those who do not know, apparently the latest in the bill cosby rape scandal is a lawsuit for defamation of character.  basically, one of the women who has accused him of sexual assault is now trying to sue him for discrediting her accusations; for calling her a liar.  to me, this is a very dangerous case.  i do not know the details regarding cosby is guilt and i do not care to make a debate for or against him, this is a moot point.  however, the implications of the lawsuit being pressed against him scare me.  if someone accuses a person of something as serious as rape, that person is life is now turned upside.  regardless of guilt or innocence, their public image will be destroyed because their name will now be forever associated with sex crime.  that this person can then be sued for defending themselves seems to be an abuse of the law.  as a man, it feels like there is no winning.  there is a lot of radical feminist culture online which seems to suggest this idea that there is a pervasive rape culture and universal hatred towards women; a culture which paints the male image as a potential rapist waiting to strike.  if this woman is successful in her defamation suit, it feels like no matter what men would be hopeless.  if you are accused of rape, regardless of the facts you are guilty.  if you try to defend your image or discredit the accuser is claims, you are guilty.  lose lose.  what part of this is alright ? in what way can this suit be justified ?  #  if this woman is successful in her defamation suit, it feels like no matter what men would be hopeless.   #  if you are accused of rape, regardless of the facts you are guilty.   # if green can prove that cosby knows she is telling the truth, and is directing his lawyers to call her a liar anyway, why  should not  she be able to get compensation for that ? if you are accused of rape, regardless of the facts you are guilty.  if you try to defend your image or discredit the accuser is claims, you are guilty.  are you sure you are not misunderstanding how defamation lawsuits work ? she can only win the lawsuit if she proves that her story was truthful.   #  if you are accused you are automatically guilty of  something , whether it actually is rape or just saying it was all a lie.   #  it would be double jeopardy essentially; at the point where it can be proven that cosby is guilty of rape, those charges would go through.  to then attack him for having defended himself is ridiculous.  everyone who has ever been accused of a crime who has not admitted guilt and taken a plea deal has had to defend themselves in some way.  this case would set a precedent, however, which would provide a way for a an accuser who fails to win their charge of rape to then charge them for.  defending themselves ? for winning a case ? again, i do not know the specifics of the case, but just the principle of it seems wrong.  as the accuser, you have pulled yourself into a damaging battle anyway by asserting yourself as the victim and destroying someone else is public image.  by then being able to come back and press charges for the defendant trying to mitigate the fallout and destruction of their life feels like there is no way to escape.  if you are accused you are automatically guilty of  something , whether it actually is rape or just saying it was all a lie.   #  he is not just denying it, he is making an affirmative statement that they have never met, so she must be some crazy con artist just trying to make a quick buck.   #  it is not double jeopardy because: 0 double jeopardy only applies to the criminal court, not civil court.  0 he was never tried in criminal court for this allegation, or a civil court.  0 this lawsuit is not about the rape, but about cosby and/or his agents not only denying her accusations, but going so far as to say they have never met.  making that comment denying they have ever met is more than just denying her accusation, it is saying she is a malicious fraud .  that absolutely could have impacted her reputation.  he is not just denying it, he is making an affirmative statement that they have never met, so she must be some crazy con artist just trying to make a quick buck.   #  he can completely defend himself, even call her a liar as part of his defense without the  intent  to damage her reputation merely with the intent to defend himself.   #  you are missing a key aspect of defamation of character: you have to prove lies were told with the intent to damage someone is reputation.  if the woman suing cosby can prove he had  intent to damage her reputation,  that is not double jeopardy anymore, is it ? he can completely defend himself, even call her a liar as part of his defense without the  intent  to damage her reputation merely with the intent to defend himself.  so if the woman can prove he had the intent to damage her reputation, that is a totally different crime and not double jeopardy anymore.  however, it is likely she wo not be able to prove he had the intent to damage her reputation, because likely he  was  just defending himself.  but we will see what the court says.   #  considering that cosby has been tried and convicted in the media where others such as clinton and michael jackson get a free pass and adding in that he is rich, his chances with a jury would not be great.   #  it is impossible to prove if the alleged rape occurred 0  years ago.  therefore it is impossible to prove cosby caused her harm by defending himself saying he did not rape her.  a jury would base their decision on nothing but claims and emotion.  considering that cosby has been tried and convicted in the media where others such as clinton and michael jackson get a free pass and adding in that he is rich, his chances with a jury would not be great.  and why should he have to take a chance ?
i began this saying i was unaware of the specifics of the whole affair because i do not keep up with celebrity gossip.  from all the attention it has garnered i was unaware that there was not a criminal case in progress, nor that the accusations are so old and past the statutes of limitation.  that makes this much different because she is no longer someone trying to get double jeopardy with a civil case following a criminal case, but rather someone in the middle of media barrage.  i still feel that should she have done this in the context of a criminal case it would have been wrong, but clearly the context of this case is much different than what i had been lead to believe.   as a preface, i am not someone who usually cares much about celebrity or their scandals.  for all i care, they are just more fallible people doing what they will.  i have been vaguely aware of the controversy as a bunch of women are accusing bill cosby of rape under dubious circumstances, i think anyone who spends any significant amount of time would have to have at least heard of it, but i do not know the specific details.  this is not a case for cosby is guilt or innocence, i really could not care less about it, this is about the newest suit.   i overheard this being discussed briefly on the radio this morning, and the implications of cosby is latest lawsuit are deeply disturbing to me.  i went and found an article about it URL but for those who do not know, apparently the latest in the bill cosby rape scandal is a lawsuit for defamation of character.  basically, one of the women who has accused him of sexual assault is now trying to sue him for discrediting her accusations; for calling her a liar.  to me, this is a very dangerous case.  i do not know the details regarding cosby is guilt and i do not care to make a debate for or against him, this is a moot point.  however, the implications of the lawsuit being pressed against him scare me.  if someone accuses a person of something as serious as rape, that person is life is now turned upside.  regardless of guilt or innocence, their public image will be destroyed because their name will now be forever associated with sex crime.  that this person can then be sued for defending themselves seems to be an abuse of the law.  as a man, it feels like there is no winning.  there is a lot of radical feminist culture online which seems to suggest this idea that there is a pervasive rape culture and universal hatred towards women; a culture which paints the male image as a potential rapist waiting to strike.  if this woman is successful in her defamation suit, it feels like no matter what men would be hopeless.  if you are accused of rape, regardless of the facts you are guilty.  if you try to defend your image or discredit the accuser is claims, you are guilty.  lose lose.  what part of this is alright ? in what way can this suit be justified ?  #  if someone accuses a person of something as serious as rape, that person is life is now turned upside.   #  regardless of guilt or innocence, their public image will be destroyed because their name will now be forever associated with sex crime.   # regardless of guilt or innocence, their public image will be destroyed because their name will now be forever associated with sex crime.  the very man you are talking about proves you wrong.  bill cosby was accused of rape in 0 URL one of his victims claims she went to the police and accused him of raping her when it happened so 0 to 0 years ago and they laughed her out of the office.  but let is stick with the 0 accusation as the first accusation.  bill cosby was not known as a rapist in 0.  he was not known as a rapist by the general public until this year.  he was accused by women 0 times between 0 and last year, and he still did not have the reputation of a rapist in the public eye.  it was not until a couple more allegations this year that his image turned negative.   #  if green can prove that cosby knows she is telling the truth, and is directing his lawyers to call her a liar anyway, why  should not  she be able to get compensation for that ?  # if green can prove that cosby knows she is telling the truth, and is directing his lawyers to call her a liar anyway, why  should not  she be able to get compensation for that ? if you are accused of rape, regardless of the facts you are guilty.  if you try to defend your image or discredit the accuser is claims, you are guilty.  are you sure you are not misunderstanding how defamation lawsuits work ? she can only win the lawsuit if she proves that her story was truthful.   #  again, i do not know the specifics of the case, but just the principle of it seems wrong.   #  it would be double jeopardy essentially; at the point where it can be proven that cosby is guilty of rape, those charges would go through.  to then attack him for having defended himself is ridiculous.  everyone who has ever been accused of a crime who has not admitted guilt and taken a plea deal has had to defend themselves in some way.  this case would set a precedent, however, which would provide a way for a an accuser who fails to win their charge of rape to then charge them for.  defending themselves ? for winning a case ? again, i do not know the specifics of the case, but just the principle of it seems wrong.  as the accuser, you have pulled yourself into a damaging battle anyway by asserting yourself as the victim and destroying someone else is public image.  by then being able to come back and press charges for the defendant trying to mitigate the fallout and destruction of their life feels like there is no way to escape.  if you are accused you are automatically guilty of  something , whether it actually is rape or just saying it was all a lie.   #  he is not just denying it, he is making an affirmative statement that they have never met, so she must be some crazy con artist just trying to make a quick buck.   #  it is not double jeopardy because: 0 double jeopardy only applies to the criminal court, not civil court.  0 he was never tried in criminal court for this allegation, or a civil court.  0 this lawsuit is not about the rape, but about cosby and/or his agents not only denying her accusations, but going so far as to say they have never met.  making that comment denying they have ever met is more than just denying her accusation, it is saying she is a malicious fraud .  that absolutely could have impacted her reputation.  he is not just denying it, he is making an affirmative statement that they have never met, so she must be some crazy con artist just trying to make a quick buck.   #  if the woman suing cosby can prove he had  intent to damage her reputation,  that is not double jeopardy anymore, is it ?  #  you are missing a key aspect of defamation of character: you have to prove lies were told with the intent to damage someone is reputation.  if the woman suing cosby can prove he had  intent to damage her reputation,  that is not double jeopardy anymore, is it ? he can completely defend himself, even call her a liar as part of his defense without the  intent  to damage her reputation merely with the intent to defend himself.  so if the woman can prove he had the intent to damage her reputation, that is a totally different crime and not double jeopardy anymore.  however, it is likely she wo not be able to prove he had the intent to damage her reputation, because likely he  was  just defending himself.  but we will see what the court says.
i began this saying i was unaware of the specifics of the whole affair because i do not keep up with celebrity gossip.  from all the attention it has garnered i was unaware that there was not a criminal case in progress, nor that the accusations are so old and past the statutes of limitation.  that makes this much different because she is no longer someone trying to get double jeopardy with a civil case following a criminal case, but rather someone in the middle of media barrage.  i still feel that should she have done this in the context of a criminal case it would have been wrong, but clearly the context of this case is much different than what i had been lead to believe.   as a preface, i am not someone who usually cares much about celebrity or their scandals.  for all i care, they are just more fallible people doing what they will.  i have been vaguely aware of the controversy as a bunch of women are accusing bill cosby of rape under dubious circumstances, i think anyone who spends any significant amount of time would have to have at least heard of it, but i do not know the specific details.  this is not a case for cosby is guilt or innocence, i really could not care less about it, this is about the newest suit.   i overheard this being discussed briefly on the radio this morning, and the implications of cosby is latest lawsuit are deeply disturbing to me.  i went and found an article about it URL but for those who do not know, apparently the latest in the bill cosby rape scandal is a lawsuit for defamation of character.  basically, one of the women who has accused him of sexual assault is now trying to sue him for discrediting her accusations; for calling her a liar.  to me, this is a very dangerous case.  i do not know the details regarding cosby is guilt and i do not care to make a debate for or against him, this is a moot point.  however, the implications of the lawsuit being pressed against him scare me.  if someone accuses a person of something as serious as rape, that person is life is now turned upside.  regardless of guilt or innocence, their public image will be destroyed because their name will now be forever associated with sex crime.  that this person can then be sued for defending themselves seems to be an abuse of the law.  as a man, it feels like there is no winning.  there is a lot of radical feminist culture online which seems to suggest this idea that there is a pervasive rape culture and universal hatred towards women; a culture which paints the male image as a potential rapist waiting to strike.  if this woman is successful in her defamation suit, it feels like no matter what men would be hopeless.  if you are accused of rape, regardless of the facts you are guilty.  if you try to defend your image or discredit the accuser is claims, you are guilty.  lose lose.  what part of this is alright ? in what way can this suit be justified ?  #  in what way can this suit be justified ?  #  the simple fact that she can bring forth any lawsuit she so desires.   # the simple fact that she can bring forth any lawsuit she so desires.  sure, the burden of proof in a civil case is lower than that of a criminal case, but she still needs to demonstrate to a reasonable extent that bill cosby raped her in order for her claim of defamation of character to hold water, even then she would probably have to demonstrate how being called a liar has adversely affected her life in order to receive compensation.  whether or not he raped this woman, this looks like an uphill lawsuit, especially considering that bill could probably afford a good lawyer.  there is a lot of baggage in using bill cosby to highlight this issue you are arguing because in many people is minds and personal logic, the sheer number of accusations that he is had leveled against him make it difficult to believe that he did not rape even one of them.  so while logically it does not take away from the content of your argument, in many people is minds, if you try to use bill cosby as a martyr for this issue, you will be seen as someone who ca not see a wooden door right in front of you.  so i would argue that if she wins her case, the implications are not going to be as significant as you think they will be.  if the case ends in her favor, then she argued well enough to demonstrate that her reputation was damaged by bill is claims that she was a liar and that those claims were false; that is just the legal system working its  magic.   and if hypothetically most people believe that bill raped at least one of his accusers or that the nature and or number of the rape accusations damage his credibility to point where people are ambivalent about supporting him, then there will be few people who would be disturbed by a ruling in favor of the plaintiff.   #  she can only win the lawsuit if she proves that her story was truthful.   # if green can prove that cosby knows she is telling the truth, and is directing his lawyers to call her a liar anyway, why  should not  she be able to get compensation for that ? if you are accused of rape, regardless of the facts you are guilty.  if you try to defend your image or discredit the accuser is claims, you are guilty.  are you sure you are not misunderstanding how defamation lawsuits work ? she can only win the lawsuit if she proves that her story was truthful.   #  it would be double jeopardy essentially; at the point where it can be proven that cosby is guilty of rape, those charges would go through.   #  it would be double jeopardy essentially; at the point where it can be proven that cosby is guilty of rape, those charges would go through.  to then attack him for having defended himself is ridiculous.  everyone who has ever been accused of a crime who has not admitted guilt and taken a plea deal has had to defend themselves in some way.  this case would set a precedent, however, which would provide a way for a an accuser who fails to win their charge of rape to then charge them for.  defending themselves ? for winning a case ? again, i do not know the specifics of the case, but just the principle of it seems wrong.  as the accuser, you have pulled yourself into a damaging battle anyway by asserting yourself as the victim and destroying someone else is public image.  by then being able to come back and press charges for the defendant trying to mitigate the fallout and destruction of their life feels like there is no way to escape.  if you are accused you are automatically guilty of  something , whether it actually is rape or just saying it was all a lie.   #  0 he was never tried in criminal court for this allegation, or a civil court.   #  it is not double jeopardy because: 0 double jeopardy only applies to the criminal court, not civil court.  0 he was never tried in criminal court for this allegation, or a civil court.  0 this lawsuit is not about the rape, but about cosby and/or his agents not only denying her accusations, but going so far as to say they have never met.  making that comment denying they have ever met is more than just denying her accusation, it is saying she is a malicious fraud .  that absolutely could have impacted her reputation.  he is not just denying it, he is making an affirmative statement that they have never met, so she must be some crazy con artist just trying to make a quick buck.   #  if the woman suing cosby can prove he had  intent to damage her reputation,  that is not double jeopardy anymore, is it ?  #  you are missing a key aspect of defamation of character: you have to prove lies were told with the intent to damage someone is reputation.  if the woman suing cosby can prove he had  intent to damage her reputation,  that is not double jeopardy anymore, is it ? he can completely defend himself, even call her a liar as part of his defense without the  intent  to damage her reputation merely with the intent to defend himself.  so if the woman can prove he had the intent to damage her reputation, that is a totally different crime and not double jeopardy anymore.  however, it is likely she wo not be able to prove he had the intent to damage her reputation, because likely he  was  just defending himself.  but we will see what the court says.
the most upvoted comments concerning pirate bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance.  it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  i understand that piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of steam or netflix.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  there is no situation where i would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released .  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.  there is also no situation where i would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.  further, the argument of  they do not deserve my money  that people always throw around concerning the likes of ubisoft or ea is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  i feel like i should add as an addendum that there is one situation where i have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if i had been able to.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.   #  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.   #  freedom of information, is not that a laudable ideal ?  # freedom of information, is not that a laudable ideal ? we have technology that makes it possible to supply any kind of information to anyone with an internet connection.  why sabotage it so safeguard the monetary interests of a wealthy few ? do not worry about the film production, if people do not get their fix of sequel vi: the repetition, they will find a way to get money to the right people.  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.  there is also no situation where i would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.  i would consider it justified under a try before you buy philosophy, but i generally agree that it is distasteful to expect fast service for free.  then again, if people really would exploit this and almost nobody would  buy  new games, then the source would dry up.  and then people would start paying for games.  the difference would be that people pay to produce a game, rather than for a disk on the store shelves, and they do not expect exclusivity; the effect is still the same: they pay, they get a game.  i consider that progress on all counts, if only because companies do not have to try to ram existing games through our throats just because they produced them already, found out it was shit too late, and now have to try to recoup their costs.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  they ca not know if it is shit before they tried it, and trying first would be sensible if you expect them to screw it up.   #  obviously, letting people in these instances pirate means letting people in general pirate.   #  i disagree with a lot of the conclusions arguments against piracy in general reach but i recognize the validity of many of those arguments.  there are a few situations where i think where you stand on piracy in general does not matter.  0.  if you cant legally obtain content in your country.  if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  0.  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? obviously, letting people in these instances pirate means letting people in general pirate.  but because people in these situations exist, i do not think you can say no one has a good reason for pirating  #  whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ?  # if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  i really have never cared for this argument as it just flat out denies any form of potential profit and ownership rights.  some people in this thread said things like  if potential profit is a thing then why does not pepsi sue coke ?  .  that analogy is totally false because when you pirate a game or music, you are not competing with a company, you are getting a company is product for free.  in my opinion, as a creator, i would much rather you not enjoy the spoils of my labor if you ca not give me what i want for it.  art is my job, and i deserve to get paid for it, just like every other form of labor.  and as for  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? this argument just basically says that you do not care about the terms and agreements that you agree to when you purchase any form of media.  if you do not want to watch the trailers and commercials, then i am sorry, take that up with the content creators that licensed their rights out to a distributer that uses commercials.  it is not your place to decide how content is distributed, its the creator is or whomever the creator okay is to do it.  if i record a song and decide i never want anyone to hear it, but someone manages to make a torrent for the file, now what i wanted is out the window.  me not wanting it heard is the same as me charging a dollar for it.  it is what i want.  if you choose to circumvent that, you are breaking the agreement we had.   #  there is a big difference between choosing to pirate to get content and having no other option.   #  to your first point: i do not really think the coke analogy applies to what i said.  besides that, i guess its just a matter of personal opinion.  there is a big difference between choosing to pirate to get content and having no other option.  there is essentially no harm or effect at all on the artist if a consumer pirates content in a place where they ca not buy it legally anyway; the only effect which is positive is that the consumer gets to enjoy something that was created to be enjoyed.  it seems that if the artist has a problem, its with the laws restricting their content is sale, not the consumer.  to your second point: once again, i guess its a question of your own opinion.  you can say  tough shit, you bought the dvd so deal with what is on it  and thats fine.  but someone else could say  tough shit, i do not get access worth what i pay for the dvd anyway, why buy it at all ?   i understand that artists should have some say in how their content is sold but i do not agree that, after the sale, they have total authority over how and when a consumer is to view that content.  third: that last part is a completely different issue.  maybe i am being too specific for the cmv, but i only meant to discuss content that is already widely available for sale but restricted in certain places.   #  i think of it this way, i am paying for the content, and taping the shows editing out the commercials and carrying my whole library of vhs with me at all times and all my stuff can play the vhs.   #  i will tell you how i view it and we can go from there is that is okay.  i pay for amazon prime which includes streaming , i also pay for hulu.  i also go to the movies often for date night and buy the collectors edition packages for most movies i truly enjoy.  i rarely if ever use my streaming services that i pay for and hardly ever watch a dvd/blueray that i buy.  i feel that if i am paying for content, i should be able to watch the content on any device i want at any time i want without any commercials and without buffering issues through a single easy to use platform that is consistent across devices.  i download and watch tv shows as well as movies.  i have a home server set up with my own streaming capabilities.  i do this because often times the streaming services remove a show\ movie that they once offered that i want to always have access to, or the tv shows i am paying to watch are trying to sell me something else.  i pay for the content through the available services, and find their delivery sub par especially since i can create a superior system at home with a nas and a decent server.  i feel justified in my downloads because i am paying for the content, i am just delivering it to my devices in a more efficient, cross platform single service method.  i think of it this way, i am paying for the content, and taping the shows editing out the commercials and carrying my whole library of vhs with me at all times and all my stuff can play the vhs.  its just the vhs is a nas and i am carrying the internet.
the most upvoted comments concerning pirate bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance.  it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  i understand that piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of steam or netflix.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  there is no situation where i would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released .  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.  there is also no situation where i would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.  further, the argument of  they do not deserve my money  that people always throw around concerning the likes of ubisoft or ea is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  i feel like i should add as an addendum that there is one situation where i have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if i had been able to.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.   #  there is no situation where i would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released .   #  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.   # freedom of information, is not that a laudable ideal ? we have technology that makes it possible to supply any kind of information to anyone with an internet connection.  why sabotage it so safeguard the monetary interests of a wealthy few ? do not worry about the film production, if people do not get their fix of sequel vi: the repetition, they will find a way to get money to the right people.  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.  there is also no situation where i would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.  i would consider it justified under a try before you buy philosophy, but i generally agree that it is distasteful to expect fast service for free.  then again, if people really would exploit this and almost nobody would  buy  new games, then the source would dry up.  and then people would start paying for games.  the difference would be that people pay to produce a game, rather than for a disk on the store shelves, and they do not expect exclusivity; the effect is still the same: they pay, they get a game.  i consider that progress on all counts, if only because companies do not have to try to ram existing games through our throats just because they produced them already, found out it was shit too late, and now have to try to recoup their costs.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  they ca not know if it is shit before they tried it, and trying first would be sensible if you expect them to screw it up.   #  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.   #  i disagree with a lot of the conclusions arguments against piracy in general reach but i recognize the validity of many of those arguments.  there are a few situations where i think where you stand on piracy in general does not matter.  0.  if you cant legally obtain content in your country.  if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  0.  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? obviously, letting people in these instances pirate means letting people in general pirate.  but because people in these situations exist, i do not think you can say no one has a good reason for pirating  #  what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ?  # if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  i really have never cared for this argument as it just flat out denies any form of potential profit and ownership rights.  some people in this thread said things like  if potential profit is a thing then why does not pepsi sue coke ?  .  that analogy is totally false because when you pirate a game or music, you are not competing with a company, you are getting a company is product for free.  in my opinion, as a creator, i would much rather you not enjoy the spoils of my labor if you ca not give me what i want for it.  art is my job, and i deserve to get paid for it, just like every other form of labor.  and as for  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? this argument just basically says that you do not care about the terms and agreements that you agree to when you purchase any form of media.  if you do not want to watch the trailers and commercials, then i am sorry, take that up with the content creators that licensed their rights out to a distributer that uses commercials.  it is not your place to decide how content is distributed, its the creator is or whomever the creator okay is to do it.  if i record a song and decide i never want anyone to hear it, but someone manages to make a torrent for the file, now what i wanted is out the window.  me not wanting it heard is the same as me charging a dollar for it.  it is what i want.  if you choose to circumvent that, you are breaking the agreement we had.   #  to your second point: once again, i guess its a question of your own opinion.   #  to your first point: i do not really think the coke analogy applies to what i said.  besides that, i guess its just a matter of personal opinion.  there is a big difference between choosing to pirate to get content and having no other option.  there is essentially no harm or effect at all on the artist if a consumer pirates content in a place where they ca not buy it legally anyway; the only effect which is positive is that the consumer gets to enjoy something that was created to be enjoyed.  it seems that if the artist has a problem, its with the laws restricting their content is sale, not the consumer.  to your second point: once again, i guess its a question of your own opinion.  you can say  tough shit, you bought the dvd so deal with what is on it  and thats fine.  but someone else could say  tough shit, i do not get access worth what i pay for the dvd anyway, why buy it at all ?   i understand that artists should have some say in how their content is sold but i do not agree that, after the sale, they have total authority over how and when a consumer is to view that content.  third: that last part is a completely different issue.  maybe i am being too specific for the cmv, but i only meant to discuss content that is already widely available for sale but restricted in certain places.   #  i also go to the movies often for date night and buy the collectors edition packages for most movies i truly enjoy.   #  i will tell you how i view it and we can go from there is that is okay.  i pay for amazon prime which includes streaming , i also pay for hulu.  i also go to the movies often for date night and buy the collectors edition packages for most movies i truly enjoy.  i rarely if ever use my streaming services that i pay for and hardly ever watch a dvd/blueray that i buy.  i feel that if i am paying for content, i should be able to watch the content on any device i want at any time i want without any commercials and without buffering issues through a single easy to use platform that is consistent across devices.  i download and watch tv shows as well as movies.  i have a home server set up with my own streaming capabilities.  i do this because often times the streaming services remove a show\ movie that they once offered that i want to always have access to, or the tv shows i am paying to watch are trying to sell me something else.  i pay for the content through the available services, and find their delivery sub par especially since i can create a superior system at home with a nas and a decent server.  i feel justified in my downloads because i am paying for the content, i am just delivering it to my devices in a more efficient, cross platform single service method.  i think of it this way, i am paying for the content, and taping the shows editing out the commercials and carrying my whole library of vhs with me at all times and all my stuff can play the vhs.  its just the vhs is a nas and i am carrying the internet.
the most upvoted comments concerning pirate bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance.  it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  i understand that piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of steam or netflix.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  there is no situation where i would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released .  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.  there is also no situation where i would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.  further, the argument of  they do not deserve my money  that people always throw around concerning the likes of ubisoft or ea is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  i feel like i should add as an addendum that there is one situation where i have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if i had been able to.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.   #  further, the argument of  they do not deserve my money  that people always throw around concerning the likes of ubisoft or ea is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy.   #  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.   # freedom of information, is not that a laudable ideal ? we have technology that makes it possible to supply any kind of information to anyone with an internet connection.  why sabotage it so safeguard the monetary interests of a wealthy few ? do not worry about the film production, if people do not get their fix of sequel vi: the repetition, they will find a way to get money to the right people.  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.  there is also no situation where i would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.  i would consider it justified under a try before you buy philosophy, but i generally agree that it is distasteful to expect fast service for free.  then again, if people really would exploit this and almost nobody would  buy  new games, then the source would dry up.  and then people would start paying for games.  the difference would be that people pay to produce a game, rather than for a disk on the store shelves, and they do not expect exclusivity; the effect is still the same: they pay, they get a game.  i consider that progress on all counts, if only because companies do not have to try to ram existing games through our throats just because they produced them already, found out it was shit too late, and now have to try to recoup their costs.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  they ca not know if it is shit before they tried it, and trying first would be sensible if you expect them to screw it up.   #  the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.   #  i disagree with a lot of the conclusions arguments against piracy in general reach but i recognize the validity of many of those arguments.  there are a few situations where i think where you stand on piracy in general does not matter.  0.  if you cant legally obtain content in your country.  if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  0.  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? obviously, letting people in these instances pirate means letting people in general pirate.  but because people in these situations exist, i do not think you can say no one has a good reason for pirating  #  should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ?  # if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  i really have never cared for this argument as it just flat out denies any form of potential profit and ownership rights.  some people in this thread said things like  if potential profit is a thing then why does not pepsi sue coke ?  .  that analogy is totally false because when you pirate a game or music, you are not competing with a company, you are getting a company is product for free.  in my opinion, as a creator, i would much rather you not enjoy the spoils of my labor if you ca not give me what i want for it.  art is my job, and i deserve to get paid for it, just like every other form of labor.  and as for  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? this argument just basically says that you do not care about the terms and agreements that you agree to when you purchase any form of media.  if you do not want to watch the trailers and commercials, then i am sorry, take that up with the content creators that licensed their rights out to a distributer that uses commercials.  it is not your place to decide how content is distributed, its the creator is or whomever the creator okay is to do it.  if i record a song and decide i never want anyone to hear it, but someone manages to make a torrent for the file, now what i wanted is out the window.  me not wanting it heard is the same as me charging a dollar for it.  it is what i want.  if you choose to circumvent that, you are breaking the agreement we had.   #  there is a big difference between choosing to pirate to get content and having no other option.   #  to your first point: i do not really think the coke analogy applies to what i said.  besides that, i guess its just a matter of personal opinion.  there is a big difference between choosing to pirate to get content and having no other option.  there is essentially no harm or effect at all on the artist if a consumer pirates content in a place where they ca not buy it legally anyway; the only effect which is positive is that the consumer gets to enjoy something that was created to be enjoyed.  it seems that if the artist has a problem, its with the laws restricting their content is sale, not the consumer.  to your second point: once again, i guess its a question of your own opinion.  you can say  tough shit, you bought the dvd so deal with what is on it  and thats fine.  but someone else could say  tough shit, i do not get access worth what i pay for the dvd anyway, why buy it at all ?   i understand that artists should have some say in how their content is sold but i do not agree that, after the sale, they have total authority over how and when a consumer is to view that content.  third: that last part is a completely different issue.  maybe i am being too specific for the cmv, but i only meant to discuss content that is already widely available for sale but restricted in certain places.   #  i pay for the content through the available services, and find their delivery sub par especially since i can create a superior system at home with a nas and a decent server.   #  i will tell you how i view it and we can go from there is that is okay.  i pay for amazon prime which includes streaming , i also pay for hulu.  i also go to the movies often for date night and buy the collectors edition packages for most movies i truly enjoy.  i rarely if ever use my streaming services that i pay for and hardly ever watch a dvd/blueray that i buy.  i feel that if i am paying for content, i should be able to watch the content on any device i want at any time i want without any commercials and without buffering issues through a single easy to use platform that is consistent across devices.  i download and watch tv shows as well as movies.  i have a home server set up with my own streaming capabilities.  i do this because often times the streaming services remove a show\ movie that they once offered that i want to always have access to, or the tv shows i am paying to watch are trying to sell me something else.  i pay for the content through the available services, and find their delivery sub par especially since i can create a superior system at home with a nas and a decent server.  i feel justified in my downloads because i am paying for the content, i am just delivering it to my devices in a more efficient, cross platform single service method.  i think of it this way, i am paying for the content, and taping the shows editing out the commercials and carrying my whole library of vhs with me at all times and all my stuff can play the vhs.  its just the vhs is a nas and i am carrying the internet.
the most upvoted comments concerning pirate bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance.  it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  i understand that piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of steam or netflix.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  there is no situation where i would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released .  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.  there is also no situation where i would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.  further, the argument of  they do not deserve my money  that people always throw around concerning the likes of ubisoft or ea is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  i feel like i should add as an addendum that there is one situation where i have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if i had been able to.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.   #  the most upvoted comments concerning pirate bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance.   #  it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.   # it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  that is as plain as it gets.  if studios did not charge so much and theaters did not charge so much, piracy would largely go away.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  only a part of the whole feel entitled to everything.  they are not necessarily the norm.  there are different reasons why people pirate.  sense of entitlement is definitely one.  but people who do not have that same sense of entitlement are not going to be able to understand the rationalization that takes place in these peoples  minds.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  that is hypocrisy.  you ca not condemn the actions of a company and still be their consumer.  if you are that opposed to a company is moral or ethical failings, if you truly believe in  the cause  then you ca not rationalize your way past that.  so i agree with you there.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.  frankly if there was any situation where you would personally justify piracy, even in the case of a dying parent or relative, then you are not totally against it.  it is either wrong in any and every case, or it is not.  personally i understand your motivations there, and sympathize.  but you ca not be against something and then have one or two situations where you abandon that high road.  on a side note, the pirate bay, with its obvious reputation, is not only used for  illegal downloading .  music artists have taken to posting their own material to break out of the cycle of systematic financial enslavement of artists by the riaa.  it is a better, faster way of getting their music out into the open.  game designers have done the same thing, using the pirate bay and other similar sites to get their stuff out there.  also, the unwillingness to give up on old methods of doing business.  instead of utilizing the technology that is available and already immensely popular among consumers, the industry insists on hard media purchased at retail outlets.  only now is digital media taking a bigger share of the market, but how long have torrents been around ? and also, why do companies think they should get away woth charging the same price for hard media and digital ? so instead of conforming to consumer trends and technological advances, and fucking evolving their business plan, they spend millions upon millions of dollars buying out our fucking government to influence the laws in their favor, and people are going to prison and getting more time than those who go away for fucking murder.  what does that tell you ?  yeah, you should not kill, but you damned sure better not fuck with our profit margin.    #  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.   #  i disagree with a lot of the conclusions arguments against piracy in general reach but i recognize the validity of many of those arguments.  there are a few situations where i think where you stand on piracy in general does not matter.  0.  if you cant legally obtain content in your country.  if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  0.  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? obviously, letting people in these instances pirate means letting people in general pirate.  but because people in these situations exist, i do not think you can say no one has a good reason for pirating  #  art is my job, and i deserve to get paid for it, just like every other form of labor.   # if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  i really have never cared for this argument as it just flat out denies any form of potential profit and ownership rights.  some people in this thread said things like  if potential profit is a thing then why does not pepsi sue coke ?  .  that analogy is totally false because when you pirate a game or music, you are not competing with a company, you are getting a company is product for free.  in my opinion, as a creator, i would much rather you not enjoy the spoils of my labor if you ca not give me what i want for it.  art is my job, and i deserve to get paid for it, just like every other form of labor.  and as for  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? this argument just basically says that you do not care about the terms and agreements that you agree to when you purchase any form of media.  if you do not want to watch the trailers and commercials, then i am sorry, take that up with the content creators that licensed their rights out to a distributer that uses commercials.  it is not your place to decide how content is distributed, its the creator is or whomever the creator okay is to do it.  if i record a song and decide i never want anyone to hear it, but someone manages to make a torrent for the file, now what i wanted is out the window.  me not wanting it heard is the same as me charging a dollar for it.  it is what i want.  if you choose to circumvent that, you are breaking the agreement we had.   #  to your second point: once again, i guess its a question of your own opinion.   #  to your first point: i do not really think the coke analogy applies to what i said.  besides that, i guess its just a matter of personal opinion.  there is a big difference between choosing to pirate to get content and having no other option.  there is essentially no harm or effect at all on the artist if a consumer pirates content in a place where they ca not buy it legally anyway; the only effect which is positive is that the consumer gets to enjoy something that was created to be enjoyed.  it seems that if the artist has a problem, its with the laws restricting their content is sale, not the consumer.  to your second point: once again, i guess its a question of your own opinion.  you can say  tough shit, you bought the dvd so deal with what is on it  and thats fine.  but someone else could say  tough shit, i do not get access worth what i pay for the dvd anyway, why buy it at all ?   i understand that artists should have some say in how their content is sold but i do not agree that, after the sale, they have total authority over how and when a consumer is to view that content.  third: that last part is a completely different issue.  maybe i am being too specific for the cmv, but i only meant to discuss content that is already widely available for sale but restricted in certain places.   #  i will tell you how i view it and we can go from there is that is okay.   #  i will tell you how i view it and we can go from there is that is okay.  i pay for amazon prime which includes streaming , i also pay for hulu.  i also go to the movies often for date night and buy the collectors edition packages for most movies i truly enjoy.  i rarely if ever use my streaming services that i pay for and hardly ever watch a dvd/blueray that i buy.  i feel that if i am paying for content, i should be able to watch the content on any device i want at any time i want without any commercials and without buffering issues through a single easy to use platform that is consistent across devices.  i download and watch tv shows as well as movies.  i have a home server set up with my own streaming capabilities.  i do this because often times the streaming services remove a show\ movie that they once offered that i want to always have access to, or the tv shows i am paying to watch are trying to sell me something else.  i pay for the content through the available services, and find their delivery sub par especially since i can create a superior system at home with a nas and a decent server.  i feel justified in my downloads because i am paying for the content, i am just delivering it to my devices in a more efficient, cross platform single service method.  i think of it this way, i am paying for the content, and taping the shows editing out the commercials and carrying my whole library of vhs with me at all times and all my stuff can play the vhs.  its just the vhs is a nas and i am carrying the internet.
the most upvoted comments concerning pirate bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance.  it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  i understand that piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of steam or netflix.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  there is no situation where i would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released .  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.  there is also no situation where i would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.  further, the argument of  they do not deserve my money  that people always throw around concerning the likes of ubisoft or ea is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  i feel like i should add as an addendum that there is one situation where i have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if i had been able to.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.   #  i understand that piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of steam or netflix.   #  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.   # it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  that is as plain as it gets.  if studios did not charge so much and theaters did not charge so much, piracy would largely go away.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  only a part of the whole feel entitled to everything.  they are not necessarily the norm.  there are different reasons why people pirate.  sense of entitlement is definitely one.  but people who do not have that same sense of entitlement are not going to be able to understand the rationalization that takes place in these peoples  minds.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  that is hypocrisy.  you ca not condemn the actions of a company and still be their consumer.  if you are that opposed to a company is moral or ethical failings, if you truly believe in  the cause  then you ca not rationalize your way past that.  so i agree with you there.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.  frankly if there was any situation where you would personally justify piracy, even in the case of a dying parent or relative, then you are not totally against it.  it is either wrong in any and every case, or it is not.  personally i understand your motivations there, and sympathize.  but you ca not be against something and then have one or two situations where you abandon that high road.  on a side note, the pirate bay, with its obvious reputation, is not only used for  illegal downloading .  music artists have taken to posting their own material to break out of the cycle of systematic financial enslavement of artists by the riaa.  it is a better, faster way of getting their music out into the open.  game designers have done the same thing, using the pirate bay and other similar sites to get their stuff out there.  also, the unwillingness to give up on old methods of doing business.  instead of utilizing the technology that is available and already immensely popular among consumers, the industry insists on hard media purchased at retail outlets.  only now is digital media taking a bigger share of the market, but how long have torrents been around ? and also, why do companies think they should get away woth charging the same price for hard media and digital ? so instead of conforming to consumer trends and technological advances, and fucking evolving their business plan, they spend millions upon millions of dollars buying out our fucking government to influence the laws in their favor, and people are going to prison and getting more time than those who go away for fucking murder.  what does that tell you ?  yeah, you should not kill, but you damned sure better not fuck with our profit margin.    #  there are a few situations where i think where you stand on piracy in general does not matter.   #  i disagree with a lot of the conclusions arguments against piracy in general reach but i recognize the validity of many of those arguments.  there are a few situations where i think where you stand on piracy in general does not matter.  0.  if you cant legally obtain content in your country.  if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  0.  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? obviously, letting people in these instances pirate means letting people in general pirate.  but because people in these situations exist, i do not think you can say no one has a good reason for pirating  #  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.   # if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  i really have never cared for this argument as it just flat out denies any form of potential profit and ownership rights.  some people in this thread said things like  if potential profit is a thing then why does not pepsi sue coke ?  .  that analogy is totally false because when you pirate a game or music, you are not competing with a company, you are getting a company is product for free.  in my opinion, as a creator, i would much rather you not enjoy the spoils of my labor if you ca not give me what i want for it.  art is my job, and i deserve to get paid for it, just like every other form of labor.  and as for  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? this argument just basically says that you do not care about the terms and agreements that you agree to when you purchase any form of media.  if you do not want to watch the trailers and commercials, then i am sorry, take that up with the content creators that licensed their rights out to a distributer that uses commercials.  it is not your place to decide how content is distributed, its the creator is or whomever the creator okay is to do it.  if i record a song and decide i never want anyone to hear it, but someone manages to make a torrent for the file, now what i wanted is out the window.  me not wanting it heard is the same as me charging a dollar for it.  it is what i want.  if you choose to circumvent that, you are breaking the agreement we had.   #  to your first point: i do not really think the coke analogy applies to what i said.   #  to your first point: i do not really think the coke analogy applies to what i said.  besides that, i guess its just a matter of personal opinion.  there is a big difference between choosing to pirate to get content and having no other option.  there is essentially no harm or effect at all on the artist if a consumer pirates content in a place where they ca not buy it legally anyway; the only effect which is positive is that the consumer gets to enjoy something that was created to be enjoyed.  it seems that if the artist has a problem, its with the laws restricting their content is sale, not the consumer.  to your second point: once again, i guess its a question of your own opinion.  you can say  tough shit, you bought the dvd so deal with what is on it  and thats fine.  but someone else could say  tough shit, i do not get access worth what i pay for the dvd anyway, why buy it at all ?   i understand that artists should have some say in how their content is sold but i do not agree that, after the sale, they have total authority over how and when a consumer is to view that content.  third: that last part is a completely different issue.  maybe i am being too specific for the cmv, but i only meant to discuss content that is already widely available for sale but restricted in certain places.   #  i pay for the content through the available services, and find their delivery sub par especially since i can create a superior system at home with a nas and a decent server.   #  i will tell you how i view it and we can go from there is that is okay.  i pay for amazon prime which includes streaming , i also pay for hulu.  i also go to the movies often for date night and buy the collectors edition packages for most movies i truly enjoy.  i rarely if ever use my streaming services that i pay for and hardly ever watch a dvd/blueray that i buy.  i feel that if i am paying for content, i should be able to watch the content on any device i want at any time i want without any commercials and without buffering issues through a single easy to use platform that is consistent across devices.  i download and watch tv shows as well as movies.  i have a home server set up with my own streaming capabilities.  i do this because often times the streaming services remove a show\ movie that they once offered that i want to always have access to, or the tv shows i am paying to watch are trying to sell me something else.  i pay for the content through the available services, and find their delivery sub par especially since i can create a superior system at home with a nas and a decent server.  i feel justified in my downloads because i am paying for the content, i am just delivering it to my devices in a more efficient, cross platform single service method.  i think of it this way, i am paying for the content, and taping the shows editing out the commercials and carrying my whole library of vhs with me at all times and all my stuff can play the vhs.  its just the vhs is a nas and i am carrying the internet.
the most upvoted comments concerning pirate bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance.  it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  i understand that piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of steam or netflix.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  there is no situation where i would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released .  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.  there is also no situation where i would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.  further, the argument of  they do not deserve my money  that people always throw around concerning the likes of ubisoft or ea is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  i feel like i should add as an addendum that there is one situation where i have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if i had been able to.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.   #  further, the argument of  they do not deserve my money  that people always throw around concerning the likes of ubisoft or ea is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy.   #  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.   # it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  that is as plain as it gets.  if studios did not charge so much and theaters did not charge so much, piracy would largely go away.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  only a part of the whole feel entitled to everything.  they are not necessarily the norm.  there are different reasons why people pirate.  sense of entitlement is definitely one.  but people who do not have that same sense of entitlement are not going to be able to understand the rationalization that takes place in these peoples  minds.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  that is hypocrisy.  you ca not condemn the actions of a company and still be their consumer.  if you are that opposed to a company is moral or ethical failings, if you truly believe in  the cause  then you ca not rationalize your way past that.  so i agree with you there.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.  frankly if there was any situation where you would personally justify piracy, even in the case of a dying parent or relative, then you are not totally against it.  it is either wrong in any and every case, or it is not.  personally i understand your motivations there, and sympathize.  but you ca not be against something and then have one or two situations where you abandon that high road.  on a side note, the pirate bay, with its obvious reputation, is not only used for  illegal downloading .  music artists have taken to posting their own material to break out of the cycle of systematic financial enslavement of artists by the riaa.  it is a better, faster way of getting their music out into the open.  game designers have done the same thing, using the pirate bay and other similar sites to get their stuff out there.  also, the unwillingness to give up on old methods of doing business.  instead of utilizing the technology that is available and already immensely popular among consumers, the industry insists on hard media purchased at retail outlets.  only now is digital media taking a bigger share of the market, but how long have torrents been around ? and also, why do companies think they should get away woth charging the same price for hard media and digital ? so instead of conforming to consumer trends and technological advances, and fucking evolving their business plan, they spend millions upon millions of dollars buying out our fucking government to influence the laws in their favor, and people are going to prison and getting more time than those who go away for fucking murder.  what does that tell you ?  yeah, you should not kill, but you damned sure better not fuck with our profit margin.    #  there are a few situations where i think where you stand on piracy in general does not matter.   #  i disagree with a lot of the conclusions arguments against piracy in general reach but i recognize the validity of many of those arguments.  there are a few situations where i think where you stand on piracy in general does not matter.  0.  if you cant legally obtain content in your country.  if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  0.  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? obviously, letting people in these instances pirate means letting people in general pirate.  but because people in these situations exist, i do not think you can say no one has a good reason for pirating  #  some people in this thread said things like  if potential profit is a thing then why does not pepsi sue coke ?  # if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  i really have never cared for this argument as it just flat out denies any form of potential profit and ownership rights.  some people in this thread said things like  if potential profit is a thing then why does not pepsi sue coke ?  .  that analogy is totally false because when you pirate a game or music, you are not competing with a company, you are getting a company is product for free.  in my opinion, as a creator, i would much rather you not enjoy the spoils of my labor if you ca not give me what i want for it.  art is my job, and i deserve to get paid for it, just like every other form of labor.  and as for  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? this argument just basically says that you do not care about the terms and agreements that you agree to when you purchase any form of media.  if you do not want to watch the trailers and commercials, then i am sorry, take that up with the content creators that licensed their rights out to a distributer that uses commercials.  it is not your place to decide how content is distributed, its the creator is or whomever the creator okay is to do it.  if i record a song and decide i never want anyone to hear it, but someone manages to make a torrent for the file, now what i wanted is out the window.  me not wanting it heard is the same as me charging a dollar for it.  it is what i want.  if you choose to circumvent that, you are breaking the agreement we had.   #  third: that last part is a completely different issue.   #  to your first point: i do not really think the coke analogy applies to what i said.  besides that, i guess its just a matter of personal opinion.  there is a big difference between choosing to pirate to get content and having no other option.  there is essentially no harm or effect at all on the artist if a consumer pirates content in a place where they ca not buy it legally anyway; the only effect which is positive is that the consumer gets to enjoy something that was created to be enjoyed.  it seems that if the artist has a problem, its with the laws restricting their content is sale, not the consumer.  to your second point: once again, i guess its a question of your own opinion.  you can say  tough shit, you bought the dvd so deal with what is on it  and thats fine.  but someone else could say  tough shit, i do not get access worth what i pay for the dvd anyway, why buy it at all ?   i understand that artists should have some say in how their content is sold but i do not agree that, after the sale, they have total authority over how and when a consumer is to view that content.  third: that last part is a completely different issue.  maybe i am being too specific for the cmv, but i only meant to discuss content that is already widely available for sale but restricted in certain places.   #  i will tell you how i view it and we can go from there is that is okay.   #  i will tell you how i view it and we can go from there is that is okay.  i pay for amazon prime which includes streaming , i also pay for hulu.  i also go to the movies often for date night and buy the collectors edition packages for most movies i truly enjoy.  i rarely if ever use my streaming services that i pay for and hardly ever watch a dvd/blueray that i buy.  i feel that if i am paying for content, i should be able to watch the content on any device i want at any time i want without any commercials and without buffering issues through a single easy to use platform that is consistent across devices.  i download and watch tv shows as well as movies.  i have a home server set up with my own streaming capabilities.  i do this because often times the streaming services remove a show\ movie that they once offered that i want to always have access to, or the tv shows i am paying to watch are trying to sell me something else.  i pay for the content through the available services, and find their delivery sub par especially since i can create a superior system at home with a nas and a decent server.  i feel justified in my downloads because i am paying for the content, i am just delivering it to my devices in a more efficient, cross platform single service method.  i think of it this way, i am paying for the content, and taping the shows editing out the commercials and carrying my whole library of vhs with me at all times and all my stuff can play the vhs.  its just the vhs is a nas and i am carrying the internet.
the most upvoted comments concerning pirate bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance.  it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  i understand that piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of steam or netflix.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  there is no situation where i would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters or before it was released .  that is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole.  there is also no situation where i would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.  further, the argument of  they do not deserve my money  that people always throw around concerning the likes of ubisoft or ea is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  i feel like i should add as an addendum that there is one situation where i have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if i had been able to.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.   #  i feel like i should add as an addendum that there is one situation where i have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if i had been able to.   #  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.   # it comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.  that is as plain as it gets.  if studios did not charge so much and theaters did not charge so much, piracy would largely go away.  what i do not understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.  only a part of the whole feel entitled to everything.  they are not necessarily the norm.  there are different reasons why people pirate.  sense of entitlement is definitely one.  but people who do not have that same sense of entitlement are not going to be able to understand the rationalization that takes place in these peoples  minds.  if there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it.  i do not agree with the human rights violations that happen in china or bangladesh, but that does not mean i am justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.  that is hypocrisy.  you ca not condemn the actions of a company and still be their consumer.  if you are that opposed to a company is moral or ethical failings, if you truly believe in  the cause  then you ca not rationalize your way past that.  so i agree with you there.  my father was bedridden while fighting lung cancer and wanted to see the second hobbit.  there was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he would not be around long enough for a dvd release.  that is such an extreme case though, that i hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the pirate bay.  frankly if there was any situation where you would personally justify piracy, even in the case of a dying parent or relative, then you are not totally against it.  it is either wrong in any and every case, or it is not.  personally i understand your motivations there, and sympathize.  but you ca not be against something and then have one or two situations where you abandon that high road.  on a side note, the pirate bay, with its obvious reputation, is not only used for  illegal downloading .  music artists have taken to posting their own material to break out of the cycle of systematic financial enslavement of artists by the riaa.  it is a better, faster way of getting their music out into the open.  game designers have done the same thing, using the pirate bay and other similar sites to get their stuff out there.  also, the unwillingness to give up on old methods of doing business.  instead of utilizing the technology that is available and already immensely popular among consumers, the industry insists on hard media purchased at retail outlets.  only now is digital media taking a bigger share of the market, but how long have torrents been around ? and also, why do companies think they should get away woth charging the same price for hard media and digital ? so instead of conforming to consumer trends and technological advances, and fucking evolving their business plan, they spend millions upon millions of dollars buying out our fucking government to influence the laws in their favor, and people are going to prison and getting more time than those who go away for fucking murder.  what does that tell you ?  yeah, you should not kill, but you damned sure better not fuck with our profit margin.    #  0.  if you cant legally obtain content in your country.   #  i disagree with a lot of the conclusions arguments against piracy in general reach but i recognize the validity of many of those arguments.  there are a few situations where i think where you stand on piracy in general does not matter.  0.  if you cant legally obtain content in your country.  if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  0.  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? obviously, letting people in these instances pirate means letting people in general pirate.  but because people in these situations exist, i do not think you can say no one has a good reason for pirating  #  what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ?  # if the consumer cant pay for content anyway, what does it matter if they pirate it ? the consumer gets the content and the producer does not get the money that they would not have gotten anyway.  i really have never cared for this argument as it just flat out denies any form of potential profit and ownership rights.  some people in this thread said things like  if potential profit is a thing then why does not pepsi sue coke ?  .  that analogy is totally false because when you pirate a game or music, you are not competing with a company, you are getting a company is product for free.  in my opinion, as a creator, i would much rather you not enjoy the spoils of my labor if you ca not give me what i want for it.  art is my job, and i deserve to get paid for it, just like every other form of labor.  and as for  if you already own the content.  the content that you legally buy often comes with a lot of unnecessary restrictions.  what if you own the dvd but have to sit through half an hour of commercials every time you want to watch it ? whats wrong with paying the producer and then just being able to watch the content conveniently ? what if all the music you paid for on itunes somehow gets erased ? should you have to pay for all the content you already purchased a second time ? this argument just basically says that you do not care about the terms and agreements that you agree to when you purchase any form of media.  if you do not want to watch the trailers and commercials, then i am sorry, take that up with the content creators that licensed their rights out to a distributer that uses commercials.  it is not your place to decide how content is distributed, its the creator is or whomever the creator okay is to do it.  if i record a song and decide i never want anyone to hear it, but someone manages to make a torrent for the file, now what i wanted is out the window.  me not wanting it heard is the same as me charging a dollar for it.  it is what i want.  if you choose to circumvent that, you are breaking the agreement we had.   #  i understand that artists should have some say in how their content is sold but i do not agree that, after the sale, they have total authority over how and when a consumer is to view that content.   #  to your first point: i do not really think the coke analogy applies to what i said.  besides that, i guess its just a matter of personal opinion.  there is a big difference between choosing to pirate to get content and having no other option.  there is essentially no harm or effect at all on the artist if a consumer pirates content in a place where they ca not buy it legally anyway; the only effect which is positive is that the consumer gets to enjoy something that was created to be enjoyed.  it seems that if the artist has a problem, its with the laws restricting their content is sale, not the consumer.  to your second point: once again, i guess its a question of your own opinion.  you can say  tough shit, you bought the dvd so deal with what is on it  and thats fine.  but someone else could say  tough shit, i do not get access worth what i pay for the dvd anyway, why buy it at all ?   i understand that artists should have some say in how their content is sold but i do not agree that, after the sale, they have total authority over how and when a consumer is to view that content.  third: that last part is a completely different issue.  maybe i am being too specific for the cmv, but i only meant to discuss content that is already widely available for sale but restricted in certain places.   #  i rarely if ever use my streaming services that i pay for and hardly ever watch a dvd/blueray that i buy.   #  i will tell you how i view it and we can go from there is that is okay.  i pay for amazon prime which includes streaming , i also pay for hulu.  i also go to the movies often for date night and buy the collectors edition packages for most movies i truly enjoy.  i rarely if ever use my streaming services that i pay for and hardly ever watch a dvd/blueray that i buy.  i feel that if i am paying for content, i should be able to watch the content on any device i want at any time i want without any commercials and without buffering issues through a single easy to use platform that is consistent across devices.  i download and watch tv shows as well as movies.  i have a home server set up with my own streaming capabilities.  i do this because often times the streaming services remove a show\ movie that they once offered that i want to always have access to, or the tv shows i am paying to watch are trying to sell me something else.  i pay for the content through the available services, and find their delivery sub par especially since i can create a superior system at home with a nas and a decent server.  i feel justified in my downloads because i am paying for the content, i am just delivering it to my devices in a more efficient, cross platform single service method.  i think of it this way, i am paying for the content, and taping the shows editing out the commercials and carrying my whole library of vhs with me at all times and all my stuff can play the vhs.  its just the vhs is a nas and i am carrying the internet.
in many, perhaps most, accusations of rape, consent is inherently difficult to ascertain.  policies requiring strict standards of evidence to prove that rape occurred will leave victims with no way to demonstrate that the crime occurred.  policies that relax their standards of evidence will unjustly punish some who are unfairly accused.  the base rate for real versus false accusations is not so obviously lopsided that it renders the question moot.  thus, any proposed solution will be unfair to a significant number of people.  i believe campus rape response policies can be improved in many ways, especially in treating victims more compassionately.  however, any improvements will necessarily be limited by the inherent evidential limits of most rapes.  cmv !  #  the base rate for real versus false accusations is not so obviously lopsided that it renders the question moot.   #  can i get a source of this ?  # can i get a source of this ? like actual statistics about how many campus rape claims are false ? just because you hear about a few of them every year does not mean it is not a miniscule percentage.  yes fake accusations are terrible, but they do not really happen often enough to warrant shifting the system away from a victim friendly approach.  instead, repercussions should be introduced to punish those who file false reports.  a  large number  of people are not going to get screwed with a victim friendly approach.   #  young, old, healthy, sick, any variation on sex and gender that you could even imagine, all walks of life have had to deal with sexual assault, but we do not talk about it that way.   #  to follow your point, rape is a gender, sex, race, religion, presentation, outfit and age neutral issue, completely.  but, it is treated at every single political cycle as though rape is most apparently a woman issue, and it is not.  no where else in politics, outside of family planning issues, does anyone ever ever openly talk about rape.  maybe now, military sexual assault is more front page, but a heavy majority of rape discussions are based on womens healthcare.  rape is absolutely everywhere.  it is a crime that is way underreported nationally, especially by segments of the population that consider it shameful to be vicitimized that way, so they never report, or even tell anyone else about it.  it is so muddled and depressing to think about.  young, old, healthy, sick, any variation on sex and gender that you could even imagine, all walks of life have had to deal with sexual assault, but we do not talk about it that way.  it would be far too difficult to comprehend.   #  besides, there is a huge potential for revenge for years of obedience.   #  well, you are saying that male rape victims do not matter.  these are so tiny numbers it is counterproductive to even care about it.  besides, there is a huge potential for revenge for years of obedience.  women have female only everything, from bathrooms to clubs to universities to scholarships to jobs.  if men did that, that would be misogynist.   #  i am going to try and make an analogy to explain the how that sort of language can become problematic in this discussion.   #  i am going to try and make an analogy to explain the how that sort of language can become problematic in this discussion.  it is going to be a little rough, so just bear with me.  a wealthy investors will occasionally lose large sums of money.  we saw it in 0, and it undoubtedly happens regularly with the eb and flow of the stock market.  this sucks, and those people is lives are negatively affected because of it.  b blue collar workers are being laid off regularly, often at the hands of the super wealthy.  both of these groups of people are experiencing hardships, but one of the groups is being affected much more often.  that group is hardships are often even caused by members of the other group.  while we should try to end all suffering and indeed feel for the members of group a that have experienced hardships, it is much easier to get behind a movement to address the hardships of group b.  group a, representing men, is overwhelmingly more privileged than group b, representing women.  does this make sense ?  #  so i guess no, i do not really think it makes sense.   #  i do not know why you feel the need to aggregate individual people into groups at all.  some wealthy investors lost large sums of money.  if they end up as poor as a blue collar worker who is lost their job, then why ca not we support them in their hardship equally ? instead of deciding to support either male victims of rape or female victims of rape, why not just support  victims of rape  ? you can define a group with whatever characteristics you want, but i do not see the logic in splitting people with a shared experience even a negative one into groups based on non related attributes.  why is it that male victims of rape are more difficult to support in the case you have outlined except that less other men have been raped ? so i guess no, i do not really think it makes sense.
violent criminal  as defined as someone who mugs, kills, and steals, regardless of context or intention of the person, be it just for kicks or crawling out of poverty.  even though there are sociological factors related to crime and some people are practically  forced  into it due to lack of opportunity, i still cannot feel any empathy for someone who thinks they  wouldeserve  whatever they are stealing more than the person who legally owns it, especially if they would be prepared to  kill  the person for it.  whenever a thief gets shot down by police or a homeowner/mugging victim who reacted and got the upper hand, there is always people who treat him as a martyr and says that property is not worth killing someone over.  but really, what does society lose from the death of that person ? they do not produce goods, they do not create art, they are not involved in political movements, there is literally nothing useful they could possibly do aside from  maybe  paying taxes.  the only people that could possibly gain from their existence would be their direct family and themselves.   the criminal is mere existence is counterproductive .  and even though, like i said before, there are sociological contexts that cause crime and a criminal does not necessarily do it because he is evil.  he might be trying to make ends meet, feed his children, pay rent, but it still makes him an enemy in the eyes of any potential victim.  if someone walked in your house with a gun trying to take your things and possibly harm your family, would you: a shoot them.  b rationalize the situation considering the economic background of the burglar and the effects of social inequality on crime, concluding that they do not deserve to get shot because they are just trying to survive and might have young children and are only burglarizing your home and threatening your family since they never had any other opportunity in life, which means they need your things more than you do, so you just let them carry on with their business.   #  but really, what does society lose from the death of that person ?  #  society loses the ability to trust in its police force, for one.   # society loses the ability to trust in its police force, for one.  and that is a pretty damn big deal.  sure, someone who stole something is dead, but the circumstances of their death is the problem and indicative of real issues in society.  people should not be gunned down in the streets for thievery, we do not live in the judge dredd universe.  it is not the job of the police to be judge, jury, and executioner.  the only people that could possibly gain from their existence would be their direct family and themselves.  the criminal is mere existence is counterproductive.  they sure as hell are not going to create art or become involved in political movements now that  they are dead .  i think i am going to need a source for your information that all criminals will always be nothing but a detriment to society.   #  looking at it in such a black and white way is part of the reason these guys struggle to reintegrate into society and perpetuates the existence of recidivism.   #  you have got this caricature of what a criminal is.  i have work with a lot of former criminals, these guys were thieves and we are often violent but when i worked with them they were just my mates like anyone else.  when they were criminals they were doing so because they had no other option in their opinion, they all had low levels of education, some had terrible people skills, some had an upbringing that socialised them with acceptance of a criminal lifestyle.  there are many situations that can make someone turn to crime it is not as simple as  they are bad people .  my employer at the time was a guy that never did police checks so he gave these guy an opportunity to do legitimate work.  many guys that have turned to crime in their past find it difficult to find worthwhile work so even if they are reformed before long they might not have a choice in their opinion but to turn to crime to get ahead.  looking at it in such a black and white way is part of the reason these guys struggle to reintegrate into society and perpetuates the existence of recidivism.   #  then we say that  person  did something of value when they actually did nothing.   #  well, ok, since you asked .  if they use the money they steal in a way that is more beneficial to the economy, or people in general, than the original owner, then they are a net  economic  benefit.  the easiest way to see this is, for example, to take a billionaire who sits around all day doing nothing.  perhaps inherited it all and has never done a thing for anybody.  however, thanks to the rules of society, we say that they  own  this money and so when it gets used for value investment, purchases, etc.  then we say that  person  did something of value when they actually did nothing.  suppose that money is just locked up, or tied up in cash or being unused, or some general asset just sitting there.  the thief then steals that money and, because it is their primary form of income, as you say, they use it to pay for rent, food, utilities, etc.  they become a consumer and create demand, and that demand creates more products and jobs.  this is a more efficient use of money.  put another way, 0 people with $0 may buy 0 tvs.  one person with $0 million same total will only buy a few tvs.  generally speaking, a rich person has more excess and, from an economic point of view, is much less efficient use of the money toward the health and growth of the economy.  the more money sits still, the worse for the economy.  so, in that sense, there is potential benefit in it.  and, to take your original argument, would you then agree that killing a layabout billionaire is  also  just as justified.  after all, if their only contribution is their money, that does not change when they are killed; the money is still there, goes to somebody else or more people , and gets spent at least as well and possibly better by dividing it up to more people.  or what about the disabled ? or invalid ? or vegetative ? note that i do not think this justifies the death of any of them.  economic value should not be the determining factor.   #  most of the west creates a drain on other societies around the globe.   # how benificial is a hermit to society during their solitude ? how benificial is some guy in a coma ? boxer ? idiot ? manicureist ? athlete ? we could do perfectly well without any of these.  what about a white collar criminal, they could ruin thousands of lives to the point of homelessness and starvation, yet they get imprizoned rather than shot.  also which society ? most of the west creates a drain on other societies around the globe.  rating the worthyness to live of different people by how much use to the greater good  society  they are ignores the fact that they are what make up society.  you do not kill someone you do not have to.   #  boxers provide entertainment and revenue for managers and tv producers, who provide more entertainment.   # i ca not think of a modern rapper that started out like this.  of course i do not listen to much modern rap, so i might be wrong.  a hermit is not useful but he is not hurting anyone.  a person in a coma has the chance to come out of it or could be helping a loved one come to terms with their loss.  boxers provide entertainment and revenue for managers and tv producers, who provide more entertainment.  none of which hurts anyone besides the people who are getting paid to be hurt .  white collar criminals are rarely shot because when they are caught, they do not prove a deadly threat to the people catching them.  op is not saying we should kill all criminals.  he is saying we should not mourn someone that gets their income from hurting and threatening other people.
i have had conversations with many democrats about the word  progressive .  i have heard some say that it is because they want to make gradual changes over time.  i have always thought though that the term made them think they are 0 correct.  in their opinion they might be, but to assume that it is progress is just pompous.  while progressive can be defined as:  happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step  it can also be defined as:  making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.   to me, it implies that their view is better, and they might as well call themselves the  correct party .  to those wondering i am an independent.   #  that the term made them think they are 0 correct.   #  why is this specific to this particular term ?  # why is this specific to this particular term ? everyone probably has one or two strong opinions that they hold, and they probably believe that they are 0 correct in that opinion.  why ? because they would not hold that opinion if that was not the case.  anyways, in the political universe, this type of categorical posturing is common, and this is a pretty benign example as compared to others.  how about the stance of being pro life ? it seems pretty condescending to suggest that i am somehow  anti life  if i am not on the side of pro life.   #  conservative means to conserve, to keep things as they are.   #  there are a couple of ways to look at this: 0 it  is  implying that they are the  better  party.  this is not really much of a stretch, as both sides of any debate believe themselves to be the  correct  party, do they not ? in their minds, they absolutely are superior.  0 it is simply a descriptive term in contrast to its counterpart,  conservative .  conservative means to conserve, to keep things as they are.  the opposite of staying still is progressing, so the term is simply a word for  not being conservative.    progressive  only implies that it is better if you believe that progressing is better.  i am not what i would consider  progressive , but i do not take offense to the term.  that is, after all, what they are trying to do.  they are typically the side that is pushing for things to change, rather than resisting it.  whether that is better or worse is a subjective call, but i think it is fair to say that they are usually the ones pushing for some level of progress.   #  if that were the case, they would believe that thing instead and believe  that  is now the 0 correct thing.   #  this is the correct answer.  i still do not understand why the op would question  believing they are right .  everybody does that.  it is not like conservative think they are wrong, or they could be more correct if they believed something different.  if that were the case, they would believe that thing instead and believe  that  is now the 0 correct thing.  i like that you pointed out conservative and progressive views are opposite one suggesting stability, familiarity, tradition the other suggesting improving society over time via intentional social engineering.  as an engineer with a background in dynamic systems and control, i understand the value of both and tend to judge each proposal on its own merit.  the corollary to that is that liberal people are free, have rights, and considered equally as individuals under the law and authoritarian people are subservient to the dictums of an authority are opposites.   #  but as a description the term has more use.   #  traditional basic level civics teaches that there are 0 main groups of politically oriented people: moderates; liberals, conservatives; radicals, reactionaries.  the reactionaries are the conservative answer to the radicals.  but as a description the term has more use.  i see it more as a description of a position taken to the same extreme but opposite effect in response to an initial position.  for instance, moderates that become slightly more liberal during a moderately conservative swing in public opinion.  contrarian personalities can live in a chronic state of reactionariism.   #  boehner; but sure, they do literally nothing  eye roll  and pushing legislation for equal pay and treatment for women is totally the  status quo .   # well, that would be a step in the right direction, yes.  while you claim lip service, the fact that there is a significant roadblock to passing bills shows that the difference between conservatives and liberals  paying lip service  is still a very real difference.  certainly, many dems are not as liberal as i would have them, but they are massively more liberal in many respects.  for a party that does nothing, i sure have heard quite the outcry about mr.  nazi obama and how he is been ruining this country with his socialism.  and i guess you think healthcare reform, pushing for immigration reform i will remind you that the house has been sitting on an immigration bill from the senate for quite a while, and they have not even be allowed to vote on it by mr.  boehner; but sure, they do literally nothing  eye roll  and pushing legislation for equal pay and treatment for women is totally the  status quo .  again, the reaction i hear from the other side is outcries of socialism and communism and the sky falling.  that is not exactly the reaction i expect to hear to maintaining the  status quo .  newsflash  ! doing things you do not like is not the same as  doing nothing .  distracting you with social issues, eh ? i happen to think that health care as if this is not an economic issue  lol  and civil rights are a big deal, but i also am guessing that you are leaving out welfare, unemployment, and wage issues as  social  issues ? because those totally do not have a huge economic impact  /s ; and besides, we totally do not hear about those from the left.  to answer your question, however, that would be both parties.  welcome to politics.  make yourself comfortable, it is going to be a long, disillusioning ride.
the difference between humans and other animals is intelligence.  thats literally all that separates us.  people are fine chowing down on a slab of cow but eating an autistic kid is very socially unacceptable.  i do not really see the logic there.  theres an ape that can speak sign language.  there are people who are too disabled mentally to be able to do that.  is eating the person worse than eating the ape ? at what point does something become dumb enough for it to be morally acceptable to eat it ? if its not okay to eat mentally disabled people it must be immoral to eat other animals, cmv  #  the difference between humans and other animals is intelligence.   #  also that other humans are the same species as us, which is actually a very important distinction.   # also that other humans are the same species as us, which is actually a very important distinction.  because that is literally canabilism ? it is one thing to say  well if you eat cow, you have to be willing to eat cats and dogs , as that follows logically although there are actually some decent reasons why it is not the best idea to eat them .  but when it comes to a human eating another human, that is a whole different issue, especially since it also tends to require killing another humans to do it.  not to mention that even among mammals the prevalence is somewhat low and even then, the majority of the cases are if there is insufficient food sources , so it makes sense for humans to be against eating their own kind.   #  second is that humans and cows have different immune systems, while humans and humans obviously have similar immune systems.   # i do not think this is the case.  humans and other animals also differ in our body composition and you would be hard pressed to get as many meals out of a human as you would a cow especially when we start considering milk , but humans require much more upkeep, produce far less meat, are far less self sufficient, and mature far less quickly than cows.  to keep the cycle going to feed even a small number of humans would require even larger populations of food humans than food cows.  so there are questions of sustainability and this can translate into morality that separate us from other sources of meat.  second is that humans and cows have different immune systems, while humans and humans obviously have similar immune systems.  that is, pathogens released into the food human population might be much more successful in the world at large.  there are viruses, blv for example, that infect cows but do not infect humans.  while there is  some  overlap prions are a nice, recent example , we put ourselves at greater risk of a pandemic if there are so many food humans around.  it is a lot like the potato in ireland if you have a crapton of potatoes, all the same species, a single virus can wipe them all out and leave you without food.  if both you and your food are human, then everything can go away simultaneously, and having lots of food humans around increases the chances.  the moment humans become food, we suddenly have a monoculture of around 0 billion food units.  we are asking for more trouble than we are already asking for .  third is that even if everything checks out and eating cows and humans is equivalent ethically, you will not be able to convince everyone of this.  putting these systems into place will elicit irrational responses from your fellow humans perhaps bad or good and you will cause severe societal disruptions.  so yes, there is a difference between cows and humans because people  think  there is a difference between cows and humans.  you could argue that there should not be, but you wo not ever convince everyone of that, and so a practical difference will always persist.  there are a variety of other differences, but these to me are the most compelling reasons to say that eating cows and humans are not ethically equivalent.   #  yeah, i guess you could define a person as a human, but then what if we meet superintelligent aliens or develop an ai mind that is for all intensive purposes no different than a human is ?  #  you could certainly breed a more meatier human for consumption, and you would not really need to wait until adolescence to slaughter your livestock.  a meaty, corn fed three or four year old might produce tasty burgers and steaks, but then i am not a meat expert.  as for the cost of raising your human livestock.  they wo not need xboxes and bunk beds.  they are being raised for consumption.  you keep  em in a tiny pen until its time for slaughter.  as for ethical concerns, i mean, are the severe handicapped even people ? how would you even define a person ? yeah, i guess you could define a person as a human, but then what if we meet superintelligent aliens or develop an ai mind that is for all intensive purposes no different than a human is ?  #  cows are self sufficient from a relatively early age and do not require as much care as a human infant and toddler would.   # a meaty, corn fed three or four year old might produce tasty burgers and steaks, but then i am not a meat expert.  just for comparison, a 0 0 month cow weighs approximately 0 to 0 pounds.  it is certainly possible to eventually evolve a human in that direction, but for the foreseeable future it is impossible to create a food human that is not severely wasteful, even more so than creating food cows.  if we evolved something that grew that much in that short a time, then sustainability is less of a problem.  they are being raised for consumption.  you keep  em in a tiny pen until its time for slaughter.  i am not suggesting they be treated well, but humans do require higher upkeep than cows.  cows are self sufficient from a relatively early age and do not require as much care as a human infant and toddler would.  i am just talking about the basic involvement necessary to keep a primate alive and enclosed.  and all that, for much less meat.   #  i didnt mean theres no difference as a food source i meant that we see ourselves as superior based on our superior intelligence and this is how we morally justify eating meat.   # humans and other animals also differ in our body composition and you would be hard pressed to get as many meals out of a human as you would a cow especially when we start considering milk , but humans require much more upkeep, produce far less meat, are far less self sufficient, and mature far less quickly than cows.  to keep the cycle going to feed even a small number of humans would require even larger populations of food humans than food cows.  so there are questions of sustainability and this can translate into morality that separate us from other sources of meat.  this is irrelevant to my view  second is that humans and cows have different immune systems, while humans and humans obviously have similar immune systems.  that is, pathogens released into the food human population might be much more successful in the world at large.  there are viruses, blv for example, that infect cows but do not infect humans.  while there is  some  overlap prions are a nice, recent example , we put ourselves at greater risk of a pandemic if there are so many food humans around.  i never said we should start eating humans  there are a variety of other differences, but these to me are the most compelling reasons to say that eating cows and humans are not ethically equivalent.  i didnt mean theres no difference as a food source i meant that we see ourselves as superior based on our superior intelligence and this is how we morally justify eating meat.  so if a human was stupider than an ape either it would be more ethical to eat the human than the ape, or eating meat is just unethical.
the difference between humans and other animals is intelligence.  thats literally all that separates us.  people are fine chowing down on a slab of cow but eating an autistic kid is very socially unacceptable.  i do not really see the logic there.  theres an ape that can speak sign language.  there are people who are too disabled mentally to be able to do that.  is eating the person worse than eating the ape ? at what point does something become dumb enough for it to be morally acceptable to eat it ? if its not okay to eat mentally disabled people it must be immoral to eat other animals, cmv  #  people are fine chowing down on a slab of cow but eating an autistic kid is very socially unacceptable.   #  i do not really see the logic there.   # i do not really see the logic there.  i am not sure how you do not see the logic.  in general, people have greater emotional attachment to humans than other animals.  the death of a low intelligent loved one causes undeniably more emotional pain than the death of an animal; thus, people will want to avoid killing their loved ones whenever possible.  the logical consequence of this is that societies will deem it socially unacceptable to eat other humans for food, especially when other animals are optional.  this all seems perfectly logical to me.  are you arguing that eating people should be  socially acceptable , or are you arguing that eating people is  morally acceptable  ? those are two very different claims and require two very different counter arguments.   #  while there is  some  overlap prions are a nice, recent example , we put ourselves at greater risk of a pandemic if there are so many food humans around.   # i do not think this is the case.  humans and other animals also differ in our body composition and you would be hard pressed to get as many meals out of a human as you would a cow especially when we start considering milk , but humans require much more upkeep, produce far less meat, are far less self sufficient, and mature far less quickly than cows.  to keep the cycle going to feed even a small number of humans would require even larger populations of food humans than food cows.  so there are questions of sustainability and this can translate into morality that separate us from other sources of meat.  second is that humans and cows have different immune systems, while humans and humans obviously have similar immune systems.  that is, pathogens released into the food human population might be much more successful in the world at large.  there are viruses, blv for example, that infect cows but do not infect humans.  while there is  some  overlap prions are a nice, recent example , we put ourselves at greater risk of a pandemic if there are so many food humans around.  it is a lot like the potato in ireland if you have a crapton of potatoes, all the same species, a single virus can wipe them all out and leave you without food.  if both you and your food are human, then everything can go away simultaneously, and having lots of food humans around increases the chances.  the moment humans become food, we suddenly have a monoculture of around 0 billion food units.  we are asking for more trouble than we are already asking for .  third is that even if everything checks out and eating cows and humans is equivalent ethically, you will not be able to convince everyone of this.  putting these systems into place will elicit irrational responses from your fellow humans perhaps bad or good and you will cause severe societal disruptions.  so yes, there is a difference between cows and humans because people  think  there is a difference between cows and humans.  you could argue that there should not be, but you wo not ever convince everyone of that, and so a practical difference will always persist.  there are a variety of other differences, but these to me are the most compelling reasons to say that eating cows and humans are not ethically equivalent.   #  as for the cost of raising your human livestock.  they wo not need xboxes and bunk beds.   #  you could certainly breed a more meatier human for consumption, and you would not really need to wait until adolescence to slaughter your livestock.  a meaty, corn fed three or four year old might produce tasty burgers and steaks, but then i am not a meat expert.  as for the cost of raising your human livestock.  they wo not need xboxes and bunk beds.  they are being raised for consumption.  you keep  em in a tiny pen until its time for slaughter.  as for ethical concerns, i mean, are the severe handicapped even people ? how would you even define a person ? yeah, i guess you could define a person as a human, but then what if we meet superintelligent aliens or develop an ai mind that is for all intensive purposes no different than a human is ?  #  just for comparison, a 0 0 month cow weighs approximately 0 to 0 pounds.   # a meaty, corn fed three or four year old might produce tasty burgers and steaks, but then i am not a meat expert.  just for comparison, a 0 0 month cow weighs approximately 0 to 0 pounds.  it is certainly possible to eventually evolve a human in that direction, but for the foreseeable future it is impossible to create a food human that is not severely wasteful, even more so than creating food cows.  if we evolved something that grew that much in that short a time, then sustainability is less of a problem.  they are being raised for consumption.  you keep  em in a tiny pen until its time for slaughter.  i am not suggesting they be treated well, but humans do require higher upkeep than cows.  cows are self sufficient from a relatively early age and do not require as much care as a human infant and toddler would.  i am just talking about the basic involvement necessary to keep a primate alive and enclosed.  and all that, for much less meat.   #  there are viruses, blv for example, that infect cows but do not infect humans.   # humans and other animals also differ in our body composition and you would be hard pressed to get as many meals out of a human as you would a cow especially when we start considering milk , but humans require much more upkeep, produce far less meat, are far less self sufficient, and mature far less quickly than cows.  to keep the cycle going to feed even a small number of humans would require even larger populations of food humans than food cows.  so there are questions of sustainability and this can translate into morality that separate us from other sources of meat.  this is irrelevant to my view  second is that humans and cows have different immune systems, while humans and humans obviously have similar immune systems.  that is, pathogens released into the food human population might be much more successful in the world at large.  there are viruses, blv for example, that infect cows but do not infect humans.  while there is  some  overlap prions are a nice, recent example , we put ourselves at greater risk of a pandemic if there are so many food humans around.  i never said we should start eating humans  there are a variety of other differences, but these to me are the most compelling reasons to say that eating cows and humans are not ethically equivalent.  i didnt mean theres no difference as a food source i meant that we see ourselves as superior based on our superior intelligence and this is how we morally justify eating meat.  so if a human was stupider than an ape either it would be more ethical to eat the human than the ape, or eating meat is just unethical.
at least in my state, 0 fine arts credits are required to graduate high school, equivalent to two semesters.  i do not believe high school students should be required to complete and pass a fine arts class because:   the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.  this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.    quality art takes skill, the possession of which relies on prior experience.  how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ?   in the marketplace, art is value tends not to be based on the amount of time taken to create it.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.   #  the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.   #  this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.   # this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.  grading in all classes have both qualitative and quantitative parts.  i am a grader for a biology class, and there is a large amount of subjectivity in a seemingly objective subject.  students are asked to show their knowledge on a specific topic.  is this answer close enough for full credit ? if not, does it deserve 0, 0, or 0 points ? this person wants a regrade; can i understand their reasoning, and is it deserving of points ? similarly, evaluations in fine arts often test specific concepts, and the same questions apply.  was the application good enough for full credit ? if not, how many points does it deserve ? how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ? students also have different proficiencies in non fine arts subjects.  i was really good at math in high school.  despite that, they graded me on the same scale as people who struggled in that subject.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.  well firstly, i do not think high school has the sole goal of career readiness there is something to be said of education for the sake of education.  that said, there are plenty of cases in which art is value  is  dependent on the time it takes to create it.  there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.   #  that would serve its use in career readiness.   # there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.  very true.  i was valuing a much more nebulous kind of art than that which is actually applicable in most of art related careers.  that would serve its use in career readiness.    0;  #  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.   #  the purpose of requiring fine arts credits is to expose you to the fine arts, expand your knowledge, and to give you the chance to see if you are interested in the arts.  0 all class requirements are set by the teachers and are subjective in standards.  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  0 you grade on participation and effort, as well as improvement in the field.  0 once again the point of exposing you to the arts is to see if you like them.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.   #  that improvement is limited by where you start.   # and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  grading in other subjects  can  be objective, while in fine arts they ca not.  math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.  how can you measure acting objectively, or art ? that improvement is limited by where you start.  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.  why does everyone need a creative outlet ?  #  and as a musician i can say that there is always room for improvement, even for the best professional.   # math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.  how can you measure acting objectively, or art ? grading in most subject still have subjective elements.  even math.  giving partial credit for the process is a subjective grading element, not an objective one as you claim.  writing is most often graded subjectively on how you deliver information and what you deliver.  the objective components like spelling and grammar specifics are not the primary grading points.  as to how you grade acting objectively, you grade accuracy to the script, accuracy of the movements prescribed, amount of eye contact, etc.  art is how accurate you do whatever the project is.  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.  that is correct, but once you get to the point that improvement is not an easy component to grade on you actually grade on how well you perform the piece.  and as a musician i can say that there is always room for improvement, even for the best professional.  because it is a basic psychological need.  it is why we have hobbies.
at least in my state, 0 fine arts credits are required to graduate high school, equivalent to two semesters.  i do not believe high school students should be required to complete and pass a fine arts class because:   the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.  this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.    quality art takes skill, the possession of which relies on prior experience.  how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ?   in the marketplace, art is value tends not to be based on the amount of time taken to create it.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.   #  quality art takes skill, the possession of which relies on prior experience.   #  how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ?  # this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.  grading in all classes have both qualitative and quantitative parts.  i am a grader for a biology class, and there is a large amount of subjectivity in a seemingly objective subject.  students are asked to show their knowledge on a specific topic.  is this answer close enough for full credit ? if not, does it deserve 0, 0, or 0 points ? this person wants a regrade; can i understand their reasoning, and is it deserving of points ? similarly, evaluations in fine arts often test specific concepts, and the same questions apply.  was the application good enough for full credit ? if not, how many points does it deserve ? how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ? students also have different proficiencies in non fine arts subjects.  i was really good at math in high school.  despite that, they graded me on the same scale as people who struggled in that subject.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.  well firstly, i do not think high school has the sole goal of career readiness there is something to be said of education for the sake of education.  that said, there are plenty of cases in which art is value  is  dependent on the time it takes to create it.  there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.   #  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.   # there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.  very true.  i was valuing a much more nebulous kind of art than that which is actually applicable in most of art related careers.  that would serve its use in career readiness.    0;  #  0 all class requirements are set by the teachers and are subjective in standards.   #  the purpose of requiring fine arts credits is to expose you to the fine arts, expand your knowledge, and to give you the chance to see if you are interested in the arts.  0 all class requirements are set by the teachers and are subjective in standards.  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  0 you grade on participation and effort, as well as improvement in the field.  0 once again the point of exposing you to the arts is to see if you like them.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.   #  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.   # and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  grading in other subjects  can  be objective, while in fine arts they ca not.  math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.  how can you measure acting objectively, or art ? that improvement is limited by where you start.  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.  why does everyone need a creative outlet ?  #  writing is most often graded subjectively on how you deliver information and what you deliver.   # math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.  how can you measure acting objectively, or art ? grading in most subject still have subjective elements.  even math.  giving partial credit for the process is a subjective grading element, not an objective one as you claim.  writing is most often graded subjectively on how you deliver information and what you deliver.  the objective components like spelling and grammar specifics are not the primary grading points.  as to how you grade acting objectively, you grade accuracy to the script, accuracy of the movements prescribed, amount of eye contact, etc.  art is how accurate you do whatever the project is.  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.  that is correct, but once you get to the point that improvement is not an easy component to grade on you actually grade on how well you perform the piece.  and as a musician i can say that there is always room for improvement, even for the best professional.  because it is a basic psychological need.  it is why we have hobbies.
at least in my state, 0 fine arts credits are required to graduate high school, equivalent to two semesters.  i do not believe high school students should be required to complete and pass a fine arts class because:   the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.  this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.    quality art takes skill, the possession of which relies on prior experience.  how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ?   in the marketplace, art is value tends not to be based on the amount of time taken to create it.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.   #  in the marketplace, art is value tends not to be based on the amount of time taken to create it.   #  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.   # this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.  grading in all classes have both qualitative and quantitative parts.  i am a grader for a biology class, and there is a large amount of subjectivity in a seemingly objective subject.  students are asked to show their knowledge on a specific topic.  is this answer close enough for full credit ? if not, does it deserve 0, 0, or 0 points ? this person wants a regrade; can i understand their reasoning, and is it deserving of points ? similarly, evaluations in fine arts often test specific concepts, and the same questions apply.  was the application good enough for full credit ? if not, how many points does it deserve ? how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ? students also have different proficiencies in non fine arts subjects.  i was really good at math in high school.  despite that, they graded me on the same scale as people who struggled in that subject.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.  well firstly, i do not think high school has the sole goal of career readiness there is something to be said of education for the sake of education.  that said, there are plenty of cases in which art is value  is  dependent on the time it takes to create it.  there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.   #  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.   # there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.  very true.  i was valuing a much more nebulous kind of art than that which is actually applicable in most of art related careers.  that would serve its use in career readiness.    0;  #  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.   #  the purpose of requiring fine arts credits is to expose you to the fine arts, expand your knowledge, and to give you the chance to see if you are interested in the arts.  0 all class requirements are set by the teachers and are subjective in standards.  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  0 you grade on participation and effort, as well as improvement in the field.  0 once again the point of exposing you to the arts is to see if you like them.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.   #  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.   # and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  grading in other subjects  can  be objective, while in fine arts they ca not.  math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.  how can you measure acting objectively, or art ? that improvement is limited by where you start.  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.  why does everyone need a creative outlet ?  #  as to how you grade acting objectively, you grade accuracy to the script, accuracy of the movements prescribed, amount of eye contact, etc.   # math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.  how can you measure acting objectively, or art ? grading in most subject still have subjective elements.  even math.  giving partial credit for the process is a subjective grading element, not an objective one as you claim.  writing is most often graded subjectively on how you deliver information and what you deliver.  the objective components like spelling and grammar specifics are not the primary grading points.  as to how you grade acting objectively, you grade accuracy to the script, accuracy of the movements prescribed, amount of eye contact, etc.  art is how accurate you do whatever the project is.  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.  that is correct, but once you get to the point that improvement is not an easy component to grade on you actually grade on how well you perform the piece.  and as a musician i can say that there is always room for improvement, even for the best professional.  because it is a basic psychological need.  it is why we have hobbies.
at least in my state, 0 fine arts credits are required to graduate high school, equivalent to two semesters.  i do not believe high school students should be required to complete and pass a fine arts class because:   the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.  this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.    quality art takes skill, the possession of which relies on prior experience.  how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ?   in the marketplace, art is value tends not to be based on the amount of time taken to create it.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.   #  in the marketplace, art is value tends not to be based on the amount of time taken to create it.   #  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.   # look at a standard grading rubrick for art or music and you will see a whole load of objectivity.  lots of objectivity.  how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ? first of all, in terms of  how do you do it .  you just do it.  people having various levels of skill does not make it difficult to grade them on the same scale.  i can measure long jump distance between a baby and an olympian using the same scale easily.  second of all, in high school, these students are not graded equally.  effort and creativity play a big role in high school art.  i am a terrible, terrible artist, but i am still creative and i can try as hard as everyone else.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  your creating a phantom necessary relationship between something taking a lot of time, and something being completed on time, the two are not mutually exclusive.  further your equating a piece of art done for school, with one done for professional sale, which is also unfair.   #  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.   # this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.  grading in all classes have both qualitative and quantitative parts.  i am a grader for a biology class, and there is a large amount of subjectivity in a seemingly objective subject.  students are asked to show their knowledge on a specific topic.  is this answer close enough for full credit ? if not, does it deserve 0, 0, or 0 points ? this person wants a regrade; can i understand their reasoning, and is it deserving of points ? similarly, evaluations in fine arts often test specific concepts, and the same questions apply.  was the application good enough for full credit ? if not, how many points does it deserve ? how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ? students also have different proficiencies in non fine arts subjects.  i was really good at math in high school.  despite that, they graded me on the same scale as people who struggled in that subject.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.  well firstly, i do not think high school has the sole goal of career readiness there is something to be said of education for the sake of education.  that said, there are plenty of cases in which art is value  is  dependent on the time it takes to create it.  there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.   #  that would serve its use in career readiness.   # there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.  very true.  i was valuing a much more nebulous kind of art than that which is actually applicable in most of art related careers.  that would serve its use in career readiness.    0;  #  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.   #  the purpose of requiring fine arts credits is to expose you to the fine arts, expand your knowledge, and to give you the chance to see if you are interested in the arts.  0 all class requirements are set by the teachers and are subjective in standards.  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  0 you grade on participation and effort, as well as improvement in the field.  0 once again the point of exposing you to the arts is to see if you like them.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.   #  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.   # and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  grading in other subjects  can  be objective, while in fine arts they ca not.  math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.  how can you measure acting objectively, or art ? that improvement is limited by where you start.  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.  why does everyone need a creative outlet ?
at least in my state, 0 fine arts credits are required to graduate high school, equivalent to two semesters.  i do not believe high school students should be required to complete and pass a fine arts class because:   the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.  this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.    quality art takes skill, the possession of which relies on prior experience.  how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ?   in the marketplace, art is value tends not to be based on the amount of time taken to create it.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.   #  quality art takes skill, the possession of which relies on prior experience.   #  in your previous example, you bemoan the subjective grading which contradicts this statement a little bit.   #  the objective of high school is to teach you  how  to learn and to give you a very broad exposure, and fine arts do a lot of that even if the subject does not appeal to you personally.  consider:   the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.  quantitative problem solving is great and all, but clear communication and persuasive writing   speaking are absolutely critical life skills.  performing music or creating art exercise a variety of skills pattern recognition, creativity, etc that are hard to isolate and  teach .  fine art also has  a lot  of historical significance, so you are absorbing and placing some history / world knowledge as well.  it is killing a lot of birds with one stone.  so ? as hard as teachers/hr people/ etc may try, there are precisely zero jobs in the real world where you are measured by purely objective metrics.  relationships matter, understanding expectations set by your teacher/boss matter.  that is life.  it is good to be exposed to that.  in your previous example, you bemoan the subjective grading which contradicts this statement a little bit.  reason being that teachers do have the flexibility to weight participation, effort, and rate of improvement.  high school classes do not presume or necessitate experience outside the curriculums.  of course someone who has a hobby will perform better in a related class.  so ? is it somehow wrong or unfair that kids that are into computers and strategy games tend to have prior experience and perform better at math ? that is technically true, but the artist still needs to produce in order to be compensated for his work.  most art is commissioned, theater has dates, fashion has shows.  there are always deadlines.  this idea that artists have zero time constraints is a total fallacy no professional artist has that luxury.  the only people without time constraints on their work are hobbyists and the independently wealthy.  again, career readiness is not really the objective of high school universities, trade apprenticeships, military, etc teach you more niche skills.  high school is merely trying to turn you into a well rounded person who is prepared for the next step of learning / job readiness.   #  i am a grader for a biology class, and there is a large amount of subjectivity in a seemingly objective subject.   # this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.  grading in all classes have both qualitative and quantitative parts.  i am a grader for a biology class, and there is a large amount of subjectivity in a seemingly objective subject.  students are asked to show their knowledge on a specific topic.  is this answer close enough for full credit ? if not, does it deserve 0, 0, or 0 points ? this person wants a regrade; can i understand their reasoning, and is it deserving of points ? similarly, evaluations in fine arts often test specific concepts, and the same questions apply.  was the application good enough for full credit ? if not, how many points does it deserve ? how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ? students also have different proficiencies in non fine arts subjects.  i was really good at math in high school.  despite that, they graded me on the same scale as people who struggled in that subject.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.  well firstly, i do not think high school has the sole goal of career readiness there is something to be said of education for the sake of education.  that said, there are plenty of cases in which art is value  is  dependent on the time it takes to create it.  there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.   #  that would serve its use in career readiness.   # there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.  very true.  i was valuing a much more nebulous kind of art than that which is actually applicable in most of art related careers.  that would serve its use in career readiness.    0;  #  0 you grade on participation and effort, as well as improvement in the field.   #  the purpose of requiring fine arts credits is to expose you to the fine arts, expand your knowledge, and to give you the chance to see if you are interested in the arts.  0 all class requirements are set by the teachers and are subjective in standards.  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  0 you grade on participation and effort, as well as improvement in the field.  0 once again the point of exposing you to the arts is to see if you like them.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.   #  math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.   # and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  grading in other subjects  can  be objective, while in fine arts they ca not.  math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.  how can you measure acting objectively, or art ? that improvement is limited by where you start.  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.  why does everyone need a creative outlet ?
at least in my state, 0 fine arts credits are required to graduate high school, equivalent to two semesters.  i do not believe high school students should be required to complete and pass a fine arts class because:   the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.  this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.    quality art takes skill, the possession of which relies on prior experience.  how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ?   in the marketplace, art is value tends not to be based on the amount of time taken to create it.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.   #  in the marketplace, art is value tends not to be based on the amount of time taken to create it.   #  that is technically true, but the artist still needs to produce in order to be compensated for his work.   #  the objective of high school is to teach you  how  to learn and to give you a very broad exposure, and fine arts do a lot of that even if the subject does not appeal to you personally.  consider:   the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.  quantitative problem solving is great and all, but clear communication and persuasive writing   speaking are absolutely critical life skills.  performing music or creating art exercise a variety of skills pattern recognition, creativity, etc that are hard to isolate and  teach .  fine art also has  a lot  of historical significance, so you are absorbing and placing some history / world knowledge as well.  it is killing a lot of birds with one stone.  so ? as hard as teachers/hr people/ etc may try, there are precisely zero jobs in the real world where you are measured by purely objective metrics.  relationships matter, understanding expectations set by your teacher/boss matter.  that is life.  it is good to be exposed to that.  in your previous example, you bemoan the subjective grading which contradicts this statement a little bit.  reason being that teachers do have the flexibility to weight participation, effort, and rate of improvement.  high school classes do not presume or necessitate experience outside the curriculums.  of course someone who has a hobby will perform better in a related class.  so ? is it somehow wrong or unfair that kids that are into computers and strategy games tend to have prior experience and perform better at math ? that is technically true, but the artist still needs to produce in order to be compensated for his work.  most art is commissioned, theater has dates, fashion has shows.  there are always deadlines.  this idea that artists have zero time constraints is a total fallacy no professional artist has that luxury.  the only people without time constraints on their work are hobbyists and the independently wealthy.  again, career readiness is not really the objective of high school universities, trade apprenticeships, military, etc teach you more niche skills.  high school is merely trying to turn you into a well rounded person who is prepared for the next step of learning / job readiness.   #  if not, does it deserve 0, 0, or 0 points ?  # this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.  grading in all classes have both qualitative and quantitative parts.  i am a grader for a biology class, and there is a large amount of subjectivity in a seemingly objective subject.  students are asked to show their knowledge on a specific topic.  is this answer close enough for full credit ? if not, does it deserve 0, 0, or 0 points ? this person wants a regrade; can i understand their reasoning, and is it deserving of points ? similarly, evaluations in fine arts often test specific concepts, and the same questions apply.  was the application good enough for full credit ? if not, how many points does it deserve ? how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ? students also have different proficiencies in non fine arts subjects.  i was really good at math in high school.  despite that, they graded me on the same scale as people who struggled in that subject.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.  well firstly, i do not think high school has the sole goal of career readiness there is something to be said of education for the sake of education.  that said, there are plenty of cases in which art is value  is  dependent on the time it takes to create it.  there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.   #  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.   # there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.  very true.  i was valuing a much more nebulous kind of art than that which is actually applicable in most of art related careers.  that would serve its use in career readiness.    0;  #  0 all class requirements are set by the teachers and are subjective in standards.   #  the purpose of requiring fine arts credits is to expose you to the fine arts, expand your knowledge, and to give you the chance to see if you are interested in the arts.  0 all class requirements are set by the teachers and are subjective in standards.  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  0 you grade on participation and effort, as well as improvement in the field.  0 once again the point of exposing you to the arts is to see if you like them.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.   #  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.   # and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  grading in other subjects  can  be objective, while in fine arts they ca not.  math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.  how can you measure acting objectively, or art ? that improvement is limited by where you start.  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.  why does everyone need a creative outlet ?
at least in my state, 0 fine arts credits are required to graduate high school, equivalent to two semesters.  i do not believe high school students should be required to complete and pass a fine arts class because:   the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.  this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.    quality art takes skill, the possession of which relies on prior experience.  how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ?   in the marketplace, art is value tends not to be based on the amount of time taken to create it.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.   #  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.   #  again, career readiness is not really the objective of high school universities, trade apprenticeships, military, etc teach you more niche skills.   #  the objective of high school is to teach you  how  to learn and to give you a very broad exposure, and fine arts do a lot of that even if the subject does not appeal to you personally.  consider:   the grading is qualitative, rather than quantitative.  quantitative problem solving is great and all, but clear communication and persuasive writing   speaking are absolutely critical life skills.  performing music or creating art exercise a variety of skills pattern recognition, creativity, etc that are hard to isolate and  teach .  fine art also has  a lot  of historical significance, so you are absorbing and placing some history / world knowledge as well.  it is killing a lot of birds with one stone.  so ? as hard as teachers/hr people/ etc may try, there are precisely zero jobs in the real world where you are measured by purely objective metrics.  relationships matter, understanding expectations set by your teacher/boss matter.  that is life.  it is good to be exposed to that.  in your previous example, you bemoan the subjective grading which contradicts this statement a little bit.  reason being that teachers do have the flexibility to weight participation, effort, and rate of improvement.  high school classes do not presume or necessitate experience outside the curriculums.  of course someone who has a hobby will perform better in a related class.  so ? is it somehow wrong or unfair that kids that are into computers and strategy games tend to have prior experience and perform better at math ? that is technically true, but the artist still needs to produce in order to be compensated for his work.  most art is commissioned, theater has dates, fashion has shows.  there are always deadlines.  this idea that artists have zero time constraints is a total fallacy no professional artist has that luxury.  the only people without time constraints on their work are hobbyists and the independently wealthy.  again, career readiness is not really the objective of high school universities, trade apprenticeships, military, etc teach you more niche skills.  high school is merely trying to turn you into a well rounded person who is prepared for the next step of learning / job readiness.   #  well firstly, i do not think high school has the sole goal of career readiness there is something to be said of education for the sake of education.   # this means you are forced to take a class with the risk of lowering your gpa based on subjective standards for art set by the teacher.  grading in all classes have both qualitative and quantitative parts.  i am a grader for a biology class, and there is a large amount of subjectivity in a seemingly objective subject.  students are asked to show their knowledge on a specific topic.  is this answer close enough for full credit ? if not, does it deserve 0, 0, or 0 points ? this person wants a regrade; can i understand their reasoning, and is it deserving of points ? similarly, evaluations in fine arts often test specific concepts, and the same questions apply.  was the application good enough for full credit ? if not, how many points does it deserve ? how can you grade someone who has played an instrument or acted in plays since they were a small child on the same scale as someone who has not had the privilege of doing either ? students also have different proficiencies in non fine arts subjects.  i was really good at math in high school.  despite that, they graded me on the same scale as people who struggled in that subject.  the classroom setting is the opposite, where you can be marked down for a late art project.  this means that fine art does not appeal to school is goal of career readiness.  well firstly, i do not think high school has the sole goal of career readiness there is something to be said of education for the sake of education.  that said, there are plenty of cases in which art is value  is  dependent on the time it takes to create it.  there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.   #  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.   # there are many jobs in which your job is to produce a piece of art by a certain deadline.  if you make music for any larger project, it has to be done by release date.  if you make visual art for a project, that too has to be done by the release date.  and so forth.  very true.  i was valuing a much more nebulous kind of art than that which is actually applicable in most of art related careers.  that would serve its use in career readiness.    0;  #  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.   #  the purpose of requiring fine arts credits is to expose you to the fine arts, expand your knowledge, and to give you the chance to see if you are interested in the arts.  0 all class requirements are set by the teachers and are subjective in standards.  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  0 you grade on participation and effort, as well as improvement in the field.  0 once again the point of exposing you to the arts is to see if you like them.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.   #  and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.   # and most fine arts courses require participation and honest effort, not skill to meet said requirements.  grading in other subjects  can  be objective, while in fine arts they ca not.  math grades are based on correctness of process and answers, writing on conventions and structure, etc.  how can you measure acting objectively, or art ? that improvement is limited by where you start.  if you are deemed to be starting from an f, you have more room and lower standards than someone deemed to be starting from an a.  everyone needs a creative outlet.  for some this is crafting something carpentry, paintings, welding, building computers, etc , for some it is playing or writing music, writing stories, etc.  why does everyone need a creative outlet ?
the reason that we have not come across any signs of aliens is because every sentient species that comes to be eventually self destructs.  war, more and more dangerous weapons, corporate greed, government corruption, global warming, mass extinction, these are all issues that other alien species would likely encounter.  in the drake equation it says  it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself .  perhaps self extinction is the natural path for all sentient life forms.  that is why there we have not been able to contact e. t. , because he is already extinct.  i think it has a lot to do with how we are of two minds, one a sentient intelligent mind capable of thinking, but still have an evolutionary mind from when we were animals and living in caves.  you have people embracing the intelligent mind, people that work for charities, try to cure diseases, help save others and being selfless.  then you have people who only care about power, greed, being selfish.  they choose the darwinistic path.   #  war, more and more dangerous weapons, corporate greed, government corruption, global warming, mass extinction, these are all issues that other alien species would likely encounter.   #  this view seems to reflect a sort of carbon chauvinism.   # this view seems to reflect a sort of carbon chauvinism.  why should we expect aliens to have similar physiology, mental capacity, etc.  as us ? why should we expect other sentient life to experience the same problems that we might ? i think some of these assertions corporate greed and government corruption in particular; i am willing to accept conflict as something that is probably common in some capacity to most sentient life at this stage of development .  also, a lot of these do not seem to be really big existential risks.  corporate greed in itself is not going to destroy human life.  the sort of war that would wipe out humanity is a low probability event from year to year probably  0 per year and so if we are to imagine many possible forms of alien life, it seems likely at least one wo not be wiped out by war.  government corruption decreases in developed countries on average or more precisely, the countries that spend the most of their gdp bribing government officials are lesser developed countries .  mass extinction events are few and far between.  global warming may cost a few trillion dollars over a few centuries, and it might shift shorelines, but i am doubtful that it is a really big existential risk.  a global warming triggered mass extinction event would take place over a pretty long time scale thousands of years or more; correct me if you have real estimates for this while technology has been accelerating exponentially yes, i know it ca not do this forever, but even in 0 years we should be much closer to solving this problem .  how about the idea that the first eukaryote was a pretty unique event ? it seems to have happened only once in evolutionary history, and it seems that most life would run into this sort of bottleneck very few worlds might favor the development of more complex forms of life or not get lucky like ours did .  have you ever considered that the  intelligent mind  and the  evolutionary mind  might be one and the same ? charity in practice might be mostly signaling that is why people often choose to fund inefficient charities instead of giving their money to, say, givewell .   #  however, each country has the incentive to take advantage of others  unwillingness to make war to push as far as possible without triggering war by, say, annexing crimea.   #  not necessarily.  we can make some educated guesses that can inform us about what alien species might be like.  actually, we need only assume that the alien species is comprised of self interested individuals not the only possible outcomes of evolution, but certainly one of the few stable ones and it follows from game theory that they would face similar species wide issues as us.  specifically what happens is this: self interested agents will predictably be caught in prisoner is dilemma/tragedy of the commons type situations, where everyone collectively gains from cooperation, but each individually gains from defection.  take war, for example.  say all countries get together to decide that they will abide by certain rules, and not make war.  however, each country has the incentive to take advantage of others  unwillingness to make war to push as far as possible without triggering war by, say, annexing crimea.  eventually, abuses get so bad that they are no better than war.  or take global warming: it would be really bad for everyone if it continued, but change costs money, and no one country to be the first to handicap its economy to address the issue.  or if there is an agreement, every country has every reason not to follow the guidelines to boost its economy.  avoiding destruction requires collective action, and, for game theoretical reasons, collective action among self interested individuals, while not impossible, is inherently fragile.   #  but once you get out there a ways, it gets pretty difficult due to how radio signals work.   # we can communicate with things pretty close to us, like probes and satellites that are in or near our solar system.  but once you get out there a ways, it gets pretty difficult due to how radio signals work.  the further away you get from a transmitter, the more and more spread out the signal is.  if you take a laser pointer and shine it at a wall several hundred feet away, the dot is noticeably bigger than if you shine it a few feet away.  same concept with radio or any other type of transmission.  now extrapolate that over unimaginably large distances.  the signal to noise ratio of your transmission drops to below the threshold of cosmic background radiation, rendering it completely gone.  people have a tendency to use the  but technology  argument in response to this, but it is really very straightforward stuff.  signaling theory, information theory, transmission theory, these are well understood frameworks.   but what if we just crank up the signal ?   well, unless you can do something on the order of making a star go nova on demand, good luck with that and of course the problem of having someone notice what you did .  the amount of power you need to overcome this problem over interstellar distances is on par with something like that.  the answer to your question is quite mundane.  the ability to detect things like radio transmissions of any discernable quality beyond maybe a couple of light years away if even that is impossible due to signal propagation.  so even if there are aliens out there looking for us and let is say they even happen to be looking right at us, and happen to be looking on the right frequencies, and all of that due to pure unimaginable coincidence they wo not see or hear any of our radio transmissions because they will have dwindled down to zero long before the aliens ever had a chance to see them.  and vice versa.   #  plus you sound really really smart like you know what you are talking about.   #    0; thank you, something like this is what i was hoping to read.  you make it seem like maybe there is hope for intelligent life forms.  maybe we are not heading towards self destruction.  perhaps all we are going through is just like a newborn animal struggling to find its legs and start walking.  i would like to think that, i can only imagine humanity is potential.  if we have super computers in our pockets now, what could things be like in fifty years.  plus you sound really really smart like you know what you are talking about.   #  humans worse behavior is not unique on earth, i doubt it is unique across the universe.   #  the arguments about aliens being particularly different from humans do not seem very strong to me.  the essential quality of life as we find it on earth is mutation and natural selection, and that will always lead to certain things more or less.  organisms that have evolved through iterative competition will always maximize their rate of reproduction.  they will attempt to out compete their competitors, and when they do not have significant competitors they will push the resources of their environment to the limit.  URL these are not human qualities, they are fundamental qualities of evolved life.  they are the process by which life evolves.  life that does not possess these qualities will be out competed, that is the most basic definition of natural selection.  i feel that all of the self centered behavior we talk about is an obvious extension of these qualities.  humans worse behavior is not unique on earth, i doubt it is unique across the universe.  it is often very useful behavior, especially while a group still has competitors.  it arises in simulations as well.  if aliens evolved through natural selection, my bet is they are quite similar to humans in the weapons, greed, mass extinction regard, or at least were in the past.  there are some good arguments though.  the age of the universe is 0 billion.  sol is a third generation star, the first generation did not have heavy elements so there was less interesting chemistry like life on earth requires .  once life on earth got started, it took 0 billion years to get to intelligence, the first billion of which was all single celled organisms.  we have no equals on this planet.  there is not any organism that is even close to being able to use history, foresight and technology the way humans can.  many people do underestimate the intelligence of animals, but they are still profoundly incapable compared to us.  point being, of the planets that have intelligent life capability, earth may be one of the faster.  we got lucky on earth in a lot of ways.  not just that we are in the goldilocks zone where liquid water oceans are sustainable , but we have also avoided super catastrophic meteorite impacts and other disasters for a good chunk of time.  tl;dr universe not that old, brains take a long time, we got lucky
the reason that we have not come across any signs of aliens is because every sentient species that comes to be eventually self destructs.  war, more and more dangerous weapons, corporate greed, government corruption, global warming, mass extinction, these are all issues that other alien species would likely encounter.  in the drake equation it says  it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself .  perhaps self extinction is the natural path for all sentient life forms.  that is why there we have not been able to contact e. t. , because he is already extinct.  i think it has a lot to do with how we are of two minds, one a sentient intelligent mind capable of thinking, but still have an evolutionary mind from when we were animals and living in caves.  you have people embracing the intelligent mind, people that work for charities, try to cure diseases, help save others and being selfless.  then you have people who only care about power, greed, being selfish.  they choose the darwinistic path.   #  you have people embracing the intelligent mind, people that work for charities, try to cure diseases, help save others and being selfless.   #  have you ever considered that the  intelligent mind  and the  evolutionary mind  might be one and the same ?  # this view seems to reflect a sort of carbon chauvinism.  why should we expect aliens to have similar physiology, mental capacity, etc.  as us ? why should we expect other sentient life to experience the same problems that we might ? i think some of these assertions corporate greed and government corruption in particular; i am willing to accept conflict as something that is probably common in some capacity to most sentient life at this stage of development .  also, a lot of these do not seem to be really big existential risks.  corporate greed in itself is not going to destroy human life.  the sort of war that would wipe out humanity is a low probability event from year to year probably  0 per year and so if we are to imagine many possible forms of alien life, it seems likely at least one wo not be wiped out by war.  government corruption decreases in developed countries on average or more precisely, the countries that spend the most of their gdp bribing government officials are lesser developed countries .  mass extinction events are few and far between.  global warming may cost a few trillion dollars over a few centuries, and it might shift shorelines, but i am doubtful that it is a really big existential risk.  a global warming triggered mass extinction event would take place over a pretty long time scale thousands of years or more; correct me if you have real estimates for this while technology has been accelerating exponentially yes, i know it ca not do this forever, but even in 0 years we should be much closer to solving this problem .  how about the idea that the first eukaryote was a pretty unique event ? it seems to have happened only once in evolutionary history, and it seems that most life would run into this sort of bottleneck very few worlds might favor the development of more complex forms of life or not get lucky like ours did .  have you ever considered that the  intelligent mind  and the  evolutionary mind  might be one and the same ? charity in practice might be mostly signaling that is why people often choose to fund inefficient charities instead of giving their money to, say, givewell .   #  we can make some educated guesses that can inform us about what alien species might be like.   #  not necessarily.  we can make some educated guesses that can inform us about what alien species might be like.  actually, we need only assume that the alien species is comprised of self interested individuals not the only possible outcomes of evolution, but certainly one of the few stable ones and it follows from game theory that they would face similar species wide issues as us.  specifically what happens is this: self interested agents will predictably be caught in prisoner is dilemma/tragedy of the commons type situations, where everyone collectively gains from cooperation, but each individually gains from defection.  take war, for example.  say all countries get together to decide that they will abide by certain rules, and not make war.  however, each country has the incentive to take advantage of others  unwillingness to make war to push as far as possible without triggering war by, say, annexing crimea.  eventually, abuses get so bad that they are no better than war.  or take global warming: it would be really bad for everyone if it continued, but change costs money, and no one country to be the first to handicap its economy to address the issue.  or if there is an agreement, every country has every reason not to follow the guidelines to boost its economy.  avoiding destruction requires collective action, and, for game theoretical reasons, collective action among self interested individuals, while not impossible, is inherently fragile.   #  same concept with radio or any other type of transmission.   # we can communicate with things pretty close to us, like probes and satellites that are in or near our solar system.  but once you get out there a ways, it gets pretty difficult due to how radio signals work.  the further away you get from a transmitter, the more and more spread out the signal is.  if you take a laser pointer and shine it at a wall several hundred feet away, the dot is noticeably bigger than if you shine it a few feet away.  same concept with radio or any other type of transmission.  now extrapolate that over unimaginably large distances.  the signal to noise ratio of your transmission drops to below the threshold of cosmic background radiation, rendering it completely gone.  people have a tendency to use the  but technology  argument in response to this, but it is really very straightforward stuff.  signaling theory, information theory, transmission theory, these are well understood frameworks.   but what if we just crank up the signal ?   well, unless you can do something on the order of making a star go nova on demand, good luck with that and of course the problem of having someone notice what you did .  the amount of power you need to overcome this problem over interstellar distances is on par with something like that.  the answer to your question is quite mundane.  the ability to detect things like radio transmissions of any discernable quality beyond maybe a couple of light years away if even that is impossible due to signal propagation.  so even if there are aliens out there looking for us and let is say they even happen to be looking right at us, and happen to be looking on the right frequencies, and all of that due to pure unimaginable coincidence they wo not see or hear any of our radio transmissions because they will have dwindled down to zero long before the aliens ever had a chance to see them.  and vice versa.   #  perhaps all we are going through is just like a newborn animal struggling to find its legs and start walking.   #    0; thank you, something like this is what i was hoping to read.  you make it seem like maybe there is hope for intelligent life forms.  maybe we are not heading towards self destruction.  perhaps all we are going through is just like a newborn animal struggling to find its legs and start walking.  i would like to think that, i can only imagine humanity is potential.  if we have super computers in our pockets now, what could things be like in fifty years.  plus you sound really really smart like you know what you are talking about.   #  the essential quality of life as we find it on earth is mutation and natural selection, and that will always lead to certain things more or less.   #  the arguments about aliens being particularly different from humans do not seem very strong to me.  the essential quality of life as we find it on earth is mutation and natural selection, and that will always lead to certain things more or less.  organisms that have evolved through iterative competition will always maximize their rate of reproduction.  they will attempt to out compete their competitors, and when they do not have significant competitors they will push the resources of their environment to the limit.  URL these are not human qualities, they are fundamental qualities of evolved life.  they are the process by which life evolves.  life that does not possess these qualities will be out competed, that is the most basic definition of natural selection.  i feel that all of the self centered behavior we talk about is an obvious extension of these qualities.  humans worse behavior is not unique on earth, i doubt it is unique across the universe.  it is often very useful behavior, especially while a group still has competitors.  it arises in simulations as well.  if aliens evolved through natural selection, my bet is they are quite similar to humans in the weapons, greed, mass extinction regard, or at least were in the past.  there are some good arguments though.  the age of the universe is 0 billion.  sol is a third generation star, the first generation did not have heavy elements so there was less interesting chemistry like life on earth requires .  once life on earth got started, it took 0 billion years to get to intelligence, the first billion of which was all single celled organisms.  we have no equals on this planet.  there is not any organism that is even close to being able to use history, foresight and technology the way humans can.  many people do underestimate the intelligence of animals, but they are still profoundly incapable compared to us.  point being, of the planets that have intelligent life capability, earth may be one of the faster.  we got lucky on earth in a lot of ways.  not just that we are in the goldilocks zone where liquid water oceans are sustainable , but we have also avoided super catastrophic meteorite impacts and other disasters for a good chunk of time.  tl;dr universe not that old, brains take a long time, we got lucky
that is people is favorite counter to suicide it is so selfish.  think of all the people you will be leaving behind.  do you really want them to suffer for your actions ? and the obvious answer is no.  if only there was some way to go quietly, right ? but suicide is up to the person who is doing the act.  it is that person is life.  i see it far more selfish to stop someone from doing what they need to do because you might feel sad.  it is that person is life, they can do what they want with it.   but, imagine all the pain you will be leaving the people.   well, pain sure does suck.  how rude for my depression to inconvenience the people around me.  would really hate for people to suffer pain and misery without anyone to help them with it.  all alone.  with nobody to help them.  now that is selfish.  people do not deserve to feel pain.  to feel lonely and worthless and empty all the fucking time.  it never fucking ends but here is the golden ticket out.  as someone on reddit once said, maybe zero is not so bad when all you have at every second is negative.  why should i care about hurting them when nobody is even bothering to help me, dying inside every instant.  my suicide is not them feeling bad for me, but sad about themselves, masking it as selfishness on my part.  i have heard all the bs before, just change my view please.  i just need you to tell me how selfish i am.   #  i see it far more selfish to stop someone from doing what they need to do because you might feel sad.   #  it is that person is life, they can do what they want with it.   # it is that person is life, they can do what they want with it.  if that were really true, we would be letting drunk people drive cars, we would be letting our kids become addicts, and all sorts of other bad things.  and while it is true that it is your life and you should be able to do what you want with it, i do not think that is the case in this scenario.  for example, take euthanasia.  i am all for it.  if the doctors agree this person will stay brain dead for years, not to mention if the patient themself requests it and pass all the required tests, proving they are making a sane, informed choice.  see that last part there ? i do not think people who are on the brink of suicide are thinking clearly, at least in the vast majority of cases.  hence, i do not think they should be making that choice.  would really hate for people to suffer pain and misery without anyone to help them with it.  all alone.  with nobody to help them.  you can get help.  it is out there and i am sure you have heard it all, but there are options.  from /r/suicidewatch and /r/depression to therapy, meds, meditation, the list goes on.  there is a choice.  at least there still is because you are still here.  have you asked for help ? i know it seems like a given, but being depressed myself, i have felt bitter towards certain people even though i never actually let them in.  i have maintained this mask of everything being okay and judging them for not seeing through it.  let is forget about them for a moment.  they do not matter right now.  you do.  has it occurred to you that it might be selfish towards yourself as weird as that might sound ? that you are taking life and everything that comes with it away from yourself.  that you are cutting the journey short, never to realize and accomplish the things you were supposed to ? because your mind and thinking is clouded right now, what with your depression and all the negativity around you which is totally understandable .  is it the right time to make this kind of decision ? i do not think so.  remember that poster that jumped off a bridge and thankfully survived and said the only thing they wanted was to bring back time and not jump ? yeah.  stay.  who cares if it is selfish or not.  think about yourself and put yourself first.  be selfish like that.   #  when my friend killed himself this summer i i do not know how to finish that sentence.   #  when my friend killed himself this summer i i do not know how to finish that sentence.  i was sad.  i was very sad.  i felt guilty too.  i knew he had depression.  did not know it was this bad.  i thought he was doing better.  he was funny and really special.  my grandma said  it is very selfish of him to do that.   other people have said it too and i did not know how to respond to it.  yes i am hurting really bad right now and it is kind of my friend is  fault  for leaving me but selfish sounds like the wrong word.  i realized this.  suicide is selfish.  wanting someone to stay alive for you is also selfish.  almost everything we do in life is selfish but that does not make it wrong.  selfish is not a bad thing.  it is just how we are.  so you want to leave ? okay.  just know that you will leave behind a hole where you were.  the word suicide will enter a lot of your friend is daily vocabulary.  they will keep texting your phone pretending you can read it until someone else gets the number and responds  who is this ?   the one thing to do in this selfish world is to say goodbye at least.  goodbye colin  #  lost someone  very  young and very close to me.   #  lost someone  very  young and very close to me.  calling it selfish implies they are picking something that benefits themselves over everyone else.  it is ignorant, and born out of a ironically selfish focus on the impact it has on their life.  you you call someone dieing of a punctured lung  selfish  ? no.  likewise suicide is the act of a terminally damaged psyche.  you ca not blame the person.  you just have to live with it.   #  if the suicide delays me from getting to my job they are literally stealing money from me.   # no i do not.  but i do call a drug addict who steals from me selfish, despite the fact they are also suffering from a disease addiction .  i live in tokyo where suicides often jump in front of trains.  this delays the trains and messes up the lives of thousands and thousands of other people.  by delaying my life the suicide is stealing from me just as surely as a junkie is stealing from me.  if the suicide delays me from getting to my job they are literally stealing money from me.  last time it happened it ruined a nice evening i had planned with my wife.  i think messing up the lives of thousands of other people because you are sad is very selfish.   #  does drinking that glass of water constitute a selfish act ?  #  you have deleted the content of the post so i ca not expound on the specific points you have made.  my argument is that your fundamental premise is flawed.  you have assigned suicide to the selfish/altruistic spectrum which is a gross oversimplification and incorrect.  i have to circle back to my original statement:   suicide occurs when a person runs out of ways to cope with their problems.  imagine you are thirsty.  the only option you are aware of to quench your thirst is to drink a glass of water.  does drinking that glass of water constitute a selfish act ? no.  it is not altruistic either.  drinking a glass of water when you are thirsty is not a situation that exists in that spectrum.  there might be more effective ways of dealing with thirst, but if you are unaware of them or those methods are unavailable to you, your only option is to drink the glass of water.  if suicide is anything, it is short sided.  pain, pleasure, happiness, and depression are not permanent conditions, they are temporary and fade with time.  on a personal note, in your original post you seemed like you were hurting pretty bad.  i have almost checked out twice before, i know that for me, even if i had a time machine and could go back personally, there is nothing i could have said to change my mind.  but if you ever need someone to listen, i am here.
that is people is favorite counter to suicide it is so selfish.  think of all the people you will be leaving behind.  do you really want them to suffer for your actions ? and the obvious answer is no.  if only there was some way to go quietly, right ? but suicide is up to the person who is doing the act.  it is that person is life.  i see it far more selfish to stop someone from doing what they need to do because you might feel sad.  it is that person is life, they can do what they want with it.   but, imagine all the pain you will be leaving the people.   well, pain sure does suck.  how rude for my depression to inconvenience the people around me.  would really hate for people to suffer pain and misery without anyone to help them with it.  all alone.  with nobody to help them.  now that is selfish.  people do not deserve to feel pain.  to feel lonely and worthless and empty all the fucking time.  it never fucking ends but here is the golden ticket out.  as someone on reddit once said, maybe zero is not so bad when all you have at every second is negative.  why should i care about hurting them when nobody is even bothering to help me, dying inside every instant.  my suicide is not them feeling bad for me, but sad about themselves, masking it as selfishness on my part.  i have heard all the bs before, just change my view please.  i just need you to tell me how selfish i am.   #  how rude for my depression to inconvenience the people around me.   #  would really hate for people to suffer pain and misery without anyone to help them with it.   # it is that person is life, they can do what they want with it.  if that were really true, we would be letting drunk people drive cars, we would be letting our kids become addicts, and all sorts of other bad things.  and while it is true that it is your life and you should be able to do what you want with it, i do not think that is the case in this scenario.  for example, take euthanasia.  i am all for it.  if the doctors agree this person will stay brain dead for years, not to mention if the patient themself requests it and pass all the required tests, proving they are making a sane, informed choice.  see that last part there ? i do not think people who are on the brink of suicide are thinking clearly, at least in the vast majority of cases.  hence, i do not think they should be making that choice.  would really hate for people to suffer pain and misery without anyone to help them with it.  all alone.  with nobody to help them.  you can get help.  it is out there and i am sure you have heard it all, but there are options.  from /r/suicidewatch and /r/depression to therapy, meds, meditation, the list goes on.  there is a choice.  at least there still is because you are still here.  have you asked for help ? i know it seems like a given, but being depressed myself, i have felt bitter towards certain people even though i never actually let them in.  i have maintained this mask of everything being okay and judging them for not seeing through it.  let is forget about them for a moment.  they do not matter right now.  you do.  has it occurred to you that it might be selfish towards yourself as weird as that might sound ? that you are taking life and everything that comes with it away from yourself.  that you are cutting the journey short, never to realize and accomplish the things you were supposed to ? because your mind and thinking is clouded right now, what with your depression and all the negativity around you which is totally understandable .  is it the right time to make this kind of decision ? i do not think so.  remember that poster that jumped off a bridge and thankfully survived and said the only thing they wanted was to bring back time and not jump ? yeah.  stay.  who cares if it is selfish or not.  think about yourself and put yourself first.  be selfish like that.   #  almost everything we do in life is selfish but that does not make it wrong.   #  when my friend killed himself this summer i i do not know how to finish that sentence.  i was sad.  i was very sad.  i felt guilty too.  i knew he had depression.  did not know it was this bad.  i thought he was doing better.  he was funny and really special.  my grandma said  it is very selfish of him to do that.   other people have said it too and i did not know how to respond to it.  yes i am hurting really bad right now and it is kind of my friend is  fault  for leaving me but selfish sounds like the wrong word.  i realized this.  suicide is selfish.  wanting someone to stay alive for you is also selfish.  almost everything we do in life is selfish but that does not make it wrong.  selfish is not a bad thing.  it is just how we are.  so you want to leave ? okay.  just know that you will leave behind a hole where you were.  the word suicide will enter a lot of your friend is daily vocabulary.  they will keep texting your phone pretending you can read it until someone else gets the number and responds  who is this ?   the one thing to do in this selfish world is to say goodbye at least.  goodbye colin  #  lost someone  very  young and very close to me.   #  lost someone  very  young and very close to me.  calling it selfish implies they are picking something that benefits themselves over everyone else.  it is ignorant, and born out of a ironically selfish focus on the impact it has on their life.  you you call someone dieing of a punctured lung  selfish  ? no.  likewise suicide is the act of a terminally damaged psyche.  you ca not blame the person.  you just have to live with it.   #  if the suicide delays me from getting to my job they are literally stealing money from me.   # no i do not.  but i do call a drug addict who steals from me selfish, despite the fact they are also suffering from a disease addiction .  i live in tokyo where suicides often jump in front of trains.  this delays the trains and messes up the lives of thousands and thousands of other people.  by delaying my life the suicide is stealing from me just as surely as a junkie is stealing from me.  if the suicide delays me from getting to my job they are literally stealing money from me.  last time it happened it ruined a nice evening i had planned with my wife.  i think messing up the lives of thousands of other people because you are sad is very selfish.   #  does drinking that glass of water constitute a selfish act ?  #  you have deleted the content of the post so i ca not expound on the specific points you have made.  my argument is that your fundamental premise is flawed.  you have assigned suicide to the selfish/altruistic spectrum which is a gross oversimplification and incorrect.  i have to circle back to my original statement:   suicide occurs when a person runs out of ways to cope with their problems.  imagine you are thirsty.  the only option you are aware of to quench your thirst is to drink a glass of water.  does drinking that glass of water constitute a selfish act ? no.  it is not altruistic either.  drinking a glass of water when you are thirsty is not a situation that exists in that spectrum.  there might be more effective ways of dealing with thirst, but if you are unaware of them or those methods are unavailable to you, your only option is to drink the glass of water.  if suicide is anything, it is short sided.  pain, pleasure, happiness, and depression are not permanent conditions, they are temporary and fade with time.  on a personal note, in your original post you seemed like you were hurting pretty bad.  i have almost checked out twice before, i know that for me, even if i had a time machine and could go back personally, there is nothing i could have said to change my mind.  but if you ever need someone to listen, i am here.
that is people is favorite counter to suicide it is so selfish.  think of all the people you will be leaving behind.  do you really want them to suffer for your actions ? and the obvious answer is no.  if only there was some way to go quietly, right ? but suicide is up to the person who is doing the act.  it is that person is life.  i see it far more selfish to stop someone from doing what they need to do because you might feel sad.  it is that person is life, they can do what they want with it.   but, imagine all the pain you will be leaving the people.   well, pain sure does suck.  how rude for my depression to inconvenience the people around me.  would really hate for people to suffer pain and misery without anyone to help them with it.  all alone.  with nobody to help them.  now that is selfish.  people do not deserve to feel pain.  to feel lonely and worthless and empty all the fucking time.  it never fucking ends but here is the golden ticket out.  as someone on reddit once said, maybe zero is not so bad when all you have at every second is negative.  why should i care about hurting them when nobody is even bothering to help me, dying inside every instant.  my suicide is not them feeling bad for me, but sad about themselves, masking it as selfishness on my part.  i have heard all the bs before, just change my view please.  i just need you to tell me how selfish i am.   #  my suicide is not them feeling bad for me, but sad about themselves, masking it as selfishness on my part.   #  let is forget about them for a moment.   # it is that person is life, they can do what they want with it.  if that were really true, we would be letting drunk people drive cars, we would be letting our kids become addicts, and all sorts of other bad things.  and while it is true that it is your life and you should be able to do what you want with it, i do not think that is the case in this scenario.  for example, take euthanasia.  i am all for it.  if the doctors agree this person will stay brain dead for years, not to mention if the patient themself requests it and pass all the required tests, proving they are making a sane, informed choice.  see that last part there ? i do not think people who are on the brink of suicide are thinking clearly, at least in the vast majority of cases.  hence, i do not think they should be making that choice.  would really hate for people to suffer pain and misery without anyone to help them with it.  all alone.  with nobody to help them.  you can get help.  it is out there and i am sure you have heard it all, but there are options.  from /r/suicidewatch and /r/depression to therapy, meds, meditation, the list goes on.  there is a choice.  at least there still is because you are still here.  have you asked for help ? i know it seems like a given, but being depressed myself, i have felt bitter towards certain people even though i never actually let them in.  i have maintained this mask of everything being okay and judging them for not seeing through it.  let is forget about them for a moment.  they do not matter right now.  you do.  has it occurred to you that it might be selfish towards yourself as weird as that might sound ? that you are taking life and everything that comes with it away from yourself.  that you are cutting the journey short, never to realize and accomplish the things you were supposed to ? because your mind and thinking is clouded right now, what with your depression and all the negativity around you which is totally understandable .  is it the right time to make this kind of decision ? i do not think so.  remember that poster that jumped off a bridge and thankfully survived and said the only thing they wanted was to bring back time and not jump ? yeah.  stay.  who cares if it is selfish or not.  think about yourself and put yourself first.  be selfish like that.   #  the word suicide will enter a lot of your friend is daily vocabulary.   #  when my friend killed himself this summer i i do not know how to finish that sentence.  i was sad.  i was very sad.  i felt guilty too.  i knew he had depression.  did not know it was this bad.  i thought he was doing better.  he was funny and really special.  my grandma said  it is very selfish of him to do that.   other people have said it too and i did not know how to respond to it.  yes i am hurting really bad right now and it is kind of my friend is  fault  for leaving me but selfish sounds like the wrong word.  i realized this.  suicide is selfish.  wanting someone to stay alive for you is also selfish.  almost everything we do in life is selfish but that does not make it wrong.  selfish is not a bad thing.  it is just how we are.  so you want to leave ? okay.  just know that you will leave behind a hole where you were.  the word suicide will enter a lot of your friend is daily vocabulary.  they will keep texting your phone pretending you can read it until someone else gets the number and responds  who is this ?   the one thing to do in this selfish world is to say goodbye at least.  goodbye colin  #  it is ignorant, and born out of a ironically selfish focus on the impact it has on their life.   #  lost someone  very  young and very close to me.  calling it selfish implies they are picking something that benefits themselves over everyone else.  it is ignorant, and born out of a ironically selfish focus on the impact it has on their life.  you you call someone dieing of a punctured lung  selfish  ? no.  likewise suicide is the act of a terminally damaged psyche.  you ca not blame the person.  you just have to live with it.   #  last time it happened it ruined a nice evening i had planned with my wife.   # no i do not.  but i do call a drug addict who steals from me selfish, despite the fact they are also suffering from a disease addiction .  i live in tokyo where suicides often jump in front of trains.  this delays the trains and messes up the lives of thousands and thousands of other people.  by delaying my life the suicide is stealing from me just as surely as a junkie is stealing from me.  if the suicide delays me from getting to my job they are literally stealing money from me.  last time it happened it ruined a nice evening i had planned with my wife.  i think messing up the lives of thousands of other people because you are sad is very selfish.   #  if suicide is anything, it is short sided.   #  you have deleted the content of the post so i ca not expound on the specific points you have made.  my argument is that your fundamental premise is flawed.  you have assigned suicide to the selfish/altruistic spectrum which is a gross oversimplification and incorrect.  i have to circle back to my original statement:   suicide occurs when a person runs out of ways to cope with their problems.  imagine you are thirsty.  the only option you are aware of to quench your thirst is to drink a glass of water.  does drinking that glass of water constitute a selfish act ? no.  it is not altruistic either.  drinking a glass of water when you are thirsty is not a situation that exists in that spectrum.  there might be more effective ways of dealing with thirst, but if you are unaware of them or those methods are unavailable to you, your only option is to drink the glass of water.  if suicide is anything, it is short sided.  pain, pleasure, happiness, and depression are not permanent conditions, they are temporary and fade with time.  on a personal note, in your original post you seemed like you were hurting pretty bad.  i have almost checked out twice before, i know that for me, even if i had a time machine and could go back personally, there is nothing i could have said to change my mind.  but if you ever need someone to listen, i am here.
that is people is favorite counter to suicide it is so selfish.  think of all the people you will be leaving behind.  do you really want them to suffer for your actions ? and the obvious answer is no.  if only there was some way to go quietly, right ? but suicide is up to the person who is doing the act.  it is that person is life.  i see it far more selfish to stop someone from doing what they need to do because you might feel sad.  it is that person is life, they can do what they want with it.   but, imagine all the pain you will be leaving the people.   well, pain sure does suck.  how rude for my depression to inconvenience the people around me.  would really hate for people to suffer pain and misery without anyone to help them with it.  all alone.  with nobody to help them.  now that is selfish.  people do not deserve to feel pain.  to feel lonely and worthless and empty all the fucking time.  it never fucking ends but here is the golden ticket out.  as someone on reddit once said, maybe zero is not so bad when all you have at every second is negative.  why should i care about hurting them when nobody is even bothering to help me, dying inside every instant.  my suicide is not them feeling bad for me, but sad about themselves, masking it as selfishness on my part.  i have heard all the bs before, just change my view please.  i just need you to tell me how selfish i am.   #  it is that person is life, they can do what they want with it.   #  this is largely irrelevant and does not necessarily support your point.   #  it is not necessarily a selfish act but any particular act of suicide could be done for foolishly selfish reasons.  i do not think it should be too hard to conceive of such a situation if if a bit unlikely or absurd.  this is largely irrelevant and does not necessarily support your point.  you can do what you want with lots of things whether they are yours or not.  that does not mean that what you choose to do with these things ca not express selfishness.  the issue is not whether or not any particular act of suicide is selfish or not, almost innately it is something self serving.  but the more pertinent question is how your suicide would effect others which may or may not be in their best interests.  a suicide undertaken in an effort to help people perhaps to provide them with insurance money or to raise awareness of their plight would arguably be different than a suicide undertaken which would have negative repercussions for people for example, if a single parent committed suicide even though no one would provide for their family in their absence .  also.  i think it is probably worth pointing out that situations sometimes change and become more tolerable or even good.  and suicide is something which is, arguably, often undertaken with too much haste and without broader consideration of how suddenly and completely a person is situation can change.  it is, arguably, that irrational lack of insight which makes depression qualify as a psychological disorders.  people can survive in concentration camps and as slaves.  people can survive war zones for years without killing themselves.  and these people do not necessarily survive out of spite or malice but, rather, in the understanding that bad situations change and that they might be more useful alive than dead.   #  when my friend killed himself this summer i i do not know how to finish that sentence.   #  when my friend killed himself this summer i i do not know how to finish that sentence.  i was sad.  i was very sad.  i felt guilty too.  i knew he had depression.  did not know it was this bad.  i thought he was doing better.  he was funny and really special.  my grandma said  it is very selfish of him to do that.   other people have said it too and i did not know how to respond to it.  yes i am hurting really bad right now and it is kind of my friend is  fault  for leaving me but selfish sounds like the wrong word.  i realized this.  suicide is selfish.  wanting someone to stay alive for you is also selfish.  almost everything we do in life is selfish but that does not make it wrong.  selfish is not a bad thing.  it is just how we are.  so you want to leave ? okay.  just know that you will leave behind a hole where you were.  the word suicide will enter a lot of your friend is daily vocabulary.  they will keep texting your phone pretending you can read it until someone else gets the number and responds  who is this ?   the one thing to do in this selfish world is to say goodbye at least.  goodbye colin  #  calling it selfish implies they are picking something that benefits themselves over everyone else.   #  lost someone  very  young and very close to me.  calling it selfish implies they are picking something that benefits themselves over everyone else.  it is ignorant, and born out of a ironically selfish focus on the impact it has on their life.  you you call someone dieing of a punctured lung  selfish  ? no.  likewise suicide is the act of a terminally damaged psyche.  you ca not blame the person.  you just have to live with it.   #  i think messing up the lives of thousands of other people because you are sad is very selfish.   # no i do not.  but i do call a drug addict who steals from me selfish, despite the fact they are also suffering from a disease addiction .  i live in tokyo where suicides often jump in front of trains.  this delays the trains and messes up the lives of thousands and thousands of other people.  by delaying my life the suicide is stealing from me just as surely as a junkie is stealing from me.  if the suicide delays me from getting to my job they are literally stealing money from me.  last time it happened it ruined a nice evening i had planned with my wife.  i think messing up the lives of thousands of other people because you are sad is very selfish.   #  but if you ever need someone to listen, i am here.   #  you have deleted the content of the post so i ca not expound on the specific points you have made.  my argument is that your fundamental premise is flawed.  you have assigned suicide to the selfish/altruistic spectrum which is a gross oversimplification and incorrect.  i have to circle back to my original statement:   suicide occurs when a person runs out of ways to cope with their problems.  imagine you are thirsty.  the only option you are aware of to quench your thirst is to drink a glass of water.  does drinking that glass of water constitute a selfish act ? no.  it is not altruistic either.  drinking a glass of water when you are thirsty is not a situation that exists in that spectrum.  there might be more effective ways of dealing with thirst, but if you are unaware of them or those methods are unavailable to you, your only option is to drink the glass of water.  if suicide is anything, it is short sided.  pain, pleasure, happiness, and depression are not permanent conditions, they are temporary and fade with time.  on a personal note, in your original post you seemed like you were hurting pretty bad.  i have almost checked out twice before, i know that for me, even if i had a time machine and could go back personally, there is nothing i could have said to change my mind.  but if you ever need someone to listen, i am here.
since obama has taken office: we have gotten out of two wars.  osama bin laden is dead.  the economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the djia and nasdaq reaching all time highs.  we now have healthcare.  real estate prices have stabilized.  oil prices are down significantly and america has become the 0 exporter of oil in the world.  unemployment reached a high towards the end of 0 at 0.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  gay marriage is legal in 0 ? states.  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  the economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the djia and nasdaq reaching all time highs.   #  the djia and nasdaq are historically pretty poor indicators of economic performance and economic stability.   #  great president ? i certainly do not think he is as bad of a president as his critics like to paint, but to call him a great president like the trumans, eisenhowers, etc.  to say nothing about the washingtons and lincolns ? debatable.  we are still in afghanistan though the combat mission is over, we are keeping troops there.  we got into new wars including libya under obama.  also, leaving iraq was probably premature we see that isis has taken advantage of us leaving and now we are back in iraq.  i give him credit for launching the mission which if botched would have been on his head.  but the groundwork for said mission was laid out years ago and regardless of who was president, that option would have likely been available.  the djia and nasdaq are historically pretty poor indicators of economic performance and economic stability.  remember, before 0, they were also at record highs and they still came crashing down.  i think obamacare is fine although to be fair, we had healthcare before, just that it was entirely privatized and not possessed by everyone.  and how much of that is obama is doing versus the market stabilizing after the bubble popped ? real estate prices are far more affected by consumer financial well being and interest/borrowing rates which is due to the fed.  truth is, fracking is a big part of that, and the most obama could have been responsible for this is not pushing to ban it.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  and how much of that was obama is doing versus market forces correcting themselves ? not to mention, the wage gap between rich and poor has increased dramatically in the last few years even with the decrease in unemployment.  so even with jobs, we have seen far more underemployment than before.  states.  those are state issues decided by state voters.  obama had nothing to do with those votes.  likewise, gay marriage bans were overturned by the courts in a lot of states.  again, nothing involving obama.  and, for the record, the dea and federal agencies still raided legal dispensaries while he was in office even though he could have stopped that much earlier but did not.  again, i do not think obama is a terrible president, but i think you are giving him far too much credit for things that would have happened regardless of who was in office, or were completely out of his hands e. g.  courts and voters deciding gay marriage and medical marijuana while downplaying poor decisions he did make that are affecting us today.   #  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.   # i think history will reflect that more progress was made for gay marriage and marijuana legalization during this time than any other.  and i think history will reflect that both of those were very good things to have happened.  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.  different branch of government entirely, and he had no hand in it.  likewise, marijuana legalization has been up to the voters of those individual states again, not up to him.  in fact, the dea and other federal police agencies continued to raid dispensaries in states where it was legalized he could have put an end to it but did not.   #  obama had explicitly stated he had no plans to propose a law to legalize marijuana on a federal level.   # we have only just started getting our troops out of afghanistan and iraq.  the us still has a large military presence in the middle east and still engages in drone attacks all over the middle east.  obama did not do this himself.  bush would have authorized taking out osama bin laden as well as any president would have.  obama had no hand in this.  you can thank the federal reserve for our recovery, not the president or congress for that matter; the fiscal side of policy had little to do with our recovery .  we have always had healthcare.  do you think no one had healthcare before the aca was passed ? obama did this ? did he decree that real estate prices act the way they do ? how did obama do this ? how did obama make oil prices drop ? obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  again, the fed.  states.  obama now effects state marriage policy ? obama had explicitly stated he had no plans to propose a law to legalize marijuana on a federal level.  again, does obama now have control ivee state policy ? i think you are really saying  various things have happened that i like while obama has been president  and you throw in that correlation is causation for good measure.  so either you are trolling and i hope not or you are mistaken about correlation and causation.   #  such as $0,0 to fix a broken leg causing health care insurance costs to skyrocket and bloat people with features they do not need.   #  forcing every american to have health insurance that they ca not afford instead of cracking down on greedy health care facilities already ripping them off with ridiculous prices.  such as $0,0 to fix a broken leg causing health care insurance costs to skyrocket and bloat people with features they do not need.  causing jobs to cheap out on working hours so they do not have to provide workers insurance instead of giving the americans a choice of having health insurance benefits at their workplace, or better yet, buy their own insurance.  i would have liked obama care even more if they required jobs to provide health insurance based on an employee is salary.  if an employee is paid less than 0 higher than the state is minimum wage, then the company would have to give them insurance.  in other words, either pay employees more that they can pay for their own insurance, or out them under their plan.  making internet shoppers pay more for their merchandise online instead of telling the physical stores to step up on merchandise selections, better deals and service for their customers.  obama is not an amazing president, just a guy who is cleaning up bush is mess.   #  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.   # have we ? we are still fighting in both afghanistan and iraq.  obama is premature removal of troops from iraq led to the rise of isis, which will force us to end up staying even longer.   osama bin laden is dead.  true, but the fake vaccination program he used to identify bin laden has led to the deaths of many vaccination workers in africa and the middle east, a rise in opposition to vaccination, and the resurgence of polio.  well, he did a great job increasing the stock market and increasing income inequality, but the economy really has not done that amazingly well.  joblessness remains high.  or at least a half measure.  but he does get some credit.  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.  did you mean saudi arabia ? which is horrible.  states.  which is wonderful, but obama was not really at the forefront.  he stopped opposing it, which is a little something.  also wonderful, and something he has opposed.
since obama has taken office: we have gotten out of two wars.  osama bin laden is dead.  the economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the djia and nasdaq reaching all time highs.  we now have healthcare.  real estate prices have stabilized.  oil prices are down significantly and america has become the 0 exporter of oil in the world.  unemployment reached a high towards the end of 0 at 0.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  gay marriage is legal in 0 ? states.  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  oil prices are down significantly and america has become the 0 exporter of oil in the world.   #  truth is, fracking is a big part of that, and the most obama could have been responsible for this is not pushing to ban it.   #  great president ? i certainly do not think he is as bad of a president as his critics like to paint, but to call him a great president like the trumans, eisenhowers, etc.  to say nothing about the washingtons and lincolns ? debatable.  we are still in afghanistan though the combat mission is over, we are keeping troops there.  we got into new wars including libya under obama.  also, leaving iraq was probably premature we see that isis has taken advantage of us leaving and now we are back in iraq.  i give him credit for launching the mission which if botched would have been on his head.  but the groundwork for said mission was laid out years ago and regardless of who was president, that option would have likely been available.  the djia and nasdaq are historically pretty poor indicators of economic performance and economic stability.  remember, before 0, they were also at record highs and they still came crashing down.  i think obamacare is fine although to be fair, we had healthcare before, just that it was entirely privatized and not possessed by everyone.  and how much of that is obama is doing versus the market stabilizing after the bubble popped ? real estate prices are far more affected by consumer financial well being and interest/borrowing rates which is due to the fed.  truth is, fracking is a big part of that, and the most obama could have been responsible for this is not pushing to ban it.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  and how much of that was obama is doing versus market forces correcting themselves ? not to mention, the wage gap between rich and poor has increased dramatically in the last few years even with the decrease in unemployment.  so even with jobs, we have seen far more underemployment than before.  states.  those are state issues decided by state voters.  obama had nothing to do with those votes.  likewise, gay marriage bans were overturned by the courts in a lot of states.  again, nothing involving obama.  and, for the record, the dea and federal agencies still raided legal dispensaries while he was in office even though he could have stopped that much earlier but did not.  again, i do not think obama is a terrible president, but i think you are giving him far too much credit for things that would have happened regardless of who was in office, or were completely out of his hands e. g.  courts and voters deciding gay marriage and medical marijuana while downplaying poor decisions he did make that are affecting us today.   #  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.   # i think history will reflect that more progress was made for gay marriage and marijuana legalization during this time than any other.  and i think history will reflect that both of those were very good things to have happened.  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.  different branch of government entirely, and he had no hand in it.  likewise, marijuana legalization has been up to the voters of those individual states again, not up to him.  in fact, the dea and other federal police agencies continued to raid dispensaries in states where it was legalized he could have put an end to it but did not.   #  again, does obama now have control ivee state policy ?  # we have only just started getting our troops out of afghanistan and iraq.  the us still has a large military presence in the middle east and still engages in drone attacks all over the middle east.  obama did not do this himself.  bush would have authorized taking out osama bin laden as well as any president would have.  obama had no hand in this.  you can thank the federal reserve for our recovery, not the president or congress for that matter; the fiscal side of policy had little to do with our recovery .  we have always had healthcare.  do you think no one had healthcare before the aca was passed ? obama did this ? did he decree that real estate prices act the way they do ? how did obama do this ? how did obama make oil prices drop ? obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  again, the fed.  states.  obama now effects state marriage policy ? obama had explicitly stated he had no plans to propose a law to legalize marijuana on a federal level.  again, does obama now have control ivee state policy ? i think you are really saying  various things have happened that i like while obama has been president  and you throw in that correlation is causation for good measure.  so either you are trolling and i hope not or you are mistaken about correlation and causation.   #  in other words, either pay employees more that they can pay for their own insurance, or out them under their plan.   #  forcing every american to have health insurance that they ca not afford instead of cracking down on greedy health care facilities already ripping them off with ridiculous prices.  such as $0,0 to fix a broken leg causing health care insurance costs to skyrocket and bloat people with features they do not need.  causing jobs to cheap out on working hours so they do not have to provide workers insurance instead of giving the americans a choice of having health insurance benefits at their workplace, or better yet, buy their own insurance.  i would have liked obama care even more if they required jobs to provide health insurance based on an employee is salary.  if an employee is paid less than 0 higher than the state is minimum wage, then the company would have to give them insurance.  in other words, either pay employees more that they can pay for their own insurance, or out them under their plan.  making internet shoppers pay more for their merchandise online instead of telling the physical stores to step up on merchandise selections, better deals and service for their customers.  obama is not an amazing president, just a guy who is cleaning up bush is mess.   #  which is wonderful, but obama was not really at the forefront.   # have we ? we are still fighting in both afghanistan and iraq.  obama is premature removal of troops from iraq led to the rise of isis, which will force us to end up staying even longer.   osama bin laden is dead.  true, but the fake vaccination program he used to identify bin laden has led to the deaths of many vaccination workers in africa and the middle east, a rise in opposition to vaccination, and the resurgence of polio.  well, he did a great job increasing the stock market and increasing income inequality, but the economy really has not done that amazingly well.  joblessness remains high.  or at least a half measure.  but he does get some credit.  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.  did you mean saudi arabia ? which is horrible.  states.  which is wonderful, but obama was not really at the forefront.  he stopped opposing it, which is a little something.  also wonderful, and something he has opposed.
since obama has taken office: we have gotten out of two wars.  osama bin laden is dead.  the economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the djia and nasdaq reaching all time highs.  we now have healthcare.  real estate prices have stabilized.  oil prices are down significantly and america has become the 0 exporter of oil in the world.  unemployment reached a high towards the end of 0 at 0.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  gay marriage is legal in 0 ? states.  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  unemployment reached a high towards the end of 0 at 0.   #  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.   #  great president ? i certainly do not think he is as bad of a president as his critics like to paint, but to call him a great president like the trumans, eisenhowers, etc.  to say nothing about the washingtons and lincolns ? debatable.  we are still in afghanistan though the combat mission is over, we are keeping troops there.  we got into new wars including libya under obama.  also, leaving iraq was probably premature we see that isis has taken advantage of us leaving and now we are back in iraq.  i give him credit for launching the mission which if botched would have been on his head.  but the groundwork for said mission was laid out years ago and regardless of who was president, that option would have likely been available.  the djia and nasdaq are historically pretty poor indicators of economic performance and economic stability.  remember, before 0, they were also at record highs and they still came crashing down.  i think obamacare is fine although to be fair, we had healthcare before, just that it was entirely privatized and not possessed by everyone.  and how much of that is obama is doing versus the market stabilizing after the bubble popped ? real estate prices are far more affected by consumer financial well being and interest/borrowing rates which is due to the fed.  truth is, fracking is a big part of that, and the most obama could have been responsible for this is not pushing to ban it.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  and how much of that was obama is doing versus market forces correcting themselves ? not to mention, the wage gap between rich and poor has increased dramatically in the last few years even with the decrease in unemployment.  so even with jobs, we have seen far more underemployment than before.  states.  those are state issues decided by state voters.  obama had nothing to do with those votes.  likewise, gay marriage bans were overturned by the courts in a lot of states.  again, nothing involving obama.  and, for the record, the dea and federal agencies still raided legal dispensaries while he was in office even though he could have stopped that much earlier but did not.  again, i do not think obama is a terrible president, but i think you are giving him far too much credit for things that would have happened regardless of who was in office, or were completely out of his hands e. g.  courts and voters deciding gay marriage and medical marijuana while downplaying poor decisions he did make that are affecting us today.   #  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.   # i think history will reflect that more progress was made for gay marriage and marijuana legalization during this time than any other.  and i think history will reflect that both of those were very good things to have happened.  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.  different branch of government entirely, and he had no hand in it.  likewise, marijuana legalization has been up to the voters of those individual states again, not up to him.  in fact, the dea and other federal police agencies continued to raid dispensaries in states where it was legalized he could have put an end to it but did not.   #  do you think no one had healthcare before the aca was passed ?  # we have only just started getting our troops out of afghanistan and iraq.  the us still has a large military presence in the middle east and still engages in drone attacks all over the middle east.  obama did not do this himself.  bush would have authorized taking out osama bin laden as well as any president would have.  obama had no hand in this.  you can thank the federal reserve for our recovery, not the president or congress for that matter; the fiscal side of policy had little to do with our recovery .  we have always had healthcare.  do you think no one had healthcare before the aca was passed ? obama did this ? did he decree that real estate prices act the way they do ? how did obama do this ? how did obama make oil prices drop ? obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  again, the fed.  states.  obama now effects state marriage policy ? obama had explicitly stated he had no plans to propose a law to legalize marijuana on a federal level.  again, does obama now have control ivee state policy ? i think you are really saying  various things have happened that i like while obama has been president  and you throw in that correlation is causation for good measure.  so either you are trolling and i hope not or you are mistaken about correlation and causation.   #  obama is not an amazing president, just a guy who is cleaning up bush is mess.   #  forcing every american to have health insurance that they ca not afford instead of cracking down on greedy health care facilities already ripping them off with ridiculous prices.  such as $0,0 to fix a broken leg causing health care insurance costs to skyrocket and bloat people with features they do not need.  causing jobs to cheap out on working hours so they do not have to provide workers insurance instead of giving the americans a choice of having health insurance benefits at their workplace, or better yet, buy their own insurance.  i would have liked obama care even more if they required jobs to provide health insurance based on an employee is salary.  if an employee is paid less than 0 higher than the state is minimum wage, then the company would have to give them insurance.  in other words, either pay employees more that they can pay for their own insurance, or out them under their plan.  making internet shoppers pay more for their merchandise online instead of telling the physical stores to step up on merchandise selections, better deals and service for their customers.  obama is not an amazing president, just a guy who is cleaning up bush is mess.   #  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.   # have we ? we are still fighting in both afghanistan and iraq.  obama is premature removal of troops from iraq led to the rise of isis, which will force us to end up staying even longer.   osama bin laden is dead.  true, but the fake vaccination program he used to identify bin laden has led to the deaths of many vaccination workers in africa and the middle east, a rise in opposition to vaccination, and the resurgence of polio.  well, he did a great job increasing the stock market and increasing income inequality, but the economy really has not done that amazingly well.  joblessness remains high.  or at least a half measure.  but he does get some credit.  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.  did you mean saudi arabia ? which is horrible.  states.  which is wonderful, but obama was not really at the forefront.  he stopped opposing it, which is a little something.  also wonderful, and something he has opposed.
since obama has taken office: we have gotten out of two wars.  osama bin laden is dead.  the economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the djia and nasdaq reaching all time highs.  we now have healthcare.  real estate prices have stabilized.  oil prices are down significantly and america has become the 0 exporter of oil in the world.  unemployment reached a high towards the end of 0 at 0.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  gay marriage is legal in 0 ? states.  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  those are state issues decided by state voters.   #  great president ? i certainly do not think he is as bad of a president as his critics like to paint, but to call him a great president like the trumans, eisenhowers, etc.  to say nothing about the washingtons and lincolns ? debatable.  we are still in afghanistan though the combat mission is over, we are keeping troops there.  we got into new wars including libya under obama.  also, leaving iraq was probably premature we see that isis has taken advantage of us leaving and now we are back in iraq.  i give him credit for launching the mission which if botched would have been on his head.  but the groundwork for said mission was laid out years ago and regardless of who was president, that option would have likely been available.  the djia and nasdaq are historically pretty poor indicators of economic performance and economic stability.  remember, before 0, they were also at record highs and they still came crashing down.  i think obamacare is fine although to be fair, we had healthcare before, just that it was entirely privatized and not possessed by everyone.  and how much of that is obama is doing versus the market stabilizing after the bubble popped ? real estate prices are far more affected by consumer financial well being and interest/borrowing rates which is due to the fed.  truth is, fracking is a big part of that, and the most obama could have been responsible for this is not pushing to ban it.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  and how much of that was obama is doing versus market forces correcting themselves ? not to mention, the wage gap between rich and poor has increased dramatically in the last few years even with the decrease in unemployment.  so even with jobs, we have seen far more underemployment than before.  states.  those are state issues decided by state voters.  obama had nothing to do with those votes.  likewise, gay marriage bans were overturned by the courts in a lot of states.  again, nothing involving obama.  and, for the record, the dea and federal agencies still raided legal dispensaries while he was in office even though he could have stopped that much earlier but did not.  again, i do not think obama is a terrible president, but i think you are giving him far too much credit for things that would have happened regardless of who was in office, or were completely out of his hands e. g.  courts and voters deciding gay marriage and medical marijuana while downplaying poor decisions he did make that are affecting us today.   #  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.   # i think history will reflect that more progress was made for gay marriage and marijuana legalization during this time than any other.  and i think history will reflect that both of those were very good things to have happened.  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.  different branch of government entirely, and he had no hand in it.  likewise, marijuana legalization has been up to the voters of those individual states again, not up to him.  in fact, the dea and other federal police agencies continued to raid dispensaries in states where it was legalized he could have put an end to it but did not.   #  we have only just started getting our troops out of afghanistan and iraq.   # we have only just started getting our troops out of afghanistan and iraq.  the us still has a large military presence in the middle east and still engages in drone attacks all over the middle east.  obama did not do this himself.  bush would have authorized taking out osama bin laden as well as any president would have.  obama had no hand in this.  you can thank the federal reserve for our recovery, not the president or congress for that matter; the fiscal side of policy had little to do with our recovery .  we have always had healthcare.  do you think no one had healthcare before the aca was passed ? obama did this ? did he decree that real estate prices act the way they do ? how did obama do this ? how did obama make oil prices drop ? obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  again, the fed.  states.  obama now effects state marriage policy ? obama had explicitly stated he had no plans to propose a law to legalize marijuana on a federal level.  again, does obama now have control ivee state policy ? i think you are really saying  various things have happened that i like while obama has been president  and you throw in that correlation is causation for good measure.  so either you are trolling and i hope not or you are mistaken about correlation and causation.   #  if an employee is paid less than 0 higher than the state is minimum wage, then the company would have to give them insurance.   #  forcing every american to have health insurance that they ca not afford instead of cracking down on greedy health care facilities already ripping them off with ridiculous prices.  such as $0,0 to fix a broken leg causing health care insurance costs to skyrocket and bloat people with features they do not need.  causing jobs to cheap out on working hours so they do not have to provide workers insurance instead of giving the americans a choice of having health insurance benefits at their workplace, or better yet, buy their own insurance.  i would have liked obama care even more if they required jobs to provide health insurance based on an employee is salary.  if an employee is paid less than 0 higher than the state is minimum wage, then the company would have to give them insurance.  in other words, either pay employees more that they can pay for their own insurance, or out them under their plan.  making internet shoppers pay more for their merchandise online instead of telling the physical stores to step up on merchandise selections, better deals and service for their customers.  obama is not an amazing president, just a guy who is cleaning up bush is mess.   #  which is wonderful, but obama was not really at the forefront.   # have we ? we are still fighting in both afghanistan and iraq.  obama is premature removal of troops from iraq led to the rise of isis, which will force us to end up staying even longer.   osama bin laden is dead.  true, but the fake vaccination program he used to identify bin laden has led to the deaths of many vaccination workers in africa and the middle east, a rise in opposition to vaccination, and the resurgence of polio.  well, he did a great job increasing the stock market and increasing income inequality, but the economy really has not done that amazingly well.  joblessness remains high.  or at least a half measure.  but he does get some credit.  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.  did you mean saudi arabia ? which is horrible.  states.  which is wonderful, but obama was not really at the forefront.  he stopped opposing it, which is a little something.  also wonderful, and something he has opposed.
since obama has taken office: we have gotten out of two wars.  osama bin laden is dead.  the economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the djia and nasdaq reaching all time highs.  we now have healthcare.  real estate prices have stabilized.  oil prices are down significantly and america has become the 0 exporter of oil in the world.  unemployment reached a high towards the end of 0 at 0.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  gay marriage is legal in 0 ? states.  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  unemployment reached a high towards the end of 0 at 0.   #  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.   # we have only just started getting our troops out of afghanistan and iraq.  the us still has a large military presence in the middle east and still engages in drone attacks all over the middle east.  obama did not do this himself.  bush would have authorized taking out osama bin laden as well as any president would have.  obama had no hand in this.  you can thank the federal reserve for our recovery, not the president or congress for that matter; the fiscal side of policy had little to do with our recovery .  we have always had healthcare.  do you think no one had healthcare before the aca was passed ? obama did this ? did he decree that real estate prices act the way they do ? how did obama do this ? how did obama make oil prices drop ? obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  again, the fed.  states.  obama now effects state marriage policy ? obama had explicitly stated he had no plans to propose a law to legalize marijuana on a federal level.  again, does obama now have control ivee state policy ? i think you are really saying  various things have happened that i like while obama has been president  and you throw in that correlation is causation for good measure.  so either you are trolling and i hope not or you are mistaken about correlation and causation.   #  we are still in afghanistan though the combat mission is over, we are keeping troops there.   #  great president ? i certainly do not think he is as bad of a president as his critics like to paint, but to call him a great president like the trumans, eisenhowers, etc.  to say nothing about the washingtons and lincolns ? debatable.  we are still in afghanistan though the combat mission is over, we are keeping troops there.  we got into new wars including libya under obama.  also, leaving iraq was probably premature we see that isis has taken advantage of us leaving and now we are back in iraq.  i give him credit for launching the mission which if botched would have been on his head.  but the groundwork for said mission was laid out years ago and regardless of who was president, that option would have likely been available.  the djia and nasdaq are historically pretty poor indicators of economic performance and economic stability.  remember, before 0, they were also at record highs and they still came crashing down.  i think obamacare is fine although to be fair, we had healthcare before, just that it was entirely privatized and not possessed by everyone.  and how much of that is obama is doing versus the market stabilizing after the bubble popped ? real estate prices are far more affected by consumer financial well being and interest/borrowing rates which is due to the fed.  truth is, fracking is a big part of that, and the most obama could have been responsible for this is not pushing to ban it.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  and how much of that was obama is doing versus market forces correcting themselves ? not to mention, the wage gap between rich and poor has increased dramatically in the last few years even with the decrease in unemployment.  so even with jobs, we have seen far more underemployment than before.  states.  those are state issues decided by state voters.  obama had nothing to do with those votes.  likewise, gay marriage bans were overturned by the courts in a lot of states.  again, nothing involving obama.  and, for the record, the dea and federal agencies still raided legal dispensaries while he was in office even though he could have stopped that much earlier but did not.  again, i do not think obama is a terrible president, but i think you are giving him far too much credit for things that would have happened regardless of who was in office, or were completely out of his hands e. g.  courts and voters deciding gay marriage and medical marijuana while downplaying poor decisions he did make that are affecting us today.   #  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.   # i think history will reflect that more progress was made for gay marriage and marijuana legalization during this time than any other.  and i think history will reflect that both of those were very good things to have happened.  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.  different branch of government entirely, and he had no hand in it.  likewise, marijuana legalization has been up to the voters of those individual states again, not up to him.  in fact, the dea and other federal police agencies continued to raid dispensaries in states where it was legalized he could have put an end to it but did not.   #  forcing every american to have health insurance that they ca not afford instead of cracking down on greedy health care facilities already ripping them off with ridiculous prices.   #  forcing every american to have health insurance that they ca not afford instead of cracking down on greedy health care facilities already ripping them off with ridiculous prices.  such as $0,0 to fix a broken leg causing health care insurance costs to skyrocket and bloat people with features they do not need.  causing jobs to cheap out on working hours so they do not have to provide workers insurance instead of giving the americans a choice of having health insurance benefits at their workplace, or better yet, buy their own insurance.  i would have liked obama care even more if they required jobs to provide health insurance based on an employee is salary.  if an employee is paid less than 0 higher than the state is minimum wage, then the company would have to give them insurance.  in other words, either pay employees more that they can pay for their own insurance, or out them under their plan.  making internet shoppers pay more for their merchandise online instead of telling the physical stores to step up on merchandise selections, better deals and service for their customers.  obama is not an amazing president, just a guy who is cleaning up bush is mess.   #  he stopped opposing it, which is a little something.   # have we ? we are still fighting in both afghanistan and iraq.  obama is premature removal of troops from iraq led to the rise of isis, which will force us to end up staying even longer.   osama bin laden is dead.  true, but the fake vaccination program he used to identify bin laden has led to the deaths of many vaccination workers in africa and the middle east, a rise in opposition to vaccination, and the resurgence of polio.  well, he did a great job increasing the stock market and increasing income inequality, but the economy really has not done that amazingly well.  joblessness remains high.  or at least a half measure.  but he does get some credit.  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.  did you mean saudi arabia ? which is horrible.  states.  which is wonderful, but obama was not really at the forefront.  he stopped opposing it, which is a little something.  also wonderful, and something he has opposed.
since obama has taken office: we have gotten out of two wars.  osama bin laden is dead.  the economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the djia and nasdaq reaching all time highs.  we now have healthcare.  real estate prices have stabilized.  oil prices are down significantly and america has become the 0 exporter of oil in the world.  unemployment reached a high towards the end of 0 at 0.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  gay marriage is legal in 0 ? states.  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  obama had explicitly stated he had no plans to propose a law to legalize marijuana on a federal level.   # we have only just started getting our troops out of afghanistan and iraq.  the us still has a large military presence in the middle east and still engages in drone attacks all over the middle east.  obama did not do this himself.  bush would have authorized taking out osama bin laden as well as any president would have.  obama had no hand in this.  you can thank the federal reserve for our recovery, not the president or congress for that matter; the fiscal side of policy had little to do with our recovery .  we have always had healthcare.  do you think no one had healthcare before the aca was passed ? obama did this ? did he decree that real estate prices act the way they do ? how did obama do this ? how did obama make oil prices drop ? obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  again, the fed.  states.  obama now effects state marriage policy ? obama had explicitly stated he had no plans to propose a law to legalize marijuana on a federal level.  again, does obama now have control ivee state policy ? i think you are really saying  various things have happened that i like while obama has been president  and you throw in that correlation is causation for good measure.  so either you are trolling and i hope not or you are mistaken about correlation and causation.   #  courts and voters deciding gay marriage and medical marijuana while downplaying poor decisions he did make that are affecting us today.   #  great president ? i certainly do not think he is as bad of a president as his critics like to paint, but to call him a great president like the trumans, eisenhowers, etc.  to say nothing about the washingtons and lincolns ? debatable.  we are still in afghanistan though the combat mission is over, we are keeping troops there.  we got into new wars including libya under obama.  also, leaving iraq was probably premature we see that isis has taken advantage of us leaving and now we are back in iraq.  i give him credit for launching the mission which if botched would have been on his head.  but the groundwork for said mission was laid out years ago and regardless of who was president, that option would have likely been available.  the djia and nasdaq are historically pretty poor indicators of economic performance and economic stability.  remember, before 0, they were also at record highs and they still came crashing down.  i think obamacare is fine although to be fair, we had healthcare before, just that it was entirely privatized and not possessed by everyone.  and how much of that is obama is doing versus the market stabilizing after the bubble popped ? real estate prices are far more affected by consumer financial well being and interest/borrowing rates which is due to the fed.  truth is, fracking is a big part of that, and the most obama could have been responsible for this is not pushing to ban it.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  and how much of that was obama is doing versus market forces correcting themselves ? not to mention, the wage gap between rich and poor has increased dramatically in the last few years even with the decrease in unemployment.  so even with jobs, we have seen far more underemployment than before.  states.  those are state issues decided by state voters.  obama had nothing to do with those votes.  likewise, gay marriage bans were overturned by the courts in a lot of states.  again, nothing involving obama.  and, for the record, the dea and federal agencies still raided legal dispensaries while he was in office even though he could have stopped that much earlier but did not.  again, i do not think obama is a terrible president, but i think you are giving him far too much credit for things that would have happened regardless of who was in office, or were completely out of his hands e. g.  courts and voters deciding gay marriage and medical marijuana while downplaying poor decisions he did make that are affecting us today.   #  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.   # i think history will reflect that more progress was made for gay marriage and marijuana legalization during this time than any other.  and i think history will reflect that both of those were very good things to have happened.  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.  different branch of government entirely, and he had no hand in it.  likewise, marijuana legalization has been up to the voters of those individual states again, not up to him.  in fact, the dea and other federal police agencies continued to raid dispensaries in states where it was legalized he could have put an end to it but did not.   #  forcing every american to have health insurance that they ca not afford instead of cracking down on greedy health care facilities already ripping them off with ridiculous prices.   #  forcing every american to have health insurance that they ca not afford instead of cracking down on greedy health care facilities already ripping them off with ridiculous prices.  such as $0,0 to fix a broken leg causing health care insurance costs to skyrocket and bloat people with features they do not need.  causing jobs to cheap out on working hours so they do not have to provide workers insurance instead of giving the americans a choice of having health insurance benefits at their workplace, or better yet, buy their own insurance.  i would have liked obama care even more if they required jobs to provide health insurance based on an employee is salary.  if an employee is paid less than 0 higher than the state is minimum wage, then the company would have to give them insurance.  in other words, either pay employees more that they can pay for their own insurance, or out them under their plan.  making internet shoppers pay more for their merchandise online instead of telling the physical stores to step up on merchandise selections, better deals and service for their customers.  obama is not an amazing president, just a guy who is cleaning up bush is mess.   #  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.   # have we ? we are still fighting in both afghanistan and iraq.  obama is premature removal of troops from iraq led to the rise of isis, which will force us to end up staying even longer.   osama bin laden is dead.  true, but the fake vaccination program he used to identify bin laden has led to the deaths of many vaccination workers in africa and the middle east, a rise in opposition to vaccination, and the resurgence of polio.  well, he did a great job increasing the stock market and increasing income inequality, but the economy really has not done that amazingly well.  joblessness remains high.  or at least a half measure.  but he does get some credit.  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.  did you mean saudi arabia ? which is horrible.  states.  which is wonderful, but obama was not really at the forefront.  he stopped opposing it, which is a little something.  also wonderful, and something he has opposed.
since obama has taken office: we have gotten out of two wars.  osama bin laden is dead.  the economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the djia and nasdaq reaching all time highs.  we now have healthcare.  real estate prices have stabilized.  oil prices are down significantly and america has become the 0 exporter of oil in the world.  unemployment reached a high towards the end of 0 at 0.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  gay marriage is legal in 0 ? states.  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  the economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the djia and nasdaq reaching all time highs.   #  well, he did a great job increasing the stock market and increasing income inequality, but the economy really has not done that amazingly well.   # have we ? we are still fighting in both afghanistan and iraq.  obama is premature removal of troops from iraq led to the rise of isis, which will force us to end up staying even longer.   osama bin laden is dead.  true, but the fake vaccination program he used to identify bin laden has led to the deaths of many vaccination workers in africa and the middle east, a rise in opposition to vaccination, and the resurgence of polio.  well, he did a great job increasing the stock market and increasing income inequality, but the economy really has not done that amazingly well.  joblessness remains high.  or at least a half measure.  but he does get some credit.  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.  did you mean saudi arabia ? which is horrible.  states.  which is wonderful, but obama was not really at the forefront.  he stopped opposing it, which is a little something.  also wonderful, and something he has opposed.   #  so even with jobs, we have seen far more underemployment than before.   #  great president ? i certainly do not think he is as bad of a president as his critics like to paint, but to call him a great president like the trumans, eisenhowers, etc.  to say nothing about the washingtons and lincolns ? debatable.  we are still in afghanistan though the combat mission is over, we are keeping troops there.  we got into new wars including libya under obama.  also, leaving iraq was probably premature we see that isis has taken advantage of us leaving and now we are back in iraq.  i give him credit for launching the mission which if botched would have been on his head.  but the groundwork for said mission was laid out years ago and regardless of who was president, that option would have likely been available.  the djia and nasdaq are historically pretty poor indicators of economic performance and economic stability.  remember, before 0, they were also at record highs and they still came crashing down.  i think obamacare is fine although to be fair, we had healthcare before, just that it was entirely privatized and not possessed by everyone.  and how much of that is obama is doing versus the market stabilizing after the bubble popped ? real estate prices are far more affected by consumer financial well being and interest/borrowing rates which is due to the fed.  truth is, fracking is a big part of that, and the most obama could have been responsible for this is not pushing to ban it.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  and how much of that was obama is doing versus market forces correcting themselves ? not to mention, the wage gap between rich and poor has increased dramatically in the last few years even with the decrease in unemployment.  so even with jobs, we have seen far more underemployment than before.  states.  those are state issues decided by state voters.  obama had nothing to do with those votes.  likewise, gay marriage bans were overturned by the courts in a lot of states.  again, nothing involving obama.  and, for the record, the dea and federal agencies still raided legal dispensaries while he was in office even though he could have stopped that much earlier but did not.  again, i do not think obama is a terrible president, but i think you are giving him far too much credit for things that would have happened regardless of who was in office, or were completely out of his hands e. g.  courts and voters deciding gay marriage and medical marijuana while downplaying poor decisions he did make that are affecting us today.   #  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.   # i think history will reflect that more progress was made for gay marriage and marijuana legalization during this time than any other.  and i think history will reflect that both of those were very good things to have happened.  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.  different branch of government entirely, and he had no hand in it.  likewise, marijuana legalization has been up to the voters of those individual states again, not up to him.  in fact, the dea and other federal police agencies continued to raid dispensaries in states where it was legalized he could have put an end to it but did not.   #  bush would have authorized taking out osama bin laden as well as any president would have.   # we have only just started getting our troops out of afghanistan and iraq.  the us still has a large military presence in the middle east and still engages in drone attacks all over the middle east.  obama did not do this himself.  bush would have authorized taking out osama bin laden as well as any president would have.  obama had no hand in this.  you can thank the federal reserve for our recovery, not the president or congress for that matter; the fiscal side of policy had little to do with our recovery .  we have always had healthcare.  do you think no one had healthcare before the aca was passed ? obama did this ? did he decree that real estate prices act the way they do ? how did obama do this ? how did obama make oil prices drop ? obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  again, the fed.  states.  obama now effects state marriage policy ? obama had explicitly stated he had no plans to propose a law to legalize marijuana on a federal level.  again, does obama now have control ivee state policy ? i think you are really saying  various things have happened that i like while obama has been president  and you throw in that correlation is causation for good measure.  so either you are trolling and i hope not or you are mistaken about correlation and causation.   #  i would have liked obama care even more if they required jobs to provide health insurance based on an employee is salary.   #  forcing every american to have health insurance that they ca not afford instead of cracking down on greedy health care facilities already ripping them off with ridiculous prices.  such as $0,0 to fix a broken leg causing health care insurance costs to skyrocket and bloat people with features they do not need.  causing jobs to cheap out on working hours so they do not have to provide workers insurance instead of giving the americans a choice of having health insurance benefits at their workplace, or better yet, buy their own insurance.  i would have liked obama care even more if they required jobs to provide health insurance based on an employee is salary.  if an employee is paid less than 0 higher than the state is minimum wage, then the company would have to give them insurance.  in other words, either pay employees more that they can pay for their own insurance, or out them under their plan.  making internet shoppers pay more for their merchandise online instead of telling the physical stores to step up on merchandise selections, better deals and service for their customers.  obama is not an amazing president, just a guy who is cleaning up bush is mess.
since obama has taken office: we have gotten out of two wars.  osama bin laden is dead.  the economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the djia and nasdaq reaching all time highs.  we now have healthcare.  real estate prices have stabilized.  oil prices are down significantly and america has become the 0 exporter of oil in the world.  unemployment reached a high towards the end of 0 at 0.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  gay marriage is legal in 0 ? states.  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states.   #  also wonderful, and something he has opposed.   # have we ? we are still fighting in both afghanistan and iraq.  obama is premature removal of troops from iraq led to the rise of isis, which will force us to end up staying even longer.   osama bin laden is dead.  true, but the fake vaccination program he used to identify bin laden has led to the deaths of many vaccination workers in africa and the middle east, a rise in opposition to vaccination, and the resurgence of polio.  well, he did a great job increasing the stock market and increasing income inequality, but the economy really has not done that amazingly well.  joblessness remains high.  or at least a half measure.  but he does get some credit.  that was easy real estate ca not really fall that far.  did you mean saudi arabia ? which is horrible.  states.  which is wonderful, but obama was not really at the forefront.  he stopped opposing it, which is a little something.  also wonderful, and something he has opposed.   #  the djia and nasdaq are historically pretty poor indicators of economic performance and economic stability.   #  great president ? i certainly do not think he is as bad of a president as his critics like to paint, but to call him a great president like the trumans, eisenhowers, etc.  to say nothing about the washingtons and lincolns ? debatable.  we are still in afghanistan though the combat mission is over, we are keeping troops there.  we got into new wars including libya under obama.  also, leaving iraq was probably premature we see that isis has taken advantage of us leaving and now we are back in iraq.  i give him credit for launching the mission which if botched would have been on his head.  but the groundwork for said mission was laid out years ago and regardless of who was president, that option would have likely been available.  the djia and nasdaq are historically pretty poor indicators of economic performance and economic stability.  remember, before 0, they were also at record highs and they still came crashing down.  i think obamacare is fine although to be fair, we had healthcare before, just that it was entirely privatized and not possessed by everyone.  and how much of that is obama is doing versus the market stabilizing after the bubble popped ? real estate prices are far more affected by consumer financial well being and interest/borrowing rates which is due to the fed.  truth is, fracking is a big part of that, and the most obama could have been responsible for this is not pushing to ban it.  obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  and how much of that was obama is doing versus market forces correcting themselves ? not to mention, the wage gap between rich and poor has increased dramatically in the last few years even with the decrease in unemployment.  so even with jobs, we have seen far more underemployment than before.  states.  those are state issues decided by state voters.  obama had nothing to do with those votes.  likewise, gay marriage bans were overturned by the courts in a lot of states.  again, nothing involving obama.  and, for the record, the dea and federal agencies still raided legal dispensaries while he was in office even though he could have stopped that much earlier but did not.  again, i do not think obama is a terrible president, but i think you are giving him far too much credit for things that would have happened regardless of who was in office, or were completely out of his hands e. g.  courts and voters deciding gay marriage and medical marijuana while downplaying poor decisions he did make that are affecting us today.   #  and i think history will reflect that both of those were very good things to have happened.   # i think history will reflect that more progress was made for gay marriage and marijuana legalization during this time than any other.  and i think history will reflect that both of those were very good things to have happened.  repealing dadt was absolutely his job and i applaud it.  however, repealing gay marriage bans was not his job it was up to the courts of those states and federal judges.  different branch of government entirely, and he had no hand in it.  likewise, marijuana legalization has been up to the voters of those individual states again, not up to him.  in fact, the dea and other federal police agencies continued to raid dispensaries in states where it was legalized he could have put an end to it but did not.   #  bush would have authorized taking out osama bin laden as well as any president would have.   # we have only just started getting our troops out of afghanistan and iraq.  the us still has a large military presence in the middle east and still engages in drone attacks all over the middle east.  obama did not do this himself.  bush would have authorized taking out osama bin laden as well as any president would have.  obama had no hand in this.  you can thank the federal reserve for our recovery, not the president or congress for that matter; the fiscal side of policy had little to do with our recovery .  we have always had healthcare.  do you think no one had healthcare before the aca was passed ? obama did this ? did he decree that real estate prices act the way they do ? how did obama do this ? how did obama make oil prices drop ? obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall.  it now sits at 0.  again, the fed.  states.  obama now effects state marriage policy ? obama had explicitly stated he had no plans to propose a law to legalize marijuana on a federal level.  again, does obama now have control ivee state policy ? i think you are really saying  various things have happened that i like while obama has been president  and you throw in that correlation is causation for good measure.  so either you are trolling and i hope not or you are mistaken about correlation and causation.   #  if an employee is paid less than 0 higher than the state is minimum wage, then the company would have to give them insurance.   #  forcing every american to have health insurance that they ca not afford instead of cracking down on greedy health care facilities already ripping them off with ridiculous prices.  such as $0,0 to fix a broken leg causing health care insurance costs to skyrocket and bloat people with features they do not need.  causing jobs to cheap out on working hours so they do not have to provide workers insurance instead of giving the americans a choice of having health insurance benefits at their workplace, or better yet, buy their own insurance.  i would have liked obama care even more if they required jobs to provide health insurance based on an employee is salary.  if an employee is paid less than 0 higher than the state is minimum wage, then the company would have to give them insurance.  in other words, either pay employees more that they can pay for their own insurance, or out them under their plan.  making internet shoppers pay more for their merchandise online instead of telling the physical stores to step up on merchandise selections, better deals and service for their customers.  obama is not an amazing president, just a guy who is cleaning up bush is mess.
i know this is a widely hated view in the gay community however, i just ca not help seeing the truth in it.  so i am a firm believer in cultural relativism, that you can not judge a culture base off of morals or societal norms you gained from your own culture.  so we have example one, that being gay is okay because we have seen it throughout history in many different cultures, the greeks being a prime example.  however they also were constant offenders of pedophilia, forcing twelve year old boys to give oral sex to grown men.  we bring up pacific island cultures, that idolize drag queens and transgenders, however there are also cultures where the women teach the 0 year old boys how to have sex.  how can the first be okay but not the second.  they are both acceptable in their respective cultures just one is deemed disgusting in our culture.  we bring up animals, point out how so many different species have gay relationships, but animals also start having sex as soon as they are able to produce babies, which is like twelve for us.  being gay is natural, being a pedophile is natural, we see both through out history and across species lines.  neither are the  norm  but are widely accepted in many cultures.  however, westernized cultures have deemed sex with children to be wrong.  i ask a westerner what they think about pedophilia they say its disgusting.  its the same when i ask a homophobic christians what they think about gay people, they say it is disgusting.  both are view points that have been instilled in those people through their culture.  since it is widely accepted that pedophilia is bad, i feel like the gay community gets defensive and tries to distant themselves for pedophilia, when in truth they are very much alike.  before i get all the messages of being homophobic or being a child molester, i figured i would state my views.  i am in full support of the gay community, i have a gay sister that i love very dearly.  i am in noway condoning or promoting pedophilia i too find it disgusting and wrong but understand that that viewpoint is a product of the society i grew up in.  p. s.  apologize for the hurt feeling, i understand i could have worded the title a little bit better.   #  so we have example one, that being gay is okay because we have seen it throughout history in many different cultures, the greeks being a prime example.   #  being gay is okay because it harms nobody and enables happiness.   # being gay is okay because it harms nobody and enables happiness.  it has nothing to do with a history of homosexuality.  how can the first be okay but not the second.  because one is harmful behavior with victims, and the other is not.  since it is widely accepted that pedophilia is bad, i feel like the gay community gets defensive and tries to distant themselves for pedophilia, when in truth they are very much alike.  pedophilia is bad because it victimizes children.  homosexuality victimizes nobody.  one is bad because of it is consequences, the other is  bad  because  ewww .   #  pedophilia involves forcing and/or manipulating children into these situations.   #  you have not really addressed any of my points.  even in your initial post you give the example of  forcing  0 year olds to perform sex acts on grown men.  pedophilia involves forcing and/or manipulating children into these situations.  homosexuality is completely voluntary.  those societies no longer exist, so i am not sure how it  worked  for them.  if anything, it contributed to their downfall.  barbaric rituals from extinct societies are not how we determine right from wrong.  there are some fairly objective standards we can use to say it is wrong.  does it harm people ? yes   is it voluntary ? no   does it serve any purpose that would justify it ? no  #  incorrect there are still african and pacific island culture that practice by our standards pedophilia.   #  ok to your points than i will make sure sure i address them clearly sorry.  sorry do not know how to to the quoty thing.   those societies no longer exist.   incorrect there are still african and pacific island culture that practice by our standards pedophilia.  your objective standards on circumcision does it harm people ? yes is it voluntary ? no does it serve any purpose that would justify it ? no are you saying that the majority of parent in america are bad people for circumcising their kids  #  assuming those benefits were overstated, i would agree that the parents are wrong to make that decision.   # your prime example was the greeks.  are these island cultures pretty successful ? what about these societies makes them worthy of emulation ? the mere fact that other societies are okay with pedophilia does not matter; you have to show that these societies benefit from that stance.  assuming those benefits were overstated, i would agree that the parents are wrong to make that decision.  however, it is not bad to the same degree as pedophilia.  the harm that comes from male circumcision is relatively minor compared to the harm from sexually abusing a child.  i would never argue the two are closely related, and you are not born with a predisposition to circumcise children.   #  pro gay sex vs pro pedophilia would have been better your right.   #  pro gay sex vs pro pedophilia would have been better your right.  i had an argument with my sister about this and we discussed the title before i posted it and we could not think of a more politically correct way of saying it.  sorry did not mean to offend.  although i will say that the post was kind of meant to understand the offensiveness gay people get when being compared to pedophilia.  i understand the negative stigma toward it in our culture but besides that i feel they still relate to each other.  if not used to obviously criminalize the gay community i do not feel like it should be that offensive.
i know this is a widely hated view in the gay community however, i just ca not help seeing the truth in it.  so i am a firm believer in cultural relativism, that you can not judge a culture base off of morals or societal norms you gained from your own culture.  so we have example one, that being gay is okay because we have seen it throughout history in many different cultures, the greeks being a prime example.  however they also were constant offenders of pedophilia, forcing twelve year old boys to give oral sex to grown men.  we bring up pacific island cultures, that idolize drag queens and transgenders, however there are also cultures where the women teach the 0 year old boys how to have sex.  how can the first be okay but not the second.  they are both acceptable in their respective cultures just one is deemed disgusting in our culture.  we bring up animals, point out how so many different species have gay relationships, but animals also start having sex as soon as they are able to produce babies, which is like twelve for us.  being gay is natural, being a pedophile is natural, we see both through out history and across species lines.  neither are the  norm  but are widely accepted in many cultures.  however, westernized cultures have deemed sex with children to be wrong.  i ask a westerner what they think about pedophilia they say its disgusting.  its the same when i ask a homophobic christians what they think about gay people, they say it is disgusting.  both are view points that have been instilled in those people through their culture.  since it is widely accepted that pedophilia is bad, i feel like the gay community gets defensive and tries to distant themselves for pedophilia, when in truth they are very much alike.  before i get all the messages of being homophobic or being a child molester, i figured i would state my views.  i am in full support of the gay community, i have a gay sister that i love very dearly.  i am in noway condoning or promoting pedophilia i too find it disgusting and wrong but understand that that viewpoint is a product of the society i grew up in.  p. s.  apologize for the hurt feeling, i understand i could have worded the title a little bit better.   #  we bring up pacific island cultures, that idolize drag queens and transgenders, however there are also cultures where the women teach the 0 year old boys how to have sex.   #  how can the first be okay but not the second.   # being gay is okay because it harms nobody and enables happiness.  it has nothing to do with a history of homosexuality.  how can the first be okay but not the second.  because one is harmful behavior with victims, and the other is not.  since it is widely accepted that pedophilia is bad, i feel like the gay community gets defensive and tries to distant themselves for pedophilia, when in truth they are very much alike.  pedophilia is bad because it victimizes children.  homosexuality victimizes nobody.  one is bad because of it is consequences, the other is  bad  because  ewww .   #  you have not really addressed any of my points.   #  you have not really addressed any of my points.  even in your initial post you give the example of  forcing  0 year olds to perform sex acts on grown men.  pedophilia involves forcing and/or manipulating children into these situations.  homosexuality is completely voluntary.  those societies no longer exist, so i am not sure how it  worked  for them.  if anything, it contributed to their downfall.  barbaric rituals from extinct societies are not how we determine right from wrong.  there are some fairly objective standards we can use to say it is wrong.  does it harm people ? yes   is it voluntary ? no   does it serve any purpose that would justify it ? no  #  your objective standards on circumcision does it harm people ?  #  ok to your points than i will make sure sure i address them clearly sorry.  sorry do not know how to to the quoty thing.   those societies no longer exist.   incorrect there are still african and pacific island culture that practice by our standards pedophilia.  your objective standards on circumcision does it harm people ? yes is it voluntary ? no does it serve any purpose that would justify it ? no are you saying that the majority of parent in america are bad people for circumcising their kids  #  what about these societies makes them worthy of emulation ?  # your prime example was the greeks.  are these island cultures pretty successful ? what about these societies makes them worthy of emulation ? the mere fact that other societies are okay with pedophilia does not matter; you have to show that these societies benefit from that stance.  assuming those benefits were overstated, i would agree that the parents are wrong to make that decision.  however, it is not bad to the same degree as pedophilia.  the harm that comes from male circumcision is relatively minor compared to the harm from sexually abusing a child.  i would never argue the two are closely related, and you are not born with a predisposition to circumcise children.   #  although i will say that the post was kind of meant to understand the offensiveness gay people get when being compared to pedophilia.   #  pro gay sex vs pro pedophilia would have been better your right.  i had an argument with my sister about this and we discussed the title before i posted it and we could not think of a more politically correct way of saying it.  sorry did not mean to offend.  although i will say that the post was kind of meant to understand the offensiveness gay people get when being compared to pedophilia.  i understand the negative stigma toward it in our culture but besides that i feel they still relate to each other.  if not used to obviously criminalize the gay community i do not feel like it should be that offensive.
i know this is a widely hated view in the gay community however, i just ca not help seeing the truth in it.  so i am a firm believer in cultural relativism, that you can not judge a culture base off of morals or societal norms you gained from your own culture.  so we have example one, that being gay is okay because we have seen it throughout history in many different cultures, the greeks being a prime example.  however they also were constant offenders of pedophilia, forcing twelve year old boys to give oral sex to grown men.  we bring up pacific island cultures, that idolize drag queens and transgenders, however there are also cultures where the women teach the 0 year old boys how to have sex.  how can the first be okay but not the second.  they are both acceptable in their respective cultures just one is deemed disgusting in our culture.  we bring up animals, point out how so many different species have gay relationships, but animals also start having sex as soon as they are able to produce babies, which is like twelve for us.  being gay is natural, being a pedophile is natural, we see both through out history and across species lines.  neither are the  norm  but are widely accepted in many cultures.  however, westernized cultures have deemed sex with children to be wrong.  i ask a westerner what they think about pedophilia they say its disgusting.  its the same when i ask a homophobic christians what they think about gay people, they say it is disgusting.  both are view points that have been instilled in those people through their culture.  since it is widely accepted that pedophilia is bad, i feel like the gay community gets defensive and tries to distant themselves for pedophilia, when in truth they are very much alike.  before i get all the messages of being homophobic or being a child molester, i figured i would state my views.  i am in full support of the gay community, i have a gay sister that i love very dearly.  i am in noway condoning or promoting pedophilia i too find it disgusting and wrong but understand that that viewpoint is a product of the society i grew up in.  p. s.  apologize for the hurt feeling, i understand i could have worded the title a little bit better.   #  both are view points that have been instilled in those people through their culture.   #  since it is widely accepted that pedophilia is bad, i feel like the gay community gets defensive and tries to distant themselves for pedophilia, when in truth they are very much alike.   # being gay is okay because it harms nobody and enables happiness.  it has nothing to do with a history of homosexuality.  how can the first be okay but not the second.  because one is harmful behavior with victims, and the other is not.  since it is widely accepted that pedophilia is bad, i feel like the gay community gets defensive and tries to distant themselves for pedophilia, when in truth they are very much alike.  pedophilia is bad because it victimizes children.  homosexuality victimizes nobody.  one is bad because of it is consequences, the other is  bad  because  ewww .   #  there are some fairly objective standards we can use to say it is wrong.   #  you have not really addressed any of my points.  even in your initial post you give the example of  forcing  0 year olds to perform sex acts on grown men.  pedophilia involves forcing and/or manipulating children into these situations.  homosexuality is completely voluntary.  those societies no longer exist, so i am not sure how it  worked  for them.  if anything, it contributed to their downfall.  barbaric rituals from extinct societies are not how we determine right from wrong.  there are some fairly objective standards we can use to say it is wrong.  does it harm people ? yes   is it voluntary ? no   does it serve any purpose that would justify it ? no  #  incorrect there are still african and pacific island culture that practice by our standards pedophilia.   #  ok to your points than i will make sure sure i address them clearly sorry.  sorry do not know how to to the quoty thing.   those societies no longer exist.   incorrect there are still african and pacific island culture that practice by our standards pedophilia.  your objective standards on circumcision does it harm people ? yes is it voluntary ? no does it serve any purpose that would justify it ? no are you saying that the majority of parent in america are bad people for circumcising their kids  #  however, it is not bad to the same degree as pedophilia.   # your prime example was the greeks.  are these island cultures pretty successful ? what about these societies makes them worthy of emulation ? the mere fact that other societies are okay with pedophilia does not matter; you have to show that these societies benefit from that stance.  assuming those benefits were overstated, i would agree that the parents are wrong to make that decision.  however, it is not bad to the same degree as pedophilia.  the harm that comes from male circumcision is relatively minor compared to the harm from sexually abusing a child.  i would never argue the two are closely related, and you are not born with a predisposition to circumcise children.   #  pro gay sex vs pro pedophilia would have been better your right.   #  pro gay sex vs pro pedophilia would have been better your right.  i had an argument with my sister about this and we discussed the title before i posted it and we could not think of a more politically correct way of saying it.  sorry did not mean to offend.  although i will say that the post was kind of meant to understand the offensiveness gay people get when being compared to pedophilia.  i understand the negative stigma toward it in our culture but besides that i feel they still relate to each other.  if not used to obviously criminalize the gay community i do not feel like it should be that offensive.
op below: i have been struck by the bloggers and talking heads all repeating the 0 figure, while at the same time i was reading accounts by trial lawyers who all seemed to place the rate much higher.  with no agenda, i grew curious about this statistic and checked into it.  the overwhelming consensus is that the 0 rate is a fiction.  there is no extant study that comes to a conclusion of 0.  it was an anecdotal figure, possibly from the 0s, that got bounced around the academic echo chamber until it gained artificial weight.  check here URL for a good overview of the issue.  the fbi URL puts the rate of  unfounded  allegations at 0.  it should be remembered, however, that the fbi collects that data by simply polling police departments nationwide, and each department has its own threshold for  unfounding  an allegation, which adds a lot of murkiness to the figure.  i think the 0 rate tells us more about police procedures than anything concrete about the actual amount of false claims.  nevertheless, the 0 rate means that rape allegations are deemed unfounded four times more often than allegations of any other crime.  a peer reviewed study URL that i consider quite convincing was performed in 0 by a eugene kanin of purdue university.  he studied one town from the years of 0 0 and two universities from the years of 0 0.  in all three of those places, violent felonies were rare and all rape allegations were pursued to closure.  the only basis for unfounding an allegation was the recantation of the accuser.  the false accusation rate was 0 in the town and 0 between the two universities.  the consensus also seems to be that the overall number of false claims will always be a  dark,  i. e.  unknowable, figure.  that is certainly true, although i think kanin is study comes the closest to shedding real light on that figure.  i think we are looking at something closer to kanin is figures, maybe a little lower generally speaking, as the real rate of false claims.   tl;dr  the 0 rate is a fiction, the 0 rate is based on partly flawed data collection, and i am growing more convinced by a 0 rate as studied by a professor from purdue.   #  it should be remembered, however, that the fbi collects that data by simply polling police departments nationwide, and each department has its own threshold for  unfounding  an allegation, which adds a lot of murkiness to the figure.   #  let is not forget that  unfounded  in all cases is a superset of false allegations and thus if 0 is the  unfounded  rate, false allegations are much lower than that.   # let is not forget that  unfounded  in all cases is a superset of false allegations and thus if 0 is the  unfounded  rate, false allegations are much lower than that.  the department classified reports as false which the complainant later said were false, but lisak points out that kanin is study did not scrutinize the police is processes or employ independent checkers to protect results from bias  he also  took his data from a police department whose investigation procedures are condemned by the u. s.  justice department and the international association of chiefs of police.  these procedures include the almost universal 0 threat, in this department, of polygraph testing of complainants, which is viewed as a tactic of intimidation that leads victims to avoid the justice process 0 and which, lisak says, is  based on the misperception that a significant percentage of sexual assault reports are false.   0 the police department is  biases. were then echoed in kanin is unchallenged reporting of their findings.     and plenty of other criticisms.  ultimately, that study you are quoting had a sample size of only 0 cases, it was not generalizeable, and did not take into account the actual procedures and methods that the department used instead assuming that they only labelled false where the complainant recanted.  this study  certainly should never be used to assert a scientific foundation for the frequency of false allegations.   source URL  #  the 0 is likely wrong, the 0 is likely wrong, and the 0 is likely wrong.   #  i am gonna go with a  none of the above  statistic.  the 0 is likely wrong, the 0 is likely wrong, and the 0 is likely wrong.  the truth is, we have no idea what portion of rape accusations are false and never will.  URL there is simply no way to know what portion of rape accusations are true and what portion are false.  especially considering there are a lot of accusations which may be true, but cannot be proven to the level required by law beyond a reasonable doubt so that conviction statistics do not tell us what we would like.   #  gather a group of people who have put in legal charges of rape.   # that is just not how this works.  yes, we might not be able to figure out the exact value, but we can do things like come up with guaranteed lower bounds she reported it, evidence showed it was definitely not rape .  we can also do things to better approximate the real value like   find out the outcome of more than one  small city  to get a profile of how rape charges progress legally.  ask women whether they have ever falsely accused a man of rape legally and not legally .  what percent of rape allegations result in the person giving the charge explicitly admitting they made it up ? gather a group of people who have put in legal charges of rape.  ask them basically two questions anonymously filled out .   was the person you charged with rape found guilty of rape ?   and  were you raped ?   and here is the cool thing.  we can combine all this information, and other information you can think to gather, to form a consistent picture of what is likely.  each test might have its own inaccuracies, but you hope that if they all land around the same suggested value that there is truth it.  and at the very least, the lower bound should be established.  if i had to wager a guess, i would say people stay away from the topic to avoid offending people on a sensitive topic.   #  if changing the sample size changes the results, you are doing something very, very wrong.   #  n 0.  a loosely agreed upon figure for statistical significance is about 0 samples, which gives you a fair degree of confidence.  n 0 gives much, much higher confidence.  a changing sample size should not change the results, only the confidence intervals.  if changing the sample size changes the results, you are doing something very, very wrong.  this study does not paint a good picture for anyone circulating the 0 figure.  in fact, it is dangerous, it encourages us to ignore victims of false accusation.   #  given that it is not a simple random sample, the error bars are going to be even wider.   #  n 0 is the appropriate sample size for determining magnitude of false reporting, on a population size of n 0.  i agree it is sufficient to reject the null hypothesis of no false reporting, but the ci is going to be very wide, especially if the results are being extrapolated to non midwestern cities not in the 0s that do not use polygraphs.  on that sample size, a 0 ci would be   or about 0, assuming a simple random sample.  given that it is not a simple random sample, the error bars are going to be even wider.  its enough to reject a null hypothesis of no false reporting, but i do not think too much more than that.  the university data should be looked at as a different study since it looks at a specific population.  with population n 0 and sample size n 0 we get about a   or 0 confidence interval, with the same caveats about nonrandom sampling.
my little brother had a rather strange night this past weekend.  he had gotten flirty and physical with a woman at a bar in our hometown.  the two of them kissed and made out a bit, and she gave him his number.  they went out last night, and he called me afterwards to tell me that she was transgender.  she disclosed this after she had given him head at her apartment.  my brother is very upset and beside himself.  while i am an lgbt ally and a very sex positive person, my little brother is much more neutral on these issues, leaning more towards conservative ideals.  he feels like he is been  lied  to and  violated , and i think he is right.  my argument is based on the assumption that a significant percentage of the population would not otherwise have sex with a transgender person if that information were to be disclosed.  therefore, it is not moral for a transgender person to put someone at risk for taking actions they would otherwise regret.  a transgender person is responsible for consent during sex that is fully informed.  there exists a very real, and i would argue dominating, belief amongst the populace that having sex with a transgender man or woman is not the same as having sex with a  born  man or woman.  while the truth of this is matter is up for debate,  truth  in this situation is irrelevant.  what is relevant is that a great deal probably majority of straight men and women would not feel comfortable having sex with a transgender individual.  this is not necessarily  fair  or  right , but a fact that anyone,  especially  a transgender person who has been made to face those sorts of prejudices.  to not disclose this information is dishonest and wrong.  by not disclosing this information, a transgender person is knowingly having sex with an individual who probably would not be comfortable with it otherwise.  while the cases are certainly not identical, this is akin to keeping sexual diseases a secret.  let is say i have herpes.  i need to assume that a sizable, if not the majority, of people i want to sleep with would refuse to do so if i disclose this information.  while some people might say,  herpes is not a big deal, and if you do not have an outbreak my chances of getting it are low.  let is have sex.   but to assume that is not moral, and failing to disclose this information takes a way fully informed consent.   #  there exists a very real, and i would argue dominating, belief amongst the populace that having sex with a transgender man or woman is not the same as having sex with a  born  man or woman.   #  seems like your brother didnt have a problem with this issue.   # seems like your brother didnt have a problem with this issue.  he was willing to kiss and receive a blowjob.  only after the fact was it an issue.  if she had not told him and left forever.  she would be that great one night stand in his mind.   #  people can certainly be educated out of revulsion, but that is kind of my point: otherness is threatening until it is made non threatening, and some people just wo not or ca not accept that view.   #  quite a few generations ago, being irish got you called  white nigger .  irish people are white in fact, they are some of the palest people on earth but i understand the historical treatment they got.  i think their  whiteness  is something that has given them a massive leg up when it comes to getting rights because if they changed their behaviour which they did they could assimilate in a way that other groups could not.  black people will never get 0 rights because they ca not ever not be black.  we can speculate as to why skin tone is the issue it is when it comes to discrimination, but i do not think we can deny just how deep seated it is because when you have people biased against black  animals  at shelters, then you know this is highly ingrained behaviour .  gay people will never get 0 of the way due to the  ick  factor and due to behaviour that is contrary to default gender roles.  the  ick  factor is when straight people freak out over the idea that someone outside their target gender could be attracted to them.  they do believe that same sex attraction is a perversion because of the way it makes them  feel .  people can certainly be educated out of revulsion, but that is kind of my point: otherness is threatening until it is made non threatening, and some people just wo not or ca not accept that view.  like gay people, trans people act contrary to default gender roles.  for a man to act in a female role in whatever capacity is seen as degrading, for a woman to act in a male role is seen as her attempting to take an authority position in society that she is not entitled to.  for me, i also find that some trans people freak me out on a very base level.  the part of my brain that determines gender interprets those that cannot pass as threats my brain literally screams  run away  when i see some trans people.  i am embarrassed by my reaction, but the only thing i can do is suppress it logically.  i totally understand the  ick  factor that some people feel for me, because i feel it too.  i think it is important to understand just how critical a male/female dichotomy is to a species this is how a species continues to exist.  given that is the case it is easy to understand why people have the difficulties they do with atypical orientations and genders.  i think this is largely lizard brain stuff, really reactive responses from the most primitive parts of our brains and that it takes our higher cognition and appropriate shaping thereof to guide those primitive responses into acceptable behaviours which is no different to any other time it happens.  your brain attempts to interpret emotions and physical sensations in the body in cognitive terms, and mistakes are common.  anyone that is ever had a panic attack understands that you are not going to die, but you  feel  like you are going to die, so your brain  acts  like you are going to die .  all of that is why it is so hard to fight discrimination.  discrimination is based on  feelings , so getting people to change their behaviour and ultimately their feelings because of that is really a challenge.  you have to convince them that their interpretation of their bad feelings is incorrect and unwarranted.  you cannot change people is feelings directly, only indirectly.   #  only a few decades ago we were treated as criminals and mentally ill.   #  no, i am looking at the treatment of my kind throughout western history.  there are written exhortations to murder my kind in the abrahamic religions with leviticus being a favourite of the modern era .  only a few decades ago we were treated as criminals and mentally ill.  in the middle ages we got used as kindling during burnings at the stake which as pretty much everyone knows, is the origin of the word faggot as an epithet .  all of the above are examples of institutionalised discrimination, they do not even begin to scratch the surface of cultural and tribal discrimination against gay people.  even in non western cultures the atypical by western standards gender roles are codified.  URL my point is that if you have got an established and accepted place in the culture then that role is accepted for what it is.  unfortunately for gay people, for the majority of western cultural history the only role they occupied has been the  deviant other  and culturally, the way to treat people who are perceived as  the threatening other  is with hostility.   #  we simply ca not realistically extinguish the culture of homophobia from society in total which is different from individuals holding homophobic views without cultural backing .   #  do not get me wrong, i am thankful for my life.  however, i think with any minority rights and acceptance there is a point where the amount of energy you have to put in for ever decreasing returns makes the fight uneconomic to pursue.  that last mile issue for minorities is not exclusive to gay rights in any way.  we simply ca not realistically extinguish the culture of homophobia from society in total which is different from individuals holding homophobic views without cultural backing .  there is always going to be some support for it.   #  all this to say, it is far more important for transwomen to leave their past in the dust than it is for you to be informed.   #  hi i am a transgender woman who identifies strongly as female.  i personally am happily engaged and was never one to go out to bars anyway.  all that said.  if she is post op she owes you no explanation of her past.  you ca not even begin to know what it is like to suffer from gender dysphoria.  if she still has a penis, who cares ? is there any real physical or mental harm ? or are we just bummed we did not get a hook up ? my fiancé is straight, and had only dated cis gendered women before me.  it is been a learning experience but he understands that my reproductive organs are just one part of me.  this attitude of transgender people are obligated to tell partners their past reproductive organs comes from the basis that trans women are just men in disguise.  every time i have seen this argument come up online or among friends, they just do not have a clue how important it is for transwomen to leave their past behind.  as for myself upon transitioning i saw my mental capacity go up tremendously.  the mental anguish and drain that gender dysphoria can cause someone can be crippling.  0 of transgender people attempt suicide.  i too tried to bail out of this mortal coil, but i am glad i did not.  all this to say, it is far more important for transwomen to leave their past in the dust than it is for you to be informed.  if you ca not handle a dick personally i am a fan and so are a lot of straight men pack your shit up and go home.  hope that helps
first off i will admit that i am biased by western liberal media especially the likes of jon stewart, stephen colbert, bill maher, charlie brooker and numerous documentaries from the liberal side of the spectrum, particularly adam curtis, in his  power of nightmares ; and numerous documentaries on inequality and the global economy.  i have come to believe that the far right embodies everything that is disgusting in human beings.  their politics have never led to anything but misery and war.  people who buy into their ideology either have deeply vested interests or are insanely gullible.  far right ideologies pander to the basest of human emotions, and this is something that should always be kept in check.  a list of some of the characteristics of the far right tends to embrace: celebrating social inequality, bigotry, racism, selfish individualism, materialism, conspicuous consumerism, religious fundamentalism, anti intellectualism, pride, prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, greed, social conservatism, patriarchy, social hierarchy, persecution complexes, victim complexes, scapegoating minorities, warmongering, pseudo science, superstition and deeply regressive religious beliefs.  in my opinion, none of these traits in humans should be encouraged, and we should strive towards a fair and free society.  right wing groups are almost always the people stopping us from getting closer to utopia.  ultimately, i believe the various flavors of the far right: extremist religious conservatives like islamists, jesus camp sorts and neo conservatives in the gop are very similar and equally dangerous.  i believe this kind of thinking is a sickness that needs to be purged.  it is impractical to put people who adhere to this ideology in death camps, and neither would that solve anything.  but i think the world should make a concerted effort to completely stamp out this sort of thinking.  children should be taught how dangerous these ideologies are.  far right groups should not have any freedom of speech whatsoever.  i think far left ideologies have been for the most part eliminated from the world outside of very fringe areas, and since communism has failed for the most part it rarely gets political prominence.  but the far right still exists, and wields considerable power.  after the great depression of the early 0th century, far right politics left devastation in its wake.  after the economic woes of the 0 financial crisis and as a counter to islamism emanating from the middle east which is  also  a far right idelogy , we are seeing the far right emerge in parts of europe, and even america.  we are heading towards another catastrophe.  we simply are not learning from history.  by  far right  i do not mean republicans in general or anyone that is just slightly right of center.  i am talking about right wing radicals, the fringes.  they are a vocal minority but nevertheless wield considerable power and have done a lot of real damage to the world.  and here is a link to the documentary  power of nightmares  by adam curtis, that i am basing some of the stuff here on: URL  #  i have come to believe that the far right embodies everything that is disgusting in human beings.   #  .   people who buy into their ideology either have deeply vested interests or are insanely gullible.   # .   people who buy into their ideology either have deeply vested interests or are insanely gullible.  .   superstition and deeply regressive religious beliefs.  .   in my opinion, none of these traits in humans should be encouraged, and we should strive towards a fair and free society.  right wing groups are almost always the people stopping us from getting closer to utopia.  .   i believe this kind of thinking is a sickness that needs to be purged.  .   but i think the world should make a concerted effort to completely stamp out this sort of thinking.  .   children should be taught how dangerous these ideologies are.  .   nbsp; witness please the  freedom  and  equality  of liberalism.  everything in your view is the exact same thing you accuse the other side of doing, only for reasons different from your own.   nbsp; hypocrisy i have named thee, and they name is liberal.   #  they are only both  far right  because they were both anticommunist, and today is republicans do not favor killing communists or denying them human rights.   #  i think you are grouping together a bunch of ideologies you hate and calling them  far right.   bigotry you said this twice , intolerance, racism, and patriarchy are all just as  eliminated from the world   as  far left  whatever you consider that to be parties are.  you wo not get elected if you are an open racist, just like you wo not get elected if you are an open communist.  there is next to nothing unifying islamists and neo conservatives.  they both have completely different goals.  comparing today is far right parties to nazism is just abusing a label, and insultingly so.  today is republicans would favor absolutely none of the horrific policies of the third reich.  they are only both  far right  because they were both anticommunist, and today is republicans do not favor killing communists or denying them human rights.  also, saying someone should be denied free speech on the basis of their political beliefs is totalitarian.  that is a facet of fascism.  are  you  a far right winger ?  #  they both preach the politics of fear, the erosion of cultural values, scapegoat  the other  for a lot of problems, and wish to go back to  the glory days .   #  well i am not really talking about just american politics.  of course there are republicans that are closer to the center.  by far right i do not mean right wing.  a lot of far right people might advocate the return to slavery, deportation of all immigrants, persecution of minorities.  i would suggest watching adam curtis   power of nightmares .  there are a lot of parallels between the two.  they both preach the politics of fear, the erosion of cultural values, scapegoat  the other  for a lot of problems, and wish to go back to  the glory days .   #  whether it is from the far left or the far right.   #  i dislike extremism.  whether it is from the far left or the far right.  i think extremism leads to a lot of violence, war and suffering; and a lot more should be done to stamp it out.  i think liberal values of free speech and accepting all kinds of political views and cultures has gone too far.  instead of accepting shitty ideologies, we should actively stop anything outside of a narrow band around the center.  moderate and reasonable beliefs are the way forward, not intolerance.   #  it does not advocate any of those policies you have mentioned.   #  ok, the ukip is not even  close  to what you were describing.  it does not advocate any of those policies you have mentioned.  being anti immigration is not the same thing as being fascist.  as for golden dawn, greece has a lot more radicalism than we are used to.  the far left is much more represented there as well, and in fact a far left coalition is in opposition at the moment with far more seats than golden dawn.
it is the most benign and inoffensive festive occasion imaginable.  peace on earth, good will to all, hard to see anyone complaining about this.  whenever i see  happy holidays  it gets me thinking.  why say happy holidays instead of merry christmas ? is it born of that same fear of offending someone ? we have all seen examples of schools or city hall administrations banning some aspect of christmas, be it the tree, the caroling, or even the very word itself.  i am not going to search out and post examples but these reports seem to be getting more common.  ok just one.  some of the comments here URL illustrate my point.  sheesh.  atheists ? i am completely atheist, but christmas makes me think of warm comforting feelings in every aspect.  i feel offended when someone tries to water down the message.  the whole argument about god existing or not, jesus existing or not should be set aside for this time.  tl:dr watering down christmas is sad.   #  whenever i see  happy holidays  it gets me thinking.   #  why say happy holidays instead of merry christmas ?  # why say happy holidays instead of merry christmas ? because everyone has holidays but not everyone is christian ?  happy holidays  is an inclusive greeting whereas  merry christmas  is not necessary so.  promoting the christian facet of what has become a secular holiday does to an extent exclude non christians.  as non christians my family loves christmas as a purely secular family holiday and we with people merry christmas or happy holidays as is appropriate for  them  #  i was raised jewish and thus celebrated chanukah every year around the same time as christmas.   #  things like saying  happy holidays  instead of  merry christmas  or having public displays for multiple holidays or none at all is not necessarily done because people are offended by christmas, but rather are done to make everyone feel included who does not celebrate christmas.  i will give you my own example yes i know it is anecdotal, but it will illustrate my point .  i was raised jewish and thus celebrated chanukah every year around the same time as christmas.  when someone would say  merry christmas  to me i would not necessarily be offended by this as they mean well in wishing me a merry christmas, but i would feel like people ignore the fact that i celebrate something other than christmas.  saying  happy holidays  or having public displays for all winter holidays includes everyone instead of alienating those who do not celebrate christmas.  this does not mean that those who do not celebrate christmas are offended by the constant public christmas displays, music, songs, etc.  in public during this time of year, but rather that they simply feel left out because they have a different belief.  why not include everyone instead of alienating certain people ?  #  muslims have no specific time since their holidays rotate.   # what are the main religions of the us ? christianity gets christmas, yes.  you have the fall or maybe spring.  muslims have no specific time since their holidays rotate.  hindus have the fall diwali and nothing in winter.  bahai have the fall and nothing in winter.  buddhists have nothing in the winter; chinese new year is spring.  jain have fall and nothing in winter sikhs have spring.  what am i missing ? a neo pagan winter solstice ? kwanzaa ?  #  my kids are out of school, and that is about it.   #  again, i am not taking offense.  but you do not know any religious people who are not christian.  i am calling bullshit on your claim that i experience christmas the way you do.  i do not have a tree, exchange presents, or take the day off of work.  my kids are out of school, and that is about it.  overall, i am unsurprised that many people are ignorant about the small minority of people in the us who have religious belief that are not christian but trying to tell them what they do is a bit surprising.   #  jews wrote many of the famous christmas carols, so i do not see why it is all of a sudden wrong to mention christmas to you guys.   # not necessarily.  christmas day is a national u. s.  holiday obama has even given federal employees dec.  0 off this year for a 0 day weekend , so if someone wishes you a merry christmas on dec.  0 or 0, there is no reason not to think they are just wishing you well on the federal holiday.  jews wrote many of the famous christmas carols, so i do not see why it is all of a sudden wrong to mention christmas to you guys.
i have not done one of these before so sorry if i screw up.  it does not make sense to me that the requirements are so lax.  most of our presidents had never actually been a governor, many were senators, representatives, or even soldiers.  why should someone who has not proven their capability to administrate a smaller region be given the enormous responsibility of administrating an entire nation ? even if they are wise, just, honest, and diligent, anyone needs experience.  to me, the current system seems about as absurd as an intern suddenly becoming ceo of a company.  that is why i believe only those who have successfully administrated on a state wide, county wide, or even city wide level should be eligible to run for presidency.  in fact, ideally though this is impossible considering the independent freedoms of states , i believe it should be a tiered system such that only city mayor could become county governors, only county governors could become state governors, and only state governors could become president.  change my view.   #  most of our presidents had never actually been a governor, many were senators, representatives, or even soldiers.   #  do you have any evidence to suggest that presidents who used to be governors were better than those were were in the senators/reps or were in the military ?  # you are equating an intern with the vice president, or secretary of state, or us senators.  barack obama was not an  intern.   harry truman was not an  intern.   there are many ways to learn how to run a government without directly being the individual in charge.  additionally, the us president does not run the country.  there is a whole government setup to run the country, of which the president is only part of that.  do you have any evidence to suggest that presidents who used to be governors were better than those were were in the senators/reps or were in the military ?  #  candidate who are perceived as being inexperienced, a la intern analogy, are usually not seen as viable candidates for that exact reason.   #  why is governorship such a gold star in your book ? sarah palin, who most would agree is not fit to be potus, was the governor of alaska.  but the mayor of new york city or l. a.  or chicago has many more people and economic activity operating under their charge than the governors of states like alaska, montana, wyoming or other less populous states.  additionally, senators and congresspeople have presumably had experience at the national level, crafting national legislation and working with colleagues elected from across the united states.  governors, however, often exist in rubber stamp statehouses like texas or kansas.  candidate who are perceived as being inexperienced, a la intern analogy, are usually not seen as viable candidates for that exact reason.  also, someone who has a lot of experience in the legislative branches at the state or especially the national level should not be precluded from running for executive branch because it would encourage lame duck governors who only ran for office in order to meet requirements for executive experience, and plan only to move on quickly instead of govern effectively.   #  while i do acknowledge that there may be some who just want  promotions , the way i see it, if they do not govern effectively, they wo not be voted in as president.   #  i supposed i worded the governor part poorly, i personally view a governor as just a larger scale version of a mayor, and when i said city governor near the bottom, i meant city mayor.  as far as why i view governorship so important, it is because that is what i view presidency as: large scale governorship.  so, it makes sense that someone who is experienced in that field should do a better job.  while i do understand that senators and congresspeople have experience, experience in drafting and and deciding on laws does not necessarily translate towards skill at governing.  the same could be said for successful generals, as we have had a few of those become president.  while i do acknowledge that there may be some who just want  promotions , the way i see it, if they do not govern effectively, they wo not be voted in as president.   #  a senator or congressperson will likely have more experience with international law and the intricacies of international diplomacy.   # these, to me, seem to be the holes in your view.  having experience does not equate to doing a better job.  again, i would point to sarah palin being a governor.  governing an extremely low population state which derives so much of its operational budget from tax revenue that it gives its residents hundreds of dollars a year URL is so radically different from being potus that they ca not really be considered similar jobs.  also, it often takes months, years or decades for the decisions made by an executive to fully play out.  george w.  bush was considered an effective and experienced governor of texas.  but there is a lot of evidence that some of his  success stories  such as education reform, which he eventually applied nation wide as no child left behind, were actually disastrous.  additionally, states do not have armies or diplomatic responsibilities.  a senator or congressperson will likely have more experience with international law and the intricacies of international diplomacy.   #  again, this is something that presidents do every year.   #  they are not really dissimilar jobs.  the tasks of government are the same no matter what state you are in.  negotiating with congress/legislature.  this is a huge part of governing in a democratic republic.  this is how laws are made, this is how the business gets done.  and it does not happen in a whole lot of places.  a ceo does not need permission to make a major change, he is more like a dictator he decides everyone wears a vest, they wear a vest, no debates needed.  obama ca not do a major initiative that way, he needs to learn to work with the congress to get a bill though and sign it.  budgeting.  again, this is something that presidents do every year.  you need to know how to set priorities and how to find places to cut, or how to figure out revinues.  again, it is part of the job.  dealing with a bueareucracy, again, something that is a day to day thing for the president.  you need to know how to tell people to prioritize the right things, set incentives, all of that.  so really the only way to get that specific skill set is to do it.  palin actually would know more about these things than obama would have starting out, because obama at the time had limited experience in governance.
i am basing this on my experience solely.  some of you might be completely different.  i understand that all schools are different.  i am also only 0, so in that way i am quite limited, but on the contrary i have been to 0 different public schools in 0 different countries maybe uni/college is more focused and some peripheral schools such as an art school and 0 different robotics courses/schools.  anyway, i strongly feel that self educating has much more value to someone that has a bit of drive   important that person can remain focused and do what matters to them, what works for them, even if it is a pretty narrow field.  i am not going to go into the perils of a standardized curriculum, but they should be noted.  so many resources are available on the internet nowadays that you will never go through all of them.  do not like one resource, then simply swap to another.  whatever works for you; books, videos, forums, even little online courses.  the point that i am trying to get at here is that it is much easier to learn something by gnawing at it from a lot of different angles and getting information from everywhere rather than focusing in on a handful of resources.  that is all i will say, do not be afraid to ask questions.  even though i have had really great teachers, learning anything by myself is dramatically faster.   #  the point that i am trying to get at here is that it is much easier to learn something by gnawing at it from a lot of different angles and getting information from everywhere rather than focusing in on a handful of resources.   #  i was taught the importance of this in public school.   #  could you point out some specific examples of online resources and websites that adequately educate people in a way that rivals the school system ? i was taught the importance of this in public school.  teachers taught me the difference between and importance of primary sources and secondary sources.  this was especially helpful for me, not only for research papers, but for coming to informed conclusions in general.  suppose that you grew up without being taught this by a respected adult figure.  do you think it would be more likely that one would discover the importance of different and varied information sources on their own, or go with what is most convenient and similar to what they are already looking for ?  #  and thats just it: your answer is  maybe  to the question of whether you actually understand something.   #  how about the idea that the more you know about something, the more you realize how much you do not know ? its cliche, sure, but i have always found it to be true.  or a similar idea is that it is better to learn nothing at all about a subject than to only learn a little; people frequently overestimate their own understanding.  if you learn something on your own then maybe you actually understand it and maybe you dont.  and thats just it: your answer is  maybe  to the question of whether you actually understand something.  without a curriculum to guide you or a teacher to show you and correct your mistakes, its really easy to assume you have a perfect understanding of a topic without realizing how limited or flawed your knowledge actually is.  when you have spent years studying a subject, it is remarkable how many people believe they know all about it, the thing you have worked so hard to understand, without ever picking up a book.  im not saying educating yourself cant work but i do suggest that its actually scary how well the average person believes they fully understand any given subject.   #  how will they know if they actually learned something correctly or they just thought they learned something correctly.   #  how do they know their own shortcomings ? take something like martial arts.  that is a set of moves that are taught by a teacher to a student.  if a student always a weakness to a certain defense, how would they know that if they were just training by themselves.  how would they have idea if they are picking up bad habits that will cost them later in training.  how will they know if they actually learned something correctly or they just thought they learned something correctly.  would you state that training by just watching a video would be the same as training under a qualified instructor ?  #  if you go on stackoverflow and ask how quick sort works, you will get an answer, and it will probably be a perfectly fine one.   #  well, i do not know much about art education, so i will forgo saying anything about it in particular.  but in regards to everything else, that is fine if you have one specific question and you do not mind waiting a few days for an answer.  but if you want a lecture on, for example, the island model in population genetics because you did not understand it the first time, you ca not really get that on the internet.  and if you did not understand it hearing it the first time, reading a paper on it by yourself probably is not going to help either.  there is also an organizational aspect that a professor gives you that you do not really get by yourself.  if you go on stackoverflow and ask how quick sort works, you will get an answer, and it will probably be a perfectly fine one.  but it wo not put it in any kind of context; knowledge is about making connections between things, and that is much easier to do when someone hands you a map of where those connections are.   #  if you want to actually learn something, you can use college and its wealth of resources and experts to learn a skill the same way you would use the internet to learn something.   #  a big thing that people often forget is that school is a means of self learning.  i am not talking about the federally mandated k 0 schools, of course, but it certainly applies to college.  college is a utility you have to actively use to meet your own goals and standards, by visiting the right people, asking the right questions, and taking the right classes.  or you could just play video games and use up your cafeteria credits, nobody is going to care.  if you want to actually learn something, you can use college and its wealth of resources and experts to learn a skill the same way you would use the internet to learn something.  merely showing up to class and maybe acing your tests is not going to get you anywhere.  of course, a good college is going to teach you how to use the internet, too.
god is supposedly all knowing, all present, and all powerful yet there are no organisms on earth that display physiological capacities to do the things that god can do.  all knowing: in order for something to be all knowing, it must possess the physical brain capacity for constant updates on everything in the world.  every word written on paper, every thought ever thought by every human ever, every cell phone number and debit card pin number, the answers to all mathematical questions and equations, the purpose of the universe and god himself, every social theory and it is implications in the real world, what happens in the future and how every single event perpetuated by every single person from the past made the future come to be.  this is physically impossible for any being.  just the idea of god knowing everyone is thoughts alone is an impossible idea.  neurons in the brain are not accessible through another brain is neurons, there is no network there.  you ca not access an ordinary usb drive without plugging it in.  you ca not access someone is brain without complicated machinery.  then there is the fact that there are 0 billion humans going in and out of building is and tunnels and going underground.  god would need some kind of physical contact for each human being in order to do this and would need to be able to follow them through high security checkpoints in some cases.  they tend to keep wildlife out pretty well.  they would notice god coming in and reading our minds.  all present: again, people are everywhere and going everywhere, from the deepest mine shaft to the highest sattelite, humanity is everywhere now and god would need be critically aware of each of the 0 billion people is situations in order to craft his constant judgement.  humanity has a hard time multi tasking with petting its head, rubbing its tummy, and jumping up and down on one leg.  all powerful: nothing is immortal.  supposedly, god has been here or everywhere, rather for billions of years.  the only immortal animal is, what, a lobster ? i suppose that is a good case for immortailty, but the lobster lacks in all other god is qualities, so that ca not work.  there are tortoises and trees that live for hundreds of years, but god would have had to have lived for billions.  humans start to decay after about 0, right ? if we do not take good care of ourselves, we are dead by about 0.  with all the intense work god would be doing watching over the world, god would not be able to take care of himself.  not to mention, what does god eat ? he would need to eat a lot in order to function on such a high level of critical thinking, planning, and organizing.  i am curious to see what you think.  there ar so many more examples i could list, but i do not want to bore you guys !  #  god is supposedly all knowing, all present, and all powerful yet there are no organisms on earth that display physiological capacities to do the things that god can do.   #  say a fish does not know humans exist.   # say a fish does not know humans exist.  the fish says to another fish, whom is suddenly capable of speech underwater, surely no one could calculate the speed and size of the light dot.  it passes overhead and tells us when to swim and where food can be ! praise light dot ! we are likely not the only life in the universe.  we do not know of any being capable of perfect photographic memory, much less a being capable of 0th dimensional omniscience.  just because we do not know something does not mean it does not exist.  hell, 0 years ago we would of said something like a black hole was impossible.  in order to be all knowing, god must be capable of surmounting the hisenburg uncertainty principle.  he must be able to know of things we do not even know to know about.  in order to be omnipresent, he must permeate all corners of space.  this could be as simple as there being a single unified field we have yet to conceptualize.  maybe he can sense any permeation in energy fluctuation across the entire vastness of space, and the speed of light does not apply to whatever he is.  all powerful is actually the easiest one.  he modifies fermions and bosons at will.  i mean, the chances that a being like this existing is unfathomably low.  there is no reason to think that such a being exists or is needed to exist ever at all.  hell, as a pantheist, i feel we are born of the universe we spawned from.  still, you have a concept of god that i feel is too small.  should god exist as i imagine he could, it would be not as some bearded humanoid sitting in clouds, but a completely inhuman being of not only complete 0th dimensional awareness all of time laid before him , but given he would have to be able to sense all possible permutations of how particles can interact due to their % chance to be in places at a time, he knows all possible interactions.  i mean, it is hella cheating to just say that god has access to the bottom brick of everything.  all that is really needed for a being of that level is awareness, and pinpoint molecular manipulation at will.  bam.  god.   #  say that creature had an object that it wanted to keep safe, and it built four walls around it.   #  have you ever heard of the books  flatland  and  sphereland  ? they are pretty good reading.  anyway, imagine a creature that exists only in two dimensions, and cannot conceive of a third.  say that creature had an object that it wanted to keep safe, and it built four walls around it.  from its perspective, there would be no way anyone could see into the box from the outside.  but someone like you that can move in three dimensions would be able to see every point in such a two dimensional universe at once, and if you could reach in to it, you could do seemingly impossible things like warping the object out of the cube it is contained in by moving it in a third direction.  if a circle were to travel through a two dimensional plane, it would first appear as a dot, expand into a gradually larger circle, and then shrink back down to a dot.  similarly, if a being that exists in four or more dimensions were to look at our three dimensional universe, they would be able to see every point of everything, inside and out.  they would be able to appear at any point in our universe and change their appearance by altering what part of themself they stick into our three dimensional space.  and the physical laws that govern matter in their n dimensional space might be entirely different than the ones that we know, leading to biology that is not anything like what we know, invalidating most of the constraints that exist for terrestrial organisms.  i do not actually believe that such a being exists, but if you want someone to say how a being with godlike properties could hypothetically exist, i hope my explanation has done that somewhat.   #  i see a major problem with this: any kind of allmighty, allknowing, .  but not defined by some sort of scripture god would have to exist outside of our universe since his attributes defy physics as we know it.   #  i see a major problem with this: any kind of allmighty, allknowing, .  but not defined by some sort of scripture god would have to exist outside of our universe since his attributes defy physics as we know it.  this would make specifying what you are looking for pretty much impossible so you could take everything like many religious people do or nothing like many atheists do as evidence for a god.  all we can mesure in our world has to be possible with this universe is physics.  anything that contradicts our physics models and has enough evidence will just change our models instead of proving something like a god.  on the other hand you could say stuff like quantum particles is how a god influences our reality.   #  they would have called you crazy and probably killed you for being insane.   #  you provided absolutely no valid proof to back up your claim.  all you said was  there cannot be a god because it is impossible .  humans have next to no knowledge about the universe and we ca not comprehend things in more dimensions than what we currently live in.  just because we ca not do something does not mean it is impossible.  ask someone 0 years ago if it was possible to fly or create a machine that can access any information you want, or to to create electricity.  they would have called you crazy and probably killed you for being insane.  0 years later look at what we can do that was once thought impossible.   #  but the whole point of god is that he is not limited by human comprehension or even scientific principles.   #  you are trying to limit god to scientifically known facts.  you are basically just saying  science   god  that we hear all the time.  but the whole point of god is that he is not limited by human comprehension or even scientific principles.  it really comes down to the age old question of  what came before the big bang  ? science says, essentially,  we do not know .  we know that energy and matter ca not be created, but yet it exists.  so science ca not explain  what happened before that  at some point.  but god  can  explain that.  it is explained by god created it.  and god is not limited by these silly, earthly scientific restrictions like an inability to create matter.  god can do it, because by definition god is all powerful and all knowing.  so eventually you get to the atheist retort of  well yeah, but where did god come from .  and that is the beautiful thing about the god theory.  since god is not limited by human knowledge and restrictions, god was able to create himself before he even existed.  science ca not do that.  but an unrestricted, all powerful god can.
as i am sure you are all aware, there is been a number of mass demonstrations in protest against the racist policy of the us administration which have lasted for several consecutive months since a white policeman is recent killing of a black young man.  these demonstrations are an eruption of the pent up anger of broad masses of people at the deep rooted racial discrimination in american society.  the present conditions of the black in america are miserable due to the discriminating, racist policy; in spite of all our civil rights legislation, minority citizens still fall victim to the crimes and to the prejudice of the judicial authorities in america.  it is almost impossible for minority citizens in america to get jobs and even if they manage to be employed, they are subject to discriminating treatment though they toil and moil.  this reality patently proves that the us talking about racial discrimination in the 0st century is nothing but a charade to hide its human rights abuses.  this is shameful; we can do better than this.  it is quite natural for the world to censure the us as a major violator of human rights; it is completely disqualified to talk about human rights.  many countries in the world are now ridiculing the us, america should be going through an agony of shame; it is become a laughing stock of the world.  the policemen and women of america need to end the killing of innocents in the black community.  someone convince me that america still has some moral authority ? please ?  #  someone convince me that america still has some moral authority ?  #  given that every country has problems that they must work through and communities which they have disenfranchised i do not believe it is true that  anyone  has total and absolute moral authority.   # given that every country has problems that they must work through and communities which they have disenfranchised i do not believe it is true that  anyone  has total and absolute moral authority.  certainly countries  claim  such authority over others, but they do so self for self serving purposes.  furthermore moral authority is generally upheld on a case by case basis.  the u. s.  for example is unlikely to claim the moral high ground when discussing access to health care as preventative health care in america has historically been tied to potentially expensive insurance plans.  this is contrasted to the public health systems of many in the world.  in this case america has no ground to stand on when it comes to equality in policing and should not criticize a country for harsh policies against minority groups.  that does not mean that the us cannot, or should not, point out violations of human rights in other capacities where they are more clearly in the right.   #  yes racism is alive and well in many parts of the us but it is in no way as bad as you make out.   #  well i am part of america and it is not my colors.  my family, everyone of my friends, all of my close co workers do not sport those colors.  i am a recruiter for the better part of a decade and although i have seen a little agism i have never seen racism in any hiring situation that i have been involved in.  unless you count qualified indian candidates that are not hired due to a strong accent impacting their communication skills.  my grandfather, uncle and great uncle are all us police officers and they do not have a desire to gun down minorities in cold blood.  yes racism is alive and well in many parts of the us but it is in no way as bad as you make out.   #  their jobs are equally important, if not moreso, than police.   # apparently you did not go to my high school.  in all seriousness though, teachers do deal with some major problems and have a huge impact on the future success or failure of kids.  their jobs are equally important, if not moreso, than police.  that being said, how much a union goes to bat for people when it comes to crimes is actually irrelevant to the topic.  unions are primarily around obtaining fair working conditions, pay, etc.  for the workers.  anything else is secondary.   #  if we see unarmed, innocent people being murdered by the police, i do not see what it accomplishes to sit around figuring out what it has to do with race when the end result is the same: we should stop it.   #  i see your point, but now that i am forced to think about it, yes, i think this actually does apply to the holocaust.  a guy was rounding up families and murdering them all.  i would think that was outrageous enough without getting into what they all have in common.  i understand that it is symbolic of a deeper issue, and that is why people bring race into it, but i honestly think it should be secondary to the larger discussion.  if we see unarmed, innocent people being murdered by the police, i do not see what it accomplishes to sit around figuring out what it has to do with race when the end result is the same: we should stop it.   #  it is not to say that the racial component is not important, or that it should be ignored, but only that there is a larger problem in the killing itself.   # i agree that racial undertones need to be addressed, but if there is a crazed maniac killing people on the streets, i do not need to waste time figuring out if they are all a certain race or they are all left handed or something before putting a stop to it.  the reason i say it is a waste of time is because the end course of action is the same.  if the police are killing people because they are black, then we want to stop them.  if they are killing people regardless of race. then we still want to stop them.  so what is to be gained by changing the conversation into one about race when we have a much bigger problem on our hands: there are police killing unarmed people and getting away with it.  it is not to say that the racial component is not important, or that it should be ignored, but only that there is a larger problem in the killing itself.
first, this is my first post to cmv, so i apologize if i do anything incorrectly.  as a young student recently gaining the ability to vote, i quite frankly have no idea what is going on in the modern political system.  i see d and r democrats and republics, i will just shorten them to d and r continuously arguing over topics that would not benefit the general public.  their reasons are often objectionable, and i do not see why we continue to use this party system.  i do understand that it would be an absolutely huge undertaking to redo this system and i am not advocating for an immediate change.  for example: net neutrality.  what the hell is going on here ? from what i understand, we have isp corporations paying government officials to pass laws or the such to benefit the isp.  that, of which, is an entirely different discussion so now we effectively have the isps vs the ones who did not accept the money.  what on earth ? we did not elect the isps.  we elected representatives.  people who are supposed to stand for the general public, not a couple corporations.  additionally we all know obama is pro neutrality.  i have no opinion on obama or his work.  maybe i will after he finishes this term.  but i see people opposing net neutrality solely because obama is for it.  what ? you are willing to limit one of the greatest inventions for technological growth in the last century just because the other party does not want to limit it ? you have no basis to your argument, its just that obama is for it.  and apparently he is never morally right ? how can voters trust your party if you just go against another persons beliefs just because of who they are ? if this whole ordeal repeatedly continues into other issues that we face in the future, what does this mean for the citizens ? it would effectively be run by whoever has more people in power, and those people have a chance of being run by money sent to them by corporations.  additionally, i often see that we are left with the choice of  dumb vs dumber  in elections.  why are the parties in charge of who represents them ? ca not we eliminate the parties and each candidate stands by his own beliefs, not the party is , and then we can elect someone the majority agrees with ? cmv.   #  ca not we eliminate the parties and each candidate stands by his own beliefs, not the party is , and then we can elect someone the majority agrees with ?  #  there are better solutions than no parties.   # there are better solutions than no parties.  people will often have similar ideas and want to build organizations which support those ideas.  what we need is a better way to vote in general.  this series of videos describes a number of fairer methods, specifically ones which prevent the spoiler effect hence allowing arbitrary numbers of viable parties URL edit: most recent video on the topic, not in previous link URL although for elections for executive positions governor/president it may be possible to have party less candidates.  of course it would also be relatively easy to create a new party in such systems, so it would not really matter.   #  see item 0b here URL that said, i oversimplified.   # your own recommended site would disagree.  see item 0b here URL that said, i oversimplified.  i should have written that is hard to get on the ballot in a meaningful way for larger scale elections president, senate, etc.  .  under the current system, very few will vote for an independent candidate because they feel their vote will be wasted, thus making the d/r slots the only meaningful ones for most elections.  you cannot get on the ballot as a d/r unless you win a primary unless unopposed , so for the meaningful slots, getting on the ballot is not easy unless you are a d/r.  if range voting removes the d/r/i designations and takes away the option to vote straight party tickets then it would address it but i do not see that part mentioned specifically.  if it does not you still end up with basically a choice between two people.  to think that the independent stigma would go away because of a change in the method/calculation of votes does not seem realistic.  as such, i maintain that the issue is more about having either more than 0 parties represented on the ballot or not having any parties represented in order to prevent the either/or option with which op seemed to be primarily concerned.   #  for example, libertarian leaning parties roughly split that issue the way you want pro gun, pro choice .   #  that is a fair point, but the idea would be that there would be parties which would split the issue.  for example, libertarian leaning parties roughly split that issue the way you want pro gun, pro choice .  my more specific point was that there are options besides 0 party systems.  the current us system is setup in such a way that other parties cannot  effectively  exist.  if we can have more parties then we can have more choices at the end of the day you will have to choose a coalition to support, but choosing from 0 similarly powerful coalitions is better than 0  .    and when frustration mounts new ones can be created: the tea party for example could be an effective new party rather than an infection of the republican party, allowing it to maintain a consistent vision and coherent message and then let it play out on it is own merits.  both the republican party and democratic party are roughly 0 0 ideological parties each  #  additionally, a gun does not impact the freedom of others, although brandishing it or shooting it certainly does, and hence we should not control them up until someone abuses them.   #  for starters the person you were replying to was  pro choice  and  pro gun .  and i would argue that the combination he would like is actually the better one.  it is a pretty libertarian view: i can do anything i want as long as i do not impact the freedom of others.  of course it comes down to the  freedom of others  and whether a fetus is a person or not.  but generally libertarians recognize the conception is not life and support at least some form of non coercive rape, incest abortion.  additionally, a gun does not impact the freedom of others, although brandishing it or shooting it certainly does, and hence we should not control them up until someone abuses them.   #  are there any lines one can cross here before it makes sense to restrict freedom ?  #  sorry, i do not want to derail the conversation but is the libertarian pro gun view that can someone do anything as long as it does not impact the freedom other others ? are there any lines one can cross here before it makes sense to restrict freedom ? would wanting to own my own drone with missiles be ok ? what about building and owning my own nuke if that was possible ? what about having fun growing dangerous viruses ? i live in a country with fairly strong gun control laws and the number of gun deaths here is incomparable to the u. s.
first, this is my first post to cmv, so i apologize if i do anything incorrectly.  as a young student recently gaining the ability to vote, i quite frankly have no idea what is going on in the modern political system.  i see d and r democrats and republics, i will just shorten them to d and r continuously arguing over topics that would not benefit the general public.  their reasons are often objectionable, and i do not see why we continue to use this party system.  i do understand that it would be an absolutely huge undertaking to redo this system and i am not advocating for an immediate change.  for example: net neutrality.  what the hell is going on here ? from what i understand, we have isp corporations paying government officials to pass laws or the such to benefit the isp.  that, of which, is an entirely different discussion so now we effectively have the isps vs the ones who did not accept the money.  what on earth ? we did not elect the isps.  we elected representatives.  people who are supposed to stand for the general public, not a couple corporations.  additionally we all know obama is pro neutrality.  i have no opinion on obama or his work.  maybe i will after he finishes this term.  but i see people opposing net neutrality solely because obama is for it.  what ? you are willing to limit one of the greatest inventions for technological growth in the last century just because the other party does not want to limit it ? you have no basis to your argument, its just that obama is for it.  and apparently he is never morally right ? how can voters trust your party if you just go against another persons beliefs just because of who they are ? if this whole ordeal repeatedly continues into other issues that we face in the future, what does this mean for the citizens ? it would effectively be run by whoever has more people in power, and those people have a chance of being run by money sent to them by corporations.  additionally, i often see that we are left with the choice of  dumb vs dumber  in elections.  why are the parties in charge of who represents them ? ca not we eliminate the parties and each candidate stands by his own beliefs, not the party is , and then we can elect someone the majority agrees with ? cmv.   #  additionally, i often see that we are left with the choice of  dumb vs dumber  in elections.   #  why are the parties in charge of who represents them ?  # why are the parties in charge of who represents them ? ca not we eliminate the parties and each candidate stands by his own beliefs, not the party is , and then we can elect someone the majority agrees with ? the way the representation works is you get a group of people together and you choose someone to represent your group.  that person cannot represent everyone fully so each member of the group must make some compromise in order to end up on the winning side of the vote.  the larger the group of people the more compromise members are going to have to make, but the greater the power that representative has.  the key takeaway is that the amount of compromise you are willing to make is directly proportional to the amount of power you will wield.  we have 0 powerful political parties because voters have decided that they are willing to accept a great deal of compromise in exchange for a great deal of power.  if voters were willing to compromise less we would have more parties, the parties would more closely align with the wishes of their constituents, but each party would be weaker.  the majority of voters have decided that they would rather trade their ideals for more power and they have it.  the 0 parties have power because they represent the compromised desires of huge swaths of people.  you can choose not to participate in the 0 party system, but in doing so you are trading away power for the right to compromise less.  that is a valid strategy, but the outcome will be exactly what you expect when the vast majority of your fellow voters are willing to compromise more than you are.  the dumb and dumber effect is also squarely the fault of the voters.  voters have shown time and time again that they care more about who a politician has slept with or what a politician said in some out of context statement than they do about what the politician actually stands for or how they think.  as a result we get politicians who are good at being cautious and good at being politicians rather than getting politicians who are good at being legislators.  if we judged politicians on how good they are at legislating we would get legislators.  but we do not.   #  if it does not you still end up with basically a choice between two people.   # your own recommended site would disagree.  see item 0b here URL that said, i oversimplified.  i should have written that is hard to get on the ballot in a meaningful way for larger scale elections president, senate, etc.  .  under the current system, very few will vote for an independent candidate because they feel their vote will be wasted, thus making the d/r slots the only meaningful ones for most elections.  you cannot get on the ballot as a d/r unless you win a primary unless unopposed , so for the meaningful slots, getting on the ballot is not easy unless you are a d/r.  if range voting removes the d/r/i designations and takes away the option to vote straight party tickets then it would address it but i do not see that part mentioned specifically.  if it does not you still end up with basically a choice between two people.  to think that the independent stigma would go away because of a change in the method/calculation of votes does not seem realistic.  as such, i maintain that the issue is more about having either more than 0 parties represented on the ballot or not having any parties represented in order to prevent the either/or option with which op seemed to be primarily concerned.   #  both the republican party and democratic party are roughly 0 0 ideological parties each  #  that is a fair point, but the idea would be that there would be parties which would split the issue.  for example, libertarian leaning parties roughly split that issue the way you want pro gun, pro choice .  my more specific point was that there are options besides 0 party systems.  the current us system is setup in such a way that other parties cannot  effectively  exist.  if we can have more parties then we can have more choices at the end of the day you will have to choose a coalition to support, but choosing from 0 similarly powerful coalitions is better than 0  .    and when frustration mounts new ones can be created: the tea party for example could be an effective new party rather than an infection of the republican party, allowing it to maintain a consistent vision and coherent message and then let it play out on it is own merits.  both the republican party and democratic party are roughly 0 0 ideological parties each  #  it is a pretty libertarian view: i can do anything i want as long as i do not impact the freedom of others.   #  for starters the person you were replying to was  pro choice  and  pro gun .  and i would argue that the combination he would like is actually the better one.  it is a pretty libertarian view: i can do anything i want as long as i do not impact the freedom of others.  of course it comes down to the  freedom of others  and whether a fetus is a person or not.  but generally libertarians recognize the conception is not life and support at least some form of non coercive rape, incest abortion.  additionally, a gun does not impact the freedom of others, although brandishing it or shooting it certainly does, and hence we should not control them up until someone abuses them.   #  i live in a country with fairly strong gun control laws and the number of gun deaths here is incomparable to the u. s.   #  sorry, i do not want to derail the conversation but is the libertarian pro gun view that can someone do anything as long as it does not impact the freedom other others ? are there any lines one can cross here before it makes sense to restrict freedom ? would wanting to own my own drone with missiles be ok ? what about building and owning my own nuke if that was possible ? what about having fun growing dangerous viruses ? i live in a country with fairly strong gun control laws and the number of gun deaths here is incomparable to the u. s.
i am here as a secular humanist, but i am not here to argue about the existence of a god.  i will accept that perhaps there is some higher power out there, but to me the only version that makes sense is some lovecraftian thing.  we live in a universe of billions upon billions of stars and planets in billions upon billions of galaxies.  if there were some higher entity and creator, his power and scope would be so mind shatteringly immense and unfathomable that the none of our human lore makes sense.  so here are my arguments:   it is arrogant to think that your version of god is the right version when we have had thousands before; to believe the bible and christ you must dismiss all those who have honestly believed in krishna and buddha and rah and thor and zeus.    why would god create such rules and care so much as he does ? god has been used to justify war, racism, slavery, genocide, misogyny, homophobia.  why would something that could create the universe care about us ? we are the slightly more intelligent apes on the tiny blue rock.  to him and the scale of the universe we must be less than dust or atoms.  at best we would be an ant farm amidst the rest of the millions of other species that makes up our lonely planet.    it is about politics and power, god is a powerful thing and it humbles people to bend to a mob will; figures like priests and the pope and all religious leaders try to control their church and temple goers lives, or influence them; it goes as far as to try and tell you silly things like not to eat chocolate or pork or shellfish or garlic, or wear mixed fabrics.    the scripture is man made, and man ruined; it was written by people 0 years ago and spent the last 0 millennium getting copied by hand and translated and edited over and over and over to the point where how can we trust what the word of that original god and original text really meant ?   the scripture is not meant to be read literally at all; people love to read you lines from scripture, and yet the tomes themselves are full of allegories, poems, hidden messages.  how can you say one bit is any more valid than another ?   people do this cherry picking, which should dilute any value of the religion; people steal lines out of context, interpret them as literally or non literally as they so choose, ignore bits of the text and rules that they want to, and inject their own moral values.  it becomes a self applied label in order to legitimize your own ideology.  people in the same church disagree on different aspect, people in different churches disagree, the religions themselves are splintered into different sects.    people are afraid of  cults  but that is exactly what every major organized religion really is.    people try to use their  religion  as a scapegoat for logic, reason, and the pursuit of knowledge; i. e.  american bible belters fighting against evolution and science so again, this is not an argument for or against god, only against the political institutions of organized faith.  you should think for yourself rather than letting other people try to dictate your lifestyle and tell you how to think.   #  people are afraid of  cults  but that is exactly what every major organized religion really is.   #  people are afraid of cults because they are often fanatical and they break society is rules.   #  people are hungry to believe things.  this applies to all people, be they religious or not.  if a person is desperate enough, they will cling to an idea and follow it as a means of improving their lives.  some people worship gods.  some people worship karl marx.  let me take this point by point.  i wo not argue with you about the existence of god, but i will argue in favor of religion being allowed to exist.  or that one single man is the right person to run a country ? beliefs like that are every bit as pervasive as organized religion and they have been even more costly.  it is also about people for searching for meaning in their lives, and justifying their societal moral codes.  you will remember that religious organizations account for some of the largest and most beneficial charities the world over, and while you can argue that people participating in those are only doing so to have a favor with the almighty, you ca not argue that the results are a bad thing.  in any case, there are a lot of things that are about politics and power.  political parties are.  most companies meddle in politics and command a degree of power.  even systems of government ultimately exist to centralize authority and control people, often to the betterment of society.  would outlaw them all ? by your definition, religion is at worst another tool people use to police their own behavior.  humans fight.  it is in our nature.  religion has been used as a tool to propagate that, but even in a magical world where it was gone entirely, the conflict would remain.  we would just be inventing new reasons to have it.  cutting religion out of the human equation is just going to lead a different void that people will choose to mislead people with.  people are afraid of cults because they are often fanatical and they break society is rules.  i will grant that the term  cult  is ill defined and often misappropriated, but you wo not find a cathedral full of american catholics willing to shoot up congressman is plane or commit mass suicide because a comet passes by.  american bible belters fighting against evolution and science they use politics for that too.  the affordable care act was proposed almost in its entirely by republicans offering an opposing plan to clinton is single payer initiative.  but the minute obama supported the same, it became the greatest threat to american civilization in our time.  the majority of opposition to climate change science comes from people who have a vested political or economic interest in shutting down the findings.  see political branding.  do not listen to that guy, he is a  socialist .  you should listen to me because i am a  compassionate conservative .  people put labels on their bullshit and everyone else is.  again, you ca not use it as an argument for banning religion unless you apply that logic to anything else.  once again, selective memory is in our nature.  in short, religion makes a convenient bad guy because religious people can be obnoxious, they are super easy to identify and the lines between them are very clear.  but the reality is that people can be stupid and nonsensical about any number of things.  if defying logic gives a person hope, or makes them feel like they are going to gain something, they will eat it up.  ban religion if you like, but the problems you are pointing out here can be caused by just about anything that someone clings onto strongly enough.   #  these labels are essential to working with people in reality, with a single word or two you get the gist at the expense of some accuracy of what it going on.   #  i honestly do not understand.  it is your premise that people who hold beliefs similar to a specific set of beliefs say democrats and republicans who are organized to pursue a specific purpose in this case electoral success should simply stop doing so.  why ? how does simply pretending the political spectrum does not exist help anyone.  yeah, you would probably get a better feel for the presidential candidates than without labels, but when making the most important votes, the ones for local positions like county commissioner, sheriff, certain judgeships, school board member, and other assorted positions that directly impact your life you would be completely lost.  how much time do you have to look into the views and beliefs of the dozen or so candidates for agricultural commissioner ? these labels are essential to working with people in reality, with a single word or two you get the gist at the expense of some accuracy of what it going on.  without the labels then we are all worse off.  you ca not just walk away from something of that kind of value.  religious organization does much the same.  it makes it relatively easy to be aware and respectful of beliefs, like dietary restrictions.  when i know i have a jewish or muslim individual over i will not serve pork.  when i have a hindu visiting i will not serve beef.  it makes it easy for all involved, and diffuses potential conflicts, to be aware of such things before hand.  religious organizations of those traditions that insist upon hospitality and charity make it a lot easier to solicit donation, provide lower overhead costs, and get people assistance.  it also makes it easier for community members to need help to find it and minimizes the role pride plays in preventing people from asking for help.  religious organizations are free associations of people trying to accomplish a goal.  even if, for whatever reason, all religious organizations would disappear tomorrow then we would simply see new ones form gradually over time the day after.  people need to have a shorthand to deal with the expectations of others.  if i feel as though have to perform a practice, and other people need to be aware of it, then i will have to have an explanation.  if many people share the same need then they would form a common identity.  the whole  no religion  thing would only work if you were to actually destroy religious belief, since religious organization is inevitable when belief exists in a free society.  this argument seem to strike me as more of an  i believe that people in general should believe what i do and we should structure society to encourage that end  than a fair critique of organized religion in practice.  of course you believe in what you believe in, and there are obvious benefits to having common societal structures and having your personal views widely held.  the problem is that the fact that any one person disagrees with the premise or goals is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not an organization should exist.   #  it was hard to interpret, because normally  be disbanded  implies  by someone else.    #  ok.  it was hard to interpret, because normally  be disbanded  implies  by someone else.   in that case, i want to ask what is the personal incentive for any individual to disassociate themselves from a religion.  suppose for example they live in a highly religious culture, and decide to announce their atheism.  suddenly, they may find themselves socially isolated from important institutions, or in a state without freedom of religion, may find themselves legally punished for apostasy.  further, you seem to treat religious believers as either craven or dupes.  perhaps they are not, and in fact find comfort from a set of beliefs and a cultural institution, even if they are not fully internally consistent.   #  especially in the american south there is this big issue with churches being used to promote a certain ideal which i feel ultimately damages people.   # it was hard to interpret, because normally  be disbanded  implies  by someone else.   yeah sorry, i went ahead and edited the post to clarify that at the bottom.  suppose for example they live in a highly religious culture, and decide to announce their atheism.  suddenly, they may find themselves socially isolated from important institutions, or in a state without freedom of religion, may find themselves legally punished for apostasy.  further, you seem to treat religious believers as either craven or dupes.  perhaps they are not, and in fact find comfort from a set of beliefs and a cultural institution, even if they are not fully internally consistent.  independence from external control would be the incentive.  especially in the american south there is this big issue with churches being used to promote a certain ideal which i feel ultimately damages people.  there is been pushes against contraceptives, against science and evolution, huge stigmas against blacks and gays, against premarital sex.  there is a lot of control and fearmongering where people who would otherwise choose for themselves what they wanted to do with their lives are being pressured by their peers into being afraid of their own desires and of logic and reason.  and then there is the justification of violence, people saying that deaths and wars and murders are  god is plan , pictures of muslim extremists holding aks and qurans and over here people holding bibles and ar0s.   #  and there are certainly organized religions which do little or none of what you describe.   #  what sounds like independence to you sounds like isolation to me.  do you think the majority of what comes from the pulpit in any church is about race, sexual orientation, or science ? mostly its about people helping one another and being kind and dealing with the struggles one faces in life.  you seem to have a pretty stereotyped view of religion.  and there are certainly organized religions which do little or none of what you describe.  to take a large one, the roman catholic church does in fact believe in evolution, and is vehemently anti war.  to take another, the quaker movement is about as pacifist as can be, and most quakers are strongly in line with scientific belief URL to take yet another unitarian universalism acts as an organized religion, but is deeply individualistic and does not require specific proclamations of faith by its members.
i am here as a secular humanist, but i am not here to argue about the existence of a god.  i will accept that perhaps there is some higher power out there, but to me the only version that makes sense is some lovecraftian thing.  we live in a universe of billions upon billions of stars and planets in billions upon billions of galaxies.  if there were some higher entity and creator, his power and scope would be so mind shatteringly immense and unfathomable that the none of our human lore makes sense.  so here are my arguments:   it is arrogant to think that your version of god is the right version when we have had thousands before; to believe the bible and christ you must dismiss all those who have honestly believed in krishna and buddha and rah and thor and zeus.    why would god create such rules and care so much as he does ? god has been used to justify war, racism, slavery, genocide, misogyny, homophobia.  why would something that could create the universe care about us ? we are the slightly more intelligent apes on the tiny blue rock.  to him and the scale of the universe we must be less than dust or atoms.  at best we would be an ant farm amidst the rest of the millions of other species that makes up our lonely planet.    it is about politics and power, god is a powerful thing and it humbles people to bend to a mob will; figures like priests and the pope and all religious leaders try to control their church and temple goers lives, or influence them; it goes as far as to try and tell you silly things like not to eat chocolate or pork or shellfish or garlic, or wear mixed fabrics.    the scripture is man made, and man ruined; it was written by people 0 years ago and spent the last 0 millennium getting copied by hand and translated and edited over and over and over to the point where how can we trust what the word of that original god and original text really meant ?   the scripture is not meant to be read literally at all; people love to read you lines from scripture, and yet the tomes themselves are full of allegories, poems, hidden messages.  how can you say one bit is any more valid than another ?   people do this cherry picking, which should dilute any value of the religion; people steal lines out of context, interpret them as literally or non literally as they so choose, ignore bits of the text and rules that they want to, and inject their own moral values.  it becomes a self applied label in order to legitimize your own ideology.  people in the same church disagree on different aspect, people in different churches disagree, the religions themselves are splintered into different sects.    people are afraid of  cults  but that is exactly what every major organized religion really is.    people try to use their  religion  as a scapegoat for logic, reason, and the pursuit of knowledge; i. e.  american bible belters fighting against evolution and science so again, this is not an argument for or against god, only against the political institutions of organized faith.  you should think for yourself rather than letting other people try to dictate your lifestyle and tell you how to think.   #  people try to use their  religion  as a scapegoat for logic, reason, and the pursuit of knowledge; i. e.   #  american bible belters fighting against evolution and science they use politics for that too.   #  people are hungry to believe things.  this applies to all people, be they religious or not.  if a person is desperate enough, they will cling to an idea and follow it as a means of improving their lives.  some people worship gods.  some people worship karl marx.  let me take this point by point.  i wo not argue with you about the existence of god, but i will argue in favor of religion being allowed to exist.  or that one single man is the right person to run a country ? beliefs like that are every bit as pervasive as organized religion and they have been even more costly.  it is also about people for searching for meaning in their lives, and justifying their societal moral codes.  you will remember that religious organizations account for some of the largest and most beneficial charities the world over, and while you can argue that people participating in those are only doing so to have a favor with the almighty, you ca not argue that the results are a bad thing.  in any case, there are a lot of things that are about politics and power.  political parties are.  most companies meddle in politics and command a degree of power.  even systems of government ultimately exist to centralize authority and control people, often to the betterment of society.  would outlaw them all ? by your definition, religion is at worst another tool people use to police their own behavior.  humans fight.  it is in our nature.  religion has been used as a tool to propagate that, but even in a magical world where it was gone entirely, the conflict would remain.  we would just be inventing new reasons to have it.  cutting religion out of the human equation is just going to lead a different void that people will choose to mislead people with.  people are afraid of cults because they are often fanatical and they break society is rules.  i will grant that the term  cult  is ill defined and often misappropriated, but you wo not find a cathedral full of american catholics willing to shoot up congressman is plane or commit mass suicide because a comet passes by.  american bible belters fighting against evolution and science they use politics for that too.  the affordable care act was proposed almost in its entirely by republicans offering an opposing plan to clinton is single payer initiative.  but the minute obama supported the same, it became the greatest threat to american civilization in our time.  the majority of opposition to climate change science comes from people who have a vested political or economic interest in shutting down the findings.  see political branding.  do not listen to that guy, he is a  socialist .  you should listen to me because i am a  compassionate conservative .  people put labels on their bullshit and everyone else is.  again, you ca not use it as an argument for banning religion unless you apply that logic to anything else.  once again, selective memory is in our nature.  in short, religion makes a convenient bad guy because religious people can be obnoxious, they are super easy to identify and the lines between them are very clear.  but the reality is that people can be stupid and nonsensical about any number of things.  if defying logic gives a person hope, or makes them feel like they are going to gain something, they will eat it up.  ban religion if you like, but the problems you are pointing out here can be caused by just about anything that someone clings onto strongly enough.   #  religious organizations of those traditions that insist upon hospitality and charity make it a lot easier to solicit donation, provide lower overhead costs, and get people assistance.   #  i honestly do not understand.  it is your premise that people who hold beliefs similar to a specific set of beliefs say democrats and republicans who are organized to pursue a specific purpose in this case electoral success should simply stop doing so.  why ? how does simply pretending the political spectrum does not exist help anyone.  yeah, you would probably get a better feel for the presidential candidates than without labels, but when making the most important votes, the ones for local positions like county commissioner, sheriff, certain judgeships, school board member, and other assorted positions that directly impact your life you would be completely lost.  how much time do you have to look into the views and beliefs of the dozen or so candidates for agricultural commissioner ? these labels are essential to working with people in reality, with a single word or two you get the gist at the expense of some accuracy of what it going on.  without the labels then we are all worse off.  you ca not just walk away from something of that kind of value.  religious organization does much the same.  it makes it relatively easy to be aware and respectful of beliefs, like dietary restrictions.  when i know i have a jewish or muslim individual over i will not serve pork.  when i have a hindu visiting i will not serve beef.  it makes it easy for all involved, and diffuses potential conflicts, to be aware of such things before hand.  religious organizations of those traditions that insist upon hospitality and charity make it a lot easier to solicit donation, provide lower overhead costs, and get people assistance.  it also makes it easier for community members to need help to find it and minimizes the role pride plays in preventing people from asking for help.  religious organizations are free associations of people trying to accomplish a goal.  even if, for whatever reason, all religious organizations would disappear tomorrow then we would simply see new ones form gradually over time the day after.  people need to have a shorthand to deal with the expectations of others.  if i feel as though have to perform a practice, and other people need to be aware of it, then i will have to have an explanation.  if many people share the same need then they would form a common identity.  the whole  no religion  thing would only work if you were to actually destroy religious belief, since religious organization is inevitable when belief exists in a free society.  this argument seem to strike me as more of an  i believe that people in general should believe what i do and we should structure society to encourage that end  than a fair critique of organized religion in practice.  of course you believe in what you believe in, and there are obvious benefits to having common societal structures and having your personal views widely held.  the problem is that the fact that any one person disagrees with the premise or goals is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not an organization should exist.   #  it was hard to interpret, because normally  be disbanded  implies  by someone else.    #  ok.  it was hard to interpret, because normally  be disbanded  implies  by someone else.   in that case, i want to ask what is the personal incentive for any individual to disassociate themselves from a religion.  suppose for example they live in a highly religious culture, and decide to announce their atheism.  suddenly, they may find themselves socially isolated from important institutions, or in a state without freedom of religion, may find themselves legally punished for apostasy.  further, you seem to treat religious believers as either craven or dupes.  perhaps they are not, and in fact find comfort from a set of beliefs and a cultural institution, even if they are not fully internally consistent.   #  perhaps they are not, and in fact find comfort from a set of beliefs and a cultural institution, even if they are not fully internally consistent.   # it was hard to interpret, because normally  be disbanded  implies  by someone else.   yeah sorry, i went ahead and edited the post to clarify that at the bottom.  suppose for example they live in a highly religious culture, and decide to announce their atheism.  suddenly, they may find themselves socially isolated from important institutions, or in a state without freedom of religion, may find themselves legally punished for apostasy.  further, you seem to treat religious believers as either craven or dupes.  perhaps they are not, and in fact find comfort from a set of beliefs and a cultural institution, even if they are not fully internally consistent.  independence from external control would be the incentive.  especially in the american south there is this big issue with churches being used to promote a certain ideal which i feel ultimately damages people.  there is been pushes against contraceptives, against science and evolution, huge stigmas against blacks and gays, against premarital sex.  there is a lot of control and fearmongering where people who would otherwise choose for themselves what they wanted to do with their lives are being pressured by their peers into being afraid of their own desires and of logic and reason.  and then there is the justification of violence, people saying that deaths and wars and murders are  god is plan , pictures of muslim extremists holding aks and qurans and over here people holding bibles and ar0s.   #  do you think the majority of what comes from the pulpit in any church is about race, sexual orientation, or science ?  #  what sounds like independence to you sounds like isolation to me.  do you think the majority of what comes from the pulpit in any church is about race, sexual orientation, or science ? mostly its about people helping one another and being kind and dealing with the struggles one faces in life.  you seem to have a pretty stereotyped view of religion.  and there are certainly organized religions which do little or none of what you describe.  to take a large one, the roman catholic church does in fact believe in evolution, and is vehemently anti war.  to take another, the quaker movement is about as pacifist as can be, and most quakers are strongly in line with scientific belief URL to take yet another unitarian universalism acts as an organized religion, but is deeply individualistic and does not require specific proclamations of faith by its members.
having seen too many  what if canada became states 0 0  posts on assorted reddits lately, i recently came to the realization that quebec is the one keeping the peace in north america.  this morning, in a post that is borderline /r/showerthoughts, i had a geopolitical realization about how so.  imagine if quebec went independent.  the already somewhat isolated maritime provinces of canada would become even more isolated and would gravitate towards the new england states.  with new england closer in line to canada in terms of norms and mores, the temptation to build a new union of the maritimes/new england plus eastern new york might grow especially if the us leaned further right.  if such a thing happened, i think that the dominoes would fall in which both the us and canada as we know them splinter off.  greater new york becomes singapore on steroids.  most of the former confederacy reforms.  texas and florida go at it alone, the latter attempting to conquer cuba and perhaps get the bahamas on their side too.  cascadia reforms and alaska joins up with the ex arctic territories giving those people some relief.  ontario splinters in three or four with the golden horseshoe curving around, putting buffalo and rochester under a common economy with toronto and windsor/detroit finally being unified.  if anyone can come up with a sceneiro where quebec is on its own and north america does not crumble, i would love to hear it because from what i see quebec is the glue holding two nations together.   #  ontario splinters in three or four with the golden horseshoe curving around, putting buffalo and rochester under a common economy with toronto and windsor/detroit finally being unified.   #  your claim about the maritime provinces kind of makes sense, at least you have a reason for it.   #  if quebec leaves canada, the rest of canada would remain intact.  i say this as a politically knowledgeable canadian.  this was  very  close to happening in 0.  that would not change without quebec.  your claim about the maritime provinces kind of makes sense, at least you have a reason for it.  there is literally no reason for this to occur whatsoever.  ontario is incredibly strong now, and would only be made much stronger by quebec leaving.   #  is not your view a bit too far fetched and unsupported ?  #  is not your view a bit too far fetched and unsupported ? let is grant your premise:  imagine if quebec went independent.  the already somewhat isolated maritime provinces of canada would become even more isolated and would gravitate towards the new england states.   so, let is say that the maritime provinces break off and join usa.  is there reason to believe anything else will happen after that ? why would adding a small state of paltry 0 million people to usa basically maine 0 cause  greater new york to become singapore on steroids ?    #  i think that if everything north of the bear mountain bridge was able to get out of being the puppet of nyc, they would.   #  have you ever seen the upstate/downstate divide in new york ? i think that if everything north of the bear mountain bridge was able to get out of being the puppet of nyc, they would.  at the same time, new york is very geographically irregular.  someone in buffalo is closer to detroit than albany.  the southern tip of staten island is closer to maryland than montauk point.  i think that downstate/north jersey/possibly fairfield county would go at as its own nation if it was an option.   #  despite some lighthearted teasing, if quebec wanted to join the us most people would probably be fine with that.   #  i imagine it would be more likely for ny to split into two states.  sure they have very different cultures but the same is true of wyoming and california.  hell the same is true of north and south california.  the us is big, it has a lot of different cultures and values in different areas, but it is not really in a position where it would crumble at a shove.  plus most us citizens like canadians.  despite some lighthearted teasing, if quebec wanted to join the us most people would probably be fine with that.  it would take forever to go through the legal system, but i do not think anyone would be too opposed to the idea.  and if quebec just wanted to be independent then i do not think anyone would care too much in that situation either.   #  further more why would adding 0 a new vermont destabilize new england ?  # i think that if everything north of the bear mountain bridge was able to get out of being the puppet of nyc, they would.  except sensible upstaters like their politicians know that upstate is  by far  the winner of the relationship with nyc.  for every dollar upstate counties pay in state taxes they receive much more from the state in spending subsidized by the taxes paid by nyc.  further more why would adding 0 a new vermont destabilize new england ? the maritimes add nothing material to new england that they do not already have.
science has this problem with negative results: they are never published.  because of this, we waste millions chasing after results a simple bit of peer review could have definitively ruled out for a fraction of the cost.  to add to this, scientists are discouraged from doing this kind of research because they want to make novel discoveries, to make a name for themselves.  plus nobody wants to be that guy who goes around trying to prove everyone wrong.  so instead of funding that new cancer cure or whatever, we should put more money forth to fund actual, proper peer review across the country and counteract the flood of false positives one finds in the current scientific journals.   #  because of this, we waste millions chasing after results a simple bit of peer review could have definitively ruled out for a fraction of the cost.   #  that is not what peer review means.   # that is not what peer review means.  peer review means fellow experts in the field look over a paper before letting it go into a journal.  it does not mean replication of results through repeated experiments.  this will be true regardless of what funding looks like.  people want to be famous, even scientists.  likewise.  you have actually identified a real problem not enough work being done on replicating positive results or publishing negative results , but this is not because novel research is over funded or maybe it is , it is more because the type of research you favor is not funded when it is proposed.  funding for science experiements is very competitive, and administrators, universities, and other institutions also want to have their name on  the new cure for cancer , etc.  this is a problem that is a lot more complex than over funding of novel research.  it is not as if we have too much new work being done.  it is that we are not spending the money to double check that work.  this will require a cultural shift on the part of not just scientists, but universities, corporations, and even congress itself.   #  science is not actually meant to be open and shut experiments, but something more akin to a conversation or debate.   #  the current approach of the us government is to actually allow scientists themselves through impartial committees made of people in the field to determine which research proposals have the most merit and fund them.  the proposals list in great detail the methods that will be attempted, and they are required to record and report results regardless of whether they are successful.  scientific journals, however, are not run by the government and select for themselves what information is most valuable to print.  this will generally be positive findings not negative ones.  however, any person who is considering doing research in a specific area should still be able to find what grants were done in the past and obtain the results of that work, positive or negative.  as an aside, i think you should also be careful to not assign blame for false positive results to malice, negligence, or incompetence.  the nature of science itself requires empirical testing that is based on various assumptions that are chosen either as best guesses or by practical limitations.  science is not actually meant to be open and shut experiments, but something more akin to a conversation or debate.  papers are therefore merely arguments being made by people qualified to make them, not ironclad works that are never supposed to be wrong.  even experiments that lead to the wrong conclusions can be important to the development of understanding in a field.  the very fact that we are making so much scientific progress so quickly in the past several decades attests to the fact that the system is working pretty well.   #  i would question how much of it is very accurate given the issues i bring up.   # the proposals list in great detail the methods that will be attempted, and they are required to record and report results regardless of whether they are successful.  that last bit does not happen, though.  when people get negative results, they do not publish anywhere near as often.  i am saying the system is creating a pressure to get positive results, and that is reducing the quality of the research being put out.  so citation needed .  papers are therefore merely arguments being made by people qualified to make them, not ironclad works that are never supposed to be wrong.  even experiments that lead to the wrong conclusions can be important to the development of understanding in a field.  the problem is there is very little  debate,  just lots of statements.  i would question how much of it is very accurate given the issues i bring up.   #  when people get negative results, they do not publish anywhere near as often.   # when people get negative results, they do not publish anywhere near as often.  i am saying the system is creating a pressure to get positive results, and that is reducing the quality of the research being put out.  so citation needed .  yes, but us funded scientific research requires them to record it all and share it if requested.  so it is not published in a journal, but it is documented and available for other scientists so they do not duplicate the negative work.  in a similar vein, you do not normally hear the local news reporting about crimes that did not happen, but anyone interested in crime statistics for that day can find them.  this could not be further from the truth.  most fields have polarized  camps  of opinion, and papers are often some of the biggest weapons used in these battles.  papers will directly cite and attack/dismiss their opponents findings or conclusions, resulting in a direct response from that person.  publications are also often presented at conferences at which there can be very heated debates.  basically, it would be best to consider papers the equivalent of legal briefs that form the basis of a person is case, upon which other briefs or oral arguments are made in response.  this recent gem that snuck past review URL shows the kinds of adversarial attitudes that are common in many papers.  i have heard estimates that going back a century, about half of all papers end up being wrong somehow.  that may seem high, but it seems very correct to me.  how much was someone in 0 supposed to know about nuclear physics or someone in 0 supposed to know about artificial intelligence ? we often joked in grad classes about how wrong some of these old papers were while also realizing that they were part of an incredible body of works that formed the basis for what we have today.  after all, these are not random false positives but ones that were produced through significant process and are therefore arguments that should be voiced, if for no other reason than to be refuted by later works.  the incongruities are often where the most interesting science lies, because the question then becomes  what caused their results to look like x but not actually be x ?    #  also, care to show me an example of one of those conferences you speak of ?  # oh, cool.  that is actually good to know.  thanks.  most fields have polarized  camps  of opinion, and papers are often some of the biggest weapons used in these battles.  papers will directly cite and attack/dismiss their opponents findings or conclusions, resulting in a direct response from that person.  publications are also often presented at conferences at which there can be very heated debates.  fair enough, it was a poor choice of words.  though that is a very uncharitable interpretation of what i said.  we need more review.  we have enough science wars.  also, care to show me an example of one of those conferences you speak of ? sounds like a hoot.  the incongruities are often where the most interesting science lies, because the question then becomes  what caused their results to look like x but not actually be x ?   cool, but you are acting as though review would somehow silence these  arguments  you speak of as opposed to giving them that second look they deserve.
science has this problem with negative results: they are never published.  because of this, we waste millions chasing after results a simple bit of peer review could have definitively ruled out for a fraction of the cost.  to add to this, scientists are discouraged from doing this kind of research because they want to make novel discoveries, to make a name for themselves.  plus nobody wants to be that guy who goes around trying to prove everyone wrong.  so instead of funding that new cancer cure or whatever, we should put more money forth to fund actual, proper peer review across the country and counteract the flood of false positives one finds in the current scientific journals.   #  scientists are discouraged from doing this kind of research because they want to make novel discoveries, to make a name for themselves.   #  this will be true regardless of what funding looks like.   # that is not what peer review means.  peer review means fellow experts in the field look over a paper before letting it go into a journal.  it does not mean replication of results through repeated experiments.  this will be true regardless of what funding looks like.  people want to be famous, even scientists.  likewise.  you have actually identified a real problem not enough work being done on replicating positive results or publishing negative results , but this is not because novel research is over funded or maybe it is , it is more because the type of research you favor is not funded when it is proposed.  funding for science experiements is very competitive, and administrators, universities, and other institutions also want to have their name on  the new cure for cancer , etc.  this is a problem that is a lot more complex than over funding of novel research.  it is not as if we have too much new work being done.  it is that we are not spending the money to double check that work.  this will require a cultural shift on the part of not just scientists, but universities, corporations, and even congress itself.   #  the nature of science itself requires empirical testing that is based on various assumptions that are chosen either as best guesses or by practical limitations.   #  the current approach of the us government is to actually allow scientists themselves through impartial committees made of people in the field to determine which research proposals have the most merit and fund them.  the proposals list in great detail the methods that will be attempted, and they are required to record and report results regardless of whether they are successful.  scientific journals, however, are not run by the government and select for themselves what information is most valuable to print.  this will generally be positive findings not negative ones.  however, any person who is considering doing research in a specific area should still be able to find what grants were done in the past and obtain the results of that work, positive or negative.  as an aside, i think you should also be careful to not assign blame for false positive results to malice, negligence, or incompetence.  the nature of science itself requires empirical testing that is based on various assumptions that are chosen either as best guesses or by practical limitations.  science is not actually meant to be open and shut experiments, but something more akin to a conversation or debate.  papers are therefore merely arguments being made by people qualified to make them, not ironclad works that are never supposed to be wrong.  even experiments that lead to the wrong conclusions can be important to the development of understanding in a field.  the very fact that we are making so much scientific progress so quickly in the past several decades attests to the fact that the system is working pretty well.   #  papers are therefore merely arguments being made by people qualified to make them, not ironclad works that are never supposed to be wrong.   # the proposals list in great detail the methods that will be attempted, and they are required to record and report results regardless of whether they are successful.  that last bit does not happen, though.  when people get negative results, they do not publish anywhere near as often.  i am saying the system is creating a pressure to get positive results, and that is reducing the quality of the research being put out.  so citation needed .  papers are therefore merely arguments being made by people qualified to make them, not ironclad works that are never supposed to be wrong.  even experiments that lead to the wrong conclusions can be important to the development of understanding in a field.  the problem is there is very little  debate,  just lots of statements.  i would question how much of it is very accurate given the issues i bring up.   #  the incongruities are often where the most interesting science lies, because the question then becomes  what caused their results to look like x but not actually be x ?    # when people get negative results, they do not publish anywhere near as often.  i am saying the system is creating a pressure to get positive results, and that is reducing the quality of the research being put out.  so citation needed .  yes, but us funded scientific research requires them to record it all and share it if requested.  so it is not published in a journal, but it is documented and available for other scientists so they do not duplicate the negative work.  in a similar vein, you do not normally hear the local news reporting about crimes that did not happen, but anyone interested in crime statistics for that day can find them.  this could not be further from the truth.  most fields have polarized  camps  of opinion, and papers are often some of the biggest weapons used in these battles.  papers will directly cite and attack/dismiss their opponents findings or conclusions, resulting in a direct response from that person.  publications are also often presented at conferences at which there can be very heated debates.  basically, it would be best to consider papers the equivalent of legal briefs that form the basis of a person is case, upon which other briefs or oral arguments are made in response.  this recent gem that snuck past review URL shows the kinds of adversarial attitudes that are common in many papers.  i have heard estimates that going back a century, about half of all papers end up being wrong somehow.  that may seem high, but it seems very correct to me.  how much was someone in 0 supposed to know about nuclear physics or someone in 0 supposed to know about artificial intelligence ? we often joked in grad classes about how wrong some of these old papers were while also realizing that they were part of an incredible body of works that formed the basis for what we have today.  after all, these are not random false positives but ones that were produced through significant process and are therefore arguments that should be voiced, if for no other reason than to be refuted by later works.  the incongruities are often where the most interesting science lies, because the question then becomes  what caused their results to look like x but not actually be x ?    #  though that is a very uncharitable interpretation of what i said.   # oh, cool.  that is actually good to know.  thanks.  most fields have polarized  camps  of opinion, and papers are often some of the biggest weapons used in these battles.  papers will directly cite and attack/dismiss their opponents findings or conclusions, resulting in a direct response from that person.  publications are also often presented at conferences at which there can be very heated debates.  fair enough, it was a poor choice of words.  though that is a very uncharitable interpretation of what i said.  we need more review.  we have enough science wars.  also, care to show me an example of one of those conferences you speak of ? sounds like a hoot.  the incongruities are often where the most interesting science lies, because the question then becomes  what caused their results to look like x but not actually be x ?   cool, but you are acting as though review would somehow silence these  arguments  you speak of as opposed to giving them that second look they deserve.
so first of all i am kind of a liberal atheist.  i believe that we humans are not more evolved than any other animal, we just evolved differently but together with other animals.  i also believe that we are all part of the same biological tree and that suffering for the sake of pleasure, ideologies, etc.  is wrong.  anyways, i eat meat, any kind of it; pork, chicken, fish, you name it and i very much enjoy it.  but i know that we are killing and exploiting animals just for our pleasure, and i also believe that one person can make a difference so if i stop eating meat, it is a step in the right direction.  i ca not, however, i love meat and this generates a huge cognitive dissonance in my mind and i just want to be consistent with my thoughts and my actions so either convince me that eating meat is alright considering my world views or the contrary if necessary.  i just want some peace of mind.  thanks.   #  i believe that we humans are not more evolved than any other animal, we just evolved differently but together with other animals.   #  i also believe that we are all part of the same biological tree and that suffering for the sake of pleasure, ideologies, etc.   # i also believe that we are all part of the same biological tree and that suffering for the sake of pleasure, ideologies, etc.  is wrong.  if it is wrong for a human to kill another animal and eat it, is it also wrong for an non human animal to kill another animal and eat it ? if so, then it is wrong for humans to not protect other animals from being eaten.  since a polar bear is not capable of intellectual thought but humans are, we need to step in and prevent polar bears from eating seals.   #  civilization and all its consequences, be they great or terrible, is directly related to a time period when humans got really good at producing and storing excess amounts of food.   #  the human species has gotten where it has because it stopped worrying about where our next meals came from.  civilization and all its consequences, be they great or terrible, is directly related to a time period when humans got really good at producing and storing excess amounts of food.  were it not for husbandry and agriculture we would not have gone to the moon, developed art and music, gone through revolutions and pondered our existence because we did not fight nature at every turn to provide ourselves with basic necessities of life.  that being said, factory farms and industrialized food production are what keep us civilized.  we do not spend our time hunting and gathering because every week we go to the grocery store and buy our food, with the promise that the next week we do the same.  we do breed animals and consume them in mass numbers because we need to.  without it we could not feed the 0 billion people who toil away in their part of our global society.  be it the guys who only work to feed themselves and pay their bills or the doctors and engineers who move us forward.  as for the morality of it all, until there comes a day when we can feed all of us the basic nutrients we need to survive without killing billions of animals we bred solely to be consumed, i do not think there is anything wrong with eating meat.  plus it tastes good.  burgers are delicious.   #  these advances rely on depleting resources like top soil which eventually get used up and replaced by externals like fertilizer , sustained by new technologies trucks/roads that rely on even more rapidly depleting resources oil .   # the leading cause of political unrest throughout history is food riots.  we have always had difficulty feeding the entire population.  you see, populations tend expand beyond the natural limit and then oscillate around it.  technology increases this limit, allowing a growing population that is above the actual carrying capacity at any given time.  these advances rely on depleting resources like top soil which eventually get used up and replaced by externals like fertilizer , sustained by new technologies trucks/roads that rely on even more rapidly depleting resources oil .  the cycle time decreases until the frantic pace of change is impossible to maintain from an infrastructure standpoint.  infrastructure development is slow, so it acts as a bottleneck, but multiple other areas would be eventually outpaced if infrastructural challenges were met.  during all of this, everything that is done is barely sufficient to support the over the limit population, occasionally dropping far enough to trigger a food riot.  overpopulation is always a concern, especially when it comes to having enough to feed enough people to avert riots.  you just ca not see it because we live in a global society and the food riots are all overseas at the moment.   #  in contrast, human practices of raising livestock for meat consumption, especially when those practices are large scale farming operations, are one of the most environmentally disruptive practices that humans do.   #  for carnivorous polar bears, eating meat is a biological necessity.  for omnivorous humans, it is not.  in addition, the danger of humans screwing around with balanced ecosystems is far more morally relevant than the danger of polar bears doing what polar bears do.  many times throughout history, humans have come into an area, disrupted the natural ecosystem that existed, and ended up driving the extinction of entire species.  in contrast, human practices of raising livestock for meat consumption, especially when those practices are large scale farming operations, are one of the most environmentally disruptive practices that humans do.  the two situations are not even remotely comparable.   #  here is my rough thinking on the matter   is it a bad thing a net harm to kill an animal ?  #  i have thought about this a bit over the years, and have found myself more confused than when i began.  here is my rough thinking on the matter   is it a bad thing a net harm to kill an animal ? is it a good thing a net good to allow an animal to be born ? if you breed a particular species purely to eat, does it cancel out ? is there a sliding scale ? do you get n units of good or bad from certain actions ? if an animal has an expected amount of joy and suffering in its life, and you give it a better life than that, then have you done a net good ? if you give an animal a high quality life with ample food and minimal pain, and kill them instantly at their prime, is that more or less bad than letting the animal be subject to a more dangerous life where they die a slow death in old age, or from being torn to shreds by a predator ? the fact that we have requirements for vitamin b0 from animals/animal products and iron same as above, unless you spend a lot of time grazing , it means that veganism/vegetarianism require a huge amount of effort.  if we have a comparable alternative test tube burgers are not too far away ! then it makes meat eating less defensible, but for now, i consider it quite defensible.  tl;dr eat meat because we are lazy and our bodies have evolved to eat meat
so first of all i am kind of a liberal atheist.  i believe that we humans are not more evolved than any other animal, we just evolved differently but together with other animals.  i also believe that we are all part of the same biological tree and that suffering for the sake of pleasure, ideologies, etc.  is wrong.  anyways, i eat meat, any kind of it; pork, chicken, fish, you name it and i very much enjoy it.  but i know that we are killing and exploiting animals just for our pleasure, and i also believe that one person can make a difference so if i stop eating meat, it is a step in the right direction.  i ca not, however, i love meat and this generates a huge cognitive dissonance in my mind and i just want to be consistent with my thoughts and my actions so either convince me that eating meat is alright considering my world views or the contrary if necessary.  i just want some peace of mind.  thanks.   #  i believe that we humans are not more evolved than any other animal, we just evolved differently but together with other animals.   #  i also believe that we are all part of the same biological tree and that suffering for the sake of pleasure, ideologies, etc.   # i also believe that we are all part of the same biological tree and that suffering for the sake of pleasure, ideologies, etc.  is wrong.  a lot of the ideologies that you, as an atheist, disagree with are ones that portray humans as inherently privileged and above nature.  abrahamic faiths essentially say that we, as god is children, are governed by his law and the world around us is tailored for us.  this is why it does not make much sense to apply morality to the actions of other animals.  but in rejecting the view that we occupy a privileged spot in the universe, which you do, i do not see a case for applying objective morality to humans.  i do not think intelligence and capability of surviving on a vegetarian diet necessitate that certain things are inherently wrong for us to do, like eating meat.   #  be it the guys who only work to feed themselves and pay their bills or the doctors and engineers who move us forward.   #  the human species has gotten where it has because it stopped worrying about where our next meals came from.  civilization and all its consequences, be they great or terrible, is directly related to a time period when humans got really good at producing and storing excess amounts of food.  were it not for husbandry and agriculture we would not have gone to the moon, developed art and music, gone through revolutions and pondered our existence because we did not fight nature at every turn to provide ourselves with basic necessities of life.  that being said, factory farms and industrialized food production are what keep us civilized.  we do not spend our time hunting and gathering because every week we go to the grocery store and buy our food, with the promise that the next week we do the same.  we do breed animals and consume them in mass numbers because we need to.  without it we could not feed the 0 billion people who toil away in their part of our global society.  be it the guys who only work to feed themselves and pay their bills or the doctors and engineers who move us forward.  as for the morality of it all, until there comes a day when we can feed all of us the basic nutrients we need to survive without killing billions of animals we bred solely to be consumed, i do not think there is anything wrong with eating meat.  plus it tastes good.  burgers are delicious.   #  these advances rely on depleting resources like top soil which eventually get used up and replaced by externals like fertilizer , sustained by new technologies trucks/roads that rely on even more rapidly depleting resources oil .   # the leading cause of political unrest throughout history is food riots.  we have always had difficulty feeding the entire population.  you see, populations tend expand beyond the natural limit and then oscillate around it.  technology increases this limit, allowing a growing population that is above the actual carrying capacity at any given time.  these advances rely on depleting resources like top soil which eventually get used up and replaced by externals like fertilizer , sustained by new technologies trucks/roads that rely on even more rapidly depleting resources oil .  the cycle time decreases until the frantic pace of change is impossible to maintain from an infrastructure standpoint.  infrastructure development is slow, so it acts as a bottleneck, but multiple other areas would be eventually outpaced if infrastructural challenges were met.  during all of this, everything that is done is barely sufficient to support the over the limit population, occasionally dropping far enough to trigger a food riot.  overpopulation is always a concern, especially when it comes to having enough to feed enough people to avert riots.  you just ca not see it because we live in a global society and the food riots are all overseas at the moment.   #  in contrast, human practices of raising livestock for meat consumption, especially when those practices are large scale farming operations, are one of the most environmentally disruptive practices that humans do.   #  for carnivorous polar bears, eating meat is a biological necessity.  for omnivorous humans, it is not.  in addition, the danger of humans screwing around with balanced ecosystems is far more morally relevant than the danger of polar bears doing what polar bears do.  many times throughout history, humans have come into an area, disrupted the natural ecosystem that existed, and ended up driving the extinction of entire species.  in contrast, human practices of raising livestock for meat consumption, especially when those practices are large scale farming operations, are one of the most environmentally disruptive practices that humans do.  the two situations are not even remotely comparable.   #  is it a good thing a net good to allow an animal to be born ?  #  i have thought about this a bit over the years, and have found myself more confused than when i began.  here is my rough thinking on the matter   is it a bad thing a net harm to kill an animal ? is it a good thing a net good to allow an animal to be born ? if you breed a particular species purely to eat, does it cancel out ? is there a sliding scale ? do you get n units of good or bad from certain actions ? if an animal has an expected amount of joy and suffering in its life, and you give it a better life than that, then have you done a net good ? if you give an animal a high quality life with ample food and minimal pain, and kill them instantly at their prime, is that more or less bad than letting the animal be subject to a more dangerous life where they die a slow death in old age, or from being torn to shreds by a predator ? the fact that we have requirements for vitamin b0 from animals/animal products and iron same as above, unless you spend a lot of time grazing , it means that veganism/vegetarianism require a huge amount of effort.  if we have a comparable alternative test tube burgers are not too far away ! then it makes meat eating less defensible, but for now, i consider it quite defensible.  tl;dr eat meat because we are lazy and our bodies have evolved to eat meat
all the ways in which one can be happy, fulfilled, or satisfied are merely the satisfaction of constant cravings we are used to.  most obviously, an experienced smoker does not experience net positive utility in smoking; they merely experience the brief alleviation of an unpleasant craving.  which, if to be regarded as positive at all, can only be regarded as relatively positive rather than absolutely positive.  i claim this to be true of all experiences.  all that is good to us even millsian  higher pleasures  is merely the relief of an absence, the presence of something previously lacking.  as such, the best we can conceivably hope for is a life of 0 utility.  all our efforts to be happy are just us clawing our way to neutrality.  the best we can do is to alleviate our suffering and the suffering of others.  so long as this is possible, that is our duty.  we should avoid inflicting the unfortunate state of being necessitated by our biological nature on new lives.  we are machines made for fucking to make more machines.  there is no deep purpose in life that would justify its continuation, but the closest we can get is to realise our suffering is unnecessary and morally indefensible, and we can frustrate our evolutionary function and quit perpetuating something unnecessary and ultimately unpleasant.   #  all the ways in which one can be happy, fulfilled, or satisfied are merely the satisfaction of constant cravings we are used to.   #  what about new experiences that bring happiness or pleasure ?  #  if an entire argument or perspective has an assumption that is fundamental to it what happens if this assumption was shown to be incorrect ? what about new experiences that bring happiness or pleasure ? for example: a child eating sweets for the first time; the first use of a drug; introduction to, and enjoyment of, music; meditation; the first time trying a type of food extension of the child eating sweets ; the first adrenaline rush; the sudden realisation of the beauty of something nature, patterns, etc also, what makes you think that pleasure is the relief of cravings, rather than cravings often being the desire to experience a state of pleasure again ? what would absolute positive even be ? is not happiness relative to neutrality ? how can experiencing something pleasurable and new be simply the fulfillment of a craving one is not aware of such a craving.  is it a craving if one has resisted it their whole life up until a point and never consciously desired the experience ? are utility and happiness the same ? why ?  #  so ignoring the purely theoretical part, on to your example of the smoker.   #  this is a great cmv and i am sure it will lead to great debate.  now on to my own view: when talking about positive/negative value, there has to be the neutral 0 somewhere.  to me, that is absolute nothingness; death i think death is absolute nothingness, if you do not this gets far more complicated .  i believe most people are happier alive then dead, but there is a problem in proving this.  happiness is hard to measure, but a larger problem is measuring happiness of dead people.  so ignoring the purely theoretical part, on to your example of the smoker.  i would argue the smoker either gains utility from smoking, or his life already had positive value.  i assume a smoker gets some form of happiness from smoking a cigarette, whether this is a lot or a little does not matter.  the negative aspect of smoking is death.  now: if the smoker is life has negative value, then both the smoking itself and dying are both positive things so it would have a positive effect on his life.  if dying is a bad thing, then his life already had value.   #  your effects on the world may extend into the positive, but your possibility for experience will always be net negative.   #  but the smoker experiences satiation, and this satiation is in the form of diminishing his negative utility from his constant cravings.  the only space for positivity is in terms of what the smoker is relieved of.  net positive experiences do not exist; positive experiences exist only insofar as they mitigate or eliminate a negative state of experience.  even the  highest  pleasures learning truths of reality, composing poetry or music, even spiritual ecstasy conform to this pattern.  spiritual ecstasy is merely the relief of a self perceived spiritual poverty.  it is the absence of the baseness and triviality ordinary experience entails.  one way i see for a life to have positive value on this view is to alleviate more than one is own share of suffering.  in this way, your net effect on the world will be absolutely positive, but your life itself will be no more valuable.  your effects on the world may extend into the positive, but your possibility for experience will always be net negative.   #  any variation can be accounted for by the random chance of death.   #  if all positive things in life alleviate negative things, then the net value of life will theoretically always be zero.  it is impossible to live an entirely  negative  life, because negativity is subjective and can only exist in the presence of some stimuli perceived as  positive.   it is similarly impossible to live an entirely  positive  life, because positivity suffers from the same subjective condition.  i would also posit that both positive and negative stimuli have diminishing returns.  the more negative stimuli a person suffers, the less negative each successive stimuli will be.  same with positive.  but since these two stimuli are mutually exclusive according to your logic positive stimuli always alleviate negative stimuli and ca not exist on their own merits , any negative stimuli increases the value of the return on positive stimuli, and any positive stimuli increases the value of the return on negative stimuli.  that means that a person living a mostly negative stimuli filled life will 0 consider many more stimuli to be positive, and 0 gain much more positive experience from positive stimuli.  in contrast, a person living a mostly positive stimuli filled life will 0 consider many more stimuli to be negative, and 0 gain much more negative experience from a negative stimuli.  it is a pendulum, in a way.  the farther the weight swings in one direction, the farther back it will swing in the other.  on average, the pendulum will have swung the same distance in one direction as the other.  any variation can be accounted for by the random chance of death.   #  further, there are good a priori reasons to suspect a predominance of suffering and a paucity of happiness and contentment  just enough  solicit the most adaptive behaviour.   #  i disagree.  being subject to negative mental states does not necessarily improve one is recognition of or appreciation or enjoyment of so called positive mental states or desirable events in the world.  this is an empirical matter, and one need look no further than depressives to see that they have no experiential balancing mechanism or pendulum, as you put it .  further, there are good a priori reasons to suspect a predominance of suffering and a paucity of happiness and contentment  just enough  solicit the most adaptive behaviour.  so if you were right about some sort of balancing mechanism, i would be with you.  but i do not think you are right in this matter.
all the ways in which one can be happy, fulfilled, or satisfied are merely the satisfaction of constant cravings we are used to.  most obviously, an experienced smoker does not experience net positive utility in smoking; they merely experience the brief alleviation of an unpleasant craving.  which, if to be regarded as positive at all, can only be regarded as relatively positive rather than absolutely positive.  i claim this to be true of all experiences.  all that is good to us even millsian  higher pleasures  is merely the relief of an absence, the presence of something previously lacking.  as such, the best we can conceivably hope for is a life of 0 utility.  all our efforts to be happy are just us clawing our way to neutrality.  the best we can do is to alleviate our suffering and the suffering of others.  so long as this is possible, that is our duty.  we should avoid inflicting the unfortunate state of being necessitated by our biological nature on new lives.  we are machines made for fucking to make more machines.  there is no deep purpose in life that would justify its continuation, but the closest we can get is to realise our suffering is unnecessary and morally indefensible, and we can frustrate our evolutionary function and quit perpetuating something unnecessary and ultimately unpleasant.   #  i claim this to be true of all experiences.   #  how can experiencing something pleasurable and new be simply the fulfillment of a craving one is not aware of such a craving.   #  if an entire argument or perspective has an assumption that is fundamental to it what happens if this assumption was shown to be incorrect ? what about new experiences that bring happiness or pleasure ? for example: a child eating sweets for the first time; the first use of a drug; introduction to, and enjoyment of, music; meditation; the first time trying a type of food extension of the child eating sweets ; the first adrenaline rush; the sudden realisation of the beauty of something nature, patterns, etc also, what makes you think that pleasure is the relief of cravings, rather than cravings often being the desire to experience a state of pleasure again ? what would absolute positive even be ? is not happiness relative to neutrality ? how can experiencing something pleasurable and new be simply the fulfillment of a craving one is not aware of such a craving.  is it a craving if one has resisted it their whole life up until a point and never consciously desired the experience ? are utility and happiness the same ? why ?  #  so ignoring the purely theoretical part, on to your example of the smoker.   #  this is a great cmv and i am sure it will lead to great debate.  now on to my own view: when talking about positive/negative value, there has to be the neutral 0 somewhere.  to me, that is absolute nothingness; death i think death is absolute nothingness, if you do not this gets far more complicated .  i believe most people are happier alive then dead, but there is a problem in proving this.  happiness is hard to measure, but a larger problem is measuring happiness of dead people.  so ignoring the purely theoretical part, on to your example of the smoker.  i would argue the smoker either gains utility from smoking, or his life already had positive value.  i assume a smoker gets some form of happiness from smoking a cigarette, whether this is a lot or a little does not matter.  the negative aspect of smoking is death.  now: if the smoker is life has negative value, then both the smoking itself and dying are both positive things so it would have a positive effect on his life.  if dying is a bad thing, then his life already had value.   #  your effects on the world may extend into the positive, but your possibility for experience will always be net negative.   #  but the smoker experiences satiation, and this satiation is in the form of diminishing his negative utility from his constant cravings.  the only space for positivity is in terms of what the smoker is relieved of.  net positive experiences do not exist; positive experiences exist only insofar as they mitigate or eliminate a negative state of experience.  even the  highest  pleasures learning truths of reality, composing poetry or music, even spiritual ecstasy conform to this pattern.  spiritual ecstasy is merely the relief of a self perceived spiritual poverty.  it is the absence of the baseness and triviality ordinary experience entails.  one way i see for a life to have positive value on this view is to alleviate more than one is own share of suffering.  in this way, your net effect on the world will be absolutely positive, but your life itself will be no more valuable.  your effects on the world may extend into the positive, but your possibility for experience will always be net negative.   #  any variation can be accounted for by the random chance of death.   #  if all positive things in life alleviate negative things, then the net value of life will theoretically always be zero.  it is impossible to live an entirely  negative  life, because negativity is subjective and can only exist in the presence of some stimuli perceived as  positive.   it is similarly impossible to live an entirely  positive  life, because positivity suffers from the same subjective condition.  i would also posit that both positive and negative stimuli have diminishing returns.  the more negative stimuli a person suffers, the less negative each successive stimuli will be.  same with positive.  but since these two stimuli are mutually exclusive according to your logic positive stimuli always alleviate negative stimuli and ca not exist on their own merits , any negative stimuli increases the value of the return on positive stimuli, and any positive stimuli increases the value of the return on negative stimuli.  that means that a person living a mostly negative stimuli filled life will 0 consider many more stimuli to be positive, and 0 gain much more positive experience from positive stimuli.  in contrast, a person living a mostly positive stimuli filled life will 0 consider many more stimuli to be negative, and 0 gain much more negative experience from a negative stimuli.  it is a pendulum, in a way.  the farther the weight swings in one direction, the farther back it will swing in the other.  on average, the pendulum will have swung the same distance in one direction as the other.  any variation can be accounted for by the random chance of death.   #  being subject to negative mental states does not necessarily improve one is recognition of or appreciation or enjoyment of so called positive mental states or desirable events in the world.   #  i disagree.  being subject to negative mental states does not necessarily improve one is recognition of or appreciation or enjoyment of so called positive mental states or desirable events in the world.  this is an empirical matter, and one need look no further than depressives to see that they have no experiential balancing mechanism or pendulum, as you put it .  further, there are good a priori reasons to suspect a predominance of suffering and a paucity of happiness and contentment  just enough  solicit the most adaptive behaviour.  so if you were right about some sort of balancing mechanism, i would be with you.  but i do not think you are right in this matter.
all the ways in which one can be happy, fulfilled, or satisfied are merely the satisfaction of constant cravings we are used to.  most obviously, an experienced smoker does not experience net positive utility in smoking; they merely experience the brief alleviation of an unpleasant craving.  which, if to be regarded as positive at all, can only be regarded as relatively positive rather than absolutely positive.  i claim this to be true of all experiences.  all that is good to us even millsian  higher pleasures  is merely the relief of an absence, the presence of something previously lacking.  as such, the best we can conceivably hope for is a life of 0 utility.  all our efforts to be happy are just us clawing our way to neutrality.  the best we can do is to alleviate our suffering and the suffering of others.  so long as this is possible, that is our duty.  we should avoid inflicting the unfortunate state of being necessitated by our biological nature on new lives.  we are machines made for fucking to make more machines.  there is no deep purpose in life that would justify its continuation, but the closest we can get is to realise our suffering is unnecessary and morally indefensible, and we can frustrate our evolutionary function and quit perpetuating something unnecessary and ultimately unpleasant.   #  most obviously, an experienced smoker does not experience net positive utility in smoking; they merely experience the brief alleviation of an unpleasant craving.   #  i have to assume you have never smoked.   # i have to assume you have never smoked.  nicotine cravings are so similar to thirst that it is sometimes difficult to know whether you are thirsty or craving, except you ca not die of craving and the thirst is not massively unpleasant, but the quenching is fucking glorious.  i have been off tobacco for about 0 years now and every so often i catch a sniff of smoke and remember how nice that stimulant high is, the rush, the brief clarity and increase in iq points.  if smoking did not permanently damage you i would recommend it, it really is lovely.  we are much more than that, we are the part of the universe that is exploring itself, and there is much to see.  if you are having a net negative experience then it could be that you are having a bad time right now, maybe you are 0 years old and in purgatory between youth and adulthood.  it gets better you know.   #  this is a great cmv and i am sure it will lead to great debate.   #  this is a great cmv and i am sure it will lead to great debate.  now on to my own view: when talking about positive/negative value, there has to be the neutral 0 somewhere.  to me, that is absolute nothingness; death i think death is absolute nothingness, if you do not this gets far more complicated .  i believe most people are happier alive then dead, but there is a problem in proving this.  happiness is hard to measure, but a larger problem is measuring happiness of dead people.  so ignoring the purely theoretical part, on to your example of the smoker.  i would argue the smoker either gains utility from smoking, or his life already had positive value.  i assume a smoker gets some form of happiness from smoking a cigarette, whether this is a lot or a little does not matter.  the negative aspect of smoking is death.  now: if the smoker is life has negative value, then both the smoking itself and dying are both positive things so it would have a positive effect on his life.  if dying is a bad thing, then his life already had value.   #  one way i see for a life to have positive value on this view is to alleviate more than one is own share of suffering.   #  but the smoker experiences satiation, and this satiation is in the form of diminishing his negative utility from his constant cravings.  the only space for positivity is in terms of what the smoker is relieved of.  net positive experiences do not exist; positive experiences exist only insofar as they mitigate or eliminate a negative state of experience.  even the  highest  pleasures learning truths of reality, composing poetry or music, even spiritual ecstasy conform to this pattern.  spiritual ecstasy is merely the relief of a self perceived spiritual poverty.  it is the absence of the baseness and triviality ordinary experience entails.  one way i see for a life to have positive value on this view is to alleviate more than one is own share of suffering.  in this way, your net effect on the world will be absolutely positive, but your life itself will be no more valuable.  your effects on the world may extend into the positive, but your possibility for experience will always be net negative.   #  the farther the weight swings in one direction, the farther back it will swing in the other.   #  if all positive things in life alleviate negative things, then the net value of life will theoretically always be zero.  it is impossible to live an entirely  negative  life, because negativity is subjective and can only exist in the presence of some stimuli perceived as  positive.   it is similarly impossible to live an entirely  positive  life, because positivity suffers from the same subjective condition.  i would also posit that both positive and negative stimuli have diminishing returns.  the more negative stimuli a person suffers, the less negative each successive stimuli will be.  same with positive.  but since these two stimuli are mutually exclusive according to your logic positive stimuli always alleviate negative stimuli and ca not exist on their own merits , any negative stimuli increases the value of the return on positive stimuli, and any positive stimuli increases the value of the return on negative stimuli.  that means that a person living a mostly negative stimuli filled life will 0 consider many more stimuli to be positive, and 0 gain much more positive experience from positive stimuli.  in contrast, a person living a mostly positive stimuli filled life will 0 consider many more stimuli to be negative, and 0 gain much more negative experience from a negative stimuli.  it is a pendulum, in a way.  the farther the weight swings in one direction, the farther back it will swing in the other.  on average, the pendulum will have swung the same distance in one direction as the other.  any variation can be accounted for by the random chance of death.   #  so if you were right about some sort of balancing mechanism, i would be with you.   #  i disagree.  being subject to negative mental states does not necessarily improve one is recognition of or appreciation or enjoyment of so called positive mental states or desirable events in the world.  this is an empirical matter, and one need look no further than depressives to see that they have no experiential balancing mechanism or pendulum, as you put it .  further, there are good a priori reasons to suspect a predominance of suffering and a paucity of happiness and contentment  just enough  solicit the most adaptive behaviour.  so if you were right about some sort of balancing mechanism, i would be with you.  but i do not think you are right in this matter.
all the ways in which one can be happy, fulfilled, or satisfied are merely the satisfaction of constant cravings we are used to.  most obviously, an experienced smoker does not experience net positive utility in smoking; they merely experience the brief alleviation of an unpleasant craving.  which, if to be regarded as positive at all, can only be regarded as relatively positive rather than absolutely positive.  i claim this to be true of all experiences.  all that is good to us even millsian  higher pleasures  is merely the relief of an absence, the presence of something previously lacking.  as such, the best we can conceivably hope for is a life of 0 utility.  all our efforts to be happy are just us clawing our way to neutrality.  the best we can do is to alleviate our suffering and the suffering of others.  so long as this is possible, that is our duty.  we should avoid inflicting the unfortunate state of being necessitated by our biological nature on new lives.  we are machines made for fucking to make more machines.  there is no deep purpose in life that would justify its continuation, but the closest we can get is to realise our suffering is unnecessary and morally indefensible, and we can frustrate our evolutionary function and quit perpetuating something unnecessary and ultimately unpleasant.   #  we are machines made for fucking to make more machines.   #  we are much more than that, we are the part of the universe that is exploring itself, and there is much to see.   # i have to assume you have never smoked.  nicotine cravings are so similar to thirst that it is sometimes difficult to know whether you are thirsty or craving, except you ca not die of craving and the thirst is not massively unpleasant, but the quenching is fucking glorious.  i have been off tobacco for about 0 years now and every so often i catch a sniff of smoke and remember how nice that stimulant high is, the rush, the brief clarity and increase in iq points.  if smoking did not permanently damage you i would recommend it, it really is lovely.  we are much more than that, we are the part of the universe that is exploring itself, and there is much to see.  if you are having a net negative experience then it could be that you are having a bad time right now, maybe you are 0 years old and in purgatory between youth and adulthood.  it gets better you know.   #  i would argue the smoker either gains utility from smoking, or his life already had positive value.   #  this is a great cmv and i am sure it will lead to great debate.  now on to my own view: when talking about positive/negative value, there has to be the neutral 0 somewhere.  to me, that is absolute nothingness; death i think death is absolute nothingness, if you do not this gets far more complicated .  i believe most people are happier alive then dead, but there is a problem in proving this.  happiness is hard to measure, but a larger problem is measuring happiness of dead people.  so ignoring the purely theoretical part, on to your example of the smoker.  i would argue the smoker either gains utility from smoking, or his life already had positive value.  i assume a smoker gets some form of happiness from smoking a cigarette, whether this is a lot or a little does not matter.  the negative aspect of smoking is death.  now: if the smoker is life has negative value, then both the smoking itself and dying are both positive things so it would have a positive effect on his life.  if dying is a bad thing, then his life already had value.   #  net positive experiences do not exist; positive experiences exist only insofar as they mitigate or eliminate a negative state of experience.   #  but the smoker experiences satiation, and this satiation is in the form of diminishing his negative utility from his constant cravings.  the only space for positivity is in terms of what the smoker is relieved of.  net positive experiences do not exist; positive experiences exist only insofar as they mitigate or eliminate a negative state of experience.  even the  highest  pleasures learning truths of reality, composing poetry or music, even spiritual ecstasy conform to this pattern.  spiritual ecstasy is merely the relief of a self perceived spiritual poverty.  it is the absence of the baseness and triviality ordinary experience entails.  one way i see for a life to have positive value on this view is to alleviate more than one is own share of suffering.  in this way, your net effect on the world will be absolutely positive, but your life itself will be no more valuable.  your effects on the world may extend into the positive, but your possibility for experience will always be net negative.   #  it is impossible to live an entirely  negative  life, because negativity is subjective and can only exist in the presence of some stimuli perceived as  positive.    #  if all positive things in life alleviate negative things, then the net value of life will theoretically always be zero.  it is impossible to live an entirely  negative  life, because negativity is subjective and can only exist in the presence of some stimuli perceived as  positive.   it is similarly impossible to live an entirely  positive  life, because positivity suffers from the same subjective condition.  i would also posit that both positive and negative stimuli have diminishing returns.  the more negative stimuli a person suffers, the less negative each successive stimuli will be.  same with positive.  but since these two stimuli are mutually exclusive according to your logic positive stimuli always alleviate negative stimuli and ca not exist on their own merits , any negative stimuli increases the value of the return on positive stimuli, and any positive stimuli increases the value of the return on negative stimuli.  that means that a person living a mostly negative stimuli filled life will 0 consider many more stimuli to be positive, and 0 gain much more positive experience from positive stimuli.  in contrast, a person living a mostly positive stimuli filled life will 0 consider many more stimuli to be negative, and 0 gain much more negative experience from a negative stimuli.  it is a pendulum, in a way.  the farther the weight swings in one direction, the farther back it will swing in the other.  on average, the pendulum will have swung the same distance in one direction as the other.  any variation can be accounted for by the random chance of death.   #  further, there are good a priori reasons to suspect a predominance of suffering and a paucity of happiness and contentment  just enough  solicit the most adaptive behaviour.   #  i disagree.  being subject to negative mental states does not necessarily improve one is recognition of or appreciation or enjoyment of so called positive mental states or desirable events in the world.  this is an empirical matter, and one need look no further than depressives to see that they have no experiential balancing mechanism or pendulum, as you put it .  further, there are good a priori reasons to suspect a predominance of suffering and a paucity of happiness and contentment  just enough  solicit the most adaptive behaviour.  so if you were right about some sort of balancing mechanism, i would be with you.  but i do not think you are right in this matter.
all the ways in which one can be happy, fulfilled, or satisfied are merely the satisfaction of constant cravings we are used to.  most obviously, an experienced smoker does not experience net positive utility in smoking; they merely experience the brief alleviation of an unpleasant craving.  which, if to be regarded as positive at all, can only be regarded as relatively positive rather than absolutely positive.  i claim this to be true of all experiences.  all that is good to us even millsian  higher pleasures  is merely the relief of an absence, the presence of something previously lacking.  as such, the best we can conceivably hope for is a life of 0 utility.  all our efforts to be happy are just us clawing our way to neutrality.  the best we can do is to alleviate our suffering and the suffering of others.  so long as this is possible, that is our duty.  we should avoid inflicting the unfortunate state of being necessitated by our biological nature on new lives.  we are machines made for fucking to make more machines.  there is no deep purpose in life that would justify its continuation, but the closest we can get is to realise our suffering is unnecessary and morally indefensible, and we can frustrate our evolutionary function and quit perpetuating something unnecessary and ultimately unpleasant.   #  i claim this to be true of all experiences.   #  all that is good to us even millsian  higher pleasures  is merely the relief of an absence, the presence of something previously lacking.   #  my main question is this: what is the benefit of reshaping our picture of desire satisfaction in this way ? doing this seems to go against basic phenomenology of pleasure.  ie when a smoker feels the need to smoke, they are in a state of negative utility: they have an unfulfilled active desire.  the removal of that desire is then seen as pleasure, however it is significantly different than the  high  than one receives previously due to tolerance .  now compare that to the pleasure one receives by listening to an opera.  prior to the opera, the person is not in a negative state of utility.  they are neutral: they do not have any experience of desire or withdrawal from not hearing an opera.  then say that the song comes on and it gives me pleasure.  what your position would have to say is that the listener had an implicit, unconscious craving to hear music or perhaps more fine grained: to hear the opera .  why should we change our depiction in such a way ? does not it significantly cloud the distinction between a craving and a non desired but pleasurable experience ? all that is good to us even millsian  higher pleasures  is merely the relief of an absence, the presence of something previously lacking.  as such, the best we can conceivably hope for is a life of 0 utility.  all our efforts to be happy are just us clawing our way to neutrality.  why ? there seems to be clear cases of absences which cause suffering and clear cases of those which do not.  i am not claiming that we  could not  count utility the way you do, but why should we do so ?  #  if dying is a bad thing, then his life already had value.   #  this is a great cmv and i am sure it will lead to great debate.  now on to my own view: when talking about positive/negative value, there has to be the neutral 0 somewhere.  to me, that is absolute nothingness; death i think death is absolute nothingness, if you do not this gets far more complicated .  i believe most people are happier alive then dead, but there is a problem in proving this.  happiness is hard to measure, but a larger problem is measuring happiness of dead people.  so ignoring the purely theoretical part, on to your example of the smoker.  i would argue the smoker either gains utility from smoking, or his life already had positive value.  i assume a smoker gets some form of happiness from smoking a cigarette, whether this is a lot or a little does not matter.  the negative aspect of smoking is death.  now: if the smoker is life has negative value, then both the smoking itself and dying are both positive things so it would have a positive effect on his life.  if dying is a bad thing, then his life already had value.   #  in this way, your net effect on the world will be absolutely positive, but your life itself will be no more valuable.   #  but the smoker experiences satiation, and this satiation is in the form of diminishing his negative utility from his constant cravings.  the only space for positivity is in terms of what the smoker is relieved of.  net positive experiences do not exist; positive experiences exist only insofar as they mitigate or eliminate a negative state of experience.  even the  highest  pleasures learning truths of reality, composing poetry or music, even spiritual ecstasy conform to this pattern.  spiritual ecstasy is merely the relief of a self perceived spiritual poverty.  it is the absence of the baseness and triviality ordinary experience entails.  one way i see for a life to have positive value on this view is to alleviate more than one is own share of suffering.  in this way, your net effect on the world will be absolutely positive, but your life itself will be no more valuable.  your effects on the world may extend into the positive, but your possibility for experience will always be net negative.   #  it is impossible to live an entirely  negative  life, because negativity is subjective and can only exist in the presence of some stimuli perceived as  positive.    #  if all positive things in life alleviate negative things, then the net value of life will theoretically always be zero.  it is impossible to live an entirely  negative  life, because negativity is subjective and can only exist in the presence of some stimuli perceived as  positive.   it is similarly impossible to live an entirely  positive  life, because positivity suffers from the same subjective condition.  i would also posit that both positive and negative stimuli have diminishing returns.  the more negative stimuli a person suffers, the less negative each successive stimuli will be.  same with positive.  but since these two stimuli are mutually exclusive according to your logic positive stimuli always alleviate negative stimuli and ca not exist on their own merits , any negative stimuli increases the value of the return on positive stimuli, and any positive stimuli increases the value of the return on negative stimuli.  that means that a person living a mostly negative stimuli filled life will 0 consider many more stimuli to be positive, and 0 gain much more positive experience from positive stimuli.  in contrast, a person living a mostly positive stimuli filled life will 0 consider many more stimuli to be negative, and 0 gain much more negative experience from a negative stimuli.  it is a pendulum, in a way.  the farther the weight swings in one direction, the farther back it will swing in the other.  on average, the pendulum will have swung the same distance in one direction as the other.  any variation can be accounted for by the random chance of death.   #  this is an empirical matter, and one need look no further than depressives to see that they have no experiential balancing mechanism or pendulum, as you put it .   #  i disagree.  being subject to negative mental states does not necessarily improve one is recognition of or appreciation or enjoyment of so called positive mental states or desirable events in the world.  this is an empirical matter, and one need look no further than depressives to see that they have no experiential balancing mechanism or pendulum, as you put it .  further, there are good a priori reasons to suspect a predominance of suffering and a paucity of happiness and contentment  just enough  solicit the most adaptive behaviour.  so if you were right about some sort of balancing mechanism, i would be with you.  but i do not think you are right in this matter.
before you tell me i am an uncultured swine and to stop judging books i have not read sorry, john i know how you hate split infinitives , i have read nearly all of his works: the fault in our stars, looking for alaska, an abundance of katherines, paper towns, will grayson, will grayson, let it snow his collection of short stories with maureen johnson .  i am a teenage girl who is a huge fan of young adult literature.  i have been an enthusiast of vlogbrothers and many of john and hank is other channels long before having read any of john is books.  it seemed to be a no brainer that i would love them.  however, they fell extremely flat for me.  i thought paper towns and looking for alaska used a lot of ya tropes and were trying too hard to be  edgy .  also, if you were to simplify the plot for each they would be very similar.  a nerdy boy is chasing a wild teenage girl whom he puts on a pedestal, but who is actually fairly unstable.  the boy chases the girl  looking for her spirit  even after her death, or traveling to a  paper town  just to find her until he realizes that the girl never has and never will love him.   gasp  no happy ending ! /spoiler i liked tfios least of all of green is books it came off as pretentious and condescending and fake.  who carries around props all the time so that he can make metaphors ? not someone i would like to know.  how many teenagers have you met that go around casually saying  some infinities are bigger than other infinities  ? reddit seems to have a huge pro anything by john green circlejerk.  am i just missing something ? please change my view.   #  i liked tfios least of all of green is books it came off as pretentious and condescending and fake.   #  for the record, this is his only book i have read.   # for the record, this is his only book i have read.  someone in high school.  seriously this is the time of clicks and literally wearing your identity.  goth/jock/valley girl/nerd ? gamer etc.  my god in high school i would have worn a metaphor on a t shirt i am 0, i read tfios when it came out.  honestly i do not think i would have liked it when i was in high school, but now i can appreciate it more.  although i have not been very interested in reading any other books.  too many staked next to my bed as it is  not someone i would like to know.  how many teenagers have you met that go around casually saying  some infinities are bigger than other infinities  ? too be fair, i still love pointing that out to people.  but more as a math concept than anything else.  but yes i would have known people like that.  teenagers are pretentious and full of themselves.  not all, and maybe you do not know any, but plenty i assure you.   #  i think it is really important to see books that show the female romantic lead to the introverted male protagonist as a flawed human and not just a collection of traits that change the life of the protagonist.   #  as an 0 year old guy, for a long while i was definitely on the same page as you about john green.  i was really fed up with all the tumblr hype and with all the people at school who were so proud to be nerd fighters.  i read tfios, looking for alaska and paper towns, and i thought that the hype was really unfounded because they were just more formulaic teen fiction.  after revisiting the books later though to see why i had briefly originally liked them, i decided a lot of their appeal was because they deconstructed a lot of the tropes that they are made of.  i will concede that tfios is really overrated, but i think looking for alaska and paper towns in particular are really solid because they are a twist on the manic pixie dream girl thing that is really prolific in media right now.  i think it is really important to see books that show the female romantic lead to the introverted male protagonist as a flawed human and not just a collection of traits that change the life of the protagonist.  it has been a trend in the industry for a really long time to just have very flat female characters, and while maybe not the most mature or intelligent handling of the issue, i respect it for being an attempt that is reaching a wide audience.  there are other examples in media that are doing the same thing better, like 0 days of summer or eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, but as far as books reaching a wide preteen and teen audience, i feel like john green does a solid job at creating more multi dimensional characters, even if they can still come off as generic and trope y in their own ways.   #  i have not been able to get my hands on anything else, so that is all i have got for now.   #  now, i will preface this by saying that i have only read looking for alaska.  i have not been able to get my hands on anything else, so that is all i have got for now.  and, even after only reading one of his novels, i can predict the plot line of his other books pretty well.  that is not why people like john green, i feel.  i think it is less for his plots and more for his  characters .  people like his characters because they are unique and different, and actually seem alive in a way.   #  i feel very much the same way you do about john green is novels.   #  goddammit.  i wrote up a long reply, but my reddit account session timed out and i lost the write up.  here it is again.  i feel very much the same way you do about john green is novels.  i was just extremely underwhelmed by his writing, and this is coming from a fan of john is portions of the crash course series.  i like hank and john very much as people.  john is book just does not hit any sweet spot for what i want in literature.  i have only read  looking for alaska .  i was pretty disappointed in that it was basically a straight autobiography there exists a youtube video of a college aged john explaining the entire plot almost word for word, except explaining something that really happened to him.  i did not find the whole story to be that exciting anyway.  mildly amusing.  the top level comment on this thread is about how the catching part of john is work is the unconventional characters, but i just do not find them all that unconventional.  maybe i am just too old for ya fiction, but alaska was not all that deep to me.  an unsolicited suggestion: read  sputnik sweetheart  by haruki murakami.  it is almost exactly what  looking for alaska  should have been, but fell flat trying to be.  ss has a strong, introverted, complex female lead who goes missing, and a quiet, introverted, almost invisible male narrator.  i definitely suggest reading that if you are into better books !  #  from my understanding john green is books are not supposed to be deep at all.   #  from my understanding john green is books are not supposed to be deep at all.  you are supposed to read them quickly and thoroughly then dump the books back into the public library or into the hands of a friend.  his books are mostly autobiographical and are supposed to make people think  that pretentious son of a bitch character is exactly like me.   what i liked about john green is books is that he is the only living author i have read who really got what it was like to be a silly teen guy.  you might think that augustus  cigarette spinning was a silly thing, but every guy has some sort of coping mechanism to make a life a joke.  whether a guy tries to invent a function to do cost/benefit analysis for him, spends his time stalking someone for no real reason, or does something else is up to him.
this college football playoff thing is a good idea poorly executed.  everyone can agree that the bcs was terrible but it did one huge thing: it removed  style point wins.   teams just had to win by a point or two rather than trying to  impress  voters with blowouts.  well, we appear to be back to that.  the endless arguing over tcu/baylor, or whether the b0g should have a team in the playoff because the b0g is weak, or whether fsu deserves to be in or not. it is an endlessly tedious discussion that is like arguing who would win in a cage match: batman v.  superman.  there is no sport on this planet that tries to determine who the  best  team is for its championships.  very often the winner of the world series or the super bowl or even march madness is not considered  the best team.   for some reason, college football holds on to the idea of crowing  the best  white knuckled and in spite of any evidence to the contrary.  the argument logic  if team a beats team b, and team b beats team c, then team a should beat team c  is never true. it may be correlative but it surely is not causitive.  there are lots of teams who could lay claim to a championship because they beat a team that was ranked higher than them or had beaten a team who beat a team who was ranked higher than them.  here is my solution and somewhat offline to my original question : have a 0 team playoff.  the  big 0  conferences all get in by virtue of their championship games. the big 0 would have to get on board with this. and the 0th team in would be a play in game between the best ranked teams who are independent, mid tier, or one of the next in line of the big 0 conferences.  nfl fans, who are fans of teams who represent  the best  in the sport, are completely okay with watching, say, the broncos and patriots get knocked out of the first round of the playoffs, and seeing a wild card team which far more losses than those other two teams make it all the way to the super bowl.  in fact, when the giants beat the patriots several years ago, we all rejoiced that the underdog won.  so the question is this: why ca not the college football powers that be be okay with a simple 0 team playoff where the winners of the conferences get automatic bids regardless of their w/l record ? get rid of the committee and the constant yammering about who would win in the head to head and just let them play.   #  everyone can agree that the bcs was terrible but it did one huge thing: it removed  style point wins.    #  teams just had to win by a point or two rather than trying to  impress  voters with blowouts.   # teams just had to win by a point or two rather than trying to  impress  voters with blowouts.  that is not true at all.  much of the bcs was polls, aka just people is opinions.  some of them extremely biased last year, for example, there were like 0 one loss teams and everyone had to decide which team was best based on  style points.   on the other hand, any team from a p0 conference that goes undefeated is now virtually guaranteed a chance to play for a title.  this was not the case before.  auburn in 0 comes to mind.  could the current system be better ? i guess, nothing is perfect but it is superior in every was to the previous system.   #  but you are going to have arguing no matter what.   #  college basketball does pick the best for its tournament though.  but you are going to have arguing no matter what.  that is always been a part of it.  even in the bcs era.  in your scenario there would be endless arguing over the 0th spot.  and also who receives first round byes, since you would need that in a 0 team playoff.  the arguing we have seen up til now has just been stupid.  the reason tcu was above baylor was because they had already beaten ksu.  now that baylor has done that i believe it will either be them or osu getting in.  that is really the only argument here.  i think your system would just add to the arguing.   #  definitely not ready to be implemented tomorrow, but it is a helluva lot better than endlessly yammering on about style points.   #  i agree there is going to be some arguing in the system i proposed.  in a perfect world, the football tournament would look a lot like the nfl tournament only slightly pared back.  while it wo not remove the arguing, it does put to rest how many sec teams get in, or whether a baylor gets in above a tcu.  granted, the big 0 would need to adopt a ccg.  which would also mean expansion.  definitely not ready to be implemented tomorrow, but it is a helluva lot better than endlessly yammering on about style points.  fsu might have indeed won by narrow margins in most of its games, but bama did not and still lost a game.   #  and if this playoff system increases everybody is strength of schedule then i am all for it.   #  i have not really heard much said about style points.  mostly the talk has been about strength of schedule.  baylor is being weak, tcu losing to baylor, and ohio state being in a weak b0g.  and if this playoff system increases everybody is strength of schedule then i am all for it.  your method would lower strength of schedule for everyone just wanting to get to their conference championship.   #  if you beat mcneese state by 0, you are golden.   #  i do not know how this playoff system will fix that.  if you beat mcneese state by 0, you are golden.  it would only backfire if you only beat mcneese by 0 points.  in which case you are in the fsu dilemma and/or the b0g scenario.  if you beat who you are supposed to beat, your sos should not matter.  that is where the style points come in.  if you schedule a powder puff, you better cream them.  that sucks, imho
i am not saying this because i would indulge, i am saying this from a logical, economic perspective.  my first point: just as we have learned over recent years, teen sex will always exist.  there is no amount of sex ed classes or rules that will stop teenagers from having sex.  so we changed our collective viewpoint a bit and figured  well, they are going to do it  anyway , why not give them the things they need to be successful and healthy ?   so now, slowly but surely, clinics are offering free condoms and sex ed classes are now taking an educating and preparing approach rather than trying to scare teens into not having sex.  and its working.  URL the same goes for cannabis which is generating a lot of money at the taxpayer is benefit source URL soon, most or all states will be on board when they realize the goldmine that is the cannabis market.  prostitution, i imagine, would behave the same way if legalized.  prostitution will always be around, despite the copious amounts of arrests and jail time handed out by the police each year.  in it is current state, it is the epitome of crime.  more and more minors are being forced to become prostitutes due to the increasing demand for virgins URL and many are also victims of abuse by both pimp, client, and parents.  lets not forget about stds, which can spread like a fire though dry brush since the underground market rarely gives a damn i would they are clean or not.  yet, it generates over 0 billion dollars URL a year.  referring to that same link, we spend over 0 million fighting prostitution, money i believe can be spent elsewhere if it were decriminalized.  i suspect the pros of legalizing prostituon outweigh the cons: llegal sex trafficking would decrease since there would be a more legal, safer, healthier alternative for clients.  it creates jobs.  new insurance companies would rise to the occasion to cater to prostitutes.  they should offer birth control and hysterectomies for women and birth control URL and vasectomies for men, plus weekly/monthly std checks.  you will need builders to make the facilities, managers to run the facilities, and let is not forget, workers.  bonus: lessens the chance for stds to spread ! it will creates revenue.  that $0 billion a year would definitely help out with our multi trillion dollar debt.  in addition to that, we would probably get more tourists than usual ; .  no education required.  this can be both a pro and a con, depending on your view point.  but if a college graduate is a part time prostitute, that student debt will be paid off in no time ! less violence.  workers are in a controlled, safer environment.  there would probably be people there getting paid to keep the peace.  there are only a few cons i can think of: wo not look too good on a resume.  people is opinions/beliefs do not change overnight.  a competitive move by the black market offering more minors, lowering prices may lure more clients back in.  maybe someone else has more cons to add to the list ?  #  wo not look too good on a resume.   #  people is opinions/beliefs do not change overnight.   # people is opinions/beliefs do not change overnight.  those opinions and beliefs wo not start to change until we apply pressure to them.  would there be all that many people leaving that profession for other ones ? working for yourself with a high pay rate and no legal prohibitions would tend to keep people in that profession.  besides, what prospective employers would pry deeply into a self employed  entertainment  company ? are they going to call your manager ? if you are working for someone else, it would most likely end up like every other job: they only confirm that you were employed there and left under good terms there is been enough lawsuits resulting from former employers badmouthing employees to prospective employers, so they are not going to give up much.  legalizing prostitution would be fine if you are not opposed to the rest of the us becoming more like the parts of nevada that are not las vegas.   #  however, the first thing he tries to do is to get the girl away from the few people that  do  have a good influence on her.   #  as a dutch guy i can shed some light on one of the biggest issues with legal prostitution outside of illegal trafficking: lover boys.  i am not sure if this concept is well known outside of the netherlands, so let me explain what it is: a lover boy is a guy who tries to lure girls into prostitution.  he does not do this by being straight up front about this and ask them to do it.  instead he seeks out vulnerable girls, usually just above or just under the legal prostitution age with an unstable background e. g.  no parents, alcohol abuse in the family, etc.  .  he will at first portray himself as the ideal boyfriend: he brings gives, is nice and attentive, he just seems like an overall good guy.  however, the first thing he tries to do is to get the girl away from the few people that  do  have a good influence on her.  when he succeeds in that he can pretty much do anything he wants with her.  within no time he will get her into prostitution, with him making most, if not all, of the money.  the big problem with this is that officially the girls are voluntarily a prostitute.  in practice they are not.  the police cannot do anything about this until the girls themselves indicate they are forced to do so, something they do not do out of fear for repercussions or out of shame.  now the problem is that it is very hard to find good numbers to show how big of a problem this is, mostly because it is next to impossible to measure the size of this problem due to the same reasons as why the police ca not do anything about it.  however, it is a very real problem, and this problem can only exist when prostitution is legal.  by the way, i am by no means an expert, i do not know any numbers, so i still might be completely wrong.  i can just tell that pimps and loverboys are not the same, and that loverboys are much harder to lock up than pimps.  0 this is a significant problem in many countries, including the netherlands, 0 0 and estimates place the number of victims at 0,0 per year.  0  although loverboys use kidnapping, gang rape, and other coercive and intimidating methods on victims, dutch politician jamila yahyaoui reports as of 0 only five cases resulted in convictions in one year in the netherlands.  0 because of their young age, the girls  fear and emotional dependence, and vagueness about what exactly happened, often loverboys and their associates may only be charged with having sex with a minor and thus receive short sentences.  0 the socialist party rood wants police to remove obstacles to girls reporting abuse and not to lose contact, while some municipalities are educating front line workers to identify victims better.  0  #  it has been used to prosecute brothel owners and ponces/boyfriends successfully.   #  in the uk prostitution is 0 legal but here is a criminal charge of living off immoral earnings.  its one of the few criminal charges were the responsibility of the accused is to prove their innocence as opposed to the prosecution proving their guilt.  i think the maximum penalty is 0 years.  it has been used to prosecute brothel owners and ponces/boyfriends successfully.  all that is required is that a prostitute signs a statement against the person.  years ago i knew a woman that was involved in prostitution in the 0 is the cops were strong arming her to become a police informer.  she refused.  they threatened to arrest her 0 year old son for living off immoral earnings because he received benefit from her occupation,, mary daly URL  #  the older prostitutes tell them why are they giving a guy money when they earn it ?  #  its works in the uk because the novice sex workers are usually naive to begin with.  after a while they see that they have been duped.  he wants to start running more girls etc.  the older prostitutes tell them why are they giving a guy money when they earn it ? etc.  its not a perfect solution and like i said it can be abused.  child minders of the sex workers have been threatened in the past for payment regarding babysitting.  but in the case of pimps and ponces its a handy charge.  exploitation of minors need to receive draconian sentences to eradicate the practice in my opinion  #  remember: a loverboy is neither a boss or a partner.   #  remember: a loverboy is neither a boss or a partner.  it is someone who she at first truly loved, and then started to ask favors which she was willing to do.  from that point onwards it only got worse.  she feels tricked, maybe stupid.  she is ashamed, she is afraid for the loverboy.  these are reasons for her to stay away from her parents.  it is social manipulation and exploitation  made possible  by the legalisation of prostitution.
i will use the following labels for clarity: a cheater b so c  other person  i firmly believe it is very wrong to cheat on your so.  it betrays trust, breaks a serious commitment, and shows a lack of respect.  the ensuing lies are often as bad, if not worse.  however, c has no commitment to b.  c is not breaking trust or lying to b.   note: none of this applies c is friends with the b.  then c is breaking trust and being an awful friend.   once a has made the choice that they are willing to cheat, the damage is done.  whether or not a actually cheats at this point has no effect excluding stds .  i do not see any reason why b would be more upset to learn that a had cheated on him/her, than if b had refrained from doing so only because c did not want to.  i would not want to date someone who would have cheated on me if they could any more than i would want to date someone who actually did.  thus, once a has made clear his/her intention or desire  edit: if this is a clear and conscious decision, without outside influence  to cheat on b, c is doing nothing wrong by going through with it.  as a continuation, i believe the right thing for c to do is to inform b of a is infidelity regardless.  i do not necessarily think there is a  responsibility  for c to do so, though.  however, this is not central to my belief, or to this post.   #  as a continuation, i believe the right thing for c to do is to inform b of a is infidelity regardless.   #  i do not necessarily think there is a responsibility for c to do so, though.   # i do not necessarily think there is a responsibility for c to do so, though.  however, this is not central to my belief, or to this post.  i think it is.  you said it is not immoral to be with someone who is with some else already.  but by doing so, you are knowingly hurting the person who is getting cheated on.  like you said, the right thing to do is to have a or yourself to tell b of what is going on.  to not do so, again, is knowingly hurting them.  knowingly hurting someone is, or should be considered immoral.   #  and why does the morality of the act depend on how well c knows b ?  # this is the part i have the hardest time with.  you acknowledge that c is wronging b if they are friends, but it is not clear to me why the nature of their relationship changes the morality of the decision.  if they are good acquaintances is it still wrong ? if they are casual acquaintances ? at what point in the spectrum of relationships does the act go from being immoral to moral ? and why does the morality of the act depend on how well c knows b ? it seems to be a fairly cynical view of the world, that we owe a level of trust and honor to the group of people we consider friends, but we have no such obligation to people we do not currently know.  there are things i would do for a friend i would not do for a stranger, but i have thought about it for a while and i ca not think of anything i would be willing to do to a stranger that i would not be willing to do to a friend.  if something i am doing is not moral enough to do to a friend i do not see how doing it to a stranger would make it any more moral.   #  at what point in the spectrum of relationships does the act go from being immoral to moral ?  # you acknowledge that c is wronging b if they are friends, but it is not clear to me why the nature of their relationship changes the morality of the decision.  if they are good acquaintances is it still wrong ? if they are casual acquaintances ? at what point in the spectrum of relationships does the act go from being immoral to moral ? and why does the morality of the act depend on how well c knows b ? because cheating is wrong because it betrays trust, and disrespects someone you have a commitment to.  those things apply to friendships too, in my opinion.  it is breaking their trust in you.  if you do not know them, no such trust exists.   #  i think we do have obligations towards strangers and respect is among those obligations.   #  that is where i disagree.  i think we do have obligations towards strangers and respect is among those obligations.  if cheating is wrong because it is disrespectful to friends it is also disrespectful to strangers and is therefore still wrong.  but even if you believe that an act that would be immoral for you to commit against friends can be moral to commit against strangers, that does not answer the question of how you define  friend  and  stranger.   at what point on the spectrum from stranger to friend does the act stop being moral and start being immoral ? and why is it that someone standing just on one side of the transition makes the act immoral while someone standing just on the other side of that transition makes it moral ? as an entirely unrelated exercise, can you think of another act where the morality changes depending on whether the subject is a friend or stranger ? there is a lot of emotional baggage tied to the idea of cheating.  that, plus the existence of multiple involved parties, might muddy the question a bit.  but if the underlying premise the morality of an act changes depending on the actors relationship to the subject is sound, then it should be possible to come up with more obvious and clear cut examples where the premise applies.  being able to point to other examples would bolster the premise and therefore the argument, but can you come up with others ?  #  being able to point to other examples would bolster the premise and therefore the argument, but can you come up with others ?  # i think we do have obligations towards strangers and respect is among those obligations.  if cheating is wrong because it is disrespectful to friends it is also disrespectful to strangers and is therefore still wrong.  i think most people would agree that lying to a trusted friend is worse than to the guy next to you in line at burger king.  at what point on the spectrum from stranger to friend does the act stop being moral and start being immoral ? and why is it that someone standing just on one side of the transition makes the act immoral while someone standing just on the other side of that transition makes it moral ? what could possibly make you think this is a defined line and not a spectrum, just like friendship ? there is a lot of emotional baggage tied to the idea of cheating.  that, plus the existence of multiple involved parties, might muddy the question a bit.  but if the underlying premise the morality of an act changes depending on the actors relationship to the subject is sound, then it should be possible to come up with more obvious and clear cut examples where the premise applies.  being able to point to other examples would bolster the premise and therefore the argument, but can you come up with others ? yes, see above.
i will use the following labels for clarity: a cheater b so c  other person  i firmly believe it is very wrong to cheat on your so.  it betrays trust, breaks a serious commitment, and shows a lack of respect.  the ensuing lies are often as bad, if not worse.  however, c has no commitment to b.  c is not breaking trust or lying to b.   note: none of this applies c is friends with the b.  then c is breaking trust and being an awful friend.   once a has made the choice that they are willing to cheat, the damage is done.  whether or not a actually cheats at this point has no effect excluding stds .  i do not see any reason why b would be more upset to learn that a had cheated on him/her, than if b had refrained from doing so only because c did not want to.  i would not want to date someone who would have cheated on me if they could any more than i would want to date someone who actually did.  thus, once a has made clear his/her intention or desire  edit: if this is a clear and conscious decision, without outside influence  to cheat on b, c is doing nothing wrong by going through with it.  as a continuation, i believe the right thing for c to do is to inform b of a is infidelity regardless.  i do not necessarily think there is a  responsibility  for c to do so, though.  however, this is not central to my belief, or to this post.   #  as a continuation, i believe the right thing for c to do is to inform b of a is infidelity regardless.   #  i do not necessarily think there is a responsibility for c to do so, though.   #  though i am not /u/futtbucked0 i think what they are saying is that you are still intentionally hurting someone, and therefore it is still immoral.  the problem is not that you are breaking your commitment, but that you are hurting someone in order to take pleasure for yourself.  imagine if someone offered you a priceless picasso painting for $0, and conveniently you saw on the news that morning that this very same painting was stolen from a big art collector earlier this week.  even if you are not the one directly taking the painting from him, it would still be immoral to buy the painting and to keep it from him.  i do not necessarily think there is a responsibility for c to do so, though.  however, this is not central to my belief, or to this post.  i am not sure i understand this point.  if it is the right thing to do, does not that by definition mean it is the moral choice ?  #  if they are good acquaintances is it still wrong ?  # this is the part i have the hardest time with.  you acknowledge that c is wronging b if they are friends, but it is not clear to me why the nature of their relationship changes the morality of the decision.  if they are good acquaintances is it still wrong ? if they are casual acquaintances ? at what point in the spectrum of relationships does the act go from being immoral to moral ? and why does the morality of the act depend on how well c knows b ? it seems to be a fairly cynical view of the world, that we owe a level of trust and honor to the group of people we consider friends, but we have no such obligation to people we do not currently know.  there are things i would do for a friend i would not do for a stranger, but i have thought about it for a while and i ca not think of anything i would be willing to do to a stranger that i would not be willing to do to a friend.  if something i am doing is not moral enough to do to a friend i do not see how doing it to a stranger would make it any more moral.   #  because cheating is wrong because it betrays trust, and disrespects someone you have a commitment to.   # you acknowledge that c is wronging b if they are friends, but it is not clear to me why the nature of their relationship changes the morality of the decision.  if they are good acquaintances is it still wrong ? if they are casual acquaintances ? at what point in the spectrum of relationships does the act go from being immoral to moral ? and why does the morality of the act depend on how well c knows b ? because cheating is wrong because it betrays trust, and disrespects someone you have a commitment to.  those things apply to friendships too, in my opinion.  it is breaking their trust in you.  if you do not know them, no such trust exists.   #  i think we do have obligations towards strangers and respect is among those obligations.   #  that is where i disagree.  i think we do have obligations towards strangers and respect is among those obligations.  if cheating is wrong because it is disrespectful to friends it is also disrespectful to strangers and is therefore still wrong.  but even if you believe that an act that would be immoral for you to commit against friends can be moral to commit against strangers, that does not answer the question of how you define  friend  and  stranger.   at what point on the spectrum from stranger to friend does the act stop being moral and start being immoral ? and why is it that someone standing just on one side of the transition makes the act immoral while someone standing just on the other side of that transition makes it moral ? as an entirely unrelated exercise, can you think of another act where the morality changes depending on whether the subject is a friend or stranger ? there is a lot of emotional baggage tied to the idea of cheating.  that, plus the existence of multiple involved parties, might muddy the question a bit.  but if the underlying premise the morality of an act changes depending on the actors relationship to the subject is sound, then it should be possible to come up with more obvious and clear cut examples where the premise applies.  being able to point to other examples would bolster the premise and therefore the argument, but can you come up with others ?  #  but if the underlying premise the morality of an act changes depending on the actors relationship to the subject is sound, then it should be possible to come up with more obvious and clear cut examples where the premise applies.   # i think we do have obligations towards strangers and respect is among those obligations.  if cheating is wrong because it is disrespectful to friends it is also disrespectful to strangers and is therefore still wrong.  i think most people would agree that lying to a trusted friend is worse than to the guy next to you in line at burger king.  at what point on the spectrum from stranger to friend does the act stop being moral and start being immoral ? and why is it that someone standing just on one side of the transition makes the act immoral while someone standing just on the other side of that transition makes it moral ? what could possibly make you think this is a defined line and not a spectrum, just like friendship ? there is a lot of emotional baggage tied to the idea of cheating.  that, plus the existence of multiple involved parties, might muddy the question a bit.  but if the underlying premise the morality of an act changes depending on the actors relationship to the subject is sound, then it should be possible to come up with more obvious and clear cut examples where the premise applies.  being able to point to other examples would bolster the premise and therefore the argument, but can you come up with others ? yes, see above.
facts: 0. 	0 0 of black white people are in prison.  0. 	0 0 of black white people are below poverty.  0. 	0 0 of the usa is black white .  0. 	summing the five most populous usa cities, 0 0 of the population is black white .  assumptions: 0. 	low income people are much more likely to go to prison than high income people.  0. 	city dwellers are much more likely to go to prison than suburban and rural people argument: 0. 	adjusting fact 0 for urban populations by correcting the numbers in fact 0 with those in fact 0 , one obtains that 0   0 / 0 0 0   0 / 0 0 of black white city dwellers are in prison.  0. 	using fact 0 , one would expect black people to be 0 times more likely to go to prison than white people.  0. 	using argument 0 , one observes that black people are 0 times more likely to go to prison than white people.  short comings: 0. 	facts 0 and 0 , which are true nation wide, are not necessarily true when applied to just cities.  i was unable to find more well suited statistics.  0. 	assumptions 0 and 0 need to be verified; however, i could find no statistics that commented on them.  0. 	this argument only considers the five most populous cities, which make up 0 of the population.  scope: 0. 	this argument does not comment on the morality or correctness of targeting low income city dwellers above any other group.  0. 	this argument says nothing as to the events and policies that led to black people being much more likely to be low income city dwellers.   #  0 0 of black white people are in prison.   #  they also make up the majority of crime and repeat offenders.   # they also make up the majority of crime and repeat offenders.  black people also have higher high school drop out rates and lower college enrollment.  using your numbers you could also say black people are stupid criminals just as you could say police are insert word ist.  this is the core of racism as far as i can tell.  black people make up much less of the population but commit more crime.  looking at bite size numbers do not account for the whole picture.  the same goes with the police.  for every negative story the media plays, there are 0 stories of police helping people.  the reason you are thinking police are racist or classist is because you hear it on the news.  it is a popular topic right now because of the whole ferguson thing.  popular topics are reported on more because the news organization is still a business who depend on ratings.  police deal with criminals on a daily basis.  they have to deal with other peoples feces, urine, blood, saliva, and other bodily fluids on a daily basis.  they fear for their lives on multiple occasions.  every interaction could be their last.  the majority of people they deal with on a daily basis are rude, thugs, thieves, liars, angry, prostitutes, mental, ignorant and generally the bottom dwellers of society.  this day in day out interaction changes their thought process and general psych.  so when they come across the 0 out of 0 normal civilian encounters, they come across as hard or assholes through a life of dealing with these people.  it is not personal or racist or sexist or classist, etc.  they are easy to dislike because of their evolved demeanor.  as a final thought, a person does not go to prison because of a cop alone.  it also depends on a lawyer, a jury of their peers, a judge, and a prosecutor.   #  title 0 u. s. c section 0 and section 0.  they were the only criminals present during a vast majority of police interactions in the city during that policy.   # 0x is a huge disparity ! i see why people were outraged because of this ! slightly off topic, here, but the problems involved with stop and frisk would not have happened if  reasonable suspicion  had actually been reasonable.  they basically did away with the 0th amendment.  there are three levels of police encounters.  they would have a  voluntary  interaction with a citizen yeah right , then search said person for officer safety.  people are allowed to walk away from a voluntary interaction, negating any officer safety issue.  the ability to walk away was removed by the officer demanding that you stay.  this changes the interaction to a terry stop.  which requires reasonable and articulable suspicion.  from what i can tell, suddenly, upon the implementation of this policy, anything and everything suddenly became reasonable.   he looked like a guy who could have a gun  was suddenly accepted as reasonable by all the judges ? wtf ? the number of people frisked was astronomical.  the fact that no judge called out any of the officers for lack of ras in any of those 0. x million stops is utterly ridiculous.  every one of those officers in nyc is a felon.  title 0 u. s. c section 0 and section 0.  they were the only criminals present during a vast majority of police interactions in the city during that policy.  pigs.   #  black people are statistically poorer than white people are, so i would expect more black people to go to prison, at least partly because of the public defender vs.   #  this is why i think it is important to correct for income.  black people are statistically poorer than white people are, so i would expect more black people to go to prison, at least partly because of the public defender vs.  private attorney aspect that you brought up.  however, when one corrects for income, one gets more even numbers.  you do bring up a good point, though, that this analysis is unable to definitively delineate between biases in cops and biases in the legal system.  i, however, would expect a strong correlation between the two; but, barring evidence, this cannot be stated with any certainty.   #  i have done this for a few areas, and i have not seen a huge difference; doing it for a few areas is actually what motivated me to develop this argument on a nation wide scope.   #  i have done this for a few areas, and i have not seen a huge difference; doing it for a few areas is actually what motivated me to develop this argument on a nation wide scope.  one example of this is if you look at the ferguson traffic stop data, then it seems like black people are much more likely to be stopped than white people.  URL .  however, if you correct for income, then you achieve near even numbers: 0 of ferguson is black, 0 of blacks are below poverty, so 0 of ferguson is blacks below poverty.  0 of ferguson is white, 0 of whites are below poverty, so 0 of ferguson is whites below poverty.  0: 0 0:0; 0 whites stopped: 0 blacks stopped 0:0.  however, ultimately, without better incarceration demographic data and better urban income race data, it is difficult to definitively obtain an answer here.   #  from a strategic standpoint it makes sense to stop  more  than 0x as many women for confiscation.   #  i mean a higher percentage than the corrected value.  hypothetical world: the government wants to crack down on a particular drug.  studies find that women regardless of other factors are 0x more likely to carry it than men.  from a strategic standpoint it makes sense to stop  more  than 0x as many women for confiscation.  time and resources for stopping people are finite so you make decisions that are most efficient for success.  racism and profiling are very real things in america, but they do not exist completely without reason.
facts: 0. 	0 0 of black white people are in prison.  0. 	0 0 of black white people are below poverty.  0. 	0 0 of the usa is black white .  0. 	summing the five most populous usa cities, 0 0 of the population is black white .  assumptions: 0. 	low income people are much more likely to go to prison than high income people.  0. 	city dwellers are much more likely to go to prison than suburban and rural people argument: 0. 	adjusting fact 0 for urban populations by correcting the numbers in fact 0 with those in fact 0 , one obtains that 0   0 / 0 0 0   0 / 0 0 of black white city dwellers are in prison.  0. 	using fact 0 , one would expect black people to be 0 times more likely to go to prison than white people.  0. 	using argument 0 , one observes that black people are 0 times more likely to go to prison than white people.  short comings: 0. 	facts 0 and 0 , which are true nation wide, are not necessarily true when applied to just cities.  i was unable to find more well suited statistics.  0. 	assumptions 0 and 0 need to be verified; however, i could find no statistics that commented on them.  0. 	this argument only considers the five most populous cities, which make up 0 of the population.  scope: 0. 	this argument does not comment on the morality or correctness of targeting low income city dwellers above any other group.  0. 	this argument says nothing as to the events and policies that led to black people being much more likely to be low income city dwellers.   #  0 0 of black white people are below poverty.   #  black people also have higher high school drop out rates and lower college enrollment.   # they also make up the majority of crime and repeat offenders.  black people also have higher high school drop out rates and lower college enrollment.  using your numbers you could also say black people are stupid criminals just as you could say police are insert word ist.  this is the core of racism as far as i can tell.  black people make up much less of the population but commit more crime.  looking at bite size numbers do not account for the whole picture.  the same goes with the police.  for every negative story the media plays, there are 0 stories of police helping people.  the reason you are thinking police are racist or classist is because you hear it on the news.  it is a popular topic right now because of the whole ferguson thing.  popular topics are reported on more because the news organization is still a business who depend on ratings.  police deal with criminals on a daily basis.  they have to deal with other peoples feces, urine, blood, saliva, and other bodily fluids on a daily basis.  they fear for their lives on multiple occasions.  every interaction could be their last.  the majority of people they deal with on a daily basis are rude, thugs, thieves, liars, angry, prostitutes, mental, ignorant and generally the bottom dwellers of society.  this day in day out interaction changes their thought process and general psych.  so when they come across the 0 out of 0 normal civilian encounters, they come across as hard or assholes through a life of dealing with these people.  it is not personal or racist or sexist or classist, etc.  they are easy to dislike because of their evolved demeanor.  as a final thought, a person does not go to prison because of a cop alone.  it also depends on a lawyer, a jury of their peers, a judge, and a prosecutor.   #  they would have a  voluntary  interaction with a citizen yeah right , then search said person for officer safety.   # 0x is a huge disparity ! i see why people were outraged because of this ! slightly off topic, here, but the problems involved with stop and frisk would not have happened if  reasonable suspicion  had actually been reasonable.  they basically did away with the 0th amendment.  there are three levels of police encounters.  they would have a  voluntary  interaction with a citizen yeah right , then search said person for officer safety.  people are allowed to walk away from a voluntary interaction, negating any officer safety issue.  the ability to walk away was removed by the officer demanding that you stay.  this changes the interaction to a terry stop.  which requires reasonable and articulable suspicion.  from what i can tell, suddenly, upon the implementation of this policy, anything and everything suddenly became reasonable.   he looked like a guy who could have a gun  was suddenly accepted as reasonable by all the judges ? wtf ? the number of people frisked was astronomical.  the fact that no judge called out any of the officers for lack of ras in any of those 0. x million stops is utterly ridiculous.  every one of those officers in nyc is a felon.  title 0 u. s. c section 0 and section 0.  they were the only criminals present during a vast majority of police interactions in the city during that policy.  pigs.   #  this is why i think it is important to correct for income.   #  this is why i think it is important to correct for income.  black people are statistically poorer than white people are, so i would expect more black people to go to prison, at least partly because of the public defender vs.  private attorney aspect that you brought up.  however, when one corrects for income, one gets more even numbers.  you do bring up a good point, though, that this analysis is unable to definitively delineate between biases in cops and biases in the legal system.  i, however, would expect a strong correlation between the two; but, barring evidence, this cannot be stated with any certainty.   #  0 of ferguson is white, 0 of whites are below poverty, so 0 of ferguson is whites below poverty.   #  i have done this for a few areas, and i have not seen a huge difference; doing it for a few areas is actually what motivated me to develop this argument on a nation wide scope.  one example of this is if you look at the ferguson traffic stop data, then it seems like black people are much more likely to be stopped than white people.  URL .  however, if you correct for income, then you achieve near even numbers: 0 of ferguson is black, 0 of blacks are below poverty, so 0 of ferguson is blacks below poverty.  0 of ferguson is white, 0 of whites are below poverty, so 0 of ferguson is whites below poverty.  0: 0 0:0; 0 whites stopped: 0 blacks stopped 0:0.  however, ultimately, without better incarceration demographic data and better urban income race data, it is difficult to definitively obtain an answer here.   #  from a strategic standpoint it makes sense to stop  more  than 0x as many women for confiscation.   #  i mean a higher percentage than the corrected value.  hypothetical world: the government wants to crack down on a particular drug.  studies find that women regardless of other factors are 0x more likely to carry it than men.  from a strategic standpoint it makes sense to stop  more  than 0x as many women for confiscation.  time and resources for stopping people are finite so you make decisions that are most efficient for success.  racism and profiling are very real things in america, but they do not exist completely without reason.
hey guys.  so this cmv stems from a family thing.  i have a gay sister who makes disparaging remarks about my cousin, who i am friends with.  i find this insulting as he is my friend.  she claims he is homophobic, racist, etc, and that he has posted hate speech openly on social media, but i have not personally seen it although i know he makes a lot of jokes etc.  she is generally disrespectful about the fact that we are friends, and imo tries to guilt me into not liking him.  i think her problems are due to her own issues, and its unreasonable for her to drag me into her own problems.  it is also very offensive when she says nasty things about someone who i am friendly with.   #  but i have not personally seen it although i know he makes a lot of jokes etc.   #  this is such a cop out answer.   #  let is split this up into the two questions you are really asking.  0.  is your sister justified in being a dick to you about your friend if she does not like him ? 0.  is your sister justified in expressing her disapproval of your friend ? regarding 0, i would not defend her bullying you for being friends with your cousin, because that is your personal choice and you can do what you want.  fundamentally, if you value your friendship with your cousin over your relationship with your sister, it is up to you to make that choice, and her trying to guilt trip you out of it is not going to help you change your mind.  regarding 0, however, unequivocally, yes.  there is some stuff in your post that suggests to me that you are being dismissive of your sister and her experiences, though i do not know why:   she claims he is homophobic, racist, etc, and that he has posted hate speech openly on social media, well, if he is homophobic, racist, etc. , then that is just a statement of fact.  you do not have to be offended by it; some people are proud to be racist and hate gays, and there is nothing saying you ca not be one of those people.  however, it is morally sketchy to be offended by accusations of racism and homophobia, yet continue to maintain friendships with racists and homophobes.  this is such a cop out answer.  if you really cared about racism and homophobia, would it take too much time out of your day to go on your cousin is social media and check ? in fact, if you really wanted to consider your sister is point of view, as a gay person and as your sister, could not you simply ask her to show you where he is made the remarks that offended her ? it seems that offensive comments about your friend bother you, but your sister is feelings, and the potential veracity of her claims, do not.  well, i am sure most gay people is hatred of homophobes has something to do with the issue of their sexuality and how that is affected their lives.  does that mean they are not allowed to speak about it or try to change the world to fit them better ? i think that, if you are a racist and a homophobe, you should let your sister know, because that will save both of you a lot of frustration and wasted time.   #  or what about a bigger guy that hung out with dudes who kept calling him fatso and making fun of his weight.   #  would you respect the friendship if your sister was friends with a junkie who kept borrowing money from her to get a fix ? or what about a bigger guy that hung out with dudes who kept calling him fatso and making fun of his weight.  maybe you take more offense to the way your sister portays your friend, calling him a loser and groaning when his name is mentioned.  would you it be more acceptable for her to simply say  i have heard xyz make homophobic remarks and i do not think he is joking.  i want you to know it makes me feel uncomfortable to be around him because of this.   ?  #  when one of those friends has a negative impact on your friend, it is totally legit to say something for the sake of your friend.   #  i will use an example from my own life to explain how i think the dynamics of this should work.  i have a friend, let is say his name is mike.  mike made a friend in college that was sort of a deadbeat.  we will call him dan.  mike bent over backwards to help dan with a huge number of problems.  in many ways, dan was dragging mike down, but mike is a really good guy and was trying to help dan.  one day, i finally just told mike that dan was not properly appreciative or even receptive to help and it was having a negative impact on mike, stressing him out and causing him to waste untold hours trying to help a guy who was not making any forward progress even with all the efforts to help him.  mike realized i was right and stopped putting in the effort to help, though that friendship has not ended entirely to my knowledge, the effort now stops at talking.  mike is a happier guy for it and much less stressed out.  in fact, i would say his stress levels have basically evaporated.  i did not really care much for dan, but he had a pretty great sense of humor and a unique perspective on some fun topics.  i, however, kept my mouth shut about things until i felt it was important for  mike is sanity  to back off from dan.  in short, everyone gets to choose their own friends.  when one of those friends has a negative impact on your friend, it is totally legit to say something for the sake of your friend.  the question in your case is about the reasons your sister feels the need to say something.  does she feel your friend has a negative impact on you, or is it simply that she finds him personally offensive ?  #  the point is, that people care about you and decisions you make affect them.   #  just as a personal experience.  i do not put up with drama, when my friends are doing something stupid i tell them.  when they continue to do something stupid i get frustrated with them, because they are hurting themselves weather they see it or not.  eventually, when they try to drag me along with their drama.  i put my foot down and walk away.  the point is, that people care about you and decisions you make affect them.  eventhough you love your sister i mean you care about what she thinks at least at face value, by hanging out with someone like your cousin, and someone with his attitudes you are indirectly hurting her, because you are ok with his behavior even though it is detrimental to your sister.   #  it very rarely happens and it happens with such infrequency that it is superior to abandon them to their own devices until it is so overwhelmingly unpopular that that children kick it in a future generation.   #  0.  people do not change their more extreme opinions.  it very rarely happens and it happens with such infrequency that it is superior to abandon them to their own devices until it is so overwhelmingly unpopular that that children kick it in a future generation.  0.  this sounds absurdly immature, but i will bite.  it is not about peer to peer judgement.  it is about supervisor subordinate judgement.  employers check facebook now, and who you are at home is becoming increasingly important to those employers.  employee is are an investment and hiring a radical racist homophobic extremist or someone who associates with them is bad hr0.  0.  status is one thing, there is nothing wrong with coming from a different background.  fringe opinions are dangerous.  are you even familiar with the term  career suicide ?   it is not elitist to have a strong desire for dissociation from homophobic or racist attitudes echo chamber or not.  these things are not positive qualities to possess in the first place and furthermore society is the biggest echo chamber of elitism in existence.  we always demand more from everyone, and if you belong to that willingly or not you either get with the program or suffer.  that is the reality period.
hey guys.  so this cmv stems from a family thing.  i have a gay sister who makes disparaging remarks about my cousin, who i am friends with.  i find this insulting as he is my friend.  she claims he is homophobic, racist, etc, and that he has posted hate speech openly on social media, but i have not personally seen it although i know he makes a lot of jokes etc.  she is generally disrespectful about the fact that we are friends, and imo tries to guilt me into not liking him.  i think her problems are due to her own issues, and its unreasonable for her to drag me into her own problems.  it is also very offensive when she says nasty things about someone who i am friendly with.   #  i think her problems are due to her own issues, and its unreasonable for her to drag me into her own problems.   #  well, i am sure most gay people is hatred of homophobes has something to do with the issue of their sexuality and how that is affected their lives.   #  let is split this up into the two questions you are really asking.  0.  is your sister justified in being a dick to you about your friend if she does not like him ? 0.  is your sister justified in expressing her disapproval of your friend ? regarding 0, i would not defend her bullying you for being friends with your cousin, because that is your personal choice and you can do what you want.  fundamentally, if you value your friendship with your cousin over your relationship with your sister, it is up to you to make that choice, and her trying to guilt trip you out of it is not going to help you change your mind.  regarding 0, however, unequivocally, yes.  there is some stuff in your post that suggests to me that you are being dismissive of your sister and her experiences, though i do not know why:   she claims he is homophobic, racist, etc, and that he has posted hate speech openly on social media, well, if he is homophobic, racist, etc. , then that is just a statement of fact.  you do not have to be offended by it; some people are proud to be racist and hate gays, and there is nothing saying you ca not be one of those people.  however, it is morally sketchy to be offended by accusations of racism and homophobia, yet continue to maintain friendships with racists and homophobes.  this is such a cop out answer.  if you really cared about racism and homophobia, would it take too much time out of your day to go on your cousin is social media and check ? in fact, if you really wanted to consider your sister is point of view, as a gay person and as your sister, could not you simply ask her to show you where he is made the remarks that offended her ? it seems that offensive comments about your friend bother you, but your sister is feelings, and the potential veracity of her claims, do not.  well, i am sure most gay people is hatred of homophobes has something to do with the issue of their sexuality and how that is affected their lives.  does that mean they are not allowed to speak about it or try to change the world to fit them better ? i think that, if you are a racist and a homophobe, you should let your sister know, because that will save both of you a lot of frustration and wasted time.   #  i want you to know it makes me feel uncomfortable to be around him because of this.    #  would you respect the friendship if your sister was friends with a junkie who kept borrowing money from her to get a fix ? or what about a bigger guy that hung out with dudes who kept calling him fatso and making fun of his weight.  maybe you take more offense to the way your sister portays your friend, calling him a loser and groaning when his name is mentioned.  would you it be more acceptable for her to simply say  i have heard xyz make homophobic remarks and i do not think he is joking.  i want you to know it makes me feel uncomfortable to be around him because of this.   ?  #  mike realized i was right and stopped putting in the effort to help, though that friendship has not ended entirely to my knowledge, the effort now stops at talking.   #  i will use an example from my own life to explain how i think the dynamics of this should work.  i have a friend, let is say his name is mike.  mike made a friend in college that was sort of a deadbeat.  we will call him dan.  mike bent over backwards to help dan with a huge number of problems.  in many ways, dan was dragging mike down, but mike is a really good guy and was trying to help dan.  one day, i finally just told mike that dan was not properly appreciative or even receptive to help and it was having a negative impact on mike, stressing him out and causing him to waste untold hours trying to help a guy who was not making any forward progress even with all the efforts to help him.  mike realized i was right and stopped putting in the effort to help, though that friendship has not ended entirely to my knowledge, the effort now stops at talking.  mike is a happier guy for it and much less stressed out.  in fact, i would say his stress levels have basically evaporated.  i did not really care much for dan, but he had a pretty great sense of humor and a unique perspective on some fun topics.  i, however, kept my mouth shut about things until i felt it was important for  mike is sanity  to back off from dan.  in short, everyone gets to choose their own friends.  when one of those friends has a negative impact on your friend, it is totally legit to say something for the sake of your friend.  the question in your case is about the reasons your sister feels the need to say something.  does she feel your friend has a negative impact on you, or is it simply that she finds him personally offensive ?  #  i put my foot down and walk away.   #  just as a personal experience.  i do not put up with drama, when my friends are doing something stupid i tell them.  when they continue to do something stupid i get frustrated with them, because they are hurting themselves weather they see it or not.  eventually, when they try to drag me along with their drama.  i put my foot down and walk away.  the point is, that people care about you and decisions you make affect them.  eventhough you love your sister i mean you care about what she thinks at least at face value, by hanging out with someone like your cousin, and someone with his attitudes you are indirectly hurting her, because you are ok with his behavior even though it is detrimental to your sister.   #  it is not elitist to have a strong desire for dissociation from homophobic or racist attitudes echo chamber or not.   #  0.  people do not change their more extreme opinions.  it very rarely happens and it happens with such infrequency that it is superior to abandon them to their own devices until it is so overwhelmingly unpopular that that children kick it in a future generation.  0.  this sounds absurdly immature, but i will bite.  it is not about peer to peer judgement.  it is about supervisor subordinate judgement.  employers check facebook now, and who you are at home is becoming increasingly important to those employers.  employee is are an investment and hiring a radical racist homophobic extremist or someone who associates with them is bad hr0.  0.  status is one thing, there is nothing wrong with coming from a different background.  fringe opinions are dangerous.  are you even familiar with the term  career suicide ?   it is not elitist to have a strong desire for dissociation from homophobic or racist attitudes echo chamber or not.  these things are not positive qualities to possess in the first place and furthermore society is the biggest echo chamber of elitism in existence.  we always demand more from everyone, and if you belong to that willingly or not you either get with the program or suffer.  that is the reality period.
i hold this belief because i believe that reddit as a site would be vastly improved by having a very active moderation team.  especially in light of the deaths of michael brown and eric garner, i have seen tons of people throwing around slurs and comparing black people to monkeys among other things.  i also believe that the admins should ban subreddits that are based on hate speech, such as /r/whiterights /r/greatapes.  in addition admins should ban subreddits that promote violence against women such as /r/theredpill and /r/beatingwomen.  i can anticipate a lot of the responses i will get, so i will address some counterarguments right now.   this allows the admins to abuse their power and ban non racist/sexist/prejudice subreddits.   i believe that in order for reddit to ban a subreddit, they should have to explain why it was banned, and give evidence that it was promoting hate speech.   this censors free speech.   reddit is a private company that can do whatever they want legally.  anyone who wants to be racist could go to stormfront or any other forum that tolerates hate.   where will the mods draw the line between satire and seriousness ?   this is actually a good point and i think it would be tricky.  /r/iamgoingtohellforthis is a subreddit that i frequent and even though there is a lot of awful shit on there, i think most of it is satire and not problematic.  again, i believe that giving the admins discretion over what they do is important, because they are not stupid, and they know what subreddits are actually racist.  on a similar note, i also believe that subreddits that have a large number of racist/sexist users but does not promote hate speech as a whole should not be banned.  an example of this would be /r/mensrights.  i believe that even though a large number of users there are sexist, the purpose of the sub is simply bringing attention to men is issues.   #  i also believe that the admins should ban subreddits that are based on hate speech, such as /r/whiterights /r/greatapes.   #  in addition admins should ban subreddits that promote violence against women such as /r/theredpill and /r/beatingwomen.   # in addition admins should ban subreddits that promote violence against women such as /r/theredpill and /r/beatingwomen.  you lost me at redpill.  there is nothing wrong with that sub.  i was about to say that banning the racist ones were a slippery slope that could lead to banning redpill, but then you just said it should be banned too.  reddit is a subset of the internet.  the internet allows all speech.  reddit is run on pure logic and ignores morals.  that is how they should be ran.  the moment they start passing moral judgment on something, it becomes an out of control slippery slope.  why does it bother you that there are hate speech subreddits ? like you said, they would find somewhere else to talk if not here, so why does it bother you ? just do not go to those subreddits.   #  that means that someone who is more sensitive and someone who is not sensitive at all would moderate completely differently being guided by common sense.   #  common sense is completely meaningless in this case.  it depends on the assumptions, aspirations, and prior experience of the individual in question.  it is simply the natural conclusions that result from those things.  the problem is that each person has different preconditions and therefore different conclusions.  that means that someone who is more sensitive and someone who is not sensitive at all would moderate completely differently being guided by common sense.   #  the way reddit handles hate speech is based more on action, not on content, which is reasonable.   #  i do agree with that.  the way reddit handles hate speech is based more on action, not on content, which is reasonable.  the op is talking about banning content that is  hateful , but makes an arbitrary distinction between the red pill and men is rights because one  advocates violence  and the other  focuses on men is issues.   it should be noted that nearly all the subs op posted are meant to bring attention to certain groups that do not get attention in the mainstream.  it should also be noted that mras are officially designated by southern poverty law as a hate group.  going by subjective feelings in order judge what should be allowed on reddit does not seem like a good idea to me.   #  if you dislike the content of a subreddit, do not visit it.   #  not unless it is directed at those individuals.  if /r/niggers went on /r/blackladies and made racist tirades, then yes they would have been banned for that.  if you sit in your room writing racist things all over your walls, who is that abusing ? in the same light, if you write racist comments in your own subreddit, who is that abusing ? no one forces you to read that subreddit.  if you dislike the content of a subreddit, do not visit it.  policing free speech, even speech that is downright disgusting, is a dangerous practice to get into.   #  they have just as much a right to be exist an be around as any other more widely accepted view subreddit.   #  well when the website is being both touted as a platform for  free  speech, expression, content and is used by people around the world to spread information of thousands of viewpoints on millions of topics why should it be up to the website to determine what is allowed or what is not if it does not break the law.  just because there are small communities that perpetuate ideas that i do not subscribe or the admins subscribe is not a good reason to wipe out that community.  only the ignorant and misinformed judge communities be it digital or physical by small pockets.  is america judged by the actions of the kkk and the blank panthers ? not really but we acknowledge their existence and allow them to exist within the bounds of the law.  are the  bad  subreddits what is used to judge reddit in an article ? perhaps, but then do they acknowledge the good subreddits or the good things that have been accomplished due to this site in that same article ? doubt it because, bad is not interesting, bad is controversial.  but anybody who actually uses the site knows the good outnumbers the bad.  reddit should not ban subreddits just because they try to promote out of date, uninformed social views.  they have just as much a right to be exist an be around as any other more widely accepted view subreddit.  the website provides the platform, its majority users decide the content and if you find a minority to be creating content that you do not agree with that you are seeing, you can change that for you.  but seeing as that no law breaking is being done by perpetuating the hating of black people and if reddit is supposedly a  free  speech area, they should exist.  regardless of whether i subscribe to those ideas.  i put free in   because any private company can censor as they wish since freedom of speech only applies to government laws and not private dealings.
first i want to say this is not to offend anyone.  i am looking at this through scientific eyes so if you are extra sensitive about race and are just going to try and change my mind with rage, please do not.  when thinking about this topic, one must look at the entire picture, but here i will just focus on one aspect.  it can easily be said that racism is purely a learned practice because how can babies be racist if they have not grown into the cognitive ability, as far as we know, to see differences in people based on race.  so where am i getting this thought ? as said before you need to look at the big picture here.  as a species in the animal kingdom, we have evolved from animals who have advanced from the basic reptilian brain to a mammalian brain.  over time, these species evolved into what would inevitably be a human.  however, to get to this point, humans needed to compete with all other species to get higher up in the food chain, including other humans.  so, since natural selection shows us that the strong survive, at some point the human, or protohuman, brain tells humans that anything different is dangerous.  for instance, the first meeting between an african and caucasian most likely ended in one killing the other simply because they did not know the the hell it was because of the difference in skin color.  our brains are wired to rely on eyesight more than our other senses so it plays even more of a role in creating biases and over the centuries and millennia, all races, with the natural instinct to defend themselves and survive, only focus on the differences instead of similarities.  this is passed down generation to generation through genetics and culture because the people alive believe this is what helped them and there ancestors survive.  URL tldr; because of how humans evolved, biases, namely racial in this topic, are in our dna and are impossible to just stomp out.  the only way to work through it is to realize these biases and how they affect judgement whether you want them to or not.   #  since natural selection shows us that the strong survive, at some point the human, or protohuman, brain tells humans that anything different is dangerous.   #  all animals have the ability to be fearful of what is new.   # all animals have the ability to be fearful of what is new.  my background is with horses, because i ride and own them.  a problem most people have with horses is that the horse over reacts to fear by starting, spinning, or bolting off.  as prey animals their survival depends on avoiding danger.  many horses start out as fearful of anything new neophobic .  but what we find is that when the animals feel secure in their surroundings and they are exposed to a variety of things, they start to show curiosity.  scientists have identified a  seeker circuit  in animal and human brains that makes the animal want novelty.  source URL section 0 .  therefore there are two ends of this spectrum: fear which drives neophobic thoughts   behavior, and security which allows for natural curiosity to seek out and explore new things.  therefore racism is not hardwired.  if we are living in a state of insecurity, that fear can manifest itself in a number of ways including fear of those who look or act significantly different.  it does not help that were taught to fear different races/cultures by sensationalistic news, backwards conservatives, and isolated pockets of ignorance.  right now racism sells newspapers and gets certain people votes and control.  but the people who are not so insecure and know from education/exposure to new people that a different looking person is not a threat tend not to be racists.  the feeling of curiousity is evoked around new people.  what we need is to live in a society where we can be sure all basic needs are met.  and we need to ensure all young people get education and exposure to new ideas, to cultivate our natural  curiosity  drive  #  biases are taught based on social mores, not genetics.   #  there is no question that humans are tribal, and think in terms of  us  and  them .  but your conclusion that color is a necessary differentiator simply is not true.  this can be disproved a number of ways, but the easiest to see is in the case of mixed families or transracial adoption.  children of difference races raised together simply do not differentiate if they are raised as a family, they think as a family.  another way to look at it is by your logic, in an all blonde swedish community, a brunette should be shunned because of visual differences.  it does not work that way.  finally, consider the middle east or ireland.  some of the greatest biases are sunni vs.  shiite or protestant vs.  catholic despite being physically indistinguishable.  biases are taught based on social mores, not genetics.   #  even if it was  natural , we have to remember that humanity has already beaten nature in almost every aspect.   #  there are two topics i will focus on.  first, babies will rarely act different towards other coloured people.  this is showing that it is not a genetic predisposition but rather a taught bias, either from role models or negative experiences.  children are very intuitive when it comes to watching parents; they will pick up on the little things and imitate them, so when daddy is been a racist his whole life, more than likely the child will grow up to be as well.  for the negative experiences, it is very easily to let the first few interactions sour your views towards everyone else.  it is important to remember that everyone is an individual, no matter of race, sex, or nationality.  there are assholes and idiots of every colour.  the second topic is more of a social commentary.  even if it was  natural , we have to remember that humanity has already beaten nature in almost every aspect.  we live in inhospitable lands, destroy sickness with medicines, extend unhealthy lives for many years, and can annihilate anything we wish.  when we have this power, it is important to remember that we cannot be bound by  our nature  for nature has been bested, therefore we must best this last challenge.   #  i wanted to be careful about the baby comment because no matter what people say, we really have no idea what this thing is thinking because babies have not learned to communicate.   #  i wanted to be careful about the baby comment because no matter what people say, we really have no idea what this thing is thinking because babies have not learned to communicate.  the only way to do this is to study different cues and try basic communicate such as pointing.  you are right when saying that babies have no problem playing next to other babies of another race but babies play differently at different stages.  for instance, an infant will use  solitary play  where its as if no other person or baby can play with them.  they bang blocks, shake rattles, and try to manipulate different things.  this eventually turns in  parallel play  which i think you are referring to, where babies play with others and race has never been found to be a factor.  except.  a popular study done to determine if bb is have a sense of fairness, which found that 0 of babies were found to rather play with toys that were fairly distributed.  however, when looking back at the data, this 0 dropped when race is involved.  i could go into more but if you look at this time article it sums it up well.  URL more research needs to be done but still an interesting find.   #  everything is so you can pass your genetics on.   #  we have overcome very little.  just because select humans have risen our technology level does not mean we have overcome biology.  everything inside your head has a survival reason, from sex to racism to foresight.  everything is so you can pass your genetics on.  racism is simply a result of finding patterns in behaviour so we do not experience negative things that may kill us.  it is natural and is not bad because our brains do not make these connections without reason.  we make them for survival.
first i want to say this is not to offend anyone.  i am looking at this through scientific eyes so if you are extra sensitive about race and are just going to try and change my mind with rage, please do not.  when thinking about this topic, one must look at the entire picture, but here i will just focus on one aspect.  it can easily be said that racism is purely a learned practice because how can babies be racist if they have not grown into the cognitive ability, as far as we know, to see differences in people based on race.  so where am i getting this thought ? as said before you need to look at the big picture here.  as a species in the animal kingdom, we have evolved from animals who have advanced from the basic reptilian brain to a mammalian brain.  over time, these species evolved into what would inevitably be a human.  however, to get to this point, humans needed to compete with all other species to get higher up in the food chain, including other humans.  so, since natural selection shows us that the strong survive, at some point the human, or protohuman, brain tells humans that anything different is dangerous.  for instance, the first meeting between an african and caucasian most likely ended in one killing the other simply because they did not know the the hell it was because of the difference in skin color.  our brains are wired to rely on eyesight more than our other senses so it plays even more of a role in creating biases and over the centuries and millennia, all races, with the natural instinct to defend themselves and survive, only focus on the differences instead of similarities.  this is passed down generation to generation through genetics and culture because the people alive believe this is what helped them and there ancestors survive.  URL tldr; because of how humans evolved, biases, namely racial in this topic, are in our dna and are impossible to just stomp out.  the only way to work through it is to realize these biases and how they affect judgement whether you want them to or not.   #  the only way to work through it is to realize these biases and how they affect judgement whether you want them to or not.   #  you know the whole ferguson thing, or the zimmerman trial, or half the sixties ?  # you know the whole ferguson thing, or the zimmerman trial, or half the sixties ? by now, we are well aware of our racist tendencies, but that does not mean they are gone.  we are just as racist as ever.  we are still tribal animals and we are always going to form packs that hate what the other tribe does and the easiest way to clump people is by ethnicity.  we are white, they are black.  ergo, racism.  we have to psychologically belong to a tribe, and the best way to keep that tribe together is by hating something else, which is usually racist.  just by knowing it is there does not mean you can turn it off.  if a switch is glued in position, the knowledge that it is glued and it exists is not sufficient to be able to throw it.   #  this can be disproved a number of ways, but the easiest to see is in the case of mixed families or transracial adoption.   #  there is no question that humans are tribal, and think in terms of  us  and  them .  but your conclusion that color is a necessary differentiator simply is not true.  this can be disproved a number of ways, but the easiest to see is in the case of mixed families or transracial adoption.  children of difference races raised together simply do not differentiate if they are raised as a family, they think as a family.  another way to look at it is by your logic, in an all blonde swedish community, a brunette should be shunned because of visual differences.  it does not work that way.  finally, consider the middle east or ireland.  some of the greatest biases are sunni vs.  shiite or protestant vs.  catholic despite being physically indistinguishable.  biases are taught based on social mores, not genetics.   #  it is important to remember that everyone is an individual, no matter of race, sex, or nationality.   #  there are two topics i will focus on.  first, babies will rarely act different towards other coloured people.  this is showing that it is not a genetic predisposition but rather a taught bias, either from role models or negative experiences.  children are very intuitive when it comes to watching parents; they will pick up on the little things and imitate them, so when daddy is been a racist his whole life, more than likely the child will grow up to be as well.  for the negative experiences, it is very easily to let the first few interactions sour your views towards everyone else.  it is important to remember that everyone is an individual, no matter of race, sex, or nationality.  there are assholes and idiots of every colour.  the second topic is more of a social commentary.  even if it was  natural , we have to remember that humanity has already beaten nature in almost every aspect.  we live in inhospitable lands, destroy sickness with medicines, extend unhealthy lives for many years, and can annihilate anything we wish.  when we have this power, it is important to remember that we cannot be bound by  our nature  for nature has been bested, therefore we must best this last challenge.   #  the only way to do this is to study different cues and try basic communicate such as pointing.   #  i wanted to be careful about the baby comment because no matter what people say, we really have no idea what this thing is thinking because babies have not learned to communicate.  the only way to do this is to study different cues and try basic communicate such as pointing.  you are right when saying that babies have no problem playing next to other babies of another race but babies play differently at different stages.  for instance, an infant will use  solitary play  where its as if no other person or baby can play with them.  they bang blocks, shake rattles, and try to manipulate different things.  this eventually turns in  parallel play  which i think you are referring to, where babies play with others and race has never been found to be a factor.  except.  a popular study done to determine if bb is have a sense of fairness, which found that 0 of babies were found to rather play with toys that were fairly distributed.  however, when looking back at the data, this 0 dropped when race is involved.  i could go into more but if you look at this time article it sums it up well.  URL more research needs to be done but still an interesting find.   #  everything is so you can pass your genetics on.   #  we have overcome very little.  just because select humans have risen our technology level does not mean we have overcome biology.  everything inside your head has a survival reason, from sex to racism to foresight.  everything is so you can pass your genetics on.  racism is simply a result of finding patterns in behaviour so we do not experience negative things that may kill us.  it is natural and is not bad because our brains do not make these connections without reason.  we make them for survival.
i see all these prolife movements focusing on showing pictures of fetuses, talking about heart beats and  what if that were you  while playing soft piano riffs in minor scales.  i am prolife and i understand where they are coming from, but i find the whole message to be totally devoid of any actual strategy from a pr perspective.  i do not care what your political movement is, it needs to be well thought out, advertising is not cheap.  the facts   rape   risky pregnancies make up only a fraction of total abortions.    adoption is a real alternative for essentially all other pregnancies.  the vast vast majority are done out of convenience no doctor appointments, no morning sickness, no worry of emotional attachment, do not have to deal with social ramification of abandoning your child etc i think the prolife movement is focusing on the wrong things for a simple reason.  they think they are going to  convert  prochoice people when in reality they need to sway the public is opinion.  obviously people who get abortions care less about whatever you want to call it, whether you want to call it a parasite, fetus, zygote, bunch of cells etc, than themselves.  why even bother trying to fight that fight ? is talking about when their heart beats going to change their mind ? is showing a little bloody person going to change their mind ? no.  it is not.  because people are not stupid.  they understand all of that.  it is not that they do not understand it, it is that they have done the calculation in their head and the benefits outweigh the costs.  simply put they have decided that 0 months of inconvenience is not worth it.  there are some people that claim that of course the child  would rather be dead than an orphan  or that the world is overpopulated factually incorrect .  but it is really just about shrugging off the responsibility for 0 months.  you certainly are not required to care for the child after that by any stretch of the imagination.  i think that it is become so back and forth that in many of these arguments it is almost as though prochoice people forget that adoption even exists.  because the movement stopped focusing on that and started focusing on.  well i do not even know what they are focusing on ? i do not understand this angle at all.  and that is why i think the movement has lost its way.  i think the movement needs to remind people that the 0st alternative is adoption, and drive that point home by drawing attention to the elephant in the room.  that these children will never be born, simply because it is easier.   it is my body, and this is a lot more convenient.  i will never have to go to the doctor appoints.  i can still drink and party.  i wo not have to tell my parents.  this is a lot easier.  $0 later, and this will all be over.   i fail to see how the current prolife movement will do anything besides make itself look ridiculous.  it is becoming a parody of itself.  no one, not even profilers like myself think a giant billboard of a fetus is helping the movement, it is hurting it.  i think the strongest argument in the debate is pointing out the thing that no one wants to talk about.  that we are throwing fetuses in the trash to make our lives a little easier.  and somehow  body autonomy  is some concept to be held high.  barf.  i would like to see the light shown on how  beautiful  that concept really is.  cmv  #  simply put they have decided that 0 months of inconvenience is not worth it.   #  there are some people that claim that of course the child  would rather be dead than an orphan  or that the world is overpopulated factually incorrect .   # there are some people that claim that of course the child  would rather be dead than an orphan  or that the world is overpopulated factually incorrect .  but it is really just about shrugging off the responsibility for 0 months.  you certainly are not required to care for the child after that by any stretch of the imagination.  it really is not that simple.  i know people who had abortions, and none of them were like  i just do not want to deal with the headache .  three of them did it for medical reasons the pregnancy put them at risk in various.  i know one who did it because the baby would have been born with severe deformities, and another whose baby would have had been been blind, mute, and with a terminal illness that only got worse and more painful.  i know another who feared she would lose her job because she would not be able to do the work and then she would not be able to pay her bills, feed her current child, etc.  she did not qualify for fmla, and the pregnancy discrimination act did not apply either since her employer had fewer than 0 employees.  URL picketing about how they are just being  inconvenienced  would not have changed any of their minds, and it would have just annoyed those family members and friends who would have thought the protesters ignorant.  it just is not always that easy.  pregnancy is expensive you have doctor trips, various medical scans, different diets, time off work, and then the actual cost of the birth.  have you ever seen how much those bills can be ? prenatal care can be in the thousands, and the birth alone can be around $0,0 URL even for a normal, healthy pregnancy.  so, unless the mother can find adoptive parents right away or any agency, perhaps that helps with those costs upfront, then it is not going to be so easy especially if she does not have insurance.  i will say i agree the adoption angle is what she be pushed, but without the judgmental bs including both the  you are a murderer  and the  you are just doing out of convenience  nonsense .  if the pro life movement pushed the adoption method in a friendlier way where they worked with pregnant women not wanting to keep their child and with prospective parents who would pay for the expenses, i am betting more women would be open to that.   #  she does not care about the possible pain inducted on others, which can include, if you have to, a fetus.   #  it can be perceived as wrong, as an act of selfish convenience.  she does it only for herself, not for her family, both parents and partner.  she does not care about the possible pain inducted on others, which can include, if you have to, a fetus.  imagine an attack ad.  crying child in an empty room, hugging a teddy bear.  a man sitting hopelessly on a couch.  then a happy woman goes inside the house, holding a golden credit card and a lot of bags filled with clothes.  she approaches him, and says:  why are you so sad ? cheer up ! get over it !   and goes away while laughing.  narrator says:  abortion damages lives, destroys families and dreams.   a sign appears on screen, yellow background, black text, impact to strengthen the message or times new roman to make it more serious :  abortion.  selfish.    #  we see the second woman ending up on bed rest missing class, losing her job, and struggling to care for her children.   #  one of the most common reasons women have abortions is because  having a child would interfere with a woman is education, work or ability to care for dependents 0 .   URL i would respond with a commercial that cuts back and forth between the narratives of two women, both already mothers of three.  one woman has an abortion; the other carries the pregnancy to term.  we see the first woman attending night classes, at her job, and taking care of her existing children.  we see the second woman ending up on bed rest missing class, losing her job, and struggling to care for her children.  the tagline:  supporting choice.  supporting mothers.  supporting families.    #  i think the prolife movement has much more to gain by just ignoring the argument over when life starts and focusing on the fact that the majority are done out of convenience.   # sure, but i do not think it is wrong.  only religious extremists would go that far.  something is not wrong just because it is convenient.  i think it is an excellent observation, but the point i am making here is i think this consideration is effectively naive.  i think from a logical or even ethical perspective you are correct.  but pr is not really about logic or ethics, its about taking root with the public.  i think by in large the public just refuses to accept or even care about what is or is not a human being.  i believe that most prochoice people who have had an abortion would have one at 0 weeks if it were legal.  i think the prolife movement has much more to gain by just ignoring the argument over when life starts and focusing on the fact that the majority are done out of convenience.  they are well worth the  convenience  of much reduced pain, trauma, and unwanted children if there is nothing wrong with abortions.  this for instance i think would make a great pr piece.  i think a real person, on tv, simply saying that an abortion would  save me the pain, trama of pregnancy and childbirth  would paint prochoice highly negative.  i think prochoice as an argument survives by avoiding this elephant in the room.  also when you say  unwanted children  you are ignoring adoption assuming you are speaking about yourself .   #  why would anyone oppose something that prevents all this suffering if they are not already on board ?  #  see, this is what i hate about pr.  minds should be made up based on solid facts and arguments, not based on feelings.  if the public does not care about whether a fetus is human, why should the convenience argument change their mind ? the reasons to get an abortion are only relatively flimsy if you compare them to the murder of a child.  why would anyone oppose something that prevents all this suffering if they are not already on board ? i do not see anyone converting from a pro choice to a pro life stance because they realized that most abortions are elective.  they have to be against abortions in the first place for that to be a bad thing.
i see all these prolife movements focusing on showing pictures of fetuses, talking about heart beats and  what if that were you  while playing soft piano riffs in minor scales.  i am prolife and i understand where they are coming from, but i find the whole message to be totally devoid of any actual strategy from a pr perspective.  i do not care what your political movement is, it needs to be well thought out, advertising is not cheap.  the facts   rape   risky pregnancies make up only a fraction of total abortions.    adoption is a real alternative for essentially all other pregnancies.  the vast vast majority are done out of convenience no doctor appointments, no morning sickness, no worry of emotional attachment, do not have to deal with social ramification of abandoning your child etc i think the prolife movement is focusing on the wrong things for a simple reason.  they think they are going to  convert  prochoice people when in reality they need to sway the public is opinion.  obviously people who get abortions care less about whatever you want to call it, whether you want to call it a parasite, fetus, zygote, bunch of cells etc, than themselves.  why even bother trying to fight that fight ? is talking about when their heart beats going to change their mind ? is showing a little bloody person going to change their mind ? no.  it is not.  because people are not stupid.  they understand all of that.  it is not that they do not understand it, it is that they have done the calculation in their head and the benefits outweigh the costs.  simply put they have decided that 0 months of inconvenience is not worth it.  there are some people that claim that of course the child  would rather be dead than an orphan  or that the world is overpopulated factually incorrect .  but it is really just about shrugging off the responsibility for 0 months.  you certainly are not required to care for the child after that by any stretch of the imagination.  i think that it is become so back and forth that in many of these arguments it is almost as though prochoice people forget that adoption even exists.  because the movement stopped focusing on that and started focusing on.  well i do not even know what they are focusing on ? i do not understand this angle at all.  and that is why i think the movement has lost its way.  i think the movement needs to remind people that the 0st alternative is adoption, and drive that point home by drawing attention to the elephant in the room.  that these children will never be born, simply because it is easier.   it is my body, and this is a lot more convenient.  i will never have to go to the doctor appoints.  i can still drink and party.  i wo not have to tell my parents.  this is a lot easier.  $0 later, and this will all be over.   i fail to see how the current prolife movement will do anything besides make itself look ridiculous.  it is becoming a parody of itself.  no one, not even profilers like myself think a giant billboard of a fetus is helping the movement, it is hurting it.  i think the strongest argument in the debate is pointing out the thing that no one wants to talk about.  that we are throwing fetuses in the trash to make our lives a little easier.  and somehow  body autonomy  is some concept to be held high.  barf.  i would like to see the light shown on how  beautiful  that concept really is.  cmv  #  and somehow  body autonomy  is some concept to be held high.  barf.   #  bodily autonomy is  more fundamental  than the right to life.   # bodily autonomy is  more fundamental  than the right to life.  in fact, the right to life works much better when understood from a ba perspective.  basically, it is the right to  not have done something on your body that you do not want to .  why is killing generally wrong ? you are harming someone is ba.  a forced surgery, or a kidney extraction, work the same way.  euthanasia ? if a doctor kills a terminal patient  with their consent , then it is morally equivalent to an equally consented surgery.  causing an involuntary abortion ? you are harming the ba of the mother, who invested effort and resources in growing the fetus.  substances that cause malformations during pregnancy ? you are violating the ba of some  future person , who is not any less real just because they are in the future.  now, how could causing malformations be worse than killing, being everything else the same and assuming informed consent from the pregnant woman ? simple: because if the fetus is killed, there is  no person, present or future, whose ba is being harmed .  a fetus holds no desires, one way or the other.  this is an automatic disqualification from  being a person .  i will never have to go to the doctor appoints.  i can still drink and party.  i wo not have to tell my parents.  this is a lot easier.  $0 later, and this will all be over.   this seems to me like a perfectly acceptable thing, ideal even.   #  a sign appears on screen, yellow background, black text, impact to strengthen the message or times new roman to make it more serious :  abortion.   #  it can be perceived as wrong, as an act of selfish convenience.  she does it only for herself, not for her family, both parents and partner.  she does not care about the possible pain inducted on others, which can include, if you have to, a fetus.  imagine an attack ad.  crying child in an empty room, hugging a teddy bear.  a man sitting hopelessly on a couch.  then a happy woman goes inside the house, holding a golden credit card and a lot of bags filled with clothes.  she approaches him, and says:  why are you so sad ? cheer up ! get over it !   and goes away while laughing.  narrator says:  abortion damages lives, destroys families and dreams.   a sign appears on screen, yellow background, black text, impact to strengthen the message or times new roman to make it more serious :  abortion.  selfish.    #  one woman has an abortion; the other carries the pregnancy to term.   #  one of the most common reasons women have abortions is because  having a child would interfere with a woman is education, work or ability to care for dependents 0 .   URL i would respond with a commercial that cuts back and forth between the narratives of two women, both already mothers of three.  one woman has an abortion; the other carries the pregnancy to term.  we see the first woman attending night classes, at her job, and taking care of her existing children.  we see the second woman ending up on bed rest missing class, losing her job, and struggling to care for her children.  the tagline:  supporting choice.  supporting mothers.  supporting families.    #  this for instance i think would make a great pr piece.   # sure, but i do not think it is wrong.  only religious extremists would go that far.  something is not wrong just because it is convenient.  i think it is an excellent observation, but the point i am making here is i think this consideration is effectively naive.  i think from a logical or even ethical perspective you are correct.  but pr is not really about logic or ethics, its about taking root with the public.  i think by in large the public just refuses to accept or even care about what is or is not a human being.  i believe that most prochoice people who have had an abortion would have one at 0 weeks if it were legal.  i think the prolife movement has much more to gain by just ignoring the argument over when life starts and focusing on the fact that the majority are done out of convenience.  they are well worth the  convenience  of much reduced pain, trauma, and unwanted children if there is nothing wrong with abortions.  this for instance i think would make a great pr piece.  i think a real person, on tv, simply saying that an abortion would  save me the pain, trama of pregnancy and childbirth  would paint prochoice highly negative.  i think prochoice as an argument survives by avoiding this elephant in the room.  also when you say  unwanted children  you are ignoring adoption assuming you are speaking about yourself .   #  see, this is what i hate about pr.   #  see, this is what i hate about pr.  minds should be made up based on solid facts and arguments, not based on feelings.  if the public does not care about whether a fetus is human, why should the convenience argument change their mind ? the reasons to get an abortion are only relatively flimsy if you compare them to the murder of a child.  why would anyone oppose something that prevents all this suffering if they are not already on board ? i do not see anyone converting from a pro choice to a pro life stance because they realized that most abortions are elective.  they have to be against abortions in the first place for that to be a bad thing.
i see all these prolife movements focusing on showing pictures of fetuses, talking about heart beats and  what if that were you  while playing soft piano riffs in minor scales.  i am prolife and i understand where they are coming from, but i find the whole message to be totally devoid of any actual strategy from a pr perspective.  i do not care what your political movement is, it needs to be well thought out, advertising is not cheap.  the facts   rape   risky pregnancies make up only a fraction of total abortions.    adoption is a real alternative for essentially all other pregnancies.  the vast vast majority are done out of convenience no doctor appointments, no morning sickness, no worry of emotional attachment, do not have to deal with social ramification of abandoning your child etc i think the prolife movement is focusing on the wrong things for a simple reason.  they think they are going to  convert  prochoice people when in reality they need to sway the public is opinion.  obviously people who get abortions care less about whatever you want to call it, whether you want to call it a parasite, fetus, zygote, bunch of cells etc, than themselves.  why even bother trying to fight that fight ? is talking about when their heart beats going to change their mind ? is showing a little bloody person going to change their mind ? no.  it is not.  because people are not stupid.  they understand all of that.  it is not that they do not understand it, it is that they have done the calculation in their head and the benefits outweigh the costs.  simply put they have decided that 0 months of inconvenience is not worth it.  there are some people that claim that of course the child  would rather be dead than an orphan  or that the world is overpopulated factually incorrect .  but it is really just about shrugging off the responsibility for 0 months.  you certainly are not required to care for the child after that by any stretch of the imagination.  i think that it is become so back and forth that in many of these arguments it is almost as though prochoice people forget that adoption even exists.  because the movement stopped focusing on that and started focusing on.  well i do not even know what they are focusing on ? i do not understand this angle at all.  and that is why i think the movement has lost its way.  i think the movement needs to remind people that the 0st alternative is adoption, and drive that point home by drawing attention to the elephant in the room.  that these children will never be born, simply because it is easier.   it is my body, and this is a lot more convenient.  i will never have to go to the doctor appoints.  i can still drink and party.  i wo not have to tell my parents.  this is a lot easier.  $0 later, and this will all be over.   i fail to see how the current prolife movement will do anything besides make itself look ridiculous.  it is becoming a parody of itself.  no one, not even profilers like myself think a giant billboard of a fetus is helping the movement, it is hurting it.  i think the strongest argument in the debate is pointing out the thing that no one wants to talk about.  that we are throwing fetuses in the trash to make our lives a little easier.  and somehow  body autonomy  is some concept to be held high.  barf.  i would like to see the light shown on how  beautiful  that concept really is.  cmv  #   it is my body, and this is a lot more convenient.   #  i will never have to go to the doctor appoints.   # bodily autonomy is  more fundamental  than the right to life.  in fact, the right to life works much better when understood from a ba perspective.  basically, it is the right to  not have done something on your body that you do not want to .  why is killing generally wrong ? you are harming someone is ba.  a forced surgery, or a kidney extraction, work the same way.  euthanasia ? if a doctor kills a terminal patient  with their consent , then it is morally equivalent to an equally consented surgery.  causing an involuntary abortion ? you are harming the ba of the mother, who invested effort and resources in growing the fetus.  substances that cause malformations during pregnancy ? you are violating the ba of some  future person , who is not any less real just because they are in the future.  now, how could causing malformations be worse than killing, being everything else the same and assuming informed consent from the pregnant woman ? simple: because if the fetus is killed, there is  no person, present or future, whose ba is being harmed .  a fetus holds no desires, one way or the other.  this is an automatic disqualification from  being a person .  i will never have to go to the doctor appoints.  i can still drink and party.  i wo not have to tell my parents.  this is a lot easier.  $0 later, and this will all be over.   this seems to me like a perfectly acceptable thing, ideal even.   #  she approaches him, and says:  why are you so sad ?  #  it can be perceived as wrong, as an act of selfish convenience.  she does it only for herself, not for her family, both parents and partner.  she does not care about the possible pain inducted on others, which can include, if you have to, a fetus.  imagine an attack ad.  crying child in an empty room, hugging a teddy bear.  a man sitting hopelessly on a couch.  then a happy woman goes inside the house, holding a golden credit card and a lot of bags filled with clothes.  she approaches him, and says:  why are you so sad ? cheer up ! get over it !   and goes away while laughing.  narrator says:  abortion damages lives, destroys families and dreams.   a sign appears on screen, yellow background, black text, impact to strengthen the message or times new roman to make it more serious :  abortion.  selfish.    #  we see the second woman ending up on bed rest missing class, losing her job, and struggling to care for her children.   #  one of the most common reasons women have abortions is because  having a child would interfere with a woman is education, work or ability to care for dependents 0 .   URL i would respond with a commercial that cuts back and forth between the narratives of two women, both already mothers of three.  one woman has an abortion; the other carries the pregnancy to term.  we see the first woman attending night classes, at her job, and taking care of her existing children.  we see the second woman ending up on bed rest missing class, losing her job, and struggling to care for her children.  the tagline:  supporting choice.  supporting mothers.  supporting families.    #  i think by in large the public just refuses to accept or even care about what is or is not a human being.   # sure, but i do not think it is wrong.  only religious extremists would go that far.  something is not wrong just because it is convenient.  i think it is an excellent observation, but the point i am making here is i think this consideration is effectively naive.  i think from a logical or even ethical perspective you are correct.  but pr is not really about logic or ethics, its about taking root with the public.  i think by in large the public just refuses to accept or even care about what is or is not a human being.  i believe that most prochoice people who have had an abortion would have one at 0 weeks if it were legal.  i think the prolife movement has much more to gain by just ignoring the argument over when life starts and focusing on the fact that the majority are done out of convenience.  they are well worth the  convenience  of much reduced pain, trauma, and unwanted children if there is nothing wrong with abortions.  this for instance i think would make a great pr piece.  i think a real person, on tv, simply saying that an abortion would  save me the pain, trama of pregnancy and childbirth  would paint prochoice highly negative.  i think prochoice as an argument survives by avoiding this elephant in the room.  also when you say  unwanted children  you are ignoring adoption assuming you are speaking about yourself .   #  see, this is what i hate about pr.   #  see, this is what i hate about pr.  minds should be made up based on solid facts and arguments, not based on feelings.  if the public does not care about whether a fetus is human, why should the convenience argument change their mind ? the reasons to get an abortion are only relatively flimsy if you compare them to the murder of a child.  why would anyone oppose something that prevents all this suffering if they are not already on board ? i do not see anyone converting from a pro choice to a pro life stance because they realized that most abortions are elective.  they have to be against abortions in the first place for that to be a bad thing.
i see all these prolife movements focusing on showing pictures of fetuses, talking about heart beats and  what if that were you  while playing soft piano riffs in minor scales.  i am prolife and i understand where they are coming from, but i find the whole message to be totally devoid of any actual strategy from a pr perspective.  i do not care what your political movement is, it needs to be well thought out, advertising is not cheap.  the facts   rape   risky pregnancies make up only a fraction of total abortions.    adoption is a real alternative for essentially all other pregnancies.  the vast vast majority are done out of convenience no doctor appointments, no morning sickness, no worry of emotional attachment, do not have to deal with social ramification of abandoning your child etc i think the prolife movement is focusing on the wrong things for a simple reason.  they think they are going to  convert  prochoice people when in reality they need to sway the public is opinion.  obviously people who get abortions care less about whatever you want to call it, whether you want to call it a parasite, fetus, zygote, bunch of cells etc, than themselves.  why even bother trying to fight that fight ? is talking about when their heart beats going to change their mind ? is showing a little bloody person going to change their mind ? no.  it is not.  because people are not stupid.  they understand all of that.  it is not that they do not understand it, it is that they have done the calculation in their head and the benefits outweigh the costs.  simply put they have decided that 0 months of inconvenience is not worth it.  there are some people that claim that of course the child  would rather be dead than an orphan  or that the world is overpopulated factually incorrect .  but it is really just about shrugging off the responsibility for 0 months.  you certainly are not required to care for the child after that by any stretch of the imagination.  i think that it is become so back and forth that in many of these arguments it is almost as though prochoice people forget that adoption even exists.  because the movement stopped focusing on that and started focusing on.  well i do not even know what they are focusing on ? i do not understand this angle at all.  and that is why i think the movement has lost its way.  i think the movement needs to remind people that the 0st alternative is adoption, and drive that point home by drawing attention to the elephant in the room.  that these children will never be born, simply because it is easier.   it is my body, and this is a lot more convenient.  i will never have to go to the doctor appoints.  i can still drink and party.  i wo not have to tell my parents.  this is a lot easier.  $0 later, and this will all be over.   i fail to see how the current prolife movement will do anything besides make itself look ridiculous.  it is becoming a parody of itself.  no one, not even profilers like myself think a giant billboard of a fetus is helping the movement, it is hurting it.  i think the strongest argument in the debate is pointing out the thing that no one wants to talk about.  that we are throwing fetuses in the trash to make our lives a little easier.  and somehow  body autonomy  is some concept to be held high.  barf.  i would like to see the light shown on how  beautiful  that concept really is.  cmv  #  rape   risky pregnancies make up only a fraction of total abortions.   #  you seem to accepting that  risky pregnancies  are an acceptable situation where an abortion can be performed, however you are only considering physical risks and not emotional or mental.   # you seem to accepting that  risky pregnancies  are an acceptable situation where an abortion can be performed, however you are only considering physical risks and not emotional or mental.  i do not think that is fair, especially since adoption can have an incredible impact on birth mothers.  as many as three quarters of birth mothers still struggle with a sense of loss and grief up to 0 years after the adoption takes place.  URL it is only one quarter of them that report no sense of loss.  if you are willing to accept that physically risky pregnancies are acceptable to terminate, then i really think you should consider those at risk of experiencing severe mental/emotional issues as a result of adoption as well.  whether you consider  risky  to include the likely death of the mother if the pregnancy is carried to term, or the inability of the mother to carry any other children to term due to complications in the  risky  pregnancy, the same risks can be found in women who put their children up for adoption.  sometimes it works out extremely well and the mother is happy to be doing what she is doing, but many times that is not the case at all.  i would also counter that the indicated risks of adoption highlight the fact that it is  not  always a perfectly acceptable alternative to abortion.  abortion is not always about not wanting the responsibility of carrying a child to term as i have discussed, it can also be about preserving the mental health of the mother.  i do not think implying that carrying a child to term is  no big deal  and does not have any sort of negative impact on the mother is life at all is viable, because that is simply not the case.  rather than saying  it is my body and this is more convenient , oftentimes it is closer to  it is my body, and this is a healthier choice for me than carrying to term .   #  it can be perceived as wrong, as an act of selfish convenience.   #  it can be perceived as wrong, as an act of selfish convenience.  she does it only for herself, not for her family, both parents and partner.  she does not care about the possible pain inducted on others, which can include, if you have to, a fetus.  imagine an attack ad.  crying child in an empty room, hugging a teddy bear.  a man sitting hopelessly on a couch.  then a happy woman goes inside the house, holding a golden credit card and a lot of bags filled with clothes.  she approaches him, and says:  why are you so sad ? cheer up ! get over it !   and goes away while laughing.  narrator says:  abortion damages lives, destroys families and dreams.   a sign appears on screen, yellow background, black text, impact to strengthen the message or times new roman to make it more serious :  abortion.  selfish.    #  URL i would respond with a commercial that cuts back and forth between the narratives of two women, both already mothers of three.   #  one of the most common reasons women have abortions is because  having a child would interfere with a woman is education, work or ability to care for dependents 0 .   URL i would respond with a commercial that cuts back and forth between the narratives of two women, both already mothers of three.  one woman has an abortion; the other carries the pregnancy to term.  we see the first woman attending night classes, at her job, and taking care of her existing children.  we see the second woman ending up on bed rest missing class, losing her job, and struggling to care for her children.  the tagline:  supporting choice.  supporting mothers.  supporting families.    #  they are well worth the  convenience  of much reduced pain, trauma, and unwanted children if there is nothing wrong with abortions.   # sure, but i do not think it is wrong.  only religious extremists would go that far.  something is not wrong just because it is convenient.  i think it is an excellent observation, but the point i am making here is i think this consideration is effectively naive.  i think from a logical or even ethical perspective you are correct.  but pr is not really about logic or ethics, its about taking root with the public.  i think by in large the public just refuses to accept or even care about what is or is not a human being.  i believe that most prochoice people who have had an abortion would have one at 0 weeks if it were legal.  i think the prolife movement has much more to gain by just ignoring the argument over when life starts and focusing on the fact that the majority are done out of convenience.  they are well worth the  convenience  of much reduced pain, trauma, and unwanted children if there is nothing wrong with abortions.  this for instance i think would make a great pr piece.  i think a real person, on tv, simply saying that an abortion would  save me the pain, trama of pregnancy and childbirth  would paint prochoice highly negative.  i think prochoice as an argument survives by avoiding this elephant in the room.  also when you say  unwanted children  you are ignoring adoption assuming you are speaking about yourself .   #  why would anyone oppose something that prevents all this suffering if they are not already on board ?  #  see, this is what i hate about pr.  minds should be made up based on solid facts and arguments, not based on feelings.  if the public does not care about whether a fetus is human, why should the convenience argument change their mind ? the reasons to get an abortion are only relatively flimsy if you compare them to the murder of a child.  why would anyone oppose something that prevents all this suffering if they are not already on board ? i do not see anyone converting from a pro choice to a pro life stance because they realized that most abortions are elective.  they have to be against abortions in the first place for that to be a bad thing.
the only problem is that all the land has already been claimed by entities known as government.  i do not see the difference between the world as it is and an an cap society in general.  an organization known as  the united states , and before that, the 0 colonies, declared ownership of large swaths of property and declared it as its own.  the united states then re sells this property to its citizens with strings attached contracts.  hell, condo owners are forced to pay maintenance fees.  us citizens are also forced to pay a fee for having land and making money within the united states.  you were never sold that property unconditionally.   oh, but i never signed an explicit contract !   well, you have exactly as much protection from bad contracts in the real world as you do in the anarcho capitalist world: zero.  it is too bad you are not rich enough to afford protection for your rights.  also, every us citizen is free to leave the territory of the united states for better pastures elsewhere.  it just so happens that better pastures have also been declared as owned by other groups of people known as  nations .  moreover, the united states oftentimes makes contractual agreements with its neighbors to extradite criminals.  in the ancap society, the exact same kind of agreements can be made.  these nations re sell their own property through a similar contractual system.  their citizens are also free to leave or at least most of them for better pastures, if they can find them.   all an cappers want to do is hit a magical reset button to destroy government and let it reform under a different name.   maybe they will call it a homeowner is association.  maybe they will call it a corporation.  they want to hit the reset button, because this time around, maybe they can then grab a bigger piece for themselves.  an cappers might object to my criticism because the last time our world was formed, violence and aggression was  legal  and  allowed .  well, violence and aggression obviously will not magically disappear the second time around when they hit the reset button.  without a monopolizing, governing body to restrict or regulate violence, then nothing will be different the second time around.  bad corporations/businesses/governments will do bad things, and nobody will be there to stop it, just like since the dawn of human history.  everyone can even agree that bad things are bad or that aggression is bad, but they will just go ahead and do it anyways when it just so happens to help themselves.  all the social ostracism in the  world , quite literally, has not made north korea or iran or any other dictator change their evil ways.  it surely would not work after the an caps hit their reset button.  the ancap utopia has no differences whatsoever to the world as it is today.  as in our world, there is no governing authority that demands that everybody follow the non aggression principle or that people respect each others rights.  without enforcement, everybody will just do whatever they want to.  bad people will do bad things if they can get away with it.  power will be conglomerated eventually into super corporations that would eventually resemble the governments we see today.  just like our own world, after the big corporations have seized all the valuable property, they can then govern however the fuck they please.   my house, my rules.  if you do not like it, then just get off of my property !   eventually, after the corporations have taken over, the next generation of anarcho capitalists will grumble about how evil their new corporate/government overlords are.  they too want to hit that reset button again.  the only difference between the ancap utopia and our own world is that, in the ancap society, everyone nearly homogeneously believes in ancap principles, asides from a few troublemakers.  but we already live in their world.  welcome to paradise.   #  the only difference between the ancap utopia and our own world is that, in the ancap society, everyone nearly homogeneously believes in ancap principles, asides from a few troublemakers.   #  but we already live in their world.   #  wow, i am an ancap and you really have hit the nail on the head.  you will find a lot of ancaps that do not see things as clearly as you do.  to add to your examples, there is  freedom  and the free market all around us.  for example dating/marriage and choice in career are things that are wide open to us, regardless of what government says about it.  the bully that is government might not approve of gay marriage, but we still have the relationships that we want, everyone else be damned.  this is change my view though, so instead of just applauding you, i would like to add to what you might think about.  but we already live in their world.  welcome to paradise.  i do not completely agree here.  you already admitted that todays world is an ancap world, so we do not  all  need to believe in ancap principles to have the existence of an ancap world.  so where does it really leave us if we are in an ancap world and yet the place is filled with  statists  i. e.  pro government violence ? well we can still form communities within communities.  we intersperse within the statists and blend in.  we blend in by following their rules in the open, but behind closed doors we snub our noses at them.  so this might mean cheating on our taxes e. g.  under reporting income or disobeying victimless crime laws e. g.  marijuana .  heck everyone does this a little, so really we all have a little anarchist in us all.  our goal though is to have people slowly wade into the deep end of the pool and help us expand our network of support.   #  its just that one large company the government uses force to get its way.   #  i do not think the op believes that the state has a valid claim to its territory.  he says in one of his comments that the state stole the land from the native americans.  he is arguing that the state is just a large company which uses force.  ancaps argue that life will be vastly improved in an anarchocapitalist world.  but, we essentially already live in an anarchocapitalist world.  its just that one large company the government uses force to get its way.  thus, the existence of the government proves that anarchocapitalism can give way to a world in which powerful institutions use aggression and theft.  ancaps argue that this would not happen.  but as we can see, it already is happening.   #  nationstates are just security companies with regional monopolies.   # no, you ca not draw a complete picture in a relatively short reddit comment.  but essentially, that is what nation states are.  that is not to say they are evil or that they are thuggish.  the tax payers are the source of their income.  they have incentives to keep us happy.  they also have complicated bylaws that influence their behavior.  this is true of many companies.  we over romanticize what the government is.  it is not the  voice of the people  personified.  there is not an intangible social contract.  nationstates are just security companies with regional monopolies.  my answer is that it does not have a valid claim to its territory.  are you asking me to argue a position i do not hold ?  #  yeah but he does not say there would be no property rights.   # you asked for major ancaps though, and he definitely counts.  yeah but he does not say there would be no property rights.  friedman is still making an argument about how there would be property rights in an ancap society.  i think george smith makes a better argument.  smith agrees that economic arguments can be effective in particular discussions, but are not a sufficient as a foundation of libertarianism.   #  just like freedom anarchy is a state of mind not an actual physical space.   #  there is truth in what he/she is saying.  just like freedom anarchy is a state of mind not an actual physical space.  much like heaven i suppose.  if freedom were restricted to a certain time or space then it is not true freedom just like anarchy,it is timeless and eternal.  i think it was colin ward that gave the analogy of anarchy being like snow covered ground.  that the degree of anarchy ebbs and flows just like the way snow may recede or cover ground that is always there.  he also felt that we also already live in anarchist world.  it is also very empowering to know that you do not have to wait for any referendum or for any majority rule for you to step into an anarchist society  anarchy is spread upon the earth and men do not see it  apologies to jesus of nazareth .  what would it take for you to be free a free society ? no.  was not that the whole point of shawshank redemption and practically every movie that deals seriously with the issue of prison.  so too with anarchy.  even leonard read said that the way to fight for freedom is different than the way one would fight for socialism.  so too with living in an anarchist society all it requires is having the eyes and will to see it.
the only problem is that all the land has already been claimed by entities known as government.  i do not see the difference between the world as it is and an an cap society in general.  an organization known as  the united states , and before that, the 0 colonies, declared ownership of large swaths of property and declared it as its own.  the united states then re sells this property to its citizens with strings attached contracts.  hell, condo owners are forced to pay maintenance fees.  us citizens are also forced to pay a fee for having land and making money within the united states.  you were never sold that property unconditionally.   oh, but i never signed an explicit contract !   well, you have exactly as much protection from bad contracts in the real world as you do in the anarcho capitalist world: zero.  it is too bad you are not rich enough to afford protection for your rights.  also, every us citizen is free to leave the territory of the united states for better pastures elsewhere.  it just so happens that better pastures have also been declared as owned by other groups of people known as  nations .  moreover, the united states oftentimes makes contractual agreements with its neighbors to extradite criminals.  in the ancap society, the exact same kind of agreements can be made.  these nations re sell their own property through a similar contractual system.  their citizens are also free to leave or at least most of them for better pastures, if they can find them.   all an cappers want to do is hit a magical reset button to destroy government and let it reform under a different name.   maybe they will call it a homeowner is association.  maybe they will call it a corporation.  they want to hit the reset button, because this time around, maybe they can then grab a bigger piece for themselves.  an cappers might object to my criticism because the last time our world was formed, violence and aggression was  legal  and  allowed .  well, violence and aggression obviously will not magically disappear the second time around when they hit the reset button.  without a monopolizing, governing body to restrict or regulate violence, then nothing will be different the second time around.  bad corporations/businesses/governments will do bad things, and nobody will be there to stop it, just like since the dawn of human history.  everyone can even agree that bad things are bad or that aggression is bad, but they will just go ahead and do it anyways when it just so happens to help themselves.  all the social ostracism in the  world , quite literally, has not made north korea or iran or any other dictator change their evil ways.  it surely would not work after the an caps hit their reset button.  the ancap utopia has no differences whatsoever to the world as it is today.  as in our world, there is no governing authority that demands that everybody follow the non aggression principle or that people respect each others rights.  without enforcement, everybody will just do whatever they want to.  bad people will do bad things if they can get away with it.  power will be conglomerated eventually into super corporations that would eventually resemble the governments we see today.  just like our own world, after the big corporations have seized all the valuable property, they can then govern however the fuck they please.   my house, my rules.  if you do not like it, then just get off of my property !   eventually, after the corporations have taken over, the next generation of anarcho capitalists will grumble about how evil their new corporate/government overlords are.  they too want to hit that reset button again.  the only difference between the ancap utopia and our own world is that, in the ancap society, everyone nearly homogeneously believes in ancap principles, asides from a few troublemakers.  but we already live in their world.  welcome to paradise.   #  an organization known as  the united states , and before that, the 0 colonies, declared ownership of large swaths of property and declared it as its own.   #  governments did not homestead the land that they claim.   # governments did not homestead the land that they claim.  ancap ownership is more than just showing up URL and saying something is yours.  you could argue that the government only lets people use the land because of eminent domain, but even in that scenario in most cases they would have lost any legitimate ancap claim to most private property ages ago because they do nothing to maintain it.  plus your argument eliminates consent from the arrangement, which is literally the most important aspect of ancap interaction.  i was born in america, i did not choose to live in america, and yet if i want to leave america permenently i ca not without paying the american government a hefty portion of my income.   #  but, we essentially already live in an anarchocapitalist world.   #  i do not think the op believes that the state has a valid claim to its territory.  he says in one of his comments that the state stole the land from the native americans.  he is arguing that the state is just a large company which uses force.  ancaps argue that life will be vastly improved in an anarchocapitalist world.  but, we essentially already live in an anarchocapitalist world.  its just that one large company the government uses force to get its way.  thus, the existence of the government proves that anarchocapitalism can give way to a world in which powerful institutions use aggression and theft.  ancaps argue that this would not happen.  but as we can see, it already is happening.   #  the tax payers are the source of their income.   # no, you ca not draw a complete picture in a relatively short reddit comment.  but essentially, that is what nation states are.  that is not to say they are evil or that they are thuggish.  the tax payers are the source of their income.  they have incentives to keep us happy.  they also have complicated bylaws that influence their behavior.  this is true of many companies.  we over romanticize what the government is.  it is not the  voice of the people  personified.  there is not an intangible social contract.  nationstates are just security companies with regional monopolies.  my answer is that it does not have a valid claim to its territory.  are you asking me to argue a position i do not hold ?  #  smith agrees that economic arguments can be effective in particular discussions, but are not a sufficient as a foundation of libertarianism.   # you asked for major ancaps though, and he definitely counts.  yeah but he does not say there would be no property rights.  friedman is still making an argument about how there would be property rights in an ancap society.  i think george smith makes a better argument.  smith agrees that economic arguments can be effective in particular discussions, but are not a sufficient as a foundation of libertarianism.   #  i think it was colin ward that gave the analogy of anarchy being like snow covered ground.   #  there is truth in what he/she is saying.  just like freedom anarchy is a state of mind not an actual physical space.  much like heaven i suppose.  if freedom were restricted to a certain time or space then it is not true freedom just like anarchy,it is timeless and eternal.  i think it was colin ward that gave the analogy of anarchy being like snow covered ground.  that the degree of anarchy ebbs and flows just like the way snow may recede or cover ground that is always there.  he also felt that we also already live in anarchist world.  it is also very empowering to know that you do not have to wait for any referendum or for any majority rule for you to step into an anarchist society  anarchy is spread upon the earth and men do not see it  apologies to jesus of nazareth .  what would it take for you to be free a free society ? no.  was not that the whole point of shawshank redemption and practically every movie that deals seriously with the issue of prison.  so too with anarchy.  even leonard read said that the way to fight for freedom is different than the way one would fight for socialism.  so too with living in an anarchist society all it requires is having the eyes and will to see it.
the only problem is that all the land has already been claimed by entities known as government.  i do not see the difference between the world as it is and an an cap society in general.  an organization known as  the united states , and before that, the 0 colonies, declared ownership of large swaths of property and declared it as its own.  the united states then re sells this property to its citizens with strings attached contracts.  hell, condo owners are forced to pay maintenance fees.  us citizens are also forced to pay a fee for having land and making money within the united states.  you were never sold that property unconditionally.   oh, but i never signed an explicit contract !   well, you have exactly as much protection from bad contracts in the real world as you do in the anarcho capitalist world: zero.  it is too bad you are not rich enough to afford protection for your rights.  also, every us citizen is free to leave the territory of the united states for better pastures elsewhere.  it just so happens that better pastures have also been declared as owned by other groups of people known as  nations .  moreover, the united states oftentimes makes contractual agreements with its neighbors to extradite criminals.  in the ancap society, the exact same kind of agreements can be made.  these nations re sell their own property through a similar contractual system.  their citizens are also free to leave or at least most of them for better pastures, if they can find them.   all an cappers want to do is hit a magical reset button to destroy government and let it reform under a different name.   maybe they will call it a homeowner is association.  maybe they will call it a corporation.  they want to hit the reset button, because this time around, maybe they can then grab a bigger piece for themselves.  an cappers might object to my criticism because the last time our world was formed, violence and aggression was  legal  and  allowed .  well, violence and aggression obviously will not magically disappear the second time around when they hit the reset button.  without a monopolizing, governing body to restrict or regulate violence, then nothing will be different the second time around.  bad corporations/businesses/governments will do bad things, and nobody will be there to stop it, just like since the dawn of human history.  everyone can even agree that bad things are bad or that aggression is bad, but they will just go ahead and do it anyways when it just so happens to help themselves.  all the social ostracism in the  world , quite literally, has not made north korea or iran or any other dictator change their evil ways.  it surely would not work after the an caps hit their reset button.  the ancap utopia has no differences whatsoever to the world as it is today.  as in our world, there is no governing authority that demands that everybody follow the non aggression principle or that people respect each others rights.  without enforcement, everybody will just do whatever they want to.  bad people will do bad things if they can get away with it.  power will be conglomerated eventually into super corporations that would eventually resemble the governments we see today.  just like our own world, after the big corporations have seized all the valuable property, they can then govern however the fuck they please.   my house, my rules.  if you do not like it, then just get off of my property !   eventually, after the corporations have taken over, the next generation of anarcho capitalists will grumble about how evil their new corporate/government overlords are.  they too want to hit that reset button again.  the only difference between the ancap utopia and our own world is that, in the ancap society, everyone nearly homogeneously believes in ancap principles, asides from a few troublemakers.  but we already live in their world.  welcome to paradise.   #  the ancap utopia has no differences whatsoever to the world as it is today.   #  with a former united states, all current state  services  would benefit from the competition that we see between different businesses because none of them would control four million square miles of land.   #  op, do you ever complain about the size of wal mart or exxon ? well, guess what ? just the federal us state is about the same size by revenue as the top twenty combined URL and unlike these corporations, state megacorp does claim ownership over a contiguous landmass which does not allow competition.  what incentive does wal mart have to have good enough quality and good enough prices ? well, there is a target half a mile away.  state services do not face such competition which is why quality will go down and cost will go up.  there is no good feedback mechanism of withdrawing money from state activities that people find  bad.   with a former united states, all current state  services  would benefit from the competition that we see between different businesses because none of them would control four million square miles of land.  a hundred thousand homeowner is associations are a bit different from one giant inefficient state.   #  but as we can see, it already is happening.   #  i do not think the op believes that the state has a valid claim to its territory.  he says in one of his comments that the state stole the land from the native americans.  he is arguing that the state is just a large company which uses force.  ancaps argue that life will be vastly improved in an anarchocapitalist world.  but, we essentially already live in an anarchocapitalist world.  its just that one large company the government uses force to get its way.  thus, the existence of the government proves that anarchocapitalism can give way to a world in which powerful institutions use aggression and theft.  ancaps argue that this would not happen.  but as we can see, it already is happening.   #  no, you ca not draw a complete picture in a relatively short reddit comment.   # no, you ca not draw a complete picture in a relatively short reddit comment.  but essentially, that is what nation states are.  that is not to say they are evil or that they are thuggish.  the tax payers are the source of their income.  they have incentives to keep us happy.  they also have complicated bylaws that influence their behavior.  this is true of many companies.  we over romanticize what the government is.  it is not the  voice of the people  personified.  there is not an intangible social contract.  nationstates are just security companies with regional monopolies.  my answer is that it does not have a valid claim to its territory.  are you asking me to argue a position i do not hold ?  #  i think george smith makes a better argument.   # you asked for major ancaps though, and he definitely counts.  yeah but he does not say there would be no property rights.  friedman is still making an argument about how there would be property rights in an ancap society.  i think george smith makes a better argument.  smith agrees that economic arguments can be effective in particular discussions, but are not a sufficient as a foundation of libertarianism.   #  what would it take for you to be free a free society ?  #  there is truth in what he/she is saying.  just like freedom anarchy is a state of mind not an actual physical space.  much like heaven i suppose.  if freedom were restricted to a certain time or space then it is not true freedom just like anarchy,it is timeless and eternal.  i think it was colin ward that gave the analogy of anarchy being like snow covered ground.  that the degree of anarchy ebbs and flows just like the way snow may recede or cover ground that is always there.  he also felt that we also already live in anarchist world.  it is also very empowering to know that you do not have to wait for any referendum or for any majority rule for you to step into an anarchist society  anarchy is spread upon the earth and men do not see it  apologies to jesus of nazareth .  what would it take for you to be free a free society ? no.  was not that the whole point of shawshank redemption and practically every movie that deals seriously with the issue of prison.  so too with anarchy.  even leonard read said that the way to fight for freedom is different than the way one would fight for socialism.  so too with living in an anarchist society all it requires is having the eyes and will to see it.
i suppose that i am a very egalitarian person politically, but it seems to me that space exploration is among the most extreme examples of wealthy people ignoring the challenges that face the poor.  this sentiment is famously articulated, for instance, in gil scott heron is poem  whitey on the moon .  in the case of the annual budget allocation of the us assuming space is not privatized , giving more funding to nasa means giving less funding to public schools and other social benefits.  is our planet really so trashed that there is no hope whatsoever for us to reduce our emissions and save it ? do we really need to be starting to build cities and factories on another planet when there are still unimaginable numbers of children dying because they do not have access to clean drinking water, health care, or food ? would it make it easier for us to ignore the miserable if all the wealthy people could just ship off to another planet ? on a more practical level, i think that if you are a government that values  technological progress , and one dimension of this is space exploration, then you get a better return on  technological progress  per investment in education.  some people are skeptical that increasing funding for our public education systems will change the results, but i think that simply increasing the wage of teachers could significantly increase the quality of teachers.  that is to say, a lot of the most talented students in the us are going into finance because that is how they can make the most money, but it would be better for our country/world and its  technological progress  if they went into engineering or education, which could partially be achieved by increasing the wages of public school teachers.  essentially, by focusing on education instead of space exploration, we could teach our kids to teach our grandkids .  to teach our descendants how to travel to mars efficiently and safely when such a move is actually relevant for humanity.  for instance, we might be better off colonizing the upper atmosphere of venus URL i realize that there are lots of other wasteful things on the budget, but that does not make it okay to waste any more on orion instead of public education, it just means we should try to minimize those costs too.   #  in the case of the annual budget allocation of the us assuming space is not privatized , giving more funding to nasa means giving less funding to public schools and other social benefits.   #  you ca not necessarily fix problems with more money.   # you ca not necessarily fix problems with more money.  we are a nation of many people, and it is silly to pick one  worst  cause and dedicate money to it.  going into space amazes people and gets them interested in science and technology.  we need sexy and showy space projects to get kids to care about science and education again.  they are not dying for those reasons in the us.  if you give food, health care, and water to corrupt nations; they will be wasted.  it is not up to the us to save the world.  what is going to inspire these kids to get into science and technology ? you would think that, but i doubt it.  we spend more per student than most countries, yet lag behind in results.  the problem is not money.  take some money out of the defense budget instead.  space travel yields new technology and understanding about our universe.   #  and my point was that this inspiration, in its current form, is not as good as it seems: would not it be better to get young people interested in improving our country or planet in general ?  #  you ca not fix problems with more money, but part of the cost of funding a particular project is all the other projects that you can no longer fund.  economists refer to this as  opportunity cost .  when you are deciding whether or not some amount of the budget should be spent on a particular project the context of my post , the only thing you can possibly do is compare that project to alternatives.  i am skeptical of your argument that  going into space .  gets people interested in science and technology , because i think that giving a better education in science and technology would similarly inspire them.  and my point was that this inspiration, in its current form, is not as good as it seems: would not it be better to get young people interested in improving our country or planet in general ? there is a world of difference between it being up to the us  to save the world , and being more cognizant about the global impacts of your actions.  while the admittedly hyperbolic example i cited does not primarily affect the us, we still have a huge race gap in achievement, an even bigger race gap in prison sentences, and at least tens of thousands of homeless people.  not to mention the frequency of white police officers getting off scot free for murdering unarmed black men.  if we spend more per student than most countries and lag behind, then this only means that our current education system is inefficient and needs to be reformed.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  i agree with you that we should  take some money out of the defense budget instead , but this post is about the orion program specifically.   #  what does this have to do with orion ?  # can you give some examples of projects that are no longer funded due to the space program ? if you want to argue opportunity cost, you have to show that this money would have been used in a better way instead of  wasted  on something else.  so in your mind, showing people the math involved in rocketry or the chemistry and physics involved in material science is more inspirational than watching a fiery rocket blast off into the sky and eventually put humans on  another planet  ? really ? that is a noble goal and there is plenty of effort already going into it.  what do you propose we spend the extra money on to better accomplish this goal ? what does this have to do with orion ? is our space program harming other nations ? we already make diplomatic efforts to try and help these people, but ultimately they are in sovereign nations and have to help themselves.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  education reform does not have to cost money.  if you just pump more money into education then schools are going to do stupid things like buying ipads or laptops for every student that do not contribute to their education.  we need to change the culture of education before putting more money into it.  you are saying it is a waste of money, and that we should take that money and use it elsewhere.  it seems you agree that the program has  some  benefit, so why remove money from this program instead of something that is far more wasteful and less useful ?  #  removing this essential element will only make more people feel bad about their lives and how hopeless they are.   #  what i do not understand is how in the world is someone being better than you in every single dimension inspiring.  rather demotivating, i will say, as for one that is not on mars or rather, 0 billion of them it just goes to show how much you suck at things.  there is absolutely no social benefit from such projects, unless there is another cold war and another space race.  people did not care about humans on moon, they cared about kicking soviet butts.  removing this essential element will only make more people feel bad about their lives and how hopeless they are.   #  you were proud of his accomplishments, because you were faster than soviets.   #  you were proud of his accomplishments, because you were faster than soviets.  russians celebrate gagarin, you celebrate aldrin, but the reason is the same nationalism.  no one celebrates them as them, but as a part of   team australia team idiot team usa  or  team ussr .  that can be the only explanation of how positive these events are viewed.  if it was viewed as personal achievement, then there will be a lot of unhappy people, who feel by that in comparison useless.   they were on fucking moon, and you ca not draw ? pathetic creature you really are.
i suppose that i am a very egalitarian person politically, but it seems to me that space exploration is among the most extreme examples of wealthy people ignoring the challenges that face the poor.  this sentiment is famously articulated, for instance, in gil scott heron is poem  whitey on the moon .  in the case of the annual budget allocation of the us assuming space is not privatized , giving more funding to nasa means giving less funding to public schools and other social benefits.  is our planet really so trashed that there is no hope whatsoever for us to reduce our emissions and save it ? do we really need to be starting to build cities and factories on another planet when there are still unimaginable numbers of children dying because they do not have access to clean drinking water, health care, or food ? would it make it easier for us to ignore the miserable if all the wealthy people could just ship off to another planet ? on a more practical level, i think that if you are a government that values  technological progress , and one dimension of this is space exploration, then you get a better return on  technological progress  per investment in education.  some people are skeptical that increasing funding for our public education systems will change the results, but i think that simply increasing the wage of teachers could significantly increase the quality of teachers.  that is to say, a lot of the most talented students in the us are going into finance because that is how they can make the most money, but it would be better for our country/world and its  technological progress  if they went into engineering or education, which could partially be achieved by increasing the wages of public school teachers.  essentially, by focusing on education instead of space exploration, we could teach our kids to teach our grandkids .  to teach our descendants how to travel to mars efficiently and safely when such a move is actually relevant for humanity.  for instance, we might be better off colonizing the upper atmosphere of venus URL i realize that there are lots of other wasteful things on the budget, but that does not make it okay to waste any more on orion instead of public education, it just means we should try to minimize those costs too.   #  do we really need to be starting to build cities and factories on another planet when there are still unimaginable numbers of children dying because they do not have access to clean drinking water, health care, or food ?  #  they are not dying for those reasons in the us.   # you ca not necessarily fix problems with more money.  we are a nation of many people, and it is silly to pick one  worst  cause and dedicate money to it.  going into space amazes people and gets them interested in science and technology.  we need sexy and showy space projects to get kids to care about science and education again.  they are not dying for those reasons in the us.  if you give food, health care, and water to corrupt nations; they will be wasted.  it is not up to the us to save the world.  what is going to inspire these kids to get into science and technology ? you would think that, but i doubt it.  we spend more per student than most countries, yet lag behind in results.  the problem is not money.  take some money out of the defense budget instead.  space travel yields new technology and understanding about our universe.   #  there is a world of difference between it being up to the us  to save the world , and being more cognizant about the global impacts of your actions.   #  you ca not fix problems with more money, but part of the cost of funding a particular project is all the other projects that you can no longer fund.  economists refer to this as  opportunity cost .  when you are deciding whether or not some amount of the budget should be spent on a particular project the context of my post , the only thing you can possibly do is compare that project to alternatives.  i am skeptical of your argument that  going into space .  gets people interested in science and technology , because i think that giving a better education in science and technology would similarly inspire them.  and my point was that this inspiration, in its current form, is not as good as it seems: would not it be better to get young people interested in improving our country or planet in general ? there is a world of difference between it being up to the us  to save the world , and being more cognizant about the global impacts of your actions.  while the admittedly hyperbolic example i cited does not primarily affect the us, we still have a huge race gap in achievement, an even bigger race gap in prison sentences, and at least tens of thousands of homeless people.  not to mention the frequency of white police officers getting off scot free for murdering unarmed black men.  if we spend more per student than most countries and lag behind, then this only means that our current education system is inefficient and needs to be reformed.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  i agree with you that we should  take some money out of the defense budget instead , but this post is about the orion program specifically.   #  what does this have to do with orion ?  # can you give some examples of projects that are no longer funded due to the space program ? if you want to argue opportunity cost, you have to show that this money would have been used in a better way instead of  wasted  on something else.  so in your mind, showing people the math involved in rocketry or the chemistry and physics involved in material science is more inspirational than watching a fiery rocket blast off into the sky and eventually put humans on  another planet  ? really ? that is a noble goal and there is plenty of effort already going into it.  what do you propose we spend the extra money on to better accomplish this goal ? what does this have to do with orion ? is our space program harming other nations ? we already make diplomatic efforts to try and help these people, but ultimately they are in sovereign nations and have to help themselves.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  education reform does not have to cost money.  if you just pump more money into education then schools are going to do stupid things like buying ipads or laptops for every student that do not contribute to their education.  we need to change the culture of education before putting more money into it.  you are saying it is a waste of money, and that we should take that money and use it elsewhere.  it seems you agree that the program has  some  benefit, so why remove money from this program instead of something that is far more wasteful and less useful ?  #  removing this essential element will only make more people feel bad about their lives and how hopeless they are.   #  what i do not understand is how in the world is someone being better than you in every single dimension inspiring.  rather demotivating, i will say, as for one that is not on mars or rather, 0 billion of them it just goes to show how much you suck at things.  there is absolutely no social benefit from such projects, unless there is another cold war and another space race.  people did not care about humans on moon, they cared about kicking soviet butts.  removing this essential element will only make more people feel bad about their lives and how hopeless they are.   #  russians celebrate gagarin, you celebrate aldrin, but the reason is the same nationalism.   #  you were proud of his accomplishments, because you were faster than soviets.  russians celebrate gagarin, you celebrate aldrin, but the reason is the same nationalism.  no one celebrates them as them, but as a part of   team australia team idiot team usa  or  team ussr .  that can be the only explanation of how positive these events are viewed.  if it was viewed as personal achievement, then there will be a lot of unhappy people, who feel by that in comparison useless.   they were on fucking moon, and you ca not draw ? pathetic creature you really are.
i suppose that i am a very egalitarian person politically, but it seems to me that space exploration is among the most extreme examples of wealthy people ignoring the challenges that face the poor.  this sentiment is famously articulated, for instance, in gil scott heron is poem  whitey on the moon .  in the case of the annual budget allocation of the us assuming space is not privatized , giving more funding to nasa means giving less funding to public schools and other social benefits.  is our planet really so trashed that there is no hope whatsoever for us to reduce our emissions and save it ? do we really need to be starting to build cities and factories on another planet when there are still unimaginable numbers of children dying because they do not have access to clean drinking water, health care, or food ? would it make it easier for us to ignore the miserable if all the wealthy people could just ship off to another planet ? on a more practical level, i think that if you are a government that values  technological progress , and one dimension of this is space exploration, then you get a better return on  technological progress  per investment in education.  some people are skeptical that increasing funding for our public education systems will change the results, but i think that simply increasing the wage of teachers could significantly increase the quality of teachers.  that is to say, a lot of the most talented students in the us are going into finance because that is how they can make the most money, but it would be better for our country/world and its  technological progress  if they went into engineering or education, which could partially be achieved by increasing the wages of public school teachers.  essentially, by focusing on education instead of space exploration, we could teach our kids to teach our grandkids .  to teach our descendants how to travel to mars efficiently and safely when such a move is actually relevant for humanity.  for instance, we might be better off colonizing the upper atmosphere of venus URL i realize that there are lots of other wasteful things on the budget, but that does not make it okay to waste any more on orion instead of public education, it just means we should try to minimize those costs too.   #  some people are skeptical that increasing funding for our public education systems will change the results, but i think that simply increasing the wage of teachers could significantly increase the quality of teachers.   #  you would think that, but i doubt it.   # you ca not necessarily fix problems with more money.  we are a nation of many people, and it is silly to pick one  worst  cause and dedicate money to it.  going into space amazes people and gets them interested in science and technology.  we need sexy and showy space projects to get kids to care about science and education again.  they are not dying for those reasons in the us.  if you give food, health care, and water to corrupt nations; they will be wasted.  it is not up to the us to save the world.  what is going to inspire these kids to get into science and technology ? you would think that, but i doubt it.  we spend more per student than most countries, yet lag behind in results.  the problem is not money.  take some money out of the defense budget instead.  space travel yields new technology and understanding about our universe.   #  and my point was that this inspiration, in its current form, is not as good as it seems: would not it be better to get young people interested in improving our country or planet in general ?  #  you ca not fix problems with more money, but part of the cost of funding a particular project is all the other projects that you can no longer fund.  economists refer to this as  opportunity cost .  when you are deciding whether or not some amount of the budget should be spent on a particular project the context of my post , the only thing you can possibly do is compare that project to alternatives.  i am skeptical of your argument that  going into space .  gets people interested in science and technology , because i think that giving a better education in science and technology would similarly inspire them.  and my point was that this inspiration, in its current form, is not as good as it seems: would not it be better to get young people interested in improving our country or planet in general ? there is a world of difference between it being up to the us  to save the world , and being more cognizant about the global impacts of your actions.  while the admittedly hyperbolic example i cited does not primarily affect the us, we still have a huge race gap in achievement, an even bigger race gap in prison sentences, and at least tens of thousands of homeless people.  not to mention the frequency of white police officers getting off scot free for murdering unarmed black men.  if we spend more per student than most countries and lag behind, then this only means that our current education system is inefficient and needs to be reformed.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  i agree with you that we should  take some money out of the defense budget instead , but this post is about the orion program specifically.   #  we need to change the culture of education before putting more money into it.   # can you give some examples of projects that are no longer funded due to the space program ? if you want to argue opportunity cost, you have to show that this money would have been used in a better way instead of  wasted  on something else.  so in your mind, showing people the math involved in rocketry or the chemistry and physics involved in material science is more inspirational than watching a fiery rocket blast off into the sky and eventually put humans on  another planet  ? really ? that is a noble goal and there is plenty of effort already going into it.  what do you propose we spend the extra money on to better accomplish this goal ? what does this have to do with orion ? is our space program harming other nations ? we already make diplomatic efforts to try and help these people, but ultimately they are in sovereign nations and have to help themselves.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  education reform does not have to cost money.  if you just pump more money into education then schools are going to do stupid things like buying ipads or laptops for every student that do not contribute to their education.  we need to change the culture of education before putting more money into it.  you are saying it is a waste of money, and that we should take that money and use it elsewhere.  it seems you agree that the program has  some  benefit, so why remove money from this program instead of something that is far more wasteful and less useful ?  #  people did not care about humans on moon, they cared about kicking soviet butts.   #  what i do not understand is how in the world is someone being better than you in every single dimension inspiring.  rather demotivating, i will say, as for one that is not on mars or rather, 0 billion of them it just goes to show how much you suck at things.  there is absolutely no social benefit from such projects, unless there is another cold war and another space race.  people did not care about humans on moon, they cared about kicking soviet butts.  removing this essential element will only make more people feel bad about their lives and how hopeless they are.   #  no one celebrates them as them, but as a part of   team australia team idiot team usa  or  team ussr .   #  you were proud of his accomplishments, because you were faster than soviets.  russians celebrate gagarin, you celebrate aldrin, but the reason is the same nationalism.  no one celebrates them as them, but as a part of   team australia team idiot team usa  or  team ussr .  that can be the only explanation of how positive these events are viewed.  if it was viewed as personal achievement, then there will be a lot of unhappy people, who feel by that in comparison useless.   they were on fucking moon, and you ca not draw ? pathetic creature you really are.
i suppose that i am a very egalitarian person politically, but it seems to me that space exploration is among the most extreme examples of wealthy people ignoring the challenges that face the poor.  this sentiment is famously articulated, for instance, in gil scott heron is poem  whitey on the moon .  in the case of the annual budget allocation of the us assuming space is not privatized , giving more funding to nasa means giving less funding to public schools and other social benefits.  is our planet really so trashed that there is no hope whatsoever for us to reduce our emissions and save it ? do we really need to be starting to build cities and factories on another planet when there are still unimaginable numbers of children dying because they do not have access to clean drinking water, health care, or food ? would it make it easier for us to ignore the miserable if all the wealthy people could just ship off to another planet ? on a more practical level, i think that if you are a government that values  technological progress , and one dimension of this is space exploration, then you get a better return on  technological progress  per investment in education.  some people are skeptical that increasing funding for our public education systems will change the results, but i think that simply increasing the wage of teachers could significantly increase the quality of teachers.  that is to say, a lot of the most talented students in the us are going into finance because that is how they can make the most money, but it would be better for our country/world and its  technological progress  if they went into engineering or education, which could partially be achieved by increasing the wages of public school teachers.  essentially, by focusing on education instead of space exploration, we could teach our kids to teach our grandkids .  to teach our descendants how to travel to mars efficiently and safely when such a move is actually relevant for humanity.  for instance, we might be better off colonizing the upper atmosphere of venus URL i realize that there are lots of other wasteful things on the budget, but that does not make it okay to waste any more on orion instead of public education, it just means we should try to minimize those costs too.   #  in the case of the annual budget allocation of the us assuming space is not privatized , giving more funding to nasa means giving less funding to public schools and other social benefits.   #  as has been stated adequately already, throwing money at problems does not necessarily fix them.   # how so ? if i purchase a big screen tv for myself, does that mean that i am ignoring the challenges that face the poor ? what if i also regularly give to charity as well ? is that still  ignoring the challenges that face the poor  ? as has been stated adequately already, throwing money at problems does not necessarily fix them.  and why does that extra money have to come out of public schools and social benefits ? why could not we for example take money out of the military budget to increase funding for nasa ? of course not.  i do not see what that has to do with anything.  but regardless of what  we  are doing to the planet, there is the very real possibility of  nature  destroying our living environment.  many, many times in earth past before man came around were entire swaths of species wiped out because of natural occurrences.  space exploration and research in to colonization of other planets is building a plan b for us, should something happen that we did not predict, or that we can do nothing about.  and a plan b to  keep humans from going extinct  i think is a worthy cause.  do not you ? again, as has been stated, that does not happen very much in america.  and it is not america is job to save the world, even though they think it is most of the time.  and why is it that we ca not do both ? why must we focus on only one thing at a time ? that is a narrow and shallow way of looking at things, if you ask me.  you are making a  huge  jump from  landing a manned mission on mars  to  shipping all the wealthy people out in to space .  you have not made any argument as to how or why that would be the case.  did we ship all the wealthy people up to the moon to leave all the poor on earth ? no.  why would mars be any different ? how so ? and even if that was the case, the quality of the teachers do not necessarily improve the education received by the young.  can you explain how increasing the wages of teachers would move people from finance to engineering ? i do not see the connection there.  why is it a education vs space exploration ? why ca not we focus on improving both areas ? and the amount that is actually spent on orion and other nasa projects is miniscule in comparison to the money spent on military and defense.  and yes, i already saw that you said,  i am not talking about military, i am talking about orion  but you are talking about orion in the context of  resource allocation .  and if you want to ignore the mountain and bitch about the mole hill, then you should probably rethink some of your priorities.   #  you would think that, but i doubt it.   # you ca not necessarily fix problems with more money.  we are a nation of many people, and it is silly to pick one  worst  cause and dedicate money to it.  going into space amazes people and gets them interested in science and technology.  we need sexy and showy space projects to get kids to care about science and education again.  they are not dying for those reasons in the us.  if you give food, health care, and water to corrupt nations; they will be wasted.  it is not up to the us to save the world.  what is going to inspire these kids to get into science and technology ? you would think that, but i doubt it.  we spend more per student than most countries, yet lag behind in results.  the problem is not money.  take some money out of the defense budget instead.  space travel yields new technology and understanding about our universe.   #  while the admittedly hyperbolic example i cited does not primarily affect the us, we still have a huge race gap in achievement, an even bigger race gap in prison sentences, and at least tens of thousands of homeless people.   #  you ca not fix problems with more money, but part of the cost of funding a particular project is all the other projects that you can no longer fund.  economists refer to this as  opportunity cost .  when you are deciding whether or not some amount of the budget should be spent on a particular project the context of my post , the only thing you can possibly do is compare that project to alternatives.  i am skeptical of your argument that  going into space .  gets people interested in science and technology , because i think that giving a better education in science and technology would similarly inspire them.  and my point was that this inspiration, in its current form, is not as good as it seems: would not it be better to get young people interested in improving our country or planet in general ? there is a world of difference between it being up to the us  to save the world , and being more cognizant about the global impacts of your actions.  while the admittedly hyperbolic example i cited does not primarily affect the us, we still have a huge race gap in achievement, an even bigger race gap in prison sentences, and at least tens of thousands of homeless people.  not to mention the frequency of white police officers getting off scot free for murdering unarmed black men.  if we spend more per student than most countries and lag behind, then this only means that our current education system is inefficient and needs to be reformed.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  i agree with you that we should  take some money out of the defense budget instead , but this post is about the orion program specifically.   #  what does this have to do with orion ?  # can you give some examples of projects that are no longer funded due to the space program ? if you want to argue opportunity cost, you have to show that this money would have been used in a better way instead of  wasted  on something else.  so in your mind, showing people the math involved in rocketry or the chemistry and physics involved in material science is more inspirational than watching a fiery rocket blast off into the sky and eventually put humans on  another planet  ? really ? that is a noble goal and there is plenty of effort already going into it.  what do you propose we spend the extra money on to better accomplish this goal ? what does this have to do with orion ? is our space program harming other nations ? we already make diplomatic efforts to try and help these people, but ultimately they are in sovereign nations and have to help themselves.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  education reform does not have to cost money.  if you just pump more money into education then schools are going to do stupid things like buying ipads or laptops for every student that do not contribute to their education.  we need to change the culture of education before putting more money into it.  you are saying it is a waste of money, and that we should take that money and use it elsewhere.  it seems you agree that the program has  some  benefit, so why remove money from this program instead of something that is far more wasteful and less useful ?  #  rather demotivating, i will say, as for one that is not on mars or rather, 0 billion of them it just goes to show how much you suck at things.   #  what i do not understand is how in the world is someone being better than you in every single dimension inspiring.  rather demotivating, i will say, as for one that is not on mars or rather, 0 billion of them it just goes to show how much you suck at things.  there is absolutely no social benefit from such projects, unless there is another cold war and another space race.  people did not care about humans on moon, they cared about kicking soviet butts.  removing this essential element will only make more people feel bad about their lives and how hopeless they are.
i suppose that i am a very egalitarian person politically, but it seems to me that space exploration is among the most extreme examples of wealthy people ignoring the challenges that face the poor.  this sentiment is famously articulated, for instance, in gil scott heron is poem  whitey on the moon .  in the case of the annual budget allocation of the us assuming space is not privatized , giving more funding to nasa means giving less funding to public schools and other social benefits.  is our planet really so trashed that there is no hope whatsoever for us to reduce our emissions and save it ? do we really need to be starting to build cities and factories on another planet when there are still unimaginable numbers of children dying because they do not have access to clean drinking water, health care, or food ? would it make it easier for us to ignore the miserable if all the wealthy people could just ship off to another planet ? on a more practical level, i think that if you are a government that values  technological progress , and one dimension of this is space exploration, then you get a better return on  technological progress  per investment in education.  some people are skeptical that increasing funding for our public education systems will change the results, but i think that simply increasing the wage of teachers could significantly increase the quality of teachers.  that is to say, a lot of the most talented students in the us are going into finance because that is how they can make the most money, but it would be better for our country/world and its  technological progress  if they went into engineering or education, which could partially be achieved by increasing the wages of public school teachers.  essentially, by focusing on education instead of space exploration, we could teach our kids to teach our grandkids .  to teach our descendants how to travel to mars efficiently and safely when such a move is actually relevant for humanity.  for instance, we might be better off colonizing the upper atmosphere of venus URL i realize that there are lots of other wasteful things on the budget, but that does not make it okay to waste any more on orion instead of public education, it just means we should try to minimize those costs too.   #  do we really need to be starting to build cities and factories on another planet when there are still unimaginable numbers of children dying because they do not have access to clean drinking water, health care, or food ?  #  again, as has been stated, that does not happen very much in america.   # how so ? if i purchase a big screen tv for myself, does that mean that i am ignoring the challenges that face the poor ? what if i also regularly give to charity as well ? is that still  ignoring the challenges that face the poor  ? as has been stated adequately already, throwing money at problems does not necessarily fix them.  and why does that extra money have to come out of public schools and social benefits ? why could not we for example take money out of the military budget to increase funding for nasa ? of course not.  i do not see what that has to do with anything.  but regardless of what  we  are doing to the planet, there is the very real possibility of  nature  destroying our living environment.  many, many times in earth past before man came around were entire swaths of species wiped out because of natural occurrences.  space exploration and research in to colonization of other planets is building a plan b for us, should something happen that we did not predict, or that we can do nothing about.  and a plan b to  keep humans from going extinct  i think is a worthy cause.  do not you ? again, as has been stated, that does not happen very much in america.  and it is not america is job to save the world, even though they think it is most of the time.  and why is it that we ca not do both ? why must we focus on only one thing at a time ? that is a narrow and shallow way of looking at things, if you ask me.  you are making a  huge  jump from  landing a manned mission on mars  to  shipping all the wealthy people out in to space .  you have not made any argument as to how or why that would be the case.  did we ship all the wealthy people up to the moon to leave all the poor on earth ? no.  why would mars be any different ? how so ? and even if that was the case, the quality of the teachers do not necessarily improve the education received by the young.  can you explain how increasing the wages of teachers would move people from finance to engineering ? i do not see the connection there.  why is it a education vs space exploration ? why ca not we focus on improving both areas ? and the amount that is actually spent on orion and other nasa projects is miniscule in comparison to the money spent on military and defense.  and yes, i already saw that you said,  i am not talking about military, i am talking about orion  but you are talking about orion in the context of  resource allocation .  and if you want to ignore the mountain and bitch about the mole hill, then you should probably rethink some of your priorities.   #  you would think that, but i doubt it.   # you ca not necessarily fix problems with more money.  we are a nation of many people, and it is silly to pick one  worst  cause and dedicate money to it.  going into space amazes people and gets them interested in science and technology.  we need sexy and showy space projects to get kids to care about science and education again.  they are not dying for those reasons in the us.  if you give food, health care, and water to corrupt nations; they will be wasted.  it is not up to the us to save the world.  what is going to inspire these kids to get into science and technology ? you would think that, but i doubt it.  we spend more per student than most countries, yet lag behind in results.  the problem is not money.  take some money out of the defense budget instead.  space travel yields new technology and understanding about our universe.   #  i agree with you that we should  take some money out of the defense budget instead , but this post is about the orion program specifically.   #  you ca not fix problems with more money, but part of the cost of funding a particular project is all the other projects that you can no longer fund.  economists refer to this as  opportunity cost .  when you are deciding whether or not some amount of the budget should be spent on a particular project the context of my post , the only thing you can possibly do is compare that project to alternatives.  i am skeptical of your argument that  going into space .  gets people interested in science and technology , because i think that giving a better education in science and technology would similarly inspire them.  and my point was that this inspiration, in its current form, is not as good as it seems: would not it be better to get young people interested in improving our country or planet in general ? there is a world of difference between it being up to the us  to save the world , and being more cognizant about the global impacts of your actions.  while the admittedly hyperbolic example i cited does not primarily affect the us, we still have a huge race gap in achievement, an even bigger race gap in prison sentences, and at least tens of thousands of homeless people.  not to mention the frequency of white police officers getting off scot free for murdering unarmed black men.  if we spend more per student than most countries and lag behind, then this only means that our current education system is inefficient and needs to be reformed.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  i agree with you that we should  take some money out of the defense budget instead , but this post is about the orion program specifically.   #  if you just pump more money into education then schools are going to do stupid things like buying ipads or laptops for every student that do not contribute to their education.   # can you give some examples of projects that are no longer funded due to the space program ? if you want to argue opportunity cost, you have to show that this money would have been used in a better way instead of  wasted  on something else.  so in your mind, showing people the math involved in rocketry or the chemistry and physics involved in material science is more inspirational than watching a fiery rocket blast off into the sky and eventually put humans on  another planet  ? really ? that is a noble goal and there is plenty of effort already going into it.  what do you propose we spend the extra money on to better accomplish this goal ? what does this have to do with orion ? is our space program harming other nations ? we already make diplomatic efforts to try and help these people, but ultimately they are in sovereign nations and have to help themselves.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  education reform does not have to cost money.  if you just pump more money into education then schools are going to do stupid things like buying ipads or laptops for every student that do not contribute to their education.  we need to change the culture of education before putting more money into it.  you are saying it is a waste of money, and that we should take that money and use it elsewhere.  it seems you agree that the program has  some  benefit, so why remove money from this program instead of something that is far more wasteful and less useful ?  #  there is absolutely no social benefit from such projects, unless there is another cold war and another space race.   #  what i do not understand is how in the world is someone being better than you in every single dimension inspiring.  rather demotivating, i will say, as for one that is not on mars or rather, 0 billion of them it just goes to show how much you suck at things.  there is absolutely no social benefit from such projects, unless there is another cold war and another space race.  people did not care about humans on moon, they cared about kicking soviet butts.  removing this essential element will only make more people feel bad about their lives and how hopeless they are.
i suppose that i am a very egalitarian person politically, but it seems to me that space exploration is among the most extreme examples of wealthy people ignoring the challenges that face the poor.  this sentiment is famously articulated, for instance, in gil scott heron is poem  whitey on the moon .  in the case of the annual budget allocation of the us assuming space is not privatized , giving more funding to nasa means giving less funding to public schools and other social benefits.  is our planet really so trashed that there is no hope whatsoever for us to reduce our emissions and save it ? do we really need to be starting to build cities and factories on another planet when there are still unimaginable numbers of children dying because they do not have access to clean drinking water, health care, or food ? would it make it easier for us to ignore the miserable if all the wealthy people could just ship off to another planet ? on a more practical level, i think that if you are a government that values  technological progress , and one dimension of this is space exploration, then you get a better return on  technological progress  per investment in education.  some people are skeptical that increasing funding for our public education systems will change the results, but i think that simply increasing the wage of teachers could significantly increase the quality of teachers.  that is to say, a lot of the most talented students in the us are going into finance because that is how they can make the most money, but it would be better for our country/world and its  technological progress  if they went into engineering or education, which could partially be achieved by increasing the wages of public school teachers.  essentially, by focusing on education instead of space exploration, we could teach our kids to teach our grandkids .  to teach our descendants how to travel to mars efficiently and safely when such a move is actually relevant for humanity.  for instance, we might be better off colonizing the upper atmosphere of venus URL i realize that there are lots of other wasteful things on the budget, but that does not make it okay to waste any more on orion instead of public education, it just means we should try to minimize those costs too.   #  would it make it easier for us to ignore the miserable if all the wealthy people could just ship off to another planet ?  #  you are making a  huge  jump from  landing a manned mission on mars  to  shipping all the wealthy people out in to space .   # how so ? if i purchase a big screen tv for myself, does that mean that i am ignoring the challenges that face the poor ? what if i also regularly give to charity as well ? is that still  ignoring the challenges that face the poor  ? as has been stated adequately already, throwing money at problems does not necessarily fix them.  and why does that extra money have to come out of public schools and social benefits ? why could not we for example take money out of the military budget to increase funding for nasa ? of course not.  i do not see what that has to do with anything.  but regardless of what  we  are doing to the planet, there is the very real possibility of  nature  destroying our living environment.  many, many times in earth past before man came around were entire swaths of species wiped out because of natural occurrences.  space exploration and research in to colonization of other planets is building a plan b for us, should something happen that we did not predict, or that we can do nothing about.  and a plan b to  keep humans from going extinct  i think is a worthy cause.  do not you ? again, as has been stated, that does not happen very much in america.  and it is not america is job to save the world, even though they think it is most of the time.  and why is it that we ca not do both ? why must we focus on only one thing at a time ? that is a narrow and shallow way of looking at things, if you ask me.  you are making a  huge  jump from  landing a manned mission on mars  to  shipping all the wealthy people out in to space .  you have not made any argument as to how or why that would be the case.  did we ship all the wealthy people up to the moon to leave all the poor on earth ? no.  why would mars be any different ? how so ? and even if that was the case, the quality of the teachers do not necessarily improve the education received by the young.  can you explain how increasing the wages of teachers would move people from finance to engineering ? i do not see the connection there.  why is it a education vs space exploration ? why ca not we focus on improving both areas ? and the amount that is actually spent on orion and other nasa projects is miniscule in comparison to the money spent on military and defense.  and yes, i already saw that you said,  i am not talking about military, i am talking about orion  but you are talking about orion in the context of  resource allocation .  and if you want to ignore the mountain and bitch about the mole hill, then you should probably rethink some of your priorities.   #  they are not dying for those reasons in the us.   # you ca not necessarily fix problems with more money.  we are a nation of many people, and it is silly to pick one  worst  cause and dedicate money to it.  going into space amazes people and gets them interested in science and technology.  we need sexy and showy space projects to get kids to care about science and education again.  they are not dying for those reasons in the us.  if you give food, health care, and water to corrupt nations; they will be wasted.  it is not up to the us to save the world.  what is going to inspire these kids to get into science and technology ? you would think that, but i doubt it.  we spend more per student than most countries, yet lag behind in results.  the problem is not money.  take some money out of the defense budget instead.  space travel yields new technology and understanding about our universe.   #  you ca not fix problems with more money, but part of the cost of funding a particular project is all the other projects that you can no longer fund.   #  you ca not fix problems with more money, but part of the cost of funding a particular project is all the other projects that you can no longer fund.  economists refer to this as  opportunity cost .  when you are deciding whether or not some amount of the budget should be spent on a particular project the context of my post , the only thing you can possibly do is compare that project to alternatives.  i am skeptical of your argument that  going into space .  gets people interested in science and technology , because i think that giving a better education in science and technology would similarly inspire them.  and my point was that this inspiration, in its current form, is not as good as it seems: would not it be better to get young people interested in improving our country or planet in general ? there is a world of difference between it being up to the us  to save the world , and being more cognizant about the global impacts of your actions.  while the admittedly hyperbolic example i cited does not primarily affect the us, we still have a huge race gap in achievement, an even bigger race gap in prison sentences, and at least tens of thousands of homeless people.  not to mention the frequency of white police officers getting off scot free for murdering unarmed black men.  if we spend more per student than most countries and lag behind, then this only means that our current education system is inefficient and needs to be reformed.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  i agree with you that we should  take some money out of the defense budget instead , but this post is about the orion program specifically.   #  you are saying it is a waste of money, and that we should take that money and use it elsewhere.   # can you give some examples of projects that are no longer funded due to the space program ? if you want to argue opportunity cost, you have to show that this money would have been used in a better way instead of  wasted  on something else.  so in your mind, showing people the math involved in rocketry or the chemistry and physics involved in material science is more inspirational than watching a fiery rocket blast off into the sky and eventually put humans on  another planet  ? really ? that is a noble goal and there is plenty of effort already going into it.  what do you propose we spend the extra money on to better accomplish this goal ? what does this have to do with orion ? is our space program harming other nations ? we already make diplomatic efforts to try and help these people, but ultimately they are in sovereign nations and have to help themselves.  education reform is yet another project that has costs which could have partially been covered by the orion project.  education reform does not have to cost money.  if you just pump more money into education then schools are going to do stupid things like buying ipads or laptops for every student that do not contribute to their education.  we need to change the culture of education before putting more money into it.  you are saying it is a waste of money, and that we should take that money and use it elsewhere.  it seems you agree that the program has  some  benefit, so why remove money from this program instead of something that is far more wasteful and less useful ?  #  there is absolutely no social benefit from such projects, unless there is another cold war and another space race.   #  what i do not understand is how in the world is someone being better than you in every single dimension inspiring.  rather demotivating, i will say, as for one that is not on mars or rather, 0 billion of them it just goes to show how much you suck at things.  there is absolutely no social benefit from such projects, unless there is another cold war and another space race.  people did not care about humans on moon, they cared about kicking soviet butts.  removing this essential element will only make more people feel bad about their lives and how hopeless they are.
most reddit users claim to be open minded and some even feel that reddit is an enlightened place where science, free thought and discussion thrive.  the moment anyone post an unpopular idea, however, they are immediately censored buried via downvotes .  the censorship of unpopular ideas is antithetical to free discussion and open mindedness.  galileo knew this, turing knew this, but most on reddit do not.  take a moment to experiment with this idea.  consider an unpopular idea that is present in society today and make a comment or post in support of it.  what do you think will happen ? the enlightened users of reddit will heavily censor it, via downvotes.  reddit has a serious problem with regard to the censorship of unpopular ideas and has become an echo chamber.  cmv.  URL  #  take a moment to experiment with this idea.   #  consider an unpopular idea that is present in society today and make a comment or post in support of it.   #  maybe, maybe, on default subs you are partly right.  i do not really equate downvotes with censorship, but that is a different issue.  consider an unpopular idea that is present in society today and make a comment or post in support of it.  what do you think will happen ? the enlightened users of reddit will heavily censor it, via downvotes.  do you mean unpopular opinions like /r/theredpill ? or /r/sexyabortions ? or /r/deadbabies ? or anything found here: URL how could these places exist if reddit censors unpopular ideas and is an echo chamber ?  #  firstly, i do not think it is an echo chamber.   #  firstly, i do not think it is an echo chamber.  i think it is  a collection of echo chambers .  that is a big difference.  it means many circles jerks exist among the users, not a single one.  most  unpopular  views have their own spot to produce and discuss.  secondly, i do not think echo chambers are a problem.  people have a right to say whatever they want, but nobody is forced to listen to them or support them.  that is why subreddits are created, so they have their own space.  they have a right to that, not a reserved spot on the first page.  finally, the downvote/upvote system is user based, not enforced by moderation, and the comments remain visible.  they do not delete anything for kicks in theory.  it is not censorship.   #  like they are so much more real than everyone else is.   #  well, you have just described the real outside world now.  that is the reality of things.  you have a right to speak,  not a right to be heard .  every time this subject is brought up, it always sound the same; people lacking a backbone complaining they are not being respected for their  controversial opinion , like the fact of believing something gives a certain value to things you say.  like they are so much more real than everyone else is.  the truth is, nothing said here is important enough to be censored.  you got kids bandwaggoning, maybe, but most  opinions  have kids bandwaggoning them both on and off reddit .  that is how the world works.  i think you will quickly understand that what you seem to define has  free discussion  does not exist or at the very least wo not include much more than 0 people.   #  the rules of reddit are not the rules of the world.   #  i think you are missing the point i am trying to make.  it is not a matter of whether it is fair or right, but whether it is self censoring.  the rules of reddit are not the rules of the world.  reddit is a platform for discussion and is a particular type of system, it has very specific properties like usernames, posts, a tree shaped comments graph ordered by popularity, minimal space between texts and so on.  these properties channel user interaction in ways unique to this system, ways that phpbb, facebook, twitter or 0chan do not, and this results in emergent behaviours of the system as a whole.  the question is not  waah, why are people downvoting me ?   which is uninteresting and easy to answer, it is usually because i am deliberately being a dick, but  why is reddit such a massive fucking circlejerk with very little dissenting opinion ?  , that is an interesting question.  if this sub was not so heavily moderated i would have been offensive for illustrative comic effect, but i would like to wear this post on my profile like a badge of honour and check up on it over the next few days to see how many people think i am awesome.  fuckin  reddit.   #  everything is an echo chamber, where certain comments or words are shunned.   # unless you can show me an actual organized group working systematically for the removal not putting you at the end of the pile of certain opinions, you have just defined an echo chamber.  however, the world at large is nothing but a long string of echo chambers, it is not much different here.  go try and have a discussion about a feotus  right to live in an abortion clinic; echo chamber.  gun control in an nra meeting; echo chamber.  everything is an echo chamber, where certain comments or words are shunned.
i have recently realised that the way i live my life is not the best.  i have not tried my best.  i do not think i have ever tried my best.  growing up i was always quiet and polite, and never really got in trouble.  at school i was bright enough to coast through everything, and now i have a job, i earn decent money, i support myself.  it is okay, but it does not light my fire.  when i come home in the evening to spend it with my boyfriend whom i love, very much i do a few things i enjoy reading, playing video games, redditing, cuddling and watching a film and a few more boring things make dinner, tidy up a bit, get ready for the next day .  and that is kind of it.  i live for the weekends when i can have a lie in, game a lot, and especially at the moment, get ready for christmas.  i have been thinking recently that maybe there should be more to life than this.  like, i really want to write a novel or, maybe it would be nice to do something i love, for a job.  i do not know what that would be, though.  maybe it would be nice to move into a smaller house so i could save a little money.  maybe i could learn to drive.  things like that.  but then i think well.  what is the point ? i am pretty happy as i am now.  i am certainly not doing my  best , but that seems like such hard work when i am already competent and content at the moment.  why would i over exert myself when i have already got to where i need to be ? i have a few friends who are into self betterment, keeping fit, healthy, etc.  i admire them, but i have no motivation or thought to better myself or do the same.  i have a gym membership that i go to occasionally if i start to put on a little weight, until it goes off again.  what would  wouldoing my best  achieve that i do not already have ? does it change the way you view the world ? does operating at your best make everything awesome ? do you get everything you want ? does not is just set you up to fail, on those days you do not manage your best ? a lot of self help stuff is about trying your best to do something.  but sometimes, someone is best is shit.  and sometimes, someone is not very much effort is amazing.  nobody seems to want to say that very much.  people seem to think  well it does not how well you do, as long as you try your best  but i disagree.  i think all that matters is how well you do.  no one is going to get to the end of their life and go  well at least i tried  or do they ? i do not know.  there must be meaning in doing one is best, because so many people do it, or aim for it.  but i do not see it at all.  cmv ?  #  but then i think well.  what is the point ?  #  the point is to do the thing you wanna do.   # the point is to do the thing you wanna do.  you probably live in a developed nation where you do not have to fear about getting shot if you go outside, or starving to death.  what else do you want ? god to come down and tell you what to do ? than keep doing what your doing, but also be honest with yourself.  your friends have a higher expectation out of life than you.  i am similar to them as well, so i know why the do all those things.  but there is nothing wrong with going through life with low expectations.  there are monks who lived happier lives than the richest billionaires.  i think all that matters is how well you do.  i agree, and if you think you can be  amazing  without doing your best than go ahead, but again, anything can be amazing when your setting your bar low.  i just recently go accepted to a top tier university, the kind with below a 0 acceptance, and most people would call that amazing.  but i do not.  i half assed a lot of stuff i did, and if i had done my best i honestly believe i could be going to an ivy league.  yes i could be happy with what i achieved, but i set my expectations too high to allow myself to do that.  as they say,  aim for the moon.  if you miss, you may hit a star.    #  now you practise all day and managed to do a time of 0:0, and this put you in first place.   #  let is say you play video games and like to race cars in gta v.  maybe you have little time to devote to it, or are not particularly gifted and your time of 0:0 puts you in 0th of a list of 0 players.  not bad.  this might be your best.  without genetic involvement, selling your son or quitting your job, maybe by focusing more, looking up techniques and practising a lot you might improve this to 0:0 which places you 0rd.  this might be your best.  you are not winning, but if you feel there is no one better than you that also has such a loaded life this might be a very good result.  so, let is say you broke a knee and spend 0 weeks in bed.  now you practise all day and managed to do a time of 0:0, and this put you in first place.  wheee.  but what if you keep practising, and you lower that to 0:0, 0:0 and finally 0:0 and ca not move it form there in days of practise.  you are now at your new best.  you already were 0 but you were not at your best.  you ave yourself a present of maxing out your little gta v car racing skill in that one track.  this might seem like a silly self competing example, but there is a lot of this in many disciplines.  in martial arts, sports, work, studies, relationships and anything else, you have a lot more to give, and this gets the best out of you.  stupid example: in japanese fencing URL you have to always give more then you have.  passing out is almost admired, and doing something exhausting and not stopping is considered standard.  after years of this i learned to always know my body can do much more.  when your muscles tell you  this is it, we are done, we ca not continue  your mind goes  nonsense, we keep going, we are not even half way  and your muscles obey.  now imagine applying this to sex.  you ca not imagine how much a so appreciated this.  and i think when you are at the end of your life and feel you gave everything and took nothing to the grave with you, life is more complete and happier.  but maybe that is just me.   #  do you get a delta for that, can i do that ?  # i have not spent masses of time at the gym i go to, but i have spent enough to know this feel even a little ; i have always found it fascinating, how the body can feel like it is at the end of its tether, but the mind kicks in with  nup, you can still do more .  mental motivation is a wonderful thing.  even mentally, i have found the same.  i am sure we have all felt at some point or another overwhelmed when thing are going badly for us but at the end of the day, you can always take more, push yourself further, survive, keep going, and, i suppose, get better.  i was reading through your gta example not stupid ! although gta is not my flavour, i understood what you were getting at .  and even reading that i was thinking,  but.  why would you do that ?  .  or, more,  how would that feel satisfying to me ?  .  i understood the concept of having more to give oh boy do i , but i guess i was struggling to see the merits of it still.  but then i really like your japanese fencing example, that is really interesting, especially philosophically.  i suppose there must be something unendingly rewarding in getting to your best and pushing yourself past what you thought you could do, and surprisingly even yourself.  does that mean doing your best is about exceeding your own expectations, rather than meeting them ? hmm.  i can feel my view starting to shift, so that is a plus ! do you get a delta for that, can i do that ?   0;  #  i have no idea where i might end up.   # absolutely.  i am a different person after 0 0 years of kendo jap fencing .  not entirely different as in born again, but i know that i am nowhere near 0 in anything i do, so if i achieve a result it is because i chose it, rarely because i was unable obviously nature sets limits, like gravity, need for food, etc.  .  it makes me fell much more in control of what things i achieve and what not.  when i started kendo i used to see the fights and for a year and a half was paralyzed in fear of them, they were so fast, intimidating, painful and frustrating and my tolerance to frustration was awful .  i was told someone my age 0 is are simply out of the competitions, they are too slow, although i found it odd because the japanese champions were mostly in their late 0 is.  a couple of years ago when i won my first regional URL i could not believe it, my expectations were to win 0 fight, i had not had breakfast and after the first 0 minutes my body said  nope  and was about to collapse all day and had both my feet torn and bruises that lasted days.  i am not proud, i am only surprised i had it in me somewhere.  i have no idea where i might end up.   #  but is it possible that not working as hard as i could is causing me to miss out on something in life ?  #  i know this a cmv, but i feel like i am in the exact same boat as you.  i feel like i have not had to work as hard as other people around me have, but have still done pretty well for myself so far .  but is it possible that not working as hard as i could is causing me to miss out on something in life ? i do not know.  instead of doing all that extra work i have been spending my free time pursuing creative interests unrelated to work and that will probably not pay off in a monetary sense but that give me a lot of satisfaction for now.  waiting for someone to try to change your view and mine too .
i have recently realised that the way i live my life is not the best.  i have not tried my best.  i do not think i have ever tried my best.  growing up i was always quiet and polite, and never really got in trouble.  at school i was bright enough to coast through everything, and now i have a job, i earn decent money, i support myself.  it is okay, but it does not light my fire.  when i come home in the evening to spend it with my boyfriend whom i love, very much i do a few things i enjoy reading, playing video games, redditing, cuddling and watching a film and a few more boring things make dinner, tidy up a bit, get ready for the next day .  and that is kind of it.  i live for the weekends when i can have a lie in, game a lot, and especially at the moment, get ready for christmas.  i have been thinking recently that maybe there should be more to life than this.  like, i really want to write a novel or, maybe it would be nice to do something i love, for a job.  i do not know what that would be, though.  maybe it would be nice to move into a smaller house so i could save a little money.  maybe i could learn to drive.  things like that.  but then i think well.  what is the point ? i am pretty happy as i am now.  i am certainly not doing my  best , but that seems like such hard work when i am already competent and content at the moment.  why would i over exert myself when i have already got to where i need to be ? i have a few friends who are into self betterment, keeping fit, healthy, etc.  i admire them, but i have no motivation or thought to better myself or do the same.  i have a gym membership that i go to occasionally if i start to put on a little weight, until it goes off again.  what would  wouldoing my best  achieve that i do not already have ? does it change the way you view the world ? does operating at your best make everything awesome ? do you get everything you want ? does not is just set you up to fail, on those days you do not manage your best ? a lot of self help stuff is about trying your best to do something.  but sometimes, someone is best is shit.  and sometimes, someone is not very much effort is amazing.  nobody seems to want to say that very much.  people seem to think  well it does not how well you do, as long as you try your best  but i disagree.  i think all that matters is how well you do.  no one is going to get to the end of their life and go  well at least i tried  or do they ? i do not know.  there must be meaning in doing one is best, because so many people do it, or aim for it.  but i do not see it at all.  cmv ?  #  i am pretty happy as i am now.   #  than keep doing what your doing, but also be honest with yourself.   # the point is to do the thing you wanna do.  you probably live in a developed nation where you do not have to fear about getting shot if you go outside, or starving to death.  what else do you want ? god to come down and tell you what to do ? than keep doing what your doing, but also be honest with yourself.  your friends have a higher expectation out of life than you.  i am similar to them as well, so i know why the do all those things.  but there is nothing wrong with going through life with low expectations.  there are monks who lived happier lives than the richest billionaires.  i think all that matters is how well you do.  i agree, and if you think you can be  amazing  without doing your best than go ahead, but again, anything can be amazing when your setting your bar low.  i just recently go accepted to a top tier university, the kind with below a 0 acceptance, and most people would call that amazing.  but i do not.  i half assed a lot of stuff i did, and if i had done my best i honestly believe i could be going to an ivy league.  yes i could be happy with what i achieved, but i set my expectations too high to allow myself to do that.  as they say,  aim for the moon.  if you miss, you may hit a star.    #  you ca not imagine how much a so appreciated this.   #  let is say you play video games and like to race cars in gta v.  maybe you have little time to devote to it, or are not particularly gifted and your time of 0:0 puts you in 0th of a list of 0 players.  not bad.  this might be your best.  without genetic involvement, selling your son or quitting your job, maybe by focusing more, looking up techniques and practising a lot you might improve this to 0:0 which places you 0rd.  this might be your best.  you are not winning, but if you feel there is no one better than you that also has such a loaded life this might be a very good result.  so, let is say you broke a knee and spend 0 weeks in bed.  now you practise all day and managed to do a time of 0:0, and this put you in first place.  wheee.  but what if you keep practising, and you lower that to 0:0, 0:0 and finally 0:0 and ca not move it form there in days of practise.  you are now at your new best.  you already were 0 but you were not at your best.  you ave yourself a present of maxing out your little gta v car racing skill in that one track.  this might seem like a silly self competing example, but there is a lot of this in many disciplines.  in martial arts, sports, work, studies, relationships and anything else, you have a lot more to give, and this gets the best out of you.  stupid example: in japanese fencing URL you have to always give more then you have.  passing out is almost admired, and doing something exhausting and not stopping is considered standard.  after years of this i learned to always know my body can do much more.  when your muscles tell you  this is it, we are done, we ca not continue  your mind goes  nonsense, we keep going, we are not even half way  and your muscles obey.  now imagine applying this to sex.  you ca not imagine how much a so appreciated this.  and i think when you are at the end of your life and feel you gave everything and took nothing to the grave with you, life is more complete and happier.  but maybe that is just me.   #  does that mean doing your best is about exceeding your own expectations, rather than meeting them ?  # i have not spent masses of time at the gym i go to, but i have spent enough to know this feel even a little ; i have always found it fascinating, how the body can feel like it is at the end of its tether, but the mind kicks in with  nup, you can still do more .  mental motivation is a wonderful thing.  even mentally, i have found the same.  i am sure we have all felt at some point or another overwhelmed when thing are going badly for us but at the end of the day, you can always take more, push yourself further, survive, keep going, and, i suppose, get better.  i was reading through your gta example not stupid ! although gta is not my flavour, i understood what you were getting at .  and even reading that i was thinking,  but.  why would you do that ?  .  or, more,  how would that feel satisfying to me ?  .  i understood the concept of having more to give oh boy do i , but i guess i was struggling to see the merits of it still.  but then i really like your japanese fencing example, that is really interesting, especially philosophically.  i suppose there must be something unendingly rewarding in getting to your best and pushing yourself past what you thought you could do, and surprisingly even yourself.  does that mean doing your best is about exceeding your own expectations, rather than meeting them ? hmm.  i can feel my view starting to shift, so that is a plus ! do you get a delta for that, can i do that ?   0;  #  i am not proud, i am only surprised i had it in me somewhere.   # absolutely.  i am a different person after 0 0 years of kendo jap fencing .  not entirely different as in born again, but i know that i am nowhere near 0 in anything i do, so if i achieve a result it is because i chose it, rarely because i was unable obviously nature sets limits, like gravity, need for food, etc.  .  it makes me fell much more in control of what things i achieve and what not.  when i started kendo i used to see the fights and for a year and a half was paralyzed in fear of them, they were so fast, intimidating, painful and frustrating and my tolerance to frustration was awful .  i was told someone my age 0 is are simply out of the competitions, they are too slow, although i found it odd because the japanese champions were mostly in their late 0 is.  a couple of years ago when i won my first regional URL i could not believe it, my expectations were to win 0 fight, i had not had breakfast and after the first 0 minutes my body said  nope  and was about to collapse all day and had both my feet torn and bruises that lasted days.  i am not proud, i am only surprised i had it in me somewhere.  i have no idea where i might end up.   #  i know this a cmv, but i feel like i am in the exact same boat as you.   #  i know this a cmv, but i feel like i am in the exact same boat as you.  i feel like i have not had to work as hard as other people around me have, but have still done pretty well for myself so far .  but is it possible that not working as hard as i could is causing me to miss out on something in life ? i do not know.  instead of doing all that extra work i have been spending my free time pursuing creative interests unrelated to work and that will probably not pay off in a monetary sense but that give me a lot of satisfaction for now.  waiting for someone to try to change your view and mine too .
i have recently realised that the way i live my life is not the best.  i have not tried my best.  i do not think i have ever tried my best.  growing up i was always quiet and polite, and never really got in trouble.  at school i was bright enough to coast through everything, and now i have a job, i earn decent money, i support myself.  it is okay, but it does not light my fire.  when i come home in the evening to spend it with my boyfriend whom i love, very much i do a few things i enjoy reading, playing video games, redditing, cuddling and watching a film and a few more boring things make dinner, tidy up a bit, get ready for the next day .  and that is kind of it.  i live for the weekends when i can have a lie in, game a lot, and especially at the moment, get ready for christmas.  i have been thinking recently that maybe there should be more to life than this.  like, i really want to write a novel or, maybe it would be nice to do something i love, for a job.  i do not know what that would be, though.  maybe it would be nice to move into a smaller house so i could save a little money.  maybe i could learn to drive.  things like that.  but then i think well.  what is the point ? i am pretty happy as i am now.  i am certainly not doing my  best , but that seems like such hard work when i am already competent and content at the moment.  why would i over exert myself when i have already got to where i need to be ? i have a few friends who are into self betterment, keeping fit, healthy, etc.  i admire them, but i have no motivation or thought to better myself or do the same.  i have a gym membership that i go to occasionally if i start to put on a little weight, until it goes off again.  what would  wouldoing my best  achieve that i do not already have ? does it change the way you view the world ? does operating at your best make everything awesome ? do you get everything you want ? does not is just set you up to fail, on those days you do not manage your best ? a lot of self help stuff is about trying your best to do something.  but sometimes, someone is best is shit.  and sometimes, someone is not very much effort is amazing.  nobody seems to want to say that very much.  people seem to think  well it does not how well you do, as long as you try your best  but i disagree.  i think all that matters is how well you do.  no one is going to get to the end of their life and go  well at least i tried  or do they ? i do not know.  there must be meaning in doing one is best, because so many people do it, or aim for it.  but i do not see it at all.  cmv ?  #  what would  wouldoing my best  achieve that i do not already have ?  #  your friends have a higher expectation out of life than you.   # the point is to do the thing you wanna do.  you probably live in a developed nation where you do not have to fear about getting shot if you go outside, or starving to death.  what else do you want ? god to come down and tell you what to do ? than keep doing what your doing, but also be honest with yourself.  your friends have a higher expectation out of life than you.  i am similar to them as well, so i know why the do all those things.  but there is nothing wrong with going through life with low expectations.  there are monks who lived happier lives than the richest billionaires.  i think all that matters is how well you do.  i agree, and if you think you can be  amazing  without doing your best than go ahead, but again, anything can be amazing when your setting your bar low.  i just recently go accepted to a top tier university, the kind with below a 0 acceptance, and most people would call that amazing.  but i do not.  i half assed a lot of stuff i did, and if i had done my best i honestly believe i could be going to an ivy league.  yes i could be happy with what i achieved, but i set my expectations too high to allow myself to do that.  as they say,  aim for the moon.  if you miss, you may hit a star.    #  when your muscles tell you  this is it, we are done, we ca not continue  your mind goes  nonsense, we keep going, we are not even half way  and your muscles obey.   #  let is say you play video games and like to race cars in gta v.  maybe you have little time to devote to it, or are not particularly gifted and your time of 0:0 puts you in 0th of a list of 0 players.  not bad.  this might be your best.  without genetic involvement, selling your son or quitting your job, maybe by focusing more, looking up techniques and practising a lot you might improve this to 0:0 which places you 0rd.  this might be your best.  you are not winning, but if you feel there is no one better than you that also has such a loaded life this might be a very good result.  so, let is say you broke a knee and spend 0 weeks in bed.  now you practise all day and managed to do a time of 0:0, and this put you in first place.  wheee.  but what if you keep practising, and you lower that to 0:0, 0:0 and finally 0:0 and ca not move it form there in days of practise.  you are now at your new best.  you already were 0 but you were not at your best.  you ave yourself a present of maxing out your little gta v car racing skill in that one track.  this might seem like a silly self competing example, but there is a lot of this in many disciplines.  in martial arts, sports, work, studies, relationships and anything else, you have a lot more to give, and this gets the best out of you.  stupid example: in japanese fencing URL you have to always give more then you have.  passing out is almost admired, and doing something exhausting and not stopping is considered standard.  after years of this i learned to always know my body can do much more.  when your muscles tell you  this is it, we are done, we ca not continue  your mind goes  nonsense, we keep going, we are not even half way  and your muscles obey.  now imagine applying this to sex.  you ca not imagine how much a so appreciated this.  and i think when you are at the end of your life and feel you gave everything and took nothing to the grave with you, life is more complete and happier.  but maybe that is just me.   #  but then i really like your japanese fencing example, that is really interesting, especially philosophically.   # i have not spent masses of time at the gym i go to, but i have spent enough to know this feel even a little ; i have always found it fascinating, how the body can feel like it is at the end of its tether, but the mind kicks in with  nup, you can still do more .  mental motivation is a wonderful thing.  even mentally, i have found the same.  i am sure we have all felt at some point or another overwhelmed when thing are going badly for us but at the end of the day, you can always take more, push yourself further, survive, keep going, and, i suppose, get better.  i was reading through your gta example not stupid ! although gta is not my flavour, i understood what you were getting at .  and even reading that i was thinking,  but.  why would you do that ?  .  or, more,  how would that feel satisfying to me ?  .  i understood the concept of having more to give oh boy do i , but i guess i was struggling to see the merits of it still.  but then i really like your japanese fencing example, that is really interesting, especially philosophically.  i suppose there must be something unendingly rewarding in getting to your best and pushing yourself past what you thought you could do, and surprisingly even yourself.  does that mean doing your best is about exceeding your own expectations, rather than meeting them ? hmm.  i can feel my view starting to shift, so that is a plus ! do you get a delta for that, can i do that ?   0;  #  i have no idea where i might end up.   # absolutely.  i am a different person after 0 0 years of kendo jap fencing .  not entirely different as in born again, but i know that i am nowhere near 0 in anything i do, so if i achieve a result it is because i chose it, rarely because i was unable obviously nature sets limits, like gravity, need for food, etc.  .  it makes me fell much more in control of what things i achieve and what not.  when i started kendo i used to see the fights and for a year and a half was paralyzed in fear of them, they were so fast, intimidating, painful and frustrating and my tolerance to frustration was awful .  i was told someone my age 0 is are simply out of the competitions, they are too slow, although i found it odd because the japanese champions were mostly in their late 0 is.  a couple of years ago when i won my first regional URL i could not believe it, my expectations were to win 0 fight, i had not had breakfast and after the first 0 minutes my body said  nope  and was about to collapse all day and had both my feet torn and bruises that lasted days.  i am not proud, i am only surprised i had it in me somewhere.  i have no idea where i might end up.   #  but is it possible that not working as hard as i could is causing me to miss out on something in life ?  #  i know this a cmv, but i feel like i am in the exact same boat as you.  i feel like i have not had to work as hard as other people around me have, but have still done pretty well for myself so far .  but is it possible that not working as hard as i could is causing me to miss out on something in life ? i do not know.  instead of doing all that extra work i have been spending my free time pursuing creative interests unrelated to work and that will probably not pay off in a monetary sense but that give me a lot of satisfaction for now.  waiting for someone to try to change your view and mine too .
i have recently realised that the way i live my life is not the best.  i have not tried my best.  i do not think i have ever tried my best.  growing up i was always quiet and polite, and never really got in trouble.  at school i was bright enough to coast through everything, and now i have a job, i earn decent money, i support myself.  it is okay, but it does not light my fire.  when i come home in the evening to spend it with my boyfriend whom i love, very much i do a few things i enjoy reading, playing video games, redditing, cuddling and watching a film and a few more boring things make dinner, tidy up a bit, get ready for the next day .  and that is kind of it.  i live for the weekends when i can have a lie in, game a lot, and especially at the moment, get ready for christmas.  i have been thinking recently that maybe there should be more to life than this.  like, i really want to write a novel or, maybe it would be nice to do something i love, for a job.  i do not know what that would be, though.  maybe it would be nice to move into a smaller house so i could save a little money.  maybe i could learn to drive.  things like that.  but then i think well.  what is the point ? i am pretty happy as i am now.  i am certainly not doing my  best , but that seems like such hard work when i am already competent and content at the moment.  why would i over exert myself when i have already got to where i need to be ? i have a few friends who are into self betterment, keeping fit, healthy, etc.  i admire them, but i have no motivation or thought to better myself or do the same.  i have a gym membership that i go to occasionally if i start to put on a little weight, until it goes off again.  what would  wouldoing my best  achieve that i do not already have ? does it change the way you view the world ? does operating at your best make everything awesome ? do you get everything you want ? does not is just set you up to fail, on those days you do not manage your best ? a lot of self help stuff is about trying your best to do something.  but sometimes, someone is best is shit.  and sometimes, someone is not very much effort is amazing.  nobody seems to want to say that very much.  people seem to think  well it does not how well you do, as long as you try your best  but i disagree.  i think all that matters is how well you do.  no one is going to get to the end of their life and go  well at least i tried  or do they ? i do not know.  there must be meaning in doing one is best, because so many people do it, or aim for it.  but i do not see it at all.  cmv ?  #  people seem to think  well it does not how well you do, as long as you try your best  but i disagree.   #  i think all that matters is how well you do.   # the point is to do the thing you wanna do.  you probably live in a developed nation where you do not have to fear about getting shot if you go outside, or starving to death.  what else do you want ? god to come down and tell you what to do ? than keep doing what your doing, but also be honest with yourself.  your friends have a higher expectation out of life than you.  i am similar to them as well, so i know why the do all those things.  but there is nothing wrong with going through life with low expectations.  there are monks who lived happier lives than the richest billionaires.  i think all that matters is how well you do.  i agree, and if you think you can be  amazing  without doing your best than go ahead, but again, anything can be amazing when your setting your bar low.  i just recently go accepted to a top tier university, the kind with below a 0 acceptance, and most people would call that amazing.  but i do not.  i half assed a lot of stuff i did, and if i had done my best i honestly believe i could be going to an ivy league.  yes i could be happy with what i achieved, but i set my expectations too high to allow myself to do that.  as they say,  aim for the moon.  if you miss, you may hit a star.    #  this might seem like a silly self competing example, but there is a lot of this in many disciplines.   #  let is say you play video games and like to race cars in gta v.  maybe you have little time to devote to it, or are not particularly gifted and your time of 0:0 puts you in 0th of a list of 0 players.  not bad.  this might be your best.  without genetic involvement, selling your son or quitting your job, maybe by focusing more, looking up techniques and practising a lot you might improve this to 0:0 which places you 0rd.  this might be your best.  you are not winning, but if you feel there is no one better than you that also has such a loaded life this might be a very good result.  so, let is say you broke a knee and spend 0 weeks in bed.  now you practise all day and managed to do a time of 0:0, and this put you in first place.  wheee.  but what if you keep practising, and you lower that to 0:0, 0:0 and finally 0:0 and ca not move it form there in days of practise.  you are now at your new best.  you already were 0 but you were not at your best.  you ave yourself a present of maxing out your little gta v car racing skill in that one track.  this might seem like a silly self competing example, but there is a lot of this in many disciplines.  in martial arts, sports, work, studies, relationships and anything else, you have a lot more to give, and this gets the best out of you.  stupid example: in japanese fencing URL you have to always give more then you have.  passing out is almost admired, and doing something exhausting and not stopping is considered standard.  after years of this i learned to always know my body can do much more.  when your muscles tell you  this is it, we are done, we ca not continue  your mind goes  nonsense, we keep going, we are not even half way  and your muscles obey.  now imagine applying this to sex.  you ca not imagine how much a so appreciated this.  and i think when you are at the end of your life and feel you gave everything and took nothing to the grave with you, life is more complete and happier.  but maybe that is just me.   #  i suppose there must be something unendingly rewarding in getting to your best and pushing yourself past what you thought you could do, and surprisingly even yourself.   # i have not spent masses of time at the gym i go to, but i have spent enough to know this feel even a little ; i have always found it fascinating, how the body can feel like it is at the end of its tether, but the mind kicks in with  nup, you can still do more .  mental motivation is a wonderful thing.  even mentally, i have found the same.  i am sure we have all felt at some point or another overwhelmed when thing are going badly for us but at the end of the day, you can always take more, push yourself further, survive, keep going, and, i suppose, get better.  i was reading through your gta example not stupid ! although gta is not my flavour, i understood what you were getting at .  and even reading that i was thinking,  but.  why would you do that ?  .  or, more,  how would that feel satisfying to me ?  .  i understood the concept of having more to give oh boy do i , but i guess i was struggling to see the merits of it still.  but then i really like your japanese fencing example, that is really interesting, especially philosophically.  i suppose there must be something unendingly rewarding in getting to your best and pushing yourself past what you thought you could do, and surprisingly even yourself.  does that mean doing your best is about exceeding your own expectations, rather than meeting them ? hmm.  i can feel my view starting to shift, so that is a plus ! do you get a delta for that, can i do that ?   0;  #  when i started kendo i used to see the fights and for a year and a half was paralyzed in fear of them, they were so fast, intimidating, painful and frustrating and my tolerance to frustration was awful .   # absolutely.  i am a different person after 0 0 years of kendo jap fencing .  not entirely different as in born again, but i know that i am nowhere near 0 in anything i do, so if i achieve a result it is because i chose it, rarely because i was unable obviously nature sets limits, like gravity, need for food, etc.  .  it makes me fell much more in control of what things i achieve and what not.  when i started kendo i used to see the fights and for a year and a half was paralyzed in fear of them, they were so fast, intimidating, painful and frustrating and my tolerance to frustration was awful .  i was told someone my age 0 is are simply out of the competitions, they are too slow, although i found it odd because the japanese champions were mostly in their late 0 is.  a couple of years ago when i won my first regional URL i could not believe it, my expectations were to win 0 fight, i had not had breakfast and after the first 0 minutes my body said  nope  and was about to collapse all day and had both my feet torn and bruises that lasted days.  i am not proud, i am only surprised i had it in me somewhere.  i have no idea where i might end up.   #  waiting for someone to try to change your view and mine too .   #  i know this a cmv, but i feel like i am in the exact same boat as you.  i feel like i have not had to work as hard as other people around me have, but have still done pretty well for myself so far .  but is it possible that not working as hard as i could is causing me to miss out on something in life ? i do not know.  instead of doing all that extra work i have been spending my free time pursuing creative interests unrelated to work and that will probably not pay off in a monetary sense but that give me a lot of satisfaction for now.  waiting for someone to try to change your view and mine too .
i am a very poor student with a financial death sentence from college and considered joining the military, specifically air force because if you work hard and commit, they will take care of you.  i am by no means trying to abuse their benefits.  i am willing to work hard and dedicate myself.  so one day a recruiter comes to my campus and talks all about the airforce.  after naming the job positions, i completely changed my mind.  i do not think i could work as someone who dropped weapons from the air to destroy places where there could be innocent people, or someone whose job it was to maintain a nuclear missile which could fuck up a good portion of the land if dropped.  another reason is when on the field, you are killing people who are on the other side of the fight than you, but these people are compete strangers.  you do not know them, their life, their family, their children.  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.  it is almost like the world leaders are using us military as pawns in their battle.  i am all about justice, i believe people should be rightfully treated for their actions.  i just do not know if i can agree with the way the military is accomplishing this.  i would love to join the airforce, but if i cannot at least agree with them, i do not know if can put in the effort to get what i need from them.   #  i am a very poor student with a financial death sentence from college and considered joining the military, specifically air force because if you work hard and commit, they will take care of you.   #  mildly ot, but as a navy vet, i would recommend the navy over the air force.   # mildly ot, but as a navy vet, i would recommend the navy over the air force.  faster promotions, and better locations p   i do not think i could work as someone who dropped weapons from the air to destroy places where there could be innocent people, or someone whose job it was to maintain a nuclear missile which could fuck up a good portion of the land if dropped.  so do not.  sign up to be a cop, or a jet engine mechanic, or an administrative assistant, or a computer administrator, or a nurse, or a truck mechanic, or a fuel pumper.  there is a lot of options in the support field that do not involve what you fear.  well,  you personally would not be  for starters.  nobody is going to hand the air force guy a rifle and say  go shoot bad guys.   the military as the army and marine infantry very specifically to do that.  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.  who are also trying to kill you.  well, again, air force, so more likely your fellow members of the military.  but they are generally going to be hostile towards you.  they do not know you either.  does not matter.  straight up, the taliban and their allies in afghanistan are some righteously shitty people.  have you thought about asking veterans and active duty military about this ? /r/military and each service is related branch subreddits are great places to go get information straight from the source.  most people really do not know jack shit about the military, or how it does anything, or how it works.  they just do not.  they read some pop blogs, or a couple news articles, watch some movies, and say  yup, that is what it is all about.   i know, i did the same thing, and so does basically every other recruit.  were you aware of the air force is humanitarian missions ? URL  #  was it necessary for the rest of the world to intervene ?  #  world war ii was unnecessary.  it was unnecessary for the nazis to trample central europe and exterminate the jews and gypsies.  it was unnecessary for the japanese to rape their way through china.  was it necessary for the rest of the world to intervene ? probably.  is  the military  wrong ? of course it is, it is wrong to kill.  is it wrong for individual countries to hold and utilize a military ? maybe not.  i think it is important to distinguish the two concepts of the existence of war at all, and a country is participation in a war.   #  if it is to preserve and improve life on this planet, war is wrong.   #  i almost agree with you.  but i do not.  0 there are more struggles than just killing other people 0 the past is not necessarily the best model for our future, environments change 0 the existence of something does not provide evidence of its morality.  there has always been rape.  does that make it morally acceptable for me to rape you ? 0 wars have always been, and are now, about access to something: land, resources, people.  as global trade improves, there are cheaper ways to gain access to things.  war is a social structure like marriage or government or corporations are, not a fact of life like thermodynamics.  war can become obsolete if we want it to.  we can learn to channel our aggression and competitiveness in other ways.  0 war kills people, consumes scarce resources, increases pollution, displaces people from their homes, damages sensitive ecosystems.  what determines moral rightness ? if it is to preserve and improve life on this planet, war is wrong.  maybe it is less wrong than some alternatives, but it is still wrong, and i ca not believe that we can never find a better way.   #  as an extreme example: lets say you were kidnapped, and are a sex slave, and you have some kids at home that need your support, so you have to escape or they will suffer greatly.   #  you do not believe that might makes right ? be it physical force or political or whatever form of manipulation is en vogue ? morals are not fixed things.  no matter who you are, you tend to believe in things that serve your own best interests.  as an extreme example: lets say you were kidnapped, and are a sex slave, and you have some kids at home that need your support, so you have to escape or they will suffer greatly.  one of the guards gets sloppy, you get his gun, and he is the only thing standing between you and freedom, and the only way out is by killing him or he will radio for help.  just so i understand where you are coming from: 0.  it does not matter that he did not need to kidnap you, what he did was wrong, no argument, but what are you going to do ? 0.  to further make the point, is hitting someone in self defense wrong ? 0.  is fighting someone in court when you have an unfair advantage wrong ? 0.  is forgetting to say  thank you  wrong ? 0.  is it wrong to give more to your own kids than to give equal amounts to everyone on the planet ?  #  is it necessary for a country to defend itself from aggressors ?  #  had you read my comments with an open mind, i think you would understand my positions on these questions better.  self defense is morally justified.  as i said, the involvement of other countries in world war ii was justified.  my position is that war is not an inevitable necessity.  is it necessary for a country to defend itself from aggressors ? yes.  is it necessary for there to be aggressors in the first place ? i do not believe that there is such a necessity.  as an example, i govern in the desert country dryland.  you control the neighboring country wetland.  my citizens are dying because of a lack of water.  i could: 0 fight you for water, resulting in an expensive war that kills people on both sides.  arguably, my aggression is justified because i need water.  my people are dying.  in addition, the defense of your country is also justified.  but, if i can build large aqueducts, i have another option.  i could: 0 open trade with you, buying your excess water.  i firmly believe that as our technology and society develops globally, choices such as option 0 will become more and more feasible in more and more situations.  there have been justified wars in the past and there might be justified wars now, but that does not mean that war is necessary or an inevitable fact of life.
i am a very poor student with a financial death sentence from college and considered joining the military, specifically air force because if you work hard and commit, they will take care of you.  i am by no means trying to abuse their benefits.  i am willing to work hard and dedicate myself.  so one day a recruiter comes to my campus and talks all about the airforce.  after naming the job positions, i completely changed my mind.  i do not think i could work as someone who dropped weapons from the air to destroy places where there could be innocent people, or someone whose job it was to maintain a nuclear missile which could fuck up a good portion of the land if dropped.  another reason is when on the field, you are killing people who are on the other side of the fight than you, but these people are compete strangers.  you do not know them, their life, their family, their children.  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.  it is almost like the world leaders are using us military as pawns in their battle.  i am all about justice, i believe people should be rightfully treated for their actions.  i just do not know if i can agree with the way the military is accomplishing this.  i would love to join the airforce, but if i cannot at least agree with them, i do not know if can put in the effort to get what i need from them.   #  another reason is when on the field, you are killing people who are on the other side of the fight than you, but these people are compete strangers.   #  well,  you personally would not be  for starters.   # mildly ot, but as a navy vet, i would recommend the navy over the air force.  faster promotions, and better locations p   i do not think i could work as someone who dropped weapons from the air to destroy places where there could be innocent people, or someone whose job it was to maintain a nuclear missile which could fuck up a good portion of the land if dropped.  so do not.  sign up to be a cop, or a jet engine mechanic, or an administrative assistant, or a computer administrator, or a nurse, or a truck mechanic, or a fuel pumper.  there is a lot of options in the support field that do not involve what you fear.  well,  you personally would not be  for starters.  nobody is going to hand the air force guy a rifle and say  go shoot bad guys.   the military as the army and marine infantry very specifically to do that.  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.  who are also trying to kill you.  well, again, air force, so more likely your fellow members of the military.  but they are generally going to be hostile towards you.  they do not know you either.  does not matter.  straight up, the taliban and their allies in afghanistan are some righteously shitty people.  have you thought about asking veterans and active duty military about this ? /r/military and each service is related branch subreddits are great places to go get information straight from the source.  most people really do not know jack shit about the military, or how it does anything, or how it works.  they just do not.  they read some pop blogs, or a couple news articles, watch some movies, and say  yup, that is what it is all about.   i know, i did the same thing, and so does basically every other recruit.  were you aware of the air force is humanitarian missions ? URL  #  is it wrong for individual countries to hold and utilize a military ?  #  world war ii was unnecessary.  it was unnecessary for the nazis to trample central europe and exterminate the jews and gypsies.  it was unnecessary for the japanese to rape their way through china.  was it necessary for the rest of the world to intervene ? probably.  is  the military  wrong ? of course it is, it is wrong to kill.  is it wrong for individual countries to hold and utilize a military ? maybe not.  i think it is important to distinguish the two concepts of the existence of war at all, and a country is participation in a war.   #  as global trade improves, there are cheaper ways to gain access to things.   #  i almost agree with you.  but i do not.  0 there are more struggles than just killing other people 0 the past is not necessarily the best model for our future, environments change 0 the existence of something does not provide evidence of its morality.  there has always been rape.  does that make it morally acceptable for me to rape you ? 0 wars have always been, and are now, about access to something: land, resources, people.  as global trade improves, there are cheaper ways to gain access to things.  war is a social structure like marriage or government or corporations are, not a fact of life like thermodynamics.  war can become obsolete if we want it to.  we can learn to channel our aggression and competitiveness in other ways.  0 war kills people, consumes scarce resources, increases pollution, displaces people from their homes, damages sensitive ecosystems.  what determines moral rightness ? if it is to preserve and improve life on this planet, war is wrong.  maybe it is less wrong than some alternatives, but it is still wrong, and i ca not believe that we can never find a better way.   #  0.  to further make the point, is hitting someone in self defense wrong ?  #  you do not believe that might makes right ? be it physical force or political or whatever form of manipulation is en vogue ? morals are not fixed things.  no matter who you are, you tend to believe in things that serve your own best interests.  as an extreme example: lets say you were kidnapped, and are a sex slave, and you have some kids at home that need your support, so you have to escape or they will suffer greatly.  one of the guards gets sloppy, you get his gun, and he is the only thing standing between you and freedom, and the only way out is by killing him or he will radio for help.  just so i understand where you are coming from: 0.  it does not matter that he did not need to kidnap you, what he did was wrong, no argument, but what are you going to do ? 0.  to further make the point, is hitting someone in self defense wrong ? 0.  is fighting someone in court when you have an unfair advantage wrong ? 0.  is forgetting to say  thank you  wrong ? 0.  is it wrong to give more to your own kids than to give equal amounts to everyone on the planet ?  #  is it necessary for there to be aggressors in the first place ?  #  had you read my comments with an open mind, i think you would understand my positions on these questions better.  self defense is morally justified.  as i said, the involvement of other countries in world war ii was justified.  my position is that war is not an inevitable necessity.  is it necessary for a country to defend itself from aggressors ? yes.  is it necessary for there to be aggressors in the first place ? i do not believe that there is such a necessity.  as an example, i govern in the desert country dryland.  you control the neighboring country wetland.  my citizens are dying because of a lack of water.  i could: 0 fight you for water, resulting in an expensive war that kills people on both sides.  arguably, my aggression is justified because i need water.  my people are dying.  in addition, the defense of your country is also justified.  but, if i can build large aqueducts, i have another option.  i could: 0 open trade with you, buying your excess water.  i firmly believe that as our technology and society develops globally, choices such as option 0 will become more and more feasible in more and more situations.  there have been justified wars in the past and there might be justified wars now, but that does not mean that war is necessary or an inevitable fact of life.
i am a very poor student with a financial death sentence from college and considered joining the military, specifically air force because if you work hard and commit, they will take care of you.  i am by no means trying to abuse their benefits.  i am willing to work hard and dedicate myself.  so one day a recruiter comes to my campus and talks all about the airforce.  after naming the job positions, i completely changed my mind.  i do not think i could work as someone who dropped weapons from the air to destroy places where there could be innocent people, or someone whose job it was to maintain a nuclear missile which could fuck up a good portion of the land if dropped.  another reason is when on the field, you are killing people who are on the other side of the fight than you, but these people are compete strangers.  you do not know them, their life, their family, their children.  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.  it is almost like the world leaders are using us military as pawns in their battle.  i am all about justice, i believe people should be rightfully treated for their actions.  i just do not know if i can agree with the way the military is accomplishing this.  i would love to join the airforce, but if i cannot at least agree with them, i do not know if can put in the effort to get what i need from them.   #  you do not know them, their life, their family, their children.   #  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.   # mildly ot, but as a navy vet, i would recommend the navy over the air force.  faster promotions, and better locations p   i do not think i could work as someone who dropped weapons from the air to destroy places where there could be innocent people, or someone whose job it was to maintain a nuclear missile which could fuck up a good portion of the land if dropped.  so do not.  sign up to be a cop, or a jet engine mechanic, or an administrative assistant, or a computer administrator, or a nurse, or a truck mechanic, or a fuel pumper.  there is a lot of options in the support field that do not involve what you fear.  well,  you personally would not be  for starters.  nobody is going to hand the air force guy a rifle and say  go shoot bad guys.   the military as the army and marine infantry very specifically to do that.  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.  who are also trying to kill you.  well, again, air force, so more likely your fellow members of the military.  but they are generally going to be hostile towards you.  they do not know you either.  does not matter.  straight up, the taliban and their allies in afghanistan are some righteously shitty people.  have you thought about asking veterans and active duty military about this ? /r/military and each service is related branch subreddits are great places to go get information straight from the source.  most people really do not know jack shit about the military, or how it does anything, or how it works.  they just do not.  they read some pop blogs, or a couple news articles, watch some movies, and say  yup, that is what it is all about.   i know, i did the same thing, and so does basically every other recruit.  were you aware of the air force is humanitarian missions ? URL  #  i think it is important to distinguish the two concepts of the existence of war at all, and a country is participation in a war.   #  world war ii was unnecessary.  it was unnecessary for the nazis to trample central europe and exterminate the jews and gypsies.  it was unnecessary for the japanese to rape their way through china.  was it necessary for the rest of the world to intervene ? probably.  is  the military  wrong ? of course it is, it is wrong to kill.  is it wrong for individual countries to hold and utilize a military ? maybe not.  i think it is important to distinguish the two concepts of the existence of war at all, and a country is participation in a war.   #  maybe it is less wrong than some alternatives, but it is still wrong, and i ca not believe that we can never find a better way.   #  i almost agree with you.  but i do not.  0 there are more struggles than just killing other people 0 the past is not necessarily the best model for our future, environments change 0 the existence of something does not provide evidence of its morality.  there has always been rape.  does that make it morally acceptable for me to rape you ? 0 wars have always been, and are now, about access to something: land, resources, people.  as global trade improves, there are cheaper ways to gain access to things.  war is a social structure like marriage or government or corporations are, not a fact of life like thermodynamics.  war can become obsolete if we want it to.  we can learn to channel our aggression and competitiveness in other ways.  0 war kills people, consumes scarce resources, increases pollution, displaces people from their homes, damages sensitive ecosystems.  what determines moral rightness ? if it is to preserve and improve life on this planet, war is wrong.  maybe it is less wrong than some alternatives, but it is still wrong, and i ca not believe that we can never find a better way.   #  0.  to further make the point, is hitting someone in self defense wrong ?  #  you do not believe that might makes right ? be it physical force or political or whatever form of manipulation is en vogue ? morals are not fixed things.  no matter who you are, you tend to believe in things that serve your own best interests.  as an extreme example: lets say you were kidnapped, and are a sex slave, and you have some kids at home that need your support, so you have to escape or they will suffer greatly.  one of the guards gets sloppy, you get his gun, and he is the only thing standing between you and freedom, and the only way out is by killing him or he will radio for help.  just so i understand where you are coming from: 0.  it does not matter that he did not need to kidnap you, what he did was wrong, no argument, but what are you going to do ? 0.  to further make the point, is hitting someone in self defense wrong ? 0.  is fighting someone in court when you have an unfair advantage wrong ? 0.  is forgetting to say  thank you  wrong ? 0.  is it wrong to give more to your own kids than to give equal amounts to everyone on the planet ?  #  my citizens are dying because of a lack of water.   #  had you read my comments with an open mind, i think you would understand my positions on these questions better.  self defense is morally justified.  as i said, the involvement of other countries in world war ii was justified.  my position is that war is not an inevitable necessity.  is it necessary for a country to defend itself from aggressors ? yes.  is it necessary for there to be aggressors in the first place ? i do not believe that there is such a necessity.  as an example, i govern in the desert country dryland.  you control the neighboring country wetland.  my citizens are dying because of a lack of water.  i could: 0 fight you for water, resulting in an expensive war that kills people on both sides.  arguably, my aggression is justified because i need water.  my people are dying.  in addition, the defense of your country is also justified.  but, if i can build large aqueducts, i have another option.  i could: 0 open trade with you, buying your excess water.  i firmly believe that as our technology and society develops globally, choices such as option 0 will become more and more feasible in more and more situations.  there have been justified wars in the past and there might be justified wars now, but that does not mean that war is necessary or an inevitable fact of life.
i am a very poor student with a financial death sentence from college and considered joining the military, specifically air force because if you work hard and commit, they will take care of you.  i am by no means trying to abuse their benefits.  i am willing to work hard and dedicate myself.  so one day a recruiter comes to my campus and talks all about the airforce.  after naming the job positions, i completely changed my mind.  i do not think i could work as someone who dropped weapons from the air to destroy places where there could be innocent people, or someone whose job it was to maintain a nuclear missile which could fuck up a good portion of the land if dropped.  another reason is when on the field, you are killing people who are on the other side of the fight than you, but these people are compete strangers.  you do not know them, their life, their family, their children.  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.  it is almost like the world leaders are using us military as pawns in their battle.  i am all about justice, i believe people should be rightfully treated for their actions.  i just do not know if i can agree with the way the military is accomplishing this.  i would love to join the airforce, but if i cannot at least agree with them, i do not know if can put in the effort to get what i need from them.   #  i am all about justice, i believe people should be rightfully treated for their actions.   #  straight up, the taliban and their allies in afghanistan are some righteously shitty people.   # mildly ot, but as a navy vet, i would recommend the navy over the air force.  faster promotions, and better locations p   i do not think i could work as someone who dropped weapons from the air to destroy places where there could be innocent people, or someone whose job it was to maintain a nuclear missile which could fuck up a good portion of the land if dropped.  so do not.  sign up to be a cop, or a jet engine mechanic, or an administrative assistant, or a computer administrator, or a nurse, or a truck mechanic, or a fuel pumper.  there is a lot of options in the support field that do not involve what you fear.  well,  you personally would not be  for starters.  nobody is going to hand the air force guy a rifle and say  go shoot bad guys.   the military as the army and marine infantry very specifically to do that.  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.  who are also trying to kill you.  well, again, air force, so more likely your fellow members of the military.  but they are generally going to be hostile towards you.  they do not know you either.  does not matter.  straight up, the taliban and their allies in afghanistan are some righteously shitty people.  have you thought about asking veterans and active duty military about this ? /r/military and each service is related branch subreddits are great places to go get information straight from the source.  most people really do not know jack shit about the military, or how it does anything, or how it works.  they just do not.  they read some pop blogs, or a couple news articles, watch some movies, and say  yup, that is what it is all about.   i know, i did the same thing, and so does basically every other recruit.  were you aware of the air force is humanitarian missions ? URL  #  was it necessary for the rest of the world to intervene ?  #  world war ii was unnecessary.  it was unnecessary for the nazis to trample central europe and exterminate the jews and gypsies.  it was unnecessary for the japanese to rape their way through china.  was it necessary for the rest of the world to intervene ? probably.  is  the military  wrong ? of course it is, it is wrong to kill.  is it wrong for individual countries to hold and utilize a military ? maybe not.  i think it is important to distinguish the two concepts of the existence of war at all, and a country is participation in a war.   #  0 there are more struggles than just killing other people 0 the past is not necessarily the best model for our future, environments change 0 the existence of something does not provide evidence of its morality.   #  i almost agree with you.  but i do not.  0 there are more struggles than just killing other people 0 the past is not necessarily the best model for our future, environments change 0 the existence of something does not provide evidence of its morality.  there has always been rape.  does that make it morally acceptable for me to rape you ? 0 wars have always been, and are now, about access to something: land, resources, people.  as global trade improves, there are cheaper ways to gain access to things.  war is a social structure like marriage or government or corporations are, not a fact of life like thermodynamics.  war can become obsolete if we want it to.  we can learn to channel our aggression and competitiveness in other ways.  0 war kills people, consumes scarce resources, increases pollution, displaces people from their homes, damages sensitive ecosystems.  what determines moral rightness ? if it is to preserve and improve life on this planet, war is wrong.  maybe it is less wrong than some alternatives, but it is still wrong, and i ca not believe that we can never find a better way.   #  one of the guards gets sloppy, you get his gun, and he is the only thing standing between you and freedom, and the only way out is by killing him or he will radio for help.   #  you do not believe that might makes right ? be it physical force or political or whatever form of manipulation is en vogue ? morals are not fixed things.  no matter who you are, you tend to believe in things that serve your own best interests.  as an extreme example: lets say you were kidnapped, and are a sex slave, and you have some kids at home that need your support, so you have to escape or they will suffer greatly.  one of the guards gets sloppy, you get his gun, and he is the only thing standing between you and freedom, and the only way out is by killing him or he will radio for help.  just so i understand where you are coming from: 0.  it does not matter that he did not need to kidnap you, what he did was wrong, no argument, but what are you going to do ? 0.  to further make the point, is hitting someone in self defense wrong ? 0.  is fighting someone in court when you have an unfair advantage wrong ? 0.  is forgetting to say  thank you  wrong ? 0.  is it wrong to give more to your own kids than to give equal amounts to everyone on the planet ?  #  is it necessary for there to be aggressors in the first place ?  #  had you read my comments with an open mind, i think you would understand my positions on these questions better.  self defense is morally justified.  as i said, the involvement of other countries in world war ii was justified.  my position is that war is not an inevitable necessity.  is it necessary for a country to defend itself from aggressors ? yes.  is it necessary for there to be aggressors in the first place ? i do not believe that there is such a necessity.  as an example, i govern in the desert country dryland.  you control the neighboring country wetland.  my citizens are dying because of a lack of water.  i could: 0 fight you for water, resulting in an expensive war that kills people on both sides.  arguably, my aggression is justified because i need water.  my people are dying.  in addition, the defense of your country is also justified.  but, if i can build large aqueducts, i have another option.  i could: 0 open trade with you, buying your excess water.  i firmly believe that as our technology and society develops globally, choices such as option 0 will become more and more feasible in more and more situations.  there have been justified wars in the past and there might be justified wars now, but that does not mean that war is necessary or an inevitable fact of life.
i am a very poor student with a financial death sentence from college and considered joining the military, specifically air force because if you work hard and commit, they will take care of you.  i am by no means trying to abuse their benefits.  i am willing to work hard and dedicate myself.  so one day a recruiter comes to my campus and talks all about the airforce.  after naming the job positions, i completely changed my mind.  i do not think i could work as someone who dropped weapons from the air to destroy places where there could be innocent people, or someone whose job it was to maintain a nuclear missile which could fuck up a good portion of the land if dropped.  another reason is when on the field, you are killing people who are on the other side of the fight than you, but these people are compete strangers.  you do not know them, their life, their family, their children.  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.  it is almost like the world leaders are using us military as pawns in their battle.  i am all about justice, i believe people should be rightfully treated for their actions.  i just do not know if i can agree with the way the military is accomplishing this.  i would love to join the airforce, but if i cannot at least agree with them, i do not know if can put in the effort to get what i need from them.   #  i just do not know if i can agree with the way the military is accomplishing this.   #  have you thought about asking veterans and active duty military about this ?  # mildly ot, but as a navy vet, i would recommend the navy over the air force.  faster promotions, and better locations p   i do not think i could work as someone who dropped weapons from the air to destroy places where there could be innocent people, or someone whose job it was to maintain a nuclear missile which could fuck up a good portion of the land if dropped.  so do not.  sign up to be a cop, or a jet engine mechanic, or an administrative assistant, or a computer administrator, or a nurse, or a truck mechanic, or a fuel pumper.  there is a lot of options in the support field that do not involve what you fear.  well,  you personally would not be  for starters.  nobody is going to hand the air force guy a rifle and say  go shoot bad guys.   the military as the army and marine infantry very specifically to do that.  all you know is they are on the other side so they must die.  who are also trying to kill you.  well, again, air force, so more likely your fellow members of the military.  but they are generally going to be hostile towards you.  they do not know you either.  does not matter.  straight up, the taliban and their allies in afghanistan are some righteously shitty people.  have you thought about asking veterans and active duty military about this ? /r/military and each service is related branch subreddits are great places to go get information straight from the source.  most people really do not know jack shit about the military, or how it does anything, or how it works.  they just do not.  they read some pop blogs, or a couple news articles, watch some movies, and say  yup, that is what it is all about.   i know, i did the same thing, and so does basically every other recruit.  were you aware of the air force is humanitarian missions ? URL  #  was it necessary for the rest of the world to intervene ?  #  world war ii was unnecessary.  it was unnecessary for the nazis to trample central europe and exterminate the jews and gypsies.  it was unnecessary for the japanese to rape their way through china.  was it necessary for the rest of the world to intervene ? probably.  is  the military  wrong ? of course it is, it is wrong to kill.  is it wrong for individual countries to hold and utilize a military ? maybe not.  i think it is important to distinguish the two concepts of the existence of war at all, and a country is participation in a war.   #  0 war kills people, consumes scarce resources, increases pollution, displaces people from their homes, damages sensitive ecosystems.   #  i almost agree with you.  but i do not.  0 there are more struggles than just killing other people 0 the past is not necessarily the best model for our future, environments change 0 the existence of something does not provide evidence of its morality.  there has always been rape.  does that make it morally acceptable for me to rape you ? 0 wars have always been, and are now, about access to something: land, resources, people.  as global trade improves, there are cheaper ways to gain access to things.  war is a social structure like marriage or government or corporations are, not a fact of life like thermodynamics.  war can become obsolete if we want it to.  we can learn to channel our aggression and competitiveness in other ways.  0 war kills people, consumes scarce resources, increases pollution, displaces people from their homes, damages sensitive ecosystems.  what determines moral rightness ? if it is to preserve and improve life on this planet, war is wrong.  maybe it is less wrong than some alternatives, but it is still wrong, and i ca not believe that we can never find a better way.   #  as an extreme example: lets say you were kidnapped, and are a sex slave, and you have some kids at home that need your support, so you have to escape or they will suffer greatly.   #  you do not believe that might makes right ? be it physical force or political or whatever form of manipulation is en vogue ? morals are not fixed things.  no matter who you are, you tend to believe in things that serve your own best interests.  as an extreme example: lets say you were kidnapped, and are a sex slave, and you have some kids at home that need your support, so you have to escape or they will suffer greatly.  one of the guards gets sloppy, you get his gun, and he is the only thing standing between you and freedom, and the only way out is by killing him or he will radio for help.  just so i understand where you are coming from: 0.  it does not matter that he did not need to kidnap you, what he did was wrong, no argument, but what are you going to do ? 0.  to further make the point, is hitting someone in self defense wrong ? 0.  is fighting someone in court when you have an unfair advantage wrong ? 0.  is forgetting to say  thank you  wrong ? 0.  is it wrong to give more to your own kids than to give equal amounts to everyone on the planet ?  #  in addition, the defense of your country is also justified.   #  had you read my comments with an open mind, i think you would understand my positions on these questions better.  self defense is morally justified.  as i said, the involvement of other countries in world war ii was justified.  my position is that war is not an inevitable necessity.  is it necessary for a country to defend itself from aggressors ? yes.  is it necessary for there to be aggressors in the first place ? i do not believe that there is such a necessity.  as an example, i govern in the desert country dryland.  you control the neighboring country wetland.  my citizens are dying because of a lack of water.  i could: 0 fight you for water, resulting in an expensive war that kills people on both sides.  arguably, my aggression is justified because i need water.  my people are dying.  in addition, the defense of your country is also justified.  but, if i can build large aqueducts, i have another option.  i could: 0 open trade with you, buying your excess water.  i firmly believe that as our technology and society develops globally, choices such as option 0 will become more and more feasible in more and more situations.  there have been justified wars in the past and there might be justified wars now, but that does not mean that war is necessary or an inevitable fact of life.
i know, i know.  the nerd black face dead horse of a show.  but i was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.  sheldon cooper is very clearly autistic.  he is got his very specific routine that can  not  be deviated from without problems.  he is extremely particular about things that are his like his chair and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he is not using it.  he is obsessed with order like the cereal boxes .  he is not particularly fond of spending time with others.  he does not get social cues.  the list goes on.  and now here is the thing the audience does not laugh at  sheldon is wacky hijinx  like they do with the other characters.  they are laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.  i am not offended or anything, but there is just something in me that says  laughing at autistic people is wrong .  there are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men.  which  also  seems fucked up ? but laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason does not.   #  the audience does not laugh at  sheldon is wacky hijinx  like they do with the other characters.   #  they are laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.   # they are laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.  are you saying that it is bad to laugh at personality traits ? what if someone is otherwise normal but socially awkward; is it suddenly okay ? i have a two month old, and i laugh at the things she does or is unable to do; am i a bad person ? the things i laugh at are out of her control and a result of her current neurological state.  we are not laughing at autism, we are laughing at behavior.  it is not funny that someone has autism, but the things they do can still be funny.  if he did not have autism, laughing at any of these personality traits would not be so offensive.  why should  autism  be a special condition that makes things not funny ?  #  when a show brings on a  istranger  say, fez in 0s show many jokes are created from the cultural dissonance, but that does not imply that  istrangers  like fez or sheldon are inferior simply because jokes are made.   #  laughing at him, or laughing with him ? and what about raj is social anxiety disorder ? everyone has labels, things that make them different, does that mean all jokes are wrong ? or are you misunderstanding the humor ? after all, big bang theory has probably improved people is understanding and acceptance of autistic people by showing that sheldon is autistic humanity is valid, and part of being human is laughing at mistakes.  should we police every joke to see if it offended a  type  jokes about penny is dating insult sluts ! or should we realize that the humor is not cruel, but actually supportive because once we can joke about something then it becomes  ok , and we want to think of sheldon as  ok  and not as different just because his behavior is atypical.  so i guess i am not convinced that the humor in bbt is degrading, but can be seen as uplifting.  when a show brings on a  istranger  say, fez in 0s show many jokes are created from the cultural dissonance, but that does not imply that  istrangers  like fez or sheldon are inferior simply because jokes are made.  the actual joke matters.  leonard is not saying  isheldon you are so stupid and worthless hahaha  he is saying  it is funny how you are so smart in some ways and not in others, as all humans are, hahaha  so it is important in comedy not to get overwrought about political correctness because usually comedy is used to educate and normalize, not shun, and i have not gotten the sense from bbt than people like sheldon should be considered inferior.  if anything the show is about coexisting with him, not belittling him.   #  URL he is a disabled character that we laugh at in a different way.   # can you really laugh with a person who does not actually make any jokes ? i mean, take jimmy from south park.  URL he is a disabled character that we laugh at in a different way.  the first clip was that he just explained a joke, the second was that they had to vamoose and he was holding them up by saying so, the third was kicking cartman when he is down, and the fourth was an actual joke with a set up and a punch line.  i just searched  isouth park jimmy  in youtube and that was the first video.  but with sheldon.  URL penny mocks sheldon is autistic behavior and he gets very upset to the crescendo of the laugh track, howard does not like sheldon/sheldon screaming in terror on a vespa, in the third clip the security guard says  hey, my sister is got a kid who is special.   and leonard agrees and calls sheldon  extra special , it goes on but that is as far as i got.  we are very clearly laughing  at sheldon  and not the situations he is in or jokes that he makes.  it is like watching desperate housewives.  we watch it to feel better than someone who is better than us, so they made the 0 iq having, successful scientist autism for us to point to and say  what a goon !   except penny is  us .  she is the normie in the group of geniuses, and they all envy her, bow to her, and she is our anchor to the show.  in 0 seriousness, for the first 0 or 0 seasons that i saw, what is she besides dumb and pretty ? we laugh at her because  who would go on a date with a serial killer ? ! that is crazy !   not  haha ! she has syphilis because she sleeps with guys all the time due to her nymphomania.   i feel like a very low bar to set for what is and is not okay is  have a character that we laugh at/with for more reasons than their mental disability .  i mean what is the difference between laughing at sheldon freaking out about his chair and handing a kid with downs a rubik is cube and cracking up ?  #  and leonard agrees and calls sheldon  extra special , it goes on but that is as far as i got.   # and leonard agrees and calls sheldon  extra special , it goes on but that is as far as i got.  the second scene actually has sheldon using social cues for humor, when he uses a sideways glance to insinuate that the other guy has to take him home.  and gets a laugh for it this is in fact the opposite of autistic behavior.  the vespa scene is just a  sheldon is a wimp  joke.  it is not autism, just him being wimpy.  in the ball pit scene, it ends with sheldon making a  you ca not catch me  joke and some physical comedy, then a second  bazinga  joke in a sly voice that gets a laugh.  that last one especially is a moment of laughing with him.  the next scene, he makes a couple of hulk jokes that are very clearly making jokes.   #  0 it has been stated by characters on the show that sheldon was tested.   #  what part of my argument is self defeating ? it seems consistent to me.  0 big bang theory does not occur in the real world and therefore sheldon acting in a manner like that of autism in the real world does not equate to him having autism in the show.  0 it has been stated by characters on the show that sheldon was tested.  0a the type of test in not specified but given the context in which the statements are made, i feel it is not a great leap to assume that the testing was to determine why sheldon acts the way he does.  0 sheldon would have been tested by a psychological professional.  0 if sheldon was autistic, the tester would have noticed 0a i assume that the person that tested sheldon was aware of the signs of autism 0b i also assume that if sheldon were autistic, he would have been told.  0 if sheldon were autistic it would have been stated instead of the repeated phrase  i am not crazy, my mommy had me tested  if you have an issue with some part of my argument or my assumptions point it out.  you might think i am wrong, in which case i will be happy to continue this argument until one of us has convinced the other, but i do not see where my argument contradicts itself.
i know, i know.  the nerd black face dead horse of a show.  but i was talking about it with a friend of mine yesterday and it occurred to me.  sheldon cooper is very clearly autistic.  he is got his very specific routine that can  not  be deviated from without problems.  he is extremely particular about things that are his like his chair and he gets very, very upset if someone so much as sits in it, even if he is not using it.  he is obsessed with order like the cereal boxes .  he is not particularly fond of spending time with others.  he does not get social cues.  the list goes on.  and now here is the thing the audience does not laugh at  sheldon is wacky hijinx  like they do with the other characters.  they are laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.  i am not offended or anything, but there is just something in me that says  laughing at autistic people is wrong .  there are times when you laugh at him for being into video games or you laugh at him for flirting with men.  which  also  seems fucked up ? but laughing at him for having autism seems to me like it should cross a line, but for some reason does not.   #  i am not offended or anything, but there is just something in me that says  laughing at autistic people is wrong .   #  we are not laughing at autism, we are laughing at behavior.   # they are laughing at completely normal behavior for an autistic person.  are you saying that it is bad to laugh at personality traits ? what if someone is otherwise normal but socially awkward; is it suddenly okay ? i have a two month old, and i laugh at the things she does or is unable to do; am i a bad person ? the things i laugh at are out of her control and a result of her current neurological state.  we are not laughing at autism, we are laughing at behavior.  it is not funny that someone has autism, but the things they do can still be funny.  if he did not have autism, laughing at any of these personality traits would not be so offensive.  why should  autism  be a special condition that makes things not funny ?  #  everyone has labels, things that make them different, does that mean all jokes are wrong ?  #  laughing at him, or laughing with him ? and what about raj is social anxiety disorder ? everyone has labels, things that make them different, does that mean all jokes are wrong ? or are you misunderstanding the humor ? after all, big bang theory has probably improved people is understanding and acceptance of autistic people by showing that sheldon is autistic humanity is valid, and part of being human is laughing at mistakes.  should we police every joke to see if it offended a  type  jokes about penny is dating insult sluts ! or should we realize that the humor is not cruel, but actually supportive because once we can joke about something then it becomes  ok , and we want to think of sheldon as  ok  and not as different just because his behavior is atypical.  so i guess i am not convinced that the humor in bbt is degrading, but can be seen as uplifting.  when a show brings on a  istranger  say, fez in 0s show many jokes are created from the cultural dissonance, but that does not imply that  istrangers  like fez or sheldon are inferior simply because jokes are made.  the actual joke matters.  leonard is not saying  isheldon you are so stupid and worthless hahaha  he is saying  it is funny how you are so smart in some ways and not in others, as all humans are, hahaha  so it is important in comedy not to get overwrought about political correctness because usually comedy is used to educate and normalize, not shun, and i have not gotten the sense from bbt than people like sheldon should be considered inferior.  if anything the show is about coexisting with him, not belittling him.   #  i mean what is the difference between laughing at sheldon freaking out about his chair and handing a kid with downs a rubik is cube and cracking up ?  # can you really laugh with a person who does not actually make any jokes ? i mean, take jimmy from south park.  URL he is a disabled character that we laugh at in a different way.  the first clip was that he just explained a joke, the second was that they had to vamoose and he was holding them up by saying so, the third was kicking cartman when he is down, and the fourth was an actual joke with a set up and a punch line.  i just searched  isouth park jimmy  in youtube and that was the first video.  but with sheldon.  URL penny mocks sheldon is autistic behavior and he gets very upset to the crescendo of the laugh track, howard does not like sheldon/sheldon screaming in terror on a vespa, in the third clip the security guard says  hey, my sister is got a kid who is special.   and leonard agrees and calls sheldon  extra special , it goes on but that is as far as i got.  we are very clearly laughing  at sheldon  and not the situations he is in or jokes that he makes.  it is like watching desperate housewives.  we watch it to feel better than someone who is better than us, so they made the 0 iq having, successful scientist autism for us to point to and say  what a goon !   except penny is  us .  she is the normie in the group of geniuses, and they all envy her, bow to her, and she is our anchor to the show.  in 0 seriousness, for the first 0 or 0 seasons that i saw, what is she besides dumb and pretty ? we laugh at her because  who would go on a date with a serial killer ? ! that is crazy !   not  haha ! she has syphilis because she sleeps with guys all the time due to her nymphomania.   i feel like a very low bar to set for what is and is not okay is  have a character that we laugh at/with for more reasons than their mental disability .  i mean what is the difference between laughing at sheldon freaking out about his chair and handing a kid with downs a rubik is cube and cracking up ?  #  and gets a laugh for it this is in fact the opposite of autistic behavior.   # and leonard agrees and calls sheldon  extra special , it goes on but that is as far as i got.  the second scene actually has sheldon using social cues for humor, when he uses a sideways glance to insinuate that the other guy has to take him home.  and gets a laugh for it this is in fact the opposite of autistic behavior.  the vespa scene is just a  sheldon is a wimp  joke.  it is not autism, just him being wimpy.  in the ball pit scene, it ends with sheldon making a  you ca not catch me  joke and some physical comedy, then a second  bazinga  joke in a sly voice that gets a laugh.  that last one especially is a moment of laughing with him.  the next scene, he makes a couple of hulk jokes that are very clearly making jokes.   #  what part of my argument is self defeating ?  #  what part of my argument is self defeating ? it seems consistent to me.  0 big bang theory does not occur in the real world and therefore sheldon acting in a manner like that of autism in the real world does not equate to him having autism in the show.  0 it has been stated by characters on the show that sheldon was tested.  0a the type of test in not specified but given the context in which the statements are made, i feel it is not a great leap to assume that the testing was to determine why sheldon acts the way he does.  0 sheldon would have been tested by a psychological professional.  0 if sheldon was autistic, the tester would have noticed 0a i assume that the person that tested sheldon was aware of the signs of autism 0b i also assume that if sheldon were autistic, he would have been told.  0 if sheldon were autistic it would have been stated instead of the repeated phrase  i am not crazy, my mommy had me tested  if you have an issue with some part of my argument or my assumptions point it out.  you might think i am wrong, in which case i will be happy to continue this argument until one of us has convinced the other, but i do not see where my argument contradicts itself.
i have seen many marriages have problems because one of the spouses works too much, or is a  workaholic.   while i understand that it is frustrating that a spouse or so is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do 0.  the amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee 0.  they work hard to support themselves and their family.  it is not easy to support yourself, let alone a so/spouse and/or children.  the more someone works, the more money they make normally .  0.  there is no good alternative.  the employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer.  they could look for another job, but that is unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.  i understand that an so/spouse working a lot can be upsetting, but saying you are mad or upset at someone for being a workaholic seems unfair.  cmv !  #  0.  they work hard to support themselves and their family.   #  it is not easy to support yourself, let alone a so/spouse and/or children.   # while i understand that it is frustrating that a spouse or so is gone for a long time, it seems completely unfair to get mad directly at the person because he/she works the amount that they do  0.  the amount of work one does is normally controlled by a boss; having to stay overtime or work an extra shift is often times out of the control of the employee but where you work and the career chosen  is  under your control.  it is not easy to support yourself, let alone a so/spouse and/or children.  the more someone works, the more money they make normally .  but do you work to live.  or live to work ? what is the point of having a family if you spend every spare moment at the office ? why not stay single ? the employee could request to work less, but that could result in less money and conflicts with employer.  they could look for another job, but that is unrealistic; jobs are hard to come by, and leaving a job could leave a person unemployed for a prolonged time.  that sounds like an excuse.  not every job requires you to work 0 or 0 hours a week.  if you have a family or want one, you do not take a job where you are never home.  cmv ! what you are not acknowledging is that a person has more than a responsibly to make money.  when you have a family, to them you are more than a paycheck.  you are a spouse and a father.  that means you have responsibilities to those people.  to show your partner emotional support, friendship, affection, and intimacy.  to be there for your kid, teaching him how to play baseball or helping him with homework.  when your spouse married you, they did not marry a paycheck they married a person.  when you said those marriage vows, you made a promise to be a good spouse.  not  a good income a good spouse.  by marrying them under false pretenses you are breaking that promise.  that is unfair.  also consider what that behavior says to your spouse and kids: your action tells them that money is far more important than them.  that may be hurtful.  nobody is forcing you to have a partner or children.  if you want to work 0 hours a week, that is fine.  but do not drag others into your life just to vanish.   #  i think that your conclusion is correct based on the 0 axioms you have laid out, but i would like to challenge your axioms.   #  i think that your conclusion is correct based on the 0 axioms you have laid out, but i would like to challenge your axioms.  0.  while there is a minimum amount of work and a minimum standard to which most of us are held, people who are typical  workaholics  are the type who generally do way more than the minimum.  i am a teacher and a workaholic.  my colleagues leave most days at around 0:0 the end of the day is 0:0, so they are already doing more than the minimum but i stay until 0:0 most days.  my bosses themselves are gone by this hour and have no idea when i pack up to leave so it would be pretty hard to say that they are the reason i am stuck at work.  0.   the more someone works the more they make  is only true if they are a a waged employee or b looking for some sort of promotion or bonus.  in fact the whole reason salaried pay exists is so that the bosses from part 0 can demand their minimum work requirements and not pay you extra on the occasions that work progresses slower than usual or unexpected issues come up.  and again, it only makes sense to work extra hard to get a promotion if you have some reasonable expectation of getting one.  i am on steps and ladders the only way to get a pay raise is to work more years, not more hours.  so if my reasons for working late are so my bosses will notice me and promote me i am sol.  0.  for  workaholics  the alternative is, quite simply: work less.  the marginal difference that an extra hour of work makes at the end of a 0 hour day is so minimal that when i look back at the days i worked super late to get super far ahead i laugh at myself to keep from crying because 0 days later the difference is hardly noticeable.  i think spouses should be understanding when things come up unexpectedly, or when someone is putting in extra time in order to get caught up or get ahead.  but when there is no discernable benefit, its hard for a partner to look at the costs of your time together and say  yeah, sure, it is great that you are working so hard even though it means i never see you and even though it is not making much difference in the grand scheme of things.    #  he could have worked less hours, put them in public schools, and had more fun with them on the weekends.   #  0.  of the workaholics i can think of, they nearly all work extra by choice.  they use overtime, they choose the hardest cases, and they are perfectionists to their own detriment.  the one exception just could not say  no , but once he got a more reasonable boss, the problem went away.  0.  there is a balance to be struck.  my uncle, for example, had always been a workaholic.  sure, this helped his kids go to private schools and attend the best summer camps, but he also missed their piano recitals and sacrificed a lot of leisure time with them.  he could have worked less hours, put them in public schools, and had more fun with them on the weekends.  0.  you are asking that the boss pot them up to the extra hours.  from what i have seen, this is not always the case.  my husband would not have suffered at all of he did not work extra hours in his last job.  he took on an extra project that involved odd hours because he wanted to.  not that i minded, since it was a fascinating project, i am just making the point that you can choose to work a lot, and it is not always forced on you.   #  so when a so complains they are not saying  how dare you provide for me  they are saying  we are provided for already and can get by with less.   #  i take issue with your definition of workaholic.  a workaholic is not someone with a crappy job and demanding boss.  it is not someone who wants to work less but cannot through circumstance.  a workaholic is someone who chooses to work crazy hours because they want to or ca not stop themselves.  it is often time highly paid individuals and often executives.  they work crazy hard and climb the ladder and could have lots of less demanding options if they bothered to find them.  but they do not want them, they like bein busy and needed at work.  so when a so complains they are not saying  how dare you provide for me  they are saying  we are provided for already and can get by with less.  i want to spend time with you, not earn more cash we wo not spend .  sometimes time is more valuable than money.  workaholics do not want to spend their time at home with family.  it is very different from being overworked by circumstance.   #  my paycheck will not change if i start working more.   #  on point two you are saying they work hard to support themselves and their family.  what if they are not even the one who makes the most money in the relationship ? does the spouse have a right to complain then ? say spouse a is working 0 hours a week making 0k, and spouse b is working 0 hours a week making 0k.  can spouse a complain then ? if you have two working parents, what if the person who is  choosing  to work extra hours is causing the other spouse to take at hit at work ? ie: spouse 0 refuses to leave at 0 to pick up the kids from daycare, so spouse 0 always has to leave on time, even when they have deadlines at work.  i would also disagree 0 with the idea that the more someone works hours the more money they make.  overall wage is usually much more dependent on what type of job and career you have.  finally, a marriage is a relationship.  of course its going to fail if one person refuses to put anything into it.  as it is i see my coworkers far far far more than i see my husband or kids.  i would rather make less money and have a happy family than make more money and have my personal life be in shambles, and i expect my husband to give me that same respect.  and he should complain if i started picking up more hours, as i am salary.  my paycheck will not change if i start working more.  and i already pick up hours when deadlines require them but there is no need to actively hunt for more.
what happened to eric garner was a horrible tragedy.  but i do not blame the nypd for it.  occasionally a cop goes insane and does something like this.  the nypd commissioner seems to be on garner is side, and many officers have said that what the police officer did was not protocol and was wrong.  but the police ca not know if an officer will do something that goes completely against his training.  the truth is the nypd has been very good in racial issues and keeping crime low.  stop and frisk may seem to be contrary to that, but that was a policy that told the police to go into poor black neighborhoods and frisk people.  this was not a decision made by the police.  the problem with the garner case is the justices system is failure to indite eric garner is murderer.  pantaleo murdered eric garner.  there is not really any question about this.  he did not follow police protocol and attacked a man with his hands in the air and killed him as he begged to breathe.  pantaleo deserves to go to trial, for at least manslaughter if not first degree murder.  there is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the micheal brown case.  with micheal brown there was a lack of evidence and conflicting reports, so we ca not know and therefore ca not prosecute.  but in the garner case there was no question.  we know what happened.  my only conclusion from this is that the grand jury had a majority of either incredibly racist people or people who were incredibly loyal to the police for no reason.  i believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite.  they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.  instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming.  edit: maybe not go to trial immediately.  my main call is for a change in the process.  i do not necessarily have the change needed.  the reason i want my view changed is that i would like the believe that our system is not horribly unjust.  but all evidence says that it is.   #  pantaleo deserves to go to trial, for at least manslaughter if not first degree murder.   #  there is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the micheal brown case.   # there is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the micheal brown case.  as a matter of law, it may have in fact been correct not to indict pantaleo.  i am gonna go over the two charges that could be applicable, second degree murder, and second degree manslaughter.  first degree murder requires murder plus another felony e. g.  murder while committing robbery , or a couple other circumstances that do not apply.  so, second degree murder in ny is defined as follows: URL  a person is guilty of murder in the second degree when: 0.  with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person did pantaleo intend to cause the death of garner ? if he did not plan and intend to cause death, he is not guilty of murder.  my impression is that he was trying to arrest garner, not kill him, and did a really bad job of it.  so next up is manslaughter.  manslaughter in the second degree in ny is defined as follows: URL  a person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when: 0.  he recklessly causes the death of another person since recklessness is the key to this, we also need to see the definition of recklessness: URL  a person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists.  the risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.  a person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect thereto.  in looking at this, the key is whether pantaleo took an  unjustifiable  risk in the manner in which he detained garner.  if pantaleo was lawfully allowed to arrest garner, it is hard to say that a chokehold is totally unjustifiable.  nypd policy notwithstanding, an arrest is a situation where violent force to subdue a person is lawfully permitted, and a chokehold for about 0 or 0 seconds is very rarely fatal.  if pantaleo had no legal grounds to arrest garner, then pantaleo would be guilty of manslaughter, since he would have no justification for any violence against garner whatsoever.  pantaleo violated department policy and caused a man to die.  he should be fired and never allowed to be a police officer in any jurisdiction again.  but as a matter of law, he very well may not have committed a crime.   #  imagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is  is there any evidence at all ?    #  we already do not  really  use grand juries to indict.  the grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor.  it is set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments or non indictments pretty much at will.  imagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is  is there any evidence at all ?   that is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor is sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it is basically the prosecutor is puppet.   #  edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states.   #  having served on a grand jury for six months, you are absolutely right.  it is a waste of time.  i think the grand jury indicts in well over 0 of cases.  in our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them.  i think we voted no on maybe 0 or 0 out of hundreds.  the problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the grand jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room.  therefore, everything they say is off the record.  edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states.  thanks /u/huadpe it exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the grand jury only hears one side of the story usually the arresting officer assuming they are the prosecution side , it might as well just go straight to trial.   #  given that data, here is our conclusion about three point shooting in the mountain west conference.    #  silver is a great analyst.  this was not written by silver.  it is taking city politics, comparing them to federal politics, and making implications about state politics.  that data that is not only dissimilar in what it is measuring all indictments at one level versus a small subsection of indictments at the other level , it is also dissimilar in time frame one year versus several , sample size all prosecutions at one level, only a very specific subsection at another , and the nature of the proceeding federal grand juries operate differently than state .  it does not give rates for no bills at large for houston.  it does not give rates for police indictment at the federal level that data should be available .  it is like saying  here is the 0p% for the bulls.  here is the 0p% for the starting small forward of the springfield ma high school wildcats.  given that data, here is our conclusion about three point shooting in the mountain west conference.   it is two data points that tell us  nothing  about the third if you look past their facial similarities.   #  still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.   # unlike in federal court, most states, including missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment.  that means many routine cases never go before a grand jury.  still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.  as my colleague reuben fischer baum has written, we do not have good data on officer involved killings.  but newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law enforcement officials.  a recent houston chronicle investigation found that  police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings  in houston and other large cities in recent years.  i swear to god i spend more time arguing with people about things that were covered in the article.
what happened to eric garner was a horrible tragedy.  but i do not blame the nypd for it.  occasionally a cop goes insane and does something like this.  the nypd commissioner seems to be on garner is side, and many officers have said that what the police officer did was not protocol and was wrong.  but the police ca not know if an officer will do something that goes completely against his training.  the truth is the nypd has been very good in racial issues and keeping crime low.  stop and frisk may seem to be contrary to that, but that was a policy that told the police to go into poor black neighborhoods and frisk people.  this was not a decision made by the police.  the problem with the garner case is the justices system is failure to indite eric garner is murderer.  pantaleo murdered eric garner.  there is not really any question about this.  he did not follow police protocol and attacked a man with his hands in the air and killed him as he begged to breathe.  pantaleo deserves to go to trial, for at least manslaughter if not first degree murder.  there is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the micheal brown case.  with micheal brown there was a lack of evidence and conflicting reports, so we ca not know and therefore ca not prosecute.  but in the garner case there was no question.  we know what happened.  my only conclusion from this is that the grand jury had a majority of either incredibly racist people or people who were incredibly loyal to the police for no reason.  i believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite.  they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.  instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming.  edit: maybe not go to trial immediately.  my main call is for a change in the process.  i do not necessarily have the change needed.  the reason i want my view changed is that i would like the believe that our system is not horribly unjust.  but all evidence says that it is.   #  i believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite.   #  they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.   # they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.  instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming.  well, the evidence for murder is certainly not overwhelming.  murder requires intent to kill, or intent to cause great bodily harm, or depraved heart, or intent to commit another felony.  i do not think the video shows the officer intending to do any of those things.  that does not mean that a crime was not committed, a very serious crime.  i believe that the grand jury got this one wrong.  but, the good news is, that does not attach jeopardy, so a new grand jury could be presented with the case in the future, potentially.  grand juries are asked two really important questions.  the first one is usually overlooked by the media: was a crime committed.  it seems obvious most of the time.  but it can be tricky to prove in some cases.  simply failing to follow police procedures is not, in and of itself, a crime.  now, in this instance, the officer, in my opinion became unreasonably aggressive in his actions, but i believe his intent was to arrest mr.  gardner and nothing more.  that does not fit into the criteria for murder.  being overly aggressive can be a crime, however.  especially when you put your hands on others.  if that results in the death of a person, we generally call that crime manslaughter, which is unlawful homicide without the intent to kill, do great bodily harm, etc.  i am surprised that such an indictment for a manslaughter charge was not returned.  but, trust me, i do not think you want a system where there are immediate trials based on some standard of  overwhelming  evidence.  the system still needs to be fair and adversarial.  both sides need to have their say if we are going to be potentially putting people into cages.  the first question is who decides if the evidence is overwhelming.  also, a panel of judges is not going to be all that different than a grand jury.   #  that is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor is sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it is basically the prosecutor is puppet.   #  we already do not  really  use grand juries to indict.  the grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor.  it is set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments or non indictments pretty much at will.  imagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is  is there any evidence at all ?   that is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor is sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it is basically the prosecutor is puppet.   #  the problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the grand jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room.   #  having served on a grand jury for six months, you are absolutely right.  it is a waste of time.  i think the grand jury indicts in well over 0 of cases.  in our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them.  i think we voted no on maybe 0 or 0 out of hundreds.  the problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the grand jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room.  therefore, everything they say is off the record.  edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states.  thanks /u/huadpe it exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the grand jury only hears one side of the story usually the arresting officer assuming they are the prosecution side , it might as well just go straight to trial.   #  it is taking city politics, comparing them to federal politics, and making implications about state politics.   #  silver is a great analyst.  this was not written by silver.  it is taking city politics, comparing them to federal politics, and making implications about state politics.  that data that is not only dissimilar in what it is measuring all indictments at one level versus a small subsection of indictments at the other level , it is also dissimilar in time frame one year versus several , sample size all prosecutions at one level, only a very specific subsection at another , and the nature of the proceeding federal grand juries operate differently than state .  it does not give rates for no bills at large for houston.  it does not give rates for police indictment at the federal level that data should be available .  it is like saying  here is the 0p% for the bulls.  here is the 0p% for the starting small forward of the springfield ma high school wildcats.  given that data, here is our conclusion about three point shooting in the mountain west conference.   it is two data points that tell us  nothing  about the third if you look past their facial similarities.   #  unlike in federal court, most states, including missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment.   # unlike in federal court, most states, including missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment.  that means many routine cases never go before a grand jury.  still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.  as my colleague reuben fischer baum has written, we do not have good data on officer involved killings.  but newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law enforcement officials.  a recent houston chronicle investigation found that  police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings  in houston and other large cities in recent years.  i swear to god i spend more time arguing with people about things that were covered in the article.
what happened to eric garner was a horrible tragedy.  but i do not blame the nypd for it.  occasionally a cop goes insane and does something like this.  the nypd commissioner seems to be on garner is side, and many officers have said that what the police officer did was not protocol and was wrong.  but the police ca not know if an officer will do something that goes completely against his training.  the truth is the nypd has been very good in racial issues and keeping crime low.  stop and frisk may seem to be contrary to that, but that was a policy that told the police to go into poor black neighborhoods and frisk people.  this was not a decision made by the police.  the problem with the garner case is the justices system is failure to indite eric garner is murderer.  pantaleo murdered eric garner.  there is not really any question about this.  he did not follow police protocol and attacked a man with his hands in the air and killed him as he begged to breathe.  pantaleo deserves to go to trial, for at least manslaughter if not first degree murder.  there is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the micheal brown case.  with micheal brown there was a lack of evidence and conflicting reports, so we ca not know and therefore ca not prosecute.  but in the garner case there was no question.  we know what happened.  my only conclusion from this is that the grand jury had a majority of either incredibly racist people or people who were incredibly loyal to the police for no reason.  i believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite.  they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.  instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming.  edit: maybe not go to trial immediately.  my main call is for a change in the process.  i do not necessarily have the change needed.  the reason i want my view changed is that i would like the believe that our system is not horribly unjust.  but all evidence says that it is.   #  i believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite.   #  they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.   # well, it is staten island.  so this is not even that surprising to me.  the idea of law is that it is really the people policing the themselves through government.  we have the rights to vote in, or contest levels of the law on a regular basis.  there are racist individuals.  however, spectacles like this make the police department look bad in general, which harms everyone involved when it is time to vote, or allocate taxes.  they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.  instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming.  edit: maybe not go to trial immediately.  my main call is for a change in the process.  i do not necessarily have the change needed.  this is not a solution.  the rule of law is something we ca not just change because some person was killed while a police officer was doing his job.  of course he went too far, but we must be cognizant of the fact that this is one person.  you may change the guidelines of how a grand jury is can be chosen.  you might write the governor, or senators to help with modifying laws so this type of atrocities is not allowed.  the grand jury is an integral part of the law.   #  the grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor.   #  we already do not  really  use grand juries to indict.  the grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor.  it is set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments or non indictments pretty much at will.  imagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is  is there any evidence at all ?   that is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor is sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it is basically the prosecutor is puppet.   #  the problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the grand jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room.   #  having served on a grand jury for six months, you are absolutely right.  it is a waste of time.  i think the grand jury indicts in well over 0 of cases.  in our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them.  i think we voted no on maybe 0 or 0 out of hundreds.  the problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the grand jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room.  therefore, everything they say is off the record.  edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states.  thanks /u/huadpe it exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the grand jury only hears one side of the story usually the arresting officer assuming they are the prosecution side , it might as well just go straight to trial.   #  here is the 0p% for the starting small forward of the springfield ma high school wildcats.   #  silver is a great analyst.  this was not written by silver.  it is taking city politics, comparing them to federal politics, and making implications about state politics.  that data that is not only dissimilar in what it is measuring all indictments at one level versus a small subsection of indictments at the other level , it is also dissimilar in time frame one year versus several , sample size all prosecutions at one level, only a very specific subsection at another , and the nature of the proceeding federal grand juries operate differently than state .  it does not give rates for no bills at large for houston.  it does not give rates for police indictment at the federal level that data should be available .  it is like saying  here is the 0p% for the bulls.  here is the 0p% for the starting small forward of the springfield ma high school wildcats.  given that data, here is our conclusion about three point shooting in the mountain west conference.   it is two data points that tell us  nothing  about the third if you look past their facial similarities.   #  unlike in federal court, most states, including missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment.   # unlike in federal court, most states, including missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment.  that means many routine cases never go before a grand jury.  still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.  as my colleague reuben fischer baum has written, we do not have good data on officer involved killings.  but newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law enforcement officials.  a recent houston chronicle investigation found that  police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings  in houston and other large cities in recent years.  i swear to god i spend more time arguing with people about things that were covered in the article.
what happened to eric garner was a horrible tragedy.  but i do not blame the nypd for it.  occasionally a cop goes insane and does something like this.  the nypd commissioner seems to be on garner is side, and many officers have said that what the police officer did was not protocol and was wrong.  but the police ca not know if an officer will do something that goes completely against his training.  the truth is the nypd has been very good in racial issues and keeping crime low.  stop and frisk may seem to be contrary to that, but that was a policy that told the police to go into poor black neighborhoods and frisk people.  this was not a decision made by the police.  the problem with the garner case is the justices system is failure to indite eric garner is murderer.  pantaleo murdered eric garner.  there is not really any question about this.  he did not follow police protocol and attacked a man with his hands in the air and killed him as he begged to breathe.  pantaleo deserves to go to trial, for at least manslaughter if not first degree murder.  there is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the micheal brown case.  with micheal brown there was a lack of evidence and conflicting reports, so we ca not know and therefore ca not prosecute.  but in the garner case there was no question.  we know what happened.  my only conclusion from this is that the grand jury had a majority of either incredibly racist people or people who were incredibly loyal to the police for no reason.  i believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite.  they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.  instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming.  edit: maybe not go to trial immediately.  my main call is for a change in the process.  i do not necessarily have the change needed.  the reason i want my view changed is that i would like the believe that our system is not horribly unjust.  but all evidence says that it is.   #  i believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite.   #  they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.   # they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.  do you have a source for this or at least something that shows that grand jury is decisions should have gone the other way ? the way i see it there is no problem with our indictment process.  the real problem with our legal system often lies with the lawyer end of things.  this would be an ideal case however trials are costly and lawyers often avoid them unless they are fairly certain they can win.  more often that not a lawyer will try to get their client to submit to a plea bargain.  they often take months or even years to finally take place and when they do they are very costly to us as taxpayers.   #  that is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor is sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it is basically the prosecutor is puppet.   #  we already do not  really  use grand juries to indict.  the grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor.  it is set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments or non indictments pretty much at will.  imagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is  is there any evidence at all ?   that is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor is sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it is basically the prosecutor is puppet.   #  in our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them.   #  having served on a grand jury for six months, you are absolutely right.  it is a waste of time.  i think the grand jury indicts in well over 0 of cases.  in our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them.  i think we voted no on maybe 0 or 0 out of hundreds.  the problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the grand jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room.  therefore, everything they say is off the record.  edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states.  thanks /u/huadpe it exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the grand jury only hears one side of the story usually the arresting officer assuming they are the prosecution side , it might as well just go straight to trial.   #  it is two data points that tell us  nothing  about the third if you look past their facial similarities.   #  silver is a great analyst.  this was not written by silver.  it is taking city politics, comparing them to federal politics, and making implications about state politics.  that data that is not only dissimilar in what it is measuring all indictments at one level versus a small subsection of indictments at the other level , it is also dissimilar in time frame one year versus several , sample size all prosecutions at one level, only a very specific subsection at another , and the nature of the proceeding federal grand juries operate differently than state .  it does not give rates for no bills at large for houston.  it does not give rates for police indictment at the federal level that data should be available .  it is like saying  here is the 0p% for the bulls.  here is the 0p% for the starting small forward of the springfield ma high school wildcats.  given that data, here is our conclusion about three point shooting in the mountain west conference.   it is two data points that tell us  nothing  about the third if you look past their facial similarities.   #  still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.   # unlike in federal court, most states, including missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment.  that means many routine cases never go before a grand jury.  still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.  as my colleague reuben fischer baum has written, we do not have good data on officer involved killings.  but newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law enforcement officials.  a recent houston chronicle investigation found that  police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings  in houston and other large cities in recent years.  i swear to god i spend more time arguing with people about things that were covered in the article.
what happened to eric garner was a horrible tragedy.  but i do not blame the nypd for it.  occasionally a cop goes insane and does something like this.  the nypd commissioner seems to be on garner is side, and many officers have said that what the police officer did was not protocol and was wrong.  but the police ca not know if an officer will do something that goes completely against his training.  the truth is the nypd has been very good in racial issues and keeping crime low.  stop and frisk may seem to be contrary to that, but that was a policy that told the police to go into poor black neighborhoods and frisk people.  this was not a decision made by the police.  the problem with the garner case is the justices system is failure to indite eric garner is murderer.  pantaleo murdered eric garner.  there is not really any question about this.  he did not follow police protocol and attacked a man with his hands in the air and killed him as he begged to breathe.  pantaleo deserves to go to trial, for at least manslaughter if not first degree murder.  there is no reasonable doubt or any question of what happened like there was in the micheal brown case.  with micheal brown there was a lack of evidence and conflicting reports, so we ca not know and therefore ca not prosecute.  but in the garner case there was no question.  we know what happened.  my only conclusion from this is that the grand jury had a majority of either incredibly racist people or people who were incredibly loyal to the police for no reason.  i believe that to fix this problem we need to stop using grand juries to decide whether or not to indite.  they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.  instead we should use a panel of judges, or just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming.  edit: maybe not go to trial immediately.  my main call is for a change in the process.  i do not necessarily have the change needed.  the reason i want my view changed is that i would like the believe that our system is not horribly unjust.  but all evidence says that it is.   #  just go to trial immediately when the evidence is this overwhelming.   #  this would be an ideal case however trials are costly and lawyers often avoid them unless they are fairly certain they can win.   # they have proven themselves to be a horrible tool.  do you have a source for this or at least something that shows that grand jury is decisions should have gone the other way ? the way i see it there is no problem with our indictment process.  the real problem with our legal system often lies with the lawyer end of things.  this would be an ideal case however trials are costly and lawyers often avoid them unless they are fairly certain they can win.  more often that not a lawyer will try to get their client to submit to a plea bargain.  they often take months or even years to finally take place and when they do they are very costly to us as taxpayers.   #  imagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is  is there any evidence at all ?    #  we already do not  really  use grand juries to indict.  the grand jury is a puppet of the prosecutor.  it is set up in a way that allows the prosecutor to get indictments or non indictments pretty much at will.  imagine if you had a trial where only one side was allowed to present evidence and the threshold for guilt is  is there any evidence at all ?   that is pretty much what a grand jury is, and the prosecutor is sole ability to present or withhold evidence from it is why it is basically the prosecutor is puppet.   #  having served on a grand jury for six months, you are absolutely right.   #  having served on a grand jury for six months, you are absolutely right.  it is a waste of time.  i think the grand jury indicts in well over 0 of cases.  in our case, a cop representing some city within our county comes in and reads a summary of several felony cases, leaves, we vote a blanket yes for all of them.  i think we voted no on maybe 0 or 0 out of hundreds.  the problem is that, even though each officer is sworn in, they can just lie anyway because no member of the grand jury can ever say what was spoken of and there is noone else in the room.  therefore, everything they say is off the record.  edit: this freedom to lie seems to only apply to some states.  thanks /u/huadpe it exists for reasonable historical reasons, but as long as they can lie freely and the grand jury only hears one side of the story usually the arresting officer assuming they are the prosecution side , it might as well just go straight to trial.   #  it is like saying  here is the 0p% for the bulls.   #  silver is a great analyst.  this was not written by silver.  it is taking city politics, comparing them to federal politics, and making implications about state politics.  that data that is not only dissimilar in what it is measuring all indictments at one level versus a small subsection of indictments at the other level , it is also dissimilar in time frame one year versus several , sample size all prosecutions at one level, only a very specific subsection at another , and the nature of the proceeding federal grand juries operate differently than state .  it does not give rates for no bills at large for houston.  it does not give rates for police indictment at the federal level that data should be available .  it is like saying  here is the 0p% for the bulls.  here is the 0p% for the starting small forward of the springfield ma high school wildcats.  given that data, here is our conclusion about three point shooting in the mountain west conference.   it is two data points that tell us  nothing  about the third if you look past their facial similarities.   #  a recent houston chronicle investigation found that  police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings  in houston and other large cities in recent years.   # unlike in federal court, most states, including missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment.  that means many routine cases never go before a grand jury.  still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.  as my colleague reuben fischer baum has written, we do not have good data on officer involved killings.  but newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law enforcement officials.  a recent houston chronicle investigation found that  police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings  in houston and other large cities in recent years.  i swear to god i spend more time arguing with people about things that were covered in the article.
when i first learned about the right to be forgotten on the internet, i thought that it was a good idea.  then when i did a bit of research, it does infringe on people is rights to self expression.  in this case, i think that although the right to one is individual privacy overrides one is individual right to self expression maslow is hierarchy of needs , the amount of people is right being infringed upon outweighs the needs of one person is right to privacy.  in this case, copyright violation and hacked material should not count and should be respected, etc. , etc.   #  it does infringe on people is rights to self expression.   #  how does it infringe on people is right to self expression ?  # how does it infringe on people is right to self expression ? people can still write whatever they want on the internet.  all rtbf laws at least those in europe, where they were first introduced can do is limit what can be seen when doing a google search.  if i was accused of rape, and it was reported on buzzfeed, i ca not get buzzfeed to talk down the article under rtbf.  all i can do is stop google from showing that article.  free expression stands.   #  if you are never going to be able to free yourself from a bad past, why bother to reform ?  #  and how long should an accusation, especially a false one or one that has no bearing on that person is current life ? if i was a drug user 0 years ago then got clean, it does not matter if that information shows up every time you google my name.  and given that it is a common practice to do so for job applicants, that means that old convictions never really stop dogging you.  in the same vein, a false accusation of wrongdoing is potentially as damaging as a conviction.  seeing your name next to a crime like rape or embezzlement is about the same as a conviction you are not going to have an easy time getting a good job.  hence, i think the general concept is good.  if you are never going to be able to free yourself from a bad past, why bother to reform ? you are always going to be that guy, so do not bother with the hard work of being someone else.  if an accusation can ruin your life forever, it is a nuclear option for a lot of things.  there is actually very little punishment for false accusations, and without rtbf, the consequences to the victim are permanent.  what better way to get back than a false accusation that follows the victim for life and even if you are caught, you face nothing ?  #  /s seriously though, there surely would be some limits to this law, if it were to pass in the us.   #  first of all, that is a nice slippery slope you got there.  you must be really proud.  secondly, no one uses bing anyway, so you are safe there.  /s seriously though, there surely would be some limits to this law, if it were to pass in the us.  for example, any megan is law website would be forced to remain in a person is search results.  hell, we ca not even pass a farm bill without a thousand regulations on it.  why should this law be any different ?  #  all rtbf laws at least those in europe, where they were first introduced can do is limit what can be seen when doing a google search.   # people can still write whatever they want on the internet.  all rtbf laws at least those in europe, where they were first introduced can do is limit what can be seen when doing a google search.  blocking someone from listing their work in the most widely used internet directory is tantamount to censorship.  it is absolutely a violation of the right of self expression.  it is akin to saying  you can say whatever you want but you ca not write it on a billboard. someone might see it .   #  may i ask you to clarify several things ?  #  may i ask you to clarify several things ? 0.  you said,  when i first learned about the right to be forgotten on the internet, i thought that it was a good idea.   can you describe why you thought it was a good idea ? 0.  you added,  then when i did a bit of research, it does infringe on people is rights to self expression.   in your view, how does that happen ? could you give an example ? 0.  why did you mention maslow is hierarchy of needs ? did you want to discuss how self expression relates to either esteem and/or self actualization ? if so, why ? 0.  you said,  in this case, copyright violation and hacked material should not count and should be respected, etc. , etc.   by  should not count,  what do you mean exactly ? should not be  counted  in what way, and by whom ? what do you mean by the idea that we should respect copyright violation and respect hacked material ? 0.  why are you interested in having someone change your view about this ? in other words, what inspires self doubt in you when you consider the view you hold ? i am interested to see this discussion move forward, but at the moment i am very unclear about your position.
ill try not to make this a shotgun post of information and opinions.  we as a planet have failed, plain and simple.  putting the opinions, feelings and freewill over the our advancement.  what is the meaning of life ? to make everyone happy or to make sure we are here for generations to come.  why are stupid people allowed to over populate the world ? why are drug smugglers not shot in the face when caught at the boarder ? why are people allowed to make a baby at their own discretion ? why have we allowed people to voice their opinions when they are offended by something trival ? why is a big deal who i fuck in my bed and why does that trump the warming climate ? why did ot take a fucking arms race to put us on the moon ? why do we allows resources to be wasted on scum ? do we not remember what happened to the library of alexandria ? why is knowledge allowed to be so expensively and selectively attained ? because freewill has allowed people to do this.  people and this world should have been organized strictly logically.  babies should only come from selections of parents based on what the future needs of the planet would be.  high iq is should be paired, people of strength, speed, and other suitable combos should be paired.  crossing only if beneficial like between strength and intelligence.  we have allowed ourselves to dilute our population to a bunch of whining bitches who ca not fend for themselves.  i know i will be unpopular for this one.  i do believe lesser crimes deserve a jail time but only lesser crimes should be dealt like that.  if i catch you raping someone sorry dead.  murder dead.  ten pounds of dope in your car crossing the boarder, ca not go far after we put a bullet in your head.  you know the big ass drug guy in mexico that had his compound and hippos ? how did he over gun the police.  one carpet bomb and no more problem.  this tip toe bullshit is just that.  groannnnnnn i do not like gay marraige, why does not my son is school do this holiday ! people want to build an islamic place of pray near the former twin towers, let burn books ! are some of the stupid reasons to cause a fuss.  our population is too big as it is, so two guys that want to be together and they wont be adding to our growing problem then good for them.  your son should be learning in school, not distracting with moronic rituals.  is it really that hard to create a subject on different culture is traditions ? do not want to offend a culture by not covering it then do you fucking job as a teacher and modify your teachings based on class population each year.  we literally praise the people fucking up our world.  the fact that for profit colleges exist reminds me of how much knowledge we lost in alexandria.  if we continue to keep knowledge to the selected few then we will repeat the same mistake again.  what would happen if we lost the internet aka our brains ? how many would be world class brain surgeons could not afford med school ? we see this vase area when we look up and people have been studying the heavens for a long time.  why did it take a pissing match between the usa and russia also its not  america  america includes both continents to get to the moon ? no one had the idea to branch out ? is not that what happened to the  new world  ? we fucking branched out and explored.  we are totally focusing on efforts in the wrong areas and its because we are allowed to.  people need someone telling them no, telling them to shut up and not allowing scum to survive.   #  babies should only come from selections of parents based on what the future needs of the planet would be.   #  high iq is should be paired, people of strength, speed, and other suitable combos should be paired.   # high iq is should be paired, people of strength, speed, and other suitable combos should be paired.  how do you choose who has the best genes ? do you put a test in place ? who writes the test ? when would this test be administered, and where ? what would be on the test ? would it be an iq test ? a test of parenting ability ? what happens if someone does not pass the test ? would they not be allowed to have kids ? what happens if someone has kids without permission ? are the kids taken away ? are the parents jailed ? would people who already have kids be grandfathered in, or would they have to take the test too ? if they fail, would their kids be taken away ? also, how does this truly factor in with free will ?  #  it does not run as easily as it  could , but it sure is better than what we used to have.   #  we have already tried dictatorships, and they have hardly  ever  been benevolent.  if a dictator/monarch has been benevolent while maintaining total control, it usually does not last for more than a few generations.  this is a tried and true pattern that we have used ever since the dawn of civilization 0,0 years ago.  what we are doing now democracy   freedom of choice is relatively new, and there are still a few kinks in the machine.  it does not run as easily as it  could , but it sure is better than what we used to have.  if it was not we would already be back at that point.  people have only relatively recently been given these freedoms.  freedom to choose their government.  freedom to choose their path in life.  winston churchill of britain once wrote  many forms of gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.  no one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all wise.  indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. … .  this does not just sum up government, but all of our free will.  you take the good, you take the bad.  you take it all and there you have, the facts of life.  besides, as long as we  end up surviving  our long and arduous journey to civilization and equality, how we get to our pinnacle does matter, not just that we got there.   #  the best part is i wouldnt make the cut and im fine with that.   #  as i understand a perfect world without corruption is not real but a government style was not my point.  we allow to many stupid people to make too many stupid decisions.  we allow terrible things to happen because of what others would think.  i was not talking about cutting all free will.  only that that affects us as a whole.  gang lords for example.  how many civilians do you think would take ten grand to smuggle drugs if they were shot on sight if caught ? how many problems would have been solved if 0 iq is bred together ? how many worlds would we have explored if rulers stopped having who is got the bigger dick contests.  most fresh water in near north america, why are we not discovering better ways to make salt water drinkable ? how much did we accomplish with slaves ? north america was built by them.  the moment we gave people all this freedom we started focusing on ridiculous things.  people need to be told what to do, a collective few should be calling global shots in a perfect world and we should stop allowing crime like we do.  we house and feed the lowest of the population but pull all help to the people who need it.  basically we need a restart button.  the best part is i wouldnt make the cut and im fine with that.  because the greater good is the population.   #  every thing would have to be calculated and taken into account.   #  thats why breeding for specific traits would depict your future role in life.  we would not have high iqs working in the minds.  and we would not breed strong lungs and strength to become doctors.  every thing would have to be calculated and taken into account.  certain traits for certain needs.  we are not 0 billion people , we are one species.  unless we are all working on the same team nothing will change.   #  people from different back grounds will still obtain other traits like you and i.  being smart or having strong eyesight does not mean solely those traits.   #  adapting to what exactly ? i am not speaking of interbreeding.  people from different back grounds will still obtain other traits like you and i.  being smart or having strong eyesight does not mean solely those traits.  i admit that i do not have this whole process planned out to a tea since id have to actually implementing this to work out all the issues.  who is to say after two generations of selected breed intellectuals and etc we do not make a break through and start playing with human genetics.  both extremes are possible i agree, but how are we using our time now ? making our people happy will not matter when there is not enough air for us ? or however unlikely the waves or internet surfs on cut out ? emp ? how will we survive without google ? or being able to instantly communicate with the other side of the world.
my cmv is based on a hypothetical situation in which i cannot purchase a piece of software, book, or movie.  this could be due to any number of reasons region lock, lack of funds, whatever , but it is enough to say that no matter what, i cannot purchase this item.  there are several factors that make me think that downloading this item for free from a p0p site is a net gain to the producer: 0.  it increases the number of seeders/snatchers/leechers on the p0p site.  this is free advertising.  0.  it increases the chances that i will purchase a product from the same producer, especially if the media is good.  0.  it increases the chances that i will speak about it to people i know.  0.  it gives the producer more information than simply not buying it.  this could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution.  0.  it keeps me engaged inside a production environment at which the producer is an expert.  for example, if i was a pc gamer, i would continue to be a pc gamer, rather than picking up a new hobby.  please convince me that in a situation in which i ca not buy a game/book/movie, that ignoring that game/book/movie benefits the producer more than pirating it.   #  please convince me that in a situation in which i ca not buy a game/book/movie, that ignoring that game/book/movie benefits the producer more than pirating it.   #  by ignoring a product it tells the producer to make it available to you more directly than going out and pirating it.   # i do not have enough money to buy a pizza, that does not mean that i should be able to walk out of the store with one.  some of the other reasons though such as region locking, obsoletion like old gameboy games on emulators , or drm to the point where the legal copy is barely usable simcity for example are more legitimate reasons.  it increases the number of seeders/snatchers/leechers on the p0p site.  this is free advertising.  this does not really benefit the publisher since you now own the copy of the thing they are trying to sell.  advertising for a product you already own does not work.  it increases the chances that i will purchase a product from the same producer, especially if the media is good.  if you pirated one product, why would they have reason to believe you would buy the next ? it increases the chances that i will speak about it to people i know.  this is kinda like the advertising claim, but odds are if you pirated it because of reasons other than lack of funds then your friends would not be able to buy it either and would have to pirate it like region locking cases .  it gives the producer more information than simply not buying it.  it gives them no information other than  these people were able to crack our drm, therefore we need better drm  or  oh man, what jerks for stealing our product .  that is how pirating is usually interpreted.  simply not participating with the product sends a far stronger message.  it keeps me engaged inside a production environment at which the producer is an expert.  for example, if i was a pc gamer, i would continue to be a pc gamer, rather than picking up a new hobby.  this does not really make sense.  so because you can obtain free widgets to continue with your widget hobby, then you will continue with your widget hobby because you can obtain free widgets ? it sounds like circular logic.  by ignoring a product it tells the producer to make it available to you more directly than going out and pirating it.  if you pirate it, then the producer is only going to seek to defend their work from more pirating rather than try to make it easier to get hold of.  once you start pirating, then the producer has zero opportunity to sell you their product since you now own what they were trying to sell you. but by ignoring it then they will work harder to sell you their stuff.   #  whether they are right or wrong in their decision does not matter.   #  should not the decision to reap those benefits be completely on the content creator ? for example, if i was washing my car, and you walked by and offered to help for free, i still have the right to say  no .  obviously, you helping me would provide some benefits, but that is not the point.  the point is that studios have specifically requested that you do not pirate their content.  whether they are right or wrong in their decision does not matter.  it is their is to make.   #  there is no evidence that seeders/snatchers/leechers are actually providing advertising that is benefiting the producers of content.   #  i disagree that this is a better comparison.  person a nor person c is creating anything that could be deemed ip with your proof.  person c who is also collecting money for a charity is not infringing on the rights of person a.  the only way this works is if person a creates a specific patented/copyrighted way to support that charity.  then person c steals that way to support a separate charity without permission.  i would say that the reason that the op is wrong is because his points are unsupported.  there is no evidence that seeders/snatchers/leechers are actually providing advertising that is benefiting the producers of content.  there is little to no evidence that shows that people who pirate actually go out and purchase the content that they already have stolen.  there is no proof that anyone uses torrent or other p0p data for informational purposes and there is no evidence of loss of hobby by anyone.  essentially this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence to support these conclusions.  this would infer that, logically at this time with the conditions listed in the op now, it is a confirmation bias to approve of stealing behavior.   #  yeah if you, and then 0,0 other people who could not afford the song all went out and downloaded it, it would make at least one person give them the extra money they had not had before.   #  it is not all about the money.  some bands would not even flinch if they did not get your 0 from itunes or whatever they get from it but they might feel bad if some people are enjoying it while the other fans had to pay for it.  some bands would be for it since they are just enjoying their hobby/spreading a message/etc.  yeah if you, and then 0,0 other people who could not afford the song all went out and downloaded it, it would make at least one person give them the extra money they had not had before.  obviously it would help economically, there was no question about that in the first place.  indirect cash is better than no cash.  but that does not mean it is always the right thing to do.   #  now if you are not considering the band or producer or anyone on that end at all in your decision, and are just thinking of the most economical choice for you personally, that is different and totally ok.   #  you have included ethics into your argument by explaining how it is a  net gain for the producer .  you ca not go to the grocery store, pay with rocks, and say it is ok economically because they had a net gain in rocks.  maybe rocks are really valued back in a foreign country from which you lived the last decade, but that is besides the point, the grocery store only wants you to pay with money.  if the band or record company only wants you to pay with money, they do not care about you having an increased chance to buy from them in the future, or an increased chance of you talking about them with your friends.  they only want your money.  and you might disagree and say that they should in fact value you purchasing something in the future or you talking about their stuff with other people, especially if you ca not afford to buy it in the first place, but that is not what they want.  and it is not your place to decide what they want.  you ca not go to whole foods and say i do not have any money right now, so i am just going to grab some food and i might come back with money for future purchases.  note that the last example ca not be a perfect metaphor because it is stealing vs pirating, but it is irrelevant to the specific point i was getting at where you ca not just decide how or what you want to pay with when the seller very specifically asks for what they want in return.  now if you are not considering the band or producer or anyone on that end at all in your decision, and are just thinking of the most economical choice for you personally, that is different and totally ok.  but that is not what you said.
my cmv is based on a hypothetical situation in which i cannot purchase a piece of software, book, or movie.  this could be due to any number of reasons region lock, lack of funds, whatever , but it is enough to say that no matter what, i cannot purchase this item.  there are several factors that make me think that downloading this item for free from a p0p site is a net gain to the producer: 0.  it increases the number of seeders/snatchers/leechers on the p0p site.  this is free advertising.  0.  it increases the chances that i will purchase a product from the same producer, especially if the media is good.  0.  it increases the chances that i will speak about it to people i know.  0.  it gives the producer more information than simply not buying it.  this could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution.  0.  it keeps me engaged inside a production environment at which the producer is an expert.  for example, if i was a pc gamer, i would continue to be a pc gamer, rather than picking up a new hobby.  please convince me that in a situation in which i ca not buy a game/book/movie, that ignoring that game/book/movie benefits the producer more than pirating it.   #  please convince me that in a situation in which i ca not buy a game/book/movie, that ignoring that game/book/movie benefits the producer more than pirating it.   #  well, since you either ignored every after school special ever produced or your parents just never got around to explaining why theft is wrong, let is try and run though this in a slightly more than superficial manner.   # well, since you either ignored every after school special ever produced or your parents just never got around to explaining why theft is wrong, let is try and run though this in a slightly more than superficial manner.  the obvious issue the only one that matters and is the root of all that is wrong with your point of view here is that you are stealing from people and if they ca not make money then they go out of business.  if that is not complex enough for you then try it on a point by point basis :  it increases the number of seeders/snatchers/leechers on the p0p site.  this is free advertising.  but that still misses the point entirely : who cares about advertising if all you are doing is advertising it to people who are not going to pay anyway ? the idea is to make money not get facebook  willikes .  no it does not.  all it does is provide you with free software.  you should have been paying in the first place.  since you do not consider it theft then why would you ever change your mind ? who pays for something when they think it is perfectly okay to take it without paying ? you have already demonstrated that you are totally fine with stealing it and we can sugar coat it if you like but it is theft because to your way of thinking it is not theft in the first place.  within that framework, it makes no sense to assume that you are ever going to pay for anything from that or any other publisher.  when the people you know ask you where you got it, what are you going to tell them ? in all likelihood you are going to start the conversation thusly  so i downloaded this game last night and.     it gives the producer more information than simply not buying it.  this could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution.  ha ha ha ! you have got to be kidding.  0 cents is too much so that is the real problem here.  distribution ? what does that even mean ? you had no problem getting a copy of it for free so if distribution is a problem it is clearly the publisher is.  there are already plenty of ways for you to get your hands on a legitimately purchased copy of the game.  that is not what you want to do so please, do not treat us or anybody else as though we are too stupid to figure out that pricing and distribution are any kind of a problem from the consumer is point of view.  for example, if i was a pc gamer, i would continue to be a pc gamer, rather than picking up a new hobby.  now this is the one where the sirens and red lights should be going off in your head.  you are creating an environment where you will have no choice whatsoever but to find another hobby.  you are forcing publishers to find ways to ensure that you ca not steal their product.  ultimately that can only mean that they stop making the product in a format that you can steal.  in other words, forget pc games, you are driving them to extinction through these moral gymnastics.   #  obviously, you helping me would provide some benefits, but that is not the point.   #  should not the decision to reap those benefits be completely on the content creator ? for example, if i was washing my car, and you walked by and offered to help for free, i still have the right to say  no .  obviously, you helping me would provide some benefits, but that is not the point.  the point is that studios have specifically requested that you do not pirate their content.  whether they are right or wrong in their decision does not matter.  it is their is to make.   #  essentially this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence to support these conclusions.   #  i disagree that this is a better comparison.  person a nor person c is creating anything that could be deemed ip with your proof.  person c who is also collecting money for a charity is not infringing on the rights of person a.  the only way this works is if person a creates a specific patented/copyrighted way to support that charity.  then person c steals that way to support a separate charity without permission.  i would say that the reason that the op is wrong is because his points are unsupported.  there is no evidence that seeders/snatchers/leechers are actually providing advertising that is benefiting the producers of content.  there is little to no evidence that shows that people who pirate actually go out and purchase the content that they already have stolen.  there is no proof that anyone uses torrent or other p0p data for informational purposes and there is no evidence of loss of hobby by anyone.  essentially this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence to support these conclusions.  this would infer that, logically at this time with the conditions listed in the op now, it is a confirmation bias to approve of stealing behavior.   #  yeah if you, and then 0,0 other people who could not afford the song all went out and downloaded it, it would make at least one person give them the extra money they had not had before.   #  it is not all about the money.  some bands would not even flinch if they did not get your 0 from itunes or whatever they get from it but they might feel bad if some people are enjoying it while the other fans had to pay for it.  some bands would be for it since they are just enjoying their hobby/spreading a message/etc.  yeah if you, and then 0,0 other people who could not afford the song all went out and downloaded it, it would make at least one person give them the extra money they had not had before.  obviously it would help economically, there was no question about that in the first place.  indirect cash is better than no cash.  but that does not mean it is always the right thing to do.   #  and it is not your place to decide what they want.   #  you have included ethics into your argument by explaining how it is a  net gain for the producer .  you ca not go to the grocery store, pay with rocks, and say it is ok economically because they had a net gain in rocks.  maybe rocks are really valued back in a foreign country from which you lived the last decade, but that is besides the point, the grocery store only wants you to pay with money.  if the band or record company only wants you to pay with money, they do not care about you having an increased chance to buy from them in the future, or an increased chance of you talking about them with your friends.  they only want your money.  and you might disagree and say that they should in fact value you purchasing something in the future or you talking about their stuff with other people, especially if you ca not afford to buy it in the first place, but that is not what they want.  and it is not your place to decide what they want.  you ca not go to whole foods and say i do not have any money right now, so i am just going to grab some food and i might come back with money for future purchases.  note that the last example ca not be a perfect metaphor because it is stealing vs pirating, but it is irrelevant to the specific point i was getting at where you ca not just decide how or what you want to pay with when the seller very specifically asks for what they want in return.  now if you are not considering the band or producer or anyone on that end at all in your decision, and are just thinking of the most economical choice for you personally, that is different and totally ok.  but that is not what you said.
my cmv is based on a hypothetical situation in which i cannot purchase a piece of software, book, or movie.  this could be due to any number of reasons region lock, lack of funds, whatever , but it is enough to say that no matter what, i cannot purchase this item.  there are several factors that make me think that downloading this item for free from a p0p site is a net gain to the producer: 0.  it increases the number of seeders/snatchers/leechers on the p0p site.  this is free advertising.  0.  it increases the chances that i will purchase a product from the same producer, especially if the media is good.  0.  it increases the chances that i will speak about it to people i know.  0.  it gives the producer more information than simply not buying it.  this could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution.  0.  it keeps me engaged inside a production environment at which the producer is an expert.  for example, if i was a pc gamer, i would continue to be a pc gamer, rather than picking up a new hobby.  please convince me that in a situation in which i ca not buy a game/book/movie, that ignoring that game/book/movie benefits the producer more than pirating it.   #  it keeps me engaged inside a production environment at which the producer is an expert.   #  for example, if i was a pc gamer, i would continue to be a pc gamer, rather than picking up a new hobby.   # well, since you either ignored every after school special ever produced or your parents just never got around to explaining why theft is wrong, let is try and run though this in a slightly more than superficial manner.  the obvious issue the only one that matters and is the root of all that is wrong with your point of view here is that you are stealing from people and if they ca not make money then they go out of business.  if that is not complex enough for you then try it on a point by point basis :  it increases the number of seeders/snatchers/leechers on the p0p site.  this is free advertising.  but that still misses the point entirely : who cares about advertising if all you are doing is advertising it to people who are not going to pay anyway ? the idea is to make money not get facebook  willikes .  no it does not.  all it does is provide you with free software.  you should have been paying in the first place.  since you do not consider it theft then why would you ever change your mind ? who pays for something when they think it is perfectly okay to take it without paying ? you have already demonstrated that you are totally fine with stealing it and we can sugar coat it if you like but it is theft because to your way of thinking it is not theft in the first place.  within that framework, it makes no sense to assume that you are ever going to pay for anything from that or any other publisher.  when the people you know ask you where you got it, what are you going to tell them ? in all likelihood you are going to start the conversation thusly  so i downloaded this game last night and.     it gives the producer more information than simply not buying it.  this could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution.  ha ha ha ! you have got to be kidding.  0 cents is too much so that is the real problem here.  distribution ? what does that even mean ? you had no problem getting a copy of it for free so if distribution is a problem it is clearly the publisher is.  there are already plenty of ways for you to get your hands on a legitimately purchased copy of the game.  that is not what you want to do so please, do not treat us or anybody else as though we are too stupid to figure out that pricing and distribution are any kind of a problem from the consumer is point of view.  for example, if i was a pc gamer, i would continue to be a pc gamer, rather than picking up a new hobby.  now this is the one where the sirens and red lights should be going off in your head.  you are creating an environment where you will have no choice whatsoever but to find another hobby.  you are forcing publishers to find ways to ensure that you ca not steal their product.  ultimately that can only mean that they stop making the product in a format that you can steal.  in other words, forget pc games, you are driving them to extinction through these moral gymnastics.   #  whether they are right or wrong in their decision does not matter.   #  should not the decision to reap those benefits be completely on the content creator ? for example, if i was washing my car, and you walked by and offered to help for free, i still have the right to say  no .  obviously, you helping me would provide some benefits, but that is not the point.  the point is that studios have specifically requested that you do not pirate their content.  whether they are right or wrong in their decision does not matter.  it is their is to make.   #  then person c steals that way to support a separate charity without permission.   #  i disagree that this is a better comparison.  person a nor person c is creating anything that could be deemed ip with your proof.  person c who is also collecting money for a charity is not infringing on the rights of person a.  the only way this works is if person a creates a specific patented/copyrighted way to support that charity.  then person c steals that way to support a separate charity without permission.  i would say that the reason that the op is wrong is because his points are unsupported.  there is no evidence that seeders/snatchers/leechers are actually providing advertising that is benefiting the producers of content.  there is little to no evidence that shows that people who pirate actually go out and purchase the content that they already have stolen.  there is no proof that anyone uses torrent or other p0p data for informational purposes and there is no evidence of loss of hobby by anyone.  essentially this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence to support these conclusions.  this would infer that, logically at this time with the conditions listed in the op now, it is a confirmation bias to approve of stealing behavior.   #  obviously it would help economically, there was no question about that in the first place.   #  it is not all about the money.  some bands would not even flinch if they did not get your 0 from itunes or whatever they get from it but they might feel bad if some people are enjoying it while the other fans had to pay for it.  some bands would be for it since they are just enjoying their hobby/spreading a message/etc.  yeah if you, and then 0,0 other people who could not afford the song all went out and downloaded it, it would make at least one person give them the extra money they had not had before.  obviously it would help economically, there was no question about that in the first place.  indirect cash is better than no cash.  but that does not mean it is always the right thing to do.   #  and it is not your place to decide what they want.   #  you have included ethics into your argument by explaining how it is a  net gain for the producer .  you ca not go to the grocery store, pay with rocks, and say it is ok economically because they had a net gain in rocks.  maybe rocks are really valued back in a foreign country from which you lived the last decade, but that is besides the point, the grocery store only wants you to pay with money.  if the band or record company only wants you to pay with money, they do not care about you having an increased chance to buy from them in the future, or an increased chance of you talking about them with your friends.  they only want your money.  and you might disagree and say that they should in fact value you purchasing something in the future or you talking about their stuff with other people, especially if you ca not afford to buy it in the first place, but that is not what they want.  and it is not your place to decide what they want.  you ca not go to whole foods and say i do not have any money right now, so i am just going to grab some food and i might come back with money for future purchases.  note that the last example ca not be a perfect metaphor because it is stealing vs pirating, but it is irrelevant to the specific point i was getting at where you ca not just decide how or what you want to pay with when the seller very specifically asks for what they want in return.  now if you are not considering the band or producer or anyone on that end at all in your decision, and are just thinking of the most economical choice for you personally, that is different and totally ok.  but that is not what you said.
my cmv is based on a hypothetical situation in which i cannot purchase a piece of software, book, or movie.  this could be due to any number of reasons region lock, lack of funds, whatever , but it is enough to say that no matter what, i cannot purchase this item.  there are several factors that make me think that downloading this item for free from a p0p site is a net gain to the producer: 0.  it increases the number of seeders/snatchers/leechers on the p0p site.  this is free advertising.  0.  it increases the chances that i will purchase a product from the same producer, especially if the media is good.  0.  it increases the chances that i will speak about it to people i know.  0.  it gives the producer more information than simply not buying it.  this could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution.  0.  it keeps me engaged inside a production environment at which the producer is an expert.  for example, if i was a pc gamer, i would continue to be a pc gamer, rather than picking up a new hobby.  please convince me that in a situation in which i ca not buy a game/book/movie, that ignoring that game/book/movie benefits the producer more than pirating it.   #  it increases the chances that i will purchase a product from the same producer, especially if the media is good.   #  but it also decreases the chances of me being able to make a second product.   #  as a new indie dev, although i would be fine with somebody pirating my game and spreading the word about it if they really ca not buy it for various reasons, i would not pirate out of principle, can think of a few arguments that might change your view.  first of all let me address yours:  0.  it increases the number of seeders/snatchers/leechers on the p0p site.  this is free advertising.  yes, but it is also making it easy for the ones that can afford it to just pirate it.  i have heard several people who generally pirate things say stuff like  i just bought it because it was taking too long to torrent/ i could not find a good version .  there are people who only pirate because they find it more convenient to do so, not because they have to.  that is the logic behind drm which i hate , if the pirates get delayed by even 0 day, then a percentage of them who are impatient will buy the game, so it is a win.  but it also decreases the chances of me being able to make a second product.  for many indies, they invest all their savings in one awesome game, and if they do not make enough money out of it, they go bust ! also, if we are talking about big established studios, the publishers might decide the platform will make less money due to the high piracy rates and switch to other platforms see how all pc devs are moving to consoles.  :  it increases the chances that i will speak about it to people i know.  by how much ? if i find a game that looks interesting, i generally talk about it anyway.   have you seen game x ? it looks awesome ! have you tried it ? check out this lets play  etc.  this could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution.  in today is world, where every game gets deep discounts for a couple $, and you have instant digital downloads everywhere, it would be hard to believe that there is an issue unless i use abusive drm or region locks or something, which tends to be the publishers  reaction to pirating in the first place, stupid as it may be .  well, if you have financial issues, it is not like you are going to throw away your computer and pick up another hobby, right ? chances are you would just stick with other games you already have or go for cheaper ones etc.  now, a few reasons as to why it may actually benefit the producer to not pirate it:   a friend might learn that you really want it and gift you an original copy   you might strive harder to somehow earn the money to pay for it   you might actually write the dev why you ca not buy their product, or post about it on your social media,etc. , making sure they understand and potentially prompting them to take action making it available in your region, adjusting price, etc   you discourage other people from pirating through example if pirating is the norm and socially acceptable, more people will pirate even if they can afford paying for the product   once you do buy a game, you value it more, because you paid for it, and you have a higher chance to talk about it with your friends   if the game has any online component, i as a dev would still have to pay the cost for the server, cloud component, etc , so i would actively be losing money as a result that is all i can think of for now.  feel free to cmv :  #  should not the decision to reap those benefits be completely on the content creator ?  #  should not the decision to reap those benefits be completely on the content creator ? for example, if i was washing my car, and you walked by and offered to help for free, i still have the right to say  no .  obviously, you helping me would provide some benefits, but that is not the point.  the point is that studios have specifically requested that you do not pirate their content.  whether they are right or wrong in their decision does not matter.  it is their is to make.   #  there is no proof that anyone uses torrent or other p0p data for informational purposes and there is no evidence of loss of hobby by anyone.   #  i disagree that this is a better comparison.  person a nor person c is creating anything that could be deemed ip with your proof.  person c who is also collecting money for a charity is not infringing on the rights of person a.  the only way this works is if person a creates a specific patented/copyrighted way to support that charity.  then person c steals that way to support a separate charity without permission.  i would say that the reason that the op is wrong is because his points are unsupported.  there is no evidence that seeders/snatchers/leechers are actually providing advertising that is benefiting the producers of content.  there is little to no evidence that shows that people who pirate actually go out and purchase the content that they already have stolen.  there is no proof that anyone uses torrent or other p0p data for informational purposes and there is no evidence of loss of hobby by anyone.  essentially this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence to support these conclusions.  this would infer that, logically at this time with the conditions listed in the op now, it is a confirmation bias to approve of stealing behavior.   #  obviously it would help economically, there was no question about that in the first place.   #  it is not all about the money.  some bands would not even flinch if they did not get your 0 from itunes or whatever they get from it but they might feel bad if some people are enjoying it while the other fans had to pay for it.  some bands would be for it since they are just enjoying their hobby/spreading a message/etc.  yeah if you, and then 0,0 other people who could not afford the song all went out and downloaded it, it would make at least one person give them the extra money they had not had before.  obviously it would help economically, there was no question about that in the first place.  indirect cash is better than no cash.  but that does not mean it is always the right thing to do.   #  you ca not go to the grocery store, pay with rocks, and say it is ok economically because they had a net gain in rocks.   #  you have included ethics into your argument by explaining how it is a  net gain for the producer .  you ca not go to the grocery store, pay with rocks, and say it is ok economically because they had a net gain in rocks.  maybe rocks are really valued back in a foreign country from which you lived the last decade, but that is besides the point, the grocery store only wants you to pay with money.  if the band or record company only wants you to pay with money, they do not care about you having an increased chance to buy from them in the future, or an increased chance of you talking about them with your friends.  they only want your money.  and you might disagree and say that they should in fact value you purchasing something in the future or you talking about their stuff with other people, especially if you ca not afford to buy it in the first place, but that is not what they want.  and it is not your place to decide what they want.  you ca not go to whole foods and say i do not have any money right now, so i am just going to grab some food and i might come back with money for future purchases.  note that the last example ca not be a perfect metaphor because it is stealing vs pirating, but it is irrelevant to the specific point i was getting at where you ca not just decide how or what you want to pay with when the seller very specifically asks for what they want in return.  now if you are not considering the band or producer or anyone on that end at all in your decision, and are just thinking of the most economical choice for you personally, that is different and totally ok.  but that is not what you said.
my cmv is based on a hypothetical situation in which i cannot purchase a piece of software, book, or movie.  this could be due to any number of reasons region lock, lack of funds, whatever , but it is enough to say that no matter what, i cannot purchase this item.  there are several factors that make me think that downloading this item for free from a p0p site is a net gain to the producer: 0.  it increases the number of seeders/snatchers/leechers on the p0p site.  this is free advertising.  0.  it increases the chances that i will purchase a product from the same producer, especially if the media is good.  0.  it increases the chances that i will speak about it to people i know.  0.  it gives the producer more information than simply not buying it.  this could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution.  0.  it keeps me engaged inside a production environment at which the producer is an expert.  for example, if i was a pc gamer, i would continue to be a pc gamer, rather than picking up a new hobby.  please convince me that in a situation in which i ca not buy a game/book/movie, that ignoring that game/book/movie benefits the producer more than pirating it.   #  it gives the producer more information than simply not buying it.   #  this could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution.   #  as a new indie dev, although i would be fine with somebody pirating my game and spreading the word about it if they really ca not buy it for various reasons, i would not pirate out of principle, can think of a few arguments that might change your view.  first of all let me address yours:  0.  it increases the number of seeders/snatchers/leechers on the p0p site.  this is free advertising.  yes, but it is also making it easy for the ones that can afford it to just pirate it.  i have heard several people who generally pirate things say stuff like  i just bought it because it was taking too long to torrent/ i could not find a good version .  there are people who only pirate because they find it more convenient to do so, not because they have to.  that is the logic behind drm which i hate , if the pirates get delayed by even 0 day, then a percentage of them who are impatient will buy the game, so it is a win.  but it also decreases the chances of me being able to make a second product.  for many indies, they invest all their savings in one awesome game, and if they do not make enough money out of it, they go bust ! also, if we are talking about big established studios, the publishers might decide the platform will make less money due to the high piracy rates and switch to other platforms see how all pc devs are moving to consoles.  :  it increases the chances that i will speak about it to people i know.  by how much ? if i find a game that looks interesting, i generally talk about it anyway.   have you seen game x ? it looks awesome ! have you tried it ? check out this lets play  etc.  this could indicate a problem with pricing or distribution.  in today is world, where every game gets deep discounts for a couple $, and you have instant digital downloads everywhere, it would be hard to believe that there is an issue unless i use abusive drm or region locks or something, which tends to be the publishers  reaction to pirating in the first place, stupid as it may be .  well, if you have financial issues, it is not like you are going to throw away your computer and pick up another hobby, right ? chances are you would just stick with other games you already have or go for cheaper ones etc.  now, a few reasons as to why it may actually benefit the producer to not pirate it:   a friend might learn that you really want it and gift you an original copy   you might strive harder to somehow earn the money to pay for it   you might actually write the dev why you ca not buy their product, or post about it on your social media,etc. , making sure they understand and potentially prompting them to take action making it available in your region, adjusting price, etc   you discourage other people from pirating through example if pirating is the norm and socially acceptable, more people will pirate even if they can afford paying for the product   once you do buy a game, you value it more, because you paid for it, and you have a higher chance to talk about it with your friends   if the game has any online component, i as a dev would still have to pay the cost for the server, cloud component, etc , so i would actively be losing money as a result that is all i can think of for now.  feel free to cmv :  #  should not the decision to reap those benefits be completely on the content creator ?  #  should not the decision to reap those benefits be completely on the content creator ? for example, if i was washing my car, and you walked by and offered to help for free, i still have the right to say  no .  obviously, you helping me would provide some benefits, but that is not the point.  the point is that studios have specifically requested that you do not pirate their content.  whether they are right or wrong in their decision does not matter.  it is their is to make.   #  person c who is also collecting money for a charity is not infringing on the rights of person a.  the only way this works is if person a creates a specific patented/copyrighted way to support that charity.   #  i disagree that this is a better comparison.  person a nor person c is creating anything that could be deemed ip with your proof.  person c who is also collecting money for a charity is not infringing on the rights of person a.  the only way this works is if person a creates a specific patented/copyrighted way to support that charity.  then person c steals that way to support a separate charity without permission.  i would say that the reason that the op is wrong is because his points are unsupported.  there is no evidence that seeders/snatchers/leechers are actually providing advertising that is benefiting the producers of content.  there is little to no evidence that shows that people who pirate actually go out and purchase the content that they already have stolen.  there is no proof that anyone uses torrent or other p0p data for informational purposes and there is no evidence of loss of hobby by anyone.  essentially this is an unsubstantiated opinion with no evidence to support these conclusions.  this would infer that, logically at this time with the conditions listed in the op now, it is a confirmation bias to approve of stealing behavior.   #  obviously it would help economically, there was no question about that in the first place.   #  it is not all about the money.  some bands would not even flinch if they did not get your 0 from itunes or whatever they get from it but they might feel bad if some people are enjoying it while the other fans had to pay for it.  some bands would be for it since they are just enjoying their hobby/spreading a message/etc.  yeah if you, and then 0,0 other people who could not afford the song all went out and downloaded it, it would make at least one person give them the extra money they had not had before.  obviously it would help economically, there was no question about that in the first place.  indirect cash is better than no cash.  but that does not mean it is always the right thing to do.   #  you ca not go to whole foods and say i do not have any money right now, so i am just going to grab some food and i might come back with money for future purchases.   #  you have included ethics into your argument by explaining how it is a  net gain for the producer .  you ca not go to the grocery store, pay with rocks, and say it is ok economically because they had a net gain in rocks.  maybe rocks are really valued back in a foreign country from which you lived the last decade, but that is besides the point, the grocery store only wants you to pay with money.  if the band or record company only wants you to pay with money, they do not care about you having an increased chance to buy from them in the future, or an increased chance of you talking about them with your friends.  they only want your money.  and you might disagree and say that they should in fact value you purchasing something in the future or you talking about their stuff with other people, especially if you ca not afford to buy it in the first place, but that is not what they want.  and it is not your place to decide what they want.  you ca not go to whole foods and say i do not have any money right now, so i am just going to grab some food and i might come back with money for future purchases.  note that the last example ca not be a perfect metaphor because it is stealing vs pirating, but it is irrelevant to the specific point i was getting at where you ca not just decide how or what you want to pay with when the seller very specifically asks for what they want in return.  now if you are not considering the band or producer or anyone on that end at all in your decision, and are just thinking of the most economical choice for you personally, that is different and totally ok.  but that is not what you said.
i first learned about evolution as a young child.  my father immediately informed me that evolution was false for religious reasons.  my entire analysis of evolution has been based on the idea that macroevolution is false.  with this in mind, after discussing darwin and evolution at a high school level, i formulated a view that i still hold to this day.  evolution occurs on small scales with species, but these species do not hold a common ancestor.  i cannot say for certain how many species of birds existed at the beginning, but i certainly accept that there are more species now, because species adapt and natural selection takes hold.  i do not believe; however, that humans are direct descendents of any species, and i do not believe that birds and dogs for example had any common ancestor.  in forming this belief, i have rejected certain levels of scientific consensus, but i have never rejected any information that i felt refuted this.  in any case, what i am looking for are examples that prove that a dog may have had the same ancestor as a bird or something along those lines .  i am not looking for the only facts that i have been offered that finches in the galapagos developed different beaks .   #  my entire analysis of evolution has been based on the idea that macroevolution is false.   #  this is not how you find stuff out.   # this is not how you find stuff out.  if you start from the assumption that it is false, and you are emotionally invested in this assumption, of course you will convince yourself that it is false.  to find out what is  really true , you have to start with a question, not an assumption.  you have to ask:  is macroevolution true or false ? and then look around to see what you can find.  if you look honestly, you will find lots of stuff on wikipedia and google.  i wo not repeat the links that everyone else has already posted; try to take a look at them  without  the mindset of rejecting it from the outset just because you have already decided that you assume it is all false.   #  it is the exact same process only over a longer period of time.   #  there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.  it is the exact same process only over a longer period of time.  if you accept that genes change within species what do you think happens when you seperate two populations of the same species for millions of years ? those small genetic changes will accumulate over time and result in two different species.  if you accept that life has been on this planet for a long time and you accept that microevolution happens then you necessairly accept macroevolution.  otherwise, where did the diversity of life come from ? why is it when we look back through fossil layers we do not see rabbits in the cambrian era if rabbits did not evolve at a later point in time ? as far as direct evidence, i would reccomend starting here: URL  #  op is belief is that the root  ispecies  of each clade was created supernaturally, and diversity has increased from there.   #  as far as i can tell op does not believe in mutation leading to new genetic diversity, only in breeding leading to genetically different populations so the divergence of dog and horse breeds is  amicro  .  to call this  evolution  at all muddies the issue.  but, interpreting op charitably, it is correct that these mechanisms are different, and do not have to go together.  of course, op then needs to propose an alternative theory of why we have all these clades in the first place.  op is belief is that the root  ispecies  of each clade was created supernaturally, and diversity has increased from there.  op is correct that this  makes sense , which is different from it being true.  i am not going to present evidence for evolution here though, since i am mostly concerned with defending op is original claim  amakes sense  .  as an aside, if op is objections to  evolution  are theological, i suggest reading some of the christian views on the subject that embrace what the scientific consensus tells us about life is origins.  francis collins is a good start.   #  furthermore, i do not understand how changes can be selected for which are not immediately useful.   #  i think that is a decent illustration, but it proves little.  in this case, i can see that there are it is very clear that there are different shades of red and blue.  i have never believed that evolution would hold that one species of dog gives birth to a new species or that a cat gives birth to a dog.  i understand that it would require a series of small changes.  i do not know of good examples of these series of small changes.  furthermore, i do not understand how changes can be selected for which are not immediately useful.  the big example i have always had is the inner ear.  evolution does not hold that the inner ear formed at once.  why then, would the useless intermediate stages, be selected for so that a useful stage could someday form ?  #  basically it would have started as a sensitive piece of skin that gets uncomfortable in harsh light.   #  who said that the intermediate stages were useless ? i do not know anything about the ear but the recent cosmos remake has a good section on the eye unfortunately i ca not find it anywhere online.  basically it would have started as a sensitive piece of skin that gets uncomfortable in harsh light.  it would have then improved from there over millenias of small but useful changes.  it does not have the be perfect to get the ball rolling, it just has to successful enough to allow you to reproduce.
i first learned about evolution as a young child.  my father immediately informed me that evolution was false for religious reasons.  my entire analysis of evolution has been based on the idea that macroevolution is false.  with this in mind, after discussing darwin and evolution at a high school level, i formulated a view that i still hold to this day.  evolution occurs on small scales with species, but these species do not hold a common ancestor.  i cannot say for certain how many species of birds existed at the beginning, but i certainly accept that there are more species now, because species adapt and natural selection takes hold.  i do not believe; however, that humans are direct descendents of any species, and i do not believe that birds and dogs for example had any common ancestor.  in forming this belief, i have rejected certain levels of scientific consensus, but i have never rejected any information that i felt refuted this.  in any case, what i am looking for are examples that prove that a dog may have had the same ancestor as a bird or something along those lines .  i am not looking for the only facts that i have been offered that finches in the galapagos developed different beaks .   #  evolution occurs on small scales with species, but these species do not hold a common ancestor.   #  what evidence do you have that would support the idea that we do  not  have a common ancestor ?  #  first of all, you have to understand that  microevolution  and  macroevolution  are not terms that are popular by scientists.  they are terms predominantly used by  creationists  in order to give them some leeway.  they can lump the strongest examples of evolution into the  microevolution  category and then fight against the rest.  when they do so, they are basically arguing against a strawman.  second, is the reason why scientists  do not  use those terms.  with our current understanding of evolution,  every  change is slowly and incrementally gained.  even with the idea of punctuated equilibrium, they are small changes that occur more rapidly than usual.  what evidence do you have that would support the idea that we do  not  have a common ancestor ? could you explain  why  you believe this ? you mention that you are  certain  of these things and that you do not believe what the experts who study these things for a living say, and you never explain your reasoning.  again, what sort of information have you look at and why is it not compelling ? would you be willing to consider the bird dinosaur pre dinosaur related terapod reptile like mammal mammal wolf dog scenario if you were shown how those processes took place ?  #  otherwise, where did the diversity of life come from ?  #  there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.  it is the exact same process only over a longer period of time.  if you accept that genes change within species what do you think happens when you seperate two populations of the same species for millions of years ? those small genetic changes will accumulate over time and result in two different species.  if you accept that life has been on this planet for a long time and you accept that microevolution happens then you necessairly accept macroevolution.  otherwise, where did the diversity of life come from ? why is it when we look back through fossil layers we do not see rabbits in the cambrian era if rabbits did not evolve at a later point in time ? as far as direct evidence, i would reccomend starting here: URL  #  op is belief is that the root  ispecies  of each clade was created supernaturally, and diversity has increased from there.   #  as far as i can tell op does not believe in mutation leading to new genetic diversity, only in breeding leading to genetically different populations so the divergence of dog and horse breeds is  amicro  .  to call this  evolution  at all muddies the issue.  but, interpreting op charitably, it is correct that these mechanisms are different, and do not have to go together.  of course, op then needs to propose an alternative theory of why we have all these clades in the first place.  op is belief is that the root  ispecies  of each clade was created supernaturally, and diversity has increased from there.  op is correct that this  makes sense , which is different from it being true.  i am not going to present evidence for evolution here though, since i am mostly concerned with defending op is original claim  amakes sense  .  as an aside, if op is objections to  evolution  are theological, i suggest reading some of the christian views on the subject that embrace what the scientific consensus tells us about life is origins.  francis collins is a good start.   #  and then look around to see what you can find.   # this is not how you find stuff out.  if you start from the assumption that it is false, and you are emotionally invested in this assumption, of course you will convince yourself that it is false.  to find out what is  really true , you have to start with a question, not an assumption.  you have to ask:  is macroevolution true or false ? and then look around to see what you can find.  if you look honestly, you will find lots of stuff on wikipedia and google.  i wo not repeat the links that everyone else has already posted; try to take a look at them  without  the mindset of rejecting it from the outset just because you have already decided that you assume it is all false.   #  furthermore, i do not understand how changes can be selected for which are not immediately useful.   #  i think that is a decent illustration, but it proves little.  in this case, i can see that there are it is very clear that there are different shades of red and blue.  i have never believed that evolution would hold that one species of dog gives birth to a new species or that a cat gives birth to a dog.  i understand that it would require a series of small changes.  i do not know of good examples of these series of small changes.  furthermore, i do not understand how changes can be selected for which are not immediately useful.  the big example i have always had is the inner ear.  evolution does not hold that the inner ear formed at once.  why then, would the useless intermediate stages, be selected for so that a useful stage could someday form ?
i first learned about evolution as a young child.  my father immediately informed me that evolution was false for religious reasons.  my entire analysis of evolution has been based on the idea that macroevolution is false.  with this in mind, after discussing darwin and evolution at a high school level, i formulated a view that i still hold to this day.  evolution occurs on small scales with species, but these species do not hold a common ancestor.  i cannot say for certain how many species of birds existed at the beginning, but i certainly accept that there are more species now, because species adapt and natural selection takes hold.  i do not believe; however, that humans are direct descendents of any species, and i do not believe that birds and dogs for example had any common ancestor.  in forming this belief, i have rejected certain levels of scientific consensus, but i have never rejected any information that i felt refuted this.  in any case, what i am looking for are examples that prove that a dog may have had the same ancestor as a bird or something along those lines .  i am not looking for the only facts that i have been offered that finches in the galapagos developed different beaks .   #  i do not believe; however, that humans are direct descendents of any species, and i do not believe that birds and dogs for example had any common ancestor.   #  could you explain  why  you believe this ?  #  first of all, you have to understand that  microevolution  and  macroevolution  are not terms that are popular by scientists.  they are terms predominantly used by  creationists  in order to give them some leeway.  they can lump the strongest examples of evolution into the  microevolution  category and then fight against the rest.  when they do so, they are basically arguing against a strawman.  second, is the reason why scientists  do not  use those terms.  with our current understanding of evolution,  every  change is slowly and incrementally gained.  even with the idea of punctuated equilibrium, they are small changes that occur more rapidly than usual.  what evidence do you have that would support the idea that we do  not  have a common ancestor ? could you explain  why  you believe this ? you mention that you are  certain  of these things and that you do not believe what the experts who study these things for a living say, and you never explain your reasoning.  again, what sort of information have you look at and why is it not compelling ? would you be willing to consider the bird dinosaur pre dinosaur related terapod reptile like mammal mammal wolf dog scenario if you were shown how those processes took place ?  #  it is the exact same process only over a longer period of time.   #  there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.  it is the exact same process only over a longer period of time.  if you accept that genes change within species what do you think happens when you seperate two populations of the same species for millions of years ? those small genetic changes will accumulate over time and result in two different species.  if you accept that life has been on this planet for a long time and you accept that microevolution happens then you necessairly accept macroevolution.  otherwise, where did the diversity of life come from ? why is it when we look back through fossil layers we do not see rabbits in the cambrian era if rabbits did not evolve at a later point in time ? as far as direct evidence, i would reccomend starting here: URL  #  as an aside, if op is objections to  evolution  are theological, i suggest reading some of the christian views on the subject that embrace what the scientific consensus tells us about life is origins.   #  as far as i can tell op does not believe in mutation leading to new genetic diversity, only in breeding leading to genetically different populations so the divergence of dog and horse breeds is  amicro  .  to call this  evolution  at all muddies the issue.  but, interpreting op charitably, it is correct that these mechanisms are different, and do not have to go together.  of course, op then needs to propose an alternative theory of why we have all these clades in the first place.  op is belief is that the root  ispecies  of each clade was created supernaturally, and diversity has increased from there.  op is correct that this  makes sense , which is different from it being true.  i am not going to present evidence for evolution here though, since i am mostly concerned with defending op is original claim  amakes sense  .  as an aside, if op is objections to  evolution  are theological, i suggest reading some of the christian views on the subject that embrace what the scientific consensus tells us about life is origins.  francis collins is a good start.   #  i wo not repeat the links that everyone else has already posted; try to take a look at them  without  the mindset of rejecting it from the outset just because you have already decided that you assume it is all false.   # this is not how you find stuff out.  if you start from the assumption that it is false, and you are emotionally invested in this assumption, of course you will convince yourself that it is false.  to find out what is  really true , you have to start with a question, not an assumption.  you have to ask:  is macroevolution true or false ? and then look around to see what you can find.  if you look honestly, you will find lots of stuff on wikipedia and google.  i wo not repeat the links that everyone else has already posted; try to take a look at them  without  the mindset of rejecting it from the outset just because you have already decided that you assume it is all false.   #  i have never believed that evolution would hold that one species of dog gives birth to a new species or that a cat gives birth to a dog.   #  i think that is a decent illustration, but it proves little.  in this case, i can see that there are it is very clear that there are different shades of red and blue.  i have never believed that evolution would hold that one species of dog gives birth to a new species or that a cat gives birth to a dog.  i understand that it would require a series of small changes.  i do not know of good examples of these series of small changes.  furthermore, i do not understand how changes can be selected for which are not immediately useful.  the big example i have always had is the inner ear.  evolution does not hold that the inner ear formed at once.  why then, would the useless intermediate stages, be selected for so that a useful stage could someday form ?
i first learned about evolution as a young child.  my father immediately informed me that evolution was false for religious reasons.  my entire analysis of evolution has been based on the idea that macroevolution is false.  with this in mind, after discussing darwin and evolution at a high school level, i formulated a view that i still hold to this day.  evolution occurs on small scales with species, but these species do not hold a common ancestor.  i cannot say for certain how many species of birds existed at the beginning, but i certainly accept that there are more species now, because species adapt and natural selection takes hold.  i do not believe; however, that humans are direct descendents of any species, and i do not believe that birds and dogs for example had any common ancestor.  in forming this belief, i have rejected certain levels of scientific consensus, but i have never rejected any information that i felt refuted this.  in any case, what i am looking for are examples that prove that a dog may have had the same ancestor as a bird or something along those lines .  i am not looking for the only facts that i have been offered that finches in the galapagos developed different beaks .   #  in forming this belief, i have rejected certain levels of scientific consensus, but i have never rejected any information that i felt refuted this.   #  again, what sort of information have you look at and why is it not compelling ?  #  first of all, you have to understand that  microevolution  and  macroevolution  are not terms that are popular by scientists.  they are terms predominantly used by  creationists  in order to give them some leeway.  they can lump the strongest examples of evolution into the  microevolution  category and then fight against the rest.  when they do so, they are basically arguing against a strawman.  second, is the reason why scientists  do not  use those terms.  with our current understanding of evolution,  every  change is slowly and incrementally gained.  even with the idea of punctuated equilibrium, they are small changes that occur more rapidly than usual.  what evidence do you have that would support the idea that we do  not  have a common ancestor ? could you explain  why  you believe this ? you mention that you are  certain  of these things and that you do not believe what the experts who study these things for a living say, and you never explain your reasoning.  again, what sort of information have you look at and why is it not compelling ? would you be willing to consider the bird dinosaur pre dinosaur related terapod reptile like mammal mammal wolf dog scenario if you were shown how those processes took place ?  #  as far as direct evidence, i would reccomend starting here: URL  #  there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.  it is the exact same process only over a longer period of time.  if you accept that genes change within species what do you think happens when you seperate two populations of the same species for millions of years ? those small genetic changes will accumulate over time and result in two different species.  if you accept that life has been on this planet for a long time and you accept that microevolution happens then you necessairly accept macroevolution.  otherwise, where did the diversity of life come from ? why is it when we look back through fossil layers we do not see rabbits in the cambrian era if rabbits did not evolve at a later point in time ? as far as direct evidence, i would reccomend starting here: URL  #  op is correct that this  makes sense , which is different from it being true.   #  as far as i can tell op does not believe in mutation leading to new genetic diversity, only in breeding leading to genetically different populations so the divergence of dog and horse breeds is  amicro  .  to call this  evolution  at all muddies the issue.  but, interpreting op charitably, it is correct that these mechanisms are different, and do not have to go together.  of course, op then needs to propose an alternative theory of why we have all these clades in the first place.  op is belief is that the root  ispecies  of each clade was created supernaturally, and diversity has increased from there.  op is correct that this  makes sense , which is different from it being true.  i am not going to present evidence for evolution here though, since i am mostly concerned with defending op is original claim  amakes sense  .  as an aside, if op is objections to  evolution  are theological, i suggest reading some of the christian views on the subject that embrace what the scientific consensus tells us about life is origins.  francis collins is a good start.   #  if you look honestly, you will find lots of stuff on wikipedia and google.   # this is not how you find stuff out.  if you start from the assumption that it is false, and you are emotionally invested in this assumption, of course you will convince yourself that it is false.  to find out what is  really true , you have to start with a question, not an assumption.  you have to ask:  is macroevolution true or false ? and then look around to see what you can find.  if you look honestly, you will find lots of stuff on wikipedia and google.  i wo not repeat the links that everyone else has already posted; try to take a look at them  without  the mindset of rejecting it from the outset just because you have already decided that you assume it is all false.   #  the big example i have always had is the inner ear.   #  i think that is a decent illustration, but it proves little.  in this case, i can see that there are it is very clear that there are different shades of red and blue.  i have never believed that evolution would hold that one species of dog gives birth to a new species or that a cat gives birth to a dog.  i understand that it would require a series of small changes.  i do not know of good examples of these series of small changes.  furthermore, i do not understand how changes can be selected for which are not immediately useful.  the big example i have always had is the inner ear.  evolution does not hold that the inner ear formed at once.  why then, would the useless intermediate stages, be selected for so that a useful stage could someday form ?
i first learned about evolution as a young child.  my father immediately informed me that evolution was false for religious reasons.  my entire analysis of evolution has been based on the idea that macroevolution is false.  with this in mind, after discussing darwin and evolution at a high school level, i formulated a view that i still hold to this day.  evolution occurs on small scales with species, but these species do not hold a common ancestor.  i cannot say for certain how many species of birds existed at the beginning, but i certainly accept that there are more species now, because species adapt and natural selection takes hold.  i do not believe; however, that humans are direct descendents of any species, and i do not believe that birds and dogs for example had any common ancestor.  in forming this belief, i have rejected certain levels of scientific consensus, but i have never rejected any information that i felt refuted this.  in any case, what i am looking for are examples that prove that a dog may have had the same ancestor as a bird or something along those lines .  i am not looking for the only facts that i have been offered that finches in the galapagos developed different beaks .   #  in any case, what i am looking for are examples that prove that a dog may have had the same ancestor as a bird or something along those lines .   #  would you be willing to consider the bird dinosaur pre dinosaur related terapod reptile like mammal mammal wolf dog scenario if you were shown how those processes took place ?  #  first of all, you have to understand that  microevolution  and  macroevolution  are not terms that are popular by scientists.  they are terms predominantly used by  creationists  in order to give them some leeway.  they can lump the strongest examples of evolution into the  microevolution  category and then fight against the rest.  when they do so, they are basically arguing against a strawman.  second, is the reason why scientists  do not  use those terms.  with our current understanding of evolution,  every  change is slowly and incrementally gained.  even with the idea of punctuated equilibrium, they are small changes that occur more rapidly than usual.  what evidence do you have that would support the idea that we do  not  have a common ancestor ? could you explain  why  you believe this ? you mention that you are  certain  of these things and that you do not believe what the experts who study these things for a living say, and you never explain your reasoning.  again, what sort of information have you look at and why is it not compelling ? would you be willing to consider the bird dinosaur pre dinosaur related terapod reptile like mammal mammal wolf dog scenario if you were shown how those processes took place ?  #  as far as direct evidence, i would reccomend starting here: URL  #  there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.  it is the exact same process only over a longer period of time.  if you accept that genes change within species what do you think happens when you seperate two populations of the same species for millions of years ? those small genetic changes will accumulate over time and result in two different species.  if you accept that life has been on this planet for a long time and you accept that microevolution happens then you necessairly accept macroevolution.  otherwise, where did the diversity of life come from ? why is it when we look back through fossil layers we do not see rabbits in the cambrian era if rabbits did not evolve at a later point in time ? as far as direct evidence, i would reccomend starting here: URL  #  of course, op then needs to propose an alternative theory of why we have all these clades in the first place.   #  as far as i can tell op does not believe in mutation leading to new genetic diversity, only in breeding leading to genetically different populations so the divergence of dog and horse breeds is  amicro  .  to call this  evolution  at all muddies the issue.  but, interpreting op charitably, it is correct that these mechanisms are different, and do not have to go together.  of course, op then needs to propose an alternative theory of why we have all these clades in the first place.  op is belief is that the root  ispecies  of each clade was created supernaturally, and diversity has increased from there.  op is correct that this  makes sense , which is different from it being true.  i am not going to present evidence for evolution here though, since i am mostly concerned with defending op is original claim  amakes sense  .  as an aside, if op is objections to  evolution  are theological, i suggest reading some of the christian views on the subject that embrace what the scientific consensus tells us about life is origins.  francis collins is a good start.   #  to find out what is  really true , you have to start with a question, not an assumption.   # this is not how you find stuff out.  if you start from the assumption that it is false, and you are emotionally invested in this assumption, of course you will convince yourself that it is false.  to find out what is  really true , you have to start with a question, not an assumption.  you have to ask:  is macroevolution true or false ? and then look around to see what you can find.  if you look honestly, you will find lots of stuff on wikipedia and google.  i wo not repeat the links that everyone else has already posted; try to take a look at them  without  the mindset of rejecting it from the outset just because you have already decided that you assume it is all false.   #  i think that is a decent illustration, but it proves little.   #  i think that is a decent illustration, but it proves little.  in this case, i can see that there are it is very clear that there are different shades of red and blue.  i have never believed that evolution would hold that one species of dog gives birth to a new species or that a cat gives birth to a dog.  i understand that it would require a series of small changes.  i do not know of good examples of these series of small changes.  furthermore, i do not understand how changes can be selected for which are not immediately useful.  the big example i have always had is the inner ear.  evolution does not hold that the inner ear formed at once.  why then, would the useless intermediate stages, be selected for so that a useful stage could someday form ?
i first learned about evolution as a young child.  my father immediately informed me that evolution was false for religious reasons.  my entire analysis of evolution has been based on the idea that macroevolution is false.  with this in mind, after discussing darwin and evolution at a high school level, i formulated a view that i still hold to this day.  evolution occurs on small scales with species, but these species do not hold a common ancestor.  i cannot say for certain how many species of birds existed at the beginning, but i certainly accept that there are more species now, because species adapt and natural selection takes hold.  i do not believe; however, that humans are direct descendents of any species, and i do not believe that birds and dogs for example had any common ancestor.  in forming this belief, i have rejected certain levels of scientific consensus, but i have never rejected any information that i felt refuted this.  in any case, what i am looking for are examples that prove that a dog may have had the same ancestor as a bird or something along those lines .  i am not looking for the only facts that i have been offered that finches in the galapagos developed different beaks .   #  i do not believe; however, that humans are direct descendents of any species, and i do not believe that birds and dogs for example had any common ancestor.   #  this is entirely based on an interpretation of genesis.   # to one extent, i believe this because of the biblical narration that man was created in god is image and that multiple forms of plants/animals were created simultaneously.  additionally, i feel that there is no evidence for the possibility of spontaneous generation, which i feel would be necessary for the first life form, from which everything else is descended.  i am unable to refute many of the other posts here, but i remain unconvinced because i do not know how the first ancestor existed.  this is entirely based on an interpretation of genesis.  i would not say that i am  certain  of these things, but i have accepted them.  the extent of the information given to me in high school is that tortoises and finches showed evidence of evolution in the galapagos.  the only rejection i made was that this showed evidence of greater evolution.  i am aware of the chain linking humans and primates but know little of what the community of non apologists thinks of this.  the concerns i have with using this as evidence of evolution, and these concerns may be part of a misunderstanding of evolution, are that we do not see living examples of these steps, while we do have living examples of less evolved primates.  evolution, as i understand it, does not hold that  homo erectus  converted to  homo sapiens  it holds that  homo sapiens  evolved out of  homo erectus .  would it not then hold that  homo erectus  would be more viable than various forms of primates ? why would  homo erectus  go extinct before these primates ? i would be willing to consider it and would even appreciate it; although, i feel that the more important issues for me are the issues with the common ancestor and the extinction of  homo erectus .  i suppose my lack of understanding of those issues are the greatest inhibitor to an acceptance of evolution.  furthermore, i do not understand how changes can be selected for which are not immediately useful.  the big example i have always had is the inner ear.  evolution does not hold that the inner ear formed at once.  why then, would the useless intermediate stages, be selected for so that a useful stage could someday form ?  #  those small genetic changes will accumulate over time and result in two different species.   #  there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution.  it is the exact same process only over a longer period of time.  if you accept that genes change within species what do you think happens when you seperate two populations of the same species for millions of years ? those small genetic changes will accumulate over time and result in two different species.  if you accept that life has been on this planet for a long time and you accept that microevolution happens then you necessairly accept macroevolution.  otherwise, where did the diversity of life come from ? why is it when we look back through fossil layers we do not see rabbits in the cambrian era if rabbits did not evolve at a later point in time ? as far as direct evidence, i would reccomend starting here: URL  #  op is belief is that the root  ispecies  of each clade was created supernaturally, and diversity has increased from there.   #  as far as i can tell op does not believe in mutation leading to new genetic diversity, only in breeding leading to genetically different populations so the divergence of dog and horse breeds is  amicro  .  to call this  evolution  at all muddies the issue.  but, interpreting op charitably, it is correct that these mechanisms are different, and do not have to go together.  of course, op then needs to propose an alternative theory of why we have all these clades in the first place.  op is belief is that the root  ispecies  of each clade was created supernaturally, and diversity has increased from there.  op is correct that this  makes sense , which is different from it being true.  i am not going to present evidence for evolution here though, since i am mostly concerned with defending op is original claim  amakes sense  .  as an aside, if op is objections to  evolution  are theological, i suggest reading some of the christian views on the subject that embrace what the scientific consensus tells us about life is origins.  francis collins is a good start.   #  you have to ask:  is macroevolution true or false ?  # this is not how you find stuff out.  if you start from the assumption that it is false, and you are emotionally invested in this assumption, of course you will convince yourself that it is false.  to find out what is  really true , you have to start with a question, not an assumption.  you have to ask:  is macroevolution true or false ? and then look around to see what you can find.  if you look honestly, you will find lots of stuff on wikipedia and google.  i wo not repeat the links that everyone else has already posted; try to take a look at them  without  the mindset of rejecting it from the outset just because you have already decided that you assume it is all false.   #  i do not know of good examples of these series of small changes.   #  i think that is a decent illustration, but it proves little.  in this case, i can see that there are it is very clear that there are different shades of red and blue.  i have never believed that evolution would hold that one species of dog gives birth to a new species or that a cat gives birth to a dog.  i understand that it would require a series of small changes.  i do not know of good examples of these series of small changes.  furthermore, i do not understand how changes can be selected for which are not immediately useful.  the big example i have always had is the inner ear.  evolution does not hold that the inner ear formed at once.  why then, would the useless intermediate stages, be selected for so that a useful stage could someday form ?
the classic trolley problem: a runaway trolley is barreling down a track and is going to hit five people.  there is a lever nearby which will divert the trolley such that it only hits one person, who is standing to the side.  knowing all of this, do you pull the lever to save the five people and kill the sixth ? i believe that not pulling the lever is unacceptable and equivalent to valuing the lives of 0 innocent people less than your own completely relative innocence.  obviously it is assumed that you fully understand the situation and that you are fully capable of pulling the lever.  consider a modified scenario: say you are walking as you become aware of the situation, and you realize you are passing over a floor switch that will send the trolley towards five people once it hits the junction.  if you keep walking off of the plate, it will hit the sixth person, but if you stop where you are, the five people will die.  do you keep walking ? if you did not pull the lever in the first situation because you refuse to  take an action  that results in death, you are obligated to stop walking for the same reasons in this situation because continuing would be an action that leads to death.  is it really reasonable to stop in place and watch four more people die because you refuse to consciously cause the death of one person ? many of my good friends say they would not pull the lever.  i would like not to think of them as potentially horrible people, so change my view !  #  is it really reasonable to stop in place and watch four more people die because you refuse to consciously cause the death of one person ?  #  yes, and i will tell you why.   # yes, and i will tell you why.  we make this decision all the time.  the choice is saving five and killing one vs.  not saving five and not killing one.  let is look at the options seperately.  in one choice, the worst thing is that you neglected to save five people.  now let me ask you: how many, countless people have you neglected to save, when you could have used money that you used for games or whatever to save them ? you have other priorities over saving  everyone , so you neglect it, day in and day out.  the worst consequence of the other choice is that you kill a person who would have lived.  how many people do you kill on a daily basis ? it is clear as day to me that the average person detests killing someone far more than not saving someone.   #  you are just missing the point of the trolley problem.   #  you are not wrong.  you are just missing the point of the trolley problem.  the trolley problem is not a philosophical test to be solved.  it is a way to gain insight into how actual people feel and reason about morality.  example: rationally, i am a utilitarian.  i think you should pull the lever and push the large man.  i think each of those things are the morally right thing to do.  i have no doubt about that.  and  if i actually pushed the large man, i would feel terrible and guilty forever.  i am well aware that my feelings and my reason are at odds here.  which is fascinating and telling about how we understand morality, how we live it, communicate about it, etc.  our reason and our moral feelings/intuitions do not always jibe.  this  is what the trolley problem shows.   #   , because: 0 the experience on which we train our intuition is not from a world in which we  ever  have perfect knowledge or prediction.   # this is misleading.  what the trolley problem really illustrates is that you ca not ask people questions that translate to  what would you do if you had perfect knowledge and prediction ?  , because: 0 the experience on which we train our intuition is not from a world in which we  ever  have perfect knowledge or prediction.  0 we will not actually be making any decisions where we  do  have perfect knowledge and prediction, so it is counter productive to train for it.  people cannot usually put their finger on the exact reason why they would not pull the lever, but i suspect the reason many would not pull it is because even though the parameter of the problem is that you somehow  know for a fact  that 0 person dies in one case, and 0 people die in the other, if it were a real situation, you would  not  be able to know that with certainty.  it is not that people are making an irrational decision, it is just that they ca not enter your make believe world where we can somehow know and predict all things for certain, especially in the time frame it takes to pull a lever.  what is rational in your make believe world with certain knowledge is not rational in the real world with imperfect information.  it is futile to undermine intuitions that work for the real world so that we can  correctly  answer a make believe question.   #  the issue is not the value of five lives vs.   #  op did miss the point, but the trolley problem  is  a problem in moral philosophy.  the issue is not the value of five lives vs.  the value of one life, the issue is taking a concrete action which directly results in death.  do you have no moral burden for the five deaths because you took no identifiable action to cause them ? or do you take no moral burden for the death you caused directly because utilitarianism ? is there any material moral difference in the problem because one route is an action and one route is inaction ? or is the act of inaction an action ?  #  an emotional reasoner would say pushing the fat man is wrong, as it would be murder.   #  well, it boils down to how an individual values logical vs emotional reasoning.  another example is the case of being in an attic and the nazis arrive to look for jews.  your newborn starts crying so you can 0.  suffocate the baby to avoid being captured or 0.  refuse to suffocate your baby.  this is a very divisive thought experiment, and many folks say they would not suffocate the baby, as to do so would seem abhorrent, despite the better decision from a statistical standpoint would be to kill the baby.  we each rely on both type of reasoning to varying degrees: most folks fall somewhere in the middle, but there are of course some folks who value emotional reasoning much higher than logical, and vis versa.  an emotional reasoner would say pushing the fat man is wrong, as it would be murder.  one who values logical reasoning on the other hand would say pushing the fat man is the only way to go, as it would save more lives overall.  that is also why the lever often gets a different reaction than pushing the fat man.  a person in the middle does not feel the emotional tug to avoid pulling a mere lever, but when it becomes murder, it may start to matter more than simple death math.
the classic trolley problem: a runaway trolley is barreling down a track and is going to hit five people.  there is a lever nearby which will divert the trolley such that it only hits one person, who is standing to the side.  knowing all of this, do you pull the lever to save the five people and kill the sixth ? i believe that not pulling the lever is unacceptable and equivalent to valuing the lives of 0 innocent people less than your own completely relative innocence.  obviously it is assumed that you fully understand the situation and that you are fully capable of pulling the lever.  consider a modified scenario: say you are walking as you become aware of the situation, and you realize you are passing over a floor switch that will send the trolley towards five people once it hits the junction.  if you keep walking off of the plate, it will hit the sixth person, but if you stop where you are, the five people will die.  do you keep walking ? if you did not pull the lever in the first situation because you refuse to  take an action  that results in death, you are obligated to stop walking for the same reasons in this situation because continuing would be an action that leads to death.  is it really reasonable to stop in place and watch four more people die because you refuse to consciously cause the death of one person ? many of my good friends say they would not pull the lever.  i would like not to think of them as potentially horrible people, so change my view !  #  is it really reasonable to stop in place and watch four more people die because you refuse to consciously cause the death of one person ?  #  if i consciously cause the life of a single person, no matter how good my intentions are, i have committed murder.   # if i consciously cause the life of a single person, no matter how good my intentions are, i have committed murder.  i would like not to think of them as potentially horrible people, so change my view ! you work for a hospital.  in the course of reading patients paperwork, you somehow come across a guy whose organs match those 0 people perfectly.  these 0 people are all sure to die within days if the do not get transplants.  but he is not likely to die anytime soon.  do you devise a way to kill this one man so that those 0 people can be saved ? you cant.  because you do not have the right to take another is life, even if you are sure it would save at least five people.   #  you are just missing the point of the trolley problem.   #  you are not wrong.  you are just missing the point of the trolley problem.  the trolley problem is not a philosophical test to be solved.  it is a way to gain insight into how actual people feel and reason about morality.  example: rationally, i am a utilitarian.  i think you should pull the lever and push the large man.  i think each of those things are the morally right thing to do.  i have no doubt about that.  and  if i actually pushed the large man, i would feel terrible and guilty forever.  i am well aware that my feelings and my reason are at odds here.  which is fascinating and telling about how we understand morality, how we live it, communicate about it, etc.  our reason and our moral feelings/intuitions do not always jibe.  this  is what the trolley problem shows.   #   , because: 0 the experience on which we train our intuition is not from a world in which we  ever  have perfect knowledge or prediction.   # this is misleading.  what the trolley problem really illustrates is that you ca not ask people questions that translate to  what would you do if you had perfect knowledge and prediction ?  , because: 0 the experience on which we train our intuition is not from a world in which we  ever  have perfect knowledge or prediction.  0 we will not actually be making any decisions where we  do  have perfect knowledge and prediction, so it is counter productive to train for it.  people cannot usually put their finger on the exact reason why they would not pull the lever, but i suspect the reason many would not pull it is because even though the parameter of the problem is that you somehow  know for a fact  that 0 person dies in one case, and 0 people die in the other, if it were a real situation, you would  not  be able to know that with certainty.  it is not that people are making an irrational decision, it is just that they ca not enter your make believe world where we can somehow know and predict all things for certain, especially in the time frame it takes to pull a lever.  what is rational in your make believe world with certain knowledge is not rational in the real world with imperfect information.  it is futile to undermine intuitions that work for the real world so that we can  correctly  answer a make believe question.   #  op did miss the point, but the trolley problem  is  a problem in moral philosophy.   #  op did miss the point, but the trolley problem  is  a problem in moral philosophy.  the issue is not the value of five lives vs.  the value of one life, the issue is taking a concrete action which directly results in death.  do you have no moral burden for the five deaths because you took no identifiable action to cause them ? or do you take no moral burden for the death you caused directly because utilitarianism ? is there any material moral difference in the problem because one route is an action and one route is inaction ? or is the act of inaction an action ?  #  that is also why the lever often gets a different reaction than pushing the fat man.   #  well, it boils down to how an individual values logical vs emotional reasoning.  another example is the case of being in an attic and the nazis arrive to look for jews.  your newborn starts crying so you can 0.  suffocate the baby to avoid being captured or 0.  refuse to suffocate your baby.  this is a very divisive thought experiment, and many folks say they would not suffocate the baby, as to do so would seem abhorrent, despite the better decision from a statistical standpoint would be to kill the baby.  we each rely on both type of reasoning to varying degrees: most folks fall somewhere in the middle, but there are of course some folks who value emotional reasoning much higher than logical, and vis versa.  an emotional reasoner would say pushing the fat man is wrong, as it would be murder.  one who values logical reasoning on the other hand would say pushing the fat man is the only way to go, as it would save more lives overall.  that is also why the lever often gets a different reaction than pushing the fat man.  a person in the middle does not feel the emotional tug to avoid pulling a mere lever, but when it becomes murder, it may start to matter more than simple death math.
the classic trolley problem: a runaway trolley is barreling down a track and is going to hit five people.  there is a lever nearby which will divert the trolley such that it only hits one person, who is standing to the side.  knowing all of this, do you pull the lever to save the five people and kill the sixth ? i believe that not pulling the lever is unacceptable and equivalent to valuing the lives of 0 innocent people less than your own completely relative innocence.  obviously it is assumed that you fully understand the situation and that you are fully capable of pulling the lever.  consider a modified scenario: say you are walking as you become aware of the situation, and you realize you are passing over a floor switch that will send the trolley towards five people once it hits the junction.  if you keep walking off of the plate, it will hit the sixth person, but if you stop where you are, the five people will die.  do you keep walking ? if you did not pull the lever in the first situation because you refuse to  take an action  that results in death, you are obligated to stop walking for the same reasons in this situation because continuing would be an action that leads to death.  is it really reasonable to stop in place and watch four more people die because you refuse to consciously cause the death of one person ? many of my good friends say they would not pull the lever.  i would like not to think of them as potentially horrible people, so change my view !  #  many of my good friends say they would not pull the lever.   #  i would like not to think of them as potentially horrible people, so change my view !  # if i consciously cause the life of a single person, no matter how good my intentions are, i have committed murder.  i would like not to think of them as potentially horrible people, so change my view ! you work for a hospital.  in the course of reading patients paperwork, you somehow come across a guy whose organs match those 0 people perfectly.  these 0 people are all sure to die within days if the do not get transplants.  but he is not likely to die anytime soon.  do you devise a way to kill this one man so that those 0 people can be saved ? you cant.  because you do not have the right to take another is life, even if you are sure it would save at least five people.   #  our reason and our moral feelings/intuitions do not always jibe.   #  you are not wrong.  you are just missing the point of the trolley problem.  the trolley problem is not a philosophical test to be solved.  it is a way to gain insight into how actual people feel and reason about morality.  example: rationally, i am a utilitarian.  i think you should pull the lever and push the large man.  i think each of those things are the morally right thing to do.  i have no doubt about that.  and  if i actually pushed the large man, i would feel terrible and guilty forever.  i am well aware that my feelings and my reason are at odds here.  which is fascinating and telling about how we understand morality, how we live it, communicate about it, etc.  our reason and our moral feelings/intuitions do not always jibe.  this  is what the trolley problem shows.   #  0 we will not actually be making any decisions where we  do  have perfect knowledge and prediction, so it is counter productive to train for it.   # this is misleading.  what the trolley problem really illustrates is that you ca not ask people questions that translate to  what would you do if you had perfect knowledge and prediction ?  , because: 0 the experience on which we train our intuition is not from a world in which we  ever  have perfect knowledge or prediction.  0 we will not actually be making any decisions where we  do  have perfect knowledge and prediction, so it is counter productive to train for it.  people cannot usually put their finger on the exact reason why they would not pull the lever, but i suspect the reason many would not pull it is because even though the parameter of the problem is that you somehow  know for a fact  that 0 person dies in one case, and 0 people die in the other, if it were a real situation, you would  not  be able to know that with certainty.  it is not that people are making an irrational decision, it is just that they ca not enter your make believe world where we can somehow know and predict all things for certain, especially in the time frame it takes to pull a lever.  what is rational in your make believe world with certain knowledge is not rational in the real world with imperfect information.  it is futile to undermine intuitions that work for the real world so that we can  correctly  answer a make believe question.   #  the issue is not the value of five lives vs.   #  op did miss the point, but the trolley problem  is  a problem in moral philosophy.  the issue is not the value of five lives vs.  the value of one life, the issue is taking a concrete action which directly results in death.  do you have no moral burden for the five deaths because you took no identifiable action to cause them ? or do you take no moral burden for the death you caused directly because utilitarianism ? is there any material moral difference in the problem because one route is an action and one route is inaction ? or is the act of inaction an action ?  #  another example is the case of being in an attic and the nazis arrive to look for jews.   #  well, it boils down to how an individual values logical vs emotional reasoning.  another example is the case of being in an attic and the nazis arrive to look for jews.  your newborn starts crying so you can 0.  suffocate the baby to avoid being captured or 0.  refuse to suffocate your baby.  this is a very divisive thought experiment, and many folks say they would not suffocate the baby, as to do so would seem abhorrent, despite the better decision from a statistical standpoint would be to kill the baby.  we each rely on both type of reasoning to varying degrees: most folks fall somewhere in the middle, but there are of course some folks who value emotional reasoning much higher than logical, and vis versa.  an emotional reasoner would say pushing the fat man is wrong, as it would be murder.  one who values logical reasoning on the other hand would say pushing the fat man is the only way to go, as it would save more lives overall.  that is also why the lever often gets a different reaction than pushing the fat man.  a person in the middle does not feel the emotional tug to avoid pulling a mere lever, but when it becomes murder, it may start to matter more than simple death math.
the classic trolley problem: a runaway trolley is barreling down a track and is going to hit five people.  there is a lever nearby which will divert the trolley such that it only hits one person, who is standing to the side.  knowing all of this, do you pull the lever to save the five people and kill the sixth ? i believe that not pulling the lever is unacceptable and equivalent to valuing the lives of 0 innocent people less than your own completely relative innocence.  obviously it is assumed that you fully understand the situation and that you are fully capable of pulling the lever.  consider a modified scenario: say you are walking as you become aware of the situation, and you realize you are passing over a floor switch that will send the trolley towards five people once it hits the junction.  if you keep walking off of the plate, it will hit the sixth person, but if you stop where you are, the five people will die.  do you keep walking ? if you did not pull the lever in the first situation because you refuse to  take an action  that results in death, you are obligated to stop walking for the same reasons in this situation because continuing would be an action that leads to death.  is it really reasonable to stop in place and watch four more people die because you refuse to consciously cause the death of one person ? many of my good friends say they would not pull the lever.  i would like not to think of them as potentially horrible people, so change my view !  #  many of my good friends say they would not pull the lever.   #  i would like not to think of them as potentially horrible people, so change my view !  # i would like not to think of them as potentially horrible people, so change my view ! so .  do you think that they are just potentially horrible, or actually horrible ? in my opinion, the reason people have a hard time choosing the logical option here, is because it is an unrealistic situation.  in the scenario, there are only two options, but in  every  real life scenario, there are  limitless  options.  in the scenario you can only pull the lever or not.  in real life you can yell for help, you can try to signal the driver or the targeted people, you can do either of those  while  pulling the lever, you can pray, commit suicide, change the radio station, call your mom, start chanting nonsense syllables at the top of your lungs.  when people are used to processing decisions in an open world environment such as the one we live in, questions with only two bad choices do not provide a good evaluation method for real life decision making.  furthermore, consider the limitations of the human brain.  when a squirrel jumps out in the road and a car starts coming, it can stuck.  go left ? go right ? who knows what the right choice is going to be ? it does not make him a  horrible squirrel  to fail to pick one direction.  even though that is objectively the worst choice by any metric that values the squirrels life over his death.  it is just a limitation of his brain, is not it ?  #  our reason and our moral feelings/intuitions do not always jibe.   #  you are not wrong.  you are just missing the point of the trolley problem.  the trolley problem is not a philosophical test to be solved.  it is a way to gain insight into how actual people feel and reason about morality.  example: rationally, i am a utilitarian.  i think you should pull the lever and push the large man.  i think each of those things are the morally right thing to do.  i have no doubt about that.  and  if i actually pushed the large man, i would feel terrible and guilty forever.  i am well aware that my feelings and my reason are at odds here.  which is fascinating and telling about how we understand morality, how we live it, communicate about it, etc.  our reason and our moral feelings/intuitions do not always jibe.  this  is what the trolley problem shows.   #  what the trolley problem really illustrates is that you ca not ask people questions that translate to  what would you do if you had perfect knowledge and prediction ?  # this is misleading.  what the trolley problem really illustrates is that you ca not ask people questions that translate to  what would you do if you had perfect knowledge and prediction ?  , because: 0 the experience on which we train our intuition is not from a world in which we  ever  have perfect knowledge or prediction.  0 we will not actually be making any decisions where we  do  have perfect knowledge and prediction, so it is counter productive to train for it.  people cannot usually put their finger on the exact reason why they would not pull the lever, but i suspect the reason many would not pull it is because even though the parameter of the problem is that you somehow  know for a fact  that 0 person dies in one case, and 0 people die in the other, if it were a real situation, you would  not  be able to know that with certainty.  it is not that people are making an irrational decision, it is just that they ca not enter your make believe world where we can somehow know and predict all things for certain, especially in the time frame it takes to pull a lever.  what is rational in your make believe world with certain knowledge is not rational in the real world with imperfect information.  it is futile to undermine intuitions that work for the real world so that we can  correctly  answer a make believe question.   #  the value of one life, the issue is taking a concrete action which directly results in death.   #  op did miss the point, but the trolley problem  is  a problem in moral philosophy.  the issue is not the value of five lives vs.  the value of one life, the issue is taking a concrete action which directly results in death.  do you have no moral burden for the five deaths because you took no identifiable action to cause them ? or do you take no moral burden for the death you caused directly because utilitarianism ? is there any material moral difference in the problem because one route is an action and one route is inaction ? or is the act of inaction an action ?  #  another example is the case of being in an attic and the nazis arrive to look for jews.   #  well, it boils down to how an individual values logical vs emotional reasoning.  another example is the case of being in an attic and the nazis arrive to look for jews.  your newborn starts crying so you can 0.  suffocate the baby to avoid being captured or 0.  refuse to suffocate your baby.  this is a very divisive thought experiment, and many folks say they would not suffocate the baby, as to do so would seem abhorrent, despite the better decision from a statistical standpoint would be to kill the baby.  we each rely on both type of reasoning to varying degrees: most folks fall somewhere in the middle, but there are of course some folks who value emotional reasoning much higher than logical, and vis versa.  an emotional reasoner would say pushing the fat man is wrong, as it would be murder.  one who values logical reasoning on the other hand would say pushing the fat man is the only way to go, as it would save more lives overall.  that is also why the lever often gets a different reaction than pushing the fat man.  a person in the middle does not feel the emotional tug to avoid pulling a mere lever, but when it becomes murder, it may start to matter more than simple death math.
the classic trolley problem: a runaway trolley is barreling down a track and is going to hit five people.  there is a lever nearby which will divert the trolley such that it only hits one person, who is standing to the side.  knowing all of this, do you pull the lever to save the five people and kill the sixth ? i believe that not pulling the lever is unacceptable and equivalent to valuing the lives of 0 innocent people less than your own completely relative innocence.  obviously it is assumed that you fully understand the situation and that you are fully capable of pulling the lever.  consider a modified scenario: say you are walking as you become aware of the situation, and you realize you are passing over a floor switch that will send the trolley towards five people once it hits the junction.  if you keep walking off of the plate, it will hit the sixth person, but if you stop where you are, the five people will die.  do you keep walking ? if you did not pull the lever in the first situation because you refuse to  take an action  that results in death, you are obligated to stop walking for the same reasons in this situation because continuing would be an action that leads to death.  is it really reasonable to stop in place and watch four more people die because you refuse to consciously cause the death of one person ? many of my good friends say they would not pull the lever.  i would like not to think of them as potentially horrible people, so change my view !  #  i believe that not pulling the lever is unacceptable and equivalent to valuing the lives of 0 innocent people less than your own completely relative innocence.   #  this happens every day you benefit from others performing violence on your behalf, i. e.   # this happens every day you benefit from others performing violence on your behalf, i. e.  the military.  to say nothing about the lives lost in sweatshops producing the electronics you likely used to post this cmv.  your friends are not horrible people; they are just honest.  the horrible people are the self righteous hypocrites who use utilitarianism only when it is convenient to themselves.  here is the simple test: when you pull the lever, the only person who dies is you.  do you still do it ?  #  i am well aware that my feelings and my reason are at odds here.   #  you are not wrong.  you are just missing the point of the trolley problem.  the trolley problem is not a philosophical test to be solved.  it is a way to gain insight into how actual people feel and reason about morality.  example: rationally, i am a utilitarian.  i think you should pull the lever and push the large man.  i think each of those things are the morally right thing to do.  i have no doubt about that.  and  if i actually pushed the large man, i would feel terrible and guilty forever.  i am well aware that my feelings and my reason are at odds here.  which is fascinating and telling about how we understand morality, how we live it, communicate about it, etc.  our reason and our moral feelings/intuitions do not always jibe.  this  is what the trolley problem shows.   #  what the trolley problem really illustrates is that you ca not ask people questions that translate to  what would you do if you had perfect knowledge and prediction ?  # this is misleading.  what the trolley problem really illustrates is that you ca not ask people questions that translate to  what would you do if you had perfect knowledge and prediction ?  , because: 0 the experience on which we train our intuition is not from a world in which we  ever  have perfect knowledge or prediction.  0 we will not actually be making any decisions where we  do  have perfect knowledge and prediction, so it is counter productive to train for it.  people cannot usually put their finger on the exact reason why they would not pull the lever, but i suspect the reason many would not pull it is because even though the parameter of the problem is that you somehow  know for a fact  that 0 person dies in one case, and 0 people die in the other, if it were a real situation, you would  not  be able to know that with certainty.  it is not that people are making an irrational decision, it is just that they ca not enter your make believe world where we can somehow know and predict all things for certain, especially in the time frame it takes to pull a lever.  what is rational in your make believe world with certain knowledge is not rational in the real world with imperfect information.  it is futile to undermine intuitions that work for the real world so that we can  correctly  answer a make believe question.   #  is there any material moral difference in the problem because one route is an action and one route is inaction ?  #  op did miss the point, but the trolley problem  is  a problem in moral philosophy.  the issue is not the value of five lives vs.  the value of one life, the issue is taking a concrete action which directly results in death.  do you have no moral burden for the five deaths because you took no identifiable action to cause them ? or do you take no moral burden for the death you caused directly because utilitarianism ? is there any material moral difference in the problem because one route is an action and one route is inaction ? or is the act of inaction an action ?  #  this is a very divisive thought experiment, and many folks say they would not suffocate the baby, as to do so would seem abhorrent, despite the better decision from a statistical standpoint would be to kill the baby.   #  well, it boils down to how an individual values logical vs emotional reasoning.  another example is the case of being in an attic and the nazis arrive to look for jews.  your newborn starts crying so you can 0.  suffocate the baby to avoid being captured or 0.  refuse to suffocate your baby.  this is a very divisive thought experiment, and many folks say they would not suffocate the baby, as to do so would seem abhorrent, despite the better decision from a statistical standpoint would be to kill the baby.  we each rely on both type of reasoning to varying degrees: most folks fall somewhere in the middle, but there are of course some folks who value emotional reasoning much higher than logical, and vis versa.  an emotional reasoner would say pushing the fat man is wrong, as it would be murder.  one who values logical reasoning on the other hand would say pushing the fat man is the only way to go, as it would save more lives overall.  that is also why the lever often gets a different reaction than pushing the fat man.  a person in the middle does not feel the emotional tug to avoid pulling a mere lever, but when it becomes murder, it may start to matter more than simple death math.
in my dual enrollment english 0 class, we are not allowed to use  you  in it or we automatically fail the essay.  this is crazy and does not make any sense as it helps the reader connect to the story and understand it better.  usually after writing the essay i go back and change all of my  yous  to another word that can substitute in.  after i do that then the story starts to sound weird with these words in there and i think it actually sounds worse than if i left all of the words as  you.   using  you  also let is the writer come up with examples for whatever their purpose he/she is writing for to better get their message across.  many of my friends also feel the same way and i have seen a couple of them fail due to this rule.  usually after class, we all walk out complaining about all of the stupid reasons we got a bad grade on our essay.  i may be missing something that makes  you  ruin an essay but i just ca not see it.   #  using  you  also let is the writer come up with examples for whatever their purpose he/she is writing for to better get their message across.   #  i am sure that someone else can put this better, but what you are describing as you is strength is also a weakness, possibly the biggest weakness.   # i am sure that someone else can put this better, but what you are describing as you is strength is also a weakness, possibly the biggest weakness.  the second person allows a writer to address the reader directly and can put the reader into the position of the person actually participating in whatever you are describing.  this can be useful.  but if a writer does this frequently they run the risk of having a single descriptor standing in for multiple things.  so if someone is writing an essay about, say, the united states justice system, they might say:  there are limits to what the state can do when conducting an investigation on a private citizen.  for example, the police ca not search anyone they would like.  you need a warrant or probable cause before conducting a search.  also, the police must read you your rights before questioning.  you may elect not to answer or have a lawyer present.   so, that paragraph is not unintelligible, but it is a little wonky because i have used  you  to describe both the police  and  someone being arrested.  it may not be difficult to work out who is who in this example, but a more elaborate paragraph or paper might get exponentially less clear with each introduction of  you .  or, if the reader had no exposure whatsoever to any justice system, that paragraph could be confusing.  they might think that the  you  applies to they, the reader and not they, the hypothetical police officer, or hypothetical detainee .  who may elect not to answer during police questioning ? the reader, according to the paragraph; which is correct.  who needs a warrant or probable cause before conducting a search ? also the reader , according to the paragraph, provided they lack the context to properly assign each  you  one to the detainee, one to the officer himself .  .  .  which is incorrect.  the writer intended to point out that the police need a warrant, not the reader and the  you  is what caused the confusion.  if i were reading something longer or more complicated that used  you  to consistently refer to different people, i might loose track of who the  you  refers to.  does that help ?  #  alternatives are  a man ,  a woman ,  individuals ,  a young individual  etc.   #   you  is a form of direct address.  unless one is specifically addressing the reader e. g.  self help book, adverts etc.  or another character in the story via quotation or thought,  you  is technically incorrect from a grammatical standpoint.   one  is the abstract singular for  you  in that it generalized the statement because, logically, no one knows much specifically about their reader so the statement better hold in the general case for one to be making it.  alternatives are  a man ,  a woman ,  individuals ,  a young individual  etc.  these all specify the domain over which one is sentence applies.   #  also using  you  presents problems when literature is analyzed by a group and one is writing should be able to be analyzed coherently in a group .   #  like i said that type of address is generally reserved for when one knows enough about the reader that the example is  specific to them .  things like letters, speeches, or anything that is intended to be made to a specific known audience.  it is considered informal to use outside of that context.  for instance technical scientific/mathematical/philosophical writing will never use  you  because the ideas have to hold in general.  literary analysis should not use it because one is attempting to prove a point about the literature.  one cannot do this if one restricts oneself to the reader alone.  also using  you  presents problems when literature is analyzed by a group and one is writing should be able to be analyzed coherently in a group .  at this point  you  is no longer a specific individual, so saying  you went to the store and bought some milk and eric went to buy some orange juice  goes from 0 people shopping to n   0 people shopping.  it changes the example substantially.   #  i think this is what you are class is trying to avoid.   #  you are supposed to be writing the essay, not me.  when you place the word you into that sentence i start thinking of my trip to the store to purchase milk.  because i live in china this is a tad different than what standard person would think of.  i think this is what you are class is trying to avoid.  i think they want to see write that trip to the store from your perspective.  and, if you really want to do what you are trying to do you can turn the word you into  when one goes to the store.   or something like that.   #  these are extreme examples, but there are several gradations along the way.   #  linguistics has this concept of  register  that is, the level of formality at which any given exchange takes place.  the way you speak to your friends is not the way you would speak when addressing a un panel.  the way you write on /r/gifs is not the way you write a letter to your senator.  these are extreme examples, but there are several gradations along the way.   you  in writing is part of a less formal register.  this is not some sort of prescriptivist rule, by the by just an observation based on a broad range of written and spoken material.  speech is  always  going to be somewhat less formal than writing, so it is acceptable for the president to use  you  in the state of the union address.  but the very presence of  you  is going to take your  writing  to a less formal register, and that is going to be very jarring to an audience which is expecting something more formal.  the purpose of high school/college essays is to  teach  you about these things, to  train  you to use language in a manner most appropriate to a given setting and purpose.  what you are proposing is akin to going to tennis practice and saying  why does it matter if my ball was out ?   well it  does not  much matter right at that second, but the purpose of the exercise it to  train  you for what to do in a more formal environment where it  will  very much matter.  high school/college essays are practice for the wider world.
hi ! it wasnt that long ago when i shown the subreddit /r/tumblrinaction, by a friend of mine.  if you have not been there, its full of pictures of what people have put up on their tumblr pages, making fun of their thoughts about feminism and  social justice .  i could not really understand the humor of it though, because all of the posts there revolve around a concept i did not know about, with confusing words such as  cisgender ,  gender binary  as well as  kins  etc.  after finally understanding the humor of the entire thing, i have become really interested in the all of these definitions.  i was suprised to learn that not believing in a gender binary however was considered pc.  moreover, after checking out a couple of tedx talks and articles i have found that they all reference these four graphs or scales URL i will just go through all of these expressions and tell you what i believe.  sexual orientation: i believe in the three terms for sexual orientation, but i do not see any reason to have a graph or a scale, there is no reason to put someone for instance inbetween straight and gay.  if you happen to go more for women than men, that would still render you bi.  i do not see the reason for the spectrum.  biological sex: i only believe in male and female.  not intersex nor anything inbetween.  if you happen to be transgendered, then i guess you would also want an operation to completely change into the other sex, thus making you the other biological sex.  if you are refering to the biological sex the body has for some in depth medical reason, then i think that just needs to stay between you and the doctor .  if you happend to be born with both sets of reproductive organs then you still are one of the two, completely biologically you would just need an operation.  so yeah, i have no idea what intersex means.  if someone says they do not feel as if they are either a boy or a girl and therefore invented that intersex thing, i would say they are basing that upon gender stereotypes which is a somewhat bad thing.  they should go with their biological sex, if they do not feel as the opposite.  gender expression: is not this again based on stereotypes ? i guess you could rank someone on your perception of how masculine and feminine they are, but that is still based on your perseptions on what boys and girls should be like.  i mean.  i do not really see the point of there being a graph for that.  and i do not see why anyone would want to come across as  androgynous , but why we have a term for that suprises me even more.  gender identity: you are either a man or a woman.  atleast thats what i believe.  as i mentioned in the paragraph about biological sex; i do not understand why these two wouldnt be the same.  if they were not you would hopefully change that, unless you are afraid of the consequences or something.  genderqueer ? wut ? if i understood it correctly it is gender identity which it is the most focus on.  its the binary of the gender identity which is the  gender binary , right ? or are all of these points a part of what you define as  gender  ? i believe all of these expressions are made up by people who want to feel different and special.  they happen to not feel exactly like the rest, much like everyone else, ever and therefore think there is something special about them.  i think this is also the case for the  kins , for those of you who is been on /r/tumblrinaction.  thanks !  #  if you happend to be born with both sets of reproductive organs then you still are one of the two, completely biologically you would just need an operation.   #  a quick look at the wikipedia page URL will reveal that biological sex is not all about your reproductive organ.   # a quick look at the wikipedia page URL will reveal that biological sex is not all about your reproductive organ.  intersex people, by definition and by science do not have a biological sex to default to.  that decision is often made by doctors at birth, but the critera for making that decision are not standardized and often poorly carried out.  many doctors default towards female because it is easier to remove a male sex organ than turn a female sex organ into a penis.  my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special .  she hates all of the medical complications, she hates the ambiguity, she has been diagnosed with depression and other mental issues as a direct result of this.   #  but chromosomes would inpact every cell in the body.  hmm.  too bad i do not study biology  # hehe   a with partial genitalia belonging to both men and women, or b with xxy chromosome sets, or c genitalia which do not match their chromosomes.  yeah acctually i saw a documentary about this guy who has born with both organs, and they made him into a girl, but it turns out he was a guy.  therefore i would say deformations or mutations such as another organ does not make you  intersex  it just makes you in need of an operation.  when it comes to xxy chromomes however i have no idea i do not study biology.  when i say gender, i am thinking that their brain and body is rooted into in fact being one of the two, and all of the things we look at to check the which one it is might be mutated.  but chromosomes would inpact every cell in the body.  hmm.  too bad i do not study biology  #  shouldnt they then turn towards male since its easier to turn that into a woman ?  # hehe i just thought having a confusion about which gender you are would only happen in the case of both reproductive organs.  that decision is often made by doctors at birth is not that another way of saying that they do not know what sex they in fact are ? they can only guess based on reproductive organs ? shouldnt they then turn towards male since its easier to turn that into a woman ? i didnt see your reasoning there   my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special . ¨ im sorry i should have googled intersex some more before writing about this, but is not it just complications about some of the things identifying a person as one gender does not correlate to another ? cant that be because of some mutation, and she  is  in fact one of the two, as in her brain and hormones are one of the two ?  #  they  are not  in fact either sex, but have characteristics of both.   # they can only guess based on reproductive organs ? they  are not  in fact either sex, but have characteristics of both.  i didnt see your reasoning there honestly defaulting either way would be horrible, it just happens to be the case this is the reasoning behind what does happen.  there are numerous cases of people experiencing dysphoria/depression etc because of the decision made, both ways.  science only defines  being  one of the two based on these 0 characteristics:   the number and type of sex chromosomes;   the type of gonads ovaries or testicles;   the sex hormones,   the internal reproductive anatomy such as the uterus in females , and   the external genitalia.  there is no other way to tell what sex you  are  but youre saying that like it is a characteristic that can be otherwise determined.   #  i will provide some information on intersex URL  intersex, in humans and other animals, is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female.   #  i will provide some information on intersex URL  intersex, in humans and other animals, is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female.  such variation may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than xy male and xx female.   intersex is not some label that some  snowflakes  made up, it is an actual physical variation in the phenotypic sex of individuals.  there are many forms, which include my own: androgen insensitivity syndrome URL which is a range from partial to complete, where people who are partially insensitive develop ambiguous, between male and female, and complete, where you develop mostly female, albeit sterile.  people try and ignore intersex as a part of human variation by saying  if someone is born with one arm, that does not mean we do not have two arms as a species , but this is a false comparison.  intersex people very much can and do experience their gender differently than wholly male or female people, although they do not always identify different than male or female.  my argument is that although reproduction happens through phenotypic males and females, the variation of not male nor female exists and is very real and deserves its own place in our society.
hi ! it wasnt that long ago when i shown the subreddit /r/tumblrinaction, by a friend of mine.  if you have not been there, its full of pictures of what people have put up on their tumblr pages, making fun of their thoughts about feminism and  social justice .  i could not really understand the humor of it though, because all of the posts there revolve around a concept i did not know about, with confusing words such as  cisgender ,  gender binary  as well as  kins  etc.  after finally understanding the humor of the entire thing, i have become really interested in the all of these definitions.  i was suprised to learn that not believing in a gender binary however was considered pc.  moreover, after checking out a couple of tedx talks and articles i have found that they all reference these four graphs or scales URL i will just go through all of these expressions and tell you what i believe.  sexual orientation: i believe in the three terms for sexual orientation, but i do not see any reason to have a graph or a scale, there is no reason to put someone for instance inbetween straight and gay.  if you happen to go more for women than men, that would still render you bi.  i do not see the reason for the spectrum.  biological sex: i only believe in male and female.  not intersex nor anything inbetween.  if you happen to be transgendered, then i guess you would also want an operation to completely change into the other sex, thus making you the other biological sex.  if you are refering to the biological sex the body has for some in depth medical reason, then i think that just needs to stay between you and the doctor .  if you happend to be born with both sets of reproductive organs then you still are one of the two, completely biologically you would just need an operation.  so yeah, i have no idea what intersex means.  if someone says they do not feel as if they are either a boy or a girl and therefore invented that intersex thing, i would say they are basing that upon gender stereotypes which is a somewhat bad thing.  they should go with their biological sex, if they do not feel as the opposite.  gender expression: is not this again based on stereotypes ? i guess you could rank someone on your perception of how masculine and feminine they are, but that is still based on your perseptions on what boys and girls should be like.  i mean.  i do not really see the point of there being a graph for that.  and i do not see why anyone would want to come across as  androgynous , but why we have a term for that suprises me even more.  gender identity: you are either a man or a woman.  atleast thats what i believe.  as i mentioned in the paragraph about biological sex; i do not understand why these two wouldnt be the same.  if they were not you would hopefully change that, unless you are afraid of the consequences or something.  genderqueer ? wut ? if i understood it correctly it is gender identity which it is the most focus on.  its the binary of the gender identity which is the  gender binary , right ? or are all of these points a part of what you define as  gender  ? i believe all of these expressions are made up by people who want to feel different and special.  they happen to not feel exactly like the rest, much like everyone else, ever and therefore think there is something special about them.  i think this is also the case for the  kins , for those of you who is been on /r/tumblrinaction.  thanks !  #  they should go with their biological sex, if they do not feel as the opposite.   #  intersex people, by definition and by science do not have a biological sex to default to.   # a quick look at the wikipedia page URL will reveal that biological sex is not all about your reproductive organ.  intersex people, by definition and by science do not have a biological sex to default to.  that decision is often made by doctors at birth, but the critera for making that decision are not standardized and often poorly carried out.  many doctors default towards female because it is easier to remove a male sex organ than turn a female sex organ into a penis.  my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special .  she hates all of the medical complications, she hates the ambiguity, she has been diagnosed with depression and other mental issues as a direct result of this.   #  but chromosomes would inpact every cell in the body.  hmm.  too bad i do not study biology  # hehe   a with partial genitalia belonging to both men and women, or b with xxy chromosome sets, or c genitalia which do not match their chromosomes.  yeah acctually i saw a documentary about this guy who has born with both organs, and they made him into a girl, but it turns out he was a guy.  therefore i would say deformations or mutations such as another organ does not make you  intersex  it just makes you in need of an operation.  when it comes to xxy chromomes however i have no idea i do not study biology.  when i say gender, i am thinking that their brain and body is rooted into in fact being one of the two, and all of the things we look at to check the which one it is might be mutated.  but chromosomes would inpact every cell in the body.  hmm.  too bad i do not study biology  #  shouldnt they then turn towards male since its easier to turn that into a woman ?  # hehe i just thought having a confusion about which gender you are would only happen in the case of both reproductive organs.  that decision is often made by doctors at birth is not that another way of saying that they do not know what sex they in fact are ? they can only guess based on reproductive organs ? shouldnt they then turn towards male since its easier to turn that into a woman ? i didnt see your reasoning there   my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special . ¨ im sorry i should have googled intersex some more before writing about this, but is not it just complications about some of the things identifying a person as one gender does not correlate to another ? cant that be because of some mutation, and she  is  in fact one of the two, as in her brain and hormones are one of the two ?  #  they  are not  in fact either sex, but have characteristics of both.   # they can only guess based on reproductive organs ? they  are not  in fact either sex, but have characteristics of both.  i didnt see your reasoning there honestly defaulting either way would be horrible, it just happens to be the case this is the reasoning behind what does happen.  there are numerous cases of people experiencing dysphoria/depression etc because of the decision made, both ways.  science only defines  being  one of the two based on these 0 characteristics:   the number and type of sex chromosomes;   the type of gonads ovaries or testicles;   the sex hormones,   the internal reproductive anatomy such as the uterus in females , and   the external genitalia.  there is no other way to tell what sex you  are  but youre saying that like it is a characteristic that can be otherwise determined.   #  intersex is not some label that some  snowflakes  made up, it is an actual physical variation in the phenotypic sex of individuals.   #  i will provide some information on intersex URL  intersex, in humans and other animals, is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female.  such variation may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than xy male and xx female.   intersex is not some label that some  snowflakes  made up, it is an actual physical variation in the phenotypic sex of individuals.  there are many forms, which include my own: androgen insensitivity syndrome URL which is a range from partial to complete, where people who are partially insensitive develop ambiguous, between male and female, and complete, where you develop mostly female, albeit sterile.  people try and ignore intersex as a part of human variation by saying  if someone is born with one arm, that does not mean we do not have two arms as a species , but this is a false comparison.  intersex people very much can and do experience their gender differently than wholly male or female people, although they do not always identify different than male or female.  my argument is that although reproduction happens through phenotypic males and females, the variation of not male nor female exists and is very real and deserves its own place in our society.
hi ! it wasnt that long ago when i shown the subreddit /r/tumblrinaction, by a friend of mine.  if you have not been there, its full of pictures of what people have put up on their tumblr pages, making fun of their thoughts about feminism and  social justice .  i could not really understand the humor of it though, because all of the posts there revolve around a concept i did not know about, with confusing words such as  cisgender ,  gender binary  as well as  kins  etc.  after finally understanding the humor of the entire thing, i have become really interested in the all of these definitions.  i was suprised to learn that not believing in a gender binary however was considered pc.  moreover, after checking out a couple of tedx talks and articles i have found that they all reference these four graphs or scales URL i will just go through all of these expressions and tell you what i believe.  sexual orientation: i believe in the three terms for sexual orientation, but i do not see any reason to have a graph or a scale, there is no reason to put someone for instance inbetween straight and gay.  if you happen to go more for women than men, that would still render you bi.  i do not see the reason for the spectrum.  biological sex: i only believe in male and female.  not intersex nor anything inbetween.  if you happen to be transgendered, then i guess you would also want an operation to completely change into the other sex, thus making you the other biological sex.  if you are refering to the biological sex the body has for some in depth medical reason, then i think that just needs to stay between you and the doctor .  if you happend to be born with both sets of reproductive organs then you still are one of the two, completely biologically you would just need an operation.  so yeah, i have no idea what intersex means.  if someone says they do not feel as if they are either a boy or a girl and therefore invented that intersex thing, i would say they are basing that upon gender stereotypes which is a somewhat bad thing.  they should go with their biological sex, if they do not feel as the opposite.  gender expression: is not this again based on stereotypes ? i guess you could rank someone on your perception of how masculine and feminine they are, but that is still based on your perseptions on what boys and girls should be like.  i mean.  i do not really see the point of there being a graph for that.  and i do not see why anyone would want to come across as  androgynous , but why we have a term for that suprises me even more.  gender identity: you are either a man or a woman.  atleast thats what i believe.  as i mentioned in the paragraph about biological sex; i do not understand why these two wouldnt be the same.  if they were not you would hopefully change that, unless you are afraid of the consequences or something.  genderqueer ? wut ? if i understood it correctly it is gender identity which it is the most focus on.  its the binary of the gender identity which is the  gender binary , right ? or are all of these points a part of what you define as  gender  ? i believe all of these expressions are made up by people who want to feel different and special.  they happen to not feel exactly like the rest, much like everyone else, ever and therefore think there is something special about them.  i think this is also the case for the  kins , for those of you who is been on /r/tumblrinaction.  thanks !  #  i believe all of these expressions are made up by people who want to feel different and special.   #  my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special .   # a quick look at the wikipedia page URL will reveal that biological sex is not all about your reproductive organ.  intersex people, by definition and by science do not have a biological sex to default to.  that decision is often made by doctors at birth, but the critera for making that decision are not standardized and often poorly carried out.  many doctors default towards female because it is easier to remove a male sex organ than turn a female sex organ into a penis.  my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special .  she hates all of the medical complications, she hates the ambiguity, she has been diagnosed with depression and other mental issues as a direct result of this.   #  when i say gender, i am thinking that their brain and body is rooted into in fact being one of the two, and all of the things we look at to check the which one it is might be mutated.   # hehe   a with partial genitalia belonging to both men and women, or b with xxy chromosome sets, or c genitalia which do not match their chromosomes.  yeah acctually i saw a documentary about this guy who has born with both organs, and they made him into a girl, but it turns out he was a guy.  therefore i would say deformations or mutations such as another organ does not make you  intersex  it just makes you in need of an operation.  when it comes to xxy chromomes however i have no idea i do not study biology.  when i say gender, i am thinking that their brain and body is rooted into in fact being one of the two, and all of the things we look at to check the which one it is might be mutated.  but chromosomes would inpact every cell in the body.  hmm.  too bad i do not study biology  #  hehe i just thought having a confusion about which gender you are would only happen in the case of both reproductive organs.   # hehe i just thought having a confusion about which gender you are would only happen in the case of both reproductive organs.  that decision is often made by doctors at birth is not that another way of saying that they do not know what sex they in fact are ? they can only guess based on reproductive organs ? shouldnt they then turn towards male since its easier to turn that into a woman ? i didnt see your reasoning there   my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special . ¨ im sorry i should have googled intersex some more before writing about this, but is not it just complications about some of the things identifying a person as one gender does not correlate to another ? cant that be because of some mutation, and she  is  in fact one of the two, as in her brain and hormones are one of the two ?  #  there is no other way to tell what sex you  are  but youre saying that like it is a characteristic that can be otherwise determined.   # they can only guess based on reproductive organs ? they  are not  in fact either sex, but have characteristics of both.  i didnt see your reasoning there honestly defaulting either way would be horrible, it just happens to be the case this is the reasoning behind what does happen.  there are numerous cases of people experiencing dysphoria/depression etc because of the decision made, both ways.  science only defines  being  one of the two based on these 0 characteristics:   the number and type of sex chromosomes;   the type of gonads ovaries or testicles;   the sex hormones,   the internal reproductive anatomy such as the uterus in females , and   the external genitalia.  there is no other way to tell what sex you  are  but youre saying that like it is a characteristic that can be otherwise determined.   #  people try and ignore intersex as a part of human variation by saying  if someone is born with one arm, that does not mean we do not have two arms as a species , but this is a false comparison.   #  i will provide some information on intersex URL  intersex, in humans and other animals, is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female.  such variation may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than xy male and xx female.   intersex is not some label that some  snowflakes  made up, it is an actual physical variation in the phenotypic sex of individuals.  there are many forms, which include my own: androgen insensitivity syndrome URL which is a range from partial to complete, where people who are partially insensitive develop ambiguous, between male and female, and complete, where you develop mostly female, albeit sterile.  people try and ignore intersex as a part of human variation by saying  if someone is born with one arm, that does not mean we do not have two arms as a species , but this is a false comparison.  intersex people very much can and do experience their gender differently than wholly male or female people, although they do not always identify different than male or female.  my argument is that although reproduction happens through phenotypic males and females, the variation of not male nor female exists and is very real and deserves its own place in our society.
hi ! it wasnt that long ago when i shown the subreddit /r/tumblrinaction, by a friend of mine.  if you have not been there, its full of pictures of what people have put up on their tumblr pages, making fun of their thoughts about feminism and  social justice .  i could not really understand the humor of it though, because all of the posts there revolve around a concept i did not know about, with confusing words such as  cisgender ,  gender binary  as well as  kins  etc.  after finally understanding the humor of the entire thing, i have become really interested in the all of these definitions.  i was suprised to learn that not believing in a gender binary however was considered pc.  moreover, after checking out a couple of tedx talks and articles i have found that they all reference these four graphs or scales URL i will just go through all of these expressions and tell you what i believe.  sexual orientation: i believe in the three terms for sexual orientation, but i do not see any reason to have a graph or a scale, there is no reason to put someone for instance inbetween straight and gay.  if you happen to go more for women than men, that would still render you bi.  i do not see the reason for the spectrum.  biological sex: i only believe in male and female.  not intersex nor anything inbetween.  if you happen to be transgendered, then i guess you would also want an operation to completely change into the other sex, thus making you the other biological sex.  if you are refering to the biological sex the body has for some in depth medical reason, then i think that just needs to stay between you and the doctor .  if you happend to be born with both sets of reproductive organs then you still are one of the two, completely biologically you would just need an operation.  so yeah, i have no idea what intersex means.  if someone says they do not feel as if they are either a boy or a girl and therefore invented that intersex thing, i would say they are basing that upon gender stereotypes which is a somewhat bad thing.  they should go with their biological sex, if they do not feel as the opposite.  gender expression: is not this again based on stereotypes ? i guess you could rank someone on your perception of how masculine and feminine they are, but that is still based on your perseptions on what boys and girls should be like.  i mean.  i do not really see the point of there being a graph for that.  and i do not see why anyone would want to come across as  androgynous , but why we have a term for that suprises me even more.  gender identity: you are either a man or a woman.  atleast thats what i believe.  as i mentioned in the paragraph about biological sex; i do not understand why these two wouldnt be the same.  if they were not you would hopefully change that, unless you are afraid of the consequences or something.  genderqueer ? wut ? if i understood it correctly it is gender identity which it is the most focus on.  its the binary of the gender identity which is the  gender binary , right ? or are all of these points a part of what you define as  gender  ? i believe all of these expressions are made up by people who want to feel different and special.  they happen to not feel exactly like the rest, much like everyone else, ever and therefore think there is something special about them.  i think this is also the case for the  kins , for those of you who is been on /r/tumblrinaction.  thanks !  #  if you happen to go more for women than men, that would still render you bi.   #  i do not see the reason for the spectrum.   # i do not see the reason for the spectrum.  there is a substantial practical difference between  bi but almost always dates men  and  bi but almost always dates women .  not intersex nor anything inbetween.  well, sucks to be you, i guess ? intersexuality is very much a reality, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  what, to you, would someone URL with xy chromosomes, internal testes, female external genitalia, and a female body shape be ? looking at the rest of the paragraph, i am not sure you know what intersex actually means.  intersex means you have the physical characteristics of both sexes.  not necessarily.  i, personally, have a binary gender identity: i do want to be seen as a woman like any other.  but i know a fair number of other trans people who sit more in the middle or as a mix of the two.  expression is mostly cultural, yes.  but it need not be stereotypical.  for instance, i used to hang out among bronies yes, i know reddit hates them, but they are relevant to the point .  there was a frequent somewhat tongue in cheek statement among the fandom that  real men watch ponies , and to an extent they meant it: they integrated that stereotypically feminine activity as part of their own personal masculine expression.  atleast thats what i believe.  as i mentioned in the paragraph about biological sex; i do not understand why these two wouldnt be the same.  if they were not you would hopefully change that, unless you are afraid of the consequences or something.  genderqueer ? wut ? on this one, i am going to invite you to read my gigantic wall of text URL from just the other night.   #  therefore i would say deformations or mutations such as another organ does not make you  intersex  it just makes you in need of an operation.   # hehe   a with partial genitalia belonging to both men and women, or b with xxy chromosome sets, or c genitalia which do not match their chromosomes.  yeah acctually i saw a documentary about this guy who has born with both organs, and they made him into a girl, but it turns out he was a guy.  therefore i would say deformations or mutations such as another organ does not make you  intersex  it just makes you in need of an operation.  when it comes to xxy chromomes however i have no idea i do not study biology.  when i say gender, i am thinking that their brain and body is rooted into in fact being one of the two, and all of the things we look at to check the which one it is might be mutated.  but chromosomes would inpact every cell in the body.  hmm.  too bad i do not study biology  #  intersex people, by definition and by science do not have a biological sex to default to.   # a quick look at the wikipedia page URL will reveal that biological sex is not all about your reproductive organ.  intersex people, by definition and by science do not have a biological sex to default to.  that decision is often made by doctors at birth, but the critera for making that decision are not standardized and often poorly carried out.  many doctors default towards female because it is easier to remove a male sex organ than turn a female sex organ into a penis.  my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special .  she hates all of the medical complications, she hates the ambiguity, she has been diagnosed with depression and other mental issues as a direct result of this.   #  cant that be because of some mutation, and she  is  in fact one of the two, as in her brain and hormones are one of the two ?  # hehe i just thought having a confusion about which gender you are would only happen in the case of both reproductive organs.  that decision is often made by doctors at birth is not that another way of saying that they do not know what sex they in fact are ? they can only guess based on reproductive organs ? shouldnt they then turn towards male since its easier to turn that into a woman ? i didnt see your reasoning there   my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special . ¨ im sorry i should have googled intersex some more before writing about this, but is not it just complications about some of the things identifying a person as one gender does not correlate to another ? cant that be because of some mutation, and she  is  in fact one of the two, as in her brain and hormones are one of the two ?  #  there is no other way to tell what sex you  are  but youre saying that like it is a characteristic that can be otherwise determined.   # they can only guess based on reproductive organs ? they  are not  in fact either sex, but have characteristics of both.  i didnt see your reasoning there honestly defaulting either way would be horrible, it just happens to be the case this is the reasoning behind what does happen.  there are numerous cases of people experiencing dysphoria/depression etc because of the decision made, both ways.  science only defines  being  one of the two based on these 0 characteristics:   the number and type of sex chromosomes;   the type of gonads ovaries or testicles;   the sex hormones,   the internal reproductive anatomy such as the uterus in females , and   the external genitalia.  there is no other way to tell what sex you  are  but youre saying that like it is a characteristic that can be otherwise determined.
hi ! it wasnt that long ago when i shown the subreddit /r/tumblrinaction, by a friend of mine.  if you have not been there, its full of pictures of what people have put up on their tumblr pages, making fun of their thoughts about feminism and  social justice .  i could not really understand the humor of it though, because all of the posts there revolve around a concept i did not know about, with confusing words such as  cisgender ,  gender binary  as well as  kins  etc.  after finally understanding the humor of the entire thing, i have become really interested in the all of these definitions.  i was suprised to learn that not believing in a gender binary however was considered pc.  moreover, after checking out a couple of tedx talks and articles i have found that they all reference these four graphs or scales URL i will just go through all of these expressions and tell you what i believe.  sexual orientation: i believe in the three terms for sexual orientation, but i do not see any reason to have a graph or a scale, there is no reason to put someone for instance inbetween straight and gay.  if you happen to go more for women than men, that would still render you bi.  i do not see the reason for the spectrum.  biological sex: i only believe in male and female.  not intersex nor anything inbetween.  if you happen to be transgendered, then i guess you would also want an operation to completely change into the other sex, thus making you the other biological sex.  if you are refering to the biological sex the body has for some in depth medical reason, then i think that just needs to stay between you and the doctor .  if you happend to be born with both sets of reproductive organs then you still are one of the two, completely biologically you would just need an operation.  so yeah, i have no idea what intersex means.  if someone says they do not feel as if they are either a boy or a girl and therefore invented that intersex thing, i would say they are basing that upon gender stereotypes which is a somewhat bad thing.  they should go with their biological sex, if they do not feel as the opposite.  gender expression: is not this again based on stereotypes ? i guess you could rank someone on your perception of how masculine and feminine they are, but that is still based on your perseptions on what boys and girls should be like.  i mean.  i do not really see the point of there being a graph for that.  and i do not see why anyone would want to come across as  androgynous , but why we have a term for that suprises me even more.  gender identity: you are either a man or a woman.  atleast thats what i believe.  as i mentioned in the paragraph about biological sex; i do not understand why these two wouldnt be the same.  if they were not you would hopefully change that, unless you are afraid of the consequences or something.  genderqueer ? wut ? if i understood it correctly it is gender identity which it is the most focus on.  its the binary of the gender identity which is the  gender binary , right ? or are all of these points a part of what you define as  gender  ? i believe all of these expressions are made up by people who want to feel different and special.  they happen to not feel exactly like the rest, much like everyone else, ever and therefore think there is something special about them.  i think this is also the case for the  kins , for those of you who is been on /r/tumblrinaction.  thanks !  #  sexual orientation: i believe in the three terms for sexual orientation, but i do not see any reason to have a graph or a scale, there is no reason to put someone for instance inbetween straight and gay.   #  if you happen to go more for women than men, that would still render you bi.   # if you happen to go more for women than men, that would still render you bi.  i do not see the reason for the spectrum.  because it can change over time.  puberty and aging is weird in the way it messes hormones.  not intersex nor anything inbetween.  intersex is a rare condition from having abnormal genes such as xxy or xy with a dominate x, or xx with several y genes getting switched over  gender identity: you are either a man or a woman.  atleast thats what i believe.  as i mentioned in the paragraph about biological sex; i do not understand why these two wouldnt be the same.  trans people exist although not as numerous as swj is who claim they are trans for political reason i would argue 0 of these are categorical and not a spectrum, and that gender expression is also retarded, but your factually incorrect on a few issues here.   #  when i say gender, i am thinking that their brain and body is rooted into in fact being one of the two, and all of the things we look at to check the which one it is might be mutated.   # hehe   a with partial genitalia belonging to both men and women, or b with xxy chromosome sets, or c genitalia which do not match their chromosomes.  yeah acctually i saw a documentary about this guy who has born with both organs, and they made him into a girl, but it turns out he was a guy.  therefore i would say deformations or mutations such as another organ does not make you  intersex  it just makes you in need of an operation.  when it comes to xxy chromomes however i have no idea i do not study biology.  when i say gender, i am thinking that their brain and body is rooted into in fact being one of the two, and all of the things we look at to check the which one it is might be mutated.  but chromosomes would inpact every cell in the body.  hmm.  too bad i do not study biology  #  my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special .   # a quick look at the wikipedia page URL will reveal that biological sex is not all about your reproductive organ.  intersex people, by definition and by science do not have a biological sex to default to.  that decision is often made by doctors at birth, but the critera for making that decision are not standardized and often poorly carried out.  many doctors default towards female because it is easier to remove a male sex organ than turn a female sex organ into a penis.  my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special .  she hates all of the medical complications, she hates the ambiguity, she has been diagnosed with depression and other mental issues as a direct result of this.   #  shouldnt they then turn towards male since its easier to turn that into a woman ?  # hehe i just thought having a confusion about which gender you are would only happen in the case of both reproductive organs.  that decision is often made by doctors at birth is not that another way of saying that they do not know what sex they in fact are ? they can only guess based on reproductive organs ? shouldnt they then turn towards male since its easier to turn that into a woman ? i didnt see your reasoning there   my sister is biologically intersex and trust me, she is not doing it because she wants to feel  different and special . ¨ im sorry i should have googled intersex some more before writing about this, but is not it just complications about some of the things identifying a person as one gender does not correlate to another ? cant that be because of some mutation, and she  is  in fact one of the two, as in her brain and hormones are one of the two ?  #  they can only guess based on reproductive organs ?  # they can only guess based on reproductive organs ? they  are not  in fact either sex, but have characteristics of both.  i didnt see your reasoning there honestly defaulting either way would be horrible, it just happens to be the case this is the reasoning behind what does happen.  there are numerous cases of people experiencing dysphoria/depression etc because of the decision made, both ways.  science only defines  being  one of the two based on these 0 characteristics:   the number and type of sex chromosomes;   the type of gonads ovaries or testicles;   the sex hormones,   the internal reproductive anatomy such as the uterus in females , and   the external genitalia.  there is no other way to tell what sex you  are  but youre saying that like it is a characteristic that can be otherwise determined.
three things i am not saying that we do not have to discuss here: 0.  if your partner wants to change their last name to yours themself for whatever reason does not like their name, bad family relationships.  then of course its different because it is their choice as long as you would be cool if they did not.  0.  if you expected it on a very vague level of never thinking about it so you just naturally assumed it was what people did, i guess that is fine even though i am surprised by not noticing the obvious unfairness , as long as after starting to question it you came to the conclusion it isn;t a fair expectation.  0.  i am not telling people what their criteria in relationships should be, or whom to be with.  if you do not want to marry someone who wo not take your name, that is your right, just as it is to have any condition you can imagine since the other does not have to agree with it.  however, it is disrespectful.  you might want to be in a relationship with someone you do not see as equally important as yourself, you may want your relationship to be disrespectful all fair enough.  my argument is simply that it is disrespectful.  why ? well obviously, you are making an assumtion that your family name is more important than theirs.  name is a great part of identity to many people.  you are saying they should change theirs to yours.  you want them to do something that you are not willing to do yourself because you clearly hold yoursefl to a different standard.  now, sometimes two people do different things for each other because they have different needs, but that only works as long as it is not based on one person actually expecting the other to do what they themselves do not want to but rather on the other wanting to do something they do not.  for instance, your partner is more social and always introducing you to people and initiating mutual friendships.  you are not doing it for them.  however, they do so because they want to.  if they were to stop wanting to do it and you still felt you had the right to demand it of them, although you pefrectly understood why they would have a problem with it you not being able to do it yourself , your demand would become disrespectful.  a respectful partnership is equal that does not mean both sides need to actually act the same, but they should not be demanding things from the other that they would not be willing to do themselves.  this demand especially, because it is so simple, is incredibly unreasonable and an offense to your partners whole identity.  i ca not see how anyone can disagree or excuse it.   #  well obviously, you are making an assumtion that your family name is more important than theirs.   #  name is a great part of identity to many people.   # name is a great part of identity to many people.  you are saying they should change theirs to yours.  my wife changed her last name because of tradition and practicality.  it is not that my name is more important than hers.  i am the breadwinner; the house, cars, insurance, etc are all in my name for credit reasons .  i am bringing my resources to the table, and she changed her name as a symbolic gesture.  it is practical because it is much more work for me to change my name than for her to change hers.  i do not put myself above her, but i do have certain expectations for a marriage.  the person who provides is the head of household, and the person who does not provide manages the household.  if you both provide, then it is a toss up.  i ca not see how anyone can disagree or excuse it.  it is not unreasonable because, in most cases, the breadwinner is the one whose last name is chosen.  it makes sense to signify who is head of household by taking a last name.  this will make last names useless.  the length of your last name will grow exponentially with each generation.  the child of smith johnson will marry and become smith johnson bush obama.   #  if you demand someone to meet your demands then it is another.   #  i think expecting and demanding are two different things.  if you expect someone to meet your expectations and they do not then it is one thing.  if you demand someone to meet your demands then it is another.  there is a negative connotation in the demand in that there is a punishment for not meeting a demand.  to demand someone to change their last name is disrespectful, much like demanding a partner to do anything is disrespectful.  many people do not demand their partner to change their last name, rather they expect them to.  this expectation comes out of a signal of commitment to the other person in following a social tradition and symbolizes the merging of lives, rather than boosting egos family names .   #  so far a concrete reason has not been presented.   #  it is true that people can be unintentionally disrespectful.  taking someone or an action by someone for granted, as an example.  however that is different than lacking respect, which is a more conscious action taken/held by the agent.  being disrespectful does not necessarily imply lack of respect.  in this case, there might be unintentional disrespect, but there does not seem to be a lack of respect, at least from the general population.  as it would seem to be a case of  disrespect,  the question arises on how, to whom, and the effect.  those answers on how and to whom are obvious and have been spelled out by op and his supporters, so i do not think we need to rehash them.  however, we still need to look at the effect.  op has successfully argued that there is not symmetry regarding respect to genders and last names within our culture , however lack of symmetry does not imply wrongdoing or a current problem within society.  it is definitely worth noting and thinking about, but it in itself does not demand correction.  the fact is that most people are ok with it, both male and female.  most people do not like to change for changes sake.  they need a reason.  so far a concrete reason has not been presented.  so far all the talk about how things could be different not why they should be all have negative effects that accompany them that necessitate change.  could things be different, yes.  are they ? no.  is that a problem, not really.   #  wanting to be  the browns  or  the smiths  is not implicitly disrespectful.   # not sure that makes much sense.  so does the next generation have 0 last names, and the generation after 0 last names ? i do not think it is necessarily disrespectful or unreasonable for somebody to think that having the same last name is an important part of being a family.  wanting to be  the browns  or  the smiths  is not implicitly disrespectful.  frankly, i think having a  family name  is part of being a family.  your suggestion for a new convention is not workable at all.   #  they can each give one, depending on what they think sounds better.   #  depends.  they can each give one, depending on what they think sounds better.  or they can invent a new one.  how do so many other cultures manage it just fine ? first generation: both contribute equally to kids name.  kid gets married, both contribute equally.  it is no longer the grandparents concern which part gets picked.  just that between the partners it is equal.
three things i am not saying that we do not have to discuss here: 0.  if your partner wants to change their last name to yours themself for whatever reason does not like their name, bad family relationships.  then of course its different because it is their choice as long as you would be cool if they did not.  0.  if you expected it on a very vague level of never thinking about it so you just naturally assumed it was what people did, i guess that is fine even though i am surprised by not noticing the obvious unfairness , as long as after starting to question it you came to the conclusion it isn;t a fair expectation.  0.  i am not telling people what their criteria in relationships should be, or whom to be with.  if you do not want to marry someone who wo not take your name, that is your right, just as it is to have any condition you can imagine since the other does not have to agree with it.  however, it is disrespectful.  you might want to be in a relationship with someone you do not see as equally important as yourself, you may want your relationship to be disrespectful all fair enough.  my argument is simply that it is disrespectful.  why ? well obviously, you are making an assumtion that your family name is more important than theirs.  name is a great part of identity to many people.  you are saying they should change theirs to yours.  you want them to do something that you are not willing to do yourself because you clearly hold yoursefl to a different standard.  now, sometimes two people do different things for each other because they have different needs, but that only works as long as it is not based on one person actually expecting the other to do what they themselves do not want to but rather on the other wanting to do something they do not.  for instance, your partner is more social and always introducing you to people and initiating mutual friendships.  you are not doing it for them.  however, they do so because they want to.  if they were to stop wanting to do it and you still felt you had the right to demand it of them, although you pefrectly understood why they would have a problem with it you not being able to do it yourself , your demand would become disrespectful.  a respectful partnership is equal that does not mean both sides need to actually act the same, but they should not be demanding things from the other that they would not be willing to do themselves.  this demand especially, because it is so simple, is incredibly unreasonable and an offense to your partners whole identity.  i ca not see how anyone can disagree or excuse it.   #  you want them to do something that you are not willing to do yourself because you clearly hold yoursefl to a different standard.   #  i do not put myself above her, but i do have certain expectations for a marriage.   # name is a great part of identity to many people.  you are saying they should change theirs to yours.  my wife changed her last name because of tradition and practicality.  it is not that my name is more important than hers.  i am the breadwinner; the house, cars, insurance, etc are all in my name for credit reasons .  i am bringing my resources to the table, and she changed her name as a symbolic gesture.  it is practical because it is much more work for me to change my name than for her to change hers.  i do not put myself above her, but i do have certain expectations for a marriage.  the person who provides is the head of household, and the person who does not provide manages the household.  if you both provide, then it is a toss up.  i ca not see how anyone can disagree or excuse it.  it is not unreasonable because, in most cases, the breadwinner is the one whose last name is chosen.  it makes sense to signify who is head of household by taking a last name.  this will make last names useless.  the length of your last name will grow exponentially with each generation.  the child of smith johnson will marry and become smith johnson bush obama.   #  i think expecting and demanding are two different things.   #  i think expecting and demanding are two different things.  if you expect someone to meet your expectations and they do not then it is one thing.  if you demand someone to meet your demands then it is another.  there is a negative connotation in the demand in that there is a punishment for not meeting a demand.  to demand someone to change their last name is disrespectful, much like demanding a partner to do anything is disrespectful.  many people do not demand their partner to change their last name, rather they expect them to.  this expectation comes out of a signal of commitment to the other person in following a social tradition and symbolizes the merging of lives, rather than boosting egos family names .   #  so far all the talk about how things could be different not why they should be all have negative effects that accompany them that necessitate change.   #  it is true that people can be unintentionally disrespectful.  taking someone or an action by someone for granted, as an example.  however that is different than lacking respect, which is a more conscious action taken/held by the agent.  being disrespectful does not necessarily imply lack of respect.  in this case, there might be unintentional disrespect, but there does not seem to be a lack of respect, at least from the general population.  as it would seem to be a case of  disrespect,  the question arises on how, to whom, and the effect.  those answers on how and to whom are obvious and have been spelled out by op and his supporters, so i do not think we need to rehash them.  however, we still need to look at the effect.  op has successfully argued that there is not symmetry regarding respect to genders and last names within our culture , however lack of symmetry does not imply wrongdoing or a current problem within society.  it is definitely worth noting and thinking about, but it in itself does not demand correction.  the fact is that most people are ok with it, both male and female.  most people do not like to change for changes sake.  they need a reason.  so far a concrete reason has not been presented.  so far all the talk about how things could be different not why they should be all have negative effects that accompany them that necessitate change.  could things be different, yes.  are they ? no.  is that a problem, not really.   #  i do not think it is necessarily disrespectful or unreasonable for somebody to think that having the same last name is an important part of being a family.   # not sure that makes much sense.  so does the next generation have 0 last names, and the generation after 0 last names ? i do not think it is necessarily disrespectful or unreasonable for somebody to think that having the same last name is an important part of being a family.  wanting to be  the browns  or  the smiths  is not implicitly disrespectful.  frankly, i think having a  family name  is part of being a family.  your suggestion for a new convention is not workable at all.   #  how do so many other cultures manage it just fine ?  #  depends.  they can each give one, depending on what they think sounds better.  or they can invent a new one.  how do so many other cultures manage it just fine ? first generation: both contribute equally to kids name.  kid gets married, both contribute equally.  it is no longer the grandparents concern which part gets picked.  just that between the partners it is equal.
three things i am not saying that we do not have to discuss here: 0.  if your partner wants to change their last name to yours themself for whatever reason does not like their name, bad family relationships.  then of course its different because it is their choice as long as you would be cool if they did not.  0.  if you expected it on a very vague level of never thinking about it so you just naturally assumed it was what people did, i guess that is fine even though i am surprised by not noticing the obvious unfairness , as long as after starting to question it you came to the conclusion it isn;t a fair expectation.  0.  i am not telling people what their criteria in relationships should be, or whom to be with.  if you do not want to marry someone who wo not take your name, that is your right, just as it is to have any condition you can imagine since the other does not have to agree with it.  however, it is disrespectful.  you might want to be in a relationship with someone you do not see as equally important as yourself, you may want your relationship to be disrespectful all fair enough.  my argument is simply that it is disrespectful.  why ? well obviously, you are making an assumtion that your family name is more important than theirs.  name is a great part of identity to many people.  you are saying they should change theirs to yours.  you want them to do something that you are not willing to do yourself because you clearly hold yoursefl to a different standard.  now, sometimes two people do different things for each other because they have different needs, but that only works as long as it is not based on one person actually expecting the other to do what they themselves do not want to but rather on the other wanting to do something they do not.  for instance, your partner is more social and always introducing you to people and initiating mutual friendships.  you are not doing it for them.  however, they do so because they want to.  if they were to stop wanting to do it and you still felt you had the right to demand it of them, although you pefrectly understood why they would have a problem with it you not being able to do it yourself , your demand would become disrespectful.  a respectful partnership is equal that does not mean both sides need to actually act the same, but they should not be demanding things from the other that they would not be willing to do themselves.  this demand especially, because it is so simple, is incredibly unreasonable and an offense to your partners whole identity.  i ca not see how anyone can disagree or excuse it.   #  this demand especially, because it is so simple, is incredibly unreasonable and an offense to your partners whole identity.   #  i ca not see how anyone can disagree or excuse it.   # name is a great part of identity to many people.  you are saying they should change theirs to yours.  my wife changed her last name because of tradition and practicality.  it is not that my name is more important than hers.  i am the breadwinner; the house, cars, insurance, etc are all in my name for credit reasons .  i am bringing my resources to the table, and she changed her name as a symbolic gesture.  it is practical because it is much more work for me to change my name than for her to change hers.  i do not put myself above her, but i do have certain expectations for a marriage.  the person who provides is the head of household, and the person who does not provide manages the household.  if you both provide, then it is a toss up.  i ca not see how anyone can disagree or excuse it.  it is not unreasonable because, in most cases, the breadwinner is the one whose last name is chosen.  it makes sense to signify who is head of household by taking a last name.  this will make last names useless.  the length of your last name will grow exponentially with each generation.  the child of smith johnson will marry and become smith johnson bush obama.   #  if you demand someone to meet your demands then it is another.   #  i think expecting and demanding are two different things.  if you expect someone to meet your expectations and they do not then it is one thing.  if you demand someone to meet your demands then it is another.  there is a negative connotation in the demand in that there is a punishment for not meeting a demand.  to demand someone to change their last name is disrespectful, much like demanding a partner to do anything is disrespectful.  many people do not demand their partner to change their last name, rather they expect them to.  this expectation comes out of a signal of commitment to the other person in following a social tradition and symbolizes the merging of lives, rather than boosting egos family names .   #  most people do not like to change for changes sake.   #  it is true that people can be unintentionally disrespectful.  taking someone or an action by someone for granted, as an example.  however that is different than lacking respect, which is a more conscious action taken/held by the agent.  being disrespectful does not necessarily imply lack of respect.  in this case, there might be unintentional disrespect, but there does not seem to be a lack of respect, at least from the general population.  as it would seem to be a case of  disrespect,  the question arises on how, to whom, and the effect.  those answers on how and to whom are obvious and have been spelled out by op and his supporters, so i do not think we need to rehash them.  however, we still need to look at the effect.  op has successfully argued that there is not symmetry regarding respect to genders and last names within our culture , however lack of symmetry does not imply wrongdoing or a current problem within society.  it is definitely worth noting and thinking about, but it in itself does not demand correction.  the fact is that most people are ok with it, both male and female.  most people do not like to change for changes sake.  they need a reason.  so far a concrete reason has not been presented.  so far all the talk about how things could be different not why they should be all have negative effects that accompany them that necessitate change.  could things be different, yes.  are they ? no.  is that a problem, not really.   #  so does the next generation have 0 last names, and the generation after 0 last names ?  # not sure that makes much sense.  so does the next generation have 0 last names, and the generation after 0 last names ? i do not think it is necessarily disrespectful or unreasonable for somebody to think that having the same last name is an important part of being a family.  wanting to be  the browns  or  the smiths  is not implicitly disrespectful.  frankly, i think having a  family name  is part of being a family.  your suggestion for a new convention is not workable at all.   #  first generation: both contribute equally to kids name.   #  depends.  they can each give one, depending on what they think sounds better.  or they can invent a new one.  how do so many other cultures manage it just fine ? first generation: both contribute equally to kids name.  kid gets married, both contribute equally.  it is no longer the grandparents concern which part gets picked.  just that between the partners it is equal.
there is a lot going around the internet in regards to people being comfortable with their weight.  while i think judging someone based on their weight is wrong, at the same time it is a good place to start.  people i know who are overweight tend to eat unhealthy and not exercise.  you get bullied for being overweight ? go to the gym.  eat healthier.  put some effort in to taking care of your body.  not only will it boost your confidence, but you will feel better about yourself as a whole.  i think sizeism should not be a thing.  motivating people to go take care of their bodies properly should be instead.  go ahead, cmv.   #  there is a lot going around the internet in regards to people being comfortable with their weight.   #  while i think judging someone based on their weight is wrong, at the same time it is a good place to start.   # while i think judging someone based on their weight is wrong, at the same time it is a good place to start.  people i know who are overweight tend to eat unhealthy and not exercise.  go to the gym.  eat healthier.  put some effort in to taking care of your body.  you are saying the victims of bullying are at fault.  bullying is ok ? you are making an assumption that you are not backing up with facts.  it is possible an overweight person can go to the gym.  an overweight person can eat healthy.  overweight simply means excess body fat.  why ca not a person feel confident the way they are ? confidence is how you feel about yourself.  it is internal, not the number on a scale.  this is proven by how many normal to skinny weight people have insecurities, body self hate, eating disorders, and poor self esteem.  motivating people to go take care of their bodies properly should be instead.  you are assuming bullying motivating.  but there is no evidence that bullying makes things any better for the bully victim.  the victim of any type of buying tends to feel worse actually.  some may even feel depressed.  you are ignoring the connection between stress and eating for some people.  the stress of constantly being bullied and shamed may increase their drive to eat.  you are not thinking about what happens when a person is ridiculed: they avoid going out in public.  your bullying may keep an overweight person from going to the gym or from exercising along a public road.  you ca not say you want them at your gym and at the same time say it is fine to shame them when you see them.  even if you could convince me it is ok to bully others to live according to your beliefs, you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle.  there is no evidence any weight loss program works long term in more than about 0 of people.  i challenge you to prove otherwise.  and when you check back on these people a few years later, not only have almost all failed at keeping off significant weight, some have gained it all back and then some.  some are so desperate they go in for stomach and intestinal amputation bariatric surgery .  they face possibly of death from the surgery.  the rest if their life they are at risk for malnutrion.  and long term half to 0/0rds still fail to get to their goal weight and keep it off long term.  what right does anyone have to body shame fat people when the science says none of the cures reliably work ? and the fact of the matter is, other people is health is none of your business.  you are not the body police.  do you go around shaming people for eating red meat, drinking alcohol, driving too fast, being sedentary, engaging in extreme sports, or any other unhealthy behaviors ? of course not.  then what gives you the right to judge people based on their appearance to justify treating them like crap ? their health is between themself and their doctor.   #  to add to this, some medications make people gain crazy weight.   #  to add to this, some medications make people gain crazy weight.  psychoactive meds for mental issues, for example.  a person ca not just stop the drugs that help them be sane, just because they gain weight.  it is a lose/lose situation.  also, birth control.  i was once put on a pill that was bad for me.  i gained 0 lbs in two months.  two months.  i had stretch marks like a pregnant person.  additionally, the bad perscription fucked me up so bad, i had vertigo for a year, so i certainly could not exercise.  and even if i could, the hormones would not allow me to lose weight.  it was awful.  another thing, thyroid problems can really fuck a person over.  i have a friend who gained one hundred pounds because her thyroid was overactive.  it took years, meds and a finicky diet change for her to get that weight off.  should any of us be bullied ?  #  it is of no one is concern what size another person is unless, and this is a very rare circumstance, it affects you personally.   #  the problem here is not that people are overweight.  it is that they are being bullied for being overweight.  if someone got bullied for liking dungeons and dragons should they therefore stop playing it ? or perhaps play it more secretly ? it is of no one is concern what size another person is unless, and this is a very rare circumstance, it affects you personally.  just  being forced to see an overweight person  is not justification for mocking or commenting on their weight.  i do not think it is right that it should be considered a protected class in the same manner as sexuality or race, but it is certainly not someone is business to make you happy by being healthy for you or anyone else is peace of mind.   #  so do people who drink alcohol smoke use recreational drugs eat red meat.   # a person can be over their ideal weight and still not crowd you.  a person can not be overly fat but he stocky and muscular.  or they could be over 0 foot tall.  the problem is not body fat.  the problem is the airlines do not build seats big enough.  so do people who drink alcohol smoke use recreational drugs eat red meat.  or eat too much meat.  have sedentary jobs and hobbies eat poor quality food.  live very stressful lives engage in sports they know are very risky do not get proper sleep do not manage existing illnesses well those with untreated mental illness those with eating disorders do not get recommended screenings or check ups exercise too much and suffer injuries work jobs with high injury or illness rates allow themself to be exposed to avoidable carcinogens .  engage in unprotected sex let themself get pregnant peoples choices personal are not yours to make even if you believe it costs your health care system money.  are you proposing we make coke, hot dogs, and extreme sports illegal ? maybe we need to make it a crime for diabetics to skip checking their blood sugar sometimes ? and all men must wear condoms for sex unless they get government permission to make a baby ?  #  at what point is it acceptable to be crushed by someone just not liking you ?  #  i will play devil is advocate here.  is it shame to tell someone that they smell, or are you helping them identify an issue ? i used to work at a gym in college.  if someone came in with an offensive smell it was my job to tell them to work on their hygiene.  i think someone got a staff infection or some other sickness and the gym got pretty strict about it.  the general idea that the gym has was that the smelly people did not bath regularly.  i do not think this is true in all cases, but it was absolutely true in most.  there is really no easy way to get this message across.  obviously, some people would get upset.  however, when someone else is health is concerned, does shaming matter ? where is the line drawn between shaming and someone being overly sensitive ? is shaming a term used instead of bullying now ? i have seen a ton of people call out parents for their screaming children.  is it shameful to say  you are not doing a very good job as a parent ?   it sucks to hear, but it is better to know the truth and address the issue than raise a jackass kid to become a jackass adult.  i have met people that clearly should have had interventions.  is it shaming to tell a friend of yours that you think they are ruining their lives ? no, it is what you do to help another person find some long term happiness.  i do not think i understand the points that you are making.  is it shaming to let someone know that what they are doing is affecting you ? how are people this thin skinned ? at what point is it acceptable to be crushed by someone just not liking you ?
there is a lot going around the internet in regards to people being comfortable with their weight.  while i think judging someone based on their weight is wrong, at the same time it is a good place to start.  people i know who are overweight tend to eat unhealthy and not exercise.  you get bullied for being overweight ? go to the gym.  eat healthier.  put some effort in to taking care of your body.  not only will it boost your confidence, but you will feel better about yourself as a whole.  i think sizeism should not be a thing.  motivating people to go take care of their bodies properly should be instead.  go ahead, cmv.   #  not only will it boost your confidence, but you will feel better about yourself as a whole.   #  why ca not a person feel confident the way they are ?  # while i think judging someone based on their weight is wrong, at the same time it is a good place to start.  people i know who are overweight tend to eat unhealthy and not exercise.  go to the gym.  eat healthier.  put some effort in to taking care of your body.  you are saying the victims of bullying are at fault.  bullying is ok ? you are making an assumption that you are not backing up with facts.  it is possible an overweight person can go to the gym.  an overweight person can eat healthy.  overweight simply means excess body fat.  why ca not a person feel confident the way they are ? confidence is how you feel about yourself.  it is internal, not the number on a scale.  this is proven by how many normal to skinny weight people have insecurities, body self hate, eating disorders, and poor self esteem.  motivating people to go take care of their bodies properly should be instead.  you are assuming bullying motivating.  but there is no evidence that bullying makes things any better for the bully victim.  the victim of any type of buying tends to feel worse actually.  some may even feel depressed.  you are ignoring the connection between stress and eating for some people.  the stress of constantly being bullied and shamed may increase their drive to eat.  you are not thinking about what happens when a person is ridiculed: they avoid going out in public.  your bullying may keep an overweight person from going to the gym or from exercising along a public road.  you ca not say you want them at your gym and at the same time say it is fine to shame them when you see them.  even if you could convince me it is ok to bully others to live according to your beliefs, you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle.  there is no evidence any weight loss program works long term in more than about 0 of people.  i challenge you to prove otherwise.  and when you check back on these people a few years later, not only have almost all failed at keeping off significant weight, some have gained it all back and then some.  some are so desperate they go in for stomach and intestinal amputation bariatric surgery .  they face possibly of death from the surgery.  the rest if their life they are at risk for malnutrion.  and long term half to 0/0rds still fail to get to their goal weight and keep it off long term.  what right does anyone have to body shame fat people when the science says none of the cures reliably work ? and the fact of the matter is, other people is health is none of your business.  you are not the body police.  do you go around shaming people for eating red meat, drinking alcohol, driving too fast, being sedentary, engaging in extreme sports, or any other unhealthy behaviors ? of course not.  then what gives you the right to judge people based on their appearance to justify treating them like crap ? their health is between themself and their doctor.   #  a person ca not just stop the drugs that help them be sane, just because they gain weight.   #  to add to this, some medications make people gain crazy weight.  psychoactive meds for mental issues, for example.  a person ca not just stop the drugs that help them be sane, just because they gain weight.  it is a lose/lose situation.  also, birth control.  i was once put on a pill that was bad for me.  i gained 0 lbs in two months.  two months.  i had stretch marks like a pregnant person.  additionally, the bad perscription fucked me up so bad, i had vertigo for a year, so i certainly could not exercise.  and even if i could, the hormones would not allow me to lose weight.  it was awful.  another thing, thyroid problems can really fuck a person over.  i have a friend who gained one hundred pounds because her thyroid was overactive.  it took years, meds and a finicky diet change for her to get that weight off.  should any of us be bullied ?  #  just  being forced to see an overweight person  is not justification for mocking or commenting on their weight.   #  the problem here is not that people are overweight.  it is that they are being bullied for being overweight.  if someone got bullied for liking dungeons and dragons should they therefore stop playing it ? or perhaps play it more secretly ? it is of no one is concern what size another person is unless, and this is a very rare circumstance, it affects you personally.  just  being forced to see an overweight person  is not justification for mocking or commenting on their weight.  i do not think it is right that it should be considered a protected class in the same manner as sexuality or race, but it is certainly not someone is business to make you happy by being healthy for you or anyone else is peace of mind.   #  the problem is the airlines do not build seats big enough.   # a person can be over their ideal weight and still not crowd you.  a person can not be overly fat but he stocky and muscular.  or they could be over 0 foot tall.  the problem is not body fat.  the problem is the airlines do not build seats big enough.  so do people who drink alcohol smoke use recreational drugs eat red meat.  or eat too much meat.  have sedentary jobs and hobbies eat poor quality food.  live very stressful lives engage in sports they know are very risky do not get proper sleep do not manage existing illnesses well those with untreated mental illness those with eating disorders do not get recommended screenings or check ups exercise too much and suffer injuries work jobs with high injury or illness rates allow themself to be exposed to avoidable carcinogens .  engage in unprotected sex let themself get pregnant peoples choices personal are not yours to make even if you believe it costs your health care system money.  are you proposing we make coke, hot dogs, and extreme sports illegal ? maybe we need to make it a crime for diabetics to skip checking their blood sugar sometimes ? and all men must wear condoms for sex unless they get government permission to make a baby ?  #  is shaming a term used instead of bullying now ?  #  i will play devil is advocate here.  is it shame to tell someone that they smell, or are you helping them identify an issue ? i used to work at a gym in college.  if someone came in with an offensive smell it was my job to tell them to work on their hygiene.  i think someone got a staff infection or some other sickness and the gym got pretty strict about it.  the general idea that the gym has was that the smelly people did not bath regularly.  i do not think this is true in all cases, but it was absolutely true in most.  there is really no easy way to get this message across.  obviously, some people would get upset.  however, when someone else is health is concerned, does shaming matter ? where is the line drawn between shaming and someone being overly sensitive ? is shaming a term used instead of bullying now ? i have seen a ton of people call out parents for their screaming children.  is it shameful to say  you are not doing a very good job as a parent ?   it sucks to hear, but it is better to know the truth and address the issue than raise a jackass kid to become a jackass adult.  i have met people that clearly should have had interventions.  is it shaming to tell a friend of yours that you think they are ruining their lives ? no, it is what you do to help another person find some long term happiness.  i do not think i understand the points that you are making.  is it shaming to let someone know that what they are doing is affecting you ? how are people this thin skinned ? at what point is it acceptable to be crushed by someone just not liking you ?
there is a lot going around the internet in regards to people being comfortable with their weight.  while i think judging someone based on their weight is wrong, at the same time it is a good place to start.  people i know who are overweight tend to eat unhealthy and not exercise.  you get bullied for being overweight ? go to the gym.  eat healthier.  put some effort in to taking care of your body.  not only will it boost your confidence, but you will feel better about yourself as a whole.  i think sizeism should not be a thing.  motivating people to go take care of their bodies properly should be instead.  go ahead, cmv.   #  i think sizeism should not be a thing.   #  motivating people to go take care of their bodies properly should be instead.   # while i think judging someone based on their weight is wrong, at the same time it is a good place to start.  people i know who are overweight tend to eat unhealthy and not exercise.  go to the gym.  eat healthier.  put some effort in to taking care of your body.  you are saying the victims of bullying are at fault.  bullying is ok ? you are making an assumption that you are not backing up with facts.  it is possible an overweight person can go to the gym.  an overweight person can eat healthy.  overweight simply means excess body fat.  why ca not a person feel confident the way they are ? confidence is how you feel about yourself.  it is internal, not the number on a scale.  this is proven by how many normal to skinny weight people have insecurities, body self hate, eating disorders, and poor self esteem.  motivating people to go take care of their bodies properly should be instead.  you are assuming bullying motivating.  but there is no evidence that bullying makes things any better for the bully victim.  the victim of any type of buying tends to feel worse actually.  some may even feel depressed.  you are ignoring the connection between stress and eating for some people.  the stress of constantly being bullied and shamed may increase their drive to eat.  you are not thinking about what happens when a person is ridiculed: they avoid going out in public.  your bullying may keep an overweight person from going to the gym or from exercising along a public road.  you ca not say you want them at your gym and at the same time say it is fine to shame them when you see them.  even if you could convince me it is ok to bully others to live according to your beliefs, you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle.  there is no evidence any weight loss program works long term in more than about 0 of people.  i challenge you to prove otherwise.  and when you check back on these people a few years later, not only have almost all failed at keeping off significant weight, some have gained it all back and then some.  some are so desperate they go in for stomach and intestinal amputation bariatric surgery .  they face possibly of death from the surgery.  the rest if their life they are at risk for malnutrion.  and long term half to 0/0rds still fail to get to their goal weight and keep it off long term.  what right does anyone have to body shame fat people when the science says none of the cures reliably work ? and the fact of the matter is, other people is health is none of your business.  you are not the body police.  do you go around shaming people for eating red meat, drinking alcohol, driving too fast, being sedentary, engaging in extreme sports, or any other unhealthy behaviors ? of course not.  then what gives you the right to judge people based on their appearance to justify treating them like crap ? their health is between themself and their doctor.   #  to add to this, some medications make people gain crazy weight.   #  to add to this, some medications make people gain crazy weight.  psychoactive meds for mental issues, for example.  a person ca not just stop the drugs that help them be sane, just because they gain weight.  it is a lose/lose situation.  also, birth control.  i was once put on a pill that was bad for me.  i gained 0 lbs in two months.  two months.  i had stretch marks like a pregnant person.  additionally, the bad perscription fucked me up so bad, i had vertigo for a year, so i certainly could not exercise.  and even if i could, the hormones would not allow me to lose weight.  it was awful.  another thing, thyroid problems can really fuck a person over.  i have a friend who gained one hundred pounds because her thyroid was overactive.  it took years, meds and a finicky diet change for her to get that weight off.  should any of us be bullied ?  #  just  being forced to see an overweight person  is not justification for mocking or commenting on their weight.   #  the problem here is not that people are overweight.  it is that they are being bullied for being overweight.  if someone got bullied for liking dungeons and dragons should they therefore stop playing it ? or perhaps play it more secretly ? it is of no one is concern what size another person is unless, and this is a very rare circumstance, it affects you personally.  just  being forced to see an overweight person  is not justification for mocking or commenting on their weight.  i do not think it is right that it should be considered a protected class in the same manner as sexuality or race, but it is certainly not someone is business to make you happy by being healthy for you or anyone else is peace of mind.   #  engage in unprotected sex let themself get pregnant peoples choices personal are not yours to make even if you believe it costs your health care system money.   # a person can be over their ideal weight and still not crowd you.  a person can not be overly fat but he stocky and muscular.  or they could be over 0 foot tall.  the problem is not body fat.  the problem is the airlines do not build seats big enough.  so do people who drink alcohol smoke use recreational drugs eat red meat.  or eat too much meat.  have sedentary jobs and hobbies eat poor quality food.  live very stressful lives engage in sports they know are very risky do not get proper sleep do not manage existing illnesses well those with untreated mental illness those with eating disorders do not get recommended screenings or check ups exercise too much and suffer injuries work jobs with high injury or illness rates allow themself to be exposed to avoidable carcinogens .  engage in unprotected sex let themself get pregnant peoples choices personal are not yours to make even if you believe it costs your health care system money.  are you proposing we make coke, hot dogs, and extreme sports illegal ? maybe we need to make it a crime for diabetics to skip checking their blood sugar sometimes ? and all men must wear condoms for sex unless they get government permission to make a baby ?  #  i have met people that clearly should have had interventions.   #  i will play devil is advocate here.  is it shame to tell someone that they smell, or are you helping them identify an issue ? i used to work at a gym in college.  if someone came in with an offensive smell it was my job to tell them to work on their hygiene.  i think someone got a staff infection or some other sickness and the gym got pretty strict about it.  the general idea that the gym has was that the smelly people did not bath regularly.  i do not think this is true in all cases, but it was absolutely true in most.  there is really no easy way to get this message across.  obviously, some people would get upset.  however, when someone else is health is concerned, does shaming matter ? where is the line drawn between shaming and someone being overly sensitive ? is shaming a term used instead of bullying now ? i have seen a ton of people call out parents for their screaming children.  is it shameful to say  you are not doing a very good job as a parent ?   it sucks to hear, but it is better to know the truth and address the issue than raise a jackass kid to become a jackass adult.  i have met people that clearly should have had interventions.  is it shaming to tell a friend of yours that you think they are ruining their lives ? no, it is what you do to help another person find some long term happiness.  i do not think i understand the points that you are making.  is it shaming to let someone know that what they are doing is affecting you ? how are people this thin skinned ? at what point is it acceptable to be crushed by someone just not liking you ?
my friend actually had this idea, and i could not think of any reasons why it would not be a good solution. at least hypothetically, i do see all the logistical hurdles in terms of paying for and training two separate police forces.  first off, why do your day to day patrol officers need lethal firearms ? when you stop to think about it, it is a little bit absurd.  we equip police officers with this tool that they are only supposed to use in the most extreme circumstances, and even when they use it justifiably they come under extremely intense scrutiny.  it is a set up for controversy and failure.  secondly, is there something inherently less effective about non lethal weapons, such as mace, tazers, beanbag guns, tear gas, etc.  ? this is where i will confess my ignorance, i do not know much about guns and weapons, but it seems to me that these things are all just as good at incapacitating somebody.  how necessary is it for officers to have lethal capability ? maybe there is a deterrence factor, but are not all these recent police shootings evidence that deterrence often fails with tragic results ? finally, is there any reason why a separate force equipped specifically to respond to armed threats would be ineffective ? again, i recognize there are big hurdles in terms of manpower and cost.  on the other hand, how much money is wasted on the legal battles that ensue nearly every time a police officer draws his firearm ? just so you know, my mind can definitely be changed on this, i do not have all the pieces together in my head and i suspect there is some reason why this sort of arrangement would not work.  change my view !  #  finally, is there any reason why a separate force equipped specifically to respond to armed threats would be ineffective ?  #  well, this is what swat is for and they are usually very effective.   # the biggest reason is response time.  when something happens you need people to be there responding right away, there are plenty of instances where waiting around for the  willethal force  would be too late.  ? along the same lines as above, there are plenty of instances where the extra force or just the presence of it can pull a situation under control faster than mace or a taser would.  more specific issues: mace: very limited range, limited effectiveness.  i had an instructor who was an officer part time and his take on mace was  well you have got this pissed off guy making a scene and threatens you, so you mace him.  now you have got a  really  pissed off guy who is actually going to carry though with that threat .  mace simply does not stop an attacker, it only blinds them and pisses them off.  tasers: few follow up shots if any , very limited range, sometimes sketchy effectiveness.  if someone is wearing a coat or is moving quick enough to only allow a single dart contact then the taser wo not work.  bean bags: limited range, not terribly accurate, can still cause a ton of potentially damage at close ranges.  you also need a long gun to use it, and your average patrol cop usually does not carry one within arms reach at all times.  a pistol on a holster is going to be faster every time.  tear gas: this is an area weapon, so you are going to have lots of collateral damage.  also has the same drawbacks as mace concerning getting angry people more angry and not really disabling them.  also requires a form of long gun to use, or carry grenades.  well, this is what swat is for and they are usually very effective.  however for the crucial first moments of an altercation you need people armed and ready to hold a threat until someone better armed comes in to back you up.  basically what it comes down to is response time.  by the time a guy with a gun robs that store, or mugs that guy, there is absolutely nothing an unarmed officer can do about it besides call for help.  when your cops are constantly calling for help, then that is not a sign of an effective policing force.  pistols are a compact, quick and effective weapon that is really hard to beat for the vast majority of situations.  the answer is not to take the guns away from the cops, it is to actually train them and hold them accountable for when they use it.   #  how does that officer react in that situation of a simple traffic stop turning into an armed encounter ?  #  so take your standard traffic stop in the us.  who responds to this ? you non lethal team right ? and if the person in the car pulls out a weapon and starts firing at the officer because the driver has outstanding warrants what happens then ? the officer, if he is not shot, calls for help and waits as the lethal response team heads to the scene dodging bullets all the time ? he responds with a taser ? shoots his mace at the person with the gun ? how does that officer react in that situation of a simple traffic stop turning into an armed encounter ?  #  this is why everywhere in the developed world outside of the us, police officers are not lethally armed for routine patrol duty.   #  actually the problem you are highlighting here is that in most states of the us, an officer can encounter lethal force in any situation, from a traffic stop to a jaywalking ticket.  it means that an officer who does not have lethal force at his disposal is disadvantaged by whatever percentage of your population has easy access to guns.  in every other first world country there are gun control laws that decrease this percentage significantly.  this is why everywhere in the developed world outside of the us, police officers are not lethally armed for routine patrol duty.  there is a good reason that the us leads the developed world in fatal police incidents: it is because any incident is more likely to become lethal when one or more parties are lethally armed, and in the us, more people are lethally armed.  it could probably work well in states or regions where gun ownership is relatively low.  but in a state like texas, unfortunately every cop probably genuinely needs to have a gun.   #  the thing is that many people think that the militia aspect of gun ownership is the only one that exists in switzerland, when in fact it is actually the civilian aspect of gun ownership that has most guns.   # costs around 0 swiss francs to get the rifle after the army.  depends, you can easily buy guns as a civilian in switzerland.  the thing is that many people think that the militia aspect of gun ownership is the only one that exists in switzerland, when in fact it is actually the civilian aspect of gun ownership that has most guns.  for example, when i bought my first gun in switzerland glock 0 , i did not have any training whatsoever.  i was not screened for mental health problems or social problems at all, it was just a normal background check.   #  people with mental disorders have the full rights as anyone else unless they act violently.   #  and i would not cross that line.  people with mental disorders have the full rights as anyone else unless they act violently.  discriminating against people with non violent mental disorders is a gross violation of civil liberties, and only serves to further stigmatize mental health issues.  how many gun murders in the us are a result of mental disabilities ? few, most murders are from gang violence which most gangsters are already felons who are unable to legally purchase a gun anyways, yet it still does not deter them at all.  also, military service does not gaurentee that a person will be less likely to murder someone with a weapon.
my friend actually had this idea, and i could not think of any reasons why it would not be a good solution. at least hypothetically, i do see all the logistical hurdles in terms of paying for and training two separate police forces.  first off, why do your day to day patrol officers need lethal firearms ? when you stop to think about it, it is a little bit absurd.  we equip police officers with this tool that they are only supposed to use in the most extreme circumstances, and even when they use it justifiably they come under extremely intense scrutiny.  it is a set up for controversy and failure.  secondly, is there something inherently less effective about non lethal weapons, such as mace, tazers, beanbag guns, tear gas, etc.  ? this is where i will confess my ignorance, i do not know much about guns and weapons, but it seems to me that these things are all just as good at incapacitating somebody.  how necessary is it for officers to have lethal capability ? maybe there is a deterrence factor, but are not all these recent police shootings evidence that deterrence often fails with tragic results ? finally, is there any reason why a separate force equipped specifically to respond to armed threats would be ineffective ? again, i recognize there are big hurdles in terms of manpower and cost.  on the other hand, how much money is wasted on the legal battles that ensue nearly every time a police officer draws his firearm ? just so you know, my mind can definitely be changed on this, i do not have all the pieces together in my head and i suspect there is some reason why this sort of arrangement would not work.  change my view !  #  first off, why do your day to day patrol officers need lethal firearms ?  #  when you stop to think about it, it is a little bit absurd.   # when you stop to think about it, it is a little bit absurd.  almost anyone can acquire lethal firearms in the usa.  sometimes police officers encounter someone carrying firing these weapons, either at civilians or uniformed men.  you could argue that incapacitating these people is enough, but how are you going to do this ? using non lethal weapons might work, but you would have to get close, which is more dangerous and takes longer than firing a gun.  and sometimes not even guns are enough to incapacitate someone.  like in this example.  URL you cannot split police in armed and unarmed forces, since you do not know how dangerous a person is until you encounter him.  imagine being in a shootout and having to rely on backup because you do not have the firepower to take someone out.  if there are hostages, they are almost in the same position as you.  no, it is the result of civilians being, on average, very dangerous, because any of them could carry the ability to kill someone in their belt.  if someone is willing to resist arrest, whether or not that person has a gun determines the course of action a police officer should take.  but sometimes there is no time to judge on that, and the police officer has to decide whether to risk his own life, or that of someone he is trying to arrest.  the reason police are shooting more is because there is an  arms race between uniforms and civilians in the united states .  police officers have to treat every arrest with the idea in mind that the person could be armed and deadly, and when you are in a backwards neighborhood such as the tragic one in missouri, guns are even more prevalent.  this is why police officers are more trigger happy in the usa, because they are afraid of their own lives.  with reason  #  however for the crucial first moments of an altercation you need people armed and ready to hold a threat until someone better armed comes in to back you up.   # the biggest reason is response time.  when something happens you need people to be there responding right away, there are plenty of instances where waiting around for the  willethal force  would be too late.  ? along the same lines as above, there are plenty of instances where the extra force or just the presence of it can pull a situation under control faster than mace or a taser would.  more specific issues: mace: very limited range, limited effectiveness.  i had an instructor who was an officer part time and his take on mace was  well you have got this pissed off guy making a scene and threatens you, so you mace him.  now you have got a  really  pissed off guy who is actually going to carry though with that threat .  mace simply does not stop an attacker, it only blinds them and pisses them off.  tasers: few follow up shots if any , very limited range, sometimes sketchy effectiveness.  if someone is wearing a coat or is moving quick enough to only allow a single dart contact then the taser wo not work.  bean bags: limited range, not terribly accurate, can still cause a ton of potentially damage at close ranges.  you also need a long gun to use it, and your average patrol cop usually does not carry one within arms reach at all times.  a pistol on a holster is going to be faster every time.  tear gas: this is an area weapon, so you are going to have lots of collateral damage.  also has the same drawbacks as mace concerning getting angry people more angry and not really disabling them.  also requires a form of long gun to use, or carry grenades.  well, this is what swat is for and they are usually very effective.  however for the crucial first moments of an altercation you need people armed and ready to hold a threat until someone better armed comes in to back you up.  basically what it comes down to is response time.  by the time a guy with a gun robs that store, or mugs that guy, there is absolutely nothing an unarmed officer can do about it besides call for help.  when your cops are constantly calling for help, then that is not a sign of an effective policing force.  pistols are a compact, quick and effective weapon that is really hard to beat for the vast majority of situations.  the answer is not to take the guns away from the cops, it is to actually train them and hold them accountable for when they use it.   #  how does that officer react in that situation of a simple traffic stop turning into an armed encounter ?  #  so take your standard traffic stop in the us.  who responds to this ? you non lethal team right ? and if the person in the car pulls out a weapon and starts firing at the officer because the driver has outstanding warrants what happens then ? the officer, if he is not shot, calls for help and waits as the lethal response team heads to the scene dodging bullets all the time ? he responds with a taser ? shoots his mace at the person with the gun ? how does that officer react in that situation of a simple traffic stop turning into an armed encounter ?  #  this is why everywhere in the developed world outside of the us, police officers are not lethally armed for routine patrol duty.   #  actually the problem you are highlighting here is that in most states of the us, an officer can encounter lethal force in any situation, from a traffic stop to a jaywalking ticket.  it means that an officer who does not have lethal force at his disposal is disadvantaged by whatever percentage of your population has easy access to guns.  in every other first world country there are gun control laws that decrease this percentage significantly.  this is why everywhere in the developed world outside of the us, police officers are not lethally armed for routine patrol duty.  there is a good reason that the us leads the developed world in fatal police incidents: it is because any incident is more likely to become lethal when one or more parties are lethally armed, and in the us, more people are lethally armed.  it could probably work well in states or regions where gun ownership is relatively low.  but in a state like texas, unfortunately every cop probably genuinely needs to have a gun.   #  for example, when i bought my first gun in switzerland glock 0 , i did not have any training whatsoever.   # costs around 0 swiss francs to get the rifle after the army.  depends, you can easily buy guns as a civilian in switzerland.  the thing is that many people think that the militia aspect of gun ownership is the only one that exists in switzerland, when in fact it is actually the civilian aspect of gun ownership that has most guns.  for example, when i bought my first gun in switzerland glock 0 , i did not have any training whatsoever.  i was not screened for mental health problems or social problems at all, it was just a normal background check.
my friend actually had this idea, and i could not think of any reasons why it would not be a good solution. at least hypothetically, i do see all the logistical hurdles in terms of paying for and training two separate police forces.  first off, why do your day to day patrol officers need lethal firearms ? when you stop to think about it, it is a little bit absurd.  we equip police officers with this tool that they are only supposed to use in the most extreme circumstances, and even when they use it justifiably they come under extremely intense scrutiny.  it is a set up for controversy and failure.  secondly, is there something inherently less effective about non lethal weapons, such as mace, tazers, beanbag guns, tear gas, etc.  ? this is where i will confess my ignorance, i do not know much about guns and weapons, but it seems to me that these things are all just as good at incapacitating somebody.  how necessary is it for officers to have lethal capability ? maybe there is a deterrence factor, but are not all these recent police shootings evidence that deterrence often fails with tragic results ? finally, is there any reason why a separate force equipped specifically to respond to armed threats would be ineffective ? again, i recognize there are big hurdles in terms of manpower and cost.  on the other hand, how much money is wasted on the legal battles that ensue nearly every time a police officer draws his firearm ? just so you know, my mind can definitely be changed on this, i do not have all the pieces together in my head and i suspect there is some reason why this sort of arrangement would not work.  change my view !  #  maybe there is a deterrence factor, but are not all these recent police shootings evidence that deterrence often fails with tragic results ?  #  no, it is the result of civilians being, on average, very dangerous, because any of them could carry the ability to kill someone in their belt.   # when you stop to think about it, it is a little bit absurd.  almost anyone can acquire lethal firearms in the usa.  sometimes police officers encounter someone carrying firing these weapons, either at civilians or uniformed men.  you could argue that incapacitating these people is enough, but how are you going to do this ? using non lethal weapons might work, but you would have to get close, which is more dangerous and takes longer than firing a gun.  and sometimes not even guns are enough to incapacitate someone.  like in this example.  URL you cannot split police in armed and unarmed forces, since you do not know how dangerous a person is until you encounter him.  imagine being in a shootout and having to rely on backup because you do not have the firepower to take someone out.  if there are hostages, they are almost in the same position as you.  no, it is the result of civilians being, on average, very dangerous, because any of them could carry the ability to kill someone in their belt.  if someone is willing to resist arrest, whether or not that person has a gun determines the course of action a police officer should take.  but sometimes there is no time to judge on that, and the police officer has to decide whether to risk his own life, or that of someone he is trying to arrest.  the reason police are shooting more is because there is an  arms race between uniforms and civilians in the united states .  police officers have to treat every arrest with the idea in mind that the person could be armed and deadly, and when you are in a backwards neighborhood such as the tragic one in missouri, guns are even more prevalent.  this is why police officers are more trigger happy in the usa, because they are afraid of their own lives.  with reason  #  you also need a long gun to use it, and your average patrol cop usually does not carry one within arms reach at all times.   # the biggest reason is response time.  when something happens you need people to be there responding right away, there are plenty of instances where waiting around for the  willethal force  would be too late.  ? along the same lines as above, there are plenty of instances where the extra force or just the presence of it can pull a situation under control faster than mace or a taser would.  more specific issues: mace: very limited range, limited effectiveness.  i had an instructor who was an officer part time and his take on mace was  well you have got this pissed off guy making a scene and threatens you, so you mace him.  now you have got a  really  pissed off guy who is actually going to carry though with that threat .  mace simply does not stop an attacker, it only blinds them and pisses them off.  tasers: few follow up shots if any , very limited range, sometimes sketchy effectiveness.  if someone is wearing a coat or is moving quick enough to only allow a single dart contact then the taser wo not work.  bean bags: limited range, not terribly accurate, can still cause a ton of potentially damage at close ranges.  you also need a long gun to use it, and your average patrol cop usually does not carry one within arms reach at all times.  a pistol on a holster is going to be faster every time.  tear gas: this is an area weapon, so you are going to have lots of collateral damage.  also has the same drawbacks as mace concerning getting angry people more angry and not really disabling them.  also requires a form of long gun to use, or carry grenades.  well, this is what swat is for and they are usually very effective.  however for the crucial first moments of an altercation you need people armed and ready to hold a threat until someone better armed comes in to back you up.  basically what it comes down to is response time.  by the time a guy with a gun robs that store, or mugs that guy, there is absolutely nothing an unarmed officer can do about it besides call for help.  when your cops are constantly calling for help, then that is not a sign of an effective policing force.  pistols are a compact, quick and effective weapon that is really hard to beat for the vast majority of situations.  the answer is not to take the guns away from the cops, it is to actually train them and hold them accountable for when they use it.   #  the officer, if he is not shot, calls for help and waits as the lethal response team heads to the scene dodging bullets all the time ?  #  so take your standard traffic stop in the us.  who responds to this ? you non lethal team right ? and if the person in the car pulls out a weapon and starts firing at the officer because the driver has outstanding warrants what happens then ? the officer, if he is not shot, calls for help and waits as the lethal response team heads to the scene dodging bullets all the time ? he responds with a taser ? shoots his mace at the person with the gun ? how does that officer react in that situation of a simple traffic stop turning into an armed encounter ?  #  in every other first world country there are gun control laws that decrease this percentage significantly.   #  actually the problem you are highlighting here is that in most states of the us, an officer can encounter lethal force in any situation, from a traffic stop to a jaywalking ticket.  it means that an officer who does not have lethal force at his disposal is disadvantaged by whatever percentage of your population has easy access to guns.  in every other first world country there are gun control laws that decrease this percentage significantly.  this is why everywhere in the developed world outside of the us, police officers are not lethally armed for routine patrol duty.  there is a good reason that the us leads the developed world in fatal police incidents: it is because any incident is more likely to become lethal when one or more parties are lethally armed, and in the us, more people are lethally armed.  it could probably work well in states or regions where gun ownership is relatively low.  but in a state like texas, unfortunately every cop probably genuinely needs to have a gun.   #  the thing is that many people think that the militia aspect of gun ownership is the only one that exists in switzerland, when in fact it is actually the civilian aspect of gun ownership that has most guns.   # costs around 0 swiss francs to get the rifle after the army.  depends, you can easily buy guns as a civilian in switzerland.  the thing is that many people think that the militia aspect of gun ownership is the only one that exists in switzerland, when in fact it is actually the civilian aspect of gun ownership that has most guns.  for example, when i bought my first gun in switzerland glock 0 , i did not have any training whatsoever.  i was not screened for mental health problems or social problems at all, it was just a normal background check.
i have a degree in software engineering, and i feel like the recent spike in people discussing how ai is about to end humanity is done purely for publicity purposes without any basis in reality.  will ai start killing people in the next decade ? maybe.  but if it does it will be by drones who are self assigning targets, or turrets picking people off in a firefight.  people are discussing it like those things are just one step away from terminators walking through time square mowing people down.  in reality a turret picking people off is closer to a microwave than to a sentient being capable of destroying mankind.  ai destroying humanity would require some semblance of sentience and evolution past the originally programmed purpose.  not only are we not currently close to this, but it is not even on the horizon.  we are still struggling with getting a computer to identify the object in a sentence, or to see what a bird is, never mind a sentient computer capable of making something smarter than itself and humans.  is it possible that down the line we will create something that has the intelligence to destroy us ? absolutely.  but barring some quantum leap in artificial intelligence design and computing power there is no way it happens in the next 0 years.   #  ai destroying humanity would require some semblance of sentience and evolution past the originally programmed purpose.   #  not only are we not currently close to this, but it is not even on the horizon.   # not only are we not currently close to this, but it is not even on the horizon.  we are still struggling with getting a computer to identify the object in a sentence, or to see what a bird is, never mind a sentient computer capable of making something smarter than itself and humans.  i am not a computer scientist or even remotely an expert in anything related to computing.  but is not the idea that an ai will be able to reprogram itself and evolve itself well beyond its preprogrammed purpose almost immediately ? sure,  we are  struggling to creating a real ai.  but what makes you think an ai will struggle with creating more complex versions of itself ?  #  normally, the pakis and the indians would mobilize, stand off at the border, have a few border incidents, and call it off after a while.   #  what i am most concerned about is a feedback loop.  let is say india and pakistan have ai automatically respond to threats.  one day, there is a repeat of the mumbai bombings and the indian politicians decide to blame pakistan.  normally, the pakis and the indians would mobilize, stand off at the border, have a few border incidents, and call it off after a while.  with ai, automated defensive bombing could cause the conflict to escalate faster than expected, resulting in an actual war.   #  you are right, but google and i do believe some other company, are building ai systems that are learning computers which teach themselves and write their own code.   #  you are right, but google and i do believe some other company, are building ai systems that are learning computers which teach themselves and write their own code.  this could have unpredictable results.  it does not need to be sentient necessarily, to be exceedingly dangerous ai beyond drones and microwaves.  but it might become sentient as well.  we do not exactly know what causes sentience.  so, we ca not really say for certain that a self evolving system, will not eventually develop this attribute.  i am personally of the belief though that a sentient ai would be safer than an advanced adaptive non sentient one.  i am not worried about terminators, but terminators do not need to be sentient exactly.  to be just like the movie, yes, but killing machines that can perform like terminators on a vendetta to destroy humanity, does not need sentience.   #  we really need to start thinking about a serious plan to not kill ourselves with this stuff.   #  no one really disagrees with your main assertion.  if you asked steven hawking or elon musk whether ai is likely to pose an existential threat to humanity in the next two decades, they would probably say no.  what you are missing is that it is incredibly shortsighted to ignore an existential threat to the entire human race just because it is more than two decades away.  ai is likely to be developed sometime this century, possibly within the next three or four decades, and what musk and hawking are saying is that it is conceivably  far  more dangerous than nuclear weapons.  we really need to start thinking about a serious plan to not kill ourselves with this stuff.   #  once it has that processing power it can think better than us and also like a million times faster than us.   #  the scary part is that we do not know if it would destroy us, only that it could.  if we truly spawn a being that is much more intelligent than us, all it needs to think faster than us is more processing power.  once it has that processing power it can think better than us and also like a million times faster than us.  if it is doing that, we have no idea what conclusions it will reach.  will it have compassion ? why would it ? would it have the desire to expand ? would it care about killing us as it expands ? essentially if it comes to a nihilist conclusion and is also ultra powerful then there would be almost nothing we could do.
i am aware the following are opinions, but i will be stating them as facts to make things easier.  sex is a very powerful action that does not necessarily have to be used for conception every time, but should only be used between two very close people.  the two people should be together for long enough to know eachother very well and have a very healthy, trusting relationship.  one night stands and other  no strings attached  relationships are dangerous and can be unhealthy for both participants  mental state.  having sex just based on urges is uncivilized and is unhealthy for society as a whole.  change my view.  thanks.   #  having sex just based on urges is uncivilized and is unhealthy for society as a whole.   #  the times and places where that was a widely held cultural norm are the societies where extramarital sex/sodomy was seen as abhorrent and punishable by torture or even death.   # couple things here.  first of all, lots of people have casual sex just fine; the partners who have issues are the ones who either do it irresponsibly say, without protection or as a means to manipulate someone or are not on the same page, like if one person has a relationship in mind and the other does not.  the last three girlfriends i had all began as awkward one night stands that i did not initially think would go anywhere.  i dated the first two for at least 0 months, and am still seeing the third.  so i believe good things definitely can come from them.  second, i feel like loving someone without experiencing their sexuality is a bit risky.  you can go in with the best intentions in mind, but if you end up wanting different things and ca not compromise, it can cause some major issues in your relationship.  it is a bit like moving in with your best friend you may think they are awesome, but you do not know what they are like in the context of sharing living space, and it may be completely different than what you would expect for the worse.  the times and places where that was a widely held cultural norm are the societies where extramarital sex/sodomy was seen as abhorrent and punishable by torture or even death.  you can see that today in certain places in africa or asia.  putting a strict guideline on sex that is moral, healthy, or  normal  casts those that do not abide by it as deviant and deserving of stigma, which, from a sociological standpoint, i would say is very unhealthy for society.   #  or conversely, is someone i buy hotdogs from objectified as a  hotdog seller ?    #  i feel like animals have nothing to do with this.  and boy, is this a tough one to respond to.  you are right, the concept of objectifying a human has been circle jerked to death.  and i also agree that, in general, it can be a harmful mindset.  it subconsciously allows people to lower the status of others, and treat them in an inferior manner.  however, i would not say that fucking someone objectifies them.  compare it to any other situation in life.  say i work a cash register, and a customer comes by.  would you say i  objectified  the customer by classifying them as someone whom i can sell to ? or conversely, is someone i buy hotdogs from objectified as a  hotdog seller ?   of course not, it is just a necessary classification in the world.  just like someone you have sex with.  there is nothing special about sex.   #  it is harmful if they do not agree to it.   #  it is harmful if they do not agree to it.  that is called rape and we used to kill people for that.  i personally think it is harmful if consenting folks are unsafe about sex not using a condom with strangers is bad and leads to std is like herpes and pregnancy .  however if two parties are horny and wish to relive their mating urges upon one another in a safe and consenting manner, there is nothing wrong with that.  can it lead to mixed messages and confusion ? sure, but we civilized folk have language to help us communicate our intentions.   #  the  that person is hot  thoughts come from your subconscious.   #  as an animal you have a built in urge to fuck.  logic and reason cause us to be a little more restrained about when, where, and with whom, however the urge is still there.  if getting horny and wanting to have sex with what your instincts tell you is an appealing mate makes you terrible, then every human is terrible the minute we hit sexual puberty.  the  that person is hot  thoughts come from your subconscious.  you have little to no control over that part of your mind as it is programmed to do a lot of essential tasks for you.  those thoughts are no different than  i am hungry for some bacon  or  i am thirsty .   #  now, if he did not want to and i badgered him until he relented, that would be different, and that would be using him as a means.   #  i see the point you are making, and i hope i can help you clarify your thoughts a bit.  i see you making a sort of kantian claim that you should treat people as an ends in themselves, not as means to your own pleasure.  and i think that is a perfectly valid way to think about life and relationships.  but i would challenge that people having sex outside of a loving relationship necessarily involves using someone as a means.  let is get away from sex for a bit.  say i want to play some magic: the gathering, as it is a pastime i enjoy.  i seek out my friend, who also enjoys mtg and is at an equal skill level, and ask him if he would like to play for a bit.  he says yes, we play some games and both have a great time.  now, was i selfishly using him to fulfill my desire to have an opponent for a game of magic ? i would say no.  i made my decision based on his mutual love for the game, i believed he also would enjoy it, and sought and respected his decision to join me.  now, if he did not want to and i badgered him until he relented, that would be different, and that would be using him as a means.  i would argue that sex is not so different.  if you both wish to engage in a mutually enjoyable activity, and you are respecting the free will and desires of the other party, you are not using them as a means.  just because you are not in a loving relationship does not mean you ca not respect the person and treat them as an end.  individuals certainly do use other people for sex, and sometimes that even happens in the context of a supposedly loving relationship, but that is what should be condemned, not the relationship context that the activity took place within.
i am aware the following are opinions, but i will be stating them as facts to make things easier.  sex is a very powerful action that does not necessarily have to be used for conception every time, but should only be used between two very close people.  the two people should be together for long enough to know eachother very well and have a very healthy, trusting relationship.  one night stands and other  no strings attached  relationships are dangerous and can be unhealthy for both participants  mental state.  having sex just based on urges is uncivilized and is unhealthy for society as a whole.  change my view.  thanks.   #  sex is a very powerful action that does not necessarily have to be used for conception every time, but should only be used between two very close people.   #  why do they have to be very close ?  # why do they have to be very close ? why ? i mean, it certainly tends leads to great, meaningful, and fulfilling sex.  but a relationship is not remotely required for sex.  prostitution is called the oldest profession in the world for a reason.  sex is a very powerful driving force, for many people.  it can be as used a stress relieving tool as easily as it can be used to grow a relationship.  no more dangerous or unhealthy than whole slew of other, readily accepted behaviors.  alcohol consumption and driving a car are more likely to cause you serious harm than having sex with a stranger.  have you got any proof to back this claim up ? i think it is pretty easy to look at western europe to see a pretty laissez faire attitude towards sex and also see pretty healthy, thriving societies.  i can also look at the us, and look at arguably highly sexually repressed states and see unhealthy, poor performing areas that fail on a whole slew of tangible  civilization metrics .   #  say i work a cash register, and a customer comes by.   #  i feel like animals have nothing to do with this.  and boy, is this a tough one to respond to.  you are right, the concept of objectifying a human has been circle jerked to death.  and i also agree that, in general, it can be a harmful mindset.  it subconsciously allows people to lower the status of others, and treat them in an inferior manner.  however, i would not say that fucking someone objectifies them.  compare it to any other situation in life.  say i work a cash register, and a customer comes by.  would you say i  objectified  the customer by classifying them as someone whom i can sell to ? or conversely, is someone i buy hotdogs from objectified as a  hotdog seller ?   of course not, it is just a necessary classification in the world.  just like someone you have sex with.  there is nothing special about sex.   #  however if two parties are horny and wish to relive their mating urges upon one another in a safe and consenting manner, there is nothing wrong with that.   #  it is harmful if they do not agree to it.  that is called rape and we used to kill people for that.  i personally think it is harmful if consenting folks are unsafe about sex not using a condom with strangers is bad and leads to std is like herpes and pregnancy .  however if two parties are horny and wish to relive their mating urges upon one another in a safe and consenting manner, there is nothing wrong with that.  can it lead to mixed messages and confusion ? sure, but we civilized folk have language to help us communicate our intentions.   #  the  that person is hot  thoughts come from your subconscious.   #  as an animal you have a built in urge to fuck.  logic and reason cause us to be a little more restrained about when, where, and with whom, however the urge is still there.  if getting horny and wanting to have sex with what your instincts tell you is an appealing mate makes you terrible, then every human is terrible the minute we hit sexual puberty.  the  that person is hot  thoughts come from your subconscious.  you have little to no control over that part of your mind as it is programmed to do a lot of essential tasks for you.  those thoughts are no different than  i am hungry for some bacon  or  i am thirsty .   #  just because you are not in a loving relationship does not mean you ca not respect the person and treat them as an end.   #  i see the point you are making, and i hope i can help you clarify your thoughts a bit.  i see you making a sort of kantian claim that you should treat people as an ends in themselves, not as means to your own pleasure.  and i think that is a perfectly valid way to think about life and relationships.  but i would challenge that people having sex outside of a loving relationship necessarily involves using someone as a means.  let is get away from sex for a bit.  say i want to play some magic: the gathering, as it is a pastime i enjoy.  i seek out my friend, who also enjoys mtg and is at an equal skill level, and ask him if he would like to play for a bit.  he says yes, we play some games and both have a great time.  now, was i selfishly using him to fulfill my desire to have an opponent for a game of magic ? i would say no.  i made my decision based on his mutual love for the game, i believed he also would enjoy it, and sought and respected his decision to join me.  now, if he did not want to and i badgered him until he relented, that would be different, and that would be using him as a means.  i would argue that sex is not so different.  if you both wish to engage in a mutually enjoyable activity, and you are respecting the free will and desires of the other party, you are not using them as a means.  just because you are not in a loving relationship does not mean you ca not respect the person and treat them as an end.  individuals certainly do use other people for sex, and sometimes that even happens in the context of a supposedly loving relationship, but that is what should be condemned, not the relationship context that the activity took place within.
i am aware the following are opinions, but i will be stating them as facts to make things easier.  sex is a very powerful action that does not necessarily have to be used for conception every time, but should only be used between two very close people.  the two people should be together for long enough to know eachother very well and have a very healthy, trusting relationship.  one night stands and other  no strings attached  relationships are dangerous and can be unhealthy for both participants  mental state.  having sex just based on urges is uncivilized and is unhealthy for society as a whole.  change my view.  thanks.   #  one night stands and other  no strings attached  relationships are dangerous and can be unhealthy for both participants  mental state.   #  no more dangerous or unhealthy than whole slew of other, readily accepted behaviors.   # why do they have to be very close ? why ? i mean, it certainly tends leads to great, meaningful, and fulfilling sex.  but a relationship is not remotely required for sex.  prostitution is called the oldest profession in the world for a reason.  sex is a very powerful driving force, for many people.  it can be as used a stress relieving tool as easily as it can be used to grow a relationship.  no more dangerous or unhealthy than whole slew of other, readily accepted behaviors.  alcohol consumption and driving a car are more likely to cause you serious harm than having sex with a stranger.  have you got any proof to back this claim up ? i think it is pretty easy to look at western europe to see a pretty laissez faire attitude towards sex and also see pretty healthy, thriving societies.  i can also look at the us, and look at arguably highly sexually repressed states and see unhealthy, poor performing areas that fail on a whole slew of tangible  civilization metrics .   #  and boy, is this a tough one to respond to.   #  i feel like animals have nothing to do with this.  and boy, is this a tough one to respond to.  you are right, the concept of objectifying a human has been circle jerked to death.  and i also agree that, in general, it can be a harmful mindset.  it subconsciously allows people to lower the status of others, and treat them in an inferior manner.  however, i would not say that fucking someone objectifies them.  compare it to any other situation in life.  say i work a cash register, and a customer comes by.  would you say i  objectified  the customer by classifying them as someone whom i can sell to ? or conversely, is someone i buy hotdogs from objectified as a  hotdog seller ?   of course not, it is just a necessary classification in the world.  just like someone you have sex with.  there is nothing special about sex.   #  that is called rape and we used to kill people for that.   #  it is harmful if they do not agree to it.  that is called rape and we used to kill people for that.  i personally think it is harmful if consenting folks are unsafe about sex not using a condom with strangers is bad and leads to std is like herpes and pregnancy .  however if two parties are horny and wish to relive their mating urges upon one another in a safe and consenting manner, there is nothing wrong with that.  can it lead to mixed messages and confusion ? sure, but we civilized folk have language to help us communicate our intentions.   #  the  that person is hot  thoughts come from your subconscious.   #  as an animal you have a built in urge to fuck.  logic and reason cause us to be a little more restrained about when, where, and with whom, however the urge is still there.  if getting horny and wanting to have sex with what your instincts tell you is an appealing mate makes you terrible, then every human is terrible the minute we hit sexual puberty.  the  that person is hot  thoughts come from your subconscious.  you have little to no control over that part of your mind as it is programmed to do a lot of essential tasks for you.  those thoughts are no different than  i am hungry for some bacon  or  i am thirsty .   #  now, was i selfishly using him to fulfill my desire to have an opponent for a game of magic ?  #  i see the point you are making, and i hope i can help you clarify your thoughts a bit.  i see you making a sort of kantian claim that you should treat people as an ends in themselves, not as means to your own pleasure.  and i think that is a perfectly valid way to think about life and relationships.  but i would challenge that people having sex outside of a loving relationship necessarily involves using someone as a means.  let is get away from sex for a bit.  say i want to play some magic: the gathering, as it is a pastime i enjoy.  i seek out my friend, who also enjoys mtg and is at an equal skill level, and ask him if he would like to play for a bit.  he says yes, we play some games and both have a great time.  now, was i selfishly using him to fulfill my desire to have an opponent for a game of magic ? i would say no.  i made my decision based on his mutual love for the game, i believed he also would enjoy it, and sought and respected his decision to join me.  now, if he did not want to and i badgered him until he relented, that would be different, and that would be using him as a means.  i would argue that sex is not so different.  if you both wish to engage in a mutually enjoyable activity, and you are respecting the free will and desires of the other party, you are not using them as a means.  just because you are not in a loving relationship does not mean you ca not respect the person and treat them as an end.  individuals certainly do use other people for sex, and sometimes that even happens in the context of a supposedly loving relationship, but that is what should be condemned, not the relationship context that the activity took place within.
i am aware the following are opinions, but i will be stating them as facts to make things easier.  sex is a very powerful action that does not necessarily have to be used for conception every time, but should only be used between two very close people.  the two people should be together for long enough to know eachother very well and have a very healthy, trusting relationship.  one night stands and other  no strings attached  relationships are dangerous and can be unhealthy for both participants  mental state.  having sex just based on urges is uncivilized and is unhealthy for society as a whole.  change my view.  thanks.   #  having sex just based on urges is uncivilized and is unhealthy for society as a whole.   #  have you got any proof to back this claim up ?  # why do they have to be very close ? why ? i mean, it certainly tends leads to great, meaningful, and fulfilling sex.  but a relationship is not remotely required for sex.  prostitution is called the oldest profession in the world for a reason.  sex is a very powerful driving force, for many people.  it can be as used a stress relieving tool as easily as it can be used to grow a relationship.  no more dangerous or unhealthy than whole slew of other, readily accepted behaviors.  alcohol consumption and driving a car are more likely to cause you serious harm than having sex with a stranger.  have you got any proof to back this claim up ? i think it is pretty easy to look at western europe to see a pretty laissez faire attitude towards sex and also see pretty healthy, thriving societies.  i can also look at the us, and look at arguably highly sexually repressed states and see unhealthy, poor performing areas that fail on a whole slew of tangible  civilization metrics .   #  and i also agree that, in general, it can be a harmful mindset.   #  i feel like animals have nothing to do with this.  and boy, is this a tough one to respond to.  you are right, the concept of objectifying a human has been circle jerked to death.  and i also agree that, in general, it can be a harmful mindset.  it subconsciously allows people to lower the status of others, and treat them in an inferior manner.  however, i would not say that fucking someone objectifies them.  compare it to any other situation in life.  say i work a cash register, and a customer comes by.  would you say i  objectified  the customer by classifying them as someone whom i can sell to ? or conversely, is someone i buy hotdogs from objectified as a  hotdog seller ?   of course not, it is just a necessary classification in the world.  just like someone you have sex with.  there is nothing special about sex.   #  can it lead to mixed messages and confusion ?  #  it is harmful if they do not agree to it.  that is called rape and we used to kill people for that.  i personally think it is harmful if consenting folks are unsafe about sex not using a condom with strangers is bad and leads to std is like herpes and pregnancy .  however if two parties are horny and wish to relive their mating urges upon one another in a safe and consenting manner, there is nothing wrong with that.  can it lead to mixed messages and confusion ? sure, but we civilized folk have language to help us communicate our intentions.   #  logic and reason cause us to be a little more restrained about when, where, and with whom, however the urge is still there.   #  as an animal you have a built in urge to fuck.  logic and reason cause us to be a little more restrained about when, where, and with whom, however the urge is still there.  if getting horny and wanting to have sex with what your instincts tell you is an appealing mate makes you terrible, then every human is terrible the minute we hit sexual puberty.  the  that person is hot  thoughts come from your subconscious.  you have little to no control over that part of your mind as it is programmed to do a lot of essential tasks for you.  those thoughts are no different than  i am hungry for some bacon  or  i am thirsty .   #  if you both wish to engage in a mutually enjoyable activity, and you are respecting the free will and desires of the other party, you are not using them as a means.   #  i see the point you are making, and i hope i can help you clarify your thoughts a bit.  i see you making a sort of kantian claim that you should treat people as an ends in themselves, not as means to your own pleasure.  and i think that is a perfectly valid way to think about life and relationships.  but i would challenge that people having sex outside of a loving relationship necessarily involves using someone as a means.  let is get away from sex for a bit.  say i want to play some magic: the gathering, as it is a pastime i enjoy.  i seek out my friend, who also enjoys mtg and is at an equal skill level, and ask him if he would like to play for a bit.  he says yes, we play some games and both have a great time.  now, was i selfishly using him to fulfill my desire to have an opponent for a game of magic ? i would say no.  i made my decision based on his mutual love for the game, i believed he also would enjoy it, and sought and respected his decision to join me.  now, if he did not want to and i badgered him until he relented, that would be different, and that would be using him as a means.  i would argue that sex is not so different.  if you both wish to engage in a mutually enjoyable activity, and you are respecting the free will and desires of the other party, you are not using them as a means.  just because you are not in a loving relationship does not mean you ca not respect the person and treat them as an end.  individuals certainly do use other people for sex, and sometimes that even happens in the context of a supposedly loving relationship, but that is what should be condemned, not the relationship context that the activity took place within.
this was inspired by the events in ferguson, but it goes beyond that.  if a government agent is put before a grand jury for a crime, the prosecutor and the accused are both playing for the same team.  the system is not adversarial, which means that justice will, most likely, not be served.  grand juries are meant to force the prosecutor to present at least enough evidence to convince the public that the case should, indeed, go to trial.  if they were fulfilling that purpose, we would expect at least a few percent of the cases they hear to not pass the test.  however, according to fivethirtyeight. com URL so they are obviously a rubber stamp court, doing what the prosecutors want them to do.  since they do not fulfill their positive purpose forcing the state to bring a good case and they do seem to fulfill a rather negative one protecting government agents from prosecution , i think we should get rid of them.   #  if a government agent is put before a grand jury for a crime, the prosecutor and the accused are both playing for the same team.   #  the system is not adversarial, which means that justice will, most likely, not be served.   # the system is not adversarial, which means that justice will, most likely, not be served.  i am not sure this accusation carries much weight because if the prosecutor wants to, they can just decide not to prosecute in the first place.  taking it to the grand jury by its very nature is therefore a more adversarial option than they have to choose.  more like its a huge waste of time and resources to go to the grand jury on a very weak case, so most prosecutors will not do so unless they are convinced they will succeed.  thus the threat of the grand jury returning no true bill is a powerful check against the prosecutor pursuing bad cases in the first place, kinda like how airport security stops people from even attempting to bring guns on planes.   #  darren wilson was not on trial as a police officer.   #  you have two points here to be addressed separately.  0 they are a rubber stamp court.  i disagree that the high rate of indictments means that they are just a rubber stamp.  prosecutors know what the burden of evidence is that is required to get an indictment, so that is what they bring to a grand jury.  yes, the result is that the grand jury passes it on to trial, but that is simply because prosecutors are not going to bother showing up without what they know is required to get the indictment.  doing away with them would enable prosecutors to just take whatever they wanted to trial, with or without convincing evidence.  0 protecting government agents.  there is nothing to back this up.  darren wilson was not on trial as a police officer.  he was on trial as a citizen.  the prosecutor is not  playing for the same team  in any official sense.  you could say that on a personal level, maybe he did not try as hard, but the grand jury has nothing to do with that.  if the prosecutor is corrupt and protecting the cops from legal action, then it does not matter how it gets brought to trial, they simply wo not put forth a case that will win.   #  he simply has no reason to aggressively pursue a police officer.   # you would need to prove this to me to get a delta.  i found this source that seems to argue the opposite URL   as a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor.  this is the basis for judge sol wachtler is famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to  indict a ham sandwich.      solomon l.  wisenberg as for this:  darren wilson was not on trial as a police officer.  he was on trial as a citizen.  the prosecutor is not  playing for the same team  in any official sense.  if that is the case, why would the prosecutor bring up things like mike brown holding marijuana ? the prosecutor is supposed to make the best case he can for prosecuting, right ? i would not say that he is  corrupt  because that would make him seem like an outlier.  he simply has no reason to aggressively pursue a police officer.  it is a flaw in the system.   #  a system that is meant to distinguish between good cases and bad cases yet returns  good case  on practically all of them is a broken system that needs to be reformed or repalced.   # taking it to the grand jury by its very nature is therefore a more adversarial option than they have to choose.  in certain cases, they feel forced to take it to a grand jury because of community outrage.  however, they have no reason to try to present a compelling case.  it is a huge waste of time and resources to go to the olympics if you are sure you will lose, but it still happens.  the popular saying is that  a prosecutor can get a jury to indict a ham sandwich.   a system that is meant to distinguish between good cases and bad cases yet returns  good case  on practically all of them is a broken system that needs to be reformed or repalced.   #  participating in the olympics for your country is still a huge honor and often a lot of fun.   # however, they have no reason to try to present a compelling case.  yes, which is what most likely happened at ferguson.  obviously if the grand jury is used as political theater it may be a waste of time, but that is a rare exception and not what is normally seen by the grand jury system.  still, you do not seem to be arguing against my point that the system is adversarial, even when the defendant is a government agent.  did i change your view on this ? this is nothing like that at all.  participating in the olympics for your country is still a huge honor and often a lot of fun.  alternatively, prosecutors are very often rated on their  win/loss  record, so there is a huge amount of pressure not to gamble or take risks on cases that wo not make it past the grand jury.  a system that is meant to distinguish between good cases and bad cases yet returns  good case  on practically all of them is a broken system that needs to be reformed or repalced.  the point of the grand jury system is  not  simply to determine good and bad cases, it is also to provide an initial barrier to restricting someone is rights that requires the consent of peers and not an authoritarian.  the grand jury serves its purpose just as well if the threat of no true bill prevents bad cases from being attempted.  in fact, one could argue this is preferred because it saves time and resources by not presenting the case at all.  in the more abstract, this is basically a case of something statistics calls selection bias.  you are making the assumption that the potential cases brought to the grand jury are a random sampling of possible cases, and thus inferring that they are a rubber stamp.  in fact, only solid cases are brought to the grand jury, and thus you can only infer that for solid cases, the grand jury is a rubber stamp.
this was inspired by the events in ferguson, but it goes beyond that.  if a government agent is put before a grand jury for a crime, the prosecutor and the accused are both playing for the same team.  the system is not adversarial, which means that justice will, most likely, not be served.  grand juries are meant to force the prosecutor to present at least enough evidence to convince the public that the case should, indeed, go to trial.  if they were fulfilling that purpose, we would expect at least a few percent of the cases they hear to not pass the test.  however, according to fivethirtyeight. com URL so they are obviously a rubber stamp court, doing what the prosecutors want them to do.  since they do not fulfill their positive purpose forcing the state to bring a good case and they do seem to fulfill a rather negative one protecting government agents from prosecution , i think we should get rid of them.   #  so they are obviously a rubber stamp court, doing what the prosecutors want them to do.   #  more like its a huge waste of time and resources to go to the grand jury on a very weak case, so most prosecutors will not do so unless they are convinced they will succeed.   # the system is not adversarial, which means that justice will, most likely, not be served.  i am not sure this accusation carries much weight because if the prosecutor wants to, they can just decide not to prosecute in the first place.  taking it to the grand jury by its very nature is therefore a more adversarial option than they have to choose.  more like its a huge waste of time and resources to go to the grand jury on a very weak case, so most prosecutors will not do so unless they are convinced they will succeed.  thus the threat of the grand jury returning no true bill is a powerful check against the prosecutor pursuing bad cases in the first place, kinda like how airport security stops people from even attempting to bring guns on planes.   #  i disagree that the high rate of indictments means that they are just a rubber stamp.   #  you have two points here to be addressed separately.  0 they are a rubber stamp court.  i disagree that the high rate of indictments means that they are just a rubber stamp.  prosecutors know what the burden of evidence is that is required to get an indictment, so that is what they bring to a grand jury.  yes, the result is that the grand jury passes it on to trial, but that is simply because prosecutors are not going to bother showing up without what they know is required to get the indictment.  doing away with them would enable prosecutors to just take whatever they wanted to trial, with or without convincing evidence.  0 protecting government agents.  there is nothing to back this up.  darren wilson was not on trial as a police officer.  he was on trial as a citizen.  the prosecutor is not  playing for the same team  in any official sense.  you could say that on a personal level, maybe he did not try as hard, but the grand jury has nothing to do with that.  if the prosecutor is corrupt and protecting the cops from legal action, then it does not matter how it gets brought to trial, they simply wo not put forth a case that will win.   #  the prosecutor is supposed to make the best case he can for prosecuting, right ?  # you would need to prove this to me to get a delta.  i found this source that seems to argue the opposite URL   as a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor.  this is the basis for judge sol wachtler is famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to  indict a ham sandwich.      solomon l.  wisenberg as for this:  darren wilson was not on trial as a police officer.  he was on trial as a citizen.  the prosecutor is not  playing for the same team  in any official sense.  if that is the case, why would the prosecutor bring up things like mike brown holding marijuana ? the prosecutor is supposed to make the best case he can for prosecuting, right ? i would not say that he is  corrupt  because that would make him seem like an outlier.  he simply has no reason to aggressively pursue a police officer.  it is a flaw in the system.   #  the popular saying is that  a prosecutor can get a jury to indict a ham sandwich.    # taking it to the grand jury by its very nature is therefore a more adversarial option than they have to choose.  in certain cases, they feel forced to take it to a grand jury because of community outrage.  however, they have no reason to try to present a compelling case.  it is a huge waste of time and resources to go to the olympics if you are sure you will lose, but it still happens.  the popular saying is that  a prosecutor can get a jury to indict a ham sandwich.   a system that is meant to distinguish between good cases and bad cases yet returns  good case  on practically all of them is a broken system that needs to be reformed or repalced.   #  the point of the grand jury system is  not  simply to determine good and bad cases, it is also to provide an initial barrier to restricting someone is rights that requires the consent of peers and not an authoritarian.   # however, they have no reason to try to present a compelling case.  yes, which is what most likely happened at ferguson.  obviously if the grand jury is used as political theater it may be a waste of time, but that is a rare exception and not what is normally seen by the grand jury system.  still, you do not seem to be arguing against my point that the system is adversarial, even when the defendant is a government agent.  did i change your view on this ? this is nothing like that at all.  participating in the olympics for your country is still a huge honor and often a lot of fun.  alternatively, prosecutors are very often rated on their  win/loss  record, so there is a huge amount of pressure not to gamble or take risks on cases that wo not make it past the grand jury.  a system that is meant to distinguish between good cases and bad cases yet returns  good case  on practically all of them is a broken system that needs to be reformed or repalced.  the point of the grand jury system is  not  simply to determine good and bad cases, it is also to provide an initial barrier to restricting someone is rights that requires the consent of peers and not an authoritarian.  the grand jury serves its purpose just as well if the threat of no true bill prevents bad cases from being attempted.  in fact, one could argue this is preferred because it saves time and resources by not presenting the case at all.  in the more abstract, this is basically a case of something statistics calls selection bias.  you are making the assumption that the potential cases brought to the grand jury are a random sampling of possible cases, and thus inferring that they are a rubber stamp.  in fact, only solid cases are brought to the grand jury, and thus you can only infer that for solid cases, the grand jury is a rubber stamp.
this was inspired by the events in ferguson, but it goes beyond that.  if a government agent is put before a grand jury for a crime, the prosecutor and the accused are both playing for the same team.  the system is not adversarial, which means that justice will, most likely, not be served.  grand juries are meant to force the prosecutor to present at least enough evidence to convince the public that the case should, indeed, go to trial.  if they were fulfilling that purpose, we would expect at least a few percent of the cases they hear to not pass the test.  however, according to fivethirtyeight. com URL so they are obviously a rubber stamp court, doing what the prosecutors want them to do.  since they do not fulfill their positive purpose forcing the state to bring a good case and they do seem to fulfill a rather negative one protecting government agents from prosecution , i think we should get rid of them.   #  so they are obviously a rubber stamp court, doing what the prosecutors want them to do.   #  the point of a grand jury is to say whether or not there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, not to determine guilt or innocence.   # attorneys prosecuted 0,0 federal cases in 0, the most recent year for which we have data.  grand juries declined to return an indictment in 0 of them.  the point of a grand jury is to say whether or not there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, not to determine guilt or innocence.  therefore,  only  evidence that points towards guilt is presented.  so it makes sense that the decisions are lopsided since one would only be arrested in the first place if there was  some  evidence of wrongdoing to begin with.   #  prosecutors know what the burden of evidence is that is required to get an indictment, so that is what they bring to a grand jury.   #  you have two points here to be addressed separately.  0 they are a rubber stamp court.  i disagree that the high rate of indictments means that they are just a rubber stamp.  prosecutors know what the burden of evidence is that is required to get an indictment, so that is what they bring to a grand jury.  yes, the result is that the grand jury passes it on to trial, but that is simply because prosecutors are not going to bother showing up without what they know is required to get the indictment.  doing away with them would enable prosecutors to just take whatever they wanted to trial, with or without convincing evidence.  0 protecting government agents.  there is nothing to back this up.  darren wilson was not on trial as a police officer.  he was on trial as a citizen.  the prosecutor is not  playing for the same team  in any official sense.  you could say that on a personal level, maybe he did not try as hard, but the grand jury has nothing to do with that.  if the prosecutor is corrupt and protecting the cops from legal action, then it does not matter how it gets brought to trial, they simply wo not put forth a case that will win.   #  the prosecutor is not  playing for the same team  in any official sense.   # you would need to prove this to me to get a delta.  i found this source that seems to argue the opposite URL   as a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor.  this is the basis for judge sol wachtler is famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to  indict a ham sandwich.      solomon l.  wisenberg as for this:  darren wilson was not on trial as a police officer.  he was on trial as a citizen.  the prosecutor is not  playing for the same team  in any official sense.  if that is the case, why would the prosecutor bring up things like mike brown holding marijuana ? the prosecutor is supposed to make the best case he can for prosecuting, right ? i would not say that he is  corrupt  because that would make him seem like an outlier.  he simply has no reason to aggressively pursue a police officer.  it is a flaw in the system.   #  thus the threat of the grand jury returning no true bill is a powerful check against the prosecutor pursuing bad cases in the first place, kinda like how airport security stops people from even attempting to bring guns on planes.   # the system is not adversarial, which means that justice will, most likely, not be served.  i am not sure this accusation carries much weight because if the prosecutor wants to, they can just decide not to prosecute in the first place.  taking it to the grand jury by its very nature is therefore a more adversarial option than they have to choose.  more like its a huge waste of time and resources to go to the grand jury on a very weak case, so most prosecutors will not do so unless they are convinced they will succeed.  thus the threat of the grand jury returning no true bill is a powerful check against the prosecutor pursuing bad cases in the first place, kinda like how airport security stops people from even attempting to bring guns on planes.   #  taking it to the grand jury by its very nature is therefore a more adversarial option than they have to choose.   # taking it to the grand jury by its very nature is therefore a more adversarial option than they have to choose.  in certain cases, they feel forced to take it to a grand jury because of community outrage.  however, they have no reason to try to present a compelling case.  it is a huge waste of time and resources to go to the olympics if you are sure you will lose, but it still happens.  the popular saying is that  a prosecutor can get a jury to indict a ham sandwich.   a system that is meant to distinguish between good cases and bad cases yet returns  good case  on practically all of them is a broken system that needs to be reformed or repalced.
i would consider myself a nintendo fan.  in my opinion, nintendo has historically had, by far, the best first party games of any console.  mario, zelda, dk etc.  will be the series that will forever be tied to society is perception of what a game is.  i also believe that the n0 was, when compared to the standards of its day, the best console ever made.  that said, they have dwindled to a niche company that is pretty much limited to selling to gamers under the age of 0, and adults who are willing to buy an entire console just to play smash and mario kart with their friends while high i am one of those people so i do not judge .  i have a ps0 too, and would say i spend at least 0 of my gaming time, and well over 0 of my gaming budget on games for it despite adoring all things nintendo.  the reason for this is simple.  the third party support for nintendo is shit.  it is nearly impossible to find a decent game for the wii or wii u that is not first party.  and the reason for this is obvious.  the wacky controllers.  aside from a limited number of applications that get old real fast, these controllers are awful.  how are devs supposed to make a good game for them ? even when playing first party games that are optimized for them and that are stellar in quality, like twilight princess and super mario galaxy, i find myself wishing i had a normal style controller in my hands.  imo nintendo could have created a console that was, in essence, a clone of the ps0/xb0 and been way more successful.  third party devs would make all their games available for it, rather than shit quality ports that come out much later ie watch dogs .  this would, in turn, encourage way more people to buy the console and, more importantly, games for it.   #  the third party support for nintendo is shit.   #  back in the 0s, release options for game devs were severely limited.   #  what you and a lot of other people do not actually realize is that nintendo is not a  video game  company.  they are a  toy company.  if you look at material regarding their manifesto they mention this quite frequently.  in reality, the reason that so many first party titles do so well for nintendo, is that in typical japanese fashion, they develop for the japanese audience first and everyone else second.  that being said, since it is advent nintendo in typical toy market fashion released a  paired toy  or a toy that compliments other products from it is product line.  we see this in stuff like transformers, he man, skylanders, ect.  back in the 0s, release options for game devs were severely limited.  before psx/n0 nintendo had the lion is share of the market with sega trailing in the number 0 spot.  then suddenly sony jumps in and gives a third option, and finally microsoft joins the console wars in 0 with xbox.  that being said, developers primarily had to develop for nintendo consoles to see their game get off the ground.  remember, back in the day there was not a method to the madness, if you made a title that was not console exclusive, it was not about matching the parameters, that was too complex an idea at the time.  you had to make  a whole new game.  see:campcom is disney titles and how drasticly different they are between consoles.  ok so fast forward to today.  nintendo, is staying consistant with it is agenda.  it is making toys as a toy company, and if you judge it on that basis it is doing a fantastic job.  nintendo is not vying for third party competition.  they do not want it.  if a dev makes a wii/wiiu game, the ball is in nintendo is court on that issue, but they know that their brands are so strong they do not need third party support.  tl;dr: you are making a category mistake of what nintendo is goals are under the premise that they are a video game company.  if you change your personal parameters to fit nintendo is vision as a toy company, they are doing a fantastic job when you consider their fulfillment of what they set out to do.   #  kinect could barely handle menu screens, let alone gameplay never owned a psm, but i have heard it is only mariginally better than kinect .   #  in defense of the wii controller: at least the controller worked.  kinect could barely handle menu screens, let alone gameplay never owned a psm, but i have heard it is only mariginally better than kinect .  it was the best motion controlls of its time, maybe of all time.  in defense of wii u controller: the idea that you can play your games without needing a tv is brilliant.  it is liking having a 0ds that you can play hyrule warriors or call of duty on.  also, if you do not like the gamepad, go out and buy a pro controller for $0.  if nintendo had made a console like the ps0/xbone, there would be no reason to buy the console.  ps0/xbone are basically downgraded pc is, which most people have in one form or another.  wii u, people have reasons to buy it.  almost any game you buy on wii u will not be on any other platform, wii u controlls much differently from xb/ps/pc, many of people is favorite games from previous generations are on the wii u for much cheaper 0nd most backwards compatible system out there, woot ! .  what reasons are there for xb/ps over pc ? exclusives and friends, thats about it.   #  the reason your grandparents will buy a wii but not a xbox is because of those controllers.   #  nintendo has made gobs of money on the wii because of those controllers.  the reason your grandparents will buy a wii but not a xbox is because of those controllers.  while the controllers may not fit your needs they made a lot of money for the company and that is ultimately their best measure of success.  wii sports, wii sports resort, wii fit, and wii fit plus URL are three of the best selling games of all time.  all of them sold because of the wii controllers.  while the controllers may not work well for your needs they worked to get a lot of non gamers to buy gaming systems.  this is huge.  also, if they had just used a regular controller they would have competed with sony and microsoft head to head.  by using a different controller and being different they did not have to directly compete.  they could go for the wii fit and wii sports crowd instead of fighting with microsoft for gamers.  i do not know how well it will work long term but having unique controllers has worked very well for nintendo the last almost decade.   #  so yeah, the problem is not the controller themselves, its the historical context they exist in.   #  the controllers themselves are not the problem, it is their uniqueness.  it is both their biggest strength and biggest flaw.  the ubiquity of the  istandard  controller layout d pad, two analog sticks, and 0 buttons in a diamond means that game developers have 0 or 0 years of collective knowledge of how design games with that form factor in mind.  if the wiimote/nunchuck were as ubiquitous we would have many more game ideas that worked with those controllers.  instead what we get is developers trying to make games that use older controller styles because that is what they are used to.  even nintendo is guilty of it many of their biggest franchises used the same mechanics as before even though they are not as well suited to the controller see mario galaxy and brawl for example .  that does not mean the controller is bad; it means that for those controllers to really succeed we need to have a period of experimentation and refinement.  but to do that costs money and time.  games need to be released that try new ideas, and those are risks that many businesses would rather not take.  it also means that developers ca not just port their existing games to the console and expect it to work like they can for the playstation and xbox.  so yeah, the problem is not the controller themselves, its the historical context they exist in.  if the wiimote was a more standard piece of equipment and making experimental games had a lower barrier to entry, it would probably flourish much more than it has at least from a game design perspective .   #  comparing the xbox one and ps0, the differences become really minute really fast.   #  the best defense of the motion controllers i have is that they actually make the gameplay different.  it does mean that a lot of third party games never make it over, but how much better off would the market be if there were a third generic console with the same basic controller and features ? comparing the xbox one and ps0, the differences become really minute really fast.  exclusive games are mostly the province of first party development or who can pay the most for a few months of exclusivity.  and even those first party games are remarkably similar much of the time.  the wii and wii u are really different.  that is a good thing for consumers, since it means you have the choice to get a console that might be to a more casual gamer taste, and it is good for nintendo, who otherwise would be in a price war selling basically identical consoles with two companies who have massive non gaming divisions and can wait them out.  i think the wii u was not really great as a modern gen console, and the tablet controller is kinda meh, so on that front i agree with you that they are far from perfect.  but the wii really was an amazingly different machine for its time.
i have arrived to this conclusion as a result of the experiences and environment of having lived in two extremely contrasting locations: las vegas, nv sin city , and atlanta, ga right in the middle of the bible belt, also a place where people are extremely passionate about college football .  after having engaged in numerous debates with people on this issue, i have heard countless reasons why people think porn is wrong or immoral.  i will just go over three main ones and explain why college football is much worse.  0 porn is wrong because it monetizes someone is body in a way that compromises their health and integrity.  the hypocrisy in this statement is astounding, coming from anyone who is involved in college football.  so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.  but having 0lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others  heads as hard as they can does not ? 0 porn sets an unrealistic expectations of body image for young girls.  what is more of an unreasonable expectation ? for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? 0 porn is wrong because people are selling their bodies.  on a certain level, is not everyone selling their body ? even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.  i imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so i will just stick to comparing it to college football.  at least they are actually selling their body and getting compensated for it.  better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime.  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.  the free education argument does not fly either.  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  cmv 0 stds are rampant in the porn industry porn stars are actually 0 less likely to get an std than a member of the general public of the same age.  URL i wonder how much less likely they would be to get one than say, the popular captain of the football team ? 0 football provides an avenue for future career opportunities that porn does not.  URL if this is true, why are 0 of nfl players going broke within two years of retirement ? if these colleges are doing such a good job teaching football players valuable life and career lessons.  why is it that even the most gifted, the top 0 who make the nfl, ca not apply those valuable lessons 0 years removed from the end of their careers ? 0 another common argument i have seen is this:  porn does not make their workers any happier or healthier.  football does through encouraging exercise and teaching life lessons.   URL here is an interview which is backed by a study that shows porn stars are happier, healthier, more likely to be content with their body, and less likely to have an std than the average woman.   #  the free education argument does not fly either.   #  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.   # everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , i am going to ask for a citation on this.  while the job market for grads in the last 0 years has been very difficult, and might have a nationwide placement rate of   0, i doubt that is true over the long term.  it would not be fair to use this argument based on an outlier set of years.  second, it is not clear that student athletes who graduate have a worse job placement rate.  my guess would be that it would be higher, as success as a member of a sports team is a quality highly prized by employers.  as a manager looking at two people with the same degree, the person who also played sports for 0 0 years would have an edge.   #  in a january report, the federal reserve bank of new york found that roughly 0 percent of recent graduates meaning those ages 0 to 0 with a b. a.   #  in a january report, the federal reserve bank of new york found that roughly 0 percent of recent graduates meaning those ages 0 to 0 with a b. a.  or higher were in a job that did not technically demand a bachelor is degree.  the same article says this.  what we are debating here is the worth of a college degree.  so if someone graduates and gets a job that does not require a degree, why should that count in the argument in favor of a college degree.  they could have gotten it with or without one.   #  every bit as rare as it is to see a chiseled god of a man.   #  to be clear, i am not contesting your claim that college football is just as bad about unattainable body images.  i am simply saying that it is inaccurate to say that porn commits the same offense  to women .  as you said, it is rare to see that  perfect  woman in porn.  every bit as rare as it is to see a chiseled god of a man.  so it ca not be said that porn only causes women to feel inferior.  it does that to both genders equally.   #  tl;dr:  worse  is an opinion and is a very general statement.   #   worse  is an opinion, and not really specific.  the points you argued were mainly that football is more dangerous than porn, which is completely right.  but then again, every sport is probably more dangerous than porn.  porn is not a dangerous job at all, so it is not a very controversial opinion you have that football is  worse .  however, when looking at it from a moral point of view many people would agree that porn is  worse,  for many reasons.  people who are religious or such would definitely say porn is worse.  so it really all depends on how you view it.  tl;dr:  worse  is an opinion and is a very general statement.   #  higher rates of death on the job as well as the possibility of hernia is and other injuries.   #  i think this is the best argument against his viewpoint.  hell, by his standpoint i feel like almost every career is worse than porn.  accountant ? higher rates of obesity and many cases of carpal tunnel syndrome.  carpenter ? higher rates of death on the job as well as the possibility of hernia is and other injuries.  the cameraman on a porn shoot ? probably higher rates of depression and low self esteem from being on sets around attractive people.
i have arrived to this conclusion as a result of the experiences and environment of having lived in two extremely contrasting locations: las vegas, nv sin city , and atlanta, ga right in the middle of the bible belt, also a place where people are extremely passionate about college football .  after having engaged in numerous debates with people on this issue, i have heard countless reasons why people think porn is wrong or immoral.  i will just go over three main ones and explain why college football is much worse.  0 porn is wrong because it monetizes someone is body in a way that compromises their health and integrity.  the hypocrisy in this statement is astounding, coming from anyone who is involved in college football.  so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.  but having 0lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others  heads as hard as they can does not ? 0 porn sets an unrealistic expectations of body image for young girls.  what is more of an unreasonable expectation ? for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? 0 porn is wrong because people are selling their bodies.  on a certain level, is not everyone selling their body ? even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.  i imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so i will just stick to comparing it to college football.  at least they are actually selling their body and getting compensated for it.  better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime.  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.  the free education argument does not fly either.  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  cmv 0 stds are rampant in the porn industry porn stars are actually 0 less likely to get an std than a member of the general public of the same age.  URL i wonder how much less likely they would be to get one than say, the popular captain of the football team ? 0 football provides an avenue for future career opportunities that porn does not.  URL if this is true, why are 0 of nfl players going broke within two years of retirement ? if these colleges are doing such a good job teaching football players valuable life and career lessons.  why is it that even the most gifted, the top 0 who make the nfl, ca not apply those valuable lessons 0 years removed from the end of their careers ? 0 another common argument i have seen is this:  porn does not make their workers any happier or healthier.  football does through encouraging exercise and teaching life lessons.   URL here is an interview which is backed by a study that shows porn stars are happier, healthier, more likely to be content with their body, and less likely to have an std than the average woman.   #  the free education argument does not fly either.   #  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.   # everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  i do not think you understand the demographics of student athletes.  there are over 0,0 student athletes in the usa, and most of them are well aware of the fact that after college they will not be a professional athlete.  in football for instance, less than 0 of college football players turn pro URL the rest end up doing something else.  of that other 0, maybe 0 had a legitimate shot of making it and might have a hard time coming to grips with not making the nfl, but a lot of those guys, especially ones not playing at the big schools, know that playing football well is their ticket to an affordable education and some good times playing a game they love.  second, just because these people play sports does not mean they are immediately dumb either.  you only hear about the guys taking filler classes and dumb majors because they are the ones espn talks about when discussing first round draft picks in the coming nfl draft.  further, i would argue that being a successful college athlete should bode well later in life if you can find another passion to fill the hole that is left by sports when you graduate.  they have already shown the drive and the passion necessary to excel at something in life, meaning they have the capacity to repeat that doing something else.  lastly, there is nothing inherently wrong with pornographic performers or college football players.  most of the players, as i mentioned above, know they are not going to make the nfl.  however, they know they need a post secondary education and if they can play football, a game they love, while getting their education cheaper than normal or free, why would someone pass that up.  i would have jumped all over an athletic scholarship in hockey if it meant i could have got my degree for free while playing the game i love.  as for pornographic performers, they are just using their looks and features they were born with to make an honest living.  it is a fairly safe and regulated industry these days as far as i can tell.  now, that all being said, i do have an issue with how much money the ncaa, a non profit organization, makes from college football, but that was just a tiny part of your argument.  the ncaa is corrupt, and while not as bad as fifa, a non profit should not be bringing in the big bucks.   #  or higher were in a job that did not technically demand a bachelor is degree.   #  in a january report, the federal reserve bank of new york found that roughly 0 percent of recent graduates meaning those ages 0 to 0 with a b. a.  or higher were in a job that did not technically demand a bachelor is degree.  the same article says this.  what we are debating here is the worth of a college degree.  so if someone graduates and gets a job that does not require a degree, why should that count in the argument in favor of a college degree.  they could have gotten it with or without one.   #  i am simply saying that it is inaccurate to say that porn commits the same offense  to women .   #  to be clear, i am not contesting your claim that college football is just as bad about unattainable body images.  i am simply saying that it is inaccurate to say that porn commits the same offense  to women .  as you said, it is rare to see that  perfect  woman in porn.  every bit as rare as it is to see a chiseled god of a man.  so it ca not be said that porn only causes women to feel inferior.  it does that to both genders equally.   #  however, when looking at it from a moral point of view many people would agree that porn is  worse,  for many reasons.   #   worse  is an opinion, and not really specific.  the points you argued were mainly that football is more dangerous than porn, which is completely right.  but then again, every sport is probably more dangerous than porn.  porn is not a dangerous job at all, so it is not a very controversial opinion you have that football is  worse .  however, when looking at it from a moral point of view many people would agree that porn is  worse,  for many reasons.  people who are religious or such would definitely say porn is worse.  so it really all depends on how you view it.  tl;dr:  worse  is an opinion and is a very general statement.   #  i think this is the best argument against his viewpoint.   #  i think this is the best argument against his viewpoint.  hell, by his standpoint i feel like almost every career is worse than porn.  accountant ? higher rates of obesity and many cases of carpal tunnel syndrome.  carpenter ? higher rates of death on the job as well as the possibility of hernia is and other injuries.  the cameraman on a porn shoot ? probably higher rates of depression and low self esteem from being on sets around attractive people.
i have arrived to this conclusion as a result of the experiences and environment of having lived in two extremely contrasting locations: las vegas, nv sin city , and atlanta, ga right in the middle of the bible belt, also a place where people are extremely passionate about college football .  after having engaged in numerous debates with people on this issue, i have heard countless reasons why people think porn is wrong or immoral.  i will just go over three main ones and explain why college football is much worse.  0 porn is wrong because it monetizes someone is body in a way that compromises their health and integrity.  the hypocrisy in this statement is astounding, coming from anyone who is involved in college football.  so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.  but having 0lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others  heads as hard as they can does not ? 0 porn sets an unrealistic expectations of body image for young girls.  what is more of an unreasonable expectation ? for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? 0 porn is wrong because people are selling their bodies.  on a certain level, is not everyone selling their body ? even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.  i imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so i will just stick to comparing it to college football.  at least they are actually selling their body and getting compensated for it.  better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime.  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.  the free education argument does not fly either.  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  cmv 0 stds are rampant in the porn industry porn stars are actually 0 less likely to get an std than a member of the general public of the same age.  URL i wonder how much less likely they would be to get one than say, the popular captain of the football team ? 0 football provides an avenue for future career opportunities that porn does not.  URL if this is true, why are 0 of nfl players going broke within two years of retirement ? if these colleges are doing such a good job teaching football players valuable life and career lessons.  why is it that even the most gifted, the top 0 who make the nfl, ca not apply those valuable lessons 0 years removed from the end of their careers ? 0 another common argument i have seen is this:  porn does not make their workers any happier or healthier.  football does through encouraging exercise and teaching life lessons.   URL here is an interview which is backed by a study that shows porn stars are happier, healthier, more likely to be content with their body, and less likely to have an std than the average woman.   #  the hypocrisy in this statement is astounding, coming from anyone who is involved in college football.   #  so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.   # so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.  but having 0lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others  heads as hard as they can does not ? from the stand point of a value of a woman this is a correct statement.  once a woman is in porn it is difficult for her to have job outside of porn.  but more importantly her value as a woman, as it relates to marriage.  is jeopardized.  women are typically judged by an ability to marry and have children.  compared to men.  men can social value,a college education, and their health is constantly monitored by colleges.  it is the difference between paying for the the demise of a woman, versus the accent of a man.  for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? i am not so sure porn is the blame for this.  media in general sets high expectations for immature people.  however, people that are experienced in the world understand that there is a vast difference between what looks good and what feels good.  even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.  i imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so i will just stick to comparing it to college football.  at least they are actually selling their body and getting compensated for it.  better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime.  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.  the free education argument does not fly either.  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  the sex worker industry is not very well compensated.  some women do a lot and do not get compensated to the level they should.  the problem is that is the vast majority of the industry.  besides their earning potential in other industries is severely destroyed the more popular they become, but not necessarily the more they make.  college football on the other hand offers student the ability to go to a university based on their athletic merit.  you are correct they do not get paid.  , but through their athletic pursuits they can go and get jobs in other industries.  surely, some players are taken advantage of, but the most college athlete are able to leave the field and get a job and have product life.  this just is not true for many porn stars.  porn affords many women the ability to live a life of relative luxury.  they fuck for a living, and are able to travel all over the world.  they have only 0 years to work in many cases, but their lives are much better than they would have been other wise.  even still, more foot ball players live productive lives after football than porn stars.  that is the difference, imo.   #  so if someone graduates and gets a job that does not require a degree, why should that count in the argument in favor of a college degree.   #  in a january report, the federal reserve bank of new york found that roughly 0 percent of recent graduates meaning those ages 0 to 0 with a b. a.  or higher were in a job that did not technically demand a bachelor is degree.  the same article says this.  what we are debating here is the worth of a college degree.  so if someone graduates and gets a job that does not require a degree, why should that count in the argument in favor of a college degree.  they could have gotten it with or without one.   #  to be clear, i am not contesting your claim that college football is just as bad about unattainable body images.   #  to be clear, i am not contesting your claim that college football is just as bad about unattainable body images.  i am simply saying that it is inaccurate to say that porn commits the same offense  to women .  as you said, it is rare to see that  perfect  woman in porn.  every bit as rare as it is to see a chiseled god of a man.  so it ca not be said that porn only causes women to feel inferior.  it does that to both genders equally.   #  so it really all depends on how you view it.   #   worse  is an opinion, and not really specific.  the points you argued were mainly that football is more dangerous than porn, which is completely right.  but then again, every sport is probably more dangerous than porn.  porn is not a dangerous job at all, so it is not a very controversial opinion you have that football is  worse .  however, when looking at it from a moral point of view many people would agree that porn is  worse,  for many reasons.  people who are religious or such would definitely say porn is worse.  so it really all depends on how you view it.  tl;dr:  worse  is an opinion and is a very general statement.   #  hell, by his standpoint i feel like almost every career is worse than porn.   #  i think this is the best argument against his viewpoint.  hell, by his standpoint i feel like almost every career is worse than porn.  accountant ? higher rates of obesity and many cases of carpal tunnel syndrome.  carpenter ? higher rates of death on the job as well as the possibility of hernia is and other injuries.  the cameraman on a porn shoot ? probably higher rates of depression and low self esteem from being on sets around attractive people.
i have arrived to this conclusion as a result of the experiences and environment of having lived in two extremely contrasting locations: las vegas, nv sin city , and atlanta, ga right in the middle of the bible belt, also a place where people are extremely passionate about college football .  after having engaged in numerous debates with people on this issue, i have heard countless reasons why people think porn is wrong or immoral.  i will just go over three main ones and explain why college football is much worse.  0 porn is wrong because it monetizes someone is body in a way that compromises their health and integrity.  the hypocrisy in this statement is astounding, coming from anyone who is involved in college football.  so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.  but having 0lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others  heads as hard as they can does not ? 0 porn sets an unrealistic expectations of body image for young girls.  what is more of an unreasonable expectation ? for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? 0 porn is wrong because people are selling their bodies.  on a certain level, is not everyone selling their body ? even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.  i imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so i will just stick to comparing it to college football.  at least they are actually selling their body and getting compensated for it.  better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime.  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.  the free education argument does not fly either.  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  cmv 0 stds are rampant in the porn industry porn stars are actually 0 less likely to get an std than a member of the general public of the same age.  URL i wonder how much less likely they would be to get one than say, the popular captain of the football team ? 0 football provides an avenue for future career opportunities that porn does not.  URL if this is true, why are 0 of nfl players going broke within two years of retirement ? if these colleges are doing such a good job teaching football players valuable life and career lessons.  why is it that even the most gifted, the top 0 who make the nfl, ca not apply those valuable lessons 0 years removed from the end of their careers ? 0 another common argument i have seen is this:  porn does not make their workers any happier or healthier.  football does through encouraging exercise and teaching life lessons.   URL here is an interview which is backed by a study that shows porn stars are happier, healthier, more likely to be content with their body, and less likely to have an std than the average woman.   #  what is more of an unreasonable expectation ?  #  for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .   # so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.  but having 0lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others  heads as hard as they can does not ? from the stand point of a value of a woman this is a correct statement.  once a woman is in porn it is difficult for her to have job outside of porn.  but more importantly her value as a woman, as it relates to marriage.  is jeopardized.  women are typically judged by an ability to marry and have children.  compared to men.  men can social value,a college education, and their health is constantly monitored by colleges.  it is the difference between paying for the the demise of a woman, versus the accent of a man.  for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? i am not so sure porn is the blame for this.  media in general sets high expectations for immature people.  however, people that are experienced in the world understand that there is a vast difference between what looks good and what feels good.  even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.  i imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so i will just stick to comparing it to college football.  at least they are actually selling their body and getting compensated for it.  better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime.  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.  the free education argument does not fly either.  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  the sex worker industry is not very well compensated.  some women do a lot and do not get compensated to the level they should.  the problem is that is the vast majority of the industry.  besides their earning potential in other industries is severely destroyed the more popular they become, but not necessarily the more they make.  college football on the other hand offers student the ability to go to a university based on their athletic merit.  you are correct they do not get paid.  , but through their athletic pursuits they can go and get jobs in other industries.  surely, some players are taken advantage of, but the most college athlete are able to leave the field and get a job and have product life.  this just is not true for many porn stars.  porn affords many women the ability to live a life of relative luxury.  they fuck for a living, and are able to travel all over the world.  they have only 0 years to work in many cases, but their lives are much better than they would have been other wise.  even still, more foot ball players live productive lives after football than porn stars.  that is the difference, imo.   #  so if someone graduates and gets a job that does not require a degree, why should that count in the argument in favor of a college degree.   #  in a january report, the federal reserve bank of new york found that roughly 0 percent of recent graduates meaning those ages 0 to 0 with a b. a.  or higher were in a job that did not technically demand a bachelor is degree.  the same article says this.  what we are debating here is the worth of a college degree.  so if someone graduates and gets a job that does not require a degree, why should that count in the argument in favor of a college degree.  they could have gotten it with or without one.   #  to be clear, i am not contesting your claim that college football is just as bad about unattainable body images.   #  to be clear, i am not contesting your claim that college football is just as bad about unattainable body images.  i am simply saying that it is inaccurate to say that porn commits the same offense  to women .  as you said, it is rare to see that  perfect  woman in porn.  every bit as rare as it is to see a chiseled god of a man.  so it ca not be said that porn only causes women to feel inferior.  it does that to both genders equally.   #   worse  is an opinion, and not really specific.   #   worse  is an opinion, and not really specific.  the points you argued were mainly that football is more dangerous than porn, which is completely right.  but then again, every sport is probably more dangerous than porn.  porn is not a dangerous job at all, so it is not a very controversial opinion you have that football is  worse .  however, when looking at it from a moral point of view many people would agree that porn is  worse,  for many reasons.  people who are religious or such would definitely say porn is worse.  so it really all depends on how you view it.  tl;dr:  worse  is an opinion and is a very general statement.   #  probably higher rates of depression and low self esteem from being on sets around attractive people.   #  i think this is the best argument against his viewpoint.  hell, by his standpoint i feel like almost every career is worse than porn.  accountant ? higher rates of obesity and many cases of carpal tunnel syndrome.  carpenter ? higher rates of death on the job as well as the possibility of hernia is and other injuries.  the cameraman on a porn shoot ? probably higher rates of depression and low self esteem from being on sets around attractive people.
i have arrived to this conclusion as a result of the experiences and environment of having lived in two extremely contrasting locations: las vegas, nv sin city , and atlanta, ga right in the middle of the bible belt, also a place where people are extremely passionate about college football .  after having engaged in numerous debates with people on this issue, i have heard countless reasons why people think porn is wrong or immoral.  i will just go over three main ones and explain why college football is much worse.  0 porn is wrong because it monetizes someone is body in a way that compromises their health and integrity.  the hypocrisy in this statement is astounding, coming from anyone who is involved in college football.  so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.  but having 0lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others  heads as hard as they can does not ? 0 porn sets an unrealistic expectations of body image for young girls.  what is more of an unreasonable expectation ? for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? 0 porn is wrong because people are selling their bodies.  on a certain level, is not everyone selling their body ? even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.  i imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so i will just stick to comparing it to college football.  at least they are actually selling their body and getting compensated for it.  better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime.  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.  the free education argument does not fly either.  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  cmv 0 stds are rampant in the porn industry porn stars are actually 0 less likely to get an std than a member of the general public of the same age.  URL i wonder how much less likely they would be to get one than say, the popular captain of the football team ? 0 football provides an avenue for future career opportunities that porn does not.  URL if this is true, why are 0 of nfl players going broke within two years of retirement ? if these colleges are doing such a good job teaching football players valuable life and career lessons.  why is it that even the most gifted, the top 0 who make the nfl, ca not apply those valuable lessons 0 years removed from the end of their careers ? 0 another common argument i have seen is this:  porn does not make their workers any happier or healthier.  football does through encouraging exercise and teaching life lessons.   URL here is an interview which is backed by a study that shows porn stars are happier, healthier, more likely to be content with their body, and less likely to have an std than the average woman.   #  on a certain level, is not everyone selling their body ?  #  even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.   # so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.  but having 0lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others  heads as hard as they can does not ? from the stand point of a value of a woman this is a correct statement.  once a woman is in porn it is difficult for her to have job outside of porn.  but more importantly her value as a woman, as it relates to marriage.  is jeopardized.  women are typically judged by an ability to marry and have children.  compared to men.  men can social value,a college education, and their health is constantly monitored by colleges.  it is the difference between paying for the the demise of a woman, versus the accent of a man.  for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? i am not so sure porn is the blame for this.  media in general sets high expectations for immature people.  however, people that are experienced in the world understand that there is a vast difference between what looks good and what feels good.  even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.  i imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so i will just stick to comparing it to college football.  at least they are actually selling their body and getting compensated for it.  better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime.  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.  the free education argument does not fly either.  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  the sex worker industry is not very well compensated.  some women do a lot and do not get compensated to the level they should.  the problem is that is the vast majority of the industry.  besides their earning potential in other industries is severely destroyed the more popular they become, but not necessarily the more they make.  college football on the other hand offers student the ability to go to a university based on their athletic merit.  you are correct they do not get paid.  , but through their athletic pursuits they can go and get jobs in other industries.  surely, some players are taken advantage of, but the most college athlete are able to leave the field and get a job and have product life.  this just is not true for many porn stars.  porn affords many women the ability to live a life of relative luxury.  they fuck for a living, and are able to travel all over the world.  they have only 0 years to work in many cases, but their lives are much better than they would have been other wise.  even still, more foot ball players live productive lives after football than porn stars.  that is the difference, imo.   #  they could have gotten it with or without one.   #  in a january report, the federal reserve bank of new york found that roughly 0 percent of recent graduates meaning those ages 0 to 0 with a b. a.  or higher were in a job that did not technically demand a bachelor is degree.  the same article says this.  what we are debating here is the worth of a college degree.  so if someone graduates and gets a job that does not require a degree, why should that count in the argument in favor of a college degree.  they could have gotten it with or without one.   #  so it ca not be said that porn only causes women to feel inferior.   #  to be clear, i am not contesting your claim that college football is just as bad about unattainable body images.  i am simply saying that it is inaccurate to say that porn commits the same offense  to women .  as you said, it is rare to see that  perfect  woman in porn.  every bit as rare as it is to see a chiseled god of a man.  so it ca not be said that porn only causes women to feel inferior.  it does that to both genders equally.   #  people who are religious or such would definitely say porn is worse.   #   worse  is an opinion, and not really specific.  the points you argued were mainly that football is more dangerous than porn, which is completely right.  but then again, every sport is probably more dangerous than porn.  porn is not a dangerous job at all, so it is not a very controversial opinion you have that football is  worse .  however, when looking at it from a moral point of view many people would agree that porn is  worse,  for many reasons.  people who are religious or such would definitely say porn is worse.  so it really all depends on how you view it.  tl;dr:  worse  is an opinion and is a very general statement.   #  hell, by his standpoint i feel like almost every career is worse than porn.   #  i think this is the best argument against his viewpoint.  hell, by his standpoint i feel like almost every career is worse than porn.  accountant ? higher rates of obesity and many cases of carpal tunnel syndrome.  carpenter ? higher rates of death on the job as well as the possibility of hernia is and other injuries.  the cameraman on a porn shoot ? probably higher rates of depression and low self esteem from being on sets around attractive people.
i have arrived to this conclusion as a result of the experiences and environment of having lived in two extremely contrasting locations: las vegas, nv sin city , and atlanta, ga right in the middle of the bible belt, also a place where people are extremely passionate about college football .  after having engaged in numerous debates with people on this issue, i have heard countless reasons why people think porn is wrong or immoral.  i will just go over three main ones and explain why college football is much worse.  0 porn is wrong because it monetizes someone is body in a way that compromises their health and integrity.  the hypocrisy in this statement is astounding, coming from anyone who is involved in college football.  so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.  but having 0lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others  heads as hard as they can does not ? 0 porn sets an unrealistic expectations of body image for young girls.  what is more of an unreasonable expectation ? for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? 0 porn is wrong because people are selling their bodies.  on a certain level, is not everyone selling their body ? even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.  i imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so i will just stick to comparing it to college football.  at least they are actually selling their body and getting compensated for it.  better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime.  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.  the free education argument does not fly either.  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  cmv 0 stds are rampant in the porn industry porn stars are actually 0 less likely to get an std than a member of the general public of the same age.  URL i wonder how much less likely they would be to get one than say, the popular captain of the football team ? 0 football provides an avenue for future career opportunities that porn does not.  URL if this is true, why are 0 of nfl players going broke within two years of retirement ? if these colleges are doing such a good job teaching football players valuable life and career lessons.  why is it that even the most gifted, the top 0 who make the nfl, ca not apply those valuable lessons 0 years removed from the end of their careers ? 0 another common argument i have seen is this:  porn does not make their workers any happier or healthier.  football does through encouraging exercise and teaching life lessons.   URL here is an interview which is backed by a study that shows porn stars are happier, healthier, more likely to be content with their body, and less likely to have an std than the average woman.   #  what is more of an unreasonable expectation ?  #  for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .   # for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? to the extent this is true, it is true of literally all sports, everywhere.  what are you saying can be done about it ? schools typically lose money on athletic programs.  there are no ncaa  owners.    #  in a january report, the federal reserve bank of new york found that roughly 0 percent of recent graduates meaning those ages 0 to 0 with a b. a.   #  in a january report, the federal reserve bank of new york found that roughly 0 percent of recent graduates meaning those ages 0 to 0 with a b. a.  or higher were in a job that did not technically demand a bachelor is degree.  the same article says this.  what we are debating here is the worth of a college degree.  so if someone graduates and gets a job that does not require a degree, why should that count in the argument in favor of a college degree.  they could have gotten it with or without one.   #  i am simply saying that it is inaccurate to say that porn commits the same offense  to women .   #  to be clear, i am not contesting your claim that college football is just as bad about unattainable body images.  i am simply saying that it is inaccurate to say that porn commits the same offense  to women .  as you said, it is rare to see that  perfect  woman in porn.  every bit as rare as it is to see a chiseled god of a man.  so it ca not be said that porn only causes women to feel inferior.  it does that to both genders equally.   #  people who are religious or such would definitely say porn is worse.   #   worse  is an opinion, and not really specific.  the points you argued were mainly that football is more dangerous than porn, which is completely right.  but then again, every sport is probably more dangerous than porn.  porn is not a dangerous job at all, so it is not a very controversial opinion you have that football is  worse .  however, when looking at it from a moral point of view many people would agree that porn is  worse,  for many reasons.  people who are religious or such would definitely say porn is worse.  so it really all depends on how you view it.  tl;dr:  worse  is an opinion and is a very general statement.   #  higher rates of death on the job as well as the possibility of hernia is and other injuries.   #  i think this is the best argument against his viewpoint.  hell, by his standpoint i feel like almost every career is worse than porn.  accountant ? higher rates of obesity and many cases of carpal tunnel syndrome.  carpenter ? higher rates of death on the job as well as the possibility of hernia is and other injuries.  the cameraman on a porn shoot ? probably higher rates of depression and low self esteem from being on sets around attractive people.
i have arrived to this conclusion as a result of the experiences and environment of having lived in two extremely contrasting locations: las vegas, nv sin city , and atlanta, ga right in the middle of the bible belt, also a place where people are extremely passionate about college football .  after having engaged in numerous debates with people on this issue, i have heard countless reasons why people think porn is wrong or immoral.  i will just go over three main ones and explain why college football is much worse.  0 porn is wrong because it monetizes someone is body in a way that compromises their health and integrity.  the hypocrisy in this statement is astounding, coming from anyone who is involved in college football.  so having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone is health and integrity.  but having 0lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others  heads as hard as they can does not ? 0 porn sets an unrealistic expectations of body image for young girls.  what is more of an unreasonable expectation ? for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? 0 porn is wrong because people are selling their bodies.  on a certain level, is not everyone selling their body ? even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type.  i imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so i will just stick to comparing it to college football.  at least they are actually selling their body and getting compensated for it.  better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime.  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.  the free education argument does not fly either.  everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation.  let alone  student athletes , who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.  cmv 0 stds are rampant in the porn industry porn stars are actually 0 less likely to get an std than a member of the general public of the same age.  URL i wonder how much less likely they would be to get one than say, the popular captain of the football team ? 0 football provides an avenue for future career opportunities that porn does not.  URL if this is true, why are 0 of nfl players going broke within two years of retirement ? if these colleges are doing such a good job teaching football players valuable life and career lessons.  why is it that even the most gifted, the top 0 who make the nfl, ca not apply those valuable lessons 0 years removed from the end of their careers ? 0 another common argument i have seen is this:  porn does not make their workers any happier or healthier.  football does through encouraging exercise and teaching life lessons.   URL here is an interview which is backed by a study that shows porn stars are happier, healthier, more likely to be content with their body, and less likely to have an std than the average woman.   #  all this while the schools and owners of the ncaa make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering.   #  schools typically lose money on athletic programs.   # for a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types .  or for a boy to be 0 0 , 0lbs, 0 body fat, able to bench 0 lbs, and run a 0 0 ? to the extent this is true, it is true of literally all sports, everywhere.  what are you saying can be done about it ? schools typically lose money on athletic programs.  there are no ncaa  owners.    #  or higher were in a job that did not technically demand a bachelor is degree.   #  in a january report, the federal reserve bank of new york found that roughly 0 percent of recent graduates meaning those ages 0 to 0 with a b. a.  or higher were in a job that did not technically demand a bachelor is degree.  the same article says this.  what we are debating here is the worth of a college degree.  so if someone graduates and gets a job that does not require a degree, why should that count in the argument in favor of a college degree.  they could have gotten it with or without one.   #  to be clear, i am not contesting your claim that college football is just as bad about unattainable body images.   #  to be clear, i am not contesting your claim that college football is just as bad about unattainable body images.  i am simply saying that it is inaccurate to say that porn commits the same offense  to women .  as you said, it is rare to see that  perfect  woman in porn.  every bit as rare as it is to see a chiseled god of a man.  so it ca not be said that porn only causes women to feel inferior.  it does that to both genders equally.   #   worse  is an opinion, and not really specific.   #   worse  is an opinion, and not really specific.  the points you argued were mainly that football is more dangerous than porn, which is completely right.  but then again, every sport is probably more dangerous than porn.  porn is not a dangerous job at all, so it is not a very controversial opinion you have that football is  worse .  however, when looking at it from a moral point of view many people would agree that porn is  worse,  for many reasons.  people who are religious or such would definitely say porn is worse.  so it really all depends on how you view it.  tl;dr:  worse  is an opinion and is a very general statement.   #  probably higher rates of depression and low self esteem from being on sets around attractive people.   #  i think this is the best argument against his viewpoint.  hell, by his standpoint i feel like almost every career is worse than porn.  accountant ? higher rates of obesity and many cases of carpal tunnel syndrome.  carpenter ? higher rates of death on the job as well as the possibility of hernia is and other injuries.  the cameraman on a porn shoot ? probably higher rates of depression and low self esteem from being on sets around attractive people.
after being in my existentialism class all semester it is clear to me that without a god life is completely and utterly meaningless.  yes it is true we can create and seek out subjective meaning in our lives, but with our overall existence having no objective meaning any subjective meaning we find is only meaningful for a finite amount of time, or until death.  so in the end everything one does is meaningless, no matter what it may have been; every single action one does is meaningless.  and knowing that we are only finite in an infinite universe brings all kinds of despair, which leads to depression.  and if ones life is full of pain and sorrow suicide would be a rational decision to make.  because some may feel it is better to feel nothing at all.  i am a christian, but i feel like if i did not have a god to believe in i would commit suicide because life is a bitch, but because i know i must endure all this pain and suffering to go to a better place i am content with my existence and i can embrace all these feeling, whether pleasant or unpleasant, with a smile on my face.   #  after being in my existentialism class all semester it is clear to me that without a god life is completely and utterly meaningless.   #  yes it is true we can create and seek out subjective meaning in our lives, but with our overall existence having no objective meaning any subjective meaning we find is only meaningful for a finite amount of time, or until death.   #  regardless if you are religious or not, you as an individual are assigning meaning through your own mental agency.  and if you can do that via a god you can do it via anything.  this is why there are so many philosophical outlooks that people take on life regardless of their faith and religious convictions.  religion may give one a clear life purpose but meaning is derived, i would argue, seperately.  yes it is true we can create and seek out subjective meaning in our lives, but with our overall existence having no objective meaning any subjective meaning we find is only meaningful for a finite amount of time, or until death.  so in the end everything one does is meaningless, no matter what it may have been; every single action one does is meaningless.  and knowing that we are only finite in an infinite universe brings all kinds of despair, which leads to depression.  and if ones life is full of pain and sorrow suicide would be a rational decision to make.  because some may feel it is better to feel nothing at all.  religious or not you can take a pessimistic view of any facet of life and let it make you feel hopeless or depressed.  if heaven and hell exist, and one of your family members does not make the cut for heaven you are never going to see them again according to some doctrines because they will be burning in hell for all eternity.  even if there is no heaven or hell, everyone is going to die eventually.  if you just focused on these things they would inevitably make you feel depressed.  i would argue that if you depend too much on religion to alleviate these fears you are merely just suppressing your emotions and trying to drug or numb your mind.  which is not all bad and at some degree necessary as humans require stimilus, but the same can be achieved through meditation, self development, being social, and a variety of different non religious ways.  life is hard for humans because we are built for survival mode.  we are built to be constantly on guard and ready for action and stimulis.  our modern lives give us a lot of downtime to overthink things and lead ourselves to isolation and negativity.  anyway, i hope this shows you that there is hope outside of religion.   #  even if a god did have such a special pleading applicable to it, i am assuming since you are talking about finite time, you are assuming some kind of god that preserves you for eternity.   #  even if a god did have such a special pleading applicable to it, i am assuming since you are talking about finite time, you are assuming some kind of god that preserves you for eternity.  in that case, life also has no meaning, because anything you do in finite time is infinitely less important than anything you do during an infinite amount of time.  your meaning in life has exactly  zero  value if there is an infinite afterlife, because  any finite number /infinity zero.  indeed, only  without  a god that preserves your life for an infinite time is it possible for your life on earth to have any non zero meaning.  but do not discount the absolute fact that, as rational beings, we also can create meaning.  and nothing that you do is temporary on the scale of human life on earth and the lifetime of the universe , it just looks that way.  everything that you do impacts everything that happens after you are gone.  it ca not  not  have an impact after you are gone.  even if you do not have children, which  obviously  can result in a chain of causal effects until humanity dies off, it is still a causal chain that lasts far far past your lifetime, just more subtly: your actions change other is actions, and their actions change other is actions, and this chain of causality also continues until humans die off, and beyond that as long as there is any life on earth.  if you make the world a better place while you are alive, it will be a better place after you are dead, even if by just a little.  if you make it a worse place, it will be worse.  so you have a choice, and that choice has meaning, and that meaning will last long after you are gone.   #  ok, so god says life has meaning.  why does that actually give it meaning ?  #  in a sense, you are right, the entire purpose for humans having invented the concept of a god is to pass the buck on existential questions to a distant hypothetically objective observer, but a god does not  actually  resolve any philosophical or existential points at all.  ok, so god says life has meaning.  why does that actually give it meaning ? why ca not i just say life has meaning ? what gives a god meaning in it is life ? a meta god ? it is kind of like the old extremely valid argument about  if everything needs a cause, what caused god ?  .  at some point, as someone else pointed out itt, you have to resort to  it just does , because there is no particular objective reason to assume that god adds meaning.  it just shifts the subjectiveness to a safe distance.   #  i am assuming not really based on your comments.   # that is the entire point.  do you believe in god ? i am assuming not really based on your comments.  that is fine, i just want to make sure.  that is important because you are making statements seem to be assertions of truth on a topic that has no true grounding in  the truth .  religion is a matter of faith.  if you think god does not answer any philosophical or existential points at all, that is your opinion.  but it is not a fact it is simply a personal point of view and is just as valid as someone who believes.   #  if god is not external to the person seeking meaning, then the meaning comes from within themselves.   #  if god is not external to the person seeking meaning, then the meaning comes from within themselves.  it does not matter even a little bit what rationalization they use to arrive at it.  i prefer rationalizations that have at least some basis in reality, but everyone is entitled to their own subjective meaning, i suppose.  if god is meaning is subjective, then that just reinforces my point.  but, in fact, i am pretty decently knowledgeable about many different theologies and how they interpret the divine.  more so, at least, than most believers i know, who statistically speaking tend to stop at their own interpretation and do not do much exploration of the interpretations of others.  it is one of the great ironies of existence as an atheist in a theist world.  you end up having to understand theology better than most believers in order to even talk with them.
i only think this is the case so long as the criticism is attempting to make a serious point even if it is a satirical criticism .  i do not necessarily think that all anti religious claims like simple assertions such as  religion is for idiots  should be taken as serious criticisms, and as a result, are not necessarily asking for a serious response.  i think the  so edgy  response is basically an admission that you have got no real response to the criticism, so you would rather attack the critic.  i realize that the  so edgy  response if often made half jokingly, which is completely fine.  my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.  like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious claims.  i feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.   #  i realize that the  so edgy  response if often made half jokingly, which is completely fine.   #  my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.   # my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.  like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious criticisms.  i feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.  what makes you think this is the case ? i agree that it stops the discussion but it seems to me that is the point.  people get fed up with seeing thee criticisms pop up and dismiss them with throwaway lines.  i do not think anyone is under the delusion that  so edgy  is a meaningful addition to the discussion.  it does not make much sense to view such a dismissal as an admission that the criticism is valid.  first of all, how valid an argument is not not dependant on responses at all.  an argument is validity is dependant on itself and only itself.  secondly, often people just plain are not looking to continue a discussion.  there is nothing compelling someone to respond to an argument, and any kind of dismissal can only be seen as a refusal to participate.  but just because someone does not want to play the game it does not mean you have beaten them.   #  i think it is important to note the distinction between refusing to participate, and attempting to stop the game.   # i would not argue that they believe that it is meaningful, but that they believe it is a legitimate way to respond to serious criticism obviously they realize that they are not offering a logical rebuttal, but it is used as a kill all response to criticism, and i think those types of responses should be discouraged because they so often stop the conversation before it can begin.  first of all, how valid an argument is not not dependant on responses at all.  i agree with this, and i think my problem is with the way i worded it.  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.  that was a mistake on my part.  but just because someone does not want to play the game it does not mean you have beaten them.  obviously this is true, but i think a good analogy for the  so edgy  response would be someone not wanting to play a game so they pop a hole in the ball to discourage others from playing.  i think it is important to note the distinction between refusing to participate, and attempting to stop the game.  the latter of which should not be praised.   #  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.   # but that conversation is not always worth having in every instance people criticise religion.  i am fine with discouraging remarks that kill conversation, but let is not pretend that all conversations are always worth having.  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.  that was a mistake on my part.  or they did not feel like typing out their real response in that particular instance.  it is dangerous thinking to assume you are winning arguments when nobody else is playing along.  i think it is important to note the distinction between refusing to participate, and attempting to stop the game.  the latter of which should not be praised.  reddit is style does not seem to preclude other people from continuing the discussion.  just because someone says  so edgy  it does not mean that now no one can participate.  i am not so sure your analogy is very good.   #  no reply, is in my opinion, preferable when you are dealing with a serious attempt at discussion.   # i think i covered this when i said that not all criticisms deserve serious replies.  i think it would be much more productive if the person that was not willing to have that conversation simply did not.  no reply, is in my opinion, preferable when you are dealing with a serious attempt at discussion.  it does not detract from the possibility of two people who want to have the discussion having it.  just because someone says  so edgy  it does not mean that now no one can participate.  i am not so sure your analogy is very good.  reddit does not force people to not have the conversation in that manner, clearly.  but i would argue that, more often than not, it stops it by turning the thread into a sort of circlejerk, which is less likely to attract serious discussion.   #  type of response is not a rebuttal, it should not be used in response to serious criticism.   #  i do not think i have.  i think the problem i have with it is fundamentally the same.  the  so edgy  can be replaced with:  atheists are so preachy ,  so brave , etc.  type of response is not a rebuttal, it should not be used in response to serious criticism.  and  if it is , it should not be taken seriously.  i admitted in the op that:  i realize that the  so edgy  response if often made half jokingly, which is completely fine.  in these cases, i have admitted that the usage of that type of response can be justifiable.  but i think it is an immature thing to do when there may be real conversation to be had, and making comments when they are only purpose is to stop the conversation in this specific case, i am talking about the blatant dismissal of anti religious ideas just because should not be encouraged like it often is on reddit.
i only think this is the case so long as the criticism is attempting to make a serious point even if it is a satirical criticism .  i do not necessarily think that all anti religious claims like simple assertions such as  religion is for idiots  should be taken as serious criticisms, and as a result, are not necessarily asking for a serious response.  i think the  so edgy  response is basically an admission that you have got no real response to the criticism, so you would rather attack the critic.  i realize that the  so edgy  response if often made half jokingly, which is completely fine.  my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.  like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious claims.  i feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.   #  my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.   #  like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious claims.   #  i think it is tit for tat.  if i, for instance, post a well thought out dissection of someone is statement from a biblical perspective and somebody comes in with a low effort  your god is dead,  then i am going to give them a similarly low effort and rude response.  if you are going to be a dick and make a no effort, offensive and demeaning comment about something that is evidently very important to me, i do not see anything wrong with letting you know how i feel about your maturity level in a similarly no effort reply.  you get what you give.  if i spent 0 minutes drafting my response to someone else about why i think homosexuality might not be condemned biblically and you roll in telling me the bible is a book of lies, why should i then spend another 0 minutes trying to refute your vague, un cited, un argued, 0 seconds to type response ? so, you are going to get  so edgy.   like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious claims.  i feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.  i am only going to give you the  so edgy  treatment if you are an asshole about it.  if your  argument  against what i am saying is  fuck you, i do not believe in your god,  there is not a conversation to be  had.   #  an argument is validity is dependant on itself and only itself.   # my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.  like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious criticisms.  i feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.  what makes you think this is the case ? i agree that it stops the discussion but it seems to me that is the point.  people get fed up with seeing thee criticisms pop up and dismiss them with throwaway lines.  i do not think anyone is under the delusion that  so edgy  is a meaningful addition to the discussion.  it does not make much sense to view such a dismissal as an admission that the criticism is valid.  first of all, how valid an argument is not not dependant on responses at all.  an argument is validity is dependant on itself and only itself.  secondly, often people just plain are not looking to continue a discussion.  there is nothing compelling someone to respond to an argument, and any kind of dismissal can only be seen as a refusal to participate.  but just because someone does not want to play the game it does not mean you have beaten them.   #  but just because someone does not want to play the game it does not mean you have beaten them.   # i would not argue that they believe that it is meaningful, but that they believe it is a legitimate way to respond to serious criticism obviously they realize that they are not offering a logical rebuttal, but it is used as a kill all response to criticism, and i think those types of responses should be discouraged because they so often stop the conversation before it can begin.  first of all, how valid an argument is not not dependant on responses at all.  i agree with this, and i think my problem is with the way i worded it.  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.  that was a mistake on my part.  but just because someone does not want to play the game it does not mean you have beaten them.  obviously this is true, but i think a good analogy for the  so edgy  response would be someone not wanting to play a game so they pop a hole in the ball to discourage others from playing.  i think it is important to note the distinction between refusing to participate, and attempting to stop the game.  the latter of which should not be praised.   #  it is dangerous thinking to assume you are winning arguments when nobody else is playing along.   # but that conversation is not always worth having in every instance people criticise religion.  i am fine with discouraging remarks that kill conversation, but let is not pretend that all conversations are always worth having.  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.  that was a mistake on my part.  or they did not feel like typing out their real response in that particular instance.  it is dangerous thinking to assume you are winning arguments when nobody else is playing along.  i think it is important to note the distinction between refusing to participate, and attempting to stop the game.  the latter of which should not be praised.  reddit is style does not seem to preclude other people from continuing the discussion.  just because someone says  so edgy  it does not mean that now no one can participate.  i am not so sure your analogy is very good.   #  i am not so sure your analogy is very good.   # i think i covered this when i said that not all criticisms deserve serious replies.  i think it would be much more productive if the person that was not willing to have that conversation simply did not.  no reply, is in my opinion, preferable when you are dealing with a serious attempt at discussion.  it does not detract from the possibility of two people who want to have the discussion having it.  just because someone says  so edgy  it does not mean that now no one can participate.  i am not so sure your analogy is very good.  reddit does not force people to not have the conversation in that manner, clearly.  but i would argue that, more often than not, it stops it by turning the thread into a sort of circlejerk, which is less likely to attract serious discussion.
i only think this is the case so long as the criticism is attempting to make a serious point even if it is a satirical criticism .  i do not necessarily think that all anti religious claims like simple assertions such as  religion is for idiots  should be taken as serious criticisms, and as a result, are not necessarily asking for a serious response.  i think the  so edgy  response is basically an admission that you have got no real response to the criticism, so you would rather attack the critic.  i realize that the  so edgy  response if often made half jokingly, which is completely fine.  my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.  like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious claims.  i feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.   #  my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.   #  like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious claims.   # like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious claims.  its meant to point out how they feel about the post/topic and so its a legitimate response.  you want to talk about the reasoning and details of the comment.  other people are commenting on the fact its an anti theist comment.  both are legitimate responses but you are expecting people to act they way you want them to act.  0.  you can still have a conversation with people who want to have it.  i am not sure what someone else posts would prevent others from posting.  0.  its not less likely because someone posted  so edgy .  its less likely because its an anti theist comment.   #  first of all, how valid an argument is not not dependant on responses at all.   # my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.  like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious criticisms.  i feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.  what makes you think this is the case ? i agree that it stops the discussion but it seems to me that is the point.  people get fed up with seeing thee criticisms pop up and dismiss them with throwaway lines.  i do not think anyone is under the delusion that  so edgy  is a meaningful addition to the discussion.  it does not make much sense to view such a dismissal as an admission that the criticism is valid.  first of all, how valid an argument is not not dependant on responses at all.  an argument is validity is dependant on itself and only itself.  secondly, often people just plain are not looking to continue a discussion.  there is nothing compelling someone to respond to an argument, and any kind of dismissal can only be seen as a refusal to participate.  but just because someone does not want to play the game it does not mean you have beaten them.   #  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.   # i would not argue that they believe that it is meaningful, but that they believe it is a legitimate way to respond to serious criticism obviously they realize that they are not offering a logical rebuttal, but it is used as a kill all response to criticism, and i think those types of responses should be discouraged because they so often stop the conversation before it can begin.  first of all, how valid an argument is not not dependant on responses at all.  i agree with this, and i think my problem is with the way i worded it.  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.  that was a mistake on my part.  but just because someone does not want to play the game it does not mean you have beaten them.  obviously this is true, but i think a good analogy for the  so edgy  response would be someone not wanting to play a game so they pop a hole in the ball to discourage others from playing.  i think it is important to note the distinction between refusing to participate, and attempting to stop the game.  the latter of which should not be praised.   #  but that conversation is not always worth having in every instance people criticise religion.   # but that conversation is not always worth having in every instance people criticise religion.  i am fine with discouraging remarks that kill conversation, but let is not pretend that all conversations are always worth having.  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.  that was a mistake on my part.  or they did not feel like typing out their real response in that particular instance.  it is dangerous thinking to assume you are winning arguments when nobody else is playing along.  i think it is important to note the distinction between refusing to participate, and attempting to stop the game.  the latter of which should not be praised.  reddit is style does not seem to preclude other people from continuing the discussion.  just because someone says  so edgy  it does not mean that now no one can participate.  i am not so sure your analogy is very good.   #  i think i covered this when i said that not all criticisms deserve serious replies.   # i think i covered this when i said that not all criticisms deserve serious replies.  i think it would be much more productive if the person that was not willing to have that conversation simply did not.  no reply, is in my opinion, preferable when you are dealing with a serious attempt at discussion.  it does not detract from the possibility of two people who want to have the discussion having it.  just because someone says  so edgy  it does not mean that now no one can participate.  i am not so sure your analogy is very good.  reddit does not force people to not have the conversation in that manner, clearly.  but i would argue that, more often than not, it stops it by turning the thread into a sort of circlejerk, which is less likely to attract serious discussion.
i only think this is the case so long as the criticism is attempting to make a serious point even if it is a satirical criticism .  i do not necessarily think that all anti religious claims like simple assertions such as  religion is for idiots  should be taken as serious criticisms, and as a result, are not necessarily asking for a serious response.  i think the  so edgy  response is basically an admission that you have got no real response to the criticism, so you would rather attack the critic.  i realize that the  so edgy  response if often made half jokingly, which is completely fine.  my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.  like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious claims.  i feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.   #  i feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.   #  0.  you can still have a conversation with people who want to have it.   # like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious claims.  its meant to point out how they feel about the post/topic and so its a legitimate response.  you want to talk about the reasoning and details of the comment.  other people are commenting on the fact its an anti theist comment.  both are legitimate responses but you are expecting people to act they way you want them to act.  0.  you can still have a conversation with people who want to have it.  i am not sure what someone else posts would prevent others from posting.  0.  its not less likely because someone posted  so edgy .  its less likely because its an anti theist comment.   #  my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.   # my only problem is that i get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms.  like it is a some magic bullet that defeats all anti religious criticisms.  i feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.  what makes you think this is the case ? i agree that it stops the discussion but it seems to me that is the point.  people get fed up with seeing thee criticisms pop up and dismiss them with throwaway lines.  i do not think anyone is under the delusion that  so edgy  is a meaningful addition to the discussion.  it does not make much sense to view such a dismissal as an admission that the criticism is valid.  first of all, how valid an argument is not not dependant on responses at all.  an argument is validity is dependant on itself and only itself.  secondly, often people just plain are not looking to continue a discussion.  there is nothing compelling someone to respond to an argument, and any kind of dismissal can only be seen as a refusal to participate.  but just because someone does not want to play the game it does not mean you have beaten them.   #  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.   # i would not argue that they believe that it is meaningful, but that they believe it is a legitimate way to respond to serious criticism obviously they realize that they are not offering a logical rebuttal, but it is used as a kill all response to criticism, and i think those types of responses should be discouraged because they so often stop the conversation before it can begin.  first of all, how valid an argument is not not dependant on responses at all.  i agree with this, and i think my problem is with the way i worded it.  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.  that was a mistake on my part.  but just because someone does not want to play the game it does not mean you have beaten them.  obviously this is true, but i think a good analogy for the  so edgy  response would be someone not wanting to play a game so they pop a hole in the ball to discourage others from playing.  i think it is important to note the distinction between refusing to participate, and attempting to stop the game.  the latter of which should not be praised.   #  reddit is style does not seem to preclude other people from continuing the discussion.   # but that conversation is not always worth having in every instance people criticise religion.  i am fine with discouraging remarks that kill conversation, but let is not pretend that all conversations are always worth having.  i would say, instead, that the  so edgy  response is an indicator that the person has no real response to the criticism, not that the criticism is then valid.  that was a mistake on my part.  or they did not feel like typing out their real response in that particular instance.  it is dangerous thinking to assume you are winning arguments when nobody else is playing along.  i think it is important to note the distinction between refusing to participate, and attempting to stop the game.  the latter of which should not be praised.  reddit is style does not seem to preclude other people from continuing the discussion.  just because someone says  so edgy  it does not mean that now no one can participate.  i am not so sure your analogy is very good.   #  i am not so sure your analogy is very good.   # i think i covered this when i said that not all criticisms deserve serious replies.  i think it would be much more productive if the person that was not willing to have that conversation simply did not.  no reply, is in my opinion, preferable when you are dealing with a serious attempt at discussion.  it does not detract from the possibility of two people who want to have the discussion having it.  just because someone says  so edgy  it does not mean that now no one can participate.  i am not so sure your analogy is very good.  reddit does not force people to not have the conversation in that manner, clearly.  but i would argue that, more often than not, it stops it by turning the thread into a sort of circlejerk, which is less likely to attract serious discussion.
to quote my high school philosophy teacher,  what do they call a doctor who graduates bottom of his class ? they still call him doctor.   i am lazy, i procrastinate, and i am trying to fix that, but it is difficult to find the motivation when i can graduate with a bachelor is in mechanical engineering by skating along with barely enough work to pass.  then i will find a job and i will be happy to work as hard as i can given that i am being paid to do stuff, but until then, why bother ? convince me otherwise.   #  i am lazy, i procrastinate, and i am trying to fix that, but it is difficult to find the motivation when i can graduate with a bachelor is in mechanical engineering by skating along with barely enough work to pass.   #  if a prospective employer requests your transcripts, they will notice this.   # they still call him doctor.  what do they call a doctor who graduated at the top of his class ? a doctor who graduated at the top of his class.  if a prospective employer requests your transcripts, they will notice this.  do you hire someone who did well in school, or someone who did the minimum to get by ? why work hard at your job instead of just doing the minimum ? your employer will ask the same question.  it is best to break the habit or laziness now.   #  nothing will change when you get a job, there are slackers everywhere.   # i will try hard in high school, i will try hard at the university, i will try hard at my job, i will try hard at my next job.  these are just another way of saying  i will try harder tomorrow .  they wo not try harder tomorrow.  nothing will change when you get a job, there are slackers everywhere.  they will be at the bottom of the hierarchy and payroll, just like how they were at the bottom of their class.  having a job wo not change you, you need to change yourself.   #  through college, i have cared more about my grades and i have got a 0 or so right now.   #  to give a different perspective and hopefully further encourage you once i got to high school, i realized that all my a is in middle school were fucking pointless, all that nonsense and that transcript does not do anything for me ? so i slacked off some in high school, but it was still really easy to do well.  i only ended up with a few b is, partially because of my momentum in thoroughly understanding fundamental stuff, and partly because i genuinely cared about a lot of my classes and would not accept a b in anything  important .  through college, i have cared more about my grades and i have got a 0 or so right now.  it is not easy, but i am sure it would be way harder if i had slacked off before.  developing those habits gives you so much momentum in terms of understanding fundamentals, being used to working hard, having high standards for yourself, and having opportunities for further education/research/jobs/anything.  and your undergrad is not too late at all btw, it is probably when most people get their shit together.   #  the fact that someone graduated medical school and passed the usmle is impressive enough by itself; people will typically hire primary care doctors without needing to know the specifics of their grades.   #  doctors have an incredibly difficult test the usmle if they want to practice medicine.  the fact that someone graduated medical school and passed the usmle is impressive enough by itself; people will typically hire primary care doctors without needing to know the specifics of their grades.  of course, doctors who want to specialize need decent grades.  in contrast, the bar for a bachelor is degree in any field is lower.  grades are a more important differentiator in that context.   #  the threshold for even becoming a physician in the us is very high, so the difference between getting a diagnosis between a top teir doctor and one that barely passed might not be that different.   #  this important to understand.  the threshold for even becoming a physician in the us is very high, so the difference between getting a diagnosis between a top teir doctor and one that barely passed might not be that different.  but like any profession, your profiency does matter, and grades in school are really the best way to predict that profiency.  these things actually matter more in certain disciplines and is very situational and should be taken in to account.  in op is case asking if there will be any professional drawback to just chilling out and doing the minimum work to get by, maybe not.  but the person who is working hard and studying every day has a much better grasp of the knowledge than you and it does make a difference in every day life.
to quote my high school philosophy teacher,  what do they call a doctor who graduates bottom of his class ? they still call him doctor.   i am lazy, i procrastinate, and i am trying to fix that, but it is difficult to find the motivation when i can graduate with a bachelor is in mechanical engineering by skating along with barely enough work to pass.  then i will find a job and i will be happy to work as hard as i can given that i am being paid to do stuff, but until then, why bother ? convince me otherwise.   #  then i will find a job and i will be happy to work as hard as i can given that i am being paid to do stuff, but until then, why bother ?  #  why work hard at your job instead of just doing the minimum ?  # they still call him doctor.  what do they call a doctor who graduated at the top of his class ? a doctor who graduated at the top of his class.  if a prospective employer requests your transcripts, they will notice this.  do you hire someone who did well in school, or someone who did the minimum to get by ? why work hard at your job instead of just doing the minimum ? your employer will ask the same question.  it is best to break the habit or laziness now.   #  i will try hard in high school, i will try hard at the university, i will try hard at my job, i will try hard at my next job.   # i will try hard in high school, i will try hard at the university, i will try hard at my job, i will try hard at my next job.  these are just another way of saying  i will try harder tomorrow .  they wo not try harder tomorrow.  nothing will change when you get a job, there are slackers everywhere.  they will be at the bottom of the hierarchy and payroll, just like how they were at the bottom of their class.  having a job wo not change you, you need to change yourself.   #  to give a different perspective and hopefully further encourage you once i got to high school, i realized that all my a is in middle school were fucking pointless, all that nonsense and that transcript does not do anything for me ?  #  to give a different perspective and hopefully further encourage you once i got to high school, i realized that all my a is in middle school were fucking pointless, all that nonsense and that transcript does not do anything for me ? so i slacked off some in high school, but it was still really easy to do well.  i only ended up with a few b is, partially because of my momentum in thoroughly understanding fundamental stuff, and partly because i genuinely cared about a lot of my classes and would not accept a b in anything  important .  through college, i have cared more about my grades and i have got a 0 or so right now.  it is not easy, but i am sure it would be way harder if i had slacked off before.  developing those habits gives you so much momentum in terms of understanding fundamentals, being used to working hard, having high standards for yourself, and having opportunities for further education/research/jobs/anything.  and your undergrad is not too late at all btw, it is probably when most people get their shit together.   #  in contrast, the bar for a bachelor is degree in any field is lower.   #  doctors have an incredibly difficult test the usmle if they want to practice medicine.  the fact that someone graduated medical school and passed the usmle is impressive enough by itself; people will typically hire primary care doctors without needing to know the specifics of their grades.  of course, doctors who want to specialize need decent grades.  in contrast, the bar for a bachelor is degree in any field is lower.  grades are a more important differentiator in that context.   #  but the person who is working hard and studying every day has a much better grasp of the knowledge than you and it does make a difference in every day life.   #  this important to understand.  the threshold for even becoming a physician in the us is very high, so the difference between getting a diagnosis between a top teir doctor and one that barely passed might not be that different.  but like any profession, your profiency does matter, and grades in school are really the best way to predict that profiency.  these things actually matter more in certain disciplines and is very situational and should be taken in to account.  in op is case asking if there will be any professional drawback to just chilling out and doing the minimum work to get by, maybe not.  but the person who is working hard and studying every day has a much better grasp of the knowledge than you and it does make a difference in every day life.
a  shoot second  policy would allow police to return fire only after the perpetrator had taken the first shot.  if there was an enforceable policy that police always shoot second tragedies like the 0 year old URL shot in cleveland while carrying a bb gun would be less likely to occur.  most perpetrators are not trained to use firearms and are a lot less likely to hit their target.  if an officer is shot by an unskilled perpetrator it is less likely to be a fatal shot.  police can wear teflon vests and other armor to protect themselves.  police lives are very important, but i am not convinced a shoot second policy would make police work significantly more dangerous.  this policy would also help to eliminate the image of police as bullies.  no longer would police be allowed to shoot unarmed perpetrators after physical altercations.  perpetrators who physically assaulted officers would be taken down only by tasers, mace, or physical strength.  no longer would police be allowed to shoot mentally ill people who are armed only with pocket knives URL  #  most perpetrators are not trained to use firearms and are a lot less likely to hit their target.   #   a lot less likely  is misleading, for one.   #  let is break this down.   a lot less likely  is misleading, for one.  for another, keep this in mind: that bullet does not just vanish the moment it fails to hit its primary target.  it keeps traveling, until it hits a wall.  or the ground.  or someone is car.  or a little girl walking across the street.  every time the trigger is pulled, that is someone else that can die.  and a police officer is a: going to be, as you pointed out, more accurate, so more likely to hit his target and not have as much collateral damage, and b: going to  give a fuck  what is behind his target, and will thus be careful not to shoot if he could hit a civilian.  police are  meticulously  trained to avoid civilian casualties, and in a lot of cases, they will refrain from firing even if they think they can hit the guy, if there are civilians behind him.  i do not wish to offend, but this is an opinion born from ignorance.  gunshot wounds are  exceptionally  traumatic, and due to shock, bleeding and all kinds of complicating factors, a normally nonlethal shot like an arm shot can still cause death.  the  bulletproof  vests police wear will not protect against slugs fired from a shotgun, or against any type of long rifle.  hell, even some handgun calibers and rounds can penetrate them.  besides that, the vests do not protect other areas like the head, arms and legs, all of which, as i mentioned previously, can be fatal.  add to this the fact that most engagements take place within 0 yards.  you do not have to be an expert marksman to put a bullet in someone from 0 yards.  if i am within 0 yards of you and i wait for you to fire the first shot, i am one of two things: extremely lucky, or dead.  do you think police as a whole  want  to kill people ? they do not.  do you think the governing bodies that make the rules of engagement want civilians to end up dead ? they sure as hell do not.  the reason there is not a  shoot second  policy is because that ends up with more dead cops and fewer people to stop a shooting spree.  you say that your average thug is not as good a shot as a police officer.  you are probably right, there.  but not everyone police draw on will be your average thug.  it could be an ex military guy that can outshoot every cop there.  also, let is just assume for a minute that the thug is  vastly  inaccurate at 0 yards.  say he is using a handgun, and he shoots 0 rounds and hits one.  that is a 0 hit rate.  at what point does it become an unacceptable risk ? what if he hits 0 out of 0 ? 0 ? what about 0 ? 0 ? 0 hit rate, each time he pulls the trigger a cop dies ? when police draw on someone, they do not know what they are dealing with.  they have no way of knowing whether this is some prick that learned everything he knows about guns from thugs in the movies, or if he is a former pistol shooting world champion who is gone off the deep end.  depending on which he is, that first shot can sail wildly, or it can put a cop or his best friend in the ground.  so who do you want shooting first: a random, completely uncontrolled individual we know nothing about, save that he is armed, dangerous and unpredictable; or a police officer who is had marksmanship training and has been trained to put the safety of the public above his own life ?  #  what about the case of a suicide bomber, god forbid ?  #  another thing to keep in mind: we have to remember not only the effects of our policies in practice, but in the views of others.  if we say  you have to wait  til you are shot at in order to shoot,  we are saying several things:   we are telling the public we do not care as much about our police as we do about our civilians ordering them to even further risk their lives .  we are telling crooks that if they get the first shot off, they can get away clean if they make sure it kills the cop.  also, something i did not think about: pointing a gun is technically assault.  there is a whole separate charge for it.  because it is just one finger twitch away from murder.  in your scenario of  police must shoot second,  what happens if a guy corners a cop, pointing a gun at him, and walks up to the cop, closer and closer ? is the cop allowed to shoot him ? because the closer the guy gets, the more likely he is to hit and kill the cop when he shoots.  what about the case of a suicide bomber, god forbid ? someone with a hostage and a gun to their head ? that is guaranteed fatality.  are you going to let them get the first shot off ? i do not think so.  i understand where you are coming from, but you are looking at a very specific type of encounter, when the fact is that the types of encounters vary wildly.  you are looking at one or two cops who have drawn their guns, pointing at a person who may or may not be armed, who is roughly 0 0 feet away from them, where every party is aware of the other.  but that is not always how it is going to be.  you could have a hostage situation, like i said.  you could have explosives or chemical weapons involved.  you could have animals.  you could have the element of surprise.  you could have additional people surrounding the cops.  you could have weapons that will shred right through body armor.  the  shoot second  would be inadvisable in your black and white scenario, but in the world of color, it would be completely unworkable.  you would have to make so many exceptions, it may as well not exist at all.   #  what i am referring to is forcing a more reasoned, less fear inducing approach from police officers as it relates to enforcement of the law.   #  i understand that  nonlethal  rounds can still be lethal.  what i am referring to is forcing a more reasoned, less fear inducing approach from police officers as it relates to enforcement of the law.  it would ideally result in a change to police tactics; the average beat cop focuses primarily on petty crime and unarmed suspects, while specialized task forces/enforcement experts or the like are tasked with situations where there is a known lethal weapon in play.  obviously, there is no perfect information in many situations.  i am not saying it is a perfect idea, it is just what i, as an admittedly uninformed layperson, would like to see.  it is scary seeing the speed with which police forces are being militarized, and i am not sure how to stop it.   #  beat cops carry because drug dealers have a habit of shooting people.   #  ideally, but most of the time cops do not arrive expecting a fight.  otherwise they send swat in the first place.  beat cops carry because drug dealers have a habit of shooting people.  traffic cops carry because people sometimes pull guns on them.  my point being that most times when police use their guns, they did not know five minutes ago they would need it.  people say police forces are being militarized, but it is not happening as fast or as thoroughly as the media is portraying.  do they get a lot of decommissioned military equipment ? yeah.  do they use it ? mostly no.  i ca not find it right now, but there was a story i read a while back about a department that had purchased a pair of armored ifvs hummvees from the military for like $0 apiece.  at that price it is almost stupid not to.  know what they were gonna use  em for ? snow driving that their cruisers could not handle.  in the same story they mentioned they had a grenade launcher that was going to get locked up in the station and held in case of emergency.  by and large, while this equipment is being made available to police departments, most of them just are not adapting them for military style use.  everybody wants that.  but the trouble is, cops are people too.  they are afraid for their own lives.  they need those guns to do their job, and if they think their lives are in danger, those guns are coming out of the holsters.   #  they knew the risks when they signed on to the job.   # they are afraid for their own lives.  i totally understand, and can sympathize with that mentality, but bottom line, those people are getting paid to put their life on the line.  they knew the risks when they signed on to the job.  i understand that if you have the tools at your disposal not using them is silly.  i am just not fully convinced that a gun is necessary for every police officer to perform their daily duties.  i get that cops walk into a lot of dangerous situations; that is what they are paid to do.  they are also paid to act as criminal apprehension, not judge jury and executioner.  with that in mind, we need to do a better job of ensuring police officers attempt to do all they can to exhaust  every  avenue of non lethal enforcement before resorting to lethal force.  i think if we were to take away the lethal force option from a lot of police officers, there would quickly be new techniques or technologies developed to apprehend people without the use of that force.  i guess my point is, i am not fully convinced that lethal force is the  only  option in many of these scenarios.  with that in mind, i think that taking away the lethal force option for all but known situations where lethal force has been deemed necessary will actually lead to better enforcement of the law, and fewer situations of the wrong split second decision leading to a loss of life.
a  shoot second  policy would allow police to return fire only after the perpetrator had taken the first shot.  if there was an enforceable policy that police always shoot second tragedies like the 0 year old URL shot in cleveland while carrying a bb gun would be less likely to occur.  most perpetrators are not trained to use firearms and are a lot less likely to hit their target.  if an officer is shot by an unskilled perpetrator it is less likely to be a fatal shot.  police can wear teflon vests and other armor to protect themselves.  police lives are very important, but i am not convinced a shoot second policy would make police work significantly more dangerous.  this policy would also help to eliminate the image of police as bullies.  no longer would police be allowed to shoot unarmed perpetrators after physical altercations.  perpetrators who physically assaulted officers would be taken down only by tasers, mace, or physical strength.  no longer would police be allowed to shoot mentally ill people who are armed only with pocket knives URL  #  if an officer is shot by an unskilled perpetrator it is less likely to be a fatal shot.   #  i do not wish to offend, but this is an opinion born from ignorance.   #  let is break this down.   a lot less likely  is misleading, for one.  for another, keep this in mind: that bullet does not just vanish the moment it fails to hit its primary target.  it keeps traveling, until it hits a wall.  or the ground.  or someone is car.  or a little girl walking across the street.  every time the trigger is pulled, that is someone else that can die.  and a police officer is a: going to be, as you pointed out, more accurate, so more likely to hit his target and not have as much collateral damage, and b: going to  give a fuck  what is behind his target, and will thus be careful not to shoot if he could hit a civilian.  police are  meticulously  trained to avoid civilian casualties, and in a lot of cases, they will refrain from firing even if they think they can hit the guy, if there are civilians behind him.  i do not wish to offend, but this is an opinion born from ignorance.  gunshot wounds are  exceptionally  traumatic, and due to shock, bleeding and all kinds of complicating factors, a normally nonlethal shot like an arm shot can still cause death.  the  bulletproof  vests police wear will not protect against slugs fired from a shotgun, or against any type of long rifle.  hell, even some handgun calibers and rounds can penetrate them.  besides that, the vests do not protect other areas like the head, arms and legs, all of which, as i mentioned previously, can be fatal.  add to this the fact that most engagements take place within 0 yards.  you do not have to be an expert marksman to put a bullet in someone from 0 yards.  if i am within 0 yards of you and i wait for you to fire the first shot, i am one of two things: extremely lucky, or dead.  do you think police as a whole  want  to kill people ? they do not.  do you think the governing bodies that make the rules of engagement want civilians to end up dead ? they sure as hell do not.  the reason there is not a  shoot second  policy is because that ends up with more dead cops and fewer people to stop a shooting spree.  you say that your average thug is not as good a shot as a police officer.  you are probably right, there.  but not everyone police draw on will be your average thug.  it could be an ex military guy that can outshoot every cop there.  also, let is just assume for a minute that the thug is  vastly  inaccurate at 0 yards.  say he is using a handgun, and he shoots 0 rounds and hits one.  that is a 0 hit rate.  at what point does it become an unacceptable risk ? what if he hits 0 out of 0 ? 0 ? what about 0 ? 0 ? 0 hit rate, each time he pulls the trigger a cop dies ? when police draw on someone, they do not know what they are dealing with.  they have no way of knowing whether this is some prick that learned everything he knows about guns from thugs in the movies, or if he is a former pistol shooting world champion who is gone off the deep end.  depending on which he is, that first shot can sail wildly, or it can put a cop or his best friend in the ground.  so who do you want shooting first: a random, completely uncontrolled individual we know nothing about, save that he is armed, dangerous and unpredictable; or a police officer who is had marksmanship training and has been trained to put the safety of the public above his own life ?  #  we are telling crooks that if they get the first shot off, they can get away clean if they make sure it kills the cop.   #  another thing to keep in mind: we have to remember not only the effects of our policies in practice, but in the views of others.  if we say  you have to wait  til you are shot at in order to shoot,  we are saying several things:   we are telling the public we do not care as much about our police as we do about our civilians ordering them to even further risk their lives .  we are telling crooks that if they get the first shot off, they can get away clean if they make sure it kills the cop.  also, something i did not think about: pointing a gun is technically assault.  there is a whole separate charge for it.  because it is just one finger twitch away from murder.  in your scenario of  police must shoot second,  what happens if a guy corners a cop, pointing a gun at him, and walks up to the cop, closer and closer ? is the cop allowed to shoot him ? because the closer the guy gets, the more likely he is to hit and kill the cop when he shoots.  what about the case of a suicide bomber, god forbid ? someone with a hostage and a gun to their head ? that is guaranteed fatality.  are you going to let them get the first shot off ? i do not think so.  i understand where you are coming from, but you are looking at a very specific type of encounter, when the fact is that the types of encounters vary wildly.  you are looking at one or two cops who have drawn their guns, pointing at a person who may or may not be armed, who is roughly 0 0 feet away from them, where every party is aware of the other.  but that is not always how it is going to be.  you could have a hostage situation, like i said.  you could have explosives or chemical weapons involved.  you could have animals.  you could have the element of surprise.  you could have additional people surrounding the cops.  you could have weapons that will shred right through body armor.  the  shoot second  would be inadvisable in your black and white scenario, but in the world of color, it would be completely unworkable.  you would have to make so many exceptions, it may as well not exist at all.   #  i understand that  nonlethal  rounds can still be lethal.   #  i understand that  nonlethal  rounds can still be lethal.  what i am referring to is forcing a more reasoned, less fear inducing approach from police officers as it relates to enforcement of the law.  it would ideally result in a change to police tactics; the average beat cop focuses primarily on petty crime and unarmed suspects, while specialized task forces/enforcement experts or the like are tasked with situations where there is a known lethal weapon in play.  obviously, there is no perfect information in many situations.  i am not saying it is a perfect idea, it is just what i, as an admittedly uninformed layperson, would like to see.  it is scary seeing the speed with which police forces are being militarized, and i am not sure how to stop it.   #  ideally, but most of the time cops do not arrive expecting a fight.  otherwise they send swat in the first place.   #  ideally, but most of the time cops do not arrive expecting a fight.  otherwise they send swat in the first place.  beat cops carry because drug dealers have a habit of shooting people.  traffic cops carry because people sometimes pull guns on them.  my point being that most times when police use their guns, they did not know five minutes ago they would need it.  people say police forces are being militarized, but it is not happening as fast or as thoroughly as the media is portraying.  do they get a lot of decommissioned military equipment ? yeah.  do they use it ? mostly no.  i ca not find it right now, but there was a story i read a while back about a department that had purchased a pair of armored ifvs hummvees from the military for like $0 apiece.  at that price it is almost stupid not to.  know what they were gonna use  em for ? snow driving that their cruisers could not handle.  in the same story they mentioned they had a grenade launcher that was going to get locked up in the station and held in case of emergency.  by and large, while this equipment is being made available to police departments, most of them just are not adapting them for military style use.  everybody wants that.  but the trouble is, cops are people too.  they are afraid for their own lives.  they need those guns to do their job, and if they think their lives are in danger, those guns are coming out of the holsters.   #  they are also paid to act as criminal apprehension, not judge jury and executioner.   # they are afraid for their own lives.  i totally understand, and can sympathize with that mentality, but bottom line, those people are getting paid to put their life on the line.  they knew the risks when they signed on to the job.  i understand that if you have the tools at your disposal not using them is silly.  i am just not fully convinced that a gun is necessary for every police officer to perform their daily duties.  i get that cops walk into a lot of dangerous situations; that is what they are paid to do.  they are also paid to act as criminal apprehension, not judge jury and executioner.  with that in mind, we need to do a better job of ensuring police officers attempt to do all they can to exhaust  every  avenue of non lethal enforcement before resorting to lethal force.  i think if we were to take away the lethal force option from a lot of police officers, there would quickly be new techniques or technologies developed to apprehend people without the use of that force.  i guess my point is, i am not fully convinced that lethal force is the  only  option in many of these scenarios.  with that in mind, i think that taking away the lethal force option for all but known situations where lethal force has been deemed necessary will actually lead to better enforcement of the law, and fewer situations of the wrong split second decision leading to a loss of life.
a  shoot second  policy would allow police to return fire only after the perpetrator had taken the first shot.  if there was an enforceable policy that police always shoot second tragedies like the 0 year old URL shot in cleveland while carrying a bb gun would be less likely to occur.  most perpetrators are not trained to use firearms and are a lot less likely to hit their target.  if an officer is shot by an unskilled perpetrator it is less likely to be a fatal shot.  police can wear teflon vests and other armor to protect themselves.  police lives are very important, but i am not convinced a shoot second policy would make police work significantly more dangerous.  this policy would also help to eliminate the image of police as bullies.  no longer would police be allowed to shoot unarmed perpetrators after physical altercations.  perpetrators who physically assaulted officers would be taken down only by tasers, mace, or physical strength.  no longer would police be allowed to shoot mentally ill people who are armed only with pocket knives URL  #  police can wear teflon vests and other armor to protect themselves.   #  the  bulletproof  vests police wear will not protect against slugs fired from a shotgun, or against any type of long rifle.   #  let is break this down.   a lot less likely  is misleading, for one.  for another, keep this in mind: that bullet does not just vanish the moment it fails to hit its primary target.  it keeps traveling, until it hits a wall.  or the ground.  or someone is car.  or a little girl walking across the street.  every time the trigger is pulled, that is someone else that can die.  and a police officer is a: going to be, as you pointed out, more accurate, so more likely to hit his target and not have as much collateral damage, and b: going to  give a fuck  what is behind his target, and will thus be careful not to shoot if he could hit a civilian.  police are  meticulously  trained to avoid civilian casualties, and in a lot of cases, they will refrain from firing even if they think they can hit the guy, if there are civilians behind him.  i do not wish to offend, but this is an opinion born from ignorance.  gunshot wounds are  exceptionally  traumatic, and due to shock, bleeding and all kinds of complicating factors, a normally nonlethal shot like an arm shot can still cause death.  the  bulletproof  vests police wear will not protect against slugs fired from a shotgun, or against any type of long rifle.  hell, even some handgun calibers and rounds can penetrate them.  besides that, the vests do not protect other areas like the head, arms and legs, all of which, as i mentioned previously, can be fatal.  add to this the fact that most engagements take place within 0 yards.  you do not have to be an expert marksman to put a bullet in someone from 0 yards.  if i am within 0 yards of you and i wait for you to fire the first shot, i am one of two things: extremely lucky, or dead.  do you think police as a whole  want  to kill people ? they do not.  do you think the governing bodies that make the rules of engagement want civilians to end up dead ? they sure as hell do not.  the reason there is not a  shoot second  policy is because that ends up with more dead cops and fewer people to stop a shooting spree.  you say that your average thug is not as good a shot as a police officer.  you are probably right, there.  but not everyone police draw on will be your average thug.  it could be an ex military guy that can outshoot every cop there.  also, let is just assume for a minute that the thug is  vastly  inaccurate at 0 yards.  say he is using a handgun, and he shoots 0 rounds and hits one.  that is a 0 hit rate.  at what point does it become an unacceptable risk ? what if he hits 0 out of 0 ? 0 ? what about 0 ? 0 ? 0 hit rate, each time he pulls the trigger a cop dies ? when police draw on someone, they do not know what they are dealing with.  they have no way of knowing whether this is some prick that learned everything he knows about guns from thugs in the movies, or if he is a former pistol shooting world champion who is gone off the deep end.  depending on which he is, that first shot can sail wildly, or it can put a cop or his best friend in the ground.  so who do you want shooting first: a random, completely uncontrolled individual we know nothing about, save that he is armed, dangerous and unpredictable; or a police officer who is had marksmanship training and has been trained to put the safety of the public above his own life ?  #  i understand where you are coming from, but you are looking at a very specific type of encounter, when the fact is that the types of encounters vary wildly.   #  another thing to keep in mind: we have to remember not only the effects of our policies in practice, but in the views of others.  if we say  you have to wait  til you are shot at in order to shoot,  we are saying several things:   we are telling the public we do not care as much about our police as we do about our civilians ordering them to even further risk their lives .  we are telling crooks that if they get the first shot off, they can get away clean if they make sure it kills the cop.  also, something i did not think about: pointing a gun is technically assault.  there is a whole separate charge for it.  because it is just one finger twitch away from murder.  in your scenario of  police must shoot second,  what happens if a guy corners a cop, pointing a gun at him, and walks up to the cop, closer and closer ? is the cop allowed to shoot him ? because the closer the guy gets, the more likely he is to hit and kill the cop when he shoots.  what about the case of a suicide bomber, god forbid ? someone with a hostage and a gun to their head ? that is guaranteed fatality.  are you going to let them get the first shot off ? i do not think so.  i understand where you are coming from, but you are looking at a very specific type of encounter, when the fact is that the types of encounters vary wildly.  you are looking at one or two cops who have drawn their guns, pointing at a person who may or may not be armed, who is roughly 0 0 feet away from them, where every party is aware of the other.  but that is not always how it is going to be.  you could have a hostage situation, like i said.  you could have explosives or chemical weapons involved.  you could have animals.  you could have the element of surprise.  you could have additional people surrounding the cops.  you could have weapons that will shred right through body armor.  the  shoot second  would be inadvisable in your black and white scenario, but in the world of color, it would be completely unworkable.  you would have to make so many exceptions, it may as well not exist at all.   #  obviously, there is no perfect information in many situations.   #  i understand that  nonlethal  rounds can still be lethal.  what i am referring to is forcing a more reasoned, less fear inducing approach from police officers as it relates to enforcement of the law.  it would ideally result in a change to police tactics; the average beat cop focuses primarily on petty crime and unarmed suspects, while specialized task forces/enforcement experts or the like are tasked with situations where there is a known lethal weapon in play.  obviously, there is no perfect information in many situations.  i am not saying it is a perfect idea, it is just what i, as an admittedly uninformed layperson, would like to see.  it is scary seeing the speed with which police forces are being militarized, and i am not sure how to stop it.   #  traffic cops carry because people sometimes pull guns on them.   #  ideally, but most of the time cops do not arrive expecting a fight.  otherwise they send swat in the first place.  beat cops carry because drug dealers have a habit of shooting people.  traffic cops carry because people sometimes pull guns on them.  my point being that most times when police use their guns, they did not know five minutes ago they would need it.  people say police forces are being militarized, but it is not happening as fast or as thoroughly as the media is portraying.  do they get a lot of decommissioned military equipment ? yeah.  do they use it ? mostly no.  i ca not find it right now, but there was a story i read a while back about a department that had purchased a pair of armored ifvs hummvees from the military for like $0 apiece.  at that price it is almost stupid not to.  know what they were gonna use  em for ? snow driving that their cruisers could not handle.  in the same story they mentioned they had a grenade launcher that was going to get locked up in the station and held in case of emergency.  by and large, while this equipment is being made available to police departments, most of them just are not adapting them for military style use.  everybody wants that.  but the trouble is, cops are people too.  they are afraid for their own lives.  they need those guns to do their job, and if they think their lives are in danger, those guns are coming out of the holsters.   #  i think if we were to take away the lethal force option from a lot of police officers, there would quickly be new techniques or technologies developed to apprehend people without the use of that force.   # they are afraid for their own lives.  i totally understand, and can sympathize with that mentality, but bottom line, those people are getting paid to put their life on the line.  they knew the risks when they signed on to the job.  i understand that if you have the tools at your disposal not using them is silly.  i am just not fully convinced that a gun is necessary for every police officer to perform their daily duties.  i get that cops walk into a lot of dangerous situations; that is what they are paid to do.  they are also paid to act as criminal apprehension, not judge jury and executioner.  with that in mind, we need to do a better job of ensuring police officers attempt to do all they can to exhaust  every  avenue of non lethal enforcement before resorting to lethal force.  i think if we were to take away the lethal force option from a lot of police officers, there would quickly be new techniques or technologies developed to apprehend people without the use of that force.  i guess my point is, i am not fully convinced that lethal force is the  only  option in many of these scenarios.  with that in mind, i think that taking away the lethal force option for all but known situations where lethal force has been deemed necessary will actually lead to better enforcement of the law, and fewer situations of the wrong split second decision leading to a loss of life.
i understand that my title may be a tad confusing so i will attempt to explain.  when playing a game, i believe that characters should have 0 health.  it is a good solid number, it is high enough that you can have  upgraded  weapons and allow more damage from weapons, while also being a whole number so we do not have 0 health and weapons do . 0 damage, ect .  now, i hate when games, i will use diablo 0, turn this number up by a few thousand.  i only made it to level 0ish, but i believe i had well over 0,0 health, while enemies where doing thousands of damage to me. but why ? why ca not i just have 0 health ? maybe i gained some more and now i have 0.  i just do not find these larger numbers to make me feel any more badass, and if anything it seems more distracting than anything to me.   #  i just do not find these larger numbers to make me feel any more badass, and if anything it seems more distracting than anything to me.   #  you site diablo 0 as a game you play so i will use blizzard as an example.   # you site diablo 0 as a game you play so i will use blizzard as an example.  in aaa games, the bigger companies like blizzard employ psychology in their games to keep people interested in every way possible.  to someone who thinks on a more complex level, you can see right through the psychology and it is not a factor to your enjoyment, it is just a big number in a pool of big numbers.  but to the average person who is more likely to take earnest pride in their gaming, doing 0mil damage is exciting to them, and does empower them like you suggest it should make you feel.  this is very audience dependent.  in the case of d0 and until recently world of warcraft numbers they cater a more casual audience and as such the numbers were huge though wow did put in a number squish last month, that was to help blizzard do stuff not make the player feel weaker starcraft 0 on the other hand has a niche hardcore rts strategy audience who is oriented towards in game min/max manipulation.  that means that a lot of the players tend to be very in tune with the numbers and as such the numbers reflect that, by giving precise digits to help people maximize their play.   #  however, if you had 0,0 health, you would take 0 damage exactly, no rounding.   #  it allows for more precise scaling and balancing of damage.  a lot of games are very finely balanced, and not having large numbers causes the numbers to round and cut off, creating an arbitrary restriction in game design.  if you had 0 health, and a specific attack is careful balanced to take away 0 of your health per second, then you take 0 damage per second because it is rounded, and you have already said it has to be whole numbers.  however, if you had 0,0 health, you would take 0 damage exactly, no rounding.  is 0,0 health less clear in what it implies than 0 health ? is there any difficulty in understanding that 0 is half of 0,0 than 0 is half of 0 ?  #  you actually encounter a boss at the very beginning that you are practically unable to damage, and eventually have to run away from.   #  i can see how getting into 0 digit numbers is overkill.  that being said, there are plenty of games that intelligently use large numbers, and the key is to start small, and allow the player to really feel the progression of their character.  i will use dark souls as an example.  when you start the game, at the very beginning, you literally hit for 0 0 damage.  you actually encounter a boss at the very beginning that you are practically unable to damage, and eventually have to run away from.  then you play through a tutorial esque area, pick up your starting equipment, and go back to fight the boss, now hitting for 0 0 damage.  then you leave the tutorial area and arrive in the open world of the actual game.  what is important about the open world of dark souls, and many good rpg games, is that it allows you to explore and find enemies that you are not ready to face.  right of the bat, dark souls allows to player to explore areas that are not meant to be tackled until you are over halfway through the game.  but just like in the tutorial, you have to leave these places and comeback later.  it takes a good but of exploring to find the intended  beginning  of the game.  so you play through the game, gradually upgrading your weapons and leveling up and eventually your damage is in the hundreds, and later even thousands.  then you go back to those late game areas that you found before, and suddenly you can kill these enemies in 0 hits rather then 0.  you can eat a hit from that giant monster without dying.  you have become stronger and you can really feel it.  and that is not even the best part.  oftentimes you have to backtrack through old areas, and when you fight enemies from early game which used to be able to kill you in just a few hits you can 0 shot them with ease, you can tank 0 hits without healing once, you can see how much more powerful your character has become because the game shows you.   #  but that old minion who killed you when you were low level would be nothing but a smear compared to your million damage.   #  all those enemies that used to give you a hard time die in 0 hit though.  sure, the enemies that you are fighting at your level are tougher.  but that old minion who killed you when you were low level would be nothing but a smear compared to your million damage.  the big damage numbers give you a sense of how far you came.  it shows you that you could go back to the act 0 big bad and spank him for lols.   #  there is  no way around this  if you want each level to feel equally significant and all you have is straight damage numbers getting subtracted from hp.   #  certainly some games have unnecessarily inflated numbers by tacking on zeros.  but in many cases there is a good reason for numbers becoming so large: when a game statistic increases, it is usually not the absolute increase that matters in terms of perception, but the increase relative to what you already have.  if you get 0 hp, that is a lot if you had only 0 hp to begin with.  however, if you already have 0,0,0 hp, 0 hp is not even noticable.  rather it is the  proportional  increase that matters.  in terms of feeling, 0 hp is to 0 hp as 0,0 hp is to 0,0,0 hp: both are 0 of what you already have.  so for each level to feel equally significant, it has to be 0 or whatever higher than the previous level.  so you start with 0 hp.  at level 0 you have 0 hp.  at level 0 you have 0 hp.  .  aaannd that is geometric growth.  if the game goes on for a while, you  will  reach some large numbers, even if you started small and the increase per level is not that large.  in this example, your hp is 0   0 level .  by level 0 you will have 0,0 hp.  there is  no way around this  if you want each level to feel equally significant and all you have is straight damage numbers getting subtracted from hp.  this does not rule out having stats besides dps and hp and presenting the numbers differently even if the practical outcome is the same.  for example, you could keep damage and hp constant with level and instead apply a 0x modifier to damage for every level difference between attacker and defender.  however, some might argue that the straight damage/hp increase is more intuitive/badass.
i submitted a cmv earlier about setting the conditions upon which i would pay for my kids to go to a top school URL the reoccurring theme in the responses was that doing what makes you happy is just as important as making money.  to me, this is a ridiculous, and potentially harmful worldview.  earning potential, and the acquisition of material wealth should be the determining factors when it comes to education and career choices.  intellectual stimulation, and pursuits that make you happy are perfectly fine, but unless they have a substantial earning potential, they should be disregarded until later in life when you are in a better position to indulge them as hobbies.  it makes absolutely no sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars if not more on an education with limited earning potential, when you could use that same time, money, and effort to obtain an education in a field that will allow you to earn enough money to have the freedom to do what you like later in life.  in order to weed out the people who only read the headline, and do not bother to read the entire view, please start all responses with any one of the following words: orange, seven, banana, coffee.   nbsp;  #  doing what makes you happy is just as important as making money.   #  to me, this is a ridiculous, and potentially harmful worldview.   # to me, this is a ridiculous, and potentially harmful worldview.  like other cmv is you fall into a false dichotomy.  either you are happy or have good income.  the advice you are considering harmful is not that happiness is more important than money, but that you should look for a balance between income and happiness.  first of all income stability depends on your lifestyle.  some people with a $0k salary can spend it all, get into debt and then go broke and someone else with a $0k a year can live a perfectly happy life, so income means nothing as long as you are above the poverty line, and this is what /u/redditeyes is referring to.  once above the poverty line, the amount of money does not correlate with happiness anymore.  so, although it is good advice to take into account potential income when choosing a career, if it is the only criteria you might end up doing a job you hate, you wo not be very good at it, you might have stress and relationship issues and end up being more unstable than a career with a smaller income but makes you enjoy life.  this is very possible if you do not fall into hippie/glamour traps.   #  it will bring you more enjoyment out of life even if your paycheck is smaller.   #  orange scientific research shows that earning more money increases happiness only if you are very poor.  so if you do not have any food, then yes getting more money will make you happier.  but once your basic necessities are satisfied food, shelter and so on , getting more money will not really make that much of a difference.  you know what will ? doing something you love.  doing something you find valuable.  it will bring you more enjoyment out of life even if your paycheck is smaller.  you are saying that it is worth it to do something you hate, because you will get enough money to do what you love one day as a hobby.  but if you could do what you love immediately get a smaller paycheck, but still live comfortably , then why not just do it ?  #  by the time you finish your education and gain enough experience in the field to get the good pay check, there is a chance your field will already get decimated by automation.   #  what is better: 0 live life in misery, but be well prepared for emergencies, or 0 life life happily and still be prepared for emergencies, just less so ? let is face it, nowadays there is no absolute job security anywhere.  automation and ai development is going so fast, it is quite probable most jobs today will not be viable few decades down the line.  just because something is well payed at the moment, does not mean it will always be well payed.  by the time you finish your education and gain enough experience in the field to get the good pay check, there is a chance your field will already get decimated by automation.  if you are going to study anyway, you might as well study something you love.   #  if you decide to study x, you are not immediately making money out of it.   #  you ignored the most important part of my comment.  if you decide to study x, you are not immediately making money out of it.  you have to study for many years and then gain a lot of experience in the field before you can make the good pay check.  all that delay means you are risking that automation or some other factor might ruin your plans.  if i got immediately payed for studying x, or if at least i had guarantee that x will earn me money, then yes it is worth it to study x.  but since that is not the case, i ca not count on x.  if i am to make sacrifice and do something i hate, i need some guarantee that it will be worth it in the end.  if i do not have that guarantee, i might as well do something i like instead.  at least then i get the intangible value of doing something i enjoy.   #  if i had the choice between a job i hated that payed 0k  a year vs a job i loved that payed 0 0k a year, i would pick the latter in a heartbeat.   #  seven.  for many people, those years they spent doing something they did not like would be years wasted.  years that they regret down the line.  just because you made money does not mean you enjoyed that time you spent making that money.  and one should not forget that your life can change in an instant.  planning to do something you hate for 0 years just to make some extra money does not guarantee you will live to the end of that 0 years.  also, you have not made it that clear how much more money you are talking about.  if i had the choice between a job i hated that payed 0k  a year vs a job i loved that payed 0 0k a year, i would pick the latter in a heartbeat.  i would still be comfortable with the 0k a year, its not like i would be living off of welfare or anything of that nature.  money certainly is important when picking a career, but if its something you will have no interest doing then why spend 0 years of your life doing it ? that 0k a year job will make me much happier if i enjoy what i am doing.  i will close my argument in that age old adage  money ca not buy happiness.
i submitted a cmv earlier about setting the conditions upon which i would pay for my kids to go to a top school URL the reoccurring theme in the responses was that doing what makes you happy is just as important as making money.  to me, this is a ridiculous, and potentially harmful worldview.  earning potential, and the acquisition of material wealth should be the determining factors when it comes to education and career choices.  intellectual stimulation, and pursuits that make you happy are perfectly fine, but unless they have a substantial earning potential, they should be disregarded until later in life when you are in a better position to indulge them as hobbies.  it makes absolutely no sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars if not more on an education with limited earning potential, when you could use that same time, money, and effort to obtain an education in a field that will allow you to earn enough money to have the freedom to do what you like later in life.  in order to weed out the people who only read the headline, and do not bother to read the entire view, please start all responses with any one of the following words: orange, seven, banana, coffee.   nbsp;  #  earning potential, and the acquisition of material wealth should be the determining factors when it comes to education and career choices.   #  if i make enough to be comfortable, why not spend time doing something i enjoy ?  #  i just finished my coffee, here you go.  if i make enough to be comfortable, why not spend time doing something i enjoy ? a huge amount of your life will be spent working; enjoying your job will make life much more enjoyable.  you say this now, but working for the accumulation of wealth is a never ending endeavor.  why retire early for less money when you can work a little longer and have more ? by the time you  do  retire, you will be unable to enjoy these hobbies and pursuits to the extent you could when you were younger.  many people with large incomes  also  work many hours.  you are throwing away your youth for work so that you can hypothetically enjoy your retirement.  i have a feeling that when you retire, you will regret the time you wasted when you were young.   #  it will bring you more enjoyment out of life even if your paycheck is smaller.   #  orange scientific research shows that earning more money increases happiness only if you are very poor.  so if you do not have any food, then yes getting more money will make you happier.  but once your basic necessities are satisfied food, shelter and so on , getting more money will not really make that much of a difference.  you know what will ? doing something you love.  doing something you find valuable.  it will bring you more enjoyment out of life even if your paycheck is smaller.  you are saying that it is worth it to do something you hate, because you will get enough money to do what you love one day as a hobby.  but if you could do what you love immediately get a smaller paycheck, but still live comfortably , then why not just do it ?  #  just because something is well payed at the moment, does not mean it will always be well payed.   #  what is better: 0 live life in misery, but be well prepared for emergencies, or 0 life life happily and still be prepared for emergencies, just less so ? let is face it, nowadays there is no absolute job security anywhere.  automation and ai development is going so fast, it is quite probable most jobs today will not be viable few decades down the line.  just because something is well payed at the moment, does not mean it will always be well payed.  by the time you finish your education and gain enough experience in the field to get the good pay check, there is a chance your field will already get decimated by automation.  if you are going to study anyway, you might as well study something you love.   #  if you decide to study x, you are not immediately making money out of it.   #  you ignored the most important part of my comment.  if you decide to study x, you are not immediately making money out of it.  you have to study for many years and then gain a lot of experience in the field before you can make the good pay check.  all that delay means you are risking that automation or some other factor might ruin your plans.  if i got immediately payed for studying x, or if at least i had guarantee that x will earn me money, then yes it is worth it to study x.  but since that is not the case, i ca not count on x.  if i am to make sacrifice and do something i hate, i need some guarantee that it will be worth it in the end.  if i do not have that guarantee, i might as well do something i like instead.  at least then i get the intangible value of doing something i enjoy.   #  if i had the choice between a job i hated that payed 0k  a year vs a job i loved that payed 0 0k a year, i would pick the latter in a heartbeat.   #  seven.  for many people, those years they spent doing something they did not like would be years wasted.  years that they regret down the line.  just because you made money does not mean you enjoyed that time you spent making that money.  and one should not forget that your life can change in an instant.  planning to do something you hate for 0 years just to make some extra money does not guarantee you will live to the end of that 0 years.  also, you have not made it that clear how much more money you are talking about.  if i had the choice between a job i hated that payed 0k  a year vs a job i loved that payed 0 0k a year, i would pick the latter in a heartbeat.  i would still be comfortable with the 0k a year, its not like i would be living off of welfare or anything of that nature.  money certainly is important when picking a career, but if its something you will have no interest doing then why spend 0 years of your life doing it ? that 0k a year job will make me much happier if i enjoy what i am doing.  i will close my argument in that age old adage  money ca not buy happiness.
i submitted a cmv earlier about setting the conditions upon which i would pay for my kids to go to a top school URL the reoccurring theme in the responses was that doing what makes you happy is just as important as making money.  to me, this is a ridiculous, and potentially harmful worldview.  earning potential, and the acquisition of material wealth should be the determining factors when it comes to education and career choices.  intellectual stimulation, and pursuits that make you happy are perfectly fine, but unless they have a substantial earning potential, they should be disregarded until later in life when you are in a better position to indulge them as hobbies.  it makes absolutely no sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars if not more on an education with limited earning potential, when you could use that same time, money, and effort to obtain an education in a field that will allow you to earn enough money to have the freedom to do what you like later in life.  in order to weed out the people who only read the headline, and do not bother to read the entire view, please start all responses with any one of the following words: orange, seven, banana, coffee.   nbsp;  #  intellectual stimulation, and pursuits that make you happy are perfectly fine, but unless they have a substantial earning potential, they should be disregarded until later in life when you are in a better position to indulge them as hobbies.   #  you say this now, but working for the accumulation of wealth is a never ending endeavor.   #  i just finished my coffee, here you go.  if i make enough to be comfortable, why not spend time doing something i enjoy ? a huge amount of your life will be spent working; enjoying your job will make life much more enjoyable.  you say this now, but working for the accumulation of wealth is a never ending endeavor.  why retire early for less money when you can work a little longer and have more ? by the time you  do  retire, you will be unable to enjoy these hobbies and pursuits to the extent you could when you were younger.  many people with large incomes  also  work many hours.  you are throwing away your youth for work so that you can hypothetically enjoy your retirement.  i have a feeling that when you retire, you will regret the time you wasted when you were young.   #  you are saying that it is worth it to do something you hate, because you will get enough money to do what you love one day as a hobby.   #  orange scientific research shows that earning more money increases happiness only if you are very poor.  so if you do not have any food, then yes getting more money will make you happier.  but once your basic necessities are satisfied food, shelter and so on , getting more money will not really make that much of a difference.  you know what will ? doing something you love.  doing something you find valuable.  it will bring you more enjoyment out of life even if your paycheck is smaller.  you are saying that it is worth it to do something you hate, because you will get enough money to do what you love one day as a hobby.  but if you could do what you love immediately get a smaller paycheck, but still live comfortably , then why not just do it ?  #  by the time you finish your education and gain enough experience in the field to get the good pay check, there is a chance your field will already get decimated by automation.   #  what is better: 0 live life in misery, but be well prepared for emergencies, or 0 life life happily and still be prepared for emergencies, just less so ? let is face it, nowadays there is no absolute job security anywhere.  automation and ai development is going so fast, it is quite probable most jobs today will not be viable few decades down the line.  just because something is well payed at the moment, does not mean it will always be well payed.  by the time you finish your education and gain enough experience in the field to get the good pay check, there is a chance your field will already get decimated by automation.  if you are going to study anyway, you might as well study something you love.   #  you ignored the most important part of my comment.   #  you ignored the most important part of my comment.  if you decide to study x, you are not immediately making money out of it.  you have to study for many years and then gain a lot of experience in the field before you can make the good pay check.  all that delay means you are risking that automation or some other factor might ruin your plans.  if i got immediately payed for studying x, or if at least i had guarantee that x will earn me money, then yes it is worth it to study x.  but since that is not the case, i ca not count on x.  if i am to make sacrifice and do something i hate, i need some guarantee that it will be worth it in the end.  if i do not have that guarantee, i might as well do something i like instead.  at least then i get the intangible value of doing something i enjoy.   #  i will close my argument in that age old adage  money ca not buy happiness.    #  seven.  for many people, those years they spent doing something they did not like would be years wasted.  years that they regret down the line.  just because you made money does not mean you enjoyed that time you spent making that money.  and one should not forget that your life can change in an instant.  planning to do something you hate for 0 years just to make some extra money does not guarantee you will live to the end of that 0 years.  also, you have not made it that clear how much more money you are talking about.  if i had the choice between a job i hated that payed 0k  a year vs a job i loved that payed 0 0k a year, i would pick the latter in a heartbeat.  i would still be comfortable with the 0k a year, its not like i would be living off of welfare or anything of that nature.  money certainly is important when picking a career, but if its something you will have no interest doing then why spend 0 years of your life doing it ? that 0k a year job will make me much happier if i enjoy what i am doing.  i will close my argument in that age old adage  money ca not buy happiness.
tax is incredibly debilitating to the growth of your business and hiring of employees.  especially to your small business, and any legal loophole that allows you to escape it should be used.  rich corporations ? good, you deserve the extra income, because you had the skills and luck to get to the spot you are in now.  society needs rich people to look up to.  for example, in my own personal case, my business makes just enough money for me to survive.  it pays my car, insurance, rent, and food.  thats just about it.  it is critical for me to keep this business, and a tax bill of any amount would put me under.  yet, at the end of the year, im supposed to come up with 0 0 of that money that was already spent on rent and food long since digested.  i will happily learn about and utilize any tricks that let me avoid taxes.  i fully support moving your money to tax havens as well.   #  society needs rich people to look up to.   #  i have no problems with the admiration of a rich person although admiring them because they are rich seems a little empty to me.   #  businesses are able to function better because government creates at atmosphere were they can prosper or at least they should attempt to .  when large amounts of tax are avoided it means the government services that businesses rely upon will degrade.  it gradually poisons the watering hole for all businesses in order to make short term gains.  i have no problems with the admiration of a rich person although admiring them because they are rich seems a little empty to me.  i admire enterprising people because of their skill and drive, not their bottom line.  i would not admire someone who does not pay their dues as that makes you selfish.  i would not rate a selfish person as admirable unless they have helped society to such a degree that it counter balances this selfishness.  good, you deserve the extra income, because you had the skills and luck to get to the spot you are in now.  when a corporation is assisting society then i am delighted to see it doing well.  if it is in it is situation through luck then i am ambivalent.  a lot of corporations are only on top because the playing field has become tilted in their direction.  they are not skilled or competitive enough to survive otherwise.  huge corporations tend to have such a shocking advantage that people feel they should contribute more to the playing field that sustains them.  most people are not clambering for small, upcoming businesses like your own to be encumbered with massive bills.  it is nice to see the little guys competing with the big ones.   #  public education helps you find employees who are competent to work for you, as well as encourages an economic culture where people have money to spend on your business.   # you mean your income ? because individuals pay taxes as well.  if you are not earning enough money to cover rent, food, and income taxes, your business is not profitable, regardless of the government is influence.  but the reason why corporations rightly pay taxes on their profit, is that they benefit greatly from the government.  as a business owner, public infrastructure gets customers and employees to your place of business, and helps you advertise as well as providing a conduit for your business over the internet.  public education helps you find employees who are competent to work for you, as well as encourages an economic culture where people have money to spend on your business.  public safety protects you from physical risk.  contract law protects your property rights.  patent law protects you from intellectual theft.  the military provides you with a blanket of protection conducive to your business.   #  when people say  corporations should pay taxes , they mean the large, profitable businesses you are talking about, that hide billions in offshore accounts, with corporate registrations in other countries, etc.   #  i think you are attacking a straw man here.  nobody much cares if small sole proprietorships pay a lot of taxes or not, in fact, i would guess most people support lowering taxes on such businesses.  in fact, many regulations e. g.  healthcare that are effectively taxes only apply to larger businesses.  when people say  corporations should pay taxes , they mean the large, profitable businesses you are talking about, that hide billions in offshore accounts, with corporate registrations in other countries, etc.  mechanisms that are not useful to small proprietors like you and me.  that is what is unfair about  corporations  not paying tax.   #  you are basically just admiring someone for getting a high score in a video game.   #  why do you even believe that  society needs rich people to look up to , or that rich corporations deserve any admiration, if their only goal in the world is to maximize profits, no matter what the social consequences ? you are basically just admiring someone for getting a high score in a video game.  at least in a video game, the purpose is to have fun, but with corporations, especially large ones, they are dealing with wide sweeping industrial and business issues that actually affect people is livelihoods and quality of life.  it is more than just a game, and when rich people and corporations dodge taxation, they are basically shoving the costs of upkeeping society off onto others.  whatever admiration i could possibly have have for a big company, or the rich people that run it, is how much it gets done, how many services it delivers, what new products they develop that improve people is lives.  or how well they treat the vast groups of people that work hard to keep these operations running.  if you disregard all the real life consequences of business only to focus on how awesome that high score is, that admiration seems very hollow.  why keep looking up to them if they reap all these profits from a country is people only to skip out on their bills when it comes to keeping that country running ?  #  also, taxes are not just something that sucks up everyone is money.   #  well that last sentence seems like a good place to start.  there are people who have had generations of wealthy family members that allows them to purchase companies.  did that person work so hard that they should be immune to taxation ? also, taxes are not just something that sucks up everyone is money.  it pays for the international security of a military, the local security of police, infrastructure like roads, and the people hired to make it all work.  no large company would have survived with out the facilitation of government.  so yeah, companies that succeeded in no small part due to their government are unethical if they refuse to pay back in to the very service that allowed them to prosper
if we had a perfect lie detector that was easily accessible say, as easy to get as a cell phone is today this would solve virtually all problems relating to human interaction.  let is leave aside the practicalities and just assume that it is trivial to find out the truth from people.  this would not force people to say anything, it would simply determine if what they said was true.  so you could just be silent or say  i am not answering that  if someone asks crude or obscene questions.  people who knew they would be caught not a question of if, but when would be far less likely to commit crimes like theft or premeditated physical attacks.  crimes of passion would still occur, but rarely.  false accusations would disappear instantly.  the justice system could no longer convict anyone who did not deserve it, barring exceptionally rare circumstances like amnesia .  police forces would instantly be cleaned up, as no one could abuse their power and pretend they did not.  the political system would be reformed, as politicians would no longer be able to accept bribes or do other actions that are illegal.  it would become impossible to propose laws or programs and lie about your reasons, making it much more difficult to pass laws or programs that would be against the public interest.  people would have much less ability to harm each other.  relationships would become much better as dishonest people would no longer be able to lie.  it is true that this would do nothing to solve issues like pollution, climate change, or homelessness.  however, making a world where no one could lie to each other, or escape detection when harming someone else, would do an immense amount of good perhaps more than any other potential development.   #  people who knew they would be caught not a question of if, but when would be far less likely to commit crimes like theft or premeditated physical attacks.   #  crimes of passion would still occur, but rarely.   # crimes of passion would still occur, but rarely.  but that is not the end of it.  if people knew they had no way of getting away with something, that would not automatically bring a better society.  people would still have hopes and dreams, desires and goals.  ready to be crushed by other people in entirely legal ways.  someone else is better than your kid at baseball so your kid does not make the team.  someone else gets that big promotion you wanted.  the neighbors tree is hanging over your side of the lawn but not really according to the legal documents.  etc.  have you ever lived in a neighborhood where a large portion of the people absolutely hated each other ? constantly doing things that you ca not really prove ? and like you said, they could just refuse to answer.  that is a hellhole i do not want to live in.  and no, i do not see people peacefully resolving their differences, i do not trust humanity to be capable of that.   #  a few reasons that i think you are overestimating the value of the infallible lie detector although it would be helpful :   there is little doubt as to the guilt of most criminals.   #  i would say that eradicating poverty, vastly increasing the quality of primary education, and/or eliminating drug and alcohol addiction would do more.  deficiencies in these areas are likely the primary causes of human behavioral issues.  a few reasons that i think you are overestimating the value of the infallible lie detector although it would be helpful :   there is little doubt as to the guilt of most criminals.  thus, the vast majority of criminal cases wo not be helped much by the lie detector.  in many unsolved crimes, the problem is simply a lack of leads.  the lie detector wo not help much here either.  it is highly unlikely that politicians and others would routinely be subjected to these tests, especially to determine their  reasons  for doing things.  same goes for people in relationships, etc.  the inherent distrust associated with forcing the test on people in everyday circumstances would not be outweighed by its benefits.   #  so you would know that if you committed a crime, it would just be a question of when you get caught, not if unless you fled and lived alone in the bushes, which people can already do.   # sadly, this is quite false.  URL  moreover, commencing in 0 in cases of rape and rape murder where there has already been either an arrest or an indictment, the fbi has conducted large numbers of dna tests  0  to confirm or exclude the person.  in 0 percent of the cases where they can get a result, they excluded the primary suspect    in many unsolved crimes, the problem is simply a lack of leads.  the lie detector wo not help much here either.  people would regularly be asked if they had committed any crimes that they had not confessed to, say when applying for a job etc.  like a background check.  so you would know that if you committed a crime, it would just be a question of when you get caught, not if unless you fled and lived alone in the bushes, which people can already do.  of course they would.  politician bob proposes some law that discriminates against hispanics just an example .  he says it is  to fight crime  or something.  a reporter or his political enemy asks what the main reason why he proposed the law.  politician bob is then either forced to be silent extremely damaging or admit that the real reason is because he dislikes hispanics.  people already ask their partners if they are cheating.  they just do not always trust the answers.  nothing would change, except you know you could trust the answers.   #  even under your system you ca not say that a crime happened because someone pleads the 0th.   #  people would regularly be asked if they had committed any crimes that they had not confessed to, say when applying for a job etc.  like a background check.  i am sorry i am going to plead the 0th.  this is the textbook reason for why you would.  pleading the 0th just means that you do not have to act as agent against yourself.  even under your system you ca not say that a crime happened because someone pleads the 0th.  the state still has to determine what has actually happened.  your idea works great if there was not a 0th amendment, but there is.   #  as to the rest of your comment, what you are essentially proposing is a minority report URL scenario.   #  the vast majority of people in jail are plainly guilty.  for one thing, the statistic you cited was pre dna tests, which we have now.  moreover, it dealt with a specific crime rape.  lastly, it was referring to arrests/indictments, not convictions.  as to the rest of your comment, what you are essentially proposing is a minority report URL scenario.  as i alluded to in my parent comment, this has it is own problems that most people consider very serious.
so the new teaser trailer dropped and we are going to be drenched in hype until it drops in cinema late next year.  i do not think i will be able to put up with al this until then.  it is not going to flop, how can it.  episode i was dire and it made  $0m.  i thought the original trilogy was too camp to enjoy.  it was okay at times and i ca not argue it did not have a positive effect on others.  then rolled the prequel trilogy and omfg were they bad.  they were such a jumbled chaotic mess.  he laid his hands back on the os and fucked them up taking things that the fans loved so han did not shoot first ? was not that an important character device we know we ca not trust lucas in the chair any more.  he is clearly shitty with the story now too as shown by the latest indiana jones film.  j.  j.  abrams has shown by the new star trek films that he is a somebody not afraid to shake things up.  to his credit i like that, instead of going with the flow he made bold choices.  things is that his choices went against the spirit of the show and were these glossy shallow pieces.  i think it is going to be just as big a turd as episode i, ii   iii, and indy0 were received as being.  and just as empty and soulless as abrams star trek films were.  please help me see reason to be swept up in this madness.  i ca not endure a year of this only to be proven right and people dismissing it as i could not have known it was shite even if i had been mentioning it every time my opinion had been asked about it.   #  things is that his choices went against the spirit of the show and were these glossy shallow pieces.   #  i mostly agree on this for trek, but i see no reason to assume that the new sw movie will be the same because the original sw trilogy was also glossy and shallow.   # i mostly agree on this for trek, but i see no reason to assume that the new sw movie will be the same because the original sw trilogy was also glossy and shallow.  complaints about the prequel trilogy are hilarious to me because they are really no different from the original trilogy in their intended audience, depth, and significance except with more racist stereotypes.  lucas has always wanted to innovate and develop film technology and use set pieces to sell the tech.  his  all green screen, all digital  prequel trilogy approach has been taken up by a number of other popular filmmakers.  he deliberately uses storyline tropes and formula in order to appeal to a mass market.  the prequel trilogy was no different.  he is always wanted to sell toys and merchandise and revolutionized the concept of universe tie in and buy in as a profit modality in film making.  he advanced that model with successful prequel tie ins in video games and even animated television series.  i do not think it is possible for abrams to make a film that is more shallow than any film in the original trilogy unless he actively attempts to do so.  ultimately, most complaints about the prequel trilogy were not shared by kids.  adults who grew up with star wars and its influence had the whole  lucas raped my childhood  thing going on, but they kept forgetting that they themselves were much younger and less jaded when they enjoyed the original trilogy.  mark hamill, carrie fisher, and harrison ford were not going to win any awards for their acting.  alec guinness was nominated because he was alec f in guinness.  most of the awards were for innovations in set design, music, special effects, sound design, etc.  only one of the screenplays arguably one of the worst ones,  a new hope  was nominated, iirc.  the main difference between the prequel trilogy and the original is that all of the technical innovations were less noticeable.  star wars  looked and sounded  really  new at the time, and was therefore exciting and eye opening.  the prequels were just technological innovations that were designed to be undetectable if perfectly executed.  lucas  well known distaste for managing actors resulted in bad performances from natalie freaking portman and hayden christensen, but you could arguably say the same about the original trilogy actors.  i have seen or heard performances by at least two of the stars that ran circles around their work in the original trilogy.  so, really, all jj has to do for the hype to be deserved is to demand non wooden performances from his actors, choose and direct a good script, and maintain the classic sw look, sound, and feel while innovating it into the future in a logical manner that is consistent with the existing universe.  i think his track record with trek is a strong indication that he can do that.  the main issue with new trek, to my mind, is that we are just re hashing old stories with a twist and not adding much in the way of  new  content to the universe.  but they are still fun to watch, and abrams does not need to do any better than that to match the original trilogy in quality if you are able to divorce yourself from the lens of your younger self and view those films more objectively.  abrams has shown, throughout his career, that he can direct actors to deliver compelling performances, even when the material is shallow.  his decision to allow new bones to caricature old bones is regrettable, though.  he certainly knows how to make things look good, even just based on a few trailer shots.  so, i am stoked.  i am nervous about serkis, not totally sold on the screenwriter, and am wondering how luke, leia, and han are going to be used, but i do not think he will make a  worse  movie than lucas ever did because one of his main strengths as a director is the humanization of idealized, pre existing characters.   #  i ca not endure a year of this only to be proven right and people dismissing it as i could not have known it was shite even if i had been mentioning it every time my opinion had been asked about it.   #  its a new star wars movie.  either you like star wars and you will be excited to see it or you do not like star wars and you do not care to see it.  its purely subjective  please help me see reason to be swept up in this madness.  i ca not endure a year of this only to be proven right and people dismissing it as i could not have known it was shite even if i had been mentioning it every time my opinion had been asked about it.  than do not get swept up in it.  filter out the word star wars on your reddit, block star wars subreddits and do not bring it up in conversation.  there is literally 0 seconds of information of what the film could look like and it neither proves or disproves anything.  so yes you do not know anything about what is going to come of the movie because nobody has seen it and everything is speculation.   #  whereas the sw fans are openly rejecting anything new, even if it as simple as hand protector for the lightsaber.   #  it is true that every fandom obsesses over details, but it is way over the line when we talk about sw.  other fandoms will accept new material, push for it and enjoy it when it comes.  whereas the sw fans are openly rejecting anything new, even if it as simple as hand protector for the lightsaber.  it seems like the whole thing is nostalgia towards ep.  0 0.  we get it, nothing can make you feel as you did when you were a kid watching the old sw.  the problem is not in the series, it is that you are no longer a kid.   #  you will have to give me more examples of star wars fans rejecting new things besides a rather silly looking lightsaber crossguard.   #  the star wars fan community is so vast and varied that any attempt to describe them to a man will fall short.  are you referring to the more  hardcore  fans that love and know every aspect of the eu ? or the  casual  fans that know and love star wars as a fixture in pop culture ? everyone is allowed to have an opinion about certain design choices.  you will have to give me more examples of star wars fans rejecting new things besides a rather silly looking lightsaber crossguard.   #  in a way for me i do not want to be associated with the fans i feel are abrasive and thus i will not be a fan of the media/product.   #  i do not think so because there are some works of fiction that have developed a very large and vocal culture around it.  star wars is most definitely one them and i think this is due in part to the popularity of the films but also the expanse of what star wars is, its not only films but tv shows, books and the toys, clothing, costumes, fan art etc.  not many pieces of media have such an expansive and vocal following and i can understand why somebody may not be a fan of something due to the existence fans.  for me, i ca not get into doctor who and the magic pony stuff strictly because of the fan culture surrounding each media.  for me, i find the most vocal members of those fandoms to be extremely abrasive and because of that it turns me off of the product, even though i have an assumption that there are plenty of level headed fans.  in a way for me i do not want to be associated with the fans i feel are abrasive and thus i will not be a fan of the media/product.
i have one child in college now, and three more who will be heading off in the next few years.  i believe that there is nothing wrong with setting reasonable conditions upon which i will pay for their education.  i think it is perfectly reasonable to set conditions on locations and majors if they are expecting me to pay for it.  my general rule is: they can major in anything they like if they go to either uf or fsu we are in florida obviously .  if however they want to go to miami, or as with my daughter yale, or any other top school, then i have final approval on their major; i am not going to pay $0k $0k for a liberal arts, or art history degree.  college is about education, yes, but it is every bit as much an investment in the future, and paying top dollar for a degree with limited earning potential is, quite simply, a bad investment.  and before the   but the quality of the education is better   arguments start, i am not debating that; of course an art history education for example from yale will be of higher quality than one from university of florida, but at the end of the day, even the highest quality art history degree  is still just an art history degree .  if you want to change my view, convince me that the value of the degree should be irrelevant when it comes to the cost of the education.   nbsp;  #  my general rule is: they can major in anything they like if they go to either uf or fsu we are in florida obviously .   #  if however they want to go to miami, or as with my daughter yale, or any other top school, then i have final approval on their major; i am not going to pay $0k $0k for a liberal arts, or art history degree.   #  i think the issue is not necessarily convincing you the degree has high earning potential, it is convincing you to let your children do what they want and not hold them back.  if however they want to go to miami, or as with my daughter yale, or any other top school, then i have final approval on their major; i am not going to pay $0k $0k for a liberal arts, or art history degree.  this is the major issue i see.  now, i ca not tell if money is an object, but obviously you do not have to specify.  if it is, i would say that you should only be able to choose which university they go to.  this is because it is your money, and therefore the limiting factor on what your children want to do is money, not you.  if you choose what major they do, you are the limiting factor, not money.  this will just cause major resentment, especially if you force them to do something they do not want to do.  i agree, no one should go to a 0k liberal arts college.  they are massively overpriced.  but getting a liberal arts degree at a state school is fine, if that is what they want to do.  saying they ca not get their degree is just holding them back.  i have a friend who wanted to major in spanish at a cheap state school , but they forced her to do nursing.  she will never forgive them, even if she likes nursing.  i am not going to be able to convince you that all degrees have the same value because it is not true.  the data is overwhelming: a bachelor is degree in art has less earning potential than a degree in engineering.  however, forcing someone to do anything may make them seriously resent you.   #  there are fantastic learning opportunities in the intersections between two majors and it can demonstrate to employers that you are a flexible thinker.   #  i am responsible for recruiting and employment at a large creative, academic summer program.  we recruit only at top colleges think brown, harvard, uva, amherst, middlebury, pomona, smith, etc.  and hire dozens of folks with  useless  concentrations simply because these people know how to leverage their intense imaginations and pure talent and have had a wide breadth of world experiences.  if your daughter were to major in art history at yale, she would have the opportunity to intern at the smithsonian, the louvre, the moma, to name a few.  these connections could propel her into fantastic positions around the world, whether it is curating, researching, lecturing, etc.  however, quality networking and internship opportunities at most state schools are minimal.  thus, your willingness to pay should almost be reversed as the better the school, the more opportunities a  useless  degree will provide.  you might consider paying regardless of the school and, rather than limiting their options, require that they double major.  if one of your children wants to be an english major, perhaps require that they also select something you deem as practical.  i see many applicants with english   economics or english   human biology.  there are fantastic learning opportunities in the intersections between two majors and it can demonstrate to employers that you are a flexible thinker.   #  we are happy to consider applications from anyone, but we focus our recruiting trips where we offer info sessions and in person interviews on schools that have historically offered us staff who are competent and bright.   #  great questions ! we are happy to consider applications from anyone, but we focus our recruiting trips where we offer info sessions and in person interviews on schools that have historically offered us staff who are competent and bright.  one of our main selling points for parents sending their children to us is that the course instructors, residence advisors, etc.  these college students are highly successful models for their students.  these schools often follow open curriculum models that parallel our program and, because our expectations and work environment are incredibly intense, it is important that we find staff who wo not crumple under the pressure.  in fact, we do not ask for transcripts or their gpa as that is less important to us than the intersection between their creativity and work ethic.  many of our courses do not precisely align with college majors or courses, so it would be hard to look at grades as a determining factor.   #  i would never force them to take a field of study that they had no interest in, that said, i am also not going to pay top dollar for a degree when the cost so vastly outweighs the benefits.   # these connections could propel her into fantastic positions around the world, whether it is curating, researching, lecturing, etc.  however, quality networking and internship opportunities at most state schools are minimal.  thus, your willingness to pay should almost be reversed as the better the school, the more opportunities a  useless  degree will provide.  i completely agree with you that the value of the education and experience would be more valuable coming from yale, but my point is, as it has been, that there is a cap to that value.  the highest earning curators earned $0,0 last year URL just for an example, the  median  wage for a chemical engineer was $0,0 URL so even the highest earning curator still wo not have the potential that a more lucrative degree holds, and as a father, that is the part i focus on: them being able to support themselves/their families.   nbsp;   you might consider paying regardless of the school and, rather than limiting their options, require that they double major.  if one of your children wants to be an english major, perhaps require that they also select something you deem as practical.  i see many applicants with english   economics or english   human biology.  there are fantastic learning opportunities in the intersections between two majors and it can demonstrate to employers that you are a flexible thinker.  i would never force them to take a field of study that they had no interest in, that said, i am also not going to pay top dollar for a degree when the cost so vastly outweighs the benefits.   #  so even the highest earning curator still wo not have the potential that a more lucrative degree holds, and as a father, that is the part i focus on: them being able to support themselves/their families.   # but is that not precisely what you are doing by requiring them to major in something that fits your approved list ? if your daughter is smart enough to attend yale, she is likely smart enough to opt out of a desired major to save herself the tuition difference of  going it alone,  as you put it.  just for an example, the median wage for a chemical engineer was $0,0.  so even the highest earning curator still wo not have the potential that a more lucrative degree holds, and as a father, that is the part i focus on: them being able to support themselves/their families.  what happens if your child majors in a stem field and then chooses to use their degree to be a high school science teacher ? they will be engaging in a noble pursuit and make a middle class income, but by your standards it sounds as though they will not be successful.
i have one child in college now, and three more who will be heading off in the next few years.  i believe that there is nothing wrong with setting reasonable conditions upon which i will pay for their education.  i think it is perfectly reasonable to set conditions on locations and majors if they are expecting me to pay for it.  my general rule is: they can major in anything they like if they go to either uf or fsu we are in florida obviously .  if however they want to go to miami, or as with my daughter yale, or any other top school, then i have final approval on their major; i am not going to pay $0k $0k for a liberal arts, or art history degree.  college is about education, yes, but it is every bit as much an investment in the future, and paying top dollar for a degree with limited earning potential is, quite simply, a bad investment.  and before the   but the quality of the education is better   arguments start, i am not debating that; of course an art history education for example from yale will be of higher quality than one from university of florida, but at the end of the day, even the highest quality art history degree  is still just an art history degree .  if you want to change my view, convince me that the value of the degree should be irrelevant when it comes to the cost of the education.   nbsp;  #  convince me that the value of the degree should be irrelevant when it comes to the cost of the education.   #  you are paying $x dollars for the education.   # you are paying $x dollars for the education.  your child gets the degree and she gets opportunities based on that degree.  you do not get your money back nor the degree nor do you get the opportunities.  you get nothing for the money you paid regardless of what degree your child graduated with.  therefore the value of the degree is irrelevant to the cost you pay since its all the same return to you, zero.   #  if one of your children wants to be an english major, perhaps require that they also select something you deem as practical.   #  i am responsible for recruiting and employment at a large creative, academic summer program.  we recruit only at top colleges think brown, harvard, uva, amherst, middlebury, pomona, smith, etc.  and hire dozens of folks with  useless  concentrations simply because these people know how to leverage their intense imaginations and pure talent and have had a wide breadth of world experiences.  if your daughter were to major in art history at yale, she would have the opportunity to intern at the smithsonian, the louvre, the moma, to name a few.  these connections could propel her into fantastic positions around the world, whether it is curating, researching, lecturing, etc.  however, quality networking and internship opportunities at most state schools are minimal.  thus, your willingness to pay should almost be reversed as the better the school, the more opportunities a  useless  degree will provide.  you might consider paying regardless of the school and, rather than limiting their options, require that they double major.  if one of your children wants to be an english major, perhaps require that they also select something you deem as practical.  i see many applicants with english   economics or english   human biology.  there are fantastic learning opportunities in the intersections between two majors and it can demonstrate to employers that you are a flexible thinker.   #  these college students are highly successful models for their students.   #  great questions ! we are happy to consider applications from anyone, but we focus our recruiting trips where we offer info sessions and in person interviews on schools that have historically offered us staff who are competent and bright.  one of our main selling points for parents sending their children to us is that the course instructors, residence advisors, etc.  these college students are highly successful models for their students.  these schools often follow open curriculum models that parallel our program and, because our expectations and work environment are incredibly intense, it is important that we find staff who wo not crumple under the pressure.  in fact, we do not ask for transcripts or their gpa as that is less important to us than the intersection between their creativity and work ethic.  many of our courses do not precisely align with college majors or courses, so it would be hard to look at grades as a determining factor.   #  there are fantastic learning opportunities in the intersections between two majors and it can demonstrate to employers that you are a flexible thinker.   # these connections could propel her into fantastic positions around the world, whether it is curating, researching, lecturing, etc.  however, quality networking and internship opportunities at most state schools are minimal.  thus, your willingness to pay should almost be reversed as the better the school, the more opportunities a  useless  degree will provide.  i completely agree with you that the value of the education and experience would be more valuable coming from yale, but my point is, as it has been, that there is a cap to that value.  the highest earning curators earned $0,0 last year URL just for an example, the  median  wage for a chemical engineer was $0,0 URL so even the highest earning curator still wo not have the potential that a more lucrative degree holds, and as a father, that is the part i focus on: them being able to support themselves/their families.   nbsp;   you might consider paying regardless of the school and, rather than limiting their options, require that they double major.  if one of your children wants to be an english major, perhaps require that they also select something you deem as practical.  i see many applicants with english   economics or english   human biology.  there are fantastic learning opportunities in the intersections between two majors and it can demonstrate to employers that you are a flexible thinker.  i would never force them to take a field of study that they had no interest in, that said, i am also not going to pay top dollar for a degree when the cost so vastly outweighs the benefits.   #  so even the highest earning curator still wo not have the potential that a more lucrative degree holds, and as a father, that is the part i focus on: them being able to support themselves/their families.   # but is that not precisely what you are doing by requiring them to major in something that fits your approved list ? if your daughter is smart enough to attend yale, she is likely smart enough to opt out of a desired major to save herself the tuition difference of  going it alone,  as you put it.  just for an example, the median wage for a chemical engineer was $0,0.  so even the highest earning curator still wo not have the potential that a more lucrative degree holds, and as a father, that is the part i focus on: them being able to support themselves/their families.  what happens if your child majors in a stem field and then chooses to use their degree to be a high school science teacher ? they will be engaging in a noble pursuit and make a middle class income, but by your standards it sounds as though they will not be successful.
recently, shia labouf did an art installation where he invited people to come and do whatever they wanted to him.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.  the fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling.  rather open to hearing other sides of this, though, so please change my view.  link: URL  #  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.   #  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.   # he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.  the fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling.  i mostly want to object to your claim here, which is that rape is a word that  describes. forced sex using violence or drugs.   i think that in our more contemporary culture, especially influenced by feminist thought controversial on reddit, i know , rape is not exclusively  forced  sex but sex without consent.  i agree to an extent that the most predominant way to initiate sex without consent is through force, but force does not need to be violent or through the use of drugs: it could be through emotional manipulation, coercion, or deception.  feminists have tried to change legislation and improve rape education  teach men not to rape  in order to change the perception that you have to be a thug lurking in dark alleys to be a rapist, but ultimately i think this has been controversial because after a certain point, how do you prove in certain cases that consent was not achieved ? it also allows for rape to be unintentional  how was i supposed to know she did not want it ?   but, i think that we do use  rape  to refer to these unwanted instances of sexual contact where we had no control, and we were not  forced  in the way you are suggesting, even when we are not seeking justice where evidence would have to be collected.  if that makes sense.  that being said, the fact that shia labeouf was raped during an art installation where he consented to submit to anything people did to him makes things tricky, i believe.  it is pretty shitty that someone would choose to take advantage of him sexually and it makes perfect sense that he would feel violated raped .  i think you would have to be a pretty fucked up person to attend such an art exhibit just to get your rocks off, but you are right that shia could have stopped it if he really wanted to.  still, i think he has every right to feel uneasy about it, and to consider it  unwanted sex,  which as i have demonstrated, seems to be what  rape  means nowadays.  could he get a rape conviction for these individuals ? probably not.  but he is not trying, is he ? tl;dr: i think a lot of people think that  rape  necessarily has to be something that is criminal, and that if you could never possibly get a rape conviction, it is not rape, but i think these people use it more as a word to mean  sex i did not want  than anything else.   #  some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her.   #  i am going to post what i put on a different topic regarding the issue.   well that is the whole point of the exhibit.  letting people interact with you any way they want to.  if you break character no matter what than the art piece is ruined.  even having the option to quit or someone there for your protection also completely takes the away what makes this art.  it is very similar to marina abramović is rhythm 0.  whether he was raped or not i do not know, but after reading about rhythm 0 and the action of the audience i would not be surprised if things got weird.  especially since it involved the element of privacy.  i think if anything he was trying to emulate what a previous artist did, but he got a little too big for his britches and did not really acknowledge the full spectrum of possibilities.  here is the wikipedia entry below on abramović is rhythm 0.   to test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, abramović developed one of her most challenging and best known performances.  she assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.  abramović placed on a table 0 objects that people were allowed to use a sign informed them in any way that they chose.  some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her.  among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet.  for six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.  initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed and the artist remained passive people began to act more aggressively.  as abramović described it later:  what i learned was that.  if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.  .   i felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away.  it created an aggressive atmosphere.  after exactly 0 hours, as planned, i stood up and started walking toward the audience.  everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.     #  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.   #  no.  if  he let them do it,  it is not  battery,  which is generally defined as  unconsented physical contact  though the definition is varied in different jurisdictions.  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.  if you want stick to the affirmative consent standard, this would be rape, like about 0 of other sexual experiences disclaimer: i made this number up for illustration .  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.  do i have the answer to what standard we should stick to ? absolutely not.  do i agree with op that this is ridiculous and offensive to victims who could  actually  not stop their rape from happening ? most definitely yes.   #  hurting someone without  explicit  consent is still a grave violation of their person.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.  with rhythm 0, the sign stated that the viewer may use any of the objects to interact with abramovic however they chose to.  it was not a request or invitation for violence it was a free pass.  the audience was allowed to do whatever they pleased and they would not be punished for doing so.  giving someone the choice to hurt is not the same as requesting they do so.  hurting someone without  explicit  consent is still a grave violation of their person.   #  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.   # no.  she may have consented to it, but it does not matter if you consent to murder, it is still not permitted and you would go to jail.  however, you  can  consent to have sex with someone else and i would consider it enough consent for it not to be rape.  that did not mean she was consenting to literally everything.  that is kind of irrelevant unless the lady that said that to you was in the middle of a performance where she had agreed not to stop you or respond to anything you did.  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.
recently, shia labouf did an art installation where he invited people to come and do whatever they wanted to him.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.  the fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling.  rather open to hearing other sides of this, though, so please change my view.  link: URL  #  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.   #  i do not think the  could have stopped it  argument should apply given how we treat that defense in other cases.   # i do not think the  could have stopped it  argument should apply given how we treat that defense in other cases.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  here is where i think you have a point also taking into account the  did not stop it  for this .  in fact, i would be a little inclined to agree with you, so long as we can also agree that the following situation would be just as offensive: a woman and a man come back to her apartment after a date.  they have sex.  at no point does she explicitly give consent to any sexual activity, but she made no attempt to stop the activity nor did she explicitly ask/tell him to stop.  afterwards, she starts saying the whole ordeal was rape.  according to the standard of affirmative consent, both of these situations would be  rape .  does that really make sense ? i do not really have an answer, but, in the context of the ongoing debate on consent and college rape, i must point out: if we are going to call the second scenario rape, then we have to agree that shia lebeouf was as well.  all that said, even if we agree that the standard of  affirmative consent  is not practical, i think there is a strong argument, which i see others have already made, that he did not give  any  consent for  any  sexual activity, which would still make it rape.   #  it is very similar to marina abramović is rhythm 0.  whether he was raped or not i do not know, but after reading about rhythm 0 and the action of the audience i would not be surprised if things got weird.   #  i am going to post what i put on a different topic regarding the issue.   well that is the whole point of the exhibit.  letting people interact with you any way they want to.  if you break character no matter what than the art piece is ruined.  even having the option to quit or someone there for your protection also completely takes the away what makes this art.  it is very similar to marina abramović is rhythm 0.  whether he was raped or not i do not know, but after reading about rhythm 0 and the action of the audience i would not be surprised if things got weird.  especially since it involved the element of privacy.  i think if anything he was trying to emulate what a previous artist did, but he got a little too big for his britches and did not really acknowledge the full spectrum of possibilities.  here is the wikipedia entry below on abramović is rhythm 0.   to test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, abramović developed one of her most challenging and best known performances.  she assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.  abramović placed on a table 0 objects that people were allowed to use a sign informed them in any way that they chose.  some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her.  among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet.  for six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.  initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed and the artist remained passive people began to act more aggressively.  as abramović described it later:  what i learned was that.  if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.  .   i felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away.  it created an aggressive atmosphere.  after exactly 0 hours, as planned, i stood up and started walking toward the audience.  everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.     #  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.   #  no.  if  he let them do it,  it is not  battery,  which is generally defined as  unconsented physical contact  though the definition is varied in different jurisdictions.  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.  if you want stick to the affirmative consent standard, this would be rape, like about 0 of other sexual experiences disclaimer: i made this number up for illustration .  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.  do i have the answer to what standard we should stick to ? absolutely not.  do i agree with op that this is ridiculous and offensive to victims who could  actually  not stop their rape from happening ? most definitely yes.   #  the audience was allowed to do whatever they pleased and they would not be punished for doing so.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.  with rhythm 0, the sign stated that the viewer may use any of the objects to interact with abramovic however they chose to.  it was not a request or invitation for violence it was a free pass.  the audience was allowed to do whatever they pleased and they would not be punished for doing so.  giving someone the choice to hurt is not the same as requesting they do so.  hurting someone without  explicit  consent is still a grave violation of their person.   #  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.   # no.  she may have consented to it, but it does not matter if you consent to murder, it is still not permitted and you would go to jail.  however, you  can  consent to have sex with someone else and i would consider it enough consent for it not to be rape.  that did not mean she was consenting to literally everything.  that is kind of irrelevant unless the lady that said that to you was in the middle of a performance where she had agreed not to stop you or respond to anything you did.  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.
recently, shia labouf did an art installation where he invited people to come and do whatever they wanted to him.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.  the fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling.  rather open to hearing other sides of this, though, so please change my view.  link: URL  #  recently, shia labouf did an art installation where he invited people to come and do whatever they wanted to him.   #  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.   # i do not think the  could have stopped it  argument should apply given how we treat that defense in other cases.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  here is where i think you have a point also taking into account the  did not stop it  for this .  in fact, i would be a little inclined to agree with you, so long as we can also agree that the following situation would be just as offensive: a woman and a man come back to her apartment after a date.  they have sex.  at no point does she explicitly give consent to any sexual activity, but she made no attempt to stop the activity nor did she explicitly ask/tell him to stop.  afterwards, she starts saying the whole ordeal was rape.  according to the standard of affirmative consent, both of these situations would be  rape .  does that really make sense ? i do not really have an answer, but, in the context of the ongoing debate on consent and college rape, i must point out: if we are going to call the second scenario rape, then we have to agree that shia lebeouf was as well.  all that said, even if we agree that the standard of  affirmative consent  is not practical, i think there is a strong argument, which i see others have already made, that he did not give  any  consent for  any  sexual activity, which would still make it rape.   #  .   i felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away.   #  i am going to post what i put on a different topic regarding the issue.   well that is the whole point of the exhibit.  letting people interact with you any way they want to.  if you break character no matter what than the art piece is ruined.  even having the option to quit or someone there for your protection also completely takes the away what makes this art.  it is very similar to marina abramović is rhythm 0.  whether he was raped or not i do not know, but after reading about rhythm 0 and the action of the audience i would not be surprised if things got weird.  especially since it involved the element of privacy.  i think if anything he was trying to emulate what a previous artist did, but he got a little too big for his britches and did not really acknowledge the full spectrum of possibilities.  here is the wikipedia entry below on abramović is rhythm 0.   to test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, abramović developed one of her most challenging and best known performances.  she assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.  abramović placed on a table 0 objects that people were allowed to use a sign informed them in any way that they chose.  some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her.  among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet.  for six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.  initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed and the artist remained passive people began to act more aggressively.  as abramović described it later:  what i learned was that.  if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.  .   i felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away.  it created an aggressive atmosphere.  after exactly 0 hours, as planned, i stood up and started walking toward the audience.  everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.     #  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.   #  no.  if  he let them do it,  it is not  battery,  which is generally defined as  unconsented physical contact  though the definition is varied in different jurisdictions.  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.  if you want stick to the affirmative consent standard, this would be rape, like about 0 of other sexual experiences disclaimer: i made this number up for illustration .  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.  do i have the answer to what standard we should stick to ? absolutely not.  do i agree with op that this is ridiculous and offensive to victims who could  actually  not stop their rape from happening ? most definitely yes.   #  it was not a request or invitation for violence it was a free pass.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.  with rhythm 0, the sign stated that the viewer may use any of the objects to interact with abramovic however they chose to.  it was not a request or invitation for violence it was a free pass.  the audience was allowed to do whatever they pleased and they would not be punished for doing so.  giving someone the choice to hurt is not the same as requesting they do so.  hurting someone without  explicit  consent is still a grave violation of their person.   #  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.   # no.  she may have consented to it, but it does not matter if you consent to murder, it is still not permitted and you would go to jail.  however, you  can  consent to have sex with someone else and i would consider it enough consent for it not to be rape.  that did not mean she was consenting to literally everything.  that is kind of irrelevant unless the lady that said that to you was in the middle of a performance where she had agreed not to stop you or respond to anything you did.  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.
recently, shia labouf did an art installation where he invited people to come and do whatever they wanted to him.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.  the fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling.  rather open to hearing other sides of this, though, so please change my view.  link: URL  #  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.   #  here is where i think you have a point also taking into account the  did not stop it  for this .   # i do not think the  could have stopped it  argument should apply given how we treat that defense in other cases.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  here is where i think you have a point also taking into account the  did not stop it  for this .  in fact, i would be a little inclined to agree with you, so long as we can also agree that the following situation would be just as offensive: a woman and a man come back to her apartment after a date.  they have sex.  at no point does she explicitly give consent to any sexual activity, but she made no attempt to stop the activity nor did she explicitly ask/tell him to stop.  afterwards, she starts saying the whole ordeal was rape.  according to the standard of affirmative consent, both of these situations would be  rape .  does that really make sense ? i do not really have an answer, but, in the context of the ongoing debate on consent and college rape, i must point out: if we are going to call the second scenario rape, then we have to agree that shia lebeouf was as well.  all that said, even if we agree that the standard of  affirmative consent  is not practical, i think there is a strong argument, which i see others have already made, that he did not give  any  consent for  any  sexual activity, which would still make it rape.   #  after exactly 0 hours, as planned, i stood up and started walking toward the audience.   #  i am going to post what i put on a different topic regarding the issue.   well that is the whole point of the exhibit.  letting people interact with you any way they want to.  if you break character no matter what than the art piece is ruined.  even having the option to quit or someone there for your protection also completely takes the away what makes this art.  it is very similar to marina abramović is rhythm 0.  whether he was raped or not i do not know, but after reading about rhythm 0 and the action of the audience i would not be surprised if things got weird.  especially since it involved the element of privacy.  i think if anything he was trying to emulate what a previous artist did, but he got a little too big for his britches and did not really acknowledge the full spectrum of possibilities.  here is the wikipedia entry below on abramović is rhythm 0.   to test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, abramović developed one of her most challenging and best known performances.  she assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.  abramović placed on a table 0 objects that people were allowed to use a sign informed them in any way that they chose.  some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her.  among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet.  for six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.  initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed and the artist remained passive people began to act more aggressively.  as abramović described it later:  what i learned was that.  if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.  .   i felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away.  it created an aggressive atmosphere.  after exactly 0 hours, as planned, i stood up and started walking toward the audience.  everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.     #  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.   #  no.  if  he let them do it,  it is not  battery,  which is generally defined as  unconsented physical contact  though the definition is varied in different jurisdictions.  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.  if you want stick to the affirmative consent standard, this would be rape, like about 0 of other sexual experiences disclaimer: i made this number up for illustration .  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.  do i have the answer to what standard we should stick to ? absolutely not.  do i agree with op that this is ridiculous and offensive to victims who could  actually  not stop their rape from happening ? most definitely yes.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.  with rhythm 0, the sign stated that the viewer may use any of the objects to interact with abramovic however they chose to.  it was not a request or invitation for violence it was a free pass.  the audience was allowed to do whatever they pleased and they would not be punished for doing so.  giving someone the choice to hurt is not the same as requesting they do so.  hurting someone without  explicit  consent is still a grave violation of their person.   #  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.   # no.  she may have consented to it, but it does not matter if you consent to murder, it is still not permitted and you would go to jail.  however, you  can  consent to have sex with someone else and i would consider it enough consent for it not to be rape.  that did not mean she was consenting to literally everything.  that is kind of irrelevant unless the lady that said that to you was in the middle of a performance where she had agreed not to stop you or respond to anything you did.  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.
recently, shia labouf did an art installation where he invited people to come and do whatever they wanted to him.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.  the fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling.  rather open to hearing other sides of this, though, so please change my view.  link: URL  #  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.   #   do whatever you want to me  is not a legally binding agreement to anything.   #  public memory sure is short.  two weeks ago don lemon was blasted by every feminist and anti rape group in the country when he dared suggest in an interview that a woman who claimed bill cosby raped her by coercing her into performing oral sex on him  could stop at any time .  her response:  i did not consider it.   how is this different ?  do whatever you want to me  is not a legally binding agreement to anything.  consent can be revoked at any point.  if i say  let is have sex  then half way through i push you off me and you hold me down and continue, you are raping me.  legally, unconditional consent is an impossibility.  you are still bound by the law.  so we can stop this argument here.  that whole point is moot.   #  here is the wikipedia entry below on abramović is rhythm 0.   #  i am going to post what i put on a different topic regarding the issue.   well that is the whole point of the exhibit.  letting people interact with you any way they want to.  if you break character no matter what than the art piece is ruined.  even having the option to quit or someone there for your protection also completely takes the away what makes this art.  it is very similar to marina abramović is rhythm 0.  whether he was raped or not i do not know, but after reading about rhythm 0 and the action of the audience i would not be surprised if things got weird.  especially since it involved the element of privacy.  i think if anything he was trying to emulate what a previous artist did, but he got a little too big for his britches and did not really acknowledge the full spectrum of possibilities.  here is the wikipedia entry below on abramović is rhythm 0.   to test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, abramović developed one of her most challenging and best known performances.  she assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.  abramović placed on a table 0 objects that people were allowed to use a sign informed them in any way that they chose.  some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her.  among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet.  for six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.  initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed and the artist remained passive people began to act more aggressively.  as abramović described it later:  what i learned was that.  if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.  .   i felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away.  it created an aggressive atmosphere.  after exactly 0 hours, as planned, i stood up and started walking toward the audience.  everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.     #  if you want stick to the affirmative consent standard, this would be rape, like about 0 of other sexual experiences disclaimer: i made this number up for illustration .   #  no.  if  he let them do it,  it is not  battery,  which is generally defined as  unconsented physical contact  though the definition is varied in different jurisdictions.  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.  if you want stick to the affirmative consent standard, this would be rape, like about 0 of other sexual experiences disclaimer: i made this number up for illustration .  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.  do i have the answer to what standard we should stick to ? absolutely not.  do i agree with op that this is ridiculous and offensive to victims who could  actually  not stop their rape from happening ? most definitely yes.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.  with rhythm 0, the sign stated that the viewer may use any of the objects to interact with abramovic however they chose to.  it was not a request or invitation for violence it was a free pass.  the audience was allowed to do whatever they pleased and they would not be punished for doing so.  giving someone the choice to hurt is not the same as requesting they do so.  hurting someone without  explicit  consent is still a grave violation of their person.   #  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.   # no.  she may have consented to it, but it does not matter if you consent to murder, it is still not permitted and you would go to jail.  however, you  can  consent to have sex with someone else and i would consider it enough consent for it not to be rape.  that did not mean she was consenting to literally everything.  that is kind of irrelevant unless the lady that said that to you was in the middle of a performance where she had agreed not to stop you or respond to anything you did.  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.
recently, shia labouf did an art installation where he invited people to come and do whatever they wanted to him.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.  the fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling.  rather open to hearing other sides of this, though, so please change my view.  link: URL  #  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.   #  you could claim that for anyone in any situation.   #  i think you are kind of an asshole for not taking his rape claim seriously because you do not like the guy.  rape is a very serious issue and it should be investigated fairly.  you could claim that for anyone in any situation.  you do not even have the facts or full story of the events.  why the fuck would he use any other word other than rape to describe being raped ? god, i know gawker is the shit hole of the internet, but i would think it is a pretty sure bet that something did happened to him if  collaborators  are confirming sexual assault on him.  URL either way, you do not have the facts and i find it to be in bad taste to make joke of a very serious situation because you do not like the guy.  personally, shia lebeouf is not at all a person i like in terms of his acting and work he has done in the entertainment industry.  even still, if the guy is going to claim rape it needs to be handled and taken seriously.  fuck everyone who is being a dick about it.   #  especially since it involved the element of privacy.   #  i am going to post what i put on a different topic regarding the issue.   well that is the whole point of the exhibit.  letting people interact with you any way they want to.  if you break character no matter what than the art piece is ruined.  even having the option to quit or someone there for your protection also completely takes the away what makes this art.  it is very similar to marina abramović is rhythm 0.  whether he was raped or not i do not know, but after reading about rhythm 0 and the action of the audience i would not be surprised if things got weird.  especially since it involved the element of privacy.  i think if anything he was trying to emulate what a previous artist did, but he got a little too big for his britches and did not really acknowledge the full spectrum of possibilities.  here is the wikipedia entry below on abramović is rhythm 0.   to test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, abramović developed one of her most challenging and best known performances.  she assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.  abramović placed on a table 0 objects that people were allowed to use a sign informed them in any way that they chose.  some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her.  among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet.  for six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.  initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed and the artist remained passive people began to act more aggressively.  as abramović described it later:  what i learned was that.  if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.  .   i felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away.  it created an aggressive atmosphere.  after exactly 0 hours, as planned, i stood up and started walking toward the audience.  everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.     #  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.   #  no.  if  he let them do it,  it is not  battery,  which is generally defined as  unconsented physical contact  though the definition is varied in different jurisdictions.  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.  if you want stick to the affirmative consent standard, this would be rape, like about 0 of other sexual experiences disclaimer: i made this number up for illustration .  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.  do i have the answer to what standard we should stick to ? absolutely not.  do i agree with op that this is ridiculous and offensive to victims who could  actually  not stop their rape from happening ? most definitely yes.   #  it was not a request or invitation for violence it was a free pass.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.  with rhythm 0, the sign stated that the viewer may use any of the objects to interact with abramovic however they chose to.  it was not a request or invitation for violence it was a free pass.  the audience was allowed to do whatever they pleased and they would not be punished for doing so.  giving someone the choice to hurt is not the same as requesting they do so.  hurting someone without  explicit  consent is still a grave violation of their person.   #  that did not mean she was consenting to literally everything.   # no.  she may have consented to it, but it does not matter if you consent to murder, it is still not permitted and you would go to jail.  however, you  can  consent to have sex with someone else and i would consider it enough consent for it not to be rape.  that did not mean she was consenting to literally everything.  that is kind of irrelevant unless the lady that said that to you was in the middle of a performance where she had agreed not to stop you or respond to anything you did.  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.
recently, shia labouf did an art installation where he invited people to come and do whatever they wanted to him.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.  the fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling.  rather open to hearing other sides of this, though, so please change my view.  link: URL  #  the fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling.   #  why the fuck would he use any other word other than rape to describe being raped ?  #  i think you are kind of an asshole for not taking his rape claim seriously because you do not like the guy.  rape is a very serious issue and it should be investigated fairly.  you could claim that for anyone in any situation.  you do not even have the facts or full story of the events.  why the fuck would he use any other word other than rape to describe being raped ? god, i know gawker is the shit hole of the internet, but i would think it is a pretty sure bet that something did happened to him if  collaborators  are confirming sexual assault on him.  URL either way, you do not have the facts and i find it to be in bad taste to make joke of a very serious situation because you do not like the guy.  personally, shia lebeouf is not at all a person i like in terms of his acting and work he has done in the entertainment industry.  even still, if the guy is going to claim rape it needs to be handled and taken seriously.  fuck everyone who is being a dick about it.   #  it is very similar to marina abramović is rhythm 0.  whether he was raped or not i do not know, but after reading about rhythm 0 and the action of the audience i would not be surprised if things got weird.   #  i am going to post what i put on a different topic regarding the issue.   well that is the whole point of the exhibit.  letting people interact with you any way they want to.  if you break character no matter what than the art piece is ruined.  even having the option to quit or someone there for your protection also completely takes the away what makes this art.  it is very similar to marina abramović is rhythm 0.  whether he was raped or not i do not know, but after reading about rhythm 0 and the action of the audience i would not be surprised if things got weird.  especially since it involved the element of privacy.  i think if anything he was trying to emulate what a previous artist did, but he got a little too big for his britches and did not really acknowledge the full spectrum of possibilities.  here is the wikipedia entry below on abramović is rhythm 0.   to test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, abramović developed one of her most challenging and best known performances.  she assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.  abramović placed on a table 0 objects that people were allowed to use a sign informed them in any way that they chose.  some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her.  among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet.  for six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.  initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed and the artist remained passive people began to act more aggressively.  as abramović described it later:  what i learned was that.  if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.  .   i felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away.  it created an aggressive atmosphere.  after exactly 0 hours, as planned, i stood up and started walking toward the audience.  everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.     #  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.   #  no.  if  he let them do it,  it is not  battery,  which is generally defined as  unconsented physical contact  though the definition is varied in different jurisdictions.  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.  if you want stick to the affirmative consent standard, this would be rape, like about 0 of other sexual experiences disclaimer: i made this number up for illustration .  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.  do i have the answer to what standard we should stick to ? absolutely not.  do i agree with op that this is ridiculous and offensive to victims who could  actually  not stop their rape from happening ? most definitely yes.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.  with rhythm 0, the sign stated that the viewer may use any of the objects to interact with abramovic however they chose to.  it was not a request or invitation for violence it was a free pass.  the audience was allowed to do whatever they pleased and they would not be punished for doing so.  giving someone the choice to hurt is not the same as requesting they do so.  hurting someone without  explicit  consent is still a grave violation of their person.   #  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.   # no.  she may have consented to it, but it does not matter if you consent to murder, it is still not permitted and you would go to jail.  however, you  can  consent to have sex with someone else and i would consider it enough consent for it not to be rape.  that did not mean she was consenting to literally everything.  that is kind of irrelevant unless the lady that said that to you was in the middle of a performance where she had agreed not to stop you or respond to anything you did.  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.
recently, shia labouf did an art installation where he invited people to come and do whatever they wanted to him.  he laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy.  he could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to.  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.  the fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling.  rather open to hearing other sides of this, though, so please change my view.  link: URL  #  he also gave some form of explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased.   #  god, i know gawker is the shit hole of the internet, but i would think it is a pretty sure bet that something did happened to him if  collaborators  are confirming sexual assault on him.   #  i think you are kind of an asshole for not taking his rape claim seriously because you do not like the guy.  rape is a very serious issue and it should be investigated fairly.  you could claim that for anyone in any situation.  you do not even have the facts or full story of the events.  why the fuck would he use any other word other than rape to describe being raped ? god, i know gawker is the shit hole of the internet, but i would think it is a pretty sure bet that something did happened to him if  collaborators  are confirming sexual assault on him.  URL either way, you do not have the facts and i find it to be in bad taste to make joke of a very serious situation because you do not like the guy.  personally, shia lebeouf is not at all a person i like in terms of his acting and work he has done in the entertainment industry.  even still, if the guy is going to claim rape it needs to be handled and taken seriously.  fuck everyone who is being a dick about it.   #  as abramović described it later:  what i learned was that.  if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.   #  i am going to post what i put on a different topic regarding the issue.   well that is the whole point of the exhibit.  letting people interact with you any way they want to.  if you break character no matter what than the art piece is ruined.  even having the option to quit or someone there for your protection also completely takes the away what makes this art.  it is very similar to marina abramović is rhythm 0.  whether he was raped or not i do not know, but after reading about rhythm 0 and the action of the audience i would not be surprised if things got weird.  especially since it involved the element of privacy.  i think if anything he was trying to emulate what a previous artist did, but he got a little too big for his britches and did not really acknowledge the full spectrum of possibilities.  here is the wikipedia entry below on abramović is rhythm 0.   to test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, abramović developed one of her most challenging and best known performances.  she assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.  abramović placed on a table 0 objects that people were allowed to use a sign informed them in any way that they chose.  some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her.  among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet.  for six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.  initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed and the artist remained passive people began to act more aggressively.  as abramović described it later:  what i learned was that.  if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.  .   i felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away.  it created an aggressive atmosphere.  after exactly 0 hours, as planned, i stood up and started walking toward the audience.  everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.     #  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.   #  no.  if  he let them do it,  it is not  battery,  which is generally defined as  unconsented physical contact  though the definition is varied in different jurisdictions.  wrt  rape,  there are different standards in question.  if you want stick to the affirmative consent standard, this would be rape, like about 0 of other sexual experiences disclaimer: i made this number up for illustration .  if you want to stick with the explicit dissent standard, then this would not be rape, but neither would be actual rape cases where victims did not say no because they were scared, or drugged, or what have you.  do i have the answer to what standard we should stick to ? absolutely not.  do i agree with op that this is ridiculous and offensive to victims who could  actually  not stop their rape from happening ? most definitely yes.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.   #  just because something is permitted does not mean that it is morally right to do it.  with rhythm 0, the sign stated that the viewer may use any of the objects to interact with abramovic however they chose to.  it was not a request or invitation for violence it was a free pass.  the audience was allowed to do whatever they pleased and they would not be punished for doing so.  giving someone the choice to hurt is not the same as requesting they do so.  hurting someone without  explicit  consent is still a grave violation of their person.   #  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.   # no.  she may have consented to it, but it does not matter if you consent to murder, it is still not permitted and you would go to jail.  however, you  can  consent to have sex with someone else and i would consider it enough consent for it not to be rape.  that did not mean she was consenting to literally everything.  that is kind of irrelevant unless the lady that said that to you was in the middle of a performance where she had agreed not to stop you or respond to anything you did.  also, throughout the entire time she made no comment or action to say or show in anyway that she no longer consented to what you were doing.  and seeing that is pretty much what happened in this case i would consider that appropriate consent.
ok let me outline a few points that i think make it a good thing.  0.  cheaper gas.  flat out benefits me directly.  0.  now that oil prices are cheaper some of the worlds dirtiest sources of oil tar sands here in alberta, shale oil, fracking, etc are no longer profitable.  0.  with those sources now no longer profitable, i think this might finally push first world nations to seriously consider investing in alternative energy like nuclear as well as renewables.  china has already decided to invest heavily in renewables and even nuclear power.  they are stated their reducing their consumption.  now i know that with lower oil prices oil consumption tends to rise.  but i think that might be short term.  everyone knows how expensive oil can get and they may be more cautious about increasing oil spending in long term plans.  they probably know that oil prices will rise again and planning long term under the assumption that oil prices will remain low is a terrible idea.   #  with those sources now no longer profitable, i think this might finally push first world nations to seriously consider investing in alternative energy like nuclear as well as renewables.   #  china has already decided to invest heavily in renewables and even nuclear power.   # flat out benefits me directly.  ca not argue with this.  i would love to pump sub $0/gal gas into my wrangler.  not true.  opec is creating a false price dip by increasing supply while demand remains largely the same.  why do you think these  dirty  sources of oil started up ? because opec benefits off of speculated availabilty based on current events in the middle east.  opec  will not  maintain cheap oil, as it cuts into their profits and bottom dollar, so fracking and what not will just start back up again, at a less expensive start up and run cost, since the infrastructure already exists.  besides, a lot of current fracking and shale drilling sites would not just up and leave; they have a lot of money invested to do otherwise, especially to stop production over a termporary matter.  the range of bottom dollar drilling varies widely, i have seen as low as $0 $0/bbl of oil.  china has already decided to invest heavily in renewables and even nuclear power.  they are stated their reducing their consumption.  i have yet to see an alternative resource that is truely a godsend from oil dependence.  they are all either expensive, grossly inefficient, ineffective, depend on the right conditions, or are inconvenient to the end user, i. e.  you and me.  electric cars are all fine and dandy until i want to go out of town, or i have to make multiple trips in a day, or i need to charge the batteries.   #  also, since you seem to be in support of  green  energy, consider the fact that lower oil prices greatly increase fuel consumption, especially in the area of winter heating, one that may play a role very soon.   #  i do not really get how you reconcile this point  with those sources now no longer profitable, i think this might finally push first world nations to seriously consider investing in alternative energy like nuclear as well as renewables.  china has already decided to invest heavily in renewables and even nuclear power.  they are stated their reducing their consumption.  and this point  now that oil prices are cheaper some of the worlds dirtiest sources of oil tar sands here in alberta, shale oil, fracking, etc are no longer profitable.  wo not a smaller price of oil decrease investment in alternative energy ? one of the driving forces behind alternative energy is the fact that oil is so expensive.  why buy an electric car when gas is so cheap, or buy solar panels when your utility bill has gone down the last 0 months ? also, since you seem to be in support of  green  energy, consider the fact that lower oil prices greatly increase fuel consumption, especially in the area of winter heating, one that may play a role very soon.  households will be more likely to crank up the heat one or two degrees if it isnt hitting them as hard in the pocket.  i ca not really argue with the first point, as it is better for you.  but is what is better for you really better for society as a whole ?  #  before the rise in oil prices pretty much every country planned their oil usage with the assumption oil would remain cheap for a long time.   #  ok, so let me explain a little bit.  before the rise in oil prices pretty much every country planned their oil usage with the assumption oil would remain cheap for a long time.  thus no alternative energy investments.  when oil prices spiked governments had to scramble for alternative energies, however the price of oil rose so much that it hit the point where fracking, tar sands, and shale oil became profitable.  so instead of investing more in alternative energies they simply developed these methods of extracting oil.  so the key, it seems for alternative energy is for oil prices to fall below that threshold where fracking tar sands and shale is profitable, but not too low such that people can start wasting oil simply because it is cheap.  with all that said governments now are no longer planning long term oil strategies with the assumptions prices will keep falling or stay where they are at now.  we have all been burned now by the rise of oil prices in the last decade.  i think that will stop most governments from going overboard with oil usage simply because prices are low now.  as to my first point i do think it is better for society if it means no more tar sands fracking and shale extraction.  if you look at the carbon cost of those types of oil the moderate increase in regular people is gas usage is offset by the reduction in co0 we get from the phasing out of those types of extraction.  i will agree with your point about people probably turning up the heat a bit.  but i am not convinced that is a bigger problem when compared to how much worse tar sands shale and fracking is.   #  ever notice how alternative energy always seems to become more of a hot topic as gas prices rise ?  #  but see, the issue is these two points are mutually exclusive.  either governments are acting on what oil prices are now, and just buying oil cause it is cheap, or they are acting based on prices in the future, in which case why would they stop any investment into oil sands or fracking ? also, the reason why oil sands and fracking were chosen for investment is because over the long run is because they are cheaper than alternative energy sources, by a lot.  the reason to choose alternative energy sources over fracking or tar sands is when you are looking at the long, long run, where these sources might become more expensive, or because of the environment.  if a government is looking the long run, it is better to have an indication that oil prices are going nowhere but up.  fluctuation in oil prices like the ones we see this year could convince governments or more specifically, the very economically illiterate voters that the rising price of oil is/was only a temporary concern, not a long term problem.  this is very, very bad for alternative energy.  i kind of brought up my biggest point in the last paragraph: voters.  voters are extremely fickle and have short memories.  when choosing between a candidate that supports alternative energy and one that says that oil is not a concern, most voters look to their wallet for the answer.  ever notice how alternative energy always seems to become more of a hot topic as gas prices rise ? it is because it gains more political traction as they do.  this again makes lower gas prices very, very bad for alternative energy.   #  wind and solar are catching up with some forms of solar power being slightly cheaper then tar sands if you took away the government subsidies oil gets.   #  ah but see that is the thing, once fracking or oil sands becomes profitable they could invest in more infrastructure, but more then likely they will simply stop operations temporarily.  as for tar sands being cheaper then alternative energies i think that is only true for some energy forms.  wind and solar are catching up with some forms of solar power being slightly cheaper then tar sands if you took away the government subsidies oil gets.  lastly nuclear power is cheaper and has been cheaper for a long time.  i will agree that voters are fickle and that may be a huge problem.  but i disagree with your last point.  it is true that alternative energies becomes more a talking point, but that does not really seem to matter as policy always seems to go in favor of oil corporations regardless of oil prices.  voters do not have anywhere near as much influence as money does.  frackers and tar sands corporations ca not do much if they are not making a profit.  they will have to halt their operations or bleed money.
i realize now that i should have searched the subreddit for similar posts before i made a submission, but i consider that a minor mistake.  i am honestly kind of hesitant to make another post in this sub in the foreseeable future.  original post: it seems to me that history courses are taught by history professors primarily so that history students can go on and become history professors themselves; further saturating the job market for educators that serve no purpose other than to self depreciate.  for the vast majority of students, history courses will have no applicable worth to them post graduation.  almost no employer is going to care that you can list the reasons that the roman empire fell.  so, why then, should i be required to pay thousands of dollars to take a course that has no real value to anybody with job aspirations ? please cmv so that i can find the motivation to actually spend some of my time writing papers for this worthless class.   #  for the vast majority of students, history courses will have no applicable worth to them post graduation.   #  almost no employer is going to care that you can list the reasons that the roman empire fell.   # almost no employer is going to care that you can list the reasons that the roman empire fell.  so, why then, should i be required to pay thousands of dollars to take a course that has no real value to anybody with job aspirations ? you could sell yourself into slavery.  your owner will only pay for education that directly increases your productivity.  as long as you are a free man you will have to make decisions and choose policies to support, and then it pays off to know how the world works and what the long term consequences of policy choices are.  for example, for the current economic woes the tulip bubble and the mercantilist policies of the 0th century and the keynesianism of the 0th century are all relevant.  and no, you ca not select the  useful  bits.  that would be like learning to drive in a straight line, but not how to turn.   #  if you just hate history or want to procrastinate, then i ca not help you and i doubt anyone will change your view.   #  most colleges consider their role to be more than simply producing good employees they are trying to create well balanced citizens.  history classes help provide a more well rounded education that allows you to have a clearer view of the world, even if it does not make you more attractive to employers.  but if that was our only goal, then everyone would only take classes in their major and whatever cross disciplinary ones were absolutely necessary and an internship to graduate.  while perhaps good for the individual trying to get hired, this would produce a lot of people with extremely narrow skill and knowledge sets.  as an example, writing and communication skills can actually be kind of important URL for finding a job, but english classes are often derided for similarly being useless for finding a job.  it is probably a good idea to be flexible and well educated in a variety of areas to demonstrate both your intelligence and prove your well roundedness, and having at least some familiarity with history will help with that.  if you just hate history or want to procrastinate, then i ca not help you and i doubt anyone will change your view.  but, at the very least, study your history class so you do not look like a fool when people are discussing major world history events, like the roman empire, the causes of wwi/ii, etc.   #  broad reaching skills and abilities, such as those taught in a well balanced classroom, are essential in order to remain on top of the heap, so to speak.   #  i completely agree that writing and communication skills are absolutely necessary as a job seeker.  many colleges have chosen to develop these, and many other skills, through all of their classes, rather than just a few that could focus on a particular skill.  a biology lab will inevitably have its write ups, an accounting course will have its inter office memos and briefs, and any class worth taking will have some semblance of a research project.  college wide learning goals that focus on writing, research, creative abilities, critical thinking, and any number of other skills or virtues are a staple of nearly all colleges in the us.  further, it is my understanding that for many people, college is where you go to  learn how to learn .  employment fields are constantly changing, and the skills needed to remain a marketable employee in any given field are constantly in flux.  for example: in the late eighties, all of the typists in an office had to learn how to use a computer at some point.  broad reaching skills and abilities, such as those taught in a well balanced classroom, are essential in order to remain on top of the heap, so to speak.  history is one such subject that could be useful for the sake of  learning to learn  but i see little real world applicability outside of the fringe benefits of taking the class.  i fail to see how a history course ought to be required, when the same benefits of writing, critical thinking, and ethical awareness can be satisfied similarly, and more applicably by other courses.   #  and that is a pretty cool and useful thing to know.   #  there might be writing  involved  but that is not the same as being trained to write well.  an analogy is that just because you give a presentation to the class on your lab experiment, that is not the same as having taken a public speaking course.  it also means that you are extremely limited in what you can write, as a consequence.  there is a reason such specific skill training classes are still available, and it is to strengthen that specific skill, rather than just gambling that the accountants will be good memos which will maybe sort of transfer into other writing skills.  similarly, while history might not be immediately obvious in the skills it teaches outside of reinforcing some that you get in other classes it provides you with knowledge you would not otherwise get.  being well versed in the major players and world events of western history is useful at the very least to be informed on the background of society.  it also improves your ability to actually deploy those writing, critical thinking, and ethical awareness skills on topics of importance.  such as understanding how wwii and vietnam shaped modern american politics, as an example.  ancient history meanwhile is valued as a set of knowledge that people should, at least, be conversant in.  it helps you understand, well, how the world came to be what it is.  and that is a pretty cool and useful thing to know.  sure, but what is uniquely bad about history ? that can be said about any number of classes in any number of disciplines.  sure, you do not like it, and that is fine.  but that does not mean it should not be required, given the objectives of colleges and cultivating a knowledge base that prepares you for more than doing a single, limited job.   #  having the aforementioned skills will set you apart from the rest of the pack in the future.   #  history and other social science papers revolve around developing a thesis, crafting an argument, and/or communicating an idea.  i ca not tell you how frustrating it is having to work with someone in tech or sciences who is brilliant at the science/tech part of their job, but ca not explain to me or anyone else what they did, the implications it has, why it is necessary, or the timeline/process of the work they did.  they are used to being plugged into a very specific subset of work and spending time with people who have the same specialty.  when thrust into the corporate or whatever wild with the rest of us, they quickly become the weakest link at other aspects of the job unless they have made an effort to practice these other  useless  skills.  sometimes i need information to do  my  job and hopefully the classes your taking will help you develop a modicum of skill in connecting the dots for other people in your specialty.  if you are approaching a history course as simply being names, dates and other facts, you are artificially limiting what you can get out of it.  having the aforementioned skills will set you apart from the rest of the pack in the future.
when will america really face the hard truth ? turkey is overrated.  i do not care how  moist  your gram gram makes it.  bake it.  fry it.  it is a dry ass bird.  you work on it forever in your mouth till it forms that familiar turkey paste you have to choke down every year.  if we really loved turkey, there would be a successful chain of turkey based restaurants.  we do not.  we keep lying to ourselves, while we fill up on everything but turkey.  leftovers ? mostly turkey.  a dozen people ca not eat a whole bird ? i have seen less eat a whole pig ! fuck turkey ! stop the madness !  #  we keep lying to ourselves, while we fill up on everything but turkey.   #  a pound of meat per person 0 0 lbs bird weight is a lot of meat, and if your criteria for liking something is to eat more than that, then most people do not like ice cream, hamburgers, or fries.   #  you have set up a false dichotomy here between tradition and preferences.  but tradition informs our preferences.  people who would not like turkey most of the year like turkey on thanksgiving in part because of the tradition.  the same can be said of candy canes, lutefisk, hamantaschen, bahn chung, or chirote.  they are not popular year round but they are savored on a special day.  give me a candy cane every week and i will be damn sick of them, but do not say i do not enjoy them when i do eat them.  a pound of meat per person 0 0 lbs bird weight is a lot of meat, and if your criteria for liking something is to eat more than that, then most people do not like ice cream, hamburgers, or fries.   #  i am not sure how how anyone will be able to change your view because it is entirely subjective.   #  i am not sure how how anyone will be able to change your view because it is entirely subjective.  i personally live turkey on thanksgiving or during any other time of year.  i think part of the reason why it is not eaten more often than thanksgiving is because it takes so much effort to make as opposed to other meats/chicken.  no one wants to spend hours cooking a turkey when they can make chicken, steak, ham, etc.  in a shorter period of time.  as for your point about there not being chains based around turkey, this goes back to the point that turkey takes a lot more time to cook than other meats.  you are also forgetting that turkey is a popular sandwich topping that is commonly used at sub chains like subway.  while subway may not be based around turkey, turkey is one of the main options that they serve.  finally, if people really do not like turkey then why would everyone continue to go through the effort of making a giant turkey every year during thanksgiving ?  #  you say  eat it out of tradition  like that is not the whole point.   #  i am not american so i am going to go with christmas ham URL which is basically the same thing.  it is a salted piece of pork that is not the right cut for long oven cooking which your grandma nukes until it is dry.  but the point is that that does not matter.  the christmas ham only gets eaten on christmas because that is what it taste like.  there are tons of other foods that are better, but none that taste of christmas the same way that grandmas overcooked ham does.  you say  eat it out of tradition  like that is not the whole point.  if turkey was served all year round then it would not taste like thanksgiving.   #  there really is not that dramatic of a difference.   #  turkey is basically just a large chicken.  there really is not that dramatic of a difference.  people eat chicken all the time.  turkey is just too big to have regularly because a small family will never finish one.  turkey on the other hand is much better suited to a big meal like thanksgiving because so many people have gathered together.  poultry is delicious and i would never give it up for anything.  but honestly chicken vs turkey is not a dramatic difference.   #  and then, of course, there are people that insist on stuffing turkeys which is just asking for dry meat.   # cooked correctly, turkey will be no drier than chicken.  should we give up on chicken too ? most people cook until 0 c, which is the first mistake, it should be cook to about 0 c, really, and then taken out of the oven.  but also most people use frozen turkeys, which will dry them out as well.  and then, of course, there are people that insist on stuffing turkeys which is just asking for dry meat.  mostly, the issue is not with the turkey, but with the people cooking it.  but it is still much worse than a leg of lamb or pig.
bitcoin now seems like it is for people who research to understand how it works.  it is currently not as widely accepted like fiat cash and do not think it will be anytime soon if at all.  fiat cash can easily be put in a bank or held physically under the mattress and is accepted by 0 of the population.  btc is not.  cash can be used everyday to purchase any legal goods your mind can think of.  if you have a ton of cash it can be stored in a bank that is insured by the fdic while btc is not insured by anyone.  in order to properly secure thousands of dollars of btc you have to go through elaborate schemes such as remember passphrases, printing out papers and hiding them somewhere, or as recently seen someone hiding their btc address underneath a watch.  why are we trying to push btc mainstream ? i feel that it will always be just another form of payment not the one to replace fiat currency.   #  bitcoin now seems like it is for people who research to understand how it works.   #  it is currently not as widely accepted like fiat cash and do not think it will be anytime soon if at all.   # it is currently not as widely accepted like fiat cash and do not think it will be anytime soon if at all.  fiat cash can easily be put in a bank or held physically under the mattress and is accepted by 0 of the population.  btc is not.  cash can be used everyday to purchase any legal goods your mind can think of.  yes, bitcoin is in a very early adoption phase.  it is hard to know how long that will last or if it will fail completely.  the same can be said for any emerging technology.  there are data that show constant growth in adoption and that growth can also be shown to be exponential.  you can also show that bitcoin is trending down at the moment.  it is impossible to know what will happen.  in order to properly secure thousands of dollars of btc you have to go through elaborate schemes such as remember passphrases, printing out papers and hiding them somewhere, or as recently seen someone hiding their btc address underneath a watch.  only a small percentage of the world has large deposits to insure.  a larger percentage of the world is unbanked.  inexpensive services can now be developed for them and their cell phones.  it is a process to develop that infrastructure and software and as a consquence those services are still a ways off, but not as far off as opening a jp morgan branch in every village.  people that believe in the growth of btc are investing because of the potential there and other potential societal benefits too.  i feel that it will always be just another form of payment not the one to replace fiat currency.  who is  we  and where are they from ? there is no real goal of bitcoin.  bitcoin is a protocol that solves specific problems for different people that are specific to those people.  some people use it for day trading and some people transfer money to their family members instead of paying western union.  similarly, email is a protocol; some people use it to send messages and other people use it to spam the globe.  how you use a protocol is up to you.   #  your main point about fiat being insured is true, but with the right security bitcoin is impossible to steal.   #  you posed two different opinions which should be separate cmvs  bitcoin is not for the layman  and  why should we try to push btc mainstream ?  .  i agree with the first one, at the moment.  however bitcoin related services are constantly getting easier to use.  however, i feel that bitcoin is superior to fiat.  it is impossible to forge, can be sent instantly to anywhere in the world, has very low fees about $0 per transaction of any size , has no chargebacks, and is decentralized and so resistant to corruption.  your main point about fiat being insured is true, but with the right security bitcoin is impossible to steal.  as i say, the  right security  is indeed too difficult for the layman to achieve at the moment, but it is constantly getting easier.   #  i think bitcoin, or crypto currency in general, will follow a similar path.   #  think of the internet in the early 0s.  it was very difficult to use and you had to be technically minded to figure it out.  there were not many things you could do with it back then.  but then it got easier over time.  and today it is embedded so deeply into society that most people could not live with out it.  but back then people could not have imagined all of it uses, things like facebook, twitter, skybe and even bitcoin .  i think bitcoin, or crypto currency in general, will follow a similar path.  it will slowly become both easier for the average person to use and there will be more uses for it, and many of it is future uses probably have not even been thought up yet.   #  checks are not even used that much outside us afaik.   # bank issue.  with current technology it is possible to have money in your account almost instantly without going to the bank, i have personally done it.  checks are not even used that much outside us afaik.  bitcoin wallet is easy to lose, data corruption, dead hdd etc.  it is also easy to steal, malware, keylogger, phishing etc.  it is not that unsafe, although it could be improved.  a lot of cards also use various security measuers, and even if they get compromised your money is safe.  lives have been drastically altered by identity theft.  i know i family who postponed starting a family to clear both of their credit histories because someone swiped their cards.  identity theft is not something that bitcoin can and will solve.  cryptos offer a much better way of decentralizing resources.  banks earn money with that, unless they get tired of making money that will not happen.  as i said above it is pretty fast, and you do know that bitcoin is not instant ? it can take even longer than bank for transaction to be confirmed and if you do not pay the fee it will take days or even weeks.  paypal, wire transfer, wu.  time ranges from 0 minutes to 0 days.  cash, paypal, etc etc  having to pay insane amounts of money for realtors, lawyers, and other middlemen is dumb.  you are paying for the service, whether they use bitcoin or fiat they will still charge same amount.  that is just using your arguments, i wo not even go into all the issues bitcoin has maximum number of transactions which is 0 per second worldwide last time i checked, compared to visa with 0k/s , volatility, 0 issue, etc  #  the reason even americans have traditionally diversified in gold is that no political empire is immune to the fate that befell rome.   #  until the us invades my country too, i wo not use usd.  submitting to usd would be submitting to that country is political control over the money supply.  the reason even americans have traditionally diversified in gold is that no political empire is immune to the fate that befell rome.  usd is backed only by  in god we trust  and current military might.  the us has engaged in the same monetary policy as zimbabwe.  the different outcomes is only due to political support of the international banking community.  the perception of value for the usd is ephemeral.  math is a stronger foundation than politics for long term value.
bitcoin now seems like it is for people who research to understand how it works.  it is currently not as widely accepted like fiat cash and do not think it will be anytime soon if at all.  fiat cash can easily be put in a bank or held physically under the mattress and is accepted by 0 of the population.  btc is not.  cash can be used everyday to purchase any legal goods your mind can think of.  if you have a ton of cash it can be stored in a bank that is insured by the fdic while btc is not insured by anyone.  in order to properly secure thousands of dollars of btc you have to go through elaborate schemes such as remember passphrases, printing out papers and hiding them somewhere, or as recently seen someone hiding their btc address underneath a watch.  why are we trying to push btc mainstream ? i feel that it will always be just another form of payment not the one to replace fiat currency.   #  if you have a ton of cash it can be stored in a bank that is insured by the fdic while btc is not insured by anyone.   #  in order to properly secure thousands of dollars of btc you have to go through elaborate schemes such as remember passphrases, printing out papers and hiding them somewhere, or as recently seen someone hiding their btc address underneath a watch.   # it is currently not as widely accepted like fiat cash and do not think it will be anytime soon if at all.  fiat cash can easily be put in a bank or held physically under the mattress and is accepted by 0 of the population.  btc is not.  cash can be used everyday to purchase any legal goods your mind can think of.  yes, bitcoin is in a very early adoption phase.  it is hard to know how long that will last or if it will fail completely.  the same can be said for any emerging technology.  there are data that show constant growth in adoption and that growth can also be shown to be exponential.  you can also show that bitcoin is trending down at the moment.  it is impossible to know what will happen.  in order to properly secure thousands of dollars of btc you have to go through elaborate schemes such as remember passphrases, printing out papers and hiding them somewhere, or as recently seen someone hiding their btc address underneath a watch.  only a small percentage of the world has large deposits to insure.  a larger percentage of the world is unbanked.  inexpensive services can now be developed for them and their cell phones.  it is a process to develop that infrastructure and software and as a consquence those services are still a ways off, but not as far off as opening a jp morgan branch in every village.  people that believe in the growth of btc are investing because of the potential there and other potential societal benefits too.  i feel that it will always be just another form of payment not the one to replace fiat currency.  who is  we  and where are they from ? there is no real goal of bitcoin.  bitcoin is a protocol that solves specific problems for different people that are specific to those people.  some people use it for day trading and some people transfer money to their family members instead of paying western union.  similarly, email is a protocol; some people use it to send messages and other people use it to spam the globe.  how you use a protocol is up to you.   #  i agree with the first one, at the moment.   #  you posed two different opinions which should be separate cmvs  bitcoin is not for the layman  and  why should we try to push btc mainstream ?  .  i agree with the first one, at the moment.  however bitcoin related services are constantly getting easier to use.  however, i feel that bitcoin is superior to fiat.  it is impossible to forge, can be sent instantly to anywhere in the world, has very low fees about $0 per transaction of any size , has no chargebacks, and is decentralized and so resistant to corruption.  your main point about fiat being insured is true, but with the right security bitcoin is impossible to steal.  as i say, the  right security  is indeed too difficult for the layman to achieve at the moment, but it is constantly getting easier.   #  think of the internet in the early 0s.   #  think of the internet in the early 0s.  it was very difficult to use and you had to be technically minded to figure it out.  there were not many things you could do with it back then.  but then it got easier over time.  and today it is embedded so deeply into society that most people could not live with out it.  but back then people could not have imagined all of it uses, things like facebook, twitter, skybe and even bitcoin .  i think bitcoin, or crypto currency in general, will follow a similar path.  it will slowly become both easier for the average person to use and there will be more uses for it, and many of it is future uses probably have not even been thought up yet.   #  lives have been drastically altered by identity theft.   # bank issue.  with current technology it is possible to have money in your account almost instantly without going to the bank, i have personally done it.  checks are not even used that much outside us afaik.  bitcoin wallet is easy to lose, data corruption, dead hdd etc.  it is also easy to steal, malware, keylogger, phishing etc.  it is not that unsafe, although it could be improved.  a lot of cards also use various security measuers, and even if they get compromised your money is safe.  lives have been drastically altered by identity theft.  i know i family who postponed starting a family to clear both of their credit histories because someone swiped their cards.  identity theft is not something that bitcoin can and will solve.  cryptos offer a much better way of decentralizing resources.  banks earn money with that, unless they get tired of making money that will not happen.  as i said above it is pretty fast, and you do know that bitcoin is not instant ? it can take even longer than bank for transaction to be confirmed and if you do not pay the fee it will take days or even weeks.  paypal, wire transfer, wu.  time ranges from 0 minutes to 0 days.  cash, paypal, etc etc  having to pay insane amounts of money for realtors, lawyers, and other middlemen is dumb.  you are paying for the service, whether they use bitcoin or fiat they will still charge same amount.  that is just using your arguments, i wo not even go into all the issues bitcoin has maximum number of transactions which is 0 per second worldwide last time i checked, compared to visa with 0k/s , volatility, 0 issue, etc  #  the different outcomes is only due to political support of the international banking community.   #  until the us invades my country too, i wo not use usd.  submitting to usd would be submitting to that country is political control over the money supply.  the reason even americans have traditionally diversified in gold is that no political empire is immune to the fate that befell rome.  usd is backed only by  in god we trust  and current military might.  the us has engaged in the same monetary policy as zimbabwe.  the different outcomes is only due to political support of the international banking community.  the perception of value for the usd is ephemeral.  math is a stronger foundation than politics for long term value.
bitcoin now seems like it is for people who research to understand how it works.  it is currently not as widely accepted like fiat cash and do not think it will be anytime soon if at all.  fiat cash can easily be put in a bank or held physically under the mattress and is accepted by 0 of the population.  btc is not.  cash can be used everyday to purchase any legal goods your mind can think of.  if you have a ton of cash it can be stored in a bank that is insured by the fdic while btc is not insured by anyone.  in order to properly secure thousands of dollars of btc you have to go through elaborate schemes such as remember passphrases, printing out papers and hiding them somewhere, or as recently seen someone hiding their btc address underneath a watch.  why are we trying to push btc mainstream ? i feel that it will always be just another form of payment not the one to replace fiat currency.   #  why are we trying to push btc mainstream ?  #  i feel that it will always be just another form of payment not the one to replace fiat currency.   # it is currently not as widely accepted like fiat cash and do not think it will be anytime soon if at all.  fiat cash can easily be put in a bank or held physically under the mattress and is accepted by 0 of the population.  btc is not.  cash can be used everyday to purchase any legal goods your mind can think of.  yes, bitcoin is in a very early adoption phase.  it is hard to know how long that will last or if it will fail completely.  the same can be said for any emerging technology.  there are data that show constant growth in adoption and that growth can also be shown to be exponential.  you can also show that bitcoin is trending down at the moment.  it is impossible to know what will happen.  in order to properly secure thousands of dollars of btc you have to go through elaborate schemes such as remember passphrases, printing out papers and hiding them somewhere, or as recently seen someone hiding their btc address underneath a watch.  only a small percentage of the world has large deposits to insure.  a larger percentage of the world is unbanked.  inexpensive services can now be developed for them and their cell phones.  it is a process to develop that infrastructure and software and as a consquence those services are still a ways off, but not as far off as opening a jp morgan branch in every village.  people that believe in the growth of btc are investing because of the potential there and other potential societal benefits too.  i feel that it will always be just another form of payment not the one to replace fiat currency.  who is  we  and where are they from ? there is no real goal of bitcoin.  bitcoin is a protocol that solves specific problems for different people that are specific to those people.  some people use it for day trading and some people transfer money to their family members instead of paying western union.  similarly, email is a protocol; some people use it to send messages and other people use it to spam the globe.  how you use a protocol is up to you.   #  however bitcoin related services are constantly getting easier to use.   #  you posed two different opinions which should be separate cmvs  bitcoin is not for the layman  and  why should we try to push btc mainstream ?  .  i agree with the first one, at the moment.  however bitcoin related services are constantly getting easier to use.  however, i feel that bitcoin is superior to fiat.  it is impossible to forge, can be sent instantly to anywhere in the world, has very low fees about $0 per transaction of any size , has no chargebacks, and is decentralized and so resistant to corruption.  your main point about fiat being insured is true, but with the right security bitcoin is impossible to steal.  as i say, the  right security  is indeed too difficult for the layman to achieve at the moment, but it is constantly getting easier.   #  i think bitcoin, or crypto currency in general, will follow a similar path.   #  think of the internet in the early 0s.  it was very difficult to use and you had to be technically minded to figure it out.  there were not many things you could do with it back then.  but then it got easier over time.  and today it is embedded so deeply into society that most people could not live with out it.  but back then people could not have imagined all of it uses, things like facebook, twitter, skybe and even bitcoin .  i think bitcoin, or crypto currency in general, will follow a similar path.  it will slowly become both easier for the average person to use and there will be more uses for it, and many of it is future uses probably have not even been thought up yet.   #  checks are not even used that much outside us afaik.   # bank issue.  with current technology it is possible to have money in your account almost instantly without going to the bank, i have personally done it.  checks are not even used that much outside us afaik.  bitcoin wallet is easy to lose, data corruption, dead hdd etc.  it is also easy to steal, malware, keylogger, phishing etc.  it is not that unsafe, although it could be improved.  a lot of cards also use various security measuers, and even if they get compromised your money is safe.  lives have been drastically altered by identity theft.  i know i family who postponed starting a family to clear both of their credit histories because someone swiped their cards.  identity theft is not something that bitcoin can and will solve.  cryptos offer a much better way of decentralizing resources.  banks earn money with that, unless they get tired of making money that will not happen.  as i said above it is pretty fast, and you do know that bitcoin is not instant ? it can take even longer than bank for transaction to be confirmed and if you do not pay the fee it will take days or even weeks.  paypal, wire transfer, wu.  time ranges from 0 minutes to 0 days.  cash, paypal, etc etc  having to pay insane amounts of money for realtors, lawyers, and other middlemen is dumb.  you are paying for the service, whether they use bitcoin or fiat they will still charge same amount.  that is just using your arguments, i wo not even go into all the issues bitcoin has maximum number of transactions which is 0 per second worldwide last time i checked, compared to visa with 0k/s , volatility, 0 issue, etc  #  the us has engaged in the same monetary policy as zimbabwe.   #  until the us invades my country too, i wo not use usd.  submitting to usd would be submitting to that country is political control over the money supply.  the reason even americans have traditionally diversified in gold is that no political empire is immune to the fate that befell rome.  usd is backed only by  in god we trust  and current military might.  the us has engaged in the same monetary policy as zimbabwe.  the different outcomes is only due to political support of the international banking community.  the perception of value for the usd is ephemeral.  math is a stronger foundation than politics for long term value.
it is said that slavery is bad because a person has to keep his will subservient to a master.  his  owner  can literally make him do anything and if he does not, he is punished and will possibly die of starvation.  on a broad scale, i do not quite see how this is any different from the concept of a job.  one has to work in order to live, and one has to do the bidding of another to earn.  yes you can leave a job, but if you want to avoid starvation you practically always have to get another job.  just like slavery would not become ethical if one could choose his master, i do not think the ability to choose one is employer makes employment ethical.  cmv.   #  his  owner  can literally make him do anything and if he does not, he is punished and will possibly die of starvation.   #  you are missing that a slave owner could rape, torture, and keep imprisoned their slaves.   # you are missing that a slave owner could rape, torture, and keep imprisoned their slaves.  the downside of disobeying the master was not just eventual starvation, although that is pretty damn bad.  if we take the notion that having to eat is a draconian requirement then the human race should simply kill itself off in protest to whom, i do not know .  if you try to go into the middle ground where working is optional because we have decided that requiring people to provide for themselves is unethical then how does society prevent everyone from choosing not to work ? would it be ethical for some people to decide they do not want to work which would require that someone else provide for their every need ?  #  there are also people in prison receiving free food and housing.   #  you do not have to work in order to live.  there are plenty of unemployed people out there living off of their families, their friends, government benefits, charity, or money made by begging on the street.  their lives typically are not as fantastic as the lives of people who have more stable incomes, but they are alive.  there is also retired people, people who started their own companies, and people who are self employed.  there are also people in prison receiving free food and housing.  all of us have the choice to do at least several of those things at any given time.  if you want to rent an apartment in a high cost of living city, you need a full time job.  but renting an apartment is not an inherent right of being human.  having shelter might be, but there are other ways to get shelter.  there are ways of getting food for free or very cheaply.  just because you need employment to live the lifestyle you desire does not mean that everyone needs employment in order to live.  which makes it entirely different from slavery.   #  even if they did, there is only so much african junk people want to buy from murky street vendors.   #  you are confusing  could happen for a small minority  with  will happen for everyone .  the majority of people in war zones and collapsed countries do not become market traders and tinkerers.  the majority actually starve and die from hunger.  this is why developed nations are sending shitloads of aid, to prevent people dying on the streets en masse.  even then millions die from starvation and the plethora of health issues associated with malnutrition.  the majority of refugees ca not sell shit on a rug, because they do not have anything to sell.  even if they did, there is only so much african junk people want to buy from murky street vendors.  maybe it will work for a dozen or two of people, but you ca not seriously expect millions of refugees to start new businesses, especially when they lack skills, education and access to capital.   #  having a very close friend who owns a lawn care business, i can tell you that it takes a few thousand dollars to start.   #  no, begging is not legal in most states.  it is called panhandling, and you will be arrested for it.  also, most people do not hire gardeners unless the gardener is bringing some knowledge and skill to the forefront.  what you are looking for is  lawn care specialist , which is a lawn mower.  and that requires a lawn mower, weed eater, and other such equipment, as well as a truck and trailer to haul it from job to job.  having a very close friend who owns a lawn care business, i can tell you that it takes a few thousand dollars to start.  and because the people with all the equipment charge the same rate you will see charged by people with just a mower, nobody employs the people without equipment.  being a maid is the same way.  if you are a part of an agency, you are not self employed.  if you are not, you wo not be hired contracted because they can just go to the agency for similar prices and better guarantee of the maid is integrity.   #  there is constitutional right to ask for money.   # it is called panhandling, and you will be arrested for it.  that is not true.  there is constitutional right to ask for money.  states may ban aggressive panhandling, but that is not the same.  what you are looking for is  lawn care specialist , which is a lawn mower.  and that requires a lawn mower, weed eater, and other such equipment, as well as a truck and trailer to haul it from job to job.  having a very close friend who owns a lawn care business, i can tell you that it takes a few thousand dollars to start.  and because the people with all the equipment charge the same rate you will see charged by people with just a mower, nobody employs the people without equipment.  being a maid is the same way.  if you are a part of an agency, you are not self employed.  if you are not, you wo not be hired contracted because they can just go to the agency for similar prices and better guarantee of the maid is integrity.  yeah, nothing is easy, so what ?
i have multiple reasons.    you can see if there is beer in the bottle at a glance   they do not warm up as fast from holding it as in a can.    cleanup is way better, the bottles will almost self organize in the box   the box that bottles come in open from the top   the box that cans come in open in the center and you are reaching inside for cans and it is a pain in the ass to fill it back up with cans.  side open boxes are just as bad.  i still drink beer from a can regularly but i just hate it, and would prefer bottles to cans.  cmv.   #  they do not warm up as fast from holding it as in a can.   #  cans cool faster though and can coozies are really cheap.   # cans cool faster though and can coozies are really cheap.  outside of that my preferenced drinking vessel is this: glass   can   bottle.  outside of the numerous benefits cans have, just looking at drinking from them, cans make it much more satisfying to drink from as it has an easier time flowing out of it than beer does out of a bottle.  now other benefits to cans include: smaller, lighter and much better at protecting beer than bottles.  i will take a can 0/0 times over a bottle.   #  most of the beer i purchase does not come in cans, so i suppose i will let this slide.   #  this is all situationally valuable though.  i personally only drink because i like the taste of beer.  i do not appreciate the feeling of being intoxicated.  when you are carrying a 0, this matters a lot.  i never purchase or consume beer in those quantities.  most of the beer i purchase does not come in cans, so i suppose i will let this slide.  tasty beer often only comes in bottles ? i have never needed to dispose of that much beer at one time, but realistically, could not you just use multiple bags ? i generally do not drink to be thought of as cool though, so again, that seems like a fairly marginal benefit to me.  are there other creative drinking opportunities that rely on cans ?  #  many micro breweries have built their reputation while putting beer in cans.   # cans come in 0, 0, 0, 0 and 0 packs, which is dependent on the beer.  in cases where the same beer is offered in cans and bottles the cans are always more convenient as they are lighter and take less space.  this allows for more beer to be kept cold in the same amount of space.  most of the beer i purchase does not come in cans, so i suppose i will let this slide.  i think that he is referencing the trend of 0 packs of 0oz cans.  not true at all.  many micro breweries have built their reputation while putting beer in cans.  oskar blues, sly fox and sun king, to name a few.  if you like a certain beer it is always cheaper by the ounce to buy in larger volumes.  i try to keep a case worth of beer at my house at all times.  it is nice when company comes over, it is nice for convenience, it is nice for saving money and it is nice for preserving beer longer.  you could, but then you are spending more money on buying bags more often while also inconveniencing yourself by purchasing bags at a higher rate.  just put it in your pocket each time you open a new beer and then you have a running tally of how much beer you have consumed.  this can be helpful if you want to moderate your consumption, or if you want to brag to your friends the next morning, or if you want to create cool art projects.  i would say that caps are a net gain for the beer drinking experience.  you can do the same with can tabs.  are there other creative drinking opportunities that rely on cans ? going to many public places that  only  allow cans.  notably music festivals.   #  also, beer is suceptable to light, that is why you hardly ever see beer sold in clear bottles always dark brown or dark green .   #  also, beer is suceptable to light, that is why you hardly ever see beer sold in clear bottles always dark brown or dark green .  cans do not let any light in, thus they do not have this problem.  also, fun fact: corona uses clear bottles because they are slightly cheaper.  this runs a higher risk of beer going  off .  that is why they always show it with lime, because lime masks the taste of the beer.   #  with this in mind, cans have the following advantages.   #  cans are superior to bottles for beer in every way except for the initial cost of setting up a canning line.  first of all, you should not be drinking beer directly out of either vessel.  you do not get any aroma if there is only a tiny little opening for the beer to be exposed to air.  in either case you should pour your beer into a cup or glass.  with this in mind, cans have the following advantages.  zero exposure to light or air during transport.  this reduces the likelihood that the beer will skunk or develop off flavors.  cheaper and more efficient shipping and storage.  less money and fuel is spent delivering canned beer to stores because it stacks better.  better for the environment.  aluminum cans recycle incredibly well and cost less resources to produce than glass bottles.  no risk of shattering.  cans can be taken to places that glass bottles cannot because there is no risk of shattering the bottle and potentially hurting people.
i realized this was a controversial view yesterday while driving with my family to thanksgiving dinner.  my sister was speaking about leaving her money to her kids after her passing, and i casually mentioned how i do not believe i would leave any.  this was met with much more vitriol from both my mom and sister than i expected.  since my sister only seems to argue by using mindless platitudes she just kept saying  you take care of your own  over and over and my mother just kept telling me  that is wrong  without explaining why, i would like to have a discussion on it here to see if i really am mislead in my views.  consider the following scenario: i have amassed a large fortune and have grown to be about 0.  i had my kids in my 0s, and so they are now in their 0s.  my assumption would be that during the first 0 or so years, i have taken care of their educational costs, provided for their basic needs, and hopefully shown them the value of a dollar while still allowing them a life not bound by severe monetary constraints.  after their 0s, when they have begun providing for themselves, i will be there as a back up should something truly catastrophic and unforeseen happen, but they would be largely left to their own devices.  after 0 or so years of that, when i die, i would plan on leaving all my wealth to charities of my choice.  i do not even think i would leave anything for the grandkids  education as i believe that falls under the responsibility of the parents or even the children to properly finance and plan.  the reasoning: statistics: 0 of the second generation blow all the inheritance money during their lifetime.  that statistic climbs to 0 when you move into the third generation.  to me, this indicates that leaving a large inheritance to children who did not work for the money leads them to invest it poorly and blow it on frivolous spending i am not saying this happens in all cases, as i know medical bills and a billion other situations could arise that would necessitate the costs, but i am saying it is the most common reason .  ethics: i do not believe that people should benefit simply by being born into a beneficial situation.  being born to wealthy parents should not be like winning the lottery for your entire life.  as i mentioned, these kids would not feel the claws of poverty during their entire childhood; why should they be guaranteed these  lottery winnings  well into adult life, when they are supposed to be responsible for themselves ? moreover, leaving this wealth to the children will actually negatively affect their lives, as it will foster laziness and lack of ambition.  nearly every tycoon, from carnegie to buffett to gates has noted that leaving anything more than a small sum of money to their children would be terrible for their ambition and their motivation to make something of their lives.  some final comments: i understand that this is putting the cart way before the horse.  i do not have considerable wealth.  i do not even have kids.  this is just how i believe i would behave in this scenario given my current mindset.  furthermore, i really do not want to come off as miserly, but if i do, please tell me.  anyway, beyond that, please try and change my view !  #  statistics: 0 of the second generation blow all the inheritance money during their lifetime.   #  that statistic climbs to 0 when you move into the third generation.   #  while i wo not go so far as to say that your view is  wrong , your premise does have a few flaws.  that statistic climbs to 0 when you move into the third generation.  to me, this indicates that leaving a large inheritance to children who did not work for the money leads them to invest it poorly and blow it on frivolous spending i am not saying this happens in all cases, as i know medical bills and a billion other situations could arise that would necessitate the costs, but i am saying it is the most common reason .  let is say for the sake of argument that your 0 figure is true, that does not represent a failure on the child is part, it is a failure of the parent.  when a kid turns 0, parents do not just toss them the keys and say:  have fun , they teach them how to drive first.  likewise, it is ridiculous to simply leave a substantial amount of money to a child without first teaching them how to manage it.  there is a huge difference between teaching your kids  the value of a dollar , and teaching them how to manage and grow wealth.  it is the same as teaching a kid how to run a lemonade stand, and then expecting them to run a fortune 0 company, it simply does not work.  the parent needs to take the time to ensure that the child knows how to manage the money before making those arrangements, otherwise they are asking for trouble.   nbsp;  moreover, leaving this wealth to the children will actually negatively affect their lives, as it will foster laziness and lack of ambition.  nearly every tycoon, from carnegie to buffett to gates has noted that leaving anything more than a small sum of money to their children would be terrible for their ambition and their motivation to make something of their lives.  again, that says more about the parents than it does the kids.  if they honestly believe that leaving their kids a substantial sum of money would be  terrible for their ambition and their motivation , then that is an indictment of them as parents.   #  every debt you owe, every tax you qualify for, every non liquid asset you own property, investments, contracts , all get resolved first.   #  you make it seem like checks are cut right after your funeral.  there is alot more you are missing.  when you pass away, someone has to become responsible for your financial world.  this person has to file your estate with the courts, set up a bank account for any outstanding bills, file all the paperwork with the government, and handle all the day to day upkeep of your house.  inheritance is not a lottery ticket.  every debt you owe, every tax you qualify for, every non liquid asset you own property, investments, contracts , all get resolved first.  is this responsibility something you would trust with a stranger ? do you think they would have your best interest in mind vs.  a member of your own family ? think about that, and then decide if they should still get a little compensation at the end of the process.   #  you could set up accounts for college funds, medical expenses, in case of unemployment etc.   #  is not there a middle ground between giving them all your money at once and giving them nothing ? set something up so they receive x dollars a month ? nothing life changing or that would encourage recklessness, but just guarantees a certain quality of life.  you could set up accounts for college funds, medical expenses, in case of unemployment etc.  major unplanned expenses can happen to anyone, regardless of how responsible a person you might be.   #  beyond this, even if they had the money in hand, they would want to spend it immediately on things immediately useful to them.   #  yes, because governments are known for wise and frugal spending decisions not motivated by politics at all.  if we started a draconian estate tax people would simply move to a flag of convenience, setup trusts and other paper entities, and otherwise obfuscate their wealth.  you would gain little to no income for your efforts.  beyond this, even if they had the money in hand, they would want to spend it immediately on things immediately useful to them.  they wo not be somberly building up social security reserves especially considering how they got so low in the first place , they will be passing programs to show voters and lobby groups, for votes and money respectively.  this is not the silver bullet you are looking for, and if anything will create two groups of the wealthy.  those with so much money an army of lawyers and accountants keeps their wealth in their hands generation after generation and first generation wealth that ends up paying serious estate tax for not having an army of financial planners.  and all of this would not even balance the budget, even if raised to 0 tax.  URL  #  are you lacking the confidence to teach your children proper money management ?  # firstly, that is barely over half.  are you lacking the confidence to teach your children proper money management ? because teaching them about that seems to be one of your goals.  if you accomplish that goal, why would not they fall into the still very large 0 ? this is 0 pure assumption, and absolutely does not necessarily occur.  there are many people who would do many amazing things with an influx of cash, and it is kind of sad you assume this about your future children.  as a good parent, you should be teaching them there is more to life than money, and this should never occur.  regardless, it is definitely assumption, and not a fair point.  you mean nearly every tycoon  who has commented on leaving money behind, and you have read those comments .  there are thousands of if not tens of thousands or more  tycoons  depending on your deifnition of the word.  these people, most of whom just did a couple googles , have never publicly commented on this.  your suggestion that nearly all of them say this seems entirely made up.  in closing: what are you planning to do with the money if not for your children ? imo, your ethical argument does not hold much weight unless we know what the money will be used to fund if not your children is lives.  from a utilitarian standpoint, not allowing your children to have the money is objectively bad, without knowledge of the other option s for that money.
i realized this was a controversial view yesterday while driving with my family to thanksgiving dinner.  my sister was speaking about leaving her money to her kids after her passing, and i casually mentioned how i do not believe i would leave any.  this was met with much more vitriol from both my mom and sister than i expected.  since my sister only seems to argue by using mindless platitudes she just kept saying  you take care of your own  over and over and my mother just kept telling me  that is wrong  without explaining why, i would like to have a discussion on it here to see if i really am mislead in my views.  consider the following scenario: i have amassed a large fortune and have grown to be about 0.  i had my kids in my 0s, and so they are now in their 0s.  my assumption would be that during the first 0 or so years, i have taken care of their educational costs, provided for their basic needs, and hopefully shown them the value of a dollar while still allowing them a life not bound by severe monetary constraints.  after their 0s, when they have begun providing for themselves, i will be there as a back up should something truly catastrophic and unforeseen happen, but they would be largely left to their own devices.  after 0 or so years of that, when i die, i would plan on leaving all my wealth to charities of my choice.  i do not even think i would leave anything for the grandkids  education as i believe that falls under the responsibility of the parents or even the children to properly finance and plan.  the reasoning: statistics: 0 of the second generation blow all the inheritance money during their lifetime.  that statistic climbs to 0 when you move into the third generation.  to me, this indicates that leaving a large inheritance to children who did not work for the money leads them to invest it poorly and blow it on frivolous spending i am not saying this happens in all cases, as i know medical bills and a billion other situations could arise that would necessitate the costs, but i am saying it is the most common reason .  ethics: i do not believe that people should benefit simply by being born into a beneficial situation.  being born to wealthy parents should not be like winning the lottery for your entire life.  as i mentioned, these kids would not feel the claws of poverty during their entire childhood; why should they be guaranteed these  lottery winnings  well into adult life, when they are supposed to be responsible for themselves ? moreover, leaving this wealth to the children will actually negatively affect their lives, as it will foster laziness and lack of ambition.  nearly every tycoon, from carnegie to buffett to gates has noted that leaving anything more than a small sum of money to their children would be terrible for their ambition and their motivation to make something of their lives.  some final comments: i understand that this is putting the cart way before the horse.  i do not have considerable wealth.  i do not even have kids.  this is just how i believe i would behave in this scenario given my current mindset.  furthermore, i really do not want to come off as miserly, but if i do, please tell me.  anyway, beyond that, please try and change my view !  #  i do not believe that people should benefit simply by being born into a beneficial situation.   #  i know you do not have much now, but if you stay the way you are or on an even standard of living, your children will benefit from being born into the situation you currently are in.   #  you will have a rich lifestyle and your children will grow up with you.  therefore they will grow up rich.  to take that all away when you die or kick them out of your life is pretty harsh and cruel.  i know you do not have much now, but if you stay the way you are or on an even standard of living, your children will benefit from being born into the situation you currently are in.  you yourself have benefited from being born in a beneficial situation.  so i am not sure how you can hold this view.  why do not you do what buffett did and give them $0,0 enable them to do anything but not do nothing and slowly give them more money responsibilities to see how they handle it while you are alive ?  #  every debt you owe, every tax you qualify for, every non liquid asset you own property, investments, contracts , all get resolved first.   #  you make it seem like checks are cut right after your funeral.  there is alot more you are missing.  when you pass away, someone has to become responsible for your financial world.  this person has to file your estate with the courts, set up a bank account for any outstanding bills, file all the paperwork with the government, and handle all the day to day upkeep of your house.  inheritance is not a lottery ticket.  every debt you owe, every tax you qualify for, every non liquid asset you own property, investments, contracts , all get resolved first.  is this responsibility something you would trust with a stranger ? do you think they would have your best interest in mind vs.  a member of your own family ? think about that, and then decide if they should still get a little compensation at the end of the process.   #  you could set up accounts for college funds, medical expenses, in case of unemployment etc.   #  is not there a middle ground between giving them all your money at once and giving them nothing ? set something up so they receive x dollars a month ? nothing life changing or that would encourage recklessness, but just guarantees a certain quality of life.  you could set up accounts for college funds, medical expenses, in case of unemployment etc.  major unplanned expenses can happen to anyone, regardless of how responsible a person you might be.   #  you would gain little to no income for your efforts.   #  yes, because governments are known for wise and frugal spending decisions not motivated by politics at all.  if we started a draconian estate tax people would simply move to a flag of convenience, setup trusts and other paper entities, and otherwise obfuscate their wealth.  you would gain little to no income for your efforts.  beyond this, even if they had the money in hand, they would want to spend it immediately on things immediately useful to them.  they wo not be somberly building up social security reserves especially considering how they got so low in the first place , they will be passing programs to show voters and lobby groups, for votes and money respectively.  this is not the silver bullet you are looking for, and if anything will create two groups of the wealthy.  those with so much money an army of lawyers and accountants keeps their wealth in their hands generation after generation and first generation wealth that ends up paying serious estate tax for not having an army of financial planners.  and all of this would not even balance the budget, even if raised to 0 tax.  URL  #  if you accomplish that goal, why would not they fall into the still very large 0 ?  # firstly, that is barely over half.  are you lacking the confidence to teach your children proper money management ? because teaching them about that seems to be one of your goals.  if you accomplish that goal, why would not they fall into the still very large 0 ? this is 0 pure assumption, and absolutely does not necessarily occur.  there are many people who would do many amazing things with an influx of cash, and it is kind of sad you assume this about your future children.  as a good parent, you should be teaching them there is more to life than money, and this should never occur.  regardless, it is definitely assumption, and not a fair point.  you mean nearly every tycoon  who has commented on leaving money behind, and you have read those comments .  there are thousands of if not tens of thousands or more  tycoons  depending on your deifnition of the word.  these people, most of whom just did a couple googles , have never publicly commented on this.  your suggestion that nearly all of them say this seems entirely made up.  in closing: what are you planning to do with the money if not for your children ? imo, your ethical argument does not hold much weight unless we know what the money will be used to fund if not your children is lives.  from a utilitarian standpoint, not allowing your children to have the money is objectively bad, without knowledge of the other option s for that money.
knowledge requires the truth of a statement to be guaranteed.  this means that it has to be utterly impossible for the statement to be not true.  it is not possible to guarantee the truth of any statement.  even for statements that one cannot conceive as false such as the principle of non contradiction , there is no guarantee that from the fact that one cannot conceive the falsehood of a statement it follows that that statement is true.  one cannot guarantee his own ability to reason, assume premises, draw conclusions, identify truth, etc.  even if it seems to me both that 00 has to necessarily be 0, and that whenever i put 0 plus 0 in the real world i end up with 0, i cannot be sure that i am not inherently designed in a way that forces me to believe falsehoods and misinterpret experiential data.   #  i cannot be sure that i am not inherently designed in a way that forces me to believe falsehoods and misinterpret experiential data.   #  as a matter of fact, you are.   # as a matter of fact, you are.  try explaining colour to someone blind from birth, or sound to someone deaf from birth, and you will fail.  you might be able to explain the concepts light, waves behind them but you will not be able to explain the thing itself.  however,  this does not matter.  what you perceive is completely  internally consistent  and is derived from r some external reality.  this external reality could be a simulation if you follow that school of thought, but that is fine since it is still the world you are living in.  because it is internally consistent, you know that it is derived  deterministically , and therefore represents reality to some degree of accuracy.  you can then use these semi accurate senses to create sensors which are more accurate and can observe a wider range of input, and if everything continues to be internally consistent then you are still safe.  at this point, you can be  certain  of what you and your sensors are perceiving.  also, for the cheap delta i will introduce you to tautologies.  tautologies are true by definition, a tautology will be something like 0 0, which can never be false.  so if nothing else you can be certain that a concept is what you have defined it as.   #  hand someone a couple remotes and ask them to turn on fargo.   #  knowledge does not require guaranteed truth.  knowledge URL has a number of nuanced definitions, but the most common is an acquaintance with facts, techniques, or concepts.  start with acquaintance with concepts.  that this sort of knowledge exists can be demonstrated as follows: ask a person who directed the movie fargo.  if they say  the coen brothers,  they have demonstrated an acquaintance with a number of concepts, including movies, directors, and surnames.  this demonstrates a type of knowledge.  consider acquaintance with techniques.  hand someone a couple remotes and ask them to turn on fargo.  if they turn on the tv, switch to the right input, go to netflix, and start playing fargo, they have demonstrated an acquaintance with various techniques that are a form of knowledge.  the hardest is acquaintance with  facts.   even if you believe there is no such thing as  certainty  as i do you can still believe there is such a thing as  near certainty.   things that have a sufficient probably of being true have to be treated as facts, or it would be difficult to function.  thus, in our first example, the person has knowledge of the fact that the coen brothers directed fargo, even if there is some probability that someone else directed fargo or that the world as we know it is an illusion .   #  void experience i. e. , if my experience was just a black or white visual sensation is internally consistent and does not have to correlate at all, to any degree of accuracy, with  reality .   # this is not necessarily so.  void experience i. e. , if my experience was just a black or white visual sensation is internally consistent and does not have to correlate at all, to any degree of accuracy, with  reality .  representation does not follow from internal consistence of experiences.  tautologies are true by definition, a tautology will be something like 0 0, which can never be false.  so if nothing else you can be certain that a concept is what you have defined it as.  tautologies were covered in the op.  the principle of non contradiction is a tautology.  i cannot conceive 0 0 as false; however, i am still not sure that this inability of mine has anything at all to do with the truth or falsehood of 0 0.   #  the inverse is also possible, and he could make me believe that the contradiction is never the case, when in fact it is.   #  i believe i could not believe anything if i did not exist.  for this reason, i ca not believe that i do not exist.  nevertheless, my ability or disposition to believe that some statement is true even if that statement regards my own existence is not necessarily related to the truth or falsehood of that statement.  let is start with the contradiction.  i am unable to believe that a statement can be both true and false at the same time and under the same conditions.  the evil genius could, however, make me logically flawed in a way that would force me to always believe that the contradiction is the case.  the inverse is also possible, and he could make me believe that the contradiction is never the case, when in fact it is.  hence, even if it seems to me that it would be impossible to exist and not exist at the same time or if it seems to me that it would be impossible to not exist and have a belief if i cannot ever trust my own conclusions to be valid, then i cannot hope for anything to indeed be true based solely on my experience of its necessity.   #  this of course makes my set of axioms completely useless, but it  does not  make my statement false.   #  the statement 00 0 is not subject to empirical evidence.  00 0 because  0 ,  0 ,    , and     are defined as such.  in a general sense, i can choose a set of axioms and then derive logically consistent statements from them axioms.  in this sense, the statement is true.  of course, you can choose a  different  set of axioms, and my statement may not be true.  furthermore, so long as my axioms are internally consistent, my derived statement is true, no matter how strange my axioms are.  consider an example.  i choose one axiom: anti transitivity:   a b ∧ b c → a ¬c under this axiom, the statement assuming standard addition and multiplication operators :   00 0 ∧ 0 0×0 → 00 ¬ 0×0 is true.  this is because i did not include identity a a as one of my axioms.  in fact, my axiom implies a ¬a.  this of course makes my set of axioms completely useless, but it  does not  make my statement false.  my statement is only false if you choose another set of axioms.
every year we hear complaining about unfair business practices about making working these two days mandatory.  people organize strikes/walkouts, demand higher pay, etc etc.  i mean sitting in the break room complaining about working a shitty shift i understand, we all complain.  i am talking about organized protests.  plenty of people work those two days.  fast food workers, cops, firefighters, pilots, emts, doctors, nurses, the military, waitresses, cooks, snow removal agencies, taxis, bus drivers i could go on but you get the point.  a lot of people work those two days.  i have never shopped on black friday at a brick and mortar store, but if people want to go nuts for 0 an item marked up 0, let them.  as long as no one is getting hurt, i do not see a problem.  and if you take a retail job, working thanksgiving is not going to be a surprise to you.  it would be like taking a job at mcdonalds and then complaining when you have to work the fryer.  yes, it is busy.  i imagine it is a lot of work.  but it is no different than what millions of people do every year on the same days.  striking because you think it is unfair is retarded.  0  you have not worked retail.   yes.  i have.  0  there is no need for retailers to be open that day  that is fine.  bf is not a holiday.  why should not they be open ? they make a shit load of money that day.   #  striking because you think it is unfair is retarded.   #  when the situation is unfair, it calls for a strike.   #   other people have it just as bad  has, in my opinion, never been a good argument against someone complaining.  it is pretty much an admittance that the situation is complain worthy, but that because other people seem to be suffering in silence then so should you.  there is a big difference between some of the jobs you listed and others, some of those jobs are necessary for a functioning society and others are absolutely not.  people who do not  need  to work on black friday should not have to, and those that do need to work should be well compensated for their time and sacrifice.  just because it is retail workers and not mcdonalds employees who are doing the majority of the complaining does not mean that nobody thinks mcdonalds workers should not also have a day off.  when the situation is unfair, it calls for a strike.  this is poor reasoning on your part.  should people never strike then ?  #  they have other days off, the date is arbitrary for the celebration.   #  they have other days off, the date is arbitrary for the celebration.  they can do thanksgiving two days early, or later.  a lot of families who are travelling do this.  there is literally 0 intrinsic, or extrinsic, value in the date.  only the associations and things that are done on thanksgiving have any value, but they can be done at any other time.   #  it is a paid holiday for me every single year.   #  i work for the government.  it is a paid holiday for me every single year.  it is a court holiday too.  no school either.  you say  not a holiday  because there is nothing specifically celebrated on this day.  but that is not the only definition of holiday.  it is a holiday in the work and school schedules of governments across the country.  i and millions of others did not  take the day off.   it was given to us.  nobody is playing hooky from school today.   #  the reason you, i, and many others get this day off by default is that the productivity is just too low.   #  the reason you, i, and many others get this day off by default is that the productivity is just too low.  people are lethargic from all the food, tired from all the commotion, and just not in a mind set to be at work.  now you can say the same about our retail workers here, except the level of effort they have to put out to be productive is nowhere near high enough that it would impact anything.  more than anything, though, it was in their contact that they signed that they would be working this day.  in our contact it was stated that we would not.  tough cookies, it is a friday.   #  kids do not have school, a lot of people do not have work, it is the perfect day for people to go shopping either as a family or with whoever.   #  that is the exact reason businesses are huge about their black friday sales.  kids do not have school, a lot of people do not have work, it is the perfect day for people to go shopping either as a family or with whoever.  with the business of our society having a day where a lot of people do not have something going on is very rare and it is completely reasonable for businesses to take advantage of that.  i think that after having thursday to spend time with family having three sets of family that want to spend time with you and love you is a gift and employers do not have an obligation to give everyone an extra day off because some people feel stressed with their time , friday is a perfect time for people to start shopping for christmas, i mean tons people obviously want to shop on black friday.  i think the problem arises when businesses decide to open for their sales on thursday.  i work at target, and had to leave in the middle of my thanksgiving dinner because they decided to open at 0pm yesterday.  i have no opposition to having to work tonight, it is just another shift.
every year we hear complaining about unfair business practices about making working these two days mandatory.  people organize strikes/walkouts, demand higher pay, etc etc.  i mean sitting in the break room complaining about working a shitty shift i understand, we all complain.  i am talking about organized protests.  plenty of people work those two days.  fast food workers, cops, firefighters, pilots, emts, doctors, nurses, the military, waitresses, cooks, snow removal agencies, taxis, bus drivers i could go on but you get the point.  a lot of people work those two days.  i have never shopped on black friday at a brick and mortar store, but if people want to go nuts for 0 an item marked up 0, let them.  as long as no one is getting hurt, i do not see a problem.  and if you take a retail job, working thanksgiving is not going to be a surprise to you.  it would be like taking a job at mcdonalds and then complaining when you have to work the fryer.  yes, it is busy.  i imagine it is a lot of work.  but it is no different than what millions of people do every year on the same days.  striking because you think it is unfair is retarded.  0  you have not worked retail.   yes.  i have.  0  there is no need for retailers to be open that day  that is fine.  bf is not a holiday.  why should not they be open ? they make a shit load of money that day.   #  striking because you think it is unfair is retarded.   #  i also saw a mention that working on bf/ thanksgiving is not an injustice.   #  let me see if i can summarize the main points you have articulated.  retail workers should not conduct organized protests against working bf and/or thanksgiving.  other people work on thanksgiving and bf.  a requirement to work on those days is not/should not be a surprise for retail workers.  those that think it is unfair to work those days are  retarded .  i also saw a mention that working on bf/ thanksgiving is not an injustice.  also an implicit point you made, you have worked plenty of thanksgivings, why should not other people.  please correct me if these are wrong, add any other additional points that are missing.  counter points i would like to make:   in the us as far as i can tell there are essentially no restriction on normal retail workers from striking for any reason they see fit, unless they are in a union that had signed a contract to the contrary.  if the workers dislike the practice so much, why should not they strike ? if striking meant that they would not have to work those days next year or in future years.  is there a requirement that dissatisfaction in the workplace rises to the level off an  injustice  before workers before they strike ? whose requirement is this ? it is not a legal one.  is it a moral one ? the requirement to work those days could be a surprise to some retail workers.  specifically to those workers at an establishment that historically did not open on those days, they had an expectation due to the president, to those days off, multiple years violating the previous president could make the employees with the expectation of time off angry as well.   #  just because it is retail workers and not mcdonalds employees who are doing the majority of the complaining does not mean that nobody thinks mcdonalds workers should not also have a day off.   #   other people have it just as bad  has, in my opinion, never been a good argument against someone complaining.  it is pretty much an admittance that the situation is complain worthy, but that because other people seem to be suffering in silence then so should you.  there is a big difference between some of the jobs you listed and others, some of those jobs are necessary for a functioning society and others are absolutely not.  people who do not  need  to work on black friday should not have to, and those that do need to work should be well compensated for their time and sacrifice.  just because it is retail workers and not mcdonalds employees who are doing the majority of the complaining does not mean that nobody thinks mcdonalds workers should not also have a day off.  when the situation is unfair, it calls for a strike.  this is poor reasoning on your part.  should people never strike then ?  #  they can do thanksgiving two days early, or later.   #  they have other days off, the date is arbitrary for the celebration.  they can do thanksgiving two days early, or later.  a lot of families who are travelling do this.  there is literally 0 intrinsic, or extrinsic, value in the date.  only the associations and things that are done on thanksgiving have any value, but they can be done at any other time.   #  but that is not the only definition of holiday.   #  i work for the government.  it is a paid holiday for me every single year.  it is a court holiday too.  no school either.  you say  not a holiday  because there is nothing specifically celebrated on this day.  but that is not the only definition of holiday.  it is a holiday in the work and school schedules of governments across the country.  i and millions of others did not  take the day off.   it was given to us.  nobody is playing hooky from school today.   #  more than anything, though, it was in their contact that they signed that they would be working this day.   #  the reason you, i, and many others get this day off by default is that the productivity is just too low.  people are lethargic from all the food, tired from all the commotion, and just not in a mind set to be at work.  now you can say the same about our retail workers here, except the level of effort they have to put out to be productive is nowhere near high enough that it would impact anything.  more than anything, though, it was in their contact that they signed that they would be working this day.  in our contact it was stated that we would not.  tough cookies, it is a friday.
there are exceptions all over the place, but a successful non monogamous relationship requires involved parties to grow and overcome things like jealousy, envy, insecurity, and possessiveness.  for this reason, i feel that the average person in a non monogamous relationship will be of a stronger character than their monogamous counterpart.  more over, the reasons for being monogamous are exclusively character flaws related to the items mentioned above, or outright ignorance about non monogamy, about stis, etc .  cmv.  e: /u/gnosticgnome changed my view with the very pragmatic position that for many flavors of non monogamy, there are no legal protections to mitigate the risk of forming an economic partnership as there are with couples.   #  for this reason, i feel that the average person in a non monogamous relationship will be of a stronger character than their monogamous counterpart.   #  in your first paragraph, you limited it to  successful  non monogamous relationships.   # in your first paragraph, you limited it to  successful  non monogamous relationships.  why did you drop successful from the second paragraph ? in my experience, non monogamous relationships tend to detonate.  successful monogamous relationships, however, have also require the participants to overcome jealousy and insecurity and the other  character flaws  that doom unsuccessful non monagamous relationships.  it tur s out that if you can succeed at a long term relationship, you are pretty secure with yourself and you have a great deal of trust in your partner.   #  having two choices grants you a lot more decision making power than having one choice.   # triads, etc.  or that have a more  monogamous  relationship as the core unit.  you are less tied down though.  having two choices grants you a lot more decision making power than having one choice.  depends on how you define sex positivity.  if you believe sex positivity to be a philosophy which specifically endorses non monogamy, then yeah; of course.  if you just mean it to be literally positive about sex, then not necessarily.  you can be very positive about sex with one specific person.  me specifically ? i am not married.  people in general, yes generally.  but you could also argue that that is the sign of a personality flaw.  you are not interesting enough to keep your spouse occupied nor are you interested enough in your spouse for them to keep you occupied alone.  pretty much any relationship type or life decision can be attributed to some kind of character flaw.   #  but it gives both of us a solid emotional foundation so that we can try difficult things because we know we have at least one constant in each other.   #  it gives me more emotional energy available to invest in one person.  since i am totally romantically committed to my wife she can be certain that no matters what happens i will be there for her; she takes precedence over other friends and family.  she never has to worry that i wo not have time for her.  her commitment does the same for me.  i get great satisfaction out of being totally loyal to one person that i love.  it does not mean we do not have friends or that we ignore other family.  but it gives both of us a solid emotional foundation so that we can try difficult things because we know we have at least one constant in each other.  we are both empowered by each other.  i love seeing her empowered in this way because i think she is really amazing and love seeing the stuff she does.   #  they are fine enough with the satisfaction they get from one partnership, and do not want to invest the time and energy needed to establish and maintain other partnerships.   # for many, having sex with only one person increases the intimacy.  saying  i am going to reserve this important part of my life for only you  is a big act of trust.  it can create bonding.  the relationship is more stable when only two people are invovled: there are less outside factors to complicate it.  the whole relationship is less complicated.  less risk of stds.  less complication in the event of pregnancy.  more energy/time to figure out your partners  likes.  for many people, sex is not the big, over riding big deal it is for others.  they are fine enough with the satisfaction they get from one partnership, and do not want to invest the time and energy needed to establish and maintain other partnerships.  they would rather invest that time and energy in their current sexual relationship, other platonic relationships, children, career, volunteer work, and/or hobbies.  cultural acceptance.  not everyone has the time/energy/personality/skills/inclination to be counter cultural.  when no one is being hurt by this, it is not a character flaw to go with the flow.  just like it is not a character flaw to dress in an expected way even while others chose to dress in unexpected ways.  not everyone has the time/energy/personality/skills/inclination to navigate multiple relationships.  once again, this is not a character flaw.  just like it is not a character flaw to only have one best platonic friend or one hobby whole others chose to have multiple close platonic friends or multiple hobbies.  for many, it comes down to preferences.  there are pros and cons for any choice.  i think it is ridiculous to say  your preferences are different than mine so your character is flawed.   why should not someone just do what appeals to and works best for them ?  #  he basically was going to say that envy and jealousy often drive people to better themselves and reach greater heights.   #  he is not redefining words, he is attempting to change your perceptions of words and not in a particularly  weasily  way.  he basically was going to say that envy and jealousy often drive people to better themselves and reach greater heights.  these emotions can be channeled to great effect and then later reflected upon and changed.  you have never had a surge of anger whole playing a sport that made you run faster or push harder ? the anger fades but the results were beneficial.  you basically dismissed a sound argument for no reason at all.  that sort of narrow mindedness is contrary to the entire point of this sub.
there are exceptions all over the place, but a successful non monogamous relationship requires involved parties to grow and overcome things like jealousy, envy, insecurity, and possessiveness.  for this reason, i feel that the average person in a non monogamous relationship will be of a stronger character than their monogamous counterpart.  more over, the reasons for being monogamous are exclusively character flaws related to the items mentioned above, or outright ignorance about non monogamy, about stis, etc .  cmv.  e: /u/gnosticgnome changed my view with the very pragmatic position that for many flavors of non monogamy, there are no legal protections to mitigate the risk of forming an economic partnership as there are with couples.   #  for this reason, i feel that the average person in a non monogamous relationship will be of a stronger character than their monogamous counterpart.   #  are you implying that the open relationship makes a person better ?  # are you implying that the open relationship makes a person better ? or that only better people can make an open relationship work ? the problem with this theory is that you are assuming most people would benefit from open relationships.  just because you like the idea of an open relationship does not mean others have any interest in trying it.  you are assuming that sex with many people is more enjoyable than sex with one.  the root of this is what the person gets out of sex.  if it is primarily a physical pleasure, then yes i can see where it would be exciting to have variety.  however, i chose monogamy not out of fear but out of love.  i have zero interest in sex with other people because i have found someone i get such an  emotional  pleasure in addition to the physical.  i have learned that i cannot get that emotional high from encounters with people i do not love.  i would also like to point out the quality of the physical aspects of sex: i believe it is better the more each people know each other.  casual sex is new but it is also so clumsy and blind.  even an ongoing friends with benefits is not going to have the same level of intimate knowledge found in a good established boyfriend/girlfriend relationship.  for me at least, monogamy means the best possible sexual encounter, 0x better than any individual i could date when not committed to anyone.   #  having two choices grants you a lot more decision making power than having one choice.   # triads, etc.  or that have a more  monogamous  relationship as the core unit.  you are less tied down though.  having two choices grants you a lot more decision making power than having one choice.  depends on how you define sex positivity.  if you believe sex positivity to be a philosophy which specifically endorses non monogamy, then yeah; of course.  if you just mean it to be literally positive about sex, then not necessarily.  you can be very positive about sex with one specific person.  me specifically ? i am not married.  people in general, yes generally.  but you could also argue that that is the sign of a personality flaw.  you are not interesting enough to keep your spouse occupied nor are you interested enough in your spouse for them to keep you occupied alone.  pretty much any relationship type or life decision can be attributed to some kind of character flaw.   #  since i am totally romantically committed to my wife she can be certain that no matters what happens i will be there for her; she takes precedence over other friends and family.   #  it gives me more emotional energy available to invest in one person.  since i am totally romantically committed to my wife she can be certain that no matters what happens i will be there for her; she takes precedence over other friends and family.  she never has to worry that i wo not have time for her.  her commitment does the same for me.  i get great satisfaction out of being totally loyal to one person that i love.  it does not mean we do not have friends or that we ignore other family.  but it gives both of us a solid emotional foundation so that we can try difficult things because we know we have at least one constant in each other.  we are both empowered by each other.  i love seeing her empowered in this way because i think she is really amazing and love seeing the stuff she does.   #  the relationship is more stable when only two people are invovled: there are less outside factors to complicate it.   # for many, having sex with only one person increases the intimacy.  saying  i am going to reserve this important part of my life for only you  is a big act of trust.  it can create bonding.  the relationship is more stable when only two people are invovled: there are less outside factors to complicate it.  the whole relationship is less complicated.  less risk of stds.  less complication in the event of pregnancy.  more energy/time to figure out your partners  likes.  for many people, sex is not the big, over riding big deal it is for others.  they are fine enough with the satisfaction they get from one partnership, and do not want to invest the time and energy needed to establish and maintain other partnerships.  they would rather invest that time and energy in their current sexual relationship, other platonic relationships, children, career, volunteer work, and/or hobbies.  cultural acceptance.  not everyone has the time/energy/personality/skills/inclination to be counter cultural.  when no one is being hurt by this, it is not a character flaw to go with the flow.  just like it is not a character flaw to dress in an expected way even while others chose to dress in unexpected ways.  not everyone has the time/energy/personality/skills/inclination to navigate multiple relationships.  once again, this is not a character flaw.  just like it is not a character flaw to only have one best platonic friend or one hobby whole others chose to have multiple close platonic friends or multiple hobbies.  for many, it comes down to preferences.  there are pros and cons for any choice.  i think it is ridiculous to say  your preferences are different than mine so your character is flawed.   why should not someone just do what appeals to and works best for them ?  #  that sort of narrow mindedness is contrary to the entire point of this sub.   #  he is not redefining words, he is attempting to change your perceptions of words and not in a particularly  weasily  way.  he basically was going to say that envy and jealousy often drive people to better themselves and reach greater heights.  these emotions can be channeled to great effect and then later reflected upon and changed.  you have never had a surge of anger whole playing a sport that made you run faster or push harder ? the anger fades but the results were beneficial.  you basically dismissed a sound argument for no reason at all.  that sort of narrow mindedness is contrary to the entire point of this sub.
there are exceptions all over the place, but a successful non monogamous relationship requires involved parties to grow and overcome things like jealousy, envy, insecurity, and possessiveness.  for this reason, i feel that the average person in a non monogamous relationship will be of a stronger character than their monogamous counterpart.  more over, the reasons for being monogamous are exclusively character flaws related to the items mentioned above, or outright ignorance about non monogamy, about stis, etc .  cmv.  e: /u/gnosticgnome changed my view with the very pragmatic position that for many flavors of non monogamy, there are no legal protections to mitigate the risk of forming an economic partnership as there are with couples.   #  more over, the reasons for being monogamous are exclusively character flaws related to the items mentioned above, or outright ignorance about non monogamy, about stis, etc .   #  you are assuming that sex with many people is more enjoyable than sex with one.   # are you implying that the open relationship makes a person better ? or that only better people can make an open relationship work ? the problem with this theory is that you are assuming most people would benefit from open relationships.  just because you like the idea of an open relationship does not mean others have any interest in trying it.  you are assuming that sex with many people is more enjoyable than sex with one.  the root of this is what the person gets out of sex.  if it is primarily a physical pleasure, then yes i can see where it would be exciting to have variety.  however, i chose monogamy not out of fear but out of love.  i have zero interest in sex with other people because i have found someone i get such an  emotional  pleasure in addition to the physical.  i have learned that i cannot get that emotional high from encounters with people i do not love.  i would also like to point out the quality of the physical aspects of sex: i believe it is better the more each people know each other.  casual sex is new but it is also so clumsy and blind.  even an ongoing friends with benefits is not going to have the same level of intimate knowledge found in a good established boyfriend/girlfriend relationship.  for me at least, monogamy means the best possible sexual encounter, 0x better than any individual i could date when not committed to anyone.   #  having two choices grants you a lot more decision making power than having one choice.   # triads, etc.  or that have a more  monogamous  relationship as the core unit.  you are less tied down though.  having two choices grants you a lot more decision making power than having one choice.  depends on how you define sex positivity.  if you believe sex positivity to be a philosophy which specifically endorses non monogamy, then yeah; of course.  if you just mean it to be literally positive about sex, then not necessarily.  you can be very positive about sex with one specific person.  me specifically ? i am not married.  people in general, yes generally.  but you could also argue that that is the sign of a personality flaw.  you are not interesting enough to keep your spouse occupied nor are you interested enough in your spouse for them to keep you occupied alone.  pretty much any relationship type or life decision can be attributed to some kind of character flaw.   #  it gives me more emotional energy available to invest in one person.   #  it gives me more emotional energy available to invest in one person.  since i am totally romantically committed to my wife she can be certain that no matters what happens i will be there for her; she takes precedence over other friends and family.  she never has to worry that i wo not have time for her.  her commitment does the same for me.  i get great satisfaction out of being totally loyal to one person that i love.  it does not mean we do not have friends or that we ignore other family.  but it gives both of us a solid emotional foundation so that we can try difficult things because we know we have at least one constant in each other.  we are both empowered by each other.  i love seeing her empowered in this way because i think she is really amazing and love seeing the stuff she does.   #  just like it is not a character flaw to only have one best platonic friend or one hobby whole others chose to have multiple close platonic friends or multiple hobbies.   # for many, having sex with only one person increases the intimacy.  saying  i am going to reserve this important part of my life for only you  is a big act of trust.  it can create bonding.  the relationship is more stable when only two people are invovled: there are less outside factors to complicate it.  the whole relationship is less complicated.  less risk of stds.  less complication in the event of pregnancy.  more energy/time to figure out your partners  likes.  for many people, sex is not the big, over riding big deal it is for others.  they are fine enough with the satisfaction they get from one partnership, and do not want to invest the time and energy needed to establish and maintain other partnerships.  they would rather invest that time and energy in their current sexual relationship, other platonic relationships, children, career, volunteer work, and/or hobbies.  cultural acceptance.  not everyone has the time/energy/personality/skills/inclination to be counter cultural.  when no one is being hurt by this, it is not a character flaw to go with the flow.  just like it is not a character flaw to dress in an expected way even while others chose to dress in unexpected ways.  not everyone has the time/energy/personality/skills/inclination to navigate multiple relationships.  once again, this is not a character flaw.  just like it is not a character flaw to only have one best platonic friend or one hobby whole others chose to have multiple close platonic friends or multiple hobbies.  for many, it comes down to preferences.  there are pros and cons for any choice.  i think it is ridiculous to say  your preferences are different than mine so your character is flawed.   why should not someone just do what appeals to and works best for them ?  #  you basically dismissed a sound argument for no reason at all.   #  he is not redefining words, he is attempting to change your perceptions of words and not in a particularly  weasily  way.  he basically was going to say that envy and jealousy often drive people to better themselves and reach greater heights.  these emotions can be channeled to great effect and then later reflected upon and changed.  you have never had a surge of anger whole playing a sport that made you run faster or push harder ? the anger fades but the results were beneficial.  you basically dismissed a sound argument for no reason at all.  that sort of narrow mindedness is contrary to the entire point of this sub.
there is one philosophical view that has dominated my life, primarily at a subconscious level, with regards to how one should prioritize or choose which endeavors to initiate and invest your time and energy on.  i call it  potential consequentialism.   the basic idea is that one should choose what is most potentially consequential.  i assume that, in this world, anything can happen.  countries may be dissolved in the next few minutes.  an original social idea may immediately take hold of millions of people and revolutionize local or international social orders in a few days.  a small group with the right intellectual and technological capital may greatly alter the entire world economy.  anything can happen, though, as you can you see, i am mainly concerned with things related to power or things concerning to changing status quos.  the idea has only a few similarities to  opportunity cost  which is more of an economic idea and does not delve deep enough into what  potential  means.   potential  is not about the immediate such as immediate economic gain, but is actually more linked with human potential and revolutionary, philosophical, social and technological ideas.  this world, to me, is like a giant building with extremely durable steel metals to support it but to a keen eye, has small but very vulnerable sensitive points.  if done right, this  building  could be easily demolished.  so, in choosing between investing one is time in creating a potentially revolutionary social and technological movement vs.  earning several millions of dollars which will take 0 years, the most rational decision, according to potential consequentialism, is the former.  it must be noted that i do have a very high opinion of my abilities.   #  so, in choosing between investing one is time in creating a potentially revolutionary social and technological movement vs.   #  earning several millions of dollars which will take 0 years could happen is not the same as will happen.   #  i think many people are finding it difficult to follow you.  you might want to try r/philosophy or giving more examples about your view ? not everything can happen, there are actual physical limitations.  even things that are possible are often very  unlikely  to happen.  earning several millions of dollars which will take 0 years could happen is not the same as will happen.  the question is what does  potentially  mean.  if there is 0 chance i will develop something fantastic, then yes, it is worth my time.  if the chances of succeeding are 0, then no, it is not worth it and i would do myself and society a favor if i worked a normal job.  think of it this way: it is physically possible for me to marry natalie portman.  but the chances of that happening are almost non existent she is already married and is probably not interested in random creepy internet fans.  spending my time to chase after her is a waste of everyone is time and resources.   #  i will have to redefine it to  the most consequential thing with what are presumed to be good consequences.    #    0; that is an interesting insight.  i have thought about murder being one of the most consequential things people can do.  a philosophy of extreme consequentialism will most likely end up with that scenario.  i will have to redefine it to  the most consequential thing with what are presumed to be good consequences.   there is a bit of a problem with that however.  how is  murdering  people  consequential  ? relative to what ? it might be consequential in terms of human relations but it may or may not have any impact on other things like nature.   #  you said in response to /u/redditeyes that it matters about the probabilities of the consequences coming to pass as well.   #  i think that if you have to start adding arbitrary rules to your general principle of morality because its logical application has awful results, it is a sign of the weakness of your principle.  i really think what you are looking for here is just normal consequentialism.  you said in response to /u/redditeyes that it matters about the probabilities of the consequences coming to pass as well.  weighting the consequences of your actions by probability and doing that thing which has the best probability weighted chance of producing the most good consequences is just normal consequentialism.  i do not see anything compelling here that leads away from normal consequentialist philosophy.   #  r/philosophy is too academically rigid, has fewer people and has no direction unlike cmv.   # you might want to try r/philosophy or giving more examples about your view ? r/philosophy is too academically rigid, has fewer people and has no direction unlike cmv.  i will try to give more examples.  not everything can happen, there are actual physical limitations.  even things that are possible are often very unlikely to happen.  excluding going against laws of natures, although the laws themselves can change.  e. g.  going from newtonian to einstein physics  #  again, however, how do you know exactly if that truly is a  0  and not actually at least a 0 ?  # if there is 0 chance i will develop something fantastic, then yes, it is worth my time.  if the chances of succeeding are 0, then no, it is not worth it and i would do myself and society a favor if i worked a normal job.    0; the question is what are the probabilities and how can those probabilities be measured accurately, but that is a very good point.  by limiting the thinking to  possible  or impossible , one is ignoring the enormous  ispace  in between such as 0 which is not impossible but is irrational to select anyways.  again, however, how do you know exactly if that truly is a  0  and not actually at least a 0 ? a 0 to me is already a great probability.  but the chances of that happening are almost non existent she is already married and is probably not interested in random creepy internet fans.  spending my time to chase after her is a waste of everyone is time and resources.  the likelihoood would depend greatly on your strategy.
the internet is buzzing with the events taking place in ferguson, and a lot of  conservatives  or whatever keep rehashing the same type of arguments regarding the american dream, and how everyone has opportunity, and why people are still complaining about things that happened very recently  willong ago .  my point here is that 0 years, as louis ck put it, is only 0 generations.  the ripple affects of colonialism will not be mended because you are 0, 0, 0 or even 0 generations away from it.  one needs to pay attention to both historical and current political contexts.  is not locking up thousands of people who look alike and sending them to labor camps reminiscent of something ? if you happen to be apart of such a group, whose family has been put in this situation for decades, how would you react ? how would your community react ?  #  my point here is that 0 years, as louis ck put it, is only 0 generations.   #  the ripple affects of colonialism will not be mended because you are 0, 0, 0 or even 0 generations away from it.   # the ripple affects of colonialism will not be mended because you are 0, 0, 0 or even 0 generations away from it.  well good thing ck is not a historian because apparantely he does not know the average length of a generation.  about 0 years is not 0 generations, it is around 0.  multiple generations live alongside one another at a time.  if you happen to be apart of such a group, whose family has been put in this situation for decades, how would you react ? how would your community react ? are you actually arguing against us arresting rioters because they are black ? i am not going to say that there are not false convictions ever that may/are based on race and that is a problem but you are comming off as if we should not arrest people for robbing stores because another black person was shot.  i assume you are referring to ferguson btw but if you are being more general please let me know.  and at what point can we say slavery does not matter ? it is already from the century before the last one.  do other groups get to claim similar privileges ? can gay people make similar claims ? how about pagans ? both of them have faced a lot of shit including being just straight executed.  you keep talking about a ripple effect but you have no examples of what that means.  how are current race issues directly the cause of slavery and not part of the modern social climate ?  #  we should continue to fight to ensure that white people do not persist in this wrongdoing.   #  the truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.  black americans were first brought to this country as slaves, and they lived as slaves for hundreds of years.  after emancipation, they were treated for at least another hundred years as second class citizens.  and the idea that, when the civil rights act was passed in 0, oppression and racism suddenly ceased is farcical.  oppression and racism persist to this day.  but the level of oppression and racism has declined substantially.  the law no longer facially discriminates by race.  segregation has been abolished.  there are widespread affirmative action programs.  there is, of course, a black president and many other black people in significant positions of leadership.  again, none of this is to say that oppression and racism are gone.  but we are many generations removed from the rampant discrimination that once plagued this country.  in seeking to better the situation of black people today, which is certainly very far from ideal, there is merit in asking whether some of the problems are now internal to the black community URL these problems are not in any way inherent in race, and they were undoubtedly caused by a shameful legacy of wrongdoing prosecuted by white people.  we should continue to fight to ensure that white people do not persist in this wrongdoing.  but it might be helpful to recognize that huge progress has been made in that regard, and that there might be progress to be made elsewhere, too.   #  a black person is less likely to get a job than a white person with a criminal record.   # depending on who you ask, many would say that rampant discrimination is still very common.  a black person is less likely to get a job than a white person with a criminal record.  resumes with black sounding names are discriminated against.  finally, but not the least, the entire criminal justice system and the war on drugs is racist towards black people.  things have gotten better, but we are still a white supremacist nation and to act any other way is disingenuous.   #  the prohibition on interracial marriage has been abolished.   #  i gave specific examples of the progress in my original post.  the progress is well known, and to deny it is unreasonable.  here is a more detailed list of the progress that has been made:   black people were once slaves and treated as human property.  they have since been emancipated.  black people were once not permitted to vote.  they have since been enfranchised.  the prohibition on interracial marriage has been abolished.  legal segregation has been abolished.  there are widespread affirmative action programs in place that give black students preferences over white students in college and graduate school admissions.  social attitudes have vastly improved.  for example, the use of racial slurs was once commonplace in everyday discourse, and it was not considered at all impolite in general conversation to treat black people as inferiors.  we have a black president.  we have a black attorney general.  we have a black supreme court justice.  we have black ceos.  we have black mayors, doctors, lawyers, bankers, and accountants.   the black middle class, measured by the number of families earning at least $0,0 a year, has grown fivefold in the past 0 years.  now, about one in 0 black households is in that income category.  the percentage of blacks older than 0 with high school diplomas has more than tripled.  the number of blacks who are college graduates has grown by a factor of 0.   source.  URL   we are having this conversation right now.  this is not enough.  i will be the first to say that, as i said in my original post.  and the article i linked to above is, in fact, about the persisting social and economic gap.  but it first addresses the progress that has been made, so as to maintain credibility.   #  if the black people are voting, there are still ways to discourage it.   #  no slavery, but there is prison.  plenty of cheap labor there.  best part about the business is you do not even need criminals.  just pick a black kid off the street, no one will care.  if the black people are voting, there are still ways to discourage it.  sometimes dodgy, sometimes sketchy, sometimes illegal.  affirmative action helps a lot of people.  even white folk.  social attitudes actually have not changed at all.  people still said the same shit.  URL having black people in select positions of power is a good thing, usually.  not always, president is a good example.  nobody wanted to play with him, damn near put a complete stop to the government.  nobody wanted to get near the big scary black man.  he bends over backwards for the republicans and they tell him to kiss off.  then they get pissy and throw a fit when he goes renegade w.  bush on them.  point is, it does not help the rest of os regular folk out here.
the internet is buzzing with the events taking place in ferguson, and a lot of  conservatives  or whatever keep rehashing the same type of arguments regarding the american dream, and how everyone has opportunity, and why people are still complaining about things that happened very recently  willong ago .  my point here is that 0 years, as louis ck put it, is only 0 generations.  the ripple affects of colonialism will not be mended because you are 0, 0, 0 or even 0 generations away from it.  one needs to pay attention to both historical and current political contexts.  is not locking up thousands of people who look alike and sending them to labor camps reminiscent of something ? if you happen to be apart of such a group, whose family has been put in this situation for decades, how would you react ? how would your community react ?  #  is not locking up thousands of people who look alike and sending them to labor camps reminiscent of something ?  #  if you happen to be apart of such a group, whose family has been put in this situation for decades, how would you react ?  # the ripple affects of colonialism will not be mended because you are 0, 0, 0 or even 0 generations away from it.  well good thing ck is not a historian because apparantely he does not know the average length of a generation.  about 0 years is not 0 generations, it is around 0.  multiple generations live alongside one another at a time.  if you happen to be apart of such a group, whose family has been put in this situation for decades, how would you react ? how would your community react ? are you actually arguing against us arresting rioters because they are black ? i am not going to say that there are not false convictions ever that may/are based on race and that is a problem but you are comming off as if we should not arrest people for robbing stores because another black person was shot.  i assume you are referring to ferguson btw but if you are being more general please let me know.  and at what point can we say slavery does not matter ? it is already from the century before the last one.  do other groups get to claim similar privileges ? can gay people make similar claims ? how about pagans ? both of them have faced a lot of shit including being just straight executed.  you keep talking about a ripple effect but you have no examples of what that means.  how are current race issues directly the cause of slavery and not part of the modern social climate ?  #  but the level of oppression and racism has declined substantially.   #  the truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.  black americans were first brought to this country as slaves, and they lived as slaves for hundreds of years.  after emancipation, they were treated for at least another hundred years as second class citizens.  and the idea that, when the civil rights act was passed in 0, oppression and racism suddenly ceased is farcical.  oppression and racism persist to this day.  but the level of oppression and racism has declined substantially.  the law no longer facially discriminates by race.  segregation has been abolished.  there are widespread affirmative action programs.  there is, of course, a black president and many other black people in significant positions of leadership.  again, none of this is to say that oppression and racism are gone.  but we are many generations removed from the rampant discrimination that once plagued this country.  in seeking to better the situation of black people today, which is certainly very far from ideal, there is merit in asking whether some of the problems are now internal to the black community URL these problems are not in any way inherent in race, and they were undoubtedly caused by a shameful legacy of wrongdoing prosecuted by white people.  we should continue to fight to ensure that white people do not persist in this wrongdoing.  but it might be helpful to recognize that huge progress has been made in that regard, and that there might be progress to be made elsewhere, too.   #  a black person is less likely to get a job than a white person with a criminal record.   # depending on who you ask, many would say that rampant discrimination is still very common.  a black person is less likely to get a job than a white person with a criminal record.  resumes with black sounding names are discriminated against.  finally, but not the least, the entire criminal justice system and the war on drugs is racist towards black people.  things have gotten better, but we are still a white supremacist nation and to act any other way is disingenuous.   #  URL   we are having this conversation right now.   #  i gave specific examples of the progress in my original post.  the progress is well known, and to deny it is unreasonable.  here is a more detailed list of the progress that has been made:   black people were once slaves and treated as human property.  they have since been emancipated.  black people were once not permitted to vote.  they have since been enfranchised.  the prohibition on interracial marriage has been abolished.  legal segregation has been abolished.  there are widespread affirmative action programs in place that give black students preferences over white students in college and graduate school admissions.  social attitudes have vastly improved.  for example, the use of racial slurs was once commonplace in everyday discourse, and it was not considered at all impolite in general conversation to treat black people as inferiors.  we have a black president.  we have a black attorney general.  we have a black supreme court justice.  we have black ceos.  we have black mayors, doctors, lawyers, bankers, and accountants.   the black middle class, measured by the number of families earning at least $0,0 a year, has grown fivefold in the past 0 years.  now, about one in 0 black households is in that income category.  the percentage of blacks older than 0 with high school diplomas has more than tripled.  the number of blacks who are college graduates has grown by a factor of 0.   source.  URL   we are having this conversation right now.  this is not enough.  i will be the first to say that, as i said in my original post.  and the article i linked to above is, in fact, about the persisting social and economic gap.  but it first addresses the progress that has been made, so as to maintain credibility.   #  he bends over backwards for the republicans and they tell him to kiss off.   #  no slavery, but there is prison.  plenty of cheap labor there.  best part about the business is you do not even need criminals.  just pick a black kid off the street, no one will care.  if the black people are voting, there are still ways to discourage it.  sometimes dodgy, sometimes sketchy, sometimes illegal.  affirmative action helps a lot of people.  even white folk.  social attitudes actually have not changed at all.  people still said the same shit.  URL having black people in select positions of power is a good thing, usually.  not always, president is a good example.  nobody wanted to play with him, damn near put a complete stop to the government.  nobody wanted to get near the big scary black man.  he bends over backwards for the republicans and they tell him to kiss off.  then they get pissy and throw a fit when he goes renegade w.  bush on them.  point is, it does not help the rest of os regular folk out here.
in the case at hand, there is doubt about the guilt of darren wilson.  i am not saying whether or not he did anything illegal because i do not know, but the job of the grand jury is also not to determine guilt, it is to determine whether the case deserves a trial.  URL as per that article, it is unclear what happened.  this is enough confusion to require a trial, and it does not matter from the perspective of the grand jury what the outcome would be, it should still be requiring a trial.  to be clear, it is not a question of guilt that the grand jury should be answering, it is a questions of whether they are 0 sure that what has happened breached no laws.   #  this is enough confusion to require a trial, and it does not matter from the perspective of the grand jury what the outcome would be, it should still be requiring a trial.   #  the grand jury did not think so and the da seems to agree because he did not even recommend potential charges.   # the grand jury did not think so and the da seems to agree because he did not even recommend potential charges.  for now, this case is dead, at least at the state level with this da in charge.  that does not mean it is over.  during the civil rights era, a white cop shot an unarmed black man during a voting rights march.  the grand jury declined to indict.  in 0 the trooper was charged with first and second degree murder.  he pled guilty to manslaughter and claimed that the protester was going for his gun, but accepted the plea despite his claim of self defense.  and there is still the federal civil rights case being investigated as well as the potential for brown is parents to sue for wrongful death.   #  an indictment is issued when the grand jury determines probable cause.   # the confusion is one of the major issues at hand here.  an indictment is issued when the grand jury determines probable cause.  it does not have to be unanimous, only a supermajority of 0/0 or 0/0.  but it was.  that means all 0 people agreed that the immense conflict in testimony, combined with the forensic evidence, meant that it was more likely than not that wilson did not commit the crime.  furthermore, the perspective of the outcome really does matter.  probable cause really is not a difficult standard to meet.  beyond reasonable doubt, however, is much more difficult.  in other words, if the grand jury determines that probable cause cannot be met, then beyond reasonable doubt cannot be met either.  there is no guarantee of conviction even if the indictment is issued.   confusion  in the testimony does not supersede the evidence.  the grand jury is determining that probable cause could not be met means that prosecuting the case is a waste of resources, and also not how the law works.   #  it is therefore important for the prosecution to well develop its case before taking it to trial.   #  i would imagine ianal that the defendant cannot be brought to trial under the double jeopardy rule, though civil charges are possible.  it is therefore important for the prosecution to well develop its case before taking it to trial.  the inditement rate in a grand jury is around 0, so the bar for probable cause is extremely low.  here is a good article about why it is so rare for incitements to fail, and why this one may have: URL the least inflammatory possibility given is:   the third possible explanation is more benign.  ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment.  but in high profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.  also remember that legal systems in modern societies are built to allow many guilty people to go free than to let one innocent person go to prison.   #  we do not know exactly what evidence was deemed admissible by the courts to be heard by the grand jury.   #  the grand jury is role is to decide if the evidence present is substantial enough to go to trial.  they decided that whatever evidence there was was not enough to justify holding a trial.  we do not know exactly what evidence was deemed admissible by the courts to be heard by the grand jury.  the media has been showing us a conflated view of what evidence there is and what it shows.  some sources are clearly biased in favor of brown while others are clearly biased in favor of wilson.  what the grand jury was presented was a cold listing of the facts that would be admissible in court.  keep in mind that newspapers have no requirement to use relevant or verified facts to the extent that courtrooms do.   #  now i know in a few days my boss is going to say i have no knowledge of what this black kid here is up to, but i am telling you i totally know because i am a fucking psychic.   #  ahem   hi, i am officer darren wilson and this is jackass ! tonight, i am going to go fuck with some black kids because in this neighborhood, it is the sort of thing we totally fucking do all the time.  nobody gives a shit because nobody gives a shit about black people.  now i know in a few days my boss is going to say i have no knowledge of what this black kid here is up to, but i am telling you i totally know because i am a fucking psychic.  let is yell at him and see what happens ! oh look, he is trying to grab my gun.  i totally do not deserve this, so i am going to shoot him with my gun that he is grabbing for.  also, just so we are clear, he is as big as i am and clearly out of shape.  but because i am a cop, i am in even worse shape because i sit on my fat fucking lazy donut eating ass all day picking at the powder in my mustache.  which means  i am so very, very scared right now ! oh look, now he is running away.  now this is important, he seems to be reaching to his waistline for absolutely no fucking reason but it is imperitive i put this detail in.  i think i see a gun because i am on goddamn hallucinogenic drugs right now like other members of our police force will readily admit to.  now he is transforming ! uh oh ! it appears he is turned into the incredible ass rape negro hulk of the amazons ! i better keep shooting.  oh noes ! he is charging ! save me super bullets ! . and he is dead.  i regret nothing.  tomorrow, i am going to start a vacation.  i will get married, and i will have a good friend of mine prosecute me in front of a jury of my peers without any cross examination which will allow me to get away scot free with cold blooded murder.  and why do i totally get away with this ? because i am the god damn batman !    that is how it went more or less.
harry potter  is supposed to take place in a magical world that exists within our own world, unbeknownst to us non magical people or  muggles.   the  wizards  of the magic world, however, know all about the muggles and their world.  that means, at the time the books are set in the 0s, these wizards were aware of the  real  non magical world of the 0s including the many muggle nations with advanced chemical warfare capabilities, high technology weaponry and access to bombs and bomb making technology.  britain, where the  harry potter  magical world secretly existed in the books, was one of those nations.  why, then, did no wizard ever think to use muggle weapons like bombs and guns to kill voldemort and his followers ? voldemort would be completely unprepared to deal with, say, a series of bombs being dropped onto his lair as he meets with his top  death eaters.   wizards can certainly die of normal causes like fires and explosions, right ? why did no one ever think to do this ? voldemort would have never seen it coming ! also, in the books, the  muggle  prime minister was once informed by the  magic  prime minister of the existence of the magical world, and that a homicidal maniac wizard was running around using magic spells to slay people, not just wizards but  muggles  too.  uhhh.  why does john major who would have been the prime minister at the time not suggest that they use some of britain is advanced weapons or its armed forces to perhaps ambush this lunatic and blow him to smithereens ? or call for help from his close allies in the us, with its even better oiled war machine ready to roll at any time ? this makes no sense.  does anyone have an explanation ? is there some sort of wizard code against using muggle weapons ? and please do not say  it is a book, suspend disbelief.   hell no i wo not suspend disbelief, if you wanna set your book within the real world then it better make sense in that context.   #  uhhh.  why does john major who would have been the prime minister at the time not suggest that they use some of britain is advanced weapons or its armed forces to perhaps ambush this lunatic and blow him to smithereens ?  #  because he has no proof that this lunatic exists, and even if he would have undeniable evidence, he would not have an inkling of an idea where to find this lunatic.   # because he has no proof that this lunatic exists, and even if he would have undeniable evidence, he would not have an inkling of an idea where to find this lunatic.  many of the wizarding locations we see, are not even physically reachable by muggles.  diagon alley, kings cross platform 0 0/0, grimmauld place, do not even exist in normal space, they are folded between the reality that muggles percive.  how would you bomb the hogwarts express, if from a satellite you can see that platform 0 is right next to platform 0 ? how would your swat team enter grimmauld place 0, if they can perceive the walls of grimmauld place 0 and 0 as touching each other ? but even if we are assuming that an open confrontation can happen in the first place, one gunman pointing his weapon at a wizard who is just reaching for his gun is a very narrow picture of that.  if you were a sniper with  advanced weapons , attacking wizards, you would have exactly one shot before the rest of your targets teleport away and regroup, or the more competent ones turn invisible, mind control you, or just pull your weapon from your hand from a large distance.  on a longer scale conflict, wizards can locate your position inside a given building, imitate your leaders  appearance, and drain your memories for tactical information.  also, if it is possible that wizards were innately vulnareable to bullets, it has been shown that new magical objects such as protective charms can be invented, so after the first few casualites it would be a given to mass manufacture anti bullet necklaces.   #  but it would probably take a hell of a lot of manpower to protect against a bombardment of artillary, missles, bullets, etc etc.   #  well, they were able to find different wizards at some point.  if they had just carried guns, or found out where they were and sent a sniper, in the time it takes the bullet to leave the gun and hit the wizard, they would not have time to realize it, pull out their wand, say the magical words and cast it to teleport, or whatever.  or when last book harry potter spoiler.  do not continue if you have not read when voldemorts forces arrive at hogwarts, they could have just bombed the living shit out of them.  okay, sure.  maybe they could have cast spells to defend against that.  but it would probably take a hell of a lot of manpower to protect against a bombardment of artillary, missles, bullets, etc etc.  and would seriously at the very, very least, slow them down greatly in their advance.   #  it is magic and humans have had guns for a while now.   # if they had just carried guns, or found out where they were and sent a sniper, in the time it takes the bullet to leave the gun and hit the wizard, they would not have time to realize it, pull out their wand, say the magical words and cast it to teleport, or whatever.  this assumes that wizards can be killed by bullets.  they regularly shrug off normal injuries in the wizarding world, the only things that deal any lasting damage are magical injuries.  remember when harry broke his arm ? that was no big deal until lockheart removed the bones.  it is magic and humans have had guns for a while now.  i am sure wizards do not ignore them because they are unaware of how dangerous they can be.  do not continue if you have not read when voldemorts forces arrive at hogwarts, they could have just bombed the living shit out of them.  okay, sure.  maybe they could have cast spells to defend against that.  but it would probably take a hell of a lot of manpower to protect against a bombardment of artillary, missles, bullets, etc etc.  and would seriously at the very, very least, slow them down greatly in their advance.  bombing the forbidden forest seems short sighted.  besides, how do you even know this would slow down their advance ? they are using  magic , which is literally the word we use for impossible things happening with no explanation.  why not use muggle weapons against them ? magic.  the answer is always magic.   #  again, all they really  had  to do in the voldemort/hogwarts situation was get a sniper up in one of the towers, find voldemort in the crowd not too difficult if i am remembering right and but a bullet between the eyes.   # they regularly shrug off normal injuries in the wizarding world, the only things that deal any lasting damage are magical injuries.  remember when harry broke his arm ? that was no big deal until lockheart removed the bones.  but you know what would be a big deal ? getting a bullet to the brain and instantly dying or getting shot in the throat/heart and quickly bleeding out.  why wouldnt they be able to be killed by bullets, especially if you lay a bunch of them in them ? magic.  the answer is always magic.  why not both ? it would no doubt be decently effective to lay down bullets, artillery, or hide land mines, or use tanks, or whatever to also fight against them.  again, at the very least, it slows them down, and they could recruit a lot more people in the fight against voldemort if they included muggles and their technology.  again, all they really  had  to do in the voldemort/hogwarts situation was get a sniper up in one of the towers, find voldemort in the crowd not too difficult if i am remembering right and but a bullet between the eyes.  sure, maybe he had another horcrux.  but it solved the very urgent problem of him and his forces and buys time to find the rest of the horocruxes, recruit for a possible future war, etc etc etc.   #  one person immune to physics beats the physical world if their creative enough.   #  i have to agree.  my thought process is that magic, especially in the harry potter series, revolved on one rule, the absolute breaking of physics.  it let  amagic  circumvent physics entirely.  bullets, explosions, missiles, even knives, they are all physical weapons for a physical world.  heck, if you can teleport at will, create something from nothing, and even hard cast without a wand or channeling instrument, i very much doubt the magical world has much to fear from non magic weaponry.  i feel like anyone combat capable or skilled in the wizarding world could easily take on endless numbers of non wizarding equipment or forces, for example, physical attacks like spoil alert voldemort vs dumbledore using glass shards, that would be a problem for almost any modern infantry, but if it is as simple as casting a globe that reduces things to their parts glass to sand no number of projectiles could ever effect the caster.  tl/dr magic is the inexplicable and physics breaking.  so it is a moot question of scale.  one person immune to physics beats the physical world if their creative enough.
harry potter  is supposed to take place in a magical world that exists within our own world, unbeknownst to us non magical people or  muggles.   the  wizards  of the magic world, however, know all about the muggles and their world.  that means, at the time the books are set in the 0s, these wizards were aware of the  real  non magical world of the 0s including the many muggle nations with advanced chemical warfare capabilities, high technology weaponry and access to bombs and bomb making technology.  britain, where the  harry potter  magical world secretly existed in the books, was one of those nations.  why, then, did no wizard ever think to use muggle weapons like bombs and guns to kill voldemort and his followers ? voldemort would be completely unprepared to deal with, say, a series of bombs being dropped onto his lair as he meets with his top  death eaters.   wizards can certainly die of normal causes like fires and explosions, right ? why did no one ever think to do this ? voldemort would have never seen it coming ! also, in the books, the  muggle  prime minister was once informed by the  magic  prime minister of the existence of the magical world, and that a homicidal maniac wizard was running around using magic spells to slay people, not just wizards but  muggles  too.  uhhh.  why does john major who would have been the prime minister at the time not suggest that they use some of britain is advanced weapons or its armed forces to perhaps ambush this lunatic and blow him to smithereens ? or call for help from his close allies in the us, with its even better oiled war machine ready to roll at any time ? this makes no sense.  does anyone have an explanation ? is there some sort of wizard code against using muggle weapons ? and please do not say  it is a book, suspend disbelief.   hell no i wo not suspend disbelief, if you wanna set your book within the real world then it better make sense in that context.   #  hell no i wo not suspend disbelief, if you wanna set your book within the real world then it better make sense in that context.   #  the book is not set in the real world.   # the book is not set in the real world.  it is fantasy.  you can use a spell to make a bomb fly away or simply make it not explode by remotely screwing with it .  you can cast a barrier to stop bullets from hitting you, or make yourself invisible.  you can even become immortal, so that if your body is destroyed you still live this is what the main villain voldemort did .  same goes for muggle items.  why use a telephone when you can use a cool spell that makes you instantly communicate with anyone or go anywhere you want ? as for why they did not meddle with the muggle world most wizards simply do not care much about it.  to be fair, if i lived in magical fantasy world, i probably would not want to deal with tony blair is shit either if i could avoid it.  and they can.  for example, hogwarts is hidden from muggles.   #  and would seriously at the very, very least, slow them down greatly in their advance.   #  well, they were able to find different wizards at some point.  if they had just carried guns, or found out where they were and sent a sniper, in the time it takes the bullet to leave the gun and hit the wizard, they would not have time to realize it, pull out their wand, say the magical words and cast it to teleport, or whatever.  or when last book harry potter spoiler.  do not continue if you have not read when voldemorts forces arrive at hogwarts, they could have just bombed the living shit out of them.  okay, sure.  maybe they could have cast spells to defend against that.  but it would probably take a hell of a lot of manpower to protect against a bombardment of artillary, missles, bullets, etc etc.  and would seriously at the very, very least, slow them down greatly in their advance.   #  but it would probably take a hell of a lot of manpower to protect against a bombardment of artillary, missles, bullets, etc etc.   # if they had just carried guns, or found out where they were and sent a sniper, in the time it takes the bullet to leave the gun and hit the wizard, they would not have time to realize it, pull out their wand, say the magical words and cast it to teleport, or whatever.  this assumes that wizards can be killed by bullets.  they regularly shrug off normal injuries in the wizarding world, the only things that deal any lasting damage are magical injuries.  remember when harry broke his arm ? that was no big deal until lockheart removed the bones.  it is magic and humans have had guns for a while now.  i am sure wizards do not ignore them because they are unaware of how dangerous they can be.  do not continue if you have not read when voldemorts forces arrive at hogwarts, they could have just bombed the living shit out of them.  okay, sure.  maybe they could have cast spells to defend against that.  but it would probably take a hell of a lot of manpower to protect against a bombardment of artillary, missles, bullets, etc etc.  and would seriously at the very, very least, slow them down greatly in their advance.  bombing the forbidden forest seems short sighted.  besides, how do you even know this would slow down their advance ? they are using  magic , which is literally the word we use for impossible things happening with no explanation.  why not use muggle weapons against them ? magic.  the answer is always magic.   #  getting a bullet to the brain and instantly dying or getting shot in the throat/heart and quickly bleeding out.   # they regularly shrug off normal injuries in the wizarding world, the only things that deal any lasting damage are magical injuries.  remember when harry broke his arm ? that was no big deal until lockheart removed the bones.  but you know what would be a big deal ? getting a bullet to the brain and instantly dying or getting shot in the throat/heart and quickly bleeding out.  why wouldnt they be able to be killed by bullets, especially if you lay a bunch of them in them ? magic.  the answer is always magic.  why not both ? it would no doubt be decently effective to lay down bullets, artillery, or hide land mines, or use tanks, or whatever to also fight against them.  again, at the very least, it slows them down, and they could recruit a lot more people in the fight against voldemort if they included muggles and their technology.  again, all they really  had  to do in the voldemort/hogwarts situation was get a sniper up in one of the towers, find voldemort in the crowd not too difficult if i am remembering right and but a bullet between the eyes.  sure, maybe he had another horcrux.  but it solved the very urgent problem of him and his forces and buys time to find the rest of the horocruxes, recruit for a possible future war, etc etc etc.   #  heck, if you can teleport at will, create something from nothing, and even hard cast without a wand or channeling instrument, i very much doubt the magical world has much to fear from non magic weaponry.   #  i have to agree.  my thought process is that magic, especially in the harry potter series, revolved on one rule, the absolute breaking of physics.  it let  amagic  circumvent physics entirely.  bullets, explosions, missiles, even knives, they are all physical weapons for a physical world.  heck, if you can teleport at will, create something from nothing, and even hard cast without a wand or channeling instrument, i very much doubt the magical world has much to fear from non magic weaponry.  i feel like anyone combat capable or skilled in the wizarding world could easily take on endless numbers of non wizarding equipment or forces, for example, physical attacks like spoil alert voldemort vs dumbledore using glass shards, that would be a problem for almost any modern infantry, but if it is as simple as casting a globe that reduces things to their parts glass to sand no number of projectiles could ever effect the caster.  tl/dr magic is the inexplicable and physics breaking.  so it is a moot question of scale.  one person immune to physics beats the physical world if their creative enough.
harry potter  is supposed to take place in a magical world that exists within our own world, unbeknownst to us non magical people or  muggles.   the  wizards  of the magic world, however, know all about the muggles and their world.  that means, at the time the books are set in the 0s, these wizards were aware of the  real  non magical world of the 0s including the many muggle nations with advanced chemical warfare capabilities, high technology weaponry and access to bombs and bomb making technology.  britain, where the  harry potter  magical world secretly existed in the books, was one of those nations.  why, then, did no wizard ever think to use muggle weapons like bombs and guns to kill voldemort and his followers ? voldemort would be completely unprepared to deal with, say, a series of bombs being dropped onto his lair as he meets with his top  death eaters.   wizards can certainly die of normal causes like fires and explosions, right ? why did no one ever think to do this ? voldemort would have never seen it coming ! also, in the books, the  muggle  prime minister was once informed by the  magic  prime minister of the existence of the magical world, and that a homicidal maniac wizard was running around using magic spells to slay people, not just wizards but  muggles  too.  uhhh.  why does john major who would have been the prime minister at the time not suggest that they use some of britain is advanced weapons or its armed forces to perhaps ambush this lunatic and blow him to smithereens ? or call for help from his close allies in the us, with its even better oiled war machine ready to roll at any time ? this makes no sense.  does anyone have an explanation ? is there some sort of wizard code against using muggle weapons ? and please do not say  it is a book, suspend disbelief.   hell no i wo not suspend disbelief, if you wanna set your book within the real world then it better make sense in that context.   #  voldemort would be completely unprepared to deal with, say, a series of bombs being dropped onto his lair as he meets with his top  death eaters.    #  voldemort for the most part stays in hiding because the ministry and dumbledore could kill him if they knew where he was.   #  you could do a lot of damage, especially against unskilled wizards it is noted that most wizards ca not cast a shield charm, george and fred weasley is shielded clothing items are noted to be very useful in that they can help people survive spells.  you could do a lot of damage.  why not do that ? for one, neither side really wants to kill people that badly.  voldemort wants to take britain intact, the ministry is heavily controlled by pureblood families who do not want to kill all their companions.  they both want to kill their opponents, but have no desire to mass murder all the weaker wizards who are not really a big issue.  secondly, the stronger wizards who do most of the fighting have immensely powerful spells.  guns and bombs are less damaging than their stronger spells for the most part.  thirdly, muggle weapons are much slower than apparition.  most of the enemies in the book are hidden and as such, need rapid response squads.  onto your specific points.  voldemort for the most part stays in hiding because the ministry and dumbledore could kill him if they knew where he was.  he is also incredibly mobile.  an airplane would take a while to attack him.  wizards would be faster.  his lair also likely has various protective spells that would resist attacks, again allowing him to apparate away.  because they do not know where he is, they are unlikely to have armed response squads near him in the event of an attack, and he could easily imperio any such squads and tell them to rampage and slay people en masse.  URL this happened just before the books.  a man basically rampaged through a town for five hours and the local police could not do anything because they were unarmed and the nearest armed response squad was forty miles away.  you need to respond in seconds or minutes, not hours or days to stop such a wizard and muggles ca not do that.  for example, very soon after harry fights off the dementors in book five the ministry sends him a warning letter.  those magical owls are fast.  also, if you want to talk to someone why talk to them by phone ? why not just floo to them ? because quills are superior in many aspects, such as variety of inks they can use, flexibility, smoothness of stroke.  pens are cheaper and more easy to use, certainly, but that is less of an issue for a wizard economy.   #  well, they were able to find different wizards at some point.   #  well, they were able to find different wizards at some point.  if they had just carried guns, or found out where they were and sent a sniper, in the time it takes the bullet to leave the gun and hit the wizard, they would not have time to realize it, pull out their wand, say the magical words and cast it to teleport, or whatever.  or when last book harry potter spoiler.  do not continue if you have not read when voldemorts forces arrive at hogwarts, they could have just bombed the living shit out of them.  okay, sure.  maybe they could have cast spells to defend against that.  but it would probably take a hell of a lot of manpower to protect against a bombardment of artillary, missles, bullets, etc etc.  and would seriously at the very, very least, slow them down greatly in their advance.   #  maybe they could have cast spells to defend against that.   # if they had just carried guns, or found out where they were and sent a sniper, in the time it takes the bullet to leave the gun and hit the wizard, they would not have time to realize it, pull out their wand, say the magical words and cast it to teleport, or whatever.  this assumes that wizards can be killed by bullets.  they regularly shrug off normal injuries in the wizarding world, the only things that deal any lasting damage are magical injuries.  remember when harry broke his arm ? that was no big deal until lockheart removed the bones.  it is magic and humans have had guns for a while now.  i am sure wizards do not ignore them because they are unaware of how dangerous they can be.  do not continue if you have not read when voldemorts forces arrive at hogwarts, they could have just bombed the living shit out of them.  okay, sure.  maybe they could have cast spells to defend against that.  but it would probably take a hell of a lot of manpower to protect against a bombardment of artillary, missles, bullets, etc etc.  and would seriously at the very, very least, slow them down greatly in their advance.  bombing the forbidden forest seems short sighted.  besides, how do you even know this would slow down their advance ? they are using  magic , which is literally the word we use for impossible things happening with no explanation.  why not use muggle weapons against them ? magic.  the answer is always magic.   #  again, all they really  had  to do in the voldemort/hogwarts situation was get a sniper up in one of the towers, find voldemort in the crowd not too difficult if i am remembering right and but a bullet between the eyes.   # they regularly shrug off normal injuries in the wizarding world, the only things that deal any lasting damage are magical injuries.  remember when harry broke his arm ? that was no big deal until lockheart removed the bones.  but you know what would be a big deal ? getting a bullet to the brain and instantly dying or getting shot in the throat/heart and quickly bleeding out.  why wouldnt they be able to be killed by bullets, especially if you lay a bunch of them in them ? magic.  the answer is always magic.  why not both ? it would no doubt be decently effective to lay down bullets, artillery, or hide land mines, or use tanks, or whatever to also fight against them.  again, at the very least, it slows them down, and they could recruit a lot more people in the fight against voldemort if they included muggles and their technology.  again, all they really  had  to do in the voldemort/hogwarts situation was get a sniper up in one of the towers, find voldemort in the crowd not too difficult if i am remembering right and but a bullet between the eyes.  sure, maybe he had another horcrux.  but it solved the very urgent problem of him and his forces and buys time to find the rest of the horocruxes, recruit for a possible future war, etc etc etc.   #  heck, if you can teleport at will, create something from nothing, and even hard cast without a wand or channeling instrument, i very much doubt the magical world has much to fear from non magic weaponry.   #  i have to agree.  my thought process is that magic, especially in the harry potter series, revolved on one rule, the absolute breaking of physics.  it let  amagic  circumvent physics entirely.  bullets, explosions, missiles, even knives, they are all physical weapons for a physical world.  heck, if you can teleport at will, create something from nothing, and even hard cast without a wand or channeling instrument, i very much doubt the magical world has much to fear from non magic weaponry.  i feel like anyone combat capable or skilled in the wizarding world could easily take on endless numbers of non wizarding equipment or forces, for example, physical attacks like spoil alert voldemort vs dumbledore using glass shards, that would be a problem for almost any modern infantry, but if it is as simple as casting a globe that reduces things to their parts glass to sand no number of projectiles could ever effect the caster.  tl/dr magic is the inexplicable and physics breaking.  so it is a moot question of scale.  one person immune to physics beats the physical world if their creative enough.
harry potter  is supposed to take place in a magical world that exists within our own world, unbeknownst to us non magical people or  muggles.   the  wizards  of the magic world, however, know all about the muggles and their world.  that means, at the time the books are set in the 0s, these wizards were aware of the  real  non magical world of the 0s including the many muggle nations with advanced chemical warfare capabilities, high technology weaponry and access to bombs and bomb making technology.  britain, where the  harry potter  magical world secretly existed in the books, was one of those nations.  why, then, did no wizard ever think to use muggle weapons like bombs and guns to kill voldemort and his followers ? voldemort would be completely unprepared to deal with, say, a series of bombs being dropped onto his lair as he meets with his top  death eaters.   wizards can certainly die of normal causes like fires and explosions, right ? why did no one ever think to do this ? voldemort would have never seen it coming ! also, in the books, the  muggle  prime minister was once informed by the  magic  prime minister of the existence of the magical world, and that a homicidal maniac wizard was running around using magic spells to slay people, not just wizards but  muggles  too.  uhhh.  why does john major who would have been the prime minister at the time not suggest that they use some of britain is advanced weapons or its armed forces to perhaps ambush this lunatic and blow him to smithereens ? or call for help from his close allies in the us, with its even better oiled war machine ready to roll at any time ? this makes no sense.  does anyone have an explanation ? is there some sort of wizard code against using muggle weapons ? and please do not say  it is a book, suspend disbelief.   hell no i wo not suspend disbelief, if you wanna set your book within the real world then it better make sense in that context.   #  uhhh.  why does john major who would have been the prime minister at the time not suggest that they use some of britain is advanced weapons or its armed forces to perhaps ambush this lunatic and blow him to smithereens ?  #  because they do not know where he is, they are unlikely to have armed response squads near him in the event of an attack, and he could easily imperio any such squads and tell them to rampage and slay people en masse.   #  you could do a lot of damage, especially against unskilled wizards it is noted that most wizards ca not cast a shield charm, george and fred weasley is shielded clothing items are noted to be very useful in that they can help people survive spells.  you could do a lot of damage.  why not do that ? for one, neither side really wants to kill people that badly.  voldemort wants to take britain intact, the ministry is heavily controlled by pureblood families who do not want to kill all their companions.  they both want to kill their opponents, but have no desire to mass murder all the weaker wizards who are not really a big issue.  secondly, the stronger wizards who do most of the fighting have immensely powerful spells.  guns and bombs are less damaging than their stronger spells for the most part.  thirdly, muggle weapons are much slower than apparition.  most of the enemies in the book are hidden and as such, need rapid response squads.  onto your specific points.  voldemort for the most part stays in hiding because the ministry and dumbledore could kill him if they knew where he was.  he is also incredibly mobile.  an airplane would take a while to attack him.  wizards would be faster.  his lair also likely has various protective spells that would resist attacks, again allowing him to apparate away.  because they do not know where he is, they are unlikely to have armed response squads near him in the event of an attack, and he could easily imperio any such squads and tell them to rampage and slay people en masse.  URL this happened just before the books.  a man basically rampaged through a town for five hours and the local police could not do anything because they were unarmed and the nearest armed response squad was forty miles away.  you need to respond in seconds or minutes, not hours or days to stop such a wizard and muggles ca not do that.  for example, very soon after harry fights off the dementors in book five the ministry sends him a warning letter.  those magical owls are fast.  also, if you want to talk to someone why talk to them by phone ? why not just floo to them ? because quills are superior in many aspects, such as variety of inks they can use, flexibility, smoothness of stroke.  pens are cheaper and more easy to use, certainly, but that is less of an issue for a wizard economy.   #  maybe they could have cast spells to defend against that.   #  well, they were able to find different wizards at some point.  if they had just carried guns, or found out where they were and sent a sniper, in the time it takes the bullet to leave the gun and hit the wizard, they would not have time to realize it, pull out their wand, say the magical words and cast it to teleport, or whatever.  or when last book harry potter spoiler.  do not continue if you have not read when voldemorts forces arrive at hogwarts, they could have just bombed the living shit out of them.  okay, sure.  maybe they could have cast spells to defend against that.  but it would probably take a hell of a lot of manpower to protect against a bombardment of artillary, missles, bullets, etc etc.  and would seriously at the very, very least, slow them down greatly in their advance.   #  besides, how do you even know this would slow down their advance ?  # if they had just carried guns, or found out where they were and sent a sniper, in the time it takes the bullet to leave the gun and hit the wizard, they would not have time to realize it, pull out their wand, say the magical words and cast it to teleport, or whatever.  this assumes that wizards can be killed by bullets.  they regularly shrug off normal injuries in the wizarding world, the only things that deal any lasting damage are magical injuries.  remember when harry broke his arm ? that was no big deal until lockheart removed the bones.  it is magic and humans have had guns for a while now.  i am sure wizards do not ignore them because they are unaware of how dangerous they can be.  do not continue if you have not read when voldemorts forces arrive at hogwarts, they could have just bombed the living shit out of them.  okay, sure.  maybe they could have cast spells to defend against that.  but it would probably take a hell of a lot of manpower to protect against a bombardment of artillary, missles, bullets, etc etc.  and would seriously at the very, very least, slow them down greatly in their advance.  bombing the forbidden forest seems short sighted.  besides, how do you even know this would slow down their advance ? they are using  magic , which is literally the word we use for impossible things happening with no explanation.  why not use muggle weapons against them ? magic.  the answer is always magic.   #  they regularly shrug off normal injuries in the wizarding world, the only things that deal any lasting damage are magical injuries.   # they regularly shrug off normal injuries in the wizarding world, the only things that deal any lasting damage are magical injuries.  remember when harry broke his arm ? that was no big deal until lockheart removed the bones.  but you know what would be a big deal ? getting a bullet to the brain and instantly dying or getting shot in the throat/heart and quickly bleeding out.  why wouldnt they be able to be killed by bullets, especially if you lay a bunch of them in them ? magic.  the answer is always magic.  why not both ? it would no doubt be decently effective to lay down bullets, artillery, or hide land mines, or use tanks, or whatever to also fight against them.  again, at the very least, it slows them down, and they could recruit a lot more people in the fight against voldemort if they included muggles and their technology.  again, all they really  had  to do in the voldemort/hogwarts situation was get a sniper up in one of the towers, find voldemort in the crowd not too difficult if i am remembering right and but a bullet between the eyes.  sure, maybe he had another horcrux.  but it solved the very urgent problem of him and his forces and buys time to find the rest of the horocruxes, recruit for a possible future war, etc etc etc.   #  heck, if you can teleport at will, create something from nothing, and even hard cast without a wand or channeling instrument, i very much doubt the magical world has much to fear from non magic weaponry.   #  i have to agree.  my thought process is that magic, especially in the harry potter series, revolved on one rule, the absolute breaking of physics.  it let  amagic  circumvent physics entirely.  bullets, explosions, missiles, even knives, they are all physical weapons for a physical world.  heck, if you can teleport at will, create something from nothing, and even hard cast without a wand or channeling instrument, i very much doubt the magical world has much to fear from non magic weaponry.  i feel like anyone combat capable or skilled in the wizarding world could easily take on endless numbers of non wizarding equipment or forces, for example, physical attacks like spoil alert voldemort vs dumbledore using glass shards, that would be a problem for almost any modern infantry, but if it is as simple as casting a globe that reduces things to their parts glass to sand no number of projectiles could ever effect the caster.  tl/dr magic is the inexplicable and physics breaking.  so it is a moot question of scale.  one person immune to physics beats the physical world if their creative enough.
i have gotten into a number of discussions about the validity of certain types of modern art, those being ones such as a blank canvas, or random splats with no thought behind it.  people generally say that art is meant to be evocative, and i understand this, but when i ca not tell it apart from something a toddler did URL i ca not help but feel there is no work or meaning behind it beyond what i am imprinting purely because i expect there to be a meaning.  i could imprint meaning onto anything that way that does not make it art.  i do not feel anything when i look at these modern art pieces beyond questioning why it is in the museum.  so when i say this, a common argument is that making me question it was the point, but that is ridiculous.  it is not giving me any insight into the world, or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art.  a work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself.  having an emotion about the logistics of whether of not the piece classifies as art does not count.   #  i do not feel anything when i look at these modern art pieces beyond questioning why it is in the museum.   #  it is not giving me any insight into the world, or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art.   #  i used to share your opinion, then i made a couple art major friends and they convinced me otherwise.  they both basically used the same argument.  it is not giving me any insight into the world, or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art.  have you ever considered that you are not the target audience ? the target audience is usually people who know a lot of background info, people who have the complete picture.  not a huge stretch to assume that you are not that into art.  if you are not into something, you probably wo not know much about it, and you wo not be able to appreciate the nuance.  like, someone who is not really a basketball fan would look at the spurs ball movement URL and be all like,  so what ? it is a video clip of guys passing the ball, big deal, a nine year old can pass a basketball.   but an informed fan would marvel at the spacing and the fundamentals.  intent and context matter.  another example: think about critically acclaimed art like a graduate level physics textbook, it does not have to be comprehensible by a wide audience for it to be considered effective or  good .  a lot of art,  especially  modern art, is aimed at people who are knowledgeable about the art community, and can properly contextualize the piece.  to a layman, a hydrogen probability density wavefunction URL just looks like someone messed around on photoshop and made a pretty picture, but really it is one of the greatest scientific achievements in human history.  the difference is, people almost have to respect science because it is easy to use hard numbers and data to shut down people who call bullshit.  would be critics know that it takes high qualifications to truly understand science.  that is not the case with art.  people tend to think that having eyes is enough of a qualifier to objectively judge art, when in fact you have to be very familiar with art history, relevant techniques, recent works in the particular field/style, the art world zeitgeist, and probably other stuff.  art is very much a statement, not just the physical appearance and aesthetics.  if you ca not or wo not acknowledge the message, you are not getting the full picture, so of course you do not appreciate it.   #  in another time and place it might be good though because the audience is expectations changes.   #   a work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself.   whenever you have a rule in art then other artists are going to try and break that rule.  maybe the stuff you looked at was not right for you.  but that is not a big deal, there is lots of stuff out there.  sometimes boundaries are pushed in dumb directions, but that is okay.  random splats exploring meaningless noise  might be  an overdone concept in art, but that wo not always be true.  if things become too rigid and rule oriented then there will be a counter movement of artists messing with that notion.  maybe what you saw was just boring or bad.  in another time and place it might be good though because the audience is expectations changes.  if we lived in a world where only realistic depictions of things were seen and written about, etc.  then some nonsense smears might jostle us out of that box.  i am no expert though.  i kinda agree with you that the airy faery stuff does not do anything for me.  but i think the problem with that stuff is that we have seen too much of it and now just seems trite, art school, lazy, marijuana haze.  at a different time, it would be bold.  it depends where the audience is at.   #  there have been a lot of things i did not like until it was explained to me what to look for.   #  art is unlike other things, you ca not really measure it with a ruler.  i do not think this means that  everything is good, you just do not like it,  but rather that the audience experiences it and then makes their argument as to whether it is good or bad.  there have been a lot of things i did not like until it was explained to me what to look for.  the worst thing is when someone says  i was moved  by something and then they ca not tell you anything useful about it.  being moved is one powerful emotion, i would expect an educated person in art to be able to explain a bit about it.  unfortunately i think a lot of dopes look at things that are supposed to be really good and say  it moved me  without knowing dick about what they are talking about.  i had a friend once who said he loved 0: a space odyssey.  i got really excited because it is one of my favourite movies, and i had to watch it repeatedly and watch an hour long video review of it by a really smart guy to really  get  it, but once i got it it blew me away.  anyways, so i excitedly asked my friend what he loved about and what he thought was the meaning of the monolith.  .  and he asked  what was the monolith again ?   he said he  loved  it because it is supposed to be a great movie that is very cerebral, but he could not remember anything about it.  i think there is a lot of that going on in art.  if someone tells you that it  moved  them, then you should be able to ask them what they see in it, and you should put your bullshit detectors up.  they might just be saying that to seem smart.  i would never call random splats great, but that is because i know very little about painting.  i would love for someone to explain a great painting to me though.  or opera.  or abstract sculptures.  i do not know anything about those.  random splats are in the museum for a reason, and the curator is not a dummy.  the likelihood of collective delusion in the art world is low though not zero .   #  i ca not seem to find the  main  0 critique.   #  it was done by a game named rob ager, and his movie reviews are on youtube.  i ca not seem to find the  main  0 critique.  here is one that he does about the monolith, but it is kinda an update to the main thing.  URL tbh though i think this one goes too far.  he does other movies too.  i think he is the kind of guy who has a lot of great insights, but sometimes pushes it too far.  but that is part of the fun.   #  then the guy i linked came along and decided, fuck painting  things,  i am going to paint a  painting.   #  i had this conversation with a friend of mine who was a painting major, about the works of this guy URL iirc.  he walked me through the evolution of painting, that went something like this:   first, painters focused on painting objects or things as realistically as possible.  they hid their brush strokes, tried to create something close to a photograph.  this is loosely called  realism.   then a stylistic change happened.  painters started painting  representations  of objects.  maybe they were not super realistic, maybe you could see the brush strokes.  maybe they were just painting the light that an object gave off.  this was different than realism, but they were still focused on painting  things.  this was called impressionism.  then the guy i linked came along and decided, fuck painting  things,  i am going to paint a  painting.  just a painting.  it does not have to represent or look like an object, it can just be paint on canvas.  this was considered radical, and launched several other branches of art.  it sounds silly now, and if some dude came along painting black squares we would not give two shits.  but at the time, no one had ever considered this as an option.  sort of like how you could listen to the beatles today and think they are kind of ho hum, but in the sixties their music was mind blowing and revolutionary.  anyway, i am sure i messed up some terms or names or something, but i remember this conversation changing my view.  maybe yours as well.
i have gotten into a number of discussions about the validity of certain types of modern art, those being ones such as a blank canvas, or random splats with no thought behind it.  people generally say that art is meant to be evocative, and i understand this, but when i ca not tell it apart from something a toddler did URL i ca not help but feel there is no work or meaning behind it beyond what i am imprinting purely because i expect there to be a meaning.  i could imprint meaning onto anything that way that does not make it art.  i do not feel anything when i look at these modern art pieces beyond questioning why it is in the museum.  so when i say this, a common argument is that making me question it was the point, but that is ridiculous.  it is not giving me any insight into the world, or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art.  a work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself.  having an emotion about the logistics of whether of not the piece classifies as art does not count.   #  it is not giving me any insight into the world, or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art.   #  a work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself.   # im not sure what  meaning  has to do with being evocative.  even bringing about negative emotions like,  this art sucks  makes the art successful in being evocative, regardless of any intended meaning by the artist.  also, why is meaning you imprint on art not valid ? it still means the piece meant something, specifically  to you .  therefore it had meaning, intentional or not.  a work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself.  having an emotion about the logistics of whether of not the piece classifies as art does not count.  why should a work of art provoke emotions beyond itself ? also, in this case it seems to have done just that since you are engaging in discussion about this type of art instead of individual works.   #   a work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself.    #   a work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself.   whenever you have a rule in art then other artists are going to try and break that rule.  maybe the stuff you looked at was not right for you.  but that is not a big deal, there is lots of stuff out there.  sometimes boundaries are pushed in dumb directions, but that is okay.  random splats exploring meaningless noise  might be  an overdone concept in art, but that wo not always be true.  if things become too rigid and rule oriented then there will be a counter movement of artists messing with that notion.  maybe what you saw was just boring or bad.  in another time and place it might be good though because the audience is expectations changes.  if we lived in a world where only realistic depictions of things were seen and written about, etc.  then some nonsense smears might jostle us out of that box.  i am no expert though.  i kinda agree with you that the airy faery stuff does not do anything for me.  but i think the problem with that stuff is that we have seen too much of it and now just seems trite, art school, lazy, marijuana haze.  at a different time, it would be bold.  it depends where the audience is at.   #  unfortunately i think a lot of dopes look at things that are supposed to be really good and say  it moved me  without knowing dick about what they are talking about.   #  art is unlike other things, you ca not really measure it with a ruler.  i do not think this means that  everything is good, you just do not like it,  but rather that the audience experiences it and then makes their argument as to whether it is good or bad.  there have been a lot of things i did not like until it was explained to me what to look for.  the worst thing is when someone says  i was moved  by something and then they ca not tell you anything useful about it.  being moved is one powerful emotion, i would expect an educated person in art to be able to explain a bit about it.  unfortunately i think a lot of dopes look at things that are supposed to be really good and say  it moved me  without knowing dick about what they are talking about.  i had a friend once who said he loved 0: a space odyssey.  i got really excited because it is one of my favourite movies, and i had to watch it repeatedly and watch an hour long video review of it by a really smart guy to really  get  it, but once i got it it blew me away.  anyways, so i excitedly asked my friend what he loved about and what he thought was the meaning of the monolith.  .  and he asked  what was the monolith again ?   he said he  loved  it because it is supposed to be a great movie that is very cerebral, but he could not remember anything about it.  i think there is a lot of that going on in art.  if someone tells you that it  moved  them, then you should be able to ask them what they see in it, and you should put your bullshit detectors up.  they might just be saying that to seem smart.  i would never call random splats great, but that is because i know very little about painting.  i would love for someone to explain a great painting to me though.  or opera.  or abstract sculptures.  i do not know anything about those.  random splats are in the museum for a reason, and the curator is not a dummy.  the likelihood of collective delusion in the art world is low though not zero .   #  here is one that he does about the monolith, but it is kinda an update to the main thing.   #  it was done by a game named rob ager, and his movie reviews are on youtube.  i ca not seem to find the  main  0 critique.  here is one that he does about the monolith, but it is kinda an update to the main thing.  URL tbh though i think this one goes too far.  he does other movies too.  i think he is the kind of guy who has a lot of great insights, but sometimes pushes it too far.  but that is part of the fun.   #  it sounds silly now, and if some dude came along painting black squares we would not give two shits.   #  i had this conversation with a friend of mine who was a painting major, about the works of this guy URL iirc.  he walked me through the evolution of painting, that went something like this:   first, painters focused on painting objects or things as realistically as possible.  they hid their brush strokes, tried to create something close to a photograph.  this is loosely called  realism.   then a stylistic change happened.  painters started painting  representations  of objects.  maybe they were not super realistic, maybe you could see the brush strokes.  maybe they were just painting the light that an object gave off.  this was different than realism, but they were still focused on painting  things.  this was called impressionism.  then the guy i linked came along and decided, fuck painting  things,  i am going to paint a  painting.  just a painting.  it does not have to represent or look like an object, it can just be paint on canvas.  this was considered radical, and launched several other branches of art.  it sounds silly now, and if some dude came along painting black squares we would not give two shits.  but at the time, no one had ever considered this as an option.  sort of like how you could listen to the beatles today and think they are kind of ho hum, but in the sixties their music was mind blowing and revolutionary.  anyway, i am sure i messed up some terms or names or something, but i remember this conversation changing my view.  maybe yours as well.
i have gotten into a number of discussions about the validity of certain types of modern art, those being ones such as a blank canvas, or random splats with no thought behind it.  people generally say that art is meant to be evocative, and i understand this, but when i ca not tell it apart from something a toddler did URL i ca not help but feel there is no work or meaning behind it beyond what i am imprinting purely because i expect there to be a meaning.  i could imprint meaning onto anything that way that does not make it art.  i do not feel anything when i look at these modern art pieces beyond questioning why it is in the museum.  so when i say this, a common argument is that making me question it was the point, but that is ridiculous.  it is not giving me any insight into the world, or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art.  a work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself.  having an emotion about the logistics of whether of not the piece classifies as art does not count.   #  or making me feel any emotion about myself or things around me beyond the art.   #  again, i offer your own cmv as proof that the art you hate has provided enough of a emotional response to engage the world, beyond the art itself.   # this cmv is proof positive of that.  essentially, the art that you hate has motivated you to think through your position on art.  to the extent that art is part of the world, this thought process has provided you new insight.  thus, the art you hate was the motivating factor for gaining new insight into the world.  just because you do not like something, does not mean that it cannot teach you.  indeed, often things that you do not like can provide the most interesting lessons.  again, i offer your own cmv as proof that the art you hate has provided enough of a emotional response to engage the world, beyond the art itself.   #  i kinda agree with you that the airy faery stuff does not do anything for me.   #   a work of art should provoke emotions beyond itself.   whenever you have a rule in art then other artists are going to try and break that rule.  maybe the stuff you looked at was not right for you.  but that is not a big deal, there is lots of stuff out there.  sometimes boundaries are pushed in dumb directions, but that is okay.  random splats exploring meaningless noise  might be  an overdone concept in art, but that wo not always be true.  if things become too rigid and rule oriented then there will be a counter movement of artists messing with that notion.  maybe what you saw was just boring or bad.  in another time and place it might be good though because the audience is expectations changes.  if we lived in a world where only realistic depictions of things were seen and written about, etc.  then some nonsense smears might jostle us out of that box.  i am no expert though.  i kinda agree with you that the airy faery stuff does not do anything for me.  but i think the problem with that stuff is that we have seen too much of it and now just seems trite, art school, lazy, marijuana haze.  at a different time, it would be bold.  it depends where the audience is at.   #  i had a friend once who said he loved 0: a space odyssey.   #  art is unlike other things, you ca not really measure it with a ruler.  i do not think this means that  everything is good, you just do not like it,  but rather that the audience experiences it and then makes their argument as to whether it is good or bad.  there have been a lot of things i did not like until it was explained to me what to look for.  the worst thing is when someone says  i was moved  by something and then they ca not tell you anything useful about it.  being moved is one powerful emotion, i would expect an educated person in art to be able to explain a bit about it.  unfortunately i think a lot of dopes look at things that are supposed to be really good and say  it moved me  without knowing dick about what they are talking about.  i had a friend once who said he loved 0: a space odyssey.  i got really excited because it is one of my favourite movies, and i had to watch it repeatedly and watch an hour long video review of it by a really smart guy to really  get  it, but once i got it it blew me away.  anyways, so i excitedly asked my friend what he loved about and what he thought was the meaning of the monolith.  .  and he asked  what was the monolith again ?   he said he  loved  it because it is supposed to be a great movie that is very cerebral, but he could not remember anything about it.  i think there is a lot of that going on in art.  if someone tells you that it  moved  them, then you should be able to ask them what they see in it, and you should put your bullshit detectors up.  they might just be saying that to seem smart.  i would never call random splats great, but that is because i know very little about painting.  i would love for someone to explain a great painting to me though.  or opera.  or abstract sculptures.  i do not know anything about those.  random splats are in the museum for a reason, and the curator is not a dummy.  the likelihood of collective delusion in the art world is low though not zero .   #  it was done by a game named rob ager, and his movie reviews are on youtube.   #  it was done by a game named rob ager, and his movie reviews are on youtube.  i ca not seem to find the  main  0 critique.  here is one that he does about the monolith, but it is kinda an update to the main thing.  URL tbh though i think this one goes too far.  he does other movies too.  i think he is the kind of guy who has a lot of great insights, but sometimes pushes it too far.  but that is part of the fun.   #  this was considered radical, and launched several other branches of art.   #  i had this conversation with a friend of mine who was a painting major, about the works of this guy URL iirc.  he walked me through the evolution of painting, that went something like this:   first, painters focused on painting objects or things as realistically as possible.  they hid their brush strokes, tried to create something close to a photograph.  this is loosely called  realism.   then a stylistic change happened.  painters started painting  representations  of objects.  maybe they were not super realistic, maybe you could see the brush strokes.  maybe they were just painting the light that an object gave off.  this was different than realism, but they were still focused on painting  things.  this was called impressionism.  then the guy i linked came along and decided, fuck painting  things,  i am going to paint a  painting.  just a painting.  it does not have to represent or look like an object, it can just be paint on canvas.  this was considered radical, and launched several other branches of art.  it sounds silly now, and if some dude came along painting black squares we would not give two shits.  but at the time, no one had ever considered this as an option.  sort of like how you could listen to the beatles today and think they are kind of ho hum, but in the sixties their music was mind blowing and revolutionary.  anyway, i am sure i messed up some terms or names or something, but i remember this conversation changing my view.  maybe yours as well.
i have noticed that often people are too quick to anger.  yesterday on the streets i saw two men headbutting each other after a car accident then immediately started brawling.  or another example is rioting.  a few bad apples turning the ferguson protests into anarchy.  it is extremely emotional and irrational and cannot solve this judicial/cop/racism problem.  i understand that frustration is perfectly fine like when someone cuts me off while merging in my lane, but for me to have immediate anger is misguided.  it turns the situation into an  us vs.  them  dispute.  maybe the driver had loud kids distracting him or her.  and had a misjudgment when merging.  maybe he had a powerful sneeze ? lastly nothing consequently good can come from anger.  so why do people continue to have this misguided reaction everywhere from outside to reddit in general ?  #  lastly nothing consequently good can come from anger.   #  i agree with most of your points, about how people are to quick to anger and that it can snowball, but anger did and still does serve a purpose.   # i agree with most of your points, about how people are to quick to anger and that it can snowball, but anger did and still does serve a purpose.  back when we were living in caves, smelling our fingers, anger was used when we came across a large animal, such as a bear.  we would get angry, this made us loud,  largen  ourselves, in an attempt to scare the animal away.  anger is also linked to increased heart rate and adrenaline, or better known as the  fight or flight response .  so, back then anger was a useful tool but what about now a days ? we do not live that life style anymore, we made caves out of concrete and wood, and we generally try not to smell ourselves.  here we see that anger is never really tied to good things URL but it still does has it is uses URL while seemingly seeing less danger is a bad thing, it can also be a good thing.  for soldiers during d day, anger of their lost friends could have driven them further, taking the beach head.  showing anger during a negotiation can cause the negotiation to go in favor of the angered one.  it can also be used to scare people away from things that might harm them or others did your mom ever get angry when you tried to do dumb kid stuff ? .  anger can also make people change did you parents ever get angry when you failed a test ? whether its for better or worse though depends on the situation also some old age bullshit about without  blank  how do you know when you experience  opposite of blank .  also, i think its better for people to be angry on community websites like reddit.  other people can give their view and maybe the angry individual will either learn that his anger is misjudged, or they could stay angry.   #  agree with you on that and also the parental use of it to teach kids to stop doing stupid or dangerous crap.   #    0; hmm, never really thought that anger can empower someone to be more audacious or less fearful.  agree with you on that and also the parental use of it to teach kids to stop doing stupid or dangerous crap.  on reddit though i can see that anger can note the sense of urgency like our mass disapproval of the destruction of net neutrality.  but often times though i see anger used in circlejerk and anti circlejerk comments.  it is hard to have emotionally limited and rational arguments these days on the other subs.   #  coincidentally.  the only way this works is if people  do  get angry.   #  i agree.  but the value in anger is not about  already being angry .  the value of anger is all about  avoiding it .  it is like a nuclear war is  mutually assured destruction  scenario.  the point of nuclear weapons is to deter a war from happening in the first place.  if you have already used your nuclear weapons.  then it is too late the nuclear weapons have effectively failed at their main purpose ie preventing war .  anger is basically the same thing.  coincidentally.  the only way this works is if people  do  get angry.  if no one got angry ever.  then the fear of anger would cease to exist, and its deterrent effect would become too weak.   #  anger and rage are emotions triggered by different events for different people.   #  here is my take.  anger and rage are emotions triggered by different events for different people.  the character flaw lies in the  handling  of such emotions.  for example, if i was in a car accident, i would be just as angry as most of the people we see in these rage road incidents.  but the difference is the way i handle the situation.  i think everyone will experience anger/rage at some point or another, as its just an emotion.  but its really the way in which they react and handle themselves that can show a character flaw.   #  it shows you have morals and hold high opinions of someone in this case.   #  rage, probably yes.  it is an overreaction of anger i would say.  anger is not a character flaw though.  if you came home and your wife was in bed cheating on you with another man and you got angry you are saying it is then your character flaw for being angry ? no it is definitely not.  it shows that you trusted someone and they broke that trust.  it shows you have morals and hold high opinions of someone in this case.  that is not a character flaw.  i think what you meant was people jumping from calm to angry too quickly is a character flaw.  that i can agree with because my brother is that way.  he gets worked up over the smallest things and goes from calm to raging in a matter of minutes.  that  is a character flaw.  that character flaw being overreacting and jumping to conclusions most of the time.  not anger.
who i am: person of color, male, straight.  i grew up blue collar, my dad worked at the steel mills and my mom worked on cars, and i moved to my grandparents  one story house in my teens because they lived in a better school district than my parents.  being one of the only minorities at my high school, and then going to a  southern  college, i know what it is like to be an outsider, to feel like the only person at a family reunion who is not related to someone.  that is why i sympathize with feminists when they talk about a lack of opportunity for women and those who identify as women.  i am deeply troubled by the witch hunt style tactics that seem so prevalent among many feminists.  rather than engaging in positive, action focused endeavors, there seems to be more effort put into  awareness .  while i understand and agree with the fact that women are second class citizens in the united states and that this needs to be changed, it appears that so many efforts undertaken by modern feminists are the equivalent of turning your profile picture green to support democracy in iran.  the modern movement is filled with slacktivist members who are more about accolades than action.  they would rather spend their energy shaming a european scientist who stupidly wore a heavy metal comic style bowling shirt than creating heroes out of the many women who were on that same philae team and creating pathways for other women to emulate them.  we have granted power to words by creating phrases like  trigger warning  and we coddle our members rather than empowering them.  i am afraid that we have got too good at complaining and let our skills in activation and execution whither as a result.  it appears as if the support net of feminism has changed from a safety net that catches you and helps you, to a hunting net that captures you in endless egocasting.  i want to be proven wrong.  that is why i came to cmv.  but for now, i must admit that although i like feminism, i do not like feminists.   #  it appears as if the support net of feminism has changed from a safety net that catches you and helps you, to a hunting net that captures you in endless egocasting.   #  the suffragetes with their adamant cries for the capacity for heading business and to get votes, were much the same.   # the suffragetes with their adamant cries for the capacity for heading business and to get votes, were much the same.  they did not care about women.  they were very wealthy women and one represented the class to me.  she was the wife of a banker, and she thought it was unfair that he got to run a bank while she only got to instruct maids all day.  he made an offer to her, if you can keep the house  finances in order she can work in the bank.  she found this offer insulting, she wanted his job.  and so she decided to campaign to get it.  her platform was to get women in the same types of jobs, and then as a seccondary thing which she thought would be more appreciated she wanted women equal to men.  she used the idea of equality roughly for a bait and switch of her less general agenda.  feminism as a discrete split from gender egalitarianism has always been a tool by wealthy women to try getting more power.  it is fair to say that some  feminist authors  which were not actually feminists while alive, had some great ideas.  but feminism was the one which tried abusing female ingroup preference for political goals, often a concession of an entitlement in exchange for consent/vote.  this also is why feminists seem to be deliberately trying to make things worse or at least seem worse to self empower.  the people who actually want the ends for the ends themselves leave when the goal is achieved.  the issue is professional ideologues need problems which they are best suited to represent.  perhaps a god, or a  class  of people, or a feared demographic.  and their honesty is most tenuous when they have no job security.   #  this creates a reaction of people that hate these feminists and attack them a lot.   #  ok, let is say the goal of equality of which feminism is a branch that concerns itself on how inequality affects females is  0 .  let is say our developed world society was at 0 some decades ago and now we have managed to make it to 0, so we agree there is still some way to go.  some feminists are wanting to get to 0, some to 0, and some are pushing to 0 asshole group a which is now unfair on males.  i think it is legitimate to criticize those aiming for more that 0, even if they do it only knowing that it will fall short, hopefully to 0.  some aim to 0 and higher in anger, with bad arguments, attitude and hostility.  this creates a reaction of people that hate these feminists and attack them a lot.  the problem starts when in order to attack these feminists they aim to less than 0, or even go back from 0 to 0 or lower redpillers ? .  this creates a second group of assholes b that in order to counter assholes a fall into the same stupidity.  it is like a vegan hater becoming a cannibal and eating little boys just to oppose vegans.  stupid.  this does not mean that feminists aiming to 0 by focusing on how it affects females are in asshole group a nor b.  it is also true that some countries are still at 0 or lower, as long as this is true, even the most basic feminism has a cause.  but both feminism, sexism, antifeminism or any ideology is no antidote for being an asshole, but it is also not a cause.  it is just the cause some asshole happened to pick up.  that is my take on what you are saying.   #  if you actually go there, you will get amazing drawings  borrowed  from deviantart, impossibly beautiful houses, and porn.   #  the thing is that, the bad stuff you are hearing are the loud weirdos.  it is like going to tumblr in action and then complaining that tumblr is a shithole and that the internet is horrible and we are all gona die in a feminazi hell.  well, that is what i get for going to those places ! the world is not like that, not even the internet is like that.  also, as i have said before, tumblr is for porn.  if you actually go there, you will get amazing drawings  borrowed  from deviantart, impossibly beautiful houses, and porn.   #  this is really hard to demonstrate, and the same people who may believe in the women is right to vote may refuse to believe that they themselves or their culture might have this implicit bias.   #  to put feminist philosophy into a bit more context, there is a focus on showing that the greatest source of sexism and bias is  implicit  in our culture and in our institutions.  this is really hard to demonstrate, and the same people who may believe in the women is right to vote may refuse to believe that they themselves or their culture might have this implicit bias.  i think much of what you are criticizing is feminists  effort to demonstrate this point.  take shirtgate.  if you look at what thoughtful feminists have said, it was never about shaming matt taylor for being sexist, it was about showing how the  decision  to wear that shirt involved thoughtlessness at a number of levels: he thought the shirt was okay to wear on tv, he thought his colleagues would be fine with it, his colleagues did not say anything about it, and so on.  it is about typifying this as a case of what feminists have been saying about stem culture being especially difficult for women, not personally attacking him.  plus, his apology was widely well received.  the only people talking about him now are the people mad at feminists for talking about him in the first place.  i think there is validity to what you are saying.  yea, some feminists end up spending more time shaming perceived individual sexists than the culture they came out of, but if i disassociated myself from any idea because wrongheaded people believed in it too, i could never believe in anything.   #  i did reply only with an ad hominem.   #  i did reply only with an ad hominem.  i was not making an argument, i was making an observation because i thought it was funny.  that said, i want to clarify that i do not see what you are describing as a double standard.  there were certainly people who were upset over the shirt as an individual thing.  i do not particularly care for their argument because it is a bad one.  the real issue is the gender disparity within stem fields and its cause and how wearing the shirt was symptomatic of a larger problem.  making the argument about the shirt itself is useless because it is essentially creating a straw man against a good argument out of a real bad argument.  you are being presented with a legitimate criticism of the stem fields and turning it into a conversation about whether one man, by wearing a shirt, is singlehandedly creating a sexist environment all by itself.  the issue with the shirt is that it is emblematic of how men can be cavalier about women is comfort level in stem fields, not that one man wearing a shirt is going to make all women quit.  if the gender disparity did not exist, then your comparison still would not be a good one, because the other half of the comparison is not about men being made uncomfortable.  it is still about men making women uncomfortable by reacting inappropriately to how women dress.  if a woman wore a bikini to work then she would be rightly criticized for wearing something unprofessional to work, but when a woman wears clothes that fit properly and she gets sexualized for it then that is inappropriate.  it is not a double standard because dr.  taylor was not being sexualized himself.
who i am: person of color, male, straight.  i grew up blue collar, my dad worked at the steel mills and my mom worked on cars, and i moved to my grandparents  one story house in my teens because they lived in a better school district than my parents.  being one of the only minorities at my high school, and then going to a  southern  college, i know what it is like to be an outsider, to feel like the only person at a family reunion who is not related to someone.  that is why i sympathize with feminists when they talk about a lack of opportunity for women and those who identify as women.  i am deeply troubled by the witch hunt style tactics that seem so prevalent among many feminists.  rather than engaging in positive, action focused endeavors, there seems to be more effort put into  awareness .  while i understand and agree with the fact that women are second class citizens in the united states and that this needs to be changed, it appears that so many efforts undertaken by modern feminists are the equivalent of turning your profile picture green to support democracy in iran.  the modern movement is filled with slacktivist members who are more about accolades than action.  they would rather spend their energy shaming a european scientist who stupidly wore a heavy metal comic style bowling shirt than creating heroes out of the many women who were on that same philae team and creating pathways for other women to emulate them.  we have granted power to words by creating phrases like  trigger warning  and we coddle our members rather than empowering them.  i am afraid that we have got too good at complaining and let our skills in activation and execution whither as a result.  it appears as if the support net of feminism has changed from a safety net that catches you and helps you, to a hunting net that captures you in endless egocasting.  i want to be proven wrong.  that is why i came to cmv.  but for now, i must admit that although i like feminism, i do not like feminists.   #  we have granted power to words by creating phrases like  trigger warning  and we coddle our members rather than empowering them.   #  it is not us who granted power to works, but human psychology that ptsd happens to be a part of, and that is traumatic shocks can be triggered by words, among other things.   # it all started as one random tweet, an observation from a random person.  by the time any feminist opinion leaders started focusing on it, the issue was not the shirt but the  shirtstorm  backlash.  this article URL is a good example of that.  as far as there is such a thing as an organized  feminist movement , no one in it was actively trying to spend dozens of articles, and thousands of tweets on such a petty issue.  not even  extremists , or  assholes .  this is just how social media works, and how all these  gendergates  will go on from now on: some woman makes a personal observation that you may or may not dsagree with, it is irrelevant , then dozens post her misogynistic slurs, then the verge writes an article about it, then redditors start a subreddit against her, then she gets defended by celebrities, then other celebrities tweet against her, then she is invited to cnn to talk about her experience, etc.  etc.  by the time you look around, it looks like either feminists or anti feminists depending on how you look at it have just misguidedly  chosen  to spend an awful lot of effort on making a silly point, while it is really just uncontrolled mob physics.  other social issues will also follow a similar pattern of escalation.  it is not us who granted power to works, but human psychology that ptsd happens to be a part of, and that is traumatic shocks can be triggered by words, among other things.  the people who are outraged about trigger warnings are no different from the ones who think we are coddling kids with too many allergy warnings, or that we are coddling epileptics with epilepsy warnings.  it is purely malicious backlash against inclusivity, and against trying to make like a bit more bearable for the most endangered amongst us.   #  but both feminism, sexism, antifeminism or any ideology is no antidote for being an asshole, but it is also not a cause.   #  ok, let is say the goal of equality of which feminism is a branch that concerns itself on how inequality affects females is  0 .  let is say our developed world society was at 0 some decades ago and now we have managed to make it to 0, so we agree there is still some way to go.  some feminists are wanting to get to 0, some to 0, and some are pushing to 0 asshole group a which is now unfair on males.  i think it is legitimate to criticize those aiming for more that 0, even if they do it only knowing that it will fall short, hopefully to 0.  some aim to 0 and higher in anger, with bad arguments, attitude and hostility.  this creates a reaction of people that hate these feminists and attack them a lot.  the problem starts when in order to attack these feminists they aim to less than 0, or even go back from 0 to 0 or lower redpillers ? .  this creates a second group of assholes b that in order to counter assholes a fall into the same stupidity.  it is like a vegan hater becoming a cannibal and eating little boys just to oppose vegans.  stupid.  this does not mean that feminists aiming to 0 by focusing on how it affects females are in asshole group a nor b.  it is also true that some countries are still at 0 or lower, as long as this is true, even the most basic feminism has a cause.  but both feminism, sexism, antifeminism or any ideology is no antidote for being an asshole, but it is also not a cause.  it is just the cause some asshole happened to pick up.  that is my take on what you are saying.   #  the thing is that, the bad stuff you are hearing are the loud weirdos.   #  the thing is that, the bad stuff you are hearing are the loud weirdos.  it is like going to tumblr in action and then complaining that tumblr is a shithole and that the internet is horrible and we are all gona die in a feminazi hell.  well, that is what i get for going to those places ! the world is not like that, not even the internet is like that.  also, as i have said before, tumblr is for porn.  if you actually go there, you will get amazing drawings  borrowed  from deviantart, impossibly beautiful houses, and porn.   #  i think much of what you are criticizing is feminists  effort to demonstrate this point.   #  to put feminist philosophy into a bit more context, there is a focus on showing that the greatest source of sexism and bias is  implicit  in our culture and in our institutions.  this is really hard to demonstrate, and the same people who may believe in the women is right to vote may refuse to believe that they themselves or their culture might have this implicit bias.  i think much of what you are criticizing is feminists  effort to demonstrate this point.  take shirtgate.  if you look at what thoughtful feminists have said, it was never about shaming matt taylor for being sexist, it was about showing how the  decision  to wear that shirt involved thoughtlessness at a number of levels: he thought the shirt was okay to wear on tv, he thought his colleagues would be fine with it, his colleagues did not say anything about it, and so on.  it is about typifying this as a case of what feminists have been saying about stem culture being especially difficult for women, not personally attacking him.  plus, his apology was widely well received.  the only people talking about him now are the people mad at feminists for talking about him in the first place.  i think there is validity to what you are saying.  yea, some feminists end up spending more time shaming perceived individual sexists than the culture they came out of, but if i disassociated myself from any idea because wrongheaded people believed in it too, i could never believe in anything.   #  if the gender disparity did not exist, then your comparison still would not be a good one, because the other half of the comparison is not about men being made uncomfortable.   #  i did reply only with an ad hominem.  i was not making an argument, i was making an observation because i thought it was funny.  that said, i want to clarify that i do not see what you are describing as a double standard.  there were certainly people who were upset over the shirt as an individual thing.  i do not particularly care for their argument because it is a bad one.  the real issue is the gender disparity within stem fields and its cause and how wearing the shirt was symptomatic of a larger problem.  making the argument about the shirt itself is useless because it is essentially creating a straw man against a good argument out of a real bad argument.  you are being presented with a legitimate criticism of the stem fields and turning it into a conversation about whether one man, by wearing a shirt, is singlehandedly creating a sexist environment all by itself.  the issue with the shirt is that it is emblematic of how men can be cavalier about women is comfort level in stem fields, not that one man wearing a shirt is going to make all women quit.  if the gender disparity did not exist, then your comparison still would not be a good one, because the other half of the comparison is not about men being made uncomfortable.  it is still about men making women uncomfortable by reacting inappropriately to how women dress.  if a woman wore a bikini to work then she would be rightly criticized for wearing something unprofessional to work, but when a woman wears clothes that fit properly and she gets sexualized for it then that is inappropriate.  it is not a double standard because dr.  taylor was not being sexualized himself.
currently any mention of calling this action immature will bring you a load of downvotes and i do not understand why.  people watching these news reports/ sports shows or whatever the case often have younger children around.  also it could possibly hurt the news reporters reputation this is a guess i do not really know anything about the news business.  the most appalling example of this in my recent memory was during the san fransisco giants world series champs fair two young girls were being asked questions and a young boy around 0 years old ? said it on camera.  i am on mobile so i ca not get the link now.  also because i am on mobile this post is probably riddled with grammar and spelling errors.  sorry.  link to vid courtesy of /u/annduz URL  yes.  it is called manners.  etiquette.  common courtesy.  it is the way we interact with the world that shows a baseline respect for those around us.  when i am at home and i know my audience, i will say whatever the fuck i want to say.  but when i am in the office, or on the street, or in a store, or around a stranger that i do not know i will act with decorum and respect because that is what civilized adult human beings do.   here is the permalink: URL  #  currently any mention of calling this action immature will bring you a load of downvotes and i do not understand why.   #  probably because you are conversing with 0 year old boys and do not even realize it.   # probably because you are conversing with 0 year old boys and do not even realize it.  that is the problem with reddit.  in real life i would never converse with pre teens or teens and would not give a shit what they think.  on reddit i converse with them all the time and do not even realize it, and due to the blind anonymity, i give all comments the same consideration upon reading them rather than pre judging statements based on the speaker.  this means i start reading a comment expecting it to be something interesting and intelligent and then it turns into ridiculousness and i did not have that pre judgement to serve as a buffer and it is much more frustrating to hear these immature asinine sentiments in this context than to hear them in the normal context of coming out of a 0 year old is mouth.   #  tldr: fuck her in the pussy is sticking it to the man, and i like that.   #  having worked closely with the news business, i have to say i see this as a form of civil disobedience to break the veneer or authority that news crews often have.  the fact like this can take hold may force a rethink of the live broadcast trope which really does not provide a lot of value to the viewer as the events are usually long gone.  when you think about it, what is the public value in reporting from the street ? should it be supported ? and should we let their authority go unchecked when clearly news organisations have, for the most part, been delinquent in their societal roleas the fourth estate.  tldr: fuck her in the pussy is sticking it to the man, and i like that.   #  mature people will learn to look down upon the interviewees as immature, and will see the interviewer / network as better in comparison.   #  i hear this argument a lot, and while i totally get that people need to learn to turn off the news, i do not think it flies.  immature people or just blooper reel fans love it.  it gives them more reason to watch the news, if anything.  mature people will learn to look down upon the interviewees as immature, and will see the interviewer / network as better in comparison.  that is one of the age old principles of news networks: the crazier the footage you get, the better you look.  and even if the news crews are trying to avoid it, well, i guess it gives them more incentive to film on a green screen and be deceitful.  to me, yelling stuff onto a live film crew is camera is the lowest possible effort you can give in protest, and just makes you look bad.  it certainly wo not inspire anyone to  turn off the news  if things like obvious bias and deceit have not done it already.  kind of like flunking a test on purpose to show your disapproval of the school curriculum.  just no.  try harder.  bitching on reddit about it would almost be more effective to your cause.   #  . but if you are just trying to shock people and make an ass of yourself on tv, then go ahead i guess .   #  i would argue that it  could  be interpreted as a objectification speech or even rape speech at worst .  you cannot say it is not demeaning/offensive anymore than you can definitely say it  is .  that is why the op said it  can  be viewed as demeaning, not that it  is .  as a 0 year old man, i cringe at the wording as it does not sound too respectful of women.  so if you are going to argue that shouting these words are to be seen as an instrument of change for the betterment of people then perhaps we should choose some less offensive words.  . but if you are just trying to shock people and make an ass of yourself on tv, then go ahead i guess .   #  you do not have to agree that it is offensive.   #  again, one person does not get to declare what is offensive and what is not.  that is not how it works.  the key word here is fuck.   fuck  blank   is derogatory.  that is what pushes this into the grey area.  even just the work  fuck  should be enough to show you that some people are going to get uncomfortable.  furthermore:  have sex  with  her  is obviously different from   fuck  her in the pussy .  the word  with  implies consent whereas you do not know what is going on in the more derogatory statement.  you do not have to agree that it is offensive.  but you do not get to tell others what they are allowed be offended by.
currently any mention of calling this action immature will bring you a load of downvotes and i do not understand why.  people watching these news reports/ sports shows or whatever the case often have younger children around.  also it could possibly hurt the news reporters reputation this is a guess i do not really know anything about the news business.  the most appalling example of this in my recent memory was during the san fransisco giants world series champs fair two young girls were being asked questions and a young boy around 0 years old ? said it on camera.  i am on mobile so i ca not get the link now.  also because i am on mobile this post is probably riddled with grammar and spelling errors.  sorry.  link to vid courtesy of /u/annduz URL  yes.  it is called manners.  etiquette.  common courtesy.  it is the way we interact with the world that shows a baseline respect for those around us.  when i am at home and i know my audience, i will say whatever the fuck i want to say.  but when i am in the office, or on the street, or in a store, or around a stranger that i do not know i will act with decorum and respect because that is what civilized adult human beings do.   here is the permalink: URL  #  currently any mention of calling this action immature will bring you a load of downvotes and i do not understand why.   #  well it kind of makes you sound like someone who is too high brow for them.   # well it kind of makes you sound like someone who is too high brow for them.  humor can often be innapropriate, foul, and dirty.  so saying it should not be make you sound like your  clean  humor is better.  and as for kids hearing it; so what ? i understand if you personally have an issue with kids hearing foul language but should everyone censor themselves in public in case a kid hears them ? but basically saying you look down on those who find things you do not like funny makes you come off as kinda douchey.   #  the fact like this can take hold may force a rethink of the live broadcast trope which really does not provide a lot of value to the viewer as the events are usually long gone.   #  having worked closely with the news business, i have to say i see this as a form of civil disobedience to break the veneer or authority that news crews often have.  the fact like this can take hold may force a rethink of the live broadcast trope which really does not provide a lot of value to the viewer as the events are usually long gone.  when you think about it, what is the public value in reporting from the street ? should it be supported ? and should we let their authority go unchecked when clearly news organisations have, for the most part, been delinquent in their societal roleas the fourth estate.  tldr: fuck her in the pussy is sticking it to the man, and i like that.   #  immature people or just blooper reel fans love it.   #  i hear this argument a lot, and while i totally get that people need to learn to turn off the news, i do not think it flies.  immature people or just blooper reel fans love it.  it gives them more reason to watch the news, if anything.  mature people will learn to look down upon the interviewees as immature, and will see the interviewer / network as better in comparison.  that is one of the age old principles of news networks: the crazier the footage you get, the better you look.  and even if the news crews are trying to avoid it, well, i guess it gives them more incentive to film on a green screen and be deceitful.  to me, yelling stuff onto a live film crew is camera is the lowest possible effort you can give in protest, and just makes you look bad.  it certainly wo not inspire anyone to  turn off the news  if things like obvious bias and deceit have not done it already.  kind of like flunking a test on purpose to show your disapproval of the school curriculum.  just no.  try harder.  bitching on reddit about it would almost be more effective to your cause.   #  so if you are going to argue that shouting these words are to be seen as an instrument of change for the betterment of people then perhaps we should choose some less offensive words.   #  i would argue that it  could  be interpreted as a objectification speech or even rape speech at worst .  you cannot say it is not demeaning/offensive anymore than you can definitely say it  is .  that is why the op said it  can  be viewed as demeaning, not that it  is .  as a 0 year old man, i cringe at the wording as it does not sound too respectful of women.  so if you are going to argue that shouting these words are to be seen as an instrument of change for the betterment of people then perhaps we should choose some less offensive words.  . but if you are just trying to shock people and make an ass of yourself on tv, then go ahead i guess .   #  the word  with  implies consent whereas you do not know what is going on in the more derogatory statement.   #  again, one person does not get to declare what is offensive and what is not.  that is not how it works.  the key word here is fuck.   fuck  blank   is derogatory.  that is what pushes this into the grey area.  even just the work  fuck  should be enough to show you that some people are going to get uncomfortable.  furthermore:  have sex  with  her  is obviously different from   fuck  her in the pussy .  the word  with  implies consent whereas you do not know what is going on in the more derogatory statement.  you do not have to agree that it is offensive.  but you do not get to tell others what they are allowed be offended by.
currently any mention of calling this action immature will bring you a load of downvotes and i do not understand why.  people watching these news reports/ sports shows or whatever the case often have younger children around.  also it could possibly hurt the news reporters reputation this is a guess i do not really know anything about the news business.  the most appalling example of this in my recent memory was during the san fransisco giants world series champs fair two young girls were being asked questions and a young boy around 0 years old ? said it on camera.  i am on mobile so i ca not get the link now.  also because i am on mobile this post is probably riddled with grammar and spelling errors.  sorry.  link to vid courtesy of /u/annduz URL  yes.  it is called manners.  etiquette.  common courtesy.  it is the way we interact with the world that shows a baseline respect for those around us.  when i am at home and i know my audience, i will say whatever the fuck i want to say.  but when i am in the office, or on the street, or in a store, or around a stranger that i do not know i will act with decorum and respect because that is what civilized adult human beings do.   here is the permalink: URL  #  but when i am in the office, or on the street, or in a store, or around a stranger that i do not know i will act with decorum and respect because that is what civilized adult human beings do.   #  first of all, there are plenty of  civilized adult human beings  that do  not  do this.   # first of all, there are plenty of  civilized adult human beings  that do  not  do this.  i think what you were trying to say is that it is what civilized adult human beings  should  do, but that is a highly subjective, value based statement.  secondly, why do you think it disrespectful to say what you want, when and where you want to do so ? are you equating disrespect with offensiveness ? is not it  more  disrespectful to try to force complete strangers to conform to your standard of etiquette ?  #  tldr: fuck her in the pussy is sticking it to the man, and i like that.   #  having worked closely with the news business, i have to say i see this as a form of civil disobedience to break the veneer or authority that news crews often have.  the fact like this can take hold may force a rethink of the live broadcast trope which really does not provide a lot of value to the viewer as the events are usually long gone.  when you think about it, what is the public value in reporting from the street ? should it be supported ? and should we let their authority go unchecked when clearly news organisations have, for the most part, been delinquent in their societal roleas the fourth estate.  tldr: fuck her in the pussy is sticking it to the man, and i like that.   #  mature people will learn to look down upon the interviewees as immature, and will see the interviewer / network as better in comparison.   #  i hear this argument a lot, and while i totally get that people need to learn to turn off the news, i do not think it flies.  immature people or just blooper reel fans love it.  it gives them more reason to watch the news, if anything.  mature people will learn to look down upon the interviewees as immature, and will see the interviewer / network as better in comparison.  that is one of the age old principles of news networks: the crazier the footage you get, the better you look.  and even if the news crews are trying to avoid it, well, i guess it gives them more incentive to film on a green screen and be deceitful.  to me, yelling stuff onto a live film crew is camera is the lowest possible effort you can give in protest, and just makes you look bad.  it certainly wo not inspire anyone to  turn off the news  if things like obvious bias and deceit have not done it already.  kind of like flunking a test on purpose to show your disapproval of the school curriculum.  just no.  try harder.  bitching on reddit about it would almost be more effective to your cause.   #  i would argue that it  could  be interpreted as a objectification speech or even rape speech at worst .   #  i would argue that it  could  be interpreted as a objectification speech or even rape speech at worst .  you cannot say it is not demeaning/offensive anymore than you can definitely say it  is .  that is why the op said it  can  be viewed as demeaning, not that it  is .  as a 0 year old man, i cringe at the wording as it does not sound too respectful of women.  so if you are going to argue that shouting these words are to be seen as an instrument of change for the betterment of people then perhaps we should choose some less offensive words.  . but if you are just trying to shock people and make an ass of yourself on tv, then go ahead i guess .   #  the word  with  implies consent whereas you do not know what is going on in the more derogatory statement.   #  again, one person does not get to declare what is offensive and what is not.  that is not how it works.  the key word here is fuck.   fuck  blank   is derogatory.  that is what pushes this into the grey area.  even just the work  fuck  should be enough to show you that some people are going to get uncomfortable.  furthermore:  have sex  with  her  is obviously different from   fuck  her in the pussy .  the word  with  implies consent whereas you do not know what is going on in the more derogatory statement.  you do not have to agree that it is offensive.  but you do not get to tell others what they are allowed be offended by.
currently any mention of calling this action immature will bring you a load of downvotes and i do not understand why.  people watching these news reports/ sports shows or whatever the case often have younger children around.  also it could possibly hurt the news reporters reputation this is a guess i do not really know anything about the news business.  the most appalling example of this in my recent memory was during the san fransisco giants world series champs fair two young girls were being asked questions and a young boy around 0 years old ? said it on camera.  i am on mobile so i ca not get the link now.  also because i am on mobile this post is probably riddled with grammar and spelling errors.  sorry.  link to vid courtesy of /u/annduz URL  yes.  it is called manners.  etiquette.  common courtesy.  it is the way we interact with the world that shows a baseline respect for those around us.  when i am at home and i know my audience, i will say whatever the fuck i want to say.  but when i am in the office, or on the street, or in a store, or around a stranger that i do not know i will act with decorum and respect because that is what civilized adult human beings do.   here is the permalink: URL  #  currently any mention of calling this action immature will bring you a load of downvotes and i do not understand why.   #  people know it is immature, but calling it immature makes you sound like a party pooper.   # people know it is immature, but calling it immature makes you sound like a party pooper.  and they can tell their children  you should not say that.   it is not like parents have to stay quiet after something they do not want their child to see happens.  children will invariably encounter instances of cursing and other  scandalous  behavior, and it is up to parents to explain that it is not accepted in polite society.  we ca not protect stupid people from their misinterpretation of reality.  said it on camera.  and they laughed, and it did not look like nervous laughter, so they very likely took it as a joke, and you should too because that is what it was.   #  the fact like this can take hold may force a rethink of the live broadcast trope which really does not provide a lot of value to the viewer as the events are usually long gone.   #  having worked closely with the news business, i have to say i see this as a form of civil disobedience to break the veneer or authority that news crews often have.  the fact like this can take hold may force a rethink of the live broadcast trope which really does not provide a lot of value to the viewer as the events are usually long gone.  when you think about it, what is the public value in reporting from the street ? should it be supported ? and should we let their authority go unchecked when clearly news organisations have, for the most part, been delinquent in their societal roleas the fourth estate.  tldr: fuck her in the pussy is sticking it to the man, and i like that.   #  to me, yelling stuff onto a live film crew is camera is the lowest possible effort you can give in protest, and just makes you look bad.   #  i hear this argument a lot, and while i totally get that people need to learn to turn off the news, i do not think it flies.  immature people or just blooper reel fans love it.  it gives them more reason to watch the news, if anything.  mature people will learn to look down upon the interviewees as immature, and will see the interviewer / network as better in comparison.  that is one of the age old principles of news networks: the crazier the footage you get, the better you look.  and even if the news crews are trying to avoid it, well, i guess it gives them more incentive to film on a green screen and be deceitful.  to me, yelling stuff onto a live film crew is camera is the lowest possible effort you can give in protest, and just makes you look bad.  it certainly wo not inspire anyone to  turn off the news  if things like obvious bias and deceit have not done it already.  kind of like flunking a test on purpose to show your disapproval of the school curriculum.  just no.  try harder.  bitching on reddit about it would almost be more effective to your cause.   #  as a 0 year old man, i cringe at the wording as it does not sound too respectful of women.   #  i would argue that it  could  be interpreted as a objectification speech or even rape speech at worst .  you cannot say it is not demeaning/offensive anymore than you can definitely say it  is .  that is why the op said it  can  be viewed as demeaning, not that it  is .  as a 0 year old man, i cringe at the wording as it does not sound too respectful of women.  so if you are going to argue that shouting these words are to be seen as an instrument of change for the betterment of people then perhaps we should choose some less offensive words.  . but if you are just trying to shock people and make an ass of yourself on tv, then go ahead i guess .   #  you do not have to agree that it is offensive.   #  again, one person does not get to declare what is offensive and what is not.  that is not how it works.  the key word here is fuck.   fuck  blank   is derogatory.  that is what pushes this into the grey area.  even just the work  fuck  should be enough to show you that some people are going to get uncomfortable.  furthermore:  have sex  with  her  is obviously different from   fuck  her in the pussy .  the word  with  implies consent whereas you do not know what is going on in the more derogatory statement.  you do not have to agree that it is offensive.  but you do not get to tell others what they are allowed be offended by.
currently any mention of calling this action immature will bring you a load of downvotes and i do not understand why.  people watching these news reports/ sports shows or whatever the case often have younger children around.  also it could possibly hurt the news reporters reputation this is a guess i do not really know anything about the news business.  the most appalling example of this in my recent memory was during the san fransisco giants world series champs fair two young girls were being asked questions and a young boy around 0 years old ? said it on camera.  i am on mobile so i ca not get the link now.  also because i am on mobile this post is probably riddled with grammar and spelling errors.  sorry.  link to vid courtesy of /u/annduz URL  yes.  it is called manners.  etiquette.  common courtesy.  it is the way we interact with the world that shows a baseline respect for those around us.  when i am at home and i know my audience, i will say whatever the fuck i want to say.  but when i am in the office, or on the street, or in a store, or around a stranger that i do not know i will act with decorum and respect because that is what civilized adult human beings do.   here is the permalink: URL  #  people watching these news reports/ sports shows or whatever the case often have younger children around.   #  and they can tell their children  you should not say that.    # people know it is immature, but calling it immature makes you sound like a party pooper.  and they can tell their children  you should not say that.   it is not like parents have to stay quiet after something they do not want their child to see happens.  children will invariably encounter instances of cursing and other  scandalous  behavior, and it is up to parents to explain that it is not accepted in polite society.  we ca not protect stupid people from their misinterpretation of reality.  said it on camera.  and they laughed, and it did not look like nervous laughter, so they very likely took it as a joke, and you should too because that is what it was.   #  having worked closely with the news business, i have to say i see this as a form of civil disobedience to break the veneer or authority that news crews often have.   #  having worked closely with the news business, i have to say i see this as a form of civil disobedience to break the veneer or authority that news crews often have.  the fact like this can take hold may force a rethink of the live broadcast trope which really does not provide a lot of value to the viewer as the events are usually long gone.  when you think about it, what is the public value in reporting from the street ? should it be supported ? and should we let their authority go unchecked when clearly news organisations have, for the most part, been delinquent in their societal roleas the fourth estate.  tldr: fuck her in the pussy is sticking it to the man, and i like that.   #  kind of like flunking a test on purpose to show your disapproval of the school curriculum.   #  i hear this argument a lot, and while i totally get that people need to learn to turn off the news, i do not think it flies.  immature people or just blooper reel fans love it.  it gives them more reason to watch the news, if anything.  mature people will learn to look down upon the interviewees as immature, and will see the interviewer / network as better in comparison.  that is one of the age old principles of news networks: the crazier the footage you get, the better you look.  and even if the news crews are trying to avoid it, well, i guess it gives them more incentive to film on a green screen and be deceitful.  to me, yelling stuff onto a live film crew is camera is the lowest possible effort you can give in protest, and just makes you look bad.  it certainly wo not inspire anyone to  turn off the news  if things like obvious bias and deceit have not done it already.  kind of like flunking a test on purpose to show your disapproval of the school curriculum.  just no.  try harder.  bitching on reddit about it would almost be more effective to your cause.   #  you cannot say it is not demeaning/offensive anymore than you can definitely say it  is .   #  i would argue that it  could  be interpreted as a objectification speech or even rape speech at worst .  you cannot say it is not demeaning/offensive anymore than you can definitely say it  is .  that is why the op said it  can  be viewed as demeaning, not that it  is .  as a 0 year old man, i cringe at the wording as it does not sound too respectful of women.  so if you are going to argue that shouting these words are to be seen as an instrument of change for the betterment of people then perhaps we should choose some less offensive words.  . but if you are just trying to shock people and make an ass of yourself on tv, then go ahead i guess .   #  you do not have to agree that it is offensive.   #  again, one person does not get to declare what is offensive and what is not.  that is not how it works.  the key word here is fuck.   fuck  blank   is derogatory.  that is what pushes this into the grey area.  even just the work  fuck  should be enough to show you that some people are going to get uncomfortable.  furthermore:  have sex  with  her  is obviously different from   fuck  her in the pussy .  the word  with  implies consent whereas you do not know what is going on in the more derogatory statement.  you do not have to agree that it is offensive.  but you do not get to tell others what they are allowed be offended by.
i am extremely against police discretion.  this view is mainly in response to the argument that cameras held by police would get rid of police discretion, and i argue that this is another reason for police to wear cameras.  if a white college girl is caught with some pot she will get off with a warning after a few tears, because the policeman does not want to ruin her life.  but if the same policeman finds a black kid with facial tattoos, a thick accent and pants around his knees we see that kid go to jail.  these two did the exact same thing, but since one looks different they get punished.  we are not punishing people for what they do, but for how they look.  maybe if a few more senator daughters or ceo sons ended up in jail with clear video evidence we would see change in our laws.  right now the only people that have to deal with unfair laws are those who do not get police discretion and do not have enough sway in our government.  i think that people should not have their lives ruined by a cop finding pot on them.  but i think it is much worse to only ruin poor peoples lives because you feel bad for the rich kid who got caught.  this is also shown in how proportionally far more black people are in jail for drugs than white people, but white people and black people do the same amount of drugs.  i believe this is largely due to  police discretion .   #  but if the same policeman finds a black kid with facial tattoos, a thick accent and pants around his knees we see that kid go to jail.   #  if you have facial tattoos and pants around the knees, you are going to be negatively judged that is life.   # that is not necessarily true.  i have at least 0 cousins white girls who have been arrested for pot, including one who was in college with good grades who ultimately received a felony on her record because of it.  being a pretty white girl did not help them.  if you have facial tattoos and pants around the knees, you are going to be negatively judged that is life.  walking down the street, many other people will assume you might be dangerous because you look the part.  if you go to a job interview like that, odds are you wo not be hired.  if you show up in court looking like that, most people will assume you are trouble.  if you go door to door soliciting, many people wo not open the door because they will be freaked out.  how you dress and present yourself is a large part of how people immediately perceive who you are that is human nature.  right now the only people that have to deal with unfair laws are those who do not get police discretion and do not have enough sway in our government.  the fact that rich people can get away with more crimes has nothing to do with police discretion.  the cops do not know if someone is the son of a ceo or senator.  can you list out the names of all the kids of all the big companies or government representatives offhand ? of course not, neither can the cops.  the only reason the rich kids can get off happens  after  they have been detained by the police.  daddy calls the family lawyer who works out a nice deal where the kid is ultimately released with little to no punishment.   #  however, if you  were  to simply remove police discretion, consider some of the likely consequences: 0.  decreased trust in the police.   #  while police discretion is often misused, removing it would probably make things worse rather than better because our current legal system depends on police discretion as a filter.  the vast majority of laws are designed to be relatively encompassing, with the understanding that their scope will be successively narrowed by police prosecutor judicial jury discretion, and often the true boundaries of a law are defined far more by precedent than by statute.  however, if you  were  to simply remove police discretion, consider some of the likely consequences: 0.  decreased trust in the police.  you think it is bad now ? wait till everyone  knows  the police are legally obligated to be out to get them.  0.  massive congestion in the legal system.  police will err on the side of job safety rather than sanity, which means tons of trivial cases that should not have been pursued.  0.  increased strain on police resources.  the time is in the paperwork, and most departments are overworked as is.  0.  sudden overcomplication of previously simple laws.  attempting to cover all possible cases unambiguously, probably without sufficient consideration or testing.  while reducing or removing police discretion may be a reasonable way to go, current western legal systems would require a complete overhaul before it would be at all practical.   #  these cases are by nature very different from cases where you have got a prosecutor  actively  deciding whether to pursue the case based on police evidence, partly because most are basically low end regulatory offences.   #  yes and no.  for many offenses like bylaw violations, speeding and, yes, virtually all cases of drug possession, the only real factor in the case is whether the officer cites/charges the person.  prosecutorial involvement is slim, if it exists at all, and a huge portion of cases never go near a courtroom.  these cases are by nature very different from cases where you have got a prosecutor  actively  deciding whether to pursue the case based on police evidence, partly because most are basically low end regulatory offences.  while the prosecutorial model makes sense for more serious cases where significant evidence exists for a prosecutor to consider, it is a lot less reasonable here.  at best, all removing police discretion would do is shift the burden to prosecutors, who would now have to actively handle a torrent of minor cases where the only relevant evidence is what the officer involved has to say.  worse, the decision to pursue cases would be shifted from someone actually present to someone whose only contact is hearsay.  that does not strike me as an improvement.  at worst, it would lead to prosecutors simply deciding to pursue everything.  besides the additional load, this would effectively remove the prosecutorial discretion that is  also  fundamental to our justice system.  then, you get attempts to  re rationalize  the law which only end up complicating the statute beyond recognition, and things once again dissolve into a massive shit show.  the  real  solution is to acknowledge that for certain classes of offenses, police officers are in the best position to make the decision whether to pursue.  rather than fighting the practice, it should be formalized in a way that allows a greater level of accountability and management.   #  the best way to show someone that a system is broken is to demonstrate that it is broken.   #  the best way to show someone that a system is broken is to demonstrate that it is broken.  i am not saying burn the building down, because that would leave nothing left.  instead i am saying that we should light a match under the detector to show that it is not working, and it needs to be replaced.  right now most people do not see the problem.  if we light a match they will see the problem and try and fix it.   #  at  most , you might reduce police discretion for a single minor offence e. g.   # instead i am saying that we should light a match under the detector to show that it is not working, and it needs to be replaced.  that is my point: if you simply remove police discretion, by the time the dust clears you wo not have much of a justice system left.  your solution is not the equivalent of lighting a match under the detector, it is lobbing a molotov cocktail through the window.  the  match under the detector  approach, as applied to the justice system, would be to start with more comprehensive documentation i. e.  body cams, dash cams etc.  followed by comprehensive third party analysis to test whether discretion was being applied fairly/evenly/effectively or not.  at  most , you might reduce police discretion for a single minor offence e. g.  jaywalking by different degrees in different but otherwise similar areas in order to gauge the impact of such policies and people is reactions.
i am extremely against police discretion.  this view is mainly in response to the argument that cameras held by police would get rid of police discretion, and i argue that this is another reason for police to wear cameras.  if a white college girl is caught with some pot she will get off with a warning after a few tears, because the policeman does not want to ruin her life.  but if the same policeman finds a black kid with facial tattoos, a thick accent and pants around his knees we see that kid go to jail.  these two did the exact same thing, but since one looks different they get punished.  we are not punishing people for what they do, but for how they look.  maybe if a few more senator daughters or ceo sons ended up in jail with clear video evidence we would see change in our laws.  right now the only people that have to deal with unfair laws are those who do not get police discretion and do not have enough sway in our government.  i think that people should not have their lives ruined by a cop finding pot on them.  but i think it is much worse to only ruin poor peoples lives because you feel bad for the rich kid who got caught.  this is also shown in how proportionally far more black people are in jail for drugs than white people, but white people and black people do the same amount of drugs.  i believe this is largely due to  police discretion .   #  maybe if a few more senator daughters or ceo sons ended up in jail with clear video evidence we would see change in our laws.   #  right now the only people that have to deal with unfair laws are those who do not get police discretion and do not have enough sway in our government.   # that is not necessarily true.  i have at least 0 cousins white girls who have been arrested for pot, including one who was in college with good grades who ultimately received a felony on her record because of it.  being a pretty white girl did not help them.  if you have facial tattoos and pants around the knees, you are going to be negatively judged that is life.  walking down the street, many other people will assume you might be dangerous because you look the part.  if you go to a job interview like that, odds are you wo not be hired.  if you show up in court looking like that, most people will assume you are trouble.  if you go door to door soliciting, many people wo not open the door because they will be freaked out.  how you dress and present yourself is a large part of how people immediately perceive who you are that is human nature.  right now the only people that have to deal with unfair laws are those who do not get police discretion and do not have enough sway in our government.  the fact that rich people can get away with more crimes has nothing to do with police discretion.  the cops do not know if someone is the son of a ceo or senator.  can you list out the names of all the kids of all the big companies or government representatives offhand ? of course not, neither can the cops.  the only reason the rich kids can get off happens  after  they have been detained by the police.  daddy calls the family lawyer who works out a nice deal where the kid is ultimately released with little to no punishment.   #  police will err on the side of job safety rather than sanity, which means tons of trivial cases that should not have been pursued.   #  while police discretion is often misused, removing it would probably make things worse rather than better because our current legal system depends on police discretion as a filter.  the vast majority of laws are designed to be relatively encompassing, with the understanding that their scope will be successively narrowed by police prosecutor judicial jury discretion, and often the true boundaries of a law are defined far more by precedent than by statute.  however, if you  were  to simply remove police discretion, consider some of the likely consequences: 0.  decreased trust in the police.  you think it is bad now ? wait till everyone  knows  the police are legally obligated to be out to get them.  0.  massive congestion in the legal system.  police will err on the side of job safety rather than sanity, which means tons of trivial cases that should not have been pursued.  0.  increased strain on police resources.  the time is in the paperwork, and most departments are overworked as is.  0.  sudden overcomplication of previously simple laws.  attempting to cover all possible cases unambiguously, probably without sufficient consideration or testing.  while reducing or removing police discretion may be a reasonable way to go, current western legal systems would require a complete overhaul before it would be at all practical.   #  then, you get attempts to  re rationalize  the law which only end up complicating the statute beyond recognition, and things once again dissolve into a massive shit show.   #  yes and no.  for many offenses like bylaw violations, speeding and, yes, virtually all cases of drug possession, the only real factor in the case is whether the officer cites/charges the person.  prosecutorial involvement is slim, if it exists at all, and a huge portion of cases never go near a courtroom.  these cases are by nature very different from cases where you have got a prosecutor  actively  deciding whether to pursue the case based on police evidence, partly because most are basically low end regulatory offences.  while the prosecutorial model makes sense for more serious cases where significant evidence exists for a prosecutor to consider, it is a lot less reasonable here.  at best, all removing police discretion would do is shift the burden to prosecutors, who would now have to actively handle a torrent of minor cases where the only relevant evidence is what the officer involved has to say.  worse, the decision to pursue cases would be shifted from someone actually present to someone whose only contact is hearsay.  that does not strike me as an improvement.  at worst, it would lead to prosecutors simply deciding to pursue everything.  besides the additional load, this would effectively remove the prosecutorial discretion that is  also  fundamental to our justice system.  then, you get attempts to  re rationalize  the law which only end up complicating the statute beyond recognition, and things once again dissolve into a massive shit show.  the  real  solution is to acknowledge that for certain classes of offenses, police officers are in the best position to make the decision whether to pursue.  rather than fighting the practice, it should be formalized in a way that allows a greater level of accountability and management.   #  right now most people do not see the problem.   #  the best way to show someone that a system is broken is to demonstrate that it is broken.  i am not saying burn the building down, because that would leave nothing left.  instead i am saying that we should light a match under the detector to show that it is not working, and it needs to be replaced.  right now most people do not see the problem.  if we light a match they will see the problem and try and fix it.   #  that is my point: if you simply remove police discretion, by the time the dust clears you wo not have much of a justice system left.   # instead i am saying that we should light a match under the detector to show that it is not working, and it needs to be replaced.  that is my point: if you simply remove police discretion, by the time the dust clears you wo not have much of a justice system left.  your solution is not the equivalent of lighting a match under the detector, it is lobbing a molotov cocktail through the window.  the  match under the detector  approach, as applied to the justice system, would be to start with more comprehensive documentation i. e.  body cams, dash cams etc.  followed by comprehensive third party analysis to test whether discretion was being applied fairly/evenly/effectively or not.  at  most , you might reduce police discretion for a single minor offence e. g.  jaywalking by different degrees in different but otherwise similar areas in order to gauge the impact of such policies and people is reactions.
something that has perplexed me for years, even after i have been through a serious relationship, is the concept of  cheating .  how is it that sex have gone on to mean things like  trust ,  respect ,  love ,  commitment  ? sex is pretty clearly defined as achieving gratification and likewise, helping someone else/others achieve gratification.  when did we decide that just because you fuck someone else, you clearly  love  them or you are being  disrespectful  ? let me clarify some things: i agree sex feels pretty good, possibly better, when it is with someone you truly care about.  if we are all biologically programmed to find the opposite sex attractive, how could we possibly never want to fuck other people in a committed relationship ? why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ? it is just sex.  what you consider a relationship is subjective to you, i acknowledge that.  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.  what does sex have to do with that ? i choose to  be  with someone for the rest of my life, is it wrong if i want to bang someone else ? maybe i do it, maybe i do not, but i do not respect my partner any less because of it.  basically i do not see how a person in a relationship fucking someone else is entirely a bad thing, it just  is .  what am i missing ? what is it about cheating that makes people so furious they start having  trust issues  ? one thing that bothers me so much is when people say  wow i would never do that !   yes you would. maybe you do not do it but you still think guys/girls are attractive right ? just like bill burr is rant about domestic violence. there is no excuse for hitting your wife ? there is a million reasons to hit your wife but you just do not do it ! maybe that is not a great analogy but you get the picture.  i do not see cheating as a terrible offense and if you are with someone who ends up fucking someone else and you are not okay with that, i do not understand how it is such a life or death issue.  i mean, people have drank themselves into depression over this, how does cheating impact people  this much  ? sex is just sex people.   #  if we are all biologically programmed to find the opposite sex attractive, how could we possibly never want to fuck other people in a committed relationship ?  #  why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ?  # why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ? it is just sex.  this is irrelevant.  an exclusive relationship does not mean not wanting to fuck other people, it means not acting on those desires.  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.  what does sex have to do with that ? i choose to  be  with someone for the rest of my life, is it wrong if i want to bang someone else ? maybe i do it, maybe i do not, but i do not respect my partner any less because of it.  again, wanting to do something is not the same as acting on it.  ultimately though it is about trust, honesty, and dedication.  if someone is in an exclusive relationship, there is the understanding that there will not be outside sex.  to break this promise is a betrayal of trust and dedication, and often leads to lies.  note that i am specifying an exclusive relationship.  a relationship that involves outside sex that is agreed on is not inolving cheating, because provide the outside sex is within the parameters set by the couple, there is no betrayal or lies.   #  the contract related to cheating is communicated everywhere, and throughout most societies.   #  the contract related to cheating is communicated everywhere, and throughout most societies.  it is inconceivable that someone could reach the age of 0, or 0, or 0 without becoming aware of this concept: that romantic relationships are monogamous by default, unless explicitly stated otherwise.  the problem with cheating has nothing to do with sex directly, it has to do with breaking the agreement / contract / promise that you wo not have sex with other people.  that is why it is morally and ethically wrong to cheat.  on top of that,  cheating  is  completely unnecessary .  you can totally have sex with other people all you have to do is tell your partner about it and it is no longer  cheating .   #  what i think you mean is that they are just not synonymous or are mutually independent.   # that would mean that love cannot exist in concert with sex, and that sex cannot be about love.  i think most people would disagree with that.  what i think you mean is that they are just not synonymous or are mutually independent.  that you do not need one to have the other.  that they can exist independent of one another.  that is very different from saying they can only ever exist separately.   #  it is more of a respect thing to either not cheat, or at least inform your so before you engage in it.   #  i just want to say that i agree with you.  it is hard to find a good relationship, and sometimes people just want to have sex.  i have never been cheated on, and i have never cheated on anyone that i was with, but if it did happen i do not think it would be the  relationship ending  conundrum that everyone makes it out to be.  if she still wanted to have sex with me as often as i wanted to, then i do not think there would be a problem.  that being said, i would be more concerned about the lying, and potential for stds and children.  it is more of a respect thing to either not cheat, or at least inform your so before you engage in it.   #  if i went to a funeral, there would be nothing objectively immoral about wearing a track suit and slippers, but the subjective rules of western culture say that is offensive.   #  there is nothing objectively wrong with sleeping with someone else, but there is something  subjectively  wrong, and as culture is an entirely subjective subject.  if i went to a funeral, there would be nothing objectively immoral about wearing a track suit and slippers, but the subjective rules of western culture say that is offensive.  i can argue about how i would rather mourn in comfort, and the deceased would want me to be comfortable, but i would still be in the wrong for breaking from the subjective and arbitrary rules of our culture.  now, because these rules are subjective, a lot of people see fit to find ways around them.  if i mention in my will that i do not want people getting dressed up for my funeral, then people could show up in their pajamas.  the same is true for breaking the general cultural view on monogamy in our culture.  cultural beliefs are arbitrary and subjective and  still true despite all that.  there is problem with breaking them, as along as all parties know that they are being broken, and accept it.
something that has perplexed me for years, even after i have been through a serious relationship, is the concept of  cheating .  how is it that sex have gone on to mean things like  trust ,  respect ,  love ,  commitment  ? sex is pretty clearly defined as achieving gratification and likewise, helping someone else/others achieve gratification.  when did we decide that just because you fuck someone else, you clearly  love  them or you are being  disrespectful  ? let me clarify some things: i agree sex feels pretty good, possibly better, when it is with someone you truly care about.  if we are all biologically programmed to find the opposite sex attractive, how could we possibly never want to fuck other people in a committed relationship ? why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ? it is just sex.  what you consider a relationship is subjective to you, i acknowledge that.  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.  what does sex have to do with that ? i choose to  be  with someone for the rest of my life, is it wrong if i want to bang someone else ? maybe i do it, maybe i do not, but i do not respect my partner any less because of it.  basically i do not see how a person in a relationship fucking someone else is entirely a bad thing, it just  is .  what am i missing ? what is it about cheating that makes people so furious they start having  trust issues  ? one thing that bothers me so much is when people say  wow i would never do that !   yes you would. maybe you do not do it but you still think guys/girls are attractive right ? just like bill burr is rant about domestic violence. there is no excuse for hitting your wife ? there is a million reasons to hit your wife but you just do not do it ! maybe that is not a great analogy but you get the picture.  i do not see cheating as a terrible offense and if you are with someone who ends up fucking someone else and you are not okay with that, i do not understand how it is such a life or death issue.  i mean, people have drank themselves into depression over this, how does cheating impact people  this much  ? sex is just sex people.   #  what you consider a relationship is subjective to you, i acknowledge that.   #  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.   # why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ? it is just sex.  this is irrelevant.  an exclusive relationship does not mean not wanting to fuck other people, it means not acting on those desires.  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.  what does sex have to do with that ? i choose to  be  with someone for the rest of my life, is it wrong if i want to bang someone else ? maybe i do it, maybe i do not, but i do not respect my partner any less because of it.  again, wanting to do something is not the same as acting on it.  ultimately though it is about trust, honesty, and dedication.  if someone is in an exclusive relationship, there is the understanding that there will not be outside sex.  to break this promise is a betrayal of trust and dedication, and often leads to lies.  note that i am specifying an exclusive relationship.  a relationship that involves outside sex that is agreed on is not inolving cheating, because provide the outside sex is within the parameters set by the couple, there is no betrayal or lies.   #  the problem with cheating has nothing to do with sex directly, it has to do with breaking the agreement / contract / promise that you wo not have sex with other people.  that is why it is morally and ethically wrong to cheat.   #  the contract related to cheating is communicated everywhere, and throughout most societies.  it is inconceivable that someone could reach the age of 0, or 0, or 0 without becoming aware of this concept: that romantic relationships are monogamous by default, unless explicitly stated otherwise.  the problem with cheating has nothing to do with sex directly, it has to do with breaking the agreement / contract / promise that you wo not have sex with other people.  that is why it is morally and ethically wrong to cheat.  on top of that,  cheating  is  completely unnecessary .  you can totally have sex with other people all you have to do is tell your partner about it and it is no longer  cheating .   #  that they can exist independent of one another.   # that would mean that love cannot exist in concert with sex, and that sex cannot be about love.  i think most people would disagree with that.  what i think you mean is that they are just not synonymous or are mutually independent.  that you do not need one to have the other.  that they can exist independent of one another.  that is very different from saying they can only ever exist separately.   #  i just want to say that i agree with you.   #  i just want to say that i agree with you.  it is hard to find a good relationship, and sometimes people just want to have sex.  i have never been cheated on, and i have never cheated on anyone that i was with, but if it did happen i do not think it would be the  relationship ending  conundrum that everyone makes it out to be.  if she still wanted to have sex with me as often as i wanted to, then i do not think there would be a problem.  that being said, i would be more concerned about the lying, and potential for stds and children.  it is more of a respect thing to either not cheat, or at least inform your so before you engage in it.   #  there is nothing objectively wrong with sleeping with someone else, but there is something  subjectively  wrong, and as culture is an entirely subjective subject.   #  there is nothing objectively wrong with sleeping with someone else, but there is something  subjectively  wrong, and as culture is an entirely subjective subject.  if i went to a funeral, there would be nothing objectively immoral about wearing a track suit and slippers, but the subjective rules of western culture say that is offensive.  i can argue about how i would rather mourn in comfort, and the deceased would want me to be comfortable, but i would still be in the wrong for breaking from the subjective and arbitrary rules of our culture.  now, because these rules are subjective, a lot of people see fit to find ways around them.  if i mention in my will that i do not want people getting dressed up for my funeral, then people could show up in their pajamas.  the same is true for breaking the general cultural view on monogamy in our culture.  cultural beliefs are arbitrary and subjective and  still true despite all that.  there is problem with breaking them, as along as all parties know that they are being broken, and accept it.
something that has perplexed me for years, even after i have been through a serious relationship, is the concept of  cheating .  how is it that sex have gone on to mean things like  trust ,  respect ,  love ,  commitment  ? sex is pretty clearly defined as achieving gratification and likewise, helping someone else/others achieve gratification.  when did we decide that just because you fuck someone else, you clearly  love  them or you are being  disrespectful  ? let me clarify some things: i agree sex feels pretty good, possibly better, when it is with someone you truly care about.  if we are all biologically programmed to find the opposite sex attractive, how could we possibly never want to fuck other people in a committed relationship ? why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ? it is just sex.  what you consider a relationship is subjective to you, i acknowledge that.  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.  what does sex have to do with that ? i choose to  be  with someone for the rest of my life, is it wrong if i want to bang someone else ? maybe i do it, maybe i do not, but i do not respect my partner any less because of it.  basically i do not see how a person in a relationship fucking someone else is entirely a bad thing, it just  is .  what am i missing ? what is it about cheating that makes people so furious they start having  trust issues  ? one thing that bothers me so much is when people say  wow i would never do that !   yes you would. maybe you do not do it but you still think guys/girls are attractive right ? just like bill burr is rant about domestic violence. there is no excuse for hitting your wife ? there is a million reasons to hit your wife but you just do not do it ! maybe that is not a great analogy but you get the picture.  i do not see cheating as a terrible offense and if you are with someone who ends up fucking someone else and you are not okay with that, i do not understand how it is such a life or death issue.  i mean, people have drank themselves into depression over this, how does cheating impact people  this much  ? sex is just sex people.   #  if we are all biologically programmed to find the opposite sex attractive, how could we possibly never want to fuck other people in a committed relationship ?  #  why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ?  #  is it ethically wrong violate a commitment or agreement that you have made with another person ? why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ? it is just sex.  if you want to talk about biology, then it is disrespectful because having sex with another person is potentially reducing the time and resources you have to raise your current offspring.  we pair off because raising offspring takes a significant amount of resources.  otherwise, it is disrespectful because you are breaking an agreement and violating trust.  also, you are potentially exposing your partner to sexually transmitted diseases.  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.  it is subjective  to the people in the relationship .  it is up to you to define the parameters of your relationship with your partner.  if you have an open relationship, there is no cheating.  if there is cheating, you are breaking an agreement.  someone tells you they wo not do something and then they do it.  now you ca not trust what they say.  why is that hard to understand ? generally people do not communicate the grounds for cheating because even the thought of it means cheating to some people, as if you are trying to convince them to let them have sex with someone else just because you talk about it.  there are well understood ways of cheating and you seem to know them already like kissing on the mouth, sex, erotic touching, etc.  if there is ever any ambiguity over whether or not something is cheating, then you talk to them before assuming.   #  the problem with cheating has nothing to do with sex directly, it has to do with breaking the agreement / contract / promise that you wo not have sex with other people.  that is why it is morally and ethically wrong to cheat.   #  the contract related to cheating is communicated everywhere, and throughout most societies.  it is inconceivable that someone could reach the age of 0, or 0, or 0 without becoming aware of this concept: that romantic relationships are monogamous by default, unless explicitly stated otherwise.  the problem with cheating has nothing to do with sex directly, it has to do with breaking the agreement / contract / promise that you wo not have sex with other people.  that is why it is morally and ethically wrong to cheat.  on top of that,  cheating  is  completely unnecessary .  you can totally have sex with other people all you have to do is tell your partner about it and it is no longer  cheating .   #  what i think you mean is that they are just not synonymous or are mutually independent.   # that would mean that love cannot exist in concert with sex, and that sex cannot be about love.  i think most people would disagree with that.  what i think you mean is that they are just not synonymous or are mutually independent.  that you do not need one to have the other.  that they can exist independent of one another.  that is very different from saying they can only ever exist separately.   #  it is hard to find a good relationship, and sometimes people just want to have sex.   #  i just want to say that i agree with you.  it is hard to find a good relationship, and sometimes people just want to have sex.  i have never been cheated on, and i have never cheated on anyone that i was with, but if it did happen i do not think it would be the  relationship ending  conundrum that everyone makes it out to be.  if she still wanted to have sex with me as often as i wanted to, then i do not think there would be a problem.  that being said, i would be more concerned about the lying, and potential for stds and children.  it is more of a respect thing to either not cheat, or at least inform your so before you engage in it.   #  cultural beliefs are arbitrary and subjective and  still true despite all that.   #  there is nothing objectively wrong with sleeping with someone else, but there is something  subjectively  wrong, and as culture is an entirely subjective subject.  if i went to a funeral, there would be nothing objectively immoral about wearing a track suit and slippers, but the subjective rules of western culture say that is offensive.  i can argue about how i would rather mourn in comfort, and the deceased would want me to be comfortable, but i would still be in the wrong for breaking from the subjective and arbitrary rules of our culture.  now, because these rules are subjective, a lot of people see fit to find ways around them.  if i mention in my will that i do not want people getting dressed up for my funeral, then people could show up in their pajamas.  the same is true for breaking the general cultural view on monogamy in our culture.  cultural beliefs are arbitrary and subjective and  still true despite all that.  there is problem with breaking them, as along as all parties know that they are being broken, and accept it.
something that has perplexed me for years, even after i have been through a serious relationship, is the concept of  cheating .  how is it that sex have gone on to mean things like  trust ,  respect ,  love ,  commitment  ? sex is pretty clearly defined as achieving gratification and likewise, helping someone else/others achieve gratification.  when did we decide that just because you fuck someone else, you clearly  love  them or you are being  disrespectful  ? let me clarify some things: i agree sex feels pretty good, possibly better, when it is with someone you truly care about.  if we are all biologically programmed to find the opposite sex attractive, how could we possibly never want to fuck other people in a committed relationship ? why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ? it is just sex.  what you consider a relationship is subjective to you, i acknowledge that.  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.  what does sex have to do with that ? i choose to  be  with someone for the rest of my life, is it wrong if i want to bang someone else ? maybe i do it, maybe i do not, but i do not respect my partner any less because of it.  basically i do not see how a person in a relationship fucking someone else is entirely a bad thing, it just  is .  what am i missing ? what is it about cheating that makes people so furious they start having  trust issues  ? one thing that bothers me so much is when people say  wow i would never do that !   yes you would. maybe you do not do it but you still think guys/girls are attractive right ? just like bill burr is rant about domestic violence. there is no excuse for hitting your wife ? there is a million reasons to hit your wife but you just do not do it ! maybe that is not a great analogy but you get the picture.  i do not see cheating as a terrible offense and if you are with someone who ends up fucking someone else and you are not okay with that, i do not understand how it is such a life or death issue.  i mean, people have drank themselves into depression over this, how does cheating impact people  this much  ? sex is just sex people.   #  what you consider a relationship is subjective to you, i acknowledge that.   #  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.   #  is it ethically wrong violate a commitment or agreement that you have made with another person ? why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ? it is just sex.  if you want to talk about biology, then it is disrespectful because having sex with another person is potentially reducing the time and resources you have to raise your current offspring.  we pair off because raising offspring takes a significant amount of resources.  otherwise, it is disrespectful because you are breaking an agreement and violating trust.  also, you are potentially exposing your partner to sexually transmitted diseases.  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.  it is subjective  to the people in the relationship .  it is up to you to define the parameters of your relationship with your partner.  if you have an open relationship, there is no cheating.  if there is cheating, you are breaking an agreement.  someone tells you they wo not do something and then they do it.  now you ca not trust what they say.  why is that hard to understand ? generally people do not communicate the grounds for cheating because even the thought of it means cheating to some people, as if you are trying to convince them to let them have sex with someone else just because you talk about it.  there are well understood ways of cheating and you seem to know them already like kissing on the mouth, sex, erotic touching, etc.  if there is ever any ambiguity over whether or not something is cheating, then you talk to them before assuming.   #  on top of that,  cheating  is  completely unnecessary .   #  the contract related to cheating is communicated everywhere, and throughout most societies.  it is inconceivable that someone could reach the age of 0, or 0, or 0 without becoming aware of this concept: that romantic relationships are monogamous by default, unless explicitly stated otherwise.  the problem with cheating has nothing to do with sex directly, it has to do with breaking the agreement / contract / promise that you wo not have sex with other people.  that is why it is morally and ethically wrong to cheat.  on top of that,  cheating  is  completely unnecessary .  you can totally have sex with other people all you have to do is tell your partner about it and it is no longer  cheating .   #  that you do not need one to have the other.   # that would mean that love cannot exist in concert with sex, and that sex cannot be about love.  i think most people would disagree with that.  what i think you mean is that they are just not synonymous or are mutually independent.  that you do not need one to have the other.  that they can exist independent of one another.  that is very different from saying they can only ever exist separately.   #  i just want to say that i agree with you.   #  i just want to say that i agree with you.  it is hard to find a good relationship, and sometimes people just want to have sex.  i have never been cheated on, and i have never cheated on anyone that i was with, but if it did happen i do not think it would be the  relationship ending  conundrum that everyone makes it out to be.  if she still wanted to have sex with me as often as i wanted to, then i do not think there would be a problem.  that being said, i would be more concerned about the lying, and potential for stds and children.  it is more of a respect thing to either not cheat, or at least inform your so before you engage in it.   #  i can argue about how i would rather mourn in comfort, and the deceased would want me to be comfortable, but i would still be in the wrong for breaking from the subjective and arbitrary rules of our culture.   #  there is nothing objectively wrong with sleeping with someone else, but there is something  subjectively  wrong, and as culture is an entirely subjective subject.  if i went to a funeral, there would be nothing objectively immoral about wearing a track suit and slippers, but the subjective rules of western culture say that is offensive.  i can argue about how i would rather mourn in comfort, and the deceased would want me to be comfortable, but i would still be in the wrong for breaking from the subjective and arbitrary rules of our culture.  now, because these rules are subjective, a lot of people see fit to find ways around them.  if i mention in my will that i do not want people getting dressed up for my funeral, then people could show up in their pajamas.  the same is true for breaking the general cultural view on monogamy in our culture.  cultural beliefs are arbitrary and subjective and  still true despite all that.  there is problem with breaking them, as along as all parties know that they are being broken, and accept it.
something that has perplexed me for years, even after i have been through a serious relationship, is the concept of  cheating .  how is it that sex have gone on to mean things like  trust ,  respect ,  love ,  commitment  ? sex is pretty clearly defined as achieving gratification and likewise, helping someone else/others achieve gratification.  when did we decide that just because you fuck someone else, you clearly  love  them or you are being  disrespectful  ? let me clarify some things: i agree sex feels pretty good, possibly better, when it is with someone you truly care about.  if we are all biologically programmed to find the opposite sex attractive, how could we possibly never want to fuck other people in a committed relationship ? why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ? it is just sex.  what you consider a relationship is subjective to you, i acknowledge that.  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.  what does sex have to do with that ? i choose to  be  with someone for the rest of my life, is it wrong if i want to bang someone else ? maybe i do it, maybe i do not, but i do not respect my partner any less because of it.  basically i do not see how a person in a relationship fucking someone else is entirely a bad thing, it just  is .  what am i missing ? what is it about cheating that makes people so furious they start having  trust issues  ? one thing that bothers me so much is when people say  wow i would never do that !   yes you would. maybe you do not do it but you still think guys/girls are attractive right ? just like bill burr is rant about domestic violence. there is no excuse for hitting your wife ? there is a million reasons to hit your wife but you just do not do it ! maybe that is not a great analogy but you get the picture.  i do not see cheating as a terrible offense and if you are with someone who ends up fucking someone else and you are not okay with that, i do not understand how it is such a life or death issue.  i mean, people have drank themselves into depression over this, how does cheating impact people  this much  ? sex is just sex people.   #  what is it about cheating that makes people so furious they start having  trust issues  ?  #  someone tells you they wo not do something and then they do it.   #  is it ethically wrong violate a commitment or agreement that you have made with another person ? why is that thought/act something to be considered disrespectful ? it is just sex.  if you want to talk about biology, then it is disrespectful because having sex with another person is potentially reducing the time and resources you have to raise your current offspring.  we pair off because raising offspring takes a significant amount of resources.  otherwise, it is disrespectful because you are breaking an agreement and violating trust.  also, you are potentially exposing your partner to sexually transmitted diseases.  i see relationships as an adoration and certain respect you have with another person.  it is subjective  to the people in the relationship .  it is up to you to define the parameters of your relationship with your partner.  if you have an open relationship, there is no cheating.  if there is cheating, you are breaking an agreement.  someone tells you they wo not do something and then they do it.  now you ca not trust what they say.  why is that hard to understand ? generally people do not communicate the grounds for cheating because even the thought of it means cheating to some people, as if you are trying to convince them to let them have sex with someone else just because you talk about it.  there are well understood ways of cheating and you seem to know them already like kissing on the mouth, sex, erotic touching, etc.  if there is ever any ambiguity over whether or not something is cheating, then you talk to them before assuming.   #  you can totally have sex with other people all you have to do is tell your partner about it and it is no longer  cheating .   #  the contract related to cheating is communicated everywhere, and throughout most societies.  it is inconceivable that someone could reach the age of 0, or 0, or 0 without becoming aware of this concept: that romantic relationships are monogamous by default, unless explicitly stated otherwise.  the problem with cheating has nothing to do with sex directly, it has to do with breaking the agreement / contract / promise that you wo not have sex with other people.  that is why it is morally and ethically wrong to cheat.  on top of that,  cheating  is  completely unnecessary .  you can totally have sex with other people all you have to do is tell your partner about it and it is no longer  cheating .   #  that they can exist independent of one another.   # that would mean that love cannot exist in concert with sex, and that sex cannot be about love.  i think most people would disagree with that.  what i think you mean is that they are just not synonymous or are mutually independent.  that you do not need one to have the other.  that they can exist independent of one another.  that is very different from saying they can only ever exist separately.   #  i just want to say that i agree with you.   #  i just want to say that i agree with you.  it is hard to find a good relationship, and sometimes people just want to have sex.  i have never been cheated on, and i have never cheated on anyone that i was with, but if it did happen i do not think it would be the  relationship ending  conundrum that everyone makes it out to be.  if she still wanted to have sex with me as often as i wanted to, then i do not think there would be a problem.  that being said, i would be more concerned about the lying, and potential for stds and children.  it is more of a respect thing to either not cheat, or at least inform your so before you engage in it.   #  the same is true for breaking the general cultural view on monogamy in our culture.   #  there is nothing objectively wrong with sleeping with someone else, but there is something  subjectively  wrong, and as culture is an entirely subjective subject.  if i went to a funeral, there would be nothing objectively immoral about wearing a track suit and slippers, but the subjective rules of western culture say that is offensive.  i can argue about how i would rather mourn in comfort, and the deceased would want me to be comfortable, but i would still be in the wrong for breaking from the subjective and arbitrary rules of our culture.  now, because these rules are subjective, a lot of people see fit to find ways around them.  if i mention in my will that i do not want people getting dressed up for my funeral, then people could show up in their pajamas.  the same is true for breaking the general cultural view on monogamy in our culture.  cultural beliefs are arbitrary and subjective and  still true despite all that.  there is problem with breaking them, as along as all parties know that they are being broken, and accept it.
i know there is a problem with how the cops treat black people.  but why are the cases that are most blasted over the media only focused on thugs ? there are real cases of mistreatment out there.  cory maye is one i learned about here on reddit today.  where are the facebook sjw assholes and people like sharpton for a case like that ? the only stories i found about maye were on huffpo.  how is that possible ? i now believe the media, sjw assholes, and people like sharpton are in this solely to get attention for themselves.  they purposely pick cases to champion where they can see how they are wrong, because the goal is not change, it is attention for themselves.  and in the end they only hurt their supposed cause.   #  but why are the cases that are most blasted over the media only focused on thugs ?  #  the majority of people in the ussr during its darkest periods kept their heads down and stayed out of trouble.   # the majority of people in the ussr during its darkest periods kept their heads down and stayed out of trouble.  if you looked at those who did get into trouble, you would probably find plenty of things wrong with them: people who lack the sense to stay out of the eye of the secret police tend to have other issues in life that mark them as troublemakers.  does this mean that the stasi were in the right ? that they were just taking care of the thugs and letting the law abiding citizens go about their way ? to put it more succinctly: you should not have to be a saint to get fair treatment in a just society.  generally, in high profile cases where the state has done something wrong, the state engages in a character assassination campaign, which is usually successful, because most people are not saints, and have plenty of places where their character is flawed.   show me the man and i will find you the crime , said an expert in these sorts of things.  if cory maye is case were higher profile, i am sure that we would learn more unpleasant things about him, and you would learn complicated and contradictory things about the sequence of events that lead to him shooting the police officer.  would this change your mind about the injustice ? or should people feel free to defend their homes and maybe act like a little bit of a jerk in public without the risk of being thrown in a dungeon or shot in cold blood in the street ?  #  my premise is that there are cases of true injustice, but brown is not one of them.   #  my premise is that there are cases of true injustice, but brown is not one of them.  he was a thug attacking a cop after he robbed a store.  0 0 and 0 pounds that is attacking a cop using him as the poster  boy  for excessive force when someone is not armed it automatically alienates a lot of people to that cause ! these people prefer to rally around cases where it is unclear because they are whoring for attention showing how progressive they can be despite all the facts.  they are not trying to affect change.  if they were, they would be rallying around very different cases.   #  when used as a verb, affect means  to alter , and effect means  to cause something to happen .   # effect.  the word you are looking for is effect, not affect.  when used as a verb, affect means  to alter , and effect means  to cause something to happen .  usually, though, effect is used as a noun rather than a verb.  as a noun, it means  the result of an action .  more, affect can be used as a noun too, meaning  one is mental state .  i know all of this is confusing, so i made a chart: | | effect | affect | | | | | meaning as a noun | the result of an action | one is mood meaning as a verb | to create or cause | to alter something if this is still confusing, i would recommend that you only use these words in their most common definitions that is, effect as a noun and affect as a verb.  to remember which is which, i use the phrase,  the greenhouse  e ffect  a ffects the climate .  thank you for taking the time to listen.  i hope you have learnt something.   #  there are good reasons for the unrest in ferguson, however: there were extant tensions between the largely while police force and a growing black population.   # media outrage is a feedback loop: reporters report on something they think is important; if the reaction of the audience validates the importance, then the reporters do more reporting, and it becomes a feedback loop.  predicting which situations create big enough loops to burst onto the national stage is tricky: there is a lot of chance involved.  there are good reasons for the unrest in ferguson, however: there were extant tensions between the largely while police force and a growing black population.  the police force is initial reaction to largely peaceful protests was disproportionate, and escalated the situation.  ferguson contains within itself many economic and social problems that reflect broader economic and social problems, so there is a lot to report on, or protest about, beyond the specific facts of the case.  basically, an injustice was committed the bare fact is that a state employee shot an unarmed citizen there are very few situations where the state employee is in the right, here , and the timing and context of the injustice catapulted it to the national stage.  as a side effect, we are talking about other injustices, and those conversations are useful.  there is also some self aggrandizing and hype making going on, of course, but it is unnecessarily cynical to dismiss the case as being solely about those things.  a lot of people are honestly upset, and justifiably so.   #  using brown as a rallying point against unjust force is completely lost on me.   #  eggies your point about the stasi came close to changing my view.  excellent point on being able to show dirt on anyone to sway public opinion.  however, i still believe that a lot of the people rallying around cases like oj simpson and a guy like brown are attracted to situations where it is not a clear case of injustice, because they seek attention foremost, and justice is an afterthought.  using brown as a rallying point against unjust force is completely lost on me.  i agree with the grand jury, and hearing  hands up do not shoot  actually makes me think all these people are idiots, considering the two autopsies that proved that narrative wrong.  i believe something is wrong with the militarization of our police force, and how the war on drugs is affecting blacks, and how quick cops are to use force either tasters or guns.  i believe cops need to have body cameras.  but the sjws, sharpton, and the media have alienated me by choosing this guy in this situation as the rallying call.  it is incredibly counterproductive to get actual change.
the whole ferguson case is a non issue.  if a white kid tries to pull a cops gun out of his holster, runs and gets shot, hes a fucking punk and the cop was in the right.  a black kid does it and its all of a sudden the crime of the century.  i know the media played a big part in blowing this out of proportion, but the black community is way too quick to defend the colored just because they are colored, wrong or right.  i understand that centuries of slavery and oppression have left a palpable effect, but we are decades removed from that.  straight up, vocal, racists are in the minority now.  they do not represent the diverse and multicultural population of the united states in 0.  the ferguson case is not about the color of the skin, but a violation of clear cut laws.  black people are quick to scream prejudice and then turn and loot stores of chinese and indian immigrants for  justice .  i do not think they give a shit about justice or that dead kid, but just want to make a show of themselves.  if you stop always acting like the victim, you wo not be treated like one.  cmv.  if this seems racist, its not.  this is a cultural issue, not a racial one  #  black people are quick to scream prejudice and then turn and loot stores of chinese and indian immigrants for  justice .   #  i have been saying this and i will continue to.  the cops have been throwing tear gas and moving the media when a lot of the looting goes down.   # i have been saying this and i will continue to.  the cops have been throwing tear gas and moving the media when a lot of the looting goes down.  there is article URL upon article URL upon article URL of the protesters actually defending the stores from these outsiders.  how ? how are we decades removed ? our prison population is massively disproportionately black URL most of the time getting sentences that whites are getting off of, and most of that for possession of drugs.  you have got a disproportionate number of these minorities in poverty because of past oppression, they are disenfranchised, and they are getting killed disproportionately.  they do not represent the diverse and multicultural population of the united states in 0.  tell that to the police brutality rates and the abuse of force URL the ongoing fight between the kkk and anonymous.  URL  #  thank you folks for sharing your thoughts and insights.   #  thank you folks for sharing your thoughts and insights.  it was not my intention to hit anyone is cords.  you are all making valid points and appreciate the responses.  you are helping to shed some light on my world and broaden my horizons.  i will not be able to respond to all, but will be trying to rebuttal as best i can  #  the legacies of institutional racism are alive and well, with their effects being felt by black people everywhere.   # first of all, being decades away from it does not make the irrelevant.  the legacies of institutional racism are alive and well, with their effects being felt by black people everywhere.  second of all, we actually are not decades away from it.  the criminal justice system is a racist institution, and the war on drugs is a war on black people.  this is happening here and now, you ca not ignore it.   #  i would like you to say some liberal bs like  he could have just shot him in his left knee cap  when your life is in danger and you are experiencing an adrenalin spike.   #  i do not know if you can say that.  we need all the facts that were presented to the grand jury.  we also need to know the  circumstances  of these facts i. e. , in what way they were presented so to detect any bias.  but at the end of the day, michael brown robbed a store.  he assaulted a shop owner.  darren wilson was aware of this.  he assaulted darren wilson.  where it gets murky is if/when he feed, did he assault darren wilson again ? i would like you to say some liberal bs like  he could have just shot him in his left knee cap  when your life is in danger and you are experiencing an adrenalin spike.   #  sure overt racism is less of a thing, but to say racism is gone is to deny reality.   #  as a white kid from the chicago burbs i never felt racism targeted against me.  i never felt the long gaze of a shopkeeper when i walked into a store.  i never got pulled over because of the color of my skin.  i never had someone question my intelligence or ask if i was criminal based on my skin.  i never got rejected for a job based on white sounding name.  i was able to get a cab at night.  sure overt racism is less of a thing, but to say racism is gone is to deny reality.  how many people say racist things behind the power of a computer and a screen name ? how many people still act on strong racial stereotypes with no attempt to examine them to see if they are true.  how many people use the term colored in a post like this is the 0 is again ?
the whole ferguson case is a non issue.  if a white kid tries to pull a cops gun out of his holster, runs and gets shot, hes a fucking punk and the cop was in the right.  a black kid does it and its all of a sudden the crime of the century.  i know the media played a big part in blowing this out of proportion, but the black community is way too quick to defend the colored just because they are colored, wrong or right.  i understand that centuries of slavery and oppression have left a palpable effect, but we are decades removed from that.  straight up, vocal, racists are in the minority now.  they do not represent the diverse and multicultural population of the united states in 0.  the ferguson case is not about the color of the skin, but a violation of clear cut laws.  black people are quick to scream prejudice and then turn and loot stores of chinese and indian immigrants for  justice .  i do not think they give a shit about justice or that dead kid, but just want to make a show of themselves.  if you stop always acting like the victim, you wo not be treated like one.  cmv.  if this seems racist, its not.  this is a cultural issue, not a racial one  #  straight up, vocal, racists are in the minority now.   #  they do not represent the diverse and multicultural population of the united states in 0.  tell that to the police brutality rates and the abuse of force URL the ongoing fight between the kkk and anonymous.  URL  # i have been saying this and i will continue to.  the cops have been throwing tear gas and moving the media when a lot of the looting goes down.  there is article URL upon article URL upon article URL of the protesters actually defending the stores from these outsiders.  how ? how are we decades removed ? our prison population is massively disproportionately black URL most of the time getting sentences that whites are getting off of, and most of that for possession of drugs.  you have got a disproportionate number of these minorities in poverty because of past oppression, they are disenfranchised, and they are getting killed disproportionately.  they do not represent the diverse and multicultural population of the united states in 0.  tell that to the police brutality rates and the abuse of force URL the ongoing fight between the kkk and anonymous.  URL  #  you are all making valid points and appreciate the responses.   #  thank you folks for sharing your thoughts and insights.  it was not my intention to hit anyone is cords.  you are all making valid points and appreciate the responses.  you are helping to shed some light on my world and broaden my horizons.  i will not be able to respond to all, but will be trying to rebuttal as best i can  #  first of all, being decades away from it does not make the irrelevant.   # first of all, being decades away from it does not make the irrelevant.  the legacies of institutional racism are alive and well, with their effects being felt by black people everywhere.  second of all, we actually are not decades away from it.  the criminal justice system is a racist institution, and the war on drugs is a war on black people.  this is happening here and now, you ca not ignore it.   #  we also need to know the  circumstances  of these facts i. e. , in what way they were presented so to detect any bias.   #  i do not know if you can say that.  we need all the facts that were presented to the grand jury.  we also need to know the  circumstances  of these facts i. e. , in what way they were presented so to detect any bias.  but at the end of the day, michael brown robbed a store.  he assaulted a shop owner.  darren wilson was aware of this.  he assaulted darren wilson.  where it gets murky is if/when he feed, did he assault darren wilson again ? i would like you to say some liberal bs like  he could have just shot him in his left knee cap  when your life is in danger and you are experiencing an adrenalin spike.   #  i never had someone question my intelligence or ask if i was criminal based on my skin.   #  as a white kid from the chicago burbs i never felt racism targeted against me.  i never felt the long gaze of a shopkeeper when i walked into a store.  i never got pulled over because of the color of my skin.  i never had someone question my intelligence or ask if i was criminal based on my skin.  i never got rejected for a job based on white sounding name.  i was able to get a cab at night.  sure overt racism is less of a thing, but to say racism is gone is to deny reality.  how many people say racist things behind the power of a computer and a screen name ? how many people still act on strong racial stereotypes with no attempt to examine them to see if they are true.  how many people use the term colored in a post like this is the 0 is again ?
the whole ferguson case is a non issue.  if a white kid tries to pull a cops gun out of his holster, runs and gets shot, hes a fucking punk and the cop was in the right.  a black kid does it and its all of a sudden the crime of the century.  i know the media played a big part in blowing this out of proportion, but the black community is way too quick to defend the colored just because they are colored, wrong or right.  i understand that centuries of slavery and oppression have left a palpable effect, but we are decades removed from that.  straight up, vocal, racists are in the minority now.  they do not represent the diverse and multicultural population of the united states in 0.  the ferguson case is not about the color of the skin, but a violation of clear cut laws.  black people are quick to scream prejudice and then turn and loot stores of chinese and indian immigrants for  justice .  i do not think they give a shit about justice or that dead kid, but just want to make a show of themselves.  if you stop always acting like the victim, you wo not be treated like one.  cmv.  if this seems racist, its not.  this is a cultural issue, not a racial one  #  i understand that centuries of slavery and oppression have left a palpable effect, but we are decades removed from that.   #  first of all, being decades away from it does not make the irrelevant.   # first of all, being decades away from it does not make the irrelevant.  the legacies of institutional racism are alive and well, with their effects being felt by black people everywhere.  second of all, we actually are not decades away from it.  the criminal justice system is a racist institution, and the war on drugs is a war on black people.  this is happening here and now, you ca not ignore it.   #  i have been saying this and i will continue to.  the cops have been throwing tear gas and moving the media when a lot of the looting goes down.   # i have been saying this and i will continue to.  the cops have been throwing tear gas and moving the media when a lot of the looting goes down.  there is article URL upon article URL upon article URL of the protesters actually defending the stores from these outsiders.  how ? how are we decades removed ? our prison population is massively disproportionately black URL most of the time getting sentences that whites are getting off of, and most of that for possession of drugs.  you have got a disproportionate number of these minorities in poverty because of past oppression, they are disenfranchised, and they are getting killed disproportionately.  they do not represent the diverse and multicultural population of the united states in 0.  tell that to the police brutality rates and the abuse of force URL the ongoing fight between the kkk and anonymous.  URL  #  you are helping to shed some light on my world and broaden my horizons.   #  thank you folks for sharing your thoughts and insights.  it was not my intention to hit anyone is cords.  you are all making valid points and appreciate the responses.  you are helping to shed some light on my world and broaden my horizons.  i will not be able to respond to all, but will be trying to rebuttal as best i can  #  i would like you to say some liberal bs like  he could have just shot him in his left knee cap  when your life is in danger and you are experiencing an adrenalin spike.   #  i do not know if you can say that.  we need all the facts that were presented to the grand jury.  we also need to know the  circumstances  of these facts i. e. , in what way they were presented so to detect any bias.  but at the end of the day, michael brown robbed a store.  he assaulted a shop owner.  darren wilson was aware of this.  he assaulted darren wilson.  where it gets murky is if/when he feed, did he assault darren wilson again ? i would like you to say some liberal bs like  he could have just shot him in his left knee cap  when your life is in danger and you are experiencing an adrenalin spike.   #  how many people use the term colored in a post like this is the 0 is again ?  #  as a white kid from the chicago burbs i never felt racism targeted against me.  i never felt the long gaze of a shopkeeper when i walked into a store.  i never got pulled over because of the color of my skin.  i never had someone question my intelligence or ask if i was criminal based on my skin.  i never got rejected for a job based on white sounding name.  i was able to get a cab at night.  sure overt racism is less of a thing, but to say racism is gone is to deny reality.  how many people say racist things behind the power of a computer and a screen name ? how many people still act on strong racial stereotypes with no attempt to examine them to see if they are true.  how many people use the term colored in a post like this is the 0 is again ?
let me preface this by saying that i am not talking about the tumblr brand of self diagnosis where someone is got depression because they have had a sad week or obsessive compulsive disorder because they wash their hands more often than normal or anything like that.  that said, if someone has done extensive research on possible mental illnesses that they may suffer from as well as researching other closely related illnesses and find that they suffer many symptoms that align with a specific illness, i see nothing wrong with it.  i will use myself as an example.  i have suffered from generalized anxiety disorder and atypical depression for many years, and have been diagnosed by a professional, back when i still had healthcare.  however, i also suffer other mental symptoms that are not typical of either of those disorders.  i spent many years in fear of myself because i did not understand what was happening in my mind and why.  after many nights of research, i have come to the conclusion that these symptoms very closely align with borderline personality disorder.  am i wrong ? that is very possible, of course.  i am not a professional.  however, having this affirmation, whether or not it is the case, makes me feel better.  it makes me feel more secure about these things, because now at least i can pinpoint a possible cause, and when i eventually get healthcare again i will have a jumping point to discuss with a psychologist.  change my view ? keep in mind that you are speaking to a college student who has not studied psychology outside of a couple of general education courses that she had to take, so layman is terms in regards to psychological ideas would be great.   #  that said, if someone has done extensive research on possible mental illnesses that they may suffer from as well as researching other closely related illnesses and find that they suffer many symptoms that align with a specific illness, i see nothing wrong with it.   #  this diminishes mental illness and is a pervasive and insidious misunderstanding of such disorders.   # this diminishes mental illness and is a pervasive and insidious misunderstanding of such disorders.  there is a persistent belief, in america at least, that mental illness is not actually real and so does not necessarily require diagnosis or treatment.  let is flip this around.   if i have no health insurance, the self diagnosis of diabetes is acceptable for the purposes of understanding and caring for yourself.   well, maybe.  maybe you  do  have diabetes, and losing some weight and watching sugar intake will help.  or maybe you have liver disease.  or chronic pancreatitis.  or polycystic ovary syndrome.  your own misdiagnosis could prolong suffering or lead to more damage.  there is no reason to believe that mental illness is any less potentially deadly or painful than physical illnesses.  bipolar disorder is also frequently misdiagnosed as borderline personality disorder and vice versa.  dbt and antidepressants may be moderately helpful for someone with bipolar disorder, but it would probably be a lot more useful to be on a mood stabilizer.  someone with borderline personality disorder may find their mood stabilized by something like lamotrigine, but that drug will do nothing to manage the sufferer is unstable identity.  sure, you could buy linehan is book on dbt and see some improvements based on a self diagnosis, but if you are  really  suffering from bipolar disorder or even something else entirely you are just prolonging your own suffering and potentially causing more damage to your mood or even your self esteem.  you may even develop even more maladaptive coping mechanisms while you are attempting to self diagnose and self treat, which can just complicate future efforts to diagnose and treat.  for instance, i learned so much about bpd i am diagnosed on my own i decided to solve all my problems by just not interacting with people anymore.  no partners, no social support network, no kids, limited interaction with family.  i no longer frantically attempt to avoid abandonment because i have pre abandoned almost all in person social interaction.  if i were freshly evaluated today as a blank slate, i am pretty sure i would be diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder, whether that is true or not.  unless i rejoin humanity, it is impossible to know if i would still have unstable interpersonal relationships or view people as black and white.  so, by coming up with my own  treatment plan,  i pretty much created a whole new host of problems.  so it is really not ok to self diagnose and self treat a mental illness because you do not know what you are doing and you do not have objectivity.  i know you do not have health insurance.  i know that in some areas, trying to get an appointment with a psychiatrist is like trying to make an appointment with a minor deity.  but at the very least, you should try to obtain psychological testing and diagnosis.  then any efforts you make on your own will be founded on something more than your own guesses.   #  i was diagnosed with it myself, and it took three years of intensive treatment inpatient, residential and bi weekly counseling before i could begin to get my life back.   #  first of all, there are many mental health clinics that will provide services for cheap or free if you are uninsured or ca not afford it normally.  call around, you might be surprised.  but i would not recommend mentioning bpd at all, it has a nasty reputation and many clinicians refuse to take patients who have it.  anyway, what does  acceptable  mean here ? does it mean that you can make an accurate diagnosis, or that you can successfully treat yourself, or what ? it is definitely possible that you are right.  in general though, self diagnosis is a bad idea simply because the criteria in the dsm are not designed to be used for self diagnosis.  you can not see yourself the same way other people do.  another thing.  labels are powerful, and they can effect your behavior and thinking in a lot of subtle but powerful ways.  it might feel nice to finally have a name for what you are experiencing, but be careful that you do not begin to  play the part  without realizing it.  you want to get better, not worse.  as far as caring for yourself goes, that is a whole different topic, especially when it comes to bpd.  it is very complicated and very hard to get rid of.  i would be really skeptical that someone would be able to get out of that mess without a ton of therapy, or at least a lot of support from friends and family.  i was diagnosed with it myself, and it took three years of intensive treatment inpatient, residential and bi weekly counseling before i could begin to get my life back.   #  i understand that i ca not easily view my symptoms objectively, i tried very hard before reaching that conclusion as well as consulting other people who know me well.   #  this is an interesting comment.  why does bpd have a bad reputation clinically ? i can understand the social stigma to an extent people fear that which they do not understand but in a medical setting ? is that not discrimination ? i understand that i ca not easily view my symptoms objectively, i tried very hard before reaching that conclusion as well as consulting other people who know me well.  i am derailing the thread a little bit but i guess this is the part where i ask for advice.  how might you suggest i take care of myself, until i get healthcare again and can get an accurate diagnosis and treatment plan, when i do not have much of a support group ? are there any freely available resources that you are aware of ?  #  my psychiatrist had said i might have it and put me on a mood stabilizer.   #  i do not know if anyone will read this, but i am going to comment anyway.  tw mention of domestic violence, just in case as someone mentioned above about bipolar people being misdiagnosed with borderline personality disorder, i am an example of that.  getting the diagnosis was a long battle, full of health care professionals suggesting i might have bipolar but being hesitant to diagnose me.  my psychiatrist had said i might have it and put me on a mood stabilizer.  based on my moods and family history, i truly felt that i had it, so despite the absence of an official diagnosis, i assumed i had it in this case, i was right .  when i talked about it with my therapist, she told me i was wrong and had borderline personality disorder.  i felt like she used this  diagnosis  to almost vilify me, and make my normal traits out to be dysfunctions.  i got sick of her, because she did not listen to me and constantly inflicted her views on me i had issues with sex because i did not love myself or anyone else, according to her .  when i decided to stop seeing her, i asked to see my files.  she had taken every symptom in the dsm of borderline personality disorder and tried to use things i said as examples.  these things were all totally normal.  struggling with your sexuality and identity is normal.  i had sex with two people since high school, but i was somehow labeled  promiscuous  for experimenting three years earlier.  i saw my grandfather as an evil person after finding out he beat my grandmother, which is a totally normal response, yet somehow this was  black and white thinking.   therapy appointments were incredibly uncomfortable.  i felt like my character was being attacked.  not because i was misdiagnosed with borderline personality disorder professionals have since disagreed with this and diagnosed me bipolar , but because of the way i was treated by her.  i do not know how to treat people with borderline personality disorder, but i know that the way she treated me would not be helpful to anyone with bpd.  tl;dr i do not have bpd and i was not turned away by professionals but i can see the bad reputation they get after being misdiagnosed, and i sympathize with them.   #  the problem becomes a sort of spiral of victimhood.   #  when i was getting my undergrad in psych, i felt as though i had every disorder we learned about.  we have traits that mimic disorders but do not quite satisfy the dsm.  i am bipolar.  i doubt many on tumblr have pulled off the side of the road to both laugh and cry hysterically for 0/0 in their early 0 is after someone raged on them.  i literally could not control my own behavior.  my illness is a disability.  i have seen some tumblr posts and i see a lot of teenagers who are figuring out who they are.  their brain is not even fully developed most teens show symptoms of actual dsm disorders.  the thing i am noticing today is a kind of celebration of victimhood.  we have had a historical shift in value systems in america.  we are deeply concerned with how people feel.  i would say excessively, but anyways.  the problem becomes a sort of spiral of victimhood.  something innocuous happens; example: a tumblr ite saw a cut pomegranate and asserted the person put a nsfw on it because it looked like something bloody.  it triggered them.  they observe that people who had something negative happen to them; bullying or something and they observe the support and validation they get.  so they mimic the behavior and get the same validation.  this goes  viral  and soon everyone chases the validation cataloging the most benign events as transgressions.  tumblr ites co opted the word  triggered , but they are in danger of watering down the word to the point of uselessness.  0 yrs ago the word entered the lexicon to describe a recall to past trauma.  my mom is an incest survivor her father sexually abused her.  when i was younger i had to sit in on her support group.  you should hear the shit these women had to put up with.  they experience terrible trauma.  the teens on tumblr maybe experienced something objectively less traumatic.  but because of the spiral of the validation of victimhood, mountains are made out of mole hills.  this essentially strips the legitimacy of actual disorders.  i do not think any of them have been in a place where they are actively breaking laws because the person feels something worse will happen and wants to be arrested to be confined.  i have.
dear r/changemyview, i do not expect this to be the usual fare for your sub as i actively want my view changed, as opposed to it being a challenge to change my view.  i was raised religious catholic but got out of it in college as its policies made little sense to me and i never felt a connection with anything divine.  i have never had a  spiritual experience , nor have i ever found anything satisfying about the paranormal.  i get anxious at times about my own mortality, as i have never run across enough proof to believe that anything happens after death.  i have heard the  unaccounted post mortem weight  gas the  near death experiences  brains do weird things when we are dying even the  seeing family members on the other side of a river  coping mechanism developed by the brain to handle dying and all of them have non paranormal explanations.  i mostly assuage my fear with the thought that within my lifetime i am 0 now there is the possibility of discovering immortality, as we know what causes humans to break down with age.  that, and the onset of lab grown organs hopefully allowing the individual to live significantly longer than a typical human lifespan.  that or with the way technology is progressing with reading brain signals they even have those toy cat ears that read moods and react accordingly, and the emotiv, which is a brain to computer interface that potentially writing and/or moving the brain is data is not as farfetched an idea as once thought.  however, i am not 0 willing to bet that i will live to see that day in my lifetime.  as such, please change my view.  either a: prove to me that mortality is not that bad b that there is some form of afterlife i do not care what from what religion or whatever just that it is not oblivion post mortem or c that we are closer to cracking the secret of immortality than i think.  you have no idea how much peace of mind this will bring me.   #  c that we are closer to cracking the secret of immortality than i think.   #  ai development is crap for the next 0 years.   # if you got into an accident and were in a coma, you would not feel anything and when you wake up it would be like you were teleported into the future, that blank time, would you really fear it ? to an atheist death is just the coming of the blank time.  decartes is most famous for  cogito ergo sum .  but i think he missed something more fundamental.   existence exists.   this is the most fundamental.  scientist like to imagine the begging the big bang and the end the big crunch.  even if they are just theories that might or might not be.  but even with that they will be a cycle, bang, crunch,bang,crunch that goes through infinity.  scientists cannot comprehend the universe as infinite, or time as infinite, they mark some points on it do the measurements and stop thinking about it.  existence exists, it has stuff, even when you die, your body composed exists, the energy inside your body exists and feeds other life, that is decay.  everything transforms,consumes,grows.  but it exists.  there is no reason why things exist, imagine a universe without the stuff, it is absurd.  there is no reason the rules of the universe are the way they are, its absurd.  the rules of the universe are completely arbitrary.  there is no reason why matter exists.  there is no reason why organic matter also known as life exists.  there is no reason in that organic matter for self consciousness to arise.  that is as big of a hint you are going to get.  ai development is crap for the next 0 years.  no chance for downloads.  evolution has played with biology for the past billion years.  if they have not figured out ways to rejuvenating the dna i doubt we will.   #  every moment is special because we know that any one of them could be our last, and that once a moment is gone, it can never come again.   # every moment is special because we know that any one of them could be our last, and that once a moment is gone, it can never come again.  mortality makes every love special, every sorrow profound, and every joy immaculate.  when you remove death, you take the  living  out of life.   nbsp;  b that there is some form of afterlife i do not care what from what religion or whatever just that it is not oblivion post mortem .  for all that humanity knows, we still do not know much, and much of what we know today, we will more than likely prove wrong tomorrow.  given the vastness of the universe, and the complexities of existence, i find it hard to discount the possibility of there being some kind of continued consciousness after our bodies die.   #  what is the point of art if not an attempt to record a fleeting emotion or memory ?  #  i am not as convinced with the a response.  mortality means that everything ends, lives, civilizations, thoughts.  what is the point of art if not an attempt to record a fleeting emotion or memory ? the whole point of human history is to record itself so that we can remember the good and move away from the bad.  as for b there is that possibility, and it is a hope, but it is very difficult to run on hope without proof to cling to as a backup.   #  mortality means that everything ends, lives, civilizations, thoughts.   # mortality means that everything ends, lives, civilizations, thoughts.  what is the point of art if not an attempt to record a fleeting emotion or memory ? the whole point of human history is to record itself so that we can remember the good and move away from the bad.  there is no objective point to art, life or anything, really.  you can only define your own objectives based on compulsion.  that is not to say it ca not be enjoyed, however.   #  you asked for a ray of light on the subject of mortality and that is up to anyone is subjection.   #  you asked for a ray of light on the subject of mortality and that is up to anyone is subjection.  people have different ideas on mortality but pretty much everyone can agree that the idea that something that must come to an end is better spent attempting to enjoy every moment of.  when the concept of an afterlife comes to mind, people assume that mortality is just a precursor to immortality, the life after this life, the one that never ends.  people do not grasp their mortality when they are consumed with the idea of an afterlife because immorality sounds much more comforting and so this life does not seem to matter as much.  the impossibility to determine a true afterlife based on any idea or religion is exactly the reason mortality is so important.  what if there is not anything after this life. did you at least enjoy yourself while you were around for this one on earth ?
dear r/changemyview, i do not expect this to be the usual fare for your sub as i actively want my view changed, as opposed to it being a challenge to change my view.  i was raised religious catholic but got out of it in college as its policies made little sense to me and i never felt a connection with anything divine.  i have never had a  spiritual experience , nor have i ever found anything satisfying about the paranormal.  i get anxious at times about my own mortality, as i have never run across enough proof to believe that anything happens after death.  i have heard the  unaccounted post mortem weight  gas the  near death experiences  brains do weird things when we are dying even the  seeing family members on the other side of a river  coping mechanism developed by the brain to handle dying and all of them have non paranormal explanations.  i mostly assuage my fear with the thought that within my lifetime i am 0 now there is the possibility of discovering immortality, as we know what causes humans to break down with age.  that, and the onset of lab grown organs hopefully allowing the individual to live significantly longer than a typical human lifespan.  that or with the way technology is progressing with reading brain signals they even have those toy cat ears that read moods and react accordingly, and the emotiv, which is a brain to computer interface that potentially writing and/or moving the brain is data is not as farfetched an idea as once thought.  however, i am not 0 willing to bet that i will live to see that day in my lifetime.  as such, please change my view.  either a: prove to me that mortality is not that bad b that there is some form of afterlife i do not care what from what religion or whatever just that it is not oblivion post mortem or c that we are closer to cracking the secret of immortality than i think.  you have no idea how much peace of mind this will bring me.   #  c that we are closer to cracking the secret of immortality than i think.   #  i would prefer slower aging and longer life spans to immortality.   # you are 0.  you are still young.  another 0 years and you will be 0, which is middle age, but still full of life.  another 0 years and you will be 0.  if you live a healthy life then you should still be alive by then.  the modern human life span is very long, and as you get older and learn more about the world around you your perception of life changes.  by the time you reach old age you will no longer fear death, because by that time you have already lived your life to its fullest.  you will not be the same person at 0 as you are right now.  after you die the earth continue to recycle itself until the sun runs out of fuel.  and eventually the galaxy and universe will recycle themselves also.  you will eventually be reborn with a new body in a completely new world, and whatever happens in between does not matter since you cannot perceive that time.  you will be an alien toddler before you know it.  i would prefer slower aging and longer life spans to immortality.  i do not see the appeal in living as an old person for another 0  years.   #  given the vastness of the universe, and the complexities of existence, i find it hard to discount the possibility of there being some kind of continued consciousness after our bodies die.   # every moment is special because we know that any one of them could be our last, and that once a moment is gone, it can never come again.  mortality makes every love special, every sorrow profound, and every joy immaculate.  when you remove death, you take the  living  out of life.   nbsp;  b that there is some form of afterlife i do not care what from what religion or whatever just that it is not oblivion post mortem .  for all that humanity knows, we still do not know much, and much of what we know today, we will more than likely prove wrong tomorrow.  given the vastness of the universe, and the complexities of existence, i find it hard to discount the possibility of there being some kind of continued consciousness after our bodies die.   #  what is the point of art if not an attempt to record a fleeting emotion or memory ?  #  i am not as convinced with the a response.  mortality means that everything ends, lives, civilizations, thoughts.  what is the point of art if not an attempt to record a fleeting emotion or memory ? the whole point of human history is to record itself so that we can remember the good and move away from the bad.  as for b there is that possibility, and it is a hope, but it is very difficult to run on hope without proof to cling to as a backup.   #  mortality means that everything ends, lives, civilizations, thoughts.   # mortality means that everything ends, lives, civilizations, thoughts.  what is the point of art if not an attempt to record a fleeting emotion or memory ? the whole point of human history is to record itself so that we can remember the good and move away from the bad.  there is no objective point to art, life or anything, really.  you can only define your own objectives based on compulsion.  that is not to say it ca not be enjoyed, however.   #  you asked for a ray of light on the subject of mortality and that is up to anyone is subjection.   #  you asked for a ray of light on the subject of mortality and that is up to anyone is subjection.  people have different ideas on mortality but pretty much everyone can agree that the idea that something that must come to an end is better spent attempting to enjoy every moment of.  when the concept of an afterlife comes to mind, people assume that mortality is just a precursor to immortality, the life after this life, the one that never ends.  people do not grasp their mortality when they are consumed with the idea of an afterlife because immorality sounds much more comforting and so this life does not seem to matter as much.  the impossibility to determine a true afterlife based on any idea or religion is exactly the reason mortality is so important.  what if there is not anything after this life. did you at least enjoy yourself while you were around for this one on earth ?
i am completely convinced that a triangle is a superior shape to a square.  some of my reasons for it:  triangles are strong.   the triangle is an important part of bridge building, no square is going to do that.   triangles are versatile.   triangles come in all shapes and sizes, and are flexible in the side lengths and angles.  equilateral triangle, right triangle, scalene, there are lots of types of triangles.  there is only one type of square: a square.  in fact,  you can make a square out of triangles.   you cannot make a triangle with a square.  in fact, many parallelograms can be made out of triangles, while squares are stuck making squares or rectangles.  surely there is no reason to have a square in the first place when two triangles can make it themselves.  there is no doubt in my mind: the triangle wins.  i look forward to having my view changed.   #  there is no doubt in my mind: the triangle wins.   #  i look forward to having my view changed.   #  you ca not just say a single shape is superior to another in every way.  the world is not that simple.  the triangle is an important part of bridge building, no square is going to do that.  triangles are structurally stronger than squares, yes.  triangles come in all shapes and sizes, and are flexible in the side lengths and angles.  equilateral triangle, right triangle, scalene, there are lots of types of triangles.  there is only one type of square: a square.  you cannot make a triangle with a square.  in fact, many parallelograms can be made out of triangles, while squares are stuck making squares or rectangles.  students are expected to use a lot of triangles in their algebra and calculus classes thanks to its flexibility with trigonometric functions.  i look forward to having my view changed.  look around you and see how many triangles and squares/rectangles.  what shape is your computer display ? what shape is your phone ? how about your books ? what shape are buildings ? parking lots ? computers ? keyboards ? papers ? gaming consoles ? text boxes ? posters ? images ? tables ? tvs ? book shelves ? what kind of world do you live in where everything is a triangle ?  #  sometimes a square is just the better option, so sometimes the square is superior.   #  if i need to send something in a box, it is likely that a box with a square footprint will give me better efficiency in packing and the corners are less likely to be crushed in the shipping process.  when it comes to boxes, squares are superior to triangles.  i would prefer my bed to be shaped like a large square, or a rectangle, rather than a large triangle, so i have more freedom of movement.  two triangular beds pushed together to make a square would be problematic.  i think square doors are better than triangular ones.  triangular doors would be very hard to hang and someone might bump their head on the side.  square shaped bread is better than triangular bread.  a square might be cut into two triangles, but if you want a square sandwich you better use square bread.  triangles are nice.  i enjoy triangles.  but there are many things in my life that would just be too inconvenient if they were triangular.  sometimes a square is just the better option, so sometimes the square is superior.   #  this is just invalid, and i can just as easily say that a square is greater consistency is an advantage.   #  first off, triangles are general and squares are specific, so i am going to replace every instance of  isquare  in your view with  arectangle  to make these comparable.  triangles are easy to do math with because they are the simplest 0d shape, but rectangles are infinitely more useful in the real world.  thus, you will see bridges like beams or arches without any triangles, but none without at least one rectangle.  this is just invalid, and i can just as easily say that a square is greater consistency is an advantage.  note that while these parallelograms can be constructed out of triangles, you do any calculations with them  as if they were rectangles.  squares/rectangles win all 0 points here, all of a triangles strengths are just that it can imitate them, but an imitation is often worse than the original.   #  as someone else mentioned, hanging and trying to get through a triangular door would be horribly, needlessly complicated and would be a similarly difficult thing to mount properly so that it would not slam shut the moment you opened it.   #  in mathematical principle, i agree, triangles are good.  in reality, because humans from a front view, looking solely on a 0d plane are more rectangle shaped, generally, than triangle shaped, it becomes difficult to design triangles around humans.  also, because gravity vectors tend to run at a 0 degree vertical orientation from the flat plane of the ground, it is more useful to have objects with a series of 0 degree bends so that you have one part upright and one part resting against the ground a la frames for doors, and indeed full houses .  as someone else mentioned, hanging and trying to get through a triangular door would be horribly, needlessly complicated and would be a similarly difficult thing to mount properly so that it would not slam shut the moment you opened it.  it could be  done , but why go through all those hurdles when you can just slap an 0 x0  rectangle in there and be done ? also, for things where you need to join things together and maintain a similar relative shape, i believe rectangles come out on top.  imagine trying to make a  longer  piece of paper if they were all triangular; you could do it once by gluing a bottom to a bottom, and then you have a diamond and ca not expand downward without first expanding outward.  not only does a rectangle keep all of your margins justified and a consistent page width, but if you need more length for something you can just glue another sheet to the bottom ad infinitum.  while i am a big fan of triangles in engineering they make wonderful support structures for bridges and the like, and are an essential overall shape in aerodynamic design , for many purposes in most peoples  everyday lives, rectangles are better suited.   #  triangles come in all shapes and sizes, and are flexible in the side lengths and angles.   # triangles come in all shapes and sizes, and are flexible in the side lengths and angles.  equilateral triangle, right triangle, scalene, there are lots of types of triangles.  there is only one type of square: a square.  you are comparing apples to oranges.  the definition of a triangle is a lot broader that the definition of a square.  it is like saying that ovals come in more colors than red circles.  well. duh.  if you want an accurate comparison, pick an equally broad definition to compare it to.  according to wiktionary, a triangle is:   polygon with three sides and three angles.  so a comparable definition would be a polygon with four sides and four angles, which is a quadrilateral.  now we have an equal comparison.  triangles are classified as right, acute, obtuse, scalene, isosceles, and equilateral; while quadrilaterals are classifies as irregular, trapezoid, parallelogram, rhombus, kite, rectangle and square.  the quadrilateral actually has one more unique classification than the triangle does.  therefore, i think the claim that the triangle is more versatile is nonsense.
those who spend their time pretending to be obnoxious idiots are not really pretending.    in case anyone is unfamiliar with the subreddit and its users, they are the guys that leave comments like this URL on all youtube videos that are trending on reddit.  it was fun the first few times or so, but at this point it is just obnoxious and annoying, to a degree where there are more than 0  joke  comments before you can even get to normal comments that actually refer to the video.  since it is not uncommon to see entire subreddits get banned for downvote and commentraiding other subreddits, why is it okay for a sub to be entirely devoted to raiding youtube videos and manipulating comment vote counts ? i do not see this discussed often on reddit and when it does get mentioned it is often downvoted to a very heavy degree, so please cmv because i am obviously not getting the  joke  here.  even if the joke is being annoying on purpose.  tl;dr URL  #  since it is not uncommon to see entire subreddits get banned for downvote and commentraiding other subreddits, why is it okay for a sub to be entirely devoted to raiding youtube videos and manipulating comment vote counts ?  #  agreed, but i think you are taking things in the wrong direction.   # agreed, but i think you are taking things in the wrong direction.  subreddits should not be banned at all, for any reason. \  there are always going to be subjects that i disagree with but it is not my place to say that they do not have a right to exist.  the actions that site admins take for things that they do not like leads to arguments like the one that you have proposed.  \  i am aware of the fact that sometimes the site admins are legally required to remove certain content.  i do not agree with the action of doing so but i understand their desire in wanting to cover their own ass.  i feel though, that when they go beyond the scope of legal requirements they go enter a territory that no one has the right to inject their own set of ethics and morality over.   #  i do not think the damage they do to reddit is image is significant, either; a quick visit to the front page will show you they do not represent the majority of people here.   #  i have nothing to do with that subreddit, did not even know it existed, but i chuckle at those youtube comments when they are funny or the responses to them are .  youtube comments are so uniformly bad, it is not like you are missing anything.  a chance of humor is better than guaranteed stupidity, in my opinion.  i do not think the damage they do to reddit is image is significant, either; a quick visit to the front page will show you they do not represent the majority of people here.  if you want a good discussion, post a link to the youtube video on an appropriate subreddit !  #  only replying with   citation needed   is nothing more than an incredulous stare, which is not an argument, so i interpreted it as best i could.   #  it seems that the logic was, if you continue with the  nothing matters  logic, that it arrives at nihilism.  that is what you cited, so that is what i assumed you meant.  only replying with   citation needed   is nothing more than an incredulous stare, which is not an argument, so i interpreted it as best i could.  i gave you a citation, and that is, it is true by definition.  nothing of what you have said here is contained in a funny reference to wikipedia and their lack thereof.   #  i loved it when there was just one or two trolls, do not get me wrong.   #  i do, actually.  i do like to look at youtube comments to see how other people felt about the video, and you simply do not get the option to see that anymore.   dur hurr all youtube comments all shit  well, not quite like this.  sometimes people have something interesting or more pertinently funny to say.  i loved it when there was just one or two trolls, do not get me wrong.  now they are a massive, unfunny, and growing cancer.   #  the longer this goes on, the more well known and expected it is, the more reaction to the comments, the faster and longer it stays at the top.   #  the problem is with youtube is comment ranking system.  controversial comments ones with lots of replies, dislikes as well as likes are put at the top.  this means these reaction baiting comments are always seen by the same people and these people are always going to have the same reaction, like or dislike, comment negatively or positively.  there is going to be a large reaction and the comment will go, and stay, at the top.  the longer this goes on, the more well known and expected it is, the more reaction to the comments, the faster and longer it stays at the top.  0  copycats emerge and take the 0  comments below it.  suddenly you ca not find a comment that is actually relevant to the video or adds anything to any sort of discussion.  youtube commenters are not famed for being the brightest, but every now and then some useful or interesting information can be found in the top comments, this ruins that.  i am going to put some emphasis on that i do not think a subreddit should be banned because of this, i think youtube should simply change their system.
this is not the typical  other people are rich and i am not and it is immoral wahhhhhh  thread.  i do not really see anything inherently wrong with some people having way more money than others.  however, i do feel that actors, musicians and other artists are overvalued because their skills are not rare and are easily replaceable, unlike those of athletes.  they shove random singers and pro athletes with zero acting background into major speaking roles in movies, and they do just fine.  basically anyone good looking or the right kind of ugly enough can be a movie star.  all it takes is connections.  same is true of most but admittedly not all modern music.  anyone with even a modicum of talent on guitar or drums can play green day songs.  again, the reason green day is famous and random joe in his garage is not is connections, not talent.  it is even worse for  singers  and  rappers  that use autotune.  same is true with a lot of modern art.  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.  any idiot can do that.  again, it is about connections.  athletes, by contrast, get by on sheer skill.  0 of humanity can do the kind of shit jj watt or lebron james or wayne gretzky or lionel messi can do.  connections do not mean shit in the sports world.  you become famous on talent and talent alone.  look at tim tebow.  he was the most famous guy on the field when he was drafted, but he got cut because he sucked.  similarly, no one had any idea who the fuck cameron wake was out of college, but he rose to the top of the nfl through skill and skill alone.  athletes deserve their money because they are not replaceable in the same way.  cmv.   #  however, i do feel that actors, musicians and other artists are overvalued because their skills are not rare and are easily replaceable, unlike those of athletes.   #  i disagree with this, but it does not matter either way.   # i disagree with this, but it does not matter either way.  we do not pay people based on their skills.  we pay people based on how much money we think we can make from their labor.  it is a supply and demand issue.  if i get robert downy jr.  to be in my movie, it will make more, so i am willing to pay a premium to get him to act in it.  i could replace him with someone else and my movie will make less.  this is the same as sports.  i could go after cheaper athletes, but having less stellar athletes on my team means fewer people will watch, and i will make less money.  but none of those people created that music.  it is one thing to play song.  its another to create it.  anyone could have written a shakespeare play.  it is just words on a paper.  he had access to all the same letters that we all learn in kindergarden.  all he did was put them in a specific order.  anyone could do that ! but no one did it the way he did.  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.  any idiot can do that.  again, it is about connections.  you are missing a lot of what art is.  there is a lot of information in the context that you are missing.  if you had no idea about reddit or internet culture, seeing a random meme would might make no sense to you.  it is text, on an image ? what does it mean ? why choose this animal ? what is with the background ? why does not the text have anything to do with the image ? but to the community who has built up shared knowledge about these images, those things impart meaning.  they communicate ideas.  a lot of modern art is built up upon context.  one work might be a response or critique or elaboration of someone else is idea, but you do not have that cultural context, so you do not understand why the choices the artist made make sense or what they mean or the thought process behind them.  while anyone can make a meme, far fewer people spend the time and effort to really analyze, think about, and respond to art in a thoughtful way, and so many people are willing to pay a premium to own a part of this ongoing conversation between artists.   #  why measure worth as based on rareness of skill ?  #  people are compensated based on what people in the market are willing to pay for their labor.  your personal judgment of what skills you are willing to pay to witness is just one data point among billions.  why measure worth as based on rareness of skill ? another way to assess value is by the importance of the labor rather than rareness of skill.  sports stars are way less important to society than farmers.  should farmers be paid more than sports stars ? why is your skill based system more legitimate than my importance based system ? it is not.  that is why we let everyone spend their own money in whatever way they want.   #  you do not make that kind of money unless you have an extraordinary level of skill.   #  have you ever seen robert downey jr.   is talks about his acting approach ? when he is getting ready for a role, he memorizes his lines and his cues, then he rehearses them until he can recall them off the top of his head by the first letter of each word.  if you want to talk about the actors who are basically interchangeable, you are talking about actors comparable to college level football and neither of those groups are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.  you do not make that kind of money unless you have an extraordinary level of skill.  and if you want to talk about interchangeability, defend the position that amy poehler could take allison brie is role on community as easily as a linebacker in tampa could take the position of a linebacker in new england.  listen i do not think any of these people should be making anywhere near as much money as they do, but that is my issues with capitalism, not my issues with the relative talent and skills involved in different kinds of entertainment.  but the rates of pay of actors and athletes are not set based on some hyper extension of a scale assigning salaries based on objective merit.  they are based on how much money an owner a studio or team owner can make off an excellent product, and the extent to which the entertainers athletes and actors can drive up their pay by withholding service.  now, if you want to defend the position that athletes deserve more money than actors because their window of employability is smaller, that is a different, and more compelling, case.  i would still disagree, but it would make more sense than making the case that when you get into the tens of millions of dollars, there is still something going on there that describes an assessment of talent or skill.   #  both shows contain actors and actresses trying to make it, but perhaps more importantly, they contain actors and actresses who are cringeworthy.   #  i am not going to argue that fewer people are capable of being famous musicians or artists than great professional athletes.  that being said, you are kidding yourself if you think anyone can do it.  you used green day as an example unwisely so i will challenge you to listen to covers of green day on youtube.  and do not just search by what is already popular, i mean search from new.  ok, maybe you have found someone legitimately talented after about 0 0 videos.  do they also write songs ? are those songs anywhere close to as memorable as good riddance or american idiot ? if so, congrats, you found one of the 0 of people who are as good as greenday.  its true that anyone can play greenday songs.  i learned good riddance after playing guitar for about a month.  in fact, i can learn the majority of popular songs ever written in under an hour.  but that does not mean i can write songs as good or play them as well as the musicians who wrote them.  capturing emotion and a feeling takes a lot of work, and in some cases, creative genius.  and as for actors.  i recommend you attend a group acting class, or watch past reality shows like if i can dream or the starlet.  both shows contain actors and actresses trying to make it, but perhaps more importantly, they contain actors and actresses who are cringeworthy.  i mean absolutely terrible.  you ca not point to a few musicians who were successful and claim that is proof that anyone can do it either.  musicians who become popular often do so because they are already charismatic, and used to effectively expressing emotion to a large group of people.  they have also probably had to sell themselves to more than a few record execs.  and if they are terrible actors, their reps will probably let them know and save them from embarrassment.  a better way to judge these things are to watch athletes in commercials.  i am not talking about peyton manning or lebron james, i am talking about some ray rice car biz commercials or really anything russell wilson has done.  or better yet watch justin bieber or kim kardashian try to act.   #  they also need to look good, feel comfortable with a camera in their face being interviewed, bonus points if they are well spoken, and plan a tour.   #  actually, the opposite is true.  for singers, it is more than just singing or playing an instrument.  it is being creative, and creativity is tough.  they also need to look good, feel comfortable with a camera in their face being interviewed, bonus points if they are well spoken, and plan a tour.  they need to learn choreography, do costume changes during their tour, huff and puff while still managing to sing.  they travel worldwide, but athletes travel nationally at least the usa major sports do .  for actors, every role is a brand new job and involves heavy preparation researching the role by reading, watching movies, basically doing anything to become that character.  they have to emote, crawl, climb, wear uncomfortable costumes, dye theory hair, wear makeup.  athletes  brand is their skill.  actors/singers  brand is their whole selves.  athletes only need to worry about being good on the field.  their job description is shorter.  actors and singers  job descriptions are longer because they are more creative so their canvas is wider.  i have seen some of those football players in commercials and they are terrible actors.
this is not the typical  other people are rich and i am not and it is immoral wahhhhhh  thread.  i do not really see anything inherently wrong with some people having way more money than others.  however, i do feel that actors, musicians and other artists are overvalued because their skills are not rare and are easily replaceable, unlike those of athletes.  they shove random singers and pro athletes with zero acting background into major speaking roles in movies, and they do just fine.  basically anyone good looking or the right kind of ugly enough can be a movie star.  all it takes is connections.  same is true of most but admittedly not all modern music.  anyone with even a modicum of talent on guitar or drums can play green day songs.  again, the reason green day is famous and random joe in his garage is not is connections, not talent.  it is even worse for  singers  and  rappers  that use autotune.  same is true with a lot of modern art.  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.  any idiot can do that.  again, it is about connections.  athletes, by contrast, get by on sheer skill.  0 of humanity can do the kind of shit jj watt or lebron james or wayne gretzky or lionel messi can do.  connections do not mean shit in the sports world.  you become famous on talent and talent alone.  look at tim tebow.  he was the most famous guy on the field when he was drafted, but he got cut because he sucked.  similarly, no one had any idea who the fuck cameron wake was out of college, but he rose to the top of the nfl through skill and skill alone.  athletes deserve their money because they are not replaceable in the same way.  cmv.   #  anyone with even a modicum of talent on guitar or drums can play green day songs.   #  but none of those people created that music.   # i disagree with this, but it does not matter either way.  we do not pay people based on their skills.  we pay people based on how much money we think we can make from their labor.  it is a supply and demand issue.  if i get robert downy jr.  to be in my movie, it will make more, so i am willing to pay a premium to get him to act in it.  i could replace him with someone else and my movie will make less.  this is the same as sports.  i could go after cheaper athletes, but having less stellar athletes on my team means fewer people will watch, and i will make less money.  but none of those people created that music.  it is one thing to play song.  its another to create it.  anyone could have written a shakespeare play.  it is just words on a paper.  he had access to all the same letters that we all learn in kindergarden.  all he did was put them in a specific order.  anyone could do that ! but no one did it the way he did.  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.  any idiot can do that.  again, it is about connections.  you are missing a lot of what art is.  there is a lot of information in the context that you are missing.  if you had no idea about reddit or internet culture, seeing a random meme would might make no sense to you.  it is text, on an image ? what does it mean ? why choose this animal ? what is with the background ? why does not the text have anything to do with the image ? but to the community who has built up shared knowledge about these images, those things impart meaning.  they communicate ideas.  a lot of modern art is built up upon context.  one work might be a response or critique or elaboration of someone else is idea, but you do not have that cultural context, so you do not understand why the choices the artist made make sense or what they mean or the thought process behind them.  while anyone can make a meme, far fewer people spend the time and effort to really analyze, think about, and respond to art in a thoughtful way, and so many people are willing to pay a premium to own a part of this ongoing conversation between artists.   #  your personal judgment of what skills you are willing to pay to witness is just one data point among billions.   #  people are compensated based on what people in the market are willing to pay for their labor.  your personal judgment of what skills you are willing to pay to witness is just one data point among billions.  why measure worth as based on rareness of skill ? another way to assess value is by the importance of the labor rather than rareness of skill.  sports stars are way less important to society than farmers.  should farmers be paid more than sports stars ? why is your skill based system more legitimate than my importance based system ? it is not.  that is why we let everyone spend their own money in whatever way they want.   #  i would still disagree, but it would make more sense than making the case that when you get into the tens of millions of dollars, there is still something going on there that describes an assessment of talent or skill.   #  have you ever seen robert downey jr.   is talks about his acting approach ? when he is getting ready for a role, he memorizes his lines and his cues, then he rehearses them until he can recall them off the top of his head by the first letter of each word.  if you want to talk about the actors who are basically interchangeable, you are talking about actors comparable to college level football and neither of those groups are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.  you do not make that kind of money unless you have an extraordinary level of skill.  and if you want to talk about interchangeability, defend the position that amy poehler could take allison brie is role on community as easily as a linebacker in tampa could take the position of a linebacker in new england.  listen i do not think any of these people should be making anywhere near as much money as they do, but that is my issues with capitalism, not my issues with the relative talent and skills involved in different kinds of entertainment.  but the rates of pay of actors and athletes are not set based on some hyper extension of a scale assigning salaries based on objective merit.  they are based on how much money an owner a studio or team owner can make off an excellent product, and the extent to which the entertainers athletes and actors can drive up their pay by withholding service.  now, if you want to defend the position that athletes deserve more money than actors because their window of employability is smaller, that is a different, and more compelling, case.  i would still disagree, but it would make more sense than making the case that when you get into the tens of millions of dollars, there is still something going on there that describes an assessment of talent or skill.   #  you used green day as an example unwisely so i will challenge you to listen to covers of green day on youtube.   #  i am not going to argue that fewer people are capable of being famous musicians or artists than great professional athletes.  that being said, you are kidding yourself if you think anyone can do it.  you used green day as an example unwisely so i will challenge you to listen to covers of green day on youtube.  and do not just search by what is already popular, i mean search from new.  ok, maybe you have found someone legitimately talented after about 0 0 videos.  do they also write songs ? are those songs anywhere close to as memorable as good riddance or american idiot ? if so, congrats, you found one of the 0 of people who are as good as greenday.  its true that anyone can play greenday songs.  i learned good riddance after playing guitar for about a month.  in fact, i can learn the majority of popular songs ever written in under an hour.  but that does not mean i can write songs as good or play them as well as the musicians who wrote them.  capturing emotion and a feeling takes a lot of work, and in some cases, creative genius.  and as for actors.  i recommend you attend a group acting class, or watch past reality shows like if i can dream or the starlet.  both shows contain actors and actresses trying to make it, but perhaps more importantly, they contain actors and actresses who are cringeworthy.  i mean absolutely terrible.  you ca not point to a few musicians who were successful and claim that is proof that anyone can do it either.  musicians who become popular often do so because they are already charismatic, and used to effectively expressing emotion to a large group of people.  they have also probably had to sell themselves to more than a few record execs.  and if they are terrible actors, their reps will probably let them know and save them from embarrassment.  a better way to judge these things are to watch athletes in commercials.  i am not talking about peyton manning or lebron james, i am talking about some ray rice car biz commercials or really anything russell wilson has done.  or better yet watch justin bieber or kim kardashian try to act.   #  for singers, it is more than just singing or playing an instrument.   #  actually, the opposite is true.  for singers, it is more than just singing or playing an instrument.  it is being creative, and creativity is tough.  they also need to look good, feel comfortable with a camera in their face being interviewed, bonus points if they are well spoken, and plan a tour.  they need to learn choreography, do costume changes during their tour, huff and puff while still managing to sing.  they travel worldwide, but athletes travel nationally at least the usa major sports do .  for actors, every role is a brand new job and involves heavy preparation researching the role by reading, watching movies, basically doing anything to become that character.  they have to emote, crawl, climb, wear uncomfortable costumes, dye theory hair, wear makeup.  athletes  brand is their skill.  actors/singers  brand is their whole selves.  athletes only need to worry about being good on the field.  their job description is shorter.  actors and singers  job descriptions are longer because they are more creative so their canvas is wider.  i have seen some of those football players in commercials and they are terrible actors.
this is not the typical  other people are rich and i am not and it is immoral wahhhhhh  thread.  i do not really see anything inherently wrong with some people having way more money than others.  however, i do feel that actors, musicians and other artists are overvalued because their skills are not rare and are easily replaceable, unlike those of athletes.  they shove random singers and pro athletes with zero acting background into major speaking roles in movies, and they do just fine.  basically anyone good looking or the right kind of ugly enough can be a movie star.  all it takes is connections.  same is true of most but admittedly not all modern music.  anyone with even a modicum of talent on guitar or drums can play green day songs.  again, the reason green day is famous and random joe in his garage is not is connections, not talent.  it is even worse for  singers  and  rappers  that use autotune.  same is true with a lot of modern art.  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.  any idiot can do that.  again, it is about connections.  athletes, by contrast, get by on sheer skill.  0 of humanity can do the kind of shit jj watt or lebron james or wayne gretzky or lionel messi can do.  connections do not mean shit in the sports world.  you become famous on talent and talent alone.  look at tim tebow.  he was the most famous guy on the field when he was drafted, but he got cut because he sucked.  similarly, no one had any idea who the fuck cameron wake was out of college, but he rose to the top of the nfl through skill and skill alone.  athletes deserve their money because they are not replaceable in the same way.  cmv.   #  same is true with a lot of modern art.   #  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.   # i disagree with this, but it does not matter either way.  we do not pay people based on their skills.  we pay people based on how much money we think we can make from their labor.  it is a supply and demand issue.  if i get robert downy jr.  to be in my movie, it will make more, so i am willing to pay a premium to get him to act in it.  i could replace him with someone else and my movie will make less.  this is the same as sports.  i could go after cheaper athletes, but having less stellar athletes on my team means fewer people will watch, and i will make less money.  but none of those people created that music.  it is one thing to play song.  its another to create it.  anyone could have written a shakespeare play.  it is just words on a paper.  he had access to all the same letters that we all learn in kindergarden.  all he did was put them in a specific order.  anyone could do that ! but no one did it the way he did.  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.  any idiot can do that.  again, it is about connections.  you are missing a lot of what art is.  there is a lot of information in the context that you are missing.  if you had no idea about reddit or internet culture, seeing a random meme would might make no sense to you.  it is text, on an image ? what does it mean ? why choose this animal ? what is with the background ? why does not the text have anything to do with the image ? but to the community who has built up shared knowledge about these images, those things impart meaning.  they communicate ideas.  a lot of modern art is built up upon context.  one work might be a response or critique or elaboration of someone else is idea, but you do not have that cultural context, so you do not understand why the choices the artist made make sense or what they mean or the thought process behind them.  while anyone can make a meme, far fewer people spend the time and effort to really analyze, think about, and respond to art in a thoughtful way, and so many people are willing to pay a premium to own a part of this ongoing conversation between artists.   #  why is your skill based system more legitimate than my importance based system ?  #  people are compensated based on what people in the market are willing to pay for their labor.  your personal judgment of what skills you are willing to pay to witness is just one data point among billions.  why measure worth as based on rareness of skill ? another way to assess value is by the importance of the labor rather than rareness of skill.  sports stars are way less important to society than farmers.  should farmers be paid more than sports stars ? why is your skill based system more legitimate than my importance based system ? it is not.  that is why we let everyone spend their own money in whatever way they want.   #  and if you want to talk about interchangeability, defend the position that amy poehler could take allison brie is role on community as easily as a linebacker in tampa could take the position of a linebacker in new england.   #  have you ever seen robert downey jr.   is talks about his acting approach ? when he is getting ready for a role, he memorizes his lines and his cues, then he rehearses them until he can recall them off the top of his head by the first letter of each word.  if you want to talk about the actors who are basically interchangeable, you are talking about actors comparable to college level football and neither of those groups are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.  you do not make that kind of money unless you have an extraordinary level of skill.  and if you want to talk about interchangeability, defend the position that amy poehler could take allison brie is role on community as easily as a linebacker in tampa could take the position of a linebacker in new england.  listen i do not think any of these people should be making anywhere near as much money as they do, but that is my issues with capitalism, not my issues with the relative talent and skills involved in different kinds of entertainment.  but the rates of pay of actors and athletes are not set based on some hyper extension of a scale assigning salaries based on objective merit.  they are based on how much money an owner a studio or team owner can make off an excellent product, and the extent to which the entertainers athletes and actors can drive up their pay by withholding service.  now, if you want to defend the position that athletes deserve more money than actors because their window of employability is smaller, that is a different, and more compelling, case.  i would still disagree, but it would make more sense than making the case that when you get into the tens of millions of dollars, there is still something going on there that describes an assessment of talent or skill.   #  a better way to judge these things are to watch athletes in commercials.   #  i am not going to argue that fewer people are capable of being famous musicians or artists than great professional athletes.  that being said, you are kidding yourself if you think anyone can do it.  you used green day as an example unwisely so i will challenge you to listen to covers of green day on youtube.  and do not just search by what is already popular, i mean search from new.  ok, maybe you have found someone legitimately talented after about 0 0 videos.  do they also write songs ? are those songs anywhere close to as memorable as good riddance or american idiot ? if so, congrats, you found one of the 0 of people who are as good as greenday.  its true that anyone can play greenday songs.  i learned good riddance after playing guitar for about a month.  in fact, i can learn the majority of popular songs ever written in under an hour.  but that does not mean i can write songs as good or play them as well as the musicians who wrote them.  capturing emotion and a feeling takes a lot of work, and in some cases, creative genius.  and as for actors.  i recommend you attend a group acting class, or watch past reality shows like if i can dream or the starlet.  both shows contain actors and actresses trying to make it, but perhaps more importantly, they contain actors and actresses who are cringeworthy.  i mean absolutely terrible.  you ca not point to a few musicians who were successful and claim that is proof that anyone can do it either.  musicians who become popular often do so because they are already charismatic, and used to effectively expressing emotion to a large group of people.  they have also probably had to sell themselves to more than a few record execs.  and if they are terrible actors, their reps will probably let them know and save them from embarrassment.  a better way to judge these things are to watch athletes in commercials.  i am not talking about peyton manning or lebron james, i am talking about some ray rice car biz commercials or really anything russell wilson has done.  or better yet watch justin bieber or kim kardashian try to act.   #  they have to emote, crawl, climb, wear uncomfortable costumes, dye theory hair, wear makeup.   #  actually, the opposite is true.  for singers, it is more than just singing or playing an instrument.  it is being creative, and creativity is tough.  they also need to look good, feel comfortable with a camera in their face being interviewed, bonus points if they are well spoken, and plan a tour.  they need to learn choreography, do costume changes during their tour, huff and puff while still managing to sing.  they travel worldwide, but athletes travel nationally at least the usa major sports do .  for actors, every role is a brand new job and involves heavy preparation researching the role by reading, watching movies, basically doing anything to become that character.  they have to emote, crawl, climb, wear uncomfortable costumes, dye theory hair, wear makeup.  athletes  brand is their skill.  actors/singers  brand is their whole selves.  athletes only need to worry about being good on the field.  their job description is shorter.  actors and singers  job descriptions are longer because they are more creative so their canvas is wider.  i have seen some of those football players in commercials and they are terrible actors.
this is not the typical  other people are rich and i am not and it is immoral wahhhhhh  thread.  i do not really see anything inherently wrong with some people having way more money than others.  however, i do feel that actors, musicians and other artists are overvalued because their skills are not rare and are easily replaceable, unlike those of athletes.  they shove random singers and pro athletes with zero acting background into major speaking roles in movies, and they do just fine.  basically anyone good looking or the right kind of ugly enough can be a movie star.  all it takes is connections.  same is true of most but admittedly not all modern music.  anyone with even a modicum of talent on guitar or drums can play green day songs.  again, the reason green day is famous and random joe in his garage is not is connections, not talent.  it is even worse for  singers  and  rappers  that use autotune.  same is true with a lot of modern art.  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.  any idiot can do that.  again, it is about connections.  athletes, by contrast, get by on sheer skill.  0 of humanity can do the kind of shit jj watt or lebron james or wayne gretzky or lionel messi can do.  connections do not mean shit in the sports world.  you become famous on talent and talent alone.  look at tim tebow.  he was the most famous guy on the field when he was drafted, but he got cut because he sucked.  similarly, no one had any idea who the fuck cameron wake was out of college, but he rose to the top of the nfl through skill and skill alone.  athletes deserve their money because they are not replaceable in the same way.  cmv.   #  anyone with even a modicum of talent on guitar or drums can play green day songs.   #  sure, and you would struggle to find someone talented enough on guitar or drums to play avenged sevenfold songs.   # especially in a singer is case, if they are a mainstream star, or really anyone who is made a music video, that is at least  some  acting experience.  secondly, speaking as an admittedly amateur performer: you can tell the difference between the pros and the amateurs based on the roles they play.  you can put someone like rihanna into an action movie because people are not coming to see battleship for the intense emotional depth and subtlety of the actors  performance.  some movies are action flicks and others are cheesy romcoms, and still others are just star vehicles.  but you do not get the level of performance you got out of tom hanks in forrest gump out of just any random you put in front of a camera.  as much as he is apparently a dick to work with, you could not have had a much better american history x without edward norton acting the fuck out of that role.  so, yes, there are some roles, even starring roles, in hollywood that pretty much anyone could play, but there are other roles that you seem to be wholly ignoring where this is anything but the case.  sure, and you would struggle to find someone talented enough on guitar or drums to play avenged sevenfold songs.  there are degrees of complexity in music and you did say most, so i grant you that , but then, not everyone is into complex music.  indeed, it seems to be the minority, considering how much popular music is a 0 chord progression.  i agree with  modern  art, but again, if an artist can draw something really well or use a traditional technique with painting, drawing, sculpting, or even new techniques like 0d modeling, to create something, and people are willing to pay for it.   shrug  #  but no one did it the way he did.   # i disagree with this, but it does not matter either way.  we do not pay people based on their skills.  we pay people based on how much money we think we can make from their labor.  it is a supply and demand issue.  if i get robert downy jr.  to be in my movie, it will make more, so i am willing to pay a premium to get him to act in it.  i could replace him with someone else and my movie will make less.  this is the same as sports.  i could go after cheaper athletes, but having less stellar athletes on my team means fewer people will watch, and i will make less money.  but none of those people created that music.  it is one thing to play song.  its another to create it.  anyone could have written a shakespeare play.  it is just words on a paper.  he had access to all the same letters that we all learn in kindergarden.  all he did was put them in a specific order.  anyone could do that ! but no one did it the way he did.  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.  any idiot can do that.  again, it is about connections.  you are missing a lot of what art is.  there is a lot of information in the context that you are missing.  if you had no idea about reddit or internet culture, seeing a random meme would might make no sense to you.  it is text, on an image ? what does it mean ? why choose this animal ? what is with the background ? why does not the text have anything to do with the image ? but to the community who has built up shared knowledge about these images, those things impart meaning.  they communicate ideas.  a lot of modern art is built up upon context.  one work might be a response or critique or elaboration of someone else is idea, but you do not have that cultural context, so you do not understand why the choices the artist made make sense or what they mean or the thought process behind them.  while anyone can make a meme, far fewer people spend the time and effort to really analyze, think about, and respond to art in a thoughtful way, and so many people are willing to pay a premium to own a part of this ongoing conversation between artists.   #  why is your skill based system more legitimate than my importance based system ?  #  people are compensated based on what people in the market are willing to pay for their labor.  your personal judgment of what skills you are willing to pay to witness is just one data point among billions.  why measure worth as based on rareness of skill ? another way to assess value is by the importance of the labor rather than rareness of skill.  sports stars are way less important to society than farmers.  should farmers be paid more than sports stars ? why is your skill based system more legitimate than my importance based system ? it is not.  that is why we let everyone spend their own money in whatever way they want.   #  but the rates of pay of actors and athletes are not set based on some hyper extension of a scale assigning salaries based on objective merit.   #  have you ever seen robert downey jr.   is talks about his acting approach ? when he is getting ready for a role, he memorizes his lines and his cues, then he rehearses them until he can recall them off the top of his head by the first letter of each word.  if you want to talk about the actors who are basically interchangeable, you are talking about actors comparable to college level football and neither of those groups are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.  you do not make that kind of money unless you have an extraordinary level of skill.  and if you want to talk about interchangeability, defend the position that amy poehler could take allison brie is role on community as easily as a linebacker in tampa could take the position of a linebacker in new england.  listen i do not think any of these people should be making anywhere near as much money as they do, but that is my issues with capitalism, not my issues with the relative talent and skills involved in different kinds of entertainment.  but the rates of pay of actors and athletes are not set based on some hyper extension of a scale assigning salaries based on objective merit.  they are based on how much money an owner a studio or team owner can make off an excellent product, and the extent to which the entertainers athletes and actors can drive up their pay by withholding service.  now, if you want to defend the position that athletes deserve more money than actors because their window of employability is smaller, that is a different, and more compelling, case.  i would still disagree, but it would make more sense than making the case that when you get into the tens of millions of dollars, there is still something going on there that describes an assessment of talent or skill.   #  in fact, i can learn the majority of popular songs ever written in under an hour.   #  i am not going to argue that fewer people are capable of being famous musicians or artists than great professional athletes.  that being said, you are kidding yourself if you think anyone can do it.  you used green day as an example unwisely so i will challenge you to listen to covers of green day on youtube.  and do not just search by what is already popular, i mean search from new.  ok, maybe you have found someone legitimately talented after about 0 0 videos.  do they also write songs ? are those songs anywhere close to as memorable as good riddance or american idiot ? if so, congrats, you found one of the 0 of people who are as good as greenday.  its true that anyone can play greenday songs.  i learned good riddance after playing guitar for about a month.  in fact, i can learn the majority of popular songs ever written in under an hour.  but that does not mean i can write songs as good or play them as well as the musicians who wrote them.  capturing emotion and a feeling takes a lot of work, and in some cases, creative genius.  and as for actors.  i recommend you attend a group acting class, or watch past reality shows like if i can dream or the starlet.  both shows contain actors and actresses trying to make it, but perhaps more importantly, they contain actors and actresses who are cringeworthy.  i mean absolutely terrible.  you ca not point to a few musicians who were successful and claim that is proof that anyone can do it either.  musicians who become popular often do so because they are already charismatic, and used to effectively expressing emotion to a large group of people.  they have also probably had to sell themselves to more than a few record execs.  and if they are terrible actors, their reps will probably let them know and save them from embarrassment.  a better way to judge these things are to watch athletes in commercials.  i am not talking about peyton manning or lebron james, i am talking about some ray rice car biz commercials or really anything russell wilson has done.  or better yet watch justin bieber or kim kardashian try to act.
this is not the typical  other people are rich and i am not and it is immoral wahhhhhh  thread.  i do not really see anything inherently wrong with some people having way more money than others.  however, i do feel that actors, musicians and other artists are overvalued because their skills are not rare and are easily replaceable, unlike those of athletes.  they shove random singers and pro athletes with zero acting background into major speaking roles in movies, and they do just fine.  basically anyone good looking or the right kind of ugly enough can be a movie star.  all it takes is connections.  same is true of most but admittedly not all modern music.  anyone with even a modicum of talent on guitar or drums can play green day songs.  again, the reason green day is famous and random joe in his garage is not is connections, not talent.  it is even worse for  singers  and  rappers  that use autotune.  same is true with a lot of modern art.  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.  any idiot can do that.  again, it is about connections.  athletes, by contrast, get by on sheer skill.  0 of humanity can do the kind of shit jj watt or lebron james or wayne gretzky or lionel messi can do.  connections do not mean shit in the sports world.  you become famous on talent and talent alone.  look at tim tebow.  he was the most famous guy on the field when he was drafted, but he got cut because he sucked.  similarly, no one had any idea who the fuck cameron wake was out of college, but he rose to the top of the nfl through skill and skill alone.  athletes deserve their money because they are not replaceable in the same way.  cmv.   #  same is true with a lot of modern art.   #  i agree with  modern  art, but again, if an artist can draw something really well or use a traditional technique with painting, drawing, sculpting, or even new techniques like 0d modeling, to create something, and people are willing to pay for it.   shrug  # especially in a singer is case, if they are a mainstream star, or really anyone who is made a music video, that is at least  some  acting experience.  secondly, speaking as an admittedly amateur performer: you can tell the difference between the pros and the amateurs based on the roles they play.  you can put someone like rihanna into an action movie because people are not coming to see battleship for the intense emotional depth and subtlety of the actors  performance.  some movies are action flicks and others are cheesy romcoms, and still others are just star vehicles.  but you do not get the level of performance you got out of tom hanks in forrest gump out of just any random you put in front of a camera.  as much as he is apparently a dick to work with, you could not have had a much better american history x without edward norton acting the fuck out of that role.  so, yes, there are some roles, even starring roles, in hollywood that pretty much anyone could play, but there are other roles that you seem to be wholly ignoring where this is anything but the case.  sure, and you would struggle to find someone talented enough on guitar or drums to play avenged sevenfold songs.  there are degrees of complexity in music and you did say most, so i grant you that , but then, not everyone is into complex music.  indeed, it seems to be the minority, considering how much popular music is a 0 chord progression.  i agree with  modern  art, but again, if an artist can draw something really well or use a traditional technique with painting, drawing, sculpting, or even new techniques like 0d modeling, to create something, and people are willing to pay for it.   shrug  #  we pay people based on how much money we think we can make from their labor.   # i disagree with this, but it does not matter either way.  we do not pay people based on their skills.  we pay people based on how much money we think we can make from their labor.  it is a supply and demand issue.  if i get robert downy jr.  to be in my movie, it will make more, so i am willing to pay a premium to get him to act in it.  i could replace him with someone else and my movie will make less.  this is the same as sports.  i could go after cheaper athletes, but having less stellar athletes on my team means fewer people will watch, and i will make less money.  but none of those people created that music.  it is one thing to play song.  its another to create it.  anyone could have written a shakespeare play.  it is just words on a paper.  he had access to all the same letters that we all learn in kindergarden.  all he did was put them in a specific order.  anyone could do that ! but no one did it the way he did.  crapping in a can and selling it for $0,0 is not talent.  any idiot can do that.  again, it is about connections.  you are missing a lot of what art is.  there is a lot of information in the context that you are missing.  if you had no idea about reddit or internet culture, seeing a random meme would might make no sense to you.  it is text, on an image ? what does it mean ? why choose this animal ? what is with the background ? why does not the text have anything to do with the image ? but to the community who has built up shared knowledge about these images, those things impart meaning.  they communicate ideas.  a lot of modern art is built up upon context.  one work might be a response or critique or elaboration of someone else is idea, but you do not have that cultural context, so you do not understand why the choices the artist made make sense or what they mean or the thought process behind them.  while anyone can make a meme, far fewer people spend the time and effort to really analyze, think about, and respond to art in a thoughtful way, and so many people are willing to pay a premium to own a part of this ongoing conversation between artists.   #  another way to assess value is by the importance of the labor rather than rareness of skill.   #  people are compensated based on what people in the market are willing to pay for their labor.  your personal judgment of what skills you are willing to pay to witness is just one data point among billions.  why measure worth as based on rareness of skill ? another way to assess value is by the importance of the labor rather than rareness of skill.  sports stars are way less important to society than farmers.  should farmers be paid more than sports stars ? why is your skill based system more legitimate than my importance based system ? it is not.  that is why we let everyone spend their own money in whatever way they want.   #  you do not make that kind of money unless you have an extraordinary level of skill.   #  have you ever seen robert downey jr.   is talks about his acting approach ? when he is getting ready for a role, he memorizes his lines and his cues, then he rehearses them until he can recall them off the top of his head by the first letter of each word.  if you want to talk about the actors who are basically interchangeable, you are talking about actors comparable to college level football and neither of those groups are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.  you do not make that kind of money unless you have an extraordinary level of skill.  and if you want to talk about interchangeability, defend the position that amy poehler could take allison brie is role on community as easily as a linebacker in tampa could take the position of a linebacker in new england.  listen i do not think any of these people should be making anywhere near as much money as they do, but that is my issues with capitalism, not my issues with the relative talent and skills involved in different kinds of entertainment.  but the rates of pay of actors and athletes are not set based on some hyper extension of a scale assigning salaries based on objective merit.  they are based on how much money an owner a studio or team owner can make off an excellent product, and the extent to which the entertainers athletes and actors can drive up their pay by withholding service.  now, if you want to defend the position that athletes deserve more money than actors because their window of employability is smaller, that is a different, and more compelling, case.  i would still disagree, but it would make more sense than making the case that when you get into the tens of millions of dollars, there is still something going on there that describes an assessment of talent or skill.   #  i learned good riddance after playing guitar for about a month.   #  i am not going to argue that fewer people are capable of being famous musicians or artists than great professional athletes.  that being said, you are kidding yourself if you think anyone can do it.  you used green day as an example unwisely so i will challenge you to listen to covers of green day on youtube.  and do not just search by what is already popular, i mean search from new.  ok, maybe you have found someone legitimately talented after about 0 0 videos.  do they also write songs ? are those songs anywhere close to as memorable as good riddance or american idiot ? if so, congrats, you found one of the 0 of people who are as good as greenday.  its true that anyone can play greenday songs.  i learned good riddance after playing guitar for about a month.  in fact, i can learn the majority of popular songs ever written in under an hour.  but that does not mean i can write songs as good or play them as well as the musicians who wrote them.  capturing emotion and a feeling takes a lot of work, and in some cases, creative genius.  and as for actors.  i recommend you attend a group acting class, or watch past reality shows like if i can dream or the starlet.  both shows contain actors and actresses trying to make it, but perhaps more importantly, they contain actors and actresses who are cringeworthy.  i mean absolutely terrible.  you ca not point to a few musicians who were successful and claim that is proof that anyone can do it either.  musicians who become popular often do so because they are already charismatic, and used to effectively expressing emotion to a large group of people.  they have also probably had to sell themselves to more than a few record execs.  and if they are terrible actors, their reps will probably let them know and save them from embarrassment.  a better way to judge these things are to watch athletes in commercials.  i am not talking about peyton manning or lebron james, i am talking about some ray rice car biz commercials or really anything russell wilson has done.  or better yet watch justin bieber or kim kardashian try to act.
we exist to reproduce, like all living things.  everything else, from the most beautiful examples of art and philosophy to the greatest wonders of technology, is simply the by product of a brain over optimized to better it is situation.  once we became intelligent enough to beat the game of survival, we stopped being constantly occupied by the constant grinding to get basic sustenance.  our brains however, were built through natural selection to be constantly productive and inherently desiring to better life, and so culture and entertainment were born, the run off of organic machines that had exceeded their original task.  every emotion a person can feel is explainable through biochemical/evolutionary means.  you love your children ? oxytocin is the brain chemical behind the feeling, evolutionarily it just makes sense to protect the future of your genetic code.  lastly, someday, your name will be spoken for the last time.  whether it is two days after your death or two millennia, you will be forgotten.  do you know the name of the first leader of the first human society ? what was your great great great great grandfather like as a person ? at some point, the sum of all your actions becomes nil.  no one remembers and no one cares that everyone forgot.   #  at some point, the sum of all your actions becomes nil.   #  no one remembers and no one cares that everyone forgot.   # no one remembers and no one cares that everyone forgot.  why does this mean your life is pointless ? it had a point  to you .  that is all the meaning you can hope for.  no matter what else happens, even in the heat death of the universe when every particle has decayed and there is nothing left, nothing can change that you existed for a period of time.  your existence and your actions still happened even if there is no record of them.  do your actions need permanence to have meaning ?  #  can you have  ameaning  without agents to comprehend or interpret it ?  #  is not  ameaning  something that is communicated ? can you have  ameaning  without agents to comprehend or interpret it ? what would it mean to say that you have  ameaning  in a universe with no consciousness ? something can only  amean  something  to  someone.  it does not exist in and of itself.  so while life may not be meaningless  now , i think he is coming to the conclusion that, after the entire human drama has unfolded and we have all died off which we will all of the meaning we created will go into nothingness with us.  so any meaning to our lives is just as fleeting as the lives themselves.  and after you, personally, die, your sensory experience is terminated and thus the entire thing might as well be over, as far as you are concerned.  so any meaning you may have gleaned from your life any of  your meaning  will die long before everything else does.  now as for the argument that many bring up, that one is focus then should be on the  here and now  that is all well and good and i think it is a fine life philosophy.  but it does not negate the premise, per se.  there may still be good reasons to live, but one might think about adjusting how they view things.  accomplishing things during your life, for example can anything really be  accomplished  if it will eventually be undone ? most people do things with the thought of the future close to them this is the essence of all progress, or goals.  this is also where most people derive meaning from their lives.  i am not convinced that it constitutes  ameaning  in the way i have framed it here it may still be worthwhile, but that would require a revaluation of things to see things that way.   #  the number 0 does not stop existing when i finish counting to 0.   # you are a biological machine.  what you are looking to do is up to you.  purpose is not inherent.  people give things purpose.  if your decide your purpose is to make babies, have at it.  a hammer is just an object, it is not until i pick it up with the intention of hitting a nail that its purpose is nail hitting.  imagine the universe is existence is a book.  each page is a moment in time.  you exist for some of those moments, then you die.  even though you die, your existence in those pages is untouchable.  nothing can erase that.  in that sense, you always exist.  the number 0 does not stop existing when i finish counting to 0.   #  it is purely conceptual and relative to the observer.   #  ten is an abstraction, it exists after you count to twenty because it does not really exist in the first place.  it is purely conceptual and relative to the observer.  δ though, because so am  i.   the meaning or  point  that i now realize i alluded to in the title of this post, that would give humanity a point beyond endless reproduction, would be something that would also exist outside of human perspective.  if, however, what i said to /u/addv is true, and meaning is purely a concept  of  human perspective, then there is no such thing.  so the simplest answer is best, that the point of life is to make it mean something.   #  because we also generally have a nose and a brain that is also wired by evolution and environmental stimuli to distinguish good and bad smells.   # why ? because we have genitals and a brain that has been wired by evolution and environmental stimuli to tell us how awesome it is to fornicate ? because we also generally have a nose and a brain that is also wired by evolution and environmental stimuli to distinguish good and bad smells.  ca not it then be said that we also exist to smell good things ? i point this out because procreation is not unique in being a goal supported by biological functions and tendencies.  there is nothing special in saying that  we exist to reproduce , since it ca not be said that we exist  exclusively  for reproduction.  there are many other actions that are supported by our biological,psychological, and social framework.  so in fact, the opposite of your view is true.  human life is not pointless; it is actually full of many needs, goals, and desires.
we exist to reproduce, like all living things.  everything else, from the most beautiful examples of art and philosophy to the greatest wonders of technology, is simply the by product of a brain over optimized to better it is situation.  once we became intelligent enough to beat the game of survival, we stopped being constantly occupied by the constant grinding to get basic sustenance.  our brains however, were built through natural selection to be constantly productive and inherently desiring to better life, and so culture and entertainment were born, the run off of organic machines that had exceeded their original task.  every emotion a person can feel is explainable through biochemical/evolutionary means.  you love your children ? oxytocin is the brain chemical behind the feeling, evolutionarily it just makes sense to protect the future of your genetic code.  lastly, someday, your name will be spoken for the last time.  whether it is two days after your death or two millennia, you will be forgotten.  do you know the name of the first leader of the first human society ? what was your great great great great grandfather like as a person ? at some point, the sum of all your actions becomes nil.  no one remembers and no one cares that everyone forgot.   #  at some point, the sum of all your actions becomes nil.   #  no one remembers and no one cares that everyone forgot.   # no one remembers and no one cares that everyone forgot.  a bit of a philosophical rebuttal.  the sum of your actions will never be nil until either all intelligent life is gone from the universe or until nature erases it.  today, we feel the effects of every action that every organism has made that had a decision to make.  for instance i will start small and go to a larger scale.  i do not know the name of every person associated with the development of reddit nor do i care to know but i am thankful for a great site.  i do not know the architects of the roman colosseum but they have influenced people throughout history.  i do not know the people who first crossed the suez area into asia but i am glad they did to create whatever civilization they ended up starting.  so our names may not live for very long but our actions certainly do.  on the scale of millions of years.  you might mean nothing.  but if we hypothetically found something artificial on mars but no life, could we say that their lives meant nothing ? it would certainly enrich ours as humans.   #  there may still be good reasons to live, but one might think about adjusting how they view things.   #  is not  ameaning  something that is communicated ? can you have  ameaning  without agents to comprehend or interpret it ? what would it mean to say that you have  ameaning  in a universe with no consciousness ? something can only  amean  something  to  someone.  it does not exist in and of itself.  so while life may not be meaningless  now , i think he is coming to the conclusion that, after the entire human drama has unfolded and we have all died off which we will all of the meaning we created will go into nothingness with us.  so any meaning to our lives is just as fleeting as the lives themselves.  and after you, personally, die, your sensory experience is terminated and thus the entire thing might as well be over, as far as you are concerned.  so any meaning you may have gleaned from your life any of  your meaning  will die long before everything else does.  now as for the argument that many bring up, that one is focus then should be on the  here and now  that is all well and good and i think it is a fine life philosophy.  but it does not negate the premise, per se.  there may still be good reasons to live, but one might think about adjusting how they view things.  accomplishing things during your life, for example can anything really be  accomplished  if it will eventually be undone ? most people do things with the thought of the future close to them this is the essence of all progress, or goals.  this is also where most people derive meaning from their lives.  i am not convinced that it constitutes  ameaning  in the way i have framed it here it may still be worthwhile, but that would require a revaluation of things to see things that way.   #  why does this mean your life is pointless ?  # no one remembers and no one cares that everyone forgot.  why does this mean your life is pointless ? it had a point  to you .  that is all the meaning you can hope for.  no matter what else happens, even in the heat death of the universe when every particle has decayed and there is nothing left, nothing can change that you existed for a period of time.  your existence and your actions still happened even if there is no record of them.  do your actions need permanence to have meaning ?  #  a hammer is just an object, it is not until i pick it up with the intention of hitting a nail that its purpose is nail hitting.   # you are a biological machine.  what you are looking to do is up to you.  purpose is not inherent.  people give things purpose.  if your decide your purpose is to make babies, have at it.  a hammer is just an object, it is not until i pick it up with the intention of hitting a nail that its purpose is nail hitting.  imagine the universe is existence is a book.  each page is a moment in time.  you exist for some of those moments, then you die.  even though you die, your existence in those pages is untouchable.  nothing can erase that.  in that sense, you always exist.  the number 0 does not stop existing when i finish counting to 0.   #  so the simplest answer is best, that the point of life is to make it mean something.   #  ten is an abstraction, it exists after you count to twenty because it does not really exist in the first place.  it is purely conceptual and relative to the observer.  δ though, because so am  i.   the meaning or  point  that i now realize i alluded to in the title of this post, that would give humanity a point beyond endless reproduction, would be something that would also exist outside of human perspective.  if, however, what i said to /u/addv is true, and meaning is purely a concept  of  human perspective, then there is no such thing.  so the simplest answer is best, that the point of life is to make it mean something.
an increasingly popular idea, especially on reddit it seems, is to not tell children santa exists.  there seems to be two main reasons behind this: 0.  we should not teach kids to behave well in order to get things.  0.  lying to them about santa will cause trust issues later in life.  neither of these are good reasons.  legends of santa or a santa like figure have existed for centuries and they have not brought about any sort of social issues.  the idea of santa is not teaching children that the only reason to be good is to get something, it is simply a fun idea for christmas.  kids do not suddenly become malevolent people once they find out that santa did not deliver those presents.  and regardless of that, in real life, doing good things  does  often result in rewards, so it is not as though the idea is false.  the, imo, more ridiculous issue is that children will fall into some sort of existential crisis when they find out santa is not real.  i have never met anyone who has suddenly developed trust issues after they found out.  most kids seem to just get over it after like an hour.  if there is a child for whom the discovery of the truth behind santa leads to trust issues or trauma, then that child has not developed a healthy sense of reasoning, and if something as insignificant as santa would be enough to push them into mental issues, then they will inevitably be faced by far worse examples of lying later on that will take a more extreme toll.  it is not the idea of santa, it is the individual and their ability to understand basic social norms and customs.  as said before, santa is an idea that is been around for ages.  it is never caused any problems before and while people have every right to not teach their kids about him, doing so in order to protect them is frankly juvenile and unnecessary.  by doing so they are denying their children a fun and harmless tradition that makes christmas an amazing time for millions of other across the world.   tl;dr  santa is harmless and all those claiming that the idea that he is harmful are being oversensitive.   #  as said before, santa is an idea that is been around for ages.   #  it is never caused any problems before and while people have every right to not teach their kids about him, doing so in order to protect them is frankly juvenile and unnecessary.   # 0.  you have created a figure that they are encouraged to approach and trust.  if your child trusts random people dressed as santa, it can be dangerous.  0.  you want your kids to know where their gifts are coming from.  why give santa the credit ? 0.  when poor kids do not get presents, it is now because they must have done something wrong.  christmas is fun enough without santa.  as a child, i only cared about getting the presents and not the source.  it is never caused any problems before and while people have every right to not teach their kids about him, doing so in order to protect them is frankly juvenile and unnecessary.  many times when the child finds out the truth about santa, they will cry.  the santa lie does at least  some  harm, even if it is temporary.  if you need to lie to your children in order for them to have fun, i would not consider you a good parent.   #  how many children do you think are there ?  #  well, i think telling your child  santa is a lie  is not  much  better than  santa is real .  the only way in which it is better is that it is true.  what is  much  better is to sit down and engage their thinking.  what does santa do ? he gives all the children presents.  how many children do you think are there ? dunno   well, we can find out.  google about 0 billion.  now, how long does it take santa to give them all presents ? one night ! is not that a bit fast, do not you think ? for so many children ? or:  how does santa travel ? on a sleigh, pulled by flying reindeer ! can reindeer fly ? do they have wings ? etc.   #  you seem to have the idea that children are already preprogrammed humans and a parent is job is mainly just keeping them fed and housed.   #  it is up to you to teach them a healthy sense of reason, and what do you do ? you lie to them about something that does not really benefit them; for no good  areason .  you are their example as a parent, and you came up with a crazy story that was not true just because you enjoyed their naivete.  you seem to have the idea that children are already preprogrammed humans and a parent is job is mainly just keeping them fed and housed.  you are actually their everything, and they will mimic you, whether they understand what and why you do things or not.  you are also disregarding linked scientific studies, demonstrating your own healthy sense of reason.   #  and i am going to go out on the limb here and say using the anecdote of someone being hurt they were lied to is a legitimate argument.   #  saying there is no downside is outright wrong.  i distinctly remember losing a large amount of trust and feeling a ton of anger over being lied to in that moment of discovery.  that is a pretty big downside, and for what ? what was gained that was so valuable ? and i am going to go out on the limb here and say using the anecdote of someone being hurt they were lied to is a legitimate argument.  if  i  was hurt for being lied to, i am confident i am not the only one.   #  ethics is a really interesting and easily applicable philosophy if you wanted to read into it.   #  there are two schools of ethics in this regard, deontology which i will refer to as moral objectivity because it makes things easier and consequentialism.  moral objectivity would say lying is always wrong in any circumstance, it purports that you should only act as you believe everyone else should act, but more importantly that the ethics of a decision are inclosed in the making of the decision and the outcome is irrelevant as it isnt forseeable.  you might like this school of philosophy is you align with the logic in your comment.  there are some quite curious logic sequences that come from that, these things make ethical philosophy hurt my head.  the opposite school would be consequentialism, saying that anything can be justified by a good outcome.  which is the logic op is applying i am not an expert on philosophy by any standards, just thought i could give some clarity on this point.  ethics is a really interesting and easily applicable philosophy if you wanted to read into it.
an increasingly popular idea, especially on reddit it seems, is to not tell children santa exists.  there seems to be two main reasons behind this: 0.  we should not teach kids to behave well in order to get things.  0.  lying to them about santa will cause trust issues later in life.  neither of these are good reasons.  legends of santa or a santa like figure have existed for centuries and they have not brought about any sort of social issues.  the idea of santa is not teaching children that the only reason to be good is to get something, it is simply a fun idea for christmas.  kids do not suddenly become malevolent people once they find out that santa did not deliver those presents.  and regardless of that, in real life, doing good things  does  often result in rewards, so it is not as though the idea is false.  the, imo, more ridiculous issue is that children will fall into some sort of existential crisis when they find out santa is not real.  i have never met anyone who has suddenly developed trust issues after they found out.  most kids seem to just get over it after like an hour.  if there is a child for whom the discovery of the truth behind santa leads to trust issues or trauma, then that child has not developed a healthy sense of reasoning, and if something as insignificant as santa would be enough to push them into mental issues, then they will inevitably be faced by far worse examples of lying later on that will take a more extreme toll.  it is not the idea of santa, it is the individual and their ability to understand basic social norms and customs.  as said before, santa is an idea that is been around for ages.  it is never caused any problems before and while people have every right to not teach their kids about him, doing so in order to protect them is frankly juvenile and unnecessary.  by doing so they are denying their children a fun and harmless tradition that makes christmas an amazing time for millions of other across the world.   tl;dr  santa is harmless and all those claiming that the idea that he is harmful are being oversensitive.   #  by doing so they are denying their children a fun and harmless tradition that makes christmas an amazing time for millions of other across the world.   #  if you need to lie to your children in order for them to have fun, i would not consider you a good parent.   # 0.  you have created a figure that they are encouraged to approach and trust.  if your child trusts random people dressed as santa, it can be dangerous.  0.  you want your kids to know where their gifts are coming from.  why give santa the credit ? 0.  when poor kids do not get presents, it is now because they must have done something wrong.  christmas is fun enough without santa.  as a child, i only cared about getting the presents and not the source.  it is never caused any problems before and while people have every right to not teach their kids about him, doing so in order to protect them is frankly juvenile and unnecessary.  many times when the child finds out the truth about santa, they will cry.  the santa lie does at least  some  harm, even if it is temporary.  if you need to lie to your children in order for them to have fun, i would not consider you a good parent.   #  now, how long does it take santa to give them all presents ?  #  well, i think telling your child  santa is a lie  is not  much  better than  santa is real .  the only way in which it is better is that it is true.  what is  much  better is to sit down and engage their thinking.  what does santa do ? he gives all the children presents.  how many children do you think are there ? dunno   well, we can find out.  google about 0 billion.  now, how long does it take santa to give them all presents ? one night ! is not that a bit fast, do not you think ? for so many children ? or:  how does santa travel ? on a sleigh, pulled by flying reindeer ! can reindeer fly ? do they have wings ? etc.   #  it is up to you to teach them a healthy sense of reason, and what do you do ?  #  it is up to you to teach them a healthy sense of reason, and what do you do ? you lie to them about something that does not really benefit them; for no good  areason .  you are their example as a parent, and you came up with a crazy story that was not true just because you enjoyed their naivete.  you seem to have the idea that children are already preprogrammed humans and a parent is job is mainly just keeping them fed and housed.  you are actually their everything, and they will mimic you, whether they understand what and why you do things or not.  you are also disregarding linked scientific studies, demonstrating your own healthy sense of reason.   #  i distinctly remember losing a large amount of trust and feeling a ton of anger over being lied to in that moment of discovery.   #  saying there is no downside is outright wrong.  i distinctly remember losing a large amount of trust and feeling a ton of anger over being lied to in that moment of discovery.  that is a pretty big downside, and for what ? what was gained that was so valuable ? and i am going to go out on the limb here and say using the anecdote of someone being hurt they were lied to is a legitimate argument.  if  i  was hurt for being lied to, i am confident i am not the only one.   #  you might like this school of philosophy is you align with the logic in your comment.   #  there are two schools of ethics in this regard, deontology which i will refer to as moral objectivity because it makes things easier and consequentialism.  moral objectivity would say lying is always wrong in any circumstance, it purports that you should only act as you believe everyone else should act, but more importantly that the ethics of a decision are inclosed in the making of the decision and the outcome is irrelevant as it isnt forseeable.  you might like this school of philosophy is you align with the logic in your comment.  there are some quite curious logic sequences that come from that, these things make ethical philosophy hurt my head.  the opposite school would be consequentialism, saying that anything can be justified by a good outcome.  which is the logic op is applying i am not an expert on philosophy by any standards, just thought i could give some clarity on this point.  ethics is a really interesting and easily applicable philosophy if you wanted to read into it.
an increasingly popular idea, especially on reddit it seems, is to not tell children santa exists.  there seems to be two main reasons behind this: 0.  we should not teach kids to behave well in order to get things.  0.  lying to them about santa will cause trust issues later in life.  neither of these are good reasons.  legends of santa or a santa like figure have existed for centuries and they have not brought about any sort of social issues.  the idea of santa is not teaching children that the only reason to be good is to get something, it is simply a fun idea for christmas.  kids do not suddenly become malevolent people once they find out that santa did not deliver those presents.  and regardless of that, in real life, doing good things  does  often result in rewards, so it is not as though the idea is false.  the, imo, more ridiculous issue is that children will fall into some sort of existential crisis when they find out santa is not real.  i have never met anyone who has suddenly developed trust issues after they found out.  most kids seem to just get over it after like an hour.  if there is a child for whom the discovery of the truth behind santa leads to trust issues or trauma, then that child has not developed a healthy sense of reasoning, and if something as insignificant as santa would be enough to push them into mental issues, then they will inevitably be faced by far worse examples of lying later on that will take a more extreme toll.  it is not the idea of santa, it is the individual and their ability to understand basic social norms and customs.  as said before, santa is an idea that is been around for ages.  it is never caused any problems before and while people have every right to not teach their kids about him, doing so in order to protect them is frankly juvenile and unnecessary.  by doing so they are denying their children a fun and harmless tradition that makes christmas an amazing time for millions of other across the world.   tl;dr  santa is harmless and all those claiming that the idea that he is harmful are being oversensitive.   #  santa is harmless and all those claiming that the idea that he is harmful are being oversensitive.   #  let is leave this aside for the moment   let me try to  change your view  by us finding some middle ground.  cool ?  # let is leave this aside for the moment   let me try to  change your view  by us finding some middle ground.  cool ? so, here is what my parents did for me re: the realness of santa.  q: is santa real ? a: no, of course not.  although, i was also told that santa embodied the christmas spirit: warm, giving, jolly   as a result, our family celebrates him.  now, as a kid if i can get super excited by a fictitious character like spiderman, then i can definitely still get hyped over christmas eve   the fact  santa is coming ! hearing that santa was spotted on the radar was still thrilling   the present from a  fake  santa still made me smile.  now, i also had to  promise  that i would keep this special secret   never ruin this surprise for any kid who did not know because that is not very warm, giving or jolly either.  in the end, i feel this was great for me as i did not have to suffer the shame of being the last kid to  know  or wondering what other half truths my parents might have told me but, i still got all the joy out of the  idea  that santa brings.   #  the only way in which it is better is that it is true.   #  well, i think telling your child  santa is a lie  is not  much  better than  santa is real .  the only way in which it is better is that it is true.  what is  much  better is to sit down and engage their thinking.  what does santa do ? he gives all the children presents.  how many children do you think are there ? dunno   well, we can find out.  google about 0 billion.  now, how long does it take santa to give them all presents ? one night ! is not that a bit fast, do not you think ? for so many children ? or:  how does santa travel ? on a sleigh, pulled by flying reindeer ! can reindeer fly ? do they have wings ? etc.   #  it is up to you to teach them a healthy sense of reason, and what do you do ?  #  it is up to you to teach them a healthy sense of reason, and what do you do ? you lie to them about something that does not really benefit them; for no good  areason .  you are their example as a parent, and you came up with a crazy story that was not true just because you enjoyed their naivete.  you seem to have the idea that children are already preprogrammed humans and a parent is job is mainly just keeping them fed and housed.  you are actually their everything, and they will mimic you, whether they understand what and why you do things or not.  you are also disregarding linked scientific studies, demonstrating your own healthy sense of reason.   #  if  i  was hurt for being lied to, i am confident i am not the only one.   #  saying there is no downside is outright wrong.  i distinctly remember losing a large amount of trust and feeling a ton of anger over being lied to in that moment of discovery.  that is a pretty big downside, and for what ? what was gained that was so valuable ? and i am going to go out on the limb here and say using the anecdote of someone being hurt they were lied to is a legitimate argument.  if  i  was hurt for being lied to, i am confident i am not the only one.   #  there are two schools of ethics in this regard, deontology which i will refer to as moral objectivity because it makes things easier and consequentialism.   #  there are two schools of ethics in this regard, deontology which i will refer to as moral objectivity because it makes things easier and consequentialism.  moral objectivity would say lying is always wrong in any circumstance, it purports that you should only act as you believe everyone else should act, but more importantly that the ethics of a decision are inclosed in the making of the decision and the outcome is irrelevant as it isnt forseeable.  you might like this school of philosophy is you align with the logic in your comment.  there are some quite curious logic sequences that come from that, these things make ethical philosophy hurt my head.  the opposite school would be consequentialism, saying that anything can be justified by a good outcome.  which is the logic op is applying i am not an expert on philosophy by any standards, just thought i could give some clarity on this point.  ethics is a really interesting and easily applicable philosophy if you wanted to read into it.
an increasingly popular idea, especially on reddit it seems, is to not tell children santa exists.  there seems to be two main reasons behind this: 0.  we should not teach kids to behave well in order to get things.  0.  lying to them about santa will cause trust issues later in life.  neither of these are good reasons.  legends of santa or a santa like figure have existed for centuries and they have not brought about any sort of social issues.  the idea of santa is not teaching children that the only reason to be good is to get something, it is simply a fun idea for christmas.  kids do not suddenly become malevolent people once they find out that santa did not deliver those presents.  and regardless of that, in real life, doing good things  does  often result in rewards, so it is not as though the idea is false.  the, imo, more ridiculous issue is that children will fall into some sort of existential crisis when they find out santa is not real.  i have never met anyone who has suddenly developed trust issues after they found out.  most kids seem to just get over it after like an hour.  if there is a child for whom the discovery of the truth behind santa leads to trust issues or trauma, then that child has not developed a healthy sense of reasoning, and if something as insignificant as santa would be enough to push them into mental issues, then they will inevitably be faced by far worse examples of lying later on that will take a more extreme toll.  it is not the idea of santa, it is the individual and their ability to understand basic social norms and customs.  as said before, santa is an idea that is been around for ages.  it is never caused any problems before and while people have every right to not teach their kids about him, doing so in order to protect them is frankly juvenile and unnecessary.  by doing so they are denying their children a fun and harmless tradition that makes christmas an amazing time for millions of other across the world.   tl;dr  santa is harmless and all those claiming that the idea that he is harmful are being oversensitive.   #  santa like figure have existed for centuries and they have not brought about any sort of social issues.   #  there is no data to support this.   # there is no data to support this.  that is like saying: we did not have vaccines for centuries so we do not need them.  but you do know they are better because society had the chance to try them.  the only way to know if believing santa is damaging or not is to study cases of adults that did not grow believing santa and draw conclusions if a positive or negative pattern is found.  for me personally it was a good thing.  i figured if they fooled me with santa, jesus probably is a legend too. and it checked out.  so santa was a good eye opener.   #  how many children do you think are there ?  #  well, i think telling your child  santa is a lie  is not  much  better than  santa is real .  the only way in which it is better is that it is true.  what is  much  better is to sit down and engage their thinking.  what does santa do ? he gives all the children presents.  how many children do you think are there ? dunno   well, we can find out.  google about 0 billion.  now, how long does it take santa to give them all presents ? one night ! is not that a bit fast, do not you think ? for so many children ? or:  how does santa travel ? on a sleigh, pulled by flying reindeer ! can reindeer fly ? do they have wings ? etc.   #  you are actually their everything, and they will mimic you, whether they understand what and why you do things or not.   #  it is up to you to teach them a healthy sense of reason, and what do you do ? you lie to them about something that does not really benefit them; for no good  areason .  you are their example as a parent, and you came up with a crazy story that was not true just because you enjoyed their naivete.  you seem to have the idea that children are already preprogrammed humans and a parent is job is mainly just keeping them fed and housed.  you are actually their everything, and they will mimic you, whether they understand what and why you do things or not.  you are also disregarding linked scientific studies, demonstrating your own healthy sense of reason.   #  that is a pretty big downside, and for what ?  #  saying there is no downside is outright wrong.  i distinctly remember losing a large amount of trust and feeling a ton of anger over being lied to in that moment of discovery.  that is a pretty big downside, and for what ? what was gained that was so valuable ? and i am going to go out on the limb here and say using the anecdote of someone being hurt they were lied to is a legitimate argument.  if  i  was hurt for being lied to, i am confident i am not the only one.   #  there are two schools of ethics in this regard, deontology which i will refer to as moral objectivity because it makes things easier and consequentialism.   #  there are two schools of ethics in this regard, deontology which i will refer to as moral objectivity because it makes things easier and consequentialism.  moral objectivity would say lying is always wrong in any circumstance, it purports that you should only act as you believe everyone else should act, but more importantly that the ethics of a decision are inclosed in the making of the decision and the outcome is irrelevant as it isnt forseeable.  you might like this school of philosophy is you align with the logic in your comment.  there are some quite curious logic sequences that come from that, these things make ethical philosophy hurt my head.  the opposite school would be consequentialism, saying that anything can be justified by a good outcome.  which is the logic op is applying i am not an expert on philosophy by any standards, just thought i could give some clarity on this point.  ethics is a really interesting and easily applicable philosophy if you wanted to read into it.
i was born in america but, due to my mother being australian, pronounce certain words differently.  i noticed that, for the majority of words that have alternate pronunciations, i mostly tended toward the british way i. e: i pronounce the letter z by itself as  zed  i find, however, that whenever i use these words most people go out of their way to correct me.  i usually try, without too much insistence, to explain that there are different pronunciations for the same word and i say it differently due to my heritage.  if they push the issue, i am happy to concede and change my pronunciation during the rest of the conversation, but i still find their insistence mildly offensive.  i am aware i am in a particular country that speaks english a certain way, but to completely discount alternate and, in many cases, the original pronunciation as  wrong  seems nationalistic at best and conceited at worst.  everyone should be mindful of the culture they are in, and i can see how i might come across as aloof, but i do not do this to be different, i do this because i  am  different, just as anyone from any other nationality is different.  it is not an attempt to subvert american pronunciation as  wrong , because it is just as right as any other nation is pronunciation.  if i could just chalk this up to nationalism, i would accept it and move on as just a facet of american culture.  however, it feels like it is just aimed at me.  if a canadian was to pronounce about as  aboot  the worst that will happen is a few jokes.  that is  ok , but my situation is apparently  not ok .  please, change my view.  because so many people have asked, here is more information that i should have included in my original post:   yes, i have an accent.  however, i have found that it is a strange mix of australian and american pronunciation most americans say i sound either british or australian, and if they think i sound american, i sound like i am from the northeast, where i have never lived .  because of this, i always explain my accent in the context of where i grew up missouri and my mother teaching me to speak   i grew up using australian slang, though i often did not learn it was australian only until much later in life.  i have since, for the most part, stopped using the slang because it requires explaining whole new words.  my pronunciation, on the other hand, is inherently a part of my accent, and because i have to explain that just about every time i meet someone, in my mind justifies my pronunciation.    i do  not  think that the british pronunciation is any more  right  than the american, it was a mistake in my part to say it was original.  i did not intend sound uninformed or conceited   my peers often go out of their way to correct me in a very specific and individual way.  they say that, because i am american and was raised in america, i should sound american.  however, i find they are ignoring not only my obvious accent but also the profound effect my mother has has on not only my speech patterns but also the words i use.  i often try to identify as  both  australian and american, because to me that is what i am.  when my pronunciation gets confusing, i will happily switch for the conversation.  however, when others cannot seem to understand  why  i sound like that and instead attribute it to me attempting to sound  different  is when i take offense.    in a formal environment, i will adhere to the standard which is usually american in nature because that has a very precise meaning of correct  #  i am aware i am in a particular country that speaks english a certain way, but to completely discount alternate and, in many cases, the original pronunciation as  wrong  seems nationalistic at best and conceited at worst.   #  just to set you on the right path, you are wrong to say  original .   # just to set you on the right path, you are wrong to say  original .  in fact,  that  is nationalistic and conceited: the idea that modern british pronunciations are somehow older or more legitimate than american ones.  much like humans did not  come from  modern apes but are merely another branch sharing a common ancestor, so too with languages.  american and british english have both been evolving, in parallel, from the same origin.  neither is older, neither is more legitimate.  furthermore, this is a simplification: there are many commingled offshoots making up each of those dialects.  most people are quite ignorant about language, and believe the follies of prescriptivism.  they believe there  is  a right, better, or more legitimate version of a word as you yourself implied and will correct apparent transgressions.  this is a normal function of sociolinguistics, which on a local scale ensures intelligibility, and on a larger scale creates divisions.  it would be nice, perhaps, if everyone accepted every deviation.  but this may lead to increasing problems with mutual intelligibility, and in any case, is not normal social functioning.  humans  do not  work that way, and we know this through the science of sociolinguistics, so it is pointless to hope for change.   #  i spent my summers in england with my grandparents the entire time i was growing up.   #  it seems like there is more to this that you are letting on.  just to clarify:   you were born in the us, but did you grow up in the us ? how much time, if any, did you spend in australia ? do you have an accent other than your pronunciation of certain words ? i was born in the us also, but both of my parents are from england.  i spent my summers in england with my grandparents the entire time i was growing up.  i have no discernible british accent, and aside from an occasional  piss off  or  bollocks , my pronunciation is pretty standard for the are of the us i live in.  if you grew up here, and went to school here, then your vocabulary and pronunciation should not be an issue unless the  mispronunciation  is intentional.   #  as well, i grew up for a long time thinking that australian pronunciation  and  slang that was used in my own home were common words in america.   #  i grew up in america for the most part, visiting australia once every two years until this year where i studied there for 0 months .  however, i also have a definite accent, but it is not quite from either country.  i have asked people, and though the results can vary, most people think i am from either australia or britain.  as well, i grew up for a long time thinking that australian pronunciation  and  slang that was used in my own home were common words in america.  my dad who is american would use them, so i just assumed everyone else did as well.  even just this year i learned americans do not use the word  daggy  which means unhip or cool so while my upbringing would suggest otherwise, i feel like i have a strong enough connection to australian culture to justify my pronunciation.   #  it certainly does not happen to all children, but it happens to a decent number !  #  this is not wholly true.  it is actually fairly common for kids to pick up their parents  accents even when their peer group does not use this accent.  this is largely because they grow up with it while they are learning to speak to begin with.  i had firsthand experience with this i grew up in oregon, but i was mostly raised by my grandparents, who spoke with a strong southern accent.  because i spent my home time with them and they were the ones who originally taught me to talk, i had a noticeable southern accent until i was around 0 and consciously tried to shake it.  i often had people ask me if i was from the south.  it certainly does not happen to all children, but it happens to a decent number !  #  as it stands, my mother is rapidly joining the same situation i seem to be in.   #  honestly, i do not think i will ever be able to explain why i sound so different to everyone.  even my mum thinks i sound odd, so the only solution i can come up with is that i switched words / pronunciations while i was growing up, depending on if i was at home or school, and now the final result is some horrible mess that no one understands.  the confusion that i leave in my wake i understand.  like i have said many times, i am happy to modify parts of my speech during a conversation since i know only a part of my pronunciation sounds australian / british.  if i was doing this to sound different, i would have modified my speech completely long ago.  as it stands, my mother is rapidly joining the same situation i seem to be in.  as she lives in the us longer and longer, her accent is somewhat lost simply from being there.  whenever she returns home, they tell her quite insistently that she sounds like an american she has even been mistaken as a tourist a couple of times .  does this make my mother any less australian ? obviously, she has lived there and so can identify as such.  however, i am not trying to sound more british or australian, i am just required, due to the nature of my upbringing, forced to justify the way i talk.  i do not lie and try to be more australian than i already am, it just appears to me that most people depend too much on where i was born and raised rather than the confusing cultural cocktail that i have had to incorporate into my everyday life.  if you wish for me to justify my accent which to me explains why i say certain words differently i can upload a recording of my voice.
i was born in america but, due to my mother being australian, pronounce certain words differently.  i noticed that, for the majority of words that have alternate pronunciations, i mostly tended toward the british way i. e: i pronounce the letter z by itself as  zed  i find, however, that whenever i use these words most people go out of their way to correct me.  i usually try, without too much insistence, to explain that there are different pronunciations for the same word and i say it differently due to my heritage.  if they push the issue, i am happy to concede and change my pronunciation during the rest of the conversation, but i still find their insistence mildly offensive.  i am aware i am in a particular country that speaks english a certain way, but to completely discount alternate and, in many cases, the original pronunciation as  wrong  seems nationalistic at best and conceited at worst.  everyone should be mindful of the culture they are in, and i can see how i might come across as aloof, but i do not do this to be different, i do this because i  am  different, just as anyone from any other nationality is different.  it is not an attempt to subvert american pronunciation as  wrong , because it is just as right as any other nation is pronunciation.  if i could just chalk this up to nationalism, i would accept it and move on as just a facet of american culture.  however, it feels like it is just aimed at me.  if a canadian was to pronounce about as  aboot  the worst that will happen is a few jokes.  that is  ok , but my situation is apparently  not ok .  please, change my view.  because so many people have asked, here is more information that i should have included in my original post:   yes, i have an accent.  however, i have found that it is a strange mix of australian and american pronunciation most americans say i sound either british or australian, and if they think i sound american, i sound like i am from the northeast, where i have never lived .  because of this, i always explain my accent in the context of where i grew up missouri and my mother teaching me to speak   i grew up using australian slang, though i often did not learn it was australian only until much later in life.  i have since, for the most part, stopped using the slang because it requires explaining whole new words.  my pronunciation, on the other hand, is inherently a part of my accent, and because i have to explain that just about every time i meet someone, in my mind justifies my pronunciation.    i do  not  think that the british pronunciation is any more  right  than the american, it was a mistake in my part to say it was original.  i did not intend sound uninformed or conceited   my peers often go out of their way to correct me in a very specific and individual way.  they say that, because i am american and was raised in america, i should sound american.  however, i find they are ignoring not only my obvious accent but also the profound effect my mother has has on not only my speech patterns but also the words i use.  i often try to identify as  both  australian and american, because to me that is what i am.  when my pronunciation gets confusing, i will happily switch for the conversation.  however, when others cannot seem to understand  why  i sound like that and instead attribute it to me attempting to sound  different  is when i take offense.    in a formal environment, i will adhere to the standard which is usually american in nature because that has a very precise meaning of correct  #  if a canadian was to pronounce about as  aboot  the worst that will happen is a few jokes.   #  that is  ok , but my situation is apparently  not ok .   # that is  ok , but my situation is apparently  not ok .  canadian here.   aboot  is a bit of a misnomer, perpetuated by south park.  it applies to a very small number of canadians, living on the east coast.  just a note.   #  i have no discernible british accent, and aside from an occasional  piss off  or  bollocks , my pronunciation is pretty standard for the are of the us i live in.   #  it seems like there is more to this that you are letting on.  just to clarify:   you were born in the us, but did you grow up in the us ? how much time, if any, did you spend in australia ? do you have an accent other than your pronunciation of certain words ? i was born in the us also, but both of my parents are from england.  i spent my summers in england with my grandparents the entire time i was growing up.  i have no discernible british accent, and aside from an occasional  piss off  or  bollocks , my pronunciation is pretty standard for the are of the us i live in.  if you grew up here, and went to school here, then your vocabulary and pronunciation should not be an issue unless the  mispronunciation  is intentional.   #  i grew up in america for the most part, visiting australia once every two years until this year where i studied there for 0 months .   #  i grew up in america for the most part, visiting australia once every two years until this year where i studied there for 0 months .  however, i also have a definite accent, but it is not quite from either country.  i have asked people, and though the results can vary, most people think i am from either australia or britain.  as well, i grew up for a long time thinking that australian pronunciation  and  slang that was used in my own home were common words in america.  my dad who is american would use them, so i just assumed everyone else did as well.  even just this year i learned americans do not use the word  daggy  which means unhip or cool so while my upbringing would suggest otherwise, i feel like i have a strong enough connection to australian culture to justify my pronunciation.   #  because i spent my home time with them and they were the ones who originally taught me to talk, i had a noticeable southern accent until i was around 0 and consciously tried to shake it.   #  this is not wholly true.  it is actually fairly common for kids to pick up their parents  accents even when their peer group does not use this accent.  this is largely because they grow up with it while they are learning to speak to begin with.  i had firsthand experience with this i grew up in oregon, but i was mostly raised by my grandparents, who spoke with a strong southern accent.  because i spent my home time with them and they were the ones who originally taught me to talk, i had a noticeable southern accent until i was around 0 and consciously tried to shake it.  i often had people ask me if i was from the south.  it certainly does not happen to all children, but it happens to a decent number !  #  if i was doing this to sound different, i would have modified my speech completely long ago.   #  honestly, i do not think i will ever be able to explain why i sound so different to everyone.  even my mum thinks i sound odd, so the only solution i can come up with is that i switched words / pronunciations while i was growing up, depending on if i was at home or school, and now the final result is some horrible mess that no one understands.  the confusion that i leave in my wake i understand.  like i have said many times, i am happy to modify parts of my speech during a conversation since i know only a part of my pronunciation sounds australian / british.  if i was doing this to sound different, i would have modified my speech completely long ago.  as it stands, my mother is rapidly joining the same situation i seem to be in.  as she lives in the us longer and longer, her accent is somewhat lost simply from being there.  whenever she returns home, they tell her quite insistently that she sounds like an american she has even been mistaken as a tourist a couple of times .  does this make my mother any less australian ? obviously, she has lived there and so can identify as such.  however, i am not trying to sound more british or australian, i am just required, due to the nature of my upbringing, forced to justify the way i talk.  i do not lie and try to be more australian than i already am, it just appears to me that most people depend too much on where i was born and raised rather than the confusing cultural cocktail that i have had to incorporate into my everyday life.  if you wish for me to justify my accent which to me explains why i say certain words differently i can upload a recording of my voice.
more specifically, i support the death penalty provided that the accused is given a fair trial and is proven in court beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime e. g.  committed in broad daylight in front of dozens of people/caught on cctv with dna evidence .  also, only for absolutely heinous crimes like murder.  i believe that everyone of us that lives in a society has tacitly agreed to a social contract and to abide by the society is laws.  by committing a crime like murder, this contract is broken and the individual has given up the right to live in that particular society.  as such, the death penalty seems like the only way to remove the murderer from society and prevent him from threatening the safety of others.  exile seems like an option too, but it is quite clearly no longer a realistic option in today is globalised and interconnected world.  i have read certain arguments saying that the state does not have the right to take another person is life.  however, i believe that the state does in fact have this right, since the person has broken the social contract and the state has the duty to protect the safety of others in society.  also, since we have already conceded that the state has the right to restrict the freedom of individuals by putting them in prisons when they commit a crime, i do not see how it is much more of a stretch to say that they similarly have the right to take another person is life when they commit a much more heinous crime.  also, while i generally support rehabilitation, i think that it is only appropriate for lesser crimes like drug abuse or assault.  a murderer will cause a much bigger threat to society even after having undergone rehabilitation, there is no guarantee that the individual will not murder again and i do not think that others that live in the society deserve to be put under this threat.  hence, these are the main reasons why i am in favour of the death penalty.  of course, i am assuming that the accused is mentally sound to make the choice of committing the crime.   #  i believe that everyone of us that lives in a society has tacitly agreed to a social contract and to abide by the society is laws.   #  by committing a crime like murder, this contract is broken and the individual has given up the right to live in that particular society.   # by committing a crime like murder, this contract is broken and the individual has given up the right to live in that particular society.  as such, the death penalty seems like the only way to remove the murderer from society and prevent him from threatening the safety of others.  life in prison without parole would also achieve the same end: permanently removing them from society.  it turns out that he is violent in prison, he can visit solitary confinement for awhile.  i do not believe a guard or inmate should die to protect a dangerous inmate from the mental stress of solitary.  the reason we should not opt for the death penalty is simple: money ! it is cheaper to put a person away for the rest of his life.  death penalty trials cost many millions of dollars.  then there is the excessive cost of appeals and death row housing.  this forbes article URL says it is 0 times more expensive to carry out the death penalty than to keep them alive.  since this is our tax money, i think we should go with the most cost effective option that keeps him out of society  #  just because the costs are small compared to something else does not mean the costs are irrelevant.   #  i do not see how.  when there is a sick kid you have to decide what is the cost that is worth saving the child.  do you pay a trillion dollars, a billion, a million, a hundred thousand ? how could that money be spent to save other peoples lives.  we might be able to save more just through education or giving money to poor african countries.  at a certain point we do put a price on a human life.  we do decide how much we are willing to spend on them.  just because the costs are small compared to something else does not mean the costs are irrelevant.  that money could be spent feeding homeless people or building roads.   #  you would have to include the innocents in the cost benefit analysis.   #  you would have to include the innocents in the cost benefit analysis.  those convicted that are guilty are worth nothing, so the 0 dollars is worth it.  the innocents are worth some number let is say 0 million so you would have to be saving enough money to justify the estimated amount of innocents that slip through the system being executed.  and once again you are drawing a false equivalence when comparing this to the gdp or over all prison budget.  should we allow small levels of corruption because it is only a small part of gdp.   #  and if we would have to spend money to avoid it, so be it.   # those convicted that are guilty are worth nothing, so the 0 dollars is worth it.  let me get this straight, if somehow, right now cost of dp becomes lesser than life in prison by 0 bucks you would support it ? not really, my point is that death penalty has no benefit, period.  and if we would have to spend money to avoid it, so be it.  yes there is a breakpoint in our hypothetical world, i wouldnt let country go bunkrupt so i could save some folks, but this breakpoint is certainly not in 0k/year area or something, i do not know the numbers, prolly it is higher .   #  in ca, an inmate is $0 a year.   #  in ca, an inmate is $0 a year.  those on death row are $0.  URL URL death row prisoners get unlimited appeals.  so they get more court time.  but my argument against the death penalty has to do with my moral system.  it is wrong to murder a person.  it is wrong for a mob to murder a person.  it is wrong for a state to murder a person.  the  istate  is merely an organization of people.  personhood has nothing to do with the social contract.  you are still a person if you break it.
more specifically, i support the death penalty provided that the accused is given a fair trial and is proven in court beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime e. g.  committed in broad daylight in front of dozens of people/caught on cctv with dna evidence .  also, only for absolutely heinous crimes like murder.  i believe that everyone of us that lives in a society has tacitly agreed to a social contract and to abide by the society is laws.  by committing a crime like murder, this contract is broken and the individual has given up the right to live in that particular society.  as such, the death penalty seems like the only way to remove the murderer from society and prevent him from threatening the safety of others.  exile seems like an option too, but it is quite clearly no longer a realistic option in today is globalised and interconnected world.  i have read certain arguments saying that the state does not have the right to take another person is life.  however, i believe that the state does in fact have this right, since the person has broken the social contract and the state has the duty to protect the safety of others in society.  also, since we have already conceded that the state has the right to restrict the freedom of individuals by putting them in prisons when they commit a crime, i do not see how it is much more of a stretch to say that they similarly have the right to take another person is life when they commit a much more heinous crime.  also, while i generally support rehabilitation, i think that it is only appropriate for lesser crimes like drug abuse or assault.  a murderer will cause a much bigger threat to society even after having undergone rehabilitation, there is no guarantee that the individual will not murder again and i do not think that others that live in the society deserve to be put under this threat.  hence, these are the main reasons why i am in favour of the death penalty.  of course, i am assuming that the accused is mentally sound to make the choice of committing the crime.   #  the state has the duty to protect the safety of others in society.   #  from a strictly utilitarian perspective, the resources spent putting someone to death through an exhaustive fair trial are better spent elsewhere if the goal is to make society safer.   # how does it follow from the fact that a person has broken a social contract that they have forfeited their right to live ? for what infractions on said social contract is this appropriate and why ? i feel this social contract argument is just begging the question.  from a strictly utilitarian perspective, the resources spent putting someone to death through an exhaustive fair trial are better spent elsewhere if the goal is to make society safer.  of course not.  the same is true for a murderer, it is just the degree that is different.  what difference does that make to your arguments ? assuming your arguments are valid for sane persons, why would not they not also be true for insane persons ? they too violated the social contract, they too are a treat to society maybe even more so than the sane ones and them too we lock them up so why not just off them while we are at it ?  #  how could that money be spent to save other peoples lives.   #  i do not see how.  when there is a sick kid you have to decide what is the cost that is worth saving the child.  do you pay a trillion dollars, a billion, a million, a hundred thousand ? how could that money be spent to save other peoples lives.  we might be able to save more just through education or giving money to poor african countries.  at a certain point we do put a price on a human life.  we do decide how much we are willing to spend on them.  just because the costs are small compared to something else does not mean the costs are irrelevant.  that money could be spent feeding homeless people or building roads.   #  the innocents are worth some number let is say 0 million so you would have to be saving enough money to justify the estimated amount of innocents that slip through the system being executed.   #  you would have to include the innocents in the cost benefit analysis.  those convicted that are guilty are worth nothing, so the 0 dollars is worth it.  the innocents are worth some number let is say 0 million so you would have to be saving enough money to justify the estimated amount of innocents that slip through the system being executed.  and once again you are drawing a false equivalence when comparing this to the gdp or over all prison budget.  should we allow small levels of corruption because it is only a small part of gdp.   #  not really, my point is that death penalty has no benefit, period.   # those convicted that are guilty are worth nothing, so the 0 dollars is worth it.  let me get this straight, if somehow, right now cost of dp becomes lesser than life in prison by 0 bucks you would support it ? not really, my point is that death penalty has no benefit, period.  and if we would have to spend money to avoid it, so be it.  yes there is a breakpoint in our hypothetical world, i wouldnt let country go bunkrupt so i could save some folks, but this breakpoint is certainly not in 0k/year area or something, i do not know the numbers, prolly it is higher .   #  personhood has nothing to do with the social contract.   #  in ca, an inmate is $0 a year.  those on death row are $0.  URL URL death row prisoners get unlimited appeals.  so they get more court time.  but my argument against the death penalty has to do with my moral system.  it is wrong to murder a person.  it is wrong for a mob to murder a person.  it is wrong for a state to murder a person.  the  istate  is merely an organization of people.  personhood has nothing to do with the social contract.  you are still a person if you break it.
more specifically, i support the death penalty provided that the accused is given a fair trial and is proven in court beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime e. g.  committed in broad daylight in front of dozens of people/caught on cctv with dna evidence .  also, only for absolutely heinous crimes like murder.  i believe that everyone of us that lives in a society has tacitly agreed to a social contract and to abide by the society is laws.  by committing a crime like murder, this contract is broken and the individual has given up the right to live in that particular society.  as such, the death penalty seems like the only way to remove the murderer from society and prevent him from threatening the safety of others.  exile seems like an option too, but it is quite clearly no longer a realistic option in today is globalised and interconnected world.  i have read certain arguments saying that the state does not have the right to take another person is life.  however, i believe that the state does in fact have this right, since the person has broken the social contract and the state has the duty to protect the safety of others in society.  also, since we have already conceded that the state has the right to restrict the freedom of individuals by putting them in prisons when they commit a crime, i do not see how it is much more of a stretch to say that they similarly have the right to take another person is life when they commit a much more heinous crime.  also, while i generally support rehabilitation, i think that it is only appropriate for lesser crimes like drug abuse or assault.  a murderer will cause a much bigger threat to society even after having undergone rehabilitation, there is no guarantee that the individual will not murder again and i do not think that others that live in the society deserve to be put under this threat.  hence, these are the main reasons why i am in favour of the death penalty.  of course, i am assuming that the accused is mentally sound to make the choice of committing the crime.   #  of course, i am assuming that the accused is mentally sound to make the choice of committing the crime.   #  what difference does that make to your arguments ?  # how does it follow from the fact that a person has broken a social contract that they have forfeited their right to live ? for what infractions on said social contract is this appropriate and why ? i feel this social contract argument is just begging the question.  from a strictly utilitarian perspective, the resources spent putting someone to death through an exhaustive fair trial are better spent elsewhere if the goal is to make society safer.  of course not.  the same is true for a murderer, it is just the degree that is different.  what difference does that make to your arguments ? assuming your arguments are valid for sane persons, why would not they not also be true for insane persons ? they too violated the social contract, they too are a treat to society maybe even more so than the sane ones and them too we lock them up so why not just off them while we are at it ?  #  we do decide how much we are willing to spend on them.   #  i do not see how.  when there is a sick kid you have to decide what is the cost that is worth saving the child.  do you pay a trillion dollars, a billion, a million, a hundred thousand ? how could that money be spent to save other peoples lives.  we might be able to save more just through education or giving money to poor african countries.  at a certain point we do put a price on a human life.  we do decide how much we are willing to spend on them.  just because the costs are small compared to something else does not mean the costs are irrelevant.  that money could be spent feeding homeless people or building roads.   #  you would have to include the innocents in the cost benefit analysis.   #  you would have to include the innocents in the cost benefit analysis.  those convicted that are guilty are worth nothing, so the 0 dollars is worth it.  the innocents are worth some number let is say 0 million so you would have to be saving enough money to justify the estimated amount of innocents that slip through the system being executed.  and once again you are drawing a false equivalence when comparing this to the gdp or over all prison budget.  should we allow small levels of corruption because it is only a small part of gdp.   #  and if we would have to spend money to avoid it, so be it.   # those convicted that are guilty are worth nothing, so the 0 dollars is worth it.  let me get this straight, if somehow, right now cost of dp becomes lesser than life in prison by 0 bucks you would support it ? not really, my point is that death penalty has no benefit, period.  and if we would have to spend money to avoid it, so be it.  yes there is a breakpoint in our hypothetical world, i wouldnt let country go bunkrupt so i could save some folks, but this breakpoint is certainly not in 0k/year area or something, i do not know the numbers, prolly it is higher .   #  it is wrong for a state to murder a person.   #  in ca, an inmate is $0 a year.  those on death row are $0.  URL URL death row prisoners get unlimited appeals.  so they get more court time.  but my argument against the death penalty has to do with my moral system.  it is wrong to murder a person.  it is wrong for a mob to murder a person.  it is wrong for a state to murder a person.  the  istate  is merely an organization of people.  personhood has nothing to do with the social contract.  you are still a person if you break it.
i would like to think i am a pretty logical and progressive person.  however.  this open relationship thing has started to come up more and more in my dating life and it sounds like simple bullshit to me.  i do not see how you can have a meaningful, healthy and truly intimate connection with someone if there is a chance that someone else can  be  with your significant other in that way.  now, i am not jealous or insecure when it comes to my relationships but i think that emotionally and definitely physically the connection to one person comes from being with that one person.  not that one person on thursday, i can still get that other person is number friday and if i feel like hopping in the bed with someone else that sunday it is fine.  on the flipside i totally respect their honesty about not being monogamous instead of cheating on someone unknowing.  change my view.  or at least help me to see the pov more clearly of those that believe in open relationships.  to the people that were kind of a dick i expected you here and there were so few so i still feel good about asking how and what i asked.  i will reply more limited to those that still choose to comment but thanks because i not only understand the pov i must say i suppose i have actually changed my view.  : tl;dr: i think open relationships are bullshit cmv  #  i do not see how you can have a meaningful, healthy and truly intimate connection with someone if there is a chance that someone else can  be  with your significant other in that way.   #  i am not really sure what everyone is supposed to understand as meaningful and healthy.   #  for me it is about wanting my partner to be happy and i do not want limit the possible joy she can get out of life in any way.  since you brought up jealousy and it is an important topic to address i want to try to give you some insight how it works for me.  a lot of people seem to think that if you live in an open relationship you ca not be a jealous person, but that is not really the case.  i for example would totally be jealous if my girlfriend dumped me and i see her with somebody else the next day, but during the relationship there is no need for jealousy.  i trust my girlfriends love and i do not see why she should love me less because of sex.  i know for myself that sleeping with others does not change the way i feel about her, so why should it change the way she feels for me ? her capability to feel the same towards me has brought us closer together than i could have ever dreamed of and the way she trusts me makes me the happiest person.  i am not really sure what everyone is supposed to understand as meaningful and healthy.  everybody has to decide for themselves, if the relationship they are having is meaningful to them, because you ca not judge it objectively.  that would be like someone telling you his favorite food is chocolate ice cream and you tell him that he is wrong.  i goggled some definition for  healthy relationship  and this is what the national domestic violence hotline writes other websites i found were pretty similar but this was better formated for copying it here : for both partners applies:  0 treat each other with respect  0 feel supported to do things they like  0 do not criticize each other  0 allow each other to spend time with friends and family  0 listen to each other and compromise  0 share some interests such as movies, sports, reading, dancing or music  0 are not afraid to share their thoughts and feelings  0 celebrate each other is accomplishments and successes  0 respect boundaries and do not abuse technology  0 trust each other and do not require their partner to  check in   0 do not pressure the other to do things that they do not want to do  0 do not constantly accuse each other of cheating or being unfaithful point 0 is not even a point in an open relationship and the rest is not connected to the style of your relationship.  some persons, myself included, will probably find number 0 easier in an open relationship, but i am sure there are just as many who feel the contrary.  a truly intimate connection is nothing that is solely formed in bed.  i know about my partners vulnerabilities and she knows about mine.  in monogamous relationships there is a lot of black and white i. e.  attraction to you so good, but to others bad whereas in an open relationship a lot of these areas are gray.  by allowing my so to sleep with others she has to decide and i trust her with this.  the same goes the other way around.  trusting the other with this much power over each other is what i call a truly intimate connection.  having an open relationship does not mean you go around humping everyone that does not say no.  just because you can have sex with others does not mean you need to.   #  this has gotten a bit all over the place, but the rub of it is: open relationships/polyamory are not for everyone, but that does not mean they are just for people who are afraid of commitment.   #  how many partners have you had who were perfectly synchronized to your emotional, spiritual, romantic, and sexual needs/desires ? who wanted to cuddle whenever you did, who wanted the same things in life, who wanted sex when you did, whose schedule never clashed ? my counter question is: why on earth is it considered the norm to expect there to be 0 person to do all that, to whom we pledge our life and faithfulness forever and ever, etc ? imagine if this were applied to  literally  anything else, how absurd it would be.  imagine if, once you would made a friend, you were expected to only ever hang out with that one friend for the rest of your life.  or just that one drinking buddy, or work at just that one job forever.  now, there are some differences with relationships and sex, obviously, but the premise still stands.  i think everyone has been in some part of a  love triangle  at one point or another, and that is caused entirely by this notion that there is this one special person, which just seems absurd when looked at objectively: if there were just one special person, why on earth could someone have feelings for 0 or more people at once ? this has gotten a bit all over the place, but the rub of it is: open relationships/polyamory are not for everyone, but that does not mean they are just for people who are afraid of commitment.  i have known some poly couples who have their home and kids along with their separate boy/girlfriends.  it is just different, is all.  they are just as committed and loving, if not moreso, than the monogamous couples i know.   #  i actually do not believe in  the one  and do not expect one person to fulfil all those needs all the time.   #  i hear you.  i actually do not believe in  the one  and do not expect one person to fulfil all those needs all the time.  i mean there are people that want to work at other places but still remain loyal to their jobs for the benefits.  comparing this to work was probably the worst thing i could do but while i can appreciate where you are coming from i do not see how you can develop the intimacy when you have your wife and kids at home and a piece of ass on the side.  is not part of cultivating that innate connection being able to deny yourself from wanton needs ? kind of like when you want to party all night but do not because you have shit to do ? i do not know. i get why you said that there is always a triangle or something else you may need / want.  but when happy in relationships i did not feel like i needed other things.  irony: the man i loved the most lied to me for a year about being married.  we broke up when i found out. but we were both living abroad and there was no way for me to know he had a wife and child at home.  so you must be onto something because i did not know but he did and was happy as can be.  i just feel like when you are old and your so is old. will people still feel the need to have an open relationship ? doubtful from the looks of it.   #  whether that be taking out the trash every morning, putting the seat down, or in some cases, it is that they do not want to have sex 0 times a week.   #  i think that the issue arises when you consider the person on the side as  a piece of ass.   in those specific types of relationships, the  piece of ass  is still a complex human being, and not simply viewed as just a hole or a pole.  you did sort of answer your own question though, why you are in a happy relationship, you do not feel like you need other things.  i agree with that.  when i am in a happy relationship, i do not feel like there is anything else that i want.  with most relationships though, this is not the case.  you may be with the person you love more than anyone, but there are still things that they do not do for you.  whether that be taking out the trash every morning, putting the seat down, or in some cases, it is that they do not want to have sex 0 times a week.  it is not just based on frequency of sex either, it could be any number of differences from what two partners consider  ideal sex .  the deal breaker is openess.  that is all their is to it.  people who lie to other people are bad.  if we could all just learn to establsih exactly what the expectations of one another are at the formation of a relationship, the people who might want to have sex with other people would end up hooking up with like minded people, and those who just want one sexual partner could pair up with their people.  tl; dr.  it is not the type of relationship people have that is the problem, it is when people lie to one another about the conditions of their relationship that causes so much issue.   #  if they lie, you will be devastated and eventually return to a baseline level of contentment.   #  is not that just one of the strange intricacies of human life ? people lie.  people hurt other people.  good people do bad things and bad people do good things.  you are right.  you never know who is being honest.  so just have to do that big thing that is so hard to do… trust someone.  if they lie, you will be devastated and eventually return to a baseline level of contentment.  if they are worthy of your trust, you will feel great about it for a while, but eventually you will return to your baseline level of contentment.  either way, the happiness will pass, the sadness will pass and you will just have to go on living every moment in the finite, passing way it was meant to be lived.  anyway, that is sort of getting off topic.  the point is, you have got to deal with the liars until you find somebody on your team that you can trust, and they make you happy and then you are good.  the difference is some people do not want just that one teammate.  some people want three people on their team.  some want eight.  some want their team mates to smack the shit out of them and some are appalled by the idea that people smack their own teammates.  some dudes only want their teammates to be other dudes and some ladies only play on teams with other ladies.  the point is who cares ? people should be able to get what they want out of their own, short, temporary lives.  …but not at the risk of lying to, cheating on, or otherwise hurting other people for their own personal benefit.
i would like to think i am a pretty logical and progressive person.  however.  this open relationship thing has started to come up more and more in my dating life and it sounds like simple bullshit to me.  i do not see how you can have a meaningful, healthy and truly intimate connection with someone if there is a chance that someone else can  be  with your significant other in that way.  now, i am not jealous or insecure when it comes to my relationships but i think that emotionally and definitely physically the connection to one person comes from being with that one person.  not that one person on thursday, i can still get that other person is number friday and if i feel like hopping in the bed with someone else that sunday it is fine.  on the flipside i totally respect their honesty about not being monogamous instead of cheating on someone unknowing.  change my view.  or at least help me to see the pov more clearly of those that believe in open relationships.  to the people that were kind of a dick i expected you here and there were so few so i still feel good about asking how and what i asked.  i will reply more limited to those that still choose to comment but thanks because i not only understand the pov i must say i suppose i have actually changed my view.  : tl;dr: i think open relationships are bullshit cmv  #  not that one person on thursday, i can still get that other person is number friday and if i feel like hopping in the bed with someone else that sunday it is fine.   #  having an open relationship does not mean you go around humping everyone that does not say no.   #  for me it is about wanting my partner to be happy and i do not want limit the possible joy she can get out of life in any way.  since you brought up jealousy and it is an important topic to address i want to try to give you some insight how it works for me.  a lot of people seem to think that if you live in an open relationship you ca not be a jealous person, but that is not really the case.  i for example would totally be jealous if my girlfriend dumped me and i see her with somebody else the next day, but during the relationship there is no need for jealousy.  i trust my girlfriends love and i do not see why she should love me less because of sex.  i know for myself that sleeping with others does not change the way i feel about her, so why should it change the way she feels for me ? her capability to feel the same towards me has brought us closer together than i could have ever dreamed of and the way she trusts me makes me the happiest person.  i am not really sure what everyone is supposed to understand as meaningful and healthy.  everybody has to decide for themselves, if the relationship they are having is meaningful to them, because you ca not judge it objectively.  that would be like someone telling you his favorite food is chocolate ice cream and you tell him that he is wrong.  i goggled some definition for  healthy relationship  and this is what the national domestic violence hotline writes other websites i found were pretty similar but this was better formated for copying it here : for both partners applies:  0 treat each other with respect  0 feel supported to do things they like  0 do not criticize each other  0 allow each other to spend time with friends and family  0 listen to each other and compromise  0 share some interests such as movies, sports, reading, dancing or music  0 are not afraid to share their thoughts and feelings  0 celebrate each other is accomplishments and successes  0 respect boundaries and do not abuse technology  0 trust each other and do not require their partner to  check in   0 do not pressure the other to do things that they do not want to do  0 do not constantly accuse each other of cheating or being unfaithful point 0 is not even a point in an open relationship and the rest is not connected to the style of your relationship.  some persons, myself included, will probably find number 0 easier in an open relationship, but i am sure there are just as many who feel the contrary.  a truly intimate connection is nothing that is solely formed in bed.  i know about my partners vulnerabilities and she knows about mine.  in monogamous relationships there is a lot of black and white i. e.  attraction to you so good, but to others bad whereas in an open relationship a lot of these areas are gray.  by allowing my so to sleep with others she has to decide and i trust her with this.  the same goes the other way around.  trusting the other with this much power over each other is what i call a truly intimate connection.  having an open relationship does not mean you go around humping everyone that does not say no.  just because you can have sex with others does not mean you need to.   #  how many partners have you had who were perfectly synchronized to your emotional, spiritual, romantic, and sexual needs/desires ?  #  how many partners have you had who were perfectly synchronized to your emotional, spiritual, romantic, and sexual needs/desires ? who wanted to cuddle whenever you did, who wanted the same things in life, who wanted sex when you did, whose schedule never clashed ? my counter question is: why on earth is it considered the norm to expect there to be 0 person to do all that, to whom we pledge our life and faithfulness forever and ever, etc ? imagine if this were applied to  literally  anything else, how absurd it would be.  imagine if, once you would made a friend, you were expected to only ever hang out with that one friend for the rest of your life.  or just that one drinking buddy, or work at just that one job forever.  now, there are some differences with relationships and sex, obviously, but the premise still stands.  i think everyone has been in some part of a  love triangle  at one point or another, and that is caused entirely by this notion that there is this one special person, which just seems absurd when looked at objectively: if there were just one special person, why on earth could someone have feelings for 0 or more people at once ? this has gotten a bit all over the place, but the rub of it is: open relationships/polyamory are not for everyone, but that does not mean they are just for people who are afraid of commitment.  i have known some poly couples who have their home and kids along with their separate boy/girlfriends.  it is just different, is all.  they are just as committed and loving, if not moreso, than the monogamous couples i know.   #  kind of like when you want to party all night but do not because you have shit to do ?  #  i hear you.  i actually do not believe in  the one  and do not expect one person to fulfil all those needs all the time.  i mean there are people that want to work at other places but still remain loyal to their jobs for the benefits.  comparing this to work was probably the worst thing i could do but while i can appreciate where you are coming from i do not see how you can develop the intimacy when you have your wife and kids at home and a piece of ass on the side.  is not part of cultivating that innate connection being able to deny yourself from wanton needs ? kind of like when you want to party all night but do not because you have shit to do ? i do not know. i get why you said that there is always a triangle or something else you may need / want.  but when happy in relationships i did not feel like i needed other things.  irony: the man i loved the most lied to me for a year about being married.  we broke up when i found out. but we were both living abroad and there was no way for me to know he had a wife and child at home.  so you must be onto something because i did not know but he did and was happy as can be.  i just feel like when you are old and your so is old. will people still feel the need to have an open relationship ? doubtful from the looks of it.   #  it is not the type of relationship people have that is the problem, it is when people lie to one another about the conditions of their relationship that causes so much issue.   #  i think that the issue arises when you consider the person on the side as  a piece of ass.   in those specific types of relationships, the  piece of ass  is still a complex human being, and not simply viewed as just a hole or a pole.  you did sort of answer your own question though, why you are in a happy relationship, you do not feel like you need other things.  i agree with that.  when i am in a happy relationship, i do not feel like there is anything else that i want.  with most relationships though, this is not the case.  you may be with the person you love more than anyone, but there are still things that they do not do for you.  whether that be taking out the trash every morning, putting the seat down, or in some cases, it is that they do not want to have sex 0 times a week.  it is not just based on frequency of sex either, it could be any number of differences from what two partners consider  ideal sex .  the deal breaker is openess.  that is all their is to it.  people who lie to other people are bad.  if we could all just learn to establsih exactly what the expectations of one another are at the formation of a relationship, the people who might want to have sex with other people would end up hooking up with like minded people, and those who just want one sexual partner could pair up with their people.  tl; dr.  it is not the type of relationship people have that is the problem, it is when people lie to one another about the conditions of their relationship that causes so much issue.   #  the difference is some people do not want just that one teammate.   #  is not that just one of the strange intricacies of human life ? people lie.  people hurt other people.  good people do bad things and bad people do good things.  you are right.  you never know who is being honest.  so just have to do that big thing that is so hard to do… trust someone.  if they lie, you will be devastated and eventually return to a baseline level of contentment.  if they are worthy of your trust, you will feel great about it for a while, but eventually you will return to your baseline level of contentment.  either way, the happiness will pass, the sadness will pass and you will just have to go on living every moment in the finite, passing way it was meant to be lived.  anyway, that is sort of getting off topic.  the point is, you have got to deal with the liars until you find somebody on your team that you can trust, and they make you happy and then you are good.  the difference is some people do not want just that one teammate.  some people want three people on their team.  some want eight.  some want their team mates to smack the shit out of them and some are appalled by the idea that people smack their own teammates.  some dudes only want their teammates to be other dudes and some ladies only play on teams with other ladies.  the point is who cares ? people should be able to get what they want out of their own, short, temporary lives.  …but not at the risk of lying to, cheating on, or otherwise hurting other people for their own personal benefit.
i would like to think i am a pretty logical and progressive person.  however.  this open relationship thing has started to come up more and more in my dating life and it sounds like simple bullshit to me.  i do not see how you can have a meaningful, healthy and truly intimate connection with someone if there is a chance that someone else can  be  with your significant other in that way.  now, i am not jealous or insecure when it comes to my relationships but i think that emotionally and definitely physically the connection to one person comes from being with that one person.  not that one person on thursday, i can still get that other person is number friday and if i feel like hopping in the bed with someone else that sunday it is fine.  on the flipside i totally respect their honesty about not being monogamous instead of cheating on someone unknowing.  change my view.  or at least help me to see the pov more clearly of those that believe in open relationships.  to the people that were kind of a dick i expected you here and there were so few so i still feel good about asking how and what i asked.  i will reply more limited to those that still choose to comment but thanks because i not only understand the pov i must say i suppose i have actually changed my view.  : tl;dr: i think open relationships are bullshit cmv  #  not that one person on thursday, i can still get that other person is number friday and if i feel like hopping in the bed with someone else that sunday it is fine.   #  you fall into the same trap that a lot of people do and get stuck in the  bed  part.   #  poly person of about nine years here.  i have been in a poly relationship for the past four.  you can.  i do.  it does not.  you fall into the same trap that a lot of people do and get stuck in the  bed  part.  i have multiple partners.  i love and care for them both very much.  yes, sex is involved but it is a part of the relationship in the same way it would be had i only one partner.  it is essentially the same as a relationship involving one person just with more people and a far greater need for communication and emotional openness.  that is the long and the short of it.  beyond that you would have to ask specific questions.  tl;dr you are fixating on the sex when the reality is much more mundane.   #  imagine if this were applied to  literally  anything else, how absurd it would be.   #  how many partners have you had who were perfectly synchronized to your emotional, spiritual, romantic, and sexual needs/desires ? who wanted to cuddle whenever you did, who wanted the same things in life, who wanted sex when you did, whose schedule never clashed ? my counter question is: why on earth is it considered the norm to expect there to be 0 person to do all that, to whom we pledge our life and faithfulness forever and ever, etc ? imagine if this were applied to  literally  anything else, how absurd it would be.  imagine if, once you would made a friend, you were expected to only ever hang out with that one friend for the rest of your life.  or just that one drinking buddy, or work at just that one job forever.  now, there are some differences with relationships and sex, obviously, but the premise still stands.  i think everyone has been in some part of a  love triangle  at one point or another, and that is caused entirely by this notion that there is this one special person, which just seems absurd when looked at objectively: if there were just one special person, why on earth could someone have feelings for 0 or more people at once ? this has gotten a bit all over the place, but the rub of it is: open relationships/polyamory are not for everyone, but that does not mean they are just for people who are afraid of commitment.  i have known some poly couples who have their home and kids along with their separate boy/girlfriends.  it is just different, is all.  they are just as committed and loving, if not moreso, than the monogamous couples i know.   #  i actually do not believe in  the one  and do not expect one person to fulfil all those needs all the time.   #  i hear you.  i actually do not believe in  the one  and do not expect one person to fulfil all those needs all the time.  i mean there are people that want to work at other places but still remain loyal to their jobs for the benefits.  comparing this to work was probably the worst thing i could do but while i can appreciate where you are coming from i do not see how you can develop the intimacy when you have your wife and kids at home and a piece of ass on the side.  is not part of cultivating that innate connection being able to deny yourself from wanton needs ? kind of like when you want to party all night but do not because you have shit to do ? i do not know. i get why you said that there is always a triangle or something else you may need / want.  but when happy in relationships i did not feel like i needed other things.  irony: the man i loved the most lied to me for a year about being married.  we broke up when i found out. but we were both living abroad and there was no way for me to know he had a wife and child at home.  so you must be onto something because i did not know but he did and was happy as can be.  i just feel like when you are old and your so is old. will people still feel the need to have an open relationship ? doubtful from the looks of it.   #  when i am in a happy relationship, i do not feel like there is anything else that i want.   #  i think that the issue arises when you consider the person on the side as  a piece of ass.   in those specific types of relationships, the  piece of ass  is still a complex human being, and not simply viewed as just a hole or a pole.  you did sort of answer your own question though, why you are in a happy relationship, you do not feel like you need other things.  i agree with that.  when i am in a happy relationship, i do not feel like there is anything else that i want.  with most relationships though, this is not the case.  you may be with the person you love more than anyone, but there are still things that they do not do for you.  whether that be taking out the trash every morning, putting the seat down, or in some cases, it is that they do not want to have sex 0 times a week.  it is not just based on frequency of sex either, it could be any number of differences from what two partners consider  ideal sex .  the deal breaker is openess.  that is all their is to it.  people who lie to other people are bad.  if we could all just learn to establsih exactly what the expectations of one another are at the formation of a relationship, the people who might want to have sex with other people would end up hooking up with like minded people, and those who just want one sexual partner could pair up with their people.  tl; dr.  it is not the type of relationship people have that is the problem, it is when people lie to one another about the conditions of their relationship that causes so much issue.   #  so just have to do that big thing that is so hard to do… trust someone.   #  is not that just one of the strange intricacies of human life ? people lie.  people hurt other people.  good people do bad things and bad people do good things.  you are right.  you never know who is being honest.  so just have to do that big thing that is so hard to do… trust someone.  if they lie, you will be devastated and eventually return to a baseline level of contentment.  if they are worthy of your trust, you will feel great about it for a while, but eventually you will return to your baseline level of contentment.  either way, the happiness will pass, the sadness will pass and you will just have to go on living every moment in the finite, passing way it was meant to be lived.  anyway, that is sort of getting off topic.  the point is, you have got to deal with the liars until you find somebody on your team that you can trust, and they make you happy and then you are good.  the difference is some people do not want just that one teammate.  some people want three people on their team.  some want eight.  some want their team mates to smack the shit out of them and some are appalled by the idea that people smack their own teammates.  some dudes only want their teammates to be other dudes and some ladies only play on teams with other ladies.  the point is who cares ? people should be able to get what they want out of their own, short, temporary lives.  …but not at the risk of lying to, cheating on, or otherwise hurting other people for their own personal benefit.
whether or not it is true that stem is more valuable than humanities or any other field, it is certainly reflected in the amount of respect and value that a given stem major has over a non stem major, and the incomes of stem majors are substantially higher.  if you do not have a natural aptitude for stem, you are much less likely to be successful in stem.  assuming that you do manage to be successful, you will be forced to study and participate in things that you do not necessarily enjoy, and live your life doing things that you do not necessarily like to do for the rest of your life for the sake of financial stability.  there are, of course, exceptions.  people who are talented enough in humanities or some other non stem field will surely be able to attain the same level of happiness as stem majors, but the barrier of entry is much higher in comparison to stem fields.  even if that financial stability is not important to you, you will constantly receive disdain from the people around you for doing a purportedly  useless  major.  stem fields, on the other hand, are viewed to be nothing but beneficial to the world.   #  you will constantly receive disdain from the people around you for doing a purportedly  useless  major.   #  people do not usually show disdain for others.   # people do not usually show disdain for others.  that is not a good trait to have or showcase.  nobody outside of college or reddit apparently cares what your major is.  it literally becomes one line on your resume, if that.  the rest is filled up with accomplishments, and you can accomplish interesting things in any field.   #  people do not really care what your major or degree is once you are a few years out of school.   #  people do not really care what your major or degree is once you are a few years out of school.  they ask about your job.  stem related jobs, on average are higher paying than non stem, but if you control for income, i doubt there is any significant correlation between stem and happiness.  so it seems peculiar to focus on stem as the relevant factor.  you might as well just say it is harder to be happy when you make less money.  which is true to a degree, though there is lots of research that suggests happiness does not correlate well with wealth beyond the level required to maintain a secure middle class life around $0k in an average cost of living community .   #  at this point in my career my work experience is more significant than my education.   #  i am 0 years out of college now and i cannot remember the last time someone asked me even what my major was.  i also ca not remember exactly what my final gpa was.  why ? because it does not really matter anymore.  at this point in my career my work experience is more significant than my education.  ironically enough i work in a stem field, but with a humanities degree.  once you are out working people care less about what college you went to and what you studied and more about what you can do.  having a stem degree guarantees nothing about job performance or capability in the real work.  i know plenty of engineers who did well in school and are just terrible at work.   #  similarly, the 0 college majors that lead to the most satisfying careers URL is relatively across the board, though there is an emphasis in biology / health sciences.   # at this point it is almost a circlejerk for most people.  i know many people who struggled immensely with certain subjects, but they loved every minute of it, and were successful at the end of the day.  nothing substantial, and there are caveats being talented with stem does not necessarily mean you will be a stem major, job satisfaction instead of happiness, etc , but job satisfaction by major URL is pretty much across the board.  similarly, the 0 college majors that lead to the most satisfying careers URL is relatively across the board, though there is an emphasis in biology / health sciences.  do those good with stem have more opportunities available, receive more income on average, have higher earnings potential ? i am inclined to say yes.  but i say yes in the sense that those who are good with anything, whether it was stem or not.  are they happier ? that is very hard to say.   #  again, this is all with the caveat of using job satisfaction as opposed to overall happiness, and the inability to separate being good with stem from being in a stem field.   #  i would put 0/0 in the stem qualification.  in the first link, 0/0 are stem, or 0/0 if you go by those who classify things as  going well  as opposed to satisfied .  i would highly recommend this book, so good they ca not ignore you: why skills trump passion in the quest for work you love URL or one of his talks URL which is pretty much entirely about happiness with regards to work.  the gist of it is that  follow your passion  is terrible advice, and that you should follow your skills do what you are good at .  for commentary, this article goes over everything URL  interestingly enough, you cannot necessarily predict someone is orientation based on their job title or income.  in fact, wrzesniewski is research has found that most professions are fairly evenly divided with about a third of workers falling into each category.  as in stem jobs do not necessarily have a higher proportion of individuals who identify their jobs as careers or callings compared to non stem jobs.  again, this is all with the caveat of using job satisfaction as opposed to overall happiness, and the inability to separate being good with stem from being in a stem field.
hunting mammals is only ethical when the person doing it needs to do it to survive or not suffer e. g.  experiencing severe although not life threatening hunger .  if there are any other options than to kill, those should be pursued instead.  all mammals can feel pain, and coming from a utilitarian viewpoint, any suffering is bad if the pros do not outweigh the cons.  yes, hunters do get some enjoyment out of it, but i hardly think that their happiness outweighs the pain of a gunshot wound.  i do however place the life and wellbeing of humans over animals, which is why if it is ever necessary, humans can ethically kill and eat animals.  hunting should not be done as a means to merely increase food supplies either because it is very possible to live a healthy life without the consumption of meat.  my view boils down to that it is only ethical to kill out of necessity, so if anyone could elaborate on some reasons why it would be ethical to kill without needing to i would genuinely like to hear them.  lastly, i do not only want reasons why hunting without necessity is ethical, but also reasons why hunting is never ethical.   #  all mammals can feel pain, and coming from a utilitarian viewpoint, any suffering is bad if the pros do not outweigh the cons.   #  yes, hunters do get some enjoyment out of it, but i hardly think that their happiness outweighs the pain of a gunshot wound.   # yes, hunters do get some enjoyment out of it, but i hardly think that their happiness outweighs the pain of a gunshot wound.  a utilitarian viewpoint is not that simple.  you have to consider the counter factual, not just your direct impact.  an animal that is not shot will still suffer and die.  there are many  natural  deaths that i assume are more painful: disease, gradual starvation, being ripped apart by predators that will kill you much more slowly, etc.  also, what about people who hunt predators ? in that case they are killing the equivalent of an animal serial killer, and preventing many other animals from being killed by that predator.   #  hunting is also done on many areas as a form of population control.   #  hunting is also done on many areas as a form of population control.  in most areas, animals like deer still exist in high populations, but predators, like bears and wolves, have been driven out by humans.  in these areas where prey exist unfettered, populations explode.  deer become pests, eating crops, and generally moving into human occupied space.  these animals are health and safety risks, particularly when they enter roadways, causing accidents and leaving corpses on the sides of roads.  hunting serves as a control mechanism, replacing predators and preventing population booms.  additionally, programs such as hunters for the hungry URL exist, in which all or some of the meat from the hunt can be donated directly from a butcher shop to shelters in the area.   #  to expound a bit, we must make the decisions that are ethical given the situation in which we find ourselves.   #  agreed.  to expound a bit, we must make the decisions that are ethical given the situation in which we find ourselves.  criticising the decisions made in the past which lead to our current situation does have its place, and we certainly can and should learn from past mistakes.  but we cannot go back and unmake those past mistakes.  the decision we should have made in the past is not necessarily the decision we should make in the present, because the decision we did make in the past may have altered the situation as we see with hunting .  furthermore, i would say that the original problem was not necessarily hunting, as much as it was unregulated hunting which meant that over hunting was almost guaranteed .  with regulation, hunting can be a means to ensure that an ecosystem remains in balance.  there was a time when hunting by humans was a part of what kept the ecosystem in balance in the first place.  but we became too numerous and too proficient at hunting.  and so we must now use restraint.   #  i am a poor older than average college student.   #  would you say it is unethical to allow wild wolves and bears to kill humans by allowing them to roam in populated areas ? because that is what would have happened.  that is why there are fewer wolves and bears.  i agree, it is sad they are smaller in population, but game preserves have been established and programs are in place that are bringing back those populations.  i am a hunter.  deer, ducks when i was young .  i do not hunt for trophies, i hunt for food.  i am a poor older than average college student.  but even those who hunt for trophies are helping the deer population.  if you ever saw a deer dying of chronic wastings disease URL in person you would see why allowing the population to get too big is bad, and horrible for the animals.  URL not to mention starvation.  that is the natural selector without natural predators.  humans who hunt kill the animals in a much less painful way than a wolf or bear would.  my god it is like night and day.  a good hunter, which i would say 0 of the people i have ever met who hunt are, will shoot the deer side on in the heart, and it will bleed out very quickly.  the shock from this reduces suffering.  even a bad shot is better usually than getting torn apart slowly by a pack of wolves.  i think humans hunting animals is more humane than the natural course of events hands down.   #  people who live in urban areas seem to have no concept of this and just see a cute bambi.  some in rural areas who live sheltered lives too.   #  lol are you suggesting being eaten alive is in any way, shape, or form possibly more fun than a quick death ? come on now.  not to mention starvation or slowly going insane over the course of weeks from cwd if they overpopulate.  people who live in urban areas seem to have no concept of this and just see a cute bambi.  some in rural areas who live sheltered lives too.  deer who are shot feel less pain than that hamburger did when it was a cow at the slaughterhouse.  there it gets its throat cut, at least in some places.  you go into immediate shock if you get shot in the heart.  you feel your throat being cut.  just ask anyone killed by muslim extremists.  we are omnivores.  we eat meat.  we have evolved to do so.  at least hunters lower the suffering to almost nothing.
my view is that there is no compelling reason moral or otherwise to have children that are genetically related to you, and that there are a lot of good reasons not to.  if you are in a developed country and probability is that you are then every new person contributes to anthropogenic climate change.  bringing potential persons into the world is, at present, detrimental to  actual  persons.  the environmental impact first world humans have is too negative to justify the creation of additional lives.  also, there are plenty of children who need a home and the support of a parental figure.  by having a child, you are creating a resource drain and neglecting the needs of very real people that need those resources more than a non existent person, or person in latency.  the only reason i can see for having biological offspring is some sort of genetic narcissism; the belief that the world is so direly in need of your genes.  or it could be a desperate attempt to grasp some sort of immortality.  still, there is no compelling reason to have children of your own instead of adopting.   #  every new person contributes to anthropogenic climate change.   #  bringing potential persons into the world is, at present, detrimental to actual persons.   # bringing potential persons into the world is, at present, detrimental to actual persons.  i think if you follow this logic you end up where killing people is a  greater good .  if having children does harm to society because they do more harm then good, then would not killing adults be good for that same reason ? i think the obvious conclusion is that children are worth the cost.  increased demand for resources is one cost of having more humans around, but increased output art/science/industry is the benefit of having more people around.  now, why have your own children when you could adopt ? i think  because that is what the couple wants  is a good enough answer to that question.  some people want to adopt, and if they do then that is great.  but there are a host of different challenges to that.  i also suspect that there are a lot of advantages in having your own children.  you know their medical history, parents know everything a non adopted child has experienced from birth while an adopted child would have an unknown history, non adopted children are probably better integrated into the extended family then otherwise.  in any event, if people are going to procreate then they have to do it in a way that makes them feel comfortable with it.  for some that means adopting.  for others that means having biological children.  being a parent is a lot of work.  there is nothing  narcissistic  about getting what you want when choosing to do that monumental task.  if you are going to be a parent and raise someone for 0  years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you want that child to be biologically yours, then i think that is a reasonable things to want.   #  your suggestion does not scale past a small elite  #  for one thing, the numbers do not work.  in the us, as of 0, there were just shy of 0k children living without permanent families.  there are something like ten times that many children born in the us every year.  it would only take ten percent of the people who want kids adopting instead of having kids to clean out our whole supply in one year ! it is hard to get numbers about how many kids enter the system each year, but it is clearly much lower than 0k.  let is imagine it was 0k which is actually way high that would mean only 0 of the parents who currently have children every year would be able to adopt a child instead of having their own.  your suggestion does not scale past a small elite  #  it is obviously an issue of ethical import you are bringing a person that can experience all the suffering and joy life has to offer.   #  well, all the better for those children if parenthood were highly selective, assuming the criteria for selection are good.  there is a legal right to reproduce, but i do not see much in the way of moral justification of having kids.  it is obviously an issue of ethical import you are bringing a person that can experience all the suffering and joy life has to offer.  the thing is that it is never thought of as something that requires justification.  i have yet to see any sort of justification beyond  i want to , or  my superior genes will save humanity , and these are insufficient to justify having one is own children.   #  besides, one could believe that only the top 0st percentile in every category should reproduce, while at the same time believing that forcing this state of affairs would be wrong.   #  a straw man would be saying that you made an argument that you did not actually make.  what i did was an ad absurdum, which is taking your logical principles and extending them to an extreme to show the fault in them.  please actually research what terms like  ad absurdum  and  strawman  mean before throwing them out haphazardly.  besides, one could believe that only the top 0st percentile in every category should reproduce, while at the same time believing that forcing this state of affairs would be wrong.  where is the line properly drawn ? why should  you  reproduce when someone 0 iq points lower should not ? why should  you  reproduce when there are people 0 iq points higher than you ? where is a non arbitrary cutoff point ?  #  so should we just not let anyone have children ever ?  #  actually, it is a straw man, because it misrepresents my argument.  you said:   i could take your logic here and say that we ought identify a genetic peak in terms of health, intelligence, personal qualities etc.  that is taking my argument to an absurd conclusion.  and honestly, i would not have a problem with society spending some time to identify genetics that are overall beneficial are not we doing that already in our efforts to eradicate genetic illnesses ? but then you said:   and breed from that highly selective sample, and everyone else should just quit reproducing.  i never said anything close to that.  it modifies and misrepresents my argument by introducing an element of coercion and intrusion into the lives of  others.  of course it is easy to disagree with a system that intrudes onto other people is autonomy.  in fact, i could say the same thing about your cmv so, you believe that there is no good reason to have children ? so should we just not let anyone have children ever ? why should you reproduce when someone 0 iq points lower should not ? why should you reproduce when there are people 0 iq points higher than you ? where is a non arbitrary cutoff point ? i never said someone with 0 iq points lower than me should not reproduce.  and whether or not people more intelligent than me reproduce does not change the fact that i am also intelligent and genetically healthy.  i am not going to even pretend i can find a non arbitrary cutoff point, but that is not your cmv.  you asked for a good reason for me to have children, and here it is i can probably create a healthy, intelligent child and that is good.
my view is that there is no compelling reason moral or otherwise to have children that are genetically related to you, and that there are a lot of good reasons not to.  if you are in a developed country and probability is that you are then every new person contributes to anthropogenic climate change.  bringing potential persons into the world is, at present, detrimental to  actual  persons.  the environmental impact first world humans have is too negative to justify the creation of additional lives.  also, there are plenty of children who need a home and the support of a parental figure.  by having a child, you are creating a resource drain and neglecting the needs of very real people that need those resources more than a non existent person, or person in latency.  the only reason i can see for having biological offspring is some sort of genetic narcissism; the belief that the world is so direly in need of your genes.  or it could be a desperate attempt to grasp some sort of immortality.  still, there is no compelling reason to have children of your own instead of adopting.   #  every new person contributes to anthropogenic climate change.   #  bringing potential persons into the world is, at present, detrimental to actual persons.   # bringing potential persons into the world is, at present, detrimental to actual persons.  how do you figure that ? our impact on climate change is one tiny part of our overall impact on the lives of others.  plus, the average new person has unquestionably had a net positive effect for hundreds of years now.  why would you expect that to reverse simply due to climate change ?  #  your suggestion does not scale past a small elite  #  for one thing, the numbers do not work.  in the us, as of 0, there were just shy of 0k children living without permanent families.  there are something like ten times that many children born in the us every year.  it would only take ten percent of the people who want kids adopting instead of having kids to clean out our whole supply in one year ! it is hard to get numbers about how many kids enter the system each year, but it is clearly much lower than 0k.  let is imagine it was 0k which is actually way high that would mean only 0 of the parents who currently have children every year would be able to adopt a child instead of having their own.  your suggestion does not scale past a small elite  #  the thing is that it is never thought of as something that requires justification.   #  well, all the better for those children if parenthood were highly selective, assuming the criteria for selection are good.  there is a legal right to reproduce, but i do not see much in the way of moral justification of having kids.  it is obviously an issue of ethical import you are bringing a person that can experience all the suffering and joy life has to offer.  the thing is that it is never thought of as something that requires justification.  i have yet to see any sort of justification beyond  i want to , or  my superior genes will save humanity , and these are insufficient to justify having one is own children.   #  please actually research what terms like  ad absurdum  and  strawman  mean before throwing them out haphazardly.   #  a straw man would be saying that you made an argument that you did not actually make.  what i did was an ad absurdum, which is taking your logical principles and extending them to an extreme to show the fault in them.  please actually research what terms like  ad absurdum  and  strawman  mean before throwing them out haphazardly.  besides, one could believe that only the top 0st percentile in every category should reproduce, while at the same time believing that forcing this state of affairs would be wrong.  where is the line properly drawn ? why should  you  reproduce when someone 0 iq points lower should not ? why should  you  reproduce when there are people 0 iq points higher than you ? where is a non arbitrary cutoff point ?  #  and whether or not people more intelligent than me reproduce does not change the fact that i am also intelligent and genetically healthy.   #  actually, it is a straw man, because it misrepresents my argument.  you said:   i could take your logic here and say that we ought identify a genetic peak in terms of health, intelligence, personal qualities etc.  that is taking my argument to an absurd conclusion.  and honestly, i would not have a problem with society spending some time to identify genetics that are overall beneficial are not we doing that already in our efforts to eradicate genetic illnesses ? but then you said:   and breed from that highly selective sample, and everyone else should just quit reproducing.  i never said anything close to that.  it modifies and misrepresents my argument by introducing an element of coercion and intrusion into the lives of  others.  of course it is easy to disagree with a system that intrudes onto other people is autonomy.  in fact, i could say the same thing about your cmv so, you believe that there is no good reason to have children ? so should we just not let anyone have children ever ? why should you reproduce when someone 0 iq points lower should not ? why should you reproduce when there are people 0 iq points higher than you ? where is a non arbitrary cutoff point ? i never said someone with 0 iq points lower than me should not reproduce.  and whether or not people more intelligent than me reproduce does not change the fact that i am also intelligent and genetically healthy.  i am not going to even pretend i can find a non arbitrary cutoff point, but that is not your cmv.  you asked for a good reason for me to have children, and here it is i can probably create a healthy, intelligent child and that is good.
the punishment should fit the crime, not the outcome of the crime.  this was inspired this post on the front page: link URL the judge sentences a driver to 0 hours of community service for running into a family and killing 0 people, and the father, whom i ca not even imagine the sorrow and anguish he is going through, throws a chair at the judge.  the driver was known to be going 0 km/hr over the limit.  i hope the judge and security guards were sympathetic to the extreme emotions and sorrow in the father is head, and the punishment to him, if any, is minimal.  regardless, and i do not feel that i am being insensitive: i believe the judge is sentence was reasonable.  the crime was  driving 0 km/hr over the limit .  the outcome of the crime was people died.  the outcome of the crime should not affect the verdict.   if you say  the driver should be put in jail for  blank  years !   it is very reasonable to say that anyone caught going 0 km/hr over the limit should also be put in jail for  blank  years.  they just got lucky and did not drive into anyone; the crime is identical.   to do otherwise is to make the legal system more about vengeance than keeping society under control.  another example: ever seen a clockwork orange ? alex, the main character, beat a lady very severely.  he was arrested, and the police wanted to charge him with assault, which was a relatively common and minor charge in the hyper violent society.  it was not until she died that he was really in trouble with the law, and the cops told him this.  in my opinion, alex should have had one charge/punishment against him the whole time:  assault and battery with a strong possibility of causing death  which is a theoretical crime i just made up and he should have been convicted of it regardless of if the lady died.  you could not make it  perfect  so that every single crime is as outcome independent as possible, especially because some crimes are not even apparent until the outcome happens.  however, i still think outcome independence is a desirable aspect of a sophisticated legal system and something to strive for as much as possible.  here are some theoretical punishments in a modern justice system:   murder: 0 years   attempted murder: 0 years   firing a gun straight up into the air causing death involuntary manslaughter : 0 years   firing a gun straight up into the air not causing death: community service.  perhaps brief jail time.  here is how a  outcome independent  legal system would treat things:   murder: 0 years   attempted murder: 0 years   firing a gun straight up into the air causing death involuntary manslaughter : community service.  perhaps brief jail time.    firing a gun straight up into the air not causing death: community service.  perhaps brief jail time.   #  the crime was  driving 0 km/hr over the limit .   #  the outcome of the crime was people died.   # the outcome of the crime was people died.  the outcome of the crime should not affect the verdict.  if x leads to y, that does not mean you should be charged only with x.  you are assuming that  people dying  was not part of the crime, but rather the result of the crime.  that is not true at all, killing people is very much a crime, regardless of how exactly you committed it.  yes, if it was accidental and not premeditated, then the law wo not punish you as harshly as someone who did it on purpose.  but it is still fundamentally different than just driving above the limit.   #  i am not arguing the driver was not driving recklessly.   # i am not arguing the driver was not driving recklessly.  if you are driving 0km/hr over the limit, you are driving recklessly, whether or not you get in an accident.  i do not really think you can say this after the fact.  just because you did not get into an accident that does not mean you were driving safely.  you seem to be saying: the driver was reckless, and reckless driving deserves a harsh punishment.  ok.  however, imagine a theoretical situation with a different driver.  this driver drives exactly like the old driver and in the same place: they are going 0km/hr over, they turn too hard, and they lose control.  this driver drives into a pole.  they were lucky that no one was in front of the pole.  you would still argue that the driver was reckless because they were driving in the exact same manner as the driver in the court case, but you would be unlikely to suggest they deserved years of jail.   #  presumably there exists some streets/speeds and some drivers such that one is technically violating the rules but acting appropriately and perhaps deserves a small fine whereas the other is posing a threat to human life and deserves a real punishment.   # if you are driving 0km/hr over the limit, you are driving recklessly, whether or not you get in an accident.  not on certain streets near my house.  but if you like, make it 0 km/hr or 0 km/hr.  presumably there exists some streets/speeds and some drivers such that one is technically violating the rules but acting appropriately and perhaps deserves a small fine whereas the other is posing a threat to human life and deserves a real punishment.  no ? just because you did not get into an accident that does not mean you were driving safely.  it is not proof, but it is correlation.  driving safely correlates with no accidents, whereas driving recklessly correlates with accidents.  you ca not assume it.  what we know is that three drivers drove the same speed.  one drove off the road and had so little control that he hit people so we know he had not an iota of control over his car .  one drove off the road and hit a pole so he had insufficient control over his car, but we do not know it was  not an iota  since there were not people around .  one did not drive off the road, so he had at least some control over his car.  knowing what we know about the control of these three drivers over their respective vehicles, the evidence of the first driver is recklessness is the strongest.  the evidence of the second driver is recklessness is weaker.  the third driver may not have even been reckless.   #  i do not think you or i can make it perfectly fair, because neither of us have a perfect way of telling how reckless someone was.   #  i do not think it is fair.  two people were equally negligent, yet they are getting different punishments or unequally negligent, yet they are recieving the same punishment .  i do not think you or i can make it perfectly fair, because neither of us have a perfect way of telling how reckless someone was.  i have a better way than you of telling how reckless someone was: look at the consequence.  the consequence correlates with recklessness, after all.  you have no way whatsoever in this case of telling how reckless someone was.  all you know is that one person bumped a mailbox and one killed someone.  you do not know their speed or anything note that in the news story the driver was not actually convicted of speeding; there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was speeding .  we  believe  the first person must have been speeding and reckless due to the deaths.  we  believe  the second person is less likely to have been speeding and less likely to have been reckless due to the lesser damage.  unless and until we have a perfect way of telling two people are driving exactly the same, we should assume no two cases are the same.  we should just go by the evidence we have, like eyewitness testimony which is known to be flawed , consequences which are also imperfect , circumstantial evidence, etc etc.  use all the information that is available to us.   #  but consider the differences in punishment as people are suggesting they should be :   driver a: probably charged with reckless driving.   # consider the  weight of punishments  that we are putting on a mere correlation, a weak one at best.  consider again the two drivers.  driver a: hits a pole.  driver b: hits a family.  you are right.  i ca not know if driver a is being more reckless than driver b, or vice versa.  and you are right, there is probably a correlation between outcome and  recklessness .  but consider the differences in punishment as people are suggesting they should be :   driver a: probably charged with reckless driving.  heavy fines.  likely their insurance premiums would go through the roof.  driver b: probably charged with reckless driving.  heavy fines.  likely their insurance premiums would go through the roof.  jailed for 0 years.  keep in mind, we would be jailing driver b for crimes because we believe they were driving more reckless than driver a to an amount that constituted 0 years of jail time.  we would not really have a good way of telling this fact, short of the fact that we can look at outcome, which is weakly correlated to the recklessness at best.  i feel that you are proposing severe punishments based solely on weak correlation.
for those of you unaware: URL the food shown, looks to be healthy but of incredibly low quality.  obviously the reason for this is likely because real food is expensive compared to mass produced alternatives.  schools having structure their food budgets around the increased costs have produced low quality meals for students, though they are healthy.  point being, obesity only runs rampant in the united states because legislature is not there to deflate the cost of healthy alternatives.  setting aside the gmo argument, i certainly think that this disgusting alternative might trump obesity but only because nobody will eat it, in fact i would go so far as to say it may  increase  obesity because kids will skip lunch and binge on their junk food at home.  wheras if they were just eating the less healthy but higher quality alternatives, there is still a better chance of them developing good eating habbits on their own, because skipping meals is exactly not that.  also considering a large argument for the school lunch program is that it may give the under privileged student body  one good meal a day  it may no longer do that because they are not going to eat it now.   #  the food shown, looks to be healthy but of incredibly low quality.   #  based on what i see, i do not think it is healthy.   # based on what i see, i do not think it is healthy.  michele obama was helping to push the new  my plate  food recommendations.  according to that at least half the plate should be fruit and veg.  i see no veggies on almost all of the trays.  i see lots of cheap processed food which usually tends to gave additives, preservatives, colorings, and flavorings not healthy.  that.  and school cafeterias do not always agree with the experts on what is not healthy.  they are still going by the same stupid guidelines that say catsup can be counted as a serving of vegetable ? ! in america less healthy food is cheaper, partly because of the government.  why does salad cost more than a big mac ? URL american culture also seems to somewhat accept fast food as healthy.  they say they want healthy but they eat burgers, sloppy joes, and chicken wings and with no fruit or veg .  i know people who think a mcdonald is burger is healthy because because it has  vegetables  one thin slice tomato, a lettuce leaf .  we need to get families to stop thinking processed chicken mc nuggets and fruit flavor ice cream is a good meal.  the cause of obesity is not fully understood.  it is not as simple as calories in versus exercise.  or as simple as fast food or not.  how much of the diet is stored as fat is influenced by genetics eg.  thrifty gene , hormones eg.  leptin , stress level cortisol , illness, medications such as some psych meds , proper thyroid and hypothalamus function, sex hormone levels, and other triggers.  there is also the question of how you measure obesity before declaring it is an epidemic.  most of the  epidemic  announcements look at bmi.  bmi is not is not a measure of body fat though.  it is merely a height weight ratio formula.  it does not differentiate between small build versus stocky.  it does not distinguish muscle versus fat.  the ranges of overweight and obese are arbitrarily assigned and do not take into account racial, gender, or age differences.  so what you are saying is parents are too uneducated or too lazy to buy nutritious foods and limit junk food ? hat it may give the under privileged student body  one good meal a day  it may no longer do that because they are not going to eat it now.  if someone truly has no food at home, they are not going to skip a free hot meal.  a person has to eat.  who knows why kids do not eat their lunches ? had anyone studied this ? the pics you gave as examples seem less disgusting then the food i had as a kid.  back then we did not expect to have many choices.  either we ate it or we were hungry.  our parents were responsible enough not to fill the kitchen with junk food, but then again i am older than most redditors and i lived in an age where we did not get take out or eat out.  culture has changed.  now fast food places are open 0 hours.  parents take their kids out a few times a week.  kids are taught that a fast food cheeseburger is a  healthy  normal good meal.  and now instead of getting exercise playing outside, many kids just sit in front of a tv, computer, or video game.  in order to change public health, you need a significant cultural change  #  i think we are going to need some evidence of that, because it is certainly not consistent with what i remember of school lunches.   # i think we are going to need some evidence of that, because it is certainly not consistent with what i remember of school lunches.  so, the way i am looking at it right now is like this: URL   this is a kid cuisine.  it is pretty much equivalent to a modern school lunch.  despite not being crazy healthy, it is also not crazy unhealthy, and kids will eat it.  it is not the pinnacle of delicious, but at least in makes up for that by offering some better tasting options.  URL   this is basically what they switched to an atkins lean cuisine.  i mena yeah it is dstributed by cysco but it is essentially changing what low quality airline food they serve.  the thing about eating healthy food that tastes good, is that price equates to quality.  on the other hand, making unhealthy food that tastes amazing is both easy to make and cheap.  i will concede part of the problem is simply a trial by size.  in the 0s 0s mass produced foods were not used, and schools had staff cooking real food, but in that case it was not nessecerily standardized or consistent or healthy.  schools were also significantly smaller back then though.   #  when future classes of students enter school, they will have no former reference point and this food will be all they know.   #  oh my gosh, so much of that food looks really good compared to the shit i was served in my high school cafeteria in the early 0s.  cafeteria food has  never  been very appetizing.  this is no different.  what we are seeing here are high school kids reacting to change.  not to new food, but to a change in the food.  when future classes of students enter school, they will have no former reference point and this food will be all they know.  i doubt they will complain as much as the current students are.  obesity absolutely is a poverty problem.  people in poverty do not have the money to buy nutritious foods.  they do not have the time to prepare nutritious meals.  they fall into the fast food trap because it is quick and cheap.  this is a fact.  but it has nothing to do with high school kids complaining about their new food on twitter.   #  there were plenty of other options available, but i did not choose them.   #  i would be interested in seeing the full range of food available in the cafeteria, rather than what an individual student has chosen.  i would also like to look at the food choices over the course of a few weeks.  when i was at school, for a couple of years i would spend my lunch money on crackers, dairylea and a can of diet coke.  there were plenty of other options available, but i did not choose them.  it is perfectly possible for there to be a whole range of nutritious and tasty food available, but for individual children to not choose them, because kids can be perverse.  there are also always going to be the odd bad dish served up, because that is the reality of cheap mass catering.  there are also going to be some schools who have consistently poor food.  there, the problem is not automatically with the guidelines, but with the implementation of them.   #  this does not count the odd trip to a restaurant ect.   #  URL start here.  as i stated already it is a false dichotomy.  just because a household puts more emphasis on a phone than proper nourishment does not mean it is not poverty level.  it means that among their few nice objects one of them is a smart phone.  besides the average cost of food for people is about $0/person/day.  extrapolated to a year that is 0k a year in groceries.  this does not count the odd trip to a restaurant ect.  which believe it or not poor people are allowed to go too.  compared to a standard smart phone plan of $0 a month even though i could argue $0 a month for a family of 0 i wo not.  $0 a year for smart phone service for a family of 0. so basically we are talking about 0.  rededicating 0 of your income for food, for such a tool as a smart phone, in exchange for eating more unhealthily on the reg is a pretty logical trade at face value.  however, we make laws to see beyond face value which is why we have social security right ? there is not a hard cost on unhealthy eating habbits and heart disease down the road, except that almost universally people ca not afford it, which is the point.
for those of you unaware: URL the food shown, looks to be healthy but of incredibly low quality.  obviously the reason for this is likely because real food is expensive compared to mass produced alternatives.  schools having structure their food budgets around the increased costs have produced low quality meals for students, though they are healthy.  point being, obesity only runs rampant in the united states because legislature is not there to deflate the cost of healthy alternatives.  setting aside the gmo argument, i certainly think that this disgusting alternative might trump obesity but only because nobody will eat it, in fact i would go so far as to say it may  increase  obesity because kids will skip lunch and binge on their junk food at home.  wheras if they were just eating the less healthy but higher quality alternatives, there is still a better chance of them developing good eating habbits on their own, because skipping meals is exactly not that.  also considering a large argument for the school lunch program is that it may give the under privileged student body  one good meal a day  it may no longer do that because they are not going to eat it now.   #  point being, obesity only runs rampant in the united states because legislature is not there to deflate the cost of healthy alternatives.   #  the cause of obesity is not fully understood.   # based on what i see, i do not think it is healthy.  michele obama was helping to push the new  my plate  food recommendations.  according to that at least half the plate should be fruit and veg.  i see no veggies on almost all of the trays.  i see lots of cheap processed food which usually tends to gave additives, preservatives, colorings, and flavorings not healthy.  that.  and school cafeterias do not always agree with the experts on what is not healthy.  they are still going by the same stupid guidelines that say catsup can be counted as a serving of vegetable ? ! in america less healthy food is cheaper, partly because of the government.  why does salad cost more than a big mac ? URL american culture also seems to somewhat accept fast food as healthy.  they say they want healthy but they eat burgers, sloppy joes, and chicken wings and with no fruit or veg .  i know people who think a mcdonald is burger is healthy because because it has  vegetables  one thin slice tomato, a lettuce leaf .  we need to get families to stop thinking processed chicken mc nuggets and fruit flavor ice cream is a good meal.  the cause of obesity is not fully understood.  it is not as simple as calories in versus exercise.  or as simple as fast food or not.  how much of the diet is stored as fat is influenced by genetics eg.  thrifty gene , hormones eg.  leptin , stress level cortisol , illness, medications such as some psych meds , proper thyroid and hypothalamus function, sex hormone levels, and other triggers.  there is also the question of how you measure obesity before declaring it is an epidemic.  most of the  epidemic  announcements look at bmi.  bmi is not is not a measure of body fat though.  it is merely a height weight ratio formula.  it does not differentiate between small build versus stocky.  it does not distinguish muscle versus fat.  the ranges of overweight and obese are arbitrarily assigned and do not take into account racial, gender, or age differences.  so what you are saying is parents are too uneducated or too lazy to buy nutritious foods and limit junk food ? hat it may give the under privileged student body  one good meal a day  it may no longer do that because they are not going to eat it now.  if someone truly has no food at home, they are not going to skip a free hot meal.  a person has to eat.  who knows why kids do not eat their lunches ? had anyone studied this ? the pics you gave as examples seem less disgusting then the food i had as a kid.  back then we did not expect to have many choices.  either we ate it or we were hungry.  our parents were responsible enough not to fill the kitchen with junk food, but then again i am older than most redditors and i lived in an age where we did not get take out or eat out.  culture has changed.  now fast food places are open 0 hours.  parents take their kids out a few times a week.  kids are taught that a fast food cheeseburger is a  healthy  normal good meal.  and now instead of getting exercise playing outside, many kids just sit in front of a tv, computer, or video game.  in order to change public health, you need a significant cultural change  #  i mena yeah it is dstributed by cysco but it is essentially changing what low quality airline food they serve.   # i think we are going to need some evidence of that, because it is certainly not consistent with what i remember of school lunches.  so, the way i am looking at it right now is like this: URL   this is a kid cuisine.  it is pretty much equivalent to a modern school lunch.  despite not being crazy healthy, it is also not crazy unhealthy, and kids will eat it.  it is not the pinnacle of delicious, but at least in makes up for that by offering some better tasting options.  URL   this is basically what they switched to an atkins lean cuisine.  i mena yeah it is dstributed by cysco but it is essentially changing what low quality airline food they serve.  the thing about eating healthy food that tastes good, is that price equates to quality.  on the other hand, making unhealthy food that tastes amazing is both easy to make and cheap.  i will concede part of the problem is simply a trial by size.  in the 0s 0s mass produced foods were not used, and schools had staff cooking real food, but in that case it was not nessecerily standardized or consistent or healthy.  schools were also significantly smaller back then though.   #  they do not have the time to prepare nutritious meals.   #  oh my gosh, so much of that food looks really good compared to the shit i was served in my high school cafeteria in the early 0s.  cafeteria food has  never  been very appetizing.  this is no different.  what we are seeing here are high school kids reacting to change.  not to new food, but to a change in the food.  when future classes of students enter school, they will have no former reference point and this food will be all they know.  i doubt they will complain as much as the current students are.  obesity absolutely is a poverty problem.  people in poverty do not have the money to buy nutritious foods.  they do not have the time to prepare nutritious meals.  they fall into the fast food trap because it is quick and cheap.  this is a fact.  but it has nothing to do with high school kids complaining about their new food on twitter.   #  i would be interested in seeing the full range of food available in the cafeteria, rather than what an individual student has chosen.   #  i would be interested in seeing the full range of food available in the cafeteria, rather than what an individual student has chosen.  i would also like to look at the food choices over the course of a few weeks.  when i was at school, for a couple of years i would spend my lunch money on crackers, dairylea and a can of diet coke.  there were plenty of other options available, but i did not choose them.  it is perfectly possible for there to be a whole range of nutritious and tasty food available, but for individual children to not choose them, because kids can be perverse.  there are also always going to be the odd bad dish served up, because that is the reality of cheap mass catering.  there are also going to be some schools who have consistently poor food.  there, the problem is not automatically with the guidelines, but with the implementation of them.   #  this does not count the odd trip to a restaurant ect.   #  URL start here.  as i stated already it is a false dichotomy.  just because a household puts more emphasis on a phone than proper nourishment does not mean it is not poverty level.  it means that among their few nice objects one of them is a smart phone.  besides the average cost of food for people is about $0/person/day.  extrapolated to a year that is 0k a year in groceries.  this does not count the odd trip to a restaurant ect.  which believe it or not poor people are allowed to go too.  compared to a standard smart phone plan of $0 a month even though i could argue $0 a month for a family of 0 i wo not.  $0 a year for smart phone service for a family of 0. so basically we are talking about 0.  rededicating 0 of your income for food, for such a tool as a smart phone, in exchange for eating more unhealthily on the reg is a pretty logical trade at face value.  however, we make laws to see beyond face value which is why we have social security right ? there is not a hard cost on unhealthy eating habbits and heart disease down the road, except that almost universally people ca not afford it, which is the point.
for those of you unaware: URL the food shown, looks to be healthy but of incredibly low quality.  obviously the reason for this is likely because real food is expensive compared to mass produced alternatives.  schools having structure their food budgets around the increased costs have produced low quality meals for students, though they are healthy.  point being, obesity only runs rampant in the united states because legislature is not there to deflate the cost of healthy alternatives.  setting aside the gmo argument, i certainly think that this disgusting alternative might trump obesity but only because nobody will eat it, in fact i would go so far as to say it may  increase  obesity because kids will skip lunch and binge on their junk food at home.  wheras if they were just eating the less healthy but higher quality alternatives, there is still a better chance of them developing good eating habbits on their own, because skipping meals is exactly not that.  also considering a large argument for the school lunch program is that it may give the under privileged student body  one good meal a day  it may no longer do that because they are not going to eat it now.   #  i certainly think that this disgusting alternative might trump obesity but only because nobody will eat it, in fact i would go so far as to say it may  increase  obesity because kids will skip lunch and binge on their junk food at home.   #  so what you are saying is parents are too uneducated or too lazy to buy nutritious foods and limit junk food ?  # based on what i see, i do not think it is healthy.  michele obama was helping to push the new  my plate  food recommendations.  according to that at least half the plate should be fruit and veg.  i see no veggies on almost all of the trays.  i see lots of cheap processed food which usually tends to gave additives, preservatives, colorings, and flavorings not healthy.  that.  and school cafeterias do not always agree with the experts on what is not healthy.  they are still going by the same stupid guidelines that say catsup can be counted as a serving of vegetable ? ! in america less healthy food is cheaper, partly because of the government.  why does salad cost more than a big mac ? URL american culture also seems to somewhat accept fast food as healthy.  they say they want healthy but they eat burgers, sloppy joes, and chicken wings and with no fruit or veg .  i know people who think a mcdonald is burger is healthy because because it has  vegetables  one thin slice tomato, a lettuce leaf .  we need to get families to stop thinking processed chicken mc nuggets and fruit flavor ice cream is a good meal.  the cause of obesity is not fully understood.  it is not as simple as calories in versus exercise.  or as simple as fast food or not.  how much of the diet is stored as fat is influenced by genetics eg.  thrifty gene , hormones eg.  leptin , stress level cortisol , illness, medications such as some psych meds , proper thyroid and hypothalamus function, sex hormone levels, and other triggers.  there is also the question of how you measure obesity before declaring it is an epidemic.  most of the  epidemic  announcements look at bmi.  bmi is not is not a measure of body fat though.  it is merely a height weight ratio formula.  it does not differentiate between small build versus stocky.  it does not distinguish muscle versus fat.  the ranges of overweight and obese are arbitrarily assigned and do not take into account racial, gender, or age differences.  so what you are saying is parents are too uneducated or too lazy to buy nutritious foods and limit junk food ? hat it may give the under privileged student body  one good meal a day  it may no longer do that because they are not going to eat it now.  if someone truly has no food at home, they are not going to skip a free hot meal.  a person has to eat.  who knows why kids do not eat their lunches ? had anyone studied this ? the pics you gave as examples seem less disgusting then the food i had as a kid.  back then we did not expect to have many choices.  either we ate it or we were hungry.  our parents were responsible enough not to fill the kitchen with junk food, but then again i am older than most redditors and i lived in an age where we did not get take out or eat out.  culture has changed.  now fast food places are open 0 hours.  parents take their kids out a few times a week.  kids are taught that a fast food cheeseburger is a  healthy  normal good meal.  and now instead of getting exercise playing outside, many kids just sit in front of a tv, computer, or video game.  in order to change public health, you need a significant cultural change  #  in the 0s 0s mass produced foods were not used, and schools had staff cooking real food, but in that case it was not nessecerily standardized or consistent or healthy.   # i think we are going to need some evidence of that, because it is certainly not consistent with what i remember of school lunches.  so, the way i am looking at it right now is like this: URL   this is a kid cuisine.  it is pretty much equivalent to a modern school lunch.  despite not being crazy healthy, it is also not crazy unhealthy, and kids will eat it.  it is not the pinnacle of delicious, but at least in makes up for that by offering some better tasting options.  URL   this is basically what they switched to an atkins lean cuisine.  i mena yeah it is dstributed by cysco but it is essentially changing what low quality airline food they serve.  the thing about eating healthy food that tastes good, is that price equates to quality.  on the other hand, making unhealthy food that tastes amazing is both easy to make and cheap.  i will concede part of the problem is simply a trial by size.  in the 0s 0s mass produced foods were not used, and schools had staff cooking real food, but in that case it was not nessecerily standardized or consistent or healthy.  schools were also significantly smaller back then though.   #  oh my gosh, so much of that food looks really good compared to the shit i was served in my high school cafeteria in the early 0s.   #  oh my gosh, so much of that food looks really good compared to the shit i was served in my high school cafeteria in the early 0s.  cafeteria food has  never  been very appetizing.  this is no different.  what we are seeing here are high school kids reacting to change.  not to new food, but to a change in the food.  when future classes of students enter school, they will have no former reference point and this food will be all they know.  i doubt they will complain as much as the current students are.  obesity absolutely is a poverty problem.  people in poverty do not have the money to buy nutritious foods.  they do not have the time to prepare nutritious meals.  they fall into the fast food trap because it is quick and cheap.  this is a fact.  but it has nothing to do with high school kids complaining about their new food on twitter.   #  i would be interested in seeing the full range of food available in the cafeteria, rather than what an individual student has chosen.   #  i would be interested in seeing the full range of food available in the cafeteria, rather than what an individual student has chosen.  i would also like to look at the food choices over the course of a few weeks.  when i was at school, for a couple of years i would spend my lunch money on crackers, dairylea and a can of diet coke.  there were plenty of other options available, but i did not choose them.  it is perfectly possible for there to be a whole range of nutritious and tasty food available, but for individual children to not choose them, because kids can be perverse.  there are also always going to be the odd bad dish served up, because that is the reality of cheap mass catering.  there are also going to be some schools who have consistently poor food.  there, the problem is not automatically with the guidelines, but with the implementation of them.   #  compared to a standard smart phone plan of $0 a month even though i could argue $0 a month for a family of 0 i wo not.   #  URL start here.  as i stated already it is a false dichotomy.  just because a household puts more emphasis on a phone than proper nourishment does not mean it is not poverty level.  it means that among their few nice objects one of them is a smart phone.  besides the average cost of food for people is about $0/person/day.  extrapolated to a year that is 0k a year in groceries.  this does not count the odd trip to a restaurant ect.  which believe it or not poor people are allowed to go too.  compared to a standard smart phone plan of $0 a month even though i could argue $0 a month for a family of 0 i wo not.  $0 a year for smart phone service for a family of 0. so basically we are talking about 0.  rededicating 0 of your income for food, for such a tool as a smart phone, in exchange for eating more unhealthily on the reg is a pretty logical trade at face value.  however, we make laws to see beyond face value which is why we have social security right ? there is not a hard cost on unhealthy eating habbits and heart disease down the road, except that almost universally people ca not afford it, which is the point.
that is to say, not having money is merely the  symptom  of poverty.  it is the combination of not knowing how to get money, how to keep money, how to use money, and how to get advice about money and otherwise take care of yourself as an adult that is the true nature of poverty.  on today is reddit front page is this story URL about a woman who received national fame for leaving her kids in a hot car while she went for a job interview.  she received widespread sympathy for having to make, apparently, a hobson is choice between leaving her kids alone to get employment, or supervising her kids and foregoing an income.  she received a total of $0k in donations, and an offer from the prosecutor to go free if she saved $0k of it in a trust for the kids.  she has already spent the money with nothing left.  of course, this feeds directly into conservative  prosperity theology  that rich people are rich because they deserve it they are good people , and poor people are poor because they do not deserve it they are bad people .  i think it is indeterminate whether this woman is  good  or  bad .  but i cannot imagine that she did not understand her freedom was at sake here.  even a selfish person would want their freedom.  it seems to me to be clear that she just did not have any idea how to save money.  saving money is not a one time act.  it is a life skill that she probably never learned, and this woman possibly did not even know she needed to acquire.  without knowing this, she was doomed.  likely, others in poverty similar to her are similarly doomed.  her moral character their moral character is not the overriding factor.  so far, my view has not changed very much.  /u/raychilloh emphasized that the prosecutor did give shanesha taylor a single, apparently specific, somewhat straightforward task: to  save  $0,0 of the money for her children.  in my view, she probably did not understand or fully understand  why  anyone would want to do that how/when would her children use the money ? .  possibly she did not understand how to do it, but could probably have figured it out if she tried.  but it is difficult to explain her lack of action on this element in any way that is not at least tainted by some moral failing that exacerbated her handicap in not understanding money.  her failure in this regard does very slightly change my view.  of possible interest: i also posted this article URL about a very similar outcome in a very similar situation.  a documentary filmmaker, as an experiment, gave $0k cash to a random homeless man who was neither crazy nor on drugs and then documented how he made terrible decisions with the money until it was gone.  i have not seen the film.  next, i would like to highlight a comment from /u/shaulathecat that is buried pretty deep down URL it cites a source that says shanesha taylor only got three job offers, and none of them would fully support her financial needs.  she perhaps wrongly thought they would not ultimately affect her financial situation.   #  it seems to me to be clear that she just did not have any idea how to save money.   #  saving money is not a one time act.   # saving money is not a one time act.  it is a life skill that she probably never learned i have read an excellent comment on this topic, possibly on reddit maybe you are referencing it here ? this guy basically said that people living on the poverty line, i. e.  people who spend everything they earn just to survive, never get the chance to develop middle class saving habits, because those habits are predicated on having a disposable income that is savable.  he also said, if i remember correctly, that many poor people see value in goods, not money so, they do not have the concept that money can just be lying around in a bank account somewhere and be useful that way.  not changing anyone is view here, sorry.   #  $0, $0,0, $0,0 and what each amount means in practice.   #  these are good questions.  i do think she may have been incapable of learning what to do with the money in the time she had available and under the circumstances she was in.  most people who have $0k spent years handling smaller amounts of money first e. g.  $0, $0,0, $0,0 and what each amount means in practice.  income and savings are profoundly different.   living off of interest  is something that most non retired people have never experienced.  i am interested to learn more about what trusted, reliable advice she may have ignored.  to me that could be a factor in changing my view.   #  i think that if you hand a gun at someone who has never seen a gun before e. g.   #  i would say undeserving.  in your scenario, i am imagining a person who is born with severe mental retardation or suffered a head injury that took away their cognitive disabilities.  i do not think such a person deserves to fall to their death because they do not understand how to properly protect themselves from falling.  another analogy closer to my principal point of view expressed in the main post is ignorance of danger.  i think that if you hand a gun at someone who has never seen a gun before e. g.  an aboriginal villager , they do not  deserve  to be shot just because they were too ignorant to know not to look down the barrel while they pulled the trigger.   #  am i capable of deserving things that happen to me ?  # this woman is not retarded.  she does not have a mental disability.  she lives in a society surrounded by money and how it works so it is not a foreign concept.  am i capable of deserving things that happen to me ? i once touched hot pan to see how hot it was.  do i have less or more culpability ? do you need to know my gender and race to figure that out ? i utterly fail to grasp how this women is undeserving.  she is an adult human without a mental disability.   #  i am not sure what you are talking about when you say you do not know if she  understood the importance of the help she was being offered.    #  i am not sure what you are talking about when you say you do not know if she  understood the importance of the help she was being offered.   you mentioned in the original post that you ca not imagine she did not know her freedom was at stake so how can you imagine she did not realize that help was important ? at the very least, the reverend maupin was working very closely with her to resolve the situation.  and the prosecutor gave her at least 0 very specific instruction put $0,0 in a savings account for your children.  she did not even do that.  the specific  many many  quote you are talking about, i was thinking of all of the people that donated to her.  i find it difficult to believe that had she made the slightest effort to learn what she should do with this money, she would not have been able to.  is that what you are asserting ? she was incapable of learning how to handle money ? or that she did not know she needed to learn ? i find both of those difficult to believe.
i am in the us licenses should not have to be required for residential zones.  residential zones should be a safe zone to have children play.  children under 0 cannot be licensed there should be visible plates and tags.  this should help pay for road improvements to ensure they have a safe lane.  licensing for bikes should mirror licensing for cars.  consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  cyclists should also have to wear helmets.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  they should also have to carry insurance.  i do not care if this de incentivizes bicycle travel.  most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  no it is not sampling bias.  i have actually kept a tick sheet and actively look for cyclists on my way too and from work.  it is fixed to my dash.  it is at about a 0 violation rate.  fuck you, i am anal like that.  for the same reasons above, the costs do not concern me.   #  cyclists should also have to wear helmets.   #  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.   # consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  why ? the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse.  those requirements are based on potential risk/harm calculation.  a bicycle is orders of magnitude slower and lighter than a car.  thus the requirement should be less strict.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  this is a sour grapes argument.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists.  the evidence that seatbelts achieve a net reduction of physical injury is much stronger than the evidence that helmets achieve a net reduction of physical injury.  many cyclists  do  carry insurance.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  the risk posed by cyclists is small compared to cars.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  i have been cycling for most of my life.  there were many situations where i had the choice between breaking the law and risking a fine and risking my life.  i chose to break the law.  i am not trying to justify it, but i want to make clear that i would not have had to make that choice if i did not expect a high chance of encountering a dangerous driver.  it is a very asymmetrical situation, and aggressive behavior by cyclists is often a  reaction  to aggressive behavior by drivers.  the solution is to crack down on drivers first.  until that happens, the roads will continue to be a jungle and i refuse to be the one who  takes the fall  for this injustice.   #  they guys i kept on my tick sheet probably did not have insurance.   # the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse your argument amounts to a reexamination of licensing.  hey, did not the 0/0 hijackers get pilot licenses.  we never fixed the loophole in how the did it.  all this really suggests is airlines lobby for lower costs to operate.  and i seem to remember a crash where the pilots were commenting on lack of training.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists bicyclists need to be safe.  if the data says there is no difference, then do not do it.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  i am not just talking about the weekend spandex crew.  they guys i kept on my tick sheet probably did not have insurance.  one passed me on the left making a right turn as i was turning right just yesterday.  out in traffic today one guy was riding towards me.  i never see signals.  drivers are always told to share the rode.  bicyclists need to fill the coffers to establish safe bike lanes.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? at people who do not drive vehicles as identified by law.  ?  #  coupled with the relatively narrow share of physical roadway required by a bicycle, cycling effectively reduces the cost of road construction and maintenance for governments when it replaces car travel.   # its often incorrect when you say cyclists do not pay for the roads.  for one many city and county roads are funded primarily through non user fees such as property taxes.  user fees, including gasoline taxes, automobile registration fees and road tolls, do not cover the cost of road construction and maintenance in the united states.  in 0, only 0 of the $0 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance came from such user fees, the remainder consisting of non user fees such as income, sales and property taxes, and bond issues.  even if they do not own a car, cyclists who pay taxes contribute substantially to the nation is highway funds.  many frequent cyclists also own one or more cars, and therefore pay registration fees and often gasoline taxes and tolls.  a car owner who chooses to ride a bicycle is, in essence, only utilizing a fraction of the infrastructure that he or she has  paid for .  bicycles are already prohibited from interstate and many federal highways, nearly all urban cycling takes place on these local roads, built and maintained with little or no revenue from car specific fees.  bicycles inflict a negligible amount of damage to roads and other infrastructure compared with cars, buses or trucks, reducing the need for maintenance.  coupled with the relatively narrow share of physical roadway required by a bicycle, cycling effectively reduces the cost of road construction and maintenance for governments when it replaces car travel.   #  but i would like the government to have the ability to suspend, fine, and confiscate property like with any other vehicle that breaks the law.   #  when i use more public water, i pay more for the water.  when i use more heavily public subsidized electricity, i pay more.  when i drive more, i pay more gas tax.  when i buy a more valuable car, i pay more for registration.  it is is not a question of enough, it is a question of engaging to a greater extent in the public sphere which does come with high levied fees and taxes.  you can get a cyclist clear on your license and put plates on your bike for $0 a year.  i am not suggesting anything substantial.  but i would like the government to have the ability to suspend, fine, and confiscate property like with any other vehicle that breaks the law.   #  like stopping over a crosswalk, at a red light.   #  not to mention that motorists break the law all the time.  i see motorists breaking laws that make things harder for bicyclists and pedestrians, far more than i see the reverse.  like stopping over a crosswalk, at a red light.  or pulling into a sidewalk from a parking lot, without looking, to wait there for a break in traffic.  or parking on the sidewalk.  all of these are illegal, and really dangerous and inconvenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people who use wheelchairs to get around.
i am in the us licenses should not have to be required for residential zones.  residential zones should be a safe zone to have children play.  children under 0 cannot be licensed there should be visible plates and tags.  this should help pay for road improvements to ensure they have a safe lane.  licensing for bikes should mirror licensing for cars.  consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  cyclists should also have to wear helmets.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  they should also have to carry insurance.  i do not care if this de incentivizes bicycle travel.  most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  no it is not sampling bias.  i have actually kept a tick sheet and actively look for cyclists on my way too and from work.  it is fixed to my dash.  it is at about a 0 violation rate.  fuck you, i am anal like that.  for the same reasons above, the costs do not concern me.   #  i do not care if this de incentivizes bicycle travel.   #  most cyclists i see break laws anyways.   # consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  why ? the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse.  those requirements are based on potential risk/harm calculation.  a bicycle is orders of magnitude slower and lighter than a car.  thus the requirement should be less strict.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  this is a sour grapes argument.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists.  the evidence that seatbelts achieve a net reduction of physical injury is much stronger than the evidence that helmets achieve a net reduction of physical injury.  many cyclists  do  carry insurance.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  the risk posed by cyclists is small compared to cars.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  i have been cycling for most of my life.  there were many situations where i had the choice between breaking the law and risking a fine and risking my life.  i chose to break the law.  i am not trying to justify it, but i want to make clear that i would not have had to make that choice if i did not expect a high chance of encountering a dangerous driver.  it is a very asymmetrical situation, and aggressive behavior by cyclists is often a  reaction  to aggressive behavior by drivers.  the solution is to crack down on drivers first.  until that happens, the roads will continue to be a jungle and i refuse to be the one who  takes the fall  for this injustice.   #  bicyclists need to fill the coffers to establish safe bike lanes.   # the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse your argument amounts to a reexamination of licensing.  hey, did not the 0/0 hijackers get pilot licenses.  we never fixed the loophole in how the did it.  all this really suggests is airlines lobby for lower costs to operate.  and i seem to remember a crash where the pilots were commenting on lack of training.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists bicyclists need to be safe.  if the data says there is no difference, then do not do it.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  i am not just talking about the weekend spandex crew.  they guys i kept on my tick sheet probably did not have insurance.  one passed me on the left making a right turn as i was turning right just yesterday.  out in traffic today one guy was riding towards me.  i never see signals.  drivers are always told to share the rode.  bicyclists need to fill the coffers to establish safe bike lanes.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? at people who do not drive vehicles as identified by law.  ?  #  even if they do not own a car, cyclists who pay taxes contribute substantially to the nation is highway funds.   # its often incorrect when you say cyclists do not pay for the roads.  for one many city and county roads are funded primarily through non user fees such as property taxes.  user fees, including gasoline taxes, automobile registration fees and road tolls, do not cover the cost of road construction and maintenance in the united states.  in 0, only 0 of the $0 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance came from such user fees, the remainder consisting of non user fees such as income, sales and property taxes, and bond issues.  even if they do not own a car, cyclists who pay taxes contribute substantially to the nation is highway funds.  many frequent cyclists also own one or more cars, and therefore pay registration fees and often gasoline taxes and tolls.  a car owner who chooses to ride a bicycle is, in essence, only utilizing a fraction of the infrastructure that he or she has  paid for .  bicycles are already prohibited from interstate and many federal highways, nearly all urban cycling takes place on these local roads, built and maintained with little or no revenue from car specific fees.  bicycles inflict a negligible amount of damage to roads and other infrastructure compared with cars, buses or trucks, reducing the need for maintenance.  coupled with the relatively narrow share of physical roadway required by a bicycle, cycling effectively reduces the cost of road construction and maintenance for governments when it replaces car travel.   #  when i buy a more valuable car, i pay more for registration.   #  when i use more public water, i pay more for the water.  when i use more heavily public subsidized electricity, i pay more.  when i drive more, i pay more gas tax.  when i buy a more valuable car, i pay more for registration.  it is is not a question of enough, it is a question of engaging to a greater extent in the public sphere which does come with high levied fees and taxes.  you can get a cyclist clear on your license and put plates on your bike for $0 a year.  i am not suggesting anything substantial.  but i would like the government to have the ability to suspend, fine, and confiscate property like with any other vehicle that breaks the law.   #  or pulling into a sidewalk from a parking lot, without looking, to wait there for a break in traffic.   #  not to mention that motorists break the law all the time.  i see motorists breaking laws that make things harder for bicyclists and pedestrians, far more than i see the reverse.  like stopping over a crosswalk, at a red light.  or pulling into a sidewalk from a parking lot, without looking, to wait there for a break in traffic.  or parking on the sidewalk.  all of these are illegal, and really dangerous and inconvenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people who use wheelchairs to get around.
i am in the us licenses should not have to be required for residential zones.  residential zones should be a safe zone to have children play.  children under 0 cannot be licensed there should be visible plates and tags.  this should help pay for road improvements to ensure they have a safe lane.  licensing for bikes should mirror licensing for cars.  consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  cyclists should also have to wear helmets.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  they should also have to carry insurance.  i do not care if this de incentivizes bicycle travel.  most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  no it is not sampling bias.  i have actually kept a tick sheet and actively look for cyclists on my way too and from work.  it is fixed to my dash.  it is at about a 0 violation rate.  fuck you, i am anal like that.  for the same reasons above, the costs do not concern me.   #  i do not care if this de incentivizes bicycle travel.   #  most cyclists i see break laws anyways.   # most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  no it is not sampling bias.  i have actually kept a tick sheet and actively look for cyclists on my way too and from work.  it is fixed to my dash.  it is at about a 0 violation rate.  fuck you, i am anal like that.  and your tick sheet for drivers that do not come to a full and complete stop, including at least a slight pause, at a stop sign when there is no traffic has what percentage of violation ? how about the usage of turn indicators ? people making turns across multiple lanes ? speeding  ?  #  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.   # consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  why ? the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse.  those requirements are based on potential risk/harm calculation.  a bicycle is orders of magnitude slower and lighter than a car.  thus the requirement should be less strict.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  this is a sour grapes argument.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists.  the evidence that seatbelts achieve a net reduction of physical injury is much stronger than the evidence that helmets achieve a net reduction of physical injury.  many cyclists  do  carry insurance.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  the risk posed by cyclists is small compared to cars.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  i have been cycling for most of my life.  there were many situations where i had the choice between breaking the law and risking a fine and risking my life.  i chose to break the law.  i am not trying to justify it, but i want to make clear that i would not have had to make that choice if i did not expect a high chance of encountering a dangerous driver.  it is a very asymmetrical situation, and aggressive behavior by cyclists is often a  reaction  to aggressive behavior by drivers.  the solution is to crack down on drivers first.  until that happens, the roads will continue to be a jungle and i refuse to be the one who  takes the fall  for this injustice.   #  we never fixed the loophole in how the did it.   # the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse your argument amounts to a reexamination of licensing.  hey, did not the 0/0 hijackers get pilot licenses.  we never fixed the loophole in how the did it.  all this really suggests is airlines lobby for lower costs to operate.  and i seem to remember a crash where the pilots were commenting on lack of training.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists bicyclists need to be safe.  if the data says there is no difference, then do not do it.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  i am not just talking about the weekend spandex crew.  they guys i kept on my tick sheet probably did not have insurance.  one passed me on the left making a right turn as i was turning right just yesterday.  out in traffic today one guy was riding towards me.  i never see signals.  drivers are always told to share the rode.  bicyclists need to fill the coffers to establish safe bike lanes.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? at people who do not drive vehicles as identified by law.  ?  #  even if they do not own a car, cyclists who pay taxes contribute substantially to the nation is highway funds.   # its often incorrect when you say cyclists do not pay for the roads.  for one many city and county roads are funded primarily through non user fees such as property taxes.  user fees, including gasoline taxes, automobile registration fees and road tolls, do not cover the cost of road construction and maintenance in the united states.  in 0, only 0 of the $0 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance came from such user fees, the remainder consisting of non user fees such as income, sales and property taxes, and bond issues.  even if they do not own a car, cyclists who pay taxes contribute substantially to the nation is highway funds.  many frequent cyclists also own one or more cars, and therefore pay registration fees and often gasoline taxes and tolls.  a car owner who chooses to ride a bicycle is, in essence, only utilizing a fraction of the infrastructure that he or she has  paid for .  bicycles are already prohibited from interstate and many federal highways, nearly all urban cycling takes place on these local roads, built and maintained with little or no revenue from car specific fees.  bicycles inflict a negligible amount of damage to roads and other infrastructure compared with cars, buses or trucks, reducing the need for maintenance.  coupled with the relatively narrow share of physical roadway required by a bicycle, cycling effectively reduces the cost of road construction and maintenance for governments when it replaces car travel.   #  you can get a cyclist clear on your license and put plates on your bike for $0 a year.   #  when i use more public water, i pay more for the water.  when i use more heavily public subsidized electricity, i pay more.  when i drive more, i pay more gas tax.  when i buy a more valuable car, i pay more for registration.  it is is not a question of enough, it is a question of engaging to a greater extent in the public sphere which does come with high levied fees and taxes.  you can get a cyclist clear on your license and put plates on your bike for $0 a year.  i am not suggesting anything substantial.  but i would like the government to have the ability to suspend, fine, and confiscate property like with any other vehicle that breaks the law.
i am in the us licenses should not have to be required for residential zones.  residential zones should be a safe zone to have children play.  children under 0 cannot be licensed there should be visible plates and tags.  this should help pay for road improvements to ensure they have a safe lane.  licensing for bikes should mirror licensing for cars.  consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  cyclists should also have to wear helmets.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  they should also have to carry insurance.  i do not care if this de incentivizes bicycle travel.  most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  no it is not sampling bias.  i have actually kept a tick sheet and actively look for cyclists on my way too and from work.  it is fixed to my dash.  it is at about a 0 violation rate.  fuck you, i am anal like that.  for the same reasons above, the costs do not concern me.   #  licenses should not have to be required for residential zones.   #  residential zones should be a safe zone to have children play.   # residential zones should be a safe zone to have children play.  fair enough   children under 0 cannot be licensed but children under 0 can ride a bicycle with relative ease.  i think that an age requirement for an automobile is important because that same automobile can go on to cause a lot of damage if it is irresponsibly used.  not so true with a bike.  this should help pay for road improvements to ensure they have a safe lane.  bikes have nowhere near the impact on the road that cars have.  a bike is 0 0 lbs plus the weight of the person on it.  a car typically weighs a ton or more.  when roads need repair, it is because of the wear and tear these very heavy machines create.  bicycles do not stress the concrete much more than your average pedestrian.  and the fees collected from licences and plates do not come anywhere near funding the costs of maintaining the road.  a lot of road development comes right out of the same taxes that everybody pays.  using these funds to develop a bike lane makes sense.  remember, every bike on the road is not a car.  less cars on the road means that the bike lane helps everyone.  consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  again, a cyclist ca not cause the same amount of damage that an automobile can.  while some consequences make sense, equivalency would not.  while the importance of helmets are massively exaggerated, i might be willing to agree here and only here.  however, the most likely group of people to be hit are actually pedestrians.  you must believe that they also should be required to wear helmets, correct ? you should.  more bikes means less cars to wait behind, less cars to merge into.  no it is not sampling bias.  i have actually kept a tick sheet and actively look for cyclists on my way too and from work.  it is fixed to my dash.  it is at about a 0 violation rate.  fuck you, i am anal like that.  i would be curious to know which laws.  as a cyclist, i do my best to follow all traffic laws.  when i break them, which is seldom, it is because obeying the law might put me at risk of being in front of or around an irate motorist.  you should try the same thing with motorists, which would include everyone who speeds, everyone who does not signal, everyone who merges unsafely, etc.  etc.  motorists are equally bad, if not worse, at following the law than any other group of road users.   #  i am not trying to justify it, but i want to make clear that i would not have had to make that choice if i did not expect a high chance of encountering a dangerous driver.   # consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  why ? the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse.  those requirements are based on potential risk/harm calculation.  a bicycle is orders of magnitude slower and lighter than a car.  thus the requirement should be less strict.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  this is a sour grapes argument.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists.  the evidence that seatbelts achieve a net reduction of physical injury is much stronger than the evidence that helmets achieve a net reduction of physical injury.  many cyclists  do  carry insurance.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  the risk posed by cyclists is small compared to cars.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  i have been cycling for most of my life.  there were many situations where i had the choice between breaking the law and risking a fine and risking my life.  i chose to break the law.  i am not trying to justify it, but i want to make clear that i would not have had to make that choice if i did not expect a high chance of encountering a dangerous driver.  it is a very asymmetrical situation, and aggressive behavior by cyclists is often a  reaction  to aggressive behavior by drivers.  the solution is to crack down on drivers first.  until that happens, the roads will continue to be a jungle and i refuse to be the one who  takes the fall  for this injustice.   #  at people who do not drive vehicles as identified by law.  ?  # the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse your argument amounts to a reexamination of licensing.  hey, did not the 0/0 hijackers get pilot licenses.  we never fixed the loophole in how the did it.  all this really suggests is airlines lobby for lower costs to operate.  and i seem to remember a crash where the pilots were commenting on lack of training.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists bicyclists need to be safe.  if the data says there is no difference, then do not do it.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  i am not just talking about the weekend spandex crew.  they guys i kept on my tick sheet probably did not have insurance.  one passed me on the left making a right turn as i was turning right just yesterday.  out in traffic today one guy was riding towards me.  i never see signals.  drivers are always told to share the rode.  bicyclists need to fill the coffers to establish safe bike lanes.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? at people who do not drive vehicles as identified by law.  ?  #  bicycles inflict a negligible amount of damage to roads and other infrastructure compared with cars, buses or trucks, reducing the need for maintenance.   # its often incorrect when you say cyclists do not pay for the roads.  for one many city and county roads are funded primarily through non user fees such as property taxes.  user fees, including gasoline taxes, automobile registration fees and road tolls, do not cover the cost of road construction and maintenance in the united states.  in 0, only 0 of the $0 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance came from such user fees, the remainder consisting of non user fees such as income, sales and property taxes, and bond issues.  even if they do not own a car, cyclists who pay taxes contribute substantially to the nation is highway funds.  many frequent cyclists also own one or more cars, and therefore pay registration fees and often gasoline taxes and tolls.  a car owner who chooses to ride a bicycle is, in essence, only utilizing a fraction of the infrastructure that he or she has  paid for .  bicycles are already prohibited from interstate and many federal highways, nearly all urban cycling takes place on these local roads, built and maintained with little or no revenue from car specific fees.  bicycles inflict a negligible amount of damage to roads and other infrastructure compared with cars, buses or trucks, reducing the need for maintenance.  coupled with the relatively narrow share of physical roadway required by a bicycle, cycling effectively reduces the cost of road construction and maintenance for governments when it replaces car travel.   #  when i use more public water, i pay more for the water.   #  when i use more public water, i pay more for the water.  when i use more heavily public subsidized electricity, i pay more.  when i drive more, i pay more gas tax.  when i buy a more valuable car, i pay more for registration.  it is is not a question of enough, it is a question of engaging to a greater extent in the public sphere which does come with high levied fees and taxes.  you can get a cyclist clear on your license and put plates on your bike for $0 a year.  i am not suggesting anything substantial.  but i would like the government to have the ability to suspend, fine, and confiscate property like with any other vehicle that breaks the law.
i am in the us licenses should not have to be required for residential zones.  residential zones should be a safe zone to have children play.  children under 0 cannot be licensed there should be visible plates and tags.  this should help pay for road improvements to ensure they have a safe lane.  licensing for bikes should mirror licensing for cars.  consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  cyclists should also have to wear helmets.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  they should also have to carry insurance.  i do not care if this de incentivizes bicycle travel.  most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  no it is not sampling bias.  i have actually kept a tick sheet and actively look for cyclists on my way too and from work.  it is fixed to my dash.  it is at about a 0 violation rate.  fuck you, i am anal like that.  for the same reasons above, the costs do not concern me.   #  there should be visible plates and tags.   #  this should help pay for road improvements to ensure they have a safe lane.   # residential zones should be a safe zone to have children play.  fair enough   children under 0 cannot be licensed but children under 0 can ride a bicycle with relative ease.  i think that an age requirement for an automobile is important because that same automobile can go on to cause a lot of damage if it is irresponsibly used.  not so true with a bike.  this should help pay for road improvements to ensure they have a safe lane.  bikes have nowhere near the impact on the road that cars have.  a bike is 0 0 lbs plus the weight of the person on it.  a car typically weighs a ton or more.  when roads need repair, it is because of the wear and tear these very heavy machines create.  bicycles do not stress the concrete much more than your average pedestrian.  and the fees collected from licences and plates do not come anywhere near funding the costs of maintaining the road.  a lot of road development comes right out of the same taxes that everybody pays.  using these funds to develop a bike lane makes sense.  remember, every bike on the road is not a car.  less cars on the road means that the bike lane helps everyone.  consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  again, a cyclist ca not cause the same amount of damage that an automobile can.  while some consequences make sense, equivalency would not.  while the importance of helmets are massively exaggerated, i might be willing to agree here and only here.  however, the most likely group of people to be hit are actually pedestrians.  you must believe that they also should be required to wear helmets, correct ? you should.  more bikes means less cars to wait behind, less cars to merge into.  no it is not sampling bias.  i have actually kept a tick sheet and actively look for cyclists on my way too and from work.  it is fixed to my dash.  it is at about a 0 violation rate.  fuck you, i am anal like that.  i would be curious to know which laws.  as a cyclist, i do my best to follow all traffic laws.  when i break them, which is seldom, it is because obeying the law might put me at risk of being in front of or around an irate motorist.  you should try the same thing with motorists, which would include everyone who speeds, everyone who does not signal, everyone who merges unsafely, etc.  etc.  motorists are equally bad, if not worse, at following the law than any other group of road users.   #  there were many situations where i had the choice between breaking the law and risking a fine and risking my life.   # consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  why ? the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse.  those requirements are based on potential risk/harm calculation.  a bicycle is orders of magnitude slower and lighter than a car.  thus the requirement should be less strict.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  this is a sour grapes argument.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists.  the evidence that seatbelts achieve a net reduction of physical injury is much stronger than the evidence that helmets achieve a net reduction of physical injury.  many cyclists  do  carry insurance.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  the risk posed by cyclists is small compared to cars.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  i have been cycling for most of my life.  there were many situations where i had the choice between breaking the law and risking a fine and risking my life.  i chose to break the law.  i am not trying to justify it, but i want to make clear that i would not have had to make that choice if i did not expect a high chance of encountering a dangerous driver.  it is a very asymmetrical situation, and aggressive behavior by cyclists is often a  reaction  to aggressive behavior by drivers.  the solution is to crack down on drivers first.  until that happens, the roads will continue to be a jungle and i refuse to be the one who  takes the fall  for this injustice.   #  hey, did not the 0/0 hijackers get pilot licenses.   # the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse your argument amounts to a reexamination of licensing.  hey, did not the 0/0 hijackers get pilot licenses.  we never fixed the loophole in how the did it.  all this really suggests is airlines lobby for lower costs to operate.  and i seem to remember a crash where the pilots were commenting on lack of training.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists bicyclists need to be safe.  if the data says there is no difference, then do not do it.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  i am not just talking about the weekend spandex crew.  they guys i kept on my tick sheet probably did not have insurance.  one passed me on the left making a right turn as i was turning right just yesterday.  out in traffic today one guy was riding towards me.  i never see signals.  drivers are always told to share the rode.  bicyclists need to fill the coffers to establish safe bike lanes.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? at people who do not drive vehicles as identified by law.  ?  #  for one many city and county roads are funded primarily through non user fees such as property taxes.   # its often incorrect when you say cyclists do not pay for the roads.  for one many city and county roads are funded primarily through non user fees such as property taxes.  user fees, including gasoline taxes, automobile registration fees and road tolls, do not cover the cost of road construction and maintenance in the united states.  in 0, only 0 of the $0 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance came from such user fees, the remainder consisting of non user fees such as income, sales and property taxes, and bond issues.  even if they do not own a car, cyclists who pay taxes contribute substantially to the nation is highway funds.  many frequent cyclists also own one or more cars, and therefore pay registration fees and often gasoline taxes and tolls.  a car owner who chooses to ride a bicycle is, in essence, only utilizing a fraction of the infrastructure that he or she has  paid for .  bicycles are already prohibited from interstate and many federal highways, nearly all urban cycling takes place on these local roads, built and maintained with little or no revenue from car specific fees.  bicycles inflict a negligible amount of damage to roads and other infrastructure compared with cars, buses or trucks, reducing the need for maintenance.  coupled with the relatively narrow share of physical roadway required by a bicycle, cycling effectively reduces the cost of road construction and maintenance for governments when it replaces car travel.   #  you can get a cyclist clear on your license and put plates on your bike for $0 a year.   #  when i use more public water, i pay more for the water.  when i use more heavily public subsidized electricity, i pay more.  when i drive more, i pay more gas tax.  when i buy a more valuable car, i pay more for registration.  it is is not a question of enough, it is a question of engaging to a greater extent in the public sphere which does come with high levied fees and taxes.  you can get a cyclist clear on your license and put plates on your bike for $0 a year.  i am not suggesting anything substantial.  but i would like the government to have the ability to suspend, fine, and confiscate property like with any other vehicle that breaks the law.
i am in the us licenses should not have to be required for residential zones.  residential zones should be a safe zone to have children play.  children under 0 cannot be licensed there should be visible plates and tags.  this should help pay for road improvements to ensure they have a safe lane.  licensing for bikes should mirror licensing for cars.  consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  cyclists should also have to wear helmets.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  they should also have to carry insurance.  i do not care if this de incentivizes bicycle travel.  most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  no it is not sampling bias.  i have actually kept a tick sheet and actively look for cyclists on my way too and from work.  it is fixed to my dash.  it is at about a 0 violation rate.  fuck you, i am anal like that.  for the same reasons above, the costs do not concern me.   #  cyclists should also have to wear helmets.   #  while the importance of helmets are massively exaggerated, i might be willing to agree here and only here.   # residential zones should be a safe zone to have children play.  fair enough   children under 0 cannot be licensed but children under 0 can ride a bicycle with relative ease.  i think that an age requirement for an automobile is important because that same automobile can go on to cause a lot of damage if it is irresponsibly used.  not so true with a bike.  this should help pay for road improvements to ensure they have a safe lane.  bikes have nowhere near the impact on the road that cars have.  a bike is 0 0 lbs plus the weight of the person on it.  a car typically weighs a ton or more.  when roads need repair, it is because of the wear and tear these very heavy machines create.  bicycles do not stress the concrete much more than your average pedestrian.  and the fees collected from licences and plates do not come anywhere near funding the costs of maintaining the road.  a lot of road development comes right out of the same taxes that everybody pays.  using these funds to develop a bike lane makes sense.  remember, every bike on the road is not a car.  less cars on the road means that the bike lane helps everyone.  consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  again, a cyclist ca not cause the same amount of damage that an automobile can.  while some consequences make sense, equivalency would not.  while the importance of helmets are massively exaggerated, i might be willing to agree here and only here.  however, the most likely group of people to be hit are actually pedestrians.  you must believe that they also should be required to wear helmets, correct ? you should.  more bikes means less cars to wait behind, less cars to merge into.  no it is not sampling bias.  i have actually kept a tick sheet and actively look for cyclists on my way too and from work.  it is fixed to my dash.  it is at about a 0 violation rate.  fuck you, i am anal like that.  i would be curious to know which laws.  as a cyclist, i do my best to follow all traffic laws.  when i break them, which is seldom, it is because obeying the law might put me at risk of being in front of or around an irate motorist.  you should try the same thing with motorists, which would include everyone who speeds, everyone who does not signal, everyone who merges unsafely, etc.  etc.  motorists are equally bad, if not worse, at following the law than any other group of road users.   #  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.   # consequences should be the same.  requirements should be the same.  why ? the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse.  those requirements are based on potential risk/harm calculation.  a bicycle is orders of magnitude slower and lighter than a car.  thus the requirement should be less strict.  if seatbelts are required, so should helmets.  i do not want to have by tax dollars go to a tbi because the gubmint took meh freedoms.  this is a sour grapes argument.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists.  the evidence that seatbelts achieve a net reduction of physical injury is much stronger than the evidence that helmets achieve a net reduction of physical injury.  many cyclists  do  carry insurance.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  the risk posed by cyclists is small compared to cars.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? most cyclists i see break laws anyways.  i have been cycling for most of my life.  there were many situations where i had the choice between breaking the law and risking a fine and risking my life.  i chose to break the law.  i am not trying to justify it, but i want to make clear that i would not have had to make that choice if i did not expect a high chance of encountering a dangerous driver.  it is a very asymmetrical situation, and aggressive behavior by cyclists is often a  reaction  to aggressive behavior by drivers.  the solution is to crack down on drivers first.  until that happens, the roads will continue to be a jungle and i refuse to be the one who  takes the fall  for this injustice.   #  the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.   # the requirement for flying a 0 is higher than the requirement for flying an ultralight.  the requirement for piloting a supertanker is higher than the requirement for piloting a small fishing vessel.  the requirement for driving an oversize load vehicle is higher than the requirement for driving a car, which is higher than the requirement for riding a horse your argument amounts to a reexamination of licensing.  hey, did not the 0/0 hijackers get pilot licenses.  we never fixed the loophole in how the did it.  all this really suggests is airlines lobby for lower costs to operate.  and i seem to remember a crash where the pilots were commenting on lack of training.  in fact, it is worse than sour grapes because you holding up cyclists to higher standards than motorists bicyclists need to be safe.  if the data says there is no difference, then do not do it.  cycling is covered by most generic liability insurances and does not need a dedicated insurance like driving.  i am not just talking about the weekend spandex crew.  they guys i kept on my tick sheet probably did not have insurance.  one passed me on the left making a right turn as i was turning right just yesterday.  out in traffic today one guy was riding towards me.  i never see signals.  drivers are always told to share the rode.  bicyclists need to fill the coffers to establish safe bike lanes.  by the same logic you could argue that skateboarders, surfers, or horse riders should have mandatory insurance.  where do you draw the line ? at people who do not drive vehicles as identified by law.  ?  #  in 0, only 0 of the $0 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance came from such user fees, the remainder consisting of non user fees such as income, sales and property taxes, and bond issues.   # its often incorrect when you say cyclists do not pay for the roads.  for one many city and county roads are funded primarily through non user fees such as property taxes.  user fees, including gasoline taxes, automobile registration fees and road tolls, do not cover the cost of road construction and maintenance in the united states.  in 0, only 0 of the $0 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance came from such user fees, the remainder consisting of non user fees such as income, sales and property taxes, and bond issues.  even if they do not own a car, cyclists who pay taxes contribute substantially to the nation is highway funds.  many frequent cyclists also own one or more cars, and therefore pay registration fees and often gasoline taxes and tolls.  a car owner who chooses to ride a bicycle is, in essence, only utilizing a fraction of the infrastructure that he or she has  paid for .  bicycles are already prohibited from interstate and many federal highways, nearly all urban cycling takes place on these local roads, built and maintained with little or no revenue from car specific fees.  bicycles inflict a negligible amount of damage to roads and other infrastructure compared with cars, buses or trucks, reducing the need for maintenance.  coupled with the relatively narrow share of physical roadway required by a bicycle, cycling effectively reduces the cost of road construction and maintenance for governments when it replaces car travel.   #  when i use more heavily public subsidized electricity, i pay more.   #  when i use more public water, i pay more for the water.  when i use more heavily public subsidized electricity, i pay more.  when i drive more, i pay more gas tax.  when i buy a more valuable car, i pay more for registration.  it is is not a question of enough, it is a question of engaging to a greater extent in the public sphere which does come with high levied fees and taxes.  you can get a cyclist clear on your license and put plates on your bike for $0 a year.  i am not suggesting anything substantial.  but i would like the government to have the ability to suspend, fine, and confiscate property like with any other vehicle that breaks the law.
for those who do not know about the selective service act in the united states; here is a quote from sss. gov URL on their faq URL registration is a way our government keeps a list of names of men from which to draw in case of a national emergency requiring rapid expansion of our armed forces.  by registering all young men, the selective service ensures that a future draft will be fair and equitable.   and  failure to register is a violation of the military selective service act.  conviction for such a violation may result in imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $0,0.  i think the whole thing is fundamentally wrong:   you are being sexist and singling out young men to take away to war, girls get off entirely   you have got troops coming into schools to try and recruit children, which preys on youthful naivety and that feeling of invincibility inherent to children   you are promising these kids who are in high school worrying about their future that if you sign up for the army they will cover all your educational needs.  putting your body on the line is a   career investment  , so they advertise.    you are severely punishing anyone who defies this idea of being drafted into the military.  it is a fundamental breach of our freedoms and rights, and is wrong.  this system almost requires every man and boy in the country to commit themselves to military service, to joining a massively over funded part of our government which is effectively an organization of disciplined murderers.  i feel that expressing my opinions with my vote, protest, and activism does more good than joining the military to lay down my life for a corrupt government.  i will more than willingly die for my family, or die in the name of this country, but not for this nation, not for the aristocracy that runs it.  if you want to lay down your life in this nation is unjustified wars, which the rest of the world condemns us constantly for, be my guest.  you can die for your nation, i would rather live for my country.  i would like to see someone present some kind of valid argument which proves that forcing a draft would be required and do good for the united states and the world in the context of modern military conflicts; that it is more valuable than freedom and individual choice; that the punishment is in any way equal to the  crime  of not wanting to join armed forces and become an accessory to legalized murder; that this country needs such large armed forces for defense in a draft, since foreign troops have not been on our soils since we defeated the british in the revolution and war of 0; and that these things are objectively required for a free society outside of some slippery slope or otherwise overtly patriotic nonsense.   #  you are promising these kids who are in high school worrying about their future that if you sign up for the army they will cover all your educational needs.   #  putting your body on the line is a career investment, so they advertise.   #  so do businesses with jobs and religious groups.  there is nothing wrong with being made aware of your options.  if you ca not make important life decisions when you are 0, then when can you ? these are not  children , they are legal adults.  if they watch the news, then they are well aware that military service has risks.  putting your body on the line is a career investment, so they advertise.  what is the problem ? they  do  pay for your education, and the benefits of a career in the military are pretty awesome.  it is a fundamental breach of our freedoms and rights, and is wrong.  when was the last time there was a draft ? a nation needs to defend itself, and that is the duty of living in a nation.  luckily, we do not need to draft.  if we did need to draft, the alternative would be to not draft and lose the country.  voting, protest, and activism would not have stopped germany in world war ii.  joining the military is not about political change, it is about defending the country.  you ca not substitute one for the other because they serve different purposes.  i do not have to argue in the context of modern military conflicts, because the draft was not used nor is it intended to be used in that context.  if we did not have the troops to do combat against isis, we would simply not engage in it instead of drafting people.   #  the biggest difference is that the military is not directed by a ceo looking to maximize profits, they are directed by the president of the united states looking to protect the well being of his country and government.   #  i am a pretty liberal guy who signed up for the air force simply due to lack of options in my early 0s.  say what you will about selective service, i do not care about that topic, but i get so tired of hearing about people throwing fits when military people are in and around a high school campus.  the military runs somewhat like any private business in the us.  you have recruitment, training programs, promotions, internal politics, the whole shebang.  the biggest difference is that the military is not directed by a ceo looking to maximize profits, they are directed by the president of the united states looking to protect the well being of his country and government.  however much you agree or disagree with any particular presidents policies, that does not make the military and their involvement with young men and women looking for a way forward any more malevolent.  and honestly, the military has some of the best training options a high school student would be interested in.  the obvious one of joining and getting an immediate career as well as 0 years of experience all just for signing a contract.  0 paid scholarships to the college of your choice if that job requires training that you do not have.  special duty assignments to exotic locations.  a plethora of careers ranging from air traffic control to music.  i would be the first person to advise a kid against joining the military  just because.   i think that is a terrible decision, it is not going to get you anywhere and when you are done with your time you will be 0 years older than when you left with nothing useful learned.  but if you have a goal like say you want to be a veterinarian and do not know how to get there, the military is a great place to talk to people.  make sure you are getting set up with a program that you are excited about and remember that at the end of the day you are the person who gets to decide if what they are offering lines up with what you want.  the military can set a kid on the right path to have a very successful rest of their life, i am one of those people.  but remember that the recruiter is not there to make sure you are getting the perfect career you never knew you wanted, they are there to get you to sign the damn paper.  treat any interactions with a recruiter like an interview rather than christmas, and you just might end up with a job you want.  it really helps when you know what you want to do but have no fucking clue how to get there.   #  the military trains people to be soldiers, they make the time and monetary investment to transform them from civilian to soldier.   #  that is because no high school/college kid will ever be able to meet the standards of blackwater.  the military trains people to be soldiers, they make the time and monetary investment to transform them from civilian to soldier.  blackwater just takes people that already knows what they are doing.  also, i hate blackwater and the like.  when i was deployed we had to pick up the contractors messes on more than several occasions.  i really ca not stand them and they made the actual soldiers and marines jobs much harder than they needed to be since to the locals there was no difference.   #  in our form of government, we have elected officials who have the authority and responsibility for deciding what is and is not worth employing military force.   # the selective service system sss is a registration requirement, not a draft.  in the current context, there is no need for a draft, which is why we do not have one.  however, sss registration is maintained as a contingency against a threat that would require a draft.  it mitigates the costs and delays that would be associated with identifying all draft eligible people in the event of a  total war  threat.  citizenship comes with both rights and responsibilities.  one of those responsibilities is the defense of the nation through military service.  in our form of government, we have elected officials who have the authority and responsibility for deciding what is and is not worth employing military force.  the penalties for non registration are threats to produce maximum compliance among the population.  there are always those who will and those who wo not comply no matter what the penalties are, but there is also a large number of people who can be convinced to comply because the cost of noncompliance it is too great.  the penalties are set so those in making a cost benefit decision will decide to comply.  these people may range from the guy who considers filling out the form at the post office to an inconvenience, but would comply to avoid a $0 fine and those who are mad at the government and want to  stick it to the man , but are not willing to go to jail over their anger.   #  the safety of american citizens was directly affected by the war.   # one of those responsibilities is the defense of the nation through military service.  in our form of government, we have elected devil is advocate here: what about shit like vietnam ? our nation was never under threat, nor were any of our close allies.  that did not stop lbj and nixon from overseeing a draft for the war effort.  wwii was different, as the us merchant marine fleet was under threat of japanese and german attacks just going about their business for commerce.  the safety of american citizens was directly affected by the war.  and what of the unorganized militia ? the militia act of 0 defines all males 0 to 0 as the unorganized militia, in which they may privately organize or work alone to fight off any invaders.  there is also the organized militia that is the national guard.  does that not suffice to protect us from invasion ? we have the world is largest populace of gun owners.  an invading army would be insane to even think of landing here.
for those who do not know about the selective service act in the united states; here is a quote from sss. gov URL on their faq URL registration is a way our government keeps a list of names of men from which to draw in case of a national emergency requiring rapid expansion of our armed forces.  by registering all young men, the selective service ensures that a future draft will be fair and equitable.   and  failure to register is a violation of the military selective service act.  conviction for such a violation may result in imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $0,0.  i think the whole thing is fundamentally wrong:   you are being sexist and singling out young men to take away to war, girls get off entirely   you have got troops coming into schools to try and recruit children, which preys on youthful naivety and that feeling of invincibility inherent to children   you are promising these kids who are in high school worrying about their future that if you sign up for the army they will cover all your educational needs.  putting your body on the line is a   career investment  , so they advertise.    you are severely punishing anyone who defies this idea of being drafted into the military.  it is a fundamental breach of our freedoms and rights, and is wrong.  this system almost requires every man and boy in the country to commit themselves to military service, to joining a massively over funded part of our government which is effectively an organization of disciplined murderers.  i feel that expressing my opinions with my vote, protest, and activism does more good than joining the military to lay down my life for a corrupt government.  i will more than willingly die for my family, or die in the name of this country, but not for this nation, not for the aristocracy that runs it.  if you want to lay down your life in this nation is unjustified wars, which the rest of the world condemns us constantly for, be my guest.  you can die for your nation, i would rather live for my country.  i would like to see someone present some kind of valid argument which proves that forcing a draft would be required and do good for the united states and the world in the context of modern military conflicts; that it is more valuable than freedom and individual choice; that the punishment is in any way equal to the  crime  of not wanting to join armed forces and become an accessory to legalized murder; that this country needs such large armed forces for defense in a draft, since foreign troops have not been on our soils since we defeated the british in the revolution and war of 0; and that these things are objectively required for a free society outside of some slippery slope or otherwise overtly patriotic nonsense.   #  you are severely punishing anyone who defies this idea of being drafted into the military.   #  it is a fundamental breach of our freedoms and rights, and is wrong.   #  so do businesses with jobs and religious groups.  there is nothing wrong with being made aware of your options.  if you ca not make important life decisions when you are 0, then when can you ? these are not  children , they are legal adults.  if they watch the news, then they are well aware that military service has risks.  putting your body on the line is a career investment, so they advertise.  what is the problem ? they  do  pay for your education, and the benefits of a career in the military are pretty awesome.  it is a fundamental breach of our freedoms and rights, and is wrong.  when was the last time there was a draft ? a nation needs to defend itself, and that is the duty of living in a nation.  luckily, we do not need to draft.  if we did need to draft, the alternative would be to not draft and lose the country.  voting, protest, and activism would not have stopped germany in world war ii.  joining the military is not about political change, it is about defending the country.  you ca not substitute one for the other because they serve different purposes.  i do not have to argue in the context of modern military conflicts, because the draft was not used nor is it intended to be used in that context.  if we did not have the troops to do combat against isis, we would simply not engage in it instead of drafting people.   #  treat any interactions with a recruiter like an interview rather than christmas, and you just might end up with a job you want.   #  i am a pretty liberal guy who signed up for the air force simply due to lack of options in my early 0s.  say what you will about selective service, i do not care about that topic, but i get so tired of hearing about people throwing fits when military people are in and around a high school campus.  the military runs somewhat like any private business in the us.  you have recruitment, training programs, promotions, internal politics, the whole shebang.  the biggest difference is that the military is not directed by a ceo looking to maximize profits, they are directed by the president of the united states looking to protect the well being of his country and government.  however much you agree or disagree with any particular presidents policies, that does not make the military and their involvement with young men and women looking for a way forward any more malevolent.  and honestly, the military has some of the best training options a high school student would be interested in.  the obvious one of joining and getting an immediate career as well as 0 years of experience all just for signing a contract.  0 paid scholarships to the college of your choice if that job requires training that you do not have.  special duty assignments to exotic locations.  a plethora of careers ranging from air traffic control to music.  i would be the first person to advise a kid against joining the military  just because.   i think that is a terrible decision, it is not going to get you anywhere and when you are done with your time you will be 0 years older than when you left with nothing useful learned.  but if you have a goal like say you want to be a veterinarian and do not know how to get there, the military is a great place to talk to people.  make sure you are getting set up with a program that you are excited about and remember that at the end of the day you are the person who gets to decide if what they are offering lines up with what you want.  the military can set a kid on the right path to have a very successful rest of their life, i am one of those people.  but remember that the recruiter is not there to make sure you are getting the perfect career you never knew you wanted, they are there to get you to sign the damn paper.  treat any interactions with a recruiter like an interview rather than christmas, and you just might end up with a job you want.  it really helps when you know what you want to do but have no fucking clue how to get there.   #  when i was deployed we had to pick up the contractors messes on more than several occasions.   #  that is because no high school/college kid will ever be able to meet the standards of blackwater.  the military trains people to be soldiers, they make the time and monetary investment to transform them from civilian to soldier.  blackwater just takes people that already knows what they are doing.  also, i hate blackwater and the like.  when i was deployed we had to pick up the contractors messes on more than several occasions.  i really ca not stand them and they made the actual soldiers and marines jobs much harder than they needed to be since to the locals there was no difference.   #  the penalties are set so those in making a cost benefit decision will decide to comply.   # the selective service system sss is a registration requirement, not a draft.  in the current context, there is no need for a draft, which is why we do not have one.  however, sss registration is maintained as a contingency against a threat that would require a draft.  it mitigates the costs and delays that would be associated with identifying all draft eligible people in the event of a  total war  threat.  citizenship comes with both rights and responsibilities.  one of those responsibilities is the defense of the nation through military service.  in our form of government, we have elected officials who have the authority and responsibility for deciding what is and is not worth employing military force.  the penalties for non registration are threats to produce maximum compliance among the population.  there are always those who will and those who wo not comply no matter what the penalties are, but there is also a large number of people who can be convinced to comply because the cost of noncompliance it is too great.  the penalties are set so those in making a cost benefit decision will decide to comply.  these people may range from the guy who considers filling out the form at the post office to an inconvenience, but would comply to avoid a $0 fine and those who are mad at the government and want to  stick it to the man , but are not willing to go to jail over their anger.   #  does that not suffice to protect us from invasion ?  # one of those responsibilities is the defense of the nation through military service.  in our form of government, we have elected devil is advocate here: what about shit like vietnam ? our nation was never under threat, nor were any of our close allies.  that did not stop lbj and nixon from overseeing a draft for the war effort.  wwii was different, as the us merchant marine fleet was under threat of japanese and german attacks just going about their business for commerce.  the safety of american citizens was directly affected by the war.  and what of the unorganized militia ? the militia act of 0 defines all males 0 to 0 as the unorganized militia, in which they may privately organize or work alone to fight off any invaders.  there is also the organized militia that is the national guard.  does that not suffice to protect us from invasion ? we have the world is largest populace of gun owners.  an invading army would be insane to even think of landing here.
for those who do not know about the selective service act in the united states; here is a quote from sss. gov URL on their faq URL registration is a way our government keeps a list of names of men from which to draw in case of a national emergency requiring rapid expansion of our armed forces.  by registering all young men, the selective service ensures that a future draft will be fair and equitable.   and  failure to register is a violation of the military selective service act.  conviction for such a violation may result in imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $0,0.  i think the whole thing is fundamentally wrong:   you are being sexist and singling out young men to take away to war, girls get off entirely   you have got troops coming into schools to try and recruit children, which preys on youthful naivety and that feeling of invincibility inherent to children   you are promising these kids who are in high school worrying about their future that if you sign up for the army they will cover all your educational needs.  putting your body on the line is a   career investment  , so they advertise.    you are severely punishing anyone who defies this idea of being drafted into the military.  it is a fundamental breach of our freedoms and rights, and is wrong.  this system almost requires every man and boy in the country to commit themselves to military service, to joining a massively over funded part of our government which is effectively an organization of disciplined murderers.  i feel that expressing my opinions with my vote, protest, and activism does more good than joining the military to lay down my life for a corrupt government.  i will more than willingly die for my family, or die in the name of this country, but not for this nation, not for the aristocracy that runs it.  if you want to lay down your life in this nation is unjustified wars, which the rest of the world condemns us constantly for, be my guest.  you can die for your nation, i would rather live for my country.  i would like to see someone present some kind of valid argument which proves that forcing a draft would be required and do good for the united states and the world in the context of modern military conflicts; that it is more valuable than freedom and individual choice; that the punishment is in any way equal to the  crime  of not wanting to join armed forces and become an accessory to legalized murder; that this country needs such large armed forces for defense in a draft, since foreign troops have not been on our soils since we defeated the british in the revolution and war of 0; and that these things are objectively required for a free society outside of some slippery slope or otherwise overtly patriotic nonsense.   #  i feel that expressing my opinions with my vote, protest, and activism does more good than joining the military to lay down my life for a corrupt government.   #  voting, protest, and activism would not have stopped germany in world war ii.   #  so do businesses with jobs and religious groups.  there is nothing wrong with being made aware of your options.  if you ca not make important life decisions when you are 0, then when can you ? these are not  children , they are legal adults.  if they watch the news, then they are well aware that military service has risks.  putting your body on the line is a career investment, so they advertise.  what is the problem ? they  do  pay for your education, and the benefits of a career in the military are pretty awesome.  it is a fundamental breach of our freedoms and rights, and is wrong.  when was the last time there was a draft ? a nation needs to defend itself, and that is the duty of living in a nation.  luckily, we do not need to draft.  if we did need to draft, the alternative would be to not draft and lose the country.  voting, protest, and activism would not have stopped germany in world war ii.  joining the military is not about political change, it is about defending the country.  you ca not substitute one for the other because they serve different purposes.  i do not have to argue in the context of modern military conflicts, because the draft was not used nor is it intended to be used in that context.  if we did not have the troops to do combat against isis, we would simply not engage in it instead of drafting people.   #  the obvious one of joining and getting an immediate career as well as 0 years of experience all just for signing a contract.   #  i am a pretty liberal guy who signed up for the air force simply due to lack of options in my early 0s.  say what you will about selective service, i do not care about that topic, but i get so tired of hearing about people throwing fits when military people are in and around a high school campus.  the military runs somewhat like any private business in the us.  you have recruitment, training programs, promotions, internal politics, the whole shebang.  the biggest difference is that the military is not directed by a ceo looking to maximize profits, they are directed by the president of the united states looking to protect the well being of his country and government.  however much you agree or disagree with any particular presidents policies, that does not make the military and their involvement with young men and women looking for a way forward any more malevolent.  and honestly, the military has some of the best training options a high school student would be interested in.  the obvious one of joining and getting an immediate career as well as 0 years of experience all just for signing a contract.  0 paid scholarships to the college of your choice if that job requires training that you do not have.  special duty assignments to exotic locations.  a plethora of careers ranging from air traffic control to music.  i would be the first person to advise a kid against joining the military  just because.   i think that is a terrible decision, it is not going to get you anywhere and when you are done with your time you will be 0 years older than when you left with nothing useful learned.  but if you have a goal like say you want to be a veterinarian and do not know how to get there, the military is a great place to talk to people.  make sure you are getting set up with a program that you are excited about and remember that at the end of the day you are the person who gets to decide if what they are offering lines up with what you want.  the military can set a kid on the right path to have a very successful rest of their life, i am one of those people.  but remember that the recruiter is not there to make sure you are getting the perfect career you never knew you wanted, they are there to get you to sign the damn paper.  treat any interactions with a recruiter like an interview rather than christmas, and you just might end up with a job you want.  it really helps when you know what you want to do but have no fucking clue how to get there.   #  that is because no high school/college kid will ever be able to meet the standards of blackwater.   #  that is because no high school/college kid will ever be able to meet the standards of blackwater.  the military trains people to be soldiers, they make the time and monetary investment to transform them from civilian to soldier.  blackwater just takes people that already knows what they are doing.  also, i hate blackwater and the like.  when i was deployed we had to pick up the contractors messes on more than several occasions.  i really ca not stand them and they made the actual soldiers and marines jobs much harder than they needed to be since to the locals there was no difference.   #  the penalties are set so those in making a cost benefit decision will decide to comply.   # the selective service system sss is a registration requirement, not a draft.  in the current context, there is no need for a draft, which is why we do not have one.  however, sss registration is maintained as a contingency against a threat that would require a draft.  it mitigates the costs and delays that would be associated with identifying all draft eligible people in the event of a  total war  threat.  citizenship comes with both rights and responsibilities.  one of those responsibilities is the defense of the nation through military service.  in our form of government, we have elected officials who have the authority and responsibility for deciding what is and is not worth employing military force.  the penalties for non registration are threats to produce maximum compliance among the population.  there are always those who will and those who wo not comply no matter what the penalties are, but there is also a large number of people who can be convinced to comply because the cost of noncompliance it is too great.  the penalties are set so those in making a cost benefit decision will decide to comply.  these people may range from the guy who considers filling out the form at the post office to an inconvenience, but would comply to avoid a $0 fine and those who are mad at the government and want to  stick it to the man , but are not willing to go to jail over their anger.   #  does that not suffice to protect us from invasion ?  # one of those responsibilities is the defense of the nation through military service.  in our form of government, we have elected devil is advocate here: what about shit like vietnam ? our nation was never under threat, nor were any of our close allies.  that did not stop lbj and nixon from overseeing a draft for the war effort.  wwii was different, as the us merchant marine fleet was under threat of japanese and german attacks just going about their business for commerce.  the safety of american citizens was directly affected by the war.  and what of the unorganized militia ? the militia act of 0 defines all males 0 to 0 as the unorganized militia, in which they may privately organize or work alone to fight off any invaders.  there is also the organized militia that is the national guard.  does that not suffice to protect us from invasion ? we have the world is largest populace of gun owners.  an invading army would be insane to even think of landing here.
my position is that peanuts is an overrated comic strip unworthy of its reputation as one of the best strips of all time.  note that i did not say it is a bad comic i have read it since i was a kid and actually subscribe to the /r/peanuts subreddit.  just like there will always be a place in our hearts for a plot hole ridden classic film like  wizard of oz , so too will peanuts always hold a place as an iconic staple in the comic lover is heart.  but the comic itself is not worthy of such high praise when viewed on its merits: 0.  the actual art style of the comic is usually very repetitive and plain.  most of the art consists of the characters talking to each other in front of sparse backgrounds such as walking, the pitching mound, lucy is psychiatric stand, or the pumpkin patch.  rarely do the animations depict any interesting action, and they are usually interchangeable between days.  0.  the comic is comedy or sentimental value is also objectively low.  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.  instead we read to see beloved characters acting out some one note plot over four frames.  0.  most of the most beloved parts of  peanuts  are actually from the animated tv specials such as the  wa wa  sound of the teacher, the distinctive peanuts theme song, and the dancing scenes with the characters.  these elements do not exist in the realm of the comic, making the tv specials arguably more important to american pop culture than the comic itself.  those are my primary arguments but i am open to change so cmv !  #  the actual art style of the comic is usually very repetitive and plain.   #  most of the art consists of the characters talking to each other in front of sparse backgrounds such as walking, the pitching mound, lucy is psychiatric stand, or the pumpkin patch.   # most of the art consists of the characters talking to each other in front of sparse backgrounds such as walking, the pitching mound, lucy is psychiatric stand, or the pumpkin patch.  rarely do the animations depict any interesting action, and they are usually interchangeable between days.  one of the most fascinating things about peanuts is actually the way that schulz is art evolves over the course of the strip.  although it is true that any strips day to day or even week to week might have interchangeable character designs, a strip from 0 URL looks very, very different from a strip from 0 URL the designs eventually became the designs that we all know the 0s strips are pretty close , but the iconic designs are iconic for a reason; there is something brilliant about how some features are set in stone with precise lines but others are scribbled so that they are different every time check out this strip URL from 0 .  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.  instead we read to see beloved characters acting out some one note plot over four frames.  peanuts is not about sentiment or really about humor.  peanuts is very dark at its core; it is about a boy and his dog who ca not catch a break.  the world constantly shits all over charlie brown and his friends mostly do not care or find it entertaining.  his sister sally finds out he is in the hospital and she is more worried about whether or not she should feed the dog.  for the most part he internalizes it and he is often prone to bouts of sarcasm as in the 0 strip, or serious anxiety as the 0 strip.  charlie brown is lonely and depressed.  his friends are all fucked up in their own ways as well, in matters of crippling unrequited love or crippling insecurity.  something horrible must be happening at home to make lucy so angry at the world that she lashes out at other kids and laughs bitterly at their misfortunes and psychological problems.  in addition to this, schulz has a flair for the abstract and the minimal, as evidenced by both the character designs and the strips from 0 and 0, both of which feature two words or less.  peanuts was also quite a progressive strip and was important in breaking barriers, featuring black characters and female characters in the 0s, 0s and 0s that certainly did not conform to the stereotypes of the time.  compare peppermint patty to something like stan lee is invisible girl of a similar time period and it is night and day.  these elements do not exist in the realm of the comic, making the tv specials arguably more important to american pop culture than the comic itself.  the tv specials are quite iconic as well.  but there would be no tv specials without the comic strip, and schulz was heavily involved in the tv specials.  the fact that the tv specials were also very popular and contributed a lot to pop culture does not diminish the impact that the comic strip had.  according to wikipedia,  at its peak, peanuts ran in over 0,0 newspapers, with a readership of 0 million in 0 countries, and was translated into 0 languages.   there are many, many iconic concepts ranging from lucy is therapy stand to linus  security blanket that come from the strip, in addition again to those iconic character designs.  peanuts helped to cement the four panel newspaper daily strip.  peanuts has been running in pretty much every newspaper in america that features comic strips for decades.   #  instead of having the comic strip is adults explain the joke or provide a punchline, the strip requires audience interpretation of what is happening within it in order to be effective.   #  it seems to me that your opinion is very similar to if not exactly the same as seinfeld is unfunny URL peanuts was the first comic strip to treat children as a subject rather than an object being commented upon by the adults in the strip.  instead of having the comic strip is adults explain the joke or provide a punchline, the strip requires audience interpretation of what is happening within it in order to be effective.  in doing so peanuts was able to occasionally subvert the audience is expectations of what a comic strip should be and provide a larger variety commentary than a comic strip that is just about the punchline.  peanuts was like a well defined dividing line between what people thought comic strips were and what audiences found out they could be.  every comic strip that you can name that came after it was influenced by it in some way and you would be hard pressed to find a comic strip creator that came after charles schulz who was unaffected by peanuts  presence.  basically, to me your argument boils down to something like  snow white is overrated and films like the lion king are much better.   of course the lion king is better to a modern audience, it was made for a modern audience.  but if films like snow white had not created an audience where none had existed before then hollywood animation would not even be a shadow of what it is now.   #  i am by no means an authority, but even just looking at wikipedia, these appear to be examples of classic strips from before peanuts that had very long runs.   #  i am by no means an authority, but even just looking at wikipedia, these appear to be examples of classic strips from before peanuts that had very long runs.  URL URL URL for an example of a more recognizable comic with a more traditional style, look at family circus URL which is a pretty classic counterexample.  we are supposed to laugh at the way kids are different from adults and have different expectations.  compare that to the very first peanuts strip, which is commenting on its adult audience using children as the subject: URL that is not an example of  kids are so strange sometimes.   it is telling the audience that adults can be very childish, because adults act like that all the time.   #  it involved a lot of stripping down of the backgrounds of traditional strips, while putting in continuity that 0 panel gags did not need.   #  it is not  right  exactly to compare peanuts to the 0 panel strips that came after.  the right comparison is to 0 panel gags e. g.  new yorker or the like which he drew before he came up with this format.  comics at the time fell into long stories e. g.  little lulu  or the single gag strip.  the  0 panel pacing  was very much invented by schultz.  just as a business matter, it was a great sell to newspaper editors.  it did not have to be on the  long comics  pages but could be slipped in anywhere like a one panel cartoon.  but it could be done as a horizontal strip, a vertical strip, or a square.  wow ! best filler ever ! so think of it as taking the  single gag  format and making mini 0 panel stories, and developing the consistent rhythm of that type of punchline where that format did not exist before.  and coming up with continuous storylines, 0 panels a day, 0 strips a week that was new, too.  it involved a lot of stripping down of the backgrounds of traditional strips, while putting in continuity that 0 panel gags did not need.  in this sense, it was very very innovative comic.   #  it was not the first strip to have children as main characters, but it was one of ?  #  i may have unintentionally misrepresented the history of peanuts.  it was not the first strip to have children as main characters, but it was one of ? the first to essentially treat them as adults and use the characters to comment on something other than the children themselves.  also, it may have been the first to have no adults at all.  as far as i can tell from wikipedia little nemo was more narrative driven and was not attempting to hold a mirror up to an adult audience nor was it driven as a form of commentary.  peanuts american also was the first comic to use the four panel layout, which i was unaware of until this thread.
my position is that peanuts is an overrated comic strip unworthy of its reputation as one of the best strips of all time.  note that i did not say it is a bad comic i have read it since i was a kid and actually subscribe to the /r/peanuts subreddit.  just like there will always be a place in our hearts for a plot hole ridden classic film like  wizard of oz , so too will peanuts always hold a place as an iconic staple in the comic lover is heart.  but the comic itself is not worthy of such high praise when viewed on its merits: 0.  the actual art style of the comic is usually very repetitive and plain.  most of the art consists of the characters talking to each other in front of sparse backgrounds such as walking, the pitching mound, lucy is psychiatric stand, or the pumpkin patch.  rarely do the animations depict any interesting action, and they are usually interchangeable between days.  0.  the comic is comedy or sentimental value is also objectively low.  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.  instead we read to see beloved characters acting out some one note plot over four frames.  0.  most of the most beloved parts of  peanuts  are actually from the animated tv specials such as the  wa wa  sound of the teacher, the distinctive peanuts theme song, and the dancing scenes with the characters.  these elements do not exist in the realm of the comic, making the tv specials arguably more important to american pop culture than the comic itself.  those are my primary arguments but i am open to change so cmv !  #  the comic is comedy or sentimental value is also objectively low.   #  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.   # most of the art consists of the characters talking to each other in front of sparse backgrounds such as walking, the pitching mound, lucy is psychiatric stand, or the pumpkin patch.  rarely do the animations depict any interesting action, and they are usually interchangeable between days.  one of the most fascinating things about peanuts is actually the way that schulz is art evolves over the course of the strip.  although it is true that any strips day to day or even week to week might have interchangeable character designs, a strip from 0 URL looks very, very different from a strip from 0 URL the designs eventually became the designs that we all know the 0s strips are pretty close , but the iconic designs are iconic for a reason; there is something brilliant about how some features are set in stone with precise lines but others are scribbled so that they are different every time check out this strip URL from 0 .  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.  instead we read to see beloved characters acting out some one note plot over four frames.  peanuts is not about sentiment or really about humor.  peanuts is very dark at its core; it is about a boy and his dog who ca not catch a break.  the world constantly shits all over charlie brown and his friends mostly do not care or find it entertaining.  his sister sally finds out he is in the hospital and she is more worried about whether or not she should feed the dog.  for the most part he internalizes it and he is often prone to bouts of sarcasm as in the 0 strip, or serious anxiety as the 0 strip.  charlie brown is lonely and depressed.  his friends are all fucked up in their own ways as well, in matters of crippling unrequited love or crippling insecurity.  something horrible must be happening at home to make lucy so angry at the world that she lashes out at other kids and laughs bitterly at their misfortunes and psychological problems.  in addition to this, schulz has a flair for the abstract and the minimal, as evidenced by both the character designs and the strips from 0 and 0, both of which feature two words or less.  peanuts was also quite a progressive strip and was important in breaking barriers, featuring black characters and female characters in the 0s, 0s and 0s that certainly did not conform to the stereotypes of the time.  compare peppermint patty to something like stan lee is invisible girl of a similar time period and it is night and day.  these elements do not exist in the realm of the comic, making the tv specials arguably more important to american pop culture than the comic itself.  the tv specials are quite iconic as well.  but there would be no tv specials without the comic strip, and schulz was heavily involved in the tv specials.  the fact that the tv specials were also very popular and contributed a lot to pop culture does not diminish the impact that the comic strip had.  according to wikipedia,  at its peak, peanuts ran in over 0,0 newspapers, with a readership of 0 million in 0 countries, and was translated into 0 languages.   there are many, many iconic concepts ranging from lucy is therapy stand to linus  security blanket that come from the strip, in addition again to those iconic character designs.  peanuts helped to cement the four panel newspaper daily strip.  peanuts has been running in pretty much every newspaper in america that features comic strips for decades.   #  in doing so peanuts was able to occasionally subvert the audience is expectations of what a comic strip should be and provide a larger variety commentary than a comic strip that is just about the punchline.   #  it seems to me that your opinion is very similar to if not exactly the same as seinfeld is unfunny URL peanuts was the first comic strip to treat children as a subject rather than an object being commented upon by the adults in the strip.  instead of having the comic strip is adults explain the joke or provide a punchline, the strip requires audience interpretation of what is happening within it in order to be effective.  in doing so peanuts was able to occasionally subvert the audience is expectations of what a comic strip should be and provide a larger variety commentary than a comic strip that is just about the punchline.  peanuts was like a well defined dividing line between what people thought comic strips were and what audiences found out they could be.  every comic strip that you can name that came after it was influenced by it in some way and you would be hard pressed to find a comic strip creator that came after charles schulz who was unaffected by peanuts  presence.  basically, to me your argument boils down to something like  snow white is overrated and films like the lion king are much better.   of course the lion king is better to a modern audience, it was made for a modern audience.  but if films like snow white had not created an audience where none had existed before then hollywood animation would not even be a shadow of what it is now.   #  URL URL URL for an example of a more recognizable comic with a more traditional style, look at family circus URL which is a pretty classic counterexample.   #  i am by no means an authority, but even just looking at wikipedia, these appear to be examples of classic strips from before peanuts that had very long runs.  URL URL URL for an example of a more recognizable comic with a more traditional style, look at family circus URL which is a pretty classic counterexample.  we are supposed to laugh at the way kids are different from adults and have different expectations.  compare that to the very first peanuts strip, which is commenting on its adult audience using children as the subject: URL that is not an example of  kids are so strange sometimes.   it is telling the audience that adults can be very childish, because adults act like that all the time.   #  new yorker or the like which he drew before he came up with this format.   #  it is not  right  exactly to compare peanuts to the 0 panel strips that came after.  the right comparison is to 0 panel gags e. g.  new yorker or the like which he drew before he came up with this format.  comics at the time fell into long stories e. g.  little lulu  or the single gag strip.  the  0 panel pacing  was very much invented by schultz.  just as a business matter, it was a great sell to newspaper editors.  it did not have to be on the  long comics  pages but could be slipped in anywhere like a one panel cartoon.  but it could be done as a horizontal strip, a vertical strip, or a square.  wow ! best filler ever ! so think of it as taking the  single gag  format and making mini 0 panel stories, and developing the consistent rhythm of that type of punchline where that format did not exist before.  and coming up with continuous storylines, 0 panels a day, 0 strips a week that was new, too.  it involved a lot of stripping down of the backgrounds of traditional strips, while putting in continuity that 0 panel gags did not need.  in this sense, it was very very innovative comic.   #  as far as i can tell from wikipedia little nemo was more narrative driven and was not attempting to hold a mirror up to an adult audience nor was it driven as a form of commentary.   #  i may have unintentionally misrepresented the history of peanuts.  it was not the first strip to have children as main characters, but it was one of ? the first to essentially treat them as adults and use the characters to comment on something other than the children themselves.  also, it may have been the first to have no adults at all.  as far as i can tell from wikipedia little nemo was more narrative driven and was not attempting to hold a mirror up to an adult audience nor was it driven as a form of commentary.  peanuts american also was the first comic to use the four panel layout, which i was unaware of until this thread.
my position is that peanuts is an overrated comic strip unworthy of its reputation as one of the best strips of all time.  note that i did not say it is a bad comic i have read it since i was a kid and actually subscribe to the /r/peanuts subreddit.  just like there will always be a place in our hearts for a plot hole ridden classic film like  wizard of oz , so too will peanuts always hold a place as an iconic staple in the comic lover is heart.  but the comic itself is not worthy of such high praise when viewed on its merits: 0.  the actual art style of the comic is usually very repetitive and plain.  most of the art consists of the characters talking to each other in front of sparse backgrounds such as walking, the pitching mound, lucy is psychiatric stand, or the pumpkin patch.  rarely do the animations depict any interesting action, and they are usually interchangeable between days.  0.  the comic is comedy or sentimental value is also objectively low.  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.  instead we read to see beloved characters acting out some one note plot over four frames.  0.  most of the most beloved parts of  peanuts  are actually from the animated tv specials such as the  wa wa  sound of the teacher, the distinctive peanuts theme song, and the dancing scenes with the characters.  these elements do not exist in the realm of the comic, making the tv specials arguably more important to american pop culture than the comic itself.  those are my primary arguments but i am open to change so cmv !  #  most of the most beloved parts of  peanuts  are actually from the animated tv specials such as the  wa wa  sound of the teacher, the distinctive peanuts theme song, and the dancing scenes with the characters.   #  these elements do not exist in the realm of the comic, making the tv specials arguably more important to american pop culture than the comic itself.   # most of the art consists of the characters talking to each other in front of sparse backgrounds such as walking, the pitching mound, lucy is psychiatric stand, or the pumpkin patch.  rarely do the animations depict any interesting action, and they are usually interchangeable between days.  one of the most fascinating things about peanuts is actually the way that schulz is art evolves over the course of the strip.  although it is true that any strips day to day or even week to week might have interchangeable character designs, a strip from 0 URL looks very, very different from a strip from 0 URL the designs eventually became the designs that we all know the 0s strips are pretty close , but the iconic designs are iconic for a reason; there is something brilliant about how some features are set in stone with precise lines but others are scribbled so that they are different every time check out this strip URL from 0 .  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.  instead we read to see beloved characters acting out some one note plot over four frames.  peanuts is not about sentiment or really about humor.  peanuts is very dark at its core; it is about a boy and his dog who ca not catch a break.  the world constantly shits all over charlie brown and his friends mostly do not care or find it entertaining.  his sister sally finds out he is in the hospital and she is more worried about whether or not she should feed the dog.  for the most part he internalizes it and he is often prone to bouts of sarcasm as in the 0 strip, or serious anxiety as the 0 strip.  charlie brown is lonely and depressed.  his friends are all fucked up in their own ways as well, in matters of crippling unrequited love or crippling insecurity.  something horrible must be happening at home to make lucy so angry at the world that she lashes out at other kids and laughs bitterly at their misfortunes and psychological problems.  in addition to this, schulz has a flair for the abstract and the minimal, as evidenced by both the character designs and the strips from 0 and 0, both of which feature two words or less.  peanuts was also quite a progressive strip and was important in breaking barriers, featuring black characters and female characters in the 0s, 0s and 0s that certainly did not conform to the stereotypes of the time.  compare peppermint patty to something like stan lee is invisible girl of a similar time period and it is night and day.  these elements do not exist in the realm of the comic, making the tv specials arguably more important to american pop culture than the comic itself.  the tv specials are quite iconic as well.  but there would be no tv specials without the comic strip, and schulz was heavily involved in the tv specials.  the fact that the tv specials were also very popular and contributed a lot to pop culture does not diminish the impact that the comic strip had.  according to wikipedia,  at its peak, peanuts ran in over 0,0 newspapers, with a readership of 0 million in 0 countries, and was translated into 0 languages.   there are many, many iconic concepts ranging from lucy is therapy stand to linus  security blanket that come from the strip, in addition again to those iconic character designs.  peanuts helped to cement the four panel newspaper daily strip.  peanuts has been running in pretty much every newspaper in america that features comic strips for decades.   #  in doing so peanuts was able to occasionally subvert the audience is expectations of what a comic strip should be and provide a larger variety commentary than a comic strip that is just about the punchline.   #  it seems to me that your opinion is very similar to if not exactly the same as seinfeld is unfunny URL peanuts was the first comic strip to treat children as a subject rather than an object being commented upon by the adults in the strip.  instead of having the comic strip is adults explain the joke or provide a punchline, the strip requires audience interpretation of what is happening within it in order to be effective.  in doing so peanuts was able to occasionally subvert the audience is expectations of what a comic strip should be and provide a larger variety commentary than a comic strip that is just about the punchline.  peanuts was like a well defined dividing line between what people thought comic strips were and what audiences found out they could be.  every comic strip that you can name that came after it was influenced by it in some way and you would be hard pressed to find a comic strip creator that came after charles schulz who was unaffected by peanuts  presence.  basically, to me your argument boils down to something like  snow white is overrated and films like the lion king are much better.   of course the lion king is better to a modern audience, it was made for a modern audience.  but if films like snow white had not created an audience where none had existed before then hollywood animation would not even be a shadow of what it is now.   #  i am by no means an authority, but even just looking at wikipedia, these appear to be examples of classic strips from before peanuts that had very long runs.   #  i am by no means an authority, but even just looking at wikipedia, these appear to be examples of classic strips from before peanuts that had very long runs.  URL URL URL for an example of a more recognizable comic with a more traditional style, look at family circus URL which is a pretty classic counterexample.  we are supposed to laugh at the way kids are different from adults and have different expectations.  compare that to the very first peanuts strip, which is commenting on its adult audience using children as the subject: URL that is not an example of  kids are so strange sometimes.   it is telling the audience that adults can be very childish, because adults act like that all the time.   #  new yorker or the like which he drew before he came up with this format.   #  it is not  right  exactly to compare peanuts to the 0 panel strips that came after.  the right comparison is to 0 panel gags e. g.  new yorker or the like which he drew before he came up with this format.  comics at the time fell into long stories e. g.  little lulu  or the single gag strip.  the  0 panel pacing  was very much invented by schultz.  just as a business matter, it was a great sell to newspaper editors.  it did not have to be on the  long comics  pages but could be slipped in anywhere like a one panel cartoon.  but it could be done as a horizontal strip, a vertical strip, or a square.  wow ! best filler ever ! so think of it as taking the  single gag  format and making mini 0 panel stories, and developing the consistent rhythm of that type of punchline where that format did not exist before.  and coming up with continuous storylines, 0 panels a day, 0 strips a week that was new, too.  it involved a lot of stripping down of the backgrounds of traditional strips, while putting in continuity that 0 panel gags did not need.  in this sense, it was very very innovative comic.   #  the first to essentially treat them as adults and use the characters to comment on something other than the children themselves.   #  i may have unintentionally misrepresented the history of peanuts.  it was not the first strip to have children as main characters, but it was one of ? the first to essentially treat them as adults and use the characters to comment on something other than the children themselves.  also, it may have been the first to have no adults at all.  as far as i can tell from wikipedia little nemo was more narrative driven and was not attempting to hold a mirror up to an adult audience nor was it driven as a form of commentary.  peanuts american also was the first comic to use the four panel layout, which i was unaware of until this thread.
my position is that peanuts is an overrated comic strip unworthy of its reputation as one of the best strips of all time.  note that i did not say it is a bad comic i have read it since i was a kid and actually subscribe to the /r/peanuts subreddit.  just like there will always be a place in our hearts for a plot hole ridden classic film like  wizard of oz , so too will peanuts always hold a place as an iconic staple in the comic lover is heart.  but the comic itself is not worthy of such high praise when viewed on its merits: 0.  the actual art style of the comic is usually very repetitive and plain.  most of the art consists of the characters talking to each other in front of sparse backgrounds such as walking, the pitching mound, lucy is psychiatric stand, or the pumpkin patch.  rarely do the animations depict any interesting action, and they are usually interchangeable between days.  0.  the comic is comedy or sentimental value is also objectively low.  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.  instead we read to see beloved characters acting out some one note plot over four frames.  0.  most of the most beloved parts of  peanuts  are actually from the animated tv specials such as the  wa wa  sound of the teacher, the distinctive peanuts theme song, and the dancing scenes with the characters.  these elements do not exist in the realm of the comic, making the tv specials arguably more important to american pop culture than the comic itself.  those are my primary arguments but i am open to change so cmv !  #  the comic is comedy or sentimental value is also objectively low.   #  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.   # rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.  instead we read to see beloved characters acting out some one note plot over four frames.  this is literally not objective.  you are giving your subjective opinion on the comic, not making any kind of empirical objective determination.  i do not like peanuts either, but my grandparents  love  it.  the strip is very well loved by many, many people just not you or me , which is where it gets its reputation that you and i personally do not agree with.   #  of course the lion king is better to a modern audience, it was made for a modern audience.   #  it seems to me that your opinion is very similar to if not exactly the same as seinfeld is unfunny URL peanuts was the first comic strip to treat children as a subject rather than an object being commented upon by the adults in the strip.  instead of having the comic strip is adults explain the joke or provide a punchline, the strip requires audience interpretation of what is happening within it in order to be effective.  in doing so peanuts was able to occasionally subvert the audience is expectations of what a comic strip should be and provide a larger variety commentary than a comic strip that is just about the punchline.  peanuts was like a well defined dividing line between what people thought comic strips were and what audiences found out they could be.  every comic strip that you can name that came after it was influenced by it in some way and you would be hard pressed to find a comic strip creator that came after charles schulz who was unaffected by peanuts  presence.  basically, to me your argument boils down to something like  snow white is overrated and films like the lion king are much better.   of course the lion king is better to a modern audience, it was made for a modern audience.  but if films like snow white had not created an audience where none had existed before then hollywood animation would not even be a shadow of what it is now.   #  compare that to the very first peanuts strip, which is commenting on its adult audience using children as the subject: URL that is not an example of  kids are so strange sometimes.    #  i am by no means an authority, but even just looking at wikipedia, these appear to be examples of classic strips from before peanuts that had very long runs.  URL URL URL for an example of a more recognizable comic with a more traditional style, look at family circus URL which is a pretty classic counterexample.  we are supposed to laugh at the way kids are different from adults and have different expectations.  compare that to the very first peanuts strip, which is commenting on its adult audience using children as the subject: URL that is not an example of  kids are so strange sometimes.   it is telling the audience that adults can be very childish, because adults act like that all the time.   #  but it could be done as a horizontal strip, a vertical strip, or a square.   #  it is not  right  exactly to compare peanuts to the 0 panel strips that came after.  the right comparison is to 0 panel gags e. g.  new yorker or the like which he drew before he came up with this format.  comics at the time fell into long stories e. g.  little lulu  or the single gag strip.  the  0 panel pacing  was very much invented by schultz.  just as a business matter, it was a great sell to newspaper editors.  it did not have to be on the  long comics  pages but could be slipped in anywhere like a one panel cartoon.  but it could be done as a horizontal strip, a vertical strip, or a square.  wow ! best filler ever ! so think of it as taking the  single gag  format and making mini 0 panel stories, and developing the consistent rhythm of that type of punchline where that format did not exist before.  and coming up with continuous storylines, 0 panels a day, 0 strips a week that was new, too.  it involved a lot of stripping down of the backgrounds of traditional strips, while putting in continuity that 0 panel gags did not need.  in this sense, it was very very innovative comic.   #  as far as i can tell from wikipedia little nemo was more narrative driven and was not attempting to hold a mirror up to an adult audience nor was it driven as a form of commentary.   #  i may have unintentionally misrepresented the history of peanuts.  it was not the first strip to have children as main characters, but it was one of ? the first to essentially treat them as adults and use the characters to comment on something other than the children themselves.  also, it may have been the first to have no adults at all.  as far as i can tell from wikipedia little nemo was more narrative driven and was not attempting to hold a mirror up to an adult audience nor was it driven as a form of commentary.  peanuts american also was the first comic to use the four panel layout, which i was unaware of until this thread.
my position is that peanuts is an overrated comic strip unworthy of its reputation as one of the best strips of all time.  note that i did not say it is a bad comic i have read it since i was a kid and actually subscribe to the /r/peanuts subreddit.  just like there will always be a place in our hearts for a plot hole ridden classic film like  wizard of oz , so too will peanuts always hold a place as an iconic staple in the comic lover is heart.  but the comic itself is not worthy of such high praise when viewed on its merits: 0.  the actual art style of the comic is usually very repetitive and plain.  most of the art consists of the characters talking to each other in front of sparse backgrounds such as walking, the pitching mound, lucy is psychiatric stand, or the pumpkin patch.  rarely do the animations depict any interesting action, and they are usually interchangeable between days.  0.  the comic is comedy or sentimental value is also objectively low.  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.  instead we read to see beloved characters acting out some one note plot over four frames.  0.  most of the most beloved parts of  peanuts  are actually from the animated tv specials such as the  wa wa  sound of the teacher, the distinctive peanuts theme song, and the dancing scenes with the characters.  these elements do not exist in the realm of the comic, making the tv specials arguably more important to american pop culture than the comic itself.  those are my primary arguments but i am open to change so cmv !  #  the comic is comedy or sentimental value is also objectively low.   #  rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.   # rarely is a strip something that elicits even a smile, let alone some sort of profound emotion.  instead we read to see beloved characters acting out some one note plot over four frames.  no, that just makes you young and a bit shallow.  the style of humor as well as sentimentality are not meant for young, eager, go getters.  it is made for mature adults with responsibility, who have made sacrifices and generally are disillusioned with things.  if you fail to perceive that, which clearly judging by its deeply enduring popularity, is quite perceivable, is a reflection of your own ideas and understanding of the world.   #  peanuts was like a well defined dividing line between what people thought comic strips were and what audiences found out they could be.   #  it seems to me that your opinion is very similar to if not exactly the same as seinfeld is unfunny URL peanuts was the first comic strip to treat children as a subject rather than an object being commented upon by the adults in the strip.  instead of having the comic strip is adults explain the joke or provide a punchline, the strip requires audience interpretation of what is happening within it in order to be effective.  in doing so peanuts was able to occasionally subvert the audience is expectations of what a comic strip should be and provide a larger variety commentary than a comic strip that is just about the punchline.  peanuts was like a well defined dividing line between what people thought comic strips were and what audiences found out they could be.  every comic strip that you can name that came after it was influenced by it in some way and you would be hard pressed to find a comic strip creator that came after charles schulz who was unaffected by peanuts  presence.  basically, to me your argument boils down to something like  snow white is overrated and films like the lion king are much better.   of course the lion king is better to a modern audience, it was made for a modern audience.  but if films like snow white had not created an audience where none had existed before then hollywood animation would not even be a shadow of what it is now.   #  i am by no means an authority, but even just looking at wikipedia, these appear to be examples of classic strips from before peanuts that had very long runs.   #  i am by no means an authority, but even just looking at wikipedia, these appear to be examples of classic strips from before peanuts that had very long runs.  URL URL URL for an example of a more recognizable comic with a more traditional style, look at family circus URL which is a pretty classic counterexample.  we are supposed to laugh at the way kids are different from adults and have different expectations.  compare that to the very first peanuts strip, which is commenting on its adult audience using children as the subject: URL that is not an example of  kids are so strange sometimes.   it is telling the audience that adults can be very childish, because adults act like that all the time.   #  in this sense, it was very very innovative comic.   #  it is not  right  exactly to compare peanuts to the 0 panel strips that came after.  the right comparison is to 0 panel gags e. g.  new yorker or the like which he drew before he came up with this format.  comics at the time fell into long stories e. g.  little lulu  or the single gag strip.  the  0 panel pacing  was very much invented by schultz.  just as a business matter, it was a great sell to newspaper editors.  it did not have to be on the  long comics  pages but could be slipped in anywhere like a one panel cartoon.  but it could be done as a horizontal strip, a vertical strip, or a square.  wow ! best filler ever ! so think of it as taking the  single gag  format and making mini 0 panel stories, and developing the consistent rhythm of that type of punchline where that format did not exist before.  and coming up with continuous storylines, 0 panels a day, 0 strips a week that was new, too.  it involved a lot of stripping down of the backgrounds of traditional strips, while putting in continuity that 0 panel gags did not need.  in this sense, it was very very innovative comic.   #  the first to essentially treat them as adults and use the characters to comment on something other than the children themselves.   #  i may have unintentionally misrepresented the history of peanuts.  it was not the first strip to have children as main characters, but it was one of ? the first to essentially treat them as adults and use the characters to comment on something other than the children themselves.  also, it may have been the first to have no adults at all.  as far as i can tell from wikipedia little nemo was more narrative driven and was not attempting to hold a mirror up to an adult audience nor was it driven as a form of commentary.  peanuts american also was the first comic to use the four panel layout, which i was unaware of until this thread.
please cmv, i hate thinking this way but i look at the population and crime trends and ca not help but blame them.  how come they are not blamed ? because it is racist to criticize black people ? i have met a lot of great black people but i also grew up in a ghetto and seen the how the  bad  black people behave and i think society is just ignoring the  bad  black people and this hurts the  good  black people the most because they are stuck with a shitty reputation they do not deserve.  this is a real racial issue that i never ever see anyone talk about.  how come we ca not admit that horrible black people exist ? how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ? is not it just as racist to just blame whites for everything every single time ? i came to the us from eastern europe, yet i am treated like a kkk member when i criticize black people.  wtf ? thanks for the replies, i got some thinking to do.  this felt more like an offmychest post.  seriously insightful discussion, thanks everyone.  going to take a break.   #  please cmv, i hate thinking this way but i look at the population and crime trends and ca not help but blame them.   #  is crime the only thing that destroys cities ?  # is crime the only thing that destroys cities ? are not there ways to combat crime ? detroit suffered from economic collapse, not some kind of criminal takeover.  so  even if  we can blame black people for the rise in crime, we ca not really blame it for the overall decline of detroit or other cities.  because it is racist to criticize black people ? probably because it is not their fault, and blaming them is missing the overall point why cities declined.  this is a real racial issue that i never ever see anyone talk about.  you do not see people talk about crime in cities ? it is a pretty big issue that people do want to deal with.  nobody likes crime.  it is just silly to think that black people are entirely to blame for crime.  how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ? this does not seem to have anything to do with your point.  black people make up about 0 of the population in america.  does it really make sense to blame all of our problems on such a minority ? i came to the us from eastern europe, yet i am treated like a kkk member when i criticize black people.  wtf ? it seems to be the way you criticize black people, looking through your post history when you say things like:   black culture and feminism destroyed america feminism depopulated the west blacks degenerated the west you sound like a member of the kkk, not someone who has actually looked into the issues surrounding the things you are talking about and come to a serious conclusion.   #  this shows why cities need to have diversity with their industries so that one big business ca not crush an entire city.   #  so you have a large blue collar community that is doing well called detroit.  detroit has only one industry that keeps it going, cars.  an entire city built on one industry only is not a good idea. there is no backup plan.  so the only industry around starts to hit the shitter and all of the once amazing jobs available begin to start dwindling down and severe cutbacks begin.  so everyone bails on the city to find jobs in the suburbs, which starts the downward spiral of a once great city and turns it into what we have today.  this shows why cities need to have diversity with their industries so that one big business ca not crush an entire city.  similar things happened with all of the abandoned mining cities up north, just on a much smaller scale.  also it should be noted that horrible people exist in all races. that is not really a shocker.   #  and for various reasons, no one outside of the cities really wanted to foot the bill either.   #  it is pretty much the same story, more or less, with all the rust belt cities.  detroit is just the worst example.  the simplified version of the story is that a combination of federal, state and local policies encouraged white flight into suburbs that implicitly, and often explicitly, excluded blacks.  since people were moving out of the cities, the downtowns emptied out as businesses that had made them thrive during the postwar boom of the 0 is and 0 is moved out to where their customers/employee is lived.  this resulted in a lot of wealth moving out of the cites, resulting in cities being filled with poorer neighborhoods.  in concert with the decline in manufacturing and a 0 year crime wave concentrated in the cities for various reasons URL this pretty much emptied the cities of any sort or real tax base.  basically some of the worst of societies problems got concentrated into the cities which were the least equipped government entities to be able to deal with them.  and for various reasons, no one outside of the cities really wanted to foot the bill either.  blaming black people for what happened in the cities is in many ways blaming them for a lot of things that happened to them, not because of them.   #  so you do not think black crime has anything to do with white flight ?  #  i think outsourcing had a lot to do with our glorious job marketing getting wrecked.  i honestly hate the current job environment.  global competition sucks.  it is hyper competitive.  i have have to work 0  hour work weeks just to finish all my work.  so you do not think black crime has anything to do with white flight ? well i hope the economy gets better because we are all getting owned yet all the attention is about how poor black people are and how much help they need.  this frustrates me.  we all need help dammit ! i would love it if we could stop focusing on race and actually solved shit.  found common ground a moved forward.   #  increased crime provides even more incentive for wealthier people to leave town.   # they are effects of the same cause.  when the sole industry in a city collapses and there is no plan b, people who can afford to go elsewhere do go elsewhere.  those who ca not are the poorest people, which are usually black people for historical reasons.  poor people in a depressed area with no economic opportunity are more desperate and more predisposed to crime.  increased crime provides even more incentive for wealthier people to leave town.  you are attributing too much to race when you should be attributing it to poverty.  it just so happens that black people are disproportionately poor.  maybe that has something to do with the fact that they were completely segregated from wealthy society until like 0 years ago.
please cmv, i hate thinking this way but i look at the population and crime trends and ca not help but blame them.  how come they are not blamed ? because it is racist to criticize black people ? i have met a lot of great black people but i also grew up in a ghetto and seen the how the  bad  black people behave and i think society is just ignoring the  bad  black people and this hurts the  good  black people the most because they are stuck with a shitty reputation they do not deserve.  this is a real racial issue that i never ever see anyone talk about.  how come we ca not admit that horrible black people exist ? how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ? is not it just as racist to just blame whites for everything every single time ? i came to the us from eastern europe, yet i am treated like a kkk member when i criticize black people.  wtf ? thanks for the replies, i got some thinking to do.  this felt more like an offmychest post.  seriously insightful discussion, thanks everyone.  going to take a break.   #  how come we ca not admit that horrible black people exist ?  #  how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ?  # is crime the only thing that destroys cities ? are not there ways to combat crime ? detroit suffered from economic collapse, not some kind of criminal takeover.  so  even if  we can blame black people for the rise in crime, we ca not really blame it for the overall decline of detroit or other cities.  because it is racist to criticize black people ? probably because it is not their fault, and blaming them is missing the overall point why cities declined.  this is a real racial issue that i never ever see anyone talk about.  you do not see people talk about crime in cities ? it is a pretty big issue that people do want to deal with.  nobody likes crime.  it is just silly to think that black people are entirely to blame for crime.  how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ? this does not seem to have anything to do with your point.  black people make up about 0 of the population in america.  does it really make sense to blame all of our problems on such a minority ? i came to the us from eastern europe, yet i am treated like a kkk member when i criticize black people.  wtf ? it seems to be the way you criticize black people, looking through your post history when you say things like:   black culture and feminism destroyed america feminism depopulated the west blacks degenerated the west you sound like a member of the kkk, not someone who has actually looked into the issues surrounding the things you are talking about and come to a serious conclusion.   #  so everyone bails on the city to find jobs in the suburbs, which starts the downward spiral of a once great city and turns it into what we have today.   #  so you have a large blue collar community that is doing well called detroit.  detroit has only one industry that keeps it going, cars.  an entire city built on one industry only is not a good idea. there is no backup plan.  so the only industry around starts to hit the shitter and all of the once amazing jobs available begin to start dwindling down and severe cutbacks begin.  so everyone bails on the city to find jobs in the suburbs, which starts the downward spiral of a once great city and turns it into what we have today.  this shows why cities need to have diversity with their industries so that one big business ca not crush an entire city.  similar things happened with all of the abandoned mining cities up north, just on a much smaller scale.  also it should be noted that horrible people exist in all races. that is not really a shocker.   #  this resulted in a lot of wealth moving out of the cites, resulting in cities being filled with poorer neighborhoods.   #  it is pretty much the same story, more or less, with all the rust belt cities.  detroit is just the worst example.  the simplified version of the story is that a combination of federal, state and local policies encouraged white flight into suburbs that implicitly, and often explicitly, excluded blacks.  since people were moving out of the cities, the downtowns emptied out as businesses that had made them thrive during the postwar boom of the 0 is and 0 is moved out to where their customers/employee is lived.  this resulted in a lot of wealth moving out of the cites, resulting in cities being filled with poorer neighborhoods.  in concert with the decline in manufacturing and a 0 year crime wave concentrated in the cities for various reasons URL this pretty much emptied the cities of any sort or real tax base.  basically some of the worst of societies problems got concentrated into the cities which were the least equipped government entities to be able to deal with them.  and for various reasons, no one outside of the cities really wanted to foot the bill either.  blaming black people for what happened in the cities is in many ways blaming them for a lot of things that happened to them, not because of them.   #  i have have to work 0  hour work weeks just to finish all my work.   #  i think outsourcing had a lot to do with our glorious job marketing getting wrecked.  i honestly hate the current job environment.  global competition sucks.  it is hyper competitive.  i have have to work 0  hour work weeks just to finish all my work.  so you do not think black crime has anything to do with white flight ? well i hope the economy gets better because we are all getting owned yet all the attention is about how poor black people are and how much help they need.  this frustrates me.  we all need help dammit ! i would love it if we could stop focusing on race and actually solved shit.  found common ground a moved forward.   #  increased crime provides even more incentive for wealthier people to leave town.   # they are effects of the same cause.  when the sole industry in a city collapses and there is no plan b, people who can afford to go elsewhere do go elsewhere.  those who ca not are the poorest people, which are usually black people for historical reasons.  poor people in a depressed area with no economic opportunity are more desperate and more predisposed to crime.  increased crime provides even more incentive for wealthier people to leave town.  you are attributing too much to race when you should be attributing it to poverty.  it just so happens that black people are disproportionately poor.  maybe that has something to do with the fact that they were completely segregated from wealthy society until like 0 years ago.
please cmv, i hate thinking this way but i look at the population and crime trends and ca not help but blame them.  how come they are not blamed ? because it is racist to criticize black people ? i have met a lot of great black people but i also grew up in a ghetto and seen the how the  bad  black people behave and i think society is just ignoring the  bad  black people and this hurts the  good  black people the most because they are stuck with a shitty reputation they do not deserve.  this is a real racial issue that i never ever see anyone talk about.  how come we ca not admit that horrible black people exist ? how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ? is not it just as racist to just blame whites for everything every single time ? i came to the us from eastern europe, yet i am treated like a kkk member when i criticize black people.  wtf ? thanks for the replies, i got some thinking to do.  this felt more like an offmychest post.  seriously insightful discussion, thanks everyone.  going to take a break.   #  is not it just as racist to just blame whites for everything every single time ?  #  i came to the us from eastern europe, yet i am treated like a kkk member when i criticize black people.   # is crime the only thing that destroys cities ? are not there ways to combat crime ? detroit suffered from economic collapse, not some kind of criminal takeover.  so  even if  we can blame black people for the rise in crime, we ca not really blame it for the overall decline of detroit or other cities.  because it is racist to criticize black people ? probably because it is not their fault, and blaming them is missing the overall point why cities declined.  this is a real racial issue that i never ever see anyone talk about.  you do not see people talk about crime in cities ? it is a pretty big issue that people do want to deal with.  nobody likes crime.  it is just silly to think that black people are entirely to blame for crime.  how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ? this does not seem to have anything to do with your point.  black people make up about 0 of the population in america.  does it really make sense to blame all of our problems on such a minority ? i came to the us from eastern europe, yet i am treated like a kkk member when i criticize black people.  wtf ? it seems to be the way you criticize black people, looking through your post history when you say things like:   black culture and feminism destroyed america feminism depopulated the west blacks degenerated the west you sound like a member of the kkk, not someone who has actually looked into the issues surrounding the things you are talking about and come to a serious conclusion.   #  so the only industry around starts to hit the shitter and all of the once amazing jobs available begin to start dwindling down and severe cutbacks begin.   #  so you have a large blue collar community that is doing well called detroit.  detroit has only one industry that keeps it going, cars.  an entire city built on one industry only is not a good idea. there is no backup plan.  so the only industry around starts to hit the shitter and all of the once amazing jobs available begin to start dwindling down and severe cutbacks begin.  so everyone bails on the city to find jobs in the suburbs, which starts the downward spiral of a once great city and turns it into what we have today.  this shows why cities need to have diversity with their industries so that one big business ca not crush an entire city.  similar things happened with all of the abandoned mining cities up north, just on a much smaller scale.  also it should be noted that horrible people exist in all races. that is not really a shocker.   #  and for various reasons, no one outside of the cities really wanted to foot the bill either.   #  it is pretty much the same story, more or less, with all the rust belt cities.  detroit is just the worst example.  the simplified version of the story is that a combination of federal, state and local policies encouraged white flight into suburbs that implicitly, and often explicitly, excluded blacks.  since people were moving out of the cities, the downtowns emptied out as businesses that had made them thrive during the postwar boom of the 0 is and 0 is moved out to where their customers/employee is lived.  this resulted in a lot of wealth moving out of the cites, resulting in cities being filled with poorer neighborhoods.  in concert with the decline in manufacturing and a 0 year crime wave concentrated in the cities for various reasons URL this pretty much emptied the cities of any sort or real tax base.  basically some of the worst of societies problems got concentrated into the cities which were the least equipped government entities to be able to deal with them.  and for various reasons, no one outside of the cities really wanted to foot the bill either.  blaming black people for what happened in the cities is in many ways blaming them for a lot of things that happened to them, not because of them.   #  i think outsourcing had a lot to do with our glorious job marketing getting wrecked.   #  i think outsourcing had a lot to do with our glorious job marketing getting wrecked.  i honestly hate the current job environment.  global competition sucks.  it is hyper competitive.  i have have to work 0  hour work weeks just to finish all my work.  so you do not think black crime has anything to do with white flight ? well i hope the economy gets better because we are all getting owned yet all the attention is about how poor black people are and how much help they need.  this frustrates me.  we all need help dammit ! i would love it if we could stop focusing on race and actually solved shit.  found common ground a moved forward.   #  when the sole industry in a city collapses and there is no plan b, people who can afford to go elsewhere do go elsewhere.   # they are effects of the same cause.  when the sole industry in a city collapses and there is no plan b, people who can afford to go elsewhere do go elsewhere.  those who ca not are the poorest people, which are usually black people for historical reasons.  poor people in a depressed area with no economic opportunity are more desperate and more predisposed to crime.  increased crime provides even more incentive for wealthier people to leave town.  you are attributing too much to race when you should be attributing it to poverty.  it just so happens that black people are disproportionately poor.  maybe that has something to do with the fact that they were completely segregated from wealthy society until like 0 years ago.
please cmv, i hate thinking this way but i look at the population and crime trends and ca not help but blame them.  how come they are not blamed ? because it is racist to criticize black people ? i have met a lot of great black people but i also grew up in a ghetto and seen the how the  bad  black people behave and i think society is just ignoring the  bad  black people and this hurts the  good  black people the most because they are stuck with a shitty reputation they do not deserve.  this is a real racial issue that i never ever see anyone talk about.  how come we ca not admit that horrible black people exist ? how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ? is not it just as racist to just blame whites for everything every single time ? i came to the us from eastern europe, yet i am treated like a kkk member when i criticize black people.  wtf ? thanks for the replies, i got some thinking to do.  this felt more like an offmychest post.  seriously insightful discussion, thanks everyone.  going to take a break.   #  i am treated like a kkk member when i criticize black people.   #  basically you need to think of this like a chicken egg problem.   # also, we have 0 in 0 of all black people in prison, i would hardly call that  ignoring .  URL  how come we ca not admit that horrible black people exist ? see above  how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ? do you have any examples of reputable publications or people blaming  whites  for the state of detroit ? usually economic factors get the blame, which seems pretty reasonable to me.  the economy sucks, so the city declines, so it becomes more impoverished, so you see a lot more crime and other problems.  the people there happen to be black.  basically you need to think of this like a chicken egg problem.  is the city fucked up because black people live there ? or do black people live there because the city is fucked up ? since they are black, they have this  undeserved shitty reputation  as you note.  on average this makes it really hard for a black person to get ahead, make a good wage, and live somewhere that is not fucked up.  so maybe these  bad black people  are actually the effect, not the cause.   #  so everyone bails on the city to find jobs in the suburbs, which starts the downward spiral of a once great city and turns it into what we have today.   #  so you have a large blue collar community that is doing well called detroit.  detroit has only one industry that keeps it going, cars.  an entire city built on one industry only is not a good idea. there is no backup plan.  so the only industry around starts to hit the shitter and all of the once amazing jobs available begin to start dwindling down and severe cutbacks begin.  so everyone bails on the city to find jobs in the suburbs, which starts the downward spiral of a once great city and turns it into what we have today.  this shows why cities need to have diversity with their industries so that one big business ca not crush an entire city.  similar things happened with all of the abandoned mining cities up north, just on a much smaller scale.  also it should be noted that horrible people exist in all races. that is not really a shocker.   #  basically some of the worst of societies problems got concentrated into the cities which were the least equipped government entities to be able to deal with them.   #  it is pretty much the same story, more or less, with all the rust belt cities.  detroit is just the worst example.  the simplified version of the story is that a combination of federal, state and local policies encouraged white flight into suburbs that implicitly, and often explicitly, excluded blacks.  since people were moving out of the cities, the downtowns emptied out as businesses that had made them thrive during the postwar boom of the 0 is and 0 is moved out to where their customers/employee is lived.  this resulted in a lot of wealth moving out of the cites, resulting in cities being filled with poorer neighborhoods.  in concert with the decline in manufacturing and a 0 year crime wave concentrated in the cities for various reasons URL this pretty much emptied the cities of any sort or real tax base.  basically some of the worst of societies problems got concentrated into the cities which were the least equipped government entities to be able to deal with them.  and for various reasons, no one outside of the cities really wanted to foot the bill either.  blaming black people for what happened in the cities is in many ways blaming them for a lot of things that happened to them, not because of them.   #  i think outsourcing had a lot to do with our glorious job marketing getting wrecked.   #  i think outsourcing had a lot to do with our glorious job marketing getting wrecked.  i honestly hate the current job environment.  global competition sucks.  it is hyper competitive.  i have have to work 0  hour work weeks just to finish all my work.  so you do not think black crime has anything to do with white flight ? well i hope the economy gets better because we are all getting owned yet all the attention is about how poor black people are and how much help they need.  this frustrates me.  we all need help dammit ! i would love it if we could stop focusing on race and actually solved shit.  found common ground a moved forward.   #  poor people in a depressed area with no economic opportunity are more desperate and more predisposed to crime.   # they are effects of the same cause.  when the sole industry in a city collapses and there is no plan b, people who can afford to go elsewhere do go elsewhere.  those who ca not are the poorest people, which are usually black people for historical reasons.  poor people in a depressed area with no economic opportunity are more desperate and more predisposed to crime.  increased crime provides even more incentive for wealthier people to leave town.  you are attributing too much to race when you should be attributing it to poverty.  it just so happens that black people are disproportionately poor.  maybe that has something to do with the fact that they were completely segregated from wealthy society until like 0 years ago.
please cmv, i hate thinking this way but i look at the population and crime trends and ca not help but blame them.  how come they are not blamed ? because it is racist to criticize black people ? i have met a lot of great black people but i also grew up in a ghetto and seen the how the  bad  black people behave and i think society is just ignoring the  bad  black people and this hurts the  good  black people the most because they are stuck with a shitty reputation they do not deserve.  this is a real racial issue that i never ever see anyone talk about.  how come we ca not admit that horrible black people exist ? how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ? is not it just as racist to just blame whites for everything every single time ? i came to the us from eastern europe, yet i am treated like a kkk member when i criticize black people.  wtf ? thanks for the replies, i got some thinking to do.  this felt more like an offmychest post.  seriously insightful discussion, thanks everyone.  going to take a break.   #  how come we ca not admit that horrible black people exist ?  #  how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ?  # because it is not their fault.  do you think after slavery was abolished and integration that all black people had a big meeting and decided to act like thugs and raise crime rates ? no.  study up on the history of america.  its like, if you shipped a bunch of irishmen to japan, left them to do whatever then returned in 0 years, would you expect the irishmen to be at the top of the social ladder ? no.  you ca not blame an entire race of people for ruining something that a they did not have anything to do with and b no individual black guy wakes up in the morning and thinks  hmm, i am gonna rob a bank today so i can fuck up america a bit more.   you ca not blame a single person for a big picture problem.  how come we just keep blaming whites for everything ? who blames whites for everything ? i have only ever seen that on places like /r/tumblrinaction, never or very little in real life.  and you do not admit horrible black people exist, because their race has nothing to do with it.  you just say  horrible people exist  and leave irrelevant information like race out of it.  wtf ? thats the same logic people who hate men use.   more men rape so why ca not i criticize men ?   you are mistaking correlation with causation.  yep, a lot of black people live in poorer areas.  do you think thats because they are black ? maybe it is, but it is not their decision.  no black guy wants to live in poverty and struggle to live.  thats a horrible life.  so why would they make their own lives harder just to ruin a country ?  #  detroit has only one industry that keeps it going, cars.   #  so you have a large blue collar community that is doing well called detroit.  detroit has only one industry that keeps it going, cars.  an entire city built on one industry only is not a good idea. there is no backup plan.  so the only industry around starts to hit the shitter and all of the once amazing jobs available begin to start dwindling down and severe cutbacks begin.  so everyone bails on the city to find jobs in the suburbs, which starts the downward spiral of a once great city and turns it into what we have today.  this shows why cities need to have diversity with their industries so that one big business ca not crush an entire city.  similar things happened with all of the abandoned mining cities up north, just on a much smaller scale.  also it should be noted that horrible people exist in all races. that is not really a shocker.   #  it is pretty much the same story, more or less, with all the rust belt cities.   #  it is pretty much the same story, more or less, with all the rust belt cities.  detroit is just the worst example.  the simplified version of the story is that a combination of federal, state and local policies encouraged white flight into suburbs that implicitly, and often explicitly, excluded blacks.  since people were moving out of the cities, the downtowns emptied out as businesses that had made them thrive during the postwar boom of the 0 is and 0 is moved out to where their customers/employee is lived.  this resulted in a lot of wealth moving out of the cites, resulting in cities being filled with poorer neighborhoods.  in concert with the decline in manufacturing and a 0 year crime wave concentrated in the cities for various reasons URL this pretty much emptied the cities of any sort or real tax base.  basically some of the worst of societies problems got concentrated into the cities which were the least equipped government entities to be able to deal with them.  and for various reasons, no one outside of the cities really wanted to foot the bill either.  blaming black people for what happened in the cities is in many ways blaming them for a lot of things that happened to them, not because of them.   #  well i hope the economy gets better because we are all getting owned yet all the attention is about how poor black people are and how much help they need.   #  i think outsourcing had a lot to do with our glorious job marketing getting wrecked.  i honestly hate the current job environment.  global competition sucks.  it is hyper competitive.  i have have to work 0  hour work weeks just to finish all my work.  so you do not think black crime has anything to do with white flight ? well i hope the economy gets better because we are all getting owned yet all the attention is about how poor black people are and how much help they need.  this frustrates me.  we all need help dammit ! i would love it if we could stop focusing on race and actually solved shit.  found common ground a moved forward.   #  when the sole industry in a city collapses and there is no plan b, people who can afford to go elsewhere do go elsewhere.   # they are effects of the same cause.  when the sole industry in a city collapses and there is no plan b, people who can afford to go elsewhere do go elsewhere.  those who ca not are the poorest people, which are usually black people for historical reasons.  poor people in a depressed area with no economic opportunity are more desperate and more predisposed to crime.  increased crime provides even more incentive for wealthier people to leave town.  you are attributing too much to race when you should be attributing it to poverty.  it just so happens that black people are disproportionately poor.  maybe that has something to do with the fact that they were completely segregated from wealthy society until like 0 years ago.
native american reservations are not considered american land, i am not even entirely sure people born on reservations are citizens, but that is besides the point.  if you choose to go to mexico or canada the united states government will not and should not pay you welfare.  also, native americans do not want government involved a lot, and i think it should work both ways, if we ca not tax or go on your land to get a fugitive without the approval of tribal leaders, than the united states should not give benefits.  by american government i mean both federal and state.  /u/huadpe partly changed my view, they are part of the federal government, but since they are not state, they should not get state benefits, which includes most welfare, schools and social programs.   view changed  #  they should not get state benefits, which includes most welfare, schools and social programs.   #  there are basically two reactions to this, in my mind.   # there are basically two reactions to this, in my mind.  first, i think there is a degree to which the native americans are  owed  something by the rest of us.  it is literally true that huge chunks of the united states are in non native hands because our ancestors made treaties with natives  and then broke them  by stealing land they would agreed to leave to the natives, which was then retroactively made legal by forcing the natives to renegotiate the treaty and accept the theft as a fait accompli.  we have profited immensely from the theft our ancestors carried out; we have a duty to share some of that profit with the descendants of the people we stole from.  but there is also a pragmatic argument: everyone is better off if reservations are not corners of land populated by illiterates with serious social and psychological problems because eventually a society of socially and psychologically disturbed illiterate people who cannot make a living is going to cause problems for its neighbors.  far better to provide the services which will pre empt that then to wait for it to happen and then have to wage yet another war against native american tribes.   #  though states can have some control over some people on reservations under public law 0 URL  #  this URL from the bureau of indian affairs, gives a really good summary of the law in respect to tribes and reservations.  a federal indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with the united states, executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe.  there are approximately 0 indian land areas in the u. s.  administered as federal indian reservations i. e. , reservations, pueblos, rancherias, missions, villages, communities, etc.  .  basically, its the same sort of legal status a military base would have part of the united states, but largely exempt from state law.  though states can have some control over some people on reservations under public law 0 URL  #  what should the status of people living in washington, dc be in regard to welfare benefits then ?  # they are partially exempted from the sovereignty of the state where they are, but they are still part of the united states.  what should the status of people living in washington, dc be in regard to welfare benefits then ? dc is similarly under direct federal control, not within the sovereignty of a state.  you have a passable argument that they should not get benefits from the state government, but for federal benefits, i think your premise comes from incorrect facts about the legal status of reservations.  if outside law enforcement is needed, usually it will come from federal bia police, or the fbi.   #  most benefits are  administered  by the states, but paid for by the feds.   # but you are correct they are considered part of the us.  they absolutely do pay taxes to the federal government.  if you live on a reservation, you pay federal income taxes, and federal payroll taxes, and any other tax the federal government requires of a citizen/resident anywhere.  dc is specially provided for in the constitution as the federal district.  it is just its own thing, and does not fit into the  state  or  territory  box.  most benefits are  administered  by the states, but paid for by the feds.  food stamps, wic, and tanf for example are all federal programs administered by state governments which is why you can get them in all 0 states .  on reservations, they are administered by the tribal government, and paid for by the feds.   #  but if they have bia which most do , they just need permission from another officer.   #  native american here who grew up on a reservation in colorado.  our tribe once called the entire eastern half of colorado and west side of utah home.  that was until the us government relocated us further south the dry/ugly parts .  so basically, the whole state was taken from us.  in return, we do not pay state taxes.  we still pay federal.  when we move off the reservation, we have to pay both federal and state.  also, our police work closely with the state and local police.  if a reservation has their own department, i am not entirely sure who they would contact for permission.  but if they have bia which most do , they just need permission from another officer.  native americans are very much considered citizens.  not only do we have to abide by all federal and state laws, we have to abide by our reservation laws as well.  e. g no alcohol allowed.  not in your home, your car, anywhere within the borders.  also, taken from the article you posted:  rural areas tend to lack jobs with promotion opportunities, and rural residents often must migrate to cities for employment and advancement opportunity.  0 however, reservation residents rarely are able to meet the educational and requirements of jobs off the reservation, and in addition, often encounter discrimination from employers who are hesitant to hire reservation natives
so i am fairly supportive of the program that obama proposed in his speech tonight.  specifically, i see three big reasons its good:   it concretely helps a lot of people, by giving them the ability to lawfully work, and to live without fear, they can better participate in society and have better lives.    i do not feel a strong moral reason to heavily punish violators of us immigration law, because us immigration law is deeply amoral.  most people have no lawful route by which they could ever move to the us or any other wealthy country.  people who have the ambition to move and work hard to improve their lives and their families lives are doing something that is noble and good.  even though a law is broken in the process, i do not believe they have done something morally wrong by breaking that law, and would not punish them harshly, if at all, for the violation.    it does appear to be within the bounds of current law.  0 cfr 0a. 0 0 URL allows for work permits for  an alien whose enforced departure from the united states has been deferred in accordance with a directive from the president of the united states to the secretary.  employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions established by the secretary pursuant to the presidential directive.   my hesitations are 0: that i would like to see something done through legislature instead, though frankly that seems highly unlikely at this juncture, and 0: that it puts the immigrants who use the program in a precarious position at the discretion of the president who succeeds obama.  last thing, i would really like to keep this focused on policy, not politicians.  i am not a partisan of either party, and attacks on specific politicians or political parties are extremely unlikely to persuade me.   #  last thing, i would really like to keep this focused on policy, not politicians.   #  i suppose if i had to pick my biggest qualm, it is with a general trend towards executive action over legislative solutions.   # i suppose if i had to pick my biggest qualm, it is with a general trend towards executive action over legislative solutions.  the obvious issue has to do with deliberate roles each is supposed to play, and i could wax poetic about how it potentially usurps the legislature or at least undermines it and that the executive is stretching it is power.  instead, what i would really like to point out is the practical implications from a politicking perspective.  the first problem is that now there is less incentive for legislatures to resolve their disagreements and reach a mutually agreed upon conclusion.  my suspicion is the reason why congress  behavior has become so routine is because there is an  out  for deadlock or obstruction.  this feeds into my second problem: it allows the disagreeable party usually, but not always, republicans to appeal to their demographic at minimal political cost.  they get to stand up and decry democratic policies when introduced in the legislature, and then similarly speak out against executive overreach.  politicians should not be able to so easily circumvent the political costs of representing voters.  our political structure was designed under the assumption that, by adhering to this power separation, the internalized costs would play out in a way that is beneficial to the american population.  this new trend normalizes executive action to the point where those costs shift and incentives change in a way that is arguable detrimental to affecting genuinely representative and cogent national policy, and instead used primarily to signal to voters.  the latter is a normal characteristic of any body politic, but typically not the focal point of it.  i should edit in here that i support liberalized immigration laws and have hoped to see reform on this front.   #  the disagreeable party has been the democrats quite recently.   #  this is overall a very interesting point, and a really good argument for a parliamentary system, where the executive/legislature divide really ca not happen like that.  my suspicion is the reason why congress  behavior has become so routine is because there is an  out  for deadlock or obstruction.  this is true, though i think there are many other factors in play, such as the highly gerrymandered nature of the house meaning that the large majority of members of both parties sit in ultra safe seats where a primary challenge is the only real threat.  so even without this executive action, i doubt congress would be more functional.  it is also not like presidents have not done big stuff by executive order in the past.  truman quite famously tried to nationalize all the steel mills in 0 when a strike threatened the korean war effort.  the supreme court said it was unconstitutional though.  they get to stand up and decry democratic policies when introduced in the legislature, and then similarly speak out against executive overreach.  the disagreeable party has been the democrats quite recently.  what you are describing is not unique to the us or to the current situation parties out of power almost always focus their campaigns in a negative light on the party in power.  our political structure was designed under the assumption that, by adhering to this power separation, the internalized costs would play out in a way that is beneficial to the american population.  this new trend normalizes executive action to the point where those costs shift and incentives change in a way that is arguable detrimental to affecting genuinely representative and cogent national policy, and instead used primarily to signal to voters.  the latter is a normal characteristic of any body politic, but typically not the focal point of it.  this certainly has merit, but i would counter that one of the reasons to have a republic and not a democracy is that politicians should be able to make reasoned choices without every question being a question of popular opinion.  further, congress has a bevy of options at its disposal to counter the president.  it could expressly repeal the laws that allow him to do this, or it could refuse to fund the implementation of the program.  such a law would have to come over president obama is veto, but that is the system we have got.   #  whatever is common practice is  the system we have  and it explains the confines in which we practically have to act but not necessarily what we should be aiming to protect or encourage.   # what you are describing is not unique to the us or to the current situation parties out of power almost always focus their campaigns in a negative light on the party in power.  this is not really anything i am concerned about arguing.  democrat, republican; the pendulum swings.  i would even call it party a if it would be better.  i think that is a fair general statement about american political structure but it does not really dive into my point.  it is one thing to distill popular opinion into segmented legislative representation, and another to severely minimize its influence.  we all know the overarching concerns of the founders with respect to popular whims and protection of  minority factions.   i kept all of this in mind when i made my post, so when i say it messes with incentives, i am including that design.  the formation of a republic was never intended to treat the population with the sort of derision that typically accompanies this reminder.  further, i argued that the implicit trade offs in our system were deliberately contemplated and intended to be beneficial to the american population, not necessarily that their opinion was an overriding or determinative factor.  it could expressly repeal the laws that allow him to do this, or it could refuse to fund the implementation of the program.  such a law would have to come over president obama is veto, but that is the system we have got.  sure, it has options, but we are discussing practical implications of this decision.   it is the system we have  does not really touch on my point about how we have created new in roads that were never designed in concert with our overarching structure.  how congress works in practice was never romantic, but there is a road map and this new back and forth is, in my opinion, becoming an egregious deviation that allows the legislature to have its cake and eat it too.  whatever is common practice is  the system we have  and it explains the confines in which we practically have to act but not necessarily what we should be aiming to protect or encourage.   #  this has always lead to disaster and america is founding fathers set up the constitution to specifically prevent this type of action by the president.   #  the problem is not with the content of the law its with its process.  everyone thinks the immigration system needs to be fixed.  there is an honest debate about how that should be done i. e.  many argue persuasively that the border must be secured before amnesty can be offered or there will be a flood of people trying to get in making the problem worse .  however on process.  this is undemocratic, a gross violation of executive power, and a dangerous precedent.  what if ted cruz, unable to pass tax reform, simply instructed the irs to ignore anyone who paid at least a 0 flat tax ? what if he granted presidential pardons to anyone who took up arms to defend the border and killed illegal immigrants on sight ? discretion is the bane of the rule of law.  laws must be well crafted and narrow in scope specifically to avoid giving decision makers an unethical level of power in their application.  it is also important to keep in mind that human beings right or left wing are very susceptible to allowing governments to have way too much power in the name of achieving an objective.  this has always lead to disaster and america is founding fathers set up the constitution to specifically prevent this type of action by the president.  this is a genuine constitutional crisis and it is foolish to talk about whether the result of this one specific action is good or bad.  even tyrants are right from time to time.   #  the president can choose to be more lenient but ca not choose to be less lenient.   #  in the case of this discretion, it seems that the choice not to punish people as harshly as federal law allows is one that the constitution does envision the president having though.  your pardon power example is telling there is zero question that such pardons would be totally kosher in constitutional law though the president lacks the power to pardon them for state law offenses, which murder would certainly be .  but for an exec action like this it seems like a bit of a one way street.  the president can choose to be more lenient but ca not choose to be less lenient.  and also congress has the power to draft clearer statutes if they want the president to be more curtailed.  the immigration and nationality act gives an enormous amount of discretion to the president, in a way that the internal revenue code or criminal statutes really do not.
keep in mind, fairness doctrine did not affect the internet so it will not be doctored to spread it is influence onto the internet.  arguments for: public interest: it would give people more exposure to counter arguments which i believe would solve a lot of problems.  what is wrong with people being more education on both sides, they still have free will right ? power of the media: this should not be discounted.  it exists, it is been documented.  people want to watch what they agree with and will consciously decide not to watch the opposition for no other reason then emotional attachment to views.  giving one side of the story is claimed to be a right to free speech.  ok i buy that argument.  it is said that via property rights, and free speech, i should be able to say what i want.  ok, i agree with you but here is the issue, john smith can say what he wants and does not have near the sphere of influence that x famous newscaster has .  people respect those with power and are more influenced to listen to them.  since the government, psychologists, whoever has realized this, we should regulate media that makes profit, based on the fact that they might use their sphere of influence for subjective personal gains.  cmv  #  since the government, psychologists, whoever has realized this, we should regulate media that makes profit, based on the fact that they might use their sphere of influence for subjective personal gains.   #  there is not a sphere out there influenced by subjective personal gains.   # there is not a sphere out there influenced by subjective personal gains.  money is not everything; there is power, fame, etc.  to the extent that information can actually become damaging, we do have regulations on speech e. g. , inciting/threatening credible harm to another person, defamation suits, etc.  it is not really as simple as that.  freedom of speech at least as understood in american culture and law is necessary for robust civil discourse.  it is very, very rare that we only ever have on point of view being espoused.  in fact, that is something far more characteristic of states run by governments that highly regulate speech.  in contrast, under our fos scheme, we have tons of viewpoints in our  amarketplace  that are constantly being probed at, falsified and analyzed.  it is not just about you being able to say what you want, but other people to say what they want, and the interplay between the two.  discussions require not just listening, but engaging a person and their ideas, anticipating their points, and thinking about your own.  it is a two way street, not some one way road where some hand is spoon feeding you information you digest by default.   #  that is why i said free speech because it is requiring someone to say something that they would leave out if they could.   #  yes and the press should be encouraged to say whatever they want.  however, we are talking about a government regulation that would require people in positions of power to give opposing views that they do not want to.  that is why i said free speech because it is requiring someone to say something that they would leave out if they could.  i would like your opinion though, should we implement the fairness doctrine ? keep in mind that thomas jefferson said the constitution should be reexamined every 0 years.  broadcasting ethics used to be stronger in the past, or so i have heard, and coincidentally they had a fairness doctrine for part of the time.  i feel that freedom of the press and freedom of speech could be upheld by the saying  i do not agree with this but here is the counter argument for the sake of public interest and being a classy debater.    #  keep in mind that thomas jefferson said the constitution should be reexamined every 0 years.   # keep in mind that thomas jefferson said the constitution should be reexamined every 0 years.  probably not.  is there a problem with the media ? of course.  both liberal and conservative sources have very bad habits of twisting the truth to the point where they are very close to just making shit up, along with drumming up controversy over irrelevant things to attack their opponents.  is it worse today ? i have no idea, i have not done a study of past media trends but it is certainly not new.  alexander hamilton was attacked for having an affair, thomas jefferson got in trouble when the media started accusing him of banging his slaves which happened to be true.  that old jefferson quote is an interestig one, but it is not really applicable.  we are not talking about changing the constitution.  unless we do that, we have to abide by the one we have got.  if i am correct the fairness doctrine was applied by the fcc, meaning that it would only apply to broadcast channels.  this muddles the whole freedom of the press, because they are granting them licenses to use public airways and preventing others from doing the same.  i am not a constitutional lawyer nor an experts in this situation, so i really ca not speak to the legality of it, so while i do not really like the sound of it, i can see how it could be argued it is ok.  this i absolutely disagree with though.  freedom of the press means the media has the right to say what it wants.  you should not be able to force them to say things.  that is not freedom.  under freedom of speech no one can force me to say anything, short of a subpeona.  i think the same applies to the press, it should be read as freedom from interference.   #  you cannot post advertisements and it has to be news coverage ?  # the airways are public, so does your private rights apply in public domain ? i would argue sometimes, but in other cases no.  freedom of the press means the media has the right to say what it wants.  you should not be able to force them to say things.  that is not freedom.  under freedom of speech no one can force me to say anything, short of a subpeona.  i think the same applies to the press, it should be read as freedom from interference.  interesting.  so are you saying their is no room to promote fairness in broadcasting ? it should be the individual is choice ? keep in mind they are using public airways and making a profit.  this is their job, to educate us with the news.  if they did not have such an incentive to retain viewers, i wonder what would happen.  would you be open to like an hour of unpaid broadcasting ? you cannot post advertisements and it has to be news coverage ? because if common sense economics are true, allowing people to advertise during news programs will promote a slanted view of reality.   #  again remember the only thing they could justify getting involved with would be public airways, so foxnews would still be just as conservative, msnbc would still be just as liberal, andd cnn would still be just as dumb.   #  the hour of unpaid broadcasting would be fine.  like i said, i recognize the problem, i just do not think government forcing them to say something they do not want is the solution.  i would not mind some sort of taxpayer funded bbc sort of thing.  obviously we have npr and pbs but nobody cares about them.  the logistics would be difficult though.  again remember the only thing they could justify getting involved with would be public airways, so foxnews would still be just as conservative, msnbc would still be just as liberal, andd cnn would still be just as dumb.
keep in mind, fairness doctrine did not affect the internet so it will not be doctored to spread it is influence onto the internet.  arguments for: public interest: it would give people more exposure to counter arguments which i believe would solve a lot of problems.  what is wrong with people being more education on both sides, they still have free will right ? power of the media: this should not be discounted.  it exists, it is been documented.  people want to watch what they agree with and will consciously decide not to watch the opposition for no other reason then emotional attachment to views.  giving one side of the story is claimed to be a right to free speech.  ok i buy that argument.  it is said that via property rights, and free speech, i should be able to say what i want.  ok, i agree with you but here is the issue, john smith can say what he wants and does not have near the sphere of influence that x famous newscaster has .  people respect those with power and are more influenced to listen to them.  since the government, psychologists, whoever has realized this, we should regulate media that makes profit, based on the fact that they might use their sphere of influence for subjective personal gains.  cmv  #  i should be able to say what i want.   #  it is not really as simple as that.   # there is not a sphere out there influenced by subjective personal gains.  money is not everything; there is power, fame, etc.  to the extent that information can actually become damaging, we do have regulations on speech e. g. , inciting/threatening credible harm to another person, defamation suits, etc.  it is not really as simple as that.  freedom of speech at least as understood in american culture and law is necessary for robust civil discourse.  it is very, very rare that we only ever have on point of view being espoused.  in fact, that is something far more characteristic of states run by governments that highly regulate speech.  in contrast, under our fos scheme, we have tons of viewpoints in our  amarketplace  that are constantly being probed at, falsified and analyzed.  it is not just about you being able to say what you want, but other people to say what they want, and the interplay between the two.  discussions require not just listening, but engaging a person and their ideas, anticipating their points, and thinking about your own.  it is a two way street, not some one way road where some hand is spoon feeding you information you digest by default.   #  keep in mind that thomas jefferson said the constitution should be reexamined every 0 years.   #  yes and the press should be encouraged to say whatever they want.  however, we are talking about a government regulation that would require people in positions of power to give opposing views that they do not want to.  that is why i said free speech because it is requiring someone to say something that they would leave out if they could.  i would like your opinion though, should we implement the fairness doctrine ? keep in mind that thomas jefferson said the constitution should be reexamined every 0 years.  broadcasting ethics used to be stronger in the past, or so i have heard, and coincidentally they had a fairness doctrine for part of the time.  i feel that freedom of the press and freedom of speech could be upheld by the saying  i do not agree with this but here is the counter argument for the sake of public interest and being a classy debater.    #  unless we do that, we have to abide by the one we have got.   # keep in mind that thomas jefferson said the constitution should be reexamined every 0 years.  probably not.  is there a problem with the media ? of course.  both liberal and conservative sources have very bad habits of twisting the truth to the point where they are very close to just making shit up, along with drumming up controversy over irrelevant things to attack their opponents.  is it worse today ? i have no idea, i have not done a study of past media trends but it is certainly not new.  alexander hamilton was attacked for having an affair, thomas jefferson got in trouble when the media started accusing him of banging his slaves which happened to be true.  that old jefferson quote is an interestig one, but it is not really applicable.  we are not talking about changing the constitution.  unless we do that, we have to abide by the one we have got.  if i am correct the fairness doctrine was applied by the fcc, meaning that it would only apply to broadcast channels.  this muddles the whole freedom of the press, because they are granting them licenses to use public airways and preventing others from doing the same.  i am not a constitutional lawyer nor an experts in this situation, so i really ca not speak to the legality of it, so while i do not really like the sound of it, i can see how it could be argued it is ok.  this i absolutely disagree with though.  freedom of the press means the media has the right to say what it wants.  you should not be able to force them to say things.  that is not freedom.  under freedom of speech no one can force me to say anything, short of a subpeona.  i think the same applies to the press, it should be read as freedom from interference.   #  you cannot post advertisements and it has to be news coverage ?  # the airways are public, so does your private rights apply in public domain ? i would argue sometimes, but in other cases no.  freedom of the press means the media has the right to say what it wants.  you should not be able to force them to say things.  that is not freedom.  under freedom of speech no one can force me to say anything, short of a subpeona.  i think the same applies to the press, it should be read as freedom from interference.  interesting.  so are you saying their is no room to promote fairness in broadcasting ? it should be the individual is choice ? keep in mind they are using public airways and making a profit.  this is their job, to educate us with the news.  if they did not have such an incentive to retain viewers, i wonder what would happen.  would you be open to like an hour of unpaid broadcasting ? you cannot post advertisements and it has to be news coverage ? because if common sense economics are true, allowing people to advertise during news programs will promote a slanted view of reality.   #  like i said, i recognize the problem, i just do not think government forcing them to say something they do not want is the solution.   #  the hour of unpaid broadcasting would be fine.  like i said, i recognize the problem, i just do not think government forcing them to say something they do not want is the solution.  i would not mind some sort of taxpayer funded bbc sort of thing.  obviously we have npr and pbs but nobody cares about them.  the logistics would be difficult though.  again remember the only thing they could justify getting involved with would be public airways, so foxnews would still be just as conservative, msnbc would still be just as liberal, andd cnn would still be just as dumb.
if you have been using streaming content like netflix since it was first created, you probably noticed that the majority of the best content in terms of movies has been removed.  this is a result of the production companies that own these materials refusing to license them or demanding cost prohibitive fees.  regardless of the cause, the result is that, in general, these streaming services have become a wasteland of throw away, low rated movies.  it is not clear if the studios are doing this because they want people to buy the movies directly or they are hoping to launch their own competing streaming services.  two exceptions here.  first, there is still some high quality television options.  second, studios seem willing to release premium films for short amounts of time, especially if it helps generate interest for sequels.  thing is, i think this is a short sighted tactic for a number of reasons.  first, for many consumers, one or two streaming services is all they will use.  these services are replacing the home library i do not think modern consumers are buying movies like they used to.  this throws the two justifications for limiting the content into peril; these services are not necessarily cannibalizing sales and competing streaming services are not going to be feasible.  second, and more importantly, as consumer behaviors change to favor streaming in home theaters as opposed to going to movie theaters and building home libraries stubbornly limiting your best content to only the old distribution channels has never kept consumers from adopting new behaviors.  instead, it only keeps them from seeing your best content.  third, this is how this becomes a problem.  eventually, your customer base loses patience altogether and finds other things to do.  if  movie night  is a behavioral habit that supports the movie industry, playing games with the content that undermines that habit is a tremendous risk.  it is only a matter of time before customers stop expecting good movies if the only movies they have access to on the services they use to watch movies are crap.  tl:dr if people use streaming media to consumer movies, and only bad movies are on streaming media, people will eventually watch fewer movies.  that is bad for business.   #  second, and more importantly, as consumer behaviors change to favor streaming in home theaters as opposed to going to movie theaters and building home libraries stubbornly limiting your best content to only the old distribution channels has never kept consumers from adopting new behaviors.   #  instead, it only keeps them from seeing your best content.   # instead, it only keeps them from seeing your best content.  people who can afford home theater setups are a minority in the market.  also, the  need  to get out of the house and hang out will always be there.  box office numbers prove otherwise on any sort of limitation.  that is bad for business.  bad for netflix but not for cinema.  there is a reason why almost half the budget goes into marketing for film production.  because it works ! the netflix library is not indicative of the quality of movies today.  we are constantly bombarded with marketing until and after the film is release.   #  we are constantly bombarded with marketing until and after the film is release.   # it is been my impression albeit unsupported by actual numbers that with a few notable exceptions of huge blockbusters like avatar, the consistent upward momentum of box office figures reflects the increasing cost of tickets more than the actual audience sizes.  ironically, the more tickets cost, the smaller the audience gets, but the the prices are not quickly elastic, so a price increase does not immediately depress demand making it profitable in the short term.  there is a reason why almost half the budget goes into marketing for film production.  because it works ! the netflix library is not indicative of the quality of movies today.  we are constantly bombarded with marketing until and after the film is release.   #  after that i can sell them to cable tv and make some more.   #  lets say i made a movie and put it in theaters.  i can now charge $0 a head to watch it.  after several months, i can put it out on blue ray and make $0 for whatever i sell.  after that i can sell them to cable tv and make some more.  lets say i make a movie and sell it netflix.  you are being charged $0 to stream per month to watch as many movies as you want.  how many movies are up there ? thousands ? how much of that $0 a month do you think would trickle back to my pocket ? not even a fraction of a fraction what pitching it to cable tv would do.  also, why would i want to split my profits with netflix if i can keep all the money made ? letting it stream on netflix would also eat into bluray sales.  their ultimate goal is to maximize profit, not maximize the number of viewers.  it just so happens in the movie theater model, when you can charge per head, it aligns.  from a film making studio perspective, i would love for netflix to wane and die, more money for me.   #  there is a small, but growing number of consumers for whom streaming video is the primary mode of consumption for movies.   #  while i agree that, in dollars and cents, it makes the most sense to limit the secondary market to home theater dvd/blueray.  but i think this fails to account for simple numbers.  let is say i pay $0 a month for my netflix and watch, say 0 movies a month.  that is roughly $0/movie, of which the production studio sees, say half.  but the thing is, my consumption habits are different on netflix.  i watch 0 movies, while i might only buy, say 0.  and i am not alone, a bunch more people watch it on netflix, each of them contributing a small amount.  at some point, the higher numbers on netflix make up for the smaller number and higher margin of dvd sales.  and, more to the point, i am not saying these companies should  stop  offering their best movies on dvd.  i am saying they should  also  be offering them on netflix.  there is a small, but growing number of consumers for whom streaming video is the primary mode of consumption for movies.  these are not people who go out and buy dvds, so if you poison the well of their available libraries, you risk losing their consumption altogether.   #  anything that translates to being paid less money per view is a loss in revenue to the film company.   # i watch 0 movies, while i might only buy, say 0.  and i  you say half, but that half has to split up between all the hundreds of movies that are available to be watched.  when you whack it up we are talking pennies per view.  selling one bluray would net atleast $0.  unless the numbers of viewers can jump 0 fold, the margins just wouldnt work.  though we do not have a means of getting exact numbers i would argue that selling 0 dvd is more profitable than 0 views on netflix.  its the same way netflix killed blockbuster.  i remember having to pay about $0 to rent a single movie.  netflix has brought down the cost of watching each movie down significantly.  anything that translates to being paid less money per view is a loss in revenue to the film company.  obviously theres a sweet spot somewhere in there, but i think its got to be in dollar and not pennies.  also for any movie there will be a cap of the number of people who are willing to watch your movie based on genre and interest.  lets say that number is 0 million. in which format would be most conducive to extract the most money ? i think streaming on netflix would rank dead last.
this is not to say that things ca not be done with grassroots organizations or that there are zero democratically significant institutions.  my point is that  power  seems to move so slowly because it is impeded by a handful of influential people in a way that renders most  small acts of progress  practically futile.  take gay marriage.  how do you look at a group of people in any form of respectable or modern way that has to decided on the rights and humanity of another person by a vote ? who will the supreme court, so named, ever be to a gay couple but a handful of damming consequences that pretends their will makes you more or less worthy of being equal ? or explain to me how replacing my light bulbs impacts oil subsidies or going vegetarian changes industrial farming practices.   #  or explain to me how replacing my light bulbs impacts oil subsidies or going vegetarian changes industrial farming practices.   #  you do not change your light bulbs and go vegetarian because it affects oil subsidies etc.   #  those influential people have their hands tied in all kinds of ways too.  they will lose out against other influential people who opt to go with the flow of public opinion, simply because they have to expend resources to resist changing.  you do not change your light bulbs and go vegetarian because it affects oil subsidies etc.  you do that because that is something you can change easily within your own household.  your are not going to save the world on your own, but that would be putting the bar a little high, would not it ? you just take your responsibility for what you consume.  going vegetarian or just eating a little less meat is one of the easiest and most effective things you can do starting right now.  and if, incidentally, half of the people would stop eating meat, that is half of the meat industry that is  gone .  so vegetarianism is very effective.  for dealing with oil subsidies, you will need political action.  that does not diminish the fact that reducing your energy use will be part of the solution.  by doing what you can now you are already taking your responsibility, promoting the solutions as normal and feasible to other people, and are signaling that there is a market for energy efficient appliances.   #  i understand how their intentions can become confounded and agree.   #  certainly being influential in and of itself is not the sole requirement for getting something done.  i understand how their intentions can become confounded and agree.  theoreticals about  if only people did this  do not really hold a lot of water to me.  it just seems to dramafy the math.  of course, if all people stopped eating meat, the industry might close over night ! so vegetarianism is very effective.  this does not follow even remotely.  an  if  that results in describing vegetarianism  very effective ?   signaling to who ? i am signaling more than the government who subsidizes the opposing industry ? doubtful.   #  why do you insist that your actions must be able to overturn the actions of  a whole government  before they become worthwhile to do at all ?  # why not ? why would they keep producing meat ? to feed to the street mongrels ? the market.  it is a tiny bit less money ending up in the pockets of the meat industry, and they are a tiny bit less profitable now.  doubtful.  you are not kal el.  you are not bruce wayne either.  you are not even peter parker.  why do you insist that your actions must be able to overturn the actions of  a whole government  before they become worthwhile to do at all ? do you also refuse to push a light switch unless it turns on the lights of a whole state at once ? do you only order pizza by the ton ? do you always take thousand stair steps at a time ? you are sovereign in your household, and have a decisive influence there.  so why do not you change your bulbs/eat vegetarian there ? nothing is stopping you, it would cut your personal ecological footprint, and any complete solution will involve you doing those things, eventually.  your choice is between eating meat and not eating meat.  just pick the best of those options.  stopping the whole of society to eat meat  at once  is not an option that is available to you right now, so do not bother thinking about it when deciding what  you  do.   #  you have just said nothing by attempting to do so.   #  you t take a theoretical situation and then claim the power of it is results.  you have just said nothing by attempting to do so.  half the people are not refusing to eat meat, nor have you drawn direct lines between vegetarianism and it is impact.  it is a tiny bit less money ending up in the pockets of the meat industry, and they are a tiny bit less profitable now.  prove this.  by the numbers explain to me who is getting paid less and how/if the market is shrinking for it.  especially explain how vegetarianism is the catalyst for it.  when the hell have i ever said this ? weird, weird thing to put in my mouth.  you know we are typing, yes ? you can quote what i actually say.  this was not a cmv to ask how i am not a shitty superhero or explain to me how to make choices.  you are pulling all form of odd statements out of your ass and i think you believe they are actually addressing what i was saying.   #  so i talk about choices, actions and impact.   # you have just said nothing by attempting to do so.  half the people are not refusing to eat meat, nor have you drawn direct lines between vegetarianism and it is impact.  prove this.  by the numbers explain to me who is getting paid less and how/if the market is shrinking for it.  especially explain how vegetarianism is the catalyst for it.  people produce meat for the market, to make money.  if they make less money they will produce less meat, or go bankrupt.  either way buying less meat will result in less meat production.  explain to me why buying less meat would result in similar amounts of meat being produced.  where does it go ? weird, weird thing to put in my mouth.  you know we are typing, yes ? you can quote what i actually say.  you explicitly compare the actions of you as an individual with those of the whole government:  i am signaling more than the government who subsidizes the opposing industry ? doubtful.   you are pulling all form of odd statements out of your ass and i think you believe they are actually addressing what i was saying.  you are doing a cmv on the impact of your choices and actions.  so i talk about choices, actions and impact.  what is the problem ?
in response to this article URL a lot of people that i have talked to and many of the remarks i have seen indicate that people believe that due to the civil rights movement and other social progress taking place between the 0 is and today, that it is ok, or at least more tolerable, for an 0 year old white man to spout off racist comments than it would be if he were a 0 or 0 year old man.  the same goes for sexism and other forms of discrimination that generally are not acceptable in modern society but that we tend to give the baby boomers and prior generations a pass on.  the fact that the man in the article is a public figure is the only reason his racism is coming under fire, because if any other old man/woman said the same shit, even the least racist people i know would shrug and say something about not even being worth the confrontation due to them being so old and set in their ways.  i believe that no matter how old you are, you have to live up to the standards of the society you live in  now , not the one you lived in growing up.  cmv.   #  because if any other old man/woman said the same shit, even the least racist people i know would shrug and say something about not even being worth the confrontation due to them being so old and set in their ways.   #  i believe that no matter how old you are, you have to live up to the standards of the society you live in now, not the one you lived in growing up.   # i believe that no matter how old you are, you have to live up to the standards of the society you live in now, not the one you lived in growing up.  well, see, you are probably not going to convince them, so it is a wasted effort to try.  and even racists are people too; if they are old, they are not doing it to be evil but because that is how they were raised.  of course it is wrong.  if you love your local elderly racist, you will do everything you can to change his or her view.  but if they are just harmlessly spouting racism, you can try to look past it and get along with them first.  the alternative is to antagonize, which is not usually a good choice.  now, if the person is a politician, that is a different scenario.  if the person is going on neo nazi marches and actively working  for  racial inequality, that is a different scenario.  but if the person is just sitting around with stupid opinions, meh, you probably have better things to do, no ?  #  one is very racist against them which i never accepted but understood.   #  it is like my two grandpa is and the japanese.  one is very racist against them which i never accepted but understood.  he saw the japanese flag on the bottom of planes that were trying to bomb him in wwii.  i could never tell him about my japanese friends from college.  my other grandpa fought in the war and actually was in japan just after they surrendered but he was very open to them, probably because of his more direct contact with them.   #  he said they called them angels or night angels or something like that because they would go out onto the battle field and get all he wounded soldiers at night, treat them and release them.   #  my grandpa non racist was talking about it recently to my mom and i.  he had a crazy view of the war.  dropped out of hs lied about his age and joined the 0st airborne and was about to parachute into normandy for d day when he broke both ankles in a training jump 0 weeks before and was transferred to a ship in the pacific.  he started crying when talking about pygmies i think in the philippines.  he said they called them angels or night angels or something like that because they would go out onto the battle field and get all he wounded soldiers at night, treat them and release them.  no matter what side they were on.  when they left they had to dispose of a bunch of supplies and food so they buried very shallow them very shallow in the sand so the pygmies could get them.  this is one of the few times i have seen him tear up.  he then embarked on a 0 week voyage on his ship to japan.  there were multiple typhoons.  took them about 0 weeks.  almost ran out of food and supplies.  they were some of the first soldiers to reach japan after the surrender.  he was expecting so much hate and animosity from the soldiers who had to lay down their weapons, from the pilots that could no longer fly their planes, from the civilians who had lost friends and family not only in battle but also in bombings including the recent atomic bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki.  but he said all the people were the nicest, most honorable people.  he actually was apart of the one of the first group of soldiers to see either hiroshima or nagasaki from the ground after the bombing.  they rode by in a train and saw it from a distance but i do not know too much about this.  he did not talk about it much.   #  my grandfather said his fleet was steaming towards mainland japan for the big invasion when the bombs were dropped, but i do not think they went on for the start of the post war reconstruction.   #  interesting.  i wonder how much his attitude has to do with actually going to japan.  i just recently watched the pacific all the way through for the first time, and if that was even halfway accurate i can sort of see why the marines would have a messed up view about the japanese if that was their only interaction.  the combat during the island hopping campaign was incredibly brutal, intense, and nasty, and japanese soldiers had different views on rules of war than what happened in the european theater.  my grandfather said his fleet was steaming towards mainland japan for the big invasion when the bombs were dropped, but i do not think they went on for the start of the post war reconstruction.  their mission was virtually a suicide mission landing on a peninsula splitting two major japanese forces.  to the day my grandfather died a few years ago he considered truman a hero for ordering the atomic bombs dropped and figured he never would have survived the invasion of japan.   #  he has always been a super open, accepting, nice person.   #  i think going there changed him a lot.  he has always been a super open, accepting, nice person.  he is christian and one of his wives 0 have died on him was bashing gays.  he bluntly told her,  if it is wrong in the eyes of god, it is not our place to judge.  that is st peter is job at the pearly gates  my other grandpa was a quartermaster at an outpost in northern india.  he never was in direct combat but had times where they were completely cut off because of the japanese and on orders on night guard duty to shoot at any noise and investigate in the morning.  they could see the flags on the japanese bombers as they flew over head on bombing runs.  one time while on leave in bombay there was an air raid and my grandpa and his buddies hid next to a warehouse by the water.  luckily the bombs all missed and exploded out in the bay.  as they were getting up a commander drove by in his jeep commenting how lucky those guys were that the bombers missed their target, the munitions warehouse that my grandpa had been hiding next to.
first, everyone has done these throughout their lifetime, so nobody is a saint.  i imagine there is an evolutionary advantage to children that express their needs in these ways.  this is not about children.  to the point: crying, pouting, tantrums, and other negative reactions to cognitive dissonance, are all trump cards in adult discourse.  the minute someone starts stomping their feet, uncontrollably swearing, crying, running away, or whatever no matter who is right and who is wrong the other is expected to drop their claim.  in many cases, the person is playing russian roulette with their relationship.  if you do not acquiesce, you do not  care  enough and they are  gone  or pouting for a period of time, or you are on their  shit list  .   it is emotional blackmail.   it is manipulative.  i have seen all kinds pull these shenanigans in all sorts of places to all sorts of degrees to people other than me.  all genders.  all ages, 0 to 0.  at work, in public, in private, over email, and so forth.  i do not think people consciously do it to manipulate others, but i think it is conditioned behavior that is sometimes broken and sometimes not, and that it is  generally not okay .  there are ways of expressing feelings and conveying disagreement without resorting to childish behavior.  cmv.   #  the minute someone starts stomping their feet, uncontrollably swearing, crying, running away, or whatever no matter who is right and who is wrong the other is expected to drop their claim.   #  only for the immediate moment because the other person is overwhelmed with emotion and clearly needs a pause in the discussion.   # only for the immediate moment because the other person is overwhelmed with emotion and clearly needs a pause in the discussion.  it does not mean you give up trying to come to a resolution on your point of contention; it just means you need to take a break from discussing it because the other person is overwhelmed at the immediate moment.  if a person  purposefully  starts crying to try to manipulate another, then that is  emotional blackmail.   but it seems to me like you are suggesting anytime a person cries during a discussion it is blackmail and that simply is not true.  crying usually is not done on purpose and most people who cry during serious conversations wish they did not.  they wish they could control it and not cry, but crying is not always controllable.  when someone is overwhelmed with various emotions and thoughts, their body may respond with tears, uncontrolled by the person in question.  it is just a natural bodily response.  it if makes you feel so guilty that you ca not continue the conversation later , then that is your own problem.  do not try to twist it around and blame the person who is involuntarily crying.  there are ways of expressing feelings and conveying disagreement without resorting to childish behavior.  honestly i think you thinking crying is for children only and not okay in adults is what is not okay.  crying can be healthy: why we cry: the truth about tearing up webmd URL the health benefits of tears psychology today URL 0 good reasons to cry your eyes out pbs URL  #  on the other hand, i could not cry if i wanted.   #  yes, but you generally have control over that.  as those links show, many people  do not  have the same level of control over crying as others do.  in those examples and in the comments section, many of the people posting  want  to get it under control because it can be humiliating and embarrassing.  it is a hard thing to fix.  on the other hand, i could not cry if i wanted.  my wife thinks i am a robot sometimes.  it is not because i am awesome and level headed, it is that i just do not get the same mix or hormones flooding my system when i am stressed.   #  i am just making the case that it is not necessarily blackmail or manipulation.   # so let is say crying is fine and unavoidable because hormones.  i am not saying there is nothing wrong with it, i am saying it is sometimes unavoidable.  of course it causes problems and hinders communication.  i am just making the case that it is not necessarily blackmail or manipulation.  it is something that the person crying may find embarrassing and want to be able to stop but ca not.  this is completely unrelated to the point i was making.  it sounds like you are talking about some specific case that you have encountered in your day to day life.  i am talking about in the abstract here.   #  you two could be hugging, she is crying on your shoulder, and still talking about whatever the issue is.   #  is this cmv just a cover for a personal problem you want to discuss or something ? if, in a romantic partnership, one person always cries during serious discussions and the other does not, and the other feels like he or she let is just make the non crier a man and, in this fictional straight couple for clearer pronoun usage, the crier is a woman .  he feels like he cannot express his emotions whenever she is crying, then the pair needs to work on a way to get around this.  assuming your girlfriend is being manipulative is not the way to go.  making a cmv and complaining about her online is not the way to go.  instead, why not try taking a walk while you have serious discussions ? writing letters to each other so you can get your thoughts out clearly in your own time ? or just keep talking through it.  this is your problem that you feel you ca not speak when she is crying, but unless she is told you to stop speaking, you still can.  if she is crying through entire conversations then it does not mean you need to pause, it means you need to talk through it.  just accept her tears and keep conversing.  do not look at her; sit next to her.  or hug her.  you two could be hugging, she is crying on your shoulder, and still talking about whatever the issue is.   #  so, if x is an involuntary response to overwhelming emotion, i should ignore it no matter how much i care about my relationship to that person ?  #  ok, so you are saying i am manipulating myself by caring that someone is showing symptoms of overwhelmed emotion.  so, if x is an involuntary response to overwhelming emotion, i should ignore it no matter how much i care about my relationship to that person ? if my bandmate is throwing a shit fit about the set list and wo not calm down, i should walk away and just hope to god he shows up to the concert later ? if my coworker is crying and calling me names for not staying late because she is stressed out, i should just ignore it ? if my friend wants help with something and i ca not do it when he asks and offer a different time, i should not be concerned that he is giving me the silent treatment ? i see what you are saying.  people are not giant babies.  i just care too much.
first, everyone has done these throughout their lifetime, so nobody is a saint.  i imagine there is an evolutionary advantage to children that express their needs in these ways.  this is not about children.  to the point: crying, pouting, tantrums, and other negative reactions to cognitive dissonance, are all trump cards in adult discourse.  the minute someone starts stomping their feet, uncontrollably swearing, crying, running away, or whatever no matter who is right and who is wrong the other is expected to drop their claim.  in many cases, the person is playing russian roulette with their relationship.  if you do not acquiesce, you do not  care  enough and they are  gone  or pouting for a period of time, or you are on their  shit list  .   it is emotional blackmail.   it is manipulative.  i have seen all kinds pull these shenanigans in all sorts of places to all sorts of degrees to people other than me.  all genders.  all ages, 0 to 0.  at work, in public, in private, over email, and so forth.  i do not think people consciously do it to manipulate others, but i think it is conditioned behavior that is sometimes broken and sometimes not, and that it is  generally not okay .  there are ways of expressing feelings and conveying disagreement without resorting to childish behavior.  cmv.   #  in many cases, the person is playing russian roulette with their relationship.   #  if you do not acquiesce, you do not care enough and they are gone or pouting for a period of time, or you are on their  shit list  .   # if someone reacts emotionally to an argument or other event when i am talking to them, i might let up on the intensity, or suggest taking a break before we continue talking, but i do not back down if i feel strongly about my side.  if you do not acquiesce, you do not care enough and they are gone or pouting for a period of time, or you are on their  shit list  .  it is emotional blackmail.  it is manipulative.  it sounds like you had a relationship with someone who  is  using emotional blackmail to  win  and you are extending that to make a broad statement that applies to everyone equally, when you are really just describing your limited experience with one or maybe a handful of people.   #  do not try to twist it around and blame the person who is involuntarily crying.   # only for the immediate moment because the other person is overwhelmed with emotion and clearly needs a pause in the discussion.  it does not mean you give up trying to come to a resolution on your point of contention; it just means you need to take a break from discussing it because the other person is overwhelmed at the immediate moment.  if a person  purposefully  starts crying to try to manipulate another, then that is  emotional blackmail.   but it seems to me like you are suggesting anytime a person cries during a discussion it is blackmail and that simply is not true.  crying usually is not done on purpose and most people who cry during serious conversations wish they did not.  they wish they could control it and not cry, but crying is not always controllable.  when someone is overwhelmed with various emotions and thoughts, their body may respond with tears, uncontrolled by the person in question.  it is just a natural bodily response.  it if makes you feel so guilty that you ca not continue the conversation later , then that is your own problem.  do not try to twist it around and blame the person who is involuntarily crying.  there are ways of expressing feelings and conveying disagreement without resorting to childish behavior.  honestly i think you thinking crying is for children only and not okay in adults is what is not okay.  crying can be healthy: why we cry: the truth about tearing up webmd URL the health benefits of tears psychology today URL 0 good reasons to cry your eyes out pbs URL  #  in those examples and in the comments section, many of the people posting  want  to get it under control because it can be humiliating and embarrassing.   #  yes, but you generally have control over that.  as those links show, many people  do not  have the same level of control over crying as others do.  in those examples and in the comments section, many of the people posting  want  to get it under control because it can be humiliating and embarrassing.  it is a hard thing to fix.  on the other hand, i could not cry if i wanted.  my wife thinks i am a robot sometimes.  it is not because i am awesome and level headed, it is that i just do not get the same mix or hormones flooding my system when i am stressed.   #  this is completely unrelated to the point i was making.   # so let is say crying is fine and unavoidable because hormones.  i am not saying there is nothing wrong with it, i am saying it is sometimes unavoidable.  of course it causes problems and hinders communication.  i am just making the case that it is not necessarily blackmail or manipulation.  it is something that the person crying may find embarrassing and want to be able to stop but ca not.  this is completely unrelated to the point i was making.  it sounds like you are talking about some specific case that you have encountered in your day to day life.  i am talking about in the abstract here.   #  you two could be hugging, she is crying on your shoulder, and still talking about whatever the issue is.   #  is this cmv just a cover for a personal problem you want to discuss or something ? if, in a romantic partnership, one person always cries during serious discussions and the other does not, and the other feels like he or she let is just make the non crier a man and, in this fictional straight couple for clearer pronoun usage, the crier is a woman .  he feels like he cannot express his emotions whenever she is crying, then the pair needs to work on a way to get around this.  assuming your girlfriend is being manipulative is not the way to go.  making a cmv and complaining about her online is not the way to go.  instead, why not try taking a walk while you have serious discussions ? writing letters to each other so you can get your thoughts out clearly in your own time ? or just keep talking through it.  this is your problem that you feel you ca not speak when she is crying, but unless she is told you to stop speaking, you still can.  if she is crying through entire conversations then it does not mean you need to pause, it means you need to talk through it.  just accept her tears and keep conversing.  do not look at her; sit next to her.  or hug her.  you two could be hugging, she is crying on your shoulder, and still talking about whatever the issue is.
this is something i noticed after seeing the huge amount of discussion about rape on reddit.  now note specifically i am talking about the non violent kind of rape where neither member is injured physically, but express verbal consent still was not given or statutory rape where one member is too young to give consent.  it seems to me that in today is society, men are expected to want sex all the time.  it is most obvious in cases where female teachers have sex with younger boys and peoples reaction to it mostly is  noicce  or  i wish this happened to me, my teacher was hot .  then when it happens with the sexes reversed the reaction is mostly,  that disgusting pedo deserves to get anally raped in jail  and  oh that poor girl, a terrible thing has been done to her .  as a result of this, you come across a lot of men who have been technically raped but who simply get over it extremely quickly despite feeling dirty, violated etc as other guys around them just say stuff like  you got laid dude quit complaining .  essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly.  however, when a woman gets raped, society is reaction amplifies these bad feelings to make the woman feel even worse.  society makes women feel they are now damaged, and a mark has been burned on them forever.  this kind of thing is obvious in cases where a woman who initially thought a sexual encounter was just uncomfortable is now told she was raped.  society is general reaction to rape would only make the woman feel even worse about it, and not let her move on for a much longer time than for a man.  i am not saying if i think either reaction is right or wrong, but it seems to be that way.  so cmv, does society make female rape victims feel worse about it then they would otherwise ?  #  as a result of this, you come across a lot of men who have been technically raped but who simply get over it extremely quickly despite feeling dirty, violated etc as other guys around them just say stuff like  you got laid dude quit complaining .   #  essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly.   # essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly.  you jumped to a conclusion here.  amplifying and minimizing are different.  but in the case of rape, both amplifying and minimizing do lead to the same unfair result: invalidation and shame.  you also imply a standard on the victims.  that is, the  right  way to deal with rape is to move on.  again, that is invalidating the victim is trauma and making it worse for the victim.  society is not helping rape victims.  but society is really fucked up and we ca not blame our problems on it.  we have to take personal responsibility for our relationships with other people and  be the change .  for relationships with victims of rape or other crimes, this means being authentic and compassionate.  just listening to a person is experience without saying a word is enough sometimes.  if there is a core problem in society that prevents healing for rape victims, it is not your thesis that amplifying or minimizing makes a difference.  it is that society constantly encourages judgmentalism in all of us.  it tells you and i that we are better than the other person, and we have a right to lord over them and tell them what is good for them.  also, that we are discerning and informed despite the fact we know and understand little to nothing.   #  holy shit that was fucked up seeing those two links, really opened my eyes to how well male victims can hide their traumatic experiences because they are pretty much forced to.   #  holy shit that was fucked up seeing those two links, really opened my eyes to how well male victims can hide their traumatic experiences because they are pretty much forced to.  i guess i formed my view from just what i saw in mainstream reddit, and talking to my friends about how they would totally bang so and so teacher etc.  i want to clarify that i do not think its right to minimize anyone is experience with something like rape, but i was just pointing out how it seems to be, not necessarily how it should be.  i also agree with your point about moving towards a more open and accepting society as it will benefit everyone.  however i still maintain the view that treating rape victims as broken can increase the trauma and loneliness they already feel, and prolong it.   #  the rest of the time it gets downplayed like crazy.   # at least i never heard anyone make that complaint.  the one semi exception to this is rape victimhood being used in some circles as a reason to be able to talk.  this is especially true for men.  if you talk about rape as a guy, you will quickly be shot down for  derailing  or  mansplaining  or a variety of other terms.  however, if you say you are rape victim, then they will listen to you.  the result of this is you are forced to recount some serious trauma and be seen as a victim with all the dangerous consequences thereof if you want to talk about rape in general.  which sucks.  that is the only place i have felt society was giving too much attention and trying to bring back the trauma a lot.  the rest of the time it gets downplayed like crazy.   #  i think what causes the most trauma is the feeling lots of rape victims have that it is somehow  their fault  or that  they are responsible .   #  i think rape itself is incredibly traumatizing for both men and women.  i think what causes the most trauma is the feeling lots of rape victims have that it is somehow  their fault  or that  they are responsible .  to some extent it is society is fault for saying things like  you should not have drunk to much  or  you should not have dressed slutty  or  you are a man, you should like it .  with that said, i believe that the people who hold those views and say those things are in the minority.  the issue is, when something traumatizing happens, it puts you in a dark place.  you hear 0 people say  it is not your fault  and 0 person say  why did you put yourself in that situation  and you latch on to that 0 persons statement.  it is also natural for humans to try to find a reason for events that may not have a reason.  something unexplainable happens and we try to find out why.  the truth is with rape, the reason why is the rapist is a horrible person but that does not do well to satisfy the question of why so people find other reasons.  it is one of the reasons people turn to religion in times of tragedy.  a horrible event occurs and it is easier to understand if you can come up with a reason such as  it was gods will  or  it is all part of gods plan .  the difference being with religion is it has a positive spin with the  their in a better place now  whereas with the internal justifications of rape there is no positive spin.  i was reluctant to bring up the topic of religion as i do not want this to turn into a debate on religion at all.  i am happy to talk about why i feel they are similar but would prefer to not go on about if there is a god or not or if religion is positive or not.   #  i am still glad i learned a lot today though, even if this particular aspect was not addressed, it is very tricky.   # wow thanks for articulating what i could not so well ! this was the primary point i was trying to make, but i could not disagree with the other posters like bumblebee who pointed out other mistakes i made.  your third paragraph is what i was trying to get at when i thought up this cmv.  it ca not be denied that far more women report being victims of sexual assault than men do, but is it because more men do the assaulting or because men and women may have different views about what constitutes sexual assault ? i am still glad i learned a lot today though, even if this particular aspect was not addressed, it is very tricky.
this is something i noticed after seeing the huge amount of discussion about rape on reddit.  now note specifically i am talking about the non violent kind of rape where neither member is injured physically, but express verbal consent still was not given or statutory rape where one member is too young to give consent.  it seems to me that in today is society, men are expected to want sex all the time.  it is most obvious in cases where female teachers have sex with younger boys and peoples reaction to it mostly is  noicce  or  i wish this happened to me, my teacher was hot .  then when it happens with the sexes reversed the reaction is mostly,  that disgusting pedo deserves to get anally raped in jail  and  oh that poor girl, a terrible thing has been done to her .  as a result of this, you come across a lot of men who have been technically raped but who simply get over it extremely quickly despite feeling dirty, violated etc as other guys around them just say stuff like  you got laid dude quit complaining .  essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly.  however, when a woman gets raped, society is reaction amplifies these bad feelings to make the woman feel even worse.  society makes women feel they are now damaged, and a mark has been burned on them forever.  this kind of thing is obvious in cases where a woman who initially thought a sexual encounter was just uncomfortable is now told she was raped.  society is general reaction to rape would only make the woman feel even worse about it, and not let her move on for a much longer time than for a man.  i am not saying if i think either reaction is right or wrong, but it seems to be that way.  so cmv, does society make female rape victims feel worse about it then they would otherwise ?  #  as a result of this, you come across a lot of men who have been technically raped but who simply get over it extremely quickly despite feeling dirty, violated etc as other guys around them just say stuff like  you got laid dude quit complaining .   #  essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly.   # essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly.  this is where you are wrong.  these men do not  get over it extremely quickly . they just learn to stfu about it because it is evident that nobody believes them and nobody gives a shit.  rape is still seen in society as something that men do to women, or as something that happens in prisons.  rather than this being a  good  thing that helps men move on with their lives, it actually does the opposite.  the fact that men are expected to always want sex is a  huge  detriment to male sexual assault/harassment/rape victims, because it leaves no room for consent consent is irrelevant and unnecessary if men are merely mindless sex robots. but  they are not .  this hurts men.  they are far less likely to seek prosecution because nobody will believe them.  they are far less likely to seek any kind of counseling/therapy to deal with what happened, because again, they assume that they will be met with more derision.  society makes women feel they are now damaged, that feeling of being damaged is not a result of people trying to be supportive and saying how terrible the woman is experience was.  it is a result of all the  other  people who ask her what she was wearing, or how much she had to drink, or whether she would been  leading him on , or otherwise want to know how she could have prevented it and protected herself better.  all that crap makes the victim feel worse because it all implies that the rape was somehow a natural result of something they did rather than being all the fault of the rapist.  also, when people go on and on about how huge of a problem false rape reports are yes, that happens, but from what i understand false reports do not make up the bulk of all rape reports.  that, i will give you i have seen women come onto forums and describe a sexual encounter, share that they are confused and feel weird about it, and be assured that  if you even have to ask  was i raped ?   then it was rape !   even though it really does not read like a rape account.  i do think some people are too eager to label encounters  rape , and that can definitely make people feel worse than they need to.  that is one of the reasons why i have already started teaching my kids the basic principle behind consent it is your body, and you get to say no.  a lot of these situations seem like they are complicated because one person  felt  like they were not into it and wanted to stop, but did not make that obvious to the other person, so things did not stop, and the next day they feel crappy about it. would not that be solved easily if the person who wanted to stop just  said so  and made it clear ? i think it is incredibly important for people to understand consent,  because  of situations like that.  they need to understand that if you  feel  no, say no.  anyway, so while there are things society definitely does to make rape victims feel worse, you have totally misunderstood what those things are.   #  i also agree with your point about moving towards a more open and accepting society as it will benefit everyone.   #  holy shit that was fucked up seeing those two links, really opened my eyes to how well male victims can hide their traumatic experiences because they are pretty much forced to.  i guess i formed my view from just what i saw in mainstream reddit, and talking to my friends about how they would totally bang so and so teacher etc.  i want to clarify that i do not think its right to minimize anyone is experience with something like rape, but i was just pointing out how it seems to be, not necessarily how it should be.  i also agree with your point about moving towards a more open and accepting society as it will benefit everyone.  however i still maintain the view that treating rape victims as broken can increase the trauma and loneliness they already feel, and prolong it.   #  the rest of the time it gets downplayed like crazy.   # at least i never heard anyone make that complaint.  the one semi exception to this is rape victimhood being used in some circles as a reason to be able to talk.  this is especially true for men.  if you talk about rape as a guy, you will quickly be shot down for  derailing  or  mansplaining  or a variety of other terms.  however, if you say you are rape victim, then they will listen to you.  the result of this is you are forced to recount some serious trauma and be seen as a victim with all the dangerous consequences thereof if you want to talk about rape in general.  which sucks.  that is the only place i have felt society was giving too much attention and trying to bring back the trauma a lot.  the rest of the time it gets downplayed like crazy.   #  you hear 0 people say  it is not your fault  and 0 person say  why did you put yourself in that situation  and you latch on to that 0 persons statement.   #  i think rape itself is incredibly traumatizing for both men and women.  i think what causes the most trauma is the feeling lots of rape victims have that it is somehow  their fault  or that  they are responsible .  to some extent it is society is fault for saying things like  you should not have drunk to much  or  you should not have dressed slutty  or  you are a man, you should like it .  with that said, i believe that the people who hold those views and say those things are in the minority.  the issue is, when something traumatizing happens, it puts you in a dark place.  you hear 0 people say  it is not your fault  and 0 person say  why did you put yourself in that situation  and you latch on to that 0 persons statement.  it is also natural for humans to try to find a reason for events that may not have a reason.  something unexplainable happens and we try to find out why.  the truth is with rape, the reason why is the rapist is a horrible person but that does not do well to satisfy the question of why so people find other reasons.  it is one of the reasons people turn to religion in times of tragedy.  a horrible event occurs and it is easier to understand if you can come up with a reason such as  it was gods will  or  it is all part of gods plan .  the difference being with religion is it has a positive spin with the  their in a better place now  whereas with the internal justifications of rape there is no positive spin.  i was reluctant to bring up the topic of religion as i do not want this to turn into a debate on religion at all.  i am happy to talk about why i feel they are similar but would prefer to not go on about if there is a god or not or if religion is positive or not.   #  wow thanks for articulating what i could not so well !  # wow thanks for articulating what i could not so well ! this was the primary point i was trying to make, but i could not disagree with the other posters like bumblebee who pointed out other mistakes i made.  your third paragraph is what i was trying to get at when i thought up this cmv.  it ca not be denied that far more women report being victims of sexual assault than men do, but is it because more men do the assaulting or because men and women may have different views about what constitutes sexual assault ? i am still glad i learned a lot today though, even if this particular aspect was not addressed, it is very tricky.
this is something i noticed after seeing the huge amount of discussion about rape on reddit.  now note specifically i am talking about the non violent kind of rape where neither member is injured physically, but express verbal consent still was not given or statutory rape where one member is too young to give consent.  it seems to me that in today is society, men are expected to want sex all the time.  it is most obvious in cases where female teachers have sex with younger boys and peoples reaction to it mostly is  noicce  or  i wish this happened to me, my teacher was hot .  then when it happens with the sexes reversed the reaction is mostly,  that disgusting pedo deserves to get anally raped in jail  and  oh that poor girl, a terrible thing has been done to her .  as a result of this, you come across a lot of men who have been technically raped but who simply get over it extremely quickly despite feeling dirty, violated etc as other guys around them just say stuff like  you got laid dude quit complaining .  essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly.  however, when a woman gets raped, society is reaction amplifies these bad feelings to make the woman feel even worse.  society makes women feel they are now damaged, and a mark has been burned on them forever.  this kind of thing is obvious in cases where a woman who initially thought a sexual encounter was just uncomfortable is now told she was raped.  society is general reaction to rape would only make the woman feel even worse about it, and not let her move on for a much longer time than for a man.  i am not saying if i think either reaction is right or wrong, but it seems to be that way.  so cmv, does society make female rape victims feel worse about it then they would otherwise ?  #  however, when a woman gets raped, society is reaction amplifies these bad feelings to make the woman feel even worse.   #  society makes women feel they are now damaged, that feeling of being damaged is not a result of people trying to be supportive and saying how terrible the woman is experience was.   # essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly.  this is where you are wrong.  these men do not  get over it extremely quickly . they just learn to stfu about it because it is evident that nobody believes them and nobody gives a shit.  rape is still seen in society as something that men do to women, or as something that happens in prisons.  rather than this being a  good  thing that helps men move on with their lives, it actually does the opposite.  the fact that men are expected to always want sex is a  huge  detriment to male sexual assault/harassment/rape victims, because it leaves no room for consent consent is irrelevant and unnecessary if men are merely mindless sex robots. but  they are not .  this hurts men.  they are far less likely to seek prosecution because nobody will believe them.  they are far less likely to seek any kind of counseling/therapy to deal with what happened, because again, they assume that they will be met with more derision.  society makes women feel they are now damaged, that feeling of being damaged is not a result of people trying to be supportive and saying how terrible the woman is experience was.  it is a result of all the  other  people who ask her what she was wearing, or how much she had to drink, or whether she would been  leading him on , or otherwise want to know how she could have prevented it and protected herself better.  all that crap makes the victim feel worse because it all implies that the rape was somehow a natural result of something they did rather than being all the fault of the rapist.  also, when people go on and on about how huge of a problem false rape reports are yes, that happens, but from what i understand false reports do not make up the bulk of all rape reports.  that, i will give you i have seen women come onto forums and describe a sexual encounter, share that they are confused and feel weird about it, and be assured that  if you even have to ask  was i raped ?   then it was rape !   even though it really does not read like a rape account.  i do think some people are too eager to label encounters  rape , and that can definitely make people feel worse than they need to.  that is one of the reasons why i have already started teaching my kids the basic principle behind consent it is your body, and you get to say no.  a lot of these situations seem like they are complicated because one person  felt  like they were not into it and wanted to stop, but did not make that obvious to the other person, so things did not stop, and the next day they feel crappy about it. would not that be solved easily if the person who wanted to stop just  said so  and made it clear ? i think it is incredibly important for people to understand consent,  because  of situations like that.  they need to understand that if you  feel  no, say no.  anyway, so while there are things society definitely does to make rape victims feel worse, you have totally misunderstood what those things are.   #  holy shit that was fucked up seeing those two links, really opened my eyes to how well male victims can hide their traumatic experiences because they are pretty much forced to.   #  holy shit that was fucked up seeing those two links, really opened my eyes to how well male victims can hide their traumatic experiences because they are pretty much forced to.  i guess i formed my view from just what i saw in mainstream reddit, and talking to my friends about how they would totally bang so and so teacher etc.  i want to clarify that i do not think its right to minimize anyone is experience with something like rape, but i was just pointing out how it seems to be, not necessarily how it should be.  i also agree with your point about moving towards a more open and accepting society as it will benefit everyone.  however i still maintain the view that treating rape victims as broken can increase the trauma and loneliness they already feel, and prolong it.   #  however, if you say you are rape victim, then they will listen to you.   # at least i never heard anyone make that complaint.  the one semi exception to this is rape victimhood being used in some circles as a reason to be able to talk.  this is especially true for men.  if you talk about rape as a guy, you will quickly be shot down for  derailing  or  mansplaining  or a variety of other terms.  however, if you say you are rape victim, then they will listen to you.  the result of this is you are forced to recount some serious trauma and be seen as a victim with all the dangerous consequences thereof if you want to talk about rape in general.  which sucks.  that is the only place i have felt society was giving too much attention and trying to bring back the trauma a lot.  the rest of the time it gets downplayed like crazy.   #  you hear 0 people say  it is not your fault  and 0 person say  why did you put yourself in that situation  and you latch on to that 0 persons statement.   #  i think rape itself is incredibly traumatizing for both men and women.  i think what causes the most trauma is the feeling lots of rape victims have that it is somehow  their fault  or that  they are responsible .  to some extent it is society is fault for saying things like  you should not have drunk to much  or  you should not have dressed slutty  or  you are a man, you should like it .  with that said, i believe that the people who hold those views and say those things are in the minority.  the issue is, when something traumatizing happens, it puts you in a dark place.  you hear 0 people say  it is not your fault  and 0 person say  why did you put yourself in that situation  and you latch on to that 0 persons statement.  it is also natural for humans to try to find a reason for events that may not have a reason.  something unexplainable happens and we try to find out why.  the truth is with rape, the reason why is the rapist is a horrible person but that does not do well to satisfy the question of why so people find other reasons.  it is one of the reasons people turn to religion in times of tragedy.  a horrible event occurs and it is easier to understand if you can come up with a reason such as  it was gods will  or  it is all part of gods plan .  the difference being with religion is it has a positive spin with the  their in a better place now  whereas with the internal justifications of rape there is no positive spin.  i was reluctant to bring up the topic of religion as i do not want this to turn into a debate on religion at all.  i am happy to talk about why i feel they are similar but would prefer to not go on about if there is a god or not or if religion is positive or not.   #  wow thanks for articulating what i could not so well !  # wow thanks for articulating what i could not so well ! this was the primary point i was trying to make, but i could not disagree with the other posters like bumblebee who pointed out other mistakes i made.  your third paragraph is what i was trying to get at when i thought up this cmv.  it ca not be denied that far more women report being victims of sexual assault than men do, but is it because more men do the assaulting or because men and women may have different views about what constitutes sexual assault ? i am still glad i learned a lot today though, even if this particular aspect was not addressed, it is very tricky.
this is something i noticed after seeing the huge amount of discussion about rape on reddit.  now note specifically i am talking about the non violent kind of rape where neither member is injured physically, but express verbal consent still was not given or statutory rape where one member is too young to give consent.  it seems to me that in today is society, men are expected to want sex all the time.  it is most obvious in cases where female teachers have sex with younger boys and peoples reaction to it mostly is  noicce  or  i wish this happened to me, my teacher was hot .  then when it happens with the sexes reversed the reaction is mostly,  that disgusting pedo deserves to get anally raped in jail  and  oh that poor girl, a terrible thing has been done to her .  as a result of this, you come across a lot of men who have been technically raped but who simply get over it extremely quickly despite feeling dirty, violated etc as other guys around them just say stuff like  you got laid dude quit complaining .  essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly.  however, when a woman gets raped, society is reaction amplifies these bad feelings to make the woman feel even worse.  society makes women feel they are now damaged, and a mark has been burned on them forever.  this kind of thing is obvious in cases where a woman who initially thought a sexual encounter was just uncomfortable is now told she was raped.  society is general reaction to rape would only make the woman feel even worse about it, and not let her move on for a much longer time than for a man.  i am not saying if i think either reaction is right or wrong, but it seems to be that way.  so cmv, does society make female rape victims feel worse about it then they would otherwise ?  #  this kind of thing is obvious in cases where a woman who initially thought a sexual encounter was just uncomfortable is now told she was raped.   #  that, i will give you i have seen women come onto forums and describe a sexual encounter, share that they are confused and feel weird about it, and be assured that  if you even have to ask  was i raped ?    # essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly.  this is where you are wrong.  these men do not  get over it extremely quickly . they just learn to stfu about it because it is evident that nobody believes them and nobody gives a shit.  rape is still seen in society as something that men do to women, or as something that happens in prisons.  rather than this being a  good  thing that helps men move on with their lives, it actually does the opposite.  the fact that men are expected to always want sex is a  huge  detriment to male sexual assault/harassment/rape victims, because it leaves no room for consent consent is irrelevant and unnecessary if men are merely mindless sex robots. but  they are not .  this hurts men.  they are far less likely to seek prosecution because nobody will believe them.  they are far less likely to seek any kind of counseling/therapy to deal with what happened, because again, they assume that they will be met with more derision.  society makes women feel they are now damaged, that feeling of being damaged is not a result of people trying to be supportive and saying how terrible the woman is experience was.  it is a result of all the  other  people who ask her what she was wearing, or how much she had to drink, or whether she would been  leading him on , or otherwise want to know how she could have prevented it and protected herself better.  all that crap makes the victim feel worse because it all implies that the rape was somehow a natural result of something they did rather than being all the fault of the rapist.  also, when people go on and on about how huge of a problem false rape reports are yes, that happens, but from what i understand false reports do not make up the bulk of all rape reports.  that, i will give you i have seen women come onto forums and describe a sexual encounter, share that they are confused and feel weird about it, and be assured that  if you even have to ask  was i raped ?   then it was rape !   even though it really does not read like a rape account.  i do think some people are too eager to label encounters  rape , and that can definitely make people feel worse than they need to.  that is one of the reasons why i have already started teaching my kids the basic principle behind consent it is your body, and you get to say no.  a lot of these situations seem like they are complicated because one person  felt  like they were not into it and wanted to stop, but did not make that obvious to the other person, so things did not stop, and the next day they feel crappy about it. would not that be solved easily if the person who wanted to stop just  said so  and made it clear ? i think it is incredibly important for people to understand consent,  because  of situations like that.  they need to understand that if you  feel  no, say no.  anyway, so while there are things society definitely does to make rape victims feel worse, you have totally misunderstood what those things are.   #  i want to clarify that i do not think its right to minimize anyone is experience with something like rape, but i was just pointing out how it seems to be, not necessarily how it should be.   #  holy shit that was fucked up seeing those two links, really opened my eyes to how well male victims can hide their traumatic experiences because they are pretty much forced to.  i guess i formed my view from just what i saw in mainstream reddit, and talking to my friends about how they would totally bang so and so teacher etc.  i want to clarify that i do not think its right to minimize anyone is experience with something like rape, but i was just pointing out how it seems to be, not necessarily how it should be.  i also agree with your point about moving towards a more open and accepting society as it will benefit everyone.  however i still maintain the view that treating rape victims as broken can increase the trauma and loneliness they already feel, and prolong it.   #  at least i never heard anyone make that complaint.   # at least i never heard anyone make that complaint.  the one semi exception to this is rape victimhood being used in some circles as a reason to be able to talk.  this is especially true for men.  if you talk about rape as a guy, you will quickly be shot down for  derailing  or  mansplaining  or a variety of other terms.  however, if you say you are rape victim, then they will listen to you.  the result of this is you are forced to recount some serious trauma and be seen as a victim with all the dangerous consequences thereof if you want to talk about rape in general.  which sucks.  that is the only place i have felt society was giving too much attention and trying to bring back the trauma a lot.  the rest of the time it gets downplayed like crazy.   #  the truth is with rape, the reason why is the rapist is a horrible person but that does not do well to satisfy the question of why so people find other reasons.   #  i think rape itself is incredibly traumatizing for both men and women.  i think what causes the most trauma is the feeling lots of rape victims have that it is somehow  their fault  or that  they are responsible .  to some extent it is society is fault for saying things like  you should not have drunk to much  or  you should not have dressed slutty  or  you are a man, you should like it .  with that said, i believe that the people who hold those views and say those things are in the minority.  the issue is, when something traumatizing happens, it puts you in a dark place.  you hear 0 people say  it is not your fault  and 0 person say  why did you put yourself in that situation  and you latch on to that 0 persons statement.  it is also natural for humans to try to find a reason for events that may not have a reason.  something unexplainable happens and we try to find out why.  the truth is with rape, the reason why is the rapist is a horrible person but that does not do well to satisfy the question of why so people find other reasons.  it is one of the reasons people turn to religion in times of tragedy.  a horrible event occurs and it is easier to understand if you can come up with a reason such as  it was gods will  or  it is all part of gods plan .  the difference being with religion is it has a positive spin with the  their in a better place now  whereas with the internal justifications of rape there is no positive spin.  i was reluctant to bring up the topic of religion as i do not want this to turn into a debate on religion at all.  i am happy to talk about why i feel they are similar but would prefer to not go on about if there is a god or not or if religion is positive or not.   #  wow thanks for articulating what i could not so well !  # wow thanks for articulating what i could not so well ! this was the primary point i was trying to make, but i could not disagree with the other posters like bumblebee who pointed out other mistakes i made.  your third paragraph is what i was trying to get at when i thought up this cmv.  it ca not be denied that far more women report being victims of sexual assault than men do, but is it because more men do the assaulting or because men and women may have different views about what constitutes sexual assault ? i am still glad i learned a lot today though, even if this particular aspect was not addressed, it is very tricky.
i have read a lot about near death experiences and have watched videos with people who had them.  i have also read a lot of opinions on this topic by the sceptics.  my conclusion is that while ndes are not a 0 bulletproof evidence for the existence of afterlife by afterlife, i refer to the possibility, that a certain part of personal consciousness can exist after bodily death , i still think that there is enough evidence, that such option should be considered very seriously by the mainstream science.  as evidence, i consider 0 frequent reports of psychic phenomena during nde sceptics seem usually to ignore that, or simply say it is not reproducible or trustworthy 0 similarly patients having nde being able to describe details of surgeries that happened while thay had no brain activity 0 people who had ndes are usually completely convinced that the experince was real and believe in afterlife, reagardless of previous beliefs sceptics simply say thatm they are deluded, which seems rather closed minded, even smug, to me 0 similarly people who had ndes often change their lives in some way and attribute that to the contents of the experince.  probably does not logically imply much, but it is still worth considering imho .  further, it seems to me, that the sceptics failed to provide a resonable alternative explanation.  usually, they just dismiss it saying  it is just hallucination of the dying brain  or  fraud , but never elaborate on the details of such claims.  please, do not try to cmv on the validity of ndes, but try to cmv that mainstream science is ignorant of the available evidence and that the sceptics are rather closed minded.  or alternatively explain why all the evidence available is actually not enough to consider this possibility scientificaly interesting and disbelief should be pushed as the  default  opinion in science as it seems to me to be the case now.   #  or alternatively explain why all the evidence available is actually not enough to consider this possibility scientificaly interesting and disbelief should be pushed as the  default  opinion in science as it seems to me to be the case now.   #  science has, and continues to do, what it does best experiment.   #  you have made up your mind on ndes on faith and science simply does not work that way.  science is not about making assumptions or taking things for granted.  science requires evidence, experiment, observation, etc.  you look at something frequently data , you form a theory, you test that theory, and then you iterate that entire process.  science is most often about being proven wrong, not about being proven right.  science is fundamentally incompatible with faith because faith requires a suspension of skepticism and science requires the opposite.  science is about questioning, not accepting.  science has, and continues to do, what it does best experiment.  there are countless experiments into the phenomena of nde everything from painting symbols in ors that are only visible from above never observed by those with out of body experience as part of nde , to medical analysis of patients that experience ndes interestingly, there is a whole cohort of people that experience ndes because they  think  they are dying when in fact they are in no medical danger of that at all , to studies that specifically induce the phenomena in people we can make ndes, along with a bunch of other neurological phenomena, on demand in healthy people .  my point with all of that is simple: science is following all the evidence, including the evidence that does not support your assertions regarding ndes.  the scientific consensus is that nde is nothing more than a neurological phenomena that occurs in the human brain in response to certain kinds of stress.  that does not mean that nde is not a subject of scientific interest, on the contrary, nde is very interesting to science because it gives insight into how particular brain areas are involved in perception.  the ultimate purpose of science is to give you the answer that is true, whether that is the answer that you want or not.  that can be pretty rough on people is faith and beliefs.   #  all of these nde experiences are evidence for  that  hypothesis.   #  i am having a hard time understanding how you think that evidence gathered from before someone was dead i. e.  medically dead, no brainwave activity can possibly bear on whether there is any kind of experience after death.  if you are still alive, whatever is going on is going on because your brain is active.  that is exactly what all of our evidence suggests.  there is no evidence anywhere of any kind of  experience  that happens when your brain is not active, because no one has ever survived having their brain be completely inactive.  they are not called  after death experiences .  they are called  near death experiences .  and they are called that for a reason.  brains do weird things when they are under stress.  all of these nde experiences are evidence for  that  hypothesis.  they have no bearing whatsoever on the hypothesis that something happens  after  death.   #  near paralysis experiences have a bearing on what it is like to be paralyzed.   # and how do you know this ? near fire experiences can give us insight into what it would be like to be in fire.  near paralysis experiences have a bearing on what it is like to be paralyzed.  near sleep experiences sometimes give us insight into what it is like to sleep.  near fainting experiences give us some insight into what it is like to be fainted.  how on earth can you just assert that near death experiences have no bearing whatsoever on what it is like to be dead ?  #  being in a coma would be a bit further, still, like being dead.   #  if brain activity levels were correlated with  how it is like to be dead  the way this would imply, then dreaming would be a bit like being dead.  being unconscious would be a bit more like being dead.  being in a coma would be a bit further, still, like being dead.  having an nde would be even more like being dead.  or rather might be.  because only rarely does anyone actually hook up an eeg to a person that has experienced an nde.  in fact i am not sure it is ever happened.  however, you will note there is a bit of a disjointed problem there: nde is are described like dreams, i. e.  with conscious experience.  they may have less brain activity than normal unconsciousness or being in a coma, but seem like something that has more brain activity.  interestingly, though, there seems to be a surge in brain activity just before death.  a very interesting study URL it seems like the evidence is that the moments before death are more like being awake than they are like what happens  after  death.   #  physically, that ball if it is a rigid/hard body will bounce an infinite number of times in a finite number of seconds.   # oh it has ! i have read reports ca not remember where, sorry of ndes that felt like they took weeks, happening reportedly at a time when the areas of the brain normally correlated with consciousness were completely dead as verified by eeg, but only for a few minutes.  but then again, we do not know what happens to one is sense of time when the brain goes defunct, so there is no telling that the entire experience was not squeezed into the moments when the person entered/exited this state.  which raises another interesting possibility: what if the dying brain messes so much and so increasingly with the subjective sense of time that an eternal afterlife is experienced subjectively in what would from a bystander is point of view be considered the dying moments ? i am not going to contend that it is so, but the idea has always fascinated me.  perhaps i really no longer am conscious after my brain is dead, but in  my  world, i live forever a forever that is squeezed into a few seconds.  woah ! i did not know that.  that is very interesting.  i feel it is intuitive that more intense brain activity should be accompanied by a slower subjective experience of time, which would fit into what i said earlier.  if you drop a rigid ball onto a rigid surface, it bounces back to, say, 0 of its original height.  this means that after every bounce, there will be another bounce.  so in some sense, the bounces never stop.  they just become lower and faster.  yet in real time, it can be proven URL that the bouncing ceases entirely after a finite number of seconds.  now suppose someone is initially hitting the ball like in basketball, bouncing it once every second by adding energy to it after every bounce.  suppose each bounce represents one subjectively felt second, and each real second in time represents, well, a real second in time.  now the person stops bouncing the ball, and it starts bouncing faster and lower, faster and lower.  physically, that ball if it is a rigid/hard body will bounce an infinite number of times in a finite number of seconds.  if each bounce was a subjectively felt second, then there was a subjective eternity in a few seconds of dying bounces.  maybe the brain is subjective clock does something like that when it dies.
i have read a lot about near death experiences and have watched videos with people who had them.  i have also read a lot of opinions on this topic by the sceptics.  my conclusion is that while ndes are not a 0 bulletproof evidence for the existence of afterlife by afterlife, i refer to the possibility, that a certain part of personal consciousness can exist after bodily death , i still think that there is enough evidence, that such option should be considered very seriously by the mainstream science.  as evidence, i consider 0 frequent reports of psychic phenomena during nde sceptics seem usually to ignore that, or simply say it is not reproducible or trustworthy 0 similarly patients having nde being able to describe details of surgeries that happened while thay had no brain activity 0 people who had ndes are usually completely convinced that the experince was real and believe in afterlife, reagardless of previous beliefs sceptics simply say thatm they are deluded, which seems rather closed minded, even smug, to me 0 similarly people who had ndes often change their lives in some way and attribute that to the contents of the experince.  probably does not logically imply much, but it is still worth considering imho .  further, it seems to me, that the sceptics failed to provide a resonable alternative explanation.  usually, they just dismiss it saying  it is just hallucination of the dying brain  or  fraud , but never elaborate on the details of such claims.  please, do not try to cmv on the validity of ndes, but try to cmv that mainstream science is ignorant of the available evidence and that the sceptics are rather closed minded.  or alternatively explain why all the evidence available is actually not enough to consider this possibility scientificaly interesting and disbelief should be pushed as the  default  opinion in science as it seems to me to be the case now.   #  explain why all the evidence available is actually not enough to consider this possibility scientificaly interesting and disbelief should be pushed as the  default  opinion in science as it seems to me to be the case now.   #  that link will cover why the evidence is not enough.   #  i have done quite a bit of research on ndes.  i do not find near death experiences very convincing because.  0.  they vary so much.  0.  they can be explained by non supernatural means.  0.  they have very weak evidence to back them up.  0.  so many of them have been shown to be exaggerations or complete fabrications.  0.  all the things that have been experienced in ndes have also been experienced by people who were not dying here is my research on the subject URL i think you will find that it answers most of your questions.  i will briefly address your points and you will find details to support my statements in the link above.  that is because so many nde is are poorly supported and so many of them have been exposed as exaggerations or fabrications.  that link will cover why the evidence is not enough.   #  all of these nde experiences are evidence for  that  hypothesis.   #  i am having a hard time understanding how you think that evidence gathered from before someone was dead i. e.  medically dead, no brainwave activity can possibly bear on whether there is any kind of experience after death.  if you are still alive, whatever is going on is going on because your brain is active.  that is exactly what all of our evidence suggests.  there is no evidence anywhere of any kind of  experience  that happens when your brain is not active, because no one has ever survived having their brain be completely inactive.  they are not called  after death experiences .  they are called  near death experiences .  and they are called that for a reason.  brains do weird things when they are under stress.  all of these nde experiences are evidence for  that  hypothesis.  they have no bearing whatsoever on the hypothesis that something happens  after  death.   #  near sleep experiences sometimes give us insight into what it is like to sleep.   # and how do you know this ? near fire experiences can give us insight into what it would be like to be in fire.  near paralysis experiences have a bearing on what it is like to be paralyzed.  near sleep experiences sometimes give us insight into what it is like to sleep.  near fainting experiences give us some insight into what it is like to be fainted.  how on earth can you just assert that near death experiences have no bearing whatsoever on what it is like to be dead ?  #  interestingly, though, there seems to be a surge in brain activity just before death.   #  if brain activity levels were correlated with  how it is like to be dead  the way this would imply, then dreaming would be a bit like being dead.  being unconscious would be a bit more like being dead.  being in a coma would be a bit further, still, like being dead.  having an nde would be even more like being dead.  or rather might be.  because only rarely does anyone actually hook up an eeg to a person that has experienced an nde.  in fact i am not sure it is ever happened.  however, you will note there is a bit of a disjointed problem there: nde is are described like dreams, i. e.  with conscious experience.  they may have less brain activity than normal unconsciousness or being in a coma, but seem like something that has more brain activity.  interestingly, though, there seems to be a surge in brain activity just before death.  a very interesting study URL it seems like the evidence is that the moments before death are more like being awake than they are like what happens  after  death.   #  if you drop a rigid ball onto a rigid surface, it bounces back to, say, 0 of its original height.   # oh it has ! i have read reports ca not remember where, sorry of ndes that felt like they took weeks, happening reportedly at a time when the areas of the brain normally correlated with consciousness were completely dead as verified by eeg, but only for a few minutes.  but then again, we do not know what happens to one is sense of time when the brain goes defunct, so there is no telling that the entire experience was not squeezed into the moments when the person entered/exited this state.  which raises another interesting possibility: what if the dying brain messes so much and so increasingly with the subjective sense of time that an eternal afterlife is experienced subjectively in what would from a bystander is point of view be considered the dying moments ? i am not going to contend that it is so, but the idea has always fascinated me.  perhaps i really no longer am conscious after my brain is dead, but in  my  world, i live forever a forever that is squeezed into a few seconds.  woah ! i did not know that.  that is very interesting.  i feel it is intuitive that more intense brain activity should be accompanied by a slower subjective experience of time, which would fit into what i said earlier.  if you drop a rigid ball onto a rigid surface, it bounces back to, say, 0 of its original height.  this means that after every bounce, there will be another bounce.  so in some sense, the bounces never stop.  they just become lower and faster.  yet in real time, it can be proven URL that the bouncing ceases entirely after a finite number of seconds.  now suppose someone is initially hitting the ball like in basketball, bouncing it once every second by adding energy to it after every bounce.  suppose each bounce represents one subjectively felt second, and each real second in time represents, well, a real second in time.  now the person stops bouncing the ball, and it starts bouncing faster and lower, faster and lower.  physically, that ball if it is a rigid/hard body will bounce an infinite number of times in a finite number of seconds.  if each bounce was a subjectively felt second, then there was a subjective eternity in a few seconds of dying bounces.  maybe the brain is subjective clock does something like that when it dies.
i met a lot of atheists.  i also met some angry atheists.  my problem is with them.  a lot of angry atheists attack religions and religious people by using science.  a lot of them seem to think that they are helping scientific progress.  i think they are doing the opposite.  scientific advancement is a group effort from the society.  if more people take part in science, more progress is made.  the more the merrier.  by using science to attack people who are religious, they alienate a huge population from science.  so the number of people in science is lower.  so less progress.  more time until we get space ships.   #  scientific advancement is a group effort from the society.   #  if more people take part in science, more progress is made.   #  i am an atheist, and i hope although i am not sure not an angry atheist.  however, i want to change your mind on another point you made, perhaps not your main point.  if more people take part in science, more progress is made.  i believe that almost all if not all branches of what we usually consider science have reached the point where more people does not help anymore.  to advance further we need select groups of the very most intelligent people we have.  i would argue that these people get into science whether or not there are  angry atheists  there.  this would mean that the alienation of moderately interested theists does not slow down scientific progress.   #  so, in short the perception alone that a professor is an angry atheist can push religious students to a different field.   #  people were slow to pick up the big bang theory, partially because the early proponents were catholics.  a common early critique was that the science was not  real  science but rather an attempt to square the creation of the universe with genesis.  it was not until much later that a preponderance of evidence demonstrated how much more accurate the big bang concept was than earlier cyclical models.  in higher education there is a thing seen in politics.  when professors are seen as being liberal regardless of their actual affiliation students of that political inclination are more likely to take their classes and students of opposing inclination are less likely.  a similar effect occurs in the sciences, schools where hard science professors are viewed to be hard atheists are more likely to attract atheistic students and less likely to attract religious ones, who gravitate to softer alternatives that are perceived to be more welcoming of their pre existing beliefs and less likely to negatively impact their grades.  in the political version there is little to no intentional discrimination based on political views, but an unconscious bias does result in a small difference on performance of similar quality assignments thanks to cognitive dissonance or the fact that we are harsher with things that we do not agree with and more forgiving with things that we do .  so, in short the perception alone that a professor is an angry atheist can push religious students to a different field.  neil gross covered this kind of topic heavily in  why are professors liberal and why do conservatives care ? 0.   and  professors and their politics co edited with solon simmons.  0.    #  then evidence supports it, and they change their mind.   # a common early critique was that the science was not real science but rather an attempt to square the creation of the universe with genesis.  it was not until much later that a preponderance of evidence demonstrated how much more accurate the big bang concept was than earlier cyclical models.  as you said, once evidence started to support the hypothesis of the big bang, scientists accepted it more and more  because it was finally supported and not just something that fits with religion .  a religious or not person proposes an idea to which there is little or no evidence.  the scientific community says  this is interesting, but we do not accept it because of a lack of evidence .  then evidence supports it, and they change their mind.  that is how science is  supposed  to work.   #  that is the kind of person that i could collaborate with and maybe help roll back the relatively new idea that genesis should be taken literally.   #  speaking as a religious person who is frequently put off by the  angry atheist  type, i ca not say that that is the case.  i have had numerous discussions with many types of atheists on cmv alone, and my experience does not match your generalization.  consider it this way: i can listen to and enjoy the work of someone like bill nye.  even when debating a very silly person in ken ham, he was careful to respect religious belief and to avoid attacking that belief.  there were many times and different ways he could have taken a cheap shot and he did not.  to me, that means he and i can agree to disagree on religious ideas and i can still learn from what he has to say about science.  that is the kind of person that i could collaborate with and maybe help roll back the relatively new idea that genesis should be taken literally.  the opposite of this would be richard dawkins.  i do not really listen to anything he says anymore because as far as i have seen he ca not manage to be civil or respectful towards my beliefs; he seems constitutionally incapable of simple courtesy.  if some branch of study required that i immerse myself in his work, i would not take up that study because i do not like spending my time having my beliefs insulted.  i ca not work with him on anything because his solution to the present conflict between science and faith is to eliminate the faith.  as that is not an option for me.  i imagine that most atheists are somewhere between these two in terms of temperament, but i can conclusively say that i pay less attention to and am much less likely to seek out the work of a person the closer they are to dawkins on that spectrum.  i am not pursuing a career in science for wholly unrelated reasons, but if that were not the case and the scientists i saw appeared to demand that i make a choice between my faith and a scientific career, i would keep the faith.   #  i was not angry or confrontational, i was presenting a world that did not work in accordance with their strict religious adherance.   # i have had numerous discussions with many types of atheists on cmv alone, and my experience does not match your generalization.  but do you eschew science because of them, or are you merely put off of the angry atheists themselves ? i am having difficulty understanding what you mean in regards to dawkins contemporary fields of science very rarely require that you immerse yourself in any one individual is work.  in fact, the whole idea of science is that you need multiple individuals each bringing something to the table.  my point is that someone who is so immersed in their faith that they do not believe evolution happened is not being turned off science by angry atheists, they are being turned off science by what they precieve as a direct attack on their faith.  i question the idea that such people would embrace science if only it were not for those pesky angry atheists, because they were against scientific thought before meeting such an angry atheist.  but people already look at the world like this without anyone demanding it from them.  they see things in terms of,  i can believe the bible or i can believe scientists and i choose the bible !   the  science itself  is considered an attack.  i know because i have been called an angry atheist for trying to educate someone on the basic tenants of evolution a few times, actually .  i was not angry or confrontational, i was presenting a world that did not work in accordance with their strict religious adherance.  and dismissing me as merely angry was their way of dismissing my overall argument.  angry atheists are annoying, i will grant you and op that.  but i think it is important to understand why they are so angry.  i was raised secular, and so i have never felt the need to feel angry about my or any one else is beliefs unless they affect me or society .  but i can understand why people who feel they have been mislead their entire lives to adhere to something they see as so flawed are angry.
i have always felt like the idea of a god is a way to compensate and try to make sense of things that does not make any sense.  the religious people i have encountered in my life, always seemed so ignorant and incompetant that instead of blaming themselves they blame god for their/others mistakes.  we can scientifically prove  0 of every thing that exists, but still these people seem stuck with the idea of god, like we are living in the middle age and does not know any better.  i am open to the idea of god, though i do not acknowledge the supernatural elements some gods are supposed to have.  i think it must be said that i live in denmark, and only 0/0 people as far as i remember believes in god.   #  i have always felt like the idea of a god is a way to compensate and try to make sense of things that does not make any sense.   #  is it necessarily naive to slap an answer onto a question that we can never answer anyway ?  # is it necessarily naive to slap an answer onto a question that we can never answer anyway ? the answer of  there is a god  is as scientifically viable as the answer of  there is not a god.   i personally think it is fine to pick an answer and go, so that you do not spend the rest of your life in futility pondering such a big question.  science  proves  very little, if anything, in the same way that statistical devices can never really be used as mathematical proof: using concrete empirical data to induce a theory always has at least a minuscule chance that said theory is wrong.  science is more,  this is our best explanation of how the universe operates,  and less,  this is  exactly  how the universe operates.    #  neither of those require any belief in a deity nor supernatural force.   #  fellow dane here and based on your username, we are from the same town too ! just wanted to correct the information you posted first of all, it is quite off.  »according to the skye most recent eurobarometer poll 0, 0 of danish citizens responded that  they believe there is a god , 0 responded that  they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force  and 0 responded that  they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god or life force.   « now, would not you say it depends on the person, the religion and the extent of their belief ? plenty of people interpret the more miraculous events in the bible or any of the other abrahamic holy texts as purely metaphorical, as an example.  what about buddhism and taoism ? neither of those require any belief in a deity nor supernatural force.  point is, religion is not black or white it is very nuanced and plenty of intellectuals adhere to some sort of religion in one way or another.   #  this could be a point of changing the view for op: very few of us actually test the information we receive.   #  surely buddhists like to appeal to western audience by saying there is no belief in deity, but what separates people who call themselves  buddhist  as opposed to, say, humanist is precisely the dogmas they hold.  karmic law, transference of soul, seeing past lives with clairvoyance, immaterial mind and so forth.  these beliefs do not come about by evidence, but tradition and scripture.  this could be a point of changing the view for op: very few of us actually test the information we receive.  we would rather trust the authority that gave us that information newspapers, blogs, journals , which places us on the same level of intellectualism as religious adherents.   #  it is pretty hard to be both a hardline christian and a good geologist.   #  it was precisely albert einstein is adherence to deism that prevented him from conceptualizing quantum theory.   god does not play with dice  is a rough translation of his sentiment.  0 of the national academy of scientists are atheists.  again, i feel einstein was a product of his time.  even in 0, atheists are viewed extremely negatively, are mistrusted, etc.  i maintain that einstein would also probably be an atheist if he lived today.  the biggest point though is that there are shades to religion.  you can have christian, muslim, jewish scientists who do great work, but they understand that their religions are not talking about reality.  it is pretty hard to be both a hardline christian and a good geologist.   #  and if course it is easy to say  he would have been atheist  with no evidence, and no understanding of the logic by which he was not.   #  nah no one actually understood quantum theory.  that had nothing to do it.  and if course it is easy to say  he would have been atheist  with no evidence, and no understanding of the logic by which he was not.   we are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages.  the child knows someone must have written those books.  it does not know how.  it does not understand the languages in which they are written.  the child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but does not know what it is.  that, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward god.     science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.   i do not know what kind of hard line christian you are referring to, even st augustine said that genesis was metaphorical.  any reason why you think he would have been atheist ? honestly it seems a bit insulting to einstein, to disregard part of him purely because of when he was born just because of stereotypes.  your entire argument screams no true scotsman fallacy.
our civilization today is almost entirely dependent on petroleum for energy, materials and the sheer scale in which we operate.  if the oil runs out, we will have nothing no feasible backup source of energy, nothing to build today is miracle materials like plastics and composites with.  rare earth metals will run out within 0 years.  significant parts of our technology are based on rare earths, and like petroleum, we have no alternatives.  with the increasing connections and interconnections that are essential for our survival, the failure of a few links would not be very significant.  however, if multiple catastrophes that affect different levels of the supply chain due to different reasons occur together, the results will be disastrous.  one of the examples i read about says that if china gets really screwed up and stops rare earth metals supply to the outside world they account for 0 of the production , we will suddenly have a electronics production shortage.  if that happens to combine with a petroleum supply issue, we will have a major economic disaster.  of course, this might be simplifying a lot of issues, but my core issue still stands: if a perfect storm of problems happen, we are screwed.  we have had massive civil unrest and economic problems like the great depression for far smaller issues.  i think if our resources run out, we will be caught unprepared.   #  our civilization today is almost entirely dependent on petroleum for energy, materials and the sheer scale in which we operate.   #  if the oil runs out, we will have nothing no feasible backup source of energy, nothing to build today is miracle materials like plastics and composites with.   #  i will address your points in order, if there is any other information needed to change your mind just say so but i think the data is very compelling that civilization will not collapse due to a lack of resources at any point in our future.  if the oil runs out, we will have nothing no feasible backup source of energy, nothing to build today is miracle materials like plastics and composites with.  URL the oil usage today in roughly 0 mmbd million of barrels of oil per day , compared to 0 mmbd from natural gas and 0 mmbd from coal therefore most of our fossil energy does not depend on petroleum.  and adjusted for renewable including hydro, one of our largest sources of electricity /nuclear, oil provides less than 0 of our energy needs.  our civillization today is therefore not dependent on oil as the driving force of our economy.  as for there being no viable replacement: the current world reserves of coal are 0,0 billion barrels of oil equivalent, this could supply the equivalent of 0 years of human energy consumption after oil and natural gas have completely been used up.  therefore fossil energy has viable reserves that will last over 0 years.  assuming that economics works in the favor of wind/solar pv/solar thermal concentrated/solar thermal pond/tidal/wave/nuclear fission/nuclear fusion/large scale hydro/small scale hydro/pumped storage hydro/biomass/geothermal, then the necessary carbon for manufacturing of plastics may come from remaining petroleum/coal/natural gas which will then last us hundreds millions of years .  we have no shortage of alternatives.  the most important commodity of humanity is in fact not oil, it is metal ores, and their refined forms.  aluminium production globally is powered by hydropower the largest source of electricity in the early 0th century to prove that it is commercially viable , it does not depend on oil except for a few small smelters some may be fueled by natural gas but their aluminium costs more than that from hydropower .  the largest of all metal ores is obviously iron ore which is currently refined using coking coal  not oil .  also, our current civilization does not depend on miracle materials they are reserved for a civilization of the future.  significant parts of our technology are based on rare earths, and like petroleum, we have no alternatives.  that is assuming no alternate source of rare earth elements is available china is might run out in 0 years but they have an estimated 0 of the worlds reserves.  so that gives us 0 years to play around with which is much longer than the 0 years until collapse that you suggest .  the decommissioning of mines is also no quick process they are brownfield sites usually.  this means that in most jurisdictions including china is they would have to give 0 0 years of notice enough time for the market to react as they know exactly what tonnage will not be placed on the market which they assumed would .  this would push the prices up making it viable for other mines to open.  these factors make it almost impossible for us to be caught unprepared a weaning of of dependent resources could take well over 0 years, and civilization would not collapse as people know what is occurring, and what is being done to eliminate need in accordance with economic principles.  the market can predict what will happen so a recession will not occur ! our resources will not run out before we can react ! there will be no collapse of civilization as we know it.  sorry for my ramblings.   #  alternative energy sources for energy production will leave more oil for other ends.   #  i highly doubt it will outright collapse.  there are economic forces at play.  once resources start getting low there are going to be huge incentives to find other ways to do things, and to find alternative energy sources.  you will see huge builds up of solar and wind energy, to replace oil, and probably a huge uptake of electric cars.  even if batteries are still not perfect by then, at some point an electric car becomes better than paying obscene prices for oil.  if the oil runs out, we will have nothing no feasible backup source of energy, nothing to build today is miracle materials like plastics and composites with.  alternative energy sources for energy production will leave more oil for other ends.  we can switch back to manufacturing more things out of wood and metal plastic was not always there anyway.  personally i would love to have more stuff made out of anodized aluminium.  significant parts of our technology are based on rare earths, and like petroleum, we have no alternatives.  as far as i know, rare earths are not all that rare, and most production is currently done by china because china is hard to beat on the price.  there exist sources that are not exploited, and sources nobody is bothering to look for, because it is not currently economically viable.  also recycling will pick up, it is not like the stuff we are using evaporates.  we are just not bothering to extract huge amounts of material out of landfills.  now i am not saying we are not going to see some upheaval where some industries go bankrupt, or an economic depression, but an outright collapse seems way overblown.   #  if they happen together, that will be when we will have major problems.   #  the energy sources part is probably true, we will find other energy sources.  but the fact remains that we build so much of our materials out of petroleum products, that finding a substitute is going to be near impossible.  the price and availability problem that will stop petroleum from being used for energy will also prevent it from being used for materials.  we will see upheavals, and if the upheavals happen together, they will fall beyond our ability to control.  to give another example of possible problems, climate change and associated sea level rise will be major problems in the future.  if sea levels rise, we will be dealing with millions of refugees from coastal areas, due to extreme climate as well as sinking.  the same climate issues will also affect food production.  today, we are producing enough food to feed our population, but if there is any radical change in the climate, our cropping patterns ca not change fast enough.  so we have a food shortage, and millions of refugees to deal with.  if the oil shortage decides to hit then, do you honestly think we can do much about it ? research into future improvements need your present to be secure, and we will be too busy saving the present to pay attention to our future.  each of the events individually petroleum and rare earth exhaustion, climate change, food shortages can be dealt with.  if they happen together, that will be when we will have major problems.   #  the price and availability problem that will stop petroleum from being used for energy will also prevent it from being used for materials.   # the price and availability problem that will stop petroleum from being used for energy will also prevent it from being used for materials.  i just said: wood and metal.  most things do not absolutely have to be made out of plastic.  my current laptop has a plastic case, but there are metal ones too.  yes, it might not be 0, but a large amount of things can be made from other materials.  such a situation will also put a pressure on science to come up with other things to make plastic from.  that is moving the goalposts, though.  i am answering the specific subject of this post.  but i think it is not completely unreasonable to speculate that global warming will eventually kick in a massive effort to reverse it or at least slow it down, and trees are a way of locking up carbon.  that might well make wood a lot cheaper.   #  they are important and a major economic issue.   #  i was just giving examples of the kind of issues we were going to face.  i did not include climate change in the original question, because it does not strictly fit in the  aresource crunch  subject.  regardless, it is going to be huge problem.  now, it is true that will will find substitutes, and it will not be 0.  however, a large number of crucial materials like rubber and a bunch of polymers will be among the ones that are not substituted.  they are important and a major economic issue.
our civilization today is almost entirely dependent on petroleum for energy, materials and the sheer scale in which we operate.  if the oil runs out, we will have nothing no feasible backup source of energy, nothing to build today is miracle materials like plastics and composites with.  rare earth metals will run out within 0 years.  significant parts of our technology are based on rare earths, and like petroleum, we have no alternatives.  with the increasing connections and interconnections that are essential for our survival, the failure of a few links would not be very significant.  however, if multiple catastrophes that affect different levels of the supply chain due to different reasons occur together, the results will be disastrous.  one of the examples i read about says that if china gets really screwed up and stops rare earth metals supply to the outside world they account for 0 of the production , we will suddenly have a electronics production shortage.  if that happens to combine with a petroleum supply issue, we will have a major economic disaster.  of course, this might be simplifying a lot of issues, but my core issue still stands: if a perfect storm of problems happen, we are screwed.  we have had massive civil unrest and economic problems like the great depression for far smaller issues.  i think if our resources run out, we will be caught unprepared.   #  rare earth metals will run out within 0 years.   #  significant parts of our technology are based on rare earths, and like petroleum, we have no alternatives.   #  i will address your points in order, if there is any other information needed to change your mind just say so but i think the data is very compelling that civilization will not collapse due to a lack of resources at any point in our future.  if the oil runs out, we will have nothing no feasible backup source of energy, nothing to build today is miracle materials like plastics and composites with.  URL the oil usage today in roughly 0 mmbd million of barrels of oil per day , compared to 0 mmbd from natural gas and 0 mmbd from coal therefore most of our fossil energy does not depend on petroleum.  and adjusted for renewable including hydro, one of our largest sources of electricity /nuclear, oil provides less than 0 of our energy needs.  our civillization today is therefore not dependent on oil as the driving force of our economy.  as for there being no viable replacement: the current world reserves of coal are 0,0 billion barrels of oil equivalent, this could supply the equivalent of 0 years of human energy consumption after oil and natural gas have completely been used up.  therefore fossil energy has viable reserves that will last over 0 years.  assuming that economics works in the favor of wind/solar pv/solar thermal concentrated/solar thermal pond/tidal/wave/nuclear fission/nuclear fusion/large scale hydro/small scale hydro/pumped storage hydro/biomass/geothermal, then the necessary carbon for manufacturing of plastics may come from remaining petroleum/coal/natural gas which will then last us hundreds millions of years .  we have no shortage of alternatives.  the most important commodity of humanity is in fact not oil, it is metal ores, and their refined forms.  aluminium production globally is powered by hydropower the largest source of electricity in the early 0th century to prove that it is commercially viable , it does not depend on oil except for a few small smelters some may be fueled by natural gas but their aluminium costs more than that from hydropower .  the largest of all metal ores is obviously iron ore which is currently refined using coking coal  not oil .  also, our current civilization does not depend on miracle materials they are reserved for a civilization of the future.  significant parts of our technology are based on rare earths, and like petroleum, we have no alternatives.  that is assuming no alternate source of rare earth elements is available china is might run out in 0 years but they have an estimated 0 of the worlds reserves.  so that gives us 0 years to play around with which is much longer than the 0 years until collapse that you suggest .  the decommissioning of mines is also no quick process they are brownfield sites usually.  this means that in most jurisdictions including china is they would have to give 0 0 years of notice enough time for the market to react as they know exactly what tonnage will not be placed on the market which they assumed would .  this would push the prices up making it viable for other mines to open.  these factors make it almost impossible for us to be caught unprepared a weaning of of dependent resources could take well over 0 years, and civilization would not collapse as people know what is occurring, and what is being done to eliminate need in accordance with economic principles.  the market can predict what will happen so a recession will not occur ! our resources will not run out before we can react ! there will be no collapse of civilization as we know it.  sorry for my ramblings.   #  if the oil runs out, we will have nothing no feasible backup source of energy, nothing to build today is miracle materials like plastics and composites with.   #  i highly doubt it will outright collapse.  there are economic forces at play.  once resources start getting low there are going to be huge incentives to find other ways to do things, and to find alternative energy sources.  you will see huge builds up of solar and wind energy, to replace oil, and probably a huge uptake of electric cars.  even if batteries are still not perfect by then, at some point an electric car becomes better than paying obscene prices for oil.  if the oil runs out, we will have nothing no feasible backup source of energy, nothing to build today is miracle materials like plastics and composites with.  alternative energy sources for energy production will leave more oil for other ends.  we can switch back to manufacturing more things out of wood and metal plastic was not always there anyway.  personally i would love to have more stuff made out of anodized aluminium.  significant parts of our technology are based on rare earths, and like petroleum, we have no alternatives.  as far as i know, rare earths are not all that rare, and most production is currently done by china because china is hard to beat on the price.  there exist sources that are not exploited, and sources nobody is bothering to look for, because it is not currently economically viable.  also recycling will pick up, it is not like the stuff we are using evaporates.  we are just not bothering to extract huge amounts of material out of landfills.  now i am not saying we are not going to see some upheaval where some industries go bankrupt, or an economic depression, but an outright collapse seems way overblown.   #  we will see upheavals, and if the upheavals happen together, they will fall beyond our ability to control.   #  the energy sources part is probably true, we will find other energy sources.  but the fact remains that we build so much of our materials out of petroleum products, that finding a substitute is going to be near impossible.  the price and availability problem that will stop petroleum from being used for energy will also prevent it from being used for materials.  we will see upheavals, and if the upheavals happen together, they will fall beyond our ability to control.  to give another example of possible problems, climate change and associated sea level rise will be major problems in the future.  if sea levels rise, we will be dealing with millions of refugees from coastal areas, due to extreme climate as well as sinking.  the same climate issues will also affect food production.  today, we are producing enough food to feed our population, but if there is any radical change in the climate, our cropping patterns ca not change fast enough.  so we have a food shortage, and millions of refugees to deal with.  if the oil shortage decides to hit then, do you honestly think we can do much about it ? research into future improvements need your present to be secure, and we will be too busy saving the present to pay attention to our future.  each of the events individually petroleum and rare earth exhaustion, climate change, food shortages can be dealt with.  if they happen together, that will be when we will have major problems.   #  the price and availability problem that will stop petroleum from being used for energy will also prevent it from being used for materials.   # the price and availability problem that will stop petroleum from being used for energy will also prevent it from being used for materials.  i just said: wood and metal.  most things do not absolutely have to be made out of plastic.  my current laptop has a plastic case, but there are metal ones too.  yes, it might not be 0, but a large amount of things can be made from other materials.  such a situation will also put a pressure on science to come up with other things to make plastic from.  that is moving the goalposts, though.  i am answering the specific subject of this post.  but i think it is not completely unreasonable to speculate that global warming will eventually kick in a massive effort to reverse it or at least slow it down, and trees are a way of locking up carbon.  that might well make wood a lot cheaper.   #  i was just giving examples of the kind of issues we were going to face.   #  i was just giving examples of the kind of issues we were going to face.  i did not include climate change in the original question, because it does not strictly fit in the  aresource crunch  subject.  regardless, it is going to be huge problem.  now, it is true that will will find substitutes, and it will not be 0.  however, a large number of crucial materials like rubber and a bunch of polymers will be among the ones that are not substituted.  they are important and a major economic issue.
i have never been to a western country.  but on the internet, i have witnessed westerners calling us iranians  arab  or  arabic  and i have been called arab a few times myself.  i would not care if anyone calls me by another ethnicity.  i am not proud of my race, as no one should be.  but arabs, well, they are not famed for positive things not only in the westerner globe, but across the entire world.  i could write and write about how being called an arab is insulting, but just keep in mind that for the past twenty years or so, arabs have not actually been a model ethnicity.  some people even go far as saying  iranians do not  consider  themselves arab .  what the hell does that mean ? iranians are not arab.  they are persian, kurd, gilaki, lor, etc.  how can they not  consider  themselves arab.  that is why i believe this should be a hate crime.  we iranians are proud people, and we never liked arabs.  we speak an indo european language and hell, even our religion is vastly different from theirs.  can you come up with an argument against me ?  #  that is why i believe this should be a hate crime.   #  we iranians are proud people, and we never liked arabs.   # we iranians are proud people, and we never liked arabs.  we speak an indo european language and hell, even our religion is vastly different from theirs.  most iranians practice shi a islam.  a fair number of arabs also practice shi a islam.  zoroastrianism has not been the majority religion of iran in over 0 years.  speech should not be criminalized merely because it is offensive.   #  this is a great example of why  hate crimes  are dumb ideas from the get go we should criminalize conduct not emotions.   #  this is a great example of why  hate crimes  are dumb ideas from the get go we should criminalize conduct not emotions.  in this specific case when a person calls an iranian an arab they are mistaken.  at the same time however  arab  is an ethnicity and in spite of the fact that arabs get a bad rap or that a person might call someone else an arab with hate in their heart they are also perfectly correct and entitled to do so.  if a dedicated communist called me a westerner scorn and hatred dripping off his tongue as he did so i could not disagree.  on top of that if someone wanted to make an iranian feel insulted there are ample actual slurs which could be used.  lt:dr  arab  is not a racial slur it is a legitimate descriptor and when applied incorrectly to a iranian it is done out of ignorance not hate.   #  it is because i am ignorant or unable to tell of an ethnicity so it would be a crime of ignorance.   #  i am sorry but i am basically as western as it comes except down under.  white, grew up in bourgeoisie, went to a well to do christian private school and so on so on.  personally i do not perceive arab to be an insult i immediately think of people who own and train hawks.  hate is a subjective term and is very difficult to tell what the intentions are.  if i was to call someone an arab it is not because i am trying to insult there are many other words i would use instead.  it is because i am ignorant or unable to tell of an ethnicity so it would be a crime of ignorance.   #  it is not that they hate arabs, or are deliberately trying to insult you, it is that they honestly think that you are an arab, or think you might be and do not know/ca not think of another way to describe your race.   # american here: i have never once heard of arabs being negative.  i have heard the term arab used hatefully when misapplied to mean  all muslims, especially the ones who attacked us on 0/0  after, well, 0/0, but overall western perception is not negative when it comes to arabs.  this is not meant as an insult, it really is ignorance, and i can prove it the other way around: could you, as a non white person, tell me the difference between a white scotsman, a white irishman, a white german, a white norwegian, or a white italian ? or are they all just  white  ? i find it  fairly  universal that people can differentiate within their own overall group or sorry for lack of a better word coloration, but are not necessarily that good outside of it.  a lot of white people have trouble, for instance, with differentiating the eastern asian races.  it is not that they hate arabs, or are deliberately trying to insult you, it is that they honestly think that you are an arab, or think you might be and do not know/ca not think of another way to describe your race.   #  a lot of westerners do not grasp the differences because, well, on the surface there lots of similarities between arabic and persian people and nations.   #  confusing arab and persian might be ignorant, but it is not necessarily hateful.  a lot of westerners do not grasp the differences because, well, on the surface there lots of similarities between arabic and persian people and nations.  a western ear ca not distinguish arabic from farsi, a christian/atheist does not get why sunni shia is different, and the modern states have had up and down relationships with the west.  i would wager that there are regions of the planet where you would fail at your own standards.  how good a grasp do you have for distinguishing asian, european, or sub saharan african nationalities/ethnicities ? arab is not a slur, it is the preferred term for a very large and diverse group of people.  nothing hateful about it.  your insinuations though are.  for what it is worth, the perception of the iranian state not the people, but the political entity is pretty poor internationally.  it is not any better than the arabic states.
i have never been to a western country.  but on the internet, i have witnessed westerners calling us iranians  arab  or  arabic  and i have been called arab a few times myself.  i would not care if anyone calls me by another ethnicity.  i am not proud of my race, as no one should be.  but arabs, well, they are not famed for positive things not only in the westerner globe, but across the entire world.  i could write and write about how being called an arab is insulting, but just keep in mind that for the past twenty years or so, arabs have not actually been a model ethnicity.  some people even go far as saying  iranians do not  consider  themselves arab .  what the hell does that mean ? iranians are not arab.  they are persian, kurd, gilaki, lor, etc.  how can they not  consider  themselves arab.  that is why i believe this should be a hate crime.  we iranians are proud people, and we never liked arabs.  we speak an indo european language and hell, even our religion is vastly different from theirs.  can you come up with an argument against me ?  #  can you come up with an argument against me ?  #  speech should not be criminalized merely because it is offensive.   # we iranians are proud people, and we never liked arabs.  we speak an indo european language and hell, even our religion is vastly different from theirs.  most iranians practice shi a islam.  a fair number of arabs also practice shi a islam.  zoroastrianism has not been the majority religion of iran in over 0 years.  speech should not be criminalized merely because it is offensive.   #  on top of that if someone wanted to make an iranian feel insulted there are ample actual slurs which could be used.   #  this is a great example of why  hate crimes  are dumb ideas from the get go we should criminalize conduct not emotions.  in this specific case when a person calls an iranian an arab they are mistaken.  at the same time however  arab  is an ethnicity and in spite of the fact that arabs get a bad rap or that a person might call someone else an arab with hate in their heart they are also perfectly correct and entitled to do so.  if a dedicated communist called me a westerner scorn and hatred dripping off his tongue as he did so i could not disagree.  on top of that if someone wanted to make an iranian feel insulted there are ample actual slurs which could be used.  lt:dr  arab  is not a racial slur it is a legitimate descriptor and when applied incorrectly to a iranian it is done out of ignorance not hate.   #  it is because i am ignorant or unable to tell of an ethnicity so it would be a crime of ignorance.   #  i am sorry but i am basically as western as it comes except down under.  white, grew up in bourgeoisie, went to a well to do christian private school and so on so on.  personally i do not perceive arab to be an insult i immediately think of people who own and train hawks.  hate is a subjective term and is very difficult to tell what the intentions are.  if i was to call someone an arab it is not because i am trying to insult there are many other words i would use instead.  it is because i am ignorant or unable to tell of an ethnicity so it would be a crime of ignorance.   #  it is not that they hate arabs, or are deliberately trying to insult you, it is that they honestly think that you are an arab, or think you might be and do not know/ca not think of another way to describe your race.   # american here: i have never once heard of arabs being negative.  i have heard the term arab used hatefully when misapplied to mean  all muslims, especially the ones who attacked us on 0/0  after, well, 0/0, but overall western perception is not negative when it comes to arabs.  this is not meant as an insult, it really is ignorance, and i can prove it the other way around: could you, as a non white person, tell me the difference between a white scotsman, a white irishman, a white german, a white norwegian, or a white italian ? or are they all just  white  ? i find it  fairly  universal that people can differentiate within their own overall group or sorry for lack of a better word coloration, but are not necessarily that good outside of it.  a lot of white people have trouble, for instance, with differentiating the eastern asian races.  it is not that they hate arabs, or are deliberately trying to insult you, it is that they honestly think that you are an arab, or think you might be and do not know/ca not think of another way to describe your race.   #  i would wager that there are regions of the planet where you would fail at your own standards.   #  confusing arab and persian might be ignorant, but it is not necessarily hateful.  a lot of westerners do not grasp the differences because, well, on the surface there lots of similarities between arabic and persian people and nations.  a western ear ca not distinguish arabic from farsi, a christian/atheist does not get why sunni shia is different, and the modern states have had up and down relationships with the west.  i would wager that there are regions of the planet where you would fail at your own standards.  how good a grasp do you have for distinguishing asian, european, or sub saharan african nationalities/ethnicities ? arab is not a slur, it is the preferred term for a very large and diverse group of people.  nothing hateful about it.  your insinuations though are.  for what it is worth, the perception of the iranian state not the people, but the political entity is pretty poor internationally.  it is not any better than the arabic states.
while i know this is a popular topic, i feel that i have specific points in my argument that have not been addressed before.  full disclosure: i am an asian living in a high income white town, glastonbury, ct URL in addition, as a high performing student, i am directly affected by affirmative action.  in my defense, i would point out that a black/hispanic on the other side would be just as affected.  with this argument, everyone has a bias and an agenda.  first the facts: sat scores URL note: while this is in the criticism sections, please only look at the data and not the editorial comments, as to get a non biased outlook black graduation URL note: as this is called the  black journal of higher education , i trust that no one will call me out on using a source that favors my case 0.  let is address my last claim first: it does not improve the  black condition  and is unnecessary for the vast majority of blacks/hispanics this idea is supposed to  level the playing field  with all races.  all this actually does is passes deserving and intelligent whites and asians over for less intelligent and undeserving people in an environment they ca not succeed in.  for example, black graduation rates are much lower than white graduation rates.  URL the difference reaches up to 0 points, which is clearly not equality.  this disparity is due to affirmative action putting incompetent and undeserving blacks and hispanics in college.  however, i must make an important clarification.  i believe that the vast majority of blacks can succeed in college, and have done so.  affirmative action is not necessary for these kinds of people.  the only people affirmative action helps are those who would not be able to get into college otherwise, and by getting them into college, they will only have false expectations and ultimately perform poorly when they realize that college grading is color blind.  this is the idea of mismatching URL and has been backed up by research.  0.  affirmative action unfairly favors blacks/hispanics over asians, and thus is racist towards asians.  ok, you make the argument that this favoritism towards blacks/hispanics is simply reparations for past transgressions, jim crow and the low.  well, asians have been heavily discriminated against in the past.  jap interment, railroad building, and racial slurs and stereotypes have all been a part of asian american history.  in fact, i would argue that hispanics have been least discriminated in us history.  wiki page URL from this, if you believe that aa is  payback  for past actions, defend the favoring of blacks over asian americans.  0.  affirmative action is a result of blacks/hispanics that just want to favor their own race.  note: i must admit, for this i have no direct proof, only my anecdotal experience and statements made by others.  blacks/hispanics have more political power in this country than asians, in both positions of government and constituents in voting.  therefore, i believe aa is simply a way to get the black vote/blacks helping out each other.  obviously, being against this political suicide and will get the racist tag labeled in a second.  clarence thomas, as he is unaffected by these factors as he is appointed and he is black this is a big factor, a white justice would get labeled racist , is able to speak out and say that affirmative action is indeed racist, not only towards other races, but blacks themselves.  source URL this is my case.  while i do admit i believe very strongly in my position, i would point out that i have remained civil in my point, provided sources, and made full disclosure in my situation and any opinions not directly proven by facts.  most importantly, i recognize that i am heavily influenced by this topic, and thus may be blinded.  i hope we can have a civil discourse.   #  all this actually does is passes deserving and intelligent whites and asians over for less intelligent and undeserving people in an environment they ca not succeed in.   #  how do you come to this conclusion.   # how do you come to this conclusion.  where is your link to the apparent study that shows and compares the iq test scores of the black/latino students and white/asian students they replaced ? highschool grades/sat score and graduation rates are not a reflection on intellegence of the students but on the quality of the schools.  sure some kids that ar not capapable get in but it does help a lot of kids from schools with terrible reputations get in.  if a college had a choice from two students with similiar grades, it would probabley choose the one from the private school in beverly hills and not the one from crenshaw heights.  your secon point misses the mark.  affirmative action is not meant to pay minorities back for racist treatment.  it is an effort to reverse the effects of historical discrimination in educational opportunities for minorities, including women.  for hundreds of years minorities in america were denied education and even in later years they were discriminated in college admissions.  your third point is akin to a conspiracy theory.   #  to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  if that is the reason for aa, why does it disadvantage asians, who, as i have point out, have also been discriminated against ?  #    0; ok i see your point about quality of school.  that is valid and has changed my view on that specific point.  however, i am still convinced that aa in whole is a bad thing.  however, i have another point.  if that is the reason for aa, why does it disadvantage asians, who, as i have point out, have also been discriminated against ? finally, i am more concerned with results rather than meaning.  i am arguing that it hurts asians and whites who also go to bad schools, this is important more than it helps blacks and hispanics  #  i would say that aa helps more than it hurts.   # asian people did not have the same problems with educational opportunities that black people had.  asians only make up 0 of usa is population while black people make up 0.  so there are less asian students in need of these policies, plus no college is going to look at an asian student and say  yea deny them, everyone knows that asians are not smart enough.   imagine what they will think when dealing with a black kid from the  hood .  yea it would be a conspiracy theory because though it seems like it is true, there is no proof of it and it is equally possible that the politicians are sincere however unlikely .  basically there is no point in discussing the matter when it ca not be proven.  the total number of minorities in college have been rising which is a sign of improvement.  yes it is true that some people do get the raw end of the deal, but that is true of almost any policy and is not avoidable.  i would say that aa helps more than it hurts.  can it be improved, sure but it is not overall a  bad  policy.  it does need to be updated or even replaced with more modern and efficient policies though.   #  i am unfamiliar with the demographics of that location, are there more latinos and latinos applying than whites ?  #  in your first point, all you are doing is justifying the racism of aa policies against blacks.  i am not convinced by that kind of reasoning.  do you agree that the wants of the many always overrules the needs of the few ? alright, if that is your definition of a conspiracy , then i fail to see the lack of value in discussing the possibility in it being true.  the existence of god ca not be proven, does that mean the likelihood of him being real is a pointless discussion ? on another point, the conspiracy theory that the government is monitoring our online activities turned out to be true.  i understand that you did not make this point, but i believe its important to point that that just because it is that type of argument does not mean it is untrue.  finally, your point about latinos what is  good ?   i am unfamiliar with the demographics of that location, are there more latinos and latinos applying than whites ? both of those factors would have to be true for me to agree that this trend levels the playing field.  uc berkley has no aa and mist students are asian, would you also call this  good ?   i would argue that racial demographics have no inherit morality, unless clear discrimination can be shown.
with black friday coming up, i thought this would be a fun topic to discuss.  ethical consumerism is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of dollar voting.  it is practiced through  positive buying  in that ethical products are favored, or  amoral boycott , that is negative purchasing and company based purchasing.  in practice, we can view something like  green sourcing  as an example of this behavior.  you go to buy a given good, and find two choices one of which is slightly more expensive than the other, but promises that it was produced using  sustainable forestry  or the like.  now, there are several problems with this.  first of all, given that the  green  option is more expensive at no actual added utility to the end user, such consumerism is limited more to higher income people who often buy not just for utility, but for cosmetic luxury and an appearance of being environmentally friendly.  in practice, this means that ethical consumerism is, at best, a mostly irrelevant niche market, a lonely island in a sea of unethical behavior.  secondly, it puts the impetus on the consumer, not on the corporation to determine the responsible use of resources.  a common argument used by libertarians is that issues like climate change and the globalized exploitation of sweatshop labor are self limiting problems, as people will generally prefer the more humanitarian purchase.  in practice, ethical consumerism is used as an excuse to abolish democratically implemented regulations, leaving huge questions the environment, workers rights, and the like to the will of a system that inherently values profit over superficial  ethics .  whether or not florida is sunk by rising sea levels is not a triviality that should be left to making sure you buy the right soy sauce.  similarly, whether or not an employee is treated well should not hang on purchasing the right iphone case these are things that should be ensured by the democratic process, and capitalism should work around those rules.   #  secondly, it puts the impetus on the consumer, not on the corporation to determine the responsible use of resources.   #  well. that is kind of an inherent problem with the market place that ca not be limited without destroying the market.   # in practice, this means that ethical consumerism is, at best, a mostly irrelevant niche market, a lonely island in a sea of unethical behavior.  you are forgetting the moral utility of knowing that particular product is better for the planet.  contributing, even in a small way, towards a better environment.  my sustainable, organic, fair wage coffee may still deliver the same caffeine dose as the cheap generic coffee, but knowing that one was produced with my particular ethics in mind, is of great utility to me, even if the product performs similarly.  it is not a  mostly irrelevant niche market .  i can tell that by the ever increasing  green  options in the market place.  i can go to just about every grocery store in the country now, and find organic produce, and fair trade products.  maybe 0 years ago it was niche, but there is strong consumer momentum growing, to the point that large, corporate businesses are getting involved now.  where once i had to go a co op, pay a membership fee, and pay a premium to get organic produce.  now i can go to wal mart and get it.  that is not niche in the slightest.  well. that is kind of an inherent problem with the market place that ca not be limited without destroying the market.  consumer demand drives the market, not the other way around.  consumers demand lower prices, and more goods.  producers respond to that demand.  what about democratically implemented regulations that specifically ignore the environment ? what if a nation, collectively decides they just do not give a fuck about clean water, or air, or workers rights ? too bad man, that is the option now.  that is the both greatest strength and the glaring weakness of a global marketplace.  sweatshop labor is horribly exploitative, but for many of those workers it is horrible hours in a sweatshop, or horrible hours in a field growing crops.  they make more money in the sweatshop, and can afford a better life than they can being a farmer.  capitalism is a democratic process, you just vote with your wallet instead of a punch card.  if you want environmentally friendly productions, if you want people to be paid fairly, then you need to purchase products from companies that do just that.  there are businesses that operate with ethics clearly in mind, and their products cost more.  that is just the bottom line.  just like using public transportation, or walking, or riding a bike needs to be a conscious choice instead of driving your car everywhere, so does participating in the market and buying products that are created in a way you condone.  there is nothing you and i can do to force the chinese people to stop working themselves to death and polluting their country, short of starting a war and killing them to show them the error of their ways.  which seems like a pretty ass backwards way of doing something.  what you can do is spend your money on companies that do things right, to make them successful, and to drive the unethical companies out of the market, out of business.   #  it is really hard to set in motion rules and regulations, and it takes a long time to do that.   #  well to begin with, at least in america it is illegal for a company to use slave labor.  i know that is not your point, but it is not like ethical consumerism and legislative action are mutually exclusive.  having ethical consumerism does not mean that legislation gets sloppy.  legislation gets sloppy because of private interest groups and lobbying muddling the issues.  even if legislation is not tainted, and we can assume that lawmakers always do the  ethical  thing when it comes to regulatory statutes, then there is still the problem of time.  legislation is slow.  like, crazy fucking slow.  it is really hard to set in motion rules and regulations, and it takes a long time to do that.  plus it also takes a long time to see whether the law is functioning as expected.  ethical consumerism can be much more expedient if the movement is large enough.  companies are slaves to the dollar, and if consumers unilaterally stop paying, companies change their tune.  look at what happened with microsoft before the launch of the xbox one.  they came up with all these features and rules that no consumer wanted.  people unilaterally backed the ps0.  so what did microsoft do ? they fired the head of the xbox division, abolished most of their unpopular features, cut the price, and set out a new business plan that was more consumer friendly.  while you may not think this was an example of ethical consumerism as you defined it, it actually is.  the rules microsoft wanted to implement on how users could utilize their games and the system morally outraged gamers.  they thought it was unethical for a company to restrict used game sales the way microsoft proposed.  so they voted with their money and ps0 crushed the xb0 on launch.  microsoft is just now starting to see a lurch in sales after cutting the price of the xb0 below the price of a ps0 and totally abolishing the features that were unwanted.  gamers could have waited for legislation to pass that would ban companies from restricting used game sales commerce clause would allow congress to do this but it would have been extremely slow and most likely would have never gotten to the floor in the first place.  so in this sense,  ethical consumerism  can take the place of legislation when the issue is not a hot button issue in politics, or the consumer group is underrepresented in politics, or time is of the essence.   #  even if mcdonalds is doing it cynically, the consumer is choice to participate could still be an ethical one.   #  mcdonalds would not have any money to donate if they did not sell hamburgers.  even if mcdonalds is doing it cynically, the consumer is choice to participate could still be an ethical one.  also, what do you think of  athon  type fundraisers where donations are coupled to some activity ? why should the distance someone walks have any bearing on how much you spend to fight cancer ? is not  if you walk this far, we will donate  the same as  if you do not walk far enough we wo not  ?  #  the hospital is not going to close down if people decided tomorrow that pizza was gross.   #  there are other organizations present to handle the situation.  those kids are not going to starve because someone did not buy mcdonald is.  but mcdonalds does reserve resources for the orphans, so if you are looking at two comparable products and are into that sort of thing then why not reserve a penny of your purchase for orphans ? i mean, st.  jude is children is hospital got a dollar off of my recent domino is pizza purchase.  the hospital is not going to close down if people decided tomorrow that pizza was gross.  it is just a way for a non profit to allow people who do not have spare cash/time or do not want to be pestered by telemarketers forever to contribute, in this case with portion of a purchase that they are going to make anyways.  it is not to drive  demand  for pizza, but to get someone who is truly on the fence between domino is and pizza hut to pick them.  you know, a market share play.   #  i can understand your argument that ethical consumerism is not a replacement for laws protecting human rights, but that is not what the cmv is about.   #  i can understand your argument that ethical consumerism is not a replacement for laws protecting human rights, but that is not what the cmv is about.  even if ethical consumerism is a  lonely island in a sea of unethical behavior,  why does that make it less powerful ? in fact, is not there an even greater incentive for you to raise awareness and tap in to the potential of people who do not even know that their clothes were made in sweatshops ? about the fact that ethical consumerism puts the burden on the consumer as opposed to the corporation, there is an app for that: buycott URL it still requires people to do their own research and make their own campaigns, but it makes it much easier to identify what the companies you buy from have been doing.  in practice, it is much harder to establish laws that protect human rights, because corporations always find ways around them.  in the us, labor reform only came about after decades of sustained pressure from labor unions, as well as the general public.  guess which side the government sent troops to shoot at ? the union workers with less money, of course.  establishing ethical government regulations involves a much more strenuous kind of activism: you have to find a candidate that is not corrupt yet who can still win an election that is largely determined by corporate sponsorship.  i am not trying to be a fatalist here; by all means, use your vote and be active in politics ! just be aware that government is not something you can always depend on, and it is not the only solution either.  overall, remember that it is not an issue of which is the perfect solution.  why ca not you have both ? it is far too easy to overlook the impact of the choices we make when the results are not immediately apparent, but just know that even if the statistics of world poverty do not change, people do.  you ca not expect to free millions of people just by choosing what you buy, but even if your choices change one person is life for the better, this is a tremendous impact.  you should not brush this impact away just because you ca not see it.
with black friday coming up, i thought this would be a fun topic to discuss.  ethical consumerism is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of dollar voting.  it is practiced through  positive buying  in that ethical products are favored, or  amoral boycott , that is negative purchasing and company based purchasing.  in practice, we can view something like  green sourcing  as an example of this behavior.  you go to buy a given good, and find two choices one of which is slightly more expensive than the other, but promises that it was produced using  sustainable forestry  or the like.  now, there are several problems with this.  first of all, given that the  green  option is more expensive at no actual added utility to the end user, such consumerism is limited more to higher income people who often buy not just for utility, but for cosmetic luxury and an appearance of being environmentally friendly.  in practice, this means that ethical consumerism is, at best, a mostly irrelevant niche market, a lonely island in a sea of unethical behavior.  secondly, it puts the impetus on the consumer, not on the corporation to determine the responsible use of resources.  a common argument used by libertarians is that issues like climate change and the globalized exploitation of sweatshop labor are self limiting problems, as people will generally prefer the more humanitarian purchase.  in practice, ethical consumerism is used as an excuse to abolish democratically implemented regulations, leaving huge questions the environment, workers rights, and the like to the will of a system that inherently values profit over superficial  ethics .  whether or not florida is sunk by rising sea levels is not a triviality that should be left to making sure you buy the right soy sauce.  similarly, whether or not an employee is treated well should not hang on purchasing the right iphone case these are things that should be ensured by the democratic process, and capitalism should work around those rules.   #  in practice, ethical consumerism is used as an excuse to abolish democratically implemented regulations, leaving huge questions the environment, workers rights, and the like to the will of a system that inherently values profit over superficial  ethics .   #  what about democratically implemented regulations that specifically ignore the environment ?  # in practice, this means that ethical consumerism is, at best, a mostly irrelevant niche market, a lonely island in a sea of unethical behavior.  you are forgetting the moral utility of knowing that particular product is better for the planet.  contributing, even in a small way, towards a better environment.  my sustainable, organic, fair wage coffee may still deliver the same caffeine dose as the cheap generic coffee, but knowing that one was produced with my particular ethics in mind, is of great utility to me, even if the product performs similarly.  it is not a  mostly irrelevant niche market .  i can tell that by the ever increasing  green  options in the market place.  i can go to just about every grocery store in the country now, and find organic produce, and fair trade products.  maybe 0 years ago it was niche, but there is strong consumer momentum growing, to the point that large, corporate businesses are getting involved now.  where once i had to go a co op, pay a membership fee, and pay a premium to get organic produce.  now i can go to wal mart and get it.  that is not niche in the slightest.  well. that is kind of an inherent problem with the market place that ca not be limited without destroying the market.  consumer demand drives the market, not the other way around.  consumers demand lower prices, and more goods.  producers respond to that demand.  what about democratically implemented regulations that specifically ignore the environment ? what if a nation, collectively decides they just do not give a fuck about clean water, or air, or workers rights ? too bad man, that is the option now.  that is the both greatest strength and the glaring weakness of a global marketplace.  sweatshop labor is horribly exploitative, but for many of those workers it is horrible hours in a sweatshop, or horrible hours in a field growing crops.  they make more money in the sweatshop, and can afford a better life than they can being a farmer.  capitalism is a democratic process, you just vote with your wallet instead of a punch card.  if you want environmentally friendly productions, if you want people to be paid fairly, then you need to purchase products from companies that do just that.  there are businesses that operate with ethics clearly in mind, and their products cost more.  that is just the bottom line.  just like using public transportation, or walking, or riding a bike needs to be a conscious choice instead of driving your car everywhere, so does participating in the market and buying products that are created in a way you condone.  there is nothing you and i can do to force the chinese people to stop working themselves to death and polluting their country, short of starting a war and killing them to show them the error of their ways.  which seems like a pretty ass backwards way of doing something.  what you can do is spend your money on companies that do things right, to make them successful, and to drive the unethical companies out of the market, out of business.   #  so they voted with their money and ps0 crushed the xb0 on launch.   #  well to begin with, at least in america it is illegal for a company to use slave labor.  i know that is not your point, but it is not like ethical consumerism and legislative action are mutually exclusive.  having ethical consumerism does not mean that legislation gets sloppy.  legislation gets sloppy because of private interest groups and lobbying muddling the issues.  even if legislation is not tainted, and we can assume that lawmakers always do the  ethical  thing when it comes to regulatory statutes, then there is still the problem of time.  legislation is slow.  like, crazy fucking slow.  it is really hard to set in motion rules and regulations, and it takes a long time to do that.  plus it also takes a long time to see whether the law is functioning as expected.  ethical consumerism can be much more expedient if the movement is large enough.  companies are slaves to the dollar, and if consumers unilaterally stop paying, companies change their tune.  look at what happened with microsoft before the launch of the xbox one.  they came up with all these features and rules that no consumer wanted.  people unilaterally backed the ps0.  so what did microsoft do ? they fired the head of the xbox division, abolished most of their unpopular features, cut the price, and set out a new business plan that was more consumer friendly.  while you may not think this was an example of ethical consumerism as you defined it, it actually is.  the rules microsoft wanted to implement on how users could utilize their games and the system morally outraged gamers.  they thought it was unethical for a company to restrict used game sales the way microsoft proposed.  so they voted with their money and ps0 crushed the xb0 on launch.  microsoft is just now starting to see a lurch in sales after cutting the price of the xb0 below the price of a ps0 and totally abolishing the features that were unwanted.  gamers could have waited for legislation to pass that would ban companies from restricting used game sales commerce clause would allow congress to do this but it would have been extremely slow and most likely would have never gotten to the floor in the first place.  so in this sense,  ethical consumerism  can take the place of legislation when the issue is not a hot button issue in politics, or the consumer group is underrepresented in politics, or time is of the essence.   #  is not  if you walk this far, we will donate  the same as  if you do not walk far enough we wo not  ?  #  mcdonalds would not have any money to donate if they did not sell hamburgers.  even if mcdonalds is doing it cynically, the consumer is choice to participate could still be an ethical one.  also, what do you think of  athon  type fundraisers where donations are coupled to some activity ? why should the distance someone walks have any bearing on how much you spend to fight cancer ? is not  if you walk this far, we will donate  the same as  if you do not walk far enough we wo not  ?  #  but mcdonalds does reserve resources for the orphans, so if you are looking at two comparable products and are into that sort of thing then why not reserve a penny of your purchase for orphans ?  #  there are other organizations present to handle the situation.  those kids are not going to starve because someone did not buy mcdonald is.  but mcdonalds does reserve resources for the orphans, so if you are looking at two comparable products and are into that sort of thing then why not reserve a penny of your purchase for orphans ? i mean, st.  jude is children is hospital got a dollar off of my recent domino is pizza purchase.  the hospital is not going to close down if people decided tomorrow that pizza was gross.  it is just a way for a non profit to allow people who do not have spare cash/time or do not want to be pestered by telemarketers forever to contribute, in this case with portion of a purchase that they are going to make anyways.  it is not to drive  demand  for pizza, but to get someone who is truly on the fence between domino is and pizza hut to pick them.  you know, a market share play.   #  guess which side the government sent troops to shoot at ?  #  i can understand your argument that ethical consumerism is not a replacement for laws protecting human rights, but that is not what the cmv is about.  even if ethical consumerism is a  lonely island in a sea of unethical behavior,  why does that make it less powerful ? in fact, is not there an even greater incentive for you to raise awareness and tap in to the potential of people who do not even know that their clothes were made in sweatshops ? about the fact that ethical consumerism puts the burden on the consumer as opposed to the corporation, there is an app for that: buycott URL it still requires people to do their own research and make their own campaigns, but it makes it much easier to identify what the companies you buy from have been doing.  in practice, it is much harder to establish laws that protect human rights, because corporations always find ways around them.  in the us, labor reform only came about after decades of sustained pressure from labor unions, as well as the general public.  guess which side the government sent troops to shoot at ? the union workers with less money, of course.  establishing ethical government regulations involves a much more strenuous kind of activism: you have to find a candidate that is not corrupt yet who can still win an election that is largely determined by corporate sponsorship.  i am not trying to be a fatalist here; by all means, use your vote and be active in politics ! just be aware that government is not something you can always depend on, and it is not the only solution either.  overall, remember that it is not an issue of which is the perfect solution.  why ca not you have both ? it is far too easy to overlook the impact of the choices we make when the results are not immediately apparent, but just know that even if the statistics of world poverty do not change, people do.  you ca not expect to free millions of people just by choosing what you buy, but even if your choices change one person is life for the better, this is a tremendous impact.  you should not brush this impact away just because you ca not see it.
with black friday coming up, i thought this would be a fun topic to discuss.  ethical consumerism is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of dollar voting.  it is practiced through  positive buying  in that ethical products are favored, or  amoral boycott , that is negative purchasing and company based purchasing.  in practice, we can view something like  green sourcing  as an example of this behavior.  you go to buy a given good, and find two choices one of which is slightly more expensive than the other, but promises that it was produced using  sustainable forestry  or the like.  now, there are several problems with this.  first of all, given that the  green  option is more expensive at no actual added utility to the end user, such consumerism is limited more to higher income people who often buy not just for utility, but for cosmetic luxury and an appearance of being environmentally friendly.  in practice, this means that ethical consumerism is, at best, a mostly irrelevant niche market, a lonely island in a sea of unethical behavior.  secondly, it puts the impetus on the consumer, not on the corporation to determine the responsible use of resources.  a common argument used by libertarians is that issues like climate change and the globalized exploitation of sweatshop labor are self limiting problems, as people will generally prefer the more humanitarian purchase.  in practice, ethical consumerism is used as an excuse to abolish democratically implemented regulations, leaving huge questions the environment, workers rights, and the like to the will of a system that inherently values profit over superficial  ethics .  whether or not florida is sunk by rising sea levels is not a triviality that should be left to making sure you buy the right soy sauce.  similarly, whether or not an employee is treated well should not hang on purchasing the right iphone case these are things that should be ensured by the democratic process, and capitalism should work around those rules.   #  whether or not florida is sunk by rising sea levels is not a triviality that should be left to making sure you buy the right soy sauce.   #  too bad man, that is the option now.   # in practice, this means that ethical consumerism is, at best, a mostly irrelevant niche market, a lonely island in a sea of unethical behavior.  you are forgetting the moral utility of knowing that particular product is better for the planet.  contributing, even in a small way, towards a better environment.  my sustainable, organic, fair wage coffee may still deliver the same caffeine dose as the cheap generic coffee, but knowing that one was produced with my particular ethics in mind, is of great utility to me, even if the product performs similarly.  it is not a  mostly irrelevant niche market .  i can tell that by the ever increasing  green  options in the market place.  i can go to just about every grocery store in the country now, and find organic produce, and fair trade products.  maybe 0 years ago it was niche, but there is strong consumer momentum growing, to the point that large, corporate businesses are getting involved now.  where once i had to go a co op, pay a membership fee, and pay a premium to get organic produce.  now i can go to wal mart and get it.  that is not niche in the slightest.  well. that is kind of an inherent problem with the market place that ca not be limited without destroying the market.  consumer demand drives the market, not the other way around.  consumers demand lower prices, and more goods.  producers respond to that demand.  what about democratically implemented regulations that specifically ignore the environment ? what if a nation, collectively decides they just do not give a fuck about clean water, or air, or workers rights ? too bad man, that is the option now.  that is the both greatest strength and the glaring weakness of a global marketplace.  sweatshop labor is horribly exploitative, but for many of those workers it is horrible hours in a sweatshop, or horrible hours in a field growing crops.  they make more money in the sweatshop, and can afford a better life than they can being a farmer.  capitalism is a democratic process, you just vote with your wallet instead of a punch card.  if you want environmentally friendly productions, if you want people to be paid fairly, then you need to purchase products from companies that do just that.  there are businesses that operate with ethics clearly in mind, and their products cost more.  that is just the bottom line.  just like using public transportation, or walking, or riding a bike needs to be a conscious choice instead of driving your car everywhere, so does participating in the market and buying products that are created in a way you condone.  there is nothing you and i can do to force the chinese people to stop working themselves to death and polluting their country, short of starting a war and killing them to show them the error of their ways.  which seems like a pretty ass backwards way of doing something.  what you can do is spend your money on companies that do things right, to make them successful, and to drive the unethical companies out of the market, out of business.   #  look at what happened with microsoft before the launch of the xbox one.   #  well to begin with, at least in america it is illegal for a company to use slave labor.  i know that is not your point, but it is not like ethical consumerism and legislative action are mutually exclusive.  having ethical consumerism does not mean that legislation gets sloppy.  legislation gets sloppy because of private interest groups and lobbying muddling the issues.  even if legislation is not tainted, and we can assume that lawmakers always do the  ethical  thing when it comes to regulatory statutes, then there is still the problem of time.  legislation is slow.  like, crazy fucking slow.  it is really hard to set in motion rules and regulations, and it takes a long time to do that.  plus it also takes a long time to see whether the law is functioning as expected.  ethical consumerism can be much more expedient if the movement is large enough.  companies are slaves to the dollar, and if consumers unilaterally stop paying, companies change their tune.  look at what happened with microsoft before the launch of the xbox one.  they came up with all these features and rules that no consumer wanted.  people unilaterally backed the ps0.  so what did microsoft do ? they fired the head of the xbox division, abolished most of their unpopular features, cut the price, and set out a new business plan that was more consumer friendly.  while you may not think this was an example of ethical consumerism as you defined it, it actually is.  the rules microsoft wanted to implement on how users could utilize their games and the system morally outraged gamers.  they thought it was unethical for a company to restrict used game sales the way microsoft proposed.  so they voted with their money and ps0 crushed the xb0 on launch.  microsoft is just now starting to see a lurch in sales after cutting the price of the xb0 below the price of a ps0 and totally abolishing the features that were unwanted.  gamers could have waited for legislation to pass that would ban companies from restricting used game sales commerce clause would allow congress to do this but it would have been extremely slow and most likely would have never gotten to the floor in the first place.  so in this sense,  ethical consumerism  can take the place of legislation when the issue is not a hot button issue in politics, or the consumer group is underrepresented in politics, or time is of the essence.   #  why should the distance someone walks have any bearing on how much you spend to fight cancer ?  #  mcdonalds would not have any money to donate if they did not sell hamburgers.  even if mcdonalds is doing it cynically, the consumer is choice to participate could still be an ethical one.  also, what do you think of  athon  type fundraisers where donations are coupled to some activity ? why should the distance someone walks have any bearing on how much you spend to fight cancer ? is not  if you walk this far, we will donate  the same as  if you do not walk far enough we wo not  ?  #  there are other organizations present to handle the situation.   #  there are other organizations present to handle the situation.  those kids are not going to starve because someone did not buy mcdonald is.  but mcdonalds does reserve resources for the orphans, so if you are looking at two comparable products and are into that sort of thing then why not reserve a penny of your purchase for orphans ? i mean, st.  jude is children is hospital got a dollar off of my recent domino is pizza purchase.  the hospital is not going to close down if people decided tomorrow that pizza was gross.  it is just a way for a non profit to allow people who do not have spare cash/time or do not want to be pestered by telemarketers forever to contribute, in this case with portion of a purchase that they are going to make anyways.  it is not to drive  demand  for pizza, but to get someone who is truly on the fence between domino is and pizza hut to pick them.  you know, a market share play.   #  overall, remember that it is not an issue of which is the perfect solution.   #  i can understand your argument that ethical consumerism is not a replacement for laws protecting human rights, but that is not what the cmv is about.  even if ethical consumerism is a  lonely island in a sea of unethical behavior,  why does that make it less powerful ? in fact, is not there an even greater incentive for you to raise awareness and tap in to the potential of people who do not even know that their clothes were made in sweatshops ? about the fact that ethical consumerism puts the burden on the consumer as opposed to the corporation, there is an app for that: buycott URL it still requires people to do their own research and make their own campaigns, but it makes it much easier to identify what the companies you buy from have been doing.  in practice, it is much harder to establish laws that protect human rights, because corporations always find ways around them.  in the us, labor reform only came about after decades of sustained pressure from labor unions, as well as the general public.  guess which side the government sent troops to shoot at ? the union workers with less money, of course.  establishing ethical government regulations involves a much more strenuous kind of activism: you have to find a candidate that is not corrupt yet who can still win an election that is largely determined by corporate sponsorship.  i am not trying to be a fatalist here; by all means, use your vote and be active in politics ! just be aware that government is not something you can always depend on, and it is not the only solution either.  overall, remember that it is not an issue of which is the perfect solution.  why ca not you have both ? it is far too easy to overlook the impact of the choices we make when the results are not immediately apparent, but just know that even if the statistics of world poverty do not change, people do.  you ca not expect to free millions of people just by choosing what you buy, but even if your choices change one person is life for the better, this is a tremendous impact.  you should not brush this impact away just because you ca not see it.
it seems like throughout all walks of life, i am constantly shamed by the media simply for being a citizen of the united states.  why ? because of what happened to the native american hundreds of years ago.  am i supposed to regret the formation of the union and the progress that resulted from it ? does anybody honestly think that we would be standing here today if history had been different and early americans were peaceful with the indians ? name one civilization where two radically different cultures were able to coexist and share the amount of resources that the united states had.  there are none.  world history is a long and bloody tale of conquest and murder.  kings and emperors and presidents alike have slaughtered civilizations for wealth and prosperity.  its terrible, but why should we shame one society for their crimes while another society gets away with it ? why does no one shed a tear for the aztecs and incas, or the aborigines ? one last thought.  were the native americans any different than we were ? surely they wanted us out of the picture just as much as we wanted them.  and before a single european set food on virginian soil, how many indian tribes were there ? hundreds ! all of whom competed with each other for land and resources to survive.  conflict was aplenty before the usa was founded, and i do not feel the indians were innocent victims because of this.  change my view  #  conflict was aplenty before the usa was founded, and i do not feel the indians were innocent victims because of this.   #  if the conquest of the indians was purely military, that would be one thing.   # erm.  they do.  do people shame you personally ? no.  we are just asked to remember the atrocities committed by the government so that a they are less likely to happen again and b we can be more sensitive to the issues facing american indians that have endured to today.  similar to how it helps to remember african american history when we deal with various social issues today.  if the conquest of the indians was purely military, that would be one thing.  but there were indeed innocent victims, like the women and children who were given smallpox infected blankets in the middle of winter.  horrible despicable shit that you can choose to shrug off as business as usual, or that you can choose to say  that was wrong  because it costs you nothing to do so and it might move us towards a better future.  if you do not feel shame as a 0st century american, i understand that.  but then you should not feel any pride, say, in the moon landing or the defeat of hitler either.  but let is say all your points are true maybe they were fair losers in a dog eat dog game.  why does that exclude them from  sympathy  ? surely it is awful to freeze to death on the trail of tears, even if it is fair.  is it so hard to feel sorry for such unfortunate individuals ?  #  because of things done in the 0th century things that living native americans remember.   # because of what happened to the native american hundreds of years ago.  no.  because of things done in the 0th century things that living native americans remember.  things such as: URL intentionally destroying a culture and ripping children away from parents in order to do so is pretty serious, and was occurring into the 0 is.  native americans are among the poorest people in this country because of intentional governmental policies similar to this not by accident.  if you do not think that is fucked up, then i am not sure what to tell you.  you do not have to feel bad for what was done hundreds of years ago, but you should sympathize with them because of things that occurred recently and things that are still occurring.   #  that last give did everything the government told them to do in order to retain their country and did just simply did not matter.   #  at the tribal level yes.  at the massive scale that europeans did, not even in the slightest.  that argument is like saying that the new york mets and a high school team are at the same level.  have you ever actually been on a native reservation ? have you heard the stories ? do you understand what happened to people like the cherokee ? that last give did everything the government told them to do in order to retain their country and did just simply did not matter.   #  eh, again it depends on where in the americas you look.   #  eh, again it depends on where in the americas you look.  aztec and mayan civilizations, for example, were arguably the most brutal.  what with the sacrifices of captured enemy forces en masse, etc.  i have heard their stories, and growing up near a major reserve in canada i actually grew up with a number of native kids.  needless to say, i have been to and through reserves many times.  it is not a good life.  people call it colonialism but in reality it was conquest, and just like any other conquest, the conquered do not have much say in what happens to them.   #  would not you think that the mets were in the wrong and feel sympathy for the high school team ?  # in actual battles where the europeans won against native americans by virtue of being technologically superior, no one has issues.  the problems people have is with the  treatment  of the native americans.  giving smallpox infected blankets as a faux token of friendship in order to wipe out a tribe ? showing up and forcing the native american is off their land instead of accepting offers of friendship or co existence ? in the example, sure we knew the mets would destroy a high school team, but if the mets suddenly showed up at a high school and basically forced the high school team threatening that if they do not play against them, they will write all of their names down and make sure they never get college athletic scholarships or play in the major leagues, and then slaughtered them after that.  would not you think that the mets were in the wrong and feel sympathy for the high school team ? because that is basically what happened.
note: those is not the stereotypical whiny  i am a nice guy why do not girls like me  post.  i used to be one of those guys but i am not anymore.  but i want to be that nice guy.  i 0m was raised thinking that i would find a nice girl who i could spend the rest of my life with.  someone who i could just love for who they are as a person and vice versa and that no matter what happened we would always stick together.  however recently i have given up on this.  my entire life i was the stereotypical  nice guy  who always cared about the feelings of others, so much so that i would invite kids sitting alone at lunch to my table, i would hang out with my friends if they seemed like they needed someone to talk to, etc.  my mom instilled in me from a very young age that above all i should respect women and that was the way to find love.  hold the door open for her, be polite and courteous,buy her flowers, etc.  anyways, last year i met what seemed like the perfect girl.  beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  back then i believed there was a distinction between party rats and nice girls, and she seemed to embody essentially everything about the  nice girl .  well we made plans to hang out one night and she flaked on me.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  i stopped talking to her after that.  as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.  the point i am trying to make is this: most girls i have met in college have behaved this way.  even the ones i would never expect it from, and the ones who said they  were not that girl  and  wanted a nice guy .  i used to laugh at nice guys on the internet but now i really feel for them.  i am not ugly by any means and i have had a little success but it was only when i pretended to be someone who i am not and basically acted like the girl did not exist until the night we hooked up.  i hate acting like this but based on my experiences it seems like the only way.  do women really hope to find a nice guy ? because i am calling bullshit.  change my view.   #  anyways, last year i met what seemed like the perfect girl.   #  beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.   # beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  back then i believed there was a distinction between party rats and nice girls, and she seemed to embody essentially everything about the  nice girl .  well we made plans to hang out one night and she flaked on me.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  i noticed that nowhere did you say anything about having established any kind of a relationship, exclusivity, or. well anything.  you  talked .  zippity fucking do.  that does not mean you have staked a claim, it does not mean she belongs to you, it does not mean a god damned thing.  hell, it does not even sound like you talked for very long because if you had spent any great amount of time you probably would have realized.  she did not  find a better option , how do you even know you were an option in her eyes ? from her perspective you could have just been a nice guy she talked to.  you are colossal fuckup was in trying to put a label on her,  party rat   nice girls  what in the fuck is that ? once you start putting people in boxes you are setting yourself up for failure and disappointment.  even the ones i would never expect it from, and the ones who said they  were not that girl  and  wanted a nice guy .  behaved in what way ? you have not even explained how she behaved, you just espoused your little boy crush on her and then complained that some weird fantasy in your head did not live up to reality.  want to know why that worked ? because you did not give a fuck.  that is the secret.  you were living a total lie, if you got caught, who cared, if it worked, great ! you shed your insecurity by wrapping yourself up in your little security blanket of a lie and let yourself be you.  you sound like a nice a person, so keep being that.  do not lie, do not fake.  everybody is an individual, and you need to learn that.  interested in a girl ? pursue her.  she rejects you ? move the fuck on ! do not dip your toes in the water trying to do this in that.  there is nothing disrespectful about being up front and honest about who you are, and what your intentions are.  be an individual, be yourself.   #  do not let this experience turn you into a critical/cynical person regarding the choices of others.   #  it sucks that they flaked out on you.  here is how to deal with it:  just forget about them.  they are not someone you want to be with, either because of their personality or their inexperience of being young.  here is the big secret be the best person you can, and people  will naturally want to be with you.  this means being positive, forgiving, confident, passionate, having good humor, and caring.  these are all legit qualities that decent people enjoy about the people they associate with.  are they  alpha  qualities ? not necessarily.  i would say these are  nice guy  qualities rather than  alpha.   the partners you  want  to be with  will  be attracted to these qualities.  the partners you do not want to be with maybe this past experience wo not be.  here is how not to deal with it:  do not let a crappy experience poison the well; do not let an inconsiderate person ruin your mental state and cause you to believe that all 0 billion women, regardless of age, personal circumstances, background, etc in the world are  a certain way.   do not let this experience turn you into a critical/cynical person regarding the choices of others.  to be honest, you sound pretty bitter about the experience; you should not be.  who cares why they flaked or who they we are with or what string football player they were.  just care about staying positive and it will pay off much better in the long run.  it might take some time and meeting a variety of people or potential partners, but the  nice guy  qualities above are more attractive and productive, guaranteed.  bad things can happen to good people, but you should not let a bad experience turn you into a worse person.   #  here is URL something that adresses this in teenagers, seems a bit better documented.   # skimmed it.  talks about intelligence, not risk taking.  here is URL something that adresses this in teenagers, seems a bit better documented.  a few relevant quotes:  longitudinal neuroimaging studies demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to mature well into the 0s.  this has prompted intense interest in linking neuromaturation to maturity of judgment.  myelin, a sheath of fatty cell material wrapped around neuronal axons, acts as  insulation  for neural connections.  this allows nerve impulses to travel throughout the brain more quickly and efficiently and facilitates increased integration of brain activity 0 .  although myelin cannot be measured directly, it is inferred from volumes of cerebral white matter 0 .  evidence suggests that, in the prefrontal cortex, this does not occur until the early 0s or later 0,0 .  executive functions are a set of supervisory cognitive skills needed for goal directed behavior, including planning, response inhibition, working memory, and attention 0 .  these skills allow an individual to pause long enough to take stock of a situation, assess his or her options, plan a course of action, and execute it.  poor executive functioning leads to difficulty with planning, attention, using feedback, and mental inflexibility 0 , all of which could undermine judgment and decision making.  back to the matter at hand.  he would probably benefit more in the long run if he did not do the  act like a shithead thing  and actually learned how to interact like an adult, just as much as women would.  i am going to go out on a limb and guess that he does not want to end up a 0 year old man who ca not resolve a disagreement in a civil, non abusive way.   #  jung the thing that often repels women about  nice guys  is not the fact that they are nice, but that the niceness is insincere.   #   sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality.   c. g.  jung the thing that often repels women about  nice guys  is not the fact that they are nice, but that the niceness is insincere.   nice guy  persona is often a reaction against one is own latent frustration about not getting the love one feels one deserves.  because they fear their repressed frustration would disrupt their nice guy image of themselves, nice guys do not have the freedom to act on their natural, spontaneous impulses around women.  what the  asshole  demonstrates is that he is not afraid of his natural impulses, and that he trusts himself not to hurt her.  the ensuing naturalness is more fun and exciting than calculated niceness, and the self trust helps her feel safe.  all in all, authenticity and self mastery are attractive.  being nice by choice is sexy, and people can sense when your niceness is a choice and when it is a ploy.  for most  nice guys,  especially the  unattractive  ones, it is a ploy.   #  i am glad what i wrote resonated for you.   #  you do not have to act like a dickhead.  you just have to be  able  to act like a dickhead.  you have to be free.  i am glad what i wrote resonated for you.  here is another little piece on it, from another post:  as long as a  nerdy guy  does not know his real problem is self respect, he will substitute quests for real things with quests to  win  girls.  he is built to have a mission and he knows it, but he is crippled by a need for approval and does not know why, and that becomes his mission.  whatever misogyny appears is resentment of the incredible power women have over him; he worships them and ca not help it, and he feels he ca not move on until they worship him back.  it is not entitlement to women is bodies he feels, but entitlement to self respect.  and he really is entitled to that ! he just knows he needs something, and he only has one idea where to look.  and that is when it all gets better.  but it is his responsibility to overcome this feeling and find what he wants from women within himself.  tell him to google self respect.  tell him to google radical honesty.  but most of all, tell him he can do it.  tell him there is another way.  tell him there is something better than getting laid; it is called  knowing that you are worthy.
note: those is not the stereotypical whiny  i am a nice guy why do not girls like me  post.  i used to be one of those guys but i am not anymore.  but i want to be that nice guy.  i 0m was raised thinking that i would find a nice girl who i could spend the rest of my life with.  someone who i could just love for who they are as a person and vice versa and that no matter what happened we would always stick together.  however recently i have given up on this.  my entire life i was the stereotypical  nice guy  who always cared about the feelings of others, so much so that i would invite kids sitting alone at lunch to my table, i would hang out with my friends if they seemed like they needed someone to talk to, etc.  my mom instilled in me from a very young age that above all i should respect women and that was the way to find love.  hold the door open for her, be polite and courteous,buy her flowers, etc.  anyways, last year i met what seemed like the perfect girl.  beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  back then i believed there was a distinction between party rats and nice girls, and she seemed to embody essentially everything about the  nice girl .  well we made plans to hang out one night and she flaked on me.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  i stopped talking to her after that.  as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.  the point i am trying to make is this: most girls i have met in college have behaved this way.  even the ones i would never expect it from, and the ones who said they  were not that girl  and  wanted a nice guy .  i used to laugh at nice guys on the internet but now i really feel for them.  i am not ugly by any means and i have had a little success but it was only when i pretended to be someone who i am not and basically acted like the girl did not exist until the night we hooked up.  i hate acting like this but based on my experiences it seems like the only way.  do women really hope to find a nice guy ? because i am calling bullshit.  change my view.   #  the point i am trying to make is this: most girls i have met in college have behaved this way.   #  even the ones i would never expect it from, and the ones who said they  were not that girl  and  wanted a nice guy .   # beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  back then i believed there was a distinction between party rats and nice girls, and she seemed to embody essentially everything about the  nice girl .  well we made plans to hang out one night and she flaked on me.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  i noticed that nowhere did you say anything about having established any kind of a relationship, exclusivity, or. well anything.  you  talked .  zippity fucking do.  that does not mean you have staked a claim, it does not mean she belongs to you, it does not mean a god damned thing.  hell, it does not even sound like you talked for very long because if you had spent any great amount of time you probably would have realized.  she did not  find a better option , how do you even know you were an option in her eyes ? from her perspective you could have just been a nice guy she talked to.  you are colossal fuckup was in trying to put a label on her,  party rat   nice girls  what in the fuck is that ? once you start putting people in boxes you are setting yourself up for failure and disappointment.  even the ones i would never expect it from, and the ones who said they  were not that girl  and  wanted a nice guy .  behaved in what way ? you have not even explained how she behaved, you just espoused your little boy crush on her and then complained that some weird fantasy in your head did not live up to reality.  want to know why that worked ? because you did not give a fuck.  that is the secret.  you were living a total lie, if you got caught, who cared, if it worked, great ! you shed your insecurity by wrapping yourself up in your little security blanket of a lie and let yourself be you.  you sound like a nice a person, so keep being that.  do not lie, do not fake.  everybody is an individual, and you need to learn that.  interested in a girl ? pursue her.  she rejects you ? move the fuck on ! do not dip your toes in the water trying to do this in that.  there is nothing disrespectful about being up front and honest about who you are, and what your intentions are.  be an individual, be yourself.   #  here is the big secret be the best person you can, and people  will naturally want to be with you.   #  it sucks that they flaked out on you.  here is how to deal with it:  just forget about them.  they are not someone you want to be with, either because of their personality or their inexperience of being young.  here is the big secret be the best person you can, and people  will naturally want to be with you.  this means being positive, forgiving, confident, passionate, having good humor, and caring.  these are all legit qualities that decent people enjoy about the people they associate with.  are they  alpha  qualities ? not necessarily.  i would say these are  nice guy  qualities rather than  alpha.   the partners you  want  to be with  will  be attracted to these qualities.  the partners you do not want to be with maybe this past experience wo not be.  here is how not to deal with it:  do not let a crappy experience poison the well; do not let an inconsiderate person ruin your mental state and cause you to believe that all 0 billion women, regardless of age, personal circumstances, background, etc in the world are  a certain way.   do not let this experience turn you into a critical/cynical person regarding the choices of others.  to be honest, you sound pretty bitter about the experience; you should not be.  who cares why they flaked or who they we are with or what string football player they were.  just care about staying positive and it will pay off much better in the long run.  it might take some time and meeting a variety of people or potential partners, but the  nice guy  qualities above are more attractive and productive, guaranteed.  bad things can happen to good people, but you should not let a bad experience turn you into a worse person.   #  here is URL something that adresses this in teenagers, seems a bit better documented.   # skimmed it.  talks about intelligence, not risk taking.  here is URL something that adresses this in teenagers, seems a bit better documented.  a few relevant quotes:  longitudinal neuroimaging studies demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to mature well into the 0s.  this has prompted intense interest in linking neuromaturation to maturity of judgment.  myelin, a sheath of fatty cell material wrapped around neuronal axons, acts as  insulation  for neural connections.  this allows nerve impulses to travel throughout the brain more quickly and efficiently and facilitates increased integration of brain activity 0 .  although myelin cannot be measured directly, it is inferred from volumes of cerebral white matter 0 .  evidence suggests that, in the prefrontal cortex, this does not occur until the early 0s or later 0,0 .  executive functions are a set of supervisory cognitive skills needed for goal directed behavior, including planning, response inhibition, working memory, and attention 0 .  these skills allow an individual to pause long enough to take stock of a situation, assess his or her options, plan a course of action, and execute it.  poor executive functioning leads to difficulty with planning, attention, using feedback, and mental inflexibility 0 , all of which could undermine judgment and decision making.  back to the matter at hand.  he would probably benefit more in the long run if he did not do the  act like a shithead thing  and actually learned how to interact like an adult, just as much as women would.  i am going to go out on a limb and guess that he does not want to end up a 0 year old man who ca not resolve a disagreement in a civil, non abusive way.   #  the ensuing naturalness is more fun and exciting than calculated niceness, and the self trust helps her feel safe.   #   sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality.   c. g.  jung the thing that often repels women about  nice guys  is not the fact that they are nice, but that the niceness is insincere.   nice guy  persona is often a reaction against one is own latent frustration about not getting the love one feels one deserves.  because they fear their repressed frustration would disrupt their nice guy image of themselves, nice guys do not have the freedom to act on their natural, spontaneous impulses around women.  what the  asshole  demonstrates is that he is not afraid of his natural impulses, and that he trusts himself not to hurt her.  the ensuing naturalness is more fun and exciting than calculated niceness, and the self trust helps her feel safe.  all in all, authenticity and self mastery are attractive.  being nice by choice is sexy, and people can sense when your niceness is a choice and when it is a ploy.  for most  nice guys,  especially the  unattractive  ones, it is a ploy.   #  you do not have to act like a dickhead.   #  you do not have to act like a dickhead.  you just have to be  able  to act like a dickhead.  you have to be free.  i am glad what i wrote resonated for you.  here is another little piece on it, from another post:  as long as a  nerdy guy  does not know his real problem is self respect, he will substitute quests for real things with quests to  win  girls.  he is built to have a mission and he knows it, but he is crippled by a need for approval and does not know why, and that becomes his mission.  whatever misogyny appears is resentment of the incredible power women have over him; he worships them and ca not help it, and he feels he ca not move on until they worship him back.  it is not entitlement to women is bodies he feels, but entitlement to self respect.  and he really is entitled to that ! he just knows he needs something, and he only has one idea where to look.  and that is when it all gets better.  but it is his responsibility to overcome this feeling and find what he wants from women within himself.  tell him to google self respect.  tell him to google radical honesty.  but most of all, tell him he can do it.  tell him there is another way.  tell him there is something better than getting laid; it is called  knowing that you are worthy.
note: those is not the stereotypical whiny  i am a nice guy why do not girls like me  post.  i used to be one of those guys but i am not anymore.  but i want to be that nice guy.  i 0m was raised thinking that i would find a nice girl who i could spend the rest of my life with.  someone who i could just love for who they are as a person and vice versa and that no matter what happened we would always stick together.  however recently i have given up on this.  my entire life i was the stereotypical  nice guy  who always cared about the feelings of others, so much so that i would invite kids sitting alone at lunch to my table, i would hang out with my friends if they seemed like they needed someone to talk to, etc.  my mom instilled in me from a very young age that above all i should respect women and that was the way to find love.  hold the door open for her, be polite and courteous,buy her flowers, etc.  anyways, last year i met what seemed like the perfect girl.  beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  back then i believed there was a distinction between party rats and nice girls, and she seemed to embody essentially everything about the  nice girl .  well we made plans to hang out one night and she flaked on me.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  i stopped talking to her after that.  as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.  the point i am trying to make is this: most girls i have met in college have behaved this way.  even the ones i would never expect it from, and the ones who said they  were not that girl  and  wanted a nice guy .  i used to laugh at nice guys on the internet but now i really feel for them.  i am not ugly by any means and i have had a little success but it was only when i pretended to be someone who i am not and basically acted like the girl did not exist until the night we hooked up.  i hate acting like this but based on my experiences it seems like the only way.  do women really hope to find a nice guy ? because i am calling bullshit.  change my view.   #  anyways, last year i met what seemed like the perfect girl.   #  beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.   # beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  stop idealizing, she is every bit as pervy and horny as you are.  would you have sex with a hot girl during that period if she initiated it ? i know i would.  putting one down and the other one a pedestal is childish.  some people like to party and some do not.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  it sucks that she canceled her plans with you to have sex with a guy but you ca not blame her for anything else.  maybe she just wanted to have sex with someone experienced ? as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.  or if you cared about her at all, then you could have just told her that you did not like it that she canceled her plans.  because i am calling bullshit.  change my view.  some do, some do not.  some people just want casual sex.   #  here is the big secret be the best person you can, and people  will naturally want to be with you.   #  it sucks that they flaked out on you.  here is how to deal with it:  just forget about them.  they are not someone you want to be with, either because of their personality or their inexperience of being young.  here is the big secret be the best person you can, and people  will naturally want to be with you.  this means being positive, forgiving, confident, passionate, having good humor, and caring.  these are all legit qualities that decent people enjoy about the people they associate with.  are they  alpha  qualities ? not necessarily.  i would say these are  nice guy  qualities rather than  alpha.   the partners you  want  to be with  will  be attracted to these qualities.  the partners you do not want to be with maybe this past experience wo not be.  here is how not to deal with it:  do not let a crappy experience poison the well; do not let an inconsiderate person ruin your mental state and cause you to believe that all 0 billion women, regardless of age, personal circumstances, background, etc in the world are  a certain way.   do not let this experience turn you into a critical/cynical person regarding the choices of others.  to be honest, you sound pretty bitter about the experience; you should not be.  who cares why they flaked or who they we are with or what string football player they were.  just care about staying positive and it will pay off much better in the long run.  it might take some time and meeting a variety of people or potential partners, but the  nice guy  qualities above are more attractive and productive, guaranteed.  bad things can happen to good people, but you should not let a bad experience turn you into a worse person.   #  myelin, a sheath of fatty cell material wrapped around neuronal axons, acts as  insulation  for neural connections.   # skimmed it.  talks about intelligence, not risk taking.  here is URL something that adresses this in teenagers, seems a bit better documented.  a few relevant quotes:  longitudinal neuroimaging studies demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to mature well into the 0s.  this has prompted intense interest in linking neuromaturation to maturity of judgment.  myelin, a sheath of fatty cell material wrapped around neuronal axons, acts as  insulation  for neural connections.  this allows nerve impulses to travel throughout the brain more quickly and efficiently and facilitates increased integration of brain activity 0 .  although myelin cannot be measured directly, it is inferred from volumes of cerebral white matter 0 .  evidence suggests that, in the prefrontal cortex, this does not occur until the early 0s or later 0,0 .  executive functions are a set of supervisory cognitive skills needed for goal directed behavior, including planning, response inhibition, working memory, and attention 0 .  these skills allow an individual to pause long enough to take stock of a situation, assess his or her options, plan a course of action, and execute it.  poor executive functioning leads to difficulty with planning, attention, using feedback, and mental inflexibility 0 , all of which could undermine judgment and decision making.  back to the matter at hand.  he would probably benefit more in the long run if he did not do the  act like a shithead thing  and actually learned how to interact like an adult, just as much as women would.  i am going to go out on a limb and guess that he does not want to end up a 0 year old man who ca not resolve a disagreement in a civil, non abusive way.   #  because they fear their repressed frustration would disrupt their nice guy image of themselves, nice guys do not have the freedom to act on their natural, spontaneous impulses around women.   #   sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality.   c. g.  jung the thing that often repels women about  nice guys  is not the fact that they are nice, but that the niceness is insincere.   nice guy  persona is often a reaction against one is own latent frustration about not getting the love one feels one deserves.  because they fear their repressed frustration would disrupt their nice guy image of themselves, nice guys do not have the freedom to act on their natural, spontaneous impulses around women.  what the  asshole  demonstrates is that he is not afraid of his natural impulses, and that he trusts himself not to hurt her.  the ensuing naturalness is more fun and exciting than calculated niceness, and the self trust helps her feel safe.  all in all, authenticity and self mastery are attractive.  being nice by choice is sexy, and people can sense when your niceness is a choice and when it is a ploy.  for most  nice guys,  especially the  unattractive  ones, it is a ploy.   #  whatever misogyny appears is resentment of the incredible power women have over him; he worships them and ca not help it, and he feels he ca not move on until they worship him back.   #  you do not have to act like a dickhead.  you just have to be  able  to act like a dickhead.  you have to be free.  i am glad what i wrote resonated for you.  here is another little piece on it, from another post:  as long as a  nerdy guy  does not know his real problem is self respect, he will substitute quests for real things with quests to  win  girls.  he is built to have a mission and he knows it, but he is crippled by a need for approval and does not know why, and that becomes his mission.  whatever misogyny appears is resentment of the incredible power women have over him; he worships them and ca not help it, and he feels he ca not move on until they worship him back.  it is not entitlement to women is bodies he feels, but entitlement to self respect.  and he really is entitled to that ! he just knows he needs something, and he only has one idea where to look.  and that is when it all gets better.  but it is his responsibility to overcome this feeling and find what he wants from women within himself.  tell him to google self respect.  tell him to google radical honesty.  but most of all, tell him he can do it.  tell him there is another way.  tell him there is something better than getting laid; it is called  knowing that you are worthy.
note: those is not the stereotypical whiny  i am a nice guy why do not girls like me  post.  i used to be one of those guys but i am not anymore.  but i want to be that nice guy.  i 0m was raised thinking that i would find a nice girl who i could spend the rest of my life with.  someone who i could just love for who they are as a person and vice versa and that no matter what happened we would always stick together.  however recently i have given up on this.  my entire life i was the stereotypical  nice guy  who always cared about the feelings of others, so much so that i would invite kids sitting alone at lunch to my table, i would hang out with my friends if they seemed like they needed someone to talk to, etc.  my mom instilled in me from a very young age that above all i should respect women and that was the way to find love.  hold the door open for her, be polite and courteous,buy her flowers, etc.  anyways, last year i met what seemed like the perfect girl.  beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  back then i believed there was a distinction between party rats and nice girls, and she seemed to embody essentially everything about the  nice girl .  well we made plans to hang out one night and she flaked on me.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  i stopped talking to her after that.  as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.  the point i am trying to make is this: most girls i have met in college have behaved this way.  even the ones i would never expect it from, and the ones who said they  were not that girl  and  wanted a nice guy .  i used to laugh at nice guys on the internet but now i really feel for them.  i am not ugly by any means and i have had a little success but it was only when i pretended to be someone who i am not and basically acted like the girl did not exist until the night we hooked up.  i hate acting like this but based on my experiences it seems like the only way.  do women really hope to find a nice guy ? because i am calling bullshit.  change my view.   #  back then i believed there was a distinction between party rats and nice girls, and she seemed to embody essentially everything about the  nice girl .   #  putting one down and the other one a pedestal is childish.   # beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  stop idealizing, she is every bit as pervy and horny as you are.  would you have sex with a hot girl during that period if she initiated it ? i know i would.  putting one down and the other one a pedestal is childish.  some people like to party and some do not.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  it sucks that she canceled her plans with you to have sex with a guy but you ca not blame her for anything else.  maybe she just wanted to have sex with someone experienced ? as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.  or if you cared about her at all, then you could have just told her that you did not like it that she canceled her plans.  because i am calling bullshit.  change my view.  some do, some do not.  some people just want casual sex.   #  they are not someone you want to be with, either because of their personality or their inexperience of being young.   #  it sucks that they flaked out on you.  here is how to deal with it:  just forget about them.  they are not someone you want to be with, either because of their personality or their inexperience of being young.  here is the big secret be the best person you can, and people  will naturally want to be with you.  this means being positive, forgiving, confident, passionate, having good humor, and caring.  these are all legit qualities that decent people enjoy about the people they associate with.  are they  alpha  qualities ? not necessarily.  i would say these are  nice guy  qualities rather than  alpha.   the partners you  want  to be with  will  be attracted to these qualities.  the partners you do not want to be with maybe this past experience wo not be.  here is how not to deal with it:  do not let a crappy experience poison the well; do not let an inconsiderate person ruin your mental state and cause you to believe that all 0 billion women, regardless of age, personal circumstances, background, etc in the world are  a certain way.   do not let this experience turn you into a critical/cynical person regarding the choices of others.  to be honest, you sound pretty bitter about the experience; you should not be.  who cares why they flaked or who they we are with or what string football player they were.  just care about staying positive and it will pay off much better in the long run.  it might take some time and meeting a variety of people or potential partners, but the  nice guy  qualities above are more attractive and productive, guaranteed.  bad things can happen to good people, but you should not let a bad experience turn you into a worse person.   #  poor executive functioning leads to difficulty with planning, attention, using feedback, and mental inflexibility 0 , all of which could undermine judgment and decision making.   # skimmed it.  talks about intelligence, not risk taking.  here is URL something that adresses this in teenagers, seems a bit better documented.  a few relevant quotes:  longitudinal neuroimaging studies demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to mature well into the 0s.  this has prompted intense interest in linking neuromaturation to maturity of judgment.  myelin, a sheath of fatty cell material wrapped around neuronal axons, acts as  insulation  for neural connections.  this allows nerve impulses to travel throughout the brain more quickly and efficiently and facilitates increased integration of brain activity 0 .  although myelin cannot be measured directly, it is inferred from volumes of cerebral white matter 0 .  evidence suggests that, in the prefrontal cortex, this does not occur until the early 0s or later 0,0 .  executive functions are a set of supervisory cognitive skills needed for goal directed behavior, including planning, response inhibition, working memory, and attention 0 .  these skills allow an individual to pause long enough to take stock of a situation, assess his or her options, plan a course of action, and execute it.  poor executive functioning leads to difficulty with planning, attention, using feedback, and mental inflexibility 0 , all of which could undermine judgment and decision making.  back to the matter at hand.  he would probably benefit more in the long run if he did not do the  act like a shithead thing  and actually learned how to interact like an adult, just as much as women would.  i am going to go out on a limb and guess that he does not want to end up a 0 year old man who ca not resolve a disagreement in a civil, non abusive way.   #  what the  asshole  demonstrates is that he is not afraid of his natural impulses, and that he trusts himself not to hurt her.   #   sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality.   c. g.  jung the thing that often repels women about  nice guys  is not the fact that they are nice, but that the niceness is insincere.   nice guy  persona is often a reaction against one is own latent frustration about not getting the love one feels one deserves.  because they fear their repressed frustration would disrupt their nice guy image of themselves, nice guys do not have the freedom to act on their natural, spontaneous impulses around women.  what the  asshole  demonstrates is that he is not afraid of his natural impulses, and that he trusts himself not to hurt her.  the ensuing naturalness is more fun and exciting than calculated niceness, and the self trust helps her feel safe.  all in all, authenticity and self mastery are attractive.  being nice by choice is sexy, and people can sense when your niceness is a choice and when it is a ploy.  for most  nice guys,  especially the  unattractive  ones, it is a ploy.   #  you do not have to act like a dickhead.   #  you do not have to act like a dickhead.  you just have to be  able  to act like a dickhead.  you have to be free.  i am glad what i wrote resonated for you.  here is another little piece on it, from another post:  as long as a  nerdy guy  does not know his real problem is self respect, he will substitute quests for real things with quests to  win  girls.  he is built to have a mission and he knows it, but he is crippled by a need for approval and does not know why, and that becomes his mission.  whatever misogyny appears is resentment of the incredible power women have over him; he worships them and ca not help it, and he feels he ca not move on until they worship him back.  it is not entitlement to women is bodies he feels, but entitlement to self respect.  and he really is entitled to that ! he just knows he needs something, and he only has one idea where to look.  and that is when it all gets better.  but it is his responsibility to overcome this feeling and find what he wants from women within himself.  tell him to google self respect.  tell him to google radical honesty.  but most of all, tell him he can do it.  tell him there is another way.  tell him there is something better than getting laid; it is called  knowing that you are worthy.
note: those is not the stereotypical whiny  i am a nice guy why do not girls like me  post.  i used to be one of those guys but i am not anymore.  but i want to be that nice guy.  i 0m was raised thinking that i would find a nice girl who i could spend the rest of my life with.  someone who i could just love for who they are as a person and vice versa and that no matter what happened we would always stick together.  however recently i have given up on this.  my entire life i was the stereotypical  nice guy  who always cared about the feelings of others, so much so that i would invite kids sitting alone at lunch to my table, i would hang out with my friends if they seemed like they needed someone to talk to, etc.  my mom instilled in me from a very young age that above all i should respect women and that was the way to find love.  hold the door open for her, be polite and courteous,buy her flowers, etc.  anyways, last year i met what seemed like the perfect girl.  beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  back then i believed there was a distinction between party rats and nice girls, and she seemed to embody essentially everything about the  nice girl .  well we made plans to hang out one night and she flaked on me.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  i stopped talking to her after that.  as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.  the point i am trying to make is this: most girls i have met in college have behaved this way.  even the ones i would never expect it from, and the ones who said they  were not that girl  and  wanted a nice guy .  i used to laugh at nice guys on the internet but now i really feel for them.  i am not ugly by any means and i have had a little success but it was only when i pretended to be someone who i am not and basically acted like the girl did not exist until the night we hooked up.  i hate acting like this but based on my experiences it seems like the only way.  do women really hope to find a nice guy ? because i am calling bullshit.  change my view.   #  well we made plans to hang out one night and she flaked on me.   #  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .   # beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  stop idealizing, she is every bit as pervy and horny as you are.  would you have sex with a hot girl during that period if she initiated it ? i know i would.  putting one down and the other one a pedestal is childish.  some people like to party and some do not.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  it sucks that she canceled her plans with you to have sex with a guy but you ca not blame her for anything else.  maybe she just wanted to have sex with someone experienced ? as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.  or if you cared about her at all, then you could have just told her that you did not like it that she canceled her plans.  because i am calling bullshit.  change my view.  some do, some do not.  some people just want casual sex.   #  just care about staying positive and it will pay off much better in the long run.   #  it sucks that they flaked out on you.  here is how to deal with it:  just forget about them.  they are not someone you want to be with, either because of their personality or their inexperience of being young.  here is the big secret be the best person you can, and people  will naturally want to be with you.  this means being positive, forgiving, confident, passionate, having good humor, and caring.  these are all legit qualities that decent people enjoy about the people they associate with.  are they  alpha  qualities ? not necessarily.  i would say these are  nice guy  qualities rather than  alpha.   the partners you  want  to be with  will  be attracted to these qualities.  the partners you do not want to be with maybe this past experience wo not be.  here is how not to deal with it:  do not let a crappy experience poison the well; do not let an inconsiderate person ruin your mental state and cause you to believe that all 0 billion women, regardless of age, personal circumstances, background, etc in the world are  a certain way.   do not let this experience turn you into a critical/cynical person regarding the choices of others.  to be honest, you sound pretty bitter about the experience; you should not be.  who cares why they flaked or who they we are with or what string football player they were.  just care about staying positive and it will pay off much better in the long run.  it might take some time and meeting a variety of people or potential partners, but the  nice guy  qualities above are more attractive and productive, guaranteed.  bad things can happen to good people, but you should not let a bad experience turn you into a worse person.   #  myelin, a sheath of fatty cell material wrapped around neuronal axons, acts as  insulation  for neural connections.   # skimmed it.  talks about intelligence, not risk taking.  here is URL something that adresses this in teenagers, seems a bit better documented.  a few relevant quotes:  longitudinal neuroimaging studies demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to mature well into the 0s.  this has prompted intense interest in linking neuromaturation to maturity of judgment.  myelin, a sheath of fatty cell material wrapped around neuronal axons, acts as  insulation  for neural connections.  this allows nerve impulses to travel throughout the brain more quickly and efficiently and facilitates increased integration of brain activity 0 .  although myelin cannot be measured directly, it is inferred from volumes of cerebral white matter 0 .  evidence suggests that, in the prefrontal cortex, this does not occur until the early 0s or later 0,0 .  executive functions are a set of supervisory cognitive skills needed for goal directed behavior, including planning, response inhibition, working memory, and attention 0 .  these skills allow an individual to pause long enough to take stock of a situation, assess his or her options, plan a course of action, and execute it.  poor executive functioning leads to difficulty with planning, attention, using feedback, and mental inflexibility 0 , all of which could undermine judgment and decision making.  back to the matter at hand.  he would probably benefit more in the long run if he did not do the  act like a shithead thing  and actually learned how to interact like an adult, just as much as women would.  i am going to go out on a limb and guess that he does not want to end up a 0 year old man who ca not resolve a disagreement in a civil, non abusive way.   #  what the  asshole  demonstrates is that he is not afraid of his natural impulses, and that he trusts himself not to hurt her.   #   sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality.   c. g.  jung the thing that often repels women about  nice guys  is not the fact that they are nice, but that the niceness is insincere.   nice guy  persona is often a reaction against one is own latent frustration about not getting the love one feels one deserves.  because they fear their repressed frustration would disrupt their nice guy image of themselves, nice guys do not have the freedom to act on their natural, spontaneous impulses around women.  what the  asshole  demonstrates is that he is not afraid of his natural impulses, and that he trusts himself not to hurt her.  the ensuing naturalness is more fun and exciting than calculated niceness, and the self trust helps her feel safe.  all in all, authenticity and self mastery are attractive.  being nice by choice is sexy, and people can sense when your niceness is a choice and when it is a ploy.  for most  nice guys,  especially the  unattractive  ones, it is a ploy.   #  it is not entitlement to women is bodies he feels, but entitlement to self respect.   #  you do not have to act like a dickhead.  you just have to be  able  to act like a dickhead.  you have to be free.  i am glad what i wrote resonated for you.  here is another little piece on it, from another post:  as long as a  nerdy guy  does not know his real problem is self respect, he will substitute quests for real things with quests to  win  girls.  he is built to have a mission and he knows it, but he is crippled by a need for approval and does not know why, and that becomes his mission.  whatever misogyny appears is resentment of the incredible power women have over him; he worships them and ca not help it, and he feels he ca not move on until they worship him back.  it is not entitlement to women is bodies he feels, but entitlement to self respect.  and he really is entitled to that ! he just knows he needs something, and he only has one idea where to look.  and that is when it all gets better.  but it is his responsibility to overcome this feeling and find what he wants from women within himself.  tell him to google self respect.  tell him to google radical honesty.  but most of all, tell him he can do it.  tell him there is another way.  tell him there is something better than getting laid; it is called  knowing that you are worthy.
note: those is not the stereotypical whiny  i am a nice guy why do not girls like me  post.  i used to be one of those guys but i am not anymore.  but i want to be that nice guy.  i 0m was raised thinking that i would find a nice girl who i could spend the rest of my life with.  someone who i could just love for who they are as a person and vice versa and that no matter what happened we would always stick together.  however recently i have given up on this.  my entire life i was the stereotypical  nice guy  who always cared about the feelings of others, so much so that i would invite kids sitting alone at lunch to my table, i would hang out with my friends if they seemed like they needed someone to talk to, etc.  my mom instilled in me from a very young age that above all i should respect women and that was the way to find love.  hold the door open for her, be polite and courteous,buy her flowers, etc.  anyways, last year i met what seemed like the perfect girl.  beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  back then i believed there was a distinction between party rats and nice girls, and she seemed to embody essentially everything about the  nice girl .  well we made plans to hang out one night and she flaked on me.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  i stopped talking to her after that.  as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.  the point i am trying to make is this: most girls i have met in college have behaved this way.  even the ones i would never expect it from, and the ones who said they  were not that girl  and  wanted a nice guy .  i used to laugh at nice guys on the internet but now i really feel for them.  i am not ugly by any means and i have had a little success but it was only when i pretended to be someone who i am not and basically acted like the girl did not exist until the night we hooked up.  i hate acting like this but based on my experiences it seems like the only way.  do women really hope to find a nice guy ? because i am calling bullshit.  change my view.   #  i stopped talking to her after that.   #  as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.   # beautiful, funny, ditzy, intelligent, basically everything i could ever want in a girl.  stop idealizing, she is every bit as pervy and horny as you are.  would you have sex with a hot girl during that period if she initiated it ? i know i would.  putting one down and the other one a pedestal is childish.  some people like to party and some do not.  then i found out the reason that she flaked: to fuck the football teams 0th string running back who was known around campus as a player and had fucked like 0 girls already first 0 months of college .  it sucks that she canceled her plans with you to have sex with a guy but you ca not blame her for anything else.  maybe she just wanted to have sex with someone experienced ? as soon as she found a  better option  she just left me in the dust and never showed any regret for ditching me.  or if you cared about her at all, then you could have just told her that you did not like it that she canceled her plans.  because i am calling bullshit.  change my view.  some do, some do not.  some people just want casual sex.   #  just care about staying positive and it will pay off much better in the long run.   #  it sucks that they flaked out on you.  here is how to deal with it:  just forget about them.  they are not someone you want to be with, either because of their personality or their inexperience of being young.  here is the big secret be the best person you can, and people  will naturally want to be with you.  this means being positive, forgiving, confident, passionate, having good humor, and caring.  these are all legit qualities that decent people enjoy about the people they associate with.  are they  alpha  qualities ? not necessarily.  i would say these are  nice guy  qualities rather than  alpha.   the partners you  want  to be with  will  be attracted to these qualities.  the partners you do not want to be with maybe this past experience wo not be.  here is how not to deal with it:  do not let a crappy experience poison the well; do not let an inconsiderate person ruin your mental state and cause you to believe that all 0 billion women, regardless of age, personal circumstances, background, etc in the world are  a certain way.   do not let this experience turn you into a critical/cynical person regarding the choices of others.  to be honest, you sound pretty bitter about the experience; you should not be.  who cares why they flaked or who they we are with or what string football player they were.  just care about staying positive and it will pay off much better in the long run.  it might take some time and meeting a variety of people or potential partners, but the  nice guy  qualities above are more attractive and productive, guaranteed.  bad things can happen to good people, but you should not let a bad experience turn you into a worse person.   #  this allows nerve impulses to travel throughout the brain more quickly and efficiently and facilitates increased integration of brain activity 0 .   # skimmed it.  talks about intelligence, not risk taking.  here is URL something that adresses this in teenagers, seems a bit better documented.  a few relevant quotes:  longitudinal neuroimaging studies demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to mature well into the 0s.  this has prompted intense interest in linking neuromaturation to maturity of judgment.  myelin, a sheath of fatty cell material wrapped around neuronal axons, acts as  insulation  for neural connections.  this allows nerve impulses to travel throughout the brain more quickly and efficiently and facilitates increased integration of brain activity 0 .  although myelin cannot be measured directly, it is inferred from volumes of cerebral white matter 0 .  evidence suggests that, in the prefrontal cortex, this does not occur until the early 0s or later 0,0 .  executive functions are a set of supervisory cognitive skills needed for goal directed behavior, including planning, response inhibition, working memory, and attention 0 .  these skills allow an individual to pause long enough to take stock of a situation, assess his or her options, plan a course of action, and execute it.  poor executive functioning leads to difficulty with planning, attention, using feedback, and mental inflexibility 0 , all of which could undermine judgment and decision making.  back to the matter at hand.  he would probably benefit more in the long run if he did not do the  act like a shithead thing  and actually learned how to interact like an adult, just as much as women would.  i am going to go out on a limb and guess that he does not want to end up a 0 year old man who ca not resolve a disagreement in a civil, non abusive way.   #   nice guy  persona is often a reaction against one is own latent frustration about not getting the love one feels one deserves.   #   sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality.   c. g.  jung the thing that often repels women about  nice guys  is not the fact that they are nice, but that the niceness is insincere.   nice guy  persona is often a reaction against one is own latent frustration about not getting the love one feels one deserves.  because they fear their repressed frustration would disrupt their nice guy image of themselves, nice guys do not have the freedom to act on their natural, spontaneous impulses around women.  what the  asshole  demonstrates is that he is not afraid of his natural impulses, and that he trusts himself not to hurt her.  the ensuing naturalness is more fun and exciting than calculated niceness, and the self trust helps her feel safe.  all in all, authenticity and self mastery are attractive.  being nice by choice is sexy, and people can sense when your niceness is a choice and when it is a ploy.  for most  nice guys,  especially the  unattractive  ones, it is a ploy.   #  it is not entitlement to women is bodies he feels, but entitlement to self respect.   #  you do not have to act like a dickhead.  you just have to be  able  to act like a dickhead.  you have to be free.  i am glad what i wrote resonated for you.  here is another little piece on it, from another post:  as long as a  nerdy guy  does not know his real problem is self respect, he will substitute quests for real things with quests to  win  girls.  he is built to have a mission and he knows it, but he is crippled by a need for approval and does not know why, and that becomes his mission.  whatever misogyny appears is resentment of the incredible power women have over him; he worships them and ca not help it, and he feels he ca not move on until they worship him back.  it is not entitlement to women is bodies he feels, but entitlement to self respect.  and he really is entitled to that ! he just knows he needs something, and he only has one idea where to look.  and that is when it all gets better.  but it is his responsibility to overcome this feeling and find what he wants from women within himself.  tell him to google self respect.  tell him to google radical honesty.  but most of all, tell him he can do it.  tell him there is another way.  tell him there is something better than getting laid; it is called  knowing that you are worthy.
there is been a lot of talk about the  super crazy  republicans that won the midterm elections and how centrist the democrats that lost were.  i think it would be important to denote what percentage of the vote a candidate received from straight party voting.  i feel this would result in better primaries and debates because incumbents would have an asterisk next to their name that their opponents can use to say  you won because it is a blue state and you are blue, but when you look at the issues.   i think it would also help local elections where name recognition is perhaps the sole deciding factor in results.  i am not saying this is a game changing fix for the political system, but i think it would provide transparency without forsaking the confidential nature of voting.  now to protect confidential voting this would only affect the explicit straight party option rather than voting for each candidate individually and in the end it ends up all being one party.  i realize doing it this way means someone can intentionally just take the extra time to pick people individually, but at least that promotes looking through the entire ballot.   #  now to protect confidential voting this would only affect the explicit straight party option rather than voting for each candidate individually and in the end it ends up all being one party.   #  most states do not offer straight party voting URL second, this information is already published on the web in many counties.   # most states do not offer straight party voting URL second, this information is already published on the web in many counties.  i am not a political pollster, but i suspect its accessible from the elections office in states where the information is not published on the web.  here are the results from my local polling place for the pa governor race a few weeks ago.  corbett got 0 of his 0 votes straight party and wolf got 0 of his 0 votes straight party votes.  in both cases its about 0.  i have not run the numbers over the years, but i would be surprised if this changes much year to year.  do you have any evidence that the numbers vary year to year, election to election ? if they are always about the same, its not providing any useful information.   #  i still think it should be publicly accessible in all counties, though.   #  oh wow, i did not know straight party was not offered in certain states.  the reason why i came up with this idea in the first place was because i was trying to find a way to get more information about elections without changing laws, so it is refreshing to know i was cautiously pessimistic.  i also was not aware this information was accessible in certain counties.  i do not have a hypothesis as to whether or not the number changes from year to year because i did not believe it was measured.  i still think it should be publicly accessible in all counties, though.   #  you might need to go to your election office and request it.   #  i believe it is publicly accessible in all counties, it may just not be published to the web, like it is in my county.  you might need to go to your election office and request it.  further, it tends to get published in the results for each individual precinct low level , but left out of the summed results at the state or federal level, mainly because people do not care.  same way the low level results will tell you there were 0 write ins for mickey mouse, but that never makes it into the high level result counts.  to your point, it is my contention that this information is publicly available, its just not very interesting, so it does not get widely reported on in the news.  and it does not make a good political attack for opponents either, so they are not bothering compiling it.  if you would like to see some examples of the low level reports available, i will be happy to send you some links.   #  why is appealing to your constituency a bad thing ?  #  i am not sure what you are saying exactly.  if i am quite conservative, chances are  even if i research the details of each candidate on the issues  i am going to vote for all republicans.  i f i am quite liberal, even with research, i will vote straight democrat.  let is assume that 0rd party candidates are not viable for this discussion in mississippi, most voters are quite conservative.  in massachusetts, most voters are quite liberal.  that is why these are essentially one party states.  why is appealing to your constituency a bad thing ?  #  if you look at the chart there, you will see that for states with an average income above $0,0, ma is the lowest tax burden as a percent of income by a good margin.   #  those rankings are structurally biased based on state income.  if ma and ms implemented identical income taxes, ma would raise substantially more revenue as a percent of state income, because nearly every tax system is progressive and taxes low income people a smaller percentage of their gross income.  if you look at the chart there, you will see that for states with an average income above $0,0, ma is the lowest tax burden as a percent of income by a good margin.  the proper way to compare tax burden would be to look at the marginal tax rate encountered by the median income resident of the state.  yes, ma technically has a flat tax, but exemptions and credits still make it effectively progressive.
i think your stance would be stronger if you were saying,  there should be no recital of the pledge of allegiance in school at all.   it should not even be occurring as something that kids can opt out of.  it just should not be happening.  it is not really appropriate in general.  keep it out of school altogether.   this was the point i was getting at     i think it is wrong for us to force young children to say the pledge of allegiance and devote themselves to a country that they do not understand.  if voting turnouts are proof enough, even a lot of the adult population does not know a lot about or care a lot about the current government and all the policies and controversies, let alone a child who has likely not yet been taught about all the ins and outs.  to me, this is what i hear when children say the pledge: now, i am not trying to be  mean  to children and say they cannot possibly be told about these things, and perhaps have some basic grasp of the troubles.  i am saying that they are not taught, and ca not be asked to understand the depth or breadth of the issues at hand.  i am not saying they are incapable of a basic concept of grief or strife.  they could surely understand sorrow.  but to grasp the complex legal and social ramifications of pledging themselves to a nation as large as america.  is ridiculous.  i do not think a child is capable of comprehending the nsa stealing our information, the implications of wars we have started on the lies of our leaders.  i am sure they do not know about the government being convicted of the murder of mlk, or how we have kept people in internment camps.  i am sure they are unaware of the murders, bombings, and lynchings that have gone unpunished because of our legal system.  how right after this pledge, their fathers still ca not be married because it is an abomination to a select group is ideals.  there is a level of indoctrination involved with altogether disturbing consequences.  such as the bellamy salute, which you do not see us doing any more, we put our hands over our hearts now because we know that doing it like it used to be would imply similarity to totalitarian fascist regimes like nazi germany.   #  but to grasp the complex legal and social ramifications of pledging themselves to a nation as large as america.  is ridiculous.   #  i think you are hypersensationalizing this part here.   # i think you are hypersensationalizing this part here.  there is no legal burden bestowed upon them by these utterings.  they are well under 0 and not bound to any apparent legal transaction.  now, if the pledge of allegiance were the oath of fealty then i could understand your distress, but the truth is children benefit from both 0.  structure 0.  authority in which successful societies are children completely unsupervised, or monitored ? where are they sovereign citizens from conception ? admittedly to some degree children require direction and oversight seriously the first four year of a childs life is basically them actively testing what will/will not kill them jokes aside, it is important to establish in children a sense of habit and responsibility.  the pledge serves as a routine involving the mind must learn and recall the words , the body stand up, concentrated breath for cadence and the soul.  as for the soul i am a bit of a classicist and buy into the tri fecta of our existence.  mind, body and soul.  the third element is that which you are exercising with your post.  the pledge resonated against your soul a dissonant resonance, but one nonetheless .  it makes you think  and on a different level than simple arithmetic.  tell me, did you never think about the pledge as you have described above while you were in school ? did the thought suddenly come to you years later as an adult ? one day it clicked, and you just though  those bastards.   . i am going to guess no.  you were critical of it even as you did it perhaps.  if anything, by doing something need  a  better  word  here such as the pledge you were given the opportunity to question it.  and those who never questioned it. well it is my inclination that they likely had a predisposition to be a  follower .  i think children can/do/should receive enough external influence outside of school and outside of the 0 minute recital to criticize it and make a decision about it.  you need to give kids more credit.   #  others have commented here to the same effect.   # others have commented here to the same effect.  if you want to get into the specifics of peer pressure/group dynamics, that is another valid conversation.  if you want to talk about how the pledge ought to be differently presented to students, that is yet another valid discussion.  but no public educator or educational institution forces their students to say the pledge.  so, sure, i think it is wrong to do so, and so does the supreme court of the united states of america.  i do not think anyone here wants to or will be able to change your view on that subject.  as for your inner monologue while hearing the pledge, i want to address these last two:  indivisible not counting the civil war.  this is really what that line references.  the pledge was written long after the civil war, and our nation survived it.  poetically, we are indivisible, since we survived the greatest challenge our nation has ever faced.  many young children may begin identifying the very injustices you mention  because  they know how america is supposed to be from the pledge.   #  when it has been brought to light, yeah.   #  when it has been brought to light, yeah.  i have 0 relevant experiences here: 0 all of high school right after 0/0 happened, you got fucking yelled at by teachers.  got yelled at by every teacher i tested it with for eight straight semesters.  0 worked in a public middle school.  even the  cool  teachers yelled at kids to stand.  they did not have to recite it.  i mean, middle schoolers dread more than anything hearing their voice stick out of a crowd.  but every teacher recites it loud and proud.  many have little speeches they give about it at the start of the year, about how they think it is a good idea to say it.  talking to the para who worked issr, she makes kids who do not stand  it is the thug boys every time  write a paper about their choice.  what kid in this school it is in a pretty shitty neighborhood, really high poverty rates is going to their parents about this injustice ? maybe one of the smallest injustices of their day.  and which one of their parents will care enough ? and principals at ghetto schools ? forget about it.  my biggest complaint day to day was the kids smoking meth in the bathroom.   #  there is nothing that prevents them from requiring you to stand.   #  i taught for a few years in texas.  the education code here says that students will recite both the us pledge and the texas pledge unless they have a note from a parent excusing them.  i personally had zero interest in saying either of those pledges myself, and so i never made students bring a note.  however, whether or not students have to  stand  is not expressly stated and therefore is usually up to the principal.  there is nothing that prevents them from requiring you to stand.  i told my class to just stand up and use the time to reflect on freedom and justice however they liked, and that could include the pledge or not.  i think they all kind of grasped that standing helped them fly under the radar about not needing a note to opt out.  my point is, some teachers are under crappy pressure from administration or even the education code, and they are just enforcing stupid stuff because it is their job.  i am not a huge fan of the usa pledge, and i damn sure was not going to say the fucking texas pledge, and i am positive i am not the only teacher like that.   #  they ca not physically  do  anything  to  you for not participating in the pageantry of their political indoctrination.   #  you ca not  force  anyone to do anything.  you can only escalate discomfort in an attempt to coarse action.  there is also limits on the level of coercion per circumstance and agent of authority.  they ca not physically  do  anything  to  you for not participating in the pageantry of their political indoctrination.  that would be assault.  they can  attempt  to hold you in detention, but they ca not physically restrain you from leaving beyond the standard scholastic day period.  that is also assault.  and the truancy officer wo not allow them to suspend you beyond a reasonable time period as well.  suspension ca not be indefinite.  so yeah there are quite many restrictions on their capabilities.  their threats are toothless.
i will start my cmv with this phrase:  just 0 months ago they had to ask to go to the bathroom.   i find this to be a particularly strong argument concerning responsibility between parents and their kids.  while i think it is definitely time for someone to consider what they are going to do with their life, and how they are going to do it in lower economical situations it is very difficult to get off the ground as an 0 year old.  things like a vehicle and a first job can be absurdly hard to obtain and though the person is an  adult  for legal reasons, they honestly do not have the resources an adult should have at their disposal.  the reason i suggest 0, is that if a child cannot be threatened with being removed from the household because their of a certain age and they do not have any obligations i think 0 years outside of high school is a very real fighting chance to gain real independence while ensuring parents are not entirely stuck with their potentially deadbeat kid forever.  a secondary part of my argument is that up until their 0 teens have very limited opportunities outside of high school to develop themselves and build meaningful connections that will benefit them right out of high school, and so the 0 0 range would give them the chance to develop themselves to the extent needed to survive.  weather that means working or going to school should be up to the person in question, but said person should have a roof over their head while they figure it out.  also, please assume that under these circumstances i am not considering the outlier issues that come from such a change such as arguments for dads concerning abortion.  or how the legal system would handle financial responsibility.  i know that issues like this exist, but they are tangential and so wo not really change my view.   #  also, please assume that under these circumstances i am not considering the outlier issues that come from such a change such as arguments for dads concerning abortion.   #  or how the legal system would handle financial responsibility.   # or how the legal system would handle financial responsibility.  i know that issues like this exist, but they are tangential and so wo not really change my view.  these are not outlier issues, they are the fundamental problem with your proposal.  you are in effect, proposing an entirely new categorization.  not a child, not an adult.  it is some sort of pre adult.  you need to clearly specify which responsibilities of adulthood these pre adults get, while at the same time, which ones they do not have.  similarly, what responsibilities do parents of pre adult have vs parents of a child ? it sounds like you want parents of a pre adult to have a legal responsibility to provide housing.  is that all ? what about food, clothing, spending money, transportation, health care, insurance, education expenses, etc ? children need parental permission to do certain things, such as travel overseas or get a working permit.  they also need parental permission for bank accounts and other sorts of legal agreements.  what do pre adults need ? if a child damages property, the parent is usually responsible.  what about the case of pre adults ? without these sorts of details, its hard to argue that its a good idea or not.  whether or not it makes societal sense would depend on the balance of these sorts of issues.  as they say, the devil is in the details.   #  either way it is not an idea central to my argument because it is assumed that if this were to come to change that things would be put in place to reinforce the underlying things you are suggesting.   # it is really not.  plenty of people have levied good arguments against my proposal that have nothing to do with a lot of the legal ramifications.  i will tell you what i have told other people.  the legal framework around this will need to be reworked.  that is obvious, but i do not think it is impractical from a legal standpoint.  either way it is not an idea central to my argument because it is assumed that if this were to come to change that things would be put in place to reinforce the underlying things you are suggesting.   #  in your scenario, you have two people parent and child , which share responsibility during that period.   # the legal framework around this will need to be reworked.  it is not a legal argument i am making, its the fundamental distinction between adults and children.  adulthood means you have responsibility for yourself.  being a parent means you have responsibility for your child.  in your scenario, you have two people parent and child , which share responsibility during that period.  what i am asking you is how does that shared responsibility work ? let is say my 0 year wants to move to california.  what happens if i am only willing to provide housing in our current city ? in reverse, what if i take a new job in california.  can i tell my kid that he has to tag along if he wants to continue to receive housing ?  #  the question i have for you is does making them financially responsible for the child also mean they are responsible for the child is school up to age 0 ?  #  i disagree with the financial stress that this would put on parents who have 0 0 year olds.  now if you are talking about saying, in 0 years the law will change such that parents are responsible for their kids up to age 0.  springing it upon unsuspecting people is probably wrong and would be a great financial burden.  also a kid should really be looking at their options at age 0ish.  at that age they can get a job, they can also be looking at schools, they can take their sats or acts or both, they can prep themselves for those tests as well.  they can look at opportunities for vocational schools and they can look at the job market, i think the 0 years before high school ends should be where all of this is taking place.  in my state kids that age even have the option of taking classes at the local community college instead of high school to finish up their high school requirements.  many other states have that option as well.  the question i have for you is does making them financially responsible for the child also mean they are responsible for the child is school up to age 0 ?  #  it just so happens that right now, adulthood coincides with the end of forced education for a lot of people.   # now if you are talking about saying, in 0 years the law will change such that parents are responsible for their kids up to age 0.  springing it upon unsuspecting people is probably wrong and would be a great financial burden.  this is not something i am saying should happen overnight, and i agree that this would be unwarranted and a complete table flip for a lot of people.  at that age they can get a job, they can also be looking at schools, they can take their sats or acts or both, they can prep themselves for those tests as well.  they can look at opportunities for vocational schools and they can look at the job market, i think the 0 years before high school ends should be where all of this is taking place.  in my state kids that age even have the option of taking classes at the local community college instead of high school to finish up their high school requirements.  many other states have that option as well.  i would say that kids getting jobs and cars and the like in high school has become outlier the emphasis placed on high education has people more dialed in on degrees, also 0 year olds and even 0 year olds often do not have enough sense of the world to know how things are going to pan out for them.  they can work towards putting certain things in motion yes, but there is not a lot of contingency on their part should they fail to live up to their own expectations.  lastly, we develop laws for the lowest common denominator, not all the people ahead of the curve.  this means we have to assume that most kids wo not be able to get a job at 0 for one way or another.  or be able to afford trade school or college or a car.  no.  i am talking more like the status quo of essentials like a roof and clothes and food or anything in that vein.  it just so happens that right now, adulthood coincides with the end of forced education for a lot of people.
it is pretty well known that women over 0 tend to have increasing difficulties getting pregnant.  women approaching 0 and over 0 also have increasing difficulties with prenatal development and reaching full term.  aside the biological aspects, though, if you have your last child at 0, and let us suppose that you have a nice healthy boy/girl, then by the time they are 0 and off to college or whatever they decide to do, you are barely in your mid 0s.  you can go see the world.  you do not have to haul your kids around to their extracurricular activities.  if you are a fit and healthy individual, you can go climb mountains or ski and whatnot.  i mean, it just makes sense to me.  due to your young age, you can also be more active with them.  actually help them with their sport or go on runs with them.  or actually remember how to solve calculus equations and help them with their homework.  the only con i can think of is the psychological toll on the mother.  i am a 0 year old single mom, so i can attest to the stressful difficulties.  however, when i think about the fact that i wo not even be 0 when my daughter turns 0, i get pretty stoked about the future.  also, i have so much more fun with her.  when we go to the park or to little play places like in the mall i can actually chase her, climb, crawl, etc.  and have a great time with her.  i will admit, working and going to school makes it mentally draining, though.  i am aware that every person will have their individual views on this based on experiences and influences.  i would just like to see if i can be made to believe otherwise and if i should put off having children once i am done with school and at a stable point in my career.   #  then by the time they are 0 and off to college or whatever they decide to do, you are barely in your mid 0s.   #  you can go see the world do you plan on paying for your kids college ?  #  i do not think 0 is a bad time but there are pros and con to any age.  you can go see the world do you plan on paying for your kids college ? wo not that make it harder to travel when you are spending let is say 0 0k a year on your kids school ? besides just because you are kid is at college does not mean you just completely wipe you hands of them.  also, would not it be better to travel when you are 0 0 rather then 0 0 ? i think some could argue they would rather do it when they are young.  another thing to consider is at 0 most people are probably in the early stages of their career.  they probably wo not make as much as they would in a few years and the extra money could help support the child.   #  as for the financial stability, i agree with that; however, many people confuse financial stability with  at a very great point in your career .   #  completely agree with you.  i had my first and so far only daughter at 0, out of wedlock, and i had no job.  well, thanks to my resiliency, luck, and responsibility, i have been able to live a comfortable single mom life.  however, it is  very difficult  ! this experience has definitely made me be very assertive of the fact that i will not have any more kids until i am married.  as for the financial stability, i agree with that; however, many people confuse financial stability with  at a very great point in your career .  i am still working on my bs and i am not in my career yet, but i am financially stable.  a lot of people put off kids until they are content with where they are with their careers, but i do not see why it ca not be a simultaneous thing.   #  but my dad has a business now that he is responsible for, and they both have ailing parents that they have to care for.   #  i dunno, the opposite makes a lot more sense to me.  my mom had my older brother when she was 0, and she and my dad have  tons  of crazy stories from before they had us, stories about partying in tijuana, travelling the world to do phd research, doing road trips across the country, all things they were able to do because they had not had kids yet.  you are old to enough pay your own way, but not beholden to anyone or anything else.  after you have had kids, you have probably been settled for two decades, you have gotten into a routine, you may be far along in a career that saps your time and energy your spark for travel and trying new things may be gone.  now that my brother and i are grown, my parents can do what they want.  they take little vacations to the next state over, they have interesting hobbies.  but my dad has a business now that he is responsible for, and they both have ailing parents that they have to care for.  it is a nice life, but it is not the stuff they were doing when they were 0.  0 is a bit old for me, but it seems to me my parents had the best of both worlds.  they had a long, long youth, and soon they can have a nice retirement too.  it is kind of like cramming the most responsible times of your life into the shortest period possible, from age 0ish 0ish.   #  however, their probability of divorce and all of the bad stuff that happens during/after is a lot lower.   #  you already have a child, so for you it may not make a huge difference whether or not you have more in your 0s or later.  you are already dealing with some of the disadvantages of having children early.  however, some people prefer to front load their fun, often for good reason.  backpacking through europe is probably something best done in the early mid 0s instead of in your 0s.  certain kinds of sports are best practiced when young as well, and can be dangerous later in life especially if they have been training less due to children .  also, investing long hours into your career early typically has greater payoffs long term than later investment.  people who ca not invest the long hours early on due to children are going to be at a disadvantage relative to those who did their entire careers.  for many people, waiting until mid career about mid 0s to have children is a far superior economic decision.  having kids later is also easier because you have a greater ability to negotiate flexible schedules and time off.  lastly, marriages and relationships generally, are statistically way less stable before 0.  so waiting until 0 to start thinking about marriage is probably best for relationship stability, but would mean that kids at 0 is probably the best you are going to do meet someone at 0, date/engaged 0 years, married a year or two before start trying, takes about 0 months for the average couple to get pregnant .  if there are any difficulties finding someone, getting pregnant, becoming career stable, etc.  the person will take even longer to have kids.  however, their probability of divorce and all of the bad stuff that happens during/after is a lot lower.   #  also, consider that women who have chronic infertility not due to age are more likely to end up without children in their 0s/0s and trying for a baby.   # actually, it is a common misconception.  pet peeve of mine, since i was conceived after a whole 0 weeks of honeymoon to a 0 year old mother.  also, consider that women who have chronic infertility not due to age are more likely to end up without children in their 0s/0s and trying for a baby.  this might skew the  how fertile are women aged x ?   question.  yet another unaccounted for variable in early studies is the age of the male partner.  i think we can safely assume that, in most couples, the male is at least slightly older.  also, financial situation tend to improve with every passing year and with it the quality of life you can provide your children with.  by the way, most people in their 0s and 0s are not bed ridden and infirm.
i do not think there is an inherent purpose to life.  i believe that life is, in fact, an accident, and that our existence is coincidental.  being so i also do not believe in eternal truths, mainly in the notion that there is an inherent good that people should be trying to attain.  if any purpose exists it is constructed within the person, for otherwise, why would people exist ? it is not to serve nature, surely, for humans ultimately oppose nature, especially in modern society.  in the case that there was a god, i suppose one could argue that we exists for the god is sake, but why ? for entertainment ? i am really not clear how purpose can be inherent and not constructed.  the same goes for the greater good.  there does not seem to be a good that exists from with out the person or societies.  if there were a greater objective good, why then, with the exception of murder and incest, are very few things seen as universally bad among all society is ? and why are few things seen as universally good ? for example, in america it is seen as wrong to arrange a marriage, especially among children under 0.  but in many countries that is the standard.  if a universal good exists, how come there is so much variance as to what is right and wrong ? however, i believe this to be a good thing.  as opposed to more traditional nihilism which equates meaningless to life being futile, i believe that the lack of a notion of a greater good or purpose, is a freeing thing.  with no greater purpose or greater good, one can construct it for oneself.  the most important thing becomes one is personal experience in the world, and maximizing that to its full potential.  there is no worry of not meeting a cosmic standard; the standards are within yourself.  and so, a person does not have to be limited from most any experience unless they so desire it.  as such, i would categorize myself as an ethical hedonist: without any inherent purpose, experience is the most important thing, and pleasurable experience being the greatest kind of experience, one should strive for that for themselves.  however, because all people are on this journey, one person is search for pleasure cannot infringe on another.  i fully believe if everyone felt this way, society would be more functional, as everyone would be operating on the basis of mutual respect.  so reddit, change my view, about any and all of these things: 0.  life having a purpose 0.  the existence of an inherent good 0.  the absence of these being freeing 0.  the idea that if ethical hedonism were the standard, society would be more functional.  presenting your own personal philosophy is a legitimate argument provided you explain why you ascribe to said philosophy  #  there is no worry of not meeting a cosmic standard; the standards are within yourself.   #  and so, a person does not have to be limited from most any experience unless they so desire it.   # and so, a person does not have to be limited from most any experience unless they so desire it.  humans evolved as a cooperative social species and as part of the evolution developed moral sensitivity expressed in moral feeling.  this sensitivity supported small group solidarity in the interactions of life and species survival.  the rules standard were relatively simple and were fairly easily enforced by peers and ancestors by appealing mainly to the desire among individuals to belong.  then we invented civilization which among other things required an extension of moral behavior to strangers.  this required/requires more fiction or rather abstraction of where the standard is and where comes from.  since humans are, like other social mammals, hierarchical, society works best with someone/thing in charge.  the more authority invested in that someone/thing that larger the city, region, state, and nation can be.  the standards gradually evolve in fits and starts along with the continuing innovations of civilized life.  your idea of ethical hedonism may be useful in this on going experiment.  however, if it turns out to be so, it will be standardized in some fashion or it will not work across a broad spectrum of people.   #  but some gain it from raising a family, or from helping the homeless, or whatever.   #  i guess my question concerning the eudanomic theory is this: where does this notion of virtue come from ? is it a kind of everlasting virtue that is beyond humans ? or is it constructed by people ? if it is the latter, then it still seems to be that those standards of virtue could be superficial, and in that case not necessarily something to base your life around.  if it is the former, i am still not convinced there can be a notion of good outside of humanity.  also, i do think of pleasure in a subjective sense.  while hedonism is generally a strive for material good and physical pleasures, i would take the term pleasure much more liberally and personally.  some people gain pleasure from those things, certainly.  but some gain it from raising a family, or from helping the homeless, or whatever.  i think as long as no one attempts to gain pleasure from hurting anyone, all of those are as valid as eachother.  basically, everyone would not be striving for the same objective pleasure, but for a personal subjective pleasure.   #  but if you are interested you should read her for yourself, as i am not nearly the writer or philosopher she was.   #  you should read some of ayn rand is non fiction.  her philosophy objectivism agrees with the aristotelian idea of eudaimonia, but differs from aristotle in some important ways.  according to objectivism, life is the ultimate goal or value because it is an end in itself.  all other values food, friends, fulfilling work, etc.  are basically means to that end.  virtues then are any actions taken to achieve those values.  however, human nature in many ways dictates what is valuable to human beings.  so virtues are just the metaphysical reality of what it takes to live a fulfilling, happy life as a human being.  but if you are interested you should read her for yourself, as i am not nearly the writer or philosopher she was.   #  but could virtues not lead us to many ends which would not be happy or fulfilling ?  # all other values food, friends, fulfilling work, etc.  are basically means to that end.  would not life still be an arbitrary value, though ? why value life ? it is surely important to  us , but would not this ultimately coincide with the system op is arguing for here namely that ethical values are created by people.  even if one were to argue that life is universally valued, there are two significant problems to this: first of all, we still have not come close to anything inherent, as it could still be a  wrong  value; there is simply no reason why we should see a value that is held universally to be special in any other respect and ascribe additional properties to it.  and secondly, life  is not  universally valued.  i am not sure if  anything  is universally valued.    so virtues are just the metaphysical reality of what it takes to live a fulfilling, happy life as a human being.  but could virtues not lead us to many ends which would not be happy or fulfilling ? might one is virtue lead them to, for example, sacrifice their life for others, or for an ideal ? or endure torture rather than give up their virtues ? and what the hell is a  ametaphysical reality  ? metaphysics is an interpretation, not a thing that exists.  it is purely conceptual.  this is the problem i have with most ethical systems behind all their reasoning are valuations.  these valuations have no logical basis, they are simply what the philosopher in question has chosen to value.  no matter how far you dig, you will eventually come to the  bedrock  the  values .  reason ca not affirm  willife  as an end in itself, rand asserts it as the end in itself in order to achieve her own purposes.  at the end of the day, all values are human created and thus subject to the wants of a particular human or group of humans.   #  would not be virtuous because they are not actions aimed at improving your life.   #  i will allow ayn rand to speak for herself: 0  in answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life.  thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality.  the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.  so much for the issue of the relation between  is  and  ought.    the virtue of selfishness 0  there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non existence and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms.  the existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action.  matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist.  it is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death.  life is a process of self sustaining and self generated action.  if an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence.  it is only the concept of  life  that makes the concept of  value  possible.  it is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.   for the new intellectual in addition to the second point, values, because they are derived from the ultimate value of life cannot be bad for your life.  so sacrifice, enduring torture, etc.  would not be virtuous because they are not actions aimed at improving your life.
i do not think there is an inherent purpose to life.  i believe that life is, in fact, an accident, and that our existence is coincidental.  being so i also do not believe in eternal truths, mainly in the notion that there is an inherent good that people should be trying to attain.  if any purpose exists it is constructed within the person, for otherwise, why would people exist ? it is not to serve nature, surely, for humans ultimately oppose nature, especially in modern society.  in the case that there was a god, i suppose one could argue that we exists for the god is sake, but why ? for entertainment ? i am really not clear how purpose can be inherent and not constructed.  the same goes for the greater good.  there does not seem to be a good that exists from with out the person or societies.  if there were a greater objective good, why then, with the exception of murder and incest, are very few things seen as universally bad among all society is ? and why are few things seen as universally good ? for example, in america it is seen as wrong to arrange a marriage, especially among children under 0.  but in many countries that is the standard.  if a universal good exists, how come there is so much variance as to what is right and wrong ? however, i believe this to be a good thing.  as opposed to more traditional nihilism which equates meaningless to life being futile, i believe that the lack of a notion of a greater good or purpose, is a freeing thing.  with no greater purpose or greater good, one can construct it for oneself.  the most important thing becomes one is personal experience in the world, and maximizing that to its full potential.  there is no worry of not meeting a cosmic standard; the standards are within yourself.  and so, a person does not have to be limited from most any experience unless they so desire it.  as such, i would categorize myself as an ethical hedonist: without any inherent purpose, experience is the most important thing, and pleasurable experience being the greatest kind of experience, one should strive for that for themselves.  however, because all people are on this journey, one person is search for pleasure cannot infringe on another.  i fully believe if everyone felt this way, society would be more functional, as everyone would be operating on the basis of mutual respect.  so reddit, change my view, about any and all of these things: 0.  life having a purpose 0.  the existence of an inherent good 0.  the absence of these being freeing 0.  the idea that if ethical hedonism were the standard, society would be more functional.  presenting your own personal philosophy is a legitimate argument provided you explain why you ascribe to said philosophy  #  however, because all people are on this journey, one person is search for pleasure cannot infringe on another.   #  i fully believe if everyone felt this way, society would be more functional, as everyone would be operating on the basis of mutual respect.   # i fully believe if everyone felt this way, society would be more functional, as everyone would be operating on the basis of mutual respect.  i saw two potential ways to interpret this: 0 you believe that simply being on the journey for personal pleasure prevents infringement on one another.  we already have people that abandon subservience for their own personal path.  some of these people are voluntary social workers.  some of them are child molesters.  there will be clashes if we all follow our own pursuit of pleasure.  0 you are proposing a guideline: that no search for pleasure can infringe on that of another.  without repercussions ? this certainly would prevent some from following their true personal pursuit of happiness.  how is this distinguished from our current society ?  #  but some gain it from raising a family, or from helping the homeless, or whatever.   #  i guess my question concerning the eudanomic theory is this: where does this notion of virtue come from ? is it a kind of everlasting virtue that is beyond humans ? or is it constructed by people ? if it is the latter, then it still seems to be that those standards of virtue could be superficial, and in that case not necessarily something to base your life around.  if it is the former, i am still not convinced there can be a notion of good outside of humanity.  also, i do think of pleasure in a subjective sense.  while hedonism is generally a strive for material good and physical pleasures, i would take the term pleasure much more liberally and personally.  some people gain pleasure from those things, certainly.  but some gain it from raising a family, or from helping the homeless, or whatever.  i think as long as no one attempts to gain pleasure from hurting anyone, all of those are as valid as eachother.  basically, everyone would not be striving for the same objective pleasure, but for a personal subjective pleasure.   #  however, human nature in many ways dictates what is valuable to human beings.   #  you should read some of ayn rand is non fiction.  her philosophy objectivism agrees with the aristotelian idea of eudaimonia, but differs from aristotle in some important ways.  according to objectivism, life is the ultimate goal or value because it is an end in itself.  all other values food, friends, fulfilling work, etc.  are basically means to that end.  virtues then are any actions taken to achieve those values.  however, human nature in many ways dictates what is valuable to human beings.  so virtues are just the metaphysical reality of what it takes to live a fulfilling, happy life as a human being.  but if you are interested you should read her for yourself, as i am not nearly the writer or philosopher she was.   #  metaphysics is an interpretation, not a thing that exists.   # all other values food, friends, fulfilling work, etc.  are basically means to that end.  would not life still be an arbitrary value, though ? why value life ? it is surely important to  us , but would not this ultimately coincide with the system op is arguing for here namely that ethical values are created by people.  even if one were to argue that life is universally valued, there are two significant problems to this: first of all, we still have not come close to anything inherent, as it could still be a  wrong  value; there is simply no reason why we should see a value that is held universally to be special in any other respect and ascribe additional properties to it.  and secondly, life  is not  universally valued.  i am not sure if  anything  is universally valued.    so virtues are just the metaphysical reality of what it takes to live a fulfilling, happy life as a human being.  but could virtues not lead us to many ends which would not be happy or fulfilling ? might one is virtue lead them to, for example, sacrifice their life for others, or for an ideal ? or endure torture rather than give up their virtues ? and what the hell is a  ametaphysical reality  ? metaphysics is an interpretation, not a thing that exists.  it is purely conceptual.  this is the problem i have with most ethical systems behind all their reasoning are valuations.  these valuations have no logical basis, they are simply what the philosopher in question has chosen to value.  no matter how far you dig, you will eventually come to the  bedrock  the  values .  reason ca not affirm  willife  as an end in itself, rand asserts it as the end in itself in order to achieve her own purposes.  at the end of the day, all values are human created and thus subject to the wants of a particular human or group of humans.   #  the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.   #  i will allow ayn rand to speak for herself: 0  in answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life.  thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality.  the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.  so much for the issue of the relation between  is  and  ought.    the virtue of selfishness 0  there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non existence and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms.  the existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action.  matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist.  it is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death.  life is a process of self sustaining and self generated action.  if an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence.  it is only the concept of  life  that makes the concept of  value  possible.  it is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.   for the new intellectual in addition to the second point, values, because they are derived from the ultimate value of life cannot be bad for your life.  so sacrifice, enduring torture, etc.  would not be virtuous because they are not actions aimed at improving your life.
i just feel like the future looks very sinister for the global society.  governments are spying on us more than ever, they have the ability to manipulate and oppress us on a scale never seen before.  europe is economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society such as its highly developed social security .  wealth distribution is at its worst since 0 source URL .  meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics and possibly influence.  while i do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.   #  meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics and possibly influence.   #  here is my coworker is take on china.   # here is my coworker is take on china.  china is already set on the path for democracy.  china is already  officially  a democratic nation.  however, as china is middle class grows larger and larger, they are going to demand more and more political power, and they are going to get it when they begin to control the purse strings.  in his view, it is not unreasonable for china to achieve democracy within 0 years time.  china has been slowly liberalizing for the past 0 years already.   #  china can get toppled if a weak set of leaders come into power in any time during your 0 year time frame.   # economies rise and fall, i would not say this is a big deal for the future, obviously for the present it would be a big deal unless it lasts for many many decades.  the thing is, the current trends are in no way set in stone nor are they unstoppable.  china can get toppled if a weak set of leaders come into power in any time during your 0 year time frame.  europe can rise once they figure out the faults of their current systems and fix these problems.  i am not quite sure how to deal with government spying but i am pretty sure an answer can present itself in 0 years.  do note, we did not foresee the internet 0 years ago nor did we see the benefits it could provide.  what more can change in 0 years ? we would need something huge, irrevocable, unstoppable and downright wrong to set our future as dark and sinister.  while we do have disturbing powers about in the world, they are in no way invincible or strong enough.   #  kind of like if someone blatantly lies to you, they are telling you something just by lying to you.   #  in end you have to ask if it is justifiable.  did they stop acts of terror through their networks ? obviously they ca not say because poi is were apprehended before they could do anything, for the most part.  you also have to ask what the government hopes to obtain by spying on everyone in their own country.  they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  especially if they have connections to foreign countries.  i do not believe anything will happen to these people unless they decide to do something stupid.  like incite a riot, plant a bomb, shit that could get people hurt, infringing on  their  rights as a citizen.  i have been where you have been, and i got out when i realized it was not the global leaders that were insane but rather it is the  media  that is insane.  i have learned to take any  news story  with plenty of salt, figure out what it means, not what it was written to mean.  kind of like if someone blatantly lies to you, they are telling you something just by lying to you.  tl;dr things are bad, but definitely not as bad as the media, gone insane with profiteering, makes things out to be.   #  it works for advertisements because nobody care if it is wrong 0 of the time, just as long as it is doing better than guessing.   # they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  if you think that they can log all the data and use that to find  anti government people  i have a bridge to sell you.  if you have ever worked with large real world datasets you know that everything where you think  i will find the people who do x  ends up failing miserably because the real world is vastly more complicated than you can possibly imagine.  it works for advertisements because nobody care if it is wrong 0 of the time, just as long as it is doing better than guessing.  anything looking for  anti government people  will have so many false positives so as to be useless.  what does work is digging up stuff about people you have found something on via the usual intelligence channels.  this is not something normal people worry about though.   #  three: use heuristics to get lists of suspects.   #  you can use it to find anti government people pretty easily.  one: find a group of people who vocally criticize your government.  investigate them and find any crimes they may be guilty of.  anti government criminals found ! two: who does that group talk to, work with and give or get money from ? more anti government people.  three: use heuristics to get lists of suspects.  then investigate those suspects.  it is worth investigating a hundred people to find one terrorist.
i just feel like the future looks very sinister for the global society.  governments are spying on us more than ever, they have the ability to manipulate and oppress us on a scale never seen before.  europe is economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society such as its highly developed social security .  wealth distribution is at its worst since 0 source URL .  meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics and possibly influence.  while i do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.   #  they have the ability to manipulate and oppress us on a scale never seen before.   #  democracy has we understand it is a very new idea.   # democracy has we understand it is a very new idea.  for most of human history, people were subjugated to the rule of familial ruling powers that dictated every aspect of the lives of their subjects.  with all but a few exceptions, today is nations and the people who live in them enjoy self governance that a commoner in 0th or 0th century england could not have imagined.  today is world is the most peaceful the world has ever been.  our media plays up conflict and tragedy for ratings but violent crime is plummeting in the us and around the world and fewer wars are being fought compared to any point in history.  there was still slavery in the us 0 years ago.  although slavery is not totally eradicated globally, i do not think you would argue that we are returning to chattel ownership of other people on the scale we saw in the early parts of the 0th century.   #  i am not quite sure how to deal with government spying but i am pretty sure an answer can present itself in 0 years.   # economies rise and fall, i would not say this is a big deal for the future, obviously for the present it would be a big deal unless it lasts for many many decades.  the thing is, the current trends are in no way set in stone nor are they unstoppable.  china can get toppled if a weak set of leaders come into power in any time during your 0 year time frame.  europe can rise once they figure out the faults of their current systems and fix these problems.  i am not quite sure how to deal with government spying but i am pretty sure an answer can present itself in 0 years.  do note, we did not foresee the internet 0 years ago nor did we see the benefits it could provide.  what more can change in 0 years ? we would need something huge, irrevocable, unstoppable and downright wrong to set our future as dark and sinister.  while we do have disturbing powers about in the world, they are in no way invincible or strong enough.   #  you also have to ask what the government hopes to obtain by spying on everyone in their own country.   #  in end you have to ask if it is justifiable.  did they stop acts of terror through their networks ? obviously they ca not say because poi is were apprehended before they could do anything, for the most part.  you also have to ask what the government hopes to obtain by spying on everyone in their own country.  they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  especially if they have connections to foreign countries.  i do not believe anything will happen to these people unless they decide to do something stupid.  like incite a riot, plant a bomb, shit that could get people hurt, infringing on  their  rights as a citizen.  i have been where you have been, and i got out when i realized it was not the global leaders that were insane but rather it is the  media  that is insane.  i have learned to take any  news story  with plenty of salt, figure out what it means, not what it was written to mean.  kind of like if someone blatantly lies to you, they are telling you something just by lying to you.  tl;dr things are bad, but definitely not as bad as the media, gone insane with profiteering, makes things out to be.   #  anything looking for  anti government people  will have so many false positives so as to be useless.   # they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  if you think that they can log all the data and use that to find  anti government people  i have a bridge to sell you.  if you have ever worked with large real world datasets you know that everything where you think  i will find the people who do x  ends up failing miserably because the real world is vastly more complicated than you can possibly imagine.  it works for advertisements because nobody care if it is wrong 0 of the time, just as long as it is doing better than guessing.  anything looking for  anti government people  will have so many false positives so as to be useless.  what does work is digging up stuff about people you have found something on via the usual intelligence channels.  this is not something normal people worry about though.   #  it is worth investigating a hundred people to find one terrorist.   #  you can use it to find anti government people pretty easily.  one: find a group of people who vocally criticize your government.  investigate them and find any crimes they may be guilty of.  anti government criminals found ! two: who does that group talk to, work with and give or get money from ? more anti government people.  three: use heuristics to get lists of suspects.  then investigate those suspects.  it is worth investigating a hundred people to find one terrorist.
i just feel like the future looks very sinister for the global society.  governments are spying on us more than ever, they have the ability to manipulate and oppress us on a scale never seen before.  europe is economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society such as its highly developed social security .  wealth distribution is at its worst since 0 source URL .  meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics and possibly influence.  while i do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.   #  meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics and possibly influence.   #  it is rising because it is becoming less state communistic less oppressive , which is a good thing.   # i think people is memory of the horrors of the 0th century will preclude the same fate.  but i agree that is where governments are headed, judging by the number of laws.  poor people today live better than poor people of 0.  it is rising because it is becoming less state communistic less oppressive , which is a good thing.  it is actually freer than the us in many ways.  do not think the future is so set in stone.  trends only tell us what will happen  if the trend continues .  to make this clearer, think about how the world looked before the industrial revolution.  i have high hopes for the future because people is moral beliefs have improved over time: slavery is no longer accepted, many parts of the world reject sexism, racism, ageism, and so on; children are beaten less and less at home and not at all at school ; and the free exchange of ideas on the internet has brought us all together.  of course, governments could destroy all this progress, but if cultural evolution continues on the right path, people will reject the initiation of violence and governments will be eliminated.   #  we would need something huge, irrevocable, unstoppable and downright wrong to set our future as dark and sinister.   # economies rise and fall, i would not say this is a big deal for the future, obviously for the present it would be a big deal unless it lasts for many many decades.  the thing is, the current trends are in no way set in stone nor are they unstoppable.  china can get toppled if a weak set of leaders come into power in any time during your 0 year time frame.  europe can rise once they figure out the faults of their current systems and fix these problems.  i am not quite sure how to deal with government spying but i am pretty sure an answer can present itself in 0 years.  do note, we did not foresee the internet 0 years ago nor did we see the benefits it could provide.  what more can change in 0 years ? we would need something huge, irrevocable, unstoppable and downright wrong to set our future as dark and sinister.  while we do have disturbing powers about in the world, they are in no way invincible or strong enough.   #  did they stop acts of terror through their networks ?  #  in end you have to ask if it is justifiable.  did they stop acts of terror through their networks ? obviously they ca not say because poi is were apprehended before they could do anything, for the most part.  you also have to ask what the government hopes to obtain by spying on everyone in their own country.  they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  especially if they have connections to foreign countries.  i do not believe anything will happen to these people unless they decide to do something stupid.  like incite a riot, plant a bomb, shit that could get people hurt, infringing on  their  rights as a citizen.  i have been where you have been, and i got out when i realized it was not the global leaders that were insane but rather it is the  media  that is insane.  i have learned to take any  news story  with plenty of salt, figure out what it means, not what it was written to mean.  kind of like if someone blatantly lies to you, they are telling you something just by lying to you.  tl;dr things are bad, but definitely not as bad as the media, gone insane with profiteering, makes things out to be.   #  anything looking for  anti government people  will have so many false positives so as to be useless.   # they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  if you think that they can log all the data and use that to find  anti government people  i have a bridge to sell you.  if you have ever worked with large real world datasets you know that everything where you think  i will find the people who do x  ends up failing miserably because the real world is vastly more complicated than you can possibly imagine.  it works for advertisements because nobody care if it is wrong 0 of the time, just as long as it is doing better than guessing.  anything looking for  anti government people  will have so many false positives so as to be useless.  what does work is digging up stuff about people you have found something on via the usual intelligence channels.  this is not something normal people worry about though.   #  investigate them and find any crimes they may be guilty of.   #  you can use it to find anti government people pretty easily.  one: find a group of people who vocally criticize your government.  investigate them and find any crimes they may be guilty of.  anti government criminals found ! two: who does that group talk to, work with and give or get money from ? more anti government people.  three: use heuristics to get lists of suspects.  then investigate those suspects.  it is worth investigating a hundred people to find one terrorist.
i just feel like the future looks very sinister for the global society.  governments are spying on us more than ever, they have the ability to manipulate and oppress us on a scale never seen before.  europe is economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society such as its highly developed social security .  wealth distribution is at its worst since 0 source URL .  meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics and possibly influence.  while i do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.   #  while i do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.   #  do not think the future is so set in stone.   # i think people is memory of the horrors of the 0th century will preclude the same fate.  but i agree that is where governments are headed, judging by the number of laws.  poor people today live better than poor people of 0.  it is rising because it is becoming less state communistic less oppressive , which is a good thing.  it is actually freer than the us in many ways.  do not think the future is so set in stone.  trends only tell us what will happen  if the trend continues .  to make this clearer, think about how the world looked before the industrial revolution.  i have high hopes for the future because people is moral beliefs have improved over time: slavery is no longer accepted, many parts of the world reject sexism, racism, ageism, and so on; children are beaten less and less at home and not at all at school ; and the free exchange of ideas on the internet has brought us all together.  of course, governments could destroy all this progress, but if cultural evolution continues on the right path, people will reject the initiation of violence and governments will be eliminated.   #  i am not quite sure how to deal with government spying but i am pretty sure an answer can present itself in 0 years.   # economies rise and fall, i would not say this is a big deal for the future, obviously for the present it would be a big deal unless it lasts for many many decades.  the thing is, the current trends are in no way set in stone nor are they unstoppable.  china can get toppled if a weak set of leaders come into power in any time during your 0 year time frame.  europe can rise once they figure out the faults of their current systems and fix these problems.  i am not quite sure how to deal with government spying but i am pretty sure an answer can present itself in 0 years.  do note, we did not foresee the internet 0 years ago nor did we see the benefits it could provide.  what more can change in 0 years ? we would need something huge, irrevocable, unstoppable and downright wrong to set our future as dark and sinister.  while we do have disturbing powers about in the world, they are in no way invincible or strong enough.   #  did they stop acts of terror through their networks ?  #  in end you have to ask if it is justifiable.  did they stop acts of terror through their networks ? obviously they ca not say because poi is were apprehended before they could do anything, for the most part.  you also have to ask what the government hopes to obtain by spying on everyone in their own country.  they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  especially if they have connections to foreign countries.  i do not believe anything will happen to these people unless they decide to do something stupid.  like incite a riot, plant a bomb, shit that could get people hurt, infringing on  their  rights as a citizen.  i have been where you have been, and i got out when i realized it was not the global leaders that were insane but rather it is the  media  that is insane.  i have learned to take any  news story  with plenty of salt, figure out what it means, not what it was written to mean.  kind of like if someone blatantly lies to you, they are telling you something just by lying to you.  tl;dr things are bad, but definitely not as bad as the media, gone insane with profiteering, makes things out to be.   #  if you have ever worked with large real world datasets you know that everything where you think  i will find the people who do x  ends up failing miserably because the real world is vastly more complicated than you can possibly imagine.   # they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  if you think that they can log all the data and use that to find  anti government people  i have a bridge to sell you.  if you have ever worked with large real world datasets you know that everything where you think  i will find the people who do x  ends up failing miserably because the real world is vastly more complicated than you can possibly imagine.  it works for advertisements because nobody care if it is wrong 0 of the time, just as long as it is doing better than guessing.  anything looking for  anti government people  will have so many false positives so as to be useless.  what does work is digging up stuff about people you have found something on via the usual intelligence channels.  this is not something normal people worry about though.   #  one: find a group of people who vocally criticize your government.   #  you can use it to find anti government people pretty easily.  one: find a group of people who vocally criticize your government.  investigate them and find any crimes they may be guilty of.  anti government criminals found ! two: who does that group talk to, work with and give or get money from ? more anti government people.  three: use heuristics to get lists of suspects.  then investigate those suspects.  it is worth investigating a hundred people to find one terrorist.
i just feel like the future looks very sinister for the global society.  governments are spying on us more than ever, they have the ability to manipulate and oppress us on a scale never seen before.  europe is economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society such as its highly developed social security .  wealth distribution is at its worst since 0 source URL .  meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics and possibly influence.  while i do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.   #  meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics and possibly influence.   #  why does china erode the positive outlook on the world.   # why does china erode the positive outlook on the world.  it is just a different economic system which really is not all that different now if you consider it .  in fact, china is both liberalizing, and advancing.  do not get me wrong, they still have a long way to go, but for a one party state, they have been on a steady assuming economic actions , since the sino soviet split which happened in 0.  europe is problems stem from political, economic, geographic, and cultural divisions within the continent.  to be completely honest, it really is not its own separate continent, as its geographic nomenclature is an artifact of classical antiquity.  it is considered one politically, but acceptance of the demarcation makes less sense.  the problem with europe may stem from it being is so vast not by today is standards , that political, cultural, and economic identities for the various regions developed beyond strict adherence to the present day integration.  take the united states for example, and its counterpart, the pre constitution articles of confederation which faced a different colonial problem: that it was too weak for warfare .  european fragmentation, whether wary nationalists in germany and greece, or the strong anti euro block in the u. k. , have their own justifications for returning to self rule.  the u. s.  economy, and china is for example, are just as dependent on weak states as they are on the strong ones.  so i can see how the responsibility for the other thing does not sit well with some in europe.  if you are from a first world country, the powers the government has against you have been steadily curtailed.  over the long trajectory time scale, surveillance may have certainly increased, but the ability for your government to kill you without questions , while the international community sits by and respects sovereignty has certainly reduced considerably.  the humans should not even matter in the calculus of politics.  this does not mean they should be replaced by machines, but voting on the feel good visage someone you are inclined to ideologically support is not the same as endorsing the instrumentality that a specific set of policies or ideals can provide.  the only global development you cited was social security, which is something that can be easily resolved politically as opposed to say, advancements in heavy manufacturing or metallurgy which cannot simply be resolved through legislation, and has to be innovated .  meanwhile, a country like china with its advantages and setbacks , has a country wide high speed rail network and is one of the biggest investors in renewable energy.  technological and material advancements work lock step with social ones, so even though:   wealth distribution is at its worst since 0 source 0 .  which i wo not challenge, that  it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.  is somewhat hard for me to perceive.   #  the thing is, the current trends are in no way set in stone nor are they unstoppable.   # economies rise and fall, i would not say this is a big deal for the future, obviously for the present it would be a big deal unless it lasts for many many decades.  the thing is, the current trends are in no way set in stone nor are they unstoppable.  china can get toppled if a weak set of leaders come into power in any time during your 0 year time frame.  europe can rise once they figure out the faults of their current systems and fix these problems.  i am not quite sure how to deal with government spying but i am pretty sure an answer can present itself in 0 years.  do note, we did not foresee the internet 0 years ago nor did we see the benefits it could provide.  what more can change in 0 years ? we would need something huge, irrevocable, unstoppable and downright wrong to set our future as dark and sinister.  while we do have disturbing powers about in the world, they are in no way invincible or strong enough.   #  i have been where you have been, and i got out when i realized it was not the global leaders that were insane but rather it is the  media  that is insane.   #  in end you have to ask if it is justifiable.  did they stop acts of terror through their networks ? obviously they ca not say because poi is were apprehended before they could do anything, for the most part.  you also have to ask what the government hopes to obtain by spying on everyone in their own country.  they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  especially if they have connections to foreign countries.  i do not believe anything will happen to these people unless they decide to do something stupid.  like incite a riot, plant a bomb, shit that could get people hurt, infringing on  their  rights as a citizen.  i have been where you have been, and i got out when i realized it was not the global leaders that were insane but rather it is the  media  that is insane.  i have learned to take any  news story  with plenty of salt, figure out what it means, not what it was written to mean.  kind of like if someone blatantly lies to you, they are telling you something just by lying to you.  tl;dr things are bad, but definitely not as bad as the media, gone insane with profiteering, makes things out to be.   #  if you think that they can log all the data and use that to find  anti government people  i have a bridge to sell you.   # they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  if you think that they can log all the data and use that to find  anti government people  i have a bridge to sell you.  if you have ever worked with large real world datasets you know that everything where you think  i will find the people who do x  ends up failing miserably because the real world is vastly more complicated than you can possibly imagine.  it works for advertisements because nobody care if it is wrong 0 of the time, just as long as it is doing better than guessing.  anything looking for  anti government people  will have so many false positives so as to be useless.  what does work is digging up stuff about people you have found something on via the usual intelligence channels.  this is not something normal people worry about though.   #  two: who does that group talk to, work with and give or get money from ?  #  you can use it to find anti government people pretty easily.  one: find a group of people who vocally criticize your government.  investigate them and find any crimes they may be guilty of.  anti government criminals found ! two: who does that group talk to, work with and give or get money from ? more anti government people.  three: use heuristics to get lists of suspects.  then investigate those suspects.  it is worth investigating a hundred people to find one terrorist.
i just feel like the future looks very sinister for the global society.  governments are spying on us more than ever, they have the ability to manipulate and oppress us on a scale never seen before.  europe is economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society such as its highly developed social security .  wealth distribution is at its worst since 0 source URL .  meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics and possibly influence.  while i do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.   #  europe is economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society such as its highly developed social security .   #  europe is problems stem from political, economic, geographic, and cultural divisions within the continent.   # why does china erode the positive outlook on the world.  it is just a different economic system which really is not all that different now if you consider it .  in fact, china is both liberalizing, and advancing.  do not get me wrong, they still have a long way to go, but for a one party state, they have been on a steady assuming economic actions , since the sino soviet split which happened in 0.  europe is problems stem from political, economic, geographic, and cultural divisions within the continent.  to be completely honest, it really is not its own separate continent, as its geographic nomenclature is an artifact of classical antiquity.  it is considered one politically, but acceptance of the demarcation makes less sense.  the problem with europe may stem from it being is so vast not by today is standards , that political, cultural, and economic identities for the various regions developed beyond strict adherence to the present day integration.  take the united states for example, and its counterpart, the pre constitution articles of confederation which faced a different colonial problem: that it was too weak for warfare .  european fragmentation, whether wary nationalists in germany and greece, or the strong anti euro block in the u. k. , have their own justifications for returning to self rule.  the u. s.  economy, and china is for example, are just as dependent on weak states as they are on the strong ones.  so i can see how the responsibility for the other thing does not sit well with some in europe.  if you are from a first world country, the powers the government has against you have been steadily curtailed.  over the long trajectory time scale, surveillance may have certainly increased, but the ability for your government to kill you without questions , while the international community sits by and respects sovereignty has certainly reduced considerably.  the humans should not even matter in the calculus of politics.  this does not mean they should be replaced by machines, but voting on the feel good visage someone you are inclined to ideologically support is not the same as endorsing the instrumentality that a specific set of policies or ideals can provide.  the only global development you cited was social security, which is something that can be easily resolved politically as opposed to say, advancements in heavy manufacturing or metallurgy which cannot simply be resolved through legislation, and has to be innovated .  meanwhile, a country like china with its advantages and setbacks , has a country wide high speed rail network and is one of the biggest investors in renewable energy.  technological and material advancements work lock step with social ones, so even though:   wealth distribution is at its worst since 0 source 0 .  which i wo not challenge, that  it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.  is somewhat hard for me to perceive.   #  europe can rise once they figure out the faults of their current systems and fix these problems.   # economies rise and fall, i would not say this is a big deal for the future, obviously for the present it would be a big deal unless it lasts for many many decades.  the thing is, the current trends are in no way set in stone nor are they unstoppable.  china can get toppled if a weak set of leaders come into power in any time during your 0 year time frame.  europe can rise once they figure out the faults of their current systems and fix these problems.  i am not quite sure how to deal with government spying but i am pretty sure an answer can present itself in 0 years.  do note, we did not foresee the internet 0 years ago nor did we see the benefits it could provide.  what more can change in 0 years ? we would need something huge, irrevocable, unstoppable and downright wrong to set our future as dark and sinister.  while we do have disturbing powers about in the world, they are in no way invincible or strong enough.   #  kind of like if someone blatantly lies to you, they are telling you something just by lying to you.   #  in end you have to ask if it is justifiable.  did they stop acts of terror through their networks ? obviously they ca not say because poi is were apprehended before they could do anything, for the most part.  you also have to ask what the government hopes to obtain by spying on everyone in their own country.  they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  especially if they have connections to foreign countries.  i do not believe anything will happen to these people unless they decide to do something stupid.  like incite a riot, plant a bomb, shit that could get people hurt, infringing on  their  rights as a citizen.  i have been where you have been, and i got out when i realized it was not the global leaders that were insane but rather it is the  media  that is insane.  i have learned to take any  news story  with plenty of salt, figure out what it means, not what it was written to mean.  kind of like if someone blatantly lies to you, they are telling you something just by lying to you.  tl;dr things are bad, but definitely not as bad as the media, gone insane with profiteering, makes things out to be.   #  they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.   # they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  if you think that they can log all the data and use that to find  anti government people  i have a bridge to sell you.  if you have ever worked with large real world datasets you know that everything where you think  i will find the people who do x  ends up failing miserably because the real world is vastly more complicated than you can possibly imagine.  it works for advertisements because nobody care if it is wrong 0 of the time, just as long as it is doing better than guessing.  anything looking for  anti government people  will have so many false positives so as to be useless.  what does work is digging up stuff about people you have found something on via the usual intelligence channels.  this is not something normal people worry about though.   #  it is worth investigating a hundred people to find one terrorist.   #  you can use it to find anti government people pretty easily.  one: find a group of people who vocally criticize your government.  investigate them and find any crimes they may be guilty of.  anti government criminals found ! two: who does that group talk to, work with and give or get money from ? more anti government people.  three: use heuristics to get lists of suspects.  then investigate those suspects.  it is worth investigating a hundred people to find one terrorist.
i just feel like the future looks very sinister for the global society.  governments are spying on us more than ever, they have the ability to manipulate and oppress us on a scale never seen before.  europe is economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society such as its highly developed social security .  wealth distribution is at its worst since 0 source URL .  meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics and possibly influence.  while i do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.   #  while i do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.   #  the only global development you cited was social security, which is something that can be easily resolved politically as opposed to say, advancements in heavy manufacturing or metallurgy which cannot simply be resolved through legislation, and has to be innovated .   # why does china erode the positive outlook on the world.  it is just a different economic system which really is not all that different now if you consider it .  in fact, china is both liberalizing, and advancing.  do not get me wrong, they still have a long way to go, but for a one party state, they have been on a steady assuming economic actions , since the sino soviet split which happened in 0.  europe is problems stem from political, economic, geographic, and cultural divisions within the continent.  to be completely honest, it really is not its own separate continent, as its geographic nomenclature is an artifact of classical antiquity.  it is considered one politically, but acceptance of the demarcation makes less sense.  the problem with europe may stem from it being is so vast not by today is standards , that political, cultural, and economic identities for the various regions developed beyond strict adherence to the present day integration.  take the united states for example, and its counterpart, the pre constitution articles of confederation which faced a different colonial problem: that it was too weak for warfare .  european fragmentation, whether wary nationalists in germany and greece, or the strong anti euro block in the u. k. , have their own justifications for returning to self rule.  the u. s.  economy, and china is for example, are just as dependent on weak states as they are on the strong ones.  so i can see how the responsibility for the other thing does not sit well with some in europe.  if you are from a first world country, the powers the government has against you have been steadily curtailed.  over the long trajectory time scale, surveillance may have certainly increased, but the ability for your government to kill you without questions , while the international community sits by and respects sovereignty has certainly reduced considerably.  the humans should not even matter in the calculus of politics.  this does not mean they should be replaced by machines, but voting on the feel good visage someone you are inclined to ideologically support is not the same as endorsing the instrumentality that a specific set of policies or ideals can provide.  the only global development you cited was social security, which is something that can be easily resolved politically as opposed to say, advancements in heavy manufacturing or metallurgy which cannot simply be resolved through legislation, and has to be innovated .  meanwhile, a country like china with its advantages and setbacks , has a country wide high speed rail network and is one of the biggest investors in renewable energy.  technological and material advancements work lock step with social ones, so even though:   wealth distribution is at its worst since 0 source 0 .  which i wo not challenge, that  it just seems inevitable that 0 years of social progress is slowly being erased.  is somewhat hard for me to perceive.   #  do note, we did not foresee the internet 0 years ago nor did we see the benefits it could provide.   # economies rise and fall, i would not say this is a big deal for the future, obviously for the present it would be a big deal unless it lasts for many many decades.  the thing is, the current trends are in no way set in stone nor are they unstoppable.  china can get toppled if a weak set of leaders come into power in any time during your 0 year time frame.  europe can rise once they figure out the faults of their current systems and fix these problems.  i am not quite sure how to deal with government spying but i am pretty sure an answer can present itself in 0 years.  do note, we did not foresee the internet 0 years ago nor did we see the benefits it could provide.  what more can change in 0 years ? we would need something huge, irrevocable, unstoppable and downright wrong to set our future as dark and sinister.  while we do have disturbing powers about in the world, they are in no way invincible or strong enough.   #  they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.   #  in end you have to ask if it is justifiable.  did they stop acts of terror through their networks ? obviously they ca not say because poi is were apprehended before they could do anything, for the most part.  you also have to ask what the government hopes to obtain by spying on everyone in their own country.  they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  especially if they have connections to foreign countries.  i do not believe anything will happen to these people unless they decide to do something stupid.  like incite a riot, plant a bomb, shit that could get people hurt, infringing on  their  rights as a citizen.  i have been where you have been, and i got out when i realized it was not the global leaders that were insane but rather it is the  media  that is insane.  i have learned to take any  news story  with plenty of salt, figure out what it means, not what it was written to mean.  kind of like if someone blatantly lies to you, they are telling you something just by lying to you.  tl;dr things are bad, but definitely not as bad as the media, gone insane with profiteering, makes things out to be.   #  it works for advertisements because nobody care if it is wrong 0 of the time, just as long as it is doing better than guessing.   # they will find people that are anti government, and that is what they look for.  if you think that they can log all the data and use that to find  anti government people  i have a bridge to sell you.  if you have ever worked with large real world datasets you know that everything where you think  i will find the people who do x  ends up failing miserably because the real world is vastly more complicated than you can possibly imagine.  it works for advertisements because nobody care if it is wrong 0 of the time, just as long as it is doing better than guessing.  anything looking for  anti government people  will have so many false positives so as to be useless.  what does work is digging up stuff about people you have found something on via the usual intelligence channels.  this is not something normal people worry about though.   #  one: find a group of people who vocally criticize your government.   #  you can use it to find anti government people pretty easily.  one: find a group of people who vocally criticize your government.  investigate them and find any crimes they may be guilty of.  anti government criminals found ! two: who does that group talk to, work with and give or get money from ? more anti government people.  three: use heuristics to get lists of suspects.  then investigate those suspects.  it is worth investigating a hundred people to find one terrorist.
basically jon haidt tested care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation and found us conservatives tend to care about all, while us liberals tend to care about the first 0 and not care much about the others.  a simplified version of this theory because of the last item is  conservatives are motivated by disgust reactions .  my point is, the problem is that haidt is methodology is flawed because he assumed the same things will effect a disgust reaction in liberals and conservatives.  it is not true.  his questions are too much conservative focused e. g.  desecrating a flag.  liberals are simply disgusted by different things, for example desecreating knowledge: burning books or libraries.  i think liberals feel more disgust over violence and blood for example.  it is not simply a care/harm thing, i think perfectly voluntary violence like an mma match with some blood will disgust liberals more than conservatives.  similarly ask them about how they feel about shooting a dog who is in incurable pain and debilitating disability and therefore it is a caring, not harmful act , liberals will feel more disgusted by it.  so if you balance your questions properly, you take into account different kinds of disgust, you do not find liberals are less motivated by disgust than conservatives.  similarly, it is not that liberals are less likely to respect authority, but more like they respect different authorities: the police less, and scientists more.  in loyalty haidt focuses too much on loyalty to your nation or family and not your political movement or social class.  my view is that with properly balanced questionnaires that take into account that us liberals and conservatives are upset by different things, these differences would disappear.  in other words that it is mostly useless.   #  i think liberals feel more disgust over violence and blood for example.   #  well, as it happens, the scale that haidt has used in the past to assess for disgust sensitivity includes quite a few prompts relating to blood and violence.   # well, as it happens, the scale that haidt has used in the past to assess for disgust sensitivity includes quite a few prompts relating to blood and violence.  for example, people completing haidt is disgust sensitivity instrument are asked how disgusting they find the following situations:    question 0.  you see someone accidentally stick a fishing hook through his finger.  0.  you see a man with his intestines exposed after an accident.  0.  your friend is pet cat dies and you have to pick up the dead body with your bare hands.    so haidt does have a more balanced scale than you might think.  is it disgust, or is it moral outrage that someone might feel because a library was burned ? haidt might argue that liberals feel moral outrage at the burning of a library because it resonates with the emphasis their moral intuitions place on liberty, and destroying knowledge is a threat to liberty.  they are not disgusted just outraged.  olatunji, b.  o. , williams, n.  l. , tolin, d.  f. , abramowitz, j.  s. , sawchuk, c.  n. , lohr, j.  m. ,   elwood, l.  s.  0 .  the disgust scale: item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement.  psychological assessment, 0 0 , 0 0.  doi:URL  #  so you know, i believe his biggest academic critic is linda skitka at the university of chicago.   #  i am curious where you have gotten your information on haidt.  was it from an interview or a ted talk or from one of his books or an actual article like the emotional dog and its rational tail ? depending on what you were exposed to you may not have gotten a full picture.  haidt is more political neutral disgust item deals with a brother and sister who are fully aware of what is happening and they choose to have sex.  this item is another one he bases his disgust principle off of which affects both conservatives and liberals, it is not just conservatives that only deal with an emotional reaction to disgust.  also, we are dealing in the realm of experimental social psychology, so i would hope you had proof that liberals are disgusted by the burning of books.  it seems like your view is based primarily on what you think each category is like, however, you have no sources to promote your ideas, nor did you demonstrate your own study to provide evidence.  i could be wrong on a few points as it has been awhile since i last read haidt is articles, but they were not meaningless as you portray.  while many dislike psychology and say it is not a hard science, it is still an evidence based area where improvements on theories are made all the time and i imagine over the course of the rest of his career and his colleagues careers they will be refining the moral foundation theory to make it better represent the general views on morality.  lastly, i know this is an argument from popularity, but his moral system is commonly agreed upon in the area as the leading answer for the question of morality and i would recommend to you reading some of his critics as some may deal with what you are proposing in part, none that i can remember call this useless.  so you know, i believe his biggest academic critic is linda skitka at the university of chicago.  while this can devolve into tossing out what the ideal conservative or an ideal liberal values or is against, please review his studies or put out a more in depth analysis as i am slightly unsure where your knowledge is coming from and what i may change beside for your viewpoint that haidt is study is useless.  i have attached a link to haidt and jesse graham is chapter from the book the social psychology of morality which covers and explains the five sacred values and uses two examples to show some of the values in action namely through timothy mcveigh and then the weather underground.  URL  #  that is only true as long as science favors their pre existing worldview, and police oppose it.   #  i am not arguing with the study, i am just batting down the myth that conservatives oppose science and liberals love it.  that is only true when scientific facts appear to swing in favor of liberal ideas.  when scientific facts appear to favor conservative ideas, suddenly the republican party is full of fan boys of empirical evidence.  i only wanted to knock out your implication that liberals respect science more and police less.  that is only true as long as science favors their pre existing worldview, and police oppose it.   #  i will see your anecdote with my own, and agree to split the pot.   # second of all, i see the exact opposite.  i will see your anecdote with my own, and agree to split the pot.  i will gladly drop this point, as gmo alarmism is by far a better example.  gmo alarmism,  chemical free food,  organic fetishism, and other  precious bodily fluids  ideology issues are solid examples of liberal science denialism.  greenpeace is a fringe group, but anti gmo activism itself is not.   #  i would like to shoot down bachmann as being a meaningful signpost.   #  i will accept your data and avoid bringing up vaccines in this sort of debate in the future.  i would like to shoot down bachmann as being a meaningful signpost.  her anti vaccine stance only cropped up when a vaccine happened to threaten a conservative viewpoint hpv was a  natural  punishment for unconservative behavior, and a vaccine for it took away that sciencey justification for abstinence only.  rather than change her  scientific  view on abstinence, she opposed solving the problem .  that makes her specifically but not the data in general a point of confirmation of my position.
basically jon haidt tested care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation and found us conservatives tend to care about all, while us liberals tend to care about the first 0 and not care much about the others.  a simplified version of this theory because of the last item is  conservatives are motivated by disgust reactions .  my point is, the problem is that haidt is methodology is flawed because he assumed the same things will effect a disgust reaction in liberals and conservatives.  it is not true.  his questions are too much conservative focused e. g.  desecrating a flag.  liberals are simply disgusted by different things, for example desecreating knowledge: burning books or libraries.  i think liberals feel more disgust over violence and blood for example.  it is not simply a care/harm thing, i think perfectly voluntary violence like an mma match with some blood will disgust liberals more than conservatives.  similarly ask them about how they feel about shooting a dog who is in incurable pain and debilitating disability and therefore it is a caring, not harmful act , liberals will feel more disgusted by it.  so if you balance your questions properly, you take into account different kinds of disgust, you do not find liberals are less motivated by disgust than conservatives.  similarly, it is not that liberals are less likely to respect authority, but more like they respect different authorities: the police less, and scientists more.  in loyalty haidt focuses too much on loyalty to your nation or family and not your political movement or social class.  my view is that with properly balanced questionnaires that take into account that us liberals and conservatives are upset by different things, these differences would disappear.  in other words that it is mostly useless.   #  liberals are simply disgusted by different things, for example desecreating knowledge: burning books or libraries.   #  is it disgust, or is it moral outrage that someone might feel because a library was burned ?  # well, as it happens, the scale that haidt has used in the past to assess for disgust sensitivity includes quite a few prompts relating to blood and violence.  for example, people completing haidt is disgust sensitivity instrument are asked how disgusting they find the following situations:    question 0.  you see someone accidentally stick a fishing hook through his finger.  0.  you see a man with his intestines exposed after an accident.  0.  your friend is pet cat dies and you have to pick up the dead body with your bare hands.    so haidt does have a more balanced scale than you might think.  is it disgust, or is it moral outrage that someone might feel because a library was burned ? haidt might argue that liberals feel moral outrage at the burning of a library because it resonates with the emphasis their moral intuitions place on liberty, and destroying knowledge is a threat to liberty.  they are not disgusted just outraged.  olatunji, b.  o. , williams, n.  l. , tolin, d.  f. , abramowitz, j.  s. , sawchuk, c.  n. , lohr, j.  m. ,   elwood, l.  s.  0 .  the disgust scale: item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement.  psychological assessment, 0 0 , 0 0.  doi:URL  #  also, we are dealing in the realm of experimental social psychology, so i would hope you had proof that liberals are disgusted by the burning of books.   #  i am curious where you have gotten your information on haidt.  was it from an interview or a ted talk or from one of his books or an actual article like the emotional dog and its rational tail ? depending on what you were exposed to you may not have gotten a full picture.  haidt is more political neutral disgust item deals with a brother and sister who are fully aware of what is happening and they choose to have sex.  this item is another one he bases his disgust principle off of which affects both conservatives and liberals, it is not just conservatives that only deal with an emotional reaction to disgust.  also, we are dealing in the realm of experimental social psychology, so i would hope you had proof that liberals are disgusted by the burning of books.  it seems like your view is based primarily on what you think each category is like, however, you have no sources to promote your ideas, nor did you demonstrate your own study to provide evidence.  i could be wrong on a few points as it has been awhile since i last read haidt is articles, but they were not meaningless as you portray.  while many dislike psychology and say it is not a hard science, it is still an evidence based area where improvements on theories are made all the time and i imagine over the course of the rest of his career and his colleagues careers they will be refining the moral foundation theory to make it better represent the general views on morality.  lastly, i know this is an argument from popularity, but his moral system is commonly agreed upon in the area as the leading answer for the question of morality and i would recommend to you reading some of his critics as some may deal with what you are proposing in part, none that i can remember call this useless.  so you know, i believe his biggest academic critic is linda skitka at the university of chicago.  while this can devolve into tossing out what the ideal conservative or an ideal liberal values or is against, please review his studies or put out a more in depth analysis as i am slightly unsure where your knowledge is coming from and what i may change beside for your viewpoint that haidt is study is useless.  i have attached a link to haidt and jesse graham is chapter from the book the social psychology of morality which covers and explains the five sacred values and uses two examples to show some of the values in action namely through timothy mcveigh and then the weather underground.  URL  #  when scientific facts appear to favor conservative ideas, suddenly the republican party is full of fan boys of empirical evidence.   #  i am not arguing with the study, i am just batting down the myth that conservatives oppose science and liberals love it.  that is only true when scientific facts appear to swing in favor of liberal ideas.  when scientific facts appear to favor conservative ideas, suddenly the republican party is full of fan boys of empirical evidence.  i only wanted to knock out your implication that liberals respect science more and police less.  that is only true as long as science favors their pre existing worldview, and police oppose it.   #  second of all, i see the exact opposite.   # second of all, i see the exact opposite.  i will see your anecdote with my own, and agree to split the pot.  i will gladly drop this point, as gmo alarmism is by far a better example.  gmo alarmism,  chemical free food,  organic fetishism, and other  precious bodily fluids  ideology issues are solid examples of liberal science denialism.  greenpeace is a fringe group, but anti gmo activism itself is not.   #  i would like to shoot down bachmann as being a meaningful signpost.   #  i will accept your data and avoid bringing up vaccines in this sort of debate in the future.  i would like to shoot down bachmann as being a meaningful signpost.  her anti vaccine stance only cropped up when a vaccine happened to threaten a conservative viewpoint hpv was a  natural  punishment for unconservative behavior, and a vaccine for it took away that sciencey justification for abstinence only.  rather than change her  scientific  view on abstinence, she opposed solving the problem .  that makes her specifically but not the data in general a point of confirmation of my position.
while i was growing up, i had never eaten at a waffle house, so i had grown up on cracker barrel, ihop and denny is, all respectable breakfast eateries.  now, i am not arguing here that waffle house sells mediocre waffles, or mediocre food in general, that is a given.  i am saying that the waffles served at waffle house do not even qualify as waffles.  let is relive my first waffle house experience.  i have recently moved to a college town, my team just won a football game, and i go to the local wh downtown, and i am starving.  i order two chocolate chip waffles.  imagine my surprise when i get two geometrically patterned pancakes with chocolate chips on top.  i was outraged.  now you may be saying, hey, they are still waffles, just not waffles to your liking.  let us look at the merriam webster waffle definition.  0waf·fle \ˈwä fəl, ˈwȯ \ noun :a crisp cake of batter baked in a waffle iron waffle house  waffles  fail to meet the crisp part of their definition.  they are very thin, and only their checkered pattern distinguishes them from pancakes.  ladies and gentleman, a pattern of squares on baked batter does not a waffle make.  true waffles are crisp on the outside and fluffy on the inside, and at least double the height of a pancake.  either waffle house needs to change the name of the  waffles  they serve or change the recipe because innocent people are deceived daily by this social injustice.  also, i would like to eat at waffle house, but i am only disappointed when i think about how my waffle craving will only be teased and never satisfied.  cmv so i can be a cheap college students like all of my friends.   #  now you may be saying, hey, they are still waffles, just not waffles to your liking.   #  let us look at the merriam webster waffle definition.   # let us look at the merriam webster waffle definition.  0waf·fle \ˈwä fəl, ˈwȯ \ noun :a crisp cake of batter baked in a waffle iron   true waffles are crisp on the outside and fluffy on the inside, and at least double the height of a pancake.  well which definition are we supposed to go by according to your view ? the dictionary definition mentions nothing about waffles being fluffy on the inside or being at least double the height of a pancake, yet your definition mentions bother of these things.  so, which definition of a waffle should we be going by ?  #  what waffle house serves is absolutely a waffle.   #  but that is like saying a restaurant does not serve pasta if you get ziti instead of spaghetti.  while ziti is not the most common pasta, it is absolutely a type of pasta.  what waffle house serves is absolutely a waffle.  if you do not like their waffles, that is fine.  lots of people do not like how a particular restaurant does a particular dish.  but that is just what kind of waffle you like.  other people like their waffles the way that waffle house does them.   #  you say you would like to eat in a waffle house but your craving for waffles would be unsatisfied.   #  this cmv made me laugh out loud.  you say you would like to eat in a waffle house but your craving for waffles would be unsatisfied.  that waffle eaters are being deceived.  that waffle house waffles are not real waffles.  are you a drama major by any chance ? anyway, kidding aside, i am a canadian who loves to visit a waffle house when traveling to the good ol  us of a.  i too like my waffle crispy on the outside.  so guess what ? that is how i order it.  i order my waffle crispy.  and that is how i get it.  i still find it funny that you say the waffle house does not make waffles.  they are definitely waffles.  it is the name of the place the waffle house  #  a quick google search URL shows many different heights.   # let us look at the merriam webster waffle definition.  why do you rely on the werriam webster definition at first, then pivot to your own definition later ? additionally, i find your definition troubling.  there is no uniform pancake height.  i am sure there are pancakes which waffle house waffles  are  double the height of.  a quick google search URL shows many different heights.  i think waffle house, which has more locations than ihop, perkins or denny is, should have at least some say in what is or is not a waffle.  additionally, eggo waffles URL have 0 market share of the frozen waffle market and do not meet your specifications.  you ca not simply dismiss the top two brands of waffles in america in favor of your own definition.  well, you can, but you ca not insist that others join you.  it is also completely possible that most waffle house locations serve waffles which are indeed crisp on the outside and fluffy on the inside.  you may have had an uncommonly bad experience.   #  i see what you are saying, but i believe that a waffle house waffle more than meets the requirement that being a waffle entails.   #  i see what you are saying, but i believe that a waffle house waffle more than meets the requirement that being a waffle entails.  besides, if you want it crispy you can request to have it cooked longer.  most people would look at a waffle house waffle and call it a waffle, despite it not technically being true according to your definition.  in this case you are arguing the majority opinion vs.  the status quo.  it is kind of like how oxford now defines  literally  as something  literally  other than  literally .  most people do not take that definition seriously, so why should we take this one seriously ?
there is no significant effort to ban the mention or celebration of christmas.  in virtually all cases, christians have taken offense to a government or commercial entity that has tried to become more inclusive or neutral regarding winter holidays.  the real goal of the  war on christmas  is to claim ownership of the end of the year, and pressure others to only acknowledge the christian holiday and exclude all others.  this greeting of  happy holidays  is an attempt to be inclusive and unassuming as to the private practices of others.  instead of being  politically correct , this greeting is an attempt to be  actually correct .  there are many winter holidays that can be either secular or religious.  unless you know about the private life of the greeting recipient,  happy holidays  is the most accurate greeting.  many holiday store sales will span multiple holidays and sell items to celebrate multiple holidays; enforcing the branding of a single holiday is inaccurate to say the least.  the world is full of diverse beliefs, and a certain group of individuals is taking offense when those beliefs are acknowledged.  stores should be free to cater to  all  customers, and not just those with a majority religion.  there is nothing wrong or spineless about being inclusive.  the most offensive part of the  war on christmas  is one group trying to exclude all others.   #  the real goal of the  war on christmas  is to claim ownership of the end of the year, and pressure others to only acknowledge the christian holiday and exclude all others.   #  this is what the side fighting  for  christmas is fighting to get.   #  keep in mind that there is no such thing as a one sided war.  even if one side severely outpowers the other, there is still opposition.  the  war on christmas  is both a war against christmas and a war against all other holidays of the time period.  this is what the side fighting  for  christmas is fighting to get.  but then the other side is fighting to either claim ownership of their own holidays, to embrace inclusiveness, or to secularize christmas which is a process that is well on its way .  the small issue i take here is that we have a bit of subjectivity here.  as an example unrelated to holidays, let is consider that some blacks prefer to be called  black  and others prefer  african american.   whether one or the other is considered more politically correct is irrelevant to one who is referenced  incorrectly.   in that same sense, it is possible for a jewish person to be offended by  merry christmas  and a christian could be offended by  happy holidays  just as in both cases it is possible for the individuals in both cases above to not be offended.  in principle i completely agree.  but if one is  private life  somehow dictates  happy holidays  is offensive then we have the same paradox.  the only real  neutral  thing to say is either to not say anything or to say  have a good day.   to those of us who have no issue with inclusion, yes.  but to those who are not so happy about being inclusive it is not.   #  did you say happy holidays to me on december 0th ?  #  as a jew, happy holidays annoys me.  i much prefer merry christmas.  last year when chanukah was on thanksgiving, did you say happy holidays to me on november 0th ? no, nobody did it was too far from christmas.  did you say happy holidays to me on december 0th ? yes, because who cared that chanukah was over ? it is christmas time, so it is time for happy holidays.  most people do not care when chanukah is, when diwali is, or any other holidays.  if you say merry christmas, fine.  i know it is christmas and i would like to be merry.  but if you say happy holidays thoughtlessly, what i hear is  i do not care when your holiday is supposed to be, celebrate it now .  if you have some specific holidays in mind, feel free to wish happy holidays.  but if you are just trying to be  inclusive , it feels an awful lot like that brilliant south park line:  christmas is a time for people of all religions to come together and worship jesus christ .  changing who you think about is fine, but making your words more inclusive than your thoughts is just annoying and patronizing.   #  i say happy holidays because i think merry christmas is religious and i am not wishing you religious tidings; i am wishing you secular tidings.   #  as an american atheist, i love christmastime because it is a  non religious  holiday for me.  it means time off, holiday decorations, and traditions with family.  it has absolutely nothing to do with christ or christianity for me, and for millions of other americans, and the marketing around christmas in the us sure as hell has nothing to do with religion.  christmas has become a secular holiday in the us, though it is still religious for many.  i say  happy holidays  for that reason.  i do not say it because of the beliefs of the person i am talking to; i say it because of  my  beliefs or lack thereof .  i say happy holidays because i think merry christmas is religious and i am not wishing you religious tidings; i am wishing you secular tidings.   #  all are created with excitement as an excuse to blow off work and get pissed.   #  the assumptions about religion can be extended to nationality.  in australia happy holidays means happy holidays.  in sydney the biggest holidays are arguably christmas/new year, australia day, anzac day, melbourne cup.  all are created with excitement as an excuse to blow off work and get pissed.  happy holiday translates to happy day off, let is go to the pub.  if you are of any religious denomination it does not matter.  if you want to practice your faith do it.  do not rub it in our faces but you can still do it.   #  because i do not really care about the specifics of the holidays.  i just wanted to wish you a happy special day.   #  this just seems silly.  you are taking a kind gesture and getting angry that it was not given exactly how you wanted it.  it is like if i gave you a pair of shoes and you were angry that they were not nike.  you ca not expect me to know when every single religion has it is special days.  hell, i do not even remember exactly when most of the holiday is i celebrate are.  i have to look them up.  why ? because i do not really care about the specifics of the holidays.  i just wanted to wish you a happy special day.
there is no significant effort to ban the mention or celebration of christmas.  in virtually all cases, christians have taken offense to a government or commercial entity that has tried to become more inclusive or neutral regarding winter holidays.  the real goal of the  war on christmas  is to claim ownership of the end of the year, and pressure others to only acknowledge the christian holiday and exclude all others.  this greeting of  happy holidays  is an attempt to be inclusive and unassuming as to the private practices of others.  instead of being  politically correct , this greeting is an attempt to be  actually correct .  there are many winter holidays that can be either secular or religious.  unless you know about the private life of the greeting recipient,  happy holidays  is the most accurate greeting.  many holiday store sales will span multiple holidays and sell items to celebrate multiple holidays; enforcing the branding of a single holiday is inaccurate to say the least.  the world is full of diverse beliefs, and a certain group of individuals is taking offense when those beliefs are acknowledged.  stores should be free to cater to  all  customers, and not just those with a majority religion.  there is nothing wrong or spineless about being inclusive.  the most offensive part of the  war on christmas  is one group trying to exclude all others.   #  the most offensive part of the  war on christmas  is one group trying to exclude all others.   #  to those of us who have no issue with inclusion, yes.   #  keep in mind that there is no such thing as a one sided war.  even if one side severely outpowers the other, there is still opposition.  the  war on christmas  is both a war against christmas and a war against all other holidays of the time period.  this is what the side fighting  for  christmas is fighting to get.  but then the other side is fighting to either claim ownership of their own holidays, to embrace inclusiveness, or to secularize christmas which is a process that is well on its way .  the small issue i take here is that we have a bit of subjectivity here.  as an example unrelated to holidays, let is consider that some blacks prefer to be called  black  and others prefer  african american.   whether one or the other is considered more politically correct is irrelevant to one who is referenced  incorrectly.   in that same sense, it is possible for a jewish person to be offended by  merry christmas  and a christian could be offended by  happy holidays  just as in both cases it is possible for the individuals in both cases above to not be offended.  in principle i completely agree.  but if one is  private life  somehow dictates  happy holidays  is offensive then we have the same paradox.  the only real  neutral  thing to say is either to not say anything or to say  have a good day.   to those of us who have no issue with inclusion, yes.  but to those who are not so happy about being inclusive it is not.   #  last year when chanukah was on thanksgiving, did you say happy holidays to me on november 0th ?  #  as a jew, happy holidays annoys me.  i much prefer merry christmas.  last year when chanukah was on thanksgiving, did you say happy holidays to me on november 0th ? no, nobody did it was too far from christmas.  did you say happy holidays to me on december 0th ? yes, because who cared that chanukah was over ? it is christmas time, so it is time for happy holidays.  most people do not care when chanukah is, when diwali is, or any other holidays.  if you say merry christmas, fine.  i know it is christmas and i would like to be merry.  but if you say happy holidays thoughtlessly, what i hear is  i do not care when your holiday is supposed to be, celebrate it now .  if you have some specific holidays in mind, feel free to wish happy holidays.  but if you are just trying to be  inclusive , it feels an awful lot like that brilliant south park line:  christmas is a time for people of all religions to come together and worship jesus christ .  changing who you think about is fine, but making your words more inclusive than your thoughts is just annoying and patronizing.   #  i say happy holidays because i think merry christmas is religious and i am not wishing you religious tidings; i am wishing you secular tidings.   #  as an american atheist, i love christmastime because it is a  non religious  holiday for me.  it means time off, holiday decorations, and traditions with family.  it has absolutely nothing to do with christ or christianity for me, and for millions of other americans, and the marketing around christmas in the us sure as hell has nothing to do with religion.  christmas has become a secular holiday in the us, though it is still religious for many.  i say  happy holidays  for that reason.  i do not say it because of the beliefs of the person i am talking to; i say it because of  my  beliefs or lack thereof .  i say happy holidays because i think merry christmas is religious and i am not wishing you religious tidings; i am wishing you secular tidings.   #  the assumptions about religion can be extended to nationality.   #  the assumptions about religion can be extended to nationality.  in australia happy holidays means happy holidays.  in sydney the biggest holidays are arguably christmas/new year, australia day, anzac day, melbourne cup.  all are created with excitement as an excuse to blow off work and get pissed.  happy holiday translates to happy day off, let is go to the pub.  if you are of any religious denomination it does not matter.  if you want to practice your faith do it.  do not rub it in our faces but you can still do it.   #  you ca not expect me to know when every single religion has it is special days.   #  this just seems silly.  you are taking a kind gesture and getting angry that it was not given exactly how you wanted it.  it is like if i gave you a pair of shoes and you were angry that they were not nike.  you ca not expect me to know when every single religion has it is special days.  hell, i do not even remember exactly when most of the holiday is i celebrate are.  i have to look them up.  why ? because i do not really care about the specifics of the holidays.  i just wanted to wish you a happy special day.
there is no significant effort to ban the mention or celebration of christmas.  in virtually all cases, christians have taken offense to a government or commercial entity that has tried to become more inclusive or neutral regarding winter holidays.  the real goal of the  war on christmas  is to claim ownership of the end of the year, and pressure others to only acknowledge the christian holiday and exclude all others.  this greeting of  happy holidays  is an attempt to be inclusive and unassuming as to the private practices of others.  instead of being  politically correct , this greeting is an attempt to be  actually correct .  there are many winter holidays that can be either secular or religious.  unless you know about the private life of the greeting recipient,  happy holidays  is the most accurate greeting.  many holiday store sales will span multiple holidays and sell items to celebrate multiple holidays; enforcing the branding of a single holiday is inaccurate to say the least.  the world is full of diverse beliefs, and a certain group of individuals is taking offense when those beliefs are acknowledged.  stores should be free to cater to  all  customers, and not just those with a majority religion.  there is nothing wrong or spineless about being inclusive.  the most offensive part of the  war on christmas  is one group trying to exclude all others.   #  this greeting of  happy holidays  is an attempt to be inclusive and unassuming as to the private practices of others.   #  i would agree with you except that the government is notoriously inconsistent with regard to the fact that non christian holidays still receive acknowledgement and support from government.   # i would agree with you except that the government is notoriously inconsistent with regard to the fact that non christian holidays still receive acknowledgement and support from government.  as an example, in vancouver, what was once called the christmas parade has since be reclassified as a  parade of lights  so as to be inclusive of other religions, yet the government still freely mentions hannukah, ramadan, diwali and others specifically by name.  media plasters their ad space with celebratory greetings of those holidays, and politicians will scramble to be first in line in the parade when one is held .  now, i am not begrudging any of this.  in fact i think that acknowledging and celebrating other religious practices is just fine.  but when government, media, and the public engage in this practice, while actively ignoring the christian traditions in favour of generic  inclusiveness , it certainly raises eyebrows as to an obvious bias.   #  last year when chanukah was on thanksgiving, did you say happy holidays to me on november 0th ?  #  as a jew, happy holidays annoys me.  i much prefer merry christmas.  last year when chanukah was on thanksgiving, did you say happy holidays to me on november 0th ? no, nobody did it was too far from christmas.  did you say happy holidays to me on december 0th ? yes, because who cared that chanukah was over ? it is christmas time, so it is time for happy holidays.  most people do not care when chanukah is, when diwali is, or any other holidays.  if you say merry christmas, fine.  i know it is christmas and i would like to be merry.  but if you say happy holidays thoughtlessly, what i hear is  i do not care when your holiday is supposed to be, celebrate it now .  if you have some specific holidays in mind, feel free to wish happy holidays.  but if you are just trying to be  inclusive , it feels an awful lot like that brilliant south park line:  christmas is a time for people of all religions to come together and worship jesus christ .  changing who you think about is fine, but making your words more inclusive than your thoughts is just annoying and patronizing.   #  i say happy holidays because i think merry christmas is religious and i am not wishing you religious tidings; i am wishing you secular tidings.   #  as an american atheist, i love christmastime because it is a  non religious  holiday for me.  it means time off, holiday decorations, and traditions with family.  it has absolutely nothing to do with christ or christianity for me, and for millions of other americans, and the marketing around christmas in the us sure as hell has nothing to do with religion.  christmas has become a secular holiday in the us, though it is still religious for many.  i say  happy holidays  for that reason.  i do not say it because of the beliefs of the person i am talking to; i say it because of  my  beliefs or lack thereof .  i say happy holidays because i think merry christmas is religious and i am not wishing you religious tidings; i am wishing you secular tidings.   #  the assumptions about religion can be extended to nationality.   #  the assumptions about religion can be extended to nationality.  in australia happy holidays means happy holidays.  in sydney the biggest holidays are arguably christmas/new year, australia day, anzac day, melbourne cup.  all are created with excitement as an excuse to blow off work and get pissed.  happy holiday translates to happy day off, let is go to the pub.  if you are of any religious denomination it does not matter.  if you want to practice your faith do it.  do not rub it in our faces but you can still do it.   #  because i do not really care about the specifics of the holidays.  i just wanted to wish you a happy special day.   #  this just seems silly.  you are taking a kind gesture and getting angry that it was not given exactly how you wanted it.  it is like if i gave you a pair of shoes and you were angry that they were not nike.  you ca not expect me to know when every single religion has it is special days.  hell, i do not even remember exactly when most of the holiday is i celebrate are.  i have to look them up.  why ? because i do not really care about the specifics of the holidays.  i just wanted to wish you a happy special day.
correct if i am wrong but all the major sports in the usa follows this format.  i understand the excitement for a finals match as well as watching teams battle it out for that final glorious position but i believe that format does not depict the team with the best record which should be awarded.  the regular season is not as important as it should be since the 0th seed could possibly become the champion.  take the english premier league, the regular season is everything since the team with the best record is ultimately the winner.  on top of that you have the champions league which is build perfectly for a play off scenario and teams from around 0 countries get to compete.  in a way you get the best of both worlds.  i am not against play off tournaments, but it would be interesting to see regular seasons awarding the team with the best record and having a tournament built for the sole purpose of play offs.  in baseball i believe this was the case and pennants were awarded for the best team of the season.  i think this could fit perfectly with baseball since it has a very long season with something ike 0  games.  in conclusion i would like to see the team with the best record get more recognition than the 0st seed in the play offs.   #  take the english premier league, the regular season is everything since the team with the best record is ultimately the winner.   #  the premier league has been around since 0, and there have been a total of 0 teams that have competed.   # the premier league has been around since 0, and there have been a total of 0 teams that have competed.  over the 0 years, and nearly 0 teams,   only 0 different teams have won the championship URL manchester united, arsenal, chelsea, manchester city, and blackburn .  since 0 there have been:   0 different super bowl champions   0 different world series champions   0 different stanley cup champions   0 different nba champions with the point system in epl, a team could lock up the title in as little as 0 games, making the rest of the season 0 games irrelevant.  in a playoff format, the best you can do is clinch a spot in the playoffs early, you still have not  won  anything just ask the new england patriots .  imho games are much more exciting, and entertaining, when they count for something.  who want is to watch the last three months of the season once the champion has been decided and you know your team ca not possibly win.   #  which is why you have the champions league.   #  which is why you have the champions league.  your team can still make it to the champions league or the europa league but no one will argue that the team that won say 0 games straight is the best team of that season.  as for excitement, i am not saying do away with play offs but there should be a reward for the team with the best record something more than just division champion and then have a special tournament on the side that includes other teams not only from the usa to compete in.  i think that would be very interesting and more exciting to see.  not only would it be great to watch but it would involve broader audiences and create higher competition in other countries.  as for variety of champions you are comparing epl alone which is fair since i mentioned it in my description but take the brazilian league, since 0 there have been: 0 different champions.  proving that there can be variety teams may rise and fall.   #  things are already tilted toward the best teams  #  there is a reward.  the best team in the playoffs already has multiple advantages.  usually they win ahead of time so they can rest their starters.  they do not have to play in one game sin or go home games.  they have home field advantage.  they get to play against the worst of the other playoff teams.  things are already tilted toward the best teams  #  the champions league is just european soccer is version of the playoffs.   #  the champions league is just european soccer is version of the playoffs.  just think of the various european soccer leagues as the equivalent of the us is geographical conferences.  the nhl gives a trophy to the best regular season team, as does mls.  it would be silly in the nfl, where the schedules are so different that you do not really know that the 0 0 team in the afc is better than the 0 0 team in the nfc.  baseball allows the best record in each league to rest while their first playoff opponent has to play an extra game.  it is really only the nba that does not have a particular reward for winning your conference other than playing the 0 seed, but that is not that different from playing the 0 seed.   #  if the best team in the mlb played a 0 0 team, where the best one has multiple all stars and everything and the 0 0 team is thoroughly average, the best team would win 0/0rds of their games.   # i mean changing it to a regular season only makes for boring stories.  those are two different questions.  say that it would be boring to crown the team with the best record as the champion, but that is not the same as saying the team with the best record is not the best team.  the best mlb teams win two thirds of their games, and the worst win one third.  if the best team in the mlb played a 0 0 team, where the best one has multiple all stars and everything and the 0 0 team is thoroughly average, the best team would win 0/0rds of their games.  according to some random python code i just wrote, the best team would win a 0 game series 0 of the time, just based purely on chance.  for the 0 of the time the 0 0 team wins, why are they suddenly the better team ? if they played another game, who would you bet on ?
i am an 0 year old freshman in college, so it may just come off as i do not know enough about relationships or whatever.  when i look back at all of the relationships i was in through highschool and now, when i went into them, i always had the mentality that a relationship with someone could last until the end.  realistically, could that be the case ? probably not, but i believe this mentality benefits how a person performs in a relationship being a better boyfriend/girlfriend, etc .  i have to say that the opposite of my philosophy is the people that go  yeah, i could probably date him/her for a year, and then head off on my own way .  i have dated someone like this in the past before, and i just ca not understand this mentality nor believe it is healthy to think like this in a relationship.   #  i have to say that the opposite of my philosophy is the people that go  yeah, i could probably date him/her for a year, and then head off on my own way .   #  i have dated someone like this in the past before, and i just ca not understand this mentality nor believe it is healthy to think like this in a relationship.   # i have dated someone like this in the past before, and i just ca not understand this mentality nor believe it is healthy to think like this in a relationship.  it is pretty closed minded and arrogant to say that just because you do not understand or do not want a certain type of relationship that it is wrong for all people.  if a short romance makes people happy whats the problem ? if you do not want something like that it is fine, but that is the whole point of dating to find out if you are compatible.  i personally ca not understand nor agree with your relationship philosophy.  but i would never say you are wrong because it is not for me to decide what is right for other people.   #  there can be plenty of fulfilling relationships that do not last very long.   #  love is nearly always irrational, and rarely eternal.  i would think it would be more rational to acknowledge that people change, evolve and not everything lasts forever.  there can be plenty of fulfilling relationships that do not last very long.  the length of time a relationship lasts does not instill meaning into the relationship, you create your own meaning every moment you are in it.  i agree with you that people should not go in dwelling on some kind of expiration date, but i also do not think they should be clinging to the false hope that things might last forever.  if it does, it does.  if it does not, it does not.  that does not trivialize the love or the relationship in any way.  the perspective you are proposing is still too focused on a time line, i would argue that it should not be about that at all, it should be about loving your partner in the best way you can now, and growing together, it is not always going to last but that is completely okay.  there are also many different kinds of relationships that you are not acknowledging in your post, even fwb types of things can be meaningful for people, it all depends on the person.  the happiest relationships do not have to be devotedly eternal.   #  when you enter the relationship with no expectations and just see where it goes, you will find yourself less disappointed.   #  i tried this approach when i first started dating.  what i found was that by entering a relationship with the expectation that it would be at the very least a long term affair, i found myself picking apart the persons personality and looking for flaws that i would not want to deal with for a long period of time.  if i found too many, i would come to realize that a long term relationship was not such a good idea, and that my expectations were not realized, which left me disappointed and angry.  now, my philosophy has changed to the exact opposite.  heading in to any sort of interpersonal relationship, friendly, romantic or otherwise, i enter it with  no expectations .  people do not act like your idea of how they should, they act independently, are independent, and different.  when you put them in a box of how you think your relationship should go, and it does not go that way, you end up disappointed.  when you enter the relationship with no expectations and just see where it goes, you will find yourself less disappointed.   #  you should instead ask  do i want it to last ?    #  disagree.  thinking a romantic relationship could last forever sets you up for enormous disappointment when the other partner does not hold that view or fulfill your expectations.  it also makes you a passive player.  the question you should be asking is not  will this relationship last ?   you should instead ask  do i want it to last ?   then, if yes, do what you can to make it happen.  if no, then enjoy it for what it is, knowing that it is going to end.   #  when relationships last forever you do things like make that person the beneficiary of your life insurance or give that person your gmail password or fart whenever you want around that person and so on.   #  i am guessing you do not actually act as if it has the potential to last forever.  at least, not at first.  when relationships last forever you do things like make that person the beneficiary of your life insurance or give that person your gmail password or fart whenever you want around that person and so on.  these are not things should do at the beginning of of a relationship.  there are all kinds of these types of things that you do when your relationship is going to last forever that would just be creepy if you did them, say, right after your first date.  get a tattoo of her name on your forearm, start a checking account in both your names, etc.
i have seen a number of cmv is arguing the opposite view i. e. , that depression is not real, is not chemically motivated, should not be treated with drugs, etc.  but i would like to look at things from the other angle.  i believe that the number of people suffering from depression is much higher than reported, but, due to stigmas around depression and seeking help in the forms of counseling and drugs, people will often be unaware of their condition or, even if they are aware, decide that they should not attempt to get relief.  from what i understand, seeking psychiatric help is voluntary, and requires will on the side of the patient to decide whether he or she wants/needs to seek help.  however, other medical illnesses are not treated this way; if you go to the doctor for a routine check up and your cholesterol is high, the doctor will attempt to intervene and the patient is expected to take the doctor is advice.  the crux of my view is that i believe the same should be done for mood disorders.  please cmv.   #  from what i understand, seeking psychiatric help is voluntary, and requires will on the side of the patient to decide whether he or she wants/needs to seek help.   #  however, other medical illnesses are not treated this way; if you go to the doctor for a routine check up and your cholesterol is high, the doctor will attempt to intervene and the patient is expected to take the doctor is advice.   # however, other medical illnesses are not treated this way; if you go to the doctor for a routine check up and your cholesterol is high, the doctor will attempt to intervene and the patient is expected to take the doctor is advice.  seeking help for medical illnesses is also voluntary.  nobody is required to go to a doctor for a medical condition.  cholesterol screening is not mandatory.  a doctor will suggest having it checked and you can accept or decline.  cholesterol screening is a simple blood diagnostic.  it is taken with other information such as age, health status, and symptoms to decide if the patient should try to lower cholesterol to lower their risk of cardiovascular problems.  diagnosing depression is not a diagnosis not a test.  depression is not a fixed mental state.  symptoms may come and go with stress or change in situation.  to make an accurate assessment the patient needs to be seen by a mental health provider not the family doctor and a complete history needs to be taken.  usually when they talk about  screening  it means the patient fills out a short 0 or 0 question survey, points are added up for each answer, and a score suggests if the patient might need further follow up.  it relies on the patient giving honest answers and being self aware of their feelings.  but as you know people who are seriously mentally ill may not be the best judge of themselves.  the thing is that the patient still must see a mental health professional to get a proper diagnosis.  if they are not ready to accept the possibility, they are not going to do.  i do not believe the family doctor should try to play psychiatrist and try assorted psych meds; he does not have the training and the patient is not getting therapist support.  a better solution is to teach people the value of mental health services.  get then them to trust mental health providers.  make mental health care more accessible and more affordable.  teach teens and young adults what is or is not healthy behavior/thought and how to get help.  address the lack of mental health services in some geographic areas.  make sure minors and low income people always have some access to mental health services for free.   #  diagnosing physical issues is one thing, but mental issues is a whole nother animal  #  the doctor that sees patients for routine checkups is not a specialist.  this type of doctor has neither the training nor knowledge of mental disorders.  there is a reason why they  refer  you to specilists.  specialists specialize in certain areas, one of which is mental health.  while good in theory, a mental health exam containing more than  are you alright  cannot be simply conducted as a part of a 0 minute routine checkup.  diagnosing physical issues is one thing, but mental issues is a whole nother animal  #  to think that my doctor does not have time to ask pointed questions to determine if it would be a good idea to see a specialist is absurd.   #  my physician asks me a series of questions during my  short time  that cover things like my pain level, whether i feel safe at home, and how life is going generally.  to think that my doctor does not have time to ask pointed questions to determine if it would be a good idea to see a specialist is absurd.  we have a conversation about our children while my testicles are being handled by the doctor.  i am sure that the conversation could cover mental disorder screenings.  even if the doctor does not get to it, the 0 or 0 pages of paper work that has to be filled out prior to seeing the doctor for my annual physical could easily include a quick mental health screening.  i wait long enough in the waiting room and examination room to take it 0 times over.   #  but they have all had that same level of basic training and should be quite capable of recognising if a mental problem exists and whether to refer a patient to a specialist or not.   #  what sort of doctor are you talking about ? i am in the uk where our first  port of call  for anything is a gp general practitioner who does any routine check ups we have.  and they are very capable of diagnosing mental disorders or at least recognising that someone has one and needs to be sent on to a specialist.  all doctors have to go through a certain amount of training in order to be doctors.  afterwards, yes, many specialise in different things.  but they have all had that same level of basic training and should be quite capable of recognising if a mental problem exists and whether to refer a patient to a specialist or not.   #  licensed therapists, and psychiatrists are specialists who see people over the course of many visits in order to come to an actual diagnosis they have to rule out other disorders, issues, and problems.   #  the problem is you ca not diagnose depression from a single visit.  it is not like checking your cholesterol.  there is not a simple test they can give you and call it depression.  licensed therapists, and psychiatrists are specialists who see people over the course of many visits in order to come to an actual diagnosis they have to rule out other disorders, issues, and problems.  if a patient comes in complaining about things that sound like mental disorders, a gp will tend to refer them out to a therapist.  it is just like if the patient came in complaining about anything else that requires a specialist.  that is what is done today.  therapy requires a level of trust between the patient and the therapist.  the patient needs to be able to open up and talk with the therapist about their lives.  that is a different kind of trust that have with a doctor just letting them poke and prod your body.  they already do ask general questions about your life, they even check for abuse situations with general questions about your safety.  beyond that, there is not much more that you.  you are really asking for something impractical here.
monsanto seems to always top lists of  worst companies ,  evil  companies, etc.  a lot of anti gmo opinions are more commonly just anti monsanto.  i do not think this belief is correct.  i think monsanto is actually a good company.  my primary reason for this is that i have not found anything factual and relevant that portrays them in a bad light.  there are many rumors and misinformation, but nothing that supports their status as an  evil  or  bad  company.  secondly, i think they actually do a lot of good.  they invest more than any other company in seed r d, including gmos but also conventional breeding aided by modern genetic techniques.  they donate money to charity most companies do this i guess but they also support projects like water efficient maize for africa wema .  they are also rated one of the top companies to work for if you are lgbtq, so in that sense they are fairly progressive compared to other companies.  so why should i consider monsanto to be a bad company, or a company not worthy of defending ?  #  i have not found anything factual and relevant that portrays them in a bad light.   #  well you need to do a bit more research then.   # well you need to do a bit more research then.  monsanto, among other things, aided in the creation of agent orange which contributed to the deaths of thousands, and still contributes to birth defects in southeast asia , sues small scale farmers for trivial instances of seed saving, and were a major player in the rash of indian farmer suicides in the 0s and 0s.  part of monsanto is business strategy is that, in countries that allow companies to own genetic patents, monsanto will sell gmo seeds to farmers, the farmers will grow the crop, and at the end of the cycle, must return the seed to monsanto, as the patent defines the crop as property of monsanto.  this does not seem so bad on the surface, after all, farmers are all opting into this program, are not they ? well, it turns out they are not.  in many places, monsanto has monopoly power over seed distribution of varying crops, which not only pressures farmers to buy their seeds, but effectively gives them no other option.  this means that farmers are essentially required to play by monsanto is rules, and feed into their profits, instead of guarantee their own well being.  the result over time has been increasing economic hardship for farmers in monsanto monopoly areas.  in a normal model, farmers would simply save their seeds from the previous crop and plant them again the next year, effectively reducing the costs of seeds to near zero as they are self replenishing .  under monsanto, however, they have to return the seeds to monsanto, and then buy them back again for the next harvest cycle, meaning that they incur costs for seeds year after year.  one bad crop can spell disaster for a farmer under this system: not only do they not have a crop to sell, but they are now on the hook for a bunch of monsanto property, and have to pay money again to do it all over again the next year.  the result in different areas has varied, the most extreme being the farmer suicides URL in india.  monsanto, which owned as much as 0 of the supply of cotton seeds in maharashtra, would hold farmers responsible for their debts at a time where interest rates were rising rapidly and crops were turning out poor.  the result was thousands of farmers committing suicides to escape their desperate economic situations.  while monsanto was not the only culprit, they were the focus of several investigations into the increase in suicides in the 0s and early 0s emphasis is mine :   critics, including vandana shiva, said that the crop failures could  often be traced to  monsanto is bt cotton, and that the seeds increased farmers  indebtedness, and argued that monsanto misrepresented the profitability of their genetically modified cotton, bt cotton, causing farmers to suffer losses leading to debt.  in 0, dr.  shiva wrote that  indian farmers who had previously spent as little as ₹0 rupees per kilogram were now paying up to ₹0,0 per kilo per year after switching to bt cotton .  more recently, in 0 the indian council of agricultural research icar and the central cotton research institute ccri stated that  for the first time farmer suicides could be linked to a decline in the performance of bt cotton , and they issued an advisory stating that  cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to bt cotton.  the spate of farmer suicides in 0 0 has been particularly severe among bt cotton farmers.  tl:dr : it is not just a matter of what it is they are producing or how charitable and friendly they seem on the surface, but how they conduct business, and how they utilize patent law and their regional monopoly powers to undermine the economic well being of farmers for the sake of profits.   #  while i do not believe that consumption of gmos negatively impacts human health, that does not make them free from environmental impacts.   #  well, obviously monsanto is not the devil, as many people paint it to be, but they are not utterly free of fault either.  monsanto was one of the companies responsible for developing agent orange, and also was a large producer of ddt neither of which are exactly bright spots in monsanto is history.  while i do not believe that consumption of gmos negatively impacts human health, that does not make them free from environmental impacts.  roundup ready crops often lead to overuse of glyphosate, indiscriminate use of gmo plants can lead to resistant bugs/weeds, the herbicides/pesticides associated with gmo crops can kill beneficial organisms, and transfer of gmo genes from domestic crops to wild plants may have unforeseen ecological consequences.  now obviously gmo crops have huge benefits, and any negative side effects are still relatively unknown, so i do not think this is enough to call monsanto evil, but it may be true that they have acted a bit irresponsibly ? finally, monsanto gets a bad rap due to their lawsuits.  as determined by the courts, monsanto has a legal right to protect their patent which is controversial in and of itself , and most of their cases are sound, but as always their mistakes always get the most attention.  if one were to only hear about all the mistaken legal action performed by monsanto, then it would not be much of a stretch to portray them as waging a war against innocent farmers.  a complicating factor for the previous paragraph is that there are few to no unbiased sources.  obviously monsanto denies any wrongdoing, while i am guessing that the persecuted farmers  reports claims of innocence and victimization by the company are somewhat exaggerated.   #  we conceded this point and determined that his nephew, tim, was the person who planted the saved seed on gary rinehart is land.   # gary rinehart refuted this allegation.  we conceded this point and determined that his nephew, tim, was the person who planted the saved seed on gary rinehart is land.  we dismissed the case against gary rinehart.  the settlement involved tim rinehart agreeing to settle on the seed that he had planted.  so it was proven that monsanto seed  was  being grown on gary is land.  he can claim it is unfair that they questioned him, but in the end, there was a legal violation.  if someone is making meth in my storage shed, i really do not have a reason to get upset if the cops ask me about it.   #  which is why i am skeptical of those claims.   # which is why i am skeptical of those claims.  percy schmeiser, despite blatant violations, continues to lie about monsanto.  same with bowman and rinehart and many, many others.  there is a lot of insinuations being thrown around, and a lot of outright slander.  but there is not a lot of actual evidence against monsanto.   #  people are scared that because 0 or however much of their seed that they plant every year has been contaminated by gmos that they are open for attack from monsanto.   #  roundup ready seed has contaminated every farm in the country they own 0 of the market of course his farm was growing seed from monsanto.  the real controversy over monsanto seed has and always will be at what point should people have to pay licensing fees to use roundup ready seed that has contaminated their fields through no fault of their own ? also who is to blame for contaminating organic crops with genetically modified seed ? is it monsanto or is it just considered an act of nature because they happen to own 0 of the market and the seed just blew onto the neighboring organic farm property.  also monsanto is very litigious and have sued 0 times on 0 patents in the last decade.  people are scared that because 0 or however much of their seed that they plant every year has been contaminated by gmos that they are open for attack from monsanto.
monsanto seems to always top lists of  worst companies ,  evil  companies, etc.  a lot of anti gmo opinions are more commonly just anti monsanto.  i do not think this belief is correct.  i think monsanto is actually a good company.  my primary reason for this is that i have not found anything factual and relevant that portrays them in a bad light.  there are many rumors and misinformation, but nothing that supports their status as an  evil  or  bad  company.  secondly, i think they actually do a lot of good.  they invest more than any other company in seed r d, including gmos but also conventional breeding aided by modern genetic techniques.  they donate money to charity most companies do this i guess but they also support projects like water efficient maize for africa wema .  they are also rated one of the top companies to work for if you are lgbtq, so in that sense they are fairly progressive compared to other companies.  so why should i consider monsanto to be a bad company, or a company not worthy of defending ?  #  secondly, i think they actually do a lot of good.   #  they invest more than any other company in seed r d, including gmos but also conventional breeding aided by modern genetic techniques.   # they invest more than any other company in seed r d, including gmos but also conventional breeding aided by modern genetic techniques.  they then own what they create and use that ownership to drive farmers, particularly in poor nations, to becoming financially dependent on monsanto products.  it is not like they are doing this to benefit anyone but their stockholders.  and genetically producing crops with things like pest resistance contributes to an ongoing biological arms race that will produce hardier pests that go on to plague poor farmers all the more.  i would argue that monsanto is a very good  company , in that they engage in very profitable business practices, but this does not make them good people.   #  now obviously gmo crops have huge benefits, and any negative side effects are still relatively unknown, so i do not think this is enough to call monsanto evil, but it may be true that they have acted a bit irresponsibly ?  #  well, obviously monsanto is not the devil, as many people paint it to be, but they are not utterly free of fault either.  monsanto was one of the companies responsible for developing agent orange, and also was a large producer of ddt neither of which are exactly bright spots in monsanto is history.  while i do not believe that consumption of gmos negatively impacts human health, that does not make them free from environmental impacts.  roundup ready crops often lead to overuse of glyphosate, indiscriminate use of gmo plants can lead to resistant bugs/weeds, the herbicides/pesticides associated with gmo crops can kill beneficial organisms, and transfer of gmo genes from domestic crops to wild plants may have unforeseen ecological consequences.  now obviously gmo crops have huge benefits, and any negative side effects are still relatively unknown, so i do not think this is enough to call monsanto evil, but it may be true that they have acted a bit irresponsibly ? finally, monsanto gets a bad rap due to their lawsuits.  as determined by the courts, monsanto has a legal right to protect their patent which is controversial in and of itself , and most of their cases are sound, but as always their mistakes always get the most attention.  if one were to only hear about all the mistaken legal action performed by monsanto, then it would not be much of a stretch to portray them as waging a war against innocent farmers.  a complicating factor for the previous paragraph is that there are few to no unbiased sources.  obviously monsanto denies any wrongdoing, while i am guessing that the persecuted farmers  reports claims of innocence and victimization by the company are somewhat exaggerated.   #  if someone is making meth in my storage shed, i really do not have a reason to get upset if the cops ask me about it.   # gary rinehart refuted this allegation.  we conceded this point and determined that his nephew, tim, was the person who planted the saved seed on gary rinehart is land.  we dismissed the case against gary rinehart.  the settlement involved tim rinehart agreeing to settle on the seed that he had planted.  so it was proven that monsanto seed  was  being grown on gary is land.  he can claim it is unfair that they questioned him, but in the end, there was a legal violation.  if someone is making meth in my storage shed, i really do not have a reason to get upset if the cops ask me about it.   #  which is why i am skeptical of those claims.   # which is why i am skeptical of those claims.  percy schmeiser, despite blatant violations, continues to lie about monsanto.  same with bowman and rinehart and many, many others.  there is a lot of insinuations being thrown around, and a lot of outright slander.  but there is not a lot of actual evidence against monsanto.   #  also who is to blame for contaminating organic crops with genetically modified seed ?  #  roundup ready seed has contaminated every farm in the country they own 0 of the market of course his farm was growing seed from monsanto.  the real controversy over monsanto seed has and always will be at what point should people have to pay licensing fees to use roundup ready seed that has contaminated their fields through no fault of their own ? also who is to blame for contaminating organic crops with genetically modified seed ? is it monsanto or is it just considered an act of nature because they happen to own 0 of the market and the seed just blew onto the neighboring organic farm property.  also monsanto is very litigious and have sued 0 times on 0 patents in the last decade.  people are scared that because 0 or however much of their seed that they plant every year has been contaminated by gmos that they are open for attack from monsanto.
ok, i am actually quite serious about this.  i think it is possible i am correct.  let is compare poem for your sprog i will call him sprog for the rest of this post and william shakespeare and see who: has produced more work, has had more readers, has covered more topics, has more perfect poetry.  according to folger. edu URL i highly recommend their editions of williams plays , shakespeare wrote 0,0 words of published works, or 0,0 lines.  sprog has written about a post a day for 0 days.  those posts average 0 lines.  that is 0,0 lines.  but joyce wrote more than shakespeare; and shakespeare is greater.  volume is not an indicator.  i will point out that if sprog keeps it up for for the duration that shakespeare did, sprog will exceed shakespeare.  shakespeare is widely known by humanity, but not many are familiar with his work.  there are 0 million english speakers on earth.  there were 0 million unique viewers of reddit last month.  i ca not even begin to parse how many people looked at his comments, but i would think its within an order of magnitude, if you assume that 0 in 0 english speakers have read shakespeare and 0 in 0 reddit users have read a sprog post considering he is among the elite reddit posters of all time .  sprog has covered more topics.  just today, his poem was on how fatherly advice leads to making sure you are giving your all during oral sex.  no argument.  sprog, i think, operates from existing language and with less force on the meter less apostrophes to move around syllables, less strange word order to finish in a rhyme.  i think he is clearly more perfect as a poet than william shakespeare.   #  let is compare poem for your sprog i will call him sprog for the rest of this post and william shakespeare and see who: has produced more work, has had more readers, has covered more topics, has more perfect poetry.   #  only the last of these four metrics who   h as more perfect poetry  seems relevant.   # only the last of these four metrics who   h as more perfect poetry  seems relevant.  we can easily imagine an extremely prolific poet who wrote on many topics and is incredibly well known but who also just produced consistently lousy work, and that would be enough to disqualify that poet from being great; and we can imagine a poet who wrote very little on only a few subjects, and who was not read widely, but whose work is still good enough that we should call her a great poet.  so unless you think there is some reason we need to take the other metrics into account, i wo not consider them.  now, regarding the question of  perfect poetry,  you do not actually say much.  this is it:  sprog, i think, operates from existing language and with less force on the meter less apostrophes to move around syllables, less strange word order to finish in a rhyme.  i think he is clearly more perfect as a poet than william shakespeare.  first of all, i think this is just a bad characterization of shakespeare is poetry.  most of the time shakespeare is pretty liberal with his scansion.  i ca not think of a single line of shakespeare is that reads like words have been awkwardly ordered for the sake of maintaining meter; it is much more common for him just to let the line scan irregularly.  there is a certain kind of reader of poetry who thinks is necessarily a mark against shakespeare, but it is not, or if you think it is you need to make an argument, anyway.  furthermore, shakespeare is most celebrated works are his plays, which rhyme only sporadically, but even if we restrict our attention only to his poems, i do not think it is fair to say that we see a lot of forced rhymes.  so if you want to make these criticisms, you will need to provide some examples.  but all that is really just a preface to the important point, which is that shakespeare is poetry is beautiful or at is least commonly judged to be beautiful , and sprog is is not.  sprog writes successful and technically skillful light verse.  this is simply not the same kind of achievement as the achievement of shakespeare is poetry.  take sonnet 0 URL one of shakespeare is most famous works of poetry.  what kind of things would we talk about if we talked about that poem ? we would talk about imagery, organization, striking language, emotional resonance in short, we would talk about the things we talk about when we talk about poetry.  sprog is poetry, charming as it is, does not really have the features that make poetry artistically successful.  this is not to say that a poem is artistically successful purely in virtue of having certain features but without these features, there is nothing for the poem to succeed at .  this is not a criticism of sprog; it is not like sprog is trying and failing to write shakespeare.  sprog is writing good light verse, which is a perfectly respectable thing to do.  but if you do not think there is some obvious qualitative difference between what shakespeare is poetry achieves and what sprog is achieves, then i think you are just missing something in shakespeare.   #  his work has also been translated to literally every other living language.   #  i have never read sprog is work.  most people have not.  i would wager much more than 0 of 0 english speakers have read shakespeare, it is required reading in high school .  even so, you are only considering english speakers alive  today .  shakespeare also wrote his shit 0 years ago, he is been pretty consistently read and regarded for the entire time, and we are  still  reading it and people are  still   discovering  it new, young readers falling in love with his work .  his work has also been translated to literally every other living language.  all respect to sprog, but has sprog gotten anything published ? has the work been translated to other languages ? do they entire courses dedicated to studying sprog ? i am not a lit scholar or anything, so i ca not speak to the technical brilliance of shakespeare, suffice it to say that based on what i know about historic greatness, even if sprog were to become world famous and widely regarded, their work translated to multiple langauges and studied in depth by scholars, we would not be able to definitely say sprog was the better poet during our lifetimes.   #  every english speaking person in canada is required to go to elementary school and at least a few years of high school.   #  every english speaking person in canada is required to go to elementary school and at least a few years of high school.  during this time, all the english speakers learn some shakespeare.  there is around 0 0 0 people in canada.  i will subtract the first nations and the french, because i do not know if they have special curriculum.  i will also take away 0 of the remaining population for the toddlers, the immigrants, and those who paid absolutely no attention in class.  there is at least 0 million people in canada alone who have read shakespeare.   #  by law, the population of my country is required to take a english test involving shakespeare is works to be employed in most jobs.   #  the majority of english speakers have read shakespeare.  shakespeare invented hundreds of words and phrased used across the globe by thousands of creative works and billions of people.  by law, the population of my country is required to take a english test involving shakespeare is works to be employed in most jobs.  i can walk into the middle of china and quote shakespeare, and people will understand me.  how many words, tropes, and phrases has sprog invented ?  #  you think this dude is more prolific than shakespeare, proves you do not actually read or immerse yourself in the culture of poetry today.   #  i have read sprogs poems, you are comparing gone with the wind to a vine video.  there is nothing special about sprogs work.  you obviously do not read contemporary poetry.  you think this dude is more prolific than shakespeare, proves you do not actually read or immerse yourself in the culture of poetry today.  it would be like me claiming maroon 0 was better than bach.  i would just have to say i ca not change your view because you cannot really hold this opinion.  it is a good statement to make for cmv, but if you really think this true, playing to logic and critical thinking will be useless.
i wo not say my name, but because of slavery, it is extremely common and unoriginal.  it does not help that i have a fairly common first name.  i feel extremely frustrated that i have the last name of someone who would mistreat my ancestors and make them work for no pay.  all that is holding me back from changing it is the fact i do not want to look like i am some malcolm x wannabe and the fact that i believe it cost money.  also this sentence in elijah muhammad is book reayy gets to me:   you are still called by your slave masters  names.  by rights, by international rights, you belong to the white man of america.  he knows that.  you have never gotten out of the shackles of slavery.  you are still in them.    #  i feel extremely frustrated that i have the last name of someone who would mistreat my ancestors and make them work for no pay.   #  i would argue that there is  no  last name that is inherited that is free from participation in some form of injustice against their fellow human beings.   # i would argue that there is  no  last name that is inherited that is free from participation in some form of injustice against their fellow human beings.  at some point, you  may  come to the conclusion that your name, like your eye color was not chosen by you, and it has nothing to do with the content of your character.  while malcolm x may see you as being shackled, and that may speak to you, bob marley may have a solution:   emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.   it is quite possible that the shackles you feel are self imposed.  this may or may not speak to you, but it could be worth considering.   #  this was one of the first signs of freedom.   #  i was reading an autobiography by booker t.  washington and he said that the very first thing everyone did when they were emancipated was change or give themselves last names.  that completely blew me away.  when you were property, you did not need to have a last name because you did not own anything to pass on.  but now they did, and they tended to name themselves after presidents.  URL   after the coming of freedom there were two points upon which practically all the people on our place were agreed, and i find that this was generally true throughout the south: that they must change their names, and that they must leave the old plantation for at least a few days or weeks in order that they might really feel sure that they were free.  this was one of the first signs of freedom.  when they were slaves, a coloured person was simply called  john  or  susan.   there was seldom occasion for more than the use of the one name.  if  john  or  susan  belonged to a white man by the name of  hatcher,  sometimes he was called  john hatcher,  or as often  hatcher is john.   but there was a feeling that  john hatcher  or  hatcher is john  was not the proper title by which to denote a freeman; and so in many cases  john hatcher  was changed to  john s.  lincoln  or  john s.  sherman,  the initial  s  standing for no name, it being simply a part of what the coloured man proudly called his  entitles.    #  even if they took the surname of their former owners, even if the only reason they did so was because it was the only surname they had ever heard,  it was still a choice .   # they were still in an extremely hostile environment.  my guess is they probably did not feel  free  at all.  they would nt have understood what was happening at the time: someone they have probably never even heard of, and certainly that they have never seen, signed a piece of paper and suddenly they are supposed to be free.  then the war comes and their entire world, shitty though it may have been, is completely upended.  as slaves their lives were hard and filled with brutal treatment coming at the whim of their owners, but at least their owners provided for some level of their basic needs: food, water, and shelter.  while they certainly were not treated with any kind of dignity, they at least held some value to their owner as a farm tool an investment that needed to be, at least to a basic extent, protected.  freedom granted them no such status URL so then the time comes for them to choose a name, and for the first time, someone is  asking them , not telling them.  someone is asking them to choose something for themselves, to make a decision about their life; a life which, up until this point, has been lived as property.  even if they took the surname of their former owners, even if the only reason they did so was because it was the only surname they had ever heard,  it was still a choice .  again, i am not advocating for op to keep, or change his/her name, i am simply saying that he/she needs to look into it some more and make sure that he/she is not destroying an important moment in his/her family history.   #  your still thinking about it, still talking about it.   #  almost everyone is name has outdated relic is they had no control over.  there has not been a smith in john smith is family for five generations, but he is still called that.  hell, my screen name is a pun based on how little my given name fits me.  if your name honestly bothers you, there is nothing wrong with changing it.  i recommend  lord thundercock the incredible .  that is a name people notice.  however, i feel that being overly concerned with the name originating in slavery is.  damn this is a really difficult view to change as a white guy.  i do not think changing the slave name given to your ancestors long ago will bring any more freedom.  it just shows how much weight and influence those events have/have had on your family.  your still thinking about it, still talking about it.  free from slavery, but not it is legacy.  it still influences you.  i think more freedom lies in moving past it.  not forgetting it, but finding a way to render your names origin less relevant to your life.  recognizing that, over the decades and through the generations, the name may have come to mean something else entirely.  something more personal and intimate.  please tell me if any of this came off as racist or insensitive.  this topic has a lot of landmines i probably ca not even see.   #  one day, i was rather amused to find out that it means  bearer of christ .   #  it might help to think of it not as a slave name, but as a name that was once a slave name.  it was a slave name once.  but now it is the name one of your parents knew the other by, maybe even shouted out in bed.  it is the name on your birth certificate, the name your first friend knew you under, the name your parent shouted out when you pissed them off.  the name your teacher either sighed in exasperation or said with approval.  it does not mean slave, not anymore.  now, it simply means you.  my full first name is christopher.  one day, i was rather amused to find out that it means  bearer of christ .  i was amused because, despite being raised in a relatively christian home i am an atheist.  i rejected christ, making me the literal opposite of what my name means.  an antichris.  at first, our names mean something.  but over time, we destroy that meaning.  we tear it apart as we establish our own identity, until our name means only us.  my name means me, your name means you.
i wo not say my name, but because of slavery, it is extremely common and unoriginal.  it does not help that i have a fairly common first name.  i feel extremely frustrated that i have the last name of someone who would mistreat my ancestors and make them work for no pay.  all that is holding me back from changing it is the fact i do not want to look like i am some malcolm x wannabe and the fact that i believe it cost money.  also this sentence in elijah muhammad is book reayy gets to me:   you are still called by your slave masters  names.  by rights, by international rights, you belong to the white man of america.  he knows that.  you have never gotten out of the shackles of slavery.  you are still in them.    #  and the fact that i believe it cost money.   #  if you have a very low income the fee can be waved.   #  you have a very odd fixation on your genetics.  it is clearly important to your identity but not enough to even google background information on changing your name.  if you have a very low income the fee can be waved.  if it really matters to you; you would change your name regardless.  i found a range of 0 0 dollars.  i was reading the thread and this comment of yours did not sit well with me.  everyone here but you is white, no one is any other race at all.  reddit is just white people only.  or maybe you only want opinions from white people.  though no one should be downvoting you as you have not done anything to warrant them, they might be off put by your handed approach.  also, it is as clear as daylight to anyone and everyone you came here to give an opinion not look for someone to change it.   #  but now they did, and they tended to name themselves after presidents.   #  i was reading an autobiography by booker t.  washington and he said that the very first thing everyone did when they were emancipated was change or give themselves last names.  that completely blew me away.  when you were property, you did not need to have a last name because you did not own anything to pass on.  but now they did, and they tended to name themselves after presidents.  URL   after the coming of freedom there were two points upon which practically all the people on our place were agreed, and i find that this was generally true throughout the south: that they must change their names, and that they must leave the old plantation for at least a few days or weeks in order that they might really feel sure that they were free.  this was one of the first signs of freedom.  when they were slaves, a coloured person was simply called  john  or  susan.   there was seldom occasion for more than the use of the one name.  if  john  or  susan  belonged to a white man by the name of  hatcher,  sometimes he was called  john hatcher,  or as often  hatcher is john.   but there was a feeling that  john hatcher  or  hatcher is john  was not the proper title by which to denote a freeman; and so in many cases  john hatcher  was changed to  john s.  lincoln  or  john s.  sherman,  the initial  s  standing for no name, it being simply a part of what the coloured man proudly called his  entitles.    #  even if they took the surname of their former owners, even if the only reason they did so was because it was the only surname they had ever heard,  it was still a choice .   # they were still in an extremely hostile environment.  my guess is they probably did not feel  free  at all.  they would nt have understood what was happening at the time: someone they have probably never even heard of, and certainly that they have never seen, signed a piece of paper and suddenly they are supposed to be free.  then the war comes and their entire world, shitty though it may have been, is completely upended.  as slaves their lives were hard and filled with brutal treatment coming at the whim of their owners, but at least their owners provided for some level of their basic needs: food, water, and shelter.  while they certainly were not treated with any kind of dignity, they at least held some value to their owner as a farm tool an investment that needed to be, at least to a basic extent, protected.  freedom granted them no such status URL so then the time comes for them to choose a name, and for the first time, someone is  asking them , not telling them.  someone is asking them to choose something for themselves, to make a decision about their life; a life which, up until this point, has been lived as property.  even if they took the surname of their former owners, even if the only reason they did so was because it was the only surname they had ever heard,  it was still a choice .  again, i am not advocating for op to keep, or change his/her name, i am simply saying that he/she needs to look into it some more and make sure that he/she is not destroying an important moment in his/her family history.   #  please tell me if any of this came off as racist or insensitive.   #  almost everyone is name has outdated relic is they had no control over.  there has not been a smith in john smith is family for five generations, but he is still called that.  hell, my screen name is a pun based on how little my given name fits me.  if your name honestly bothers you, there is nothing wrong with changing it.  i recommend  lord thundercock the incredible .  that is a name people notice.  however, i feel that being overly concerned with the name originating in slavery is.  damn this is a really difficult view to change as a white guy.  i do not think changing the slave name given to your ancestors long ago will bring any more freedom.  it just shows how much weight and influence those events have/have had on your family.  your still thinking about it, still talking about it.  free from slavery, but not it is legacy.  it still influences you.  i think more freedom lies in moving past it.  not forgetting it, but finding a way to render your names origin less relevant to your life.  recognizing that, over the decades and through the generations, the name may have come to mean something else entirely.  something more personal and intimate.  please tell me if any of this came off as racist or insensitive.  this topic has a lot of landmines i probably ca not even see.   #  we tear it apart as we establish our own identity, until our name means only us.   #  it might help to think of it not as a slave name, but as a name that was once a slave name.  it was a slave name once.  but now it is the name one of your parents knew the other by, maybe even shouted out in bed.  it is the name on your birth certificate, the name your first friend knew you under, the name your parent shouted out when you pissed them off.  the name your teacher either sighed in exasperation or said with approval.  it does not mean slave, not anymore.  now, it simply means you.  my full first name is christopher.  one day, i was rather amused to find out that it means  bearer of christ .  i was amused because, despite being raised in a relatively christian home i am an atheist.  i rejected christ, making me the literal opposite of what my name means.  an antichris.  at first, our names mean something.  but over time, we destroy that meaning.  we tear it apart as we establish our own identity, until our name means only us.  my name means me, your name means you.
i wo not say my name, but because of slavery, it is extremely common and unoriginal.  it does not help that i have a fairly common first name.  i feel extremely frustrated that i have the last name of someone who would mistreat my ancestors and make them work for no pay.  all that is holding me back from changing it is the fact i do not want to look like i am some malcolm x wannabe and the fact that i believe it cost money.  also this sentence in elijah muhammad is book reayy gets to me:   you are still called by your slave masters  names.  by rights, by international rights, you belong to the white man of america.  he knows that.  you have never gotten out of the shackles of slavery.  you are still in them.    #   you are still called by your slave masters  names.   #  by rights, by international rights, you belong to the white man of america.   # by rights, by international rights, you belong to the white man of america.  he knows that.  you have never gotten out of the shackles of slavery.  you are still in them.   well, speaking as a white man of america i can say that this is just plain bullshit.  the white people of america do not just sit around thinking that by you having a  slave name  we have achieved our own petty little victory.  if you want to change your name, by all means go and change it.  this is america and you have that right.  the question is what to change your name to ? the biggest malcolm x wannabe thing to do is changing it to something stereotypically islamic.  i would say it is safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of americans have absolutely no idea about the origins of their surname.  sure they may know what it means, but they have no clue who or where it was first attributed to.   #  there was seldom occasion for more than the use of the one name.   #  i was reading an autobiography by booker t.  washington and he said that the very first thing everyone did when they were emancipated was change or give themselves last names.  that completely blew me away.  when you were property, you did not need to have a last name because you did not own anything to pass on.  but now they did, and they tended to name themselves after presidents.  URL   after the coming of freedom there were two points upon which practically all the people on our place were agreed, and i find that this was generally true throughout the south: that they must change their names, and that they must leave the old plantation for at least a few days or weeks in order that they might really feel sure that they were free.  this was one of the first signs of freedom.  when they were slaves, a coloured person was simply called  john  or  susan.   there was seldom occasion for more than the use of the one name.  if  john  or  susan  belonged to a white man by the name of  hatcher,  sometimes he was called  john hatcher,  or as often  hatcher is john.   but there was a feeling that  john hatcher  or  hatcher is john  was not the proper title by which to denote a freeman; and so in many cases  john hatcher  was changed to  john s.  lincoln  or  john s.  sherman,  the initial  s  standing for no name, it being simply a part of what the coloured man proudly called his  entitles.    #  my guess is they probably did not feel  free  at all.   # they were still in an extremely hostile environment.  my guess is they probably did not feel  free  at all.  they would nt have understood what was happening at the time: someone they have probably never even heard of, and certainly that they have never seen, signed a piece of paper and suddenly they are supposed to be free.  then the war comes and their entire world, shitty though it may have been, is completely upended.  as slaves their lives were hard and filled with brutal treatment coming at the whim of their owners, but at least their owners provided for some level of their basic needs: food, water, and shelter.  while they certainly were not treated with any kind of dignity, they at least held some value to their owner as a farm tool an investment that needed to be, at least to a basic extent, protected.  freedom granted them no such status URL so then the time comes for them to choose a name, and for the first time, someone is  asking them , not telling them.  someone is asking them to choose something for themselves, to make a decision about their life; a life which, up until this point, has been lived as property.  even if they took the surname of their former owners, even if the only reason they did so was because it was the only surname they had ever heard,  it was still a choice .  again, i am not advocating for op to keep, or change his/her name, i am simply saying that he/she needs to look into it some more and make sure that he/she is not destroying an important moment in his/her family history.   #  it just shows how much weight and influence those events have/have had on your family.   #  almost everyone is name has outdated relic is they had no control over.  there has not been a smith in john smith is family for five generations, but he is still called that.  hell, my screen name is a pun based on how little my given name fits me.  if your name honestly bothers you, there is nothing wrong with changing it.  i recommend  lord thundercock the incredible .  that is a name people notice.  however, i feel that being overly concerned with the name originating in slavery is.  damn this is a really difficult view to change as a white guy.  i do not think changing the slave name given to your ancestors long ago will bring any more freedom.  it just shows how much weight and influence those events have/have had on your family.  your still thinking about it, still talking about it.  free from slavery, but not it is legacy.  it still influences you.  i think more freedom lies in moving past it.  not forgetting it, but finding a way to render your names origin less relevant to your life.  recognizing that, over the decades and through the generations, the name may have come to mean something else entirely.  something more personal and intimate.  please tell me if any of this came off as racist or insensitive.  this topic has a lot of landmines i probably ca not even see.   #  i rejected christ, making me the literal opposite of what my name means.   #  it might help to think of it not as a slave name, but as a name that was once a slave name.  it was a slave name once.  but now it is the name one of your parents knew the other by, maybe even shouted out in bed.  it is the name on your birth certificate, the name your first friend knew you under, the name your parent shouted out when you pissed them off.  the name your teacher either sighed in exasperation or said with approval.  it does not mean slave, not anymore.  now, it simply means you.  my full first name is christopher.  one day, i was rather amused to find out that it means  bearer of christ .  i was amused because, despite being raised in a relatively christian home i am an atheist.  i rejected christ, making me the literal opposite of what my name means.  an antichris.  at first, our names mean something.  but over time, we destroy that meaning.  we tear it apart as we establish our own identity, until our name means only us.  my name means me, your name means you.
i wo not say my name, but because of slavery, it is extremely common and unoriginal.  it does not help that i have a fairly common first name.  i feel extremely frustrated that i have the last name of someone who would mistreat my ancestors and make them work for no pay.  all that is holding me back from changing it is the fact i do not want to look like i am some malcolm x wannabe and the fact that i believe it cost money.  also this sentence in elijah muhammad is book reayy gets to me:   you are still called by your slave masters  names.  by rights, by international rights, you belong to the white man of america.  he knows that.  you have never gotten out of the shackles of slavery.  you are still in them.    #  and the fact that i believe it cost money.   #  it does, and the amount varies by state.   #  last names are understood to be inherited without having any ongoing meaning about the status of current generations.  your name no more says you are still in the shackles, than mine says i am a woodcutter.  or whatever.  my name has multiple possible origins.  on the other hand, a last name often does tell something about an individual is family history even if it is a common thing, shared with the history of many other families.  if someone is however many greats grandfather heated iron in a forge and pounded it on an anvil, that is no less true simply because every other town also had a smith.  no one should be either proud or ashamed because of their family history.  it is what you do that should be understood to matter, not where you came from.  but if some aspect of your family history is still an important fact, that is a reason to keep it.  many options would not give that impression.  it does, and the amount varies by state.  but if you are not poor, the amount is probably low enough that it should not be a major factor in such a significant decision.  and if you are poor, you may be able to get the fee waived.   #  when you were property, you did not need to have a last name because you did not own anything to pass on.   #  i was reading an autobiography by booker t.  washington and he said that the very first thing everyone did when they were emancipated was change or give themselves last names.  that completely blew me away.  when you were property, you did not need to have a last name because you did not own anything to pass on.  but now they did, and they tended to name themselves after presidents.  URL   after the coming of freedom there were two points upon which practically all the people on our place were agreed, and i find that this was generally true throughout the south: that they must change their names, and that they must leave the old plantation for at least a few days or weeks in order that they might really feel sure that they were free.  this was one of the first signs of freedom.  when they were slaves, a coloured person was simply called  john  or  susan.   there was seldom occasion for more than the use of the one name.  if  john  or  susan  belonged to a white man by the name of  hatcher,  sometimes he was called  john hatcher,  or as often  hatcher is john.   but there was a feeling that  john hatcher  or  hatcher is john  was not the proper title by which to denote a freeman; and so in many cases  john hatcher  was changed to  john s.  lincoln  or  john s.  sherman,  the initial  s  standing for no name, it being simply a part of what the coloured man proudly called his  entitles.    #  someone is asking them to choose something for themselves, to make a decision about their life; a life which, up until this point, has been lived as property.   # they were still in an extremely hostile environment.  my guess is they probably did not feel  free  at all.  they would nt have understood what was happening at the time: someone they have probably never even heard of, and certainly that they have never seen, signed a piece of paper and suddenly they are supposed to be free.  then the war comes and their entire world, shitty though it may have been, is completely upended.  as slaves their lives were hard and filled with brutal treatment coming at the whim of their owners, but at least their owners provided for some level of their basic needs: food, water, and shelter.  while they certainly were not treated with any kind of dignity, they at least held some value to their owner as a farm tool an investment that needed to be, at least to a basic extent, protected.  freedom granted them no such status URL so then the time comes for them to choose a name, and for the first time, someone is  asking them , not telling them.  someone is asking them to choose something for themselves, to make a decision about their life; a life which, up until this point, has been lived as property.  even if they took the surname of their former owners, even if the only reason they did so was because it was the only surname they had ever heard,  it was still a choice .  again, i am not advocating for op to keep, or change his/her name, i am simply saying that he/she needs to look into it some more and make sure that he/she is not destroying an important moment in his/her family history.   #  your still thinking about it, still talking about it.   #  almost everyone is name has outdated relic is they had no control over.  there has not been a smith in john smith is family for five generations, but he is still called that.  hell, my screen name is a pun based on how little my given name fits me.  if your name honestly bothers you, there is nothing wrong with changing it.  i recommend  lord thundercock the incredible .  that is a name people notice.  however, i feel that being overly concerned with the name originating in slavery is.  damn this is a really difficult view to change as a white guy.  i do not think changing the slave name given to your ancestors long ago will bring any more freedom.  it just shows how much weight and influence those events have/have had on your family.  your still thinking about it, still talking about it.  free from slavery, but not it is legacy.  it still influences you.  i think more freedom lies in moving past it.  not forgetting it, but finding a way to render your names origin less relevant to your life.  recognizing that, over the decades and through the generations, the name may have come to mean something else entirely.  something more personal and intimate.  please tell me if any of this came off as racist or insensitive.  this topic has a lot of landmines i probably ca not even see.   #  one day, i was rather amused to find out that it means  bearer of christ .   #  it might help to think of it not as a slave name, but as a name that was once a slave name.  it was a slave name once.  but now it is the name one of your parents knew the other by, maybe even shouted out in bed.  it is the name on your birth certificate, the name your first friend knew you under, the name your parent shouted out when you pissed them off.  the name your teacher either sighed in exasperation or said with approval.  it does not mean slave, not anymore.  now, it simply means you.  my full first name is christopher.  one day, i was rather amused to find out that it means  bearer of christ .  i was amused because, despite being raised in a relatively christian home i am an atheist.  i rejected christ, making me the literal opposite of what my name means.  an antichris.  at first, our names mean something.  but over time, we destroy that meaning.  we tear it apart as we establish our own identity, until our name means only us.  my name means me, your name means you.
i wo not say my name, but because of slavery, it is extremely common and unoriginal.  it does not help that i have a fairly common first name.  i feel extremely frustrated that i have the last name of someone who would mistreat my ancestors and make them work for no pay.  all that is holding me back from changing it is the fact i do not want to look like i am some malcolm x wannabe and the fact that i believe it cost money.  also this sentence in elijah muhammad is book reayy gets to me:   you are still called by your slave masters  names.  by rights, by international rights, you belong to the white man of america.  he knows that.  you have never gotten out of the shackles of slavery.  you are still in them.    #  all that is holding me back from changing it is the fact i do not want to look like i am some malcolm x wannabe and the fact that i believe it cost money.   #  even if you look like a malcolm x wannabe, so what ?  #  i am going to try to change a different part of your view than everyone else.  even if you look like a malcolm x wannabe, so what ? he was an influential man for a reason.  and he is not the only black american who changed his last name for that reason; there is also assata shakur, for example.  if you want to save money, you can wait until you get married to change your surname.  assuming you plan to ever get married.  i do not know if you are male or female, but even if you are male it is getting more and more common for men to change their surnames too.  you do not even have to take your spouse is name.  the two of you can come up with something brand new if you want.   #  there was seldom occasion for more than the use of the one name.   #  i was reading an autobiography by booker t.  washington and he said that the very first thing everyone did when they were emancipated was change or give themselves last names.  that completely blew me away.  when you were property, you did not need to have a last name because you did not own anything to pass on.  but now they did, and they tended to name themselves after presidents.  URL   after the coming of freedom there were two points upon which practically all the people on our place were agreed, and i find that this was generally true throughout the south: that they must change their names, and that they must leave the old plantation for at least a few days or weeks in order that they might really feel sure that they were free.  this was one of the first signs of freedom.  when they were slaves, a coloured person was simply called  john  or  susan.   there was seldom occasion for more than the use of the one name.  if  john  or  susan  belonged to a white man by the name of  hatcher,  sometimes he was called  john hatcher,  or as often  hatcher is john.   but there was a feeling that  john hatcher  or  hatcher is john  was not the proper title by which to denote a freeman; and so in many cases  john hatcher  was changed to  john s.  lincoln  or  john s.  sherman,  the initial  s  standing for no name, it being simply a part of what the coloured man proudly called his  entitles.    #  my guess is they probably did not feel  free  at all.   # they were still in an extremely hostile environment.  my guess is they probably did not feel  free  at all.  they would nt have understood what was happening at the time: someone they have probably never even heard of, and certainly that they have never seen, signed a piece of paper and suddenly they are supposed to be free.  then the war comes and their entire world, shitty though it may have been, is completely upended.  as slaves their lives were hard and filled with brutal treatment coming at the whim of their owners, but at least their owners provided for some level of their basic needs: food, water, and shelter.  while they certainly were not treated with any kind of dignity, they at least held some value to their owner as a farm tool an investment that needed to be, at least to a basic extent, protected.  freedom granted them no such status URL so then the time comes for them to choose a name, and for the first time, someone is  asking them , not telling them.  someone is asking them to choose something for themselves, to make a decision about their life; a life which, up until this point, has been lived as property.  even if they took the surname of their former owners, even if the only reason they did so was because it was the only surname they had ever heard,  it was still a choice .  again, i am not advocating for op to keep, or change his/her name, i am simply saying that he/she needs to look into it some more and make sure that he/she is not destroying an important moment in his/her family history.   #  recognizing that, over the decades and through the generations, the name may have come to mean something else entirely.   #  almost everyone is name has outdated relic is they had no control over.  there has not been a smith in john smith is family for five generations, but he is still called that.  hell, my screen name is a pun based on how little my given name fits me.  if your name honestly bothers you, there is nothing wrong with changing it.  i recommend  lord thundercock the incredible .  that is a name people notice.  however, i feel that being overly concerned with the name originating in slavery is.  damn this is a really difficult view to change as a white guy.  i do not think changing the slave name given to your ancestors long ago will bring any more freedom.  it just shows how much weight and influence those events have/have had on your family.  your still thinking about it, still talking about it.  free from slavery, but not it is legacy.  it still influences you.  i think more freedom lies in moving past it.  not forgetting it, but finding a way to render your names origin less relevant to your life.  recognizing that, over the decades and through the generations, the name may have come to mean something else entirely.  something more personal and intimate.  please tell me if any of this came off as racist or insensitive.  this topic has a lot of landmines i probably ca not even see.   #  we tear it apart as we establish our own identity, until our name means only us.   #  it might help to think of it not as a slave name, but as a name that was once a slave name.  it was a slave name once.  but now it is the name one of your parents knew the other by, maybe even shouted out in bed.  it is the name on your birth certificate, the name your first friend knew you under, the name your parent shouted out when you pissed them off.  the name your teacher either sighed in exasperation or said with approval.  it does not mean slave, not anymore.  now, it simply means you.  my full first name is christopher.  one day, i was rather amused to find out that it means  bearer of christ .  i was amused because, despite being raised in a relatively christian home i am an atheist.  i rejected christ, making me the literal opposite of what my name means.  an antichris.  at first, our names mean something.  but over time, we destroy that meaning.  we tear it apart as we establish our own identity, until our name means only us.  my name means me, your name means you.
there is a reason the human genome project has not found the gene for it after decades of searching it does not exist.  the best we have done is find a few weak correlations, and i will allow that these probably play a small role in predisposing children to autism, as does being male.  but the lion is share of blame rests with neglectful mothers.  it is not necessarily malicious treatment, just neglectful.  the reason autism rates are rising is that we live in an increasingly narcissistic society URL and a narcissistic mother is often just too self absorbed to care much about anyone else, including her children read some /r/raisedbynarcissists for mindblowing stories about this.  there may also be resentment toward the child for the body changes associated with pregnancy and childbirth for a narcissistic woman who places high emphasis on her body, which may help explain why rates of autism are higher for firstborn children.  we learn at a phenomenal rate as infants, so much and so fast that if we miss the window of opportunity to learn certain things we never get another chance.  i remember reading somewhere that if an infant were blindfolded for the first three months of life and then had the blindfold removed, it would be blind for the rest of its life.  think of an infant getting adequate maternal attention: mom is friendly face invites interaction, they babble back and forth at one another, there is plenty of eye contact all things autists struggle with.  now imagine an infant without these things.  it will take note of  things  in the absence of people, eg.  that it has 0 stuffed animals, or that there are 0 books on the bookshelf stuff autists tend to notice.  we have strong evidence that nurture rather, lack thereof is at least a factor from the romanian orphans referenced in the time link below.  we did not evolve with easy distractions such as tv, shopping malls, iphones, etc.  and so we did not evolve countermeasures to being extremely neglected during the crucial first few months / years of life.  even in the case of maternal death the tribe would look after an infant.  it is only now in the modern, western, suburban world that a woman can put an infant in a crib and ignore it as she focuses on herself.  the  refrigerator mother  hypothesis which gained popularity in the 0s only fell out of vogue in the 0s 0s due to pressure from feminism and its assertion that women are perfect and may never be criticized.  the actual evidence against it, as well as evidence for a genetic cause of autism, is scarce.  science has been shamed into losing its objectivity here, as is so often the case.  for example cannabis is only now escaping stigma and prohibition based on a few flawed studies, and the studies which have recently shed light on the substance were restricted for decades, if allowed at all.  at almost 0 years old i am too ancient to have ridden the aspergers diagnosis wave, but i am positive i would have been diagnosed if i were 0 0 years younger.  i was severely abused and neglected by my two moms throughout childhood, and while i obviously ca not remember my infancy, i have no reason to doubt it was much different from my later childhood which i do remember.  we are comfortable with teaching  him  iow, every man and boy not to rape, why ca not we have campaigns to teach  her  not to abuse and neglect her children ? regardless of whether i do have aspergers never bothered seeking adult diagnosis , and regardless of whether the neglect i endured caused it, a campaign like this could have really helped me.  some very interesting further reading for those inclined: measure of a mother is love: how early neglect derails child development URL time magazine the image of the mother is eye: autism and early narcissistic injury URL max mcdowell phd autism, early narcissistic injury, and self organization: a role for the image of the mother is eyes ? URL max mcdowell phd  #  but the lion is share of blame rests with neglectful mothers.   #  it is not necessarily malicious treatment, just neglectful.   # it is not necessarily malicious treatment, just neglectful.  i just wanted to ask why you were singling out the mothers here.  i would assume one parent could be neglectful, and the other could be extremely engaging and help develop a baby is social responses.  so, if the cause of autism was actually based on neglect, the fault would lie in  both  parents.  so why is your post only singling out neglectful mothers ?  #  it also assumes that the drastic rise in autism is caused by a drastic rise in abuse and neglect of children, which ignores the fact that abuse and neglect have  always  occurred.   #  i study behavioral neurology and a lot of my recent research relates to autism, though not directly.  your argument that it is caused by maternal neglect is simply not supported by the evidence.  current evidence strongly suggests that autism is something that happens in utero and that the symptoms are not diagnosable until later in life.  there are structural changes in the brains of people with autism.  while experiences can alter brain chemistry to a degree you are simply not going to have things like the absence or reduction of the superior olive due purely to neglect or abuse.  experience also ca not retroactively change the formation of certain neuron bundles which are packed differently in people with autism.  the research that i do suggests hormonal imbalances during pregnancy influences the development of autism, specifically the artificially raised levels of many hormone analogs that we have introduced into our environment through various means.  there does seem to be a genetic component as well, but we ca not tell if genes cause autism or if genes cause someone to be more susceptible to environmental influences that may cause autism.  in all likelihood there is no one cause of autism but rather a number of different possible causes or a confluence of factors that cause it.  the idea that autism is caused by parental neglect also completely fails to account for observations such as the increase in autism rates in areas where pregnant women get exposed to certain pesticides or why certain drugs increase the likelihood of autism in a child when taken by a pregnant woman.  it also assumes that the drastic rise in autism is caused by a drastic rise in abuse and neglect of children, which ignores the fact that abuse and neglect have  always  occurred.  if anything it happens  less  now than it used to because it is no longer socially acceptable to beat the crap out of your kids.  many antisocial behaviors like alcoholism were also far more socially acceptable in the 0s compared to today, plus the advice on how to raise kids was far more geared toward discipline and planned ignoring.  now attachment style parenting is favored and physical punishment is looked down on.   #  if nurture ca not cause autism why do orphanage children have higher rates ?  #  good post, a few points / questions:   your argument that it is caused by maternal neglect is simply not supported by the evidence have any studies been done which look at the psychology of the mothers of autistic children, or is that too taboo to research ? if nurture ca not cause autism why do orphanage children have higher rates ? i was abused, however my claim is only that neglect factors into it, not abuse.  abuse has certainly gone down over time but with women in the workforce it is likely neglect has gone up, and it is proven that narcissism possible factor in neglect has gone up.  lastly is it possible that the mother is psychology can affect the womb is hormonal balance ? it is known that women who were abused as children are more likely to have autistic children, can stress hormones play a role in that ?  #  now throw in the fact that autism is diagnosed vastly more often in boys yet research consistently shows that boys get more parental attention than girls, which is counter to your theory.   #  what you say sounds plausible.  but there are plenty of plausible theories which no matter how plausible, do not happen to be true.  what has been found is a strong link between parental age and autism URL as the age at which parents have children increases, this would explain the rise in autism as well as suggest a mechanism, whereby the  quality  of the sperm and egg may be impacted by the parent is age.  now throw in the fact that autism is diagnosed vastly more often in boys yet research consistently shows that boys get more parental attention than girls, which is counter to your theory.  there is also plenty of research that shows poor and particularly minority students tend to read later and more poorly than their rich, white peers, largely because of the difference in interaction with their parents.  yet we again see the opposite effect in autism diagnoses.  there is nothing that supports your theory other than a vague sense that it could be possible.   #  is it possible that humans tend to become a bit more distant as we age, rather than the trend being due to sperm / egg degradation ?  #  is it possible that humans tend to become a bit more distant as we age, rather than the trend being due to sperm / egg degradation ? how many people in their 0s   have as large a social circle, and spend as much time among it, as teens and 0 somethings ? this distancing behavior may be generalized and may also apply to interactions with infants.  as i allowed in my op boys are absolutely biologically at a higher risk.  trends among minorities include a larger immediate family and a more urban environment, both of which may offset maternal neglect by providing more non maternal human interaction to infants, thus teaching them the human interaction skills that autists lack.
i have seen a ton of posts that usually go something like this   fifa should change the location because qatar .    teams should boycott the games because .  the amount of money involved in either of these situations is staggering.  these posts and comments all conveniently hand wave this.  0.  if fifa were to change locations, they would still be contractually obligated to pay qatar for most if not all of their currently stipulated arrangements.  it is more likely than not, qatar would financially come out ahead in this arrangement.  rewarding the government they seek to punish.  it also would not have any effect on the current slavery situation.  the only thing that could have changed that is not selecting that location in the first place or putting in contractual language to prevent this issue.  even still, it is unlikely that fifa would jeopardize its pay day trying to enforce the issue.  0.   moving  the games would not be possible in the time period provided, so essentially it would  skip  to the next location.  the impact to this would negatively effect many people who have no hands in the  wrong doing.   advertisers, local businesses, team owners, players etc.  a valid angle is that these people are part of the problem, blood money, but it does not change the fact that you are impacting people that have no direct part in this.  0.  the idea that a team s would stage some sort of revolt is hopelessly naive.  how many people work for a company that imports their goods ? if the answer is yes, you have  some  blood on your hands.  the very nature of capitalism is based on exploitation, this is not something unique to this scenario.  are you going to quit your job because your company imports its goods ? or because their coffee beans are not  fair trade ?   or because the director or ceo hates gay people ? if your answer is yes, congratulations, you are the . 0.  now what happens when you are getting paid millions of dollars to do what you love ? you think these people are going to jeopardize their future over it ? let is say a couple teams do and they  forfeit .  you think they are all going to do it ? you think a bunch of guys raised in poverty in a third world nation are going to turn away enormous paychecks to make a bunch of rich white kids feel better about themselves ? 0. i have yet to see a scenario which provides a lever or realistic scenario that would encourage change in these situations.  posts that parrot these views are hopelessly naive, hand wave the enormous amount of money at stake and attempt to inflate the value of their opinions.  they seek to demonstrate that these changes are worth the financial implications, when they are not demonstrably so .  their opinions are just that, opinions, and they are worthless and hold no financial leverage within this debate.  the almighty dollar rules, slavery   gay rights are worth less than advertising in this case.  unless a lever can disrupt this equilibrium, sit down and take it.  not enough teams would protest to make that a reality and fifa is not moving anything anywhere, and for good reason.   #  the idea that a team s would stage some sort of revolt is hopelessly naive.   #  how many people work for a company that imports their goods ?  # how many people work for a company that imports their goods ? if the answer is yes, you have some blood on your hands.  the very nature of capitalism is based on exploitation, this is not something unique to this scenario.  are you going to quit your job because your company imports its goods ? or because their coffee beans are not  fair trade ?   or because the director or ceo hates gay people ? if your answer is yes, congratulations, you are the . 0.  now what happens when you are getting paid millions of dollars to do what you love ? you think these people are going to jeopardize their future over it ? let is say a couple teams do and they forfeit.  you think they are all going to do it ? you think a bunch of guys raised in poverty in a third world nation are going to turn away enormous paychecks to make a bunch of rich white kids feel better about themselves ? while people pay to attend games, much more revenue comes from television and corporate sponsorship.  if you have a reputation of using slave labor with an antagonist government, and people get really pissed, sponsors will start pulling out.  radison hotels temporarily pulled sponsorship from the minnesota vikings when they invited adrian peterson back to play the week after he was arrested for beating his 0 year old kid with a stick.  the viking went back on their decision and re banned peterson from the team.  no corporation wants to be associated with slave trade and corruption.  if enough shit goes down in fifa that truly angers people, corporate sponsorship will dry up an fifa will react.  it may take more provocation, but image is absolutely an issue that fifa should worry about.   #  that being said, the strongest lever imo would be to convince coke\nike etc to pull out.   #  this would be true but only if there were not sponsors looking to fill their place.  if total sponsorship dollars lost   cost to change locations true then you would be correct, but i do not ever see that becoming true.  ermirate airlines might be a  major  sponsor but they are nobody compared to the pepsis\cokes\nikes of the world that are the real lifeblood of an event like this.  and i think these organizations know enough not to get involved in the politics of the event.  very large companies have learned to stay as neutral as possible.  that being said, the strongest lever imo would be to convince coke\nike etc to pull out.  but i would imagine just as everything else, the sound of crickets would be the loudest response.   #  URL   lance armstrong got dropped by just about everyone \ including nike\ .   # very large companies have learned to stay as neutral as possible.  that is not true at all.  if anything sponsors are quick to pull the trigger on controversial deals in order to protect their brand is image.  tiger got dumped by at t and gillette.  URL   lance armstrong got dropped by just about everyone \ including nike\ .  URL   the clippers lost state farm, mercedes, virgin, corona, red bull, and sprint.  URL   nike dropped adrian peterson  only 0 days  after the child abuse allegations surfaced.  URL   ray rice got an almost equally immediate purge after the second tape showed up.  URL again, i am not saying that the world cup will turn into this big of a deal, enough for fifa to have to relocate, but there is absolutely precedent for sponsors dropping people and companies that they feel are a danger to their brand.   #  usa, korea/japan and australia come to mind immediately.   #  0.  by fifa is own admission the world cup cost brazil $0 billion, of which fifa only provided $0 billion.  source.  URL it is possible that with 0 years to go, qatar has not spent as much money and might still profit although that is doubtful.  it is not always about changing policies, sometimes its just about not supporting bad practices.  0.  several potential host nations are already lined up to take the place of qatar should fifa strip them of their host position.  usa, korea/japan and australia come to mind immediately.  the first two already have infrastructure from previous world cups and could essentially run the tournaments with no notice, easily less than 0 years.  it will potentially hurt third parties, but no one said that taking the decision away is not controversial.  besides 0 years is a long time from now, its not like those local business are relying on this future tournament to stay afloat today.  0.  there is actually some merit to the idea of teams boycotting tournaments.  in the early 0 is the olympics were the main competition for international football.  through a series of political moves, boycotts, blood feuds and i assume bribery the 0 world cup became the main international tournament.  this is also why uruguay displays 0 stars on their crest even though they have only won 0 world cups.  i do not know how link sections of wiki but read the first few URL  #  i want to take those groups in turn: advertisers would probably be better off moving.   # advertisers, local businesses, team owners, players etc.  a valid angle is that these people are part of the problem, blood money, but it does not change the fact that you are impacting people that have no direct part in this.  i want to take those groups in turn: advertisers would probably be better off moving.  if the games are going to be moving, its going to be the result of a massive scandal which would tarnish the brands of sponsors.  a move to the us or another western countries would be a godsend to them in that spot.  team owners are countries, not private individuals.  and a move from qatar or russia to the us would likely boost ad revenues from the broadcast since it would get a larger us audience and still get about the same global audience .  so they will be fine.  players ? i would much rather be playing somewhere other than qatar in the summer.  the us is a quite enjoyable place to visit for most people, and if it were a short notice move, i imagine the state department would be much better about pushing out the visas than normal.  local businesses in the places that were ditched might get hurt, yes.  especially hotels.  but corresponding local businesses in the places where the games moved to would get a benefit.
i have seen a ton of posts that usually go something like this   fifa should change the location because qatar .    teams should boycott the games because .  the amount of money involved in either of these situations is staggering.  these posts and comments all conveniently hand wave this.  0.  if fifa were to change locations, they would still be contractually obligated to pay qatar for most if not all of their currently stipulated arrangements.  it is more likely than not, qatar would financially come out ahead in this arrangement.  rewarding the government they seek to punish.  it also would not have any effect on the current slavery situation.  the only thing that could have changed that is not selecting that location in the first place or putting in contractual language to prevent this issue.  even still, it is unlikely that fifa would jeopardize its pay day trying to enforce the issue.  0.   moving  the games would not be possible in the time period provided, so essentially it would  skip  to the next location.  the impact to this would negatively effect many people who have no hands in the  wrong doing.   advertisers, local businesses, team owners, players etc.  a valid angle is that these people are part of the problem, blood money, but it does not change the fact that you are impacting people that have no direct part in this.  0.  the idea that a team s would stage some sort of revolt is hopelessly naive.  how many people work for a company that imports their goods ? if the answer is yes, you have  some  blood on your hands.  the very nature of capitalism is based on exploitation, this is not something unique to this scenario.  are you going to quit your job because your company imports its goods ? or because their coffee beans are not  fair trade ?   or because the director or ceo hates gay people ? if your answer is yes, congratulations, you are the . 0.  now what happens when you are getting paid millions of dollars to do what you love ? you think these people are going to jeopardize their future over it ? let is say a couple teams do and they  forfeit .  you think they are all going to do it ? you think a bunch of guys raised in poverty in a third world nation are going to turn away enormous paychecks to make a bunch of rich white kids feel better about themselves ? 0. i have yet to see a scenario which provides a lever or realistic scenario that would encourage change in these situations.  posts that parrot these views are hopelessly naive, hand wave the enormous amount of money at stake and attempt to inflate the value of their opinions.  they seek to demonstrate that these changes are worth the financial implications, when they are not demonstrably so .  their opinions are just that, opinions, and they are worthless and hold no financial leverage within this debate.  the almighty dollar rules, slavery   gay rights are worth less than advertising in this case.  unless a lever can disrupt this equilibrium, sit down and take it.  not enough teams would protest to make that a reality and fifa is not moving anything anywhere, and for good reason.   #  the impact to this would negatively effect many people who have no hands in the  wrong doing.    #  advertisers, local businesses, team owners, players etc.   # advertisers, local businesses, team owners, players etc.  a valid angle is that these people are part of the problem, blood money, but it does not change the fact that you are impacting people that have no direct part in this.  i want to take those groups in turn: advertisers would probably be better off moving.  if the games are going to be moving, its going to be the result of a massive scandal which would tarnish the brands of sponsors.  a move to the us or another western countries would be a godsend to them in that spot.  team owners are countries, not private individuals.  and a move from qatar or russia to the us would likely boost ad revenues from the broadcast since it would get a larger us audience and still get about the same global audience .  so they will be fine.  players ? i would much rather be playing somewhere other than qatar in the summer.  the us is a quite enjoyable place to visit for most people, and if it were a short notice move, i imagine the state department would be much better about pushing out the visas than normal.  local businesses in the places that were ditched might get hurt, yes.  especially hotels.  but corresponding local businesses in the places where the games moved to would get a benefit.   #  that being said, the strongest lever imo would be to convince coke\nike etc to pull out.   #  this would be true but only if there were not sponsors looking to fill their place.  if total sponsorship dollars lost   cost to change locations true then you would be correct, but i do not ever see that becoming true.  ermirate airlines might be a  major  sponsor but they are nobody compared to the pepsis\cokes\nikes of the world that are the real lifeblood of an event like this.  and i think these organizations know enough not to get involved in the politics of the event.  very large companies have learned to stay as neutral as possible.  that being said, the strongest lever imo would be to convince coke\nike etc to pull out.  but i would imagine just as everything else, the sound of crickets would be the loudest response.   #  URL   ray rice got an almost equally immediate purge after the second tape showed up.   # very large companies have learned to stay as neutral as possible.  that is not true at all.  if anything sponsors are quick to pull the trigger on controversial deals in order to protect their brand is image.  tiger got dumped by at t and gillette.  URL   lance armstrong got dropped by just about everyone \ including nike\ .  URL   the clippers lost state farm, mercedes, virgin, corona, red bull, and sprint.  URL   nike dropped adrian peterson  only 0 days  after the child abuse allegations surfaced.  URL   ray rice got an almost equally immediate purge after the second tape showed up.  URL again, i am not saying that the world cup will turn into this big of a deal, enough for fifa to have to relocate, but there is absolutely precedent for sponsors dropping people and companies that they feel are a danger to their brand.   #  radison hotels temporarily pulled sponsorship from the minnesota vikings when they invited adrian peterson back to play the week after he was arrested for beating his 0 year old kid with a stick.   # how many people work for a company that imports their goods ? if the answer is yes, you have some blood on your hands.  the very nature of capitalism is based on exploitation, this is not something unique to this scenario.  are you going to quit your job because your company imports its goods ? or because their coffee beans are not  fair trade ?   or because the director or ceo hates gay people ? if your answer is yes, congratulations, you are the . 0.  now what happens when you are getting paid millions of dollars to do what you love ? you think these people are going to jeopardize their future over it ? let is say a couple teams do and they forfeit.  you think they are all going to do it ? you think a bunch of guys raised in poverty in a third world nation are going to turn away enormous paychecks to make a bunch of rich white kids feel better about themselves ? while people pay to attend games, much more revenue comes from television and corporate sponsorship.  if you have a reputation of using slave labor with an antagonist government, and people get really pissed, sponsors will start pulling out.  radison hotels temporarily pulled sponsorship from the minnesota vikings when they invited adrian peterson back to play the week after he was arrested for beating his 0 year old kid with a stick.  the viking went back on their decision and re banned peterson from the team.  no corporation wants to be associated with slave trade and corruption.  if enough shit goes down in fifa that truly angers people, corporate sponsorship will dry up an fifa will react.  it may take more provocation, but image is absolutely an issue that fifa should worry about.   #  this is also why uruguay displays 0 stars on their crest even though they have only won 0 world cups.   #  0.  by fifa is own admission the world cup cost brazil $0 billion, of which fifa only provided $0 billion.  source.  URL it is possible that with 0 years to go, qatar has not spent as much money and might still profit although that is doubtful.  it is not always about changing policies, sometimes its just about not supporting bad practices.  0.  several potential host nations are already lined up to take the place of qatar should fifa strip them of their host position.  usa, korea/japan and australia come to mind immediately.  the first two already have infrastructure from previous world cups and could essentially run the tournaments with no notice, easily less than 0 years.  it will potentially hurt third parties, but no one said that taking the decision away is not controversial.  besides 0 years is a long time from now, its not like those local business are relying on this future tournament to stay afloat today.  0.  there is actually some merit to the idea of teams boycotting tournaments.  in the early 0 is the olympics were the main competition for international football.  through a series of political moves, boycotts, blood feuds and i assume bribery the 0 world cup became the main international tournament.  this is also why uruguay displays 0 stars on their crest even though they have only won 0 world cups.  i do not know how link sections of wiki but read the first few URL
what was great about super smash bros, and why melee remains my most played video game of all time, was largely because the lineup was almost solely made up of iconic characters.  mario, link, donkey kong, kirby, etc.  that was my childhood.  it started to go downhill with brawl, and now the upcoming wii u game has meaningless fighters like pokemon 0, wii fit trainer wtf ! , and animal crossing villager groan .  it does add some characters of legendary status like pacman and little mac, and i am sure it will still be incredibly fun to play, and maybe animal crossing villager groan will have some awesome moves, but i feel like it, and other additions dilute the overall lineup and serve as contradictory to the original goal of the franchise.  change my view ?  #  what was great about super smash bros, and why melee remains my most played video game of all time, was largely because the lineup was almost solely made up of iconic characters.   #  mario, link, donkey kong, kirby, etc.  that was my childhood.   # mario, link, donkey kong, kirby, etc.  that was my childhood.  iconic characters like falco, mr game and watch, dr.  mario, pichu, mewtwo, a second link for some reason, marth, roy, and ice climbers.  me thinks you are looking at a melee with a healthy dose of nostalgia if you think it was  almost solely made up of iconic characters.   heck, even the first super smash had captain falcon, ness, and jigglypuff.  those first two characters are characters i  only know  from the smash series.   #  there are always going to be characters that seem like a bad idea or bad fit, but that is the point.   #  there were always characters that, at the time, made little to no sense.  why would they include ness, a character from a series of games that very few people have heard of in the us and even fewer will play due to localization restrictions ? or roy/marth/ike ? or friggin  game and watch, who has not had his own title for decades as far as i can tell, and who half the smash audience did not know about before his appearance in a smash game ? or r. o. b, the worst game console controller ever ? there are always going to be characters that seem like a bad idea or bad fit, but that is the point.  this is smash.  it is never made much sense, and i feel like you are over thinking it.   #  i see no evidence that the core gameplay is any worse off for having additional characters.   #  where does it say that every character in smash bros has to be some iconic timeless icon ? at the end of the day smash bros is just about crazy battles involving major characters from various nintendo games.  if nintendo thinks a character would be fun to play as why should not they have that character ? how could a character possibly be unworthy ? you say you like playing with iconic characters, then use those characters, they have not gone anywhere and more have been added.  does it hurt you that there are other options available for people who might want them ? i do not see how more characters dilutes anything.  i see no evidence that the core gameplay is any worse off for having additional characters.  you complain about the new pokemon fighters but all of the pokemon added are fan favorites among people who play pokemon.  pokemon is one of nintendo is biggest franchises pretty much the number 0 seller on any hand held console , why should not they have a bunch playable ? you complain about wii fit trainer but wii fit was the highest selling game for one of nintendo is main consoles.  it is an important game in nintendo is history whether you think it is iconic or not.  animal crossing is also huge.  have you considered it is not just about iconic characters but about simply having representation for iconic games among the roster even if it is the games and not the characters that are iconic ?  #  honestly, one of the things i most look forward to with the smash bros franchise is the inclusion of the more unusual and esoteric characters.   #  super smash bros is more then just an excuse to have iconic and nostalgic characters duke it out.  it is also a means to introduce new characters and franchises to new fans.  when the original game came out, i had no idea who samus, kirby, captain falcon and ness were, but now i am a big fan of just about all of them.  heck, it is because of melee that the fire emblem franchise was even released in the west at all.  honestly, one of the things i most look forward to with the smash bros franchise is the inclusion of the more unusual and esoteric characters.  it is a fun surprise, seeing them adapt characters who are obviously unsuited towards a fighting game and yet making it work anyway, captain falcon, mr.  game   watch, wii fit trainer, or learning of a new franchise that i have previously been unfamiliar with ness, ice climbers, shulk, marth and roy.  and of course, there is the fact that many of these characters are iconic largely because of their inclusion in super smash bros.   #  in the case of wii fit trainer its so people like me can punch them for all the hassle they gave us.   #  i ca not speak to the others, but have you ever played wii fit ? the trainers are frustrating and many time i am yelling at them and want to punch them.  so what does nintendo do, they put them in smash bros as a sort of joke character.  smash bros has always been about fun with friends, and good times, not ultra competitive play.  they put them in because some people want them or it would be funny to watch someone obliterate the competition with them.  in the case of wii fit trainer its so people like me can punch them for all the hassle they gave us.  dk will wreck them and show them who is boss.
things to consider: 0 those that i list on this post or in the comments are not my personal opinions, just examples i am using unless i specifically state otherwise.  0 i am not implying that the karma system should be removed or changed in any way, i am simply saying that the karma system is the reason behind this.  i firmly believe that having any sort of controversial opinion on reddit is absolutely pointless and that the karma system is the main reason that is.  the karma system allows one  group  to impose their beliefs on another with a,  whose side has more people who believe in this,  kind of numbers game.  it always comes down to the fact that if the hive mind does not completely agree with your opinion, your post will simply be buried deep within the bellows of the website and very little discussion will ever be had about it.  every redditor knows that saying things that are generally unpopular with the majority of reddit can mean an infinite amount of karma loss and possible continuous harassment.  for example, i remember a while back i do not have a link, sorry.  of a redditor who posted something negative about jennifer lawrence.  he made a meme soon after explaining something about it, and then i eventually seen a bad luck brian meme about him several days later because every comment he ever made or close to was downvoted into oblivion and he was harassed non stop.  his having a different opinion than the hive mind pretty much destroyed his account.  something very similar happened to me once before as well when i was new to the website.  i posted what is generally a very unpopular opinion on reddit, before i was aware that it was, because it is my personal belief.  the topic was the legalization of marijuana for recreational uses and i was hoping for some discussion about it because i had asked a question to another redditor as to why he felt the way he did towards it being legalized, something i am personally against.  i asked why he was pro legalization, stated one reason i am against it, and told him that his story had made my day.  i did not attack his opinion, i did not downvote him i upvoted him in fact because i enjoyed the story he wrote , and i had no ill intentions whatsoever.  instead of some sort of civil discussion and my question being answered, what i got was overly defensive comments not from him, he did not reply calling me an idiot just for having that opinion, downvotes that never seemed to end on that comment until i deleted it, being attacked for every little thing related or otherwise, and no real discussion to be had.  i was practically  forced  to delete that comment because of the non stop harassment if i wanted to continue using my account.  my comment also was not to just incite an argument seeing as how there was others saying how it should just be legalized in the other comments already and this was not a marijuana related subreddit i. e /r/trees .  it was /r/askreddit and the topic of legalization had already been present before i had posted that i was against it.  reddit is supposed to be a discussion board and website where people share their opinions, something nobody should be harassed for.  harassment of those with controversial opinions continues and is something i regularly see being mentioned on subreddits like /r/offmychest.  if so few are willing to truly have a discussion and instantly take to this numbers game, then what point is there in even posting your opinion if it is not what the collective wants to see ? the karma system buries what you said or posted, essentially making it absolutely pointless.  intellectual conversation and debate on a topic is difficult when opinion is valued more than the quality of the post itself.  so please, change my view.   #  reddit is supposed to be a discussion board and website where people share their opinions, something nobody should be harassed for.   #  sorry, why should not people be harassed for their opinions ?  #  it is not absolutely pointless.  that is why subreddits exist.  if negative karma matters to you, then go to a subreddit with people who share your opinions and, if necessary, is sufficiently moderated.  sorry, why should not people be harassed for their opinions ? if someone starts spouting racist shit, they will be harassed.   #  the secret is in the way you express them.   #  i have some controversial opinions, but i do not often get flak about expressing them.  the secret is in the way you express them.  if you can properly balance various parts, like  showing  them that you agree with what they are saying,  except there is this one part .  well, you can get pretty far in causing people to at least think about what their views are.  and yes, it does require a lot more finesse than saying what people already agree with, but that is the case in real life as well.  people do not like hearing things that make them feel uncomfortable or wrong.  but if you change the blame to show that you are like them, but then discovered somewhat different things, people will be more likely to listen.  as for things being blanket unpopular, it is not as straightforward as you think.  i have seen several times an initially popular post get a well written rebuttal by someone unpopular, who created a reply that was relatable enough to cause people to agree.  when that happens, they can get thousands of upvotes, even if they are a cop, even if they did something shitty, even if they did something illegal, as long as they make a good narrative.  it is why you can see people rooting for the  bad guys , if they are portrayed well.  basically, though the upvote/downvote system tends to favor popular ideas, you can still have successful discussion if you are careful about how you write.   #  this is slightly less prevalent in some of the more restrictive subreddits, but it is still a common theme.   #  rarely downvoted, but easily buried.  when certain groups are expecting their reactions to come in short quips, posts that may be adequately explanatory do not get the same reception as your  stereotypical reddit  soundboard comment, and the 0 to 0 exactly like it.  this is slightly less prevalent in some of the more restrictive subreddits, but it is still a common theme.  but the problem is that when a dissenting opinion even when poorly phrased is quashed repeatedly it gives the community a highly skewed view of normal discourse and demographics.  this limitation of the feeling of equality can very much prevent people from bothering to take the time to fully explain their points, when they feel that it is in a great minority, when it may be closer to a 0/0 split, but you would never know, because the majority of posts which would prove that are lost to the bottom of the page.  it is obviously not a 0 certainty that this happens in every thread, in every sub.  but the evidence is compelling enough to assume that there are more than a few dissenting opinions which get buried.   #  i had a discussion about this a while ago in /r/christianity where i stated that those who were against gay marriage were not able to post freely.   #  but when one side has to be extremely careful with how and what they say how can it really be a successful discussion ? if you ca not fully express yourself then how do you really have a good discussion ? especially knowing that one wrong word or phrase can mean ending any discussion.  also, i do not think this is as true as many think.  i had a discussion about this a while ago in /r/christianity where i stated that those who were against gay marriage were not able to post freely.  someone like you stated that it was just because the anti gay marriage people were not being respectful and i challenged him to try.  he created a throwaway and tried it.  it did not go well.   #  if you want to raise awareness to a wide audience, i do think you will be hindered by the voting system if your view is not a popular one.   #  what defines pointlessness ? is the goal to get lots of karma ? is it to raise awareness of some idea to lots of people ? is it to have good discussions ? if it is just about karma, then you are definitely prevented from having in depth discussions, because there is a very specific post style that consistently garners karma.  if you want to raise awareness to a wide audience, i do think you will be hindered by the voting system if your view is not a popular one.  if you want to have good discussions with a few people, it is not actually too hard.  it helps a lot to be in the right community, one which is discussion oriented.  i am certainly not likely to try having a deep discussion in /r/pics, as it is just not what people are looking for there.  but also, the sort of people who will actually  talk  with you are not the sort who care so much about your downvotes, if you can present your view in a clear, respectful way.  it is unlikely that you can combine any two of those together, for instance high karma and good discussions, but that is just how it is.  i personally would rather have a somewhat personal, temporary connection to a stranger online, and possibly make them think about the world a little differently.
we have been together for several years.  she is my best friend as well as my lover, and we do almost everything together.  i do not want to marry her because i do not like the marriage and divorce laws regarding assets and debts.  i see minimal benefit to a legal marriage, but a big risk if we do not work out as life partners.  she is happy with how things are, but i think she would like it a bit if we were  official .  i am a little older than her, i have a good paying professional job, own the house we live in, and have some money invested in stocks.  i invest a large chunk of my pay.  i know what is mine before marriage would stay mine, but i am planning to continue to pay off my mortgage and invest a lot of my income.  she is still in school, working on becoming a high paid professional too.  she will likely take out more student loans in the years to come.  i am pretty certain she will continue to spend a lot more money than me on things like lattes and clothes.  i am totally fine with this, but if we shared finances i would feel like she was buying stuff i do not care about with  our  money, and the money i was saving would also become  ours .  i do not want to get married and pretend our finances are separate, knowing that if we get divorced the courts will split everything 0/0 i live in a community property state, meaning assets and debts acquired during marriage are joint .  i also do not want to do a pre nup.  to make it legit, both of us would need attorneys during the process, which is expensive.  we already live like we are married, it seems silly to get the marriage certificate, and do more paper work to undo a big chunk of what the marriage certificate does.  i am also concerned that she would not like the pre nup process, and it might make getting married not as fun.  i am pretty certain i will accumulate wealth much faster than she.  i want to share this wealth with her while we are together, but if for some reason we do not work out i want to keep what i have worked hard to earn, and not be responsible for any debts she may still have.  many times the lower earning person helps the higher earner to make more money.  this is not the case with us, we split all the housework and stuff evenly.  i would be wealthier if i were single mainly because i would get roommates and charge them rent , but i have no complaints because i love living with my girl and spending some money so we can have a blast.  on the flip side, i am pretty sure she will be wealthier with me than if single or with someone else.  i know a lot about personal finance, i give her as much advice as she will tolerate haha , and will encourage her to practice good financial habits and establish financial security of her own.  we do not have kids, but if we do we will figure out a fair way to divide labor, because we are both intelligent and can work out a good deal for both of us.  if we think it is best for her to take some time off to be a sahm, i am confident we will figure out a fair deal, including some compensation for missed career building.  or, maybe she will sah the first few years, and i will sah the next few years.  i think the reason we have these divorce laws is because most people do not plan ahead for things.  divorce law is a crappy one size fits all way to handle the problem, better than nothing but it still sucks.  i have no problem publicly committing my love to the woman i want to spend my life with, but will not go along with the government dictating how we handle our finances.  i do not want to get married, ever.   #  if for some reason we do not work out i want to keep what i have worked hard to earn, and not be responsible for any debts she may still have.   #  then make sure you do not help her pay her bills.   #  if you live together you cohabitate, and the law does not really distinguish that from marriage.  as long as you are cohabitating for an extended period of time.  it is rationalized due to shared assets.  then make sure you do not help her pay her bills.  paying rent could set a precedent where the courts see you as responcible to provide her her housing.  that is benevolent of you.  and sets a precedent.  that may be true but that does not mean she will be unable to take you to court.  nor that she would lose.  .   you should talk to a lawyer about this.   #  there are many more legal benefits to marriage than the tax benefits which are considerable .   #  there are many more legal benefits to marriage than the tax benefits which are considerable .  here are a few: 0.  receiving social security, medicare, and disability benefits for deceased spouses.  0.  insurance benefits through employers.  0.  wages and workers  comp benefits for a deceased spouse.  0.  family medical leave.  0.  bereavement leave.  0.  hospital visitation rights outside of normal visiting hours.  0.  making medical decisions for your spouse in the event of an emergency.  0.  consenting to postmortem examinations and procedures and other death arrangements.  0.  inheritance/trusts.  0.  suing for wrongful death of your spouse.  0.  marital communications privilege for evidentiary purposes in a court proceeding.  0.  protections granted to you if your partner is being stalked.  0.  renewal of leases or housing agreements retaining previous terms, when applicable in the event of the death of the lease signatory.  these are just a few.  some can be addressed legally with contracts, others not so much.  you would need to spend some money on legal assistance to cover as many rights as possible, which would be the same situation as a pre nup.  there is a fuller list here URL but it will contain stuff pertaining to issues like military benefits and residency and other issues that may or may not apply to your particular situation.   #  there are a lot of people who would love to be able to get benefits from random dead people via the federal government, too.   #  you can write a contract that will grant you spousal privilege in the event of a criminal proceeding ? wow.  there are tons of criminals who would love to know your secret.  there are a lot of people who would love to be able to get benefits from random dead people via the federal government, too.  as i said, this is just a short list.  there are over 0,0 privileges granted to spouses specifically.  this is why gay people want to be able to get married.   #  if you could choose one single thing in life that you would definitely want the government to stay away from, would not it be matters of love ?  #  on the first note, i admit i do not even factor that in as anything criminal is so far from anything me and my gf experience in our lives.  the death benefits are available to common law marriages like we have here in california.  i have looked at every list of benefits of marriage and i still ca not find one single reason to do it.  it eludes me why homosexual couples want the states to recognize gay marriage.  my guess is the public and governmental recognition of their community as  normal  but again, i am just guessing .  i am an advocate to abolish gay marriage along with every other type of marriage.  if people want something out of their union with someone else, get a will, power of attorney, or type up a contract following contract law detailing the arrangement.  does having the government in between you and your loved one, determining what is worthy or not, what is appropriate or not, or referring what happens between the two of you, somehow enhance it ? if you could choose one single thing in life that you would definitely want the government to stay away from, would not it be matters of love ?  #  and while you do not have to have kids, of course, for many it is saying that no matter how much you annoy each other, doing what is best for the kids is more important than doing what is best for either of you.   #  i am not sure if i have seen anyone ever consider a marriage as a corporate merger quite to the degree that you have outlined.  it seems that your only considerations here are financial, and you seem to think of her as a pal that is fun to do things with.  and that is fine, and perhaps a sign that things should stay as they are.  i will also agree that many marriages fail because of finances either because of insufficient funds to life the desired lifestyle, or because of resentments of the types you have laid out.  but not of that is what marriage is about.  marriage is about finding someone who you trust with the decisions about whether to pull the plug.  someone who will put up with some of the stupid things your mother says to her for your sake, yet will still be there for you when your mother is dying of cancer.  someone who makes you want to get up in front of all your friends and family and promise that you intend to be with them for the rest of your life, even if you snore, or she buys too many lattes or you lose your job.  and while you do not have to have kids, of course, for many it is saying that no matter how much you annoy each other, doing what is best for the kids is more important than doing what is best for either of you.  that is  why you get married, not because you get to file joint tax returns.  if you do not feel that way, for god is sake, do not get married.  but if you do, then do not hide behind the financial analysis, decide if that is what is really in your heart.
we have been together for several years.  she is my best friend as well as my lover, and we do almost everything together.  i do not want to marry her because i do not like the marriage and divorce laws regarding assets and debts.  i see minimal benefit to a legal marriage, but a big risk if we do not work out as life partners.  she is happy with how things are, but i think she would like it a bit if we were  official .  i am a little older than her, i have a good paying professional job, own the house we live in, and have some money invested in stocks.  i invest a large chunk of my pay.  i know what is mine before marriage would stay mine, but i am planning to continue to pay off my mortgage and invest a lot of my income.  she is still in school, working on becoming a high paid professional too.  she will likely take out more student loans in the years to come.  i am pretty certain she will continue to spend a lot more money than me on things like lattes and clothes.  i am totally fine with this, but if we shared finances i would feel like she was buying stuff i do not care about with  our  money, and the money i was saving would also become  ours .  i do not want to get married and pretend our finances are separate, knowing that if we get divorced the courts will split everything 0/0 i live in a community property state, meaning assets and debts acquired during marriage are joint .  i also do not want to do a pre nup.  to make it legit, both of us would need attorneys during the process, which is expensive.  we already live like we are married, it seems silly to get the marriage certificate, and do more paper work to undo a big chunk of what the marriage certificate does.  i am also concerned that she would not like the pre nup process, and it might make getting married not as fun.  i am pretty certain i will accumulate wealth much faster than she.  i want to share this wealth with her while we are together, but if for some reason we do not work out i want to keep what i have worked hard to earn, and not be responsible for any debts she may still have.  many times the lower earning person helps the higher earner to make more money.  this is not the case with us, we split all the housework and stuff evenly.  i would be wealthier if i were single mainly because i would get roommates and charge them rent , but i have no complaints because i love living with my girl and spending some money so we can have a blast.  on the flip side, i am pretty sure she will be wealthier with me than if single or with someone else.  i know a lot about personal finance, i give her as much advice as she will tolerate haha , and will encourage her to practice good financial habits and establish financial security of her own.  we do not have kids, but if we do we will figure out a fair way to divide labor, because we are both intelligent and can work out a good deal for both of us.  if we think it is best for her to take some time off to be a sahm, i am confident we will figure out a fair deal, including some compensation for missed career building.  or, maybe she will sah the first few years, and i will sah the next few years.  i think the reason we have these divorce laws is because most people do not plan ahead for things.  divorce law is a crappy one size fits all way to handle the problem, better than nothing but it still sucks.  i have no problem publicly committing my love to the woman i want to spend my life with, but will not go along with the government dictating how we handle our finances.  i do not want to get married, ever.   #  i have no problem publicly committing my love to the woman i want to spend my life with, but will not go along with the government dictating how we handle our finances.   #  that may be true but that does not mean she will be unable to take you to court.   #  if you live together you cohabitate, and the law does not really distinguish that from marriage.  as long as you are cohabitating for an extended period of time.  it is rationalized due to shared assets.  then make sure you do not help her pay her bills.  paying rent could set a precedent where the courts see you as responcible to provide her her housing.  that is benevolent of you.  and sets a precedent.  that may be true but that does not mean she will be unable to take you to court.  nor that she would lose.  .   you should talk to a lawyer about this.   #  0.  wages and workers  comp benefits for a deceased spouse.   #  there are many more legal benefits to marriage than the tax benefits which are considerable .  here are a few: 0.  receiving social security, medicare, and disability benefits for deceased spouses.  0.  insurance benefits through employers.  0.  wages and workers  comp benefits for a deceased spouse.  0.  family medical leave.  0.  bereavement leave.  0.  hospital visitation rights outside of normal visiting hours.  0.  making medical decisions for your spouse in the event of an emergency.  0.  consenting to postmortem examinations and procedures and other death arrangements.  0.  inheritance/trusts.  0.  suing for wrongful death of your spouse.  0.  marital communications privilege for evidentiary purposes in a court proceeding.  0.  protections granted to you if your partner is being stalked.  0.  renewal of leases or housing agreements retaining previous terms, when applicable in the event of the death of the lease signatory.  these are just a few.  some can be addressed legally with contracts, others not so much.  you would need to spend some money on legal assistance to cover as many rights as possible, which would be the same situation as a pre nup.  there is a fuller list here URL but it will contain stuff pertaining to issues like military benefits and residency and other issues that may or may not apply to your particular situation.   #  as i said, this is just a short list.   #  you can write a contract that will grant you spousal privilege in the event of a criminal proceeding ? wow.  there are tons of criminals who would love to know your secret.  there are a lot of people who would love to be able to get benefits from random dead people via the federal government, too.  as i said, this is just a short list.  there are over 0,0 privileges granted to spouses specifically.  this is why gay people want to be able to get married.   #  my guess is the public and governmental recognition of their community as  normal  but again, i am just guessing .   #  on the first note, i admit i do not even factor that in as anything criminal is so far from anything me and my gf experience in our lives.  the death benefits are available to common law marriages like we have here in california.  i have looked at every list of benefits of marriage and i still ca not find one single reason to do it.  it eludes me why homosexual couples want the states to recognize gay marriage.  my guess is the public and governmental recognition of their community as  normal  but again, i am just guessing .  i am an advocate to abolish gay marriage along with every other type of marriage.  if people want something out of their union with someone else, get a will, power of attorney, or type up a contract following contract law detailing the arrangement.  does having the government in between you and your loved one, determining what is worthy or not, what is appropriate or not, or referring what happens between the two of you, somehow enhance it ? if you could choose one single thing in life that you would definitely want the government to stay away from, would not it be matters of love ?  #  marriage is about finding someone who you trust with the decisions about whether to pull the plug.   #  i am not sure if i have seen anyone ever consider a marriage as a corporate merger quite to the degree that you have outlined.  it seems that your only considerations here are financial, and you seem to think of her as a pal that is fun to do things with.  and that is fine, and perhaps a sign that things should stay as they are.  i will also agree that many marriages fail because of finances either because of insufficient funds to life the desired lifestyle, or because of resentments of the types you have laid out.  but not of that is what marriage is about.  marriage is about finding someone who you trust with the decisions about whether to pull the plug.  someone who will put up with some of the stupid things your mother says to her for your sake, yet will still be there for you when your mother is dying of cancer.  someone who makes you want to get up in front of all your friends and family and promise that you intend to be with them for the rest of your life, even if you snore, or she buys too many lattes or you lose your job.  and while you do not have to have kids, of course, for many it is saying that no matter how much you annoy each other, doing what is best for the kids is more important than doing what is best for either of you.  that is  why you get married, not because you get to file joint tax returns.  if you do not feel that way, for god is sake, do not get married.  but if you do, then do not hide behind the financial analysis, decide if that is what is really in your heart.
when defending yourself you ca not know if doing something to your attacker will result in their death.  for example, if someone with cardiac issues attacks me and i punch them back, causing their heart to stop, i would likely be charged with 0nd degree murder.  also, knowing that if you punch someone, you might be killed is really a great deterrent.  today, there is a sizable population that would fight people without their victim showing any malice against them.  people will fight for relationships, money, sex, and many other things.  i think that self preservation of one is life will trump all of these reasons.  for people that do not have self control and refuse to isolate themselves, it would be doing society a favor to murder them in self defence.  sorry for the ambiguity.  i think that after the incident is done, self defense should not be an excuse to kill them.  however, at the time when people are potentially in danger, people should be allowed to kill in self defense.   #  i think that self preservation of one is life will trump all of these reasons.   #  no, it would just cause people to start with deadlier force.   # no, it would just cause people to start with deadlier force.  if you are extremely angry at jesse because he slept with your girlfriend, you might punch jesse.  but if you know that jesse is allowed to murder you for punching him, you would be more likely to use force that would be more incapacitating but not necessarily deadly at the outset.  instead of punching, say a crowbar to the head resulting in a knockout.  since there is no legal precedent for retaliatory revenge/vigilante murder, it would be unlikely that the law would allow the cheater to wake up from his coma/concussion and come after jesse with a gun because the existential threat has passed.  also, there is reason that the death penalty is only used for murder.  if every rapist was a potential candidate for the chair/needle, they would be more likely to murder their victims in order to delay or prevent getting caught.  i see no reason why this would not be also true for generally violent assault.   #  how do you justify  clear attempt to harm  ?  #  the amount of issues present herein is absurd imagine you are walking down the street and someone bumps into you you could just kill them.  that is extreme.  how do you justify  clear attempt to harm  ? how would you not be able to tell the court you thought your life was in danger further.  if your life is or will be in danger, i believe you are justified to kill in self defense.  if someone just whacks you at the bar, smashing his head in with a chair is too extreme.  would not this also escalate small conflicts ? if i hit you and knew you would be fighting back with deadly force would not i just, you know, fight with deadly force as well ?  #  i do not believe in age constraints for these rules since many kids are just as able to kill as mature people.   # if bullying involves physical violence, it should be an option.  i do not think that it should be mandatory to kill them, but rather that it should just be an option.  i would agree that in most cases, it would be safer to obey, but what if you thought that you could defend yourself ? i do not believe in age constraints for these rules since many kids are just as able to kill as mature people.  if there was a line drawn at age 0, kids under that age could get away with murder.   #  life is about understanding the many shades of gray inherent in every issue.   #  i am sorry, but this is beyond ridiculous.  life is about understanding the many shades of gray inherent in every issue.  that is a defining characteristic of wisdom.  nothing is black and white, especially when you are talking about ending someone is life.  your position is bordering on biblical punishment, tribal justice, and calling it unevolved would be a compliment.  you sound like someone who is either a very young/naive, and in need of some life experience and perspective.  or b a troll, taking an obviously extreme position to get reactions out of people.  either way, this does not even deserve a well thought out answer, because it isnt close to a well thought out position.   #  what you ca not do after there is a wounded former assailant rolling around in pain is to then unload the magazine into them and then state you were simply defending yourself.   #  different states have different laws as to what you can do.  i was vague on purpose there.  i did not want to get into the rules for every state, but in that case one could state that discharging a weapon did stop that attack.  what you ca not do after there is a wounded former assailant rolling around in pain is to then unload the magazine into them and then state you were simply defending yourself.  i mean you could, but you would have to prove that that person was still a threat.  for instance, if that person did have a gun on their person you might have you case, but you would have to defend yourself in a court of law.
to be clear, i am not opposed to net neutrality as in freedom and openness on the internet, but rather to net neutrality the regulatory regime being pushed by obama right now URL title ii is a far reaching regulatory leviathan that has been growing in complexity since the 0s URL and would give the us government far reaching powers in dictating how the internet is used see URL paywall, search google and click the first result URL with innovations like google fiber, municipal broadband URL and internet microsatellites URL  , it is obvious that internet providing innovations are being developed at an accelerating pace, and in a few years the mere thought of throttling customers  access to certain websites would be suicide to traditional isps hooray free market ! .  the only thing that could kill the emergence of smaller incoming isp competitors is an overbearing regulatory regime that costs a fortune to comply with.  in the past few years with cispa, pipa, sopa, and nsa surveillance, it has become abundantly clear that the us government abhors freedom and openness on the internet.  do you really think our leaders have suddenly changed their minds are acting virtuously ? of course not.  they are looking for the upper hand to control how the internet is used, and if you do not think they will attempt to use net neutrality measures as a backdoor for homeland security and copyright enforcement then you have not been paying attention.  i believe that the net neutrality issue will go away on its own, but that if we screw this up by giving the government regulatory powers we could destroy what makes the internet so great, permanently.  please somebody change my view because i seem to be the only tech savvy person on the internet who feels this way.  i even find myself disagreeing with the eff on this one.   #  the only thing that could kill the emergence of smaller incoming isp competitors is an overbearing regulatory regime that costs a fortune to comply with.   #  things that kill smaller incoming isps: high cost of infrastructure if they do not already own the cable or telephone wires.   # .  internet is not a free market.  in some places it is a monopoly.  in others it is a small oligopoly of giant companies who can name their terms.  where i live i have one choice for internet.  i ca not get dsl or fiber.  my choice is cable.  and because there is no competition, they create a data cap which i pay overages for.  absolutely nothing would keep them from throttling bandwith or trying to charge sites for an unthrottled connection.  we are at their mercy.  i admit technically there is one other choice for broadband: satellite at double the cost, a fraction of speed, high latency, and an even smaller data cap.  satellite has been available for a decade and it is no cheaper or better now than it was.  it is an option if you are in desolate north dakota when nothing else exists.  but it is no real competitor.  in the other part of my county there are all of two choices: verizon dsl or comcast cable.  they are the companies against net neutrality.  it is not like their customers can go elsewhere.  and i am sure you have heard the complaints about the horrible customer service especially from comcast users.  maybe if you live in certain major cities you have more than 0 or 0 companies to deal with.  but i challenge you to find a market where there are least two choices for broadband both of which guarantee they wo not charge sites i access or selectivity throttle certain sites.  things that kill smaller incoming isps: high cost of infrastructure if they do not already own the cable or telephone wires.  huge challenge to complete against massive competitors such as comcast or time warner.  the existing giants do not have to play fair.  they have so much money and influence all they would have to do is sweet talk their friends in city council or state government to pass some baloney law that technically blocked the new guy somehow.  they also have a massive legal and marketing department.  is very hard and expensive to break into a market that is been effectively a monopoly for so long.  trusting these big isps to do what is right for the consumer is foolish.  the industry ca not self regulate as we are already seeing  #  we do not have competition nation wide and we are already seeing isps play with traffic, capping usage, not upgrading interconnection points, etc.   #  we do not have  free market  competition between service providers.  we allow local monopolies.  to put it simply, areas allow certain providers exclusive or near exclusive rights.  i wanted to get that out of the way for this statement.  we do not have competition nation wide and we are already seeing isps play with traffic, capping usage, not upgrading interconnection points, etc.  if the government does not step in to stop this behavior, who will ? who can ? if it were a full on free for all, i would nearly agree with you.  but there is  still  the potential for collusion between companies.   dude, do not lower your rates and we wo not !  .  the main point is that right now we are seeing problems.  this is not some future  what if .  the problems are here, now.  we need to solve them before the internet is entirely usurped by the content creating isps.  do i want the  government involved in my internet  ? no.  do i believe the  market  is offering a better alternative, hell no.   #  i do not think it is reasonable to for the isps to argue both ways; the country ca not be too dense to do it  and  to low density to do it.   #  true, but high costs, difficult logistics, and problematic legacy infrastructure are problems that face every metropolis and high density area.  i do not think it is reasonable to for the isps to argue both ways; the country ca not be too dense to do it  and  to low density to do it.  plus there is such a wide range of  in between  areas that have the same issues, so even if one argues nyc is an anomaly there are dozens of other major market areas with a nice range of density.  basically, the density argument is one that sounds reasonable on the face of it esp.  if you just look at country figures as a whole , but does not hold much water if you look into it.   #  it is hard for me to imagine there are utility line problems in the young us cities that the european ones have not also faced and managed to overcome.   #  well yeah, i get that, that is why i included a nyc anomaly provision.  however, while i am by no means an expert in european city infrastructure, i think it is important to note that cities in the us are  young .  chicago, for instance, had to be basically rebuilt from the ground up after the fire in the 0s.  l. a.  was basically a small town until around 0.  london, paris, and the other european metropolises have existed for  centuries , layering infrastructure upon infrastructure upon infrastructure conceived in the middle ages or earlier.  it is hard for me to imagine there are utility line problems in the young us cities that the european ones have not also faced and managed to overcome.   #  that second part is absolutely essential to creating a free market.   #  i think it is very common for people to forget what a free market demands.  for a market to be free, there has to be choices available to the consumer  and  they have to be protected from coercion in the market.  that second part is absolutely essential to creating a free market.  the free in  free market  does not mean the market is free to do anything it wants.  it means the individuals in that market are free to act and make choices in the market.  therefore, free markets require regulation.  without it, companies will follow their instincts and slowly introduce coercion into any market.
to be clear, i am not opposed to net neutrality as in freedom and openness on the internet, but rather to net neutrality the regulatory regime being pushed by obama right now URL title ii is a far reaching regulatory leviathan that has been growing in complexity since the 0s URL and would give the us government far reaching powers in dictating how the internet is used see URL paywall, search google and click the first result URL with innovations like google fiber, municipal broadband URL and internet microsatellites URL  , it is obvious that internet providing innovations are being developed at an accelerating pace, and in a few years the mere thought of throttling customers  access to certain websites would be suicide to traditional isps hooray free market ! .  the only thing that could kill the emergence of smaller incoming isp competitors is an overbearing regulatory regime that costs a fortune to comply with.  in the past few years with cispa, pipa, sopa, and nsa surveillance, it has become abundantly clear that the us government abhors freedom and openness on the internet.  do you really think our leaders have suddenly changed their minds are acting virtuously ? of course not.  they are looking for the upper hand to control how the internet is used, and if you do not think they will attempt to use net neutrality measures as a backdoor for homeland security and copyright enforcement then you have not been paying attention.  i believe that the net neutrality issue will go away on its own, but that if we screw this up by giving the government regulatory powers we could destroy what makes the internet so great, permanently.  please somebody change my view because i seem to be the only tech savvy person on the internet who feels this way.  i even find myself disagreeing with the eff on this one.   #  in the past few years with cispa, pipa, sopa, and nsa surveillance, it has become abundantly clear that the us government abhors freedom and openness on the internet.   #  one of these things is not like the other.   # .  this is pure fantasy, outside of the few places where google fiber is actually happening.  in particular, municipal broadband has been successfully lobbied against, repeatedly, by local cable companies who do not want their governments competing with them.  looking at the current pace of google fiber, do you really think that this alone is going to be a huge factor, even in the next ten or twenty years ? and then what ? i trust google a hell of a lot more than i trust comcast, but any company that large with fingers in that many pies is going to have similar conflicts of interest.  the primary issue with comcast is the conflict of interest between their role as a company that already is a tv service and has their own streaming service , and their role as an isp who is supposed to deliver equal access to hbo go which they get a cut of and netflix which they do not .  well, google has a horse or two in that race, too what happens if google play movies suddenly work way better than netflix ? i do not think that is likely, but after getting burned so many times by our existing monopolistic isps, do we really want to give another isp monopolistic power ? because like /u/rotide said, cable company fuckery is not just something we are afraid of.  it is already happening.  it could get  much  worse, but it is  already  unacceptable.  one of these things is not like the other.  two of them, actually.  censorship and surveillance are related, but they are not the same thing.  it is entirely consistent for a government to be in favor of nsa surveillance without wanting censorship, throttling, and so on.  we could even speculate about motivations for supporting one and not the other.   #  i wanted to get that out of the way for this statement.   #  we do not have  free market  competition between service providers.  we allow local monopolies.  to put it simply, areas allow certain providers exclusive or near exclusive rights.  i wanted to get that out of the way for this statement.  we do not have competition nation wide and we are already seeing isps play with traffic, capping usage, not upgrading interconnection points, etc.  if the government does not step in to stop this behavior, who will ? who can ? if it were a full on free for all, i would nearly agree with you.  but there is  still  the potential for collusion between companies.   dude, do not lower your rates and we wo not !  .  the main point is that right now we are seeing problems.  this is not some future  what if .  the problems are here, now.  we need to solve them before the internet is entirely usurped by the content creating isps.  do i want the  government involved in my internet  ? no.  do i believe the  market  is offering a better alternative, hell no.   #  plus there is such a wide range of  in between  areas that have the same issues, so even if one argues nyc is an anomaly there are dozens of other major market areas with a nice range of density.   #  true, but high costs, difficult logistics, and problematic legacy infrastructure are problems that face every metropolis and high density area.  i do not think it is reasonable to for the isps to argue both ways; the country ca not be too dense to do it  and  to low density to do it.  plus there is such a wide range of  in between  areas that have the same issues, so even if one argues nyc is an anomaly there are dozens of other major market areas with a nice range of density.  basically, the density argument is one that sounds reasonable on the face of it esp.  if you just look at country figures as a whole , but does not hold much water if you look into it.   #  was basically a small town until around 0.  london, paris, and the other european metropolises have existed for  centuries , layering infrastructure upon infrastructure upon infrastructure conceived in the middle ages or earlier.   #  well yeah, i get that, that is why i included a nyc anomaly provision.  however, while i am by no means an expert in european city infrastructure, i think it is important to note that cities in the us are  young .  chicago, for instance, had to be basically rebuilt from the ground up after the fire in the 0s.  l. a.  was basically a small town until around 0.  london, paris, and the other european metropolises have existed for  centuries , layering infrastructure upon infrastructure upon infrastructure conceived in the middle ages or earlier.  it is hard for me to imagine there are utility line problems in the young us cities that the european ones have not also faced and managed to overcome.   #  that second part is absolutely essential to creating a free market.   #  i think it is very common for people to forget what a free market demands.  for a market to be free, there has to be choices available to the consumer  and  they have to be protected from coercion in the market.  that second part is absolutely essential to creating a free market.  the free in  free market  does not mean the market is free to do anything it wants.  it means the individuals in that market are free to act and make choices in the market.  therefore, free markets require regulation.  without it, companies will follow their instincts and slowly introduce coercion into any market.
about 0 years ago, many of the major clothing brands were using sweatshop labor in countries like china.  there were some standard arguments against this, like how it was inhumane to pay someone so little and make them work so many hours.  there were also some standard arguments in favor of this saying that the standard of living was lower in other countries and that they were actually getting paid more than anything else they could be doing.  anyway, fast forward 0 years.  we do not really have the same kind of controversy about sweatshops in china.  in fact, i feel that the amount of money that we have sent over there has given them the ability to industrialize.  they have enough money that they are able to refuse to perform sweatshop work.  their standards of living are high enough where it no longer makes sense to take a sweatshop job.  aka they are able to make more money doing something else.  it is no longer makes economical sense to put factories in china.  instead, i find that more clothes are coming from places like the philippines, and bangladesh, where i suspect people are willing to work for less money.  i expect that around 0 years from now, the philippines and bangladesh will be rich enough where they will turn down sweatshop jobs too.  the sweatshop work in china seems to have been replaced by technology shops, like producing iphones.  this is quite a nice upgrade compared to a sweatshop job, and would not be possible without first industrializing the country.  the new controversy nowadays seem to be about people being underpaid and overworked in iphone factories.  the characters are different, but the story sounds the same.  same arguments about inhumane treatment, same arguments about how this is in fact good for them.  i feel this type of bad press is detrimental to the development of a land.  i believe philippines / bangladesh will soon get their turn to say no to sweatshop jobs and follow china is path in upgrading to nicer technology jobs.  to stop these factories will simply deny them of the resources they need to raise their standard of living.  cmv !  #  to stop these factories will simply deny them of the resources they need to raise their standard of living.   #  when people talk about stopping sweatshops, they are not talking about closing down factories.   # when people talk about stopping sweatshops, they are not talking about closing down factories.  they are talking about improving conditions in those factories.  firstly, there is a distributional issue in how sweatshops pay their workers.  the argument is that, if we pay the bosses and middlemen less, we could pay the workers more without raising the cost of labor.  there is a lot of evidence of both legal and human rights abuses in sweatshops that relate specifically to wages.  sweatshop workers in southeast asia are usually poorly or uneducated people from rural areas, many of them illegal or semi legal immigrants from neighboring countries, who either have no legal knowledge or no legal standing in their place of work.  many workers are recruited through middlemen, who charge them $0 for the service, around a quarter of which goes towards covering legal and travel fees.  $0 in rural southeast asia could be twice the net worth of a whole family; most workers therefore take on debt, including interest, and must work for 0 0 years just to pay that debt off, even before they can start making a profit the numbers are very general because they depend heavily on region and type of worker .  workers who want to quit early face huge contract cancellation fees, and often cannot do so at all, because their bosses keep their passports.  female workers especially are paid much less than men, are far less protected by the law, and face sexual abuse, as well as the danger of getting trafficked for sex.  obviously, this situation betrays a huge surplus of cheap labor in these countries.  but, that is why we as consumers have a responsibility to intervene: since local governments are corrupt, disorganized, uncaring, or impotent, international intervention is needed to help these people almost 0 of the time.  if we want to protect the environment of third world countries because it affects all of us, should not we seek to maintain their human capital too ? president obama actually issued an executive order 0 years ago that states that companies that sell to the government cannot have forced labor sweatshops in their supply chains, even if that forced labor is outside of the jurisdiction of the united states.   #  the upgrade path depends a lot on that local ownership though.   #  so one argument against sweatshop labor and one which kind of differentiates china is that it hurts the development of locally owned businesses.  essentially, when a large amount of the business capital stock is owned and operated by foreign firms, those firms tend not to reinvest the returns from that capital locally, and also tend not to build the sort of stable local institutions that can grow into a more advanced manufacturing economy.  china has very strict rules about foreign ownership of manufacturing plants almost banning it.  that is a big part of why foxconn for example is apple is biggest supplier, as opposed to apple manufacturing in house like they used to in the 0s when they built in america.  the upgrade path depends a lot on that local ownership though.  foxconn can now advertise themselves around the world as the place to go to get high end electronics made.  but if the plants were apple owned and operated, that expansion would be much more limited and the profits from it funneled outside of china.  so it is not sufficient to say sweatshops are the path to development they can be, but there are other important factors as well.   #  people who are employed in sweatshops are there because there is no better job they can take.   # people who are employed in sweatshops are there because there is no better job they can take.  i imagine the people working there are the ones that the local business do not want to or cannot hire.  people is standards of living increase once they can save up money to start their own businesses and own property.  this can only happen if there is an influx of money.  there are a couple of ways money will move into a country, and setting up manufacturing is just one way.   #  i do not think hiring practices among locally owned firms or foreign owned firms are that different, except that locally owned firms might tend to be a little more involved with friends and family sort of stuff.   # people who are employed in sweatshops are there because there is no better job they can take.  i am actually talking about locally owned sweatshops versus foreign owned sweatshops.  having local firms is a big deal in terms of long term economic development.  so it matters who owns the sweatshops.  if they are directly operated by foreign firms, it is much less likely that the path to further industrialization will take place, since those firms do not have an interest in diversifying their footprint in that country, and generally do not look for local reinvestment opportunities in the same way local firms do.  it is a statement about firms not workers.  i do not think hiring practices among locally owned firms or foreign owned firms are that different, except that locally owned firms might tend to be a little more involved with friends and family sort of stuff.  this can only happen if there is an influx of money.  there are a couple of ways money will move into a country, and setting up manufacturing is just one way.  an influx of money is certainly good, but the real thing that developing economies need are firms.  foreign capital can help grow domestic firms, and i  do not want to cut it off, but purely financial flows are unstable, and if there is too much foreign financial investment relative to domestic firm investment, you can get stuff like the asian markets crash of 0.  firms stick around.   #  having local firms is a big deal in terms of long term economic development.   # having local firms is a big deal in terms of long term economic development.  so it matters who owns the sweatshops.  ok i see what you were saying now.  however, this is just the broken window fallacy.  if consumers were able to pay less for clothes, they just have more money to buy something else.  something else that consumers want will take the place of the local sweatshops which were lost.  yes, but you need that initial influx of money first.  someone in the developing country needs to have enough wealth to start a business.  and before that can happen, the country must be politically stable enough to protect property.  countries rich with excess and accessible natural resources can easily export their resources.  however, some countries have nothing to export other than their labor.  this is done via a foreign firm building a factory.  once money is able to flow into the country, some people will be able to accumulate it, and eventually start new local firms.
my understanding is that the basic idea behind anarchism is that productive property capital should not be owned by individuals, but should be held in common by the people who work on it through a co op or similar arrangement.  anarchists seem to believe that the workers will be inspired to create systems that are more efficient, more humane, and all around superior to those of capitalist businesses.  my question is, if you want to work at a collectively owned business, then what is stopping you from starting one ? there is no law against it.  true, capital does not come out of thin air, but raising money for such a venture is a far more realistic goal than overturning the entire socio political system.  there are already employee owned businesses, and while they have their advantages, they are not nearly as revolutionary as many anarchists seem to believe their co ops would be.  if they were more efficient, innovative, etc, they would out compete traditional businesses in the market.  in fact, you do not even need to be part of a commune to  own the means of production .  you just need to invest in the company you work at, and then you will get your share of the profits of capital.  most people are reluctant to do this, because they understand at some level that capitalists do not make money by doing nothing, they make money by taking risks.  many people do not want to share in the risks of their workplace, with good reason.  in the current system, we have the choice between two systems.  anarchism would force everyone into the system that the majority of people do not choose.  i do not see how this can be considered a good thing.  please cmv.   #  in the current system, we have the choice between two systems.   #  anarchism would force everyone into the system that the majority of people do not choose.   # anarchism would force everyone into the system that the majority of people do not choose.  i do not see how this can be considered a good thing.  do we really have the right to choose ? there is a problem in the logic that a person can simply  choose  the pervading ideological/economic structure that they live in.  i do not really see how people are not presently forced to live in a capitalist system the same way you are saying anarchism would force a system on everybody.  i think revolutionary change means a lot more than just opening a co op cheese shop in san francisco where you all live together on an urban farm and you are selling your cheese to the local pizza collective.  what philosophical variant of anarchism, exactly, were you thinking of ?  #  maybe they believe that businesses are very dependent on reputation, and that being a co op brings an air of leftist radicalism.   #  two economists were walking down the street.  they see what looks like a $0 bill lying on the ground near the sidewalk.  the first economist says  the efficient markets hypothesis is true.  if there had really been a twenty on the ground, someone would already have picked it up.   the second economist goes and picks up the piece of paper.  it is indeed a $0 bill.  the second economist says  the efficient markets hypothesis is indeed true.  and someone has picked it up.   you ca not say that just because something has not been found yet, it is not there.  in the current system we have may choices, each among many options.  somewhere among all those possibilities, there may be one that would be better if institutions were supportive of it than capitalism.  pure anarchism would not force anyone into anything.  that is what the word means.  anarcho syndicalism or anarcho communism comes in various flavors.  if there is a version that says all you have to do is start a co op and everything will be utopian glory, so therefore we should force everyone into co ops and i would not be surprised if there is , then yes, it is nonsense that is trivially refuted.  but utopian theories tend to be less readily falsifiable.  from what i have heard of them, anarchists do not seem to be clear on what would replace coercive authority.  but something would.  maybe it is pure woo, but they have some sort of verbiage there.  maybe the difference is that we would not have to tax ourselves to support the coercive apparatus of the state: then you would have to compare tax exempt adequately capitalized co ops where the workers are all exempt from income tax too, not just the firm itself with tax paying privately owned businesses, in order to refute it.  maybe they believe that businesses are very dependent on reputation, and that being a co op brings an air of leftist radicalism.  maybe they believe there is something ineffable about co ops that benefits other co ops, so that one co op by itself is about as viable as one telephone in a world with no others to call.  all that being said, owning shares in the company you work for is usually a lousy idea, as employees of enron discovered when they lost their jobs and their savings at the same time.  none of the reasons why anarcho communism will be different after the revolution are really all that convincing.  but if you want to refute them, you have to refute them, not just note that anarcho communism does not work before the revolution.  and by the way, it is somewhat hair splitting, but owners of capital do get money for doing nothing.  i have a few shares of stock that my father left me, and i have never done anything with it but i still get my dividends.  yes, the value of the stock is at risk.  and yes, risk bearing is a real factor of production.  but you do not have to  do  anything in order to own at risk assets.   #  it is possible to keep your assets as money out of sheer foolishness, but not likely.   #  downthread i said the real, i. e.  inflation adjusted return is money for doing nothing.  yes, if you keep cash under a mattress, you lose value.  sort of.  see below.  but that is not owning capital, in the economic sense.  it is just owning money.  here is the sort of: at some times in the past, for some people, hoarding money was the lowest loss way of transferring value from times when they had higher income to later times when they would have higher priority things to spend it on.  in today is world, though, people own money rather than financial assets that represent real capital so that they can carry out transactions with it.  if someone has a million dollars of money either cash or, more realistically, balances in accounts with interest lower than expected inflation sitting around for a year, it is almost certainly because they wanted to have the option of making large transactions on short notice.  options are valuable when purchased, even if they wind up not being exercised.  it is possible to keep your assets as money out of sheer foolishness, but not likely.  as for opportunity cost, it is real.  but it is not an action.  it is not an example of doing something.  money does not always have to be earned, by the person who has it.  sometimes it is inherited.  sometimes it is received as investment income and taxed at a lower rate than income classified as  earned  for tax purposes .  sometimes it is just a windfall.   #  you make a good case for why some of my initial arguments are inconclusive, though not that they are wrong.   #  you make a good case for why some of my initial arguments are inconclusive, though not that they are wrong.  you also remind me that anarchism is a diverse philosophy i do not really know a lot about.  however.    and by the way, it is somewhat hair splitting, but owners of capital do get money for doing nothing.  i have a few shares of stock that my father left me, and i have never done anything with it but i still get my dividends.  yes, the value of the stock is at risk.  and yes, risk bearing is a real factor of production.  but you do not have to do anything in order to own at risk assets.  if your father left you some of his salary, as he probably did, would you say laborers get money for doing nothing ? inheriting the stock just means your father took the risk instead of you, just as inheriting the wages means your father did the labor instead of you.   #  it just does not involve taking any further action, once the money is earned and the securities are purchased.   #  he saved from his earned income to buy the stock: he did stuff to earn the original purchase price.  its current value is still at risk now.  what i am talking about is the dividends, or more precisely, the real return both the equivalent of the real rate of interest on risk free assets and the risk premium.  having some assets, either at risk or not, is not  doing  anything.  it does produce value: capital and risk bearing are factors of production.  it just does not involve taking any further action, once the money is earned and the securities are purchased.
my understanding is that the basic idea behind anarchism is that productive property capital should not be owned by individuals, but should be held in common by the people who work on it through a co op or similar arrangement.  anarchists seem to believe that the workers will be inspired to create systems that are more efficient, more humane, and all around superior to those of capitalist businesses.  my question is, if you want to work at a collectively owned business, then what is stopping you from starting one ? there is no law against it.  true, capital does not come out of thin air, but raising money for such a venture is a far more realistic goal than overturning the entire socio political system.  there are already employee owned businesses, and while they have their advantages, they are not nearly as revolutionary as many anarchists seem to believe their co ops would be.  if they were more efficient, innovative, etc, they would out compete traditional businesses in the market.  in fact, you do not even need to be part of a commune to  own the means of production .  you just need to invest in the company you work at, and then you will get your share of the profits of capital.  most people are reluctant to do this, because they understand at some level that capitalists do not make money by doing nothing, they make money by taking risks.  many people do not want to share in the risks of their workplace, with good reason.  in the current system, we have the choice between two systems.  anarchism would force everyone into the system that the majority of people do not choose.  i do not see how this can be considered a good thing.  please cmv.   #  my understanding is that the basic idea behind anarchism is that productive property capital should not be owned by individuals, but should be held in common by the people who work on it through a co op or similar arrangement.   #  they often say this, but i think it is not really necessary to the theory.   # they often say this, but i think it is not really necessary to the theory.  only if you want to keep this horrible collective arrangement where 0 people work in one factory.  if you want to have a healthy individualist economy, like be a self employed farmer, this theory generally allows it, the only thing it does not allow is permanent property.  as long as you work your land, it is yours, but if you stop and rather rent it out or hire workers you lose it.  i do not agree with la though, i am just pointing it out that unlike corporate capitalism and communism, it is not necessarily collectivisting, does not necessarily say you need to a lot of people work together in one large business like a co op, it also allows you to live like a normal person self employed.   #  the first economist says  the efficient markets hypothesis is true.   #  two economists were walking down the street.  they see what looks like a $0 bill lying on the ground near the sidewalk.  the first economist says  the efficient markets hypothesis is true.  if there had really been a twenty on the ground, someone would already have picked it up.   the second economist goes and picks up the piece of paper.  it is indeed a $0 bill.  the second economist says  the efficient markets hypothesis is indeed true.  and someone has picked it up.   you ca not say that just because something has not been found yet, it is not there.  in the current system we have may choices, each among many options.  somewhere among all those possibilities, there may be one that would be better if institutions were supportive of it than capitalism.  pure anarchism would not force anyone into anything.  that is what the word means.  anarcho syndicalism or anarcho communism comes in various flavors.  if there is a version that says all you have to do is start a co op and everything will be utopian glory, so therefore we should force everyone into co ops and i would not be surprised if there is , then yes, it is nonsense that is trivially refuted.  but utopian theories tend to be less readily falsifiable.  from what i have heard of them, anarchists do not seem to be clear on what would replace coercive authority.  but something would.  maybe it is pure woo, but they have some sort of verbiage there.  maybe the difference is that we would not have to tax ourselves to support the coercive apparatus of the state: then you would have to compare tax exempt adequately capitalized co ops where the workers are all exempt from income tax too, not just the firm itself with tax paying privately owned businesses, in order to refute it.  maybe they believe that businesses are very dependent on reputation, and that being a co op brings an air of leftist radicalism.  maybe they believe there is something ineffable about co ops that benefits other co ops, so that one co op by itself is about as viable as one telephone in a world with no others to call.  all that being said, owning shares in the company you work for is usually a lousy idea, as employees of enron discovered when they lost their jobs and their savings at the same time.  none of the reasons why anarcho communism will be different after the revolution are really all that convincing.  but if you want to refute them, you have to refute them, not just note that anarcho communism does not work before the revolution.  and by the way, it is somewhat hair splitting, but owners of capital do get money for doing nothing.  i have a few shares of stock that my father left me, and i have never done anything with it but i still get my dividends.  yes, the value of the stock is at risk.  and yes, risk bearing is a real factor of production.  but you do not have to  do  anything in order to own at risk assets.   #  yes, if you keep cash under a mattress, you lose value.   #  downthread i said the real, i. e.  inflation adjusted return is money for doing nothing.  yes, if you keep cash under a mattress, you lose value.  sort of.  see below.  but that is not owning capital, in the economic sense.  it is just owning money.  here is the sort of: at some times in the past, for some people, hoarding money was the lowest loss way of transferring value from times when they had higher income to later times when they would have higher priority things to spend it on.  in today is world, though, people own money rather than financial assets that represent real capital so that they can carry out transactions with it.  if someone has a million dollars of money either cash or, more realistically, balances in accounts with interest lower than expected inflation sitting around for a year, it is almost certainly because they wanted to have the option of making large transactions on short notice.  options are valuable when purchased, even if they wind up not being exercised.  it is possible to keep your assets as money out of sheer foolishness, but not likely.  as for opportunity cost, it is real.  but it is not an action.  it is not an example of doing something.  money does not always have to be earned, by the person who has it.  sometimes it is inherited.  sometimes it is received as investment income and taxed at a lower rate than income classified as  earned  for tax purposes .  sometimes it is just a windfall.   #  inheriting the stock just means your father took the risk instead of you, just as inheriting the wages means your father did the labor instead of you.   #  you make a good case for why some of my initial arguments are inconclusive, though not that they are wrong.  you also remind me that anarchism is a diverse philosophy i do not really know a lot about.  however.    and by the way, it is somewhat hair splitting, but owners of capital do get money for doing nothing.  i have a few shares of stock that my father left me, and i have never done anything with it but i still get my dividends.  yes, the value of the stock is at risk.  and yes, risk bearing is a real factor of production.  but you do not have to do anything in order to own at risk assets.  if your father left you some of his salary, as he probably did, would you say laborers get money for doing nothing ? inheriting the stock just means your father took the risk instead of you, just as inheriting the wages means your father did the labor instead of you.   #  what i am talking about is the dividends, or more precisely, the real return both the equivalent of the real rate of interest on risk free assets and the risk premium.   #  he saved from his earned income to buy the stock: he did stuff to earn the original purchase price.  its current value is still at risk now.  what i am talking about is the dividends, or more precisely, the real return both the equivalent of the real rate of interest on risk free assets and the risk premium.  having some assets, either at risk or not, is not  doing  anything.  it does produce value: capital and risk bearing are factors of production.  it just does not involve taking any further action, once the money is earned and the securities are purchased.
i am a sophomore in college, biochemistry, if it matters you will see why i do not think it does .  i have my heart dead set on being fabulously wealthy as soon as possible.  i will probably come of as a completely pompous idiot, but i would just like to say i do not ever really talk about this with anyone i know, because i know how ridiculous it sounds.  so i want to graduate college, get my entry level job and plan on just climbing flying up the corporate ladder to my eventual position as chief something or other where i make a million or more a year. sounds like i do not have my priorities straight right ? that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  ever since i was young i have been an  achiever .  my mother tells me of when i was six and would read the dictionary before bed some nights.  or how i would never be quite interested enough in the fact that the wood floated on water and the metal sank, but rather why the wood was different from the metal in the first place.  small things like that.  and then i went through high school, i did not get a 0 because i am lazy but hey, it is who you know, not what you know right ? but i was always thinking of where i would go to college that would set me up for the most successful career.  and then i realized it didnt matter so much where i went but rather that i went at all.  so here i am, enjoying college, but every day i think of which professor can i talk to that went to the best phd program and can get me in three years from now.  or which internship would look the best on a resume.  and how quickly i can become a millionaire after i graduate.   money is not everything , right ? well of course i do not argue with that.  i just want a lot of it.  i think being a billionaire would bring me the greatest satisfaction.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  i do not see any reason why i should not want this.  but i think about it so much that i figured i should at least write it down, and get some opinions on it.  i always think, bill gates or warren buffet probably did not think at 0  i want to be the richest man in the world , and they got there.  so if know i want it, why should not i get it ?  #  i think being a billionaire would bring me the greatest satisfaction.   #  not unless you put a lot of importance on simply having the label  billionaire .   # not unless you put a lot of importance on simply having the label  billionaire .  URL scientific evidence that more money does not make people happier jack ma, the richest man in china, says that being that rich is very stressful.  let is assume he is a better authority on being extremely rich than either you or i: URL so, although this is a small point, i think merely being a multi millionaire is probably more optimal.  are you going to get an mba ? make friends with a lot of business people ? do you know how corporate ladders are climbed ? it is not just by being good at biochemistry.  it is also by developing the right resume, and more importantly, the right reputation and relationships.  also, you assume that you will be very satisfied when you have lots of money.  because you may have to trade things that are also valuable to you to get this large sum of money.  like relationships, friendships, morals, ethics, your youth.  familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity cost before you say there is not any reason to pursue wealth to the exclusion of other things.   #  the highest level social skills will get you with no work ethic is, say, manager of a kohls.   #  there are so many things to point out.  for one, it takes an absolutely  extraordinary  amount of work to become a billionaire, some would say insane.  if you could not even get a 0 in high school because of laziness do you honestly think you will be able to accomplish the almost inhuman amount of work you would have to do to to  climb the corporate ladder ?   social skills and  who you know  matter, of course.  but you quite simply ca not network your way to a c level position, especially in a company that would make you a billionaire.  the highest level social skills will get you with no work ethic is, say, manager of a kohls.  unless you are incredibly hard working and efficient, you really ca not advance much farther than that.  also, the concept of a  corporate ladder  is a myth.  it is not like there is some system set up for entry level workers to be able to climb their way up and take the multimillion dollar salaries from the established guys.  in a way it is the opposite.  people with money and power do not like to give it up easily, and there are only so many open positions they can fill with people they like.  finally although this is only brushing the surface of the objections i have , you do not really become a young billionaire unless you are an inventor or ground up entrepreneur.  the only conceivable way you could do that is by innovating in something pertaining to biochem that would be profitable enough to not be suppressed by the current cs in the pharmaceutical industry, and that does not seem to be your plan.  therefore if you did somehow manage to become a billionaire odds are you would be middle aged at the youngest.  if you become a billionaire, it assumes you have done the work and made the sacrifices necessary to do so, which means you have given up all the treasures of youth so that you can be a 0 year old with a lot of money and stress.   #  are all fabulously wealthy is because they own large parts of companies they founded and made the share price of those companies very high.   # that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  this is  not  how you become a multi millionaire.  you become a multi millionaire/billionaire by  owning  something.  the reason bill gates, jack ma, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg, etc.  are all fabulously wealthy is because they own large parts of companies they founded and made the share price of those companies very high.  unless you plan to do some serious research into investing, business start ups, finance, retirement savings, etc.  there is no way you can even come close to the fabulously wealthy group.  at most you will work your way up to some high level management position and if you are lucky be well off enough that money is not a worry, assuming your lack of financial knowledge does not lead you to spend it all without investing.  it seems like you have no idea how people actually get extremely rich in a capitalist economy so that is why i would not focus on being extremely rich if i were you.   #  you do not want to be the guy at the bar who keeps on talking about the  one that got away  or the  great idea that somehow never worked.    #  your plan does not really matter.  lots of people have plans.  they have plans. they do everything on their plan, and something fall through.  this is not the masses shiting on your dream just out of spite.  this is what happens.  if i take 0 people like you, only a small fraction are going to be where they want to be.  i mean wanting all those things is great.  basing your level of happiness on those things is not.  you do not want to be the guy at the bar who keeps on talking about the  one that got away  or the  great idea that somehow never worked.   what is your plan when you life goals regress towards the mean because that it probably what is going to happen.  is your plan for you life just based on the concept of getting rich ? could you be in a middle class job and still be happy ? how much do you want to risk on what is a long shot ? do you have a fall back plan that is not you living in the memories of what might have been ?  #  the reason i ask is because you somewhat had an answer to this before.   #  since you made an edit, i would like to ask you the question, why do you want to make 0k a year or 0 million a year even ? obviously more money is nice, but why is it some greater goal of yours ? the reason i ask is because you somewhat had an answer to this before.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  making 0k 0 million salary, you would not be able to do the things you just described.  so what is it about being moderately rich that you think it should be priority number 0 for you ?
i am a sophomore in college, biochemistry, if it matters you will see why i do not think it does .  i have my heart dead set on being fabulously wealthy as soon as possible.  i will probably come of as a completely pompous idiot, but i would just like to say i do not ever really talk about this with anyone i know, because i know how ridiculous it sounds.  so i want to graduate college, get my entry level job and plan on just climbing flying up the corporate ladder to my eventual position as chief something or other where i make a million or more a year. sounds like i do not have my priorities straight right ? that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  ever since i was young i have been an  achiever .  my mother tells me of when i was six and would read the dictionary before bed some nights.  or how i would never be quite interested enough in the fact that the wood floated on water and the metal sank, but rather why the wood was different from the metal in the first place.  small things like that.  and then i went through high school, i did not get a 0 because i am lazy but hey, it is who you know, not what you know right ? but i was always thinking of where i would go to college that would set me up for the most successful career.  and then i realized it didnt matter so much where i went but rather that i went at all.  so here i am, enjoying college, but every day i think of which professor can i talk to that went to the best phd program and can get me in three years from now.  or which internship would look the best on a resume.  and how quickly i can become a millionaire after i graduate.   money is not everything , right ? well of course i do not argue with that.  i just want a lot of it.  i think being a billionaire would bring me the greatest satisfaction.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  i do not see any reason why i should not want this.  but i think about it so much that i figured i should at least write it down, and get some opinions on it.  i always think, bill gates or warren buffet probably did not think at 0  i want to be the richest man in the world , and they got there.  so if know i want it, why should not i get it ?  #  i do not see any reason why i should not want this.   #  because you may have to trade things that are also valuable to you to get this large sum of money.   # not unless you put a lot of importance on simply having the label  billionaire .  URL scientific evidence that more money does not make people happier jack ma, the richest man in china, says that being that rich is very stressful.  let is assume he is a better authority on being extremely rich than either you or i: URL so, although this is a small point, i think merely being a multi millionaire is probably more optimal.  are you going to get an mba ? make friends with a lot of business people ? do you know how corporate ladders are climbed ? it is not just by being good at biochemistry.  it is also by developing the right resume, and more importantly, the right reputation and relationships.  also, you assume that you will be very satisfied when you have lots of money.  because you may have to trade things that are also valuable to you to get this large sum of money.  like relationships, friendships, morals, ethics, your youth.  familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity cost before you say there is not any reason to pursue wealth to the exclusion of other things.   #  it is not like there is some system set up for entry level workers to be able to climb their way up and take the multimillion dollar salaries from the established guys.   #  there are so many things to point out.  for one, it takes an absolutely  extraordinary  amount of work to become a billionaire, some would say insane.  if you could not even get a 0 in high school because of laziness do you honestly think you will be able to accomplish the almost inhuman amount of work you would have to do to to  climb the corporate ladder ?   social skills and  who you know  matter, of course.  but you quite simply ca not network your way to a c level position, especially in a company that would make you a billionaire.  the highest level social skills will get you with no work ethic is, say, manager of a kohls.  unless you are incredibly hard working and efficient, you really ca not advance much farther than that.  also, the concept of a  corporate ladder  is a myth.  it is not like there is some system set up for entry level workers to be able to climb their way up and take the multimillion dollar salaries from the established guys.  in a way it is the opposite.  people with money and power do not like to give it up easily, and there are only so many open positions they can fill with people they like.  finally although this is only brushing the surface of the objections i have , you do not really become a young billionaire unless you are an inventor or ground up entrepreneur.  the only conceivable way you could do that is by innovating in something pertaining to biochem that would be profitable enough to not be suppressed by the current cs in the pharmaceutical industry, and that does not seem to be your plan.  therefore if you did somehow manage to become a billionaire odds are you would be middle aged at the youngest.  if you become a billionaire, it assumes you have done the work and made the sacrifices necessary to do so, which means you have given up all the treasures of youth so that you can be a 0 year old with a lot of money and stress.   #  unless you plan to do some serious research into investing, business start ups, finance, retirement savings, etc.   # that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  this is  not  how you become a multi millionaire.  you become a multi millionaire/billionaire by  owning  something.  the reason bill gates, jack ma, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg, etc.  are all fabulously wealthy is because they own large parts of companies they founded and made the share price of those companies very high.  unless you plan to do some serious research into investing, business start ups, finance, retirement savings, etc.  there is no way you can even come close to the fabulously wealthy group.  at most you will work your way up to some high level management position and if you are lucky be well off enough that money is not a worry, assuming your lack of financial knowledge does not lead you to spend it all without investing.  it seems like you have no idea how people actually get extremely rich in a capitalist economy so that is why i would not focus on being extremely rich if i were you.   #  you do not want to be the guy at the bar who keeps on talking about the  one that got away  or the  great idea that somehow never worked.    #  your plan does not really matter.  lots of people have plans.  they have plans. they do everything on their plan, and something fall through.  this is not the masses shiting on your dream just out of spite.  this is what happens.  if i take 0 people like you, only a small fraction are going to be where they want to be.  i mean wanting all those things is great.  basing your level of happiness on those things is not.  you do not want to be the guy at the bar who keeps on talking about the  one that got away  or the  great idea that somehow never worked.   what is your plan when you life goals regress towards the mean because that it probably what is going to happen.  is your plan for you life just based on the concept of getting rich ? could you be in a middle class job and still be happy ? how much do you want to risk on what is a long shot ? do you have a fall back plan that is not you living in the memories of what might have been ?  #  obviously more money is nice, but why is it some greater goal of yours ?  #  since you made an edit, i would like to ask you the question, why do you want to make 0k a year or 0 million a year even ? obviously more money is nice, but why is it some greater goal of yours ? the reason i ask is because you somewhat had an answer to this before.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  making 0k 0 million salary, you would not be able to do the things you just described.  so what is it about being moderately rich that you think it should be priority number 0 for you ?
i am a sophomore in college, biochemistry, if it matters you will see why i do not think it does .  i have my heart dead set on being fabulously wealthy as soon as possible.  i will probably come of as a completely pompous idiot, but i would just like to say i do not ever really talk about this with anyone i know, because i know how ridiculous it sounds.  so i want to graduate college, get my entry level job and plan on just climbing flying up the corporate ladder to my eventual position as chief something or other where i make a million or more a year. sounds like i do not have my priorities straight right ? that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  ever since i was young i have been an  achiever .  my mother tells me of when i was six and would read the dictionary before bed some nights.  or how i would never be quite interested enough in the fact that the wood floated on water and the metal sank, but rather why the wood was different from the metal in the first place.  small things like that.  and then i went through high school, i did not get a 0 because i am lazy but hey, it is who you know, not what you know right ? but i was always thinking of where i would go to college that would set me up for the most successful career.  and then i realized it didnt matter so much where i went but rather that i went at all.  so here i am, enjoying college, but every day i think of which professor can i talk to that went to the best phd program and can get me in three years from now.  or which internship would look the best on a resume.  and how quickly i can become a millionaire after i graduate.   money is not everything , right ? well of course i do not argue with that.  i just want a lot of it.  i think being a billionaire would bring me the greatest satisfaction.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  i do not see any reason why i should not want this.  but i think about it so much that i figured i should at least write it down, and get some opinions on it.  i always think, bill gates or warren buffet probably did not think at 0  i want to be the richest man in the world , and they got there.  so if know i want it, why should not i get it ?  #  i think being a billionaire would bring me the greatest satisfaction.   #  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.   #  since you made an edit, i would like to ask you the question, why do you want to make 0k a year or 0 million a year even ? obviously more money is nice, but why is it some greater goal of yours ? the reason i ask is because you somewhat had an answer to this before.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  making 0k 0 million salary, you would not be able to do the things you just described.  so what is it about being moderately rich that you think it should be priority number 0 for you ?  #  it is not like there is some system set up for entry level workers to be able to climb their way up and take the multimillion dollar salaries from the established guys.   #  there are so many things to point out.  for one, it takes an absolutely  extraordinary  amount of work to become a billionaire, some would say insane.  if you could not even get a 0 in high school because of laziness do you honestly think you will be able to accomplish the almost inhuman amount of work you would have to do to to  climb the corporate ladder ?   social skills and  who you know  matter, of course.  but you quite simply ca not network your way to a c level position, especially in a company that would make you a billionaire.  the highest level social skills will get you with no work ethic is, say, manager of a kohls.  unless you are incredibly hard working and efficient, you really ca not advance much farther than that.  also, the concept of a  corporate ladder  is a myth.  it is not like there is some system set up for entry level workers to be able to climb their way up and take the multimillion dollar salaries from the established guys.  in a way it is the opposite.  people with money and power do not like to give it up easily, and there are only so many open positions they can fill with people they like.  finally although this is only brushing the surface of the objections i have , you do not really become a young billionaire unless you are an inventor or ground up entrepreneur.  the only conceivable way you could do that is by innovating in something pertaining to biochem that would be profitable enough to not be suppressed by the current cs in the pharmaceutical industry, and that does not seem to be your plan.  therefore if you did somehow manage to become a billionaire odds are you would be middle aged at the youngest.  if you become a billionaire, it assumes you have done the work and made the sacrifices necessary to do so, which means you have given up all the treasures of youth so that you can be a 0 year old with a lot of money and stress.   #  it is also by developing the right resume, and more importantly, the right reputation and relationships.   # not unless you put a lot of importance on simply having the label  billionaire .  URL scientific evidence that more money does not make people happier jack ma, the richest man in china, says that being that rich is very stressful.  let is assume he is a better authority on being extremely rich than either you or i: URL so, although this is a small point, i think merely being a multi millionaire is probably more optimal.  are you going to get an mba ? make friends with a lot of business people ? do you know how corporate ladders are climbed ? it is not just by being good at biochemistry.  it is also by developing the right resume, and more importantly, the right reputation and relationships.  also, you assume that you will be very satisfied when you have lots of money.  because you may have to trade things that are also valuable to you to get this large sum of money.  like relationships, friendships, morals, ethics, your youth.  familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity cost before you say there is not any reason to pursue wealth to the exclusion of other things.   #  there is no way you can even come close to the fabulously wealthy group.   # that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  this is  not  how you become a multi millionaire.  you become a multi millionaire/billionaire by  owning  something.  the reason bill gates, jack ma, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg, etc.  are all fabulously wealthy is because they own large parts of companies they founded and made the share price of those companies very high.  unless you plan to do some serious research into investing, business start ups, finance, retirement savings, etc.  there is no way you can even come close to the fabulously wealthy group.  at most you will work your way up to some high level management position and if you are lucky be well off enough that money is not a worry, assuming your lack of financial knowledge does not lead you to spend it all without investing.  it seems like you have no idea how people actually get extremely rich in a capitalist economy so that is why i would not focus on being extremely rich if i were you.   #  if i take 0 people like you, only a small fraction are going to be where they want to be.   #  your plan does not really matter.  lots of people have plans.  they have plans. they do everything on their plan, and something fall through.  this is not the masses shiting on your dream just out of spite.  this is what happens.  if i take 0 people like you, only a small fraction are going to be where they want to be.  i mean wanting all those things is great.  basing your level of happiness on those things is not.  you do not want to be the guy at the bar who keeps on talking about the  one that got away  or the  great idea that somehow never worked.   what is your plan when you life goals regress towards the mean because that it probably what is going to happen.  is your plan for you life just based on the concept of getting rich ? could you be in a middle class job and still be happy ? how much do you want to risk on what is a long shot ? do you have a fall back plan that is not you living in the memories of what might have been ?
i am a sophomore in college, biochemistry, if it matters you will see why i do not think it does .  i have my heart dead set on being fabulously wealthy as soon as possible.  i will probably come of as a completely pompous idiot, but i would just like to say i do not ever really talk about this with anyone i know, because i know how ridiculous it sounds.  so i want to graduate college, get my entry level job and plan on just climbing flying up the corporate ladder to my eventual position as chief something or other where i make a million or more a year. sounds like i do not have my priorities straight right ? that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  ever since i was young i have been an  achiever .  my mother tells me of when i was six and would read the dictionary before bed some nights.  or how i would never be quite interested enough in the fact that the wood floated on water and the metal sank, but rather why the wood was different from the metal in the first place.  small things like that.  and then i went through high school, i did not get a 0 because i am lazy but hey, it is who you know, not what you know right ? but i was always thinking of where i would go to college that would set me up for the most successful career.  and then i realized it didnt matter so much where i went but rather that i went at all.  so here i am, enjoying college, but every day i think of which professor can i talk to that went to the best phd program and can get me in three years from now.  or which internship would look the best on a resume.  and how quickly i can become a millionaire after i graduate.   money is not everything , right ? well of course i do not argue with that.  i just want a lot of it.  i think being a billionaire would bring me the greatest satisfaction.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  i do not see any reason why i should not want this.  but i think about it so much that i figured i should at least write it down, and get some opinions on it.  i always think, bill gates or warren buffet probably did not think at 0  i want to be the richest man in the world , and they got there.  so if know i want it, why should not i get it ?  #  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.   #  if you are well known and wealthy, it comes with a host of other problems.   # also, life experience will change you and priorities.  that being said   so i want to graduate college, get my entry level job and plan on just climbing flying up the corporate ladder to my eventual position as chief something or other where i make a million or more a year.  that sounds like the actual people, projects and work along the way are irrelevant to you.  if you really feel this way, you should try counseling a bit to rule out basic social dysfunction illness.  if you are clear of that, then you should pursue it.  if you do not get that checked, it can bite you in the ass a decade down the line, probably before you made your goal.  you need to understand that if you really disregard people and stuff most other people care about life, family, tradition , and they discover you are this way, they will shut you out really fast.  and if they shut you out in a corporate environment, that is basically a death sentence.  if you are well known and wealthy, it comes with a host of other problems.  normal people will either respect or dispise you, but the real problem is that you can not interact with them in a meaningful way.  your potential group of people who you can interact normally with will shrink drastically the further up you are.  this will limit your ability to find friends or a spouse.  to be honest, there is not, as long as you are okay with the fact that there will be consequences.  your life would be different, but not necessarily worse or better than now.  if you really want it and are mentally healthy and are clear on the consequences .  by all means, go for it ! best case, your drive makes us all better off with the service and inventions you will contribute along your way to your goal.   #  but you quite simply ca not network your way to a c level position, especially in a company that would make you a billionaire.   #  there are so many things to point out.  for one, it takes an absolutely  extraordinary  amount of work to become a billionaire, some would say insane.  if you could not even get a 0 in high school because of laziness do you honestly think you will be able to accomplish the almost inhuman amount of work you would have to do to to  climb the corporate ladder ?   social skills and  who you know  matter, of course.  but you quite simply ca not network your way to a c level position, especially in a company that would make you a billionaire.  the highest level social skills will get you with no work ethic is, say, manager of a kohls.  unless you are incredibly hard working and efficient, you really ca not advance much farther than that.  also, the concept of a  corporate ladder  is a myth.  it is not like there is some system set up for entry level workers to be able to climb their way up and take the multimillion dollar salaries from the established guys.  in a way it is the opposite.  people with money and power do not like to give it up easily, and there are only so many open positions they can fill with people they like.  finally although this is only brushing the surface of the objections i have , you do not really become a young billionaire unless you are an inventor or ground up entrepreneur.  the only conceivable way you could do that is by innovating in something pertaining to biochem that would be profitable enough to not be suppressed by the current cs in the pharmaceutical industry, and that does not seem to be your plan.  therefore if you did somehow manage to become a billionaire odds are you would be middle aged at the youngest.  if you become a billionaire, it assumes you have done the work and made the sacrifices necessary to do so, which means you have given up all the treasures of youth so that you can be a 0 year old with a lot of money and stress.   #  because you may have to trade things that are also valuable to you to get this large sum of money.   # not unless you put a lot of importance on simply having the label  billionaire .  URL scientific evidence that more money does not make people happier jack ma, the richest man in china, says that being that rich is very stressful.  let is assume he is a better authority on being extremely rich than either you or i: URL so, although this is a small point, i think merely being a multi millionaire is probably more optimal.  are you going to get an mba ? make friends with a lot of business people ? do you know how corporate ladders are climbed ? it is not just by being good at biochemistry.  it is also by developing the right resume, and more importantly, the right reputation and relationships.  also, you assume that you will be very satisfied when you have lots of money.  because you may have to trade things that are also valuable to you to get this large sum of money.  like relationships, friendships, morals, ethics, your youth.  familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity cost before you say there is not any reason to pursue wealth to the exclusion of other things.   #  unless you plan to do some serious research into investing, business start ups, finance, retirement savings, etc.   # that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  this is  not  how you become a multi millionaire.  you become a multi millionaire/billionaire by  owning  something.  the reason bill gates, jack ma, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg, etc.  are all fabulously wealthy is because they own large parts of companies they founded and made the share price of those companies very high.  unless you plan to do some serious research into investing, business start ups, finance, retirement savings, etc.  there is no way you can even come close to the fabulously wealthy group.  at most you will work your way up to some high level management position and if you are lucky be well off enough that money is not a worry, assuming your lack of financial knowledge does not lead you to spend it all without investing.  it seems like you have no idea how people actually get extremely rich in a capitalist economy so that is why i would not focus on being extremely rich if i were you.   #  you do not want to be the guy at the bar who keeps on talking about the  one that got away  or the  great idea that somehow never worked.    #  your plan does not really matter.  lots of people have plans.  they have plans. they do everything on their plan, and something fall through.  this is not the masses shiting on your dream just out of spite.  this is what happens.  if i take 0 people like you, only a small fraction are going to be where they want to be.  i mean wanting all those things is great.  basing your level of happiness on those things is not.  you do not want to be the guy at the bar who keeps on talking about the  one that got away  or the  great idea that somehow never worked.   what is your plan when you life goals regress towards the mean because that it probably what is going to happen.  is your plan for you life just based on the concept of getting rich ? could you be in a middle class job and still be happy ? how much do you want to risk on what is a long shot ? do you have a fall back plan that is not you living in the memories of what might have been ?
i am a sophomore in college, biochemistry, if it matters you will see why i do not think it does .  i have my heart dead set on being fabulously wealthy as soon as possible.  i will probably come of as a completely pompous idiot, but i would just like to say i do not ever really talk about this with anyone i know, because i know how ridiculous it sounds.  so i want to graduate college, get my entry level job and plan on just climbing flying up the corporate ladder to my eventual position as chief something or other where i make a million or more a year. sounds like i do not have my priorities straight right ? that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  ever since i was young i have been an  achiever .  my mother tells me of when i was six and would read the dictionary before bed some nights.  or how i would never be quite interested enough in the fact that the wood floated on water and the metal sank, but rather why the wood was different from the metal in the first place.  small things like that.  and then i went through high school, i did not get a 0 because i am lazy but hey, it is who you know, not what you know right ? but i was always thinking of where i would go to college that would set me up for the most successful career.  and then i realized it didnt matter so much where i went but rather that i went at all.  so here i am, enjoying college, but every day i think of which professor can i talk to that went to the best phd program and can get me in three years from now.  or which internship would look the best on a resume.  and how quickly i can become a millionaire after i graduate.   money is not everything , right ? well of course i do not argue with that.  i just want a lot of it.  i think being a billionaire would bring me the greatest satisfaction.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  i do not see any reason why i should not want this.  but i think about it so much that i figured i should at least write it down, and get some opinions on it.  i always think, bill gates or warren buffet probably did not think at 0  i want to be the richest man in the world , and they got there.  so if know i want it, why should not i get it ?  #  i do not see any reason why i should not want this.   #  to be honest, there is not, as long as you are okay with the fact that there will be consequences.   # also, life experience will change you and priorities.  that being said   so i want to graduate college, get my entry level job and plan on just climbing flying up the corporate ladder to my eventual position as chief something or other where i make a million or more a year.  that sounds like the actual people, projects and work along the way are irrelevant to you.  if you really feel this way, you should try counseling a bit to rule out basic social dysfunction illness.  if you are clear of that, then you should pursue it.  if you do not get that checked, it can bite you in the ass a decade down the line, probably before you made your goal.  you need to understand that if you really disregard people and stuff most other people care about life, family, tradition , and they discover you are this way, they will shut you out really fast.  and if they shut you out in a corporate environment, that is basically a death sentence.  if you are well known and wealthy, it comes with a host of other problems.  normal people will either respect or dispise you, but the real problem is that you can not interact with them in a meaningful way.  your potential group of people who you can interact normally with will shrink drastically the further up you are.  this will limit your ability to find friends or a spouse.  to be honest, there is not, as long as you are okay with the fact that there will be consequences.  your life would be different, but not necessarily worse or better than now.  if you really want it and are mentally healthy and are clear on the consequences .  by all means, go for it ! best case, your drive makes us all better off with the service and inventions you will contribute along your way to your goal.   #  finally although this is only brushing the surface of the objections i have , you do not really become a young billionaire unless you are an inventor or ground up entrepreneur.   #  there are so many things to point out.  for one, it takes an absolutely  extraordinary  amount of work to become a billionaire, some would say insane.  if you could not even get a 0 in high school because of laziness do you honestly think you will be able to accomplish the almost inhuman amount of work you would have to do to to  climb the corporate ladder ?   social skills and  who you know  matter, of course.  but you quite simply ca not network your way to a c level position, especially in a company that would make you a billionaire.  the highest level social skills will get you with no work ethic is, say, manager of a kohls.  unless you are incredibly hard working and efficient, you really ca not advance much farther than that.  also, the concept of a  corporate ladder  is a myth.  it is not like there is some system set up for entry level workers to be able to climb their way up and take the multimillion dollar salaries from the established guys.  in a way it is the opposite.  people with money and power do not like to give it up easily, and there are only so many open positions they can fill with people they like.  finally although this is only brushing the surface of the objections i have , you do not really become a young billionaire unless you are an inventor or ground up entrepreneur.  the only conceivable way you could do that is by innovating in something pertaining to biochem that would be profitable enough to not be suppressed by the current cs in the pharmaceutical industry, and that does not seem to be your plan.  therefore if you did somehow manage to become a billionaire odds are you would be middle aged at the youngest.  if you become a billionaire, it assumes you have done the work and made the sacrifices necessary to do so, which means you have given up all the treasures of youth so that you can be a 0 year old with a lot of money and stress.   #  because you may have to trade things that are also valuable to you to get this large sum of money.   # not unless you put a lot of importance on simply having the label  billionaire .  URL scientific evidence that more money does not make people happier jack ma, the richest man in china, says that being that rich is very stressful.  let is assume he is a better authority on being extremely rich than either you or i: URL so, although this is a small point, i think merely being a multi millionaire is probably more optimal.  are you going to get an mba ? make friends with a lot of business people ? do you know how corporate ladders are climbed ? it is not just by being good at biochemistry.  it is also by developing the right resume, and more importantly, the right reputation and relationships.  also, you assume that you will be very satisfied when you have lots of money.  because you may have to trade things that are also valuable to you to get this large sum of money.  like relationships, friendships, morals, ethics, your youth.  familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity cost before you say there is not any reason to pursue wealth to the exclusion of other things.   #  there is no way you can even come close to the fabulously wealthy group.   # that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  this is  not  how you become a multi millionaire.  you become a multi millionaire/billionaire by  owning  something.  the reason bill gates, jack ma, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg, etc.  are all fabulously wealthy is because they own large parts of companies they founded and made the share price of those companies very high.  unless you plan to do some serious research into investing, business start ups, finance, retirement savings, etc.  there is no way you can even come close to the fabulously wealthy group.  at most you will work your way up to some high level management position and if you are lucky be well off enough that money is not a worry, assuming your lack of financial knowledge does not lead you to spend it all without investing.  it seems like you have no idea how people actually get extremely rich in a capitalist economy so that is why i would not focus on being extremely rich if i were you.   #  could you be in a middle class job and still be happy ?  #  your plan does not really matter.  lots of people have plans.  they have plans. they do everything on their plan, and something fall through.  this is not the masses shiting on your dream just out of spite.  this is what happens.  if i take 0 people like you, only a small fraction are going to be where they want to be.  i mean wanting all those things is great.  basing your level of happiness on those things is not.  you do not want to be the guy at the bar who keeps on talking about the  one that got away  or the  great idea that somehow never worked.   what is your plan when you life goals regress towards the mean because that it probably what is going to happen.  is your plan for you life just based on the concept of getting rich ? could you be in a middle class job and still be happy ? how much do you want to risk on what is a long shot ? do you have a fall back plan that is not you living in the memories of what might have been ?
i am a sophomore in college, biochemistry, if it matters you will see why i do not think it does .  i have my heart dead set on being fabulously wealthy as soon as possible.  i will probably come of as a completely pompous idiot, but i would just like to say i do not ever really talk about this with anyone i know, because i know how ridiculous it sounds.  so i want to graduate college, get my entry level job and plan on just climbing flying up the corporate ladder to my eventual position as chief something or other where i make a million or more a year. sounds like i do not have my priorities straight right ? that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  ever since i was young i have been an  achiever .  my mother tells me of when i was six and would read the dictionary before bed some nights.  or how i would never be quite interested enough in the fact that the wood floated on water and the metal sank, but rather why the wood was different from the metal in the first place.  small things like that.  and then i went through high school, i did not get a 0 because i am lazy but hey, it is who you know, not what you know right ? but i was always thinking of where i would go to college that would set me up for the most successful career.  and then i realized it didnt matter so much where i went but rather that i went at all.  so here i am, enjoying college, but every day i think of which professor can i talk to that went to the best phd program and can get me in three years from now.  or which internship would look the best on a resume.  and how quickly i can become a millionaire after i graduate.   money is not everything , right ? well of course i do not argue with that.  i just want a lot of it.  i think being a billionaire would bring me the greatest satisfaction.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  i do not see any reason why i should not want this.  but i think about it so much that i figured i should at least write it down, and get some opinions on it.  i always think, bill gates or warren buffet probably did not think at 0  i want to be the richest man in the world , and they got there.  so if know i want it, why should not i get it ?  #  i always think, bill gates or warren buffet probably did not think at 0  i want to be the richest man in the world , and they got there.   #  so if know i want it, why should not i get it ?  #  getting a phd will not help you get more money.  phd is are a trap.  they will lower your income.  phd students in america are the avenue in which foreigners enter our nation.  you do not get a phd for the money.  you get phd is if you either want to stay in academia/research or if you are a foreign student trying to come to america.  so if know i want it, why should not i get it ? you are wrong on this.  warren buffet was obsessed with money since he was a child.  by the time he was in grade school, he had already started several successful businesses.  buffet and gates also get the advantage in being born into wealth.  you do not have that advantage.  i highly recommend you watch buffet is documentary on netflix.  i know what you want to be.  you want to be a  trader .  you do not need an excellent education to do this.  all you need is lots of drive and time.  try being maybe an energy trader, say in houston or on wall street.  try investment banking.  or something like that.  these kinds of people make serious fucking money.  the job is also hyper stressful and you need one of those type a personalities to do it.  you do not get rich by being part of the  professional  class.  professionals are there to be taken advantage of by  capitalists .  URL  #  for one, it takes an absolutely  extraordinary  amount of work to become a billionaire, some would say insane.   #  there are so many things to point out.  for one, it takes an absolutely  extraordinary  amount of work to become a billionaire, some would say insane.  if you could not even get a 0 in high school because of laziness do you honestly think you will be able to accomplish the almost inhuman amount of work you would have to do to to  climb the corporate ladder ?   social skills and  who you know  matter, of course.  but you quite simply ca not network your way to a c level position, especially in a company that would make you a billionaire.  the highest level social skills will get you with no work ethic is, say, manager of a kohls.  unless you are incredibly hard working and efficient, you really ca not advance much farther than that.  also, the concept of a  corporate ladder  is a myth.  it is not like there is some system set up for entry level workers to be able to climb their way up and take the multimillion dollar salaries from the established guys.  in a way it is the opposite.  people with money and power do not like to give it up easily, and there are only so many open positions they can fill with people they like.  finally although this is only brushing the surface of the objections i have , you do not really become a young billionaire unless you are an inventor or ground up entrepreneur.  the only conceivable way you could do that is by innovating in something pertaining to biochem that would be profitable enough to not be suppressed by the current cs in the pharmaceutical industry, and that does not seem to be your plan.  therefore if you did somehow manage to become a billionaire odds are you would be middle aged at the youngest.  if you become a billionaire, it assumes you have done the work and made the sacrifices necessary to do so, which means you have given up all the treasures of youth so that you can be a 0 year old with a lot of money and stress.   #  also, you assume that you will be very satisfied when you have lots of money.   # not unless you put a lot of importance on simply having the label  billionaire .  URL scientific evidence that more money does not make people happier jack ma, the richest man in china, says that being that rich is very stressful.  let is assume he is a better authority on being extremely rich than either you or i: URL so, although this is a small point, i think merely being a multi millionaire is probably more optimal.  are you going to get an mba ? make friends with a lot of business people ? do you know how corporate ladders are climbed ? it is not just by being good at biochemistry.  it is also by developing the right resume, and more importantly, the right reputation and relationships.  also, you assume that you will be very satisfied when you have lots of money.  because you may have to trade things that are also valuable to you to get this large sum of money.  like relationships, friendships, morals, ethics, your youth.  familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity cost before you say there is not any reason to pursue wealth to the exclusion of other things.   #  it seems like you have no idea how people actually get extremely rich in a capitalist economy so that is why i would not focus on being extremely rich if i were you.   # that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  this is  not  how you become a multi millionaire.  you become a multi millionaire/billionaire by  owning  something.  the reason bill gates, jack ma, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg, etc.  are all fabulously wealthy is because they own large parts of companies they founded and made the share price of those companies very high.  unless you plan to do some serious research into investing, business start ups, finance, retirement savings, etc.  there is no way you can even come close to the fabulously wealthy group.  at most you will work your way up to some high level management position and if you are lucky be well off enough that money is not a worry, assuming your lack of financial knowledge does not lead you to spend it all without investing.  it seems like you have no idea how people actually get extremely rich in a capitalist economy so that is why i would not focus on being extremely rich if i were you.   #  do you have a fall back plan that is not you living in the memories of what might have been ?  #  your plan does not really matter.  lots of people have plans.  they have plans. they do everything on their plan, and something fall through.  this is not the masses shiting on your dream just out of spite.  this is what happens.  if i take 0 people like you, only a small fraction are going to be where they want to be.  i mean wanting all those things is great.  basing your level of happiness on those things is not.  you do not want to be the guy at the bar who keeps on talking about the  one that got away  or the  great idea that somehow never worked.   what is your plan when you life goals regress towards the mean because that it probably what is going to happen.  is your plan for you life just based on the concept of getting rich ? could you be in a middle class job and still be happy ? how much do you want to risk on what is a long shot ? do you have a fall back plan that is not you living in the memories of what might have been ?
i am a sophomore in college, biochemistry, if it matters you will see why i do not think it does .  i have my heart dead set on being fabulously wealthy as soon as possible.  i will probably come of as a completely pompous idiot, but i would just like to say i do not ever really talk about this with anyone i know, because i know how ridiculous it sounds.  so i want to graduate college, get my entry level job and plan on just climbing flying up the corporate ladder to my eventual position as chief something or other where i make a million or more a year. sounds like i do not have my priorities straight right ? that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  ever since i was young i have been an  achiever .  my mother tells me of when i was six and would read the dictionary before bed some nights.  or how i would never be quite interested enough in the fact that the wood floated on water and the metal sank, but rather why the wood was different from the metal in the first place.  small things like that.  and then i went through high school, i did not get a 0 because i am lazy but hey, it is who you know, not what you know right ? but i was always thinking of where i would go to college that would set me up for the most successful career.  and then i realized it didnt matter so much where i went but rather that i went at all.  so here i am, enjoying college, but every day i think of which professor can i talk to that went to the best phd program and can get me in three years from now.  or which internship would look the best on a resume.  and how quickly i can become a millionaire after i graduate.   money is not everything , right ? well of course i do not argue with that.  i just want a lot of it.  i think being a billionaire would bring me the greatest satisfaction.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  i do not see any reason why i should not want this.  but i think about it so much that i figured i should at least write it down, and get some opinions on it.  i always think, bill gates or warren buffet probably did not think at 0  i want to be the richest man in the world , and they got there.  so if know i want it, why should not i get it ?  #  i think being a billionaire would bring me the greatest satisfaction.   #  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.   # well of course i do not argue with that.  i just want a lot of it.  take your latest bank statement, scan it, photoshop the balance with lots zeros and print out the altered statement.  stare at it, does it make you authentically happy ? great, then frame it and now you have your piles of money that you always wanted.  when you want to feel happy, stare at the altered bank statement hanging on your wall and be happy.  easy without all that silly time wasting work.  but if you want more than just numbers on a paper then  that  is what your goal is, not money.  in addition to that, power, respect and a fame of sorts are my priorities too.  exert influence over the economy or the social progress healthcare, drug prices, etc.  of a nation this is where even i start to think i am getting ahead of myself .  that is what you want, not money.  gandhi and many others had all of that but very little money.   #  finally although this is only brushing the surface of the objections i have , you do not really become a young billionaire unless you are an inventor or ground up entrepreneur.   #  there are so many things to point out.  for one, it takes an absolutely  extraordinary  amount of work to become a billionaire, some would say insane.  if you could not even get a 0 in high school because of laziness do you honestly think you will be able to accomplish the almost inhuman amount of work you would have to do to to  climb the corporate ladder ?   social skills and  who you know  matter, of course.  but you quite simply ca not network your way to a c level position, especially in a company that would make you a billionaire.  the highest level social skills will get you with no work ethic is, say, manager of a kohls.  unless you are incredibly hard working and efficient, you really ca not advance much farther than that.  also, the concept of a  corporate ladder  is a myth.  it is not like there is some system set up for entry level workers to be able to climb their way up and take the multimillion dollar salaries from the established guys.  in a way it is the opposite.  people with money and power do not like to give it up easily, and there are only so many open positions they can fill with people they like.  finally although this is only brushing the surface of the objections i have , you do not really become a young billionaire unless you are an inventor or ground up entrepreneur.  the only conceivable way you could do that is by innovating in something pertaining to biochem that would be profitable enough to not be suppressed by the current cs in the pharmaceutical industry, and that does not seem to be your plan.  therefore if you did somehow manage to become a billionaire odds are you would be middle aged at the youngest.  if you become a billionaire, it assumes you have done the work and made the sacrifices necessary to do so, which means you have given up all the treasures of youth so that you can be a 0 year old with a lot of money and stress.   #  also, you assume that you will be very satisfied when you have lots of money.   # not unless you put a lot of importance on simply having the label  billionaire .  URL scientific evidence that more money does not make people happier jack ma, the richest man in china, says that being that rich is very stressful.  let is assume he is a better authority on being extremely rich than either you or i: URL so, although this is a small point, i think merely being a multi millionaire is probably more optimal.  are you going to get an mba ? make friends with a lot of business people ? do you know how corporate ladders are climbed ? it is not just by being good at biochemistry.  it is also by developing the right resume, and more importantly, the right reputation and relationships.  also, you assume that you will be very satisfied when you have lots of money.  because you may have to trade things that are also valuable to you to get this large sum of money.  like relationships, friendships, morals, ethics, your youth.  familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity cost before you say there is not any reason to pursue wealth to the exclusion of other things.   #  it seems like you have no idea how people actually get extremely rich in a capitalist economy so that is why i would not focus on being extremely rich if i were you.   # that is what i always read and i am not convinced.  this is  not  how you become a multi millionaire.  you become a multi millionaire/billionaire by  owning  something.  the reason bill gates, jack ma, warren buffet, mark zuckerberg, etc.  are all fabulously wealthy is because they own large parts of companies they founded and made the share price of those companies very high.  unless you plan to do some serious research into investing, business start ups, finance, retirement savings, etc.  there is no way you can even come close to the fabulously wealthy group.  at most you will work your way up to some high level management position and if you are lucky be well off enough that money is not a worry, assuming your lack of financial knowledge does not lead you to spend it all without investing.  it seems like you have no idea how people actually get extremely rich in a capitalist economy so that is why i would not focus on being extremely rich if i were you.   #  they have plans. they do everything on their plan, and something fall through.   #  your plan does not really matter.  lots of people have plans.  they have plans. they do everything on their plan, and something fall through.  this is not the masses shiting on your dream just out of spite.  this is what happens.  if i take 0 people like you, only a small fraction are going to be where they want to be.  i mean wanting all those things is great.  basing your level of happiness on those things is not.  you do not want to be the guy at the bar who keeps on talking about the  one that got away  or the  great idea that somehow never worked.   what is your plan when you life goals regress towards the mean because that it probably what is going to happen.  is your plan for you life just based on the concept of getting rich ? could you be in a middle class job and still be happy ? how much do you want to risk on what is a long shot ? do you have a fall back plan that is not you living in the memories of what might have been ?
i see the argument that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy thrown around a lot, mainly when people say that  outlawing abortion is restricting bodily autonomy .  the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  if it happens, a refusal to abort is not a restriction on bodily autonomy, and they should see the pregnancy through.  whether or not sex is for pleasure, rather than conception, seems irrelevant, as it does not change the fact that conception is still a possible result.  maybe i am wrong, but in my mind i have compared it to gambling.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  you played the game, had your fun, got burned, and have to deal with the consequences.   #  if it happens, a refusal to abort is not a restriction on bodily autonomy, and they should see the pregnancy through.   #  first part: why is it not a restriction on bodily autonomy ?  # of course ! . and then they can terminate it as they see fit.  first part: why is it not a restriction on bodily autonomy ? if i smoke a ton, knowing i may get a tumor in my lung, is making it illegal to remove the tumor not a violation of bodily autonomy ? second part: why ? if i go rock climbing and have  consented  to possibly breaking my leg, should i not be allowed to go to the hospital and have it cast so i am not a cripple ? yes.  and that result can be relatively easily reversed with an abortion.   #  the justification for abortion is not that women is consent is required for them to become parents.   #  becoming a parent does not require  consent  for men nor women.  it is a biological reality, not something that you can consent or not consent to.  biology is not capable of asking your consent; it is a fact, not something you can agree or decline to agree to.  the justification for abortion is not that women is consent is required for them to become parents.  it is that people can have any medical procedure they want on their own bodies  and there is no other case where we refuse medical procedures to people for punitive, completely non medical, reasons.   #  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   # after a makeout session do i retain rights to the spit i left in my partners mouth ? does their later decision to brush their teeth constitute a violation of my bodily autonomy ? leaving some of your genetic material inside another person does not make  their body  yours.  it gives you no rights to it whatsoever.  i find it a bit silly to even entertain the idea that the owner of the spit and the owner of the mouth have equal claim.  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   #  like spitting in their mouth and demanding none be swallowed.   # joint take your saliva and run genetic tests on it no you could not.  if someone wants to swab their own mouth and test it you have no claim over that.  their body their choice.  your spit is no longer a part of your body once you deposit it inside someone else.  or leave it anywhere else at all.  this is why it is not a violation of bodily autonomy for the police to run dna tests on items left in public.  if we bring the issue back to pregnancy it becomes even more silly.  pregnancy is a bodily function that biology plays out without consent of either party.  it is completely unfeasible to expect another persons body to cease normal and involuntary function.  like spitting in their mouth and demanding none be swallowed.  not possible.  no legal precedent.   #  it is also no fair that a woman has to either have a surgery or go through bringing a pregnancy to term, but that is life.   #  legally, it is simply untrue that women have the right to choose not to  deal with  a child.  their right to have an abortion actually derives precisely from the fact that there  is  no child.  this notion that women have a legal right that men do not is fictional.  men and women both have the legal right to have any medical procedure, and neither have the legal right not to be parents to their child.  if you are talking more broadly about the situation being  no fair,  well, biology is not fair.  it is also no fair that a woman has to either have a surgery or go through bringing a pregnancy to term, but that is life.
i see the argument that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy thrown around a lot, mainly when people say that  outlawing abortion is restricting bodily autonomy .  the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  if it happens, a refusal to abort is not a restriction on bodily autonomy, and they should see the pregnancy through.  whether or not sex is for pleasure, rather than conception, seems irrelevant, as it does not change the fact that conception is still a possible result.  maybe i am wrong, but in my mind i have compared it to gambling.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  you played the game, had your fun, got burned, and have to deal with the consequences.   #  i see the argument that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy thrown around a lot, mainly when people say that  outlawing abortion is restricting bodily autonomy .   #  the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.   # the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  if it happens, a refusal to abort is not a restriction on bodily autonomy, and they should see the pregnancy through.  even if a couple implicitly consents to pregnancy by having sex, restricting abortion is still a violation of the woman is bodily autonomy.  the woman might have consented to the restriction by virtue of having sex in a country where abortions are prohibited , but it is still a restriction.  this is similar in essence to a nda you agree to a restriction on your personal autonomy in that you are prohibited from sharing certain information.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  you played the game, had your fun, got burned, and have to deal with the consequences.  the issue with this analogy is that any reasonable person would expect a significant chance of losing their money while gambling.  however, a reasonable person would not expect pregnancy to result from safe sex i. e. , with a condom and birth control .  a better analogy is with a safe purchase a house in a good neighborhood in a good housing market.  if i buy a house, and then the market crashes, did i consent to losing a bunch of money ? i of course knew it was  possible , but i very reasonably believed that it was an event of negligible probability.   #  the justification for abortion is not that women is consent is required for them to become parents.   #  becoming a parent does not require  consent  for men nor women.  it is a biological reality, not something that you can consent or not consent to.  biology is not capable of asking your consent; it is a fact, not something you can agree or decline to agree to.  the justification for abortion is not that women is consent is required for them to become parents.  it is that people can have any medical procedure they want on their own bodies  and there is no other case where we refuse medical procedures to people for punitive, completely non medical, reasons.   #  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   # after a makeout session do i retain rights to the spit i left in my partners mouth ? does their later decision to brush their teeth constitute a violation of my bodily autonomy ? leaving some of your genetic material inside another person does not make  their body  yours.  it gives you no rights to it whatsoever.  i find it a bit silly to even entertain the idea that the owner of the spit and the owner of the mouth have equal claim.  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   #  it is completely unfeasible to expect another persons body to cease normal and involuntary function.   # joint take your saliva and run genetic tests on it no you could not.  if someone wants to swab their own mouth and test it you have no claim over that.  their body their choice.  your spit is no longer a part of your body once you deposit it inside someone else.  or leave it anywhere else at all.  this is why it is not a violation of bodily autonomy for the police to run dna tests on items left in public.  if we bring the issue back to pregnancy it becomes even more silly.  pregnancy is a bodily function that biology plays out without consent of either party.  it is completely unfeasible to expect another persons body to cease normal and involuntary function.  like spitting in their mouth and demanding none be swallowed.  not possible.  no legal precedent.   #  if you are talking more broadly about the situation being  no fair,  well, biology is not fair.   #  legally, it is simply untrue that women have the right to choose not to  deal with  a child.  their right to have an abortion actually derives precisely from the fact that there  is  no child.  this notion that women have a legal right that men do not is fictional.  men and women both have the legal right to have any medical procedure, and neither have the legal right not to be parents to their child.  if you are talking more broadly about the situation being  no fair,  well, biology is not fair.  it is also no fair that a woman has to either have a surgery or go through bringing a pregnancy to term, but that is life.
i see the argument that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy thrown around a lot, mainly when people say that  outlawing abortion is restricting bodily autonomy .  the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  if it happens, a refusal to abort is not a restriction on bodily autonomy, and they should see the pregnancy through.  whether or not sex is for pleasure, rather than conception, seems irrelevant, as it does not change the fact that conception is still a possible result.  maybe i am wrong, but in my mind i have compared it to gambling.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  you played the game, had your fun, got burned, and have to deal with the consequences.   #  maybe i am wrong, but in my mind i have compared it to gambling.   #  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.   # the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  if it happens, a refusal to abort is not a restriction on bodily autonomy, and they should see the pregnancy through.  even if a couple implicitly consents to pregnancy by having sex, restricting abortion is still a violation of the woman is bodily autonomy.  the woman might have consented to the restriction by virtue of having sex in a country where abortions are prohibited , but it is still a restriction.  this is similar in essence to a nda you agree to a restriction on your personal autonomy in that you are prohibited from sharing certain information.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  you played the game, had your fun, got burned, and have to deal with the consequences.  the issue with this analogy is that any reasonable person would expect a significant chance of losing their money while gambling.  however, a reasonable person would not expect pregnancy to result from safe sex i. e. , with a condom and birth control .  a better analogy is with a safe purchase a house in a good neighborhood in a good housing market.  if i buy a house, and then the market crashes, did i consent to losing a bunch of money ? i of course knew it was  possible , but i very reasonably believed that it was an event of negligible probability.   #  becoming a parent does not require  consent  for men nor women.   #  becoming a parent does not require  consent  for men nor women.  it is a biological reality, not something that you can consent or not consent to.  biology is not capable of asking your consent; it is a fact, not something you can agree or decline to agree to.  the justification for abortion is not that women is consent is required for them to become parents.  it is that people can have any medical procedure they want on their own bodies  and there is no other case where we refuse medical procedures to people for punitive, completely non medical, reasons.   #  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   # after a makeout session do i retain rights to the spit i left in my partners mouth ? does their later decision to brush their teeth constitute a violation of my bodily autonomy ? leaving some of your genetic material inside another person does not make  their body  yours.  it gives you no rights to it whatsoever.  i find it a bit silly to even entertain the idea that the owner of the spit and the owner of the mouth have equal claim.  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   #  this is why it is not a violation of bodily autonomy for the police to run dna tests on items left in public.   # joint take your saliva and run genetic tests on it no you could not.  if someone wants to swab their own mouth and test it you have no claim over that.  their body their choice.  your spit is no longer a part of your body once you deposit it inside someone else.  or leave it anywhere else at all.  this is why it is not a violation of bodily autonomy for the police to run dna tests on items left in public.  if we bring the issue back to pregnancy it becomes even more silly.  pregnancy is a bodily function that biology plays out without consent of either party.  it is completely unfeasible to expect another persons body to cease normal and involuntary function.  like spitting in their mouth and demanding none be swallowed.  not possible.  no legal precedent.   #  their right to have an abortion actually derives precisely from the fact that there  is  no child.   #  legally, it is simply untrue that women have the right to choose not to  deal with  a child.  their right to have an abortion actually derives precisely from the fact that there  is  no child.  this notion that women have a legal right that men do not is fictional.  men and women both have the legal right to have any medical procedure, and neither have the legal right not to be parents to their child.  if you are talking more broadly about the situation being  no fair,  well, biology is not fair.  it is also no fair that a woman has to either have a surgery or go through bringing a pregnancy to term, but that is life.
i see the argument that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy thrown around a lot, mainly when people say that  outlawing abortion is restricting bodily autonomy .  the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  if it happens, a refusal to abort is not a restriction on bodily autonomy, and they should see the pregnancy through.  whether or not sex is for pleasure, rather than conception, seems irrelevant, as it does not change the fact that conception is still a possible result.  maybe i am wrong, but in my mind i have compared it to gambling.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  you played the game, had your fun, got burned, and have to deal with the consequences.   #  i see the argument that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy thrown around a lot, mainly when people say that  outlawing abortion is restricting bodily autonomy .   #  the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.   # the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  consenting to whom ? the fetus that does not exist yet and may never exist.  the fetus ca not give consent for adults to have sex.  fetus ca not deny consent for a woman to terminate.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  that analogy is different.  that situation is between the poker player and the dealer both adults.  you are trying to create a consent argument between the woman and something that does not exist.  only way it might work is that the agreement is made between the woman and god ? in which case you need to prove god exists and that in  all  religious belief systems abortion is always wrong under all circumstances.  which makes this a pro life debate based on religion.  that still does not explain why abortion is wrong.  dealing with the consequences  can  mean terminating pregnancy.  you have failed to argue why abortion ca not be an option.   #  it is that people can have any medical procedure they want on their own bodies  and there is no other case where we refuse medical procedures to people for punitive, completely non medical, reasons.   #  becoming a parent does not require  consent  for men nor women.  it is a biological reality, not something that you can consent or not consent to.  biology is not capable of asking your consent; it is a fact, not something you can agree or decline to agree to.  the justification for abortion is not that women is consent is required for them to become parents.  it is that people can have any medical procedure they want on their own bodies  and there is no other case where we refuse medical procedures to people for punitive, completely non medical, reasons.   #  after a makeout session do i retain rights to the spit i left in my partners mouth ?  # after a makeout session do i retain rights to the spit i left in my partners mouth ? does their later decision to brush their teeth constitute a violation of my bodily autonomy ? leaving some of your genetic material inside another person does not make  their body  yours.  it gives you no rights to it whatsoever.  i find it a bit silly to even entertain the idea that the owner of the spit and the owner of the mouth have equal claim.  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   #  your spit is no longer a part of your body once you deposit it inside someone else.   # joint take your saliva and run genetic tests on it no you could not.  if someone wants to swab their own mouth and test it you have no claim over that.  their body their choice.  your spit is no longer a part of your body once you deposit it inside someone else.  or leave it anywhere else at all.  this is why it is not a violation of bodily autonomy for the police to run dna tests on items left in public.  if we bring the issue back to pregnancy it becomes even more silly.  pregnancy is a bodily function that biology plays out without consent of either party.  it is completely unfeasible to expect another persons body to cease normal and involuntary function.  like spitting in their mouth and demanding none be swallowed.  not possible.  no legal precedent.   #  men and women both have the legal right to have any medical procedure, and neither have the legal right not to be parents to their child.   #  legally, it is simply untrue that women have the right to choose not to  deal with  a child.  their right to have an abortion actually derives precisely from the fact that there  is  no child.  this notion that women have a legal right that men do not is fictional.  men and women both have the legal right to have any medical procedure, and neither have the legal right not to be parents to their child.  if you are talking more broadly about the situation being  no fair,  well, biology is not fair.  it is also no fair that a woman has to either have a surgery or go through bringing a pregnancy to term, but that is life.
i see the argument that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy thrown around a lot, mainly when people say that  outlawing abortion is restricting bodily autonomy .  the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  if it happens, a refusal to abort is not a restriction on bodily autonomy, and they should see the pregnancy through.  whether or not sex is for pleasure, rather than conception, seems irrelevant, as it does not change the fact that conception is still a possible result.  maybe i am wrong, but in my mind i have compared it to gambling.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  you played the game, had your fun, got burned, and have to deal with the consequences.   #  maybe i am wrong, but in my mind i have compared it to gambling.   #  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.   # the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  consenting to whom ? the fetus that does not exist yet and may never exist.  the fetus ca not give consent for adults to have sex.  fetus ca not deny consent for a woman to terminate.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  that analogy is different.  that situation is between the poker player and the dealer both adults.  you are trying to create a consent argument between the woman and something that does not exist.  only way it might work is that the agreement is made between the woman and god ? in which case you need to prove god exists and that in  all  religious belief systems abortion is always wrong under all circumstances.  which makes this a pro life debate based on religion.  that still does not explain why abortion is wrong.  dealing with the consequences  can  mean terminating pregnancy.  you have failed to argue why abortion ca not be an option.   #  becoming a parent does not require  consent  for men nor women.   #  becoming a parent does not require  consent  for men nor women.  it is a biological reality, not something that you can consent or not consent to.  biology is not capable of asking your consent; it is a fact, not something you can agree or decline to agree to.  the justification for abortion is not that women is consent is required for them to become parents.  it is that people can have any medical procedure they want on their own bodies  and there is no other case where we refuse medical procedures to people for punitive, completely non medical, reasons.   #  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   # after a makeout session do i retain rights to the spit i left in my partners mouth ? does their later decision to brush their teeth constitute a violation of my bodily autonomy ? leaving some of your genetic material inside another person does not make  their body  yours.  it gives you no rights to it whatsoever.  i find it a bit silly to even entertain the idea that the owner of the spit and the owner of the mouth have equal claim.  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   #  joint take your saliva and run genetic tests on it no you could not.   # joint take your saliva and run genetic tests on it no you could not.  if someone wants to swab their own mouth and test it you have no claim over that.  their body their choice.  your spit is no longer a part of your body once you deposit it inside someone else.  or leave it anywhere else at all.  this is why it is not a violation of bodily autonomy for the police to run dna tests on items left in public.  if we bring the issue back to pregnancy it becomes even more silly.  pregnancy is a bodily function that biology plays out without consent of either party.  it is completely unfeasible to expect another persons body to cease normal and involuntary function.  like spitting in their mouth and demanding none be swallowed.  not possible.  no legal precedent.   #  men and women both have the legal right to have any medical procedure, and neither have the legal right not to be parents to their child.   #  legally, it is simply untrue that women have the right to choose not to  deal with  a child.  their right to have an abortion actually derives precisely from the fact that there  is  no child.  this notion that women have a legal right that men do not is fictional.  men and women both have the legal right to have any medical procedure, and neither have the legal right not to be parents to their child.  if you are talking more broadly about the situation being  no fair,  well, biology is not fair.  it is also no fair that a woman has to either have a surgery or go through bringing a pregnancy to term, but that is life.
i see the argument that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy thrown around a lot, mainly when people say that  outlawing abortion is restricting bodily autonomy .  the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  if it happens, a refusal to abort is not a restriction on bodily autonomy, and they should see the pregnancy through.  whether or not sex is for pleasure, rather than conception, seems irrelevant, as it does not change the fact that conception is still a possible result.  maybe i am wrong, but in my mind i have compared it to gambling.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  you played the game, had your fun, got burned, and have to deal with the consequences.   #  you played the game, had your fun, got burned, and have to deal with the consequences.   #  that still does not explain why abortion is wrong.   # the way i see it, if a couple legally consents to piv sex, both the man and the woman have implicitly consented to the possibility of pregnancy.  consenting to whom ? the fetus that does not exist yet and may never exist.  the fetus ca not give consent for adults to have sex.  fetus ca not deny consent for a woman to terminate.  even if you are 0 sure there is a favorable outcome, when that . 0 event comes around you ca not just claim that you did not  consent  to losing your money.  that analogy is different.  that situation is between the poker player and the dealer both adults.  you are trying to create a consent argument between the woman and something that does not exist.  only way it might work is that the agreement is made between the woman and god ? in which case you need to prove god exists and that in  all  religious belief systems abortion is always wrong under all circumstances.  which makes this a pro life debate based on religion.  that still does not explain why abortion is wrong.  dealing with the consequences  can  mean terminating pregnancy.  you have failed to argue why abortion ca not be an option.   #  biology is not capable of asking your consent; it is a fact, not something you can agree or decline to agree to.   #  becoming a parent does not require  consent  for men nor women.  it is a biological reality, not something that you can consent or not consent to.  biology is not capable of asking your consent; it is a fact, not something you can agree or decline to agree to.  the justification for abortion is not that women is consent is required for them to become parents.  it is that people can have any medical procedure they want on their own bodies  and there is no other case where we refuse medical procedures to people for punitive, completely non medical, reasons.   #  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   # after a makeout session do i retain rights to the spit i left in my partners mouth ? does their later decision to brush their teeth constitute a violation of my bodily autonomy ? leaving some of your genetic material inside another person does not make  their body  yours.  it gives you no rights to it whatsoever.  i find it a bit silly to even entertain the idea that the owner of the spit and the owner of the mouth have equal claim.  let alone that it is somehow unjust to give autonomy to the  person whose body it actually is .   #  like spitting in their mouth and demanding none be swallowed.   # joint take your saliva and run genetic tests on it no you could not.  if someone wants to swab their own mouth and test it you have no claim over that.  their body their choice.  your spit is no longer a part of your body once you deposit it inside someone else.  or leave it anywhere else at all.  this is why it is not a violation of bodily autonomy for the police to run dna tests on items left in public.  if we bring the issue back to pregnancy it becomes even more silly.  pregnancy is a bodily function that biology plays out without consent of either party.  it is completely unfeasible to expect another persons body to cease normal and involuntary function.  like spitting in their mouth and demanding none be swallowed.  not possible.  no legal precedent.   #  legally, it is simply untrue that women have the right to choose not to  deal with  a child.   #  legally, it is simply untrue that women have the right to choose not to  deal with  a child.  their right to have an abortion actually derives precisely from the fact that there  is  no child.  this notion that women have a legal right that men do not is fictional.  men and women both have the legal right to have any medical procedure, and neither have the legal right not to be parents to their child.  if you are talking more broadly about the situation being  no fair,  well, biology is not fair.  it is also no fair that a woman has to either have a surgery or go through bringing a pregnancy to term, but that is life.
religion, in nature, is conservative and/or reactionary.  it played a useful role in the past: it give people an explanation for things and a sense of identity a precursor to nationalism .  nowadays, it is stifling social progress and 0st century values.  all over the world, religion is being used as an excuse to carry out evil acts.  for the most part, science has eroded many of the stories/tenets/ideas of religion but many have clung to the notion that things like biblical stories are meant to be interpreted or understood in context.  i am sorry for choosing such an inflammatory topic, but i truly believe that religion is incompatible with progress and modern life.   #  religion, in nature, is conservative and/or reactionary.   #  not sure what you mean by this.   # not sure what you mean by this.  it is just as much revolutionary and groundbreaking.  the bhudda bucked conventions, forgoing his royal heritage to live a life of poverty, to lead by example.  jesus was considered a heretic, and many of teachings were explicitly designed to sow civic unrest against their roman oppressors.  muahmmad lead a fucking army to conquer.  what are 0st century values ? how is it stifling progress ? funny thing about evil acts, any excuse will do.  the supernatural stuff. sure.  but those are arguably not the central tenets or ideas of religion.  charity, compassion, meekness, forgiveness are heavily taught.  where is the science rebuking of  do not be an asshole  ? a bulk of our greatest philosophers, thinkers, scientists, leaders, etc.  were all very devout believers in their religion.  they progressed the human condition just fine while believing in the tenets of their faith.  what makes it so incompatible now at this arbitrary point in time ?  #  how is, for example, christianity incompatible with pacifism ?  #  how is, for example, christianity incompatible with pacifism ? christianity contains multitudes of verses that promote peace and discourage violence or revenge, especially the teachings of jesus and paul , which are by far the most influential.  environmentalism ? how is religion incompatible with environmentalism ? secularism, sure, i will give that to you i guess.  but i would contest that  secularism  is inherently a 0st century value.  depends what you mean by secularism, i guess.   #  in it is negative form, it is accepting too many things as truth some of which may not be true without critically examining or rejecting anything.   #  all of those words except for environmentalism are ways of saying that you do not really believe in much.  secularism: derived from the latin  saeculum , meaning  age  referencing the contemporary world in time as opposed to space that would be  mundus  .  in essence, secularism is a reference to the  values of the world in this time .  no specific values actually, just accepting what everyone else believes at this time.  multiculturalism: accepting all cultures as equals, no such thing as a  good  or  bad  culture.  pacifism: there is nothing and no one in the world valuable enough to justify hurting someone to protect.  openmindedness: ambiguous term.  in its positive form, it is being willing and able to learn new things.  in it is negative form, it is accepting too many things as truth some of which may not be true without critically examining or rejecting anything.  tolerance: being willing to put up with things you dislike or disagree with.  the more perverse interpretation today is something more akin to multiculturalism.  to be  tolerant  under today is language, you are not allowed to openly dislike or disagree with something.  you have to accept it as equally valid or even superior to your own preferences and beliefs.  given that most religions posit an affirmative belief in something, and typically considers certain things to be untrue or wrong, i am inclined to agree that religion is incompatible with these values.  and i am not religious, but i would prefer a religion to the nihilism of these so called  values .   #  i am not at all religious myself, but even i can still see why certain people are.   #  i am not at all religious myself, but even i can still see why certain people are.  there is still the need to be part of something bigger then yourself.  there is still a need to have a moral center.  there is still the need to be part of a community.  is religion perfect ? of course not.  like all human institutions it has some significant flaws, but that does not mean that it should be scrapped.   #  progressivism is about as inhibitive to free thought as any other political ideology.   #  skepticism is not actually a meme.  to the extent that you can argue that it is one, my points on free speech in the next section apply here as well.  if by  free thought  you mean  free speech , then yes it does.  i believe in free speech as much as the next person, but the meme itself encourages people to believe in it without much in the way of thought at all.  how many people just say  free speech is good  without thinking through the ramifications of what its implications are for society and what the alternatives are ? progressivism is about as inhibitive to free thought as any other political ideology.
religion, in nature, is conservative and/or reactionary.  it played a useful role in the past: it give people an explanation for things and a sense of identity a precursor to nationalism .  nowadays, it is stifling social progress and 0st century values.  all over the world, religion is being used as an excuse to carry out evil acts.  for the most part, science has eroded many of the stories/tenets/ideas of religion but many have clung to the notion that things like biblical stories are meant to be interpreted or understood in context.  i am sorry for choosing such an inflammatory topic, but i truly believe that religion is incompatible with progress and modern life.   #  all over the world, religion is being used as an excuse to carry out evil acts.   #  funny thing about evil acts, any excuse will do.   # not sure what you mean by this.  it is just as much revolutionary and groundbreaking.  the bhudda bucked conventions, forgoing his royal heritage to live a life of poverty, to lead by example.  jesus was considered a heretic, and many of teachings were explicitly designed to sow civic unrest against their roman oppressors.  muahmmad lead a fucking army to conquer.  what are 0st century values ? how is it stifling progress ? funny thing about evil acts, any excuse will do.  the supernatural stuff. sure.  but those are arguably not the central tenets or ideas of religion.  charity, compassion, meekness, forgiveness are heavily taught.  where is the science rebuking of  do not be an asshole  ? a bulk of our greatest philosophers, thinkers, scientists, leaders, etc.  were all very devout believers in their religion.  they progressed the human condition just fine while believing in the tenets of their faith.  what makes it so incompatible now at this arbitrary point in time ?  #  depends what you mean by secularism, i guess.   #  how is, for example, christianity incompatible with pacifism ? christianity contains multitudes of verses that promote peace and discourage violence or revenge, especially the teachings of jesus and paul , which are by far the most influential.  environmentalism ? how is religion incompatible with environmentalism ? secularism, sure, i will give that to you i guess.  but i would contest that  secularism  is inherently a 0st century value.  depends what you mean by secularism, i guess.   #  to be  tolerant  under today is language, you are not allowed to openly dislike or disagree with something.   #  all of those words except for environmentalism are ways of saying that you do not really believe in much.  secularism: derived from the latin  saeculum , meaning  age  referencing the contemporary world in time as opposed to space that would be  mundus  .  in essence, secularism is a reference to the  values of the world in this time .  no specific values actually, just accepting what everyone else believes at this time.  multiculturalism: accepting all cultures as equals, no such thing as a  good  or  bad  culture.  pacifism: there is nothing and no one in the world valuable enough to justify hurting someone to protect.  openmindedness: ambiguous term.  in its positive form, it is being willing and able to learn new things.  in it is negative form, it is accepting too many things as truth some of which may not be true without critically examining or rejecting anything.  tolerance: being willing to put up with things you dislike or disagree with.  the more perverse interpretation today is something more akin to multiculturalism.  to be  tolerant  under today is language, you are not allowed to openly dislike or disagree with something.  you have to accept it as equally valid or even superior to your own preferences and beliefs.  given that most religions posit an affirmative belief in something, and typically considers certain things to be untrue or wrong, i am inclined to agree that religion is incompatible with these values.  and i am not religious, but i would prefer a religion to the nihilism of these so called  values .   #  i am not at all religious myself, but even i can still see why certain people are.   #  i am not at all religious myself, but even i can still see why certain people are.  there is still the need to be part of something bigger then yourself.  there is still a need to have a moral center.  there is still the need to be part of a community.  is religion perfect ? of course not.  like all human institutions it has some significant flaws, but that does not mean that it should be scrapped.   #  progressivism is about as inhibitive to free thought as any other political ideology.   #  skepticism is not actually a meme.  to the extent that you can argue that it is one, my points on free speech in the next section apply here as well.  if by  free thought  you mean  free speech , then yes it does.  i believe in free speech as much as the next person, but the meme itself encourages people to believe in it without much in the way of thought at all.  how many people just say  free speech is good  without thinking through the ramifications of what its implications are for society and what the alternatives are ? progressivism is about as inhibitive to free thought as any other political ideology.
i firmly believe that there should be a law allowing anyone who wishes to opt out of social security to do so.  social security forces people to contribute money to those currently retired with the promise that future generations will contribute money to them when they retire.  in this way, ones  saves  for his or her retirement.  why should we, as individuals, be forced to  save  if we do not want to ? or, why should be be forced to  save  in a certain way.  my money may be more valuable to me right now, or it may be more valuable to me in the future if i invest it, put it in a 0k, etc.  i could argue about the return rates, whether or not the program is doomed to fail, etc, but i want to keep this to a discussion of the morals of the program.   #  i firmly believe that there should be a law allowing anyone who wishes to opt out of social security to do so.   #  if we did this, nobody would participate except a few poor people, so basically we would be screwing over poor people.   # if we did this, nobody would participate except a few poor people, so basically we would be screwing over poor people.  rich people would opt out because they can save enough on their own and are not at risk of being impoverished.  poor people would opt out because they need the extra cash now and ca not afford to wait.  some poor people would see the logic in maintaining a social safety net but they would be few.  the net would collapse or would have to be funded in some other way.   #  whether it be your own or someone else is.   #  human beings are not good at thinking long term.  if you can save for a pension, great. but we can let everyone opt out who think they know better.  because no one can predict the future.  whether it be your own or someone else is.  your exercising of your libertarian freewill will have consequences.  you have to be willing to be okay with me walking past you dying in the gutter because of your poor choices.  and you have to be comfortable doing that to others.  if you are comfortable with both scenarios, you are a sociopath and i do not trust your decision making abilities at all.   #  to be theft, it has to happen without me knowing about it, or it would be simple robbery.   #  i agree somehow: taxes are not rape, since they do not affect my body in a sexual way.  they are not theft, since i do know about it.  to be theft, it has to happen without me knowing about it, or it would be simple robbery.  taxation is not robbery either, since robbers are much more direct in harming me.  it can only be extortion.   pay, or we send you a mail that tells you to pay, three times.  then we will send cops.  if you are resisting, then we will use violence.  if you are still resisting, we will shoot you.    #  i develop a rare but survivable blood disease at 0 that wipes out my retirement savings due to the increased costs of my health care.   #  lack of abilities limits culpability in crime, so for example, someone without mental capacity would not be culpable for their crime.  but that is not what we are discussing here: we are talking about whether we should   let those who do not save for retirement serve as a warning to others ? the inherent problem here is that there is an assumption that a warning is needed to keep others from a particular behavior  those do not save for retirement  , but there are plenty of scenarios where intent or wished to save do not equal ability to do so.  the  warning  as put forth above would affect them without regard to culpability.  a few examples i can think of:   injury on job resulting in diminished capacity to perform work/get paid and thus save    pre existing conditions : physical or mental disabilities that prevent/limit the ability to earn enough money for retirement.  unexpected longevity: i have saved, projecting within a reasonable certainty, that i will live to 0 years old.  i end up living to 0   unexpected expenses: i have saved, projecting with reasonable certainty, that i will have  typical  end of life expense.  i develop a rare but survivable blood disease at 0 that wipes out my retirement savings due to the increased costs of my health care.   #  what i meant with lack of abilities is what you enumerated in your points, accidents, disabilities, age etc.   #  i am sorry for not being as expertised in the english language, it is not my mother tongue.  i have to use dict. cc for every 0th word or so.  what i meant with lack of abilities is what you enumerated in your points, accidents, disabilities, age etc.  actually we are discussing culpability for a crime since  not   letting those people die on the streets  implies that money or goods, more has to be accumulated to help them.  which is done by some form of taxation.  although while i expect that most people are agreeing to some form taxation, there may be people who are not and since it is their own property, taking from them, without their agreement, is a crime.  to say it is in the name of  weak  people is only to make it look  not as bad ,  not as culpable  if that is the right word .
i do not believe humans are meant to be monogamous.  based on the fact that we used to be cave men and women and men would typically have multiple partners in order to pass their lineage on, i believe that while we have clearly evolved from that, biology has still framed us to struggle with monogamy.  in many ways, i think we have animalistic tendencies when it comes to interpersonal relationships and that people will always struggle with looking for someone better because of natural selection and all that jazz.  also, testosterone is a powerful thing.  marriage, for example, is a social construct and legal contract more than anything.  and, whether married or not, failed relationships and cheating is just way too prevalent to be coincidental.  i think our bodies struggle with remaining loyal to one person, even if we are emotionally complex enough to realize that this is wrong.  while, from an idealistic stance, i think it is awesome to think we could find one partner who is  the one,  and successfully remain with them indefinitely, i have a hard time believing that is indeed the case.  change my view.   #  failed relationships and cheating is just way too prevalent to be coincidental.   #  we currently live in substantially different conditions than cave man.   #  people bond when they fall in love, and become possessive towards each other.  this may fade over time, but at least for some duration biology seems to encourage an exclusive relationship to form.  we currently live in substantially different conditions than cave man.  we are in a comparatively crowded world, in something more like captivity than free range.  read desmond morris  book the human zoo URL things like our sexual behaviors, etc.  operate in a distorted fashion compared to a caveman environment.  it affects tendencies in long term relationships, fidelity, etc.  naturally, the chance of a woman having a male or female child is 0.  one male per female.  this would be skewed in some way if say a male was supposed to have 0 wives for some biological/evolutionary reason.   #  people cheat when it is against their breeding and child raising interests.   #  monogamy actually does offer some biological advantages.  for instance, 0 of birds are monogamous.  there are two kinds of monogamy in birds lifelong monogamy and social monogamy which exists only for one cycle of breeding and chick raising .  monogamy is biologically advantageous when offspring are unable to fend for themselves and require constant attention from the parents.  human infants are much more similar to baby birds than they are to, say, baby zebras.  you are also only looking at monogamy from a male centric perspective of spreading genes.  females of a species have their own biological strategies for maximizing their number of healthy offspring that survive to adulthood.  additionally, humans are not just meat sacks filled with genes.  we are social animals.  monogamy is a way of forming strong family bonds and lineages, which are part of the  social dna  of human society.  cheating is frequently a response to  social  needs, not biological ones.  people who are past the breeding age still cheat.  people cheat when it is against their breeding and child raising interests.   #  for example, in an area with lots of good habitat, and high population density, more males are likely to adopt a dominant strategy, because this maximizes their reproductive success.   # i would be interested in considering this further.  not op, but a biology major who has studied this stuff a lot.  let me preface this by saying that true monogamy is relatively rare in nature.  most of the time, when biologists talk about monogamy, we are talking about social monogamy, not sexual monogamy.  that is, animals will stay paired for the rest of their lives, but will still get a little action in on the side.  birds more than other animals tend to buck this trend, and have a significant amount of truly monogamous species that is, socially and sexually monogamous .  interestingly humans are very similar to monogamous bird species, with about 0 of us having extra pair matings aka cheating i think your major problem here though is that you are assuming that there is only one reproductive strategy for humans and maybe for all animals .  this is simply not true.  many animals have multiple reproductive tactics that can be relatively flexible in response to environmental and social changes, and these serve the purpose of maximizing reproductive success.  these strategies depend on how scare food is, how likely the young are to be predated, etc.  each species has to carefully balance the amount of offspring they produce with the amount of energy they have available to ensure that those offspring survive, and are in turn successful at reproducing themselves.  take, for instance, the prairie vole.  voles have three major strategies: dominant, roaming, and subordinate.  dominant males usually have 0 0 females as mates, control their own territories, and tend not to mate outside of those 0 0 females.  roaming males do not have a territory of their own, and basically run around trying to mate with different females.  these strategies can change depending on population density, and the amount of suitable habitat.  for example, in an area with lots of good habitat, and high population density, more males are likely to adopt a dominant strategy, because this maximizes their reproductive success.  what i am trying to get at here, is that you can probably think of humans like this too.  some individuals will maximize their reproductive success by being truly monogamous.  some will maximize their is by being polygamous.  in this sense, i think you might change your mind to   some  humans are not meant to be monogamous, but others are  because this is probably true.   #  so you make sure your prospective mate spends some time and energy going through courtship behaviors.   #  suppose you are a female bird.  it takes some energy to lay the eggs: that has to come from you, not from the male.  but it takes a lot of energy to feed the baby birds.  that can come from either parent, and if your offspring is to compete well with the other birds in the population, it has to come from both.  your mate selection strategy will consist primarily of recognizing which male can be counted on to stay around and feed your chicks.  in particular, you do not want him to divide his efforts between your chicks and some other female bird is offspring.  so you make sure your prospective mate spends some time and energy going through courtship behaviors.  now suppose you are a male bird.  you can have more offspring by cheating, but they wo not be likely to have many offspring of their own.  or you can have fewer offspring, and instead of spending time and energy pursuing mating opportunities, you spend it on those.  if a flightless chick is a enough more vulnerable to predators than a fledgling or adult, and females require costly enough courtship behaviors before accepting a mate, it can make sense to focus your energy on getting your chicks raised instead of on trying to overcome other females  mate selection strategies.   #  it would be not in the females benefit to copulate, have a child, and then separate from the male.   #  i can try to explain this from my pov as a female and speculation.  females would be motivated to keep a man by their sides, if we are talking caveman strategy, to protect them from the wilds, to hunt for them, etc to survive since their main task is to care for their children.  it would be not in the females benefit to copulate, have a child, and then separate from the male.  this would leave her with a helpless baby/child and no protection or means of sustainability.  living together in a society is a strategy for survival at its very basic level, and a man and woman sticking together increases the probability of that particular genetic pool surviving as well.
none of us alive can observe or test  the beginning , and today is brand of science has alienated people like me, who genuinely respect science un politicized , neutral yet still have strong faith in god.  science will never disprove the existence of anything, least of which, god.  so if we could just keep science neutral and stop using it to attack god, then you might find that people like me would be more willing to engage and trust science as a means to interpret our natural world, not determine spiritual matters.  science should not be trying to disprove god.  cmv  #  science should not be trying to disprove god.   #  science does not try to approach god as a topic.   #  one issue you are having is you are thining of science as a type of god.  science does not actually have an opinion.  christians use the metaphor cause it is familiar to them but there is no science.  branches of science which could arguably have a perspective, disagree fairly often.  that is a thought.  to restructure your semantic point  if something exists, you ca not disprove it is existence .  but then you tack on god, as the least unable to be disproven.  science does not tackle figurtively speaking god.  science is based in empiracism, and naturalism.  god by being supernatural, ca not be pidgeonholed into a repeatable experiment.  thus god is not something relevant to science.  a tonal suggestion is that you think the implications of science absurd due to infinite regression.  science by virtue of not having an opinion, is not doing the personal action of attacking god.  the percieved attack is based on people wondering if a suggested model of evidence, pushed to the limit still seemed vallid.  some people say it does, others say the limit cease being reasonable at a far smaller magnitude.  both opinions are vallid.  though evidence seems to favor one of the positions more some times.  you are right that it is possible that due to the rather short period of time gather evidence, that a large variety of conclusions are faulty.  and we should expect some undersubstanciated theorums to not just be overturned by greater precision but better models altogether adding or dropping variables.  science does not try to approach god as a topic.  occasionally scientists like isaac newton decide to attempt it but none have succeeded either way.  remember that newton stuck needles in his eyes to try figuring out how many colors there are/were.  the topic of god just does not come up in naturalistic studies.  god could be behind every statistical abberation which does not conform to mechanistic models, he also could be behind none we simply do not know.  more importantly there is not a naturalistic way to find out intent of the objective.  did a rock crack at a specific temperature because of a mineral fault in the stone or was it some preordaned event which should be meaningful due to aberance/lottery but we just do not know ? is there a reason behind each and all outliers ? maybe, maybe not.  it is not about keeping god out of the model.  how would we know the difference between divine outlier change, and satanic or false god outlier change ? if we recognize either, would not we risk recognizing the wrong one ? .  mildly off topic.  in the bible god claims to be true and have created the world as it is.  would the the world itself not be a testament of god ? and would the world itself in infinite and perfect regularity, not better inform you about god than a library passed through multiple languages which even when it was written is self proclaimed to be written by friends of god ? should not god be the witness ? and should not that be the infallible witness ?  #  theory can be tested by using evolutionary science to design drugs and even organisms using bioengineering.   #  evolution is observational.  is the fact that the things happened in the past relevant ? we can only see the past ! seeing the present is impossible ! light information that strikes your eyeball is already several milliseconds in the past.  sound/vibrations travel even slower ! geologists and evolutionary biologists record observations etched not into your eyeballs, but into the soil of the earth to make observations about the past.  astronomers record observations of light that have been traveling millions of years to be able to see into the past.  why then is evolutionary science not  real observational science  ? observations are made from the fossil and geological record.  theory can be tested by observing in real time how organisms evolve.  theory can be tested by using evolutionary science to design drugs and even organisms using bioengineering.   #  until we have something better telling us otherwise, it makes more sense to treat them as if they are unchanging.   #  ken ham is, in a very shallow and meaningless way, correct we have no way of knowing if the fundamental laws of the universe have always been the same.  for all we know, any number of completely absurd things  could  have been the case with regards to the universe several billion years ago.  maybe the universe is laws at the time resulted in spontaneous fruitcake generation, and we today would have no idea, because  technically  we have no way of proving otherwise.  however, all our observational science we have gathered is consistent with the universe is fundamental laws not changing, and none of it is consistent with them changing.  until we have something better telling us otherwise, it makes more sense to treat them as if they are unchanging.   #  but it is not fair to say that what he says is shallow and meaningless just because he did not  intend  to stumble across something important.   #  it is not shallow or meaningless.  it is a terribly challenging question in the philosophy of science   how do we justify the assumptions we make ? can we articulate the principles which lead us to reject certain these, without making them too narrow or too broad ? is ham addressing it as a serious philosophical question ? probably not.  but it is not fair to say that what he says is shallow and meaningless just because he did not  intend  to stumble across something important.  this   none of it is consistent with them changing is also untrue.  if two things are inconsistent their conjunction is logically impossible.   #  our observations do not  rule out  variable laws of nature.   #  you said that our observations are inconsistent with changing laws of nature.  that is just not true.  inconsistency is a very strict concept   two or more things are only inconsistent if it is impossible for them all to be true at once.  our observations do not  rule out  variable laws of nature.  they just do not  require  them.  you are right or, at least, not obviously wrong to say that science just needs to work because that is its purpose.  one problem is justifying it.  just because science has been better than other methods in the past, why should you or i or stephen hawking believe that it will continue to be ? the grue paradox URL is a more modern casting of the old humean problem URL of induction URL the  practice  of science does not require it to have been philosophically justified.  one can do it and not understand it.  but everything we get from it rests on foundations that are somewhere between shaky and non existent if we do not at least try to justify it.
employment outcomes from many low ranked/non ranked schools are dismal.  furthermore, grade inflation is prevalent, the quality of instruction is decreased both practitioner and academic faculty , and programs are generally less rigorous e. g. , removal of difficult core requirements .  employers simply do not assess students from these programs as being serious candidates, and also likely assume they are not of adequate competency/intelligence.  marketing these programs as real b. a.  and b. s.  programs perpetuates a fantasy that only enriches schools and preys upon uninformed students.  these efficacy of the programs are many propped up by fraudulent or misleading employment outcome statistics.  a solution to this problem is to adequately label these programs.  they should be given an associate or junior bachelor type designation.  then, students would be able to better assess the value of the degree.  employers could also make better use of these grads e. g. , pay legitimate b. s.  holders more, and a. s.  holders less.  a great precedence for this is the nursing field, where rn and lpn certs are provided to different types of grads.   #  a solution to this problem is to adequately label these programs.   #  but an as would not be an adequate label.   # but an as would not be an adequate label.  the as is a 0 year degree from a junior college i. e.  a school where no research is done and instruction is not performed by doctors which gives you the right to transfer to a university for a bachelor is.  to call a 0 year college degree an as would be like calling a chicken an egg.  what else would you label these degrees ? sba for shitty bachelor of arts ? well, we already kind of have that label it is printed on your diploma, right after university of.  i do not think slapping a new label on the same old shit would help with anything, frankly.   #  i attended a community college, then an okay school, then an ivy league law school.   #  i attended a community college, then an okay school, then an ivy league law school.  i paid everything myself.  i had to take on some hefty loans, but i think those are available to all.  i think that it will help the poor in the long run these crappier schools will have to lower tuition, helping the poor.  they can also attend community colleges and other low cost options.  now, if they do shell out a lot in loans, it will be for a legit program.   #  i had to take on some hefty loans.   # i had to take on some hefty loans.  this is a bit contradictory and does not help your point.  any of those loans stafford ? because the taxpayers helped you there.  i took loans.  i work in a profession that does not have the profit potential like yours, so i had to be a bit more frugal than ivy league.  not everyone is in your position.  you hit the jackpot, great.  do not shit on everyone else for being as bootstrappy.  op is not the model of success.  if everyone did what you did, that ivy league seat would be harder to get yourself.  besides, you are going to meet some  not so hot  college grads that will save your ass in the paralegal dept.   #  i then transferred to a ug with really low tuition costs and graduated debt free by working throughout college and having to stop for a few years while supporting kids .   #  dude, i love bootstrappiness.  i think its bs that the system rewards those that fit into super tight metrics.  there are better lawyers coming out of ttt schools than some of the top schools in the country and paralegals for that matter are sometimes better than the attorneys they assist .  the profession is risk averse and generally stupidly organized.  i graduated from high school with a 0. something gpa.  i worked in construction for awhile until i had enough money to pay for community college.  i then transferred to a ug with really low tuition costs and graduated debt free by working throughout college and having to stop for a few years while supporting kids .  the only debt i took on was in law school.  it was almost all unsubsidized at a 0 rate grad plus.  the stafford and perkins i did get was not me though.  i do not think that i made it without the help of others.  i benefitted from plenty of programs along the way including amazing state subsidized community college  #  if you can get into harvard you can go to harvard they will give you enough financial aid.   #  better schools have better endowments and better financial aid.  if you can get into harvard you can go to harvard they will give you enough financial aid.  it is the same for all the ivies and nescac.  i do not know about everywhere else but here in ct, if you are valedictorian you can go to uconn for free.  there is no lack of money stopping people from going to good schools just lack of research.
today, november 0, is a holiday around the world.  in most countries it is called armistice day or remembrance day from hereon i will only use armistice to avoid confusion with the us holiday of memorial day in may , while in the us it is called veterans day.  i believe this distinction is important, and borderline insulting.  november 0 0 was the official end of world war i.  the annual holiday was immediately proclaimed by most if not all participating nations, and has been marked as armistice day ever since.  this was the case in the us until 0, when it was changed to veterans day.  note that 0 was the same year the words  under god  were added to the pledge of allegiance, and was the final year of senator mccarthy is communist witchhunting he was officially censured by the senate in december 0 .  just like those events, i believe veterans day is a relic of the cold war.  so what is the difference ? armistice day is a solemn time to commemorate the end of war.  it is in effect an anti war holiday that reminds us of the most horrific and preventable waste of life committed by humans, specifically wwi.  that war serves as a case study in why war is simply not worth fighting, and is therefore important to keep at the forefront of our collective memory.  by contrast, veterans day is effectively a celebration of war.  it is celebrated in the most bombastic american way possible, with concerts, fireworks, and the like.  americans are expected to thank soldiers for their service year round, especially on november 0.  in armistice day countries veterans are commemorated, but the attitude is one of sorrow essentially saying we wish you had not had to suffer war rather than appreciation.  even leaving aside how the day is marked, public consciousness of wwi in america is woeful.  as a european american i am consistently astounded by how little americans know about the war.  after all, it was the third deadliest american conflict yet most people only know the name and that is only because it is implied by wwii .  therefore americans should go back to calling it armistice day, both to raise awareness of wwi and to have a day where we acknowledge that war is bad.  if we ca not have armistice day, then veterans day should either be moved away from november 0 or canceled altogether.  it is insulting to the wwi war dead to replace their holiday with a celebration of patriotism and nationalism, when that is exactly what wwi proved was bad.  by the way, please try and avoid turning this into a debate over whether veterans should be lauded or reviled.  that cmv has been done to death and it is not what this is about.  as i said above, i am fine with veterans day taking place on some other date.   #  as a european american i am consistently astounded by how little americans know about the war.   #  after all, it was the third deadliest american conflict yet most people only know the name and that is only because it is implied by wwii .   #  i still do not see how veteran is day is a celebration of war just because its not a day for mourning dead soldiers.  america has two holidays for people who fought in wars.  veteran is day for service people who are alive and memorial day for service people who are dead.  veteran is day started as  armistice day  to honor the dead american soldiers in ww0, it seems that it was never about anything else until it was expanded post ww0 to include all veterans from any wars the usa fought/fights in.  pres.  woodrow wilson nobody is really celebrating war.  there may be one concert for veterans to enjoy since they went through their time in the military and may have seen action but this does not indicate that war is good nor is it celebrating war.  its giving people who may have experienced military action a chance to enjoy something for them that is to thank them for being apart of the nations military be it a basketball game of an aircraft carrier or a concert with bruce springsteen.  i disagree, there will come a time when there are no ww0 survivors left and no ww0 survivors left but just because there are none left and not a specifically holiday to commemorate the end of those events means it will be forgotten.  in america there are history courses at all levels of education about both of these wars.  i do not find a holiday to keep an event from being forgotten which i think is part of the reason memorial day is no longer just about the civil war but about deceased veterans from all wars.  after all, it was the third deadliest american conflict yet most people only know the name and that is only because it is implied by wwii .  lets be honest because the americans you talked to is a small sample of those in the entire country unless you have done some sort of mass research project.  but its been nearly 0 years and wwi is covered extensively in most high schools and colleges in the country, nobody is going to forget about it happening but people will forget details and numbers.  its bound to happen unless you study history or have a great interest or its a number beaten into you like the 0million jews in ww0.  to why veteran is day as it is now is on the monday ww0 ended is part coincidence and part due to a federal code that forces federal holidays to be on mondays.  which moved washington is birthday president is day , memorial day, labor day, columbus day and veteran is day.  veteran is day in the usa should not be moved to a different day just because another holiday commemorating a specific war in a different country has a different tone  #  this, in my opinion, the first major international that affected the entire world that america took part in and obviously not be our last given our rise as a superpower.   # it is celebrated in the most bombastic american way possible, with concerts, fireworks, and the like where does that happen ? i have lived in ny my whole life and i do not see or hear fireworks in on veteran is day or concerts for veteran is day.  i have seen companies give veterans discounted tickets to concerts on this day but never a veteran is day concert like they have similar gatherings on july 0.  i would find the argument of july 0th being a celebration of war because we are celebrating the victory over the british during our war of independence and our decision to declare ourselves and independent nation.  but i do not see veteran is day being a celebration of war, i see it more as a celebration of those who went to war and are still with us.  i will be honest every day there will be less and less world war i veterans and one day there will be nobody left who was enlisted during that time period.  so in a way the united states having a holiday to celebrate those people who fought for the united states, who are still alive, is a head of the curve of life so to speak.  having it on the day of that is the end of the first world war is a motion about looking back on our history.  this, in my opinion, the first major international that affected the entire world that america took part in and obviously not be our last given our rise as a superpower.  with that and with knowing one day there will be no ww0 veterans around, the day will be strange because those who passed are remembered on memorial day in the united states and those who are with us are recognized on veteran is day  #  this, in my opinion, the first major international that affected the entire world that america took part in and obviously not be our last given our rise as a superpower.   # a couple years ago the president attended a basketball game on an aircraft carrier URL on november 0.  tonight there will be a concert URL featuring among others carrie underwood, bruce springsteen, and eminem.  there is a huge difference in how those people are celebrated in the us compared to european countries.  americans are told to thank veterans for their service, whereas on armistice day europeans mourn.  the former presents war as a positive experience that makes people honorable, whereas the latter is all about how terrible it is.  july 0th is more about the change of government than the war, especially since far fewer americans died in that war than in wwi.  it commemorates veterans and casualties alike.  the idea that wwi should be forgotten simply because no one alive experienced it is terrifying to me that is exactly why it needs a holiday.  this, in my opinion, the first major international that affected the entire world that america took part in and obviously not be our last given our rise as a superpower.  again, i think you are only proving my point.  wwi was not a war about america is rise to power, and it should not be treated as simply part of history.  it was a horrific and avoidable waste of life.  it should be remembered specifically for the purpose of avoiding any further wars.   #  but its been nearly 0 years and wwi is covered extensively in most high schools and colleges in the country, nobody is going to forget about it happening but people will forget details and numbers.   # but its been nearly 0 years and wwi is covered extensively in most high schools and colleges in the country, nobody is going to forget about it happening but people will forget details and numbers.  its bound to happen unless you study history or have a great interest or its a number beaten into you like the 0million jews in ww0.  in europe, wwi is a part of everyday culture in a way it is not here.  it features heavily in both everyday conversation and in mass media.  and people do not just talk about it, they are passionate about it.  it is not just  a number beaten into you.   so what you are saying is only reinforcing my belief that america needs to remember the war more than we do.   #  nevertheless, many draft protesters have died in military prisons do to the inhuman conditions which the us government thought was a  fitting punishment.    #  war did happen on us soil but it was the draft protesters against the us government.  in wwi, millions of those who refused to be drafted were arrested and tried by a military tribunal, not a civilian court.  many wwi draft protesters were sentenced to death, though these sentences were later reduced.  nevertheless, many draft protesters have died in military prisons do to the inhuman conditions which the us government thought was a  fitting punishment.   as said by wwi veteran harry patch,  war is organized murder, nothing else.
i do not understand why many drivers speed unnecessarily on the highway.  the risk:benefit ratio is so high i do not see why anyone would risk it unless in an absolute  emergency .  for the purposes of this rant, i will use the speed limit of the highways i use: 0.  it is reasonably safe to go 0 with a neglible increase in the risk of getting pulled over by a cop at this rate.  however, many people i see are going around 0.  my route to work is 0 miles.  to go at a constant 0 mph, it would take 0 minutes, whereas it would take 0 min flat when going 0.  here is my point of contention:   by going 0, one would only gain 0 minutes and that is assuming one is going a constant 0 for 0 miles .  for routes shorter than the one i listed or by going anywhere slower than 0, the time one would gain would be even smaller.    however, the risk of going 0 mph for 0 minutes straight is tremendously high, and this include the risks of getting pulled over and getting into accidents.  this scenario assumes a long route of 0 miles which is much longer than what most people drive.  by looking at a 0 mile drive, the time saved by going 0 vs 0 would be a measly 0 minute.  i do not see how saving a few minutes of time is worth the risk undertaken.  cmv !  #  by looking at a 0 mile drive, the time saved by going 0 vs 0 would be a measly 0 minute.   #  i have several lights near me that take at least two minutes each if you catch the red for the maximum amount of time.   #  speeding is directly responsible for the smallest subset of accidents something like 0 0 in both the uk and the us .  the overwhelming majority of accidents is driving too fast  for conditions  basically meaning  bad weather  and distracted driving.  on a normal day, there is nothing wrong with speeding.  i have several lights near me that take at least two minutes each if you catch the red for the maximum amount of time.  slipping through the yellow versus meeting the red saves you a considerable amount of time.  speed limits are mostly unrelated to safety.  the government likes them because they can make tons of money for the city with tickets, so they made a lot of  speed kills  propaganda to scare people like you into justifying lowering speed limits further and prioritizing speed traps over real crime.   #  speed limits being basically nonsensical and unrelated to safety.   #  what is the acceptable rate of getting some place faster compared to risk ? it is riskier to drive than to walk i assume , yet we accept driving places because the speed to risk ratio generally considered acceptable.  the only connection to risk vs speed i have ever seen was related to going faster than the speed of traffic.  speed limits being basically nonsensical and unrelated to safety.  so by speeding do you mean  go over the speed limit  or  wouldriving unsafely  as these to things are basically different things entirely.  i guess we need info on how much more risk there is by going faster if there is any, and compared to what and what you would consider  acceptable .   #  the faster you go, the more likely that any maneuver that you perform will exceed the capacity your tires can handle.   # your statements is obviously not true from a mechanical standpoint.  0.  yes, you are right, speed is always relative.  but you are neglecting the relative speed of your vehicle to the pavement and the sides of the road.  0.  higher speeds diminish your reaction time for reacting to fixed roadway blockages disabled vehicles, road debris, damaged roadways, sudden roadway curves speed is proportional to your ability to act on these sort of things.  0.  higher speeds means that sudden car mechanical failures are far more unsafe for example, tires popping, car hoods flying up.  0.  higher speeds are quadratically related to the acceleration force you experience on turns: a mv 0 / r.  your tires have a limit of how much force they can take before they lose grip.  the faster you go, the more likely that any maneuver that you perform will exceed the capacity your tires can handle.  URL  #  that difference is significantly greater than the actual difference in deaths per capita.   #  the difference is almost exactly the same as the difference in vehicles per capita URL 0/0 0 and 0/0 0.  one major difference is that germans drive significantly more.  almost 0,0 mi. /yr URL pdf warning vs 0 mi. /yr URL pdf warning .  that suggests that germans should have a 0 higher per capita death rate assuming all other things were equal .  basically, you have got a higher percentage of people driving more miles per year.  that difference is significantly greater than the actual difference in deaths per capita.  did that all make sense ? so, what does this tell us ? it tells us that the driving situation is safer in germany when measured in deaths per mile which is a better metric than deaths per capita.  in regards to speed limits or lack therof it tells us that  at a minimum  higher speed limits do not increase the danger enough to offset the other advantages germany may have.  the best case scenario for no speed limits is that germany is actually more dangerous overall, but the higher speed limits actually decrease the danger enough to offset the additional danger.  the reality is probably somewhere in the middle with the higher speed limits having a negligible relationship to safety when compared to driver education, road conditions, car quality, etc.   #  is there an inherent risk in going 0 ?  #  is there an inherent risk in going 0 ? or do you see the risk as going 0 over the speed limit ? the speed limit on my section on highway is 0.  i often do 0 using your same  0 miles over is reasonable  logic.  am i now driving recklessly, or does that not begin until i go 0 ? 0 was decided on in your jurisdiction, so it now seems reasonably safe to you.  speeding is very subjective, as are the risks and benefits.
the crux of the argument is whether the fetus is a person.  i think most people would agree that if it is a person, it would be immoral to kill it.  this is why few people support partial birth abortions at that point, the fetus is pretty well considered a baby.  what does the fetus is ability to survive without depending on the mother have anything to do with it ? we do not use that as a measure for whether other people are alive newborns ca not survive on their own very long.  conjoined twins may not be able to survive without the other.  these are certainly people.  viability seems to me an arbitrary concept, especially given the changing medical technology that makes a fetus viable earlier and earlier.  if only a viable fetus is a person, then a fetus at the same stage of development would be a considered a person today, but not 0 years ago ?  #  what does the fetus is ability to survive without depending on the mother have anything to do with it ?  #  if a fetus can survive outside of the mother, than we are not requiring the use of the mothers body against her will.   # if a fetus can survive outside of the mother, than we are not requiring the use of the mothers body against her will.  it is reasonable to trade abortion for transplantation into an artificial womb, but it is not reasonable to take away bodily autonomy.  it is not about  alive , it is about biological dependence.  if someone else can help the baby live, it is not a biological dependence.  make no mistake, they are never considered a person until they are outside of a womb.  a fetus has no rights until it is born.   #  needing someone else to help with basic needs like feeding ?  #  what about conjoined twins who are  biologically dependent  ? what if one twin wants to be free of the other, but separating them would kill his twin ? would you allow him to kill his twin for the sake of his bodily autonomy ? what is the moral distinction between biological dependence and other dependence i. e.  needing someone else to help with basic needs like feeding ? a fetus has no rights until it is born.  this puts you in a very small minority view.  at what point does it become a person ? when the umbilical cord is cut ? when it is whole body is out, but before the cord is cut ? when just the head is out, but the rest is still in ? when you start breaking this down to find the actual moment of  life  you see this position becomes quite arbitrary.   #  if you think life is complex, try thinking about  personhood.    # well of course, because what is or is not life is a human designation and when we get to things like viruses becomes rather wonky.  the universe does not fit into the nice neat boxes humans like to put things in.  if you think life is complex, try thinking about  personhood.   would an artificial intelligence be considered a person ? if dolphins involved intelligence would we consider then persons ? it is all very complex and ultimately arbituary.  the fetus  viability comes into play because of the bodily autonomy arguments.  no, you would not kill one conjoined twin to separate it from the other because we can plainly see that both are persons.  with a fetus that ca not think of communicate it is personhood things become considerably murky.   #  when the baby is in the vaginal canal, the only way to get the baby out is pushing or a c section.   # what if one twin wants to be free of the other, but separating them would kill his twin ? would you allow him to kill his twin for the sake of his bodily autonomy ? i am not sure what this has to do with abortion.  the conjoined twins have been born and are proper people with all of the associated rights.  sometimes one twin can kill the other in utero, and that situation is completely legal.  our entire legal system is based on that  very small minority view .  a fetus does not have any rights until it is born.  when the umbilical cord is cut ? when it is whole body is out, but before the cord is cut ? when just the head is out, but the rest is still in ? when you start breaking this down to find the actual moment of  life  you see this position becomes quite arbitrary.  when the baby is completely outside of the mother, it is born.  it is not arbitrary at all, and doctors are very consistent about what circumstance they label the  time of birth .  honestly, i am not sure what point you are trying to make.  obviously once labor has begun, the time to have an abortion has passed.  when the baby is in the vaginal canal, the only way to get the baby out is pushing or a c section.  additionally, the baby will not be able to exercise any rights during this time.   #  i ca not come up with a good reason why any of these stages are different from a moral perspective ?  # the conjoined twins have been born and are proper people with all of the associated rights.  sometimes one twin can kill the other in utero, and that situation is completely legal.  if you are using  biological dependence  as an indicator of whether the entity is a person, then i fail to see the distinction between the conjoined twins in the example and a fetus.  both are biologically dependent on someone else.  you drew a distinction based on the fetus not yet being born, and therefore not a person.  but why should whether it is in the uterus, on its way out of the uterus, or fully out of the uterus bear on whether it is a person ? a fetus does not have any rights until it is born.    obviously once labor has begun, the time to have an abortion has passed.  when the baby is in the vaginal canal, the only way to get the baby out is pushing or a c section.  i think you are contradicting yourself.  why is it  obvious  that once labor has begun the time for an abortion has passed ? if the fetus is not a person until it is out, why should it not be permitted to abort it during labor ? until recently, partial birth abortions were legal and happened.  partial birth abortion is now federally banned.  this basically where the fetus is intentionally killed as it is being delivered.  the point i am trying to make is that i have a hard time morally sanctioning abortion because i ca not find a point at which i can distinguish between whether the fetus is a person or not.  once it is born definitely a person.  ten seconds before it is out ? just before labor ? a week before labor ? two weeks ? a month ? i ca not come up with a good reason why any of these stages are different from a moral perspective ? i have not yet been convinced that there is any moral distinction between physically in the birth canal or out.  or between  biological dependence  and any other kind of dependence.
the crux of the argument is whether the fetus is a person.  i think most people would agree that if it is a person, it would be immoral to kill it.  this is why few people support partial birth abortions at that point, the fetus is pretty well considered a baby.  what does the fetus is ability to survive without depending on the mother have anything to do with it ? we do not use that as a measure for whether other people are alive newborns ca not survive on their own very long.  conjoined twins may not be able to survive without the other.  these are certainly people.  viability seems to me an arbitrary concept, especially given the changing medical technology that makes a fetus viable earlier and earlier.  if only a viable fetus is a person, then a fetus at the same stage of development would be a considered a person today, but not 0 years ago ?  #  we do not use that as a measure for whether other people are alive newborns ca not survive on their own very long.   #  it is not about  alive , it is about biological dependence.   # if a fetus can survive outside of the mother, than we are not requiring the use of the mothers body against her will.  it is reasonable to trade abortion for transplantation into an artificial womb, but it is not reasonable to take away bodily autonomy.  it is not about  alive , it is about biological dependence.  if someone else can help the baby live, it is not a biological dependence.  make no mistake, they are never considered a person until they are outside of a womb.  a fetus has no rights until it is born.   #  when it is whole body is out, but before the cord is cut ?  #  what about conjoined twins who are  biologically dependent  ? what if one twin wants to be free of the other, but separating them would kill his twin ? would you allow him to kill his twin for the sake of his bodily autonomy ? what is the moral distinction between biological dependence and other dependence i. e.  needing someone else to help with basic needs like feeding ? a fetus has no rights until it is born.  this puts you in a very small minority view.  at what point does it become a person ? when the umbilical cord is cut ? when it is whole body is out, but before the cord is cut ? when just the head is out, but the rest is still in ? when you start breaking this down to find the actual moment of  life  you see this position becomes quite arbitrary.   #  the universe does not fit into the nice neat boxes humans like to put things in.   # well of course, because what is or is not life is a human designation and when we get to things like viruses becomes rather wonky.  the universe does not fit into the nice neat boxes humans like to put things in.  if you think life is complex, try thinking about  personhood.   would an artificial intelligence be considered a person ? if dolphins involved intelligence would we consider then persons ? it is all very complex and ultimately arbituary.  the fetus  viability comes into play because of the bodily autonomy arguments.  no, you would not kill one conjoined twin to separate it from the other because we can plainly see that both are persons.  with a fetus that ca not think of communicate it is personhood things become considerably murky.   #  our entire legal system is based on that  very small minority view .   # what if one twin wants to be free of the other, but separating them would kill his twin ? would you allow him to kill his twin for the sake of his bodily autonomy ? i am not sure what this has to do with abortion.  the conjoined twins have been born and are proper people with all of the associated rights.  sometimes one twin can kill the other in utero, and that situation is completely legal.  our entire legal system is based on that  very small minority view .  a fetus does not have any rights until it is born.  when the umbilical cord is cut ? when it is whole body is out, but before the cord is cut ? when just the head is out, but the rest is still in ? when you start breaking this down to find the actual moment of  life  you see this position becomes quite arbitrary.  when the baby is completely outside of the mother, it is born.  it is not arbitrary at all, and doctors are very consistent about what circumstance they label the  time of birth .  honestly, i am not sure what point you are trying to make.  obviously once labor has begun, the time to have an abortion has passed.  when the baby is in the vaginal canal, the only way to get the baby out is pushing or a c section.  additionally, the baby will not be able to exercise any rights during this time.   #  or between  biological dependence  and any other kind of dependence.   # the conjoined twins have been born and are proper people with all of the associated rights.  sometimes one twin can kill the other in utero, and that situation is completely legal.  if you are using  biological dependence  as an indicator of whether the entity is a person, then i fail to see the distinction between the conjoined twins in the example and a fetus.  both are biologically dependent on someone else.  you drew a distinction based on the fetus not yet being born, and therefore not a person.  but why should whether it is in the uterus, on its way out of the uterus, or fully out of the uterus bear on whether it is a person ? a fetus does not have any rights until it is born.    obviously once labor has begun, the time to have an abortion has passed.  when the baby is in the vaginal canal, the only way to get the baby out is pushing or a c section.  i think you are contradicting yourself.  why is it  obvious  that once labor has begun the time for an abortion has passed ? if the fetus is not a person until it is out, why should it not be permitted to abort it during labor ? until recently, partial birth abortions were legal and happened.  partial birth abortion is now federally banned.  this basically where the fetus is intentionally killed as it is being delivered.  the point i am trying to make is that i have a hard time morally sanctioning abortion because i ca not find a point at which i can distinguish between whether the fetus is a person or not.  once it is born definitely a person.  ten seconds before it is out ? just before labor ? a week before labor ? two weeks ? a month ? i ca not come up with a good reason why any of these stages are different from a moral perspective ? i have not yet been convinced that there is any moral distinction between physically in the birth canal or out.  or between  biological dependence  and any other kind of dependence.
the crux of the argument is whether the fetus is a person.  i think most people would agree that if it is a person, it would be immoral to kill it.  this is why few people support partial birth abortions at that point, the fetus is pretty well considered a baby.  what does the fetus is ability to survive without depending on the mother have anything to do with it ? we do not use that as a measure for whether other people are alive newborns ca not survive on their own very long.  conjoined twins may not be able to survive without the other.  these are certainly people.  viability seems to me an arbitrary concept, especially given the changing medical technology that makes a fetus viable earlier and earlier.  if only a viable fetus is a person, then a fetus at the same stage of development would be a considered a person today, but not 0 years ago ?  #  if only a viable fetus is a person, then a fetus at the same stage of development would be a considered a person today, but not 0 years ago ?  #  make no mistake, they are never considered a person until they are outside of a womb.   # if a fetus can survive outside of the mother, than we are not requiring the use of the mothers body against her will.  it is reasonable to trade abortion for transplantation into an artificial womb, but it is not reasonable to take away bodily autonomy.  it is not about  alive , it is about biological dependence.  if someone else can help the baby live, it is not a biological dependence.  make no mistake, they are never considered a person until they are outside of a womb.  a fetus has no rights until it is born.   #  what if one twin wants to be free of the other, but separating them would kill his twin ?  #  what about conjoined twins who are  biologically dependent  ? what if one twin wants to be free of the other, but separating them would kill his twin ? would you allow him to kill his twin for the sake of his bodily autonomy ? what is the moral distinction between biological dependence and other dependence i. e.  needing someone else to help with basic needs like feeding ? a fetus has no rights until it is born.  this puts you in a very small minority view.  at what point does it become a person ? when the umbilical cord is cut ? when it is whole body is out, but before the cord is cut ? when just the head is out, but the rest is still in ? when you start breaking this down to find the actual moment of  life  you see this position becomes quite arbitrary.   #  would an artificial intelligence be considered a person ?  # well of course, because what is or is not life is a human designation and when we get to things like viruses becomes rather wonky.  the universe does not fit into the nice neat boxes humans like to put things in.  if you think life is complex, try thinking about  personhood.   would an artificial intelligence be considered a person ? if dolphins involved intelligence would we consider then persons ? it is all very complex and ultimately arbituary.  the fetus  viability comes into play because of the bodily autonomy arguments.  no, you would not kill one conjoined twin to separate it from the other because we can plainly see that both are persons.  with a fetus that ca not think of communicate it is personhood things become considerably murky.   #  i am not sure what this has to do with abortion.   # what if one twin wants to be free of the other, but separating them would kill his twin ? would you allow him to kill his twin for the sake of his bodily autonomy ? i am not sure what this has to do with abortion.  the conjoined twins have been born and are proper people with all of the associated rights.  sometimes one twin can kill the other in utero, and that situation is completely legal.  our entire legal system is based on that  very small minority view .  a fetus does not have any rights until it is born.  when the umbilical cord is cut ? when it is whole body is out, but before the cord is cut ? when just the head is out, but the rest is still in ? when you start breaking this down to find the actual moment of  life  you see this position becomes quite arbitrary.  when the baby is completely outside of the mother, it is born.  it is not arbitrary at all, and doctors are very consistent about what circumstance they label the  time of birth .  honestly, i am not sure what point you are trying to make.  obviously once labor has begun, the time to have an abortion has passed.  when the baby is in the vaginal canal, the only way to get the baby out is pushing or a c section.  additionally, the baby will not be able to exercise any rights during this time.   #  sometimes one twin can kill the other in utero, and that situation is completely legal.   # the conjoined twins have been born and are proper people with all of the associated rights.  sometimes one twin can kill the other in utero, and that situation is completely legal.  if you are using  biological dependence  as an indicator of whether the entity is a person, then i fail to see the distinction between the conjoined twins in the example and a fetus.  both are biologically dependent on someone else.  you drew a distinction based on the fetus not yet being born, and therefore not a person.  but why should whether it is in the uterus, on its way out of the uterus, or fully out of the uterus bear on whether it is a person ? a fetus does not have any rights until it is born.    obviously once labor has begun, the time to have an abortion has passed.  when the baby is in the vaginal canal, the only way to get the baby out is pushing or a c section.  i think you are contradicting yourself.  why is it  obvious  that once labor has begun the time for an abortion has passed ? if the fetus is not a person until it is out, why should it not be permitted to abort it during labor ? until recently, partial birth abortions were legal and happened.  partial birth abortion is now federally banned.  this basically where the fetus is intentionally killed as it is being delivered.  the point i am trying to make is that i have a hard time morally sanctioning abortion because i ca not find a point at which i can distinguish between whether the fetus is a person or not.  once it is born definitely a person.  ten seconds before it is out ? just before labor ? a week before labor ? two weeks ? a month ? i ca not come up with a good reason why any of these stages are different from a moral perspective ? i have not yet been convinced that there is any moral distinction between physically in the birth canal or out.  or between  biological dependence  and any other kind of dependence.
the crux of the argument is whether the fetus is a person.  i think most people would agree that if it is a person, it would be immoral to kill it.  this is why few people support partial birth abortions at that point, the fetus is pretty well considered a baby.  what does the fetus is ability to survive without depending on the mother have anything to do with it ? we do not use that as a measure for whether other people are alive newborns ca not survive on their own very long.  conjoined twins may not be able to survive without the other.  these are certainly people.  viability seems to me an arbitrary concept, especially given the changing medical technology that makes a fetus viable earlier and earlier.  if only a viable fetus is a person, then a fetus at the same stage of development would be a considered a person today, but not 0 years ago ?  #  the crux of the argument is whether the fetus is a person.   #  i think most people would agree that if it is a person, it would be immoral to kill it.   # i think most people would agree that if it is a person, it would be immoral to kill it.  actually, not really.  many pro choice supporters believe that even if the fetus is a person, it does not have a right to force another person to use her body to carry and sustain it against her will.  but that is not really here nor there in terms of your cmv.   cmv: the concept of  viability  of a fetus does not make sense as a cutoff point for abortion.  well, it is not.   viability  is a word thrown around a lot in terms of individual is personal thoughts on abortion morality, but the laws surrounding abortion are not actually based on it.  when the scotus made its roe v.  wade decision, it set the limit at the third trimester, which is near viability but not at viability.  viability is about 0 weeks and the third trimester starts at 0 weeks.   #  it is reasonable to trade abortion for transplantation into an artificial womb, but it is not reasonable to take away bodily autonomy.   # if a fetus can survive outside of the mother, than we are not requiring the use of the mothers body against her will.  it is reasonable to trade abortion for transplantation into an artificial womb, but it is not reasonable to take away bodily autonomy.  it is not about  alive , it is about biological dependence.  if someone else can help the baby live, it is not a biological dependence.  make no mistake, they are never considered a person until they are outside of a womb.  a fetus has no rights until it is born.   #  what is the moral distinction between biological dependence and other dependence i. e.   #  what about conjoined twins who are  biologically dependent  ? what if one twin wants to be free of the other, but separating them would kill his twin ? would you allow him to kill his twin for the sake of his bodily autonomy ? what is the moral distinction between biological dependence and other dependence i. e.  needing someone else to help with basic needs like feeding ? a fetus has no rights until it is born.  this puts you in a very small minority view.  at what point does it become a person ? when the umbilical cord is cut ? when it is whole body is out, but before the cord is cut ? when just the head is out, but the rest is still in ? when you start breaking this down to find the actual moment of  life  you see this position becomes quite arbitrary.   #  the fetus  viability comes into play because of the bodily autonomy arguments.   # well of course, because what is or is not life is a human designation and when we get to things like viruses becomes rather wonky.  the universe does not fit into the nice neat boxes humans like to put things in.  if you think life is complex, try thinking about  personhood.   would an artificial intelligence be considered a person ? if dolphins involved intelligence would we consider then persons ? it is all very complex and ultimately arbituary.  the fetus  viability comes into play because of the bodily autonomy arguments.  no, you would not kill one conjoined twin to separate it from the other because we can plainly see that both are persons.  with a fetus that ca not think of communicate it is personhood things become considerably murky.   #  what if one twin wants to be free of the other, but separating them would kill his twin ?  # what if one twin wants to be free of the other, but separating them would kill his twin ? would you allow him to kill his twin for the sake of his bodily autonomy ? i am not sure what this has to do with abortion.  the conjoined twins have been born and are proper people with all of the associated rights.  sometimes one twin can kill the other in utero, and that situation is completely legal.  our entire legal system is based on that  very small minority view .  a fetus does not have any rights until it is born.  when the umbilical cord is cut ? when it is whole body is out, but before the cord is cut ? when just the head is out, but the rest is still in ? when you start breaking this down to find the actual moment of  life  you see this position becomes quite arbitrary.  when the baby is completely outside of the mother, it is born.  it is not arbitrary at all, and doctors are very consistent about what circumstance they label the  time of birth .  honestly, i am not sure what point you are trying to make.  obviously once labor has begun, the time to have an abortion has passed.  when the baby is in the vaginal canal, the only way to get the baby out is pushing or a c section.  additionally, the baby will not be able to exercise any rights during this time.
movie piracy is stealing  traditionally stealing is taking from someone so that they no longer have the stolen item.  this i believe is wrong.  if i had a need for a physical item i would see what was available on the market.  if nothing on the market was available at a reasonable price i might consider making it for myself.  companies who manufacture are able to mass produce goods for cheaper than an individual could because they have equipment available which would be cost prohibitive for an individual to acquire.  this means that usually an item can be purchased cheaper than it could be produced at home.  if i needed a new computer there is no way i could manufacture one as cheaply as easily as i could buy one so i am happy to purchase one.  i am not from the us but i know you have some very restrictive patent laws which are not consistent with much of world.  most places allow patents to be infringed for personal non commercial use.  i can build a boeing 0 in my shed for personal use but i ca not burn a cd.  the music industry sells cds for a huge profit on what they actually cost to produce.  because of the huge mark up people adopt a diy attitude.  then rather than reduce price like another industry might, the music industry protects its sales by getting unfair laws passed forcing people to buy their product.  distributing music over the internet should be even cheaper than cd is but it is still prohibitively expensive.  i just opened the itunes store on my phone and clicked the first album, sonic highways.  $0 for the album or $0 for a single song.  the music industry has brought piracy on itself.  it could have embraced the internet as a means of supplying music for a reasonable cost but it did not.  i believe if the music industry lowered the price on music to $0 per album or $0 per song very few people would pirate music.  they would make less per download but sell much more music.  it would not be worth downloading crappy unorganised bits of music mixed with malware and viruses, or spend weeks trying to find something obscure.  not to mention as people left piracy and started paying for music seeders would start to disappear.  i would pay for all my music, in fact i would spend more on music than i do now, most people would.  i would be much more likely to spend money on music i had not heard before or wanted to try.   #  the music industry has brought piracy on itself.   #  it could have embraced the internet as a means of supplying music for a reasonable cost but it did not.   #  man0 said you can create a short story using raintee0 is story as a foundation.  you are suggesting that you can pirate the story, ie.  copying it verbatim.  although both are for personal use, these two are not the same things.  there is a line between  inspiration  and  plagiarism  that you have crossed.  on one end, you are integrating your own understanding of raintee0 is concept into an original story by yourself.  on the other end you just have raintee0 is work word for word.  it could have embraced the internet as a means of supplying music for a reasonable cost but it did not.  i believe if the music industry lowered the price on music to $0 per album or $0 per song very few people would pirate music.  they would make less per download but sell much more music.  it would not be worth downloading crappy unorganised bits of music mixed with malware and viruses, or spend weeks trying to find something obscure.  not to mention as people left piracy and started paying for music seeders would start to disappear.  although a logical assumption, this is not necessarily true.  the artist will not necessarily sell much more music simply because the price is lower and the profit wo not necessarily be higher either .  even free things are seeded and will continue to be.  having the physical price decreased means nothing if the alternative is paying nothing at all.  although they may be risking the safety of their computer, the risk would not be that high, and cumulatively the payoff is greater if you choose to download lots of music.  this chain of causation you have presented is very specific.  and although our thinking may suggest that it would happen, nothing explicitly or definitely states it will happen, just that everything in that sequence might happen.  however, i do agree with you that digital copies should be cheaper than their physical renditions.  are they not ? because i was always under the assumption they were clearly i am not one who visits hmv .   #  obviously, as they are that advanced and it is an issue.   #  that is not very distinct from things we have already.  if a camera could become advanced enough to record moving pictures and sound, would that be an issue ? obviously, as they are that advanced and it is an issue.  the thing about piracy nowadays is that it centers around intellectual property, not just physical property.  anything that can mass produce that intellectual property is going to become a legal issue.   #  please do not misuse the word stealing as long as no inventory loss booking is forced upon the seller, it is not theft.   #  please do not misuse the word stealing as long as no inventory loss booking is forced upon the seller, it is not theft.  stealing, in a proper accounting sense, involves a write off of inventory.  or from another angle, stealing is the violation of property rights.  however intellectual property is a legal gimmick, it is not real property in the ethical sense scarce resources homesteaded .  one could make a law that every time someone utters the name of jesus they must pay $0 to the pope, but it would not make the name a real property, just a legalistic simulation of it.   #  i did not misuse the word stealing as it applies to this situation.   #  i did not misuse the word stealing as it applies to this situation.  stealing does not only apply to physical inventory.  if i were to go to a barber, get a haircut, then leave without paying, i would still be considered a thief.  intellectual property is not a gimmick, it is a way to protect ones right to their abstract creations.  under your definition of theft, i could take an idea you came up with, make money off of it and owe you nothing.  you can not copyright a name you did not create and you could not charge someone for the words they utter.  that law would only exist in a tyrannical state.   #  if i read a book publicly, then i have technically  violated copyright  and can be sued because it is a  public performance .   # but you would not be considered to have stolen anything.  that would be  theft of services  which is specifically different than just  theft .  right, it is a legal fiction.  there is no physical thing that does this, intellectual property as a concept exists because the law states it does which is different from regular property which is represented by a physical object.  and i see no legal problem with this, it happens all the time ! if we were chatting and i said  hey, this would be a really cool idea for a business  and then you go create that business and make tons of money, legally  you do not owe me anything .  only certain abstract concepts are covered under intellectual property laws because it is a legal fiction.  the best you can do is trademark it.  well that is plain false.  if i read a book publicly, then i have technically  violated copyright  and can be sued because it is a  public performance .  if someone on a television show names a particular trademark then they can be sued if they did not have the permission to do that.  etc.  so by your logic every state with copyright laws is a tyrannical state.
movie piracy is stealing  traditionally stealing is taking from someone so that they no longer have the stolen item.  this i believe is wrong.  if i had a need for a physical item i would see what was available on the market.  if nothing on the market was available at a reasonable price i might consider making it for myself.  companies who manufacture are able to mass produce goods for cheaper than an individual could because they have equipment available which would be cost prohibitive for an individual to acquire.  this means that usually an item can be purchased cheaper than it could be produced at home.  if i needed a new computer there is no way i could manufacture one as cheaply as easily as i could buy one so i am happy to purchase one.  i am not from the us but i know you have some very restrictive patent laws which are not consistent with much of world.  most places allow patents to be infringed for personal non commercial use.  i can build a boeing 0 in my shed for personal use but i ca not burn a cd.  the music industry sells cds for a huge profit on what they actually cost to produce.  because of the huge mark up people adopt a diy attitude.  then rather than reduce price like another industry might, the music industry protects its sales by getting unfair laws passed forcing people to buy their product.  distributing music over the internet should be even cheaper than cd is but it is still prohibitively expensive.  i just opened the itunes store on my phone and clicked the first album, sonic highways.  $0 for the album or $0 for a single song.  the music industry has brought piracy on itself.  it could have embraced the internet as a means of supplying music for a reasonable cost but it did not.  i believe if the music industry lowered the price on music to $0 per album or $0 per song very few people would pirate music.  they would make less per download but sell much more music.  it would not be worth downloading crappy unorganised bits of music mixed with malware and viruses, or spend weeks trying to find something obscure.  not to mention as people left piracy and started paying for music seeders would start to disappear.  i would pay for all my music, in fact i would spend more on music than i do now, most people would.  i would be much more likely to spend money on music i had not heard before or wanted to try.   #  the music industry sells cds for a huge profit on what they actually cost to produce.   #  the physical cds are cheap, however, artists spend a lot of creative time and energy writing and creating those songs.   # your analogy is breaking down.  you can build a 0 in your shed for personal use, and you can  build a cd  by recording yourself singing and playing instruments.  instead, pirating is taking a finished product which required no effort from you.  just because one is easier to reproduce than the other does not mean it is free for the taking.  the physical cds are cheap, however, artists spend a lot of creative time and energy writing and creating those songs.  then you have to pay recording staff, marketing, cost of music videos, etc.  not everybody sells millions of songs, so the price may be high in order to make a living.   #  anything that can mass produce that intellectual property is going to become a legal issue.   #  that is not very distinct from things we have already.  if a camera could become advanced enough to record moving pictures and sound, would that be an issue ? obviously, as they are that advanced and it is an issue.  the thing about piracy nowadays is that it centers around intellectual property, not just physical property.  anything that can mass produce that intellectual property is going to become a legal issue.   #  one could make a law that every time someone utters the name of jesus they must pay $0 to the pope, but it would not make the name a real property, just a legalistic simulation of it.   #  please do not misuse the word stealing as long as no inventory loss booking is forced upon the seller, it is not theft.  stealing, in a proper accounting sense, involves a write off of inventory.  or from another angle, stealing is the violation of property rights.  however intellectual property is a legal gimmick, it is not real property in the ethical sense scarce resources homesteaded .  one could make a law that every time someone utters the name of jesus they must pay $0 to the pope, but it would not make the name a real property, just a legalistic simulation of it.   #  intellectual property is not a gimmick, it is a way to protect ones right to their abstract creations.   #  i did not misuse the word stealing as it applies to this situation.  stealing does not only apply to physical inventory.  if i were to go to a barber, get a haircut, then leave without paying, i would still be considered a thief.  intellectual property is not a gimmick, it is a way to protect ones right to their abstract creations.  under your definition of theft, i could take an idea you came up with, make money off of it and owe you nothing.  you can not copyright a name you did not create and you could not charge someone for the words they utter.  that law would only exist in a tyrannical state.   #  but you would not be considered to have stolen anything.   # but you would not be considered to have stolen anything.  that would be  theft of services  which is specifically different than just  theft .  right, it is a legal fiction.  there is no physical thing that does this, intellectual property as a concept exists because the law states it does which is different from regular property which is represented by a physical object.  and i see no legal problem with this, it happens all the time ! if we were chatting and i said  hey, this would be a really cool idea for a business  and then you go create that business and make tons of money, legally  you do not owe me anything .  only certain abstract concepts are covered under intellectual property laws because it is a legal fiction.  the best you can do is trademark it.  well that is plain false.  if i read a book publicly, then i have technically  violated copyright  and can be sued because it is a  public performance .  if someone on a television show names a particular trademark then they can be sued if they did not have the permission to do that.  etc.  so by your logic every state with copyright laws is a tyrannical state.
movie piracy is stealing  traditionally stealing is taking from someone so that they no longer have the stolen item.  this i believe is wrong.  if i had a need for a physical item i would see what was available on the market.  if nothing on the market was available at a reasonable price i might consider making it for myself.  companies who manufacture are able to mass produce goods for cheaper than an individual could because they have equipment available which would be cost prohibitive for an individual to acquire.  this means that usually an item can be purchased cheaper than it could be produced at home.  if i needed a new computer there is no way i could manufacture one as cheaply as easily as i could buy one so i am happy to purchase one.  i am not from the us but i know you have some very restrictive patent laws which are not consistent with much of world.  most places allow patents to be infringed for personal non commercial use.  i can build a boeing 0 in my shed for personal use but i ca not burn a cd.  the music industry sells cds for a huge profit on what they actually cost to produce.  because of the huge mark up people adopt a diy attitude.  then rather than reduce price like another industry might, the music industry protects its sales by getting unfair laws passed forcing people to buy their product.  distributing music over the internet should be even cheaper than cd is but it is still prohibitively expensive.  i just opened the itunes store on my phone and clicked the first album, sonic highways.  $0 for the album or $0 for a single song.  the music industry has brought piracy on itself.  it could have embraced the internet as a means of supplying music for a reasonable cost but it did not.  i believe if the music industry lowered the price on music to $0 per album or $0 per song very few people would pirate music.  they would make less per download but sell much more music.  it would not be worth downloading crappy unorganised bits of music mixed with malware and viruses, or spend weeks trying to find something obscure.  not to mention as people left piracy and started paying for music seeders would start to disappear.  i would pay for all my music, in fact i would spend more on music than i do now, most people would.  i would be much more likely to spend money on music i had not heard before or wanted to try.   #  i believe if the music industry lowered the price on music to $0 per album or $0 per song very few people would pirate music.   #  they would make less per download but sell much more music.   #  musicians and the music industry have a right to make money from the music that they produce.  piracy is a crime, and there is no defense for it.  they would make less per download but sell much more music.  i think you have the right idea here.  of course digital albums should cost less than a physical cd.  i am not sure if $0 covers all of the costs involved in selling a digital album e. g. , server costs, electricity, etc .   #  the thing about piracy nowadays is that it centers around intellectual property, not just physical property.   #  that is not very distinct from things we have already.  if a camera could become advanced enough to record moving pictures and sound, would that be an issue ? obviously, as they are that advanced and it is an issue.  the thing about piracy nowadays is that it centers around intellectual property, not just physical property.  anything that can mass produce that intellectual property is going to become a legal issue.   #  stealing, in a proper accounting sense, involves a write off of inventory.   #  please do not misuse the word stealing as long as no inventory loss booking is forced upon the seller, it is not theft.  stealing, in a proper accounting sense, involves a write off of inventory.  or from another angle, stealing is the violation of property rights.  however intellectual property is a legal gimmick, it is not real property in the ethical sense scarce resources homesteaded .  one could make a law that every time someone utters the name of jesus they must pay $0 to the pope, but it would not make the name a real property, just a legalistic simulation of it.   #  under your definition of theft, i could take an idea you came up with, make money off of it and owe you nothing.   #  i did not misuse the word stealing as it applies to this situation.  stealing does not only apply to physical inventory.  if i were to go to a barber, get a haircut, then leave without paying, i would still be considered a thief.  intellectual property is not a gimmick, it is a way to protect ones right to their abstract creations.  under your definition of theft, i could take an idea you came up with, make money off of it and owe you nothing.  you can not copyright a name you did not create and you could not charge someone for the words they utter.  that law would only exist in a tyrannical state.   #  if i read a book publicly, then i have technically  violated copyright  and can be sued because it is a  public performance .   # but you would not be considered to have stolen anything.  that would be  theft of services  which is specifically different than just  theft .  right, it is a legal fiction.  there is no physical thing that does this, intellectual property as a concept exists because the law states it does which is different from regular property which is represented by a physical object.  and i see no legal problem with this, it happens all the time ! if we were chatting and i said  hey, this would be a really cool idea for a business  and then you go create that business and make tons of money, legally  you do not owe me anything .  only certain abstract concepts are covered under intellectual property laws because it is a legal fiction.  the best you can do is trademark it.  well that is plain false.  if i read a book publicly, then i have technically  violated copyright  and can be sued because it is a  public performance .  if someone on a television show names a particular trademark then they can be sued if they did not have the permission to do that.  etc.  so by your logic every state with copyright laws is a tyrannical state.
this is a well documented viewpoint, but last night i had an argument on this topic with a friend whose intelligence i greatly respect.  try as i might, i just ca not see how at least the first part of the statement could be false.  i present this in the true spirit of cmv, i feel like i might be missing something.  my particular view is that in a number of disney movies, the heroes skins are caucasian and the villains skins are shades of dark brown, purple, grey , and that this creates an association between evil and dark skin that children pick up very easily.  there are plenty of disney movies where this is not the case, but there are enough that it is an issue: aladdin, lion king, little mermaid, mulan, hercules probably more .  beyond this obvservation, there are a variety of arguments that many disney movies are racist:   an article URL from the guardian detailing the history, mainly from a stereotype   voice actor is race angle.    a listicle URL with plenty of video links, some back to the 0s   0s.  is there anyone that will argue that even these are not harmfully racist ? and if they are harmfully racist, at which point did the racism disappear or become benign ?   diversity in disney films URL a collection of essays.    several more books URL on amazon.  so, where are the well reasoned arguments that these depictions are not racist ? i think there is some fundamental disagreement between my friend and i on the way meaning is created and, thus, how media works.  for her, the  darkness  evoking evil stops there, it is only incidental that skin is being used as the pallet.  she goes on to joke about blue people being offended by genie, etc.  further, she believes that the model is just too simple.  that the mechanisms of racism are much more complicated than this belief allows and that it is this kind of thinking that leads to rampant political correctness.  this is possibly why i am most interested in this argument.  i find many arguments that lead to rampant pc to be compelling, but i certainly detest the world in which we are all policing each other for racial, feminist, etc.  correctness.  for me, it naturally follows that if these characters are teaching negative stereotypes about race, then they are harmful to children as they learn about the world.  if you agree that the movies are racist, but that they do not have that big of an impact on children, i would be interested in those arguments as well.  finally, i am much more interested in scholarly or at least well studied arguments than how you personally  feel  about the subject without deep consideration.  i will gladly devour any links you have to support your arguments.   #  there are plenty of disney movies where this is not the case, but there are enough that it is an issue: aladdin, lion king, little mermaid, mulan, hercules probably more .   #  the problem is that you just kinda brush aside the rather large list of movies that are not racist, and instead chose to focus solely on a few cherry picked movies of which the list is not even particularly long .   # the problem is that you just kinda brush aside the rather large list of movies that are not racist, and instead chose to focus solely on a few cherry picked movies of which the list is not even particularly long .  i am also unsure as to how you came to the conclusion all these characters were darker skinned.  tbh, hades looks pretty white, or at the very least, he is certainly not very dark skinned.  as for mulan, these guys are not that dark skinned either URL you also forget the darker skinned protagonists in some of the movies you listed.  in fact, when you compare the villains from the movies listed with some protagonists from other movies URL it becomes rather apparent that they are not that dark skinned.  has disney done some racist cartoons ? absolutely URL but to say all the movies are inherently racist for having villains that do not even look that dark skinned is pushing it.   #  i do not know how, stylistically, the film would have worked without the  dark  areas on the edges of the pridelands.   #  even your new view does not hold up, though.  0 beauty and the beast.  you ca not get a lot whiter than gaston, while the beast is undoubtedly dark 0 aladdin.  is jafar dark ? sure.  but aladdin is by no means  white .  0 lion king.  mufasa, voiced by james earl jones is unquestionably a positive black character.  raffiki is a wise if weird african shaman.  scar and pumbaa are similarly shaded.  yeah, the hyenas are dark, but it is not like they picked, say, panthers.  i do not know how, stylistically, the film would have worked without the  dark  areas on the edges of the pridelands.  0 pocahontas.  clearly, the native americans were the good ones, and the whites were bad.  0 hunchback.  esmerelda was the darkest character and was good.  frollo white and evil i could go on, but i think the point is that if anything the predominant theme is that dark skin is good, light skin is bad.   #  one of them has a mexican accent and another has an african american accent, playing into stereotypes of gangs in the us.   #  in the lion king, main characters are given american voices, while minor characters are given african voices.  the hyenas are basically a street gang.  one of them has a mexican accent and another has an african american accent, playing into stereotypes of gangs in the us.  the plot is about a conflict between lions and hyenas.  the hyenas are bad guys simply because they are hyenas.  they did not do anything wrong to initiate this conflict.  during the movie, they do of course support scar, but they do so because they are starving to death scar recruits them saying  stick with me and you will never go hungry again !   i would say the lion king is both racist and classist, and very overtly so.  the whole premise of the movie is that the lions deserve to rule because they are majestic and beautiful and have the strength to subdue the hyenas, while the hyenas deserve to skulk in the badlands eating what little they can find simply because they are black and mexican hyenas.   #  she spends most of the movie appearing not as a black woman but as a frog.   #  you link to tiana from the princess and the frog as evidence that disney is not racist, but a lot of people consider that movie to be fairly racist too.  they originally planned for tiana to be a maid, and it was only after a public outcry that they upgraded her to be a waitress.  she spends most of the movie appearing not as a black woman but as a frog.  i have not seen the movie so i ca not really comment myself, but there definitely was some controversy about it just google for  princess and the frog racism  and you will get lots of hits .  you say the list of aladdin, lion king, little mermaid, mulan, and hercules is short, but there are several others.  dumbo had black crows wearing pimp hats and being depicted as uneducated.  the jungle book had monkeys that spoke jive and wanted to be  real people .  aladdin described persia as  barbaric,  and had an extremely white protagonist while the villain has darker skin.  the little mermaid is less offensive but still portrays a lot of jamaican stereotypes.  the siamese cats in chip  n  dale are pretty bad asian gangster stereotypes.  peter pan has the whole  what makes the red man red ?   song.  i am white and i do not think i am particularly politically correct i ca not stand all those  check your privilege  people that complain about white people  appropriating  other cultures and i still think your average disney movie is distastefully racist.   #  it minimizes the damage that racism can accomplish when you ascribe non damaging misinterpretations as racist.   #  the question should be  do kids think he is based off of a black person ?   then  why do they think that, are those kids racist ?   choosing to interpret something as racist does not make it racist.  making such connections when no such connection was intended is exactly what makes people not give a shit when others cry racism.  it minimizes the damage that racism can accomplish when you ascribe non damaging misinterpretations as racist.   i am too ignorant to not realize that he is not ignorant  is a crazy defense.
this is a well documented viewpoint, but last night i had an argument on this topic with a friend whose intelligence i greatly respect.  try as i might, i just ca not see how at least the first part of the statement could be false.  i present this in the true spirit of cmv, i feel like i might be missing something.  my particular view is that in a number of disney movies, the heroes skins are caucasian and the villains skins are shades of dark brown, purple, grey , and that this creates an association between evil and dark skin that children pick up very easily.  there are plenty of disney movies where this is not the case, but there are enough that it is an issue: aladdin, lion king, little mermaid, mulan, hercules probably more .  beyond this obvservation, there are a variety of arguments that many disney movies are racist:   an article URL from the guardian detailing the history, mainly from a stereotype   voice actor is race angle.    a listicle URL with plenty of video links, some back to the 0s   0s.  is there anyone that will argue that even these are not harmfully racist ? and if they are harmfully racist, at which point did the racism disappear or become benign ?   diversity in disney films URL a collection of essays.    several more books URL on amazon.  so, where are the well reasoned arguments that these depictions are not racist ? i think there is some fundamental disagreement between my friend and i on the way meaning is created and, thus, how media works.  for her, the  darkness  evoking evil stops there, it is only incidental that skin is being used as the pallet.  she goes on to joke about blue people being offended by genie, etc.  further, she believes that the model is just too simple.  that the mechanisms of racism are much more complicated than this belief allows and that it is this kind of thinking that leads to rampant political correctness.  this is possibly why i am most interested in this argument.  i find many arguments that lead to rampant pc to be compelling, but i certainly detest the world in which we are all policing each other for racial, feminist, etc.  correctness.  for me, it naturally follows that if these characters are teaching negative stereotypes about race, then they are harmful to children as they learn about the world.  if you agree that the movies are racist, but that they do not have that big of an impact on children, i would be interested in those arguments as well.  finally, i am much more interested in scholarly or at least well studied arguments than how you personally  feel  about the subject without deep consideration.  i will gladly devour any links you have to support your arguments.   #  the heroes skins are caucasian and the villains skins are shades of dark brown, purple, grey , and that this creates an association between evil and dark skin that children pick up very easily.   #  i think this is a poor argument for proving that disney is racist.   # i think this is a poor argument for proving that disney is racist.  i studied illustration, and light and dark have a series of associations that they bring.  even when you are not drawing figures, it is well known especially among artists/illustrators/designers that the black is associated with darkness, death, evil, mystery, solemnity, etc.  white, or lighter shades are associated with purity, innocence, virtue and other positive attributes that disney idealizes.  i think disney is use of black in your examples was more of an ascetic choice than a political/racial one.  in the examples of the little mermaid, hercules, and alladin the villain is portrayed as somewhat demonic.  it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that their dark shades are intended to show their association with the powers of darkness.  they all have dark colors and a dark vibe, but not really black features or any other racial indicator.  as for scar, he is a darker lion.  however, put yourself in the shoes of the illustrators.  you need to design a character that visually embodies evil.  a white lion ? nope.  dark, sinister, skinny, scarred lion ? sure.  a black dog symbolizes death.  a black hooded figure portrays death.  so yes a dark lion with a black mane does seem the most practical solution, even to black or non racist designer.  finally, the villains in mulan are supposed to be mongols, who were the darker of the two.  but there are plenty of semi historical disney movies where the lighter races are the villain pocahonthas ? .  i have heard rumors that disney was a racist, and there are some indications of his racism in some of the early films.  however, the examples you are using were not intended to have any racist messages, you are looking too far into it.  plus, go see the princess and the frog already !  #  as for mulan, these guys are not that dark skinned either URL you also forget the darker skinned protagonists in some of the movies you listed.   # the problem is that you just kinda brush aside the rather large list of movies that are not racist, and instead chose to focus solely on a few cherry picked movies of which the list is not even particularly long .  i am also unsure as to how you came to the conclusion all these characters were darker skinned.  tbh, hades looks pretty white, or at the very least, he is certainly not very dark skinned.  as for mulan, these guys are not that dark skinned either URL you also forget the darker skinned protagonists in some of the movies you listed.  in fact, when you compare the villains from the movies listed with some protagonists from other movies URL it becomes rather apparent that they are not that dark skinned.  has disney done some racist cartoons ? absolutely URL but to say all the movies are inherently racist for having villains that do not even look that dark skinned is pushing it.   #  raffiki is a wise if weird african shaman.   #  even your new view does not hold up, though.  0 beauty and the beast.  you ca not get a lot whiter than gaston, while the beast is undoubtedly dark 0 aladdin.  is jafar dark ? sure.  but aladdin is by no means  white .  0 lion king.  mufasa, voiced by james earl jones is unquestionably a positive black character.  raffiki is a wise if weird african shaman.  scar and pumbaa are similarly shaded.  yeah, the hyenas are dark, but it is not like they picked, say, panthers.  i do not know how, stylistically, the film would have worked without the  dark  areas on the edges of the pridelands.  0 pocahontas.  clearly, the native americans were the good ones, and the whites were bad.  0 hunchback.  esmerelda was the darkest character and was good.  frollo white and evil i could go on, but i think the point is that if anything the predominant theme is that dark skin is good, light skin is bad.   #  the hyenas are bad guys simply because they are hyenas.   #  in the lion king, main characters are given american voices, while minor characters are given african voices.  the hyenas are basically a street gang.  one of them has a mexican accent and another has an african american accent, playing into stereotypes of gangs in the us.  the plot is about a conflict between lions and hyenas.  the hyenas are bad guys simply because they are hyenas.  they did not do anything wrong to initiate this conflict.  during the movie, they do of course support scar, but they do so because they are starving to death scar recruits them saying  stick with me and you will never go hungry again !   i would say the lion king is both racist and classist, and very overtly so.  the whole premise of the movie is that the lions deserve to rule because they are majestic and beautiful and have the strength to subdue the hyenas, while the hyenas deserve to skulk in the badlands eating what little they can find simply because they are black and mexican hyenas.   #  the jungle book had monkeys that spoke jive and wanted to be  real people .   #  you link to tiana from the princess and the frog as evidence that disney is not racist, but a lot of people consider that movie to be fairly racist too.  they originally planned for tiana to be a maid, and it was only after a public outcry that they upgraded her to be a waitress.  she spends most of the movie appearing not as a black woman but as a frog.  i have not seen the movie so i ca not really comment myself, but there definitely was some controversy about it just google for  princess and the frog racism  and you will get lots of hits .  you say the list of aladdin, lion king, little mermaid, mulan, and hercules is short, but there are several others.  dumbo had black crows wearing pimp hats and being depicted as uneducated.  the jungle book had monkeys that spoke jive and wanted to be  real people .  aladdin described persia as  barbaric,  and had an extremely white protagonist while the villain has darker skin.  the little mermaid is less offensive but still portrays a lot of jamaican stereotypes.  the siamese cats in chip  n  dale are pretty bad asian gangster stereotypes.  peter pan has the whole  what makes the red man red ?   song.  i am white and i do not think i am particularly politically correct i ca not stand all those  check your privilege  people that complain about white people  appropriating  other cultures and i still think your average disney movie is distastefully racist.
this is a well documented viewpoint, but last night i had an argument on this topic with a friend whose intelligence i greatly respect.  try as i might, i just ca not see how at least the first part of the statement could be false.  i present this in the true spirit of cmv, i feel like i might be missing something.  my particular view is that in a number of disney movies, the heroes skins are caucasian and the villains skins are shades of dark brown, purple, grey , and that this creates an association between evil and dark skin that children pick up very easily.  there are plenty of disney movies where this is not the case, but there are enough that it is an issue: aladdin, lion king, little mermaid, mulan, hercules probably more .  beyond this obvservation, there are a variety of arguments that many disney movies are racist:   an article URL from the guardian detailing the history, mainly from a stereotype   voice actor is race angle.    a listicle URL with plenty of video links, some back to the 0s   0s.  is there anyone that will argue that even these are not harmfully racist ? and if they are harmfully racist, at which point did the racism disappear or become benign ?   diversity in disney films URL a collection of essays.    several more books URL on amazon.  so, where are the well reasoned arguments that these depictions are not racist ? i think there is some fundamental disagreement between my friend and i on the way meaning is created and, thus, how media works.  for her, the  darkness  evoking evil stops there, it is only incidental that skin is being used as the pallet.  she goes on to joke about blue people being offended by genie, etc.  further, she believes that the model is just too simple.  that the mechanisms of racism are much more complicated than this belief allows and that it is this kind of thinking that leads to rampant political correctness.  this is possibly why i am most interested in this argument.  i find many arguments that lead to rampant pc to be compelling, but i certainly detest the world in which we are all policing each other for racial, feminist, etc.  correctness.  for me, it naturally follows that if these characters are teaching negative stereotypes about race, then they are harmful to children as they learn about the world.  if you agree that the movies are racist, but that they do not have that big of an impact on children, i would be interested in those arguments as well.  finally, i am much more interested in scholarly or at least well studied arguments than how you personally  feel  about the subject without deep consideration.  i will gladly devour any links you have to support your arguments.   #  is there anyone that will argue that even these are not harmfully racist ?  #  and if they are harmfully racist, at which point did the racism disappear or become benign ?  # there are plenty of disney movies where this is not the case, but there are enough that it is an issue: aladdin, lion king, little mermaid, mulan, hercules scar does not have skin, he has fur, and even in that, the black part is drawn as the lion equivalent of facial hair, not of skin.  in lion king 0 many of the villains are portrayed as notably more pale than the protagonists.  hades and ursula are not dark skinned.  ursula is skin is almost the same tone as her white hair, with a hint of light purple.  hades is light grey.  both are evoking a corpse, and deathly paleness in general.  also, ursula had a human form too, and we know that it is white.  aladdin and mulan are of the same race as their villains.  there are pictures of them appearing lighter skinned, in is disney racist articles but those almost always rely on out of context comparisons of sunlit and shadowy locations.  and if they are harmfully racist, at which point did the racism disappear or become benign ? society in general was extremely racist in the 0s, and it is a lot better now.  disney seems to be roughly on par with it.  racism is not a binary situation, we can never prove that a certain thing is  not racist , but we can say that in the context of it is society, it is not going out of it is way to be racist.   #  i am also unsure as to how you came to the conclusion all these characters were darker skinned.   # the problem is that you just kinda brush aside the rather large list of movies that are not racist, and instead chose to focus solely on a few cherry picked movies of which the list is not even particularly long .  i am also unsure as to how you came to the conclusion all these characters were darker skinned.  tbh, hades looks pretty white, or at the very least, he is certainly not very dark skinned.  as for mulan, these guys are not that dark skinned either URL you also forget the darker skinned protagonists in some of the movies you listed.  in fact, when you compare the villains from the movies listed with some protagonists from other movies URL it becomes rather apparent that they are not that dark skinned.  has disney done some racist cartoons ? absolutely URL but to say all the movies are inherently racist for having villains that do not even look that dark skinned is pushing it.   #  mufasa, voiced by james earl jones is unquestionably a positive black character.   #  even your new view does not hold up, though.  0 beauty and the beast.  you ca not get a lot whiter than gaston, while the beast is undoubtedly dark 0 aladdin.  is jafar dark ? sure.  but aladdin is by no means  white .  0 lion king.  mufasa, voiced by james earl jones is unquestionably a positive black character.  raffiki is a wise if weird african shaman.  scar and pumbaa are similarly shaded.  yeah, the hyenas are dark, but it is not like they picked, say, panthers.  i do not know how, stylistically, the film would have worked without the  dark  areas on the edges of the pridelands.  0 pocahontas.  clearly, the native americans were the good ones, and the whites were bad.  0 hunchback.  esmerelda was the darkest character and was good.  frollo white and evil i could go on, but i think the point is that if anything the predominant theme is that dark skin is good, light skin is bad.   #  one of them has a mexican accent and another has an african american accent, playing into stereotypes of gangs in the us.   #  in the lion king, main characters are given american voices, while minor characters are given african voices.  the hyenas are basically a street gang.  one of them has a mexican accent and another has an african american accent, playing into stereotypes of gangs in the us.  the plot is about a conflict between lions and hyenas.  the hyenas are bad guys simply because they are hyenas.  they did not do anything wrong to initiate this conflict.  during the movie, they do of course support scar, but they do so because they are starving to death scar recruits them saying  stick with me and you will never go hungry again !   i would say the lion king is both racist and classist, and very overtly so.  the whole premise of the movie is that the lions deserve to rule because they are majestic and beautiful and have the strength to subdue the hyenas, while the hyenas deserve to skulk in the badlands eating what little they can find simply because they are black and mexican hyenas.   #  i have not seen the movie so i ca not really comment myself, but there definitely was some controversy about it just google for  princess and the frog racism  and you will get lots of hits .   #  you link to tiana from the princess and the frog as evidence that disney is not racist, but a lot of people consider that movie to be fairly racist too.  they originally planned for tiana to be a maid, and it was only after a public outcry that they upgraded her to be a waitress.  she spends most of the movie appearing not as a black woman but as a frog.  i have not seen the movie so i ca not really comment myself, but there definitely was some controversy about it just google for  princess and the frog racism  and you will get lots of hits .  you say the list of aladdin, lion king, little mermaid, mulan, and hercules is short, but there are several others.  dumbo had black crows wearing pimp hats and being depicted as uneducated.  the jungle book had monkeys that spoke jive and wanted to be  real people .  aladdin described persia as  barbaric,  and had an extremely white protagonist while the villain has darker skin.  the little mermaid is less offensive but still portrays a lot of jamaican stereotypes.  the siamese cats in chip  n  dale are pretty bad asian gangster stereotypes.  peter pan has the whole  what makes the red man red ?   song.  i am white and i do not think i am particularly politically correct i ca not stand all those  check your privilege  people that complain about white people  appropriating  other cultures and i still think your average disney movie is distastefully racist.
so i always have viewed homosexuality as something that does not matter, but if they hit on me, i will b mad.  but lately i have been called homophobic for this view.  this is what people have told me: yes, but for the purpose for hitting on me, which i do not go for.  oh, well was it my choice for you to be gay ? yes it would actually, i am attracted to females and i want compliments from them if you are wondering, i want this view to be changed bcuase it seems wrong, but i am not convinced just yet.   #  oh, well was it my choice for you to be gay ?  #  it is not theirs either, they are born that way and have to deal with the consequences of their bodies sexual desire.   #  let me field you a question to ponder: how are they supposed to know you are not gay ? and if you want them to ask  are you gay  before they try and hit on you, think about how being asked that would make you feel as well.  or, if you would rather, think about it this way.  if every time you wanted to hit on a girl, you asked them  are you straight ?   or  are you single ?  , you would probably get worse results than if you did not ask those questions.  your intentions are made readily apparent and that causes people to put their guards up and be more suspicious of your advances.  you will get rejected a lot more that way, and that does not feel good.  now think how much harder that is if you are gay.  asking a guy if they are gay is going to make a lot of guys just as mad as hitting on them and violent reactions to either are not that uncommon.  people still murder others purely for being gay .  however, you do not know who is and who is not.  most people are not, but some are.  others are violently anti gay.  still, gay guys need love too, so they have to try.  it is hard for them, give  em a break.  you would not want girls getting mad at you and chewing you out because you said they were pretty.  there is a whole range of reactions to being hit on between fucking the guy in a bathroom stall and yelling at him.  just say thanks, someone thought you looked attractive and that should make you feel nice.  it is not theirs either, they are born that way and have to deal with the consequences of their bodies sexual desire.  people being mad at them for it only makes it harder on them, and that is something that neither you nor i properly understand, having a sexual orientation that is vilified by a large part of society.  URL i think not.  would it make you mad if she hit on you ? also probably not, but that is because society tells us to treat women differently.  either way, somebody is putting themselves in a vulnerable position to compliment you and you should not react to that with anger.  just say  thanks  and move on.   #  would you accept that it is offensive for men to come onto women who do not want them to ?  #  i will not bother trying to change your view if it is not homophobic.  a couple of questions to help clear up if it is to do with homophobia.  would you be offended if anyone you do not fancy came onto you ? for example a woman you find unattractive.  would you accept that it is offensive for men to come onto women who do not want them to ? would you accept that a woman who did not find you to her taste may be offended if you came on to her ? is it to do with an awkward situation ? or the fact someone might not have looked at you and not immediately known you are straight ? if it is nothing to do with the fact they are gay, and you find uninvited come ons offensive whoever is doing it, then fine.  if it is because you do not want gay men near you.  or because you do not want people thinking you may be gay because you think it is a bad thing to be ? less of a man ? .  then there might be a view to be changed ?  #  that said, despite the fact i think you are mildly homophobic, i do not think you are malicious.   #  ok.  essentially i think that is homophobic.  in that homophobia is an irrational discomfort or fear or hatred of gay people.  i think you are uncomfortable and you ca not explain why, because it is not rational.  that said, despite the fact i think you are mildly homophobic, i do not think you are malicious.  i think you are trying not to be homophobic and doing this cmv is a great start.  so, good on you ? there is loads of good resources out there which can help but other people on here are definitely more qualified than me to point you to them.   #  do you not want people thinking you might be gay ?  #  and vain full of themselves men in clubs who think they are smooth is not mine but i do not go around saying they are more offensive than anyone else who unwantedly hits on me.  the issue here is not who you want to sleep with.  it is why you find one person you do not want to sleep with inherently more offensive than another.  do you not want people thinking you might be gay ? in which case, why are you worried ? does it scare you that you might be an object of desire and therefore not in control ? do you prefer to be the person doing the desiring of a passive partner ? in which case, you may want to rethink your attitude not only to gay men, but also women.  etc etc.   #  as a straight man, i think you should not be offended, because: 0 it is not an insult for someone to think there is a chance you could be gay.   #  as a straight man, i think you should not be offended, because: 0 it is not an insult for someone to think there is a chance you could be gay.  some very masculine guys who you would automatically assume are straight are actually gay.  it is not like  hey, you look gay , it is like  hey, you are a good looking man .  there is no harm in that.  0 it is not  gross  for them to think you are attractive, any more than it is gross for you to think a good looking lesbian is attractive.  if you flirted with a lesbian but you did not know they were a lesbian , do you think that they should be upset with you ? probably not.  0 they have no way of knowing if you are gay or not unless they ask.  and since about 0 of people are not gay, once in a while they are going to get it wrong.  no harm, no foul.  imagine if only 0 in every 0 women were interested in men.  you would probably end up hitting on quite a few lesbians by accident.  that is just how it is.  there is no reason to be offended.
hello everyone, i will prefice by saying english is not my main language, so i apologize for any misunderstanding, feel free to ask what did i mean by saying  x .  i discovered trp a few months ago.  i believe it was on of the biggest shocks to my personal views on the world.  all my life i suffered from lack of sexual/social success, i was not confident, i did not know how to deal with people around me and i basically reverted to being a nice guy, which is something people   pop culture advocates through advice, movies, selective presentation by the media and so forth.  when i was introduced to the pua community 0 years ago, and eventually trp a few months ago, it was the first time in my life i was given helpful advice on how to become someone who can actually make it in today is society in terms of being social/sexual.  those communities taught me about confidence, staying true to myselfself, embracing my sexuality and most of all become the best version of myself and aim for the stars, in a way that is actually applicable to the real world, and not in the form of some cliched advice that people oblivious to those concepts could possibly grasp and implement.  i do agree with a lot of statements regarding trp making generalizations about women, to a point of de humanizing them.  but on the other hand, there is no other community that gives you genuine advice on how to become that successful person you always wanted to be and reach your goals in life, and i sincerely believe that someone who will ignore the mra oriented side of trp and focus on the advice they give on self improvement as proven mostly true by people is  field reports  , will prosper beyond his imagination and there is no competition in that field.  the world is a harsh place full of mostly ego centric people that will not reach out for people with that kind of weaknesses, and one must seek it out in places like trp to have a chance of actually bettering theirselves.  the reason i believe that is by looking at facts : before being exposed to the pua community and trp : i had no courage to even talk to a girl i had interest in, was socially awkward and was made fun of most of my teenage years.  this applies to a lot of men my age who you could see for a fact that did not even know how to deal with those kind of issues and suddenly it is like they swallowed a magic pill.  after : learned to take the initiative and lead the interaction as directly suggested by those communities , take responsibility for sexual escalation which doing only half assed while not being experienced always turned girls off , and finally lost my virginity.  also, i am generally much more confident, got rid of most of my depressive nature and people actually like to be around me way more than before.  change my view.   #  i discovered trp a few months ago.   #  i believe it was on of the biggest shocks to my personal views on the world.   # i believe it was on of the biggest shocks to my personal views on the world.  all my life i suffered from lack of sexual/social success, i was not confident, i did not know how to deal with people around me and i basically reverted to being a nice guy, which is something people   pop culture advocates through advice, movies, selective presentation by the media and so forth.  i think this is the biggest lie that that community tells.  gleaning information from entertainment is a horribly stupid idea.  watching movies and tv shows and thinking  that is how i am supposed to act.   is the problem.  it is a failure of parents and peers, hell of probably society.  of course they do not work ! it is fiction ! i could take this line, and replace with any number of self help seminars / books / lecturers.  the sad fact is that many people go through life with very poor ideas on how to socially interact, especially with the opposite sex.  go check out /r/askmen or /r/askwomen, full of people who are just poorly informed or outright clueless about things.  yeah but here is the deal: the  genuine  advice they give is about as generic and time tested as it can get.  be confident   believe in yourself worst, they try to tie it all up into some pseudo sciencey bullshit tied to  evolutionary psychology .  a field regularly lambasted for goal posting and arbitrary measures it is not that the advice they give is bad, it is just old. and stolen or re purposed, if you prefer .  it is not original or new, it is not some grand epiphany.  it is the same tired old self help advice wrapped in a different package.  hell i will give you two: competitive sports.  this applies to a lot of men my age who you could see for a fact that did not even know how to deal with those kind of issues and suddenly it is like they swallowed a magic pill.  a community of supporting people all collaborating towards a common goal with an emphasis on personal achievement ? of course it feels like a magic pill.  also, i am generally much more confident, got rid of most of my depressive nature and people actually like to be around me way more than before.  but it is no different than a college fraternity, or an after school activity club, or the military, or competing in team sports, or anything else.  it is great that you finally found something that helped you grow up a bit.  but there is nothing magical or special about trp/pua communities.  they do not have anything unique or special about their advice, or their methods.  hell i would argue it is especially limiting, since the primary drive and focus of those communities is basically sexual conquest.  many make it their whole life, eschewing deeper relationships and focusing on numbers.  it seems glamorous when your younger, but man. nobody thinks the 0 year old hanging out at the college night club hitting on drunk girls is cool.  and that is where trp/pua takes you, if you follow it part and parcel.  now you can cherry pick, like many do.  but what are you cherry picking ? be confident   believe in yourself maybe throw in:   take some initiative but those are not unique to that community.  i could take your entire post, and replace it with tony robbins URL or shit, any of these mother fuckers URL or any of these books URL and it would read largely the same.  that is the reason for the broad dismissal of trp and the pua community.  they are nothing special, and worse, they have a very thick air of misogyny and toxicity around them.  you can get the same advice from other sources, get the same results.   #  i am glad that you found a way to increase your confidence and are doing better socially.   #  the one part of your view that i think can be easily changed is the idea that pua and trp are the only game in town for increasing confidence and social ability.  how to win friends and influence people URL was written in 0, has sold 0 million copies, and spawned all kinds of seminars and other self help books and communities.  i have read it, and found it very helpful in thinking about how to talk to other people and deal with professional situations.  it is a pretty easy read if you have a little extra time in the evenings.  i am glad that you found a way to increase your confidence and are doing better socially.  however, if you want to find communities that do not require you to sift through shitty views of women, they certainly do exist.   #  there are dale carnegie classes, and i was in toastmasters for a while and i think a lot of things they emphasize are similar to htwfaip.   #  sure, any book is just going to be a jumping off point.  there are dale carnegie classes, and i was in toastmasters for a while and i think a lot of things they emphasize are similar to htwfaip.  toastmasters especially is very reasonable i think around $0 a year for membership and if you ca not afford things like that there are forums like /r/socialskills which seem alright although i have not personally visited there much .  again your assertion that trp and pua are the only places men can learn social strategies is not accurate.  finally, on not being goal oriented, i am not sure how a book with a goal as its title could be more goal oriented.   #  i mean, how did you get exposure to the pua community ?  # i have been hearing about how to win friends and influence people since college.  the second site after googling  how to improve my social life  had a quote from dale carnegie.  i really doubt there is no way to get a sense of which strategies have worked for people in the past.  i mean, how did you get exposure to the pua community ? like i said in my very first post, i am happy for you that you found something that has helped you.  it just seems like your view is based on  i found this method first, so even though there is a lot of vile nonsense in this community, it is definitely the best .  i do not think that position is any better than if someone were to say  christianity is definitely the best way to get inner peace, and it is  so hard  to find another way to learn to be calm and reflective .  no, that is just what worked for you, so you stopped looking.  that is fine for you, but it does not mean other people are not making valid points when they criticize your chosen group.   #  there used to be incredibly good site called www. datinggroundwork. com by the guy who runs www. succeedsocially. com which is also a good site.   #  i agree, there unfortunately is not a community that exists nor is there really something explicitly made for males that is not i am not sure what words to use here extreme.  pua material while accurate to a certain extent but takes sub conscious social cues to mean something entirely different.  trp is merely misogyny covered up by big complex wording.  there used to be incredibly good site called www. datinggroundwork. com by the guy who runs www. succeedsocially. com which is also a good site.  it was on archive. org but it is since removed.  i thought site was great as it had actual content regarding sex, relationships.  i came from a environment where a lot of my friends or now  acquaintances  viewed women, sex rather negatively.  i knew it was wrong but did not know what think instead and for a great deal of my younger years avoided that part of my life until i found content such as his where i developed a view that is positive.  i would recommend reading through succeedsocially and even the game by neil strauss.  i know it is pua material but it is a great book just please read it in it is entirety.  i appreciate and enjoyed his book but i do not agree with any of the pua experts or content he is endorsed.  if you need that much help with women, sex or even people your only real option is professional help from a therapist.
hello everyone, i will prefice by saying english is not my main language, so i apologize for any misunderstanding, feel free to ask what did i mean by saying  x .  i discovered trp a few months ago.  i believe it was on of the biggest shocks to my personal views on the world.  all my life i suffered from lack of sexual/social success, i was not confident, i did not know how to deal with people around me and i basically reverted to being a nice guy, which is something people   pop culture advocates through advice, movies, selective presentation by the media and so forth.  when i was introduced to the pua community 0 years ago, and eventually trp a few months ago, it was the first time in my life i was given helpful advice on how to become someone who can actually make it in today is society in terms of being social/sexual.  those communities taught me about confidence, staying true to myselfself, embracing my sexuality and most of all become the best version of myself and aim for the stars, in a way that is actually applicable to the real world, and not in the form of some cliched advice that people oblivious to those concepts could possibly grasp and implement.  i do agree with a lot of statements regarding trp making generalizations about women, to a point of de humanizing them.  but on the other hand, there is no other community that gives you genuine advice on how to become that successful person you always wanted to be and reach your goals in life, and i sincerely believe that someone who will ignore the mra oriented side of trp and focus on the advice they give on self improvement as proven mostly true by people is  field reports  , will prosper beyond his imagination and there is no competition in that field.  the world is a harsh place full of mostly ego centric people that will not reach out for people with that kind of weaknesses, and one must seek it out in places like trp to have a chance of actually bettering theirselves.  the reason i believe that is by looking at facts : before being exposed to the pua community and trp : i had no courage to even talk to a girl i had interest in, was socially awkward and was made fun of most of my teenage years.  this applies to a lot of men my age who you could see for a fact that did not even know how to deal with those kind of issues and suddenly it is like they swallowed a magic pill.  after : learned to take the initiative and lead the interaction as directly suggested by those communities , take responsibility for sexual escalation which doing only half assed while not being experienced always turned girls off , and finally lost my virginity.  also, i am generally much more confident, got rid of most of my depressive nature and people actually like to be around me way more than before.  change my view.   #  i had no courage to even talk to a girl i had interest in, was socially awkward and was made fun of most of my teenage years.   #  this applies to a lot of men my age who you could see for a fact that did not even know how to deal with those kind of issues and suddenly it is like they swallowed a magic pill.   # i believe it was on of the biggest shocks to my personal views on the world.  all my life i suffered from lack of sexual/social success, i was not confident, i did not know how to deal with people around me and i basically reverted to being a nice guy, which is something people   pop culture advocates through advice, movies, selective presentation by the media and so forth.  i think this is the biggest lie that that community tells.  gleaning information from entertainment is a horribly stupid idea.  watching movies and tv shows and thinking  that is how i am supposed to act.   is the problem.  it is a failure of parents and peers, hell of probably society.  of course they do not work ! it is fiction ! i could take this line, and replace with any number of self help seminars / books / lecturers.  the sad fact is that many people go through life with very poor ideas on how to socially interact, especially with the opposite sex.  go check out /r/askmen or /r/askwomen, full of people who are just poorly informed or outright clueless about things.  yeah but here is the deal: the  genuine  advice they give is about as generic and time tested as it can get.  be confident   believe in yourself worst, they try to tie it all up into some pseudo sciencey bullshit tied to  evolutionary psychology .  a field regularly lambasted for goal posting and arbitrary measures it is not that the advice they give is bad, it is just old. and stolen or re purposed, if you prefer .  it is not original or new, it is not some grand epiphany.  it is the same tired old self help advice wrapped in a different package.  hell i will give you two: competitive sports.  this applies to a lot of men my age who you could see for a fact that did not even know how to deal with those kind of issues and suddenly it is like they swallowed a magic pill.  a community of supporting people all collaborating towards a common goal with an emphasis on personal achievement ? of course it feels like a magic pill.  also, i am generally much more confident, got rid of most of my depressive nature and people actually like to be around me way more than before.  but it is no different than a college fraternity, or an after school activity club, or the military, or competing in team sports, or anything else.  it is great that you finally found something that helped you grow up a bit.  but there is nothing magical or special about trp/pua communities.  they do not have anything unique or special about their advice, or their methods.  hell i would argue it is especially limiting, since the primary drive and focus of those communities is basically sexual conquest.  many make it their whole life, eschewing deeper relationships and focusing on numbers.  it seems glamorous when your younger, but man. nobody thinks the 0 year old hanging out at the college night club hitting on drunk girls is cool.  and that is where trp/pua takes you, if you follow it part and parcel.  now you can cherry pick, like many do.  but what are you cherry picking ? be confident   believe in yourself maybe throw in:   take some initiative but those are not unique to that community.  i could take your entire post, and replace it with tony robbins URL or shit, any of these mother fuckers URL or any of these books URL and it would read largely the same.  that is the reason for the broad dismissal of trp and the pua community.  they are nothing special, and worse, they have a very thick air of misogyny and toxicity around them.  you can get the same advice from other sources, get the same results.   #  i am glad that you found a way to increase your confidence and are doing better socially.   #  the one part of your view that i think can be easily changed is the idea that pua and trp are the only game in town for increasing confidence and social ability.  how to win friends and influence people URL was written in 0, has sold 0 million copies, and spawned all kinds of seminars and other self help books and communities.  i have read it, and found it very helpful in thinking about how to talk to other people and deal with professional situations.  it is a pretty easy read if you have a little extra time in the evenings.  i am glad that you found a way to increase your confidence and are doing better socially.  however, if you want to find communities that do not require you to sift through shitty views of women, they certainly do exist.   #  sure, any book is just going to be a jumping off point.   #  sure, any book is just going to be a jumping off point.  there are dale carnegie classes, and i was in toastmasters for a while and i think a lot of things they emphasize are similar to htwfaip.  toastmasters especially is very reasonable i think around $0 a year for membership and if you ca not afford things like that there are forums like /r/socialskills which seem alright although i have not personally visited there much .  again your assertion that trp and pua are the only places men can learn social strategies is not accurate.  finally, on not being goal oriented, i am not sure how a book with a goal as its title could be more goal oriented.   #  the second site after googling  how to improve my social life  had a quote from dale carnegie.   # i have been hearing about how to win friends and influence people since college.  the second site after googling  how to improve my social life  had a quote from dale carnegie.  i really doubt there is no way to get a sense of which strategies have worked for people in the past.  i mean, how did you get exposure to the pua community ? like i said in my very first post, i am happy for you that you found something that has helped you.  it just seems like your view is based on  i found this method first, so even though there is a lot of vile nonsense in this community, it is definitely the best .  i do not think that position is any better than if someone were to say  christianity is definitely the best way to get inner peace, and it is  so hard  to find another way to learn to be calm and reflective .  no, that is just what worked for you, so you stopped looking.  that is fine for you, but it does not mean other people are not making valid points when they criticize your chosen group.   #  i appreciate and enjoyed his book but i do not agree with any of the pua experts or content he is endorsed.   #  i agree, there unfortunately is not a community that exists nor is there really something explicitly made for males that is not i am not sure what words to use here extreme.  pua material while accurate to a certain extent but takes sub conscious social cues to mean something entirely different.  trp is merely misogyny covered up by big complex wording.  there used to be incredibly good site called www. datinggroundwork. com by the guy who runs www. succeedsocially. com which is also a good site.  it was on archive. org but it is since removed.  i thought site was great as it had actual content regarding sex, relationships.  i came from a environment where a lot of my friends or now  acquaintances  viewed women, sex rather negatively.  i knew it was wrong but did not know what think instead and for a great deal of my younger years avoided that part of my life until i found content such as his where i developed a view that is positive.  i would recommend reading through succeedsocially and even the game by neil strauss.  i know it is pua material but it is a great book just please read it in it is entirety.  i appreciate and enjoyed his book but i do not agree with any of the pua experts or content he is endorsed.  if you need that much help with women, sex or even people your only real option is professional help from a therapist.
hello everyone, i will prefice by saying english is not my main language, so i apologize for any misunderstanding, feel free to ask what did i mean by saying  x .  i discovered trp a few months ago.  i believe it was on of the biggest shocks to my personal views on the world.  all my life i suffered from lack of sexual/social success, i was not confident, i did not know how to deal with people around me and i basically reverted to being a nice guy, which is something people   pop culture advocates through advice, movies, selective presentation by the media and so forth.  when i was introduced to the pua community 0 years ago, and eventually trp a few months ago, it was the first time in my life i was given helpful advice on how to become someone who can actually make it in today is society in terms of being social/sexual.  those communities taught me about confidence, staying true to myselfself, embracing my sexuality and most of all become the best version of myself and aim for the stars, in a way that is actually applicable to the real world, and not in the form of some cliched advice that people oblivious to those concepts could possibly grasp and implement.  i do agree with a lot of statements regarding trp making generalizations about women, to a point of de humanizing them.  but on the other hand, there is no other community that gives you genuine advice on how to become that successful person you always wanted to be and reach your goals in life, and i sincerely believe that someone who will ignore the mra oriented side of trp and focus on the advice they give on self improvement as proven mostly true by people is  field reports  , will prosper beyond his imagination and there is no competition in that field.  the world is a harsh place full of mostly ego centric people that will not reach out for people with that kind of weaknesses, and one must seek it out in places like trp to have a chance of actually bettering theirselves.  the reason i believe that is by looking at facts : before being exposed to the pua community and trp : i had no courage to even talk to a girl i had interest in, was socially awkward and was made fun of most of my teenage years.  this applies to a lot of men my age who you could see for a fact that did not even know how to deal with those kind of issues and suddenly it is like they swallowed a magic pill.  after : learned to take the initiative and lead the interaction as directly suggested by those communities , take responsibility for sexual escalation which doing only half assed while not being experienced always turned girls off , and finally lost my virginity.  also, i am generally much more confident, got rid of most of my depressive nature and people actually like to be around me way more than before.  change my view.   #  after : learned to take the initiative and lead the interaction as directly suggested by those communities , take responsibility for sexual escalation which doing only half assed while not being experienced always turned girls off , and finally lost my virginity.   #  also, i am generally much more confident, got rid of most of my depressive nature and people actually like to be around me way more than before.   # i believe it was on of the biggest shocks to my personal views on the world.  all my life i suffered from lack of sexual/social success, i was not confident, i did not know how to deal with people around me and i basically reverted to being a nice guy, which is something people   pop culture advocates through advice, movies, selective presentation by the media and so forth.  i think this is the biggest lie that that community tells.  gleaning information from entertainment is a horribly stupid idea.  watching movies and tv shows and thinking  that is how i am supposed to act.   is the problem.  it is a failure of parents and peers, hell of probably society.  of course they do not work ! it is fiction ! i could take this line, and replace with any number of self help seminars / books / lecturers.  the sad fact is that many people go through life with very poor ideas on how to socially interact, especially with the opposite sex.  go check out /r/askmen or /r/askwomen, full of people who are just poorly informed or outright clueless about things.  yeah but here is the deal: the  genuine  advice they give is about as generic and time tested as it can get.  be confident   believe in yourself worst, they try to tie it all up into some pseudo sciencey bullshit tied to  evolutionary psychology .  a field regularly lambasted for goal posting and arbitrary measures it is not that the advice they give is bad, it is just old. and stolen or re purposed, if you prefer .  it is not original or new, it is not some grand epiphany.  it is the same tired old self help advice wrapped in a different package.  hell i will give you two: competitive sports.  this applies to a lot of men my age who you could see for a fact that did not even know how to deal with those kind of issues and suddenly it is like they swallowed a magic pill.  a community of supporting people all collaborating towards a common goal with an emphasis on personal achievement ? of course it feels like a magic pill.  also, i am generally much more confident, got rid of most of my depressive nature and people actually like to be around me way more than before.  but it is no different than a college fraternity, or an after school activity club, or the military, or competing in team sports, or anything else.  it is great that you finally found something that helped you grow up a bit.  but there is nothing magical or special about trp/pua communities.  they do not have anything unique or special about their advice, or their methods.  hell i would argue it is especially limiting, since the primary drive and focus of those communities is basically sexual conquest.  many make it their whole life, eschewing deeper relationships and focusing on numbers.  it seems glamorous when your younger, but man. nobody thinks the 0 year old hanging out at the college night club hitting on drunk girls is cool.  and that is where trp/pua takes you, if you follow it part and parcel.  now you can cherry pick, like many do.  but what are you cherry picking ? be confident   believe in yourself maybe throw in:   take some initiative but those are not unique to that community.  i could take your entire post, and replace it with tony robbins URL or shit, any of these mother fuckers URL or any of these books URL and it would read largely the same.  that is the reason for the broad dismissal of trp and the pua community.  they are nothing special, and worse, they have a very thick air of misogyny and toxicity around them.  you can get the same advice from other sources, get the same results.   #  it is a pretty easy read if you have a little extra time in the evenings.   #  the one part of your view that i think can be easily changed is the idea that pua and trp are the only game in town for increasing confidence and social ability.  how to win friends and influence people URL was written in 0, has sold 0 million copies, and spawned all kinds of seminars and other self help books and communities.  i have read it, and found it very helpful in thinking about how to talk to other people and deal with professional situations.  it is a pretty easy read if you have a little extra time in the evenings.  i am glad that you found a way to increase your confidence and are doing better socially.  however, if you want to find communities that do not require you to sift through shitty views of women, they certainly do exist.   #  again your assertion that trp and pua are the only places men can learn social strategies is not accurate.   #  sure, any book is just going to be a jumping off point.  there are dale carnegie classes, and i was in toastmasters for a while and i think a lot of things they emphasize are similar to htwfaip.  toastmasters especially is very reasonable i think around $0 a year for membership and if you ca not afford things like that there are forums like /r/socialskills which seem alright although i have not personally visited there much .  again your assertion that trp and pua are the only places men can learn social strategies is not accurate.  finally, on not being goal oriented, i am not sure how a book with a goal as its title could be more goal oriented.   #  the second site after googling  how to improve my social life  had a quote from dale carnegie.   # i have been hearing about how to win friends and influence people since college.  the second site after googling  how to improve my social life  had a quote from dale carnegie.  i really doubt there is no way to get a sense of which strategies have worked for people in the past.  i mean, how did you get exposure to the pua community ? like i said in my very first post, i am happy for you that you found something that has helped you.  it just seems like your view is based on  i found this method first, so even though there is a lot of vile nonsense in this community, it is definitely the best .  i do not think that position is any better than if someone were to say  christianity is definitely the best way to get inner peace, and it is  so hard  to find another way to learn to be calm and reflective .  no, that is just what worked for you, so you stopped looking.  that is fine for you, but it does not mean other people are not making valid points when they criticize your chosen group.   #  i would recommend reading through succeedsocially and even the game by neil strauss.   #  i agree, there unfortunately is not a community that exists nor is there really something explicitly made for males that is not i am not sure what words to use here extreme.  pua material while accurate to a certain extent but takes sub conscious social cues to mean something entirely different.  trp is merely misogyny covered up by big complex wording.  there used to be incredibly good site called www. datinggroundwork. com by the guy who runs www. succeedsocially. com which is also a good site.  it was on archive. org but it is since removed.  i thought site was great as it had actual content regarding sex, relationships.  i came from a environment where a lot of my friends or now  acquaintances  viewed women, sex rather negatively.  i knew it was wrong but did not know what think instead and for a great deal of my younger years avoided that part of my life until i found content such as his where i developed a view that is positive.  i would recommend reading through succeedsocially and even the game by neil strauss.  i know it is pua material but it is a great book just please read it in it is entirety.  i appreciate and enjoyed his book but i do not agree with any of the pua experts or content he is endorsed.  if you need that much help with women, sex or even people your only real option is professional help from a therapist.
hello everyone, i will prefice by saying english is not my main language, so i apologize for any misunderstanding, feel free to ask what did i mean by saying  x .  i discovered trp a few months ago.  i believe it was on of the biggest shocks to my personal views on the world.  all my life i suffered from lack of sexual/social success, i was not confident, i did not know how to deal with people around me and i basically reverted to being a nice guy, which is something people   pop culture advocates through advice, movies, selective presentation by the media and so forth.  when i was introduced to the pua community 0 years ago, and eventually trp a few months ago, it was the first time in my life i was given helpful advice on how to become someone who can actually make it in today is society in terms of being social/sexual.  those communities taught me about confidence, staying true to myselfself, embracing my sexuality and most of all become the best version of myself and aim for the stars, in a way that is actually applicable to the real world, and not in the form of some cliched advice that people oblivious to those concepts could possibly grasp and implement.  i do agree with a lot of statements regarding trp making generalizations about women, to a point of de humanizing them.  but on the other hand, there is no other community that gives you genuine advice on how to become that successful person you always wanted to be and reach your goals in life, and i sincerely believe that someone who will ignore the mra oriented side of trp and focus on the advice they give on self improvement as proven mostly true by people is  field reports  , will prosper beyond his imagination and there is no competition in that field.  the world is a harsh place full of mostly ego centric people that will not reach out for people with that kind of weaknesses, and one must seek it out in places like trp to have a chance of actually bettering theirselves.  the reason i believe that is by looking at facts : before being exposed to the pua community and trp : i had no courage to even talk to a girl i had interest in, was socially awkward and was made fun of most of my teenage years.  this applies to a lot of men my age who you could see for a fact that did not even know how to deal with those kind of issues and suddenly it is like they swallowed a magic pill.  after : learned to take the initiative and lead the interaction as directly suggested by those communities , take responsibility for sexual escalation which doing only half assed while not being experienced always turned girls off , and finally lost my virginity.  also, i am generally much more confident, got rid of most of my depressive nature and people actually like to be around me way more than before.  change my view.   #  after : learned to take the initiative and lead the interaction as directly suggested by those communities , take responsibility for sexual escalation which doing only half assed while not being experienced always turned girls off , and finally lost my virginity.   #  also, i am generally much more confident, got rid of most of my depressive nature and people actually like to be around me way more than before.   # it helped my process in a way but definitely did not solve my problems, since it did not try, which leads me to my 0nd point.  i am really stretching to believe that being in the army, and especially being an officer has not helped your self confidence problems.  discipline, initiative, physical fitness, and self confidence are all pretty universal traits to success, and indeed, things that trp/pua advocate.  so the military did not strictly tell you to go talk to girls, what was so hard about figuring that out though ? if you had asked your peers instead of going to the trp, do you think you would have ever changed ? you are surrounded by a support group who you should feel confident asking questions to.  what is so different from the wardroom and trp ? yes a fraternity may not be explicitly about helping you get laid, but the social interactions and support structure built around it makes it a hell of a lot easier.  trp/pua are essentially self help seminars with a strong emphasis/narrow focus, on getting laid.  i strongly argue against calling it the path to take for  male self improvement  because it is extremely limited, horribly biased, and filled with a lot of really awful advice for anything beyond their focus.  also, i am generally much more confident, got rid of most of my depressive nature and people actually like to be around me way more than before.  the only thing there i see that the army did not teach you is taking responsibility for sexual escalation.  but i could told you that, any of your fellow soldiers could have told you that.   #  however, if you want to find communities that do not require you to sift through shitty views of women, they certainly do exist.   #  the one part of your view that i think can be easily changed is the idea that pua and trp are the only game in town for increasing confidence and social ability.  how to win friends and influence people URL was written in 0, has sold 0 million copies, and spawned all kinds of seminars and other self help books and communities.  i have read it, and found it very helpful in thinking about how to talk to other people and deal with professional situations.  it is a pretty easy read if you have a little extra time in the evenings.  i am glad that you found a way to increase your confidence and are doing better socially.  however, if you want to find communities that do not require you to sift through shitty views of women, they certainly do exist.   #  toastmasters especially is very reasonable i think around $0 a year for membership and if you ca not afford things like that there are forums like /r/socialskills which seem alright although i have not personally visited there much .   #  sure, any book is just going to be a jumping off point.  there are dale carnegie classes, and i was in toastmasters for a while and i think a lot of things they emphasize are similar to htwfaip.  toastmasters especially is very reasonable i think around $0 a year for membership and if you ca not afford things like that there are forums like /r/socialskills which seem alright although i have not personally visited there much .  again your assertion that trp and pua are the only places men can learn social strategies is not accurate.  finally, on not being goal oriented, i am not sure how a book with a goal as its title could be more goal oriented.   #  the second site after googling  how to improve my social life  had a quote from dale carnegie.   # i have been hearing about how to win friends and influence people since college.  the second site after googling  how to improve my social life  had a quote from dale carnegie.  i really doubt there is no way to get a sense of which strategies have worked for people in the past.  i mean, how did you get exposure to the pua community ? like i said in my very first post, i am happy for you that you found something that has helped you.  it just seems like your view is based on  i found this method first, so even though there is a lot of vile nonsense in this community, it is definitely the best .  i do not think that position is any better than if someone were to say  christianity is definitely the best way to get inner peace, and it is  so hard  to find another way to learn to be calm and reflective .  no, that is just what worked for you, so you stopped looking.  that is fine for you, but it does not mean other people are not making valid points when they criticize your chosen group.   #  there used to be incredibly good site called www. datinggroundwork. com by the guy who runs www. succeedsocially. com which is also a good site.   #  i agree, there unfortunately is not a community that exists nor is there really something explicitly made for males that is not i am not sure what words to use here extreme.  pua material while accurate to a certain extent but takes sub conscious social cues to mean something entirely different.  trp is merely misogyny covered up by big complex wording.  there used to be incredibly good site called www. datinggroundwork. com by the guy who runs www. succeedsocially. com which is also a good site.  it was on archive. org but it is since removed.  i thought site was great as it had actual content regarding sex, relationships.  i came from a environment where a lot of my friends or now  acquaintances  viewed women, sex rather negatively.  i knew it was wrong but did not know what think instead and for a great deal of my younger years avoided that part of my life until i found content such as his where i developed a view that is positive.  i would recommend reading through succeedsocially and even the game by neil strauss.  i know it is pua material but it is a great book just please read it in it is entirety.  i appreciate and enjoyed his book but i do not agree with any of the pua experts or content he is endorsed.  if you need that much help with women, sex or even people your only real option is professional help from a therapist.
if you are at a club especially one that is supposed to check ids to make sure everybody is of age and you take home a girl there that tells you they are 0, you should be able to legally have sex with them as long as you genuinely believe they are of age.  from my understanding, as the law stands, someone can even show you a fake id to prove their age and you are still at fault for having relations with a minor.  how can somebody reasonable be at fault for a crime that they not only have no knowledge of committing, but actively try to avoid committing ? to me that makes about as much sense as being charged with shoplifting because a cashier forgot to scan an item.  i expect many people might try to argue  oh, well people will just claim they did not know the age to get away with sleeping with somebody who is underage , however i believe that it is much better to err on the side of not punishing an innocent person here and destroying their lives, rather than attempting to punish an adult for something that was done consensually.  also, it should be pretty easy to tell in most cases whether the accused actually knew the person was underage or not.   #  how can somebody reasonable be at fault for a crime that they not only have no knowledge of committing, but actively try to avoid committing ?  #  to me that makes about as much sense as being charged with shoplifting because a cashier forgot to scan an item.   # to me that makes about as much sense as being charged with shoplifting because a cashier forgot to scan an item.  in both cases though it is your fault since technically speaking, from the law is perspective you did in fact break the law.  it is on you to make sure that all your items are paid for and on the receipt and that whoever you are sleeping with is of age.  now, whether or not you would actually convince a jury of your peers that you should be punished for something out of your control is a different story.  however from a strict definition of the law, you broke it, so you are liable to be charged with something.  it is kinda like going out hunting, shooting at a deer, missing and hitting someone in a house.   well i did not know  is not a very solid defense, no matter how true that may be.   #  not to mention that many people do not get their drivers license at 0.  i think your idea is morally fine, but is a logistical nightmare.   #  what you want is already the case in some states.  you also have some sort of misconception about how the age of consent works.  the age of consent being 0 in the us is pretty californicenric.  the thing about lower age of consents, however, is that many states have close in laws which allow people of even lower ages to consent when certain conditions are met.  to properly cover this with the laws you want means that you would need some other form of identification to prove you can consent.  not to mention that many people do not get their drivers license at 0.  i think your idea is morally fine, but is a logistical nightmare.   #  self defense is an example of an affirmative defense to a criminal murder charge.   #  in our legal system, when someone makes an affirmative defense, i. e.  that an accusation of unlawful conduct is true but circumstances defeat or mitigate the legal consequences of the defendant is otherwise unlawful conduct the burden of proof lies on the person making the affirmative defense claim.  unlawful conduct is assumed to be unlawful unless you can prove an affirmative defense.  or, at the least, make a very reasonable case.  law does not exist in a bubble.  legal principles can carry over from one area of law to another.  if you change the burden of proof for an affirmative defense for statutory rape to be on the prosecution to prove otherwise, you philosophically may be required to do so for other affirmative defenses.  say, for example, murder and self defense claims.  self defense is an example of an affirmative defense to a criminal murder charge.  if you put the burden of the proof on the state instead of the accused for an affirmative defense, no murder is likely be successfully prosecuted unless there are witnesses.  even if switching the burden of proof seems reasonable to you in the case of statutory rape, doing so may have tremendous consequences beyond just the subject being debated.   #  the only reason that the law uses age is that something like maturity is hard to measure objectively and age is easy to measure, and in most cases there is a very good correlation.   #  morally, it is not really the age that matters but the general level of maturity and autonomy.  and it  is  very easy to tell if someone is not mature enough to be able to consent, regardless of their exact age.  the only reason that the law uses age is that something like maturity is hard to measure objectively and age is easy to measure, and in most cases there is a very good correlation.  also, age of consent is an example of how a binary legal system that uses true/false values must  digitize  something that is a continuum in reality.  so the law has to draw a line  somewhere , even if the exact point is arbitrary.  is it fair that sleeping with a 0 year old is rape and sleeping with a 0 year old is not ? no.  but it is the only way a legal system can work in practice.  having said that, judges should have some leeway to take things like maturity into consideration.   #  i do not think your analogy is apt in general.   #  i do not think your analogy is apt in general.  it is more like you going hunting, shooting what appears to be a deer only to realize it is a person in a very realistic deer costume that you ca not distinguish from a distance.  that is, assuming you conducted some basic due deligence of checking id or something.  ops point is that it is always possible for them to lie and have fake id etc. , yet the law apparently ? holds you equally responsible even when you did everything you reasonably could to ensure it was fine.
if you are at a club especially one that is supposed to check ids to make sure everybody is of age and you take home a girl there that tells you they are 0, you should be able to legally have sex with them as long as you genuinely believe they are of age.  from my understanding, as the law stands, someone can even show you a fake id to prove their age and you are still at fault for having relations with a minor.  how can somebody reasonable be at fault for a crime that they not only have no knowledge of committing, but actively try to avoid committing ? to me that makes about as much sense as being charged with shoplifting because a cashier forgot to scan an item.  i expect many people might try to argue  oh, well people will just claim they did not know the age to get away with sleeping with somebody who is underage , however i believe that it is much better to err on the side of not punishing an innocent person here and destroying their lives, rather than attempting to punish an adult for something that was done consensually.  also, it should be pretty easy to tell in most cases whether the accused actually knew the person was underage or not.   #  rather than attempting to punish an adult for something that was done consensually.   #  minors lack the legal capacity for consent.   # but in the end, you have got to strike a balance somewhere.  do you really believe that a significant number of men get arrested every year for a genuine and earnest mistake ? meanwhile, practically every person tried for statutory rape will use the  she lied about her age  defense if it is available to them.  minors lack the legal capacity for consent.  that is why it is rape.  i strongly disagree.  proving statutory rape beyond a reasonable doubt is already a very difficult proposition.  how exactly do you prove what a defendant knows inside his head ? keep in mind that often the victim is unwilling to testify.  i will leave you with one last thought.  at the very least that an adult should make a reasonable effort to not sleep with minors.  do not you think your proposal would dramatically increase the number of people who go out of their way to not learn an underage partner is age, knowing that as long as they do not find out it is fair game ?  #  the thing about lower age of consents, however, is that many states have close in laws which allow people of even lower ages to consent when certain conditions are met.   #  what you want is already the case in some states.  you also have some sort of misconception about how the age of consent works.  the age of consent being 0 in the us is pretty californicenric.  the thing about lower age of consents, however, is that many states have close in laws which allow people of even lower ages to consent when certain conditions are met.  to properly cover this with the laws you want means that you would need some other form of identification to prove you can consent.  not to mention that many people do not get their drivers license at 0.  i think your idea is morally fine, but is a logistical nightmare.   #  if you change the burden of proof for an affirmative defense for statutory rape to be on the prosecution to prove otherwise, you philosophically may be required to do so for other affirmative defenses.   #  in our legal system, when someone makes an affirmative defense, i. e.  that an accusation of unlawful conduct is true but circumstances defeat or mitigate the legal consequences of the defendant is otherwise unlawful conduct the burden of proof lies on the person making the affirmative defense claim.  unlawful conduct is assumed to be unlawful unless you can prove an affirmative defense.  or, at the least, make a very reasonable case.  law does not exist in a bubble.  legal principles can carry over from one area of law to another.  if you change the burden of proof for an affirmative defense for statutory rape to be on the prosecution to prove otherwise, you philosophically may be required to do so for other affirmative defenses.  say, for example, murder and self defense claims.  self defense is an example of an affirmative defense to a criminal murder charge.  if you put the burden of the proof on the state instead of the accused for an affirmative defense, no murder is likely be successfully prosecuted unless there are witnesses.  even if switching the burden of proof seems reasonable to you in the case of statutory rape, doing so may have tremendous consequences beyond just the subject being debated.   #  so the law has to draw a line  somewhere , even if the exact point is arbitrary.   #  morally, it is not really the age that matters but the general level of maturity and autonomy.  and it  is  very easy to tell if someone is not mature enough to be able to consent, regardless of their exact age.  the only reason that the law uses age is that something like maturity is hard to measure objectively and age is easy to measure, and in most cases there is a very good correlation.  also, age of consent is an example of how a binary legal system that uses true/false values must  digitize  something that is a continuum in reality.  so the law has to draw a line  somewhere , even if the exact point is arbitrary.  is it fair that sleeping with a 0 year old is rape and sleeping with a 0 year old is not ? no.  but it is the only way a legal system can work in practice.  having said that, judges should have some leeway to take things like maturity into consideration.   #  it is kinda like going out hunting, shooting at a deer, missing and hitting someone in a house.   # to me that makes about as much sense as being charged with shoplifting because a cashier forgot to scan an item.  in both cases though it is your fault since technically speaking, from the law is perspective you did in fact break the law.  it is on you to make sure that all your items are paid for and on the receipt and that whoever you are sleeping with is of age.  now, whether or not you would actually convince a jury of your peers that you should be punished for something out of your control is a different story.  however from a strict definition of the law, you broke it, so you are liable to be charged with something.  it is kinda like going out hunting, shooting at a deer, missing and hitting someone in a house.   well i did not know  is not a very solid defense, no matter how true that may be.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.   #  this is not a problem with grades.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.   #  i know it is different here, but one of our top students had time for competitive biathlon, track, a job, and a full course load in our last year.   #  i ca not imagine that it takes that much time to get good grades in the us.  you should have, at the very least, an hour or so a day for things you want to do.  if you ca not manage this, you have bitten off more than you can chew.  i know it is different here, but one of our top students had time for competitive biathlon, track, a job, and a full course load in our last year.  as did many of the other top students.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.   #  with homework, there is not really that chance.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.   #  if you ca not manage this, you have bitten off more than you can chew.   #  i ca not imagine that it takes that much time to get good grades in the us.  you should have, at the very least, an hour or so a day for things you want to do.  if you ca not manage this, you have bitten off more than you can chew.  i know it is different here, but one of our top students had time for competitive biathlon, track, a job, and a full course load in our last year.  as did many of the other top students.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.   #  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.   #  you should have, at the very least, an hour or so a day for things you want to do.   #  i ca not imagine that it takes that much time to get good grades in the us.  you should have, at the very least, an hour or so a day for things you want to do.  if you ca not manage this, you have bitten off more than you can chew.  i know it is different here, but one of our top students had time for competitive biathlon, track, a job, and a full course load in our last year.  as did many of the other top students.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.   #  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.   #  i know it is different here, but one of our top students had time for competitive biathlon, track, a job, and a full course load in our last year.   #  i ca not imagine that it takes that much time to get good grades in the us.  you should have, at the very least, an hour or so a day for things you want to do.  if you ca not manage this, you have bitten off more than you can chew.  i know it is different here, but one of our top students had time for competitive biathlon, track, a job, and a full course load in our last year.  as did many of the other top students.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.   #  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.   #  i know it is different here, but one of our top students had time for competitive biathlon, track, a job, and a full course load in our last year.   #  i ca not imagine that it takes that much time to get good grades in the us.  you should have, at the very least, an hour or so a day for things you want to do.  if you ca not manage this, you have bitten off more than you can chew.  i know it is different here, but one of our top students had time for competitive biathlon, track, a job, and a full course load in our last year.  as did many of the other top students.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.   #  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.   #  i ca not imagine that it takes that much time to get good grades in the us.   #  i ca not imagine that it takes that much time to get good grades in the us.  you should have, at the very least, an hour or so a day for things you want to do.  if you ca not manage this, you have bitten off more than you can chew.  i know it is different here, but one of our top students had time for competitive biathlon, track, a job, and a full course load in our last year.  as did many of the other top students.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  with homework, there is not really that chance.   #  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.   #  as a student, i would like to contest your evidence that there is a shift towards better assessment and different grading.  this is my experience with the ap program and their official policies.  other classes may be different, but their intent is what i describe.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .  what homework really does, is tell the teacher where the class is on understanding that topic.  if nobody gets any questions right, they know to review that a bit more.  it is also for you to tell the same thing.  you now know what to go back and restudt and relearn.  you learn how to learn a little bit better each time so you miss fewer questions on homework.  it is for the teacher to gauge their progress as much as it is a tool for you.  ask questions if you did not get one.  ask your peers for help.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  english classes definitely do not have mc except for like state mandated finals maybe.  it is mostly just essays graded on a subjective scale.  if not, its literature questions or grammar questions which can be mc.  any reasonable teacher gives some partial credit for work, but still takes the final answer very seriously.  in physics and higher level math the right answer is very important.  your calculations could be responsible for lives, lots of money, or any other number of important things.  missing a negative sign could send a rocket crashing back to earth.  the final answer is just as important as the work.  in my physics class you earn points, they are not taken away.  you can get a few points for setting up the equation, a few for solving it, a few for getting the right answer, and a few for having all the work neatly and in the correct form.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  this is possible, yes, but many people still have the passion.  often, the passion is sucked away through exercises that do not make sense.  solve for x ? well i would rather figure out the height of a rocket after 0 minutes with a certain acceleration.  here you get 0 days to make up for each day you missed.  that is plenty for most to write a paper of whatever in the given time.  in the real world, it is more that you are expected to get it right.  it is not a great thing, it is an average thing, unless you are doing something revolutionary.  if you are a cashier your manager does not give you a high five for every transaction, but if you give a $0 back instead of a $0 they are going to be mad.   #  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.   #  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.   #  as a student, i would like to contest your evidence that there is a shift towards better assessment and different grading.  this is my experience with the ap program and their official policies.  other classes may be different, but their intent is what i describe.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .  what homework really does, is tell the teacher where the class is on understanding that topic.  if nobody gets any questions right, they know to review that a bit more.  it is also for you to tell the same thing.  you now know what to go back and restudt and relearn.  you learn how to learn a little bit better each time so you miss fewer questions on homework.  it is for the teacher to gauge their progress as much as it is a tool for you.  ask questions if you did not get one.  ask your peers for help.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  english classes definitely do not have mc except for like state mandated finals maybe.  it is mostly just essays graded on a subjective scale.  if not, its literature questions or grammar questions which can be mc.  any reasonable teacher gives some partial credit for work, but still takes the final answer very seriously.  in physics and higher level math the right answer is very important.  your calculations could be responsible for lives, lots of money, or any other number of important things.  missing a negative sign could send a rocket crashing back to earth.  the final answer is just as important as the work.  in my physics class you earn points, they are not taken away.  you can get a few points for setting up the equation, a few for solving it, a few for getting the right answer, and a few for having all the work neatly and in the correct form.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  this is possible, yes, but many people still have the passion.  often, the passion is sucked away through exercises that do not make sense.  solve for x ? well i would rather figure out the height of a rocket after 0 minutes with a certain acceleration.  here you get 0 days to make up for each day you missed.  that is plenty for most to write a paper of whatever in the given time.  in the real world, it is more that you are expected to get it right.  it is not a great thing, it is an average thing, unless you are doing something revolutionary.  if you are a cashier your manager does not give you a high five for every transaction, but if you give a $0 back instead of a $0 they are going to be mad.   #  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.   #  any reasonable teacher gives some partial credit for work, but still takes the final answer very seriously.   #  as a student, i would like to contest your evidence that there is a shift towards better assessment and different grading.  this is my experience with the ap program and their official policies.  other classes may be different, but their intent is what i describe.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .  what homework really does, is tell the teacher where the class is on understanding that topic.  if nobody gets any questions right, they know to review that a bit more.  it is also for you to tell the same thing.  you now know what to go back and restudt and relearn.  you learn how to learn a little bit better each time so you miss fewer questions on homework.  it is for the teacher to gauge their progress as much as it is a tool for you.  ask questions if you did not get one.  ask your peers for help.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  english classes definitely do not have mc except for like state mandated finals maybe.  it is mostly just essays graded on a subjective scale.  if not, its literature questions or grammar questions which can be mc.  any reasonable teacher gives some partial credit for work, but still takes the final answer very seriously.  in physics and higher level math the right answer is very important.  your calculations could be responsible for lives, lots of money, or any other number of important things.  missing a negative sign could send a rocket crashing back to earth.  the final answer is just as important as the work.  in my physics class you earn points, they are not taken away.  you can get a few points for setting up the equation, a few for solving it, a few for getting the right answer, and a few for having all the work neatly and in the correct form.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  this is possible, yes, but many people still have the passion.  often, the passion is sucked away through exercises that do not make sense.  solve for x ? well i would rather figure out the height of a rocket after 0 minutes with a certain acceleration.  here you get 0 days to make up for each day you missed.  that is plenty for most to write a paper of whatever in the given time.  in the real world, it is more that you are expected to get it right.  it is not a great thing, it is an average thing, unless you are doing something revolutionary.  if you are a cashier your manager does not give you a high five for every transaction, but if you give a $0 back instead of a $0 they are going to be mad.   #  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.   #  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.   #  as a student, i would like to contest your evidence that there is a shift towards better assessment and different grading.  this is my experience with the ap program and their official policies.  other classes may be different, but their intent is what i describe.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .  what homework really does, is tell the teacher where the class is on understanding that topic.  if nobody gets any questions right, they know to review that a bit more.  it is also for you to tell the same thing.  you now know what to go back and restudt and relearn.  you learn how to learn a little bit better each time so you miss fewer questions on homework.  it is for the teacher to gauge their progress as much as it is a tool for you.  ask questions if you did not get one.  ask your peers for help.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  english classes definitely do not have mc except for like state mandated finals maybe.  it is mostly just essays graded on a subjective scale.  if not, its literature questions or grammar questions which can be mc.  any reasonable teacher gives some partial credit for work, but still takes the final answer very seriously.  in physics and higher level math the right answer is very important.  your calculations could be responsible for lives, lots of money, or any other number of important things.  missing a negative sign could send a rocket crashing back to earth.  the final answer is just as important as the work.  in my physics class you earn points, they are not taken away.  you can get a few points for setting up the equation, a few for solving it, a few for getting the right answer, and a few for having all the work neatly and in the correct form.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  this is possible, yes, but many people still have the passion.  often, the passion is sucked away through exercises that do not make sense.  solve for x ? well i would rather figure out the height of a rocket after 0 minutes with a certain acceleration.  here you get 0 days to make up for each day you missed.  that is plenty for most to write a paper of whatever in the given time.  in the real world, it is more that you are expected to get it right.  it is not a great thing, it is an average thing, unless you are doing something revolutionary.  if you are a cashier your manager does not give you a high five for every transaction, but if you give a $0 back instead of a $0 they are going to be mad.   #  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.   #  here you get 0 days to make up for each day you missed.   #  as a student, i would like to contest your evidence that there is a shift towards better assessment and different grading.  this is my experience with the ap program and their official policies.  other classes may be different, but their intent is what i describe.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .  what homework really does, is tell the teacher where the class is on understanding that topic.  if nobody gets any questions right, they know to review that a bit more.  it is also for you to tell the same thing.  you now know what to go back and restudt and relearn.  you learn how to learn a little bit better each time so you miss fewer questions on homework.  it is for the teacher to gauge their progress as much as it is a tool for you.  ask questions if you did not get one.  ask your peers for help.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  english classes definitely do not have mc except for like state mandated finals maybe.  it is mostly just essays graded on a subjective scale.  if not, its literature questions or grammar questions which can be mc.  any reasonable teacher gives some partial credit for work, but still takes the final answer very seriously.  in physics and higher level math the right answer is very important.  your calculations could be responsible for lives, lots of money, or any other number of important things.  missing a negative sign could send a rocket crashing back to earth.  the final answer is just as important as the work.  in my physics class you earn points, they are not taken away.  you can get a few points for setting up the equation, a few for solving it, a few for getting the right answer, and a few for having all the work neatly and in the correct form.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  this is possible, yes, but many people still have the passion.  often, the passion is sucked away through exercises that do not make sense.  solve for x ? well i would rather figure out the height of a rocket after 0 minutes with a certain acceleration.  here you get 0 days to make up for each day you missed.  that is plenty for most to write a paper of whatever in the given time.  in the real world, it is more that you are expected to get it right.  it is not a great thing, it is an average thing, unless you are doing something revolutionary.  if you are a cashier your manager does not give you a high five for every transaction, but if you give a $0 back instead of a $0 they are going to be mad.   #  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  in the real world, it is more that you are expected to get it right.   #  as a student, i would like to contest your evidence that there is a shift towards better assessment and different grading.  this is my experience with the ap program and their official policies.  other classes may be different, but their intent is what i describe.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .  what homework really does, is tell the teacher where the class is on understanding that topic.  if nobody gets any questions right, they know to review that a bit more.  it is also for you to tell the same thing.  you now know what to go back and restudt and relearn.  you learn how to learn a little bit better each time so you miss fewer questions on homework.  it is for the teacher to gauge their progress as much as it is a tool for you.  ask questions if you did not get one.  ask your peers for help.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  english classes definitely do not have mc except for like state mandated finals maybe.  it is mostly just essays graded on a subjective scale.  if not, its literature questions or grammar questions which can be mc.  any reasonable teacher gives some partial credit for work, but still takes the final answer very seriously.  in physics and higher level math the right answer is very important.  your calculations could be responsible for lives, lots of money, or any other number of important things.  missing a negative sign could send a rocket crashing back to earth.  the final answer is just as important as the work.  in my physics class you earn points, they are not taken away.  you can get a few points for setting up the equation, a few for solving it, a few for getting the right answer, and a few for having all the work neatly and in the correct form.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  this is possible, yes, but many people still have the passion.  often, the passion is sucked away through exercises that do not make sense.  solve for x ? well i would rather figure out the height of a rocket after 0 minutes with a certain acceleration.  here you get 0 days to make up for each day you missed.  that is plenty for most to write a paper of whatever in the given time.  in the real world, it is more that you are expected to get it right.  it is not a great thing, it is an average thing, unless you are doing something revolutionary.  if you are a cashier your manager does not give you a high five for every transaction, but if you give a $0 back instead of a $0 they are going to be mad.   #  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  i apologize if this is what you meant.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.   # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.   #  life is stressful and you should learn to deal with it in class instead of in the real world, when it is far too late.   # um, if you get a question wrong on a test, it means you did not understand the subject that the question was addressing.  life is stressful and you should learn to deal with it in class instead of in the real world, when it is far too late.  coping with stress should be a valuable learning point in school.  i will look past the fact that math and science teachers often give you credit for your work.  in the real world, your work is defined by the final product and not the steps in between.  do you think nasa engineers that made the metric/imperial mistake deserve a pass because of that one mistake ? you do not get points for what you know if you ca not express your knowledge, as many engineers/scholars/entrepreneurs would tell you.  i will finish off with the inevitable paraphrasing of daniel tosh grades are the part where we find out what you know.  it is stressful and results oriented because the real world is stressful and results oriented.  i would go further and argue that the absence of grades would remove tangible goals for the students, which could lower motivation.  it is no coincidence that grades focused education systems i am looking at you, asia tend to have stronger results than softer education systems.   #  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ?  # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.
i am going to admit from the beginning that i am currently a student tired of being in the system, so that bias may shine through, but i am not really sure that the current educational system with grades is effective.  i understand that they are a metric for accessing our understanding of a topic, and that they are used to see if we know enough to move along in our education, and even to try to incentivise us to actually put in effort and pay attention, but i do not think they really do anything but add undo stress and frustration which detracts from potential learning.  i am should clarify, i love to learn and i constantly hunt for video tutorials and web series about science and computers and mathematics because it is interesting to learn, but i hate  education  as the formal system used to try and teach us.  here is the trouble i have with grades such as homework and to an extent tests:   they add stress on students to get things right the first time rather than encouraging them to learn from their mistakes and grow.  with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking   did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct   rather than asking   what did not you understand and where can we grow  .    they pull students down, and for a lot of students who want to get into colleges and get scholarships, the thought of a bad grade on homework which should be helping us learn is just stress that we might fail and be punished for life because of it.    a lot of subjects simply do not make sense with multi choice exams and tests.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.    maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.    they suck the passion out of students, which is the opposite of what you want from someone you are trying to teach.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.    if you miss a few days, you end up fighting an uphill battle which makes all of your work worse as you try to both catch up on missed assignments and keep up with incoming ones.  i understand entirely having grades as a final determination.  for things like getting certifications that show your mastery of a software, subject matter, or whatever else, it makes sense to have a grading system which proves whether or not you are qualified.  of course i would expect engineers, doctors, scientists, anyone to be qualified in the work that they do.  i just do not think that they do much good along the way to getting towards the expertise and that final test.  they seem to be more of a deterrent than a reward, and people learn more if they feel like they are making progress and being congratulated for it than getting scolded for not doing well enough.   #  maths and science answers can often be ruined by a single step in an equation, so should be graded on the work not the final answer.   #  i will look past the fact that math and science teachers often give you credit for your work.   # um, if you get a question wrong on a test, it means you did not understand the subject that the question was addressing.  life is stressful and you should learn to deal with it in class instead of in the real world, when it is far too late.  coping with stress should be a valuable learning point in school.  i will look past the fact that math and science teachers often give you credit for your work.  in the real world, your work is defined by the final product and not the steps in between.  do you think nasa engineers that made the metric/imperial mistake deserve a pass because of that one mistake ? you do not get points for what you know if you ca not express your knowledge, as many engineers/scholars/entrepreneurs would tell you.  i will finish off with the inevitable paraphrasing of daniel tosh grades are the part where we find out what you know.  it is stressful and results oriented because the real world is stressful and results oriented.  i would go further and argue that the absence of grades would remove tangible goals for the students, which could lower motivation.  it is no coincidence that grades focused education systems i am looking at you, asia tend to have stronger results than softer education systems.   #  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.   # this is not a problem with grades.  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  in the us, there are a glut of college bound kids.  perhaps a bad grade is a blessing calculus is not your thing, try the trades.  we are not concerned with the right answer as much as the process to get there.  but by the same token, i do not want to travel a bridge built by an engineer who forgets to carry the 0.  yup.  welcome to coming to work sick.   #  i let kids make up tests for a better grade.   # i let kids make up tests for a better grade.  essays as well.  it is important to distinguish between your personal classroom policy and the broader trends.  from what i have experienced, re taking tests and essays is pretty common in middle school, but as a student gets older they are increasingly expected to get it right the first time.  this leads many high achieving student to focus on learning to play their school is grading system rather than developing good study habits or learning from their mistakes.  if you can cram well enough to get by, there is no need to learn how to study; if there are no second chances, you ca not afford to make mistakes.  i would say that this  is  a problem with grades, because a student who truly focuses on understanding the material will tend to work several times harder and receive lower grades than a student who learns how to memorize exactly what they need to know for the test, and nothing more.  it seems to me that if the whole problem were marked wrong because the student got the wrong answer, then it may not be clear to the student exactly what the error was.  so, marking the error wrong and taking off partial points would be a better way to go about it, even though the penalty is smaller.  i apologize if this is what you meant.   #  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ?  # with homework, there is not really that chance.  because it is a grade, it is an assessment.  it is asking  did you understand what we did in class and can you get this correct  rather than asking  what did not you understand and where can we grow .  i have never had this stress.  my teachers had always started units or courses with homework or work booklets that did not count for much less than 0 of grade per assignment and gradually became more weighted as you learned.  it is why teachers weight tests more than homework because it is done at the end, after you have had the opportunity to understand and learn.  how do you propose they distribute scholarships or determine entry to post secondary without a grading system ? understanding and managing school related stress is a vital skill for most universities and colleges.  classes like english and history often ask  what is the best answer  which does not prove if people had the knowledge and intellect to reason, only that they can think like the exam writer.  i much prefer short answer.  you must be able to argue or determine which point is the best.  anyone can get the right answer on a multiple choice test given enough thought and understanding of the subject matter.  in fact, one very simple tactic is to argue the answers against each other in humanities courses the one you can argue for best is the right answer.  because if you are working in construction and fail to adhere to safety protocols, but end up with a nice house, you are going to be fired.  also failing to keep track of your steps can lead to a number of problems and the wrong answer in a great deal of real life situations.  i have seen friends bite off more than they can chew and it just destroyed them.  i have never experienced this.  in fact, students with passion for subjects usually do significantly better in those subjects.  if you are not capable of handling a heavy workload, do not take a heavy workload.  you are expected to learn the material yourself if you are gone.  you do not get a pass just because you did not show up.  you must understand the material, and if you miss days that means catching up.   #  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.   #  i am canadian, so it may be a bit different in the states.  we are rarely pressured for great grades, even in alberta, the province with arguably the hardest curriculum and high school exams.  we understand that getting 0  in every course is not an option for everyone, and that most post secondary schools require nothing more than a 0 average or minimum 0 mark to get in.  i have never met anyone who has not been able to pursue their passion while maintaining their grades.  the only real incentive to getting a 0 over an 0 is the added money in scholarships.
i play smash, and used to play lol, so most of my references come from those communities.  i am also an avid notre dame fan, and seahawks fan.  i believe people watch sports for three reasons.  first, they want to watch the best play at their peak.  they want to see talent manifest itself.  they want to see spectacular feats of strength, speed, intelligence, and dexterity.  they want to see what humans are capable of when pushed to the limit.  second, they want a connection with the human behind the athlete.  for example, if i really wanted to, i could probably go to denver and try to meet payton manning somewhere.  yeah it would be creepy, but i know he is a real person living somewhere, with a family, and a mortgage, just like me.  i can go up to him and ask him how his kids are, what is the best place to get a steak, and so on.  third, they want something to root for.  they want to feel invested in something bigger than themselves.  they want to feel like they won the game, even though it was their team that won.  league of legends i believe is doing a mediocre job at the second area, and a pretty good job at the third.  games like smash do a great job at the first, but ignore the other two areas.  unless you play the game, there is little reason why anyone else would watch, especially if you take out everything it means to be a fan.  for example, i am a fan of jason zimmerman.  i enjoy watching him play.  he is unstoppable when he is on top of his game.  his ability to think and adapt as well as his deep understanding of the game mechanics makes him a very enjoyable player for me to watch.  but he also has his flaws.  he has said in interviews he has depression problems.  he did not used to be very outgoing or personable for the longest time.  he, however, want to prove people wrong, that he can be the best.  how many of you know who i am describing ? what if i replaced jason zimmerman with mew0king ? this is the problem.  how is espn going to take an interview with  mew0king  seriously ? how are they going to go to a tournament and say grand finals is between chillendude0 and chu dat.  who are these people ? look at the smash documentary.  it is so good, because it focuses on the players, instead of the game, but even it did not use the players real name.  the problem is not the username.  the problem is the announcers, the brackets, the everything using their username in place of their real name.  their username gets the glory, their real name is lost to oblivion.  look at cloud0.  off the top of your head, what are their names ? how would you introduce them to someone who has never watched league at a bar ? oh that jungle his name is meteos.  think about how cringe worthy that sounds if you did not have any interest in the game.  tldr: esports needs to move away from usernames, and start using real names to embrace the human element of sports that casual fans love.  it is hard for espn to take mew0king seriously from a business stand point.   #  think about how cringe worthy that sounds if you did not have any interest in the game.   #  generally an interest in esports, unlike real sports, is almost unanimously because people are already playing a game that they are watching.   #  there are several flaws with your argument.  esports does not need to be  mainstream  it just needs to be profitable, and for the most part it is.  for example, the dota 0 championship paid out 0 million of 0 million dollars to it is winning team, as a salary that is excess of a million dollars a player.  as an annual salary this is larger than what most people make in several years.  any other reason for it needing to be mainstream is just an attempt by people who are ashamed to admit they like it, attempting to validate it to uninterested parties.  as far as the screen names vs names thing.  it is a part of the culture, and it makes it more exciting.  for example in starcraft ii qxc of team complexity, is known as  the bandanna terran  because of a distinct bandanna he wore when he was getting noticed.  also, is not there a football player right now that people simply refer to as  megatron  aka a transformers character.  so in reality it is not terribly different from the norm anyway.  generally an interest in esports, unlike real sports, is almost unanimously because people are already playing a game that they are watching.  this is not true of regular sports, as an example most fans of hockey probably do not even know how to ice skate, but they like to watch other people that can.  video games however are largely more accessible in terms of actually playing them, and so the community can always take on new players with different levels of interest.  for example, a friend of mine loves to spend hours playing lol, but he is never watched a broadcasted event or even after game vods because he just wants to play the game, and does not care about esports.   #  how is pitchfork going to take an interview with  lady gaga  seriously ?  #  i would like to address the name thing only, since i do not have a very good argument for the other aspects of your post.  how is espn going to take an interview with  mew0king  seriously ? how are they going to go to a tournament and say grand finals is between chillendude0 and chu dat.  who are these people ? how is pitchfork going to take an interview with  lady gaga  seriously ? how are they going to do a concert and say  tonight only: macklemore and jay z !   who are these people ? the problem is the announcers, the brackets, the everything using their username in place of their real name.  their username gets the glory, their real name is lost to oblivion.  that is how stage names work, you become well known and famous under that name and sacrifice becoming as well known by your real name.  but ask stefani germanotta how well that is worked out for her.   #  my point is that you wo not get the kind of mainstream attention out of lol or games like it until there are more  adult  players that are more convincingly at the  peak  of their game.   #  first, not that your argument is necessarily bad, but you should know that in the case of brazil, in particular, most professional top level athletes have a nickname simply as a matter of culture.  in fact, in many places around the country, most people receive some nickname growing up that they carry for the rest of their lives even if only known by their family or close acquaintances .  that aside though, i think the point the op was making is that it seems difficult for something like esports to hit the mainstream sports scene while people insist on using usernames rather than real names, instead of using usernames only in certain contexts.  as an adult who has been a gamer all their life, i cringe when someone uses their real name in  any  game setting.  similarly, i cringe when people who are not entertainers  in character  insist on using nicknames in other more  professional  think interview contexts.  lastly, and this is mostly a passing thought, but have to admit there is also something that feels awkward about these  professional  players being mostly teenagers.  i am not arguing that teens should not have notoriety for being talented and successful, but that it seems unrealistic that playing a game at the professional level is something limited to younger people.  and yes, i am aware that there are pro level players of games other than lol, but this conversation about esports tends to revolve around lol which by and large has a much younger audience than what you get on espn in general.  my point is that you wo not get the kind of mainstream attention out of lol or games like it until there are more  adult  players that are more convincingly at the  peak  of their game.   #  it is only because of the context of sports that tags seem weird, but in the context of other entertainment monikers are completely normal.   #  it is weird because you perceive it to be weird.  i do not watch sports, but i have been an active member of small forums, played xbox live as a kid, and am subscribed to plenty of people of people on youtube whom i only know by their usernames.  getting into smash, for me, it was not strange at all see people being referred to by their tags.  it is only because of the context of sports that tags seem weird, but in the context of other entertainment monikers are completely normal.  not only is it normal in entertainment, but also on the internet: the place where more and more people are spending a great deal of their time.  not as many people may find it as strange as you think, and even if they did, there is no reason they could not  just get over it.   and for the people who do tend to be weirded out by hearing players referred to by their usernames, do you really think that calling players by their names would make these people more accepting of a community where a bunch of guys gather in a room until late in the evening having flown from all around the country, others having flown in from other countries, possibly having taken leave from work, all for the purpose of entering a tournament, probably not making any money, and then sitting in the crowd cheering on the two guys who made it to grand finals, both of whom probably make a living doing this, play a game where cartoon characters fight each other and weird things happen for no apparent reason ? this is the mindset that a lot of people approach esports with.  my point is that if someone is weirded out by a couple of strange usernames, then they probably were going to find various aspects esports weird anyways.   #  wow, the burst damage off grizzly has to surprise dyrus !  #  wrestling has breached into popular culture while using fake names.  no one knows terry bollea.  everyone knows hulk hogan.  no one knows dwayne johnson.  everyone knows the rock.  the difference is the type of fake name, not the fact that the name is fake.  the problem is that all the names are shit tier names made by teenagers trying to be funny, cute, edgey, or were taking themselves too seriously.  if the sponsors forced the players to use names which had been focus grouped or at least designed in some way they would be fine.  for me, the problem is not names like meteos, it is names like imaqtpie and lilballz.  i enjoy using names like dyrus in conversation.  marcus hill sounds generic and uninteresting.  what happens if a second marcus hill reaches pro ? real names:  marcus hill is coming through the tribrush ! marcus hill is warded, he sees marcus hill ! marcus hill unleashes ! wow, the burst damage off marcus hill has to surprise marcus hill ! marcus hill knocks back marcus hill and makes a run for the tower ! will he make it ! ooooh, marcus hill gets away from that withering beatdown marcus hill just put on marcus hill !   fake names:  grizzly is coming through the tribrush ! dyrus is warded, he sees grizzly ! grizzly unleashes ! wow, the burst damage off grizzly has to surprise dyrus ! dyrus knocks back grizzly and makes a run for the tower ! will he make it ! ooooh, dyrus gets away from that withering beatdown grizzly just put on dyrus !
a few weeks ago, a woman who was formerly a baltimore ravens cheerleader was arrested for rape after allegedly having sexual relations with a 0 year old boy.  this story is not all that unique, as there are plenty of instances when older women, often teachers, have been arrested for having sex with males under the age of consent.  and while i do not necessarily think that women in these cases should not be punished at all, i think punishing them as much as older men who prey on young girls is also not appropriate.  i do not think it is a controversial statement to say that males are naturally more sexually aggressive and promiscuous than females.  that is seen across cultures and even across species.  simply put, men want sex more than women, they just do.  sure 0 or 0 year old boys may not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent to sex, but pretending that boys at that age do not want sex is completely disingenuous and so is pretending that girls by and large are as driven by sexual motives as boys.  furthermore, adolescent boys are often physically bigger and stronger than older women, so feelings of coercion in that respect are not as pronounced if the genders were switched.  so, please, explain to me why there should not be a double standard in this scenario.   #  i think punishing them as much as older men who prey on young girls is also not appropriate.   #  honestly, i am really concerned that this is an acceptable reason to hold adult women to different standards than adult men based on.  someone is it is not clear who nebulous  feelings of coercion .   #  the op seems to want to create a legal double standard based on difficult if not impossible to prove assumptions.  this sounds a lot like victim blaming, which should trip some red flags.  honestly, i am really concerned that this is an acceptable reason to hold adult women to different standards than adult men based on.  someone is it is not clear who nebulous  feelings of coercion .  men and women is actions should not be legally equal because of how people perceive genders ? i ca not tell if this is a pro women or anti women argument.  what is the end goal of a lessor punishment on women that commit statutory rape ? some kind of gender adjusted pretend  fairness  for committing the same action because the accused happens to have a particular set of genitals ?  #  you can make the fairly accurate statement that men are taller than women, but try telling that to a guy that is 0 0  when he is trying to reach the top shelf.   # sure 0 or 0 year old boys may not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent to sex, but pretending that boys at that age do not want sex is completely disingenuous and so is pretending that girls by and large are as driven by sexual motives as boys.  it is this sort of train of thought that makes it hard for boys who have been victimized by adults in positions of authority to speak about how damaging their rape was.  the idea that boys really want it and that having sex is awesome can lead to boys being ostracized if they say or imply that they did not like it or felt at all traumatized by the event.  this is one example of that.  URL men and boys may, on the the whole, tend to be more sexual, but this is just a trend and even so, it is difficult to know how much of our sexual behavior is socialized in to us .  it does not account for individual variation.  you can make the fairly accurate statement that men are taller than women, but try telling that to a guy that is 0 0  when he is trying to reach the top shelf.  the fact that other guys tend to be taller does not mean he is going to experience the world as a tall guy.   #  what if the teacher was unattractive and coerced a male student ?  # i disagree; take murder for example:   if you kill someone in self defense, it is usually not punished   if you kill someone because of an accident, it is not so bad.  if you kill someone in the heat of a moment, it is kinda bad   if you kill someone after planning it out and carefully considering it, it is really bad.  in all cases, someone died.  however, the actions of the killer are very important when considering punishment.  even if the person may have wanted to die, we still have a killer on our hands.  even if most men would have loved the hot teacher to sleep with them, what about that ones that do not ? what if the teacher was unattractive and coerced a male student ? unwanted sexual advances and manipulation cause the same damage, even if other people may have not minded.   #  it boils down to what you admitted,  0 or 0 year old boys do not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent .   # this is unsubstantiated, but even if it were true, it should not have any affect on sentencing.  they are not prepared for that undertaking.  coercion does not have to be physical.  an adult has greater agency and experience than a child, and a teacher is placed in a natural position of authority over a student.  there is nothing physical about these factors, but they lead to an imbalanced power dynamic where the adult is almost always the one in control of a given situation.  it boils down to what you admitted,  0 or 0 year old boys do not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent .  rape is rape regardless of the genders involved, and a society should never use unsubstantiated pseudo scientific generalizations about gender to inform criminal sentencing.   #  there are  some  women who are more promiscuous than  some  men, and so on.   # this is only true  on average .  in reality these properties are distributions.  if you plot the curves for  promiscuity  or  physical strength  for men and women you will find that the curves overlap.  there are  some  women who are more promiscuous than  some  men, and so on.  rights should be universal.  it is very unjust make your rights conditional to you belonging to some statistical group.  imagine if we used the same argument for other groups like race.   on average, africans are physically stronger than asians.  therefore, an asian who assaults an african should receive less punishment than an african who assault an asian.   different rights for different races racism different rights for different sexes sexism now, i am not saying that an attributes like physical strength should  never  be taken into consideration when punishing a crime.  yes, there should be more punishment if the victim is especially vulnerable.  but this should be evaluated on an  individual  basis, not on the assumption that they are vulnerable just because a statistical group they belong to is vulnerable.
a few weeks ago, a woman who was formerly a baltimore ravens cheerleader was arrested for rape after allegedly having sexual relations with a 0 year old boy.  this story is not all that unique, as there are plenty of instances when older women, often teachers, have been arrested for having sex with males under the age of consent.  and while i do not necessarily think that women in these cases should not be punished at all, i think punishing them as much as older men who prey on young girls is also not appropriate.  i do not think it is a controversial statement to say that males are naturally more sexually aggressive and promiscuous than females.  that is seen across cultures and even across species.  simply put, men want sex more than women, they just do.  sure 0 or 0 year old boys may not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent to sex, but pretending that boys at that age do not want sex is completely disingenuous and so is pretending that girls by and large are as driven by sexual motives as boys.  furthermore, adolescent boys are often physically bigger and stronger than older women, so feelings of coercion in that respect are not as pronounced if the genders were switched.  so, please, explain to me why there should not be a double standard in this scenario.   #  i do not think it is a controversial statement to say that males are naturally more sexually aggressive and promiscuous than females.   #  this is unsubstantiated, but even if it were true, it should not have any affect on sentencing.   # this is unsubstantiated, but even if it were true, it should not have any affect on sentencing.  they are not prepared for that undertaking.  coercion does not have to be physical.  an adult has greater agency and experience than a child, and a teacher is placed in a natural position of authority over a student.  there is nothing physical about these factors, but they lead to an imbalanced power dynamic where the adult is almost always the one in control of a given situation.  it boils down to what you admitted,  0 or 0 year old boys do not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent .  rape is rape regardless of the genders involved, and a society should never use unsubstantiated pseudo scientific generalizations about gender to inform criminal sentencing.   #  the fact that other guys tend to be taller does not mean he is going to experience the world as a tall guy.   # sure 0 or 0 year old boys may not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent to sex, but pretending that boys at that age do not want sex is completely disingenuous and so is pretending that girls by and large are as driven by sexual motives as boys.  it is this sort of train of thought that makes it hard for boys who have been victimized by adults in positions of authority to speak about how damaging their rape was.  the idea that boys really want it and that having sex is awesome can lead to boys being ostracized if they say or imply that they did not like it or felt at all traumatized by the event.  this is one example of that.  URL men and boys may, on the the whole, tend to be more sexual, but this is just a trend and even so, it is difficult to know how much of our sexual behavior is socialized in to us .  it does not account for individual variation.  you can make the fairly accurate statement that men are taller than women, but try telling that to a guy that is 0 0  when he is trying to reach the top shelf.  the fact that other guys tend to be taller does not mean he is going to experience the world as a tall guy.   #  men and women is actions should not be legally equal because of how people perceive genders ?  #  the op seems to want to create a legal double standard based on difficult if not impossible to prove assumptions.  this sounds a lot like victim blaming, which should trip some red flags.  honestly, i am really concerned that this is an acceptable reason to hold adult women to different standards than adult men based on.  someone is it is not clear who nebulous  feelings of coercion .  men and women is actions should not be legally equal because of how people perceive genders ? i ca not tell if this is a pro women or anti women argument.  what is the end goal of a lessor punishment on women that commit statutory rape ? some kind of gender adjusted pretend  fairness  for committing the same action because the accused happens to have a particular set of genitals ?  #  if you kill someone in the heat of a moment, it is kinda bad   if you kill someone after planning it out and carefully considering it, it is really bad.   # i disagree; take murder for example:   if you kill someone in self defense, it is usually not punished   if you kill someone because of an accident, it is not so bad.  if you kill someone in the heat of a moment, it is kinda bad   if you kill someone after planning it out and carefully considering it, it is really bad.  in all cases, someone died.  however, the actions of the killer are very important when considering punishment.  even if the person may have wanted to die, we still have a killer on our hands.  even if most men would have loved the hot teacher to sleep with them, what about that ones that do not ? what if the teacher was unattractive and coerced a male student ? unwanted sexual advances and manipulation cause the same damage, even if other people may have not minded.   #  if you plot the curves for  promiscuity  or  physical strength  for men and women you will find that the curves overlap.   # this is only true  on average .  in reality these properties are distributions.  if you plot the curves for  promiscuity  or  physical strength  for men and women you will find that the curves overlap.  there are  some  women who are more promiscuous than  some  men, and so on.  rights should be universal.  it is very unjust make your rights conditional to you belonging to some statistical group.  imagine if we used the same argument for other groups like race.   on average, africans are physically stronger than asians.  therefore, an asian who assaults an african should receive less punishment than an african who assault an asian.   different rights for different races racism different rights for different sexes sexism now, i am not saying that an attributes like physical strength should  never  be taken into consideration when punishing a crime.  yes, there should be more punishment if the victim is especially vulnerable.  but this should be evaluated on an  individual  basis, not on the assumption that they are vulnerable just because a statistical group they belong to is vulnerable.
a few weeks ago, a woman who was formerly a baltimore ravens cheerleader was arrested for rape after allegedly having sexual relations with a 0 year old boy.  this story is not all that unique, as there are plenty of instances when older women, often teachers, have been arrested for having sex with males under the age of consent.  and while i do not necessarily think that women in these cases should not be punished at all, i think punishing them as much as older men who prey on young girls is also not appropriate.  i do not think it is a controversial statement to say that males are naturally more sexually aggressive and promiscuous than females.  that is seen across cultures and even across species.  simply put, men want sex more than women, they just do.  sure 0 or 0 year old boys may not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent to sex, but pretending that boys at that age do not want sex is completely disingenuous and so is pretending that girls by and large are as driven by sexual motives as boys.  furthermore, adolescent boys are often physically bigger and stronger than older women, so feelings of coercion in that respect are not as pronounced if the genders were switched.  so, please, explain to me why there should not be a double standard in this scenario.   #  furthermore, adolescent boys are often physically bigger and stronger than older women, so feelings of coercion in that respect are not as pronounced if the genders were switched.   #  coercion does not have to be physical.   # this is unsubstantiated, but even if it were true, it should not have any affect on sentencing.  they are not prepared for that undertaking.  coercion does not have to be physical.  an adult has greater agency and experience than a child, and a teacher is placed in a natural position of authority over a student.  there is nothing physical about these factors, but they lead to an imbalanced power dynamic where the adult is almost always the one in control of a given situation.  it boils down to what you admitted,  0 or 0 year old boys do not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent .  rape is rape regardless of the genders involved, and a society should never use unsubstantiated pseudo scientific generalizations about gender to inform criminal sentencing.   #  it is this sort of train of thought that makes it hard for boys who have been victimized by adults in positions of authority to speak about how damaging their rape was.   # sure 0 or 0 year old boys may not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent to sex, but pretending that boys at that age do not want sex is completely disingenuous and so is pretending that girls by and large are as driven by sexual motives as boys.  it is this sort of train of thought that makes it hard for boys who have been victimized by adults in positions of authority to speak about how damaging their rape was.  the idea that boys really want it and that having sex is awesome can lead to boys being ostracized if they say or imply that they did not like it or felt at all traumatized by the event.  this is one example of that.  URL men and boys may, on the the whole, tend to be more sexual, but this is just a trend and even so, it is difficult to know how much of our sexual behavior is socialized in to us .  it does not account for individual variation.  you can make the fairly accurate statement that men are taller than women, but try telling that to a guy that is 0 0  when he is trying to reach the top shelf.  the fact that other guys tend to be taller does not mean he is going to experience the world as a tall guy.   #  men and women is actions should not be legally equal because of how people perceive genders ?  #  the op seems to want to create a legal double standard based on difficult if not impossible to prove assumptions.  this sounds a lot like victim blaming, which should trip some red flags.  honestly, i am really concerned that this is an acceptable reason to hold adult women to different standards than adult men based on.  someone is it is not clear who nebulous  feelings of coercion .  men and women is actions should not be legally equal because of how people perceive genders ? i ca not tell if this is a pro women or anti women argument.  what is the end goal of a lessor punishment on women that commit statutory rape ? some kind of gender adjusted pretend  fairness  for committing the same action because the accused happens to have a particular set of genitals ?  #  even if most men would have loved the hot teacher to sleep with them, what about that ones that do not ?  # i disagree; take murder for example:   if you kill someone in self defense, it is usually not punished   if you kill someone because of an accident, it is not so bad.  if you kill someone in the heat of a moment, it is kinda bad   if you kill someone after planning it out and carefully considering it, it is really bad.  in all cases, someone died.  however, the actions of the killer are very important when considering punishment.  even if the person may have wanted to die, we still have a killer on our hands.  even if most men would have loved the hot teacher to sleep with them, what about that ones that do not ? what if the teacher was unattractive and coerced a male student ? unwanted sexual advances and manipulation cause the same damage, even if other people may have not minded.   #  if you plot the curves for  promiscuity  or  physical strength  for men and women you will find that the curves overlap.   # this is only true  on average .  in reality these properties are distributions.  if you plot the curves for  promiscuity  or  physical strength  for men and women you will find that the curves overlap.  there are  some  women who are more promiscuous than  some  men, and so on.  rights should be universal.  it is very unjust make your rights conditional to you belonging to some statistical group.  imagine if we used the same argument for other groups like race.   on average, africans are physically stronger than asians.  therefore, an asian who assaults an african should receive less punishment than an african who assault an asian.   different rights for different races racism different rights for different sexes sexism now, i am not saying that an attributes like physical strength should  never  be taken into consideration when punishing a crime.  yes, there should be more punishment if the victim is especially vulnerable.  but this should be evaluated on an  individual  basis, not on the assumption that they are vulnerable just because a statistical group they belong to is vulnerable.
a few weeks ago, a woman who was formerly a baltimore ravens cheerleader was arrested for rape after allegedly having sexual relations with a 0 year old boy.  this story is not all that unique, as there are plenty of instances when older women, often teachers, have been arrested for having sex with males under the age of consent.  and while i do not necessarily think that women in these cases should not be punished at all, i think punishing them as much as older men who prey on young girls is also not appropriate.  i do not think it is a controversial statement to say that males are naturally more sexually aggressive and promiscuous than females.  that is seen across cultures and even across species.  simply put, men want sex more than women, they just do.  sure 0 or 0 year old boys may not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent to sex, but pretending that boys at that age do not want sex is completely disingenuous and so is pretending that girls by and large are as driven by sexual motives as boys.  furthermore, adolescent boys are often physically bigger and stronger than older women, so feelings of coercion in that respect are not as pronounced if the genders were switched.  so, please, explain to me why there should not be a double standard in this scenario.   #  so, please, explain to me why there should not be a double standard in this scenario.   #  it boils down to what you admitted,  0 or 0 year old boys do not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent .   # this is unsubstantiated, but even if it were true, it should not have any affect on sentencing.  they are not prepared for that undertaking.  coercion does not have to be physical.  an adult has greater agency and experience than a child, and a teacher is placed in a natural position of authority over a student.  there is nothing physical about these factors, but they lead to an imbalanced power dynamic where the adult is almost always the one in control of a given situation.  it boils down to what you admitted,  0 or 0 year old boys do not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent .  rape is rape regardless of the genders involved, and a society should never use unsubstantiated pseudo scientific generalizations about gender to inform criminal sentencing.   #  the fact that other guys tend to be taller does not mean he is going to experience the world as a tall guy.   # sure 0 or 0 year old boys may not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent to sex, but pretending that boys at that age do not want sex is completely disingenuous and so is pretending that girls by and large are as driven by sexual motives as boys.  it is this sort of train of thought that makes it hard for boys who have been victimized by adults in positions of authority to speak about how damaging their rape was.  the idea that boys really want it and that having sex is awesome can lead to boys being ostracized if they say or imply that they did not like it or felt at all traumatized by the event.  this is one example of that.  URL men and boys may, on the the whole, tend to be more sexual, but this is just a trend and even so, it is difficult to know how much of our sexual behavior is socialized in to us .  it does not account for individual variation.  you can make the fairly accurate statement that men are taller than women, but try telling that to a guy that is 0 0  when he is trying to reach the top shelf.  the fact that other guys tend to be taller does not mean he is going to experience the world as a tall guy.   #  what is the end goal of a lessor punishment on women that commit statutory rape ?  #  the op seems to want to create a legal double standard based on difficult if not impossible to prove assumptions.  this sounds a lot like victim blaming, which should trip some red flags.  honestly, i am really concerned that this is an acceptable reason to hold adult women to different standards than adult men based on.  someone is it is not clear who nebulous  feelings of coercion .  men and women is actions should not be legally equal because of how people perceive genders ? i ca not tell if this is a pro women or anti women argument.  what is the end goal of a lessor punishment on women that commit statutory rape ? some kind of gender adjusted pretend  fairness  for committing the same action because the accused happens to have a particular set of genitals ?  #  even if most men would have loved the hot teacher to sleep with them, what about that ones that do not ?  # i disagree; take murder for example:   if you kill someone in self defense, it is usually not punished   if you kill someone because of an accident, it is not so bad.  if you kill someone in the heat of a moment, it is kinda bad   if you kill someone after planning it out and carefully considering it, it is really bad.  in all cases, someone died.  however, the actions of the killer are very important when considering punishment.  even if the person may have wanted to die, we still have a killer on our hands.  even if most men would have loved the hot teacher to sleep with them, what about that ones that do not ? what if the teacher was unattractive and coerced a male student ? unwanted sexual advances and manipulation cause the same damage, even if other people may have not minded.   #  imagine if we used the same argument for other groups like race.   # this is only true  on average .  in reality these properties are distributions.  if you plot the curves for  promiscuity  or  physical strength  for men and women you will find that the curves overlap.  there are  some  women who are more promiscuous than  some  men, and so on.  rights should be universal.  it is very unjust make your rights conditional to you belonging to some statistical group.  imagine if we used the same argument for other groups like race.   on average, africans are physically stronger than asians.  therefore, an asian who assaults an african should receive less punishment than an african who assault an asian.   different rights for different races racism different rights for different sexes sexism now, i am not saying that an attributes like physical strength should  never  be taken into consideration when punishing a crime.  yes, there should be more punishment if the victim is especially vulnerable.  but this should be evaluated on an  individual  basis, not on the assumption that they are vulnerable just because a statistical group they belong to is vulnerable.
a few weeks ago, a woman who was formerly a baltimore ravens cheerleader was arrested for rape after allegedly having sexual relations with a 0 year old boy.  this story is not all that unique, as there are plenty of instances when older women, often teachers, have been arrested for having sex with males under the age of consent.  and while i do not necessarily think that women in these cases should not be punished at all, i think punishing them as much as older men who prey on young girls is also not appropriate.  i do not think it is a controversial statement to say that males are naturally more sexually aggressive and promiscuous than females.  that is seen across cultures and even across species.  simply put, men want sex more than women, they just do.  sure 0 or 0 year old boys may not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent to sex, but pretending that boys at that age do not want sex is completely disingenuous and so is pretending that girls by and large are as driven by sexual motives as boys.  furthermore, adolescent boys are often physically bigger and stronger than older women, so feelings of coercion in that respect are not as pronounced if the genders were switched.  so, please, explain to me why there should not be a double standard in this scenario.   #  i do not think it is a controversial statement to say that males are naturally more sexually aggressive and promiscuous than females.   #  if the argument is that  in general  that statement is true then i do not have a problem with it, but that does not matter in the context of someone abusing their position to get something they want.   # if the argument is that  in general  that statement is true then i do not have a problem with it, but that does not matter in the context of someone abusing their position to get something they want.  to me, the reason statutory rape is illegal is not about whether or not the rapee wants sex.  that is not relevant.  it is that a they do not properly understand the consequences of their actions for males, this includes being liable for child support for the next 0  years and b the significant difference in experience and emotional maturity makes the younger party much more vulnerable to manipulation including making them think they want it i do not think it is controversial to state that girls  in general  are more emotionally mature than boys in their teens.  given the difference in emotional maturity and the potential for high consequences for the male there is no male equivalent of an abortion or adoption i would say the consequences can be severe and long lasting.  finally, i am very uncomfortable with using  he was asking for it  as a rationale for minimizing the importance of consent.   #  URL men and boys may, on the the whole, tend to be more sexual, but this is just a trend and even so, it is difficult to know how much of our sexual behavior is socialized in to us .   # sure 0 or 0 year old boys may not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent to sex, but pretending that boys at that age do not want sex is completely disingenuous and so is pretending that girls by and large are as driven by sexual motives as boys.  it is this sort of train of thought that makes it hard for boys who have been victimized by adults in positions of authority to speak about how damaging their rape was.  the idea that boys really want it and that having sex is awesome can lead to boys being ostracized if they say or imply that they did not like it or felt at all traumatized by the event.  this is one example of that.  URL men and boys may, on the the whole, tend to be more sexual, but this is just a trend and even so, it is difficult to know how much of our sexual behavior is socialized in to us .  it does not account for individual variation.  you can make the fairly accurate statement that men are taller than women, but try telling that to a guy that is 0 0  when he is trying to reach the top shelf.  the fact that other guys tend to be taller does not mean he is going to experience the world as a tall guy.   #  this sounds a lot like victim blaming, which should trip some red flags.   #  the op seems to want to create a legal double standard based on difficult if not impossible to prove assumptions.  this sounds a lot like victim blaming, which should trip some red flags.  honestly, i am really concerned that this is an acceptable reason to hold adult women to different standards than adult men based on.  someone is it is not clear who nebulous  feelings of coercion .  men and women is actions should not be legally equal because of how people perceive genders ? i ca not tell if this is a pro women or anti women argument.  what is the end goal of a lessor punishment on women that commit statutory rape ? some kind of gender adjusted pretend  fairness  for committing the same action because the accused happens to have a particular set of genitals ?  #  unwanted sexual advances and manipulation cause the same damage, even if other people may have not minded.   # i disagree; take murder for example:   if you kill someone in self defense, it is usually not punished   if you kill someone because of an accident, it is not so bad.  if you kill someone in the heat of a moment, it is kinda bad   if you kill someone after planning it out and carefully considering it, it is really bad.  in all cases, someone died.  however, the actions of the killer are very important when considering punishment.  even if the person may have wanted to die, we still have a killer on our hands.  even if most men would have loved the hot teacher to sleep with them, what about that ones that do not ? what if the teacher was unattractive and coerced a male student ? unwanted sexual advances and manipulation cause the same damage, even if other people may have not minded.   #  an adult has greater agency and experience than a child, and a teacher is placed in a natural position of authority over a student.   # this is unsubstantiated, but even if it were true, it should not have any affect on sentencing.  they are not prepared for that undertaking.  coercion does not have to be physical.  an adult has greater agency and experience than a child, and a teacher is placed in a natural position of authority over a student.  there is nothing physical about these factors, but they lead to an imbalanced power dynamic where the adult is almost always the one in control of a given situation.  it boils down to what you admitted,  0 or 0 year old boys do not have the mental and/or emotional capability to fully consent .  rape is rape regardless of the genders involved, and a society should never use unsubstantiated pseudo scientific generalizations about gender to inform criminal sentencing.
now with states starting to legalize marijuana a lot of people are saying that people who got jailed for smuggling/using marijuana should be release.  i however disagree.  assuming that the law was a reasonable law that got removed because our society changed to such an extent that we no longer need the law the people who broke such a law should be jailed solely for the fact that they ignored the law.  examples of similar scenarios would be someone getting fined for driving 0 on a road who is speed limit was 0 but later the limit rose to 0.  or someone getting fined for j walking on a place that later added a crosswalk.  in those cases i think that most people would agree with me that those people should not get their money returned.  in order for my view to be changed i would have to change my belief that solely for being a criminal/law breaker warrens you being punished  #  or someone getting fined for j walking on a place that later added a crosswalk.   #  that is a bad analogy, because the harm caused by j walking putting a driver under duress to make a dangerous maneuver is different than the harm caused by walking on a crosswalk, where a driver is expecting someone to cross.   # that is a bad analogy, because the harm caused by j walking putting a driver under duress to make a dangerous maneuver is different than the harm caused by walking on a crosswalk, where a driver is expecting someone to cross.  the same can be said of speed limits.  people will behave differently on a 0mph road than a 0mph road.  on the other hand, the harm caused by possessing marijuana is petty much the same whether marijuana is illegal or not.  there is also a difference between a law that changes to reflect the customs of society and an  unjust law , that is considered universally unjust, no matter the historical context.  if you say that  all laws are just because the concept of justice is subjective and cultural , you could argue that homosexuals like alan turing should not be pardoned, or that victims of apartheid should not get any restitution.   #  there is a reason the law changed; most likely because it was not a reasonable law to start with.   #  your jay walking analogy could be correct, but you are using it wrong.  we ca not give these people their years back, but we can certainly stop punishing them for something that is no longer illegal.  there is a reason the law changed; most likely because it was not a reasonable law to start with.  law is hardly a fast evolving corpus, if it changed  now , it means it has not been actual for some time.  other than that, it is expensive to keep people in prison for the hell of it.   #  prison is not summer camp; it is violent, expensive and breed crime like no other places.   # because returning money to somebody reverse the sentence completely there is ground for interest being paid i am sure , while liberating people wo not give them back the time spent in prison.  there is no way to do that.  as such, law changing wo not generally reverse fines, nor will it turn back time, but it should not continue to be enforced harshly at  great  cost to ourselves and inmates .  prison is not summer camp; it is violent, expensive and breed crime like no other places.  i would rather people stop living in expensive sub human conditions, putting them at risk, for non punishable offenses for some warped sense of justice.  when ? i certainly took no part in this.  when did we vote on prison being needed, beneficial or  worth it  ? that is baseless at best.  besides, there is no reason  we as a society  ca not change our mind on the matter, or simply decide these people should be released.   #  second offense rates are high, prisons are expensive, violent and breed crime more than they deter it.   # if that is what is intended, then it is a giant failure.  i does not work.  that is a fairy tale.  prison is not a reformation summer camp.  second offense rates are high, prisons are expensive, violent and breed crime more than they deter it.  there is no reason to keep non violent criminal in them  now  as it stands, there is certainly no reason to keep them in once the offence they are incarcerated for is not even punishable.  it is the equivalent of liberating north korea tomorrow, but leaving people in prison camps because they  still broke a law, and they need to be punished for that .  such a major change in law is rare and reveals much older shifts in our mentality.  we were  wrong , i do not see why people should keep paying for that.  if smoking pot is not wrong  now , it was not wrong five years ago.  that is why the bill should include a provision for retro activity concerning this on specific offense.   #  if those thrown in prison had committed egregious acts that resulted in loss of life, then they certainly deserve to be held accountable by the new post apartheid government.   #  it really depends on what acts those accused of terrorism are guilty of committing.  if those thrown in prison had committed egregious acts that resulted in loss of life, then they certainly deserve to be held accountable by the new post apartheid government.  umkhonto we sizwe, the armed wing of the anc, killed a number of civilians, both white and black, in acts of terrorism.  since they were committing their acts in the name of abolishing apartheid, and since apartheid was eventually abolish, you feel they should be absolved of any wrong doing ? the laws regarding apartheid may have changed, but i am pretty certain terrorism is still illegal in the post apartheid era.
religion should not influence politics.  gay people should be allowed to marry if they so choose.  but that does not mean that every church or belief has to agree to perform marriages between homosexual people.  if a specific belief says they are against gay marriage and do not want to perform it, that is fine.  the gay people can just go next door to the church of a different faith, or to a courthouse.  the religion should not have to change it is view because something is made legal.  if their is is an unpopular opinion, they will just get less believers anyway.   #  the religion should not have to change it is view because something is made legal.   #  there is a difference between views and actions.   #  i agree with the basic statement.  however, a couple of points:  religion should not influence politics.  voters have the right to cast their votes after private deliberation, which inevitably will sometimes include religious influences.  there is a difference between views and actions.  a church is free to hold the  view  that having a pet cat is a sure sign of witchcraft, and ought to be met with capital punishment.  they are not free to act on that view.  if a religious group chooses to operate a business that offers some sort of goods or services to the general public a  public accommodation , as it is called then it gives up some of the privilege to discriminate that it has in its strictly religious activities.  so in the case of the for profit wedding chapel, the people running the place ca not be required to act in their capacity as ministers of their church by holding a religious ceremony for a same sex couple.  but if they offer, for a fee, to help with the legal paperwork for non believing couples that walk in off the street with no connection to their church, then they can be required not to discriminate in that offer.   #  should a christian that vehemently opposes gay marriage have to provide the services of their business for gay weddings ?  # if their is is an unpopular opinion, they will just get less believers anyway.  the problem occurs when religious belief exists outside the church.  should a christian that vehemently opposes gay marriage have to provide the services of their business for gay weddings ? one of the reason churches are getting in trouble is because they rent out facilities as if they were a business, and operating a business means you ca not discriminate.  do we allow discrimination, or do we respect religious belief ?  #  what about churches that want to ban interracial marriages ?  #  what about churches that want to ban interracial marriages ? should we let them do it since it is their faith ? if you want to stop the discrimination against certain type of people, you need to remove the discrimination in the various institutions of society.  you are proposing to have separate churches for the gays and the non gays, essentially providing the same service for the different groups of people.  except gays wo not be allowed in most churches, creating a serious problem in terms of equality.  this  separate but equal  approach has been a huge failure in the past.   #  i will put it to you: should you be able to legally force a priest/rabbi/minister/guru/imam to marry you if he or she does not want to ?  # should we let them do it since it is their faith ? yes absolutely.  again, the interracial couple can go next door to a church that has no problem with interracial couples, or to a court house.  hell, the couple could even create their own religion.  if you are talking about employment or legal treatment then yes maybe.  because if you get discriminated against by your employer or by the law, then you are being harmed.  but a church organization does not owe you anything.  and if they do not want to perform a religious service for you, then that is not causing any harm to you.  i will put it to you: should you be able to legally force a priest/rabbi/minister/guru/imam to marry you if he or she does not want to ?  #  so you think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate for any reason ?  # there are plenty of organizations that do charitable things for one group of people only.  i am not talking about providing charity, i an talking about providing a service like any other business.  like hiring a photographer, this church allows people to use their preists as officiants.  why should the photographer be legally required to not discriminate but the church can ? if it is private the church should have the right to kick anyone they want off their land.  so you think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate for any reason ? that harms communities, and is illegal for a reason.
religion should not influence politics.  gay people should be allowed to marry if they so choose.  but that does not mean that every church or belief has to agree to perform marriages between homosexual people.  if a specific belief says they are against gay marriage and do not want to perform it, that is fine.  the gay people can just go next door to the church of a different faith, or to a courthouse.  the religion should not have to change it is view because something is made legal.  if their is is an unpopular opinion, they will just get less believers anyway.   #  the religion should not have to change it is view because something is made legal.   #  if their is is an unpopular opinion, they will just get less believers anyway.   # if their is is an unpopular opinion, they will just get less believers anyway.  the problem occurs when religious belief exists outside the church.  should a christian that vehemently opposes gay marriage have to provide the services of their business for gay weddings ? one of the reason churches are getting in trouble is because they rent out facilities as if they were a business, and operating a business means you ca not discriminate.  do we allow discrimination, or do we respect religious belief ?  #  so in the case of the for profit wedding chapel, the people running the place ca not be required to act in their capacity as ministers of their church by holding a religious ceremony for a same sex couple.   #  i agree with the basic statement.  however, a couple of points:  religion should not influence politics.  voters have the right to cast their votes after private deliberation, which inevitably will sometimes include religious influences.  there is a difference between views and actions.  a church is free to hold the  view  that having a pet cat is a sure sign of witchcraft, and ought to be met with capital punishment.  they are not free to act on that view.  if a religious group chooses to operate a business that offers some sort of goods or services to the general public a  public accommodation , as it is called then it gives up some of the privilege to discriminate that it has in its strictly religious activities.  so in the case of the for profit wedding chapel, the people running the place ca not be required to act in their capacity as ministers of their church by holding a religious ceremony for a same sex couple.  but if they offer, for a fee, to help with the legal paperwork for non believing couples that walk in off the street with no connection to their church, then they can be required not to discriminate in that offer.   #  if you want to stop the discrimination against certain type of people, you need to remove the discrimination in the various institutions of society.   #  what about churches that want to ban interracial marriages ? should we let them do it since it is their faith ? if you want to stop the discrimination against certain type of people, you need to remove the discrimination in the various institutions of society.  you are proposing to have separate churches for the gays and the non gays, essentially providing the same service for the different groups of people.  except gays wo not be allowed in most churches, creating a serious problem in terms of equality.  this  separate but equal  approach has been a huge failure in the past.   #  and if they do not want to perform a religious service for you, then that is not causing any harm to you.   # should we let them do it since it is their faith ? yes absolutely.  again, the interracial couple can go next door to a church that has no problem with interracial couples, or to a court house.  hell, the couple could even create their own religion.  if you are talking about employment or legal treatment then yes maybe.  because if you get discriminated against by your employer or by the law, then you are being harmed.  but a church organization does not owe you anything.  and if they do not want to perform a religious service for you, then that is not causing any harm to you.  i will put it to you: should you be able to legally force a priest/rabbi/minister/guru/imam to marry you if he or she does not want to ?  #  there are plenty of organizations that do charitable things for one group of people only.   # there are plenty of organizations that do charitable things for one group of people only.  i am not talking about providing charity, i an talking about providing a service like any other business.  like hiring a photographer, this church allows people to use their preists as officiants.  why should the photographer be legally required to not discriminate but the church can ? if it is private the church should have the right to kick anyone they want off their land.  so you think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate for any reason ? that harms communities, and is illegal for a reason.
so i have been doing a bit of reading regarding classism, globalization, neoliberalism, marxism, etc.  part of my initial understanding is that capitalism is an inherently exploitative, oppressive system.  i feel like this is a reasonably sound argument to make, given that there is so much inequality in the world and that the world is a primarily capitalist system, so something clearly is not working right.  but at the same time i find it difficult to accept.  disclaimer: i am someone who has benefited immensely from my class privilege.  so maybe i just do not have the right perspective to see things correctly.  so the idea of people paying what they think is fair seems like a good deal where both parties win.  however, looking at the poverty and growing income inequality i ca not help but feel conflicted about this.  a lot of more  progressive   social justice y  movements are mostly anti capitalist, so i feel like they must be right to some degree, but i also see capitalism as an efficient machine that has helped increase standards of livings, brought new technologies, etc.  so i am unsure where i stand.   #  so the idea of people paying what they think is fair seems like a good deal where both parties win.   #  whether this is true or not does not tell us whether capitalism is exploitative or not.   # whether this is true or not does not tell us whether capitalism is exploitative or not.  usually what is meant by exploitation is that the working class is only getting paid for some of the work they do.  the rest of their labor is profit, which is not kept by the workers but belongs to the owners/shareholders.  if i get paid $0 a day but i produce $0 worth of stuff after the cost of materials, overhead, etc.  then half my labor is not being compensated.   #  and realistically, people do not pay what they think is fair.   #  i think the key word here is inherently.  some theoretical ideal form of capitalism could be free of exploitation and some theoretical real form of capitalism could come close to that ideal.  but realistically, capitalism is exactly as exploitative as people are.  and realistically, people do not pay what they think is fair.  they pay as little as they can get away with without immediate adverse consequences to themselves.   #  it is exploitative, but not uniquely so in ways that other systems are not.   #  it works most of the time in a wealthy nation, but certainly not on a global scale.  you are right that the alternatives are not better, but only insofar as we consider laissez faire alternatives the only alternatives.  so it is a good thing that capitalism in the real world does not have to be strictly laissez faire and is compatible with social programs.  of course, having said all that, i still think capitalism is the least bad economic system we have come up with so far.  it is exploitative, but not uniquely so in ways that other systems are not.   #  did you know that global income inequality has been falling for thirty years ?  #  dude.  poor nations are poor because they are not capitalist.  saying capitalism does not work because non capitalist nations are poor is like saying vaccines do not work because there was an outbreak of measles in that city where a bunch of parents did not vaccinate their kids.  did you know that global income inequality has been falling for thirty years ? it has, because global capitalism has enabled people in low income countries to participate in the global labor market, and their incomes have risen dramatically as a result.  take a look at this chart.  URL it is not enough, but global capitalism is making huge strides in mitigating the damage done by generations of shitty, non capitalist government.   #  now, if  everybody  was payed fairly, you would not see much capital being accumulated.   #  capitalism is the endless accumulation of capital by apparently pacific means.  in other words, without physical coercion.  included in this definition is the idea of salaried workers, which exchange to  work force  for a salary, by also agreeing to relinquish all right they ever had to the fruit of their work.  of course, the workers enter such agreement  willingly , but it is not to hard to understand that they do not have much choice.  now, if  everybody  was payed fairly, you would not see much capital being accumulated.  it needs to come from somewhere.  so yes, as it stands now, capitalism is an exploitative system.
so i have been doing a bit of reading regarding classism, globalization, neoliberalism, marxism, etc.  part of my initial understanding is that capitalism is an inherently exploitative, oppressive system.  i feel like this is a reasonably sound argument to make, given that there is so much inequality in the world and that the world is a primarily capitalist system, so something clearly is not working right.  but at the same time i find it difficult to accept.  disclaimer: i am someone who has benefited immensely from my class privilege.  so maybe i just do not have the right perspective to see things correctly.  so the idea of people paying what they think is fair seems like a good deal where both parties win.  however, looking at the poverty and growing income inequality i ca not help but feel conflicted about this.  a lot of more  progressive   social justice y  movements are mostly anti capitalist, so i feel like they must be right to some degree, but i also see capitalism as an efficient machine that has helped increase standards of livings, brought new technologies, etc.  so i am unsure where i stand.   #  so the idea of people paying what they think is fair seems like a good deal where both parties win.   #  however, looking at the poverty and growing income inequality i ca not help but feel conflicted about this.   # however, looking at the poverty and growing income inequality i ca not help but feel conflicted about this.  there is a major and common confusion between capitalism and the free market, on both sides of the debate.  the first bit, paying what seems fair to both, is the core of the free market.  i am massively pro free market.  the second bit, poverty growing income equality, is the core of capitalism.  i am against capitalism.  capitalism is the principle that those with wealth can gain wealth by letting their wealth work for them, without actually producing anything.  it is quite simply impossible to have capitalism without growing inequality, because anything you do to counter growing inequality taxation, benefits etc.  is anticapitalist.  free market is the principle that anyone can trade with anyone at any price they like, it can be maintained without rising inequality.   #  and realistically, people do not pay what they think is fair.   #  i think the key word here is inherently.  some theoretical ideal form of capitalism could be free of exploitation and some theoretical real form of capitalism could come close to that ideal.  but realistically, capitalism is exactly as exploitative as people are.  and realistically, people do not pay what they think is fair.  they pay as little as they can get away with without immediate adverse consequences to themselves.   #  so it is a good thing that capitalism in the real world does not have to be strictly laissez faire and is compatible with social programs.   #  it works most of the time in a wealthy nation, but certainly not on a global scale.  you are right that the alternatives are not better, but only insofar as we consider laissez faire alternatives the only alternatives.  so it is a good thing that capitalism in the real world does not have to be strictly laissez faire and is compatible with social programs.  of course, having said all that, i still think capitalism is the least bad economic system we have come up with so far.  it is exploitative, but not uniquely so in ways that other systems are not.   #  saying capitalism does not work because non capitalist nations are poor is like saying vaccines do not work because there was an outbreak of measles in that city where a bunch of parents did not vaccinate their kids.   #  dude.  poor nations are poor because they are not capitalist.  saying capitalism does not work because non capitalist nations are poor is like saying vaccines do not work because there was an outbreak of measles in that city where a bunch of parents did not vaccinate their kids.  did you know that global income inequality has been falling for thirty years ? it has, because global capitalism has enabled people in low income countries to participate in the global labor market, and their incomes have risen dramatically as a result.  take a look at this chart.  URL it is not enough, but global capitalism is making huge strides in mitigating the damage done by generations of shitty, non capitalist government.   #  so yes, as it stands now, capitalism is an exploitative system.   #  capitalism is the endless accumulation of capital by apparently pacific means.  in other words, without physical coercion.  included in this definition is the idea of salaried workers, which exchange to  work force  for a salary, by also agreeing to relinquish all right they ever had to the fruit of their work.  of course, the workers enter such agreement  willingly , but it is not to hard to understand that they do not have much choice.  now, if  everybody  was payed fairly, you would not see much capital being accumulated.  it needs to come from somewhere.  so yes, as it stands now, capitalism is an exploitative system.
so i have been doing a bit of reading regarding classism, globalization, neoliberalism, marxism, etc.  part of my initial understanding is that capitalism is an inherently exploitative, oppressive system.  i feel like this is a reasonably sound argument to make, given that there is so much inequality in the world and that the world is a primarily capitalist system, so something clearly is not working right.  but at the same time i find it difficult to accept.  disclaimer: i am someone who has benefited immensely from my class privilege.  so maybe i just do not have the right perspective to see things correctly.  so the idea of people paying what they think is fair seems like a good deal where both parties win.  however, looking at the poverty and growing income inequality i ca not help but feel conflicted about this.  a lot of more  progressive   social justice y  movements are mostly anti capitalist, so i feel like they must be right to some degree, but i also see capitalism as an efficient machine that has helped increase standards of livings, brought new technologies, etc.  so i am unsure where i stand.   #  i also see capitalism as an efficient machine that has helped increase standards of livings, brought new technologies, etc.   #  so i am unsure where i stand.   #  think of it this way: in a capitalist society, workers perform labor to earn enough wealth to survive.  a capitalist, on the other hand, provides capital to workers in exchange for ownership of what they produce.  in this venture, the workers contribute their labor which is contingent upon their health and bodies for most of their lives, while the capitalist contributes capital which is contingent upon nothing other than the collective imagining of its value.  i would also point out that there was never some even playing field upon which to build; the initial capital was prior wealth that, if you traced it back in time far enough, was acquired through to the exploitation or coercion of less powerful people.  this wealth became the foundation of capitalism.  wage slavery URL is a natural result of capitalism; workers must perform labor in order to survive, whereas the capitalists or the wealthy, or the leisure class, or whatever else you would like to call them reap most of the benefits of said labor.  so i am unsure where i stand.  one could argue that feudalism was also an efficient machine that helped increase standards of living and saw the birth of new technologies.  this does not make it any less inherently exploitative.  trading kings for ceos and sprinkling in a better standard of living with a bit of social mobility does not eliminate the exploitation upon which capitalism was built and which it perpetuates.   #  i think the key word here is inherently.   #  i think the key word here is inherently.  some theoretical ideal form of capitalism could be free of exploitation and some theoretical real form of capitalism could come close to that ideal.  but realistically, capitalism is exactly as exploitative as people are.  and realistically, people do not pay what they think is fair.  they pay as little as they can get away with without immediate adverse consequences to themselves.   #  you are right that the alternatives are not better, but only insofar as we consider laissez faire alternatives the only alternatives.   #  it works most of the time in a wealthy nation, but certainly not on a global scale.  you are right that the alternatives are not better, but only insofar as we consider laissez faire alternatives the only alternatives.  so it is a good thing that capitalism in the real world does not have to be strictly laissez faire and is compatible with social programs.  of course, having said all that, i still think capitalism is the least bad economic system we have come up with so far.  it is exploitative, but not uniquely so in ways that other systems are not.   #  it has, because global capitalism has enabled people in low income countries to participate in the global labor market, and their incomes have risen dramatically as a result.   #  dude.  poor nations are poor because they are not capitalist.  saying capitalism does not work because non capitalist nations are poor is like saying vaccines do not work because there was an outbreak of measles in that city where a bunch of parents did not vaccinate their kids.  did you know that global income inequality has been falling for thirty years ? it has, because global capitalism has enabled people in low income countries to participate in the global labor market, and their incomes have risen dramatically as a result.  take a look at this chart.  URL it is not enough, but global capitalism is making huge strides in mitigating the damage done by generations of shitty, non capitalist government.   #  capitalism is the endless accumulation of capital by apparently pacific means.   #  capitalism is the endless accumulation of capital by apparently pacific means.  in other words, without physical coercion.  included in this definition is the idea of salaried workers, which exchange to  work force  for a salary, by also agreeing to relinquish all right they ever had to the fruit of their work.  of course, the workers enter such agreement  willingly , but it is not to hard to understand that they do not have much choice.  now, if  everybody  was payed fairly, you would not see much capital being accumulated.  it needs to come from somewhere.  so yes, as it stands now, capitalism is an exploitative system.
URL i was reading this thread which again confirmed my views on this matter.  being fewer people may decrease the overall bnp, but i would say the average person would have a higher purchase power and simple jobs would pay more money because it would not be any competition for  low paying  jobs like today.  it is true that political and economical system greatly affects this as well, but it is not the only explanation.  take china today, it is a capitalistic economy in 0, and the competition is extremely high for all kinds of jobs hence why salaries are pressed down, especially for entry level positions.  now, take denmark or sweden, countries with a low population.  they have until recently because of extreme mass immigration had good wages for low skilled jobs and plenty of openings.  for example, a fresh high school graduate can get a 0,0 dollar/year work in the mines, and more with over time.  because the demand is very big but there are not so many people to press down wages, even if it is unskilled work that anyone can do.  the same job in china barely pays subsistence level.  another positive thing with keeping the population low is the environment.  fewer people means less polluted air.  the fossil fuels can also be used for more generations without being depleted and give the people a higher living standard.  housing would be a lot cheaper with fewer people since more free land for everyone.  here again we can compare china to sweden or why not canada/usa.  housing in big cities in china are more expensive than a mansion in usa because of not enough free space.  explain to me why the average person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say ? i never understood this for above reasons.  sure, the overall bnp will grow and ceo is will make higher profits because more people will buy their stuff, but the average person would have a worse time.  hence why i think the population of the world should decrease a lot so everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living without killing this planet.   #  explain to me why the average person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say ?  #  an increasing population will increase a country is gdp and spur economic growth, but it wo not increase the average person is income.   #  i do not think that your comments are controversial.  in economics, there is supply and demand.  when the supply of workers is high, the wages will be lower.  this is just basic economic theory.  an increasing population will increase a country is gdp and spur economic growth, but it wo not increase the average person is income.  decreasing the world is population is not the only method for improving people is standard of living.  countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  if the nordic model could be exported to the rest of the world, then the quality of life could be improved substantially.  one byproduct, however, is that the nordic model would tax the rich heavily and eventually cause the gap between rich and poor to cease to exist.  many rich people are opposed to this approach, of course.   #  the earth can support the people who live on it currently.   #  the reason the average person benefits from an increasing population is because of economies of scale URL what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  this does not cover everything however, including competition which can drive up or down prices, depending on if there are monopolies involved , and the fact that there are limits involved.  the thing is, i do not think you want to talk about economics, because there are a lot of factors at work here.  governments, income disparity, wars, corporations, etc.  decreasing the population of the planet does not make any of these go away.  nothing will change.  the reason denmark can afford to pay people high has nothing to with the number of people living in denmark.  it is because their economy is very advanced, their labour market is very efficient, and their government supports all the necessary means for sustaining this education and the like .  now take kyrgyzstan, which has roughly the same population as denmark.  human rights violations, poverty, a collapsing economy.  population is not the only factor at work here.  the earth can support the people who live on it currently.  society may not be able to.  for all of history however, societies have risen and fallen, regardless of the populations involved.  taking millions or even billions of people out of the picture would not even come close to fixing the earth is problems.   #  what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.   # what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  but now in 0 automation is taking over more and more of the production, do we really need to be a lot of people in factories ? the reason why potato chips are relative cheap is because of machinery, they are not hand made.  and you are right about wars and income disaparitys, but i still think overall it would be better if the world had, lets say, an population of 0 billion.  now, do not get me wrong, i am not saying we should kill 0 billion people.  it is just an utopia of mine.   #  sweden is selling a lot of iron ore and getting billions of tax dollars from this which is enough to cover a large percentage of the populations needs.   # countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  yes, you are right.  however, i think adopting the nordic model is easier if you are a smaller population since there are more resources for everyone.  lets take sweden and norway, norway has lots of oil and if those oil money would be divided for every person it would be 0,0 dollars per person.  i can find you a source for this if you need it.  sweden is selling a lot of iron ore and getting billions of tax dollars from this which is enough to cover a large percentage of the populations needs.  if the population in each country would be larger, the natural resources could not be divided like this through taxes.  english is not my native language but i hope you get my reasoning.   #  income above a certain threshold say, for example, $0k, not sure of the exact amount was taxed at 0.   #  i think the success of nordic countries is caused by higher taxes on the rich and the redistribution of wealth to the poor.  consider, for example, the us.  in the 0s and 0s, the us had a tiered tax system.  income above a certain threshold say, for example, $0k, not sure of the exact amount was taxed at 0.  the poor were taxed at a much lower level.  today, the rich are taxed at 0.  during the 0s and 0s, the gap between rich and poor was much smaller than it is today.
URL i was reading this thread which again confirmed my views on this matter.  being fewer people may decrease the overall bnp, but i would say the average person would have a higher purchase power and simple jobs would pay more money because it would not be any competition for  low paying  jobs like today.  it is true that political and economical system greatly affects this as well, but it is not the only explanation.  take china today, it is a capitalistic economy in 0, and the competition is extremely high for all kinds of jobs hence why salaries are pressed down, especially for entry level positions.  now, take denmark or sweden, countries with a low population.  they have until recently because of extreme mass immigration had good wages for low skilled jobs and plenty of openings.  for example, a fresh high school graduate can get a 0,0 dollar/year work in the mines, and more with over time.  because the demand is very big but there are not so many people to press down wages, even if it is unskilled work that anyone can do.  the same job in china barely pays subsistence level.  another positive thing with keeping the population low is the environment.  fewer people means less polluted air.  the fossil fuels can also be used for more generations without being depleted and give the people a higher living standard.  housing would be a lot cheaper with fewer people since more free land for everyone.  here again we can compare china to sweden or why not canada/usa.  housing in big cities in china are more expensive than a mansion in usa because of not enough free space.  explain to me why the average person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say ? i never understood this for above reasons.  sure, the overall bnp will grow and ceo is will make higher profits because more people will buy their stuff, but the average person would have a worse time.  hence why i think the population of the world should decrease a lot so everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living without killing this planet.   #  hence why i think the population of the world should decrease a lot so everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living without killing this planet.   #  decreasing the world is population is not the only method for improving people is standard of living.   #  i do not think that your comments are controversial.  in economics, there is supply and demand.  when the supply of workers is high, the wages will be lower.  this is just basic economic theory.  an increasing population will increase a country is gdp and spur economic growth, but it wo not increase the average person is income.  decreasing the world is population is not the only method for improving people is standard of living.  countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  if the nordic model could be exported to the rest of the world, then the quality of life could be improved substantially.  one byproduct, however, is that the nordic model would tax the rich heavily and eventually cause the gap between rich and poor to cease to exist.  many rich people are opposed to this approach, of course.   #  for all of history however, societies have risen and fallen, regardless of the populations involved.   #  the reason the average person benefits from an increasing population is because of economies of scale URL what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  this does not cover everything however, including competition which can drive up or down prices, depending on if there are monopolies involved , and the fact that there are limits involved.  the thing is, i do not think you want to talk about economics, because there are a lot of factors at work here.  governments, income disparity, wars, corporations, etc.  decreasing the population of the planet does not make any of these go away.  nothing will change.  the reason denmark can afford to pay people high has nothing to with the number of people living in denmark.  it is because their economy is very advanced, their labour market is very efficient, and their government supports all the necessary means for sustaining this education and the like .  now take kyrgyzstan, which has roughly the same population as denmark.  human rights violations, poverty, a collapsing economy.  population is not the only factor at work here.  the earth can support the people who live on it currently.  society may not be able to.  for all of history however, societies have risen and fallen, regardless of the populations involved.  taking millions or even billions of people out of the picture would not even come close to fixing the earth is problems.   #  the reason why potato chips are relative cheap is because of machinery, they are not hand made.   # what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  but now in 0 automation is taking over more and more of the production, do we really need to be a lot of people in factories ? the reason why potato chips are relative cheap is because of machinery, they are not hand made.  and you are right about wars and income disaparitys, but i still think overall it would be better if the world had, lets say, an population of 0 billion.  now, do not get me wrong, i am not saying we should kill 0 billion people.  it is just an utopia of mine.   #  lets take sweden and norway, norway has lots of oil and if those oil money would be divided for every person it would be 0,0 dollars per person.   # countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  yes, you are right.  however, i think adopting the nordic model is easier if you are a smaller population since there are more resources for everyone.  lets take sweden and norway, norway has lots of oil and if those oil money would be divided for every person it would be 0,0 dollars per person.  i can find you a source for this if you need it.  sweden is selling a lot of iron ore and getting billions of tax dollars from this which is enough to cover a large percentage of the populations needs.  if the population in each country would be larger, the natural resources could not be divided like this through taxes.  english is not my native language but i hope you get my reasoning.   #  i think the success of nordic countries is caused by higher taxes on the rich and the redistribution of wealth to the poor.   #  i think the success of nordic countries is caused by higher taxes on the rich and the redistribution of wealth to the poor.  consider, for example, the us.  in the 0s and 0s, the us had a tiered tax system.  income above a certain threshold say, for example, $0k, not sure of the exact amount was taxed at 0.  the poor were taxed at a much lower level.  today, the rich are taxed at 0.  during the 0s and 0s, the gap between rich and poor was much smaller than it is today.
URL i was reading this thread which again confirmed my views on this matter.  being fewer people may decrease the overall bnp, but i would say the average person would have a higher purchase power and simple jobs would pay more money because it would not be any competition for  low paying  jobs like today.  it is true that political and economical system greatly affects this as well, but it is not the only explanation.  take china today, it is a capitalistic economy in 0, and the competition is extremely high for all kinds of jobs hence why salaries are pressed down, especially for entry level positions.  now, take denmark or sweden, countries with a low population.  they have until recently because of extreme mass immigration had good wages for low skilled jobs and plenty of openings.  for example, a fresh high school graduate can get a 0,0 dollar/year work in the mines, and more with over time.  because the demand is very big but there are not so many people to press down wages, even if it is unskilled work that anyone can do.  the same job in china barely pays subsistence level.  another positive thing with keeping the population low is the environment.  fewer people means less polluted air.  the fossil fuels can also be used for more generations without being depleted and give the people a higher living standard.  housing would be a lot cheaper with fewer people since more free land for everyone.  here again we can compare china to sweden or why not canada/usa.  housing in big cities in china are more expensive than a mansion in usa because of not enough free space.  explain to me why the average person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say ? i never understood this for above reasons.  sure, the overall bnp will grow and ceo is will make higher profits because more people will buy their stuff, but the average person would have a worse time.  hence why i think the population of the world should decrease a lot so everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living without killing this planet.   #  because it would not be any competition for  low paying  jobs like today.   #  there would also be less  low paying  jobs, so the decrease would be negated.   # there would also be less  low paying  jobs, so the decrease would be negated.  and you make it economically viable for alternatives such as robotics, changing service needs who is going to pay $0 for a big mac ? , etc.  in china, average wages are rising, including the migrant workers.  URL and in china, minimum wages are increasing URL both from the article URL   the fossil fuels can also be used for more generations without being depleted and give the people a higher living standard.  or we could use it more efficiently, use alternative sources of energy or reduce our consumption.  decreasing people is only one possible answer.  it also an financial bubble which raises the prices.  mexico city is pretty dense and the average house price is approx $0,0 usd URL   explain to me why the average person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say ? you need growth of population because who is going to buy durable goods.  once everyone has as one or two cars or whatever their desire/need , who is going to buy another car ? it also makes your skills more valuable.  so you have 0 years of experience as a baker, which only 0 of the population has.  now its 0 years later and the population has doubled, so you now have skills that 0 only have and can charge more money its even better because some of the bakers 0 years ago have left baking so less competition for you.  it increases the tax base.  so when are old and in need, there is more money for government programs and services that you depend on.   #  it is because their economy is very advanced, their labour market is very efficient, and their government supports all the necessary means for sustaining this education and the like .   #  the reason the average person benefits from an increasing population is because of economies of scale URL what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  this does not cover everything however, including competition which can drive up or down prices, depending on if there are monopolies involved , and the fact that there are limits involved.  the thing is, i do not think you want to talk about economics, because there are a lot of factors at work here.  governments, income disparity, wars, corporations, etc.  decreasing the population of the planet does not make any of these go away.  nothing will change.  the reason denmark can afford to pay people high has nothing to with the number of people living in denmark.  it is because their economy is very advanced, their labour market is very efficient, and their government supports all the necessary means for sustaining this education and the like .  now take kyrgyzstan, which has roughly the same population as denmark.  human rights violations, poverty, a collapsing economy.  population is not the only factor at work here.  the earth can support the people who live on it currently.  society may not be able to.  for all of history however, societies have risen and fallen, regardless of the populations involved.  taking millions or even billions of people out of the picture would not even come close to fixing the earth is problems.   #  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.   # what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  but now in 0 automation is taking over more and more of the production, do we really need to be a lot of people in factories ? the reason why potato chips are relative cheap is because of machinery, they are not hand made.  and you are right about wars and income disaparitys, but i still think overall it would be better if the world had, lets say, an population of 0 billion.  now, do not get me wrong, i am not saying we should kill 0 billion people.  it is just an utopia of mine.   #  an increasing population will increase a country is gdp and spur economic growth, but it wo not increase the average person is income.   #  i do not think that your comments are controversial.  in economics, there is supply and demand.  when the supply of workers is high, the wages will be lower.  this is just basic economic theory.  an increasing population will increase a country is gdp and spur economic growth, but it wo not increase the average person is income.  decreasing the world is population is not the only method for improving people is standard of living.  countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  if the nordic model could be exported to the rest of the world, then the quality of life could be improved substantially.  one byproduct, however, is that the nordic model would tax the rich heavily and eventually cause the gap between rich and poor to cease to exist.  many rich people are opposed to this approach, of course.   #  i can find you a source for this if you need it.   # countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  yes, you are right.  however, i think adopting the nordic model is easier if you are a smaller population since there are more resources for everyone.  lets take sweden and norway, norway has lots of oil and if those oil money would be divided for every person it would be 0,0 dollars per person.  i can find you a source for this if you need it.  sweden is selling a lot of iron ore and getting billions of tax dollars from this which is enough to cover a large percentage of the populations needs.  if the population in each country would be larger, the natural resources could not be divided like this through taxes.  english is not my native language but i hope you get my reasoning.
URL i was reading this thread which again confirmed my views on this matter.  being fewer people may decrease the overall bnp, but i would say the average person would have a higher purchase power and simple jobs would pay more money because it would not be any competition for  low paying  jobs like today.  it is true that political and economical system greatly affects this as well, but it is not the only explanation.  take china today, it is a capitalistic economy in 0, and the competition is extremely high for all kinds of jobs hence why salaries are pressed down, especially for entry level positions.  now, take denmark or sweden, countries with a low population.  they have until recently because of extreme mass immigration had good wages for low skilled jobs and plenty of openings.  for example, a fresh high school graduate can get a 0,0 dollar/year work in the mines, and more with over time.  because the demand is very big but there are not so many people to press down wages, even if it is unskilled work that anyone can do.  the same job in china barely pays subsistence level.  another positive thing with keeping the population low is the environment.  fewer people means less polluted air.  the fossil fuels can also be used for more generations without being depleted and give the people a higher living standard.  housing would be a lot cheaper with fewer people since more free land for everyone.  here again we can compare china to sweden or why not canada/usa.  housing in big cities in china are more expensive than a mansion in usa because of not enough free space.  explain to me why the average person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say ? i never understood this for above reasons.  sure, the overall bnp will grow and ceo is will make higher profits because more people will buy their stuff, but the average person would have a worse time.  hence why i think the population of the world should decrease a lot so everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living without killing this planet.   #  the competition is extremely high for all kinds of jobs hence why salaries are pressed down, especially for entry level positions.   #  in china, average wages are rising, including the migrant workers.   # there would also be less  low paying  jobs, so the decrease would be negated.  and you make it economically viable for alternatives such as robotics, changing service needs who is going to pay $0 for a big mac ? , etc.  in china, average wages are rising, including the migrant workers.  URL and in china, minimum wages are increasing URL both from the article URL   the fossil fuels can also be used for more generations without being depleted and give the people a higher living standard.  or we could use it more efficiently, use alternative sources of energy or reduce our consumption.  decreasing people is only one possible answer.  it also an financial bubble which raises the prices.  mexico city is pretty dense and the average house price is approx $0,0 usd URL   explain to me why the average person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say ? you need growth of population because who is going to buy durable goods.  once everyone has as one or two cars or whatever their desire/need , who is going to buy another car ? it also makes your skills more valuable.  so you have 0 years of experience as a baker, which only 0 of the population has.  now its 0 years later and the population has doubled, so you now have skills that 0 only have and can charge more money its even better because some of the bakers 0 years ago have left baking so less competition for you.  it increases the tax base.  so when are old and in need, there is more money for government programs and services that you depend on.   #  the reason the average person benefits from an increasing population is because of economies of scale URL what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.   #  the reason the average person benefits from an increasing population is because of economies of scale URL what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  this does not cover everything however, including competition which can drive up or down prices, depending on if there are monopolies involved , and the fact that there are limits involved.  the thing is, i do not think you want to talk about economics, because there are a lot of factors at work here.  governments, income disparity, wars, corporations, etc.  decreasing the population of the planet does not make any of these go away.  nothing will change.  the reason denmark can afford to pay people high has nothing to with the number of people living in denmark.  it is because their economy is very advanced, their labour market is very efficient, and their government supports all the necessary means for sustaining this education and the like .  now take kyrgyzstan, which has roughly the same population as denmark.  human rights violations, poverty, a collapsing economy.  population is not the only factor at work here.  the earth can support the people who live on it currently.  society may not be able to.  for all of history however, societies have risen and fallen, regardless of the populations involved.  taking millions or even billions of people out of the picture would not even come close to fixing the earth is problems.   #  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.   # what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  but now in 0 automation is taking over more and more of the production, do we really need to be a lot of people in factories ? the reason why potato chips are relative cheap is because of machinery, they are not hand made.  and you are right about wars and income disaparitys, but i still think overall it would be better if the world had, lets say, an population of 0 billion.  now, do not get me wrong, i am not saying we should kill 0 billion people.  it is just an utopia of mine.   #  many rich people are opposed to this approach, of course.   #  i do not think that your comments are controversial.  in economics, there is supply and demand.  when the supply of workers is high, the wages will be lower.  this is just basic economic theory.  an increasing population will increase a country is gdp and spur economic growth, but it wo not increase the average person is income.  decreasing the world is population is not the only method for improving people is standard of living.  countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  if the nordic model could be exported to the rest of the world, then the quality of life could be improved substantially.  one byproduct, however, is that the nordic model would tax the rich heavily and eventually cause the gap between rich and poor to cease to exist.  many rich people are opposed to this approach, of course.   #  if the population in each country would be larger, the natural resources could not be divided like this through taxes.   # countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  yes, you are right.  however, i think adopting the nordic model is easier if you are a smaller population since there are more resources for everyone.  lets take sweden and norway, norway has lots of oil and if those oil money would be divided for every person it would be 0,0 dollars per person.  i can find you a source for this if you need it.  sweden is selling a lot of iron ore and getting billions of tax dollars from this which is enough to cover a large percentage of the populations needs.  if the population in each country would be larger, the natural resources could not be divided like this through taxes.  english is not my native language but i hope you get my reasoning.
URL i was reading this thread which again confirmed my views on this matter.  being fewer people may decrease the overall bnp, but i would say the average person would have a higher purchase power and simple jobs would pay more money because it would not be any competition for  low paying  jobs like today.  it is true that political and economical system greatly affects this as well, but it is not the only explanation.  take china today, it is a capitalistic economy in 0, and the competition is extremely high for all kinds of jobs hence why salaries are pressed down, especially for entry level positions.  now, take denmark or sweden, countries with a low population.  they have until recently because of extreme mass immigration had good wages for low skilled jobs and plenty of openings.  for example, a fresh high school graduate can get a 0,0 dollar/year work in the mines, and more with over time.  because the demand is very big but there are not so many people to press down wages, even if it is unskilled work that anyone can do.  the same job in china barely pays subsistence level.  another positive thing with keeping the population low is the environment.  fewer people means less polluted air.  the fossil fuels can also be used for more generations without being depleted and give the people a higher living standard.  housing would be a lot cheaper with fewer people since more free land for everyone.  here again we can compare china to sweden or why not canada/usa.  housing in big cities in china are more expensive than a mansion in usa because of not enough free space.  explain to me why the average person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say ? i never understood this for above reasons.  sure, the overall bnp will grow and ceo is will make higher profits because more people will buy their stuff, but the average person would have a worse time.  hence why i think the population of the world should decrease a lot so everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living without killing this planet.   #  housing in big cities in china are more expensive than a mansion in usa because of not enough free space.   #  it also an financial bubble which raises the prices.   # there would also be less  low paying  jobs, so the decrease would be negated.  and you make it economically viable for alternatives such as robotics, changing service needs who is going to pay $0 for a big mac ? , etc.  in china, average wages are rising, including the migrant workers.  URL and in china, minimum wages are increasing URL both from the article URL   the fossil fuels can also be used for more generations without being depleted and give the people a higher living standard.  or we could use it more efficiently, use alternative sources of energy or reduce our consumption.  decreasing people is only one possible answer.  it also an financial bubble which raises the prices.  mexico city is pretty dense and the average house price is approx $0,0 usd URL   explain to me why the average person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say ? you need growth of population because who is going to buy durable goods.  once everyone has as one or two cars or whatever their desire/need , who is going to buy another car ? it also makes your skills more valuable.  so you have 0 years of experience as a baker, which only 0 of the population has.  now its 0 years later and the population has doubled, so you now have skills that 0 only have and can charge more money its even better because some of the bakers 0 years ago have left baking so less competition for you.  it increases the tax base.  so when are old and in need, there is more money for government programs and services that you depend on.   #  human rights violations, poverty, a collapsing economy.  population is not the only factor at work here.   #  the reason the average person benefits from an increasing population is because of economies of scale URL what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  this does not cover everything however, including competition which can drive up or down prices, depending on if there are monopolies involved , and the fact that there are limits involved.  the thing is, i do not think you want to talk about economics, because there are a lot of factors at work here.  governments, income disparity, wars, corporations, etc.  decreasing the population of the planet does not make any of these go away.  nothing will change.  the reason denmark can afford to pay people high has nothing to with the number of people living in denmark.  it is because their economy is very advanced, their labour market is very efficient, and their government supports all the necessary means for sustaining this education and the like .  now take kyrgyzstan, which has roughly the same population as denmark.  human rights violations, poverty, a collapsing economy.  population is not the only factor at work here.  the earth can support the people who live on it currently.  society may not be able to.  for all of history however, societies have risen and fallen, regardless of the populations involved.  taking millions or even billions of people out of the picture would not even come close to fixing the earth is problems.   #  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.   # what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  but now in 0 automation is taking over more and more of the production, do we really need to be a lot of people in factories ? the reason why potato chips are relative cheap is because of machinery, they are not hand made.  and you are right about wars and income disaparitys, but i still think overall it would be better if the world had, lets say, an population of 0 billion.  now, do not get me wrong, i am not saying we should kill 0 billion people.  it is just an utopia of mine.   #  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.   #  i do not think that your comments are controversial.  in economics, there is supply and demand.  when the supply of workers is high, the wages will be lower.  this is just basic economic theory.  an increasing population will increase a country is gdp and spur economic growth, but it wo not increase the average person is income.  decreasing the world is population is not the only method for improving people is standard of living.  countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  if the nordic model could be exported to the rest of the world, then the quality of life could be improved substantially.  one byproduct, however, is that the nordic model would tax the rich heavily and eventually cause the gap between rich and poor to cease to exist.  many rich people are opposed to this approach, of course.   #  if the population in each country would be larger, the natural resources could not be divided like this through taxes.   # countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  yes, you are right.  however, i think adopting the nordic model is easier if you are a smaller population since there are more resources for everyone.  lets take sweden and norway, norway has lots of oil and if those oil money would be divided for every person it would be 0,0 dollars per person.  i can find you a source for this if you need it.  sweden is selling a lot of iron ore and getting billions of tax dollars from this which is enough to cover a large percentage of the populations needs.  if the population in each country would be larger, the natural resources could not be divided like this through taxes.  english is not my native language but i hope you get my reasoning.
URL i was reading this thread which again confirmed my views on this matter.  being fewer people may decrease the overall bnp, but i would say the average person would have a higher purchase power and simple jobs would pay more money because it would not be any competition for  low paying  jobs like today.  it is true that political and economical system greatly affects this as well, but it is not the only explanation.  take china today, it is a capitalistic economy in 0, and the competition is extremely high for all kinds of jobs hence why salaries are pressed down, especially for entry level positions.  now, take denmark or sweden, countries with a low population.  they have until recently because of extreme mass immigration had good wages for low skilled jobs and plenty of openings.  for example, a fresh high school graduate can get a 0,0 dollar/year work in the mines, and more with over time.  because the demand is very big but there are not so many people to press down wages, even if it is unskilled work that anyone can do.  the same job in china barely pays subsistence level.  another positive thing with keeping the population low is the environment.  fewer people means less polluted air.  the fossil fuels can also be used for more generations without being depleted and give the people a higher living standard.  housing would be a lot cheaper with fewer people since more free land for everyone.  here again we can compare china to sweden or why not canada/usa.  housing in big cities in china are more expensive than a mansion in usa because of not enough free space.  explain to me why the average person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say ? i never understood this for above reasons.  sure, the overall bnp will grow and ceo is will make higher profits because more people will buy their stuff, but the average person would have a worse time.  hence why i think the population of the world should decrease a lot so everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living without killing this planet.   #  take china today, it is a capitalistic economy in 0, and the competition is extremely high for all kinds of jobs hence why salaries are pressed down, especially for entry level positions.   #  now, take denmark or sweden, countries with a low population.   #  both population and average living standards have increased together for quite a while now.  if what you are saying is true, then how is that possible ? i presume roughly 0 of increased living standards have come from  natural  changes.  would you agree ? if so, 0 of the increased living standards have come from the positive externalities of the people who have existed.  now, take denmark or sweden, countries with a low population.  they have until recently because of extreme mass immigration had good wages for low skilled jobs and plenty of openings.  population density just does not work for comparing rich and poor nations.  try looking at more than two examples.  here is URL population density per nation.  and here is URL gdp per capita.  hong kong and singapore have some of the highest population densities but also some of the highest gdp per capita.  at the lower end of population densities, you have both some of the richest nations u. s.  and australia  and  the poorest like niger and chad .   #  this does not cover everything however, including competition which can drive up or down prices, depending on if there are monopolies involved , and the fact that there are limits involved.   #  the reason the average person benefits from an increasing population is because of economies of scale URL what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  this does not cover everything however, including competition which can drive up or down prices, depending on if there are monopolies involved , and the fact that there are limits involved.  the thing is, i do not think you want to talk about economics, because there are a lot of factors at work here.  governments, income disparity, wars, corporations, etc.  decreasing the population of the planet does not make any of these go away.  nothing will change.  the reason denmark can afford to pay people high has nothing to with the number of people living in denmark.  it is because their economy is very advanced, their labour market is very efficient, and their government supports all the necessary means for sustaining this education and the like .  now take kyrgyzstan, which has roughly the same population as denmark.  human rights violations, poverty, a collapsing economy.  population is not the only factor at work here.  the earth can support the people who live on it currently.  society may not be able to.  for all of history however, societies have risen and fallen, regardless of the populations involved.  taking millions or even billions of people out of the picture would not even come close to fixing the earth is problems.   #  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.   # what it means is when a company produces more units of something, the cost per unit decreases.  this is a simplification, but when there are more people, the costs for each good should decrease.  but now in 0 automation is taking over more and more of the production, do we really need to be a lot of people in factories ? the reason why potato chips are relative cheap is because of machinery, they are not hand made.  and you are right about wars and income disaparitys, but i still think overall it would be better if the world had, lets say, an population of 0 billion.  now, do not get me wrong, i am not saying we should kill 0 billion people.  it is just an utopia of mine.   #  when the supply of workers is high, the wages will be lower.   #  i do not think that your comments are controversial.  in economics, there is supply and demand.  when the supply of workers is high, the wages will be lower.  this is just basic economic theory.  an increasing population will increase a country is gdp and spur economic growth, but it wo not increase the average person is income.  decreasing the world is population is not the only method for improving people is standard of living.  countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  if the nordic model could be exported to the rest of the world, then the quality of life could be improved substantially.  one byproduct, however, is that the nordic model would tax the rich heavily and eventually cause the gap between rich and poor to cease to exist.  many rich people are opposed to this approach, of course.   #  however, i think adopting the nordic model is easier if you are a smaller population since there are more resources for everyone.   # countries that have the highest standard of living are the nordic countries, which have socialist economies.  due to higher taxes on the rich and a higher minimum wage, the gap between rich and poor is much smaller in nordic countries.  with universal healthcare, free education through college, and public transportation, there are few poor people.  yes, you are right.  however, i think adopting the nordic model is easier if you are a smaller population since there are more resources for everyone.  lets take sweden and norway, norway has lots of oil and if those oil money would be divided for every person it would be 0,0 dollars per person.  i can find you a source for this if you need it.  sweden is selling a lot of iron ore and getting billions of tax dollars from this which is enough to cover a large percentage of the populations needs.  if the population in each country would be larger, the natural resources could not be divided like this through taxes.  english is not my native language but i hope you get my reasoning.
as a former soldier, i always feel slightly guilty that i ca not get into the spirit of commemorating the first world war and especially the sacrifices made by those who fought in it.  in fact i believe those sacrifices were made in vain.  the second world war can be seen as a black and white moral struggle against monstrously oppressive forces.  the soldiers who gave their lives in that conflict can legitimately be seen as laying their lives down to oppose fascism and protect some basic institutions of human freedom.  i do not believe the same can be said for the first world war.  in my view, it was an impersonal struggle between empires over territory which had no moral component.  i do not believe that the majority of individuals fighting in the trenches had any personal stake in the outcome.  it was a hugely pointless waste of life and human suffering which certainly did not improve anyone is lives or prospects.  furthermore, the brutal punishment meted out to the german people afterwards caused decades of misery and directly opened the door to nazism.  so, what are the arguments against that point of view ?  #  in my view, it was an impersonal struggle between empires over territory which had no moral component.   #  if you look at the start of ww0 it was not some big empire attacking another country, it was a relatively minor event in a relatively unimportant country.   # if you look at the start of ww0 it was not some big empire attacking another country, it was a relatively minor event in a relatively unimportant country.  the term  powder keg waiting to be ignited  is a cliche, but in this case it is a very good way of looking at it.  firstly, european relations had been built on a intricate system of alliances.  this worked well for a long time, but once bismark was essentially canned the diplomatic network of europe could be described as his brainchild , the system started to deteriorate.  it was no longer in balance, which is why something like ww0 could happen in the first place.  the dominoes were lined up, and once you push the first one they all fall.  the second point is modernity.  to us, the concept of war means total war.  this was not the case at time.  the reason why no one  slammed the breaks  was because they really had no true concept of what they were getting into.  the leaders and generals had not understood the consequences of modern weaponry like artillery, machine guns, and barbed wire, or the lengths you could take the concept of a peoples army.  like with everything else you do for the first time, you figure it out as you go.  in short ww0 happened because the parties involved did not know that something like ww0 was possible.  there was a glaring imbalance between theory and reality.  many economists and politicians of the time were certain that the war would end within weeks or months after it is start, simply due to reasons like lack of money or soldiers.  it was the first time when our capability of killing exceeded our wildest nightmares.   #  would the soviet union look the way it got without ww0 ?  # i do not think there is one since i think that could be applied to almost all wars that ever happened.  i just think you are wrong singling ww0 as an especially unnecessary war.  this is how you paint the second world war.  however when you look at the effects of ww0 you can see similar destructive effects as after ww0.  would the soviet union look the way it got without ww0 ? stalin killed more people than hitler and the estonians and latvians were just as annexed as the french.  would the cold war happen without ww0 ? i am sure people in afghanistan, vietnam, korea, and certain south american countries see the cold war as a force equally bad to the holocaust.  a nuclear arms race gave a few countries the power to destroy not only humanity but most life.  fascism in europe happened much in the same way ww0 happened.  people did not realize what they were getting into.  if the fantasy of violence and war does not line up with reality bad stuff will happen.   #  this is because the stated aims of the allies barring russia was to free the world from the yoke of fascism and fanaticism.   #  i think a lot of the  worthiness  of wars can be drawn from their stated aims and how well they achieved those aims.  i believe that ww0 was a just war which needed to be fought.  this is because the stated aims of the allies barring russia was to free the world from the yoke of fascism and fanaticism.  when you consider what the nazis did in the concentration camps and what the japanese did at nanking, fighting to eliminate those governments was a very good cause to fight and die for.  the unintended effects of ww0 were that the soviet union overran eastern europe, placing many peoples under a brutal and repressive regime.  another unintended consequence was the invention of nuclear weapons a very good or very bad thing, depending on your viewpoint and a humongous economic boom for the usa as well as it is emergence on the world stage as a superpower.  but none of these were the reasons the soldiers fought and died for at the time.  by contrast, i would say that although many good things did come out of ww0, such as the liberation of central and eastern europe from autocracy and increased womens rights in most western countries, these were the unintentional results of ww0.  what all participants in ww0 were fighting was, simply put, a war of international aggression for the dominance of europe.  considering that the major nations involved all governed along very similar lines, there was not a moral element to it.  i find more merit in ww0 simply because the allies excepting russia reasons for going to war were much more high minded than realpolitik.  they achieved their stated aim of destroying two seriously murderous regimes, even if the unintended results of that led to some bad places later on.   #  this was also the perception of many of the central powers.   #  but world war ii was not started to free the world from those oppressive governments.  it was started by those oppressive governments.  japan and germany started world war ii by invading their neighbors.  their imperial ambitions were a senseless reason to start wwii.  one of woodrow wilson is stated aims in wwi was to make the world safe for democracy.  this is almost the exact reason you think wwii is justified.  furthermore, the rest of the allied powers in wwi thought they were either defending themselves or their treaty allies.  this was also the perception of many of the central powers.   #  yes, both wars were started by aggressive powers who looked to make gains at the expenses of their neighbours.   #  yes, both wars were started by aggressive powers who looked to make gains at the expenses of their neighbours.  but not all of the participants were forced to get involved.  britain for example could have stayed out of either war.  the reason the british government gave for entering ww0 was to honour it is treaty to belgium.  this treaty was little more than a handshake deal made 0 years previously.  much bloodshed would have been avoided if it was not honoured.  britain also could have stayed out of the european theatre during ww0 since hitler did not see the british as his natural enemies and would have likely been willing to settle with them.  however the british government chose to get involved on both occasions.  i do not think that it was justified in the case of ww0, but i do believe it was justified in the case of ww0.
as a former soldier, i always feel slightly guilty that i ca not get into the spirit of commemorating the first world war and especially the sacrifices made by those who fought in it.  in fact i believe those sacrifices were made in vain.  the second world war can be seen as a black and white moral struggle against monstrously oppressive forces.  the soldiers who gave their lives in that conflict can legitimately be seen as laying their lives down to oppose fascism and protect some basic institutions of human freedom.  i do not believe the same can be said for the first world war.  in my view, it was an impersonal struggle between empires over territory which had no moral component.  i do not believe that the majority of individuals fighting in the trenches had any personal stake in the outcome.  it was a hugely pointless waste of life and human suffering which certainly did not improve anyone is lives or prospects.  furthermore, the brutal punishment meted out to the german people afterwards caused decades of misery and directly opened the door to nazism.  so, what are the arguments against that point of view ?  #  the second world war can be seen as a black and white moral struggle against monstrously oppressive forces.   #  this is how you paint the second world war.   # i do not think there is one since i think that could be applied to almost all wars that ever happened.  i just think you are wrong singling ww0 as an especially unnecessary war.  this is how you paint the second world war.  however when you look at the effects of ww0 you can see similar destructive effects as after ww0.  would the soviet union look the way it got without ww0 ? stalin killed more people than hitler and the estonians and latvians were just as annexed as the french.  would the cold war happen without ww0 ? i am sure people in afghanistan, vietnam, korea, and certain south american countries see the cold war as a force equally bad to the holocaust.  a nuclear arms race gave a few countries the power to destroy not only humanity but most life.  fascism in europe happened much in the same way ww0 happened.  people did not realize what they were getting into.  if the fantasy of violence and war does not line up with reality bad stuff will happen.   #  to us, the concept of war means total war.   # if you look at the start of ww0 it was not some big empire attacking another country, it was a relatively minor event in a relatively unimportant country.  the term  powder keg waiting to be ignited  is a cliche, but in this case it is a very good way of looking at it.  firstly, european relations had been built on a intricate system of alliances.  this worked well for a long time, but once bismark was essentially canned the diplomatic network of europe could be described as his brainchild , the system started to deteriorate.  it was no longer in balance, which is why something like ww0 could happen in the first place.  the dominoes were lined up, and once you push the first one they all fall.  the second point is modernity.  to us, the concept of war means total war.  this was not the case at time.  the reason why no one  slammed the breaks  was because they really had no true concept of what they were getting into.  the leaders and generals had not understood the consequences of modern weaponry like artillery, machine guns, and barbed wire, or the lengths you could take the concept of a peoples army.  like with everything else you do for the first time, you figure it out as you go.  in short ww0 happened because the parties involved did not know that something like ww0 was possible.  there was a glaring imbalance between theory and reality.  many economists and politicians of the time were certain that the war would end within weeks or months after it is start, simply due to reasons like lack of money or soldiers.  it was the first time when our capability of killing exceeded our wildest nightmares.   #  what all participants in ww0 were fighting was, simply put, a war of international aggression for the dominance of europe.   #  i think a lot of the  worthiness  of wars can be drawn from their stated aims and how well they achieved those aims.  i believe that ww0 was a just war which needed to be fought.  this is because the stated aims of the allies barring russia was to free the world from the yoke of fascism and fanaticism.  when you consider what the nazis did in the concentration camps and what the japanese did at nanking, fighting to eliminate those governments was a very good cause to fight and die for.  the unintended effects of ww0 were that the soviet union overran eastern europe, placing many peoples under a brutal and repressive regime.  another unintended consequence was the invention of nuclear weapons a very good or very bad thing, depending on your viewpoint and a humongous economic boom for the usa as well as it is emergence on the world stage as a superpower.  but none of these were the reasons the soldiers fought and died for at the time.  by contrast, i would say that although many good things did come out of ww0, such as the liberation of central and eastern europe from autocracy and increased womens rights in most western countries, these were the unintentional results of ww0.  what all participants in ww0 were fighting was, simply put, a war of international aggression for the dominance of europe.  considering that the major nations involved all governed along very similar lines, there was not a moral element to it.  i find more merit in ww0 simply because the allies excepting russia reasons for going to war were much more high minded than realpolitik.  they achieved their stated aim of destroying two seriously murderous regimes, even if the unintended results of that led to some bad places later on.   #  this was also the perception of many of the central powers.   #  but world war ii was not started to free the world from those oppressive governments.  it was started by those oppressive governments.  japan and germany started world war ii by invading their neighbors.  their imperial ambitions were a senseless reason to start wwii.  one of woodrow wilson is stated aims in wwi was to make the world safe for democracy.  this is almost the exact reason you think wwii is justified.  furthermore, the rest of the allied powers in wwi thought they were either defending themselves or their treaty allies.  this was also the perception of many of the central powers.   #  however the british government chose to get involved on both occasions.   #  yes, both wars were started by aggressive powers who looked to make gains at the expenses of their neighbours.  but not all of the participants were forced to get involved.  britain for example could have stayed out of either war.  the reason the british government gave for entering ww0 was to honour it is treaty to belgium.  this treaty was little more than a handshake deal made 0 years previously.  much bloodshed would have been avoided if it was not honoured.  britain also could have stayed out of the european theatre during ww0 since hitler did not see the british as his natural enemies and would have likely been willing to settle with them.  however the british government chose to get involved on both occasions.  i do not think that it was justified in the case of ww0, but i do believe it was justified in the case of ww0.
as a former soldier, i always feel slightly guilty that i ca not get into the spirit of commemorating the first world war and especially the sacrifices made by those who fought in it.  in fact i believe those sacrifices were made in vain.  the second world war can be seen as a black and white moral struggle against monstrously oppressive forces.  the soldiers who gave their lives in that conflict can legitimately be seen as laying their lives down to oppose fascism and protect some basic institutions of human freedom.  i do not believe the same can be said for the first world war.  in my view, it was an impersonal struggle between empires over territory which had no moral component.  i do not believe that the majority of individuals fighting in the trenches had any personal stake in the outcome.  it was a hugely pointless waste of life and human suffering which certainly did not improve anyone is lives or prospects.  furthermore, the brutal punishment meted out to the german people afterwards caused decades of misery and directly opened the door to nazism.  so, what are the arguments against that point of view ?  #  the soldiers who gave their lives in that conflict can legitimately be seen as laying their lives down to oppose fascism and protect some basic institutions of human freedom.   #  it was a different time, to be sure.   # it was a different time, to be sure.  judging their actions with modern values in mind is, i believe, a mistake.  to the core, it is a war that ended large monarchies in europe.  it opposed aristocrats to, albeit imperialistic,  democrats .  it is the new order against the old one.  of course, like most wars, it is not exactly heroic in the sense that most people perceive the second world war to be.   #  it was the first time when our capability of killing exceeded our wildest nightmares.   # if you look at the start of ww0 it was not some big empire attacking another country, it was a relatively minor event in a relatively unimportant country.  the term  powder keg waiting to be ignited  is a cliche, but in this case it is a very good way of looking at it.  firstly, european relations had been built on a intricate system of alliances.  this worked well for a long time, but once bismark was essentially canned the diplomatic network of europe could be described as his brainchild , the system started to deteriorate.  it was no longer in balance, which is why something like ww0 could happen in the first place.  the dominoes were lined up, and once you push the first one they all fall.  the second point is modernity.  to us, the concept of war means total war.  this was not the case at time.  the reason why no one  slammed the breaks  was because they really had no true concept of what they were getting into.  the leaders and generals had not understood the consequences of modern weaponry like artillery, machine guns, and barbed wire, or the lengths you could take the concept of a peoples army.  like with everything else you do for the first time, you figure it out as you go.  in short ww0 happened because the parties involved did not know that something like ww0 was possible.  there was a glaring imbalance between theory and reality.  many economists and politicians of the time were certain that the war would end within weeks or months after it is start, simply due to reasons like lack of money or soldiers.  it was the first time when our capability of killing exceeded our wildest nightmares.   #  this is how you paint the second world war.   # i do not think there is one since i think that could be applied to almost all wars that ever happened.  i just think you are wrong singling ww0 as an especially unnecessary war.  this is how you paint the second world war.  however when you look at the effects of ww0 you can see similar destructive effects as after ww0.  would the soviet union look the way it got without ww0 ? stalin killed more people than hitler and the estonians and latvians were just as annexed as the french.  would the cold war happen without ww0 ? i am sure people in afghanistan, vietnam, korea, and certain south american countries see the cold war as a force equally bad to the holocaust.  a nuclear arms race gave a few countries the power to destroy not only humanity but most life.  fascism in europe happened much in the same way ww0 happened.  people did not realize what they were getting into.  if the fantasy of violence and war does not line up with reality bad stuff will happen.   #  another unintended consequence was the invention of nuclear weapons a very good or very bad thing, depending on your viewpoint and a humongous economic boom for the usa as well as it is emergence on the world stage as a superpower.   #  i think a lot of the  worthiness  of wars can be drawn from their stated aims and how well they achieved those aims.  i believe that ww0 was a just war which needed to be fought.  this is because the stated aims of the allies barring russia was to free the world from the yoke of fascism and fanaticism.  when you consider what the nazis did in the concentration camps and what the japanese did at nanking, fighting to eliminate those governments was a very good cause to fight and die for.  the unintended effects of ww0 were that the soviet union overran eastern europe, placing many peoples under a brutal and repressive regime.  another unintended consequence was the invention of nuclear weapons a very good or very bad thing, depending on your viewpoint and a humongous economic boom for the usa as well as it is emergence on the world stage as a superpower.  but none of these were the reasons the soldiers fought and died for at the time.  by contrast, i would say that although many good things did come out of ww0, such as the liberation of central and eastern europe from autocracy and increased womens rights in most western countries, these were the unintentional results of ww0.  what all participants in ww0 were fighting was, simply put, a war of international aggression for the dominance of europe.  considering that the major nations involved all governed along very similar lines, there was not a moral element to it.  i find more merit in ww0 simply because the allies excepting russia reasons for going to war were much more high minded than realpolitik.  they achieved their stated aim of destroying two seriously murderous regimes, even if the unintended results of that led to some bad places later on.   #  this is almost the exact reason you think wwii is justified.   #  but world war ii was not started to free the world from those oppressive governments.  it was started by those oppressive governments.  japan and germany started world war ii by invading their neighbors.  their imperial ambitions were a senseless reason to start wwii.  one of woodrow wilson is stated aims in wwi was to make the world safe for democracy.  this is almost the exact reason you think wwii is justified.  furthermore, the rest of the allied powers in wwi thought they were either defending themselves or their treaty allies.  this was also the perception of many of the central powers.
i am a ta at university and i grade assignments for an undergraduate engineering class.  lots probably 0/0 of assignments i get are almost completely illegible, lots of scratched out work, and answers to questions are not clearly indicated.  every time i see an assignment like this i would love to put a giant  x  through the page and say  no credit, illegible .  however, the professor i work for wants to give credit to everyone who turns in assignments and does not want to be any sort of ultra strict asshole ish prof.  you may say,  j wult, the legibility/penmanship does not dictate a correct answer ! if the answer is right, they should get credit !   my response is this:   you are in college, you should have already learned to write legibly   if your penmanship is that bad, type your homework.  it can be done, it may not be fun, but it can be done.    homework is about communicating that you know the material and can obtain a correct solution to a problem.  if you ca not communicate clearly write clearly you should not get credit.    a core of engineering is about communicating.  no one cares what you have done/discovered if you cannot properly communicate it to others.  so again, if you ca not communicate clearly write clearly you should not get credit.  i do not want to be the bad guy here, but i ca not help it.  so please, cmv.   #  a core of engineering is about communicating.   #  in the real world handwriting does not matter.   #  do you give marks because of beautiful handwriting ? should not it work both ways ? how can you grade something so subjective ? are you willing to justify to every student and every mark you deduct ? i would definitely fight that one.  what about heavy accents ? should we remove marks because its hard to understand them through their foreign accents ? should we also grade them on looks or how neat their clothes are ? presentation and professionalism is also part of engineering too.  in the real world handwriting does not matter.  its usually typed/printed.   #  however i will agree that there comes a point where they are handing in hieroglyphic caveman scribbles and if you ca not make heads or tails of what you are actually looking at then no credit should be given.   #  i can see the professor is point though, this is engineering and not an english class.  so he wants to grade on content rather than how pretty it looks which makes complete sense.  i work in a professional environment with a bunch of engineers and we have collectively the handwriting ability of toddlers. but that is what ms office is for.  and yet, communication is not a problem.  so it is kinda hard to argue that  the core of engineering is communicating  and that they are going to have a hard time in the real world when bad handwriting simply is not an issue.  however i will agree that there comes a point where they are handing in hieroglyphic caveman scribbles and if you ca not make heads or tails of what you are actually looking at then no credit should be given.  give them a warning to do assignments legibly and at least give them a chance to explain their work in front of you so they get credit the first time.  after that if they chose not to make their work a bit legible then i would not feel bad docking points off since you ca not read anything.   #  your boss/coworkers wo not know the significance of what you have done if you ca not appropriately communicate it.   #  alright,   0;.  as far as my title is concerned, consider my view changed.  i think giving someone the chance to explain the work is fair, but can that really be accomplished for up to 0 students ? but this argument is not about the feasibility of the application.  here is where i am still at : the point of  in the real world  is completely correct.  we have ms office for a reason, but communication is, i think, definitely a crux of engineering.  your boss/coworkers wo not know the significance of what you have done if you ca not appropriately communicate it.  though that may not be handwritten anymore, we are in the computer age, you need to be able communicate well with the required medium in the professional case, ms .  but in this particular classroom setting, it is handwritten.  so students should be expected to communicate well in the form that is expected of them.   #  if you have to spend hours studying how to do something as basic as some simple formatting and adding a picture, then there is something wrong with your product.   #  i do not understand all the love for latex.  it does not matter how pretty the end results are, if the way to get there is terribly unintuitive.  people want to write texts, not spend their time debugging some script, trying to figure out what went wrong.  if you have to spend hours studying how to do something as basic as some simple formatting and adding a picture, then there is something wrong with your product.  this is why the majority keeps using programs like word.  it is just easier and more intuitive for the user.  you ca not expect everyone to be a programmer.   #  specifically, you state what the paragraphs are, and what the diagrams are and latex then chooses how to lay that out based on rules.   #  latex is useful because if you are using it correctly it separates content from design.  specifically, you state what the paragraphs are, and what the diagrams are and latex then chooses how to lay that out based on rules.  if you want to give your article to a specific paper, they can then immediately just run the tex script through the compiler and have it match their look and feel instantly.  if you are trying to mess with the design while writing a latex document you are doing something wrong.  as a result, latex is better when trying to create a single look and feel.  but for one off uses, word is pretty good and you can style it exactly as you see fit.  it is much harder, however, to change your design or content after creation.  people know this from when they add some text on page 0/0 and suddenly all the images in the entire document have moved and need manual repositioning.
i am a ta at university and i grade assignments for an undergraduate engineering class.  lots probably 0/0 of assignments i get are almost completely illegible, lots of scratched out work, and answers to questions are not clearly indicated.  every time i see an assignment like this i would love to put a giant  x  through the page and say  no credit, illegible .  however, the professor i work for wants to give credit to everyone who turns in assignments and does not want to be any sort of ultra strict asshole ish prof.  you may say,  j wult, the legibility/penmanship does not dictate a correct answer ! if the answer is right, they should get credit !   my response is this:   you are in college, you should have already learned to write legibly   if your penmanship is that bad, type your homework.  it can be done, it may not be fun, but it can be done.    homework is about communicating that you know the material and can obtain a correct solution to a problem.  if you ca not communicate clearly write clearly you should not get credit.    a core of engineering is about communicating.  no one cares what you have done/discovered if you cannot properly communicate it to others.  so again, if you ca not communicate clearly write clearly you should not get credit.  i do not want to be the bad guy here, but i ca not help it.  so please, cmv.   #  i am a ta at university and i grade assignments for an undergraduate engineering class.   #  lots probably 0/0 of assignments i get are almost completely illegible, lots of scratched out work, and answers to questions are not clearly indicated.   # lots probably 0/0 of assignments i get are almost completely illegible, lots of scratched out work, and answers to questions are not clearly indicated.  every time i see an assignment like this i would love to put a giant  x  through the page and say  no credit, illegible .  however, the professor i work for wants to give credit to everyone who turns in assignments and does not want to be any sort of ultra strict asshole ish prof.  if the grading criteria he sets is  assignment turned in full credit , then you must do that.  while penmanship is important for a student, as a ta the importance for you is following orders and respecting authority.  in your position  you have no right to shape grading criteria.  when you are a professor, then you can penalize all the horrible penmanship you want.  one idea on how to solve your problem: appeal to prof that you ca not give constructive feedback if you ca not read answers.  would he please consider asking them to type work, so that you can be more effective in helping them ?  #  after that if they chose not to make their work a bit legible then i would not feel bad docking points off since you ca not read anything.   #  i can see the professor is point though, this is engineering and not an english class.  so he wants to grade on content rather than how pretty it looks which makes complete sense.  i work in a professional environment with a bunch of engineers and we have collectively the handwriting ability of toddlers. but that is what ms office is for.  and yet, communication is not a problem.  so it is kinda hard to argue that  the core of engineering is communicating  and that they are going to have a hard time in the real world when bad handwriting simply is not an issue.  however i will agree that there comes a point where they are handing in hieroglyphic caveman scribbles and if you ca not make heads or tails of what you are actually looking at then no credit should be given.  give them a warning to do assignments legibly and at least give them a chance to explain their work in front of you so they get credit the first time.  after that if they chose not to make their work a bit legible then i would not feel bad docking points off since you ca not read anything.   #  here is where i am still at : the point of  in the real world  is completely correct.   #  alright,   0;.  as far as my title is concerned, consider my view changed.  i think giving someone the chance to explain the work is fair, but can that really be accomplished for up to 0 students ? but this argument is not about the feasibility of the application.  here is where i am still at : the point of  in the real world  is completely correct.  we have ms office for a reason, but communication is, i think, definitely a crux of engineering.  your boss/coworkers wo not know the significance of what you have done if you ca not appropriately communicate it.  though that may not be handwritten anymore, we are in the computer age, you need to be able communicate well with the required medium in the professional case, ms .  but in this particular classroom setting, it is handwritten.  so students should be expected to communicate well in the form that is expected of them.   #  it does not matter how pretty the end results are, if the way to get there is terribly unintuitive.   #  i do not understand all the love for latex.  it does not matter how pretty the end results are, if the way to get there is terribly unintuitive.  people want to write texts, not spend their time debugging some script, trying to figure out what went wrong.  if you have to spend hours studying how to do something as basic as some simple formatting and adding a picture, then there is something wrong with your product.  this is why the majority keeps using programs like word.  it is just easier and more intuitive for the user.  you ca not expect everyone to be a programmer.   #  but for one off uses, word is pretty good and you can style it exactly as you see fit.   #  latex is useful because if you are using it correctly it separates content from design.  specifically, you state what the paragraphs are, and what the diagrams are and latex then chooses how to lay that out based on rules.  if you want to give your article to a specific paper, they can then immediately just run the tex script through the compiler and have it match their look and feel instantly.  if you are trying to mess with the design while writing a latex document you are doing something wrong.  as a result, latex is better when trying to create a single look and feel.  but for one off uses, word is pretty good and you can style it exactly as you see fit.  it is much harder, however, to change your design or content after creation.  people know this from when they add some text on page 0/0 and suddenly all the images in the entire document have moved and need manual repositioning.
i am a ta at university and i grade assignments for an undergraduate engineering class.  lots probably 0/0 of assignments i get are almost completely illegible, lots of scratched out work, and answers to questions are not clearly indicated.  every time i see an assignment like this i would love to put a giant  x  through the page and say  no credit, illegible .  however, the professor i work for wants to give credit to everyone who turns in assignments and does not want to be any sort of ultra strict asshole ish prof.  you may say,  j wult, the legibility/penmanship does not dictate a correct answer ! if the answer is right, they should get credit !   my response is this:   you are in college, you should have already learned to write legibly   if your penmanship is that bad, type your homework.  it can be done, it may not be fun, but it can be done.    homework is about communicating that you know the material and can obtain a correct solution to a problem.  if you ca not communicate clearly write clearly you should not get credit.    a core of engineering is about communicating.  no one cares what you have done/discovered if you cannot properly communicate it to others.  so again, if you ca not communicate clearly write clearly you should not get credit.  i do not want to be the bad guy here, but i ca not help it.  so please, cmv.   #  homework is about communicating that you know the material and can obtain a correct solution to a problem.   #  if you ca not communicate clearly write clearly as the teacher, it seems clear to me that  you  have not communicated the necessary instructions to ensure you get legible answers.   # i know some people who  ca not  read handwriting at all.  writing should have to be legible yes, but can you honestly say you are ability to read writing is high enough for that of a ta ? i have to assume its not, because this seems to be a frequent problem for you, and people simply do not purposefully hand in things that are not legible.  if you ca not communicate clearly write clearly as the teacher, it seems clear to me that  you  have not communicated the necessary instructions to ensure you get legible answers.  again nobody purposefully hands in something unreadable.  if this is a consistent problem for you, it is quite clear you need to adjust the directions.  i can just continue as above.  if you are unable to assign work that consistently gets you responses you can read, how is that not your fault ? a single student submits one paper and probably gets back a grade with no explanation.  how are they supposed to know your struggle ? then you are receiving 0  and having problems.  you are in control, make the changes yourself.   #  however i will agree that there comes a point where they are handing in hieroglyphic caveman scribbles and if you ca not make heads or tails of what you are actually looking at then no credit should be given.   #  i can see the professor is point though, this is engineering and not an english class.  so he wants to grade on content rather than how pretty it looks which makes complete sense.  i work in a professional environment with a bunch of engineers and we have collectively the handwriting ability of toddlers. but that is what ms office is for.  and yet, communication is not a problem.  so it is kinda hard to argue that  the core of engineering is communicating  and that they are going to have a hard time in the real world when bad handwriting simply is not an issue.  however i will agree that there comes a point where they are handing in hieroglyphic caveman scribbles and if you ca not make heads or tails of what you are actually looking at then no credit should be given.  give them a warning to do assignments legibly and at least give them a chance to explain their work in front of you so they get credit the first time.  after that if they chose not to make their work a bit legible then i would not feel bad docking points off since you ca not read anything.   #  i think giving someone the chance to explain the work is fair, but can that really be accomplished for up to 0 students ?  #  alright,   0;.  as far as my title is concerned, consider my view changed.  i think giving someone the chance to explain the work is fair, but can that really be accomplished for up to 0 students ? but this argument is not about the feasibility of the application.  here is where i am still at : the point of  in the real world  is completely correct.  we have ms office for a reason, but communication is, i think, definitely a crux of engineering.  your boss/coworkers wo not know the significance of what you have done if you ca not appropriately communicate it.  though that may not be handwritten anymore, we are in the computer age, you need to be able communicate well with the required medium in the professional case, ms .  but in this particular classroom setting, it is handwritten.  so students should be expected to communicate well in the form that is expected of them.   #  it is just easier and more intuitive for the user.   #  i do not understand all the love for latex.  it does not matter how pretty the end results are, if the way to get there is terribly unintuitive.  people want to write texts, not spend their time debugging some script, trying to figure out what went wrong.  if you have to spend hours studying how to do something as basic as some simple formatting and adding a picture, then there is something wrong with your product.  this is why the majority keeps using programs like word.  it is just easier and more intuitive for the user.  you ca not expect everyone to be a programmer.   #  if you are trying to mess with the design while writing a latex document you are doing something wrong.   #  latex is useful because if you are using it correctly it separates content from design.  specifically, you state what the paragraphs are, and what the diagrams are and latex then chooses how to lay that out based on rules.  if you want to give your article to a specific paper, they can then immediately just run the tex script through the compiler and have it match their look and feel instantly.  if you are trying to mess with the design while writing a latex document you are doing something wrong.  as a result, latex is better when trying to create a single look and feel.  but for one off uses, word is pretty good and you can style it exactly as you see fit.  it is much harder, however, to change your design or content after creation.  people know this from when they add some text on page 0/0 and suddenly all the images in the entire document have moved and need manual repositioning.
a lot of things have been attributed to feminism lately, and i do not think feminism as a concept is this broad.  sometimes someone on reddit says that feminism is about being treated as equals, no matter your skin/race/religion/orientation/etc.  each of those things has a meaning and, but you do not group them under feminism, you do so under bigotry imo the whole drama about whether or not there are enough females in videogames.  i do not think this has anything to do with feminism.  the right to play as a female character in a certain game ? you must be kidding me, how does this have anything to do with your rights ? the corresponding gg drama about corrupt journalism and doxxing of people.  the first one is exactly what it says, and the second one is just a violation of the reddit terms of agreement.  it has nothing to do with women is rights.  since most people on reddit group these things under feminism, i am under the impression that i must be missing some aspect, and i would like to have my view changed so my jimmies do not get rustled everytime i watch someone misuse the term feminism imo.  ty beforehand.   #  i watch someone misuse the term feminism imo.   #  the one misusing the term is you, and the countless people who use the dictionary definition of  equal rights to men .   # the sexes are to be induced to recognize each other is status, and to bring this recognition to such a point that equality will not even be challenged.  thus feminists are interested rather in ideas than in facts; if, for instance, they wish to make accessible to women the profession of barrister, it is not because they wish women to practice as barristers, but because they want men to view without surprise the fact that women may be barristers.  and they have no use for knightliness and chivalry.  wl george, feminist intentions, 0  the whole drama about whether or not there are enough females in videogames.  i do not think this has anything to do with feminism.  it is not merely about number of females but whether they are represented in a way which satisfy the above quote.  besides that, the gender gap in spatial skills the biggest cognitive difference between the sexes , and lack of women in it and engineering are related to that.  the one misusing the term is you, and the countless people who use the dictionary definition of  equal rights to men .   #  so, i suppose that opens up the question of what the point of feminism is at all.   #  the thing i feel like feminists forget is true equality has its downsides.  for example, if women were entirely equal to men culturally, then it would be no more morally reprehensible for me to walk up to a woman and punch her in the face than it would be for me to do that to a man.  of course, nobody should be punching anybody in the face, but it is viewed as a  considerably  worse thing to do to a woman than a man.  also, i feel like you ca not change culture as actively as you can change legal rights.  it is like, a sexist will remain a sexist no matter what a woman does, because that is the way he was raised.  so, i suppose that opens up the question of what the point of feminism is at all.  i believe women are equal to men, but i would not call myself a feminist because believing that is just simply being rational.  there is not a special word for believing that there is no difference between black and white people, so why is there one for believing that men and women are equal ? why is feminism even a concept at all, is not it just rational thinking ? now that the laws have been tweaked to correct sexism, is there anything else to do but wait until the old and hateful die out and the new, more accepting generation takes over ?  #  think of women who want to work on submarines, or men who want to work in daycares.   #  the only difference that always exists between men and woman should be their body.  on a per person basis there are ofcourse both physical and mental differences.  if a sector has many females working in it, because males have no interest.  no problem.  if a sector has many males working in it because it requires you to be able to carry a 0lbs backpack for 0 miles in 0 hours, than it is normal if there are practically no girls in it.  if a sector is excluding a gender from participating, than that is not ok.  an observed lack of a certain gender does not indicate discrimanitation per se though, it most often indicates a lack of interest from that gender.  it is bad if people are actively denied because of their gender.  think of women who want to work on submarines, or men who want to work in daycares.   #  then you group those feminists with the ones that gave civil rights to half the adult population, and made woman into actual people who could share their ideas with the world a few decades later.   #  then you group those feminists with the ones that gave civil rights to half the adult population, and made woman into actual people who could share their ideas with the world a few decades later.  that is despicable in my eyes, and takes away a lot from people i consider feminists.  imagine a group of people who download illegally and call themselves  the resistance  because they honestly believe that they are doing the exact same work as some people in occupied europe in ww0.  it is the same as calling something  the best thing since sliced bread  and honestly believing people will remember that thing hundreds of years from now as a gamebreaking moment in the history of mankind.  i do not see those people as feminists, and i do not think many feminists from the 0s do so either.   #  there is more than a few fallacies in there.   #  feminism is definition literally excludes advocating for men.  and i am not even sure what you mean by sports.  do you mean how nobody cares about the wnba ? although the required secularization has not happened there yet.  you do not get to validate feminism in america by pointing out the necessity for feminism in other countries.  there is more than a few fallacies in there.
a lot of things have been attributed to feminism lately, and i do not think feminism as a concept is this broad.  sometimes someone on reddit says that feminism is about being treated as equals, no matter your skin/race/religion/orientation/etc.  each of those things has a meaning and, but you do not group them under feminism, you do so under bigotry imo the whole drama about whether or not there are enough females in videogames.  i do not think this has anything to do with feminism.  the right to play as a female character in a certain game ? you must be kidding me, how does this have anything to do with your rights ? the corresponding gg drama about corrupt journalism and doxxing of people.  the first one is exactly what it says, and the second one is just a violation of the reddit terms of agreement.  it has nothing to do with women is rights.  since most people on reddit group these things under feminism, i am under the impression that i must be missing some aspect, and i would like to have my view changed so my jimmies do not get rustled everytime i watch someone misuse the term feminism imo.  ty beforehand.   #  the right to play as a female character in a certain game ?  #  you must be kidding me, how does this have anything to do with your rights ?  # you must be kidding me, how does this have anything to do with your rights ? it is a reflection of a social issue and, having the option to change it, you do not, so it can get criticism by someone saying  you have the change to send a better message .  i see it as simple as that.  think about any game that has been controversial URL and think that games in themselves are not a human right, so the content in the game cannot be a violation of rights.  however they still are media and still influence, and what is more is influenced by, people.  so the content of games is something to be considered.   #  now that the laws have been tweaked to correct sexism, is there anything else to do but wait until the old and hateful die out and the new, more accepting generation takes over ?  #  the thing i feel like feminists forget is true equality has its downsides.  for example, if women were entirely equal to men culturally, then it would be no more morally reprehensible for me to walk up to a woman and punch her in the face than it would be for me to do that to a man.  of course, nobody should be punching anybody in the face, but it is viewed as a  considerably  worse thing to do to a woman than a man.  also, i feel like you ca not change culture as actively as you can change legal rights.  it is like, a sexist will remain a sexist no matter what a woman does, because that is the way he was raised.  so, i suppose that opens up the question of what the point of feminism is at all.  i believe women are equal to men, but i would not call myself a feminist because believing that is just simply being rational.  there is not a special word for believing that there is no difference between black and white people, so why is there one for believing that men and women are equal ? why is feminism even a concept at all, is not it just rational thinking ? now that the laws have been tweaked to correct sexism, is there anything else to do but wait until the old and hateful die out and the new, more accepting generation takes over ?  #  think of women who want to work on submarines, or men who want to work in daycares.   #  the only difference that always exists between men and woman should be their body.  on a per person basis there are ofcourse both physical and mental differences.  if a sector has many females working in it, because males have no interest.  no problem.  if a sector has many males working in it because it requires you to be able to carry a 0lbs backpack for 0 miles in 0 hours, than it is normal if there are practically no girls in it.  if a sector is excluding a gender from participating, than that is not ok.  an observed lack of a certain gender does not indicate discrimanitation per se though, it most often indicates a lack of interest from that gender.  it is bad if people are actively denied because of their gender.  think of women who want to work on submarines, or men who want to work in daycares.   #  then you group those feminists with the ones that gave civil rights to half the adult population, and made woman into actual people who could share their ideas with the world a few decades later.   #  then you group those feminists with the ones that gave civil rights to half the adult population, and made woman into actual people who could share their ideas with the world a few decades later.  that is despicable in my eyes, and takes away a lot from people i consider feminists.  imagine a group of people who download illegally and call themselves  the resistance  because they honestly believe that they are doing the exact same work as some people in occupied europe in ww0.  it is the same as calling something  the best thing since sliced bread  and honestly believing people will remember that thing hundreds of years from now as a gamebreaking moment in the history of mankind.  i do not see those people as feminists, and i do not think many feminists from the 0s do so either.   #  although the required secularization has not happened there yet.   #  feminism is definition literally excludes advocating for men.  and i am not even sure what you mean by sports.  do you mean how nobody cares about the wnba ? although the required secularization has not happened there yet.  you do not get to validate feminism in america by pointing out the necessity for feminism in other countries.  there is more than a few fallacies in there.
the current sj movement operates with certain assumptions that are simplistic with respect to global reality.  for example, much of the discourse on race and racism is so fucking us centric that reading it is bad for my blood pressure.  statements like  white people ca not experience racism  are obviously bunk; tell that to the polish guy who got glassed and facially disfigured by a drunk woman in my town on the basis of his identity.  whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  the current problem with the privilege/oppression model is the dualism inherent within the concept.  the model works okay for explaining a lot of social phenomena, but is inherently simplistic usually requiring an oppressing group and an oppressed group.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  further, it sets up an oppressing group as instigators of the oppression in question men for patriarchy, white people for racism, rich people for classism, cis people for transphobia, straight people for homophobia.  this might explain some of the picture, and sure, moral accountability usually does lie with the group singled out.  however, as a tool for understanding the basis of these social phenomena, the privilege/oppression dichotomy is not that useful.  instead, we should develop an understanding of how it is that certain social perceptions shape society and the role individuals play in enforcing that social order.  black people, poor people, gay people and trans people all interact in a complex manner with those that constitute society and we do not get any understanding of the issues at hand by ignoring their actions in the broader context of societies.  tl;dr the privilege/oppression dichotomy is broken and needs to be replaced by a more nuanced understanding.   #  whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.   #  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.   # standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  we know that.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  what ? who is ignoring what here ? what are you talking about ? who are these specific  sjws ?   are they part of some big movement i have never heard of ? i have only ever seen  sjw  used as a pejorative label, are you sure you are not going out and finding people to attach this label to yourself ? can you show that a significant number of people in the so called  sj  movement believe such a thing or will you only submit a few tumblr blogs ? see, you are demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge about the issues you are talking about.  for one, if you actually read about what feminists say about  patriarchy  for instance, it is argued that it is enforced by everybody who enforces  restrictive  gender norms in society.  including women.  which is why it is not mainstream thought.  yes, there is a notion of privilege and oppression, but you seem to only be grasping the very basic idea behind it, and you are arguing against that.   sj  people have already considered the limitations of that, hence intersectionality below .  that is exactly what is being taught; it is mainstream academic thought.  intersectionality URL you are arguing against straw feminism.  and there is no such thing as a  sj movement.   sj is a broad term that encompasses many different things.  there is no unified movement.  and like i said, the  oppressor/oppressed  dynamic is already a pretty outdated belief system.   #  but the internet is not representative of real life.   #  i think you are attacking a straw man.  i hang out with a bunch of so called social justice  warrior  types.  psychology, social workers, mental health workers, lgbt rights and whatnot people.  none of them believe this sort of bullshit you think they believe.  none of them believe that white people cannot experience racism or prejudice.  none of them blame people of privilege for having it.  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.  but the internet is not representative of real life.  srs is not modern day feminism.  tumbler is not social justice.  modern social justice is already more nuanced than you give it credit for.   #  that sort of bullying is actually a larger danger to society than the problems it tries to address because they literally are eating away at the very basis of our liberal society.   #  i think you are confusing what your friends believe with what actual policies are pushed for and implemented.  take the very real campus sex policies that are specifically biased against men URL treating men as oppressors.  even the  yes means yes  policy is argued as justified URL on the basis of:   men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter not justice.  not fairness.  not punishing the guilty.  no, it is  all men  who are to blame for sexual assaults and as such they must all feel fear and be blamed, and be held responsible for both their actions  and  women is actions when both are drunk.  then there is the   check your privilege URL campaign, which is not just some young, naive sjw on tumblr, but a campus reality driven by three professors, which paints anyone not at a disadvantage as being in a position of privilege.  in fact, this false dichotomy is exactly what the op seems to be referring to, that if you are not a victim of something that you are therefore cause of it or perhaps more mildly,  complacent  with it .  there is a real world attack on people here, often with very real consequences.  frankly, it seems counterproductive to me.  i have always supported eliminating biases and supporting those who are disadvantaged, including social safety nets.  i co founded an local chapter of a volunteer engineering organization to help build custom need devices.  but this promotion of people who are not disadvantaged or victims of oppression including me as villains, or privileged, or causes of other people is problems just smacks of cultish shaming tactics; like we need to get on board and help them lest we be publicly shamed by our  privileged  position.  that sort of bullying is actually a larger danger to society than the problems it tries to address because they literally are eating away at the very basis of our liberal society.  so much wasted time and energy not actually helping anybody.   #  the whole idea that the goal of  sjws  is to assign blame or make people feel guilty for having advantages in life is just a massive strawman: i have not heard anyone seriously argue for this, even on tumblr and srs.   # the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by men, so it is hardly surprising that most people accused are men, if that is what the alleged bias is.  that is not  blame , it is  prevention .  if you try and make kids wary of running out into a road, you are not blaming them for road accidents.  the whole idea that the goal of  sjws  is to assign blame or make people feel guilty for having advantages in life is just a massive strawman: i have not heard anyone seriously argue for this, even on tumblr and srs.  i think you are just confused about what they mean by  privilege : they do not mean  has a fantastic lifestyle  they merely mean  has certain advantages that other people do not have .   x is disadvantaged relative to y  means exactly the same thing as  y is privileged relative to x .  /r/panichistory  #  a lot of people criticize the choices of victims and then get told off for it and then make the same claim you are making now.   # everyone has a reasonable responsibility for their own safety, but all too often people will say  that person deserved what they got .  or they will chastise that person for doing something wrong that led to them to getting hurt in some way.  that is not prevention, that is insulting someone to make you feel better about yourself.  once the harm has been caused, there is no need to tell them all the things they did wrong.  i was in a car accident once where my car flipped over when i was a kid, and i was not wearing a seatbelt.  i walked away with just a scrape on my knee.  the officer who showed up to help us out said he was not going to give us a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt because he figured we learned our lesson.  the officer did exactly the right thing.  you give out tickets before the accident to discourage bad behavior.  ticketing after the fact does not help anyone.  a lot of people criticize the choices of victims and then get told off for it and then make the same claim you are making now.  the issue is not that people are responsible for their own safety.  the issue is the context of the comments being made.
the current sj movement operates with certain assumptions that are simplistic with respect to global reality.  for example, much of the discourse on race and racism is so fucking us centric that reading it is bad for my blood pressure.  statements like  white people ca not experience racism  are obviously bunk; tell that to the polish guy who got glassed and facially disfigured by a drunk woman in my town on the basis of his identity.  whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  the current problem with the privilege/oppression model is the dualism inherent within the concept.  the model works okay for explaining a lot of social phenomena, but is inherently simplistic usually requiring an oppressing group and an oppressed group.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  further, it sets up an oppressing group as instigators of the oppression in question men for patriarchy, white people for racism, rich people for classism, cis people for transphobia, straight people for homophobia.  this might explain some of the picture, and sure, moral accountability usually does lie with the group singled out.  however, as a tool for understanding the basis of these social phenomena, the privilege/oppression dichotomy is not that useful.  instead, we should develop an understanding of how it is that certain social perceptions shape society and the role individuals play in enforcing that social order.  black people, poor people, gay people and trans people all interact in a complex manner with those that constitute society and we do not get any understanding of the issues at hand by ignoring their actions in the broader context of societies.  tl;dr the privilege/oppression dichotomy is broken and needs to be replaced by a more nuanced understanding.   #  the model works okay for explaining a lot of social phenomena, but is inherently simplistic usually requiring an oppressing group and an oppressed group.   #  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.   # standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  we know that.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  what ? who is ignoring what here ? what are you talking about ? who are these specific  sjws ?   are they part of some big movement i have never heard of ? i have only ever seen  sjw  used as a pejorative label, are you sure you are not going out and finding people to attach this label to yourself ? can you show that a significant number of people in the so called  sj  movement believe such a thing or will you only submit a few tumblr blogs ? see, you are demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge about the issues you are talking about.  for one, if you actually read about what feminists say about  patriarchy  for instance, it is argued that it is enforced by everybody who enforces  restrictive  gender norms in society.  including women.  which is why it is not mainstream thought.  yes, there is a notion of privilege and oppression, but you seem to only be grasping the very basic idea behind it, and you are arguing against that.   sj  people have already considered the limitations of that, hence intersectionality below .  that is exactly what is being taught; it is mainstream academic thought.  intersectionality URL you are arguing against straw feminism.  and there is no such thing as a  sj movement.   sj is a broad term that encompasses many different things.  there is no unified movement.  and like i said, the  oppressor/oppressed  dynamic is already a pretty outdated belief system.   #  but the internet is not representative of real life.   #  i think you are attacking a straw man.  i hang out with a bunch of so called social justice  warrior  types.  psychology, social workers, mental health workers, lgbt rights and whatnot people.  none of them believe this sort of bullshit you think they believe.  none of them believe that white people cannot experience racism or prejudice.  none of them blame people of privilege for having it.  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.  but the internet is not representative of real life.  srs is not modern day feminism.  tumbler is not social justice.  modern social justice is already more nuanced than you give it credit for.   #  so much wasted time and energy not actually helping anybody.   #  i think you are confusing what your friends believe with what actual policies are pushed for and implemented.  take the very real campus sex policies that are specifically biased against men URL treating men as oppressors.  even the  yes means yes  policy is argued as justified URL on the basis of:   men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter not justice.  not fairness.  not punishing the guilty.  no, it is  all men  who are to blame for sexual assaults and as such they must all feel fear and be blamed, and be held responsible for both their actions  and  women is actions when both are drunk.  then there is the   check your privilege URL campaign, which is not just some young, naive sjw on tumblr, but a campus reality driven by three professors, which paints anyone not at a disadvantage as being in a position of privilege.  in fact, this false dichotomy is exactly what the op seems to be referring to, that if you are not a victim of something that you are therefore cause of it or perhaps more mildly,  complacent  with it .  there is a real world attack on people here, often with very real consequences.  frankly, it seems counterproductive to me.  i have always supported eliminating biases and supporting those who are disadvantaged, including social safety nets.  i co founded an local chapter of a volunteer engineering organization to help build custom need devices.  but this promotion of people who are not disadvantaged or victims of oppression including me as villains, or privileged, or causes of other people is problems just smacks of cultish shaming tactics; like we need to get on board and help them lest we be publicly shamed by our  privileged  position.  that sort of bullying is actually a larger danger to society than the problems it tries to address because they literally are eating away at the very basis of our liberal society.  so much wasted time and energy not actually helping anybody.   #  the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by men, so it is hardly surprising that most people accused are men, if that is what the alleged bias is.   # the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by men, so it is hardly surprising that most people accused are men, if that is what the alleged bias is.  that is not  blame , it is  prevention .  if you try and make kids wary of running out into a road, you are not blaming them for road accidents.  the whole idea that the goal of  sjws  is to assign blame or make people feel guilty for having advantages in life is just a massive strawman: i have not heard anyone seriously argue for this, even on tumblr and srs.  i think you are just confused about what they mean by  privilege : they do not mean  has a fantastic lifestyle  they merely mean  has certain advantages that other people do not have .   x is disadvantaged relative to y  means exactly the same thing as  y is privileged relative to x .  /r/panichistory  #  i was in a car accident once where my car flipped over when i was a kid, and i was not wearing a seatbelt.   # everyone has a reasonable responsibility for their own safety, but all too often people will say  that person deserved what they got .  or they will chastise that person for doing something wrong that led to them to getting hurt in some way.  that is not prevention, that is insulting someone to make you feel better about yourself.  once the harm has been caused, there is no need to tell them all the things they did wrong.  i was in a car accident once where my car flipped over when i was a kid, and i was not wearing a seatbelt.  i walked away with just a scrape on my knee.  the officer who showed up to help us out said he was not going to give us a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt because he figured we learned our lesson.  the officer did exactly the right thing.  you give out tickets before the accident to discourage bad behavior.  ticketing after the fact does not help anyone.  a lot of people criticize the choices of victims and then get told off for it and then make the same claim you are making now.  the issue is not that people are responsible for their own safety.  the issue is the context of the comments being made.
the current sj movement operates with certain assumptions that are simplistic with respect to global reality.  for example, much of the discourse on race and racism is so fucking us centric that reading it is bad for my blood pressure.  statements like  white people ca not experience racism  are obviously bunk; tell that to the polish guy who got glassed and facially disfigured by a drunk woman in my town on the basis of his identity.  whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  the current problem with the privilege/oppression model is the dualism inherent within the concept.  the model works okay for explaining a lot of social phenomena, but is inherently simplistic usually requiring an oppressing group and an oppressed group.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  further, it sets up an oppressing group as instigators of the oppression in question men for patriarchy, white people for racism, rich people for classism, cis people for transphobia, straight people for homophobia.  this might explain some of the picture, and sure, moral accountability usually does lie with the group singled out.  however, as a tool for understanding the basis of these social phenomena, the privilege/oppression dichotomy is not that useful.  instead, we should develop an understanding of how it is that certain social perceptions shape society and the role individuals play in enforcing that social order.  black people, poor people, gay people and trans people all interact in a complex manner with those that constitute society and we do not get any understanding of the issues at hand by ignoring their actions in the broader context of societies.  tl;dr the privilege/oppression dichotomy is broken and needs to be replaced by a more nuanced understanding.   #  further, it sets up an oppressing group as instigators of the oppression in question men for patriarchy, white people for racism, rich people for classism, cis people for transphobia, straight people for homophobia.   #  see, you are demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge about the issues you are talking about.   # standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  we know that.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  what ? who is ignoring what here ? what are you talking about ? who are these specific  sjws ?   are they part of some big movement i have never heard of ? i have only ever seen  sjw  used as a pejorative label, are you sure you are not going out and finding people to attach this label to yourself ? can you show that a significant number of people in the so called  sj  movement believe such a thing or will you only submit a few tumblr blogs ? see, you are demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge about the issues you are talking about.  for one, if you actually read about what feminists say about  patriarchy  for instance, it is argued that it is enforced by everybody who enforces  restrictive  gender norms in society.  including women.  which is why it is not mainstream thought.  yes, there is a notion of privilege and oppression, but you seem to only be grasping the very basic idea behind it, and you are arguing against that.   sj  people have already considered the limitations of that, hence intersectionality below .  that is exactly what is being taught; it is mainstream academic thought.  intersectionality URL you are arguing against straw feminism.  and there is no such thing as a  sj movement.   sj is a broad term that encompasses many different things.  there is no unified movement.  and like i said, the  oppressor/oppressed  dynamic is already a pretty outdated belief system.   #  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.   #  i think you are attacking a straw man.  i hang out with a bunch of so called social justice  warrior  types.  psychology, social workers, mental health workers, lgbt rights and whatnot people.  none of them believe this sort of bullshit you think they believe.  none of them believe that white people cannot experience racism or prejudice.  none of them blame people of privilege for having it.  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.  but the internet is not representative of real life.  srs is not modern day feminism.  tumbler is not social justice.  modern social justice is already more nuanced than you give it credit for.   #  i co founded an local chapter of a volunteer engineering organization to help build custom need devices.   #  i think you are confusing what your friends believe with what actual policies are pushed for and implemented.  take the very real campus sex policies that are specifically biased against men URL treating men as oppressors.  even the  yes means yes  policy is argued as justified URL on the basis of:   men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter not justice.  not fairness.  not punishing the guilty.  no, it is  all men  who are to blame for sexual assaults and as such they must all feel fear and be blamed, and be held responsible for both their actions  and  women is actions when both are drunk.  then there is the   check your privilege URL campaign, which is not just some young, naive sjw on tumblr, but a campus reality driven by three professors, which paints anyone not at a disadvantage as being in a position of privilege.  in fact, this false dichotomy is exactly what the op seems to be referring to, that if you are not a victim of something that you are therefore cause of it or perhaps more mildly,  complacent  with it .  there is a real world attack on people here, often with very real consequences.  frankly, it seems counterproductive to me.  i have always supported eliminating biases and supporting those who are disadvantaged, including social safety nets.  i co founded an local chapter of a volunteer engineering organization to help build custom need devices.  but this promotion of people who are not disadvantaged or victims of oppression including me as villains, or privileged, or causes of other people is problems just smacks of cultish shaming tactics; like we need to get on board and help them lest we be publicly shamed by our  privileged  position.  that sort of bullying is actually a larger danger to society than the problems it tries to address because they literally are eating away at the very basis of our liberal society.  so much wasted time and energy not actually helping anybody.   #   x is disadvantaged relative to y  means exactly the same thing as  y is privileged relative to x .   # the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by men, so it is hardly surprising that most people accused are men, if that is what the alleged bias is.  that is not  blame , it is  prevention .  if you try and make kids wary of running out into a road, you are not blaming them for road accidents.  the whole idea that the goal of  sjws  is to assign blame or make people feel guilty for having advantages in life is just a massive strawman: i have not heard anyone seriously argue for this, even on tumblr and srs.  i think you are just confused about what they mean by  privilege : they do not mean  has a fantastic lifestyle  they merely mean  has certain advantages that other people do not have .   x is disadvantaged relative to y  means exactly the same thing as  y is privileged relative to x .  /r/panichistory  #  the issue is the context of the comments being made.   # everyone has a reasonable responsibility for their own safety, but all too often people will say  that person deserved what they got .  or they will chastise that person for doing something wrong that led to them to getting hurt in some way.  that is not prevention, that is insulting someone to make you feel better about yourself.  once the harm has been caused, there is no need to tell them all the things they did wrong.  i was in a car accident once where my car flipped over when i was a kid, and i was not wearing a seatbelt.  i walked away with just a scrape on my knee.  the officer who showed up to help us out said he was not going to give us a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt because he figured we learned our lesson.  the officer did exactly the right thing.  you give out tickets before the accident to discourage bad behavior.  ticketing after the fact does not help anyone.  a lot of people criticize the choices of victims and then get told off for it and then make the same claim you are making now.  the issue is not that people are responsible for their own safety.  the issue is the context of the comments being made.
the current sj movement operates with certain assumptions that are simplistic with respect to global reality.  for example, much of the discourse on race and racism is so fucking us centric that reading it is bad for my blood pressure.  statements like  white people ca not experience racism  are obviously bunk; tell that to the polish guy who got glassed and facially disfigured by a drunk woman in my town on the basis of his identity.  whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  the current problem with the privilege/oppression model is the dualism inherent within the concept.  the model works okay for explaining a lot of social phenomena, but is inherently simplistic usually requiring an oppressing group and an oppressed group.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  further, it sets up an oppressing group as instigators of the oppression in question men for patriarchy, white people for racism, rich people for classism, cis people for transphobia, straight people for homophobia.  this might explain some of the picture, and sure, moral accountability usually does lie with the group singled out.  however, as a tool for understanding the basis of these social phenomena, the privilege/oppression dichotomy is not that useful.  instead, we should develop an understanding of how it is that certain social perceptions shape society and the role individuals play in enforcing that social order.  black people, poor people, gay people and trans people all interact in a complex manner with those that constitute society and we do not get any understanding of the issues at hand by ignoring their actions in the broader context of societies.  tl;dr the privilege/oppression dichotomy is broken and needs to be replaced by a more nuanced understanding.   #  however, as a tool for understanding the basis of these social phenomena, the privilege/oppression dichotomy is not that useful.   #  which is why it is not mainstream thought.   # standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  we know that.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  what ? who is ignoring what here ? what are you talking about ? who are these specific  sjws ?   are they part of some big movement i have never heard of ? i have only ever seen  sjw  used as a pejorative label, are you sure you are not going out and finding people to attach this label to yourself ? can you show that a significant number of people in the so called  sj  movement believe such a thing or will you only submit a few tumblr blogs ? see, you are demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge about the issues you are talking about.  for one, if you actually read about what feminists say about  patriarchy  for instance, it is argued that it is enforced by everybody who enforces  restrictive  gender norms in society.  including women.  which is why it is not mainstream thought.  yes, there is a notion of privilege and oppression, but you seem to only be grasping the very basic idea behind it, and you are arguing against that.   sj  people have already considered the limitations of that, hence intersectionality below .  that is exactly what is being taught; it is mainstream academic thought.  intersectionality URL you are arguing against straw feminism.  and there is no such thing as a  sj movement.   sj is a broad term that encompasses many different things.  there is no unified movement.  and like i said, the  oppressor/oppressed  dynamic is already a pretty outdated belief system.   #  none of them believe this sort of bullshit you think they believe.   #  i think you are attacking a straw man.  i hang out with a bunch of so called social justice  warrior  types.  psychology, social workers, mental health workers, lgbt rights and whatnot people.  none of them believe this sort of bullshit you think they believe.  none of them believe that white people cannot experience racism or prejudice.  none of them blame people of privilege for having it.  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.  but the internet is not representative of real life.  srs is not modern day feminism.  tumbler is not social justice.  modern social justice is already more nuanced than you give it credit for.   #  i co founded an local chapter of a volunteer engineering organization to help build custom need devices.   #  i think you are confusing what your friends believe with what actual policies are pushed for and implemented.  take the very real campus sex policies that are specifically biased against men URL treating men as oppressors.  even the  yes means yes  policy is argued as justified URL on the basis of:   men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter not justice.  not fairness.  not punishing the guilty.  no, it is  all men  who are to blame for sexual assaults and as such they must all feel fear and be blamed, and be held responsible for both their actions  and  women is actions when both are drunk.  then there is the   check your privilege URL campaign, which is not just some young, naive sjw on tumblr, but a campus reality driven by three professors, which paints anyone not at a disadvantage as being in a position of privilege.  in fact, this false dichotomy is exactly what the op seems to be referring to, that if you are not a victim of something that you are therefore cause of it or perhaps more mildly,  complacent  with it .  there is a real world attack on people here, often with very real consequences.  frankly, it seems counterproductive to me.  i have always supported eliminating biases and supporting those who are disadvantaged, including social safety nets.  i co founded an local chapter of a volunteer engineering organization to help build custom need devices.  but this promotion of people who are not disadvantaged or victims of oppression including me as villains, or privileged, or causes of other people is problems just smacks of cultish shaming tactics; like we need to get on board and help them lest we be publicly shamed by our  privileged  position.  that sort of bullying is actually a larger danger to society than the problems it tries to address because they literally are eating away at the very basis of our liberal society.  so much wasted time and energy not actually helping anybody.   #  if you try and make kids wary of running out into a road, you are not blaming them for road accidents.   # the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by men, so it is hardly surprising that most people accused are men, if that is what the alleged bias is.  that is not  blame , it is  prevention .  if you try and make kids wary of running out into a road, you are not blaming them for road accidents.  the whole idea that the goal of  sjws  is to assign blame or make people feel guilty for having advantages in life is just a massive strawman: i have not heard anyone seriously argue for this, even on tumblr and srs.  i think you are just confused about what they mean by  privilege : they do not mean  has a fantastic lifestyle  they merely mean  has certain advantages that other people do not have .   x is disadvantaged relative to y  means exactly the same thing as  y is privileged relative to x .  /r/panichistory  #  the issue is not that people are responsible for their own safety.   # everyone has a reasonable responsibility for their own safety, but all too often people will say  that person deserved what they got .  or they will chastise that person for doing something wrong that led to them to getting hurt in some way.  that is not prevention, that is insulting someone to make you feel better about yourself.  once the harm has been caused, there is no need to tell them all the things they did wrong.  i was in a car accident once where my car flipped over when i was a kid, and i was not wearing a seatbelt.  i walked away with just a scrape on my knee.  the officer who showed up to help us out said he was not going to give us a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt because he figured we learned our lesson.  the officer did exactly the right thing.  you give out tickets before the accident to discourage bad behavior.  ticketing after the fact does not help anyone.  a lot of people criticize the choices of victims and then get told off for it and then make the same claim you are making now.  the issue is not that people are responsible for their own safety.  the issue is the context of the comments being made.
the current sj movement operates with certain assumptions that are simplistic with respect to global reality.  for example, much of the discourse on race and racism is so fucking us centric that reading it is bad for my blood pressure.  statements like  white people ca not experience racism  are obviously bunk; tell that to the polish guy who got glassed and facially disfigured by a drunk woman in my town on the basis of his identity.  whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  the current problem with the privilege/oppression model is the dualism inherent within the concept.  the model works okay for explaining a lot of social phenomena, but is inherently simplistic usually requiring an oppressing group and an oppressed group.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  further, it sets up an oppressing group as instigators of the oppression in question men for patriarchy, white people for racism, rich people for classism, cis people for transphobia, straight people for homophobia.  this might explain some of the picture, and sure, moral accountability usually does lie with the group singled out.  however, as a tool for understanding the basis of these social phenomena, the privilege/oppression dichotomy is not that useful.  instead, we should develop an understanding of how it is that certain social perceptions shape society and the role individuals play in enforcing that social order.  black people, poor people, gay people and trans people all interact in a complex manner with those that constitute society and we do not get any understanding of the issues at hand by ignoring their actions in the broader context of societies.  tl;dr the privilege/oppression dichotomy is broken and needs to be replaced by a more nuanced understanding.   #  instead, we should develop an understanding of how it is that certain social perceptions shape society and the role individuals play in enforcing that social order.   #  that is exactly what is being taught; it is mainstream academic thought.   # standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  we know that.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  what ? who is ignoring what here ? what are you talking about ? who are these specific  sjws ?   are they part of some big movement i have never heard of ? i have only ever seen  sjw  used as a pejorative label, are you sure you are not going out and finding people to attach this label to yourself ? can you show that a significant number of people in the so called  sj  movement believe such a thing or will you only submit a few tumblr blogs ? see, you are demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge about the issues you are talking about.  for one, if you actually read about what feminists say about  patriarchy  for instance, it is argued that it is enforced by everybody who enforces  restrictive  gender norms in society.  including women.  which is why it is not mainstream thought.  yes, there is a notion of privilege and oppression, but you seem to only be grasping the very basic idea behind it, and you are arguing against that.   sj  people have already considered the limitations of that, hence intersectionality below .  that is exactly what is being taught; it is mainstream academic thought.  intersectionality URL you are arguing against straw feminism.  and there is no such thing as a  sj movement.   sj is a broad term that encompasses many different things.  there is no unified movement.  and like i said, the  oppressor/oppressed  dynamic is already a pretty outdated belief system.   #  modern social justice is already more nuanced than you give it credit for.   #  i think you are attacking a straw man.  i hang out with a bunch of so called social justice  warrior  types.  psychology, social workers, mental health workers, lgbt rights and whatnot people.  none of them believe this sort of bullshit you think they believe.  none of them believe that white people cannot experience racism or prejudice.  none of them blame people of privilege for having it.  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.  but the internet is not representative of real life.  srs is not modern day feminism.  tumbler is not social justice.  modern social justice is already more nuanced than you give it credit for.   #  no, it is  all men  who are to blame for sexual assaults and as such they must all feel fear and be blamed, and be held responsible for both their actions  and  women is actions when both are drunk.   #  i think you are confusing what your friends believe with what actual policies are pushed for and implemented.  take the very real campus sex policies that are specifically biased against men URL treating men as oppressors.  even the  yes means yes  policy is argued as justified URL on the basis of:   men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter not justice.  not fairness.  not punishing the guilty.  no, it is  all men  who are to blame for sexual assaults and as such they must all feel fear and be blamed, and be held responsible for both their actions  and  women is actions when both are drunk.  then there is the   check your privilege URL campaign, which is not just some young, naive sjw on tumblr, but a campus reality driven by three professors, which paints anyone not at a disadvantage as being in a position of privilege.  in fact, this false dichotomy is exactly what the op seems to be referring to, that if you are not a victim of something that you are therefore cause of it or perhaps more mildly,  complacent  with it .  there is a real world attack on people here, often with very real consequences.  frankly, it seems counterproductive to me.  i have always supported eliminating biases and supporting those who are disadvantaged, including social safety nets.  i co founded an local chapter of a volunteer engineering organization to help build custom need devices.  but this promotion of people who are not disadvantaged or victims of oppression including me as villains, or privileged, or causes of other people is problems just smacks of cultish shaming tactics; like we need to get on board and help them lest we be publicly shamed by our  privileged  position.  that sort of bullying is actually a larger danger to society than the problems it tries to address because they literally are eating away at the very basis of our liberal society.  so much wasted time and energy not actually helping anybody.   #  i think you are just confused about what they mean by  privilege : they do not mean  has a fantastic lifestyle  they merely mean  has certain advantages that other people do not have .   # the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by men, so it is hardly surprising that most people accused are men, if that is what the alleged bias is.  that is not  blame , it is  prevention .  if you try and make kids wary of running out into a road, you are not blaming them for road accidents.  the whole idea that the goal of  sjws  is to assign blame or make people feel guilty for having advantages in life is just a massive strawman: i have not heard anyone seriously argue for this, even on tumblr and srs.  i think you are just confused about what they mean by  privilege : they do not mean  has a fantastic lifestyle  they merely mean  has certain advantages that other people do not have .   x is disadvantaged relative to y  means exactly the same thing as  y is privileged relative to x .  /r/panichistory  #  once the harm has been caused, there is no need to tell them all the things they did wrong.   # everyone has a reasonable responsibility for their own safety, but all too often people will say  that person deserved what they got .  or they will chastise that person for doing something wrong that led to them to getting hurt in some way.  that is not prevention, that is insulting someone to make you feel better about yourself.  once the harm has been caused, there is no need to tell them all the things they did wrong.  i was in a car accident once where my car flipped over when i was a kid, and i was not wearing a seatbelt.  i walked away with just a scrape on my knee.  the officer who showed up to help us out said he was not going to give us a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt because he figured we learned our lesson.  the officer did exactly the right thing.  you give out tickets before the accident to discourage bad behavior.  ticketing after the fact does not help anyone.  a lot of people criticize the choices of victims and then get told off for it and then make the same claim you are making now.  the issue is not that people are responsible for their own safety.  the issue is the context of the comments being made.
the current sj movement operates with certain assumptions that are simplistic with respect to global reality.  for example, much of the discourse on race and racism is so fucking us centric that reading it is bad for my blood pressure.  statements like  white people ca not experience racism  are obviously bunk; tell that to the polish guy who got glassed and facially disfigured by a drunk woman in my town on the basis of his identity.  whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  the current problem with the privilege/oppression model is the dualism inherent within the concept.  the model works okay for explaining a lot of social phenomena, but is inherently simplistic usually requiring an oppressing group and an oppressed group.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  further, it sets up an oppressing group as instigators of the oppression in question men for patriarchy, white people for racism, rich people for classism, cis people for transphobia, straight people for homophobia.  this might explain some of the picture, and sure, moral accountability usually does lie with the group singled out.  however, as a tool for understanding the basis of these social phenomena, the privilege/oppression dichotomy is not that useful.  instead, we should develop an understanding of how it is that certain social perceptions shape society and the role individuals play in enforcing that social order.  black people, poor people, gay people and trans people all interact in a complex manner with those that constitute society and we do not get any understanding of the issues at hand by ignoring their actions in the broader context of societies.  tl;dr the privilege/oppression dichotomy is broken and needs to be replaced by a more nuanced understanding.   #  black people, poor people, gay people and trans people all interact in a complex manner with those that constitute society and we do not get any understanding of the issues at hand by ignoring their actions in the broader context of societies.   #  intersectionality URL you are arguing against straw feminism.   # standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  we know that.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  what ? who is ignoring what here ? what are you talking about ? who are these specific  sjws ?   are they part of some big movement i have never heard of ? i have only ever seen  sjw  used as a pejorative label, are you sure you are not going out and finding people to attach this label to yourself ? can you show that a significant number of people in the so called  sj  movement believe such a thing or will you only submit a few tumblr blogs ? see, you are demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge about the issues you are talking about.  for one, if you actually read about what feminists say about  patriarchy  for instance, it is argued that it is enforced by everybody who enforces  restrictive  gender norms in society.  including women.  which is why it is not mainstream thought.  yes, there is a notion of privilege and oppression, but you seem to only be grasping the very basic idea behind it, and you are arguing against that.   sj  people have already considered the limitations of that, hence intersectionality below .  that is exactly what is being taught; it is mainstream academic thought.  intersectionality URL you are arguing against straw feminism.  and there is no such thing as a  sj movement.   sj is a broad term that encompasses many different things.  there is no unified movement.  and like i said, the  oppressor/oppressed  dynamic is already a pretty outdated belief system.   #  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.   #  i think you are attacking a straw man.  i hang out with a bunch of so called social justice  warrior  types.  psychology, social workers, mental health workers, lgbt rights and whatnot people.  none of them believe this sort of bullshit you think they believe.  none of them believe that white people cannot experience racism or prejudice.  none of them blame people of privilege for having it.  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.  but the internet is not representative of real life.  srs is not modern day feminism.  tumbler is not social justice.  modern social justice is already more nuanced than you give it credit for.   #  in fact, this false dichotomy is exactly what the op seems to be referring to, that if you are not a victim of something that you are therefore cause of it or perhaps more mildly,  complacent  with it .   #  i think you are confusing what your friends believe with what actual policies are pushed for and implemented.  take the very real campus sex policies that are specifically biased against men URL treating men as oppressors.  even the  yes means yes  policy is argued as justified URL on the basis of:   men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter not justice.  not fairness.  not punishing the guilty.  no, it is  all men  who are to blame for sexual assaults and as such they must all feel fear and be blamed, and be held responsible for both their actions  and  women is actions when both are drunk.  then there is the   check your privilege URL campaign, which is not just some young, naive sjw on tumblr, but a campus reality driven by three professors, which paints anyone not at a disadvantage as being in a position of privilege.  in fact, this false dichotomy is exactly what the op seems to be referring to, that if you are not a victim of something that you are therefore cause of it or perhaps more mildly,  complacent  with it .  there is a real world attack on people here, often with very real consequences.  frankly, it seems counterproductive to me.  i have always supported eliminating biases and supporting those who are disadvantaged, including social safety nets.  i co founded an local chapter of a volunteer engineering organization to help build custom need devices.  but this promotion of people who are not disadvantaged or victims of oppression including me as villains, or privileged, or causes of other people is problems just smacks of cultish shaming tactics; like we need to get on board and help them lest we be publicly shamed by our  privileged  position.  that sort of bullying is actually a larger danger to society than the problems it tries to address because they literally are eating away at the very basis of our liberal society.  so much wasted time and energy not actually helping anybody.   #  if you try and make kids wary of running out into a road, you are not blaming them for road accidents.   # the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by men, so it is hardly surprising that most people accused are men, if that is what the alleged bias is.  that is not  blame , it is  prevention .  if you try and make kids wary of running out into a road, you are not blaming them for road accidents.  the whole idea that the goal of  sjws  is to assign blame or make people feel guilty for having advantages in life is just a massive strawman: i have not heard anyone seriously argue for this, even on tumblr and srs.  i think you are just confused about what they mean by  privilege : they do not mean  has a fantastic lifestyle  they merely mean  has certain advantages that other people do not have .   x is disadvantaged relative to y  means exactly the same thing as  y is privileged relative to x .  /r/panichistory  #  or they will chastise that person for doing something wrong that led to them to getting hurt in some way.   # everyone has a reasonable responsibility for their own safety, but all too often people will say  that person deserved what they got .  or they will chastise that person for doing something wrong that led to them to getting hurt in some way.  that is not prevention, that is insulting someone to make you feel better about yourself.  once the harm has been caused, there is no need to tell them all the things they did wrong.  i was in a car accident once where my car flipped over when i was a kid, and i was not wearing a seatbelt.  i walked away with just a scrape on my knee.  the officer who showed up to help us out said he was not going to give us a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt because he figured we learned our lesson.  the officer did exactly the right thing.  you give out tickets before the accident to discourage bad behavior.  ticketing after the fact does not help anyone.  a lot of people criticize the choices of victims and then get told off for it and then make the same claim you are making now.  the issue is not that people are responsible for their own safety.  the issue is the context of the comments being made.
the current sj movement operates with certain assumptions that are simplistic with respect to global reality.  for example, much of the discourse on race and racism is so fucking us centric that reading it is bad for my blood pressure.  statements like  white people ca not experience racism  are obviously bunk; tell that to the polish guy who got glassed and facially disfigured by a drunk woman in my town on the basis of his identity.  whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  the current problem with the privilege/oppression model is the dualism inherent within the concept.  the model works okay for explaining a lot of social phenomena, but is inherently simplistic usually requiring an oppressing group and an oppressed group.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  further, it sets up an oppressing group as instigators of the oppression in question men for patriarchy, white people for racism, rich people for classism, cis people for transphobia, straight people for homophobia.  this might explain some of the picture, and sure, moral accountability usually does lie with the group singled out.  however, as a tool for understanding the basis of these social phenomena, the privilege/oppression dichotomy is not that useful.  instead, we should develop an understanding of how it is that certain social perceptions shape society and the role individuals play in enforcing that social order.  black people, poor people, gay people and trans people all interact in a complex manner with those that constitute society and we do not get any understanding of the issues at hand by ignoring their actions in the broader context of societies.  tl;dr the privilege/oppression dichotomy is broken and needs to be replaced by a more nuanced understanding.   #  statements like  white people ca not experience racism  are obviously bunk; tell that to the polish guy who got glassed and facially disfigured by a drunk woman in my town on the basis of his identity.   #  whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.   # whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  as other people are commenting, i think you are tilting and windmills here.  the opponent you have conjured does not exist in any meaningful sense.  let is talk about the idea that white people ca not experience racism.  first off, this is of course untrue.  the thing is that white people do not experience racism as a constant factor of their daily lives.  it is inconsistent, circumstantial, and often of little impact.  i do not go around every day self conscious of my skin colour.  i do not even think about it except in discussions like this.  if you are a minority, the racism is universal and constant.  everybody experiences it, and it influences every aspect of their lives from where people eat, to who they date, to what jobs they can get, to how much they make, to how the police treat them.  i do not know about you, but up here in canada, polish people are not singled out for being polish.  they get by just fine.  and in places where they are, it is largely because they are excluded from the ruling class and not considered  white  for political purposes.  the idea of  whiteness  has changed to include groups like the irish and eastern europeans, when previously it did not.  so if somebody calls me a cracker, it is meaningless.  i would laugh.  the word carries with it no power because i am not marginalized or oppressed.  if i call somebody a few choice racial slurs i am pc enough to not repeat, that shit hurts.  because it carries power with it.  there is weight and meaning.  you are not an instigator, you are a  benefactor .  you may not be directly racist or sexist, but you benefit from racism and sexism.  it makes your life easier than it does other people.  this is a basic, basic thing people never seem to get.  if someone puts up a  do not be that guy  poster about sexual assault, it is not accusing you of sexual assault.  that is ridiculous.  it is saying that men commit the vast majority of sexual assaults, and so men as a group should be targeted to teach about concepts like consent and why someone who is passed out is not fair game.  you may already know this.  that is fine.  move on this is about culture, not you personally.  trust me, there is tons of theory on this.  and when you talk about things like black on black violence, trust me.  there is literature on this.  books upon books upon books upon books.  my caution with how you want to change things is that it seems that you want to distribute blame.   maybe we will stop being so racist when you stop being gang members and killing each other.   this is not about blame.  it is about the social systems we live in.  and most scholarly feminists, anti racists, and progressives recognize that.  but our social systems do have an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy.  yeah, it is more complicated than a dichotomy and if you seriously read some of the literature on this you will learn that.  there is more to feminism, anti racism, and ugh  social justice  than tumblr blogs and arguments on reddit.  there are mountains of books.  conferences.  journal articles.  seminars.  and the paradigm we live in is changing, but the ideas you want to talk about are already there.   #  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.   #  i think you are attacking a straw man.  i hang out with a bunch of so called social justice  warrior  types.  psychology, social workers, mental health workers, lgbt rights and whatnot people.  none of them believe this sort of bullshit you think they believe.  none of them believe that white people cannot experience racism or prejudice.  none of them blame people of privilege for having it.  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.  but the internet is not representative of real life.  srs is not modern day feminism.  tumbler is not social justice.  modern social justice is already more nuanced than you give it credit for.   #  i think you are confusing what your friends believe with what actual policies are pushed for and implemented.   #  i think you are confusing what your friends believe with what actual policies are pushed for and implemented.  take the very real campus sex policies that are specifically biased against men URL treating men as oppressors.  even the  yes means yes  policy is argued as justified URL on the basis of:   men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter not justice.  not fairness.  not punishing the guilty.  no, it is  all men  who are to blame for sexual assaults and as such they must all feel fear and be blamed, and be held responsible for both their actions  and  women is actions when both are drunk.  then there is the   check your privilege URL campaign, which is not just some young, naive sjw on tumblr, but a campus reality driven by three professors, which paints anyone not at a disadvantage as being in a position of privilege.  in fact, this false dichotomy is exactly what the op seems to be referring to, that if you are not a victim of something that you are therefore cause of it or perhaps more mildly,  complacent  with it .  there is a real world attack on people here, often with very real consequences.  frankly, it seems counterproductive to me.  i have always supported eliminating biases and supporting those who are disadvantaged, including social safety nets.  i co founded an local chapter of a volunteer engineering organization to help build custom need devices.  but this promotion of people who are not disadvantaged or victims of oppression including me as villains, or privileged, or causes of other people is problems just smacks of cultish shaming tactics; like we need to get on board and help them lest we be publicly shamed by our  privileged  position.  that sort of bullying is actually a larger danger to society than the problems it tries to address because they literally are eating away at the very basis of our liberal society.  so much wasted time and energy not actually helping anybody.   #  the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by men, so it is hardly surprising that most people accused are men, if that is what the alleged bias is.   # the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by men, so it is hardly surprising that most people accused are men, if that is what the alleged bias is.  that is not  blame , it is  prevention .  if you try and make kids wary of running out into a road, you are not blaming them for road accidents.  the whole idea that the goal of  sjws  is to assign blame or make people feel guilty for having advantages in life is just a massive strawman: i have not heard anyone seriously argue for this, even on tumblr and srs.  i think you are just confused about what they mean by  privilege : they do not mean  has a fantastic lifestyle  they merely mean  has certain advantages that other people do not have .   x is disadvantaged relative to y  means exactly the same thing as  y is privileged relative to x .  /r/panichistory  #  once the harm has been caused, there is no need to tell them all the things they did wrong.   # everyone has a reasonable responsibility for their own safety, but all too often people will say  that person deserved what they got .  or they will chastise that person for doing something wrong that led to them to getting hurt in some way.  that is not prevention, that is insulting someone to make you feel better about yourself.  once the harm has been caused, there is no need to tell them all the things they did wrong.  i was in a car accident once where my car flipped over when i was a kid, and i was not wearing a seatbelt.  i walked away with just a scrape on my knee.  the officer who showed up to help us out said he was not going to give us a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt because he figured we learned our lesson.  the officer did exactly the right thing.  you give out tickets before the accident to discourage bad behavior.  ticketing after the fact does not help anyone.  a lot of people criticize the choices of victims and then get told off for it and then make the same claim you are making now.  the issue is not that people are responsible for their own safety.  the issue is the context of the comments being made.
the current sj movement operates with certain assumptions that are simplistic with respect to global reality.  for example, much of the discourse on race and racism is so fucking us centric that reading it is bad for my blood pressure.  statements like  white people ca not experience racism  are obviously bunk; tell that to the polish guy who got glassed and facially disfigured by a drunk woman in my town on the basis of his identity.  whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  the current problem with the privilege/oppression model is the dualism inherent within the concept.  the model works okay for explaining a lot of social phenomena, but is inherently simplistic usually requiring an oppressing group and an oppressed group.  this is stupid, especially when applied to matters of ethnicity where  poc  can and do murder each other en masse due to racial notions and  sjws  ignore large swaths of reality.  further, it sets up an oppressing group as instigators of the oppression in question men for patriarchy, white people for racism, rich people for classism, cis people for transphobia, straight people for homophobia.  this might explain some of the picture, and sure, moral accountability usually does lie with the group singled out.  however, as a tool for understanding the basis of these social phenomena, the privilege/oppression dichotomy is not that useful.  instead, we should develop an understanding of how it is that certain social perceptions shape society and the role individuals play in enforcing that social order.  black people, poor people, gay people and trans people all interact in a complex manner with those that constitute society and we do not get any understanding of the issues at hand by ignoring their actions in the broader context of societies.  tl;dr the privilege/oppression dichotomy is broken and needs to be replaced by a more nuanced understanding.   #  instead, we should develop an understanding of how it is that certain social perceptions shape society and the role individuals play in enforcing that social order.   #  trust me, there is tons of theory on this.   # whiteness itself is subject to cultural variation.  standards of whiteness in brazil, for example, are markedly different from the us.  as other people are commenting, i think you are tilting and windmills here.  the opponent you have conjured does not exist in any meaningful sense.  let is talk about the idea that white people ca not experience racism.  first off, this is of course untrue.  the thing is that white people do not experience racism as a constant factor of their daily lives.  it is inconsistent, circumstantial, and often of little impact.  i do not go around every day self conscious of my skin colour.  i do not even think about it except in discussions like this.  if you are a minority, the racism is universal and constant.  everybody experiences it, and it influences every aspect of their lives from where people eat, to who they date, to what jobs they can get, to how much they make, to how the police treat them.  i do not know about you, but up here in canada, polish people are not singled out for being polish.  they get by just fine.  and in places where they are, it is largely because they are excluded from the ruling class and not considered  white  for political purposes.  the idea of  whiteness  has changed to include groups like the irish and eastern europeans, when previously it did not.  so if somebody calls me a cracker, it is meaningless.  i would laugh.  the word carries with it no power because i am not marginalized or oppressed.  if i call somebody a few choice racial slurs i am pc enough to not repeat, that shit hurts.  because it carries power with it.  there is weight and meaning.  you are not an instigator, you are a  benefactor .  you may not be directly racist or sexist, but you benefit from racism and sexism.  it makes your life easier than it does other people.  this is a basic, basic thing people never seem to get.  if someone puts up a  do not be that guy  poster about sexual assault, it is not accusing you of sexual assault.  that is ridiculous.  it is saying that men commit the vast majority of sexual assaults, and so men as a group should be targeted to teach about concepts like consent and why someone who is passed out is not fair game.  you may already know this.  that is fine.  move on this is about culture, not you personally.  trust me, there is tons of theory on this.  and when you talk about things like black on black violence, trust me.  there is literature on this.  books upon books upon books upon books.  my caution with how you want to change things is that it seems that you want to distribute blame.   maybe we will stop being so racist when you stop being gang members and killing each other.   this is not about blame.  it is about the social systems we live in.  and most scholarly feminists, anti racists, and progressives recognize that.  but our social systems do have an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy.  yeah, it is more complicated than a dichotomy and if you seriously read some of the literature on this you will learn that.  there is more to feminism, anti racism, and ugh  social justice  than tumblr blogs and arguments on reddit.  there are mountains of books.  conferences.  journal articles.  seminars.  and the paradigm we live in is changing, but the ideas you want to talk about are already there.   #  psychology, social workers, mental health workers, lgbt rights and whatnot people.   #  i think you are attacking a straw man.  i hang out with a bunch of so called social justice  warrior  types.  psychology, social workers, mental health workers, lgbt rights and whatnot people.  none of them believe this sort of bullshit you think they believe.  none of them believe that white people cannot experience racism or prejudice.  none of them blame people of privilege for having it.  instead, my friends have devoted several years in academia to precisely study these phenomena in more detail and nuance than you or i.  you are attacking a ridiculous, nebulous group that you saw on the internet.  but the internet is not representative of real life.  srs is not modern day feminism.  tumbler is not social justice.  modern social justice is already more nuanced than you give it credit for.   #  so much wasted time and energy not actually helping anybody.   #  i think you are confusing what your friends believe with what actual policies are pushed for and implemented.  take the very real campus sex policies that are specifically biased against men URL treating men as oppressors.  even the  yes means yes  policy is argued as justified URL on the basis of:   men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter not justice.  not fairness.  not punishing the guilty.  no, it is  all men  who are to blame for sexual assaults and as such they must all feel fear and be blamed, and be held responsible for both their actions  and  women is actions when both are drunk.  then there is the   check your privilege URL campaign, which is not just some young, naive sjw on tumblr, but a campus reality driven by three professors, which paints anyone not at a disadvantage as being in a position of privilege.  in fact, this false dichotomy is exactly what the op seems to be referring to, that if you are not a victim of something that you are therefore cause of it or perhaps more mildly,  complacent  with it .  there is a real world attack on people here, often with very real consequences.  frankly, it seems counterproductive to me.  i have always supported eliminating biases and supporting those who are disadvantaged, including social safety nets.  i co founded an local chapter of a volunteer engineering organization to help build custom need devices.  but this promotion of people who are not disadvantaged or victims of oppression including me as villains, or privileged, or causes of other people is problems just smacks of cultish shaming tactics; like we need to get on board and help them lest we be publicly shamed by our  privileged  position.  that sort of bullying is actually a larger danger to society than the problems it tries to address because they literally are eating away at the very basis of our liberal society.  so much wasted time and energy not actually helping anybody.   #   x is disadvantaged relative to y  means exactly the same thing as  y is privileged relative to x .   # the overwhelming majority of sex crimes are committed by men, so it is hardly surprising that most people accused are men, if that is what the alleged bias is.  that is not  blame , it is  prevention .  if you try and make kids wary of running out into a road, you are not blaming them for road accidents.  the whole idea that the goal of  sjws  is to assign blame or make people feel guilty for having advantages in life is just a massive strawman: i have not heard anyone seriously argue for this, even on tumblr and srs.  i think you are just confused about what they mean by  privilege : they do not mean  has a fantastic lifestyle  they merely mean  has certain advantages that other people do not have .   x is disadvantaged relative to y  means exactly the same thing as  y is privileged relative to x .  /r/panichistory  #  everyone has a reasonable responsibility for their own safety, but all too often people will say  that person deserved what they got .   # everyone has a reasonable responsibility for their own safety, but all too often people will say  that person deserved what they got .  or they will chastise that person for doing something wrong that led to them to getting hurt in some way.  that is not prevention, that is insulting someone to make you feel better about yourself.  once the harm has been caused, there is no need to tell them all the things they did wrong.  i was in a car accident once where my car flipped over when i was a kid, and i was not wearing a seatbelt.  i walked away with just a scrape on my knee.  the officer who showed up to help us out said he was not going to give us a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt because he figured we learned our lesson.  the officer did exactly the right thing.  you give out tickets before the accident to discourage bad behavior.  ticketing after the fact does not help anyone.  a lot of people criticize the choices of victims and then get told off for it and then make the same claim you are making now.  the issue is not that people are responsible for their own safety.  the issue is the context of the comments being made.
i am not going to try and make this too formal.  i really want to be wrong so help me settle down a little, change my view.  i have recently been under the impression that the government is constantly monitoring everything we do.  there are cameras on every corner of every city.  there are products like the xbox one that come with cameras that will be put in every living room across the country they were initially going to be required but that has since changed .  this  amazon echo  is described in the advertisement as a microphone that is always on, and always listening.  we are constantly reminded that our phones can be tracked as long as they have battery.  those ez pass things that make our commute to work faster and less stressful ? yeah, those can be tracked.  the government may not be looking for all illegal activity, but that does not mean that will not change.  the government got away with the nsa stuff because they are  helping to stop terrorism , but that by no way means they cannot expand what they are looking for.  years down the road, people expressing negative thoughts about the president will be seen as a  national threat , giving the government legal means to seize them.  i may be paranoid, but who the fuck knows what is going on without our knowledge.  odds are, it is not all campaigns and legalized marijuana.   #  years down the road, people expressing negative thoughts about the president will be seen as a  national threat , giving the government legal means to seize them.   #  if i go on twitter right now i could probably find people making very critical statements of the president right now.   #  actually most of the people collecting data on you are probably private companies.  not the government.  if i go on twitter right now i could probably find people making very critical statements of the president right now.  why are not they being seized now ? the government would not even have to collect their metadata their opinions are on a public forum.   #  the government is not watching everybody and monitoring their daily lives.   #  this is more about your ego than what the government is actually doing.  you think you are important enough for the government to focus their time on, but you are probably not.  the government is not watching everybody and monitoring their daily lives.  they have nothing to gain from listening to a 0 minute phone conversation about how your aunt bought something at macy is.  there are simply not enough employees in the government to logistically spy on people like that.  with limited time, it only makes sense to only go after specific people who are probably involved with acts of terror.  as for the xbox one comment, it was just convenient for sony that the console war coincided with the american nsa controversy.   #  are you familiar with the leaked prism slides ?  #  are you familiar with the leaked prism slides ? part of snowden is leak in it they clearly illustrate that the nsa is using  dragnet surveillance  meaning they collect a lot of the information the op is worried about but they do not actively monitor it.  it is kind of like having a security camera, you are not going to watch it constantly all day, you are just going to look at the footage after something happens.  so the op is partially right albeit slightly paranoid.  sources: prism explained by wikipedia URL the actual leaked slides URL  #  the government seems so powerful that we have no clue what could be going on behind closed doors.   #  it is not about the importance of the american population imo.  i do not necessarily think it is a guy reading my texts about the new call of duty, but that does not meant there are not computers processing all of that information.  we have super computers right ? i bet one of those bad boys could scan every text sent at a given time like that ! snaps fingers .  it just freaks me out.  the government seems so powerful that we have no clue what could be going on behind closed doors.  what i am saying is, you are probably right, but just because i am boring does not mean the government does not care about me.  edit: in the sense that, they want to know what i and everyone else is up to.   #  does not the government more often than not have access to the information those private companies are collecting ?  #  does not the government more often than not have access to the information those private companies are collecting ? i remember reading about at t and the government walking hand in hand when it comes to access to that sort of information.  why are not they being seized now ? the government would not even have to collect their metadata their opinions are on a public forum.  i probably should have left this out of the op because this goes more towards my thought that eventually america will become a police state but that is a whole different conversation.  what i was saying there in vague terms was that we will keep letting the government getting away with stuff with the excuse that it is to fight terrorism and eventually it will get that bad.  essentially desensitizing the general population to the idea of being infringed upon.  the reason they do not seize no is because it would be outrageous, no one would let that happen.
let me first preface this by saying that i consider  debate  to be a format in which one party takes a position, which is then opposed by another party, each citing evidence in favor of their position, or against their opposition is position.  the reasons why i the reasons why i think this practice is detrimental to open mindedness are multitudinous:   firstly the strength of an argument typically has more to do with the talent of the debater in question, or the amount of diligence they put into their work, than the actual evidence itself.  flashier, or more witty evidence presents itself as more prevalent than equally valid, but more mundane evidence.  this, of course, is a generalization, but for most people and most circumstances, i find it holds true.    in the same capacity, debating something also lends false credibility to each side of the argument.  suffused within the notion of debate is the notion that there is no such thing as an  entirely fallacious  argument, for example.  or rather, the notion that every viewpoint no matter how absurd or fallacious is equally defensible in a debate.  an open minded individual should hypothetically be able to research both sides of an argument, and come to their conclusions based upon that research.    if my previous two claims are untrue, then, at best, a debate can be seen as a way to save time, and nothing else.  conceivably, if the talent or diligence of a debater is irrelevant, and if any side of an argument is defensible, then all that a debate really does is save each side the time of having to research the other point of view for themselves.    finally, though the inherently competitive nature of humankind can take a backstage, it can never be completely ignored.  in a format like a debate, even the most reserved and controlled individual will have some base impulse to  win  and that impulse gets in the way of true open mindedness.  even if all that the impulse to  win  does is make one opponent harder to convince of the flaws in his/her argument, that difficulty would be a result of something entirely unrelated to the truth of the matter, and therefor would be irrelevant/close minded.  please note: i am not pointing to another alternative form of discourse as preferential merely pointing out the flaws in the practice of debate.   #  finally, though the inherently competitive nature of humankind can take a backstage, it can never be completely ignored.   #  in a format like a debate, even the most reserved and controlled individual will have some base impulse to  win  and that impulse gets in the way of true open mindedness.   # in a format like a debate, even the most reserved and controlled individual will have some base impulse to  win  and that impulse gets in the way of true open mindedness.  even if all that the impulse to  win  does is make one opponent harder to convince of the flaws in his/her argument, that difficulty would be a result of something entirely unrelated to the truth of the matter, and therefore would be irrelevant/close minded.  open mindedness is not a dot at the end of a spectrum, it is a dot in the middle, beyond which full critical thought is possible.  we need not  strive  for  0  open mindedness to be open minded, we only need meet some minimum.  the debate format may not guarantee, but does encourage, transparency of thought.  that encouragement does not occur if you just sit at home in an echo chamber of unrivaled beliefs.  opening yourself up to being wrong is almost by definition open minded, and the debate format opens one up to being wrong.   #  debate is a good way to put many brains to the task.   #  i think you are on to something with the last point, but i would argue that convincing the opponent is not necessarily the first objective of debate.  in my opinion, the spectators are the targets.  additionally, dishonest people will remain dishonest both in and out of debates.  while this is unfortunate, i do not think you can blame the format itself for this situation.  this argument relates to the other three point, but i will focus on the second one more precisely.  managing to present an argument as entirely fallacious is actually a good way to end a debate.  as for the point number 0, debate and discussion is a good way to put one is beliefs to the test.  researching is good, but it is often leads to a narrower position than a healthy mix of debate and research.  debate is a good way to put many brains to the task.   #  honestly, i find the opposite to be true.   #  honestly, i find the opposite to be true.  i think that, at the very least, it makes the debater have a more open mindset.  you often do not get to choose your own position.  for example, you are just told  argue why abortion should be illegal , even if you do not agree with that yourself.  it makes you get more familiar with both sides of any argument.  the process of preparing yourself for a debate actually makes you more open minded.  of course during the debate you are focused on winning, but you have already spent a lot of time researching.   #  actual decisions are far more often made by commissions or group discussions  #  to be fair you are not really engaging in debate in the way you define it, you are just expressing a series of reservations you have about a common assumption, and people are trying to convince you that the assumption should stand.  that is quite different to, say, two sides trying to convince a third party.  on a slightly irrelevant note, i completely agree with your position and i do not see any reason to change it.  formal debate is an exercise in rhetoric, there is nothing about it that is  truth finding .  however, debates are not really used outside of things framed as competitions like elections or debates for debating is sake.  actual decisions are far more often made by commissions or group discussions  #  many people lack the expertise to find adequate resources on subjects because they are wildly biased and suck at science.   #  0.  people strongly respect authoritative evidence and scientific majority.  i have had a lot of debates where i have successfully changed someone is views because they respect science and majority viewpoints.  for example with nuclear power i have had quite a few successes appealing to the majority view.  flashier and wittier evidence means less than strong support from the majority.  debate in this case works to eliminate extreme and irrational views from consideration.  0.  your second point is moot people already think their viewpoints are majority good viewpoints generally and have biased evidence to support them, this happens regardless.  they have already seen debates where extremists and moderates who agree with them debate.  0.  is research on your own feasible ? no, i would argue.  many people lack the expertise to find adequate resources on subjects because they are wildly biased and suck at science.  experts who debate can do a much better job pointing them to good science and facts.  0.  to win you have to expose your arguments to the public.  the desire to win does impede some not all in changing their mind but it also increases your vulnerability to counterattack.  so i would argue that debate can often help with an open mindset because it exposes you to alternate experts who you can agree with.
you may have seen recent viral video that aims to fight street harassment:  0 hours of walking in nyc as a woman  URL while there are some instances of harassment in that video, i think that calling compliments and greetings  harassment  serves nobody: 0.  it is not respectful to real victims of harassment, because it trivializes the issue.  0.  it disrupts normal social dynamics between people.  0.  it is not in the interest of women that want to meet somebody that men are being discouraged to approach them.  0.  it will not deter creepy guys from harassing women, because apparently they do not have any problem even with real harassment.  radical feminists think that approaching a woman you do not know should automatically be characterized as harassment.    that is the most counterproductive and retarded way to deal with the problem of harassment the world has ever seen.  p. s. : because i was so astounded by the stupidity of this video i made a parody video, featuring pepé le pew URL if you want to see some real harassment, watch a few pepé le pew cartoons.  p. p. s. : a reply i made to a girl commenting on youtube: URL  i have already retracted this statement; see the discussion.   #  it is not respectful to real victims of harassment, because it trivializes the issue.   #  many women do not take what you are calling  compliments  and  greetings  as genuine compliments or greetings and are very well able to differentiate the difference between a compliment and some stranger basically saying they want sex.   # many women do not take what you are calling  compliments  and  greetings  as genuine compliments or greetings and are very well able to differentiate the difference between a compliment and some stranger basically saying they want sex.  the people in the nyc video that are catcalling the women most likely would not use  compliments  and  greetings  on men, which exhibits the sexual nature of them.  sexual harassment URL includes unwanted sexual advances, which is what the cat callers are doing, so there is really no need to trivialize the victims of street harassment by claiming that they are not victims of  real harassment.   it also reeks of a  there are starving kids in africa  type of argument.  yelling shit at strangers on the street does not seem like a normal social dynamic.  in fact, it seems rather rude.  personally, i think it is more polite to not try to stop strangers to have a conversation with them.  you have no idea if they are busy or not in the mood for casual conversation.  there is a time and a place for that.  shouting sexual compliments at strangers on the street is neither the time, nor the place.  it will tell well meaning guys that think catcalling is acceptable that it is not.  furthermore, it will encourage guys to call out other guys that are catcalling and tell them to stop.  and yes, there are obviously going to be many guys who do not give a fuck and will still catcall, but that does not mean that we should not try to lower the amounts of catcalling.  the point of the nyc video is to show that many women do not enjoy what you are labeling as  compliments  or  greetings  and that it makes them feel extremely uncomfortable.  i think it is best to accept and respect that, and therefore work to discourage such behavior, rather than argue semantics and try to deny and trivialize the experiences that many women have.  this is a total strawman argument.  feminists are not trying to label male interactions with women they do not know as harassment.  also, i would like to hear what your definition of  radical feminist  is, because it is a way larger group than radical feminists that are complaining about street harassment.   #  the truth is that women quite clearly point out that they find do not find this attention to be fun, or enjoyable.   #  being approached or called out on the street is not normal behavior, and is very much harassment.  as a male living in a city of a 0 people for 0 years, i can safely say that i have never once been greeted with a  hello , or otherwise been approached on the street, excluding tourists that wanted directions and salespeople.  when these people are  greeting  her, they are casually putting a foot in the door, and will press it if she gives them even the slightest acknowledgement.  if she gets mad they will pretend they are just trying to be nice.  the truth is that women quite clearly point out that they find do not find this attention to be fun, or enjoyable.  they call it for what they experience it as, harassment.  the solution to that problem is not to turn around and start telling them that the real problem is that they just do not know what harassment is, and that they should be enjoying themselves.  the third issue is context.  i like free stuff.  i like breakfast.  if someone gives me a free breakfast on the street, i am very happy.  if someone breaks into my house and leaves a free breakfast on the table, i am inclined to call the police.  there is a time and a place when you can approach women.  it is not in the middle of the street.  if you drink at a bar, you are sociable, if you drink at work, you are an alcoholic.  telling people that they ca not hit on women in the middle of the street is not  disrupting normal social dynamics , in fact, it is quite literally the opposite, it is informing a section of the population that they are violating normal social behavior and need to change.  creepy guys draw from a culture of acceptance for their behavior, because there is an army of people like yourself that says it is  normal social dynamics , and  not harassment .  in fact, according to you the real problem is that women complain at all, because they are disrespecting the  real  victims.  what you define as real victims however, is as elusive as the goalpost by which they stand.  the real problem is, at the core, that you refuse to take women seriously when they indicate that there is a problem.  rather than take note, you merely begin to lecture as to why they do not understand what real harassment is, as if not virtually all women are subject to it.   #  a city dweller walking along the street en route somewhere is more equivalent to a suburbanite in a car than a person at a social place like a bar.   # it is not in the middle of the street.  if you drink at a bar, you are sociable, if you drink at work, you are an alcoholic.  telling people that they ca not hit on women in the middle of the street is not  disrupting normal social dynamics , in fact, it is quite literally the opposite, it is informing a section of the population that they are violating normal social behavior and need to change.  well said.  i think that something a lot of people, particularly those who do not live in cities,miss in this discussion is that, in a lot of ways, a city street is not really a public place.  in a city, you have to be on the street to get places, and so, for the sake of everyone is sanity, there is an expectation of privacy in public.  a city dweller walking along the street en route somewhere is more equivalent to a suburbanite in a car than a person at a social place like a bar.  most people realize that you should not pull up alongside someone is car to try to start a conversation with them unless you know them.  the same applies to people walking in a place where walking is a necessary from of transportation.   #  how do you make a distinction between  entitlement to express sexual desire  what does it even mean ?  #  how do you make a distinction between  entitlement to express sexual desire  what does it even mean ? and simply trying to get to know another person because they seem attractive to you ? and you have only mentioned some very impersonal ways of human interaction.  if you ask someone for directions or give them a brochure, you are not really seeing them as a person, only as a means to an end.  so, how about all the harmless ways of interpersonal interaction where the focus is on someone as a person ? like i have mentioned before, getting to know someone because they seem attractive to you.  but not even only in a romantic or sexual way, you could just strike a conversation with someone because they seem like a nice person who could be a good friend.  all those things are the opposite of harmful, and yet are still seen as  harrassment  by some people.  in my opinion, that is a wrong way of looking at it, because it encourages an impersonal way of interacting with others, and as a result it is kind of dehumanizing.   #  i think you are making it sound more dramatic than it is.   # and simply trying to get to know another person because they seem attractive to you ? i do not think that distinction is necessary, both require mostly unwanted approaches if done in the middle of the street.  both might be expected in other scenarios like pubs, clubs or parties.  let is generously say for one minute that there is a percentage of genuine approaches in that video that are interested in being that girl is friend, and has nothing to do with her gender and her looks.  how many do you think they were.  0 ? 0 ? 0 ? the problem there is that they are mixed with approaches that are clearly objectifying and one entitles the other.  so you either tell them all to stop or you tell the victim that they have to put up with the whole lot.  right now it is the latter and there is a large group of people that are not liking it and asking for a change, me included.  i think you are making it sound more dramatic than it is.  there is space for human interaction  when the context allows it .  again i refer to mutual friends, parties, pubs, night clubs, business, accidents, etc.  and there is space where you just want to get from a to b without having people try to engage you in the street.  the latter does not prevent the former, although i think it would help it be more equal.
you may have seen recent viral video that aims to fight street harassment:  0 hours of walking in nyc as a woman  URL while there are some instances of harassment in that video, i think that calling compliments and greetings  harassment  serves nobody: 0.  it is not respectful to real victims of harassment, because it trivializes the issue.  0.  it disrupts normal social dynamics between people.  0.  it is not in the interest of women that want to meet somebody that men are being discouraged to approach them.  0.  it will not deter creepy guys from harassing women, because apparently they do not have any problem even with real harassment.  radical feminists think that approaching a woman you do not know should automatically be characterized as harassment.    that is the most counterproductive and retarded way to deal with the problem of harassment the world has ever seen.  p. s. : because i was so astounded by the stupidity of this video i made a parody video, featuring pepé le pew URL if you want to see some real harassment, watch a few pepé le pew cartoons.  p. p. s. : a reply i made to a girl commenting on youtube: URL  i have already retracted this statement; see the discussion.   #  it disrupts normal social dynamics between people.   #  yelling shit at strangers on the street does not seem like a normal social dynamic.   # many women do not take what you are calling  compliments  and  greetings  as genuine compliments or greetings and are very well able to differentiate the difference between a compliment and some stranger basically saying they want sex.  the people in the nyc video that are catcalling the women most likely would not use  compliments  and  greetings  on men, which exhibits the sexual nature of them.  sexual harassment URL includes unwanted sexual advances, which is what the cat callers are doing, so there is really no need to trivialize the victims of street harassment by claiming that they are not victims of  real harassment.   it also reeks of a  there are starving kids in africa  type of argument.  yelling shit at strangers on the street does not seem like a normal social dynamic.  in fact, it seems rather rude.  personally, i think it is more polite to not try to stop strangers to have a conversation with them.  you have no idea if they are busy or not in the mood for casual conversation.  there is a time and a place for that.  shouting sexual compliments at strangers on the street is neither the time, nor the place.  it will tell well meaning guys that think catcalling is acceptable that it is not.  furthermore, it will encourage guys to call out other guys that are catcalling and tell them to stop.  and yes, there are obviously going to be many guys who do not give a fuck and will still catcall, but that does not mean that we should not try to lower the amounts of catcalling.  the point of the nyc video is to show that many women do not enjoy what you are labeling as  compliments  or  greetings  and that it makes them feel extremely uncomfortable.  i think it is best to accept and respect that, and therefore work to discourage such behavior, rather than argue semantics and try to deny and trivialize the experiences that many women have.  this is a total strawman argument.  feminists are not trying to label male interactions with women they do not know as harassment.  also, i would like to hear what your definition of  radical feminist  is, because it is a way larger group than radical feminists that are complaining about street harassment.   #  if someone breaks into my house and leaves a free breakfast on the table, i am inclined to call the police.   #  being approached or called out on the street is not normal behavior, and is very much harassment.  as a male living in a city of a 0 people for 0 years, i can safely say that i have never once been greeted with a  hello , or otherwise been approached on the street, excluding tourists that wanted directions and salespeople.  when these people are  greeting  her, they are casually putting a foot in the door, and will press it if she gives them even the slightest acknowledgement.  if she gets mad they will pretend they are just trying to be nice.  the truth is that women quite clearly point out that they find do not find this attention to be fun, or enjoyable.  they call it for what they experience it as, harassment.  the solution to that problem is not to turn around and start telling them that the real problem is that they just do not know what harassment is, and that they should be enjoying themselves.  the third issue is context.  i like free stuff.  i like breakfast.  if someone gives me a free breakfast on the street, i am very happy.  if someone breaks into my house and leaves a free breakfast on the table, i am inclined to call the police.  there is a time and a place when you can approach women.  it is not in the middle of the street.  if you drink at a bar, you are sociable, if you drink at work, you are an alcoholic.  telling people that they ca not hit on women in the middle of the street is not  disrupting normal social dynamics , in fact, it is quite literally the opposite, it is informing a section of the population that they are violating normal social behavior and need to change.  creepy guys draw from a culture of acceptance for their behavior, because there is an army of people like yourself that says it is  normal social dynamics , and  not harassment .  in fact, according to you the real problem is that women complain at all, because they are disrespecting the  real  victims.  what you define as real victims however, is as elusive as the goalpost by which they stand.  the real problem is, at the core, that you refuse to take women seriously when they indicate that there is a problem.  rather than take note, you merely begin to lecture as to why they do not understand what real harassment is, as if not virtually all women are subject to it.   #  in a city, you have to be on the street to get places, and so, for the sake of everyone is sanity, there is an expectation of privacy in public.   # it is not in the middle of the street.  if you drink at a bar, you are sociable, if you drink at work, you are an alcoholic.  telling people that they ca not hit on women in the middle of the street is not  disrupting normal social dynamics , in fact, it is quite literally the opposite, it is informing a section of the population that they are violating normal social behavior and need to change.  well said.  i think that something a lot of people, particularly those who do not live in cities,miss in this discussion is that, in a lot of ways, a city street is not really a public place.  in a city, you have to be on the street to get places, and so, for the sake of everyone is sanity, there is an expectation of privacy in public.  a city dweller walking along the street en route somewhere is more equivalent to a suburbanite in a car than a person at a social place like a bar.  most people realize that you should not pull up alongside someone is car to try to start a conversation with them unless you know them.  the same applies to people walking in a place where walking is a necessary from of transportation.   #  and you have only mentioned some very impersonal ways of human interaction.   #  how do you make a distinction between  entitlement to express sexual desire  what does it even mean ? and simply trying to get to know another person because they seem attractive to you ? and you have only mentioned some very impersonal ways of human interaction.  if you ask someone for directions or give them a brochure, you are not really seeing them as a person, only as a means to an end.  so, how about all the harmless ways of interpersonal interaction where the focus is on someone as a person ? like i have mentioned before, getting to know someone because they seem attractive to you.  but not even only in a romantic or sexual way, you could just strike a conversation with someone because they seem like a nice person who could be a good friend.  all those things are the opposite of harmful, and yet are still seen as  harrassment  by some people.  in my opinion, that is a wrong way of looking at it, because it encourages an impersonal way of interacting with others, and as a result it is kind of dehumanizing.   #  i do not think that distinction is necessary, both require mostly unwanted approaches if done in the middle of the street.   # and simply trying to get to know another person because they seem attractive to you ? i do not think that distinction is necessary, both require mostly unwanted approaches if done in the middle of the street.  both might be expected in other scenarios like pubs, clubs or parties.  let is generously say for one minute that there is a percentage of genuine approaches in that video that are interested in being that girl is friend, and has nothing to do with her gender and her looks.  how many do you think they were.  0 ? 0 ? 0 ? the problem there is that they are mixed with approaches that are clearly objectifying and one entitles the other.  so you either tell them all to stop or you tell the victim that they have to put up with the whole lot.  right now it is the latter and there is a large group of people that are not liking it and asking for a change, me included.  i think you are making it sound more dramatic than it is.  there is space for human interaction  when the context allows it .  again i refer to mutual friends, parties, pubs, night clubs, business, accidents, etc.  and there is space where you just want to get from a to b without having people try to engage you in the street.  the latter does not prevent the former, although i think it would help it be more equal.
you may have seen recent viral video that aims to fight street harassment:  0 hours of walking in nyc as a woman  URL while there are some instances of harassment in that video, i think that calling compliments and greetings  harassment  serves nobody: 0.  it is not respectful to real victims of harassment, because it trivializes the issue.  0.  it disrupts normal social dynamics between people.  0.  it is not in the interest of women that want to meet somebody that men are being discouraged to approach them.  0.  it will not deter creepy guys from harassing women, because apparently they do not have any problem even with real harassment.  radical feminists think that approaching a woman you do not know should automatically be characterized as harassment.    that is the most counterproductive and retarded way to deal with the problem of harassment the world has ever seen.  p. s. : because i was so astounded by the stupidity of this video i made a parody video, featuring pepé le pew URL if you want to see some real harassment, watch a few pepé le pew cartoons.  p. p. s. : a reply i made to a girl commenting on youtube: URL  i have already retracted this statement; see the discussion.   #  it is not in the interest of women that want to meet somebody that men are being discouraged to approach them.   #  there is a time and a place for that.   # many women do not take what you are calling  compliments  and  greetings  as genuine compliments or greetings and are very well able to differentiate the difference between a compliment and some stranger basically saying they want sex.  the people in the nyc video that are catcalling the women most likely would not use  compliments  and  greetings  on men, which exhibits the sexual nature of them.  sexual harassment URL includes unwanted sexual advances, which is what the cat callers are doing, so there is really no need to trivialize the victims of street harassment by claiming that they are not victims of  real harassment.   it also reeks of a  there are starving kids in africa  type of argument.  yelling shit at strangers on the street does not seem like a normal social dynamic.  in fact, it seems rather rude.  personally, i think it is more polite to not try to stop strangers to have a conversation with them.  you have no idea if they are busy or not in the mood for casual conversation.  there is a time and a place for that.  shouting sexual compliments at strangers on the street is neither the time, nor the place.  it will tell well meaning guys that think catcalling is acceptable that it is not.  furthermore, it will encourage guys to call out other guys that are catcalling and tell them to stop.  and yes, there are obviously going to be many guys who do not give a fuck and will still catcall, but that does not mean that we should not try to lower the amounts of catcalling.  the point of the nyc video is to show that many women do not enjoy what you are labeling as  compliments  or  greetings  and that it makes them feel extremely uncomfortable.  i think it is best to accept and respect that, and therefore work to discourage such behavior, rather than argue semantics and try to deny and trivialize the experiences that many women have.  this is a total strawman argument.  feminists are not trying to label male interactions with women they do not know as harassment.  also, i would like to hear what your definition of  radical feminist  is, because it is a way larger group than radical feminists that are complaining about street harassment.   #  if you drink at a bar, you are sociable, if you drink at work, you are an alcoholic.   #  being approached or called out on the street is not normal behavior, and is very much harassment.  as a male living in a city of a 0 people for 0 years, i can safely say that i have never once been greeted with a  hello , or otherwise been approached on the street, excluding tourists that wanted directions and salespeople.  when these people are  greeting  her, they are casually putting a foot in the door, and will press it if she gives them even the slightest acknowledgement.  if she gets mad they will pretend they are just trying to be nice.  the truth is that women quite clearly point out that they find do not find this attention to be fun, or enjoyable.  they call it for what they experience it as, harassment.  the solution to that problem is not to turn around and start telling them that the real problem is that they just do not know what harassment is, and that they should be enjoying themselves.  the third issue is context.  i like free stuff.  i like breakfast.  if someone gives me a free breakfast on the street, i am very happy.  if someone breaks into my house and leaves a free breakfast on the table, i am inclined to call the police.  there is a time and a place when you can approach women.  it is not in the middle of the street.  if you drink at a bar, you are sociable, if you drink at work, you are an alcoholic.  telling people that they ca not hit on women in the middle of the street is not  disrupting normal social dynamics , in fact, it is quite literally the opposite, it is informing a section of the population that they are violating normal social behavior and need to change.  creepy guys draw from a culture of acceptance for their behavior, because there is an army of people like yourself that says it is  normal social dynamics , and  not harassment .  in fact, according to you the real problem is that women complain at all, because they are disrespecting the  real  victims.  what you define as real victims however, is as elusive as the goalpost by which they stand.  the real problem is, at the core, that you refuse to take women seriously when they indicate that there is a problem.  rather than take note, you merely begin to lecture as to why they do not understand what real harassment is, as if not virtually all women are subject to it.   #  a city dweller walking along the street en route somewhere is more equivalent to a suburbanite in a car than a person at a social place like a bar.   # it is not in the middle of the street.  if you drink at a bar, you are sociable, if you drink at work, you are an alcoholic.  telling people that they ca not hit on women in the middle of the street is not  disrupting normal social dynamics , in fact, it is quite literally the opposite, it is informing a section of the population that they are violating normal social behavior and need to change.  well said.  i think that something a lot of people, particularly those who do not live in cities,miss in this discussion is that, in a lot of ways, a city street is not really a public place.  in a city, you have to be on the street to get places, and so, for the sake of everyone is sanity, there is an expectation of privacy in public.  a city dweller walking along the street en route somewhere is more equivalent to a suburbanite in a car than a person at a social place like a bar.  most people realize that you should not pull up alongside someone is car to try to start a conversation with them unless you know them.  the same applies to people walking in a place where walking is a necessary from of transportation.   #  all those things are the opposite of harmful, and yet are still seen as  harrassment  by some people.   #  how do you make a distinction between  entitlement to express sexual desire  what does it even mean ? and simply trying to get to know another person because they seem attractive to you ? and you have only mentioned some very impersonal ways of human interaction.  if you ask someone for directions or give them a brochure, you are not really seeing them as a person, only as a means to an end.  so, how about all the harmless ways of interpersonal interaction where the focus is on someone as a person ? like i have mentioned before, getting to know someone because they seem attractive to you.  but not even only in a romantic or sexual way, you could just strike a conversation with someone because they seem like a nice person who could be a good friend.  all those things are the opposite of harmful, and yet are still seen as  harrassment  by some people.  in my opinion, that is a wrong way of looking at it, because it encourages an impersonal way of interacting with others, and as a result it is kind of dehumanizing.   #  the problem there is that they are mixed with approaches that are clearly objectifying and one entitles the other.   # and simply trying to get to know another person because they seem attractive to you ? i do not think that distinction is necessary, both require mostly unwanted approaches if done in the middle of the street.  both might be expected in other scenarios like pubs, clubs or parties.  let is generously say for one minute that there is a percentage of genuine approaches in that video that are interested in being that girl is friend, and has nothing to do with her gender and her looks.  how many do you think they were.  0 ? 0 ? 0 ? the problem there is that they are mixed with approaches that are clearly objectifying and one entitles the other.  so you either tell them all to stop or you tell the victim that they have to put up with the whole lot.  right now it is the latter and there is a large group of people that are not liking it and asking for a change, me included.  i think you are making it sound more dramatic than it is.  there is space for human interaction  when the context allows it .  again i refer to mutual friends, parties, pubs, night clubs, business, accidents, etc.  and there is space where you just want to get from a to b without having people try to engage you in the street.  the latter does not prevent the former, although i think it would help it be more equal.
you may have seen recent viral video that aims to fight street harassment:  0 hours of walking in nyc as a woman  URL while there are some instances of harassment in that video, i think that calling compliments and greetings  harassment  serves nobody: 0.  it is not respectful to real victims of harassment, because it trivializes the issue.  0.  it disrupts normal social dynamics between people.  0.  it is not in the interest of women that want to meet somebody that men are being discouraged to approach them.  0.  it will not deter creepy guys from harassing women, because apparently they do not have any problem even with real harassment.  radical feminists think that approaching a woman you do not know should automatically be characterized as harassment.    that is the most counterproductive and retarded way to deal with the problem of harassment the world has ever seen.  p. s. : because i was so astounded by the stupidity of this video i made a parody video, featuring pepé le pew URL if you want to see some real harassment, watch a few pepé le pew cartoons.  p. p. s. : a reply i made to a girl commenting on youtube: URL  i have already retracted this statement; see the discussion.   #  it will not deter creepy guys from harassing women, because apparently they do not have any problem even with real harassment.   #  it will tell well meaning guys that think catcalling is acceptable that it is not.   # many women do not take what you are calling  compliments  and  greetings  as genuine compliments or greetings and are very well able to differentiate the difference between a compliment and some stranger basically saying they want sex.  the people in the nyc video that are catcalling the women most likely would not use  compliments  and  greetings  on men, which exhibits the sexual nature of them.  sexual harassment URL includes unwanted sexual advances, which is what the cat callers are doing, so there is really no need to trivialize the victims of street harassment by claiming that they are not victims of  real harassment.   it also reeks of a  there are starving kids in africa  type of argument.  yelling shit at strangers on the street does not seem like a normal social dynamic.  in fact, it seems rather rude.  personally, i think it is more polite to not try to stop strangers to have a conversation with them.  you have no idea if they are busy or not in the mood for casual conversation.  there is a time and a place for that.  shouting sexual compliments at strangers on the street is neither the time, nor the place.  it will tell well meaning guys that think catcalling is acceptable that it is not.  furthermore, it will encourage guys to call out other guys that are catcalling and tell them to stop.  and yes, there are obviously going to be many guys who do not give a fuck and will still catcall, but that does not mean that we should not try to lower the amounts of catcalling.  the point of the nyc video is to show that many women do not enjoy what you are labeling as  compliments  or  greetings  and that it makes them feel extremely uncomfortable.  i think it is best to accept and respect that, and therefore work to discourage such behavior, rather than argue semantics and try to deny and trivialize the experiences that many women have.  this is a total strawman argument.  feminists are not trying to label male interactions with women they do not know as harassment.  also, i would like to hear what your definition of  radical feminist  is, because it is a way larger group than radical feminists that are complaining about street harassment.   #  what you define as real victims however, is as elusive as the goalpost by which they stand.   #  being approached or called out on the street is not normal behavior, and is very much harassment.  as a male living in a city of a 0 people for 0 years, i can safely say that i have never once been greeted with a  hello , or otherwise been approached on the street, excluding tourists that wanted directions and salespeople.  when these people are  greeting  her, they are casually putting a foot in the door, and will press it if she gives them even the slightest acknowledgement.  if she gets mad they will pretend they are just trying to be nice.  the truth is that women quite clearly point out that they find do not find this attention to be fun, or enjoyable.  they call it for what they experience it as, harassment.  the solution to that problem is not to turn around and start telling them that the real problem is that they just do not know what harassment is, and that they should be enjoying themselves.  the third issue is context.  i like free stuff.  i like breakfast.  if someone gives me a free breakfast on the street, i am very happy.  if someone breaks into my house and leaves a free breakfast on the table, i am inclined to call the police.  there is a time and a place when you can approach women.  it is not in the middle of the street.  if you drink at a bar, you are sociable, if you drink at work, you are an alcoholic.  telling people that they ca not hit on women in the middle of the street is not  disrupting normal social dynamics , in fact, it is quite literally the opposite, it is informing a section of the population that they are violating normal social behavior and need to change.  creepy guys draw from a culture of acceptance for their behavior, because there is an army of people like yourself that says it is  normal social dynamics , and  not harassment .  in fact, according to you the real problem is that women complain at all, because they are disrespecting the  real  victims.  what you define as real victims however, is as elusive as the goalpost by which they stand.  the real problem is, at the core, that you refuse to take women seriously when they indicate that there is a problem.  rather than take note, you merely begin to lecture as to why they do not understand what real harassment is, as if not virtually all women are subject to it.   #  it is not in the middle of the street.   # it is not in the middle of the street.  if you drink at a bar, you are sociable, if you drink at work, you are an alcoholic.  telling people that they ca not hit on women in the middle of the street is not  disrupting normal social dynamics , in fact, it is quite literally the opposite, it is informing a section of the population that they are violating normal social behavior and need to change.  well said.  i think that something a lot of people, particularly those who do not live in cities,miss in this discussion is that, in a lot of ways, a city street is not really a public place.  in a city, you have to be on the street to get places, and so, for the sake of everyone is sanity, there is an expectation of privacy in public.  a city dweller walking along the street en route somewhere is more equivalent to a suburbanite in a car than a person at a social place like a bar.  most people realize that you should not pull up alongside someone is car to try to start a conversation with them unless you know them.  the same applies to people walking in a place where walking is a necessary from of transportation.   #  but not even only in a romantic or sexual way, you could just strike a conversation with someone because they seem like a nice person who could be a good friend.   #  how do you make a distinction between  entitlement to express sexual desire  what does it even mean ? and simply trying to get to know another person because they seem attractive to you ? and you have only mentioned some very impersonal ways of human interaction.  if you ask someone for directions or give them a brochure, you are not really seeing them as a person, only as a means to an end.  so, how about all the harmless ways of interpersonal interaction where the focus is on someone as a person ? like i have mentioned before, getting to know someone because they seem attractive to you.  but not even only in a romantic or sexual way, you could just strike a conversation with someone because they seem like a nice person who could be a good friend.  all those things are the opposite of harmful, and yet are still seen as  harrassment  by some people.  in my opinion, that is a wrong way of looking at it, because it encourages an impersonal way of interacting with others, and as a result it is kind of dehumanizing.   #  both might be expected in other scenarios like pubs, clubs or parties.   # and simply trying to get to know another person because they seem attractive to you ? i do not think that distinction is necessary, both require mostly unwanted approaches if done in the middle of the street.  both might be expected in other scenarios like pubs, clubs or parties.  let is generously say for one minute that there is a percentage of genuine approaches in that video that are interested in being that girl is friend, and has nothing to do with her gender and her looks.  how many do you think they were.  0 ? 0 ? 0 ? the problem there is that they are mixed with approaches that are clearly objectifying and one entitles the other.  so you either tell them all to stop or you tell the victim that they have to put up with the whole lot.  right now it is the latter and there is a large group of people that are not liking it and asking for a change, me included.  i think you are making it sound more dramatic than it is.  there is space for human interaction  when the context allows it .  again i refer to mutual friends, parties, pubs, night clubs, business, accidents, etc.  and there is space where you just want to get from a to b without having people try to engage you in the street.  the latter does not prevent the former, although i think it would help it be more equal.
this is a discussion i was having with a close friend of mine.  she is a muslim, and i am a secular humanist, and we have often conflicted over the nature of religion in modern society.  she told me that islam was a merciful religion that promotes equal rights for women and that it really pushes this idea of being a good and charitable person.  i pointed out several lines in the qu ran which literally puts women down, to which she replied that while the text never changes the rules do and that you just ignore the text.  i thought that was a fallacious response, where the worship is more about taking on a label in order to be accepted in a culture rather than actually being faithful to the religion; that she was a good person because of the society in which she was raised, not her religion.  that while her community may very well promote being a decent charitable person, the scripture of the religion really does not, and its interpretation will vary wildly from place to place.  so here i am trying to understand how to separate the two.  because the text is basically written in stone, is religion the scripture or the community around it ? i am not saying i would want self proclaimed religious people to suddenly become very fundamentalist, but it seems to me that there are not really that many truly religious people left, and that it is all just cherry picking lines and labelling yourself in order to legitimize your views  ad populum  and to try and be accepted socially.  is the religion itself immoral, and the community around it is not ? what is religion and what is society ? and therefore, what makes you truly religious any more if it is all just injecting your own morals and biases into a pre existing system, and what value is left in religion at the point that a progressive society has moved far past the literal statements of the text ?  #  it is all just cherry picking lines and labelling yourself in order to legitimize your views  ad populum  and to try and be accepted socially.   #  you really hit the nail on the head here.   #  my oh my what a big question.  and i am having a hard time understanding what view you want changed, seems to me that you are more looking to have questions answered than you are to having any particular view change.  i am going to assume i am right and answer the questions that i feel like i can shed light on.  first of all, i have to agree with this line and i think it is the crux of your argument.  you really hit the nail on the head here.  for example, you hear a lot of christians quote the old testament speaking out against homosexuality and pawn it off as a sin.  then these same people turn around and wear blended fabrics.  people have a certain set of their own morals that they receive from their social setting and then look for scripture to back up their currently held beliefs.  with that said, in heavily religious areas, like the middle east, the culture is itself influenced by the religion presence that is there.  it is not perfect but there ya go.  i do not think that religion is inherently evil or good, it depends on how it is applied by the person.  when religion was  created  i am assuming it is but if you want to debate that we can it was shaped by the people of the time.  for example, eating pork back when the old testament was dangerous and it was a good idea to tell people not to eat it, but now we know to cook it properly and we do not get worm riddled when we eat it.  the problem with religion is that it is not very flexible, or at least the words themselves are not.  interpretations and what you choose to follow can change.  so your muslim friend is correct here.  it is a form of doublethink, a cognitive dissonance.  to wrap things up, society changes faster than religion itself does and you probably do not want people running around holding onto 0,0 year old doctrine and trying to apply it to today.  eventually hopefully soon society changes so much that our current religions can no longer apply.  now that i finished i doubt i answered any of your questions and i doubt i changed your opinion on anything.  i am open to further discussion though.   #  maybe my understanding of islam is a bit lackluster but as far as i know, muslims are not allowed to interpret the the text, which would speak against your friend is response.   # both.  it is based on the scripture but it is the local community that really defines a religion.  look, i can release a book which outlines the core features of a new religion i just  completely made up .  there is no evidence whatsoever that the values of this religion exist or not.  however, as soon as people read up on it and start to identify with the values i just outlined and begin to adopt them for their own life, you can actually judge this religion.  every sort of ideology is dependent on both its written ideals and the behavior of its followers.  it is the same with religion.  maybe my understanding of islam is a bit lackluster but as far as i know, muslims are not allowed to interpret the the text, which would speak against your friend is response.  coming back to your question though, we should analyze in how far religion is the  cause  of certain parenting styles, or cultural norms and values.  i agree with /u/kleidsy on that one.  religon teaches morality, but society has to understand its teachings and live them out.   #  but i am failing to see where the  amorals  would come from religion as opposed to society.   #  exactly, and so i am trying to see what the actual point is ? i have been atheist for a long while in fact its hard to think of a time when i ever really believed and been fairly adamant about my views, but i have been trying to be more open minded about faith and logic in general and perhaps be less of an asshole about it.  but i am failing to see where the  amorals  would come from religion as opposed to society.  especially in terms of islam.  i have nothing against muslims in particular, because any fundamentalist view of a religion can be taken for hate crime i. e.  westboro baptists , but their faith is prominence in the middle east has lead to a lot of terrorist groups who say they act in the name of god.  so is that religion or society ? i would say society.  so really.  i do not know in what way religion actually has any influence beyond being a label, though i wish i understood.   #  just look at the use of  oh my god  for example.   #  well, i would not really differ between religion and society, since both influence each other.  certain religious traditions become part of society is traditions, religious sayings or ideas become part of society is culture.  just look at the use of  oh my god  for example.  if anything, religion is one of the factors which create morality.  it is neither the sole one nor does it have absolutely no influence either.   #  it seems to me that our equality in society relative to the past has lead to a widening gap between the religious scripture and the general views of the population as a whole.   #    0;  certain religious traditions become part of society is traditions, religious sayings or ideas become part of society is culture.  just look at the use of  oh my god  for example.  alright, i had not actually considered some of the vernacular and how that would bleed into society.  and i suppose also i am thinking of morality in terms of  being a good person  when that in and of itself is perhaps entirely subjective.  i suppose i am asking more about the future and how a society should function, because of course historically religious institutions had much more power and influence over governments and people.  they were an aristocratic authority in their own right.  in more progressive and modern westernised cultures, though, do you think perhaps the balance has shifted ? it seems to me that our equality in society relative to the past has lead to a widening gap between the religious scripture and the general views of the population as a whole.
this is a discussion i was having with a close friend of mine.  she is a muslim, and i am a secular humanist, and we have often conflicted over the nature of religion in modern society.  she told me that islam was a merciful religion that promotes equal rights for women and that it really pushes this idea of being a good and charitable person.  i pointed out several lines in the qu ran which literally puts women down, to which she replied that while the text never changes the rules do and that you just ignore the text.  i thought that was a fallacious response, where the worship is more about taking on a label in order to be accepted in a culture rather than actually being faithful to the religion; that she was a good person because of the society in which she was raised, not her religion.  that while her community may very well promote being a decent charitable person, the scripture of the religion really does not, and its interpretation will vary wildly from place to place.  so here i am trying to understand how to separate the two.  because the text is basically written in stone, is religion the scripture or the community around it ? i am not saying i would want self proclaimed religious people to suddenly become very fundamentalist, but it seems to me that there are not really that many truly religious people left, and that it is all just cherry picking lines and labelling yourself in order to legitimize your views  ad populum  and to try and be accepted socially.  is the religion itself immoral, and the community around it is not ? what is religion and what is society ? and therefore, what makes you truly religious any more if it is all just injecting your own morals and biases into a pre existing system, and what value is left in religion at the point that a progressive society has moved far past the literal statements of the text ?  #  is the religion itself immoral, and the community around it is not ?  #  i do not think that religion is inherently evil or good, it depends on how it is applied by the person.   #  my oh my what a big question.  and i am having a hard time understanding what view you want changed, seems to me that you are more looking to have questions answered than you are to having any particular view change.  i am going to assume i am right and answer the questions that i feel like i can shed light on.  first of all, i have to agree with this line and i think it is the crux of your argument.  you really hit the nail on the head here.  for example, you hear a lot of christians quote the old testament speaking out against homosexuality and pawn it off as a sin.  then these same people turn around and wear blended fabrics.  people have a certain set of their own morals that they receive from their social setting and then look for scripture to back up their currently held beliefs.  with that said, in heavily religious areas, like the middle east, the culture is itself influenced by the religion presence that is there.  it is not perfect but there ya go.  i do not think that religion is inherently evil or good, it depends on how it is applied by the person.  when religion was  created  i am assuming it is but if you want to debate that we can it was shaped by the people of the time.  for example, eating pork back when the old testament was dangerous and it was a good idea to tell people not to eat it, but now we know to cook it properly and we do not get worm riddled when we eat it.  the problem with religion is that it is not very flexible, or at least the words themselves are not.  interpretations and what you choose to follow can change.  so your muslim friend is correct here.  it is a form of doublethink, a cognitive dissonance.  to wrap things up, society changes faster than religion itself does and you probably do not want people running around holding onto 0,0 year old doctrine and trying to apply it to today.  eventually hopefully soon society changes so much that our current religions can no longer apply.  now that i finished i doubt i answered any of your questions and i doubt i changed your opinion on anything.  i am open to further discussion though.   #  there is no evidence whatsoever that the values of this religion exist or not.   # both.  it is based on the scripture but it is the local community that really defines a religion.  look, i can release a book which outlines the core features of a new religion i just  completely made up .  there is no evidence whatsoever that the values of this religion exist or not.  however, as soon as people read up on it and start to identify with the values i just outlined and begin to adopt them for their own life, you can actually judge this religion.  every sort of ideology is dependent on both its written ideals and the behavior of its followers.  it is the same with religion.  maybe my understanding of islam is a bit lackluster but as far as i know, muslims are not allowed to interpret the the text, which would speak against your friend is response.  coming back to your question though, we should analyze in how far religion is the  cause  of certain parenting styles, or cultural norms and values.  i agree with /u/kleidsy on that one.  religon teaches morality, but society has to understand its teachings and live them out.   #  i would say society.  so really.  i do not know in what way religion actually has any influence beyond being a label, though i wish i understood.   #  exactly, and so i am trying to see what the actual point is ? i have been atheist for a long while in fact its hard to think of a time when i ever really believed and been fairly adamant about my views, but i have been trying to be more open minded about faith and logic in general and perhaps be less of an asshole about it.  but i am failing to see where the  amorals  would come from religion as opposed to society.  especially in terms of islam.  i have nothing against muslims in particular, because any fundamentalist view of a religion can be taken for hate crime i. e.  westboro baptists , but their faith is prominence in the middle east has lead to a lot of terrorist groups who say they act in the name of god.  so is that religion or society ? i would say society.  so really.  i do not know in what way religion actually has any influence beyond being a label, though i wish i understood.   #  it is neither the sole one nor does it have absolutely no influence either.   #  well, i would not really differ between religion and society, since both influence each other.  certain religious traditions become part of society is traditions, religious sayings or ideas become part of society is culture.  just look at the use of  oh my god  for example.  if anything, religion is one of the factors which create morality.  it is neither the sole one nor does it have absolutely no influence either.   #  it seems to me that our equality in society relative to the past has lead to a widening gap between the religious scripture and the general views of the population as a whole.   #    0;  certain religious traditions become part of society is traditions, religious sayings or ideas become part of society is culture.  just look at the use of  oh my god  for example.  alright, i had not actually considered some of the vernacular and how that would bleed into society.  and i suppose also i am thinking of morality in terms of  being a good person  when that in and of itself is perhaps entirely subjective.  i suppose i am asking more about the future and how a society should function, because of course historically religious institutions had much more power and influence over governments and people.  they were an aristocratic authority in their own right.  in more progressive and modern westernised cultures, though, do you think perhaps the balance has shifted ? it seems to me that our equality in society relative to the past has lead to a widening gap between the religious scripture and the general views of the population as a whole.
this is a discussion i was having with a close friend of mine.  she is a muslim, and i am a secular humanist, and we have often conflicted over the nature of religion in modern society.  she told me that islam was a merciful religion that promotes equal rights for women and that it really pushes this idea of being a good and charitable person.  i pointed out several lines in the qu ran which literally puts women down, to which she replied that while the text never changes the rules do and that you just ignore the text.  i thought that was a fallacious response, where the worship is more about taking on a label in order to be accepted in a culture rather than actually being faithful to the religion; that she was a good person because of the society in which she was raised, not her religion.  that while her community may very well promote being a decent charitable person, the scripture of the religion really does not, and its interpretation will vary wildly from place to place.  so here i am trying to understand how to separate the two.  because the text is basically written in stone, is religion the scripture or the community around it ? i am not saying i would want self proclaimed religious people to suddenly become very fundamentalist, but it seems to me that there are not really that many truly religious people left, and that it is all just cherry picking lines and labelling yourself in order to legitimize your views  ad populum  and to try and be accepted socially.  is the religion itself immoral, and the community around it is not ? what is religion and what is society ? and therefore, what makes you truly religious any more if it is all just injecting your own morals and biases into a pre existing system, and what value is left in religion at the point that a progressive society has moved far past the literal statements of the text ?  #  to which she replied that while the text never changes the rules do and that you just ignore the text.   #  maybe my understanding of islam is a bit lackluster but as far as i know, muslims are not allowed to interpret the the text, which would speak against your friend is response.   # both.  it is based on the scripture but it is the local community that really defines a religion.  look, i can release a book which outlines the core features of a new religion i just  completely made up .  there is no evidence whatsoever that the values of this religion exist or not.  however, as soon as people read up on it and start to identify with the values i just outlined and begin to adopt them for their own life, you can actually judge this religion.  every sort of ideology is dependent on both its written ideals and the behavior of its followers.  it is the same with religion.  maybe my understanding of islam is a bit lackluster but as far as i know, muslims are not allowed to interpret the the text, which would speak against your friend is response.  coming back to your question though, we should analyze in how far religion is the  cause  of certain parenting styles, or cultural norms and values.  i agree with /u/kleidsy on that one.  religon teaches morality, but society has to understand its teachings and live them out.   #  for example, you hear a lot of christians quote the old testament speaking out against homosexuality and pawn it off as a sin.   #  my oh my what a big question.  and i am having a hard time understanding what view you want changed, seems to me that you are more looking to have questions answered than you are to having any particular view change.  i am going to assume i am right and answer the questions that i feel like i can shed light on.  first of all, i have to agree with this line and i think it is the crux of your argument.  you really hit the nail on the head here.  for example, you hear a lot of christians quote the old testament speaking out against homosexuality and pawn it off as a sin.  then these same people turn around and wear blended fabrics.  people have a certain set of their own morals that they receive from their social setting and then look for scripture to back up their currently held beliefs.  with that said, in heavily religious areas, like the middle east, the culture is itself influenced by the religion presence that is there.  it is not perfect but there ya go.  i do not think that religion is inherently evil or good, it depends on how it is applied by the person.  when religion was  created  i am assuming it is but if you want to debate that we can it was shaped by the people of the time.  for example, eating pork back when the old testament was dangerous and it was a good idea to tell people not to eat it, but now we know to cook it properly and we do not get worm riddled when we eat it.  the problem with religion is that it is not very flexible, or at least the words themselves are not.  interpretations and what you choose to follow can change.  so your muslim friend is correct here.  it is a form of doublethink, a cognitive dissonance.  to wrap things up, society changes faster than religion itself does and you probably do not want people running around holding onto 0,0 year old doctrine and trying to apply it to today.  eventually hopefully soon society changes so much that our current religions can no longer apply.  now that i finished i doubt i answered any of your questions and i doubt i changed your opinion on anything.  i am open to further discussion though.   #  i have nothing against muslims in particular, because any fundamentalist view of a religion can be taken for hate crime i. e.   #  exactly, and so i am trying to see what the actual point is ? i have been atheist for a long while in fact its hard to think of a time when i ever really believed and been fairly adamant about my views, but i have been trying to be more open minded about faith and logic in general and perhaps be less of an asshole about it.  but i am failing to see where the  amorals  would come from religion as opposed to society.  especially in terms of islam.  i have nothing against muslims in particular, because any fundamentalist view of a religion can be taken for hate crime i. e.  westboro baptists , but their faith is prominence in the middle east has lead to a lot of terrorist groups who say they act in the name of god.  so is that religion or society ? i would say society.  so really.  i do not know in what way religion actually has any influence beyond being a label, though i wish i understood.   #  it is neither the sole one nor does it have absolutely no influence either.   #  well, i would not really differ between religion and society, since both influence each other.  certain religious traditions become part of society is traditions, religious sayings or ideas become part of society is culture.  just look at the use of  oh my god  for example.  if anything, religion is one of the factors which create morality.  it is neither the sole one nor does it have absolutely no influence either.   #  they were an aristocratic authority in their own right.   #    0;  certain religious traditions become part of society is traditions, religious sayings or ideas become part of society is culture.  just look at the use of  oh my god  for example.  alright, i had not actually considered some of the vernacular and how that would bleed into society.  and i suppose also i am thinking of morality in terms of  being a good person  when that in and of itself is perhaps entirely subjective.  i suppose i am asking more about the future and how a society should function, because of course historically religious institutions had much more power and influence over governments and people.  they were an aristocratic authority in their own right.  in more progressive and modern westernised cultures, though, do you think perhaps the balance has shifted ? it seems to me that our equality in society relative to the past has lead to a widening gap between the religious scripture and the general views of the population as a whole.
i ran my own small restaurant for 0 years and then started my own bookkeeping practice that caters to small businesses.  in both the case of my restaurant, and in the case of my clients, property tax is always very minimal typically $0 $0 per year .  small businesses do not typically own a lot of property, most of them rent their building and have a few $0k in equipment at most.  income tax is not a business expense at all technically, and the small business owner would have to pay the same income tax not talking about fica btw if they worked for someone else.  nonetheless, plenty of small business owners do insist on paying their income taxes out of the business, which amounts to maybe $0/year not counting fica, which is a separate thing altogether from income tax .  now i realize that sales tax is technically a  pass through  tax, where the burden is shifted over to the consumer.  however, what the consumer is actually going to pay is what determines what they can afford to buy from you.  just because the price tag says $0, everyone know that means about $0.  the average small business, in my experience, easily pays over $0k a year in sales tax.  on top of this, having assisted with many people who are behind on paying all three types of taxes: sales tax agencies are by far the most ruthless and attach the most onerous penalties for late payment.  this is clear as day in my eyes, yet people who claim to be  pro small business,  vowing to fight to keep income and property taxes low, have no problem whatsoever with increasing sales tax.  how is this possible ?  #  now i realize that sales tax is technically a  pass through  tax, where the burden is shifted over to the consumer.   #  however, what the consumer is actually going to pay is what determines what they can afford to buy from you.   # however, what the consumer is actually going to pay is what determines what they can afford to buy from you.  just because the price tag says $0, everyone know that means about $0.  the average small business, in my experience, easily pays over $0k a year in sales tax.  i do not understand this, could you please clarify ? if the sales tax is passed on to the customer, why is the business paying the tax ?  #  if what the consumer is willing to shell out is still $0, then the business is now keeping $0 of each sale instead of $0.   #  it is not that they have to pay extra on top of it.  it is like this say you have two businesses, selling a product which customers are willing to pay about $0 for, and let is say sales tax is 0: business a charges: $0 sales tax included business b charges: $0   tax either of these amount to the same thing, the business collects $0, and owes $0 in sales tax.  if there was no sales tax, then the business could still charge $0 since we have established that as what the consumer is willing to pay , but keep all of it.  now let is say sales tax was raised to 0.  if what the consumer is willing to shell out is still $0, then the business is now keeping $0 of each sale instead of $0.  the extent to which the idea that the tax is merely transferred between the state and the customer is actually true is only in the psychological sense of advertised price.  in other words, the only consolation to the small business is that they are allowed to advertise the before tax price instead of the after tax price.   #  after all, i would still be making, at the time, more than my set profit amount, so what is the problem ?  #  right, but the profit is what the stores are worried about.  if two stores were competing with eachother as is usually the case and both know they can make a reasonable amount of money selling the product at $0 before tax, why would they increase their price without sales tax ? would not they both put their prices down gradually to what it is now because they are competing ? if i know i can sell a product for 0 and make 0 profit on it, but suddenly i am able to charge 0, as is my competitor, would not it make sense to lower my price to 0 to attract business ? after all, i would still be making, at the time, more than my set profit amount, so what is the problem ? would not this continue, both stores dropping prices, until they were back where they started ?  #  or are you saying that small businesses are more space efficient than large businesses so that little mcgee is earns more money per square foot than mcdonald is ?  #  ah, that is too bad.  i knew this was just a tangent, but i was hoping that i was starting to understand your argument a bit better.  if i may ask another question, then, are you discounting property taxes entirely on small businesses that rent ? that is to say, consider a small, empty building.  if it were straight out bought by mcdonald is, they would have to pay $p in property tax each year.  if it were rented by little mcgee is, then little mcgee is would have to pay $r rent each year, which would presumably be high enough to cover $p as well as maintenance, profit for the owner of the property, etc.  are you saying that small businesses are not very affected by property tax because they do not pay that $p directly ? or are you saying that small businesses are more space efficient than large businesses so that little mcgee is earns more money per square foot than mcdonald is ?  #  yes, property tax does have an effect on renters, but it appears, in my experience, to be minimal.   #  you make a very good point here.  i will answer based on my own experience and attempt to explain it in the bigger picture.  yes, property tax does have an effect on renters, but it appears, in my experience, to be minimal.  my typical client pays about $0/month in rent for their business, none of them are particularly space intensive, so let is assume $0k is a better average for a small business.  that comes out to $0k a year.  i have worked for a few clients who owned their location, and one small real estate company as well.  of actual property costs, about half was typically mortgage payments principal   interest to the bank which on a side note brings me to what i think is the biggest problem with property tax, if a bank is owed x% of the value of a property on a property, it should pay x% of the property tax, not the debtor, but that is an issue for a separate debate , the majority of the other half was repairs/maintenance, utilities, insurance, and property mgmt, leaving property tax as less than 0 of the property expenses.  combining the info in the last two paragraphs means that the effect of the entirety of property taxes on rent for these businesses amounts to about $0k/year.  still a drop in the bucket compared to sales tax.  now obviously, my personal anecdotes can only go so far in convincing you.  two points regarding why i think property tax has less burden on smaller businesses that large: 0 exemptions, typically with property tax, the first $x of your property is value is exempt.  0 a small business cannot afford to hold onto land, buildings, equipment unless they are being used to constantly generate revenue.  if a business folds, they will sell their assets immediately or they will be taken from them .  this is much like the fact that a poor or middle class person cannot afford to own a home which they do not live in.  a large company can afford to hold on to unused land, vacant buildings, and stored equipment for much longer, so that a disproportionately large portion of un utilized property is in the hands of larger businesses.  this essentially addresses your question about space efficiency although it is not about space, per se.
i ran my own small restaurant for 0 years and then started my own bookkeeping practice that caters to small businesses.  in both the case of my restaurant, and in the case of my clients, property tax is always very minimal typically $0 $0 per year .  small businesses do not typically own a lot of property, most of them rent their building and have a few $0k in equipment at most.  income tax is not a business expense at all technically, and the small business owner would have to pay the same income tax not talking about fica btw if they worked for someone else.  nonetheless, plenty of small business owners do insist on paying their income taxes out of the business, which amounts to maybe $0/year not counting fica, which is a separate thing altogether from income tax .  now i realize that sales tax is technically a  pass through  tax, where the burden is shifted over to the consumer.  however, what the consumer is actually going to pay is what determines what they can afford to buy from you.  just because the price tag says $0, everyone know that means about $0.  the average small business, in my experience, easily pays over $0k a year in sales tax.  on top of this, having assisted with many people who are behind on paying all three types of taxes: sales tax agencies are by far the most ruthless and attach the most onerous penalties for late payment.  this is clear as day in my eyes, yet people who claim to be  pro small business,  vowing to fight to keep income and property taxes low, have no problem whatsoever with increasing sales tax.  how is this possible ?  #  in both the case of my restaurant, and in the case of my clients, property tax is always very minimal typically $0 $0 per year .   #  if your talking about the state of new jersey or downtown san diego, that simply is not the case.   # if your talking about the state of new jersey or downtown san diego, that simply is not the case.  and when you look at the  pass through  effect you mention, the corresponding rent increase to finance a business lease in soho for instance, bussiness is not being shut because of sales tax.  the rent property tax is too damn high.  cross sate lines into suburbia, at short hills mall, the same products ar not sold any cheaper.  even though sales tax is less than half what it is in soho.  but the rent normalizes business cost.  supply   demand equations effect the tax rate.  feedback loops.  competitive advantages   gentrification.  all those dynamic, changing aspects toward business cost   tax codes.  i would even go so far as to assert its neigh impossible, without a major study of irs records, to isolate property taxes as a business cost.  some states have zero sales tax.  one state has no property tax   many states have  tax free  zones.  we can look at the  cost of bussiness  but generalizations about property tax are usually meaningless once you cross a state line or travel between rural/urban areas.   #  however, what the consumer is actually going to pay is what determines what they can afford to buy from you.   # however, what the consumer is actually going to pay is what determines what they can afford to buy from you.  just because the price tag says $0, everyone know that means about $0.  the average small business, in my experience, easily pays over $0k a year in sales tax.  i do not understand this, could you please clarify ? if the sales tax is passed on to the customer, why is the business paying the tax ?  #  the extent to which the idea that the tax is merely transferred between the state and the customer is actually true is only in the psychological sense of advertised price.   #  it is not that they have to pay extra on top of it.  it is like this say you have two businesses, selling a product which customers are willing to pay about $0 for, and let is say sales tax is 0: business a charges: $0 sales tax included business b charges: $0   tax either of these amount to the same thing, the business collects $0, and owes $0 in sales tax.  if there was no sales tax, then the business could still charge $0 since we have established that as what the consumer is willing to pay , but keep all of it.  now let is say sales tax was raised to 0.  if what the consumer is willing to shell out is still $0, then the business is now keeping $0 of each sale instead of $0.  the extent to which the idea that the tax is merely transferred between the state and the customer is actually true is only in the psychological sense of advertised price.  in other words, the only consolation to the small business is that they are allowed to advertise the before tax price instead of the after tax price.   #  after all, i would still be making, at the time, more than my set profit amount, so what is the problem ?  #  right, but the profit is what the stores are worried about.  if two stores were competing with eachother as is usually the case and both know they can make a reasonable amount of money selling the product at $0 before tax, why would they increase their price without sales tax ? would not they both put their prices down gradually to what it is now because they are competing ? if i know i can sell a product for 0 and make 0 profit on it, but suddenly i am able to charge 0, as is my competitor, would not it make sense to lower my price to 0 to attract business ? after all, i would still be making, at the time, more than my set profit amount, so what is the problem ? would not this continue, both stores dropping prices, until they were back where they started ?  #  if i may ask another question, then, are you discounting property taxes entirely on small businesses that rent ?  #  ah, that is too bad.  i knew this was just a tangent, but i was hoping that i was starting to understand your argument a bit better.  if i may ask another question, then, are you discounting property taxes entirely on small businesses that rent ? that is to say, consider a small, empty building.  if it were straight out bought by mcdonald is, they would have to pay $p in property tax each year.  if it were rented by little mcgee is, then little mcgee is would have to pay $r rent each year, which would presumably be high enough to cover $p as well as maintenance, profit for the owner of the property, etc.  are you saying that small businesses are not very affected by property tax because they do not pay that $p directly ? or are you saying that small businesses are more space efficient than large businesses so that little mcgee is earns more money per square foot than mcdonald is ?
i ran my own small restaurant for 0 years and then started my own bookkeeping practice that caters to small businesses.  in both the case of my restaurant, and in the case of my clients, property tax is always very minimal typically $0 $0 per year .  small businesses do not typically own a lot of property, most of them rent their building and have a few $0k in equipment at most.  income tax is not a business expense at all technically, and the small business owner would have to pay the same income tax not talking about fica btw if they worked for someone else.  nonetheless, plenty of small business owners do insist on paying their income taxes out of the business, which amounts to maybe $0/year not counting fica, which is a separate thing altogether from income tax .  now i realize that sales tax is technically a  pass through  tax, where the burden is shifted over to the consumer.  however, what the consumer is actually going to pay is what determines what they can afford to buy from you.  just because the price tag says $0, everyone know that means about $0.  the average small business, in my experience, easily pays over $0k a year in sales tax.  on top of this, having assisted with many people who are behind on paying all three types of taxes: sales tax agencies are by far the most ruthless and attach the most onerous penalties for late payment.  this is clear as day in my eyes, yet people who claim to be  pro small business,  vowing to fight to keep income and property taxes low, have no problem whatsoever with increasing sales tax.  how is this possible ?  #  just because the price tag says $0, everyone know that means about $0.   #  this reminds of a study URL i read in behavioural economics that goes against your point.   # this reminds of a study URL i read in behavioural economics that goes against your point.  first, using a field experiment in a grocery store, we find that posting tax inclusive price tags reduces demand by 0 percent.  this implies that most customers do not take into account the full extent of the tax when it is not in the posted price.  sure we know that we will be paying a bit more to cover the taxes at the counter, but do we do the math so compulsively and accurately that it affects our spending behaviour ? especially considering the fact that food is an affordable consumable good, i think many economists would say no.  now what about a $0,0 car ? an extra percentage point in sales tax is a much bigger hit to the consumer, but someone that is on the lot looking for a $0,0 car would not consider the extra $0 bucks from an extra percentage point in sales tax to make or break his/her purchase.   #  it is not that they have to pay extra on top of it.   #  it is not that they have to pay extra on top of it.  it is like this say you have two businesses, selling a product which customers are willing to pay about $0 for, and let is say sales tax is 0: business a charges: $0 sales tax included business b charges: $0   tax either of these amount to the same thing, the business collects $0, and owes $0 in sales tax.  if there was no sales tax, then the business could still charge $0 since we have established that as what the consumer is willing to pay , but keep all of it.  now let is say sales tax was raised to 0.  if what the consumer is willing to shell out is still $0, then the business is now keeping $0 of each sale instead of $0.  the extent to which the idea that the tax is merely transferred between the state and the customer is actually true is only in the psychological sense of advertised price.  in other words, the only consolation to the small business is that they are allowed to advertise the before tax price instead of the after tax price.   #  if two stores were competing with eachother as is usually the case and both know they can make a reasonable amount of money selling the product at $0 before tax, why would they increase their price without sales tax ?  #  right, but the profit is what the stores are worried about.  if two stores were competing with eachother as is usually the case and both know they can make a reasonable amount of money selling the product at $0 before tax, why would they increase their price without sales tax ? would not they both put their prices down gradually to what it is now because they are competing ? if i know i can sell a product for 0 and make 0 profit on it, but suddenly i am able to charge 0, as is my competitor, would not it make sense to lower my price to 0 to attract business ? after all, i would still be making, at the time, more than my set profit amount, so what is the problem ? would not this continue, both stores dropping prices, until they were back where they started ?  #  that is to say, consider a small, empty building.   #  ah, that is too bad.  i knew this was just a tangent, but i was hoping that i was starting to understand your argument a bit better.  if i may ask another question, then, are you discounting property taxes entirely on small businesses that rent ? that is to say, consider a small, empty building.  if it were straight out bought by mcdonald is, they would have to pay $p in property tax each year.  if it were rented by little mcgee is, then little mcgee is would have to pay $r rent each year, which would presumably be high enough to cover $p as well as maintenance, profit for the owner of the property, etc.  are you saying that small businesses are not very affected by property tax because they do not pay that $p directly ? or are you saying that small businesses are more space efficient than large businesses so that little mcgee is earns more money per square foot than mcdonald is ?  #  this is much like the fact that a poor or middle class person cannot afford to own a home which they do not live in.   #  you make a very good point here.  i will answer based on my own experience and attempt to explain it in the bigger picture.  yes, property tax does have an effect on renters, but it appears, in my experience, to be minimal.  my typical client pays about $0/month in rent for their business, none of them are particularly space intensive, so let is assume $0k is a better average for a small business.  that comes out to $0k a year.  i have worked for a few clients who owned their location, and one small real estate company as well.  of actual property costs, about half was typically mortgage payments principal   interest to the bank which on a side note brings me to what i think is the biggest problem with property tax, if a bank is owed x% of the value of a property on a property, it should pay x% of the property tax, not the debtor, but that is an issue for a separate debate , the majority of the other half was repairs/maintenance, utilities, insurance, and property mgmt, leaving property tax as less than 0 of the property expenses.  combining the info in the last two paragraphs means that the effect of the entirety of property taxes on rent for these businesses amounts to about $0k/year.  still a drop in the bucket compared to sales tax.  now obviously, my personal anecdotes can only go so far in convincing you.  two points regarding why i think property tax has less burden on smaller businesses that large: 0 exemptions, typically with property tax, the first $x of your property is value is exempt.  0 a small business cannot afford to hold onto land, buildings, equipment unless they are being used to constantly generate revenue.  if a business folds, they will sell their assets immediately or they will be taken from them .  this is much like the fact that a poor or middle class person cannot afford to own a home which they do not live in.  a large company can afford to hold on to unused land, vacant buildings, and stored equipment for much longer, so that a disproportionately large portion of un utilized property is in the hands of larger businesses.  this essentially addresses your question about space efficiency although it is not about space, per se.
i have seen a lot of people upset about michigan is new abortion insurance opt out act.  basically, it prohibits insurance plans from automatically covering elective abortion, even in cases of rape or incest cases in which the mother is life is in danger can be covered and are not affected by the act .  in order to have abortion covered by insurance, a separate rider would need to be purchased ahead of time.  opponents have labeled it a  rape insurance  law, and criticize it for blaming female rape victims for not planning ahead and purchasing rape insurance.  i do not see it that way; the law is not designed to punish or blame anybody.  it is designed to allow people who view elective abortion as murder to avoid paying for it through their insurance premiums.  if somebody does not view abortion as murder, and feels that it would be an appropriate option in any situation, then they have the ability to pay for the right to end that life by purchasing the separate rider.  my belief is centered on the opinion that a fetus is an individual human being with the inalienable right to life regardless of the mother is desire.   #  i do not see it that way; the law is not designed to punish or blame anybody.   #  it is designed to allow people who view elective abortion as murder to avoid paying for it through their insurance premiums you are seeing it incorrectly.   #  if you are afraid that your insurance premium is funding someone else is abortion, then you should probably just stop paying for anything ever on the off chance that you are indirectly funding someone is ability to do something you morally disapprove of.  what if the three dollars you use to buy a loaf of bread at your local supermarket is going right into the paycheck of a methhead who will use it to pay for her abortions and meth ? and that sarcastic example does not even point out that that is not what insurance  is .  it is not some people saying  hey, let is take this check that /u/de0 wrote us and use it to fund the murder the babies of loose women !  .  are you also concerned that  your money  might be used to set the broken arm of a welfare mother ? it is designed to allow people who view elective abortion as murder to avoid paying for it through their insurance premiums you are seeing it incorrectly.  it is elective.  if you do not believe abortion is moral, then no one is forcing you to have one.  the only way you are paying for an abortion through insurance premiums is if you are having an abortion.  saying that you are paying for other people is abortions is the same logic as assuming that someone who works at the insurance company is mailroom is your employee because you wrote the company a check.   #  pregnancy and childbirth are things that actually kill people, not the mention the 0 month suffering it is for some people.   #  you are not legally obligated to care for your grandparents, are you ? a comparison that is often used in cases like this is that no one can ever force you to donate blood, or an organ you do not need to live.  say your 0 year old was in an accident and needed blood, and you were the only person available to give it to them.  the kid would die if you did not, and still you would have the right to refuse.  no one would ever force you to donate blood against your will, even though it is not dangerous and it does not take long.  no one could ever legally demand that you donate a kidney to your father, even if he needs it to live.  because your right to your own body wins over other people is right to live in both those cases.  so why should abortion be different ? pregnancy and childbirth are things that actually kill people, not the mention the 0 month suffering it is for some people.  why is it that you can be forced into  that  by law, but not into donating blood ? seems crazy to me.   #  on a bigger scale, this is the same with life/death abortion.   #  as a counter, most countries have a draft in which individuals  rights to safety are trumped in order to protect the many.  israel being an obvious example.  sometimes, like in the case of the civil war, the draft was necessary for the north to win and by extension to save an entire race of people from oppression, death, slavery.  taxation is another example.  it threatens your individual liberty, but secures the whole or the next generation like how nasa funding is not about us but about future generations .  people is rights are trumped all the time.  the abortion issue is a glaringly obvious example of it, because we trump a woman is right to get on a ride at six flags if she is obviously pregnant.  we do this because we want to protect the  other  member of society more than we want her to be free to have fun.  on a bigger scale, this is the same with life/death abortion.  0 of the time this is the product of consensual recreational sex, so most of the time the woman created her circumstance of pregnancy.  she then must take care of the child until such a time as she can give it up for adoption or seek alternative care.  as a society, we should provide support networks, mental, physical, and social.  we should not provide invasive surgery to  kill  the other.  the same way that we should not supply tools for a woman to smother her nursing child simply because of her won child is wanton dependency upon its mother.   #  your argument that  the woman creates the circumstances around her pregnancy  is flawed.   #  part of the issue is that there is no all or nothing mentality.  normally those are bad, but in this case, the lack of one only makes the issue more difficult.  yeah, we stop women from going on a roller coaster.  but we do not stop her from drinking or smoking.  how does that factor into protecting the  other  member of society ? your argument that  the woman creates the circumstances around her pregnancy  is flawed.  extend it to another circumstance: say i break my wrist falling over while i am ice skating.  should the doctor refuse to treat me because i created the circumstance around my injury ?  #  on the others, the son should not pay for the sins of the father.   #  because every life is individual and precious.  robbing someone of the only thing they ever truly have, existence, is the worst crime imaginable to me.  instances of life threatening to the mother is different, but those are the only abortions i think are okay.  the idea of having sex, then just getting an abortion to not have to deal with a kid is pretty messed up.  rape is the murkiest to me.  because on the one hand, it was not the mothers fault.  on the others, the son should not pay for the sins of the father.
like the title says, i want to change majors.  i have always loved computers, and loved working on them as i am the tech savvy person out of my friends/family .  however, i am not really into the whole programming aspect, which i now realize the computer science major mostly consists of.  i am very interested in the security and networking field, but i am not positive if the major i want to change to will better suit me ? i was hoping someone could help point me in the right direction, as i have been stressing out about it recently.  i am currently a junior in college.   #  however, i am not really into the whole programming aspect, which i now realize the computer science major mostly consists of.   #  are you into making loads and loads of money ?  # are you into making loads and loads of money ? then keep with it.  my brother is a programmer.  he literally has companies contacting him everyday wanting to hire him.  he eats lunch in a cafeteria where a guy is playing a ballroom piano.  a friend of mine as a javascript developer.  one day he said  hey, i am running out of money.   so he did 0 days of work and made 0k, and had enough for a few more months.  he can have work anytime he wants to, and he can earn like 0 an hour.  he is also a dj who travels around and parties and programs once in a while when he runs low on fun tickets.  so.  keep up the programming.  learn javascript, especially.   #  fewer people have the skills to get a cs degree, which makes it more valuable/coveted.   #  i think your chances of getting a job in computer security or networking would be far greater with a cs degree.   business , to me is a  lesser  degree meaning a default that anyone can do and you are just trying to get some general skills.  fewer people have the skills to get a cs degree, which makes it more valuable/coveted.  at least in theory, if you understand the underlying theory of cs then networking and infosec will be easier to learn.  have you considered speaking to a professor to see what you can do ? many schools offer independent study to upperclassmen so you can learn on your own.  now, if you do not think you can make it through with a cs degree, it is certainly better to get a degree in ba than no degree, but if you are wanting to get hired in the tech field, i would go with cs.   #  but the bottom line: it is easier to  trade down  from a harder degree to an easier career.   #  a good idea compared to what ? if you want to go into it, i think a cs degree is the strongest credential.  certainly a minor is better than not having it at all.  it also depends on what you want to do.  if you are looking for more of a project management sort of role, then business admin could be better.  but the bottom line: it is easier to  trade down  from a harder degree to an easier career.  but if you do not think you can swing a cs degree, your approach seems like a good compromise.   #  but there is no way in which it is  better  or  just as good  to just minor in it if you want to go into it.   #  well, without knowing where you want to go, it is hard to tell you how to get there.  that said, it looks like a lot of posters here have said pretty clearly,  a cs degree is better  for pretty much anything it related.  you keep responding to all of them,  yeah, but ca not get just do a minor ?   it almost feels like you are asking for permission.  if the idea of staying with cs makes you want to jump off a bridge, then do not do it.  it will make it harder to get a job in the field, but being miserable is not worth it.  but there is no way in which it is  better  or  just as good  to just minor in it if you want to go into it.  we ca not tell you how much you hate programming you need to do the cost benefit yourself.  but, strictly from a career point of view, based on your interests, stay with cs if you can.  if you ca not, then it is what it is and move on.   #  graduates qualify for and are productive in careers that include technology/business analyst, programmer/analyst, database analyst/administrator, network administrator, and help desk/technical support specialist.    #  i am not necessarily asking people if i can  just do a minor;  i was going to do that anyway.  i sort of want reassurance that the  business administration w/ a concentration in information systems  degree will allow me to get a job in the network and security management field.  here is a portion of the description for the major:  it is designed to produce a person with technical and managerial skills in business application development, project management, application analysis and design, data management, and network and security management.  graduates qualify for and are productive in careers that include technology/business analyst, programmer/analyst, database analyst/administrator, network administrator, and help desk/technical support specialist.   i want to know if the computer science degree technically is not a necessity for security and network management.  i love computers, and love working with technology in general.  however, i really am not a fan of learning how to program, and dealing with that side of computers for a career.  do you think this new major would provide what i need in order to get into the field ? i really do appreciate your taking the time to respond
there has been much fear about identity theft leading to restrictions on the use of social security numbers ssn by government and business.  there are laws in various states that limit the collection and use of this identification number.  but an ssn is no more sensitive than your name.  it is simply a method of identifying an individual.  the problem with identify theft is not that others have your personal information but how they can make use of it to open new accounts.  identity theft would be less of a problem if the process of creating new credit card accounts was more secure.  when you request a new credit card account it should only be sent to an address you currently live as shown on your credit report.  when you make purchases using a credit card they should only be sent to verified addresses.   #  identity theft would be less of a problem if the process of creating new credit card accounts was more secure.   #  when you request a new credit card account it should only be sent to an address you currently live as shown on your credit report.   # this is false.  having someone is ssn allows you to open financial accounts, while a name alone does not.  banks, service companies, and many other places that deal with sensitive information use your ssn as some sort of password to access your account.  ever been asked for the last 0 digits of your ssn ? when you request a new credit card account it should only be sent to an address you currently live as shown on your credit report.  how do you go about changing the address ? what piece of information do you think they will use to verify the right person is making the change ?  #  when the post office forwards the postcard to your new address you would contact the financial institution with the validation code on the postcard.   #  having just someone is ssn should not be enough to open a financial account.  if you open the account in person you should need a government issued photo id with an address that would need to match the address you want use with the account.  if you opened the account on the internet you would provide your address and the financial institution would confirm that you live at that address using your credit report.  they would send the credit card with return service requested so that it would not be forwarded.  to change your address with the financial institution you would tell them your new address and they would send a postcard to your old address with address service requested.  when the post office forwards the postcard to your new address you would contact the financial institution with the validation code on the postcard.  changing the address for your financial institution would require a postal change of address.  see URL  #  they would send the credit card with return service requested so that it would not be forwarded.   # i agree, but it  is  enough to do that.  you can open many accounts online without any id.  they would send the credit card with return service requested so that it would not be forwarded.  you are too focused on one scenario.  i can apply for a loan, receive the money, and default on it without having access to the correct mailbox.  i can also open an account, have the credit card sent to you, and then transfer an advance without the physical credit card to my account.  i have to mention that banks are not as secure as you think they are.  once they verify you with a spoken name, ssn, and address; they will send replacement cards to whatever address you specify.  i know this because i have had cards sent to my work address.  they will also happily change your address.  i am not sure what financial institution you use, but when i moved i just signed into my account over the internet and typed in the new address.  i got no postcards or any means of actual verification.  no it does not.  you either use your internet banking account or call them up and they happily change the address for you.   #  because giving your ssn to a bank or a resume is a way for them to validate who you are.   #  look, someone took my name and claimed it as their own.  no damage was done to my credit score or my finances.  that person eventually got a hold of my ssn when i was 0 years old, and when i tried to open my first bank account at 0, i found out that there was about $0k of hospital bills in my name.  wtf ? i had to go through a process to get a paper from the ss office that officially stated me as the person with my name and ssn.  now every time i want to open an account or get a loan or have to deal with hospital bills, i have to bring that paper with me every time before i can do anything, just to verify who i am.  because just having a ssn is verification itself.  you have a name and ssn ? you have just verified you are the person you claim you are, in the eyes of a bank or credit card company or even the irs.  with a random ssn, you can claim yourself as someone else.  why ? because giving your ssn to a bank or a resume is a way for them to validate who you are.  all it is is a test of validation, and if you can provide an ssn that way, then you are good to get a random job or screw up someone else is finances with loans/credit cards/etc.  this works on the assumption that you keep your ssn secret to yourself, and only you know it.  so, if someone takes my name and ssn, they can get a loan no problem with none of the consequences dumped on them.  it gets dumped on people like me.   #  the hospital bills should be unlinked from your social security number.   #  sorry about what happened to you.  the problem is the hospital did not verify the identify of their customer.  as your situation shows, just having a name and social security number is not validation of identity.  the hospital bills should be unlinked from your social security number.  the assumption that only you know your social security number is wrong.  your social security number is known by many including the government, employers, financial institutions and others.  so instead of trying and failing to keep it a secret it should just be published and not used as a password.
there has been much fear about identity theft leading to restrictions on the use of social security numbers ssn by government and business.  there are laws in various states that limit the collection and use of this identification number.  but an ssn is no more sensitive than your name.  it is simply a method of identifying an individual.  the problem with identify theft is not that others have your personal information but how they can make use of it to open new accounts.  identity theft would be less of a problem if the process of creating new credit card accounts was more secure.  when you request a new credit card account it should only be sent to an address you currently live as shown on your credit report.  when you make purchases using a credit card they should only be sent to verified addresses.   #  identity theft would be less of a problem if the process of creating new credit card accounts was more secure.   #  when you request a new credit card account it should only be sent to an address you currently live as shown on your credit report.   #  i would venture to say that originally, yes, the ssn is not sensitive.  for a while, ssn was used for benefits purposes only, not identification, and was explicitly stated to not be used for id purposes.  however, times change.  one of those changes is that ssn turned into a piece of sensitive information.  it is made it so that an ssn  is  enough to open an account nowadays, whether we like it or not.  it used to be up until fairly recently that the first 0 digits of a social security number were based on location of issuance, the middle two were based on a group number that follows a certain pattern , and then the last four would essentially be your serial number in that location and group.  if i have someone is name, birthday, and the last four of someone is social well, you are screwed.  i have got everything i need.  the government realized the flaw in this and now all 0 numbers are randomized.  why ? because ssns are sensitive and need protected.  when you request a new credit card account it should only be sent to an address you currently live as shown on your credit report.  when you make purchases using a credit card they should only be sent to verified addresses.  i find a problem with this.  it may be  less  prevalent, but a more physically based rather than electronically based identity thief could easily circumnavigate this.  most people are not home 0/0 if you are, i feel bad for you , and so all it would take is an identity thief who, by this point, has already dug through your trash to get information to stop by after the ups man delivers the package, and you are never the wiser.  i can do everything through my neighbor is address without my neighbor ever knowing.  you might cut back on the electronic aspect of id theft, but criminals roll with the punches.  i am with you that we should probably change the system and how it works, but i must ultimately conclude that at this point in time, our ssns are sensitive and must be protected.   #  banks, service companies, and many other places that deal with sensitive information use your ssn as some sort of password to access your account.   # this is false.  having someone is ssn allows you to open financial accounts, while a name alone does not.  banks, service companies, and many other places that deal with sensitive information use your ssn as some sort of password to access your account.  ever been asked for the last 0 digits of your ssn ? when you request a new credit card account it should only be sent to an address you currently live as shown on your credit report.  how do you go about changing the address ? what piece of information do you think they will use to verify the right person is making the change ?  #  when the post office forwards the postcard to your new address you would contact the financial institution with the validation code on the postcard.   #  having just someone is ssn should not be enough to open a financial account.  if you open the account in person you should need a government issued photo id with an address that would need to match the address you want use with the account.  if you opened the account on the internet you would provide your address and the financial institution would confirm that you live at that address using your credit report.  they would send the credit card with return service requested so that it would not be forwarded.  to change your address with the financial institution you would tell them your new address and they would send a postcard to your old address with address service requested.  when the post office forwards the postcard to your new address you would contact the financial institution with the validation code on the postcard.  changing the address for your financial institution would require a postal change of address.  see URL  #  once they verify you with a spoken name, ssn, and address; they will send replacement cards to whatever address you specify.   # i agree, but it  is  enough to do that.  you can open many accounts online without any id.  they would send the credit card with return service requested so that it would not be forwarded.  you are too focused on one scenario.  i can apply for a loan, receive the money, and default on it without having access to the correct mailbox.  i can also open an account, have the credit card sent to you, and then transfer an advance without the physical credit card to my account.  i have to mention that banks are not as secure as you think they are.  once they verify you with a spoken name, ssn, and address; they will send replacement cards to whatever address you specify.  i know this because i have had cards sent to my work address.  they will also happily change your address.  i am not sure what financial institution you use, but when i moved i just signed into my account over the internet and typed in the new address.  i got no postcards or any means of actual verification.  no it does not.  you either use your internet banking account or call them up and they happily change the address for you.   #  because giving your ssn to a bank or a resume is a way for them to validate who you are.   #  look, someone took my name and claimed it as their own.  no damage was done to my credit score or my finances.  that person eventually got a hold of my ssn when i was 0 years old, and when i tried to open my first bank account at 0, i found out that there was about $0k of hospital bills in my name.  wtf ? i had to go through a process to get a paper from the ss office that officially stated me as the person with my name and ssn.  now every time i want to open an account or get a loan or have to deal with hospital bills, i have to bring that paper with me every time before i can do anything, just to verify who i am.  because just having a ssn is verification itself.  you have a name and ssn ? you have just verified you are the person you claim you are, in the eyes of a bank or credit card company or even the irs.  with a random ssn, you can claim yourself as someone else.  why ? because giving your ssn to a bank or a resume is a way for them to validate who you are.  all it is is a test of validation, and if you can provide an ssn that way, then you are good to get a random job or screw up someone else is finances with loans/credit cards/etc.  this works on the assumption that you keep your ssn secret to yourself, and only you know it.  so, if someone takes my name and ssn, they can get a loan no problem with none of the consequences dumped on them.  it gets dumped on people like me.
this is not a strongly held view of mine, and i am very open to changing it, but it is something i have thought for quite a while now.  basically, i do not see why there exist separate men is and women is bathrooms.  the following are my thoughts:   there is no reason a woman could not use a bathroom which also had a urinal, and there is no reason a man could not use a stall in place of a urinal.  we are just in there to use the bathroom.  if you are using a stall, there is no way to tell the gender of another person anyway, so what is it matter if they are standing or sitting ? and if a guy is using a urinal, what is it matter ? his back is to you, you ca not see anything.    in places with unequal numbers of men and women like an office , separating can lead to one bathroom being overfull while the other has perfectly usable stalls that people do not use because they are not the right gender.    as trans/queer gendered people are coming out and becoming more accepted, distinguishing between two genders for the bathroom just reinforces a gender binary that could potentially alienate them.    there are already unisex and family bathrooms some places that are used with no complaint.    that whole  separate but equal  problem probably fits in here somewhere.  i understand and accept that places susceptible to potential harassment should probably segregate the bathrooms bars, clubs, locker rooms, possibly high schools but for restaurants and lots of businesses, it seems kind of silly to me.  so convince me otherwise.   #  i understand and accept that places susceptible to potential harassment should probably segregate the bathrooms bars, clubs, locker rooms, possibly high schools but for restaurants and lots of businesses, it seems kind of silly to me.   #  i would argue that  most  places are susceptible to potential harassment.   # i would argue that  most  places are susceptible to potential harassment.  harassment is not determined by the place, it is determined by the people involved; and in modern u. s.  society as i assume you are talking about harassment is a very common issue.  here are some places that you left off of your list that i think harassment is already a problem, and would be exacerbated by unisex bathrooms.  corporate offices   rest stops   retail stores   fast food restaurants   any educational institution not just high schools   government buildings   college campus buildings after that, what is really left other than private residences ? now, i agree that those who do not identify on the gender binary are helped by unisex restrooms, and i think that offering such bathrooms as an  option  is a fantastic idea.  i am also of the mind that single person restrooms can and should be unisex individual room with door, mirror, toilet, sink.  however, i think that there are many times that women just want some time away from the dominating male forces in their environment, be that an office, bar, school, or late night fast food joint when a bunch of creepos are  giving them compliments.   hell, i work in an office on a team of 0 women.  i like having my men is room, and they sure do not want me in their bathroom.  i think that removing that option causes more problems than it solves.  why not just offer unisex as a third option ?  #  until people become completely comfortable with the possibility of people of a different gender seeing them partially naked, and with seeing people of a different gender partly naked, this kind of proposal simply will never fly.   #  stalls and urinals do not perfectly hide the person inside them.  until people become completely comfortable with the possibility of people of a different gender seeing them partially naked, and with seeing people of a different gender partly naked, this kind of proposal simply will never fly.  it is one thing to say that  single toilet  bathrooms with locking doors should be gender neutral.  that is actually feasible, and i would agree with that view.  but multi person bathrooms ca not be genderless without a massive change in culture taking place first.  now, if you want to make an argument that people should not care about this, fine.  i would even agree with that.  but they do.  if absolutely nothing else, it is going to make it  very  hard to have a law against flashing that applies in a bathroom.  and creeps will take advantage of that.   #  instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.   # that is actually feasible, and i would agree with that view.  why not combine these ? instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  while it would cost more than the current stalls which, in turn, cost more than curtains or something , it would be mitigated by only needing one bathroom, with fewer stalls overall.  urinals could also be together in their own  istall  if necessary.  this way, the area with sinks is still a common area in which you would expect no more nudity than elsewhere in the building, while the areas where you are exposed are even more secluded than they are currently.  or, to compromise even more, just consolidate the portion of the bathroom with sinks, with a room on either side leading to male and female stalls.   #  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.   # instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  while it would cost more than the current stalls which, in turn, cost more than curtains or something , it would be mitigated by only needing one bathroom, with fewer stalls overall.  urinals could also be together in their own  istall  if necessary.  this way, the area with sinks is still a common area in which you would expect no more nudity than elsewhere in the building, while the areas where you are exposed are even more secluded than they are currently.  there is nothing actually preventing a bathroom of this kind from being built i am in construction, there is no code that prevents this here in san francisco .  you are really just creating a bunch of unisex bathrooms at that point.  as long as you follow ada requirements this is ok.  the issue is, again, cultural.  i have seen sinks installed at a location outside the bathrooms themselves, in a central location between the rooms with toilets/urinals.  works fine.   #  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.   # instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  a row of porta potties at a fair/show/festival accomplishes the same thing .
this is not a strongly held view of mine, and i am very open to changing it, but it is something i have thought for quite a while now.  basically, i do not see why there exist separate men is and women is bathrooms.  the following are my thoughts:   there is no reason a woman could not use a bathroom which also had a urinal, and there is no reason a man could not use a stall in place of a urinal.  we are just in there to use the bathroom.  if you are using a stall, there is no way to tell the gender of another person anyway, so what is it matter if they are standing or sitting ? and if a guy is using a urinal, what is it matter ? his back is to you, you ca not see anything.    in places with unequal numbers of men and women like an office , separating can lead to one bathroom being overfull while the other has perfectly usable stalls that people do not use because they are not the right gender.    as trans/queer gendered people are coming out and becoming more accepted, distinguishing between two genders for the bathroom just reinforces a gender binary that could potentially alienate them.    there are already unisex and family bathrooms some places that are used with no complaint.    that whole  separate but equal  problem probably fits in here somewhere.  i understand and accept that places susceptible to potential harassment should probably segregate the bathrooms bars, clubs, locker rooms, possibly high schools but for restaurants and lots of businesses, it seems kind of silly to me.  so convince me otherwise.   #  in places with unequal numbers of men and women like an office , separating can lead to one bathroom being overfull while the other has perfectly usable stalls that people do not use because they are not the right gender.   #  so put in bathrooms with a larger number of stalls.   #  i personally do not want to risk seeing some man is penis when i am using the bathroom.  i also do not want a man in the next stall when i am emptying my diva cup or changing a pad.  it would be very uncomfortable.  a lot of women feel the same way.  probably a lot of men do too.  so put in bathrooms with a larger number of stalls.  what about the huge number of people who will feel really uncomfortable with being forced to use a unisex bathroom ? because that is important too.  the only solution i can think of would be to make sure there are unisex bathrooms available as well as more  traditional  ones. then everyone is happy.  there are often gender segregated bathrooms alongside those ones.  and the unisex/family bathrooms are very often just a large room with one toilet in them rather than a huge bathroom with a dozen stalls.  i disagree.  biologically, in some ways, men and women are different.  we just  are , and it is not a bad thing at all.  god/evolution saw fit to make us gendered.  so in that regard, i do not agree that gendered bathrooms falls under the category of  separate but equal .   #  but multi person bathrooms ca not be genderless without a massive change in culture taking place first.   #  stalls and urinals do not perfectly hide the person inside them.  until people become completely comfortable with the possibility of people of a different gender seeing them partially naked, and with seeing people of a different gender partly naked, this kind of proposal simply will never fly.  it is one thing to say that  single toilet  bathrooms with locking doors should be gender neutral.  that is actually feasible, and i would agree with that view.  but multi person bathrooms ca not be genderless without a massive change in culture taking place first.  now, if you want to make an argument that people should not care about this, fine.  i would even agree with that.  but they do.  if absolutely nothing else, it is going to make it  very  hard to have a law against flashing that applies in a bathroom.  and creeps will take advantage of that.   #  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.   # that is actually feasible, and i would agree with that view.  why not combine these ? instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  while it would cost more than the current stalls which, in turn, cost more than curtains or something , it would be mitigated by only needing one bathroom, with fewer stalls overall.  urinals could also be together in their own  istall  if necessary.  this way, the area with sinks is still a common area in which you would expect no more nudity than elsewhere in the building, while the areas where you are exposed are even more secluded than they are currently.  or, to compromise even more, just consolidate the portion of the bathroom with sinks, with a room on either side leading to male and female stalls.   #  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.   # instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  while it would cost more than the current stalls which, in turn, cost more than curtains or something , it would be mitigated by only needing one bathroom, with fewer stalls overall.  urinals could also be together in their own  istall  if necessary.  this way, the area with sinks is still a common area in which you would expect no more nudity than elsewhere in the building, while the areas where you are exposed are even more secluded than they are currently.  there is nothing actually preventing a bathroom of this kind from being built i am in construction, there is no code that prevents this here in san francisco .  you are really just creating a bunch of unisex bathrooms at that point.  as long as you follow ada requirements this is ok.  the issue is, again, cultural.  i have seen sinks installed at a location outside the bathrooms themselves, in a central location between the rooms with toilets/urinals.  works fine.   #  instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.   # instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  a row of porta potties at a fair/show/festival accomplishes the same thing .
this is not a strongly held view of mine, and i am very open to changing it, but it is something i have thought for quite a while now.  basically, i do not see why there exist separate men is and women is bathrooms.  the following are my thoughts:   there is no reason a woman could not use a bathroom which also had a urinal, and there is no reason a man could not use a stall in place of a urinal.  we are just in there to use the bathroom.  if you are using a stall, there is no way to tell the gender of another person anyway, so what is it matter if they are standing or sitting ? and if a guy is using a urinal, what is it matter ? his back is to you, you ca not see anything.    in places with unequal numbers of men and women like an office , separating can lead to one bathroom being overfull while the other has perfectly usable stalls that people do not use because they are not the right gender.    as trans/queer gendered people are coming out and becoming more accepted, distinguishing between two genders for the bathroom just reinforces a gender binary that could potentially alienate them.    there are already unisex and family bathrooms some places that are used with no complaint.    that whole  separate but equal  problem probably fits in here somewhere.  i understand and accept that places susceptible to potential harassment should probably segregate the bathrooms bars, clubs, locker rooms, possibly high schools but for restaurants and lots of businesses, it seems kind of silly to me.  so convince me otherwise.   #  as trans/queer gendered people are coming out and becoming more accepted, distinguishing between two genders for the bathroom just reinforces a gender binary that could potentially alienate them.   #  what about the huge number of people who will feel really uncomfortable with being forced to use a unisex bathroom ?  #  i personally do not want to risk seeing some man is penis when i am using the bathroom.  i also do not want a man in the next stall when i am emptying my diva cup or changing a pad.  it would be very uncomfortable.  a lot of women feel the same way.  probably a lot of men do too.  so put in bathrooms with a larger number of stalls.  what about the huge number of people who will feel really uncomfortable with being forced to use a unisex bathroom ? because that is important too.  the only solution i can think of would be to make sure there are unisex bathrooms available as well as more  traditional  ones. then everyone is happy.  there are often gender segregated bathrooms alongside those ones.  and the unisex/family bathrooms are very often just a large room with one toilet in them rather than a huge bathroom with a dozen stalls.  i disagree.  biologically, in some ways, men and women are different.  we just  are , and it is not a bad thing at all.  god/evolution saw fit to make us gendered.  so in that regard, i do not agree that gendered bathrooms falls under the category of  separate but equal .   #  if absolutely nothing else, it is going to make it  very  hard to have a law against flashing that applies in a bathroom.   #  stalls and urinals do not perfectly hide the person inside them.  until people become completely comfortable with the possibility of people of a different gender seeing them partially naked, and with seeing people of a different gender partly naked, this kind of proposal simply will never fly.  it is one thing to say that  single toilet  bathrooms with locking doors should be gender neutral.  that is actually feasible, and i would agree with that view.  but multi person bathrooms ca not be genderless without a massive change in culture taking place first.  now, if you want to make an argument that people should not care about this, fine.  i would even agree with that.  but they do.  if absolutely nothing else, it is going to make it  very  hard to have a law against flashing that applies in a bathroom.  and creeps will take advantage of that.   #  that is actually feasible, and i would agree with that view.   # that is actually feasible, and i would agree with that view.  why not combine these ? instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  while it would cost more than the current stalls which, in turn, cost more than curtains or something , it would be mitigated by only needing one bathroom, with fewer stalls overall.  urinals could also be together in their own  istall  if necessary.  this way, the area with sinks is still a common area in which you would expect no more nudity than elsewhere in the building, while the areas where you are exposed are even more secluded than they are currently.  or, to compromise even more, just consolidate the portion of the bathroom with sinks, with a room on either side leading to male and female stalls.   #  i have seen sinks installed at a location outside the bathrooms themselves, in a central location between the rooms with toilets/urinals.   # instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  while it would cost more than the current stalls which, in turn, cost more than curtains or something , it would be mitigated by only needing one bathroom, with fewer stalls overall.  urinals could also be together in their own  istall  if necessary.  this way, the area with sinks is still a common area in which you would expect no more nudity than elsewhere in the building, while the areas where you are exposed are even more secluded than they are currently.  there is nothing actually preventing a bathroom of this kind from being built i am in construction, there is no code that prevents this here in san francisco .  you are really just creating a bunch of unisex bathrooms at that point.  as long as you follow ada requirements this is ok.  the issue is, again, cultural.  i have seen sinks installed at a location outside the bathrooms themselves, in a central location between the rooms with toilets/urinals.  works fine.   #  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.   # instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  a row of porta potties at a fair/show/festival accomplishes the same thing .
this is not a strongly held view of mine, and i am very open to changing it, but it is something i have thought for quite a while now.  basically, i do not see why there exist separate men is and women is bathrooms.  the following are my thoughts:   there is no reason a woman could not use a bathroom which also had a urinal, and there is no reason a man could not use a stall in place of a urinal.  we are just in there to use the bathroom.  if you are using a stall, there is no way to tell the gender of another person anyway, so what is it matter if they are standing or sitting ? and if a guy is using a urinal, what is it matter ? his back is to you, you ca not see anything.    in places with unequal numbers of men and women like an office , separating can lead to one bathroom being overfull while the other has perfectly usable stalls that people do not use because they are not the right gender.    as trans/queer gendered people are coming out and becoming more accepted, distinguishing between two genders for the bathroom just reinforces a gender binary that could potentially alienate them.    there are already unisex and family bathrooms some places that are used with no complaint.    that whole  separate but equal  problem probably fits in here somewhere.  i understand and accept that places susceptible to potential harassment should probably segregate the bathrooms bars, clubs, locker rooms, possibly high schools but for restaurants and lots of businesses, it seems kind of silly to me.  so convince me otherwise.   #  there are already unisex and family bathrooms some places that are used with no complaint.   #  there are often gender segregated bathrooms alongside those ones.   #  i personally do not want to risk seeing some man is penis when i am using the bathroom.  i also do not want a man in the next stall when i am emptying my diva cup or changing a pad.  it would be very uncomfortable.  a lot of women feel the same way.  probably a lot of men do too.  so put in bathrooms with a larger number of stalls.  what about the huge number of people who will feel really uncomfortable with being forced to use a unisex bathroom ? because that is important too.  the only solution i can think of would be to make sure there are unisex bathrooms available as well as more  traditional  ones. then everyone is happy.  there are often gender segregated bathrooms alongside those ones.  and the unisex/family bathrooms are very often just a large room with one toilet in them rather than a huge bathroom with a dozen stalls.  i disagree.  biologically, in some ways, men and women are different.  we just  are , and it is not a bad thing at all.  god/evolution saw fit to make us gendered.  so in that regard, i do not agree that gendered bathrooms falls under the category of  separate but equal .   #  but multi person bathrooms ca not be genderless without a massive change in culture taking place first.   #  stalls and urinals do not perfectly hide the person inside them.  until people become completely comfortable with the possibility of people of a different gender seeing them partially naked, and with seeing people of a different gender partly naked, this kind of proposal simply will never fly.  it is one thing to say that  single toilet  bathrooms with locking doors should be gender neutral.  that is actually feasible, and i would agree with that view.  but multi person bathrooms ca not be genderless without a massive change in culture taking place first.  now, if you want to make an argument that people should not care about this, fine.  i would even agree with that.  but they do.  if absolutely nothing else, it is going to make it  very  hard to have a law against flashing that applies in a bathroom.  and creeps will take advantage of that.   #  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.   # that is actually feasible, and i would agree with that view.  why not combine these ? instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  while it would cost more than the current stalls which, in turn, cost more than curtains or something , it would be mitigated by only needing one bathroom, with fewer stalls overall.  urinals could also be together in their own  istall  if necessary.  this way, the area with sinks is still a common area in which you would expect no more nudity than elsewhere in the building, while the areas where you are exposed are even more secluded than they are currently.  or, to compromise even more, just consolidate the portion of the bathroom with sinks, with a room on either side leading to male and female stalls.   #  you are really just creating a bunch of unisex bathrooms at that point.   # instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  while it would cost more than the current stalls which, in turn, cost more than curtains or something , it would be mitigated by only needing one bathroom, with fewer stalls overall.  urinals could also be together in their own  istall  if necessary.  this way, the area with sinks is still a common area in which you would expect no more nudity than elsewhere in the building, while the areas where you are exposed are even more secluded than they are currently.  there is nothing actually preventing a bathroom of this kind from being built i am in construction, there is no code that prevents this here in san francisco .  you are really just creating a bunch of unisex bathrooms at that point.  as long as you follow ada requirements this is ok.  the issue is, again, cultural.  i have seen sinks installed at a location outside the bathrooms themselves, in a central location between the rooms with toilets/urinals.  works fine.   #  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.   # instead of the current stalls, which typically have large 0 0  or more gaps at the tops and bottoms and small gaps usually under 0/0  around the doors, have the stalls go from floor to ceiling.  if ventilation is needed, there are designs out there that allow for airflow without allowing people to see through them.  as for the door, some stalls have a lip piece on the door that covers the gap when the door is closed.  this would effectively make the stall completely self contained.  a row of porta potties at a fair/show/festival accomplishes the same thing .
this cmv is to see if i am way off base here as i suspect i am not but.  the basic premise here is that if i give you a coursework that is due by a certain date but the steps leading up to it need to be done in advance of that date, you need to take responsibility for doing them in time.  the specific scenario is this: we have a sweet mechanical arm that students need to use to test a program i have them write for a coursework.  there is only one mechanical arm it is expensive and 0 students need to use it for about 0 minutes each to test their work.  if their program does not work they will need to edit it and come back and test it again.  we set up an online system to book a 0 minute slot and use the arm over a period of 0 weeks between 0 am and 0 pm so there are 0 slots 0 each or 0 0 each in office hours.  eta: they have 0 weeks in total to do the coursework so 0 weeks to write the program prior to slots being available and the length of time to write the program is, i guess, about 0 hours for the average student.  this is not an issue with not having time and students who have been annoyed have say as much.  some students see the deadline of the coursework and decide to start doing the coursework on that day.  it turns out that the mechanical arm is fully booked on the last day and some of these students feel it is unfair that they are not going to be able to get good marks for this coursework.  i feel that even if we did not highlight the fact you need to start in advance we do and even if we did not suggest booking two slots some time apart to test your work in advance we do that it is totally reasonable to expect students all over 0 to manage their own time and work in relation to limited resources.  am i being unreasonable ?  #  some students see the deadline of the coursework and decide to start doing the coursework on that day.   #  it turns out that the mechanical arm is fully booked on the last day and some of these students feel it is unfair that they are not going to be able to get good marks for this coursework.   #  i feel it is not your job to monitor them to make sure they are doing each step in enough time to complete.  that is up to them to figure out.  these are adults, not children.  i think it is not reasonable for you to monitor and grade their progress.  that puts extra work on you ! it turns out that the mechanical arm is fully booked on the last day and some of these students feel it is unfair that they are not going to be able to get good marks for this coursework.  they are whining because they messed up and they are looking for someone else to blame.  in some of my college classes not turning a project in on the due date would be a massive penalty or a zero.  you are not doing them any favors by holding their hands.  unfair would be if you had 0 students and only 0 time slots.  i have taken a few classes where there were exactly enough lab time slots as there are students, and if something comes up its the students job to trade time slots with someone else.  let them fail.  they will whine but most of them will change their behavior and book the machine time immediately.  there will be a few who will fail no matter how many extensions you give them, and that is sad but some people are not prepared for college.  as long as your consistent and you do not give any students any special treatment, they will respect you.  they may whine a bit and say your class is hard.  but challenging them is the best way for them to get better.   #  if you are talking about seniors or grad students, then i think you are nailing it, because that is the real world.   #  i think a lot of it depends on the level at which you are teaching.  if this is undergrad sophomores, then i would say maybe they need a little more structure in the assignment.  like someone else suggested, maybe set a preliminary deadline for a rough, working draft of the code just make sure it compiles, grade them on the formatting, whatever .  then move onto phase 0 and start testing.  still definitely leave it up to them to schedule time, because that is an important lesson to learn, how to manage shared resources.  especially if you are talking about a field like computing or engineering.  there are finite labs and computer cores out there.  if you are talking about seniors or grad students, then i think you are nailing it, because that is the real world.  the only deadline is the last one, and it is up to you to figure out how to plan the steps along the way.  there will be no excuses when it is not done in time, and the real world does not give partial credit because  you really wanted to get it done.    #  to learn how to allocate their time properly across a semester.   #  well that is why they are in college, is not it ? to learn how to allocate their time properly across a semester.  independent time management is one of the most important skills you pick up in college.  the average undergraduate has gone through 0 years of schooling where every day is regimented for them down to the hour, where coursework is picked up for a week, quizzed, then forgotten for the next batch of coursework.  these are students who have never had to structure more than one week for a project, and you are confused as to why they ca not structure four months ?  #  time management is not something you have to actively teach any more than study habits.   #  time management is not something you have to actively teach any more than study habits.  your job as an instructor is to provide a rough outline your students can utilize to hone their skills.  consider this: do you structure your individual lessons so that it is easy for your students to take notes ? do you write prominent headlines in your powerpoint slides ? do you show examples before moving on to the next topic ? these are all ways to help students improve their study habits because you are making it easier for them to organize the information in a way conducive to studying.  these are all things you would ideally be doing with your deadlines, as well.  as much as i despised having to  show my work  with rough drafts and the like, having a semester project divided up into one month draft submissions gives students the freedom to work on their time management without potentially wasting four months of class time.  if that first month block did not produce a solid draft, they have another month to change their strategy.  then the next month they can refine it.  then by the final month their project looks good, they feel confident in the way they have spent their time, they can see how their project has improved which is a big deal for undergraduates , and, most important, you can pride yourself on being a damn good instructor who teaches  for  his students and not  at  his students.   #  sure, i do all those things when i lecture, which is not every semester .   #  sure, i do all those things when i lecture, which is not every semester .  i teach at least one lab a semester, though, and the group projects we do in those labs are structured like this.  there are a lot of people in this thread saying that that is not enough, though, and basically students just should not be expected to be capable of time management without huge amounts of hand holding.  one thing, though the projects that i and op assign are not measured in months, but in  weeks .  op had 0 weeks, i can usually give my students as many as six weeks.
this cmv is to see if i am way off base here as i suspect i am not but.  the basic premise here is that if i give you a coursework that is due by a certain date but the steps leading up to it need to be done in advance of that date, you need to take responsibility for doing them in time.  the specific scenario is this: we have a sweet mechanical arm that students need to use to test a program i have them write for a coursework.  there is only one mechanical arm it is expensive and 0 students need to use it for about 0 minutes each to test their work.  if their program does not work they will need to edit it and come back and test it again.  we set up an online system to book a 0 minute slot and use the arm over a period of 0 weeks between 0 am and 0 pm so there are 0 slots 0 each or 0 0 each in office hours.  eta: they have 0 weeks in total to do the coursework so 0 weeks to write the program prior to slots being available and the length of time to write the program is, i guess, about 0 hours for the average student.  this is not an issue with not having time and students who have been annoyed have say as much.  some students see the deadline of the coursework and decide to start doing the coursework on that day.  it turns out that the mechanical arm is fully booked on the last day and some of these students feel it is unfair that they are not going to be able to get good marks for this coursework.  i feel that even if we did not highlight the fact you need to start in advance we do and even if we did not suggest booking two slots some time apart to test your work in advance we do that it is totally reasonable to expect students all over 0 to manage their own time and work in relation to limited resources.  am i being unreasonable ?  #  it turns out that the mechanical arm is fully booked on the last day and some of these students feel it is unfair that they are not going to be able to get good marks for this coursework.   #  why do you not cut the deadline off at a time that you can guarantee each student will have access to the machine ?  # why do you not cut the deadline off at a time that you can guarantee each student will have access to the machine ? you allow them to wait until the last minute, as you should, but then punish them because  other  people have also waited and now nobody can finish ? you have created this problem.  they should not be punished for problems you created.  you need to make a solid due date, and a separate  sign up to use the arm  date.  the fact that there are no different dates given to the students is  your  fault, and the fact that so many students are being punished for your faults is sketchy teaching.  i would hate to pay for an education, only to be screwed over by a teacher who cannot properly set scheduled due dates and time frames for laboratory use.  expecting students to do this is absurd.  you are payed to teach the course and to set up the curriculum for the students, and it would appear that some of them have serious issues with your course formatting.  and, with good reason it would seem.   #  there will be no excuses when it is not done in time, and the real world does not give partial credit because  you really wanted to get it done.    #  i think a lot of it depends on the level at which you are teaching.  if this is undergrad sophomores, then i would say maybe they need a little more structure in the assignment.  like someone else suggested, maybe set a preliminary deadline for a rough, working draft of the code just make sure it compiles, grade them on the formatting, whatever .  then move onto phase 0 and start testing.  still definitely leave it up to them to schedule time, because that is an important lesson to learn, how to manage shared resources.  especially if you are talking about a field like computing or engineering.  there are finite labs and computer cores out there.  if you are talking about seniors or grad students, then i think you are nailing it, because that is the real world.  the only deadline is the last one, and it is up to you to figure out how to plan the steps along the way.  there will be no excuses when it is not done in time, and the real world does not give partial credit because  you really wanted to get it done.    #  these are students who have never had to structure more than one week for a project, and you are confused as to why they ca not structure four months ?  #  well that is why they are in college, is not it ? to learn how to allocate their time properly across a semester.  independent time management is one of the most important skills you pick up in college.  the average undergraduate has gone through 0 years of schooling where every day is regimented for them down to the hour, where coursework is picked up for a week, quizzed, then forgotten for the next batch of coursework.  these are students who have never had to structure more than one week for a project, and you are confused as to why they ca not structure four months ?  #  these are all ways to help students improve their study habits because you are making it easier for them to organize the information in a way conducive to studying.   #  time management is not something you have to actively teach any more than study habits.  your job as an instructor is to provide a rough outline your students can utilize to hone their skills.  consider this: do you structure your individual lessons so that it is easy for your students to take notes ? do you write prominent headlines in your powerpoint slides ? do you show examples before moving on to the next topic ? these are all ways to help students improve their study habits because you are making it easier for them to organize the information in a way conducive to studying.  these are all things you would ideally be doing with your deadlines, as well.  as much as i despised having to  show my work  with rough drafts and the like, having a semester project divided up into one month draft submissions gives students the freedom to work on their time management without potentially wasting four months of class time.  if that first month block did not produce a solid draft, they have another month to change their strategy.  then the next month they can refine it.  then by the final month their project looks good, they feel confident in the way they have spent their time, they can see how their project has improved which is a big deal for undergraduates , and, most important, you can pride yourself on being a damn good instructor who teaches  for  his students and not  at  his students.   #  there are a lot of people in this thread saying that that is not enough, though, and basically students just should not be expected to be capable of time management without huge amounts of hand holding.   #  sure, i do all those things when i lecture, which is not every semester .  i teach at least one lab a semester, though, and the group projects we do in those labs are structured like this.  there are a lot of people in this thread saying that that is not enough, though, and basically students just should not be expected to be capable of time management without huge amounts of hand holding.  one thing, though the projects that i and op assign are not measured in months, but in  weeks .  op had 0 weeks, i can usually give my students as many as six weeks.
first off, i want this to be usa specific, simply because it is the only government i have lived under, maybe if there is some really good counterpoint with another nation i would hear it, but i am mainly looking for answers related to the us government.  okay, i am not suggesting the removal of government, let is get that out first.  i know that the  real  purpose of a government is to protect certain values that a society believes are rights of the citizens it is the government is job to ensure that the food is safe, or that some random business allows for equal opportunity i understand that.   here is my general point.   there is not a single example of a government organization working with greater efficiency than a corporate or private sector competitor.  this could be post office/ups the post office in usa loses tons of money, has too many stores, etc.  , public works for cities vs independent salting/road repair companies, or even the entirety of the us military vs blackwater blackwater never had a single failed mission in iraq .  these are just some examples i can think of at the moment, but it seems like every time the government attempts to provide a material, money handling service, they do a very poor job at keeping it efficient.  and to juxtapose their inefficiency, there are corporations working in the exact same sectors making lots of money usps vs ups .  here is a good example of what i think would better serve the nation.  instead of having the tsa at every airport harassing your grandmother because their inept ability to identify, why should not the government just publish a certain set of standards that need to be met by each airport security checkpoint, then each airport hires a private security firm ? then, the only job of the government is to inspect the private security to ensure they are meeting the measures.  i hope this gave enough background to what i was trying to say, and yes i kind of want to keep this us specific, at least at first.  i read through all or almost all of these and i enjoyed most.  i think i gave out 0 deltas.  one proved my point wrong very pragmatically with a literal real world circumstance.  another points out that my condition that the government is in an industry to make money is flawed and the reality is that they are there to operate it in the way that they see fit.  this made me reconsider my original post, and change my view point, so i awarder a delta for that.  this is my first post to cmv so thanks for almost all being nice and making good conversation !  #  or even the entirety of the us military vs blackwater blackwater never had a single failed mission in iraq .   #  you do realize blackwater no longer exists changing its name to  xe  then  academi  now  constelis  in part because the iraqi government barred them from operating in the country ?  # you do realize blackwater no longer exists changing its name to  xe  then  academi  now  constelis  in part because the iraqi government barred them from operating in the country ? and that the us did not even oppose the iraqis in that move because it was precipitated by an incident in which blackwater employees drove through a neighborhood shooting. pretty much everything they saw ? i would classify that as a  badly  failed mission.  i would really love to see where you are getting this  no failure  nonsense.  their use was curtailed because they showed themselves unable to maintain the discipline necessary in counterinsurgency warfare.  that is the essence of failure.   #  tsa is another example where people did not want the most efficient system they wanted one they could trust.   #  i think you are setting up a bit of a straw man here.  the purpose of government running things is not to be more efficient but to do it the way the government wants it done.  in other words have the will of the people be the priority rather than profit.  or in other words be a not for profit agency.  the post office is a good example.  they are inefficient because they were created to go to every house and to have a post office in every zip code.  it is an extremely inefficient system but that efficiency was not the priority.  tsa is another example where people did not want the most efficient system they wanted one they could trust.  and for some reason people trust the government to run the tsa.  it does not matter if someone else could run it cheaper that was not the priority for people when they were created.   #  there is no reason that the government could not just do exactly what a private company would.   #  he is not entirely right either.  there is no reason that the government could not just do exactly what a private company would.  none.  i am not saying it happens or is realistic but there is no reason that if a private company can save money and be efficient at say running a school, the government could not put forth that same strategy.  the key difference is profit.  the private school wants to make a profit and the government does not.  so if both operated identically, the private enterprise would be more expensive because they take a profit whereas in the government enterprise all of the savings are returned to the taxpayer.  now again i am not saying this is common or how it usually goes.  as others have pointed out there are many reasons the government does not operate the same way a private company does.  but there is nothing inherent in a private company that makes it more capable of efficiency than a government.   #  in order to argue that these things are needed, you also need to argue that those places are worth living in.   #  i grew up in what i like to call  the middle of nowhere .  to give a good idea, it is basically that town in the movie  cars .  yea, that is where i live.  i hated literally every moment.  and the  only  reason i am here is because my mom followed my grandma who moved here.  and guess what ? she is now in vegas.  having these structures hospital, post office, etc in the middle of nowhere, supports living like that.  in order to argue that these things are needed, you also need to argue that those places are worth living in.  if there were enough demand for boondocks hospitals, there would  be  boondocks hospitals.  the problem is that no one wants to be out there.   #  in every single case where something is been privatized, it is efficiency has been improved.   #  not really.  in every single case where something is been privatized, it is efficiency has been improved.  and in reverse cases things became government ran there was an explicit decrease in productivity.  it is pretty well known that government ran things are more inefficient.  it is to the point where there is the saying  good enough for government work .  it is because you let demand structure them, rather than what some guy in power thinks.
first off, i want this to be usa specific, simply because it is the only government i have lived under, maybe if there is some really good counterpoint with another nation i would hear it, but i am mainly looking for answers related to the us government.  okay, i am not suggesting the removal of government, let is get that out first.  i know that the  real  purpose of a government is to protect certain values that a society believes are rights of the citizens it is the government is job to ensure that the food is safe, or that some random business allows for equal opportunity i understand that.   here is my general point.   there is not a single example of a government organization working with greater efficiency than a corporate or private sector competitor.  this could be post office/ups the post office in usa loses tons of money, has too many stores, etc.  , public works for cities vs independent salting/road repair companies, or even the entirety of the us military vs blackwater blackwater never had a single failed mission in iraq .  these are just some examples i can think of at the moment, but it seems like every time the government attempts to provide a material, money handling service, they do a very poor job at keeping it efficient.  and to juxtapose their inefficiency, there are corporations working in the exact same sectors making lots of money usps vs ups .  here is a good example of what i think would better serve the nation.  instead of having the tsa at every airport harassing your grandmother because their inept ability to identify, why should not the government just publish a certain set of standards that need to be met by each airport security checkpoint, then each airport hires a private security firm ? then, the only job of the government is to inspect the private security to ensure they are meeting the measures.  i hope this gave enough background to what i was trying to say, and yes i kind of want to keep this us specific, at least at first.  i read through all or almost all of these and i enjoyed most.  i think i gave out 0 deltas.  one proved my point wrong very pragmatically with a literal real world circumstance.  another points out that my condition that the government is in an industry to make money is flawed and the reality is that they are there to operate it in the way that they see fit.  this made me reconsider my original post, and change my view point, so i awarder a delta for that.  this is my first post to cmv so thanks for almost all being nice and making good conversation !  #  there is not a single example of a government organization working with greater efficiency than a corporate or private sector competitor.   #  naturally, only profitable enterprises are possible to privatize.   # naturally, only profitable enterprises are possible to privatize.  the private sector just balks at doing things that are not profitable, anything that is not just does not happen.  a lot of what the government does is just containing damage of shit that happens or dealing with misfortune.  in fact, we should judge the sector as a whole: if a commercial enterprise fails, then another one fails, and finally the third one finds a viable business method to perform a service, then we think it is the normal working of the market.  however, if a government agency would fail in its organization two times before it worked, we would call it gross mismanagement.  but in reality exactly the same events happened.  another general consideration: both forms of organization need to perform a certain task.  but on top of that, commercial organizations need to pay profit to the owners and pay money for advertising and similar services.  therefore commercial enterprises are necessarily less efficient than public ones, who do not have these costs.   #  and for some reason people trust the government to run the tsa.   #  i think you are setting up a bit of a straw man here.  the purpose of government running things is not to be more efficient but to do it the way the government wants it done.  in other words have the will of the people be the priority rather than profit.  or in other words be a not for profit agency.  the post office is a good example.  they are inefficient because they were created to go to every house and to have a post office in every zip code.  it is an extremely inefficient system but that efficiency was not the priority.  tsa is another example where people did not want the most efficient system they wanted one they could trust.  and for some reason people trust the government to run the tsa.  it does not matter if someone else could run it cheaper that was not the priority for people when they were created.   #  as others have pointed out there are many reasons the government does not operate the same way a private company does.   #  he is not entirely right either.  there is no reason that the government could not just do exactly what a private company would.  none.  i am not saying it happens or is realistic but there is no reason that if a private company can save money and be efficient at say running a school, the government could not put forth that same strategy.  the key difference is profit.  the private school wants to make a profit and the government does not.  so if both operated identically, the private enterprise would be more expensive because they take a profit whereas in the government enterprise all of the savings are returned to the taxpayer.  now again i am not saying this is common or how it usually goes.  as others have pointed out there are many reasons the government does not operate the same way a private company does.  but there is nothing inherent in a private company that makes it more capable of efficiency than a government.   #  to give a good idea, it is basically that town in the movie  cars .   #  i grew up in what i like to call  the middle of nowhere .  to give a good idea, it is basically that town in the movie  cars .  yea, that is where i live.  i hated literally every moment.  and the  only  reason i am here is because my mom followed my grandma who moved here.  and guess what ? she is now in vegas.  having these structures hospital, post office, etc in the middle of nowhere, supports living like that.  in order to argue that these things are needed, you also need to argue that those places are worth living in.  if there were enough demand for boondocks hospitals, there would  be  boondocks hospitals.  the problem is that no one wants to be out there.   #  it is pretty well known that government ran things are more inefficient.   #  not really.  in every single case where something is been privatized, it is efficiency has been improved.  and in reverse cases things became government ran there was an explicit decrease in productivity.  it is pretty well known that government ran things are more inefficient.  it is to the point where there is the saying  good enough for government work .  it is because you let demand structure them, rather than what some guy in power thinks.
if you do not exist as a living being, you cannot feel suffering.  granted, you cannot feel pleasure, either, but is pleasure better than non existence ? if you exist, you feel suffering.  but if you do not exist, you feel neither suffering nor pleasure, thus making it better.  why do we continue to procreate if life is not as good as non life.  we should stop all advancements in technology and science and focus on ending the torture of everyone, which we call life.  life sucks, and people do not realize this because, as a society, we think that death is bad, that life is preferable to non life, when in reality we would all be better off it none of us had ever existed in the first place.  non existence trumps existence.   #  if you do not exist as a living being, you cannot feel suffering.   #  granted, you cannot feel pleasure, either, but is pleasure better than non existence ?  # granted, you cannot feel pleasure, either, but is pleasure better than non existence ? that depends, would you rather experience existing or simply not exist at all ? even feeling pain is still better than feeling nothing.  in fact, the only reason suffering is suffering is because it is compared to pleasure.  would not it be better to even suffer than to have nothing at all ? but if you do not exist, you feel neither suffering nor pleasure, thus making it better but what does it matter if it is  better  if you do not exist ? how does the quality of non existence matter at all if i do not experience it ? life is not torture for everyone.  it certainly is not torture for me.  i quite enjoy life, as do millions if not billions of others.  why would we give up our lives so you could stop what you believe to be suffering ? non existence trumps existence.  how ? as outlined before the only way we can know pain is by knowing pleasure.  this alone shows us that even in a world without pleasure, there would still be more feeling and experience than not existing at all.   #  maybe it is just me, but this whole idea has never given me trouble understanding.   #  i think it is impossible to imagine it, but not impossible to conceptualize it.  i mean, nonexistence is simply not existing.  so you do not perceive because you are just not there.  maybe it is just me, but this whole idea has never given me trouble understanding.  it is the same as the idea of death being completely final without any sort of afterlife.  it is just like unplugging a light, except in this case, the light was never plugged in.   #  i would like to ask you why you think pleasure is better than non existence.   #  i would like to ask you why you think pleasure is better than non existence.  when you do not exist, you do not have feelings.  you do not have consciousness, so you do not feel pleasure or pain.  but when you are alive you feel both.  so in order to justify why life is better, you must explain why you feel pleasure cancels out pain, and how pleasure is more desirable than non existence.   #  this debate is similar to communism vs capitalism.   #  pleasure is more enjoyable than non existence by simple virtue of the fact that it is enjoyable.  non existence on the other hand cannot be enjoyable.  consider overall enjoyment values.  existence has a potential for high enjoyment while nonexistence has a potential for 0 enjoyment.  this debate is similar to communism vs capitalism.  capitalism gives you opportunity to either succeed or fail.  communism gives you only the opportunity to be average.  if this does not answer your question then the problem may be that you simply do not think enjoyment is desirable.  if that is indeed the case i would recommend considering how lopsided your view is.  you take torture and pain to be important, but pleasure and enjoyment to be unimportant.  consider the fact that pleasure is the opposite of pain.  if pain is bad then pleasure as the opposite of pain must be good.   #  here is an example: say you have a single guy.   #  because it is worth the effort ? just because something takes effort does not mean you should not do it.  here is an example: say you have a single guy.  he could put himself out there, exercise and keep in shape, keep up with a number of different hobbies, travel, learn an instrument, and generally make himself a very interesting person.  all of that stuff about him leads to meeting the love of his life, getting married, and having a beautiful family with 0 kids.  had he never expended the effort to be an interesting person or put himself out there, and instead reddited all day everyday, he would never know what he was missing out on.  he would never know that he missed out on a loving marriage and an amazing family.  but that does not make it any better.  tl;dr even if you do not know what you are missing out on, you are  still missing out on something enjoyable .  that is worse, regardless of you being able to realize it.
if you do not exist as a living being, you cannot feel suffering.  granted, you cannot feel pleasure, either, but is pleasure better than non existence ? if you exist, you feel suffering.  but if you do not exist, you feel neither suffering nor pleasure, thus making it better.  why do we continue to procreate if life is not as good as non life.  we should stop all advancements in technology and science and focus on ending the torture of everyone, which we call life.  life sucks, and people do not realize this because, as a society, we think that death is bad, that life is preferable to non life, when in reality we would all be better off it none of us had ever existed in the first place.  non existence trumps existence.   #  but if you do not exist, you feel neither suffering nor pleasure, thus making it better.   #  suffering is temporary, pain does not last.   # yes  it totally is.  suffering is temporary, pain does not last.  joyous memories are with me forever.  if you focus on your suffering, then that is what you will remember, and that is what you will feel.  if non existence is 0, pain is 0 and pleasure is 0, then you have essentially stated that non existence existence since existence pleasure   pain .  math is fun.  if it does suck, do something to make it better.  if you have no actual logical reason for your pain, please seek treatment for depression, because that is what depression is.  but do something that is not suicide.   #  so you do not perceive because you are just not there.   #  i think it is impossible to imagine it, but not impossible to conceptualize it.  i mean, nonexistence is simply not existing.  so you do not perceive because you are just not there.  maybe it is just me, but this whole idea has never given me trouble understanding.  it is the same as the idea of death being completely final without any sort of afterlife.  it is just like unplugging a light, except in this case, the light was never plugged in.   #  why would we give up our lives so you could stop what you believe to be suffering ?  # granted, you cannot feel pleasure, either, but is pleasure better than non existence ? that depends, would you rather experience existing or simply not exist at all ? even feeling pain is still better than feeling nothing.  in fact, the only reason suffering is suffering is because it is compared to pleasure.  would not it be better to even suffer than to have nothing at all ? but if you do not exist, you feel neither suffering nor pleasure, thus making it better but what does it matter if it is  better  if you do not exist ? how does the quality of non existence matter at all if i do not experience it ? life is not torture for everyone.  it certainly is not torture for me.  i quite enjoy life, as do millions if not billions of others.  why would we give up our lives so you could stop what you believe to be suffering ? non existence trumps existence.  how ? as outlined before the only way we can know pain is by knowing pleasure.  this alone shows us that even in a world without pleasure, there would still be more feeling and experience than not existing at all.   #  you do not have consciousness, so you do not feel pleasure or pain.   #  i would like to ask you why you think pleasure is better than non existence.  when you do not exist, you do not have feelings.  you do not have consciousness, so you do not feel pleasure or pain.  but when you are alive you feel both.  so in order to justify why life is better, you must explain why you feel pleasure cancels out pain, and how pleasure is more desirable than non existence.   #  capitalism gives you opportunity to either succeed or fail.   #  pleasure is more enjoyable than non existence by simple virtue of the fact that it is enjoyable.  non existence on the other hand cannot be enjoyable.  consider overall enjoyment values.  existence has a potential for high enjoyment while nonexistence has a potential for 0 enjoyment.  this debate is similar to communism vs capitalism.  capitalism gives you opportunity to either succeed or fail.  communism gives you only the opportunity to be average.  if this does not answer your question then the problem may be that you simply do not think enjoyment is desirable.  if that is indeed the case i would recommend considering how lopsided your view is.  you take torture and pain to be important, but pleasure and enjoyment to be unimportant.  consider the fact that pleasure is the opposite of pain.  if pain is bad then pleasure as the opposite of pain must be good.
there are two parts to this view, and i will award deltas if you can change either of them.  the first is that money in courts is a fundamental miscarriage of justice.  when i see cases where a drunk kid kills people, but their rich parents get them off with their crack team of lawyers, or a powerful corporation destroys a regular person or small business with a costly court case on extremely weak grounds because the small business ca not afford to fight back, i am sickened.  equality in the eyes of the law is in my opinion the single most important part of our society, and in the current system, the rich and the poor are not equal in the eyes of the law.  the second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents.  i have thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing i can come up with.  other attempts to bring equality to courts that i have seen all fall short somewhere.  the loser paying the winner is legal fees does not help, because it only takes place after the end of the lawsuit, and large corporations win by dragging on a suit until the small business runs out of money and has to give up.  preventing money from entering the courts in the first place does not work, because some issues actually are complex and nuanced and require lots of lawyer is time to analyse.  having each party contribute equally to their own and their opponents legal fees ensures that complex cases can be sorted out as long as one party is willing to pay for it, it ensures that both sides are equal in the eyes of the law, and it solves the problems i brought up earlier.  in the case of he rich parents paying to get their drunk driving son off easy, they would be forced to contribute an equal amount to the state is case, allowing the state to effectively fight back, and it prevents large corporations bleeding small entities dry, because the small entities are not using their own money anymore.  essentially, the legal system has in some cases been turned into a weapon, and this proposal would turn it back into what it should be: a way to determine wrongdoing.  one note: do not try to change my view that this ca not be done because it is a restriction on freedom without first trying to convince me that freedom is more important than equality.  i believe that equality is more important than freedom and i am totally willing reduce freedom in exchange for an increase in equality, within reason.   #  the second part of my view is that a good solution to this problem is to require that both sides in a lawsuit or court case contribute equally to their own legal team and their opponents.   #  i have thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing i can come up with.   # with criminal prosecution, the lawyers are with the prosecutors office.  what are you suggesting the state pay for ? they already pay for a public defender; if they paid for lawyers of the same quality they would quickly go bankrupt.  i have thought long and hard about this, and this is the best thing i can come up with.  how does this work ? can i save money by not contributing  any  money to my lawyer, and making the other side pay for mine completely ? now you are just extorting money from people, or stuck with no money for lawyers.  the  best  solution for civil litigation is that the loser pays.  you can spend as much as you want on your side, and whoever loses gets their representation paid for.   #  we have some god damn smart people in the world, and we can solve problems.   # i certainly admit that there are big problem in the world that have not been solved well, but that does not mean we should just throw up our hands and say  oh well .  we have some god damn smart people in the world, and we can solve problems.  countries all over the world have solved problems that we still have in the us.  i think this is evidence that while we can solve problems, somehow people have been convinced that we cannot.  i do not know exactly why this is the case, i truly wish that it was not, but we shouldnt stop making the world better because there is a possibility that we might make a mistake.  we should strive to evolve, even if we chose the wrong decision temporarily, we should continue to improve.  stagnation will never improve.   #  we do have smart people in the world, but not all problems are soluble.   # countries all over the world have solved problems that we still have in the us.  i think this is evidence that while we can solve problems, somehow people have been convinced that we cannot.  we do have smart people in the world, but not all problems are soluble.  for instance, no amount of intelligence can change the fact that by bolstering privacy you make it harder for police to catch crooks.  politics is filled with these antagonistic aims, and though compromises can be found that provide some sort of balance you cannot escape making a trade.  part of maturing politically is deciding what you are willing to sacrifice.   #  and because these loopholes are necessary, they will be exploitable by people with time and means to do so.   #  because loopholes are necessary in law, as they account for non normal situations.  think of it like this very simplistic example: a good, straightforward, no loophole law would be  do not kill  but what about self defense ? or accidents ? we need to add loopholes to account for these types of situations.  sure, this is an exaggerated example, but the idea that a law can be free of all loopholes is flawed.  and because these loopholes are necessary, they will be exploitable by people with time and means to do so.   #  i do not see how that would restore balance.   #  who would waste their time digging through the hundred million legal cases looking for people who spent money on seemingly legitimate things like getting a will made but are actually receiving legal advice on this case as well.  what about the corporations that hire lawyers to write contracts, but simply use the lawyer in court as opposed to some other random employee ? i do not see how that would restore balance.  after all you are creating a situation where there will be a shortage of trained lawyers and the high quality ones would be engaged by the people who can provide them social standing and other non monetary rewards.  you would have a functionally identical system to the one we have now only the lawyers get paid less but would be invited to spend more time on other people is boats and going to more fancy dinner parties.  it might even make it harder for the poor to find lawyers, because people could not afford to make as good a living being an inner city lawyer there would be fewer of them.
this question comes from a rant a friend of mine put up on facebook about her  right to abstain from voting because she believes that by not voting, she is sending a message to the current political system that it does not work .  while i agree she has every right to do/not do as she sees fit with her time, i do not agree that abstaining from this activity does anything to show anyone that the system does not work.  i think it shows just the opposite, and i believe an unwillingness to participate in how things are currently run is nothing more than laziness and apathy.  i am really having trouble understanding her point of view, so i am turning to you guys to cmv on why voting is important ! thanks :  #  while i agree she has every right to do/not do as she sees fit with her time, i do not agree that abstaining from this activity does anything to show anyone that the system does not work.   #  in fact, abstention is commonly taken as a comment on the quality of choices presented.   # in fact, abstention is commonly taken as a comment on the quality of choices presented.  in  do not vote for them: the effects of the spanish indignant movement on attitudes about voting,  the authors found that   more positive evaluations of the government and the opposition also increase the likelihood of viewing voting as a duty.  that is, if you like one of your options, you are more likely to vote, which is to say that if you are not fond of either option, you are actually less likely to vote.  so people do take voter abstention to mean voters are not satisfied with the quality of choices they are being presented.  but more theoretically, jason brennan argues i think successfully that forcing people to vote forces them to vote badly in  polluting the polls: when citizens should not vote.   nathan hanna also makes a good argument in  an argument for voting abstention.   it also appears that those who do refrain from voting would not have had an impact anyway, in  the dog that did not bark: would increased electoral turnout make a difference ?   so these people do, yes, correctly understand how their participation would have turned out.  it is not difficult to vote.  in fact, it can get you out of work for a bit, so i do not see what laziness has to do with this.  and i do not see what apathy has to do with this.  suppose i trap someone in a burning building with concrete walls and ask them if they would like a feather or a washcloth with which they can try to burrow their way out.  if they look at you as if you are insane and ignore the choice you are giving them, then i suppose they are being apathetic, but it is because you are presenting them with two idiotic choices, when the solution lies elsewhere.  especially important is the use of a network of  agitators,  who are enlisted by electoral commissions to contact from 0 to 0 voters before the election, provide educational talk, and enjoin them to be sure the vote.   .   we contend, therefore, that from 0 to 0 of the eligible voters in the ussr did not, in fact, vote during the 0s.   .   from this we hypothesize that individuals who mention a political motive for emigrating are less likely to have voted in the state organized elections than those who did not.  laziness ? apathy ? thus, responses to a question about what is worth keeping in the soviet system show that those saying  keep nothing  have the highest incidence of nonvoting 0 .   .   this illustrates that non voting is more prevalent among people more hostile to the soviet system,  while voting tends to be strongest among those who have no opinions or do not want to express them.  laziness ? apathy ? it sounds like those who do not have opinions find it most easy to just vote blindly, while those who do have opinions are more reticent.  etc.   #  but politicians do not care and that is the issue with no voting.   #  i think the key thing to think about here is  what does it do ?   everyone can have conjecture on why they think someone does not vote.  but politicians do not care and that is the issue with no voting.  they still get paid and have power if you vote or not and they are not going to take any time to fix anything when they got into office with it  broken  in my opinion, on every ballot, there should be an option on every vote of  no confidence .  so that people can show up to make the statement that they do not believe the candidates represent them.  and since they are read with machines it would only cost the ink to print.  i think that would be way more effective.   #  but politicians who are nearing the end of their term are  very  interested in why people do not vote and actively work on ways to get more bodies into the booths.   # let is please keep in mind that people often  tell  us why they did not vote.  i have looked up some of the studies and it is really not unclear.  people have their reasons and they are willing to communicate them.  it is not conjecture, it is sampling.  they still get paid and have power if you vote or not and they are not going to take any time to fix anything when they got into office with it  broken  politicians currently in office perhaps do not.  but politicians who are nearing the end of their term are  very  interested in why people do not vote and actively work on ways to get more bodies into the booths.  they do not do it right, typically i think they leverage fear more than anything e. g.  a gay storm is coming to make you gay marry your daughter that would benefit the voter.  if politicians do not care about increasing voter turnout in specific areas ! , why would i ever see someone busing people to the voting booths ? certainly.  but i do not think that is an argument that not voting does nothing or that it sends unclear messages that can never be deciphered.   #  while i still believe that people who say they do not vote because they want to make a statement but are instead just lazy still exist, your post has convinced me that abstaining from voting does actually make a statement.   #    0; this is my first time awarding a delta in this sub.  i can still do it even if i am not op right ? thank you for changing my view.  while i still believe that people who say they do not vote because they want to make a statement but are instead just lazy still exist, your post has convinced me that abstaining from voting does actually make a statement.  whether or not i think that it is a statement that is has a more positive effect than voting does is another question i will have to continue to sort out for myself.  thank you again.  oh and edit:   in fact, it can get you out of work for a bit, so i do not see what laziness has to do with this.  i would actually rather be at work than voting.  it is actually more fun, but i am lucky.   #  i may lessen the intensity of my  go vote  lectures now.   #    0; thank you for this extremely informative post.  i frequently encourage my friends to go out to vote, and will tell people that they have the option to spoil your ballot if they wish to  send a message  showing their dissatisfaction with the candidates.  i am not sure if that is an option in every country; i am from canada.  now i know that not voting can in fact have a similar impact to spoiling your ballet.  i may lessen the intensity of my  go vote  lectures now.
this question comes from a rant a friend of mine put up on facebook about her  right to abstain from voting because she believes that by not voting, she is sending a message to the current political system that it does not work .  while i agree she has every right to do/not do as she sees fit with her time, i do not agree that abstaining from this activity does anything to show anyone that the system does not work.  i think it shows just the opposite, and i believe an unwillingness to participate in how things are currently run is nothing more than laziness and apathy.  i am really having trouble understanding her point of view, so i am turning to you guys to cmv on why voting is important ! thanks :  #  i do not agree that abstaining from this activity does anything to show anyone that the system does not work.   #  i think it shows just the opposite, and i believe an unwillingness to participate in how things are currently run is nothing more than laziness and apathy.   # i think it shows just the opposite, and i believe an unwillingness to participate in how things are currently run is nothing more than laziness and apathy.  this does not make sense.  how could a lack of voter participation be considered a demonstration of a successful implementation of a representative republic ? voter participation is an indicator that the population believes that their input is meaningful and that they have representatives participating within the legal framework who are actually responsive to the needs and/or desires of their constituency.  in the current political environment, that seems like a stretch.  at the federal level, things like the repeated government shutdown demonstrate that those currently in power do not have the best interests of the government, nation and citizenry at heart.  the two parties are better at political spin than governance.  this is a consequence of a nation with  first past the post  voting URL we have two parties pretending that they represent the entire spectrum.  showing up and voting is signing your name to endorsement of the current system of elections.  it is saying that you believe the current system is performing as intended.  whether you write in a non r/d candidate or not, your vote is saying that first past the post is working.  not voting, in and of itself is useless, however.  i would rather people protest fptp voting in front of their polling places rather than abstaining from political action entirely.   #  in fact, it can get you out of work for a bit, so i do not see what laziness has to do with this.   # in fact, abstention is commonly taken as a comment on the quality of choices presented.  in  do not vote for them: the effects of the spanish indignant movement on attitudes about voting,  the authors found that   more positive evaluations of the government and the opposition also increase the likelihood of viewing voting as a duty.  that is, if you like one of your options, you are more likely to vote, which is to say that if you are not fond of either option, you are actually less likely to vote.  so people do take voter abstention to mean voters are not satisfied with the quality of choices they are being presented.  but more theoretically, jason brennan argues i think successfully that forcing people to vote forces them to vote badly in  polluting the polls: when citizens should not vote.   nathan hanna also makes a good argument in  an argument for voting abstention.   it also appears that those who do refrain from voting would not have had an impact anyway, in  the dog that did not bark: would increased electoral turnout make a difference ?   so these people do, yes, correctly understand how their participation would have turned out.  it is not difficult to vote.  in fact, it can get you out of work for a bit, so i do not see what laziness has to do with this.  and i do not see what apathy has to do with this.  suppose i trap someone in a burning building with concrete walls and ask them if they would like a feather or a washcloth with which they can try to burrow their way out.  if they look at you as if you are insane and ignore the choice you are giving them, then i suppose they are being apathetic, but it is because you are presenting them with two idiotic choices, when the solution lies elsewhere.  especially important is the use of a network of  agitators,  who are enlisted by electoral commissions to contact from 0 to 0 voters before the election, provide educational talk, and enjoin them to be sure the vote.   .   we contend, therefore, that from 0 to 0 of the eligible voters in the ussr did not, in fact, vote during the 0s.   .   from this we hypothesize that individuals who mention a political motive for emigrating are less likely to have voted in the state organized elections than those who did not.  laziness ? apathy ? thus, responses to a question about what is worth keeping in the soviet system show that those saying  keep nothing  have the highest incidence of nonvoting 0 .   .   this illustrates that non voting is more prevalent among people more hostile to the soviet system,  while voting tends to be strongest among those who have no opinions or do not want to express them.  laziness ? apathy ? it sounds like those who do not have opinions find it most easy to just vote blindly, while those who do have opinions are more reticent.  etc.   #  i think that would be way more effective.   #  i think the key thing to think about here is  what does it do ?   everyone can have conjecture on why they think someone does not vote.  but politicians do not care and that is the issue with no voting.  they still get paid and have power if you vote or not and they are not going to take any time to fix anything when they got into office with it  broken  in my opinion, on every ballot, there should be an option on every vote of  no confidence .  so that people can show up to make the statement that they do not believe the candidates represent them.  and since they are read with machines it would only cost the ink to print.  i think that would be way more effective.   #  i have looked up some of the studies and it is really not unclear.   # let is please keep in mind that people often  tell  us why they did not vote.  i have looked up some of the studies and it is really not unclear.  people have their reasons and they are willing to communicate them.  it is not conjecture, it is sampling.  they still get paid and have power if you vote or not and they are not going to take any time to fix anything when they got into office with it  broken  politicians currently in office perhaps do not.  but politicians who are nearing the end of their term are  very  interested in why people do not vote and actively work on ways to get more bodies into the booths.  they do not do it right, typically i think they leverage fear more than anything e. g.  a gay storm is coming to make you gay marry your daughter that would benefit the voter.  if politicians do not care about increasing voter turnout in specific areas ! , why would i ever see someone busing people to the voting booths ? certainly.  but i do not think that is an argument that not voting does nothing or that it sends unclear messages that can never be deciphered.   #  i can still do it even if i am not op right ?  #    0; this is my first time awarding a delta in this sub.  i can still do it even if i am not op right ? thank you for changing my view.  while i still believe that people who say they do not vote because they want to make a statement but are instead just lazy still exist, your post has convinced me that abstaining from voting does actually make a statement.  whether or not i think that it is a statement that is has a more positive effect than voting does is another question i will have to continue to sort out for myself.  thank you again.  oh and edit:   in fact, it can get you out of work for a bit, so i do not see what laziness has to do with this.  i would actually rather be at work than voting.  it is actually more fun, but i am lucky.
this question comes from a rant a friend of mine put up on facebook about her  right to abstain from voting because she believes that by not voting, she is sending a message to the current political system that it does not work .  while i agree she has every right to do/not do as she sees fit with her time, i do not agree that abstaining from this activity does anything to show anyone that the system does not work.  i think it shows just the opposite, and i believe an unwillingness to participate in how things are currently run is nothing more than laziness and apathy.  i am really having trouble understanding her point of view, so i am turning to you guys to cmv on why voting is important ! thanks :  #  this question comes from a rant a friend of mine put up on facebook about her  right to abstain from voting because she believes that by not voting, she is sending a message to the current political system that it does not work .   #  your friend is correct, but a much more important reason is much more simple.   # your friend is correct, but a much more important reason is much more simple.  the state does not own your vote.  you own your vote.  voting for the lesser of two evils still has you voting and supporting evil.  i feel like tv ads like  vote or die  have really caused a lot of ignorance when it comes to voting.  people should educate themselves and know what they are actually voting on.   #  if they look at you as if you are insane and ignore the choice you are giving them, then i suppose they are being apathetic, but it is because you are presenting them with two idiotic choices, when the solution lies elsewhere.   # in fact, abstention is commonly taken as a comment on the quality of choices presented.  in  do not vote for them: the effects of the spanish indignant movement on attitudes about voting,  the authors found that   more positive evaluations of the government and the opposition also increase the likelihood of viewing voting as a duty.  that is, if you like one of your options, you are more likely to vote, which is to say that if you are not fond of either option, you are actually less likely to vote.  so people do take voter abstention to mean voters are not satisfied with the quality of choices they are being presented.  but more theoretically, jason brennan argues i think successfully that forcing people to vote forces them to vote badly in  polluting the polls: when citizens should not vote.   nathan hanna also makes a good argument in  an argument for voting abstention.   it also appears that those who do refrain from voting would not have had an impact anyway, in  the dog that did not bark: would increased electoral turnout make a difference ?   so these people do, yes, correctly understand how their participation would have turned out.  it is not difficult to vote.  in fact, it can get you out of work for a bit, so i do not see what laziness has to do with this.  and i do not see what apathy has to do with this.  suppose i trap someone in a burning building with concrete walls and ask them if they would like a feather or a washcloth with which they can try to burrow their way out.  if they look at you as if you are insane and ignore the choice you are giving them, then i suppose they are being apathetic, but it is because you are presenting them with two idiotic choices, when the solution lies elsewhere.  especially important is the use of a network of  agitators,  who are enlisted by electoral commissions to contact from 0 to 0 voters before the election, provide educational talk, and enjoin them to be sure the vote.   .   we contend, therefore, that from 0 to 0 of the eligible voters in the ussr did not, in fact, vote during the 0s.   .   from this we hypothesize that individuals who mention a political motive for emigrating are less likely to have voted in the state organized elections than those who did not.  laziness ? apathy ? thus, responses to a question about what is worth keeping in the soviet system show that those saying  keep nothing  have the highest incidence of nonvoting 0 .   .   this illustrates that non voting is more prevalent among people more hostile to the soviet system,  while voting tends to be strongest among those who have no opinions or do not want to express them.  laziness ? apathy ? it sounds like those who do not have opinions find it most easy to just vote blindly, while those who do have opinions are more reticent.  etc.   #  i think the key thing to think about here is  what does it do ?    #  i think the key thing to think about here is  what does it do ?   everyone can have conjecture on why they think someone does not vote.  but politicians do not care and that is the issue with no voting.  they still get paid and have power if you vote or not and they are not going to take any time to fix anything when they got into office with it  broken  in my opinion, on every ballot, there should be an option on every vote of  no confidence .  so that people can show up to make the statement that they do not believe the candidates represent them.  and since they are read with machines it would only cost the ink to print.  i think that would be way more effective.   #  people have their reasons and they are willing to communicate them.   # let is please keep in mind that people often  tell  us why they did not vote.  i have looked up some of the studies and it is really not unclear.  people have their reasons and they are willing to communicate them.  it is not conjecture, it is sampling.  they still get paid and have power if you vote or not and they are not going to take any time to fix anything when they got into office with it  broken  politicians currently in office perhaps do not.  but politicians who are nearing the end of their term are  very  interested in why people do not vote and actively work on ways to get more bodies into the booths.  they do not do it right, typically i think they leverage fear more than anything e. g.  a gay storm is coming to make you gay marry your daughter that would benefit the voter.  if politicians do not care about increasing voter turnout in specific areas ! , why would i ever see someone busing people to the voting booths ? certainly.  but i do not think that is an argument that not voting does nothing or that it sends unclear messages that can never be deciphered.   #  whether or not i think that it is a statement that is has a more positive effect than voting does is another question i will have to continue to sort out for myself.   #    0; this is my first time awarding a delta in this sub.  i can still do it even if i am not op right ? thank you for changing my view.  while i still believe that people who say they do not vote because they want to make a statement but are instead just lazy still exist, your post has convinced me that abstaining from voting does actually make a statement.  whether or not i think that it is a statement that is has a more positive effect than voting does is another question i will have to continue to sort out for myself.  thank you again.  oh and edit:   in fact, it can get you out of work for a bit, so i do not see what laziness has to do with this.  i would actually rather be at work than voting.  it is actually more fun, but i am lucky.
this question comes from a rant a friend of mine put up on facebook about her  right to abstain from voting because she believes that by not voting, she is sending a message to the current political system that it does not work .  while i agree she has every right to do/not do as she sees fit with her time, i do not agree that abstaining from this activity does anything to show anyone that the system does not work.  i think it shows just the opposite, and i believe an unwillingness to participate in how things are currently run is nothing more than laziness and apathy.  i am really having trouble understanding her point of view, so i am turning to you guys to cmv on why voting is important ! thanks :  #  i do not agree that abstaining from this activity does anything to show anyone that the system does not work.   #  i think it shows just the opposite and what does spending your time and energy to vote for the piece of shit with blue or red spray paint show ?  # i think it shows just the opposite and what does spending your time and energy to vote for the piece of shit with blue or red spray paint show ? does  that  show that the system does not work ? does it result in you getting any better options ? if you control an organization, and your goal is to have your organization to stay in power, would you care more about someone giving you power roughly half the time, or someone giving neither you  nor  your only real opponent power ? i mean, sure, there is the principle which declares that silence is consent, but what bearing does that have on  explicit consent  in the form of voting ?  #  suppose i trap someone in a burning building with concrete walls and ask them if they would like a feather or a washcloth with which they can try to burrow their way out.   # in fact, abstention is commonly taken as a comment on the quality of choices presented.  in  do not vote for them: the effects of the spanish indignant movement on attitudes about voting,  the authors found that   more positive evaluations of the government and the opposition also increase the likelihood of viewing voting as a duty.  that is, if you like one of your options, you are more likely to vote, which is to say that if you are not fond of either option, you are actually less likely to vote.  so people do take voter abstention to mean voters are not satisfied with the quality of choices they are being presented.  but more theoretically, jason brennan argues i think successfully that forcing people to vote forces them to vote badly in  polluting the polls: when citizens should not vote.   nathan hanna also makes a good argument in  an argument for voting abstention.   it also appears that those who do refrain from voting would not have had an impact anyway, in  the dog that did not bark: would increased electoral turnout make a difference ?   so these people do, yes, correctly understand how their participation would have turned out.  it is not difficult to vote.  in fact, it can get you out of work for a bit, so i do not see what laziness has to do with this.  and i do not see what apathy has to do with this.  suppose i trap someone in a burning building with concrete walls and ask them if they would like a feather or a washcloth with which they can try to burrow their way out.  if they look at you as if you are insane and ignore the choice you are giving them, then i suppose they are being apathetic, but it is because you are presenting them with two idiotic choices, when the solution lies elsewhere.  especially important is the use of a network of  agitators,  who are enlisted by electoral commissions to contact from 0 to 0 voters before the election, provide educational talk, and enjoin them to be sure the vote.   .   we contend, therefore, that from 0 to 0 of the eligible voters in the ussr did not, in fact, vote during the 0s.   .   from this we hypothesize that individuals who mention a political motive for emigrating are less likely to have voted in the state organized elections than those who did not.  laziness ? apathy ? thus, responses to a question about what is worth keeping in the soviet system show that those saying  keep nothing  have the highest incidence of nonvoting 0 .   .   this illustrates that non voting is more prevalent among people more hostile to the soviet system,  while voting tends to be strongest among those who have no opinions or do not want to express them.  laziness ? apathy ? it sounds like those who do not have opinions find it most easy to just vote blindly, while those who do have opinions are more reticent.  etc.   #  everyone can have conjecture on why they think someone does not vote.   #  i think the key thing to think about here is  what does it do ?   everyone can have conjecture on why they think someone does not vote.  but politicians do not care and that is the issue with no voting.  they still get paid and have power if you vote or not and they are not going to take any time to fix anything when they got into office with it  broken  in my opinion, on every ballot, there should be an option on every vote of  no confidence .  so that people can show up to make the statement that they do not believe the candidates represent them.  and since they are read with machines it would only cost the ink to print.  i think that would be way more effective.   #  let is please keep in mind that people often  tell  us why they did not vote.   # let is please keep in mind that people often  tell  us why they did not vote.  i have looked up some of the studies and it is really not unclear.  people have their reasons and they are willing to communicate them.  it is not conjecture, it is sampling.  they still get paid and have power if you vote or not and they are not going to take any time to fix anything when they got into office with it  broken  politicians currently in office perhaps do not.  but politicians who are nearing the end of their term are  very  interested in why people do not vote and actively work on ways to get more bodies into the booths.  they do not do it right, typically i think they leverage fear more than anything e. g.  a gay storm is coming to make you gay marry your daughter that would benefit the voter.  if politicians do not care about increasing voter turnout in specific areas ! , why would i ever see someone busing people to the voting booths ? certainly.  but i do not think that is an argument that not voting does nothing or that it sends unclear messages that can never be deciphered.   #  i would actually rather be at work than voting.   #    0; this is my first time awarding a delta in this sub.  i can still do it even if i am not op right ? thank you for changing my view.  while i still believe that people who say they do not vote because they want to make a statement but are instead just lazy still exist, your post has convinced me that abstaining from voting does actually make a statement.  whether or not i think that it is a statement that is has a more positive effect than voting does is another question i will have to continue to sort out for myself.  thank you again.  oh and edit:   in fact, it can get you out of work for a bit, so i do not see what laziness has to do with this.  i would actually rather be at work than voting.  it is actually more fun, but i am lucky.
hopefully final edit: if i could remove something from a game and it does not affect the plot then its superfluous.  if it happens to be something that is widely debated right now then its pandering.  so recently a lot of games have been adding homosexual characters to their games, and while not inherently wrong, cheapens the quality of a game as a whole.  sexuality should never come into play, unless it is a core element of the story or lore of a game.  by now heterosexuality is still considered  normal  and a basic love arc between two characters of opposite gender is not something someone bats an eye at.  a good story about two gay or lesbian characters can be something really great, especially with the backdrop of a society that abhors them.  it makes for really good writing.  now i am not gay, but i have found some gay character is stories especially touching when it comes to unrequited love.  it really strengthens the character and the story as a whole as seen with someone like dumbledore, or a certain character from a dance with dragons.  the addition of a gay characters just for the sake of them is just shameless pandering.  politics should be left to the real world.  stories are an art, and should be treated as such.  any pandering would ruin a story, but i guess i picked this one because its such a hot topic and i would like to get a discussion on it.  look at me pander in real time.   #  if i could remove something from a game and it does not affect the plot then its superfluous.   #  if you remove everything superfluous from a game by your definition, you end up with a book.   # if you remove everything superfluous from a game by your definition, you end up with a book.  plot is only one element of literature, and arguably not the most important.  there is also theme, mood, setting, resonance with the reader, engagement in culture ! if we removed everything superfluous to the plot from edgar allen poe is  the raven  we would get: a bird flew in and squawked, and the narrator had a panic attack.  the end.  it is stupid, because the poem is all about mood and tone and theme and remembering a tragedy.  it contains very few events, and no actual occurrences at all.  likewise, video games are often more about the world they are in than the events they depict.  borderlands is especially prime for this, as its setting is the main character, and your progression through the game is a barely there plot thread intended to help shepherd you through the fun house.  the game is the fun house.  what is the plot of smash brothers again ? fuck, half life, call of duty, halo, assassins creed ? the plot of those games is that you beat up, fight, kill, or murder people also aliens for fun and/or profit.  in all but assassin is creed, you spend most of your time beating up, killing, or murdering other characters, controlled by other players, on maps that contain no plot whatsoever.  so, listen.  part of the story is that some people are gay and sometimes you find out about it and it is not that big a deal.  including gay characters in roles that do not require their gayness is only a problem if you think of their sexuality as a deviation instead of just a minority.  if all you care about is plot, you should just be reading about games on wikipedia instead of playing them.   #  gay is a piece of trivia about a character like sir hammerlock not a defining characteristic.   #  here is the problem though.  luigi is gay now.  he is gay.  absolutely nothing changes because being gay is not a defining feature of a normal, sane, nontumblr person.  it does not mean you are effeminate or constantly chasing men, it is a completely neutral trait.  absolutely nothing should change in a game or a storyline or a character but the second it is mentioned twice, it is pandering.  not every straight character is leisure suit larry, so not every gay/trans/whatever should be quique montemayor.  what is samus is preference ? we do not know.  good.  what normal person cares ? either do it so subtly that it is barely even noted, or you are pandering.  gay is a piece of trivia about a character like sir hammerlock not a defining characteristic.  it is one of those  too easy to screw up  things.   #  that is because 0 in 0 men are straight.   # that is because 0 in 0 men are straight.  its unfair to default an unoriented character as straight and use that as evidence.  if it is not stated as fox being straight, its the same as slippy not being stated as being gay and you should be satisfied.  if i assume luigi is straight and you assume he is gay, what difference is there and which of us is right ? not to mention, they are just friends.  there is tons of references to the dreaded friend zone there.   #  of the hundreds of thousands of game characters it seems a very trivial thing that a few would be notably gay.   #  i am not defending an unoriented character as straight, in fact i see the assumption itself as a huge part of the problem.  the characters who have been given romantic interests are almost exclusively straight though.  of the hundreds of thousands of game characters it seems a very trivial thing that a few would be notably gay.  i also doubt very much that these few characters exhibit their sexuality in a way comparable to the gratuitous sex and central straight romances in most narratives.  so why the pass to one and the frustration at the other ?  #  go to wikipedia and look up gay characters.   # again.  if i had a room full of 0 boxes, 0 having a rattlesnake and 0 having $0,0.  you would not dare open a box.  the assumption is not made of anything other than the rarity of gay people in real life.  again.  does not really come into play in really any games not involving the damsel in distress thing which  plenty  people take umbrage over.  notably as in anything beyond some arbitrary reference or something.  i mean.  the problem is not the gay character, the problem is the characters whose sole trait is being gay.  and if you want characters a certain way, seriously and not sarcastically: start a kickstarter.  there is a metric ton of money to be made off social justice warriors.  i mean.  this has actually been kind of raised lately: how valid are the opinions of non gamers about games ? it would be like me saying there were not enough murder mysteries in 0th century russian literature.  go to wikipedia and look up gay characters.  they are flamboyant punchlines most of the time.  because there is a difference between a character who happens to be gay and a  gay  character.  i would even go so far as to say the only reason  to  to it is to pander to the you is because the me is do not care one tiny little bit.  and the you is do not buy games and the me is do so why bother if your consumers do not care ? tomorrow, nintendo comes out with mark the gay panda.  you going to drop $0 on a 0ds and the game ? no.  that is why you will never see it made.  money talks and i honestly never heard the second part of that saying but i know there is a second part.  people are pissy that he is a straight white cis male saving a damsel in distress.  and if we are agreeing they are just friends, he is not definitely straight in the first place.  what orientation is link ? he just saves hyrule and zelda by proxy.  the best games do not busy themselves with the trivialities of characters like preference.
people change of course but not as frequently as perceptions of ideas do.  i am sure older people hear big oil and big coal and see different things than younger people.  the leaders of those industries are not as small time and innocent as they were back in the days of the greatest generation is youth but i think their perception stayed with them.  the same can be said of the military industrial complex.  seen as bloated and unnecessary and oppresive by the young, a provider of jobs, liberties, and fighter against fascism by the old at a time when the united states  military supremacy was new and contested .  i could go so far as to predict that big data will be the issue that turns modern liberals into conservatives.  the generation that grew up or was born during google is and microsoft is ascendance into internet glory would under most circumstances hold the nsa responsible for invasions of privacy.  and yet i can already see some instances of it being the fault of big business in some more progressive circles.   #  seen as bloated and unnecessary and oppresive by the young, a provider of jobs, liberties, and fighter against fascism by the old at a time when the united states  military supremacy was new and contested .   #  this is because of ww0 and the cold war among other things.   # what ? there have always been big time industrialists vanderbilts, rockefellers, etc.  etc.  etc.  there have always been all powerful companies united fruit company, standard oil, etc.  this is because of ww0 and the cold war among other things.  people who grew up under the constant fear of nuclear war probably valued the military more.  people who grow up hearing about abu ghraib, extra ordinary rendition, and drone bombings have a much different view of the military.  this has nothing to do with age and everything to do with the state of the military when someone is views of it are being formed.  you need to look at issues that have fewer moving parts like views on civil rights, abortion, or the death penalty.   abortion  as a concept has not changed nearly as much in the last 0 years as the american military has.  people is oppositions to it are very similar to what they were 0 years ago live starts at conception, etc.  looking at issues where the arguments have stayed constant would be much more interesting.  for things like big corporations and the military the environment has changed far too much to compare views.   #  corporate tax rates have fallen dramatically, but this was not the result of congress.   #  so were the  conservative revolutions  of the 0s and afterward a fluke ? a temporary reversal ? or was that outside that parameters that you are considering in such a model ? for instance, i think carter was a liberal president, but clinton and obama have fallen far short of his position.  programs like social security and medicare were also big achievements that i ca not picture today.  the aca is thought by many to be a logical extension of those programs, but its passage was extremely doubtful up until the very last minute.  it was also extremely watered down from the progressive ideals that it rested on.  we got some subsidies and government run exchanges.  these reflect a liberal direction, but the concessions such as the mandate strike me as more conservative than liberal.  what is more, secular shifts happen that push us more conservative.  corporate tax rates have fallen dramatically, but this was not the result of congress.  it was the result of tax lawyers, and multinational corporations.  yet this is still a shift to a significantly less liberal policy.   #  i do not agree that the rallying of the conservative base marks a reversal of the trend, as these conservatives are extremely liberal by the standards of their century past counterparts.   #  none of the above.  i described a broad trend, any smaller variance within the trend would not counter the overall trend line.  i do not agree that the rallying of the conservative base marks a reversal of the trend, as these conservatives are extremely liberal by the standards of their century past counterparts.  i think it can be more accurately described as a change in the motivation and coherency of the conservative base versus the liberal base.  right now, conservatives are more strongly motivated than liberals, in part because they have been on the losing side of most debates on social policies.  liberals are more comfortable with the status quo as they have, equally, won these debates.   #  the problem in visualizing your picture is that the modern political landscape must be  off the charts  more liberal than, say, the status quo in 0.  also, that this progression is still happening.   #  i kind of see now.  the problem in visualizing your picture is that the modern political landscape must be  off the charts  more liberal than, say, the status quo in 0.  also, that this progression is still happening.  it is like if you had a rock tied to a rope, you throw it forward and them walk up to it.  then you pick up the rock and throw it again, and walk toward it again.  but is this represented in, say, the political poling ? or is that also a too modern of an invention to apply to the past ? like how we would not ask about interracial marriage today because so few people would oppose it.  other things being equal, i would  assume  that the statement that people get more conservative with age is based off a constant question set.  your position sort of requires that we have shifting questions that determine political persuasion, and a moving center baseline for the questions that remain over generations.   #  as ill defined a concept as that is i do not mean to imply that this is some hard and fast law of the universe, or even biological imperative.   #  pick almost any time period, and  progressiveness  tends to increase.  as ill defined a concept as that is i do not mean to imply that this is some hard and fast law of the universe, or even biological imperative.  it is just the general trend.  i do agree with the idea that, rather than people becoming more conservative as they age, the concept of what is a conservative or liberal position has changed quickly enough that it has outpaced some people.  i suppose it could be a combination of both, but as it is generally used i reject the claimed truism  show me a young conservative and i will show you someone with no heart.  show me an old liberal and i will show you someone with no brains.   as the sort of thing aging conservatives like to use to brand their opponents as naive or stupid.  it is a rhetorical tool, not an observation.  on the matter of social policy, i think this is an easy argument to support.  one just about any specific measure, society as a whole is more progressive than ever.  gay marriage is a recent example.  there are many more going back through time.  fiscal matters are less clear cut.  i grant you that.
i always say people touting out the  language changes, deal with it  line whenever there is a complaint about people using  literally  wrong.  however, most change in language makes things more clear by adding new terms for things that people need to describe.  using  literally  wrong does the opposite.  it renders the word meaningless, creates a lexical gap, and makes the english language that much less clear.  for clarity is sake, i am going to be talking about two definitions.  the right or original definition of  literally  means  not in metaphor nor figuratively.   the wrong or new definition of literally i am referring to is the opposite;  metaphorically, or figuratively.   i am paraphrasing slightly from the dictionary definitions URL but keeping the spirit.  the reason that the wrong definition is so bad is that it means the negation of the right definition.  and when somebody uses the word  literally , it is unclear whether they are talking about the original definition or the new definition.  so when someone says, for example   my friend literally stabbed me in the back,   it either means  my friend stabbed me in the back, and i do not mean that as a figure of speech but rather that they placed a literal knife into my back.   with the original definition or they mean  my friend stabbed me in the back, but in a figurative way.  they did not really put a knife into my back.   with the new definition .  since it is unclear, the sentence essentially means to the listener ,  my friend stabbed me in the back, and that either is a figure of speech or it is not.   the problem is that the last part,  that is a figure or speech or it is not  is true and always implied whether you say or not.  in that sense, this sentence means the same thing as  my friend stabbed me in the back.   the word  literally  adds no new information and does not make the sentence any clearer.  it is rendered useless.  and since it is rendered useless, that creates a lexical gap.  the word  literally  in its correct definition was a very useful word.  often times, you can find yourself describing something that sounds like a metaphor or a figure of speech, but did literally happen.  and the word  literally  is useful for letting people know that it is not a figure of speech, without having to go through the tedium of saying  and i do not just mean that as a figure of speech/metaphor.   there is no other word that fills this purpose now, and the english language is poorer and less clear for its loss.  most changes and evolutions in language do not have this problem.  cmv.  responses to common arguments:    it will be clear from context which definition people mean.   if it is clear from context whether they mean a literal  literally  or a new definition  literally , then it would also be clear without the word  literally  there at all.  the word is still adding no information to the sentence.  however, in those situations where it is  unclear  whether someone us using a figure of speech or not, the word  literally  will make things clear, only if it just has the one meaning.     literally is an intensifier; it does not mean non literally.   this is another way of looking at it, but it does not really disprove the over all point i am making.  if  literally  has another meaning as an intensifier, then it is still going to be unclear which one you are using in pretty much any sentence where it would be unclear if it means  non literal,  since an intensifier can be added to pretty much any sentence.  it is still making things unclear; just in a different way.   #  the wrong or new definition of literally i am referring to is the opposite;  metaphorically, or figuratively.    #  i am paraphrasing slightly from the dictionary definitions but keeping the spirit.   # i am paraphrasing slightly from the dictionary definitions but keeping the spirit.  when people use the word this way, they do not actually mean  figuratively .  that is not the right way to interpret the word.  they are literally using the literal definition of literally.  but they are doing so as a form of hyperbole.  the use of the word itself is figurative, not the meaning of the word.  this is not a new evolution either, using literally as a form of hyperbole goes back a long time.  merriam webster did a video talking about just this in fact.  URL  #  but in that case it is a different form of the word; you are using it as an adjective instead of an adverb.   #  but in that case it is a different form of the word; you are using it as an adjective instead of an adverb.  a lot of words mean different things as adjectives and adverbs.  you can say both  i just managed to beat him  and  the judge was just , and those mean wildly different things.  but the word  just  is still solid and you still know what it means in context.  same with  the plane flew low  and  we are low on tissues .   #   i was literally in a car crash  is very different than,  i literally ate three birthday cakes.    #  but it does not, because context will tell people what they mean.   i was literally in a car crash  is very different than,  i literally ate three birthday cakes.   despite the word being used differently.  like, this happens all the time in the english language, literally all the time even ! sometimes words have  different meanings  and they do not cloud or muddle the language as a whole at all.  this is clearly not the issue op and others make it out to be.  and i highly doubt they seriously believe all words should only have one literal meaning and  that is it .   #  it is hard sometimes to tell when they are using it as figuratively or literally.   #  i think for literally it might be a bit different.  it is hard sometimes to tell when they are using it as figuratively or literally.  for instance the sentence, we literally no longer have a word to describe things literally anymore.  what does that sentence mean ? you can use the figurative meaning any any point in that sentence and it means something different.  hell use the figurative definition both times and it means something different yet again.   #  i do not quite see how that does not make sense.   #  we figuratively do not have a word to describe things figuratively anymore.  i do not quite see how that does not make sense.  we figuratively do not have a word to describe things literally anymore, still makes sense.  we literally do not have a word to describe things figuratively anymore, still makes sense.  we literally do not have a word to describe things literally anymore, still makes sense.
i always say people touting out the  language changes, deal with it  line whenever there is a complaint about people using  literally  wrong.  however, most change in language makes things more clear by adding new terms for things that people need to describe.  using  literally  wrong does the opposite.  it renders the word meaningless, creates a lexical gap, and makes the english language that much less clear.  for clarity is sake, i am going to be talking about two definitions.  the right or original definition of  literally  means  not in metaphor nor figuratively.   the wrong or new definition of literally i am referring to is the opposite;  metaphorically, or figuratively.   i am paraphrasing slightly from the dictionary definitions URL but keeping the spirit.  the reason that the wrong definition is so bad is that it means the negation of the right definition.  and when somebody uses the word  literally , it is unclear whether they are talking about the original definition or the new definition.  so when someone says, for example   my friend literally stabbed me in the back,   it either means  my friend stabbed me in the back, and i do not mean that as a figure of speech but rather that they placed a literal knife into my back.   with the original definition or they mean  my friend stabbed me in the back, but in a figurative way.  they did not really put a knife into my back.   with the new definition .  since it is unclear, the sentence essentially means to the listener ,  my friend stabbed me in the back, and that either is a figure of speech or it is not.   the problem is that the last part,  that is a figure or speech or it is not  is true and always implied whether you say or not.  in that sense, this sentence means the same thing as  my friend stabbed me in the back.   the word  literally  adds no new information and does not make the sentence any clearer.  it is rendered useless.  and since it is rendered useless, that creates a lexical gap.  the word  literally  in its correct definition was a very useful word.  often times, you can find yourself describing something that sounds like a metaphor or a figure of speech, but did literally happen.  and the word  literally  is useful for letting people know that it is not a figure of speech, without having to go through the tedium of saying  and i do not just mean that as a figure of speech/metaphor.   there is no other word that fills this purpose now, and the english language is poorer and less clear for its loss.  most changes and evolutions in language do not have this problem.  cmv.  responses to common arguments:    it will be clear from context which definition people mean.   if it is clear from context whether they mean a literal  literally  or a new definition  literally , then it would also be clear without the word  literally  there at all.  the word is still adding no information to the sentence.  however, in those situations where it is  unclear  whether someone us using a figure of speech or not, the word  literally  will make things clear, only if it just has the one meaning.     literally is an intensifier; it does not mean non literally.   this is another way of looking at it, but it does not really disprove the over all point i am making.  if  literally  has another meaning as an intensifier, then it is still going to be unclear which one you are using in pretty much any sentence where it would be unclear if it means  non literal,  since an intensifier can be added to pretty much any sentence.  it is still making things unclear; just in a different way.   #  i always say people touting out the  language changes, deal with it  line whenever there is a complaint about people using  literally  wrong.   #  however, most change in language makes things more clear by adding new terms for things that people need to describe.   #  though i worded it differently, op made this claim within the first paragraph.  however, most change in language makes things more clear by adding new terms for things that people need to describe.  cmv.  he is also making the claim, at least in part here.  many, maybe even most, changes in language could be very well argued to have this problem.   #  but the word  just  is still solid and you still know what it means in context.   #  but in that case it is a different form of the word; you are using it as an adjective instead of an adverb.  a lot of words mean different things as adjectives and adverbs.  you can say both  i just managed to beat him  and  the judge was just , and those mean wildly different things.  but the word  just  is still solid and you still know what it means in context.  same with  the plane flew low  and  we are low on tissues .   #  and i highly doubt they seriously believe all words should only have one literal meaning and  that is it .   #  but it does not, because context will tell people what they mean.   i was literally in a car crash  is very different than,  i literally ate three birthday cakes.   despite the word being used differently.  like, this happens all the time in the english language, literally all the time even ! sometimes words have  different meanings  and they do not cloud or muddle the language as a whole at all.  this is clearly not the issue op and others make it out to be.  and i highly doubt they seriously believe all words should only have one literal meaning and  that is it .   #  i think for literally it might be a bit different.   #  i think for literally it might be a bit different.  it is hard sometimes to tell when they are using it as figuratively or literally.  for instance the sentence, we literally no longer have a word to describe things literally anymore.  what does that sentence mean ? you can use the figurative meaning any any point in that sentence and it means something different.  hell use the figurative definition both times and it means something different yet again.   #  we figuratively do not have a word to describe things literally anymore, still makes sense.   #  we figuratively do not have a word to describe things figuratively anymore.  i do not quite see how that does not make sense.  we figuratively do not have a word to describe things literally anymore, still makes sense.  we literally do not have a word to describe things figuratively anymore, still makes sense.  we literally do not have a word to describe things literally anymore, still makes sense.
i always say people touting out the  language changes, deal with it  line whenever there is a complaint about people using  literally  wrong.  however, most change in language makes things more clear by adding new terms for things that people need to describe.  using  literally  wrong does the opposite.  it renders the word meaningless, creates a lexical gap, and makes the english language that much less clear.  for clarity is sake, i am going to be talking about two definitions.  the right or original definition of  literally  means  not in metaphor nor figuratively.   the wrong or new definition of literally i am referring to is the opposite;  metaphorically, or figuratively.   i am paraphrasing slightly from the dictionary definitions URL but keeping the spirit.  the reason that the wrong definition is so bad is that it means the negation of the right definition.  and when somebody uses the word  literally , it is unclear whether they are talking about the original definition or the new definition.  so when someone says, for example   my friend literally stabbed me in the back,   it either means  my friend stabbed me in the back, and i do not mean that as a figure of speech but rather that they placed a literal knife into my back.   with the original definition or they mean  my friend stabbed me in the back, but in a figurative way.  they did not really put a knife into my back.   with the new definition .  since it is unclear, the sentence essentially means to the listener ,  my friend stabbed me in the back, and that either is a figure of speech or it is not.   the problem is that the last part,  that is a figure or speech or it is not  is true and always implied whether you say or not.  in that sense, this sentence means the same thing as  my friend stabbed me in the back.   the word  literally  adds no new information and does not make the sentence any clearer.  it is rendered useless.  and since it is rendered useless, that creates a lexical gap.  the word  literally  in its correct definition was a very useful word.  often times, you can find yourself describing something that sounds like a metaphor or a figure of speech, but did literally happen.  and the word  literally  is useful for letting people know that it is not a figure of speech, without having to go through the tedium of saying  and i do not just mean that as a figure of speech/metaphor.   there is no other word that fills this purpose now, and the english language is poorer and less clear for its loss.  most changes and evolutions in language do not have this problem.  cmv.  responses to common arguments:    it will be clear from context which definition people mean.   if it is clear from context whether they mean a literal  literally  or a new definition  literally , then it would also be clear without the word  literally  there at all.  the word is still adding no information to the sentence.  however, in those situations where it is  unclear  whether someone us using a figure of speech or not, the word  literally  will make things clear, only if it just has the one meaning.     literally is an intensifier; it does not mean non literally.   this is another way of looking at it, but it does not really disprove the over all point i am making.  if  literally  has another meaning as an intensifier, then it is still going to be unclear which one you are using in pretty much any sentence where it would be unclear if it means  non literal,  since an intensifier can be added to pretty much any sentence.  it is still making things unclear; just in a different way.   #  it renders the word meaningless, creates a lexical gap, and makes the english language that much less clear.   #  words can take on multiple definitions without the word being less clear, especially when the secondary sense are  metaphorical  to the primary sense.   #  hey there ! there are a lot of unfounded assumptions going on here about language.  this wo not be very well organized, but hopefully it will add up to a clearer picture that might change your view.  this is not true ! words can be forgotten, words can take on additional meanings.  some theorize that language changes are driven by optimizing  simplicity  in addition to information content.  words can take on multiple definitions without the word being less clear, especially when the secondary sense are  metaphorical  to the primary sense.  for example, take the sentence  i am feeling down .   down  means  sad  here due to the  metaphor  mapping  height  to  emotion .  this sense of the word does not at all  render the word meaningless , does not create a lexical gap, and does not make the language less clear.  in the same way, the  metaphorical  use of  literally  is a conceptual mapping from  realness  to  intensity .  the same metaphor is why  really  and  truly  are also intensifiers.   literally  is literally no different from hundreds to thousands of words and ideas we use metaphorically, so to fight against the secondary usage is to fight metaphor itself.  i see this confusion repeated quite often.  the  wrong  definition is not the negation, it just happens to be used in a way  irrespective  of the primary sense.   i could literally eat a horse  does  not  mean  i could figuratively eat a horse , it means  i really could eat a horse .  the fact that the speaker could not actually eat a horse is conveyed through context and idiom, while the sentence itself emphasizes the speaker is hunger.  re:   my friend literally stabbed me in the back   here are some exchanges where i am pretty sure speaker is being unambiguous: b:  how did you get that gnarly scar ?   a:  my friend literally stabbed me in the back.   a:  my friend literally stabbed me in the back.   b:  wow, i am sorry to hear that.   a:  yeah, he stole my xbox  a:  my friend literally stabbed me in the back, aughrghr .  b:  holy shit, someone call 0 !   same sentence, different meanings depending on the tone and the context.  the same ideas can be expressed with both meanings no lexical gap at all.  language requires semantics and pragmatics and many more systems working in conjunction, and imho this kind of complaint about  literally  focuses entirely on semantics at the exclusion of everything else.   #  same with  the plane flew low  and  we are low on tissues .   #  but in that case it is a different form of the word; you are using it as an adjective instead of an adverb.  a lot of words mean different things as adjectives and adverbs.  you can say both  i just managed to beat him  and  the judge was just , and those mean wildly different things.  but the word  just  is still solid and you still know what it means in context.  same with  the plane flew low  and  we are low on tissues .   #   i was literally in a car crash  is very different than,  i literally ate three birthday cakes.    #  but it does not, because context will tell people what they mean.   i was literally in a car crash  is very different than,  i literally ate three birthday cakes.   despite the word being used differently.  like, this happens all the time in the english language, literally all the time even ! sometimes words have  different meanings  and they do not cloud or muddle the language as a whole at all.  this is clearly not the issue op and others make it out to be.  and i highly doubt they seriously believe all words should only have one literal meaning and  that is it .   #  i think for literally it might be a bit different.   #  i think for literally it might be a bit different.  it is hard sometimes to tell when they are using it as figuratively or literally.  for instance the sentence, we literally no longer have a word to describe things literally anymore.  what does that sentence mean ? you can use the figurative meaning any any point in that sentence and it means something different.  hell use the figurative definition both times and it means something different yet again.   #  we literally do not have a word to describe things literally anymore, still makes sense.   #  we figuratively do not have a word to describe things figuratively anymore.  i do not quite see how that does not make sense.  we figuratively do not have a word to describe things literally anymore, still makes sense.  we literally do not have a word to describe things figuratively anymore, still makes sense.  we literally do not have a word to describe things literally anymore, still makes sense.
i always say people touting out the  language changes, deal with it  line whenever there is a complaint about people using  literally  wrong.  however, most change in language makes things more clear by adding new terms for things that people need to describe.  using  literally  wrong does the opposite.  it renders the word meaningless, creates a lexical gap, and makes the english language that much less clear.  for clarity is sake, i am going to be talking about two definitions.  the right or original definition of  literally  means  not in metaphor nor figuratively.   the wrong or new definition of literally i am referring to is the opposite;  metaphorically, or figuratively.   i am paraphrasing slightly from the dictionary definitions URL but keeping the spirit.  the reason that the wrong definition is so bad is that it means the negation of the right definition.  and when somebody uses the word  literally , it is unclear whether they are talking about the original definition or the new definition.  so when someone says, for example   my friend literally stabbed me in the back,   it either means  my friend stabbed me in the back, and i do not mean that as a figure of speech but rather that they placed a literal knife into my back.   with the original definition or they mean  my friend stabbed me in the back, but in a figurative way.  they did not really put a knife into my back.   with the new definition .  since it is unclear, the sentence essentially means to the listener ,  my friend stabbed me in the back, and that either is a figure of speech or it is not.   the problem is that the last part,  that is a figure or speech or it is not  is true and always implied whether you say or not.  in that sense, this sentence means the same thing as  my friend stabbed me in the back.   the word  literally  adds no new information and does not make the sentence any clearer.  it is rendered useless.  and since it is rendered useless, that creates a lexical gap.  the word  literally  in its correct definition was a very useful word.  often times, you can find yourself describing something that sounds like a metaphor or a figure of speech, but did literally happen.  and the word  literally  is useful for letting people know that it is not a figure of speech, without having to go through the tedium of saying  and i do not just mean that as a figure of speech/metaphor.   there is no other word that fills this purpose now, and the english language is poorer and less clear for its loss.  most changes and evolutions in language do not have this problem.  cmv.  responses to common arguments:    it will be clear from context which definition people mean.   if it is clear from context whether they mean a literal  literally  or a new definition  literally , then it would also be clear without the word  literally  there at all.  the word is still adding no information to the sentence.  however, in those situations where it is  unclear  whether someone us using a figure of speech or not, the word  literally  will make things clear, only if it just has the one meaning.     literally is an intensifier; it does not mean non literally.   this is another way of looking at it, but it does not really disprove the over all point i am making.  if  literally  has another meaning as an intensifier, then it is still going to be unclear which one you are using in pretty much any sentence where it would be unclear if it means  non literal,  since an intensifier can be added to pretty much any sentence.  it is still making things unclear; just in a different way.   #  the reason that the wrong definition is so bad is that it means the negation of the right definition.   #  i see this confusion repeated quite often.   #  hey there ! there are a lot of unfounded assumptions going on here about language.  this wo not be very well organized, but hopefully it will add up to a clearer picture that might change your view.  this is not true ! words can be forgotten, words can take on additional meanings.  some theorize that language changes are driven by optimizing  simplicity  in addition to information content.  words can take on multiple definitions without the word being less clear, especially when the secondary sense are  metaphorical  to the primary sense.  for example, take the sentence  i am feeling down .   down  means  sad  here due to the  metaphor  mapping  height  to  emotion .  this sense of the word does not at all  render the word meaningless , does not create a lexical gap, and does not make the language less clear.  in the same way, the  metaphorical  use of  literally  is a conceptual mapping from  realness  to  intensity .  the same metaphor is why  really  and  truly  are also intensifiers.   literally  is literally no different from hundreds to thousands of words and ideas we use metaphorically, so to fight against the secondary usage is to fight metaphor itself.  i see this confusion repeated quite often.  the  wrong  definition is not the negation, it just happens to be used in a way  irrespective  of the primary sense.   i could literally eat a horse  does  not  mean  i could figuratively eat a horse , it means  i really could eat a horse .  the fact that the speaker could not actually eat a horse is conveyed through context and idiom, while the sentence itself emphasizes the speaker is hunger.  re:   my friend literally stabbed me in the back   here are some exchanges where i am pretty sure speaker is being unambiguous: b:  how did you get that gnarly scar ?   a:  my friend literally stabbed me in the back.   a:  my friend literally stabbed me in the back.   b:  wow, i am sorry to hear that.   a:  yeah, he stole my xbox  a:  my friend literally stabbed me in the back, aughrghr .  b:  holy shit, someone call 0 !   same sentence, different meanings depending on the tone and the context.  the same ideas can be expressed with both meanings no lexical gap at all.  language requires semantics and pragmatics and many more systems working in conjunction, and imho this kind of complaint about  literally  focuses entirely on semantics at the exclusion of everything else.   #  same with  the plane flew low  and  we are low on tissues .   #  but in that case it is a different form of the word; you are using it as an adjective instead of an adverb.  a lot of words mean different things as adjectives and adverbs.  you can say both  i just managed to beat him  and  the judge was just , and those mean wildly different things.  but the word  just  is still solid and you still know what it means in context.  same with  the plane flew low  and  we are low on tissues .   #  like, this happens all the time in the english language, literally all the time even !  #  but it does not, because context will tell people what they mean.   i was literally in a car crash  is very different than,  i literally ate three birthday cakes.   despite the word being used differently.  like, this happens all the time in the english language, literally all the time even ! sometimes words have  different meanings  and they do not cloud or muddle the language as a whole at all.  this is clearly not the issue op and others make it out to be.  and i highly doubt they seriously believe all words should only have one literal meaning and  that is it .   #  for instance the sentence, we literally no longer have a word to describe things literally anymore.   #  i think for literally it might be a bit different.  it is hard sometimes to tell when they are using it as figuratively or literally.  for instance the sentence, we literally no longer have a word to describe things literally anymore.  what does that sentence mean ? you can use the figurative meaning any any point in that sentence and it means something different.  hell use the figurative definition both times and it means something different yet again.   #  i do not quite see how that does not make sense.   #  we figuratively do not have a word to describe things figuratively anymore.  i do not quite see how that does not make sense.  we figuratively do not have a word to describe things literally anymore, still makes sense.  we literally do not have a word to describe things figuratively anymore, still makes sense.  we literally do not have a word to describe things literally anymore, still makes sense.
i have several friends who are very intelligent people, with university education and as far as i can tell have logical minds.  some were raised as christians form birth, others have converted.  i can not fathom how they manage to keep believing in their chosen faith despite all the inconsistencies of the bible and the rational explanations that science can provide.  i have always had a logical mind, and will always look for evidence of anything before believing it.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  when i have explained this to these people, they accept my arguments, and agree that the same logic applies to literally  any  other situation, but refuse to believe it when its applied to god.  are these people delusional, unintelligent, or am i intolerant of other beliefs ? i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.   #  i can not fathom how they manage to keep believing in their chosen faith despite all the inconsistencies of the bible and the rational explanations that science can provide.   #  certainly, but science does not explain human behavior.   # certainly, but science does not explain human behavior.  science does not give you any kind of guidance for living a good life.  science does not give you any rational explanations for making sense of being a self conscious, self aware, hairless ape in a confusing world.  also science still has numerous inconsistencies and plenty of hand waving itself.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  ignore god is existence for a bit.  and look at what the bible really holds: a collection of allegories, stories, fables, parables, and not an insignificant amount of history, largely centered on leading a just and moral life, not being a dick, and finding happiness.  there is nothing crazy, unintelligent, or illogical, in looking at a system and determining:  you know what, it is not perfect, but it works pretty well.    #  these sorts of questions are very difficult to deal with in the abstract, and in contentious contexts.   #  have you ever asked your intelligent friends why they are able to believe in god ? in particular, have you ever asked them outside of the context of a debate/argument, and without trying to convince them that they should not ? these sorts of questions are very difficult to deal with in the abstract, and in contentious contexts.  indeed, if religious experience were not deeply individual and personal it would not be of much worth to anyone ! i recommend you pick a friend you are close with and say something like  i have always had a hard time understanding why you are religious.  i have always thought that religion and logical thinking are incompatible, but i think you are a smart person and you are religious.  could you try and explain what you are seeing that i am missing ? i want to understand.   if your goal really is to understand your intelligent religious friends i think you have to have a conversation like this where all you are allowed to do is ask questions.  no arguing, no explaining your arguments, just asking.  if you have already done this with some of your real life friends and still have things you want to ask, pm me and we can chat ! i am a christian mormon , and am currently doing a phd in theoretical physics, so hopefully that counts as religious and educated.  :p  #  i believe that humans should be kind to each other, that we should work together to build great things, that we should take care of children and animals and that country music generally sucks.   #  i believe that humans should be kind to each other, that we should work together to build great things, that we should take care of children and animals and that country music generally sucks.  none of these are based on the logical and rigorous application of empirically based scientific methodology although there is soft evidence i have seen to support my views .  it is really based on how i think the world should be, how i want to live my life, and what a good life is.  but, honestly, that is after the fact bs i really believe it because it  feels right  to me.  while i have a scientific outlook on  verifiable truths , i have unverifiable beliefs as well.  and that does not make me any less intelligent.   #  a christian friend described us as having a  god shaped hole  there is a strong urge for many of us to embrace religion.   #  not at all.  i do not have  a hunch  about gravity, or evolution, or relativistic physics for those i rely on hard scientific evidence.  but there are things that are not provable, or are not about science.  if i saw a study saying that we would all prosper more if we were assholes to each other, i still would try to live the way i believe i should.  it fills my moral need, which is a belief rather than an empirically derived conclusion.  for the religiously inclined, deism fills a similar need.  a christian friend described us as having a  god shaped hole  there is a strong urge for many of us to embrace religion.  it is not because we are stupid or incapable of rational thought it is because humans also believe.  can you honestly say that everything you believe in is empirically derived ?  #  i can honestly say that everything i believe in is empirically derived, though i do not even like to use the word believe.   #  i can honestly say that everything i believe in is empirically derived, though i do not even like to use the word believe.  saying there is a  god shaped hole  is applying a religious context to what i think is our own sense of mortality and strong desire to not accept it.  we die and are almost definitely nothing once we die, and that is a very very hard thing to accept.  in my view, it is such a hard thing to accept that a lot of people would rather accept a story someone told them that has them existing forever.  i do not mean to belittle your beliefs, i wish i could believe too.
i have several friends who are very intelligent people, with university education and as far as i can tell have logical minds.  some were raised as christians form birth, others have converted.  i can not fathom how they manage to keep believing in their chosen faith despite all the inconsistencies of the bible and the rational explanations that science can provide.  i have always had a logical mind, and will always look for evidence of anything before believing it.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  when i have explained this to these people, they accept my arguments, and agree that the same logic applies to literally  any  other situation, but refuse to believe it when its applied to god.  are these people delusional, unintelligent, or am i intolerant of other beliefs ? i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.   #  i have always had a logical mind, and will always look for evidence of anything before believing it.   #  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.   # certainly, but science does not explain human behavior.  science does not give you any kind of guidance for living a good life.  science does not give you any rational explanations for making sense of being a self conscious, self aware, hairless ape in a confusing world.  also science still has numerous inconsistencies and plenty of hand waving itself.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  ignore god is existence for a bit.  and look at what the bible really holds: a collection of allegories, stories, fables, parables, and not an insignificant amount of history, largely centered on leading a just and moral life, not being a dick, and finding happiness.  there is nothing crazy, unintelligent, or illogical, in looking at a system and determining:  you know what, it is not perfect, but it works pretty well.    #  in particular, have you ever asked them outside of the context of a debate/argument, and without trying to convince them that they should not ?  #  have you ever asked your intelligent friends why they are able to believe in god ? in particular, have you ever asked them outside of the context of a debate/argument, and without trying to convince them that they should not ? these sorts of questions are very difficult to deal with in the abstract, and in contentious contexts.  indeed, if religious experience were not deeply individual and personal it would not be of much worth to anyone ! i recommend you pick a friend you are close with and say something like  i have always had a hard time understanding why you are religious.  i have always thought that religion and logical thinking are incompatible, but i think you are a smart person and you are religious.  could you try and explain what you are seeing that i am missing ? i want to understand.   if your goal really is to understand your intelligent religious friends i think you have to have a conversation like this where all you are allowed to do is ask questions.  no arguing, no explaining your arguments, just asking.  if you have already done this with some of your real life friends and still have things you want to ask, pm me and we can chat ! i am a christian mormon , and am currently doing a phd in theoretical physics, so hopefully that counts as religious and educated.  :p  #  while i have a scientific outlook on  verifiable truths , i have unverifiable beliefs as well.   #  i believe that humans should be kind to each other, that we should work together to build great things, that we should take care of children and animals and that country music generally sucks.  none of these are based on the logical and rigorous application of empirically based scientific methodology although there is soft evidence i have seen to support my views .  it is really based on how i think the world should be, how i want to live my life, and what a good life is.  but, honestly, that is after the fact bs i really believe it because it  feels right  to me.  while i have a scientific outlook on  verifiable truths , i have unverifiable beliefs as well.  and that does not make me any less intelligent.   #  a christian friend described us as having a  god shaped hole  there is a strong urge for many of us to embrace religion.   #  not at all.  i do not have  a hunch  about gravity, or evolution, or relativistic physics for those i rely on hard scientific evidence.  but there are things that are not provable, or are not about science.  if i saw a study saying that we would all prosper more if we were assholes to each other, i still would try to live the way i believe i should.  it fills my moral need, which is a belief rather than an empirically derived conclusion.  for the religiously inclined, deism fills a similar need.  a christian friend described us as having a  god shaped hole  there is a strong urge for many of us to embrace religion.  it is not because we are stupid or incapable of rational thought it is because humans also believe.  can you honestly say that everything you believe in is empirically derived ?  #  i do not mean to belittle your beliefs, i wish i could believe too.   #  i can honestly say that everything i believe in is empirically derived, though i do not even like to use the word believe.  saying there is a  god shaped hole  is applying a religious context to what i think is our own sense of mortality and strong desire to not accept it.  we die and are almost definitely nothing once we die, and that is a very very hard thing to accept.  in my view, it is such a hard thing to accept that a lot of people would rather accept a story someone told them that has them existing forever.  i do not mean to belittle your beliefs, i wish i could believe too.
i have several friends who are very intelligent people, with university education and as far as i can tell have logical minds.  some were raised as christians form birth, others have converted.  i can not fathom how they manage to keep believing in their chosen faith despite all the inconsistencies of the bible and the rational explanations that science can provide.  i have always had a logical mind, and will always look for evidence of anything before believing it.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  when i have explained this to these people, they accept my arguments, and agree that the same logic applies to literally  any  other situation, but refuse to believe it when its applied to god.  are these people delusional, unintelligent, or am i intolerant of other beliefs ? i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.   #  i have always had a logical mind, and will always look for evidence of anything before believing it.   #  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.   # apples v.  oranges.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  ah the old, i am logical, but  argumentum ad ignorantiam .  there is nothing really logical about your assumption to the issue about the lack of evidence of god.  you ca not assume that there are only two outcomes to that question or that it is even a dilemma, and still call yourself logical.  the logical explanation is that the answer is unknown, based on lack of evidence; not that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, as you seem to be supporting.  you do not understand the difference between  belief that , and  belief in , or else you would never try to apply positivism to belief in.   #  i recommend you pick a friend you are close with and say something like  i have always had a hard time understanding why you are religious.   #  have you ever asked your intelligent friends why they are able to believe in god ? in particular, have you ever asked them outside of the context of a debate/argument, and without trying to convince them that they should not ? these sorts of questions are very difficult to deal with in the abstract, and in contentious contexts.  indeed, if religious experience were not deeply individual and personal it would not be of much worth to anyone ! i recommend you pick a friend you are close with and say something like  i have always had a hard time understanding why you are religious.  i have always thought that religion and logical thinking are incompatible, but i think you are a smart person and you are religious.  could you try and explain what you are seeing that i am missing ? i want to understand.   if your goal really is to understand your intelligent religious friends i think you have to have a conversation like this where all you are allowed to do is ask questions.  no arguing, no explaining your arguments, just asking.  if you have already done this with some of your real life friends and still have things you want to ask, pm me and we can chat ! i am a christian mormon , and am currently doing a phd in theoretical physics, so hopefully that counts as religious and educated.  :p  #  but, honestly, that is after the fact bs i really believe it because it  feels right  to me.   #  i believe that humans should be kind to each other, that we should work together to build great things, that we should take care of children and animals and that country music generally sucks.  none of these are based on the logical and rigorous application of empirically based scientific methodology although there is soft evidence i have seen to support my views .  it is really based on how i think the world should be, how i want to live my life, and what a good life is.  but, honestly, that is after the fact bs i really believe it because it  feels right  to me.  while i have a scientific outlook on  verifiable truths , i have unverifiable beliefs as well.  and that does not make me any less intelligent.   #  it fills my moral need, which is a belief rather than an empirically derived conclusion.   #  not at all.  i do not have  a hunch  about gravity, or evolution, or relativistic physics for those i rely on hard scientific evidence.  but there are things that are not provable, or are not about science.  if i saw a study saying that we would all prosper more if we were assholes to each other, i still would try to live the way i believe i should.  it fills my moral need, which is a belief rather than an empirically derived conclusion.  for the religiously inclined, deism fills a similar need.  a christian friend described us as having a  god shaped hole  there is a strong urge for many of us to embrace religion.  it is not because we are stupid or incapable of rational thought it is because humans also believe.  can you honestly say that everything you believe in is empirically derived ?  #  i can honestly say that everything i believe in is empirically derived, though i do not even like to use the word believe.   #  i can honestly say that everything i believe in is empirically derived, though i do not even like to use the word believe.  saying there is a  god shaped hole  is applying a religious context to what i think is our own sense of mortality and strong desire to not accept it.  we die and are almost definitely nothing once we die, and that is a very very hard thing to accept.  in my view, it is such a hard thing to accept that a lot of people would rather accept a story someone told them that has them existing forever.  i do not mean to belittle your beliefs, i wish i could believe too.
i have several friends who are very intelligent people, with university education and as far as i can tell have logical minds.  some were raised as christians form birth, others have converted.  i can not fathom how they manage to keep believing in their chosen faith despite all the inconsistencies of the bible and the rational explanations that science can provide.  i have always had a logical mind, and will always look for evidence of anything before believing it.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  when i have explained this to these people, they accept my arguments, and agree that the same logic applies to literally  any  other situation, but refuse to believe it when its applied to god.  are these people delusional, unintelligent, or am i intolerant of other beliefs ? i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.   #  i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.   #  you do not understand the difference between  belief that , and  belief in , or else you would never try to apply positivism to belief in.   # apples v.  oranges.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  ah the old, i am logical, but  argumentum ad ignorantiam .  there is nothing really logical about your assumption to the issue about the lack of evidence of god.  you ca not assume that there are only two outcomes to that question or that it is even a dilemma, and still call yourself logical.  the logical explanation is that the answer is unknown, based on lack of evidence; not that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, as you seem to be supporting.  you do not understand the difference between  belief that , and  belief in , or else you would never try to apply positivism to belief in.   #  could you try and explain what you are seeing that i am missing ?  #  have you ever asked your intelligent friends why they are able to believe in god ? in particular, have you ever asked them outside of the context of a debate/argument, and without trying to convince them that they should not ? these sorts of questions are very difficult to deal with in the abstract, and in contentious contexts.  indeed, if religious experience were not deeply individual and personal it would not be of much worth to anyone ! i recommend you pick a friend you are close with and say something like  i have always had a hard time understanding why you are religious.  i have always thought that religion and logical thinking are incompatible, but i think you are a smart person and you are religious.  could you try and explain what you are seeing that i am missing ? i want to understand.   if your goal really is to understand your intelligent religious friends i think you have to have a conversation like this where all you are allowed to do is ask questions.  no arguing, no explaining your arguments, just asking.  if you have already done this with some of your real life friends and still have things you want to ask, pm me and we can chat ! i am a christian mormon , and am currently doing a phd in theoretical physics, so hopefully that counts as religious and educated.  :p  #  while i have a scientific outlook on  verifiable truths , i have unverifiable beliefs as well.   #  i believe that humans should be kind to each other, that we should work together to build great things, that we should take care of children and animals and that country music generally sucks.  none of these are based on the logical and rigorous application of empirically based scientific methodology although there is soft evidence i have seen to support my views .  it is really based on how i think the world should be, how i want to live my life, and what a good life is.  but, honestly, that is after the fact bs i really believe it because it  feels right  to me.  while i have a scientific outlook on  verifiable truths , i have unverifiable beliefs as well.  and that does not make me any less intelligent.   #  can you honestly say that everything you believe in is empirically derived ?  #  not at all.  i do not have  a hunch  about gravity, or evolution, or relativistic physics for those i rely on hard scientific evidence.  but there are things that are not provable, or are not about science.  if i saw a study saying that we would all prosper more if we were assholes to each other, i still would try to live the way i believe i should.  it fills my moral need, which is a belief rather than an empirically derived conclusion.  for the religiously inclined, deism fills a similar need.  a christian friend described us as having a  god shaped hole  there is a strong urge for many of us to embrace religion.  it is not because we are stupid or incapable of rational thought it is because humans also believe.  can you honestly say that everything you believe in is empirically derived ?  #  in my view, it is such a hard thing to accept that a lot of people would rather accept a story someone told them that has them existing forever.   #  i can honestly say that everything i believe in is empirically derived, though i do not even like to use the word believe.  saying there is a  god shaped hole  is applying a religious context to what i think is our own sense of mortality and strong desire to not accept it.  we die and are almost definitely nothing once we die, and that is a very very hard thing to accept.  in my view, it is such a hard thing to accept that a lot of people would rather accept a story someone told them that has them existing forever.  i do not mean to belittle your beliefs, i wish i could believe too.
i have several friends who are very intelligent people, with university education and as far as i can tell have logical minds.  some were raised as christians form birth, others have converted.  i can not fathom how they manage to keep believing in their chosen faith despite all the inconsistencies of the bible and the rational explanations that science can provide.  i have always had a logical mind, and will always look for evidence of anything before believing it.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  when i have explained this to these people, they accept my arguments, and agree that the same logic applies to literally  any  other situation, but refuse to believe it when its applied to god.  are these people delusional, unintelligent, or am i intolerant of other beliefs ? i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.   #  i can not fathom how they manage to keep believing in their chosen faith despite all the inconsistencies of the bible and the rational explanations that science can provide.   #  the bible was written over the course of centuries, and it was written by humans different humans nonetheless .   #  there is nothing illogical about being a christian.  neither is there anything overly logical about it.  it is nothing more than a choice someone makes, and a part of who they decide to be.  the bible was written over the course of centuries, and it was written by humans different humans nonetheless .  of course it will have inconsistencies.  a lot of them are a product of either   cultural shifts.  we have the same thing now.  even just 0 years ago it was culturally acceptable to declare a duel to settle a dispute whereas now it is not.  if we had a modern version of the bible the older books would most certainly involve disputes being settles through duels whereas the newer books would have disputes settled through arbitration or something similar.  it is an inconsistency, yet one that is nothing more than a cultural shift.  translation errors.  the bible you are thinking of is not the same as the bible that was first written.  translation errors happen everytime you translate a book, but translating to and then from greek were especially bad.  the ancient greeks used their alphabet as their number system.  a famous case of how this resulted in a translation error is the  mark of the devil  a. k. a.  0.  in greek, that passage was actually warning readers to beware of emperor nero, of rome.  but because of how it was phrased, whoever translated it thought that it was referring to the devil and that it gave a number, not a name.  thus, an entire superstition the likes of which have not been rivaled, was born out of 0 translation error.  surely throughout the centuries many more have piled up into more inconsistencies.  misinterpretation by the clergymen.  the clergy for a long time, centuries in fact, dictated how to interpret the bible and its passages.  again, throughout the ages when the catholic church was busy rewriting the bible again and again certain passages were most certainly reworded to better fit the view of the clergy at the time.  since individual passages were changed at a time, more inconsistencies would add up.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent you have heard this before, and i will say it again.  having no evidence for something is not the same as having evidence that it does not exist.  for decades after physicists came up with the idea, we did not have any direct evidence for dark matter.  all we had were theories that depended upon the existence of dark matter.  yet for some reason, it was still considered logical to believe in the existence of dark matter because it made our theories work.  unless i am mistaken we still have no direct evidence of dark matter, it is still just a convenient explanation for why our theories are correct.  explain how this is different from believing in a god that we do not have evidence of.  in both cases, what people are choosing to believe in is nothing other than the missing piece that explains how the universe works  according to their view of it .  i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.  you sound extremely intolerant.  automatically judging people, and their intelligence, on whether or not they are theist screams intolerance.   #  i have always thought that religion and logical thinking are incompatible, but i think you are a smart person and you are religious.   #  have you ever asked your intelligent friends why they are able to believe in god ? in particular, have you ever asked them outside of the context of a debate/argument, and without trying to convince them that they should not ? these sorts of questions are very difficult to deal with in the abstract, and in contentious contexts.  indeed, if religious experience were not deeply individual and personal it would not be of much worth to anyone ! i recommend you pick a friend you are close with and say something like  i have always had a hard time understanding why you are religious.  i have always thought that religion and logical thinking are incompatible, but i think you are a smart person and you are religious.  could you try and explain what you are seeing that i am missing ? i want to understand.   if your goal really is to understand your intelligent religious friends i think you have to have a conversation like this where all you are allowed to do is ask questions.  no arguing, no explaining your arguments, just asking.  if you have already done this with some of your real life friends and still have things you want to ask, pm me and we can chat ! i am a christian mormon , and am currently doing a phd in theoretical physics, so hopefully that counts as religious and educated.  :p  #  it is really based on how i think the world should be, how i want to live my life, and what a good life is.   #  i believe that humans should be kind to each other, that we should work together to build great things, that we should take care of children and animals and that country music generally sucks.  none of these are based on the logical and rigorous application of empirically based scientific methodology although there is soft evidence i have seen to support my views .  it is really based on how i think the world should be, how i want to live my life, and what a good life is.  but, honestly, that is after the fact bs i really believe it because it  feels right  to me.  while i have a scientific outlook on  verifiable truths , i have unverifiable beliefs as well.  and that does not make me any less intelligent.   #  for the religiously inclined, deism fills a similar need.   #  not at all.  i do not have  a hunch  about gravity, or evolution, or relativistic physics for those i rely on hard scientific evidence.  but there are things that are not provable, or are not about science.  if i saw a study saying that we would all prosper more if we were assholes to each other, i still would try to live the way i believe i should.  it fills my moral need, which is a belief rather than an empirically derived conclusion.  for the religiously inclined, deism fills a similar need.  a christian friend described us as having a  god shaped hole  there is a strong urge for many of us to embrace religion.  it is not because we are stupid or incapable of rational thought it is because humans also believe.  can you honestly say that everything you believe in is empirically derived ?  #  we die and are almost definitely nothing once we die, and that is a very very hard thing to accept.   #  i can honestly say that everything i believe in is empirically derived, though i do not even like to use the word believe.  saying there is a  god shaped hole  is applying a religious context to what i think is our own sense of mortality and strong desire to not accept it.  we die and are almost definitely nothing once we die, and that is a very very hard thing to accept.  in my view, it is such a hard thing to accept that a lot of people would rather accept a story someone told them that has them existing forever.  i do not mean to belittle your beliefs, i wish i could believe too.
i have several friends who are very intelligent people, with university education and as far as i can tell have logical minds.  some were raised as christians form birth, others have converted.  i can not fathom how they manage to keep believing in their chosen faith despite all the inconsistencies of the bible and the rational explanations that science can provide.  i have always had a logical mind, and will always look for evidence of anything before believing it.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  when i have explained this to these people, they accept my arguments, and agree that the same logic applies to literally  any  other situation, but refuse to believe it when its applied to god.  are these people delusional, unintelligent, or am i intolerant of other beliefs ? i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.   #  i have always had a logical mind, and will always look for evidence of anything before believing it.   #  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent you have heard this before, and i will say it again.   #  there is nothing illogical about being a christian.  neither is there anything overly logical about it.  it is nothing more than a choice someone makes, and a part of who they decide to be.  the bible was written over the course of centuries, and it was written by humans different humans nonetheless .  of course it will have inconsistencies.  a lot of them are a product of either   cultural shifts.  we have the same thing now.  even just 0 years ago it was culturally acceptable to declare a duel to settle a dispute whereas now it is not.  if we had a modern version of the bible the older books would most certainly involve disputes being settles through duels whereas the newer books would have disputes settled through arbitration or something similar.  it is an inconsistency, yet one that is nothing more than a cultural shift.  translation errors.  the bible you are thinking of is not the same as the bible that was first written.  translation errors happen everytime you translate a book, but translating to and then from greek were especially bad.  the ancient greeks used their alphabet as their number system.  a famous case of how this resulted in a translation error is the  mark of the devil  a. k. a.  0.  in greek, that passage was actually warning readers to beware of emperor nero, of rome.  but because of how it was phrased, whoever translated it thought that it was referring to the devil and that it gave a number, not a name.  thus, an entire superstition the likes of which have not been rivaled, was born out of 0 translation error.  surely throughout the centuries many more have piled up into more inconsistencies.  misinterpretation by the clergymen.  the clergy for a long time, centuries in fact, dictated how to interpret the bible and its passages.  again, throughout the ages when the catholic church was busy rewriting the bible again and again certain passages were most certainly reworded to better fit the view of the clergy at the time.  since individual passages were changed at a time, more inconsistencies would add up.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent you have heard this before, and i will say it again.  having no evidence for something is not the same as having evidence that it does not exist.  for decades after physicists came up with the idea, we did not have any direct evidence for dark matter.  all we had were theories that depended upon the existence of dark matter.  yet for some reason, it was still considered logical to believe in the existence of dark matter because it made our theories work.  unless i am mistaken we still have no direct evidence of dark matter, it is still just a convenient explanation for why our theories are correct.  explain how this is different from believing in a god that we do not have evidence of.  in both cases, what people are choosing to believe in is nothing other than the missing piece that explains how the universe works  according to their view of it .  i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.  you sound extremely intolerant.  automatically judging people, and their intelligence, on whether or not they are theist screams intolerance.   #  i have always thought that religion and logical thinking are incompatible, but i think you are a smart person and you are religious.   #  have you ever asked your intelligent friends why they are able to believe in god ? in particular, have you ever asked them outside of the context of a debate/argument, and without trying to convince them that they should not ? these sorts of questions are very difficult to deal with in the abstract, and in contentious contexts.  indeed, if religious experience were not deeply individual and personal it would not be of much worth to anyone ! i recommend you pick a friend you are close with and say something like  i have always had a hard time understanding why you are religious.  i have always thought that religion and logical thinking are incompatible, but i think you are a smart person and you are religious.  could you try and explain what you are seeing that i am missing ? i want to understand.   if your goal really is to understand your intelligent religious friends i think you have to have a conversation like this where all you are allowed to do is ask questions.  no arguing, no explaining your arguments, just asking.  if you have already done this with some of your real life friends and still have things you want to ask, pm me and we can chat ! i am a christian mormon , and am currently doing a phd in theoretical physics, so hopefully that counts as religious and educated.  :p  #  none of these are based on the logical and rigorous application of empirically based scientific methodology although there is soft evidence i have seen to support my views .   #  i believe that humans should be kind to each other, that we should work together to build great things, that we should take care of children and animals and that country music generally sucks.  none of these are based on the logical and rigorous application of empirically based scientific methodology although there is soft evidence i have seen to support my views .  it is really based on how i think the world should be, how i want to live my life, and what a good life is.  but, honestly, that is after the fact bs i really believe it because it  feels right  to me.  while i have a scientific outlook on  verifiable truths , i have unverifiable beliefs as well.  and that does not make me any less intelligent.   #  if i saw a study saying that we would all prosper more if we were assholes to each other, i still would try to live the way i believe i should.   #  not at all.  i do not have  a hunch  about gravity, or evolution, or relativistic physics for those i rely on hard scientific evidence.  but there are things that are not provable, or are not about science.  if i saw a study saying that we would all prosper more if we were assholes to each other, i still would try to live the way i believe i should.  it fills my moral need, which is a belief rather than an empirically derived conclusion.  for the religiously inclined, deism fills a similar need.  a christian friend described us as having a  god shaped hole  there is a strong urge for many of us to embrace religion.  it is not because we are stupid or incapable of rational thought it is because humans also believe.  can you honestly say that everything you believe in is empirically derived ?  #  i can honestly say that everything i believe in is empirically derived, though i do not even like to use the word believe.   #  i can honestly say that everything i believe in is empirically derived, though i do not even like to use the word believe.  saying there is a  god shaped hole  is applying a religious context to what i think is our own sense of mortality and strong desire to not accept it.  we die and are almost definitely nothing once we die, and that is a very very hard thing to accept.  in my view, it is such a hard thing to accept that a lot of people would rather accept a story someone told them that has them existing forever.  i do not mean to belittle your beliefs, i wish i could believe too.
i have several friends who are very intelligent people, with university education and as far as i can tell have logical minds.  some were raised as christians form birth, others have converted.  i can not fathom how they manage to keep believing in their chosen faith despite all the inconsistencies of the bible and the rational explanations that science can provide.  i have always had a logical mind, and will always look for evidence of anything before believing it.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent.  when i have explained this to these people, they accept my arguments, and agree that the same logic applies to literally  any  other situation, but refuse to believe it when its applied to god.  are these people delusional, unintelligent, or am i intolerant of other beliefs ? i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.   #  are these people delusional, unintelligent, or am i intolerant of other beliefs ?  #  i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.   #  there is nothing illogical about being a christian.  neither is there anything overly logical about it.  it is nothing more than a choice someone makes, and a part of who they decide to be.  the bible was written over the course of centuries, and it was written by humans different humans nonetheless .  of course it will have inconsistencies.  a lot of them are a product of either   cultural shifts.  we have the same thing now.  even just 0 years ago it was culturally acceptable to declare a duel to settle a dispute whereas now it is not.  if we had a modern version of the bible the older books would most certainly involve disputes being settles through duels whereas the newer books would have disputes settled through arbitration or something similar.  it is an inconsistency, yet one that is nothing more than a cultural shift.  translation errors.  the bible you are thinking of is not the same as the bible that was first written.  translation errors happen everytime you translate a book, but translating to and then from greek were especially bad.  the ancient greeks used their alphabet as their number system.  a famous case of how this resulted in a translation error is the  mark of the devil  a. k. a.  0.  in greek, that passage was actually warning readers to beware of emperor nero, of rome.  but because of how it was phrased, whoever translated it thought that it was referring to the devil and that it gave a number, not a name.  thus, an entire superstition the likes of which have not been rivaled, was born out of 0 translation error.  surely throughout the centuries many more have piled up into more inconsistencies.  misinterpretation by the clergymen.  the clergy for a long time, centuries in fact, dictated how to interpret the bible and its passages.  again, throughout the ages when the catholic church was busy rewriting the bible again and again certain passages were most certainly reworded to better fit the view of the clergy at the time.  since individual passages were changed at a time, more inconsistencies would add up.  as there is no evidence for a god, the logical explanation is that it is probably non existent you have heard this before, and i will say it again.  having no evidence for something is not the same as having evidence that it does not exist.  for decades after physicists came up with the idea, we did not have any direct evidence for dark matter.  all we had were theories that depended upon the existence of dark matter.  yet for some reason, it was still considered logical to believe in the existence of dark matter because it made our theories work.  unless i am mistaken we still have no direct evidence of dark matter, it is still just a convenient explanation for why our theories are correct.  explain how this is different from believing in a god that we do not have evidence of.  in both cases, what people are choosing to believe in is nothing other than the missing piece that explains how the universe works  according to their view of it .  i just ca not see how intelligence and logical reasoning can coexist with religious beliefs.  you sound extremely intolerant.  automatically judging people, and their intelligence, on whether or not they are theist screams intolerance.   #  no arguing, no explaining your arguments, just asking.   #  have you ever asked your intelligent friends why they are able to believe in god ? in particular, have you ever asked them outside of the context of a debate/argument, and without trying to convince them that they should not ? these sorts of questions are very difficult to deal with in the abstract, and in contentious contexts.  indeed, if religious experience were not deeply individual and personal it would not be of much worth to anyone ! i recommend you pick a friend you are close with and say something like  i have always had a hard time understanding why you are religious.  i have always thought that religion and logical thinking are incompatible, but i think you are a smart person and you are religious.  could you try and explain what you are seeing that i am missing ? i want to understand.   if your goal really is to understand your intelligent religious friends i think you have to have a conversation like this where all you are allowed to do is ask questions.  no arguing, no explaining your arguments, just asking.  if you have already done this with some of your real life friends and still have things you want to ask, pm me and we can chat ! i am a christian mormon , and am currently doing a phd in theoretical physics, so hopefully that counts as religious and educated.  :p  #  but, honestly, that is after the fact bs i really believe it because it  feels right  to me.   #  i believe that humans should be kind to each other, that we should work together to build great things, that we should take care of children and animals and that country music generally sucks.  none of these are based on the logical and rigorous application of empirically based scientific methodology although there is soft evidence i have seen to support my views .  it is really based on how i think the world should be, how i want to live my life, and what a good life is.  but, honestly, that is after the fact bs i really believe it because it  feels right  to me.  while i have a scientific outlook on  verifiable truths , i have unverifiable beliefs as well.  and that does not make me any less intelligent.   #  for the religiously inclined, deism fills a similar need.   #  not at all.  i do not have  a hunch  about gravity, or evolution, or relativistic physics for those i rely on hard scientific evidence.  but there are things that are not provable, or are not about science.  if i saw a study saying that we would all prosper more if we were assholes to each other, i still would try to live the way i believe i should.  it fills my moral need, which is a belief rather than an empirically derived conclusion.  for the religiously inclined, deism fills a similar need.  a christian friend described us as having a  god shaped hole  there is a strong urge for many of us to embrace religion.  it is not because we are stupid or incapable of rational thought it is because humans also believe.  can you honestly say that everything you believe in is empirically derived ?  #  we die and are almost definitely nothing once we die, and that is a very very hard thing to accept.   #  i can honestly say that everything i believe in is empirically derived, though i do not even like to use the word believe.  saying there is a  god shaped hole  is applying a religious context to what i think is our own sense of mortality and strong desire to not accept it.  we die and are almost definitely nothing once we die, and that is a very very hard thing to accept.  in my view, it is such a hard thing to accept that a lot of people would rather accept a story someone told them that has them existing forever.  i do not mean to belittle your beliefs, i wish i could believe too.
this is my rationale.  the reasons for which a person behaves in such a way must be either internal or external.  in other words, either they were born that way or it is a learned behavior.  if someone was born a murderer, born with something  broken  in their brains that allowed them to believe that murder was ok to do, then can we really blame them for their behavior ? we do not blame an autistic child for being autistic.  we do not blame the child when he gets angry and lashes out, he was born that way.  it is part of his illness.  on the other hand, perhaps the murderer was not born that way, perhaps it was a behavior or a world view that was ingrained upon them from birth, through childhood and into adulthood.  the idea that murder is a reasonable option was something this person learned from his/her experiences in the world.  in other words, the  murderer perspective  was something  done to them  by their environment.  in this case,  can we blame them for that ?   we do not blame a kid raised in an abusive household for having maladaptive coping skills.  of course he is going to be that way, he was raised in a terrible environment.   #  if someone was born a murderer, born with something  broken  in their brains that allowed them to believe that murder was ok to do, then can we really blame them for their behavior ?  #  no one is born thinking  murder is okay  because the concept of murder comes from society and arguably, right and wrong .   # no one is born thinking  murder is okay  because the concept of murder comes from society and arguably, right and wrong .  the closest are forms of mental illness such as psychopaths they do not really feel empathy and have a tendency towards aggression/violence/etc.  but we do blame them for their actions, and we do punish them.  in this case, can we blame them for that ? yes, of course we can.  it is true that many violent criminals came from broken homes with violence, a lack of education, and/or lack of parenting/role models, etc.  but you know what else is true ? there is tons of people who grow up in similar environments who do not end up as violent criminals.  there is still some choice involved in it.  that is why being raised in a violent, broken home is not some  get out of jail  card.  they are considered  mitigating circumstances  they do not justify or excuse the act or offense, but may reduce the degree of moral culpability, and thereby reduce the penalty.   #   what you imagine the outcome will be  is again, external.   # ok, we are getting somewhere.  but  what is going on around you  is external environment.   what you can remember  is also external environment, memories of the world in the past.   what you imagine the outcome will be  is again, external.  you behaved in some way in the past, some result happened based on your interaction with the environment, and you base your future behaviors on that.  so again, we find that free will has a cause, and those causes appear to be the external environment.   #  why is the void of  born a certain way  and void of  learned behavior  acceptable but not the void of  free will  ?  # where did learned behavior come from ? the actions of someone else; so where did that come from ? someone else ? etc.  where did being born a certain way come from ? the parents dna/mutation; so where did that come from ? the parent is parents dna/mutation ? etc.  why is the void of  born a certain way  and void of  learned behavior  acceptable but not the void of  free will  ? and does it really matter where it comes from, as long as its a valid possibility for your view ?  #  i am only describing free will as void in response to the notion of others here that choices made of free will are apparently without cause, and therefore must be void.   # the actions of someone else; so where did that come from ? someone else ? etc.  sure, a chain of causation that can be traced back to the beginning of the universe.  the parents dna/mutation; so where did that come from ? the parent is parents dna/mutation ? etc.  same chain of causation as mentioned above.   born a certain way  is not void, we have described it as a chain of causation.  same with learned behavior.  i am only describing free will as void in response to the notion of others here that choices made of free will are apparently without cause, and therefore must be void.   #  you just ended it at the creation of the universe.   # you just ended it at the creation of the universe.  since time and space itself came from the birth of the universe, we can say that indeed the universe itself is without cause it did not come from anywhere.  this is circular reasoning  i have free will because i made a choice .  what is wrong with it coming from a  void  ? the cause must be known for there to be an appropriate intervention.  we should only assume the choice arises from void if that is indeed what our experience suggests.
first, i am coming from a pov that animal rights are absolutely important, and talking about people who have that in their interest.  personally, i am becoming a vegetarian for moral reasons, so this cmv is not really an attack on vegetarians but something i am genuinely unsure of myself.  we need to accept two things universal vegetarianism is not going to happen soon, and if it happens in the future it will probably be due to good quality lab meet, or some other fundamental changes in society.  second, an individual not eating meat makes zero difference, almost.  unless you live on a farm or directly hunt your meat, not a single animal is saved.  by the time you reject a burger, your rejection pretty much only affects you.  however that does not mean there is no reason to be a vegetarian or to care.  one reason is, if you are personally so disturbed by knowing what you are eating that you genuinely do not want meat.  that is great, but we can agree that is a personal reason that might help better you as an individual but wo not help the world.  only remaining reason would be contributing to a trend.  if restaurants keep getting vegetarian requests they might actually start ordering less meat, and that will culminate and the difference might be felt.  however, it is more likely that while they will develop a better vegetatarian offer, the need for meat will only keep increasing with the growing number of population, and contributing to the trend of not eating meat at all wo not do any difference.  however, there is a different trend that many meat eaters are getting behind as well, and that is caring about where your meat is from and whether the animals were ethically treated.  many people are not able to give up meat, but they do care about animals.  if you go behind this trend, you might contribute to making a difference.  a restaurant that would otherwise just leave their meat as it is and make a vegetarian option, after hearing enough people ask about where the meat is from, might totally change their meat suppliers.  that is a big difference.  the trend would push farms to be more humane if selling otherwise becomes difficult.  for a local place, being the fifth regular who cares about this could even be enough to make a difference.  it just seems like the next realistic goal is getting behind demanding better treatment for animals, and that can be achieved if the intended consumers of the meat make these demands.  as a vegetarian, you are not the consumer and therefore you are not of interest to them.  you are really only doing it for yourself and not fighting for anything achiavable.  by being a meat consumer, your preferences become relevant.   #  second, an individual not eating meat makes zero difference, almost.   #  unless you live on a farm or directly hunt your meat, not a single animal is saved.   #  why is it that getting a restaurant to offer more vegetarian options makes no difference, whereas getting a restaurant to offer meat from a more humane supplier makes a big difference ? i would argue both make a difference.  unless you live on a farm or directly hunt your meat, not a single animal is saved.  by the time you reject a burger, your rejection pretty much only affects you.  if everyone in the world went vegetarian, would that affect the number of animals killed ? i would argue the answer is pretty obviously yes.  if your answer is also yes, would not such change have come about as the result of many individuals  decisions to drop meat, thus showing that individual decisions to drop meat can make a difference ? you are really only doing it for yourself and not fighting for anything achiavable.  i totally disagree.  vegetarian consumers are still consumers; obviously they are no longer of interest to a company like perdue, but they are of interest to any other company looking to make a profit.  see the proliferation of vegetarian/vegan convenience foods in the past decade as evidence of that.  and as far as fighting for something achievable through what they are doing, vegetarians/vegans help make vegetarianism/veganism more socially acceptable and a more accessible option for everyone else, thus making it easier for others to reduce or eliminate their meat consumption.   #  you are wrong, there is an intermediary between them: the food store or restaurants.   #  here is the thing, the argument you are making seems to assume that there is a direct customer to supplier interaction between consumers and meat producers.  you are wrong, there is an intermediary between them: the food store or restaurants.  the vast majority of meat is not bought at speciality butcher shops but rather at supermarkets or restaurants.  there, meat is competing for shelf or menu space with all other options.  a shift away from people buying meat will mean that that space formally occupied by meat will be replaced by a vegetarian option.  this will reduce the overall demand for meat by the stores and restaurants, resulting in less production by the meat industry.   #  they are able to get behind the idea of them being humanely raised, though.   #  but  your  contention hinges on the idea that  less meat is preferable to humanely raised meat , which some people might agree with, but i am guessing that if you asked everyone who cares, you would get a lot more people say that they would prefer 0 humanely raised chickens to 0 cruelly raised chickens.  but to your actual point, grocery stores order enough meat to always fill demand.  a lot of it gets thrown away.  a significant reduction in demand is going to have to happen before stores actually start ordering less, because they are going to err on the side of always being able to meet demand.  it is going to have to be a large and continuous trend before they will be willing to take the risk and order less.  as op pointed out, that is just not happening.  people like meat.  and most people do not mind the idea of killing animals for food.  they are able to get behind the idea of them being humanely raised, though.  you are going to have a lot more luck convincing a grocery store to buy the same amount of meat, but from better sources, than you are convincing them to stock less of it entirely.   #  of course the stores are not the ones that label the products, but they are the ones that choose to put them on their shelves, so there is a responsibility there.   # this depends on what people fall under the  cares  classification.  people who want to care and may say they care wo not necessarily spend their money in the way that agrees with this.  much cheaper meats will probably end up in the shopping carts of many of these people.  it is not that they do not care, but they care more about saving money to spend on something else.  there might be a little bit of accuracy in this, but i do not think it would really be that significant.  it would all depend on the cost differences of the meats.  it is definitely possible that if the store runs out of cheap meats, some will buy the more expensive meat if they really ca not go without, but if the cost difference is high enough, i seriously doubt it would be very many.  in the end, you are asking people to pay more for something that they never see anyways, and they have to trust the supposedly better sources are actually better sources.  which if you know anything about this, is not a great chance.  for example, people were wanting eggs from chickens that are treated better, the demand was growing and people were willing to pay more, and what did the stores provide them with ?  cage free   free range   organic   vegetarian fed  etc. , so on and so forth, and almost all of those claims are complete bullshit that do not mean anything.  stores would rather engage in deception to sell products that do not actually meet customer demands but know that customers do not want to spend a lot of time investigating so they can get away with it.  of course the stores are not the ones that label the products, but they are the ones that choose to put them on their shelves, so there is a responsibility there.  if the store is not actually going to step up and try to give the customer what they actually want, then why would people spend more money on something they ca not even trust is actually what it is said to be ? for all anyone knows, both sources could be from the same supplier but from different farms that are slightly altered just enough to not be committing fraud.   #  as it stands, the market for  good meat  is not a very competitive one.   # which if you know anything about this, is not a great chance.  this is critical, and you are exactly right.  as with most causes, at some point it requires actual sacrifice on the part of those who claim to care, and it is at that point that you suddenly see a lot less people caring.  i would still argue that paying more for meat is something that people are going to see as a smaller sacrifice than giving up meat all together.  as it stands, the market for  good meat  is not a very competitive one.  there are relatively few people willing to pay a premium for what they consider humane, and so suppliers and stores can easily charge triple the amount they normally do, and get away with it.  however, if it happens that a sizable percentage of the population starts to insist on humanely treated animals for their meat, now there emerges some incentive for places to actually get competitive with their pricing.  i agree that it is mostly horseshit all these claims of  cage free  and so on.  i would actually counter this cmv by saying that the  very  best thing you can do is buy local.  i am on a first name basis with the guy i buy my eggs from.  i have met the chickens.  i know exactly how they are treated, and i get a good price for them.  i have petted the cows that have become my burgers.  that is not as possible for people living in new york city, but the smaller the source you are getting your stuff from, the more control you have over it as a consumer.
first, i am coming from a pov that animal rights are absolutely important, and talking about people who have that in their interest.  personally, i am becoming a vegetarian for moral reasons, so this cmv is not really an attack on vegetarians but something i am genuinely unsure of myself.  we need to accept two things universal vegetarianism is not going to happen soon, and if it happens in the future it will probably be due to good quality lab meet, or some other fundamental changes in society.  second, an individual not eating meat makes zero difference, almost.  unless you live on a farm or directly hunt your meat, not a single animal is saved.  by the time you reject a burger, your rejection pretty much only affects you.  however that does not mean there is no reason to be a vegetarian or to care.  one reason is, if you are personally so disturbed by knowing what you are eating that you genuinely do not want meat.  that is great, but we can agree that is a personal reason that might help better you as an individual but wo not help the world.  only remaining reason would be contributing to a trend.  if restaurants keep getting vegetarian requests they might actually start ordering less meat, and that will culminate and the difference might be felt.  however, it is more likely that while they will develop a better vegetatarian offer, the need for meat will only keep increasing with the growing number of population, and contributing to the trend of not eating meat at all wo not do any difference.  however, there is a different trend that many meat eaters are getting behind as well, and that is caring about where your meat is from and whether the animals were ethically treated.  many people are not able to give up meat, but they do care about animals.  if you go behind this trend, you might contribute to making a difference.  a restaurant that would otherwise just leave their meat as it is and make a vegetarian option, after hearing enough people ask about where the meat is from, might totally change their meat suppliers.  that is a big difference.  the trend would push farms to be more humane if selling otherwise becomes difficult.  for a local place, being the fifth regular who cares about this could even be enough to make a difference.  it just seems like the next realistic goal is getting behind demanding better treatment for animals, and that can be achieved if the intended consumers of the meat make these demands.  as a vegetarian, you are not the consumer and therefore you are not of interest to them.  you are really only doing it for yourself and not fighting for anything achiavable.  by being a meat consumer, your preferences become relevant.   #  as a vegetarian, you are not the consumer and therefore you are not of interest to them.   #  you are really only doing it for yourself and not fighting for anything achiavable.   #  why is it that getting a restaurant to offer more vegetarian options makes no difference, whereas getting a restaurant to offer meat from a more humane supplier makes a big difference ? i would argue both make a difference.  unless you live on a farm or directly hunt your meat, not a single animal is saved.  by the time you reject a burger, your rejection pretty much only affects you.  if everyone in the world went vegetarian, would that affect the number of animals killed ? i would argue the answer is pretty obviously yes.  if your answer is also yes, would not such change have come about as the result of many individuals  decisions to drop meat, thus showing that individual decisions to drop meat can make a difference ? you are really only doing it for yourself and not fighting for anything achiavable.  i totally disagree.  vegetarian consumers are still consumers; obviously they are no longer of interest to a company like perdue, but they are of interest to any other company looking to make a profit.  see the proliferation of vegetarian/vegan convenience foods in the past decade as evidence of that.  and as far as fighting for something achievable through what they are doing, vegetarians/vegans help make vegetarianism/veganism more socially acceptable and a more accessible option for everyone else, thus making it easier for others to reduce or eliminate their meat consumption.   #  this will reduce the overall demand for meat by the stores and restaurants, resulting in less production by the meat industry.   #  here is the thing, the argument you are making seems to assume that there is a direct customer to supplier interaction between consumers and meat producers.  you are wrong, there is an intermediary between them: the food store or restaurants.  the vast majority of meat is not bought at speciality butcher shops but rather at supermarkets or restaurants.  there, meat is competing for shelf or menu space with all other options.  a shift away from people buying meat will mean that that space formally occupied by meat will be replaced by a vegetarian option.  this will reduce the overall demand for meat by the stores and restaurants, resulting in less production by the meat industry.   #  it is going to have to be a large and continuous trend before they will be willing to take the risk and order less.   #  but  your  contention hinges on the idea that  less meat is preferable to humanely raised meat , which some people might agree with, but i am guessing that if you asked everyone who cares, you would get a lot more people say that they would prefer 0 humanely raised chickens to 0 cruelly raised chickens.  but to your actual point, grocery stores order enough meat to always fill demand.  a lot of it gets thrown away.  a significant reduction in demand is going to have to happen before stores actually start ordering less, because they are going to err on the side of always being able to meet demand.  it is going to have to be a large and continuous trend before they will be willing to take the risk and order less.  as op pointed out, that is just not happening.  people like meat.  and most people do not mind the idea of killing animals for food.  they are able to get behind the idea of them being humanely raised, though.  you are going to have a lot more luck convincing a grocery store to buy the same amount of meat, but from better sources, than you are convincing them to stock less of it entirely.   #  it would all depend on the cost differences of the meats.   # this depends on what people fall under the  cares  classification.  people who want to care and may say they care wo not necessarily spend their money in the way that agrees with this.  much cheaper meats will probably end up in the shopping carts of many of these people.  it is not that they do not care, but they care more about saving money to spend on something else.  there might be a little bit of accuracy in this, but i do not think it would really be that significant.  it would all depend on the cost differences of the meats.  it is definitely possible that if the store runs out of cheap meats, some will buy the more expensive meat if they really ca not go without, but if the cost difference is high enough, i seriously doubt it would be very many.  in the end, you are asking people to pay more for something that they never see anyways, and they have to trust the supposedly better sources are actually better sources.  which if you know anything about this, is not a great chance.  for example, people were wanting eggs from chickens that are treated better, the demand was growing and people were willing to pay more, and what did the stores provide them with ?  cage free   free range   organic   vegetarian fed  etc. , so on and so forth, and almost all of those claims are complete bullshit that do not mean anything.  stores would rather engage in deception to sell products that do not actually meet customer demands but know that customers do not want to spend a lot of time investigating so they can get away with it.  of course the stores are not the ones that label the products, but they are the ones that choose to put them on their shelves, so there is a responsibility there.  if the store is not actually going to step up and try to give the customer what they actually want, then why would people spend more money on something they ca not even trust is actually what it is said to be ? for all anyone knows, both sources could be from the same supplier but from different farms that are slightly altered just enough to not be committing fraud.   #  however, if it happens that a sizable percentage of the population starts to insist on humanely treated animals for their meat, now there emerges some incentive for places to actually get competitive with their pricing.   # which if you know anything about this, is not a great chance.  this is critical, and you are exactly right.  as with most causes, at some point it requires actual sacrifice on the part of those who claim to care, and it is at that point that you suddenly see a lot less people caring.  i would still argue that paying more for meat is something that people are going to see as a smaller sacrifice than giving up meat all together.  as it stands, the market for  good meat  is not a very competitive one.  there are relatively few people willing to pay a premium for what they consider humane, and so suppliers and stores can easily charge triple the amount they normally do, and get away with it.  however, if it happens that a sizable percentage of the population starts to insist on humanely treated animals for their meat, now there emerges some incentive for places to actually get competitive with their pricing.  i agree that it is mostly horseshit all these claims of  cage free  and so on.  i would actually counter this cmv by saying that the  very  best thing you can do is buy local.  i am on a first name basis with the guy i buy my eggs from.  i have met the chickens.  i know exactly how they are treated, and i get a good price for them.  i have petted the cows that have become my burgers.  that is not as possible for people living in new york city, but the smaller the source you are getting your stuff from, the more control you have over it as a consumer.
as a guy with 0  length and a thin 0  girth, i have been rejected and laughed at for my size.  0 times in a row, and it is usually after they see my penis or after sex.  alot of people say  learn to use it , but how the fuck am i suppose to learn that when women immediately reject me ? at this point i do not believe that most women would ever be satisfied with a small penis like mine, that i will ever be able to give the  main course  as good as an average guy or someone bigger.  sure some women say they do not care about size, but what is really being said is that they are fine with average.  i hate that women actually cheat on men due to size.  i also hate women for their vaginal anatomy.  i hate myself for not being adequate sexually.  i hate that these women view me as less of a man because i have a small dick.  i hate my life.   #  i also hate women for their vaginal anatomy.   #  the vaginal anatomy has evolved so as to like average to bigger dicks, and dislike small dicks.   # the vaginal anatomy has evolved so as to like average to bigger dicks, and dislike small dicks.  you ca not fully please a woman with a small penis, it does not feel full, or streach, or give a deep pounding.  which is needed for non lesbian women to enjoy sex.  which is why women break with men who have small dicks.  so assume that is why he made that comment.   #  right i ca not imagine it happening over and over.   #  right i ca not imagine it happening over and over.  i am sure it mostly lies with op is attitude and confidence to approaching making out, getting naked and foreplay.  a good tip is to remember that most women are not completely confident naked either.  instead of worrying about your body, take confidence in helping her to feel comfortable with hers ! tell her how beautiful she is naked and how much you want her this should appease any apprehension to a penis of any size.   #  i only use this account for my insecurities.   #  i only use this account for my insecurities.  so i will probably come off as very negative.  i do not really go out trying to date any women.  all of the women i have dated were incredibly different.  some were bookworms and artsy type, while another one was incredibly into fitness.  personality wise some were straight up horrible people and most were somewhat nice.  i was only made fun of by a girl who was in my social circle.  she was known to be a blabber mouth about peoople is secrets.  the rest of the women either pulled the fade on me or straight rejected me after sex or right before.   #  however, they usually want to actually be wanted as individuals, rather than as a generic, willing to fuck woman.   #  and how much did you get to know them as people ? were you in love with them ? why did you go out with someone who was a horrible person ? it is just like your focus is sex, rather than a relationship.  i ca not speak for all women, but most women i know do not care in the least about penis size.  however, they usually want to actually be wanted as individuals, rather than as a generic, willing to fuck woman.  also, if this happened just before, or just after sex, yes, it could be to do with sex.  but as sex really is not about penis size, you focussing on your penis so much may lead to you totally missing what the problem was.  what did you do with them ? it might be that you are so focussed on having sex that there was not much interaction with them, that maybe you missed on the kissing, cuddling snuggling bits of sex, that they felt it was all about you, that you went too quickly, that you were unconfident, that you did not ask what they would like, that they were not actually ready for sex at all, and it all seemed rather sudden, that you said something weird, or different things for different women.   #  plenty of women have satisfying sex without a penis or strap on involved.   # i am going to go out on a limb and say that more men treat intercourse penis/vag as the only type of sex than women.  honestly watch the l word.  plenty of women have satisfying sex without a penis or strap on involved.  learn to trib.  learn how to use your hips and stimulate her from the outside the clitoris without entering.  learn to use your mouth.  learn to use your fingers expertly.  also your penis may be the perfect size for some women and the perfect size for anal penetration.  also like another woman mentioned.  i do not enter my vagina at all when i masturbate.  i have never had a vaginal orgasm.  the clitoris and labia and everything else down there.  super sensitive.  learn a few things.  what ?
change my opinion here.  i have never voted in an election.  i think the electoral college system sucks balls.  i think elections are won one of two ways: based on geographic party affiliation i. e.  local elections in red states are going to consistently choose the republican and nothing will change it , or based on marketing who runs better ads, who has better buzz words like  change  and  hope , who can come off as the better people person .  neither of these reasons have dick to do with policy.  even the minority of voters who do evaluate the candidates policies are often misguided, as elected officials will say one thing prior to being elected, and then do another once elected.  finally, i think that the general public are idiots.  i do not care about  my right to complain once my candidate loses , i have not been old enough to be directly affected by politics, and i find myself somewhere in between political parties and find flaws and benefits to each candidate, so i do not really care who wins.  i am glad we have a democracy.  but i do not exercise my right to vote.  change my mind, wise reddit.   #  i think elections are won one of two ways: based on geographic party affiliation i. e.   #  local elections in red states are going to consistently choose the republican and nothing will change it , or based on marketing who runs better ads, who has better buzz words like  change  and  hope , who can come off as the better people person .   # local elections in red states are going to consistently choose the republican and nothing will change it , or based on marketing who runs better ads, who has better buzz words like  change  and  hope , who can come off as the better people person .  it depends.  if a community, even in a red or blue state has had enough of their party, there is a chance it will change.  marketing is kind of obvious, they would not be advertising if it was not getting them anything.  even the minority of voters who do evaluate the candidates policies are often misguided, as elected officials will say one thing prior to being elected, and then do another once elected.  quite a bit of the lead up to elections debates, meetings, talks, speeches deal with policy.  remember that while some politicians simply do not follow through on their promises, others cant.  if i promise something, but when i am elected the budget wo not allow it or it wo not pass i simply can do nothing about it.  i do not care about  my right to complain once my candidate loses , i have not been old enough to be directly affected by politics, and i find myself somewhere in between political parties and find flaws and benefits to each candidate, so i do not really care who wins.  first off, you are always impacted by policy and politics.  regardless of your age.  that tax you paid on gum when you were 0 ? came from the government.  you are able to vote for independents.  local elections are where these individuals actually have a shot at winning.  if you think that voting independent is  throwing your vote away  at least evaluate the two main parties and determine which best suits you do not just not care.  the choices you and your countrymen make every election will impact you in the future.  you should at least put your voice out there, even if it gets lost in the noise.   #  it does not matter if you donate $0 to a charity.   #  it probably does not matter who you vote for.  your vote is probably not going to be the one to sway the election.  the outcome of the election is going to be the same with or without you.  it also does not matter if you recycle.  it does not matter if you donate $0 to a charity.  it does not matter if you illegally download a movie instead of paying for it.  all of these things only matter if a lot of people do them.  if a thousand people donate $0 then that charity is going to be able to do a lot more.  if 0,0 people start recycling, there is gonna be a heck of a lot less in our landfills.  and if a million people decide to get out and vote, they can change the world.  again, it probably does not matter who you vote for, just that you vote.  it is very easy for politicians to ignore young people because they do not need young people to win.  if young people start voting in large numbers, we will begin to see the issues that are important to us being addressed in campaigns.   #  a lot of these decisions are likely going to come down to a few votes.   # we are not voting on a president today, so i am not sure why electoral college matters much.  in fact, your local election likely involves a lot of races that will effect you in a more direct way than you think.  my town is electing a commissioner, a sheriff and filling two council seats.  we are also deciding whether to borrow to build a recreation center and raise sales tax by two cents over the next twenty years.  a lot of these decisions are likely going to come down to a few votes.   #  is your view that you do not trust the candidates, that you ca not actually know which is the best to vote for ?  #  is your view that your vote does not matter ? if so, then you are most certainly somewhat correct.  you are one of millions, you are statistically insignificant.  that said, so is  everyone else .  you must recognize that voting is all you can do, that  not  voting is doing nothing, and as such is worse than doing something ! is your view that you do not trust the candidates, that you ca not actually know which is the best to vote for ? if so, i have gotta say that you probably just are not doing enough research.  there is no excuse for being uninformed when the internet is at your fingertips.  if you think that no research will predict the candidate is behavior upon election: you are correct.  but no one can predict the future, so this is moot.   #  it is not like you cast a ballot and the president will come by and thank you for it.   #  all systems are flawed.  even essential, useful, and fun ones like reddit and computers more generally.  it is not like you cast a ballot and the president will come by and thank you for it.  it is also not like you cast a ballot and everything you want happens at the expense of anyone who might happen to disagree .  politics works best when it people working together, reaching something that everyone can live with and make it happen.  your vote is not about writing your will in giant flaming letters across the sky.  think of it instead as a goal line play.  you are simply tossing your weight against a pile of bodies trying to nudge it that tenth of an inch required to score, or trying to something from getting that inch of momentum.  it is also important to realize that local races the ones that do not get the news are the most important ones to you.  who decides how much you pay in taxes at the store ? the local politicians.  who decides when and if a pothole is fixed ? the local politicians.  who makes the schools awesome or sucky thanks to funding ? the local politicians.  who ensures that you do not come down with a nasty ass case of food poisoning by sending inspectors ? the local politicians.  who maintains the trains and buses ? the local politicians.  who decides if there are buses and trains in the first place ? the local politicians.  who closes down fraud and punishes those who steal from you under the guise of being a business ? the local politicians.  dude, in those cases instead of being one out of millions, you are one out of a couple thousand.  like, in those cases your vote is a large enough portion to actually be visible when they say 0 percent.  your vote is the reason it is not 0.  yes, voting for national office like us senator and president does seem kind of futile, but voting for county commissioner or mayor is not futile in the slightest and who your mayor is generally has a bigger impact on your life than who the president is.
change my opinion here.  i have never voted in an election.  i think the electoral college system sucks balls.  i think elections are won one of two ways: based on geographic party affiliation i. e.  local elections in red states are going to consistently choose the republican and nothing will change it , or based on marketing who runs better ads, who has better buzz words like  change  and  hope , who can come off as the better people person .  neither of these reasons have dick to do with policy.  even the minority of voters who do evaluate the candidates policies are often misguided, as elected officials will say one thing prior to being elected, and then do another once elected.  finally, i think that the general public are idiots.  i do not care about  my right to complain once my candidate loses , i have not been old enough to be directly affected by politics, and i find myself somewhere in between political parties and find flaws and benefits to each candidate, so i do not really care who wins.  i am glad we have a democracy.  but i do not exercise my right to vote.  change my mind, wise reddit.   #  neither of these reasons have dick to do with policy.   #  even the minority of voters who do evaluate the candidates policies are often misguided, as elected officials will say one thing prior to being elected, and then do another once elected.   # local elections in red states are going to consistently choose the republican and nothing will change it , or based on marketing who runs better ads, who has better buzz words like  change  and  hope , who can come off as the better people person .  it depends.  if a community, even in a red or blue state has had enough of their party, there is a chance it will change.  marketing is kind of obvious, they would not be advertising if it was not getting them anything.  even the minority of voters who do evaluate the candidates policies are often misguided, as elected officials will say one thing prior to being elected, and then do another once elected.  quite a bit of the lead up to elections debates, meetings, talks, speeches deal with policy.  remember that while some politicians simply do not follow through on their promises, others cant.  if i promise something, but when i am elected the budget wo not allow it or it wo not pass i simply can do nothing about it.  i do not care about  my right to complain once my candidate loses , i have not been old enough to be directly affected by politics, and i find myself somewhere in between political parties and find flaws and benefits to each candidate, so i do not really care who wins.  first off, you are always impacted by policy and politics.  regardless of your age.  that tax you paid on gum when you were 0 ? came from the government.  you are able to vote for independents.  local elections are where these individuals actually have a shot at winning.  if you think that voting independent is  throwing your vote away  at least evaluate the two main parties and determine which best suits you do not just not care.  the choices you and your countrymen make every election will impact you in the future.  you should at least put your voice out there, even if it gets lost in the noise.   #  if a thousand people donate $0 then that charity is going to be able to do a lot more.   #  it probably does not matter who you vote for.  your vote is probably not going to be the one to sway the election.  the outcome of the election is going to be the same with or without you.  it also does not matter if you recycle.  it does not matter if you donate $0 to a charity.  it does not matter if you illegally download a movie instead of paying for it.  all of these things only matter if a lot of people do them.  if a thousand people donate $0 then that charity is going to be able to do a lot more.  if 0,0 people start recycling, there is gonna be a heck of a lot less in our landfills.  and if a million people decide to get out and vote, they can change the world.  again, it probably does not matter who you vote for, just that you vote.  it is very easy for politicians to ignore young people because they do not need young people to win.  if young people start voting in large numbers, we will begin to see the issues that are important to us being addressed in campaigns.   #  my town is electing a commissioner, a sheriff and filling two council seats.   # we are not voting on a president today, so i am not sure why electoral college matters much.  in fact, your local election likely involves a lot of races that will effect you in a more direct way than you think.  my town is electing a commissioner, a sheriff and filling two council seats.  we are also deciding whether to borrow to build a recreation center and raise sales tax by two cents over the next twenty years.  a lot of these decisions are likely going to come down to a few votes.   #  if you think that no research will predict the candidate is behavior upon election: you are correct.   #  is your view that your vote does not matter ? if so, then you are most certainly somewhat correct.  you are one of millions, you are statistically insignificant.  that said, so is  everyone else .  you must recognize that voting is all you can do, that  not  voting is doing nothing, and as such is worse than doing something ! is your view that you do not trust the candidates, that you ca not actually know which is the best to vote for ? if so, i have gotta say that you probably just are not doing enough research.  there is no excuse for being uninformed when the internet is at your fingertips.  if you think that no research will predict the candidate is behavior upon election: you are correct.  but no one can predict the future, so this is moot.   #  you are simply tossing your weight against a pile of bodies trying to nudge it that tenth of an inch required to score, or trying to something from getting that inch of momentum.   #  all systems are flawed.  even essential, useful, and fun ones like reddit and computers more generally.  it is not like you cast a ballot and the president will come by and thank you for it.  it is also not like you cast a ballot and everything you want happens at the expense of anyone who might happen to disagree .  politics works best when it people working together, reaching something that everyone can live with and make it happen.  your vote is not about writing your will in giant flaming letters across the sky.  think of it instead as a goal line play.  you are simply tossing your weight against a pile of bodies trying to nudge it that tenth of an inch required to score, or trying to something from getting that inch of momentum.  it is also important to realize that local races the ones that do not get the news are the most important ones to you.  who decides how much you pay in taxes at the store ? the local politicians.  who decides when and if a pothole is fixed ? the local politicians.  who makes the schools awesome or sucky thanks to funding ? the local politicians.  who ensures that you do not come down with a nasty ass case of food poisoning by sending inspectors ? the local politicians.  who maintains the trains and buses ? the local politicians.  who decides if there are buses and trains in the first place ? the local politicians.  who closes down fraud and punishes those who steal from you under the guise of being a business ? the local politicians.  dude, in those cases instead of being one out of millions, you are one out of a couple thousand.  like, in those cases your vote is a large enough portion to actually be visible when they say 0 percent.  your vote is the reason it is not 0.  yes, voting for national office like us senator and president does seem kind of futile, but voting for county commissioner or mayor is not futile in the slightest and who your mayor is generally has a bigger impact on your life than who the president is.
change my opinion here.  i have never voted in an election.  i think the electoral college system sucks balls.  i think elections are won one of two ways: based on geographic party affiliation i. e.  local elections in red states are going to consistently choose the republican and nothing will change it , or based on marketing who runs better ads, who has better buzz words like  change  and  hope , who can come off as the better people person .  neither of these reasons have dick to do with policy.  even the minority of voters who do evaluate the candidates policies are often misguided, as elected officials will say one thing prior to being elected, and then do another once elected.  finally, i think that the general public are idiots.  i do not care about  my right to complain once my candidate loses , i have not been old enough to be directly affected by politics, and i find myself somewhere in between political parties and find flaws and benefits to each candidate, so i do not really care who wins.  i am glad we have a democracy.  but i do not exercise my right to vote.  change my mind, wise reddit.   #  i think the electoral college system sucks balls.   #  we are not voting on a president today, so i am not sure why electoral college matters much.   # we are not voting on a president today, so i am not sure why electoral college matters much.  in fact, your local election likely involves a lot of races that will effect you in a more direct way than you think.  my town is electing a commissioner, a sheriff and filling two council seats.  we are also deciding whether to borrow to build a recreation center and raise sales tax by two cents over the next twenty years.  a lot of these decisions are likely going to come down to a few votes.   #  it does not matter if you donate $0 to a charity.   #  it probably does not matter who you vote for.  your vote is probably not going to be the one to sway the election.  the outcome of the election is going to be the same with or without you.  it also does not matter if you recycle.  it does not matter if you donate $0 to a charity.  it does not matter if you illegally download a movie instead of paying for it.  all of these things only matter if a lot of people do them.  if a thousand people donate $0 then that charity is going to be able to do a lot more.  if 0,0 people start recycling, there is gonna be a heck of a lot less in our landfills.  and if a million people decide to get out and vote, they can change the world.  again, it probably does not matter who you vote for, just that you vote.  it is very easy for politicians to ignore young people because they do not need young people to win.  if young people start voting in large numbers, we will begin to see the issues that are important to us being addressed in campaigns.   #  even the minority of voters who do evaluate the candidates policies are often misguided, as elected officials will say one thing prior to being elected, and then do another once elected.   # local elections in red states are going to consistently choose the republican and nothing will change it , or based on marketing who runs better ads, who has better buzz words like  change  and  hope , who can come off as the better people person .  it depends.  if a community, even in a red or blue state has had enough of their party, there is a chance it will change.  marketing is kind of obvious, they would not be advertising if it was not getting them anything.  even the minority of voters who do evaluate the candidates policies are often misguided, as elected officials will say one thing prior to being elected, and then do another once elected.  quite a bit of the lead up to elections debates, meetings, talks, speeches deal with policy.  remember that while some politicians simply do not follow through on their promises, others cant.  if i promise something, but when i am elected the budget wo not allow it or it wo not pass i simply can do nothing about it.  i do not care about  my right to complain once my candidate loses , i have not been old enough to be directly affected by politics, and i find myself somewhere in between political parties and find flaws and benefits to each candidate, so i do not really care who wins.  first off, you are always impacted by policy and politics.  regardless of your age.  that tax you paid on gum when you were 0 ? came from the government.  you are able to vote for independents.  local elections are where these individuals actually have a shot at winning.  if you think that voting independent is  throwing your vote away  at least evaluate the two main parties and determine which best suits you do not just not care.  the choices you and your countrymen make every election will impact you in the future.  you should at least put your voice out there, even if it gets lost in the noise.   #  if so, then you are most certainly somewhat correct.   #  is your view that your vote does not matter ? if so, then you are most certainly somewhat correct.  you are one of millions, you are statistically insignificant.  that said, so is  everyone else .  you must recognize that voting is all you can do, that  not  voting is doing nothing, and as such is worse than doing something ! is your view that you do not trust the candidates, that you ca not actually know which is the best to vote for ? if so, i have gotta say that you probably just are not doing enough research.  there is no excuse for being uninformed when the internet is at your fingertips.  if you think that no research will predict the candidate is behavior upon election: you are correct.  but no one can predict the future, so this is moot.   #  your vote is not about writing your will in giant flaming letters across the sky.   #  all systems are flawed.  even essential, useful, and fun ones like reddit and computers more generally.  it is not like you cast a ballot and the president will come by and thank you for it.  it is also not like you cast a ballot and everything you want happens at the expense of anyone who might happen to disagree .  politics works best when it people working together, reaching something that everyone can live with and make it happen.  your vote is not about writing your will in giant flaming letters across the sky.  think of it instead as a goal line play.  you are simply tossing your weight against a pile of bodies trying to nudge it that tenth of an inch required to score, or trying to something from getting that inch of momentum.  it is also important to realize that local races the ones that do not get the news are the most important ones to you.  who decides how much you pay in taxes at the store ? the local politicians.  who decides when and if a pothole is fixed ? the local politicians.  who makes the schools awesome or sucky thanks to funding ? the local politicians.  who ensures that you do not come down with a nasty ass case of food poisoning by sending inspectors ? the local politicians.  who maintains the trains and buses ? the local politicians.  who decides if there are buses and trains in the first place ? the local politicians.  who closes down fraud and punishes those who steal from you under the guise of being a business ? the local politicians.  dude, in those cases instead of being one out of millions, you are one out of a couple thousand.  like, in those cases your vote is a large enough portion to actually be visible when they say 0 percent.  your vote is the reason it is not 0.  yes, voting for national office like us senator and president does seem kind of futile, but voting for county commissioner or mayor is not futile in the slightest and who your mayor is generally has a bigger impact on your life than who the president is.
i know there is a theory that boredom does not exist.  is an excuse for discomfort with a situation that you do not like.  or anguish.  something that you need to think through but you prefer to say you are bored to not think about the problem.  in a similar manner all the people have to make some sort of effort to leave the comfort zone in order to know strangers.  and the lack of energy or just plain laziness to do this make you hide under the word shyness.  i know this is not an argument, but a lot of people i know use this word as an excuse to do not even try to make social progress.  every time i want to do something that is out of my comfort zone there is a debate in my head.  i try to understand the reasons why i am not asking that girl out, or why i am not doing a public act.  i think this people i know prefer to say that they are shy and that is a perfect way to stop thinking.  i do not think is a good idea to stop thinking stuff and hide behind words that conveniently other peoples accept like a proper reason.  from this i get i met people that probably are not shy, and call them selfs shy, and that provoke me my deal of anger.  and that is all there is.  i should probably evolve to think that i really do not like people that use a word as an excuse.  thanks for all the responses, this is fun  #  in a similar manner all the people have to make some sort of effort to leave the comfort zone in order to know strangers.   #  and the lack of energy or just plain laziness to do this make you hide under the word shyness.   # and the lack of energy or just plain laziness to do this make you hide under the word shyness.  i am not going to disagree that people do not sometimes do this, which is a type of   rationalizing URL however, as someone who used to be quite shy/socially anxious, and has made considerable progress to overcome it: i can assure you that  laziness  or  lack of energy  is not the cause of actual shyness/social anxiety.  i no longer consider myself shy.  i do not say this because i think that i used to be  lazy  and now i am not.  i say this because now i understand that many of the thought patterns that were in my head when i was shy were unfounded and toxic.  i did not overcome these thoughts by  trying harder  in social situations.  i overcame them by seeking the guidance of professionals.  link URL if you are curious .  consider that many shy/socially anxious people have unconscious physiological reactions to social situations: they get sweaty palms and bodies, they shake, they feel genuine panic, and they get tremors in their voice.  these reactions are not caused by them rationalizing not doing a  non shy  act because of laziness or lack of energy.  these reactions occur because the brain and psyche perceives that they are in a threatening situation.  part of overcoming shyness and social anxiety is teaching your brain to understand that you are not in a threatening situation.  if you are not convinced, give this a read: link URL or give /r/socialanxiety a visit.  there is a lot of despair there, and it is not because those people are not trying hard enough.   #  i do not really understand your post, probably since to me it seems obvious that shyness exists because of my personal social anxiety issues.   #  i do not really understand your post, probably since to me it seems obvious that shyness exists because of my personal social anxiety issues.  talking to people makes me uncomfortable as shit.  in social situations i panic, i get cold sweats, sometimes i literally ca not think at all, but you seem to be assuming that everyone faces the same exact level of discomfort URL when going into social situations.  this seems ridiculous to me.  but other people are already arguing similar points, so never mind that.  if shyness does not exist, what should you call it when people are worse with dealing with the discomfort of entering a social situation ? what do you call people who are good at dealing with it ? if you ca not call shy people shy, surely confidence ca not exist either ? you could say that shyness does not exist and that it is all about peoples willingness to deal with their own feelings, but some people have less willpower than others, and are therefor going to be less willing.  in other words, some people are going to face the discomfort of a social situation, and not have the willpower to deal with it.  to me though, this feels a lot like saying that atoms do not exist, because they are really just protons and electrons.  you ca not just reduce a phenomenon to simpler elements, and then say that the phenomenon does not exist.   #  i had loads of willpower, the difference is, i had to put much more effort than you to just walk up to a cashier.   #  re you saying social anxiety does not exist ? because it really, really does.  i used to have horrible social anxiety that i got over with a combination of medication and therapy that lasted 0 months.  i had loads of willpower, the difference is, i had to put much more effort than you to just walk up to a cashier.  i had to have the willpower to actually just buy a product.  do you get that ? i wanted to socialise so, so bad, and i really tried.  willpower is not always enough, i am afraid.  it is a mental illness.  you would not ask somebody to  will  their way out of back pain, or heart disease.   #  and then all the people being ok with that.   #  if you are lazy to come out of your comfort zone you are lazy, not shy.  if other people make you feel discomfort is that what you feel, not shyness.  i am against to stop thinking about stuff just by hiding behind a word.  and then all the people being ok with that.  like stoping thinking about stuff is a trend that should be spread  #  i  can  do it; i have done it before; its just not worth it though, so i do not.   #  i do not think lazy is the right word though.  are you  too lazy  to go around digging holes and filling them in ? of course not.  there is just not enough of a compelling reason to do that.  consider that for a  shy  person, a particular social interaction just has too high a cost discomfort/anxiety compared to the gains.  not everyone feels the same discomfort, and not everyone feels the same reward.  i personally have nothing to gain by doing karaoke for example.  i  can  do it; i have done it before; its just not worth it though, so i do not.  but that is not laziness.  sometimes one makes a bad judgment call, and does not properly identify the full benefit of a particular interaction, and thus might make a poor call about not doing something that would have been tremendously beneficial, but the cause of this is the abnormally high anxiety that they feel, which causes them to make a mistake.  but again, not really  laziness  that is the problem.
from what i have seen on reddit, i have come to the conclusion that the reddit community tends to mostly hold leftist views, so i do not know if this is the right place to ask but i will anyway in case someone can change my view.  basically, this is my view because i just do not see any logic in holding traditional views for no reason other than because they are traditional or because you are opposed to the idea of rapid change.  what possible reason would there be for keeping a law or custom traditional if the said law or custom is in some way flawed generally either morally or due to limiting personal freedoms ? what possible reason would there be for wishing to  take change slow  when said change would unarguably benefit society renewable energy is one of the better arguments i can think of here ? i do not really have anything else to say on the topic, but if anyone has any questions i will be happy to answer them.  please, cmv !  #  what possible reason would there be for keeping a law or custom traditional if the said law or custom is in some way flawed generally either morally or due to limiting personal freedoms ?  #  because it either works or can work better than something else.   # because it either works or can work better than something else.  just cause an idea is new does not mean it will work.  it means it is new.  for example prohibition of alcohol was actually an idea thought up and executed by  progressives  during that era ! it was the conservatives that opposed it.  i would argue the conservatives won that battle, and that is enough to prove that conservatism is not all bad.   #  for example, it makes sense, from a purely ecological perspective, so stop using all fossil fuels today, stop all drilling and mining, and fire up the renewable energy programs.   #  the big one is the law of unintended consequences.  for example, it makes sense, from a purely ecological perspective, so stop using all fossil fuels today, stop all drilling and mining, and fire up the renewable energy programs.  but consider the economic impact of such a program.  at the moment, some 0 million americans are employed in the fossil fuel industry URL and america is set to potentially become the world is largest producer in both oil and natural gas in the near future.  also, for the time being, renewable energy is very expensive, while fossil fuels are not.  opposing rapid change is not the same as opposing change.  in this case, imagine that you and your buddy are out hiking in the mountains, and you find a lake.  its a bit murky, and you ca not see the bottom, but the surrounding geography suggests that it  could  be pretty deep.  you want to jump of the big rock on the side, while your buddy wants to wade in first and make sure that you know if the pond is shallower than you thought.  is that approach flawed ?  #  this is shown when the reasons for opposing everything are changed as each one fails.   #  but the problem with being conservative is that you are a pure reactionary.  you do not have strong principles or any single method by which you examine political issues like  unintended consequences  .  before anyone threatened oil, no one knew or cared about all the jobs wrapped up in it.   sanctity of marriage  had not been an issue to conservatives since the rise of divorce when gay marriage began to appear as an issue, and suddenly it is the most important thing in the family life.  strong pro gun political messages and party platforms surfaced  after  gun rights were threatened, not before.  there is not a single,  conservative  way of looking at each individual issue.  it is not methodical like you describe, any more than progressives are methodical they just find new issues all the time to  progress  on.  it is not like conservatives have a rule book by which they check every new political issue.  the point is the principles are made up after you decide you do not like something.  this is shown when the reasons for opposing everything are changed as each one fails.  the latest push against gays and birth control has been about  religious liberty,  and not about the sanctity of the family like it used to be.  this is because people stopped caring about the moralistic argument and demanded a new explanation, so the whole conservative side of the issue has shifted tactics.  the root of conservatism is not a method, it is a reactionary impulse.   #  i fully understand that fossil fuels are a huge industry and that we ca not feasibly just stop using them over night, but i certainly think the process toward renewable should be done faster than it currently is.   #  i would argue many laws and customs are still frowned upon even though they unarguably would not in any way affect anyone else negatively.  i am personally in favour of marijuana legalisation, but yes, i suppose you could argue that legalsied marijuana would have effects on other people so should be kept illegal.  there are still issues, however, that conservatives i have come across are against even though there is no argument to be made.  i am going to sound like a broken record, but gay marriage is a prime example, as in my opinion there is absolutely no way that homosexual people getting married would negatively effect others, yet i have still met conservatives who oppose it i am still mixed on whether i should have changed  take change slow  to  oppose change .  i fully understand that fossil fuels are a huge industry and that we ca not feasibly just stop using them over night, but i certainly think the process toward renewable should be done faster than it currently is.  i know people in my own life that do not deny climate change, but are hands down in favour of coal and oil etc.  and not even slowly transitioning to renewable.   #  yes, and i too would hope it speeds up, but i want the government to have an understanding of the implications of a faster paced environmental program before they go through with it entirely.   #  there are evidently things, such as gay marriage, which would create absolutely zero problems for anyone if it were allowed.  at the same time, as down0roads outlined, there are quite a few things including fossil fuels that a change in policy on would have destructive short term effects and uncertain long term effects.  any changes made should be slow and certain, rather than fast and wild.  while a rapid and uncertain decision could improve the country greatly, it could also hurt the country.  even with regards to the environment, it makes more sense from a governmental standpoint to switch over slowly, as a rapid change would stonewall a growing industry and leave millions unemployed.  could it be done faster than it is ? yes, and i too would hope it speeds up, but i want the government to have an understanding of the implications of a faster paced environmental program before they go through with it entirely.
they are both just stereotypes but the stigma around using drugs has a lot more weight behind it.  it is just stupid, of course some drug users are losers and some gamers are awkward virgins, there is no smoke without fire but that does not mean its fair to judge someone based on a stereotype.  agreeing with the stigma around drug use is the same as believing any stereotype but people do not see it as a stereotype, for some reason they believe that judging a drug user negatively is a well thought out and logical opinion as opposed to just judging them as you would anyone else .  obviously not all drugs are the same and heroin users arent the same as pot smokers just like cod players arent the same as wow players incidentally but when i say drug users i do not mean addicts, i mean casual users the average drug user .  i believe that drug use does not imply anything more negative about a person than playing video games does, cmv.   #  i believe that drug use does not imply anything more negative about a person than playing video games does, cmv.   #  first, you need to make a distinction between someone who takes an aspirin daily and someone who uses cocaine daily.   # first, you need to make a distinction between someone who takes an aspirin daily and someone who uses cocaine daily.  the first is a drug user; the second is a drug  ab user.  there are no negative stereotypes about drug users in general, only about drug abusers.  yes, there are stereotypes that are not necessarily true.  just as there are many successful gamers, there are many successful drug abusers.  i would not even try to compare the proportions.  but drug abuse does imply something negative about a person: that they are damaging their health.  this is not an ethical point, but it is negative regardless.  a limited amount of gaming a few times each week can be very healthy by creating a meditative state or practicing coordination.  but taking heroin can almost never be good for your health, and taking it regularly will almost certainly shorten your life.   #  i do not think it is useful to compare illicit drug use to video game playing for a few reason.   #  i do not think it is useful to compare illicit drug use to video game playing for a few reason.  first, drugs range so wildly in effect, addictive nature, cost, and legality that they should not really be thought of monolithically in the first place.  while there are also a vast array of video games, they most do not differ fundamentally from each other in the way that, say, cocaine and heroin do.  second, many drugs are extremely harmful to your mental and physical health.  while being addicted to video games can be harmful to your health because you neglect exercise or proper eating, simply using many drugs can permanently damage your body or mind.  0 of people who  try heroin once  become addicts URL do you think the average crack cocaine user is a casual user ? 0 of americans play video games URL could you imagine if 0 of those people were addicts ?  #  sure but people who stereotype drug users do not care about that.   # sure but people who stereotype drug users do not care about that.  the type of person who judges me for doing drugs does not know/care that mdma isnt addictive.  theyre not very comparable, but they are comparable as stereotypes alone.  even addictive drugs need to be abused in order to permanently damage you.  casual use isnt likely to affect your health any more than a bi weekly large big mac meal, yet eating fast food is widely accepted.  no but i do not support heroin use.  im just saying the average drug user isnt an addict.   #  that is what makes them dangerous, which is one of the reasons they are associated with negative stereotypes.   # this is true of literally every stereotype.  if you ignore all nuance and focus only the general negatives associated with making any stereotype, your point is no longer unique or salient.  casual use isnt likely to affect your health any more than a bi weekly large big mac meal, yet eating fast food is widely accepted.  addictive drugs, by their very nature, lend themselves to abuse.  that is what makes them dangerous, which is one of the reasons they are associated with negative stereotypes.  for example, there is no such thing as a casual krokodil users URL that link is nsfl, because krokodil destroys the flesh of the addicts that use it.  from the time a person first uses it, their life expectancy is roughly 0 month.  why not ? earlier you said that casual use is not likely to affect health.  do you also not support certain types of games because they perpetuate the worst stereotypes about gamers ?  #  when people do drugs and are happy, they are cheating the system by consuming drugs that give them this feeling unnaturally.   #  i think the difference in the two has two components: legality and morality.  depending on where you live, drugs are illegal.  drug user can be classified as criminals and some people look down on those that are breaking the law.  the moral issue is how people choose to be happy.  when people play video games, they are naturally happy due to their brains releasing feel good chemicals.  when people do drugs and are happy, they are cheating the system by consuming drugs that give them this feeling unnaturally.  this shortcut can be seen as childish and immature by some people, thereby giving them the notion that drug users are losers.  sidenote i am both a drug user and video game player haha.  i have nothing against either one
i am currently in high school and have homework every night which includes weekends.  now i am used to having homework but sometimes i have extensive amounts of homework.  while homework is key for extra practice i feel that some of it is a bit excessive well most of the time it is.  i believe that homework should be optional and if you do it then you get credit but if you do not then their is no penalty so if you are not doing your homework then your test grades should account for it and vice verse.  having homework on the weekend is counterproductive imo due to the fact that a break would be nice for most students and doing work over the break does not make it feel like a true break.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? it does not apply to real world concepts as most jobs wo not have you working after during the week as well as the weekends  #  i believe that homework should be optional and if you do it then you get credit but if you do not then their is no penalty so if you are not doing your homework then your test grades should account for it and vice verse.   #  this is setting a terrible real world example.   # this is setting a terrible real world example.  part of the purpose of homework is not for actual practice, but rather to train you to accomplish and manage goals in a specified timeframe.  in a way, it is preparing you for the real world.  not penalizing those who ca not work within this schedule minimizes their learning of this skill.  they have no reason to do homework, so why bother ? the marks on tests of students who neglect their homework will tank, and the school is average will drop as well which, depending on regions, could mean a cut in funding.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? you do get a break.  no highschool will assign you 0  hours of homework for a basic coarseload, and even then you have all of friday night and the entirety of saturday and sunday to break away at the homework.  assuming each of your 0 classes gave you 0 hours of homework, that is only 0 hours, or 0 hours a day.  realistically this rarely happens, and the bulk of homework can be finished quickly by competent students.  most schools give slower learners the ability to have extra time as well.  see above for the first point.  pretty much any salaried position expects you to accomplish work on your own time, especially if it is important work such as a grant or budget report .  some companies expect you to do extra hours as well, and will try and get you in on your time off.  much like homework makes testing easier, working hard at work when you are not necessarily on the clock can give you an advantage in the workplace.   #  i am gonna bust down the double doors.   #  many teachers and schools are evaluated based on how their students perform on standardized tests and their final grades in the course.  although it would be nice to just say  hey, this is your life.  if you want to put in the work and time to do your homework and make sure you understand the material, then great.  if not, that is your choice,  teachers are never going to allow it because their students  laziness will reflect poorly on them due to their low test scores and final grades.  you are never going to get a break in life, so get used to it.  you get out of life what you put into it.  to quote some of my favorite lyrics by a band called hedley,  never try, never win; never get a break.  you miss 0 of the shots you never take.   since you are only in high school, you do not really know this.  but you work whenever your boss tells you to work, even in a salaried position.  if you have a deadline coming up and you need to work until 0pm every night or come in on saturday, you do it.  having been through the exact position you are in now having crazy amounts of homework every night, getting around 0 hours of sleep every night to the point where my mental health was being compromised and coming out the other side, i can sincerely say that dealing with that amount of homework taught me extremely important life lessons about discipline, hard work, and having the drive and motivation to keep going because you know why it will all be worth it someday.  to quote another song that got me through high school,  i just ca not wait  til my 0 year reunion.  i am gonna bust down the double doors.  and when i stand on these tables before you,  you will know what all this time was for.    john mayer,  no such thing  #  now, some teachers completely fail to recognize what is good/useful, and some students fail to recognize the good in their teachers  lessons.   # in general school attempts to teach you useful knowledge and skills.  now, some teachers completely fail to recognize what is good/useful, and some students fail to recognize the good in their teachers  lessons.  i ca not tell you which are which, of course.  they should be placed in classes/schools that are more challenging.  second, a  lot  of what employers want is useless boring drudgery.  if you think the  real world  will have no busywork, you would better pick your profession very carefully.   #  doing homework is not about what you are working on.   # in the real word, employers only care about results, not useless busywork.  yes.  exactly.  they care about results.  and in the real world as opposed to a school test you do not get the opportunity to say, okay, sit here for exactly 0 minutes and get the results.  jobs do not work like that.  sometimes you gotta work from home.  sometimes you gotta work overtime.  sometimes,  gasp  you have to go in on the weekend.  doing homework is not about what you are working on.  it is to teach you to get something done in the time allotted.  it is about time management as much as the material.   #  they will also most likely change week to week, and depending on how your company breaks up their weeks, you might go 0 or 0 days without a day off.   #  since you are still in school, let me give you some insight into how the  real world  works: if you have a.   job : you do not have  weekends  you have days off and, depending on where you work, they may or may not be consecutive, meaning you might be off on tuesday and saturday.  they will also most likely change week to week, and depending on how your company breaks up their weeks, you might go 0 or 0 days without a day off.  career  entry level : it is a common misconception that slavery was abolished in the 0s.  in actuality, they simply re titled it  internship .  as an intern, and even as an entry level employee in most fields, you will work until you drop, and then work some more.  career : your work schedule, while steady and consistent, is mostly theoretical.  there are projects to be done, reports to be written did you get the memo about the new cover sheets for the tps reports , and meetings to attend none of which care that you have already worked 0 hours this week.   nbsp; all of this is a long winded way of saying that homework, while seemingly oppressive to you now, will be a fond memory in a few years when you have graduated and you are out in the  real world , so cherish this time.  or to put it another way.  URL
i am currently in high school and have homework every night which includes weekends.  now i am used to having homework but sometimes i have extensive amounts of homework.  while homework is key for extra practice i feel that some of it is a bit excessive well most of the time it is.  i believe that homework should be optional and if you do it then you get credit but if you do not then their is no penalty so if you are not doing your homework then your test grades should account for it and vice verse.  having homework on the weekend is counterproductive imo due to the fact that a break would be nice for most students and doing work over the break does not make it feel like a true break.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? it does not apply to real world concepts as most jobs wo not have you working after during the week as well as the weekends  #  having homework on the weekend is counterproductive imo due to the fact that a break would be nice for most students and doing work over the break does not make it feel like a true break.   #  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ?  # this is setting a terrible real world example.  part of the purpose of homework is not for actual practice, but rather to train you to accomplish and manage goals in a specified timeframe.  in a way, it is preparing you for the real world.  not penalizing those who ca not work within this schedule minimizes their learning of this skill.  they have no reason to do homework, so why bother ? the marks on tests of students who neglect their homework will tank, and the school is average will drop as well which, depending on regions, could mean a cut in funding.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? you do get a break.  no highschool will assign you 0  hours of homework for a basic coarseload, and even then you have all of friday night and the entirety of saturday and sunday to break away at the homework.  assuming each of your 0 classes gave you 0 hours of homework, that is only 0 hours, or 0 hours a day.  realistically this rarely happens, and the bulk of homework can be finished quickly by competent students.  most schools give slower learners the ability to have extra time as well.  see above for the first point.  pretty much any salaried position expects you to accomplish work on your own time, especially if it is important work such as a grant or budget report .  some companies expect you to do extra hours as well, and will try and get you in on your time off.  much like homework makes testing easier, working hard at work when you are not necessarily on the clock can give you an advantage in the workplace.   #  you miss 0 of the shots you never take.    #  many teachers and schools are evaluated based on how their students perform on standardized tests and their final grades in the course.  although it would be nice to just say  hey, this is your life.  if you want to put in the work and time to do your homework and make sure you understand the material, then great.  if not, that is your choice,  teachers are never going to allow it because their students  laziness will reflect poorly on them due to their low test scores and final grades.  you are never going to get a break in life, so get used to it.  you get out of life what you put into it.  to quote some of my favorite lyrics by a band called hedley,  never try, never win; never get a break.  you miss 0 of the shots you never take.   since you are only in high school, you do not really know this.  but you work whenever your boss tells you to work, even in a salaried position.  if you have a deadline coming up and you need to work until 0pm every night or come in on saturday, you do it.  having been through the exact position you are in now having crazy amounts of homework every night, getting around 0 hours of sleep every night to the point where my mental health was being compromised and coming out the other side, i can sincerely say that dealing with that amount of homework taught me extremely important life lessons about discipline, hard work, and having the drive and motivation to keep going because you know why it will all be worth it someday.  to quote another song that got me through high school,  i just ca not wait  til my 0 year reunion.  i am gonna bust down the double doors.  and when i stand on these tables before you,  you will know what all this time was for.    john mayer,  no such thing  #  now, some teachers completely fail to recognize what is good/useful, and some students fail to recognize the good in their teachers  lessons.   # in general school attempts to teach you useful knowledge and skills.  now, some teachers completely fail to recognize what is good/useful, and some students fail to recognize the good in their teachers  lessons.  i ca not tell you which are which, of course.  they should be placed in classes/schools that are more challenging.  second, a  lot  of what employers want is useless boring drudgery.  if you think the  real world  will have no busywork, you would better pick your profession very carefully.   #  it is about time management as much as the material.   # in the real word, employers only care about results, not useless busywork.  yes.  exactly.  they care about results.  and in the real world as opposed to a school test you do not get the opportunity to say, okay, sit here for exactly 0 minutes and get the results.  jobs do not work like that.  sometimes you gotta work from home.  sometimes you gotta work overtime.  sometimes,  gasp  you have to go in on the weekend.  doing homework is not about what you are working on.  it is to teach you to get something done in the time allotted.  it is about time management as much as the material.   #  in actuality, they simply re titled it  internship .   #  since you are still in school, let me give you some insight into how the  real world  works: if you have a.   job : you do not have  weekends  you have days off and, depending on where you work, they may or may not be consecutive, meaning you might be off on tuesday and saturday.  they will also most likely change week to week, and depending on how your company breaks up their weeks, you might go 0 or 0 days without a day off.  career  entry level : it is a common misconception that slavery was abolished in the 0s.  in actuality, they simply re titled it  internship .  as an intern, and even as an entry level employee in most fields, you will work until you drop, and then work some more.  career : your work schedule, while steady and consistent, is mostly theoretical.  there are projects to be done, reports to be written did you get the memo about the new cover sheets for the tps reports , and meetings to attend none of which care that you have already worked 0 hours this week.   nbsp; all of this is a long winded way of saying that homework, while seemingly oppressive to you now, will be a fond memory in a few years when you have graduated and you are out in the  real world , so cherish this time.  or to put it another way.  URL
i am currently in high school and have homework every night which includes weekends.  now i am used to having homework but sometimes i have extensive amounts of homework.  while homework is key for extra practice i feel that some of it is a bit excessive well most of the time it is.  i believe that homework should be optional and if you do it then you get credit but if you do not then their is no penalty so if you are not doing your homework then your test grades should account for it and vice verse.  having homework on the weekend is counterproductive imo due to the fact that a break would be nice for most students and doing work over the break does not make it feel like a true break.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? it does not apply to real world concepts as most jobs wo not have you working after during the week as well as the weekends  #  now i am used to having homework but sometimes i have extensive amounts of homework.   #  while homework is key for extra practice i feel that some of it is a bit excessive well most of the time it is.   # while homework is key for extra practice i feel that some of it is a bit excessive well most of the time it is.  how do you define excessive amounts ? the problem here is that we are trying to get students to learn, so that society will continue to thrive or at least survive in the future when they are in charge.  we cannot be content with a student failing courses, because it is  important  for them to learn these concepts ! mandatory homework is one way to ensure the students learn something from the course.  school is not about penalizing those who do not do their homework.  it is about preparing the next generation to take over the world literally .  we cannot sit idly by and let students just  not do their homework  because the lack of effort will be reflected on their tests.  that is bad, they wo not have learned anything.  school is mandatory because it is important to learn before you have the weight of the world on your generation is shoulders.  the same goes for homework.   having a break would be nice  is not a very compelling argument.  it is nice to have breaks, and for them to feel like breaks, but that is not representative of most careers.  my father ca not take vacation days whenever he wants, because he is in charge of many projects that sometimes  require  his attention.  your teachers do not get a break on weekends, they need to grade the  entire class is  homework from the previous week as well as design lesson is for the next week.  in the business world you would often go to weekend conferences.  some jobs make no distinction between the weekend and weekday, a police officer may not have  weekends  as his days off.  some people work seven days a week.  in school you are still children.  this is why you do not start elementary school with weekend long projects.  but in high school, you do need to learn how to do longer projects and more work.  the weekend is good for both things, just because of the amount of time it has.  if you want a  nice  break, i suggest looking towards thanksgiving, christmas, or summer break.  the first two are literally meant to be breaks for people to spend time with family or travel.  summer used to be a farming thing, but nowadays it is evolved into a break for students.   #  to quote some of my favorite lyrics by a band called hedley,  never try, never win; never get a break.   #  many teachers and schools are evaluated based on how their students perform on standardized tests and their final grades in the course.  although it would be nice to just say  hey, this is your life.  if you want to put in the work and time to do your homework and make sure you understand the material, then great.  if not, that is your choice,  teachers are never going to allow it because their students  laziness will reflect poorly on them due to their low test scores and final grades.  you are never going to get a break in life, so get used to it.  you get out of life what you put into it.  to quote some of my favorite lyrics by a band called hedley,  never try, never win; never get a break.  you miss 0 of the shots you never take.   since you are only in high school, you do not really know this.  but you work whenever your boss tells you to work, even in a salaried position.  if you have a deadline coming up and you need to work until 0pm every night or come in on saturday, you do it.  having been through the exact position you are in now having crazy amounts of homework every night, getting around 0 hours of sleep every night to the point where my mental health was being compromised and coming out the other side, i can sincerely say that dealing with that amount of homework taught me extremely important life lessons about discipline, hard work, and having the drive and motivation to keep going because you know why it will all be worth it someday.  to quote another song that got me through high school,  i just ca not wait  til my 0 year reunion.  i am gonna bust down the double doors.  and when i stand on these tables before you,  you will know what all this time was for.    john mayer,  no such thing  #  realistically this rarely happens, and the bulk of homework can be finished quickly by competent students.   # this is setting a terrible real world example.  part of the purpose of homework is not for actual practice, but rather to train you to accomplish and manage goals in a specified timeframe.  in a way, it is preparing you for the real world.  not penalizing those who ca not work within this schedule minimizes their learning of this skill.  they have no reason to do homework, so why bother ? the marks on tests of students who neglect their homework will tank, and the school is average will drop as well which, depending on regions, could mean a cut in funding.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? you do get a break.  no highschool will assign you 0  hours of homework for a basic coarseload, and even then you have all of friday night and the entirety of saturday and sunday to break away at the homework.  assuming each of your 0 classes gave you 0 hours of homework, that is only 0 hours, or 0 hours a day.  realistically this rarely happens, and the bulk of homework can be finished quickly by competent students.  most schools give slower learners the ability to have extra time as well.  see above for the first point.  pretty much any salaried position expects you to accomplish work on your own time, especially if it is important work such as a grant or budget report .  some companies expect you to do extra hours as well, and will try and get you in on your time off.  much like homework makes testing easier, working hard at work when you are not necessarily on the clock can give you an advantage in the workplace.   #  i ca not tell you which are which, of course.   # in general school attempts to teach you useful knowledge and skills.  now, some teachers completely fail to recognize what is good/useful, and some students fail to recognize the good in their teachers  lessons.  i ca not tell you which are which, of course.  they should be placed in classes/schools that are more challenging.  second, a  lot  of what employers want is useless boring drudgery.  if you think the  real world  will have no busywork, you would better pick your profession very carefully.   #  sometimes,  gasp  you have to go in on the weekend.   # in the real word, employers only care about results, not useless busywork.  yes.  exactly.  they care about results.  and in the real world as opposed to a school test you do not get the opportunity to say, okay, sit here for exactly 0 minutes and get the results.  jobs do not work like that.  sometimes you gotta work from home.  sometimes you gotta work overtime.  sometimes,  gasp  you have to go in on the weekend.  doing homework is not about what you are working on.  it is to teach you to get something done in the time allotted.  it is about time management as much as the material.
i am currently in high school and have homework every night which includes weekends.  now i am used to having homework but sometimes i have extensive amounts of homework.  while homework is key for extra practice i feel that some of it is a bit excessive well most of the time it is.  i believe that homework should be optional and if you do it then you get credit but if you do not then their is no penalty so if you are not doing your homework then your test grades should account for it and vice verse.  having homework on the weekend is counterproductive imo due to the fact that a break would be nice for most students and doing work over the break does not make it feel like a true break.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? it does not apply to real world concepts as most jobs wo not have you working after during the week as well as the weekends  #  i believe that homework should be optional and if you do it then you get credit but if you do not then their is no penalty so if you are not doing your homework then your test grades should account for it and vice verse.   #  the problem here is that we are trying to get students to learn, so that society will continue to thrive or at least survive in the future when they are in charge.   # while homework is key for extra practice i feel that some of it is a bit excessive well most of the time it is.  how do you define excessive amounts ? the problem here is that we are trying to get students to learn, so that society will continue to thrive or at least survive in the future when they are in charge.  we cannot be content with a student failing courses, because it is  important  for them to learn these concepts ! mandatory homework is one way to ensure the students learn something from the course.  school is not about penalizing those who do not do their homework.  it is about preparing the next generation to take over the world literally .  we cannot sit idly by and let students just  not do their homework  because the lack of effort will be reflected on their tests.  that is bad, they wo not have learned anything.  school is mandatory because it is important to learn before you have the weight of the world on your generation is shoulders.  the same goes for homework.   having a break would be nice  is not a very compelling argument.  it is nice to have breaks, and for them to feel like breaks, but that is not representative of most careers.  my father ca not take vacation days whenever he wants, because he is in charge of many projects that sometimes  require  his attention.  your teachers do not get a break on weekends, they need to grade the  entire class is  homework from the previous week as well as design lesson is for the next week.  in the business world you would often go to weekend conferences.  some jobs make no distinction between the weekend and weekday, a police officer may not have  weekends  as his days off.  some people work seven days a week.  in school you are still children.  this is why you do not start elementary school with weekend long projects.  but in high school, you do need to learn how to do longer projects and more work.  the weekend is good for both things, just because of the amount of time it has.  if you want a  nice  break, i suggest looking towards thanksgiving, christmas, or summer break.  the first two are literally meant to be breaks for people to spend time with family or travel.  summer used to be a farming thing, but nowadays it is evolved into a break for students.   #  many teachers and schools are evaluated based on how their students perform on standardized tests and their final grades in the course.   #  many teachers and schools are evaluated based on how their students perform on standardized tests and their final grades in the course.  although it would be nice to just say  hey, this is your life.  if you want to put in the work and time to do your homework and make sure you understand the material, then great.  if not, that is your choice,  teachers are never going to allow it because their students  laziness will reflect poorly on them due to their low test scores and final grades.  you are never going to get a break in life, so get used to it.  you get out of life what you put into it.  to quote some of my favorite lyrics by a band called hedley,  never try, never win; never get a break.  you miss 0 of the shots you never take.   since you are only in high school, you do not really know this.  but you work whenever your boss tells you to work, even in a salaried position.  if you have a deadline coming up and you need to work until 0pm every night or come in on saturday, you do it.  having been through the exact position you are in now having crazy amounts of homework every night, getting around 0 hours of sleep every night to the point where my mental health was being compromised and coming out the other side, i can sincerely say that dealing with that amount of homework taught me extremely important life lessons about discipline, hard work, and having the drive and motivation to keep going because you know why it will all be worth it someday.  to quote another song that got me through high school,  i just ca not wait  til my 0 year reunion.  i am gonna bust down the double doors.  and when i stand on these tables before you,  you will know what all this time was for.    john mayer,  no such thing  #  most schools give slower learners the ability to have extra time as well.   # this is setting a terrible real world example.  part of the purpose of homework is not for actual practice, but rather to train you to accomplish and manage goals in a specified timeframe.  in a way, it is preparing you for the real world.  not penalizing those who ca not work within this schedule minimizes their learning of this skill.  they have no reason to do homework, so why bother ? the marks on tests of students who neglect their homework will tank, and the school is average will drop as well which, depending on regions, could mean a cut in funding.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? you do get a break.  no highschool will assign you 0  hours of homework for a basic coarseload, and even then you have all of friday night and the entirety of saturday and sunday to break away at the homework.  assuming each of your 0 classes gave you 0 hours of homework, that is only 0 hours, or 0 hours a day.  realistically this rarely happens, and the bulk of homework can be finished quickly by competent students.  most schools give slower learners the ability to have extra time as well.  see above for the first point.  pretty much any salaried position expects you to accomplish work on your own time, especially if it is important work such as a grant or budget report .  some companies expect you to do extra hours as well, and will try and get you in on your time off.  much like homework makes testing easier, working hard at work when you are not necessarily on the clock can give you an advantage in the workplace.   #  in general school attempts to teach you useful knowledge and skills.   # in general school attempts to teach you useful knowledge and skills.  now, some teachers completely fail to recognize what is good/useful, and some students fail to recognize the good in their teachers  lessons.  i ca not tell you which are which, of course.  they should be placed in classes/schools that are more challenging.  second, a  lot  of what employers want is useless boring drudgery.  if you think the  real world  will have no busywork, you would better pick your profession very carefully.   #  it is to teach you to get something done in the time allotted.   # in the real word, employers only care about results, not useless busywork.  yes.  exactly.  they care about results.  and in the real world as opposed to a school test you do not get the opportunity to say, okay, sit here for exactly 0 minutes and get the results.  jobs do not work like that.  sometimes you gotta work from home.  sometimes you gotta work overtime.  sometimes,  gasp  you have to go in on the weekend.  doing homework is not about what you are working on.  it is to teach you to get something done in the time allotted.  it is about time management as much as the material.
i am currently in high school and have homework every night which includes weekends.  now i am used to having homework but sometimes i have extensive amounts of homework.  while homework is key for extra practice i feel that some of it is a bit excessive well most of the time it is.  i believe that homework should be optional and if you do it then you get credit but if you do not then their is no penalty so if you are not doing your homework then your test grades should account for it and vice verse.  having homework on the weekend is counterproductive imo due to the fact that a break would be nice for most students and doing work over the break does not make it feel like a true break.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? it does not apply to real world concepts as most jobs wo not have you working after during the week as well as the weekends  #  having homework on the weekend is counterproductive imo due to the fact that a break would be nice for most students and doing work over the break does not make it feel like a true break.   #   having a break would be nice  is not a very compelling argument.   # while homework is key for extra practice i feel that some of it is a bit excessive well most of the time it is.  how do you define excessive amounts ? the problem here is that we are trying to get students to learn, so that society will continue to thrive or at least survive in the future when they are in charge.  we cannot be content with a student failing courses, because it is  important  for them to learn these concepts ! mandatory homework is one way to ensure the students learn something from the course.  school is not about penalizing those who do not do their homework.  it is about preparing the next generation to take over the world literally .  we cannot sit idly by and let students just  not do their homework  because the lack of effort will be reflected on their tests.  that is bad, they wo not have learned anything.  school is mandatory because it is important to learn before you have the weight of the world on your generation is shoulders.  the same goes for homework.   having a break would be nice  is not a very compelling argument.  it is nice to have breaks, and for them to feel like breaks, but that is not representative of most careers.  my father ca not take vacation days whenever he wants, because he is in charge of many projects that sometimes  require  his attention.  your teachers do not get a break on weekends, they need to grade the  entire class is  homework from the previous week as well as design lesson is for the next week.  in the business world you would often go to weekend conferences.  some jobs make no distinction between the weekend and weekday, a police officer may not have  weekends  as his days off.  some people work seven days a week.  in school you are still children.  this is why you do not start elementary school with weekend long projects.  but in high school, you do need to learn how to do longer projects and more work.  the weekend is good for both things, just because of the amount of time it has.  if you want a  nice  break, i suggest looking towards thanksgiving, christmas, or summer break.  the first two are literally meant to be breaks for people to spend time with family or travel.  summer used to be a farming thing, but nowadays it is evolved into a break for students.   #  to quote some of my favorite lyrics by a band called hedley,  never try, never win; never get a break.   #  many teachers and schools are evaluated based on how their students perform on standardized tests and their final grades in the course.  although it would be nice to just say  hey, this is your life.  if you want to put in the work and time to do your homework and make sure you understand the material, then great.  if not, that is your choice,  teachers are never going to allow it because their students  laziness will reflect poorly on them due to their low test scores and final grades.  you are never going to get a break in life, so get used to it.  you get out of life what you put into it.  to quote some of my favorite lyrics by a band called hedley,  never try, never win; never get a break.  you miss 0 of the shots you never take.   since you are only in high school, you do not really know this.  but you work whenever your boss tells you to work, even in a salaried position.  if you have a deadline coming up and you need to work until 0pm every night or come in on saturday, you do it.  having been through the exact position you are in now having crazy amounts of homework every night, getting around 0 hours of sleep every night to the point where my mental health was being compromised and coming out the other side, i can sincerely say that dealing with that amount of homework taught me extremely important life lessons about discipline, hard work, and having the drive and motivation to keep going because you know why it will all be worth it someday.  to quote another song that got me through high school,  i just ca not wait  til my 0 year reunion.  i am gonna bust down the double doors.  and when i stand on these tables before you,  you will know what all this time was for.    john mayer,  no such thing  #  this is setting a terrible real world example.   # this is setting a terrible real world example.  part of the purpose of homework is not for actual practice, but rather to train you to accomplish and manage goals in a specified timeframe.  in a way, it is preparing you for the real world.  not penalizing those who ca not work within this schedule minimizes their learning of this skill.  they have no reason to do homework, so why bother ? the marks on tests of students who neglect their homework will tank, and the school is average will drop as well which, depending on regions, could mean a cut in funding.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? you do get a break.  no highschool will assign you 0  hours of homework for a basic coarseload, and even then you have all of friday night and the entirety of saturday and sunday to break away at the homework.  assuming each of your 0 classes gave you 0 hours of homework, that is only 0 hours, or 0 hours a day.  realistically this rarely happens, and the bulk of homework can be finished quickly by competent students.  most schools give slower learners the ability to have extra time as well.  see above for the first point.  pretty much any salaried position expects you to accomplish work on your own time, especially if it is important work such as a grant or budget report .  some companies expect you to do extra hours as well, and will try and get you in on your time off.  much like homework makes testing easier, working hard at work when you are not necessarily on the clock can give you an advantage in the workplace.   #  second, a  lot  of what employers want is useless boring drudgery.   # in general school attempts to teach you useful knowledge and skills.  now, some teachers completely fail to recognize what is good/useful, and some students fail to recognize the good in their teachers  lessons.  i ca not tell you which are which, of course.  they should be placed in classes/schools that are more challenging.  second, a  lot  of what employers want is useless boring drudgery.  if you think the  real world  will have no busywork, you would better pick your profession very carefully.   #  in the real word, employers only care about results, not useless busywork.   # in the real word, employers only care about results, not useless busywork.  yes.  exactly.  they care about results.  and in the real world as opposed to a school test you do not get the opportunity to say, okay, sit here for exactly 0 minutes and get the results.  jobs do not work like that.  sometimes you gotta work from home.  sometimes you gotta work overtime.  sometimes,  gasp  you have to go in on the weekend.  doing homework is not about what you are working on.  it is to teach you to get something done in the time allotted.  it is about time management as much as the material.
i am currently in high school and have homework every night which includes weekends.  now i am used to having homework but sometimes i have extensive amounts of homework.  while homework is key for extra practice i feel that some of it is a bit excessive well most of the time it is.  i believe that homework should be optional and if you do it then you get credit but if you do not then their is no penalty so if you are not doing your homework then your test grades should account for it and vice verse.  having homework on the weekend is counterproductive imo due to the fact that a break would be nice for most students and doing work over the break does not make it feel like a true break.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? it does not apply to real world concepts as most jobs wo not have you working after during the week as well as the weekends  #  i believe that homework should be optional and if you do it then you get credit but if you do not then their is no penalty so if you are not doing your homework then your test grades should account for it and vice verse.   #  if you do not require homework to be done then no one would ever do it.   # if you do not require homework to be done then no one would ever do it.  if no one ever did it then they would not learn and practice and they would just end up doing terribly on tests.  when you get a job you will be required to put in extra time and hours, sometimes on the weekends to get things done.  see above.  there are plenty of instances where you might be required to burn the midnight oil or pull a weekend shift.  company deadlines do not change because you put your 0 hours in, they are set and if you are behind schedule you have to push through.   #  if not, that is your choice,  teachers are never going to allow it because their students  laziness will reflect poorly on them due to their low test scores and final grades.   #  many teachers and schools are evaluated based on how their students perform on standardized tests and their final grades in the course.  although it would be nice to just say  hey, this is your life.  if you want to put in the work and time to do your homework and make sure you understand the material, then great.  if not, that is your choice,  teachers are never going to allow it because their students  laziness will reflect poorly on them due to their low test scores and final grades.  you are never going to get a break in life, so get used to it.  you get out of life what you put into it.  to quote some of my favorite lyrics by a band called hedley,  never try, never win; never get a break.  you miss 0 of the shots you never take.   since you are only in high school, you do not really know this.  but you work whenever your boss tells you to work, even in a salaried position.  if you have a deadline coming up and you need to work until 0pm every night or come in on saturday, you do it.  having been through the exact position you are in now having crazy amounts of homework every night, getting around 0 hours of sleep every night to the point where my mental health was being compromised and coming out the other side, i can sincerely say that dealing with that amount of homework taught me extremely important life lessons about discipline, hard work, and having the drive and motivation to keep going because you know why it will all be worth it someday.  to quote another song that got me through high school,  i just ca not wait  til my 0 year reunion.  i am gonna bust down the double doors.  and when i stand on these tables before you,  you will know what all this time was for.    john mayer,  no such thing  #  the marks on tests of students who neglect their homework will tank, and the school is average will drop as well which, depending on regions, could mean a cut in funding.   # this is setting a terrible real world example.  part of the purpose of homework is not for actual practice, but rather to train you to accomplish and manage goals in a specified timeframe.  in a way, it is preparing you for the real world.  not penalizing those who ca not work within this schedule minimizes their learning of this skill.  they have no reason to do homework, so why bother ? the marks on tests of students who neglect their homework will tank, and the school is average will drop as well which, depending on regions, could mean a cut in funding.  but i truly want to know why homework is assigned on the weekends or is allowed ? you do get a break.  no highschool will assign you 0  hours of homework for a basic coarseload, and even then you have all of friday night and the entirety of saturday and sunday to break away at the homework.  assuming each of your 0 classes gave you 0 hours of homework, that is only 0 hours, or 0 hours a day.  realistically this rarely happens, and the bulk of homework can be finished quickly by competent students.  most schools give slower learners the ability to have extra time as well.  see above for the first point.  pretty much any salaried position expects you to accomplish work on your own time, especially if it is important work such as a grant or budget report .  some companies expect you to do extra hours as well, and will try and get you in on your time off.  much like homework makes testing easier, working hard at work when you are not necessarily on the clock can give you an advantage in the workplace.   #  they should be placed in classes/schools that are more challenging.   # in general school attempts to teach you useful knowledge and skills.  now, some teachers completely fail to recognize what is good/useful, and some students fail to recognize the good in their teachers  lessons.  i ca not tell you which are which, of course.  they should be placed in classes/schools that are more challenging.  second, a  lot  of what employers want is useless boring drudgery.  if you think the  real world  will have no busywork, you would better pick your profession very carefully.   #  it is about time management as much as the material.   # in the real word, employers only care about results, not useless busywork.  yes.  exactly.  they care about results.  and in the real world as opposed to a school test you do not get the opportunity to say, okay, sit here for exactly 0 minutes and get the results.  jobs do not work like that.  sometimes you gotta work from home.  sometimes you gotta work overtime.  sometimes,  gasp  you have to go in on the weekend.  doing homework is not about what you are working on.  it is to teach you to get something done in the time allotted.  it is about time management as much as the material.
hopefully the majority agrees that the global population growth is already at an unsustainable level URL and that we are exhausting natural resources far faster than they can regenerate.  there are 0 million children URL in the world who have lost one or both parents.  the carbon footprint of each child, especially those in the first world, is far greater than than of children in the third world.  an extensive academic paper here URL i have a few very simple points to make: 0.  why insist on having your biological child when so many are in need of a family ? 0.  why add to the rapid deterioration of our environment by bringing another human being into existence ? in case anyone finds it relevant, i am 0, female, no children, presumably fertile, raised by my biological family.   #  why insist on having your biological child when so many are in need of a family ?  #  because it is a biological imperative to perpetuate our genes.   # even at current times, we can easily feet 0 billion people with proper organization .  population models show that we tend to stabilize as economy and education grows.  in the first world countries and most developing countries, we have negative growth.  here, we actually need to find ways to increase reproduction rates.  because it is a biological imperative to perpetuate our genes.  our instincts are geared toward rearing our own biological children.  this is like telling people to take pills to remove our sex drive and perform sex for  only  procreation, not pleasure.  because we find humanity more important than the environment.  if you want a clean environment, we can simply murder our species.  your problem is not something to be solved in the western world.  we are in danger of economic collapse if we do not have a certain population growth.  or at least 0 growth.  population growth must be solved in developing countries and 0rd world countries.   #  by that logic hurricane katrina was a malthusian crisis, but of course a natural disaster can cut off access to goods and services even in an area where population has been declining.   #  well no.  by that logic hurricane katrina was a malthusian crisis, but of course a natural disaster can cut off access to goods and services even in an area where population has been declining.  a malthusian crisis would seem to require at minimum: 0.  widespread lack of access to food, water or space necessary to allow human survival.  0.  that this lack of access not be caused by natural disasters or political instability, but be related to a persistent lack of productive capacity.  0.  that this lack of access occur in tandem with, or after, a period of exponential growth in population and 0.  that the degree of severity be directly proportional to the population size.  i do not think we have seen anything like this.   #  he is done a few ted talks where he discusses just this.   #  i do not have a  reliable scientific source , but it is conventional wisdom within the development community, and it is shown to be true countless times.  if you look at the birth rate of virtually any country, you will see it decreases as statistics like life expectancy and median income rise.  you see the extreme effects of this in developed nations, particularly europe and japan, where birth rates are so low some countries provide big incentives to parents and have fairly open immigration policies to ensure their population continues to grow.  google hans rosling and check out some of his videos.  he is done a few ted talks where he discusses just this.  it is expected that the earth is population will level off somewhere around 0 billion people, given current trends in development.   #  i do not believe that working to fulfill a wish and a dream of loving a child of your own is greedy or selfish, it is part of being a living, intelligent creature.   #  i believe that it is much more ethically sound to support organizations such as the bill and melinda gates foundation family planning branch than it is to possibly mandate, coerce or otherwise manipulate healthy and happy couples who wish to create their own life together.  generally, men and women spend thousands upon thousands of dollars trying to create their own child before choosing to adopt.  i do not believe that working to fulfill a wish and a dream of loving a child of your own is greedy or selfish, it is part of being a living, intelligent creature.  many of those couples, who cannot have their own child for one reason or another, do then adopt.  providing education and availability on birth control would be much more effective and ethical than snuffing people is dream of being able to create their own life, their reflection of their love for one another, their own little piece of immortality.  also, it seems as if your argument stems from the assumption that the single parents would  want  their child or children to be adopted out.  honestly, the number of times i have seen and heard of a woman committing to carrying a child until birth for an adoptive couple to then change her mind just after the child is born makes me think that you are approaching this from a naive point of view.  i commend you for your obvious desire to save our earth and make it a sustainable place of life for the human race for many millennia to come; however, condemning others  choices as unethical for choosing to procreate is not as constructive as volunteering time, money, what have you to an organization or several already in the process of working to bring the proper education and resources to those  poor, deprived countries .   #  there are many who, for a variety of reasons, choose not to go to the lengths and bounds of others in the quest to have a child directly of their making.   #  i would certainly argue that some couples already do realize that.  there are many who, for a variety of reasons, choose not to go to the lengths and bounds of others in the quest to have a child directly of their making.  adoption is an option that is chosen all the time, and it can, in many cases, be just as expensive, heart wrenching, time consuming and difficult as going through all of the processes to be able to have a child.  however, i do not believe that you can truly say it is more  ethical  to make the choice to adopt over having a child of your own.  it is simply an individual choice.  i would argue that it is more ethical to not have a child when you cannot support that child.  in many countries of the world, the lack of education and resources regarding birth control and other options limits the possibilities of that countries inhabitants.  if your primary concern is the world is human population and our use of the world is natural resources and from your initial post it appeared that it was , then i believe that it is more ethical to provide options to women to prevent pregnancy as opposed to telling them not to become pregnant.
hopefully the majority agrees that the global population growth is already at an unsustainable level URL and that we are exhausting natural resources far faster than they can regenerate.  there are 0 million children URL in the world who have lost one or both parents.  the carbon footprint of each child, especially those in the first world, is far greater than than of children in the third world.  an extensive academic paper here URL i have a few very simple points to make: 0.  why insist on having your biological child when so many are in need of a family ? 0.  why add to the rapid deterioration of our environment by bringing another human being into existence ? in case anyone finds it relevant, i am 0, female, no children, presumably fertile, raised by my biological family.   #  why add to the rapid deterioration of our environment by bringing another human being into existence ?  #  because we find humanity more important than the environment.   # even at current times, we can easily feet 0 billion people with proper organization .  population models show that we tend to stabilize as economy and education grows.  in the first world countries and most developing countries, we have negative growth.  here, we actually need to find ways to increase reproduction rates.  because it is a biological imperative to perpetuate our genes.  our instincts are geared toward rearing our own biological children.  this is like telling people to take pills to remove our sex drive and perform sex for  only  procreation, not pleasure.  because we find humanity more important than the environment.  if you want a clean environment, we can simply murder our species.  your problem is not something to be solved in the western world.  we are in danger of economic collapse if we do not have a certain population growth.  or at least 0 growth.  population growth must be solved in developing countries and 0rd world countries.   #  a malthusian crisis would seem to require at minimum: 0.  widespread lack of access to food, water or space necessary to allow human survival.   #  well no.  by that logic hurricane katrina was a malthusian crisis, but of course a natural disaster can cut off access to goods and services even in an area where population has been declining.  a malthusian crisis would seem to require at minimum: 0.  widespread lack of access to food, water or space necessary to allow human survival.  0.  that this lack of access not be caused by natural disasters or political instability, but be related to a persistent lack of productive capacity.  0.  that this lack of access occur in tandem with, or after, a period of exponential growth in population and 0.  that the degree of severity be directly proportional to the population size.  i do not think we have seen anything like this.   #  he is done a few ted talks where he discusses just this.   #  i do not have a  reliable scientific source , but it is conventional wisdom within the development community, and it is shown to be true countless times.  if you look at the birth rate of virtually any country, you will see it decreases as statistics like life expectancy and median income rise.  you see the extreme effects of this in developed nations, particularly europe and japan, where birth rates are so low some countries provide big incentives to parents and have fairly open immigration policies to ensure their population continues to grow.  google hans rosling and check out some of his videos.  he is done a few ted talks where he discusses just this.  it is expected that the earth is population will level off somewhere around 0 billion people, given current trends in development.   #  many of those couples, who cannot have their own child for one reason or another, do then adopt.   #  i believe that it is much more ethically sound to support organizations such as the bill and melinda gates foundation family planning branch than it is to possibly mandate, coerce or otherwise manipulate healthy and happy couples who wish to create their own life together.  generally, men and women spend thousands upon thousands of dollars trying to create their own child before choosing to adopt.  i do not believe that working to fulfill a wish and a dream of loving a child of your own is greedy or selfish, it is part of being a living, intelligent creature.  many of those couples, who cannot have their own child for one reason or another, do then adopt.  providing education and availability on birth control would be much more effective and ethical than snuffing people is dream of being able to create their own life, their reflection of their love for one another, their own little piece of immortality.  also, it seems as if your argument stems from the assumption that the single parents would  want  their child or children to be adopted out.  honestly, the number of times i have seen and heard of a woman committing to carrying a child until birth for an adoptive couple to then change her mind just after the child is born makes me think that you are approaching this from a naive point of view.  i commend you for your obvious desire to save our earth and make it a sustainable place of life for the human race for many millennia to come; however, condemning others  choices as unethical for choosing to procreate is not as constructive as volunteering time, money, what have you to an organization or several already in the process of working to bring the proper education and resources to those  poor, deprived countries .   #  adoption is an option that is chosen all the time, and it can, in many cases, be just as expensive, heart wrenching, time consuming and difficult as going through all of the processes to be able to have a child.   #  i would certainly argue that some couples already do realize that.  there are many who, for a variety of reasons, choose not to go to the lengths and bounds of others in the quest to have a child directly of their making.  adoption is an option that is chosen all the time, and it can, in many cases, be just as expensive, heart wrenching, time consuming and difficult as going through all of the processes to be able to have a child.  however, i do not believe that you can truly say it is more  ethical  to make the choice to adopt over having a child of your own.  it is simply an individual choice.  i would argue that it is more ethical to not have a child when you cannot support that child.  in many countries of the world, the lack of education and resources regarding birth control and other options limits the possibilities of that countries inhabitants.  if your primary concern is the world is human population and our use of the world is natural resources and from your initial post it appeared that it was , then i believe that it is more ethical to provide options to women to prevent pregnancy as opposed to telling them not to become pregnant.
crafting an argument from a moral perspective is a non starter.  moral decisions are a function of responding to scarcity.  let is take the claim that stealing is immoral.  it is not a question of morality, it is a question of scarcity.  there was a cmv about stealing from walmart.  let is qualify this.  why is the person stealing ? are they hungry ? are their children malnourished ? are they a kleptomaniac or a psychopath ? are they rationalizing that walmart is more evil than my act, so my act is a virtue.  the thing about morality, is you may never change anyone is mind.  if you base decisions on scarcity and ask the same questions you will arrive at a better conclusion hopefully to determine justice.  another example is the immorality of eating meat.  again, this needs to be based off of scarcity.  you would not call the malnourished immoral.  that is roughly 0 of us children.  let is take the next 0 to 0.  how many of them have the resources to acquire b 0 and suitable vegetarian alternatives for a maximized dollar ? so 0 of the country have a free moral pass.  alright.  so beef is distributed on an income basis or do we have to rely on shame to keep the  able  from being a carnivore ? morality is so subjective that it is a useless measure to solve social/ economic issues.   #  the thing about morality, is you may never change anyone is mind.   #  i may never change a young earth creationist is mind that the earth is more than 0,0 years old.   #  the  most  you have demonstrated in your op is that scarcity can sometimes be a morally relevant factor in determining whether something is moral or not.  there is nothing about your reasoning which suggests that all moral decisions are a function of  responding to scarcity .  take bestiality, for example.  many say it is wrong, some say it is permissible.  i do not want to debate this here.  but what does the issue have to do with scarcity scarcity defined as  the state of being in short supply  ? whether it is wrong or permissible seems to be entirely independent of whether animals are scarce or not.  even if they are completely plentiful, one may still argue the act is wrong perhaps it violates the dignity of the animal ? perhaps it is psychologically unhealthy ? there are lots of possible reasons.  if you ca not imagine lots of subjects which have moral values independent of whether scarcity exists or not, then you simply are not thinking hard enough.  i may never change a young earth creationist is mind that the earth is more than 0,0 years old.  so what ? i have changed people is minds on moral matters before, and they have changed mine.  that some people wall themselves off from rational discussion does not suggest there is not an objective moral truth, or that our moral experience is simply a response to scarcity.  there is also  nothing  in your post which suggests that morality is subjective.  no argument whatsoever.  if you have not read up on the philosophical literature surrounding moral realism vs anti realism and it does not appear you have , then i suggest you do so.  not trying to be rude.  here are a few links to begin with:   moral realism sep URL   moral anti realism sep URL   why i am an objectivist about ethics and why you are, too , by david enoch URL   ethical intuitionism, by michael huemer URL  #  he showed no empathy, he fabricated terrible shit to implicate the dad, and the randomness suggests that anyone of us could be another victim.   #  let is look at something small.  stealing a candy bar from walmart.  i am going to over empathize my needs because of everyone is desire to look correct.  you will see this on reddit; people would rather argue into infinity and nit pick rather than concede.  i will somehow rationalize my needs over the risk of being caught.  i may even think i am making some type of statement.  but this is low level shit.  if you are richard allen davis, chances are we will find  the serial killer gene  or intense abuse or mental illness.  there just are not these evil agents like demons roaming the country side.  he ca not be let free because we ca not trust him to not do it again.  he showed no empathy, he fabricated terrible shit to implicate the dad, and the randomness suggests that anyone of us could be another victim.  because of our lizard brain heuristics, we call this  feeling .   #  now people who knowingly commit a crime they know is wrong but do it anyways and regret it later ?  #  look, people are not evil because they are evil.  if they hurt innocent people and they enjoy hurting innocent people then it is because they enjoy it.  if they enjoy it, it is because of their brain.  if their brain enjoys it, they are clearly not normal.  if they are not normal, then they have a brain abnormality that is causing them to act this way.  we call those mental defects or deficiencies.  now people who knowingly commit a crime they know is wrong but do it anyways and regret it later ? they probably do not.  those are the people who beat the fuck out of the guy his wife is cheating on him with.  this is the guy who sets his abusive father is house on fire.  this is the guy who steals from walmart because  fuck them, they are an evil corporation.   these people use moral rationalizations that many people in society find understandable and even agreeable to do things the law says is wrong.  these people are not harming innocents for the sole purpose of their own pleasure, but because they want revenge or social justice against something or someone they feel has wronged them.   #  a radiolab presented a case where a guy had pieces of his brain removed to treat epilepsy, but it damaged his reasoning ability and he got busted for child porn.   #  i am not saying that there is an excuse to the action, but morality is not a viable measured to treat the situation.  a radiolab presented a case where a guy had pieces of his brain removed to treat epilepsy, but it damaged his reasoning ability and he got busted for child porn.  i ca not debate some imaginary child torturer, but i can debate the issue above.  clearly the guy is in a place where he ca not control himself.  we ca not trust whether he will continue his bad behavior.  in the interest of reducing the demand of cp, he should be put in a place where he ca not create demand.   #  if there is no way to logically come to the conclusion  lock up child torturers for long periods of time  without moral arguments, and you want that conclusion, then obviously you  need  moral arguments.   #  so by disallowing moral arguments, you are saying you do not really have any reason to lock up child torturers ? then that is a giant reason why we should use moral arguments.  you are clearly using moral arguments if you are locking up child torturers.  that is not an  arbitrary  decision made because you  prefer  it, no laws are made for reasons like that.  because  you need reasons to punish people  and remove them from the workforce, which causes economic damage.  inflicting a fine on anyone who wears purple on fridays is an  arbitrary   preference , but everyone would object to it and it would be an unjust law.  if there is no way to logically come to the conclusion  lock up child torturers for long periods of time  without moral arguments, and you want that conclusion, then obviously you  need  moral arguments.
crafting an argument from a moral perspective is a non starter.  moral decisions are a function of responding to scarcity.  let is take the claim that stealing is immoral.  it is not a question of morality, it is a question of scarcity.  there was a cmv about stealing from walmart.  let is qualify this.  why is the person stealing ? are they hungry ? are their children malnourished ? are they a kleptomaniac or a psychopath ? are they rationalizing that walmart is more evil than my act, so my act is a virtue.  the thing about morality, is you may never change anyone is mind.  if you base decisions on scarcity and ask the same questions you will arrive at a better conclusion hopefully to determine justice.  another example is the immorality of eating meat.  again, this needs to be based off of scarcity.  you would not call the malnourished immoral.  that is roughly 0 of us children.  let is take the next 0 to 0.  how many of them have the resources to acquire b 0 and suitable vegetarian alternatives for a maximized dollar ? so 0 of the country have a free moral pass.  alright.  so beef is distributed on an income basis or do we have to rely on shame to keep the  able  from being a carnivore ? morality is so subjective that it is a useless measure to solve social/ economic issues.   #  morality is so subjective that it is a useless measure to solve social/ economic issues.   #  there is also  nothing  in your post which suggests that morality is subjective.   #  the  most  you have demonstrated in your op is that scarcity can sometimes be a morally relevant factor in determining whether something is moral or not.  there is nothing about your reasoning which suggests that all moral decisions are a function of  responding to scarcity .  take bestiality, for example.  many say it is wrong, some say it is permissible.  i do not want to debate this here.  but what does the issue have to do with scarcity scarcity defined as  the state of being in short supply  ? whether it is wrong or permissible seems to be entirely independent of whether animals are scarce or not.  even if they are completely plentiful, one may still argue the act is wrong perhaps it violates the dignity of the animal ? perhaps it is psychologically unhealthy ? there are lots of possible reasons.  if you ca not imagine lots of subjects which have moral values independent of whether scarcity exists or not, then you simply are not thinking hard enough.  i may never change a young earth creationist is mind that the earth is more than 0,0 years old.  so what ? i have changed people is minds on moral matters before, and they have changed mine.  that some people wall themselves off from rational discussion does not suggest there is not an objective moral truth, or that our moral experience is simply a response to scarcity.  there is also  nothing  in your post which suggests that morality is subjective.  no argument whatsoever.  if you have not read up on the philosophical literature surrounding moral realism vs anti realism and it does not appear you have , then i suggest you do so.  not trying to be rude.  here are a few links to begin with:   moral realism sep URL   moral anti realism sep URL   why i am an objectivist about ethics and why you are, too , by david enoch URL   ethical intuitionism, by michael huemer URL  #  he showed no empathy, he fabricated terrible shit to implicate the dad, and the randomness suggests that anyone of us could be another victim.   #  let is look at something small.  stealing a candy bar from walmart.  i am going to over empathize my needs because of everyone is desire to look correct.  you will see this on reddit; people would rather argue into infinity and nit pick rather than concede.  i will somehow rationalize my needs over the risk of being caught.  i may even think i am making some type of statement.  but this is low level shit.  if you are richard allen davis, chances are we will find  the serial killer gene  or intense abuse or mental illness.  there just are not these evil agents like demons roaming the country side.  he ca not be let free because we ca not trust him to not do it again.  he showed no empathy, he fabricated terrible shit to implicate the dad, and the randomness suggests that anyone of us could be another victim.  because of our lizard brain heuristics, we call this  feeling .   #  if they enjoy it, it is because of their brain.   #  look, people are not evil because they are evil.  if they hurt innocent people and they enjoy hurting innocent people then it is because they enjoy it.  if they enjoy it, it is because of their brain.  if their brain enjoys it, they are clearly not normal.  if they are not normal, then they have a brain abnormality that is causing them to act this way.  we call those mental defects or deficiencies.  now people who knowingly commit a crime they know is wrong but do it anyways and regret it later ? they probably do not.  those are the people who beat the fuck out of the guy his wife is cheating on him with.  this is the guy who sets his abusive father is house on fire.  this is the guy who steals from walmart because  fuck them, they are an evil corporation.   these people use moral rationalizations that many people in society find understandable and even agreeable to do things the law says is wrong.  these people are not harming innocents for the sole purpose of their own pleasure, but because they want revenge or social justice against something or someone they feel has wronged them.   #  we ca not trust whether he will continue his bad behavior.   #  i am not saying that there is an excuse to the action, but morality is not a viable measured to treat the situation.  a radiolab presented a case where a guy had pieces of his brain removed to treat epilepsy, but it damaged his reasoning ability and he got busted for child porn.  i ca not debate some imaginary child torturer, but i can debate the issue above.  clearly the guy is in a place where he ca not control himself.  we ca not trust whether he will continue his bad behavior.  in the interest of reducing the demand of cp, he should be put in a place where he ca not create demand.   #  inflicting a fine on anyone who wears purple on fridays is an  arbitrary   preference , but everyone would object to it and it would be an unjust law.   #  so by disallowing moral arguments, you are saying you do not really have any reason to lock up child torturers ? then that is a giant reason why we should use moral arguments.  you are clearly using moral arguments if you are locking up child torturers.  that is not an  arbitrary  decision made because you  prefer  it, no laws are made for reasons like that.  because  you need reasons to punish people  and remove them from the workforce, which causes economic damage.  inflicting a fine on anyone who wears purple on fridays is an  arbitrary   preference , but everyone would object to it and it would be an unjust law.  if there is no way to logically come to the conclusion  lock up child torturers for long periods of time  without moral arguments, and you want that conclusion, then obviously you  need  moral arguments.
crafting an argument from a moral perspective is a non starter.  moral decisions are a function of responding to scarcity.  let is take the claim that stealing is immoral.  it is not a question of morality, it is a question of scarcity.  there was a cmv about stealing from walmart.  let is qualify this.  why is the person stealing ? are they hungry ? are their children malnourished ? are they a kleptomaniac or a psychopath ? are they rationalizing that walmart is more evil than my act, so my act is a virtue.  the thing about morality, is you may never change anyone is mind.  if you base decisions on scarcity and ask the same questions you will arrive at a better conclusion hopefully to determine justice.  another example is the immorality of eating meat.  again, this needs to be based off of scarcity.  you would not call the malnourished immoral.  that is roughly 0 of us children.  let is take the next 0 to 0.  how many of them have the resources to acquire b 0 and suitable vegetarian alternatives for a maximized dollar ? so 0 of the country have a free moral pass.  alright.  so beef is distributed on an income basis or do we have to rely on shame to keep the  able  from being a carnivore ? morality is so subjective that it is a useless measure to solve social/ economic issues.   #  morality is so subjective that it is a useless measure to solve social/ economic issues.   #  this is a  huge  assumption and not one that most experts URL would agree with.   # this is a  huge  assumption and not one that most experts URL would agree with.  if you could provide some argument as to why morality is  so subjective , and ideally also one for why that makes it a  useless measure , then this will probably be more convincing.  you are just assuming that there are no moral facts, or that we ca not have true moral beliefs, and then okay, the anti meat eating argument is one i see butchered are you not entertained ? a lot, but this is almost impressive.  one argument badly pilfered from singer, more or less is, very roughly, 0 that we should, when we can, avoid causing suffering, 0 meat eating involves causing animals to suffer, through the support of factory farms and the like, 0 many people are in situations where they can have perfectly healthy lives without eating meat, so 0 those folks ought not to eat meat.  nobody is saying that you should steal a ham sandwich from a starving kid, what they are supporting is doing what you can to avoid supporting an industry that is got some pretty serious downsides.   #  i may even think i am making some type of statement.   #  let is look at something small.  stealing a candy bar from walmart.  i am going to over empathize my needs because of everyone is desire to look correct.  you will see this on reddit; people would rather argue into infinity and nit pick rather than concede.  i will somehow rationalize my needs over the risk of being caught.  i may even think i am making some type of statement.  but this is low level shit.  if you are richard allen davis, chances are we will find  the serial killer gene  or intense abuse or mental illness.  there just are not these evil agents like demons roaming the country side.  he ca not be let free because we ca not trust him to not do it again.  he showed no empathy, he fabricated terrible shit to implicate the dad, and the randomness suggests that anyone of us could be another victim.  because of our lizard brain heuristics, we call this  feeling .   #  now people who knowingly commit a crime they know is wrong but do it anyways and regret it later ?  #  look, people are not evil because they are evil.  if they hurt innocent people and they enjoy hurting innocent people then it is because they enjoy it.  if they enjoy it, it is because of their brain.  if their brain enjoys it, they are clearly not normal.  if they are not normal, then they have a brain abnormality that is causing them to act this way.  we call those mental defects or deficiencies.  now people who knowingly commit a crime they know is wrong but do it anyways and regret it later ? they probably do not.  those are the people who beat the fuck out of the guy his wife is cheating on him with.  this is the guy who sets his abusive father is house on fire.  this is the guy who steals from walmart because  fuck them, they are an evil corporation.   these people use moral rationalizations that many people in society find understandable and even agreeable to do things the law says is wrong.  these people are not harming innocents for the sole purpose of their own pleasure, but because they want revenge or social justice against something or someone they feel has wronged them.   #  we ca not trust whether he will continue his bad behavior.   #  i am not saying that there is an excuse to the action, but morality is not a viable measured to treat the situation.  a radiolab presented a case where a guy had pieces of his brain removed to treat epilepsy, but it damaged his reasoning ability and he got busted for child porn.  i ca not debate some imaginary child torturer, but i can debate the issue above.  clearly the guy is in a place where he ca not control himself.  we ca not trust whether he will continue his bad behavior.  in the interest of reducing the demand of cp, he should be put in a place where he ca not create demand.   #  that is not an  arbitrary  decision made because you  prefer  it, no laws are made for reasons like that.   #  so by disallowing moral arguments, you are saying you do not really have any reason to lock up child torturers ? then that is a giant reason why we should use moral arguments.  you are clearly using moral arguments if you are locking up child torturers.  that is not an  arbitrary  decision made because you  prefer  it, no laws are made for reasons like that.  because  you need reasons to punish people  and remove them from the workforce, which causes economic damage.  inflicting a fine on anyone who wears purple on fridays is an  arbitrary   preference , but everyone would object to it and it would be an unjust law.  if there is no way to logically come to the conclusion  lock up child torturers for long periods of time  without moral arguments, and you want that conclusion, then obviously you  need  moral arguments.
i would firstly like to note that this is not a debate about whether or not it would actually be possible to effectively implement this and enforce this especially with current global human rights dilemmas , but rather a philosophical/ethical argument.  i think that on the premise of other basic human rights, it would be fundamentally unethical to allow certain privileged people who live forever while others are doomed to have finite lives assuming that they do not want to have finite lives .  several reasons for this: 0.  i do not think it is moral to determine that some people are more valuable than others certain individual may seem more important than others incredibly benevolent people vs violent evil criminals but i think when it comes to the average person, this distinctions are very difficult.  i think it would be inherently unfair if this were determined by politics or money.  i also think that even if it were theoretically possible to have a means of deciding that some were  wouldeserving  of living forever, this would not be implemented fairly or justly, and would be fraught with bias and corruption.  0.  i think that overpopulation is a solvable problem, even more likely in circumstances where technology is well enough developed to accomplish immortality.  therefore, i think we could increase space exploration and potentially impose regulations which discourage having too many children as a sufficient solution to this.  0.  along the line of thinking that it violates human rights to deliberately kill somebody, i think allowing to somebody to die when it is possible to stop it and they do not want to die is immoral.  if you can give somebody biological immortality and you do not, you are letting them die by your inaction.   #  along the line of thinking that it violates human rights to deliberately kill somebody, i think allowing to somebody to die when it is possible to stop it and they do not want to die is immoral.   #  your view is similar to claiming that people have a  basic human right  to any and all medication, treatments, and care that would make them healthier.   # your view is similar to claiming that people have a  basic human right  to any and all medication, treatments, and care that would make them healthier.  people currently have a right to life, but they do not have a  right to anything and everything that would prolong their life .  the ability to grant immortality would be classified as the latter.  furthermore, an administrative problem: by considering immortality a  basic human right , would we give everyone immortality regardless of whether they want it or not, or only if they choose to ? the problem with the first scenario is that this might interfere with people is freedom to lead their lives how they see fit.  what if some people  want  to die ? many of us have watched or read enough movies, tv shows, and books to know that immortality can be an extremely unappealing prospect.  the problem with the second scenario is that it entails a world where some people are immortal and some are not.  there are a huge number of problems i could see with such a world:   the possibility exists for someone to force another person someone who intentionally chose to be mortal to be immortal without their consent   immortals could very easily choose to hurt or kill mortals without fear of self injury imagine an immortal robber who knows where a family of mortals live.  he would be able to walk into their house and take what he wants without worrying about the family having a gun for self defense, for example .  people who want to live a normal mortal life, because of these types of situations, may feel pressured to become immortals even though they do not want to   it becomes possible to withhold immortality from people who want it, or abuse the system.  what if some malicious group manages to gather all the immortality potions or however immortality is given and deprive the rest of the world from it, abuse their monopoly by selling the potions at ridiculous prices, etc ?  #  immortals hurting mortals seems like more of a criticism with the concept of immortality in general rather than a problem with it being a right.   #  on your first point on healthcare that may be true that it is not currently a human right, but i am fine with just asserting that also should be a basic human right for similar reasons that other things are.  i do not think people  wanting  to die is a problem just because its a right does not meant that we have to force it on others.  for instance, in the us you have the right to own a gun with nuances, and regardless of whether you agree with this particular right but that does not mean we force people to own guns.  i guess it could be problematic from the standpoint of becoming immortal and then changing your mind perhaps i should have been more clear in my definitions: by immortality, i more generally mean reversing the aging process/eliminating disease, such that you can still die from suicide/murder/accidents but not from disease/aging.  immortals hurting mortals seems like more of a criticism with the concept of immortality in general rather than a problem with it being a right.  withholding immortality from those who want it is exactly the problem that i am trying to solve i think it should be available and accessible to everyone because it is a fundamental right.   #  pushing things very far into the future is simply another means by which practical reality is dodged.   # with no practical concerns in the equation, the matter of human rights becomes facetious.  any right you can think of should be granted as a matter of course if the practical consequences can be entirely avoided.  the practical considerations, of course, make biological immortality as a human right far too cumbersome for any near term society.  pushing things very far into the future is simply another means by which practical reality is dodged.  it may eventually be feasible to extend such a right.  it is not currently nor is it likely to be so in the foreseeable future.   #  we are actually fighting for something that we can show is extremely rare but also completely possible in evolved species.   #  but striving for biological immortality takes the whole existing system and throws it out of whack.  we are actually fighting for something that we can show is extremely rare but also completely possible in evolved species.  the other rights are part of our evolved nature.  we need to closely examine why a species would evolve to age this need not happen, the cells that reproduce eschew the mechanism entirely .  the lessons in that area are fairly clear on at least one point: a species is better served if its members eventually die.   #  you are not born to it and it is certainly not necessary to your continued existence.   #  i have two things to say about this.  firstly, i do not think immortality would qualify as a basic human right.  you are not born to it and it is certainly not necessary to your continued existence.  secondly, immortal humans are not humans at all.  mortality is a defining characteristic of the human condition.  immortality is not a human right, because it is not human.
so i recognize that global warming is real and happening.  and i recognize that human activity appears to be the main driver of it.  but i do not think the consequences will be as dire as are portrayed for humanity.  in the following, most of my source material is going to come from the ipcc, which is i think a fairly good source for data on this, and if anything has an institutional bias in the direction of warning of dire consequences.  there are four three avenues that i think are of primary concern:   sea level rise.  the ipcc estimates URL a sea level rise in the range of 0m over the next century.  while that is not trivial, it is also not dire.  most coastal communities can manage that level of rise with levees and sea walls.  occasionally someone shows a map with a city like new york or miami under a 0 or 0 meter rise in sea levels, but the ipcc estimates give that a very low probability of happening.    drought and other negative impacts on agricultural production.  i do not deny that some areas will see reduced rainfall, but i do not think that can be true for everywhere indeed, it would seem like higher aggregate temperatures would result in more atmospheric water vapor and more aggregate rainfall .  so while some areas may be negatively impacted, others will be positively impacted.  further, we have been getting progressively more efficient agriculturally as time goes on.  across the world, the amount of agricultural land per capita has been falling for decades, and in developed nations, where population growth is slow, is falling in absolute terms.  see pg.  0 in this ipcc report URL this other report URL on the impact of climate change on crop output says, with what is described as medium confidence that:   severe weather events.  while i do not deny that global warming can cause more severe weather events such as hurricanes, i question whether this is a very dire consequence.  as our weather forecasting improves, and our disaster preparedness improves, the loss of life from weather events falls.  even a very bad storm like katrina was not nearly as devastating to human life as a storm with no warning URL 0 years before.  further, the ipcc expresses low confidence URL page 0 of that source that the number of tropical cyclones is measurably impacted by climate change.  it is a plausible hypothesis, but not one that seems to have been proven yet.  so the reason i am looking to see my view possibly changed on this is that i often see people proposing dire consequences and accordingly drastic action, of the type that will massively impact standards of living, especially among people in developing nations, where energy is an enormous part of people is daily budgets.  i do not see the consequences of warming as being severe enough to justify those drastic measures, and would like to know if there is something i am missing.  also, i am primarily concerned with the impact on humans.  while certainly we have to live in the natural environment, and so it matters that the environment is in decent shape, i see it as more an instrumentality to human wellbeing, not an end in itself.  for a bit of background, i am not a climate scientist and do not have any particular area of expertise in this, though i do have a fairly high base level of scientific knowledge and am open to fairly technical rebuttals.   #  drought and other negative impacts on agricultural production.   #  it is amazing that you cite a single line from a 0 page report to soothe your conscience and ignore the rest.  in any case, there are thousands of assumptions that have to be made to be able to make that statement.   # that is just the first step, it will continue to rise and eventually most coastal cities and harbors, by definition built just where the water meets the land, will be forced to relocate, drown or turtle up.  while their main economic engine, their harbor, is becoming dysfunctional.  it will require absolutely nauseating amounts of infrastructure to be built or replaced.  and the main problem is: we wo not know where it will stop and building a new harbor inland is pointless, so we will have to make these expenses again and again and again.  and that is ignoring the historical value of these cities.  it is amazing that you cite a single line from a 0 page report to soothe your conscience and ignore the rest.  in any case, there are thousands of assumptions that have to be made to be able to make that statement.  fact is that current agriculture is optimized for current climatologic circumstances and vegetation patterns.  changing those unpredictably will also change agricultural output unpredictably.  also consider that we already have trouble distributing food appropriately, adapting to changing climate will at the very least discombobulate the supply chain.  0 of world population lives within hurricane range from the coasts.  even looking at it strictly from a financial perspective, it simply makes no sense not to prevent climate change.  it is like refusing to pay for an airbag and seatbelts in your car.  just check the expected costs related to climate change for insurance firms alone.  while certainly we have to live in the natural environment, and so it matters that the environment is in decent shape, i see it as more an instrumentality to human wellbeing, not an end in itself.  you are using an outdated economic model where the environment is just one element that exists within the economy.  it is the other way around: the human economy exists within the environment.  even in spite of all the growth of the human economy the environment still produces 0/0 of all goods and services we enjoy.   #  i wrote this undergrad paper URL on the subject if you would like to check it out, and i pretty much paraphrase myself below.   #  my interest, although not yet my career, is marine biology, so i will look at this subject from an oceanographic point of view.  the 0 concern for me is ocean acidification, URL which is happening now and everywhere, although most noticeably in my area of the world puget sound, pnw .  i wrote this undergrad paper URL on the subject if you would like to check it out, and i pretty much paraphrase myself below.  the wiki page URL goes into more detail with the chemistry of it all.  basically, the ocean absorbs co0 at an increased rate, causing the ph of the water to decrease, becoming more acidic.  this, combined with higher temperatures than marine organisms are used to, makes it hard for creatures to build structures out of calcium.  calcium building organisms include crustaceans crab lobster etc /snails/shellfish/corals/turtles and essentially anything with a shell, but more imporantly, calcium structures form the majority of the body of organisms like diatoms URL and other planktons URL planktonic organisms are the very bottom of the food web in the ocean, which makes them a foundation of the food web for the planet.  if plankton numbers fall, so do fish, and everything that feeds on fish so, essentially everything.  on that note, about 0 of humans rely on seafood as their primary source of food protien URL if that market falls through, all of those people have to find a new way to eat, not to mention the crashing economies of any coastal countries that export seafood URL as a case study, this URL oyster farming operation was one of the first to ring the alarm bell about acidification ruining their business.  this one too URL and this one URL and so on.  URL in addition to being a food source for humans, the ocean is also beautiful, and ecotourism URL is a major source of income URL for many coastal countries.  with coral reefs URL on their way to extinction, that industry will also die.  i am not saying that global warming is the only cause for the ocean is current spiraling decline URL but i am saying that if the ocean dies, it will never ever come back the way it should be.   #  after a quick google i do not suppose i can with very much accuracy.   #  after a quick google i do not suppose i can with very much accuracy.  i am stymied by a zillion paywalls.  this paper URL suggests permian level extinction at co0 levels 0x present levels, 0, although it does not take oceanic temperature into account.  a quick nasa comparison URL of atmospheric levels between now and then does not place us anywhere near that amount.  abrupt climate change, such as the potential of ocean methane release, is discussed here URL sources do not agree on current predicted temperature levels, so it is hard to estimate what kind of time we are looking at before those methane reserves could potentially be released.  like i said, i am an ocean guy and not an atmosphere guy, and i do admit there is a lot of alarmism within this subject.  however, the effects that we do all agree on URL are only going to get worse.  it is hard to predict how much, though.   #  like, if you found a paper with the headline conclusion that  we are on track for another permian extinction  that would be helpful.   #  i think it is an interesting thing to look at, but that video is deeply unconvincing to me.  it is exactly the kind of overhyped alarmism that pushed me to the view i had before doing this cmv.  re: paywalls, can you even point me to some abstracts ? like, if you found a paper with the headline conclusion that  we are on track for another permian extinction  that would be helpful.  i found this abstract URL that gives a range of 0 0 species extinction in various scenarios.  while that is certainly enough for real concern, it is not permian, which was in the 0 of all species extinct range.   #  there is no state that is  should  be.   #  i think you made some good points that have not been discussed previously, however is this any different to ebbs and flows of our changing planet; say during the onset of ice ages or massive extinction events ? why is what we are doing  really  that bad ? also, you say that the  if the ocean dies, it will never come back the way it should be  there is no way the ocean  should  be.  our planet and species of living organism that inhabit it are constantly evolving from one day to the next.  there is no state that is  should  be.  what makes the way the oceans were a hundred years ago objectively superior to that of today or in another hundred years ?
so i recognize that global warming is real and happening.  and i recognize that human activity appears to be the main driver of it.  but i do not think the consequences will be as dire as are portrayed for humanity.  in the following, most of my source material is going to come from the ipcc, which is i think a fairly good source for data on this, and if anything has an institutional bias in the direction of warning of dire consequences.  there are four three avenues that i think are of primary concern:   sea level rise.  the ipcc estimates URL a sea level rise in the range of 0m over the next century.  while that is not trivial, it is also not dire.  most coastal communities can manage that level of rise with levees and sea walls.  occasionally someone shows a map with a city like new york or miami under a 0 or 0 meter rise in sea levels, but the ipcc estimates give that a very low probability of happening.    drought and other negative impacts on agricultural production.  i do not deny that some areas will see reduced rainfall, but i do not think that can be true for everywhere indeed, it would seem like higher aggregate temperatures would result in more atmospheric water vapor and more aggregate rainfall .  so while some areas may be negatively impacted, others will be positively impacted.  further, we have been getting progressively more efficient agriculturally as time goes on.  across the world, the amount of agricultural land per capita has been falling for decades, and in developed nations, where population growth is slow, is falling in absolute terms.  see pg.  0 in this ipcc report URL this other report URL on the impact of climate change on crop output says, with what is described as medium confidence that:   severe weather events.  while i do not deny that global warming can cause more severe weather events such as hurricanes, i question whether this is a very dire consequence.  as our weather forecasting improves, and our disaster preparedness improves, the loss of life from weather events falls.  even a very bad storm like katrina was not nearly as devastating to human life as a storm with no warning URL 0 years before.  further, the ipcc expresses low confidence URL page 0 of that source that the number of tropical cyclones is measurably impacted by climate change.  it is a plausible hypothesis, but not one that seems to have been proven yet.  so the reason i am looking to see my view possibly changed on this is that i often see people proposing dire consequences and accordingly drastic action, of the type that will massively impact standards of living, especially among people in developing nations, where energy is an enormous part of people is daily budgets.  i do not see the consequences of warming as being severe enough to justify those drastic measures, and would like to know if there is something i am missing.  also, i am primarily concerned with the impact on humans.  while certainly we have to live in the natural environment, and so it matters that the environment is in decent shape, i see it as more an instrumentality to human wellbeing, not an end in itself.  for a bit of background, i am not a climate scientist and do not have any particular area of expertise in this, though i do have a fairly high base level of scientific knowledge and am open to fairly technical rebuttals.   #  also, i am primarily concerned with the impact on humans.   #  while certainly we have to live in the natural environment, and so it matters that the environment is in decent shape, i see it as more an instrumentality to human wellbeing, not an end in itself.   # that is just the first step, it will continue to rise and eventually most coastal cities and harbors, by definition built just where the water meets the land, will be forced to relocate, drown or turtle up.  while their main economic engine, their harbor, is becoming dysfunctional.  it will require absolutely nauseating amounts of infrastructure to be built or replaced.  and the main problem is: we wo not know where it will stop and building a new harbor inland is pointless, so we will have to make these expenses again and again and again.  and that is ignoring the historical value of these cities.  it is amazing that you cite a single line from a 0 page report to soothe your conscience and ignore the rest.  in any case, there are thousands of assumptions that have to be made to be able to make that statement.  fact is that current agriculture is optimized for current climatologic circumstances and vegetation patterns.  changing those unpredictably will also change agricultural output unpredictably.  also consider that we already have trouble distributing food appropriately, adapting to changing climate will at the very least discombobulate the supply chain.  0 of world population lives within hurricane range from the coasts.  even looking at it strictly from a financial perspective, it simply makes no sense not to prevent climate change.  it is like refusing to pay for an airbag and seatbelts in your car.  just check the expected costs related to climate change for insurance firms alone.  while certainly we have to live in the natural environment, and so it matters that the environment is in decent shape, i see it as more an instrumentality to human wellbeing, not an end in itself.  you are using an outdated economic model where the environment is just one element that exists within the economy.  it is the other way around: the human economy exists within the environment.  even in spite of all the growth of the human economy the environment still produces 0/0 of all goods and services we enjoy.   #  if plankton numbers fall, so do fish, and everything that feeds on fish so, essentially everything.   #  my interest, although not yet my career, is marine biology, so i will look at this subject from an oceanographic point of view.  the 0 concern for me is ocean acidification, URL which is happening now and everywhere, although most noticeably in my area of the world puget sound, pnw .  i wrote this undergrad paper URL on the subject if you would like to check it out, and i pretty much paraphrase myself below.  the wiki page URL goes into more detail with the chemistry of it all.  basically, the ocean absorbs co0 at an increased rate, causing the ph of the water to decrease, becoming more acidic.  this, combined with higher temperatures than marine organisms are used to, makes it hard for creatures to build structures out of calcium.  calcium building organisms include crustaceans crab lobster etc /snails/shellfish/corals/turtles and essentially anything with a shell, but more imporantly, calcium structures form the majority of the body of organisms like diatoms URL and other planktons URL planktonic organisms are the very bottom of the food web in the ocean, which makes them a foundation of the food web for the planet.  if plankton numbers fall, so do fish, and everything that feeds on fish so, essentially everything.  on that note, about 0 of humans rely on seafood as their primary source of food protien URL if that market falls through, all of those people have to find a new way to eat, not to mention the crashing economies of any coastal countries that export seafood URL as a case study, this URL oyster farming operation was one of the first to ring the alarm bell about acidification ruining their business.  this one too URL and this one URL and so on.  URL in addition to being a food source for humans, the ocean is also beautiful, and ecotourism URL is a major source of income URL for many coastal countries.  with coral reefs URL on their way to extinction, that industry will also die.  i am not saying that global warming is the only cause for the ocean is current spiraling decline URL but i am saying that if the ocean dies, it will never ever come back the way it should be.   #  a quick nasa comparison URL of atmospheric levels between now and then does not place us anywhere near that amount.   #  after a quick google i do not suppose i can with very much accuracy.  i am stymied by a zillion paywalls.  this paper URL suggests permian level extinction at co0 levels 0x present levels, 0, although it does not take oceanic temperature into account.  a quick nasa comparison URL of atmospheric levels between now and then does not place us anywhere near that amount.  abrupt climate change, such as the potential of ocean methane release, is discussed here URL sources do not agree on current predicted temperature levels, so it is hard to estimate what kind of time we are looking at before those methane reserves could potentially be released.  like i said, i am an ocean guy and not an atmosphere guy, and i do admit there is a lot of alarmism within this subject.  however, the effects that we do all agree on URL are only going to get worse.  it is hard to predict how much, though.   #  re: paywalls, can you even point me to some abstracts ?  #  i think it is an interesting thing to look at, but that video is deeply unconvincing to me.  it is exactly the kind of overhyped alarmism that pushed me to the view i had before doing this cmv.  re: paywalls, can you even point me to some abstracts ? like, if you found a paper with the headline conclusion that  we are on track for another permian extinction  that would be helpful.  i found this abstract URL that gives a range of 0 0 species extinction in various scenarios.  while that is certainly enough for real concern, it is not permian, which was in the 0 of all species extinct range.   #  there is no state that is  should  be.   #  i think you made some good points that have not been discussed previously, however is this any different to ebbs and flows of our changing planet; say during the onset of ice ages or massive extinction events ? why is what we are doing  really  that bad ? also, you say that the  if the ocean dies, it will never come back the way it should be  there is no way the ocean  should  be.  our planet and species of living organism that inhabit it are constantly evolving from one day to the next.  there is no state that is  should  be.  what makes the way the oceans were a hundred years ago objectively superior to that of today or in another hundred years ?
hi ! people complain about political correctness all the time and some, i think, genuinely feel that it is something oppressive.  for example, a lot of anti gay people complain about how it is not fair that they are not  allowed  to express their opinions about gay people without being judged.  people who support the redskins team name think it is unfair that people think they should give up their team name just because some people find it offensive.  however, to me, it seems like demanding to be allowed to be  politically incorrect  sounds a lot like asking to be able to insult people without them thinking you are a jerk.  part of having manners is sometimes neglecting your own comfort for the comfort of others.  for example, you may like chewing with your mouth open or picking your nose, but you might not want to do that in front of other people because it is gross, and living in society means you have to make some concessions for others.  i do not think, if you insisted that you should be able to chew with your mouth open at the dinner table, that you have a right to be offended when no one invites you to dinner parties.  similarly, if i were to walk up to a stranger and insult their outfit, that person would have every right to think i was an asshole.  for me, this is where the  well, you should be tolerant of my intolerance !   argument falls apart.  because i do not think unkindness is a thing that should be tolerated.  asking someone to not walk up to someone and insult their outfit is a lot different than thinking the person that does that is a jerk.  i think political correctness is important in the same way i think manners are important.  i think we all need to at least put a decent effort forth into not actively trying to hurt people is feelings because we think it makes us look cool and edgy and i think if we do hurt someone is feelings, we should not try to make it into a thing where we act as though they are oppressing us for saying we should not do that.   #  similarly, if i were to walk up to a stranger and insult their outfit, that person would have every right to think i was an asshole.   #  for me, this is where the  well, you should be tolerant of my intolerance !    # for me, this is where the  well, you should be tolerant of my intolerance !   argument falls apart.  because i do not think unkindness is a thing that should be tolerated.  this is where the political correctness argument gets complicated though because it usually only comes up in the murky gray areas where people are not obviously being assholes.  if someone insists on referring to gay people as faggots and then claims you as overly pc when you get offended then yeah they are an asshole.  but claims of people being too politically correct usually stem from arguments where the person getting called out is not doing something that would universally be considered objectionable.  for example if you are in a group and are referring to a transgendered person in conversation as he or she when this person specifically asked you to say  them  or  zee  and it was an honest mistake, you might still get a long winded lecture from someone else.  at which point it would be understandable for you to ask them to stop being so pc because it was clear you just slipped up.  i agree that in general people should not be so ready to trample over the feelings of others and that in general we should defer to altering out behavior so as not to offend others within reason.  but most of the time the issue of political correctness comes up is when there are questions as to what  within reason  means in that context.  sometimes requests from other parties for one to alter their behavior do stem from someone being too politically correct.  especially when a person is trying to speak for a demographic or person they do not actually represent.  for example if someone called me  hispanic  when i was out and another person gave them a 0 minute lecture about why they should call me  latino  instead i would kindly ask that person to stop being so pc and that i am fine with either term.   #  when what you do becomes what you are, then we are really in butthurt territory.   #   always punch up.   i was taught this rule when crafting satire and stand up comedy, if you want to reduce the chance of stepping on landmines.   up  means one is position on a totem pole usually society is public perception of privilege .  this means not all skits are portable; if the comedian does not have the appropriate license for drm digital race management ? , he is taking his chances.  another sniff test is cripples and babies: they are lower on the totem pole, and subsequently joking about them is sketchy.  but what about stupid people people at wal mart, darwin awards ? they are lower on the totem pole, but they can be joked about, because being stupid is what you do, and not what you are.  one is actions are always valid targets, so long as they are not attached to a group.  when what you do becomes what you are, then we are really in butthurt territory.   #  tl;dr  i am not responsible for damages incurred by not having the right licenses.   #  the question is not whether it is acceptable, but whether you can get away with it.  unless you make it clear you are targeting their actions rather than their status, do not even think about it.  if you have, then you have a fighting chance.  however, i would still shy away it.  let is just forget about race and gender, and talk about the poor.  here is a recent news article about the poor wasting their money on rent to own furniture URL the people least likely to be able to pay three times market price are paying three times market price.  you can certainly use that as material.  but  should you ? the punchline is that a middle class person would not pay these inflated prices precisely because they do not have cashflow constraints; they know nothing of this decision making, and that would anger their targets.  okay i lied, let is talk about race.  you ever hear about the one about black kids pissing off the police, while the asian kids do not do that shit ? yeah me neither, because that is just dark.  it is verboten because action and status are intertwined, and it is extremely difficult to go for one without getting tripped by the other.  you need those licenses or you are gonna get arrested by the comedy police.  tl;dr  i am not responsible for damages incurred by not having the right licenses.   #  actually, this is one of the better arguments in favour of op: pc stifles discussion between persons that might have other definitions of words.   #  i am fluent in various languages, both germanic ones and romance ones background: belgian living in catalonia , and although i can only speak for the ones i know, both linguistically and culturally, retard has just not the same connotations.  they are definitely an insult, but contrary to the us  they are an insult towards the person involved , not making fun at mentally challenged.  it is a bit like you can say black, while in the us that is a bit entering the politically incorrect zone, and where the proper term would be african american which we europeans see as ridiculous .  if i travel to a foreign country and start spouting off certain words i know to be offensive in their language, except i am not travelling.  i sit here connected to the internet, and it is that what the general populace here on reddit does not seem to understand.  yes, this is a us based website, and it might be even true that americans are the biggest group of people on the page, but you are not alone here, and your ethics are not universal and exclusively true.  actually, this is one of the better arguments in favour of op: pc stifles discussion between persons that might have other definitions of words.   #  the issue is that if you are not going to allow some political incorrectness you guarantee no real progress.   #  the issue is that if you are not going to allow some political incorrectness you guarantee no real progress.  for a long time saying black people did not deserve equal rights was the politically correct move.  if you insist on being politically correct you end up in an echo chamber instead of working to be  factually  correct.  it is all a matter of whether someone is contributing.  if, here in 0, someone says  send niggers back to africa,  fuck that guy.  not cus of political correctness, though, but cus he is clearly fucking insane.  the issue comes when someone then makes a controversial but not outright hateful statement and then gets shutdown as being a racist/sexist/whateverist without anyone hearing out his logic.
hi ! people complain about political correctness all the time and some, i think, genuinely feel that it is something oppressive.  for example, a lot of anti gay people complain about how it is not fair that they are not  allowed  to express their opinions about gay people without being judged.  people who support the redskins team name think it is unfair that people think they should give up their team name just because some people find it offensive.  however, to me, it seems like demanding to be allowed to be  politically incorrect  sounds a lot like asking to be able to insult people without them thinking you are a jerk.  part of having manners is sometimes neglecting your own comfort for the comfort of others.  for example, you may like chewing with your mouth open or picking your nose, but you might not want to do that in front of other people because it is gross, and living in society means you have to make some concessions for others.  i do not think, if you insisted that you should be able to chew with your mouth open at the dinner table, that you have a right to be offended when no one invites you to dinner parties.  similarly, if i were to walk up to a stranger and insult their outfit, that person would have every right to think i was an asshole.  for me, this is where the  well, you should be tolerant of my intolerance !   argument falls apart.  because i do not think unkindness is a thing that should be tolerated.  asking someone to not walk up to someone and insult their outfit is a lot different than thinking the person that does that is a jerk.  i think political correctness is important in the same way i think manners are important.  i think we all need to at least put a decent effort forth into not actively trying to hurt people is feelings because we think it makes us look cool and edgy and i think if we do hurt someone is feelings, we should not try to make it into a thing where we act as though they are oppressing us for saying we should not do that.   #  it seems like demanding to be allowed to be  politically incorrect  sounds a lot like asking to be able to insult people without them thinking you are a jerk.   #  you can think someone a jerk, you can even call them on it.   #  there is a difference between capacity and sociability.  you can think someone a jerk, you can even call them on it.  but using people is opinions you dislike as a method to spurn them is the same as they are doing, which makes you a hypocrite.  you are correct that the anti pc are also hypocrites.  but they just do not care.  they are using they incredulity as a method to build rapport and you are spurning them for it.  anotehr thing is things liek redskin are racial misconceptions on both sides.  the people who want to use it are using it despite a clear conotation, and the rejection is for that connotation, but both are incorrect because the connotation is simplistic and meaningless.  the indigenous peoples of the us are as diverse as the actual indians, or from comparison, the people of europe.  to say calling people redskins is bad because it actually describes people, when it does not, shows a profound ignorance of the cultures.  which is exactly what you are doing if you say that indians are defined more by the color of their skin than their ethnic traditions, religion, and relationship with other tribes.  the behavior deminishes their ethnic value as racial groups.  the savage indian is not more racist than the one crying over pollution.  both are hyperbolic and appealing to various european considerations, and neither are accepting the group on their own terms.  and similarly, saying that a football team is shit because it does not appeal to your sensibilities, is not seperate behavior.  you are still not accepting an ethnic group in this case football players as fully human.  also you are not accepting the person who enjoys professional football as a pasttime with the sonder they are extending to you.  do not get me wrong, i hate football i think it causes concussions and ridiculous muscle strain for no reason , but if someone was to attempt to share their activity by saying  hey did you see that redskin touchdown  i would not attempt to posture self righteously, but instead go with  shit, i must have missed it.  what happened ?   people in general do not mean to do harm, they just kinda do it i am not sure why but humans do not understand human expression/intent particularly well.  and the harm that was done, was in large part alienation and not recognizing other is humanity.  .  political correctness does not build people up.  it just tears people down, and when those people are strangers it makes society itself less sociable.  it is the same thing with men asking women out.  so much media is saying that men asking women out is harrassment that it makes the behavior unsociable even if you are not intending what is interpreted.  what if you just feel like talking with someone or are new to an area and want to meet people ? it is tough shit if you are male cause half the people you could chat with are liable to think you are some nefarious rapist person.  so you just sit there alone so one half does not try to get you arrested and the other half does not think you are gay, a mugger, or a drug dealer.  and it alienates people.  the less you think you can be yourself publicly, because your opinions are unfashionable, the more you hurt, and the more you are hurting the easier you are to hurt others.  political correctness, and social justice are the ultimate social cancers.  shit, am i in a free speech zone ?  #  i was taught this rule when crafting satire and stand up comedy, if you want to reduce the chance of stepping on landmines.   #   always punch up.   i was taught this rule when crafting satire and stand up comedy, if you want to reduce the chance of stepping on landmines.   up  means one is position on a totem pole usually society is public perception of privilege .  this means not all skits are portable; if the comedian does not have the appropriate license for drm digital race management ? , he is taking his chances.  another sniff test is cripples and babies: they are lower on the totem pole, and subsequently joking about them is sketchy.  but what about stupid people people at wal mart, darwin awards ? they are lower on the totem pole, but they can be joked about, because being stupid is what you do, and not what you are.  one is actions are always valid targets, so long as they are not attached to a group.  when what you do becomes what you are, then we are really in butthurt territory.   #  you need those licenses or you are gonna get arrested by the comedy police.   #  the question is not whether it is acceptable, but whether you can get away with it.  unless you make it clear you are targeting their actions rather than their status, do not even think about it.  if you have, then you have a fighting chance.  however, i would still shy away it.  let is just forget about race and gender, and talk about the poor.  here is a recent news article about the poor wasting their money on rent to own furniture URL the people least likely to be able to pay three times market price are paying three times market price.  you can certainly use that as material.  but  should you ? the punchline is that a middle class person would not pay these inflated prices precisely because they do not have cashflow constraints; they know nothing of this decision making, and that would anger their targets.  okay i lied, let is talk about race.  you ever hear about the one about black kids pissing off the police, while the asian kids do not do that shit ? yeah me neither, because that is just dark.  it is verboten because action and status are intertwined, and it is extremely difficult to go for one without getting tripped by the other.  you need those licenses or you are gonna get arrested by the comedy police.  tl;dr  i am not responsible for damages incurred by not having the right licenses.   #  it is a bit like you can say black, while in the us that is a bit entering the politically incorrect zone, and where the proper term would be african american which we europeans see as ridiculous .   #  i am fluent in various languages, both germanic ones and romance ones background: belgian living in catalonia , and although i can only speak for the ones i know, both linguistically and culturally, retard has just not the same connotations.  they are definitely an insult, but contrary to the us  they are an insult towards the person involved , not making fun at mentally challenged.  it is a bit like you can say black, while in the us that is a bit entering the politically incorrect zone, and where the proper term would be african american which we europeans see as ridiculous .  if i travel to a foreign country and start spouting off certain words i know to be offensive in their language, except i am not travelling.  i sit here connected to the internet, and it is that what the general populace here on reddit does not seem to understand.  yes, this is a us based website, and it might be even true that americans are the biggest group of people on the page, but you are not alone here, and your ethics are not universal and exclusively true.  actually, this is one of the better arguments in favour of op: pc stifles discussion between persons that might have other definitions of words.   #  it is all a matter of whether someone is contributing.   #  the issue is that if you are not going to allow some political incorrectness you guarantee no real progress.  for a long time saying black people did not deserve equal rights was the politically correct move.  if you insist on being politically correct you end up in an echo chamber instead of working to be  factually  correct.  it is all a matter of whether someone is contributing.  if, here in 0, someone says  send niggers back to africa,  fuck that guy.  not cus of political correctness, though, but cus he is clearly fucking insane.  the issue comes when someone then makes a controversial but not outright hateful statement and then gets shutdown as being a racist/sexist/whateverist without anyone hearing out his logic.
hi ! people complain about political correctness all the time and some, i think, genuinely feel that it is something oppressive.  for example, a lot of anti gay people complain about how it is not fair that they are not  allowed  to express their opinions about gay people without being judged.  people who support the redskins team name think it is unfair that people think they should give up their team name just because some people find it offensive.  however, to me, it seems like demanding to be allowed to be  politically incorrect  sounds a lot like asking to be able to insult people without them thinking you are a jerk.  part of having manners is sometimes neglecting your own comfort for the comfort of others.  for example, you may like chewing with your mouth open or picking your nose, but you might not want to do that in front of other people because it is gross, and living in society means you have to make some concessions for others.  i do not think, if you insisted that you should be able to chew with your mouth open at the dinner table, that you have a right to be offended when no one invites you to dinner parties.  similarly, if i were to walk up to a stranger and insult their outfit, that person would have every right to think i was an asshole.  for me, this is where the  well, you should be tolerant of my intolerance !   argument falls apart.  because i do not think unkindness is a thing that should be tolerated.  asking someone to not walk up to someone and insult their outfit is a lot different than thinking the person that does that is a jerk.  i think political correctness is important in the same way i think manners are important.  i think we all need to at least put a decent effort forth into not actively trying to hurt people is feelings because we think it makes us look cool and edgy and i think if we do hurt someone is feelings, we should not try to make it into a thing where we act as though they are oppressing us for saying we should not do that.   #  if i were to walk up to a stranger and insult their outfit, that person would have every right to think i was an asshole.   #  which is exactly what you are doing if you say that indians are defined more by the color of their skin than their ethnic traditions, religion, and relationship with other tribes.   #  there is a difference between capacity and sociability.  you can think someone a jerk, you can even call them on it.  but using people is opinions you dislike as a method to spurn them is the same as they are doing, which makes you a hypocrite.  you are correct that the anti pc are also hypocrites.  but they just do not care.  they are using they incredulity as a method to build rapport and you are spurning them for it.  anotehr thing is things liek redskin are racial misconceptions on both sides.  the people who want to use it are using it despite a clear conotation, and the rejection is for that connotation, but both are incorrect because the connotation is simplistic and meaningless.  the indigenous peoples of the us are as diverse as the actual indians, or from comparison, the people of europe.  to say calling people redskins is bad because it actually describes people, when it does not, shows a profound ignorance of the cultures.  which is exactly what you are doing if you say that indians are defined more by the color of their skin than their ethnic traditions, religion, and relationship with other tribes.  the behavior deminishes their ethnic value as racial groups.  the savage indian is not more racist than the one crying over pollution.  both are hyperbolic and appealing to various european considerations, and neither are accepting the group on their own terms.  and similarly, saying that a football team is shit because it does not appeal to your sensibilities, is not seperate behavior.  you are still not accepting an ethnic group in this case football players as fully human.  also you are not accepting the person who enjoys professional football as a pasttime with the sonder they are extending to you.  do not get me wrong, i hate football i think it causes concussions and ridiculous muscle strain for no reason , but if someone was to attempt to share their activity by saying  hey did you see that redskin touchdown  i would not attempt to posture self righteously, but instead go with  shit, i must have missed it.  what happened ?   people in general do not mean to do harm, they just kinda do it i am not sure why but humans do not understand human expression/intent particularly well.  and the harm that was done, was in large part alienation and not recognizing other is humanity.  .  political correctness does not build people up.  it just tears people down, and when those people are strangers it makes society itself less sociable.  it is the same thing with men asking women out.  so much media is saying that men asking women out is harrassment that it makes the behavior unsociable even if you are not intending what is interpreted.  what if you just feel like talking with someone or are new to an area and want to meet people ? it is tough shit if you are male cause half the people you could chat with are liable to think you are some nefarious rapist person.  so you just sit there alone so one half does not try to get you arrested and the other half does not think you are gay, a mugger, or a drug dealer.  and it alienates people.  the less you think you can be yourself publicly, because your opinions are unfashionable, the more you hurt, and the more you are hurting the easier you are to hurt others.  political correctness, and social justice are the ultimate social cancers.  shit, am i in a free speech zone ?  #  i was taught this rule when crafting satire and stand up comedy, if you want to reduce the chance of stepping on landmines.   #   always punch up.   i was taught this rule when crafting satire and stand up comedy, if you want to reduce the chance of stepping on landmines.   up  means one is position on a totem pole usually society is public perception of privilege .  this means not all skits are portable; if the comedian does not have the appropriate license for drm digital race management ? , he is taking his chances.  another sniff test is cripples and babies: they are lower on the totem pole, and subsequently joking about them is sketchy.  but what about stupid people people at wal mart, darwin awards ? they are lower on the totem pole, but they can be joked about, because being stupid is what you do, and not what you are.  one is actions are always valid targets, so long as they are not attached to a group.  when what you do becomes what you are, then we are really in butthurt territory.   #  you need those licenses or you are gonna get arrested by the comedy police.   #  the question is not whether it is acceptable, but whether you can get away with it.  unless you make it clear you are targeting their actions rather than their status, do not even think about it.  if you have, then you have a fighting chance.  however, i would still shy away it.  let is just forget about race and gender, and talk about the poor.  here is a recent news article about the poor wasting their money on rent to own furniture URL the people least likely to be able to pay three times market price are paying three times market price.  you can certainly use that as material.  but  should you ? the punchline is that a middle class person would not pay these inflated prices precisely because they do not have cashflow constraints; they know nothing of this decision making, and that would anger their targets.  okay i lied, let is talk about race.  you ever hear about the one about black kids pissing off the police, while the asian kids do not do that shit ? yeah me neither, because that is just dark.  it is verboten because action and status are intertwined, and it is extremely difficult to go for one without getting tripped by the other.  you need those licenses or you are gonna get arrested by the comedy police.  tl;dr  i am not responsible for damages incurred by not having the right licenses.   #  actually, this is one of the better arguments in favour of op: pc stifles discussion between persons that might have other definitions of words.   #  i am fluent in various languages, both germanic ones and romance ones background: belgian living in catalonia , and although i can only speak for the ones i know, both linguistically and culturally, retard has just not the same connotations.  they are definitely an insult, but contrary to the us  they are an insult towards the person involved , not making fun at mentally challenged.  it is a bit like you can say black, while in the us that is a bit entering the politically incorrect zone, and where the proper term would be african american which we europeans see as ridiculous .  if i travel to a foreign country and start spouting off certain words i know to be offensive in their language, except i am not travelling.  i sit here connected to the internet, and it is that what the general populace here on reddit does not seem to understand.  yes, this is a us based website, and it might be even true that americans are the biggest group of people on the page, but you are not alone here, and your ethics are not universal and exclusively true.  actually, this is one of the better arguments in favour of op: pc stifles discussion between persons that might have other definitions of words.   #  if, here in 0, someone says  send niggers back to africa,  fuck that guy.   #  the issue is that if you are not going to allow some political incorrectness you guarantee no real progress.  for a long time saying black people did not deserve equal rights was the politically correct move.  if you insist on being politically correct you end up in an echo chamber instead of working to be  factually  correct.  it is all a matter of whether someone is contributing.  if, here in 0, someone says  send niggers back to africa,  fuck that guy.  not cus of political correctness, though, but cus he is clearly fucking insane.  the issue comes when someone then makes a controversial but not outright hateful statement and then gets shutdown as being a racist/sexist/whateverist without anyone hearing out his logic.
a lot of people have been through a lot in life.  some people have seen more than others.  with that being said, some things that people deal with on a day to day basis such as depression, schizophrenia, or other disabilities have a lot on them.  for them it is a constant battle in their head of just being able to live a normal life.  when anything about suicide or disappearing from the world comes up, everyone looses their mind.  however, when someone just does not wake up one morning, yes, people are sad and they grief, but they accept it.  why ca not we live in a world where people have the right to their own lives, and what to do with them ?  #  when anything about suicide or disappearing from the world comes up, everyone looses their mind.   #  i agree that we should keep our minds tight, but we are justified in losing our minds when someone is about to make a bad decision.   #  i was with you until i realized you were talking about mental conditions and not severe or painful medical conditions.  suicide  should  be frowned upon because, with the right help, these people can still live happy and fulfilling lives.  we should frown upon decisions that are  permanent , and made in a state that can cloud reason.  i agree that we should keep our minds tight, but we are justified in losing our minds when someone is about to make a bad decision.  if there is a treatable mental state that impairs their decision making, should we not want to protect them ?  #  i desperately wanted to die and now i am quite content in my life.   #  speaking as someone who suffered from severe depression and anxiety you really are not in your right mind when you are depressed.  you are not thinking clearly and you do not see all the possible options.  i desperately wanted to die and now i am quite content in my life.  it took years to get to this point, but i feel like a completely different person.  and i think that is the point.  people who are depressed are not mentally sound, they are not themselves, and they should not be allowed to make any big decisions the biggest possible decision being taking their own life.  if they do take their own life, i do not think they should be judged harshly for it, but it certainly should not be a course of action we as a society endorse in most cases i think cases of terminal illness are an exception .   #  the problem is that i ca not see any other circumstance where someone who is not mentally ill would want to kill themselves.   #  well, you will notice that i did provide for an exception in the case of individuals suffering from terminal illness.  i think it makes sense to allow them a more dignified death by choosing when on their own terms rather than just waiting to get to the point where they ca not function.  the problem is that i ca not see any other circumstance where someone who is not mentally ill would want to kill themselves.  sure, there might be people who do not consider themselves mentally ill who want to kill themselves and who think they have considered all the options, but i have a lot of trouble believing that such people are not mentally ill.  i know the phrase has been used a lot and it irritates me a bit, but suicide really is a permanent solution to a temporary problem in the vast majority of cases.  if you read some of the stories of people who survived jumping of the golden gate bridge, nearly all of them regretted their decision the moment they jumped.  tl;dr barring terminal illness, i can think of no logical, rational, or sane reason for someone to want to kill themselves.   #  i do not want to become anyone is responsibility or burden, and i also want to preserve my dignity as a human being.   #  ok how about this, you tell me if i am mentally ill or not.  i live in a wealthy country, have a fulfilling life, with wonderful people around me.  i have had brief episodes of depression, under 0 weeks, no self harming history.  i do not want to become anyone is responsibility or burden, and i also want to preserve my dignity as a human being.  i do not see how that is compatible with being old and incapacitated.  i would like to be able to make the decision of ending my life when i see fit.  when i see that i have no more contributions to society and/or no autonomy.  that may happen when i am 0 or may happen tomorrow due to some accident.   #  why do you get to determine what aspirations in life are good and what ones are bad ?  #  so lets say that i have certain goals and aspirations that are realistically impossible.  lets say that i want to be king of the world and if i do not get this, i do not find life fulfilling and do not want to live.  is there something mentally ill about wanting to be king of the world ? if it were realistically possible, you would not think so.  the only reason you might find anything wrong with it is because it is not.  but why should i have to live with a subpar reality ? where is the temporary problem here ? why do you get to determine what aspirations in life are good and what ones are bad ? let is go to at least not completely impossible situation.  what if i wanted to be president of the united states, anything else is a failure.  is there something mentally ill about that ? these are not just temporary problems, they are part of someone is personality, they are part of who they are as a person.  if they do not want to change who they are as a person, if they like who they are as a person, then why should they change because you want them to ? would you literally suggest that who someone is as a person is wrong, that they have a responsibility to change themselves to sustain living because you said so ? i honestly say to anyone who thinks i should keep living that you should personally pay for my ongoing existence.  i would like to see how quickly you would change your mind.
so just going to put my cards down on the table, i am an atheist well closest approximation of my view as a result i reject the idea of an afterlife.  anyway virtually all religions have some form of a concept of afterlife, and they all have a principle of good good afterlife , bad bad afterlife , it does get complicated if you consider purgatory and reincarnation but the principle is the same.  the idea of an afterlife sounds horrible to me, i doubt i could put up with myself for anything more than the 0 0 years that i probably have left i am 0 , the way you would be expected to exist in some form for ever and ever with no way out just sounds like torture, i do not think many people would want that if they really thought about it.  when you consider the christian view of heaven being a place where  sin  does t exist then there is no free will, not really since you can only choose to do the  right  action.  it would be existence below what we had before.   #  when you consider the christian view of heaven being a place where  sin  does t exist then there is no free will, not really since you can only choose to do the  right  action.   #  it would be existence below what we had before.   # i do not believe in the after life, but if the religions promising an eternally blissful afterlife are true; surely that will be blissful.  while you may not be able to imagine a way to spend your time, the incredibly powerful entity controlling your afterlife would have the power to keep you entertained.  it would be existence below what we had before.  the way i understand christian heaven is that you will be bathed in the light of god, and that will give you happiness.  on earth we can grow tired or become tolerant of things we enjoy, but the christian god would have the ability to remove that tolerance or fatigue ensuring that you are eternally in a state of bliss.   #  an omnipotent being ca not create a  heaven  that keeps you entertained and fulfilled ?  #  think of how small your country is compared to the planet earth.  think of how small earth is compared to our solar system.  think of how small our solar system is compared to the milky way galaxy.  think of how small the milky way galaxy is compared to the entire universe.  imagine having an infinite amount of time exploring the entire universe.  an omnipotent being ca not create a  heaven  that keeps you entertained and fulfilled ? are you crazy ? picture eternal life with infinite resources and infinite time, with endless opportunities for exploring entire realities without stress, worries, or illnesses.  in other words, if you think an omnipotent being ca not create an amazing afterlife for you, you must have a very limited imagination.   #  you ca not deny the fact that no human has any idea what is going on in this universe.   #  ok.  but you are the one playing in hypothetical scenarios haha.  you are the one asking about an afterlife.  so why now are you talking about valid truths when you want to ask about made up scenarios ? you ca not deny the fact that no human has any idea what is going on in this universe.  with that said in your specific scenario yes the  afterlife  would be pretty boring but there is no reason to suggest that if there were an afterlife that, that is how it would be  #  sure, the only reason that i would not want to live the same thing over and over is that i would get bored of the repitition, the memory wipe solves this problem completely.   # sure, the only reason that i would not want to live the same thing over and over is that i would get bored of the repitition, the memory wipe solves this problem completely.  as far as each iteration is concerned, it would be the first time i am experiencing everything.  assuming that there is an expected positive utility in each iteration, you are guaranteed to have higher utility in the repeating than in just living once.  of course, but because a poetic statement sounds nice is not a rational reason to accept the truth of a proposition.  how so ? does it derive some conclusion from a set of premises ?  #  it is the merging of your soul with god.   #  in general, the theological view of heaven is not that you are sitting on a cloud strumming a harp.  it is the merging of your soul with god.  it is beyond human conceptions of time and space.  the soul transcends human considerations such as want, desire, or boredom and becomes only love.  in some biblical accounts this involves becoming servants of god, signing his praises for all eternity.  boredom does not exist here because, again, you have merged with the source of all love.  other accounts are less material, that your soul becomes a disembodied part of the god is universe.  it is not about free will and right and wrong   it is becoming one with the source of all creation.  i am in no way a christian, but the best explanation of how this works for me is actually a short story by a sci fi author.  ted chiang is   hell is the absence of god URL is a great re interpration of christian views on heaven, hell, and the soul.
when i filled out an application to wal mart right out of high school, one of the survey questions asked if stealing from wal mart is a victimless crime.  i ca not think of one person who is actually hurting from this type of theft.  i would consider it better than downloading copyrighted media.  downloading copyrighted music can prevent an artist to make the money they should have received, which is a lot less than the money going in department stores.  stealing from a wal mart and stores like it does not even affect a single worker is pay.  in the end, i am guessing it can only hurt the wal mart family, who are currently sitting on a ridiculous fortune.  i cant even imagine them caring about theft in their store.  i am not saying i steal from wal mart, and i am not justifying theft.  this is simply for the sake of the survey question.  i currently work there to pay for college, but i ca not think of one honest victim of theft.  i understand that technically theft keeps the money from someone is hands, but who is that and do they really care ?  #  stealing from a wal mart and stores like it does not even affect a single worker is pay.   #  in the end, i am guessing it can only hurt the wal mart family, who are currently sitting on a ridiculous fortune.   # in the end, i am guessing it can only hurt the wal mart family, who are currently sitting on a ridiculous fortune.  i cant even imagine them caring about theft in their store.  many department stores give bonuses for controlling  shrinkage , which is another word for stolen or otherwise lost inventory.  by contributing to shrinkage, you are directly affecting the amount of pay a worker will receive.  if the department store employs loss prevention people, then it will affect their pay even more.  while the overall profits may go to the owners, the individual stores eat the cost of shrinkage.   #  the store either has to pay more for security and this increase costs or just simply increase costs.   #  stores factor in theft when it come to operating expenses.  every store has to earn x amount over operating expense.  higher expenses means the store has to earn more money.  higher theft means higher expenses.  the store either has to pay more for security and this increase costs or just simply increase costs.  the more people steal the higher everyone has to pay for items.   #  there is an old phrase  the cost of doing business  that refers to exactly this.   #  i used to work at a bj is wholesale and acceptable shrink was something crazy like $0k a month.  we  all  stole from the throwbacks usually sodas and muffins and stuff and one of the security guys told me target down the street had something like $0k a month simply due to company rules.  at bjs, the person punching your receipt is specifically told not to stop you or follow you out, but rather to call a manager so  they  can follow you, also not stopping you, but to try and get a look at your license plate.  target security will literally tackle you in the parking lot.  its not about factoring shrink into prices because that could drive customers away.  there is an old phrase  the cost of doing business  that refers to exactly this.  it is entirely about policy and what stores are willing to do to stop you and some stores just do not care enough.   #  so some of the cost gets passed on to the customers as higher prices, but some is also passed on to the employees, suppliers, lenders, and shareholders as lower wages, lower wholesale prices, lower interest rates, and lower dividends.   #  higher costs can affect not only customers but also shareholders, employees, and suppliers.  it depends on the elasticity of demand for the merchandise and of supply for the labor and anything the store buys.  at one extreme, imagine that it is the widget store, selling only one product, and that customers will buy an unlimited number of widgets for $0 each, but they wo not buy even a single one at $0.  the store ca not raise its price.  either it will put fewer widgets on the shelf at $0, or it will have less money to pay its employees and suppliers.  at the other extreme, still at the one product widget store, imagine that customers will buy 0 widgets per day, no matter what the price.  widget store has to compete with the widget shoppe, widget emporium, and nothing but widgets.  they all charge enough to pay their bills: if one tries to charge more, the others will undercut its price; if one tried to charge less, it would increase its market share but it would be losing money and eventually go out of business.  let us suppose that they all face the same risk of theft.  theft makes their costs higher by exactly the value of the stolen merchandise, so they charge enough extra to cover it.  in this case, customers bear the entire cost.  the real world is in between: customers wo not jump from buying none to unlimited in response to a one cent price increase, but they do respond to price increases.  so some of the cost gets passed on to the customers as higher prices, but some is also passed on to the employees, suppliers, lenders, and shareholders as lower wages, lower wholesale prices, lower interest rates, and lower dividends.  no matter how the market slices it, that merchandise came from somewhere: people had to work to make it, using capital and natural resources that could have been used for something else.  that real cost does not go away just because someone did not pay for the merchandise.   #  since shareholders wo not take the hit, we have to.   #  as someone who has worked for walmart for three years, i have to say that it absolutely impacts us directly.  i have seen others being up our bonus, but that is only one way and if i am being honest, not even one i really care about.  it is kind of a running joke that our bonuses come about as often as world wars .  the store i work in does about $0 0 million a year in sales.  a person stealing a bag of chips is not going to hurt our sales in and of itself.  the problem comes in when a lot of people think the way you do.  we lost $0 million worth of merchandise to theft last year alone, which means that a lot of people have no problem stealing from us.  here is where the problem comes in.  shareholders make money if the company is profitable.  while our sales appear to be far greater than the amount of theft damages, the fact is that our store makes about $0 0 million of profit from those sales.  that is what is harmed by theft, not our sales.  so how does that impact us employees ? the corporate side of walmart exists for one purpose: keep things profitable.  that means that they will raise prices or cut costs as they see necessary to make sure that our individual store still brings in enough profit based on projected sales.  our.  clientele does not do well with higher prices this is walmart , so you might know what happens next.  hours are cut.  full time employees are pushed toward part time.  staff cuts hit every department to lower operational costs.  since shareholders wo not take the hit, we have to.  in fact, i think the argument could be made that we are the only ones directly impacted by theft at our stores.  is this the result of you stealing a single cd ? no.  it is the result of hundreds of people deciding they want shit for free.  please stop stealing from us.
i strongly believe that human beings are morally superior to animals and, as such, activities as using animals as food or entertainment circus is totally fine 0 .  as a result, all human beings should put in first place their peers and only after them animals, even if we are talking about their beloved pets.  it baffles me when some people claim that humans are no different than animals really ? are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise only valid for pets ? and that they would gladly save their pet instead of a stranger in a life risk situation.  0 note that, since we are morally superior to them, we are responsible for taking care of them and avoiding flagrant abuse.   #  it baffles me when some people claim that humans are no different than animals really ?  #  are you comparing a cockroach with me ?  # are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise is only valid for pets ? i think this might be a wording problem.  humans  are  animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  have you had people argue that it is morally superior to save a pet over a person ? or have they just said that is what they think they would do ? i think this could come down to the person being honest.  for example, in the classic trolley problem, my sister said that she would not flip the switch.  her reasoning was that she would probably freeze up in that situation and simply not act quickly enough to save the people on the tracks.  likewise with circus acts.  likewise with seaworld type setups; here URL is just the first article about how orcas should not be kept at sea world.  i mean, those tanks are super small compared to  the ocean .  keeping a human in a confined space is typically reserved for prison/punishment, which is a pretty  flagrant abuse .  maybe your view could be changed to  humans  should be  morally superior to animals  or something, but i try to avoid the word  moral  because its meaning is too vague.   #  the point is that encouraging morality and empathy should also encourage intelligence, which is obviously a human is biggest strength.   #  because there is nothing intrinsic to  human  that makes it superior to  animal,  we should use an attribute that is central to being human to help inform us how to treat other animals.  but what attribute ? well, why do we feel it necessary to act morally to other humans ? i would argue that it is our empathy, together with self awareness, that allows us to act morally.  there is a lot of evolutionary evidence to suggest that animals become intelligent when they have a need to understand other animals  motives, e. g.  when they are safer in a pack than alone.  understanding other creatures leads to understanding oneself.  when you experience pain, then see another animal experiencing pain, your intelligence is what gives you pain by proxy for the other being, thus informing you of this creature is state.  it is like ender from ender is game, if you have read that.  ender was the perfect choice to lead an army, because he was intelligent to the point that he could clearly see and understand other beings and interact with them in a way that was certain to help him survive.  the point is that encouraging morality and empathy should also encourage intelligence, which is obviously a human is biggest strength.  so that is our reason for being moral; we are intelligent empathetic enough to know when something is in pain and when something is not in pain; like the difference between throwing a dog twenty feet and throwing a rock the same distance.  so who should we act morally towards ? a general guideline might be: things that experience more pain than they give to others.  hence the reason criminals ought to lose their rights when they commit violent crimes.  well which animals have the ability to experience the most pain ? those that are the closest to humans in their self awareness.  my argument is basically that the less self aware an animal is, the less moral responsibility you have toward it.  i kill insects regularly with no guilt i had an ex who insisted on always setting them free outside the house instead of killing them .  but i also refrain from eating animals that have good evidence indicating that they are very self aware one way to tell is by the mirror test URL so i no longer eat pigs, sheep, or cephalopods.  i would also decline dog, cat, dolphin, chimp, bonobo, raven, elephant etc. , but i doubt i will ever have the chance.   #  just like one could group animals with the abilities of experiencing pain, feeling emotions, long term memories, learning skills, limited reasoning and so on into different and higher categories.   # humans are animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  humans may be animals but, based on intelligence, understanding and morality, they are also in a category of their own that is not shared and not even remotely approached by any animal.  just like one could group animals with the abilities of experiencing pain, feeling emotions, long term memories, learning skills, limited reasoning and so on into different and higher categories.  dna, beyond how it is expressed, plays no further role in it.  or are you saying a fly is equal to a dog ? the rest i pretty much agree with you.   #  i would say that there are such human.   #  oha.  this is going to get controversial.  i would say that there are such human.  and if their agency and ability to discern morality suffers in the same way there is nothing making them inherently more worth than a dolphin.  what still exists is their unfair advantage in the ability to change the world because of the ability to make themselves understood to humans and the anguish their suffering would cause to certain other humans because of mutual attachment.  if we ever invented a dolphin/human translation device and said dolphin had become someone is pet or good friend then there would be no reason to save the above human is life in lieu of the dolphin is.  but even without these things it would not be morally right to consider dolphins inferior.  the only reason to save the human instead of them is the same reason many of us would save a sibling or friend in lieu of 0 healthy strangers.  so yes, i am saying that there are many humans suffering of various severe kinds of mental disability that are all less important in every way than koko URL  #  consider analogous wordings:  parrots are no different than birds .   # humans can be put into more than one category, i totally agree.  humans are different from  other  animals, but they are animals all the same.  this is why i said it could be a wording issue.  consider analogous wordings:  parrots are no different than birds .  of course not, parrots  are  birds.  it is also true that parrots are different from other birds.  but there are ways that it could make sense:  dogs are no different than cats .  well, yes, dogs and cats are different; they fit into different classes of being.  wording issues.
i strongly believe that human beings are morally superior to animals and, as such, activities as using animals as food or entertainment circus is totally fine 0 .  as a result, all human beings should put in first place their peers and only after them animals, even if we are talking about their beloved pets.  it baffles me when some people claim that humans are no different than animals really ? are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise only valid for pets ? and that they would gladly save their pet instead of a stranger in a life risk situation.  0 note that, since we are morally superior to them, we are responsible for taking care of them and avoiding flagrant abuse.   #  and that they would gladly save their pet instead of a stranger in a life risk situation.   #  have you had people argue that it is morally superior to save a pet over a person ?  # are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise is only valid for pets ? i think this might be a wording problem.  humans  are  animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  have you had people argue that it is morally superior to save a pet over a person ? or have they just said that is what they think they would do ? i think this could come down to the person being honest.  for example, in the classic trolley problem, my sister said that she would not flip the switch.  her reasoning was that she would probably freeze up in that situation and simply not act quickly enough to save the people on the tracks.  likewise with circus acts.  likewise with seaworld type setups; here URL is just the first article about how orcas should not be kept at sea world.  i mean, those tanks are super small compared to  the ocean .  keeping a human in a confined space is typically reserved for prison/punishment, which is a pretty  flagrant abuse .  maybe your view could be changed to  humans  should be  morally superior to animals  or something, but i try to avoid the word  moral  because its meaning is too vague.   #  those that are the closest to humans in their self awareness.   #  because there is nothing intrinsic to  human  that makes it superior to  animal,  we should use an attribute that is central to being human to help inform us how to treat other animals.  but what attribute ? well, why do we feel it necessary to act morally to other humans ? i would argue that it is our empathy, together with self awareness, that allows us to act morally.  there is a lot of evolutionary evidence to suggest that animals become intelligent when they have a need to understand other animals  motives, e. g.  when they are safer in a pack than alone.  understanding other creatures leads to understanding oneself.  when you experience pain, then see another animal experiencing pain, your intelligence is what gives you pain by proxy for the other being, thus informing you of this creature is state.  it is like ender from ender is game, if you have read that.  ender was the perfect choice to lead an army, because he was intelligent to the point that he could clearly see and understand other beings and interact with them in a way that was certain to help him survive.  the point is that encouraging morality and empathy should also encourage intelligence, which is obviously a human is biggest strength.  so that is our reason for being moral; we are intelligent empathetic enough to know when something is in pain and when something is not in pain; like the difference between throwing a dog twenty feet and throwing a rock the same distance.  so who should we act morally towards ? a general guideline might be: things that experience more pain than they give to others.  hence the reason criminals ought to lose their rights when they commit violent crimes.  well which animals have the ability to experience the most pain ? those that are the closest to humans in their self awareness.  my argument is basically that the less self aware an animal is, the less moral responsibility you have toward it.  i kill insects regularly with no guilt i had an ex who insisted on always setting them free outside the house instead of killing them .  but i also refrain from eating animals that have good evidence indicating that they are very self aware one way to tell is by the mirror test URL so i no longer eat pigs, sheep, or cephalopods.  i would also decline dog, cat, dolphin, chimp, bonobo, raven, elephant etc. , but i doubt i will ever have the chance.   #  or are you saying a fly is equal to a dog ?  # humans are animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  humans may be animals but, based on intelligence, understanding and morality, they are also in a category of their own that is not shared and not even remotely approached by any animal.  just like one could group animals with the abilities of experiencing pain, feeling emotions, long term memories, learning skills, limited reasoning and so on into different and higher categories.  dna, beyond how it is expressed, plays no further role in it.  or are you saying a fly is equal to a dog ? the rest i pretty much agree with you.   #  so yes, i am saying that there are many humans suffering of various severe kinds of mental disability that are all less important in every way than koko URL  #  oha.  this is going to get controversial.  i would say that there are such human.  and if their agency and ability to discern morality suffers in the same way there is nothing making them inherently more worth than a dolphin.  what still exists is their unfair advantage in the ability to change the world because of the ability to make themselves understood to humans and the anguish their suffering would cause to certain other humans because of mutual attachment.  if we ever invented a dolphin/human translation device and said dolphin had become someone is pet or good friend then there would be no reason to save the above human is life in lieu of the dolphin is.  but even without these things it would not be morally right to consider dolphins inferior.  the only reason to save the human instead of them is the same reason many of us would save a sibling or friend in lieu of 0 healthy strangers.  so yes, i am saying that there are many humans suffering of various severe kinds of mental disability that are all less important in every way than koko URL  #  consider analogous wordings:  parrots are no different than birds .   # humans can be put into more than one category, i totally agree.  humans are different from  other  animals, but they are animals all the same.  this is why i said it could be a wording issue.  consider analogous wordings:  parrots are no different than birds .  of course not, parrots  are  birds.  it is also true that parrots are different from other birds.  but there are ways that it could make sense:  dogs are no different than cats .  well, yes, dogs and cats are different; they fit into different classes of being.  wording issues.
i strongly believe that human beings are morally superior to animals and, as such, activities as using animals as food or entertainment circus is totally fine 0 .  as a result, all human beings should put in first place their peers and only after them animals, even if we are talking about their beloved pets.  it baffles me when some people claim that humans are no different than animals really ? are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise only valid for pets ? and that they would gladly save their pet instead of a stranger in a life risk situation.  0 note that, since we are morally superior to them, we are responsible for taking care of them and avoiding flagrant abuse.   #  it baffles me when some people claim that humans are no different than animals really ?  #  are you comparing a cockroach with me ?  # are you comparing a cockroach with me ? .  you do not think humans are animals ? it is a matter of the value we humans place on relationships, both with other humans and with our adopted family members pets .  kinship and social bonds run deep with our species and our closest primate relatives, and many fellow mammals share similar social structures to us.  so of course i will save my pet over the unidentified human.  we are in the same tribe.  yeah, how is our track record URL on that front ? do not worry, it is not a peta video, though i suppose one of those might answer the second part.   #  well, why do we feel it necessary to act morally to other humans ?  #  because there is nothing intrinsic to  human  that makes it superior to  animal,  we should use an attribute that is central to being human to help inform us how to treat other animals.  but what attribute ? well, why do we feel it necessary to act morally to other humans ? i would argue that it is our empathy, together with self awareness, that allows us to act morally.  there is a lot of evolutionary evidence to suggest that animals become intelligent when they have a need to understand other animals  motives, e. g.  when they are safer in a pack than alone.  understanding other creatures leads to understanding oneself.  when you experience pain, then see another animal experiencing pain, your intelligence is what gives you pain by proxy for the other being, thus informing you of this creature is state.  it is like ender from ender is game, if you have read that.  ender was the perfect choice to lead an army, because he was intelligent to the point that he could clearly see and understand other beings and interact with them in a way that was certain to help him survive.  the point is that encouraging morality and empathy should also encourage intelligence, which is obviously a human is biggest strength.  so that is our reason for being moral; we are intelligent empathetic enough to know when something is in pain and when something is not in pain; like the difference between throwing a dog twenty feet and throwing a rock the same distance.  so who should we act morally towards ? a general guideline might be: things that experience more pain than they give to others.  hence the reason criminals ought to lose their rights when they commit violent crimes.  well which animals have the ability to experience the most pain ? those that are the closest to humans in their self awareness.  my argument is basically that the less self aware an animal is, the less moral responsibility you have toward it.  i kill insects regularly with no guilt i had an ex who insisted on always setting them free outside the house instead of killing them .  but i also refrain from eating animals that have good evidence indicating that they are very self aware one way to tell is by the mirror test URL so i no longer eat pigs, sheep, or cephalopods.  i would also decline dog, cat, dolphin, chimp, bonobo, raven, elephant etc. , but i doubt i will ever have the chance.   #  i mean, those tanks are super small compared to  the ocean .   # are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise is only valid for pets ? i think this might be a wording problem.  humans  are  animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  have you had people argue that it is morally superior to save a pet over a person ? or have they just said that is what they think they would do ? i think this could come down to the person being honest.  for example, in the classic trolley problem, my sister said that she would not flip the switch.  her reasoning was that she would probably freeze up in that situation and simply not act quickly enough to save the people on the tracks.  likewise with circus acts.  likewise with seaworld type setups; here URL is just the first article about how orcas should not be kept at sea world.  i mean, those tanks are super small compared to  the ocean .  keeping a human in a confined space is typically reserved for prison/punishment, which is a pretty  flagrant abuse .  maybe your view could be changed to  humans  should be  morally superior to animals  or something, but i try to avoid the word  moral  because its meaning is too vague.   #  the rest i pretty much agree with you.   # humans are animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  humans may be animals but, based on intelligence, understanding and morality, they are also in a category of their own that is not shared and not even remotely approached by any animal.  just like one could group animals with the abilities of experiencing pain, feeling emotions, long term memories, learning skills, limited reasoning and so on into different and higher categories.  dna, beyond how it is expressed, plays no further role in it.  or are you saying a fly is equal to a dog ? the rest i pretty much agree with you.   #  if we ever invented a dolphin/human translation device and said dolphin had become someone is pet or good friend then there would be no reason to save the above human is life in lieu of the dolphin is.   #  oha.  this is going to get controversial.  i would say that there are such human.  and if their agency and ability to discern morality suffers in the same way there is nothing making them inherently more worth than a dolphin.  what still exists is their unfair advantage in the ability to change the world because of the ability to make themselves understood to humans and the anguish their suffering would cause to certain other humans because of mutual attachment.  if we ever invented a dolphin/human translation device and said dolphin had become someone is pet or good friend then there would be no reason to save the above human is life in lieu of the dolphin is.  but even without these things it would not be morally right to consider dolphins inferior.  the only reason to save the human instead of them is the same reason many of us would save a sibling or friend in lieu of 0 healthy strangers.  so yes, i am saying that there are many humans suffering of various severe kinds of mental disability that are all less important in every way than koko URL
i strongly believe that human beings are morally superior to animals and, as such, activities as using animals as food or entertainment circus is totally fine 0 .  as a result, all human beings should put in first place their peers and only after them animals, even if we are talking about their beloved pets.  it baffles me when some people claim that humans are no different than animals really ? are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise only valid for pets ? and that they would gladly save their pet instead of a stranger in a life risk situation.  0 note that, since we are morally superior to them, we are responsible for taking care of them and avoiding flagrant abuse.   #  note that, since we are morally superior to them, we are responsible for taking care of them and avoiding flagrant abuse.   #  yeah, how is our track record URL on that front ?  # are you comparing a cockroach with me ? .  you do not think humans are animals ? it is a matter of the value we humans place on relationships, both with other humans and with our adopted family members pets .  kinship and social bonds run deep with our species and our closest primate relatives, and many fellow mammals share similar social structures to us.  so of course i will save my pet over the unidentified human.  we are in the same tribe.  yeah, how is our track record URL on that front ? do not worry, it is not a peta video, though i suppose one of those might answer the second part.   #  my argument is basically that the less self aware an animal is, the less moral responsibility you have toward it.   #  because there is nothing intrinsic to  human  that makes it superior to  animal,  we should use an attribute that is central to being human to help inform us how to treat other animals.  but what attribute ? well, why do we feel it necessary to act morally to other humans ? i would argue that it is our empathy, together with self awareness, that allows us to act morally.  there is a lot of evolutionary evidence to suggest that animals become intelligent when they have a need to understand other animals  motives, e. g.  when they are safer in a pack than alone.  understanding other creatures leads to understanding oneself.  when you experience pain, then see another animal experiencing pain, your intelligence is what gives you pain by proxy for the other being, thus informing you of this creature is state.  it is like ender from ender is game, if you have read that.  ender was the perfect choice to lead an army, because he was intelligent to the point that he could clearly see and understand other beings and interact with them in a way that was certain to help him survive.  the point is that encouraging morality and empathy should also encourage intelligence, which is obviously a human is biggest strength.  so that is our reason for being moral; we are intelligent empathetic enough to know when something is in pain and when something is not in pain; like the difference between throwing a dog twenty feet and throwing a rock the same distance.  so who should we act morally towards ? a general guideline might be: things that experience more pain than they give to others.  hence the reason criminals ought to lose their rights when they commit violent crimes.  well which animals have the ability to experience the most pain ? those that are the closest to humans in their self awareness.  my argument is basically that the less self aware an animal is, the less moral responsibility you have toward it.  i kill insects regularly with no guilt i had an ex who insisted on always setting them free outside the house instead of killing them .  but i also refrain from eating animals that have good evidence indicating that they are very self aware one way to tell is by the mirror test URL so i no longer eat pigs, sheep, or cephalopods.  i would also decline dog, cat, dolphin, chimp, bonobo, raven, elephant etc. , but i doubt i will ever have the chance.   #  i think this could come down to the person being honest.   # are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise is only valid for pets ? i think this might be a wording problem.  humans  are  animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  have you had people argue that it is morally superior to save a pet over a person ? or have they just said that is what they think they would do ? i think this could come down to the person being honest.  for example, in the classic trolley problem, my sister said that she would not flip the switch.  her reasoning was that she would probably freeze up in that situation and simply not act quickly enough to save the people on the tracks.  likewise with circus acts.  likewise with seaworld type setups; here URL is just the first article about how orcas should not be kept at sea world.  i mean, those tanks are super small compared to  the ocean .  keeping a human in a confined space is typically reserved for prison/punishment, which is a pretty  flagrant abuse .  maybe your view could be changed to  humans  should be  morally superior to animals  or something, but i try to avoid the word  moral  because its meaning is too vague.   #  the rest i pretty much agree with you.   # humans are animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  humans may be animals but, based on intelligence, understanding and morality, they are also in a category of their own that is not shared and not even remotely approached by any animal.  just like one could group animals with the abilities of experiencing pain, feeling emotions, long term memories, learning skills, limited reasoning and so on into different and higher categories.  dna, beyond how it is expressed, plays no further role in it.  or are you saying a fly is equal to a dog ? the rest i pretty much agree with you.   #  but even without these things it would not be morally right to consider dolphins inferior.   #  oha.  this is going to get controversial.  i would say that there are such human.  and if their agency and ability to discern morality suffers in the same way there is nothing making them inherently more worth than a dolphin.  what still exists is their unfair advantage in the ability to change the world because of the ability to make themselves understood to humans and the anguish their suffering would cause to certain other humans because of mutual attachment.  if we ever invented a dolphin/human translation device and said dolphin had become someone is pet or good friend then there would be no reason to save the above human is life in lieu of the dolphin is.  but even without these things it would not be morally right to consider dolphins inferior.  the only reason to save the human instead of them is the same reason many of us would save a sibling or friend in lieu of 0 healthy strangers.  so yes, i am saying that there are many humans suffering of various severe kinds of mental disability that are all less important in every way than koko URL
i strongly believe that human beings are morally superior to animals and, as such, activities as using animals as food or entertainment circus is totally fine 0 .  as a result, all human beings should put in first place their peers and only after them animals, even if we are talking about their beloved pets.  it baffles me when some people claim that humans are no different than animals really ? are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise only valid for pets ? and that they would gladly save their pet instead of a stranger in a life risk situation.  0 note that, since we are morally superior to them, we are responsible for taking care of them and avoiding flagrant abuse.   #  it baffles me when some people claim that humans are no different than animals really ?  #  are you comparing a cockroach with me ?  # are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise only valid for pets ? and that they would gladly save their pet instead of a stranger in a life risk situation.  there is no trait of all chordates that humans do not have.  there is no trait of all vertebrates that humans do not have.  there is no trait of all mammals that humans to not have.  there is no trait of all primates that humans do not have.  there is no trait of all great apes that humans do not have.  there is no doubt that humans are animals, and there is nothing special to say that our species is fundamentally different from the rest of the kingdom.  you have several things in common with cockroaches.  you both are multicellular, eukaryote, heterotrophs, with differential tissue including a neuromuscular system , and with bilateral symmetry.  when it comes to my pets, i have an emotional connection to them that i lack with humans that i do not know.  for most situations, my pets would psychologically fall into an in group where a stranger would be in an out group.  if i came across one of my pets and a unfamiliar human in a fight without context, i would move to defend my pet over the human.  most pet owners would feel the same about their pets.   #  a general guideline might be: things that experience more pain than they give to others.   #  because there is nothing intrinsic to  human  that makes it superior to  animal,  we should use an attribute that is central to being human to help inform us how to treat other animals.  but what attribute ? well, why do we feel it necessary to act morally to other humans ? i would argue that it is our empathy, together with self awareness, that allows us to act morally.  there is a lot of evolutionary evidence to suggest that animals become intelligent when they have a need to understand other animals  motives, e. g.  when they are safer in a pack than alone.  understanding other creatures leads to understanding oneself.  when you experience pain, then see another animal experiencing pain, your intelligence is what gives you pain by proxy for the other being, thus informing you of this creature is state.  it is like ender from ender is game, if you have read that.  ender was the perfect choice to lead an army, because he was intelligent to the point that he could clearly see and understand other beings and interact with them in a way that was certain to help him survive.  the point is that encouraging morality and empathy should also encourage intelligence, which is obviously a human is biggest strength.  so that is our reason for being moral; we are intelligent empathetic enough to know when something is in pain and when something is not in pain; like the difference between throwing a dog twenty feet and throwing a rock the same distance.  so who should we act morally towards ? a general guideline might be: things that experience more pain than they give to others.  hence the reason criminals ought to lose their rights when they commit violent crimes.  well which animals have the ability to experience the most pain ? those that are the closest to humans in their self awareness.  my argument is basically that the less self aware an animal is, the less moral responsibility you have toward it.  i kill insects regularly with no guilt i had an ex who insisted on always setting them free outside the house instead of killing them .  but i also refrain from eating animals that have good evidence indicating that they are very self aware one way to tell is by the mirror test URL so i no longer eat pigs, sheep, or cephalopods.  i would also decline dog, cat, dolphin, chimp, bonobo, raven, elephant etc. , but i doubt i will ever have the chance.   #  keeping a human in a confined space is typically reserved for prison/punishment, which is a pretty  flagrant abuse .   # are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise is only valid for pets ? i think this might be a wording problem.  humans  are  animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  have you had people argue that it is morally superior to save a pet over a person ? or have they just said that is what they think they would do ? i think this could come down to the person being honest.  for example, in the classic trolley problem, my sister said that she would not flip the switch.  her reasoning was that she would probably freeze up in that situation and simply not act quickly enough to save the people on the tracks.  likewise with circus acts.  likewise with seaworld type setups; here URL is just the first article about how orcas should not be kept at sea world.  i mean, those tanks are super small compared to  the ocean .  keeping a human in a confined space is typically reserved for prison/punishment, which is a pretty  flagrant abuse .  maybe your view could be changed to  humans  should be  morally superior to animals  or something, but i try to avoid the word  moral  because its meaning is too vague.   #  the rest i pretty much agree with you.   # humans are animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  humans may be animals but, based on intelligence, understanding and morality, they are also in a category of their own that is not shared and not even remotely approached by any animal.  just like one could group animals with the abilities of experiencing pain, feeling emotions, long term memories, learning skills, limited reasoning and so on into different and higher categories.  dna, beyond how it is expressed, plays no further role in it.  or are you saying a fly is equal to a dog ? the rest i pretty much agree with you.   #  if we ever invented a dolphin/human translation device and said dolphin had become someone is pet or good friend then there would be no reason to save the above human is life in lieu of the dolphin is.   #  oha.  this is going to get controversial.  i would say that there are such human.  and if their agency and ability to discern morality suffers in the same way there is nothing making them inherently more worth than a dolphin.  what still exists is their unfair advantage in the ability to change the world because of the ability to make themselves understood to humans and the anguish their suffering would cause to certain other humans because of mutual attachment.  if we ever invented a dolphin/human translation device and said dolphin had become someone is pet or good friend then there would be no reason to save the above human is life in lieu of the dolphin is.  but even without these things it would not be morally right to consider dolphins inferior.  the only reason to save the human instead of them is the same reason many of us would save a sibling or friend in lieu of 0 healthy strangers.  so yes, i am saying that there are many humans suffering of various severe kinds of mental disability that are all less important in every way than koko URL
i strongly believe that human beings are morally superior to animals and, as such, activities as using animals as food or entertainment circus is totally fine 0 .  as a result, all human beings should put in first place their peers and only after them animals, even if we are talking about their beloved pets.  it baffles me when some people claim that humans are no different than animals really ? are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise only valid for pets ? and that they would gladly save their pet instead of a stranger in a life risk situation.  0 note that, since we are morally superior to them, we are responsible for taking care of them and avoiding flagrant abuse.   #  are you comparing a cockroach with me ?  #  sure i am, and you seem easier to communicate with, but also seem arrogant as hell so in that sense inferior.   #  why is this superior ? maybe not even needing this debate and this technogy is superior.  even ants and bees are a better member of their communities, few animals have grudges and even fewer show the power abuse humans show.  i think you are using a self judging definition of superior of the sort  superior what i think is superior, and it happens to be what i am good at  which is absolutely circular.  sure i am, and you seem easier to communicate with, but also seem arrogant as hell so in that sense inferior.   #  hence the reason criminals ought to lose their rights when they commit violent crimes.   #  because there is nothing intrinsic to  human  that makes it superior to  animal,  we should use an attribute that is central to being human to help inform us how to treat other animals.  but what attribute ? well, why do we feel it necessary to act morally to other humans ? i would argue that it is our empathy, together with self awareness, that allows us to act morally.  there is a lot of evolutionary evidence to suggest that animals become intelligent when they have a need to understand other animals  motives, e. g.  when they are safer in a pack than alone.  understanding other creatures leads to understanding oneself.  when you experience pain, then see another animal experiencing pain, your intelligence is what gives you pain by proxy for the other being, thus informing you of this creature is state.  it is like ender from ender is game, if you have read that.  ender was the perfect choice to lead an army, because he was intelligent to the point that he could clearly see and understand other beings and interact with them in a way that was certain to help him survive.  the point is that encouraging morality and empathy should also encourage intelligence, which is obviously a human is biggest strength.  so that is our reason for being moral; we are intelligent empathetic enough to know when something is in pain and when something is not in pain; like the difference between throwing a dog twenty feet and throwing a rock the same distance.  so who should we act morally towards ? a general guideline might be: things that experience more pain than they give to others.  hence the reason criminals ought to lose their rights when they commit violent crimes.  well which animals have the ability to experience the most pain ? those that are the closest to humans in their self awareness.  my argument is basically that the less self aware an animal is, the less moral responsibility you have toward it.  i kill insects regularly with no guilt i had an ex who insisted on always setting them free outside the house instead of killing them .  but i also refrain from eating animals that have good evidence indicating that they are very self aware one way to tell is by the mirror test URL so i no longer eat pigs, sheep, or cephalopods.  i would also decline dog, cat, dolphin, chimp, bonobo, raven, elephant etc. , but i doubt i will ever have the chance.   #  or is your premise is only valid for pets ?  # are you comparing a cockroach with me ? or is your premise is only valid for pets ? i think this might be a wording problem.  humans  are  animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  have you had people argue that it is morally superior to save a pet over a person ? or have they just said that is what they think they would do ? i think this could come down to the person being honest.  for example, in the classic trolley problem, my sister said that she would not flip the switch.  her reasoning was that she would probably freeze up in that situation and simply not act quickly enough to save the people on the tracks.  likewise with circus acts.  likewise with seaworld type setups; here URL is just the first article about how orcas should not be kept at sea world.  i mean, those tanks are super small compared to  the ocean .  keeping a human in a confined space is typically reserved for prison/punishment, which is a pretty  flagrant abuse .  maybe your view could be changed to  humans  should be  morally superior to animals  or something, but i try to avoid the word  moral  because its meaning is too vague.   #  humans may be animals but, based on intelligence, understanding and morality, they are also in a category of their own that is not shared and not even remotely approached by any animal.   # humans are animals.  you and a cockroach share dna.  humans may be animals but, based on intelligence, understanding and morality, they are also in a category of their own that is not shared and not even remotely approached by any animal.  just like one could group animals with the abilities of experiencing pain, feeling emotions, long term memories, learning skills, limited reasoning and so on into different and higher categories.  dna, beyond how it is expressed, plays no further role in it.  or are you saying a fly is equal to a dog ? the rest i pretty much agree with you.   #  if we ever invented a dolphin/human translation device and said dolphin had become someone is pet or good friend then there would be no reason to save the above human is life in lieu of the dolphin is.   #  oha.  this is going to get controversial.  i would say that there are such human.  and if their agency and ability to discern morality suffers in the same way there is nothing making them inherently more worth than a dolphin.  what still exists is their unfair advantage in the ability to change the world because of the ability to make themselves understood to humans and the anguish their suffering would cause to certain other humans because of mutual attachment.  if we ever invented a dolphin/human translation device and said dolphin had become someone is pet or good friend then there would be no reason to save the above human is life in lieu of the dolphin is.  but even without these things it would not be morally right to consider dolphins inferior.  the only reason to save the human instead of them is the same reason many of us would save a sibling or friend in lieu of 0 healthy strangers.  so yes, i am saying that there are many humans suffering of various severe kinds of mental disability that are all less important in every way than koko URL
your contribution to society is greater with an invention as opposed to a scientific theory.  now i guess there is no quantitative way to measure the extent of your contributions, but i am looking at this based on a historical perspective.  scientific theories could be tweaked, and interpreted differently, which would not make you wrong, but does make your perception of the theory called into question.  it could even be rejected before it becomes a law.  and even when it does become a scientific law, it could still be repealed, i guess, or removed, or invalidated by the scientific community of an era.  with an invention, it is uniquely yours, could be improved, and makes you the pioneer.  on the other hand, a scientific theory could be helpful in science, which is beneficial in a lot more ways than just explanation, whereas an invention is only helpful in its usage.  all in all, the difference is that an invention is set in stone, whereas a scientific theory can be held to scrutiny and is probably not even correct.  scientific theories may be beneficial to science, but novel inventions are beneficial to society as a whole.  also, before you think it is not a fair comparison, try to list why.  so i can properly tell you why you are wrong  #  scientific theories could be tweaked, and interpreted differently, which would not make you wrong, but does make your perception of the theory called into question.   #  it could even be rejected before it becomes a law.   # it could even be rejected before it becomes a law.  a scientific theory and a law are two different things.  the law of gravity and the theory of gravity exist together; there is no  promotion  from one to the other.  all inventions are based off of scientific principals.  by publishing a scientific discovery, you are giving inventors the information to create inventions.  without theories, there would not be as much progress by  invention  alone.   #  there are any number of inventions that do not contribute much overall to the quality of human life or society as a whole.   #  did the inventor of the sham wow contribute more or less to society than the pioneers of germ theory ? did darwin is theory of evolution contribute more to society than the inventor of crocs ? there are any number of inventions that do not contribute much overall to the quality of human life or society as a whole.  we already have dish rags and shoes.  however, scientific theories work towards solving things we do not already know or have the answers for.  if it is valid, and it remains valid, then i have potentially increased our overall understanding of the universe.  if it is valid and later becomes invalid, then you have still contributed to the overall pursuit of knowledge.  your incorrect theory might provide the theoretical framework for another, more accurate theory.  the evidence that might disprove you theory might point in the direction of the truth.   #  a simpler example: try some basic electronics: how do you hook up a relay to an arduino ?  #  lack of theoretical knowledge will quickly handicap your attempts at doing things.  i remember there was a tv program about a guy whose life quest was making colored bubbles.  he did it by brute force, basically buying every chemical he could think of, and seeing what happens, which sometimes was chemical burns.  he made colored bubbles alright, but they left colored splotches on everything they touched, logically enough.  after 0 years of trying he finally hired a chemist, and he found a solution some months later.  a simpler example: try some basic electronics: how do you hook up a relay to an arduino ? try to figure out experimentally, without looking up the solution, and without knowing why the straightforward approach does not work.   #  others are less so, i mean it is not like ford is in the field of human resourcing and delta air lines is not the evening news so why do they hire meteorologists ?  #  there is not a difference here.  they are part of the same process.  you need to have a scientific theory that works, then you can apply it practically using invention.  one does not function without the other.  so, what value is there to argue which one is better or worse.  this reminds me of the discussion of line positions and staff positions in business.  line positions are those jobs that make the thing that you are selling and staff positions are those jobs that do not.  staff positions are not automatically less valuable because they are not involved in making the thing that makes the money.  some, like  salesman  are kind of obvious in how they contribute.  others are less so, i mean it is not like ford is in the field of human resourcing and delta air lines is not the evening news so why do they hire meteorologists ? it turns out that the practical turning of screws is not the only concern.  invention itself does not actually contribute anything without other conditions being met, which are handled but  pure  science.  i think that you can add as many planes and pilots as you want, but that is not going to help delta make more money if the problem they are facing is how they route their flights to avoid weather delays and horrific plane crashes that reduce ticket sales for some reason.  the same kind of thing is true of invention and science, invention is necessary but it is also does not help if there has not been a change in resources, materials, process, or consumer taste.   #  it is not that the old ones did not work, it is that the new ones work even better.   #  neither our sciences nor our inventions are set in stone.  we do what we can with our current knowledge and with time we improve our theories and our inventions.  the first printing press looked quite different compared to the printing press today.  the same goes for cars, or computers, or any other invention.  it is not that the old ones did not work, it is that the new ones work even better.  the same goes for scientific theories.  newton is laws work quite well and we used them with a lot of success.  einstein is theory replaced newton is because it is even better it covers extreme cases like travelling close to the speed of light , not because newton is work was rubbish with no value.  science is more important because it allows new inventions.  why do you think new inventions happen so fast and so often since the scientific revolution ? you ca not exactly build a tv if you do not understand the physics behind it.  if for whatever reason we lose our inventions but we keep our scientific understanding, we will be able to rebuild tech, because it is not that hard to imagine useful ways to exploit knowledge.  if we keep our inventions but loose all understanding how it works, our tech will just start falling apart like in the  idiocracy  movie.
your contribution to society is greater with an invention as opposed to a scientific theory.  now i guess there is no quantitative way to measure the extent of your contributions, but i am looking at this based on a historical perspective.  scientific theories could be tweaked, and interpreted differently, which would not make you wrong, but does make your perception of the theory called into question.  it could even be rejected before it becomes a law.  and even when it does become a scientific law, it could still be repealed, i guess, or removed, or invalidated by the scientific community of an era.  with an invention, it is uniquely yours, could be improved, and makes you the pioneer.  on the other hand, a scientific theory could be helpful in science, which is beneficial in a lot more ways than just explanation, whereas an invention is only helpful in its usage.  all in all, the difference is that an invention is set in stone, whereas a scientific theory can be held to scrutiny and is probably not even correct.  scientific theories may be beneficial to science, but novel inventions are beneficial to society as a whole.  also, before you think it is not a fair comparison, try to list why.  so i can properly tell you why you are wrong  #  with an invention, it is uniquely yours, could be improved, and makes you the pioneer.   #  all inventions are based off of scientific principals.   # it could even be rejected before it becomes a law.  a scientific theory and a law are two different things.  the law of gravity and the theory of gravity exist together; there is no  promotion  from one to the other.  all inventions are based off of scientific principals.  by publishing a scientific discovery, you are giving inventors the information to create inventions.  without theories, there would not be as much progress by  invention  alone.   #  did the inventor of the sham wow contribute more or less to society than the pioneers of germ theory ?  #  did the inventor of the sham wow contribute more or less to society than the pioneers of germ theory ? did darwin is theory of evolution contribute more to society than the inventor of crocs ? there are any number of inventions that do not contribute much overall to the quality of human life or society as a whole.  we already have dish rags and shoes.  however, scientific theories work towards solving things we do not already know or have the answers for.  if it is valid, and it remains valid, then i have potentially increased our overall understanding of the universe.  if it is valid and later becomes invalid, then you have still contributed to the overall pursuit of knowledge.  your incorrect theory might provide the theoretical framework for another, more accurate theory.  the evidence that might disprove you theory might point in the direction of the truth.   #  after 0 years of trying he finally hired a chemist, and he found a solution some months later.   #  lack of theoretical knowledge will quickly handicap your attempts at doing things.  i remember there was a tv program about a guy whose life quest was making colored bubbles.  he did it by brute force, basically buying every chemical he could think of, and seeing what happens, which sometimes was chemical burns.  he made colored bubbles alright, but they left colored splotches on everything they touched, logically enough.  after 0 years of trying he finally hired a chemist, and he found a solution some months later.  a simpler example: try some basic electronics: how do you hook up a relay to an arduino ? try to figure out experimentally, without looking up the solution, and without knowing why the straightforward approach does not work.   #  so, what value is there to argue which one is better or worse.   #  there is not a difference here.  they are part of the same process.  you need to have a scientific theory that works, then you can apply it practically using invention.  one does not function without the other.  so, what value is there to argue which one is better or worse.  this reminds me of the discussion of line positions and staff positions in business.  line positions are those jobs that make the thing that you are selling and staff positions are those jobs that do not.  staff positions are not automatically less valuable because they are not involved in making the thing that makes the money.  some, like  salesman  are kind of obvious in how they contribute.  others are less so, i mean it is not like ford is in the field of human resourcing and delta air lines is not the evening news so why do they hire meteorologists ? it turns out that the practical turning of screws is not the only concern.  invention itself does not actually contribute anything without other conditions being met, which are handled but  pure  science.  i think that you can add as many planes and pilots as you want, but that is not going to help delta make more money if the problem they are facing is how they route their flights to avoid weather delays and horrific plane crashes that reduce ticket sales for some reason.  the same kind of thing is true of invention and science, invention is necessary but it is also does not help if there has not been a change in resources, materials, process, or consumer taste.   #  you ca not exactly build a tv if you do not understand the physics behind it.   #  neither our sciences nor our inventions are set in stone.  we do what we can with our current knowledge and with time we improve our theories and our inventions.  the first printing press looked quite different compared to the printing press today.  the same goes for cars, or computers, or any other invention.  it is not that the old ones did not work, it is that the new ones work even better.  the same goes for scientific theories.  newton is laws work quite well and we used them with a lot of success.  einstein is theory replaced newton is because it is even better it covers extreme cases like travelling close to the speed of light , not because newton is work was rubbish with no value.  science is more important because it allows new inventions.  why do you think new inventions happen so fast and so often since the scientific revolution ? you ca not exactly build a tv if you do not understand the physics behind it.  if for whatever reason we lose our inventions but we keep our scientific understanding, we will be able to rebuild tech, because it is not that hard to imagine useful ways to exploit knowledge.  if we keep our inventions but loose all understanding how it works, our tech will just start falling apart like in the  idiocracy  movie.
some people think that there must be a cognitive difference between sub saharan hunter gatherers and civilized peoples.  i do not know why they think this.  even if the lifestyle is vastly different, they still have the same needs, same stimuli to react to, etc.  race is nothing but an illusion.  central asian caucasoids in the stans look very white, but they are culturally central asian.  different people have different perspectives on race.  some people will consider someone  black  if they have the slightest trace of african features, when caucasoid features are dominant.  i would consider that person to be  white .  the term  caucasian  is based on the caucasus region, georgia, armenia, azerbaijan.  whoever made that term must have thought that these nationalities were a representation of the  white  race.  this just proves that race can be subjective in some cases.  i had a friend compare races to dog breeds in a debate, saying that there were significant physical difference in human races as well.  the argument made was that there are statistical differences in races.  i argued that as long as two members from different races can be similar or the same physically, there is no physical difference between races, unlike dog breeds.  race labels should not be used, as they encourage racism and categorization.  labels like black, white, asian, etc.  there are so many different cultures and ethnic groups packed into each label.  a recent immigrant from africa and an actual african american would both be called  black , even though they share no culture and are probably from different ethnic groups.  this is why nationality should be used instead.  the only race is the human race.  yes, there are differences most notable in the face, hair and skin color.  but it is completely possible to have the same build.  i am not saying black people are not black.  additionally, if we mixed all the genes on the world magically to make one person, what would that person look like ?  #  race labels should not be used, as they encourage racism and categorization.   #  whether or not there are differences that you will acknowledge between the different races, as they are currently defined, this statement would be like claiming that the terms  man  and  woman  encourage sexism.   # whether or not there are differences that you will acknowledge between the different races, as they are currently defined, this statement would be like claiming that the terms  man  and  woman  encourage sexism.  let is tweak your points a bit, to illustrate this further:   race can be subjective in some cases.  transgenderism can make gender very subjective   i argued that as long as two members from different races can be similar or the same physically, there is no physical difference between races, unlike dog breeds.  it is entirely possible and often occurs for members from the different genders, i. e.  a man and a woman, to be similar physically.  just think of an effeminate man being compared to a masculine woman.  a recent immigrant from africa and an actual african american would both be called  black , even though they share no culture and are probably from different ethnic groups.  there are so many different kinds of women, belonging to so many different cultures and ethnic groups.  are you saying that people in california who claim  women often like to go shopping at the mall  are engaging in or promoting sexism simply because their observation does not apply to a group of tribal women in africa who have never ever seen an american shopping center in their entire lives ?  #  recognizing the slight physical differences between races does not inherently lead to racism.   #  you claim there are no physical differences between races, so how do you explain the fact that if 0 white people have 0 children, every single one will be white, while if 0 black people have 0 children, every single one will be black unless albino ? certain races are more susceptible to certain diseases than others.  certain races usually develop smaller noses than others.  certain races will always have black hair if they do not cross breed with other races, other races will always have blonde or brown hair if they do not breed with other races.  you are denying facts about genetics to try to promote a global culture.  recognizing the slight physical differences between races does not inherently lead to racism.   #  cmv is are inherently posts where the op realizes his view may be wrong see the subreddit description , so pointing out this possibility does not warrant a delta.   #  if you want to be so literal and technical about cmv is, then op is view in its entirety is: i think that there are no fundamental differences between races, physical or mental,  and  that racial labels should be replaced with nationality.  even if you believe you have completely addressed that first part, you have not addressed their view that racial labels should be discarded.  but putting this aside, op is award deltas when  they  feel that their views have been changed, not when you believe you found a single contradiction to their argument.  it is well within their rights to say,  thanks for bringing this counterpoint up.  that helped me realize i was missing one important viewpoint i should share.   or  that helped me realize that the real issue i have is.  .  cmv is are inherently posts where the op realizes his view may be wrong see the subreddit description , so pointing out this possibility does not warrant a delta.   #  this is going to be a very badly written grammar and all post.   #  this is going to be a very badly written grammar and all post.  please forgive me.  source: URL the anthropologist at the begining.  there are currently two different sections that race can be broken down into.  number 0 is that race is based on morphology.  number 0 is that race is based on geography.  first, if you look at the morpohology of skulls and or even the lenght and breadth of physical features such as noses, you really ca not make the distinction between different races.  e. g  africans  with dark skin and flat noses vs groups in south east asia and south asia such as dravidians, who carry the same features.  also consider the geographic argument.  if the geographic argument was true than you have to say that aboriginals, and papua new guineans are africans because they have dark skin.  also consider indians who do not fit what we would consider  east asian  even though india is located in asia.   #  people who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other .   #  however, as the human genome project sums it up  dna studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies races exist within modern humans.  while different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.  there also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity.  people who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other .  i would like to show you some links that might change your view URL   URL
some people think that there must be a cognitive difference between sub saharan hunter gatherers and civilized peoples.  i do not know why they think this.  even if the lifestyle is vastly different, they still have the same needs, same stimuli to react to, etc.  race is nothing but an illusion.  central asian caucasoids in the stans look very white, but they are culturally central asian.  different people have different perspectives on race.  some people will consider someone  black  if they have the slightest trace of african features, when caucasoid features are dominant.  i would consider that person to be  white .  the term  caucasian  is based on the caucasus region, georgia, armenia, azerbaijan.  whoever made that term must have thought that these nationalities were a representation of the  white  race.  this just proves that race can be subjective in some cases.  i had a friend compare races to dog breeds in a debate, saying that there were significant physical difference in human races as well.  the argument made was that there are statistical differences in races.  i argued that as long as two members from different races can be similar or the same physically, there is no physical difference between races, unlike dog breeds.  race labels should not be used, as they encourage racism and categorization.  labels like black, white, asian, etc.  there are so many different cultures and ethnic groups packed into each label.  a recent immigrant from africa and an actual african american would both be called  black , even though they share no culture and are probably from different ethnic groups.  this is why nationality should be used instead.  the only race is the human race.  yes, there are differences most notable in the face, hair and skin color.  but it is completely possible to have the same build.  i am not saying black people are not black.  additionally, if we mixed all the genes on the world magically to make one person, what would that person look like ?  #  there are so many different cultures and ethnic groups packed into each label.   #  a recent immigrant from africa and an actual african american would both be called  black , even though they share no culture and are probably from different ethnic groups.   # whether or not there are differences that you will acknowledge between the different races, as they are currently defined, this statement would be like claiming that the terms  man  and  woman  encourage sexism.  let is tweak your points a bit, to illustrate this further:   race can be subjective in some cases.  transgenderism can make gender very subjective   i argued that as long as two members from different races can be similar or the same physically, there is no physical difference between races, unlike dog breeds.  it is entirely possible and often occurs for members from the different genders, i. e.  a man and a woman, to be similar physically.  just think of an effeminate man being compared to a masculine woman.  a recent immigrant from africa and an actual african american would both be called  black , even though they share no culture and are probably from different ethnic groups.  there are so many different kinds of women, belonging to so many different cultures and ethnic groups.  are you saying that people in california who claim  women often like to go shopping at the mall  are engaging in or promoting sexism simply because their observation does not apply to a group of tribal women in africa who have never ever seen an american shopping center in their entire lives ?  #  certain races usually develop smaller noses than others.   #  you claim there are no physical differences between races, so how do you explain the fact that if 0 white people have 0 children, every single one will be white, while if 0 black people have 0 children, every single one will be black unless albino ? certain races are more susceptible to certain diseases than others.  certain races usually develop smaller noses than others.  certain races will always have black hair if they do not cross breed with other races, other races will always have blonde or brown hair if they do not breed with other races.  you are denying facts about genetics to try to promote a global culture.  recognizing the slight physical differences between races does not inherently lead to racism.   #  if you want to be so literal and technical about cmv is, then op is view in its entirety is: i think that there are no fundamental differences between races, physical or mental,  and  that racial labels should be replaced with nationality.   #  if you want to be so literal and technical about cmv is, then op is view in its entirety is: i think that there are no fundamental differences between races, physical or mental,  and  that racial labels should be replaced with nationality.  even if you believe you have completely addressed that first part, you have not addressed their view that racial labels should be discarded.  but putting this aside, op is award deltas when  they  feel that their views have been changed, not when you believe you found a single contradiction to their argument.  it is well within their rights to say,  thanks for bringing this counterpoint up.  that helped me realize i was missing one important viewpoint i should share.   or  that helped me realize that the real issue i have is.  .  cmv is are inherently posts where the op realizes his view may be wrong see the subreddit description , so pointing out this possibility does not warrant a delta.   #  first, if you look at the morpohology of skulls and or even the lenght and breadth of physical features such as noses, you really ca not make the distinction between different races.   #  this is going to be a very badly written grammar and all post.  please forgive me.  source: URL the anthropologist at the begining.  there are currently two different sections that race can be broken down into.  number 0 is that race is based on morphology.  number 0 is that race is based on geography.  first, if you look at the morpohology of skulls and or even the lenght and breadth of physical features such as noses, you really ca not make the distinction between different races.  e. g  africans  with dark skin and flat noses vs groups in south east asia and south asia such as dravidians, who carry the same features.  also consider the geographic argument.  if the geographic argument was true than you have to say that aboriginals, and papua new guineans are africans because they have dark skin.  also consider indians who do not fit what we would consider  east asian  even though india is located in asia.   #  people who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other .   #  however, as the human genome project sums it up  dna studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies races exist within modern humans.  while different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.  there also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity.  people who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other .  i would like to show you some links that might change your view URL   URL
the common notion in society seems to be that self diagnosis is invalid and even dangerous.  not only do i think this is false, i even go as far as to say that  this idea in itself can be dangerous  because this has created people with the notion that they themselves are not responsible for their own health but health professionals thus creating a mismatch in expectation and responsibility between healthcare workers and clients/patients.   you and you alone  are responsible for your health.  you need to educate yourself so you can be critical and challenge your healthcare professional and not blindly follow their opinion.  the internet has almost every information one needs to diagnose a disorder.  you just need some guidance which you can also find on the internet.  i will give an example of borderline personality disorder because that is the disorder i diagnosed myself and later my diagnoses has been confirmed by a psychologist.  0.  i decided to google some of the things i was distressed about.  i came across emotion regulation disorder which quickly led to bpd.  0.  at wikipedia i read about the symptoms of bpd.  i have 0 out of 0.  continue googleing bpd and read whatever comes up.  experiencing epiphanie after epiphanie.  at this point i am fairly certain i have bpd.  0.  take a   do i have bpd ?   quiz somewhere on the internet.  not surprisingly i have a high chance i have bpd.  0.  find stories of people with bpd via google and /r/bpd protip: read alltime topposts .  almost anything resonates.  0.  buy books about bpd.  i read them.  i know 0 that i have bpd after finishing reading the books.  0.  when i was fairly certain i had bpd that is before i read the books i went to see my doctor who send me to a psychologist.  when i saw the psychologist i had already read the books.  we had an intake conversation and the following 0 0 appointments i took two test that were nowhere near extensive.  at last one conversation with a new psychologist for one hour and at the end of the hour he said that i had bpd.  now things get interesting.  the time and effort the psychiatric institution has put in the diagnosis is less than the time and effort i myself put in as far as i can tell.  from the very beginning i let them know that i did my research and told them what i knew and how i got the information i showed them my books .  it is like they trusted me since the beginning which i very appreciate.  now i do not see what is missing here to form a valid diagnosis.  i only missed one symptom which was autistic fantasizing.  that symptom that i had did not come back in my research but i do not think this fact alone undermines the idea of self diagnosis.  of course there are some pitfalls.  some people really want to put a label on themselves so they can avoid taking responsibility for their flaws.  i am sure there are others but i think the advantages are more than disadvantages.  second, there was an emphasis on tunnel vision, self delusion and lack of oversight of other possibilities.  laymen supposedly are prone to these pitfalls which i acknowledged in my original post.  i am not sure whether this is so common as you guys seem to think.  when you search for the symptoms that you suffer from, lots and lots of potential diseases come up.  i think the case can be made that someone can get lost in all the vast possibilities, not so much for missing out a potential disease.  someone intelligent enough to understand scientific literature with honest intentions is most likely gonna have an accurate self diagnosis.  i and all of us have nothing other than anecdotal evidence for and against this notion.  anyway, i stand by my original stance that self diagnosis is valid and necessary.   #  the time and effort the psychiatric institution has put in the diagnosis is less than the time and effort i myself put in as far as i can tell.   #  except for the part where they spent years studying psychology to get a degree, but okay  we should educate ourselves as much as possible and have as clear as possible understanding of whatever we think it is wrong with us.   # except for the part where they spent years studying psychology to get a degree, but okay  we should educate ourselves as much as possible and have as clear as possible understanding of whatever we think it is wrong with us.  definitely true.  however, there is no shortage of people who lack the background to understand even the most basic facts of biology in context.  e. g.  go on the street and see how many people say that antibiotics kill viruses.  i would guess 0 say yes.   you and you alone are responsible for your health.  in this sense i agree, and you might look at all diagnoses as self diagnoses, if you believe the diagnosis and go along with the treatment plan.  either you believe your doctor or not.  i would say without good reason, one should not contradict the doctor, since they have done more work studying medicine than you have.  now, a well educated patient can keep up with or even surpass a doctor in terms of knowledge about a specific illness.  however, consider this from the doctor is perspective.  for every patient who correctly self diagnoses and is able to engage in a productive dialogue with the doctor, there are probably 0 who have no clue and argue with the doctor based on of denial or superstition or pseudo scientific misinformation.  while you might be able to self diagnose successfully, self diagnosis should be discouraged in general, because the drastic majority of people will do it wrong and come to wrong conclusions.  i need only direct your attention to the flourishing market for magical homeopathic healing water to demonstrate the potential for harm if medical authority crumbles too far.   #  in your case you happened to be right, but statistically you have better chances if you trust your doctors, rather than self diagnose and treat.   #  0 doctors go through years of intensive studying and practice.  you cannot get the same abilities just by reading a few books on the internet.  you overestimate your knowledge in medical areas, as well as the ability of websites to properly diagnose patients.  0 even the best doctors in the world do not diagnose and treat themselves.  no matter how much knowledge and practice you have, you are biased and cannot see things objectively even if you think you can.  in your case you happened to be right, but statistically you have better chances if you trust your doctors, rather than self diagnose and treat.   #  you cannot get the same abilities just by reading a few books on the internet.   # you cannot get the same abilities just by reading a few books on the internet.  you overestimate your knowledge in medical areas, as well as the ability of websites to properly diagnose patients.  how much of what they learn is about mental health though ? they may go through years of training, but there is so much to learn that knowledge about many topics is necessarily cursory.  this is even true for knowledge and experience within a specialization.  as a result, they often simply rely on the dsm and on previous patients they have seen, who may have been similar or may only appear to be similar to the psychiatrist because that is all they have seen.  no matter how much knowledge and practice you have, you are biased and cannot see things objectively even if you think you can.  let is not pretend that psychiatrists are free of bias as said above, you will be evaluated based on their experience, they will be tempted to pigeonhole you inappropriately, and while they have more relevant experience, you yourself have much more time and, let is not forget: motivation and reason; nobody cares if the psychiatrist gets things wrong, he still gets his money, there is no meaningful evaluation by a third party to analyze your case properly.  one of the problems is that most doctors do not cannot afford to spend enough time with a patient to do a proper differential diagnosis.  you go there, talk to them for 0 minutes about how you are sad and like nothing makes sense, then you may end up with a diagnosis of mdd.  how many psychiatrists will look for signs of hypo mania ? maybe self diagnosis is not the way to go, but doing a lot of research and presenting that to the doctor is definitely a good idea in my opinion.   #  if someone would study 0 years for just bpd you would be right.   #  0.  i am not claiming i can be just as good a psychologist as them with the research that i did.  when it comes to one subject, in my case bpd, one can be educated enough to form a diagnosis.  if someone would study 0 years for just bpd you would be right.  i have a hard time believing this as true.  it simply does not make sense to me.  a professional who has the knowledge and experience to interpret the symptoms and deduce a diagnosis from that is not going to do that ? how can they not ? i think what you mean is they do not self medicate which is not what this post is about.   #  you might have something else but not realize it, because you know only about bpd.   #  but if you are going to diagnose a psychological problem, you need to know a lot about psychology and medicine overall, not just about that specific issue.  you may read a lot about bpd, but you have little understanding about all the other psychological problems people can have.  you might have something else but not realize it, because you know only about bpd.  if all you have is hammer, everything looks like a nail.  the same symptoms can be caused by many diseases and the same disease can create different symptoms in different people.  this is especially true for psychological problems, as the brain is extremely complex.  doctors study how to evaluate symptoms, make tests and perform diagnosis.  it requires a lot of practice you need to treat shitloads of patients to become good at it it ca not be replicated by just reading.  why not ? humans are extremely biased all the time.  we can easily exaggerate problems or miss others without realizing it.  even worse ever heard of the  placebo effect  ? yeah, it goes the other way too.  if you think that you have x and you read that one of the symptoms is stomach pain, a lot of people actually start feeling that pain even if there is nothing wrong with them.  it is just hard to be objective when it comes to your own health, because you are emotionally invested, you will often fool yourself without knowing it.  doctors realize that, which is why they seek the opinion of other professionals if they think something is wrong.
compared to most recreational drugs marijuana has very few apparent negative side effects.  its  come down  basically makes the user sleepy compared to nausea/headache with alcohol or mood swings with substances like cocaine or mdma.  you are fairly functional while high on marijuana and the drug is relatively cheap.  the lack of negative side effects makes it easy for moderate users to become every day users.  every day users are more likely on average to lose motivation and become content with short term stimulus compared to achieving long term goals.  heavy use also tends to lead to a certain amount of dependency where the user has difficulty quitting even if they decide they want to.  where i am from canada i see 0 every day weed smokers for every single alcoholic.  i ca not help but imagine many of them would be happier had they never smoked weed/only smoked weed moderately.  i see alcohol and other drugs as more obviously dangerous and therefore people tend to treat them more carefully or ignore them all together less likely to drink and drive than smoke and drive .  i believe that if weed had an unpleasant  come down  less people would become heavy users and they would ultimately be happier for it.  change my view.   #  every day users are more likely on average to lose motivation and become content with short term stimulus compared to achieving long term goals.   #  do you have a study discussing the causal relationship of marijuana usage and motivation ?  # do you have a study discussing the causal relationship of marijuana usage and motivation ? yet you need much more marijuana to become dependent than other drugs, so it really does not support your  more harmful  premise.  and i am sure they ca not help bu imagine that you would be happier if you would just give it a try.  yet, compare the drug related crime and death rates of marijuana to other drugs.  i have a friend who suffered from chronic depression and insomnia.  before she started smoking she would overdose on alcohol and caffeine pills, and complained that anti depressants changed her personality and made her feel empty.  you know what solved all of her problems ? good ol  weed.  ever since she started smoking, she is never been happier.  she is in a healthy romantic relationship living in her own house and holding a steady job.  your view directly contradicts with the reality i have observed.   #  i would call that a truism and not a point of view.   #  basically your argument is  if chocolate did not taste so good obese people would eat less .  while that may be true you are not really saying much.  people are less inclined to do unpleasant things.  i would call that a truism and not a point of view.  you have to have a valid point of view before it can be changed.  for example cmv  water is wet  not much to say about that other than while true it is somewhat vapid.   #  causing someone to lose motivation is not necessarily harmful.   #  causing someone to lose motivation is not necessarily harmful.  it depends on what someone would otherwise be motivated to do.  i would say most people are motivated by their own greed and ambition, which can be very harmful things to the rest of us.  even if the person is not looking to take advantage of others directly, having more than they need takes away from others who might not be so fortunate in a world of limited resources.  if you demand more than others you are decreasing their supply, driving up costs for everyone.  then there is the fact that consuming more creates more waste and causes more pollution, which is harmful not just to people but to life on earth in general.   #  i would say that this is a fallacy of believing that your happiness is some how superior to others happiness because its yours.   # anecdotal.  source ? i know several business owners who smoke daily.  everything i have ever seen says that there is zero biological addictive properties in marijuana and thc.  addiction occurs when the substance in question goes from being a component in serotonin production to the singular causal source of serotonin production.  marijuana does not do this.  marijuana makes people happy, it may not come with your philosophical grounding but its still happiness.  a brain is a bran.  a brain soaked in endorphin because of weed or a brain soaked in endorphin because of winning a marathon are both happy.  it is a value judgement to say that one is superior.  i would say that this is a fallacy of believing that your happiness is some how superior to others happiness because its yours.   #  adding exercise to the brain only uses what is already there.   #  ya, i work in finance now, its been a few years since neuroscience but i did get a b more to the point.  no.  adding exercise to the brain only uses what is already there.  adding video games or gambling or any other compulsive behaviour does not change the chemicals in the brain.  adding chemicals to the brain like meth does.  that is a fundamental biological difference between real addiction with biologically addictive drugs and non biologically addictive things like gambling and marijuana.  marijuana is not chemically addictive.  up until the dsm0 it was not addictive at all.  now we have to specify chemical addiction also known as real addiction.
compared to most recreational drugs marijuana has very few apparent negative side effects.  its  come down  basically makes the user sleepy compared to nausea/headache with alcohol or mood swings with substances like cocaine or mdma.  you are fairly functional while high on marijuana and the drug is relatively cheap.  the lack of negative side effects makes it easy for moderate users to become every day users.  every day users are more likely on average to lose motivation and become content with short term stimulus compared to achieving long term goals.  heavy use also tends to lead to a certain amount of dependency where the user has difficulty quitting even if they decide they want to.  where i am from canada i see 0 every day weed smokers for every single alcoholic.  i ca not help but imagine many of them would be happier had they never smoked weed/only smoked weed moderately.  i see alcohol and other drugs as more obviously dangerous and therefore people tend to treat them more carefully or ignore them all together less likely to drink and drive than smoke and drive .  i believe that if weed had an unpleasant  come down  less people would become heavy users and they would ultimately be happier for it.  change my view.   #  heavy use also tends to lead to a certain amount of dependency where the user has difficulty quitting even if they decide they want to.   #  yet you need much more marijuana to become dependent than other drugs, so it really does not support your  more harmful  premise.   # do you have a study discussing the causal relationship of marijuana usage and motivation ? yet you need much more marijuana to become dependent than other drugs, so it really does not support your  more harmful  premise.  and i am sure they ca not help bu imagine that you would be happier if you would just give it a try.  yet, compare the drug related crime and death rates of marijuana to other drugs.  i have a friend who suffered from chronic depression and insomnia.  before she started smoking she would overdose on alcohol and caffeine pills, and complained that anti depressants changed her personality and made her feel empty.  you know what solved all of her problems ? good ol  weed.  ever since she started smoking, she is never been happier.  she is in a healthy romantic relationship living in her own house and holding a steady job.  your view directly contradicts with the reality i have observed.   #  people are less inclined to do unpleasant things.   #  basically your argument is  if chocolate did not taste so good obese people would eat less .  while that may be true you are not really saying much.  people are less inclined to do unpleasant things.  i would call that a truism and not a point of view.  you have to have a valid point of view before it can be changed.  for example cmv  water is wet  not much to say about that other than while true it is somewhat vapid.   #  it depends on what someone would otherwise be motivated to do.   #  causing someone to lose motivation is not necessarily harmful.  it depends on what someone would otherwise be motivated to do.  i would say most people are motivated by their own greed and ambition, which can be very harmful things to the rest of us.  even if the person is not looking to take advantage of others directly, having more than they need takes away from others who might not be so fortunate in a world of limited resources.  if you demand more than others you are decreasing their supply, driving up costs for everyone.  then there is the fact that consuming more creates more waste and causes more pollution, which is harmful not just to people but to life on earth in general.   #  i know several business owners who smoke daily.   # anecdotal.  source ? i know several business owners who smoke daily.  everything i have ever seen says that there is zero biological addictive properties in marijuana and thc.  addiction occurs when the substance in question goes from being a component in serotonin production to the singular causal source of serotonin production.  marijuana does not do this.  marijuana makes people happy, it may not come with your philosophical grounding but its still happiness.  a brain is a bran.  a brain soaked in endorphin because of weed or a brain soaked in endorphin because of winning a marathon are both happy.  it is a value judgement to say that one is superior.  i would say that this is a fallacy of believing that your happiness is some how superior to others happiness because its yours.   #  adding video games or gambling or any other compulsive behaviour does not change the chemicals in the brain.   #  ya, i work in finance now, its been a few years since neuroscience but i did get a b more to the point.  no.  adding exercise to the brain only uses what is already there.  adding video games or gambling or any other compulsive behaviour does not change the chemicals in the brain.  adding chemicals to the brain like meth does.  that is a fundamental biological difference between real addiction with biologically addictive drugs and non biologically addictive things like gambling and marijuana.  marijuana is not chemically addictive.  up until the dsm0 it was not addictive at all.  now we have to specify chemical addiction also known as real addiction.
compared to most recreational drugs marijuana has very few apparent negative side effects.  its  come down  basically makes the user sleepy compared to nausea/headache with alcohol or mood swings with substances like cocaine or mdma.  you are fairly functional while high on marijuana and the drug is relatively cheap.  the lack of negative side effects makes it easy for moderate users to become every day users.  every day users are more likely on average to lose motivation and become content with short term stimulus compared to achieving long term goals.  heavy use also tends to lead to a certain amount of dependency where the user has difficulty quitting even if they decide they want to.  where i am from canada i see 0 every day weed smokers for every single alcoholic.  i ca not help but imagine many of them would be happier had they never smoked weed/only smoked weed moderately.  i see alcohol and other drugs as more obviously dangerous and therefore people tend to treat them more carefully or ignore them all together less likely to drink and drive than smoke and drive .  i believe that if weed had an unpleasant  come down  less people would become heavy users and they would ultimately be happier for it.  change my view.   #  i ca not help but imagine many of them would be happier had they never smoked weed/only smoked weed moderately.   #  and i am sure they ca not help bu imagine that you would be happier if you would just give it a try.   # do you have a study discussing the causal relationship of marijuana usage and motivation ? yet you need much more marijuana to become dependent than other drugs, so it really does not support your  more harmful  premise.  and i am sure they ca not help bu imagine that you would be happier if you would just give it a try.  yet, compare the drug related crime and death rates of marijuana to other drugs.  i have a friend who suffered from chronic depression and insomnia.  before she started smoking she would overdose on alcohol and caffeine pills, and complained that anti depressants changed her personality and made her feel empty.  you know what solved all of her problems ? good ol  weed.  ever since she started smoking, she is never been happier.  she is in a healthy romantic relationship living in her own house and holding a steady job.  your view directly contradicts with the reality i have observed.   #  basically your argument is  if chocolate did not taste so good obese people would eat less .   #  basically your argument is  if chocolate did not taste so good obese people would eat less .  while that may be true you are not really saying much.  people are less inclined to do unpleasant things.  i would call that a truism and not a point of view.  you have to have a valid point of view before it can be changed.  for example cmv  water is wet  not much to say about that other than while true it is somewhat vapid.   #  even if the person is not looking to take advantage of others directly, having more than they need takes away from others who might not be so fortunate in a world of limited resources.   #  causing someone to lose motivation is not necessarily harmful.  it depends on what someone would otherwise be motivated to do.  i would say most people are motivated by their own greed and ambition, which can be very harmful things to the rest of us.  even if the person is not looking to take advantage of others directly, having more than they need takes away from others who might not be so fortunate in a world of limited resources.  if you demand more than others you are decreasing their supply, driving up costs for everyone.  then there is the fact that consuming more creates more waste and causes more pollution, which is harmful not just to people but to life on earth in general.   #  marijuana makes people happy, it may not come with your philosophical grounding but its still happiness.   # anecdotal.  source ? i know several business owners who smoke daily.  everything i have ever seen says that there is zero biological addictive properties in marijuana and thc.  addiction occurs when the substance in question goes from being a component in serotonin production to the singular causal source of serotonin production.  marijuana does not do this.  marijuana makes people happy, it may not come with your philosophical grounding but its still happiness.  a brain is a bran.  a brain soaked in endorphin because of weed or a brain soaked in endorphin because of winning a marathon are both happy.  it is a value judgement to say that one is superior.  i would say that this is a fallacy of believing that your happiness is some how superior to others happiness because its yours.   #  that is a fundamental biological difference between real addiction with biologically addictive drugs and non biologically addictive things like gambling and marijuana.   #  ya, i work in finance now, its been a few years since neuroscience but i did get a b more to the point.  no.  adding exercise to the brain only uses what is already there.  adding video games or gambling or any other compulsive behaviour does not change the chemicals in the brain.  adding chemicals to the brain like meth does.  that is a fundamental biological difference between real addiction with biologically addictive drugs and non biologically addictive things like gambling and marijuana.  marijuana is not chemically addictive.  up until the dsm0 it was not addictive at all.  now we have to specify chemical addiction also known as real addiction.
compared to most recreational drugs marijuana has very few apparent negative side effects.  its  come down  basically makes the user sleepy compared to nausea/headache with alcohol or mood swings with substances like cocaine or mdma.  you are fairly functional while high on marijuana and the drug is relatively cheap.  the lack of negative side effects makes it easy for moderate users to become every day users.  every day users are more likely on average to lose motivation and become content with short term stimulus compared to achieving long term goals.  heavy use also tends to lead to a certain amount of dependency where the user has difficulty quitting even if they decide they want to.  where i am from canada i see 0 every day weed smokers for every single alcoholic.  i ca not help but imagine many of them would be happier had they never smoked weed/only smoked weed moderately.  i see alcohol and other drugs as more obviously dangerous and therefore people tend to treat them more carefully or ignore them all together less likely to drink and drive than smoke and drive .  i believe that if weed had an unpleasant  come down  less people would become heavy users and they would ultimately be happier for it.  change my view.   #  i see alcohol and other drugs as more obviously dangerous and therefore people tend to treat them more carefully or ignore them all together less likely to drink and drive than smoke and drive .   #  yet, compare the drug related crime and death rates of marijuana to other drugs.   # do you have a study discussing the causal relationship of marijuana usage and motivation ? yet you need much more marijuana to become dependent than other drugs, so it really does not support your  more harmful  premise.  and i am sure they ca not help bu imagine that you would be happier if you would just give it a try.  yet, compare the drug related crime and death rates of marijuana to other drugs.  i have a friend who suffered from chronic depression and insomnia.  before she started smoking she would overdose on alcohol and caffeine pills, and complained that anti depressants changed her personality and made her feel empty.  you know what solved all of her problems ? good ol  weed.  ever since she started smoking, she is never been happier.  she is in a healthy romantic relationship living in her own house and holding a steady job.  your view directly contradicts with the reality i have observed.   #  i would call that a truism and not a point of view.   #  basically your argument is  if chocolate did not taste so good obese people would eat less .  while that may be true you are not really saying much.  people are less inclined to do unpleasant things.  i would call that a truism and not a point of view.  you have to have a valid point of view before it can be changed.  for example cmv  water is wet  not much to say about that other than while true it is somewhat vapid.   #  even if the person is not looking to take advantage of others directly, having more than they need takes away from others who might not be so fortunate in a world of limited resources.   #  causing someone to lose motivation is not necessarily harmful.  it depends on what someone would otherwise be motivated to do.  i would say most people are motivated by their own greed and ambition, which can be very harmful things to the rest of us.  even if the person is not looking to take advantage of others directly, having more than they need takes away from others who might not be so fortunate in a world of limited resources.  if you demand more than others you are decreasing their supply, driving up costs for everyone.  then there is the fact that consuming more creates more waste and causes more pollution, which is harmful not just to people but to life on earth in general.   #  it is a value judgement to say that one is superior.   # anecdotal.  source ? i know several business owners who smoke daily.  everything i have ever seen says that there is zero biological addictive properties in marijuana and thc.  addiction occurs when the substance in question goes from being a component in serotonin production to the singular causal source of serotonin production.  marijuana does not do this.  marijuana makes people happy, it may not come with your philosophical grounding but its still happiness.  a brain is a bran.  a brain soaked in endorphin because of weed or a brain soaked in endorphin because of winning a marathon are both happy.  it is a value judgement to say that one is superior.  i would say that this is a fallacy of believing that your happiness is some how superior to others happiness because its yours.   #  ya, i work in finance now, its been a few years since neuroscience but i did get a b more to the point.   #  ya, i work in finance now, its been a few years since neuroscience but i did get a b more to the point.  no.  adding exercise to the brain only uses what is already there.  adding video games or gambling or any other compulsive behaviour does not change the chemicals in the brain.  adding chemicals to the brain like meth does.  that is a fundamental biological difference between real addiction with biologically addictive drugs and non biologically addictive things like gambling and marijuana.  marijuana is not chemically addictive.  up until the dsm0 it was not addictive at all.  now we have to specify chemical addiction also known as real addiction.
compared to most recreational drugs marijuana has very few apparent negative side effects.  its  come down  basically makes the user sleepy compared to nausea/headache with alcohol or mood swings with substances like cocaine or mdma.  you are fairly functional while high on marijuana and the drug is relatively cheap.  the lack of negative side effects makes it easy for moderate users to become every day users.  every day users are more likely on average to lose motivation and become content with short term stimulus compared to achieving long term goals.  heavy use also tends to lead to a certain amount of dependency where the user has difficulty quitting even if they decide they want to.  where i am from canada i see 0 every day weed smokers for every single alcoholic.  i ca not help but imagine many of them would be happier had they never smoked weed/only smoked weed moderately.  i see alcohol and other drugs as more obviously dangerous and therefore people tend to treat them more carefully or ignore them all together less likely to drink and drive than smoke and drive .  i believe that if weed had an unpleasant  come down  less people would become heavy users and they would ultimately be happier for it.  change my view.   #  i believe that if weed had an unpleasant  come down  less people would become heavy users and they would ultimately be happier for it.   #  i have a friend who suffered from chronic depression and insomnia.   # do you have a study discussing the causal relationship of marijuana usage and motivation ? yet you need much more marijuana to become dependent than other drugs, so it really does not support your  more harmful  premise.  and i am sure they ca not help bu imagine that you would be happier if you would just give it a try.  yet, compare the drug related crime and death rates of marijuana to other drugs.  i have a friend who suffered from chronic depression and insomnia.  before she started smoking she would overdose on alcohol and caffeine pills, and complained that anti depressants changed her personality and made her feel empty.  you know what solved all of her problems ? good ol  weed.  ever since she started smoking, she is never been happier.  she is in a healthy romantic relationship living in her own house and holding a steady job.  your view directly contradicts with the reality i have observed.   #  basically your argument is  if chocolate did not taste so good obese people would eat less .   #  basically your argument is  if chocolate did not taste so good obese people would eat less .  while that may be true you are not really saying much.  people are less inclined to do unpleasant things.  i would call that a truism and not a point of view.  you have to have a valid point of view before it can be changed.  for example cmv  water is wet  not much to say about that other than while true it is somewhat vapid.   #  then there is the fact that consuming more creates more waste and causes more pollution, which is harmful not just to people but to life on earth in general.   #  causing someone to lose motivation is not necessarily harmful.  it depends on what someone would otherwise be motivated to do.  i would say most people are motivated by their own greed and ambition, which can be very harmful things to the rest of us.  even if the person is not looking to take advantage of others directly, having more than they need takes away from others who might not be so fortunate in a world of limited resources.  if you demand more than others you are decreasing their supply, driving up costs for everyone.  then there is the fact that consuming more creates more waste and causes more pollution, which is harmful not just to people but to life on earth in general.   #  i would say that this is a fallacy of believing that your happiness is some how superior to others happiness because its yours.   # anecdotal.  source ? i know several business owners who smoke daily.  everything i have ever seen says that there is zero biological addictive properties in marijuana and thc.  addiction occurs when the substance in question goes from being a component in serotonin production to the singular causal source of serotonin production.  marijuana does not do this.  marijuana makes people happy, it may not come with your philosophical grounding but its still happiness.  a brain is a bran.  a brain soaked in endorphin because of weed or a brain soaked in endorphin because of winning a marathon are both happy.  it is a value judgement to say that one is superior.  i would say that this is a fallacy of believing that your happiness is some how superior to others happiness because its yours.   #  now we have to specify chemical addiction also known as real addiction.   #  ya, i work in finance now, its been a few years since neuroscience but i did get a b more to the point.  no.  adding exercise to the brain only uses what is already there.  adding video games or gambling or any other compulsive behaviour does not change the chemicals in the brain.  adding chemicals to the brain like meth does.  that is a fundamental biological difference between real addiction with biologically addictive drugs and non biologically addictive things like gambling and marijuana.  marijuana is not chemically addictive.  up until the dsm0 it was not addictive at all.  now we have to specify chemical addiction also known as real addiction.
the future is full of bright possibilities, not just dark corridors full of monsters.  not just disasters on a vast scale.  not just dystopia.  some of the most successful sci fi was positive, like star trek, while star wars balanced light and dark with gleaming rebel ships and beautiful exciting worlds successfully fighting back against evil.  but all we see now are bleak futures.  even great films like gravity focus on things going totally wrong.  i would like to see a story set 0 years in the future in which things have improved as much as they have the the last 0, but conflict arises when some people are afraid of a big new innovation.  the good guys win and the improvement is enacted, making things even better.  surprise the audience with positivity.   #  i would like to see a story set 0 years in the future in which things have improved as much as they have the the last 0, but conflict arises when some people are afraid of a big new innovation.   #  the good guys win and the improvement is enacted, making things even better.   #  sure, some things are better now than they are in the past, but in other ways technological advancement has progressed faster than cultural evolution.  a well written dystopian future exaggerates existing flaws in modern society, and by doing so gives us an opportunity to see where such flaws could lead us if we stay the course.  furthermore, by masking controversial thematic elements in futuristic settings, you are able to get people to think about certain issues from a different perspective that pre existing biases may have otherwise caused them to remain blind to.  for example, in snow crash you get to see the neal stephenson is view on the potential repercussions of a completely ineffectual federal government, where roads are privately owned and the only law is that which is enforced by the security guards hired by your fenced off suburban commercial community.  the good guys win and the improvement is enacted, making things even better.  surprise the audience with positivity.  even in dystopian sci fi, things tend to be better in the end than they were at the start.  so the main difference is the starting point.  if the starting point does not have any of the flaws of modern day life, it would not be very relatable to me.   #  wells wrote the time machine, that feactured a humanity destroyed by class segregation, right next to war of the worlds where microbes saved the day.   #  sci fi has always been always negative.  even in the 0th century, h. g.  wells wrote the time machine, that feactured a humanity destroyed by class segregation, right next to war of the worlds where microbes saved the day.  verne wrote about tecno adventurers, but he also wrote  paris in the 0th century , in which soulless industrialism has destroyed all art and individuality.  0th century sci fi was dominated by the fear of nuclear war.  out of the abc of science fiction, asimov is main universe involved a vestigal emire and earth was demolished by a nuclear war in it later retconned as alien sabotage , and bradbury is most famous novel was a cultural dystopia ending in nuclear war.  clarke was the only relatively positive one.  as soon as the information revolution started, cyberpunk took a prominent role based on gibson is work.  if anything, sci fi is relatively positive nowadays.  for example we have the post cyberpunk genre that reconciled the potential of the technologies, with their pragmatic and sane usage in real life.  the alternate history/universe genres, such as steampunk and biopunk, are steadily dropping their punk source and becoming more traditional adventure stories.   #  i mean, if you look at the culture of that planet from some of the other books, they are not exactly fans of children. let alone other people.   #  eh, it was really hinting at the kid being a possibly alien.  i mean, if you look at the culture of that planet from some of the other books, they are not exactly fans of children. let alone other people.  the fact that the kid was there at all is suspect.  granted, that person was a bit strange as he actually let people into his house, let alone the same room as himself, so he could just be a strange person.  or, the kid is an alien, or at the very least another psychic group of people that have not been accounted for yet.  however, with the huge emphasis on the possibility of life outside of the universe, and the dramatic focus on the child at the end of the story, it is kind of implied that the kid is an alien.   #  hard to say, but i took a film class in college and was struck by how sci fi was taught.   #  not necessarily.  some sci fi used to just have fun thinking about the future.  it did not always have to be allegory.  and even within the allegory, there was a time when sci fi could be broken into  utopian  and  distopian  worlds some warning about the dangers of bad decisions and others modeling the benefits of good ones.  the sci fi for fun as well as the utopian sci fi still exists, but op is right.  i think it is taken a huge back seat to the distopian wing of the genre.  why ? hard to say, but i took a film class in college and was struck by how sci fi was taught.  it was as if entertainment value alone was not a sufficient reason for making sci fi; you needed to teach a lesson or model some contemporary challenge.  modern sci fi writers and producers seem more interested in social commentary than entertainment.   #  also, all stories are based on fighting something that is gone wrong.   #  i think you have overestimated how positive old shows were.  star wars was a story of mass genocide, societal decay, and mixing evil and good.  the premise of star wars was that the whole system needed to be destroyed and rebuilt by dark side anakin skywalker, because the old habits of the jedi and sith needed to be removed.  star trek was supposedly the end result of years of nuclear war, internal genocide, and fighting over resources.  also, all stories are based on fighting something that is gone wrong.  the bigger the problem, the easier it is to write the story.  a film about a mild shipping problem with a batch of healing nano bots is not as engaging as a film about a shipping problem  and  corruption.
as someone in the uk, i do not own a gun and i never really wish to.  the only plausible reason i can think of for owning a gun would be for safety, and then again, it would only keep you safe from other people who also own guns.  however, i think it is a horrible thought for children to be taught how to use guns however not a bad idea if they would be around guns .  and an even worse one for the thought of people going out and hunting and killing animals  just for the sport of it .  i would like to take your attention to the programme that was recently aired in the uk called  kids with guns  on channel 0 which followed the story of one amputee who lost their legs and one arm due to injury with a gun who was in the process of teaching his very young son and daughter how to shoot and kill, and even a story of a small boy who died due to accidental shooting of himself while hunting animals.  not to mention the amount of people who die each year due to violence with the use of guns and firearms such as mass killings of innocent lives.  i would really appreciate it if someone could give me a reason or reasons as to why they believe it is a good idea to have personal firearms other than giving me the statement  we have the right to bear arms as americans .  and please note: i am not saying it is not a good idea to shoot at gun clubs when no one is getting injured and no animals are being killed for fun, i believe that is the only  good  way to shoot.  i am also not saying hunting is a bad thing, it should be only acceptable when feeding people/other animals or when culling a species however i do not like that either but i know it must be done in some situations .   #  it would only keep you safe from other people who also own guns.   #  as a guy who lives in texas, this is untrue.   # as a guy who lives in texas, this is untrue.  just the other day my neighbor shot a copperhead with a . 0.  farms, especially, require firearms to protect livestock from unfriendly visitors, human or not.  farms  and an even worse one for the thought of people going out and hunting and killing animals  just for the sport of it .  the hunting of some animals require this mentality.  deer, especially, now with the recent near extinction of wolves and other predators have excessively procreated and allowing hunting  for the sport of it  is a good way of dealing with overpopulation.  now, obviously there will be people who just shoot and leave the deer to rot, but everyone i knows cleans up his/her kill and get is it processed into sausage or whatever you want.  but why does this have any bearing on personal firearms ? in the end, i agree that many people do not need personal firearms.  the problem with such a blanket view is that it does not take into account many factors socioeconomic, geographical, etc.  people in the australian outback, ranchers, alaska, etc all require guns for more than just protection.  guns are tools.  but unlike conventional tools, they can be used for a whole slew of purposes.  the reason why we see so many accidents is complacency and the treatment of guns as toys.  on top of this, people fail to secure their guns properly.  i know that in germany, proper storage of firearms is imperative.  my grandfather has all his guns in a lock box, in a safe, in locked cabinet, in a locked room.   #  the only thing they do is magnify the ability of the person who is in possession of it, just like cars, planes, knives, and hammers do.   #  i grew up in alaska, where it is exceptionally uncommon for people to not own at least one gun.  i do not know the program you have mentioned, but for a personal anecdote, i know exactly 0 people who have ever been harmed in any way, shape, or form by a firearm when there was not an intent to hurt present.  both were breaking at least one of the four basic rules of firearm safety and, if someone had been hurt seriously not the case in either situation they would have been held to be criminally negligent.  on the other hand, i know many, many people more than i could possibly count who have prevented serious injuries to themselves or others by using firearms.  the majority of those are against wildlife bears and moose being the most common but 0 of them, at least, were against human beings who intended to hurt them.  on top of those, i know several people who live almost exclusively on subsistence hunting and fishing.  without a firearm, they would find it significantly more difficult to feed themselves and their families.  even if they did not hunt for food, they live in areas where an animal could very easily decide that they are food, and a firearm is what prevents that.  in addition, i work at a site that has to offer bear hazing courses to a number of our employees, just to make sure no one gets killed by a hungry, sick, or injured bear.  they have had to be used, as well.  for what it is worth, i, personally, could have been seriously injured or killed on at least one occasion if there had not been a firearm present.  if you like, google some pictures of what happens when a moose tramples someone.  it is a severely unpleasant way to go.  unfortunately, at the time, i was still a minor and my parents felt the same way you do about firearms, so i did not have one nor did i have the capacity to use one properly if i did.  the only reason i am alive today is because one of the other people there did and was.  firearms are objects.  they are morally and ethically neutral.  the only thing they do is magnify the ability of the person who is in possession of it, just like cars, planes, knives, and hammers do.  if used foolishly or maliciously, they can kill, but so can any other tool.  if used safely and properly, they can save lives.  that is why police officers carry them.   #  people, as a rule, are not particularly peaceful.   #  there are very few things that will get a person jacked up faster than coming between a cow moose and her baby.  coming between a mama bear and her cub is probably on that list, though.  as for the city thing, you are not wrong.  a peaceful city would not have many reasons for carrying a gun owning for target and sport shooting, on the other hand.  .  the problem is, cities are chock full of people.  people, as a rule, are not particularly peaceful.  that is why violent crime rates tend to be much higher in large cities.  cramming a lot of people into small amounts of space, add a dash of inner city poverty and drug trafficking, mix in a little bit of gangs, and it can get pretty unpleasant pretty quickly.  bears and moose are scary, but they generally wo not come at you unless they think you are food or a threat.  people ? people will kill you for any damn reason or none at all.  0 legged predators are by and large a lot more dangerous than the 0 legged kind.   #  there are iphone thieves and scam artists, but actual murder is not any very likely in the city these days, and a gun wo not save you from the dangers out there.   #  you say that, but you do not actually live in a big city and you have not shown any evidence to back it up.  alaska is 0 in the country for forcible rape.  the murder rate in nyc is 0/0,0, within 0 of that in the state of alaska.  people think big cities are a lot more dangerous than they actually are.  there are iphone thieves and scam artists, but actual murder is not any very likely in the city these days, and a gun wo not save you from the dangers out there.   #  certainly none of the completely reasonable activities you list here, such as self defense or subsistence hunting, require concealed carry.   #  warning: going on a tangent.  i completely agree with almost every one of your points.  that is why i think concealed carry is an abomination.  if you wanna own and carry a firearm, sure.  do it.  but do it  openly .  policemen carry openly.  soldiers carry openly.  and these are people who have had a lot more mandatory instruction and safety training than the average private citizen.  and these are also the people with the most oversight and are most accountable for their firearm use.  why do private citizens get the privilege of concealed carry when our cops and our soldiers, who have a lot more training, a lot more accountability and a lot more control, do not ? what does allowing concealed carries do, except enable more criminal behavior ? i ca not think of any legitimate reason to concealed carry, unless you were planning on using it for criminal activity.  certainly none of the completely reasonable activities you list here, such as self defense or subsistence hunting, require concealed carry.
as someone in the uk, i do not own a gun and i never really wish to.  the only plausible reason i can think of for owning a gun would be for safety, and then again, it would only keep you safe from other people who also own guns.  however, i think it is a horrible thought for children to be taught how to use guns however not a bad idea if they would be around guns .  and an even worse one for the thought of people going out and hunting and killing animals  just for the sport of it .  i would like to take your attention to the programme that was recently aired in the uk called  kids with guns  on channel 0 which followed the story of one amputee who lost their legs and one arm due to injury with a gun who was in the process of teaching his very young son and daughter how to shoot and kill, and even a story of a small boy who died due to accidental shooting of himself while hunting animals.  not to mention the amount of people who die each year due to violence with the use of guns and firearms such as mass killings of innocent lives.  i would really appreciate it if someone could give me a reason or reasons as to why they believe it is a good idea to have personal firearms other than giving me the statement  we have the right to bear arms as americans .  and please note: i am not saying it is not a good idea to shoot at gun clubs when no one is getting injured and no animals are being killed for fun, i believe that is the only  good  way to shoot.  i am also not saying hunting is a bad thing, it should be only acceptable when feeding people/other animals or when culling a species however i do not like that either but i know it must be done in some situations .   #  not to mention the amount of people who die each year due to violence with the use of guns and firearms such as mass killings of innocent lives.   #  but why does this have any bearing on personal firearms ?  # as a guy who lives in texas, this is untrue.  just the other day my neighbor shot a copperhead with a . 0.  farms, especially, require firearms to protect livestock from unfriendly visitors, human or not.  farms  and an even worse one for the thought of people going out and hunting and killing animals  just for the sport of it .  the hunting of some animals require this mentality.  deer, especially, now with the recent near extinction of wolves and other predators have excessively procreated and allowing hunting  for the sport of it  is a good way of dealing with overpopulation.  now, obviously there will be people who just shoot and leave the deer to rot, but everyone i knows cleans up his/her kill and get is it processed into sausage or whatever you want.  but why does this have any bearing on personal firearms ? in the end, i agree that many people do not need personal firearms.  the problem with such a blanket view is that it does not take into account many factors socioeconomic, geographical, etc.  people in the australian outback, ranchers, alaska, etc all require guns for more than just protection.  guns are tools.  but unlike conventional tools, they can be used for a whole slew of purposes.  the reason why we see so many accidents is complacency and the treatment of guns as toys.  on top of this, people fail to secure their guns properly.  i know that in germany, proper storage of firearms is imperative.  my grandfather has all his guns in a lock box, in a safe, in locked cabinet, in a locked room.   #  the only thing they do is magnify the ability of the person who is in possession of it, just like cars, planes, knives, and hammers do.   #  i grew up in alaska, where it is exceptionally uncommon for people to not own at least one gun.  i do not know the program you have mentioned, but for a personal anecdote, i know exactly 0 people who have ever been harmed in any way, shape, or form by a firearm when there was not an intent to hurt present.  both were breaking at least one of the four basic rules of firearm safety and, if someone had been hurt seriously not the case in either situation they would have been held to be criminally negligent.  on the other hand, i know many, many people more than i could possibly count who have prevented serious injuries to themselves or others by using firearms.  the majority of those are against wildlife bears and moose being the most common but 0 of them, at least, were against human beings who intended to hurt them.  on top of those, i know several people who live almost exclusively on subsistence hunting and fishing.  without a firearm, they would find it significantly more difficult to feed themselves and their families.  even if they did not hunt for food, they live in areas where an animal could very easily decide that they are food, and a firearm is what prevents that.  in addition, i work at a site that has to offer bear hazing courses to a number of our employees, just to make sure no one gets killed by a hungry, sick, or injured bear.  they have had to be used, as well.  for what it is worth, i, personally, could have been seriously injured or killed on at least one occasion if there had not been a firearm present.  if you like, google some pictures of what happens when a moose tramples someone.  it is a severely unpleasant way to go.  unfortunately, at the time, i was still a minor and my parents felt the same way you do about firearms, so i did not have one nor did i have the capacity to use one properly if i did.  the only reason i am alive today is because one of the other people there did and was.  firearms are objects.  they are morally and ethically neutral.  the only thing they do is magnify the ability of the person who is in possession of it, just like cars, planes, knives, and hammers do.  if used foolishly or maliciously, they can kill, but so can any other tool.  if used safely and properly, they can save lives.  that is why police officers carry them.   #  coming between a mama bear and her cub is probably on that list, though.   #  there are very few things that will get a person jacked up faster than coming between a cow moose and her baby.  coming between a mama bear and her cub is probably on that list, though.  as for the city thing, you are not wrong.  a peaceful city would not have many reasons for carrying a gun owning for target and sport shooting, on the other hand.  .  the problem is, cities are chock full of people.  people, as a rule, are not particularly peaceful.  that is why violent crime rates tend to be much higher in large cities.  cramming a lot of people into small amounts of space, add a dash of inner city poverty and drug trafficking, mix in a little bit of gangs, and it can get pretty unpleasant pretty quickly.  bears and moose are scary, but they generally wo not come at you unless they think you are food or a threat.  people ? people will kill you for any damn reason or none at all.  0 legged predators are by and large a lot more dangerous than the 0 legged kind.   #  there are iphone thieves and scam artists, but actual murder is not any very likely in the city these days, and a gun wo not save you from the dangers out there.   #  you say that, but you do not actually live in a big city and you have not shown any evidence to back it up.  alaska is 0 in the country for forcible rape.  the murder rate in nyc is 0/0,0, within 0 of that in the state of alaska.  people think big cities are a lot more dangerous than they actually are.  there are iphone thieves and scam artists, but actual murder is not any very likely in the city these days, and a gun wo not save you from the dangers out there.   #  i ca not think of any legitimate reason to concealed carry, unless you were planning on using it for criminal activity.   #  warning: going on a tangent.  i completely agree with almost every one of your points.  that is why i think concealed carry is an abomination.  if you wanna own and carry a firearm, sure.  do it.  but do it  openly .  policemen carry openly.  soldiers carry openly.  and these are people who have had a lot more mandatory instruction and safety training than the average private citizen.  and these are also the people with the most oversight and are most accountable for their firearm use.  why do private citizens get the privilege of concealed carry when our cops and our soldiers, who have a lot more training, a lot more accountability and a lot more control, do not ? what does allowing concealed carries do, except enable more criminal behavior ? i ca not think of any legitimate reason to concealed carry, unless you were planning on using it for criminal activity.  certainly none of the completely reasonable activities you list here, such as self defense or subsistence hunting, require concealed carry.
everything works for profit, even charitable organizations, they do not even donate 0 of the funds to the needy.  war is a business, keep people angry and violent and the governments involved rake the money in.  hospitals are a business, death does not phase doctors one bit, doctors do aim to help patients and surgeons do aim to help people in emergencies, but their passing away does not bother them and so long as they get paid their half million dollars, they will stay working and the hospitals rake it in.  churches do not pay taxes and even they are a business.  they ask for money every service.  mosques do pay taxes and also ask for money and donations.  religious organizations and building are a business.  no money received for upkeep, they close down, people must find another way to worship or throw in their cash to keep their places of worship open.  you have to pay money to look through those fucking telescope things at public parks.  i get that many services make these charges simply to keep things up and running, but my point is, there is not a thing in the world that does not charge money.  everything works for money.  please, give me an example of something that provides for others which does not run on money.  the greedy people outnumber the compassionate ones, it is just not probable to find a service that does not charge anything just because the owner is  kind .   #  please, give me an example of something that provides for others which does not run on money.   #  money is just our most convenient way of exchanging quantities of time and effort.   # money is just our most convenient way of exchanging quantities of time and effort.  you can think of money as exchangeable human effort.  money is not most fundamentally a mark of  greed  but just a convenient way to show that something is worth a given amount of effort.  just because something requires money to keep going does not mean it is being done for selfish reasons.  doctors without borders requires a lot of money to keep going, but it is hard to argue that the people involved are doing it to get rich.  they are already doctors.  if they were greedy they would stay home and specialize in plastic surgery and make lots more money.  instead they travel around to foreign countries on their days off to provide healthcare to needy people.  of course this ca not be done on a budget of $0 but can you argue how the involvement of money in any form taints the mission of doctors without borders ?  #  just point out to them that most universities are non profits.   #  fair, but the term you are referring to is net income or maybe operating income and not profit.  reinvesting the money in the company is not money that goes to the owner as profit.  it is why they are called nonprofits and not non net incomes.  but your point about the confusion of others if fair.  just point out to them that most universities are non profits.   #  you and i probably submitted posts for the same reason.   #  i think he is.  since every action is a request for an exchange, a business transaction.  human interaction is all based on these exchanges.  if your lungs are working properly, you are unaware they exist.  if you feel pain somewhere, it is an indication that the affected area requires attention.  if you have a sore wrist, you are less likely to over exert it and damage it further.  as for communication, if you say hi to someone and they do not acknowledge you, you consider them rude, you have basically offered a product your friendly presence and they have rejected it.  it is like mowing someone is lawn and they do not acknowledge it, let alone pay you for your time and effort.  you and i probably submitted posts for the same reason.  we feel as though we are not as smart as we would hope we are, so we make these arguments to reassure ourselves that we are good.  if the comment nets us positive karma or, even better, a positive reply, then that part of the transaction is upheld.  we are paid for our work and can print off the mental receipt that reaffirms a positive transaction.  …if we constantly post and nobody up votes or down votes or replies ever… eventually we will realize we are offering a service for which there is no demand, and that is bad business, so we will take our services elsewhere.  the only problem i have with the op argument is that it sounds as though  business  is the source and has directly infected all other parts of life, whereas it is really the reverse, and busy ness is simply a series of human interactions to occupy us while we are alive.  seen from this angle, business is actually excellent, it is only the monetary exchange that seems to  wouldirty  the whole thing.  if i shovel your driveway in the winter, and in exchange you bake me a cake, that is viewed favourably by most people, whereas if you simply give me 0 dollars as a thank you, to spend as i see fit, that adds an objective value figure to the exchange.  i dunno, man.  people are weird.   #  everything works for various reasons, but money is the main goal.   #  i just ca not think of a process that could not be defined as a business.  everything works for various reasons, but money is the main goal.  yes, money is our currency and the most efficient way to circulate goods in an economy so it is important, but anything you want to do will involve money and it will be a big part of it.  just the major aspects of life.  raising a kid, school, college, health bills, a home, vacations etc.  for example the primary purpose of a vacation is to get away for a while and relax and have fun.  but really the lurking purpose below that is to spend money and empower businesses that made it possible for you to have a vacation.  hotel resorts will say  enjoy your stay  and stuff like that, but really theyre silently screaming for you to use their service and pay for it.  just an example of what i mean by everything is a business.   #  yes, shops will sell diapers to parents, but that does not mean kids exist so that diaper producers can make money.   #   involving money  is not the same as  money is the main goal .  raising kids involves money.  but most people invest in their kids because they love them, not because they want to make cash out of it.  yes, shops will sell diapers to parents, but that does not mean kids exist so that diaper producers can make money.  the relationship parent and shop owner is business related, but the relationship between parent and child is not.  same goes for vacationing.  if you have a beautiful island, people want to go there and relax.  this is the main goal.  with or without expensive hotels, people are going to do it.  just because some dude decides he can make money out of it by providing extra comfort , does not mean the whole purpose of vacationing is to give him money.  investing in the local economy is more of a side effect rather than the main reason people go on vacations.
everything works for profit, even charitable organizations, they do not even donate 0 of the funds to the needy.  war is a business, keep people angry and violent and the governments involved rake the money in.  hospitals are a business, death does not phase doctors one bit, doctors do aim to help patients and surgeons do aim to help people in emergencies, but their passing away does not bother them and so long as they get paid their half million dollars, they will stay working and the hospitals rake it in.  churches do not pay taxes and even they are a business.  they ask for money every service.  mosques do pay taxes and also ask for money and donations.  religious organizations and building are a business.  no money received for upkeep, they close down, people must find another way to worship or throw in their cash to keep their places of worship open.  you have to pay money to look through those fucking telescope things at public parks.  i get that many services make these charges simply to keep things up and running, but my point is, there is not a thing in the world that does not charge money.  everything works for money.  please, give me an example of something that provides for others which does not run on money.  the greedy people outnumber the compassionate ones, it is just not probable to find a service that does not charge anything just because the owner is  kind .   #  the greedy people outnumber the compassionate ones, it is just not probable to find a service that does not charge anything just because the owner is  kind .   #  just because something requires money to keep going does not mean it is being done for selfish reasons.   # money is just our most convenient way of exchanging quantities of time and effort.  you can think of money as exchangeable human effort.  money is not most fundamentally a mark of  greed  but just a convenient way to show that something is worth a given amount of effort.  just because something requires money to keep going does not mean it is being done for selfish reasons.  doctors without borders requires a lot of money to keep going, but it is hard to argue that the people involved are doing it to get rich.  they are already doctors.  if they were greedy they would stay home and specialize in plastic surgery and make lots more money.  instead they travel around to foreign countries on their days off to provide healthcare to needy people.  of course this ca not be done on a budget of $0 but can you argue how the involvement of money in any form taints the mission of doctors without borders ?  #  fair, but the term you are referring to is net income or maybe operating income and not profit.   #  fair, but the term you are referring to is net income or maybe operating income and not profit.  reinvesting the money in the company is not money that goes to the owner as profit.  it is why they are called nonprofits and not non net incomes.  but your point about the confusion of others if fair.  just point out to them that most universities are non profits.   #  seen from this angle, business is actually excellent, it is only the monetary exchange that seems to  wouldirty  the whole thing.   #  i think he is.  since every action is a request for an exchange, a business transaction.  human interaction is all based on these exchanges.  if your lungs are working properly, you are unaware they exist.  if you feel pain somewhere, it is an indication that the affected area requires attention.  if you have a sore wrist, you are less likely to over exert it and damage it further.  as for communication, if you say hi to someone and they do not acknowledge you, you consider them rude, you have basically offered a product your friendly presence and they have rejected it.  it is like mowing someone is lawn and they do not acknowledge it, let alone pay you for your time and effort.  you and i probably submitted posts for the same reason.  we feel as though we are not as smart as we would hope we are, so we make these arguments to reassure ourselves that we are good.  if the comment nets us positive karma or, even better, a positive reply, then that part of the transaction is upheld.  we are paid for our work and can print off the mental receipt that reaffirms a positive transaction.  …if we constantly post and nobody up votes or down votes or replies ever… eventually we will realize we are offering a service for which there is no demand, and that is bad business, so we will take our services elsewhere.  the only problem i have with the op argument is that it sounds as though  business  is the source and has directly infected all other parts of life, whereas it is really the reverse, and busy ness is simply a series of human interactions to occupy us while we are alive.  seen from this angle, business is actually excellent, it is only the monetary exchange that seems to  wouldirty  the whole thing.  if i shovel your driveway in the winter, and in exchange you bake me a cake, that is viewed favourably by most people, whereas if you simply give me 0 dollars as a thank you, to spend as i see fit, that adds an objective value figure to the exchange.  i dunno, man.  people are weird.   #  but really the lurking purpose below that is to spend money and empower businesses that made it possible for you to have a vacation.   #  i just ca not think of a process that could not be defined as a business.  everything works for various reasons, but money is the main goal.  yes, money is our currency and the most efficient way to circulate goods in an economy so it is important, but anything you want to do will involve money and it will be a big part of it.  just the major aspects of life.  raising a kid, school, college, health bills, a home, vacations etc.  for example the primary purpose of a vacation is to get away for a while and relax and have fun.  but really the lurking purpose below that is to spend money and empower businesses that made it possible for you to have a vacation.  hotel resorts will say  enjoy your stay  and stuff like that, but really theyre silently screaming for you to use their service and pay for it.  just an example of what i mean by everything is a business.   #  just because some dude decides he can make money out of it by providing extra comfort , does not mean the whole purpose of vacationing is to give him money.   #   involving money  is not the same as  money is the main goal .  raising kids involves money.  but most people invest in their kids because they love them, not because they want to make cash out of it.  yes, shops will sell diapers to parents, but that does not mean kids exist so that diaper producers can make money.  the relationship parent and shop owner is business related, but the relationship between parent and child is not.  same goes for vacationing.  if you have a beautiful island, people want to go there and relax.  this is the main goal.  with or without expensive hotels, people are going to do it.  just because some dude decides he can make money out of it by providing extra comfort , does not mean the whole purpose of vacationing is to give him money.  investing in the local economy is more of a side effect rather than the main reason people go on vacations.
i am looking at this from the perspective of a canadian student who completed the gifted program, but i really want some alternative perspectives.  basically, i see  gifted  students as being kids with greater potential than the average student, either through greater intrinsic motivation or natural talent.  so, a society has more to gain by exploiting their potential than that of the average student.  it stands to reason that those advancing a society the most in science, medicine, or even art are typically those who are the best in those fields.  the ones who have the best chances of being the best deserve a program which will help them to do so.  secondly, there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.  it does not make too much sense to allow the brightest students to be neglected by not providing them with an education suited to their abilities, because you risk having them become delinquents or underachievers.  finally, societies that promote intellectualism ought to promote gifted programs.  these programs are essentially designed to raise the caliber of one is education, and thus amplify what they are able to take away from it.  if we are not promoting gifted education, then we are effectively encouraging mediocrity.  so cmv, this is what i have been thinking.  but i can see that, as someone who has completed the program, my perspective is undoubtedly skewed.  please fill me in on whatever you think i am missing.   #  i see  gifted  students as being kids with greater potential than the average student, either through greater intrinsic motivation or natural talent.   #  you have an artificial view about human potential and learning.   # you have an artificial view about human potential and learning.  natural talent may exist in an extremely rare few where brains are wired differently much like autism is effect on memorization, but the idea that some children/people are just better off have a knack for it, etc.  is mostly a snapshot circumstantial bias.  life experience, emotions, household stability just a few of the major issues that can effect someone in short or long term learning potential, but none of these will be around for a lifetime.  everyone can grow throughout their lifetime, and they will if they are taught to grow, learn, and enjoy education.  where do you think power lies in this world ? where do you think work is accomplished ? all of this lies in the hands of the masses.  who do you think grew your food, delivered your clothes to that store, regulated the food industry to make sure we do not eat people parts anymore eww ? who writes the software for all these computers ? who are the journalists, the teachers, police officers, politicians ? do you really think that the weight of nations is carried by a few ? i do not think so.  the systems we are a part of are too big for small groups of people to run and to make meaningful impacts consistently.  think of it like a statistical issue.  would it be better to have a majority population of smart people, or some geniuses surrounded by dimwits ? or maybe sports works better as an analogy: we pick teams of 0; you pick the first 0 rounds then i pick 0 rounds then you get what is left over.  let is see who wins.  teams stacked with one or two great players cannot overcome the difficulties they face when their team cannot help them.  your first point, without proper evaluation of students imo, has already written of a huge number of potential bright students and left them to a decade or more of education where they will forever be unchallenged.  all this simply by labeling them average due to a likely short term circumstance.  challenge all your students.  treat all of them as if they are gifted.  i once heard a professor say,  you will rarely get anything out of a student that you did not ask of them.   people rise to the challenge.  set the bar high, and that is where they will go.  i believe you are looking at intellect, potential, and education very much within a small confined box that is the current terrible schema used in education around the world.  check out this ted talk about khan academy URL that really points out how our concept of education and gifted students is far from reality.  systematic education needs a global overhaul, i think we can both agree on that one.  educating greater numbers is the most effective thing you can do for society.   flipping the classroom  is a term you should look up.  it is a popular term for higher ed.  right now.  it is imo part of the solution to challenge everyone at appropriate levels.   #  so, in some schools you would have the top class, the middle class, and the bottom class for most core subjects such as english, maths and science.   #  in the uk and you will have to forgive me, as i do not have the evidence to hand they have done studies in terms of what the effect of  isolating  students according to ability is.  we call it  isetting .  so, in some schools you would have the top class, the middle class, and the bottom class for most core subjects such as english, maths and science.  you also sometimes have gifted and talented programmes that run alongside these.  we also used to less so these days have the grammar school system, where through standardised testing, kids with the highest academic potential from any background would be able to access a school place, essentially to be prepped for university education.  the results of studies that have been done indicate that isolating clever people enables them to fly high.  they reach a higher academic potential when surrounded only by smarter people.  what the studies also show however, is that the middle and bottom students do worse when the clever students are not in the classroom with them.  essentially, the answer as to what is a better system really depends on your ideas about how society should work in general.  if you feel that society should be driven by elites made up of the best and brightest, then isolation works better.  if however, you believe that raising the intelligence of the majority is best, then evidence seems to show that isolating and investing in smart people seperately is not the way forward.   #  you have cast yourself as the victim here, which i think might be worth investigating.   #  well i believe we might just have different perspectives on the situation.  full disclosure: i was categorized as  gifted  with the hilarious or sad arrangement that my state managed its  gifted  children through its  special education  department .  this usually meant that one day a week i would be whisked off with the other gifteds to do smart people things like dissection in 0rd grade.  you have cast yourself as the victim here, which i think might be worth investigating.  you were fortunate enough that the universe conspired to make you smarter than your peers.  at least in terms of education, from what you said it sounds like you picked things up quicker, you could get farther faster, etc.  when the society into which you were born looked at you and did not shower you with extra resources beyond those which were bestowed equally to everyone, they  hurt  you ? no.  although, based on what i have read probably something by steven pinker , your exposure to teaching the things you already knew to kids who needed to know probably helped you learn those subjects more deeply than you knew them due mainly to having to not only be proficient, but proficient at  explaining  in a way that others could understand .  no one  made you fail.   no one tied weights to your body or made you wear distorting goggles or ear covers or put prosthetics in your mouth to impede your speech.  if your experience were harrison bergeron is, he would have been teaching classes in dance and jumping to other kids.  yes, if we had the resources such that everyone could be provided with an adequate education and then we had leftover resources, by all means those leftovers should have gone to you and other gifted people to help unlock the maximum talent we could.  but you lived somewhere where the taxpayers decided that it was more important that they keep some trivial fraction of their wealth and income instead of providing the absolute best platform from which you could launch your life.  so they provided a less than best platform equally to everyone.  that is not something targeted  at you .  that is not some thing to  hurt you .  it is a lack of provision.  it is an omission.   #  it is built for training people to work in factories rather than to be critical thinkers.   #  i am not passing the blame per se.  it is my fault for not wanting to waste my efforts on material i had learned 0 years prior.  however, i should point out that if i have 0 mastery of a skill teaching it does not help.  half the time i was just letting them cheat off my calculator anyways.  all i am saying is that other people is grades were increased at my expense.  i could have/should have wasted my time filling out worksheets for subjects where i got 0 on every exam, but it is frankly more effort for nothing tangible.  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.  things that better myself.  as i said i am not mad at my lot.  it is just observations.  also i had a similar program in pittsburgh.  i loved it.  they did a good job of making it fun and teaching critical thinking above specific subjects.  i think one off the main problems is an outdated system.  it is well documented that the way we teach is unnatural for teenager boys.  it is built for training people to work in factories rather than to be critical thinkers.   #  i think it would have to be voluntary from both sides, maybe a skill swap rather than a straight teacher student relationship ?  #  in terms of the general picture, it appears to be the fairly consistent exposure to mixed ability in the classroom that raises overall standards.  however, the mentoring thing is a good idea, and some schools do that.  i know of a school near me for instance that does that specifically for students who have english as a second language.  when i was at school, there was also a mentoring programme where gifted and talented year 0s mentored year 0s.  i think the only issue when it is with your  less able   to use a horrible term peers is that there is a danger of it being quite patronising.  you are there in a position of power, and they kind of know they are there because they are not as smart as you.  it could work, but also has the potential to go horribly wrong ! i think it would have to be voluntary from both sides, maybe a skill swap rather than a straight teacher student relationship ?
i am looking at this from the perspective of a canadian student who completed the gifted program, but i really want some alternative perspectives.  basically, i see  gifted  students as being kids with greater potential than the average student, either through greater intrinsic motivation or natural talent.  so, a society has more to gain by exploiting their potential than that of the average student.  it stands to reason that those advancing a society the most in science, medicine, or even art are typically those who are the best in those fields.  the ones who have the best chances of being the best deserve a program which will help them to do so.  secondly, there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.  it does not make too much sense to allow the brightest students to be neglected by not providing them with an education suited to their abilities, because you risk having them become delinquents or underachievers.  finally, societies that promote intellectualism ought to promote gifted programs.  these programs are essentially designed to raise the caliber of one is education, and thus amplify what they are able to take away from it.  if we are not promoting gifted education, then we are effectively encouraging mediocrity.  so cmv, this is what i have been thinking.  but i can see that, as someone who has completed the program, my perspective is undoubtedly skewed.  please fill me in on whatever you think i am missing.   #  so, a society has more to gain by exploiting their potential than that of the average student.   #  where do you think power lies in this world ?  # you have an artificial view about human potential and learning.  natural talent may exist in an extremely rare few where brains are wired differently much like autism is effect on memorization, but the idea that some children/people are just better off have a knack for it, etc.  is mostly a snapshot circumstantial bias.  life experience, emotions, household stability just a few of the major issues that can effect someone in short or long term learning potential, but none of these will be around for a lifetime.  everyone can grow throughout their lifetime, and they will if they are taught to grow, learn, and enjoy education.  where do you think power lies in this world ? where do you think work is accomplished ? all of this lies in the hands of the masses.  who do you think grew your food, delivered your clothes to that store, regulated the food industry to make sure we do not eat people parts anymore eww ? who writes the software for all these computers ? who are the journalists, the teachers, police officers, politicians ? do you really think that the weight of nations is carried by a few ? i do not think so.  the systems we are a part of are too big for small groups of people to run and to make meaningful impacts consistently.  think of it like a statistical issue.  would it be better to have a majority population of smart people, or some geniuses surrounded by dimwits ? or maybe sports works better as an analogy: we pick teams of 0; you pick the first 0 rounds then i pick 0 rounds then you get what is left over.  let is see who wins.  teams stacked with one or two great players cannot overcome the difficulties they face when their team cannot help them.  your first point, without proper evaluation of students imo, has already written of a huge number of potential bright students and left them to a decade or more of education where they will forever be unchallenged.  all this simply by labeling them average due to a likely short term circumstance.  challenge all your students.  treat all of them as if they are gifted.  i once heard a professor say,  you will rarely get anything out of a student that you did not ask of them.   people rise to the challenge.  set the bar high, and that is where they will go.  i believe you are looking at intellect, potential, and education very much within a small confined box that is the current terrible schema used in education around the world.  check out this ted talk about khan academy URL that really points out how our concept of education and gifted students is far from reality.  systematic education needs a global overhaul, i think we can both agree on that one.  educating greater numbers is the most effective thing you can do for society.   flipping the classroom  is a term you should look up.  it is a popular term for higher ed.  right now.  it is imo part of the solution to challenge everyone at appropriate levels.   #  you also sometimes have gifted and talented programmes that run alongside these.   #  in the uk and you will have to forgive me, as i do not have the evidence to hand they have done studies in terms of what the effect of  isolating  students according to ability is.  we call it  isetting .  so, in some schools you would have the top class, the middle class, and the bottom class for most core subjects such as english, maths and science.  you also sometimes have gifted and talented programmes that run alongside these.  we also used to less so these days have the grammar school system, where through standardised testing, kids with the highest academic potential from any background would be able to access a school place, essentially to be prepped for university education.  the results of studies that have been done indicate that isolating clever people enables them to fly high.  they reach a higher academic potential when surrounded only by smarter people.  what the studies also show however, is that the middle and bottom students do worse when the clever students are not in the classroom with them.  essentially, the answer as to what is a better system really depends on your ideas about how society should work in general.  if you feel that society should be driven by elites made up of the best and brightest, then isolation works better.  if however, you believe that raising the intelligence of the majority is best, then evidence seems to show that isolating and investing in smart people seperately is not the way forward.   #  well i believe we might just have different perspectives on the situation.   #  well i believe we might just have different perspectives on the situation.  full disclosure: i was categorized as  gifted  with the hilarious or sad arrangement that my state managed its  gifted  children through its  special education  department .  this usually meant that one day a week i would be whisked off with the other gifteds to do smart people things like dissection in 0rd grade.  you have cast yourself as the victim here, which i think might be worth investigating.  you were fortunate enough that the universe conspired to make you smarter than your peers.  at least in terms of education, from what you said it sounds like you picked things up quicker, you could get farther faster, etc.  when the society into which you were born looked at you and did not shower you with extra resources beyond those which were bestowed equally to everyone, they  hurt  you ? no.  although, based on what i have read probably something by steven pinker , your exposure to teaching the things you already knew to kids who needed to know probably helped you learn those subjects more deeply than you knew them due mainly to having to not only be proficient, but proficient at  explaining  in a way that others could understand .  no one  made you fail.   no one tied weights to your body or made you wear distorting goggles or ear covers or put prosthetics in your mouth to impede your speech.  if your experience were harrison bergeron is, he would have been teaching classes in dance and jumping to other kids.  yes, if we had the resources such that everyone could be provided with an adequate education and then we had leftover resources, by all means those leftovers should have gone to you and other gifted people to help unlock the maximum talent we could.  but you lived somewhere where the taxpayers decided that it was more important that they keep some trivial fraction of their wealth and income instead of providing the absolute best platform from which you could launch your life.  so they provided a less than best platform equally to everyone.  that is not something targeted  at you .  that is not some thing to  hurt you .  it is a lack of provision.  it is an omission.   #  it is built for training people to work in factories rather than to be critical thinkers.   #  i am not passing the blame per se.  it is my fault for not wanting to waste my efforts on material i had learned 0 years prior.  however, i should point out that if i have 0 mastery of a skill teaching it does not help.  half the time i was just letting them cheat off my calculator anyways.  all i am saying is that other people is grades were increased at my expense.  i could have/should have wasted my time filling out worksheets for subjects where i got 0 on every exam, but it is frankly more effort for nothing tangible.  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.  things that better myself.  as i said i am not mad at my lot.  it is just observations.  also i had a similar program in pittsburgh.  i loved it.  they did a good job of making it fun and teaching critical thinking above specific subjects.  i think one off the main problems is an outdated system.  it is well documented that the way we teach is unnatural for teenager boys.  it is built for training people to work in factories rather than to be critical thinkers.   #  i know of a school near me for instance that does that specifically for students who have english as a second language.   #  in terms of the general picture, it appears to be the fairly consistent exposure to mixed ability in the classroom that raises overall standards.  however, the mentoring thing is a good idea, and some schools do that.  i know of a school near me for instance that does that specifically for students who have english as a second language.  when i was at school, there was also a mentoring programme where gifted and talented year 0s mentored year 0s.  i think the only issue when it is with your  less able   to use a horrible term peers is that there is a danger of it being quite patronising.  you are there in a position of power, and they kind of know they are there because they are not as smart as you.  it could work, but also has the potential to go horribly wrong ! i think it would have to be voluntary from both sides, maybe a skill swap rather than a straight teacher student relationship ?
i am looking at this from the perspective of a canadian student who completed the gifted program, but i really want some alternative perspectives.  basically, i see  gifted  students as being kids with greater potential than the average student, either through greater intrinsic motivation or natural talent.  so, a society has more to gain by exploiting their potential than that of the average student.  it stands to reason that those advancing a society the most in science, medicine, or even art are typically those who are the best in those fields.  the ones who have the best chances of being the best deserve a program which will help them to do so.  secondly, there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.  it does not make too much sense to allow the brightest students to be neglected by not providing them with an education suited to their abilities, because you risk having them become delinquents or underachievers.  finally, societies that promote intellectualism ought to promote gifted programs.  these programs are essentially designed to raise the caliber of one is education, and thus amplify what they are able to take away from it.  if we are not promoting gifted education, then we are effectively encouraging mediocrity.  so cmv, this is what i have been thinking.  but i can see that, as someone who has completed the program, my perspective is undoubtedly skewed.  please fill me in on whatever you think i am missing.   #  secondly, there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.   #  your first point, without proper evaluation of students imo, has already written of a huge number of potential bright students and left them to a decade or more of education where they will forever be unchallenged.   # you have an artificial view about human potential and learning.  natural talent may exist in an extremely rare few where brains are wired differently much like autism is effect on memorization, but the idea that some children/people are just better off have a knack for it, etc.  is mostly a snapshot circumstantial bias.  life experience, emotions, household stability just a few of the major issues that can effect someone in short or long term learning potential, but none of these will be around for a lifetime.  everyone can grow throughout their lifetime, and they will if they are taught to grow, learn, and enjoy education.  where do you think power lies in this world ? where do you think work is accomplished ? all of this lies in the hands of the masses.  who do you think grew your food, delivered your clothes to that store, regulated the food industry to make sure we do not eat people parts anymore eww ? who writes the software for all these computers ? who are the journalists, the teachers, police officers, politicians ? do you really think that the weight of nations is carried by a few ? i do not think so.  the systems we are a part of are too big for small groups of people to run and to make meaningful impacts consistently.  think of it like a statistical issue.  would it be better to have a majority population of smart people, or some geniuses surrounded by dimwits ? or maybe sports works better as an analogy: we pick teams of 0; you pick the first 0 rounds then i pick 0 rounds then you get what is left over.  let is see who wins.  teams stacked with one or two great players cannot overcome the difficulties they face when their team cannot help them.  your first point, without proper evaluation of students imo, has already written of a huge number of potential bright students and left them to a decade or more of education where they will forever be unchallenged.  all this simply by labeling them average due to a likely short term circumstance.  challenge all your students.  treat all of them as if they are gifted.  i once heard a professor say,  you will rarely get anything out of a student that you did not ask of them.   people rise to the challenge.  set the bar high, and that is where they will go.  i believe you are looking at intellect, potential, and education very much within a small confined box that is the current terrible schema used in education around the world.  check out this ted talk about khan academy URL that really points out how our concept of education and gifted students is far from reality.  systematic education needs a global overhaul, i think we can both agree on that one.  educating greater numbers is the most effective thing you can do for society.   flipping the classroom  is a term you should look up.  it is a popular term for higher ed.  right now.  it is imo part of the solution to challenge everyone at appropriate levels.   #  in the uk and you will have to forgive me, as i do not have the evidence to hand they have done studies in terms of what the effect of  isolating  students according to ability is.   #  in the uk and you will have to forgive me, as i do not have the evidence to hand they have done studies in terms of what the effect of  isolating  students according to ability is.  we call it  isetting .  so, in some schools you would have the top class, the middle class, and the bottom class for most core subjects such as english, maths and science.  you also sometimes have gifted and talented programmes that run alongside these.  we also used to less so these days have the grammar school system, where through standardised testing, kids with the highest academic potential from any background would be able to access a school place, essentially to be prepped for university education.  the results of studies that have been done indicate that isolating clever people enables them to fly high.  they reach a higher academic potential when surrounded only by smarter people.  what the studies also show however, is that the middle and bottom students do worse when the clever students are not in the classroom with them.  essentially, the answer as to what is a better system really depends on your ideas about how society should work in general.  if you feel that society should be driven by elites made up of the best and brightest, then isolation works better.  if however, you believe that raising the intelligence of the majority is best, then evidence seems to show that isolating and investing in smart people seperately is not the way forward.   #  full disclosure: i was categorized as  gifted  with the hilarious or sad arrangement that my state managed its  gifted  children through its  special education  department .   #  well i believe we might just have different perspectives on the situation.  full disclosure: i was categorized as  gifted  with the hilarious or sad arrangement that my state managed its  gifted  children through its  special education  department .  this usually meant that one day a week i would be whisked off with the other gifteds to do smart people things like dissection in 0rd grade.  you have cast yourself as the victim here, which i think might be worth investigating.  you were fortunate enough that the universe conspired to make you smarter than your peers.  at least in terms of education, from what you said it sounds like you picked things up quicker, you could get farther faster, etc.  when the society into which you were born looked at you and did not shower you with extra resources beyond those which were bestowed equally to everyone, they  hurt  you ? no.  although, based on what i have read probably something by steven pinker , your exposure to teaching the things you already knew to kids who needed to know probably helped you learn those subjects more deeply than you knew them due mainly to having to not only be proficient, but proficient at  explaining  in a way that others could understand .  no one  made you fail.   no one tied weights to your body or made you wear distorting goggles or ear covers or put prosthetics in your mouth to impede your speech.  if your experience were harrison bergeron is, he would have been teaching classes in dance and jumping to other kids.  yes, if we had the resources such that everyone could be provided with an adequate education and then we had leftover resources, by all means those leftovers should have gone to you and other gifted people to help unlock the maximum talent we could.  but you lived somewhere where the taxpayers decided that it was more important that they keep some trivial fraction of their wealth and income instead of providing the absolute best platform from which you could launch your life.  so they provided a less than best platform equally to everyone.  that is not something targeted  at you .  that is not some thing to  hurt you .  it is a lack of provision.  it is an omission.   #  i think one off the main problems is an outdated system.   #  i am not passing the blame per se.  it is my fault for not wanting to waste my efforts on material i had learned 0 years prior.  however, i should point out that if i have 0 mastery of a skill teaching it does not help.  half the time i was just letting them cheat off my calculator anyways.  all i am saying is that other people is grades were increased at my expense.  i could have/should have wasted my time filling out worksheets for subjects where i got 0 on every exam, but it is frankly more effort for nothing tangible.  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.  things that better myself.  as i said i am not mad at my lot.  it is just observations.  also i had a similar program in pittsburgh.  i loved it.  they did a good job of making it fun and teaching critical thinking above specific subjects.  i think one off the main problems is an outdated system.  it is well documented that the way we teach is unnatural for teenager boys.  it is built for training people to work in factories rather than to be critical thinkers.   #  however, the mentoring thing is a good idea, and some schools do that.   #  in terms of the general picture, it appears to be the fairly consistent exposure to mixed ability in the classroom that raises overall standards.  however, the mentoring thing is a good idea, and some schools do that.  i know of a school near me for instance that does that specifically for students who have english as a second language.  when i was at school, there was also a mentoring programme where gifted and talented year 0s mentored year 0s.  i think the only issue when it is with your  less able   to use a horrible term peers is that there is a danger of it being quite patronising.  you are there in a position of power, and they kind of know they are there because they are not as smart as you.  it could work, but also has the potential to go horribly wrong ! i think it would have to be voluntary from both sides, maybe a skill swap rather than a straight teacher student relationship ?
i am looking at this from the perspective of a canadian student who completed the gifted program, but i really want some alternative perspectives.  basically, i see  gifted  students as being kids with greater potential than the average student, either through greater intrinsic motivation or natural talent.  so, a society has more to gain by exploiting their potential than that of the average student.  it stands to reason that those advancing a society the most in science, medicine, or even art are typically those who are the best in those fields.  the ones who have the best chances of being the best deserve a program which will help them to do so.  secondly, there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.  it does not make too much sense to allow the brightest students to be neglected by not providing them with an education suited to their abilities, because you risk having them become delinquents or underachievers.  finally, societies that promote intellectualism ought to promote gifted programs.  these programs are essentially designed to raise the caliber of one is education, and thus amplify what they are able to take away from it.  if we are not promoting gifted education, then we are effectively encouraging mediocrity.  so cmv, this is what i have been thinking.  but i can see that, as someone who has completed the program, my perspective is undoubtedly skewed.  please fill me in on whatever you think i am missing.   #  if we are not promoting gifted education, then we are effectively encouraging mediocrity.   #  as a canadian student which joined the gifted program and left, get outta here.   # as a canadian student which joined the gifted program and left, get outta here.  assuming the others are considered mediocre.  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.  it does not make too much sense to allow the brightest students to be neglected by not providing them with an education suited to their abilities, because you risk having them become delinquents or underachievers.  why would this only apply to gifted programs and not regular schools or programs ?  #  if you feel that society should be driven by elites made up of the best and brightest, then isolation works better.   #  in the uk and you will have to forgive me, as i do not have the evidence to hand they have done studies in terms of what the effect of  isolating  students according to ability is.  we call it  isetting .  so, in some schools you would have the top class, the middle class, and the bottom class for most core subjects such as english, maths and science.  you also sometimes have gifted and talented programmes that run alongside these.  we also used to less so these days have the grammar school system, where through standardised testing, kids with the highest academic potential from any background would be able to access a school place, essentially to be prepped for university education.  the results of studies that have been done indicate that isolating clever people enables them to fly high.  they reach a higher academic potential when surrounded only by smarter people.  what the studies also show however, is that the middle and bottom students do worse when the clever students are not in the classroom with them.  essentially, the answer as to what is a better system really depends on your ideas about how society should work in general.  if you feel that society should be driven by elites made up of the best and brightest, then isolation works better.  if however, you believe that raising the intelligence of the majority is best, then evidence seems to show that isolating and investing in smart people seperately is not the way forward.   #  if your experience were harrison bergeron is, he would have been teaching classes in dance and jumping to other kids.   #  well i believe we might just have different perspectives on the situation.  full disclosure: i was categorized as  gifted  with the hilarious or sad arrangement that my state managed its  gifted  children through its  special education  department .  this usually meant that one day a week i would be whisked off with the other gifteds to do smart people things like dissection in 0rd grade.  you have cast yourself as the victim here, which i think might be worth investigating.  you were fortunate enough that the universe conspired to make you smarter than your peers.  at least in terms of education, from what you said it sounds like you picked things up quicker, you could get farther faster, etc.  when the society into which you were born looked at you and did not shower you with extra resources beyond those which were bestowed equally to everyone, they  hurt  you ? no.  although, based on what i have read probably something by steven pinker , your exposure to teaching the things you already knew to kids who needed to know probably helped you learn those subjects more deeply than you knew them due mainly to having to not only be proficient, but proficient at  explaining  in a way that others could understand .  no one  made you fail.   no one tied weights to your body or made you wear distorting goggles or ear covers or put prosthetics in your mouth to impede your speech.  if your experience were harrison bergeron is, he would have been teaching classes in dance and jumping to other kids.  yes, if we had the resources such that everyone could be provided with an adequate education and then we had leftover resources, by all means those leftovers should have gone to you and other gifted people to help unlock the maximum talent we could.  but you lived somewhere where the taxpayers decided that it was more important that they keep some trivial fraction of their wealth and income instead of providing the absolute best platform from which you could launch your life.  so they provided a less than best platform equally to everyone.  that is not something targeted  at you .  that is not some thing to  hurt you .  it is a lack of provision.  it is an omission.   #  however, i should point out that if i have 0 mastery of a skill teaching it does not help.   #  i am not passing the blame per se.  it is my fault for not wanting to waste my efforts on material i had learned 0 years prior.  however, i should point out that if i have 0 mastery of a skill teaching it does not help.  half the time i was just letting them cheat off my calculator anyways.  all i am saying is that other people is grades were increased at my expense.  i could have/should have wasted my time filling out worksheets for subjects where i got 0 on every exam, but it is frankly more effort for nothing tangible.  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.  things that better myself.  as i said i am not mad at my lot.  it is just observations.  also i had a similar program in pittsburgh.  i loved it.  they did a good job of making it fun and teaching critical thinking above specific subjects.  i think one off the main problems is an outdated system.  it is well documented that the way we teach is unnatural for teenager boys.  it is built for training people to work in factories rather than to be critical thinkers.   #  it could work, but also has the potential to go horribly wrong !  #  in terms of the general picture, it appears to be the fairly consistent exposure to mixed ability in the classroom that raises overall standards.  however, the mentoring thing is a good idea, and some schools do that.  i know of a school near me for instance that does that specifically for students who have english as a second language.  when i was at school, there was also a mentoring programme where gifted and talented year 0s mentored year 0s.  i think the only issue when it is with your  less able   to use a horrible term peers is that there is a danger of it being quite patronising.  you are there in a position of power, and they kind of know they are there because they are not as smart as you.  it could work, but also has the potential to go horribly wrong ! i think it would have to be voluntary from both sides, maybe a skill swap rather than a straight teacher student relationship ?
i am looking at this from the perspective of a canadian student who completed the gifted program, but i really want some alternative perspectives.  basically, i see  gifted  students as being kids with greater potential than the average student, either through greater intrinsic motivation or natural talent.  so, a society has more to gain by exploiting their potential than that of the average student.  it stands to reason that those advancing a society the most in science, medicine, or even art are typically those who are the best in those fields.  the ones who have the best chances of being the best deserve a program which will help them to do so.  secondly, there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.  it does not make too much sense to allow the brightest students to be neglected by not providing them with an education suited to their abilities, because you risk having them become delinquents or underachievers.  finally, societies that promote intellectualism ought to promote gifted programs.  these programs are essentially designed to raise the caliber of one is education, and thus amplify what they are able to take away from it.  if we are not promoting gifted education, then we are effectively encouraging mediocrity.  so cmv, this is what i have been thinking.  but i can see that, as someone who has completed the program, my perspective is undoubtedly skewed.  please fill me in on whatever you think i am missing.   #  secondly, there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.   #  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.   # as a canadian student which joined the gifted program and left, get outta here.  assuming the others are considered mediocre.  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.  it does not make too much sense to allow the brightest students to be neglected by not providing them with an education suited to their abilities, because you risk having them become delinquents or underachievers.  why would this only apply to gifted programs and not regular schools or programs ?  #  what the studies also show however, is that the middle and bottom students do worse when the clever students are not in the classroom with them.   #  in the uk and you will have to forgive me, as i do not have the evidence to hand they have done studies in terms of what the effect of  isolating  students according to ability is.  we call it  isetting .  so, in some schools you would have the top class, the middle class, and the bottom class for most core subjects such as english, maths and science.  you also sometimes have gifted and talented programmes that run alongside these.  we also used to less so these days have the grammar school system, where through standardised testing, kids with the highest academic potential from any background would be able to access a school place, essentially to be prepped for university education.  the results of studies that have been done indicate that isolating clever people enables them to fly high.  they reach a higher academic potential when surrounded only by smarter people.  what the studies also show however, is that the middle and bottom students do worse when the clever students are not in the classroom with them.  essentially, the answer as to what is a better system really depends on your ideas about how society should work in general.  if you feel that society should be driven by elites made up of the best and brightest, then isolation works better.  if however, you believe that raising the intelligence of the majority is best, then evidence seems to show that isolating and investing in smart people seperately is not the way forward.   #  full disclosure: i was categorized as  gifted  with the hilarious or sad arrangement that my state managed its  gifted  children through its  special education  department .   #  well i believe we might just have different perspectives on the situation.  full disclosure: i was categorized as  gifted  with the hilarious or sad arrangement that my state managed its  gifted  children through its  special education  department .  this usually meant that one day a week i would be whisked off with the other gifteds to do smart people things like dissection in 0rd grade.  you have cast yourself as the victim here, which i think might be worth investigating.  you were fortunate enough that the universe conspired to make you smarter than your peers.  at least in terms of education, from what you said it sounds like you picked things up quicker, you could get farther faster, etc.  when the society into which you were born looked at you and did not shower you with extra resources beyond those which were bestowed equally to everyone, they  hurt  you ? no.  although, based on what i have read probably something by steven pinker , your exposure to teaching the things you already knew to kids who needed to know probably helped you learn those subjects more deeply than you knew them due mainly to having to not only be proficient, but proficient at  explaining  in a way that others could understand .  no one  made you fail.   no one tied weights to your body or made you wear distorting goggles or ear covers or put prosthetics in your mouth to impede your speech.  if your experience were harrison bergeron is, he would have been teaching classes in dance and jumping to other kids.  yes, if we had the resources such that everyone could be provided with an adequate education and then we had leftover resources, by all means those leftovers should have gone to you and other gifted people to help unlock the maximum talent we could.  but you lived somewhere where the taxpayers decided that it was more important that they keep some trivial fraction of their wealth and income instead of providing the absolute best platform from which you could launch your life.  so they provided a less than best platform equally to everyone.  that is not something targeted  at you .  that is not some thing to  hurt you .  it is a lack of provision.  it is an omission.   #  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.   #  i am not passing the blame per se.  it is my fault for not wanting to waste my efforts on material i had learned 0 years prior.  however, i should point out that if i have 0 mastery of a skill teaching it does not help.  half the time i was just letting them cheat off my calculator anyways.  all i am saying is that other people is grades were increased at my expense.  i could have/should have wasted my time filling out worksheets for subjects where i got 0 on every exam, but it is frankly more effort for nothing tangible.  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.  things that better myself.  as i said i am not mad at my lot.  it is just observations.  also i had a similar program in pittsburgh.  i loved it.  they did a good job of making it fun and teaching critical thinking above specific subjects.  i think one off the main problems is an outdated system.  it is well documented that the way we teach is unnatural for teenager boys.  it is built for training people to work in factories rather than to be critical thinkers.   #  it could work, but also has the potential to go horribly wrong !  #  in terms of the general picture, it appears to be the fairly consistent exposure to mixed ability in the classroom that raises overall standards.  however, the mentoring thing is a good idea, and some schools do that.  i know of a school near me for instance that does that specifically for students who have english as a second language.  when i was at school, there was also a mentoring programme where gifted and talented year 0s mentored year 0s.  i think the only issue when it is with your  less able   to use a horrible term peers is that there is a danger of it being quite patronising.  you are there in a position of power, and they kind of know they are there because they are not as smart as you.  it could work, but also has the potential to go horribly wrong ! i think it would have to be voluntary from both sides, maybe a skill swap rather than a straight teacher student relationship ?
i am looking at this from the perspective of a canadian student who completed the gifted program, but i really want some alternative perspectives.  basically, i see  gifted  students as being kids with greater potential than the average student, either through greater intrinsic motivation or natural talent.  so, a society has more to gain by exploiting their potential than that of the average student.  it stands to reason that those advancing a society the most in science, medicine, or even art are typically those who are the best in those fields.  the ones who have the best chances of being the best deserve a program which will help them to do so.  secondly, there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.  it does not make too much sense to allow the brightest students to be neglected by not providing them with an education suited to their abilities, because you risk having them become delinquents or underachievers.  finally, societies that promote intellectualism ought to promote gifted programs.  these programs are essentially designed to raise the caliber of one is education, and thus amplify what they are able to take away from it.  if we are not promoting gifted education, then we are effectively encouraging mediocrity.  so cmv, this is what i have been thinking.  but i can see that, as someone who has completed the program, my perspective is undoubtedly skewed.  please fill me in on whatever you think i am missing.   #  so, a society has more to gain by exploiting their potential than that of the average student.   #  that should be done outside the public education system because we, as a society, do not directly gain anything for more a   students.   # that should be done outside the public education system because we, as a society, do not directly gain anything for more a   students.  in university and the work force, its a different story.  but if they are  gifted , then it will show in those areas.   challenging  is not the responsibility of public education system.  if they or their parents find that a priority, then they can  challenge  themselves outside of the public education system.  gifted students have already shown they are intellectuals and so have achieved what we want.  its the ones that are not that need our resources so they can be more intellectuals.  hospitals for sick people, not healthy people.   #  if however, you believe that raising the intelligence of the majority is best, then evidence seems to show that isolating and investing in smart people seperately is not the way forward.   #  in the uk and you will have to forgive me, as i do not have the evidence to hand they have done studies in terms of what the effect of  isolating  students according to ability is.  we call it  isetting .  so, in some schools you would have the top class, the middle class, and the bottom class for most core subjects such as english, maths and science.  you also sometimes have gifted and talented programmes that run alongside these.  we also used to less so these days have the grammar school system, where through standardised testing, kids with the highest academic potential from any background would be able to access a school place, essentially to be prepped for university education.  the results of studies that have been done indicate that isolating clever people enables them to fly high.  they reach a higher academic potential when surrounded only by smarter people.  what the studies also show however, is that the middle and bottom students do worse when the clever students are not in the classroom with them.  essentially, the answer as to what is a better system really depends on your ideas about how society should work in general.  if you feel that society should be driven by elites made up of the best and brightest, then isolation works better.  if however, you believe that raising the intelligence of the majority is best, then evidence seems to show that isolating and investing in smart people seperately is not the way forward.   #  well i believe we might just have different perspectives on the situation.   #  well i believe we might just have different perspectives on the situation.  full disclosure: i was categorized as  gifted  with the hilarious or sad arrangement that my state managed its  gifted  children through its  special education  department .  this usually meant that one day a week i would be whisked off with the other gifteds to do smart people things like dissection in 0rd grade.  you have cast yourself as the victim here, which i think might be worth investigating.  you were fortunate enough that the universe conspired to make you smarter than your peers.  at least in terms of education, from what you said it sounds like you picked things up quicker, you could get farther faster, etc.  when the society into which you were born looked at you and did not shower you with extra resources beyond those which were bestowed equally to everyone, they  hurt  you ? no.  although, based on what i have read probably something by steven pinker , your exposure to teaching the things you already knew to kids who needed to know probably helped you learn those subjects more deeply than you knew them due mainly to having to not only be proficient, but proficient at  explaining  in a way that others could understand .  no one  made you fail.   no one tied weights to your body or made you wear distorting goggles or ear covers or put prosthetics in your mouth to impede your speech.  if your experience were harrison bergeron is, he would have been teaching classes in dance and jumping to other kids.  yes, if we had the resources such that everyone could be provided with an adequate education and then we had leftover resources, by all means those leftovers should have gone to you and other gifted people to help unlock the maximum talent we could.  but you lived somewhere where the taxpayers decided that it was more important that they keep some trivial fraction of their wealth and income instead of providing the absolute best platform from which you could launch your life.  so they provided a less than best platform equally to everyone.  that is not something targeted  at you .  that is not some thing to  hurt you .  it is a lack of provision.  it is an omission.   #  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.   #  i am not passing the blame per se.  it is my fault for not wanting to waste my efforts on material i had learned 0 years prior.  however, i should point out that if i have 0 mastery of a skill teaching it does not help.  half the time i was just letting them cheat off my calculator anyways.  all i am saying is that other people is grades were increased at my expense.  i could have/should have wasted my time filling out worksheets for subjects where i got 0 on every exam, but it is frankly more effort for nothing tangible.  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.  things that better myself.  as i said i am not mad at my lot.  it is just observations.  also i had a similar program in pittsburgh.  i loved it.  they did a good job of making it fun and teaching critical thinking above specific subjects.  i think one off the main problems is an outdated system.  it is well documented that the way we teach is unnatural for teenager boys.  it is built for training people to work in factories rather than to be critical thinkers.   #  when i was at school, there was also a mentoring programme where gifted and talented year 0s mentored year 0s.   #  in terms of the general picture, it appears to be the fairly consistent exposure to mixed ability in the classroom that raises overall standards.  however, the mentoring thing is a good idea, and some schools do that.  i know of a school near me for instance that does that specifically for students who have english as a second language.  when i was at school, there was also a mentoring programme where gifted and talented year 0s mentored year 0s.  i think the only issue when it is with your  less able   to use a horrible term peers is that there is a danger of it being quite patronising.  you are there in a position of power, and they kind of know they are there because they are not as smart as you.  it could work, but also has the potential to go horribly wrong ! i think it would have to be voluntary from both sides, maybe a skill swap rather than a straight teacher student relationship ?
i am looking at this from the perspective of a canadian student who completed the gifted program, but i really want some alternative perspectives.  basically, i see  gifted  students as being kids with greater potential than the average student, either through greater intrinsic motivation or natural talent.  so, a society has more to gain by exploiting their potential than that of the average student.  it stands to reason that those advancing a society the most in science, medicine, or even art are typically those who are the best in those fields.  the ones who have the best chances of being the best deserve a program which will help them to do so.  secondly, there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.  it does not make too much sense to allow the brightest students to be neglected by not providing them with an education suited to their abilities, because you risk having them become delinquents or underachievers.  finally, societies that promote intellectualism ought to promote gifted programs.  these programs are essentially designed to raise the caliber of one is education, and thus amplify what they are able to take away from it.  if we are not promoting gifted education, then we are effectively encouraging mediocrity.  so cmv, this is what i have been thinking.  but i can see that, as someone who has completed the program, my perspective is undoubtedly skewed.  please fill me in on whatever you think i am missing.   #  there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.   #   challenging  is not the responsibility of public education system.   # that should be done outside the public education system because we, as a society, do not directly gain anything for more a   students.  in university and the work force, its a different story.  but if they are  gifted , then it will show in those areas.   challenging  is not the responsibility of public education system.  if they or their parents find that a priority, then they can  challenge  themselves outside of the public education system.  gifted students have already shown they are intellectuals and so have achieved what we want.  its the ones that are not that need our resources so they can be more intellectuals.  hospitals for sick people, not healthy people.   #  if you feel that society should be driven by elites made up of the best and brightest, then isolation works better.   #  in the uk and you will have to forgive me, as i do not have the evidence to hand they have done studies in terms of what the effect of  isolating  students according to ability is.  we call it  isetting .  so, in some schools you would have the top class, the middle class, and the bottom class for most core subjects such as english, maths and science.  you also sometimes have gifted and talented programmes that run alongside these.  we also used to less so these days have the grammar school system, where through standardised testing, kids with the highest academic potential from any background would be able to access a school place, essentially to be prepped for university education.  the results of studies that have been done indicate that isolating clever people enables them to fly high.  they reach a higher academic potential when surrounded only by smarter people.  what the studies also show however, is that the middle and bottom students do worse when the clever students are not in the classroom with them.  essentially, the answer as to what is a better system really depends on your ideas about how society should work in general.  if you feel that society should be driven by elites made up of the best and brightest, then isolation works better.  if however, you believe that raising the intelligence of the majority is best, then evidence seems to show that isolating and investing in smart people seperately is not the way forward.   #  at least in terms of education, from what you said it sounds like you picked things up quicker, you could get farther faster, etc.   #  well i believe we might just have different perspectives on the situation.  full disclosure: i was categorized as  gifted  with the hilarious or sad arrangement that my state managed its  gifted  children through its  special education  department .  this usually meant that one day a week i would be whisked off with the other gifteds to do smart people things like dissection in 0rd grade.  you have cast yourself as the victim here, which i think might be worth investigating.  you were fortunate enough that the universe conspired to make you smarter than your peers.  at least in terms of education, from what you said it sounds like you picked things up quicker, you could get farther faster, etc.  when the society into which you were born looked at you and did not shower you with extra resources beyond those which were bestowed equally to everyone, they  hurt  you ? no.  although, based on what i have read probably something by steven pinker , your exposure to teaching the things you already knew to kids who needed to know probably helped you learn those subjects more deeply than you knew them due mainly to having to not only be proficient, but proficient at  explaining  in a way that others could understand .  no one  made you fail.   no one tied weights to your body or made you wear distorting goggles or ear covers or put prosthetics in your mouth to impede your speech.  if your experience were harrison bergeron is, he would have been teaching classes in dance and jumping to other kids.  yes, if we had the resources such that everyone could be provided with an adequate education and then we had leftover resources, by all means those leftovers should have gone to you and other gifted people to help unlock the maximum talent we could.  but you lived somewhere where the taxpayers decided that it was more important that they keep some trivial fraction of their wealth and income instead of providing the absolute best platform from which you could launch your life.  so they provided a less than best platform equally to everyone.  that is not something targeted  at you .  that is not some thing to  hurt you .  it is a lack of provision.  it is an omission.   #  i think one off the main problems is an outdated system.   #  i am not passing the blame per se.  it is my fault for not wanting to waste my efforts on material i had learned 0 years prior.  however, i should point out that if i have 0 mastery of a skill teaching it does not help.  half the time i was just letting them cheat off my calculator anyways.  all i am saying is that other people is grades were increased at my expense.  i could have/should have wasted my time filling out worksheets for subjects where i got 0 on every exam, but it is frankly more effort for nothing tangible.  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.  things that better myself.  as i said i am not mad at my lot.  it is just observations.  also i had a similar program in pittsburgh.  i loved it.  they did a good job of making it fun and teaching critical thinking above specific subjects.  i think one off the main problems is an outdated system.  it is well documented that the way we teach is unnatural for teenager boys.  it is built for training people to work in factories rather than to be critical thinkers.   #  i think it would have to be voluntary from both sides, maybe a skill swap rather than a straight teacher student relationship ?  #  in terms of the general picture, it appears to be the fairly consistent exposure to mixed ability in the classroom that raises overall standards.  however, the mentoring thing is a good idea, and some schools do that.  i know of a school near me for instance that does that specifically for students who have english as a second language.  when i was at school, there was also a mentoring programme where gifted and talented year 0s mentored year 0s.  i think the only issue when it is with your  less able   to use a horrible term peers is that there is a danger of it being quite patronising.  you are there in a position of power, and they kind of know they are there because they are not as smart as you.  it could work, but also has the potential to go horribly wrong ! i think it would have to be voluntary from both sides, maybe a skill swap rather than a straight teacher student relationship ?
i am looking at this from the perspective of a canadian student who completed the gifted program, but i really want some alternative perspectives.  basically, i see  gifted  students as being kids with greater potential than the average student, either through greater intrinsic motivation or natural talent.  so, a society has more to gain by exploiting their potential than that of the average student.  it stands to reason that those advancing a society the most in science, medicine, or even art are typically those who are the best in those fields.  the ones who have the best chances of being the best deserve a program which will help them to do so.  secondly, there is danger in leaving any students unchallenged.  it is unhealthy for their motivation and can cause them to be bored in school.  it does not make too much sense to allow the brightest students to be neglected by not providing them with an education suited to their abilities, because you risk having them become delinquents or underachievers.  finally, societies that promote intellectualism ought to promote gifted programs.  these programs are essentially designed to raise the caliber of one is education, and thus amplify what they are able to take away from it.  if we are not promoting gifted education, then we are effectively encouraging mediocrity.  so cmv, this is what i have been thinking.  but i can see that, as someone who has completed the program, my perspective is undoubtedly skewed.  please fill me in on whatever you think i am missing.   #  societies that promote intellectualism ought to promote gifted programs.   #  gifted students have already shown they are intellectuals and so have achieved what we want.   # that should be done outside the public education system because we, as a society, do not directly gain anything for more a   students.  in university and the work force, its a different story.  but if they are  gifted , then it will show in those areas.   challenging  is not the responsibility of public education system.  if they or their parents find that a priority, then they can  challenge  themselves outside of the public education system.  gifted students have already shown they are intellectuals and so have achieved what we want.  its the ones that are not that need our resources so they can be more intellectuals.  hospitals for sick people, not healthy people.   #  essentially, the answer as to what is a better system really depends on your ideas about how society should work in general.   #  in the uk and you will have to forgive me, as i do not have the evidence to hand they have done studies in terms of what the effect of  isolating  students according to ability is.  we call it  isetting .  so, in some schools you would have the top class, the middle class, and the bottom class for most core subjects such as english, maths and science.  you also sometimes have gifted and talented programmes that run alongside these.  we also used to less so these days have the grammar school system, where through standardised testing, kids with the highest academic potential from any background would be able to access a school place, essentially to be prepped for university education.  the results of studies that have been done indicate that isolating clever people enables them to fly high.  they reach a higher academic potential when surrounded only by smarter people.  what the studies also show however, is that the middle and bottom students do worse when the clever students are not in the classroom with them.  essentially, the answer as to what is a better system really depends on your ideas about how society should work in general.  if you feel that society should be driven by elites made up of the best and brightest, then isolation works better.  if however, you believe that raising the intelligence of the majority is best, then evidence seems to show that isolating and investing in smart people seperately is not the way forward.   #  no one tied weights to your body or made you wear distorting goggles or ear covers or put prosthetics in your mouth to impede your speech.   #  well i believe we might just have different perspectives on the situation.  full disclosure: i was categorized as  gifted  with the hilarious or sad arrangement that my state managed its  gifted  children through its  special education  department .  this usually meant that one day a week i would be whisked off with the other gifteds to do smart people things like dissection in 0rd grade.  you have cast yourself as the victim here, which i think might be worth investigating.  you were fortunate enough that the universe conspired to make you smarter than your peers.  at least in terms of education, from what you said it sounds like you picked things up quicker, you could get farther faster, etc.  when the society into which you were born looked at you and did not shower you with extra resources beyond those which were bestowed equally to everyone, they  hurt  you ? no.  although, based on what i have read probably something by steven pinker , your exposure to teaching the things you already knew to kids who needed to know probably helped you learn those subjects more deeply than you knew them due mainly to having to not only be proficient, but proficient at  explaining  in a way that others could understand .  no one  made you fail.   no one tied weights to your body or made you wear distorting goggles or ear covers or put prosthetics in your mouth to impede your speech.  if your experience were harrison bergeron is, he would have been teaching classes in dance and jumping to other kids.  yes, if we had the resources such that everyone could be provided with an adequate education and then we had leftover resources, by all means those leftovers should have gone to you and other gifted people to help unlock the maximum talent we could.  but you lived somewhere where the taxpayers decided that it was more important that they keep some trivial fraction of their wealth and income instead of providing the absolute best platform from which you could launch your life.  so they provided a less than best platform equally to everyone.  that is not something targeted  at you .  that is not some thing to  hurt you .  it is a lack of provision.  it is an omission.   #  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.   #  i am not passing the blame per se.  it is my fault for not wanting to waste my efforts on material i had learned 0 years prior.  however, i should point out that if i have 0 mastery of a skill teaching it does not help.  half the time i was just letting them cheat off my calculator anyways.  all i am saying is that other people is grades were increased at my expense.  i could have/should have wasted my time filling out worksheets for subjects where i got 0 on every exam, but it is frankly more effort for nothing tangible.  i would rather spend my time reading, or making music.  things that better myself.  as i said i am not mad at my lot.  it is just observations.  also i had a similar program in pittsburgh.  i loved it.  they did a good job of making it fun and teaching critical thinking above specific subjects.  i think one off the main problems is an outdated system.  it is well documented that the way we teach is unnatural for teenager boys.  it is built for training people to work in factories rather than to be critical thinkers.   #  i think the only issue when it is with your  less able   to use a horrible term peers is that there is a danger of it being quite patronising.   #  in terms of the general picture, it appears to be the fairly consistent exposure to mixed ability in the classroom that raises overall standards.  however, the mentoring thing is a good idea, and some schools do that.  i know of a school near me for instance that does that specifically for students who have english as a second language.  when i was at school, there was also a mentoring programme where gifted and talented year 0s mentored year 0s.  i think the only issue when it is with your  less able   to use a horrible term peers is that there is a danger of it being quite patronising.  you are there in a position of power, and they kind of know they are there because they are not as smart as you.  it could work, but also has the potential to go horribly wrong ! i think it would have to be voluntary from both sides, maybe a skill swap rather than a straight teacher student relationship ?
i am re watching  inglorious basterds , your typical tarantino revenge porn, and i think it is pretty good.  i got to the scene in which the basterds have ambushed a german patrol and disarmed them.  after killing and scalping most of the soldiers, they have a sit down with their commanding officer.  during this sit down, the basterds want to have the officer point out the positions of another german patrol in the area on a map.  the officer refuses three times, despite after being told the second time that if he refuses again he will be beaten to death with a club.  while the officer does display anti semitic attitudes, his choice is noble.  if he were to divulge the information he would  be putting german lives in danger .  i see this as a heroic response, especially when he faced and was indeed executed by the bear jew.  as far as the scaled soldiers, they were not necessarily all nazi is.  the goal of the basterds is  to kill nazi is.   i am having trouble finding a statistic on the percentage of wehrmact soldiers that were nazi is, and if someone could supply one i would be grateful, but i am inclined to believe it will be under 0.  note that i am not trying to absolve the wehrmact as history has proven that they were just as culpable for the war crimes committed as the ss, but the goal of the basterds is to  kill nazi is , which i doubt all of those soldiers were.   #  as far as the scaled soldiers, they were not necessarily all nazi is.   #  the goal of the basterds is  to kill nazi is.    # the goal of the basterds is  to kill nazi is.   i am having trouble finding a statistic on the percentage of wehrmact soldiers that were nazi is, and if someone could supply one i would be grateful, but i am inclined to believe it will be under 0.  note that i am not trying to absolve the wehrmact as history has proven that they were just as culpable for the war crimes committed as the ss, but the goal of the basterds is to  kill nazi is , which i doubt all of those soldiers were.  the bastards were behind enemy lines, most likely france, starting spring 0.  the vast majority of foreign recruits within the wehrmacht were fighting on the eastern front against the soviet union.  some dutch were brought into the s. s, but at that point, you kind of have to call them nazis.  it is an almost certainty that all the scalps taken, were nazis scalps.   #  they are a partisan terrorist force, and their goal is to disrupt german war operations and damage morale by creating fear.   #  i thought it was pretty clear that the german officer was being portrayed as heroic.  in fact, if i remember, any named wehrmacht soldier they kill is characterized somewhat sympathetically i. e.  the new father celebrating his sons birth.  that being said, the goal of the basterds is not just  to kill nazis .  they are a partisan terrorist force, and their goal is to disrupt german war operations and damage morale by creating fear.  sure, individual german soldiers maybe are not particularly  nazis  but they act in service of the nazi regime, and are fair game for anyone who opposes the nazis.   #  he may not be a perfect person, but he is a hero.   #  let me ask you a question.  if a soldier, say, in the vietnam war, were to rescue a fellow soldier from a fortified position, at great personal risk, for selfless reasons,would you call him a hero ? i would.  now let is just say he is a raging racist.  were his actions any less heroic ? he may not be a perfect person, but he is a hero.  you seem to think  hero  perfect human being.  a hero is someone who does heroic actions imo .   #  not everybody in nazi germany was a nazi, just like not everybody in the us sides with president obama, or bush, or clinton, etc.   #  they were not defending a genocidal regime.  yes, they were in the grand scheme of things, but on a soldier to soldier basis, once you first taste combat you are no longer the same person.  you just do not want to die, and neither do your friends next to you.  all politics go out the window.  at the end of the day you are fighting for the guy beside you and he is doing the same, because you both just want to go home in one piece.  not everybody in nazi germany was a nazi, just like not everybody in the us sides with president obama, or bush, or clinton, etc.  towards the end of the war the majority of the german soldiers were conscripts that did not have a choice.  they were just fighting for their own lives.  he did not refuse to give his friends  locations to protect germany, he did it to protect the men themselves, as humans.  not the nazi ideology.  you fight for the man beside you.   #  people who are drafted are somewhat different; they have not made that choice, it has been forced upon them.   #  personally, i would.  if you made a choice to be a soldier, you made a choice to be a legitimate target for violence.  it is often a noble choice, by being a soldier you may protect others, but that does not eliminate the choice is nature, you are now an acceptable individual to kill.  killing you is no longer murder, or terrorism, or even collateral damage, it is simply warfare.  people who are drafted are somewhat different; they have not made that choice, it has been forced upon them.  but their killer is not at fault for that, their nation is.
being offended by someone who had painted is face black is dumb as the original issues with are not relevant nowadays.  when people arent trying to take jobs that could have been filled in by black people and people arent trying to make a caricature out of black peolle then painting thaire face black shouldent be a problem. this used to be a problem that only occurred in the united states but lately there influence effected other countrys making their traditions seem racist.  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.  a lot of people are butthurt about slavery, but slavery has no link to any of these traditions.  this seems just as silly as prosecuting aboriginals or african tribes when they paint there face white for rituals.   #  being offended by someone who had painted is face black is dumb as the original issues with are not relevant nowadays.   #  there is more to  blackface  than just wearing makeup which is why most black people, myself included, did not find tropic thunder to be offensive at all.   # there is more to  blackface  than just wearing makeup which is why most black people, myself included, did not find tropic thunder to be offensive at all.  it is a style of theatre that mocks black people in a wide variety of ways.  blackface was never about  taking jobs from black people.   hell, a lot of blackface performers were black people.  but blackface, the theatre form, is absolutely about making a mockery of black people.  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.  why are they painting their faces black ? if it has nothing to do with mocking blackpeople, then it is not  blackface ; it is just facepaint.  yeah, but slavery certainly does have a link to blackface theatre.  yeah, it is silly, and i do not know many people doing it.  ultimately, the closest thing we see to blackface on a regular basis is when people use a mocking black accent to make fun of black people, like when they say  he din no nuffin  wrong !   on every single thread where a black person is accused of a crime.  that really is not that different from blackface at all.   #  even if there is no harmfull intent or mockery.   #  the taking jobs part was an argument i heard a lot when discussing this.  i am glad you agree on the part that not all black paintings of the face are blackface.  but i see it happen a lot that just painting the face black is considered racist.  even if there is no harmfull intent or mockery.  for example the netherlands has zwarte piet black pete the the helper of santa.  URL americans not only the us seem to go in cultural shock every time they see this.   #  they are acrobatic, funny, witty, kind, often  cool  and shit man, they are the ones who give you the actual gifts !  #  he is black, and he is working for an old white guy, so he is a slave.  he is sinterklaas  helper.  in no way is he treated like a slave or a lesser being.  he enjoys working for santa, who is a 0 year old guy.  you have piet is for everything.  there is a  wouldumb piet , sure, but there is also a  rocket science piet  a  willawyer piet  or a  amusic piet .  the  head piet  is actually more so the boss than sinterklaas, who is more the boss in name.  hp is the one who delegates all the work to the specific piet is for the job.  all the kids here dress up like black piet, they love them.  they are acrobatic, funny, witty, kind, often  cool  and shit man, they are the ones who give you the actual gifts ! let is try it like this.  so a fat old anglo american is the owner of a sweatshop in which elves who are clearly the a stereotype of the irish, who were used as slaves by the english .  they work under horrible conditions, en get paid next to nothing.  they never say or do anything profound besides crafting toys.  meanwhile the oppressive santa acts like he is the good guy, the elves get nearly no credit.  santa is the central theme, the elves are just there for all the hard work.  this discriminating and racist  holiday  as you barbarians call it makes me sick.   #  that article goes into a lot more than i would heard before.   #  that article goes into a lot more than i would heard before.  i used to live with a couple of dutch guys, who explained it to me as him a moor slave but as they grew up people started calling him st.  nick is helper or assistant to try to soften that.  as to why it is racist. i mean, take a look at the pictures in that article.  it is white people who blacken their skin, wear those wigs and paint on the huge red lips.  that is so clearly what blackface is, the character is the spitting image of a golliwog.  his name is even black pete !  #  the mayor of amsterdam contested the ruling and appealed to the council of state.   #  zwarte piet is certainly not obviously  not racist  as you seem to imply.  its origins were a  dark servant boy , and if you look at the last paragraph you can see that he is still a controversial figure.  led by the centre is director, ineke strouten, several groups and individuals were consulted for their input, among them teachers, festival organizers, television producers, pro piet advocates and quinsy gario, the co founder of the ongoing  zwarte piet is racisme  campaign.  a court hearing in amsterdam concerning the character was scheduled for 0 may 0.  the court is verdict, rendered on 0 july, contended that zwarte piet is, indeed, offensive due to the character is continued role in perpetuating negative stereotypes of black people.  the mayor of amsterdam contested the ruling and appealed to the council of state.  although he recognized that the character of zwarte piet can be experienced as discriminatory and racist, he believed the legal ramifications of the ruling to be too severe.  the council of state is ruling is set to take place on 0 november 0.
being offended by someone who had painted is face black is dumb as the original issues with are not relevant nowadays.  when people arent trying to take jobs that could have been filled in by black people and people arent trying to make a caricature out of black peolle then painting thaire face black shouldent be a problem. this used to be a problem that only occurred in the united states but lately there influence effected other countrys making their traditions seem racist.  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.  a lot of people are butthurt about slavery, but slavery has no link to any of these traditions.  this seems just as silly as prosecuting aboriginals or african tribes when they paint there face white for rituals.   #  when people arent trying to take jobs that could have been filled in by black people and people arent trying to make a caricature out of black peolle then painting thaire face black shouldent be a problem.   #  blackface was never about  taking jobs from black people.    # there is more to  blackface  than just wearing makeup which is why most black people, myself included, did not find tropic thunder to be offensive at all.  it is a style of theatre that mocks black people in a wide variety of ways.  blackface was never about  taking jobs from black people.   hell, a lot of blackface performers were black people.  but blackface, the theatre form, is absolutely about making a mockery of black people.  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.  why are they painting their faces black ? if it has nothing to do with mocking blackpeople, then it is not  blackface ; it is just facepaint.  yeah, but slavery certainly does have a link to blackface theatre.  yeah, it is silly, and i do not know many people doing it.  ultimately, the closest thing we see to blackface on a regular basis is when people use a mocking black accent to make fun of black people, like when they say  he din no nuffin  wrong !   on every single thread where a black person is accused of a crime.  that really is not that different from blackface at all.   #  for example the netherlands has zwarte piet black pete the the helper of santa.   #  the taking jobs part was an argument i heard a lot when discussing this.  i am glad you agree on the part that not all black paintings of the face are blackface.  but i see it happen a lot that just painting the face black is considered racist.  even if there is no harmfull intent or mockery.  for example the netherlands has zwarte piet black pete the the helper of santa.  URL americans not only the us seem to go in cultural shock every time they see this.   #  this discriminating and racist  holiday  as you barbarians call it makes me sick.   #  he is black, and he is working for an old white guy, so he is a slave.  he is sinterklaas  helper.  in no way is he treated like a slave or a lesser being.  he enjoys working for santa, who is a 0 year old guy.  you have piet is for everything.  there is a  wouldumb piet , sure, but there is also a  rocket science piet  a  willawyer piet  or a  amusic piet .  the  head piet  is actually more so the boss than sinterklaas, who is more the boss in name.  hp is the one who delegates all the work to the specific piet is for the job.  all the kids here dress up like black piet, they love them.  they are acrobatic, funny, witty, kind, often  cool  and shit man, they are the ones who give you the actual gifts ! let is try it like this.  so a fat old anglo american is the owner of a sweatshop in which elves who are clearly the a stereotype of the irish, who were used as slaves by the english .  they work under horrible conditions, en get paid next to nothing.  they never say or do anything profound besides crafting toys.  meanwhile the oppressive santa acts like he is the good guy, the elves get nearly no credit.  santa is the central theme, the elves are just there for all the hard work.  this discriminating and racist  holiday  as you barbarians call it makes me sick.   #  i used to live with a couple of dutch guys, who explained it to me as him a moor slave but as they grew up people started calling him st.   #  that article goes into a lot more than i would heard before.  i used to live with a couple of dutch guys, who explained it to me as him a moor slave but as they grew up people started calling him st.  nick is helper or assistant to try to soften that.  as to why it is racist. i mean, take a look at the pictures in that article.  it is white people who blacken their skin, wear those wigs and paint on the huge red lips.  that is so clearly what blackface is, the character is the spitting image of a golliwog.  his name is even black pete !  #  the council of state is ruling is set to take place on 0 november 0.   #  zwarte piet is certainly not obviously  not racist  as you seem to imply.  its origins were a  dark servant boy , and if you look at the last paragraph you can see that he is still a controversial figure.  led by the centre is director, ineke strouten, several groups and individuals were consulted for their input, among them teachers, festival organizers, television producers, pro piet advocates and quinsy gario, the co founder of the ongoing  zwarte piet is racisme  campaign.  a court hearing in amsterdam concerning the character was scheduled for 0 may 0.  the court is verdict, rendered on 0 july, contended that zwarte piet is, indeed, offensive due to the character is continued role in perpetuating negative stereotypes of black people.  the mayor of amsterdam contested the ruling and appealed to the council of state.  although he recognized that the character of zwarte piet can be experienced as discriminatory and racist, he believed the legal ramifications of the ruling to be too severe.  the council of state is ruling is set to take place on 0 november 0.
being offended by someone who had painted is face black is dumb as the original issues with are not relevant nowadays.  when people arent trying to take jobs that could have been filled in by black people and people arent trying to make a caricature out of black peolle then painting thaire face black shouldent be a problem. this used to be a problem that only occurred in the united states but lately there influence effected other countrys making their traditions seem racist.  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.  a lot of people are butthurt about slavery, but slavery has no link to any of these traditions.  this seems just as silly as prosecuting aboriginals or african tribes when they paint there face white for rituals.   #  this used to be a problem that only occurred in the united states but lately there influence effected other countrys making their traditions seem racist.   #  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.   # there is more to  blackface  than just wearing makeup which is why most black people, myself included, did not find tropic thunder to be offensive at all.  it is a style of theatre that mocks black people in a wide variety of ways.  blackface was never about  taking jobs from black people.   hell, a lot of blackface performers were black people.  but blackface, the theatre form, is absolutely about making a mockery of black people.  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.  why are they painting their faces black ? if it has nothing to do with mocking blackpeople, then it is not  blackface ; it is just facepaint.  yeah, but slavery certainly does have a link to blackface theatre.  yeah, it is silly, and i do not know many people doing it.  ultimately, the closest thing we see to blackface on a regular basis is when people use a mocking black accent to make fun of black people, like when they say  he din no nuffin  wrong !   on every single thread where a black person is accused of a crime.  that really is not that different from blackface at all.   #  i am glad you agree on the part that not all black paintings of the face are blackface.   #  the taking jobs part was an argument i heard a lot when discussing this.  i am glad you agree on the part that not all black paintings of the face are blackface.  but i see it happen a lot that just painting the face black is considered racist.  even if there is no harmfull intent or mockery.  for example the netherlands has zwarte piet black pete the the helper of santa.  URL americans not only the us seem to go in cultural shock every time they see this.   #  he is black, and he is working for an old white guy, so he is a slave.   #  he is black, and he is working for an old white guy, so he is a slave.  he is sinterklaas  helper.  in no way is he treated like a slave or a lesser being.  he enjoys working for santa, who is a 0 year old guy.  you have piet is for everything.  there is a  wouldumb piet , sure, but there is also a  rocket science piet  a  willawyer piet  or a  amusic piet .  the  head piet  is actually more so the boss than sinterklaas, who is more the boss in name.  hp is the one who delegates all the work to the specific piet is for the job.  all the kids here dress up like black piet, they love them.  they are acrobatic, funny, witty, kind, often  cool  and shit man, they are the ones who give you the actual gifts ! let is try it like this.  so a fat old anglo american is the owner of a sweatshop in which elves who are clearly the a stereotype of the irish, who were used as slaves by the english .  they work under horrible conditions, en get paid next to nothing.  they never say or do anything profound besides crafting toys.  meanwhile the oppressive santa acts like he is the good guy, the elves get nearly no credit.  santa is the central theme, the elves are just there for all the hard work.  this discriminating and racist  holiday  as you barbarians call it makes me sick.   #  it is white people who blacken their skin, wear those wigs and paint on the huge red lips.   #  that article goes into a lot more than i would heard before.  i used to live with a couple of dutch guys, who explained it to me as him a moor slave but as they grew up people started calling him st.  nick is helper or assistant to try to soften that.  as to why it is racist. i mean, take a look at the pictures in that article.  it is white people who blacken their skin, wear those wigs and paint on the huge red lips.  that is so clearly what blackface is, the character is the spitting image of a golliwog.  his name is even black pete !  #  led by the centre is director, ineke strouten, several groups and individuals were consulted for their input, among them teachers, festival organizers, television producers, pro piet advocates and quinsy gario, the co founder of the ongoing  zwarte piet is racisme  campaign.   #  zwarte piet is certainly not obviously  not racist  as you seem to imply.  its origins were a  dark servant boy , and if you look at the last paragraph you can see that he is still a controversial figure.  led by the centre is director, ineke strouten, several groups and individuals were consulted for their input, among them teachers, festival organizers, television producers, pro piet advocates and quinsy gario, the co founder of the ongoing  zwarte piet is racisme  campaign.  a court hearing in amsterdam concerning the character was scheduled for 0 may 0.  the court is verdict, rendered on 0 july, contended that zwarte piet is, indeed, offensive due to the character is continued role in perpetuating negative stereotypes of black people.  the mayor of amsterdam contested the ruling and appealed to the council of state.  although he recognized that the character of zwarte piet can be experienced as discriminatory and racist, he believed the legal ramifications of the ruling to be too severe.  the council of state is ruling is set to take place on 0 november 0.
being offended by someone who had painted is face black is dumb as the original issues with are not relevant nowadays.  when people arent trying to take jobs that could have been filled in by black people and people arent trying to make a caricature out of black peolle then painting thaire face black shouldent be a problem. this used to be a problem that only occurred in the united states but lately there influence effected other countrys making their traditions seem racist.  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.  a lot of people are butthurt about slavery, but slavery has no link to any of these traditions.  this seems just as silly as prosecuting aboriginals or african tribes when they paint there face white for rituals.   #  a lot of people are butthurt about slavery, but slavery has no link to any of these traditions.   #  yeah, but slavery certainly does have a link to blackface theatre.   # there is more to  blackface  than just wearing makeup which is why most black people, myself included, did not find tropic thunder to be offensive at all.  it is a style of theatre that mocks black people in a wide variety of ways.  blackface was never about  taking jobs from black people.   hell, a lot of blackface performers were black people.  but blackface, the theatre form, is absolutely about making a mockery of black people.  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.  why are they painting their faces black ? if it has nothing to do with mocking blackpeople, then it is not  blackface ; it is just facepaint.  yeah, but slavery certainly does have a link to blackface theatre.  yeah, it is silly, and i do not know many people doing it.  ultimately, the closest thing we see to blackface on a regular basis is when people use a mocking black accent to make fun of black people, like when they say  he din no nuffin  wrong !   on every single thread where a black person is accused of a crime.  that really is not that different from blackface at all.   #  for example the netherlands has zwarte piet black pete the the helper of santa.   #  the taking jobs part was an argument i heard a lot when discussing this.  i am glad you agree on the part that not all black paintings of the face are blackface.  but i see it happen a lot that just painting the face black is considered racist.  even if there is no harmfull intent or mockery.  for example the netherlands has zwarte piet black pete the the helper of santa.  URL americans not only the us seem to go in cultural shock every time they see this.   #  this discriminating and racist  holiday  as you barbarians call it makes me sick.   #  he is black, and he is working for an old white guy, so he is a slave.  he is sinterklaas  helper.  in no way is he treated like a slave or a lesser being.  he enjoys working for santa, who is a 0 year old guy.  you have piet is for everything.  there is a  wouldumb piet , sure, but there is also a  rocket science piet  a  willawyer piet  or a  amusic piet .  the  head piet  is actually more so the boss than sinterklaas, who is more the boss in name.  hp is the one who delegates all the work to the specific piet is for the job.  all the kids here dress up like black piet, they love them.  they are acrobatic, funny, witty, kind, often  cool  and shit man, they are the ones who give you the actual gifts ! let is try it like this.  so a fat old anglo american is the owner of a sweatshop in which elves who are clearly the a stereotype of the irish, who were used as slaves by the english .  they work under horrible conditions, en get paid next to nothing.  they never say or do anything profound besides crafting toys.  meanwhile the oppressive santa acts like he is the good guy, the elves get nearly no credit.  santa is the central theme, the elves are just there for all the hard work.  this discriminating and racist  holiday  as you barbarians call it makes me sick.   #  that is so clearly what blackface is, the character is the spitting image of a golliwog.   #  that article goes into a lot more than i would heard before.  i used to live with a couple of dutch guys, who explained it to me as him a moor slave but as they grew up people started calling him st.  nick is helper or assistant to try to soften that.  as to why it is racist. i mean, take a look at the pictures in that article.  it is white people who blacken their skin, wear those wigs and paint on the huge red lips.  that is so clearly what blackface is, the character is the spitting image of a golliwog.  his name is even black pete !  #  the council of state is ruling is set to take place on 0 november 0.   #  zwarte piet is certainly not obviously  not racist  as you seem to imply.  its origins were a  dark servant boy , and if you look at the last paragraph you can see that he is still a controversial figure.  led by the centre is director, ineke strouten, several groups and individuals were consulted for their input, among them teachers, festival organizers, television producers, pro piet advocates and quinsy gario, the co founder of the ongoing  zwarte piet is racisme  campaign.  a court hearing in amsterdam concerning the character was scheduled for 0 may 0.  the court is verdict, rendered on 0 july, contended that zwarte piet is, indeed, offensive due to the character is continued role in perpetuating negative stereotypes of black people.  the mayor of amsterdam contested the ruling and appealed to the council of state.  although he recognized that the character of zwarte piet can be experienced as discriminatory and racist, he believed the legal ramifications of the ruling to be too severe.  the council of state is ruling is set to take place on 0 november 0.
being offended by someone who had painted is face black is dumb as the original issues with are not relevant nowadays.  when people arent trying to take jobs that could have been filled in by black people and people arent trying to make a caricature out of black peolle then painting thaire face black shouldent be a problem. this used to be a problem that only occurred in the united states but lately there influence effected other countrys making their traditions seem racist.  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.  a lot of people are butthurt about slavery, but slavery has no link to any of these traditions.  this seems just as silly as prosecuting aboriginals or african tribes when they paint there face white for rituals.   #  this seems just as silly as prosecuting aboriginals or african tribes when they paint there face white for rituals.   #  yeah, it is silly, and i do not know many people doing it.   # there is more to  blackface  than just wearing makeup which is why most black people, myself included, did not find tropic thunder to be offensive at all.  it is a style of theatre that mocks black people in a wide variety of ways.  blackface was never about  taking jobs from black people.   hell, a lot of blackface performers were black people.  but blackface, the theatre form, is absolutely about making a mockery of black people.  like in the netherlands, japan, switzerland where painting the face black is still done.  why are they painting their faces black ? if it has nothing to do with mocking blackpeople, then it is not  blackface ; it is just facepaint.  yeah, but slavery certainly does have a link to blackface theatre.  yeah, it is silly, and i do not know many people doing it.  ultimately, the closest thing we see to blackface on a regular basis is when people use a mocking black accent to make fun of black people, like when they say  he din no nuffin  wrong !   on every single thread where a black person is accused of a crime.  that really is not that different from blackface at all.   #  for example the netherlands has zwarte piet black pete the the helper of santa.   #  the taking jobs part was an argument i heard a lot when discussing this.  i am glad you agree on the part that not all black paintings of the face are blackface.  but i see it happen a lot that just painting the face black is considered racist.  even if there is no harmfull intent or mockery.  for example the netherlands has zwarte piet black pete the the helper of santa.  URL americans not only the us seem to go in cultural shock every time they see this.   #  the  head piet  is actually more so the boss than sinterklaas, who is more the boss in name.   #  he is black, and he is working for an old white guy, so he is a slave.  he is sinterklaas  helper.  in no way is he treated like a slave or a lesser being.  he enjoys working for santa, who is a 0 year old guy.  you have piet is for everything.  there is a  wouldumb piet , sure, but there is also a  rocket science piet  a  willawyer piet  or a  amusic piet .  the  head piet  is actually more so the boss than sinterklaas, who is more the boss in name.  hp is the one who delegates all the work to the specific piet is for the job.  all the kids here dress up like black piet, they love them.  they are acrobatic, funny, witty, kind, often  cool  and shit man, they are the ones who give you the actual gifts ! let is try it like this.  so a fat old anglo american is the owner of a sweatshop in which elves who are clearly the a stereotype of the irish, who were used as slaves by the english .  they work under horrible conditions, en get paid next to nothing.  they never say or do anything profound besides crafting toys.  meanwhile the oppressive santa acts like he is the good guy, the elves get nearly no credit.  santa is the central theme, the elves are just there for all the hard work.  this discriminating and racist  holiday  as you barbarians call it makes me sick.   #  that article goes into a lot more than i would heard before.   #  that article goes into a lot more than i would heard before.  i used to live with a couple of dutch guys, who explained it to me as him a moor slave but as they grew up people started calling him st.  nick is helper or assistant to try to soften that.  as to why it is racist. i mean, take a look at the pictures in that article.  it is white people who blacken their skin, wear those wigs and paint on the huge red lips.  that is so clearly what blackface is, the character is the spitting image of a golliwog.  his name is even black pete !  #  the mayor of amsterdam contested the ruling and appealed to the council of state.   #  zwarte piet is certainly not obviously  not racist  as you seem to imply.  its origins were a  dark servant boy , and if you look at the last paragraph you can see that he is still a controversial figure.  led by the centre is director, ineke strouten, several groups and individuals were consulted for their input, among them teachers, festival organizers, television producers, pro piet advocates and quinsy gario, the co founder of the ongoing  zwarte piet is racisme  campaign.  a court hearing in amsterdam concerning the character was scheduled for 0 may 0.  the court is verdict, rendered on 0 july, contended that zwarte piet is, indeed, offensive due to the character is continued role in perpetuating negative stereotypes of black people.  the mayor of amsterdam contested the ruling and appealed to the council of state.  although he recognized that the character of zwarte piet can be experienced as discriminatory and racist, he believed the legal ramifications of the ruling to be too severe.  the council of state is ruling is set to take place on 0 november 0.
my thinking here is that the parent who makes the most money is best able to support the child, simply because they are best able to continue the lifestyle.  if a parent must receive alimony, then they are less financially empowered and, in effect, the children become dependent on the alimony paying and child support paying parent in the end anyway.  furthermore, by establishing a certain income threshold, if the more financially empowered parent is the presumed custody taker, the need for child support could be eliminated in some instances.  this leaves less opportunity for the parent who did not receive custody to find loopholes in order to pay as little as possible which ends up harming the children .  furthermore, in the system where alimony is based on the earning power of the more financially empowered party and not on the needs of the less, requiring a person to pay both alimony and child support seems to be something that should only occur in extenuating circumstances.  thus, the logical thing would be for the more financially powerful parent to pay alimony as usual , with presumed custody unless there is proof that that parent is worse suited to custody.  if i sound elitist, i am sorry, i really do not mean to ! is there a part of this i am missing ? cmv !  #  my thinking here is that the parent who makes the most money is best able to support the child, simply because they are best able to continue the lifestyle.   #  also, this demonstrably is not the case continuing with our figures from earlier, what if one parent earns 0 dollars way more than enough money but straight up does not want a child ?  # let is say the cost of raising a child is 0 dollars.  it is not, it is not anywhere close to that, but i am going to use that to keep the math simple.  let is also ignore any other living costs.  just solely to raise the child here.  if one parent earns 0 dollars, and another earns 0 dollars, no matter who takes custody over the child, they are going to need child support, right ? just because you make more money than the other parent does not mean you make  enough  money, just that you make more money than someone else.  those two are very different things.  also, this demonstrably is not the case continuing with our figures from earlier, what if one parent earns 0 dollars way more than enough money but straight up does not want a child ? just because they have enough money does not mean they are going to use it on the child, and it does not mean they are going to be the better parent.  abusive or even just bad parents exist, and just because you are rich does not make you a good parent.   #  caring for a child is a lot more than costs.   # why distill the support the child needs to money ? caring for a child is a lot more than costs.  i will give you a simple hypothetical.  say one member of a couple is a highly paid lawyer who is seldom home and the other was a stay at home parent who taught the child how to do everything and enjoys a very close relationship with the child.  is the child better off living with the wealthier parent, being raised by hired childcare givers, or remaining under the care of the parent who they have the closest relationship with ? to me, the answer is clear.  for the emotional well being of the child, it is best to be raised by a parent who has already been doing a good job rather than raised by hired strangers.  you may say this falls under extenuating circumstances, but it is really just at one end of the spectrum for clarity.  it is not at all rare for one parent to do much more of the direct childcare than the other, and it is fairly typical for it to be the parent who works less and thus makes less money.   #  is the child better off living with the wealthier parent, being raised by hired childcare givers, or remaining under the care of the parent who they have the closest relationship with ?  # say one member of a couple is a highly paid lawyer who is seldom home and the other was a stay at home parent who taught the child how to do everything and enjoys a very close relationship with the child.  is the child better off living with the wealthier parent, being raised by hired childcare givers, or remaining under the care of the parent who they have the closest relationship with ? i understand this sentiment, but insofar as the stay at home parent becomes dependent on the wealthier parent for a source of income, at least for a while, then the child is, in effect, already dependent on the wealthier parent.  i see what you mean when the family is one working, one stay at home, but in those cases, a prenup would be much, much more common i think, as long as that changes anything .  as well, if a parent is almost never home, then recognizing that, the  extenuating circumstance  clause would take effect, if the parent does not admit that the other parent is better suited.  either way, the child would go to the stay at home parent most likely, assuming the working parent is the 0 am 0 pm type .   #  0 of mothers alone do not work outside the home, that is not even counting stay at home dads.   # only about 0 of couples get a pre nup.  0 of mothers alone do not work outside the home, that is not even counting stay at home dads.  so the vast majority of couples with a stay at home parent do not have any kind of agreement.  and that is just the moms who stay stay at home full time.  add in the partners who spend more time with kids but also work part time, and the two fulltime working parent households where the lesser earning parent does more of the childcare, and we would be at at least 0 of all families, if not much more.  if more than half of all families fall into  extenuating circumstances  then your central rule is not particularly useful.  kids should stay with the primary caregiver, and that is more often than not the lesser earning parent.   #  as well, if a parent is almost never home, then recognizing that, the  extenuating circumstance  clause would take effect, if the parent does not admit that the other parent is better suited.   # say one member of a couple is a highly paid lawyer who is seldom home and the other was a stay at home parent who taught the child how to do everything and enjoys a very close relationship with the child.  is the child better off living with the wealthier parent, being raised by hired childcare givers, or remaining under the care of the parent who they have the closest relationship with ? i understand this sentiment, but insofar as the stay at home parent becomes dependent on the wealthier parent for a source of income, at least for a while, then the child is, in effect, already dependent on the wealthier parent.  i see what you mean when the family is one working, one stay at home, but in those cases, a prenup would be much, much more common i think, as long as that changes anything .  as well, if a parent is almost never home, then recognizing that, the  extenuating circumstance  clause would take effect, if the parent does not admit that the other parent is better suited.  either way, the child would go to the stay at home parent most likely, assuming the working parent is the 0 am 0 pm type .
my thinking here is that the parent who makes the most money is best able to support the child, simply because they are best able to continue the lifestyle.  if a parent must receive alimony, then they are less financially empowered and, in effect, the children become dependent on the alimony paying and child support paying parent in the end anyway.  furthermore, by establishing a certain income threshold, if the more financially empowered parent is the presumed custody taker, the need for child support could be eliminated in some instances.  this leaves less opportunity for the parent who did not receive custody to find loopholes in order to pay as little as possible which ends up harming the children .  furthermore, in the system where alimony is based on the earning power of the more financially empowered party and not on the needs of the less, requiring a person to pay both alimony and child support seems to be something that should only occur in extenuating circumstances.  thus, the logical thing would be for the more financially powerful parent to pay alimony as usual , with presumed custody unless there is proof that that parent is worse suited to custody.  if i sound elitist, i am sorry, i really do not mean to ! is there a part of this i am missing ? cmv !  #  my thinking here is that the parent who makes the most money is best able to support the child, simply because they are best able to continue the lifestyle.   #  this is one consideration of many for child support, usually in so far as the amount of child support required, not what is in the best interest of the child.   # this is one consideration of many for child support, usually in so far as the amount of child support required, not what is in the best interest of the child.  the best interests of the child test varies from state to state, but needless to say, it goes far beyond ability to provide.  for example, a parent who makes a ton of money might also rarely be home because they work a lot.  as a society, we consider parents who spend time and pay attention to their child an important interest of the child.  that is why we balance a number of factors vis a vis the needs of the child, including but not limited to finances.  similarly, we do not want parents to stay in relationships solely because they do not make enough money to keep the kids.  your system requires people to balance the risk of being unable to provide against anything ranging from happiness and emotional comfort e. g. , simply not having a fruitful relationship to physical and emotional abuse e. g. , not wanting to leave an abusive relationship in order to preserve both the financial benefits for the child and having some custodial relationship with them.  based on your op, you clearly understand why abuse would be enough to undermine custodial rights in a divorce.  you should also be concerned about keeping children through their parents in abusive households.  your model creates an incentive for that.  the short version: you are keeping people in unhappy and possibly even dangerous relationships on the basis of income earned.  this is harmful not only to the people in the relationship, but to the kids who have to deal with the ensuing collateral damage.  another issue is that we view marriage as a community of interests in which one invests.  during marriage, it is not uncommon for parents to specialize, with one parent staying at home and another working.  this is, in many circumstances, smart.  we do not want people to consistently work against the marriage in an effort to preserve their ability to care and provide for both themselves and their kids on the off chance they get divorced.  there is not even a guarantee that alimony will be required.  it is decided case by case.  people already complain about the high divorce rate; we do not want to provide perverse incentives to act like that is an inevitability while still married.  we want to keep the institution as egalitarian as possible, protecting the rights that naturally flow as a parent and being realistic about the opportunity costs it carries, particularly for the non working, full time parent spouse.   #  it is not at all rare for one parent to do much more of the direct childcare than the other, and it is fairly typical for it to be the parent who works less and thus makes less money.   # why distill the support the child needs to money ? caring for a child is a lot more than costs.  i will give you a simple hypothetical.  say one member of a couple is a highly paid lawyer who is seldom home and the other was a stay at home parent who taught the child how to do everything and enjoys a very close relationship with the child.  is the child better off living with the wealthier parent, being raised by hired childcare givers, or remaining under the care of the parent who they have the closest relationship with ? to me, the answer is clear.  for the emotional well being of the child, it is best to be raised by a parent who has already been doing a good job rather than raised by hired strangers.  you may say this falls under extenuating circumstances, but it is really just at one end of the spectrum for clarity.  it is not at all rare for one parent to do much more of the direct childcare than the other, and it is fairly typical for it to be the parent who works less and thus makes less money.   #  i understand this sentiment, but insofar as the stay at home parent becomes dependent on the wealthier parent for a source of income, at least for a while, then the child is, in effect, already dependent on the wealthier parent.   # say one member of a couple is a highly paid lawyer who is seldom home and the other was a stay at home parent who taught the child how to do everything and enjoys a very close relationship with the child.  is the child better off living with the wealthier parent, being raised by hired childcare givers, or remaining under the care of the parent who they have the closest relationship with ? i understand this sentiment, but insofar as the stay at home parent becomes dependent on the wealthier parent for a source of income, at least for a while, then the child is, in effect, already dependent on the wealthier parent.  i see what you mean when the family is one working, one stay at home, but in those cases, a prenup would be much, much more common i think, as long as that changes anything .  as well, if a parent is almost never home, then recognizing that, the  extenuating circumstance  clause would take effect, if the parent does not admit that the other parent is better suited.  either way, the child would go to the stay at home parent most likely, assuming the working parent is the 0 am 0 pm type .   #  if more than half of all families fall into  extenuating circumstances  then your central rule is not particularly useful.   # only about 0 of couples get a pre nup.  0 of mothers alone do not work outside the home, that is not even counting stay at home dads.  so the vast majority of couples with a stay at home parent do not have any kind of agreement.  and that is just the moms who stay stay at home full time.  add in the partners who spend more time with kids but also work part time, and the two fulltime working parent households where the lesser earning parent does more of the childcare, and we would be at at least 0 of all families, if not much more.  if more than half of all families fall into  extenuating circumstances  then your central rule is not particularly useful.  kids should stay with the primary caregiver, and that is more often than not the lesser earning parent.   #  i see what you mean when the family is one working, one stay at home, but in those cases, a prenup would be much, much more common i think, as long as that changes anything .   # say one member of a couple is a highly paid lawyer who is seldom home and the other was a stay at home parent who taught the child how to do everything and enjoys a very close relationship with the child.  is the child better off living with the wealthier parent, being raised by hired childcare givers, or remaining under the care of the parent who they have the closest relationship with ? i understand this sentiment, but insofar as the stay at home parent becomes dependent on the wealthier parent for a source of income, at least for a while, then the child is, in effect, already dependent on the wealthier parent.  i see what you mean when the family is one working, one stay at home, but in those cases, a prenup would be much, much more common i think, as long as that changes anything .  as well, if a parent is almost never home, then recognizing that, the  extenuating circumstance  clause would take effect, if the parent does not admit that the other parent is better suited.  either way, the child would go to the stay at home parent most likely, assuming the working parent is the 0 am 0 pm type .
it is coming up to remembrance sunday here in the uk, and at the moment the poppy appeal where people buy paper red poppies and the money goes to the charity the royal british legion is just starting.  however it is near certain that i will not wear a poppy this year, and as per my title i see no reason to do so.  firstly, i have often felt that the whole thing, from the actual 0th november 0min silence, to the wearing of poppies, to the whole  we shall not forget them  lines which get dragged out, have become for most people a case not of genuine remembrance but of simply going through the motions of a yearly event.  hell, i would be willing to guess that aside from the usual litany of facts they learnt in school, most people could not tell you a single thing about the war, about why the poppy is important or anything.  i also question why, given there exists a need for such services each and every day, and the problems and struggles of all those veterans do not just exist for one day, those same people who line up to wear the poppy then do not volunteer at a veteran is association, or go visit an old soldier living in a care home with no relatives or something.  i do not doubt that there is that minority of people who do this, and i am a firm believer that those charities who do help veterans are doing amazing things, but i struggle to see how this can be juxtaposed next to the near overwhelming poppy overload you see out there in the streets.  it is almost like the poppy is a cover for people is apathy, because they can wave their poppies around like some sort of magic hallpass that somehow proves they give a toss.  i also find the need to publicly display any sort of remembrance highly inappropriate too.  when the 0th comes, i will offer prayers, i will think of all those men who died, but i do not need to advertise that i am doing this.  it is an entirely personal thing between me and allah.  i should also add as a closing point that i am neither anti war or anti military, as this cmv might come across as being.  i love and respect the military highly, and i accept war as a necessary evil.  so, can anyone cmv ?  #  but i do not need to advertise that i am doing this.   #  it is an entirely personal thing between me and allah.   # it is an entirely personal thing between me and allah.  that is cool, but this statement itself is personal.  people wear poppies exactly because they are making this sentiment public and broadcasting it.  it does not matter the level of genuine belief that lies behind the symbol.  it is a social thing we do to produce an reinforce an idea as a society that is the purpose of most symbols .  the poppy carries a meaning, which most people understand and seeing it on people reinforce that meaning of time and space.  that is also why we go to religious gatherings in group, because the belief is both created and stenghtend by going trough the motion  as a group .  this produce the exact intended effect: we remember.   #  it can be assumed that realizing you are going to die before achieving this goal can be heart crushing.   #  soldiers, whether intentionally or not, put their lives on the line to protect the goals and dreams of the country they fight for.  so do firefighters and policemen and some other professions.  the self sacrifice they give for their fellow countrymen is the greatest form of heroism.  but, you may say, what about soldiers who do not join the military for these reasons, or people who start charities, do they display the same level of heroism to the point where we should honor them ? the difference between a charity president and a soldier is the risk to their own life that accompanies the job.  the president may over the course of his life help hundreds of millions of people, but he will never be a hero in the same way the soldier was.  everyone most people ? has a dream and a life goal they want to achieve to be happy .  it can be assumed that realizing you are going to die before achieving this goal can be heart crushing.  soldiers put themselves in a situation where they can at any moment lose the ability to pursue their dreams, while at the same time protecting the ability of others to pursue their own goals.  the wearing of poppies may seem like a dragged out ceremony, but firstly it ensures that you do not forget that some people died for something, and that hopefully you would think about it at the next level and realize that some people died to protect your life.  basically even though i think feeling apathetic is fundamentally wrong, wearing the poppy shows a sign of due respect to strangers who decide to sacrifice their lives for you.  displaying the public remembrance should only be a formality instead of a rule.  they are not asking a lot of you, and besides having it visually informing people who may not know of the holiday, it lets any veterans you may pass by that they are efforts are appreciated, at least a little bit.  it is not a personal affair between you and allah, it is a relationship you share with every person in your country.   #  they are not asking a lot of you, and besides having it visually informing people who may not know of the holiday, it lets any veterans you may pass by that they are efforts are appreciated, at least a little bit.   # i was, even before i began wearing a poppy, totally aware of this fact.  hell, i wanted and still want ! to be in the army myself, and i knew that to put on that uniform also came with the chance that i may die in defence of my country.  now i was always told that intention was everything if i do not wear a poppy for the right reasons, then what is the point ? they are not asking a lot of you, and besides having it visually informing people who may not know of the holiday, it lets any veterans you may pass by that they are efforts are appreciated, at least a little bit.  i would argue that upholding the freedoms these men and women fought and died for would be a better way of thanking them than any amount of poppies is.  after all, these people fought for something, and remembering the men is useless if we do not also remember their cause.   #  if you were to ask most people now, i doubt that many could tell you when it is.   #  one hundred years ago people celebrated trafalgar day.  if you were to ask most people now, i doubt that many could tell you when it is.  most people have heard of nelson, hms victory and trafalgar square, but few could give much detail.  nelson is taught in history lessons but people forget.  the same could happen with the world wars if we do not keep the memory alive.   #  the poppy is to remember all those who died and were injured during all conflicts since wwi.   #  the yugoslavian war is perhaps a good example of why poppies are important.  it is doubtful that many under thirty would have heard of the war had it not been for the remembrance service.  the poppy is to remember all those who died and were injured during all conflicts since wwi.  this includes yugoslavia, which is mentioned in many remembrance services.  it reminds people, particularly youngsters that conflict is not just something that happened in history, or in far off places, but something that can and has happened in europe quite recently.
this stemmed from my discussion with my friend regarding the hungarian internet tax.  the claim is that internet access should be pretty much like utilities if i do not use the internet that often, why should i pay more ? we already pay per usage of electricity and water, why should internet access any different ? if internet access is a basic right, why do not we have the same system in place for existing utilities ? and finally, if this tax was set real low, would it still be reasonable to implement it ?  #  if i do not use the internet that often, why should i pay more ?  #  if you rent a house but go there for sleeping, why should you pay as much as the guy who spends all his time in his apartment ?  #  water and electricity are actual physical materials that are being diverted in your way when you use them, while data is not.  it is not like your isp has gigabytes of data stored in a warehouse, and when you download a youtube video, there would remain a bit less afterwards.  the only resource that you are hogging is the bandwith, and you are already paying proportionally for that.  if you rent a house but go there for sleeping, why should you pay as much as the guy who spends all his time in his apartment ? there are plenty of services where you are playing a flat rate for general access to something.  prices do not just exist to punish you for your comforts and benefits, but to satisfy the seller is demands.  if from the seller is side, it is irrelevant how much time you spend home, or how much data you access, then they wo not charge an extra.  no, because the global internet infrastructure is increasingly taking this monthly fee system for granted.  cloud storage, video streaming, and online gaming are becoming the norm, developed and marketed with the expectation that anyone with a net access can freely use them.  for a little country like hungary to go against that, it could wreck our connection to worldwide culture.   #  if everyone was using their connection fully without any addition charge, your isp would have to 0/ improve the infrastructure, 0/ increase the prices.   #  sure, but then you would be paying a lot more than what you are paying right now.  because currently you are definitely not paying for your own slot, everything is mostly shared, and all your data has to transit through many routers, nodes etc.  and most of them can be highly saturated when everyone is using the service.  let is say you are sending data to europe.  you do not have your own personal cable that goes across the atlantic, there is a few big one, and that is about it.  you also do not have  a slot  reserved for you on those big ones.  this apply for anything, in your town, in your state or country even in you street depending on what type of line you have .  if everyone was using their connection fully without any addition charge, your isp would have to 0/ improve the infrastructure, 0/ increase the prices.  because they certainly ca not deliver everything they are selling right now, and they wo not improve stuff for free.  good thing the majority of people are not fully using their bandwidth so that the rest of us can enjoy high speed for the same price :  #  though i can say that that also influences my view as the european situation and the us situation might be different.   #  i am in europe right now, so that is no problem.  though i can say that that also influences my view as the european situation and the us situation might be different.  anyway, what you argue would be done better by nationalizing the infrastructure, and treat it the same way as roads.  because to be honest i do not trust that isps would improve the network, they would just raise the prices of access to keep demand at the same amount of supply.  instead of increasing supply by investing in infrastructure.   #  childbirth and demographics, college applications, investments, career choices, risk taking, it is all true that if everyone would be doing the exact same thing at the same time, society would collapse.   # but they do not .  there are plenty of elements in our infrastructure, that rely on the knowledge of averages, probabilities, and overall sums.  childbirth and demographics, college applications, investments, career choices, risk taking, it is all true that if everyone would be doing the exact same thing at the same time, society would collapse.  this does not mean that we always desperately need to stop people from doing the same thing.  yes, i simplified when i said that the charges pay for  tubes  to support your bandwith, in reality it pays for the maintenance of  tubes  that are large enough to support the shared bandwith that can be reasonably expected to be add up.  like a car park where you can buy a monthly ticket, and even though there are more tickets sold than spaces available, thanks to the owners  knowledge of expected abstentions, there always  will  be an empty space for you.  why would such a parking lot switch to hourly fees instead ? as long as the end result is the same, in that once the infrastructure is already there, no particular user will in practice ever deprive others of any resource as the overall bandwith is in practice large enough that there is enough for everyone who wants to stay there all month or only for shorter terms .   #  because then some people would not be worth servicing little usage while some people might be paying horridly high amounts because torrents, downloads, videos.   #  because then some people would not be worth servicing little usage while some people might be paying horridly high amounts because torrents, downloads, videos.  the cost of internet mainly stems from the infrastructure and not so much from the data transfer itself while water and electricity have much more cost on what is actually being provided that said, the infrastructure costs a bit too but, since it is a basic necessity, the cost is offset by multiple people using said infrastructure in an area.  while similar, given multiple internet providers and the fact that not everyone uses it, the infrastructure is much more expensive comparatively.  this is again offset by the fact that the transfer of data itself is not as expensive.  the other aspect is electricity is a limited resource and so is water, while the internet ? not so much.  so while it is morally repulsive to overuse water and electricity, such a limit is not as evident upon usage of the internet.
this stemmed from my discussion with my friend regarding the hungarian internet tax.  the claim is that internet access should be pretty much like utilities if i do not use the internet that often, why should i pay more ? we already pay per usage of electricity and water, why should internet access any different ? if internet access is a basic right, why do not we have the same system in place for existing utilities ? and finally, if this tax was set real low, would it still be reasonable to implement it ?  #  if this tax was set real low, would it still be reasonable to implement it ?  #  no, because the global internet infrastructure is increasingly taking this monthly fee system for granted.   #  water and electricity are actual physical materials that are being diverted in your way when you use them, while data is not.  it is not like your isp has gigabytes of data stored in a warehouse, and when you download a youtube video, there would remain a bit less afterwards.  the only resource that you are hogging is the bandwith, and you are already paying proportionally for that.  if you rent a house but go there for sleeping, why should you pay as much as the guy who spends all his time in his apartment ? there are plenty of services where you are playing a flat rate for general access to something.  prices do not just exist to punish you for your comforts and benefits, but to satisfy the seller is demands.  if from the seller is side, it is irrelevant how much time you spend home, or how much data you access, then they wo not charge an extra.  no, because the global internet infrastructure is increasingly taking this monthly fee system for granted.  cloud storage, video streaming, and online gaming are becoming the norm, developed and marketed with the expectation that anyone with a net access can freely use them.  for a little country like hungary to go against that, it could wreck our connection to worldwide culture.   #  because they certainly ca not deliver everything they are selling right now, and they wo not improve stuff for free.   #  sure, but then you would be paying a lot more than what you are paying right now.  because currently you are definitely not paying for your own slot, everything is mostly shared, and all your data has to transit through many routers, nodes etc.  and most of them can be highly saturated when everyone is using the service.  let is say you are sending data to europe.  you do not have your own personal cable that goes across the atlantic, there is a few big one, and that is about it.  you also do not have  a slot  reserved for you on those big ones.  this apply for anything, in your town, in your state or country even in you street depending on what type of line you have .  if everyone was using their connection fully without any addition charge, your isp would have to 0/ improve the infrastructure, 0/ increase the prices.  because they certainly ca not deliver everything they are selling right now, and they wo not improve stuff for free.  good thing the majority of people are not fully using their bandwidth so that the rest of us can enjoy high speed for the same price :  #  instead of increasing supply by investing in infrastructure.   #  i am in europe right now, so that is no problem.  though i can say that that also influences my view as the european situation and the us situation might be different.  anyway, what you argue would be done better by nationalizing the infrastructure, and treat it the same way as roads.  because to be honest i do not trust that isps would improve the network, they would just raise the prices of access to keep demand at the same amount of supply.  instead of increasing supply by investing in infrastructure.   #  this does not mean that we always desperately need to stop people from doing the same thing.   # but they do not .  there are plenty of elements in our infrastructure, that rely on the knowledge of averages, probabilities, and overall sums.  childbirth and demographics, college applications, investments, career choices, risk taking, it is all true that if everyone would be doing the exact same thing at the same time, society would collapse.  this does not mean that we always desperately need to stop people from doing the same thing.  yes, i simplified when i said that the charges pay for  tubes  to support your bandwith, in reality it pays for the maintenance of  tubes  that are large enough to support the shared bandwith that can be reasonably expected to be add up.  like a car park where you can buy a monthly ticket, and even though there are more tickets sold than spaces available, thanks to the owners  knowledge of expected abstentions, there always  will  be an empty space for you.  why would such a parking lot switch to hourly fees instead ? as long as the end result is the same, in that once the infrastructure is already there, no particular user will in practice ever deprive others of any resource as the overall bandwith is in practice large enough that there is enough for everyone who wants to stay there all month or only for shorter terms .   #  so while it is morally repulsive to overuse water and electricity, such a limit is not as evident upon usage of the internet.   #  because then some people would not be worth servicing little usage while some people might be paying horridly high amounts because torrents, downloads, videos.  the cost of internet mainly stems from the infrastructure and not so much from the data transfer itself while water and electricity have much more cost on what is actually being provided that said, the infrastructure costs a bit too but, since it is a basic necessity, the cost is offset by multiple people using said infrastructure in an area.  while similar, given multiple internet providers and the fact that not everyone uses it, the infrastructure is much more expensive comparatively.  this is again offset by the fact that the transfer of data itself is not as expensive.  the other aspect is electricity is a limited resource and so is water, while the internet ? not so much.  so while it is morally repulsive to overuse water and electricity, such a limit is not as evident upon usage of the internet.
i find atheists, taken as a group, tend to be socially progressive in a lot of meaningful ways.  that said, i feel like irreligion is sometimes mistaken for  objectivity  in a moral sense.  i am speaking specifically of the far right wing portion of atheism.  the folks who use pseudo science to support ideas of white supremacy, patriarchy, climate change denial and the like.  the sort of folks who define themselves as  anti sjw  and smugly trumpet atheism as the only true path to enlightenment.  i think it is important to recognize the force of humanitarianism behind great social movements the civil rights act, which abolished segregation, was argued for in both secular and religious terms and martin luther king jr. , by all accounts, was no atheist.  i, personally, am a unitarian universalist a church that has repeatedly spoken out on behalf of lgbt people, on behalf of people of color, on the behalf of women is rights, et cetera.  ultimately, i think humanitarianism is far more important that religious affiliation for this reason.   #  the folks who use pseudo science to support ideas of white supremacy, patriarchy, climate change denial and the like.   #  the sort of folks who define themselves as  anti sjw  and smugly trumpet atheism as the only true path to enlightenment.   # the sort of folks who define themselves as  anti sjw  and smugly trumpet atheism as the only true path to enlightenment.  i think this is a really weak straw man and i have never come into contact with more than maybe three people who are this way.  it certainly is not representative of atheists or even right wing atheists.  the rest of your argument is not really coherent so i would challenge you to restructure it.  i will still address what i think you are getting at though.  your argument is essentially saying the only positive thing that can come from atheism is humanitarianism without offering proof.  since you are making an absolute statement, all i need to do is provide you with a single counterexample which will logically invalidate your argument.  here it goes.  for a lot of people i would even say  most  , atheism was the first belief that started them down a path of completely independent judgment and critical thinking.  that in itself is useful on an individual level and on a societal level, but there is nothing intrinsically humanitarian about it.  so atheism is not  completely  or  totally  useless without humanitarianism, atheism is usefulness is just enhanced by it.  i would also implore you to reconsider your apparent requirement for beliefs to be  useful.   beliefs are often completely valid when based on things other than utility like observation, for instance.   #  do not get me wrong, it so happens that the majority of atheists have more things in common and thus find common ground on those interests.   #  the  a theist social group is very diverse and varied because there is literally no real authority or written rules of any kind.  the negative narrative regarding religious people crops up often because many atheists especially americans come from a past of hardship and clashing with the overly religious and thus have a slightly biased view towards them.  then there is the fact that there is no real reason for atheists to congregate under the  a  banner if not to speak about something opposing their views.  any group or alliance that is based just on the lack of something is inevitably defined by their contrast to those who have what they lack, at least in part.  example: why would those who disbelieve in orange colored clouds unite and speak out if not because they belief that orange clouders did or caused something they disagree with ? do not get me wrong, it so happens that the majority of atheists have more things in common and thus find common ground on those interests.  but that, in a way, is always secondary.  and just so that no one misunderstands me as accusing anyone of anything, i myself am an atheist and often enough agree with  a theists too.  call me maybe a moderate  a theist ?  #  i am going to make the assumption that the social group you are referring to is made up of self identified atheists who are vocal about it and perhaps join official atheist coalitions.   #  i think you are overestimating the number of atheists that are anti theistic.  i am going to make the assumption that the social group you are referring to is made up of self identified atheists who are vocal about it and perhaps join official atheist coalitions.  out of about 0 of americans who do not affiliate with a religion generally lack of affiliation points to atheism by definition, so let is assume half of those people are defined as atheists, which i think is a low estimate only about an eighth of nonaffiliated people identify as atheists.  i am also going to assume that there is a group of atheists at least 0 of the population that identifies with a religion due to social stigma or other various circumstances.  that is about 0 of the population or 0 million people that are by definition atheists, with only 0 million even identifying as atheist.  american atheists only has 0 members, which is . 0 of the people in the us who i think fall under the definition of atheism that have joined such a group, with less than a quarter even identifying as such.  atheists as a whole have no position on religion other than that they do not believe in a deity.  i think the vocal minority and i mean they are a loud minority, but also a minority in that they are vocal may be skewing your view on atheists and how they treat religion.  this is not to say that no atheists agree with the vocal ones, but a very small percentage of atheists in america speak out against religion at all.  while there are definitely anti theists out there, i think the reality is that many more atheists fall into the  not playing golf  type group than the social group you are putting all most ? of them in.  number source URL  #  the first such result of many that is major enough to have an impact on one is life and that of their close family.   #  it is not really that atheism is a fond of objectivity and evidence.  it is not much of a fond of anything.  more so it is, by many atheists, considered a  result  of rationalistic skepticism and/or naturalism.  the first such result of many that is major enough to have an impact on one is life and that of their close family.  imagine it as that important puzzle piece that when it falls in place lets you have a better idea of the large picture that is reality.  the part makes it very probable that you are not puzzling together a portrait.  many would clam that those minority right wing atheists stumbled upon that and then stopped puzzling, instead painting the rest in their own or other people is colors.   #  is not the act of questioning in itself useful ?  # i do not think marx has much to say on this issue, to be frank.  i think the usefulness of epigrams is overvalued.  they really only work as supplements to more expansive arguments otherwise they are useless rhetoric; you could make the same claim without quoting somebody.  but i will go with it and ask you: are not exercises still useful in some way ? is not the act of questioning in itself useful ? it is useful for an individual to be able to critically think and it is useful for a society to be filled with individuals that critically think.  let is ignore the small minority of arrogant young adults who like to think they are always right without doing their homework, because they are irrelevant to your argument.  completely irrelevant.  what  is  relevant is whether or not atheism can be useful without explicitly espousing humanitarianism.  i have shown you that it can be and you have not actually argued against my points.  in regards to the facade of certainty, you will find that people from all different belief systems can do this.  it is not exclusive to atheists and it would be intellectually irresponsible to judge a philosophy, a belief system, or an individual belief by the actions or motives of a small contingent of its advocates.
let me describe an absurd, hypothetical scenario.  imagine a high rise condo unit 0 floors tall.  the upper floor units have been purchased by a bunch of homeowners.  the elevator and bottom floor are owned by a crazed individual named greg.  the tenants of the tower pay greg a monthly fee to use his elevator.  the elevator is the sole method to get from the top of the tower to the bottom.  one day, greg snaps and goes insane.  he refuses to let anybody use his elevator.  instead, he barricades the elevator doors, turns off the elevator function, and traps everyone inside his tower.  the elevator is the only way down from the tower.  everyone is trapped in the tower of horror, and they slowly starve to death in a horrible fashion.  in my opinion, greg is actions are completely within the bounds of  natural rights  and the motto that  your rights end where my nose begins .  moreover, greg is actions are also completely within the bounds of the  non aggression principle .  greg is free to do what he wants to his own property.  he is free to shut down or refuse service to whomever he pleases.  thus, according to right libertarians, natural rights or negative rights theory, and the non aggression principle, greg has full authority to shut down the elevator and starve the tenants if he so pleases.  greg has no obligation to preserve any sort of  positive rights  of life.  it is not his problem that he has shut down the only means of transit in the tower.  the tenants of the tower, in a libertarian society, are unjustified in trying to violently coerce greg to turn the elevator back on.  it is well within greg is rights to shoot and kill anybody who tries to break into his property to turn the elevator back on and free the tenants.  it is within his rights to barricade his property to prevent anyone from saving the tenants.  greg is decision does not violate the nap, and thus he has the right to enforce his choice through escalating, proportionate, defensive violence.  the tower tenants are to blame for their own predicament; they were the ones that foolishly agreed to purchase property without properly reading the fine print and realizing that greg had a monopoly on the elevator.  they were the ones that foolishly forgot to ascertain the moral aptitude of greg before moving in.  it is their own fault that they shall all starve ! greg is not the one starving them, the only thing starving them is their own foolishness ! according to libertarians and followers of negative rights and the non aggression principle, greg is well within his rights.  cmv.   #  in my opinion, greg is actions are completely within the bounds of  natural rights  and the motto that  your rights end where my nose begins .   #  moreover, greg is actions are also completely within the bounds of the  non aggression principle .   # moreover, greg is actions are also completely within the bounds of the  non aggression principle .  greg is free to do what he wants to his own property.  he is free to shut down or refuse service to whomever he pleases.  i am interested in hearing some  actual  libertarians respond i am not one , but i do think this is a dubious interpretation of the nap.  greg is basically knowingly committing premeditated genocide.  the fact that its  his property  seems kind of a technicality that i am skeptical even hardcore libertarians would adhere to.  i think there was clearly enough of an implicit agreement in the use of the elevator to justify the tenants using force to escape, or to hire a third party to  negotiate  their extraction.   #  so forcibly imprisoning people through a combination of deceit and physical barricades is a violent crime.   #  so forcibly imprisoning people through a combination of deceit and physical barricades is a violent crime.  in a libertarian state, greg would be arrested for false imprisonment and/or kidnapping, and the upper floor residents allowed to leave.  if he somehow persisted, he would be guilty of murder.  if greg set up a tripwire and a shotgun at the bottom of the stairs, it would still be murder or manslaughter , even if he owns the property.  libertarianism is not anarchism you are free to dispose of your property as you see fit, up until the point where you cause concrete harm to others.  then the state can force you to stop.   #  seriously its the definition given by google, it literally took 0 second.   #   the common law also upholds the ability of the state to implement affirmative action, tax the wealthy and criminalize narcotics.   no, that is not common law.  the laws you are referencing are statutes.   so the government can dictate what you do with your property as long as the courts give the go ahead ?   that is they system the founders implemented.  the idea is that 0: the courts are themselves restrained by the law and that 0: the government is not powerful enough to defy the lay, only powerful enough to enforce it.  that combined with the checks and balances we have let erode over the years are designed to restrict government power.  common law.  seriously its the definition given by google, it literally took 0 second.  the part of english law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes.  often contrasted with statutory law.  the body of english law as adopted and modified separately by the different states of the us and by the federal government.  denoting a partner in a marriage by common law which recognized unions created by mutual agreement and public behavior , not by a civil or ecclesiastical ceremony.  URL  #  in this particular case, the contract would be invalid under two separate doctrines.   # because the state is being asked to use its power to enforce those contracts.  there are contracts that are not enforceable.  if we sign a contract where you agree to pay me $0,0 to murder someone, that contract will not be enforced, because it contemplates an illegal act.  in this particular case, the contract would be invalid under two separate doctrines.  first, it contemplates an unlawful act especially if a child lives in one of the apartments who is unable to consent to the contract .  even if it did not directly contemplate an unlawful act, it would be invalid for being unconscionable.  no rational human being would agree to a contract where one of the provisions is  you will be forced to die against your will at the time.   and such a provision will not be enforced.   #  you are missing what the standard for state action is.   #  you are missing what the standard for state action is.  i never said simply because the state does not like it.  i specifically said that you do not have the right to infringe on other people is rights, that is the concept of natural rights and the core belief of libertarianism.  it is the belief that no one is allowed to harm your rights, not even the state.  you have the right to use your property however you want as long as that use does not harm others  rights, because they also have the right to use their property however they want.
i hear this phrase  they are taking our jobs  all the time.  yes, obviously.  and all the smart people are taking all the doctor jobs, which is why you are not a doctor.  everyone who has a job has taken a job that someone else could have had.  it is a stupid phrase that is not a viable argument for or against anything.  i never hear this notion said of peoples  neighbors, even though is often much more true, it is always about some new or newly entitled group.  really what the speaker should be saying is that members of some new group do not deserve what the speaker has or thinks he should have.  my view here leads me to instantly judge people who voice the statement in question.  so change my view, maybe i can learn a new respect for anti immigration advocates.   #  it is a stupid phrase that is not a viable argument for or against anything.   #  not true, while i do not agree with the sentiment, i can see immigration and  they are taking our jobs  use in a rational argument.   # not true, while i do not agree with the sentiment, i can see immigration and  they are taking our jobs  use in a rational argument.  the main points people have when using this:   a high amount of illegals work under the table, cash only.  many times this leads to getting paid below minimum wage.  it is perceived that first generation immigrants who will not have many skills, will now be competing for low skilled jobs, and will often work for a lower amount.  anytime you add candidates to a pile of applications, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.  i. e.  before you had 0 people apply for migrant worker jobs, now you have 0   immigrants, making it a harder, less odds of getting a job.  when it comes to low skill labor, many times its really about how much can you save by paying others less, rather than who the best person for the job is.  thats just the general though  #  but being outcompeted through affirmative action by somebody just because they are a woman or a minority is perceived as unfair.   # and all the smart people are taking all the doctor jobs, which is why you are not a doctor.  everyone who has a job has taken a job that someone else could have had.  it is a stupid phrase that is not a viable argument for or against anything.  what people are complaining about is not competition in general, but competition that they perceive as unfair.  being outcompeted by somebody smarter than you, or better than you in some quality relevant to their job, is perceived as fair.  after all, you want to live in a society where doctors, engineers, etc.  are smart, hard working, reliable, etc.  you do not want  dumb quotas  or  lazy quotas  for these jobs.  but being outcompeted through affirmative action by somebody just because they are a woman or a minority is perceived as unfair.  it just transfers value from you to them without making the society any better.  in fact it could be argued that it actually makes the society worse by not allocating each job to the most qualified applicant and by fostering the very racial and gender stereotypes that it seeks to correct.  a similar argument, though probably not as strong, can be made for immigration: immigrants outcompete you because they are able and willing to do the same job for a lower salary and worse working conditions, sometimes illegally.  whether immigration is a net benefit or a net cost to a developed society as a whole is a matter of debate.  it is certain though that it is a benefit to the immigrants themselves and some natives and it is a cost to some other natives.  natives who are harmed by immigration tend to take political action against it.  you may say that they are selfishly defending their own interests, but that it is different from being  prejudiced .   #  it is the other way: racism is largely motivated by economic interests, and sometimes pseudo races are created specifically to attack some kinds of immigrants.   #  canadian immigrants to the us come from a country with a similar socio economic status.  median canadian wages are only slightly lower than the american wages, and canadians get more  free  services such as healthcare that americans have to pay for with their income, therefore the typical canadian is probably as rich or richer than the typical american.  this means that the typical canadian immigrant to the us does not compete with americans in terms of wage suppression.  they may compete in terms of intelligence, dedication to work, etc. , but this is perceived as fair competition, in contrast to the  unfair  competition of the mexican immigrants who are not any more qualified than americans but  take their jobs  because they are willing to work for lower wages, longer shifts, etc.  opposition to immigration is sometimes expressed using racist language, but it is not fundamentally motivated by racism.  it is the other way: racism is largely motivated by economic interests, and sometimes pseudo races are created specifically to attack some kinds of immigrants.  one century ago the hatred that you observe now towards mexicans was directed against italians white people who look only barely different than  native  anglosaxon americans and irish white people who are  genetically  undistinguishable from anglosaxons .  you can see this sort of things in all the developed countries that have significant immigration from poorer countries.  often, immigrants from a previous generation, who often form the working class of their host country, are the ones who most vociferously oppose new immigration, precisely because their are the ones who would suffer the most from the low wages competition.   #  that is the difference between that and your neighbor taking your job.   #  the reason that it gets said uniquely of immigration is because of people dodging labor laws to employ immigrants.  because illegal immigrants are undocumented, they are not paying taxes, they are not filing paperwork, and they are not being paid  officially , which means that they are not subject to minimum wage laws, for example.  as a result, there is not anything that a law abiding us citizen can do to make themselves the more attractive candidate for that job.  the only way to be competitive is to break the law and work for less than minimum wage under the table, the way that most illegal immigrants are more than happy to do.  that is the difference between that and your neighbor taking your job.  if you are not a doctor, that is on you.  you could have worked harder, you could have gone that route, and you chose not to.  the doctor did not  cheat  by getting that job instead of you.  an undocumented worker working outside the bounds of the law did.  nb: i am not anti immigration.  i am libertarian, and i firmly believe that eliminating minimum wage laws would be a really good first step in  stopping  illegal immigrants from being the more attractive job applicants.   #  it is quite possible for an on the books worker at $0/hr to cost less than an off the books worker at $0/hr.   # this is not necessarily true.  many undocumented immigrants work under false identities and do have taxes withheld from their pay.  except for businesses operating outside the law already, it is much more expensive to hire off the books than on the books.  pay to off the books workers ca not be deducted as a business expense, which means the business owner must pay income taxes on the money.  it is quite possible for an on the books worker at $0/hr to cost less than an off the books worker at $0/hr.  an undocumented worker working outside the bounds of the law did.  it is worth pointing out that the immigration law of the united states is horrifyingly immoral.  it is basically openly racist, and engages in massive discrimination based on parentage and the physical place you happen to have been born.  i see someone breaking immigration law in order to have a better life for themselves or their family as morally equivalent to breaking jim crow or apartheid laws.  if that is cheating, i do not want to play fair.
a negative stereotype is that the british are known for their deceit and lies, from which their old oppressive empire was established.  british have a dark shameful history but they are proud of it.  british are responsible for most of the atrocious things that happened in world history and the remnants of that barbarity is still felt to this day.  unlike germany, britain was not made to apologize for their war crimes.  invasions in africa, south asia, and southeast asia unaccounted for.  british people displaced and exterminated native peoples in canada and the united states.  british military usurped hong kong from the chinese in order to keep up their immoral opium trade to fuel their silly obsession with tea, yet it had the audacity to moan about it when their 0 year lease on hong kong was up.  britain was willing to send young men to their deaths to fight over a couple islands off the coast of argentina.  however uk hooligans always like to boast about their world domination even though their glory days are over.  they always do this more often at football events where england is losing.   #  british military usurped hong kong from the chinese in order to keep up their immoral opium trade to fuel their silly obsession with tea, yet it had the audacity to moan about it when their 0 year lease on hong kong was up.   #  the opium war was completely and utterly unjustifiable, but there is another side to this story.   # . after a military junta decided to send young conscripts to their deaths to forcefully claim a territory that was british before argentina even existed as a country, whose inhabitants had continually expressed a desire to remain part of the uk and which was invaded without any regard or feeling for the people who actually lived on the islands.  there are some truly horrific chapters in our nation is history, but it was not britain who unilaterally invaded and annexed people is homes in 0.  the opium war was completely and utterly unjustifiable, but there is another side to this story.  when hong kong became a british territory in 0, it was a largely uninhabited island with a few scattered fishing villages.  when it was returned to china in 0, it was the world is third largest financial centre, possessing a standard of living and human development that surpassed most western nations.  in the interim, it was a safe haven for hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing persecution and war on the chinese mainland and was cited by sun yat sen, the founder of the republic of china no less, as an exemplary model for what china could one day become.   #  the qing dynasty was overthrown and the republic of china set up in its place, which, in turn, was also overthrown and replaced by communist china.   #  another problem is who does the gb government apologize to ? strictly speaking, great britain fucked over qing dynasty china, which has not existed for a century.  the qing dynasty was overthrown and the republic of china set up in its place, which, in turn, was also overthrown and replaced by communist china.  i would not consider the republic of china or communist china to be true successors of qing dynasty china, which was one of many dynasties of imperalist china.  there is a whole bunch of political concepts like the mandate of heaven and tianxia that formed the core of political thought in imperalist china but is absent in the republic of china or communist china.  the republic of china is basically taiwan in 0, so would queen elizabeth iii have to apolegize to the taiwanese government over something that happened in mainland china more than a century ago ?  #  however i think it is also wrong to redeem those people who never apologized themselves by doing so on their behalf.   #  i do not think david cameron had any right to apoligise for it.  you are right, he had nothing to do with it.  what right does he have to apologize for it on behalf of the people actually responsible ? the british government, which consisted of no one alive today, did prosecute him for being a homosexual and it was wrong to do so.  however i think it is also wrong to redeem those people who never apologized themselves by doing so on their behalf.  all anyone can say is that they are sorry for their role in what happened, if they had no role then they have no place apologizing.  you have no right to apologize on behalf of anyone but yourself, doing so is meaningless.   #  i appreciate  we should not have to apologise until everyone else does  is not much of a defense, but its true.   # i have never heard that before.  this post sounds more like a rant about the uk in general than any particular question of the british empire itself.  why does the opinion of football hooligans a rapidly diminishing group of society thankfully matter in this situation ? i am sure you could find plenty of say, italians who are proud of the roman empire ignoring the slavery, feeding people to lions for show, etc or americans proud of being the worlds only superpower despite the country being built on slaves, and the borderline genocide of the native population   yet it had the audacity to moan about it when their 0 year lease on hong kong was up.  from what i remember at the time it was more the people of hong kong not wanting to be under chinese rule which is still the case today, see: recent protests/riots , though i will admit that might just have been the british press spin on it.  out of interest, can i ask where you are from ? i am sure pretty much every country has skeletons in the closet they really should apologise for.  i appreciate  we should not have to apologise until everyone else does  is not much of a defense, but its true.  do we have to wait until denmark/norway apologise for viking raids ? france apologises for 0 ? belgium apologises for the congo ? rwanda apologises for genocide ?  #  what it does indicate however is that the issue is extremely complex and it is not clear in many cases specifically two cases cited by the op whether an apology is necessary or warranted.   #  do not get me wrong i completely agree that britain has done some horrific and evil things that are wholly unjustifiable, both today and when they occured.  my point though was that two of the examples of  imperial war crimes against humanity  cited by the op are not open and shut cases of colonial wrongdoing.  in the case of hong kong specifically, it received such a large influx of refugees fleeing the chinese civil war  precisely because  it was a british colony offering peace, stability and the rule of law.  in the words of tsang ki fan, colonial hong kong was  . the only chinese society that, for a brief span of 0 years, lived through an ideal never realized at any time in the history of chinese society: a time when no man had to live in fear of the midnight knock on the door.  does that exonerate all the ills of british colonial rule in hong kong and elsewhere ? not at all.  what it does indicate however is that the issue is extremely complex and it is not clear in many cases specifically two cases cited by the op whether an apology is necessary or warranted.
a negative stereotype is that the british are known for their deceit and lies, from which their old oppressive empire was established.  british have a dark shameful history but they are proud of it.  british are responsible for most of the atrocious things that happened in world history and the remnants of that barbarity is still felt to this day.  unlike germany, britain was not made to apologize for their war crimes.  invasions in africa, south asia, and southeast asia unaccounted for.  british people displaced and exterminated native peoples in canada and the united states.  british military usurped hong kong from the chinese in order to keep up their immoral opium trade to fuel their silly obsession with tea, yet it had the audacity to moan about it when their 0 year lease on hong kong was up.  britain was willing to send young men to their deaths to fight over a couple islands off the coast of argentina.  however uk hooligans always like to boast about their world domination even though their glory days are over.  they always do this more often at football events where england is losing.   #  a negative stereotype is that the british are known for their deceit and lies, from which their old oppressive empire was established.   #  uh, i think hardly anyone would characterise the british as deceitful liars, let alone have it as a stereotype.   # uh, i think hardly anyone would characterise the british as deceitful liars, let alone have it as a stereotype.  i think most people would put them on the other end of the scale, being a country of its word.  britain went to war with germany twice; once over a treaty it signed with belgium 0 years prior and again with a treaty it signed with poland.  more than the vast majority of countries it has kept its word.  for good reason.  war crimes are acts that break the laws of war.  the laws of war, as they are seen in a modern sense, were not fleshed out until the late 0th early 0th century.  as such, acts prior to those dates are not war crimes because there was not really a comprehensive set of laws to break.  germany had agreed to these laws prior to the holocaust and so was guilty of war crimes.  british imperialism for the most part is not covered by these laws and so ca not be war crimes.  you are trying to retrospectively call them war crimes.  i do not think nations should have to apply today is moral and legal standards to events in the past and apologise for what was the morals/laws of the time.   #  the republic of china is basically taiwan in 0, so would queen elizabeth iii have to apolegize to the taiwanese government over something that happened in mainland china more than a century ago ?  #  another problem is who does the gb government apologize to ? strictly speaking, great britain fucked over qing dynasty china, which has not existed for a century.  the qing dynasty was overthrown and the republic of china set up in its place, which, in turn, was also overthrown and replaced by communist china.  i would not consider the republic of china or communist china to be true successors of qing dynasty china, which was one of many dynasties of imperalist china.  there is a whole bunch of political concepts like the mandate of heaven and tianxia that formed the core of political thought in imperalist china but is absent in the republic of china or communist china.  the republic of china is basically taiwan in 0, so would queen elizabeth iii have to apolegize to the taiwanese government over something that happened in mainland china more than a century ago ?  #  you have no right to apologize on behalf of anyone but yourself, doing so is meaningless.   #  i do not think david cameron had any right to apoligise for it.  you are right, he had nothing to do with it.  what right does he have to apologize for it on behalf of the people actually responsible ? the british government, which consisted of no one alive today, did prosecute him for being a homosexual and it was wrong to do so.  however i think it is also wrong to redeem those people who never apologized themselves by doing so on their behalf.  all anyone can say is that they are sorry for their role in what happened, if they had no role then they have no place apologizing.  you have no right to apologize on behalf of anyone but yourself, doing so is meaningless.   #  this post sounds more like a rant about the uk in general than any particular question of the british empire itself.   # i have never heard that before.  this post sounds more like a rant about the uk in general than any particular question of the british empire itself.  why does the opinion of football hooligans a rapidly diminishing group of society thankfully matter in this situation ? i am sure you could find plenty of say, italians who are proud of the roman empire ignoring the slavery, feeding people to lions for show, etc or americans proud of being the worlds only superpower despite the country being built on slaves, and the borderline genocide of the native population   yet it had the audacity to moan about it when their 0 year lease on hong kong was up.  from what i remember at the time it was more the people of hong kong not wanting to be under chinese rule which is still the case today, see: recent protests/riots , though i will admit that might just have been the british press spin on it.  out of interest, can i ask where you are from ? i am sure pretty much every country has skeletons in the closet they really should apologise for.  i appreciate  we should not have to apologise until everyone else does  is not much of a defense, but its true.  do we have to wait until denmark/norway apologise for viking raids ? france apologises for 0 ? belgium apologises for the congo ? rwanda apologises for genocide ?  #  do not get me wrong i completely agree that britain has done some horrific and evil things that are wholly unjustifiable, both today and when they occured.   #  do not get me wrong i completely agree that britain has done some horrific and evil things that are wholly unjustifiable, both today and when they occured.  my point though was that two of the examples of  imperial war crimes against humanity  cited by the op are not open and shut cases of colonial wrongdoing.  in the case of hong kong specifically, it received such a large influx of refugees fleeing the chinese civil war  precisely because  it was a british colony offering peace, stability and the rule of law.  in the words of tsang ki fan, colonial hong kong was  . the only chinese society that, for a brief span of 0 years, lived through an ideal never realized at any time in the history of chinese society: a time when no man had to live in fear of the midnight knock on the door.  does that exonerate all the ills of british colonial rule in hong kong and elsewhere ? not at all.  what it does indicate however is that the issue is extremely complex and it is not clear in many cases specifically two cases cited by the op whether an apology is necessary or warranted.
capitalism is a system, the entirety of which is centered on a single goal profit.  this profit seeking has resulted in a society in which americans are divided into two distinct classes the owners of capital, and those that find themselves as wage slaves.  this is driven by the reality that the wealthy will leverage the desperation of the poor to realize further profits an act of coercion that is at the root of american inequality.  capitalists often rationalize this by appealing to the idea of  private property , which they insist must be preserved, as aggression is according to them , in and of itself, a moral wrong.  i find this position fails to take into account the historic violence that underlies our current capitalist system.  almost every patch of land on earth was obtained through violence at some point in its history.  the stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners.  thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force.  by extension, private ownership of all goods originally derived from violence, as natural resources are required in the production of all goods.  the exploitation of the working class, the environment, and the like, in the pursuit of profit, then, is an assault against all of humanity.  for this reason, violence should not be disallowed as a means to effect change.   #  the exploitation of the working class, the environment, and the like, in the pursuit of profit, then, is an assault against all of humanity.   #  for this reason, violence should not be disallowed as a means to effect change.   # for this reason, violence should not be disallowed as a means to effect change.  the reason why this argument used to be popular but is no longer is because the violent overthrow of capitalism has being tried before, numerous times during the 0th century in fact, and nobody has found a better system to replace it.  revolutionary socialism was a failure and produced dystopias see: maoist china, stalinist ussr, pol pot is cambodia, the dprk at such a high rates that the argument  it was not real socialism  wears rather thin.  whatever the intentions or theories of revolutionary socialism it did not work in real life.  for all the death they have caused not a single communist country successfully produced the utopia which was promised, or even standards of living on par with capitalist countries and this was made very obvious in 0 0.  if then your argument amounts to  capitalism is evil, therefore violence against is ok  in the absence of a better alternative then you are really just asking for violence for violence is sake with quite a bit of callousness with regards to the lives of people actually involved.  i can hardly call this kind of attitude moral when it seems to racing full speed towards failures of the last dozen or so times it has being tried.   #  a health system is useless if people with highly infectious diseases can just leave hospital, a legal system is useless if you can just not show up to court with no repercussions i agree !  # the education, health, police and legal systems of a country are all explicitly employing structural violence in the pursuit of their aims, and all are positive at least overall institutions.  additionally, there is no way to avoid these institutions perpetrating structural violence in a way that still lets them try to achieve their aim e. g.  a health system is useless if people with highly infectious diseases can just leave hospital, a legal system is useless if you can just not show up to court with no repercussions i agree ! the state itself seems to have a kind of special moral status, and to say that the fact the state is violent justifies violence would require you to challenge the common assumption that the monopoly on physical force the state possess  is a bad thing i think you might be confusing me for an anarcho capitalist ? my issue is less with the state, and more with capitalism.  i recognize that capitalism results in volumes of inequality sufficient to damage democracy for this reason, i see capitalism as a system worth dismantling.  if the state might be used as a tool by which this can occur, i would be all for it, but it is clear that government has been sufficiently corrupted by corporate interests that it would be more or less a fool is errand.   #  my argument took for granted the idea that dismantling capitalism through violence was essentially employing violence against the state.   #  my argument took for granted the idea that dismantling capitalism through violence was essentially employing violence against the state.  i was thinking of someone like hobbes, who would see violence against the state as unjustified in a circumstance like this because of a special status that states have.  i think my main problem with your argument is that it essentially goes  i am so convinced that i am correct about the immorality of capitalist systems that i am willing to employ violence .  an act of violence is necessarily going to severely limit the agency of others, and so i am not convinced that violence is justified as a means to end the individually perceived infringement of agency, if that makes sense.  to employ violence to enforce a minority opinion is going to oppress a majority of people, and that is not really any better than how you view capitalism  #  but i do not think you can prove this is universal or the majority case.   #  there two issues with this whole mindset.  seeing capitalism as more stratified than it is, in your system there is no middle class with self employed jobs and some shares in a pension fund.  assuming everybody is wealth comes from a grabbing of fixed resource, instead of actually doing useful things for society, like entrepreneurship or saving their income and investing it.  to be fair, what you see does exist that is why i am not an anarcho capitalist either.  some peope do just grab stuff and live from rent seeking and do not contribute much back.  but i do not think you can prove this is universal or the majority case.  moden socities are hybrids between the two models.  this is why a social market economy simply modern welfare state capitalism is roughly the most just, but as nobody really knows the ratio of  good  vs.   bad  elites it is hard to figure out how much redistro is just.   #  suppose you are in a group of 0 able bodied people in a life boat at sea with no means of communication with the rest of the world and no hope of rescue.   #  i am not going to defend capitalism as if it were an ideal state of affairs; i will just try to first understand more accurately where exactly you stand on the matter.  suppose you are in a group of 0 able bodied people in a life boat at sea with no means of communication with the rest of the world and no hope of rescue.  the boat happens upon a remote island with ample land and resources for your group.  initially, you survive on wild berries, nuts and wild boar, but soon enough you realize that this mode of living is not indefinitely sustainable by this population on this island; the food levels on the island are decreasing.  so you individually decide to mark off a small plot of land where you begin to deliberately replant and cultivate edible plants.  you also manage to capture some wild boar and get them to breed in captivity.  in this way, you manage to create food at a much higher rate than that small plot of land and group of boars would have created spontaneously.  the amount of land you marked off was perhaps a representative 0 of the island.  one of the others catches on to this idea and does the same.  the other eight do not.  eventually, the wild food on the island starts running low, and the eight start getting hungry.  moreover, there is not much left on the island to capture/replant, and they ca not wait a whole season before eating anyway, even if they  did  start farming now.  five of them approach you two and ask for food from your  farms .  you agree to provide them with x amount of food in return for them doing y work on your farm.  the other three simply start raiding your  farms  and feeding themselves, claiming that neither the land nor its produce belong to anyone anyway.  now, before we consider whether this is an accurate analogy and where it is deficient, what do you think of it as a story ? what sort of system or set of rules would you propose to be morally right in this situation ?
this thought has been inspired from recent events going on in the gaming community in recent years, and how men in the community need to clean up their act to accommodate the growing female population.  i do admit video games can be sexist, but that is mostly because the medium has been funded by males for most of its lifetime and even today, a strong percentage of the loyal base is men, so there is going to be some bias in the gender department just because one gender is funding it, which is going to lead marketers to make content for them specifically.  in mediums that are funded to entertain women, you see the exact same gender bias.  talk shows the view, cosmo, lifetime, and female centered romantic movies all portray men as an exaggerated character or as a flat out stereotype.  then of course there is the near universal  dumb husband, smart wife  dynamic that shows up in nearly every family based sitcom.  so my question is:why are women allowed to have female centered mediums with biased views on men, but men are not ? i never see anyone saying that we have to include more men in these things, or that we have to pay lip service to men in cosmo so their feelings are not hurt.  any male based medium ca not seem to exist without the forced assimilation of women into it.  i think it is perfectly fine that women have mediums that are suited to their specific needs, even if i do not like them personally, i do not call for them to change to fit my standards.  entertainment that is centered towards men should be viewed in the same way.   #  so my question is:why are women allowed to have female centered mediums with biased views on men, but men are not ?  #  because there is inequality already, and because women care too much, and it is one of those things that is not worth the trouble.   # because there is inequality already, and because women care too much, and it is one of those things that is not worth the trouble.  because we do not usually care.  it is better to let women have it their way on these things.  maybe a couple, but not all of them.  i still do not see women playing sports with men, very few can serve in the infantry, why is this even an issue ? i think it is.  i still have yet to see girls at the rush and dream theater shows.   #  the discussion is whether or not the hobby and industry is best served by having mainstream titles cater exclusively to men and do so in a way that is specifically off putting to women.   # those are specific examples of things  within a larger category  that cater to women.  magazines in aggregate do not cater to women.  neither do movies.  there will always be a market for games oriented towards men.  the discussion is whether or not the hobby and industry is best served by having mainstream titles cater exclusively to men and do so in a way that is specifically off putting to women.  there are many many many pieces of media that cater to men.  professional sports, action movies, most games.   #  women are the victim that overcomes against all odds, men are the ones who get outsmarted, cut down as cannon fodder, or worse go completely psychotic and become the  bad guy.    #  thing is, quantity ! quality.  it seems increasingly common that, as op mentioned, men are portrayed as dumb or brutish while women are intelligent and sexy.  women are the victim that overcomes against all odds, men are the ones who get outsmarted, cut down as cannon fodder, or worse go completely psychotic and become the  bad guy.   mind you, my favorite genre is horror and that makes up the majority of my experience with movies.  does not change the fact that the woman often ends up playing the hero while the men die or get saved by her.  in fact, it is such a common ideal that it is extended beyond movies and into commercials wendy is, anyone ? .  people can argue that action movies often feature a male hero and that when it is a woman it is some scantily clad girl aimed at pleasing men, but i would argue that all the men in action movies are dudes with an awesome physique that portray the same impossible standards for men that the females do for women, so i fail to see where an argument could stand there.  if you ask my opinion, i would tell you i do not give a damn and obviously the majority of film goers do not either.  the entertainment industry produces what people will pay to see.  if people were pissed about a female lead in an action movie being in a tight leather suit they would not watch the movie.  if men were pissed about action stars that are more ripped than they could ever be, they would not watch the movie.  but guess what ? people are still going out to watch these movies because  that is what they want to see.   #  its pretty rare to have a woman play an ancillary non romantic character that could also be played by a man.   #  i agree that its more about the quality of the character, but in my experience the numbers have been slightly different.  the men and women all tend to have pretty awesome physiques, but you have to really do some mental gymnastics for the women in order to make it  fit .  ie: fighting crime wearing high heels, or with your long hair blowing in the wind, or the 0 0 year old  rocket science expert  that could easily be played by an older woman, but the movie producers want eye candy instead of a believable age.  its not so much about the fact that they all look good its who they are tryign to please.  movies are still made today assuming a male audience.  sure keep in the gratuitous topless scenes with the women, but throw a little slow motion sexy topless shots of the men as well.  but we ca not do that because most men would think it was gross and unnecessary.  even though those same arguments work for female nudity as well.  just look at how much discussion there is anytime there is male nudity, ie game of thrones which has drastically more female nudity than male, but it was apparently a huge deal that there was any male nudity.  its pretty rare to have a woman play an ancillary non romantic character that could also be played by a man.  or when there is a woman with a substantial character ie: guardiens of the galaxy she is vastly outnumbered by the men, and is actually left out of the marketing material.  all people are really arguing for is to have movies reflect real life, and in real life there are 0/0 ish male to woman ratios, so it does not make sense for movies not to reflect this.  if someone enjoys movies, and they can either watch them, or not, they are going to watch the only ones available.  there are plenty of people who do not like movies and do not watch them.  people who do not watch movies do not influence the market at all.  people who  do  watch movies are the only ones who movie producers care about pleasing.   #  people who do watch movies are the only ones who movie producers care about pleasing.   # but we ca not do that because most men would think it was gross and unnecessary.  you ca not compare the two.  women from an evolutionary standpoint have evolved to please with their body while men have evolved to attract women less with looks and more with skills and personality.  it is not just men that would find male nudity to be gross, women would too because he is using his body to try to attract women, which makes him  seem  more feminine and therefore undesirable as a result.  there is a reason why male stripping is a niche market compared to female stripping, why playgirl sells much less than playboy.  women are just not into it.  if someone enjoys movies, and they can either watch them, or not, they are going to watch the only ones available.  there are plenty of people who do not like movies and do not watch them.  people who do not watch movies do not influence the market at all.  people who do watch movies are the only ones who movie producers care about pleasing.  it was mentioned by another user that over 0 of the movie audience is women.  does that mean that women who buy these movies that feminists claim to be degrading them are anti woman ? it seems to me like most women simply are not in line with the feminist idea of sexism and oppression and are voting with their dollars to prove that.
this thought has been inspired from recent events going on in the gaming community in recent years, and how men in the community need to clean up their act to accommodate the growing female population.  i do admit video games can be sexist, but that is mostly because the medium has been funded by males for most of its lifetime and even today, a strong percentage of the loyal base is men, so there is going to be some bias in the gender department just because one gender is funding it, which is going to lead marketers to make content for them specifically.  in mediums that are funded to entertain women, you see the exact same gender bias.  talk shows the view, cosmo, lifetime, and female centered romantic movies all portray men as an exaggerated character or as a flat out stereotype.  then of course there is the near universal  dumb husband, smart wife  dynamic that shows up in nearly every family based sitcom.  so my question is:why are women allowed to have female centered mediums with biased views on men, but men are not ? i never see anyone saying that we have to include more men in these things, or that we have to pay lip service to men in cosmo so their feelings are not hurt.  any male based medium ca not seem to exist without the forced assimilation of women into it.  i think it is perfectly fine that women have mediums that are suited to their specific needs, even if i do not like them personally, i do not call for them to change to fit my standards.  entertainment that is centered towards men should be viewed in the same way.   #  any male based medium ca not seem to exist without the forced assimilation of women into it.   #  maybe a couple, but not all of them.   # because there is inequality already, and because women care too much, and it is one of those things that is not worth the trouble.  because we do not usually care.  it is better to let women have it their way on these things.  maybe a couple, but not all of them.  i still do not see women playing sports with men, very few can serve in the infantry, why is this even an issue ? i think it is.  i still have yet to see girls at the rush and dream theater shows.   #  there are many many many pieces of media that cater to men.   # those are specific examples of things  within a larger category  that cater to women.  magazines in aggregate do not cater to women.  neither do movies.  there will always be a market for games oriented towards men.  the discussion is whether or not the hobby and industry is best served by having mainstream titles cater exclusively to men and do so in a way that is specifically off putting to women.  there are many many many pieces of media that cater to men.  professional sports, action movies, most games.   #  women are the victim that overcomes against all odds, men are the ones who get outsmarted, cut down as cannon fodder, or worse go completely psychotic and become the  bad guy.    #  thing is, quantity ! quality.  it seems increasingly common that, as op mentioned, men are portrayed as dumb or brutish while women are intelligent and sexy.  women are the victim that overcomes against all odds, men are the ones who get outsmarted, cut down as cannon fodder, or worse go completely psychotic and become the  bad guy.   mind you, my favorite genre is horror and that makes up the majority of my experience with movies.  does not change the fact that the woman often ends up playing the hero while the men die or get saved by her.  in fact, it is such a common ideal that it is extended beyond movies and into commercials wendy is, anyone ? .  people can argue that action movies often feature a male hero and that when it is a woman it is some scantily clad girl aimed at pleasing men, but i would argue that all the men in action movies are dudes with an awesome physique that portray the same impossible standards for men that the females do for women, so i fail to see where an argument could stand there.  if you ask my opinion, i would tell you i do not give a damn and obviously the majority of film goers do not either.  the entertainment industry produces what people will pay to see.  if people were pissed about a female lead in an action movie being in a tight leather suit they would not watch the movie.  if men were pissed about action stars that are more ripped than they could ever be, they would not watch the movie.  but guess what ? people are still going out to watch these movies because  that is what they want to see.   #  movies are still made today assuming a male audience.   #  i agree that its more about the quality of the character, but in my experience the numbers have been slightly different.  the men and women all tend to have pretty awesome physiques, but you have to really do some mental gymnastics for the women in order to make it  fit .  ie: fighting crime wearing high heels, or with your long hair blowing in the wind, or the 0 0 year old  rocket science expert  that could easily be played by an older woman, but the movie producers want eye candy instead of a believable age.  its not so much about the fact that they all look good its who they are tryign to please.  movies are still made today assuming a male audience.  sure keep in the gratuitous topless scenes with the women, but throw a little slow motion sexy topless shots of the men as well.  but we ca not do that because most men would think it was gross and unnecessary.  even though those same arguments work for female nudity as well.  just look at how much discussion there is anytime there is male nudity, ie game of thrones which has drastically more female nudity than male, but it was apparently a huge deal that there was any male nudity.  its pretty rare to have a woman play an ancillary non romantic character that could also be played by a man.  or when there is a woman with a substantial character ie: guardiens of the galaxy she is vastly outnumbered by the men, and is actually left out of the marketing material.  all people are really arguing for is to have movies reflect real life, and in real life there are 0/0 ish male to woman ratios, so it does not make sense for movies not to reflect this.  if someone enjoys movies, and they can either watch them, or not, they are going to watch the only ones available.  there are plenty of people who do not like movies and do not watch them.  people who do not watch movies do not influence the market at all.  people who  do  watch movies are the only ones who movie producers care about pleasing.   #  there is a reason why male stripping is a niche market compared to female stripping, why playgirl sells much less than playboy.   # but we ca not do that because most men would think it was gross and unnecessary.  you ca not compare the two.  women from an evolutionary standpoint have evolved to please with their body while men have evolved to attract women less with looks and more with skills and personality.  it is not just men that would find male nudity to be gross, women would too because he is using his body to try to attract women, which makes him  seem  more feminine and therefore undesirable as a result.  there is a reason why male stripping is a niche market compared to female stripping, why playgirl sells much less than playboy.  women are just not into it.  if someone enjoys movies, and they can either watch them, or not, they are going to watch the only ones available.  there are plenty of people who do not like movies and do not watch them.  people who do not watch movies do not influence the market at all.  people who do watch movies are the only ones who movie producers care about pleasing.  it was mentioned by another user that over 0 of the movie audience is women.  does that mean that women who buy these movies that feminists claim to be degrading them are anti woman ? it seems to me like most women simply are not in line with the feminist idea of sexism and oppression and are voting with their dollars to prove that.
this thought has been inspired from recent events going on in the gaming community in recent years, and how men in the community need to clean up their act to accommodate the growing female population.  i do admit video games can be sexist, but that is mostly because the medium has been funded by males for most of its lifetime and even today, a strong percentage of the loyal base is men, so there is going to be some bias in the gender department just because one gender is funding it, which is going to lead marketers to make content for them specifically.  in mediums that are funded to entertain women, you see the exact same gender bias.  talk shows the view, cosmo, lifetime, and female centered romantic movies all portray men as an exaggerated character or as a flat out stereotype.  then of course there is the near universal  dumb husband, smart wife  dynamic that shows up in nearly every family based sitcom.  so my question is:why are women allowed to have female centered mediums with biased views on men, but men are not ? i never see anyone saying that we have to include more men in these things, or that we have to pay lip service to men in cosmo so their feelings are not hurt.  any male based medium ca not seem to exist without the forced assimilation of women into it.  i think it is perfectly fine that women have mediums that are suited to their specific needs, even if i do not like them personally, i do not call for them to change to fit my standards.  entertainment that is centered towards men should be viewed in the same way.   #  so my question is:why are women allowed to have female centered mediums with biased views on men, but men are not ?  #  i never see anyone saying that we have to include more men in these things, or that we have to pay lip service to men in cosmo so their feelings are not hurt.   # i never see anyone saying that we have to include more men in these things, or that we have to pay lip service to men in cosmo so their feelings are not hurt.  any male based medium ca not seem to exist without the forced assimilation of women into it.  because men do not like those things.  there may be some unfortunate husbands forced to watch dr.  phil or whatever but there are not many saying  i really wish this particular outlet reflected  me  and  my  values more accurately  whereas many women would like to be included in new activities and cultures and their relatively recent  acceptance  finger quotes means the are highly disproportionately represented.   #  magazines in aggregate do not cater to women.   # those are specific examples of things  within a larger category  that cater to women.  magazines in aggregate do not cater to women.  neither do movies.  there will always be a market for games oriented towards men.  the discussion is whether or not the hobby and industry is best served by having mainstream titles cater exclusively to men and do so in a way that is specifically off putting to women.  there are many many many pieces of media that cater to men.  professional sports, action movies, most games.   #  people are still going out to watch these movies because  that is what they want to see.   #  thing is, quantity ! quality.  it seems increasingly common that, as op mentioned, men are portrayed as dumb or brutish while women are intelligent and sexy.  women are the victim that overcomes against all odds, men are the ones who get outsmarted, cut down as cannon fodder, or worse go completely psychotic and become the  bad guy.   mind you, my favorite genre is horror and that makes up the majority of my experience with movies.  does not change the fact that the woman often ends up playing the hero while the men die or get saved by her.  in fact, it is such a common ideal that it is extended beyond movies and into commercials wendy is, anyone ? .  people can argue that action movies often feature a male hero and that when it is a woman it is some scantily clad girl aimed at pleasing men, but i would argue that all the men in action movies are dudes with an awesome physique that portray the same impossible standards for men that the females do for women, so i fail to see where an argument could stand there.  if you ask my opinion, i would tell you i do not give a damn and obviously the majority of film goers do not either.  the entertainment industry produces what people will pay to see.  if people were pissed about a female lead in an action movie being in a tight leather suit they would not watch the movie.  if men were pissed about action stars that are more ripped than they could ever be, they would not watch the movie.  but guess what ? people are still going out to watch these movies because  that is what they want to see.   #  just look at how much discussion there is anytime there is male nudity, ie game of thrones which has drastically more female nudity than male, but it was apparently a huge deal that there was any male nudity.   #  i agree that its more about the quality of the character, but in my experience the numbers have been slightly different.  the men and women all tend to have pretty awesome physiques, but you have to really do some mental gymnastics for the women in order to make it  fit .  ie: fighting crime wearing high heels, or with your long hair blowing in the wind, or the 0 0 year old  rocket science expert  that could easily be played by an older woman, but the movie producers want eye candy instead of a believable age.  its not so much about the fact that they all look good its who they are tryign to please.  movies are still made today assuming a male audience.  sure keep in the gratuitous topless scenes with the women, but throw a little slow motion sexy topless shots of the men as well.  but we ca not do that because most men would think it was gross and unnecessary.  even though those same arguments work for female nudity as well.  just look at how much discussion there is anytime there is male nudity, ie game of thrones which has drastically more female nudity than male, but it was apparently a huge deal that there was any male nudity.  its pretty rare to have a woman play an ancillary non romantic character that could also be played by a man.  or when there is a woman with a substantial character ie: guardiens of the galaxy she is vastly outnumbered by the men, and is actually left out of the marketing material.  all people are really arguing for is to have movies reflect real life, and in real life there are 0/0 ish male to woman ratios, so it does not make sense for movies not to reflect this.  if someone enjoys movies, and they can either watch them, or not, they are going to watch the only ones available.  there are plenty of people who do not like movies and do not watch them.  people who do not watch movies do not influence the market at all.  people who  do  watch movies are the only ones who movie producers care about pleasing.   #  there are plenty of people who do not like movies and do not watch them.   # but we ca not do that because most men would think it was gross and unnecessary.  you ca not compare the two.  women from an evolutionary standpoint have evolved to please with their body while men have evolved to attract women less with looks and more with skills and personality.  it is not just men that would find male nudity to be gross, women would too because he is using his body to try to attract women, which makes him  seem  more feminine and therefore undesirable as a result.  there is a reason why male stripping is a niche market compared to female stripping, why playgirl sells much less than playboy.  women are just not into it.  if someone enjoys movies, and they can either watch them, or not, they are going to watch the only ones available.  there are plenty of people who do not like movies and do not watch them.  people who do not watch movies do not influence the market at all.  people who do watch movies are the only ones who movie producers care about pleasing.  it was mentioned by another user that over 0 of the movie audience is women.  does that mean that women who buy these movies that feminists claim to be degrading them are anti woman ? it seems to me like most women simply are not in line with the feminist idea of sexism and oppression and are voting with their dollars to prove that.
i think the whole  fall back  thing is nonsense, and is not actually helping fight against sids.  more importantly the hysteria around sids is crazy when looking at the stats 0 cases yearly out of 0,0,0 births . 0 .  also, there are clear demographic factors to sids where white, chinese, and hispanic children are at much lower risk, while black and native american children are at heightened risk.  adding to this, is a recent study which found 0 of sids cases involved co sleeping, and that 0 of sids cases happen while kids are in a childcare center.  serious negative effects of the  back to sleep  campaign has been the rise in incidence of flat headedness.  this happens to a significant percentage of kids who would otherwise be completely normal.  it incurs a large amount of cost, stress, and creates the potential for serious defects later in life.  so, with that.  both the risk of sids, and the response is way overblown.  parents should be responsible with what they put in cribs, but in regards to kids sleeping on their backs.  go for it !  #  serious negative effects of the  back to sleep  campaign has been the rise in incidence of flat headedness.   #  the alternative to the rare occurrence of flat headedness is risking death.   # where are you getting these stats ? according to the cdc, 0 in 0,0 infants died from sids in 0 misread the publication .  it is the third leading cause of infant death.  the alternative to the rare occurrence of flat headedness is risking death.  would you rather have a condition that can be corrected, or an infant that has suffocated in it is sleep ? it can be corrected with a special helmet.  how is this at all costly, stressful, or dangerous ?  #  on the flip side flat head is rising and affects a relatively significant portion of children.   #  not sure what you are talking about, but from the wiki:  sids was responsible for 0 deaths per 0,0 live births in the us in 0.  0 it is responsible for far fewer deaths than congenital disorders and disorders related to short gestation, though it is the leading cause of death in healthy infants after one month of age.  0 my main point is that you are really not risking death.  it is quite rare 0,0 out of 0,0,0 and no causal links have ever been demonstrably proven.  more importantly, a big part of the  back to sleep  campaign has been teaching parents basic crib safety, such as not leaving things in the crib that a child can choke on.  on the flip side flat head is rising and affects a relatively significant portion of children.  that special helmet comes with numerous extra doctors visits and costs associated with it.  all that is if the flat head is caught early enough.  if it is not, then serious medical risks can develop.   #  children have a pretty standard schedule for doctor visits.   # more importantly, a big part of the  back to sleep  campaign has been teaching parents basic crib safety, such as not leaving things in the crib that a child can choke on.  many sids cases are attributable to suffocation.  i have a one moth old, and have witnessed many times how an infant can get stuck face down and potentially suffocate themselves.  there are very convincing statistics that show sids has a strong correlation with the position in which infants sleep.  even if it  is  rare, it is easily preventable.  why not have a campaign for something so preventable ? unlike many causes of death, this is something completely under our control.  if the hysteria serves to promote crib safety, that is a great thing.  children have a pretty standard schedule for doctor visits.  unless the parent is irresponsible, i am sure someone would notice a flattening severe enough to cause problems.  what serious medical risks ? the only thing i have been able to find is that they may have a misshapen head.   #  where are these stats, and based on what studies, which took into account which factors ?  #  suffocation is classified separately from sids.  if a child suffocates, then they are labeled as such, where as sids typically does not show signs of suffocation.  but, then again, often times proper autopsies/medical examinations are not performed on recently deceased infants.  where are these stats, and based on what studies, which took into account which factors ? the fact that sids mostly affects the lowest socioeconomic class should be viewed with a bit more importance than it has been in the past.  i also think there should be a very clear distinction between crib safety and sids prevention.  URL  #  it is 0 years later, and there is still no significant research on wtf sids is or even if it definitively exists.   #  honestly, yes.  i think it is been a gigantic scare tactic shitstorm with little real evidence.  this has been primarily a campaign based on fear and lack of knowledge, with limited benefits occurring from actually provable things i. e.  increased crib safety .  such bullshit on that.  firstly.  correlation ! ding, ding, ding ! no major initiative should be based on unprovable correlations.  secondly, the effectiveness of the campaign has not been proven at all and is impossible to prove.  had the only element of  back to sleep  been kids sleeping on their backs.  then yes, by all means it would be proven.  but that was not it.  there are other components of education on basic safety aspects which many parents would never have been taught.  it is 0 years later, and there is still no significant research on wtf sids is or even if it definitively exists.
i think the whole  fall back  thing is nonsense, and is not actually helping fight against sids.  more importantly the hysteria around sids is crazy when looking at the stats 0 cases yearly out of 0,0,0 births . 0 .  also, there are clear demographic factors to sids where white, chinese, and hispanic children are at much lower risk, while black and native american children are at heightened risk.  adding to this, is a recent study which found 0 of sids cases involved co sleeping, and that 0 of sids cases happen while kids are in a childcare center.  serious negative effects of the  back to sleep  campaign has been the rise in incidence of flat headedness.  this happens to a significant percentage of kids who would otherwise be completely normal.  it incurs a large amount of cost, stress, and creates the potential for serious defects later in life.  so, with that.  both the risk of sids, and the response is way overblown.  parents should be responsible with what they put in cribs, but in regards to kids sleeping on their backs.  go for it !  #  it incurs a large amount of cost, stress, and creates the potential for serious defects later in life.   #  it can be corrected with a special helmet.   # where are you getting these stats ? according to the cdc, 0 in 0,0 infants died from sids in 0 misread the publication .  it is the third leading cause of infant death.  the alternative to the rare occurrence of flat headedness is risking death.  would you rather have a condition that can be corrected, or an infant that has suffocated in it is sleep ? it can be corrected with a special helmet.  how is this at all costly, stressful, or dangerous ?  #  on the flip side flat head is rising and affects a relatively significant portion of children.   #  not sure what you are talking about, but from the wiki:  sids was responsible for 0 deaths per 0,0 live births in the us in 0.  0 it is responsible for far fewer deaths than congenital disorders and disorders related to short gestation, though it is the leading cause of death in healthy infants after one month of age.  0 my main point is that you are really not risking death.  it is quite rare 0,0 out of 0,0,0 and no causal links have ever been demonstrably proven.  more importantly, a big part of the  back to sleep  campaign has been teaching parents basic crib safety, such as not leaving things in the crib that a child can choke on.  on the flip side flat head is rising and affects a relatively significant portion of children.  that special helmet comes with numerous extra doctors visits and costs associated with it.  all that is if the flat head is caught early enough.  if it is not, then serious medical risks can develop.   #  unlike many causes of death, this is something completely under our control.   # more importantly, a big part of the  back to sleep  campaign has been teaching parents basic crib safety, such as not leaving things in the crib that a child can choke on.  many sids cases are attributable to suffocation.  i have a one moth old, and have witnessed many times how an infant can get stuck face down and potentially suffocate themselves.  there are very convincing statistics that show sids has a strong correlation with the position in which infants sleep.  even if it  is  rare, it is easily preventable.  why not have a campaign for something so preventable ? unlike many causes of death, this is something completely under our control.  if the hysteria serves to promote crib safety, that is a great thing.  children have a pretty standard schedule for doctor visits.  unless the parent is irresponsible, i am sure someone would notice a flattening severe enough to cause problems.  what serious medical risks ? the only thing i have been able to find is that they may have a misshapen head.   #  if a child suffocates, then they are labeled as such, where as sids typically does not show signs of suffocation.   #  suffocation is classified separately from sids.  if a child suffocates, then they are labeled as such, where as sids typically does not show signs of suffocation.  but, then again, often times proper autopsies/medical examinations are not performed on recently deceased infants.  where are these stats, and based on what studies, which took into account which factors ? the fact that sids mostly affects the lowest socioeconomic class should be viewed with a bit more importance than it has been in the past.  i also think there should be a very clear distinction between crib safety and sids prevention.  URL  #  secondly, the effectiveness of the campaign has not been proven at all and is impossible to prove.   #  honestly, yes.  i think it is been a gigantic scare tactic shitstorm with little real evidence.  this has been primarily a campaign based on fear and lack of knowledge, with limited benefits occurring from actually provable things i. e.  increased crib safety .  such bullshit on that.  firstly.  correlation ! ding, ding, ding ! no major initiative should be based on unprovable correlations.  secondly, the effectiveness of the campaign has not been proven at all and is impossible to prove.  had the only element of  back to sleep  been kids sleeping on their backs.  then yes, by all means it would be proven.  but that was not it.  there are other components of education on basic safety aspects which many parents would never have been taught.  it is 0 years later, and there is still no significant research on wtf sids is or even if it definitively exists.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.   #  a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.   # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  this is not really related to freedom of speech.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.   #  i do not read redpill  cause i know what is there; i go to pics for the pics.   #  well, you will likely just say it is anecdotal again, but i think there is a difference between finding a lot of nasty things said in /r/pics and /r/redpill.  i do not read redpill  cause i know what is there; i go to pics for the pics.  and yet… and yet.  the point is that subreddits that are not specifically set up to be safe are not.  and i do not really want to spend my life hanging around in  safe  spaces; that is not the point.  i would like to have lots of places where people can go ahead and blow off steam and say whatever they want.  but i do not want to find, for example, sexist crap in places where i just go to have a laugh.  i find reddit a lot more boy is club than the general public discourse  on the whole , and that is one reason why plenty of people avoid reddit.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  this is all hurting the image of reddit.   #  reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.   # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.   #  the point is that subreddits that are not specifically set up to be safe are not.   #  well, you will likely just say it is anecdotal again, but i think there is a difference between finding a lot of nasty things said in /r/pics and /r/redpill.  i do not read redpill  cause i know what is there; i go to pics for the pics.  and yet… and yet.  the point is that subreddits that are not specifically set up to be safe are not.  and i do not really want to spend my life hanging around in  safe  spaces; that is not the point.  i would like to have lots of places where people can go ahead and blow off steam and say whatever they want.  but i do not want to find, for example, sexist crap in places where i just go to have a laugh.  i find reddit a lot more boy is club than the general public discourse  on the whole , and that is one reason why plenty of people avoid reddit.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.   #  i have received hate messages for disagreeing with people as well.   # alright.  the gamers are the ones who ca not take critique.  okay.  so are we going to ignore that the entire point when the quinnspiracy popped off was when comment sections and subreddits started deleting anything that mentioned the incident ? how about anita sarkeesian, who i have never once seen address claims leveled that she is cherry picking her scenes and examples to misrepresent entire games ? literally the only counter argument i have seen her make boils down to an inference of  i receive death threats about my videos, therefore i must be right about that.   now, let me be abundantly clear: i do not condone or make death threats, and think the people that do should either find better ways to articulate their disapproval of something or else shut the fuck up.  but i am also of the opinion that if you are a public figure who ever voices some sort of opinion that someone else does not share, people are  going  to send you death threats, no matter what.  the thing is that i do not think sarkeesian is initial intent in airing them publicly was more than a shrewd marketing move.  controversy creates free press.  i honestly would not have known who either zoe quinn or anita sarkeesian were if not for the controversy.  the thing in this case is that that is exactly what the people making the threats want.  anti trolling 0: do not feed the trolls.  they do it for attention, and if you just report/ban them, they go away.  if they are serious about death threats, quietly report them to the fbi and let them get arrested.  the fbi has the resources to actually track these people down, your twitter/youtube followers do not.  i have received hate messages for disagreeing with people as well.  hell i have received a death threat and i am not even a popular figure, i just really pissed someone off at some point in my life.  some people ca not express their disapproval and also ca not actually change their minds, which is why i came to a subreddit where the entire point was being open minded and having an open discourse, at least in theory.   #  she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ?  # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.   #  by opening your post with insults and generalizations, you have already discredited your entire argument.   # by opening your post with insults and generalizations, you have already discredited your entire argument.  i am subscribed to /r/gaming and i have never seen or heard of that subreddit, but this also serves to discredit you further by bringing up a different subreddit, which essentially is a straw man.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  essentially more straw men, by taking subreddits that are often disparaged on this site and trying to link them to /r/gaming.  that being said, what subreddits a person is subscribed to and even participate in does not represent their views, just that they are topics of interest to them.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  my opinion is that while she is knowledgeable of feminist ideology, she has never expressed an interest in video games except to complain about them.  as a result, she does not appear to be knowledgeable in the topics she has chosen to speak out upon, which is the root of derision of her.  threats are never acceptable, but i do not think you can find any evidence that the majority of /r/gaming, or even gamers in general, would wish violence upon anita or her family.  if anything, they would prefer an opportunity to prove her wrong through evidence.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  as i said, threats are never acceptable.  i agree with you that gamergate as a movement to expose and combat corruption in the video games industry is a good goal.  in fact, long before this, it is been widely known that gaming journalists are either bribed or have their livelihoods threatened to make good reviews of terrible games.  that being said, i also think any criticism of  feminism  in these debates is not a criticism of actual feminism that seeks equality, but specific people using the guise of feminism to provide cover for their own ambitions.  zoe quinn is being accused of sleeping around to benefit her gaming career.  anita sarkeesian is accused of not knowing anything about gaming and just criticizing it to get on tv and sell books.  most of the verbal attacks on those individuals are attacks on specific women, but are not in themselves a sign of misogyny.  yes, there are some misogynists who will complain about them but i believe they are in the minority.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.  i once wrote an article about a specific hate group, and as a result received threats from people in that group.  i know how it feels, and i sympathize with anyone who has to suffer from that.  however, in this case, as /r/gaming is not a hate group, i do not believe the majority of subscribers and commentators there are  misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique .  i am a subscriber there, and i have female friends who i get along with, i love my wife, mother, daughter, grandmothers, and i shaved this morning.  oh, and i can freely take criticism, but if it is not valid i will simply ignore it or ridicule it.  for example, i know i can be arrogant, dismissive, and emotionally detached which rubs people the wrong way sometimes.  i was told that in nicer terms by a former manager of mine who i am still friends with despite the fact that i do not work for her anymore.  i do not claim to be representative of the majority of /r/gaming but i am a subscriber there.   #  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.   # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.   #  i am subscribed to /r/gaming and i have never seen or heard of that subreddit, but this also serves to discredit you further by bringing up a different subreddit, which essentially is a straw man.   # by opening your post with insults and generalizations, you have already discredited your entire argument.  i am subscribed to /r/gaming and i have never seen or heard of that subreddit, but this also serves to discredit you further by bringing up a different subreddit, which essentially is a straw man.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  essentially more straw men, by taking subreddits that are often disparaged on this site and trying to link them to /r/gaming.  that being said, what subreddits a person is subscribed to and even participate in does not represent their views, just that they are topics of interest to them.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  my opinion is that while she is knowledgeable of feminist ideology, she has never expressed an interest in video games except to complain about them.  as a result, she does not appear to be knowledgeable in the topics she has chosen to speak out upon, which is the root of derision of her.  threats are never acceptable, but i do not think you can find any evidence that the majority of /r/gaming, or even gamers in general, would wish violence upon anita or her family.  if anything, they would prefer an opportunity to prove her wrong through evidence.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  as i said, threats are never acceptable.  i agree with you that gamergate as a movement to expose and combat corruption in the video games industry is a good goal.  in fact, long before this, it is been widely known that gaming journalists are either bribed or have their livelihoods threatened to make good reviews of terrible games.  that being said, i also think any criticism of  feminism  in these debates is not a criticism of actual feminism that seeks equality, but specific people using the guise of feminism to provide cover for their own ambitions.  zoe quinn is being accused of sleeping around to benefit her gaming career.  anita sarkeesian is accused of not knowing anything about gaming and just criticizing it to get on tv and sell books.  most of the verbal attacks on those individuals are attacks on specific women, but are not in themselves a sign of misogyny.  yes, there are some misogynists who will complain about them but i believe they are in the minority.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.  i once wrote an article about a specific hate group, and as a result received threats from people in that group.  i know how it feels, and i sympathize with anyone who has to suffer from that.  however, in this case, as /r/gaming is not a hate group, i do not believe the majority of subscribers and commentators there are  misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique .  i am a subscriber there, and i have female friends who i get along with, i love my wife, mother, daughter, grandmothers, and i shaved this morning.  oh, and i can freely take criticism, but if it is not valid i will simply ignore it or ridicule it.  for example, i know i can be arrogant, dismissive, and emotionally detached which rubs people the wrong way sometimes.  i was told that in nicer terms by a former manager of mine who i am still friends with despite the fact that i do not work for her anymore.  i do not claim to be representative of the majority of /r/gaming but i am a subscriber there.   #  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.   #  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.   # by opening your post with insults and generalizations, you have already discredited your entire argument.  i am subscribed to /r/gaming and i have never seen or heard of that subreddit, but this also serves to discredit you further by bringing up a different subreddit, which essentially is a straw man.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  essentially more straw men, by taking subreddits that are often disparaged on this site and trying to link them to /r/gaming.  that being said, what subreddits a person is subscribed to and even participate in does not represent their views, just that they are topics of interest to them.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  my opinion is that while she is knowledgeable of feminist ideology, she has never expressed an interest in video games except to complain about them.  as a result, she does not appear to be knowledgeable in the topics she has chosen to speak out upon, which is the root of derision of her.  threats are never acceptable, but i do not think you can find any evidence that the majority of /r/gaming, or even gamers in general, would wish violence upon anita or her family.  if anything, they would prefer an opportunity to prove her wrong through evidence.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  as i said, threats are never acceptable.  i agree with you that gamergate as a movement to expose and combat corruption in the video games industry is a good goal.  in fact, long before this, it is been widely known that gaming journalists are either bribed or have their livelihoods threatened to make good reviews of terrible games.  that being said, i also think any criticism of  feminism  in these debates is not a criticism of actual feminism that seeks equality, but specific people using the guise of feminism to provide cover for their own ambitions.  zoe quinn is being accused of sleeping around to benefit her gaming career.  anita sarkeesian is accused of not knowing anything about gaming and just criticizing it to get on tv and sell books.  most of the verbal attacks on those individuals are attacks on specific women, but are not in themselves a sign of misogyny.  yes, there are some misogynists who will complain about them but i believe they are in the minority.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.  i once wrote an article about a specific hate group, and as a result received threats from people in that group.  i know how it feels, and i sympathize with anyone who has to suffer from that.  however, in this case, as /r/gaming is not a hate group, i do not believe the majority of subscribers and commentators there are  misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique .  i am a subscriber there, and i have female friends who i get along with, i love my wife, mother, daughter, grandmothers, and i shaved this morning.  oh, and i can freely take criticism, but if it is not valid i will simply ignore it or ridicule it.  for example, i know i can be arrogant, dismissive, and emotionally detached which rubs people the wrong way sometimes.  i was told that in nicer terms by a former manager of mine who i am still friends with despite the fact that i do not work for her anymore.  i do not claim to be representative of the majority of /r/gaming but i am a subscriber there.   #  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.   #  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.   # by opening your post with insults and generalizations, you have already discredited your entire argument.  i am subscribed to /r/gaming and i have never seen or heard of that subreddit, but this also serves to discredit you further by bringing up a different subreddit, which essentially is a straw man.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  essentially more straw men, by taking subreddits that are often disparaged on this site and trying to link them to /r/gaming.  that being said, what subreddits a person is subscribed to and even participate in does not represent their views, just that they are topics of interest to them.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  my opinion is that while she is knowledgeable of feminist ideology, she has never expressed an interest in video games except to complain about them.  as a result, she does not appear to be knowledgeable in the topics she has chosen to speak out upon, which is the root of derision of her.  threats are never acceptable, but i do not think you can find any evidence that the majority of /r/gaming, or even gamers in general, would wish violence upon anita or her family.  if anything, they would prefer an opportunity to prove her wrong through evidence.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  as i said, threats are never acceptable.  i agree with you that gamergate as a movement to expose and combat corruption in the video games industry is a good goal.  in fact, long before this, it is been widely known that gaming journalists are either bribed or have their livelihoods threatened to make good reviews of terrible games.  that being said, i also think any criticism of  feminism  in these debates is not a criticism of actual feminism that seeks equality, but specific people using the guise of feminism to provide cover for their own ambitions.  zoe quinn is being accused of sleeping around to benefit her gaming career.  anita sarkeesian is accused of not knowing anything about gaming and just criticizing it to get on tv and sell books.  most of the verbal attacks on those individuals are attacks on specific women, but are not in themselves a sign of misogyny.  yes, there are some misogynists who will complain about them but i believe they are in the minority.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.  i once wrote an article about a specific hate group, and as a result received threats from people in that group.  i know how it feels, and i sympathize with anyone who has to suffer from that.  however, in this case, as /r/gaming is not a hate group, i do not believe the majority of subscribers and commentators there are  misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique .  i am a subscriber there, and i have female friends who i get along with, i love my wife, mother, daughter, grandmothers, and i shaved this morning.  oh, and i can freely take criticism, but if it is not valid i will simply ignore it or ridicule it.  for example, i know i can be arrogant, dismissive, and emotionally detached which rubs people the wrong way sometimes.  i was told that in nicer terms by a former manager of mine who i am still friends with despite the fact that i do not work for her anymore.  i do not claim to be representative of the majority of /r/gaming but i am a subscriber there.   #  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.   # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.   #  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.   # by opening your post with insults and generalizations, you have already discredited your entire argument.  i am subscribed to /r/gaming and i have never seen or heard of that subreddit, but this also serves to discredit you further by bringing up a different subreddit, which essentially is a straw man.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  essentially more straw men, by taking subreddits that are often disparaged on this site and trying to link them to /r/gaming.  that being said, what subreddits a person is subscribed to and even participate in does not represent their views, just that they are topics of interest to them.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  my opinion is that while she is knowledgeable of feminist ideology, she has never expressed an interest in video games except to complain about them.  as a result, she does not appear to be knowledgeable in the topics she has chosen to speak out upon, which is the root of derision of her.  threats are never acceptable, but i do not think you can find any evidence that the majority of /r/gaming, or even gamers in general, would wish violence upon anita or her family.  if anything, they would prefer an opportunity to prove her wrong through evidence.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  as i said, threats are never acceptable.  i agree with you that gamergate as a movement to expose and combat corruption in the video games industry is a good goal.  in fact, long before this, it is been widely known that gaming journalists are either bribed or have their livelihoods threatened to make good reviews of terrible games.  that being said, i also think any criticism of  feminism  in these debates is not a criticism of actual feminism that seeks equality, but specific people using the guise of feminism to provide cover for their own ambitions.  zoe quinn is being accused of sleeping around to benefit her gaming career.  anita sarkeesian is accused of not knowing anything about gaming and just criticizing it to get on tv and sell books.  most of the verbal attacks on those individuals are attacks on specific women, but are not in themselves a sign of misogyny.  yes, there are some misogynists who will complain about them but i believe they are in the minority.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.  i once wrote an article about a specific hate group, and as a result received threats from people in that group.  i know how it feels, and i sympathize with anyone who has to suffer from that.  however, in this case, as /r/gaming is not a hate group, i do not believe the majority of subscribers and commentators there are  misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique .  i am a subscriber there, and i have female friends who i get along with, i love my wife, mother, daughter, grandmothers, and i shaved this morning.  oh, and i can freely take criticism, but if it is not valid i will simply ignore it or ridicule it.  for example, i know i can be arrogant, dismissive, and emotionally detached which rubs people the wrong way sometimes.  i was told that in nicer terms by a former manager of mine who i am still friends with despite the fact that i do not work for her anymore.  i do not claim to be representative of the majority of /r/gaming but i am a subscriber there.   #  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  this is all hurting the image of reddit.   #  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   # by opening your post with insults and generalizations, you have already discredited your entire argument.  i am subscribed to /r/gaming and i have never seen or heard of that subreddit, but this also serves to discredit you further by bringing up a different subreddit, which essentially is a straw man.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  essentially more straw men, by taking subreddits that are often disparaged on this site and trying to link them to /r/gaming.  that being said, what subreddits a person is subscribed to and even participate in does not represent their views, just that they are topics of interest to them.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  my opinion is that while she is knowledgeable of feminist ideology, she has never expressed an interest in video games except to complain about them.  as a result, she does not appear to be knowledgeable in the topics she has chosen to speak out upon, which is the root of derision of her.  threats are never acceptable, but i do not think you can find any evidence that the majority of /r/gaming, or even gamers in general, would wish violence upon anita or her family.  if anything, they would prefer an opportunity to prove her wrong through evidence.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  as i said, threats are never acceptable.  i agree with you that gamergate as a movement to expose and combat corruption in the video games industry is a good goal.  in fact, long before this, it is been widely known that gaming journalists are either bribed or have their livelihoods threatened to make good reviews of terrible games.  that being said, i also think any criticism of  feminism  in these debates is not a criticism of actual feminism that seeks equality, but specific people using the guise of feminism to provide cover for their own ambitions.  zoe quinn is being accused of sleeping around to benefit her gaming career.  anita sarkeesian is accused of not knowing anything about gaming and just criticizing it to get on tv and sell books.  most of the verbal attacks on those individuals are attacks on specific women, but are not in themselves a sign of misogyny.  yes, there are some misogynists who will complain about them but i believe they are in the minority.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.  i once wrote an article about a specific hate group, and as a result received threats from people in that group.  i know how it feels, and i sympathize with anyone who has to suffer from that.  however, in this case, as /r/gaming is not a hate group, i do not believe the majority of subscribers and commentators there are  misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique .  i am a subscriber there, and i have female friends who i get along with, i love my wife, mother, daughter, grandmothers, and i shaved this morning.  oh, and i can freely take criticism, but if it is not valid i will simply ignore it or ridicule it.  for example, i know i can be arrogant, dismissive, and emotionally detached which rubs people the wrong way sometimes.  i was told that in nicer terms by a former manager of mine who i am still friends with despite the fact that i do not work for her anymore.  i do not claim to be representative of the majority of /r/gaming but i am a subscriber there.   #  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.   # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  this is not really related to freedom of speech.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.   #  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.   # if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? ok, i think you have gone a little overboard.  i do not really give a fuck what is between her legs, but i really despise her for manipulating and just lying about a lot of things.  like her coverage of the new hitman game showed the player in the strip club level, where she said you were encouraged to kill women, this is what the game is portraying, etc etc.  except not only is that bullshit, but she had to play enough into the game to  know  its bullshit.  if i remember correctly it is like the 0th stage in, so she did not just walk into that stage.  and she claims that you are encouraged and rewarded for killing the women.  and that is a blatant lie.  you are actively punished for killing any civilians, which the women are, and your objective is some ron jeremy in the boondock saints lowlife guy.  oh, yeah, an it is been like that for 0 levels already, levels without any women dancing on stage.  most people do not like her because she is cherry picking ideas/scenes/characters and ignoring the overwhelming list of games that do not agree with her theory.  and i think that is a perfectly good reason to dislike someone.   #  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.   # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.
with all the quinnspiracy and gamergate bullshit going on, i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards who are unable to take any critique.  this is proven by the popularity of /r/kotakuinaction, a subreddit brigading and attacking even making death threats anyone who disagrees with them.  it also has a huge overlap of users with /r/theredpill and /r/mensrights.  those two subreddits promote inequality and sometimes even violence against the opposite gender.  other major gaming subreddits like /r/games and /r/gaming have also had multiple highly upvoted posts about supporting gamergate.  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  gamergate is a movement that is apparently aiming to expose and combat the corruption in video games industry.  on paper it sounds like a worthy goal but in reality it is mostly complaining about feminist gamers/gaming critics and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.  see the death threats i mentioned.  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  this is all hurting the image of reddit.  there have already been articles in many large newspapers about the death threats made to sarkeesian and the gamergate.   #  another evidence about this is the hatred towards a popular feminist and critic anita sarkeesian.   #  if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.   # if you go to any gaming subreddit you are gonna find out that mot people absolutely despise her.  reason ? she is a feminist and is complaining about the portraying of female characters in many video games.  no, the reason gamers intensely dislike her is because she calls them names and stigmatizes them for no good reason.  sort of like:  i have come to the conclusion that gaming community of reddit is full of misogynistic neckbeards sound familiar ? i now dislike you, but not because you have a vagina between your legs although i am sure you already believe i am a misogynist but because of the hateful bile that comes spewing out of your mouth.  oh, and also:  even i have recieved some hate messages for disagreeing with them.  no one has the right to not be offended.  the world does not work that way.  someone on reddit say something you do not like ? turn off the computer, go outside, or maybe even mary have mercy consider the other sides stance ? instead of trying to censor and silence an entire community because you have decided you do not like what they say, why do not you consider why they have grown to be so popular without jumping to the knee jerk reaction of misogyny ?  #  she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.   # a subreddit does nothing only the users of a subreddit can be said to behave a certain way.  this may seem a pedantic thing to say, but the point is that when you say this you are implicitly saying that you are happy to define a subreddit by its users.  this is an acceptable position to take, but one that i think you will find disappointing the overwhelming majority of posts that reach the top of the sub in question are explicitly against the negative actions you have described.  the members of this sub are against this behaviour, so this sub is not only engaging in this behaviour, but actively condemning it.  you are factually incorrect in the most significant way possible it is objectively true that what you believe is the opposite of reality.  reason ? she is a feminist if you go to any thread, literally any thread at all, that mentions sarkeesian then you will see people who despise her.  these people are again almost universally happy to admit that they despise her due to her dishonesty.  the fact that she is female almost never is mentioned, and the fact that she is a feminist barely comes up in passing.  the fact that she is happy to lie and twist the truth to her own ends is what earns her hatred.  for an example, look at.  well, any thread about her.  i am not joking when i say overwhelming majority.  this is not making us look any worse.  if anything, the positive sides of it are probably making us look better.  all in all, you seem completely misinformed about one side of gamergate, but that is your own fault.  i know that you made this thread without reading the other side of the story, but i can forgive you because posting in cmv means you might be open to hearing all viewpoints.  i would only reccomend that when you are facing an issue of corruption in the media, you should not  only  listen to the media before making up your mind.  go to kotakuinaction, and see what they have to say.  you might be surprised.   #  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.   # reddit is widely considered to be a bastion of free speech.  this is an integral portion of its image to the wider world.  it does not always completely adhere to this standard, but that image has been largely maintained.  /r/kotakuinaction contains the following rule in its sidebar:   do not be a dick to anyone.  harass anybody, and you are out.  we do not want your kind here.  if you have conclusive evidence would it hold up in court ? that this standard is being ignored by the moderators of that subreddit, then the accusation can be sent to the admins.  without such evidence, reddit would be doing  far  greater harm to its reputation by taking censorial action against these subreddits.   #  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.   # this is not really related to freedom of speech.  after all, environments that are not structured in a way conducive to echo chambers still end up being employed in this manner.  given the number of subreddits dominated by people who are primarily female, this insinuation is demonstrably misleading.  combined with your other insinuations, i get the feeling that it is your belief that only your opponents engage in echo chamber behavior.  given that a number of feminist blogs insist that they are a space solely for feminists/women, this is demonstrably false.  reddit is not primarily a producer of content, but rather a content aggregator.  while there is a factor of quality, reddit is not widely known for high quality.   #  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.   # anecdotal, and again there are areas that do this on both sides.  /r/againstmensrights and /r/gamerghazi are both target subreddits that are set up to be hostile to/challenge another sub /r/mensrights and /r/kotakuinaction respectively .  i am unable to find comprehensive statistics on the make up of reddit.  however, the perception of the content on reddit or the disposition of the admins is likely to be influenced by your specific social circle.  i have not run into the impression that reddit is a  boy is club  anywhere outside feminist discourse.  i also have not run into the impression that reddit supports  sjw is  outside of men is rights and gamergate discourse.  it is telling that a place where your publicly broadcast assertions can be left alone has to be specifically delineated from the general public sphere ? that is absurd.  it merely means that no single group has overwhelming control of the narrative.  in other words, it is synonymous with free speech.  there is some interesting content and a number of robust debates, but the main perception is that reddit out competed and replaced digg, with lumps it into the content aggregator sphere.
i realize they have hugely rewarding and potentially useful applications, such as restoring sight and lost limbs.  there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  also, saying  well if you do not like it do not get it  just does not cut it in my mind as substantial criticism.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  the thing is, i know this is an inevitability and that we are not that far away from implants becoming the norm.  i just want to consider where it is taking us and it seems like this is a question that is not being asked often enough.  visions of being wired directly into a forum such as this one where my thoughts are policed by the community redditors downvoting daydreams.  is my personal idea of hell.  prove me wrong if only for peace of mind .   #  also, saying  well if you do not like it do not get it  just does not cut it in my mind as substantial criticism.   #  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.   # imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  really this is the best argument against those who do not support neural implants.  if you do not like them, do not bother with them.  just like mobile phones, you wo not have access to their benefits, but you wo not be impacted by their downsides either.  i know quite a few people who still do not have mobiles using landlines and they fit right in with society.  think of it like the current reddit, you can write out a long comment before deciding against it, but people will only see what you submit.  i do not think neural implants will ever be the norm.  i do believe that human augmentation will be a reality in the near future, but for the most part, we will be leaving our brains alone.   #  it is like saying you might as well be amish.   #  not being mentally integrated into a grid is going to seriously hold you back professionally and socially competition is already fierce .  it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  intel have already previously expressed interest in brain implants.  URL i am not just talking about reddit though, i am talking about how social media has infiltrated our private lives generally.  honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  i am trying to avoid paranoid conspiracy territory as best i can, but it seems to be an area that is avoided whenever this conversation is brought up and i think that is a huge mistake.   #  honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ?  # it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  you do not have to be integrated into the grid through neural implants.  we can already accomplish the degree of connectivity they offer with technology available today.  you certainly would not need them, much like a cell phone is not  needed  today.  there are quite literally millions of jobs in thousands of industries today in which you can perform your job and advance in your career without the latest technology.  if you are able to accomplish tasks assigned to you with your landline and pager, you do not need google glass and a galaxy s0.  why would they ? i know a few people who do not own the latest technology.  i know people who do not use social media.  these people work perfectly fine with our society.  nobody distrusts them for not having phones/facebook so why would they be distrusted for not having a brain chip ? honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  these are major issues, and another reason it will be perfectly acceptable for people to  not  to get neural implants.  if the current surveillance situation does not improve, nobody in their right mind would get neural implants that would allow third parties to  read  their thoughts.  it is a perfectly reasonable observation of the risk involved, but i simply believe it wo not happen.  realistically we would be able to accomplish everything we could with the exception of fixing mental/physical disabilities with neural implants without neural implants.   #  give the internet a century or two and it will become impossible to live without it.   #  but technologies like facebook and mobile phones are very recent, so they are not good examples.  most people in society today grew up without them, so of course it is still socially acceptable if you are not using them.  give the internet a century or two and it will become impossible to live without it.  we are already starting to see it happen, even though the web has existed for only, like what, 0 decades ? if you want good examples, look at well established technologies.  how well can somebody integrate in society today if they were afraid of electricity ? or demanded to ride horses, because horseless carriages are just creepy ?  #  how well can somebody integrate in society today if they were afraid of electricity ?  # most people in society today grew up without them, so of course it is still socially acceptable if you are not using them.  we are already starting to see it happen, even though the web has existed for only, like what, 0 decades ? that is true.  but more on this later.  how well can somebody integrate in society today if they were afraid of electricity ? or demanded to ride horses, because horseless carriages are just creepy ? short answer: they can.  there comes a rift with certain things, however.  if you want to advance in your career today while refusing to use electricity, you would be bound to certain industries and jobs.  you could still live a perfectly fine life today without your personal use of electricity.  same with horses you are perfectly able to follow a great deal of career paths using a horse as your mode of transport, and you will be able to live a moderately normal life.  speaking directly about neural implants, you have to remember that everything they can, or will do with the exception of fixing mental or physical problems can be accomplished without them.  is there anything you can think of that someone with a neural implant could do that someone using exterior technology could not
i realize they have hugely rewarding and potentially useful applications, such as restoring sight and lost limbs.  there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  also, saying  well if you do not like it do not get it  just does not cut it in my mind as substantial criticism.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  the thing is, i know this is an inevitability and that we are not that far away from implants becoming the norm.  i just want to consider where it is taking us and it seems like this is a question that is not being asked often enough.  visions of being wired directly into a forum such as this one where my thoughts are policed by the community redditors downvoting daydreams.  is my personal idea of hell.  prove me wrong if only for peace of mind .   #  i realize they have hugely rewarding and potentially useful applications, such as restoring sight and lost limbs.   #  there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.   # there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  good start  :    i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  all the stuff that is usually lumped into the paranoid dystopian fantasy pile and ignored.  there is a relevant cmv at the same time URL i do not think pondering things like neural implants in sci fi is  ignoring  the issue; that is one venue for presenting ideas and people talk about those ideas.  people  are  talking about big questions that relate to problems with technology, including neural implants.  you should check out black mirror: season 0 episode 0 URL people are raising these issues.  actually, season 0 episode 0 URL is also relevant, though it gets out of hand.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  i know a number of people who do not have mobile phones or did not have them for a long time.  none of them are destitute.  also, some of my friends do not use facebook, and many of the ones that do use false names.  guaranteed that there will be lots of groups of people who do not get implants whenever they happen.  inevitable, yes unless we destroy ourselves first .  not that far away ? well, neuroscience is still in its relative infancy.  first round experimental stuff is happening a bit now and will be on the horizon, but i seriously doubt that ubiquitous neural implants are anywhere near happening in our lifetime,  singularity  obsessed folk aside.  so start asking questions and talking with your friends.  nothing to be creeped out about yet since all of your concerns are hypothetical.  yes, and that is a hell easily avoided since the overwhelming majority of people do not want to live in a place with thought police.  tl;dr: people  are  talking about the issues this cmv is one small example, but see black mirror .  your concerns are valid, but overblown.  you can actually overcome peer pressue and still be a functioning member of society.   #  just like mobile phones, you wo not have access to their benefits, but you wo not be impacted by their downsides either.   # imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  really this is the best argument against those who do not support neural implants.  if you do not like them, do not bother with them.  just like mobile phones, you wo not have access to their benefits, but you wo not be impacted by their downsides either.  i know quite a few people who still do not have mobiles using landlines and they fit right in with society.  think of it like the current reddit, you can write out a long comment before deciding against it, but people will only see what you submit.  i do not think neural implants will ever be the norm.  i do believe that human augmentation will be a reality in the near future, but for the most part, we will be leaving our brains alone.   #  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.   #  not being mentally integrated into a grid is going to seriously hold you back professionally and socially competition is already fierce .  it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  intel have already previously expressed interest in brain implants.  URL i am not just talking about reddit though, i am talking about how social media has infiltrated our private lives generally.  honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  i am trying to avoid paranoid conspiracy territory as best i can, but it seems to be an area that is avoided whenever this conversation is brought up and i think that is a huge mistake.   #  honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ?  # it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  you do not have to be integrated into the grid through neural implants.  we can already accomplish the degree of connectivity they offer with technology available today.  you certainly would not need them, much like a cell phone is not  needed  today.  there are quite literally millions of jobs in thousands of industries today in which you can perform your job and advance in your career without the latest technology.  if you are able to accomplish tasks assigned to you with your landline and pager, you do not need google glass and a galaxy s0.  why would they ? i know a few people who do not own the latest technology.  i know people who do not use social media.  these people work perfectly fine with our society.  nobody distrusts them for not having phones/facebook so why would they be distrusted for not having a brain chip ? honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  these are major issues, and another reason it will be perfectly acceptable for people to  not  to get neural implants.  if the current surveillance situation does not improve, nobody in their right mind would get neural implants that would allow third parties to  read  their thoughts.  it is a perfectly reasonable observation of the risk involved, but i simply believe it wo not happen.  realistically we would be able to accomplish everything we could with the exception of fixing mental/physical disabilities with neural implants without neural implants.   #  most people in society today grew up without them, so of course it is still socially acceptable if you are not using them.   #  but technologies like facebook and mobile phones are very recent, so they are not good examples.  most people in society today grew up without them, so of course it is still socially acceptable if you are not using them.  give the internet a century or two and it will become impossible to live without it.  we are already starting to see it happen, even though the web has existed for only, like what, 0 decades ? if you want good examples, look at well established technologies.  how well can somebody integrate in society today if they were afraid of electricity ? or demanded to ride horses, because horseless carriages are just creepy ?
i realize they have hugely rewarding and potentially useful applications, such as restoring sight and lost limbs.  there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  also, saying  well if you do not like it do not get it  just does not cut it in my mind as substantial criticism.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  the thing is, i know this is an inevitability and that we are not that far away from implants becoming the norm.  i just want to consider where it is taking us and it seems like this is a question that is not being asked often enough.  visions of being wired directly into a forum such as this one where my thoughts are policed by the community redditors downvoting daydreams.  is my personal idea of hell.  prove me wrong if only for peace of mind .   #  also, saying  well if you do not like it do not get it  just does not cut it in my mind as substantial criticism.   #  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.   # there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  good start  :    i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  all the stuff that is usually lumped into the paranoid dystopian fantasy pile and ignored.  there is a relevant cmv at the same time URL i do not think pondering things like neural implants in sci fi is  ignoring  the issue; that is one venue for presenting ideas and people talk about those ideas.  people  are  talking about big questions that relate to problems with technology, including neural implants.  you should check out black mirror: season 0 episode 0 URL people are raising these issues.  actually, season 0 episode 0 URL is also relevant, though it gets out of hand.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  i know a number of people who do not have mobile phones or did not have them for a long time.  none of them are destitute.  also, some of my friends do not use facebook, and many of the ones that do use false names.  guaranteed that there will be lots of groups of people who do not get implants whenever they happen.  inevitable, yes unless we destroy ourselves first .  not that far away ? well, neuroscience is still in its relative infancy.  first round experimental stuff is happening a bit now and will be on the horizon, but i seriously doubt that ubiquitous neural implants are anywhere near happening in our lifetime,  singularity  obsessed folk aside.  so start asking questions and talking with your friends.  nothing to be creeped out about yet since all of your concerns are hypothetical.  yes, and that is a hell easily avoided since the overwhelming majority of people do not want to live in a place with thought police.  tl;dr: people  are  talking about the issues this cmv is one small example, but see black mirror .  your concerns are valid, but overblown.  you can actually overcome peer pressue and still be a functioning member of society.   #  i do not think neural implants will ever be the norm.   # imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  really this is the best argument against those who do not support neural implants.  if you do not like them, do not bother with them.  just like mobile phones, you wo not have access to their benefits, but you wo not be impacted by their downsides either.  i know quite a few people who still do not have mobiles using landlines and they fit right in with society.  think of it like the current reddit, you can write out a long comment before deciding against it, but people will only see what you submit.  i do not think neural implants will ever be the norm.  i do believe that human augmentation will be a reality in the near future, but for the most part, we will be leaving our brains alone.   #  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.   #  not being mentally integrated into a grid is going to seriously hold you back professionally and socially competition is already fierce .  it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  intel have already previously expressed interest in brain implants.  URL i am not just talking about reddit though, i am talking about how social media has infiltrated our private lives generally.  honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  i am trying to avoid paranoid conspiracy territory as best i can, but it seems to be an area that is avoided whenever this conversation is brought up and i think that is a huge mistake.   #  these people work perfectly fine with our society.   # it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  you do not have to be integrated into the grid through neural implants.  we can already accomplish the degree of connectivity they offer with technology available today.  you certainly would not need them, much like a cell phone is not  needed  today.  there are quite literally millions of jobs in thousands of industries today in which you can perform your job and advance in your career without the latest technology.  if you are able to accomplish tasks assigned to you with your landline and pager, you do not need google glass and a galaxy s0.  why would they ? i know a few people who do not own the latest technology.  i know people who do not use social media.  these people work perfectly fine with our society.  nobody distrusts them for not having phones/facebook so why would they be distrusted for not having a brain chip ? honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  these are major issues, and another reason it will be perfectly acceptable for people to  not  to get neural implants.  if the current surveillance situation does not improve, nobody in their right mind would get neural implants that would allow third parties to  read  their thoughts.  it is a perfectly reasonable observation of the risk involved, but i simply believe it wo not happen.  realistically we would be able to accomplish everything we could with the exception of fixing mental/physical disabilities with neural implants without neural implants.   #  but technologies like facebook and mobile phones are very recent, so they are not good examples.   #  but technologies like facebook and mobile phones are very recent, so they are not good examples.  most people in society today grew up without them, so of course it is still socially acceptable if you are not using them.  give the internet a century or two and it will become impossible to live without it.  we are already starting to see it happen, even though the web has existed for only, like what, 0 decades ? if you want good examples, look at well established technologies.  how well can somebody integrate in society today if they were afraid of electricity ? or demanded to ride horses, because horseless carriages are just creepy ?
i realize they have hugely rewarding and potentially useful applications, such as restoring sight and lost limbs.  there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  also, saying  well if you do not like it do not get it  just does not cut it in my mind as substantial criticism.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  the thing is, i know this is an inevitability and that we are not that far away from implants becoming the norm.  i just want to consider where it is taking us and it seems like this is a question that is not being asked often enough.  visions of being wired directly into a forum such as this one where my thoughts are policed by the community redditors downvoting daydreams.  is my personal idea of hell.  prove me wrong if only for peace of mind .   #  the thing is, i know this is an inevitability and that we are not that far away from implants becoming the norm.   #  inevitable, yes unless we destroy ourselves first .   # there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  good start  :    i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  all the stuff that is usually lumped into the paranoid dystopian fantasy pile and ignored.  there is a relevant cmv at the same time URL i do not think pondering things like neural implants in sci fi is  ignoring  the issue; that is one venue for presenting ideas and people talk about those ideas.  people  are  talking about big questions that relate to problems with technology, including neural implants.  you should check out black mirror: season 0 episode 0 URL people are raising these issues.  actually, season 0 episode 0 URL is also relevant, though it gets out of hand.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  i know a number of people who do not have mobile phones or did not have them for a long time.  none of them are destitute.  also, some of my friends do not use facebook, and many of the ones that do use false names.  guaranteed that there will be lots of groups of people who do not get implants whenever they happen.  inevitable, yes unless we destroy ourselves first .  not that far away ? well, neuroscience is still in its relative infancy.  first round experimental stuff is happening a bit now and will be on the horizon, but i seriously doubt that ubiquitous neural implants are anywhere near happening in our lifetime,  singularity  obsessed folk aside.  so start asking questions and talking with your friends.  nothing to be creeped out about yet since all of your concerns are hypothetical.  yes, and that is a hell easily avoided since the overwhelming majority of people do not want to live in a place with thought police.  tl;dr: people  are  talking about the issues this cmv is one small example, but see black mirror .  your concerns are valid, but overblown.  you can actually overcome peer pressue and still be a functioning member of society.   #  i do believe that human augmentation will be a reality in the near future, but for the most part, we will be leaving our brains alone.   # imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  really this is the best argument against those who do not support neural implants.  if you do not like them, do not bother with them.  just like mobile phones, you wo not have access to their benefits, but you wo not be impacted by their downsides either.  i know quite a few people who still do not have mobiles using landlines and they fit right in with society.  think of it like the current reddit, you can write out a long comment before deciding against it, but people will only see what you submit.  i do not think neural implants will ever be the norm.  i do believe that human augmentation will be a reality in the near future, but for the most part, we will be leaving our brains alone.   #  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  i am trying to avoid paranoid conspiracy territory as best i can, but it seems to be an area that is avoided whenever this conversation is brought up and i think that is a huge mistake.   #  not being mentally integrated into a grid is going to seriously hold you back professionally and socially competition is already fierce .  it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  intel have already previously expressed interest in brain implants.  URL i am not just talking about reddit though, i am talking about how social media has infiltrated our private lives generally.  honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  i am trying to avoid paranoid conspiracy territory as best i can, but it seems to be an area that is avoided whenever this conversation is brought up and i think that is a huge mistake.   #  nobody distrusts them for not having phones/facebook so why would they be distrusted for not having a brain chip ?  # it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  you do not have to be integrated into the grid through neural implants.  we can already accomplish the degree of connectivity they offer with technology available today.  you certainly would not need them, much like a cell phone is not  needed  today.  there are quite literally millions of jobs in thousands of industries today in which you can perform your job and advance in your career without the latest technology.  if you are able to accomplish tasks assigned to you with your landline and pager, you do not need google glass and a galaxy s0.  why would they ? i know a few people who do not own the latest technology.  i know people who do not use social media.  these people work perfectly fine with our society.  nobody distrusts them for not having phones/facebook so why would they be distrusted for not having a brain chip ? honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  these are major issues, and another reason it will be perfectly acceptable for people to  not  to get neural implants.  if the current surveillance situation does not improve, nobody in their right mind would get neural implants that would allow third parties to  read  their thoughts.  it is a perfectly reasonable observation of the risk involved, but i simply believe it wo not happen.  realistically we would be able to accomplish everything we could with the exception of fixing mental/physical disabilities with neural implants without neural implants.   #  we are already starting to see it happen, even though the web has existed for only, like what, 0 decades ?  #  but technologies like facebook and mobile phones are very recent, so they are not good examples.  most people in society today grew up without them, so of course it is still socially acceptable if you are not using them.  give the internet a century or two and it will become impossible to live without it.  we are already starting to see it happen, even though the web has existed for only, like what, 0 decades ? if you want good examples, look at well established technologies.  how well can somebody integrate in society today if they were afraid of electricity ? or demanded to ride horses, because horseless carriages are just creepy ?
i realize they have hugely rewarding and potentially useful applications, such as restoring sight and lost limbs.  there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  also, saying  well if you do not like it do not get it  just does not cut it in my mind as substantial criticism.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  the thing is, i know this is an inevitability and that we are not that far away from implants becoming the norm.  i just want to consider where it is taking us and it seems like this is a question that is not being asked often enough.  visions of being wired directly into a forum such as this one where my thoughts are policed by the community redditors downvoting daydreams.  is my personal idea of hell.  prove me wrong if only for peace of mind .   #  i just want to consider where it is taking us and it seems like this is a question that is not being asked often enough.   #  so start asking questions and talking with your friends.   # there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  good start  :    i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  all the stuff that is usually lumped into the paranoid dystopian fantasy pile and ignored.  there is a relevant cmv at the same time URL i do not think pondering things like neural implants in sci fi is  ignoring  the issue; that is one venue for presenting ideas and people talk about those ideas.  people  are  talking about big questions that relate to problems with technology, including neural implants.  you should check out black mirror: season 0 episode 0 URL people are raising these issues.  actually, season 0 episode 0 URL is also relevant, though it gets out of hand.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  i know a number of people who do not have mobile phones or did not have them for a long time.  none of them are destitute.  also, some of my friends do not use facebook, and many of the ones that do use false names.  guaranteed that there will be lots of groups of people who do not get implants whenever they happen.  inevitable, yes unless we destroy ourselves first .  not that far away ? well, neuroscience is still in its relative infancy.  first round experimental stuff is happening a bit now and will be on the horizon, but i seriously doubt that ubiquitous neural implants are anywhere near happening in our lifetime,  singularity  obsessed folk aside.  so start asking questions and talking with your friends.  nothing to be creeped out about yet since all of your concerns are hypothetical.  yes, and that is a hell easily avoided since the overwhelming majority of people do not want to live in a place with thought police.  tl;dr: people  are  talking about the issues this cmv is one small example, but see black mirror .  your concerns are valid, but overblown.  you can actually overcome peer pressue and still be a functioning member of society.   #  just like mobile phones, you wo not have access to their benefits, but you wo not be impacted by their downsides either.   # imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  really this is the best argument against those who do not support neural implants.  if you do not like them, do not bother with them.  just like mobile phones, you wo not have access to their benefits, but you wo not be impacted by their downsides either.  i know quite a few people who still do not have mobiles using landlines and they fit right in with society.  think of it like the current reddit, you can write out a long comment before deciding against it, but people will only see what you submit.  i do not think neural implants will ever be the norm.  i do believe that human augmentation will be a reality in the near future, but for the most part, we will be leaving our brains alone.   #  intel have already previously expressed interest in brain implants.   #  not being mentally integrated into a grid is going to seriously hold you back professionally and socially competition is already fierce .  it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  intel have already previously expressed interest in brain implants.  URL i am not just talking about reddit though, i am talking about how social media has infiltrated our private lives generally.  honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  i am trying to avoid paranoid conspiracy territory as best i can, but it seems to be an area that is avoided whenever this conversation is brought up and i think that is a huge mistake.   #  you do not have to be integrated into the grid through neural implants.   # it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  you do not have to be integrated into the grid through neural implants.  we can already accomplish the degree of connectivity they offer with technology available today.  you certainly would not need them, much like a cell phone is not  needed  today.  there are quite literally millions of jobs in thousands of industries today in which you can perform your job and advance in your career without the latest technology.  if you are able to accomplish tasks assigned to you with your landline and pager, you do not need google glass and a galaxy s0.  why would they ? i know a few people who do not own the latest technology.  i know people who do not use social media.  these people work perfectly fine with our society.  nobody distrusts them for not having phones/facebook so why would they be distrusted for not having a brain chip ? honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  these are major issues, and another reason it will be perfectly acceptable for people to  not  to get neural implants.  if the current surveillance situation does not improve, nobody in their right mind would get neural implants that would allow third parties to  read  their thoughts.  it is a perfectly reasonable observation of the risk involved, but i simply believe it wo not happen.  realistically we would be able to accomplish everything we could with the exception of fixing mental/physical disabilities with neural implants without neural implants.   #  how well can somebody integrate in society today if they were afraid of electricity ?  #  but technologies like facebook and mobile phones are very recent, so they are not good examples.  most people in society today grew up without them, so of course it is still socially acceptable if you are not using them.  give the internet a century or two and it will become impossible to live without it.  we are already starting to see it happen, even though the web has existed for only, like what, 0 decades ? if you want good examples, look at well established technologies.  how well can somebody integrate in society today if they were afraid of electricity ? or demanded to ride horses, because horseless carriages are just creepy ?
i realize they have hugely rewarding and potentially useful applications, such as restoring sight and lost limbs.  there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  also, saying  well if you do not like it do not get it  just does not cut it in my mind as substantial criticism.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  the thing is, i know this is an inevitability and that we are not that far away from implants becoming the norm.  i just want to consider where it is taking us and it seems like this is a question that is not being asked often enough.  visions of being wired directly into a forum such as this one where my thoughts are policed by the community redditors downvoting daydreams.  is my personal idea of hell.  prove me wrong if only for peace of mind .   #  visions of being wired directly into a forum such as this one where my thoughts are policed by the community redditors downvoting daydreams.  is my personal idea of hell.   #  yes, and that is a hell easily avoided since the overwhelming majority of people do not want to live in a place with thought police.   # there is an enormous amount of wonderful benefits.  good start  :    i just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they are labelled as simply being paranoid and anti progressive.  all the stuff that is usually lumped into the paranoid dystopian fantasy pile and ignored.  there is a relevant cmv at the same time URL i do not think pondering things like neural implants in sci fi is  ignoring  the issue; that is one venue for presenting ideas and people talk about those ideas.  people  are  talking about big questions that relate to problems with technology, including neural implants.  you should check out black mirror: season 0 episode 0 URL people are raising these issues.  actually, season 0 episode 0 URL is also relevant, though it gets out of hand.  imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  i know a number of people who do not have mobile phones or did not have them for a long time.  none of them are destitute.  also, some of my friends do not use facebook, and many of the ones that do use false names.  guaranteed that there will be lots of groups of people who do not get implants whenever they happen.  inevitable, yes unless we destroy ourselves first .  not that far away ? well, neuroscience is still in its relative infancy.  first round experimental stuff is happening a bit now and will be on the horizon, but i seriously doubt that ubiquitous neural implants are anywhere near happening in our lifetime,  singularity  obsessed folk aside.  so start asking questions and talking with your friends.  nothing to be creeped out about yet since all of your concerns are hypothetical.  yes, and that is a hell easily avoided since the overwhelming majority of people do not want to live in a place with thought police.  tl;dr: people  are  talking about the issues this cmv is one small example, but see black mirror .  your concerns are valid, but overblown.  you can actually overcome peer pressue and still be a functioning member of society.   #  think of it like the current reddit, you can write out a long comment before deciding against it, but people will only see what you submit.   # imagine someone saying they did not want a mobile phone; they would be made destitute in a heartbeat.  really this is the best argument against those who do not support neural implants.  if you do not like them, do not bother with them.  just like mobile phones, you wo not have access to their benefits, but you wo not be impacted by their downsides either.  i know quite a few people who still do not have mobiles using landlines and they fit right in with society.  think of it like the current reddit, you can write out a long comment before deciding against it, but people will only see what you submit.  i do not think neural implants will ever be the norm.  i do believe that human augmentation will be a reality in the near future, but for the most part, we will be leaving our brains alone.   #  not being mentally integrated into a grid is going to seriously hold you back professionally and socially competition is already fierce .   #  not being mentally integrated into a grid is going to seriously hold you back professionally and socially competition is already fierce .  it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  intel have already previously expressed interest in brain implants.  URL i am not just talking about reddit though, i am talking about how social media has infiltrated our private lives generally.  honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  i am trying to avoid paranoid conspiracy territory as best i can, but it seems to be an area that is avoided whenever this conversation is brought up and i think that is a huge mistake.   #  if you are able to accomplish tasks assigned to you with your landline and pager, you do not need google glass and a galaxy s0.   # it is like saying you might as well be amish.  anybody that still refrains from doing it will then be treated with a sense of distrust.  you do not have to be integrated into the grid through neural implants.  we can already accomplish the degree of connectivity they offer with technology available today.  you certainly would not need them, much like a cell phone is not  needed  today.  there are quite literally millions of jobs in thousands of industries today in which you can perform your job and advance in your career without the latest technology.  if you are able to accomplish tasks assigned to you with your landline and pager, you do not need google glass and a galaxy s0.  why would they ? i know a few people who do not own the latest technology.  i know people who do not use social media.  these people work perfectly fine with our society.  nobody distrusts them for not having phones/facebook so why would they be distrusted for not having a brain chip ? honestly, would anybody out there trust zuckerberg with this technology given their total disregard for privacy ? it was also not long ago a large quantity of celebrity photos were stolen and released.  then there is the whole messy nsa thing.  these are major issues, and another reason it will be perfectly acceptable for people to  not  to get neural implants.  if the current surveillance situation does not improve, nobody in their right mind would get neural implants that would allow third parties to  read  their thoughts.  it is a perfectly reasonable observation of the risk involved, but i simply believe it wo not happen.  realistically we would be able to accomplish everything we could with the exception of fixing mental/physical disabilities with neural implants without neural implants.   #  or demanded to ride horses, because horseless carriages are just creepy ?  #  but technologies like facebook and mobile phones are very recent, so they are not good examples.  most people in society today grew up without them, so of course it is still socially acceptable if you are not using them.  give the internet a century or two and it will become impossible to live without it.  we are already starting to see it happen, even though the web has existed for only, like what, 0 decades ? if you want good examples, look at well established technologies.  how well can somebody integrate in society today if they were afraid of electricity ? or demanded to ride horses, because horseless carriages are just creepy ?
. except, i suppose, a defensive war.  the point being that if you believe it is immoral to take a life, that belief should not change just because your government has declared war on some other country.  if we ca not kill someone who really wants to die eg.  a patient suffering in terrible pain , why is it ok to kill someone who does not eg.  an enemy soldier ? some might say that it is ok to kill the soldier because if you do not, they will kill you.  that is why i specified that a defensive war might still be excusable for an opponent of euthanasia.  if someone is about to kill you, then that scenario does not really compare to euthanasia.  however, any war of aggression involves soldiers going into a country when they are perfectly safe at home.  someone who believes that it is wrong to kill in all instances must also be against this.  imho, there is no difference either there are some instances when it is ok to kill even if your life is not in danger and if this is your stance, then how could it possibly not be ok to kill someone who desperately wants to die because they are in agonizing pain and is going to die anyway ? , or it is not ok to kill if your life is not in danger in which case, war is off the table for you .   #  the point being that if you believe it is immoral to take a life, that belief should not change just because your government has declared war on some other country.   #  if we ca not kill someone who really wants to die eg.   # if we ca not kill someone who really wants to die eg.  a patient suffering in terrible pain , why is it ok to kill someone who does not eg.  an enemy soldier ? what if going to war/killing the enemy will save more lives ? take the islamic state, for example, by killing their fighters we are sparing entire nations of people potential genocide such as the yazidis and kurds .  there are a few issues with euthanasia namely that the person experiencing the pain may not be in the best of wits.  having a heavily drugged person, or someone extremely in pain decide whether they want to live or not is not the best plan.  if the decision is made by family/friends, this raises another group of problems.  what if the patient is very wealthy and not in the pain you described such as a long term coma and the family/friends wish to cash out on the patient is possessions in his will.  what if the family and the patient are not on the best of terms such as problems with abuse, etc .  perhaps even seeing their relative or friend in their current state in the hospital is too much for  them  to handle, but not for the patient who may be making a slow recovery.  you also have to take into account the impact this will have on the life of a doctor someone who has entered the profession to  save  lives, not take them.  why should a doctor be forced to take the life of a patient ? you ca not ask a man whose job it is to keep you alive to willingly let you die.   #  and it does say,  thou shalt not kill .   #  i guess i am assuming that the vast majority of people who are against euthanasia would be against it on religious grounds.  the  handbook  you mention would be the bible, in this case.  and it does say,  thou shalt not kill .  there are certain exceptions that the bible mentions, but, as far as i know, nothing is said about not being allowed to kill someone with their consent.  are there any non religious reasons to be against euthanasia ? i am not being sarcastic.  i honestly do not know of any.  i would be interested to hear them.   #  unfortunately, this is rarely the case, because once two armed parties at odds with each other end up in the same space at once, things get messy.   #  i would argue that war and killing, although logically connected, are not inherently one in the same thing.  it is theoretically possible unlikely, but possible to declare a war and see no casualties stem from it.  unfortunately, this is rarely the case, because once two armed parties at odds with each other end up in the same space at once, things get messy.  but at the most fundamental level, that is just people defending themselves against other people, like you said.  a just war is never declared with the sole intention of killing, but rather to accomplish some sort of political or perhaps economic end.  the fact that a lot of people could die as a result is just a likely and unfortunate side effect.  therefore, i would argue that one could be in favor of seeking to accomplish the political ends that necessitate war while still being against the loss of life that would occur in the progress.  in fact, i would say that is probably every sane person is outlook on a war they favor.   #  americans could have avoided these conflicts and many lives might have been saved as a result.   #  i think the fundamental difference is that war can potentially lead to morally favorable outcomes of an order of magnitude far greater than the cost of lives in the initial conflict, while the same may not be true of euthanasia.  i will preface that i agree with optional euthanasia for the terminally ill, but i still believe you can draw a fundamental distinction between the morality of euthanasia and war.  the american revolution, america is involvement in the european theaters of wwi and wwii, etc.  are examples of america is belligerency in conflicts with no immediately present self defense requirement, but are nonetheless conflicts widely regarded as necessary to accomplishing some political or moral end.  americans could have avoided these conflicts and many lives might have been saved as a result.  however, avoiding these conflicts may have in the long run lead to considerably worse moral consequences for both americans and the world at large.  euthanasia for the terminally ill is not a moral necessity in the same sense, because there is no multiplier on the amount of good the act of killing would do.  it might be a nice thing to have, but the difference between allowing it and disallowing it are not going to result in fundamentally different outcomes with potentially earth shattering consequences.   #  japan is an island, the only two ways in are across the sea, where the russian fleet and transports are susceptible to mines/torpedo/airplane/missile attacks, or the air, where they are susceptible to aa cannon fire, small arms, missiles, and planes.   #  expenditure really means nothing in terms of capabilities.  compare what the us was spending during the vietnam war to what the vietcong and nva were spending.  invasions typically require significantly more troops and supplies than defensive wars.  japan is an island, the only two ways in are across the sea, where the russian fleet and transports are susceptible to mines/torpedo/airplane/missile attacks, or the air, where they are susceptible to aa cannon fire, small arms, missiles, and planes.  japan would not be unscathed, but they certainly would not lose their land.  even if the russian forces managed to reach japan is coast, there is still the matter of landing and beginning the occupation of territory while maintaining a supply line across the sea.
i do not think there is a lot of disagreement that the television business has changed pretty dramatically in the past 0 years or so.  from the spread of cable television, then satellite television, the advent of dvrs, and most recently, the internet is inclusion into broadcasts and viewing, the landscape of television is vastly different than it was just a generation ago.  while critics and pundits have admitted to this, the usual hand wringing tends to be over how the networks can adapt to this new reality, whether it be in how they treat advertising, or pilot season, or whatever.  we constantly compare nielsen ratings for shows for some reason still, even though that is a fairly flawed metric in itself, and even worse, we try to compare them historically, which is an even worse idea.  but why is there an insistence on networks just learning how to adapt to the new landscape ? maybe they should just be left to fail or dissolve.  my opinion is that all of this paradigm shift hinges on the fact that we still treat the major networks as something separate and superior to the remaining cable/satellite channels.  each of the networks is already part of a parent company that has segments throughout cable and satellite television, so they have properly diversified themselves.  ignoring for a moment the kind of television that is being produced by outlets like hulu, amazon, or netflix, there have already been discussions about the quality of programming on cable networks like amc, fx, and hbo, and how it often significantly outpaces anything on the major networks.  so why are they still  major  networks ? traditionally in business, or economics, if firms are failing, or at least struggling to succeed, they fall back to join the rest of the pack.  for some reason, america seems reluctant to treat nbc, abc, cbs, and fox this way.  they get considerably more analysis and expectations thrown on them, even though they are obviously not all that special any longer.  i think it is time for them to get absorbed into the long list of other television offerings, on cable or satellite, and then they will be on equal footing with those sources.  note: i am really hoping all of this made sense and came together properly.  i think i have had this feeling for a while, but the sentiment really coalesced while reading an article this morning, and i wanted to express it before i lost it.  hopefully i wo not have to make too many amendments or concessions to anyone who wants to challenge me.   #  traditionally in business, or economics, if firms are failing, or at least struggling to succeed, they fall back to join the rest of the pack.   #  for some reason, america seems reluctant to treat nbc, abc, cbs, and fox this way.   # for some reason, america seems reluctant to treat nbc, abc, cbs, and fox this way.  i think you are confusing the quality of television shows which is subjective with the business of television, which is to sell advertising to an audience.  you ask  why are they still  amajor  networks  ? because of the revenue they generate, which vastly outpaces the revenue generated by cable networks.  i tried to find current averages for advertising rates, but the best i could do was for 0 URL this is what networks charged on average for a 0 second commercial: fox: $0,0 cbs: $0,0 abc: $0,0 nbc: $0,0 top tier cable network average : $0,0 unless things have changed  dramatically  in 0 years, there is a good reason to consider fox, cbs, abc, and nbc  major  networks.   #  the enduring popularity of  ncis ,  csi ,  criminal minds , and  law   order: svu  is a testament to this.   # the highest rated cable shows have straight up fewer viewers than the highest rated network shows have.  more eyeballs more money.  the walking dead  had a 0 rating compared to  ncis  original flava is 0 last week.  you can debate the efficacy of nielsen ratings all you like, but the ratings themselves are consistently applied and likely indicative of  something.  not all americans are interested in  quality programming.   i loved  true detective ,  breaking bad , and  carnivale .  i also like to turn off my brain and watch idiot criminalists tell each other things they already know for the benefit of the audience or see some dude spend a few seasons doing everything he can to avoid using the term  green arrow.   i would say that  most  americans are actually interested in television as a mental escape, not an opportunity to think more about deep arty things.  the enduring popularity of  ncis ,  csi ,  criminal minds , and  law   order: svu  is a testament to this.  these shows are all objectively bad and extremely popular.  hell, even some of the  quality cable programming  is not actually art or even good television.  game of thrones ,  dexter ,  homeland  these shows are actually pretty terrible.  they have little to offer the world, artistically speaking.  the big networks wo not  fail or dissolve  any time soon.  they have access to the most important sporting events, draw the most eyeballs, and attract the most advertising dollars.  if you look at the top 0 lists for the last week, most of the highest rated cable offerings are sports related nascar, mlb, a bit of nfl.  the only  shows  on that list are  twd ,  soa , and  ahs , and the last two had low ratings only 0.  by contrast, the big four have  ncis ,  ncis: new orleans ,  the big bang theory , and two reality competitions in addition to their sports offerings.  the lowest rating was in the 0s.  so i do not think that these networks are flailing or failing, and even if they were, increasing  quality programming  would not save them.  americans like watching has beens and sports stars fumble around on a dance floor, nfl games, and dumb people solving dumb crimes in dumb ways.  hannibal , the only regular network offering that i can think of that earns the  quality  label, is hanging on by a thread.  because it is dark, complicated, unsettling, and, apparently, difficult to follow for people uninitiated in the ways of bryan fuller.   #  i am not contesting that the major networks have a handful of widely popular and successful at least in terms of ratings and therefore advertising dollars, in your argument programs, and for now, access to major sporting events.   #  i am not contesting that the major networks have a handful of widely popular and successful at least in terms of ratings and therefore advertising dollars, in your argument programs, and for now, access to major sporting events.  what i am positing is that their model is significantly changing, and decaying, and that my argument for the endgame to all of this is that they lose their status as separate or superior.  yes, the highest rated network shows have higher ratings than the highest rated cable shows, and there are even some highly rated cable shows that ca not touch lesser shows on networks.  but, when you compare those network ratings to what they were 0, 0, or 0 years ago, they are considerably lower, and that is because viewership is being diluted, and spread out over a large number of other entertainment options.  i do not think this trend is just going to cease, but i also do not think that the major networks have any plan for how to handle it, which means they are just going to keep relying on what is worked for them in the past.  therefore, i think they are eventually going to fail, since they are not adjusting their expectations or business model for the trend that i have described.   #  this means they can appeal to a niche market across a national audience and are less dependent on ad revenue.   #  they are treated differently because of their history as the most influential channels, as well as their current business model, which is dramatically different from cable channels.  while the  broadcast  distinction and free universal access does not mean much anymore with the proliferation of cable and internet, the distribution method, business model and market goals are is still fundamentally different from cable channels.  broadcast networks are regionalized and distributed through affiliated channels throughout the country.  it is heavily decentralized.  this means that there is not one nbc channel, but an affiliate will show all nbc national programming in your market, along with local programming sports, news, hobby shows, etc.  .  in my experience, tv watching is kind of habitual, i cycle between maybe 0 or 0 channels to look for soemthing good.  to sustain these relatively low volume, low revenue shows, you need strong national shows that attract massive audiences.  this is dramatically different from cable.  cable channels are centralized, they broadcast the same stuff nationally, they are ability to regionalize their content is limited to nonexistant.  a lot of their revenues consist of the cable subscription.  this means they can appeal to a niche market across a national audience and are less dependent on ad revenue.   #  while public stations are streatimg without needing people to consent to their terms, etc.   #  i kinda get what you wrote, but its hard to make out your arguments.  i see the govt regulating things that are broadcasted to everyone public and not doing it to private companies like cable.  i see it as the public has a choice in the cable company they chose and the channels, they agree on a contract and thus there is no regulation needed, the stakeholder people agree to enter into the contract.  while public stations are streatimg without needing people to consent to their terms, etc.  so the govt likes to control that which is available to everyone to make sure it meets some standards.  in your paragraphs, i do not think i see why you think this should change.  you keep saying they are not special any longer, but how are they not ? are they now requiring people to sign an agreement to have access to their broadcast ? it seems to me they are still broadcasting without the need of user consent
so to clarify there is no way that you can be considered a reasonable individual if you do not appreciate and acknowledge all the major scientific advancements of our era and big and also appreciate all the intangible, unquantifiable things about human experience, all those organic sensations that no machine will ever be able to replicate or duplicate and what many refer to as  spiritual .  people who work in science are not infallible god like humans, they are just smart individuals pushing the civilization in a direction of technological advancement.  also, people who claim that religion set us back x amount of decades are biased and they obviously operate on that tired old  my opinion is better than yours  agenda.  nobody set no one back.  you can not prove what and who set anyone back and you ca not have serious discussions where the main premise of the discussion is  what if  and  what would happen .  those kinds of conversations are for pubs only, when you get drunk.  that is when you allowed to pull the  what if  card, for example  what if ray allen missed that 0 pointer .  other than that, you are projecting your agenda in a very obvious way, nobody, no computer and no scientist and no spiritual man can tell you what would happen if z happened instead of x.  so, to finish up, i think people who want to perpetuate the gap between spirituality and science are naive, biased, have some kind of agenda, maybe they are getting back at their strict christian parents or who knows.  there is a big difference in  organized religion  and  personal belief  and that is another topic.  i am talking about the latter aspect here.  personal belief, spirituality.  just because science is not able to put it in brackets and formulas, it does not mean it does not exist.  science ca not exactly 0 no questions asked prove the big bang yet it still perpetuates that idea without giving one alternative.  spirituality is the same thing.  to interpret our universe and our short, couple of decades experience in it with numbers and formulas seems naive to me.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  you should know, especially if you are inclined to scientific way of thinking in 0 years from now, and especially 0 years from now, most of the scientist you know now will be considered borderline amateurs.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  so i think it is important that both scientist and spiritual people should stop smelling their own farts and just embrace the journey, especially since it is 0 cold hard fact that none of them know where all of this is going.  so why be exclusive and close minded ?  #  so i think it is important that both scientist and spiritual people should stop smelling their own farts and just embrace the journey, especially since it is 0 cold hard fact that none of them know where all of this is going.   #  so why be exclusive and close minded ?  # so why be exclusive and close minded ? i  exclude  perspectives that do not lead me anywhere, in the sense that i do not find them interesting enough to pursue.  vague statements about how  nobody knows for sure  do not contribute anything to my understanding of the world.  platitudes about how  no machine can replicate this feeling  do not increase my appreciation of anything.  i appreciate subjective human experiences a great deal.  indeed, my chosen field neuroscience is largely about understanding how our individual human bodies create unique perspectives, introduce biases, and shape perceptions.  i have not yet encountered an example of how  spirituality  or religion would add to my appreciation of these aspects of life.  i have yet to be given a solid reason why i need to be spiritual or religious to enjoy  intangibles,  nor any reason why acknowledging the limits of my understanding requires that i embrace speculative superstition.   #  and every second there are 0 million chemical processes going on in there, firing away.   #  i think spirituality can in fact be closely tangled with science, i do not see how those exclude each other.  for example: how many proteins are in our average cell, 0 0, 0 0, who knows.  and every second there are 0 million chemical processes going on in there, firing away.  looking for enzymes, is this protein healthy, should i call for chaperons, all of those decisions and actions.  and they say we could have as much as 0 trillion cells in our body.  so how many damn computers is that ? working in sync for 0 years, 0 hours a day.  it is not a damn 0 uptime.  it is 0 uptime.  so that in itself is something that should evoke spirituality, because a machine like that will never be built by human hands, no matter how many scientists you put together.   #  if you think that i am condescending towards science or scientists, then you are incredibly misinformed.   # you have literally said that scientists need to stop smelling their own farts.  i can point to many other condescending things you have said about science and scientists that you have said in this thread if i want to.  probably.  if you think that i am condescending towards science or scientists, then you are incredibly misinformed.  i do not claim to know better than scientists.  i do, however, claim to know better than you about the subject, because let is face it, you have no idea what you are talking about.  i am just another person studying science and doing scientific research.  in fact, i have not said a single personal opinion about science.  everything that i have said is about what the scientific consensus is and what the scientific community currently accepts.   #  now you can try to play it down and use some other word, but i get it, i did not mean to change your views, that is not how this /r is called.   #  because it is superior to our understanding.  because we did not decipher it, we are always reminded that there is something new to be learned.  i am aware that the word  spiritual  has a bad stigma to it and plenty of folks have been conditioned to associate it with kooky mumbo jumbo, but i think that we should know better in this day and age.  being spiritual in my opinion means being willing to admit that there are still forces and laws out there that we do not understand and try to learn from those sensations the knowledge of the unknown evokes.  i do not believe art was created by someone who rationally sat down in front of the canvas and calculates brush strokes.  poetry did not come from someone flipping through dictionary looking for words that rhyme.  all those things that contributed to all of this world around us came from the sense of appreciation of some sort, and that is what spirituality means to me.  now you can try to play it down and use some other word, but i get it, i did not mean to change your views, that is not how this /r is called.  if spirituality is hokey pokey to you, it will remain as such and there is nothing i can do about it.   #  why not explore why one poet chooses this word and another poet chooses that word ?  # i think the problem is that you are viewing what you call  spirituality  as an end in and of itself.  however, what you are describing is the sort of humility and curiosity that are the  starting point  for science.  i have always, and will always, admit that there is a practically infinite amount of universe out there that we do not understand.  my life is basically about learning and exploring what i do not know.  your concept of spirituality seems to be basically looking at things we do not understand and going,  wow, that is amazing.   to me, that seems stunted and boring.  why stop there ? why not go on to ask why some people paint while others sculpt or sing ? why not explore why one poet chooses this word and another poet chooses that word ? how can anybody who truly appreciates the wonder of the world not be driven to investigate and explore it ?
so to clarify there is no way that you can be considered a reasonable individual if you do not appreciate and acknowledge all the major scientific advancements of our era and big and also appreciate all the intangible, unquantifiable things about human experience, all those organic sensations that no machine will ever be able to replicate or duplicate and what many refer to as  spiritual .  people who work in science are not infallible god like humans, they are just smart individuals pushing the civilization in a direction of technological advancement.  also, people who claim that religion set us back x amount of decades are biased and they obviously operate on that tired old  my opinion is better than yours  agenda.  nobody set no one back.  you can not prove what and who set anyone back and you ca not have serious discussions where the main premise of the discussion is  what if  and  what would happen .  those kinds of conversations are for pubs only, when you get drunk.  that is when you allowed to pull the  what if  card, for example  what if ray allen missed that 0 pointer .  other than that, you are projecting your agenda in a very obvious way, nobody, no computer and no scientist and no spiritual man can tell you what would happen if z happened instead of x.  so, to finish up, i think people who want to perpetuate the gap between spirituality and science are naive, biased, have some kind of agenda, maybe they are getting back at their strict christian parents or who knows.  there is a big difference in  organized religion  and  personal belief  and that is another topic.  i am talking about the latter aspect here.  personal belief, spirituality.  just because science is not able to put it in brackets and formulas, it does not mean it does not exist.  science ca not exactly 0 no questions asked prove the big bang yet it still perpetuates that idea without giving one alternative.  spirituality is the same thing.  to interpret our universe and our short, couple of decades experience in it with numbers and formulas seems naive to me.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  you should know, especially if you are inclined to scientific way of thinking in 0 years from now, and especially 0 years from now, most of the scientist you know now will be considered borderline amateurs.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  so i think it is important that both scientist and spiritual people should stop smelling their own farts and just embrace the journey, especially since it is 0 cold hard fact that none of them know where all of this is going.  so why be exclusive and close minded ?  #  you can not prove what and who set anyone back and you ca not have serious discussions where the main premise of the discussion is  what if  and  what would happen .   #  yes, we can prove historically  who set who back  very easily.   # by sensations, you mean emotions/memories/thoughts/etc.  these are actions of the brain, and therefore can be thought of scientifically.  what your beliefs actually are thoughts are stored in your brain.  yes, we can prove historically  who set who back  very easily.  for example, most people will acknowledge that war sets us back, since it forces us to focus on the military aspect of society and not the scientific/cultural.  religion has been a major factor, if not the most important factor in many conflicts over history.  for example, 0 0 million people died in the thirty years war between protestant and catholic states in europe.  the death of that many people sets society back immensely.  there is a gap and it is impossible to deny it.  other than the mounds of historical evidence, there is plenty of contemporary evidence.  for example, religious schools often want to ban the teaching of evolution because it contradicts their beliefs.  first of all, an  alternative  in science is just a different model.  science is very broad, and it does not just give you  alternatives , new theories have to come up and be fundamentally different then the prevailing ones, or at least offer new insight.  the big bang is not just a simple idea, it is a theory for the beginning of the universe and the prevailing model.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  what point is this making ? getting to the moon took thousands of years of science and engineering, and it is not like it was even a major goal of humanity during most of those thousands of years.  also, this is not a  couple of decades  experience.  humans can live to be over 0, and during that time there will be thousands upon thousands of huge advances.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  this is extremely untrue, and again, historically inaccurate.  we can look at the scientists of the past and see them as geniuses or not, depending , and not amateurs just because they did not have as much technology as us.  we do not laugh at the past, why would the future laugh at us ? i am really unsure where you are going with this.  either way, the way to  embrace the journey  is to learn about the human experience in whichever way you choose, and just keep helping humanity advance scientifically, culturally, religiously, or in any number of ways.   #  i appreciate subjective human experiences a great deal.   # so why be exclusive and close minded ? i  exclude  perspectives that do not lead me anywhere, in the sense that i do not find them interesting enough to pursue.  vague statements about how  nobody knows for sure  do not contribute anything to my understanding of the world.  platitudes about how  no machine can replicate this feeling  do not increase my appreciation of anything.  i appreciate subjective human experiences a great deal.  indeed, my chosen field neuroscience is largely about understanding how our individual human bodies create unique perspectives, introduce biases, and shape perceptions.  i have not yet encountered an example of how  spirituality  or religion would add to my appreciation of these aspects of life.  i have yet to be given a solid reason why i need to be spiritual or religious to enjoy  intangibles,  nor any reason why acknowledging the limits of my understanding requires that i embrace speculative superstition.   #  looking for enzymes, is this protein healthy, should i call for chaperons, all of those decisions and actions.   #  i think spirituality can in fact be closely tangled with science, i do not see how those exclude each other.  for example: how many proteins are in our average cell, 0 0, 0 0, who knows.  and every second there are 0 million chemical processes going on in there, firing away.  looking for enzymes, is this protein healthy, should i call for chaperons, all of those decisions and actions.  and they say we could have as much as 0 trillion cells in our body.  so how many damn computers is that ? working in sync for 0 years, 0 hours a day.  it is not a damn 0 uptime.  it is 0 uptime.  so that in itself is something that should evoke spirituality, because a machine like that will never be built by human hands, no matter how many scientists you put together.   #  you have literally said that scientists need to stop smelling their own farts.   # you have literally said that scientists need to stop smelling their own farts.  i can point to many other condescending things you have said about science and scientists that you have said in this thread if i want to.  probably.  if you think that i am condescending towards science or scientists, then you are incredibly misinformed.  i do not claim to know better than scientists.  i do, however, claim to know better than you about the subject, because let is face it, you have no idea what you are talking about.  i am just another person studying science and doing scientific research.  in fact, i have not said a single personal opinion about science.  everything that i have said is about what the scientific consensus is and what the scientific community currently accepts.   #  i do not believe art was created by someone who rationally sat down in front of the canvas and calculates brush strokes.   #  because it is superior to our understanding.  because we did not decipher it, we are always reminded that there is something new to be learned.  i am aware that the word  spiritual  has a bad stigma to it and plenty of folks have been conditioned to associate it with kooky mumbo jumbo, but i think that we should know better in this day and age.  being spiritual in my opinion means being willing to admit that there are still forces and laws out there that we do not understand and try to learn from those sensations the knowledge of the unknown evokes.  i do not believe art was created by someone who rationally sat down in front of the canvas and calculates brush strokes.  poetry did not come from someone flipping through dictionary looking for words that rhyme.  all those things that contributed to all of this world around us came from the sense of appreciation of some sort, and that is what spirituality means to me.  now you can try to play it down and use some other word, but i get it, i did not mean to change your views, that is not how this /r is called.  if spirituality is hokey pokey to you, it will remain as such and there is nothing i can do about it.
so to clarify there is no way that you can be considered a reasonable individual if you do not appreciate and acknowledge all the major scientific advancements of our era and big and also appreciate all the intangible, unquantifiable things about human experience, all those organic sensations that no machine will ever be able to replicate or duplicate and what many refer to as  spiritual .  people who work in science are not infallible god like humans, they are just smart individuals pushing the civilization in a direction of technological advancement.  also, people who claim that religion set us back x amount of decades are biased and they obviously operate on that tired old  my opinion is better than yours  agenda.  nobody set no one back.  you can not prove what and who set anyone back and you ca not have serious discussions where the main premise of the discussion is  what if  and  what would happen .  those kinds of conversations are for pubs only, when you get drunk.  that is when you allowed to pull the  what if  card, for example  what if ray allen missed that 0 pointer .  other than that, you are projecting your agenda in a very obvious way, nobody, no computer and no scientist and no spiritual man can tell you what would happen if z happened instead of x.  so, to finish up, i think people who want to perpetuate the gap between spirituality and science are naive, biased, have some kind of agenda, maybe they are getting back at their strict christian parents or who knows.  there is a big difference in  organized religion  and  personal belief  and that is another topic.  i am talking about the latter aspect here.  personal belief, spirituality.  just because science is not able to put it in brackets and formulas, it does not mean it does not exist.  science ca not exactly 0 no questions asked prove the big bang yet it still perpetuates that idea without giving one alternative.  spirituality is the same thing.  to interpret our universe and our short, couple of decades experience in it with numbers and formulas seems naive to me.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  you should know, especially if you are inclined to scientific way of thinking in 0 years from now, and especially 0 years from now, most of the scientist you know now will be considered borderline amateurs.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  so i think it is important that both scientist and spiritual people should stop smelling their own farts and just embrace the journey, especially since it is 0 cold hard fact that none of them know where all of this is going.  so why be exclusive and close minded ?  #  so, to finish up, i think people who want to perpetuate the gap between spirituality and science are naive, biased, have some kind of agenda, maybe they are getting back at their strict christian parents or who knows.   #  there is a gap and it is impossible to deny it.   # by sensations, you mean emotions/memories/thoughts/etc.  these are actions of the brain, and therefore can be thought of scientifically.  what your beliefs actually are thoughts are stored in your brain.  yes, we can prove historically  who set who back  very easily.  for example, most people will acknowledge that war sets us back, since it forces us to focus on the military aspect of society and not the scientific/cultural.  religion has been a major factor, if not the most important factor in many conflicts over history.  for example, 0 0 million people died in the thirty years war between protestant and catholic states in europe.  the death of that many people sets society back immensely.  there is a gap and it is impossible to deny it.  other than the mounds of historical evidence, there is plenty of contemporary evidence.  for example, religious schools often want to ban the teaching of evolution because it contradicts their beliefs.  first of all, an  alternative  in science is just a different model.  science is very broad, and it does not just give you  alternatives , new theories have to come up and be fundamentally different then the prevailing ones, or at least offer new insight.  the big bang is not just a simple idea, it is a theory for the beginning of the universe and the prevailing model.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  what point is this making ? getting to the moon took thousands of years of science and engineering, and it is not like it was even a major goal of humanity during most of those thousands of years.  also, this is not a  couple of decades  experience.  humans can live to be over 0, and during that time there will be thousands upon thousands of huge advances.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  this is extremely untrue, and again, historically inaccurate.  we can look at the scientists of the past and see them as geniuses or not, depending , and not amateurs just because they did not have as much technology as us.  we do not laugh at the past, why would the future laugh at us ? i am really unsure where you are going with this.  either way, the way to  embrace the journey  is to learn about the human experience in whichever way you choose, and just keep helping humanity advance scientifically, culturally, religiously, or in any number of ways.   #  i have yet to be given a solid reason why i need to be spiritual or religious to enjoy  intangibles,  nor any reason why acknowledging the limits of my understanding requires that i embrace speculative superstition.   # so why be exclusive and close minded ? i  exclude  perspectives that do not lead me anywhere, in the sense that i do not find them interesting enough to pursue.  vague statements about how  nobody knows for sure  do not contribute anything to my understanding of the world.  platitudes about how  no machine can replicate this feeling  do not increase my appreciation of anything.  i appreciate subjective human experiences a great deal.  indeed, my chosen field neuroscience is largely about understanding how our individual human bodies create unique perspectives, introduce biases, and shape perceptions.  i have not yet encountered an example of how  spirituality  or religion would add to my appreciation of these aspects of life.  i have yet to be given a solid reason why i need to be spiritual or religious to enjoy  intangibles,  nor any reason why acknowledging the limits of my understanding requires that i embrace speculative superstition.   #  for example: how many proteins are in our average cell, 0 0, 0 0, who knows.   #  i think spirituality can in fact be closely tangled with science, i do not see how those exclude each other.  for example: how many proteins are in our average cell, 0 0, 0 0, who knows.  and every second there are 0 million chemical processes going on in there, firing away.  looking for enzymes, is this protein healthy, should i call for chaperons, all of those decisions and actions.  and they say we could have as much as 0 trillion cells in our body.  so how many damn computers is that ? working in sync for 0 years, 0 hours a day.  it is not a damn 0 uptime.  it is 0 uptime.  so that in itself is something that should evoke spirituality, because a machine like that will never be built by human hands, no matter how many scientists you put together.   #  i do not claim to know better than scientists.   # you have literally said that scientists need to stop smelling their own farts.  i can point to many other condescending things you have said about science and scientists that you have said in this thread if i want to.  probably.  if you think that i am condescending towards science or scientists, then you are incredibly misinformed.  i do not claim to know better than scientists.  i do, however, claim to know better than you about the subject, because let is face it, you have no idea what you are talking about.  i am just another person studying science and doing scientific research.  in fact, i have not said a single personal opinion about science.  everything that i have said is about what the scientific consensus is and what the scientific community currently accepts.   #  i do not believe art was created by someone who rationally sat down in front of the canvas and calculates brush strokes.   #  because it is superior to our understanding.  because we did not decipher it, we are always reminded that there is something new to be learned.  i am aware that the word  spiritual  has a bad stigma to it and plenty of folks have been conditioned to associate it with kooky mumbo jumbo, but i think that we should know better in this day and age.  being spiritual in my opinion means being willing to admit that there are still forces and laws out there that we do not understand and try to learn from those sensations the knowledge of the unknown evokes.  i do not believe art was created by someone who rationally sat down in front of the canvas and calculates brush strokes.  poetry did not come from someone flipping through dictionary looking for words that rhyme.  all those things that contributed to all of this world around us came from the sense of appreciation of some sort, and that is what spirituality means to me.  now you can try to play it down and use some other word, but i get it, i did not mean to change your views, that is not how this /r is called.  if spirituality is hokey pokey to you, it will remain as such and there is nothing i can do about it.
so to clarify there is no way that you can be considered a reasonable individual if you do not appreciate and acknowledge all the major scientific advancements of our era and big and also appreciate all the intangible, unquantifiable things about human experience, all those organic sensations that no machine will ever be able to replicate or duplicate and what many refer to as  spiritual .  people who work in science are not infallible god like humans, they are just smart individuals pushing the civilization in a direction of technological advancement.  also, people who claim that religion set us back x amount of decades are biased and they obviously operate on that tired old  my opinion is better than yours  agenda.  nobody set no one back.  you can not prove what and who set anyone back and you ca not have serious discussions where the main premise of the discussion is  what if  and  what would happen .  those kinds of conversations are for pubs only, when you get drunk.  that is when you allowed to pull the  what if  card, for example  what if ray allen missed that 0 pointer .  other than that, you are projecting your agenda in a very obvious way, nobody, no computer and no scientist and no spiritual man can tell you what would happen if z happened instead of x.  so, to finish up, i think people who want to perpetuate the gap between spirituality and science are naive, biased, have some kind of agenda, maybe they are getting back at their strict christian parents or who knows.  there is a big difference in  organized religion  and  personal belief  and that is another topic.  i am talking about the latter aspect here.  personal belief, spirituality.  just because science is not able to put it in brackets and formulas, it does not mean it does not exist.  science ca not exactly 0 no questions asked prove the big bang yet it still perpetuates that idea without giving one alternative.  spirituality is the same thing.  to interpret our universe and our short, couple of decades experience in it with numbers and formulas seems naive to me.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  you should know, especially if you are inclined to scientific way of thinking in 0 years from now, and especially 0 years from now, most of the scientist you know now will be considered borderline amateurs.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  so i think it is important that both scientist and spiritual people should stop smelling their own farts and just embrace the journey, especially since it is 0 cold hard fact that none of them know where all of this is going.  so why be exclusive and close minded ?  #  science ca not exactly 0 no questions asked prove the big bang yet it still perpetuates that idea without giving one alternative.   #  first of all, an  alternative  in science is just a different model.   # by sensations, you mean emotions/memories/thoughts/etc.  these are actions of the brain, and therefore can be thought of scientifically.  what your beliefs actually are thoughts are stored in your brain.  yes, we can prove historically  who set who back  very easily.  for example, most people will acknowledge that war sets us back, since it forces us to focus on the military aspect of society and not the scientific/cultural.  religion has been a major factor, if not the most important factor in many conflicts over history.  for example, 0 0 million people died in the thirty years war between protestant and catholic states in europe.  the death of that many people sets society back immensely.  there is a gap and it is impossible to deny it.  other than the mounds of historical evidence, there is plenty of contemporary evidence.  for example, religious schools often want to ban the teaching of evolution because it contradicts their beliefs.  first of all, an  alternative  in science is just a different model.  science is very broad, and it does not just give you  alternatives , new theories have to come up and be fundamentally different then the prevailing ones, or at least offer new insight.  the big bang is not just a simple idea, it is a theory for the beginning of the universe and the prevailing model.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  what point is this making ? getting to the moon took thousands of years of science and engineering, and it is not like it was even a major goal of humanity during most of those thousands of years.  also, this is not a  couple of decades  experience.  humans can live to be over 0, and during that time there will be thousands upon thousands of huge advances.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  this is extremely untrue, and again, historically inaccurate.  we can look at the scientists of the past and see them as geniuses or not, depending , and not amateurs just because they did not have as much technology as us.  we do not laugh at the past, why would the future laugh at us ? i am really unsure where you are going with this.  either way, the way to  embrace the journey  is to learn about the human experience in whichever way you choose, and just keep helping humanity advance scientifically, culturally, religiously, or in any number of ways.   #  i appreciate subjective human experiences a great deal.   # so why be exclusive and close minded ? i  exclude  perspectives that do not lead me anywhere, in the sense that i do not find them interesting enough to pursue.  vague statements about how  nobody knows for sure  do not contribute anything to my understanding of the world.  platitudes about how  no machine can replicate this feeling  do not increase my appreciation of anything.  i appreciate subjective human experiences a great deal.  indeed, my chosen field neuroscience is largely about understanding how our individual human bodies create unique perspectives, introduce biases, and shape perceptions.  i have not yet encountered an example of how  spirituality  or religion would add to my appreciation of these aspects of life.  i have yet to be given a solid reason why i need to be spiritual or religious to enjoy  intangibles,  nor any reason why acknowledging the limits of my understanding requires that i embrace speculative superstition.   #  for example: how many proteins are in our average cell, 0 0, 0 0, who knows.   #  i think spirituality can in fact be closely tangled with science, i do not see how those exclude each other.  for example: how many proteins are in our average cell, 0 0, 0 0, who knows.  and every second there are 0 million chemical processes going on in there, firing away.  looking for enzymes, is this protein healthy, should i call for chaperons, all of those decisions and actions.  and they say we could have as much as 0 trillion cells in our body.  so how many damn computers is that ? working in sync for 0 years, 0 hours a day.  it is not a damn 0 uptime.  it is 0 uptime.  so that in itself is something that should evoke spirituality, because a machine like that will never be built by human hands, no matter how many scientists you put together.   #  i can point to many other condescending things you have said about science and scientists that you have said in this thread if i want to.   # you have literally said that scientists need to stop smelling their own farts.  i can point to many other condescending things you have said about science and scientists that you have said in this thread if i want to.  probably.  if you think that i am condescending towards science or scientists, then you are incredibly misinformed.  i do not claim to know better than scientists.  i do, however, claim to know better than you about the subject, because let is face it, you have no idea what you are talking about.  i am just another person studying science and doing scientific research.  in fact, i have not said a single personal opinion about science.  everything that i have said is about what the scientific consensus is and what the scientific community currently accepts.   #  i do not believe art was created by someone who rationally sat down in front of the canvas and calculates brush strokes.   #  because it is superior to our understanding.  because we did not decipher it, we are always reminded that there is something new to be learned.  i am aware that the word  spiritual  has a bad stigma to it and plenty of folks have been conditioned to associate it with kooky mumbo jumbo, but i think that we should know better in this day and age.  being spiritual in my opinion means being willing to admit that there are still forces and laws out there that we do not understand and try to learn from those sensations the knowledge of the unknown evokes.  i do not believe art was created by someone who rationally sat down in front of the canvas and calculates brush strokes.  poetry did not come from someone flipping through dictionary looking for words that rhyme.  all those things that contributed to all of this world around us came from the sense of appreciation of some sort, and that is what spirituality means to me.  now you can try to play it down and use some other word, but i get it, i did not mean to change your views, that is not how this /r is called.  if spirituality is hokey pokey to you, it will remain as such and there is nothing i can do about it.
so to clarify there is no way that you can be considered a reasonable individual if you do not appreciate and acknowledge all the major scientific advancements of our era and big and also appreciate all the intangible, unquantifiable things about human experience, all those organic sensations that no machine will ever be able to replicate or duplicate and what many refer to as  spiritual .  people who work in science are not infallible god like humans, they are just smart individuals pushing the civilization in a direction of technological advancement.  also, people who claim that religion set us back x amount of decades are biased and they obviously operate on that tired old  my opinion is better than yours  agenda.  nobody set no one back.  you can not prove what and who set anyone back and you ca not have serious discussions where the main premise of the discussion is  what if  and  what would happen .  those kinds of conversations are for pubs only, when you get drunk.  that is when you allowed to pull the  what if  card, for example  what if ray allen missed that 0 pointer .  other than that, you are projecting your agenda in a very obvious way, nobody, no computer and no scientist and no spiritual man can tell you what would happen if z happened instead of x.  so, to finish up, i think people who want to perpetuate the gap between spirituality and science are naive, biased, have some kind of agenda, maybe they are getting back at their strict christian parents or who knows.  there is a big difference in  organized religion  and  personal belief  and that is another topic.  i am talking about the latter aspect here.  personal belief, spirituality.  just because science is not able to put it in brackets and formulas, it does not mean it does not exist.  science ca not exactly 0 no questions asked prove the big bang yet it still perpetuates that idea without giving one alternative.  spirituality is the same thing.  to interpret our universe and our short, couple of decades experience in it with numbers and formulas seems naive to me.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  you should know, especially if you are inclined to scientific way of thinking in 0 years from now, and especially 0 years from now, most of the scientist you know now will be considered borderline amateurs.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  so i think it is important that both scientist and spiritual people should stop smelling their own farts and just embrace the journey, especially since it is 0 cold hard fact that none of them know where all of this is going.  so why be exclusive and close minded ?  #  to interpret our universe and our short, couple of decades experience in it with numbers and formulas seems naive to me.   #  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.   # by sensations, you mean emotions/memories/thoughts/etc.  these are actions of the brain, and therefore can be thought of scientifically.  what your beliefs actually are thoughts are stored in your brain.  yes, we can prove historically  who set who back  very easily.  for example, most people will acknowledge that war sets us back, since it forces us to focus on the military aspect of society and not the scientific/cultural.  religion has been a major factor, if not the most important factor in many conflicts over history.  for example, 0 0 million people died in the thirty years war between protestant and catholic states in europe.  the death of that many people sets society back immensely.  there is a gap and it is impossible to deny it.  other than the mounds of historical evidence, there is plenty of contemporary evidence.  for example, religious schools often want to ban the teaching of evolution because it contradicts their beliefs.  first of all, an  alternative  in science is just a different model.  science is very broad, and it does not just give you  alternatives , new theories have to come up and be fundamentally different then the prevailing ones, or at least offer new insight.  the big bang is not just a simple idea, it is a theory for the beginning of the universe and the prevailing model.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  what point is this making ? getting to the moon took thousands of years of science and engineering, and it is not like it was even a major goal of humanity during most of those thousands of years.  also, this is not a  couple of decades  experience.  humans can live to be over 0, and during that time there will be thousands upon thousands of huge advances.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  this is extremely untrue, and again, historically inaccurate.  we can look at the scientists of the past and see them as geniuses or not, depending , and not amateurs just because they did not have as much technology as us.  we do not laugh at the past, why would the future laugh at us ? i am really unsure where you are going with this.  either way, the way to  embrace the journey  is to learn about the human experience in whichever way you choose, and just keep helping humanity advance scientifically, culturally, religiously, or in any number of ways.   #  i have yet to be given a solid reason why i need to be spiritual or religious to enjoy  intangibles,  nor any reason why acknowledging the limits of my understanding requires that i embrace speculative superstition.   # so why be exclusive and close minded ? i  exclude  perspectives that do not lead me anywhere, in the sense that i do not find them interesting enough to pursue.  vague statements about how  nobody knows for sure  do not contribute anything to my understanding of the world.  platitudes about how  no machine can replicate this feeling  do not increase my appreciation of anything.  i appreciate subjective human experiences a great deal.  indeed, my chosen field neuroscience is largely about understanding how our individual human bodies create unique perspectives, introduce biases, and shape perceptions.  i have not yet encountered an example of how  spirituality  or religion would add to my appreciation of these aspects of life.  i have yet to be given a solid reason why i need to be spiritual or religious to enjoy  intangibles,  nor any reason why acknowledging the limits of my understanding requires that i embrace speculative superstition.   #  looking for enzymes, is this protein healthy, should i call for chaperons, all of those decisions and actions.   #  i think spirituality can in fact be closely tangled with science, i do not see how those exclude each other.  for example: how many proteins are in our average cell, 0 0, 0 0, who knows.  and every second there are 0 million chemical processes going on in there, firing away.  looking for enzymes, is this protein healthy, should i call for chaperons, all of those decisions and actions.  and they say we could have as much as 0 trillion cells in our body.  so how many damn computers is that ? working in sync for 0 years, 0 hours a day.  it is not a damn 0 uptime.  it is 0 uptime.  so that in itself is something that should evoke spirituality, because a machine like that will never be built by human hands, no matter how many scientists you put together.   #  in fact, i have not said a single personal opinion about science.   # you have literally said that scientists need to stop smelling their own farts.  i can point to many other condescending things you have said about science and scientists that you have said in this thread if i want to.  probably.  if you think that i am condescending towards science or scientists, then you are incredibly misinformed.  i do not claim to know better than scientists.  i do, however, claim to know better than you about the subject, because let is face it, you have no idea what you are talking about.  i am just another person studying science and doing scientific research.  in fact, i have not said a single personal opinion about science.  everything that i have said is about what the scientific consensus is and what the scientific community currently accepts.   #  poetry did not come from someone flipping through dictionary looking for words that rhyme.   #  because it is superior to our understanding.  because we did not decipher it, we are always reminded that there is something new to be learned.  i am aware that the word  spiritual  has a bad stigma to it and plenty of folks have been conditioned to associate it with kooky mumbo jumbo, but i think that we should know better in this day and age.  being spiritual in my opinion means being willing to admit that there are still forces and laws out there that we do not understand and try to learn from those sensations the knowledge of the unknown evokes.  i do not believe art was created by someone who rationally sat down in front of the canvas and calculates brush strokes.  poetry did not come from someone flipping through dictionary looking for words that rhyme.  all those things that contributed to all of this world around us came from the sense of appreciation of some sort, and that is what spirituality means to me.  now you can try to play it down and use some other word, but i get it, i did not mean to change your views, that is not how this /r is called.  if spirituality is hokey pokey to you, it will remain as such and there is nothing i can do about it.
so to clarify there is no way that you can be considered a reasonable individual if you do not appreciate and acknowledge all the major scientific advancements of our era and big and also appreciate all the intangible, unquantifiable things about human experience, all those organic sensations that no machine will ever be able to replicate or duplicate and what many refer to as  spiritual .  people who work in science are not infallible god like humans, they are just smart individuals pushing the civilization in a direction of technological advancement.  also, people who claim that religion set us back x amount of decades are biased and they obviously operate on that tired old  my opinion is better than yours  agenda.  nobody set no one back.  you can not prove what and who set anyone back and you ca not have serious discussions where the main premise of the discussion is  what if  and  what would happen .  those kinds of conversations are for pubs only, when you get drunk.  that is when you allowed to pull the  what if  card, for example  what if ray allen missed that 0 pointer .  other than that, you are projecting your agenda in a very obvious way, nobody, no computer and no scientist and no spiritual man can tell you what would happen if z happened instead of x.  so, to finish up, i think people who want to perpetuate the gap between spirituality and science are naive, biased, have some kind of agenda, maybe they are getting back at their strict christian parents or who knows.  there is a big difference in  organized religion  and  personal belief  and that is another topic.  i am talking about the latter aspect here.  personal belief, spirituality.  just because science is not able to put it in brackets and formulas, it does not mean it does not exist.  science ca not exactly 0 no questions asked prove the big bang yet it still perpetuates that idea without giving one alternative.  spirituality is the same thing.  to interpret our universe and our short, couple of decades experience in it with numbers and formulas seems naive to me.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  you should know, especially if you are inclined to scientific way of thinking in 0 years from now, and especially 0 years from now, most of the scientist you know now will be considered borderline amateurs.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  so i think it is important that both scientist and spiritual people should stop smelling their own farts and just embrace the journey, especially since it is 0 cold hard fact that none of them know where all of this is going.  so why be exclusive and close minded ?  #  you should know, especially if you are inclined to scientific way of thinking in 0 years from now, and especially 0 years from now, most of the scientist you know now will be considered borderline amateurs.   #  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.   # by sensations, you mean emotions/memories/thoughts/etc.  these are actions of the brain, and therefore can be thought of scientifically.  what your beliefs actually are thoughts are stored in your brain.  yes, we can prove historically  who set who back  very easily.  for example, most people will acknowledge that war sets us back, since it forces us to focus on the military aspect of society and not the scientific/cultural.  religion has been a major factor, if not the most important factor in many conflicts over history.  for example, 0 0 million people died in the thirty years war between protestant and catholic states in europe.  the death of that many people sets society back immensely.  there is a gap and it is impossible to deny it.  other than the mounds of historical evidence, there is plenty of contemporary evidence.  for example, religious schools often want to ban the teaching of evolution because it contradicts their beliefs.  first of all, an  alternative  in science is just a different model.  science is very broad, and it does not just give you  alternatives , new theories have to come up and be fundamentally different then the prevailing ones, or at least offer new insight.  the big bang is not just a simple idea, it is a theory for the beginning of the universe and the prevailing model.  i know people are a very happy anthropocentric bunch but c amon.  we barely reached the moon in our hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  what point is this making ? getting to the moon took thousands of years of science and engineering, and it is not like it was even a major goal of humanity during most of those thousands of years.  also, this is not a  couple of decades  experience.  humans can live to be over 0, and during that time there will be thousands upon thousands of huge advances.  and they will laugh at the way we approached science, space, flight, medicine and religion.  this is extremely untrue, and again, historically inaccurate.  we can look at the scientists of the past and see them as geniuses or not, depending , and not amateurs just because they did not have as much technology as us.  we do not laugh at the past, why would the future laugh at us ? i am really unsure where you are going with this.  either way, the way to  embrace the journey  is to learn about the human experience in whichever way you choose, and just keep helping humanity advance scientifically, culturally, religiously, or in any number of ways.   #  i appreciate subjective human experiences a great deal.   # so why be exclusive and close minded ? i  exclude  perspectives that do not lead me anywhere, in the sense that i do not find them interesting enough to pursue.  vague statements about how  nobody knows for sure  do not contribute anything to my understanding of the world.  platitudes about how  no machine can replicate this feeling  do not increase my appreciation of anything.  i appreciate subjective human experiences a great deal.  indeed, my chosen field neuroscience is largely about understanding how our individual human bodies create unique perspectives, introduce biases, and shape perceptions.  i have not yet encountered an example of how  spirituality  or religion would add to my appreciation of these aspects of life.  i have yet to be given a solid reason why i need to be spiritual or religious to enjoy  intangibles,  nor any reason why acknowledging the limits of my understanding requires that i embrace speculative superstition.   #  i think spirituality can in fact be closely tangled with science, i do not see how those exclude each other.   #  i think spirituality can in fact be closely tangled with science, i do not see how those exclude each other.  for example: how many proteins are in our average cell, 0 0, 0 0, who knows.  and every second there are 0 million chemical processes going on in there, firing away.  looking for enzymes, is this protein healthy, should i call for chaperons, all of those decisions and actions.  and they say we could have as much as 0 trillion cells in our body.  so how many damn computers is that ? working in sync for 0 years, 0 hours a day.  it is not a damn 0 uptime.  it is 0 uptime.  so that in itself is something that should evoke spirituality, because a machine like that will never be built by human hands, no matter how many scientists you put together.   #  i do, however, claim to know better than you about the subject, because let is face it, you have no idea what you are talking about.   # you have literally said that scientists need to stop smelling their own farts.  i can point to many other condescending things you have said about science and scientists that you have said in this thread if i want to.  probably.  if you think that i am condescending towards science or scientists, then you are incredibly misinformed.  i do not claim to know better than scientists.  i do, however, claim to know better than you about the subject, because let is face it, you have no idea what you are talking about.  i am just another person studying science and doing scientific research.  in fact, i have not said a single personal opinion about science.  everything that i have said is about what the scientific consensus is and what the scientific community currently accepts.   #  because we did not decipher it, we are always reminded that there is something new to be learned.   #  because it is superior to our understanding.  because we did not decipher it, we are always reminded that there is something new to be learned.  i am aware that the word  spiritual  has a bad stigma to it and plenty of folks have been conditioned to associate it with kooky mumbo jumbo, but i think that we should know better in this day and age.  being spiritual in my opinion means being willing to admit that there are still forces and laws out there that we do not understand and try to learn from those sensations the knowledge of the unknown evokes.  i do not believe art was created by someone who rationally sat down in front of the canvas and calculates brush strokes.  poetry did not come from someone flipping through dictionary looking for words that rhyme.  all those things that contributed to all of this world around us came from the sense of appreciation of some sort, and that is what spirituality means to me.  now you can try to play it down and use some other word, but i get it, i did not mean to change your views, that is not how this /r is called.  if spirituality is hokey pokey to you, it will remain as such and there is nothing i can do about it.
i am not looking to debate whether killing as an act of war is immoral, though the best responses might take the discussion there.  instead, my point is that killing a human being is a very serious thing and that if you do not personally believe in the cause for which your country is fighting, you are not treating the lives of the opposing soldiers with sufficient respect.  furthermore, offering to kill on behalf of a third party in order to secure personal financial gain is akin to contract killing, and is immoral.  i know there are plenty of kids that join the military to  support their country  and for whom their government salary is an added benefit.  i am not talking about those people.  i want to discuss those who go off to war so they can afford college.  0.  it is morally reprehensible to kill a human being without a just cause.  0.  by enlisting in the military, you have agreed to kill someone on behalf of the cause for which that military is fighting.  0.  if you agree that the cause is just, that it is worth killing for, the morality of your actions rests on the morality of the cause itself.  you can defend your actions based on whether or not the cause is justifiable.  however, if you do not believe the cause is just, if you enlist purely for financial gain, you cannot defend your actions because you acknowledge that you are not killing for a just cause.  0.  therefore, enlisting in the military for financial gain  only  is immoral.   #  by enlisting in the military, you have agreed to kill someone on behalf of the cause for which that military is fighting.   #  if you disagree with either of the above, we can discuss that.   #  i have just posted my argument in list premise form above.  the first two are especially relevant to your response:   it is morally reprehensible to kill a human being without a just cause.  this one corresponds to your first sentence, which i disagree with.  the existence of an objective morality is a background assumption for my argument.  if you disagree with either of the above, we can discuss that.  if not, here is my reply.  you might agree that your son is life is worth killing someone else for, which is how you have presented it above.  in your view,  it is my son is life or the enemy is life .  as i see it, this is not the case.  instead, i see  it is my son is chance at a better quality of life or the enemy is life .  i would disagree that the former is the morally justifiable choice.  in other words, you may feel that your son is quality of life is worth more than the  actual  life of an enemy soldier or someone else who is killed by military action, but i do not think you could defend that choice when you consider it from both sides.   #  combat roles are not for everyone, and it is explained to those who enlist that if your heart is not in it, you probably should not choose a combat related mos.   #  i can only offer anecdotal evidence, but i will still offer my experience.  i have been in the military for seven years, and i have yet to meet one person who enlisted with the intent of fulfilling a combat role  who also  did not believe the cause was just or worth fighting and dying for.  i would imagine it is a bit of a requirement to believe what you are doing is good and right if you are going to be risking your life while doing it.  combat roles are not for everyone, and it is explained to those who enlist that if your heart is not in it, you probably should not choose a combat related mos.  i have known one person who enlisted while being morally ambiguous / apathetic.  he did not think about the moral implications of combat, he just knew he could not afford college on his own and did not want to work a minimum wage job in his hometown for the rest of his life.  after experiencing combat, almost being blinded by an ied, and seeing the terrible poverty in the countries we have been engaged in, he has decided that whatever financial compensation he was receiving is not worth re enlisting.  that said, i do not think your original premise is applicable to anyone, really.  i am sure it is a valid concept, but i do not believe anyone who fits the criteria.  the servicemembers who do not believe combat to be morally justifiabe do not choose combat roles, and the ones that do quickly learn from their mistakes.   #  i am interested in those who join to afford college without believing in the cause they are killing for.   #  if everyone who joins the military believes that their government is cause is worth killing for, that is awesome.  they can defend that cause until the cows come home.  these are not the people i am talking about.  i am interested in those who join to afford college without believing in the cause they are killing for.  if your friend made it to combat, realized he did not believe in the cause, and continued to fight because he needed the money, he would fall into this category.  i can appreciate that people put themselves at risk for a cause they believe in, but there is another side to it.  you are risking your life, but also taking the lives of those who oppose your cause.  if you join the military, you should believe in your cause strongly enough that you would risk your own life but also strongly enough that you would kill for it, because that is what you will be ordered to do.  lastly, i disagree strongly that everyone who joins the military is committed to the cause for its own sake.  i have nothing but personal experience to back that up, but i just do not believe it to be true.  in any case, i am interested in discussing the members of the military who are only there to make money.  if they do not exist, fantastic, then this is just a hypothetical conversation.   #  why would the same logic not apply toward the military ?  #  i do not agree that everyone who joins the military is there because they are committed to the cause either.  there are plenty of servicemembers who enslist simply due to the fact that the military is financially the most attractive option for them after high school, but those people tend to stay far away from combat roles and are never faced with the moral quagmire you present.  what i find fascinating is the fact that you even distinguish between people ordered to kill and people who support those ordered to kill.  if i drive a murderer to the scene of a crime, knowing full well that he is ready and willing to kill, that makes me an accomplice.  why would the same logic not apply toward the military ? all that changes is the scale several thousand more killers, and several tens of thousands more people who arm and support them.  in my opinion, there is no clear moral difference between  murder  and  murder support .   #  can you clarify who is the murderer and who is the driver in your example ?  #  it does not matter if most people in that situation  tend to stay away from combat roles .  there are those who do not.  these are the people i am interested in.  i see a very significant difference between those who carry out orders to kill and those who attempt to minimize lives lost on the battlefield.  in my mind, group 0 includes all soldiers, generals, technicians, and other personnel involved in carrying out aggressive military actions.  group 0 would then be those who make sure there are no civilians in a bunker, etc.  group 0 is job is to kill or otherwise exert force upon people who are in the way of the army is mission.  group 0 is job is to make sure they do not kill any more people than they need to.  can you clarify who is the murderer and who is the driver in your example ? you could argue that as tax paying us citizens, we indirectly support the cause our government is fighting for.  however, we do not really have the choice to exempt ourselves from paying taxes.  through the voting system, we have some say in which cause our money supports, but for the most part it is out of our hands.  enlisting in the military is an active choice to directly support the cause of the us government.
by  polygamy  i mean any combination of multiple spouses, not just the one man plus multiple woman connotation it has today though that is a main point of my view .  basically, legalizing polygamy  in today is society  would be a terrible idea, due to simple math.  since the human gender ratio is 0:0, if for example every man took x wives, only 0/x of all men would actually be able to do this.  the end result as with most polygamous societies in the past is a small number of elite men hoarding all the women.  all the other men are left spouseless.  what is the best way to start a war ? lots of angry young men.  the only way this could be avoided is if all the other types of polygamy polyandry, same sex polygamy were also legalized  and  there were no cultural taboos against them.  that way all the different  types  of polygamous marriage will be balanced and everyone can be a part of one.  since that obviously is not the case today, imo any rational person should support monogamous marriage, i. e.  polygamy should not be legalized in general or for specific groups like mormons or muslims.  polygamy may have worked in the past when lots of men went off to die in wars, but not today.   #  the end result as with most polygamous societies in the past is a small number of elite men hoarding all the women.   #  all the other men are left spouseless.   # all the other men are left spouseless.  what is the best way to start a war ? lots of angry young men.  this is quite the unsubstantiated slippery slope.  i would argue, first of all, that no such past society had a thriving middle class and a proper respect for the rights of women, which is a pretty huge damper on the ability to create massive harems.  secondly, there is not a real warrant to these harems being 0 man x a huge number of females.  thirdly, i find it quite a stretch to say that this will start a war.  polygamy is already a cultural taboo.  if you recognize that some forms of polygamy are taboo and wo not happen much even if legalized, then why is it that you think the basic, taboo form of polygamy would become rampant the moment it is legalized ? it does not add up.  either the taboo for both would be gone, or the taboo for neither would be gone.  i would say the best argument against polygamy is that it makes for an incredibly messy legal binding between an unrestricted number of people.  for the courts, this would be hell in both divorce and any other legal matters.  the potential for fraud, tax evasion, etc as a collaborative effort as a part of a polygamous group is pretty large.  this is a system that would be horribly troublesome to deal with even if  not  exploited, and would be even more of a pain when it is exploited.   #  but that is only if a they want to get married to a woman and b they want to get married at all.   #  do you even math ? for homosexuality it requires the same thing.  think about it like this; let is say there are no lesbians in a group of 0 people, 0 of each sex and assuming there are no trans people.  let is then say there is one gay male couple.  now there is 0 women and 0 men, so two women will not get married.  if those women are gay and get married it works out great.  but that is only if a they want to get married to a woman and b they want to get married at all.  it is the exact same thing.  you did not prove my point wrong.   #  sure, i can agree to that from a personal and emotional perspective.   #  sure, i can agree to that from a personal and emotional perspective.  but everyone  wants  to have someone, mostly.  and if people ca not find anyone, they tend to get unhappy.  unhappy people make bad members of society.  which is why it would be unwise for a state to actually  support  polygamous marriages with benefits.  countries that had / still have polygamy have much more problems with rape and general violence etc from men, simply because there are not enough women.  that is why many countries stopped the tradition, even places where the ruling class actually  profited  from having many wives the poor guys who were forced to be alone caused too much trouble.   #  you have absolutely no background on which you can claim, that it there would be balance.   #  that does not make any sense.  you do not have to marry your two hundred forty third mistress, you can just  hoard , plain and simple.  so what ? we will have robots.  halfl jokingly  that way all the different  types  of polygamous marriage will be balanced no.  there is no divine equilibrium that would enforce that.  monogamous people would not switch into poly  on the midnight of legalization.  you have absolutely no background on which you can claim, that it there would be balance.  you know, that there are words for other type of relationships ? polyandry, polyamory .   #  for a full list, see the wiki on polyandry URL so, now that we have that out of the way, let is talk about your overall view.   #  hey op, you seem a bit confused.  here URL is a page describing the mormon church or at least the main branch of it and polygamy.  we do  not  practice polygamy today.  the church has in the past, but does not now.  aside from that, you also seem to confuse the word polygamy and polyandry; polyandry is when a woman takes two or more husbands.  it also happened a lot more frequently than you probably think.  for a full list, see the wiki on polyandry URL so, now that we have that out of the way, let is talk about your overall view.  you make some big assumptions here, let me list; 0 human gender population is 0:0 in many places the gender population is not 0:0.  here is a great graph explaining gender ratio worldwide URL 0 you assume all people want to get married.  this simply is not true, many many men wish to never marry.  that view is more common today in men than in woman.  therefore, you could say that one man could marry another man is  spouse  as he does not plan on getting married.  0 you assume the homosexual community is so small it does make a difference.  self explanatory.  now, onto my main gripe with your argument; you essentially say something should only be allowed if it is culturally acceptable.  by that logic, in a place where it is culturally acceptable to beat homosexuals until death, it is right to do so.  this is a relativistic URL view which i disagree with on a fundamental level.  if we are talking about ethics, than the law and what the culture thinks  does not matter.  if it is right than it is right, if it is wrong than it is wrong.  there is certainly moral gray areas, but in this situation i think it is fairly black and white.  you say yourself that it would be okay if it were culturally acceptable; so you argument to me suggests that it is not morally or ethically questionable.  therefore, you should agree that there is not a terrible idea.  you can say it is a terrible idea for society, which i will also disagree with, but your argument is unclear about the ethics or the societal detriment.  if your argument is societal detriment than i would refer you to the assumptions listed.  please respond
first of all, i will point out that there  are  government services such as police forces and public libraries which i am glad to pay for.  there are also many, many uses of taxes of which i disapprove examples: war, electricity for accent lighting at government buildings negligible, but wasteful in principle , and the death penalty .  i am forced to pay at least partially for all of these things and offered no way to choose where my money goes.  apparently, i consented to these conditions by being born.  if i refuse to pay taxes, i am fined.  if i refuse to pay the fine, i am eventually sent to prison.  if i refuse to go to prison, i am physically transported there.  if i attempt to leave, i will probably eventually end up being bodily harmed.  i am not sure how so many people condone this.  my main complaint is that i will eventually end up in physical danger if i refuse to fund warfare while remaining in my home.  this is fundamentally wrong.   #  i am not sure how so many people condone this.   #  because it is better than the alternative.   # sure you are: voting.  or if voting is not enough for you, you can campaign for a measure or bill you like.  or you can introduce a measure or bill.  or you can run for office.  or raise awareness for an issue you care about.  you voice is limited only by how much effort you are willing to expend toward your cause.  because it is better than the alternative.  it is the price of living in your country.  you ca not live in someone else is house without paying rent, taxes are rent for your country of residence.  if you do not want to pay them, convince everyone that the rules should be changed, or leave for greener pastures.   #  if there is not, your stuff is only your stuff until someone stronger, trickier, or luckier comes along and takes it from you.   #  you may be forced to pay taxes, but without the coercive power of the state, you would own nothing.  property is a social construct, it does not exist except to the extent that everyone agrees that it does.  this means that your property is yours to the extent that people agree that you are entitled to its use and the extent that you or someone acting on your behalf can prevent those who do not agree that you are entitled to it from taking it from you.  since disputes over who owns what will always arise, some sort of adjudicator with the ability to force compliance is required.  if someone wants your stuff, there has to be some force to stop them.  if there is not, your stuff is only your stuff until someone stronger, trickier, or luckier comes along and takes it from you.  protecting your stuff require resources.  taxation is the only plausible means for the financing of the state, and thus the state taking money from you is necessary to your possession of anything at all.  you might have a problem with your tax rate, believing it to be too onerous, but taxation at some level is necessary to ensure the ownership of property and thus taxation itself is ethical.  tl;dr: you cannot make a claim to own something without laws enforced by the state, which requires taxes in order to perform this function.   #  or would you rather be beholden to a dictator ?  #  and when everyone else does not want to pay for the police like you do ? then there is no law enforcement and you are on your own to defend your property.  but there are bigger and stronger people than you so it gets taken.  now you have nothing and are forced to live at the mercy of a gang that gives you no say or vote in anything.  see, there will always, no matter what, be some coercive, perhaps even violent power that will force you to live within certain boundaries and obligations.  there is no way to avoid this.  as long as there is more than one person alive there will always be someone with power over another.  the key is, do you want a democratic form of government that forces you to participate and contribute via taxes while giving you a voice, rights, and a say via the constitution, voting and the rule of law.  or would you rather be beholden to a dictator ? i see no practical or realistic way to avoid the issue of taxes in one form or another.  but you at least in a democracy you are one of a any choosing how to spend that money instead of cut out of the decision making altogether.   #  it is also terrible that by the time my house has burnt down, the fire has grown exponentially and spread to the neighboring houses.   #  imagine a fire station instead of a police force.  if i am the only one in town who refuses to pay my fire taxes, and my house catches fire, that is terrible.  it is also terrible that by the time my house has burnt down, the fire has grown exponentially and spread to the neighboring houses.  the damage that they will suffer before the firefighters can put them out could have been greatly diminished if the firefighters just dealt with it when it was still growing on my house.  which means it is in  everyone is  best interest to put out all fires, whether i pay my fire tax or not.  which means it is in  my  best interest to never pay my fire tax, since my house will be protected anyway.   #  you would not have to steal my water because i can give it to you.   #  except we are all here.  you would not have to steal my water because i can give it to you.  if these things are truly essential then people will pay for them.  except we know that many wo not.  either because they ca not or are not willing to.  there is no difference between you are belief that police are necessary and my belief that schools are necessary.  and even if we agree on that, there is plenty of bloat in both the budgets that one or both of us may disagree with.  you say police are necessary.  i say the militarization of the police is not.  so are you going to decide police are essential and force me to pay for them even though i disagree with how that money is spent.  if so why ca not i force you to pay for the parks department or the recycling program or any of the myriad of things that i may see as essential but you might consider superfluous.  again i ask.  how is your support of  essentials  any different than every other government program paid by taxes ?
first of all, i will point out that there  are  government services such as police forces and public libraries which i am glad to pay for.  there are also many, many uses of taxes of which i disapprove examples: war, electricity for accent lighting at government buildings negligible, but wasteful in principle , and the death penalty .  i am forced to pay at least partially for all of these things and offered no way to choose where my money goes.  apparently, i consented to these conditions by being born.  if i refuse to pay taxes, i am fined.  if i refuse to pay the fine, i am eventually sent to prison.  if i refuse to go to prison, i am physically transported there.  if i attempt to leave, i will probably eventually end up being bodily harmed.  i am not sure how so many people condone this.  my main complaint is that i will eventually end up in physical danger if i refuse to fund warfare while remaining in my home.  this is fundamentally wrong.   #  i am forced to pay at least partially for all of these things and offered no way to choose where my money goes.   #  you are offered a choice about where your money goes, albeit indirectly.   # you are offered a choice about where your money goes, albeit indirectly.  you can choose where the money goes by choosing what laws to vote for, what representatives to vote for, what policies to support and which to decry.  you can move to places that do not have policies you condemn, or that have policies you support.  yes, a portion of your money goes to things you do not support; but likewise, things you do support are partially funded by other people who may not support those things.  the government is something we mostly all agree is necessary.  for it to perform its functions, it needs money.  the only really viable method to get said money is taxes.  also, quite a few people pay essentially no tax and do not end up in prison.  they are on the fringe of society, yes.  but that is what you get when you refuse to contribute to the financial support of the society.   #  tl;dr: you cannot make a claim to own something without laws enforced by the state, which requires taxes in order to perform this function.   #  you may be forced to pay taxes, but without the coercive power of the state, you would own nothing.  property is a social construct, it does not exist except to the extent that everyone agrees that it does.  this means that your property is yours to the extent that people agree that you are entitled to its use and the extent that you or someone acting on your behalf can prevent those who do not agree that you are entitled to it from taking it from you.  since disputes over who owns what will always arise, some sort of adjudicator with the ability to force compliance is required.  if someone wants your stuff, there has to be some force to stop them.  if there is not, your stuff is only your stuff until someone stronger, trickier, or luckier comes along and takes it from you.  protecting your stuff require resources.  taxation is the only plausible means for the financing of the state, and thus the state taking money from you is necessary to your possession of anything at all.  you might have a problem with your tax rate, believing it to be too onerous, but taxation at some level is necessary to ensure the ownership of property and thus taxation itself is ethical.  tl;dr: you cannot make a claim to own something without laws enforced by the state, which requires taxes in order to perform this function.   #  as long as there is more than one person alive there will always be someone with power over another.   #  and when everyone else does not want to pay for the police like you do ? then there is no law enforcement and you are on your own to defend your property.  but there are bigger and stronger people than you so it gets taken.  now you have nothing and are forced to live at the mercy of a gang that gives you no say or vote in anything.  see, there will always, no matter what, be some coercive, perhaps even violent power that will force you to live within certain boundaries and obligations.  there is no way to avoid this.  as long as there is more than one person alive there will always be someone with power over another.  the key is, do you want a democratic form of government that forces you to participate and contribute via taxes while giving you a voice, rights, and a say via the constitution, voting and the rule of law.  or would you rather be beholden to a dictator ? i see no practical or realistic way to avoid the issue of taxes in one form or another.  but you at least in a democracy you are one of a any choosing how to spend that money instead of cut out of the decision making altogether.   #  which means it is in  everyone is  best interest to put out all fires, whether i pay my fire tax or not.   #  imagine a fire station instead of a police force.  if i am the only one in town who refuses to pay my fire taxes, and my house catches fire, that is terrible.  it is also terrible that by the time my house has burnt down, the fire has grown exponentially and spread to the neighboring houses.  the damage that they will suffer before the firefighters can put them out could have been greatly diminished if the firefighters just dealt with it when it was still growing on my house.  which means it is in  everyone is  best interest to put out all fires, whether i pay my fire tax or not.  which means it is in  my  best interest to never pay my fire tax, since my house will be protected anyway.   #  there is no difference between you are belief that police are necessary and my belief that schools are necessary.   #  except we are all here.  you would not have to steal my water because i can give it to you.  if these things are truly essential then people will pay for them.  except we know that many wo not.  either because they ca not or are not willing to.  there is no difference between you are belief that police are necessary and my belief that schools are necessary.  and even if we agree on that, there is plenty of bloat in both the budgets that one or both of us may disagree with.  you say police are necessary.  i say the militarization of the police is not.  so are you going to decide police are essential and force me to pay for them even though i disagree with how that money is spent.  if so why ca not i force you to pay for the parks department or the recycling program or any of the myriad of things that i may see as essential but you might consider superfluous.  again i ask.  how is your support of  essentials  any different than every other government program paid by taxes ?
first of all, i will point out that there  are  government services such as police forces and public libraries which i am glad to pay for.  there are also many, many uses of taxes of which i disapprove examples: war, electricity for accent lighting at government buildings negligible, but wasteful in principle , and the death penalty .  i am forced to pay at least partially for all of these things and offered no way to choose where my money goes.  apparently, i consented to these conditions by being born.  if i refuse to pay taxes, i am fined.  if i refuse to pay the fine, i am eventually sent to prison.  if i refuse to go to prison, i am physically transported there.  if i attempt to leave, i will probably eventually end up being bodily harmed.  i am not sure how so many people condone this.  my main complaint is that i will eventually end up in physical danger if i refuse to fund warfare while remaining in my home.  this is fundamentally wrong.   #  apparently, i consented to these conditions by being born.   #  first off, babies do not pay taxes, so no, you did not consent to them upon birth.   # first off, babies do not pay taxes, so no, you did not consent to them upon birth.  adults pay taxes, and adults decide where their taxes go based on the politicians they elect to office.  this goes for just about everything else in our society too, by the way.  we live in a republic, meaning citizens decide how taxes are spent through indirect representation.  if you want to spend less money on the military or penal system, vote for politicians who represent those interests.  this does not guarantee they will follow through, of course, nor does it guarantee that your exact interests will be perfectly represented in government.  but that is how our society has been set up.  if i refuse to pay the fine, i am eventually sent to prison.  if i refuse to go to prison, i am physically transported there.  if i attempt to leave, i will probably eventually end up being bodily harmed.  yeah, that is how any laws in society work.  just because you do not like it does not meant it is akin to an illegal practice which is your essential claim .  you agree that taxes serve a purpose, and you agree with part of this purpose.  but disagreeing with other ways in which taxes are allotted does not make the system, in its entirety,  theft.   even if you disagreed with taxes in their entirety, it would not make the system akin to theft just because you have an ideological disagreement with their purpose.  governments demand some sort of funding.  by simply living in a country, you are automatically benefiting from that nation is governance, infrastructure, and other systems that require upkeep via capital; and once you are a financially independent adult, it is your civic responsibility to contribute to said upkeep so long as you remain in that nation.  and just to reiterate, the u. s.  government is built upon the notion that citizens  interests should be represented albeit indirectly on a state and federal level.  i am sorry if the majority of the country votes in a way that is different than your own interests, but you are not going to find a single nation in the world that lets you benefit from its municipal services without contributing in the same manner as everyone else.  most people realize that even though they may disagree with how a budget is spent, the overall functioning of the government is essential to society is continued progress and safety.  politicians can always be elected or influenced to enact new budgetary priorities, but you cannot realistic exempt yourself from civic responsibilities just because you do not agree 0 with the budget is current incarnation.   #  you might have a problem with your tax rate, believing it to be too onerous, but taxation at some level is necessary to ensure the ownership of property and thus taxation itself is ethical.   #  you may be forced to pay taxes, but without the coercive power of the state, you would own nothing.  property is a social construct, it does not exist except to the extent that everyone agrees that it does.  this means that your property is yours to the extent that people agree that you are entitled to its use and the extent that you or someone acting on your behalf can prevent those who do not agree that you are entitled to it from taking it from you.  since disputes over who owns what will always arise, some sort of adjudicator with the ability to force compliance is required.  if someone wants your stuff, there has to be some force to stop them.  if there is not, your stuff is only your stuff until someone stronger, trickier, or luckier comes along and takes it from you.  protecting your stuff require resources.  taxation is the only plausible means for the financing of the state, and thus the state taking money from you is necessary to your possession of anything at all.  you might have a problem with your tax rate, believing it to be too onerous, but taxation at some level is necessary to ensure the ownership of property and thus taxation itself is ethical.  tl;dr: you cannot make a claim to own something without laws enforced by the state, which requires taxes in order to perform this function.   #  as long as there is more than one person alive there will always be someone with power over another.   #  and when everyone else does not want to pay for the police like you do ? then there is no law enforcement and you are on your own to defend your property.  but there are bigger and stronger people than you so it gets taken.  now you have nothing and are forced to live at the mercy of a gang that gives you no say or vote in anything.  see, there will always, no matter what, be some coercive, perhaps even violent power that will force you to live within certain boundaries and obligations.  there is no way to avoid this.  as long as there is more than one person alive there will always be someone with power over another.  the key is, do you want a democratic form of government that forces you to participate and contribute via taxes while giving you a voice, rights, and a say via the constitution, voting and the rule of law.  or would you rather be beholden to a dictator ? i see no practical or realistic way to avoid the issue of taxes in one form or another.  but you at least in a democracy you are one of a any choosing how to spend that money instead of cut out of the decision making altogether.   #  which means it is in  my  best interest to never pay my fire tax, since my house will be protected anyway.   #  imagine a fire station instead of a police force.  if i am the only one in town who refuses to pay my fire taxes, and my house catches fire, that is terrible.  it is also terrible that by the time my house has burnt down, the fire has grown exponentially and spread to the neighboring houses.  the damage that they will suffer before the firefighters can put them out could have been greatly diminished if the firefighters just dealt with it when it was still growing on my house.  which means it is in  everyone is  best interest to put out all fires, whether i pay my fire tax or not.  which means it is in  my  best interest to never pay my fire tax, since my house will be protected anyway.   #  how is your support of  essentials  any different than every other government program paid by taxes ?  #  except we are all here.  you would not have to steal my water because i can give it to you.  if these things are truly essential then people will pay for them.  except we know that many wo not.  either because they ca not or are not willing to.  there is no difference between you are belief that police are necessary and my belief that schools are necessary.  and even if we agree on that, there is plenty of bloat in both the budgets that one or both of us may disagree with.  you say police are necessary.  i say the militarization of the police is not.  so are you going to decide police are essential and force me to pay for them even though i disagree with how that money is spent.  if so why ca not i force you to pay for the parks department or the recycling program or any of the myriad of things that i may see as essential but you might consider superfluous.  again i ask.  how is your support of  essentials  any different than every other government program paid by taxes ?
first of all, i will point out that there  are  government services such as police forces and public libraries which i am glad to pay for.  there are also many, many uses of taxes of which i disapprove examples: war, electricity for accent lighting at government buildings negligible, but wasteful in principle , and the death penalty .  i am forced to pay at least partially for all of these things and offered no way to choose where my money goes.  apparently, i consented to these conditions by being born.  if i refuse to pay taxes, i am fined.  if i refuse to pay the fine, i am eventually sent to prison.  if i refuse to go to prison, i am physically transported there.  if i attempt to leave, i will probably eventually end up being bodily harmed.  i am not sure how so many people condone this.  my main complaint is that i will eventually end up in physical danger if i refuse to fund warfare while remaining in my home.  this is fundamentally wrong.   #  if i refuse to pay taxes, i am fined.   #  if i refuse to pay the fine, i am eventually sent to prison.   # first off, babies do not pay taxes, so no, you did not consent to them upon birth.  adults pay taxes, and adults decide where their taxes go based on the politicians they elect to office.  this goes for just about everything else in our society too, by the way.  we live in a republic, meaning citizens decide how taxes are spent through indirect representation.  if you want to spend less money on the military or penal system, vote for politicians who represent those interests.  this does not guarantee they will follow through, of course, nor does it guarantee that your exact interests will be perfectly represented in government.  but that is how our society has been set up.  if i refuse to pay the fine, i am eventually sent to prison.  if i refuse to go to prison, i am physically transported there.  if i attempt to leave, i will probably eventually end up being bodily harmed.  yeah, that is how any laws in society work.  just because you do not like it does not meant it is akin to an illegal practice which is your essential claim .  you agree that taxes serve a purpose, and you agree with part of this purpose.  but disagreeing with other ways in which taxes are allotted does not make the system, in its entirety,  theft.   even if you disagreed with taxes in their entirety, it would not make the system akin to theft just because you have an ideological disagreement with their purpose.  governments demand some sort of funding.  by simply living in a country, you are automatically benefiting from that nation is governance, infrastructure, and other systems that require upkeep via capital; and once you are a financially independent adult, it is your civic responsibility to contribute to said upkeep so long as you remain in that nation.  and just to reiterate, the u. s.  government is built upon the notion that citizens  interests should be represented albeit indirectly on a state and federal level.  i am sorry if the majority of the country votes in a way that is different than your own interests, but you are not going to find a single nation in the world that lets you benefit from its municipal services without contributing in the same manner as everyone else.  most people realize that even though they may disagree with how a budget is spent, the overall functioning of the government is essential to society is continued progress and safety.  politicians can always be elected or influenced to enact new budgetary priorities, but you cannot realistic exempt yourself from civic responsibilities just because you do not agree 0 with the budget is current incarnation.   #  taxation is the only plausible means for the financing of the state, and thus the state taking money from you is necessary to your possession of anything at all.   #  you may be forced to pay taxes, but without the coercive power of the state, you would own nothing.  property is a social construct, it does not exist except to the extent that everyone agrees that it does.  this means that your property is yours to the extent that people agree that you are entitled to its use and the extent that you or someone acting on your behalf can prevent those who do not agree that you are entitled to it from taking it from you.  since disputes over who owns what will always arise, some sort of adjudicator with the ability to force compliance is required.  if someone wants your stuff, there has to be some force to stop them.  if there is not, your stuff is only your stuff until someone stronger, trickier, or luckier comes along and takes it from you.  protecting your stuff require resources.  taxation is the only plausible means for the financing of the state, and thus the state taking money from you is necessary to your possession of anything at all.  you might have a problem with your tax rate, believing it to be too onerous, but taxation at some level is necessary to ensure the ownership of property and thus taxation itself is ethical.  tl;dr: you cannot make a claim to own something without laws enforced by the state, which requires taxes in order to perform this function.   #  but there are bigger and stronger people than you so it gets taken.   #  and when everyone else does not want to pay for the police like you do ? then there is no law enforcement and you are on your own to defend your property.  but there are bigger and stronger people than you so it gets taken.  now you have nothing and are forced to live at the mercy of a gang that gives you no say or vote in anything.  see, there will always, no matter what, be some coercive, perhaps even violent power that will force you to live within certain boundaries and obligations.  there is no way to avoid this.  as long as there is more than one person alive there will always be someone with power over another.  the key is, do you want a democratic form of government that forces you to participate and contribute via taxes while giving you a voice, rights, and a say via the constitution, voting and the rule of law.  or would you rather be beholden to a dictator ? i see no practical or realistic way to avoid the issue of taxes in one form or another.  but you at least in a democracy you are one of a any choosing how to spend that money instead of cut out of the decision making altogether.   #  it is also terrible that by the time my house has burnt down, the fire has grown exponentially and spread to the neighboring houses.   #  imagine a fire station instead of a police force.  if i am the only one in town who refuses to pay my fire taxes, and my house catches fire, that is terrible.  it is also terrible that by the time my house has burnt down, the fire has grown exponentially and spread to the neighboring houses.  the damage that they will suffer before the firefighters can put them out could have been greatly diminished if the firefighters just dealt with it when it was still growing on my house.  which means it is in  everyone is  best interest to put out all fires, whether i pay my fire tax or not.  which means it is in  my  best interest to never pay my fire tax, since my house will be protected anyway.   #  i say the militarization of the police is not.   #  except we are all here.  you would not have to steal my water because i can give it to you.  if these things are truly essential then people will pay for them.  except we know that many wo not.  either because they ca not or are not willing to.  there is no difference between you are belief that police are necessary and my belief that schools are necessary.  and even if we agree on that, there is plenty of bloat in both the budgets that one or both of us may disagree with.  you say police are necessary.  i say the militarization of the police is not.  so are you going to decide police are essential and force me to pay for them even though i disagree with how that money is spent.  if so why ca not i force you to pay for the parks department or the recycling program or any of the myriad of things that i may see as essential but you might consider superfluous.  again i ask.  how is your support of  essentials  any different than every other government program paid by taxes ?
first of all, i will point out that there  are  government services such as police forces and public libraries which i am glad to pay for.  there are also many, many uses of taxes of which i disapprove examples: war, electricity for accent lighting at government buildings negligible, but wasteful in principle , and the death penalty .  i am forced to pay at least partially for all of these things and offered no way to choose where my money goes.  apparently, i consented to these conditions by being born.  if i refuse to pay taxes, i am fined.  if i refuse to pay the fine, i am eventually sent to prison.  if i refuse to go to prison, i am physically transported there.  if i attempt to leave, i will probably eventually end up being bodily harmed.  i am not sure how so many people condone this.  my main complaint is that i will eventually end up in physical danger if i refuse to fund warfare while remaining in my home.  this is fundamentally wrong.   #  i am not sure how so many people condone this.   #  most people realize that even though they may disagree with how a budget is spent, the overall functioning of the government is essential to society is continued progress and safety.   # first off, babies do not pay taxes, so no, you did not consent to them upon birth.  adults pay taxes, and adults decide where their taxes go based on the politicians they elect to office.  this goes for just about everything else in our society too, by the way.  we live in a republic, meaning citizens decide how taxes are spent through indirect representation.  if you want to spend less money on the military or penal system, vote for politicians who represent those interests.  this does not guarantee they will follow through, of course, nor does it guarantee that your exact interests will be perfectly represented in government.  but that is how our society has been set up.  if i refuse to pay the fine, i am eventually sent to prison.  if i refuse to go to prison, i am physically transported there.  if i attempt to leave, i will probably eventually end up being bodily harmed.  yeah, that is how any laws in society work.  just because you do not like it does not meant it is akin to an illegal practice which is your essential claim .  you agree that taxes serve a purpose, and you agree with part of this purpose.  but disagreeing with other ways in which taxes are allotted does not make the system, in its entirety,  theft.   even if you disagreed with taxes in their entirety, it would not make the system akin to theft just because you have an ideological disagreement with their purpose.  governments demand some sort of funding.  by simply living in a country, you are automatically benefiting from that nation is governance, infrastructure, and other systems that require upkeep via capital; and once you are a financially independent adult, it is your civic responsibility to contribute to said upkeep so long as you remain in that nation.  and just to reiterate, the u. s.  government is built upon the notion that citizens  interests should be represented albeit indirectly on a state and federal level.  i am sorry if the majority of the country votes in a way that is different than your own interests, but you are not going to find a single nation in the world that lets you benefit from its municipal services without contributing in the same manner as everyone else.  most people realize that even though they may disagree with how a budget is spent, the overall functioning of the government is essential to society is continued progress and safety.  politicians can always be elected or influenced to enact new budgetary priorities, but you cannot realistic exempt yourself from civic responsibilities just because you do not agree 0 with the budget is current incarnation.   #  if someone wants your stuff, there has to be some force to stop them.   #  you may be forced to pay taxes, but without the coercive power of the state, you would own nothing.  property is a social construct, it does not exist except to the extent that everyone agrees that it does.  this means that your property is yours to the extent that people agree that you are entitled to its use and the extent that you or someone acting on your behalf can prevent those who do not agree that you are entitled to it from taking it from you.  since disputes over who owns what will always arise, some sort of adjudicator with the ability to force compliance is required.  if someone wants your stuff, there has to be some force to stop them.  if there is not, your stuff is only your stuff until someone stronger, trickier, or luckier comes along and takes it from you.  protecting your stuff require resources.  taxation is the only plausible means for the financing of the state, and thus the state taking money from you is necessary to your possession of anything at all.  you might have a problem with your tax rate, believing it to be too onerous, but taxation at some level is necessary to ensure the ownership of property and thus taxation itself is ethical.  tl;dr: you cannot make a claim to own something without laws enforced by the state, which requires taxes in order to perform this function.   #  and when everyone else does not want to pay for the police like you do ?  #  and when everyone else does not want to pay for the police like you do ? then there is no law enforcement and you are on your own to defend your property.  but there are bigger and stronger people than you so it gets taken.  now you have nothing and are forced to live at the mercy of a gang that gives you no say or vote in anything.  see, there will always, no matter what, be some coercive, perhaps even violent power that will force you to live within certain boundaries and obligations.  there is no way to avoid this.  as long as there is more than one person alive there will always be someone with power over another.  the key is, do you want a democratic form of government that forces you to participate and contribute via taxes while giving you a voice, rights, and a say via the constitution, voting and the rule of law.  or would you rather be beholden to a dictator ? i see no practical or realistic way to avoid the issue of taxes in one form or another.  but you at least in a democracy you are one of a any choosing how to spend that money instead of cut out of the decision making altogether.   #  which means it is in  my  best interest to never pay my fire tax, since my house will be protected anyway.   #  imagine a fire station instead of a police force.  if i am the only one in town who refuses to pay my fire taxes, and my house catches fire, that is terrible.  it is also terrible that by the time my house has burnt down, the fire has grown exponentially and spread to the neighboring houses.  the damage that they will suffer before the firefighters can put them out could have been greatly diminished if the firefighters just dealt with it when it was still growing on my house.  which means it is in  everyone is  best interest to put out all fires, whether i pay my fire tax or not.  which means it is in  my  best interest to never pay my fire tax, since my house will be protected anyway.   #  if these things are truly essential then people will pay for them.   #  except we are all here.  you would not have to steal my water because i can give it to you.  if these things are truly essential then people will pay for them.  except we know that many wo not.  either because they ca not or are not willing to.  there is no difference between you are belief that police are necessary and my belief that schools are necessary.  and even if we agree on that, there is plenty of bloat in both the budgets that one or both of us may disagree with.  you say police are necessary.  i say the militarization of the police is not.  so are you going to decide police are essential and force me to pay for them even though i disagree with how that money is spent.  if so why ca not i force you to pay for the parks department or the recycling program or any of the myriad of things that i may see as essential but you might consider superfluous.  again i ask.  how is your support of  essentials  any different than every other government program paid by taxes ?
a least when it concerns emotive topics such as abortion and the death penalty.   0  it is unlikely that either side will change their view.  so the debate will only breed animosity and poison the relationship.  so it is better to just agree to disagree from the start and move on to more productive conversations.   0  most of these topics have been debated a million times.  there are countless websites where you can follow the arguments of experts and amateurs in writing.  they are well written, fully sourced, and peer reviewed.  there are also countless videos of verbal debates.  the quality of the debate you have with your friends at a dinner table is likely to be much, much poorer than a debate by experts.  it is a much better idea to study the material and ask your friends to do the same, then share your conclusion the next time you meet.   #  the quality of the debate you have with your friends at a dinner table is likely to be much, much poorer than a debate by experts.   #  this is true, but not really the point.   # so the debate will only breed animosity and poison the relationship.  so it is better to just agree to disagree from the start and move on to more productive conversations.  i have had a number of discussions and debates with friends and family alike.  as is the case when arguing with anyone, if they are very strong minded about their political or ethical views, they wo not change their ideas the moment the argument is over.  that said, i have had a number of discussions/debates with family members and friends on the subjects and our opinions and views have been changed a number of times.  if you have civil discussion, the relationship wo not be harmed in any way.  if someone becomes visibly agitated or starts violently shouting their points, simply stop the discussion.  there are countless websites where you can follow the arguments of experts and amateurs in writing.  most people do not do this.  people think that their opinions are the best naturally.  if i am sure of myself, why would i bother spending hours or days researching the topic ? if someone directly confronts me about the problems with my views than i am more likely to reevaluate my beliefs.  further, by debating topics you are able to introduce new ideas, evidence, and ways of thinking gradually rather than all at once.  this is true, but not really the point.  hearing an opposing viewpoint from someone on the television is not going to do nearly as much, or even make you think as much as hearing that same point from someone you know and trust.   #  if you are presented a new point of view that you never considered before you probably are not going to change your view on an issue completely, but your heart will be softened to this new idea.   # i believe that premise is false.  you  can  change people is views or have your own changed after several deep conversations on the topic.  if you are presented a new point of view that you never considered before you probably are not going to change your view on an issue completely, but your heart will be softened to this new idea.  the next time you discuss the topic, you will be a little softer on that one aspect.  if this happens a series of times over and over it is entirely possible to change you view.  i have seen it happen too.  my parents used to say gay people made them squeamish and should not get married.  now they are 0 in support of marriage equality.   #  they clearly misunderstand the science of the matter and a simple explanation can prove this argument wrong.   #  i think it highly depends on how educated the person is on the matter.  some people just blindly follow others and become groupies for different political parties without actually knowing the facts.  if you yourself are educated about the facts then you can help bring them around.  for example imagine one of your friends says  evolution must be false because if we evolved from monkeys then why do we still have monkeys ?   they clearly misunderstand the science of the matter and a simple explanation can prove this argument wrong.  maybe you wont change their entire view, but you will prevent them from looking like an ass by throwing out false premises.   #  i accept that everyone has reasons behind the decisions they make, and i cannot fully understand all of them.   #  the interesting thing with politics and ethics in particular is there is no objectively correct answer.  i think i have fully formed and complex views on a lot of different issues, yet i am not opposed to having these views change or gain more depth as a direct result of talking to my friends/family.  many of my friends are in situations i could never imagine, and can give me valuable perspective on an issue.  as an example, although i have very specific views on unemployment from my personal experience with it, a friend who is in a different set of circumstances is able to give me a more rounded view on the issue as a whole.  if my sister wants to talk to me about how she just voted for the green party in the recent election, i am not going to dismiss her opinion as i know she did not make said decision based off of some thoughtless impulse.  i accept that everyone has reasons behind the decisions they make, and i cannot fully understand all of them.  my own views are imperfect by nature, and this is why i engage in research and debate, as it helps me close the gap between my own view and the hypothetical perfect view.  i am always interested with what others have to say or what they think, and hate when my social circles or reddit for that matter become echo chambers for a popular opinion or school of thought.  i enjoy doubting myself, building upon the ideas of others, and augmenting my view of the world.  in this way debates are almost self serving, and at the very least i hope those i engage in debate with gain even a fraction of what i do from the ordeal.   #  if you know the person you are debating with is open to debate and wo not hold animosity, it can be an enlightening experience for both parties.   #  0 debate is not just about changing other people is views, it is also about helping to define your own views.  it is important to be able to defend your views against criticism and if you ca not decide whether it is justifiable to keep that view.  if you know the person you are debating with is open to debate and wo not hold animosity, it can be an enlightening experience for both parties.  0 it is always beneficial to read expert opinions on a topic.  however, i would argue that simply parroting whichever expert you agree with the most fails to hone one is own ability to create a compelling argument which i think is an important life skill.
i read recently that the nfl has donated 0 million dollars in the last five years to correction american cancer society.  that is nothing.  that is not even much above the minimum player salary for one player.  its a fraction of the player budget, an even smaller fraction of a team is operating costs, and nothing in a multi billion dollar a year industry.  basically, teams trot out everything in pink as an eyesore and that is it.  there is no actual awareness.  we do not get a bunch of education and statistics and obviously money .  they sometimes show breast cancer survivors, but i think we all know already that breast cancer exists and so do survivors.  so no awareness actually happens and virtually no contributions happen for research.  ergo, its just a pr stunt common to today where people think change and effort is equaled to wearing a color sometimes.   #  ergo, its just a pr stunt common to today where people think change and effort is equaled to wearing a color sometimes.   #  it is definitely pr and marketing, but it is not a stunt, nor does the goal of awareness and appealing to a female audience, take anything away from the effort.   # that is nothing.  that is not even much above the minimum player salary for one player.  its a fraction of the player budget, an even smaller fraction of a team is operating costs, and nothing in a multi billion dollar a year industry so how much someone or entity  cares  is relative to the amount of money they spend on it ? i disagree.  if my grandmother is sick in the hospital, and i do not pay for her treatment, that has no bearing on how much i  care  about her.  you seemed to notice.  when i see the pink, i think it must be october, and it must be breast cancer awareness month.  i think is it working.  it is also a chance to get my gf a pink jersey and try again to her her to watch football with me.  it is definitely pr and marketing, but it is not a stunt, nor does the goal of awareness and appealing to a female audience, take anything away from the effort.  i would stray from telling others what they are thinking.   #  i have never been introduced to a group of oncologists, or had a new book promoted to me.   #  they really just tell people  breast cancer  and expect people to know more about it.  i have never heard of promising advancements highlighted by the nfl.  i have never been introduced to a group of oncologists, or had a new book promoted to me.  that is just the first three things that came to mind in my breast cancer awareness programming.  maybe we could be introduced to the people in charge of raising cancer awareness that work for the nfl.  i would love to meet that team of experts.   #  i have not had that done to me my legit charities either.   #  i have not had that done to me my legit charities either.  it is always some mushy parade, with survivors on display and people chanting campfire songs.  we do not need awareness by god ! how many times do i need to be aware per day.  these charities are well known for big money wasters.  they spend most of their money on marketing and salaries and very little go to actual research.   #  your second point basically just agrees with my premise, just on a large scale.   #  nfl is run by a commissioner, a very public figure.  this is a man who has had to overcome a lot of recent controversies and has desire to but a face to the change and install humanity to the issues.  beyond breast cancer, this includes subjective and emotional stances on domestic violence, concussions, childhood obesity, etc etc etc the last thing they want is for the nfl to be perceived as uncaring.  furthermore, it is not run by nameless, faceless stockholders.  it has 0 readily identifiable owners, some of which stand on the sidelines and some run their own teams.  this may be company with more recognizable employees than any other i can think of.  so the humanity of the nfl is tied in very closely with how its run.  your second point basically just agrees with my premise, just on a large scale.   #  presumably some people in the organisation have genuine ties, others less so, and some think it has good marketing value.   #  yeh this really confuses your point.  he is right, what do you mean by  wouldoes the nfl care ?  .  it does not really make sense as a question.  do you mean, is the support just for pr purposes ? presumably some people in the organisation have genuine ties, others less so, and some think it has good marketing value.  i doubt any of them  wouldo not care about cancer , even then, to conclude the  nfl does not care  does not even make sense as a conclusion.  ?
i have never heard an effective argument against incest except that the children will come out with some genetic deficiency.  first of all this is not true unless this happens for generations, but if you could wave a magic wand and remove that possibility all together, i do not think there are any arguments against it.  the only other opposition i have ever heard is a religious opposition, but there are never any reasons given.  important note: when i say incest, i mean consensual sex between two adults that are closely related.  i am not talking about rape, child parent sex, second or third cousins, or under age sex of any kind.   #  when i say incest, i mean consensual sex between two adults that are closely related.   #  i am not talking about rape, child parent sex, second or third cousins, or under age sex of any kind.   # i am not talking about rape, child parent sex, second or third cousins, or under age sex of any kind.  so what are you talking about ? siblings ? one of the big problems of incest is that it may encourage a parent or close family member to groom a child for a future adult relationship.  family members have special access to children, and are a powerful influence.   #  there was a recent story of a canadian man being arrested at the airport for bringing in a japanese manga drawn comic book that involved sexualized minors.   #  depends on the country, and still a legal grey area.  there was a recent story of a canadian man being arrested at the airport for bringing in a japanese manga drawn comic book that involved sexualized minors.  artificial cp is also a very controversial issue and a huge legal grey area many people argue that simply giving a legal outlet for pedophiles could increase rates of child molestation, etc.  in general, things that  encourage  crime are illegal because they  increase risks  of such things.  for instance, underage drinking is not illegal because people are concerned about college students drinking, it is illegal because it increases rates of drunk driving accidents look up the organization  madd  .  incest is illegal because it would   increase national rates of   incest born children.   #  no, underage drinking is illegal because of a plethora of issues involving the inability of kids to grasp risk.   # and they are going to acquit him, most likely.  and they have no evidence to back up their claim.  no, underage drinking is illegal because of a plethora of issues involving the inability of kids to grasp risk.  alcoholism, liver disease, and social ignorance are just as valid reasons.  but still, in 0 states, a parent may furnish alcohol to their child.  it seems to me like alcohol is illegal for minors because it allows the parents to choose when to expose their children, which in a legal sense is similar to their property, to alcohol.  and if incest is illegal because it could produce incest born children, then should not people with hereditary diseases be banned from sex as well ? have not we figured out by now that sex does not always result in childbirth, and is not always intended to ?  #  the reason parents can give alcohol to their children is because the children wo not then go and drunk drive.   # the drinking age pushed back to 0 was a direct result of lobbying from mothers against drunk driving URL if you look through the congressional transcripts and such about the relatively recent change, the only reason why the drinking age is 0 is because of drunk driving, not because of inability to take risks or something intangible as that.  the only reason the drinking age is 0 is because states with said drinking age had lower rates of drunk driving.  the reason parents can give alcohol to their children is because the children wo not then go and drunk drive.  the entire thing is because it   increases risk and rate of drunk driving and drunk driving deaths   among minors.  it has nothing to do directly with alcoholism, liver disease, and social ignorance.  not to mention the thousands of other laws i could have referenced, which are all about risk and rate of bad things happening.  for instance,  seatbelt laws , or  laws that let airports search your bags for bombs .  you are right, we do not always intend to.  but drunk drivers do not intend to kill people, either.  we still outlaw drunk driving, because it makes it more likely to cause a car crash.  the risk of drunk driving is enough for us to make laws about driving drunk.  in the same vein, incest is illegal because no form of birth control is 0 perfect.  therefore, there is always a risk of an accidental child with incest, therefore we ban it, not because it makes is feel icky, but because it is premeditated act that is easily avoidable, has perfectly valid alternatives, and carries significant risks.   #  there is a certain threshold of terribleness and risk that justifies these types of restrictions.   #  i was waiting for your answer to make my response.  there is a certain threshold of terribleness and risk that justifies these types of restrictions.  we prevent guns from schools because a student  may  use the gun to harm other students.  there are many students who wo not do that, but it is not worth risking.  likewise, a parent or relative manipulating a child into a relationship from birth is abhorrent and terrible.  society frowns on this type of manipulation and views it as both harmful and an infringement of freedom.  it is not just that we feel this type of thing is  gross , it is there to protect the development of a child.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.   #  both are selfish because you are doing what suits you most.   # both are selfish because you are doing what suits you most.  and that is ok.  the wrong kind of selfish are people who  do not take responsibility for their actions , kids or not, and their behavior results in hurting others.  parents in general are not maliciously selfish.  someone who has a kid and neglects or abuses him is.  not all people should have kids.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  very dramatic.  but not necessarily true.  some of the most powerful or famous people out there are parents.  it is possible to have a kid and still do more with your life than change diapers  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  no.  we do it because it needs to be done.  i also clean my cat litter box and clean up my dogs barf.  being an adult means sometimes doing things you do not want to do.  by this logic any hobby or interest is exactly the same.  your decision to dabble in gourmet wine drinking leads to visits to napa valley and excess purchases of alcohol, a  bad decision economically and time wise .  your decision to collect beanie babies is  bad economically and time wise .  there is more to life than going to work and making money.  are you arguing people enjoying their kids is a trick of brain physiology ? if so, is not love also just a trick ? is not any feeling ? moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  people find purpose in many things.  it it does not require kids.  nor are kids an automatic feeling of fulfillment.  i know some parents who regret having having their kids.  how do you define  better the world  ? that phrase means different things to different people.  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  i have a child and i still do weekly charity work.  if someone wants to give and they really believe in a cause, they will find a way to do it.  you are also assuming that most people will do charity work if they do not have kids.  i believe socfme people are not giving people, kids or not, and they wo not lift a finger for charity.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.  i was happily child free for a long time.  there is nothing wrong with childfree.  after i felt like i did my bucket list, saw the world, worked for charity, etc i finally considered parenthood as one last big adventure i had not yet experienced.  look at it this way: parents are giving back to society.  by properly raising and caring for the child, the parent is giving us the next generation.  as you age you will start to realize the purpose the next generation serves.  put simply: someone is got to take care of you when you are in an old folks home.  society  needs  the next generation.   #  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares !  #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  as it stands, the population level is too high.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.   #  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.   # both are selfish because you are doing what suits you most.  and that is ok.  the wrong kind of selfish are people who  do not take responsibility for their actions , kids or not, and their behavior results in hurting others.  parents in general are not maliciously selfish.  someone who has a kid and neglects or abuses him is.  not all people should have kids.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  very dramatic.  but not necessarily true.  some of the most powerful or famous people out there are parents.  it is possible to have a kid and still do more with your life than change diapers  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  no.  we do it because it needs to be done.  i also clean my cat litter box and clean up my dogs barf.  being an adult means sometimes doing things you do not want to do.  by this logic any hobby or interest is exactly the same.  your decision to dabble in gourmet wine drinking leads to visits to napa valley and excess purchases of alcohol, a  bad decision economically and time wise .  your decision to collect beanie babies is  bad economically and time wise .  there is more to life than going to work and making money.  are you arguing people enjoying their kids is a trick of brain physiology ? if so, is not love also just a trick ? is not any feeling ? moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  people find purpose in many things.  it it does not require kids.  nor are kids an automatic feeling of fulfillment.  i know some parents who regret having having their kids.  how do you define  better the world  ? that phrase means different things to different people.  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  i have a child and i still do weekly charity work.  if someone wants to give and they really believe in a cause, they will find a way to do it.  you are also assuming that most people will do charity work if they do not have kids.  i believe socfme people are not giving people, kids or not, and they wo not lift a finger for charity.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.  i was happily child free for a long time.  there is nothing wrong with childfree.  after i felt like i did my bucket list, saw the world, worked for charity, etc i finally considered parenthood as one last big adventure i had not yet experienced.  look at it this way: parents are giving back to society.  by properly raising and caring for the child, the parent is giving us the next generation.  as you age you will start to realize the purpose the next generation serves.  put simply: someone is got to take care of you when you are in an old folks home.  society  needs  the next generation.   #  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.   #  by this logic any hobby or interest is exactly the same.   # both are selfish because you are doing what suits you most.  and that is ok.  the wrong kind of selfish are people who  do not take responsibility for their actions , kids or not, and their behavior results in hurting others.  parents in general are not maliciously selfish.  someone who has a kid and neglects or abuses him is.  not all people should have kids.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  very dramatic.  but not necessarily true.  some of the most powerful or famous people out there are parents.  it is possible to have a kid and still do more with your life than change diapers  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  no.  we do it because it needs to be done.  i also clean my cat litter box and clean up my dogs barf.  being an adult means sometimes doing things you do not want to do.  by this logic any hobby or interest is exactly the same.  your decision to dabble in gourmet wine drinking leads to visits to napa valley and excess purchases of alcohol, a  bad decision economically and time wise .  your decision to collect beanie babies is  bad economically and time wise .  there is more to life than going to work and making money.  are you arguing people enjoying their kids is a trick of brain physiology ? if so, is not love also just a trick ? is not any feeling ? moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  people find purpose in many things.  it it does not require kids.  nor are kids an automatic feeling of fulfillment.  i know some parents who regret having having their kids.  how do you define  better the world  ? that phrase means different things to different people.  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  i have a child and i still do weekly charity work.  if someone wants to give and they really believe in a cause, they will find a way to do it.  you are also assuming that most people will do charity work if they do not have kids.  i believe socfme people are not giving people, kids or not, and they wo not lift a finger for charity.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.  i was happily child free for a long time.  there is nothing wrong with childfree.  after i felt like i did my bucket list, saw the world, worked for charity, etc i finally considered parenthood as one last big adventure i had not yet experienced.  look at it this way: parents are giving back to society.  by properly raising and caring for the child, the parent is giving us the next generation.  as you age you will start to realize the purpose the next generation serves.  put simply: someone is got to take care of you when you are in an old folks home.  society  needs  the next generation.   #  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ?  #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.   #  are you arguing people enjoying their kids is a trick of brain physiology ?  # both are selfish because you are doing what suits you most.  and that is ok.  the wrong kind of selfish are people who  do not take responsibility for their actions , kids or not, and their behavior results in hurting others.  parents in general are not maliciously selfish.  someone who has a kid and neglects or abuses him is.  not all people should have kids.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  very dramatic.  but not necessarily true.  some of the most powerful or famous people out there are parents.  it is possible to have a kid and still do more with your life than change diapers  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  no.  we do it because it needs to be done.  i also clean my cat litter box and clean up my dogs barf.  being an adult means sometimes doing things you do not want to do.  by this logic any hobby or interest is exactly the same.  your decision to dabble in gourmet wine drinking leads to visits to napa valley and excess purchases of alcohol, a  bad decision economically and time wise .  your decision to collect beanie babies is  bad economically and time wise .  there is more to life than going to work and making money.  are you arguing people enjoying their kids is a trick of brain physiology ? if so, is not love also just a trick ? is not any feeling ? moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  people find purpose in many things.  it it does not require kids.  nor are kids an automatic feeling of fulfillment.  i know some parents who regret having having their kids.  how do you define  better the world  ? that phrase means different things to different people.  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  i have a child and i still do weekly charity work.  if someone wants to give and they really believe in a cause, they will find a way to do it.  you are also assuming that most people will do charity work if they do not have kids.  i believe socfme people are not giving people, kids or not, and they wo not lift a finger for charity.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.  i was happily child free for a long time.  there is nothing wrong with childfree.  after i felt like i did my bucket list, saw the world, worked for charity, etc i finally considered parenthood as one last big adventure i had not yet experienced.  look at it this way: parents are giving back to society.  by properly raising and caring for the child, the parent is giving us the next generation.  as you age you will start to realize the purpose the next generation serves.  put simply: someone is got to take care of you when you are in an old folks home.  society  needs  the next generation.   #  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ?  #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.   #  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.   # both are selfish because you are doing what suits you most.  and that is ok.  the wrong kind of selfish are people who  do not take responsibility for their actions , kids or not, and their behavior results in hurting others.  parents in general are not maliciously selfish.  someone who has a kid and neglects or abuses him is.  not all people should have kids.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  very dramatic.  but not necessarily true.  some of the most powerful or famous people out there are parents.  it is possible to have a kid and still do more with your life than change diapers  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  no.  we do it because it needs to be done.  i also clean my cat litter box and clean up my dogs barf.  being an adult means sometimes doing things you do not want to do.  by this logic any hobby or interest is exactly the same.  your decision to dabble in gourmet wine drinking leads to visits to napa valley and excess purchases of alcohol, a  bad decision economically and time wise .  your decision to collect beanie babies is  bad economically and time wise .  there is more to life than going to work and making money.  are you arguing people enjoying their kids is a trick of brain physiology ? if so, is not love also just a trick ? is not any feeling ? moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  people find purpose in many things.  it it does not require kids.  nor are kids an automatic feeling of fulfillment.  i know some parents who regret having having their kids.  how do you define  better the world  ? that phrase means different things to different people.  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  i have a child and i still do weekly charity work.  if someone wants to give and they really believe in a cause, they will find a way to do it.  you are also assuming that most people will do charity work if they do not have kids.  i believe socfme people are not giving people, kids or not, and they wo not lift a finger for charity.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.  i was happily child free for a long time.  there is nothing wrong with childfree.  after i felt like i did my bucket list, saw the world, worked for charity, etc i finally considered parenthood as one last big adventure i had not yet experienced.  look at it this way: parents are giving back to society.  by properly raising and caring for the child, the parent is giving us the next generation.  as you age you will start to realize the purpose the next generation serves.  put simply: someone is got to take care of you when you are in an old folks home.  society  needs  the next generation.   #  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .   #  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.   # both are selfish because you are doing what suits you most.  and that is ok.  the wrong kind of selfish are people who  do not take responsibility for their actions , kids or not, and their behavior results in hurting others.  parents in general are not maliciously selfish.  someone who has a kid and neglects or abuses him is.  not all people should have kids.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  very dramatic.  but not necessarily true.  some of the most powerful or famous people out there are parents.  it is possible to have a kid and still do more with your life than change diapers  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  no.  we do it because it needs to be done.  i also clean my cat litter box and clean up my dogs barf.  being an adult means sometimes doing things you do not want to do.  by this logic any hobby or interest is exactly the same.  your decision to dabble in gourmet wine drinking leads to visits to napa valley and excess purchases of alcohol, a  bad decision economically and time wise .  your decision to collect beanie babies is  bad economically and time wise .  there is more to life than going to work and making money.  are you arguing people enjoying their kids is a trick of brain physiology ? if so, is not love also just a trick ? is not any feeling ? moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  people find purpose in many things.  it it does not require kids.  nor are kids an automatic feeling of fulfillment.  i know some parents who regret having having their kids.  how do you define  better the world  ? that phrase means different things to different people.  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  i have a child and i still do weekly charity work.  if someone wants to give and they really believe in a cause, they will find a way to do it.  you are also assuming that most people will do charity work if they do not have kids.  i believe socfme people are not giving people, kids or not, and they wo not lift a finger for charity.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.  i was happily child free for a long time.  there is nothing wrong with childfree.  after i felt like i did my bucket list, saw the world, worked for charity, etc i finally considered parenthood as one last big adventure i had not yet experienced.  look at it this way: parents are giving back to society.  by properly raising and caring for the child, the parent is giving us the next generation.  as you age you will start to realize the purpose the next generation serves.  put simply: someone is got to take care of you when you are in an old folks home.  society  needs  the next generation.   #  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.   #  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.   # both are selfish because you are doing what suits you most.  and that is ok.  the wrong kind of selfish are people who  do not take responsibility for their actions , kids or not, and their behavior results in hurting others.  parents in general are not maliciously selfish.  someone who has a kid and neglects or abuses him is.  not all people should have kids.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  very dramatic.  but not necessarily true.  some of the most powerful or famous people out there are parents.  it is possible to have a kid and still do more with your life than change diapers  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  no.  we do it because it needs to be done.  i also clean my cat litter box and clean up my dogs barf.  being an adult means sometimes doing things you do not want to do.  by this logic any hobby or interest is exactly the same.  your decision to dabble in gourmet wine drinking leads to visits to napa valley and excess purchases of alcohol, a  bad decision economically and time wise .  your decision to collect beanie babies is  bad economically and time wise .  there is more to life than going to work and making money.  are you arguing people enjoying their kids is a trick of brain physiology ? if so, is not love also just a trick ? is not any feeling ? moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  people find purpose in many things.  it it does not require kids.  nor are kids an automatic feeling of fulfillment.  i know some parents who regret having having their kids.  how do you define  better the world  ? that phrase means different things to different people.  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  i have a child and i still do weekly charity work.  if someone wants to give and they really believe in a cause, they will find a way to do it.  you are also assuming that most people will do charity work if they do not have kids.  i believe socfme people are not giving people, kids or not, and they wo not lift a finger for charity.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.  i was happily child free for a long time.  there is nothing wrong with childfree.  after i felt like i did my bucket list, saw the world, worked for charity, etc i finally considered parenthood as one last big adventure i had not yet experienced.  look at it this way: parents are giving back to society.  by properly raising and caring for the child, the parent is giving us the next generation.  as you age you will start to realize the purpose the next generation serves.  put simply: someone is got to take care of you when you are in an old folks home.  society  needs  the next generation.   #  in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.   #  not everyone is ecstatic about their kids.   #  i would say that, all else remaining equal, having a child is  equally  selfish as not having a child.  not everyone is ecstatic about their kids.  in fact i know parents who have regretted the decision.  for most parents, children bring positive emotions but they  also  bring negative emotions.  on balance, it is not clear that it is a net gain emotionally.  this is especially true of people who find meaning in intellectual and artistic pursuits.  do not the selfless actions by this adult also count towards the tally of the parent ? ok, they have less time than childless people but it is not like most childless people spend 0 hours a day doing charity work, is it ?  #  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.   #  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.   # you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  sure, there are plenty of chemical responses when you have a kid, but not any more than when you ride a roller coaster or go on a first date.  you may be referring to mothers who finally have something exciting and worthwhile to do with their time and go overboard with facebook posts.  this is not typical, usually parents just drag the kids around to do whatever they were going to do if they never had kids.  some age restrictive activities are phased out, but this often coincides with maturing anyway   this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  there are plenty of nurses who clean up after others, and emt is deal with even more.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  i also want to be clear that i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person, or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  generally speaking, you are creating a better version of yourself, not to mention you still contribute a little bit to society while raising a kid, but everything that kid does in the future is because of your efforts.  as far as efficiency goes, having kids is like having compound interest on everything you do, and it keeps adding up until the human race is extinct.  having a kid is not an easy way to  get a high , it is however, extremely rewarding for the amount of effort put in.  having a child will also often drive a person to better themselves, and work harder at improving their community.  my own experience and reasoning for having children is that life was too easy white male in north america , and while i can do much to help better the world around me, the best thing i can do for society is to make the next generation stronger by instilling it with my own values.  having kids is the best way to achieve this.   a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in.   i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.  i am glad to see you putting so much thought into this issue.  please remember though, that all of my stated benefits to having children can be gained by helping to raise any children.  URL  #  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  as it stands, the population level is too high.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ?  #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.   #  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.   # you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  sure, there are plenty of chemical responses when you have a kid, but not any more than when you ride a roller coaster or go on a first date.  you may be referring to mothers who finally have something exciting and worthwhile to do with their time and go overboard with facebook posts.  this is not typical, usually parents just drag the kids around to do whatever they were going to do if they never had kids.  some age restrictive activities are phased out, but this often coincides with maturing anyway   this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  there are plenty of nurses who clean up after others, and emt is deal with even more.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  i also want to be clear that i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person, or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  generally speaking, you are creating a better version of yourself, not to mention you still contribute a little bit to society while raising a kid, but everything that kid does in the future is because of your efforts.  as far as efficiency goes, having kids is like having compound interest on everything you do, and it keeps adding up until the human race is extinct.  having a kid is not an easy way to  get a high , it is however, extremely rewarding for the amount of effort put in.  having a child will also often drive a person to better themselves, and work harder at improving their community.  my own experience and reasoning for having children is that life was too easy white male in north america , and while i can do much to help better the world around me, the best thing i can do for society is to make the next generation stronger by instilling it with my own values.  having kids is the best way to achieve this.   a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in.   i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.  i am glad to see you putting so much thought into this issue.  please remember though, that all of my stated benefits to having children can be gained by helping to raise any children.  URL  #  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  as it stands, the population level is too high.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.   #  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.   # you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  sure, there are plenty of chemical responses when you have a kid, but not any more than when you ride a roller coaster or go on a first date.  you may be referring to mothers who finally have something exciting and worthwhile to do with their time and go overboard with facebook posts.  this is not typical, usually parents just drag the kids around to do whatever they were going to do if they never had kids.  some age restrictive activities are phased out, but this often coincides with maturing anyway   this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  there are plenty of nurses who clean up after others, and emt is deal with even more.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  i also want to be clear that i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person, or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  generally speaking, you are creating a better version of yourself, not to mention you still contribute a little bit to society while raising a kid, but everything that kid does in the future is because of your efforts.  as far as efficiency goes, having kids is like having compound interest on everything you do, and it keeps adding up until the human race is extinct.  having a kid is not an easy way to  get a high , it is however, extremely rewarding for the amount of effort put in.  having a child will also often drive a person to better themselves, and work harder at improving their community.  my own experience and reasoning for having children is that life was too easy white male in north america , and while i can do much to help better the world around me, the best thing i can do for society is to make the next generation stronger by instilling it with my own values.  having kids is the best way to achieve this.   a society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in.   i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.  i am glad to see you putting so much thought into this issue.  please remember though, that all of my stated benefits to having children can be gained by helping to raise any children.  URL  #  in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  as it stands, the population level is too high.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.   #  what objective measures are you using that makes one a bad decision, and the other a great decision ?  # what objective measures are you using that makes one a bad decision, and the other a great decision ? having a child, and raising them well requires a great deal of time, and resources, sure.  however, i am free to choose what i do with my time and resources.  if i anticipate that the benefits of having a child outweigh the costs, then it is a good decision, is not it ? could not you argue that raising a child is meaningful charity work ? it consumes time and resources, and the obvious material benefits are felt by someone other than yourself.  i am going to argue that it is not any less charitable to care for your own child than for anyone else.  objectively, the person in need of help is no less needy if they are your biological offspring than not.  it is no less an investment of time and resources to care for your own baby than for any other baby.  why is on more or less objectively charitable than the other ? does the act of conceiving a child generate a kind of  social debt  such that a person must pay off by raising the child ? there may be something to this, as people who refuse to raise their own children receive a certain amount of scorn deadbeat dads for example .  on the other hand, people who adopt children seem to be granted a measure of praise.  a confounding point may be that adopting a baby is sometimes considered less charitable than adopting an older child, despite a baby needing more attention.  this topic delves into some serious utilitarian accounting.   #  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  as it stands, the population level is too high.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.   #  i am not a parent, so i lack the mental conditioning you seem to be implying i need, and i have never had an issue with babies crying and pooping.   # i am not a parent, so i lack the mental conditioning you seem to be implying i need, and i have never had an issue with babies crying and pooping.  i have baby sat before.  it is not a huge deal.  this seems like a silly argument.  so is buying a video game, or going on a cruise.  this is a pretty terrible assumption.  got any stats that back up that this is the case ?  #  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  as it stands, the population level is too high.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
often i hear the decision to not have a child described as selfish, but i see it the other way around.  when you become a parent, your brain chemistry changes and you biochemically become a completely different person.  you have crossed the void and there is no going back, your life is your child is and no longer your own.  this is why parents can deal with baby is crying and pooping and general nastiness, because you are evolutionarily primed to love your child that much.  having a child is objectively a bad decision economically, time wise, etc.  however, the emotions that come with parenthood are indescribable for those without kids, it truly is a drug.  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.  however, you miss out on what a significant part of the human experience.  moreover, it is much easier to fall into a life that feels purposeless without a child as an easy answer.  when i weigh the two together, i ca not help but come to the conclusion that having a child, getting high off of parenthood, and creating conscious and needy life is more selfish than using the resources you would use on the child to better the world.   i am making the assumption that instead of child bearing the would be parent involves him or herself in some sort of meaningful charity work .  i also want to be clear that  i am not saying that having a child makes you a selfish person , or even that having a child is necessarily selfish in and of itself.  my view states only that it is more selfish than abstaining from parenthood.  full disclosure, i am childless, extremely young, and completely unqualified to have a legitimate opinion on this topic.  i am not sure if i want children or not, but i do not want it to be a flippant decision.  interested to hear from some parents and others with more experience.   #  not having child is objectively a great decision, economically, time wise, etc.   #  who is going to help out and take care of you when you are old ?  # this is not always true.  many families have children that help out on the farm or family business.  some people would have nothing fulfilling to do if not care for their child stay at home parent .  who is going to help out and take care of you when you are old ? who will you spend time with when most of your friends and family have died ? oh come on.  if you are not spending the money on children, you are probably spending it on consuming entertainment or other things that add no value to the world.  that is a huge assumption.  you could argue that having a child is more selfish than dedicating yourself to fruitful charity work, but you are saying much more than that.  i would argue that having a child provides more satisfaction than charity work.   #  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.   #  well, from one perspective both choices are equally selfish, because they are just different answers to the question of  what do  i  want from life ?   in both cases people have or do not have kids because that is  what they want , not because of broader societal consideration.  hence: selfish.  i am sure there are some people who do want kids but choose not to for ecological reasons.  but they are very much in the minority: most of the people who talk about how  selfless  it is not to have kids are the people who actively do not want kids anyway and are thus  making a virtue out of necessity  .  and most people who talk about how  selfless  parenthood is actually had kids  because they wanted kids .  very few people do not want children but still  choose  to have them accidents, of course, are a separate issue .  and it is also pretty easy to argue that, from a societal standponint, parenting is the less selfish option.  there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods URL that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  now in a society with low infant/maternal mortality rates, it is good that so many people are opting to have no kids or, like our family, opting to have just the one .  but again, this is making virtue out of necessity: when presented with reliable contraceptives many people  choose  not to have kids, or to have fewer kids.  but with both parents and non parents, the societal benefits are typically a side effect, and not a major factor in the decision making process.  the choice is still made for selfish reasons.  so it is fine if you do not want kids really, as long as you are not nasty to my kid for no reason, i could not care less what you do with your life.  but when you are old, you will reap the benefits of having younger people to change your diaper and dispense your medication, diagnose and treat your numerous ailments, grow and transport your food, stock your supermarkets, keep your power on and put your fires out.  if you do not think that today is kids who are tomorrow is adults will be of benefit to you, go read or watch  children of men  it is not great literature or cinematography, but it sure is thought provoking.  it is therefore unreasonable to claim that parents are more selfish than the childfree.  the motivations of both are equally selfish, and from a human well being perspective the outcomes skew somewhat in favor of the parents.   #  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.   #    0; as a matter of fact i have seen books are for squares ! children of men , and it is one of my favorite movies.  i certainly appreciate children and see them as precious and necessary.  my argument falters because i was speaking in broad language while not thinking very broadly.  while typing the original post up, i had a very clear image of a young couple deciding what to do with their lives.  i did not intend to call into question parenthood.  clearly the language i used was misleading in that regard.  apportioning  selfishness  to different lifestyle choices is a very tricky thing to do in most circumstances.  it is difficult to speak in broad enough strokes to cover this big of a subject.  your delta comes into play because this was such a well written and well thought out response, and because i now feel that selfishness cannot be reasonably attributed to this situation.  however, i still do think a life of perfect humanitarianism is less selfish than a life of perfect parenting.  your point of  making a virtue out of necessity  also resonated with me because that is my biggest meta ethical complaint.  most ethical systems are descriptive more than prescriptive, but feel a need to posture and claim some sort of universal imperative.  that is a story for another day, though.  thank you very much  #  as it stands, the population level is too high.   # there is a pretty persuasive paper about children being public goods 0 that link is to the official  tl;dr,  as it were.  that is like a negative externality in reverse parents shoulder a disproportionate cost of raising kids the tax credits are a joke compared to the actual costs involved and that is just the monetary costs; we are not even talking about time and other less tangible resources , while society reaps the benefit of a replacement generation.  completely the opposite.  as it stands, the population level is too high.  most of the problems we are facing in terms of pollution, energy prices, and the like would not be an issue if the population was not so high.  increasing the population makes society worse off.  and although parents bare most of the burden of raising a kid, they do not bare all of it.  there are a number of negative externalities from child rearing.  from crying kids in airlines and restaurants, to the burden on the government to provide tax breaks and such for them.  there really is not the positive externality that you speak of, since we are already at a negative marginal benefit of population.   #  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.   #  having a child or not is not something that is inherently selfish or selfless.  it is a decision.  one that can be made for a variety of reasons by consenting adults.  even an accidental pregnancy can be taken to term or aborted for both selfish and selfless reasons so your basic premise is flawed.  your reasoning is also flawed.  you say:   your life is your child is and no longer your own.  how exactly is devoting your life to another human being more selfish than choosing not to ? your decision tree for having a kid is incomplete and glossed over which is the most important aspect when trying to objectively determine whether or not having a child is a  good  idea or not.  you mention only money and time as determining factors but people who decide to have kids do not consider only those two options when making the decision.  and good thing they do not because what would be the point ? there are numerous things to consider when deciding to have a child or not.  money, time, sure.  but also: love, happiness, a desire to better the world, a need to belong to something larger than yourself, a desire to impart the lessons you have learned in life, and a number of ones that defy enumeration.  finally, i would like to see you back up your contention that parenthood is a drug.  i do not consider having a child to be a drug at all.  if you provide evidence that my brain chemistry has been altered by having a child, that i have become a  different person , then i will address that point as well.  until then, i say it is a load of hooey.
revenge porn  can be extremely hurtful, there is no doubt about that.  but so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as gossip, cheating, backstabbing, betrayal, and financial exploitation.  i know people who have committed suicide because of those things, yet we do not consider them crimes.  why ? because relationships are deeply private affairs, and it is no business of the state to dictate their terms.  these laws will do very little to help victims of  revenge porn .  for a successful prosecution, there has to be solid proof that it was the ex lover who published the pictures and not some random hacker.  but any disgruntled ex lover who has a minimum of computer literacy knows how to publish pictures in an untraceable manner.  only the most stupid perpetrators will be caught.  at the same time, such laws are easy to abuse.  i shudder at the inevitable cases of  revenge revenge porn  where lovers verbally consent to publish naked pictures and then  change their mind  once the relationship goes sour.  then there is also the problem that these laws are too vague.  what is considered porn is in the eye of the beholder.  i know women who would be extremely hurt if their ex lover published a picture of them wearing lingerie.  i know other women who would not even shrug their shoulders.  worst off all, these laws will poison relationships, because they promote paranoia towards the people who are closest to us.  there are already libel/slander laws to deal with this kind of behavior.  we do not need ill conceived and rushed  revenge porn  laws.  they are a threat to civil liberties.   #   revenge porn  can be extremely hurtful, there is no doubt about that.   #  but so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as gossip, cheating, backstabbing, betrayal, and financial exploitation.   # but so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as gossip, cheating, backstabbing, betrayal, and financial exploitation.  this is not a good argument.  for example, i could say,  so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as burning down their house, stealing from them, kidnapping them, murdering them, hitting them, and breaking the windows on their car.   you have not shown that revenge porn belongs in your group of actions and not mine.  certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.  so, they should not be caught if they are stupid ? or there should not be laws because most people can get away with the crime ? that does not make sense.  it is certainly difficult to prove rape in most instances, but that does not make it not a crime or something that we should not have laws against.  no.  this is a terribly small concern, imo.   #  certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.   # certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.  i was trying to argue that hurting someone emotionally is not a  sufficient  criterion for making something a crime.  other criteria have to be fulfilled too.  in the case of  revenge porn  i ca not see any.  that seems to be the only argument.  laws that infringe in civil liberties should be weighed according to cost and benefit.  if a law can be shown to have little benefit but a high cost then yes, it is a bad law.   #  without the other person is consent of the pictures being taken it is implied they do not consent to those photos being published.   #  you are comparing two very different things.  if you are walking down the street and see a topless women on a bike and take a picture, you are simply taking a picture of what you saw a stranger do in public.  the laws around this differ in different countries publishing the photo at least , but the fact is you are just taking a picture of what you saw walking down the street, and it would not be classified legally as porn.  if you are having sex with your partner that is absolutely not someting you are seeing casually in public as a seperate observer.  there is an entirely difference trust in that situation, whether in public or not.  taking pictures of the two of you having sex  from one of the people having sex  is not a casual sight for all the public to see.  without the other person is consent of the pictures being taken it is implied they do not consent to those photos being published.  this is absolutely porn.  i am not defending paparazzi at all and i think they are detestable.  but i am saying there is a difference between publishing pictures of a celebrity out in public with a  wardrobe malfunction  and posting porn without the consent of those engaged in it.   #  hitting is assault, kidnapping is kidnapping, burning down their house is arson.   #  i do not agree with op, but this point is a false analogy:  this is not a good argument.  for example, i could say,  so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as burning down their house, stealing from them, kidnapping them, murdering them, hitting them, and breaking the windows on their car.   you have not shown that revenge porn belongs in your group of actions and not mine.  certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.   those crimes are irrelevant of a relationship status.  hitting is assault, kidnapping is kidnapping, burning down their house is arson.  the punishments for these have nothing to do with disgruntled relationships in the eyes of the law with some exceptions like domestic abuse etc .  the question is whether it is legal for you to post legitimately given pictures of your girlfriend online.  whose property are they ? does this status suddenly change after you break up ? does that mean there is a legal status for  in a relationship .   #  preventing gossip is nearly impossible and most tools to do so risk squashing dissent or political expression.   # this is manifestly untrue.   good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls.  who steals my purse steals trash;  tis something, nothing;  twas mine,  tis his, and has been slave to thousands; but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.   leviticus 0:0 you shall not go around as a gossipmonger amidst your people.  you shall not stand by the shedding of your fellow is blood.  i am the lord.  gossip has cost many people their livelihoods, their friendships, and their lives.  it is the most wicked thing that is to a large extent protected by the right to free speech.  free speech is so precious that we try to preserve it as much as possible even to permit evil; nevertheless we have laws against slander and libel because there is some tradeoff between something as pernicious as gossip and as precious as free speech.  if revenge porn is regulated differently from gossip  it is not because it is worse it is not.  it is because it is so much less costly to prevent.  preventing gossip is nearly impossible and most tools to do so risk squashing dissent or political expression.  preventing revenge porn is less risky, since it only interferes with the right to prurient/pornographic speech and even then, only modestly.  and it need not be in some states some such videos would count as defamation under current law.
revenge porn  can be extremely hurtful, there is no doubt about that.  but so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as gossip, cheating, backstabbing, betrayal, and financial exploitation.  i know people who have committed suicide because of those things, yet we do not consider them crimes.  why ? because relationships are deeply private affairs, and it is no business of the state to dictate their terms.  these laws will do very little to help victims of  revenge porn .  for a successful prosecution, there has to be solid proof that it was the ex lover who published the pictures and not some random hacker.  but any disgruntled ex lover who has a minimum of computer literacy knows how to publish pictures in an untraceable manner.  only the most stupid perpetrators will be caught.  at the same time, such laws are easy to abuse.  i shudder at the inevitable cases of  revenge revenge porn  where lovers verbally consent to publish naked pictures and then  change their mind  once the relationship goes sour.  then there is also the problem that these laws are too vague.  what is considered porn is in the eye of the beholder.  i know women who would be extremely hurt if their ex lover published a picture of them wearing lingerie.  i know other women who would not even shrug their shoulders.  worst off all, these laws will poison relationships, because they promote paranoia towards the people who are closest to us.  there are already libel/slander laws to deal with this kind of behavior.  we do not need ill conceived and rushed  revenge porn  laws.  they are a threat to civil liberties.   #  only the most stupid perpetrators will be caught.   #  so, they should not be caught if they are stupid ?  # but so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as gossip, cheating, backstabbing, betrayal, and financial exploitation.  this is not a good argument.  for example, i could say,  so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as burning down their house, stealing from them, kidnapping them, murdering them, hitting them, and breaking the windows on their car.   you have not shown that revenge porn belongs in your group of actions and not mine.  certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.  so, they should not be caught if they are stupid ? or there should not be laws because most people can get away with the crime ? that does not make sense.  it is certainly difficult to prove rape in most instances, but that does not make it not a crime or something that we should not have laws against.  no.  this is a terribly small concern, imo.   #  laws that infringe in civil liberties should be weighed according to cost and benefit.   # certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.  i was trying to argue that hurting someone emotionally is not a  sufficient  criterion for making something a crime.  other criteria have to be fulfilled too.  in the case of  revenge porn  i ca not see any.  that seems to be the only argument.  laws that infringe in civil liberties should be weighed according to cost and benefit.  if a law can be shown to have little benefit but a high cost then yes, it is a bad law.   #  the laws around this differ in different countries publishing the photo at least , but the fact is you are just taking a picture of what you saw walking down the street, and it would not be classified legally as porn.   #  you are comparing two very different things.  if you are walking down the street and see a topless women on a bike and take a picture, you are simply taking a picture of what you saw a stranger do in public.  the laws around this differ in different countries publishing the photo at least , but the fact is you are just taking a picture of what you saw walking down the street, and it would not be classified legally as porn.  if you are having sex with your partner that is absolutely not someting you are seeing casually in public as a seperate observer.  there is an entirely difference trust in that situation, whether in public or not.  taking pictures of the two of you having sex  from one of the people having sex  is not a casual sight for all the public to see.  without the other person is consent of the pictures being taken it is implied they do not consent to those photos being published.  this is absolutely porn.  i am not defending paparazzi at all and i think they are detestable.  but i am saying there is a difference between publishing pictures of a celebrity out in public with a  wardrobe malfunction  and posting porn without the consent of those engaged in it.   #  certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.    #  i do not agree with op, but this point is a false analogy:  this is not a good argument.  for example, i could say,  so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as burning down their house, stealing from them, kidnapping them, murdering them, hitting them, and breaking the windows on their car.   you have not shown that revenge porn belongs in your group of actions and not mine.  certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.   those crimes are irrelevant of a relationship status.  hitting is assault, kidnapping is kidnapping, burning down their house is arson.  the punishments for these have nothing to do with disgruntled relationships in the eyes of the law with some exceptions like domestic abuse etc .  the question is whether it is legal for you to post legitimately given pictures of your girlfriend online.  whose property are they ? does this status suddenly change after you break up ? does that mean there is a legal status for  in a relationship .   #  it is the most wicked thing that is to a large extent protected by the right to free speech.   # this is manifestly untrue.   good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls.  who steals my purse steals trash;  tis something, nothing;  twas mine,  tis his, and has been slave to thousands; but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.   leviticus 0:0 you shall not go around as a gossipmonger amidst your people.  you shall not stand by the shedding of your fellow is blood.  i am the lord.  gossip has cost many people their livelihoods, their friendships, and their lives.  it is the most wicked thing that is to a large extent protected by the right to free speech.  free speech is so precious that we try to preserve it as much as possible even to permit evil; nevertheless we have laws against slander and libel because there is some tradeoff between something as pernicious as gossip and as precious as free speech.  if revenge porn is regulated differently from gossip  it is not because it is worse it is not.  it is because it is so much less costly to prevent.  preventing gossip is nearly impossible and most tools to do so risk squashing dissent or political expression.  preventing revenge porn is less risky, since it only interferes with the right to prurient/pornographic speech and even then, only modestly.  and it need not be in some states some such videos would count as defamation under current law.
revenge porn  can be extremely hurtful, there is no doubt about that.  but so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as gossip, cheating, backstabbing, betrayal, and financial exploitation.  i know people who have committed suicide because of those things, yet we do not consider them crimes.  why ? because relationships are deeply private affairs, and it is no business of the state to dictate their terms.  these laws will do very little to help victims of  revenge porn .  for a successful prosecution, there has to be solid proof that it was the ex lover who published the pictures and not some random hacker.  but any disgruntled ex lover who has a minimum of computer literacy knows how to publish pictures in an untraceable manner.  only the most stupid perpetrators will be caught.  at the same time, such laws are easy to abuse.  i shudder at the inevitable cases of  revenge revenge porn  where lovers verbally consent to publish naked pictures and then  change their mind  once the relationship goes sour.  then there is also the problem that these laws are too vague.  what is considered porn is in the eye of the beholder.  i know women who would be extremely hurt if their ex lover published a picture of them wearing lingerie.  i know other women who would not even shrug their shoulders.  worst off all, these laws will poison relationships, because they promote paranoia towards the people who are closest to us.  there are already libel/slander laws to deal with this kind of behavior.  we do not need ill conceived and rushed  revenge porn  laws.  they are a threat to civil liberties.   #  but so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as gossip, cheating, backstabbing, betrayal, and financial exploitation.   #  none of these behaviors are comparable to  revenge porn.    # none of these behaviors are comparable to  revenge porn.   they are all between the two people in a relationship, sans some extreme cases where they involve mutual friends.   revenge porn,  however, has an audience as wide as whoever can access the internet.  i would argue a betrayal of this magnitude would be closer to putting someone is financial or identity information on the internet because of it is potentially far reaching effects.  add to that the view of society, and plastering naked pictures or videos on a medium from which they can never be practically removed, and it seems foolish to compare it to your other behaviors which basically amount to personal disagreements.  i think it is wrong to dismiss this and i think it should definitely be thought of as a crime.   #  it is certainly difficult to prove rape in most instances, but that does not make it not a crime or something that we should not have laws against.   # but so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as gossip, cheating, backstabbing, betrayal, and financial exploitation.  this is not a good argument.  for example, i could say,  so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as burning down their house, stealing from them, kidnapping them, murdering them, hitting them, and breaking the windows on their car.   you have not shown that revenge porn belongs in your group of actions and not mine.  certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.  so, they should not be caught if they are stupid ? or there should not be laws because most people can get away with the crime ? that does not make sense.  it is certainly difficult to prove rape in most instances, but that does not make it not a crime or something that we should not have laws against.  no.  this is a terribly small concern, imo.   #  in the case of  revenge porn  i ca not see any.   # certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.  i was trying to argue that hurting someone emotionally is not a  sufficient  criterion for making something a crime.  other criteria have to be fulfilled too.  in the case of  revenge porn  i ca not see any.  that seems to be the only argument.  laws that infringe in civil liberties should be weighed according to cost and benefit.  if a law can be shown to have little benefit but a high cost then yes, it is a bad law.   #  if you are having sex with your partner that is absolutely not someting you are seeing casually in public as a seperate observer.   #  you are comparing two very different things.  if you are walking down the street and see a topless women on a bike and take a picture, you are simply taking a picture of what you saw a stranger do in public.  the laws around this differ in different countries publishing the photo at least , but the fact is you are just taking a picture of what you saw walking down the street, and it would not be classified legally as porn.  if you are having sex with your partner that is absolutely not someting you are seeing casually in public as a seperate observer.  there is an entirely difference trust in that situation, whether in public or not.  taking pictures of the two of you having sex  from one of the people having sex  is not a casual sight for all the public to see.  without the other person is consent of the pictures being taken it is implied they do not consent to those photos being published.  this is absolutely porn.  i am not defending paparazzi at all and i think they are detestable.  but i am saying there is a difference between publishing pictures of a celebrity out in public with a  wardrobe malfunction  and posting porn without the consent of those engaged in it.   #  certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.    #  i do not agree with op, but this point is a false analogy:  this is not a good argument.  for example, i could say,  so can other behaviors by resentful lovers, such as burning down their house, stealing from them, kidnapping them, murdering them, hitting them, and breaking the windows on their car.   you have not shown that revenge porn belongs in your group of actions and not mine.  certainly behavior between disgruntled ex lovers can be criminal.   those crimes are irrelevant of a relationship status.  hitting is assault, kidnapping is kidnapping, burning down their house is arson.  the punishments for these have nothing to do with disgruntled relationships in the eyes of the law with some exceptions like domestic abuse etc .  the question is whether it is legal for you to post legitimately given pictures of your girlfriend online.  whose property are they ? does this status suddenly change after you break up ? does that mean there is a legal status for  in a relationship .
i have a few reasons for saying this: 0.  the point of class is to teach how to avoid getting knocked up, avoid stds and learn what happens during puberty.  we should teach what is the most common.  0.  if we start teaching behaviors that deviate from the norm, then it should either go further than just gay relationships going into fetishes and bdsm because that is a lifestyle, and some people say they are born with them or we should just stick to what most people do, which is heterosexual piv sex.  0.  i am not saying the subject should be banned, if people ask let them ask, but it should not be a part of the standard.  0.  learning about disease would encompass common stds such as hiv that plague both the heterosexual and homosexual community.  0.  we could spend more time teaching safe sex and avoiding teen pregnancies, which lead to drop outs.   #  we should teach what is the most common.   #  there is no need for this either.   # i disagree.  that is part of the point.  other important topics would be how to talk to your potoential partners, deciding to wait or not to wait, what happens to each other is bodies, how to manage sexual attraction to others you might feel, and how to understand sexual relationships that might not look like your preferred relationship.  there is no reason that pregnancy prevention and std be the only subjects.  there is no need for this either.  the curriculum should be wide enough to embrace common practices as well as the likely deviations from that norm.  again, no need.  while they are a lifestyle, they still take place within the hetero or homo or both sexual dynamic.  there is no reason for the class not to cover the basics of attraction and sexual function while leaving the very specifics up to the individual to discover.  also, there are a bunch of gay kids in that classroom and their parents are paying taxes just like the rest of us.  it would not be right to deliberately provide an education that would not apply to them.  and it would not be right to withold information to anybody who does happen to fall into the norm; they will still be surrounded by people who do not.  both the straight and the non straight kids would benefit from a broader education.   #  the classes are not designed to do that.   #  i will respond to all your points.  0.  no, sex education is to learn as much as possible about sex/reproduction, not necessarily how to do it, but how to be safe and  understand it .  understanding it includes knowing about and understanding sexuality.  0.  no, it does not have to go into fetishes.  again, sex education is not teaching teens how to have sex, but teaching them to understand it.  understanding sexuality including homosexuality, bisexuality, etc is an important part of understanding sex.  you seem to think that the classes teach people how to have sex and how to have sex in a way they would find pleasurable.  the classes are not designed to do that.  0.  this is not a point.  i should say however that banning children from learning certain topics in school is usually a bad thing, since it leads to a limited worldview and does not help society progress.  0.  people should learn about stds regardless, but diseases are separate from sexuality.  0.  the classes are already geared towards teaching safe sex, they do not need to spend more time on it.  learning about sexuality is essential to learning about sex.  it is not just about discovering your own sexuality, it is also about understanding and accepting all peoples sex and sexuality.  as an aside, do not say  deviates from the norm  when referring to sexuality.  sexuality is a spectrum you are not necessarily  heterosexual  or  homosexual , you could be something in between, undefined, or not even have a sexuality at all.   #  are there really that many diseases that effect homosexuals exclusively ?  # understanding it includes knowing about and understanding sexuality.  yes, for the purpose of avoiding stds and teen pregnancy.  again, sex education is not teaching teens how to have sex, but teaching them to understand it.  understanding sexuality including homosexuality, bisexuality, etc is an important part of understanding sex.  you seem to think that the classes teach people how to have sex and how to have sex in a way they would find pleasurable.  the classes are not designed to do that.  if we teach gay sex, we should teach other sexual behaviors that most people do not do.  it is not teaching them to tie a fetish rope, but we could go into why people are into fetishes something some people are apparently born with .  i should say however that banning children from learning certain topics in school is usually a bad thing, since it leads to a limited worldview and does not help society progress.  subject is not being banned, just not part of the curriculum.  the same way we do not teach mayan culture in science class.  are there really that many diseases that effect homosexuals exclusively ? yes they do, they should not spend a month on a minority subject, they should teach more avoiding stds and stuff, but something that effects more people.  sexuality is a spectrum you are not necessarily  heterosexual  or  homosexual , you could be something in between, undefined, or not even have a sexuality at all.  if it deviates from most people do, it deviates from the norm, if there is a more politically correct way to say it i ca not think of it.   #  spending an appropriate amount of time learning about sexuality is key.   #  sex education classes do not teach how to have sex.  having sex and sexuality are different.  yes, sex education classes could talk about what fetishes are, but they are primarily ways to have sex ie mechanims for arousal.  gay sex and homosexuality are not the same thing.  you agreed with my point on stds, but then made it sound like an argument.  sexuality is not a minor subject.  it is very fundamental to understanding sex, and not being completely bigoted/ignorant when it comes to sexual understanding.  yeah, a month sounds like a long time to only cover homosexuality, although it sounds like an exaggeration.  removing it from the curriculum is another thing entirely, kind of like when school try to remove evolution from their curriculum does not it make the schools look stupid ? .  spending an appropriate amount of time learning about sexuality is key.  why do they need to spend more time on stds and safe sex ? they are pretty easy concepts to grasp, and i am pretty sure that is already the majority of any sex ed course.  the whole point of it being a spectrum is that there is no norm.  you do not have to be  completely heterosexual  or  completely homosexual .   #  they are pretty easy concepts to grasp, and i am pretty sure that is already the majority of any sex ed course.   # gay sex and homosexuality are not the same thing.  yes it is, if you have gay sex you are either a homosexual or a bisexual and part of being bisexual is liking men so it would be homosexual sex  you agreed with my point on stds, but then made it sound like an argument.  i think we disagreed, my question to you was if there were any diseases that gays got that straight people could not get in terms of stds.  could have been a slight exaggeration, but it was realistically about that time.  why ? they are pretty easy concepts to grasp, and i am pretty sure that is already the majority of any sex ed course.  it is all a sex ed course should be barring something i am missing.
i have a few reasons for saying this: 0.  the point of class is to teach how to avoid getting knocked up, avoid stds and learn what happens during puberty.  we should teach what is the most common.  0.  if we start teaching behaviors that deviate from the norm, then it should either go further than just gay relationships going into fetishes and bdsm because that is a lifestyle, and some people say they are born with them or we should just stick to what most people do, which is heterosexual piv sex.  0.  i am not saying the subject should be banned, if people ask let them ask, but it should not be a part of the standard.  0.  learning about disease would encompass common stds such as hiv that plague both the heterosexual and homosexual community.  0.  we could spend more time teaching safe sex and avoiding teen pregnancies, which lead to drop outs.   #  the point of class is to teach how to avoid getting knocked up, avoid stds and learn what happens during puberty.   #  we should teach what is the most common.   # we should teach what is the most common.  and all of that applies to homosexuality and other sexual practices.  you can get std is from oral, anal, piv, and even genital rubbing.  all of those are activities that all flavors of people can engage in.  man, maybe i am just way off base here.  but i do not recall ever learning  how to have sex  in my sex education classes.  like, were you actually given lessons on how to put your penis in a hole or something ? the problem is that there is really nothing that homosexual people do that straight people ca not do.  there is not really any special gay sex that only gay people have.  safe sex is teaching children that rubbing their genitals together can lead to std is.  that not using a condom for any kind of penetration can lead to std is.  that not using a dental dam for vaginal interactions can lead to std is.  teaching safe sex is necessarily going to involve more than just piv sex, because oral, anal, mutual masturbation, and genital rubbing are not the sole domain of straight/gay people.  telling children you can get std is from having anal sex should not be seen as being taught about gay sex.  because a straight man can put his penis in a straight woman is ass just as easily as a gay man can put his penis in a gay man is ass.  a straight man can get herpes from going down on a girl just as much as a lesbian can from going down on a girl.  tl;dr your problem is that you are equating certain sexual acts as belonging wholly in the realm of  gay  or  straight .  when that is just blatantly not the case.   #  0.  people should learn about stds regardless, but diseases are separate from sexuality.   #  i will respond to all your points.  0.  no, sex education is to learn as much as possible about sex/reproduction, not necessarily how to do it, but how to be safe and  understand it .  understanding it includes knowing about and understanding sexuality.  0.  no, it does not have to go into fetishes.  again, sex education is not teaching teens how to have sex, but teaching them to understand it.  understanding sexuality including homosexuality, bisexuality, etc is an important part of understanding sex.  you seem to think that the classes teach people how to have sex and how to have sex in a way they would find pleasurable.  the classes are not designed to do that.  0.  this is not a point.  i should say however that banning children from learning certain topics in school is usually a bad thing, since it leads to a limited worldview and does not help society progress.  0.  people should learn about stds regardless, but diseases are separate from sexuality.  0.  the classes are already geared towards teaching safe sex, they do not need to spend more time on it.  learning about sexuality is essential to learning about sex.  it is not just about discovering your own sexuality, it is also about understanding and accepting all peoples sex and sexuality.  as an aside, do not say  deviates from the norm  when referring to sexuality.  sexuality is a spectrum you are not necessarily  heterosexual  or  homosexual , you could be something in between, undefined, or not even have a sexuality at all.   #  if it deviates from most people do, it deviates from the norm, if there is a more politically correct way to say it i ca not think of it.   # understanding it includes knowing about and understanding sexuality.  yes, for the purpose of avoiding stds and teen pregnancy.  again, sex education is not teaching teens how to have sex, but teaching them to understand it.  understanding sexuality including homosexuality, bisexuality, etc is an important part of understanding sex.  you seem to think that the classes teach people how to have sex and how to have sex in a way they would find pleasurable.  the classes are not designed to do that.  if we teach gay sex, we should teach other sexual behaviors that most people do not do.  it is not teaching them to tie a fetish rope, but we could go into why people are into fetishes something some people are apparently born with .  i should say however that banning children from learning certain topics in school is usually a bad thing, since it leads to a limited worldview and does not help society progress.  subject is not being banned, just not part of the curriculum.  the same way we do not teach mayan culture in science class.  are there really that many diseases that effect homosexuals exclusively ? yes they do, they should not spend a month on a minority subject, they should teach more avoiding stds and stuff, but something that effects more people.  sexuality is a spectrum you are not necessarily  heterosexual  or  homosexual , you could be something in between, undefined, or not even have a sexuality at all.  if it deviates from most people do, it deviates from the norm, if there is a more politically correct way to say it i ca not think of it.   #  sex education classes do not teach how to have sex.   #  sex education classes do not teach how to have sex.  having sex and sexuality are different.  yes, sex education classes could talk about what fetishes are, but they are primarily ways to have sex ie mechanims for arousal.  gay sex and homosexuality are not the same thing.  you agreed with my point on stds, but then made it sound like an argument.  sexuality is not a minor subject.  it is very fundamental to understanding sex, and not being completely bigoted/ignorant when it comes to sexual understanding.  yeah, a month sounds like a long time to only cover homosexuality, although it sounds like an exaggeration.  removing it from the curriculum is another thing entirely, kind of like when school try to remove evolution from their curriculum does not it make the schools look stupid ? .  spending an appropriate amount of time learning about sexuality is key.  why do they need to spend more time on stds and safe sex ? they are pretty easy concepts to grasp, and i am pretty sure that is already the majority of any sex ed course.  the whole point of it being a spectrum is that there is no norm.  you do not have to be  completely heterosexual  or  completely homosexual .   #  could have been a slight exaggeration, but it was realistically about that time.   # gay sex and homosexuality are not the same thing.  yes it is, if you have gay sex you are either a homosexual or a bisexual and part of being bisexual is liking men so it would be homosexual sex  you agreed with my point on stds, but then made it sound like an argument.  i think we disagreed, my question to you was if there were any diseases that gays got that straight people could not get in terms of stds.  could have been a slight exaggeration, but it was realistically about that time.  why ? they are pretty easy concepts to grasp, and i am pretty sure that is already the majority of any sex ed course.  it is all a sex ed course should be barring something i am missing.
i have a few reasons for saying this: 0.  the point of class is to teach how to avoid getting knocked up, avoid stds and learn what happens during puberty.  we should teach what is the most common.  0.  if we start teaching behaviors that deviate from the norm, then it should either go further than just gay relationships going into fetishes and bdsm because that is a lifestyle, and some people say they are born with them or we should just stick to what most people do, which is heterosexual piv sex.  0.  i am not saying the subject should be banned, if people ask let them ask, but it should not be a part of the standard.  0.  learning about disease would encompass common stds such as hiv that plague both the heterosexual and homosexual community.  0.  we could spend more time teaching safe sex and avoiding teen pregnancies, which lead to drop outs.   #  i am not saying the subject should be banned, if people ask let them ask, but it should not be a part of the standard.   #  the problem is that there is really nothing that homosexual people do that straight people ca not do.   # we should teach what is the most common.  and all of that applies to homosexuality and other sexual practices.  you can get std is from oral, anal, piv, and even genital rubbing.  all of those are activities that all flavors of people can engage in.  man, maybe i am just way off base here.  but i do not recall ever learning  how to have sex  in my sex education classes.  like, were you actually given lessons on how to put your penis in a hole or something ? the problem is that there is really nothing that homosexual people do that straight people ca not do.  there is not really any special gay sex that only gay people have.  safe sex is teaching children that rubbing their genitals together can lead to std is.  that not using a condom for any kind of penetration can lead to std is.  that not using a dental dam for vaginal interactions can lead to std is.  teaching safe sex is necessarily going to involve more than just piv sex, because oral, anal, mutual masturbation, and genital rubbing are not the sole domain of straight/gay people.  telling children you can get std is from having anal sex should not be seen as being taught about gay sex.  because a straight man can put his penis in a straight woman is ass just as easily as a gay man can put his penis in a gay man is ass.  a straight man can get herpes from going down on a girl just as much as a lesbian can from going down on a girl.  tl;dr your problem is that you are equating certain sexual acts as belonging wholly in the realm of  gay  or  straight .  when that is just blatantly not the case.   #  0.  the classes are already geared towards teaching safe sex, they do not need to spend more time on it.   #  i will respond to all your points.  0.  no, sex education is to learn as much as possible about sex/reproduction, not necessarily how to do it, but how to be safe and  understand it .  understanding it includes knowing about and understanding sexuality.  0.  no, it does not have to go into fetishes.  again, sex education is not teaching teens how to have sex, but teaching them to understand it.  understanding sexuality including homosexuality, bisexuality, etc is an important part of understanding sex.  you seem to think that the classes teach people how to have sex and how to have sex in a way they would find pleasurable.  the classes are not designed to do that.  0.  this is not a point.  i should say however that banning children from learning certain topics in school is usually a bad thing, since it leads to a limited worldview and does not help society progress.  0.  people should learn about stds regardless, but diseases are separate from sexuality.  0.  the classes are already geared towards teaching safe sex, they do not need to spend more time on it.  learning about sexuality is essential to learning about sex.  it is not just about discovering your own sexuality, it is also about understanding and accepting all peoples sex and sexuality.  as an aside, do not say  deviates from the norm  when referring to sexuality.  sexuality is a spectrum you are not necessarily  heterosexual  or  homosexual , you could be something in between, undefined, or not even have a sexuality at all.   #  if it deviates from most people do, it deviates from the norm, if there is a more politically correct way to say it i ca not think of it.   # understanding it includes knowing about and understanding sexuality.  yes, for the purpose of avoiding stds and teen pregnancy.  again, sex education is not teaching teens how to have sex, but teaching them to understand it.  understanding sexuality including homosexuality, bisexuality, etc is an important part of understanding sex.  you seem to think that the classes teach people how to have sex and how to have sex in a way they would find pleasurable.  the classes are not designed to do that.  if we teach gay sex, we should teach other sexual behaviors that most people do not do.  it is not teaching them to tie a fetish rope, but we could go into why people are into fetishes something some people are apparently born with .  i should say however that banning children from learning certain topics in school is usually a bad thing, since it leads to a limited worldview and does not help society progress.  subject is not being banned, just not part of the curriculum.  the same way we do not teach mayan culture in science class.  are there really that many diseases that effect homosexuals exclusively ? yes they do, they should not spend a month on a minority subject, they should teach more avoiding stds and stuff, but something that effects more people.  sexuality is a spectrum you are not necessarily  heterosexual  or  homosexual , you could be something in between, undefined, or not even have a sexuality at all.  if it deviates from most people do, it deviates from the norm, if there is a more politically correct way to say it i ca not think of it.   #  removing it from the curriculum is another thing entirely, kind of like when school try to remove evolution from their curriculum does not it make the schools look stupid ?  #  sex education classes do not teach how to have sex.  having sex and sexuality are different.  yes, sex education classes could talk about what fetishes are, but they are primarily ways to have sex ie mechanims for arousal.  gay sex and homosexuality are not the same thing.  you agreed with my point on stds, but then made it sound like an argument.  sexuality is not a minor subject.  it is very fundamental to understanding sex, and not being completely bigoted/ignorant when it comes to sexual understanding.  yeah, a month sounds like a long time to only cover homosexuality, although it sounds like an exaggeration.  removing it from the curriculum is another thing entirely, kind of like when school try to remove evolution from their curriculum does not it make the schools look stupid ? .  spending an appropriate amount of time learning about sexuality is key.  why do they need to spend more time on stds and safe sex ? they are pretty easy concepts to grasp, and i am pretty sure that is already the majority of any sex ed course.  the whole point of it being a spectrum is that there is no norm.  you do not have to be  completely heterosexual  or  completely homosexual .   #  i think we disagreed, my question to you was if there were any diseases that gays got that straight people could not get in terms of stds.   # gay sex and homosexuality are not the same thing.  yes it is, if you have gay sex you are either a homosexual or a bisexual and part of being bisexual is liking men so it would be homosexual sex  you agreed with my point on stds, but then made it sound like an argument.  i think we disagreed, my question to you was if there were any diseases that gays got that straight people could not get in terms of stds.  could have been a slight exaggeration, but it was realistically about that time.  why ? they are pretty easy concepts to grasp, and i am pretty sure that is already the majority of any sex ed course.  it is all a sex ed course should be barring something i am missing.
i have a few reasons for saying this: 0.  the point of class is to teach how to avoid getting knocked up, avoid stds and learn what happens during puberty.  we should teach what is the most common.  0.  if we start teaching behaviors that deviate from the norm, then it should either go further than just gay relationships going into fetishes and bdsm because that is a lifestyle, and some people say they are born with them or we should just stick to what most people do, which is heterosexual piv sex.  0.  i am not saying the subject should be banned, if people ask let them ask, but it should not be a part of the standard.  0.  learning about disease would encompass common stds such as hiv that plague both the heterosexual and homosexual community.  0.  we could spend more time teaching safe sex and avoiding teen pregnancies, which lead to drop outs.   #  we could spend more time teaching safe sex and avoiding teen pregnancies, which lead to drop outs.   #  safe sex is teaching children that rubbing their genitals together can lead to std is.   # we should teach what is the most common.  and all of that applies to homosexuality and other sexual practices.  you can get std is from oral, anal, piv, and even genital rubbing.  all of those are activities that all flavors of people can engage in.  man, maybe i am just way off base here.  but i do not recall ever learning  how to have sex  in my sex education classes.  like, were you actually given lessons on how to put your penis in a hole or something ? the problem is that there is really nothing that homosexual people do that straight people ca not do.  there is not really any special gay sex that only gay people have.  safe sex is teaching children that rubbing their genitals together can lead to std is.  that not using a condom for any kind of penetration can lead to std is.  that not using a dental dam for vaginal interactions can lead to std is.  teaching safe sex is necessarily going to involve more than just piv sex, because oral, anal, mutual masturbation, and genital rubbing are not the sole domain of straight/gay people.  telling children you can get std is from having anal sex should not be seen as being taught about gay sex.  because a straight man can put his penis in a straight woman is ass just as easily as a gay man can put his penis in a gay man is ass.  a straight man can get herpes from going down on a girl just as much as a lesbian can from going down on a girl.  tl;dr your problem is that you are equating certain sexual acts as belonging wholly in the realm of  gay  or  straight .  when that is just blatantly not the case.   #  0.  the classes are already geared towards teaching safe sex, they do not need to spend more time on it.   #  i will respond to all your points.  0.  no, sex education is to learn as much as possible about sex/reproduction, not necessarily how to do it, but how to be safe and  understand it .  understanding it includes knowing about and understanding sexuality.  0.  no, it does not have to go into fetishes.  again, sex education is not teaching teens how to have sex, but teaching them to understand it.  understanding sexuality including homosexuality, bisexuality, etc is an important part of understanding sex.  you seem to think that the classes teach people how to have sex and how to have sex in a way they would find pleasurable.  the classes are not designed to do that.  0.  this is not a point.  i should say however that banning children from learning certain topics in school is usually a bad thing, since it leads to a limited worldview and does not help society progress.  0.  people should learn about stds regardless, but diseases are separate from sexuality.  0.  the classes are already geared towards teaching safe sex, they do not need to spend more time on it.  learning about sexuality is essential to learning about sex.  it is not just about discovering your own sexuality, it is also about understanding and accepting all peoples sex and sexuality.  as an aside, do not say  deviates from the norm  when referring to sexuality.  sexuality is a spectrum you are not necessarily  heterosexual  or  homosexual , you could be something in between, undefined, or not even have a sexuality at all.   #  yes, for the purpose of avoiding stds and teen pregnancy.   # understanding it includes knowing about and understanding sexuality.  yes, for the purpose of avoiding stds and teen pregnancy.  again, sex education is not teaching teens how to have sex, but teaching them to understand it.  understanding sexuality including homosexuality, bisexuality, etc is an important part of understanding sex.  you seem to think that the classes teach people how to have sex and how to have sex in a way they would find pleasurable.  the classes are not designed to do that.  if we teach gay sex, we should teach other sexual behaviors that most people do not do.  it is not teaching them to tie a fetish rope, but we could go into why people are into fetishes something some people are apparently born with .  i should say however that banning children from learning certain topics in school is usually a bad thing, since it leads to a limited worldview and does not help society progress.  subject is not being banned, just not part of the curriculum.  the same way we do not teach mayan culture in science class.  are there really that many diseases that effect homosexuals exclusively ? yes they do, they should not spend a month on a minority subject, they should teach more avoiding stds and stuff, but something that effects more people.  sexuality is a spectrum you are not necessarily  heterosexual  or  homosexual , you could be something in between, undefined, or not even have a sexuality at all.  if it deviates from most people do, it deviates from the norm, if there is a more politically correct way to say it i ca not think of it.   #  yeah, a month sounds like a long time to only cover homosexuality, although it sounds like an exaggeration.   #  sex education classes do not teach how to have sex.  having sex and sexuality are different.  yes, sex education classes could talk about what fetishes are, but they are primarily ways to have sex ie mechanims for arousal.  gay sex and homosexuality are not the same thing.  you agreed with my point on stds, but then made it sound like an argument.  sexuality is not a minor subject.  it is very fundamental to understanding sex, and not being completely bigoted/ignorant when it comes to sexual understanding.  yeah, a month sounds like a long time to only cover homosexuality, although it sounds like an exaggeration.  removing it from the curriculum is another thing entirely, kind of like when school try to remove evolution from their curriculum does not it make the schools look stupid ? .  spending an appropriate amount of time learning about sexuality is key.  why do they need to spend more time on stds and safe sex ? they are pretty easy concepts to grasp, and i am pretty sure that is already the majority of any sex ed course.  the whole point of it being a spectrum is that there is no norm.  you do not have to be  completely heterosexual  or  completely homosexual .   #  could have been a slight exaggeration, but it was realistically about that time.   # gay sex and homosexuality are not the same thing.  yes it is, if you have gay sex you are either a homosexual or a bisexual and part of being bisexual is liking men so it would be homosexual sex  you agreed with my point on stds, but then made it sound like an argument.  i think we disagreed, my question to you was if there were any diseases that gays got that straight people could not get in terms of stds.  could have been a slight exaggeration, but it was realistically about that time.  why ? they are pretty easy concepts to grasp, and i am pretty sure that is already the majority of any sex ed course.  it is all a sex ed course should be barring something i am missing.
where i reside america , it is illegal to have sex with someone who does not consent to it.  this makes sense to me; it is easy to say  he/she did not consent to sex, you are not allowed to have sex with them .  however, there is another rule involved.  someone is  not capable of consenting  if they are under 0, or under the influence of drugs/alcohol.  the idea as i understand it is that you cannot have sex with someone even if they say yes, if they are under 0 or if you know they are drunk.  even if you simply  should have known  perhaps they never outright said it they were drunk, their consent does not count.  to me, this is unreasonable, because there are many people who are not smart enough to tell someone is drunk, or perhaps they have not been around alcohol enough to understand how drunk someone is.  i know people who slur their words all the time; i can easily see someone who is socially awkward not picking up on the cues that someone is drunk, and thinking that they were sober enough to consent.  however, they  should have known  they were drunk, generally the argument is that they were  obviously drunk .  i do not think it is fair to charge someone with rape when they were unable to detect the sometimes subtle cues that someone was too inebriated to consent.  please try to change my view, or ask for clarification ! update my view was changed.   #  however, they  should have known  they were drunk, generally the argument is that they were  obviously drunk .   #  i do not think it is fair to charge someone with rape when they were unable to detect the sometimes subtle cues that someone was too inebriated to consent.   # someone is  not capable of consenting  if they are under 0, or under the influence of drugs/alcohol.  the idea as i understand it is that you cannot have sex with someone even if they say yes, if they are under 0 or if you know they are drunk.  even if you simply  should have known  perhaps they never outright said it they were drunk, their consent does not count.  if someone is under 0 the law says they are not an adult.  they ca not enter into legal contracts without their parents consent.  they ca not consent to surgery.  so it only makes sense they ca not consent to sex.  and there is also the power imbalance when an adult pressures a minor for sex.  an adult could easily take advantage of the child.  being drunk is a different issue.  it takes away a person is ability to reason and make good decisions.  it is also a power imbalance: the sober person can take advantage of the drunk one in in their weakened state.  and with extreme drunkenness, the person may not be able to gather their thoughts well enough to verbalize a yes or no.  if you are not sure how to gauge intoxication, then do not have sex with someone who has been drinking more than maybe 0 or 0 servings.  if you are not sure how much they had, assume they may be drunk.  have you seen them drinking alcohol ? did they just came from a bar or party where alcohol was likely served ? do they smell like alcohol ? when in doubt do not have sex with them.  if you want, have the person stay over and sober up.  the next morning then you can go for it.  i do not think it is fair to charge someone with rape when they were unable to detect the sometimes subtle cues that someone was too inebriated to consent.  it is hard enough to get a conviction for a rape conviction.  i do not think prosecutors are going to target people in borderline situations.  there are so many reasons why you should not be choosing drunk people as sexual partners.  you do not want the legal issues of potential rape.  it is also not the most moral choice, knowing the person is impaired.  for those looking for the thrill of the chase, it is not sporting to go after someone who is not thinking clearly.   #  im sorry, i know i said id give the delta for that but i was in the process of adding something what if someone is not able to easily tell that their partner is under age ?  #  im sorry, i know i said id give the delta for that but i was in the process of adding something what if someone is not able to easily tell that their partner is under age ? what if someone thinks that the person they are about to have sex with looks in their mid 0 is ? i do not think it is okay to say they  should have known .  also, in practice, if someone drunkenly slurs out a  yes , does the other person legitimately get off free ? i do not think the limit of drunkeness is quite exactly  physically helpless  as the law is written there.   #  so, you have to  knowingly  have sex with a person who you  know  is mentally incapacitated.   #  legalese is weird, and sometimes hard to understand.  you always have to put it into context.   physical helplessness  is defined in n. y. penal law § 0 sec.  0 as  a person is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.   under this definition, if someone drunkenly slurs out a  yes , they are not  physically helpless.   what you are looking for is  mentally helpless  which is defined in that same section as   a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without his consent.   sex with a mentally incapacitated individual is rape in the 0nd degree, which reads:  a person is guilty of rape in the second degree when: 0.  he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated.   sec.  0 but there is a defense under sec.  0:  0.  in any prosecution under this article in which the victim is lack of consent is based solely upon his or her incapacity to consent because he or she was mentally disabled, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant, at the time he or she engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, did not know of the facts or conditions responsible for such incapacity to consent.   so, you have to  knowingly  have sex with a person who you  know  is mentally incapacitated.  again, there is that legalese.   knowing  is actually a term of art it is a state of mind requirement the prosecution must prove.  it is also a heightened state of mind requirement that can likely be mitigated by showing that  you were yourself in a condition that prevented you from knowing your partner is incapacity.  the catch is, your mistake usually must be  reasonable  under the circumstances.  but honestly, it really varies from state to state, that is why you hire a lawyer.  the ultimate point is, the law is very nuanced and does take into consideration the consent grey areas, it is just difficult to interpret for a layperson.   #  im running into a few problems because i specified  america  but it variea by state.   #  the  0 and up  fact is one i enjoy.  i think it is reasonable to require that anyone who plans on being sexually active be at the very least capable of discrening a 0 year old or younger.  i think that is somewhat fair.  i am thinking your posts over a little bit.  im running into a few problems because i specified  america  but it variea by state.  let me consider it, all in allyour posts were well made.   #  if there is any doubt at all about someone is age, people should probably be asking anyway. i. e. ,  making damn sure .   #  from some other posts, it seems like someone would have a reasonable defense based on age if that person had misrepresented their age or they really believed them to be older.  if there is any doubt at all about someone is age, people should probably be asking anyway. i. e. ,  making damn sure .  if the person lies and it is believable, it is up to the jury to weigh the evidence.  with respect to drunkenness, i think the  making damn sure  argument becomes a little convoluted below.  aside from the legal aspect of it which seems like it would be up to the jury in most cases , i think there is a certain amount of common sense that we have to assume people have.  if someone is tipsy and consents, it seems to me that neither the law nor most people would consider that rape.  but, if someone is half falling asleep and mumbles a  yes , that is not  making damn sure .  you argued that some people might not understand the effects of alcohol, but for someone to make a mistake like that is pretty impermissible, in my opinion.  we can start making excuses for all sorts of crimes if we just claim ignorance.  a half asleep drunk person should not pass as a consenting sexual partner to anyone.  if you can understand sex, you should understand that.
i think it is so unfair that some people abuse their  isick leave  by taking their full quota every year.  it sucks for people that never take sick leave, as when you leave your company, it will all expire.  by not taking my full quota of sick leave, i feel like i am being penalised for being healthy ! what i think would be better is if you had the entire entitlement as just  annual leave , and then you could use it wherever you want, and for sick leave too.  if you run out of your entire annual leave entitlement and suddenly fall sick, then you should take it as unpaid leave.  i am from australia, where most people get 0 weeks annual leave   0 weeks personal/sick/carers leave per year  #  if you run out of your entire annual leave entitlement and suddenly fall sick, then you should take it as unpaid leave.   #  well that is kind of the case with anything right ?  #  i guess it depends on the company, mine just has  discretionary  time off that you can use however you like this does not include vacation days .  so if my car breaks down, i get sick, need to take the day off to take care of something or whatever i can just take off.  for the businesses that do have just sick leave it sounds like it would be beneficial for those companies to keep the sick leave model if they require people to work shifts or be in certain hours.  that way you actually have to have a good reason for missing work at short notice, but are not punished for getting sick.  it protects the business and still allows flexibility for the employees.  well that is kind of the case with anything right ? use up all your vacation and maybe get super sick over summer and you catch the flu in december with no sick days you are screwed even though you used all your days as intended.  we ca not just get infinite sick leave since that is not fair to the employer either.   #  your company does not have days specifically set aside for the sick anymore, and if you take your annual leave, your vacation plans get mangled.   #  going by your example of 0 weeks annual leave and 0 weeks sick leave, imagine if that was all grouped into 0 weeks of annual leave like you suggest now you have 0 weeks of vacation ! amazing ! with this much time you could spend a month and a half traveling the world ! so you make plans long ahead in advance, buy your plane ticket/book rooms etc.  now your trip is two months away, and you are not feeling too good.  in fact, you think you might have the flu.  what do you do ? your company does not have days specifically set aside for the sick anymore, and if you take your annual leave, your vacation plans get mangled.  chances are, you have to go to work sick, and this causes others to get sick, and the whole company suffers.   #  if you do not have the note, you cannot return.   #  yeah, but if you know you are going to be required to provide the note, that alone will stop a decent chunk of people from faking in the first place.  having to schedule the appointment, show up, and hoping your doctor believes your bullshit seems like more work than just going to work.  at my job, if you are out longer than 0 days, you are required to bring a doctor is note in order to come back.  if you do not have the note, you cannot return.  how many people do you think miss 0 days exactly before coming back ? how many go over because it is easy to get a doctor is note ?  #  people do not always get sick because of their own fault, and it is an extenuating circumstance which calls for leave.   #  think about it like this.  if you were running a company, you can budget for x days   y employees taking  annual leave  off.  however sick leave would not work like that because not everyone gets sick.  people do not always get sick because of their own fault, and it is an extenuating circumstance which calls for leave.  also not everyone gets sick, and this means that like insurance, you expect only a subset of your employees to use their sick days.  that means your expected loss of productivity from your annual leave will likely be more than that from sick leave.  by converting all of this to annual leave, the company should budget for a higher loss in productivity.  that this is an ethical obligation can be argued, but i do not think it is although it is nice when people do it, and i personally believe that people do not need to work the hours they do .  is it  unfair  that when someone breaks their leg, and they are able to use certain pick up and drop facilities that you are being penalised for being able bodied ?  #  is not one that i would like to work at.   #  to me, a company that says  you broke your leg ? not my problem, why did not you get insurance to cover your rent/bills/food for the time it takes you to heal ?   is not one that i would like to work at.  i also do not know of any insurance that works like that .  employees that feel supported, respected, and safe at work are more productive, so it is smart for the business to provide sick leave from that angle, too.
the notion of cultural genocide is one that trivialises  real  genocide which results in the destruction of actual people is lives.  genocide is bad or undesirable because under legitimate definition, it involves the infliction of objective harms on a group of people.  its ultimate harms are to those individual people, and that is what condemns the act of genocide, rather than any destruction of some higher order social consciousness or institution.  implicit in the notion of cultural genocide is the idea that traditions and cultural norms are inherently worthy.  this is false; traditions are only ever as good as the acts they endorse or promote.  traditions or the acts that constitute them may  generally  be good and thus become traditions because  they work , but it is nearly never the case that something works  because  it is a tradition.  cultures are not entities that have or can have rights, nor are cultural differences inherently valuable or wrong, for that matter .  rather, cultures are a product of a collective and social process of thought, communication and action.  there is no way to wrong a culture.  cultures are not and cannot be entities to which we are obligated to treat as moral patients.  it is for this reason that it is incoherent to talk of cultural genocide, as the wronged parties of cultural genocide are undefined.  cultures cannot constitute harmed parties, so it cannot be the culture itself that is wronged.  so what, charitably speaking, might proponents of the notion of cultural genocide mean ? it  is  coherent to speak of  people  that may be wronged by the eradication of a set of practices and beliefs.  however, these practices and beliefs are not dependent on being part of a culture they work standalone, if they work at all.  and individual practices and beliefs are maintainable in absence of any culture whatsoever.  cultural genocide is a confabulation of the far left that does not stand up to scrutiny unless one posits that there is something that is intrinsically good about difference, rather than admitting that difference is merely neutral with the possibility for good or ill.   #  cultures are not entities that have or can have rights, nor are cultural differences inherently valuable or wrong, for that matter .   #  rather, cultures are a product of a collective and social process of thought, communication and action.   #  culture genocide is a thing.  just like genocide is a thing.  they are not the same thing.  espousing your logic would lead me to say that the concept of  non alcoholic beer  itself offensively trivializes actual beer.   cultural genocide  is simply a compound phrase, made up of 0 different words.  genocide means to wipe out with intention.  as far as i can tell, there is no other word that could be used to convey what we mean by  cultural genocide .  rather, cultures are a product of a collective and social process of thought, communication and action.  there is no way to wrong a culture.  cultures are not and cannot be entities to which we are obligated to treat as moral patients.  genocide has  nothing  to do with rights, or  right vs wrong .  nothing to do at all.  genocide is the intentional elimination of x.  x can be anything that can reasonably be eliminated.  because it happens so often with culture, the term was coined.  it is just a term.  the term has no relation to  actual  genocide.  do you disagree that a culture can be intentionally eliminated ?  #  it is a term that has adopted the word.   # how about  you  look up the term in an  etymological  dictionary.  URL lemkin falsely groups the destruction of culture with destruction of  kind , from genus.  it is a term that has adopted the word.  when we use the word in contexts other than killing people, we appropriate another term to fill that void.  hence  cultural genocide .  well, people object to calling male circumcision mgm in the same way that female circumcision is called fgm.  the logic behind this distinction is that although both fgm and circumcision are the same class of act, one is severe enough to preclude the other from sharing the same designation of act, in this case  mutilation .  but this is all irrelevant as i think you are being dishonest in your definition of genocide.   #  if people use the word  cultural genocide  to convey an idea, then it means that idea, at least to the people who say it.   #  any sort of dictionary is only going to document the use of the word.  etymology is useful in many situations, but not when finding out more about a complex concept that someone had to find a label for.  if people use the word  cultural genocide  to convey an idea, then it means that idea, at least to the people who say it.  look at  philosophy , for example.  it is  the love of wisdom , etymologically, but that is not what it is in the modern world, in real life.  in reality, it is an academic discipline, or a viewpoint, depending on in which sense the term is being used.   #  besides all this, it is possible for the meaning of a word to change quite a bit over such an interval.   #  i could not find a clear definition of  cultural genocide  from lemkin, but i have never read his writings, so i am googling blind.  he pointed out cultural aspects of genocide, and these have been referred to by later folks as  cultural genocide .  do you mean that there is not a cultural component to genocide ? besides all this, it is possible for the meaning of a word to change quite a bit over such an interval.  look at how people speak now compared to 0 years back, there is pretty big differences in how words are used.   #  if i wanted to call ice cream fat cream i would be making an implicit connection between a bad thing and the food product.   #  he is.  this is a trick often employed in propaganda: define the terms of the debate.  if i wanted to call ice cream fat cream i would be making an implicit connection between a bad thing and the food product.  likewise if i wanted to call abortion  early infanticide  i think the left would have a major problem with that.  tagging something with the word genocide is a deliberate attempt to portray it as being a horribly evil thing.   how could you possibly be in favor of a kind of genocide ?   talking with my friends in liberal arts programs i notice a lot of terms like this where the  official  vocabulary in a debate is hopelessly skewed towards one side or the other.  no opinion on whether something that might be called  cultural genocide  is a good thing or a bad thing: it is going to be context and method dependent in my opinion.
hello again, /r/cmv.  today i want to discuss something that i have found relatively disturbing the purported  fact  that the act of  judging  somebody is inherently wrong.  now i am not trying to justify or espouse racism, sexism, or any other prejudicial  ism  that i think we all agree are misguided and based on fallacies of composition.  no, what i am trying to redeem are judgments based on character and weighed against experience.  for example, i am deeply put off by thug culture and anybody who espouses it.  when somebody i just met feels the need to tell me about a violent bout they had with their  friend  the other night, or talk about how many times they have had a gun pulled on them, i instantly judge that they are no enemy to violence and subsequently take on a sort of inherent aversion to their company i. e.  a judgment .  indeed, anybody who is  pro violence  i automatically dislike.  and i do not think there is anything ethically wrong about that.  now let is use a less extreme example.  i have a feeling most people would agree with my former one and that would make it harder to argue against my view.  here is an easier one.  my sister has a tattoo that reads  only god can judge me.   likewise i have heard it said widely that  we should not judge each other.   i have pointed out certain glaring character flaws in others and been outright dismissed because  you ca not judge me.   once i was physically and verbally assaulted by a female for refusing her romantic/sexual advances on the grounds that i did not like certain things about her character.  everybody who witnessed the incident agreed unanimously that i was the asshole, that i was malicious/malevolent toward her, and that nobody deserves to be insulted in that way by being judged in a neutral fashion based on their character traits/flaws .  i think this is a dangerous mentality to have and a dangerous prescription to adhere to.  we need judgment to tell us all kinds of things about another person and to determine how much or if we trust them, what kinds of relationships we want to pursue with them, what kinds of behavior we can expect from them, and certainly more details i have not included here.  to forego judgment would be to essentially live socially and politically ! blind.  so, /r/cmv , try to convince me that there is something inherently wrong with judging other people based on their character.  i hold that there is nothing necessarily wrong with it and even that it is itself a necessary ingredient for social cognizance.   #  indeed, anybody who is  pro violence  i automatically dislike.   #  and i do not think there is anything ethically wrong about that.   #  you describe  judging someone  as an experience where you  take on a sort of inherent aversion to their company  based on their character.  i argue that this kind of behavior is one of the fundamental reasons why people fail to reach understandings with each other and, by extension, one of the reasons why so many problems we face today, that could otherwise easily be resolved, still exist.  and i do not think there is anything ethically wrong about that.  this statement assumes that your preferences for people you like and people you dislike are inherently correct.  proving that your limited knowledge of the world, your limited life experience, and your limited exposure to a person is character sufficiently qualify you to judge who is worthy or not of your company is in some sense a form of foolish arrogance.  think about  stereotypical high schoolers  who only form groups with people similar to themselves.  we poke fun at this general concept for good reason these high schoolers foolishly believe that they are in the  right  group and that everyone else is weird, or  wrong .  but adults know better.  at least, they should.  in short: if you believe you are someone who has everything and everyone figured out, then sure.  go ahead and judge away.  become the supreme leader of the world, while you are at it, because you seem to know exactly what makes someone a good person and what makes them not.  help us all become more like you ! otherwise, it may be helpful to try and understand that judging someone too quickly and without sufficient information is what racism, sexism, and all the other isms you try to disassociate yourself from in your op rely on.   #  in this case, many feel you are not in a position to judge others.   #  i think that almost everybody will agree you can make judgments about people.  the meaning behind  do not judge people  is that you may judge unfairly and/or without enough information.  when you judge in this way, you are often wrong.  if you see someone walking from a handicap parking space with no issue, you might be tempted to judge them as an  asshole  for parking in a space that they did not need.  however, you did not know they have a serious medical condition that prevents them from walking long distances.  if you happened to say something mean to them, now who is the asshole ? other times, the  glaring flaws  you see in some people will pale in comparison to your own.  in this case, many feel you are not in a position to judge others.  if you are overweight and refuse to date women who are not models, the hypocrisy is rightly frowned upon because you expect more of others than you do yourself.   #  i have found that the statement more often is used to change the subject of conversation and shift the blame to someone else.   # i have found that the statement more often is used to change the subject of conversation and shift the blame to someone else.  instead of the person being judged being outed as a liar or what have you, they shift the blame to the person making the accusation in order to then characterize them negatively and subsequently distract from the initial accusations.  i thought of that already and ruled it out.  i do not make my judgments of others publicly known, so i do not think anybody around could have thought that about me.  i was seen as an asshole because i told the girl i thought she had too weak of control over her emotions and was not able to think clearly when she was angry.  i think what others thought was that this was too particular of a reason to reject somebody or  judge  them.  i obviously disagree.   #  this seems less an issue of passing judgment and more an issue of tact.   # this seems less an issue of passing judgment and more an issue of tact.  what people reacted to is probably the general social rule that you do not publicly criticize people for their personal failings, especially if such  failings  are subjective in nature.  if someone is below average intelligence, and they do something dumb, you are not an asshole if you realize this and in the future do not give them tasks that require a lot of thought.  you are an asshole if you publicly berate them for being stupid.  effectively, when you voice opinions like this, you are saying in public that you do not like and disapprove of a person for a personal, subjective reason.  that is a perfectly legitimate opinion to hold in private for any reason whatsoever.  but going up to someone and saying  i do not like you, and i do not think other people should either  is pretty rude.   #  as an extreme example, it would not be  stupid  to judge somebody negatively based on their braggadocio about killing someone.   # it means a person who would initiate violence against another, or who revels in violent behavior i. e.  would  brag  about fights they won because they think it reflects positively on them .  that is certainly true, but irrelevant here.  maybe that would be more relevant to people who have not experienced a lot of violence in their lives, but i have, and my experiences of being on both ends of violent behavior are the primary factors that deter me from it.  it is also the reason i have such little sympathy for those who get caught up in cycles of violence in a first world country.  my judgment helps me assess the risks involved with being in their company.  you are essentially basing your conclusion on superficial information.  i think you would have to define  superficial  information here, because i am very certain that my judgments go beyond surface level and especially beyond aesthetics.  i judge people based on their values, the standards they hold themselves to, and their actions and how all three coincide .  as an extreme example, it would not be  stupid  to judge somebody negatively based on their braggadocio about killing someone.  it says things about the person that they would engage in that act.  it says something about their values.  it says something about how they might act in the future perhaps they would be more likely to kill someone, or perhaps they would be more likely to lie to make people think that they would kill someone .  their past experiences and cumulative state of mind are  entirely irrelevant.  maybe you can convince me why they should be relevant ?
last year i graduated from high school, but not without having to take one final english class.  i appreciate the classes i took in lower grades that helped me read, write, and talk, but when it came time to do reports or essays or an essay that is a component of a big report project, i really hated doing it because i essentially wrote what my idea of getting a good mark would look like.  i did not really believe in anything i said, and most of the time i was just filling space with bull shit that sounded like it could be true, and then supporting it with a passage in the text, that i know the author never intended to be what you read from that passage.  after university applications i had already been accepted to where i wanted to go, and the criteria to remain accepted was to maintain marks that were 0 lower than my marks, so i figured that i could have 0 lower in english class then my current average grade and still have be accepted, so all i had to do was pass.  so when i had to do a report on  the death of the literary novel  which screams bullshit, since i could not even find the definition of what a literary novel was anywhere i decided to write against the death of the literary novel.  i made 0 points, in accordance with rule of the  allways have 0 points, with atleast 0 supports for each  which guaranteed.  i essentially found some essay written by someone who claimed that people saying the literary novel is dead, and just trying to discredit future novels, so i basically used that as a source, and just restate that authors points in my own words and then used some of here quotes, but i properly sourced it, which means  plagiarism is wrong, unless you make it really clear that you are plagiarizing  i made my second point which was some made up bullshit that i do not even remember that i supported with half assed logic.  the teacher did not complain about this at all, instead what the teacher complained about was this: my third point is that there are examples of literary novels being made today, i used the definition of a literary novel as a novel that uses literary techniques such as parallel structure, symbolism and all that crap.  i chose harry potter, because i did not care anymore, but also because  i actually believed that it was literary  and i supported my claims with passages from the books that showed that literary techniques were used.  i also said that novels currently seen as literary were at one point popular novels in there day.  the teachers response was  i does not count because it is popular fiction  what i took from that was that the definition of a modern literary novel was a novel no one read.  so what i found was that the idea that english class was suppose to teach you critical thinking skills is wrong, and it instead teaches you how to bullshit in order to receive rewards.   #  so what i found was that the idea that english class was suppose to teach you critical thinking skills is wrong, and it instead teaches you how to bullshit in order to receive rewards.   #  when i took english classes, i did not  make up some bullshit.    # if you were actually learning anything in english class, you would learn that most schools of criticism care not one whit about authorial intent.  a critic is job is to examine the text as it stands, on its own, without regard to what the author may have meant to say.  for example, ray bradbury has changed his own mind at least three times about the meaning and intent behind  fahrenheit 0 .  at the very least, he is unreliable on the subject of his own work, and therefore his opinion carries no more weight merely because he is the author.  only the text is unchanging.  when i took english classes, i did not  make up some bullshit.   i actually studied the text, formed my own conclusions, and then did research to see if other critics supported my ideas.  it would never have occurred to me to proffer harry potter as an example of literary fiction, because it is not literary fiction.  literary fiction offers commentary or social, political, moral, or cultural issues.  harry potter has very little in the way of such commentary there is a small bit about slavery, some discussion of racism/sexism, and some commentary on bullying and child neglect.  none of these things are handled with the subtlety or finesse one expects from literary fiction.  the primary purpose of the work is to entertain, and it uses common touchstones general agreement that bullying is bad, slavery is wrong, racism is bad, etc.  in order to propel the narrative.  literary fiction is not generally plot heavy.  harry potter is made of plot, and most of the characters are 0 dimensional caricatures inserted to propel this plot.  your conclusion is a rush to judgment.  there is plenty of literary fiction that has spent time on bestseller lists.   #  your high school chemistry or mathematics class should enforce these skills by requiring you to write papers on these subjects, as well, but i do not think a chemistry class should take time out from teaching chemistry to teach paper writing.   #  i think you make a good point here, although i still believe that high school english class is the best place to teach you those skills initially.  my last two years of high school english were primarily focused on conducting research and constructing argumentative papers.  we were encouraged to write our papers on subjects that interested us, whether that be literature, history, politics, science, etc.  your high school chemistry or mathematics class should enforce these skills by requiring you to write papers on these subjects, as well, but i do not think a chemistry class should take time out from teaching chemistry to teach paper writing.  that should be reserved for english classes, because that is what they are made for.   #  my biology teacher was not taking time away from her subject to have us practice writing research papers and opinion pieces on science topics, she was teaching an  essential part  of that subject.   #  well, like i said, some english teachers develop a bad case of tunnel vision.  my 0th grade english teacher was big on interdisciplinary reading and writing.  we read david sedaris and carl sagan and .  we were encouraged to write about topics we found interesting.  my 0th grade english teacher was more like op is english teacher: solely concerned with traditionalist critiques of  real literature.   i got very little out of that class and i  like  literature , but the teacher felt like interdisciplinary reading/writing took time away from her being able to teach her subject.  i got a lot more out of the 0th grade teacher is approach, and i still read a lot of good books.  i never did any writing in math class, but my ap level science teachers were very aware of the fact that anyone who intends to pursue science at the college level and beyond needs to be able to read and interpret articles from real scientific publications.  my biology teacher was not taking time away from her subject to have us practice writing research papers and opinion pieces on science topics, she was teaching an  essential part  of that subject.   #  a math teacher gets to spend his whole teaching period talking about  just  math, why does not an english teacher get to do the same ?  # as someone who is friends with a middle school teacher, part of the reason they feel that way is because they are expected to handle a lot of the interdisciplinary writing instead of having teachers of math, science, and history taking time out of  their  classes to teach interdisciplinary writing.  frankly, i agree, pushing it all on the english department takes away from their ability to focus on just english.  i am not saying interdisciplinary is bad, but i can understand frustrated english teachers who have it foisted upon them when other teachers are not being expected to do the same.  a math teacher gets to spend his whole teaching period talking about  just  math, why does not an english teacher get to do the same ? or rather, if the english teacher is going to touch on interdisciplinary subjects, why are not other teachers subject to the same expectations ? it is a huge unfair burden on the english department when, in fact, it  is  interdisciplinary and yet the only discipline expected to teach it is the english department.   #  i think i should redact my statement that  plagiarism is wrong, unless you make it really clear that you are plagiarizing , because i think that what your suppose to do now is take others work and then analyze it.   #  i am in university now, but in highschool i did not really understand the point of citations beyond making sure we were not plagiarizing something.  in my science papers i would write the paper based on the stuff i learned in class, and then only at the end i would do research to find something that confirmed what i said so it would not look like i was plagiarizing.  i think i should redact my statement that  plagiarism is wrong, unless you make it really clear that you are plagiarizing , because i think that what your suppose to do now is take others work and then analyze it.  citing stuff was not about making sure you were not copying.  it did not help that when they first introduced us to citations in gr 0 that they said it was  too make sure you are not copying  and then the teacher told us about all the bad things that would happen to us if we messed up the citation format, that we would be expelled from university and other bad things.  i am pretty sure that messing up the citation format and not putting quotes is not the same as plagiarizing, but the teacher made it seem like it was.  and i think ever since then i had the wrong idea about why we are suppose to have citations
last year i graduated from high school, but not without having to take one final english class.  i appreciate the classes i took in lower grades that helped me read, write, and talk, but when it came time to do reports or essays or an essay that is a component of a big report project, i really hated doing it because i essentially wrote what my idea of getting a good mark would look like.  i did not really believe in anything i said, and most of the time i was just filling space with bull shit that sounded like it could be true, and then supporting it with a passage in the text, that i know the author never intended to be what you read from that passage.  after university applications i had already been accepted to where i wanted to go, and the criteria to remain accepted was to maintain marks that were 0 lower than my marks, so i figured that i could have 0 lower in english class then my current average grade and still have be accepted, so all i had to do was pass.  so when i had to do a report on  the death of the literary novel  which screams bullshit, since i could not even find the definition of what a literary novel was anywhere i decided to write against the death of the literary novel.  i made 0 points, in accordance with rule of the  allways have 0 points, with atleast 0 supports for each  which guaranteed.  i essentially found some essay written by someone who claimed that people saying the literary novel is dead, and just trying to discredit future novels, so i basically used that as a source, and just restate that authors points in my own words and then used some of here quotes, but i properly sourced it, which means  plagiarism is wrong, unless you make it really clear that you are plagiarizing  i made my second point which was some made up bullshit that i do not even remember that i supported with half assed logic.  the teacher did not complain about this at all, instead what the teacher complained about was this: my third point is that there are examples of literary novels being made today, i used the definition of a literary novel as a novel that uses literary techniques such as parallel structure, symbolism and all that crap.  i chose harry potter, because i did not care anymore, but also because  i actually believed that it was literary  and i supported my claims with passages from the books that showed that literary techniques were used.  i also said that novels currently seen as literary were at one point popular novels in there day.  the teachers response was  i does not count because it is popular fiction  what i took from that was that the definition of a modern literary novel was a novel no one read.  so what i found was that the idea that english class was suppose to teach you critical thinking skills is wrong, and it instead teaches you how to bullshit in order to receive rewards.   #  the teachers response was  i does not count because it is popular fiction  what i took from that was that the definition of a modern literary novel was a novel no one read.   #  your conclusion is a rush to judgment.   # if you were actually learning anything in english class, you would learn that most schools of criticism care not one whit about authorial intent.  a critic is job is to examine the text as it stands, on its own, without regard to what the author may have meant to say.  for example, ray bradbury has changed his own mind at least three times about the meaning and intent behind  fahrenheit 0 .  at the very least, he is unreliable on the subject of his own work, and therefore his opinion carries no more weight merely because he is the author.  only the text is unchanging.  when i took english classes, i did not  make up some bullshit.   i actually studied the text, formed my own conclusions, and then did research to see if other critics supported my ideas.  it would never have occurred to me to proffer harry potter as an example of literary fiction, because it is not literary fiction.  literary fiction offers commentary or social, political, moral, or cultural issues.  harry potter has very little in the way of such commentary there is a small bit about slavery, some discussion of racism/sexism, and some commentary on bullying and child neglect.  none of these things are handled with the subtlety or finesse one expects from literary fiction.  the primary purpose of the work is to entertain, and it uses common touchstones general agreement that bullying is bad, slavery is wrong, racism is bad, etc.  in order to propel the narrative.  literary fiction is not generally plot heavy.  harry potter is made of plot, and most of the characters are 0 dimensional caricatures inserted to propel this plot.  your conclusion is a rush to judgment.  there is plenty of literary fiction that has spent time on bestseller lists.   #  i think you make a good point here, although i still believe that high school english class is the best place to teach you those skills initially.   #  i think you make a good point here, although i still believe that high school english class is the best place to teach you those skills initially.  my last two years of high school english were primarily focused on conducting research and constructing argumentative papers.  we were encouraged to write our papers on subjects that interested us, whether that be literature, history, politics, science, etc.  your high school chemistry or mathematics class should enforce these skills by requiring you to write papers on these subjects, as well, but i do not think a chemistry class should take time out from teaching chemistry to teach paper writing.  that should be reserved for english classes, because that is what they are made for.   #  we were encouraged to write about topics we found interesting.   #  well, like i said, some english teachers develop a bad case of tunnel vision.  my 0th grade english teacher was big on interdisciplinary reading and writing.  we read david sedaris and carl sagan and .  we were encouraged to write about topics we found interesting.  my 0th grade english teacher was more like op is english teacher: solely concerned with traditionalist critiques of  real literature.   i got very little out of that class and i  like  literature , but the teacher felt like interdisciplinary reading/writing took time away from her being able to teach her subject.  i got a lot more out of the 0th grade teacher is approach, and i still read a lot of good books.  i never did any writing in math class, but my ap level science teachers were very aware of the fact that anyone who intends to pursue science at the college level and beyond needs to be able to read and interpret articles from real scientific publications.  my biology teacher was not taking time away from her subject to have us practice writing research papers and opinion pieces on science topics, she was teaching an  essential part  of that subject.   #  or rather, if the english teacher is going to touch on interdisciplinary subjects, why are not other teachers subject to the same expectations ?  # as someone who is friends with a middle school teacher, part of the reason they feel that way is because they are expected to handle a lot of the interdisciplinary writing instead of having teachers of math, science, and history taking time out of  their  classes to teach interdisciplinary writing.  frankly, i agree, pushing it all on the english department takes away from their ability to focus on just english.  i am not saying interdisciplinary is bad, but i can understand frustrated english teachers who have it foisted upon them when other teachers are not being expected to do the same.  a math teacher gets to spend his whole teaching period talking about  just  math, why does not an english teacher get to do the same ? or rather, if the english teacher is going to touch on interdisciplinary subjects, why are not other teachers subject to the same expectations ? it is a huge unfair burden on the english department when, in fact, it  is  interdisciplinary and yet the only discipline expected to teach it is the english department.   #  i am pretty sure that messing up the citation format and not putting quotes is not the same as plagiarizing, but the teacher made it seem like it was.   #  i am in university now, but in highschool i did not really understand the point of citations beyond making sure we were not plagiarizing something.  in my science papers i would write the paper based on the stuff i learned in class, and then only at the end i would do research to find something that confirmed what i said so it would not look like i was plagiarizing.  i think i should redact my statement that  plagiarism is wrong, unless you make it really clear that you are plagiarizing , because i think that what your suppose to do now is take others work and then analyze it.  citing stuff was not about making sure you were not copying.  it did not help that when they first introduced us to citations in gr 0 that they said it was  too make sure you are not copying  and then the teacher told us about all the bad things that would happen to us if we messed up the citation format, that we would be expelled from university and other bad things.  i am pretty sure that messing up the citation format and not putting quotes is not the same as plagiarizing, but the teacher made it seem like it was.  and i think ever since then i had the wrong idea about why we are suppose to have citations
keep in mind, i am not scientist i am 0 .  i wo not be able to back this up with a highly scientific argument.  i think that our feelings are just our brains experiencing the chemicals they create.  i do not believe in a soul or a spirit.  eventually science may be able to plot and explain even the most detailed reactions and experiences in the brain although this would be a massive task that may never be done .  when meteorologists predict the weather, sometimes they are wrong.  this is because they do not account for every single variable of the weather or because they do not understand the weather is reactions with ultimate precision.  i think that if every possible variable were accounted for, the weather would be 0 predictable.  i think the brain is like a much more complex version of the weather.  if all the math and variables of the brain every cell, everything that makes up the cell, etc.  were understood, it would be 0 predictable.  i think that everything humans experience feelings, memories, physical pain, and everything else are natural mechanisms of the brain and do not necessitate a soul.  change my view !  #  i think that our feelings are just our brains experiencing the chemicals they create.   #  i think this sounds a lot like the  homunculus fallacy  URL in that the premise supposes the conclusion.   # i think this sounds a lot like the  homunculus fallacy  URL in that the premise supposes the conclusion.  effectively all you have said is that our brain which is made from chemicals is experiencing/reacting to chemicals.  it is circular logic and can actually be said about most inanimate objects that do not possess consciousness everything reacts to chemicals in some way , therefore it is not an informative statement about consciousness.  you can comprehensively map whatever system you like but it wo not automatically inform you to the greater principles that govern that system.  for instance you can know every share price on the stock market but it will not be enough to tell you what shares will go up the following day with a 0 certainty, so i do not think a reductionist approach will explain consciousness for much the same reason.   #  what you are describing is called biological determinism, and it is debated among the biological community.   #  also 0, but a uni student who studies this kind of thing.  what you are describing is called biological determinism, and it is debated among the biological community.  the short version of the consensus is that you might be right, but you might also be wrong.  we have no idea how the human consciousness forms out of the human brain.  most major attempts at figuring it out have led to either inconclusive results, or were later thrown out as being academically dishonest.  the fact of the matter is that we have no solid evidence either which way except for the assumption that, other things are highly predictable laws of physics, for example why should not the human brain and human behavior be as well ? it is not a bad assumption, but it is a very large assumption, and there really is not any evidence to back it up again, there is not any evidence against it .  my point is that it would be very academically dishonest to say that we know that human behavior is deterministic, or that we even have good reason to think so.  if you ever take bio course in uni, when you get to the unit on animal behavior, first chapter, in big letters, it will say,  human behavior is not necessarily deterministic.   i imagine that you are more interested in scientific arguments over consciousness and free will, but the fact of the matter is that we do not know enough to really have those meaningful discussions yet.  you would have much better luck talking with either a philosopher or a priest.   #  it is about the information contained in higher levels of abstraction.   #  is all architecture reducible to bricks and mortar ? yes and no.  bricks and mortar are a prerequisite for architecture.  they are the basic building blocks at a physical level.  but bricks and mortar is not what architecture is  about .  architecture is about  how  you put the bricks together.  it is about the information contained in higher levels of abstraction.  those abstractions are not necessarily reducible.  you cannot reduce a concept like  cantilever  or  neoclassicism  into a collection of bricks.  now replace the word  architecture  above with the word  soul  and the word  brick  with  neuron .   #  that is all very nice and well, and you seem to be tempted to ascribe some sort of  isoul  to even inanimate objects.   #  all you are doing here is romanticizing physical occurrences.  yes, when you get down to it, each atom in a rock or tree has had its own journey through the cosmos.  that is all very nice and well, and you seem to be tempted to ascribe some sort of  isoul  to even inanimate objects.  but at the end of the day, these are just physical processes acting on physical matter.  the human capacity to appreciate the beauty we feel to be present in such things does not mean that there was  intent  or  isoul  in their creation.   #  firstly, and less importantly, there is the observation.   #  well the inanimate objects were analogies but i do understand what you are saying.  i think that what makes a person different from an inanimate object is that while the objects  personality  i am abandoning the word soul because you made an excellent point is how it has been changed by the world, a human is personality is changed by how they viewed the way the world changed around them.  there are two differences there.  firstly, and less importantly, there is the observation.  if we go by the laws of quantum mechanics, simply observing something changes it, and so, humans, by actively observing and internalizing what goes on, have something different to their personality than something that does not.  animals have a lesser or very similar version of this.  the second difference is where the change is happening.  we do not realize that we are getting older each second, and often times people will talk about how  the world was different when i was a kid , when in reality, they are the ones changing the most.  because of this reverse egocentricity of sorts, our personality, from our point of view, also has the source reversed.  instead of it coming from  the things that happened to me , it comes from  the things that i did .  this is what makes a person is personality different from an object is.
keep in mind, i am not scientist i am 0 .  i wo not be able to back this up with a highly scientific argument.  i think that our feelings are just our brains experiencing the chemicals they create.  i do not believe in a soul or a spirit.  eventually science may be able to plot and explain even the most detailed reactions and experiences in the brain although this would be a massive task that may never be done .  when meteorologists predict the weather, sometimes they are wrong.  this is because they do not account for every single variable of the weather or because they do not understand the weather is reactions with ultimate precision.  i think that if every possible variable were accounted for, the weather would be 0 predictable.  i think the brain is like a much more complex version of the weather.  if all the math and variables of the brain every cell, everything that makes up the cell, etc.  were understood, it would be 0 predictable.  i think that everything humans experience feelings, memories, physical pain, and everything else are natural mechanisms of the brain and do not necessitate a soul.  change my view !  #  if all the math and variables of the brain every cell, everything that makes up the cell, etc.   #  were understood, it would be 0 predictable.   #  consider that  the whole is greater than its parts  URL what would be considered a soul or spirit, might be a property that only shows up in complex systems and therefore not be reducible.  were understood, it would be 0 predictable.  quantum physics says this is not true at a certain level.  URL  quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable.   this is different than saying 0 predictable.   #  also 0, but a uni student who studies this kind of thing.   #  also 0, but a uni student who studies this kind of thing.  what you are describing is called biological determinism, and it is debated among the biological community.  the short version of the consensus is that you might be right, but you might also be wrong.  we have no idea how the human consciousness forms out of the human brain.  most major attempts at figuring it out have led to either inconclusive results, or were later thrown out as being academically dishonest.  the fact of the matter is that we have no solid evidence either which way except for the assumption that, other things are highly predictable laws of physics, for example why should not the human brain and human behavior be as well ? it is not a bad assumption, but it is a very large assumption, and there really is not any evidence to back it up again, there is not any evidence against it .  my point is that it would be very academically dishonest to say that we know that human behavior is deterministic, or that we even have good reason to think so.  if you ever take bio course in uni, when you get to the unit on animal behavior, first chapter, in big letters, it will say,  human behavior is not necessarily deterministic.   i imagine that you are more interested in scientific arguments over consciousness and free will, but the fact of the matter is that we do not know enough to really have those meaningful discussions yet.  you would have much better luck talking with either a philosopher or a priest.   #  now replace the word  architecture  above with the word  soul  and the word  brick  with  neuron .   #  is all architecture reducible to bricks and mortar ? yes and no.  bricks and mortar are a prerequisite for architecture.  they are the basic building blocks at a physical level.  but bricks and mortar is not what architecture is  about .  architecture is about  how  you put the bricks together.  it is about the information contained in higher levels of abstraction.  those abstractions are not necessarily reducible.  you cannot reduce a concept like  cantilever  or  neoclassicism  into a collection of bricks.  now replace the word  architecture  above with the word  soul  and the word  brick  with  neuron .   #  all you are doing here is romanticizing physical occurrences.   #  all you are doing here is romanticizing physical occurrences.  yes, when you get down to it, each atom in a rock or tree has had its own journey through the cosmos.  that is all very nice and well, and you seem to be tempted to ascribe some sort of  isoul  to even inanimate objects.  but at the end of the day, these are just physical processes acting on physical matter.  the human capacity to appreciate the beauty we feel to be present in such things does not mean that there was  intent  or  isoul  in their creation.   #  instead of it coming from  the things that happened to me , it comes from  the things that i did .   #  well the inanimate objects were analogies but i do understand what you are saying.  i think that what makes a person different from an inanimate object is that while the objects  personality  i am abandoning the word soul because you made an excellent point is how it has been changed by the world, a human is personality is changed by how they viewed the way the world changed around them.  there are two differences there.  firstly, and less importantly, there is the observation.  if we go by the laws of quantum mechanics, simply observing something changes it, and so, humans, by actively observing and internalizing what goes on, have something different to their personality than something that does not.  animals have a lesser or very similar version of this.  the second difference is where the change is happening.  we do not realize that we are getting older each second, and often times people will talk about how  the world was different when i was a kid , when in reality, they are the ones changing the most.  because of this reverse egocentricity of sorts, our personality, from our point of view, also has the source reversed.  instead of it coming from  the things that happened to me , it comes from  the things that i did .  this is what makes a person is personality different from an object is.
it seems pretty clear that 0 of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.  what economists politely call rent seeking, the rest of us call parasitism.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  the first step to creating a healthy nation, just as with a healthy organism, is to fight off the successful parasites.  the successful parasite is first best move is to jam the host organism is immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation.  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  public investment and sound public policies that help the nation and improve the bargaining power of the average worker run counter to the interests of the rich, who like having high unemployment so they can pay lower wages.  this explains basically all of the republican party is actions and policy positions.  cmv !  #  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.   #  i take that to mean that you do not understand the financial system.   # i take that to mean that you do not understand the financial system.  the financial system is what allows business to grow and exist.  all businesses, large and small depend on credit to operate.  capital is re directed from the rent seekers to the borrowers.  you act like that is a given.  smart minds are on both sides of the issue.  can you not see any problem with expanding government spending, or any financial problems with the current spending level ? politicians on both sides are mostly rich and powerful themselves.  they are the ones you are afraid about.  this reeks of partisanship, are you of the mentality that liberal policies are the only sensible government and all others are evil ?  #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.   #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.  do you have any republican friends ? have you ever had a candid conversation with a member of the gop ? do not you think it is possible that the gop is genuinely concerned about the federal government is $0 trillion national debt, a 0,0 page tax code, making the u. s.  more attractive for entrepreneurs, and other substantial issues ? your broad statement about the motivations of the gop are as ignorant as saying  all liberals do not care about the virtues of hard work and only want to give hand outs to the lazy.   just as ignorant.   #  its stated goal was to dramatically reduce the deficit.   #  i think there is a big difference between what your average republican vote wants, and what the republican party stands for.  what you have written above, is perhaps a good summary of why someone might vote republican.  but there are very valid reasons to believe that this is not what the republican party actually stands for.  paul ryan is  the path to prosperity  0 budget is a perfect example.  its stated goal was to dramatically reduce the deficit.  except the plan does not do this.  in fact what the plan does, is cut medicare, dramatically roll back social welfare programs, and cut taxes on the wealthy.  so how does this reduce the deficit ? well it does if you believe ryan is unspecified claim that he can close enough tax loopholes, not just to make up for the reduced yearly revenue of the government, but also radically reduce the deficit, and that reducing taxes on the wealthy will increase revenue an economic idea that has been disproven over and over again.  the cbo ca not find enough tax loopholes to close URL to make up the $0 billion a year in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest americans.  the tax policy center referred to the magic sources of revenue as mystery meat URL so what does this all mean ? it means that paul ryan is either incompetent and unable to do basic arithmetic, or the plan is not designed to reduce the deficit at all, it is intended to enact a series of savage and they have only gotten more savage since the 0 iteration cuts to the this country is social safety net under the guise of deficit reduction, while reducing taxes on the wealthy and, ironically, greatly increasing the deficit.  not all republican is are writing and supporting deceptive legislation, but  the path to prosperity  was a popular piece of legislation.  it passed in the republican controlled house, with only 0 republicans voting against it.  this is a particularly stark, but not an isolated incident.  so the question remains, what do you judge a political party on ? what it is constituents believe and it is politician is espouse, or on the legislation they try and pass ? what do you make of a party that in 0 was campaigning heavily on reducing the deficit, while actively voting for legislation that would increase it ?  #  that is why this recovery is called a  jobless recovery .   # as we continue to move further into an advanced economy, we increase a share of our  capital intensive  businesses.  like facebook, or google, they make  billions  with capital, not labor.  that is why this recovery is called a  jobless recovery .  we see much of the recovery bypassing the middle class.  they remain largely unemployed, and hurt by the recession, and yet our gdp is at pre crash levels.  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.  it has gone to the wealthy for the most part.  the idea that the wealthy can prosper while the middle class suffers is most certainly not an unfounded assertion, the writing is clearly on the wall during this recovery, and the burden would be upon you to show why this recovery is not a valid indicator of the nature of our currently existing economy.  exactly what the gentleman describes is exactly what we are seeing, right now.   #  it is because where they make their money is not through what their employees are doing now, but rather buying other is ideas URL and using their employees to maintain the services.   #  you are correct in saying that the largest tech companies in the us have brilliant people who are doing brilliant things.  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.  but how many of these innovations like google glass and the self driving google car, etc are currently making them billions ? how is it the companies have the abilities to pay their employees to work on their own projects that mostly do not end up reaching the marketplace ? it is because where they make their money is not through what their employees are doing now, but rather buying other is ideas URL and using their employees to maintain the services.  yes, it uses labor, but google would just be a search engine if it mostly was not for their capital investments.
it seems pretty clear that 0 of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.  what economists politely call rent seeking, the rest of us call parasitism.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  the first step to creating a healthy nation, just as with a healthy organism, is to fight off the successful parasites.  the successful parasite is first best move is to jam the host organism is immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation.  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  public investment and sound public policies that help the nation and improve the bargaining power of the average worker run counter to the interests of the rich, who like having high unemployment so they can pay lower wages.  this explains basically all of the republican party is actions and policy positions.  cmv !  #  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.   #  you act like that is a given.   # i take that to mean that you do not understand the financial system.  the financial system is what allows business to grow and exist.  all businesses, large and small depend on credit to operate.  capital is re directed from the rent seekers to the borrowers.  you act like that is a given.  smart minds are on both sides of the issue.  can you not see any problem with expanding government spending, or any financial problems with the current spending level ? politicians on both sides are mostly rich and powerful themselves.  they are the ones you are afraid about.  this reeks of partisanship, are you of the mentality that liberal policies are the only sensible government and all others are evil ?  #  your broad statement about the motivations of the gop are as ignorant as saying  all liberals do not care about the virtues of hard work and only want to give hand outs to the lazy.    #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.  do you have any republican friends ? have you ever had a candid conversation with a member of the gop ? do not you think it is possible that the gop is genuinely concerned about the federal government is $0 trillion national debt, a 0,0 page tax code, making the u. s.  more attractive for entrepreneurs, and other substantial issues ? your broad statement about the motivations of the gop are as ignorant as saying  all liberals do not care about the virtues of hard work and only want to give hand outs to the lazy.   just as ignorant.   #  it passed in the republican controlled house, with only 0 republicans voting against it.   #  i think there is a big difference between what your average republican vote wants, and what the republican party stands for.  what you have written above, is perhaps a good summary of why someone might vote republican.  but there are very valid reasons to believe that this is not what the republican party actually stands for.  paul ryan is  the path to prosperity  0 budget is a perfect example.  its stated goal was to dramatically reduce the deficit.  except the plan does not do this.  in fact what the plan does, is cut medicare, dramatically roll back social welfare programs, and cut taxes on the wealthy.  so how does this reduce the deficit ? well it does if you believe ryan is unspecified claim that he can close enough tax loopholes, not just to make up for the reduced yearly revenue of the government, but also radically reduce the deficit, and that reducing taxes on the wealthy will increase revenue an economic idea that has been disproven over and over again.  the cbo ca not find enough tax loopholes to close URL to make up the $0 billion a year in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest americans.  the tax policy center referred to the magic sources of revenue as mystery meat URL so what does this all mean ? it means that paul ryan is either incompetent and unable to do basic arithmetic, or the plan is not designed to reduce the deficit at all, it is intended to enact a series of savage and they have only gotten more savage since the 0 iteration cuts to the this country is social safety net under the guise of deficit reduction, while reducing taxes on the wealthy and, ironically, greatly increasing the deficit.  not all republican is are writing and supporting deceptive legislation, but  the path to prosperity  was a popular piece of legislation.  it passed in the republican controlled house, with only 0 republicans voting against it.  this is a particularly stark, but not an isolated incident.  so the question remains, what do you judge a political party on ? what it is constituents believe and it is politician is espouse, or on the legislation they try and pass ? what do you make of a party that in 0 was campaigning heavily on reducing the deficit, while actively voting for legislation that would increase it ?  #  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.   # as we continue to move further into an advanced economy, we increase a share of our  capital intensive  businesses.  like facebook, or google, they make  billions  with capital, not labor.  that is why this recovery is called a  jobless recovery .  we see much of the recovery bypassing the middle class.  they remain largely unemployed, and hurt by the recession, and yet our gdp is at pre crash levels.  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.  it has gone to the wealthy for the most part.  the idea that the wealthy can prosper while the middle class suffers is most certainly not an unfounded assertion, the writing is clearly on the wall during this recovery, and the burden would be upon you to show why this recovery is not a valid indicator of the nature of our currently existing economy.  exactly what the gentleman describes is exactly what we are seeing, right now.   #  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.   #  you are correct in saying that the largest tech companies in the us have brilliant people who are doing brilliant things.  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.  but how many of these innovations like google glass and the self driving google car, etc are currently making them billions ? how is it the companies have the abilities to pay their employees to work on their own projects that mostly do not end up reaching the marketplace ? it is because where they make their money is not through what their employees are doing now, but rather buying other is ideas URL and using their employees to maintain the services.  yes, it uses labor, but google would just be a search engine if it mostly was not for their capital investments.
it seems pretty clear that 0 of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.  what economists politely call rent seeking, the rest of us call parasitism.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  the first step to creating a healthy nation, just as with a healthy organism, is to fight off the successful parasites.  the successful parasite is first best move is to jam the host organism is immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation.  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  public investment and sound public policies that help the nation and improve the bargaining power of the average worker run counter to the interests of the rich, who like having high unemployment so they can pay lower wages.  this explains basically all of the republican party is actions and policy positions.  cmv !  #  it seems pretty clear that 0 of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.   #  they actually have the same interests the rest of us do.   # they actually have the same interests the rest of us do.  that is a valuable service.  our nation seems pretty healthy.  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  why would the rich want to do that ? they benefit from low unemployment and functional infrastructure just as much as everyone else.  not really.  cmv ! so why are they for guns and against abortion ? does not seem like either of those things matter much to the wealthy.   #  more attractive for entrepreneurs, and other substantial issues ?  #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.  do you have any republican friends ? have you ever had a candid conversation with a member of the gop ? do not you think it is possible that the gop is genuinely concerned about the federal government is $0 trillion national debt, a 0,0 page tax code, making the u. s.  more attractive for entrepreneurs, and other substantial issues ? your broad statement about the motivations of the gop are as ignorant as saying  all liberals do not care about the virtues of hard work and only want to give hand outs to the lazy.   just as ignorant.   #  this is a particularly stark, but not an isolated incident.   #  i think there is a big difference between what your average republican vote wants, and what the republican party stands for.  what you have written above, is perhaps a good summary of why someone might vote republican.  but there are very valid reasons to believe that this is not what the republican party actually stands for.  paul ryan is  the path to prosperity  0 budget is a perfect example.  its stated goal was to dramatically reduce the deficit.  except the plan does not do this.  in fact what the plan does, is cut medicare, dramatically roll back social welfare programs, and cut taxes on the wealthy.  so how does this reduce the deficit ? well it does if you believe ryan is unspecified claim that he can close enough tax loopholes, not just to make up for the reduced yearly revenue of the government, but also radically reduce the deficit, and that reducing taxes on the wealthy will increase revenue an economic idea that has been disproven over and over again.  the cbo ca not find enough tax loopholes to close URL to make up the $0 billion a year in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest americans.  the tax policy center referred to the magic sources of revenue as mystery meat URL so what does this all mean ? it means that paul ryan is either incompetent and unable to do basic arithmetic, or the plan is not designed to reduce the deficit at all, it is intended to enact a series of savage and they have only gotten more savage since the 0 iteration cuts to the this country is social safety net under the guise of deficit reduction, while reducing taxes on the wealthy and, ironically, greatly increasing the deficit.  not all republican is are writing and supporting deceptive legislation, but  the path to prosperity  was a popular piece of legislation.  it passed in the republican controlled house, with only 0 republicans voting against it.  this is a particularly stark, but not an isolated incident.  so the question remains, what do you judge a political party on ? what it is constituents believe and it is politician is espouse, or on the legislation they try and pass ? what do you make of a party that in 0 was campaigning heavily on reducing the deficit, while actively voting for legislation that would increase it ?  #  it has gone to the wealthy for the most part.   # as we continue to move further into an advanced economy, we increase a share of our  capital intensive  businesses.  like facebook, or google, they make  billions  with capital, not labor.  that is why this recovery is called a  jobless recovery .  we see much of the recovery bypassing the middle class.  they remain largely unemployed, and hurt by the recession, and yet our gdp is at pre crash levels.  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.  it has gone to the wealthy for the most part.  the idea that the wealthy can prosper while the middle class suffers is most certainly not an unfounded assertion, the writing is clearly on the wall during this recovery, and the burden would be upon you to show why this recovery is not a valid indicator of the nature of our currently existing economy.  exactly what the gentleman describes is exactly what we are seeing, right now.   #  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.   #  you are correct in saying that the largest tech companies in the us have brilliant people who are doing brilliant things.  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.  but how many of these innovations like google glass and the self driving google car, etc are currently making them billions ? how is it the companies have the abilities to pay their employees to work on their own projects that mostly do not end up reaching the marketplace ? it is because where they make their money is not through what their employees are doing now, but rather buying other is ideas URL and using their employees to maintain the services.  yes, it uses labor, but google would just be a search engine if it mostly was not for their capital investments.
it seems pretty clear that 0 of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.  what economists politely call rent seeking, the rest of us call parasitism.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  the first step to creating a healthy nation, just as with a healthy organism, is to fight off the successful parasites.  the successful parasite is first best move is to jam the host organism is immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation.  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  public investment and sound public policies that help the nation and improve the bargaining power of the average worker run counter to the interests of the rich, who like having high unemployment so they can pay lower wages.  this explains basically all of the republican party is actions and policy positions.  cmv !  #  the successful parasite is first best move is to jam the host organism is immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation.   #  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.   # they actually have the same interests the rest of us do.  that is a valuable service.  our nation seems pretty healthy.  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  why would the rich want to do that ? they benefit from low unemployment and functional infrastructure just as much as everyone else.  not really.  cmv ! so why are they for guns and against abortion ? does not seem like either of those things matter much to the wealthy.   #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.   #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.  do you have any republican friends ? have you ever had a candid conversation with a member of the gop ? do not you think it is possible that the gop is genuinely concerned about the federal government is $0 trillion national debt, a 0,0 page tax code, making the u. s.  more attractive for entrepreneurs, and other substantial issues ? your broad statement about the motivations of the gop are as ignorant as saying  all liberals do not care about the virtues of hard work and only want to give hand outs to the lazy.   just as ignorant.   #  what you have written above, is perhaps a good summary of why someone might vote republican.   #  i think there is a big difference between what your average republican vote wants, and what the republican party stands for.  what you have written above, is perhaps a good summary of why someone might vote republican.  but there are very valid reasons to believe that this is not what the republican party actually stands for.  paul ryan is  the path to prosperity  0 budget is a perfect example.  its stated goal was to dramatically reduce the deficit.  except the plan does not do this.  in fact what the plan does, is cut medicare, dramatically roll back social welfare programs, and cut taxes on the wealthy.  so how does this reduce the deficit ? well it does if you believe ryan is unspecified claim that he can close enough tax loopholes, not just to make up for the reduced yearly revenue of the government, but also radically reduce the deficit, and that reducing taxes on the wealthy will increase revenue an economic idea that has been disproven over and over again.  the cbo ca not find enough tax loopholes to close URL to make up the $0 billion a year in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest americans.  the tax policy center referred to the magic sources of revenue as mystery meat URL so what does this all mean ? it means that paul ryan is either incompetent and unable to do basic arithmetic, or the plan is not designed to reduce the deficit at all, it is intended to enact a series of savage and they have only gotten more savage since the 0 iteration cuts to the this country is social safety net under the guise of deficit reduction, while reducing taxes on the wealthy and, ironically, greatly increasing the deficit.  not all republican is are writing and supporting deceptive legislation, but  the path to prosperity  was a popular piece of legislation.  it passed in the republican controlled house, with only 0 republicans voting against it.  this is a particularly stark, but not an isolated incident.  so the question remains, what do you judge a political party on ? what it is constituents believe and it is politician is espouse, or on the legislation they try and pass ? what do you make of a party that in 0 was campaigning heavily on reducing the deficit, while actively voting for legislation that would increase it ?  #  exactly what the gentleman describes is exactly what we are seeing, right now.   # as we continue to move further into an advanced economy, we increase a share of our  capital intensive  businesses.  like facebook, or google, they make  billions  with capital, not labor.  that is why this recovery is called a  jobless recovery .  we see much of the recovery bypassing the middle class.  they remain largely unemployed, and hurt by the recession, and yet our gdp is at pre crash levels.  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.  it has gone to the wealthy for the most part.  the idea that the wealthy can prosper while the middle class suffers is most certainly not an unfounded assertion, the writing is clearly on the wall during this recovery, and the burden would be upon you to show why this recovery is not a valid indicator of the nature of our currently existing economy.  exactly what the gentleman describes is exactly what we are seeing, right now.   #  but how many of these innovations like google glass and the self driving google car, etc are currently making them billions ?  #  you are correct in saying that the largest tech companies in the us have brilliant people who are doing brilliant things.  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.  but how many of these innovations like google glass and the self driving google car, etc are currently making them billions ? how is it the companies have the abilities to pay their employees to work on their own projects that mostly do not end up reaching the marketplace ? it is because where they make their money is not through what their employees are doing now, but rather buying other is ideas URL and using their employees to maintain the services.  yes, it uses labor, but google would just be a search engine if it mostly was not for their capital investments.
it seems pretty clear that 0 of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.  what economists politely call rent seeking, the rest of us call parasitism.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  the first step to creating a healthy nation, just as with a healthy organism, is to fight off the successful parasites.  the successful parasite is first best move is to jam the host organism is immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation.  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  public investment and sound public policies that help the nation and improve the bargaining power of the average worker run counter to the interests of the rich, who like having high unemployment so they can pay lower wages.  this explains basically all of the republican party is actions and policy positions.  cmv !  #  it seems pretty clear that 0 of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.   #  the  0  interests are they exact same interests as everyone else is, to further their wealth, well being, and prosperity as they understand it.   #  respectfully, your view is retarded.  the  0  interests are they exact same interests as everyone else is, to further their wealth, well being, and prosperity as they understand it.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  i am just going to use the google definition of rent seeking, i will accept yours if it is different.   in economics, rent seeking is spending wealth on political lobbying to increase one is share of existing wealth without creating wealth.   that does not sound polite, and is equivalent to parasitism.  however, the definition does not specify a requirment for what consitutes wealth.  a person who donantes $0 dollars to a campaign is just as guilty of this as someone who donates $0,0.  any citizen who contributes a portion of their wealth is engaging in paristism, when most of the citzenry attempting to exert influence through their wealth, who is the parisite and who is the organism in this metephor ? the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  to be blunt, the rich need a functioning government/democracy and all these other thing more than the poor and middle class.  at the very least, the 0 need a functioning democratic government to keep the 0 from overthrowing them like every other time in history.  the rich also need an infrastructure to maintain the efficient flow of goods from which they derive their wealth, and most importantly, they need everyone poorer than them to works the jobs that maintain there lifestyle.  if healthcare and infrastructure are neglected it is out of ignorance of their own self interest rather than malicious intent.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  the rich and powerful cannot stay that way without an effective government.  republicans are obstructionist  within  a democratic system as a form of controlling that system, they do not desire it is dismantling.  lower wages were found in china and elsewhere, long ago.  an unemployed or underpaid american citizen is one less that a rich person can profit from.  the wealthy profit much more from exploiting and ignoring the interests of people outside this country, people in this country need to be able to buy shit to make the rich richer.  republicans do whatever keeps them in power, just like democrats.  for both parties, this largely entails maintaining a government that enough people feel they have a stake in, pandering to the voter, and excepting the monetary influence from lobbyist that is necessary to keep office.  an effective government is necessary to the interests of all parties who participate and is the last thing republicans or the rich want to dismantle.   #  do not you think it is possible that the gop is genuinely concerned about the federal government is $0 trillion national debt, a 0,0 page tax code, making the u. s.   #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.  do you have any republican friends ? have you ever had a candid conversation with a member of the gop ? do not you think it is possible that the gop is genuinely concerned about the federal government is $0 trillion national debt, a 0,0 page tax code, making the u. s.  more attractive for entrepreneurs, and other substantial issues ? your broad statement about the motivations of the gop are as ignorant as saying  all liberals do not care about the virtues of hard work and only want to give hand outs to the lazy.   just as ignorant.   #  the tax policy center referred to the magic sources of revenue as mystery meat URL so what does this all mean ?  #  i think there is a big difference between what your average republican vote wants, and what the republican party stands for.  what you have written above, is perhaps a good summary of why someone might vote republican.  but there are very valid reasons to believe that this is not what the republican party actually stands for.  paul ryan is  the path to prosperity  0 budget is a perfect example.  its stated goal was to dramatically reduce the deficit.  except the plan does not do this.  in fact what the plan does, is cut medicare, dramatically roll back social welfare programs, and cut taxes on the wealthy.  so how does this reduce the deficit ? well it does if you believe ryan is unspecified claim that he can close enough tax loopholes, not just to make up for the reduced yearly revenue of the government, but also radically reduce the deficit, and that reducing taxes on the wealthy will increase revenue an economic idea that has been disproven over and over again.  the cbo ca not find enough tax loopholes to close URL to make up the $0 billion a year in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest americans.  the tax policy center referred to the magic sources of revenue as mystery meat URL so what does this all mean ? it means that paul ryan is either incompetent and unable to do basic arithmetic, or the plan is not designed to reduce the deficit at all, it is intended to enact a series of savage and they have only gotten more savage since the 0 iteration cuts to the this country is social safety net under the guise of deficit reduction, while reducing taxes on the wealthy and, ironically, greatly increasing the deficit.  not all republican is are writing and supporting deceptive legislation, but  the path to prosperity  was a popular piece of legislation.  it passed in the republican controlled house, with only 0 republicans voting against it.  this is a particularly stark, but not an isolated incident.  so the question remains, what do you judge a political party on ? what it is constituents believe and it is politician is espouse, or on the legislation they try and pass ? what do you make of a party that in 0 was campaigning heavily on reducing the deficit, while actively voting for legislation that would increase it ?  #  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.   # as we continue to move further into an advanced economy, we increase a share of our  capital intensive  businesses.  like facebook, or google, they make  billions  with capital, not labor.  that is why this recovery is called a  jobless recovery .  we see much of the recovery bypassing the middle class.  they remain largely unemployed, and hurt by the recession, and yet our gdp is at pre crash levels.  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.  it has gone to the wealthy for the most part.  the idea that the wealthy can prosper while the middle class suffers is most certainly not an unfounded assertion, the writing is clearly on the wall during this recovery, and the burden would be upon you to show why this recovery is not a valid indicator of the nature of our currently existing economy.  exactly what the gentleman describes is exactly what we are seeing, right now.   #  you are correct in saying that the largest tech companies in the us have brilliant people who are doing brilliant things.   #  you are correct in saying that the largest tech companies in the us have brilliant people who are doing brilliant things.  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.  but how many of these innovations like google glass and the self driving google car, etc are currently making them billions ? how is it the companies have the abilities to pay their employees to work on their own projects that mostly do not end up reaching the marketplace ? it is because where they make their money is not through what their employees are doing now, but rather buying other is ideas URL and using their employees to maintain the services.  yes, it uses labor, but google would just be a search engine if it mostly was not for their capital investments.
it seems pretty clear that 0 of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.  what economists politely call rent seeking, the rest of us call parasitism.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  the first step to creating a healthy nation, just as with a healthy organism, is to fight off the successful parasites.  the successful parasite is first best move is to jam the host organism is immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation.  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  public investment and sound public policies that help the nation and improve the bargaining power of the average worker run counter to the interests of the rich, who like having high unemployment so they can pay lower wages.  this explains basically all of the republican party is actions and policy positions.  cmv !  #  what economists politely call rent seeking, the rest of us call parasitism.   #  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.   #  respectfully, your view is retarded.  the  0  interests are they exact same interests as everyone else is, to further their wealth, well being, and prosperity as they understand it.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  i am just going to use the google definition of rent seeking, i will accept yours if it is different.   in economics, rent seeking is spending wealth on political lobbying to increase one is share of existing wealth without creating wealth.   that does not sound polite, and is equivalent to parasitism.  however, the definition does not specify a requirment for what consitutes wealth.  a person who donantes $0 dollars to a campaign is just as guilty of this as someone who donates $0,0.  any citizen who contributes a portion of their wealth is engaging in paristism, when most of the citzenry attempting to exert influence through their wealth, who is the parisite and who is the organism in this metephor ? the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  to be blunt, the rich need a functioning government/democracy and all these other thing more than the poor and middle class.  at the very least, the 0 need a functioning democratic government to keep the 0 from overthrowing them like every other time in history.  the rich also need an infrastructure to maintain the efficient flow of goods from which they derive their wealth, and most importantly, they need everyone poorer than them to works the jobs that maintain there lifestyle.  if healthcare and infrastructure are neglected it is out of ignorance of their own self interest rather than malicious intent.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  the rich and powerful cannot stay that way without an effective government.  republicans are obstructionist  within  a democratic system as a form of controlling that system, they do not desire it is dismantling.  lower wages were found in china and elsewhere, long ago.  an unemployed or underpaid american citizen is one less that a rich person can profit from.  the wealthy profit much more from exploiting and ignoring the interests of people outside this country, people in this country need to be able to buy shit to make the rich richer.  republicans do whatever keeps them in power, just like democrats.  for both parties, this largely entails maintaining a government that enough people feel they have a stake in, pandering to the voter, and excepting the monetary influence from lobbyist that is necessary to keep office.  an effective government is necessary to the interests of all parties who participate and is the last thing republicans or the rich want to dismantle.   #  have you ever had a candid conversation with a member of the gop ?  #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.  do you have any republican friends ? have you ever had a candid conversation with a member of the gop ? do not you think it is possible that the gop is genuinely concerned about the federal government is $0 trillion national debt, a 0,0 page tax code, making the u. s.  more attractive for entrepreneurs, and other substantial issues ? your broad statement about the motivations of the gop are as ignorant as saying  all liberals do not care about the virtues of hard work and only want to give hand outs to the lazy.   just as ignorant.   #  so the question remains, what do you judge a political party on ?  #  i think there is a big difference between what your average republican vote wants, and what the republican party stands for.  what you have written above, is perhaps a good summary of why someone might vote republican.  but there are very valid reasons to believe that this is not what the republican party actually stands for.  paul ryan is  the path to prosperity  0 budget is a perfect example.  its stated goal was to dramatically reduce the deficit.  except the plan does not do this.  in fact what the plan does, is cut medicare, dramatically roll back social welfare programs, and cut taxes on the wealthy.  so how does this reduce the deficit ? well it does if you believe ryan is unspecified claim that he can close enough tax loopholes, not just to make up for the reduced yearly revenue of the government, but also radically reduce the deficit, and that reducing taxes on the wealthy will increase revenue an economic idea that has been disproven over and over again.  the cbo ca not find enough tax loopholes to close URL to make up the $0 billion a year in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest americans.  the tax policy center referred to the magic sources of revenue as mystery meat URL so what does this all mean ? it means that paul ryan is either incompetent and unable to do basic arithmetic, or the plan is not designed to reduce the deficit at all, it is intended to enact a series of savage and they have only gotten more savage since the 0 iteration cuts to the this country is social safety net under the guise of deficit reduction, while reducing taxes on the wealthy and, ironically, greatly increasing the deficit.  not all republican is are writing and supporting deceptive legislation, but  the path to prosperity  was a popular piece of legislation.  it passed in the republican controlled house, with only 0 republicans voting against it.  this is a particularly stark, but not an isolated incident.  so the question remains, what do you judge a political party on ? what it is constituents believe and it is politician is espouse, or on the legislation they try and pass ? what do you make of a party that in 0 was campaigning heavily on reducing the deficit, while actively voting for legislation that would increase it ?  #  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.   # as we continue to move further into an advanced economy, we increase a share of our  capital intensive  businesses.  like facebook, or google, they make  billions  with capital, not labor.  that is why this recovery is called a  jobless recovery .  we see much of the recovery bypassing the middle class.  they remain largely unemployed, and hurt by the recession, and yet our gdp is at pre crash levels.  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.  it has gone to the wealthy for the most part.  the idea that the wealthy can prosper while the middle class suffers is most certainly not an unfounded assertion, the writing is clearly on the wall during this recovery, and the burden would be upon you to show why this recovery is not a valid indicator of the nature of our currently existing economy.  exactly what the gentleman describes is exactly what we are seeing, right now.   #  but how many of these innovations like google glass and the self driving google car, etc are currently making them billions ?  #  you are correct in saying that the largest tech companies in the us have brilliant people who are doing brilliant things.  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.  but how many of these innovations like google glass and the self driving google car, etc are currently making them billions ? how is it the companies have the abilities to pay their employees to work on their own projects that mostly do not end up reaching the marketplace ? it is because where they make their money is not through what their employees are doing now, but rather buying other is ideas URL and using their employees to maintain the services.  yes, it uses labor, but google would just be a search engine if it mostly was not for their capital investments.
it seems pretty clear that 0 of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.  what economists politely call rent seeking, the rest of us call parasitism.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  the first step to creating a healthy nation, just as with a healthy organism, is to fight off the successful parasites.  the successful parasite is first best move is to jam the host organism is immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation.  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  public investment and sound public policies that help the nation and improve the bargaining power of the average worker run counter to the interests of the rich, who like having high unemployment so they can pay lower wages.  this explains basically all of the republican party is actions and policy positions.  cmv !  #  the successful parasite is first best move is to jam the host organism is immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation.   #  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.   #  respectfully, your view is retarded.  the  0  interests are they exact same interests as everyone else is, to further their wealth, well being, and prosperity as they understand it.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  i am just going to use the google definition of rent seeking, i will accept yours if it is different.   in economics, rent seeking is spending wealth on political lobbying to increase one is share of existing wealth without creating wealth.   that does not sound polite, and is equivalent to parasitism.  however, the definition does not specify a requirment for what consitutes wealth.  a person who donantes $0 dollars to a campaign is just as guilty of this as someone who donates $0,0.  any citizen who contributes a portion of their wealth is engaging in paristism, when most of the citzenry attempting to exert influence through their wealth, who is the parisite and who is the organism in this metephor ? the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  to be blunt, the rich need a functioning government/democracy and all these other thing more than the poor and middle class.  at the very least, the 0 need a functioning democratic government to keep the 0 from overthrowing them like every other time in history.  the rich also need an infrastructure to maintain the efficient flow of goods from which they derive their wealth, and most importantly, they need everyone poorer than them to works the jobs that maintain there lifestyle.  if healthcare and infrastructure are neglected it is out of ignorance of their own self interest rather than malicious intent.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  the rich and powerful cannot stay that way without an effective government.  republicans are obstructionist  within  a democratic system as a form of controlling that system, they do not desire it is dismantling.  lower wages were found in china and elsewhere, long ago.  an unemployed or underpaid american citizen is one less that a rich person can profit from.  the wealthy profit much more from exploiting and ignoring the interests of people outside this country, people in this country need to be able to buy shit to make the rich richer.  republicans do whatever keeps them in power, just like democrats.  for both parties, this largely entails maintaining a government that enough people feel they have a stake in, pandering to the voter, and excepting the monetary influence from lobbyist that is necessary to keep office.  an effective government is necessary to the interests of all parties who participate and is the last thing republicans or the rich want to dismantle.   #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.   #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.  do you have any republican friends ? have you ever had a candid conversation with a member of the gop ? do not you think it is possible that the gop is genuinely concerned about the federal government is $0 trillion national debt, a 0,0 page tax code, making the u. s.  more attractive for entrepreneurs, and other substantial issues ? your broad statement about the motivations of the gop are as ignorant as saying  all liberals do not care about the virtues of hard work and only want to give hand outs to the lazy.   just as ignorant.   #  but there are very valid reasons to believe that this is not what the republican party actually stands for.   #  i think there is a big difference between what your average republican vote wants, and what the republican party stands for.  what you have written above, is perhaps a good summary of why someone might vote republican.  but there are very valid reasons to believe that this is not what the republican party actually stands for.  paul ryan is  the path to prosperity  0 budget is a perfect example.  its stated goal was to dramatically reduce the deficit.  except the plan does not do this.  in fact what the plan does, is cut medicare, dramatically roll back social welfare programs, and cut taxes on the wealthy.  so how does this reduce the deficit ? well it does if you believe ryan is unspecified claim that he can close enough tax loopholes, not just to make up for the reduced yearly revenue of the government, but also radically reduce the deficit, and that reducing taxes on the wealthy will increase revenue an economic idea that has been disproven over and over again.  the cbo ca not find enough tax loopholes to close URL to make up the $0 billion a year in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest americans.  the tax policy center referred to the magic sources of revenue as mystery meat URL so what does this all mean ? it means that paul ryan is either incompetent and unable to do basic arithmetic, or the plan is not designed to reduce the deficit at all, it is intended to enact a series of savage and they have only gotten more savage since the 0 iteration cuts to the this country is social safety net under the guise of deficit reduction, while reducing taxes on the wealthy and, ironically, greatly increasing the deficit.  not all republican is are writing and supporting deceptive legislation, but  the path to prosperity  was a popular piece of legislation.  it passed in the republican controlled house, with only 0 republicans voting against it.  this is a particularly stark, but not an isolated incident.  so the question remains, what do you judge a political party on ? what it is constituents believe and it is politician is espouse, or on the legislation they try and pass ? what do you make of a party that in 0 was campaigning heavily on reducing the deficit, while actively voting for legislation that would increase it ?  #  it has gone to the wealthy for the most part.   # as we continue to move further into an advanced economy, we increase a share of our  capital intensive  businesses.  like facebook, or google, they make  billions  with capital, not labor.  that is why this recovery is called a  jobless recovery .  we see much of the recovery bypassing the middle class.  they remain largely unemployed, and hurt by the recession, and yet our gdp is at pre crash levels.  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.  it has gone to the wealthy for the most part.  the idea that the wealthy can prosper while the middle class suffers is most certainly not an unfounded assertion, the writing is clearly on the wall during this recovery, and the burden would be upon you to show why this recovery is not a valid indicator of the nature of our currently existing economy.  exactly what the gentleman describes is exactly what we are seeing, right now.   #  how is it the companies have the abilities to pay their employees to work on their own projects that mostly do not end up reaching the marketplace ?  #  you are correct in saying that the largest tech companies in the us have brilliant people who are doing brilliant things.  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.  but how many of these innovations like google glass and the self driving google car, etc are currently making them billions ? how is it the companies have the abilities to pay their employees to work on their own projects that mostly do not end up reaching the marketplace ? it is because where they make their money is not through what their employees are doing now, but rather buying other is ideas URL and using their employees to maintain the services.  yes, it uses labor, but google would just be a search engine if it mostly was not for their capital investments.
it seems pretty clear that 0 of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.  what economists politely call rent seeking, the rest of us call parasitism.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  the first step to creating a healthy nation, just as with a healthy organism, is to fight off the successful parasites.  the successful parasite is first best move is to jam the host organism is immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation.  the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  public investment and sound public policies that help the nation and improve the bargaining power of the average worker run counter to the interests of the rich, who like having high unemployment so they can pay lower wages.  this explains basically all of the republican party is actions and policy positions.  cmv !  #  public investment and sound public policies that help the nation and improve the bargaining power of the average worker run counter to the interests of the rich, who like having high unemployment so they can pay lower wages.   #  lower wages were found in china and elsewhere, long ago.   #  respectfully, your view is retarded.  the  0  interests are they exact same interests as everyone else is, to further their wealth, well being, and prosperity as they understand it.  when financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation is productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that is parasitism.  i am just going to use the google definition of rent seeking, i will accept yours if it is different.   in economics, rent seeking is spending wealth on political lobbying to increase one is share of existing wealth without creating wealth.   that does not sound polite, and is equivalent to parasitism.  however, the definition does not specify a requirment for what consitutes wealth.  a person who donantes $0 dollars to a campaign is just as guilty of this as someone who donates $0,0.  any citizen who contributes a portion of their wealth is engaging in paristism, when most of the citzenry attempting to exert influence through their wealth, who is the parisite and who is the organism in this metephor ? the next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system ca not be revived.  in our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.  to be blunt, the rich need a functioning government/democracy and all these other thing more than the poor and middle class.  at the very least, the 0 need a functioning democratic government to keep the 0 from overthrowing them like every other time in history.  the rich also need an infrastructure to maintain the efficient flow of goods from which they derive their wealth, and most importantly, they need everyone poorer than them to works the jobs that maintain there lifestyle.  if healthcare and infrastructure are neglected it is out of ignorance of their own self interest rather than malicious intent.  pretty much everything republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: they want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.  the rich and powerful cannot stay that way without an effective government.  republicans are obstructionist  within  a democratic system as a form of controlling that system, they do not desire it is dismantling.  lower wages were found in china and elsewhere, long ago.  an unemployed or underpaid american citizen is one less that a rich person can profit from.  the wealthy profit much more from exploiting and ignoring the interests of people outside this country, people in this country need to be able to buy shit to make the rich richer.  republicans do whatever keeps them in power, just like democrats.  for both parties, this largely entails maintaining a government that enough people feel they have a stake in, pandering to the voter, and excepting the monetary influence from lobbyist that is necessary to keep office.  an effective government is necessary to the interests of all parties who participate and is the last thing republicans or the rich want to dismantle.   #  your broad statement about the motivations of the gop are as ignorant as saying  all liberals do not care about the virtues of hard work and only want to give hand outs to the lazy.    #  i will look past the long list of corporate donors of the democratic party, or your subtle implication that all gop members are brainwashed, or your misguided belief that a high unemployment rate and a declining economy do not affect the wealthy.  do you have any republican friends ? have you ever had a candid conversation with a member of the gop ? do not you think it is possible that the gop is genuinely concerned about the federal government is $0 trillion national debt, a 0,0 page tax code, making the u. s.  more attractive for entrepreneurs, and other substantial issues ? your broad statement about the motivations of the gop are as ignorant as saying  all liberals do not care about the virtues of hard work and only want to give hand outs to the lazy.   just as ignorant.   #  what you have written above, is perhaps a good summary of why someone might vote republican.   #  i think there is a big difference between what your average republican vote wants, and what the republican party stands for.  what you have written above, is perhaps a good summary of why someone might vote republican.  but there are very valid reasons to believe that this is not what the republican party actually stands for.  paul ryan is  the path to prosperity  0 budget is a perfect example.  its stated goal was to dramatically reduce the deficit.  except the plan does not do this.  in fact what the plan does, is cut medicare, dramatically roll back social welfare programs, and cut taxes on the wealthy.  so how does this reduce the deficit ? well it does if you believe ryan is unspecified claim that he can close enough tax loopholes, not just to make up for the reduced yearly revenue of the government, but also radically reduce the deficit, and that reducing taxes on the wealthy will increase revenue an economic idea that has been disproven over and over again.  the cbo ca not find enough tax loopholes to close URL to make up the $0 billion a year in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest americans.  the tax policy center referred to the magic sources of revenue as mystery meat URL so what does this all mean ? it means that paul ryan is either incompetent and unable to do basic arithmetic, or the plan is not designed to reduce the deficit at all, it is intended to enact a series of savage and they have only gotten more savage since the 0 iteration cuts to the this country is social safety net under the guise of deficit reduction, while reducing taxes on the wealthy and, ironically, greatly increasing the deficit.  not all republican is are writing and supporting deceptive legislation, but  the path to prosperity  was a popular piece of legislation.  it passed in the republican controlled house, with only 0 republicans voting against it.  this is a particularly stark, but not an isolated incident.  so the question remains, what do you judge a political party on ? what it is constituents believe and it is politician is espouse, or on the legislation they try and pass ? what do you make of a party that in 0 was campaigning heavily on reducing the deficit, while actively voting for legislation that would increase it ?  #  as we continue to move further into an advanced economy, we increase a share of our  capital intensive  businesses.   # as we continue to move further into an advanced economy, we increase a share of our  capital intensive  businesses.  like facebook, or google, they make  billions  with capital, not labor.  that is why this recovery is called a  jobless recovery .  we see much of the recovery bypassing the middle class.  they remain largely unemployed, and hurt by the recession, and yet our gdp is at pre crash levels.  the capital in the recovery has been soaked up by capital intensive business models.  it has gone to the wealthy for the most part.  the idea that the wealthy can prosper while the middle class suffers is most certainly not an unfounded assertion, the writing is clearly on the wall during this recovery, and the burden would be upon you to show why this recovery is not a valid indicator of the nature of our currently existing economy.  exactly what the gentleman describes is exactly what we are seeing, right now.   #  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.   #  you are correct in saying that the largest tech companies in the us have brilliant people who are doing brilliant things.  we see news all the time on the amazing innovations, most notably google, are making.  but how many of these innovations like google glass and the self driving google car, etc are currently making them billions ? how is it the companies have the abilities to pay their employees to work on their own projects that mostly do not end up reaching the marketplace ? it is because where they make their money is not through what their employees are doing now, but rather buying other is ideas URL and using their employees to maintain the services.  yes, it uses labor, but google would just be a search engine if it mostly was not for their capital investments.
info graphic just a culmination of information URL my argument inherently we are programmed value a female life more over a mans, this is a logical and biologically driven instinct.  a single women can bring much more life into the world than a man could.  however we are not in any danger of dying out ad a species and valuing one inoccent human more than another with no personal relationship to either, same age etc.  is ridiculous.  more people care about breast cancer because its viewed and primarily is a cancer that affects women.  it is not viewed as cancer but cancer that is a danger for women.  lung cancer and colon an rectal cancer effect both men and women and are both more common and result in more deaths than breast cancer.  regardless of this it receives far more funding nearly double and gets much more publicity.  the blame lays with men as well.  there is a biological and social push for men to he stoical in their suffering.  their taught that their needs come after the good of the whole and as a result they internalize most of their issues.  cancers that affect mostly men are rarely talked about and receive little funding, this is largely that men convince them selves that their issues are not important and talking about them makes then uncomfortable.   #  inherently we are programmed value a female life more over a mans, this is a logical and biologically driven instinct.   #  a single women can bring much more life into the world than a man could.   # a single women can bring much more life into the world than a man could.  do you have a source for that or did you just make it up ? this seems to me to be one of those  bio truthz  that are just made up theories about why humans behave a certain way based on the idea that  this sounds right based on what i know of evolution  but that is not actually based in biological fact.  i do think that the us is fascination with breasts plays a part in the high amount of breast cancer funding.  i also think that because women is diseases were overlooked for some time in the beginning of medical advancements, that women started speaking up about breast cancer and we now have overcompensated to a degree.  but i think there are other reasons too.  it is not so simple as just sexism.  for instance lung cancer is viewed as your own fault: you smoked.  cigarettes cause lung cancer.  and though people get lung cancer without having smoker, so many smokers get it that it is viewed as a smoker is disease.  people have less sympathy in general for diseases that they view as someone is own fault for getting.  colon cancer is just less catchy than breasts.  what even does your colon do ? idk.  i mean all cancer is dangerous and bad, but  colon  is just so less catchy than  breasts.   and again that does go back to the sexualization of breasts which stems from sexism, which does support your point.  i just do not think it is as simple as sexism being the only reason.   #  breast cancer actively kills women of many ages.   #  there are a couple of nuances that you are ignoring in your assessment of the different cancers.  according to your own infographic, breast cancer is deadlier to women than lung, colon, and prostate cancer are to men and women.  additionally, the risk factors of lung cancer are clearly known URL the risk factors of breast cancer ? not so much.  URL it is basically just warning signs that you might develop it, not things that you can change or avoid.  the only way to avoid it read: catch it in time to treat it is to screen early and often, something that people must do of their own volition.  how do they know to do this ? by being  aware  of the warning signs and significance of the disease.  prostate cancer is a false equivalence with breast cancer as well very few people actually die  from  prostate cancer.  the survival rate in the first 0 years is 0.  URL for breast cancer ? depending on your stage, as low as 0.  URL additionally, prostate cancer tends to strike in older men, and often patients with prostate cancer die of a different cause.  breast cancer actively kills women of many ages.  now, that is not to say that the way that we manage prostate and other cancer awareness in this country is perfect it is not.  it also is not to say that the susan g.  komen machine is worthy of praise it is not.  however, given the above, i do not think that your claim  my argument inherently we are programmed value a female life more over a mans, this is a logical and biologically driven instinct.  is in any way supported or substantiated by the way that we handle breast cancer awareness.   #  that is the reason why we should be trying to raise awareness not simply discounting them because they are not catchy.   #  i do not have a source as of now but it is a biological drive, its just logical.  a single man can impregnate multiple women while one women can get pregnant once a year about .  it is definitely not just about sexism, but it definitely plays a large role.  otherwise most of your argument is just explaining why it happens.  my point here is that even if those cancers are not catchy their still dangerous and their still deadly.  that is the reason why we should be trying to raise awareness not simply discounting them because they are not catchy.  raising awareness is important.  showing that smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer, and showing people that even if a body part is not very appealing does not mean it should not be talked about.   #  soldiers are as a rule traditionally male, if a population losses half its women its growth and well being takes a serious hit.   #  soldiers are as a rule traditionally male, if a population losses half its women its growth and well being takes a serious hit.  for several generations far fewer people could be born.  in contrast to that if half a populations men die, the same women can still get pregnant.  that is why huge amount of men can die and it does not spell the end of a society.  men are as a rule more biologically disposable.  i am not  making this up  these are facts.  men are less needed for the continuation of humanities biology hence why they are not as valuable.  they are more valuable ad a source of defense and a means to secure the safety of others, but in that case its their deaths that we value.   #  but this does not mean that men have a biological urge to protect women and children.   # its a biological urge.  that is the part you are making up.  yes, men in general are larger and stronger than women in general.  yes, women are the gender that carries pregnancies and give birth.  this did contribute to the social structure of historical society.  but this does not mean that men have a biological urge to protect women and children.  that is the part you are making up.  they might, who knows, but you do not know that as a fact; you are making that up based on the other facts that you do know.
info graphic just a culmination of information URL my argument inherently we are programmed value a female life more over a mans, this is a logical and biologically driven instinct.  a single women can bring much more life into the world than a man could.  however we are not in any danger of dying out ad a species and valuing one inoccent human more than another with no personal relationship to either, same age etc.  is ridiculous.  more people care about breast cancer because its viewed and primarily is a cancer that affects women.  it is not viewed as cancer but cancer that is a danger for women.  lung cancer and colon an rectal cancer effect both men and women and are both more common and result in more deaths than breast cancer.  regardless of this it receives far more funding nearly double and gets much more publicity.  the blame lays with men as well.  there is a biological and social push for men to he stoical in their suffering.  their taught that their needs come after the good of the whole and as a result they internalize most of their issues.  cancers that affect mostly men are rarely talked about and receive little funding, this is largely that men convince them selves that their issues are not important and talking about them makes then uncomfortable.   #  more people care about breast cancer because its viewed and primarily is a cancer that affects women.   #  you ca not prove more people  care .   # i disagree.  women are still treated as secondary to a man is status.  women are by far the victims of rape, but we live in a culture that blames women for it.  it is safer in general for a man to walk alone after dark.  women are seen as weak and vulnerable.  women still struggle to get equal pay, access to some male dominated careers, and respect in the workplace.  up until about 0 years ago women could not even vote.  you ca not prove more people  care .  donations for breast cancer causes may be significant.  but donations to a charity are more a sign of that charity is fundraising efforts.  charities, although not for profit, are still businesses.  they have to market their message just like any company.  there can be two charities collecting money for the same type of cause but only one has a multi million dollar budget.  look at the difference in donation between two churches where the purpose is the same but one gets 0x the donations.  prostate cancer charities may simply by not as good at fundraising  cancers that affect mostly men are rarely talked about and receive little funding, this is largely that men convince them selves that their issues are not important and talking about them makes then uncomfortable.  you mean prostate and testicular ? there is ample research and discussion on both.  look at all the attention lance armstrong got for testicular cancer.  and every man i know has heard of prostate exams.  there are many different treatments for both cancers.  you have also got to consider that some types of cancer are just more difficult to cure because of how they function or spread.  a higher death rate from a cancer may not have anything to do with funding.  also consider donations from the public are not the only source of funding for research.  grants, government funds, and corporate r d all provide resources for cancer research.  just because public charities fund breast cancer does not mean prostate cancer does not get funded in other ways most corporation leaders and federal government politicians are male.  i am sure men is issues get represented since men hold more of the power.  look at the funding men get for sexuality.  men have cialis and viagara and a bunch of other treatments.  what do women get for sexual dysfunction ? there is no counterpart to viagara.  why are some women is issues ignored ?  #  the survival rate in the first 0 years is 0.   #  there are a couple of nuances that you are ignoring in your assessment of the different cancers.  according to your own infographic, breast cancer is deadlier to women than lung, colon, and prostate cancer are to men and women.  additionally, the risk factors of lung cancer are clearly known URL the risk factors of breast cancer ? not so much.  URL it is basically just warning signs that you might develop it, not things that you can change or avoid.  the only way to avoid it read: catch it in time to treat it is to screen early and often, something that people must do of their own volition.  how do they know to do this ? by being  aware  of the warning signs and significance of the disease.  prostate cancer is a false equivalence with breast cancer as well very few people actually die  from  prostate cancer.  the survival rate in the first 0 years is 0.  URL for breast cancer ? depending on your stage, as low as 0.  URL additionally, prostate cancer tends to strike in older men, and often patients with prostate cancer die of a different cause.  breast cancer actively kills women of many ages.  now, that is not to say that the way that we manage prostate and other cancer awareness in this country is perfect it is not.  it also is not to say that the susan g.  komen machine is worthy of praise it is not.  however, given the above, i do not think that your claim  my argument inherently we are programmed value a female life more over a mans, this is a logical and biologically driven instinct.  is in any way supported or substantiated by the way that we handle breast cancer awareness.   #  a single women can bring much more life into the world than a man could.   # a single women can bring much more life into the world than a man could.  do you have a source for that or did you just make it up ? this seems to me to be one of those  bio truthz  that are just made up theories about why humans behave a certain way based on the idea that  this sounds right based on what i know of evolution  but that is not actually based in biological fact.  i do think that the us is fascination with breasts plays a part in the high amount of breast cancer funding.  i also think that because women is diseases were overlooked for some time in the beginning of medical advancements, that women started speaking up about breast cancer and we now have overcompensated to a degree.  but i think there are other reasons too.  it is not so simple as just sexism.  for instance lung cancer is viewed as your own fault: you smoked.  cigarettes cause lung cancer.  and though people get lung cancer without having smoker, so many smokers get it that it is viewed as a smoker is disease.  people have less sympathy in general for diseases that they view as someone is own fault for getting.  colon cancer is just less catchy than breasts.  what even does your colon do ? idk.  i mean all cancer is dangerous and bad, but  colon  is just so less catchy than  breasts.   and again that does go back to the sexualization of breasts which stems from sexism, which does support your point.  i just do not think it is as simple as sexism being the only reason.   #  that is the reason why we should be trying to raise awareness not simply discounting them because they are not catchy.   #  i do not have a source as of now but it is a biological drive, its just logical.  a single man can impregnate multiple women while one women can get pregnant once a year about .  it is definitely not just about sexism, but it definitely plays a large role.  otherwise most of your argument is just explaining why it happens.  my point here is that even if those cancers are not catchy their still dangerous and their still deadly.  that is the reason why we should be trying to raise awareness not simply discounting them because they are not catchy.  raising awareness is important.  showing that smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer, and showing people that even if a body part is not very appealing does not mean it should not be talked about.   #  for several generations far fewer people could be born.   #  soldiers are as a rule traditionally male, if a population losses half its women its growth and well being takes a serious hit.  for several generations far fewer people could be born.  in contrast to that if half a populations men die, the same women can still get pregnant.  that is why huge amount of men can die and it does not spell the end of a society.  men are as a rule more biologically disposable.  i am not  making this up  these are facts.  men are less needed for the continuation of humanities biology hence why they are not as valuable.  they are more valuable ad a source of defense and a means to secure the safety of others, but in that case its their deaths that we value.
no need for p0x, insanity, paleo, keto, atkins etc.  i just need to go to a caloric calculator, meet that goal and walk my dog like 0 0 mins a day.  i have been trying to lose weight for a while and the only time i was successful was when i tried paleo.  but that only lasted a short time as i did not have the discipline nor will to never touch bread, pasta or rice again.  i have tried doing p0x and insanity and while awesome and fulfilling i never finished.  my schedule was tough and i am thinking those are more for people in shape already or to get ripped well not body builder status but have abs biceps and gain muscle weight.  i recently bought a food scale and am gonna be measuring out calories and then walking my dog 0 0 minutes away then back.  the reason i bring it to this sub is, i have gotten frowns and objections to stopping p0x and also saying i need to start eating gluten free, dairy free etc in addition to one p0x or a similar program and eating anything i want as long as it is below my caloric goal wo not help me lose weight.  i feel pretty confident in my view but seeing as it is important to me to lose some weight i am willing to change my view if need be.  i do not care about being right i care about losing weight, and i never wanna do yoga again !  #  no need for p0x, insanity, paleo, keto, atkins etc.   #  your entire cmv seems to be that dieting and exercise are not necessary or the easiest option if you regulate your caloric intake.   # your entire cmv seems to be that dieting and exercise are not necessary or the easiest option if you regulate your caloric intake.  i will approach that view.  those exercise programs help you burn additional calories with the activity alone, and they also help burn calories  in the future  by increasing muscle mass.  if you get into an exercise routine, it will be easier to keep weight off in the long run.  you can also eat more satisfying meals while you exercise.  the diet programs generally attempt to make you feel full, and limit your calories.  if you are managing your calories, these programs  may  make it easier.  many of them provide packaged meals and plans to keep you on track, whereas managing calories manually can be more time consuming.  this has nothing to do with changing your view, but one of the best ways to lose weight is by  drinking water .  if you drink a glass of water before you eat, you will  feel full  with less food.  we generally stop eating based on how full our stomach feels.  also, eating slower literally slower will also help you eat less.  when you give your body time to start digesting, your hunger will diminish.  most of the time we shove food in our stomach and do not start really digesting until we are full.   #  again if you feel you have the mental strength to stick to it then it is not a problem and you do lose weight, but many people overestimate their ability to say no, myself included.   #  sure you can lose weight if you do that, but transitioning to a less filling diet assuming you are just going to eat less of what you already do eat rather than introducing new low calorie items will give you insatiable food cravings which can work against you.  assuming you have the rock solid ability to tell yourself no, regardless of how good that one extra potato chip looks each and every day then you will be fine.  this is too much for most people that are just starting out though and soon after making your first  well maybe just this one time  concession you will end up with a less healthy diet than you had before.  on top of that you will see results a lot slower which will tempt many people to think  well if i ca not see the difference then why bother ?   and again you will psych yourself out.  people recommend exercise along with diet to lose weight because it helps tone your body but also means that when you do get one of those moments where it is impossible to say no, you will burn off those calories later or will have burned them off earlier.  it maximizes the effectiveness of your diet.  a few months ago i got laid off and for the month it took me to find a new job, i took up a routine of insanity and going for a 0 mile jog afterwards 0 days a week for a month.  i counted calories but not that closely.  usually kept between 0 0 a day.  i lost 0 lbs in the course of that month and kept it off, but i ca not tell the difference, neither could anyone else.  at the rate you are going unless you do something seriously unhealthy and cut out too many calories, you will lose weight very slowly.  again if you feel you have the mental strength to stick to it then it is not a problem and you do lose weight, but many people overestimate their ability to say no, myself included.   #  you still lose 0 pound a week from both.   #  wow that is awesome, i am slowly considering continuing p0x but had a question which i asked earlier and i will just copy.  but would not more exercise also cause you to eat more ? so lets say, you need 0 calories to lose a pound a week, but you exercise so now you can have 0.  so you eat that.  you still lose 0 pound a week from both.  i know those programs will be a huge help but if my plan is to lose weight not put on muscle ca not just a diet and brisk walk achieve that just as fast ?  #  even if all you are doing is running to get in shape, the more in shape you get, the more stamina you have, and thus the more effectively you will be able to exercise the next time you go out.   #  exercise will likely result in you being less full, but you do not have to eat in proportion to calories lost.  if i lose 0 calories doing insanity and jogging and then eat an extra 0 calories more than i would have normally that day i still get a net loss of extra calories in the end.  also people with more discipline than i have can have a super low calorie but filling snack like carrots and gain even less weight back from their exercise to really maximize the benefit.  even if all you are doing is running to get in shape, the more in shape you get, the more stamina you have, and thus the more effectively you will be able to exercise the next time you go out.  again similar benefits can be obtained via walking but you wo not see results nearly as fast.   #  i ca not really change your view because you are 0 right.   #  i ca not really change your view because you are 0 right.  hell, i lost 0 lbs in about 0 months when i got my dog.  although she needs more than a 0 minute walk per day and i was 0 stationary before i got her due to an injured ankle however, changing your diet strategically will mean you will be far more likely to keep your calorie count lower.  eating more calorie light foods veggies, etc.  will help you feel more full and psychologically will be helpful as it looks like you will be eating a lot more food than if you only ate mcdonalds or pasta, for instance.  so it is a fact that if you eat fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight.  no ifs ands or buts.  however, having the willpower to continue to eat fewer calories is generally much easier if you concentrate on eating less calorie dense foods.
no need for p0x, insanity, paleo, keto, atkins etc.  i just need to go to a caloric calculator, meet that goal and walk my dog like 0 0 mins a day.  i have been trying to lose weight for a while and the only time i was successful was when i tried paleo.  but that only lasted a short time as i did not have the discipline nor will to never touch bread, pasta or rice again.  i have tried doing p0x and insanity and while awesome and fulfilling i never finished.  my schedule was tough and i am thinking those are more for people in shape already or to get ripped well not body builder status but have abs biceps and gain muscle weight.  i recently bought a food scale and am gonna be measuring out calories and then walking my dog 0 0 minutes away then back.  the reason i bring it to this sub is, i have gotten frowns and objections to stopping p0x and also saying i need to start eating gluten free, dairy free etc in addition to one p0x or a similar program and eating anything i want as long as it is below my caloric goal wo not help me lose weight.  i feel pretty confident in my view but seeing as it is important to me to lose some weight i am willing to change my view if need be.  i do not care about being right i care about losing weight, and i never wanna do yoga again !  #  i do not care about being right i care about losing weight, and i never wanna do yoga again !  #  this has nothing to do with changing your view, but one of the best ways to lose weight is by  drinking water .   # your entire cmv seems to be that dieting and exercise are not necessary or the easiest option if you regulate your caloric intake.  i will approach that view.  those exercise programs help you burn additional calories with the activity alone, and they also help burn calories  in the future  by increasing muscle mass.  if you get into an exercise routine, it will be easier to keep weight off in the long run.  you can also eat more satisfying meals while you exercise.  the diet programs generally attempt to make you feel full, and limit your calories.  if you are managing your calories, these programs  may  make it easier.  many of them provide packaged meals and plans to keep you on track, whereas managing calories manually can be more time consuming.  this has nothing to do with changing your view, but one of the best ways to lose weight is by  drinking water .  if you drink a glass of water before you eat, you will  feel full  with less food.  we generally stop eating based on how full our stomach feels.  also, eating slower literally slower will also help you eat less.  when you give your body time to start digesting, your hunger will diminish.  most of the time we shove food in our stomach and do not start really digesting until we are full.   #  assuming you have the rock solid ability to tell yourself no, regardless of how good that one extra potato chip looks each and every day then you will be fine.   #  sure you can lose weight if you do that, but transitioning to a less filling diet assuming you are just going to eat less of what you already do eat rather than introducing new low calorie items will give you insatiable food cravings which can work against you.  assuming you have the rock solid ability to tell yourself no, regardless of how good that one extra potato chip looks each and every day then you will be fine.  this is too much for most people that are just starting out though and soon after making your first  well maybe just this one time  concession you will end up with a less healthy diet than you had before.  on top of that you will see results a lot slower which will tempt many people to think  well if i ca not see the difference then why bother ?   and again you will psych yourself out.  people recommend exercise along with diet to lose weight because it helps tone your body but also means that when you do get one of those moments where it is impossible to say no, you will burn off those calories later or will have burned them off earlier.  it maximizes the effectiveness of your diet.  a few months ago i got laid off and for the month it took me to find a new job, i took up a routine of insanity and going for a 0 mile jog afterwards 0 days a week for a month.  i counted calories but not that closely.  usually kept between 0 0 a day.  i lost 0 lbs in the course of that month and kept it off, but i ca not tell the difference, neither could anyone else.  at the rate you are going unless you do something seriously unhealthy and cut out too many calories, you will lose weight very slowly.  again if you feel you have the mental strength to stick to it then it is not a problem and you do lose weight, but many people overestimate their ability to say no, myself included.   #  so lets say, you need 0 calories to lose a pound a week, but you exercise so now you can have 0.  so you eat that.   #  wow that is awesome, i am slowly considering continuing p0x but had a question which i asked earlier and i will just copy.  but would not more exercise also cause you to eat more ? so lets say, you need 0 calories to lose a pound a week, but you exercise so now you can have 0.  so you eat that.  you still lose 0 pound a week from both.  i know those programs will be a huge help but if my plan is to lose weight not put on muscle ca not just a diet and brisk walk achieve that just as fast ?  #  exercise will likely result in you being less full, but you do not have to eat in proportion to calories lost.   #  exercise will likely result in you being less full, but you do not have to eat in proportion to calories lost.  if i lose 0 calories doing insanity and jogging and then eat an extra 0 calories more than i would have normally that day i still get a net loss of extra calories in the end.  also people with more discipline than i have can have a super low calorie but filling snack like carrots and gain even less weight back from their exercise to really maximize the benefit.  even if all you are doing is running to get in shape, the more in shape you get, the more stamina you have, and thus the more effectively you will be able to exercise the next time you go out.  again similar benefits can be obtained via walking but you wo not see results nearly as fast.   #  hell, i lost 0 lbs in about 0 months when i got my dog.   #  i ca not really change your view because you are 0 right.  hell, i lost 0 lbs in about 0 months when i got my dog.  although she needs more than a 0 minute walk per day and i was 0 stationary before i got her due to an injured ankle however, changing your diet strategically will mean you will be far more likely to keep your calorie count lower.  eating more calorie light foods veggies, etc.  will help you feel more full and psychologically will be helpful as it looks like you will be eating a lot more food than if you only ate mcdonalds or pasta, for instance.  so it is a fact that if you eat fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight.  no ifs ands or buts.  however, having the willpower to continue to eat fewer calories is generally much easier if you concentrate on eating less calorie dense foods.
i see no reason to limit someone is speech other than a desire to control others.  if someone yells fire in a crowded theatre, it is the yelling that needs to be controlled, not the speech.  if people trample one another heading for the exits, it is those who do the trampling that are at fault.  if someone calls to harm another person or group, that person should be free to do so as long as they do not harm anyone themselves.  if someone else causes harm as a result, that is on that person not the person who uttered the words.  i am not saying that speech should not have consequences due to social market conditions, but limiting the free flow of ideas no matter how offensive you find them to be is never anybody else is right to impose on another.  please change my view  #  if someone yells fire in a crowded theatre, it is the yelling that needs to be controlled, not the speech.   #  if people trample one another heading for the exits, it is those who do the trampling that are at fault.   # if people trample one another heading for the exits, it is those who do the trampling that are at fault.  let is forget the trampling for a moment, and even the yelling.  you have communicated that a fire is happening.  since reasonable people do not do this if there is no fire, then reasonable people will take the message at face value and evacuate.  imagine that they do it in an orderly manner, with no trampling.  they have missed a movie which they paid for.  the content of your message has robbed people behaving reasonably of value.  how about advertising ? should their be no limits on false advertising ? you can say that people are at fault for believing these messages, but if you have created a society with no limits of messages regardless of truth, then you have created a crippled economy and destroyed trust.   #  you are basically saying it is okay to make up evidence.   #  testimony is evidence.  you are basically saying it is okay to make up evidence.  all rights have some limitations; they just need to pass certain hurdles in order to be constitutionally sound.  we need people to take an oath so they understand the gravity of what they are saying in court, and so people have some basis for believing what they say unless given a reason to the contrary.  the marketplace of ideas is limited in a number of ways in a courthouse by the rules of evidence; it is fundamentally unfair that testimony has no limitations but physical evidence, for example, does and for good reason.  the  marketplace of ideas  does not handle harassment because it, by definition, requires some credible threat of harm under most statutes.  there is no time to discuss the merits of those threats and hope that the aggressor walks away.  similarly, what about defamation ? people  lie  and it has affects on reputation that can be measured in actual economic damage.  how is the marketplace of ideas going to properly compensate for the economic loss people incur at the hands of false statements ? even if the claim is proven inaccurate in the marketplace of ideas, they lost money and opportunity in the  actual  market.   #  premise 0: there are scenarios where  bad  can occur following the use of speech which would not have occurred in the absence of same speech.   #  do you think paying someone to commit a murder is ok because you did not do it yourself ? its the same a specific case of as convincing or influencing someone to do something bad.  just because an action does not directly cause harm does not mean it does not cause it.  children are particularly vulnerable.  imagine a parent tells their child that a particular religion is bad and that all who follow it should die and the child injures or kills someone of that religion.  do you think it is the child is fault or the parents ? do you agree that if the parents had not said that, then this event would not have occurred ? the parents words have caused harm, it does not matter if it was indirect.  premise 0: there are scenarios where  bad  can occur following the use of speech which would not have occurred in the absence of same speech.   #  note that thousands of people will die if you do not arrest them.   #  okay, how about this: suppose a group of terrorists plots fly planes into say the world trade center.  suppose there is proof they they are plotting this.  suppose they even announce they will do it.  should it be illegal to arrest them, because this is all just speech ? note that thousands of people will die if you do not arrest them.   #  the fact is, humans react without thinking when presented with danger.   #  what if there actually were a fire, and as a result i push his sister ? am i to blame for his sister is injury, or the arsonist ? what if we were in a gas chamber, clamoring to the ceiling helplessly for air and i tear someone is eyes out as i mindlessly claw my way upwards ? am i at fault for that person is eye injury, or the nazis ? the fact is, humans react without thinking when presented with danger.  if i put everyone in a crowded room, locked all the doors, and shouted  turn on the gas  but did not really, and everyone panicked, it is ridiculous for you to blame the inevitable injury and possibly death on the individuals who inflicted it instead of me, the person who created the panic.
i see no reason to limit someone is speech other than a desire to control others.  if someone yells fire in a crowded theatre, it is the yelling that needs to be controlled, not the speech.  if people trample one another heading for the exits, it is those who do the trampling that are at fault.  if someone calls to harm another person or group, that person should be free to do so as long as they do not harm anyone themselves.  if someone else causes harm as a result, that is on that person not the person who uttered the words.  i am not saying that speech should not have consequences due to social market conditions, but limiting the free flow of ideas no matter how offensive you find them to be is never anybody else is right to impose on another.  please change my view  #  it is those who do the trampling that are at fault.   #  they are convinced, by alarma given, that they are running for their lives, trampling can be an accident due to this.   # they are convinced, by alarma given, that they are running for their lives, trampling can be an accident due to this.  fake bomb threats.  false rumours.  slander.  these are examples of damage caused by speech.  if you merely limit crimes to physical authors you are basically giving intellectual authors of a crime a free ride.  does not sound convincing.   #  the  marketplace of ideas  does not handle harassment because it, by definition, requires some credible threat of harm under most statutes.   #  testimony is evidence.  you are basically saying it is okay to make up evidence.  all rights have some limitations; they just need to pass certain hurdles in order to be constitutionally sound.  we need people to take an oath so they understand the gravity of what they are saying in court, and so people have some basis for believing what they say unless given a reason to the contrary.  the marketplace of ideas is limited in a number of ways in a courthouse by the rules of evidence; it is fundamentally unfair that testimony has no limitations but physical evidence, for example, does and for good reason.  the  marketplace of ideas  does not handle harassment because it, by definition, requires some credible threat of harm under most statutes.  there is no time to discuss the merits of those threats and hope that the aggressor walks away.  similarly, what about defamation ? people  lie  and it has affects on reputation that can be measured in actual economic damage.  how is the marketplace of ideas going to properly compensate for the economic loss people incur at the hands of false statements ? even if the claim is proven inaccurate in the marketplace of ideas, they lost money and opportunity in the  actual  market.   #  do you think paying someone to commit a murder is ok because you did not do it yourself ?  #  do you think paying someone to commit a murder is ok because you did not do it yourself ? its the same a specific case of as convincing or influencing someone to do something bad.  just because an action does not directly cause harm does not mean it does not cause it.  children are particularly vulnerable.  imagine a parent tells their child that a particular religion is bad and that all who follow it should die and the child injures or kills someone of that religion.  do you think it is the child is fault or the parents ? do you agree that if the parents had not said that, then this event would not have occurred ? the parents words have caused harm, it does not matter if it was indirect.  premise 0: there are scenarios where  bad  can occur following the use of speech which would not have occurred in the absence of same speech.   #  okay, how about this: suppose a group of terrorists plots fly planes into say the world trade center.   #  okay, how about this: suppose a group of terrorists plots fly planes into say the world trade center.  suppose there is proof they they are plotting this.  suppose they even announce they will do it.  should it be illegal to arrest them, because this is all just speech ? note that thousands of people will die if you do not arrest them.   #  the fact is, humans react without thinking when presented with danger.   #  what if there actually were a fire, and as a result i push his sister ? am i to blame for his sister is injury, or the arsonist ? what if we were in a gas chamber, clamoring to the ceiling helplessly for air and i tear someone is eyes out as i mindlessly claw my way upwards ? am i at fault for that person is eye injury, or the nazis ? the fact is, humans react without thinking when presented with danger.  if i put everyone in a crowded room, locked all the doors, and shouted  turn on the gas  but did not really, and everyone panicked, it is ridiculous for you to blame the inevitable injury and possibly death on the individuals who inflicted it instead of me, the person who created the panic.
no matter how ridiculous reality tv can get.  there are always lessons to be learned about human behavior and psychology; that are beneficial to the society we live in today.  lessons of trust, betrayal the art of deception can be learned from shows such as big brother and survivor.  shows such as kitchen nightmare and hotel hell are not only highly entertaining to watch, but different leadership and managerial skills could be learned from such shows.  a show such as shark tank can give future entrepreneurs advice and education on how to have a successful business and learn from other peoples  success and failure.  the biggest loser also can teach kids and adults of how to eat healthy and motivate them to change their eating and bad habits.  yes there are many shows that are scripted, and plain disgusting like honey boo boo you can learn how not to raise your child but i see that the positive of watching these shows outweigh the bad.  you can make the argument that all these shows are scripted, however, producers have so little power on reality tv celebrities are going to act or say .  reality tv is also a great source of knowledge on different cultures and societies that a regular person might have not got the chance to stumble across.  therefore, my points lead to the argument that parents should encourage their kids to watch the shows they are age appropriate as the child will gain life lessons by simply watching these shows.  cmv please !  #  no matter how ridiculous reality tv can get.   #  there are always lessons to be learned about human behavior and psychology; that are beneficial to the society we live in today.   # there are always lessons to be learned about human behavior and psychology; that are beneficial to the society we live in today.  for the broad definition of this you seem to be using, are there any forms of media that do not meet this standard ? what specifically would not meet this standard ? and if basically everything meets this standard, why does reality tv do it better than something else parents could encourage their kids to watch.  shows such as kitchen nightmare and hotel hell are not only highly entertaining to watch, but different leadership and managerial skills could be learned from such shows.  these shows can also glamorize ignorant or sociopathic behavior.  you say  the art of deception  can be taught.  that is not a good lesson.  if someone engages day to day live with the level of arrogance and judgmentalism displayed by gordon ramsay, they are not going to be very successful.  if you have the skill to back it up that is one thing, but kids basically never have that sort of skill.  they have an immense amount of power over it actually.  generally in an hour long show with say, 0 contestants in the episode, you are talking about 0 or 0 minutes of screen time per contestant.  that 0 0 minutes of screen time will correspond to something like 0 0 hours of filmed time depending on the show.  can i find something to make you look how i want in 0 minutes within a 0 day period ? i think so.  most of the depictions of foreign cultures or obscure subcultures i see on reality tv are highly stereotyped, and not a great source of knowledge at all.  depending on the shows in question, i would not be surprised if a child reared on those shows held bigoted views as a result.  here URL are a few URL sources on that.  URL  #  there is such a huge variety among these shows that simply saying  reality tv is a good source of education  is completely unjustified.   #  as you say, these shows give us a superficial look at human behavior and society.  a young impressionable child could just as easily be negatively influenced from these shows as they could be positively influenced.  for example, survivor might teach kids that you need to backstab your friends to be successful in life.  gordon ramsay might be teaching kids that its ok to yell at people who are not as successful as you.  there is such a huge variety among these shows that simply saying  reality tv is a good source of education  is completely unjustified.  it would be much more reasonable to actively weigh the pros and cons of each show rather than just turn on any reality tv channel and let your kid rot their mind for hours.   #  you do not have to always show the positive to teach your kids lessons about life.   #  anything in large amounts are obviously harmful.  to adress your point, survivor can yes teach kids how damage others for personal goals but also we can use the show to teach the child that no matter what different backgrounds people come from, they are able to backstab and lie to your face in order to reach their goal.  you do not have to always show the positive to teach your kids lessons about life.  by showing gordon ramsey is behavior, kids can learn that yelling at people is not okay and it hurts people feelings therefore, they should not emulate him.  my point is, kids can learn so many important lessons from merely watching these shows.  monitoring what they watch is very important as their many shows that are not suitable for their age.  if you are going allow them to watch such shows, make sure you track all the values that could be learned and explain them as they watch.   #  these other mediums have entire genres that cater specifically to kids, which will help you avoid the plethora of negative influences and pure ignorance found in many reality tv shows.   #  if you are watching with them and explaining when someone does something good or bad then that could be beneficial.  if my goal was to educate my kid and teach them life lessons, having them watch reality tv would not be high on my list of effective methods.  nothing can replace sitting down with your kid and telling them about life and how your own experiences taught you life lessons.  educational tv shows and books will do far more for your kid than watching say yes to the dress or americas next top model.  reality tv is superficial and fake, if you teach your kid that this is an accurate portrayal of real day to day life then you are lying to them.  basically, the positive lessons that can be derived from reality tv can also be found in books, movies, and other tv shows.  these other mediums have entire genres that cater specifically to kids, which will help you avoid the plethora of negative influences and pure ignorance found in many reality tv shows.   #  i believe as long as parents get to educate kids of the negative influences and ignorance portrayed by reality shows morals and ethics could be learned and developed at an early age.   #  i did not argue its the best source of education but its an important one.  exposure to different sources are crucial for the child is intellectual development but reality tv is simply a highly entertaining, easy to access source that some kids would rather pick than reading a book or watching a 0 hours movie.   these other mediums have entire genres that cater specifically to kids, which will help you avoid the plethora of negative influences and pure ignorance found in many reality tv shows.   i can make a whole argument of why allowing kids watch only genres offered by other mediums is not the ideal way to develop the child is creativity and personality.  i believe as long as parents get to educate kids of the negative influences and ignorance portrayed by reality shows morals and ethics could be learned and developed at an early age.
no matter how ridiculous reality tv can get.  there are always lessons to be learned about human behavior and psychology; that are beneficial to the society we live in today.  lessons of trust, betrayal the art of deception can be learned from shows such as big brother and survivor.  shows such as kitchen nightmare and hotel hell are not only highly entertaining to watch, but different leadership and managerial skills could be learned from such shows.  a show such as shark tank can give future entrepreneurs advice and education on how to have a successful business and learn from other peoples  success and failure.  the biggest loser also can teach kids and adults of how to eat healthy and motivate them to change their eating and bad habits.  yes there are many shows that are scripted, and plain disgusting like honey boo boo you can learn how not to raise your child but i see that the positive of watching these shows outweigh the bad.  you can make the argument that all these shows are scripted, however, producers have so little power on reality tv celebrities are going to act or say .  reality tv is also a great source of knowledge on different cultures and societies that a regular person might have not got the chance to stumble across.  therefore, my points lead to the argument that parents should encourage their kids to watch the shows they are age appropriate as the child will gain life lessons by simply watching these shows.  cmv please !  #  lessons of trust, betrayal the art of deception can be learned from shows such as big brother and survivor.   #  shows such as kitchen nightmare and hotel hell are not only highly entertaining to watch, but different leadership and managerial skills could be learned from such shows.   # there are always lessons to be learned about human behavior and psychology; that are beneficial to the society we live in today.  for the broad definition of this you seem to be using, are there any forms of media that do not meet this standard ? what specifically would not meet this standard ? and if basically everything meets this standard, why does reality tv do it better than something else parents could encourage their kids to watch.  shows such as kitchen nightmare and hotel hell are not only highly entertaining to watch, but different leadership and managerial skills could be learned from such shows.  these shows can also glamorize ignorant or sociopathic behavior.  you say  the art of deception  can be taught.  that is not a good lesson.  if someone engages day to day live with the level of arrogance and judgmentalism displayed by gordon ramsay, they are not going to be very successful.  if you have the skill to back it up that is one thing, but kids basically never have that sort of skill.  they have an immense amount of power over it actually.  generally in an hour long show with say, 0 contestants in the episode, you are talking about 0 or 0 minutes of screen time per contestant.  that 0 0 minutes of screen time will correspond to something like 0 0 hours of filmed time depending on the show.  can i find something to make you look how i want in 0 minutes within a 0 day period ? i think so.  most of the depictions of foreign cultures or obscure subcultures i see on reality tv are highly stereotyped, and not a great source of knowledge at all.  depending on the shows in question, i would not be surprised if a child reared on those shows held bigoted views as a result.  here URL are a few URL sources on that.  URL  #  gordon ramsay might be teaching kids that its ok to yell at people who are not as successful as you.   #  as you say, these shows give us a superficial look at human behavior and society.  a young impressionable child could just as easily be negatively influenced from these shows as they could be positively influenced.  for example, survivor might teach kids that you need to backstab your friends to be successful in life.  gordon ramsay might be teaching kids that its ok to yell at people who are not as successful as you.  there is such a huge variety among these shows that simply saying  reality tv is a good source of education  is completely unjustified.  it would be much more reasonable to actively weigh the pros and cons of each show rather than just turn on any reality tv channel and let your kid rot their mind for hours.   #  you do not have to always show the positive to teach your kids lessons about life.   #  anything in large amounts are obviously harmful.  to adress your point, survivor can yes teach kids how damage others for personal goals but also we can use the show to teach the child that no matter what different backgrounds people come from, they are able to backstab and lie to your face in order to reach their goal.  you do not have to always show the positive to teach your kids lessons about life.  by showing gordon ramsey is behavior, kids can learn that yelling at people is not okay and it hurts people feelings therefore, they should not emulate him.  my point is, kids can learn so many important lessons from merely watching these shows.  monitoring what they watch is very important as their many shows that are not suitable for their age.  if you are going allow them to watch such shows, make sure you track all the values that could be learned and explain them as they watch.   #  educational tv shows and books will do far more for your kid than watching say yes to the dress or americas next top model.   #  if you are watching with them and explaining when someone does something good or bad then that could be beneficial.  if my goal was to educate my kid and teach them life lessons, having them watch reality tv would not be high on my list of effective methods.  nothing can replace sitting down with your kid and telling them about life and how your own experiences taught you life lessons.  educational tv shows and books will do far more for your kid than watching say yes to the dress or americas next top model.  reality tv is superficial and fake, if you teach your kid that this is an accurate portrayal of real day to day life then you are lying to them.  basically, the positive lessons that can be derived from reality tv can also be found in books, movies, and other tv shows.  these other mediums have entire genres that cater specifically to kids, which will help you avoid the plethora of negative influences and pure ignorance found in many reality tv shows.   #   these other mediums have entire genres that cater specifically to kids, which will help you avoid the plethora of negative influences and pure ignorance found in many reality tv shows.    #  i did not argue its the best source of education but its an important one.  exposure to different sources are crucial for the child is intellectual development but reality tv is simply a highly entertaining, easy to access source that some kids would rather pick than reading a book or watching a 0 hours movie.   these other mediums have entire genres that cater specifically to kids, which will help you avoid the plethora of negative influences and pure ignorance found in many reality tv shows.   i can make a whole argument of why allowing kids watch only genres offered by other mediums is not the ideal way to develop the child is creativity and personality.  i believe as long as parents get to educate kids of the negative influences and ignorance portrayed by reality shows morals and ethics could be learned and developed at an early age.
no matter how ridiculous reality tv can get.  there are always lessons to be learned about human behavior and psychology; that are beneficial to the society we live in today.  lessons of trust, betrayal the art of deception can be learned from shows such as big brother and survivor.  shows such as kitchen nightmare and hotel hell are not only highly entertaining to watch, but different leadership and managerial skills could be learned from such shows.  a show such as shark tank can give future entrepreneurs advice and education on how to have a successful business and learn from other peoples  success and failure.  the biggest loser also can teach kids and adults of how to eat healthy and motivate them to change their eating and bad habits.  yes there are many shows that are scripted, and plain disgusting like honey boo boo you can learn how not to raise your child but i see that the positive of watching these shows outweigh the bad.  you can make the argument that all these shows are scripted, however, producers have so little power on reality tv celebrities are going to act or say .  reality tv is also a great source of knowledge on different cultures and societies that a regular person might have not got the chance to stumble across.  therefore, my points lead to the argument that parents should encourage their kids to watch the shows they are age appropriate as the child will gain life lessons by simply watching these shows.  cmv please !  #  reality tv is also a great source of knowledge on different cultures and societies that a regular person might have not got the chance to stumble across.   #  most of the depictions of foreign cultures or obscure subcultures i see on reality tv are highly stereotyped, and not a great source of knowledge at all.   # there are always lessons to be learned about human behavior and psychology; that are beneficial to the society we live in today.  for the broad definition of this you seem to be using, are there any forms of media that do not meet this standard ? what specifically would not meet this standard ? and if basically everything meets this standard, why does reality tv do it better than something else parents could encourage their kids to watch.  shows such as kitchen nightmare and hotel hell are not only highly entertaining to watch, but different leadership and managerial skills could be learned from such shows.  these shows can also glamorize ignorant or sociopathic behavior.  you say  the art of deception  can be taught.  that is not a good lesson.  if someone engages day to day live with the level of arrogance and judgmentalism displayed by gordon ramsay, they are not going to be very successful.  if you have the skill to back it up that is one thing, but kids basically never have that sort of skill.  they have an immense amount of power over it actually.  generally in an hour long show with say, 0 contestants in the episode, you are talking about 0 or 0 minutes of screen time per contestant.  that 0 0 minutes of screen time will correspond to something like 0 0 hours of filmed time depending on the show.  can i find something to make you look how i want in 0 minutes within a 0 day period ? i think so.  most of the depictions of foreign cultures or obscure subcultures i see on reality tv are highly stereotyped, and not a great source of knowledge at all.  depending on the shows in question, i would not be surprised if a child reared on those shows held bigoted views as a result.  here URL are a few URL sources on that.  URL  #  for example, survivor might teach kids that you need to backstab your friends to be successful in life.   #  as you say, these shows give us a superficial look at human behavior and society.  a young impressionable child could just as easily be negatively influenced from these shows as they could be positively influenced.  for example, survivor might teach kids that you need to backstab your friends to be successful in life.  gordon ramsay might be teaching kids that its ok to yell at people who are not as successful as you.  there is such a huge variety among these shows that simply saying  reality tv is a good source of education  is completely unjustified.  it would be much more reasonable to actively weigh the pros and cons of each show rather than just turn on any reality tv channel and let your kid rot their mind for hours.   #  if you are going allow them to watch such shows, make sure you track all the values that could be learned and explain them as they watch.   #  anything in large amounts are obviously harmful.  to adress your point, survivor can yes teach kids how damage others for personal goals but also we can use the show to teach the child that no matter what different backgrounds people come from, they are able to backstab and lie to your face in order to reach their goal.  you do not have to always show the positive to teach your kids lessons about life.  by showing gordon ramsey is behavior, kids can learn that yelling at people is not okay and it hurts people feelings therefore, they should not emulate him.  my point is, kids can learn so many important lessons from merely watching these shows.  monitoring what they watch is very important as their many shows that are not suitable for their age.  if you are going allow them to watch such shows, make sure you track all the values that could be learned and explain them as they watch.   #  reality tv is superficial and fake, if you teach your kid that this is an accurate portrayal of real day to day life then you are lying to them.   #  if you are watching with them and explaining when someone does something good or bad then that could be beneficial.  if my goal was to educate my kid and teach them life lessons, having them watch reality tv would not be high on my list of effective methods.  nothing can replace sitting down with your kid and telling them about life and how your own experiences taught you life lessons.  educational tv shows and books will do far more for your kid than watching say yes to the dress or americas next top model.  reality tv is superficial and fake, if you teach your kid that this is an accurate portrayal of real day to day life then you are lying to them.  basically, the positive lessons that can be derived from reality tv can also be found in books, movies, and other tv shows.  these other mediums have entire genres that cater specifically to kids, which will help you avoid the plethora of negative influences and pure ignorance found in many reality tv shows.   #  exposure to different sources are crucial for the child is intellectual development but reality tv is simply a highly entertaining, easy to access source that some kids would rather pick than reading a book or watching a 0 hours movie.   #  i did not argue its the best source of education but its an important one.  exposure to different sources are crucial for the child is intellectual development but reality tv is simply a highly entertaining, easy to access source that some kids would rather pick than reading a book or watching a 0 hours movie.   these other mediums have entire genres that cater specifically to kids, which will help you avoid the plethora of negative influences and pure ignorance found in many reality tv shows.   i can make a whole argument of why allowing kids watch only genres offered by other mediums is not the ideal way to develop the child is creativity and personality.  i believe as long as parents get to educate kids of the negative influences and ignorance portrayed by reality shows morals and ethics could be learned and developed at an early age.
disclaimer: my view is mostly looking at virginity in the united states and other likeminded  western  countries, but international redditors please share how virginity affects the culture of your country ! second disclaimer: for the purposes of this discussion,  sex  means heterosexual, piv sex.  i personally believe that virginity is completely made up and furthermore is completely harmful to the minds of young men and women in the united states.  our generation should work to remove the concept entirely from the american psyche.  here are the reasons why it is bs: 0.  physical virginity: in women, the concept of the hymen being the physical manifestation of virginity is ridiculous and has lead to the actual deaths of thousands of women worldwide.  the hymen does not  break  the first time you have sex; when you are born there is a small hole in it, which begins to tear at a fairly young age due to any number of physical activities, and can tear a lot more during sex, but often the hymen has torn completely by that point.  some women are born without hymens altogether.  0.  social: i believe the concept of virginity puts a lot of pressure on young people to find  the right person  to have sex with for the first time, and that there is a lot of virgin shaming/slut shaming that goes on if other people think you  lost it  too early, too late, or in the wrong way.  this not only leads to a lot of negative feelings towards the experience in general, but a lot of pressure and expectation surrounding sex.  in addition, there is a lot of pressure to make the first time  special , leading to even more pressure.  0.  the virginity threshold: most people view piv sex as  real sex , and in an atmosphere with a lot of horny teenagers, young people who feel they are not ready to  lose their virginities  yet will use different methods to fulfill their sexual needs.  there is kind of an idea that everything leading up to sex is no big deal, while sex is a huge deal.  for example, oral sex with someone might be seen as nothing at all because technically a penis does not go into a vagina, whereas it should hold more weight than that.  0.  heteronormativity: the concept as piv sex being the only  real  sex for heterosexual people is harmful to heterosexual people, but it is also harmful to the lgbtq  community because it makes other kinds of sex seem less intimate and real.  it also causes confusion for young lgbtq  people when it comes to what their sexual acts  mean  in terms of being in a relationship.  those are my big five thoughts on virginity and why it is not only a completely made up concept but an exclusively harmful one so change my view and tell me why virginity is a valuable concept for our society.   #  0.  heteronormativity: the concept as piv sex being the only  real  sex for heterosexual people is harmful to heterosexual people, but it is also harmful to the lgbtq  community because it makes other kinds of sex seem less intimate and real.   #  it also causes confusion for young lgbtq  people when it comes to what their sexual acts  mean  in terms of being in a relationship.   # it also causes confusion for young lgbtq  people when it comes to what their sexual acts  mean  in terms of being in a relationship.  you made your post heteronormative.  i am a lesbian and have argued with doctors about my virginity.  other than the fact that i have no risk of pregnancy, my sex counts.  if  tightness  is your determining factor, i think my enjoyment of fisting has solidified the lack of virginity here.  there is medical relevance.  you are less likely to have many diseases if you have never had sex.  i think instead of abolishing the concept, which is unrealistic, we need to teach that all sex counts, gay or straight.   #  would not having any type of sex enhance your thinking and have an effect ?  #  i can agree with that, but that does not explain why piv sex is given special status.  if doing anything for the first time changes your outlook then why is piv the only type of sex that  counts  ? why not oral sex, manual sex, and/or anal sex ? would not having any type of sex enhance your thinking and have an effect ? what about queer people ? would not queer sex shape your experiences as well ? what makes piv so special that it is given this huge weight and expectation but no other form of sex is given any consideration ?  #  being sexually active, i would argue, does change your life.   #  going from being in high school to not being in high school is a lifestyle change.  you are different because it is a new life you are living.  going from not having sex to having sex if after you  lose your virginity  you continue to he sexually active changes your lifestyle.  your graduation in and of itself does not actually change you.  it is a milestone that marks a new kind of life you are living, and when it begins.  if you have sex once and do not have sex for the next five years, your whole life is not different and your whole worldview does not change.  being sexually active, i would argue, does change your life.  however, saying that your life is different from having sex once is not accurate.  another example: a person who was born vegetarian and when they are 0 eats meat for the first time.  if from there on out they are a meat eater, they are probably a different person their morals/values/perspective on eating meat have changed .  if a lifelong vegetarian just eats bacon once, that piece of bacon did not change their life and you ca not just say they are not a vegetarian anymore n  #  i say this because virginity and being a virgin is a completely factual thing and you ca not really deny that it is a real concept.   #  i think you need to change your argument from  virginity is completely made up  to  the connotations of being labeled as a  virgin  can be harmful and/or are blown completely out of proportion .  i say this because virginity and being a virgin is a completely factual thing and you ca not really deny that it is a real concept.  however the stigma or labeling that goes along with it you can argue one way or the other.  i think you are all over the place here.  you say that it is all a made up concept, but then provide thorough examples of how it is actually a very real and tangible thing.   #  but i am fine with people defining it slightly differently if they want to.   # or coerced into it ? they technically had piv or other sex, but there probably was no intimacy involved at all.  like i said, let is leave it up to any individual person to decide what  sex  and  virgin  means to them.  i think we will have slight differences based on the person is experiences and how they wish to identify, but nothing so wildly drastic as to have  infinite  definitions.  that seems best in a discussion about the emotional/social effects of virginity.  for me, i am fine with a definition of sex being slightly different based on whether you are gay or straight.  lesbians, seems like consensual genital touching works best but i am open to redefining it .  for men, i would say consensual penetration either way, same for straight folks.  but i am fine with people defining it slightly differently if they want to.  if you want to say you have not, or do not feel like you have lost your virginity because you do not remember it, that is fine with me.  how does it really affect the conversation you have started in cmv ? that you think we need to abolish social stigmas of virginity ? does not that, given your arguments, mostly come down to whether a person wants to identify as a virgin or not ?
this is not about development models or anything.  plenty of open source projects are very collaborative, and wikipedia is huge.  what i mean is that the  get file from server in california  way of doing things on the internet will likely never get overthrown.  some examples:   facebook, twitter, g , etc.  vs what ? diaspora  ? twister ? frendica ?   skype, google hangouts vs what ? tox ? jitsi ?   netflix vs popcorntime ?   spotify vs nothing.    this website your on vs haha nothing   the internet.  period.   meshnets  are a joke.  and the reason is pretty simple: distributed networks are harder to do in every regard.  they are harder to design, harder to implement, and often harder to use on for the user.   i have to download a client to post a status update ? fuck that.   while generally offering little to no tangible benefits.  mostly ideological ones.  on top of that, in terms of popularity, it is almost always the first version of something that stays on top.  maybe reddit would have been a huge decentralized network if it was designed as decentralized from the get go, but that is usually the last thing on anybody is mind when creating a new product/service.  exception to the rule is bittorrent and other p0p networks.  but in the case of filesharing, the benefits are huge.  no filesize limits, no takedowns, next to zero hosting costs, and a billion potential usecases.  also, git.  but git is being increasingly absorbed by github so it is almost moot point.  cmv, please.  i love these networks, but i do not realistically see them being successful.   #  distributed networks are harder to do in every regard.   #  most of the infrastructure that forms a distributed network is a solved problem.   # p0p  means  decentralized.  tcp/ip and the originators of the internet assumed that each node could reach every other node equally.  while not entirely decentralized in the strictest sense but really not too far from it bittorrent has caused seismic and probably permanent shifts in the music and media industries.  the music industry is really all but overthrown.  bitcoin may be next, and if it does not have an effect on the financial industry, the underlying technology can be used for a lot of other things that fit a transaction model.  most of the infrastructure that forms a distributed network is a solved problem.  you assume the network is there, fast, and highly available.  you then design an application that works in a decentralized manner, finding other peers and verifying things to satisfaction among those peers when needed   harder to implement client server is only easier because it is been around longer.  this does not have to be the case.  a non technical end user does not know anything about networking, tcp/ip, clients, servers, protocols, marshalling data, network byte order, etc.  for a client server model, why would this be true for a decentralized model ? users ca not handle downloading an app ?  #  yeah, i would much rather use my browser to download a fat javascript application  every single time  i want to post a status update, than install a client once.   #  what about bitcoin ? it is fully decentralized and quite trendy ? also about git, it is designed to be decentralized, and even if you synchronize your repositories only with github it is still technically decentralized, watch this video URL it is not because people use it in a somewhat centralized way that it is not.  i think the main problem here is that you are trying to pinpoint a decentralized service provider, which by definition is not supposed to happen.  emails for example are decentralized, because there are multiple providers and because you could even be your own email provider.  fuck that.   yeah, i would much rather use my browser to download a fat javascript application  every single time  i want to post a status update, than install a client once.  but that is another issue.  that has nothing to do with decentralized systems.  seriously ? to finish, i would like to say that as often, there is no silver bullet, decentralized systems are very good at some things, not at others, and so are centralized systems.  wanting one type of systems to be prevalent, is kind of pointless, just use the one which is most relevant to you use case.   #  it is not the pinnacle of the internet is evolution.   #  when it comes decentralized communication models,  we ai not seen nothing yet .  forget facebook and twitter.  web0 is a stepping stone.  it is not the pinnacle of the internet is evolution.  two examples of emerging p0p technologies are  storj , a decentralized file storage system, and  openbazaar , a decentralized marketplace.  these can offer real, practical advantages compared to their centralized competitors, dropbox and ebay.  lower fees, better privacy, and it the case of storj, more redundancy.  if you think storj is impractical, have a look at  spacemonkey  which is a working implementation of the same idea, and it is already charging lower fees than dropbox.  but those are only the beginning.  what you have to realize is that there exist social and technical problems that decentralized networks are capable of solving much better than centralized websites.  many of these problems are hitherto unsolved.  not many people are aware of these problems, just like people were not aware of the problem of keeping track of your friends before facebook existed.  but that does not mean they do not exist.  one example of such a problem is creating in incorruptible and neutral global identity management system.  a proposed solution is a decentralized autonomous corporation dac .  see: URL sounds like science fiction ? not really.  remember that bitcoin, storj, and openbazaar are already examples of rudimentary dacs.   #  skype and other voip systems may have centralized  directory  and coordination mechanisms, but the actual content delivery occurs entirely in a distributed fashion, from your computer directly to the target computer, without going through any  central  nodes.   #  i really have no idea what you are talking about.  skype and other voip systems may have centralized  directory  and coordination mechanisms, but the actual content delivery occurs entirely in a distributed fashion, from your computer directly to the target computer, without going through any  central  nodes.  indeed, the entire internet is like this a lot more than you think.  torrents are a  perfect  example of why this view is outdated.  currently, this system is  entirely  distributed, without any necessity for centralized nodes at all, and it comprises a very significant fraction of all internet traffic.   #  sure, they make up a significant amount of traffic, but how many of your interactions with the internet are through distributed systems ?  #  sure, they make up a significant amount of traffic, but how many of your interactions with the internet are through distributed systems ? you are arguing with me on reddit right now.  reddit is a centralized system.  when you spend money online, it is way more likely through paypal than bitcoin.  i do not see any decentralized forms of services like music streaming.  and re: central directoy.  yep.  skype is p0p, but it still uses that centralized directory and accounts system, and microsoft have the  ability  to look in on your conversations.  compare to something like tox, which is 0 distributed and uses a combination of onion routing, dns, and dht to get  usernames  working.  cool as it is, i do not ever see it taking off.
this is not about development models or anything.  plenty of open source projects are very collaborative, and wikipedia is huge.  what i mean is that the  get file from server in california  way of doing things on the internet will likely never get overthrown.  some examples:   facebook, twitter, g , etc.  vs what ? diaspora  ? twister ? frendica ?   skype, google hangouts vs what ? tox ? jitsi ?   netflix vs popcorntime ?   spotify vs nothing.    this website your on vs haha nothing   the internet.  period.   meshnets  are a joke.  and the reason is pretty simple: distributed networks are harder to do in every regard.  they are harder to design, harder to implement, and often harder to use on for the user.   i have to download a client to post a status update ? fuck that.   while generally offering little to no tangible benefits.  mostly ideological ones.  on top of that, in terms of popularity, it is almost always the first version of something that stays on top.  maybe reddit would have been a huge decentralized network if it was designed as decentralized from the get go, but that is usually the last thing on anybody is mind when creating a new product/service.  exception to the rule is bittorrent and other p0p networks.  but in the case of filesharing, the benefits are huge.  no filesize limits, no takedowns, next to zero hosting costs, and a billion potential usecases.  also, git.  but git is being increasingly absorbed by github so it is almost moot point.  cmv, please.  i love these networks, but i do not realistically see them being successful.   #  and often harder to use on for the user.   #  this does not have to be the case.   # p0p  means  decentralized.  tcp/ip and the originators of the internet assumed that each node could reach every other node equally.  while not entirely decentralized in the strictest sense but really not too far from it bittorrent has caused seismic and probably permanent shifts in the music and media industries.  the music industry is really all but overthrown.  bitcoin may be next, and if it does not have an effect on the financial industry, the underlying technology can be used for a lot of other things that fit a transaction model.  most of the infrastructure that forms a distributed network is a solved problem.  you assume the network is there, fast, and highly available.  you then design an application that works in a decentralized manner, finding other peers and verifying things to satisfaction among those peers when needed   harder to implement client server is only easier because it is been around longer.  this does not have to be the case.  a non technical end user does not know anything about networking, tcp/ip, clients, servers, protocols, marshalling data, network byte order, etc.  for a client server model, why would this be true for a decentralized model ? users ca not handle downloading an app ?  #  that has nothing to do with decentralized systems.   #  what about bitcoin ? it is fully decentralized and quite trendy ? also about git, it is designed to be decentralized, and even if you synchronize your repositories only with github it is still technically decentralized, watch this video URL it is not because people use it in a somewhat centralized way that it is not.  i think the main problem here is that you are trying to pinpoint a decentralized service provider, which by definition is not supposed to happen.  emails for example are decentralized, because there are multiple providers and because you could even be your own email provider.  fuck that.   yeah, i would much rather use my browser to download a fat javascript application  every single time  i want to post a status update, than install a client once.  but that is another issue.  that has nothing to do with decentralized systems.  seriously ? to finish, i would like to say that as often, there is no silver bullet, decentralized systems are very good at some things, not at others, and so are centralized systems.  wanting one type of systems to be prevalent, is kind of pointless, just use the one which is most relevant to you use case.   #  these can offer real, practical advantages compared to their centralized competitors, dropbox and ebay.   #  when it comes decentralized communication models,  we ai not seen nothing yet .  forget facebook and twitter.  web0 is a stepping stone.  it is not the pinnacle of the internet is evolution.  two examples of emerging p0p technologies are  storj , a decentralized file storage system, and  openbazaar , a decentralized marketplace.  these can offer real, practical advantages compared to their centralized competitors, dropbox and ebay.  lower fees, better privacy, and it the case of storj, more redundancy.  if you think storj is impractical, have a look at  spacemonkey  which is a working implementation of the same idea, and it is already charging lower fees than dropbox.  but those are only the beginning.  what you have to realize is that there exist social and technical problems that decentralized networks are capable of solving much better than centralized websites.  many of these problems are hitherto unsolved.  not many people are aware of these problems, just like people were not aware of the problem of keeping track of your friends before facebook existed.  but that does not mean they do not exist.  one example of such a problem is creating in incorruptible and neutral global identity management system.  a proposed solution is a decentralized autonomous corporation dac .  see: URL sounds like science fiction ? not really.  remember that bitcoin, storj, and openbazaar are already examples of rudimentary dacs.   #  i really have no idea what you are talking about.   #  i really have no idea what you are talking about.  skype and other voip systems may have centralized  directory  and coordination mechanisms, but the actual content delivery occurs entirely in a distributed fashion, from your computer directly to the target computer, without going through any  central  nodes.  indeed, the entire internet is like this a lot more than you think.  torrents are a  perfect  example of why this view is outdated.  currently, this system is  entirely  distributed, without any necessity for centralized nodes at all, and it comprises a very significant fraction of all internet traffic.   #  you are arguing with me on reddit right now.   #  sure, they make up a significant amount of traffic, but how many of your interactions with the internet are through distributed systems ? you are arguing with me on reddit right now.  reddit is a centralized system.  when you spend money online, it is way more likely through paypal than bitcoin.  i do not see any decentralized forms of services like music streaming.  and re: central directoy.  yep.  skype is p0p, but it still uses that centralized directory and accounts system, and microsoft have the  ability  to look in on your conversations.  compare to something like tox, which is 0 distributed and uses a combination of onion routing, dns, and dht to get  usernames  working.  cool as it is, i do not ever see it taking off.
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.   #  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.   # true change is not change in action; it is change in thought.  and change in thought does not come from a gun to the face.  it comes from an understanding about and appreciation of the alternative viewpoint, which is best accomplished through social force rather than government force.  are you more willing to consider an alternative because a friend poses it to you and others agree, or because the government says the alternative is jail ? markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them i think that you could find quite a few examples of businesses that use racist policies now, and do not do all that well.  i remember a gelato shop that openly stated it would not serve muslims; they were out of business a few months later.  this was in montana.  and plenty of businesses that advertise and celebrate various forms of tolerance, including being against racism, are rewarded by the market for it.  take yourself, and those you know.  do you honestly think you would rather shop at an openly racist business, or an openly inclusive one ? it already is.  and i have no problem with that; it sounds great.  if all the racist people lived in racist neighborhoods and shopped in racist shops, it sounds like they would be easier to avoid, to say nothing of the fact that i could stop shopping there.  if a shopkeep now is a closet racist, i could be supporting him or her financially and not even know it.  if they wanted to advertise ? great ! now i can never go there again.  at the end of the day, it is about control, not of ideas, but of actions.  you want to know why a latino, for instance, would want to live in a world that condones racism.  the easy answer is that the hypothetical libertarian world condones all sorts of things, and the good outweighs the bad.  but i think a better question is; what right do you have to stop it ? what claim do i have to your tolerance of me ? as long as you are not actively harming me, i do not really have a right to object to your actions.  if you do not want to sell me something because i am white, or tall, or blond, that is your business.  i do not agree with your choice, but i wo not use a gun to force you to act otherwise.   #  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  what gives you the authority to do so ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.   #  as stated in other posts, the government was forcing people to be racist, ala jim crow laws, libertarians loathed those laws when they were created and they certainly bemoan them now.   # you are generalizing.  no libertarian would ever claim that laws ought to favor one race over another.  i see your statement as a straw man argument that holds no weight within the libertarian intellectual community.  if a business owner does not want to transact with someone based solely on their race, then that is their loss, and the potential gain for some other entrepreneur.  under the law, everyone should be treated as equals.  as long as business owners do not violate nap, then they as individuals can be racist all they want, but the key is it is not institutionalized like we have seen and continue to see repeatedly by nation states.  as stated in other posts, the government was forcing people to be racist, ala jim crow laws, libertarians loathed those laws when they were created and they certainly bemoan them now.  unknowingly you are actually arguing for libertarian ideals.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  what a grim outlook on society.  the only way people would demand for racist services is if writ large people are in fact racist.  i disagree to this generalization and feel sorry for anyone that thinks the majority of people on this planet are doomed to be racist if left to their own devices.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.  are you describing reality today under government force ? your answer might be we need more government force to solve these effects, but libertarians would argue the causal link between the results you described above were caused by government force, therefore more government force is a ridiculous solution to the problem of government force.  you would have to define  condones  because i fear you are suggesting libertarians argue that laws ought favor one race over another, which unequivocally goes against the libertarian ideal.  why do you think people are inherently racist unless forced not to be ?  #  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.   #  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.   # you are generalizing.  no libertarian would ever claim that laws ought to favor one race over another.  i see your statement as a straw man argument that holds no weight within the libertarian intellectual community.  if a business owner does not want to transact with someone based solely on their race, then that is their loss, and the potential gain for some other entrepreneur.  under the law, everyone should be treated as equals.  as long as business owners do not violate nap, then they as individuals can be racist all they want, but the key is it is not institutionalized like we have seen and continue to see repeatedly by nation states.  as stated in other posts, the government was forcing people to be racist, ala jim crow laws, libertarians loathed those laws when they were created and they certainly bemoan them now.  unknowingly you are actually arguing for libertarian ideals.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  what a grim outlook on society.  the only way people would demand for racist services is if writ large people are in fact racist.  i disagree to this generalization and feel sorry for anyone that thinks the majority of people on this planet are doomed to be racist if left to their own devices.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.  are you describing reality today under government force ? your answer might be we need more government force to solve these effects, but libertarians would argue the causal link between the results you described above were caused by government force, therefore more government force is a ridiculous solution to the problem of government force.  you would have to define  condones  because i fear you are suggesting libertarians argue that laws ought favor one race over another, which unequivocally goes against the libertarian ideal.  why do you think people are inherently racist unless forced not to be ?  #  the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.   #  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.   # you are generalizing.  no libertarian would ever claim that laws ought to favor one race over another.  i see your statement as a straw man argument that holds no weight within the libertarian intellectual community.  if a business owner does not want to transact with someone based solely on their race, then that is their loss, and the potential gain for some other entrepreneur.  under the law, everyone should be treated as equals.  as long as business owners do not violate nap, then they as individuals can be racist all they want, but the key is it is not institutionalized like we have seen and continue to see repeatedly by nation states.  as stated in other posts, the government was forcing people to be racist, ala jim crow laws, libertarians loathed those laws when they were created and they certainly bemoan them now.  unknowingly you are actually arguing for libertarian ideals.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  what a grim outlook on society.  the only way people would demand for racist services is if writ large people are in fact racist.  i disagree to this generalization and feel sorry for anyone that thinks the majority of people on this planet are doomed to be racist if left to their own devices.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.  are you describing reality today under government force ? your answer might be we need more government force to solve these effects, but libertarians would argue the causal link between the results you described above were caused by government force, therefore more government force is a ridiculous solution to the problem of government force.  you would have to define  condones  because i fear you are suggesting libertarians argue that laws ought favor one race over another, which unequivocally goes against the libertarian ideal.  why do you think people are inherently racist unless forced not to be ?  #  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.   #  you would have to define  condones  because i fear you are suggesting libertarians argue that laws ought favor one race over another, which unequivocally goes against the libertarian ideal.   # you are generalizing.  no libertarian would ever claim that laws ought to favor one race over another.  i see your statement as a straw man argument that holds no weight within the libertarian intellectual community.  if a business owner does not want to transact with someone based solely on their race, then that is their loss, and the potential gain for some other entrepreneur.  under the law, everyone should be treated as equals.  as long as business owners do not violate nap, then they as individuals can be racist all they want, but the key is it is not institutionalized like we have seen and continue to see repeatedly by nation states.  as stated in other posts, the government was forcing people to be racist, ala jim crow laws, libertarians loathed those laws when they were created and they certainly bemoan them now.  unknowingly you are actually arguing for libertarian ideals.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  what a grim outlook on society.  the only way people would demand for racist services is if writ large people are in fact racist.  i disagree to this generalization and feel sorry for anyone that thinks the majority of people on this planet are doomed to be racist if left to their own devices.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.  are you describing reality today under government force ? your answer might be we need more government force to solve these effects, but libertarians would argue the causal link between the results you described above were caused by government force, therefore more government force is a ridiculous solution to the problem of government force.  you would have to define  condones  because i fear you are suggesting libertarians argue that laws ought favor one race over another, which unequivocally goes against the libertarian ideal.  why do you think people are inherently racist unless forced not to be ?  #  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.   #  you offer absolutely no evidence for this.   # you offer absolutely no evidence for this.  meanwhile we see more and more cases of market forces stamping out bigotry.  off the top of my head we have paula deen losing a shitload of endorsements after she admits to using racial slurs in her youth.  we have that duck dynasty program pulling the old dude uncle ? grandfather ? i do not watch the show.  for preaching relatively mainstream anti homosexual views.  we have the ceo of mozilla being forced to step down after donating to a group that supports traditional marriage or, more to the point, a group that is against legalizing gay marriage .  so ? if we are confident that racial tolerance is a good idea and i think we should be then others will observe the relative prosperity of the tolerant  faction  and adopt its practices.  mankind has never had its mind changed by force, and i do not know it would start now.   #  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ?  #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.   #  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.   # nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.  you are assuming that a significant portion of the majority race would be part of the racist camp.  do you have anything to support that ? the non racist camp would also have economic advantages such as lower labor costs.  do you believe that a sizable fraction of people would be sufficiently racist to impose, say, 0 higher costs on themselves ? cmv.  so is an ideology where you ca not lynch someone from group x, where people in group x have the same rights as you do, where you have to bear the economic costs of discriminating against group x, where you ca not use government power to destroy the family and social order of group x is the best ideology that the closet racist can do ? say we come up with another ideology, such as where you can use government power to destroy the family and social order of group x, where a disproportionate number of people from group x end up in a rape hole, and where explicit discrimination against group x is illegal, but indirect discrimination against group x is legal and common sense.  would our closet racist consider this either impractical or less racist ?  #  the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.   #  i will address your view with a couple of questions.   # i will address your view with a couple of questions.  first question: do you think adultery should be illegal ? meaning, if adultery happens, do you support locking the adulterer or adulteress in a cage ? i will assume the answer is no.  second question: do you think adultery is  completely ok  ? again, i will assume the answer is no.  from this analogy, you can see how one can consistently be  against  something while not supporting locking those who practice it in cages.  there is nothing within libertarianism that suggests racism and discrimination is  completely ok , and i do not know a single libertarian who thinks there is nothing wrong with racial discrimination.  is this  condoning racism  ? if by condone, you mean  approving , then that is not the case.  if by condone, you mean, more broadly,  allowing , then yes, i suppose it does technically  allow  for  some  racism to exist.  but, presumably, so does your ideology.  for example, if your palestinian neighbor refused to invite jews to their dinner party, would you lock them in a cage for this ? if not, then you are allowing or  condoning  racism in the same sense.  and hey: is not being anti jail for dinner party discriminators  exactly what a closet racist would want  ! ? as for markets and racism, the part you are missing is that the market does not only respond to racists but to anti racists as well.  if, for example, best buy hung a sign on their door that said  no blacks allowed , then they would go out of business from people of all races boycotting them, since there is such a strong aversion to racism in our society.  the market is not going to open up many segregated restaurants and in some places, none at all because there  is not  a demand for them and what little demand there is will be counter balanced by the immense aversion to those services by the public.  i  certainly would not eat at a racist is restaurant.  i think your analysis of what would happen if society repealed anti discrimination laws is alarmist and goes too far.  why would non racists participate in the few racist institutions like homeowner associations with segregated housing units which manage to crop up ? i certainly would not want to live in a neighborhood filled with racists.  i think most other people would agree with me.  the  isnowball  effect regarding racist attitudes you describe seems very unlikely to me.   #  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.   #  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants in order for the free market to respond, there has to be a big demand for racist services.   # markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants in order for the free market to respond, there has to be a big demand for racist services.  meaning the vast majority of people have to demand and refuse to use non segregated services before such businesses start to appear.  the threshold for that is much higher than the 0 needed to elect politicians who pass laws.  in other words, a society that will produce segregated businesses, will also produce politicians and political parties that will enforce segregation and pass racist laws.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  wrong, the libertarian mindset is against using violence to impose your opinion or majority is on others.  non violent social pressure such as boycotts are totally a valid tool.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the closest real life scenario to what you are describing is apartheid in south africa, and yet, in 0, a referendum for whites only had 0 of white voters voting to abolish apartheid: URL  #  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ?  #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.   #  no libertarian supports discrimination when it comes to laws or justice.   # no libertarian supports discrimination when it comes to laws or justice.  they  allow  discrimination by individuals not working for the goverment because a person has the right to decide who he/she wants to associate with.  i am sure some do, but that is not the reason they support allowing discrimination.  they support allowing discrimination because, as i said, nobody should be forced to interact people they do not want to.  you do not want to hire whites and blacks at your asian restaurant ? well your allowed to decide who can work at  your  business, just like you can decide who can come on to your  private  property.  that does not mean libertarians allow racism in the form of violence and the use of force.  you not allowing others into your house based on their race or religion, does not harm them in any way.  what makes you think this would cause huge problems on a national scale ? i could see how you would think this would could problems in a few small cities in the south, but do you honestly think that more than 0 of employers would begin to discriminate if it were allowed ? any business focused on making maximum profit would certainly not do such a foolish thing.  discriminating against minorities would be a  huge  disadvantage for any business model.  the media and communities like reddit would destroy the reputation of those businesses.  actually, i feel like there would be some discrimination  against  whites, as some form of employment affirmative action.  i am pretty sure a lot more people support  actual  discrimination like affirmative action, than the amount of people that support racism.  but as i said, all of this is irrelevant.  people have a right to decide who they want to interact with and work with.  please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  maybe you will find an analogy more convincing since you do not see the importance of the right to interact with whoever you want.  let is say i am a racist and i refuse to allow hispanics into my home, because i hate hispanics.  while i am sure you would not  support  or  justify  this kind of racism, i am also sure you would support my right to interact with whoever i wish and my right to let whoever i wish onto my private property.  basically you believe that an individual should not be forced to interact with people, if he/she does not want to.  yet you are supporting the government forcing business owners interact with people who they do not want to, with anti discrimination laws.  how is this any different ? does the person not own the business like they own their house ? than what justifies this ? a society where we kill off the rich and distribute their wealth might be a  better  whatever that means society, but it is not a moral society.  a moral society does not force individuals to interact with people they do not want to.   #  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ?  #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.   #  i am sure some do, but that is not the reason they support allowing discrimination.   # no libertarian supports discrimination when it comes to laws or justice.  they  allow  discrimination by individuals not working for the goverment because a person has the right to decide who he/she wants to associate with.  i am sure some do, but that is not the reason they support allowing discrimination.  they support allowing discrimination because, as i said, nobody should be forced to interact people they do not want to.  you do not want to hire whites and blacks at your asian restaurant ? well your allowed to decide who can work at  your  business, just like you can decide who can come on to your  private  property.  that does not mean libertarians allow racism in the form of violence and the use of force.  you not allowing others into your house based on their race or religion, does not harm them in any way.  what makes you think this would cause huge problems on a national scale ? i could see how you would think this would could problems in a few small cities in the south, but do you honestly think that more than 0 of employers would begin to discriminate if it were allowed ? any business focused on making maximum profit would certainly not do such a foolish thing.  discriminating against minorities would be a  huge  disadvantage for any business model.  the media and communities like reddit would destroy the reputation of those businesses.  actually, i feel like there would be some discrimination  against  whites, as some form of employment affirmative action.  i am pretty sure a lot more people support  actual  discrimination like affirmative action, than the amount of people that support racism.  but as i said, all of this is irrelevant.  people have a right to decide who they want to interact with and work with.  please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  maybe you will find an analogy more convincing since you do not see the importance of the right to interact with whoever you want.  let is say i am a racist and i refuse to allow hispanics into my home, because i hate hispanics.  while i am sure you would not  support  or  justify  this kind of racism, i am also sure you would support my right to interact with whoever i wish and my right to let whoever i wish onto my private property.  basically you believe that an individual should not be forced to interact with people, if he/she does not want to.  yet you are supporting the government forcing business owners interact with people who they do not want to, with anti discrimination laws.  how is this any different ? does the person not own the business like they own their house ? than what justifies this ? a society where we kill off the rich and distribute their wealth might be a  better  whatever that means society, but it is not a moral society.  a moral society does not force individuals to interact with people they do not want to.   #  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.   #  what makes you think this would cause huge problems on a national scale ?  # no libertarian supports discrimination when it comes to laws or justice.  they  allow  discrimination by individuals not working for the goverment because a person has the right to decide who he/she wants to associate with.  i am sure some do, but that is not the reason they support allowing discrimination.  they support allowing discrimination because, as i said, nobody should be forced to interact people they do not want to.  you do not want to hire whites and blacks at your asian restaurant ? well your allowed to decide who can work at  your  business, just like you can decide who can come on to your  private  property.  that does not mean libertarians allow racism in the form of violence and the use of force.  you not allowing others into your house based on their race or religion, does not harm them in any way.  what makes you think this would cause huge problems on a national scale ? i could see how you would think this would could problems in a few small cities in the south, but do you honestly think that more than 0 of employers would begin to discriminate if it were allowed ? any business focused on making maximum profit would certainly not do such a foolish thing.  discriminating against minorities would be a  huge  disadvantage for any business model.  the media and communities like reddit would destroy the reputation of those businesses.  actually, i feel like there would be some discrimination  against  whites, as some form of employment affirmative action.  i am pretty sure a lot more people support  actual  discrimination like affirmative action, than the amount of people that support racism.  but as i said, all of this is irrelevant.  people have a right to decide who they want to interact with and work with.  please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  maybe you will find an analogy more convincing since you do not see the importance of the right to interact with whoever you want.  let is say i am a racist and i refuse to allow hispanics into my home, because i hate hispanics.  while i am sure you would not  support  or  justify  this kind of racism, i am also sure you would support my right to interact with whoever i wish and my right to let whoever i wish onto my private property.  basically you believe that an individual should not be forced to interact with people, if he/she does not want to.  yet you are supporting the government forcing business owners interact with people who they do not want to, with anti discrimination laws.  how is this any different ? does the person not own the business like they own their house ? than what justifies this ? a society where we kill off the rich and distribute their wealth might be a  better  whatever that means society, but it is not a moral society.  a moral society does not force individuals to interact with people they do not want to.   #  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally !  #  please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.   # no libertarian supports discrimination when it comes to laws or justice.  they  allow  discrimination by individuals not working for the goverment because a person has the right to decide who he/she wants to associate with.  i am sure some do, but that is not the reason they support allowing discrimination.  they support allowing discrimination because, as i said, nobody should be forced to interact people they do not want to.  you do not want to hire whites and blacks at your asian restaurant ? well your allowed to decide who can work at  your  business, just like you can decide who can come on to your  private  property.  that does not mean libertarians allow racism in the form of violence and the use of force.  you not allowing others into your house based on their race or religion, does not harm them in any way.  what makes you think this would cause huge problems on a national scale ? i could see how you would think this would could problems in a few small cities in the south, but do you honestly think that more than 0 of employers would begin to discriminate if it were allowed ? any business focused on making maximum profit would certainly not do such a foolish thing.  discriminating against minorities would be a  huge  disadvantage for any business model.  the media and communities like reddit would destroy the reputation of those businesses.  actually, i feel like there would be some discrimination  against  whites, as some form of employment affirmative action.  i am pretty sure a lot more people support  actual  discrimination like affirmative action, than the amount of people that support racism.  but as i said, all of this is irrelevant.  people have a right to decide who they want to interact with and work with.  please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  maybe you will find an analogy more convincing since you do not see the importance of the right to interact with whoever you want.  let is say i am a racist and i refuse to allow hispanics into my home, because i hate hispanics.  while i am sure you would not  support  or  justify  this kind of racism, i am also sure you would support my right to interact with whoever i wish and my right to let whoever i wish onto my private property.  basically you believe that an individual should not be forced to interact with people, if he/she does not want to.  yet you are supporting the government forcing business owners interact with people who they do not want to, with anti discrimination laws.  how is this any different ? does the person not own the business like they own their house ? than what justifies this ? a society where we kill off the rich and distribute their wealth might be a  better  whatever that means society, but it is not a moral society.  a moral society does not force individuals to interact with people they do not want to.   #  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.   #  a society where we kill off the rich and distribute their wealth might be a  better  whatever that means society, but it is not a moral society.   # no libertarian supports discrimination when it comes to laws or justice.  they  allow  discrimination by individuals not working for the goverment because a person has the right to decide who he/she wants to associate with.  i am sure some do, but that is not the reason they support allowing discrimination.  they support allowing discrimination because, as i said, nobody should be forced to interact people they do not want to.  you do not want to hire whites and blacks at your asian restaurant ? well your allowed to decide who can work at  your  business, just like you can decide who can come on to your  private  property.  that does not mean libertarians allow racism in the form of violence and the use of force.  you not allowing others into your house based on their race or religion, does not harm them in any way.  what makes you think this would cause huge problems on a national scale ? i could see how you would think this would could problems in a few small cities in the south, but do you honestly think that more than 0 of employers would begin to discriminate if it were allowed ? any business focused on making maximum profit would certainly not do such a foolish thing.  discriminating against minorities would be a  huge  disadvantage for any business model.  the media and communities like reddit would destroy the reputation of those businesses.  actually, i feel like there would be some discrimination  against  whites, as some form of employment affirmative action.  i am pretty sure a lot more people support  actual  discrimination like affirmative action, than the amount of people that support racism.  but as i said, all of this is irrelevant.  people have a right to decide who they want to interact with and work with.  please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  maybe you will find an analogy more convincing since you do not see the importance of the right to interact with whoever you want.  let is say i am a racist and i refuse to allow hispanics into my home, because i hate hispanics.  while i am sure you would not  support  or  justify  this kind of racism, i am also sure you would support my right to interact with whoever i wish and my right to let whoever i wish onto my private property.  basically you believe that an individual should not be forced to interact with people, if he/she does not want to.  yet you are supporting the government forcing business owners interact with people who they do not want to, with anti discrimination laws.  how is this any different ? does the person not own the business like they own their house ? than what justifies this ? a society where we kill off the rich and distribute their wealth might be a  better  whatever that means society, but it is not a moral society.  a moral society does not force individuals to interact with people they do not want to.   #  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.   #  i ca not believe i have to point this out for the 0th time but. you  do  realize the state was the institution that  enforced segregation and slavery , correct ?  # i ca not believe i have to point this out for the 0th time but. you  do  realize the state was the institution that  enforced segregation and slavery , correct ? a neighborhood full of racists ? great ! now i know where not to go.  if racists want to congregate and do their racist things, who is anyone to force them not to ? seriously.  how is it that one human being has the authority to tell another human being what to do and how to live, or speak, or think ? because that sounds a lot like slavery to me.   #  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.   #  segregation was enforced by government law and only went away when the government relinquished power.   # segregation was enforced by government law and only went away when the government relinquished power.  from a market perspective, segregation makes zero sense because you are alienating/removing people who could be giving you more money for your business.  take the bus thing for example, something widely used by the poor.  do you think, if given the choice, that a bus station would want to remove blacks or other minorities from their base, when they are giving them a huge chunk of business ? if it were left up to most businesses, they would not segregate people.  that is something that was established by government to conform to the wishes of a few people, largely against the wishes of the market.  knowing this, the rest of your diatribe against the market kind of falls apart.   #  the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.   #  you confuse personal human rights like the freedom to choose who you associate with with state sanctions.   # you confuse personal human rights like the freedom to choose who you associate with with state sanctions.  in a normal society you as a human being are totally free to do anything you want unless it infringes upon the rights of others.  it is 0 okay for you to  discriminate  in your personal life based on any criteria you see fit.  on the other hand the state should not discriminate because it draws its power from its citizens, making it only fair to treat citizens  equally .  in a libertarian society you would be free and the hands of the government would be tied.  but now we have this bass ackwards.  the state plays favorites with certain groups based on sex, race, etc.  ; but individuals are punished for their personal choices.  this is insane, to say the least.  URL actually the social pressure coming from progressives is making things a lot worse.  most probably things would have settled by now, but the constant race baiting coming from the liberal side is fanning the flames.  if you keep on telling a large group of people that another group is oppressing them their hatred will only grow.  but do not listen to reason, just keep telling blacks they should hate whites, that will surely solve racial problems any minute now.  /s   moreover, a libertarian mindset is the worst possible to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  yeah, because libertarians think the state should not force its mostly sick ideologies onto people.  i am not a citizen of my country so the state can forcibly indoctrinate me.  i am not a slave.  i am a free human being and i reserve the right to believe in anything and think any way i see fit.  my vote is not consent to total ideological subjugation.  i find it amusing that while 0 of previous state supported ideologies crashed and burned, you deem it a good idea to continue with state supported indoctrination.  a state forcing its citizens to conform to a belief system is per definitionem a fascist state, and you support this fascist mentality only because you happen to agree with the belief system of your state.  you basically think you have the right to force your will on others via the power of the state because your will is  enlightened , because you are better than them.  would you think the same way if the current state supported ideology would be total conservatism ? would you still think that the state should have the right to force its ideology on you ? of course not.  boo fuckin  hoo.  correct me if i misunderstand your stance here but you seem to think that people should be forced to live among others they do not want to live among.  if blacks want a black community, that should be prohibited because you do not like the idea.  and we might end up with 0 0 different territorries countries ? , all representing different diverse ! ideals, and everybody could choose where to live based on their own values.  what a horror, oh my fucking god.  people would not be forced to live in a system they hate, and we ca not have that.  all must conform to your ideology whether they want to or not, because the utopia you believe in is worth sacrificing their lives and happiness.  the problem with people like you is that if a small libertarian island existed near the coast of the us sooner or later you would come up with the idea that it should be invaded in the name of progressive ideology tolerance and diversity.  you do not respect people is personal freedoms at all.  in fact you view others as less human than yourself.  you are worse than a standard racist, who simply has his own in group bias URL which is a natural psychological part of human existence, present in every human being.   #  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.   #  URL actually the social pressure coming from progressives is making things a lot worse.   # you confuse personal human rights like the freedom to choose who you associate with with state sanctions.  in a normal society you as a human being are totally free to do anything you want unless it infringes upon the rights of others.  it is 0 okay for you to  discriminate  in your personal life based on any criteria you see fit.  on the other hand the state should not discriminate because it draws its power from its citizens, making it only fair to treat citizens  equally .  in a libertarian society you would be free and the hands of the government would be tied.  but now we have this bass ackwards.  the state plays favorites with certain groups based on sex, race, etc.  ; but individuals are punished for their personal choices.  this is insane, to say the least.  URL actually the social pressure coming from progressives is making things a lot worse.  most probably things would have settled by now, but the constant race baiting coming from the liberal side is fanning the flames.  if you keep on telling a large group of people that another group is oppressing them their hatred will only grow.  but do not listen to reason, just keep telling blacks they should hate whites, that will surely solve racial problems any minute now.  /s   moreover, a libertarian mindset is the worst possible to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  yeah, because libertarians think the state should not force its mostly sick ideologies onto people.  i am not a citizen of my country so the state can forcibly indoctrinate me.  i am not a slave.  i am a free human being and i reserve the right to believe in anything and think any way i see fit.  my vote is not consent to total ideological subjugation.  i find it amusing that while 0 of previous state supported ideologies crashed and burned, you deem it a good idea to continue with state supported indoctrination.  a state forcing its citizens to conform to a belief system is per definitionem a fascist state, and you support this fascist mentality only because you happen to agree with the belief system of your state.  you basically think you have the right to force your will on others via the power of the state because your will is  enlightened , because you are better than them.  would you think the same way if the current state supported ideology would be total conservatism ? would you still think that the state should have the right to force its ideology on you ? of course not.  boo fuckin  hoo.  correct me if i misunderstand your stance here but you seem to think that people should be forced to live among others they do not want to live among.  if blacks want a black community, that should be prohibited because you do not like the idea.  and we might end up with 0 0 different territorries countries ? , all representing different diverse ! ideals, and everybody could choose where to live based on their own values.  what a horror, oh my fucking god.  people would not be forced to live in a system they hate, and we ca not have that.  all must conform to your ideology whether they want to or not, because the utopia you believe in is worth sacrificing their lives and happiness.  the problem with people like you is that if a small libertarian island existed near the coast of the us sooner or later you would come up with the idea that it should be invaded in the name of progressive ideology tolerance and diversity.  you do not respect people is personal freedoms at all.  in fact you view others as less human than yourself.  you are worse than a standard racist, who simply has his own in group bias URL which is a natural psychological part of human existence, present in every human being.   #  the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
every single discussion i have had with libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely ok, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely ok.  libertarians claim that the free market or  social pressure  will eventually lead to a post racial world.  i vehemently disagree.  0 years of social pressure did nothing to force the south to desegregate.  0 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate japanese xenophobia.  like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force.  moreover, a libertarian mindset is the  worst possible  to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  the vast majority of libertarians are against any sort of social conformity excluding social expectations on the concept of their property .  what will actually happen if racism in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services.  markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants.  homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods.  as society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 0.  people will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business.  they will label minorities as the  other , because minorities will indeed become the  other  when you have absolutely no experience with them.  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.  nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner is associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non racists.  because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one sided and thus be most damaging to minorities.   oh but this will never happen !   yes it will.  the more important question is on  what kind of scale  ? will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas ? will it be so small to be negligible ? or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries ? i tire of discussions of natural rights and how libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally ! please do not bring those up, i find them completely unconvincing.  the only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments.  tell me why the society that condones racism is  better , especially for minorities.  tell me a good reason why an asian, or latino, or black, or indian, or native american would want to live in your kind of society.  libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist.  cmv.   #  the country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that do not.   #  and we might end up with 0 0 different territorries countries ?  # you confuse personal human rights like the freedom to choose who you associate with with state sanctions.  in a normal society you as a human being are totally free to do anything you want unless it infringes upon the rights of others.  it is 0 okay for you to  discriminate  in your personal life based on any criteria you see fit.  on the other hand the state should not discriminate because it draws its power from its citizens, making it only fair to treat citizens  equally .  in a libertarian society you would be free and the hands of the government would be tied.  but now we have this bass ackwards.  the state plays favorites with certain groups based on sex, race, etc.  ; but individuals are punished for their personal choices.  this is insane, to say the least.  URL actually the social pressure coming from progressives is making things a lot worse.  most probably things would have settled by now, but the constant race baiting coming from the liberal side is fanning the flames.  if you keep on telling a large group of people that another group is oppressing them their hatred will only grow.  but do not listen to reason, just keep telling blacks they should hate whites, that will surely solve racial problems any minute now.  /s   moreover, a libertarian mindset is the worst possible to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards.  yeah, because libertarians think the state should not force its mostly sick ideologies onto people.  i am not a citizen of my country so the state can forcibly indoctrinate me.  i am not a slave.  i am a free human being and i reserve the right to believe in anything and think any way i see fit.  my vote is not consent to total ideological subjugation.  i find it amusing that while 0 of previous state supported ideologies crashed and burned, you deem it a good idea to continue with state supported indoctrination.  a state forcing its citizens to conform to a belief system is per definitionem a fascist state, and you support this fascist mentality only because you happen to agree with the belief system of your state.  you basically think you have the right to force your will on others via the power of the state because your will is  enlightened , because you are better than them.  would you think the same way if the current state supported ideology would be total conservatism ? would you still think that the state should have the right to force its ideology on you ? of course not.  boo fuckin  hoo.  correct me if i misunderstand your stance here but you seem to think that people should be forced to live among others they do not want to live among.  if blacks want a black community, that should be prohibited because you do not like the idea.  and we might end up with 0 0 different territorries countries ? , all representing different diverse ! ideals, and everybody could choose where to live based on their own values.  what a horror, oh my fucking god.  people would not be forced to live in a system they hate, and we ca not have that.  all must conform to your ideology whether they want to or not, because the utopia you believe in is worth sacrificing their lives and happiness.  the problem with people like you is that if a small libertarian island existed near the coast of the us sooner or later you would come up with the idea that it should be invaded in the name of progressive ideology tolerance and diversity.  you do not respect people is personal freedoms at all.  in fact you view others as less human than yourself.  you are worse than a standard racist, who simply has his own in group bias URL which is a natural psychological part of human existence, present in every human being.   #  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.   # the plessy vs ferguson case for example was about a law that was required by government, not business.  URL  in 0, the state of louisiana passed a law the separate car act that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars  the people who operate the trains did not do this by themselves.  you will also find that businesses segregated things a ton less than the government.  this is because the cost of segregation is a lot more visible when you are spending your own money as in a business rather than someone else is money as the government .  when there is fair competition, the best businesses will win out, and those that do not discriminate have an obvious advantage over those that do.  what causes widespread racism is unjust laws, not unjust business practices.   #  if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.   #  as a counterargument to this you are operating on the premise that racism is an absolute and universal bad.  on what grounds could you make such a judgement ? if en mass society suddenly decided that racism was good and beneficial why should not the government support and represent the desires of their new racist constituents ? if they do not they are sure to get voted out office and with that much support even constitutional protections could be abolished.  in short, we as a society decided to make laws against racism, not because racism is bad, but because we believe that racism is bad.   #  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.   #  libertarianism does not promote racism at all.  it simply promotes freedom and that includes the freedom to be racist.  use the aclu as an analogy.  they do not support the kkk, but they will defend them since defending them goes along with other values that they hold, like freedom of speech.  they are not racist and they do not support it, but ultimately some of their actions might lead to more racism.  the only difference i see with this and libertarianism is that libertarians would extend this right to be racist to private business.  i personally draw the line at private business, and i am not a libertarian.  i think they are wrong since i am ok with limiting freedom in some respects.  but just because they are wrong, in my opinion, does not mean they are recist  #  would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ?  # what gives you the authority to do so ? do you claim to be a god ? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal business ? would you still feel that way when a bunch of kkk members walk into a black owned business ? are you going to tell the black owners that they ca not refuse business to the kkk members ? or whoever else they feel uncomfortable doing business with ?
i have seen a lot of articles lately condemning costumes like native american or geishas, comparing them to black face, and calling the people who don them racists.  obviously, if you dress as a native american and go around making grunting noises and jumping all over the place and acting like an asshole, or if you are in an oriental outfit and say nothing but  ching ching ding dong  then that goes without saying you are not only an asshole, you are a racist asshole.  racism stems from negative stereotypes that are trumped up and oppress a people in a certain group.  however, if someone were to wear a costume to celebrate those people, feel good about themselves and express their interest in other cultures, and behave like an actual adult would in public, i honestly ca not see how this is offensive to other cultures.  donning black face was racist because white people dressed as blacks to mock them and dehumanized them for entertainment.  dressing up in a native american headdress in order to celebrate a holiday that requires you to become something you are not is no more racist than donning a toga at a frat party.  cmv  #  racism stems from negative stereotypes that are trumped up and oppress a people in a certain group.   #  racism can be encompassed by more than that.   # racism can be encompassed by more than that.  but even on the subject of stereotypes, they do not have to be obviously negative to be harmful.  they can simply misinform and lead to questionable behavior , and put pressure on members of that culture to act in ways contrary to what their culture actually is.  to go with the native american example, there are a couple of things to consider.  there is a long history of the us taking various actions to suppress their culture back in the past.  you might say  but the individual today had nothing to do with it !   which could be true, but for native americans they might still deeply feel that loss.  that becomes important when you move things into the modern context.  for those taking issue with the costumes, they are a further dillution of their culture at best, and disrespectful stereotypes at worst.  the famous  feather headdress  outfit that is so popular perfectly demonstrates that.  that headdress, outside of its important role within their communities, is  only  representative of some of the native tribes who lived on the plains.  when people wear that to  feel good and celebrate native culture  they are not celebrating  native culture  they are conflating all native cultures into one.  it  might  be a different discussion if they were celebrating, say, lakota or sioux specifically.  but these costumes typically reduce the differences and cultural history and values of all native americans down into a watery soup of stereotypes and misinformation.  it is racist because of that watering down and stereotyping of all natives into a single hodge podge of random crap to ostensibly  celebrate  their culture.  it is more colonialist than racist insofar as those can be separated because it continues the legacy of cultural destruction i briefly mentioned above.  it continues the history of folks erasing and ignoring native history, culture, and the people themselves.   #  the act of wearing  any  costume, outside of context, carries no social meaning and hence is not racist.   #  the problem is that  the original group  is not always monolithic.  when you take any group of people with thousands of members or more, some will inevitably be upset while others will not, some will even encourage outsiders to learn about their culture and immerse themselves in it.  the act of wearing  any  costume, outside of context, carries no social meaning and hence is not racist.  for example, if i was to put a white hood on my head and dress in white sheets, i think obviously everyone would agree i was being a blatant racist.  but that is because those clothes have a social meaning rooted in history that racists wearing white sheets formed a group known as the kkk and harassed and murdered blacks in the 0s, and later blacks, as well as catholics and jews in the 0s.  if kkk members had worn purple sheets instead of white sheets, then purple sheets would be considered racist costume and white sheets would just be nonsensical, just as purple sheets are today.  similarly, if the swastika was simply a symbol associated with the ancient indian subcontinent, it would not have the anti semitic connotations it has today.  the point being, to evaluate whether a costume is racist you need to look at what message the costume is sending.  i would argue that simply dressing up as a person of another culture does not necessarily send a negative or denigrating message.   #  that headdress, outside of its important role within their communities, is only representative of some of the native tribes who lived on the plains.   # that headdress, outside of its important role within their communities, is only representative of some of the native tribes who lived on the plains.  when people wear that to  feel good and celebrate native culture  they are not celebrating  native culture  they are conflating all native cultures into one.  it might be a different discussion if they were celebrating, say, lakota or sioux specifically.  but these costumes typically reduce the differences and cultural history and values of all native americans down into a watery soup of stereotypes and misinformation.  but is it really necessary to have a strong, deep historical knowledge of a given culture, as well as its many contemporary cultures and subcultures, and the  innumerable  characteristics of all the aforementioned,  just  to wear a casual costume, with benign intentions and in good spirits, for a casual holiday celebration ? if i dress as a roman gladiator, and get some of the iconography on my shield wrong maybe those were ancient  greek  symbols ! .  is that racist too, because i did not do full and proper research on the cultural differences ? or is this example okay, just because anyone who  might  have been offended has been dead for thousands of years ?  #  especially if you are trying to actually be benign in your intentions, and spread the good spirits around.   #  couple of things.  the first is to remember that in issues like this, particularly when in an intercultural context, are a  two  way street.  just because someone did not intend to be offensive with their costume does not mean they are not.  nor does it mean their costume is appropriate.  communication flows both ways.  the roman example is not really equivalent.  i included a lot of context in my post in addition to my answer because context and history plays a great deal in how these issues are perceived.  dressing up as a roman is unlikely to make many people mad, because 0 it is generally known by all to represent a specific empire no one i have seen sees roman and instantly goes  italy !   without additional symbolic clues and 0 that is a history mostly divorced from the us, and 0 no one really identifies with it, and it does not have impacts on how lives play out day to day.  certainly i have not seen any.  but native americans are not dead, and there is a pretty violent history surrounding how the us has interacted with them.  there is the old school betrayals, genocides, and murders and stuff, but the cultural violence has not entirely stopped.  on the one hand, yes, no one cares about the romans because short of some italian neocons, no one as far as i know identifies with rome, and considers that their cultural heritage.  maybe some italian neocons do, i do not know.  but a lot of these costumes are racist in their portayals of  all natives did this !   with precisely 0 cares given for the native peoples, and treats their culture s as a silly costume you can wear and revel in and then drop off.  they are the ones who have to bear the brunt of any accumulated misconceptions/insults caused by those costumes, rarely is it the costume wearers who do.  is  wouldeep historical knowledge  a pre requisite for every halloween costume ? no.  but it is generally considered a plus if you are actually trying to treat a culture and group of people respectfully in your portrayals of them.  especially if you are trying to actually be benign in your intentions, and spread the good spirits around.   #  and, as history will tell, british soldiers were fighting tooth and nail and lost arguably the most of all the countries that did not succumb to direct occupation.   #  ah, but we are assuming that only americans celebrate halloween.  remember when prince harry wore the nazi uniform to a party a few years back ? that was extremely offensive to the entire world to be sure, but much ˆmuchˆ more so because he was british.  and, as history will tell, british soldiers were fighting tooth and nail and lost arguably the most of all the countries that did not succumb to direct occupation.  now, is it more acceptable for someone in the uk to wear native american clothing as a costume because they are more separated from that history than party goers in the us ? also, let is not forget that the romans had a terribly bloody reign of their empire, and they ˆinventedˆ crucifixion techniques.  they enslaved many different civilizations for their own gain, many in africa and the middle east.  their rule was not kind and polite by any means.  the gladiator example also is not terribly sensitive.  if you imagine what it must have been like to be thrust into a real life hunger games, for other people is amusement that is not something to take lightly either.  the ancient spartans were an entire race of grecians whose main focus was war.  they were nearly wiped out in battle when they fought the romans.  i know that when the movie 0 came out, several people dressed as spartans that year.  i doubt any of them were called racists for that.  egyptians as well an ancient civilization that warred for many years, enslaved thousands of people, and are also an iconic pop culture touchstone.  i think my main point here is this: you do not think  italy !   when you see a gladiator outfit, because that was an empire that no longer even resembles modern italy.  when the native americans were oppressed by colonials, that america is vastly different than the one we live in today.  is it a matter of time then ? the time between the actual historical act and when it is so far in the distant past that it can be romanticized and enjoyed as entertaining bits of history instead of the reality of how a civilization lived and died ? how long do we have to wait for it to be acceptable ? is it a matter of location ?
any person dying is a tragedy.  that said, the canadian soldiers recently killed are receiving an undue amount of compassion and attention.  sports events are opening with tributes, flags are being flown, and american style jingoism is mounting.  a total of 0 canadian forces personnel have been killed in the afghanistan war since 0.  URL and yet a couple soldiers die on home turf and this is a game changer.  we now have tear jerking articles about a dead soldier is dogs URL this qualifies as selective empathy.  when has anyone cared so much in canada for those who have died in action often people who were not soldiers who sacrificed their lives for the greater good.  i firmly believe that this kind of selective empathy, when coupled with media fanning and fawning, is toxic for our society and resultant local and international policy.  cmv.   #  canadian soldiers recently killed are receiving an undue amount of compassion and attention.   #  sports events are opening with tributes, flags are being flown, and american style jingoism is mounting.   #  okay, i will say right now that i am canadian, but i will try not to make this too personal.  sports events are opening with tributes, flags are being flown, and american style jingoism is mounting.  people do not get gunned down in ottawa.  especially by someone that could be classified as a terrorist.  it is scary for the country, so not only are we mourning the death of cpl.  cirillo, we are also being thankful that the other brave soldiers on parliament hill protected the people who run our country.  your argument seems to be that we do not mourn those killed in combat operations.  we do, and it all gets media coverage.  here are a couple articles the st. johns memorial URL and the fredericton memorial URL there is a lot more media coverage out there about dead soldiers, and during the war it made up a large portion of the total coverage.  sad articles are always going to exist, and when a story is especially sad it will get coverage.  a dead soldier on the home turf who died while protecting our leaders ? that deserves some mourning and some coverage, and would not be coupled with  selective empathy .  who are you to say that this is less tragic then everyone else thinks it is ? this seems to be your point.  if people believe that soldier is death is national tragedy which i believe it is , then it deserves mourning.   #  it is also natural to display that grief on a larger scale when it is due to a public incident that draws worldwide attention.   #  we send soldiers to war with the understanding that their lives are on the line.  it does not make it less tragic when they die but we all understand the risks.  we are not prepared for an unarmed soldier being murdered while guarding a statue in the middle of a relatively crime free city.  it is not selective empathy to be more distraught when surprised by tragedy as well as having your feeling of normalcy and safety shattered.  grief is natural.  it is also natural to display that grief on a larger scale when it is due to a public incident that draws worldwide attention.   #  clear selective empathy as he was killed in similar circumstances, but he was not as young or handsome.   #  but what about the other soldier who was killed ? there is been hardly anything about him in the media.  clear selective empathy as he was killed in similar circumstances, but he was not as young or handsome.  and what about 0 years ago, when a security guard was killed when a crazy guy broke into a parti quebecois victory party in an attempt to assassinate the newly elected premier of quebec ? where was the outpouring of grief then ? this is very clearly selective empathy on the part of the canadian media.   #  likewise gunshots in the canadian parliament, where decisions for all canadians are made, is a bigger deal than a premier elect in quebec.   #  i really think you are ignoring some things deliberately.  the soldier was killed in ottawa and then the killer was inside parliament and exchanged gunfire in the building.  the prime minister was in hiding.  all death is bad, of course.  but there is a difference in intensity of our reaction based on where it happens.  for a comparison if the governor of texas were to be killed that would be big news.  if it were barak obama that would be world wide super news.  holy fucking god whatdowedonow.  this does not mean that obama is worth more than the governor or any other human, but he is more influential and more well known to americans and the whole world.  i doubt many people even know who the governor of texas is.  likewise gunshots in the canadian parliament, where decisions for all canadians are made, is a bigger deal than a premier elect in quebec.  it does not mean that the premier is more or less important, but quebec politics does influence fewer people than canadian politics.   #  we know that there were political reasons for the assassination attempt in quebec.   #  i think you are retreating from your terrorist/ crazy guy  distinction.  we know that there were political reasons for the assassination attempt in quebec.  we are only pretty sure that the one in ottawa was political.  this was the crux of theskyisnothelimit is last post, but you reframed it as if it was your provincial/federal distinction that he was discussing.  besides a political motivation, are there other conditions for the label  terrorism  that the quebec attack does not meet but the ottawa one does ?
to put it mildly, the tropes vs.  women series has issues.  there is specious reasoning, inability to recognize blatant satire, and grossly misleading descriptions of the games being demonstrated.  a sample argument: 0.  the game allows the player to murder almost any npc.  0.  the game contains npc sex workers.  0.  therefore, the game allows the player to murder npc sex workers.  0.  therefore, the game is sexist.  if i replaced  sex workers  with  black people  and  sexist  with  racist,  i just  proved  that all games like this are not only sexist, but racist as well ! sarkeesian gives no thought to the obvious conclusion that it is the  player  being sexist or racist, not the game itself.  be that as it may, the videos are still worth watching, if only as proof that  games are not art  is false.  if they can be subject to art criticism, no matter how poorly reasoned, they are by definition works of art.  in fact, it is unreasonable to expect the first generation of game  critics  not reviewers to be particularly competent as compared to film critics .  i very much enjoy quality work in this field, but the discipline is so tiny that it is incredibly rare.  to fix this, the best solution is for people to watch the videos and conclude not that  this criticism is bad, therefore video games should not be criticized,  but instead,  this criticism is bad, so i am going to write better criticism myself.   #  if i replaced  sex workers  with  black people  and  sexist  with  racist,  i just  proved  that all games like this are not only sexist, but racist as well !  #  sarkeesian gives no thought to the obvious conclusion that it is the player being sexist or racist, not the game itself.   # sarkeesian gives no thought to the obvious conclusion that it is the player being sexist or racist, not the game itself.  where, in what video, about what game, does she ever actually make that argument ? because your post here has prompted me to rewatch the damsel in distress videos and she does not make it there the gta example she gives is about a specific murder, in a cutscene URL and she early describes violence against women as being about it being related to them being women.  URL no such argument is made in the women as background decoration video either which i would think would be all about this, which touches upon how  the presence  of npc sex workers is a demonstration of sexism in games, all by itself.  violence is shown as only one of multiple factors contributing to the objectification of those women characters.  trying to rephrase the argument she makes in this video to what you said would require ignoring most of the foundation of the video and would be profoundly dishonest, so obviously you are not talking about this video.  i mean, she even literally addresses the attempted counterargument you are implying within that exact video URL though as an aside, hot damn, the red dead redemption example is ridiculous.  sex workers you kidnap will  keep propositioning you for sex while you carry them off  URL what the fuck.  meanwhile, you could use this approach to lampoon claims that call of juarez: the cartel is really blatantly racist.   oh, you can murder enemies, the game contains mexicans, pc people are therefore concluding the game is racist !   but as it turns out the depiction is what makes it amazingly racist URL though the mechanics sure do help.   #  0.  therefore, the game allows the player to kill mostly black npc gangsters.   #  okay, i guess i will challenge the  seriously  in your cmv.  i ca not argue that her videos are not flawed, but much of the criticism misses one important premise: in many cases, while an individual game is not sexist, some aspects of it might contribute to sexism in games in total.  let is take movies as a comparison: if a movie has a male protagonist, that does not make the movie sexist.  but if 0 of movies have a male protagonist, then movies as a whole have a sexist trend.  and this specific movie, while not sexist in itself, contributes to that trend.  until now she has made videos about 0 tropes.  damsel in distress: if almost all games with a damsel story have a female damsel, that is a sexist trend.  ms male character: if most female characters in games are a copy of male characters with lipstick and a red bow tie added, then that is a sexist trend.  this one seems less prevalent today than it was in the past.  women as background decoration: if too many games use scantily clad female npcs and almost no scantily clad male npcs, that is a sexist trend.  to your sample argument in that sense:   0.  the game allows the player to murder almost any npc.  i amended 0.  so you can see my point.  the respective racist game could look like this.  0.  the game allows the player to kill almost any npc.  0.  the game contains npc gangsters  who are almost exclusively black .  0.  therefore, the game allows the player to kill mostly black npc gangsters.  0.  therefore, the game is racist.  her idea is to show many, many examples to convince people that there is a sexist trend when it comes to these tropes.  unfortunately, she does not mention this in all of her videos and if she mentions it, it is somewhere in the middle after one of the examples, not in a prominent place.  since this is a common way to criticize representation of all kinds of groups in media, she probably assumed her watchers would be familiar with this mode of criticism.  but not everyone is.  so i would say the largest flaw in her videos is that the argument is poorly structured.  i hope that this is enough challenge of your view to satisfy comment rule 0.   #  this actually annoyed me quite a bit in bioshock infinite.   #  i was specifically thinking of fallout: new vegas, which she cites as an example.  the game  does  have male sex workers, who are treated identically to the women.  how about this argument ? 0.  the game allows the player to kill almost any npc.  0.  the game contains npc soldiers who are almost exclusively male.  0.  therefore, the game allows the player to kill mostly male npc soldiers.  0.  therefore, the game is sexist.  notice how it gives no consideration to whether the representation of the group in question is  actually accurate ? this actually annoyed me quite a bit in bioshock infinite.  why am i fighting female soldiers in 0 ? now, if the representation of the group in the game is misleading and promoting inaccurate stereotypes,  that  is the racist/sexist part, not whether the npcs can be killed by the player.   #  as far as i know there are several examples where she made mistakes about specific games.   # the game does have male sex workers, who are treated identically to the women.  okay, then that part of her argument is relatively weak.  as far as i know there are several examples where she made mistakes about specific games.  but i think she has enough real examples to demonstrate unfortunate trends.  mostly yes.  one could say that a game where sex workers can be killed does not handle the problem about violence against sex workers well.  but that is a different criticism from the one she makes.   #  say, for example, if the protagonist ally npcs were almost exclusively white, it could get a vibe of  good white people shooting dangerous black people .   #  i agree if the city setting has at least a few male strippers and/or prostitutes as well.  do not have to be many, just enough to show that they exist as well.  i do not know much about resident evil 0.  i think that it is possible for such a setting to unintentionally have racist undertones.  say, for example, if the protagonist ally npcs were almost exclusively white, it could get a vibe of  good white people shooting dangerous black people .  and then there is a more difficult aspect: a game that is in itself not racist might reinforce racism in some players merely through in itself neutral design choices.  its not easy to prevent that as a developer.
i cannot count the number of time i see a post reaching front page with an horrible story about how someone took revenge from his/her partner cheating.  many times this revenge goes very far.  i am very shocked with this.  and people are okay with it !  go op, that bitchh/asshoole deserves it !   0 casual relationship : unless you have formerly ask for the other one to be faithful in body and spirit, no one is breaking his word.  it is only casual.  if you want absolute fidelity, ask for it and sign for it : marriage includes it in most countries for example.  nobody should be expecting something if the other one has not committed itself to do so.  0 why the hell are people getting so mad at it ? it is just sex.  are people that focus on the carnal aspect of the relationship ? maybe someone has bigger needs that the partner can offer or want to offer.  maybe the cheater still loves you.  i mean, is love restricted to the body hormones ? i believe in a more complete love.  0 people are free.  ultimately, you cannot get mad at someone for doing what they want.  they did not hurt you physically.  the cheat on is hurt on his pride, his self value.  but the first thing someone taught me about love is that you can love only when you are able to love yourself.  probably the cheated on was not ready to love.  0 that a girlfriend/boyfriend cheated on you might impact you a lot, it is true.  but time will make it go, much faster than they assume.  while their  arevenge  might scar people for much longer.  i saw one story about a guy that made his girlfriend he said she cheated on him eat more and more until she got fat and laced with stretched marks.  then he dumped her.  he said she was very sad and mortified.  the girl will have them forever.  the douche will find someone else and forgot.  honestly someone able to think such a devious plan and to execute it has all my contempt .  0 in the 0 is people preach freedom of love and whatever.  now it looks like we are going backward.  what you think ?  #  0 that a girlfriend/boyfriend cheated on you might impact you a lot, it is true.   #  but time will make it go, much faster than they assume.   # technically that is not cheating.  sounds like someone did not communicate their intentions properly.  it is just sex.  are people that focus on the carnal aspect of the relationship ? it is not about the sex.  sex could be perfectly acceptable if it was a mutually agreed on open relationship.  it is the major betrayal.  it is the lies that cover it up.  it is the message that the partner was not meeting their intimacy needs but were not worth communicating to.  ultimately, you cannot get mad at someone for doing what they want.  they did not hurt you physically.  emotional pain is just as valid and important as physical pain.  emotional pain will stick with a person long after a bruise or a slap heals.  and not only have you broken their heart, you broke their trust.  if you ca not be trusted to keep your promise with this, what else are you lying about ? but time will make it go, much faster than they assume.  while their  arevenge  might scar people for much longer.  i saw one story about a guy that made his girlfriend he said she cheated on him eat more and more until she got fat and laced with stretched marks.  then he dumped her.  he said she was very sad and mortified.  the girl will have them forever.  the douche will find someone else and forgot.  honestly someone able to think such a devious plan and to execute it has all my contempt .  revenge is never healthy for the person plotting the revenge.  it becomes a diseased part of your being eating away at you.  it may even be more harmful to the person taking revenge than his victim.  either way it has nothing specific to do only with cheating .  in your scenario, the guy did not force his girlfriend to gain weight.  maybe he encouraging the eating but ultimately her body is her responsibility.  i am not sure about the success of the revenge.  not all men are turned off by big girls, so it does not stop her from dating.  stretch marks are not a big deal; most women who have had a kid have them.  they also fade over time and are not noticeable anyway unless wearing a bikini.  the guy really has some unhealthy thought patterns if he thought he was the hand of justice, teaching the woman some sort of lesson.  now it looks like we are going backward.  among a subset of people there is nothing but casual sex.  look up  hook up culture .  there will always be some people not wanting a commitment is it going backward ? that implies that keeping your promise to another person in a committed relationship is backwards.  or that honestly is backwards.  i disagree.  checking requires monogamy.  you are welcome to sleep around and it is not cheating as long as you are not in a closed monogamous relationship  #  if you are not monogamous, that is perfectly fine.   # it is perfectly fine, that is not cheating.  it is just sex.  it is not just sex, it is about trust.  if your partner is lying to you in your face, you ca not really trust them in the future.  if the cheater loves you, they would not choose to cause you so much suffering for a few minutes of personal gratification.  you are free to exit any relationship and then fuck whoever you want.  if you choose to lie to your partner, they have the freedom to seek somebody more trustworthy.  but time will make it go, much faster than they assume.  that is simply not true.  most relationships where somebody cheats end up failing.  sometimes it works out, but for the most part it does not, because trust is hard to regain.  if you are not monogamous, that is perfectly fine.  just do not enter monogamous relationships.   #  if however you pretend that you are in a happy, monogamous relationship but go fuck people behind your partner is back.  well, i am afraid that makes you a selfish, inconsiderate piece of shit.   #  you do not need to sign a contract to know what you are getting into with a relationship.  people know and understand what a relationship is.  let me put it this way, if you are going to do something in a relationship that may or may not breach somebody else is trust, the onus is on you to make what you want clear to your partner.  if you want an open relationship, say it.  if however you pretend that you are in a happy, monogamous relationship but go fuck people behind your partner is back.  well, i am afraid that makes you a selfish, inconsiderate piece of shit.  if you ca not keep your hormones in check for the benefit of your own relationship that makes you weak.  if you do not want to keep your hormones in check for your partner but you do not tell them that up front, that makes you a coward.   #  the basic, instinctual drive to secure the most fit mate possible.   #  op, in ethics they would call your argument  self effacing .  nobody who believed it would be able to operate by it.  so you toss the view out.  in this case, your argument is self effacing because no potential boy/girl friend would agree to be monogamous with you if they knew you held these views.  the basic, instinctual drive to secure the most fit mate possible.  which affects whom we find attractive.  someone who advocates cheating is not attractive.  and if they were engaging in an  open  relationship with you, the whole argument would not apply anyway.  and its all just absurd sociopathic to tell other people they are or ar not  over reacting  to a betrayal of trust by their most trusted confidants.  people are independent beings who will emote however they damn well want to emote.  arguing against that is boring, misguided, and carries a hint of a deep seated inability to empathizes with your fellow humans.  tl;dr: the fact you were  ninja downvoted  makes this a higher quality forum for debate for everyone else, frankly.   #  inherent in the concept of a boyfriend or girlfriend is fidelity.   #  if you are  dating  and sleep around, that is not cheating.  if you are a boyfriend or girlfriend and sleep around than it is.  inherent in the concept of a boyfriend or girlfriend is fidelity.  once you  make it exclusive and official  you have implied a promise of fidelity.  if you ca not or wo not keep that promise do not make it.  and if you want that deeper level of romance and dating make it clear up front you want an open relationship.  again, fidelity is implied so do not make it official without explaining your wishes of course if you do explain and agree to those wishes or if you have not made it official, there is no cheating taking place.  ultimately if you want to sleep around for any reason have a conversation with your significant other.  talk about what is going on.  if you go behind someone is back then it is you who is lying and refusing to be open with your partner.  that is why cheating is bad.  it is not just the act of sex.  it is the shady and underhanded way of going about it.
i cannot count the number of time i see a post reaching front page with an horrible story about how someone took revenge from his/her partner cheating.  many times this revenge goes very far.  i am very shocked with this.  and people are okay with it !  go op, that bitchh/asshoole deserves it !   0 casual relationship : unless you have formerly ask for the other one to be faithful in body and spirit, no one is breaking his word.  it is only casual.  if you want absolute fidelity, ask for it and sign for it : marriage includes it in most countries for example.  nobody should be expecting something if the other one has not committed itself to do so.  0 why the hell are people getting so mad at it ? it is just sex.  are people that focus on the carnal aspect of the relationship ? maybe someone has bigger needs that the partner can offer or want to offer.  maybe the cheater still loves you.  i mean, is love restricted to the body hormones ? i believe in a more complete love.  0 people are free.  ultimately, you cannot get mad at someone for doing what they want.  they did not hurt you physically.  the cheat on is hurt on his pride, his self value.  but the first thing someone taught me about love is that you can love only when you are able to love yourself.  probably the cheated on was not ready to love.  0 that a girlfriend/boyfriend cheated on you might impact you a lot, it is true.  but time will make it go, much faster than they assume.  while their  arevenge  might scar people for much longer.  i saw one story about a guy that made his girlfriend he said she cheated on him eat more and more until she got fat and laced with stretched marks.  then he dumped her.  he said she was very sad and mortified.  the girl will have them forever.  the douche will find someone else and forgot.  honestly someone able to think such a devious plan and to execute it has all my contempt .  0 in the 0 is people preach freedom of love and whatever.  now it looks like we are going backward.  what you think ?  #  0 in the 0 is people preach freedom of love and whatever.   #  now it looks like we are going backward.   # technically that is not cheating.  sounds like someone did not communicate their intentions properly.  it is just sex.  are people that focus on the carnal aspect of the relationship ? it is not about the sex.  sex could be perfectly acceptable if it was a mutually agreed on open relationship.  it is the major betrayal.  it is the lies that cover it up.  it is the message that the partner was not meeting their intimacy needs but were not worth communicating to.  ultimately, you cannot get mad at someone for doing what they want.  they did not hurt you physically.  emotional pain is just as valid and important as physical pain.  emotional pain will stick with a person long after a bruise or a slap heals.  and not only have you broken their heart, you broke their trust.  if you ca not be trusted to keep your promise with this, what else are you lying about ? but time will make it go, much faster than they assume.  while their  arevenge  might scar people for much longer.  i saw one story about a guy that made his girlfriend he said she cheated on him eat more and more until she got fat and laced with stretched marks.  then he dumped her.  he said she was very sad and mortified.  the girl will have them forever.  the douche will find someone else and forgot.  honestly someone able to think such a devious plan and to execute it has all my contempt .  revenge is never healthy for the person plotting the revenge.  it becomes a diseased part of your being eating away at you.  it may even be more harmful to the person taking revenge than his victim.  either way it has nothing specific to do only with cheating .  in your scenario, the guy did not force his girlfriend to gain weight.  maybe he encouraging the eating but ultimately her body is her responsibility.  i am not sure about the success of the revenge.  not all men are turned off by big girls, so it does not stop her from dating.  stretch marks are not a big deal; most women who have had a kid have them.  they also fade over time and are not noticeable anyway unless wearing a bikini.  the guy really has some unhealthy thought patterns if he thought he was the hand of justice, teaching the woman some sort of lesson.  now it looks like we are going backward.  among a subset of people there is nothing but casual sex.  look up  hook up culture .  there will always be some people not wanting a commitment is it going backward ? that implies that keeping your promise to another person in a committed relationship is backwards.  or that honestly is backwards.  i disagree.  checking requires monogamy.  you are welcome to sleep around and it is not cheating as long as you are not in a closed monogamous relationship  #  sometimes it works out, but for the most part it does not, because trust is hard to regain.   # it is perfectly fine, that is not cheating.  it is just sex.  it is not just sex, it is about trust.  if your partner is lying to you in your face, you ca not really trust them in the future.  if the cheater loves you, they would not choose to cause you so much suffering for a few minutes of personal gratification.  you are free to exit any relationship and then fuck whoever you want.  if you choose to lie to your partner, they have the freedom to seek somebody more trustworthy.  but time will make it go, much faster than they assume.  that is simply not true.  most relationships where somebody cheats end up failing.  sometimes it works out, but for the most part it does not, because trust is hard to regain.  if you are not monogamous, that is perfectly fine.  just do not enter monogamous relationships.   #  if you do not want to keep your hormones in check for your partner but you do not tell them that up front, that makes you a coward.   #  you do not need to sign a contract to know what you are getting into with a relationship.  people know and understand what a relationship is.  let me put it this way, if you are going to do something in a relationship that may or may not breach somebody else is trust, the onus is on you to make what you want clear to your partner.  if you want an open relationship, say it.  if however you pretend that you are in a happy, monogamous relationship but go fuck people behind your partner is back.  well, i am afraid that makes you a selfish, inconsiderate piece of shit.  if you ca not keep your hormones in check for the benefit of your own relationship that makes you weak.  if you do not want to keep your hormones in check for your partner but you do not tell them that up front, that makes you a coward.   #  tl;dr: the fact you were  ninja downvoted  makes this a higher quality forum for debate for everyone else, frankly.   #  op, in ethics they would call your argument  self effacing .  nobody who believed it would be able to operate by it.  so you toss the view out.  in this case, your argument is self effacing because no potential boy/girl friend would agree to be monogamous with you if they knew you held these views.  the basic, instinctual drive to secure the most fit mate possible.  which affects whom we find attractive.  someone who advocates cheating is not attractive.  and if they were engaging in an  open  relationship with you, the whole argument would not apply anyway.  and its all just absurd sociopathic to tell other people they are or ar not  over reacting  to a betrayal of trust by their most trusted confidants.  people are independent beings who will emote however they damn well want to emote.  arguing against that is boring, misguided, and carries a hint of a deep seated inability to empathizes with your fellow humans.  tl;dr: the fact you were  ninja downvoted  makes this a higher quality forum for debate for everyone else, frankly.   #  inherent in the concept of a boyfriend or girlfriend is fidelity.   #  if you are  dating  and sleep around, that is not cheating.  if you are a boyfriend or girlfriend and sleep around than it is.  inherent in the concept of a boyfriend or girlfriend is fidelity.  once you  make it exclusive and official  you have implied a promise of fidelity.  if you ca not or wo not keep that promise do not make it.  and if you want that deeper level of romance and dating make it clear up front you want an open relationship.  again, fidelity is implied so do not make it official without explaining your wishes of course if you do explain and agree to those wishes or if you have not made it official, there is no cheating taking place.  ultimately if you want to sleep around for any reason have a conversation with your significant other.  talk about what is going on.  if you go behind someone is back then it is you who is lying and refusing to be open with your partner.  that is why cheating is bad.  it is not just the act of sex.  it is the shady and underhanded way of going about it.
i am totally serious when i say comic books are almost entirely non interesting and seem childish to me.  i thought reddit would likely have some individuals who could shed some light on it for me.  i appreciate most types of art i come across in my life, i love games, films, tv and books.  however, anytime i hear about comic books i just cannot get into them.  i have not actually read many so my knowledge of them is surely lacking but a few of the things i have noticed from comic book fans talking about comic books is:   the characters are so unrelatable and have a feel of arrogance about them constantly.    the storytelling is just plain bad sometimes and often boils down to something like this, superhuman x is battling superhuman y, superhuman x about to be destroyed realises his true strength and releases an omega beam that devestates superhuman y.  end of story.  no consequences for anyone.    lack of regard for any realism, i. e.  oh no, dr doom is attacking again, lets not use any of the weapons of the us military and just let 0 self appointed heroes engage him in a battle that ravages parts of the city.    the names of the characters and especially villains are just cringeworthy, e. g.  massacre, apocalypse, mr.  sinister, etc.  i know there are some comics that strive to avoid these things, but i think there are still a lot of popular comics that are guilty of some of these points, what do the fans think of it ? i know some people will get the wrong idea about this and assume its an attack on comic books, but thats not what it is.  i am genuinely curious on your views on this.   #  i know there are some comics that strive to avoid these things, but i think there are still a lot of popular comics that are guilty of some of these points, what do the fans think of it ?  #  same goes for television, movies, and video games.   # same goes for television, movies, and video games.  do you really think you can just write off an entire medium because a lot of is not made for  adults ?   is family guy a kids cartoon because it is animated ? since superheroes are your main issue, how are films made about them any less childish ? i would argue things like the avengers are  quite  childish.  however, does that make  all film ? childish ? no.  this is absurd.  i hate 0 of what is on television and think it is for immature people who are not very well educated about the  real world,  but does that color my perception of  everything  on television ? no.  apply your logic to another medium, and you will end up writing off  every  medium.   #  sometimes super cheesy things can just be fun.   # its entirely cheesy the entire way through and is guilty of everything i said before.  for something to be  adult  does it need super accurate, logical, clearly consistent science ? do you think star wars is childish and should not have a following among adults.  doctor who is guilty of most of what you talk about, are you equally as baffled by the adult fan base for that ? sometimes super cheesy things can just be fun.  as far as absolutely ridiculous cheesy stuff never making it from comics to the big screen, have you seen guardians of the galaxy ? it was amazing and a huge success and undeniably cheesy the whole way through.  also, even among comicbook fans superman prime is often made fun of for how absolutely ridiculous he is although that is kind of the point .  so, it is not really a great example.  from some of your other comments it seems like your main argument is  comics that contain these childish tropes are childish, i am not talking about other comics that do not contain these tropes .  which is a bit of an inarguable point.  obviously childish things are childish.  all i can do is tell you there are some comics that are childish as you describe and others that are not, including among mainstream superhero stuff.   #  it was amazing and a huge success and undeniably cheesy the whole way through.   # star wars at least attempts some scientific clarity in its story.  yes, entirely.  for me it seems nostalgia plays a large factor in this.  it was amazing and a huge success and undeniably cheesy the whole way through.  i would agree with you here the film was cheesy and this is likely what my argument boils down to, realism can be trumped by having fun.  i think there are likely many comics in the medium that i might enjoy perhaps i have just had a bad initial experience with my first selection and need to go explore some more.   #  i love star wars as much as anybody else.   #  alright.  i love star wars as much as anybody else.  it is my favorite movie.  i have read so many novels and comics and played games set in that universe.  i am also an avid comic book reader in general.  the science in star wars is no better than any comic, and probably worse than several.  there is no science in star wars other than the aesthetic.   #  for every portal there are 0 candy crushes and farmvilles.   # you do not have a large enough sample size to be qualified to make a conclusion about comic books in general.  let is look at what you are comparing it to:  i love games, facebook and casual web games.  for every portal there are 0 candy crushes and farmvilles.  blacksploitation.  the horror genre.  reality television.  any book that appears at the checkout at a supermarket.  you see, there is just as much crap and dreck in all of these other mediums that you consider  art  as there are in comic books.  in fact, if we purely look at the volume of content, there is far more instances of ridiculously bad quality products than there are of the classics in any form of artistic expression.
i am not a cab driver and rarely a cab customer, but when i need a cab i do not want some random guy with a car.  lyft and uber seem to think cab driving is not a skill, that it is something anyone can do with no training.  well, it is not.  an experienced cabbie provides a reliable service that joe schmoe who owns a chevy can mimic but ca not duplicate.  lyft and uber drivers offer: • questionable insurance.  • questionable character.  • questionable integrity.  • questionable driving safety.  • questionable background checks.  • questionable service for the disabled and elderly.  • questionable answers to questions about the city and area.  • questionable coverage at other than peak commute times.  like numerous other professions, taxi service is regulated for good reasons to prevent such questionable situations.  do it yourself pretend cabs like lyft and uber should not be allowed to ignore the rules and regulations that real cab operators must follow.  change my view.  and i will add that i learned a lot in this conversation, and would not make the same arguments now that i made in my original post.  • i have learned plenty about the way lyft and uber operate.  my original notions were based on a few newspaper articles, not even recent articles, and i appreciate the educating.  • i have learned that lyft/uber fans are vividly enthusiastic about the joy of riding in a stranger is car over a taxicab.  it is a level of adoration i have not seen since attending a few grateful dead concerts in the 0s, but i loved that spirit then so i ca not judge it harshly now.  • i have learned that lyft/uber fans in cmv view the cab industry pretty much the same as peta members view oscar meyer, and seem to believe that virtually  all  regulations of the taxi industry serve no public good, and exist only to protect cab operations from competition.  • mostly, i have learned that cmv is a fun place to hang out on a sunday afternoon, and that most of the debaters here play fair and do not seem to hate people for disagreeing, which is nice.  over and out for now.   #  questionable answers to questions about the city and area.   #  not to put too fine a point on it, but all of my lyft/uber drivers actually spoke english.   # well, it is not.  an experienced cabbie provides a reliable service that joe schmoe who owns a chevy can mimic but ca not duplicate.  if that is the case, cab companies should have no problem competing with lyft or uber.  my guess is that a regular guy with a clean car and a gps app  can  do the job of your average cab driver while offering their service via more convenient and safer method.  i do not need a wizard to get me from where i am to a place where i want to be, i need the person who will transport me as cheaply and reliably as possible.  that is lyft and uber, not the local cab companies.  they do not have questionable insurance, they are required to provide proof of commercial insurance before they are registered with the app.  i do not see where you get questionable character, but at least rideshares send me a picture of the driver and record when i get in and out of his cab.  if i suddenly disappear after the ride, the cops know exactly who to talk to.  questionable integrity ? i can look at his phone and see if he follows his gps.  if i rate him badly, he can get banned from the app.  driving safety and background checks ? i do not see a substantive difference from cabs and other, more effective security precautions are in place.  disabled and elderly ? because every cab i see is outfitted with a wheelchair loader ? not to put too fine a point on it, but all of my lyft/uber drivers actually spoke english.  the same cannot be said for my last few cab rides.  i live in the dc area and this has never been a problem for me.  i do not need a ride at 0 am on a thursday.  anecdotally, i will tell you that my experience with rideshare apps has been  categorically better  than my experience with cabs.  it is cheaper, cleaner and the drivers are friendlier.  i suggest to you that maybe those regulations that cab companies had to follow made the market exclusive and allowed them to get too comfortable and secure in their position.  they have not had to seriously compete for a long time and their service has suffered while their prices have increased.   #  there is an argument to be made there, but it is hard to argue the quality of uber is inferior to taxis.   #  yep, the ultimate way to change someones view about this is to have them regularly take both cabs and taxis.  taxis cling to the  we are regulated  argument as a way to say that uber is somehow more dangerous, when the regulation at least here in boston where they use a medallion system is simply a way for a few companies to corner the taxi market.  every single uber ride i have taken has been superior to virtually every cab ride i have taken.  even the best cab ride does not compare to the elegance of uber.  op, you might have a better argument if you say that ubers business model is unfair to the current taxi cab system.  there is an argument to be made there, but it is hard to argue the quality of uber is inferior to taxis.   #  at the very least, you should consider the testimonials of people who have used them in the past.   #  healthcare is a bit different.  its expensive and you only use it when you are unwell.  ridesharing programs, on the other hand, are cheap and can be used any time.  this being the case, i do not think its reasonable to condemn companies like uber and lyft without even trying them.  at the very least, you should consider the testimonials of people who have used them in the past.  if you do not do either of these things, your opinions will seem unfounded.   #  if uber drivers are nicer and their cars are better and their driving habits are less aggressive then, for the same money i am going to prefer uber.   #  as someone who is not a medical practitioner, i am largely unqualified to determine if a medical practitioner is good at the most technical parts of their job as opposed to their bedside manner, which i am qualified to judge .  there is nothing about a cab ride vs.  an uber ride that i am unqualified to judge when it comes to the service i prefer.  if uber drivers are nicer and their cars are better and their driving habits are less aggressive then, for the same money i am going to prefer uber.  there is no additional regulatory steps that need be taken, because those are literally the only things i care about when it comes to transport.   #  this assumes that anything a  traditional  cab company can bring to the table is measurable and evident to the consumer.   #  this assumes that anything a  traditional  cab company can bring to the table is measurable and evident to the consumer.  empirically, benefits that are comparable, short term and/or known before rather than after are weighted stronger.  this gives dominance to the a comfortable ride will be expressed in the tip rather than the up front price.  rare risks that gather under  safety  will be attributed to individual mistakes and  bad luck , rather than systemic causes.  i can look at his phone and see if he follows his gps.  if i rate him badly, he can get banned from the app.  so, basically.  outsourcing  safety  to the consumer ? and if the cabbie throws you out in the middle of nowhere in a hissy fit, it is your fault alone ?
i am not a cab driver and rarely a cab customer, but when i need a cab i do not want some random guy with a car.  lyft and uber seem to think cab driving is not a skill, that it is something anyone can do with no training.  well, it is not.  an experienced cabbie provides a reliable service that joe schmoe who owns a chevy can mimic but ca not duplicate.  lyft and uber drivers offer: • questionable insurance.  • questionable character.  • questionable integrity.  • questionable driving safety.  • questionable background checks.  • questionable service for the disabled and elderly.  • questionable answers to questions about the city and area.  • questionable coverage at other than peak commute times.  like numerous other professions, taxi service is regulated for good reasons to prevent such questionable situations.  do it yourself pretend cabs like lyft and uber should not be allowed to ignore the rules and regulations that real cab operators must follow.  change my view.  and i will add that i learned a lot in this conversation, and would not make the same arguments now that i made in my original post.  • i have learned plenty about the way lyft and uber operate.  my original notions were based on a few newspaper articles, not even recent articles, and i appreciate the educating.  • i have learned that lyft/uber fans are vividly enthusiastic about the joy of riding in a stranger is car over a taxicab.  it is a level of adoration i have not seen since attending a few grateful dead concerts in the 0s, but i loved that spirit then so i ca not judge it harshly now.  • i have learned that lyft/uber fans in cmv view the cab industry pretty much the same as peta members view oscar meyer, and seem to believe that virtually  all  regulations of the taxi industry serve no public good, and exist only to protect cab operations from competition.  • mostly, i have learned that cmv is a fun place to hang out on a sunday afternoon, and that most of the debaters here play fair and do not seem to hate people for disagreeing, which is nice.  over and out for now.   #  questionable coverage at other than peak commute times.   #  i live in the dc area and this has never been a problem for me.   # well, it is not.  an experienced cabbie provides a reliable service that joe schmoe who owns a chevy can mimic but ca not duplicate.  if that is the case, cab companies should have no problem competing with lyft or uber.  my guess is that a regular guy with a clean car and a gps app  can  do the job of your average cab driver while offering their service via more convenient and safer method.  i do not need a wizard to get me from where i am to a place where i want to be, i need the person who will transport me as cheaply and reliably as possible.  that is lyft and uber, not the local cab companies.  they do not have questionable insurance, they are required to provide proof of commercial insurance before they are registered with the app.  i do not see where you get questionable character, but at least rideshares send me a picture of the driver and record when i get in and out of his cab.  if i suddenly disappear after the ride, the cops know exactly who to talk to.  questionable integrity ? i can look at his phone and see if he follows his gps.  if i rate him badly, he can get banned from the app.  driving safety and background checks ? i do not see a substantive difference from cabs and other, more effective security precautions are in place.  disabled and elderly ? because every cab i see is outfitted with a wheelchair loader ? not to put too fine a point on it, but all of my lyft/uber drivers actually spoke english.  the same cannot be said for my last few cab rides.  i live in the dc area and this has never been a problem for me.  i do not need a ride at 0 am on a thursday.  anecdotally, i will tell you that my experience with rideshare apps has been  categorically better  than my experience with cabs.  it is cheaper, cleaner and the drivers are friendlier.  i suggest to you that maybe those regulations that cab companies had to follow made the market exclusive and allowed them to get too comfortable and secure in their position.  they have not had to seriously compete for a long time and their service has suffered while their prices have increased.   #  yep, the ultimate way to change someones view about this is to have them regularly take both cabs and taxis.   #  yep, the ultimate way to change someones view about this is to have them regularly take both cabs and taxis.  taxis cling to the  we are regulated  argument as a way to say that uber is somehow more dangerous, when the regulation at least here in boston where they use a medallion system is simply a way for a few companies to corner the taxi market.  every single uber ride i have taken has been superior to virtually every cab ride i have taken.  even the best cab ride does not compare to the elegance of uber.  op, you might have a better argument if you say that ubers business model is unfair to the current taxi cab system.  there is an argument to be made there, but it is hard to argue the quality of uber is inferior to taxis.   #  this being the case, i do not think its reasonable to condemn companies like uber and lyft without even trying them.   #  healthcare is a bit different.  its expensive and you only use it when you are unwell.  ridesharing programs, on the other hand, are cheap and can be used any time.  this being the case, i do not think its reasonable to condemn companies like uber and lyft without even trying them.  at the very least, you should consider the testimonials of people who have used them in the past.  if you do not do either of these things, your opinions will seem unfounded.   #  as someone who is not a medical practitioner, i am largely unqualified to determine if a medical practitioner is good at the most technical parts of their job as opposed to their bedside manner, which i am qualified to judge .   #  as someone who is not a medical practitioner, i am largely unqualified to determine if a medical practitioner is good at the most technical parts of their job as opposed to their bedside manner, which i am qualified to judge .  there is nothing about a cab ride vs.  an uber ride that i am unqualified to judge when it comes to the service i prefer.  if uber drivers are nicer and their cars are better and their driving habits are less aggressive then, for the same money i am going to prefer uber.  there is no additional regulatory steps that need be taken, because those are literally the only things i care about when it comes to transport.   #  this assumes that anything a  traditional  cab company can bring to the table is measurable and evident to the consumer.   #  this assumes that anything a  traditional  cab company can bring to the table is measurable and evident to the consumer.  empirically, benefits that are comparable, short term and/or known before rather than after are weighted stronger.  this gives dominance to the a comfortable ride will be expressed in the tip rather than the up front price.  rare risks that gather under  safety  will be attributed to individual mistakes and  bad luck , rather than systemic causes.  i can look at his phone and see if he follows his gps.  if i rate him badly, he can get banned from the app.  so, basically.  outsourcing  safety  to the consumer ? and if the cabbie throws you out in the middle of nowhere in a hissy fit, it is your fault alone ?
i would argue that there is no revolution in the field of arts that changes society the way a revolution in the sciences does.  the internet changed everything, and programming and it is a scientific field.  the splitting of the atom has set the world into a stand still of constant fear of a nuclear fallout.  the discovery of fire has allowed humans to be the now dominant species on this planet.  these were all the revolutions, all in the sciences.  what revolutions have changed the world in such an impacting way in the arts have occurred ? if none, do you think there could ever ? and even if there would never be such a revolution: what then justifies a continued exploration of the arts ? i now have adopted the stance, but am open to change in view, that the arts is only leisure, and can only be explored in times of surplus, which we definitely are not in such a time yet.  people are still starving, climate is still changing, the universe grows ever closer to its cold death, and many disagreements still go on.  not saying that times are worse, we are most definitely living in one of the most peaceful periods in history, but not devoid of conflict and suffering.  because we are not devoid of conflict and suffering, should all our energies not be devoted to in an ideal world helping cure such suffering with technological advances or advances in the sciences ? does this make the arts a, for lack of a better term,  relatively useless  field ?  #  the internet changed everything, and programming and it is a scientific field.   #  the main thing about the internet is that it allowed us to communicate with each other more efficiently.   # the main thing about the internet is that it allowed us to communicate with each other more efficiently.  this is more art communicating in languages, pictures, videos than sciences e. g.  scientific method .  take away this communication then the internet becomes just another very large lan and not as impressive/revolutionary.  this is what we want ? does not this add to the conflict and suffering that you seem to want eliminate with sciences ? is this science or more of a discovery ? exactly how did sciences give us fire ? art is the communication between humans.  so for example languages pictograms, common spoken communication, written words etc have causes revolutions because it communicates ideas and are importing in spreading ideas which have caused revolutions.  the daily show with jon stewart is a good example of art comedy/satire that is trying to spread ideas to evoke change/revolution.   #  without it, scientific discovery would not be nearly as possible in that there would not be as much money for it as there is now .   #  remember that just because art is leisure does not make it  relatively useless.   economically speaking, leisure is an enormous portion of productivity in the world.  without it, scientific discovery would not be nearly as possible in that there would not be as much money for it as there is now .  in addition, the arts can help spawn creativity and help drive scientific innovation.  that being said, there is no denying that the arts have no importance for our survival.  but they do play a large role in our quality of life beyond survival.  imagine a life without the arts.  no movies, tv, video games, music, etc.  it would be relatively bleak.  i ca not change your view that the sciences are more important, because i do not believe that to be wrong.  however, i argue that the arts are not nearly as useless as you think.   #  does this make the arts a, for lack of a better term,  relatively useless  field ?  #  the arts have led to  actual  revolutions and to major peaceful changes in governments.  art influences people is emotions and motivations.  it has made people happy in ways that technology alone could not do.  technology lets us spend less time on survival and gives us more free time, but most of us devote the vast majority of that free time to sports or to the arts music, movies, reading, computer games, etc   because we are not devoid of conflict and suffering, should all our energies not be devoted to in an ideal world helping cure such suffering with technological advances or advances in the sciences ? does this make the arts a, for lack of a better term,  relatively useless  field ? music and art alleviate suffering.  we should not abandon the search for medical cures, but living is not enough to make us happy.  why not ? the crass and suggestive popular music and entertainment of previous centuries would clearly fall into the category of the arts.  modern tv/movies/music should be no different.   #  it alleviates suffering, true, but would not the time spent writing music be better spent developing better ways for humans to live cleaner lives, and the act of helping others has been scientifically shown to increase happiness.   #  just for sake of discussion is why i do not define the arts that way.  this discussion is rather pointless when i define it as the arts: the entertainment industry is a huge sector of the world economy.  it alleviates suffering, true, but would not the time spent writing music be better spent developing better ways for humans to live cleaner lives, and the act of helping others has been scientifically shown to increase happiness.  i completely understand that you ca not just tally a  unit  onto happiness, but we have to achieve some level of utilitarian equity and equality here, right ? i do not know, tell me your thoughts.  i am still leaning towards the sciences being more important, but i am intrigued by how much the arts can actually alleviate suffering and can provide what we humans psychologically need.  please do expand on what you have said.   #  major injury or illness technology may be better at alleviating suffering, but for  most  of our waking hours the arts provide more joy.   #  i do not talk about the entertainment industry being important because of the economy entertainment and arts are important because that is how most humans choose to spend their free time.  at the most basic level technology exists to give us free time it means we do not have to spend all day gathering food and it extends the end of our life.  without having free time to spend on sex and the arts what would be the point ? those two are related, by the way.  most clubs, pubs and parties have music, and that has been the case for centuries.  on the rare occasions when something goes horribly wrong e. g.  major injury or illness technology may be better at alleviating suffering, but for  most  of our waking hours the arts provide more joy.  i am not arguing that we should abandon funding for science and technology, but those things  are not  a goal in and of themselves.  they exist to serve other goals.
i would argue that there is no revolution in the field of arts that changes society the way a revolution in the sciences does.  the internet changed everything, and programming and it is a scientific field.  the splitting of the atom has set the world into a stand still of constant fear of a nuclear fallout.  the discovery of fire has allowed humans to be the now dominant species on this planet.  these were all the revolutions, all in the sciences.  what revolutions have changed the world in such an impacting way in the arts have occurred ? if none, do you think there could ever ? and even if there would never be such a revolution: what then justifies a continued exploration of the arts ? i now have adopted the stance, but am open to change in view, that the arts is only leisure, and can only be explored in times of surplus, which we definitely are not in such a time yet.  people are still starving, climate is still changing, the universe grows ever closer to its cold death, and many disagreements still go on.  not saying that times are worse, we are most definitely living in one of the most peaceful periods in history, but not devoid of conflict and suffering.  because we are not devoid of conflict and suffering, should all our energies not be devoted to in an ideal world helping cure such suffering with technological advances or advances in the sciences ? does this make the arts a, for lack of a better term,  relatively useless  field ?  #  the discovery of fire has allowed humans to be the now dominant species on this planet.   #  is this science or more of a discovery ?  # the main thing about the internet is that it allowed us to communicate with each other more efficiently.  this is more art communicating in languages, pictures, videos than sciences e. g.  scientific method .  take away this communication then the internet becomes just another very large lan and not as impressive/revolutionary.  this is what we want ? does not this add to the conflict and suffering that you seem to want eliminate with sciences ? is this science or more of a discovery ? exactly how did sciences give us fire ? art is the communication between humans.  so for example languages pictograms, common spoken communication, written words etc have causes revolutions because it communicates ideas and are importing in spreading ideas which have caused revolutions.  the daily show with jon stewart is a good example of art comedy/satire that is trying to spread ideas to evoke change/revolution.   #  that being said, there is no denying that the arts have no importance for our survival.   #  remember that just because art is leisure does not make it  relatively useless.   economically speaking, leisure is an enormous portion of productivity in the world.  without it, scientific discovery would not be nearly as possible in that there would not be as much money for it as there is now .  in addition, the arts can help spawn creativity and help drive scientific innovation.  that being said, there is no denying that the arts have no importance for our survival.  but they do play a large role in our quality of life beyond survival.  imagine a life without the arts.  no movies, tv, video games, music, etc.  it would be relatively bleak.  i ca not change your view that the sciences are more important, because i do not believe that to be wrong.  however, i argue that the arts are not nearly as useless as you think.   #  the crass and suggestive popular music and entertainment of previous centuries would clearly fall into the category of the arts.   #  the arts have led to  actual  revolutions and to major peaceful changes in governments.  art influences people is emotions and motivations.  it has made people happy in ways that technology alone could not do.  technology lets us spend less time on survival and gives us more free time, but most of us devote the vast majority of that free time to sports or to the arts music, movies, reading, computer games, etc   because we are not devoid of conflict and suffering, should all our energies not be devoted to in an ideal world helping cure such suffering with technological advances or advances in the sciences ? does this make the arts a, for lack of a better term,  relatively useless  field ? music and art alleviate suffering.  we should not abandon the search for medical cures, but living is not enough to make us happy.  why not ? the crass and suggestive popular music and entertainment of previous centuries would clearly fall into the category of the arts.  modern tv/movies/music should be no different.   #  it alleviates suffering, true, but would not the time spent writing music be better spent developing better ways for humans to live cleaner lives, and the act of helping others has been scientifically shown to increase happiness.   #  just for sake of discussion is why i do not define the arts that way.  this discussion is rather pointless when i define it as the arts: the entertainment industry is a huge sector of the world economy.  it alleviates suffering, true, but would not the time spent writing music be better spent developing better ways for humans to live cleaner lives, and the act of helping others has been scientifically shown to increase happiness.  i completely understand that you ca not just tally a  unit  onto happiness, but we have to achieve some level of utilitarian equity and equality here, right ? i do not know, tell me your thoughts.  i am still leaning towards the sciences being more important, but i am intrigued by how much the arts can actually alleviate suffering and can provide what we humans psychologically need.  please do expand on what you have said.   #  without having free time to spend on sex and the arts what would be the point ?  #  i do not talk about the entertainment industry being important because of the economy entertainment and arts are important because that is how most humans choose to spend their free time.  at the most basic level technology exists to give us free time it means we do not have to spend all day gathering food and it extends the end of our life.  without having free time to spend on sex and the arts what would be the point ? those two are related, by the way.  most clubs, pubs and parties have music, and that has been the case for centuries.  on the rare occasions when something goes horribly wrong e. g.  major injury or illness technology may be better at alleviating suffering, but for  most  of our waking hours the arts provide more joy.  i am not arguing that we should abandon funding for science and technology, but those things  are not  a goal in and of themselves.  they exist to serve other goals.
i have seen a million studies that show women make less.  i have seen a million studies that show men make less.  and i have seen a million studies that show everyone makes about the same.  i think every study that shows that one gender makes more than the other is incomplete or fallacious, and i strongly believe that most studies are done by people who are looking for a particular outcome to prove what they already hope to be true.  when considering all aspects of employment wages, hours worked, benefits, experience, occupation, and anything else that could be a factor i seriously believe that men and women probably make a very similar number; a number so similar that there are no grounds for advocating either gender needs more pay.  i am equally willing to believe that men make less money as i am to believe women make less money.   #  i seriously believe that men and women probably make a very similar number; a number so similar that there are no grounds for advocating either gender needs more pay.   #  i am equally willing to believe that men make less money as i am to believe women make less money.   # i am equally willing to believe that men make less money as i am to believe women make less money.  this is easily remedied with data.  you have read a million studies going one way and a million going the other way.  ok.  what is the weighted mean here ? maybe the million studies going one way all had small sample sizes and small effects, so they count less than the million going the other way.  you should summarize your analyses of these studies and decide whether their methodology warrants accepting them or not.  maybe some of them had a bad study design, or maybe they do not show exactly what you are talking about.  you should check out the specific studies you have read and try to analyze them.  basically, this is a research task, not a philosophical argument task.  i have not read the studies, so i ca not really change your view about this.  you have.  so do the research and get your answer.  you should not have to  seriously believe  anything because it is right there in the data.   #  this data really points to a larger macro level, structural imbalance women being passed up for promotions, executive positions, etc.   #  i think that you are confusing two separate sets of data.  the studies that show that women earn  0 cents to every man is dollar  are talking about lifetime gross earnings.  basically, this is saying that a woman will, on average, make about 0/0 of what a man makes over the course of her entire lifetime.  it is taking into consideration things like job growth potential, raises, promotions, etc.  what these studies  do not  say is that if a man and a woman are both working next to each other in an office, the man gets a higher paycheck for the same job.  that type of blatant micro level sexism is not what the data shows.  i am sure that there are some employers that would pay a woman less, but there are also legal protections in place to attempt to correct this.  this data really points to a larger macro level, structural imbalance women being passed up for promotions, executive positions, etc.  so, in a way, you are correct.  men and women doing the same job for the same company probably do make very similar wages.  the issue, however, becomes apparent over long stretches of time and large sample sizes.  if that earnings gap is not corrected, by age 0, she will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over her working lifetime.  we also know that women earn less than men in every state and region of the country, and that once you factor in race, the pay gap for women of color is even larger.  for further sources, please see: URL URL URL URL i very much understand that there are flaws with the  0 cents  figure as with any point of data .  i still firmly hold, however, that whether we want to say that the wage gap is 0, 0 or even 0, that is an issue that needs to be systemically corrected.   #  edit: check out this chart of the most common jobs in each income bracket URL to see what i mean.   #  not just  promotional opportunities  women are also overrepresented in low wage fields, making up 0 of the low wage workforce, and even within that suffer a 0 wage gap.  URL when people talk about the wage gap, they are  not  just talking about straightforward discrimination which does exist , but many structural forces that push women into caregiving roles which tend to be low or unpaid .  the most interesting part about the wage gap to me is the way that labor coded as  feminine  tends to be some of the lowest paid, and that even within those fields, men doing that labor make more.  the more prestigious and high paid a field, the fewer women you will see in it.  edit: check out this chart of the most common jobs in each income bracket URL to see what i mean.  it is striking how it is largely jobs coded feminine and female dominated at the bottom, largely jobs coded masculine and male dominated at the top, and a mix in the middle but in that zone  feminine  jobs that require degrees, like primary school teachers, often make about the same as  masculine  jobs that do not, like truck drivers .  even  within  fields, the more prestigious and high paid subfields are highly correlated with the number of men in them think corporate vs.  public interest lawyers, or elementary vs.  high school teachers, or surgeons vs.  general physicians, or environmental vs.  computer engineers .   #  fast forward 0 0 years enough time to get the kids into school and mom wants to or can now afford to go back to work.   #   the more prestigious and high paid a field, the fewer women you will see in it.   i totally believe that we need to be working to fix sexism in the workforce.  but one big structural challenge is that 0 of women leave the workforce for children.  many of them have to because childcare sucks and some of them choose to i know some moms who would prefer to be with their kids than work, and can afford to do so .  fast forward 0 0 years enough time to get the kids into school and mom wants to or can now afford to go back to work.  source: URL in the prestigious and high paid careers which are presumably the most competitive , a 0  year gap sets you back more than 0 years not only have you lost 0 years of learning, advancement, pay raises, etc, but you are probably a bit rusty and you have a big hole in your resume when the people you are competing with do not.  this is surmountable, but probably is often solved by taking a step back on your career path perhaps taking a more junior job .  which makes it even harder to get to the upper echelons.  again, i am not saying that this is 0 responsible for the pay gap or the relative lack of women in the top ranks, but it is a meaningful/interesting factor  #  there are not female dominated fields that make that much money that do not require degrees.   # well i have a cool chart for you right here ! URL it is the most common jobs at each income bracket.  it is striking how it is largely jobs coded feminine and female dominated at the bottom nursing aides, retail clerks, child care workers, teachers  aides , largely jobs coded masculine and male dominated at the top chief executives, financial managers, software developers, it professionals and a mix in the middle but in that zone  feminine  jobs that require education often make about the same as  masculine  jobs that do not truck drivers and teachers, for example .  men do enter more dangerous and strenuous jobs, but they also get paid relatively well for them the average miner makes $0k, the average oil field worker makes six figures.  there are not female dominated fields that make that much money that do not require degrees.  one of the biggest mistakes people make is comparing working class male dominated jobs that do not require education miners to middle class female dominated jobs that do nurses .
i have seen a million studies that show women make less.  i have seen a million studies that show men make less.  and i have seen a million studies that show everyone makes about the same.  i think every study that shows that one gender makes more than the other is incomplete or fallacious, and i strongly believe that most studies are done by people who are looking for a particular outcome to prove what they already hope to be true.  when considering all aspects of employment wages, hours worked, benefits, experience, occupation, and anything else that could be a factor i seriously believe that men and women probably make a very similar number; a number so similar that there are no grounds for advocating either gender needs more pay.  i am equally willing to believe that men make less money as i am to believe women make less money.   #  i have seen a million studies that show women make less.   #  i have seen a million studies that show men make less.   # i have seen a million studies that show men make less.  and i have seen a million studies that show everyone makes about the same.  this is actually a fallacy.  there are zero studies that show everyone makes the same.  all studies show that women earn less.  there are however many very convincing  opinion columns  and articles written by conservatives that blame the wage gap on  women is choices  such as preferring to work fewer hours or different careers.  while those reasons are a part of the wage gap, they are just a part, and in reality, a large portion of the differences in hours worked and job position is caused by employer discrimination in hiring and promotions.  not to mention, saying  women earn less because they make different choices  does not mean women do not earn less, it means they do.  they just have other pressures that interfere with them earning what men do.  that is how  reports  and opinion columns work.  not science.  scientific studies prove that women earn 0 of what men do on average, and that even when accounting for the differences like job position and hours worked, the average woman earns 0 less than a man with an identical position, hours, education, and experience.  i am equally willing to believe that men make less money as i am to believe women make less money.  no, for identical job positions, hours worked, experience, and occupation.  women earn about 0 less.  on top of that, consider that things like differences in job position are a mechanism by which discrimination causes women to be paid less.  i. e.  many companies prefer to hire men for high paying positions instead of women, or prefer to give raises and promotions to men, causing women to be paid less in a way that appears to be explained by  differences in job position   #  i still firmly hold, however, that whether we want to say that the wage gap is 0, 0 or even 0, that is an issue that needs to be systemically corrected.   #  i think that you are confusing two separate sets of data.  the studies that show that women earn  0 cents to every man is dollar  are talking about lifetime gross earnings.  basically, this is saying that a woman will, on average, make about 0/0 of what a man makes over the course of her entire lifetime.  it is taking into consideration things like job growth potential, raises, promotions, etc.  what these studies  do not  say is that if a man and a woman are both working next to each other in an office, the man gets a higher paycheck for the same job.  that type of blatant micro level sexism is not what the data shows.  i am sure that there are some employers that would pay a woman less, but there are also legal protections in place to attempt to correct this.  this data really points to a larger macro level, structural imbalance women being passed up for promotions, executive positions, etc.  so, in a way, you are correct.  men and women doing the same job for the same company probably do make very similar wages.  the issue, however, becomes apparent over long stretches of time and large sample sizes.  if that earnings gap is not corrected, by age 0, she will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over her working lifetime.  we also know that women earn less than men in every state and region of the country, and that once you factor in race, the pay gap for women of color is even larger.  for further sources, please see: URL URL URL URL i very much understand that there are flaws with the  0 cents  figure as with any point of data .  i still firmly hold, however, that whether we want to say that the wage gap is 0, 0 or even 0, that is an issue that needs to be systemically corrected.   #  URL when people talk about the wage gap, they are  not  just talking about straightforward discrimination which does exist , but many structural forces that push women into caregiving roles which tend to be low or unpaid .   #  not just  promotional opportunities  women are also overrepresented in low wage fields, making up 0 of the low wage workforce, and even within that suffer a 0 wage gap.  URL when people talk about the wage gap, they are  not  just talking about straightforward discrimination which does exist , but many structural forces that push women into caregiving roles which tend to be low or unpaid .  the most interesting part about the wage gap to me is the way that labor coded as  feminine  tends to be some of the lowest paid, and that even within those fields, men doing that labor make more.  the more prestigious and high paid a field, the fewer women you will see in it.  edit: check out this chart of the most common jobs in each income bracket URL to see what i mean.  it is striking how it is largely jobs coded feminine and female dominated at the bottom, largely jobs coded masculine and male dominated at the top, and a mix in the middle but in that zone  feminine  jobs that require degrees, like primary school teachers, often make about the same as  masculine  jobs that do not, like truck drivers .  even  within  fields, the more prestigious and high paid subfields are highly correlated with the number of men in them think corporate vs.  public interest lawyers, or elementary vs.  high school teachers, or surgeons vs.  general physicians, or environmental vs.  computer engineers .   #  again, i am not saying that this is 0 responsible for the pay gap or the relative lack of women in the top ranks, but it is a meaningful/interesting factor  #   the more prestigious and high paid a field, the fewer women you will see in it.   i totally believe that we need to be working to fix sexism in the workforce.  but one big structural challenge is that 0 of women leave the workforce for children.  many of them have to because childcare sucks and some of them choose to i know some moms who would prefer to be with their kids than work, and can afford to do so .  fast forward 0 0 years enough time to get the kids into school and mom wants to or can now afford to go back to work.  source: URL in the prestigious and high paid careers which are presumably the most competitive , a 0  year gap sets you back more than 0 years not only have you lost 0 years of learning, advancement, pay raises, etc, but you are probably a bit rusty and you have a big hole in your resume when the people you are competing with do not.  this is surmountable, but probably is often solved by taking a step back on your career path perhaps taking a more junior job .  which makes it even harder to get to the upper echelons.  again, i am not saying that this is 0 responsible for the pay gap or the relative lack of women in the top ranks, but it is a meaningful/interesting factor  #  URL it is the most common jobs at each income bracket.   # well i have a cool chart for you right here ! URL it is the most common jobs at each income bracket.  it is striking how it is largely jobs coded feminine and female dominated at the bottom nursing aides, retail clerks, child care workers, teachers  aides , largely jobs coded masculine and male dominated at the top chief executives, financial managers, software developers, it professionals and a mix in the middle but in that zone  feminine  jobs that require education often make about the same as  masculine  jobs that do not truck drivers and teachers, for example .  men do enter more dangerous and strenuous jobs, but they also get paid relatively well for them the average miner makes $0k, the average oil field worker makes six figures.  there are not female dominated fields that make that much money that do not require degrees.  one of the biggest mistakes people make is comparing working class male dominated jobs that do not require education miners to middle class female dominated jobs that do nurses .
i have seen a million studies that show women make less.  i have seen a million studies that show men make less.  and i have seen a million studies that show everyone makes about the same.  i think every study that shows that one gender makes more than the other is incomplete or fallacious, and i strongly believe that most studies are done by people who are looking for a particular outcome to prove what they already hope to be true.  when considering all aspects of employment wages, hours worked, benefits, experience, occupation, and anything else that could be a factor i seriously believe that men and women probably make a very similar number; a number so similar that there are no grounds for advocating either gender needs more pay.  i am equally willing to believe that men make less money as i am to believe women make less money.   #  i think every study that shows that one gender makes more than the other is incomplete or fallacious, and i strongly believe that most studies are done by people who are looking for a particular outcome to prove what they already hope to be true.   #  that is how  reports  and opinion columns work.   # i have seen a million studies that show men make less.  and i have seen a million studies that show everyone makes about the same.  this is actually a fallacy.  there are zero studies that show everyone makes the same.  all studies show that women earn less.  there are however many very convincing  opinion columns  and articles written by conservatives that blame the wage gap on  women is choices  such as preferring to work fewer hours or different careers.  while those reasons are a part of the wage gap, they are just a part, and in reality, a large portion of the differences in hours worked and job position is caused by employer discrimination in hiring and promotions.  not to mention, saying  women earn less because they make different choices  does not mean women do not earn less, it means they do.  they just have other pressures that interfere with them earning what men do.  that is how  reports  and opinion columns work.  not science.  scientific studies prove that women earn 0 of what men do on average, and that even when accounting for the differences like job position and hours worked, the average woman earns 0 less than a man with an identical position, hours, education, and experience.  i am equally willing to believe that men make less money as i am to believe women make less money.  no, for identical job positions, hours worked, experience, and occupation.  women earn about 0 less.  on top of that, consider that things like differences in job position are a mechanism by which discrimination causes women to be paid less.  i. e.  many companies prefer to hire men for high paying positions instead of women, or prefer to give raises and promotions to men, causing women to be paid less in a way that appears to be explained by  differences in job position   #  what these studies  do not  say is that if a man and a woman are both working next to each other in an office, the man gets a higher paycheck for the same job.   #  i think that you are confusing two separate sets of data.  the studies that show that women earn  0 cents to every man is dollar  are talking about lifetime gross earnings.  basically, this is saying that a woman will, on average, make about 0/0 of what a man makes over the course of her entire lifetime.  it is taking into consideration things like job growth potential, raises, promotions, etc.  what these studies  do not  say is that if a man and a woman are both working next to each other in an office, the man gets a higher paycheck for the same job.  that type of blatant micro level sexism is not what the data shows.  i am sure that there are some employers that would pay a woman less, but there are also legal protections in place to attempt to correct this.  this data really points to a larger macro level, structural imbalance women being passed up for promotions, executive positions, etc.  so, in a way, you are correct.  men and women doing the same job for the same company probably do make very similar wages.  the issue, however, becomes apparent over long stretches of time and large sample sizes.  if that earnings gap is not corrected, by age 0, she will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over her working lifetime.  we also know that women earn less than men in every state and region of the country, and that once you factor in race, the pay gap for women of color is even larger.  for further sources, please see: URL URL URL URL i very much understand that there are flaws with the  0 cents  figure as with any point of data .  i still firmly hold, however, that whether we want to say that the wage gap is 0, 0 or even 0, that is an issue that needs to be systemically corrected.   #  the most interesting part about the wage gap to me is the way that labor coded as  feminine  tends to be some of the lowest paid, and that even within those fields, men doing that labor make more.   #  not just  promotional opportunities  women are also overrepresented in low wage fields, making up 0 of the low wage workforce, and even within that suffer a 0 wage gap.  URL when people talk about the wage gap, they are  not  just talking about straightforward discrimination which does exist , but many structural forces that push women into caregiving roles which tend to be low or unpaid .  the most interesting part about the wage gap to me is the way that labor coded as  feminine  tends to be some of the lowest paid, and that even within those fields, men doing that labor make more.  the more prestigious and high paid a field, the fewer women you will see in it.  edit: check out this chart of the most common jobs in each income bracket URL to see what i mean.  it is striking how it is largely jobs coded feminine and female dominated at the bottom, largely jobs coded masculine and male dominated at the top, and a mix in the middle but in that zone  feminine  jobs that require degrees, like primary school teachers, often make about the same as  masculine  jobs that do not, like truck drivers .  even  within  fields, the more prestigious and high paid subfields are highly correlated with the number of men in them think corporate vs.  public interest lawyers, or elementary vs.  high school teachers, or surgeons vs.  general physicians, or environmental vs.  computer engineers .   #  this is surmountable, but probably is often solved by taking a step back on your career path perhaps taking a more junior job .  which makes it even harder to get to the upper echelons.   #   the more prestigious and high paid a field, the fewer women you will see in it.   i totally believe that we need to be working to fix sexism in the workforce.  but one big structural challenge is that 0 of women leave the workforce for children.  many of them have to because childcare sucks and some of them choose to i know some moms who would prefer to be with their kids than work, and can afford to do so .  fast forward 0 0 years enough time to get the kids into school and mom wants to or can now afford to go back to work.  source: URL in the prestigious and high paid careers which are presumably the most competitive , a 0  year gap sets you back more than 0 years not only have you lost 0 years of learning, advancement, pay raises, etc, but you are probably a bit rusty and you have a big hole in your resume when the people you are competing with do not.  this is surmountable, but probably is often solved by taking a step back on your career path perhaps taking a more junior job .  which makes it even harder to get to the upper echelons.  again, i am not saying that this is 0 responsible for the pay gap or the relative lack of women in the top ranks, but it is a meaningful/interesting factor  #  there are not female dominated fields that make that much money that do not require degrees.   # well i have a cool chart for you right here ! URL it is the most common jobs at each income bracket.  it is striking how it is largely jobs coded feminine and female dominated at the bottom nursing aides, retail clerks, child care workers, teachers  aides , largely jobs coded masculine and male dominated at the top chief executives, financial managers, software developers, it professionals and a mix in the middle but in that zone  feminine  jobs that require education often make about the same as  masculine  jobs that do not truck drivers and teachers, for example .  men do enter more dangerous and strenuous jobs, but they also get paid relatively well for them the average miner makes $0k, the average oil field worker makes six figures.  there are not female dominated fields that make that much money that do not require degrees.  one of the biggest mistakes people make is comparing working class male dominated jobs that do not require education miners to middle class female dominated jobs that do nurses .
my view: on average, women are less capable at defending against a physical attack than their male counterparts.  by allowing all eligible citizens to access firearms you neutralise this disadvantage women have.  by preventing all eligible citizens from legally accessing firearms, you have a disproportionate affect upon women.  thus, access to firearms should be considered a gender equality issue.  notes: i am a 0 year old irish male.  gun control is an issue that interests me but there is not much opportunity for discussion amongst my peers as we do not have much of a gun culture here.  although i enjoy discussing many of the aspects around gun control, i would like to limit this cmv to the view stated.   #  on average, women are less capable at defending against a physical attack than their male counterparts.   #  by allowing all eligible citizens to access firearms you neutralise this disadvantage women have.   # by allowing all eligible citizens to access firearms you neutralise this disadvantage women have.  by preventing all eligible citizens from legally accessing firearms, you have a disproportionate affect upon women.  it is not like a physical confrontation is supposed to be a fair fight.  the goal of the state should be to reduce the number of physical confrontations, and to try to make the ones that occur less dangerous.  and even if you are interested in  fairness , keep in mind that the aggressor has a first move advantage, which is substantially greater if guns are involved: if somebody stronger than you punches you out of the blue, it would probably not kill or incapacitate you, and you may be able to run away.  if somebody shoots out of the blue, even if you are armed, you may be not able to shoot back or run away.   #  rates of physical and sexual violence against women have dropped significantly over the past decade, but the percentage of women who report having a gun in their home has barely fluctuated since the 0s except for a 0 spike .   #  public support for a total gun ban is down to less than 0 from historic highs of over 0 in the 0s and 0s despite a drop in overall gun ownership during that period .  that is about the same percentage that supports texas secession, another looney idea that is never going to happen.  a total gun ban is not happening in america any time in the foreseeable future, for both political and logistical reasons.  recent attempts at bans have targeted only  assault weapons  and certain types of ammunition.  it is debatable whether those bans would have any practical effect, but still, there is absolutely zero chance of handguns or hunting rifles being banned anytime soon, and anyone who claims that  obama will take your guns !   is just fearmongering.  most proposed gun control legislation involves background checks, weapon type restrictions and closing loopholes that allow for easier gun sales like at gun shows .  stronger regulations on how/where guns can be purchased, what types of weapons/ammo can be purchased, and what type of training/registration/licensure is required wo not stop a woman with no criminal history from buying a handgun for self protection.  it is extremely easy to obtain a gun in the us, and all but a tiny fraction of americans live in states where concealed carry permits are issued and out of state permits are honored.  yet only about 0 of women personally own guns 0 0 have a gun in their home , and very few of them carry their guns on a daily basis.  there is nothing holding them back, but the majority do not choose to own guns  despite  the fact that having a gun and knowing how to use it is almost indisputably an advantage in a fight.  maybe women do not feel that threatened.  maybe they worry about children and other family members gaining access to their gun.  maybe they do not feel comfortable carrying a weapon.  maybe they prefer nonlethal, easily portable alternatives like pepper spray.  rates of physical and sexual violence against women have dropped significantly over the past decade, but the percentage of women who report having a gun in their home has barely fluctuated since the 0s except for a 0 spike .  so it is difficult to say that increasing gun ownership is the best or only way to reduce violence against women.  for whatever reason, the majority of women do not buy guns.  relaxing gun regulations even more probably wo not increase the percentage that do.  and restrictions on  military style  weapons with little practical self defense use will affect  very  few women.   #  so if we allow all eligible citizens to legally access firearms you will have a disproportionate affect on male homicide victim rates.   #  i am not sure i would call it a gender equality issue.  men are 0 times more likely to be the victim of homicide in the us and account for 0 of all victims of gun homicide source URL it seems sensible to assume that if you have more guns you will have more gun related homicides but i found a source URL just to be sure.  here is the quote from the results of data between 0 and 0 in the us:  gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates incidence rate ratio 0; 0 confidence interval 0, 0 .  this model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.  so if we allow all eligible citizens to legally access firearms you will have a disproportionate affect on male homicide victim rates.  at the very least it is not a gender  equality  issue.  it can still be a gender issue and feminism/mra might take either side but not an equality one.   #  we would have to verify how many homicides are carried out using legally owned firearms.   #  now this is an interesting response and the first one that has focused on the view.  we would have to verify how many homicides are carried out using legally owned firearms.  if allowing citizens to own firearms legally caused a significant increase in the homicide rates using legally owned firearms and it had a disproportionate increase on males rather than females then i would see your point.  we would then have a situation where outlawing weapons will have a disproportionate impact on women and allowing them to be owned will have a disproportionate impact on men.  we would have to weigh up the severity of each result to determine the proper course of action.  in any case it would still be a gender equality issue in my opinion, it would just mean that either stance, pro outlawing or pro legalising has some gender equality merit.  wonderful contribution.   #  a straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.   #  thanks for the reply.  i am not so sure that verifying how many homicides are carried out using legal firearms is necessary.  if you start to legally hand out firearms you enable more people to obtain firearms illegally.  i. e.  there is a correlation between legal firearms and illegal firearms.  if you look at the methods by which criminals obtain illegal firearms source URL you will see that they stem from legal purchases.  around 0 0 are stolen but the main factors according to the atf agent are:    wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.  a straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.  according to a 0 atf study on  sources of crime guns in southern california,  many straw purchases are conducted in an openly  suggestive  manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun.  so if you are for liberalising firearm ownership you must accept that you will stimulate illegal firearms trade and so the question of whether a homicide was using a legal or illegal firearm is unimportant.  i guess the more fundamental disagreement i would have with labeling this a gender equality issue, and something someone may have already addressed, is that gender equality is not about equal outcomes, it is about equal treatment.  men and women have fundamental biological differences that ca not be changed.  males, on average, will always be stronger than females.  if you go about trying to  correct  this disadvantage by giving everyone guns, and therefore disadvantaging men, i ca not really see that as equal treatment of the sexes.  as such, i do not see whether we chose to have liberal or conservative gun ownership laws as being a gender equality issue at all.
i am seeing this opinion very, very often, and i think is very problematic, at least in the us.  we have a pretty sizeable proportion of population that is passionately in love with guns.  i think of them as stamp or coin collectors think what happens when you try and take an album from an avid collector  who needs so many stamps, most of which are cancelled anyway !   .  it should be no surprise that many pieces of regulation provoke the same response.  and they should think about recent pieces of legislation that limited the number of rounds in magazine to 0.  it just so happens that many highly collectable military guns from wwi and wwii are over this limit and now you said that someone who have just paid $0 for a fully matching including the magazine ! wwii luger needs to get rid of this pesky mag which will lower the value of the gun by 0/0.  this is true, of course, but forcing restrictions on guns, especially the ones that make very little impact on the actual number of deaths majority of gun legislation has been recently focused on mass murder, which kills fewer people per year than lightning pushes a very large number of people into republican camp.  this is especially true for white middle class males with less than high school education, who benefit the least from republican policies, yet are drawn to them because of red meat issues such as gun control.  my assertion is that letting republicans own gun issue kills vastly more people than gun legislation prevents.  if we took gun people from the republican camp, they would have no change for legislative victories in their current ultra rightwing form.  many wars would not have happened, saving literally hundreds of thousands of people it will take a few hundred years for our current gun legislation to just make up for iraq body count, for instance .  we would have had better health care, sooner, also saving tens of thousands per year.  so imho, based strictly on the body count, our current attempt of gun legislation is a very bad thing.  cmv ! i am pointing out that there are specific firearms that have no impact on violence at large, yet are the first ones targeted.  the proponents of this legislation justify it by saying that it is worth it even if it saves one life.  i am saying that corrected for the broader impact we probably end up with more people dead because of it.   #  i am pointing out that there are specific firearms that have no impact on violence at large, yet are the first ones targeted.   #  i will just address this bit, if i may.   # i will just address this bit, if i may.  and only with respect to people who want to use firearms in societally damaging ways.  i more or less agree with your premise, as things stand.  the problem is that after you have banned the problematic weapons, they become expensive to get hold of and risky to own.  ie, if being caught possessing one means jail.  our experience in the uk has been that unlawful use of weapons that are now prohibited which is most firearms, and almost all handguns has declined, as gangsters and other ne er do wells exploit a loophole that allows people to continue to own antique weapons.  in a nutshell: although your luger is not a problem now, because no gangster wants to pay $0k for one when they can get a modern firearm for much less, it will become a problem when regulation means that risk and lack of supply make modern firearms less appealing.   #  i think the argument that it puts people in the republican camp is flawed.   #  i think the argument that it puts people in the republican camp is flawed.  think about when gun control becomes a topic: after every school shooting.  people become motivated to stop it and even though the gun control acts may be ineffective there are still many moderates that support it when there is a school shooting.  honestly, the entire thing is just mud slinging at republicans.  try to pass gun laws, they get blocked and you can say they do not care about children.  seems like the perfect plan.   #  there is also a surprising number of liberals who just do not care that much at all about guns at all.   #  honestly, i see a lot more diversity on the gun issue among liberals than i do among conservatives.  while most liberals do seem to support at least some modest level of gun regulation, it is generally not a top priority issue for them.  mainstream liberal voters and politicians do not really express that much interest in pursuing aggressive gun legislation.  compared to the amount of tv coverage and debate that gun control got back in the 0s, it is practically a non issue today.  the  liberal agenda  barely talks about guns anymore, and there is a surprising diversity of beliefs.  there is also a surprising number of liberals who just do not care that much at all about guns at all.  gun rights seem to be an issue of high importance for most conservatives, though.  gun rights feature heavily in conservative demonstrations, and gun/ammo sales spike during periods of high partisanship.  0 of republicans are gun owners, while only about a quarter of democrats and independents own guns, so gun rights are a much bigger concern.  conservatives talk about guns  a lot.  and there seems to be one dominant position on guns among conservatives: absolute bare minimum regulation.  the conservative focus on guns means that conservatives are largely the people  framing  the gun debate and influencing what people think of as the  liberal policy.    #  in australia we have very tightly controlled gun laws.   #  would proper licencing of gun owners help ? in australia we have very tightly controlled gun laws.  but you can get a gun licence, provided you can pass the test and show you are a responsible adult.  you then need a reason to own a gun, and self protection is not a reason.  being a member of a gun club is though, or a farmer depending on the type of weapon.  i believe automatic and most semi automatic weapons are illegal though.   #  we can agree that there is a problem with too many shootings in the us, right ?  #  we can agree that there is a problem with too many shootings in the us, right ? they are not anywhere near other countries they want to associate with.  so whatever the problem is it must be addressed, right ? whether it is too many guns, gang culture, gun culture in general.  and guns are not the same as guns.  iceland has a very high rate of gun ownership, but they are mostly hunting rifles and shot guns for hunting.  people do not walk around with assault rifles.
first, lets establish that i am thinking of the psychological understanding of happiness as a particular state of mind.  second, lets establish that ignorance is undesirable.  that is a view i hold and am not willing to change.  the view to challenge is the one of happiness being dependant on maintaining ignorance.  now this is something i have been thinking about a lot and something that bothers me.  a social, psychologically sound person will display empathy towards others.  we are affected by the people and the environment around us.  meeting happy, smiling people and pleasant experiences make us feel good and happy.  sad, hurt, depressed people and tragedies make us sad.  if one realizes his own happiness one is content with his own life , then the last thing he has to do to stay happy is to stay ignorant of the suffering of other people, is not it ? i think that is really tragic and i would love to have my mind changed about this.  just wanted to add, that following with this line of thought i have arrived at the conclusion that pursuit of happiness is immoral and the state of happiness is undesirable.  staying unhappy with your life is the moral thing to do.  with morality defined as a set of behaviours desirable in society.   #  if one realizes his own happiness one is content with his own life , then the last thing he has to do to stay happy is to stay ignorant of the suffering of other people, is not it ?  #  i believe happiness can be derived for a person through helping other people is lives to become better.   # only if you are not ignorant.  if you are ignorant, then you are probably also ignorant to the fact that ignorance is undesirable.  i believe happiness can be derived for a person through helping other people is lives to become better.  that would imply, then, that prior to helping a person to make their lives better i. e.  happier the person being helped was more sad.  after helping them, then, both parties result in having happier lives even if just temporarily.  to do this, i think it is impossible to be ignorant of other is suffering.  in other words, a person could in effect make other people is lives happier and derive happiness from doing so, but in order for this to happen, it would be impossible for them to be ignorant of other is suffering.   #  most people have a 0/0 ratio with ups and downs in their lives.   #  hey ! thanks for replying ! that is not what i meant ! i agree with you that it is not a binary scale, there is a middleground there.  the question is what dictates where you usually sit on that scale ? i believe that it is the positive to negative thought ratio.  most people have a 0/0 ratio with ups and downs in their lives.  pleasant experiences make for positive thoughts and skew the scale towards the  happy  end, while negative experiences towards the  sad  end of the mood scale.  if that is the case then the recipe for happiness is to avoid negative thoughts and focus on positive  feel good  thoughts.  thing is, suffering in the world is a constant phenomenon.  happiness is a momentary sensation, it comes with a positive experience and goes a moment later while the underlying sorrow remains.  that is why people have to constantly reach for new achievements and try different things, to stack these little moments of happiness until we forget all about the creeping sadness.  and i find that race to avert our gaze quite tragic.   #  but one day he escapes the palace and sees suffering and sadness for the first time: an old man, a corpse, and an ascetic monk.   # in buddhist teaching, no.  in fact, addressing this question is one of the major points of buddhism.  the traditional story of siddartha gautuma is journey to becoming the buddha has him growing up in a palace happy, deliberately isolated from any sources of sadness.  but one day he escapes the palace and sees suffering and sadness for the first time: an old man, a corpse, and an ascetic monk.  seeing suffering troubles him and robs him of his happiness and he decides to become an asectic monk, deliberately denying himself the pleasures of life, even fasting for long periods.  after almost starving himself to death in this pursuit, he resolves that he ca not continue that lifestyle.  he begins meditating on this problem and, after a long time, realizes the solution, a middle path between indulgence and asceticism, which he then teaches to others.  i am not going to go into detail of buddhist teachings unless you want more detail.  but this school of thought is at least one way that some people believe solves your dilemma.   #  it is all completely subjective; so use that subjectivity to your advantage, rather than to your detriment.   #  the important thing to realise here, is that ignorance is always relative.  can you fly anywhere on the planet, or otherwise receive information about literally every single thing that happens every 0 hours ? of course you ca not.  some of the information you are missing out on might be conducive to your happiness, but a lot of it would probably be conducive to your unhappiness as well.  as a result of this, i could choose to spend all day reading about technological progress in the area of clean energy and sustainable agriculture, which is likely to make me happy or i could spend all day watching beheading videos from isis, or footage of people dying from ebola, or otherwise being violently killed.  if i spend my day learning about isis, and that makes me less ignorant in your view, then i would have to ask why; because given, again, that we can not possibly know all of the available information, assuming that it is ignorant if we only focus on one particular type of information or another, is entirely arbitrary in my opinion.  i do not and can not know everything.  i actually know very little, if for no other reason than because i simply do not have time to learn very much, either in one day, or in my whole life.  given that that is true, i have recently realised that it is in my best interests psychologically, not to cultivate deliberate ignorance, but to focus primarily on information of the kind which is conducive to my happiness and overall psychological wellbeing.  another way of saying this, is that if you do not know anything, and you really ca not know anything, then everything you think you know is only going to be a fantasy anyway.  if, in turn, everything you know is a fantasy, then it makes more sense for it to be a fantasy that actually benefits you, rather than one that does not.  so you can say that i am ignorant for reading about wind turbine development rather than focusing on isis, and i can call you ignorant for focusing on isis and neglecting wind turbine development, which to me is obviously the  really  important issue.  see how that works ? it is all completely subjective; so use that subjectivity to your advantage, rather than to your detriment.   #  sure, you feel bad in the short term, but in the long term you need that information to solve the problem and increase happiness.   # not really.  humans take joy in helping those that suffer.  if there is a problem, you need to know about it to solve it.  sure, you feel bad in the short term, but in the long term you need that information to solve the problem and increase happiness.  this is also true on a personal level.  if i have cancer, i prefer to know it even if that would make me unhappy.  because the sooner i know about it, the better my chances at fighting it.  problems do not disappear if you do not know about them, they just bite you in the ass unexpectedly.  the whole idea that  ignorance  is bliss is total bullcrap.  if you want to maximize happiness, you need knowledge, so you can react and get in a better situation.
first, lets establish that i am thinking of the psychological understanding of happiness as a particular state of mind.  second, lets establish that ignorance is undesirable.  that is a view i hold and am not willing to change.  the view to challenge is the one of happiness being dependant on maintaining ignorance.  now this is something i have been thinking about a lot and something that bothers me.  a social, psychologically sound person will display empathy towards others.  we are affected by the people and the environment around us.  meeting happy, smiling people and pleasant experiences make us feel good and happy.  sad, hurt, depressed people and tragedies make us sad.  if one realizes his own happiness one is content with his own life , then the last thing he has to do to stay happy is to stay ignorant of the suffering of other people, is not it ? i think that is really tragic and i would love to have my mind changed about this.  just wanted to add, that following with this line of thought i have arrived at the conclusion that pursuit of happiness is immoral and the state of happiness is undesirable.  staying unhappy with your life is the moral thing to do.  with morality defined as a set of behaviours desirable in society.   #  the view to challenge is the one of happiness being dependant on maintaining ignorance.   #  this to me seems like the really important point.   # this to me seems like the really important point.  i wonder how you came to this view ? is that something you are willing to talk about ? because to me the idea that happiness and knowledge are incompatible feels obviously wrong.  most of the people i admire most in my life are both happy and intelligent.  at worst i would say happiness and intelligence are orthogonal.   #  if that is the case then the recipe for happiness is to avoid negative thoughts and focus on positive  feel good  thoughts.   #  hey ! thanks for replying ! that is not what i meant ! i agree with you that it is not a binary scale, there is a middleground there.  the question is what dictates where you usually sit on that scale ? i believe that it is the positive to negative thought ratio.  most people have a 0/0 ratio with ups and downs in their lives.  pleasant experiences make for positive thoughts and skew the scale towards the  happy  end, while negative experiences towards the  sad  end of the mood scale.  if that is the case then the recipe for happiness is to avoid negative thoughts and focus on positive  feel good  thoughts.  thing is, suffering in the world is a constant phenomenon.  happiness is a momentary sensation, it comes with a positive experience and goes a moment later while the underlying sorrow remains.  that is why people have to constantly reach for new achievements and try different things, to stack these little moments of happiness until we forget all about the creeping sadness.  and i find that race to avert our gaze quite tragic.   #  but this school of thought is at least one way that some people believe solves your dilemma.   # in buddhist teaching, no.  in fact, addressing this question is one of the major points of buddhism.  the traditional story of siddartha gautuma is journey to becoming the buddha has him growing up in a palace happy, deliberately isolated from any sources of sadness.  but one day he escapes the palace and sees suffering and sadness for the first time: an old man, a corpse, and an ascetic monk.  seeing suffering troubles him and robs him of his happiness and he decides to become an asectic monk, deliberately denying himself the pleasures of life, even fasting for long periods.  after almost starving himself to death in this pursuit, he resolves that he ca not continue that lifestyle.  he begins meditating on this problem and, after a long time, realizes the solution, a middle path between indulgence and asceticism, which he then teaches to others.  i am not going to go into detail of buddhist teachings unless you want more detail.  but this school of thought is at least one way that some people believe solves your dilemma.   #  it is all completely subjective; so use that subjectivity to your advantage, rather than to your detriment.   #  the important thing to realise here, is that ignorance is always relative.  can you fly anywhere on the planet, or otherwise receive information about literally every single thing that happens every 0 hours ? of course you ca not.  some of the information you are missing out on might be conducive to your happiness, but a lot of it would probably be conducive to your unhappiness as well.  as a result of this, i could choose to spend all day reading about technological progress in the area of clean energy and sustainable agriculture, which is likely to make me happy or i could spend all day watching beheading videos from isis, or footage of people dying from ebola, or otherwise being violently killed.  if i spend my day learning about isis, and that makes me less ignorant in your view, then i would have to ask why; because given, again, that we can not possibly know all of the available information, assuming that it is ignorant if we only focus on one particular type of information or another, is entirely arbitrary in my opinion.  i do not and can not know everything.  i actually know very little, if for no other reason than because i simply do not have time to learn very much, either in one day, or in my whole life.  given that that is true, i have recently realised that it is in my best interests psychologically, not to cultivate deliberate ignorance, but to focus primarily on information of the kind which is conducive to my happiness and overall psychological wellbeing.  another way of saying this, is that if you do not know anything, and you really ca not know anything, then everything you think you know is only going to be a fantasy anyway.  if, in turn, everything you know is a fantasy, then it makes more sense for it to be a fantasy that actually benefits you, rather than one that does not.  so you can say that i am ignorant for reading about wind turbine development rather than focusing on isis, and i can call you ignorant for focusing on isis and neglecting wind turbine development, which to me is obviously the  really  important issue.  see how that works ? it is all completely subjective; so use that subjectivity to your advantage, rather than to your detriment.   #  if i have cancer, i prefer to know it even if that would make me unhappy.   # not really.  humans take joy in helping those that suffer.  if there is a problem, you need to know about it to solve it.  sure, you feel bad in the short term, but in the long term you need that information to solve the problem and increase happiness.  this is also true on a personal level.  if i have cancer, i prefer to know it even if that would make me unhappy.  because the sooner i know about it, the better my chances at fighting it.  problems do not disappear if you do not know about them, they just bite you in the ass unexpectedly.  the whole idea that  ignorance  is bliss is total bullcrap.  if you want to maximize happiness, you need knowledge, so you can react and get in a better situation.
i am a chiropractic student as of moment and i firmly believe that only medical doctors should hold the title of doctor to reduce confusion to as what the practitioner can treat.  this extends to anyone with a doctorate in the medical profession though.  a doctor of physical therapy, anyone with a doctorate in nursing or pharmacy or anything else for that matter.  if you have not gone to medical school and graduated with a m. d.  you should not be referred to as doctor in a clinical setting.  this reduces confusion to as what everyone does and firmly implants in the patients mind what your specialty is and your scope of practice instead of ambiguously being called doctor.   #  if you have not gone to medical school and graduated with a m. d.   #  you should not be referred to as doctor in a clinical setting.   #  your title is distinctly at odds with the body of your text.  heck even your text is at odds with itself.  you should not be referred to as doctor in a clinical setting.  pharmacy school is not medical school.  physical therapy school is not medical school.   #  so i think you have changed my view.   #  yes, i think that it has way more to do with how and when the title is used than the title itself.  doctor itself wont mean much if it used out of the  doctor is  expertise.  like how a gynecologist knows next to nothing about emergency medicine etc.  so i think you have changed my view.  or a physical therapist making calls on pharmacology or chiropractic theory.  thanks !   0;  #  would you rather have the 0 year paramedic helping, or the dermatologist ?  #  sorry i though incorrectly that a np was autonomous.  however with your view i think that you overestimate the average person is knowledge of medical careers.  to the average person a np or a pa are the same as a primary care physician. these positions can do the majority of the same work that a primary care physican can with a few exceptions.  they are just under the doctor is medical liscense.  when someone wants to see a doctor in a primary care facility, they want to see someone who can diagnose an ailment, or have checkups with.  they do not expect to see a surgeon there, they would go to a surgical facility for that.  if you wanted teeth work done, you see a doctor at a dental facility.  i think the issue with your incident you listed below is your friend did not identify him self as a psycologist.  but if you have a medical emergency someone who is a doctor is not always the best person to assist.  would you rather have the 0 year paramedic helping, or the dermatologist ?  #  an  artzt  is someone who is qualified to treat patient.   #  in germany the titles work a bit differently.  a  doctor  is someone who has defended a thesis.  an  artzt  is someone who is qualified to treat patient.  and not all those qualified to treat patients are called doctor.  just like a doctorate of law, means more in germany than the ability to practice law.  seems simpler this way.   #  segment of  the colbert report  is a send up of this.   #  i think that it is irresponsible for someone to use their doctoral title when endorsing a topic outside of the scope of their training.  i see this a lot with quack science homeopathy, anti vax, climate change denialism, etc.  , where people are so desperate to get the authority of a  doctor  that they will have someone with a ph. d.  in a completely unrelated field give an endorsement, or will use their own doctoral title while being very secretive about what their degree actually is.  the title of the  cheating death with dr.  stephen t.  colbert, d. f. a.   segment of  the colbert report  is a send up of this.
URL i believe the free market combined with a social safety net reduces poverty which benefits everyone.  high level of education, highly efficient administration effectively invests into the society, providing multiple incentives and angles of growth.  people have trust in their government, in their administration and how their taxes are used.  this leads to a high level of security; problems are laid off them and ultimately this leads to a high level of happiness.  URL low level of income inequality, high gdp and ppp per capita, liberal laws, low crime, low corruption, good healthcare, great education, low pollution.  what is not to like ? but all this does not obstruct high profit businesses from investing and all that is asked from businesses is that they treat their employees with respect and pay them enough so they can make a decent living.  true, most thrift based businesses would be discouraged from investing but imo in the developed country there should be no place for such an exploiting business style.  my only doubt is whether such a model could adapt to a larger country because in all nordic cases we deal with low populations, large areas and often, decent levels of natural resources and admittedly this does create conditions for easier administration and sustainable economic growth.  cmv, thanks in advance !  #  low level of income inequality, high gdp and ppp per capita, liberal laws, low crime, low corruption, good healthcare, great education, low pollution.   #  switzerland has all these things and it has low taxes.   #  i think that the swiss model is better than the nordic model.  switzerland has relatively low taxes and a good social safety net.  the difference between switzerland and scandinavia is that in switzerland fewer services are free.  you have to pay for daycare, for private health insurance, for school meals.  there is less social housing and you have to pay a bigger contribution towards your pension.  the advantage is that the government can afford to charge low taxes, and low taxes also means most people are able to afford those things.  the government expects most adults to be capable of supporting themselves 0, and the education system prepares people well for this.  there is no excess of university graduates.  people with poor academic skills are encouraged to go into vocational training.  still, the government will help people financially if and  only if  they get into difficulties.  it will not help a large number of people  by default  like it happens in nordic countries.  but since the number of people requiring this help is small, and since help is temporary, the government can still afford to charge low taxes.  switzerland has all these things and it has low taxes.  what is not to like ?  #  this means that even if denmark is doing great in the globalised economy, it is facing a massive  cultural  struggle, because there is no concept of danish national identity that does not prescribe a very specific ethnic and cultural background.   #  danish citizen here.  it is tempting to want to agree with you, for the simple reason that we do indeed come out on top in most measurements of happiness, wealth, and a number of other statistics.  there are some frequently cited drawbacks, however: 0.  the  jante law  culture, which is a variant of the  tall poppy syndrome , where excellence is actively discouraged.  0.  the sometimes excessive xenophobia, indicating that the model largely works because of a high level of trust between citizens, and between citizens and the state.  the introduction of foreign elements, where trust is not an integral part of the culture, could theoretically sabotage the efficacy of the model.  0.  the  low expectations  critique   maybe we are so damn happy because we do not expect much of life, and therefore real outcomes tend to match or exceed our expectations.  maybe our culture would create  happiness  under different circumstances as well, indicating that the model itself is not what is creating these statistics, but rather some other factor, like culture or even genetics as suggested by some admittedly fringe theories .  0.  the wealth of scandinavian countries is also the result of the same mechanisms that have created wealth in the rest of europe, including most prominently exploitative colonialism.  while scandinavian countries were only minor colonial powers most notably denmark , they all benefited massively from trade with stronger colonial powers, like the netherlands, united kingdom, france, and to an extent germany.  the nordic model may have served to develop and distribute this wealth in a desirably way, but has not necessarily created the wealth in the first place.  i do not particularly agree with all these criticisms, but they are worth considering.  one relevant question, though: do you think the nordic model is  the best possible system  or just  the best we have at the moment  ? i think any swede, dane and norwegian would say that they can point to flaws in our individual systems.  someone is always going to be at least a little bit dissatisfied, but allowing yourself to think that  this is the best we can do  is harmful, because our societies  do  have real problems as well, even if they are slightly smaller problems than some other nations face.  one specific problem that i am familiar with, because i am danish, is the fact that danish societal coherence is largely based on  ethnic  and  cultural  homogeneity.  this means that even if denmark is doing great in the globalised economy, it is facing a massive  cultural  struggle, because there is no concept of danish national identity that does not prescribe a very specific ethnic and cultural background.  in a globalised world of many ethnicities, this becomes a real problem that manifests itself both in very high levels of xenophobia, but also in perpetual cultural insecurity, which makes it difficult to interact with people from other backgrounds.  this is how the idiom of the  duck pond   andedam  in danish has emerged, as a metaphor not just for the country itself but for the slightly self obsessed and self important mentality of the danes.  compare this with american national identity, which is to a large degree grounded in the constitution of the united states of america, its rights, freedoms, and institutions, rather than any specific ethnicity or culture although obviously a distinct american culture has emerged over the last century .  this is not to downplay racial issues in america, but the point is that danish minority identities are not even hyphenated.  it is  the danes  and  the muslims , not  the danish muslims .   #  if you are working out and eating right and stuff, they will make comments trying to belittle your efforts or do things like hang out at places that only sell junk food.   #  i am not danish and have no experience with their system, but have had a toxic group of friends for a few years before realizing this and ditching them.  it is also known as crab bucket syndrome.  if you have a bunch of crabs in a bucket, individually any of them could escape.  however, when one starts crawling up the wall, the others will start trying to crawl up that crab, pulling it back down into the bucket.  it is basically where the group of people actively tries whether consciously or not to keep everyone at the same level as the group average.  if you are working out and eating right and stuff, they will make comments trying to belittle your efforts or do things like hang out at places that only sell junk food.  if you are trying to buckle down and study, they will make fun of you for being a nerd and start trying to guilt you into cutting your study time to hang out with them.  and above all, they usually make fun of any effort you are making to improve, and openly talk about how stupid you are for trying and that you are just gonna fail, and stuff like that.  the only real solution if you are in a group like that is to leave you ca not fix a group of people when they are all reinforcing each other is shittiness.   #  people will always try and make fun of you, to see if you are confident in your own choices.   #  you kind of have to live here to really understand.  but i will try to explain the gist of it.  being 0, i only have limited experience, and as far as i know, grown ups are worse at this than teenagers.  in my own experience, people will test everyone is confidence all the time.  every time anyone tries anything new, from wearing a shit with an abnormal print on it, to doing feces related performance art.  people will always try and make fun of you, to see if you are confident in your own choices.  if you think this sounds just like  people being assholes , it really is something slightly different.  even the government realizes the problem of shooting down anyone who excels at anything, to the point where public school teachers are teaching kids that you should remember to congratulate people who do stuff well.  even going so far as to actively talk about  combating the jante law .   #  secondly, feces related performance art might be more easily prone to criticism, but the degree of criticism that activity is prone to is also on a spectrum.   #  i do not think there is a binary being considered here between approval of others versus non approval .  i think approval works on a spectrum, and it seems the  jante law  argues that those people are just often highly critical, or rather, approach new things on the far disapproval end of the spectrum.  take the given examples.  first, new shirt is not really controversial.  but preemptively judging even mundane changes should demonstrate the disposition of readily disaproving.  secondly, feces related performance art might be more easily prone to criticism, but the degree of criticism that activity is prone to is also on a spectrum.  as an american, i might be more readily prone to disapprove of feces art than a new shirt, but in both cases i can disapprove but actually not really care.  i am closer on the spectrum to disapproval, but do i go out of my way to make feces art not a thing ? no.  there is even a sense in which i approve of feces art: i believe that people should be free to do that kind shit pun intended if they want even though i do not think the specific activity is what people ought to do.  jante is law seems to say both extreme and mundane things are met with a disproportional amount of criticism, that criticism on the far end of the disapproval side on the spectrum, whether that criticism is either active or passive.
firstly, let me say that i believe everyone should have the right to vote.  however, there is a difference between having the right to do something and it being right to do something.  here is my argument: 0 voters are obligated to vote well.  0 defense voting affects the makeup of one is governing body.  the governing body will enact laws that either harm or help the individuals in the country.  since your vote can potentially harm other people by contributing to a poor governing body, you are obligated to vote well in order to not do harm to others.  0 if you ca not vote well, then you should not vote.  0 most voters ca not vote well.  0 defense research shows that most voters are woefully uninformed.  more research shows that voters see information and conclusions in systemically biased ways that cause them to deviate from the truth.  this precludes voters from voting well since voting well requires you to be both informed and be relatively unbiased.  0 therefore, most voters should not vote.   #  0 defense voting affects the makeup of one is governing body.   #  the governing body will enact laws that either harm or help the individuals in the country.   # the governing body will enact laws that either harm or help the individuals in the country.  since your vote can potentially harm other people by contributing to a poor governing body, you are obligated to vote well in order to not do harm to others.  i think a lot of people would argue that if you have any obligation in voting, it is only to vote in a way that will benefit yourself.  it does not matter if your vote will harm others, everyone should vote in their own self interest, and whatever is the  best  on the whole will win out.  furthermore, it seems like  any  vote  could  harm others.  you vote for a candidate, and you can never be 0 sure if they will do a good job or not.  in a presidential election for example , a vote for either candidate could be harmful.  in fact, a think nearly any candidate will enact  some  policies that harm  some  people, and some policies that help some people.  more research shows that voters see information and conclusions in systemically biased ways that cause them to deviate from the truth.  this precludes voters from voting well since voting well requires you to be both informed and be relatively unbiased.  even if most voters are woeful uninformed a statement you provided without evidence , that does not mean they are all  equally  uninformed.  knowing that there are many people who are uninformed who are voting, if i know  anything  about the issue, i should vote so as to not let my government be run by voters who are even less informed than i am.   #  so they get the power to vote to protect their interests.   #  i think you misunderstand what the goal of voting and democracy is.  it is not a system to produce the best government possible.  it is a system to prevent government abuse by giving control to the people.  ideally, a benevolent dictatorship can be far more effective at helping citizens, pushing progress and getting things done.  the problem is that if the government becomes abusive, the people can do nothing about it other than start a bloody civil war.  stupid people can be abused by a bad government just as much as smart people if not more .  so they get the power to vote to protect their interests.   #  because the issues are complex and sometimes people are wrong, or sometimes politicians lie.   #  i can vote based on facts and my education and harm others, as well.  because the issues are complex and sometimes people are wrong, or sometimes politicians lie.  what if i want to vote on the issues that are important to me ? what if i am informed by  those  standards, my standards, but uninformed by your standards ? what if my only requirement is that the person i vote for follows the same religion i do, and am uninformed on all the other issues ? if i firmly, strongly believe that someone who follows my religion will make the best decisions and do the  most  good in their role, why is that invalid ? why are your standards for who to vote for better than my standards ? or let is go a slightly less easy route.  let is say a politician has both a strong stance on minimum wage, and on farm subsidies.  what if i do not care  at all  about farm subsidies, and think it is a total non issue for  anyone  and anyone who cares about it is wrong.  but i strongly support my candidate is stance on minimum wage ? but you might come along and say i am just not informed enough about farm subsidies and should not be able to vote.  but i do not think it matters and i ca not inform myself of  everything  because there is too much out there so i only inform myself on the issues that are important to me.  does that make me a bad voter ? what if we then go back to the idea that the only issue that is important to me is religion, and i do not know  anything  about my candidate is stance on the actual issues ? now  is it more important that i do not just vote based on what issues are important to me ?  #  unfortunately voters are terrible even at doing that.   #  one simple definition is voting toward policies that bring about something you wish to see occur.  that is to say a voter has voted  well  if he has voted for policies which lead to a society that he finds better than the current one.  unfortunately voters are terrible even at doing that.  most voters for example want to see the united states be an economic powerhouse.  yet they continue to vote against microeconomic policies that the majority of economists would recommend.  similarly, they are against things like  price gouging  in a disaster area despite the economic analysis indicating it would help the affected individuals more than the ban by reducing shortages and encouraging advanced preparation.  they are also against things like carbon taxes despite the economic analysis showing that a negative externality like pollution should be taxed to reduce it.   #  and then if we asked a 0rd o 0th guy heir notes would be totally different what they heck are we going to do.   #  what does voting well mean ? i mean you know what it means to you and i can kinda know what it would mean to me, but if we compared notes i would doubt that there would be a lot of overlap.  you and i probably have a little bit different criteria on what the word well means.  and then if we asked a 0rd o 0th guy heir notes would be totally different what they heck are we going to do.  there are now four definitions of what the word well means.  damm.  and i feel if i ask a 0th and 0th person then now we will have five then six.  and since there are so many definitions of what voting well means there is not really any idea what it means.
firstly, let me say that i believe everyone should have the right to vote.  however, there is a difference between having the right to do something and it being right to do something.  here is my argument: 0 voters are obligated to vote well.  0 defense voting affects the makeup of one is governing body.  the governing body will enact laws that either harm or help the individuals in the country.  since your vote can potentially harm other people by contributing to a poor governing body, you are obligated to vote well in order to not do harm to others.  0 if you ca not vote well, then you should not vote.  0 most voters ca not vote well.  0 defense research shows that most voters are woefully uninformed.  more research shows that voters see information and conclusions in systemically biased ways that cause them to deviate from the truth.  this precludes voters from voting well since voting well requires you to be both informed and be relatively unbiased.  0 therefore, most voters should not vote.   #  0 defense research shows that most voters are woefully uninformed.   #  more research shows that voters see information and conclusions in systemically biased ways that cause them to deviate from the truth.   # the governing body will enact laws that either harm or help the individuals in the country.  since your vote can potentially harm other people by contributing to a poor governing body, you are obligated to vote well in order to not do harm to others.  i think a lot of people would argue that if you have any obligation in voting, it is only to vote in a way that will benefit yourself.  it does not matter if your vote will harm others, everyone should vote in their own self interest, and whatever is the  best  on the whole will win out.  furthermore, it seems like  any  vote  could  harm others.  you vote for a candidate, and you can never be 0 sure if they will do a good job or not.  in a presidential election for example , a vote for either candidate could be harmful.  in fact, a think nearly any candidate will enact  some  policies that harm  some  people, and some policies that help some people.  more research shows that voters see information and conclusions in systemically biased ways that cause them to deviate from the truth.  this precludes voters from voting well since voting well requires you to be both informed and be relatively unbiased.  even if most voters are woeful uninformed a statement you provided without evidence , that does not mean they are all  equally  uninformed.  knowing that there are many people who are uninformed who are voting, if i know  anything  about the issue, i should vote so as to not let my government be run by voters who are even less informed than i am.   #  ideally, a benevolent dictatorship can be far more effective at helping citizens, pushing progress and getting things done.   #  i think you misunderstand what the goal of voting and democracy is.  it is not a system to produce the best government possible.  it is a system to prevent government abuse by giving control to the people.  ideally, a benevolent dictatorship can be far more effective at helping citizens, pushing progress and getting things done.  the problem is that if the government becomes abusive, the people can do nothing about it other than start a bloody civil war.  stupid people can be abused by a bad government just as much as smart people if not more .  so they get the power to vote to protect their interests.   #  because the issues are complex and sometimes people are wrong, or sometimes politicians lie.   #  i can vote based on facts and my education and harm others, as well.  because the issues are complex and sometimes people are wrong, or sometimes politicians lie.  what if i want to vote on the issues that are important to me ? what if i am informed by  those  standards, my standards, but uninformed by your standards ? what if my only requirement is that the person i vote for follows the same religion i do, and am uninformed on all the other issues ? if i firmly, strongly believe that someone who follows my religion will make the best decisions and do the  most  good in their role, why is that invalid ? why are your standards for who to vote for better than my standards ? or let is go a slightly less easy route.  let is say a politician has both a strong stance on minimum wage, and on farm subsidies.  what if i do not care  at all  about farm subsidies, and think it is a total non issue for  anyone  and anyone who cares about it is wrong.  but i strongly support my candidate is stance on minimum wage ? but you might come along and say i am just not informed enough about farm subsidies and should not be able to vote.  but i do not think it matters and i ca not inform myself of  everything  because there is too much out there so i only inform myself on the issues that are important to me.  does that make me a bad voter ? what if we then go back to the idea that the only issue that is important to me is religion, and i do not know  anything  about my candidate is stance on the actual issues ? now  is it more important that i do not just vote based on what issues are important to me ?  #  they are also against things like carbon taxes despite the economic analysis showing that a negative externality like pollution should be taxed to reduce it.   #  one simple definition is voting toward policies that bring about something you wish to see occur.  that is to say a voter has voted  well  if he has voted for policies which lead to a society that he finds better than the current one.  unfortunately voters are terrible even at doing that.  most voters for example want to see the united states be an economic powerhouse.  yet they continue to vote against microeconomic policies that the majority of economists would recommend.  similarly, they are against things like  price gouging  in a disaster area despite the economic analysis indicating it would help the affected individuals more than the ban by reducing shortages and encouraging advanced preparation.  they are also against things like carbon taxes despite the economic analysis showing that a negative externality like pollution should be taxed to reduce it.   #  and since there are so many definitions of what voting well means there is not really any idea what it means.   #  what does voting well mean ? i mean you know what it means to you and i can kinda know what it would mean to me, but if we compared notes i would doubt that there would be a lot of overlap.  you and i probably have a little bit different criteria on what the word well means.  and then if we asked a 0rd o 0th guy heir notes would be totally different what they heck are we going to do.  there are now four definitions of what the word well means.  damm.  and i feel if i ask a 0th and 0th person then now we will have five then six.  and since there are so many definitions of what voting well means there is not really any idea what it means.
firstly, let me say that i believe everyone should have the right to vote.  however, there is a difference between having the right to do something and it being right to do something.  here is my argument: 0 voters are obligated to vote well.  0 defense voting affects the makeup of one is governing body.  the governing body will enact laws that either harm or help the individuals in the country.  since your vote can potentially harm other people by contributing to a poor governing body, you are obligated to vote well in order to not do harm to others.  0 if you ca not vote well, then you should not vote.  0 most voters ca not vote well.  0 defense research shows that most voters are woefully uninformed.  more research shows that voters see information and conclusions in systemically biased ways that cause them to deviate from the truth.  this precludes voters from voting well since voting well requires you to be both informed and be relatively unbiased.  0 therefore, most voters should not vote.   #  0 defense research shows that most voters are woefully uninformed.   #  more research shows that voters see information and conclusions in systemically biased ways that cause them to deviate from the truth.   # more research shows that voters see information and conclusions in systemically biased ways that cause them to deviate from the truth.  this precludes voters from voting well since voting well requires you to be both informed and be relatively unbiased.  are you talking about voting for candidates or policies ? or both ? because voting for a candidate does not require being that informed.  you should know about the platform the candidates are running on and you should have a general idea about whether or not the candidates have lived up to their platforms in the past if applicable, but beyond that, you do not need to know every detail of the economy or global politics to simply pick between two candidates.   #  i think you misunderstand what the goal of voting and democracy is.   #  i think you misunderstand what the goal of voting and democracy is.  it is not a system to produce the best government possible.  it is a system to prevent government abuse by giving control to the people.  ideally, a benevolent dictatorship can be far more effective at helping citizens, pushing progress and getting things done.  the problem is that if the government becomes abusive, the people can do nothing about it other than start a bloody civil war.  stupid people can be abused by a bad government just as much as smart people if not more .  so they get the power to vote to protect their interests.   #  but you might come along and say i am just not informed enough about farm subsidies and should not be able to vote.   #  i can vote based on facts and my education and harm others, as well.  because the issues are complex and sometimes people are wrong, or sometimes politicians lie.  what if i want to vote on the issues that are important to me ? what if i am informed by  those  standards, my standards, but uninformed by your standards ? what if my only requirement is that the person i vote for follows the same religion i do, and am uninformed on all the other issues ? if i firmly, strongly believe that someone who follows my religion will make the best decisions and do the  most  good in their role, why is that invalid ? why are your standards for who to vote for better than my standards ? or let is go a slightly less easy route.  let is say a politician has both a strong stance on minimum wage, and on farm subsidies.  what if i do not care  at all  about farm subsidies, and think it is a total non issue for  anyone  and anyone who cares about it is wrong.  but i strongly support my candidate is stance on minimum wage ? but you might come along and say i am just not informed enough about farm subsidies and should not be able to vote.  but i do not think it matters and i ca not inform myself of  everything  because there is too much out there so i only inform myself on the issues that are important to me.  does that make me a bad voter ? what if we then go back to the idea that the only issue that is important to me is religion, and i do not know  anything  about my candidate is stance on the actual issues ? now  is it more important that i do not just vote based on what issues are important to me ?  #  that is to say a voter has voted  well  if he has voted for policies which lead to a society that he finds better than the current one.   #  one simple definition is voting toward policies that bring about something you wish to see occur.  that is to say a voter has voted  well  if he has voted for policies which lead to a society that he finds better than the current one.  unfortunately voters are terrible even at doing that.  most voters for example want to see the united states be an economic powerhouse.  yet they continue to vote against microeconomic policies that the majority of economists would recommend.  similarly, they are against things like  price gouging  in a disaster area despite the economic analysis indicating it would help the affected individuals more than the ban by reducing shortages and encouraging advanced preparation.  they are also against things like carbon taxes despite the economic analysis showing that a negative externality like pollution should be taxed to reduce it.   #  in fact, a think nearly any candidate will enact  some  policies that harm  some  people, and some policies that help some people.   # the governing body will enact laws that either harm or help the individuals in the country.  since your vote can potentially harm other people by contributing to a poor governing body, you are obligated to vote well in order to not do harm to others.  i think a lot of people would argue that if you have any obligation in voting, it is only to vote in a way that will benefit yourself.  it does not matter if your vote will harm others, everyone should vote in their own self interest, and whatever is the  best  on the whole will win out.  furthermore, it seems like  any  vote  could  harm others.  you vote for a candidate, and you can never be 0 sure if they will do a good job or not.  in a presidential election for example , a vote for either candidate could be harmful.  in fact, a think nearly any candidate will enact  some  policies that harm  some  people, and some policies that help some people.  more research shows that voters see information and conclusions in systemically biased ways that cause them to deviate from the truth.  this precludes voters from voting well since voting well requires you to be both informed and be relatively unbiased.  even if most voters are woeful uninformed a statement you provided without evidence , that does not mean they are all  equally  uninformed.  knowing that there are many people who are uninformed who are voting, if i know  anything  about the issue, i should vote so as to not let my government be run by voters who are even less informed than i am.
i lean pretty left, but i do not understand the opposition to school vouchers.  there is a public high school i live near by that really sucks.  the graduation rate is about 0.  college attendance is about 0.  the same distance from my house there is a private catholic high school.  the graduation rate is basically 0.  college attendance is 0.  the county is per pupil expenditure is $0,0.  tuition at the private school is $0,0.  when i was growing up why could not the county cut my parents a check for $0,0 so they could afford to send me to the obviously better catholic school ? why would this be a bad thing ? the only argument i have heard against this logic is that all of the good kids will leave the bad school, making the problems at the bad school even worse.  why is this a bad thing ? why should the high performance kids have to suffer through a bad school for the sake of the problem children ? the public school i went to was in the same county as the bad school, but was was actually pretty good.  our graduation rate was like 0 and college attendance was around 0.  if providing a voucher to go to a private school would cause to much chaos in the system, why not allow students going to the bad public high school to opt to go to the good one ? i knew a few kids whose parents lied about where they live to go to our school.   #  the county is per pupil expenditure is $0,0.   #  tuition at the private school is $0,0.  why could not the county cut my parents a check for $0,0 so they could afford to send me to the obviously better catholic school ?  # tuition at the private school is $0,0.  why could not the county cut my parents a check for $0,0 so they could afford to send me to the obviously better catholic school ? because, if your parents could not afford the extra $0,0, you would stay stuck in an underperforming school: a school that is now devoid of $0,0 times the number of students whose parents  could  afford the extra $0,0/year.  you have to consider the economy of scale.  not sure about your state, but, since your cost per pupil is similar to my state, $0,0/year is a pretty standard teacher is salary.  so, for every 0 kids that take vouchers: a teacher gets sacked: a teacher that would have instructed 0 to 0 kids over the course of the year.  i do not know how any parent could justify denying a class or a teacher to 0 0 kids so that their little angel could go to a  better  school.  it seems like the height of selfishness to pull your money money that would have benefited many more than your child because your wealth position allows you to do so.  if you send your kid to a private school 0 on your dime: you are already denying the school  per pupil  funding.  further, i  very  much doubt that everyone who receives a voucher is paying $0,0/year in state taxes above and beyond the taxes they should already be paying for other state services.  vouchers are just dumb: it is not  your  money to take and do with as you wish: you did not pay in nearly enough to justify what you are taking out.  it is your community is money, and it is been levied from the  entire community  to pay for the community education system not to fund a private, for profit entity.  here is an idea: i will support vouchers and school portability as long as i only have to pay taxes for schools while  my  children are in school.  why should  my  tax dollars make it easier for a rich family to send their kid to a private school: especially a school run by a religious organization i would  never  support ? at that point, why not just entirely privatize education ? you ca not ask people who do not have children, or whose children who have already left school to subsidize the cost of sending your kids to private school.  notwithstanding that it violates the 0st amendment and several conscientious objections see the citizens of louisiana angry that vouchers can be used at islamic private schools URL i simply refuse to endorse a policy that uses public funds to benefit the already wealthy.  public funds should be used for the  public , not to subsidize institutions that only benefit higher income families.   #  trying to compare a public school to a private one is always going to be a bad comparison.   #  i agree with what others have said, but to add on: the performance of a high school is mostly a function of the students, not the teachers.  after all, even at this supposedly bad school, 0 are graduating and 0 are going to college.  what is likely going on is that the school is in a low income area where education is not valued.  it is not that the school is bad, it is that the majority of kids do not want to be there.  trying to compare a public school to a private one is always going to be a bad comparison.  there is a huge selection bias built in: the private school is 0 full of kids whose parents care enough about education to pay a shitload of money for their kids to go there.  it is not necessarily  better  in any meaningful way.   #  students eligible for free or reduced price lunch: 0, 0, and 0 i pulled those numbers from URL could you, without any additional data, match the free and reduced price lunch rates with graduation rates ?  #  how do you fix a bad school ? students eligible for free or reduced price lunch: 0, 0, and 0 i pulled those numbers from URL could you, without any additional data, match the free and reduced price lunch rates with graduation rates ? bad schools are caused by bad students.  you can throw all of the money in the world at schools.  washington dc spends $0,0 per pupil.  that is double the cost of the private catholic high school in my original post.  do dc public schools have a 0 graduation rate ? why not ? could it be because the kids and their parents do not care about school ? what about the lower income parents and students that do care about school ? they ca not afford to go to a private school so they are forced to go through a dysfunctional system.  why are we penalizing them ?  #  while there is some statistical ledgerdemain going on in your response, you are correct that simply throwing money at the problem is not working.   # great question, and one i do not think we have the right answer for yet.  while there is some statistical ledgerdemain going on in your response, you are correct that simply throwing money at the problem is not working.  a lot of this is that the problems with our schools are complex and involve more than just the school itself.  we need to keep trying new and innovative ways to make improvements, and be willing to get more involved outside of the school as well.  this requires resources and a commitment to the students who are falling behind.  if your view was simply comparing school vouchers against the status quo, then i might agree with you.  however, i do not think we should give up the effort to actually make our schools better, and vouchers are basically agreeing to condemn the students left behind.  while not a perfect analogy, i see a lot of it as similar to  solving  the drug problem by throwing as many drug users as we can in jail.  perhaps that does reduce drug use to some degree, but you are not really addressing the problem at all.   #  anyways, this kinda gets into why i said  new and innovative ways to make improvements, and be willing to get more involved outside of the school as well.    #  overly simplistic and not particularly helpful.  first, not all schools are bad in the same way and not all students have the same problems.  second, where do bad students come from ? unless you are implying they are born bad students i. e. , it is genetic , then obviously there is something behind why they are bad.  third, the problems in general are systemic.  there is not just some initial cause which then causes a linear domino effect.  things feed back into each other in complicated ways such that it is hard to identify any true source.  schools are bad because students are bad.  students are bad because parents are bad.  parents are bad because their schools were bad.  and so on.  anyways, this kinda gets into why i said  new and innovative ways to make improvements, and be willing to get more involved outside of the school as well.   the problems certainly extend out into the parents and the communities, and we need to be willing to consider ways to fix the problem that address those things.
as above.  the way i see it, a person is writing and grammar skills are the data equivalent of their speaking and oratory skills in a face to face setting.  much as we mock, cajole, or otherwise poke fun at people when they misspeak, we insult, deride, and tease those who wrt lik dis cuz why shud i bother i mean u unrstnd rite ? speak like a idiot in public, and people will harass you about it until you fix the habit.  i understand that some may feel that it is unnecessarily cruel or mean to  hurt people is feelings  over something as simple as their writing style, but i feel quite the opposite.  as a species that puts great stock in our intelligence and our ability to communicate, we should harangue those who are unable to accurately communicate.  tldr: cmv that an inability to spell correctly, use correct grammar, and choose the most appropriate words for the meaning you wish to convey is something you should be ridiculed for until you stop making these mistakes.   #  speak like a idiot in public, and people will harass you about it until you fix the habit.   #  if i do not want to fix the habit, i will go talk to someone else because i do not want you harassing me.   #  continuous mocking does not guarantee that they will write/speak with correct grammar.  you can mock until your mouth goes dry, but they will make the same mistakes over and over.  think of it from the point of view of a person with bad english skills.  speaking is especially tough because they do not have time to think,  is it he want or he wants ?   next time, they will want to say,  jeff say or jeff says ?   when speaking, you need to spit out the words quickly, otherwise, the atmosphere will get awkward.  you do not have time to wonder,  jeff is the subject, so the verb should have an s at the end.   they just say it the way they have always said it, which is wrong.  furthermore, with speaking at least, continuously correcting them really slows down the conversation.  if you keep correcting them, it will take a long time for them to convey their point, and nothing gets said because most of the conversation will be spent with you correcting them, and both sides will get frustrated.  also, they might get so frustrated from talking to you that they wo not want to talk to you again.  and vice versa could be true as well.  writing is a better way to correct someone.  correcting idioms and such are a good way to learn.  same with using the wrong vocabulary word.  if i do not want to fix the habit, i will go talk to someone else because i do not want you harassing me.  if not, i will purposely keep speaking like an idiot to irk you.   #  i even explained to him subject/verb agreement and he just rolled his eyes.   #  lol.  my husband has bad grammar he was a young immigrant but mostly he ca not comprehend eng grammar to save his life and after repeatedly interrupting him to correct it, i am surprised he is never clocked me.  it is frustrating to be stopped all the time.  i even explained to him subject/verb agreement and he just rolled his eyes.  after i realized what an arse i was to keep interrupting him, i have eased up on the corrections.  and no, he is never learned, even after a jillion corrections.  thanks for the delta.   #  nor do we ridicule adolescents still learning to speak properly and grammatically correct.   #  we do not ridicule infants learning to speak for pronouncing things wrong or using the wrong sentence structure.  nor do we ridicule adolescents still learning to speak properly and grammatically correct.  why then would we ridicule adults who have yet to learn to speak correctly ? ridicule is not accepted as a valid method of teaching by educators.  correcting the improper speech and modeling proper speech is the valid method that educators use to teach language.  i agree that people should learn to speak properly, but i disagree that ridiculing them will help them to learn.   #  i do not feel this is a valid counter argument.   # agreed.  these individuals are considered as in the process of learning, and still mostly incapable.  it would be pointless to mock an infant, because they would understand none of it.  we  do not.  adolescents are often self policing for these sorts of things.  they mock and ridicule each other, much as we did when we were their age.  and we turned out. well, like us.  i do not know if that qualifies for an  ok .  i do not feel this is a valid counter argument.  as an appeal to authority, it lacks a logical backing.  and, even then, it is a blanket statement.  many educators do, in fact use mockery and ridicule in addition to guiding and instructing.  the carrot and the stick, used in tandem.  ridicule of improper speech in an online forum is often of the educational variety, often constructed of a well aimed jibe followed by a correction.  i completely agree that a youtube esque  lol faggot you ca not fucking spell  is inappropriate and unhelpful, but we rarely refer to these as comments, and more accurately as flames.   #  but since you are not presenting any actual evidence, we have your opinion versus the opinion of a subject matter expert.   # as an appeal to authority, it lacks a logical backing.  educators are people who have a background in, well, effective methods of educating people.  the argument from authority URL is only a fallacy iff it is being used to try and argue against a presented fact.  for example   the sky is blue, here is a picture of the blue sky    professor x is a skyologist and says the sky is green  would be a fallacious argument.  but since you are not presenting any actual evidence, we have your opinion versus the opinion of a subject matter expert.  so, in the absence of evidence on the matter, they are more likely to be correct about it.
atheists often claim that a belief must be falsifiable or that it is not really a belief at all, merely an empty statement.  but i have asked various atheists what evidence would make them believe in a god.  a few of them said things like god coming down from the clouds and saying hello, or him re arranging the stars to write a message, stuff like that.  but then i say, well if that happened would you believe it was actually god causing that, or the scientists who created the simulation in which we live ? and they invariably agree with the latter.  my thesis is: there is no evidence that, to an average atheist, points more to the existence of a god and not to the idea that we are in the matrix or something equivalent.  therefore atheism is not falsifiable.   #  atheists often claim that a belief must be falsifiable or that it is not really a belief at all, merely an empty statement.   #  we entered symantics here, if we accept the definiton that rocks can be atheists, it is surely not a belief.   # we entered symantics here, if we accept the definiton that rocks can be atheists, it is surely not a belief.  and they invariably agree with the latter.  i do not even know what the last part means, but personally, if something along those lines were reproduced in the lab environment, yeah it would be enough for me to  believe  not worship though, yahwe can stick it up his bearded ass  my thesis is: there is no evidence that, to an average atheist, points more to the existence of a god and not to the idea that we are in the matrix or something equivalent.  falsifiablity does not depend on a person, the statement  all swans are white  is falsifiable even if everyone on earth just lost their sight.  if we are talking about solipsism, as i understand it, it unfalsifiable by definition, but the god hypothesis is not.  but if we define god as a omnipotent which is oxymoron btw, so we ca not really define it that way, but okay being which will never allow us to find evidence for him, then yeah, it is unfalsifiable by definition.  but so is he.   #  imagine being asked to prove that thor does not exist.   #  atheists do not claim that beliefs must be falsifiable.  they claim that a scientific hypothesis or theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered scientific.  because the claims of theists are not falsifiable, they cannot be considered scientific, which is the usual response to theists trying to push religion into school science lessons.  atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.  since it is not making a positive claim, there is nothing to be falsified.  imagine being asked to prove that thor does not exist.  it does not make sense.  that is because the burden of proof is on the theist making the positive claim.  if they cannot, then it is reasonable to assume that what they are talking about is not true.   #  claiming that atheism is not falsifiable means that god cannot be proven.   #  you got it wrong.  the statement  thor does not exist  cannot be proven, but is falsifiable : i just have to show you thor.  claiming that atheism is not falsifiable means that god cannot be proven.  because if god can be proven, then atheism can be proved wrong.  then if god cannot be proven, then our argument asking for religious people to prove god exists falls flat.  maybe it is the case, and god actually cannot be proven beause of solipism : everything you experience may rather be your senses being manipulated than a god  #  for example, if i say there is not a bird in a box and open the box to find no bird.   #  i disagree with your second point.  the burden of proof is on the person making the initial claim.  if an theist starts the conversation with  god exists  then they need to establish that with proof.  however, if an atheist claims that  god does not exist  first, then they also have to prove that claim with evidence.  btw, it is untrue that a negative claim cant be proven.  it happens all the time.  for example, if i say there is not a bird in a box and open the box to find no bird.  i have proven a negative claim.  the burden of proof always falls on the person making the initial claim whether that claim is negative or positive.  i might add that, while yes theism should not be pushed into the schools and pushed as science, my general impression of atheistic claims against theism is that this is not falsifiable in general outside of any actual scientific discussion.  none of the sciences actively or even by design study god in any way.  no theistic belief claims to be scientific outside of some false fundamentalist evolutionary therms .  in this way your argument falls flat because if theism is not claiming to be scientific, and atheism is only claiming falsifiable due to  school  which we both know to be untrue, atheist claim this falsifiability generally , then using falsifiability as a argument against theism is a false standard that theism was never aspiring too anyway.   #  they also do not claim that a god does not exist, because there is equally little evidence for that claim.   #  obviously we are not on the same wavelength here.  you are also incorrect about the implications of  does not believe xyz does not exist , at least in this context.  i said:   an atheist does not believe god exists  you said:  an atheist does not believe god does not exist  so i am going to start from scratch here.  0  god exists    an assertion 0  i believe god exists    statement of belief in 0, this requires that 0 be true 0  i do not believe god exists    statement of disbelief in 0.  this is the position we must assume until 0 has supplied evidence.  0  god does not exist    an assertion 0  i believe god does not exist    statement of belief in 0, this requires that 0 be true.  0  i do not believe that god does not exist    the statement you confused for 0, a disbelief in 0.  also the assumed position until 0 is substantiated.  0 is also true for most atheists, however, this does not mean that they believe in a god.  this simply means they reject the assertion that there is no god, because they do not believe there is sufficient evidence for that claim.  agnostic atheism with which the vast majority of  atheists  identify makes no claims to knowledge, hence  agnos .  they do not believe in a god, because sufficient evidence for that claim has not been supplied.  they also do not claim that a god does not exist, because there is equally little evidence for that claim.  the default position on any matter is to believe in the evidence.  there is no evidence for either claim, and so an agnostic atheist claims no belief.
atheists often claim that a belief must be falsifiable or that it is not really a belief at all, merely an empty statement.  but i have asked various atheists what evidence would make them believe in a god.  a few of them said things like god coming down from the clouds and saying hello, or him re arranging the stars to write a message, stuff like that.  but then i say, well if that happened would you believe it was actually god causing that, or the scientists who created the simulation in which we live ? and they invariably agree with the latter.  my thesis is: there is no evidence that, to an average atheist, points more to the existence of a god and not to the idea that we are in the matrix or something equivalent.  therefore atheism is not falsifiable.   #  but then i say, well if that happened would you believe it was actually god causing that, or the scientists who created the simulation in which we live ?  #  and they invariably agree with the latter.   # we entered symantics here, if we accept the definiton that rocks can be atheists, it is surely not a belief.  and they invariably agree with the latter.  i do not even know what the last part means, but personally, if something along those lines were reproduced in the lab environment, yeah it would be enough for me to  believe  not worship though, yahwe can stick it up his bearded ass  my thesis is: there is no evidence that, to an average atheist, points more to the existence of a god and not to the idea that we are in the matrix or something equivalent.  falsifiablity does not depend on a person, the statement  all swans are white  is falsifiable even if everyone on earth just lost their sight.  if we are talking about solipsism, as i understand it, it unfalsifiable by definition, but the god hypothesis is not.  but if we define god as a omnipotent which is oxymoron btw, so we ca not really define it that way, but okay being which will never allow us to find evidence for him, then yeah, it is unfalsifiable by definition.  but so is he.   #  because the claims of theists are not falsifiable, they cannot be considered scientific, which is the usual response to theists trying to push religion into school science lessons.   #  atheists do not claim that beliefs must be falsifiable.  they claim that a scientific hypothesis or theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered scientific.  because the claims of theists are not falsifiable, they cannot be considered scientific, which is the usual response to theists trying to push religion into school science lessons.  atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.  since it is not making a positive claim, there is nothing to be falsified.  imagine being asked to prove that thor does not exist.  it does not make sense.  that is because the burden of proof is on the theist making the positive claim.  if they cannot, then it is reasonable to assume that what they are talking about is not true.   #  claiming that atheism is not falsifiable means that god cannot be proven.   #  you got it wrong.  the statement  thor does not exist  cannot be proven, but is falsifiable : i just have to show you thor.  claiming that atheism is not falsifiable means that god cannot be proven.  because if god can be proven, then atheism can be proved wrong.  then if god cannot be proven, then our argument asking for religious people to prove god exists falls flat.  maybe it is the case, and god actually cannot be proven beause of solipism : everything you experience may rather be your senses being manipulated than a god  #  none of the sciences actively or even by design study god in any way.   #  i disagree with your second point.  the burden of proof is on the person making the initial claim.  if an theist starts the conversation with  god exists  then they need to establish that with proof.  however, if an atheist claims that  god does not exist  first, then they also have to prove that claim with evidence.  btw, it is untrue that a negative claim cant be proven.  it happens all the time.  for example, if i say there is not a bird in a box and open the box to find no bird.  i have proven a negative claim.  the burden of proof always falls on the person making the initial claim whether that claim is negative or positive.  i might add that, while yes theism should not be pushed into the schools and pushed as science, my general impression of atheistic claims against theism is that this is not falsifiable in general outside of any actual scientific discussion.  none of the sciences actively or even by design study god in any way.  no theistic belief claims to be scientific outside of some false fundamentalist evolutionary therms .  in this way your argument falls flat because if theism is not claiming to be scientific, and atheism is only claiming falsifiable due to  school  which we both know to be untrue, atheist claim this falsifiability generally , then using falsifiability as a argument against theism is a false standard that theism was never aspiring too anyway.   #  0 is also true for most atheists, however, this does not mean that they believe in a god.   #  obviously we are not on the same wavelength here.  you are also incorrect about the implications of  does not believe xyz does not exist , at least in this context.  i said:   an atheist does not believe god exists  you said:  an atheist does not believe god does not exist  so i am going to start from scratch here.  0  god exists    an assertion 0  i believe god exists    statement of belief in 0, this requires that 0 be true 0  i do not believe god exists    statement of disbelief in 0.  this is the position we must assume until 0 has supplied evidence.  0  god does not exist    an assertion 0  i believe god does not exist    statement of belief in 0, this requires that 0 be true.  0  i do not believe that god does not exist    the statement you confused for 0, a disbelief in 0.  also the assumed position until 0 is substantiated.  0 is also true for most atheists, however, this does not mean that they believe in a god.  this simply means they reject the assertion that there is no god, because they do not believe there is sufficient evidence for that claim.  agnostic atheism with which the vast majority of  atheists  identify makes no claims to knowledge, hence  agnos .  they do not believe in a god, because sufficient evidence for that claim has not been supplied.  they also do not claim that a god does not exist, because there is equally little evidence for that claim.  the default position on any matter is to believe in the evidence.  there is no evidence for either claim, and so an agnostic atheist claims no belief.
i think it is ultimately harmful to purposefully deny truth to children, or at least, it is more valuable than the intentions behind lying.  take the misinformation of calvin is dad for example URL why would you ever want to lead your children astray like this ? because  they ca not handle the truth until they are older  ? why not just tell them the truth in the first place ? what are you protecting them from ? why not answer every question with scientific accuracy instead of lying to them ? are you not their teacher ? why lead them down a road of ignorance ? all of these lies in this list URL can be circumvented in a constructive way and it is the responsibility of the parent to find that with truth.  regarding, the santa lie: i have heard people say that the day they discovered the truth about santa was the day their childhood ended.  i do not think prolonging the  magic  of santa and belief is what makes children children.  i think it is the curiosity and playfulness that defines them.  the only way to healthily encourage that is with truth.  denying the inevitable truth about death and sex will do more damage than not.  perhaps this is the reason so many people are scared of it.  perhaps they would not be if they learned to come to terms with the world around them while they are still plastic.  please note: i do not have children and understand that i am missing a huge perspective required here.  i have come to cmv to try to take in some of that perspective.  thank you.  cmv i came here for a parental perspective and you put me in the tough and subtle situations in which the best course of action is to repair the bubble.  thanks again for the great conversation, i look forward to putting it all into practice 0 years or so from now, do not worry ! mvc would  #  i have heard people say that the day they discovered the truth about santa was the day their childhood ended.   #  i do think that there is some truth to that, but i do not think that it is a bad thing at all.   # i do think that there is some truth to that, but i do not think that it is a bad thing at all.  looking back at my childhood, figuring out santa claus was my first big accomplishment.  i know that some people get traumatized when they figure it out, but for me it was of of my proudest moments as a young child.  the  end of childhood  seems like a sad thing when you are an adult, but as a child there is nothing in the world that you want more than to be grown up.  once i made the discovery, i was part of the club.  i essentially  leveled up .   #  small children cannot contain the reality that you can never really say to someone  i promise i will be there  or  i wo not let anything bad happen to you  and be completely honest.   #  not sure this will convince you, and i do not have a reference to quote right now, but as far as i know we as humans need to have the illusion of safety first, before we can  metabolize  the reality of uncertainty.  let me explain this further: a small child cannot have a cognitive understanding of things like uncertainty, death, for example how fragile we as humans are and how easily we can die.  small children cannot contain the reality that you can never really say to someone  i promise i will be there  or  i wo not let anything bad happen to you  and be completely honest.  that is why we do need to lie: so that children can develop a basic and profound sense of safety which will withstand the later challenge of coping with uncertainty.  ideally, a parent can in time start gradually disappointing the child so that he or she can begin to digest the idea of transience.  but this happens slowly and at appropriate ages, and is preceded by a belief that parents are 0 providers of safety and satisfaction.  i cannot begin to describe how damaging it is when children find out too early that the world is not always a safe place, that even those close to you can be violent or harmful, that people are not always consistent.  now, regarding your santa claus example, there is a lot of debate in the parenting world so i do not really want to try and change your view.  it is my personal opinion that magic and fantasy play the same role as safety does as described above.  specifically, children under the age of 0 0 0 do not make distinctions between reality and fantasy.  slowly, they learn that what is in their minds is different from reality.  this is an important process in many ways, and i think that believing in magic when you are young, and then slowly allowing disappointment and more distinction between real and imaginary develops creativity and most of all creates a sense of reality much more so than if that child did not believe in magic at first.  if you want to read more about this, i recommend donald winnicott.   #  if you yourself were going into the same operation you would make an effort to understand the risks.   #  hmm, okay i can see the benefits of this.  short term reassurance.  it is an easy solution, but i still think developing a habit of this is wrong.  you can cushion your child from worry but you only have so many cushions.  constant softening of the blow is rejecting them an essential emotional experience.  essential for development that is.  i do like the example you presented, it does a good job of representing that there could be a physical benefit to the lie.  a relaxed child may be better in an operation.    that said, i do not think the adult should bear that burden alone, especially if it concerns the child is life.  if you yourself were going into the same operation you would make an effort to understand the risks.  instead of telling him that everything is going to be alright a blanket statement that ca not cover everything and i think that is where easythe doubt lies.  tell him that the doctors have trained for years and have done the operation before.  if the doctor would not lie to the child i do not think the parent should.  sorry i ramble, i just want to reiterate that there is always a constructive way to solve the problem.  it may take more time but it is ultimately worth it.   #  if the child was rationally scared i would be there for him/her and make sure they do not feel alone.   #  something i did not learn until it was a problem how to embrace fear.  doing so got me out of panic attacks and most of my anxiety.  i think i would like to teach what emotions really are and the control you have over them.  if a child came to me and told me they were scared i would ask them to observe it, why they were scared and where it came from.  then what it felt like and how it effected their thinking.  i understand this is a very mature thing to do but i think it can be taught young.  it is also not appropriate to start in this surgery hypothetical but it would be a good time to reinforce it if the foundations are there.  it would only be a lie if it were untrue.  i agree that there is a spectrum, and that bending the impression away from the actual situation is lying.  if the child was being irrationally scared then i would attempt to correct it.  if the child was rationally scared i would be there for him/her and make sure they do not feel alone.   #  you do appreciate the thought, which should be commended, even if the execution was lacking.   #  to piggyback on /u/moonflower is excellent post, while i very seldom have lied to my children, there a number of other reasonable reasons.  not just when the child is sick, but when a parent or grandparent is.  you may view it as a cop out, but having a loved one be in a life and death situation is incredibly stressful.  but it is harmful for a child to see you freaking out.  not only that, but due to their greater emotional level, they are more likely to freak out even more.  so, now, you are not just worried to death about whether your mom will come through her operation alive, but you need to deal with a hysterical child.  there is plenty of time to tell them the truth if the operation does not go well, and i do not advocate an outright lie, but telling the kid,  the doctors just need to take a look at grandma  might be the only way to get through the situation with your sanity intact.  there is the white lies  i love that ashtray you made me, even though i do not smoke ,  yes, that drawing looks just like     ,  mmm, yum, how thoughtful to remember i like garlic so you used it in my cereal on my birthday .  you do appreciate the thought, which should be commended, even if the execution was lacking.  and finally, there are the times that a brutally accurate assessment is not helpful  why do not they want me on their team ,  is my nose too big like johnny said ,  why did suzie not invite me to her birthday party ?   all of these deserve a  constructive  response, but depending on the age of the child and the reasons, it might not be a totally  honest  response.
i was raised to believe that sex is an intimate part of a relationship that is meant to be a bonding experience between lovers, as well as, duh, pleasurable.  but, it is been a while since i have had any prospects for a relationship and, thus, it is been a while since i have had sex .  it is been long enough that i have contemplated having casual sex either with a friend, or with just random people , and doing it solo just is not cutting it anymore.  but whenever i have come close or had an offer i get. anxious.  i start to feel guilty and embarrassed, and end up declining.  but i am having this internal struggle about my feelings on casual sex.  however, i do not look down on people that do have casual sex, it just does not click for me on an emotional level.  i hope this is enough information about my view, i will answer any extra questions just in case i missed something !  tl;dr : reddit, change my view on casual sex so i can have  relations  without feeling awful about myself.   #  doing it solo just is not cutting it anymore.   #  i hate to break it to you but having sex with yourself is still having sex.   # sex is not  ameant  for anything.  sex is what you make it.  but to take an anthropological perspective, which makes sense because i am an anthropology student, the meanings and purposes of sex are a physical/evolutionary and b social/cultural.  from an evolutionary perspective the very basic purpose of sex is to procreate, which presumably is not what you are interested in.  it is also a way to let off steam and destress, which is why you get flooded with all kinds of feel good chemicals when you fuck.  sex is  ameant  to make you feel good .  but in highly social animals like humans the sex drive has been recruited to fill various social functions which leads us to the socially derived meanings and purposes of sex.  in the west for a long time that has officially meant making happy monogamous heterosexual marriages, and in practice it has meant lots, lots more than that.  in 0 though, basically all bets are off.  our culture is broad and diverse enough that virtually any meanings you want to derive from, or attribute to, the sexual act are available to you.  0 why ca not sex be both casual,  and  a bonding experience ? or on a related note, why ca not sex be a bonding experience between two or more people who are not necessarily lovers ? i am polyamorous URL so i have a couple long term serious relationships and i fuck a lot of other people casually.  i  bond  in some way with all of them.  sex is always pretty intimate for me, but there are different kinds of intimacy.  like watching a really scary movie with somebody can be intimate but not romantic, or working on a really cool project with somebody who shares your interests can be intimate but have nothing to do with sex.  similarly i can have sex with my partner one day and have it be really intimate and bonding, another day it might be relatively mundane but still fun cuz we both wanna let off some steam, another day i might call up a date and hook up and have it be really casual and pretty much just an activity i am doing with a friend, and another time still with the casual date we might have some really hot kinky sex and bond over the sensuality of it without necessarily feeling romantic towards each other.  i hate to break it to you but having sex with yourself is still having sex.  where is the intimate bonding with a lover in this scenario ? that is you.  maybe you are just not really cut out for casual sex.  you could always try it though and find out, i mean there is lots of online dating sites, or you could always hire a professional sex worker, explain what is going on, and see what he or her can do for you.  i am friends with some sex workers and they really know what they are doing, it is their job.  it is an option.  good luck !  #  both situations involve me getting food and drinks with someone and enjoying their company, while one is casual and the other is intimate.   #  why ca not it be casual and intimate depending on who it is with ? if you do not have any feelings for the person who you are having sex with, what is wrong with simply having sex because it feels good ? on the other hand, you can still have intimate sex with someone who you have feelings for.  think of it this way; i can go out to the bar with one of my friends and have a couple drinks and some food.  i would not call this an intimate experience but rather just me and my friend enjoying each other is company.  on the other hand, i could take a girl out on a date at a nice restaurant and share an intimate moment with her.  both situations involve me getting food and drinks with someone and enjoying their company, while one is casual and the other is intimate.  why should sex be any different ?  #  so, in other words, like alcohol, the nature of the individual completely changes how much one should engage with it.   #  i think op is view is almost entirely subjective and therefore difficult to really  disprove.   it comes down to how one experiences casual sex, and i think a good analogy is alcohol.  everyone has their own unique reaction to it some people can handle it every day and not be affected negatively, some people are addicted to it, some people do it more rarely but really enjoy it when they do, etc.  so, in other words, like alcohol, the nature of the individual completely changes how much one should engage with it.  some people would probably be a lot healthier mentally and emotionally if they did not have as much casual sex as they do, and others would be well served by a bit more of it.  but i think the general advice should be the same as with alcohol and most other great things:  everything in moderation .   #  i really prefer the emotional connection, and a lot of people feel the same.   #  i might try to change your view on wanting your view changed.  are you  afraid  of having casual sex because of how you were raised, or is it because you actually prefer to have an emotional connection with people you have sex with ? i do not look down on people who have casual sex, but it was never something i was interested in.  i really prefer the emotional connection, and a lot of people feel the same.  if that is necessary for you, do not settle for a  cheap imitation.   if it is just hangups from how you were raised, then go for it !  #  i have gone to dinner with anything from acquaintances, to friends, to people i was in a relationship with, and it is different based on who it is with.   #  there is an important feature that you are missing in this equation, and that is that acts can take on different values depending on context.  for example, forget sex for a second: have you ever  made out  with someone casually ? or danced with them ? or gone to dinner ? what all of these things have in common is that if you do them with someone you are in love with and care deeply about, the act takes on a greater meaning and value, because you are doing it with that person, and that means something to you.  the fact that you can have those events be an intimate experience does not mean, however, that that is  all  they can be.  i have gone to dinner with anything from acquaintances, to friends, to people i was in a relationship with, and it is different based on who it is with.  i have danced with complete strangers in clubs and concerts, but that does not undermine what it means to dance with someone i care about.  sex is the same.  you can do it casually with whoever and have it be a casual whatever thing,  or  you can do it with someone you are in love with and have it be a deep emotional thing.  the ability to do one does not preclude the ability to do the other.
this is almost a tongue in cheek cmv, but the argument still feels like it has a little bit of truth to me.  help me sort this out, would ya ?  animals do not know any better, so they cannot be blamed for their actions i. e.  hunting and eating other animals   i would think one of the premises for the existence of rehabilitation efforts in prisons, for people who once felt it was okay to injure or kill other human beings, is that criminals can effectively be taught to  know better .  therefore, a person who believes eating meat is immoral should feel that the same rehabilitative efforts should be made for animals who hunt other animals.  as they are, it is natural for them to hunt.  however, it is also natural for murderers to murder when they commit their murders.  we need to change what is  natural  for them reform the animals so that they no longer feel the need to prey upon others.  of course, aside from the fact that this sounds a bit silly, i believe it is impossible to do.  this would therefore lead a person who believes eating meat is immoral to the conclusion that predatory animals need to be put down, the same way that murderers who we deem cannot be rehabilitated would be issued a death sentence.  perhaps locking up carnivorous/omnivorous animals for life term sentences could also suffice ? in any case, it would seem that severe and immediate action needs to be taken.  the only way i feel you can get around this is to find a successful way of reverting wild animals  intrinsic tendencies to hunt others.  but again, i do not feel like this is a realistic possibility.  maybe i am just a bit tired or out of it, but i am strangely and surprisingly convinced by this line of reasoning.  thoughts ? let is just consider person a who believes eating meat is wrong because it takes the life of another sentient being without its consent.  animals who hunt other animals take the lives of other sentient beings without their consent.  therefore, person a believes that these predatory animals are doing something wrong.  person a should then feel that it is right for these animals to stop doing something wrong.  this may or may not represent my stance entirely i am not quite sure myself , but it is at least a good summary of it.   #  let is just consider person a who believes eating meat is wrong because it takes the life of another sentient being without its consent.   #  animals who hunt other animals take the lives of other sentient beings without their consent.   # animals who hunt other animals take the lives of other sentient beings without their consent.  therefore, person a believes that these predatory animals are doing something wrong.  person a should then feel that it is right for these animals to stop doing something wrong.  person a is a hypocrite and necessarily wrong and their moral worldview falls apart in that it will always create dilemmas with no moral outcome.  both the predator and the prey are sentient.  the predator is taking the life of the prey without consent, so person a thinks the predator is morally wrong.  however, there are literally only two ways for person a to prevent the predator from taking the life of prey without consent: either kill the predator or let it starve to death.  in both cases, person a is taking the life of an animal without its consent.  moreover, as an indisputable moral agent because, as others have already pointed out, sentience does not equal moral agency , person a is maximally morally culpable, whereas the predator could not be.  further, let is say that the predator is going to kill a lot more than just one prey animal, so killing the predator is still justified.  now you are in an  ends justify the means  scenario.  there is still an ecosystem that needs to be taken into account.  in  the end  killing all predators is going to absolutely destroy the ecosystem in which both predator and prey live.  removing predators from the ecosystem will actively kill more animals and prevent more animals from leading a pain free existence than leaving the ecosystem alone ever could.   #  if you hold the consequentialist view that killing and letting die are morally equivalent, than either way, you are fucked.   #  we do that out of a desire to prevent future deaths, though, rather than based on a moral judgement of the animal.  i would actually argue that intervening in the so called  circle of life  constitutes a moral paradox for which there is no right answer.  in discussions of deontology judging actions based on motive rather than purely consequence we often look at the case of killing versus letting die.  in the case of a polar bear hunting the seal, by not intervening, we let the seal die.  by intervening, we kill the polar bear, by causing it to starve.  if you hold the consequentialist view that killing and letting die are morally equivalent, than either way, you are fucked.  personally, i am of the view that our understanding of morality as a whole is simply a heuristic we use to simplify decision making based on a generally, though not universally applicable set of rules.  as such there will always be situations in which an individuals notion of morality whether it be based simply on intuition, or a logically defined set of rules does not necessarily hold true.  there will always be situations to which the rules we define for ourselves are not easily applicable, whatever those rules may be.  typically these exception prove the general rule.   #  animals try to keep dangerous animals away form themselves as well, but we are not obligated to help them.   # we try to train the toddler rehabilitate, if you will, as op suggests.  we do not though.  there are no legal consequences, and the  arehabilitation  it gets will be just like any other kid is upbringing do not hurt others, be a good person, etc.  the child gets no retributive action taken against it.  this is just a safety issue.  we do not let animals around other either, unless we are reasonably sure they are not dangerous to us.  animals try to keep dangerous animals away form themselves as well, but we are not obligated to help them.   #  most vegetarians think that eating meat is immoral when you have other options.   #  most vegetarians think that eating meat is immoral when you have other options.  the only reason we eat meat is because we like it, not because we could not be perfectly healthy without it.  that is why most vegetarians do not have a problem with type i diabetics using insulin, because that person would die without taking an animal is life.  basically their philosophy is not to kill when you do not have to.  animals in the wild have to kill in order to survive so it is in line with their philosophy.   #  i am glad you brought up the distinction vegetarians may make between eating meat or using animal products out of necessity and doing the same simply because they enjoy it.   #    0; thanks for participating in this cmv.  i definitely feel like i am at my limits trying to defend my rather silly point of view.  your post like many others in this thread provided some great discussion and feedback.  you helped me see that i myself am still unsure about the foundation of my argument.  i am glad you brought up the distinction vegetarians may make between eating meat or using animal products out of necessity and doing the same simply because they enjoy it.
gender, as defined by wikipedia, is  the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.   this notion of gender creates an unhealthy dichotomy between what defines a man and what defines a woman.  it forces people to associate with one of two extremes that are not clearly defined universally or objectively.  through traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, gender creates a categorization of behaviors, qualities, and images as belonging either to men or women.  any man who aligns with the female gender or any woman who aligns with the male gender, then, is an an exception to the definition of a man or woman, as defined by society.  sex and sexual orientation are the only concepts of importance.  although there are some rare exceptions, a person is classified biologically as either male or female.  a man who assumes a feminine gendered identity is still a man and a woman who assumes a masculine gendered identity is still a woman regardless of their character or orientation.  the problem lies not within people  being born in the wrong skin , but within society is narrow definitions of men and women and of masculinity and femininity.  change my view.   #  the problem lies not within people  being born in the wrong skin , but within society is narrow definitions of men and women and of masculinity and femininity.   #  speaking as someone  trapped in the wrong skin  a reductive and annoying trope , the view you present does not make these definitions any less rigid.   # speaking as someone  trapped in the wrong skin  a reductive and annoying trope , the view you present does not make these definitions any less rigid.  it still thinks there is a binary, just like  gender  does.  it still thinks that people must rigidly exist in one side or the other of that binary.  it actually makes things  more  rigid because you seem to be looking for some sort of universal and  objective  standard to hold people to, even if it is contrary to their wishes.  at least sloppy definitions give me room to play around with things.  honestly, this fucks me over way more than the status quo does.  the reason gender is so pre eminent in society is that much of the standards we use to determine what sex are, are also pretty flexible and/or impossible to gauge on a surface level.  if your argument is something like  only women have xx chromosomes !  , that demonstrates why sex isnt  that useful of a concept on a  social  level.  nobody checks chromosomes, and nobody can in social interactions.  unless you are going to argue that everyone has to carry around chromosomal paperwork and demonstrate it before any social interaction or decision is made.  gender arises because social roles and norms develop around people is ad hoc perceptions of these primarily two sexes, because we use norms to regulate our interactions.  the run to sex as some  universal solution  does not change anything, because it is by and large already the standard most people use, or at least think they do.  it is easy to see in how flexibly the phrases man/woman/male/female are.  they are virtually synonymous to most people.   #  all this has to do with sexual orientation, though, not gender.   #  you should be able to determine for yourself if you are gay or straight.  for some people, it may not be as simple as one or the other.  some women may be attracted to many men but only a select few women.  in your example, if that female turned out to be a transgender, that would not necessarily make me gay.  i could be still straight, bisexual, or i could just be attracted to that particular woman.  all this has to do with sexual orientation, though, not gender.   #  suppose i was uniquely attracted to that particular transgendered person ?  # with regards to sex, no; you are either male or female.  with regards to gender, you can only be something in between if you do not fit the criteria that society defines as male or female.  that is what happens when you only group people by sexual orientation and their sex.  i think you may be grouping by sexual orientation.  suppose i was uniquely attracted to that particular transgendered person ? social orientation is complex.  that was my exact point in the comment.   #  why would you group a transman who has gone through hrt, and has had bottom and top surgery, with women ?  # suppose i was uniquely attracted to that particular transgendered person ? you would still be attracted to someone with the same sex chromosomes as you, so you would be at least slightly gay/bi.  that is the problem.  you are grouping people who do not really belong together.  with just sex and sexual orientation, you have no way of accurately accounting for people who feel they should have been born the opposite sex.  why would you group a transman who has gone through hrt, and has had bottom and top surgery, with women ? of what use is that distinction ? surely they have more in common with men.  secondary sex characteristics play a much larger role in human interaction than simply our biological sex.  that is why we need gender.   #  why must we have a male female standard to classify people ?  # it still thinks that people must rigidly exist in one side or the other of that binary.  i agree, the definitions are rigid.  with few exceptions, a man is man and a woman is a woman.  if you have male genitalia, you are a man.  if you have female genitalia, you are a woman.  it does not have to be.  why must we have a male female standard to classify people ? cannot a person just be themselves without a label ? sex, at least, has medical applications.  i think you may be misunderstanding my argument.  i do not think that sex can or should replace gender.  i do not think that there even has to be a conspicuous way to discern people.  that is the problem.  with gender and its embedded stereotypes, assumptions become apparent on how a man or woman should conduct themselves, when in reality, these lines are vague and ever changing.
gender, as defined by wikipedia, is  the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.   this notion of gender creates an unhealthy dichotomy between what defines a man and what defines a woman.  it forces people to associate with one of two extremes that are not clearly defined universally or objectively.  through traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, gender creates a categorization of behaviors, qualities, and images as belonging either to men or women.  any man who aligns with the female gender or any woman who aligns with the male gender, then, is an an exception to the definition of a man or woman, as defined by society.  sex and sexual orientation are the only concepts of importance.  although there are some rare exceptions, a person is classified biologically as either male or female.  a man who assumes a feminine gendered identity is still a man and a woman who assumes a masculine gendered identity is still a woman regardless of their character or orientation.  the problem lies not within people  being born in the wrong skin , but within society is narrow definitions of men and women and of masculinity and femininity.  change my view.   #  through traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, gender creates a categorization of behaviors, qualities, and images as belonging either to men or women.   #  i disagree with this bit of your view.   # i disagree with this bit of your view.  masculinity and femininity are not intertwined with men/women.  a man has masculine properties as well as feminine ones, as does a woman.  the concept of gender is to give a rough idea of the proportion of the two, which is why many people view gender as a spectrum rather than a binary thing.  this is even backed up by biology, with testosterone being the cause of most traits viewed as masculine, and estrogen being the cause of most traits viewed as feminine.  both chemicals exist in every person, and while men and women usually have more testosterone and estrogen respectively than the other chemical, that is not always the case, and the exact ratio varies from person to person.   #  for some people, it may not be as simple as one or the other.   #  you should be able to determine for yourself if you are gay or straight.  for some people, it may not be as simple as one or the other.  some women may be attracted to many men but only a select few women.  in your example, if that female turned out to be a transgender, that would not necessarily make me gay.  i could be still straight, bisexual, or i could just be attracted to that particular woman.  all this has to do with sexual orientation, though, not gender.   #  that was my exact point in the comment.   # with regards to sex, no; you are either male or female.  with regards to gender, you can only be something in between if you do not fit the criteria that society defines as male or female.  that is what happens when you only group people by sexual orientation and their sex.  i think you may be grouping by sexual orientation.  suppose i was uniquely attracted to that particular transgendered person ? social orientation is complex.  that was my exact point in the comment.   #  you are grouping people who do not really belong together.   # suppose i was uniquely attracted to that particular transgendered person ? you would still be attracted to someone with the same sex chromosomes as you, so you would be at least slightly gay/bi.  that is the problem.  you are grouping people who do not really belong together.  with just sex and sexual orientation, you have no way of accurately accounting for people who feel they should have been born the opposite sex.  why would you group a transman who has gone through hrt, and has had bottom and top surgery, with women ? of what use is that distinction ? surely they have more in common with men.  secondary sex characteristics play a much larger role in human interaction than simply our biological sex.  that is why we need gender.   #  it still thinks that people must rigidly exist in one side or the other of that binary.   # speaking as someone  trapped in the wrong skin  a reductive and annoying trope , the view you present does not make these definitions any less rigid.  it still thinks there is a binary, just like  gender  does.  it still thinks that people must rigidly exist in one side or the other of that binary.  it actually makes things  more  rigid because you seem to be looking for some sort of universal and  objective  standard to hold people to, even if it is contrary to their wishes.  at least sloppy definitions give me room to play around with things.  honestly, this fucks me over way more than the status quo does.  the reason gender is so pre eminent in society is that much of the standards we use to determine what sex are, are also pretty flexible and/or impossible to gauge on a surface level.  if your argument is something like  only women have xx chromosomes !  , that demonstrates why sex isnt  that useful of a concept on a  social  level.  nobody checks chromosomes, and nobody can in social interactions.  unless you are going to argue that everyone has to carry around chromosomal paperwork and demonstrate it before any social interaction or decision is made.  gender arises because social roles and norms develop around people is ad hoc perceptions of these primarily two sexes, because we use norms to regulate our interactions.  the run to sex as some  universal solution  does not change anything, because it is by and large already the standard most people use, or at least think they do.  it is easy to see in how flexibly the phrases man/woman/male/female are.  they are virtually synonymous to most people.
my stance is clear by the title.  a person is one or the other, either a theist or an atheist.  sometimes when the discussion comes up, and a person is called an atheist, they will reply with  no, i am agnostic , as if they are mutually exclusive.  however, by my understand of the definitions, a person must fall into one of the two categories either in their professed beliefs or by their behavior.  the definitions i am using are straight from google:  theist:   belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures .   atheist:   a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods .  it is my position that a person either believes in god or other deity and is thus a theist.  or, a person does not believe in god or other deity and is thus an atheist.  i also consider behavior evidence of belief or the person is a hypocrite .  so if a person behaves as if there is a deity they are a theist, and if they behave as if there is no deity they are an atheist.  so while a person may claim to be agnostic, stating that think that the existence of a deity is not currently know or is completely unknowable, they still fall into one side of the dichotomy based on either their professed beliefs or their behaviors.  you can change my view by demonstrating that atheist/theist is not a dichotomy and there is a third position aside from 0 belief in a god or deity and 0 lack of belief in a god or deity.   #  you can change my view by demonstrating that atheist/theist is not a dichotomy and there is a third position aside from 0 belief in a god or deity and 0 lack of belief in a god or deity.   #  okay, here goes: there are 0 positions that one can take on the god question.   # okay, here goes: there are 0 positions that one can take on the god question.  0 active belief in a god or a deity.  the evidence that i see supports the conclusion that god exists in whatever capacity.   this proves that there is a god.   0 active belief that there is no god or deity.  the evidence that i see supports the conclusion that god does  not  exist.   this proves that there is not and could not be a god.   0 no belief either way.  the evidence that i see does not support either conclusion.  if i am presented with new evidence, i will change my view accordingly.   this does not prove anything about the nature of god.   the third view is what is generally understood to be  agnostic .  i am not sure how you can disagree with this, so i am interested to hear your response.   #  let is try similar reasoning on a slightly different question: do you believe that sentient extraterrestrial life exists ?  #  i reject your definition that anyone who does not actively believe in a deity is an atheist.  there is a definite distinction between those who do not believe in a deity and those who choose to not consider the question.  encompassing both under the same umbrella of  atheist  does a disservice to each by diluting their positions.  let is try similar reasoning on a slightly different question: do you believe that sentient extraterrestrial life exists ? like  do you believe in a deity , this is a yes/no question.  but yes/no are not the only answers.  other possible answers are  i do not care  and  there is insufficient evidence to say .  if someone said  there is insufficient evidence to state that aliens exist or do not exist , would you immediately classify that as a  no, i do not believe aliens exist  ? i hope not that would be absurd.  the person has clearly left open the possibility that aliens  may  exist, but is choosing to wait until more data is gathered before making a judgment.  just because you frame something as a yes/no question does not mean you get to discount all other answers.   i do not know  is a valid answer when discussing the existence of something without evidence.   #  any person who does not hold a beleif in a deity because they are undecided, on the fence, do not care, ect.   #  that analogy is not quite right because we do not have one term for those who believe in aliens and a term for those who do not.  however with the question of whether a deity exists does have such terms.  those who believe in a deity are called  theists  and those who do not belief in a deity are atheists.  by the definitions available to me.  any person who does not hold a beleif in a deity because they are undecided, on the fence, do not care, ect.  they fall into the atheist category.  to extend you analogy, let is say we have a term for people who believe with certainty that aliens exist, we will called them  alienists  and we have another term for those who do not have that belief  a. alienists  everyone falls into one category or the other.  either they believe in aliens and are called  alienists  or they do not and they are called  a. alienists .   #  why do you insist on having only two categories ?  #  why do you insist on having only two categories ? someone who says  there is insufficient evidence to say whether aliens exist or not  would clearly fit into neither the  alienists  or the  a. alienists .  you need a third category of  nonaligned , or else you are misrepresenting the beliefs of a significant number of people.  by lumping the nonaligned with the a. alienists, you are implying that the nonaligned hold views similar to the a. alienists, which simply is not true.  those who believe in a deity are called  theists  and those who do not belief in a deity are atheists.  and those who choose to leave the question unanswered are called  agnostics .  this is a distinct third category that does not deserve to be lumped in with the other two.  just like with the aliens question, you do not  have  to answer yes or no to the deity question.   #  belief is defined as:  an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.    #  because there are only two categories required.  because the definition of  alienist  so strict.  it only includes people who believe that aliens exist.  the  a. alienist  definition is so broad that that it includes all those who do not fall into the  alienist  category.  the unaligned people are still a. alienists unless they have a belief that aliens exist.  belief is defined as:  an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.   so whether a person disbelieves or lacks a belief and everyone who does not accept  aliens exist true  falls into one of those categories they still fall into the a. alienist category.
my stance is clear by the title.  a person is one or the other, either a theist or an atheist.  sometimes when the discussion comes up, and a person is called an atheist, they will reply with  no, i am agnostic , as if they are mutually exclusive.  however, by my understand of the definitions, a person must fall into one of the two categories either in their professed beliefs or by their behavior.  the definitions i am using are straight from google:  theist:   belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures .   atheist:   a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods .  it is my position that a person either believes in god or other deity and is thus a theist.  or, a person does not believe in god or other deity and is thus an atheist.  i also consider behavior evidence of belief or the person is a hypocrite .  so if a person behaves as if there is a deity they are a theist, and if they behave as if there is no deity they are an atheist.  so while a person may claim to be agnostic, stating that think that the existence of a deity is not currently know or is completely unknowable, they still fall into one side of the dichotomy based on either their professed beliefs or their behaviors.  you can change my view by demonstrating that atheist/theist is not a dichotomy and there is a third position aside from 0 belief in a god or deity and 0 lack of belief in a god or deity.   #  however, by my understand of the definitions, a person must fall into one of the two categories either in their professed beliefs or by their behavior.   #  there are two different beliefs at play here, and one i think is often taken for granted.   # there are two different beliefs at play here, and one i think is often taken for granted.  your position depends on your answer to  two  questions, not one: 0.  do any gods exist ? 0.  can we know if they do ? it would be more accurate to say that a person must fall into two of the four categories.  atheism/theism  is  a dichotomy, but it is not the only one.  agnosticism/gnosticism is another separate dichotomy.  so there are four positions: 0.  gnostic theism.  yes/yes 0.  agnostic theism.  yes/no 0.  gnostic atheism.  no/yes 0.  agnostic atheism.  no/no i consider myself agnostic.  people who insist upon it would tell me i am an agnostic atheist, and sure whatever.  but  i identify as agnostic because the gnostic question is more important to me than the theist question.  my views are closer to that of the agnostic theist than the gnostic atheist.  while i feel very strongly that we are unable to answer this question, my stance on the existence of god is just de facto.   #   i do not know  is a valid answer when discussing the existence of something without evidence.   #  i reject your definition that anyone who does not actively believe in a deity is an atheist.  there is a definite distinction between those who do not believe in a deity and those who choose to not consider the question.  encompassing both under the same umbrella of  atheist  does a disservice to each by diluting their positions.  let is try similar reasoning on a slightly different question: do you believe that sentient extraterrestrial life exists ? like  do you believe in a deity , this is a yes/no question.  but yes/no are not the only answers.  other possible answers are  i do not care  and  there is insufficient evidence to say .  if someone said  there is insufficient evidence to state that aliens exist or do not exist , would you immediately classify that as a  no, i do not believe aliens exist  ? i hope not that would be absurd.  the person has clearly left open the possibility that aliens  may  exist, but is choosing to wait until more data is gathered before making a judgment.  just because you frame something as a yes/no question does not mean you get to discount all other answers.   i do not know  is a valid answer when discussing the existence of something without evidence.   #  those who believe in a deity are called  theists  and those who do not belief in a deity are atheists.   #  that analogy is not quite right because we do not have one term for those who believe in aliens and a term for those who do not.  however with the question of whether a deity exists does have such terms.  those who believe in a deity are called  theists  and those who do not belief in a deity are atheists.  by the definitions available to me.  any person who does not hold a beleif in a deity because they are undecided, on the fence, do not care, ect.  they fall into the atheist category.  to extend you analogy, let is say we have a term for people who believe with certainty that aliens exist, we will called them  alienists  and we have another term for those who do not have that belief  a. alienists  everyone falls into one category or the other.  either they believe in aliens and are called  alienists  or they do not and they are called  a. alienists .   #  just like with the aliens question, you do not  have  to answer yes or no to the deity question.   #  why do you insist on having only two categories ? someone who says  there is insufficient evidence to say whether aliens exist or not  would clearly fit into neither the  alienists  or the  a. alienists .  you need a third category of  nonaligned , or else you are misrepresenting the beliefs of a significant number of people.  by lumping the nonaligned with the a. alienists, you are implying that the nonaligned hold views similar to the a. alienists, which simply is not true.  those who believe in a deity are called  theists  and those who do not belief in a deity are atheists.  and those who choose to leave the question unanswered are called  agnostics .  this is a distinct third category that does not deserve to be lumped in with the other two.  just like with the aliens question, you do not  have  to answer yes or no to the deity question.   #  it only includes people who believe that aliens exist.   #  because there are only two categories required.  because the definition of  alienist  so strict.  it only includes people who believe that aliens exist.  the  a. alienist  definition is so broad that that it includes all those who do not fall into the  alienist  category.  the unaligned people are still a. alienists unless they have a belief that aliens exist.  belief is defined as:  an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.   so whether a person disbelieves or lacks a belief and everyone who does not accept  aliens exist true  falls into one of those categories they still fall into the a. alienist category.
i hear people say  oh they got lucky this happened  or  i got this, so i am lucky.   i do not believe that.  i believe it is a combination of things in and out of ones control, and how they act in such situations.  examples: why would i be lucky for having things if i worked my butt off for it ? the reality is that i had to make sacrifices and work efficiently why am i lucky that a deadline was extended because of a situation out of my control ? do not get me wrong, a situation like that is great, but it is not necessarily random.  it was from things that are out of my control and possibly in the hands of someone else  #  why am i lucky that a deadline was extended because of a situation out of my control ?  #  do not get me wrong, a situation like that is great, but it is not necessarily random.   #  google defines luck as:  success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one is own actions.  this definition of luck give the impression that it is completely separate from the persons actions.  op seems to be rejecting the notion that luck is in some sort of vacuum devoid of the context of the person.  i share this notion.  i believe in opportunities.  opportunities seized appear a good luck, and opportunities not seized appear as bad luck.  he does not seem to be rejecting the notion that that someone who finds a $0 randomly on the street is not lucky i could be interpreting his post incorrectly , or that something beneficial that occurs by  pure chance  would not be considered  lucky.   instead he seems to be asserting that someone who has something they want or got somewhere successful managed to do so by seizing opportunities.  my guess is that he has achieved some degree of success and was told he got  lucky  but feels he earned it via handwork and sacrifices i know this feeling, and its frustrating as hell .  do not get me wrong, a situation like that is great, but it is not necessarily random.  it was from things that are out of my control and possibly in the hands of someone else although i have no idea what he is getting at with this statement.   #  there is too many variables that play off each other where everyone can control for example, you get hung up in a meeting a few extra minutes, and are late for the 0:0 bus.   #  you are hairsplitting.  when something fortunate happens that is beyond your sphere of influence, that is lucky.  if something unfortunate happens that is outside of your control, that is unlucky.  there is too many variables that play off each other where everyone can control for example, you get hung up in a meeting a few extra minutes, and are late for the 0:0 bus.  the 0:0 bus is running late for an unrelated reason, so you catch it.  that is lucky.  now, let is say you are on your way to an important meeting.  you leave with plenty of time, but an accident ahead of you slows traffic down to a standstill, and it takes you a half an hour longer to get to your destination.  that is unlucky.  while i agree that a doctor is not  lucky to be a doctor  he had to work hard for the honor and the money, a doctor is lucky he was born in a situation where he could become a doctor.  for example, a child born to upper middle class parents that value education has a much better opportunity to become a doctor than a child born in a slum in india.  how is that  not  luck ? a favorably outcome for something you have no control over.   #  just lying there, four 0 is rolled up together.   #  luck is defined as success or failure brought on by chance rather than ones own actions.  when you try to define things to such a degree that it becomes impractical then sure you can point out that the phenomenon known as luck does not really exist but luck is still the best word we have to describe this phenomenon so disproving it does not really do anything outside of pointing out the definition needs to be slightly tweaked.  one time a friend and i found $0 lying on the sidewalk.  just lying there, four 0 is rolled up together.  we split it and went out merry ways back home.  had there not been a dip in the conversation we may not have been looking at the ground as closely.  had there not been a careless person that lost almost $0 earlier, it would not be there for us to find.  had my friend chosen to take the short path back to his house instead of accompanying me on the longer one, he would have missed out on it.  all of these involved choice or some action taken by us, but had all of these events not conspired together in exactly the way they did, there would have been a different result.  luck is the term for that phenomenon of an event or series of events happening in just the right way that it affects you positively when had even the smallest change been made, it would have had a totally different outcome which would have likely not been as positive for you.   #  the fact that you could have done something else to influence events does not matter.   #  luck is when a low probability event happens fortuitously.  it exists.  it is not about control; at least it is not about control insofar as information does not contribute to control.  probability is subjective because it is a measure of information.  you would say that a coin has a 0 chance of landing heads up, a precise machine designed to measure its movement might say it has a 0 chance and an omniscient god might say 0.  all of you are correct because a probability is a subjective measure of information held by a person.  you are saying an event was not lucky or not low probability because it was known by someone; the mistake is believing that probabilities are objective.  but because luck is a label placed on the probability of an event that occurred or occurred counter factually then luck must also be subjective.  also, subjective things still exist.  the fact that you could have done something else to influence events does not matter.  luck is subjective, it is unique to a particular person, but also a particular situation.  the  fact that you can come of with counter factuals in which an event occurring would not have been  willow probability  and  fortuitous  either because of your acts or someone else is does not mean that in this situation luck did not exist.   #  if i had stayed home and played a videogame i would not be where i am today.   #  there are moments in your life that things happen randomly that give you extra opportunities.  this are moments you did not work for.  these are moments you did not plan.  i have my job now because i decided to play ultimate frisbee, a game i am bad at, at the same time as someone else who knew of a school opening that was perfect for me.  she gave me the contact info and i got the job now luck was not the only factor here.  i had to work for my teaching cert.  i had to have a good interview.  i had to be a good teacher.  but there is no way i could have ever planned that into happening.  luck had a degree of influence on me getting that job.  if i had stayed home and played a videogame i would not be where i am today.
i hear people say  oh they got lucky this happened  or  i got this, so i am lucky.   i do not believe that.  i believe it is a combination of things in and out of ones control, and how they act in such situations.  examples: why would i be lucky for having things if i worked my butt off for it ? the reality is that i had to make sacrifices and work efficiently why am i lucky that a deadline was extended because of a situation out of my control ? do not get me wrong, a situation like that is great, but it is not necessarily random.  it was from things that are out of my control and possibly in the hands of someone else  #  why would i be lucky for having things if i worked my butt off for it ?  #  where did you receive the willpower to work your butt off ?  # where did you receive the willpower to work your butt off ? where does that energy come from ? it is a scientific fact that our willpower, intelligence, ability to focus, etc.  are strongly influenced by our genetics, our childhood environment, and a host of other factors.  the fact that you worked hard and accomplished things while others did not has more to do with the fact that you happened to be born to the parents you were, in the place you were, at the time that you were.   #  my guess is that he has achieved some degree of success and was told he got  lucky  but feels he earned it via handwork and sacrifices i know this feeling, and its frustrating as hell .   #  google defines luck as:  success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one is own actions.  this definition of luck give the impression that it is completely separate from the persons actions.  op seems to be rejecting the notion that luck is in some sort of vacuum devoid of the context of the person.  i share this notion.  i believe in opportunities.  opportunities seized appear a good luck, and opportunities not seized appear as bad luck.  he does not seem to be rejecting the notion that that someone who finds a $0 randomly on the street is not lucky i could be interpreting his post incorrectly , or that something beneficial that occurs by  pure chance  would not be considered  lucky.   instead he seems to be asserting that someone who has something they want or got somewhere successful managed to do so by seizing opportunities.  my guess is that he has achieved some degree of success and was told he got  lucky  but feels he earned it via handwork and sacrifices i know this feeling, and its frustrating as hell .  do not get me wrong, a situation like that is great, but it is not necessarily random.  it was from things that are out of my control and possibly in the hands of someone else although i have no idea what he is getting at with this statement.   #  the 0:0 bus is running late for an unrelated reason, so you catch it.   #  you are hairsplitting.  when something fortunate happens that is beyond your sphere of influence, that is lucky.  if something unfortunate happens that is outside of your control, that is unlucky.  there is too many variables that play off each other where everyone can control for example, you get hung up in a meeting a few extra minutes, and are late for the 0:0 bus.  the 0:0 bus is running late for an unrelated reason, so you catch it.  that is lucky.  now, let is say you are on your way to an important meeting.  you leave with plenty of time, but an accident ahead of you slows traffic down to a standstill, and it takes you a half an hour longer to get to your destination.  that is unlucky.  while i agree that a doctor is not  lucky to be a doctor  he had to work hard for the honor and the money, a doctor is lucky he was born in a situation where he could become a doctor.  for example, a child born to upper middle class parents that value education has a much better opportunity to become a doctor than a child born in a slum in india.  how is that  not  luck ? a favorably outcome for something you have no control over.   #  we split it and went out merry ways back home.   #  luck is defined as success or failure brought on by chance rather than ones own actions.  when you try to define things to such a degree that it becomes impractical then sure you can point out that the phenomenon known as luck does not really exist but luck is still the best word we have to describe this phenomenon so disproving it does not really do anything outside of pointing out the definition needs to be slightly tweaked.  one time a friend and i found $0 lying on the sidewalk.  just lying there, four 0 is rolled up together.  we split it and went out merry ways back home.  had there not been a dip in the conversation we may not have been looking at the ground as closely.  had there not been a careless person that lost almost $0 earlier, it would not be there for us to find.  had my friend chosen to take the short path back to his house instead of accompanying me on the longer one, he would have missed out on it.  all of these involved choice or some action taken by us, but had all of these events not conspired together in exactly the way they did, there would have been a different result.  luck is the term for that phenomenon of an event or series of events happening in just the right way that it affects you positively when had even the smallest change been made, it would have had a totally different outcome which would have likely not been as positive for you.   #  it is not about control; at least it is not about control insofar as information does not contribute to control.   #  luck is when a low probability event happens fortuitously.  it exists.  it is not about control; at least it is not about control insofar as information does not contribute to control.  probability is subjective because it is a measure of information.  you would say that a coin has a 0 chance of landing heads up, a precise machine designed to measure its movement might say it has a 0 chance and an omniscient god might say 0.  all of you are correct because a probability is a subjective measure of information held by a person.  you are saying an event was not lucky or not low probability because it was known by someone; the mistake is believing that probabilities are objective.  but because luck is a label placed on the probability of an event that occurred or occurred counter factually then luck must also be subjective.  also, subjective things still exist.  the fact that you could have done something else to influence events does not matter.  luck is subjective, it is unique to a particular person, but also a particular situation.  the  fact that you can come of with counter factuals in which an event occurring would not have been  willow probability  and  fortuitous  either because of your acts or someone else is does not mean that in this situation luck did not exist.
i am not from western europe but i have seen on reddit and also while living in france that people seem to still be quite obsessed with ww0 and keep the same mentality as if the war had ended 0 years and not 0 years ago.  the nazis were evil, those fighting against them were heroes.  you must believe that nazism was the worse thing that ever happend in history, otherwise you are a nazi apologist so you are evil.  i believe nazism is not inherently evil, it is an ideology that had its place in that moment of history, nationalism, antisemitism and the belief that the white race is superior were very common beliefs during the 0th and beginning of 0th century.  also, the atrocities that the german army commited are similar to those commited by other armies in other wars.  the only reason why nazism is seen as the symbol of evil nowadays is because the us fought against them in ww0 and the us wants an image of  saviors of the world .  so basically, the whole western world is still under influence of war propaganda from 0 years ago and ca not consider nazism with objectivity.  cmv  #  the atrocities that the german army commited are similar to those commited by other armies in other wars.   #  no one before or since has  industrialized  genocide quite like the nazis.   # no one before or since has  industrialized  genocide quite like the nazis.  they slaughtered millions in what can only be called a  machine .  a highly organized, meticulous machine built to exterminate as many people as  efficiently and quickly  as possible.  with as little effort as possible.  before that genocides were thoroughly manual processes.  if you wanted 0 million people dead you had to go out there with an army and put 0 million people to the sword or against the wall.   #  i am not saying wars are ever waged humanely, mind you.   #  you may be unfamiliar with the quite systematic and institutionalized brutality of the holocaust.  there are ample sources that detail the traincars of prisoners, the concentration camps and orderly stripping of human beings of first dignity, then all possessions including in some cases gold fillings, forced labor in bitterly harsh conditions, then gassing or burning in areaa expressly designed for mass extermination of human beings.  not executions.  not wartime murders of former combatants who were now prisoners or rapes of women in the madness of battle.  but the ordered conscious murder of civilian men, women and children on a grand scale for no reason other than basically racist ideology.  you can of course make the case that throughout history there have been atrocities both in and out of wartime.  the nazis were unique in history, at least in the modern era.  i encourage you to read more widely on the topic.  i am not saying wars are ever waged humanely, mind you.  but what the nazis did was appalling.   #  but even a quick wikipedia search shows that there have been an astounding number of genocides in the world.   #  i know that the holocaust is the most well documented genocide, and i definitely agree that it was appalling.  but even a quick wikipedia search shows that there have been an astounding number of genocides in the world.  and if you look at numbers alone and only at the 0th century, the soviets have surpassed the nazis in killings but are nowhere near as universally hated.  they also killed in the name of an ideology but that ideology is nowhere near as universally despised today as nazism.  and why was the holocaust so well documented ? is not it because the nazis lost the war and there was a desire of the winner to make them look evil ? i am not at all arguing that it was not evil, just that there are equally evil things during history and that, in the western world there is a desire to make the holocaust look like the most evil thing ever in the history of human kind.  so you have not changed my view yet, i still think that if you believe the nazis were unique in history you are influenced by war propaganda from 0 years ago.   #  we know so much because they took the time to document it.   #  the nazi is were not the first to commit genocide.  they were the first to industrialize the process.  think of how cattle are funneled into the slaughter house, we are dealing with a very similar system.  the nazi is were very meticulous about record keeping.  we know so much because they took the time to document it.   #  get rather short shrift because their numbers are smaller, their political repercussions were less relevant, or whatever, and should therefore be equally documented and reviled ?  #  in the western world, as you call it, there is a tendency for various reasons to depict nazism and its tendencies demonization of specific ethnicities or creeds or races in order to put a mental bookmark, as it were, so we do not forget what even modern, supposedly advanced civilized societies are capable of.  you say anti nazi propaganda has influenced my thinking.  do you suggest the propaganda, as you are referring to it, is largely fabricated ? that we need to give nazism a reconsideration ? or do you suggest that other relatively modern genocides armenia, rwanda, serbia, etc.  get rather short shrift because their numbers are smaller, their political repercussions were less relevant, or whatever, and should therefore be equally documented and reviled ?
i am not from western europe but i have seen on reddit and also while living in france that people seem to still be quite obsessed with ww0 and keep the same mentality as if the war had ended 0 years and not 0 years ago.  the nazis were evil, those fighting against them were heroes.  you must believe that nazism was the worse thing that ever happend in history, otherwise you are a nazi apologist so you are evil.  i believe nazism is not inherently evil, it is an ideology that had its place in that moment of history, nationalism, antisemitism and the belief that the white race is superior were very common beliefs during the 0th and beginning of 0th century.  also, the atrocities that the german army commited are similar to those commited by other armies in other wars.  the only reason why nazism is seen as the symbol of evil nowadays is because the us fought against them in ww0 and the us wants an image of  saviors of the world .  so basically, the whole western world is still under influence of war propaganda from 0 years ago and ca not consider nazism with objectivity.  cmv  #  the only reason why nazism is seen as the symbol of evil nowadays is because the us fought against them in ww0 and the us wants an image of  saviors of the world .   #  this is not a view carried on by the us alone.   #  both the wermacht and the ss were steps and leagues above most invading armies through history.  asides from following the fairly widespread rape and murder of freshly conquered lands, they also implemented long standing genocidal laws in their new territory.  i ca not even think of other invading armies that did such a thing.  even the mongols who were notorious for their brutal conquests were fairly benevolent rulers once the actual fighting was done, and even other conquering groups with beliefs of racial supremacy did not implement such direct genocidal laws as the nazi is did.  the nazi is deployed einsatzgruppen URL in their occupied territory, death squads dedicated to rooting out jews, gypsies, and other undesirables the nazi is deemed subhuman and needed to be cleaned.  it is believed that these squads and related troops killed over two million people.  it is this sort of thing that put the nazi is in their own league.  the soviets were brutal for sure, so were many other armies in the past.  but the level of industrialized and systematic extermination reached by the nazi is is completely unmatched in cold, brutal efficiency.  so no, the atrocities committed by the nazi is are not comparable to those committed by other armies.  this is not a view carried on by the us alone.  everyone everywhere, from the us to japan detests the nazi is.  objectively the nazi is were a hyper nationalist racist group, only far more unrestrained than other similar groups of the time.  they destroyed much of europe, destroyed their country, and their own people.  objectively they were evil shitheads.   #  i encourage you to read more widely on the topic.   #  you may be unfamiliar with the quite systematic and institutionalized brutality of the holocaust.  there are ample sources that detail the traincars of prisoners, the concentration camps and orderly stripping of human beings of first dignity, then all possessions including in some cases gold fillings, forced labor in bitterly harsh conditions, then gassing or burning in areaa expressly designed for mass extermination of human beings.  not executions.  not wartime murders of former combatants who were now prisoners or rapes of women in the madness of battle.  but the ordered conscious murder of civilian men, women and children on a grand scale for no reason other than basically racist ideology.  you can of course make the case that throughout history there have been atrocities both in and out of wartime.  the nazis were unique in history, at least in the modern era.  i encourage you to read more widely on the topic.  i am not saying wars are ever waged humanely, mind you.  but what the nazis did was appalling.   #  and why was the holocaust so well documented ?  #  i know that the holocaust is the most well documented genocide, and i definitely agree that it was appalling.  but even a quick wikipedia search shows that there have been an astounding number of genocides in the world.  and if you look at numbers alone and only at the 0th century, the soviets have surpassed the nazis in killings but are nowhere near as universally hated.  they also killed in the name of an ideology but that ideology is nowhere near as universally despised today as nazism.  and why was the holocaust so well documented ? is not it because the nazis lost the war and there was a desire of the winner to make them look evil ? i am not at all arguing that it was not evil, just that there are equally evil things during history and that, in the western world there is a desire to make the holocaust look like the most evil thing ever in the history of human kind.  so you have not changed my view yet, i still think that if you believe the nazis were unique in history you are influenced by war propaganda from 0 years ago.   #  think of how cattle are funneled into the slaughter house, we are dealing with a very similar system.   #  the nazi is were not the first to commit genocide.  they were the first to industrialize the process.  think of how cattle are funneled into the slaughter house, we are dealing with a very similar system.  the nazi is were very meticulous about record keeping.  we know so much because they took the time to document it.   #  you say anti nazi propaganda has influenced my thinking.   #  in the western world, as you call it, there is a tendency for various reasons to depict nazism and its tendencies demonization of specific ethnicities or creeds or races in order to put a mental bookmark, as it were, so we do not forget what even modern, supposedly advanced civilized societies are capable of.  you say anti nazi propaganda has influenced my thinking.  do you suggest the propaganda, as you are referring to it, is largely fabricated ? that we need to give nazism a reconsideration ? or do you suggest that other relatively modern genocides armenia, rwanda, serbia, etc.  get rather short shrift because their numbers are smaller, their political repercussions were less relevant, or whatever, and should therefore be equally documented and reviled ?
i am not from western europe but i have seen on reddit and also while living in france that people seem to still be quite obsessed with ww0 and keep the same mentality as if the war had ended 0 years and not 0 years ago.  the nazis were evil, those fighting against them were heroes.  you must believe that nazism was the worse thing that ever happend in history, otherwise you are a nazi apologist so you are evil.  i believe nazism is not inherently evil, it is an ideology that had its place in that moment of history, nationalism, antisemitism and the belief that the white race is superior were very common beliefs during the 0th and beginning of 0th century.  also, the atrocities that the german army commited are similar to those commited by other armies in other wars.  the only reason why nazism is seen as the symbol of evil nowadays is because the us fought against them in ww0 and the us wants an image of  saviors of the world .  so basically, the whole western world is still under influence of war propaganda from 0 years ago and ca not consider nazism with objectivity.  cmv  #  so basically, the whole western world is still under influence of war propaganda from 0 years ago and ca not consider nazism with objectivity.   #  objectively the nazi is were a hyper nationalist racist group, only far more unrestrained than other similar groups of the time.   #  both the wermacht and the ss were steps and leagues above most invading armies through history.  asides from following the fairly widespread rape and murder of freshly conquered lands, they also implemented long standing genocidal laws in their new territory.  i ca not even think of other invading armies that did such a thing.  even the mongols who were notorious for their brutal conquests were fairly benevolent rulers once the actual fighting was done, and even other conquering groups with beliefs of racial supremacy did not implement such direct genocidal laws as the nazi is did.  the nazi is deployed einsatzgruppen URL in their occupied territory, death squads dedicated to rooting out jews, gypsies, and other undesirables the nazi is deemed subhuman and needed to be cleaned.  it is believed that these squads and related troops killed over two million people.  it is this sort of thing that put the nazi is in their own league.  the soviets were brutal for sure, so were many other armies in the past.  but the level of industrialized and systematic extermination reached by the nazi is is completely unmatched in cold, brutal efficiency.  so no, the atrocities committed by the nazi is are not comparable to those committed by other armies.  this is not a view carried on by the us alone.  everyone everywhere, from the us to japan detests the nazi is.  objectively the nazi is were a hyper nationalist racist group, only far more unrestrained than other similar groups of the time.  they destroyed much of europe, destroyed their country, and their own people.  objectively they were evil shitheads.   #  i am not saying wars are ever waged humanely, mind you.   #  you may be unfamiliar with the quite systematic and institutionalized brutality of the holocaust.  there are ample sources that detail the traincars of prisoners, the concentration camps and orderly stripping of human beings of first dignity, then all possessions including in some cases gold fillings, forced labor in bitterly harsh conditions, then gassing or burning in areaa expressly designed for mass extermination of human beings.  not executions.  not wartime murders of former combatants who were now prisoners or rapes of women in the madness of battle.  but the ordered conscious murder of civilian men, women and children on a grand scale for no reason other than basically racist ideology.  you can of course make the case that throughout history there have been atrocities both in and out of wartime.  the nazis were unique in history, at least in the modern era.  i encourage you to read more widely on the topic.  i am not saying wars are ever waged humanely, mind you.  but what the nazis did was appalling.   #  is not it because the nazis lost the war and there was a desire of the winner to make them look evil ?  #  i know that the holocaust is the most well documented genocide, and i definitely agree that it was appalling.  but even a quick wikipedia search shows that there have been an astounding number of genocides in the world.  and if you look at numbers alone and only at the 0th century, the soviets have surpassed the nazis in killings but are nowhere near as universally hated.  they also killed in the name of an ideology but that ideology is nowhere near as universally despised today as nazism.  and why was the holocaust so well documented ? is not it because the nazis lost the war and there was a desire of the winner to make them look evil ? i am not at all arguing that it was not evil, just that there are equally evil things during history and that, in the western world there is a desire to make the holocaust look like the most evil thing ever in the history of human kind.  so you have not changed my view yet, i still think that if you believe the nazis were unique in history you are influenced by war propaganda from 0 years ago.   #  think of how cattle are funneled into the slaughter house, we are dealing with a very similar system.   #  the nazi is were not the first to commit genocide.  they were the first to industrialize the process.  think of how cattle are funneled into the slaughter house, we are dealing with a very similar system.  the nazi is were very meticulous about record keeping.  we know so much because they took the time to document it.   #  that we need to give nazism a reconsideration ?  #  in the western world, as you call it, there is a tendency for various reasons to depict nazism and its tendencies demonization of specific ethnicities or creeds or races in order to put a mental bookmark, as it were, so we do not forget what even modern, supposedly advanced civilized societies are capable of.  you say anti nazi propaganda has influenced my thinking.  do you suggest the propaganda, as you are referring to it, is largely fabricated ? that we need to give nazism a reconsideration ? or do you suggest that other relatively modern genocides armenia, rwanda, serbia, etc.  get rather short shrift because their numbers are smaller, their political repercussions were less relevant, or whatever, and should therefore be equally documented and reviled ?
i am not from western europe but i have seen on reddit and also while living in france that people seem to still be quite obsessed with ww0 and keep the same mentality as if the war had ended 0 years and not 0 years ago.  the nazis were evil, those fighting against them were heroes.  you must believe that nazism was the worse thing that ever happend in history, otherwise you are a nazi apologist so you are evil.  i believe nazism is not inherently evil, it is an ideology that had its place in that moment of history, nationalism, antisemitism and the belief that the white race is superior were very common beliefs during the 0th and beginning of 0th century.  also, the atrocities that the german army commited are similar to those commited by other armies in other wars.  the only reason why nazism is seen as the symbol of evil nowadays is because the us fought against them in ww0 and the us wants an image of  saviors of the world .  so basically, the whole western world is still under influence of war propaganda from 0 years ago and ca not consider nazism with objectivity.  cmv  #  the only reason why nazism is seen as the symbol of evil nowadays is because the us fought against them in ww0 and the us wants an image of  saviors of the world .   #  so basically, the whole western world is still under influence of war propaganda from 0 years ago and ca not consider nazism with objectivity.   # so basically, the whole western world is still under influence of war propaganda from 0 years ago and ca not consider nazism with objectivity.  no, it is because to western countries their own history is most important, and the western coutries have most influence in the world which makes that what western countries find bad often gets projected as universally bad.  but take china for example, there the point of focus is not on the holocaust, it is on the war crimes like the rape of nanking.  so i would say that it is more the location that everything happened at is the reason that it is this prominent.  would something like the rape of nanking have happened in western europe then it would be way more visible and vilified.  on the other hand if the holocaust had happened in north korea, russia, or china.  it would be way less vilified, and the focus would be on some other thing which is horrible but happened in western europe.   #  but the ordered conscious murder of civilian men, women and children on a grand scale for no reason other than basically racist ideology.   #  you may be unfamiliar with the quite systematic and institutionalized brutality of the holocaust.  there are ample sources that detail the traincars of prisoners, the concentration camps and orderly stripping of human beings of first dignity, then all possessions including in some cases gold fillings, forced labor in bitterly harsh conditions, then gassing or burning in areaa expressly designed for mass extermination of human beings.  not executions.  not wartime murders of former combatants who were now prisoners or rapes of women in the madness of battle.  but the ordered conscious murder of civilian men, women and children on a grand scale for no reason other than basically racist ideology.  you can of course make the case that throughout history there have been atrocities both in and out of wartime.  the nazis were unique in history, at least in the modern era.  i encourage you to read more widely on the topic.  i am not saying wars are ever waged humanely, mind you.  but what the nazis did was appalling.   #  so you have not changed my view yet, i still think that if you believe the nazis were unique in history you are influenced by war propaganda from 0 years ago.   #  i know that the holocaust is the most well documented genocide, and i definitely agree that it was appalling.  but even a quick wikipedia search shows that there have been an astounding number of genocides in the world.  and if you look at numbers alone and only at the 0th century, the soviets have surpassed the nazis in killings but are nowhere near as universally hated.  they also killed in the name of an ideology but that ideology is nowhere near as universally despised today as nazism.  and why was the holocaust so well documented ? is not it because the nazis lost the war and there was a desire of the winner to make them look evil ? i am not at all arguing that it was not evil, just that there are equally evil things during history and that, in the western world there is a desire to make the holocaust look like the most evil thing ever in the history of human kind.  so you have not changed my view yet, i still think that if you believe the nazis were unique in history you are influenced by war propaganda from 0 years ago.   #  the nazi is were very meticulous about record keeping.   #  the nazi is were not the first to commit genocide.  they were the first to industrialize the process.  think of how cattle are funneled into the slaughter house, we are dealing with a very similar system.  the nazi is were very meticulous about record keeping.  we know so much because they took the time to document it.   #  that we need to give nazism a reconsideration ?  #  in the western world, as you call it, there is a tendency for various reasons to depict nazism and its tendencies demonization of specific ethnicities or creeds or races in order to put a mental bookmark, as it were, so we do not forget what even modern, supposedly advanced civilized societies are capable of.  you say anti nazi propaganda has influenced my thinking.  do you suggest the propaganda, as you are referring to it, is largely fabricated ? that we need to give nazism a reconsideration ? or do you suggest that other relatively modern genocides armenia, rwanda, serbia, etc.  get rather short shrift because their numbers are smaller, their political repercussions were less relevant, or whatever, and should therefore be equally documented and reviled ?
basically, i am sick of people loving boba fett.  he ca not capture han, and kills himself in the sarlac pit.  he was useless.  i am talking about episodes 0/0 only.  i understand that he looks cool, but he dies trying to kill a defenseless blind man.  he is the best at tracking in episode 0 but nothing really comes of it.  i find it annoying when silent characters are thought of as super cool and bad ass whereas i personally see it as lazy writing.  but thats just me.  it does not make me enjoy the film any less.   #  basically, i am sick of people loving boba fett.   #  he ca not capture han, and kills himself in the sarlac pit.   # he ca not capture han, and kills himself in the sarlac pit.  he was useless.  i am talking about episodes 0/0 only.  how did han get to jabba is barge ? oh yeah boba fett.  he did not die.  yeah it did.  it lead to han is capture, which is what he was doing in the 0st place.  did you watch those movies ? well it is a movie for little kids.  i guess you hate snake eyes too ?  #  although he may not have been too effective on screen, there were several things that gave him an appealing mystique.   #  although he may not have been too effective on screen, there were several things that gave him an appealing mystique.  minor.  when leia threatens everyone at jabba is with a thermal detonator, almost everyone panics.  boba fett is the only one ready to fight.  in his introductory scene, vader directs the  no disintegrations  comment specifically at him.  what past history do these two have ? regarding han, he objects to vader is carbonite experiment.  vader replies,  the empire will compensate you, if he dies.   he not only talked back to vader, but vader answered respectfully.  i would argue that one thing that makes him fascinating is that he clearly has a past history with vader, and vader treats him as an equal.  aside from the emperor, he is the only person vader respects.  the films were effective at hinting at bad assitude without outright showing it.   #  to be fair, some bounties in the galactic empire could very well include the phrase  dead or alive , much like some bounties in the wild west before a strong government presence was made.   #  to be fair, some bounties in the galactic empire could very well include the phrase  dead or alive , much like some bounties in the wild west before a strong government presence was made.  it is not as if the empire is really looking forward to giving everyone a fair trial.  in fact, the threat of outsourcing justice to bounty hunters who might very well kill you is probably something the empire found to be a benefit.  as for the lazy and lying comment, there is  no way  that a bounty hunter would just be able to  say  they killed the target and do not have proof.  certainly not one that gets to talk to vader like that.   #  0 it is total disintegration but fett has such a rep that people trust him to do his job.   #  there actually could be three possibilities going on there.  0 it is not total disintegration, like it is just focal a leg or an arm.  0 it is total disintegration and fett just films it, and there is some advantage to there being no body.  0 it is total disintegration but fett has such a rep that people trust him to do his job.  i am not even sure a body would mean much in a universe where cloning is possible.   #  it makes far more sense for it to have been multiple trooper units sent to canvas the area.   #  they were not disintegrated though.  it looks more like a thermal detonator was tossed into their homes as a form of intimidation and one or both of them tried to get it out or they were caught in the blast.  also what did they know ? they bought droids.  the empire did not know  what  droids they were looking for, or else the mos eisley guards would have been like  hey you have a protocol droid and an r0 unit, come with us .  so bubba feets tracked footprints through a desert, followed them to a nomadic junker tribe, and.  read their sales list ? what exactly was the address to that igloo anyway ? also this all happened in like.  a day, tops.  it makes far more sense for it to have been multiple trooper units sent to canvas the area.
basically, i am sick of people loving boba fett.  he ca not capture han, and kills himself in the sarlac pit.  he was useless.  i am talking about episodes 0/0 only.  i understand that he looks cool, but he dies trying to kill a defenseless blind man.  he is the best at tracking in episode 0 but nothing really comes of it.  i find it annoying when silent characters are thought of as super cool and bad ass whereas i personally see it as lazy writing.  but thats just me.  it does not make me enjoy the film any less.   #  i find it annoying when silent characters are thought of as super cool and bad ass whereas i personally see it as lazy writing.   #  well it is a movie for little kids.   # he ca not capture han, and kills himself in the sarlac pit.  he was useless.  i am talking about episodes 0/0 only.  how did han get to jabba is barge ? oh yeah boba fett.  he did not die.  yeah it did.  it lead to han is capture, which is what he was doing in the 0st place.  did you watch those movies ? well it is a movie for little kids.  i guess you hate snake eyes too ?  #  although he may not have been too effective on screen, there were several things that gave him an appealing mystique.   #  although he may not have been too effective on screen, there were several things that gave him an appealing mystique.  minor.  when leia threatens everyone at jabba is with a thermal detonator, almost everyone panics.  boba fett is the only one ready to fight.  in his introductory scene, vader directs the  no disintegrations  comment specifically at him.  what past history do these two have ? regarding han, he objects to vader is carbonite experiment.  vader replies,  the empire will compensate you, if he dies.   he not only talked back to vader, but vader answered respectfully.  i would argue that one thing that makes him fascinating is that he clearly has a past history with vader, and vader treats him as an equal.  aside from the emperor, he is the only person vader respects.  the films were effective at hinting at bad assitude without outright showing it.   #  in fact, the threat of outsourcing justice to bounty hunters who might very well kill you is probably something the empire found to be a benefit.   #  to be fair, some bounties in the galactic empire could very well include the phrase  dead or alive , much like some bounties in the wild west before a strong government presence was made.  it is not as if the empire is really looking forward to giving everyone a fair trial.  in fact, the threat of outsourcing justice to bounty hunters who might very well kill you is probably something the empire found to be a benefit.  as for the lazy and lying comment, there is  no way  that a bounty hunter would just be able to  say  they killed the target and do not have proof.  certainly not one that gets to talk to vader like that.   #  0 it is not total disintegration, like it is just focal a leg or an arm.   #  there actually could be three possibilities going on there.  0 it is not total disintegration, like it is just focal a leg or an arm.  0 it is total disintegration and fett just films it, and there is some advantage to there being no body.  0 it is total disintegration but fett has such a rep that people trust him to do his job.  i am not even sure a body would mean much in a universe where cloning is possible.   #  it makes far more sense for it to have been multiple trooper units sent to canvas the area.   #  they were not disintegrated though.  it looks more like a thermal detonator was tossed into their homes as a form of intimidation and one or both of them tried to get it out or they were caught in the blast.  also what did they know ? they bought droids.  the empire did not know  what  droids they were looking for, or else the mos eisley guards would have been like  hey you have a protocol droid and an r0 unit, come with us .  so bubba feets tracked footprints through a desert, followed them to a nomadic junker tribe, and.  read their sales list ? what exactly was the address to that igloo anyway ? also this all happened in like.  a day, tops.  it makes far more sense for it to have been multiple trooper units sent to canvas the area.
tattoos are not just for gang members and social outcasts.  they are becoming more and more mainstream.  so why are there still taboos on certain tattoo types ? people should not have to worry about getting tattoos like this URL because they fear employers will not approve and therefore not hire them.  if the image is not offensive ie.  swastikas or tastelessly erotic images then why should an employer intentionally not hire an individual who is expressing themselves through body modification ? obviously some exceptions apply.  i know a sign language interpreter who keeps her hand and wrist jewelry to a minimum when working because it can be distracting so a hand tattoo would be ill advised in her field, but for someone seeking office work why should it affect their hire ability ? i expressed interest in getting a tattoo similar to the one linked and although many of my friends are supportive of the idea, many people have tried to dissuade me, even on /r/tattoos which surprised me.  i suppose this argument could also applies to neck/face tattoos and piercings although i am less emotionally involved with that side of the issue.  i have decided that i will wait to get a hand tattoo until i am more confident it wo not negatively affect my future but i am still confused as to why an employer would care ? would i even want to work for a company that is so narrow minded about what makes a good employee ?  #  tattoos are not just for gang members and social outcasts.   #  they are becoming more and more mainstream.   # they are becoming more and more mainstream.  so why are there still taboos on certain tattoo types ? no they are not  mainstream  they are still bad.  i do not mind tats i ca not see but tattoos i can, those should effect hireablility.  there are a lot of people who are uncomfortable seeing tattoos, they can be downright intimidating.  if the image is not offensive ie.  swastikas or tastelessly erotic images then why should an employer intentionally not hire an individual who is expressing themselves through body modification ? express yourself, but not on the employers time.  it intimidates members of the public, it looks gang related.  because the money is good, you want to work in a warehouse or a coffee shop all your life go ahead, if you want to do business then do not.   #  even if it is just a risk even if i never lose a singe penny of business because of it, what possible incentive would i have to take the risk in the first place ?  #  as a business owner myself, i do not hire people with hand/neck/face tattoos.  you are focused on the wrong part of the equation: it is not about what your  employer  thinks, it is about what  clients/customers  will think.  will every customer have a problem with it ? of course not, but some will, and that is more than enough reason for employers to not hire you.  why should the company risk losing business for you ? even if it is just a risk even if i never lose a singe penny of business because of it, what possible incentive would i have to take the risk in the first place ?  #  for example, if you required all men in the marketing department to wear a 0 piece suit, but the women could wear jeans and tank tops.   #  i get what you are saying here, but it is not true from a practical standpoint.  it would be ridiculous to apply the same dress code to truck drivers and factory workers who work at the same company as engineers and marketing execs.  i mean, are the sales people going to be required to wear steel toed boots just because the factory guys are ? and conversely, does it make sense for professional business attire to be required for a guy on the factory floor ? by  applying to all employees equally,  it means that you ca not create unequal burdens, especially if they deviate from social norms.  for example, if you required all men in the marketing department to wear a 0 piece suit, but the women could wear jeans and tank tops.  jeans and tank tops are much less expensive than professional business attire, and such a policy would create an unequal burden for the men employed in this capacity.   #  i mean, are the sales people going to be required to wear steel toed boots just because the factory guys are ?  # you can thank lawyers for that one.   nbsp;  it would be ridiculous to apply the same dress code to truck drivers and factory workers who work at the same company as engineers and marketing execs.  i mean, are the sales people going to be required to wear steel toed boots just because the factory guys are ? and conversely, does it make sense for professional business attire to be required for a guy on the factory floor ? it is more about the enforcement of the standards than it is the standards themselves.  if i put forth a policy of  no visible tattoos  for my sales reps and office staff which i do , and then someone on the loading dock wears a short sleeve shirt that shows a tattoo on their shoulder like mine does when i wear a short sleeve shirt , i have to make them cover up.  you would think that common sense would win in that situation, and that people who work in the office where i have clients coming in all the time, would understand that their standards are different from people who are lugging boxes.  in a warehouse.  in the summer.  in florida, but yet at least once a month i would get a call from hr that someone filed a complaint.   nbsp;   by  applying to all employees equally,  it means that you ca not create unequal burdens, especially if they deviate from social norms.  for example, if you required all men in the marketing department to wear a 0 piece suit, but the women could wear jeans and tank tops.  jeans and tank tops are much less expensive than professional business attire, and such a policy would create an unequal burden for the men employed in this capacity.  such a policy would get you sued before you would even finished typing the memo for it:  men must be in professional attire, but women can wear whatever they like  ? if men in the marketing department are required to wear formal business attire, then women would be required to do the same.   #  when our clients are in town for a meeting, or when i do site visits, i have to cover up.   #  i am a heavily tattooed individual.  all previous jobs, from the navy,to being a line cook, an alaskan commercial fisherman, and a lift   crane operator for a steel yard, any of these positions cared more about skill or muscle than appearance.  they were dirty work jobs.  now, i am an electrical designer for a firm that designs, contracts, and builds process plants.  when its only normal employees around, i have earned my way into casual dress short sleeves just like everyone else.  when our clients are in town for a meeting, or when i do site visits, i have to cover up.  its part of being in that type of professional environment.  most of our clients are japanese, and their culture is largely farther behind on approval than ours at the moment at least , and ours is not the most accepting on all occasions.  these people sign the check that pays my check, and i really enjoy my job, so it is not too much to ask for me to do the monkey suit march on occasion.  this is me last spring.  URL
tattoos are not just for gang members and social outcasts.  they are becoming more and more mainstream.  so why are there still taboos on certain tattoo types ? people should not have to worry about getting tattoos like this URL because they fear employers will not approve and therefore not hire them.  if the image is not offensive ie.  swastikas or tastelessly erotic images then why should an employer intentionally not hire an individual who is expressing themselves through body modification ? obviously some exceptions apply.  i know a sign language interpreter who keeps her hand and wrist jewelry to a minimum when working because it can be distracting so a hand tattoo would be ill advised in her field, but for someone seeking office work why should it affect their hire ability ? i expressed interest in getting a tattoo similar to the one linked and although many of my friends are supportive of the idea, many people have tried to dissuade me, even on /r/tattoos which surprised me.  i suppose this argument could also applies to neck/face tattoos and piercings although i am less emotionally involved with that side of the issue.  i have decided that i will wait to get a hand tattoo until i am more confident it wo not negatively affect my future but i am still confused as to why an employer would care ? would i even want to work for a company that is so narrow minded about what makes a good employee ?  #  i am still confused as to why an employer would care ?  #  it intimidates members of the public, it looks gang related.   # they are becoming more and more mainstream.  so why are there still taboos on certain tattoo types ? no they are not  mainstream  they are still bad.  i do not mind tats i ca not see but tattoos i can, those should effect hireablility.  there are a lot of people who are uncomfortable seeing tattoos, they can be downright intimidating.  if the image is not offensive ie.  swastikas or tastelessly erotic images then why should an employer intentionally not hire an individual who is expressing themselves through body modification ? express yourself, but not on the employers time.  it intimidates members of the public, it looks gang related.  because the money is good, you want to work in a warehouse or a coffee shop all your life go ahead, if you want to do business then do not.   #  why should the company risk losing business for you ?  #  as a business owner myself, i do not hire people with hand/neck/face tattoos.  you are focused on the wrong part of the equation: it is not about what your  employer  thinks, it is about what  clients/customers  will think.  will every customer have a problem with it ? of course not, but some will, and that is more than enough reason for employers to not hire you.  why should the company risk losing business for you ? even if it is just a risk even if i never lose a singe penny of business because of it, what possible incentive would i have to take the risk in the first place ?  #  jeans and tank tops are much less expensive than professional business attire, and such a policy would create an unequal burden for the men employed in this capacity.   #  i get what you are saying here, but it is not true from a practical standpoint.  it would be ridiculous to apply the same dress code to truck drivers and factory workers who work at the same company as engineers and marketing execs.  i mean, are the sales people going to be required to wear steel toed boots just because the factory guys are ? and conversely, does it make sense for professional business attire to be required for a guy on the factory floor ? by  applying to all employees equally,  it means that you ca not create unequal burdens, especially if they deviate from social norms.  for example, if you required all men in the marketing department to wear a 0 piece suit, but the women could wear jeans and tank tops.  jeans and tank tops are much less expensive than professional business attire, and such a policy would create an unequal burden for the men employed in this capacity.   #  i mean, are the sales people going to be required to wear steel toed boots just because the factory guys are ?  # you can thank lawyers for that one.   nbsp;  it would be ridiculous to apply the same dress code to truck drivers and factory workers who work at the same company as engineers and marketing execs.  i mean, are the sales people going to be required to wear steel toed boots just because the factory guys are ? and conversely, does it make sense for professional business attire to be required for a guy on the factory floor ? it is more about the enforcement of the standards than it is the standards themselves.  if i put forth a policy of  no visible tattoos  for my sales reps and office staff which i do , and then someone on the loading dock wears a short sleeve shirt that shows a tattoo on their shoulder like mine does when i wear a short sleeve shirt , i have to make them cover up.  you would think that common sense would win in that situation, and that people who work in the office where i have clients coming in all the time, would understand that their standards are different from people who are lugging boxes.  in a warehouse.  in the summer.  in florida, but yet at least once a month i would get a call from hr that someone filed a complaint.   nbsp;   by  applying to all employees equally,  it means that you ca not create unequal burdens, especially if they deviate from social norms.  for example, if you required all men in the marketing department to wear a 0 piece suit, but the women could wear jeans and tank tops.  jeans and tank tops are much less expensive than professional business attire, and such a policy would create an unequal burden for the men employed in this capacity.  such a policy would get you sued before you would even finished typing the memo for it:  men must be in professional attire, but women can wear whatever they like  ? if men in the marketing department are required to wear formal business attire, then women would be required to do the same.   #  these people sign the check that pays my check, and i really enjoy my job, so it is not too much to ask for me to do the monkey suit march on occasion.   #  i am a heavily tattooed individual.  all previous jobs, from the navy,to being a line cook, an alaskan commercial fisherman, and a lift   crane operator for a steel yard, any of these positions cared more about skill or muscle than appearance.  they were dirty work jobs.  now, i am an electrical designer for a firm that designs, contracts, and builds process plants.  when its only normal employees around, i have earned my way into casual dress short sleeves just like everyone else.  when our clients are in town for a meeting, or when i do site visits, i have to cover up.  its part of being in that type of professional environment.  most of our clients are japanese, and their culture is largely farther behind on approval than ours at the moment at least , and ours is not the most accepting on all occasions.  these people sign the check that pays my check, and i really enjoy my job, so it is not too much to ask for me to do the monkey suit march on occasion.  this is me last spring.  URL
tattoos are not just for gang members and social outcasts.  they are becoming more and more mainstream.  so why are there still taboos on certain tattoo types ? people should not have to worry about getting tattoos like this URL because they fear employers will not approve and therefore not hire them.  if the image is not offensive ie.  swastikas or tastelessly erotic images then why should an employer intentionally not hire an individual who is expressing themselves through body modification ? obviously some exceptions apply.  i know a sign language interpreter who keeps her hand and wrist jewelry to a minimum when working because it can be distracting so a hand tattoo would be ill advised in her field, but for someone seeking office work why should it affect their hire ability ? i expressed interest in getting a tattoo similar to the one linked and although many of my friends are supportive of the idea, many people have tried to dissuade me, even on /r/tattoos which surprised me.  i suppose this argument could also applies to neck/face tattoos and piercings although i am less emotionally involved with that side of the issue.  i have decided that i will wait to get a hand tattoo until i am more confident it wo not negatively affect my future but i am still confused as to why an employer would care ? would i even want to work for a company that is so narrow minded about what makes a good employee ?  #  would i even want to work for a company that is so narrow minded about what makes a good employee ?  #  because the money is good, you want to work in a warehouse or a coffee shop all your life go ahead, if you want to do business then do not.   # they are becoming more and more mainstream.  so why are there still taboos on certain tattoo types ? no they are not  mainstream  they are still bad.  i do not mind tats i ca not see but tattoos i can, those should effect hireablility.  there are a lot of people who are uncomfortable seeing tattoos, they can be downright intimidating.  if the image is not offensive ie.  swastikas or tastelessly erotic images then why should an employer intentionally not hire an individual who is expressing themselves through body modification ? express yourself, but not on the employers time.  it intimidates members of the public, it looks gang related.  because the money is good, you want to work in a warehouse or a coffee shop all your life go ahead, if you want to do business then do not.   #  of course not, but some will, and that is more than enough reason for employers to not hire you.   #  as a business owner myself, i do not hire people with hand/neck/face tattoos.  you are focused on the wrong part of the equation: it is not about what your  employer  thinks, it is about what  clients/customers  will think.  will every customer have a problem with it ? of course not, but some will, and that is more than enough reason for employers to not hire you.  why should the company risk losing business for you ? even if it is just a risk even if i never lose a singe penny of business because of it, what possible incentive would i have to take the risk in the first place ?  #  for example, if you required all men in the marketing department to wear a 0 piece suit, but the women could wear jeans and tank tops.   #  i get what you are saying here, but it is not true from a practical standpoint.  it would be ridiculous to apply the same dress code to truck drivers and factory workers who work at the same company as engineers and marketing execs.  i mean, are the sales people going to be required to wear steel toed boots just because the factory guys are ? and conversely, does it make sense for professional business attire to be required for a guy on the factory floor ? by  applying to all employees equally,  it means that you ca not create unequal burdens, especially if they deviate from social norms.  for example, if you required all men in the marketing department to wear a 0 piece suit, but the women could wear jeans and tank tops.  jeans and tank tops are much less expensive than professional business attire, and such a policy would create an unequal burden for the men employed in this capacity.   #  if men in the marketing department are required to wear formal business attire, then women would be required to do the same.   # you can thank lawyers for that one.   nbsp;  it would be ridiculous to apply the same dress code to truck drivers and factory workers who work at the same company as engineers and marketing execs.  i mean, are the sales people going to be required to wear steel toed boots just because the factory guys are ? and conversely, does it make sense for professional business attire to be required for a guy on the factory floor ? it is more about the enforcement of the standards than it is the standards themselves.  if i put forth a policy of  no visible tattoos  for my sales reps and office staff which i do , and then someone on the loading dock wears a short sleeve shirt that shows a tattoo on their shoulder like mine does when i wear a short sleeve shirt , i have to make them cover up.  you would think that common sense would win in that situation, and that people who work in the office where i have clients coming in all the time, would understand that their standards are different from people who are lugging boxes.  in a warehouse.  in the summer.  in florida, but yet at least once a month i would get a call from hr that someone filed a complaint.   nbsp;   by  applying to all employees equally,  it means that you ca not create unequal burdens, especially if they deviate from social norms.  for example, if you required all men in the marketing department to wear a 0 piece suit, but the women could wear jeans and tank tops.  jeans and tank tops are much less expensive than professional business attire, and such a policy would create an unequal burden for the men employed in this capacity.  such a policy would get you sued before you would even finished typing the memo for it:  men must be in professional attire, but women can wear whatever they like  ? if men in the marketing department are required to wear formal business attire, then women would be required to do the same.   #  these people sign the check that pays my check, and i really enjoy my job, so it is not too much to ask for me to do the monkey suit march on occasion.   #  i am a heavily tattooed individual.  all previous jobs, from the navy,to being a line cook, an alaskan commercial fisherman, and a lift   crane operator for a steel yard, any of these positions cared more about skill or muscle than appearance.  they were dirty work jobs.  now, i am an electrical designer for a firm that designs, contracts, and builds process plants.  when its only normal employees around, i have earned my way into casual dress short sleeves just like everyone else.  when our clients are in town for a meeting, or when i do site visits, i have to cover up.  its part of being in that type of professional environment.  most of our clients are japanese, and their culture is largely farther behind on approval than ours at the moment at least , and ours is not the most accepting on all occasions.  these people sign the check that pays my check, and i really enjoy my job, so it is not too much to ask for me to do the monkey suit march on occasion.  this is me last spring.  URL
tattoos are not just for gang members and social outcasts.  they are becoming more and more mainstream.  so why are there still taboos on certain tattoo types ? people should not have to worry about getting tattoos like this URL because they fear employers will not approve and therefore not hire them.  if the image is not offensive ie.  swastikas or tastelessly erotic images then why should an employer intentionally not hire an individual who is expressing themselves through body modification ? obviously some exceptions apply.  i know a sign language interpreter who keeps her hand and wrist jewelry to a minimum when working because it can be distracting so a hand tattoo would be ill advised in her field, but for someone seeking office work why should it affect their hire ability ? i expressed interest in getting a tattoo similar to the one linked and although many of my friends are supportive of the idea, many people have tried to dissuade me, even on /r/tattoos which surprised me.  i suppose this argument could also applies to neck/face tattoos and piercings although i am less emotionally involved with that side of the issue.  i have decided that i will wait to get a hand tattoo until i am more confident it wo not negatively affect my future but i am still confused as to why an employer would care ? would i even want to work for a company that is so narrow minded about what makes a good employee ?  #  if the image is not offensive ie.   #  swastikas or tastelessly erotic images i think this is where the problem comes in.   # swastikas or tastelessly erotic images i think this is where the problem comes in.  you, yourself, have made the claim that some particular images are  offensive.   what is your criteria, other than personal opinion not that i disagree with you on this .  where does an employer draw the line as to what is or is not  offensive.   can i have a visible tattoo of a bird ? a bird on fire ? a bird on fire wrapped in chains ? a bird on fire wrapped in chains with a cross behind it ? no hr manager can possibly predict every possible tattoo, and leaving it up to opinion opens a very big door for a discrimination lawsuit.  did not hire someone because of that swastika tattoo ? guess what ? you are now being sued for religious discrimination.  URL tastelessly erotic imagery ? what about michaelangelo is  david  ? i am sure there are plenty of people who would consider that particular priceless masterpiece to be vile and tasteless because, well, you can see his junk.  basically, if you are going to give yourself the luxury of picking and choosing what is and is not offensive to you, should not you allow employers to do the same ? and as employers, are not they going to reasonably go with the lowest common denominator no visible tattoos at all ? and just to clarify, i think the bird tattoo you posted is quite lovely.  i personally would not judge you for it at all.  but i am not currently a job recruiter.   #  you are focused on the wrong part of the equation: it is not about what your  employer  thinks, it is about what  clients/customers  will think.   #  as a business owner myself, i do not hire people with hand/neck/face tattoos.  you are focused on the wrong part of the equation: it is not about what your  employer  thinks, it is about what  clients/customers  will think.  will every customer have a problem with it ? of course not, but some will, and that is more than enough reason for employers to not hire you.  why should the company risk losing business for you ? even if it is just a risk even if i never lose a singe penny of business because of it, what possible incentive would i have to take the risk in the first place ?  #  by  applying to all employees equally,  it means that you ca not create unequal burdens, especially if they deviate from social norms.   #  i get what you are saying here, but it is not true from a practical standpoint.  it would be ridiculous to apply the same dress code to truck drivers and factory workers who work at the same company as engineers and marketing execs.  i mean, are the sales people going to be required to wear steel toed boots just because the factory guys are ? and conversely, does it make sense for professional business attire to be required for a guy on the factory floor ? by  applying to all employees equally,  it means that you ca not create unequal burdens, especially if they deviate from social norms.  for example, if you required all men in the marketing department to wear a 0 piece suit, but the women could wear jeans and tank tops.  jeans and tank tops are much less expensive than professional business attire, and such a policy would create an unequal burden for the men employed in this capacity.   #  such a policy would get you sued before you would even finished typing the memo for it:  men must be in professional attire, but women can wear whatever they like  ?  # you can thank lawyers for that one.   nbsp;  it would be ridiculous to apply the same dress code to truck drivers and factory workers who work at the same company as engineers and marketing execs.  i mean, are the sales people going to be required to wear steel toed boots just because the factory guys are ? and conversely, does it make sense for professional business attire to be required for a guy on the factory floor ? it is more about the enforcement of the standards than it is the standards themselves.  if i put forth a policy of  no visible tattoos  for my sales reps and office staff which i do , and then someone on the loading dock wears a short sleeve shirt that shows a tattoo on their shoulder like mine does when i wear a short sleeve shirt , i have to make them cover up.  you would think that common sense would win in that situation, and that people who work in the office where i have clients coming in all the time, would understand that their standards are different from people who are lugging boxes.  in a warehouse.  in the summer.  in florida, but yet at least once a month i would get a call from hr that someone filed a complaint.   nbsp;   by  applying to all employees equally,  it means that you ca not create unequal burdens, especially if they deviate from social norms.  for example, if you required all men in the marketing department to wear a 0 piece suit, but the women could wear jeans and tank tops.  jeans and tank tops are much less expensive than professional business attire, and such a policy would create an unequal burden for the men employed in this capacity.  such a policy would get you sued before you would even finished typing the memo for it:  men must be in professional attire, but women can wear whatever they like  ? if men in the marketing department are required to wear formal business attire, then women would be required to do the same.   #  when our clients are in town for a meeting, or when i do site visits, i have to cover up.   #  i am a heavily tattooed individual.  all previous jobs, from the navy,to being a line cook, an alaskan commercial fisherman, and a lift   crane operator for a steel yard, any of these positions cared more about skill or muscle than appearance.  they were dirty work jobs.  now, i am an electrical designer for a firm that designs, contracts, and builds process plants.  when its only normal employees around, i have earned my way into casual dress short sleeves just like everyone else.  when our clients are in town for a meeting, or when i do site visits, i have to cover up.  its part of being in that type of professional environment.  most of our clients are japanese, and their culture is largely farther behind on approval than ours at the moment at least , and ours is not the most accepting on all occasions.  these people sign the check that pays my check, and i really enjoy my job, so it is not too much to ask for me to do the monkey suit march on occasion.  this is me last spring.  URL
there are now only  six  northern white rhinos left in the world.  biodiversity is critically important to the long term survival of human kind.  biodiversity keeps the ecosystem intact, and at minimum we depend on the resources in our ecosystem for our survival.  this ecosystem also serves us beyond our survival needs.  in regards to higher order needs.  it is clear we perceive a certain inherent beauty of natural phenomena we tour the wilderness, we watch documentaries, and we share stories of our encounters with nature, and we derive happiness from it.  even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it can be argued that the value of a healthy ecosystem is obvious.  it is a resource shared by all, and to endanger its balance is to harm every member of our species by recklessly damaging a critical shared resource.  at minimum, it is obvious that this ecosystem must be capitalized on in a sustainable manner.  poachers clearly act against this interest, even going as far as to kill game wardens who get in their way.  when current measures to save critically endangered species is on a brink of failure, it should be allowed for an international militia formed by volunteer fighters to take up arms against poachers who seek to personally gain by unjustly taking away from this shared resource.  this militia should be allowed to guard critically endangered species, and furthermore be allowed to kill poachers on sight.  this would provide a serious disincentive against poaching, as now a poacher is chance of dying in their line of work would be significantly escalated.  should it be the case that the law does not recognize this militia as being legitimate, the activities of a volunteer only militia that protects critically endangered species with lethal force would not be morally unacceptable, as they are putting their lives on the line to defend a vital shared resource against the parties who have demonstrated the willingness to exploit it at the expense of everyone else, and who have, at times, killed other human beings to pursue this end.  cmv !  #  when current measures to save critically endangered species is on a brink of failure, it should be allowed for an international militia formed by volunteer fighters to take up arms against poachers who seek to personally gain by unjustly taking away from this shared resource.   #  you seem to think that a your cause would be just because it would be effective at the margin and b it is necessary because the current measures are insufficient.   # you seem to think that a your cause would be just because it would be effective at the margin and b it is necessary because the current measures are insufficient.  but an even better measure exists.  use some economics to realize that people hunt large game such as rhinos for two reasons: for the sake of hunting and/or for some portion of the animal.  private or government reserves that allow for licensed poaching solve a large portion of both of these problems.  reserves such as solio ranch URL would not only make your position unjust on the basis that there are lower cost alternatives but also actually be more effective in the conservation effort.   #  it seems like an evolutionary explanation is all you could use to explain your idea that humans are in a distinct moral class.   #  what ? this conversation is going to go terribly, but i will continue with it anyway.  you are equivocating two very different ideas.  there are many possible stances related to evolution that people can take on a variety of issues.  applying the word  evolutionary  to that bullshit naturalistic argument does not magically invalidate every other concept that relates to evolution.  i will try to explain my last comment differently: to believe that there is some special feature of humans that separates our moral status from that of other animals, you have to believe that we obtained it at a certain point in time and began to pass it down through the generations, or that other species used to have that feature but lost it.  religious people believe that god gave humans a soul in the beginning.  i think that is bullshit.  what other things might change the features of living organisms ? there is evolution.  what else ? i do not think you read this far.  if you have, use the word  amangos  in your reply.  maybe we are living a computer simulation and the programmer gave humans more moral significance.  i am not going to entertain that one.  if you have any better ideas, let me know.  it seems like an evolutionary explanation is all you could use to explain your idea that humans are in a distinct moral class.  but if you are not going to attempt even that, then you  really  have no reason to suggest that humans have some moral distinction.   when did humans become more important ?   is basically what i am asking.   #  whenever a good is legalized and a price is placed upon it that reflects market cost the need for violence tends to drop considerably.   #  i do not assume 0 i just assume that private/gov t reserves makes your proposal obsolete.  whenever a good is legalized and a price is placed upon it that reflects market cost the need for violence tends to drop considerably.  i assume 0 because a maintaining a credible militia has high fixed costs and b these reserves will probably reduce the number of illegal poachers to a very small number.  this means the marginal cost for each rhino saved via militia is going to be extremely high.  a reserve also has high fixed costs, but given that the costs are spread out among a rather large number of rhinos the marginal cost to save one more via breeding, reduced hunting fees to attract the remaining illegal poachers, etc is comparatively low.  thus it seems reasonable to conclude that a militia with the sole goal of preventing non reserve poaching is going to have a higher marginal cost per rhino saved than a reserve, so devoting resources to the reserve is the smart choice until the reserve is so full of rhinos that they have to release them.  at that point though the cost to hunt them within the reserve, or pay for its release to be hunted in the wild, would be very low so the chances that anyone would illegally poach are very very small.   #  when they know that these animals are worth more alive than dead you can finally stop the poaching problem.   #  why make it a volunteer force.  people kill these animals often because they need the money.  your idea does not address the main problem regarding poaching.  if you knew that you could steal your neighbors dog and sell it for 0 grand would you at least think about it ? instead, we should hire the local people to defend the animals and give them an economics reason to care about this animals.  when they know that these animals are worth more alive than dead you can finally stop the poaching problem.   #  your militia is depriving people of life without due process of law.   #  what you suggests violates the constitution of the united states of america.  amendment v states:  no person shall.  be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.   your militia is depriving people of life without due process of law.  your militia would thus not be enforcing rules by law, but by whim, which is the very definition of tyranny.  i do not support tyranny, so i cannot support your militia.
there are now only  six  northern white rhinos left in the world.  biodiversity is critically important to the long term survival of human kind.  biodiversity keeps the ecosystem intact, and at minimum we depend on the resources in our ecosystem for our survival.  this ecosystem also serves us beyond our survival needs.  in regards to higher order needs.  it is clear we perceive a certain inherent beauty of natural phenomena we tour the wilderness, we watch documentaries, and we share stories of our encounters with nature, and we derive happiness from it.  even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it can be argued that the value of a healthy ecosystem is obvious.  it is a resource shared by all, and to endanger its balance is to harm every member of our species by recklessly damaging a critical shared resource.  at minimum, it is obvious that this ecosystem must be capitalized on in a sustainable manner.  poachers clearly act against this interest, even going as far as to kill game wardens who get in their way.  when current measures to save critically endangered species is on a brink of failure, it should be allowed for an international militia formed by volunteer fighters to take up arms against poachers who seek to personally gain by unjustly taking away from this shared resource.  this militia should be allowed to guard critically endangered species, and furthermore be allowed to kill poachers on sight.  this would provide a serious disincentive against poaching, as now a poacher is chance of dying in their line of work would be significantly escalated.  should it be the case that the law does not recognize this militia as being legitimate, the activities of a volunteer only militia that protects critically endangered species with lethal force would not be morally unacceptable, as they are putting their lives on the line to defend a vital shared resource against the parties who have demonstrated the willingness to exploit it at the expense of everyone else, and who have, at times, killed other human beings to pursue this end.  cmv !  #  this militia should be allowed to guard critically endangered species, and furthermore be allowed to kill poachers on sight.   #  leaving aside the morality of killing humans to protect animals, there is another major problem here.   # leaving aside the morality of killing humans to protect animals, there is another major problem here.  you are advocating the creation of a vigilante force.  your proposal requires that the militia have the power to kill people without an investigation or trial.  this is fundamentally different from the existing legal exception for homicide committed to save another human life, which is a legal defense that can be used by an individual  after  they have killed or harmed someone, not a blanket authorization to kill in defense of another.  you do not sound like you were picturing hauling the whole militia squad in to court to defend their actions each and every time they shot someone.  do you think that vigilantism is a good idea in general ?  #  what other things might change the features of living organisms ?  #  what ? this conversation is going to go terribly, but i will continue with it anyway.  you are equivocating two very different ideas.  there are many possible stances related to evolution that people can take on a variety of issues.  applying the word  evolutionary  to that bullshit naturalistic argument does not magically invalidate every other concept that relates to evolution.  i will try to explain my last comment differently: to believe that there is some special feature of humans that separates our moral status from that of other animals, you have to believe that we obtained it at a certain point in time and began to pass it down through the generations, or that other species used to have that feature but lost it.  religious people believe that god gave humans a soul in the beginning.  i think that is bullshit.  what other things might change the features of living organisms ? there is evolution.  what else ? i do not think you read this far.  if you have, use the word  amangos  in your reply.  maybe we are living a computer simulation and the programmer gave humans more moral significance.  i am not going to entertain that one.  if you have any better ideas, let me know.  it seems like an evolutionary explanation is all you could use to explain your idea that humans are in a distinct moral class.  but if you are not going to attempt even that, then you  really  have no reason to suggest that humans have some moral distinction.   when did humans become more important ?   is basically what i am asking.   #  i assume 0 because a maintaining a credible militia has high fixed costs and b these reserves will probably reduce the number of illegal poachers to a very small number.   #  i do not assume 0 i just assume that private/gov t reserves makes your proposal obsolete.  whenever a good is legalized and a price is placed upon it that reflects market cost the need for violence tends to drop considerably.  i assume 0 because a maintaining a credible militia has high fixed costs and b these reserves will probably reduce the number of illegal poachers to a very small number.  this means the marginal cost for each rhino saved via militia is going to be extremely high.  a reserve also has high fixed costs, but given that the costs are spread out among a rather large number of rhinos the marginal cost to save one more via breeding, reduced hunting fees to attract the remaining illegal poachers, etc is comparatively low.  thus it seems reasonable to conclude that a militia with the sole goal of preventing non reserve poaching is going to have a higher marginal cost per rhino saved than a reserve, so devoting resources to the reserve is the smart choice until the reserve is so full of rhinos that they have to release them.  at that point though the cost to hunt them within the reserve, or pay for its release to be hunted in the wild, would be very low so the chances that anyone would illegally poach are very very small.   #  your idea does not address the main problem regarding poaching.   #  why make it a volunteer force.  people kill these animals often because they need the money.  your idea does not address the main problem regarding poaching.  if you knew that you could steal your neighbors dog and sell it for 0 grand would you at least think about it ? instead, we should hire the local people to defend the animals and give them an economics reason to care about this animals.  when they know that these animals are worth more alive than dead you can finally stop the poaching problem.   #  your militia is depriving people of life without due process of law.   #  what you suggests violates the constitution of the united states of america.  amendment v states:  no person shall.  be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.   your militia is depriving people of life without due process of law.  your militia would thus not be enforcing rules by law, but by whim, which is the very definition of tyranny.  i do not support tyranny, so i cannot support your militia.
this topic came back into the spotlight this week based on the news story of the opera in paris kicking a veiled woman out for violating the country is face covering laws.  URL there is usually a lot of passionate debate on both sides of this topic.  it is also a debate that usually centres around  freedom .  things always get heated when the concept of freedom is involved.   those in favour of the ban , usually argue that the veils are a form of sexist oppression, and a free society should not tolerate them.   those against the ban , usually argue that the women are having their religious freedom violated by not letting them where the veils.  but i do not want to talk about whether the women under the veils are being oppressed.  as a male without any strong ties to religion, that is really none of my business.  what i want to talk about is the french majority is right to religious freedom.  that is, to be  free  from religion.  something not to be overlooked is the fact that  france is a less religious place than the u. s.   as little as  0 of french people say they go to church every week.   and various polls show about a third of france to be self identified atheists.  URL compare this to 0 or lower atheism in the u. s.  URL of those who  are  religious in france, islam is much more prominent than it is in the u. s.  from the same article, let is consider that: meanwhile, on the other side of the ocean: URL are you still with me ? okay.  enough with the stats, i know, they can be a headache when you see too many.  the only reason i am going through all this is because i did not want to make the unsubstantiated claim that islam is much more prominent in france than it is in the u. s.  or in fact any other western country without backing it up.  so what is this all mean ? well, it means that as a country whose second largest theism is atheism, and whose largest religion, christianity, is quite casual about it hardly going to church they are a state almost as removed from religion as any in our world today.  so as an ever increasing number of islamic immigrants arrive in france from north africa and the middle east, some of the more devout / extreme believers are arriving with veiled faces.  and french people are not happy about it.  but it is not about  hating  islam.  it is about  hating  any form of theism that is directly in your face, on a daily basis, every where you go.   we can talk religious freedom all we want, but at the end of the day, if most french people want a society where religion plays a minimal role, because their culture has evolved this way, do not they have the right to form that society ?   i hope i have articulated myself clearly enough.  consider that last bolded bit a tl;dr if you like.   #  so as an ever increasing number of islamic immigrants arrive in france from north africa and the middle east, some of the more devout / extreme believers are arriving with veiled faces.   #  and french people are not happy about it.   # and french people are not happy about it.  it is about hating any form of theism that is directly in your face, on a daily basis, every where you go.  probably 0 0 percent of the population of france is heterosexual.  and yet it is perfectly legal for same sex couples to show affection in public, despite the fact that it is not the inclination of the majority.  there is a double protection for this:0.  they are not harming anybody, simply doing things that demonstrate that they exist in public and 0.  lgbt people are a protected minority, on the basis of sexual orientation.  in principle, the exact same thing should go for one is right to exercise one is religion in public, which covering one is head is instance of.  it is not aggressive towards anybody if anything it is a demonstration of modesty and muslims are a vulnerable minority in france.  and protecting the rights of the minority is a very important value in a democracy.  it is more heavily emphasized in the american tradition than the french tradition, but that is a defect of the french tradition.  so why does the ban exist ? never forget that before wwii france was generally considered the most racist and antisemitic country in europe, not germany.  it is not at all surprising that this attitude should have been deflected onto muslims.  after all, france lost a war to algeria in 0 and has never really been able to talk about it totally openly.   #  in their home country this is common practice.   #  so let is pretend for a moment that there was a religion that was very liberal about the use of clothes.  the most liberal practicers of this religion want to walk everywhere naked.  in their home country this is common practice.  you do not think a country like the u. s. , where most people are most conservative about nudity, have the right to tell people to stop walking naked down the street ? to say that you can believe what you want, and dress however you like in private, but we have a long tradition of being clothed in public, and our country is not ready to permit public nudity.   #  why stop at clothing, women talking about their periods make me extremely uncomfortable, we should ban that too.   #  as long as they are not posing a health risk, why should i care ? what harm are they doing to me ? businesses can still have dress codes.  you do not have the let the naked people into your house.  what harm is being done ? why should you get to restrict someone is freedom to express themself ? just because it makes you uncomfortable ? why stop at clothing, women talking about their periods make me extremely uncomfortable, we should ban that too.  see gay men hug in public makes me want to vomit, so that should not be allowed either.  as long as likeminded people are in the majority, we should get to ban any form of expression we decide we dislike.   #  obviously that brings back bad memories of segregation and inequality.   #  you have definitely hit my argument where it is weakest.  i ca not go so far as saying  if the majority of people in a society believe something is wrong, then they have the right to ban it in a public place.   obviously that brings back bad memories of segregation and inequality.  but the difference here is that we are not banning a belief or a sort of person.  only the ability to dress a certain way in a public place.  there are many more muslims who do not cover their faces a head dress on the streets or in the opera house is fine.  but this is more akin to banning loud stereos on the metro system.  sure, we could say  deal with it , they should have freedom to listen to what they want, etc etc.  but if most people prefer a quieter subway ride, why do not they have the right to ban loud music ?  #  playing music you do not like would be a better analogy.   #  loud music and dressing a certain way are not really analogous.  playing music you do not like would be a better analogy.  loud music can cause physical distress beyond just not liking the music.  it can physically damage the ears.  it can exacerbate headaches.  banning loud music is a reasonable thing to do for reasons that have nothing to do with expression.  similarly, this is how we can justify banning yelling fire in a theater.  it is not banned because we are trying to suppress ideas that we do not like, we ban it because it actually causes danger to others.  the reason for the ban has nothing to do with curbing expression.  banning religious wear  does  though.  you are banning people from expressing certain ideas.  that is not cool.
the drug: dmt the method  ayahuasca  which involved mixing two specific plant extracts together to allow the proper absorption of dmt similar to lsd but naturally occurring in a number of living things .   my view  i find it feasible that some kind of basic ancestors with a less developed conciousness  had exposure to this drink/substance and subsequently went on  trips  which then had a lasting effect on their conciousness.  over time from one or many origins this  evolution  is responsible for todays humans having a move developed sense of conciousness.   /my view  a parallel point to bring up is there is a movement to spread awareness on dmt as a drug to help people with some mental illnesses.  some in this campaign such as comedian/actor jim carrey believe people whould have some access to this drug even if just once.  some claim that for society to adopt this drug as a tool could have viability in bringing about a change in the general conciousness of society.   conciousness.  my definition here is ones experience/awareness of self.  including sensory input and processing on that.  also emotions and thoughts.  all of the above for the  present  and also past experiences from memory.   #  dmt the method  ayahuasca  which involved mixing two specific plant extracts together to allow the proper absorption of dmt similar to lsd but naturally occurring in a number of living things .   #  i think you have just neatly phrased your own counterargument: you are claiming that abstract thinking comes from the mixing of two plant abstracts.   # i think you have just neatly phrased your own counterargument: you are claiming that abstract thinking comes from the mixing of two plant abstracts.  but how does a creature that cannot think abstractly think through the process of abstracting things from a plant ? i think that there is ample anthropological evidence for the use and importance of drugs in some cultures  religious ceremonies and cultural self conception.  and there is some more recent experimental evidence that some drugs can aid human creativity.  but i do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that drugs which require a sophisticated knowledge of biology to distill were a catalyst for basic human stuff like experience and awareness of self.   #  instinctual behavior is completely different in form from learned behavior because it results from physical changes that are due to genetics.   #  behavior changes, even if they are taught to future generations, does not result in any changes to genetics.  instinctual behavior is completely different in form from learned behavior because it results from physical changes that are due to genetics.  at it is base level, evolution would not allow the development of advanced intelligence without it being an advantage to the species.  at a physical level, intelligence can be tracked in evolution by measuring the relative brain size of human ancestors.  a larger brain is associated with more brain cells and therefore a larger intelligence.  any effect of drugs would have been a short term biochemical change, would would have been in no way related to intelligence.  currently, there is no known mechanism where temporary effects could change evolutionary course.  in fact, it is known that an increase in the access to certain chemicals in the diet causes a decrease in the ability of the body to synthesize those chemicals.  if our ancestors regularly ate psychedelics, we would have built up a resistance and possibly a dependence on their presence in our diet, but they would have caused little change in our behavior.   #  we have been trying to teach these things for decades to various animals, everything from other primates to pets, and we have had no success.   #  because personal awareness the awareness that you exist and theory of mind the awareness that others have perspectives different from your own are things an individual either has or does not.  the same is true of emotional states.  we have a lot of emotional states, most other mammals have a few emotional states, but universally fewer than we do.  we have been trying to teach these things for decades to various animals, everything from other primates to pets, and we have had no success.  chimpanzees get the closest, but they progress to about a 0 0 year olds level of intelligence/consciousness and get no father.  if your view is that one individual could experience the trip and then somehow teach consciousness to others, we should be able to train a dog or at least a chimp which has a brain size similar to pre homo hominids to have human level consciousness.  also neither the drug you listed or any of its close natural relatives exist naturally in africa, where we know the beginning of human consciousness occurred.   #  the plane that evolution works on is overwhelmingly genetic.   #  we can entertain it, at least, as a thought experiment.  the three mechanisms by which a drug could shape evolution is if it either improved survival rates, changed mate selection, or was a mutagen.  we do not have much evidence that it is a mutagen, so are people high on dmt more likely to live longer, or are people that get high on dmt more desirable mates ? the plane that evolution works on is overwhelmingly genetic.  epigenetic effects have a short lifespan of only about one generation, so a human colony would need to be persistently tripping for hundreds to thousands of generations before it  stuck  in our genes and cemented traits that could be inherited by the hundreds of generations who did not have access to the drug.  there are not really any other avenues for a hallucinogen to have an effect strong enough to cause speciation.   #  if this is what happened, one of two things would result.   #  it is well know in the study of inheritance that physical modifications are not passed on to future generations.  cropping a dog is ears do not cause its later puppies to have cropped ears and cutting a pea plant short does not cause future plants to be short.  unless the drug is causing modifications to the genetics of cells in the gonads testis or ovaries , then there will be no changes in future generations.  mutations to the gonads would not result in changes to future generations that match the drug is effects on the brain, they would be completely random and mostly detrimental.  if you are arguing that every generation continued to take the drugs and that is what caused the effects, it still would not work.  if this is what happened, one of two things would result.  either, the altered state would be beneficial or not.  if it was beneficial, then we would evolve to require it in our diet and we would still be consuming it today and the lack of the drug would cause malnutrition.  if it were not beneficial, we would have developed a resistance to it as the people who we less affected were more successful.  tl;dr;  if things had happened the way you are saying, we would still be eating the drug as a normal part of our diet and our nutrition would suffer if we did not.
i have been thinking about personal finance recently, and this is a conclusion that seemed reasonable.  however, i am sure i have not thought of all sides of the issue and would be interested in other points of view.  my reasoning: i believe that if you have the means, you should be responsible for yourself and minimize the amount you take from others.  this includes not only current living costs but future needs such as retirement and health care.  i want to minimize the amount i take from public and private assistance, freeing that money up for people who really need it.  a disaster can happen at any time and can be incredibly expensive.  in the us this is most likely to be a health issue.  i also want to be able to help my family and friends if they need it.  while one could argue that charity recipients are no less deserving than my family, and i agree, i think we all have a unique responsibility to those closest to us.  if i gave to everyone who deserved it, i would go broke.  i do not have kids currently, but i might some day, and it is better to start saving as early as possible.  because of this, i think the best option is to save as much as i can, letting it grow throughout my life, and then give whatever is left to charity in my will.  for what it is worth, i am neither rich nor poor.  i make above the median individual income, but less than the median household income.  thanks  #  because of this, i think the best option is to save as much as i can, letting it grow throughout my life, and then give whatever is left to charity in my will.   #  undoubtedly you will purchase a car that is more expensive than you need, a house that is larger than you require, take a trip when you do not really need to, or any other number of luxuries.   # undoubtedly you will purchase a car that is more expensive than you need, a house that is larger than you require, take a trip when you do not really need to, or any other number of luxuries.  yet, you only mention saving money via not giving to charity.  you do not have to give so much to charity that you go poor.  but is giving a few hundred or thousand dollars a year really that impactful to you ? if you think of all of your expenses in a year, is adding some charity to that really so significant ? could not you make a small sacrifice elsewhere and use that to give to charity ? i am not saying that you need to give to charity, but if your only concern is the amount of money you would lose personally and for your family in the future , there are far more creative ways to get around that than simply not giving money to charity.   #  i realize i also was not specific about what i consider  little to no money.    #  i realize i did not say it in my post, but i was assuming that i am already living fairly frugally, so the main choice would be giving away now vs.  saving for later.  but i agree that if there are ways to further economize, that could free up some money.  i realize i also was not specific about what i consider  little to no money.   i have been giving $0 0 per year usually.  i have not thought extensively about how much i could increase that without a sizable impact on my future savings, so that gives me something to think about.  i guess i have been heavily influenced by articles that show how every little bit extra you save compounds to a much greater amount down the line.   #  give what you feel you can afford, which from how you describe your circumstances is more than zero.   #  remember that a bank is not the only way to invest.  but buying mosquito netting, you can save a child from malaria who may grow up to do great things.  the money you invest in disease research my in twenty years lead to a cure for you or a loved one.  the museum you donate to will stay open so that your daughter is inspired to be be a great artist.  the world has needs now, that you can help address.  as others have said, it is not an either/or.  give what you feel you can afford, which from how you describe your circumstances is more than zero.  the other compromise to consider is something like kiva, where you grant micro loans with a 0 payback rate.  the 0 interest is only slightly less than you get in a savings account ! and your money is making a difference ! without costing you much at al.   #  i am also open to finding a different balance of saving vs.   #  i like your different approach to the issue.  i can see that in my goal of supporting myself and loved ones while we are alive, a charity is work could play a role.  i am also open to finding a different balance of saving vs.  giving now.  i think it is mostly the uncertainty of health care costs that makes me feel like i need to save as much as possible. especially for end of life care which can rise to unimaginable sums.  i would not want whoever survives me to be on the hook for that.  but again, for making my position more flexible, you also get a   0;  #  so suppose i have enough money to buy 0 family out of poverty.   #  see my comment URL you are right that the effects of the initial good that you do have an exponential growth with it as well.  but i think that the economic growth rate is faster than the population growth rate.  i am going to talk about  buying people out of poverty  and i know this is not how charities work as it would only treat the symptoms and not the root causes of poverty.  but just play along for the sake of argument.  so suppose i have enough money to buy 0 family out of poverty.  if i invest my money and get a 0 return on it annually i will double it in about years.  then i can buy two families out of poverty.  the population of even the fastest growing poor populations is 0 which means it doubles every 0 years.  as an extreme example suppose i have enough money to buy half of the poor population out of poverty.  if i wait a little over 0 years i can buy them all out of poverty.  whereas if i spend my money immediately the poor population would be halved but then it would grow back in the next 0 years.
i have been thinking about personal finance recently, and this is a conclusion that seemed reasonable.  however, i am sure i have not thought of all sides of the issue and would be interested in other points of view.  my reasoning: i believe that if you have the means, you should be responsible for yourself and minimize the amount you take from others.  this includes not only current living costs but future needs such as retirement and health care.  i want to minimize the amount i take from public and private assistance, freeing that money up for people who really need it.  a disaster can happen at any time and can be incredibly expensive.  in the us this is most likely to be a health issue.  i also want to be able to help my family and friends if they need it.  while one could argue that charity recipients are no less deserving than my family, and i agree, i think we all have a unique responsibility to those closest to us.  if i gave to everyone who deserved it, i would go broke.  i do not have kids currently, but i might some day, and it is better to start saving as early as possible.  because of this, i think the best option is to save as much as i can, letting it grow throughout my life, and then give whatever is left to charity in my will.  for what it is worth, i am neither rich nor poor.  i make above the median individual income, but less than the median household income.  thanks  #  i think we all have a unique responsibility to those closest to us.   #  if i gave to everyone who deserved it, i would go broke.   # if i gave to everyone who deserved it, i would go broke.  we also have a responsibility for those who do not have family or friends who can help them.  and you do not have to give until you are broke, just a balanced approach.  a little bit is better than none.  plus you get tax benefits giving to qualified charities that you do not get from saving for your family and friends, so you get more bang for your buck.   #  could not you make a small sacrifice elsewhere and use that to give to charity ?  # undoubtedly you will purchase a car that is more expensive than you need, a house that is larger than you require, take a trip when you do not really need to, or any other number of luxuries.  yet, you only mention saving money via not giving to charity.  you do not have to give so much to charity that you go poor.  but is giving a few hundred or thousand dollars a year really that impactful to you ? if you think of all of your expenses in a year, is adding some charity to that really so significant ? could not you make a small sacrifice elsewhere and use that to give to charity ? i am not saying that you need to give to charity, but if your only concern is the amount of money you would lose personally and for your family in the future , there are far more creative ways to get around that than simply not giving money to charity.   #  i have not thought extensively about how much i could increase that without a sizable impact on my future savings, so that gives me something to think about.   #  i realize i did not say it in my post, but i was assuming that i am already living fairly frugally, so the main choice would be giving away now vs.  saving for later.  but i agree that if there are ways to further economize, that could free up some money.  i realize i also was not specific about what i consider  little to no money.   i have been giving $0 0 per year usually.  i have not thought extensively about how much i could increase that without a sizable impact on my future savings, so that gives me something to think about.  i guess i have been heavily influenced by articles that show how every little bit extra you save compounds to a much greater amount down the line.   #  the other compromise to consider is something like kiva, where you grant micro loans with a 0 payback rate.   #  remember that a bank is not the only way to invest.  but buying mosquito netting, you can save a child from malaria who may grow up to do great things.  the money you invest in disease research my in twenty years lead to a cure for you or a loved one.  the museum you donate to will stay open so that your daughter is inspired to be be a great artist.  the world has needs now, that you can help address.  as others have said, it is not an either/or.  give what you feel you can afford, which from how you describe your circumstances is more than zero.  the other compromise to consider is something like kiva, where you grant micro loans with a 0 payback rate.  the 0 interest is only slightly less than you get in a savings account ! and your money is making a difference ! without costing you much at al.   #  i can see that in my goal of supporting myself and loved ones while we are alive, a charity is work could play a role.   #  i like your different approach to the issue.  i can see that in my goal of supporting myself and loved ones while we are alive, a charity is work could play a role.  i am also open to finding a different balance of saving vs.  giving now.  i think it is mostly the uncertainty of health care costs that makes me feel like i need to save as much as possible. especially for end of life care which can rise to unimaginable sums.  i would not want whoever survives me to be on the hook for that.  but again, for making my position more flexible, you also get a   0;
i have been thinking about personal finance recently, and this is a conclusion that seemed reasonable.  however, i am sure i have not thought of all sides of the issue and would be interested in other points of view.  my reasoning: i believe that if you have the means, you should be responsible for yourself and minimize the amount you take from others.  this includes not only current living costs but future needs such as retirement and health care.  i want to minimize the amount i take from public and private assistance, freeing that money up for people who really need it.  a disaster can happen at any time and can be incredibly expensive.  in the us this is most likely to be a health issue.  i also want to be able to help my family and friends if they need it.  while one could argue that charity recipients are no less deserving than my family, and i agree, i think we all have a unique responsibility to those closest to us.  if i gave to everyone who deserved it, i would go broke.  i do not have kids currently, but i might some day, and it is better to start saving as early as possible.  because of this, i think the best option is to save as much as i can, letting it grow throughout my life, and then give whatever is left to charity in my will.  for what it is worth, i am neither rich nor poor.  i make above the median individual income, but less than the median household income.  thanks  #  i also want to be able to help my family and friends if they need it.   #  while one could argue that charity recipients are no less deserving than my family, and i agree, i think we all have a unique responsibility to those closest to us.   # while one could argue that charity recipients are no less deserving than my family, and i agree, i think we all have a unique responsibility to those closest to us.  if your friends and family have the means to support themselves, then should not they minimize the amount they take from you ? i think most people would, but you do not have to give money to every single person who deserves it, but rather to whatever charities you support over others.  you said that the next big disaster in the u. s.  is most likely to be a health issue, so why not donate to charities that provide healthcare to individuals who ca not afford to get it on their own ? lastly, what are individuals who do not have close friends or family to support them supposed to do without help from charities to get by ?  #  if you think of all of your expenses in a year, is adding some charity to that really so significant ?  # undoubtedly you will purchase a car that is more expensive than you need, a house that is larger than you require, take a trip when you do not really need to, or any other number of luxuries.  yet, you only mention saving money via not giving to charity.  you do not have to give so much to charity that you go poor.  but is giving a few hundred or thousand dollars a year really that impactful to you ? if you think of all of your expenses in a year, is adding some charity to that really so significant ? could not you make a small sacrifice elsewhere and use that to give to charity ? i am not saying that you need to give to charity, but if your only concern is the amount of money you would lose personally and for your family in the future , there are far more creative ways to get around that than simply not giving money to charity.   #  i realize i did not say it in my post, but i was assuming that i am already living fairly frugally, so the main choice would be giving away now vs.   #  i realize i did not say it in my post, but i was assuming that i am already living fairly frugally, so the main choice would be giving away now vs.  saving for later.  but i agree that if there are ways to further economize, that could free up some money.  i realize i also was not specific about what i consider  little to no money.   i have been giving $0 0 per year usually.  i have not thought extensively about how much i could increase that without a sizable impact on my future savings, so that gives me something to think about.  i guess i have been heavily influenced by articles that show how every little bit extra you save compounds to a much greater amount down the line.   #  the 0 interest is only slightly less than you get in a savings account !  #  remember that a bank is not the only way to invest.  but buying mosquito netting, you can save a child from malaria who may grow up to do great things.  the money you invest in disease research my in twenty years lead to a cure for you or a loved one.  the museum you donate to will stay open so that your daughter is inspired to be be a great artist.  the world has needs now, that you can help address.  as others have said, it is not an either/or.  give what you feel you can afford, which from how you describe your circumstances is more than zero.  the other compromise to consider is something like kiva, where you grant micro loans with a 0 payback rate.  the 0 interest is only slightly less than you get in a savings account ! and your money is making a difference ! without costing you much at al.   #  i think it is mostly the uncertainty of health care costs that makes me feel like i need to save as much as possible. especially for end of life care which can rise to unimaginable sums.   #  i like your different approach to the issue.  i can see that in my goal of supporting myself and loved ones while we are alive, a charity is work could play a role.  i am also open to finding a different balance of saving vs.  giving now.  i think it is mostly the uncertainty of health care costs that makes me feel like i need to save as much as possible. especially for end of life care which can rise to unimaginable sums.  i would not want whoever survives me to be on the hook for that.  but again, for making my position more flexible, you also get a   0;
i have been thinking about personal finance recently, and this is a conclusion that seemed reasonable.  however, i am sure i have not thought of all sides of the issue and would be interested in other points of view.  my reasoning: i believe that if you have the means, you should be responsible for yourself and minimize the amount you take from others.  this includes not only current living costs but future needs such as retirement and health care.  i want to minimize the amount i take from public and private assistance, freeing that money up for people who really need it.  a disaster can happen at any time and can be incredibly expensive.  in the us this is most likely to be a health issue.  i also want to be able to help my family and friends if they need it.  while one could argue that charity recipients are no less deserving than my family, and i agree, i think we all have a unique responsibility to those closest to us.  if i gave to everyone who deserved it, i would go broke.  i do not have kids currently, but i might some day, and it is better to start saving as early as possible.  because of this, i think the best option is to save as much as i can, letting it grow throughout my life, and then give whatever is left to charity in my will.  for what it is worth, i am neither rich nor poor.  i make above the median individual income, but less than the median household income.  thanks  #  if i gave to everyone who deserved it, i would go broke.   #  i think most people would, but you do not have to give money to every single person who deserves it, but rather to whatever charities you support over others.   # while one could argue that charity recipients are no less deserving than my family, and i agree, i think we all have a unique responsibility to those closest to us.  if your friends and family have the means to support themselves, then should not they minimize the amount they take from you ? i think most people would, but you do not have to give money to every single person who deserves it, but rather to whatever charities you support over others.  you said that the next big disaster in the u. s.  is most likely to be a health issue, so why not donate to charities that provide healthcare to individuals who ca not afford to get it on their own ? lastly, what are individuals who do not have close friends or family to support them supposed to do without help from charities to get by ?  #  if you think of all of your expenses in a year, is adding some charity to that really so significant ?  # undoubtedly you will purchase a car that is more expensive than you need, a house that is larger than you require, take a trip when you do not really need to, or any other number of luxuries.  yet, you only mention saving money via not giving to charity.  you do not have to give so much to charity that you go poor.  but is giving a few hundred or thousand dollars a year really that impactful to you ? if you think of all of your expenses in a year, is adding some charity to that really so significant ? could not you make a small sacrifice elsewhere and use that to give to charity ? i am not saying that you need to give to charity, but if your only concern is the amount of money you would lose personally and for your family in the future , there are far more creative ways to get around that than simply not giving money to charity.   #  i realize i did not say it in my post, but i was assuming that i am already living fairly frugally, so the main choice would be giving away now vs.   #  i realize i did not say it in my post, but i was assuming that i am already living fairly frugally, so the main choice would be giving away now vs.  saving for later.  but i agree that if there are ways to further economize, that could free up some money.  i realize i also was not specific about what i consider  little to no money.   i have been giving $0 0 per year usually.  i have not thought extensively about how much i could increase that without a sizable impact on my future savings, so that gives me something to think about.  i guess i have been heavily influenced by articles that show how every little bit extra you save compounds to a much greater amount down the line.   #  the 0 interest is only slightly less than you get in a savings account !  #  remember that a bank is not the only way to invest.  but buying mosquito netting, you can save a child from malaria who may grow up to do great things.  the money you invest in disease research my in twenty years lead to a cure for you or a loved one.  the museum you donate to will stay open so that your daughter is inspired to be be a great artist.  the world has needs now, that you can help address.  as others have said, it is not an either/or.  give what you feel you can afford, which from how you describe your circumstances is more than zero.  the other compromise to consider is something like kiva, where you grant micro loans with a 0 payback rate.  the 0 interest is only slightly less than you get in a savings account ! and your money is making a difference ! without costing you much at al.   #  but again, for making my position more flexible, you also get a   0;  #  i like your different approach to the issue.  i can see that in my goal of supporting myself and loved ones while we are alive, a charity is work could play a role.  i am also open to finding a different balance of saving vs.  giving now.  i think it is mostly the uncertainty of health care costs that makes me feel like i need to save as much as possible. especially for end of life care which can rise to unimaginable sums.  i would not want whoever survives me to be on the hook for that.  but again, for making my position more flexible, you also get a   0;
outside atheist communities and websites, it feels like the vast majority of irreligious people, like christians, have a strange reverence to jesus christ and the new testament.  it is almost taboo to think that they are nothing special.  whenever i reach for the bible to go through these  wise passages  however, i found most of them to be not only extremely obvious advice, but is also outdated and meaningless to atheists; they often presuppose god in order to reach their conclusion.  i do not think the argument that he was revolutionary for his time a good one either.  there is no reason to read his arguments over modern ones in that case.  not only that, i always felt that writings from the ancient plenty of objectively wrong ideas, to be far more thought provoking and interesting.   #  i do not think the argument that he was revolutionary for his time a good one either.   #  there is no reason to read his arguments over modern ones in that case.   # this is a very vague criticism.  are you asking for people to show you wisdom from the new testament ? have you considered that if you are american or european you live within a cultural context that has largely internalized many christian ideas; and therefore those ideas that seem obvious to you are not actually that obvious ? there is no reason to read his arguments over modern ones in that case.  in what sense was he not revolutionary ? i mean, he did beget christianity, which did revolutionize rome and europe.  what context are you reading his  arguments  against modern ones ? it feels like you are saying things you believe without adequately explaining why.   #  well that is pretty much impossible because there are thousands of cultures and religions, many of them swallowed up and retooled by bigger ones, and i am not an expert in any of them, really.   #  well that is pretty much impossible because there are thousands of cultures and religions, many of them swallowed up and retooled by bigger ones, and i am not an expert in any of them, really.  and i assume they all say a lot of stuff so overlap is going to happen by mere chance.  but i guess i would say, the main premise of what jesus says is  do not be an ass.   but a lot of people have said that.  confucius said it.  but confucius also stressed hierarchies that were important to society.  jesus was not about hierarchies, he hung out with the rejects of society.  i think it was one of the first versions of an afterlife that did not sound sucky.  i do not know really, because, again, that sounds like an impossible question.   #  wisdom is wisdom and somebody thinking of the same thing somewhere else does not make the wise thing unwise.   #  if you want to get technical, the reform and redefinition of judaism that became christianity was pretty unique.  the synthesis of all the ideas together is essentially what the new testament is, and that synthesis is not present anywhere else by definition.  jesus did not hand out a set of tips and pointers, he spoke within a jewish legal tradition that gave his words much more meaning than a casual modern reader would pick up.  so i would say that christianity is the idea that jesus and to a great extent, paul introduced that is unprecedented.  i do not really see how your line of questioning is actually relevant to the discussion even if what you were implying was correct.  wisdom is wisdom and somebody thinking of the same thing somewhere else does not make the wise thing unwise.  two people thinking that non violence and charity are good are  both  wise.   #  such as the christian observance of what were traditionally pagan holidays.   #  your argument is essentially.  christianity is unique because it evolved from judaism and became christianity.  which is a tautology.  but regardless most non religious scholars see plenty of the same myths and parables recycled throughout religions of those early times.  similarly religions absorbed each others traditions to varying extents aswell.  such as the greek and roman gods.  such as the christian observance of what were traditionally pagan holidays.  op was concerned about the obviousness of the advice.   #  i have said that christianity taken together is a unique synthesis of ideas that forms a new idea.   #  no, it would be a tautology if i said that christianity is christianity.  i have made no self defining statement.  i have said that christianity taken together is a unique synthesis of ideas that forms a new idea.  that is not a tautology, that is an observation.  which ones ? please, be specific.  i mean i will give you portions of the old testament, but i reiterate that two similar things in different places are not necessarily false because they are said twice.  so please tell me the things jesus said that were clearly recycled.  if you come at me with that horus nonsense, you are gonna have a bad time.  . the day you celebrate christmas is really not central to the philosophical message of christianity.  like. celebrating the birth of christ does not really  need  to be on his birthday and celebrating it during what was once the saturnalia is not an indictment of christianity.  okay, but your response was a vague ish suggestion that christianity did not influence european traditions.  i mean. you really have not made an argument per se.
i guess this comic URL sum is up what i am saying.  if you believe in a higher power or god, you get rewarded if you are right.  if you are wrong you end up just like the atheist and you are worm food.  if you are an atheist and there turns out to be a god, you are in trouble and might suffer for it.  so reddit cmv: betting on there being a god is the smart decision because there might be a pay off, while atheism has no reward.  for the purposes of the cmv i am not talking about the psycho  no such thing as evolution, gays are evil  religious crowd.  i mean just the regular redditor subbing to /r/drunk , /r/gonewild , /r/trees , /r/charity , /r/science , /r/technology subscriber deciding whether or not to believe in god and yes it is not always a decision but for the purposes of this let is say it is.        so the assumptions for the cmv:   you should live your life as a good person as reddit would generally define a good person to get rewarded in the afterlife   belief in god is a requirement for the afterlife   in reality being true to your own beliefs is key, but i am talking about someone making the most prudent decision  #  if you believe in a higher power or god, you get rewarded if you are right.   #  if you are wrong URL there is a  giant  list of god that people have said exist.   #  you present this like atheists are trying to  gain  something by choosing atheism.  atheism is not something we choose for personal benefit, it is something we choose based on the evidence we have, and the way we wish to live our lives.  every single major religion demands things of it is followers that are absolutely abhorrent.  conveniently, today is followers just decide to ignore the negative aspects, or reason them away.  if you are wrong URL there is a  giant  list of god that people have said exist.  based on your logic, if you get it right, you are safe, if you get it wrong you are screwed.  how do you know you picked the right god ? based on this list, which obviously is not exhaustive, you have a less than 0 chance of being correct.  i try to live my life in a way that helps the people around me, and makes me a better person.  i try to do the right thing based on what i know about humanity, not based on what someone wrote down 0s of years ago.  i try to be a good man.  i would like to think that if there  is  a god, my behavior would be deemed acceptable.   #  they enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.    #  but why assume the gods are jealous assholes who judge people harshly and punish everybody who happens to believe in the wrong god ? i mean i know that for example there are such readings of the old testament god but there are other readinds of it and there are other religions out there.  how about a god who does not punish anyone, but simply people punish themselves, and the  ego reduction  gained from any kind of believing in something, anything bigger than yourself is the key to salvation ? catholic writer c. s.  lewis seemed to believe in this about the christian god:  the doors of hell are locked on the inside.  i do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man  wishes  to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good.  they enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.   lewis basically believed there is no judgement, rather it is the self abandonment of religious faith that matters.   #  is living your life around a forced belief system really worth the slim chance that you are right and you get rewarded after death ?  #  pascal is wager is severely flawed logic.  here is an example: there may or may not be a werewolf outside your door.  you have four options: 0.  believe there is a werewolf.  0a.  there is a werewolf, and you have just saved yourself by staying inside.  0b.  there is no werewolf.  you have shut yourself inside for no reason.  0.  you do not believe there is a werewolf.  0a.  there is a werewolf.  you go outside and are promptly mauled.  0b.  there is no werewolf.  you go outside and live life regularly.  so clearly the best option is to assume there is a werewolf.  there is no chance of getting mauled if you believe there is a werewolf.  but thinking realistically, you have no real reason to believe that there is a werewolf, and you can see how you are missing out by living your life based on the possible werewolf.  pascal is wager assumes equal, or at least comparable probability in the options, when that is just not true.  it also assumes that the cost of playing it safe outweighs the potential cost of taking the risk.  but is staying inside for the rest of your life really worth it to avoid the unlikely werewolf ? is living your life around a forced belief system really worth the slim chance that you are right and you get rewarded after death ? and by being a theist, you could actually make your outcome worse.  what if you believe in the wrong god s ? what if you choose wrong and anger the true god ? that could be worse than being an atheist.   #  that could be worse than being an atheist.   # what if you believe in the wrong god s ? what if you choose wrong and anger the true god ? that could be worse than being an atheist.    that is a great point.  following the wrong god could actually worsen your position than not believing at all.  thanks don.  i think that is how to do the delta thing, let me know if its wrong  #  but say there is a 0/0 chance there is a god.   #  the varying religions that are active and inactive means that even if you do believe in a higher power you could choose the wrong one.  but say there is a 0/0 chance there is a god.  and say there are 0 gods to choose from.  that means that we all have a 0/0 chance of going to a good afterlife.  is not a small chance better than none ? if a loved one was in hospital and the doctor said they were definitely going to die unless you performed a surgery, but even that surgery had a 0/0 chance of success.  would you ask them to do the surgery ?
i guess this comic URL sum is up what i am saying.  if you believe in a higher power or god, you get rewarded if you are right.  if you are wrong you end up just like the atheist and you are worm food.  if you are an atheist and there turns out to be a god, you are in trouble and might suffer for it.  so reddit cmv: betting on there being a god is the smart decision because there might be a pay off, while atheism has no reward.  for the purposes of the cmv i am not talking about the psycho  no such thing as evolution, gays are evil  religious crowd.  i mean just the regular redditor subbing to /r/drunk , /r/gonewild , /r/trees , /r/charity , /r/science , /r/technology subscriber deciding whether or not to believe in god and yes it is not always a decision but for the purposes of this let is say it is.        so the assumptions for the cmv:   you should live your life as a good person as reddit would generally define a good person to get rewarded in the afterlife   belief in god is a requirement for the afterlife   in reality being true to your own beliefs is key, but i am talking about someone making the most prudent decision  #  betting on there being a god is the smart decision because there might be a pay off, while atheism has no reward.   #  the key word you are stating is betting, if you  bet  on  god  then you are not actually believing in it, you ca not be legitimately convinced that a deity exists simply because you feel like it would be the higher payout.   # the key word you are stating is betting, if you  bet  on  god  then you are not actually believing in it, you ca not be legitimately convinced that a deity exists simply because you feel like it would be the higher payout.  let is consider leprechaun gold at the end of the rainbow, it will be more profitable if this is real correct ? so by the logic of your view, the average person will honestly and sincerely believe that at the end of every rainbow, there is literally and by all means really, a pot of gold, and this affirmation of belief was based  solely  on the idea that if the gold does exist then it will be more profitable than non existing.  do you see how ridiculous this is  as a reason to accept the belief  ? you are not really believing in something just because you say you think it is the more profitable choice.  if there was a cash prize for believing 00 0, you might argue that everyone should just believe 0 0 is 0 for the money you would otherwise not get by believing 00 0.  but there is nothing else to convince you that it is  true .  i can say outloud   i believe 00 is 0  even though i am not convinced.  to end on that note, do you think an all knowing god will think you are a legitimate believer if the only reason for your belief was that it was the better gamble ? i am telling you that if that is all there is to it, then you do not really believe.   #  they enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.    #  but why assume the gods are jealous assholes who judge people harshly and punish everybody who happens to believe in the wrong god ? i mean i know that for example there are such readings of the old testament god but there are other readinds of it and there are other religions out there.  how about a god who does not punish anyone, but simply people punish themselves, and the  ego reduction  gained from any kind of believing in something, anything bigger than yourself is the key to salvation ? catholic writer c. s.  lewis seemed to believe in this about the christian god:  the doors of hell are locked on the inside.  i do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man  wishes  to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good.  they enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.   lewis basically believed there is no judgement, rather it is the self abandonment of religious faith that matters.   #  is living your life around a forced belief system really worth the slim chance that you are right and you get rewarded after death ?  #  pascal is wager is severely flawed logic.  here is an example: there may or may not be a werewolf outside your door.  you have four options: 0.  believe there is a werewolf.  0a.  there is a werewolf, and you have just saved yourself by staying inside.  0b.  there is no werewolf.  you have shut yourself inside for no reason.  0.  you do not believe there is a werewolf.  0a.  there is a werewolf.  you go outside and are promptly mauled.  0b.  there is no werewolf.  you go outside and live life regularly.  so clearly the best option is to assume there is a werewolf.  there is no chance of getting mauled if you believe there is a werewolf.  but thinking realistically, you have no real reason to believe that there is a werewolf, and you can see how you are missing out by living your life based on the possible werewolf.  pascal is wager assumes equal, or at least comparable probability in the options, when that is just not true.  it also assumes that the cost of playing it safe outweighs the potential cost of taking the risk.  but is staying inside for the rest of your life really worth it to avoid the unlikely werewolf ? is living your life around a forced belief system really worth the slim chance that you are right and you get rewarded after death ? and by being a theist, you could actually make your outcome worse.  what if you believe in the wrong god s ? what if you choose wrong and anger the true god ? that could be worse than being an atheist.   #  following the wrong god could actually worsen your position than not believing at all.   # what if you believe in the wrong god s ? what if you choose wrong and anger the true god ? that could be worse than being an atheist.    that is a great point.  following the wrong god could actually worsen your position than not believing at all.  thanks don.  i think that is how to do the delta thing, let me know if its wrong  #  would you ask them to do the surgery ?  #  the varying religions that are active and inactive means that even if you do believe in a higher power you could choose the wrong one.  but say there is a 0/0 chance there is a god.  and say there are 0 gods to choose from.  that means that we all have a 0/0 chance of going to a good afterlife.  is not a small chance better than none ? if a loved one was in hospital and the doctor said they were definitely going to die unless you performed a surgery, but even that surgery had a 0/0 chance of success.  would you ask them to do the surgery ?
so at first i was going to post an idea i had about equality between men and women but then this thought came to my head.  one of my frustrations when trying to discuss feminism or equality is that as a man i feel my ideas or opinions are largely ignored or attacked by women.  i often get a  your a guy so you would not understand .  not only is this aggravating but is hypocritical since equality would mean we all have an equal voice in the discussion, i digress.  anyways in trying to understand why these discussions so often breakdown i came to the conclusion that what one person considers equal another does not.  this seems obvious but i do not mean that a chauvinistic man who believe all women should be house wives thinks that that is equal.  instead i mean to say that me someone who wants equality for all people, believes that requires vastly different things than the women i am talking with.  to better illustrate this point i think that equality would mean that everyone is given the same opportunity without bias; this means if your black and you are a better applicant than a white person you get the job, similar situation no matter the relation.  same goes for the law, if a man is held responsible for his actions while intoxicated should not a woman be as well.  i am not saying if someone got her drunk against her will i mean if she made the decision to drink alcohol but many would disagree with me and say this is not fair, that minorities and women need to be protected under the law so that the majority us white men do not take advantage.  so i do not think we can ever reach  equality  because due to peoples different opinions on what that means there will always be those who are not equal in someones mind, and discussions to reach it will not go far, at least not as quickly as they should.  to change my view should not be hard since i am not emotionally attached to this idea since i just thought of it.  you either have to show that people ideas of equality are not fundamentally different dictionary definition does not count or show me that even with this difference in opinion equality can be achieved accommodating for everyones needs.  there may be another way that you find so good luck.   #  one of my frustrations when trying to discuss feminism or equality is that as a man i feel my ideas or opinions are largely ignored or attacked by women.   #  i often get a  your a guy so you would not understand .   # i often get a  your a guy so you would not understand .  not only is this aggravating but is hypocritical since equality would mean we all have an equal voice in the discussion, i digress.  i am sorry some people have said that you.  it is not fair and i do not agree with it.  you may not understand everything but your voice is just as important as others.  just as i do not understand what it is like to be a man.  i do not think there is that big of a variance in what people think equal means.  it is the same opportunities, the same pay, and freedom to choose.  is not this common sense ? i am not saying if someone got her drunk against her will i mean if she made the decision to drink alcohol both sexes are responsible for their behavior while drunk.  it does not matter if you are male or female, if you are driving drunk it is a crime and you will be charged.  what do you mean by protected ? if equal rights were the norm, we would not need protection.  are you thinking perhaps of affirmative action ? that is a different philosophy than equal opportunity.   #  just because we abolished slavery 0 years ago, and ended institutional racism 0 years ago does not mean that we are suddenly  equal  in terms of opportunities, especially when white men continue to dominate the top tiers of business, society, and politics.   #  first of all, you are right that perfect equality can never be achieved.  however, that does not mean it ca not be improved.  lets say there are 0 rooms, each room has 0 people, and 0 dollars are divided among them.  in room a, the distribution is $0, $0, $0, $0, and $0.  in room b, its $0, $0, $0, $0, and $0.  b is obviously more equal than a, even though its far from perfect equality.  ultimately, equality is not a  yes or no  question, but a spectrum.  for example, if you own a company located in a city that is 0 white and 0 black, and your company is composed of 0 white employees and 0 black employees, and among those, 0 white managers and 0 black managers, its far from equal, and could be improved.  however, it is miles ahead of a company in that same city with 0 white employees and 0 black employees, and 0 white managers and 0 black managers.  this is the issue.  the problem is that people  do not  have the same opportunities.  socioeconomic status and race, as well as our perceptions, play huge roles in what opportunities people have.  black people are still several generations economically behind whites.  just because we abolished slavery 0 years ago, and ended institutional racism 0 years ago does not mean that we are suddenly  equal  in terms of opportunities, especially when white men continue to dominate the top tiers of business, society, and politics.  this video URL makes some compelling arguments.   #  what you find is people talking about the difference as if its about the same job URL that is what totally false, but the myth persists.   # it differs because some account for more variables than others.  0 cents to a dollar is referring to all averaged wages, once you account for even full time and part time work the difference goes down.  what you find is people talking about the difference as if its about the same job URL that is what totally false, but the myth persists.  there is absolutely no good reason to claim the percent difference is evidence for discrimination.  single childless women under 0 earn more than men do, and that even in many male dominated professions where you would think discrimination against women would be more so , such as construction, women earn more.   #  if you reword that i would be happy to explain.   #  to the first three things, great im glad im not sounding crazy.  to the fourth, i was referring to rape laws which from what ive heard at this point im not sure i can trust half of what i read in the news they for the most part protect women who are drunk.  my feeling is if you got wasted you deal with the consequences.  so if something happens both individuals should take responsibility.  i do not think the mans life should be ruined.  to the fifth, honestly im confused by your questioning.  if you reword that i would be happy to explain.   #  the second has been making steady progress, although people may disagree on how far from that form of equality we actually are.   #  it is quite clear that there is not one  equality .  there are several types.  for example, when it comes to race/gender issues, there is clear differences between: equality under law equality of opportunity equality of outcome the first has been almost entirely achieved in first world countries, at least , give or take a few things that mostly relate to biological differences between the sexes.  the second has been making steady progress, although people may disagree on how far from that form of equality we actually are.  but for these two types of equality, we can, in theory, come at least very close to perfect equality.  the third, equality of outcome, is where most of the controversy arises.  given the rights and opportunities, should we even expect equal outcomes e. g.  0 of politicians and ceos being female , let alone try to  force  equal outcomes with  positive discrimination  ? is it in any way fair to try and force equal outcomes only in certain areas e. g.  more female ceos, but not more male teachers or female construction workers ? and how far do you take it ? the logical extension of  gender quotas  is that your employees would need to be 0 female, x% black, y% gay, z% disabled, and so on.  well, you can see how that quickly becomes entirely unmanageable.
so at first i was going to post an idea i had about equality between men and women but then this thought came to my head.  one of my frustrations when trying to discuss feminism or equality is that as a man i feel my ideas or opinions are largely ignored or attacked by women.  i often get a  your a guy so you would not understand .  not only is this aggravating but is hypocritical since equality would mean we all have an equal voice in the discussion, i digress.  anyways in trying to understand why these discussions so often breakdown i came to the conclusion that what one person considers equal another does not.  this seems obvious but i do not mean that a chauvinistic man who believe all women should be house wives thinks that that is equal.  instead i mean to say that me someone who wants equality for all people, believes that requires vastly different things than the women i am talking with.  to better illustrate this point i think that equality would mean that everyone is given the same opportunity without bias; this means if your black and you are a better applicant than a white person you get the job, similar situation no matter the relation.  same goes for the law, if a man is held responsible for his actions while intoxicated should not a woman be as well.  i am not saying if someone got her drunk against her will i mean if she made the decision to drink alcohol but many would disagree with me and say this is not fair, that minorities and women need to be protected under the law so that the majority us white men do not take advantage.  so i do not think we can ever reach  equality  because due to peoples different opinions on what that means there will always be those who are not equal in someones mind, and discussions to reach it will not go far, at least not as quickly as they should.  to change my view should not be hard since i am not emotionally attached to this idea since i just thought of it.  you either have to show that people ideas of equality are not fundamentally different dictionary definition does not count or show me that even with this difference in opinion equality can be achieved accommodating for everyones needs.  there may be another way that you find so good luck.   #  anyways in trying to understand why these discussions so often breakdown i came to the conclusion that what one person considers equal another does not.   #  i do not think there is that big of a variance in what people think equal means.   # i often get a  your a guy so you would not understand .  not only is this aggravating but is hypocritical since equality would mean we all have an equal voice in the discussion, i digress.  i am sorry some people have said that you.  it is not fair and i do not agree with it.  you may not understand everything but your voice is just as important as others.  just as i do not understand what it is like to be a man.  i do not think there is that big of a variance in what people think equal means.  it is the same opportunities, the same pay, and freedom to choose.  is not this common sense ? i am not saying if someone got her drunk against her will i mean if she made the decision to drink alcohol both sexes are responsible for their behavior while drunk.  it does not matter if you are male or female, if you are driving drunk it is a crime and you will be charged.  what do you mean by protected ? if equal rights were the norm, we would not need protection.  are you thinking perhaps of affirmative action ? that is a different philosophy than equal opportunity.   #  however, that does not mean it ca not be improved.   #  first of all, you are right that perfect equality can never be achieved.  however, that does not mean it ca not be improved.  lets say there are 0 rooms, each room has 0 people, and 0 dollars are divided among them.  in room a, the distribution is $0, $0, $0, $0, and $0.  in room b, its $0, $0, $0, $0, and $0.  b is obviously more equal than a, even though its far from perfect equality.  ultimately, equality is not a  yes or no  question, but a spectrum.  for example, if you own a company located in a city that is 0 white and 0 black, and your company is composed of 0 white employees and 0 black employees, and among those, 0 white managers and 0 black managers, its far from equal, and could be improved.  however, it is miles ahead of a company in that same city with 0 white employees and 0 black employees, and 0 white managers and 0 black managers.  this is the issue.  the problem is that people  do not  have the same opportunities.  socioeconomic status and race, as well as our perceptions, play huge roles in what opportunities people have.  black people are still several generations economically behind whites.  just because we abolished slavery 0 years ago, and ended institutional racism 0 years ago does not mean that we are suddenly  equal  in terms of opportunities, especially when white men continue to dominate the top tiers of business, society, and politics.  this video URL makes some compelling arguments.   #  single childless women under 0 earn more than men do, and that even in many male dominated professions where you would think discrimination against women would be more so , such as construction, women earn more.   # it differs because some account for more variables than others.  0 cents to a dollar is referring to all averaged wages, once you account for even full time and part time work the difference goes down.  what you find is people talking about the difference as if its about the same job URL that is what totally false, but the myth persists.  there is absolutely no good reason to claim the percent difference is evidence for discrimination.  single childless women under 0 earn more than men do, and that even in many male dominated professions where you would think discrimination against women would be more so , such as construction, women earn more.   #  i do not think the mans life should be ruined.   #  to the first three things, great im glad im not sounding crazy.  to the fourth, i was referring to rape laws which from what ive heard at this point im not sure i can trust half of what i read in the news they for the most part protect women who are drunk.  my feeling is if you got wasted you deal with the consequences.  so if something happens both individuals should take responsibility.  i do not think the mans life should be ruined.  to the fifth, honestly im confused by your questioning.  if you reword that i would be happy to explain.   #  the third, equality of outcome, is where most of the controversy arises.   #  it is quite clear that there is not one  equality .  there are several types.  for example, when it comes to race/gender issues, there is clear differences between: equality under law equality of opportunity equality of outcome the first has been almost entirely achieved in first world countries, at least , give or take a few things that mostly relate to biological differences between the sexes.  the second has been making steady progress, although people may disagree on how far from that form of equality we actually are.  but for these two types of equality, we can, in theory, come at least very close to perfect equality.  the third, equality of outcome, is where most of the controversy arises.  given the rights and opportunities, should we even expect equal outcomes e. g.  0 of politicians and ceos being female , let alone try to  force  equal outcomes with  positive discrimination  ? is it in any way fair to try and force equal outcomes only in certain areas e. g.  more female ceos, but not more male teachers or female construction workers ? and how far do you take it ? the logical extension of  gender quotas  is that your employees would need to be 0 female, x% black, y% gay, z% disabled, and so on.  well, you can see how that quickly becomes entirely unmanageable.
so at first i was going to post an idea i had about equality between men and women but then this thought came to my head.  one of my frustrations when trying to discuss feminism or equality is that as a man i feel my ideas or opinions are largely ignored or attacked by women.  i often get a  your a guy so you would not understand .  not only is this aggravating but is hypocritical since equality would mean we all have an equal voice in the discussion, i digress.  anyways in trying to understand why these discussions so often breakdown i came to the conclusion that what one person considers equal another does not.  this seems obvious but i do not mean that a chauvinistic man who believe all women should be house wives thinks that that is equal.  instead i mean to say that me someone who wants equality for all people, believes that requires vastly different things than the women i am talking with.  to better illustrate this point i think that equality would mean that everyone is given the same opportunity without bias; this means if your black and you are a better applicant than a white person you get the job, similar situation no matter the relation.  same goes for the law, if a man is held responsible for his actions while intoxicated should not a woman be as well.  i am not saying if someone got her drunk against her will i mean if she made the decision to drink alcohol but many would disagree with me and say this is not fair, that minorities and women need to be protected under the law so that the majority us white men do not take advantage.  so i do not think we can ever reach  equality  because due to peoples different opinions on what that means there will always be those who are not equal in someones mind, and discussions to reach it will not go far, at least not as quickly as they should.  to change my view should not be hard since i am not emotionally attached to this idea since i just thought of it.  you either have to show that people ideas of equality are not fundamentally different dictionary definition does not count or show me that even with this difference in opinion equality can be achieved accommodating for everyones needs.  there may be another way that you find so good luck.   #  , if a man is held responsible for his actions while intoxicated should not a woman be as well.   #  i am not saying if someone got her drunk against her will i mean if she made the decision to drink alcohol both sexes are responsible for their behavior while drunk.   # i often get a  your a guy so you would not understand .  not only is this aggravating but is hypocritical since equality would mean we all have an equal voice in the discussion, i digress.  i am sorry some people have said that you.  it is not fair and i do not agree with it.  you may not understand everything but your voice is just as important as others.  just as i do not understand what it is like to be a man.  i do not think there is that big of a variance in what people think equal means.  it is the same opportunities, the same pay, and freedom to choose.  is not this common sense ? i am not saying if someone got her drunk against her will i mean if she made the decision to drink alcohol both sexes are responsible for their behavior while drunk.  it does not matter if you are male or female, if you are driving drunk it is a crime and you will be charged.  what do you mean by protected ? if equal rights were the norm, we would not need protection.  are you thinking perhaps of affirmative action ? that is a different philosophy than equal opportunity.   #  lets say there are 0 rooms, each room has 0 people, and 0 dollars are divided among them.   #  first of all, you are right that perfect equality can never be achieved.  however, that does not mean it ca not be improved.  lets say there are 0 rooms, each room has 0 people, and 0 dollars are divided among them.  in room a, the distribution is $0, $0, $0, $0, and $0.  in room b, its $0, $0, $0, $0, and $0.  b is obviously more equal than a, even though its far from perfect equality.  ultimately, equality is not a  yes or no  question, but a spectrum.  for example, if you own a company located in a city that is 0 white and 0 black, and your company is composed of 0 white employees and 0 black employees, and among those, 0 white managers and 0 black managers, its far from equal, and could be improved.  however, it is miles ahead of a company in that same city with 0 white employees and 0 black employees, and 0 white managers and 0 black managers.  this is the issue.  the problem is that people  do not  have the same opportunities.  socioeconomic status and race, as well as our perceptions, play huge roles in what opportunities people have.  black people are still several generations economically behind whites.  just because we abolished slavery 0 years ago, and ended institutional racism 0 years ago does not mean that we are suddenly  equal  in terms of opportunities, especially when white men continue to dominate the top tiers of business, society, and politics.  this video URL makes some compelling arguments.   #  there is absolutely no good reason to claim the percent difference is evidence for discrimination.   # it differs because some account for more variables than others.  0 cents to a dollar is referring to all averaged wages, once you account for even full time and part time work the difference goes down.  what you find is people talking about the difference as if its about the same job URL that is what totally false, but the myth persists.  there is absolutely no good reason to claim the percent difference is evidence for discrimination.  single childless women under 0 earn more than men do, and that even in many male dominated professions where you would think discrimination against women would be more so , such as construction, women earn more.   #  to the fifth, honestly im confused by your questioning.   #  to the first three things, great im glad im not sounding crazy.  to the fourth, i was referring to rape laws which from what ive heard at this point im not sure i can trust half of what i read in the news they for the most part protect women who are drunk.  my feeling is if you got wasted you deal with the consequences.  so if something happens both individuals should take responsibility.  i do not think the mans life should be ruined.  to the fifth, honestly im confused by your questioning.  if you reword that i would be happy to explain.   #  the third, equality of outcome, is where most of the controversy arises.   #  it is quite clear that there is not one  equality .  there are several types.  for example, when it comes to race/gender issues, there is clear differences between: equality under law equality of opportunity equality of outcome the first has been almost entirely achieved in first world countries, at least , give or take a few things that mostly relate to biological differences between the sexes.  the second has been making steady progress, although people may disagree on how far from that form of equality we actually are.  but for these two types of equality, we can, in theory, come at least very close to perfect equality.  the third, equality of outcome, is where most of the controversy arises.  given the rights and opportunities, should we even expect equal outcomes e. g.  0 of politicians and ceos being female , let alone try to  force  equal outcomes with  positive discrimination  ? is it in any way fair to try and force equal outcomes only in certain areas e. g.  more female ceos, but not more male teachers or female construction workers ? and how far do you take it ? the logical extension of  gender quotas  is that your employees would need to be 0 female, x% black, y% gay, z% disabled, and so on.  well, you can see how that quickly becomes entirely unmanageable.
i happened to notice quite a few posts on reddit today on fairly popular subreddits like /r/askreddit and /r/casualiama from people saying or implying they were going to kill themselves.  i think these kinds of posts should be banned for the following reasons: 0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  there may be a few who will be sensible and post suicide hotlines, but others may choose to encourage suicidal ops by offering a method or putting them down further.  0.  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  0.  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  0.  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  some may see this as an issue to be at the discretion of the moderators.  i say that the potential for abuse of these kinds of posts is too high to allow that.  if you think otherwise, then please try to cmv.   #  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.   #  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.   #  occasionally suicidal depression sufferer here, and your 0 does not fully match up with reality.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  in the us, mental health is not always free.  furthermore, it is not always immediate.  when i started free therapy with my university a few years back, it took 0 weeks from the first phone call to get an appointment.  now, if i needed therapy again, i would have to pay for it on my meager part time pay, probably for an even longer wait.  i have had a few nights where i called the suicide hotline.  people who are suicidally depressed know that something is wrong, and that they should not kill themselves, but ca not think of anything else that will fix their problem.  sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that everything will be all right and not to do it.  as for why they might tell reddit: being suicidal is terribly embarrassing.  lots of society looks down on people with suicidal thoughts, so they might not want to tell anyone they know about it.  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.  when it is 0am and you ca not sleep because you ca not stop thinking about ending your life, it is the best option to reach out to another human being.  at best, it is a friend who can help.  for someone without that option, why not reddit ?  #  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.   #  you ca not bully a random stranger with whom you have no prior relationship, and who is answering your claims voluntarily, with the specific intention of talking to suicidal people.  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.  some people who are suicidal choose to try to contact people on the internet instead of by phone, for whatever reason, and this way we have a resource for them.   #  and you know what someone did for me ?  # if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  that is great that you know what every suicidal person is going through and what they would do.  how exactly do you read so many peoples minds ? and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ? i am glad you get all of your medical expenses paid, but i certainly do not.  if you are posting on reddit, you should be well aware of that.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  self posts, like the ones in /r/suicidewatch and /r/askreddit do not generate karma.  i was suicidal not that long ago.  maybe i was not  clinically diagnosed  or whatever, but i fucking tell you i had a noose ready and was about to climb on that fucking chair.  i made a comment on reddit, was not even a post, i just replied to another commend on the subject.  and you know what someone did for me ? talked to me.  she was not a licensed professional.  she was not a hotline.  she was just a person.  and she talked to me and listened to me.  there is no doubt in my mind that this person saved my life that night.  if that sort of thing was banned, i would be dead right now.  what abuse ? you have not even demonstrated or given an example, except for selling personal information.  if you give out personal info on the internet, you are an idiot, regardless of circumstances.  let me ask you this.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  #  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.   # you are right.  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ? that is something that i did not think through.  i had thought it would clean up reddit.  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.    0;  #  but it is a subject that hits close to home as i am sure you can imagine.   #  i am sorry if my comment came off as hostile or sarcastic.  but it is a subject that hits close to home as i am sure you can imagine.  this was not all that long ago.  coming on reddit to try and find someone to talk to was the only thing that i could think to do.  i did not have the will to get up and go find a therapist.  i did not have family or friends to talk to.  i was not looking for  oh look at me im so sad  attention.  i was bloody afraid that i was actually going to do it.  terrified.  a year or two ago i never would have thought that i would be in that position, yet there i was.
i happened to notice quite a few posts on reddit today on fairly popular subreddits like /r/askreddit and /r/casualiama from people saying or implying they were going to kill themselves.  i think these kinds of posts should be banned for the following reasons: 0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  there may be a few who will be sensible and post suicide hotlines, but others may choose to encourage suicidal ops by offering a method or putting them down further.  0.  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  0.  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  0.  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  some may see this as an issue to be at the discretion of the moderators.  i say that the potential for abuse of these kinds of posts is too high to allow that.  if you think otherwise, then please try to cmv.   #  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.   #  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.   # if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  that is great that you know what every suicidal person is going through and what they would do.  how exactly do you read so many peoples minds ? and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ? i am glad you get all of your medical expenses paid, but i certainly do not.  if you are posting on reddit, you should be well aware of that.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  self posts, like the ones in /r/suicidewatch and /r/askreddit do not generate karma.  i was suicidal not that long ago.  maybe i was not  clinically diagnosed  or whatever, but i fucking tell you i had a noose ready and was about to climb on that fucking chair.  i made a comment on reddit, was not even a post, i just replied to another commend on the subject.  and you know what someone did for me ? talked to me.  she was not a licensed professional.  she was not a hotline.  she was just a person.  and she talked to me and listened to me.  there is no doubt in my mind that this person saved my life that night.  if that sort of thing was banned, i would be dead right now.  what abuse ? you have not even demonstrated or given an example, except for selling personal information.  if you give out personal info on the internet, you are an idiot, regardless of circumstances.  let me ask you this.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  #  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.   #  you ca not bully a random stranger with whom you have no prior relationship, and who is answering your claims voluntarily, with the specific intention of talking to suicidal people.  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.  some people who are suicidal choose to try to contact people on the internet instead of by phone, for whatever reason, and this way we have a resource for them.   #  for someone without that option, why not reddit ?  #  occasionally suicidal depression sufferer here, and your 0 does not fully match up with reality.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  in the us, mental health is not always free.  furthermore, it is not always immediate.  when i started free therapy with my university a few years back, it took 0 weeks from the first phone call to get an appointment.  now, if i needed therapy again, i would have to pay for it on my meager part time pay, probably for an even longer wait.  i have had a few nights where i called the suicide hotline.  people who are suicidally depressed know that something is wrong, and that they should not kill themselves, but ca not think of anything else that will fix their problem.  sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that everything will be all right and not to do it.  as for why they might tell reddit: being suicidal is terribly embarrassing.  lots of society looks down on people with suicidal thoughts, so they might not want to tell anyone they know about it.  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.  when it is 0am and you ca not sleep because you ca not stop thinking about ending your life, it is the best option to reach out to another human being.  at best, it is a friend who can help.  for someone without that option, why not reddit ?  #  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  # you are right.  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ? that is something that i did not think through.  i had thought it would clean up reddit.  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.    0;  #  i did not have family or friends to talk to.   #  i am sorry if my comment came off as hostile or sarcastic.  but it is a subject that hits close to home as i am sure you can imagine.  this was not all that long ago.  coming on reddit to try and find someone to talk to was the only thing that i could think to do.  i did not have the will to get up and go find a therapist.  i did not have family or friends to talk to.  i was not looking for  oh look at me im so sad  attention.  i was bloody afraid that i was actually going to do it.  terrified.  a year or two ago i never would have thought that i would be in that position, yet there i was.
i happened to notice quite a few posts on reddit today on fairly popular subreddits like /r/askreddit and /r/casualiama from people saying or implying they were going to kill themselves.  i think these kinds of posts should be banned for the following reasons: 0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  there may be a few who will be sensible and post suicide hotlines, but others may choose to encourage suicidal ops by offering a method or putting them down further.  0.  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  0.  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  0.  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  some may see this as an issue to be at the discretion of the moderators.  i say that the potential for abuse of these kinds of posts is too high to allow that.  if you think otherwise, then please try to cmv.   #  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.   #  and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ?  # if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  that is great that you know what every suicidal person is going through and what they would do.  how exactly do you read so many peoples minds ? and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ? i am glad you get all of your medical expenses paid, but i certainly do not.  if you are posting on reddit, you should be well aware of that.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  self posts, like the ones in /r/suicidewatch and /r/askreddit do not generate karma.  i was suicidal not that long ago.  maybe i was not  clinically diagnosed  or whatever, but i fucking tell you i had a noose ready and was about to climb on that fucking chair.  i made a comment on reddit, was not even a post, i just replied to another commend on the subject.  and you know what someone did for me ? talked to me.  she was not a licensed professional.  she was not a hotline.  she was just a person.  and she talked to me and listened to me.  there is no doubt in my mind that this person saved my life that night.  if that sort of thing was banned, i would be dead right now.  what abuse ? you have not even demonstrated or given an example, except for selling personal information.  if you give out personal info on the internet, you are an idiot, regardless of circumstances.  let me ask you this.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  #  you ca not bully a random stranger with whom you have no prior relationship, and who is answering your claims voluntarily, with the specific intention of talking to suicidal people.   #  you ca not bully a random stranger with whom you have no prior relationship, and who is answering your claims voluntarily, with the specific intention of talking to suicidal people.  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.  some people who are suicidal choose to try to contact people on the internet instead of by phone, for whatever reason, and this way we have a resource for them.   #  when it is 0am and you ca not sleep because you ca not stop thinking about ending your life, it is the best option to reach out to another human being.   #  occasionally suicidal depression sufferer here, and your 0 does not fully match up with reality.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  in the us, mental health is not always free.  furthermore, it is not always immediate.  when i started free therapy with my university a few years back, it took 0 weeks from the first phone call to get an appointment.  now, if i needed therapy again, i would have to pay for it on my meager part time pay, probably for an even longer wait.  i have had a few nights where i called the suicide hotline.  people who are suicidally depressed know that something is wrong, and that they should not kill themselves, but ca not think of anything else that will fix their problem.  sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that everything will be all right and not to do it.  as for why they might tell reddit: being suicidal is terribly embarrassing.  lots of society looks down on people with suicidal thoughts, so they might not want to tell anyone they know about it.  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.  when it is 0am and you ca not sleep because you ca not stop thinking about ending your life, it is the best option to reach out to another human being.  at best, it is a friend who can help.  for someone without that option, why not reddit ?  #  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.   # you are right.  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ? that is something that i did not think through.  i had thought it would clean up reddit.  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.    0;  #  i did not have family or friends to talk to.   #  i am sorry if my comment came off as hostile or sarcastic.  but it is a subject that hits close to home as i am sure you can imagine.  this was not all that long ago.  coming on reddit to try and find someone to talk to was the only thing that i could think to do.  i did not have the will to get up and go find a therapist.  i did not have family or friends to talk to.  i was not looking for  oh look at me im so sad  attention.  i was bloody afraid that i was actually going to do it.  terrified.  a year or two ago i never would have thought that i would be in that position, yet there i was.
i happened to notice quite a few posts on reddit today on fairly popular subreddits like /r/askreddit and /r/casualiama from people saying or implying they were going to kill themselves.  i think these kinds of posts should be banned for the following reasons: 0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  there may be a few who will be sensible and post suicide hotlines, but others may choose to encourage suicidal ops by offering a method or putting them down further.  0.  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  0.  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  0.  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  some may see this as an issue to be at the discretion of the moderators.  i say that the potential for abuse of these kinds of posts is too high to allow that.  if you think otherwise, then please try to cmv.   #  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.   #  if you are posting on reddit, you should be well aware of that.   # if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  that is great that you know what every suicidal person is going through and what they would do.  how exactly do you read so many peoples minds ? and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ? i am glad you get all of your medical expenses paid, but i certainly do not.  if you are posting on reddit, you should be well aware of that.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  self posts, like the ones in /r/suicidewatch and /r/askreddit do not generate karma.  i was suicidal not that long ago.  maybe i was not  clinically diagnosed  or whatever, but i fucking tell you i had a noose ready and was about to climb on that fucking chair.  i made a comment on reddit, was not even a post, i just replied to another commend on the subject.  and you know what someone did for me ? talked to me.  she was not a licensed professional.  she was not a hotline.  she was just a person.  and she talked to me and listened to me.  there is no doubt in my mind that this person saved my life that night.  if that sort of thing was banned, i would be dead right now.  what abuse ? you have not even demonstrated or given an example, except for selling personal information.  if you give out personal info on the internet, you are an idiot, regardless of circumstances.  let me ask you this.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  #  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.   #  you ca not bully a random stranger with whom you have no prior relationship, and who is answering your claims voluntarily, with the specific intention of talking to suicidal people.  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.  some people who are suicidal choose to try to contact people on the internet instead of by phone, for whatever reason, and this way we have a resource for them.   #  at best, it is a friend who can help.   #  occasionally suicidal depression sufferer here, and your 0 does not fully match up with reality.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  in the us, mental health is not always free.  furthermore, it is not always immediate.  when i started free therapy with my university a few years back, it took 0 weeks from the first phone call to get an appointment.  now, if i needed therapy again, i would have to pay for it on my meager part time pay, probably for an even longer wait.  i have had a few nights where i called the suicide hotline.  people who are suicidally depressed know that something is wrong, and that they should not kill themselves, but ca not think of anything else that will fix their problem.  sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that everything will be all right and not to do it.  as for why they might tell reddit: being suicidal is terribly embarrassing.  lots of society looks down on people with suicidal thoughts, so they might not want to tell anyone they know about it.  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.  when it is 0am and you ca not sleep because you ca not stop thinking about ending your life, it is the best option to reach out to another human being.  at best, it is a friend who can help.  for someone without that option, why not reddit ?  #  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.   # you are right.  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ? that is something that i did not think through.  i had thought it would clean up reddit.  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.    0;  #  i was bloody afraid that i was actually going to do it.   #  i am sorry if my comment came off as hostile or sarcastic.  but it is a subject that hits close to home as i am sure you can imagine.  this was not all that long ago.  coming on reddit to try and find someone to talk to was the only thing that i could think to do.  i did not have the will to get up and go find a therapist.  i did not have family or friends to talk to.  i was not looking for  oh look at me im so sad  attention.  i was bloody afraid that i was actually going to do it.  terrified.  a year or two ago i never would have thought that i would be in that position, yet there i was.
i happened to notice quite a few posts on reddit today on fairly popular subreddits like /r/askreddit and /r/casualiama from people saying or implying they were going to kill themselves.  i think these kinds of posts should be banned for the following reasons: 0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  there may be a few who will be sensible and post suicide hotlines, but others may choose to encourage suicidal ops by offering a method or putting them down further.  0.  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  0.  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  0.  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  some may see this as an issue to be at the discretion of the moderators.  i say that the potential for abuse of these kinds of posts is too high to allow that.  if you think otherwise, then please try to cmv.   #  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.   #  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.   # if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  that is great that you know what every suicidal person is going through and what they would do.  how exactly do you read so many peoples minds ? and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ? i am glad you get all of your medical expenses paid, but i certainly do not.  if you are posting on reddit, you should be well aware of that.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  self posts, like the ones in /r/suicidewatch and /r/askreddit do not generate karma.  i was suicidal not that long ago.  maybe i was not  clinically diagnosed  or whatever, but i fucking tell you i had a noose ready and was about to climb on that fucking chair.  i made a comment on reddit, was not even a post, i just replied to another commend on the subject.  and you know what someone did for me ? talked to me.  she was not a licensed professional.  she was not a hotline.  she was just a person.  and she talked to me and listened to me.  there is no doubt in my mind that this person saved my life that night.  if that sort of thing was banned, i would be dead right now.  what abuse ? you have not even demonstrated or given an example, except for selling personal information.  if you give out personal info on the internet, you are an idiot, regardless of circumstances.  let me ask you this.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  #  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.   #  you ca not bully a random stranger with whom you have no prior relationship, and who is answering your claims voluntarily, with the specific intention of talking to suicidal people.  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.  some people who are suicidal choose to try to contact people on the internet instead of by phone, for whatever reason, and this way we have a resource for them.   #  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.   #  occasionally suicidal depression sufferer here, and your 0 does not fully match up with reality.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  in the us, mental health is not always free.  furthermore, it is not always immediate.  when i started free therapy with my university a few years back, it took 0 weeks from the first phone call to get an appointment.  now, if i needed therapy again, i would have to pay for it on my meager part time pay, probably for an even longer wait.  i have had a few nights where i called the suicide hotline.  people who are suicidally depressed know that something is wrong, and that they should not kill themselves, but ca not think of anything else that will fix their problem.  sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that everything will be all right and not to do it.  as for why they might tell reddit: being suicidal is terribly embarrassing.  lots of society looks down on people with suicidal thoughts, so they might not want to tell anyone they know about it.  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.  when it is 0am and you ca not sleep because you ca not stop thinking about ending your life, it is the best option to reach out to another human being.  at best, it is a friend who can help.  for someone without that option, why not reddit ?  #  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.   # you are right.  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ? that is something that i did not think through.  i had thought it would clean up reddit.  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.    0;  #  a year or two ago i never would have thought that i would be in that position, yet there i was.   #  i am sorry if my comment came off as hostile or sarcastic.  but it is a subject that hits close to home as i am sure you can imagine.  this was not all that long ago.  coming on reddit to try and find someone to talk to was the only thing that i could think to do.  i did not have the will to get up and go find a therapist.  i did not have family or friends to talk to.  i was not looking for  oh look at me im so sad  attention.  i was bloody afraid that i was actually going to do it.  terrified.  a year or two ago i never would have thought that i would be in that position, yet there i was.
i happened to notice quite a few posts on reddit today on fairly popular subreddits like /r/askreddit and /r/casualiama from people saying or implying they were going to kill themselves.  i think these kinds of posts should be banned for the following reasons: 0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  there may be a few who will be sensible and post suicide hotlines, but others may choose to encourage suicidal ops by offering a method or putting them down further.  0.  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  0.  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  0.  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  some may see this as an issue to be at the discretion of the moderators.  i say that the potential for abuse of these kinds of posts is too high to allow that.  if you think otherwise, then please try to cmv.   #  0.  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.   #  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.   #  alright, i am going to respond to each of your points:  0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  if you want to ban posts based on whether the reddit community is  mature  enough or not, where would you draw the line ? i saw r/personalfinance mentioned below is reddit mature or qualified enough to give financial advice ? based on that we should ban posts about bankruptcy.  what about people who come onto reddit for legal advice ? or relationship advice ? there are so many support groups for things from mental illness to fetishism on reddit.  is reddit really  mature  enough for any of that ? you also mentioned people might encourage suicidal op is, but getting shitty advice could happen to anyone on reddit with a problem.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  if you were going to ban posts that were posted with the intention of getting a  nice little karma boost  you would have to ban half the front page.  and even if that is true, you ca not really take the chance.  someone who is truly suicidal is not posting for the karma or upvotes they are probably desperate and need help.  depending on where you live, therapy can be prohibitively expensive.  for example, where i live seeing a psychologist is free.  once you see your gp, get them to approve a mental health plan for you, find a practitioner who accepts the plan, and manage to find time for an appointment.  otherwise therapy sessions can be $0 per hour, or more.  the mental health plan process can take weeks too.  reaching out on an anonymous forum is easier/faster/cheaper than wading through medical bureaucracy, or spending thousands on counselling.  that is sort of a risk no matter who you are, or what part of the internet you are on.  just recently on my facebook, someone posted about a fake paypal website spamming paypal users and asking for credit card details.  so many people fell for it ! i do not think it would be fair to ban suicidal people looking for support here, over the universal internet risk of having personal contact information stolen.  my biggest issues are with the censorship of posts, and limiting support systems for suicidal people.  once you start banning posts, where does it stop ? i do not think banning posts from desperate, sad people looking for support is the place to start.  and even if reddit is not mature enough/their info might get phished/they could be trying to get karma/whatever, i do not think banning posts is worth preventing people from looking for help here.  a lot of people find it.   #  some people who are suicidal choose to try to contact people on the internet instead of by phone, for whatever reason, and this way we have a resource for them.   #  you ca not bully a random stranger with whom you have no prior relationship, and who is answering your claims voluntarily, with the specific intention of talking to suicidal people.  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.  some people who are suicidal choose to try to contact people on the internet instead of by phone, for whatever reason, and this way we have a resource for them.   #  when i started free therapy with my university a few years back, it took 0 weeks from the first phone call to get an appointment.   #  occasionally suicidal depression sufferer here, and your 0 does not fully match up with reality.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  in the us, mental health is not always free.  furthermore, it is not always immediate.  when i started free therapy with my university a few years back, it took 0 weeks from the first phone call to get an appointment.  now, if i needed therapy again, i would have to pay for it on my meager part time pay, probably for an even longer wait.  i have had a few nights where i called the suicide hotline.  people who are suicidally depressed know that something is wrong, and that they should not kill themselves, but ca not think of anything else that will fix their problem.  sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that everything will be all right and not to do it.  as for why they might tell reddit: being suicidal is terribly embarrassing.  lots of society looks down on people with suicidal thoughts, so they might not want to tell anyone they know about it.  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.  when it is 0am and you ca not sleep because you ca not stop thinking about ending your life, it is the best option to reach out to another human being.  at best, it is a friend who can help.  for someone without that option, why not reddit ?  #  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.   # if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  that is great that you know what every suicidal person is going through and what they would do.  how exactly do you read so many peoples minds ? and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ? i am glad you get all of your medical expenses paid, but i certainly do not.  if you are posting on reddit, you should be well aware of that.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  self posts, like the ones in /r/suicidewatch and /r/askreddit do not generate karma.  i was suicidal not that long ago.  maybe i was not  clinically diagnosed  or whatever, but i fucking tell you i had a noose ready and was about to climb on that fucking chair.  i made a comment on reddit, was not even a post, i just replied to another commend on the subject.  and you know what someone did for me ? talked to me.  she was not a licensed professional.  she was not a hotline.  she was just a person.  and she talked to me and listened to me.  there is no doubt in my mind that this person saved my life that night.  if that sort of thing was banned, i would be dead right now.  what abuse ? you have not even demonstrated or given an example, except for selling personal information.  if you give out personal info on the internet, you are an idiot, regardless of circumstances.  let me ask you this.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  #  i had thought it would clean up reddit.   # you are right.  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ? that is something that i did not think through.  i had thought it would clean up reddit.  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.    0;
i happened to notice quite a few posts on reddit today on fairly popular subreddits like /r/askreddit and /r/casualiama from people saying or implying they were going to kill themselves.  i think these kinds of posts should be banned for the following reasons: 0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  there may be a few who will be sensible and post suicide hotlines, but others may choose to encourage suicidal ops by offering a method or putting them down further.  0.  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  0.  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  0.  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  some may see this as an issue to be at the discretion of the moderators.  i say that the potential for abuse of these kinds of posts is too high to allow that.  if you think otherwise, then please try to cmv.   #  0.  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.   #  that is sort of a risk no matter who you are, or what part of the internet you are on.   #  alright, i am going to respond to each of your points:  0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  if you want to ban posts based on whether the reddit community is  mature  enough or not, where would you draw the line ? i saw r/personalfinance mentioned below is reddit mature or qualified enough to give financial advice ? based on that we should ban posts about bankruptcy.  what about people who come onto reddit for legal advice ? or relationship advice ? there are so many support groups for things from mental illness to fetishism on reddit.  is reddit really  mature  enough for any of that ? you also mentioned people might encourage suicidal op is, but getting shitty advice could happen to anyone on reddit with a problem.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  if you were going to ban posts that were posted with the intention of getting a  nice little karma boost  you would have to ban half the front page.  and even if that is true, you ca not really take the chance.  someone who is truly suicidal is not posting for the karma or upvotes they are probably desperate and need help.  depending on where you live, therapy can be prohibitively expensive.  for example, where i live seeing a psychologist is free.  once you see your gp, get them to approve a mental health plan for you, find a practitioner who accepts the plan, and manage to find time for an appointment.  otherwise therapy sessions can be $0 per hour, or more.  the mental health plan process can take weeks too.  reaching out on an anonymous forum is easier/faster/cheaper than wading through medical bureaucracy, or spending thousands on counselling.  that is sort of a risk no matter who you are, or what part of the internet you are on.  just recently on my facebook, someone posted about a fake paypal website spamming paypal users and asking for credit card details.  so many people fell for it ! i do not think it would be fair to ban suicidal people looking for support here, over the universal internet risk of having personal contact information stolen.  my biggest issues are with the censorship of posts, and limiting support systems for suicidal people.  once you start banning posts, where does it stop ? i do not think banning posts from desperate, sad people looking for support is the place to start.  and even if reddit is not mature enough/their info might get phished/they could be trying to get karma/whatever, i do not think banning posts is worth preventing people from looking for help here.  a lot of people find it.   #  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.   #  you ca not bully a random stranger with whom you have no prior relationship, and who is answering your claims voluntarily, with the specific intention of talking to suicidal people.  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.  some people who are suicidal choose to try to contact people on the internet instead of by phone, for whatever reason, and this way we have a resource for them.   #  now, if i needed therapy again, i would have to pay for it on my meager part time pay, probably for an even longer wait.   #  occasionally suicidal depression sufferer here, and your 0 does not fully match up with reality.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  in the us, mental health is not always free.  furthermore, it is not always immediate.  when i started free therapy with my university a few years back, it took 0 weeks from the first phone call to get an appointment.  now, if i needed therapy again, i would have to pay for it on my meager part time pay, probably for an even longer wait.  i have had a few nights where i called the suicide hotline.  people who are suicidally depressed know that something is wrong, and that they should not kill themselves, but ca not think of anything else that will fix their problem.  sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that everything will be all right and not to do it.  as for why they might tell reddit: being suicidal is terribly embarrassing.  lots of society looks down on people with suicidal thoughts, so they might not want to tell anyone they know about it.  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.  when it is 0am and you ca not sleep because you ca not stop thinking about ending your life, it is the best option to reach out to another human being.  at best, it is a friend who can help.  for someone without that option, why not reddit ?  #  i am glad you get all of your medical expenses paid, but i certainly do not.   # if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  that is great that you know what every suicidal person is going through and what they would do.  how exactly do you read so many peoples minds ? and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ? i am glad you get all of your medical expenses paid, but i certainly do not.  if you are posting on reddit, you should be well aware of that.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  self posts, like the ones in /r/suicidewatch and /r/askreddit do not generate karma.  i was suicidal not that long ago.  maybe i was not  clinically diagnosed  or whatever, but i fucking tell you i had a noose ready and was about to climb on that fucking chair.  i made a comment on reddit, was not even a post, i just replied to another commend on the subject.  and you know what someone did for me ? talked to me.  she was not a licensed professional.  she was not a hotline.  she was just a person.  and she talked to me and listened to me.  there is no doubt in my mind that this person saved my life that night.  if that sort of thing was banned, i would be dead right now.  what abuse ? you have not even demonstrated or given an example, except for selling personal information.  if you give out personal info on the internet, you are an idiot, regardless of circumstances.  let me ask you this.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  #  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  # you are right.  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ? that is something that i did not think through.  i had thought it would clean up reddit.  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.    0;
i happened to notice quite a few posts on reddit today on fairly popular subreddits like /r/askreddit and /r/casualiama from people saying or implying they were going to kill themselves.  i think these kinds of posts should be banned for the following reasons: 0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  there may be a few who will be sensible and post suicide hotlines, but others may choose to encourage suicidal ops by offering a method or putting them down further.  0.  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  0.  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  0.  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  some may see this as an issue to be at the discretion of the moderators.  i say that the potential for abuse of these kinds of posts is too high to allow that.  if you think otherwise, then please try to cmv.   #  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.   #  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.   #  for some of these people this is their last hope, if someone can reach out to them on here it could potentially make them go and get help.  i know /r/suicidewatch is heavily moderated, there was this troll offering methods and crap but he gets weeded out fairly well now.  banning the posts wo not do anything constructive.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  that is just like saying people say they are suicidal just for attention, as someone who has been suicidal that is a common urban myth.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  not everyone can afford a therapist , or at least in my concern people could be scared bout being sectioned/committed by a therapist which is something i do not think anyone would want  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  that can happen to anyone on reddit or not, i made a cmv on mental health and i got a load of pms from other redditors none have asked for so much as my real name  #  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.   #  you ca not bully a random stranger with whom you have no prior relationship, and who is answering your claims voluntarily, with the specific intention of talking to suicidal people.  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.  some people who are suicidal choose to try to contact people on the internet instead of by phone, for whatever reason, and this way we have a resource for them.   #  sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that everything will be all right and not to do it.   #  occasionally suicidal depression sufferer here, and your 0 does not fully match up with reality.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  in the us, mental health is not always free.  furthermore, it is not always immediate.  when i started free therapy with my university a few years back, it took 0 weeks from the first phone call to get an appointment.  now, if i needed therapy again, i would have to pay for it on my meager part time pay, probably for an even longer wait.  i have had a few nights where i called the suicide hotline.  people who are suicidally depressed know that something is wrong, and that they should not kill themselves, but ca not think of anything else that will fix their problem.  sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that everything will be all right and not to do it.  as for why they might tell reddit: being suicidal is terribly embarrassing.  lots of society looks down on people with suicidal thoughts, so they might not want to tell anyone they know about it.  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.  when it is 0am and you ca not sleep because you ca not stop thinking about ending your life, it is the best option to reach out to another human being.  at best, it is a friend who can help.  for someone without that option, why not reddit ?  #  and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ?  # if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  that is great that you know what every suicidal person is going through and what they would do.  how exactly do you read so many peoples minds ? and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ? i am glad you get all of your medical expenses paid, but i certainly do not.  if you are posting on reddit, you should be well aware of that.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  self posts, like the ones in /r/suicidewatch and /r/askreddit do not generate karma.  i was suicidal not that long ago.  maybe i was not  clinically diagnosed  or whatever, but i fucking tell you i had a noose ready and was about to climb on that fucking chair.  i made a comment on reddit, was not even a post, i just replied to another commend on the subject.  and you know what someone did for me ? talked to me.  she was not a licensed professional.  she was not a hotline.  she was just a person.  and she talked to me and listened to me.  there is no doubt in my mind that this person saved my life that night.  if that sort of thing was banned, i would be dead right now.  what abuse ? you have not even demonstrated or given an example, except for selling personal information.  if you give out personal info on the internet, you are an idiot, regardless of circumstances.  let me ask you this.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  #  i had thought it would clean up reddit.   # you are right.  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ? that is something that i did not think through.  i had thought it would clean up reddit.  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.    0;
i happened to notice quite a few posts on reddit today on fairly popular subreddits like /r/askreddit and /r/casualiama from people saying or implying they were going to kill themselves.  i think these kinds of posts should be banned for the following reasons: 0.  reddit often is not mature enough to deal with those kinds of posts.  there may be a few who will be sensible and post suicide hotlines, but others may choose to encourage suicidal ops by offering a method or putting them down further.  0.  these kinds of posts are easy to fake for attention.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  0.  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  0.  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  some may see this as an issue to be at the discretion of the moderators.  i say that the potential for abuse of these kinds of posts is too high to allow that.  if you think otherwise, then please try to cmv.   #  going off of 0, they seem disingenuous.   #  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.   #  for some of these people this is their last hope, if someone can reach out to them on here it could potentially make them go and get help.  i know /r/suicidewatch is heavily moderated, there was this troll offering methods and crap but he gets weeded out fairly well now.  banning the posts wo not do anything constructive.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  that is just like saying people say they are suicidal just for attention, as someone who has been suicidal that is a common urban myth.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  not everyone can afford a therapist , or at least in my concern people could be scared bout being sectioned/committed by a therapist which is something i do not think anyone would want  they can be avenue to take personal contact information.  sometimes someone will invite creators of these posts to talk to them personally through email or text.  this kind of information could be sold to marketers, used to create accounts, etc.  that can happen to anyone on reddit or not, i made a cmv on mental health and i got a load of pms from other redditors none have asked for so much as my real name  #  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.   #  you ca not bully a random stranger with whom you have no prior relationship, and who is answering your claims voluntarily, with the specific intention of talking to suicidal people.  these people writing in are not making attention grabs.  for the most part they are genuinely suicidal and the shitty reality is that some of them, unfortunately, will in fact kill themselves.  as far as the preference to a suicide hotline, it is not necessarily better but it is not necessarily worse.  some people who are suicidal choose to try to contact people on the internet instead of by phone, for whatever reason, and this way we have a resource for them.   #  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.   #  occasionally suicidal depression sufferer here, and your 0 does not fully match up with reality.  if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  if they need someone to talk to, they can hire a therapist.  in the us, mental health is not always free.  furthermore, it is not always immediate.  when i started free therapy with my university a few years back, it took 0 weeks from the first phone call to get an appointment.  now, if i needed therapy again, i would have to pay for it on my meager part time pay, probably for an even longer wait.  i have had a few nights where i called the suicide hotline.  people who are suicidally depressed know that something is wrong, and that they should not kill themselves, but ca not think of anything else that will fix their problem.  sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that everything will be all right and not to do it.  as for why they might tell reddit: being suicidal is terribly embarrassing.  lots of society looks down on people with suicidal thoughts, so they might not want to tell anyone they know about it.  that leaves anonymous intervention as their last hope, and a throw away on reddit is pretty anonymous.  when it is 0am and you ca not sleep because you ca not stop thinking about ending your life, it is the best option to reach out to another human being.  at best, it is a friend who can help.  for someone without that option, why not reddit ?  #  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  # if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they would not tell reddit to be talked out of it.  that is great that you know what every suicidal person is going through and what they would do.  how exactly do you read so many peoples minds ? and are you going to offer to pay for $0 $0 a session for everyone who is suicidal ? i am glad you get all of your medical expenses paid, but i certainly do not.  if you are posting on reddit, you should be well aware of that.  these posts can collect a fair amount of comments trying to talk people out of it, with a nice little karma boost for the op when they change their mind.  self posts, like the ones in /r/suicidewatch and /r/askreddit do not generate karma.  i was suicidal not that long ago.  maybe i was not  clinically diagnosed  or whatever, but i fucking tell you i had a noose ready and was about to climb on that fucking chair.  i made a comment on reddit, was not even a post, i just replied to another commend on the subject.  and you know what someone did for me ? talked to me.  she was not a licensed professional.  she was not a hotline.  she was just a person.  and she talked to me and listened to me.  there is no doubt in my mind that this person saved my life that night.  if that sort of thing was banned, i would be dead right now.  what abuse ? you have not even demonstrated or given an example, except for selling personal information.  if you give out personal info on the internet, you are an idiot, regardless of circumstances.  let me ask you this.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ?  #  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.   # you are right.  i can hardly say something has potential for abuse if it only has the risk of taking advantage of human stupidity.  what benefit do you see in banning suicide content ? that is something that i did not think through.  i had thought it would clean up reddit.  yet, any ideal of reddit can never be achieved as there will always be posts that are less than ideal.    0;
beastiality is a disgusting sexual act that should be outlawed, and should stay outlawed in jurisdictions where it currently is.  in almost all jurisdictions, laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor.  an animal cannot consent to a sexual act being performed on it, as animals cannot speak or otherwise show desire for humans.  because beastiality involves humans subjecting an animal to something it does not want, beasitality is a form of animal abuse.  animal abuse is already illegal in many jurisdictions.  change my view.   #  in almost all jurisdictions, laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor.   #  sure, when it comes to people, but people have all sorts of rights that animals do not, like not being killed and eaten.   #  are you a vegetarian perchance ? if yes, kudos for being consistent, if no, why is breaching an animal is consent to sex much worse than, you know, murder ? sure, when it comes to people, but people have all sorts of rights that animals do not, like not being killed and eaten.  kicking a puppy because you think it is funny ? illegal.  keeping an animal in a confined space and then brutally murdering it because it is tasty ? perfectly legal.  i do not think you can consistently be against bestiality unless you are also against raising animals for meat, it is not as if rape is much if any worse than murder, but plenty of people are pro murder animals, but anti raping animals.  as an irrelevant aside, i am against bestiality, but only because i am also a vegetarian .   #  nobody will convince you of that but your post does not talk about that.   # nobody will convince you of that but your post does not talk about that.  you said it should be illegal.  why then do you not think that it should be illegal to run factory farms where animals live in the kind of environment comparable to that of a concentration camp ? what about artificial insemination ? if you do not know how thats done i will tell ya, the farmer collects sperm puts it in a metal rod, ties a female down and inserts the rod into the animals vagina.  what is the difference between artificial insemination and fucking a cow ? if you do it because you want to eat their children it is fine but if you do it for fun your a sick bastard who deserved to be locked in a cage ? it sounds to me like it is not an animal rights issue for you and if it is i really think you are misplacing your energy , it sounds more like you think it is icky.  now i want to ask you, does somebody who has fucked an animal really deserve to go to prison ?  #  so, either you should want all of those things to be illegal as well, or concede that sex with them is not harmful enough to warrant special laws for it, no matter how gross you personally find it.   #  that is not really what i asked, i will try to be more specific.  we do plenty of things which are more harmful to animals than having sex with them is.  we use them for hard labor, we keep them penned up to produce food, we use harsh training on them so they can be used for our entertainment, we brutally kill them to feed us, etc.  sex with them once in a while would be far less harmful than all of those things.  so, either you should want all of those things to be illegal as well, or concede that sex with them is not harmful enough to warrant special laws for it, no matter how gross you personally find it.   #  you are not just saying you want them to stop doing stuff, you are saying it should be illegal.   #  yes, of course.  i have reasons why i do not want people doing various things.  but that is not what we are talking about.  you are not just saying you want them to stop doing stuff, you are saying it should be illegal.  i am trying to show you that we do many many things to animals that you have already said in other comments should not be illegal, but that are far more harmful to the animals than sex is likely to be, and that have as few or fewer benefits.  so it is inconsistent for you to want to make sex with them illegal, given all those other perfectly legal ways we use animals.  so, the only reason i can see why you might still hold the view is that you think it is disgusting.  and do i really need to spend any time explaining why we should not make laws about everything people find gross ?  #  we can either conclude: 0 the cow is consent does not have much worth.   #  that seems to be what you are implying.  it is not wrong to forcefully inseminate a cow, because their offspring can be used for beef.  it is wrong to forcefully inseminate a human, even though their offspring would be a sentient being.  we can either conclude: 0 the cow is consent does not have much worth.  or 0 the worth of beef means we can violate the cow is consent to get it.  human offspring are not as valuable then, given we do not forcefully inseminate our women.  0 does not fit with your view, so it has to be 0.
beastiality is a disgusting sexual act that should be outlawed, and should stay outlawed in jurisdictions where it currently is.  in almost all jurisdictions, laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor.  an animal cannot consent to a sexual act being performed on it, as animals cannot speak or otherwise show desire for humans.  because beastiality involves humans subjecting an animal to something it does not want, beasitality is a form of animal abuse.  animal abuse is already illegal in many jurisdictions.  change my view.   #  an animal cannot consent to a sexual act being performed on it, as animals cannot speak or otherwise show desire for humans.   #  because beastiality involves humans subjecting an animal to something it does not want, beasitality is a form of animal abuse.   # because beastiality involves humans subjecting an animal to something it does not want, beasitality is a form of animal abuse.  by this logic, so is meat and dairy production.  they ca not consent to sacrificing their lives so that people can have cheeseburgers.  for you not to be a hypocrite, i am assuming you are vegan ? i am assuming you feel the same way about leather, fur, commercial dog breeding, horse racing, live pigeon shoots, rodeos, circuses, and hunting ?  #  if you do not know how thats done i will tell ya, the farmer collects sperm puts it in a metal rod, ties a female down and inserts the rod into the animals vagina.   # nobody will convince you of that but your post does not talk about that.  you said it should be illegal.  why then do you not think that it should be illegal to run factory farms where animals live in the kind of environment comparable to that of a concentration camp ? what about artificial insemination ? if you do not know how thats done i will tell ya, the farmer collects sperm puts it in a metal rod, ties a female down and inserts the rod into the animals vagina.  what is the difference between artificial insemination and fucking a cow ? if you do it because you want to eat their children it is fine but if you do it for fun your a sick bastard who deserved to be locked in a cage ? it sounds to me like it is not an animal rights issue for you and if it is i really think you are misplacing your energy , it sounds more like you think it is icky.  now i want to ask you, does somebody who has fucked an animal really deserve to go to prison ?  #  we do plenty of things which are more harmful to animals than having sex with them is.   #  that is not really what i asked, i will try to be more specific.  we do plenty of things which are more harmful to animals than having sex with them is.  we use them for hard labor, we keep them penned up to produce food, we use harsh training on them so they can be used for our entertainment, we brutally kill them to feed us, etc.  sex with them once in a while would be far less harmful than all of those things.  so, either you should want all of those things to be illegal as well, or concede that sex with them is not harmful enough to warrant special laws for it, no matter how gross you personally find it.   #  i have reasons why i do not want people doing various things.   #  yes, of course.  i have reasons why i do not want people doing various things.  but that is not what we are talking about.  you are not just saying you want them to stop doing stuff, you are saying it should be illegal.  i am trying to show you that we do many many things to animals that you have already said in other comments should not be illegal, but that are far more harmful to the animals than sex is likely to be, and that have as few or fewer benefits.  so it is inconsistent for you to want to make sex with them illegal, given all those other perfectly legal ways we use animals.  so, the only reason i can see why you might still hold the view is that you think it is disgusting.  and do i really need to spend any time explaining why we should not make laws about everything people find gross ?  #  sure, when it comes to people, but people have all sorts of rights that animals do not, like not being killed and eaten.   #  are you a vegetarian perchance ? if yes, kudos for being consistent, if no, why is breaching an animal is consent to sex much worse than, you know, murder ? sure, when it comes to people, but people have all sorts of rights that animals do not, like not being killed and eaten.  kicking a puppy because you think it is funny ? illegal.  keeping an animal in a confined space and then brutally murdering it because it is tasty ? perfectly legal.  i do not think you can consistently be against bestiality unless you are also against raising animals for meat, it is not as if rape is much if any worse than murder, but plenty of people are pro murder animals, but anti raping animals.  as an irrelevant aside, i am against bestiality, but only because i am also a vegetarian .
this is an argument for us specific gun control.  in one sentence, there should be minimal gun control because the freedom to bare arms is the final check against the government.  i am not here to argue that all guns are necessary for self defense at home, at school or on the street.  i am drawing on the 0nd amendment, but this is not exactly an appeal to law argument.  just to have it handy though: let is look at a admittedly biased sequence of events.  the government passes a law that is clearly  wrong .  depending on the law, you either refuse to pay part of your taxes or you refuse to comply with the new mandates.  the following happens: 0.  you get a warning letter or a fine in the mail.  0.  you get a heftier fine in the mail.  0.  you get called out to court.  let is assume you actually go and you lose.  you still refuse to pay anything or comply.  0.  police/military come to your home to arrest you.  if there are either no guns or very limited types of guns in the us there can be no effective defense against a tyrannical government.  i believe the framers of the constitution had this idea in mind as well.  they had just fought a well regulated militia and wanted a check in case the need to do so ever happened again.  i am avoiding specifics in order to keep this as a philosophical debate.  i am not here to argue whether something today is or is not unconstitutional/immoral.  so once again, the view i am asking to be changed, is that we should  legally  be able to match the government is firepower in the event that the government turns against its people.  if i may make two small points: 0.  i should have added that i do not expect the citizens of the us to rise up and fight the military head on.  i meant that the power of a well armed population is in its decentralized nature.  0.  what is the point of downvoting my honest responses ? tell me why i am wrong or accuse me of being stubborn to the mods.   #  the government passes a law that is clearly  wrong .   #  american governments have passed oodles of laws that are  clearly wrong.    # american governments have passed oodles of laws that are  clearly wrong.   a lot of them are off the books now.  not once .  not  once  .  has that been the result of a large scale armed revolution.  when the government came to arrest martin luther king jr. , he could have gone down in a hail of gunfire hell, he would have been far more justified in doing so than any contemporary american  revolutionary  , or he could have actually worked to solve the problems he saw.  i am personally pretty glad he chose the latter.   #  only  people  stop people, only a credible threat of their actions resulting in things not being in their interests.   #  right, but why on earth do you  trust  them to only engage in violence when you want them to, and to  not  engage in violence when you do  not  want them to ? did you  want  to go to war in iraq in 0 ? to bomb libya ? syria ? do you want countless lives ruined, or even ended, because some people enjoy smoking pot ? my point was that you are  already  trusting people with that power, people who have no system that meaningfully restrains them from using that power against you exactly the way you are worried about the people here using it.  oh, sure, there are laws, and regulations, but that does not stop people.  only  people  stop people, only a credible threat of their actions resulting in things not being in their interests.  laws, when it comes down to it, are nothing more than words on paper.  words that some people believe in, are willing to use violence to enforce.  but you have no more reason to believe that the people who are charged with enforcing those laws will refrain from violating your rights than you have that i would violate them.  i mean, in case you have not been paying attention, the bill of rights has  already  been shredded  by the government you currently trust not to violate your rights.  whistleblowers getting thrown in jail, the whole  constitution free zone  URL that roughly 0/0 the american population lives in, the fact that the government has repeatedly attempted to neuter the internet despite loud and clear objection of the very people they are supposed to be representing.  these are the people you are interested in granting not only sole authority, but sole  ability  to do meaningful violence ? tl;dr: you are worried about allowing your neighbors the firepower to violate your rights, even as you have already conceded that giving people who do not know you, and do not care about you or your opinions, that same power.  the only rational response is to take responsibility for your own rights, and arm yourself well enough to ensure that no one, neighbor or government agent, can violate your rights, or anyone else is, without paying a cost so dear that such a violation is a losing proposition.   #  to summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.   # the same logic applies to literally  everyone,  including the government.  since, as you pointed out, you cannot simply live in a violence free world, the only rational solution is to ensure that the threat of violence ensures a world that is to your liking.  but to directly answer your question, there is only ever one reason not to do whatever you feel like: because you believe that the results would make you worse off if you did it than if you did not.  that might be killing you, that might be merely hospitalizing you, that might be that you could not live with yourself afterward, it might be that nobody would interact with you afterward, it might be some other reason.  whatever the reason, the only thing that has  ever  stopped  anyone  from doing whatever they wanted was the repercussions.  and without an armed populace, with an effective monopoly on violence that short sighted people such as yourself maintain on their behalf , the government  has no meaningful repercussions  keeping  them  from doing whatever they want to you.  you worry about what people will do with firepower ? i must respond with three quotes:   a government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.  shepard book, firefly   good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern.  the machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery.  spacing guild, children of dune, frank herbert   to summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.  to summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.  to summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.  restaurant at the end of the universe, douglas adams every evil potential you attribute to yourself or your neighbor exists to an equal degree in everyone, the government included.  given that fact, combined with the fact that power attracts those most likely to  abuse  power.  should not you want to equalize power so that no one can abuse it without repercussions ?  #  the trick is that i, op whom you mistrusted,  are  part of your group.   #  you  already   have  let another group have more power than your group.  it is called  the government.   think about it, they have all the power, they have weapons, and training, and they have been increasingly providing those weapons of war URL to police who already see the general population as their adversaries.  heck, even campus cops are being armed like they are preparing for.  what ? URL you see, they  are  afraid of us, but  not  that we are going to act like a despotic jerks.  they are afraid that if we gain enough power, we will be able to force  them  to  not  act like despotic jerks that, for example, prosecute and jail people who try and point out their corruption, who point out their abuses URL and have been doing so, quite literally, for decades URL so yes, you must fight to ensure your group is the most powerful.  the trick is that i, op whom you mistrusted,  are  part of your group.  i do not want to take away your rights.  i trust that you, that op, do not want to take away mine.  there is evidence, however, that the government is  not  so benevolent.  a majority of the population URL wants to end the war on drugs, but how many people in government do ? a majority wants a third party URL but both major parties in the us gerrymander that possibility away.  this is the group you are  already  trusting to have significant power over your life.  why ?  #  to demonstrate my own sci fi chops i will leave you will the j l p quote from the drumhead:  vigilance. that is the price we must continually pay.    #  i do not understand your point.  these are all just real truism that have existed since the start of human civilization.  the most famous quote regarding it and a much more direct and elegant quotation than the dune one not to mention it played out i real life , is definitely from pompey the great:  wo not you stop citing laws to us that have swords by our sides ?   however, these are cautionary tales and not tales of invalidation.  if any potential problem was a cause for cessation, we would be living in caves.  the internment of japanese was a violation of constitutional rights made during a time of extreme peril.  i do not think it was right, and we can use it as a cautionary tale for the future, but that does not make our government invalid.  nor does it lend serious credence to those who oppose it.  to demonstrate my own sci fi chops i will leave you will the j l p quote from the drumhead:  vigilance. that is the price we must continually pay.
this is an argument for us specific gun control.  in one sentence, there should be minimal gun control because the freedom to bare arms is the final check against the government.  i am not here to argue that all guns are necessary for self defense at home, at school or on the street.  i am drawing on the 0nd amendment, but this is not exactly an appeal to law argument.  just to have it handy though: let is look at a admittedly biased sequence of events.  the government passes a law that is clearly  wrong .  depending on the law, you either refuse to pay part of your taxes or you refuse to comply with the new mandates.  the following happens: 0.  you get a warning letter or a fine in the mail.  0.  you get a heftier fine in the mail.  0.  you get called out to court.  let is assume you actually go and you lose.  you still refuse to pay anything or comply.  0.  police/military come to your home to arrest you.  if there are either no guns or very limited types of guns in the us there can be no effective defense against a tyrannical government.  i believe the framers of the constitution had this idea in mind as well.  they had just fought a well regulated militia and wanted a check in case the need to do so ever happened again.  i am avoiding specifics in order to keep this as a philosophical debate.  i am not here to argue whether something today is or is not unconstitutional/immoral.  so once again, the view i am asking to be changed, is that we should  legally  be able to match the government is firepower in the event that the government turns against its people.  if i may make two small points: 0.  i should have added that i do not expect the citizens of the us to rise up and fight the military head on.  i meant that the power of a well armed population is in its decentralized nature.  0.  what is the point of downvoting my honest responses ? tell me why i am wrong or accuse me of being stubborn to the mods.   #  if there are either no guns or very limited types of guns in the us there can be no effective defense against a tyrannical government.   #  i believe the framers of the constitution had this idea in mind as well.   # i believe the framers of the constitution had this idea in mind as well.  they had just fought a well regulated militia and wanted a check in case the need to do so ever happened again.  i think your understanding of the american revolution is a bit warped by the hagiography we give to the founders  stated motives.  the rebellion was in large part a revolt against the encroachment of the parliament onto the prerogatives  of the legislatures of the colonies.  there were, in all 0 colonies, elected legislatures which were primarily responsible for the administration of the colonies, including for the collection of tax and provision of basic government services, such as courts, and militias for fighting off those pesky natives .  it is sometimes unclear that all the militias are under the direct control of the legislatures of the colonies, but that is pretty much an artifact of the incredibly small populations at the time.  boston was basically a town of about 0,0 people.  the members of the legislature were generally doing double duty heading up the little militias and also doing their day jobs.  the whole place had the population of what would now be considered a very small town.  and the rebellion centered around the far off and unrepresentative government in london, who were trying to tax them to pay for the 0 years war aka french and indian war in the us .  it was a defense of the traditional liberty of englishmen to be free from taxation except by a body where they are represented, which dates back to the english revolution and cromwell.  it was not the understanding of the founders that the people would be free from taxation or government control.  it was that they would only be taxed by bodies in which they had a representative.  if you are in one of the 0 states, then you are represented in the congress, and as far as the founders are concerned, would not have your liberty inherently encroached by their taxing you.   #  only  people  stop people, only a credible threat of their actions resulting in things not being in their interests.   #  right, but why on earth do you  trust  them to only engage in violence when you want them to, and to  not  engage in violence when you do  not  want them to ? did you  want  to go to war in iraq in 0 ? to bomb libya ? syria ? do you want countless lives ruined, or even ended, because some people enjoy smoking pot ? my point was that you are  already  trusting people with that power, people who have no system that meaningfully restrains them from using that power against you exactly the way you are worried about the people here using it.  oh, sure, there are laws, and regulations, but that does not stop people.  only  people  stop people, only a credible threat of their actions resulting in things not being in their interests.  laws, when it comes down to it, are nothing more than words on paper.  words that some people believe in, are willing to use violence to enforce.  but you have no more reason to believe that the people who are charged with enforcing those laws will refrain from violating your rights than you have that i would violate them.  i mean, in case you have not been paying attention, the bill of rights has  already  been shredded  by the government you currently trust not to violate your rights.  whistleblowers getting thrown in jail, the whole  constitution free zone  URL that roughly 0/0 the american population lives in, the fact that the government has repeatedly attempted to neuter the internet despite loud and clear objection of the very people they are supposed to be representing.  these are the people you are interested in granting not only sole authority, but sole  ability  to do meaningful violence ? tl;dr: you are worried about allowing your neighbors the firepower to violate your rights, even as you have already conceded that giving people who do not know you, and do not care about you or your opinions, that same power.  the only rational response is to take responsibility for your own rights, and arm yourself well enough to ensure that no one, neighbor or government agent, can violate your rights, or anyone else is, without paying a cost so dear that such a violation is a losing proposition.   #  since, as you pointed out, you cannot simply live in a violence free world, the only rational solution is to ensure that the threat of violence ensures a world that is to your liking.   # the same logic applies to literally  everyone,  including the government.  since, as you pointed out, you cannot simply live in a violence free world, the only rational solution is to ensure that the threat of violence ensures a world that is to your liking.  but to directly answer your question, there is only ever one reason not to do whatever you feel like: because you believe that the results would make you worse off if you did it than if you did not.  that might be killing you, that might be merely hospitalizing you, that might be that you could not live with yourself afterward, it might be that nobody would interact with you afterward, it might be some other reason.  whatever the reason, the only thing that has  ever  stopped  anyone  from doing whatever they wanted was the repercussions.  and without an armed populace, with an effective monopoly on violence that short sighted people such as yourself maintain on their behalf , the government  has no meaningful repercussions  keeping  them  from doing whatever they want to you.  you worry about what people will do with firepower ? i must respond with three quotes:   a government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.  shepard book, firefly   good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern.  the machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery.  spacing guild, children of dune, frank herbert   to summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.  to summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.  to summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.  restaurant at the end of the universe, douglas adams every evil potential you attribute to yourself or your neighbor exists to an equal degree in everyone, the government included.  given that fact, combined with the fact that power attracts those most likely to  abuse  power.  should not you want to equalize power so that no one can abuse it without repercussions ?  #  i trust that you, that op, do not want to take away mine.   #  you  already   have  let another group have more power than your group.  it is called  the government.   think about it, they have all the power, they have weapons, and training, and they have been increasingly providing those weapons of war URL to police who already see the general population as their adversaries.  heck, even campus cops are being armed like they are preparing for.  what ? URL you see, they  are  afraid of us, but  not  that we are going to act like a despotic jerks.  they are afraid that if we gain enough power, we will be able to force  them  to  not  act like despotic jerks that, for example, prosecute and jail people who try and point out their corruption, who point out their abuses URL and have been doing so, quite literally, for decades URL so yes, you must fight to ensure your group is the most powerful.  the trick is that i, op whom you mistrusted,  are  part of your group.  i do not want to take away your rights.  i trust that you, that op, do not want to take away mine.  there is evidence, however, that the government is  not  so benevolent.  a majority of the population URL wants to end the war on drugs, but how many people in government do ? a majority wants a third party URL but both major parties in the us gerrymander that possibility away.  this is the group you are  already  trusting to have significant power over your life.  why ?  #  these are all just real truism that have existed since the start of human civilization.   #  i do not understand your point.  these are all just real truism that have existed since the start of human civilization.  the most famous quote regarding it and a much more direct and elegant quotation than the dune one not to mention it played out i real life , is definitely from pompey the great:  wo not you stop citing laws to us that have swords by our sides ?   however, these are cautionary tales and not tales of invalidation.  if any potential problem was a cause for cessation, we would be living in caves.  the internment of japanese was a violation of constitutional rights made during a time of extreme peril.  i do not think it was right, and we can use it as a cautionary tale for the future, but that does not make our government invalid.  nor does it lend serious credence to those who oppose it.  to demonstrate my own sci fi chops i will leave you will the j l p quote from the drumhead:  vigilance. that is the price we must continually pay.
this is an argument for us specific gun control.  in one sentence, there should be minimal gun control because the freedom to bare arms is the final check against the government.  i am not here to argue that all guns are necessary for self defense at home, at school or on the street.  i am drawing on the 0nd amendment, but this is not exactly an appeal to law argument.  just to have it handy though: let is look at a admittedly biased sequence of events.  the government passes a law that is clearly  wrong .  depending on the law, you either refuse to pay part of your taxes or you refuse to comply with the new mandates.  the following happens: 0.  you get a warning letter or a fine in the mail.  0.  you get a heftier fine in the mail.  0.  you get called out to court.  let is assume you actually go and you lose.  you still refuse to pay anything or comply.  0.  police/military come to your home to arrest you.  if there are either no guns or very limited types of guns in the us there can be no effective defense against a tyrannical government.  i believe the framers of the constitution had this idea in mind as well.  they had just fought a well regulated militia and wanted a check in case the need to do so ever happened again.  i am avoiding specifics in order to keep this as a philosophical debate.  i am not here to argue whether something today is or is not unconstitutional/immoral.  so once again, the view i am asking to be changed, is that we should  legally  be able to match the government is firepower in the event that the government turns against its people.  if i may make two small points: 0.  i should have added that i do not expect the citizens of the us to rise up and fight the military head on.  i meant that the power of a well armed population is in its decentralized nature.  0.  what is the point of downvoting my honest responses ? tell me why i am wrong or accuse me of being stubborn to the mods.   #  believe the framers of the constitution had this idea in mind as well.   #  they had just fought a well regulated militia and wanted a check in case the need to do so ever happened again.   #  you are wrong on many different levels.  first off, the key part of the second amendment is the part about a well regulated militia.  this is the part that people ca not seem to wrap their heads around.  you on your own cannot determine that the government is tyrannical.  if you feel the government is being tyrannical you need to build support and organize forming a  militia  if you will.  if the police show up to your house and you kill a police officer because you do not believe the law you are being charged with is just, you have just killed an innocent person that was doing their job.  you killed the messenger.  you need to be united with people and you need to be well organized to make a stand against the government.  secondly, we are past the point of being able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.  our countries current culture of not taking a stand against unchecked militarism has allowed the government to create a military that small movements cannot possibly stand up to.  we already have unmanned air drones and it does not take much foresight to see that we will soon have unmanned tanks and even remotely controlled soldier units.  what weapon would possibly save you from a drone or a tank ? the argument of stopping a tyrannical government has become moot in the 0st century.  the government already listens to your phone calls and watches what you do on the computer.  if the government becomes oppressive you will be helpless.  they had just fought a well regulated militia and wanted a check in case the need to do so ever happened again.  militia is not the same thing as an army.  the british had an army.  the united states had a largely unpaid militia made up of unprofessional civilian aka a militia .  the second amendment is meant to negate the need for a professional army in our country.  this is why article one section 0 of the constitution says that congress has the right to decide to fund the army for no more than two years.  the political parties that were not foreseen by the founding fathers kind of negated the effectiveness of this balance of power however and military ends always getting funded.   #  my point was that you are  already  trusting people with that power, people who have no system that meaningfully restrains them from using that power against you exactly the way you are worried about the people here using it.   #  right, but why on earth do you  trust  them to only engage in violence when you want them to, and to  not  engage in violence when you do  not  want them to ? did you  want  to go to war in iraq in 0 ? to bomb libya ? syria ? do you want countless lives ruined, or even ended, because some people enjoy smoking pot ? my point was that you are  already  trusting people with that power, people who have no system that meaningfully restrains them from using that power against you exactly the way you are worried about the people here using it.  oh, sure, there are laws, and regulations, but that does not stop people.  only  people  stop people, only a credible threat of their actions resulting in things not being in their interests.  laws, when it comes down to it, are nothing more than words on paper.  words that some people believe in, are willing to use violence to enforce.  but you have no more reason to believe that the people who are charged with enforcing those laws will refrain from violating your rights than you have that i would violate them.  i mean, in case you have not been paying attention, the bill of rights has  already  been shredded  by the government you currently trust not to violate your rights.  whistleblowers getting thrown in jail, the whole  constitution free zone  URL that roughly 0/0 the american population lives in, the fact that the government has repeatedly attempted to neuter the internet despite loud and clear objection of the very people they are supposed to be representing.  these are the people you are interested in granting not only sole authority, but sole  ability  to do meaningful violence ? tl;dr: you are worried about allowing your neighbors the firepower to violate your rights, even as you have already conceded that giving people who do not know you, and do not care about you or your opinions, that same power.  the only rational response is to take responsibility for your own rights, and arm yourself well enough to ensure that no one, neighbor or government agent, can violate your rights, or anyone else is, without paying a cost so dear that such a violation is a losing proposition.   #  but to directly answer your question, there is only ever one reason not to do whatever you feel like: because you believe that the results would make you worse off if you did it than if you did not.   # the same logic applies to literally  everyone,  including the government.  since, as you pointed out, you cannot simply live in a violence free world, the only rational solution is to ensure that the threat of violence ensures a world that is to your liking.  but to directly answer your question, there is only ever one reason not to do whatever you feel like: because you believe that the results would make you worse off if you did it than if you did not.  that might be killing you, that might be merely hospitalizing you, that might be that you could not live with yourself afterward, it might be that nobody would interact with you afterward, it might be some other reason.  whatever the reason, the only thing that has  ever  stopped  anyone  from doing whatever they wanted was the repercussions.  and without an armed populace, with an effective monopoly on violence that short sighted people such as yourself maintain on their behalf , the government  has no meaningful repercussions  keeping  them  from doing whatever they want to you.  you worry about what people will do with firepower ? i must respond with three quotes:   a government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.  shepard book, firefly   good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern.  the machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery.  spacing guild, children of dune, frank herbert   to summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.  to summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.  to summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.  restaurant at the end of the universe, douglas adams every evil potential you attribute to yourself or your neighbor exists to an equal degree in everyone, the government included.  given that fact, combined with the fact that power attracts those most likely to  abuse  power.  should not you want to equalize power so that no one can abuse it without repercussions ?  #  the trick is that i, op whom you mistrusted,  are  part of your group.   #  you  already   have  let another group have more power than your group.  it is called  the government.   think about it, they have all the power, they have weapons, and training, and they have been increasingly providing those weapons of war URL to police who already see the general population as their adversaries.  heck, even campus cops are being armed like they are preparing for.  what ? URL you see, they  are  afraid of us, but  not  that we are going to act like a despotic jerks.  they are afraid that if we gain enough power, we will be able to force  them  to  not  act like despotic jerks that, for example, prosecute and jail people who try and point out their corruption, who point out their abuses URL and have been doing so, quite literally, for decades URL so yes, you must fight to ensure your group is the most powerful.  the trick is that i, op whom you mistrusted,  are  part of your group.  i do not want to take away your rights.  i trust that you, that op, do not want to take away mine.  there is evidence, however, that the government is  not  so benevolent.  a majority of the population URL wants to end the war on drugs, but how many people in government do ? a majority wants a third party URL but both major parties in the us gerrymander that possibility away.  this is the group you are  already  trusting to have significant power over your life.  why ?  #  these are all just real truism that have existed since the start of human civilization.   #  i do not understand your point.  these are all just real truism that have existed since the start of human civilization.  the most famous quote regarding it and a much more direct and elegant quotation than the dune one not to mention it played out i real life , is definitely from pompey the great:  wo not you stop citing laws to us that have swords by our sides ?   however, these are cautionary tales and not tales of invalidation.  if any potential problem was a cause for cessation, we would be living in caves.  the internment of japanese was a violation of constitutional rights made during a time of extreme peril.  i do not think it was right, and we can use it as a cautionary tale for the future, but that does not make our government invalid.  nor does it lend serious credence to those who oppose it.  to demonstrate my own sci fi chops i will leave you will the j l p quote from the drumhead:  vigilance. that is the price we must continually pay.
this is an argument for us specific gun control.  in one sentence, there should be minimal gun control because the freedom to bare arms is the final check against the government.  i am not here to argue that all guns are necessary for self defense at home, at school or on the street.  i am drawing on the 0nd amendment, but this is not exactly an appeal to law argument.  just to have it handy though: let is look at a admittedly biased sequence of events.  the government passes a law that is clearly  wrong .  depending on the law, you either refuse to pay part of your taxes or you refuse to comply with the new mandates.  the following happens: 0.  you get a warning letter or a fine in the mail.  0.  you get a heftier fine in the mail.  0.  you get called out to court.  let is assume you actually go and you lose.  you still refuse to pay anything or comply.  0.  police/military come to your home to arrest you.  if there are either no guns or very limited types of guns in the us there can be no effective defense against a tyrannical government.  i believe the framers of the constitution had this idea in mind as well.  they had just fought a well regulated militia and wanted a check in case the need to do so ever happened again.  i am avoiding specifics in order to keep this as a philosophical debate.  i am not here to argue whether something today is or is not unconstitutional/immoral.  so once again, the view i am asking to be changed, is that we should  legally  be able to match the government is firepower in the event that the government turns against its people.  if i may make two small points: 0.  i should have added that i do not expect the citizens of the us to rise up and fight the military head on.  i meant that the power of a well armed population is in its decentralized nature.  0.  what is the point of downvoting my honest responses ? tell me why i am wrong or accuse me of being stubborn to the mods.   #  the government passes a law that is clearly  wrong .   #  well it is your fault for voting for that government.   # well it is your fault for voting for that government.  and considering that americans keep re electing the same idiots into congress, you have no one to blame but yourselves.  you can change the political system peacefully, but you simply choose not to.  apathy is a much bigger threat to american politics than tyranny.  this is an insanely american centric viewpoint that ignores how the world and countless other countries work.  what about all the democratic countries with gun control ? canada, the uk, germany, japan, australia.  no other developed nation has as lenient of gun laws as america.  yet they are of no treat of going  tyrannical .   #  only  people  stop people, only a credible threat of their actions resulting in things not being in their interests.   #  right, but why on earth do you  trust  them to only engage in violence when you want them to, and to  not  engage in violence when you do  not  want them to ? did you  want  to go to war in iraq in 0 ? to bomb libya ? syria ? do you want countless lives ruined, or even ended, because some people enjoy smoking pot ? my point was that you are  already  trusting people with that power, people who have no system that meaningfully restrains them from using that power against you exactly the way you are worried about the people here using it.  oh, sure, there are laws, and regulations, but that does not stop people.  only  people  stop people, only a credible threat of their actions resulting in things not being in their interests.  laws, when it comes down to it, are nothing more than words on paper.  words that some people believe in, are willing to use violence to enforce.  but you have no more reason to believe that the people who are charged with enforcing those laws will refrain from violating your rights than you have that i would violate them.  i mean, in case you have not been paying attention, the bill of rights has  already  been shredded  by the government you currently trust not to violate your rights.  whistleblowers getting thrown in jail, the whole  constitution free zone  URL that roughly 0/0 the american population lives in, the fact that the government has repeatedly attempted to neuter the internet despite loud and clear objection of the very people they are supposed to be representing.  these are the people you are interested in granting not only sole authority, but sole  ability  to do meaningful violence ? tl;dr: you are worried about allowing your neighbors the firepower to violate your rights, even as you have already conceded that giving people who do not know you, and do not care about you or your opinions, that same power.  the only rational response is to take responsibility for your own rights, and arm yourself well enough to ensure that no one, neighbor or government agent, can violate your rights, or anyone else is, without paying a cost so dear that such a violation is a losing proposition.   #  and without an armed populace, with an effective monopoly on violence that short sighted people such as yourself maintain on their behalf , the government  has no meaningful repercussions  keeping  them  from doing whatever they want to you.   # the same logic applies to literally  everyone,  including the government.  since, as you pointed out, you cannot simply live in a violence free world, the only rational solution is to ensure that the threat of violence ensures a world that is to your liking.  but to directly answer your question, there is only ever one reason not to do whatever you feel like: because you believe that the results would make you worse off if you did it than if you did not.  that might be killing you, that might be merely hospitalizing you, that might be that you could not live with yourself afterward, it might be that nobody would interact with you afterward, it might be some other reason.  whatever the reason, the only thing that has  ever  stopped  anyone  from doing whatever they wanted was the repercussions.  and without an armed populace, with an effective monopoly on violence that short sighted people such as yourself maintain on their behalf , the government  has no meaningful repercussions  keeping  them  from doing whatever they want to you.  you worry about what people will do with firepower ? i must respond with three quotes:   a government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.  shepard book, firefly   good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern.  the machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery.  spacing guild, children of dune, frank herbert   to summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.  to summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.  to summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.  restaurant at the end of the universe, douglas adams every evil potential you attribute to yourself or your neighbor exists to an equal degree in everyone, the government included.  given that fact, combined with the fact that power attracts those most likely to  abuse  power.  should not you want to equalize power so that no one can abuse it without repercussions ?  #  heck, even campus cops are being armed like they are preparing for.  what ?  #  you  already   have  let another group have more power than your group.  it is called  the government.   think about it, they have all the power, they have weapons, and training, and they have been increasingly providing those weapons of war URL to police who already see the general population as their adversaries.  heck, even campus cops are being armed like they are preparing for.  what ? URL you see, they  are  afraid of us, but  not  that we are going to act like a despotic jerks.  they are afraid that if we gain enough power, we will be able to force  them  to  not  act like despotic jerks that, for example, prosecute and jail people who try and point out their corruption, who point out their abuses URL and have been doing so, quite literally, for decades URL so yes, you must fight to ensure your group is the most powerful.  the trick is that i, op whom you mistrusted,  are  part of your group.  i do not want to take away your rights.  i trust that you, that op, do not want to take away mine.  there is evidence, however, that the government is  not  so benevolent.  a majority of the population URL wants to end the war on drugs, but how many people in government do ? a majority wants a third party URL but both major parties in the us gerrymander that possibility away.  this is the group you are  already  trusting to have significant power over your life.  why ?  #  nor does it lend serious credence to those who oppose it.   #  i do not understand your point.  these are all just real truism that have existed since the start of human civilization.  the most famous quote regarding it and a much more direct and elegant quotation than the dune one not to mention it played out i real life , is definitely from pompey the great:  wo not you stop citing laws to us that have swords by our sides ?   however, these are cautionary tales and not tales of invalidation.  if any potential problem was a cause for cessation, we would be living in caves.  the internment of japanese was a violation of constitutional rights made during a time of extreme peril.  i do not think it was right, and we can use it as a cautionary tale for the future, but that does not make our government invalid.  nor does it lend serious credence to those who oppose it.  to demonstrate my own sci fi chops i will leave you will the j l p quote from the drumhead:  vigilance. that is the price we must continually pay.
this is an argument for us specific gun control.  in one sentence, there should be minimal gun control because the freedom to bare arms is the final check against the government.  i am not here to argue that all guns are necessary for self defense at home, at school or on the street.  i am drawing on the 0nd amendment, but this is not exactly an appeal to law argument.  just to have it handy though: let is look at a admittedly biased sequence of events.  the government passes a law that is clearly  wrong .  depending on the law, you either refuse to pay part of your taxes or you refuse to comply with the new mandates.  the following happens: 0.  you get a warning letter or a fine in the mail.  0.  you get a heftier fine in the mail.  0.  you get called out to court.  let is assume you actually go and you lose.  you still refuse to pay anything or comply.  0.  police/military come to your home to arrest you.  if there are either no guns or very limited types of guns in the us there can be no effective defense against a tyrannical government.  i believe the framers of the constitution had this idea in mind as well.  they had just fought a well regulated militia and wanted a check in case the need to do so ever happened again.  i am avoiding specifics in order to keep this as a philosophical debate.  i am not here to argue whether something today is or is not unconstitutional/immoral.  so once again, the view i am asking to be changed, is that we should  legally  be able to match the government is firepower in the event that the government turns against its people.  if i may make two small points: 0.  i should have added that i do not expect the citizens of the us to rise up and fight the military head on.  i meant that the power of a well armed population is in its decentralized nature.  0.  what is the point of downvoting my honest responses ? tell me why i am wrong or accuse me of being stubborn to the mods.   #  if there are either no guns or very limited types of guns in the us there can be no effective defense against a tyrannical government.   #  this is an insanely american centric viewpoint that ignores how the world and countless other countries work.   # well it is your fault for voting for that government.  and considering that americans keep re electing the same idiots into congress, you have no one to blame but yourselves.  you can change the political system peacefully, but you simply choose not to.  apathy is a much bigger threat to american politics than tyranny.  this is an insanely american centric viewpoint that ignores how the world and countless other countries work.  what about all the democratic countries with gun control ? canada, the uk, germany, japan, australia.  no other developed nation has as lenient of gun laws as america.  yet they are of no treat of going  tyrannical .   #  oh, sure, there are laws, and regulations, but that does not stop people.   #  right, but why on earth do you  trust  them to only engage in violence when you want them to, and to  not  engage in violence when you do  not  want them to ? did you  want  to go to war in iraq in 0 ? to bomb libya ? syria ? do you want countless lives ruined, or even ended, because some people enjoy smoking pot ? my point was that you are  already  trusting people with that power, people who have no system that meaningfully restrains them from using that power against you exactly the way you are worried about the people here using it.  oh, sure, there are laws, and regulations, but that does not stop people.  only  people  stop people, only a credible threat of their actions resulting in things not being in their interests.  laws, when it comes down to it, are nothing more than words on paper.  words that some people believe in, are willing to use violence to enforce.  but you have no more reason to believe that the people who are charged with enforcing those laws will refrain from violating your rights than you have that i would violate them.  i mean, in case you have not been paying attention, the bill of rights has  already  been shredded  by the government you currently trust not to violate your rights.  whistleblowers getting thrown in jail, the whole  constitution free zone  URL that roughly 0/0 the american population lives in, the fact that the government has repeatedly attempted to neuter the internet despite loud and clear objection of the very people they are supposed to be representing.  these are the people you are interested in granting not only sole authority, but sole  ability  to do meaningful violence ? tl;dr: you are worried about allowing your neighbors the firepower to violate your rights, even as you have already conceded that giving people who do not know you, and do not care about you or your opinions, that same power.  the only rational response is to take responsibility for your own rights, and arm yourself well enough to ensure that no one, neighbor or government agent, can violate your rights, or anyone else is, without paying a cost so dear that such a violation is a losing proposition.   #  since, as you pointed out, you cannot simply live in a violence free world, the only rational solution is to ensure that the threat of violence ensures a world that is to your liking.   # the same logic applies to literally  everyone,  including the government.  since, as you pointed out, you cannot simply live in a violence free world, the only rational solution is to ensure that the threat of violence ensures a world that is to your liking.  but to directly answer your question, there is only ever one reason not to do whatever you feel like: because you believe that the results would make you worse off if you did it than if you did not.  that might be killing you, that might be merely hospitalizing you, that might be that you could not live with yourself afterward, it might be that nobody would interact with you afterward, it might be some other reason.  whatever the reason, the only thing that has  ever  stopped  anyone  from doing whatever they wanted was the repercussions.  and without an armed populace, with an effective monopoly on violence that short sighted people such as yourself maintain on their behalf , the government  has no meaningful repercussions  keeping  them  from doing whatever they want to you.  you worry about what people will do with firepower ? i must respond with three quotes:   a government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.  shepard book, firefly   good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern.  the machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery.  spacing guild, children of dune, frank herbert   to summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.  to summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.  to summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.  restaurant at the end of the universe, douglas adams every evil potential you attribute to yourself or your neighbor exists to an equal degree in everyone, the government included.  given that fact, combined with the fact that power attracts those most likely to  abuse  power.  should not you want to equalize power so that no one can abuse it without repercussions ?  #  you  already   have  let another group have more power than your group.   #  you  already   have  let another group have more power than your group.  it is called  the government.   think about it, they have all the power, they have weapons, and training, and they have been increasingly providing those weapons of war URL to police who already see the general population as their adversaries.  heck, even campus cops are being armed like they are preparing for.  what ? URL you see, they  are  afraid of us, but  not  that we are going to act like a despotic jerks.  they are afraid that if we gain enough power, we will be able to force  them  to  not  act like despotic jerks that, for example, prosecute and jail people who try and point out their corruption, who point out their abuses URL and have been doing so, quite literally, for decades URL so yes, you must fight to ensure your group is the most powerful.  the trick is that i, op whom you mistrusted,  are  part of your group.  i do not want to take away your rights.  i trust that you, that op, do not want to take away mine.  there is evidence, however, that the government is  not  so benevolent.  a majority of the population URL wants to end the war on drugs, but how many people in government do ? a majority wants a third party URL but both major parties in the us gerrymander that possibility away.  this is the group you are  already  trusting to have significant power over your life.  why ?  #  i do not think it was right, and we can use it as a cautionary tale for the future, but that does not make our government invalid.   #  i do not understand your point.  these are all just real truism that have existed since the start of human civilization.  the most famous quote regarding it and a much more direct and elegant quotation than the dune one not to mention it played out i real life , is definitely from pompey the great:  wo not you stop citing laws to us that have swords by our sides ?   however, these are cautionary tales and not tales of invalidation.  if any potential problem was a cause for cessation, we would be living in caves.  the internment of japanese was a violation of constitutional rights made during a time of extreme peril.  i do not think it was right, and we can use it as a cautionary tale for the future, but that does not make our government invalid.  nor does it lend serious credence to those who oppose it.  to demonstrate my own sci fi chops i will leave you will the j l p quote from the drumhead:  vigilance. that is the price we must continually pay.
i feel very strongly that the main motivation for these killers is not the pleasure they get from murdering kids, but the shock and disgust they subject the public to.  they are psychopathic and horribly depressed, and instead of killing themselves outright they want to release some of the pain they have felt onto the world.  so far, the media has played along exactly as these people want.  they turn these people into celebrities, and for months after every shooting every media outlet talks about the shooting non stop.  edgy people on the internet spread the person is picture around as part of some ironic joke, all the churches across the country hold daily prayer services or whatever.  the whole country gets completely worked up and panicky and this is exactly what the shooter wants.  the part that makes me the most angry is that a news station or magazine directly profits from publishing every single scrap of information they can get their hands on.  you will see pictures of the shooter from years before the event took place.  these tragedies result in a profit for whatever news organization can deliver the most info to the  grieving  public, perpetuating the state of panic for longer and fulfilling these sick murderer is fantasies.  it might sound drastic, but if a law was passed that treated these people like terrorists and forbid the media to give into their demands, i feel that the amount of shootings would go down.  cmv, or at least tell my why making a law about it would be a bad idea.   #  i feel very strongly that the main motivation for these killers is not the pleasure they get from murdering kids, but the shock and disgust they subject the public to.   #  while that may make sense, the real motives for these atrocities are largely unknown.   # while that may make sense, the real motives for these atrocities are largely unknown.  some of these killers make it known that they are after notoriety, seung hui cho virgina tech send his manifesto to the local police along with video tapes and pictures detailing his plan to the public.  it clear he was looking to inflict as much suffering to the world as possible and get his name and face shown all over the world.  however, adam lanza sandy hook destroyed his computer and left no indication behind his motives.  it is difficult to say what he was after since he left nothing behind.  when these type of crimes happen people look for answers.  they blame the prevalence of guns, violent video games, mental illness, bullying, metal music, rap music, and even desire to have the infamous legacy these killers leave behind.  what makes these kind of crimes so scary is how inconsistent the motives are.  no one really knows why people do these terrible things, but not allowing people to know what happened and who did it would not be any help to anyone.   #  i will agree that it often gets out of hand, but the idea that these kind of charges can be resolved in private is scary.   #  i will bite.  it is very important that the press be able to operate in the case of any and all crimes, and is especially important in cases where a significant sentence is likely to be handed down, or where the crimes being accused are particularly grievous.  if the police are able to level and prosecute large crimes without public oversight, without the media circus, we are handing over too much power.  i will agree that it often gets out of hand, but the idea that these kind of charges can be resolved in private is scary.  i would rather have the misguided media frenzy then have a situation where a school shooting happens, followed by the police arresting someone to be never be heard from again.  if we try to play an imaginary middle ground where we presume that the press is able to publish anything they chose to, but chose not to, then i feel we stray to far into fantasy.  we already have that, and most major outlets chose to dig the dirt.  and why not ? the public watches.  the options then become; 0.  scary censorship 0.  leave things the way they are.  0.  change human nature.  i do not like 0, and 0 is unachievable.   #  you do not need people perching outside the school speculating endlessly without any verifiable facts, or a news helicopter circling over the school for hours while the anchors bloviate.   #  i would argue legal censorship is unnecessary, and instead could be covered by ethical standards that journalists abide by.  covering a school shooting should be done in a factual way, but not in the blustery 0 hour coverage that it is now.  so you would get the information on the shooting, then later the info on the arrests, if any, and then some minor coverage of the verdict.  you do not need people perching outside the school speculating endlessly without any verifiable facts, or a news helicopter circling over the school for hours while the anchors bloviate.  here is a great article on the subject URL and here is an even better URL clip from charlie brooker is newswipe with a forensic psychologist discussing the matter.  the type of coverage that exists for school shootings now leads to inaccurate information, rampant speculation, revictimization of people, and encourages further incidents by lighting a fire in the minds of other troubled young people out there.  he even goes through a list of things that media outlets can do, concluding with this:   every time we have intense saturation coverage of a mass murder, we expect to see one or two more within a week.   #  but in the short term, the problem is not one we can easily fix, and certainly not by focusing on this one small aspect of for profit media.   # it would.  there is no doubt about it.  but the station three channels over that is showing you the killers name, face, planning and motivations would still make more money than the one going for morally righteous viewers.  if the same station keeps making these morally righteous choices where the other station keeps making the choices that net them maximum profit, people investing in the stations are usually going to invest more in profit.  the stations that are both making more money  and  getting more investments are going to have bigger budgets, more advertising, less competition, etc.  to change any of that you are going to have to either do what /u/alaricus said: 0: change human nature.  or 0: scary censorship or a possible third option: 0: rework capitalism.  i am sure there are great arguments in favour of 0, but it is a far larger problem than what gets front page coverage in the news.  i ca not really change your view on whether or not they  should  be published, and i personally do not watch or read most profit driven news sources because i do not agree with the way it is all set up.  but in the short term, the problem is not one we can easily fix, and certainly not by focusing on this one small aspect of for profit media.   #  which i guess is the nature of current journalism.   #  i think a more important issue than  letting the killer get what he/she wanted  is taking steps to prevent shootings from happening and it has been seen that modern media coverage of a school shooting triggers a school shooting.  copycat killers if you will.  they begin the news report with flashing lights and sirens and cars driving or sitting outside a school.  they show the name of the school, they show a picture of the killer, they show his/her name, what videogames he/she played, they give the number of people the person killed.  they focus on the murderer too much.  these reports are made in a way designed to .  i want to find an alternative to  excite .  the audience.  which i guess is the nature of current journalism.  to a damaged individual watching, he see he gets to have his name up on tv, people will talk about what he did and try to figure out why and show a montage of his life.  this starts to sound like a good idea.  these reports should be done in the most boring way possible, no flashing lights, no police, just talk about the school community and the victims, showing their pictures if parents allow and you can obviouslymention their killer but do not make that the headline.  it is similar to how windfarm and wifi disease or, god help you, windfarms  with  wifi news reports spread the disease that does not exist.  school shooting news reports are designed in a way that causes more shootings and this shouldnt be a thing.
i feel very strongly that the main motivation for these killers is not the pleasure they get from murdering kids, but the shock and disgust they subject the public to.  they are psychopathic and horribly depressed, and instead of killing themselves outright they want to release some of the pain they have felt onto the world.  so far, the media has played along exactly as these people want.  they turn these people into celebrities, and for months after every shooting every media outlet talks about the shooting non stop.  edgy people on the internet spread the person is picture around as part of some ironic joke, all the churches across the country hold daily prayer services or whatever.  the whole country gets completely worked up and panicky and this is exactly what the shooter wants.  the part that makes me the most angry is that a news station or magazine directly profits from publishing every single scrap of information they can get their hands on.  you will see pictures of the shooter from years before the event took place.  these tragedies result in a profit for whatever news organization can deliver the most info to the  grieving  public, perpetuating the state of panic for longer and fulfilling these sick murderer is fantasies.  it might sound drastic, but if a law was passed that treated these people like terrorists and forbid the media to give into their demands, i feel that the amount of shootings would go down.  cmv, or at least tell my why making a law about it would be a bad idea.   #  i feel very strongly that the main motivation for these killers is not the pleasure they get from murdering kids, but the shock and disgust they subject the public to.   #  there are many reasons that these things happen, not one.   # there are many reasons that these things happen, not one.  many of them genuinely think they are going to get vengeance for wrongs they feel have been committed against them.  others are motivated by the hope for a sick thrill.  some are actually convinced that they can get away with it.  painting every one with a single brush obfuscates the truth and keeps us from better understanding the matter.  that, in turn, keeps us from creating better safeguards against these things when they happen and from creating better systems of preventing them from happening at all.  you are overreacting to the ridiculous coverage.  the answer is more moderate, reasonable coverage, not banning any coverage at all.  there is a difference between cnn is  let is look at the condiments in the death fridge  0 hour glamorization and a calm, measured recounting of the facts.  cmv, or at least tell my why making a law about it would be a bad idea.  assuming you are an american, your proposed law would be stricken down immediately by the supreme court.  it would be a blatant violation of the freedom of the press outlined in the first amendment, and the body of case law concerning it is fairly clear.  what is more, your law would set a  terrifying  precedent, allowing the government to arbitrarily decide what news programs are allowed to cover.  if the government decides that the news ca not cover protesters, is that ok ? how about political corruption ? how about an entire war ? this kind of erosion of the freedom of the press can quickly snowball into a ministry of truth URL situation, which is why our constitution explicitly forbids it.   #  if we try to play an imaginary middle ground where we presume that the press is able to publish anything they chose to, but chose not to, then i feel we stray to far into fantasy.   #  i will bite.  it is very important that the press be able to operate in the case of any and all crimes, and is especially important in cases where a significant sentence is likely to be handed down, or where the crimes being accused are particularly grievous.  if the police are able to level and prosecute large crimes without public oversight, without the media circus, we are handing over too much power.  i will agree that it often gets out of hand, but the idea that these kind of charges can be resolved in private is scary.  i would rather have the misguided media frenzy then have a situation where a school shooting happens, followed by the police arresting someone to be never be heard from again.  if we try to play an imaginary middle ground where we presume that the press is able to publish anything they chose to, but chose not to, then i feel we stray to far into fantasy.  we already have that, and most major outlets chose to dig the dirt.  and why not ? the public watches.  the options then become; 0.  scary censorship 0.  leave things the way they are.  0.  change human nature.  i do not like 0, and 0 is unachievable.   #  here is a great article on the subject URL and here is an even better URL clip from charlie brooker is newswipe with a forensic psychologist discussing the matter.   #  i would argue legal censorship is unnecessary, and instead could be covered by ethical standards that journalists abide by.  covering a school shooting should be done in a factual way, but not in the blustery 0 hour coverage that it is now.  so you would get the information on the shooting, then later the info on the arrests, if any, and then some minor coverage of the verdict.  you do not need people perching outside the school speculating endlessly without any verifiable facts, or a news helicopter circling over the school for hours while the anchors bloviate.  here is a great article on the subject URL and here is an even better URL clip from charlie brooker is newswipe with a forensic psychologist discussing the matter.  the type of coverage that exists for school shootings now leads to inaccurate information, rampant speculation, revictimization of people, and encourages further incidents by lighting a fire in the minds of other troubled young people out there.  he even goes through a list of things that media outlets can do, concluding with this:   every time we have intense saturation coverage of a mass murder, we expect to see one or two more within a week.   #  but the station three channels over that is showing you the killers name, face, planning and motivations would still make more money than the one going for morally righteous viewers.   # it would.  there is no doubt about it.  but the station three channels over that is showing you the killers name, face, planning and motivations would still make more money than the one going for morally righteous viewers.  if the same station keeps making these morally righteous choices where the other station keeps making the choices that net them maximum profit, people investing in the stations are usually going to invest more in profit.  the stations that are both making more money  and  getting more investments are going to have bigger budgets, more advertising, less competition, etc.  to change any of that you are going to have to either do what /u/alaricus said: 0: change human nature.  or 0: scary censorship or a possible third option: 0: rework capitalism.  i am sure there are great arguments in favour of 0, but it is a far larger problem than what gets front page coverage in the news.  i ca not really change your view on whether or not they  should  be published, and i personally do not watch or read most profit driven news sources because i do not agree with the way it is all set up.  but in the short term, the problem is not one we can easily fix, and certainly not by focusing on this one small aspect of for profit media.   #  they show the name of the school, they show a picture of the killer, they show his/her name, what videogames he/she played, they give the number of people the person killed.   #  i think a more important issue than  letting the killer get what he/she wanted  is taking steps to prevent shootings from happening and it has been seen that modern media coverage of a school shooting triggers a school shooting.  copycat killers if you will.  they begin the news report with flashing lights and sirens and cars driving or sitting outside a school.  they show the name of the school, they show a picture of the killer, they show his/her name, what videogames he/she played, they give the number of people the person killed.  they focus on the murderer too much.  these reports are made in a way designed to .  i want to find an alternative to  excite .  the audience.  which i guess is the nature of current journalism.  to a damaged individual watching, he see he gets to have his name up on tv, people will talk about what he did and try to figure out why and show a montage of his life.  this starts to sound like a good idea.  these reports should be done in the most boring way possible, no flashing lights, no police, just talk about the school community and the victims, showing their pictures if parents allow and you can obviouslymention their killer but do not make that the headline.  it is similar to how windfarm and wifi disease or, god help you, windfarms  with  wifi news reports spread the disease that does not exist.  school shooting news reports are designed in a way that causes more shootings and this shouldnt be a thing.
i feel very strongly that the main motivation for these killers is not the pleasure they get from murdering kids, but the shock and disgust they subject the public to.  they are psychopathic and horribly depressed, and instead of killing themselves outright they want to release some of the pain they have felt onto the world.  so far, the media has played along exactly as these people want.  they turn these people into celebrities, and for months after every shooting every media outlet talks about the shooting non stop.  edgy people on the internet spread the person is picture around as part of some ironic joke, all the churches across the country hold daily prayer services or whatever.  the whole country gets completely worked up and panicky and this is exactly what the shooter wants.  the part that makes me the most angry is that a news station or magazine directly profits from publishing every single scrap of information they can get their hands on.  you will see pictures of the shooter from years before the event took place.  these tragedies result in a profit for whatever news organization can deliver the most info to the  grieving  public, perpetuating the state of panic for longer and fulfilling these sick murderer is fantasies.  it might sound drastic, but if a law was passed that treated these people like terrorists and forbid the media to give into their demands, i feel that the amount of shootings would go down.  cmv, or at least tell my why making a law about it would be a bad idea.   #  it might sound drastic, but if a law was passed that treated these people like terrorists and forbid the media to give into their demands, i feel that the amount of shootings would go down.   #  cmv, or at least tell my why making a law about it would be a bad idea.   # there are many reasons that these things happen, not one.  many of them genuinely think they are going to get vengeance for wrongs they feel have been committed against them.  others are motivated by the hope for a sick thrill.  some are actually convinced that they can get away with it.  painting every one with a single brush obfuscates the truth and keeps us from better understanding the matter.  that, in turn, keeps us from creating better safeguards against these things when they happen and from creating better systems of preventing them from happening at all.  you are overreacting to the ridiculous coverage.  the answer is more moderate, reasonable coverage, not banning any coverage at all.  there is a difference between cnn is  let is look at the condiments in the death fridge  0 hour glamorization and a calm, measured recounting of the facts.  cmv, or at least tell my why making a law about it would be a bad idea.  assuming you are an american, your proposed law would be stricken down immediately by the supreme court.  it would be a blatant violation of the freedom of the press outlined in the first amendment, and the body of case law concerning it is fairly clear.  what is more, your law would set a  terrifying  precedent, allowing the government to arbitrarily decide what news programs are allowed to cover.  if the government decides that the news ca not cover protesters, is that ok ? how about political corruption ? how about an entire war ? this kind of erosion of the freedom of the press can quickly snowball into a ministry of truth URL situation, which is why our constitution explicitly forbids it.   #  if we try to play an imaginary middle ground where we presume that the press is able to publish anything they chose to, but chose not to, then i feel we stray to far into fantasy.   #  i will bite.  it is very important that the press be able to operate in the case of any and all crimes, and is especially important in cases where a significant sentence is likely to be handed down, or where the crimes being accused are particularly grievous.  if the police are able to level and prosecute large crimes without public oversight, without the media circus, we are handing over too much power.  i will agree that it often gets out of hand, but the idea that these kind of charges can be resolved in private is scary.  i would rather have the misguided media frenzy then have a situation where a school shooting happens, followed by the police arresting someone to be never be heard from again.  if we try to play an imaginary middle ground where we presume that the press is able to publish anything they chose to, but chose not to, then i feel we stray to far into fantasy.  we already have that, and most major outlets chose to dig the dirt.  and why not ? the public watches.  the options then become; 0.  scary censorship 0.  leave things the way they are.  0.  change human nature.  i do not like 0, and 0 is unachievable.   #  covering a school shooting should be done in a factual way, but not in the blustery 0 hour coverage that it is now.   #  i would argue legal censorship is unnecessary, and instead could be covered by ethical standards that journalists abide by.  covering a school shooting should be done in a factual way, but not in the blustery 0 hour coverage that it is now.  so you would get the information on the shooting, then later the info on the arrests, if any, and then some minor coverage of the verdict.  you do not need people perching outside the school speculating endlessly without any verifiable facts, or a news helicopter circling over the school for hours while the anchors bloviate.  here is a great article on the subject URL and here is an even better URL clip from charlie brooker is newswipe with a forensic psychologist discussing the matter.  the type of coverage that exists for school shootings now leads to inaccurate information, rampant speculation, revictimization of people, and encourages further incidents by lighting a fire in the minds of other troubled young people out there.  he even goes through a list of things that media outlets can do, concluding with this:   every time we have intense saturation coverage of a mass murder, we expect to see one or two more within a week.   #  i ca not really change your view on whether or not they  should  be published, and i personally do not watch or read most profit driven news sources because i do not agree with the way it is all set up.   # it would.  there is no doubt about it.  but the station three channels over that is showing you the killers name, face, planning and motivations would still make more money than the one going for morally righteous viewers.  if the same station keeps making these morally righteous choices where the other station keeps making the choices that net them maximum profit, people investing in the stations are usually going to invest more in profit.  the stations that are both making more money  and  getting more investments are going to have bigger budgets, more advertising, less competition, etc.  to change any of that you are going to have to either do what /u/alaricus said: 0: change human nature.  or 0: scary censorship or a possible third option: 0: rework capitalism.  i am sure there are great arguments in favour of 0, but it is a far larger problem than what gets front page coverage in the news.  i ca not really change your view on whether or not they  should  be published, and i personally do not watch or read most profit driven news sources because i do not agree with the way it is all set up.  but in the short term, the problem is not one we can easily fix, and certainly not by focusing on this one small aspect of for profit media.   #  they begin the news report with flashing lights and sirens and cars driving or sitting outside a school.   #  i think a more important issue than  letting the killer get what he/she wanted  is taking steps to prevent shootings from happening and it has been seen that modern media coverage of a school shooting triggers a school shooting.  copycat killers if you will.  they begin the news report with flashing lights and sirens and cars driving or sitting outside a school.  they show the name of the school, they show a picture of the killer, they show his/her name, what videogames he/she played, they give the number of people the person killed.  they focus on the murderer too much.  these reports are made in a way designed to .  i want to find an alternative to  excite .  the audience.  which i guess is the nature of current journalism.  to a damaged individual watching, he see he gets to have his name up on tv, people will talk about what he did and try to figure out why and show a montage of his life.  this starts to sound like a good idea.  these reports should be done in the most boring way possible, no flashing lights, no police, just talk about the school community and the victims, showing their pictures if parents allow and you can obviouslymention their killer but do not make that the headline.  it is similar to how windfarm and wifi disease or, god help you, windfarms  with  wifi news reports spread the disease that does not exist.  school shooting news reports are designed in a way that causes more shootings and this shouldnt be a thing.
just because a housewife does not earn papers with numbers on them does not mean  she does not do anything.   married guys of reddit, imagine if your wife would stop being  there .  you now would have to do all that shit on your own.  meaning, you would spend 0 hours of day sleeping, 0 hours working, and rest 0 hours you would be doing chores, buying food, fixing shit, dealing with bills.   tl;dr  man solves a strategical goal frees the time of everyone he provides for let is say a month and a wife spends  0 hours  a day freeing your 0 hours.  get it ? it is mutual ! imagine how awesome it feels when one of your friends tells you he will help you do something when you were not expecting that he will help ? he saves you time by spending his ! we all plan how much will this or that will take.  let is say an hour to pack your things to move the house.  your friend will save you 0 minutes of your life because now you work figuratively twice as fast.  and a wife agrees to free 0 of fucking hours every day.  every fucking day.  that is a definition of a bff.   #  you now would have to do all that shit on your own.   #  meaning, you would spend 0 hours of day sleeping, 0 hours working, and rest 0 hours you would be doing chores, buying food, fixing shit, dealing with bills.   # meaning, you would spend 0 hours of day sleeping, 0 hours working, and rest 0 hours you would be doing chores, buying food, fixing shit, dealing with bills.  this is entirely dependent on the household in question.  single people, for example, do  not  find their time split up in the way you have described.  all the cooking, cleaning, billing, etc does not take up 0 hours per week.  and while this work does increase when you have a partner it is not a linear increase.  cooking for two takes more time than cooking for one but it does not take twice as much time.  therefore in the absence of additional work raising a child i think it is highly unlikely that a non working spouse is actually  working  0 hours per week.  very often there simply is not that much work to do to maintain a household.   #  they both have a lot of variables that alter their value.   #  i will agree with the sentiment that a stay at home spouse does work that has value.  i do not agree that they are inherently equal.  the working spouse could barely make ends meet while they both live very poor and the stay at home spouse puts in more than 0 hours a day.  the working spouse could make enough money to hire help at home, freeing up the stay at home person to not need to put in an equivalent amount of work.  there can also be a wide range of value to stay at home work.  someone that is handy and can conduct repairs and maintenance has increased value.  the more kids you have to take care of the more value that role has.  see the pattern ? it is a mistake to focus on making them equal.  they both have a lot of variables that alter their value.  i am not biased against the stay at home spouse though.  i am a man whose wife has been the primary wage earner since we got married.  i think it is important to keep this gender neutral as well.  the stigma against stay at home dads hurts everyone as well.   #  it absolutely should factor into how a particular family chooses to live their life, but it is a tangential point to the ops original view in my mind.   # that is a net gain for the family of around $0,0 / month .  while you would be losing some of the  money  because the household duties wo not be done while you are at work you will be earning more and the household will have more disposable.  yes i agree, the point they were making is that a person can have a greater net benefit to the family working even if it means paying for household duties to be fulfilled by a third party.  all i meant is that the work at home still has a certain value that is independent of what other value a spouse could otherwise have.  being a high school graduate or a doctor does not change the fixed costs of childcare and other daily duties.  it absolutely should factor into how a particular family chooses to live their life, but it is a tangential point to the ops original view in my mind.   #  i would definitely say that with everything she did, she created a lot of value.   #  it honestly does depend on the specific situation.  my mom was a mostly stay at home mom.  she took care of 0 kids, which obviously saves a lot of money compared to daycare, etc.  she also was the planner for everything that allowed our money to go further.  so she cooked all the meals including figuring out what was on sale that week/what was in season and designing meals around that , was in charge of all the bills, was in charge of the budget, was in charge of the cleaning, and was in charge of all the house repairs and yard work my dad is woefully horrible at handyman things ! .  i would definitely say that with everything she did, she created a lot of value.  honestly probably more than she would have been able to make if she did go into her intended career teaching high school band .  additionally, when i was old enough, she got a part time job as a music director, so she was not strictly stay at home.  contrast this to one of my friends who was an only child.  her dad made a lot of money enough that they could easily afford to eat out every night.  so they did.  her mom was a stay at home mom and, as far as i can tell, did not really do much, particularly once my friend was in school.  the house was always dirty save for the day after their maid came, and she could not cook.   #  a front office can get by without a back office, though they will be less efficient.   #  i agree with you in part, but the word  profitable  does not apply here.  what you are essentially talking about is  front office  vs.   back office  work.  front office work generates revenue, whereas back office work is a cost needed to run the front office.  front office means sales, developing new products, and making relationships with clients.  back office means it, marketing, and operations.  unfortunately for the back office, their work is never as highly valued as front office work.  a front office can get by without a back office, though they will be less efficient.  a back office has no purpose without a front office.  it is like playing defense in a basketball game.  it is important, but a fantastic offense can get by without much defense, but a great defense still needs offense to score points.  everyone from car insurance companies to cable tv promises to save us money  save 0 by switching to geico.   very few people offer to give us cash directly, and when they do, we value those relationships highly.  the non working spouse is in the former category, whereas the working spouse is in the latter.  luckily, most people base their relationships on love and mutual trust/respect, and not on rote financial value.
just because a housewife does not earn papers with numbers on them does not mean  she does not do anything.   married guys of reddit, imagine if your wife would stop being  there .  you now would have to do all that shit on your own.  meaning, you would spend 0 hours of day sleeping, 0 hours working, and rest 0 hours you would be doing chores, buying food, fixing shit, dealing with bills.   tl;dr  man solves a strategical goal frees the time of everyone he provides for let is say a month and a wife spends  0 hours  a day freeing your 0 hours.  get it ? it is mutual ! imagine how awesome it feels when one of your friends tells you he will help you do something when you were not expecting that he will help ? he saves you time by spending his ! we all plan how much will this or that will take.  let is say an hour to pack your things to move the house.  your friend will save you 0 minutes of your life because now you work figuratively twice as fast.  and a wife agrees to free 0 of fucking hours every day.  every fucking day.  that is a definition of a bff.   #  married guys of reddit, imagine if your wife would stop being  there .   #  you now would have to do all that shit on your own.   # you now would have to do all that shit on your own.  meaning, you would spend 0 hours of day sleeping, 0 hours working, and rest 0 hours you would be doing chores, buying food, fixing shit, dealing with bills.  now there may be households, especially with kids, where you could do stuff in the house for 0 hours a day.  i am married my wife works, too , no kids, two cats.  no chance to fill 0 hours a day with work in the household.  now to the point of  equally profitable .  i could easily pay someone to do the  big things  in the household and still have enough money left.  so from a monetary point of view my work is way more profitable.   #  i am a man whose wife has been the primary wage earner since we got married.   #  i will agree with the sentiment that a stay at home spouse does work that has value.  i do not agree that they are inherently equal.  the working spouse could barely make ends meet while they both live very poor and the stay at home spouse puts in more than 0 hours a day.  the working spouse could make enough money to hire help at home, freeing up the stay at home person to not need to put in an equivalent amount of work.  there can also be a wide range of value to stay at home work.  someone that is handy and can conduct repairs and maintenance has increased value.  the more kids you have to take care of the more value that role has.  see the pattern ? it is a mistake to focus on making them equal.  they both have a lot of variables that alter their value.  i am not biased against the stay at home spouse though.  i am a man whose wife has been the primary wage earner since we got married.  i think it is important to keep this gender neutral as well.  the stigma against stay at home dads hurts everyone as well.   #  it absolutely should factor into how a particular family chooses to live their life, but it is a tangential point to the ops original view in my mind.   # that is a net gain for the family of around $0,0 / month .  while you would be losing some of the  money  because the household duties wo not be done while you are at work you will be earning more and the household will have more disposable.  yes i agree, the point they were making is that a person can have a greater net benefit to the family working even if it means paying for household duties to be fulfilled by a third party.  all i meant is that the work at home still has a certain value that is independent of what other value a spouse could otherwise have.  being a high school graduate or a doctor does not change the fixed costs of childcare and other daily duties.  it absolutely should factor into how a particular family chooses to live their life, but it is a tangential point to the ops original view in my mind.   #  additionally, when i was old enough, she got a part time job as a music director, so she was not strictly stay at home.   #  it honestly does depend on the specific situation.  my mom was a mostly stay at home mom.  she took care of 0 kids, which obviously saves a lot of money compared to daycare, etc.  she also was the planner for everything that allowed our money to go further.  so she cooked all the meals including figuring out what was on sale that week/what was in season and designing meals around that , was in charge of all the bills, was in charge of the budget, was in charge of the cleaning, and was in charge of all the house repairs and yard work my dad is woefully horrible at handyman things ! .  i would definitely say that with everything she did, she created a lot of value.  honestly probably more than she would have been able to make if she did go into her intended career teaching high school band .  additionally, when i was old enough, she got a part time job as a music director, so she was not strictly stay at home.  contrast this to one of my friends who was an only child.  her dad made a lot of money enough that they could easily afford to eat out every night.  so they did.  her mom was a stay at home mom and, as far as i can tell, did not really do much, particularly once my friend was in school.  the house was always dirty save for the day after their maid came, and she could not cook.   #  i agree with you in part, but the word  profitable  does not apply here.   #  i agree with you in part, but the word  profitable  does not apply here.  what you are essentially talking about is  front office  vs.   back office  work.  front office work generates revenue, whereas back office work is a cost needed to run the front office.  front office means sales, developing new products, and making relationships with clients.  back office means it, marketing, and operations.  unfortunately for the back office, their work is never as highly valued as front office work.  a front office can get by without a back office, though they will be less efficient.  a back office has no purpose without a front office.  it is like playing defense in a basketball game.  it is important, but a fantastic offense can get by without much defense, but a great defense still needs offense to score points.  everyone from car insurance companies to cable tv promises to save us money  save 0 by switching to geico.   very few people offer to give us cash directly, and when they do, we value those relationships highly.  the non working spouse is in the former category, whereas the working spouse is in the latter.  luckily, most people base their relationships on love and mutual trust/respect, and not on rote financial value.
just because a housewife does not earn papers with numbers on them does not mean  she does not do anything.   married guys of reddit, imagine if your wife would stop being  there .  you now would have to do all that shit on your own.  meaning, you would spend 0 hours of day sleeping, 0 hours working, and rest 0 hours you would be doing chores, buying food, fixing shit, dealing with bills.   tl;dr  man solves a strategical goal frees the time of everyone he provides for let is say a month and a wife spends  0 hours  a day freeing your 0 hours.  get it ? it is mutual ! imagine how awesome it feels when one of your friends tells you he will help you do something when you were not expecting that he will help ? he saves you time by spending his ! we all plan how much will this or that will take.  let is say an hour to pack your things to move the house.  your friend will save you 0 minutes of your life because now you work figuratively twice as fast.  and a wife agrees to free 0 of fucking hours every day.  every fucking day.  that is a definition of a bff.   #  just because a housewife does not earn papers with numbers on them does not mean  she does not do anything.    #  but it does mean that whatever she is doing is not profitable, since profit is  per definitionem  monetary.   # but it does mean that whatever she is doing is not profitable, since profit is  per definitionem  monetary.  furthermore you ca not say  equally , because you ca not just equate any type of work with any kind of housework.  how about a male neuroscientist whose wife did nothing all day besides heating a store bought dinner in the microwave ? equal profitability my shiny buttocks.  also, nobody says that a housewive  does not do anything .  what people say is that in the miniature economic unit that is the family keeping house is not necessarily 0 of all the work.  sometimes it is more than 0, most of the times it is a lot less.   #  they both have a lot of variables that alter their value.   #  i will agree with the sentiment that a stay at home spouse does work that has value.  i do not agree that they are inherently equal.  the working spouse could barely make ends meet while they both live very poor and the stay at home spouse puts in more than 0 hours a day.  the working spouse could make enough money to hire help at home, freeing up the stay at home person to not need to put in an equivalent amount of work.  there can also be a wide range of value to stay at home work.  someone that is handy and can conduct repairs and maintenance has increased value.  the more kids you have to take care of the more value that role has.  see the pattern ? it is a mistake to focus on making them equal.  they both have a lot of variables that alter their value.  i am not biased against the stay at home spouse though.  i am a man whose wife has been the primary wage earner since we got married.  i think it is important to keep this gender neutral as well.  the stigma against stay at home dads hurts everyone as well.   #  yes i agree, the point they were making is that a person can have a greater net benefit to the family working even if it means paying for household duties to be fulfilled by a third party.   # that is a net gain for the family of around $0,0 / month .  while you would be losing some of the  money  because the household duties wo not be done while you are at work you will be earning more and the household will have more disposable.  yes i agree, the point they were making is that a person can have a greater net benefit to the family working even if it means paying for household duties to be fulfilled by a third party.  all i meant is that the work at home still has a certain value that is independent of what other value a spouse could otherwise have.  being a high school graduate or a doctor does not change the fixed costs of childcare and other daily duties.  it absolutely should factor into how a particular family chooses to live their life, but it is a tangential point to the ops original view in my mind.   #  it honestly does depend on the specific situation.   #  it honestly does depend on the specific situation.  my mom was a mostly stay at home mom.  she took care of 0 kids, which obviously saves a lot of money compared to daycare, etc.  she also was the planner for everything that allowed our money to go further.  so she cooked all the meals including figuring out what was on sale that week/what was in season and designing meals around that , was in charge of all the bills, was in charge of the budget, was in charge of the cleaning, and was in charge of all the house repairs and yard work my dad is woefully horrible at handyman things ! .  i would definitely say that with everything she did, she created a lot of value.  honestly probably more than she would have been able to make if she did go into her intended career teaching high school band .  additionally, when i was old enough, she got a part time job as a music director, so she was not strictly stay at home.  contrast this to one of my friends who was an only child.  her dad made a lot of money enough that they could easily afford to eat out every night.  so they did.  her mom was a stay at home mom and, as far as i can tell, did not really do much, particularly once my friend was in school.  the house was always dirty save for the day after their maid came, and she could not cook.   #  it is important, but a fantastic offense can get by without much defense, but a great defense still needs offense to score points.   #  i agree with you in part, but the word  profitable  does not apply here.  what you are essentially talking about is  front office  vs.   back office  work.  front office work generates revenue, whereas back office work is a cost needed to run the front office.  front office means sales, developing new products, and making relationships with clients.  back office means it, marketing, and operations.  unfortunately for the back office, their work is never as highly valued as front office work.  a front office can get by without a back office, though they will be less efficient.  a back office has no purpose without a front office.  it is like playing defense in a basketball game.  it is important, but a fantastic offense can get by without much defense, but a great defense still needs offense to score points.  everyone from car insurance companies to cable tv promises to save us money  save 0 by switching to geico.   very few people offer to give us cash directly, and when they do, we value those relationships highly.  the non working spouse is in the former category, whereas the working spouse is in the latter.  luckily, most people base their relationships on love and mutual trust/respect, and not on rote financial value.
the perfect social network definition: a social network that does exactly what it is users want it to do, nothing more, nothing less.  contention 0: facebook is an open space that allows users to communicate however they wish.  one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.  contention 0: in a sea of competition, facebook has maintained it is overwhelming dominance, 0 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking.  the fact that users continue to use facebook over other social network platforms, proves that it is the optimum space.  contention 0: facebook does not judge the communication of it is users, it allows users to judge each other, themselves.  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.  i see all this facebook hate, everywhere.  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now or users would just stop using social networking as much.  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.  i want to be challenged, though.   #  contention 0: facebook is an open space that allows users to communicate however they wish.   #  one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.   # one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.  you can do that on reddit   contention 0: in a sea of competition, facebook has maintained it is overwhelming dominance, 0 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking.  i question their numbers.  several people i know have multiple accounts.  if a good % of people have more than one fb account, it may be much less than 0.  it has the most users at the moment because that is where everyone else it.  it does not mean it is any good.  it is just the same party everyone else is currently at.  a few years back it was myspace.  a few years from now something better will come along.  the majority of people i know use com cast for internet.  therefore you are saying comcast gives optimum service ? i think of you ask around you will find reviews that say otherwise.  it is like a monopoly.  no other competitor gives me access to all my fb friends.  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.  what do you mean ? do you mean they do not censor content ? if that is what you meant, you are wrong.  there is there is a whole list of things they do not want shared on the site.  for example a mother sharing a photo of breastfeeding her own baby: not permitted.  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now in the 0s bell telephone was the only way anyone could call anyone else.  it does not matter if their service was great or sucky, we paid for it because it was the only way to reach friends in that medium.  i would love to see a new site replace facebook ! but it would have to offer my friends a good reason to jump ship.  i go where they go.  i hate how nothing is private.  i hate how their rule enforcement is so haphazard.  i hate how i ca not see all of my followed friends posts.  or how i miss more than half the posts of pages i like.  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.  i want to be challenged, though.  since their last major changes, i have lost interest.  i post nothing personal at all anymore.  and my browsing time is only a few minutes a day.  i would rather be here on reddit.  or browsing other sites.  if i really want to be sure friends see what i say, i must use email or text.  bottom line: it is the only place i can talk to all of my  friends  at one time, so in a way it is a monopoly.  i will happily leave as soon as something better catches on.   #  battles tar galactic a is not the perfect show by your own definitions.   #  battles tar galactic a is not the perfect show by your own definitions.  do you think something can be perfect when people do not have a choice.  is walmart truly popular because people enjoy shopping there or because they cannot afford anyplace else and their mom and pop stores were driven out of business.  facebook has maintained its base because everyone is already there.  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.  and because so many are waiting for everyone else to switch nobody switches.  facebook greatest strength is that it has not royally pissed off its base. it certainly has not made them happy or given them value for their time.  but they have not pissed them off yet and they already got everyone so no one bothers to leave.   #  third, most importantly, people do have a choice, if people think walmart is evil, they should not shop there no matter how destitude, drive the extra 0 minutes to the target that has less stuff that is more expensive.   #  you caught me, i was using a different definition with bsg.  people enjoy shopping at walmart because it puts a bunch of products they want under one roof at a low price.  similar to how facebook combines lots of social media features that people want.  this idea of walmart killing mom and pop stores is bs, first, even if it is true, that is capitalism, the mom and pop store drove out all the single parent receiving no child support stores, competition is what it is.  second, it is not true, those mom and pop gun stores and mom and pop lawn care department did not exist in the first place.  third, most importantly, people do have a choice, if people think walmart is evil, they should not shop there no matter how destitude, drive the extra 0 minutes to the target that has less stuff that is more expensive.  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.  is there any rule that says you ca not have both accounts, myself, lots of my friends social network have accounts on both, but never use google , it does not really do much.   #  usd analogy: my view clearly distinguishes social network from perfect social network, even though my definition of social network is flawed.   # i am saying that the view you want changed amounts to  facebook is a network that people use.   in this context my view is not axiomatic.  i have explicity offered the conditon which facebook must meet in order to fall under my definition of the perfect social network.  those conditons: 0.  the social network does what it is users want it to.  0.  the social network does not do what it is user is do not want it to.  i then stated my justifications for why facebook meets these conditions.  however, it was quickly pointed out that facebook does not meet condition 0, facebook user is do not want to see ads that facebook displays, i conceded this point earlier in the thread.  my view was essentially disproven.  i overreached with my definition of a  perfect social network .  but a lot of people maintain a facebook to appease friends/family, to meet work obligations, because it is seen as suspicious not to have one, the list goes on.  could you explain your alternative explanation for facebook use a little more ? i am interested.  usd analogy: my view clearly distinguishes social network from perfect social network, even though my definition of social network is flawed.  the usd analogy only apples if my view holds synonymous social networks and perfect social networks, which it does not.  a better analogy would be   it is like saying bitcoin is the perfect currency because it does exactly what it is users want.   this ignores it is limitations beyond being a cryptocurrency.   #  they have been pretty good at shaking things up when they need to be but i really do not like using it.   # insert random high school acquaintance uploaded a photo .  since i do not use facebook that much, it seems like facebook is just giving me whatever notifications it wants so i keep using it.  i feel like it is being forced down my throat.  i have the facebook app on my phone as well.  it is a well designed app that used to be able to message people.  now they have made messenger its own app and i have to have two apps if i want to use facebook on my phone.  no it does not.  it proves that a lot of people still use facebook.  a social network like facebook will gain a lot of inertia.  it is hard to get into a new social network if nobody else is on it g  is the best example of this .  twitter has arguably managed to pull it off but it is not doing the same thing as facebook.  many people, myself included, believe that google  is actually a better social network platform.  it has a more intuitive friend grouping system.  it is laid out better.  it integrates with other google services i already use.  however, google sort of botched the roll out of it and it is forever doomed as a result.  facebook puts a lot of effort into remaining relevant and not going the way of myspace.  they have been pretty good at shaking things up when they need to be but i really do not like using it.  i feel like it is trying to be too many things at once social network, video site, link sharing site, microblogging site, chat room, web mail provider, personal calender which makes the whole experience seem cramped to me.  i think it is far from the ideal social network.  twitter is a one trick pony that does that one trick really well.  facebook is trying to do that trick and every other trick at the same time.
the perfect social network definition: a social network that does exactly what it is users want it to do, nothing more, nothing less.  contention 0: facebook is an open space that allows users to communicate however they wish.  one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.  contention 0: in a sea of competition, facebook has maintained it is overwhelming dominance, 0 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking.  the fact that users continue to use facebook over other social network platforms, proves that it is the optimum space.  contention 0: facebook does not judge the communication of it is users, it allows users to judge each other, themselves.  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.  i see all this facebook hate, everywhere.  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now or users would just stop using social networking as much.  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.  i want to be challenged, though.   #  the fact that users continue to use facebook over other social network platforms, proves that it is the optimum space.   #  the majority of people i know use com cast for internet.   # one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.  you can do that on reddit   contention 0: in a sea of competition, facebook has maintained it is overwhelming dominance, 0 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking.  i question their numbers.  several people i know have multiple accounts.  if a good % of people have more than one fb account, it may be much less than 0.  it has the most users at the moment because that is where everyone else it.  it does not mean it is any good.  it is just the same party everyone else is currently at.  a few years back it was myspace.  a few years from now something better will come along.  the majority of people i know use com cast for internet.  therefore you are saying comcast gives optimum service ? i think of you ask around you will find reviews that say otherwise.  it is like a monopoly.  no other competitor gives me access to all my fb friends.  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.  what do you mean ? do you mean they do not censor content ? if that is what you meant, you are wrong.  there is there is a whole list of things they do not want shared on the site.  for example a mother sharing a photo of breastfeeding her own baby: not permitted.  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now in the 0s bell telephone was the only way anyone could call anyone else.  it does not matter if their service was great or sucky, we paid for it because it was the only way to reach friends in that medium.  i would love to see a new site replace facebook ! but it would have to offer my friends a good reason to jump ship.  i go where they go.  i hate how nothing is private.  i hate how their rule enforcement is so haphazard.  i hate how i ca not see all of my followed friends posts.  or how i miss more than half the posts of pages i like.  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.  i want to be challenged, though.  since their last major changes, i have lost interest.  i post nothing personal at all anymore.  and my browsing time is only a few minutes a day.  i would rather be here on reddit.  or browsing other sites.  if i really want to be sure friends see what i say, i must use email or text.  bottom line: it is the only place i can talk to all of my  friends  at one time, so in a way it is a monopoly.  i will happily leave as soon as something better catches on.   #  and because so many are waiting for everyone else to switch nobody switches.   #  battles tar galactic a is not the perfect show by your own definitions.  do you think something can be perfect when people do not have a choice.  is walmart truly popular because people enjoy shopping there or because they cannot afford anyplace else and their mom and pop stores were driven out of business.  facebook has maintained its base because everyone is already there.  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.  and because so many are waiting for everyone else to switch nobody switches.  facebook greatest strength is that it has not royally pissed off its base. it certainly has not made them happy or given them value for their time.  but they have not pissed them off yet and they already got everyone so no one bothers to leave.   #  you caught me, i was using a different definition with bsg.   #  you caught me, i was using a different definition with bsg.  people enjoy shopping at walmart because it puts a bunch of products they want under one roof at a low price.  similar to how facebook combines lots of social media features that people want.  this idea of walmart killing mom and pop stores is bs, first, even if it is true, that is capitalism, the mom and pop store drove out all the single parent receiving no child support stores, competition is what it is.  second, it is not true, those mom and pop gun stores and mom and pop lawn care department did not exist in the first place.  third, most importantly, people do have a choice, if people think walmart is evil, they should not shop there no matter how destitude, drive the extra 0 minutes to the target that has less stuff that is more expensive.  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.  is there any rule that says you ca not have both accounts, myself, lots of my friends social network have accounts on both, but never use google , it does not really do much.   #  but a lot of people maintain a facebook to appease friends/family, to meet work obligations, because it is seen as suspicious not to have one, the list goes on.   # i am saying that the view you want changed amounts to  facebook is a network that people use.   in this context my view is not axiomatic.  i have explicity offered the conditon which facebook must meet in order to fall under my definition of the perfect social network.  those conditons: 0.  the social network does what it is users want it to.  0.  the social network does not do what it is user is do not want it to.  i then stated my justifications for why facebook meets these conditions.  however, it was quickly pointed out that facebook does not meet condition 0, facebook user is do not want to see ads that facebook displays, i conceded this point earlier in the thread.  my view was essentially disproven.  i overreached with my definition of a  perfect social network .  but a lot of people maintain a facebook to appease friends/family, to meet work obligations, because it is seen as suspicious not to have one, the list goes on.  could you explain your alternative explanation for facebook use a little more ? i am interested.  usd analogy: my view clearly distinguishes social network from perfect social network, even though my definition of social network is flawed.  the usd analogy only apples if my view holds synonymous social networks and perfect social networks, which it does not.  a better analogy would be   it is like saying bitcoin is the perfect currency because it does exactly what it is users want.   this ignores it is limitations beyond being a cryptocurrency.   #  however, google sort of botched the roll out of it and it is forever doomed as a result.   # insert random high school acquaintance uploaded a photo .  since i do not use facebook that much, it seems like facebook is just giving me whatever notifications it wants so i keep using it.  i feel like it is being forced down my throat.  i have the facebook app on my phone as well.  it is a well designed app that used to be able to message people.  now they have made messenger its own app and i have to have two apps if i want to use facebook on my phone.  no it does not.  it proves that a lot of people still use facebook.  a social network like facebook will gain a lot of inertia.  it is hard to get into a new social network if nobody else is on it g  is the best example of this .  twitter has arguably managed to pull it off but it is not doing the same thing as facebook.  many people, myself included, believe that google  is actually a better social network platform.  it has a more intuitive friend grouping system.  it is laid out better.  it integrates with other google services i already use.  however, google sort of botched the roll out of it and it is forever doomed as a result.  facebook puts a lot of effort into remaining relevant and not going the way of myspace.  they have been pretty good at shaking things up when they need to be but i really do not like using it.  i feel like it is trying to be too many things at once social network, video site, link sharing site, microblogging site, chat room, web mail provider, personal calender which makes the whole experience seem cramped to me.  i think it is far from the ideal social network.  twitter is a one trick pony that does that one trick really well.  facebook is trying to do that trick and every other trick at the same time.
the perfect social network definition: a social network that does exactly what it is users want it to do, nothing more, nothing less.  contention 0: facebook is an open space that allows users to communicate however they wish.  one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.  contention 0: in a sea of competition, facebook has maintained it is overwhelming dominance, 0 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking.  the fact that users continue to use facebook over other social network platforms, proves that it is the optimum space.  contention 0: facebook does not judge the communication of it is users, it allows users to judge each other, themselves.  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.  i see all this facebook hate, everywhere.  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now or users would just stop using social networking as much.  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.  i want to be challenged, though.   #  contention 0: facebook does not judge the communication of it is users, it allows users to judge each other, themselves.   #  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.   # one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.  you can do that on reddit   contention 0: in a sea of competition, facebook has maintained it is overwhelming dominance, 0 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking.  i question their numbers.  several people i know have multiple accounts.  if a good % of people have more than one fb account, it may be much less than 0.  it has the most users at the moment because that is where everyone else it.  it does not mean it is any good.  it is just the same party everyone else is currently at.  a few years back it was myspace.  a few years from now something better will come along.  the majority of people i know use com cast for internet.  therefore you are saying comcast gives optimum service ? i think of you ask around you will find reviews that say otherwise.  it is like a monopoly.  no other competitor gives me access to all my fb friends.  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.  what do you mean ? do you mean they do not censor content ? if that is what you meant, you are wrong.  there is there is a whole list of things they do not want shared on the site.  for example a mother sharing a photo of breastfeeding her own baby: not permitted.  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now in the 0s bell telephone was the only way anyone could call anyone else.  it does not matter if their service was great or sucky, we paid for it because it was the only way to reach friends in that medium.  i would love to see a new site replace facebook ! but it would have to offer my friends a good reason to jump ship.  i go where they go.  i hate how nothing is private.  i hate how their rule enforcement is so haphazard.  i hate how i ca not see all of my followed friends posts.  or how i miss more than half the posts of pages i like.  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.  i want to be challenged, though.  since their last major changes, i have lost interest.  i post nothing personal at all anymore.  and my browsing time is only a few minutes a day.  i would rather be here on reddit.  or browsing other sites.  if i really want to be sure friends see what i say, i must use email or text.  bottom line: it is the only place i can talk to all of my  friends  at one time, so in a way it is a monopoly.  i will happily leave as soon as something better catches on.   #  is walmart truly popular because people enjoy shopping there or because they cannot afford anyplace else and their mom and pop stores were driven out of business.   #  battles tar galactic a is not the perfect show by your own definitions.  do you think something can be perfect when people do not have a choice.  is walmart truly popular because people enjoy shopping there or because they cannot afford anyplace else and their mom and pop stores were driven out of business.  facebook has maintained its base because everyone is already there.  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.  and because so many are waiting for everyone else to switch nobody switches.  facebook greatest strength is that it has not royally pissed off its base. it certainly has not made them happy or given them value for their time.  but they have not pissed them off yet and they already got everyone so no one bothers to leave.   #  you caught me, i was using a different definition with bsg.   #  you caught me, i was using a different definition with bsg.  people enjoy shopping at walmart because it puts a bunch of products they want under one roof at a low price.  similar to how facebook combines lots of social media features that people want.  this idea of walmart killing mom and pop stores is bs, first, even if it is true, that is capitalism, the mom and pop store drove out all the single parent receiving no child support stores, competition is what it is.  second, it is not true, those mom and pop gun stores and mom and pop lawn care department did not exist in the first place.  third, most importantly, people do have a choice, if people think walmart is evil, they should not shop there no matter how destitude, drive the extra 0 minutes to the target that has less stuff that is more expensive.  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.  is there any rule that says you ca not have both accounts, myself, lots of my friends social network have accounts on both, but never use google , it does not really do much.   #  but a lot of people maintain a facebook to appease friends/family, to meet work obligations, because it is seen as suspicious not to have one, the list goes on.   # i am saying that the view you want changed amounts to  facebook is a network that people use.   in this context my view is not axiomatic.  i have explicity offered the conditon which facebook must meet in order to fall under my definition of the perfect social network.  those conditons: 0.  the social network does what it is users want it to.  0.  the social network does not do what it is user is do not want it to.  i then stated my justifications for why facebook meets these conditions.  however, it was quickly pointed out that facebook does not meet condition 0, facebook user is do not want to see ads that facebook displays, i conceded this point earlier in the thread.  my view was essentially disproven.  i overreached with my definition of a  perfect social network .  but a lot of people maintain a facebook to appease friends/family, to meet work obligations, because it is seen as suspicious not to have one, the list goes on.  could you explain your alternative explanation for facebook use a little more ? i am interested.  usd analogy: my view clearly distinguishes social network from perfect social network, even though my definition of social network is flawed.  the usd analogy only apples if my view holds synonymous social networks and perfect social networks, which it does not.  a better analogy would be   it is like saying bitcoin is the perfect currency because it does exactly what it is users want.   this ignores it is limitations beyond being a cryptocurrency.   #  a social network like facebook will gain a lot of inertia.   # insert random high school acquaintance uploaded a photo .  since i do not use facebook that much, it seems like facebook is just giving me whatever notifications it wants so i keep using it.  i feel like it is being forced down my throat.  i have the facebook app on my phone as well.  it is a well designed app that used to be able to message people.  now they have made messenger its own app and i have to have two apps if i want to use facebook on my phone.  no it does not.  it proves that a lot of people still use facebook.  a social network like facebook will gain a lot of inertia.  it is hard to get into a new social network if nobody else is on it g  is the best example of this .  twitter has arguably managed to pull it off but it is not doing the same thing as facebook.  many people, myself included, believe that google  is actually a better social network platform.  it has a more intuitive friend grouping system.  it is laid out better.  it integrates with other google services i already use.  however, google sort of botched the roll out of it and it is forever doomed as a result.  facebook puts a lot of effort into remaining relevant and not going the way of myspace.  they have been pretty good at shaking things up when they need to be but i really do not like using it.  i feel like it is trying to be too many things at once social network, video site, link sharing site, microblogging site, chat room, web mail provider, personal calender which makes the whole experience seem cramped to me.  i think it is far from the ideal social network.  twitter is a one trick pony that does that one trick really well.  facebook is trying to do that trick and every other trick at the same time.
the perfect social network definition: a social network that does exactly what it is users want it to do, nothing more, nothing less.  contention 0: facebook is an open space that allows users to communicate however they wish.  one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.  contention 0: in a sea of competition, facebook has maintained it is overwhelming dominance, 0 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking.  the fact that users continue to use facebook over other social network platforms, proves that it is the optimum space.  contention 0: facebook does not judge the communication of it is users, it allows users to judge each other, themselves.  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.  i see all this facebook hate, everywhere.  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now or users would just stop using social networking as much.  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.  i want to be challenged, though.   #  i see all this facebook hate, everywhere.   #  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now in the 0s bell telephone was the only way anyone could call anyone else.   # one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.  you can do that on reddit   contention 0: in a sea of competition, facebook has maintained it is overwhelming dominance, 0 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking.  i question their numbers.  several people i know have multiple accounts.  if a good % of people have more than one fb account, it may be much less than 0.  it has the most users at the moment because that is where everyone else it.  it does not mean it is any good.  it is just the same party everyone else is currently at.  a few years back it was myspace.  a few years from now something better will come along.  the majority of people i know use com cast for internet.  therefore you are saying comcast gives optimum service ? i think of you ask around you will find reviews that say otherwise.  it is like a monopoly.  no other competitor gives me access to all my fb friends.  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.  what do you mean ? do you mean they do not censor content ? if that is what you meant, you are wrong.  there is there is a whole list of things they do not want shared on the site.  for example a mother sharing a photo of breastfeeding her own baby: not permitted.  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now in the 0s bell telephone was the only way anyone could call anyone else.  it does not matter if their service was great or sucky, we paid for it because it was the only way to reach friends in that medium.  i would love to see a new site replace facebook ! but it would have to offer my friends a good reason to jump ship.  i go where they go.  i hate how nothing is private.  i hate how their rule enforcement is so haphazard.  i hate how i ca not see all of my followed friends posts.  or how i miss more than half the posts of pages i like.  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.  i want to be challenged, though.  since their last major changes, i have lost interest.  i post nothing personal at all anymore.  and my browsing time is only a few minutes a day.  i would rather be here on reddit.  or browsing other sites.  if i really want to be sure friends see what i say, i must use email or text.  bottom line: it is the only place i can talk to all of my  friends  at one time, so in a way it is a monopoly.  i will happily leave as soon as something better catches on.   #  and because so many are waiting for everyone else to switch nobody switches.   #  battles tar galactic a is not the perfect show by your own definitions.  do you think something can be perfect when people do not have a choice.  is walmart truly popular because people enjoy shopping there or because they cannot afford anyplace else and their mom and pop stores were driven out of business.  facebook has maintained its base because everyone is already there.  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.  and because so many are waiting for everyone else to switch nobody switches.  facebook greatest strength is that it has not royally pissed off its base. it certainly has not made them happy or given them value for their time.  but they have not pissed them off yet and they already got everyone so no one bothers to leave.   #  second, it is not true, those mom and pop gun stores and mom and pop lawn care department did not exist in the first place.   #  you caught me, i was using a different definition with bsg.  people enjoy shopping at walmart because it puts a bunch of products they want under one roof at a low price.  similar to how facebook combines lots of social media features that people want.  this idea of walmart killing mom and pop stores is bs, first, even if it is true, that is capitalism, the mom and pop store drove out all the single parent receiving no child support stores, competition is what it is.  second, it is not true, those mom and pop gun stores and mom and pop lawn care department did not exist in the first place.  third, most importantly, people do have a choice, if people think walmart is evil, they should not shop there no matter how destitude, drive the extra 0 minutes to the target that has less stuff that is more expensive.  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.  is there any rule that says you ca not have both accounts, myself, lots of my friends social network have accounts on both, but never use google , it does not really do much.   #  i am saying that the view you want changed amounts to  facebook is a network that people use.    # i am saying that the view you want changed amounts to  facebook is a network that people use.   in this context my view is not axiomatic.  i have explicity offered the conditon which facebook must meet in order to fall under my definition of the perfect social network.  those conditons: 0.  the social network does what it is users want it to.  0.  the social network does not do what it is user is do not want it to.  i then stated my justifications for why facebook meets these conditions.  however, it was quickly pointed out that facebook does not meet condition 0, facebook user is do not want to see ads that facebook displays, i conceded this point earlier in the thread.  my view was essentially disproven.  i overreached with my definition of a  perfect social network .  but a lot of people maintain a facebook to appease friends/family, to meet work obligations, because it is seen as suspicious not to have one, the list goes on.  could you explain your alternative explanation for facebook use a little more ? i am interested.  usd analogy: my view clearly distinguishes social network from perfect social network, even though my definition of social network is flawed.  the usd analogy only apples if my view holds synonymous social networks and perfect social networks, which it does not.  a better analogy would be   it is like saying bitcoin is the perfect currency because it does exactly what it is users want.   this ignores it is limitations beyond being a cryptocurrency.   #  insert random high school acquaintance uploaded a photo .   # insert random high school acquaintance uploaded a photo .  since i do not use facebook that much, it seems like facebook is just giving me whatever notifications it wants so i keep using it.  i feel like it is being forced down my throat.  i have the facebook app on my phone as well.  it is a well designed app that used to be able to message people.  now they have made messenger its own app and i have to have two apps if i want to use facebook on my phone.  no it does not.  it proves that a lot of people still use facebook.  a social network like facebook will gain a lot of inertia.  it is hard to get into a new social network if nobody else is on it g  is the best example of this .  twitter has arguably managed to pull it off but it is not doing the same thing as facebook.  many people, myself included, believe that google  is actually a better social network platform.  it has a more intuitive friend grouping system.  it is laid out better.  it integrates with other google services i already use.  however, google sort of botched the roll out of it and it is forever doomed as a result.  facebook puts a lot of effort into remaining relevant and not going the way of myspace.  they have been pretty good at shaking things up when they need to be but i really do not like using it.  i feel like it is trying to be too many things at once social network, video site, link sharing site, microblogging site, chat room, web mail provider, personal calender which makes the whole experience seem cramped to me.  i think it is far from the ideal social network.  twitter is a one trick pony that does that one trick really well.  facebook is trying to do that trick and every other trick at the same time.
the perfect social network definition: a social network that does exactly what it is users want it to do, nothing more, nothing less.  contention 0: facebook is an open space that allows users to communicate however they wish.  one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.  contention 0: in a sea of competition, facebook has maintained it is overwhelming dominance, 0 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking.  the fact that users continue to use facebook over other social network platforms, proves that it is the optimum space.  contention 0: facebook does not judge the communication of it is users, it allows users to judge each other, themselves.  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.  i see all this facebook hate, everywhere.  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now or users would just stop using social networking as much.  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.  i want to be challenged, though.   #  or users would just stop using social networking as much.   #  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.   # one can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.  you can do that on reddit   contention 0: in a sea of competition, facebook has maintained it is overwhelming dominance, 0 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking.  i question their numbers.  several people i know have multiple accounts.  if a good % of people have more than one fb account, it may be much less than 0.  it has the most users at the moment because that is where everyone else it.  it does not mean it is any good.  it is just the same party everyone else is currently at.  a few years back it was myspace.  a few years from now something better will come along.  the majority of people i know use com cast for internet.  therefore you are saying comcast gives optimum service ? i think of you ask around you will find reviews that say otherwise.  it is like a monopoly.  no other competitor gives me access to all my fb friends.  users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.  what do you mean ? do you mean they do not censor content ? if that is what you meant, you are wrong.  there is there is a whole list of things they do not want shared on the site.  for example a mother sharing a photo of breastfeeding her own baby: not permitted.  but if facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now in the 0s bell telephone was the only way anyone could call anyone else.  it does not matter if their service was great or sucky, we paid for it because it was the only way to reach friends in that medium.  i would love to see a new site replace facebook ! but it would have to offer my friends a good reason to jump ship.  i go where they go.  i hate how nothing is private.  i hate how their rule enforcement is so haphazard.  i hate how i ca not see all of my followed friends posts.  or how i miss more than half the posts of pages i like.  i do not think the facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides.  i want to be challenged, though.  since their last major changes, i have lost interest.  i post nothing personal at all anymore.  and my browsing time is only a few minutes a day.  i would rather be here on reddit.  or browsing other sites.  if i really want to be sure friends see what i say, i must use email or text.  bottom line: it is the only place i can talk to all of my  friends  at one time, so in a way it is a monopoly.  i will happily leave as soon as something better catches on.   #  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.   #  battles tar galactic a is not the perfect show by your own definitions.  do you think something can be perfect when people do not have a choice.  is walmart truly popular because people enjoy shopping there or because they cannot afford anyplace else and their mom and pop stores were driven out of business.  facebook has maintained its base because everyone is already there.  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.  and because so many are waiting for everyone else to switch nobody switches.  facebook greatest strength is that it has not royally pissed off its base. it certainly has not made them happy or given them value for their time.  but they have not pissed them off yet and they already got everyone so no one bothers to leave.   #  you caught me, i was using a different definition with bsg.   #  you caught me, i was using a different definition with bsg.  people enjoy shopping at walmart because it puts a bunch of products they want under one roof at a low price.  similar to how facebook combines lots of social media features that people want.  this idea of walmart killing mom and pop stores is bs, first, even if it is true, that is capitalism, the mom and pop store drove out all the single parent receiving no child support stores, competition is what it is.  second, it is not true, those mom and pop gun stores and mom and pop lawn care department did not exist in the first place.  third, most importantly, people do have a choice, if people think walmart is evil, they should not shop there no matter how destitude, drive the extra 0 minutes to the target that has less stuff that is more expensive.  no point in switching to google plus because there is no one there.  is there any rule that says you ca not have both accounts, myself, lots of my friends social network have accounts on both, but never use google , it does not really do much.   #  i have explicity offered the conditon which facebook must meet in order to fall under my definition of the perfect social network.   # i am saying that the view you want changed amounts to  facebook is a network that people use.   in this context my view is not axiomatic.  i have explicity offered the conditon which facebook must meet in order to fall under my definition of the perfect social network.  those conditons: 0.  the social network does what it is users want it to.  0.  the social network does not do what it is user is do not want it to.  i then stated my justifications for why facebook meets these conditions.  however, it was quickly pointed out that facebook does not meet condition 0, facebook user is do not want to see ads that facebook displays, i conceded this point earlier in the thread.  my view was essentially disproven.  i overreached with my definition of a  perfect social network .  but a lot of people maintain a facebook to appease friends/family, to meet work obligations, because it is seen as suspicious not to have one, the list goes on.  could you explain your alternative explanation for facebook use a little more ? i am interested.  usd analogy: my view clearly distinguishes social network from perfect social network, even though my definition of social network is flawed.  the usd analogy only apples if my view holds synonymous social networks and perfect social networks, which it does not.  a better analogy would be   it is like saying bitcoin is the perfect currency because it does exactly what it is users want.   this ignores it is limitations beyond being a cryptocurrency.   #  i think it is far from the ideal social network.   # insert random high school acquaintance uploaded a photo .  since i do not use facebook that much, it seems like facebook is just giving me whatever notifications it wants so i keep using it.  i feel like it is being forced down my throat.  i have the facebook app on my phone as well.  it is a well designed app that used to be able to message people.  now they have made messenger its own app and i have to have two apps if i want to use facebook on my phone.  no it does not.  it proves that a lot of people still use facebook.  a social network like facebook will gain a lot of inertia.  it is hard to get into a new social network if nobody else is on it g  is the best example of this .  twitter has arguably managed to pull it off but it is not doing the same thing as facebook.  many people, myself included, believe that google  is actually a better social network platform.  it has a more intuitive friend grouping system.  it is laid out better.  it integrates with other google services i already use.  however, google sort of botched the roll out of it and it is forever doomed as a result.  facebook puts a lot of effort into remaining relevant and not going the way of myspace.  they have been pretty good at shaking things up when they need to be but i really do not like using it.  i feel like it is trying to be too many things at once social network, video site, link sharing site, microblogging site, chat room, web mail provider, personal calender which makes the whole experience seem cramped to me.  i think it is far from the ideal social network.  twitter is a one trick pony that does that one trick really well.  facebook is trying to do that trick and every other trick at the same time.
my so and i have been together for a little over a year.  some couples go on dates.  we prefer to marathon amazing shows at home, cuddled in bed, where we are not pressured by society and legalities to wear pants.  generally, we have an uncanny ability to agree on which series to watch next, once we have ended another.  he has tried to talk me into battlestar galactica since the very first time we met.  at first, i politely declined.  it is just never seemed like something that would tickle my fancy.  he became more and more persistent as time went on.  by about 0 months into the relationship, i never wanted to hear those two words again.  now, to be fair, he knows my taste in just about everything.  he is correct in his logic that bg fits relatively well in parameters of what i find enjoyable to watch.  i like the sci fi and the character driven story lines, which he insists are present.  i still have no interest in it.  i eventually gave up and agreed to give it a shot.  i fell asleep within 0 minutes of the first episode.  instead of accepting the fact that the series would never be able to win me over, he says i did not give it a good enough chance and should try again.   in the spirit of fairness and full disclosure, i do have narcolepsy, which he equates to the reason for falling asleep.  i equate it to lack of interest.   some couples break up over lies, cheating, or other seemingly important things.  we almost broke up over bg, which is why i am asking reddit to change my view.  perhaps the great minds of the internet can offer up some magical plot points without spoilers, preferably that he just has not been able to get through to me.  you fine specimens have my full and undivided attention.   #  i fell asleep within 0 minutes of the first episode.   #  instead of accepting the fact that the series would never be able to win me over, he says i did not give it a good enough chance and should try again.   # instead of accepting the fact that the series would never be able to win me over, he says i did not give it a good enough chance and should try again.  i feel like i have to question this.  can something be so boring that it sends a person to sleep almost immediately ? does boredom even work in this way ? to me this does not seem at all realistic do you really think that you fell asleep because of the content of the show ? besides this, 0 minutes is clearly not long enough to get any real sense of what a show is like.  i do not believe that an adult can be incapable of staying awake for longer than this narcolepsy aside but if that is the reason then does it really reflect on the show ?  #  beyond that, nothing will tell you if you like the show or not other then just watching it.   #  really the only deciding factor in watching a show is if you like the general genre that the show is.  beyond that, nothing will tell you if you like the show or not other then just watching it.  for example, true detective is a crime thriller series, and personally i hate tv shows.  i was talked into just trying it once, and seriously the amount of deep character development was mind boggling.  i am not a big murder thriller kind of guy but i watched the whole series in 0 days mind you, i have never finished another series ever in my entire life .  it only happened because i gave it a chance.  it sounds like you refuse to like it through stubbornness.  i suggest for the sake of the relationship you try watching 0 or 0 episodes.  hell sometimes what i do is watch one in the middle or towards the end and just see how i like it then.  because some shows have a really shitty beginning or ramp up.   #  0.  star trek: the next generation 0.  doctor who 0.  firefly 0.  battlestar galactica.   #  i guess maybe it is just as simple as saying that i love sci fi, and i really do not like crap.  there is a lot of sci fi that is crap at leat 0 i would say .  there are four sci fi shows that i always recommend to people because of just how great they really are.  0.  star trek: the next generation 0.  doctor who 0.  firefly 0.  battlestar galactica.  now, it is by no means the perfect show, or the best show, or whatever hype it lives up to.  frankly, near the end it gets a little weird, and the way the series wraps up is a little controversial.  but it  is  character driven, and there are  several  different recurring themes/story arcs throughout the show that make it worth watching.  the first episode after the miniseries,  0,  is one of the best episodes of sci fi tv i have ever seen.  it kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time.  i can understand falling asleep during the miniseries 0 hour she bang before the series starts .  you have to approach it like a movie, and not like a tv show, because there is a lot of set up.  but it is worth it.   #  under no circumstances, should you continue to watch past mid season 0, it is all down hill from there and it is pretty hard to go downhill in space, do not do it.   #  bsg is my all time favorite show, but i consider myself a rational, fair minded person, so i think i have solution that will work well for you.  the series begins with the three hour miniseries, do not watch that, it is not necessary.  they cyclons nuke the colonies, the humans run away.  the next episode, 0, is one of the series best, but also not necessary to follow the awesomeness that comes later.  i have just saved you 0 hours.  you should watch the entirety of the first season to put the next 0 seasons in full context, but again, this is not absolutely necessary.  humans are still running from cylons at the beginning of season 0.  the episodes that you absolutely must watch begin with the last episode of season 0 and end early in season 0, you only really have to watch about one season.  my abolute favorite moment in the series is the two parter in the middle of season 0, it is fucking amazing.  you would also enjoy the razor tv movie, the other tv movies are forgettable.  under no circumstances, should you continue to watch past mid season 0, it is all down hill from there and it is pretty hard to go downhill in space, do not do it.  as far as other show issue, if you consider yourself more feminist minded, you will be interested in how the show minimized the role of gender, except when it comes to rape, i will leave it at that.  i hope i have shown you that you can take a really strong 0 seasons and condense it down to a mind blowing season and a half, better than seinfeld and the sopranos combined.  the walking dead, except as awesome as that show is shitty.  watch what i have recommended from battlestar galactica, you wo not regret it, you will see god in edward james olmos.   #  it is better than putting your foot down and saying,  no.   #  sometimes we do things for our so is that we do not want to do, just to make them happy.  my so really likes when i watch grey is anatomy with her.  i really do not care for it, at all, but occasionally i will sit down with her and watch an episode.  i could not even tell you the names of the characters.  i think there is one named grey ? maybe just sit through a few episodes with your so and feign attention.  if, a few episodes in, you still are not  feeling it  tell him.  it is better than putting your foot down and saying,  no.  i will not even attempt what you suggest.
i am not overweight, so i have never done this, but i ca not say that i would not if i were fat.  it can be a rational decision to make yourself throw up if you are on a diet and trying to lose weight.  sometimes, it is really hard to control what you eat and drink, especially in social situations.  you could easily consume 0 0 unnecessary calories in a single setting.  that would take hours to burn off, even with incredibly strenuous exercise and might lead you to give up on your diet for that day.  throwing up food can purge hundreds of calories in just a few minutes.  in this country, very few people especially the type well off enough to worry about their figures are not consuming enough calories to sustain life.  obviously, having an eating disorder that leads you to a point where you are near death is not healthy, because that is extreme.  but i do not see how inducing vomiting after a large unnecessary calorie intake is that much worse than skipping a meal to lose weight.   #  that would take hours to burn off, even with incredibly strenuous exercise and might lead you to give up on your diet for that day.   #  on the other hand, say, for example, you are dieting at maybe 0 kcal a day or something: you could just skip dinner the next day.   # on the other hand, say, for example, you are dieting at maybe 0 kcal a day or something: you could just skip dinner the next day.  or knock off 0 kcal from your daily diet for the next 0 days.  which is much more rational than inducing vomiting.  from personal experience, having purging as an option completely changes the dynamic between a person and his/her meals.  it becomes much more tempting to binge and purge in the future.  throwing up more often not only increases your risk of esophageal cancer needlesly what is more important to you, removing those 0 kcal or increasing your risk of cancer ? and can also cause esophageal punctures, which if not treated immediately leads to death.  by choosing to make throwing up an option, you are turning your life into a numbers game where it need not be.   #  unnecessary calories at social situations usually come from drinks, which ca not really be vomited up after they have already made you drunk.   #  the long term consequences of throwing up after a meal and skipping meals are both poor.  skipping meals tends to make people hungry, which usually leads to snacking and the consumption of many empty calories.  throwing up after meals damages teeth and tends to make people hungry later.  unnecessary calories at social situations usually come from drinks, which ca not really be vomited up after they have already made you drunk.  if you have already found yourself having eaten unnecessary calories, the best thing to is admit that those calories are in the body and go back to dieting.  if a diet ca not handle an occasional mistake, there is something wrong with the diet and you need to eat more at the correct times to reduce appetite.   #  i think that skipping meals to lose weight is a good idea sometimes.   #  i am not suggesting that throwing up after every meal is a good lifestyle.  i am saying that there are times where it would not be a bad decision to do so.  people can vomit when they are sick without their teeth falling out, so i doubt that a few more times a year would be that much worse.  i think that skipping meals to lose weight is a good idea sometimes.  i am pretty sure i would be fat if i did not skip breakfast almost daily because i am simply not hungry in the morning.  eating during that time period will make me feel sick throughout the day.  you can accept the calorie intake, but if you have establsuhed that losing weight is the goal, purging those calories occasionally would be more effective than letting your body process them.   #  i do not condon the fact that you skip breakfast i would recommend eating a banana or other small item , but that is something you do regularly.   #  vomiting makes people feel terrible.  there is also the risk of acquiring a habit of throwing up after over eating, or having an impulse to vomit after social occasions.  do not overestimate conditioning there is a very real risk this would happen.  i do not condon the fact that you skip breakfast i would recommend eating a banana or other small item , but that is something you do regularly.  if you sometimes ate breakfast and sometimes did not, it would mess up the appetite of your brain.  it is pretty important to have a regular eating schedule so your body will use calories effectively.  it is pretty easy to get fat if your body does not have a set time to be hungry, ask for food, and convert food into work.   #  ultimately, purging even occasionally still seems to have the same concerns as purging more regularly.   # i am saying that there are times where it would not be a bad decision to do so.  which seems more rational, developing the personal restraint and self discipline to avoid overeating, or puking up food and promising yourself it wo not become a regular habit ? also, you do not mention how often is  occasionally , but lets say it is once a month and you consume an extra 0 calories.  spread over 0 days, that is 0 calories a day or 0 of the daily recommended 0 calories.  is it rational to purge up a meal that is the equivalent of eating a snack pack of salted peanuts every day for a month ? ultimately, purging even occasionally still seems to have the same concerns as purging more regularly.  you are still reinforcing the idea that you should feel bad for eating a lot but should feel better for not eating as much or purging calories.  basically, it is still reinforcing negative body image problems, rather than encouraging positive body image and healthy weight management and weight reduction techniques.  that, in my opinion, is irrational.
i am not overweight, so i have never done this, but i ca not say that i would not if i were fat.  it can be a rational decision to make yourself throw up if you are on a diet and trying to lose weight.  sometimes, it is really hard to control what you eat and drink, especially in social situations.  you could easily consume 0 0 unnecessary calories in a single setting.  that would take hours to burn off, even with incredibly strenuous exercise and might lead you to give up on your diet for that day.  throwing up food can purge hundreds of calories in just a few minutes.  in this country, very few people especially the type well off enough to worry about their figures are not consuming enough calories to sustain life.  obviously, having an eating disorder that leads you to a point where you are near death is not healthy, because that is extreme.  but i do not see how inducing vomiting after a large unnecessary calorie intake is that much worse than skipping a meal to lose weight.   #  sometimes, it is really hard to control what you eat and drink, especially in social situations.   #  this, however, is the view i would like to challenge.   # while i do not agree with the action itself, i do not find fault in your view and think you have a valid point.  this, however, is the view i would like to challenge.  is it really  that  hard to control what you put into your body ? i understand that it may not be the easiest or most comfortable thing to do, especially in certain situations, but at some point you just have to ask yourself who is in control: you or the food ? ymmv, but for me it would be more difficult to eat something then go off to induce vomiting than to just choose a healthier option or consume less of something.   #  the long term consequences of throwing up after a meal and skipping meals are both poor.   #  the long term consequences of throwing up after a meal and skipping meals are both poor.  skipping meals tends to make people hungry, which usually leads to snacking and the consumption of many empty calories.  throwing up after meals damages teeth and tends to make people hungry later.  unnecessary calories at social situations usually come from drinks, which ca not really be vomited up after they have already made you drunk.  if you have already found yourself having eaten unnecessary calories, the best thing to is admit that those calories are in the body and go back to dieting.  if a diet ca not handle an occasional mistake, there is something wrong with the diet and you need to eat more at the correct times to reduce appetite.   #  you can accept the calorie intake, but if you have establsuhed that losing weight is the goal, purging those calories occasionally would be more effective than letting your body process them.   #  i am not suggesting that throwing up after every meal is a good lifestyle.  i am saying that there are times where it would not be a bad decision to do so.  people can vomit when they are sick without their teeth falling out, so i doubt that a few more times a year would be that much worse.  i think that skipping meals to lose weight is a good idea sometimes.  i am pretty sure i would be fat if i did not skip breakfast almost daily because i am simply not hungry in the morning.  eating during that time period will make me feel sick throughout the day.  you can accept the calorie intake, but if you have establsuhed that losing weight is the goal, purging those calories occasionally would be more effective than letting your body process them.   #  do not overestimate conditioning there is a very real risk this would happen.   #  vomiting makes people feel terrible.  there is also the risk of acquiring a habit of throwing up after over eating, or having an impulse to vomit after social occasions.  do not overestimate conditioning there is a very real risk this would happen.  i do not condon the fact that you skip breakfast i would recommend eating a banana or other small item , but that is something you do regularly.  if you sometimes ate breakfast and sometimes did not, it would mess up the appetite of your brain.  it is pretty important to have a regular eating schedule so your body will use calories effectively.  it is pretty easy to get fat if your body does not have a set time to be hungry, ask for food, and convert food into work.   #  i am saying that there are times where it would not be a bad decision to do so.   # i am saying that there are times where it would not be a bad decision to do so.  which seems more rational, developing the personal restraint and self discipline to avoid overeating, or puking up food and promising yourself it wo not become a regular habit ? also, you do not mention how often is  occasionally , but lets say it is once a month and you consume an extra 0 calories.  spread over 0 days, that is 0 calories a day or 0 of the daily recommended 0 calories.  is it rational to purge up a meal that is the equivalent of eating a snack pack of salted peanuts every day for a month ? ultimately, purging even occasionally still seems to have the same concerns as purging more regularly.  you are still reinforcing the idea that you should feel bad for eating a lot but should feel better for not eating as much or purging calories.  basically, it is still reinforcing negative body image problems, rather than encouraging positive body image and healthy weight management and weight reduction techniques.  that, in my opinion, is irrational.
disclaimer  i didnt know how exactly to phrase the title, but by music i mean modern music with microphones.  i am excluding musical theatre, modern phony opera singers and anyone that borrows from those styles.  when i say music, i am excluding these people.  okay so to explain my disclaimer, opera singers and musical theatre actors need to project, which takes serious skill and practice.  techniques like belting are used, which have to be specifically learned and mastered.  opera singers even phony microphoned ones use techniques like bel canto, which are really difficult.  they do not fit into what i am gonna explain.  so i do not respect most singers because they singing in music because the singing isnt actually very difficult, and even then it is so subjective that anything can be considered  good .  singing is simply a muscular contraction, you train your vocal chords to output a certain pitch and timbre.  my point is that anyone can learn to sing.  with a bit of vocal coaching and minimal effort, i could be technically speaking as good a singer as most successful musicians.  many people have a naturally  nice  sounding voice, since in the music industry, things like projecting, vocal stamina and breath control arent important, these people are naturally as good as many singers.  how can such singers deserve respect ? no one picks up a guitar and shreds solos like page.  no one sits down at some drums and plays like peart.  yet the vocalists in many bands are by far the most famous members.  they get far more respect than they really deserve.  so it is clear that almost anyone can become as technically proficient as a famous singer.  however i strongly doubt, even if i put unfounded amounts of effort in, i or almost anyone could be as good a guitarist as hendrix or clapton or gilmour or page or beck or any household guitarist.  these people would still be the best in the world.  furthermore singing is so subjective.  people can have wretched  breathy  pop voices, that are technically just bad, but these people are revered as good singers.  while song instrumentalists have poor technique like slash for example, he would play without his pinkie finger , they can still emulate the same results, they are just handicapping themselves.  singers earn too much respect, they are often the front man of the band, despite being the far from the most talented member.  john lennon is the most famous beatle, while most fans would agree he didnt influence the sound of the band as much as mccartney or harrison.  mick jagger is pretty unexceptional as a muscian, yet he gets most of the fame, whereas richards is one of the best guitarist ever.   #  singing is simply a muscular contraction, you train your vocal chords to output a certain pitch and timbre.   #  playing guitar is just pushing down strings with one hand and strumming them with the other.   # playing guitar is just pushing down strings with one hand and strumming them with the other.  anyone can learn to do anything.  if singing is so easy, let is hear you give it a whirl.  if writing lyrics is so easy then write some.  watch a live performance of faith no more and tell me that mike is not working just as hard as the instrumentalists.  singing for long periods of time is difficult.  arguably more difficult than playing guitar, bass, or drums for long periods of time and i have done all of those, for the record .   #  look at top 0 forbes rich list and you will know that most of them inherited the money from their ancestor.   #  i think this idea of anyone   not deserving  something does not make much sense.  people operate in irrational ways, partly due to nature but also because our education system is fucked.  do these people deserve to become irrational ? its just how things are but the problem is definitely not the people getting the fame.  they  wouldeserve  every bit of it because that is what society wants to throw money at.  once people start thinking more rationally, different set of musicians will probably become more famous.  look at top 0 forbes rich list and you will know that most of them inherited the money from their ancestor.  do they deserve to be rich ?  #  i think the point about them being lyricists is pretty meaningless.   #  i think the point about them being lyricists is pretty meaningless.  peart was the lyricist in rush.  moreover in most music, the lyrics are pretty meaningless.  writing music is far more difficult than writing lyrics, lyrics do not even have to make sense.  most singers do not write the music they sing to, unless they sing and play an instrument, so they would not fit what i am talking about.  lead singers being the  figure head  of the band doenst really mean they deserve respect.  because thats all they are, calling them  conductors  would probably be insulting to actual conductors.  besides, mick jagger was a terrible dancer.  he was just the most marketable face in the stones.  singers are figure heads as they stand at the front and everyone sees their contribution clearly, although it probably isnt the largest contribution.   #  yes, singing is not as hard as playing an instrument, so these guys are responsible for pumping up the crowd and leading the show, so all the other band members can do their jobs.   #  it is not about how good he can dance look at fucking thom york URL for god is sake , its about charisma and showmanship.  yes, singing is not as hard as playing an instrument, so these guys are responsible for pumping up the crowd and leading the show, so all the other band members can do their jobs.  that makes them the most visible and marketable members of the band.  there is not denying tha a popular music is, above all, entertainment, and b it is a business.  whether  you  respect them or not for their musical abillity is not really relevant.  also, with ediitng, mixing and autotune in songs, the singers that can actually sing live and sound like they do in a studio recording, while they are jumping around like idiots does take talent.   #  well, saying that most lyrics do not make sense just shows that you are even further narrowing your definition of  amusic  to  popular music .   #  well, saying that most lyrics do not make sense just shows that you are even further narrowing your definition of  amusic  to  popular music .  sure, no one here is gonna argue that the top 0 radio playlist songs are trash and their lyrics are shallow.  but, you are doing a disservice to a vast world of moving lyrics that compliment and are just as important as the melody and instrumentation.  also, i could make the same argument that you are making except reversed.  i mean how hard is it to make a melody that elicits emotion ? it does not even have to be difficult to play or complicated.  certain melodies simply elicit powerful feelings basically without even trying.  so what you have done here is say that popular music is shallow and the people who listen to it do not appreciate more crafted music and/or do not care.  which we all already knew.  if you disregard how many people like something as a metric for how good something is, then you can never argue that lyricists/singers are less important than the people playing the instruments.
disclaimer  i didnt know how exactly to phrase the title, but by music i mean modern music with microphones.  i am excluding musical theatre, modern phony opera singers and anyone that borrows from those styles.  when i say music, i am excluding these people.  okay so to explain my disclaimer, opera singers and musical theatre actors need to project, which takes serious skill and practice.  techniques like belting are used, which have to be specifically learned and mastered.  opera singers even phony microphoned ones use techniques like bel canto, which are really difficult.  they do not fit into what i am gonna explain.  so i do not respect most singers because they singing in music because the singing isnt actually very difficult, and even then it is so subjective that anything can be considered  good .  singing is simply a muscular contraction, you train your vocal chords to output a certain pitch and timbre.  my point is that anyone can learn to sing.  with a bit of vocal coaching and minimal effort, i could be technically speaking as good a singer as most successful musicians.  many people have a naturally  nice  sounding voice, since in the music industry, things like projecting, vocal stamina and breath control arent important, these people are naturally as good as many singers.  how can such singers deserve respect ? no one picks up a guitar and shreds solos like page.  no one sits down at some drums and plays like peart.  yet the vocalists in many bands are by far the most famous members.  they get far more respect than they really deserve.  so it is clear that almost anyone can become as technically proficient as a famous singer.  however i strongly doubt, even if i put unfounded amounts of effort in, i or almost anyone could be as good a guitarist as hendrix or clapton or gilmour or page or beck or any household guitarist.  these people would still be the best in the world.  furthermore singing is so subjective.  people can have wretched  breathy  pop voices, that are technically just bad, but these people are revered as good singers.  while song instrumentalists have poor technique like slash for example, he would play without his pinkie finger , they can still emulate the same results, they are just handicapping themselves.  singers earn too much respect, they are often the front man of the band, despite being the far from the most talented member.  john lennon is the most famous beatle, while most fans would agree he didnt influence the sound of the band as much as mccartney or harrison.  mick jagger is pretty unexceptional as a muscian, yet he gets most of the fame, whereas richards is one of the best guitarist ever.   #  singing is simply a muscular contraction, you train your vocal chords to output a certain pitch and timbre.   #  my point is that anyone can learn to sing.   # my point is that anyone can learn to sing.  playing guitar is simply plucking strings, you teach yourself hand positions to output chords.  my point is that anyone can learn to play guitar.  i do not personally sing or play instruments, but i have a lot of friends that sing or play instruments or both.  here is my take on it.  skill is rarely what we admire about musicians.  sure, you have people with crazy skill, like clapton.  i have friends who can play hendrix riffs and even clapton riffs.  i have a friend who plays drums who can play most dream theater songs perfectly.  my roommate plays bass and can play funk music and red hot chili peppers and stuff like that.  most of the time, what we admire about musicians is their originality and creativity.  hendrix is a guitar legend because he played something new, more so than because he played so well.  the beatles are regularly considered the greatest rock band of all time, yet none of their instrumentals were required high levels of skill, even for the time.  it is like flat out saying that michelangelo was a better artist than picasso because picasso did not draw realistically.  skill itself is only one thing we judge any artist on, and to make that the end all be all when judging musicians is dumb.  so if we can break away from the notion that skill is why instrumentalists deserve respect and admiration, maybe we can look at what singers add to a band artistically.  stereotypically, the singer is the lyricist.  i know that is not always the case, but it holds true for enough great bands over the years to make that generalization.  i also know you do not think lyrics add much but go listen to the mountain goats, neutral milk hotel, bob dylan, the xx, or nine inch nails and  reconsider .  if you think lyrics are unimportant or irrelevant, it is because you probably listen to music with shitty lyrics or do not actually care about lyrics.  i suspect the latter, given some of the musicians you cite.  if you like page, you are listening to music with excellent lyrics.  it also completely disregards the singer songwriter genre, where simple instrumentals, usually just an acoustic guitar, are used as background for beautiful vocals and brilliant lyrics.  the singers also add to the sound.  people do not typically listen to one aspect or another of a song, they listen to the whole song.  vocals are a part of the sound the same as the guitar or drums.  i will return to my earlier example of neutral milk hotel.  jeff mangum has this nasally voice that sounds kinda bad at first but it becomes part of the song in a way that is hard to describe without listening.  it mixes with trumpets and acoustic guitars to create a sort of fantasy world with beautiful, tragic lyrics.  always reminds me of a very solemn trip on shrooms.  freddie mercury had such an incredible range and intensity to his singing.  few other singers could pull off both bohemian rhapsody and fat bottomed girls, in my opinion.  elliott smith had a voice as haunting as his lyrics.  if you want to really see how spooky the combo can be, check out the scene from the royal tennenbaums where luke wilson is character tries to kill himself.  so frankly there is a reason why people hold singers in such high admiration.  they have a huge effect on the sound of the song via the sound of their voice.  they deliver and often write the lyrics, meaning listeners are more likely to connect with them than other members of the band.  i can understand why you would think instrumentalists deserve a bigger share of the respect and admiration, but i ca not at all understand why you  struggle to hold respect for most singers.   it sounds to me like you are disregarding their contributions to a band in the same way you are upset at people for disregarding instrumentalists.   #  look at top 0 forbes rich list and you will know that most of them inherited the money from their ancestor.   #  i think this idea of anyone   not deserving  something does not make much sense.  people operate in irrational ways, partly due to nature but also because our education system is fucked.  do these people deserve to become irrational ? its just how things are but the problem is definitely not the people getting the fame.  they  wouldeserve  every bit of it because that is what society wants to throw money at.  once people start thinking more rationally, different set of musicians will probably become more famous.  look at top 0 forbes rich list and you will know that most of them inherited the money from their ancestor.  do they deserve to be rich ?  #  writing music is far more difficult than writing lyrics, lyrics do not even have to make sense.   #  i think the point about them being lyricists is pretty meaningless.  peart was the lyricist in rush.  moreover in most music, the lyrics are pretty meaningless.  writing music is far more difficult than writing lyrics, lyrics do not even have to make sense.  most singers do not write the music they sing to, unless they sing and play an instrument, so they would not fit what i am talking about.  lead singers being the  figure head  of the band doenst really mean they deserve respect.  because thats all they are, calling them  conductors  would probably be insulting to actual conductors.  besides, mick jagger was a terrible dancer.  he was just the most marketable face in the stones.  singers are figure heads as they stand at the front and everyone sees their contribution clearly, although it probably isnt the largest contribution.   #  there is not denying tha a popular music is, above all, entertainment, and b it is a business.   #  it is not about how good he can dance look at fucking thom york URL for god is sake , its about charisma and showmanship.  yes, singing is not as hard as playing an instrument, so these guys are responsible for pumping up the crowd and leading the show, so all the other band members can do their jobs.  that makes them the most visible and marketable members of the band.  there is not denying tha a popular music is, above all, entertainment, and b it is a business.  whether  you  respect them or not for their musical abillity is not really relevant.  also, with ediitng, mixing and autotune in songs, the singers that can actually sing live and sound like they do in a studio recording, while they are jumping around like idiots does take talent.   #  if you disregard how many people like something as a metric for how good something is, then you can never argue that lyricists/singers are less important than the people playing the instruments.   #  well, saying that most lyrics do not make sense just shows that you are even further narrowing your definition of  amusic  to  popular music .  sure, no one here is gonna argue that the top 0 radio playlist songs are trash and their lyrics are shallow.  but, you are doing a disservice to a vast world of moving lyrics that compliment and are just as important as the melody and instrumentation.  also, i could make the same argument that you are making except reversed.  i mean how hard is it to make a melody that elicits emotion ? it does not even have to be difficult to play or complicated.  certain melodies simply elicit powerful feelings basically without even trying.  so what you have done here is say that popular music is shallow and the people who listen to it do not appreciate more crafted music and/or do not care.  which we all already knew.  if you disregard how many people like something as a metric for how good something is, then you can never argue that lyricists/singers are less important than the people playing the instruments.
disclaimer  i didnt know how exactly to phrase the title, but by music i mean modern music with microphones.  i am excluding musical theatre, modern phony opera singers and anyone that borrows from those styles.  when i say music, i am excluding these people.  okay so to explain my disclaimer, opera singers and musical theatre actors need to project, which takes serious skill and practice.  techniques like belting are used, which have to be specifically learned and mastered.  opera singers even phony microphoned ones use techniques like bel canto, which are really difficult.  they do not fit into what i am gonna explain.  so i do not respect most singers because they singing in music because the singing isnt actually very difficult, and even then it is so subjective that anything can be considered  good .  singing is simply a muscular contraction, you train your vocal chords to output a certain pitch and timbre.  my point is that anyone can learn to sing.  with a bit of vocal coaching and minimal effort, i could be technically speaking as good a singer as most successful musicians.  many people have a naturally  nice  sounding voice, since in the music industry, things like projecting, vocal stamina and breath control arent important, these people are naturally as good as many singers.  how can such singers deserve respect ? no one picks up a guitar and shreds solos like page.  no one sits down at some drums and plays like peart.  yet the vocalists in many bands are by far the most famous members.  they get far more respect than they really deserve.  so it is clear that almost anyone can become as technically proficient as a famous singer.  however i strongly doubt, even if i put unfounded amounts of effort in, i or almost anyone could be as good a guitarist as hendrix or clapton or gilmour or page or beck or any household guitarist.  these people would still be the best in the world.  furthermore singing is so subjective.  people can have wretched  breathy  pop voices, that are technically just bad, but these people are revered as good singers.  while song instrumentalists have poor technique like slash for example, he would play without his pinkie finger , they can still emulate the same results, they are just handicapping themselves.  singers earn too much respect, they are often the front man of the band, despite being the far from the most talented member.  john lennon is the most famous beatle, while most fans would agree he didnt influence the sound of the band as much as mccartney or harrison.  mick jagger is pretty unexceptional as a muscian, yet he gets most of the fame, whereas richards is one of the best guitarist ever.   #  no one picks up a guitar and shreds solos like page.   #  no one sits down at some drums and plays like peart.   # no one sits down at some drums and plays like peart.  yet the vocalists in many bands are by far the most famous members.  they get far more respect than they really deserve.  first, i would say that neil peart is just as famous as any other member of rush.  but even if not,  that is the way he wants it.  peart does not want to be the front man of the band, he hates the trappings of fame, doing interviews and all that jazz.  he even wrote a fucking song about how much he hates it.  URL just because someone is more prominent in the media famous does not mean they have more respect.  it just means they are the prominent band member to the media.  peart is one of the most highly regarded drummers in the world.  geddy and alex do the media stuff because they are more comfortable with that.  what more do you want ? i also think you are mistaking the public liking a person, as a personality, with respect for their vocal skill.  pop singers are not loved purely for their vocal skill though i agree with others who suggest you do not understand the difficulty of being even a moderately good singer they are loved for their entire persona, as expressed through their lyrics, performance, interviews, appearance, and yes, their voice.  people connect with that performer on an emotional level, they admire what they represent and express through their music.  someone might not be a great technical vocalist, but have a gift at expressing themselves through singing in a way that connects with a wide variety of people.  that is something separate from technical skill someone could be an incredible opera singer but not be able to connect with people in that way.   #  once people start thinking more rationally, different set of musicians will probably become more famous.   #  i think this idea of anyone   not deserving  something does not make much sense.  people operate in irrational ways, partly due to nature but also because our education system is fucked.  do these people deserve to become irrational ? its just how things are but the problem is definitely not the people getting the fame.  they  wouldeserve  every bit of it because that is what society wants to throw money at.  once people start thinking more rationally, different set of musicians will probably become more famous.  look at top 0 forbes rich list and you will know that most of them inherited the money from their ancestor.  do they deserve to be rich ?  #  because thats all they are, calling them  conductors  would probably be insulting to actual conductors.   #  i think the point about them being lyricists is pretty meaningless.  peart was the lyricist in rush.  moreover in most music, the lyrics are pretty meaningless.  writing music is far more difficult than writing lyrics, lyrics do not even have to make sense.  most singers do not write the music they sing to, unless they sing and play an instrument, so they would not fit what i am talking about.  lead singers being the  figure head  of the band doenst really mean they deserve respect.  because thats all they are, calling them  conductors  would probably be insulting to actual conductors.  besides, mick jagger was a terrible dancer.  he was just the most marketable face in the stones.  singers are figure heads as they stand at the front and everyone sees their contribution clearly, although it probably isnt the largest contribution.   #  there is not denying tha a popular music is, above all, entertainment, and b it is a business.   #  it is not about how good he can dance look at fucking thom york URL for god is sake , its about charisma and showmanship.  yes, singing is not as hard as playing an instrument, so these guys are responsible for pumping up the crowd and leading the show, so all the other band members can do their jobs.  that makes them the most visible and marketable members of the band.  there is not denying tha a popular music is, above all, entertainment, and b it is a business.  whether  you  respect them or not for their musical abillity is not really relevant.  also, with ediitng, mixing and autotune in songs, the singers that can actually sing live and sound like they do in a studio recording, while they are jumping around like idiots does take talent.   #  if you disregard how many people like something as a metric for how good something is, then you can never argue that lyricists/singers are less important than the people playing the instruments.   #  well, saying that most lyrics do not make sense just shows that you are even further narrowing your definition of  amusic  to  popular music .  sure, no one here is gonna argue that the top 0 radio playlist songs are trash and their lyrics are shallow.  but, you are doing a disservice to a vast world of moving lyrics that compliment and are just as important as the melody and instrumentation.  also, i could make the same argument that you are making except reversed.  i mean how hard is it to make a melody that elicits emotion ? it does not even have to be difficult to play or complicated.  certain melodies simply elicit powerful feelings basically without even trying.  so what you have done here is say that popular music is shallow and the people who listen to it do not appreciate more crafted music and/or do not care.  which we all already knew.  if you disregard how many people like something as a metric for how good something is, then you can never argue that lyricists/singers are less important than the people playing the instruments.
i wrote  economic dev t does not depend on greed  because i am trying to counter the assumption that greed empowers economic activity   dominantly.    it is assumed that capitalism and relatively free markets work because the majority of human nature is selfish/greedy and apathetic.  the more consumerist/greedy a society, the more economic exchanges are made, and finally, the more gdp the relatively free market system creates, which is related to our notion of  economic dev t.   the problem with greed alone is that it goes nowhere.  there is no direction to the economic system.  demands are static and there are no  new products  without creativity.  sustaining the dev t of an economy would require introduction of newer products.  greed, in the context of our global economic system, is actually usually paired with a fascination for novel things.  buying the same kind of wallet again and again only implies insanity and not greed.  it is all about buying the latest jeans or the newest iphones.  that is what i think we usually mean when we say  greed.   there is no expansion of the economic pie.  greed on its own only does something akin to  iself heating  the entire system.  without creativity and ingenuity and the markets that make way for the enlargement of the total domestic product, there would be something like an implosion.  the economic state of any given society is a state that is deterministically towards innovation and its more basic form,  creativity.   in addition, the more creative centric an economy is the higher the economic growth and economic dev t.  because a creative centric economy would keep enlarging the size of the economy, creating more and more markets for newer products.  in addition, creativity is also linked to scientific innovation, academic innovation, social innovation etc.  in a sense, a creative centric economy would be a form economy with an intimate connection to the external factors of the business cycle.  my basic motivation here is figuring out how to create the best kind of economic system, and my current understanding is that these are economic systems that are both artistic and intellectually scientifically centric.   #  buying the same kind of wallet again and again only implies insanity and not greed.   #  this statement is incorrect, because it is reductive.   #  you are looking at this from a very first world, static, developed economy point of view.  it sounds valid from a distance, but it is somewhat narrow.  your perspective is not wrong, it just 0 labels creativity as mutually exclusive from greed, and 0 conflates creativity with development without considering the possibility of each on their own.  creativity should properly be viewed as greed, because it supplies marketplace demand.  the absence of a demand would render the creativity irrelevant to development, in that it would not be commercially adopted.  if it were to not be greed being sold in the marketplace for profit , it would instead be  charity .  by definition, greed is a function of both supply as you seem to view it, which is valid and demand which you discount .  in the context of consumerism, greed is what drives decisions of demand that are not necessary to support basic necessities.  greed is the basis for demand.  this statement is incorrect, because it is reductive.  do not look at this in the context of a wallet, but rather in the context of what creates demand for what you would consider to be a creative product.  for example, the mere creation of an ipad does not drive economic development, it is the consumerism of desire for a non essential object that drives the growth of the market.  certainly there is creativity in the idea behind it, however that creativity is not what drives growth.  development is the result of shipping millions of units.  the flaw in this is that you assume greed is static, without respect to if greed were to be variable.  if you were to consider that greed is actually dynamic, you would see that it is the foundation of development.  the existence of recession shows that greed in the economic, not moral sense is indeed not static.  an example of variation would be an economic downturn.  when demand for consumerism i. e.  greed is reduced, creativity cannot withstand the absence of demand.  with respect to ipads, the logical extension of the  creativity drives development  argument results in a claim  pumping out shitloads of ipads will boost the economy.   fewer people will buy ipads, thus showing that creativity it itself does not spawn development.   #  the real reason for development is institutions that foster incentives through providing self interest rewards.   #  greed is a misnomer.  it is a catchy way to explain what adam smith called self interest and does not reflect truly what he meant.  smith also believed that moral sentiments were also important in building institutions of trust.  capitalism and development does require an institution to help foster creativity.  one such institution that has worked quite well in the 0th century with ample evidence is the market system.  the market system rewards individuals.  does this make an individual who is rewarded greedy ? i think not.  greed is based on what they choose to do with their rewards.  but the incentive to create is certainly most effected by the reward system capitalism allows for.  is it the only system ? no.  but it is the best one we have found so far.  i do not think greed is the fair characterization of the system.  nor is creativity, which is rather a consequence of incentives.  the real reason for development is institutions that foster incentives through providing self interest rewards.  if i want to donate to charity, that is even better of me, but i am still affected by motivations to acquire rewards in order to achieve this goal.   #  creating institutions that foster the innate human drive towards creativity and innovation such as ip does more to the development of an economy than institutions that further foster human self interest.   #  right, but the only reason why institutions work is because they are more attuned to human nature.  the reason why a market system  works  better than a command economy is because it conflicts with human thinking.  trust on the institutions and the market system is largely foreign from the thinking of most ordinary consumers or civilians.  because of how it aligns with human nature and territorialism, most consumers trust institutions instinctively.  instincts conforming to instinct centric institutions.  i used the term  greed  because it is easy to reference since most use it, but it is a value laden term so it is probably not the word i should have used.  i do not think  rewarding individuals  or  market fostering incentives through self interest  rewards is correct either.  the economic system is internationally integrated and much more complex to be reduced to plainly rewarding each and every individual.  to illustrate, by what standard exactly is each and every individual rewarded ? as a whole, it would have to be according to complex economic and political structures.  individuals under a less influential state are rewarded less than individuals within powerful states.  greed, to me, is simply considering one is own interest and ignoring the interest of others, under the context of a social system that actually depends on several humans and not single individuals.  an institution that foster rewarding self interest is a necessary for any modern economic system, but my argument is that economic development requires an extra step.  creating institutions that foster the innate human drive towards creativity and innovation such as ip does more to the development of an economy than institutions that further foster human self interest.   #  it the 0th biggest company in terms of annual revenue.   #  windows was revolutionary for it is time.  innovative, creative.  its creator was rewarded with so much money that he became one of if not the most wealthy men in the world.  innovation is very rewarding within a capitalist framework.  the problem is that you have no real definition of greed and creativity.  you call desire for the latest iphone  greed , meanwhile apple and the iphone are essentially the one is that began the smartphone boom.  how was that not creative ? and how did capitalism not reward apple for this innovation ? it the 0th biggest company in terms of annual revenue.  capitalism is a perfectly fine construct for rewarding innovation.  it is not for no reason that america is the source of nearly all innovation in today is world.   #  profits and consequently raises inefficiency in the market.   #  capitalism, and specifically the commonly used system of property over ideas, is an inherent contradiction with the aims to foster competition.  we specifically grant the owner of the creation exclusive rights to that market albeit for a limited time, and not to derivative works or inventions .  this purposefully increases owners  rents i. e.  profits and consequently raises inefficiency in the market.  yes, the reason is that our system seeks to reward inventors to incentivize development of ideas ex ante, but ex post we are using what is clearly an anticompetitive system.  ip is not inherent to capitalism, and yet it is employed as a means of promoting research largely in most modern capitalist economies.  i do not see this as a necessary system of rewards, and hopefully alternatives or reduced breadth and depth of property protections are developed and adopted in the future.
i wrote  economic dev t does not depend on greed  because i am trying to counter the assumption that greed empowers economic activity   dominantly.    it is assumed that capitalism and relatively free markets work because the majority of human nature is selfish/greedy and apathetic.  the more consumerist/greedy a society, the more economic exchanges are made, and finally, the more gdp the relatively free market system creates, which is related to our notion of  economic dev t.   the problem with greed alone is that it goes nowhere.  there is no direction to the economic system.  demands are static and there are no  new products  without creativity.  sustaining the dev t of an economy would require introduction of newer products.  greed, in the context of our global economic system, is actually usually paired with a fascination for novel things.  buying the same kind of wallet again and again only implies insanity and not greed.  it is all about buying the latest jeans or the newest iphones.  that is what i think we usually mean when we say  greed.   there is no expansion of the economic pie.  greed on its own only does something akin to  iself heating  the entire system.  without creativity and ingenuity and the markets that make way for the enlargement of the total domestic product, there would be something like an implosion.  the economic state of any given society is a state that is deterministically towards innovation and its more basic form,  creativity.   in addition, the more creative centric an economy is the higher the economic growth and economic dev t.  because a creative centric economy would keep enlarging the size of the economy, creating more and more markets for newer products.  in addition, creativity is also linked to scientific innovation, academic innovation, social innovation etc.  in a sense, a creative centric economy would be a form economy with an intimate connection to the external factors of the business cycle.  my basic motivation here is figuring out how to create the best kind of economic system, and my current understanding is that these are economic systems that are both artistic and intellectually scientifically centric.   #  the problem with greed alone is that it goes nowhere.   #  the flaw in this is that you assume greed is static, without respect to if greed were to be variable.   #  you are looking at this from a very first world, static, developed economy point of view.  it sounds valid from a distance, but it is somewhat narrow.  your perspective is not wrong, it just 0 labels creativity as mutually exclusive from greed, and 0 conflates creativity with development without considering the possibility of each on their own.  creativity should properly be viewed as greed, because it supplies marketplace demand.  the absence of a demand would render the creativity irrelevant to development, in that it would not be commercially adopted.  if it were to not be greed being sold in the marketplace for profit , it would instead be  charity .  by definition, greed is a function of both supply as you seem to view it, which is valid and demand which you discount .  in the context of consumerism, greed is what drives decisions of demand that are not necessary to support basic necessities.  greed is the basis for demand.  this statement is incorrect, because it is reductive.  do not look at this in the context of a wallet, but rather in the context of what creates demand for what you would consider to be a creative product.  for example, the mere creation of an ipad does not drive economic development, it is the consumerism of desire for a non essential object that drives the growth of the market.  certainly there is creativity in the idea behind it, however that creativity is not what drives growth.  development is the result of shipping millions of units.  the flaw in this is that you assume greed is static, without respect to if greed were to be variable.  if you were to consider that greed is actually dynamic, you would see that it is the foundation of development.  the existence of recession shows that greed in the economic, not moral sense is indeed not static.  an example of variation would be an economic downturn.  when demand for consumerism i. e.  greed is reduced, creativity cannot withstand the absence of demand.  with respect to ipads, the logical extension of the  creativity drives development  argument results in a claim  pumping out shitloads of ipads will boost the economy.   fewer people will buy ipads, thus showing that creativity it itself does not spawn development.   #  the real reason for development is institutions that foster incentives through providing self interest rewards.   #  greed is a misnomer.  it is a catchy way to explain what adam smith called self interest and does not reflect truly what he meant.  smith also believed that moral sentiments were also important in building institutions of trust.  capitalism and development does require an institution to help foster creativity.  one such institution that has worked quite well in the 0th century with ample evidence is the market system.  the market system rewards individuals.  does this make an individual who is rewarded greedy ? i think not.  greed is based on what they choose to do with their rewards.  but the incentive to create is certainly most effected by the reward system capitalism allows for.  is it the only system ? no.  but it is the best one we have found so far.  i do not think greed is the fair characterization of the system.  nor is creativity, which is rather a consequence of incentives.  the real reason for development is institutions that foster incentives through providing self interest rewards.  if i want to donate to charity, that is even better of me, but i am still affected by motivations to acquire rewards in order to achieve this goal.   #  the reason why a market system  works  better than a command economy is because it conflicts with human thinking.   #  right, but the only reason why institutions work is because they are more attuned to human nature.  the reason why a market system  works  better than a command economy is because it conflicts with human thinking.  trust on the institutions and the market system is largely foreign from the thinking of most ordinary consumers or civilians.  because of how it aligns with human nature and territorialism, most consumers trust institutions instinctively.  instincts conforming to instinct centric institutions.  i used the term  greed  because it is easy to reference since most use it, but it is a value laden term so it is probably not the word i should have used.  i do not think  rewarding individuals  or  market fostering incentives through self interest  rewards is correct either.  the economic system is internationally integrated and much more complex to be reduced to plainly rewarding each and every individual.  to illustrate, by what standard exactly is each and every individual rewarded ? as a whole, it would have to be according to complex economic and political structures.  individuals under a less influential state are rewarded less than individuals within powerful states.  greed, to me, is simply considering one is own interest and ignoring the interest of others, under the context of a social system that actually depends on several humans and not single individuals.  an institution that foster rewarding self interest is a necessary for any modern economic system, but my argument is that economic development requires an extra step.  creating institutions that foster the innate human drive towards creativity and innovation such as ip does more to the development of an economy than institutions that further foster human self interest.   #  it the 0th biggest company in terms of annual revenue.   #  windows was revolutionary for it is time.  innovative, creative.  its creator was rewarded with so much money that he became one of if not the most wealthy men in the world.  innovation is very rewarding within a capitalist framework.  the problem is that you have no real definition of greed and creativity.  you call desire for the latest iphone  greed , meanwhile apple and the iphone are essentially the one is that began the smartphone boom.  how was that not creative ? and how did capitalism not reward apple for this innovation ? it the 0th biggest company in terms of annual revenue.  capitalism is a perfectly fine construct for rewarding innovation.  it is not for no reason that america is the source of nearly all innovation in today is world.   #  ip is not inherent to capitalism, and yet it is employed as a means of promoting research largely in most modern capitalist economies.   #  capitalism, and specifically the commonly used system of property over ideas, is an inherent contradiction with the aims to foster competition.  we specifically grant the owner of the creation exclusive rights to that market albeit for a limited time, and not to derivative works or inventions .  this purposefully increases owners  rents i. e.  profits and consequently raises inefficiency in the market.  yes, the reason is that our system seeks to reward inventors to incentivize development of ideas ex ante, but ex post we are using what is clearly an anticompetitive system.  ip is not inherent to capitalism, and yet it is employed as a means of promoting research largely in most modern capitalist economies.  i do not see this as a necessary system of rewards, and hopefully alternatives or reduced breadth and depth of property protections are developed and adopted in the future.
i only just recently learned of this idea but i am struggling to find substantial holes in the idea that would make me stand against it.  if the government gave x amount of money to companies specifically for paying their employees more/creating more jobs this would be a far better solution than welfare.  obviously there would be some issues with companies trying to cheat the system, and the penalties would have to seriously outweigh the benefits of cheating the system but i think a basic set of rules could be put in place that guarantees, money be given to employees ontop of the salary they would have already received.  for example say walmart, walmart operates with a 0 profit margin, if the government subsidized their payroll so that their employees got 0 hours of work at a  living wage  but still only maintained a 0 profit margin.  not only would the employees benefit, but the company would benefit as they would be able to afford to have more employees working providing better service, and the customer would benefit as the prices would be reduced to maintain the 0 profit margin or 0 allowing for the company to increase its profits small amount what major kinks are in an idea like this.  why would this never fail.  cmv folks  #  if the government gave x amount of money to companies specifically for paying their employees more/creating more jobs this would be a far better solution than welfare.   #  a huge number of people are working but not getting a living wage.   # a huge number of people are working but not getting a living wage.  some have proposed a living wage might be about $0/hour.  walmart may be paying them $0/hr now.  that is a $0 hour difference almost double.  are you proposing that taxpayers have their taxes skyrocket to protect businesses ? why should not business simply be forced to pay a living wage ? also consider that there is a wide variety of reasons why someone might receive government assistance.  it might be they do not earn a living wage.  it might be they have many kids and ca not make ends meet even at $0/hr.  it could be a short or long term disability.  it could be due to unemployment.  some people are not employable.  i think you may be over estimating what someone on government assistance gets ? that implies there is enough work for them to do and that their presence wo not take away hours from the other workers.  will the company invent busy work ?  #  most welfare recipients are not on it long term.   #  most welfare recipients are not on it long term.  i got let go from my job a little less than a year back.  i got a new job about 0 months ago.  there was about a 0 month period where i was unemployed and collected welfare.  here are my points for it:   i did not get some exorbitant amount; i got maybe half of my salary   i did not get anything if i did not submit 0 resumes a week, and part of the program was providing proof for each week   if i had not had that money, buying food and rent would have tapped me out within 0 months, and i would have been begging, sucking cock, or stealing to put food on the table.  what, you think just because i am unlucky enough to not find employment, i am going to starve ? i was lucky.  i had savings, and i had barely made it above living paycheck to paycheck.  if i had been working minimum wage, i would have been homeless by the end of the month.  overall, when i was gainfully employed i was thinking the same thing a lot of people do:  why am i paying taxes so that unemployed assholes can sit on their asses and collect money ?   but then i realized, i am paying for insurance for when i fall on hard times.   #  the large majority of people on welfare are on it for less then two years; it mostly is people who are between jobs.   #  most people who get welfare or food stamps are not on it for very long.  the large majority of people on welfare are on it for less then two years; it mostly is people who are between jobs.  anyway, i am not sure what would be gained by the govnerment giving walmart money to give to their poor employees, instead of the government just giving the people living under the poverty line more money directly.  it seems like that would just add an unnecessary middle man, which would make the system less efficient.  also, it would probably just encourage companies wal mart to reduce it is base pay, to have even more employees working for less then a living wage, so it would get more subsidies.   #  in any case, most people are limited to 0 years maximum on that program, and it sounds like a majority leave the program before that.   #  there is been research on this in a number of areas.  one study, of tanf recipenets in virginia, showed that the average family was on tanf for 0 months or less.  URL  most families receive tanf for a year or less.  for one parent, not disabled families three fourths of all tanf cases , median total time on tanf was about 0 months, for all three cohorts table 0 about one quarter of families stay for approximately 0 years, and another quarter stay for less than 0 months.  families in the tanf program spend the least amount of time on tanf table 0,and figures 0, 0, and 0 .  median time receiving benefits was less than one year 0 months for these families, and 0 percent had left assistance after less than 0 years 0 months that seems to be about normal for tanf, from what i can find.  in any case, most people are limited to 0 years maximum on that program, and it sounds like a majority leave the program before that.  for food stamps, this was the best source i could find: URL  half of all new snap participants received benefits for 0 months or less in the mid 0s, up from 0 months in the early 0s.  single parent families and elderly individuals tended to stay in the program longer than did working poor individuals, childless adults without disabilities, and noncitizens.  seventy four percent of new participants left the program within two years.  this is an increase from 0 percent in the early 0s.  so, for both programs, it seems like a majority of people who use them are off of the program within a year, and a larger majority are off them within 0 years.   #  look at the riots/pain/death caused by the unions fighting for employee rights.   #  corporations throughout history have shown that the most important thing to them is their bottom line.  think of all the perks you enjoy at your job; fair pay, 0 hour work weeks, vacation/sick time, safe working conditions, etc.  these are all things that we as the working class had to fight for.  the corporations did not give them freely.  look at the riots/pain/death caused by the unions fighting for employee rights.  corporations exist to make money for the owners/shareholders and that is fine.  they do not exist to make things fair to their employees.  taking money from people who desperately need it and giving that money to corporations in the hopes that they will do the right thing for a change is a somewhat nieve ideal to possess.  businesses were absolutely flooded with bailout money during the recent crash in order to do exactly what you are proposing, and guess what, unemployment is still high and welfare is still necessary for some people to pay their bills.
for the purposes of this discussion, let is restrict the proposal to canada and mexico.  i think it would be mutually beneficial if canada and mexico chose to unite with the usa, and vise versa.  i do not think the cons outweigh the pros.  resources would be increased by all, opportunities and workforce would increase, choices would increase, culture would benefit, and politics would get really interesting.  obviously, there would have to be some transitional periods.  we could start with canada, since it is a relatively small population, then one mexican state at a time.  but i think that could be done.  the end results, it seems to me, are desirable for all.  i am open to changing my view, because it is just an idea i have been knocking around.  i am not emotionally invested in it.  that i would like it to work does not necessarily mean that it  would  work.  what i am noticing also is that this is turning into a typical  america sucks !  ,  no it does not !   discussion.  if you want to convince someone that america  is the worst, omg , please feel free to create your own cmv: you are not going to change my view by saying that i am a typical ignorant american who probably just wants to steal oil and destroy cultures and force other people to adopt my conservative laws.  the last part there i think i addressed already: laws would not necessarily follow the american model.  a grand debate and constitutional convention would obviously be in order.  anywho.   although i have not been convinced that this could not work eventually, i have been convinced that it is not even worth talking about in 0, because the citizens of the countries in question are not yet close to a tipping point in which they believe it would benefit them mutually and fairly.   i will try to jump back in tonight to address any respectful critiques that change my view further.  i am seeing that some interesting discussion has been going on between y all since i last checked in.  i have an obligation today, but i will read it soon.  thanks.   #  obviously, there would have to be some transitional periods.   #  we could start with canada, since it is a relatively small population, then one mexican state at a time.   #  as a canadian, i can safely say that most of us do not want to join the us, and i am sure most mexicans do not want to join the us either.  canada already is experiencing a massive drowning out of canadian culture in exchange for shows and movies imported by the us, to the point where very little canadian content reaches the screen and the stuff that does is usually underfunded/all the good canadian writers go to la .  we could start with canada, since it is a relatively small population, then one mexican state at a time.  but i think that could be done.  the end results, it seems to me, are desirable for all.  you are talking about annexing the rest of north america under one country.  the us has enough of a problem keeping itself together with 0 million people, how do you expect it to function  at all  when there are 0 million ? what is more, you are assuming that canadians and mexicans are ok with your political system replacing ours.  canada is politics function way, way differently than yours, and i would not adopt your country is flawed 0 tier system if you freaking put me at the head of it.  i think you do not have a well developed view of north american politics, and need to learn a bit more about geopolitics and cultural differences for you to realize why this is really only a desirable deal for the us and not so for canada and mexico.  some things you might want to research are:   political systems of canada/mexico and political histories   quebec, it is history as part of canada, and it is current geopolitical standing if the us were to absorb canada, quebec would likely secede from the deal altogether, it is nothing like the rest of north america politically and culturally   nafta and it is economic effects especially on mexico, which suffered from agricultural decline as a result of us agro products entering the mexican marketplace with greater ease   criticisms of the us governmental system  #  presumably, each mexican state is linked economically with the surrounding ones more so than the neighboring american states, so adding them in state by state would jack up their economy.   #  what benefit would uniting with mexico give us ? seems like they would just be a giant sink on the economy and we would also have to sort out their drug cartel problem.  also, i do not think we could piecemeal add mecian states.  presumably, each mexican state is linked economically with the surrounding ones more so than the neighboring american states, so adding them in state by state would jack up their economy.  also, canada has a lot of different policies than us.  we would have to get health insurance socialized before they would consider joining the us.   #  i really do not want anything like that to happen to you guys.   #  this is a nice grocery store you have got here.  it is be a shame if something bad were to happen to it.  you here stories about those mafia guys.  i hear they kill people who do not cooperate.  i really do not want anything like that to happen to you guys.  you know, if you give me and my buddies a percentage of your profits, we could offer you some  protection services.    #  and canada is not without its flaws either the things we have done to the native americans in this country.  appalling !  #  only top level comments have to change op is view; i was moreso agreeing with /u/pinewood0.  that said, you are right.  i will give it a shot.  pardon my bluntness, i do not intend to offend:   the us is way, way behind on gay rights.  seriously, guys, why is not gay marriage legal across the board yet ? ! the us has the highest incarceration levels  in the world  URL mostly due to non violent crimes of all things   the us is one of the only places in the first world where religious fundamentalism URL is  growing  URL   the electoral system is a joke y all need to look up  oligarchy  ;   we still have a middle class URL and finally, yes, absolutely, our people do not get forced into poverty due to health issues URL please do not take this as hostility; i have spent a great deal of time in the us dad is side of the family is american , dated an american for 0 years, have several american friends and family, as forementioned .  you are all lovely people, just in a very broken system i want no part of.  and canada is not without its flaws either the things we have done to the native americans in this country.  appalling !  #  that are typically lauded as socially progressive have not yet legalized same sex marriage, and yet the us should somehow be demonized as far behind on the matter ?  #  it might be close to 0 of the states but its not even near 0 of the population.  the vast majority of americans have access to same sex marriage.  any in any case, how is progress supposed to be depressing ? no matter how ludicrous it is that people have been deprived of these rights, progress is always something that should be celebrated and encouraged.  considering that only 0 countries in the entire world have fully legalized same sex marriage, the fact that significant progress is being made in the us is laudable.  countries like germany, the uk, switzerland, finland, australia, etc.  that are typically lauded as socially progressive have not yet legalized same sex marriage, and yet the us should somehow be demonized as far behind on the matter ? anyway i agree that the us is behind and that we need to keep working to make sure all americans are treated with equality, and with the dignity and respect that all human beings deserve.  i just do not think that the criticism should be exaggerated when the us is making a lot of progress.  hopefully we will see national legalization within the next few years; that will be a long overdue but none the less welcome social revolution.
i was looking at propositions of my state today arizona and i just ca not imagine why myself or anyone else would vote to raise legislator pay.  i ca not see it making them more honest or trying harder.  and certainly it ca not be the way to stop corruption ? also most legislators were usually rich and wealthy to begin with ? maybe a few underdogs here and there, but most have money to fund campaigns and whatnot.  current salary is $0,0, the proposition wants to raise it to $0,0.  are not they making money from other sources ?  #  i ca not see it making them more honest or trying harder.   #  and certainly it ca not be the way to stop corruption ?  # and certainly it ca not be the way to stop corruption ? .  are not they making money from other sources ? i think that if you look at what you wrote critically, you will find a number of problems.  does low salary and high power tempt corruption ? do you want  only  candidates with  money from other sources  to consider public service ? if a talented individual can make $0k, or $0k, or more as a lawyer, doctor, or engineer in the private sector, why should they consider public service at $0k/year ? in general, do you expect high performance on low pay ? i suggest that, in a optimal scenario, legislators are dedicated professionals making enough to work for the 0 days the legislature is in session and work the rest of the year developing legislation and working issues in their districts.   #  one reason to pay them more is to make bribes and corruption less inviting it does not work all the time, of course .   #  one reason to pay them more is to make bribes and corruption less inviting it does not work all the time, of course .  secondly its to try and get better people into the jobs, you arent going to work for nothing with all the hell that is politics if you can get a much better paying job in private industry some people do politics because its their passion, but not everyone .  also being a legislator is a full time job even when not at the legislature , the person themselves is unlikely to be able to singlehandedly manage another job or business interest at the same time.  whether or not you believe they should get a payrise, $0,0 usd for a legislator is  rediculously  small.  a member of the new south wales leglislative assembly in australia earns a salary  starting  at $0,0 aud $0,0 usd .  even if they were twice as busy unlikely and overpaid somewhat likely , its still a massive difference.   #  we need politicians who make their choices not for their own best interests.   #  i think you are raising another point here.  if voters were smart, they would pay politicians well if only to make bribes or alternative financial interests less enticing, or potentially even necessary if they rely on their position financially.  but you are 0 right.  most voters would not want this, nor to ever raise taxes on themselves even when it is nessesary.  most voters are even less responsible with their votes than the most corrupt politicians are with their power.  this is exactly why i find the current movement to  get out and vote  and encouraging people who are otherwise too lazy or too absentminded to vote so deplorable.  it is a clear move to garner the votes of the easily swayed masses rather than the people who take interest, do research and are responsible with their vote.  it actively takes power away from these people who actually care and are trying to make change and keeps us perpetually stuck in a binary party system.  i believe it is important that everyone have the right to vote, and i believe that it is ideal that everyone go out and vote responsibly.  but we as a nation have spent the past 0 years encouraging irresponsible voting, and we wonder why our system is so messed up.  it is the same kind of knee jerk reactionary voting that causes reddit to slowly gravitate more and more toward the repetitive or the equivalent of candy.  if you want substance, you need people who are motivated by the right reasons.  we need politicians who make their choices not for their own best interests.  higher paid politicians are admittedly marginally more likely to focus on their job rather than their financial situation.   #  however, why on earth would somebody take a job for $0k/yr without knowing they will be bribed ?  #  this is only true above a certain point.  the people who are only going to take a job for the money probably are not going to do it for $0k/yr.  however, why on earth would somebody take a job for $0k/yr without knowing they will be bribed ? i make more than that as a graduate student.  it is a salary low enough to turn away almost all college graduates.   #  i mean, i want to make my state the best place to live that i can, but i want to be able to afford to house and feed my family more.   #  the arizona legislature meets, from what i can tell, for a 0 day period each year, starting on the first monday of january, meaning that it ends approximately mid april.  that means that for approximately 0/0 of the year, your state reps, in addition to not working their normal jobs, need to procure a second residence, whether that be a short term rental, a shared house, or a hotel room.  unless state legislatures are offered a competitive salary, people who ca not afford the financial burden wo not run for office.  low pay is likely to ensure that  only  the wealthy, who do not need to worry about making ends meet, will run for these offices.  i mean, i want to make my state the best place to live that i can, but i want to be able to afford to house and feed my family more.
my view is that anime is more of a medium than a genre, whilst some of the more popular anime will share similarities there is a huge variety of shows and they are not all intended for the same audience.  i see people saying that they have tried anime,  i tried x, y and z and i still hate anime !   but it is usually just that they tried 0 of the same type of anime, all with the same target demo and very similar themes.  whilst attack on titan, naruto, death note etc are big names you may have heard of, they do not represent all anime in the slightest.  saying i do not like anime is similar to saying  i do not like movies  or  i do not like music , when really you have only seen the pg 0 crap that sells like crazy, or only heard pop music on the radio.   #  saying i do not like anime is similar to saying  i do not like movies  or  i do not like music , when really you have only seen the pg 0 crap that sells like crazy, or only heard pop music on the radio.   #  except there are different genres of movies and genres of music that i do definitely not enjoy.   #  do aesthetics not count ? i am sure i could find some anime enjoyable, but i ca not stand the general aesthetic.  oh, from a comment below,   i would argue that anime is closer to medium than a genre URL hits the nail on the head for me.  if anime is as truly diverse as you say, it kind of does not matter if the stories are being portrayed in a medium that one does not like.  some people do not like reading, some people do not like movies, etc.  except there are different genres of movies and genres of music that i do definitely not enjoy.  anime itself is a genre within film / television, and it certainly has subgenres, but it is more than reasonable to dislike a genre all together despite it containing a wide variety of subgenres.   #  different media do provide slightly different experiences, but more often people judge a work by its content rather than its medium.   #  not op, but i would argue that anime is closer to medium than a genre.  stories of many different genres can be told through the medium of anime.  i guess it is more like  medium   country of origin .  different media do provide slightly different experiences, but more often people judge a work by its content rather than its medium.  the content of any medium could potentially be anything.   #  but the point of this post was that there is an anime somewhere for everyone.   #  but the point of this post was that there is an anime somewhere for everyone.  this belief could easily be successfully argued against by simply saying  you ca not actually prove that and have no way of doing so , but instead you guys are also trying to unsuccessfully argue something you ca not prove.  you ca not prove there is not a single sport you do not like.  it is unrealistic to expect you to deeply analyze every sport of course, and it is perfectly fine to say that you know of no sport you enjoy watching.  the same can be said of anime, especially for people who do not actually watch it but unless they watch every anime in existence and decide they dislike every single one, they ca not say with 0 certainty that there is no anime out there for them.  it is unrealistic to expect someone to do that and it is perfectly fine for them to hold the opinion that they generally do not like anime for the same reason you can disregard anything.   #  one side has a ball, the other side stops them.   #  not op, but i did not realize i liked watching volleyball and olympic judo until i watched footage from 0 london olympics this summer.  where i live canada , people only watch hockey and sometimes basketball.  maybe american football ? people will get excited around world cup time for soccer, but nobody is willing to watch volleyball or judo with me.  i think the thing that turns me off most about sports is not really the sport itself.  i can appreciate american football because it is easy to understand.  one side has a ball, the other side stops them.  done.  but the thing that turns me off the most about sports are the fans.  the literal fanatics that wear their team is colours and scream and yell, the ones that have favourite teams and players and get disappointed when they lose.  i can appreciate the skill and the sportsmanship, but i ca not bring myself to cheer for a team.  anyways, i do think you just have to find the right sport, like sepak takraw URL aka feet only volleyball or kabaddi URL aka indian group tag .  there are so many varieties out there that we seldom have a chance to appreciate.   #  maybe i would like golf which is much slower and individual ?  #  who is to say this person has not seen a large amount of sports ? i am in the same boat regarding sports i do not like watching them at all.  i do not like watching soccer.  it is a fast paced team sport.  maybe i would like golf which is much slower and individual ? nope no good either.  mens vs womens, professional vs college vs random people playing. i have watched them and disliked them all.  why do not i enjoy watching them ? they are boring.  to me, once you have seen one set of tennis, you have seen them all.  so that person hit the ball a little faster or that person moved left when they should have moved right. how is that interesting ? what have i learned from watching it ? what emotional response does it evoke in me ? nothing.  i get nothing out of it.  it is roughly as interesting as watching someone mop a floor.  do not get me wrong.  playing sports is fun.  watching them is boring.  i suspect some people feel similarly about anything that is in the style of anime.  just because you and a large number of people enjoy it does not mean that everyone will.
i am sure we can all agree that the united states has done some horrible things.  treatment of the natives, treatment of the filipino people, vietnam, injustices towards democratic governments like iran, etc.  but in comparison to what the alternatives were, i think the united states is the best choice.  the soviet union and china is brand of communism killed millions upon millions of their own people and set their economies back decades.  in the grand scheme of things, the west is fight against communism was not a bad thing.  without america is intervention, much more of europe would had become vassal states to the soviet union.  south korea would be in the hands of a crazy dictator.  the us gave the philippines its independence in the 0 is would spanish fascists have done the same ? japan and germany were rebuilt into completely independent countries.  in contrast, the ussr just completely trashed east germany.  china is gearing up right now for a resource war against japan, and purposefully fuels anti japanese sentiment.  nowadays, the eu seems to be a great contender for world super power.  but they seem a bit too fractured to be able to do much in a timely fashion.  i do not particularly trust china to think about global interests over their own national interests.  their form of government is also more or less an oligarchy.  they are hyper nationalistic, much more so than america.  thus, the us remains the best counter to tyranny in the world.  europe, china, russia, are either too corrupt, too amoral, or too weak.   #  thus, the us remains the best counter to tyranny in the world.   #  europe, china, russia, are either too corrupt, too amoral, or too weak.   # europe, china, russia, are either too corrupt, too amoral, or too weak.  that is precisely the problem, your false notion that the us is countering tyranny and it is less amoral than anyone else.  that is false.  do not fool yourself.  the us does whatever is in their best interest.  do not ever believe when someone tells you that america is taking an action to secure someone else is democracy, it is never about that.  the us would not give two shits if europe had all gone under the control of ussr, except it would be dangerous politically and economically for them.  a good example of what i am talking about is operation condor URL which killed several democratic elected leaders in south america URL organized several coups and began many dictatorships in the 0 is, beggining an era of oppression, killing of opposition and censor URL with the intention of avoiding the spread of communism.   #  the way the us first fabricated evidence to start an illegal war against the guy which they had  fully supported  while he was gassing his own civilians with us cover.   #  i disagree.  many of the crises we are facing today exist only  because  the us has a habit of sacrificing sensible action on the altar of vested interests.  israel/palestine could have been solved many times over if it was not always all of the civilized world against the us vetoing anything israel does not like.  bin laden and al quaida are a us created problem.  the south american dictators were not only often installed by the us but trained in the  school of the americas  on how to torture and disappear their opposition.  the way the us first fabricated evidence to start an illegal war against the guy which they had  fully supported  while he was gassing his own civilians with us cover.  the way the us then funneled all those billions back to us contractors rather than rebuilding infrastructure and civil society in iraq and left the place in a worse condition than under saddam.  isis is a testamemt to the absolute mess the us tends to leave whenever it decides to  spread democracy .  so no, thanks, if this is the  least bad superpower , i will pass.  who says the world is not better off without a  superpower  in the first place ?  #  the us just has a ton of people.   #  tiny would be like iceland or bhutan.  canada is actually the most average country in the world in terms of national population.  if you divide 0 billion approximate population of earth by 0 approximate of countries you get 0 million.  the us just has a ton of people.  there are only 0 countries with more than 0 million people with only two of them being developed and by the 0th country you are now under 0 million, and by the 0th country you are under 0 million.  canada is ranked 0th among 0 countries for population.   #  europe is already represented twice, so tough luck germany.   #  right.  0th.  that means we have to justify it jumping 0 other countries to include it in the un security council.  i get that you are not going to include places like ethiopia and nigeria, but germany, japan, italy, hell even poland have bigger populations and should probably be considered before canada.  if we were going to add 0 countries, it should probably be india, brazil and japan.  europe is already represented twice, so tough luck germany.  you guys run the eu anyways so be happy with that.   #  an invasion on canada would be treated by the us as no different to an invasion on the us.   #  canada spends very little on its military.  about 0 of its gdp.  they can do that because they have they have a huge ally and friend next door with all the guns and tanks and shit.  an invasion on canada would be treated by the us as no different to an invasion on the us.  their population is average 0th and their economy 0th while big is not gigantic.  but let is say canada had a large population and the largest economy.  it is laws, customs, culture and people are very similar to the us.  in the broadest term, it is a more liberal us.  in the end it would be the same superpower as the us.  plus being a superpower entails projecting your power/influence onto others and dominating others.  the us dominates the world through culture like how the uk dominated the world through colonies.  and no matter if it is for good or bad people will not like it.  people never like the big guy.  people like canada because it is seen as a smaller and not like the big bad wolf the us is viewed as.
this phrase is only used so people can make their view seem fresh and against the normal opinions heard on reddit.  most of the time the view is not in the first place, and the phrase is used to garner upvotes.  even if you think you will get downvoted, what is the point of using this click bait phrasing ? to make it seem like you think this post is so important for you to make that you do not care about it getting downvoted while at the same time using a phrase you know will make people more likely to upvote it.  and honestly if people used the upvote and downvote system correctly it would not matter if you had an unpopular opinion in the first place if you actually contributed to the conversation.  is there any actual reason for people to say  i am probably going to get downvoted for this ?    #  is there any actual reason for people to say  i am probably going to get downvoted for this ?    #  it draws attention to the comment more so than just stating whatever they were going to say to begin with.   # it draws attention to the comment more so than just stating whatever they were going to say to begin with.  typically it is at least mildly against the grain of the common opinion what they are about to say, so there is some truth to using the phrase, but a comment that starts with that will get noticed by people who are scrolling through and glancing over the comments.  for instance, people may just be searching through the comments looking for interesting posts, so using that phrase to catch people is eye will likely cause them to read on more often than just reading the first sentence of another post.  it acts the same way clickbait titles do to draw you in, and once you are in you are going to end up reading it for some reason.  more readers more voters.  in my mind there is no actual reason beyond making your comment more visible, but it has appeared to do a good job of that from what i have seen.   #  it gets in the way of reading content.   # it gets in the way of reading content.  posts worth reading are fairly long, and so edits on the end take up relatively little space and time.  it is easy to skip over them quickly.  so to me it is annoying.  it might just be because i am canadian, but two rounds of thanks seems reasonable.  in real life there is normally a round of thanks and a round of  you are welcome  or  any time.   dropping out that last round feels weird to me.   #  because downvotes directly affect the visibility of your post and it is annoying to get ganged up on for reasons that are not clear.   #  because downvotes directly affect the visibility of your post and it is annoying to get ganged up on for reasons that are not clear.  it is the internet equivalent of someone telling you  shut up .  just yesterday i was talking to some guy about pewdiepie and i got 0 downvotes for pointing out how the other guy was contradicting itself.  i do not care about my karma points, but it did bother me that 0 individual people felt compelled to hide my comment from view.  ever had 0 people telling you to shut up ? let me tell you, it does not feel good, specially if you do not know what the fuck you said to justify that reaction not even 0, just like 0 or 0 is enough to get to you.   #  it kind of makes me feel bad when the post was pretty great aside from the  i will probable get downvoted for this  line, but i dislike the phrase so much that i do not want to contribute to it working.   #  i do the same thing.  it kind of makes me feel bad when the post was pretty great aside from the  i will probable get downvoted for this  line, but i dislike the phrase so much that i do not want to contribute to it working.  i do the same when people misuse the nsfw tag on askreddit.  like, when people have a completely normal question such as  what is the coolest thing you have ever done ?   and they mark it as nsfw  just in case .  by that logic, every post ever should be marked as nsfw, because there is always going to be  some  way to say something a bit nsfw about it.   #  the frees up valuable time for them to actually make it to your presumably controversial thesis statement.   #  when i have said it in the past, my motivation has been to hopefully get people to think past their knee jerk reaction when voting.  i have found that reddit is very reactionary and tends to vote on things without giving them actual thought.  any time a post challenges conventional beliefs unless it is the kind of conventional beliefs they want to be wrong they tend to downvote without giving the post any thought.  when you say that you assume they are going to downvote, some people, not people like op, but some people will think either  hey i do not want to be that predicable  and give it a read because now they want to agree if only to be different, or a very select and smarter few will think  well then why the fuck did he post this if he knows he is going to be downvoted ? perhaps he has something he actually wants to say, maybe it is insightful and not the same regurgitated posts you see over and over again on 0 of reddit .  it also helps that this phrase is common.  as previously stated redditors generally give a comment 0 or two seconds to peak their interest before they skip it.  because it is common it communicates the intention quickly and the redditor does not have to read the whole thing.  the frees up valuable time for them to actually make it to your presumably controversial thesis statement.
in star trek there is the prime directive to not interfere with the internal development of alien civilizations.  the reasons and justifications and problems with this are pretty much exactly the same as with the western world interfering with 0rd world countries.  when we donate food to 0rd world country, we harm the farmers that are trying to sell their own food.  we harm their markets and their economy.  we destroy the economical incentives to produce and stock up on excess food, and so on.  we create aid dependency which is extremely hard to solve.  you have the same sort of problems with ebola.  ebola is spread through dirty unhealthy conditions.  when these sorts of diseases spread through the western world resulting in large numbers of deaths, the result was a large effort to prevent it from happening again.  from hygiene improvements, to increasing indoor plumbing, to funding research programs into vaccines and future medicines.  every social program that i can think of came about as an after response to either a disease or war.  the same needs to happen by the third word.  they need to learn for themselves to increase their hygiene habits.  to get rid of traditions like touching dead bodies, to have minimum food standards etc.  this is not something that can be imposed on them by the outside.  you ca not just go in and force vaccines on people and tell them to break their long held traditions.  they will just push back, and nothing will be solved in the long run.  programs like doctors without borders just hurt the doctors who are currently there, and give the government incentives to not improve their own health systems.  they punish companies inside the countries that try to come up with cures by taking away the money incentives.  the encourage governments and individuals to not invest money into preventing future outbreaks, by promising that the west will swoop in and save them if anything goes wrong.   #  they punish companies inside the countries that try to come up with cures by taking away the money incentives.   #  africa is not in a condition to be able to fund scientific research; that is why pretty much all drugs come from western companies because they are able to fund r d and clinical trials for the vaccines and drugs that poorer countries cannot.   # it is completely not.  dirty ? maybe.  that is a bit far to grasp.  unhealthy ? not at all.  it is the lack of access to healthcare as well as lack of knowledge of medicine.  for example, there is a common myth that is spread that ejaculating inside a virgin can cure hiv.  however, that just causes the spread of hiv further.  likewise, there are myths that are spread that can  cure  ebola URL and all that does is cause fear to spread and that can be worse than the spread of ebola itself.  due to the lack of resources available, people are stealing sheets and other supplies that may be contaminated with ebola URL as you said, you ca not go in and force vaccines on people.  but the problem is not just vaccines, it is basic medicine.  people still rely on myths and superstitions.  not true.  msf supports the doctors there and only in extreme cases, such as this outbreak is msf deploy personnel to help.  usually, they will send support staff to help the already existing doctors there.  africa is not in a condition to be able to fund scientific research; that is why pretty much all drugs come from western companies because they are able to fund r d and clinical trials for the vaccines and drugs that poorer countries cannot.  for example, take a professor of mine, cy kang.  he is making the vaccine available for people who need it; it was part of the deal he struck with the pharmaceutical company.  every social program that i can think of came about as an after response to either a disease or war.  africa is not in a place to be able to become a first world country overnight.  china, since the 0s has been trying and still is not one.  even if we poured billions of dollars into improvement, that still would not change anything.  it is the mentality of the people that needs to be changed.  the main thing that will prevent the further spread of ebola is to stop the fear mongering and start education.  ebola cannot be spread unless you are symptomatic and by the time you are symptomatic, you are pretty much vomiting blood, so sick you cannot get out of bed or a walking corpse.  preventing spread is the best thing to do.  as well, this mentality of  natural selection , while biologically sound, is not practical.  viruses mutate all the time.  while pathogens like to enter a host and not cause disease since this is the best for long term survival which is what every thing is trying to do , certain viruses have not adapted to new hosts like ebola or hiv .  these viruses are the ones that will spread and cause a pandemic.   #  these are the problems that need to be addressed if you want to reduce the problems long term.   # my understanding is that ebola is not likely to spread much in developed countries.  but this is indeed something that i could be easily persuaded about if shown evidence that it does pose a real threat to western countries, but it would not really detract from my reasons.  in the same way, the people in star trek would probably quickly discard the prime directive in circumstances where obeying it caused a real threat to the federation.  i am sorry for the star trek reference.  it is just the only popular reference to this style of  people need to learn and develop for themselves  that i am aware of.  they are not idiots.  i never said that they were idiots.  and i am not cold and heartless to their plight.  but look at the video those conditions are not clean.  look at 0:0 a kid sitting in trash, and a man lying on the street.  look at the slums at 0:0.  you see them continually talk about the lack of infrastructure etc.  these are the problems that need to be addressed if you want to reduce the problems long term.  it is no good thinking short term.  and this is not going to be solved by the outside.  charities are not going to provide a fix for corrupt governments.  this needs to be an internal fix.  but that does not automatically mean that our efforts will fix it.  we have to detach ourselves from emotions like guilt, and look at what is actually best in the long run.  and then another.  and so on.  0,0 people, mostly african children, died from malaria last year.  indeed, but that is a pretty selfish reason to help.   #  for example, in the second part of the video you link, a white woman says at 0:0 0:0 that as the disease spreads, she sees people change their minds.   # i value all the lives.  i am looking for the best way to help these people, without just looking at the short term.  that is a scientific question.  i am welcome to scientific data on that.  ebola will get into us.  what i said is that it wo not spread.  they are contaminating everything around them.  making small mistakes in, say, how you remove your safety gear could lead to infection.  sure, but will that lead to a dangerous spread of the disease ? or just a few localized outbreaks ? this could indeed be real problem is there evidence regarding whether this could make it be a real threat to the west ? as greetings or signs of respect.  that does not detract from the fact that we have made huge advances in hygiene.  sure.  and no doubt if people became too lax, we would have an outbreak of some disease, and people would learn to fix their habits.  but we need to look at the long term view here.  i never said anything like that.  really ? it seems obvious to me.  for example, in the second part of the video you link, a white woman says at 0:0 0:0 that as the disease spreads, she sees people change their minds.  people do demand change and demand action the more they can see the effects of disease.  the stronger the will and the demand for change from the people, the more likely there is change.  i am welcome to evidence that it does pose a threat to humanity as a whole.  i have not seen any scientific analysis of this either way.  utopias ? please do not exaggerate.  what is the point ?  #  i can give you plenty of examples where people have learned about a disease and so changed cultural practices.   #  you seem to think that my goal is to increase hygiene, which it is not.  that is a rather bizarre end goal.  my goal is to minimize the suffering in the long term and to improve their conditions.  increasing hygiene is just one part to get there.  what is your point ? that disease changes people minds on sanitation, health, and so on.  i can give you plenty of examples where people have learned about a disease and so changed cultural practices.  the consumption of dead people, for example, is a cultural practice that is pretty rapidly stopped by disease.  we were talking about the threat to all humanity.  $0 million is not a threat to humanity.  nor is $0 billion.  quote:  the most authoritative model, at the moment, suggests a potential economic drain of as much as $0 billion by the end of 0 if  the epidemic spreads into neighboring countries  beyond liberia, guinea and sierra leone, according to a recent study by the world bank.  that is not necessarily a bad thing.  that means that these countries now have a financial motivation to spend up to $0 billion to prevent it from happening again.  governments are driven by financial pressures.  a $0 million project to improve slum areas suddenly does not seem that expensive when compared to a $0 billion cost of copying with another disease outbreak.   #  i have never said anything like that at all.   # no, the exact opposite.  i have never said anything like that at all.  i do not think it has.  hence i have stuck to talking about ebola, and not mentioned hiv at all.  are the problems worse than the problems caused by the diseases ? no.  i am saying that i can see two different argument that could change my view: 0.  it is better in the long term  for africa  for us to help africa compared to not helping.  0.  it is a serious threat to the west for us to not help africa.  just arguing that ebola is harmful in general is not persuasive at all to me, because we need to compare it to the alternatives.  of course i already know that it is going to be expensive to treat.  so will the next outbreak.  and the next one.  and so on.  and please do not conflate  we should try to stop it  with  be of any concern .  even if you personally think that these two things are the same, i clearly do not.  so do not misstate my position please.  etc.  etc.  we have had projects in which we have built medical facilities and donated equipment my mother was involved with this in lagos.  groups would steal the materials and destroy the facilities.  right.  i fully agree.  i can also give plenty of examples of such failed projects.  what you need is the people themselves to come up with solutions.  i gave another poster the example of toilets.
in star trek there is the prime directive to not interfere with the internal development of alien civilizations.  the reasons and justifications and problems with this are pretty much exactly the same as with the western world interfering with 0rd world countries.  when we donate food to 0rd world country, we harm the farmers that are trying to sell their own food.  we harm their markets and their economy.  we destroy the economical incentives to produce and stock up on excess food, and so on.  we create aid dependency which is extremely hard to solve.  you have the same sort of problems with ebola.  ebola is spread through dirty unhealthy conditions.  when these sorts of diseases spread through the western world resulting in large numbers of deaths, the result was a large effort to prevent it from happening again.  from hygiene improvements, to increasing indoor plumbing, to funding research programs into vaccines and future medicines.  every social program that i can think of came about as an after response to either a disease or war.  the same needs to happen by the third word.  they need to learn for themselves to increase their hygiene habits.  to get rid of traditions like touching dead bodies, to have minimum food standards etc.  this is not something that can be imposed on them by the outside.  you ca not just go in and force vaccines on people and tell them to break their long held traditions.  they will just push back, and nothing will be solved in the long run.  programs like doctors without borders just hurt the doctors who are currently there, and give the government incentives to not improve their own health systems.  they punish companies inside the countries that try to come up with cures by taking away the money incentives.  the encourage governments and individuals to not invest money into preventing future outbreaks, by promising that the west will swoop in and save them if anything goes wrong.   #  from hygiene improvements, to increasing indoor plumbing, to funding research programs into vaccines and future medicines.   #  every social program that i can think of came about as an after response to either a disease or war.   # it is completely not.  dirty ? maybe.  that is a bit far to grasp.  unhealthy ? not at all.  it is the lack of access to healthcare as well as lack of knowledge of medicine.  for example, there is a common myth that is spread that ejaculating inside a virgin can cure hiv.  however, that just causes the spread of hiv further.  likewise, there are myths that are spread that can  cure  ebola URL and all that does is cause fear to spread and that can be worse than the spread of ebola itself.  due to the lack of resources available, people are stealing sheets and other supplies that may be contaminated with ebola URL as you said, you ca not go in and force vaccines on people.  but the problem is not just vaccines, it is basic medicine.  people still rely on myths and superstitions.  not true.  msf supports the doctors there and only in extreme cases, such as this outbreak is msf deploy personnel to help.  usually, they will send support staff to help the already existing doctors there.  africa is not in a condition to be able to fund scientific research; that is why pretty much all drugs come from western companies because they are able to fund r d and clinical trials for the vaccines and drugs that poorer countries cannot.  for example, take a professor of mine, cy kang.  he is making the vaccine available for people who need it; it was part of the deal he struck with the pharmaceutical company.  every social program that i can think of came about as an after response to either a disease or war.  africa is not in a place to be able to become a first world country overnight.  china, since the 0s has been trying and still is not one.  even if we poured billions of dollars into improvement, that still would not change anything.  it is the mentality of the people that needs to be changed.  the main thing that will prevent the further spread of ebola is to stop the fear mongering and start education.  ebola cannot be spread unless you are symptomatic and by the time you are symptomatic, you are pretty much vomiting blood, so sick you cannot get out of bed or a walking corpse.  preventing spread is the best thing to do.  as well, this mentality of  natural selection , while biologically sound, is not practical.  viruses mutate all the time.  while pathogens like to enter a host and not cause disease since this is the best for long term survival which is what every thing is trying to do , certain viruses have not adapted to new hosts like ebola or hiv .  these viruses are the ones that will spread and cause a pandemic.   #  but this is indeed something that i could be easily persuaded about if shown evidence that it does pose a real threat to western countries, but it would not really detract from my reasons.   # my understanding is that ebola is not likely to spread much in developed countries.  but this is indeed something that i could be easily persuaded about if shown evidence that it does pose a real threat to western countries, but it would not really detract from my reasons.  in the same way, the people in star trek would probably quickly discard the prime directive in circumstances where obeying it caused a real threat to the federation.  i am sorry for the star trek reference.  it is just the only popular reference to this style of  people need to learn and develop for themselves  that i am aware of.  they are not idiots.  i never said that they were idiots.  and i am not cold and heartless to their plight.  but look at the video those conditions are not clean.  look at 0:0 a kid sitting in trash, and a man lying on the street.  look at the slums at 0:0.  you see them continually talk about the lack of infrastructure etc.  these are the problems that need to be addressed if you want to reduce the problems long term.  it is no good thinking short term.  and this is not going to be solved by the outside.  charities are not going to provide a fix for corrupt governments.  this needs to be an internal fix.  but that does not automatically mean that our efforts will fix it.  we have to detach ourselves from emotions like guilt, and look at what is actually best in the long run.  and then another.  and so on.  0,0 people, mostly african children, died from malaria last year.  indeed, but that is a pretty selfish reason to help.   #  the stronger the will and the demand for change from the people, the more likely there is change.   # i value all the lives.  i am looking for the best way to help these people, without just looking at the short term.  that is a scientific question.  i am welcome to scientific data on that.  ebola will get into us.  what i said is that it wo not spread.  they are contaminating everything around them.  making small mistakes in, say, how you remove your safety gear could lead to infection.  sure, but will that lead to a dangerous spread of the disease ? or just a few localized outbreaks ? this could indeed be real problem is there evidence regarding whether this could make it be a real threat to the west ? as greetings or signs of respect.  that does not detract from the fact that we have made huge advances in hygiene.  sure.  and no doubt if people became too lax, we would have an outbreak of some disease, and people would learn to fix their habits.  but we need to look at the long term view here.  i never said anything like that.  really ? it seems obvious to me.  for example, in the second part of the video you link, a white woman says at 0:0 0:0 that as the disease spreads, she sees people change their minds.  people do demand change and demand action the more they can see the effects of disease.  the stronger the will and the demand for change from the people, the more likely there is change.  i am welcome to evidence that it does pose a threat to humanity as a whole.  i have not seen any scientific analysis of this either way.  utopias ? please do not exaggerate.  what is the point ?  #  that means that these countries now have a financial motivation to spend up to $0 billion to prevent it from happening again.   #  you seem to think that my goal is to increase hygiene, which it is not.  that is a rather bizarre end goal.  my goal is to minimize the suffering in the long term and to improve their conditions.  increasing hygiene is just one part to get there.  what is your point ? that disease changes people minds on sanitation, health, and so on.  i can give you plenty of examples where people have learned about a disease and so changed cultural practices.  the consumption of dead people, for example, is a cultural practice that is pretty rapidly stopped by disease.  we were talking about the threat to all humanity.  $0 million is not a threat to humanity.  nor is $0 billion.  quote:  the most authoritative model, at the moment, suggests a potential economic drain of as much as $0 billion by the end of 0 if  the epidemic spreads into neighboring countries  beyond liberia, guinea and sierra leone, according to a recent study by the world bank.  that is not necessarily a bad thing.  that means that these countries now have a financial motivation to spend up to $0 billion to prevent it from happening again.  governments are driven by financial pressures.  a $0 million project to improve slum areas suddenly does not seem that expensive when compared to a $0 billion cost of copying with another disease outbreak.   #  i have never said anything like that at all.   # no, the exact opposite.  i have never said anything like that at all.  i do not think it has.  hence i have stuck to talking about ebola, and not mentioned hiv at all.  are the problems worse than the problems caused by the diseases ? no.  i am saying that i can see two different argument that could change my view: 0.  it is better in the long term  for africa  for us to help africa compared to not helping.  0.  it is a serious threat to the west for us to not help africa.  just arguing that ebola is harmful in general is not persuasive at all to me, because we need to compare it to the alternatives.  of course i already know that it is going to be expensive to treat.  so will the next outbreak.  and the next one.  and so on.  and please do not conflate  we should try to stop it  with  be of any concern .  even if you personally think that these two things are the same, i clearly do not.  so do not misstate my position please.  etc.  etc.  we have had projects in which we have built medical facilities and donated equipment my mother was involved with this in lagos.  groups would steal the materials and destroy the facilities.  right.  i fully agree.  i can also give plenty of examples of such failed projects.  what you need is the people themselves to come up with solutions.  i gave another poster the example of toilets.
a lot of people have been asking me that since ssm is a thing in england will i be getting married.  my response to this is a resounding no.  i do not think we should try to assimilate into the very tradition that used to discriminate against us for centuries and centuries, its almost like we want to get acceptance by blending in while being accepted for the way we are.  i have no problem with gay people getting married if thats what they want, but i hold the view that its not really the best for lgb people to mimic this institution.  just saying in my country at least the wedding ceremony, even the secular form is based on christianity a belief that hated gay people for centuries so why should we embrace it ?  #  just saying in my country at least the wedding ceremony, even the secular form is based on christianity a belief that hated gay people for centuries so why should we embrace it ?  #  again, i am not english, but do not muslims, jews, hindus and atheists get married there too ?  #  i am not sure about england, but in the us, that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and cutting off your nose to spite your face at the same time.  marriage is the way that two individuals become one legal entity.  it makes a whole ton of things a lot easier.  in certain medical situations, including end of life, some institutions bar anyone but family from seeing the patient.  if your so is parents, for instance do not approve of you and you are not married they could deny you the right to see your so in their final hours, block your ability to make medical decisions for him when he is not able to himself and leave you no power over his funeral.  if you want to adopt a child, being married sure helps a lot.  i do not know all the legal ins and outs, especially not outside of my own country, but it is certainly far more difficult to adopt while unmarried.  the list goes on, but these are all practical, tangible benefits in some of the most important areas of life.  these may not be personally important to you, but they are to a lot of people.  immigration, inheritance, even divorce, the applications stack up.  you might say that it is all these disparate things that need to change and then we would not need marriage equality, and you may be right, but these are not changing anytime soon, and some of them have solid grounding.  even if they were all going to change someday, that does not do people any good now.  by asking people to forgo marriage, you would be asking people to put themselves at various real risks and give up a bunch of real benefits waiting for changes that wo not happen in their lifetime.  again, i am not english, but do not muslims, jews, hindus and atheists get married there too ? how is marriage there  based  on christianity ? people have been legally bonding as pairs long before christianity.  i think you are letting the religious bigots lies that they own marriage get to you.  they do not.  they did not start it, they do not control it.   #  marriage, the system and tradition, was also  not  what was discriminating against gay people the people in charge of administering that system and tradition were.   #  i am not 0 certain how the system works in the uk, but in the us marriage comes with a lot of benefits.  marriage, the system and tradition, was also  not  what was discriminating against gay people the people in charge of administering that system and tradition were.  you do not really outline why gay people should not participate in marriage either, it sounds like you are going to avoid it out of. spite ? i recently had an interracial wedding, which was also a form of marriage discriminated against historically.  do you believe the same should have happened with interracial couples ?  #  marriage contracts also result in tax breaks and even though you do not agree with getting those, it is just something that comes with marriage, not the only thing.   #  marriage contracts can dictate who gets your property when you die.  who gets power of attorney when you are too sick to make decisions.  allows both people to adopt the same child or to be allowed to adopt their step child depending on the bio father .  it allows for hospital staff to be allowed to tell you what is wrong with your spouse.  without marriage you would not have familial status.  it also allows for things like alimony, that while i know a lot of people on reddit disapprove of alimony, it serves an important purpose and is gender neutral.  the purpose of which is because a married couple is seen as a unit that makes decisions together.  some of those decisions dictate career paths and lifestyles for each spouse.  and those decisions can negatively affect one spouse much more than other if divorce were to happen.  marriage contracts also result in tax breaks and even though you do not agree with getting those, it is just something that comes with marriage, not the only thing.  and it should be a separate issue than marriage should not be a thing.  all marriage is is a default legal contract between you, your spouse, and the government agreeing to the above terms.  certain things can be modified by prenupts.  many of the default benefits you probably would like to have with someone you love and even if you would not, that does not mean no one else does.   #  it is incredibly hard for people to immigrate into this country unless they get married.   #  whether or not it is fair is a different matter.  its the system that is in place now and we have to live with it.  im a gay man living with my now husband in america.  he is not an american citizen.  it is incredibly hard for people to immigrate into this country unless they get married.  as much as i agree that marriage should be called something else or we should find some other way to offer the benefits it gives, i would rather stay with the person i love then lose them over some silly word.  i need this benefit or i wont be able to be with the person i love.  its unfair but that is life.   #  if you are against marriage whole hog then i do not see why you 0 couched your argument specifically in terms of gay people and 0 even want your view changed.   # this is never going to end.  i disagree, for every huge progressive change in human culture there were people saying things like,  women should not be allowed to vote  or  black people and white people should remain segregated  eventually those systems of oppression ended and society was able to move on.  just having a few naysayers should not be reason enough to avoid an entire, beneficial, institution.  i do not see why you need some ceremony to show you love someone, and get these benefits either you do not even need a ceremony to get  married  really.  but you do not need a ceremony to show you love someone, and you do not need the ceremony to get the benefits you just have to get legally married .  if you are against marriage whole hog then i do not see why you 0 couched your argument specifically in terms of gay people and 0 even want your view changed.  trying to convince someone who is entirely against marriage that some people of a minority group ought to get married sounds like a hard job.
a lot of people have been asking me that since ssm is a thing in england will i be getting married.  my response to this is a resounding no.  i do not think we should try to assimilate into the very tradition that used to discriminate against us for centuries and centuries, its almost like we want to get acceptance by blending in while being accepted for the way we are.  i have no problem with gay people getting married if thats what they want, but i hold the view that its not really the best for lgb people to mimic this institution.  just saying in my country at least the wedding ceremony, even the secular form is based on christianity a belief that hated gay people for centuries so why should we embrace it ?  #  i do not think we should try to assimilate into the very tradition that used to discriminate against us for centuries and centuries, its almost like we want to get acceptance by blending in while being accepted for the way we are.   #  would you agree with this for other things that were traditionally the case ?  # would you agree with this for other things that were traditionally the case ? for example, for a long time women were not allowed to vote, but when they got the right they certainly assimilated into voting and we think that they should have done so.  when schools were desegregated, it was probably for the best that some black kids went to white schools.  furthermore, why is  blending in  so bad ? there is not any morally or philosophically significant difference between gay marriage or straight marriage that warrants a sharp distinction between the two.  in the previous cases, we tend to think that it was the best option.  why is it not here.  things change.  i imagine that you could probably get a lot of the christian elements removed from your wedding if you chose to do so.  marriage will probably one day lose a lot of the christian elements overtime, anyway.   #  do you believe the same should have happened with interracial couples ?  #  i am not 0 certain how the system works in the uk, but in the us marriage comes with a lot of benefits.  marriage, the system and tradition, was also  not  what was discriminating against gay people the people in charge of administering that system and tradition were.  you do not really outline why gay people should not participate in marriage either, it sounds like you are going to avoid it out of. spite ? i recently had an interracial wedding, which was also a form of marriage discriminated against historically.  do you believe the same should have happened with interracial couples ?  #  it also allows for things like alimony, that while i know a lot of people on reddit disapprove of alimony, it serves an important purpose and is gender neutral.   #  marriage contracts can dictate who gets your property when you die.  who gets power of attorney when you are too sick to make decisions.  allows both people to adopt the same child or to be allowed to adopt their step child depending on the bio father .  it allows for hospital staff to be allowed to tell you what is wrong with your spouse.  without marriage you would not have familial status.  it also allows for things like alimony, that while i know a lot of people on reddit disapprove of alimony, it serves an important purpose and is gender neutral.  the purpose of which is because a married couple is seen as a unit that makes decisions together.  some of those decisions dictate career paths and lifestyles for each spouse.  and those decisions can negatively affect one spouse much more than other if divorce were to happen.  marriage contracts also result in tax breaks and even though you do not agree with getting those, it is just something that comes with marriage, not the only thing.  and it should be a separate issue than marriage should not be a thing.  all marriage is is a default legal contract between you, your spouse, and the government agreeing to the above terms.  certain things can be modified by prenupts.  many of the default benefits you probably would like to have with someone you love and even if you would not, that does not mean no one else does.   #  as much as i agree that marriage should be called something else or we should find some other way to offer the benefits it gives, i would rather stay with the person i love then lose them over some silly word.   #  whether or not it is fair is a different matter.  its the system that is in place now and we have to live with it.  im a gay man living with my now husband in america.  he is not an american citizen.  it is incredibly hard for people to immigrate into this country unless they get married.  as much as i agree that marriage should be called something else or we should find some other way to offer the benefits it gives, i would rather stay with the person i love then lose them over some silly word.  i need this benefit or i wont be able to be with the person i love.  its unfair but that is life.   #  trying to convince someone who is entirely against marriage that some people of a minority group ought to get married sounds like a hard job.   # this is never going to end.  i disagree, for every huge progressive change in human culture there were people saying things like,  women should not be allowed to vote  or  black people and white people should remain segregated  eventually those systems of oppression ended and society was able to move on.  just having a few naysayers should not be reason enough to avoid an entire, beneficial, institution.  i do not see why you need some ceremony to show you love someone, and get these benefits either you do not even need a ceremony to get  married  really.  but you do not need a ceremony to show you love someone, and you do not need the ceremony to get the benefits you just have to get legally married .  if you are against marriage whole hog then i do not see why you 0 couched your argument specifically in terms of gay people and 0 even want your view changed.  trying to convince someone who is entirely against marriage that some people of a minority group ought to get married sounds like a hard job.
a lot of people have been asking me that since ssm is a thing in england will i be getting married.  my response to this is a resounding no.  i do not think we should try to assimilate into the very tradition that used to discriminate against us for centuries and centuries, its almost like we want to get acceptance by blending in while being accepted for the way we are.  i have no problem with gay people getting married if thats what they want, but i hold the view that its not really the best for lgb people to mimic this institution.  just saying in my country at least the wedding ceremony, even the secular form is based on christianity a belief that hated gay people for centuries so why should we embrace it ?  #  i have no problem with gay people getting married if thats what they want, but i hold the view that its not really the best for lgb people to mimic this institution.   #  in the previous cases, we tend to think that it was the best option.   # would you agree with this for other things that were traditionally the case ? for example, for a long time women were not allowed to vote, but when they got the right they certainly assimilated into voting and we think that they should have done so.  when schools were desegregated, it was probably for the best that some black kids went to white schools.  furthermore, why is  blending in  so bad ? there is not any morally or philosophically significant difference between gay marriage or straight marriage that warrants a sharp distinction between the two.  in the previous cases, we tend to think that it was the best option.  why is it not here.  things change.  i imagine that you could probably get a lot of the christian elements removed from your wedding if you chose to do so.  marriage will probably one day lose a lot of the christian elements overtime, anyway.   #  i am not 0 certain how the system works in the uk, but in the us marriage comes with a lot of benefits.   #  i am not 0 certain how the system works in the uk, but in the us marriage comes with a lot of benefits.  marriage, the system and tradition, was also  not  what was discriminating against gay people the people in charge of administering that system and tradition were.  you do not really outline why gay people should not participate in marriage either, it sounds like you are going to avoid it out of. spite ? i recently had an interracial wedding, which was also a form of marriage discriminated against historically.  do you believe the same should have happened with interracial couples ?  #  and it should be a separate issue than marriage should not be a thing.   #  marriage contracts can dictate who gets your property when you die.  who gets power of attorney when you are too sick to make decisions.  allows both people to adopt the same child or to be allowed to adopt their step child depending on the bio father .  it allows for hospital staff to be allowed to tell you what is wrong with your spouse.  without marriage you would not have familial status.  it also allows for things like alimony, that while i know a lot of people on reddit disapprove of alimony, it serves an important purpose and is gender neutral.  the purpose of which is because a married couple is seen as a unit that makes decisions together.  some of those decisions dictate career paths and lifestyles for each spouse.  and those decisions can negatively affect one spouse much more than other if divorce were to happen.  marriage contracts also result in tax breaks and even though you do not agree with getting those, it is just something that comes with marriage, not the only thing.  and it should be a separate issue than marriage should not be a thing.  all marriage is is a default legal contract between you, your spouse, and the government agreeing to the above terms.  certain things can be modified by prenupts.  many of the default benefits you probably would like to have with someone you love and even if you would not, that does not mean no one else does.   #  its the system that is in place now and we have to live with it.   #  whether or not it is fair is a different matter.  its the system that is in place now and we have to live with it.  im a gay man living with my now husband in america.  he is not an american citizen.  it is incredibly hard for people to immigrate into this country unless they get married.  as much as i agree that marriage should be called something else or we should find some other way to offer the benefits it gives, i would rather stay with the person i love then lose them over some silly word.  i need this benefit or i wont be able to be with the person i love.  its unfair but that is life.   #  if you are against marriage whole hog then i do not see why you 0 couched your argument specifically in terms of gay people and 0 even want your view changed.   # this is never going to end.  i disagree, for every huge progressive change in human culture there were people saying things like,  women should not be allowed to vote  or  black people and white people should remain segregated  eventually those systems of oppression ended and society was able to move on.  just having a few naysayers should not be reason enough to avoid an entire, beneficial, institution.  i do not see why you need some ceremony to show you love someone, and get these benefits either you do not even need a ceremony to get  married  really.  but you do not need a ceremony to show you love someone, and you do not need the ceremony to get the benefits you just have to get legally married .  if you are against marriage whole hog then i do not see why you 0 couched your argument specifically in terms of gay people and 0 even want your view changed.  trying to convince someone who is entirely against marriage that some people of a minority group ought to get married sounds like a hard job.
first i should say i am female.  this view comes from two different places: 0: women manipulate men financially by having an unplanned child with them.  they do it all the time ! some women see child support as a way to support a child and themselves and therefore they purposefully get pregnant for that financial support.  women also do this to manipulate a man to stay with her because of the child.  men should be able to get around this issue by opting out of supporting a child they do not want to financially and/or emotionally support.  0: mistakes happen ! i am extremely pro choice, no one should be able to tell a woman what she can and can not do to her reproductive organs.  however, it does not seem just that because a women does not want to have an abortion or give the child up for adoption the man has to pay child support for the next 0 years of the child is life.  men should be able to opt out of supporting a child.  i think this  opt out  should have to occur before the child is born and during the timeframe in pregnancy when the woman can legally have an abortion.  if the woman still wants to have the child knowing she will be the sole financial provider then she has that right, it is her body.   #  men should be able to opt out of supporting a child.   #  i think this  opt out  should have to occur before the child is born and during the timeframe in pregnancy when the woman can legally have an abortion.   # dubious claim without a source.  i think this  opt out  should have to occur before the child is born and during the timeframe in pregnancy when the woman can legally have an abortion.  unlikely to happen without a completely streamlined system which i do not see happening considering the interests at hand the child is in particular and parties involved including the state.  this is an action that is likely to require judicial oversight, resulting in at best bureaucratic form filling and a paternity test and, at worst, court intervention if the severance is contested.  the odds of people successfully doing this within the time period allowable for abortions, even if they start from day 0 of the pregnancy who would know ? , is small given the limited time frame for abortions.  practically, this is likely to require action that will extend beyond a woman is legal ability to get an abortion.  i have helped people try and do  streamlined,  form guided legal action.  it still takes a long time in terms of making sure all parties who need to contribute information cooperate and that all the i is are dotted and t is are crossed.  in order to ensure there is any integrity to the claim of either party and that each individual is interest is properly represented relative to the law in question, i am simply skeptical that this could be done within abortion is legal window, especially for low income, less educated people who typically face larger hurdles in such matters.  this is assuming away all of the ethical and autonomy concerns that arise.  moreover, it can be potentially harmful to both the mother and child to manipulate a woman out of having a baby.  we do not want a third party to exercise control even indirectly by financial support that would otherwise be required over another person is decision regarding what happens to their body.  this is imperative in abusive relationships in particular.  think about it: in order for a father to contest, he has to be notified of the pregnancy in the first place.  we would probably have to insist that this notice be a given upon all pregnancies so that fathers are capable of exercising this right we have just given them.  it might be the pregnant woman thinks the safer option is to leave and have the child elsewhere, hashing out custody and support concerns afterwards, should the father react negatively maybe even violently to the news.  finally, the simple matter is that the parents are not the primary concern.  if we want to minimize fraud, we isolate that issue and try to find ways to combat it, even if it is really, really hard.  if we are worried about improper use of finances, we do the same thing, usually through regular accounting.  the list goes on.  once that child enters the picture, all we care about is ensuring it gets the support it requires.  this is usually a pittance for the non custodial parent and would be much larger if they genuinely assumed some kind of custodial responsibility.   #  if a woman gets pregnant, she typically finds out two weeks later.   #  i second the legal aspect.  while a financial abortion seems fair in theory, it would be a nightmare in practice.  if a woman gets pregnant, she typically finds out two weeks later.  but what if she sometimes has a late period or otherwise does not think about it ? she may not find out for a month or more.  then she has to send a legal form to the father to see if he will want to support her financially.  what if he is out of town ? what if he  claims  that he never received it ? this could be several months  worth of hassle, at which point the woman may no longer be able to abort, either legally or for health reasons.  she may also be against aborting for ethical reasons, since many people believe that aborting a fetus that is a couple weeks old is very different than a fetus that is a few months old.  and finally, all of this would put the woman under considerable stress, which is absolutely the last thing that we want to do to a pregnant woman.   #  there is still a living breathing child that requires resources to survive and be an effective member of society.   # if the woman has the choice to avoid this obligation through safe, legal, and available abortion services, then equality demands that men have a similar choice.  you have pointed out compelling reasons as to why an opt out system would be a bad approach, but would you consider an opt in version instead ? what equality  demands  is moot since the two scenarios are not and never will be equal.  when a woman gets an abortion she absolves all parties of responsibility.  when a man gets a financial abortion he is only absolving himself of responsibility.  there is still a living breathing child that requires resources to survive and be an effective member of society.  right now, we have decided that the best system for affording kids these benefits is to have the father contribute.  there is no requirement for resources when a woman aborts a child.  women have the option to dictate what does or does not grow within their bodies, and that grants them the right to an abortion.  men, by virtue of nature, do not have this option.  we would need a system in place to prevent kids from running at a signifant disadvantage  before  granting men the power to absolve themselves of responsibility.   #  if no man opts in, and the women can prove need, the state should help provide for the child.   #  once a child is born, the mother has the opportunity to anonymously abandon this child in accordance with safe haven laws in the us .  she can unilaterally absolve herself of all financial responsibility to her newborn child, and push that responsibility onto the state.  this can be done without the consent or even knowledge on the part of the father.  i believe safe haven laws are important and should remain in place.  i also believe that women without the means of raising a child on her own need support.  and i believe in equality.  if women have the right to transfer their responsibility to care for a child onto the state, then men should have that right as well.  there does not seem to be a perfect solution to this issue.  but in my opinion, the fairest way is to have men opt into responsibility to care for the child.  if no man opts in, and the women can prove need, the state should help provide for the child.  of course, the state would want to incentivise opting in.  custody and visitation rights would have to be tied to it.   #  it is also worth noting that the purpose of safe haven laws is to prevent mothers who do not think they can care for their child from committing infanticide so that they do not have to.   #  i am not 0 familiar with the laws surrounding this issue, but i believe that a mother can deny access by the father until he files a paternity lawsuit.  this is to prevent random people from claiming to be the father, then absconding with a child that is not theirs.  in any case, the father may never be in a position to abandon the child while it is legal to do so.  in the interest of full disclosure and honest discussion, i will bring up something that does weaken my position somewhat: the putative father is registry URL if everything goes right, the father can retrieve the abandoned child from foster care and sue for child support from the mother.  that said, i am not sure how often everything goes right.  .  lack of knowledge of the pregnancy or birth is not an acceptable reason for failure to file.  it is also worth noting that the purpose of safe haven laws is to prevent mothers who do not think they can care for their child from committing infanticide so that they do not have to.  if men are successful at recovering abandoned children and suing for child support, then that sort of defeats the purpose of abandoning the child in the first place.
in the united states, compulsory education has been around since 0.  since then, schools seem to go overboard with how much they control the student.  in my school, for example, in order to attend we have to sign waivers.  these waivers dismiss our rights to refuse searches, granting the school permission to search my property back pack, locker, car, etc without probable cause.  this would not be a problem on its own; i sign my rights away.  the thing is, education is compulsory.  similar instances involving speech and religion are all over schools.  how is it legal for it to be illegal to refuse to sign away my constitutional rights ?  #  in my school, for example, in order to attend we have to sign waivers.   #  these waivers dismiss our rights to refuse searches, granting the school permission to search my property back pack, locker, car, etc without probable cause.   # these waivers dismiss our rights to refuse searches, granting the school permission to search my property back pack, locker, car, etc without probable cause.  i ca not imagine this is legally binding.  for one, a minor does not have the legal ability to enter into contracts.  secondly, it is well established that constitutional rights apply in the school.  the thing to consider is that the school is responsible for your care and well being while you attend.  this has resulted in students not having quite the same freedom that they do outside of school.  the supreme court has ruled that teachers can search students based on a reasonable suspicion, but they  cannot  arbitrarily search all students on a fishing expedition.  schools have the right to censor speech like in a school newspaper , and also can control speech if it distracts from learning.  schools are not soapboxes.  i am not sure what you mean in regards to religion, but schools cannot restrict or influence your religion in any way.  it is not illegal to refuse to sign a document.  if it were, the document would be meaningless because you signed it under coercion.  i believe these waivers are mostly symbolic and a way to convince you not to question the searches.  i doubt they could refuse education if you refused to sign the document.   #  the parents who pay the taxes that fund the schools also elect the members of the school board provided they take the time and are free to try and join it.   #  it has nothing to do with a test or proving you are a competent student; you are misunderstanding the analogy.  if you permit any random person to drive on a road without first proving that they know how to drive, people will drive poorly and you get a traffic system akin to cairo is famous for being a totally indecipherable and unnavigable nightmare .  the restriction on your freedom to drive makes the government operated roadway more efficient and benefits everyone.  if you permit children sacrosanctity of personal property in school, they will use it to conceal things that disrupt the teaching efforts of the government operated school; whether that disruption is a video game or a handgun, that is the only thing this right protects in practice.  the bypassing of that right to privacy when applied correctly makes for a better learning environment and provides the best return on investment in public schools.  and it is not as if these practices are not subject to public scrutiny.  the parents who pay the taxes that fund the schools also elect the members of the school board provided they take the time and are free to try and join it.   #  you have a right to bear arms try open carrying in a school and see how fast you are arrested.   #  there is no constitutional right to free education; you have the ability to pursue education outside the public system.  it is perfectly reasonable to make your subsidized education contingent upon certain strictures.  you have a constitutional right to free speech it will be curtailed if you are disruptive.  you have a right to bear arms try open carrying in a school and see how fast you are arrested.  you will not be tried by jury before you are suspended or expelled.   #  again true, but you are only focusing on the rich, who are not being deprived of anything here.   #  op is point was students who ca not afford private/home school must attend public school.  my point was the students who ca not afford private/home school do not have the same rights because they must attend public school, and to attend this public school, they must sign away their constitutional rights.  it is a catch 0.  true, but that is not in dispute here.  what is in dispute is the fact that apparently they are also requiring their students to sign their constitutional rights away to attend.  signing away your constitutional rights to attend a school the state requires you to attend is not a choice at all.  again true, but you are only focusing on the rich, who are not being deprived of anything here.  the opposite is not true of poorer families.  while they may have the  right  to home school or send their kids to private school, they do not have the  means .  so in your scenario, only the billionaire is kids have the means to home/private school, so only the billionaire is kids are free to  not  sign their constitutional rights away.  poorer families, on the other hand, do not have the same right because they ca not afford home/private school, and they must sign their rights away to act in accordance with state law.  again, that is not a choice at all.  that is coercion.  and it is textbook socioeconomic discrimination.   #  they do not have unlimited free speech, they cannot keep and bear arms, they will not be tried by a jury of their peers before they are suspended or expelled from school.   # then it seems that your issue is with mandatory schooling, because getting rid of that is essentially the only thing that solves this problem.  just do away with public schools and replace them with private ones where all agreements are mutually accepted and permit people to skip school altogether.  that would give an enormous advantage to the rich.  as has been pointed out by others, this form is either signed by the parents or is a formality that reminds students of a preexisting truth: they just do not rate all of their constitutional rights in school.  they do not have unlimited free speech, they cannot keep and bear arms, they will not be tried by a jury of their peers before they are suspended or expelled from school.
in the united states, compulsory education has been around since 0.  since then, schools seem to go overboard with how much they control the student.  in my school, for example, in order to attend we have to sign waivers.  these waivers dismiss our rights to refuse searches, granting the school permission to search my property back pack, locker, car, etc without probable cause.  this would not be a problem on its own; i sign my rights away.  the thing is, education is compulsory.  similar instances involving speech and religion are all over schools.  how is it legal for it to be illegal to refuse to sign away my constitutional rights ?  #  similar instances involving speech and religion are all over schools.   #  schools have the right to censor speech like in a school newspaper , and also can control speech if it distracts from learning.   # these waivers dismiss our rights to refuse searches, granting the school permission to search my property back pack, locker, car, etc without probable cause.  i ca not imagine this is legally binding.  for one, a minor does not have the legal ability to enter into contracts.  secondly, it is well established that constitutional rights apply in the school.  the thing to consider is that the school is responsible for your care and well being while you attend.  this has resulted in students not having quite the same freedom that they do outside of school.  the supreme court has ruled that teachers can search students based on a reasonable suspicion, but they  cannot  arbitrarily search all students on a fishing expedition.  schools have the right to censor speech like in a school newspaper , and also can control speech if it distracts from learning.  schools are not soapboxes.  i am not sure what you mean in regards to religion, but schools cannot restrict or influence your religion in any way.  it is not illegal to refuse to sign a document.  if it were, the document would be meaningless because you signed it under coercion.  i believe these waivers are mostly symbolic and a way to convince you not to question the searches.  i doubt they could refuse education if you refused to sign the document.   #  the bypassing of that right to privacy when applied correctly makes for a better learning environment and provides the best return on investment in public schools.   #  it has nothing to do with a test or proving you are a competent student; you are misunderstanding the analogy.  if you permit any random person to drive on a road without first proving that they know how to drive, people will drive poorly and you get a traffic system akin to cairo is famous for being a totally indecipherable and unnavigable nightmare .  the restriction on your freedom to drive makes the government operated roadway more efficient and benefits everyone.  if you permit children sacrosanctity of personal property in school, they will use it to conceal things that disrupt the teaching efforts of the government operated school; whether that disruption is a video game or a handgun, that is the only thing this right protects in practice.  the bypassing of that right to privacy when applied correctly makes for a better learning environment and provides the best return on investment in public schools.  and it is not as if these practices are not subject to public scrutiny.  the parents who pay the taxes that fund the schools also elect the members of the school board provided they take the time and are free to try and join it.   #  you have a constitutional right to free speech it will be curtailed if you are disruptive.   #  there is no constitutional right to free education; you have the ability to pursue education outside the public system.  it is perfectly reasonable to make your subsidized education contingent upon certain strictures.  you have a constitutional right to free speech it will be curtailed if you are disruptive.  you have a right to bear arms try open carrying in a school and see how fast you are arrested.  you will not be tried by jury before you are suspended or expelled.   #  my point was the students who ca not afford private/home school do not have the same rights because they must attend public school, and to attend this public school, they must sign away their constitutional rights.   #  op is point was students who ca not afford private/home school must attend public school.  my point was the students who ca not afford private/home school do not have the same rights because they must attend public school, and to attend this public school, they must sign away their constitutional rights.  it is a catch 0.  true, but that is not in dispute here.  what is in dispute is the fact that apparently they are also requiring their students to sign their constitutional rights away to attend.  signing away your constitutional rights to attend a school the state requires you to attend is not a choice at all.  again true, but you are only focusing on the rich, who are not being deprived of anything here.  the opposite is not true of poorer families.  while they may have the  right  to home school or send their kids to private school, they do not have the  means .  so in your scenario, only the billionaire is kids have the means to home/private school, so only the billionaire is kids are free to  not  sign their constitutional rights away.  poorer families, on the other hand, do not have the same right because they ca not afford home/private school, and they must sign their rights away to act in accordance with state law.  again, that is not a choice at all.  that is coercion.  and it is textbook socioeconomic discrimination.   #  just do away with public schools and replace them with private ones where all agreements are mutually accepted and permit people to skip school altogether.   # then it seems that your issue is with mandatory schooling, because getting rid of that is essentially the only thing that solves this problem.  just do away with public schools and replace them with private ones where all agreements are mutually accepted and permit people to skip school altogether.  that would give an enormous advantage to the rich.  as has been pointed out by others, this form is either signed by the parents or is a formality that reminds students of a preexisting truth: they just do not rate all of their constitutional rights in school.  they do not have unlimited free speech, they cannot keep and bear arms, they will not be tried by a jury of their peers before they are suspended or expelled from school.
in the united states, compulsory education has been around since 0.  since then, schools seem to go overboard with how much they control the student.  in my school, for example, in order to attend we have to sign waivers.  these waivers dismiss our rights to refuse searches, granting the school permission to search my property back pack, locker, car, etc without probable cause.  this would not be a problem on its own; i sign my rights away.  the thing is, education is compulsory.  similar instances involving speech and religion are all over schools.  how is it legal for it to be illegal to refuse to sign away my constitutional rights ?  #  how is it legal for it to be illegal to refuse to sign away my constitutional rights ?  #  it is not illegal to refuse to sign a document.   # these waivers dismiss our rights to refuse searches, granting the school permission to search my property back pack, locker, car, etc without probable cause.  i ca not imagine this is legally binding.  for one, a minor does not have the legal ability to enter into contracts.  secondly, it is well established that constitutional rights apply in the school.  the thing to consider is that the school is responsible for your care and well being while you attend.  this has resulted in students not having quite the same freedom that they do outside of school.  the supreme court has ruled that teachers can search students based on a reasonable suspicion, but they  cannot  arbitrarily search all students on a fishing expedition.  schools have the right to censor speech like in a school newspaper , and also can control speech if it distracts from learning.  schools are not soapboxes.  i am not sure what you mean in regards to religion, but schools cannot restrict or influence your religion in any way.  it is not illegal to refuse to sign a document.  if it were, the document would be meaningless because you signed it under coercion.  i believe these waivers are mostly symbolic and a way to convince you not to question the searches.  i doubt they could refuse education if you refused to sign the document.   #  and it is not as if these practices are not subject to public scrutiny.   #  it has nothing to do with a test or proving you are a competent student; you are misunderstanding the analogy.  if you permit any random person to drive on a road without first proving that they know how to drive, people will drive poorly and you get a traffic system akin to cairo is famous for being a totally indecipherable and unnavigable nightmare .  the restriction on your freedom to drive makes the government operated roadway more efficient and benefits everyone.  if you permit children sacrosanctity of personal property in school, they will use it to conceal things that disrupt the teaching efforts of the government operated school; whether that disruption is a video game or a handgun, that is the only thing this right protects in practice.  the bypassing of that right to privacy when applied correctly makes for a better learning environment and provides the best return on investment in public schools.  and it is not as if these practices are not subject to public scrutiny.  the parents who pay the taxes that fund the schools also elect the members of the school board provided they take the time and are free to try and join it.   #  it is perfectly reasonable to make your subsidized education contingent upon certain strictures.   #  there is no constitutional right to free education; you have the ability to pursue education outside the public system.  it is perfectly reasonable to make your subsidized education contingent upon certain strictures.  you have a constitutional right to free speech it will be curtailed if you are disruptive.  you have a right to bear arms try open carrying in a school and see how fast you are arrested.  you will not be tried by jury before you are suspended or expelled.   #  again true, but you are only focusing on the rich, who are not being deprived of anything here.   #  op is point was students who ca not afford private/home school must attend public school.  my point was the students who ca not afford private/home school do not have the same rights because they must attend public school, and to attend this public school, they must sign away their constitutional rights.  it is a catch 0.  true, but that is not in dispute here.  what is in dispute is the fact that apparently they are also requiring their students to sign their constitutional rights away to attend.  signing away your constitutional rights to attend a school the state requires you to attend is not a choice at all.  again true, but you are only focusing on the rich, who are not being deprived of anything here.  the opposite is not true of poorer families.  while they may have the  right  to home school or send their kids to private school, they do not have the  means .  so in your scenario, only the billionaire is kids have the means to home/private school, so only the billionaire is kids are free to  not  sign their constitutional rights away.  poorer families, on the other hand, do not have the same right because they ca not afford home/private school, and they must sign their rights away to act in accordance with state law.  again, that is not a choice at all.  that is coercion.  and it is textbook socioeconomic discrimination.   #  as has been pointed out by others, this form is either signed by the parents or is a formality that reminds students of a preexisting truth: they just do not rate all of their constitutional rights in school.   # then it seems that your issue is with mandatory schooling, because getting rid of that is essentially the only thing that solves this problem.  just do away with public schools and replace them with private ones where all agreements are mutually accepted and permit people to skip school altogether.  that would give an enormous advantage to the rich.  as has been pointed out by others, this form is either signed by the parents or is a formality that reminds students of a preexisting truth: they just do not rate all of their constitutional rights in school.  they do not have unlimited free speech, they cannot keep and bear arms, they will not be tried by a jury of their peers before they are suspended or expelled from school.
virtually every time there is a 0 0 decision coming from the supreme court, the people on the losing side believe that it was a partisan decision arrived at from a political, but not legal, rationale.  topics of massive importance think of any controversial decision in the past 0 years can find their outcome hinging on the  swing vote  of one justice.  this harms the legitimacy of the court.  instead, there should be 0 or 0 justices.  this would require justices to reach a greater consensus when arriving at their decisions.  and in the event of a tie vote all the better.  the court would revert to whatever lower court decision and it would partially restrain scotus from intervening too much in the legal affairs of states.   possible objections  what about a tie decision in cases where the court has original jurisdiction ? this can be solved any number of ways but i do not think it undermines the logic or the benefits of the structure as a whole.  one possibility could be for the chief justice to have his vote be the deciding vote of the decision.  would not it be politically controversial for whoever is president to add an extra judge or get rid of a spot entirely depending on whose spot it is ? yes, but there can be any number of compromises made to ensure that the court does not become too  biased  one way or another at least at the time of this policy being implemented.  so, cmv  #  the court would revert to whatever lower court decision and it would partially restrain scotus from intervening too much in the legal affairs of states.   #  the supreme court only gets involved in important decisions obviously this is not 0 true .   # you are simply suggesting that only one individual the chief justice can have this swing vote.  instead of any justice being the potential swing vote, it is now limited to one person.  i do not see how that helps the situation.  does it ? i would say the supreme court as a whole has a pretty damn good reputation.  individuals may have different reputations looking at you scalia and thomas , but the reputation of the court as an institution seems pretty good to me.  do you have any evidence or opinion pieces saying the legitimacy of the scotus has been tarnished by supposedly  partisan  decisions ? the supreme court only gets involved in important decisions obviously this is not 0 true .  simply allowing the court to be deadlocked and revert back to the decision of the lower court is the exact opposite of what the supreme court is supposed to do affirm or reject the lower court is ruling.  simply saying  we could not make a decision, so we will go with what you originally ruled  does not make any sense.  the scotus is there to make a final decision and this is why the cases it hears are carefully selected.   #  i do not see how that helps the situation.   # you are simply suggesting that only one individual the chief justice can have this swing vote.  instead of any justice being the potential swing vote, it is not limited to one person.  i do not see how that helps the situation.  you are probably right that my proposal for ties in the case of original jurisdiction was not that well thought out, but other solutions are possible too.  and in any case, it at least reduces the number of cases that hinge on a single swing vote.  i would say the supreme court as a whole has a pretty damn good reputation.  individuals may have different reputations looking at you scalia and thomas , but the reputation of the court as an institution seems pretty good to me.  it cycles downward at times URL but many people usually just assume its decisions are made politically and i think the principle of a single person being the deciding vote goes against the idea of the court being the bulwark against the excesses of democratic majoritarianism.  simply allowing the court to be deadlocked and revert back to the decision of the lower court is the exact opposite of what the supreme court is supposed to do affirm or reject the lower court is ruling.  simply saying  we could not make a decision, so we will go with what you originally ruled  does not make any sense.  the court still needs to grant cert to whatever appeals are made from lower courts.  those lower courts still have a decision of their own to make and i doubt they frequently hope for scotus to come in and overturn their decisions.  and in any case, it will cause scotus to consider how decisive it can be before it grants cert to any case  #  the supreme court should not say  well, we do not think we will come to an agreement on this issue, so we just wo not hear it.    # does it ? if anything, it would increase the visibility of that  swing vote.   many things get passed/rejected by 0 0 vote and no one cries  partisanship.   whereas if there are an even number of justices many, many more issues would end in a tie, which would force one person to be the  tie breaker .  this would be seen as partisan even if the issue is not particularly inflammatory.  in other words, non inflammatory issues would get labelled as  partisan  simply because one person regularly gets to be the tie breaker.  there is some change, but it is not terribly volatile.  .  so you contradict your own original point about the chief justice being the final arbiter ? i am glad we agree that having a designated individual is not a good idea.  the hopes and desires of the lower courts should not matter.  if anything, this would allow lower courts to feel they have more freedom to act as they please knowing that it will be hard for the scotus to overturn opinions.  the supreme court should never decide to not hear a case simply because they may end up deadlocked.  if there is a case that needs to be heard before the scotus, then it should be heard.  the supreme court should not say  well, we do not think we will come to an agreement on this issue, so we just wo not hear it.   that seems dangerous to me.   #  i am not saying it is totally irrelevant, but ask a lawyer whether the scotus will grant cert in a given case and their first question will be whether there is a circuit split.   #  it is much more significant than that.  in fact, the scotus generally views their primary function as resolving circuit splits.  many of the justices have said as much, and i personally saw justice breyer say so explicitly when he came to my law school.  he also said, in the spirit of justice jackson who famously stated  we are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.   that he did not think the scotus is more likely to get any issue  right  than the circuit courts, but the cost of having one  wrong  decision for a close issue can be less than the cost of having inconsistent rules across the country.  laymen tend to think that the scotus mainly uses some sort of  importantness  metric when deciding whether to take cases.  i am not saying it is totally irrelevant, but ask a lawyer whether the scotus will grant cert in a given case and their first question will be whether there is a circuit split.   #  they could be selected based off other legal criteria, related to the their statistics as a judge perhaps.   #  would not a better solution be to change the way supreme court judges are appointed ? right now, liberal presidents add liberal judges, and conservative presents add conservative judges.  that is why people get wound up about partisan/political decisions.  if the judges were non partisan and not appointed by any particular political party, that problem would be solved.  we should be looking to appoint the most moderate, balanced individuals possible, ones who will minimize their own biases and try to arrive at legal decisions based on the merits of each individual case.  they could be selected based off other legal criteria, related to the their statistics as a judge perhaps.  not sure what the best method of selection would be, but it seems it is the way they are appointed and not the number of judges that actually causes the problems you mentioned.
the most important function of an ascii smiley face is to indicate the emotion that it is intended to convey.  thus, the parenthesis sign is the critical element of the ascii emotion, as it is the indicator of emotion.  almost all languages use the left to right writing convention, so it is logical for the parenthesis to come first, as it is the most critical component.  also, a fallacious smiley face could be syntactically confusing if placed at the end of a sentence because it fuses with whatever punctuation that the sentence contains. : the superior orientation does not share this downside.  : most humans are right handed, so they would naturally tilt their heads to the right.  if looking at a mirror image of oneself and tilting their head to the right, the smiley would naturally be oriented in the : fashion.  i know that some of you will invariably argue for the photographic version instead of the mirror image version, but most people look at themselves in the mirror more often than in photos.  on the keyboard itself, it is much more natural to go from a higher key to a lower key rather than the other way around.  so it is actually more convenient to type : as well.   #  so it is logical for the parenthesis to come first, as it is the most critical component.   #  left to right writing conventions do not really have all that much to do with the order of importance.   # left to right writing conventions do not really have all that much to do with the order of importance.  most people are capable of parsing emoticons without head tilting.  if this was not the case, the dominate eye would likely play a greater role than dominate hand.  also, the point about mirroring is strange, as the emoticon has no distinction between right and left.  the  photo  version would be identical to the  mirror  version.  the other representation is upside down.  unsubstantiated.  most words require movements in both directions.  if the one feels more natural than the other, this is likely due to your personal habits.  both standard smiley faces are perfectly valid and just as readily interpreted.  ; ; the wink, on the other hand, likely contributes to the common preference for placing the eyes first.  with eyes following mouth, the semicolon takes on a sad angle.   #  0.  if you look around, how often do you see : as opposed to : ?  # 0.  if you look around, how often do you see : as opposed to : ? personally i see : a lot more often.  therefore i would argue that most people have a quicker interpretation of that rotation over yours.  0.  open your phone if it is a smart phone and look at the emotes.  i am running a lumia 0.  the small text tile uses : when i have a message.  when i look at the ascii emotes not the picture emotes the majority are oriented in the : frame.  therefore i would argue that since the industry has recognized one rotation that it is because that is the rotation that is more popular and therefore because of it is wide spread usage it is easier to interpret on the fly.   #  0.  from a purely biological standpoint, humans along with dogs, coincidentally read faces from a left to right, not down to up, so there is no reason to believe that a parenthesis should precede the colon.   #  a few issues with what you have brought up: 0.  being right handed does not denote a predilection for turning your head one way or another.  my hands are not equally gifted with precision and dexterity.  my head and neck are not prone to that level of asymmetry.  0.  from a purely biological standpoint, humans along with dogs, coincidentally read faces from a left to right, not down to up, so there is no reason to believe that a parenthesis should precede the colon.  0.  if you are referring to a common qwerty keyboard, when you are in the resting position your right pinky is already on the colon key, and that is assuming you are typing your message on the physical keyboard versus a phone.  0.  this may be a personal issue, but when putting in a smiley face or any other ascii symbol, i forego punctuation.  for instance, i am pleased with this sentence : see what i did there ? 0.  lastly, all  faces  that can be made in the format of : can be done in the format of : or are complimentary example : to :, or :s or s: but what of :p ? how does one recreate that in your format ? i would argue the general syntax supports :  #  when i draw a smiley face, i draw the eyes first.   #  when i draw a smiley face, i draw the eyes first.  hence, when i type one, i will type the eyes first.  it definitely does not interfere with my punctuation.  : and i honestly never thought of typing : due to the parenthesis being higher than the colon on the keyboard.  that is a bit over analyzing, and besides, we type many words that are not flowy, from top to bottom or left to right, but i will type them anyway.  i refuse to type ppl even though it is easier than people.  in other honestly though, you are probably right that : is right handed and : is left handed.  but you said right handers tilt their head to the right, but in fact, you have to tilt your head to the left to read : .  it is like when you draw a stick figure, you will go from the head down, not feet up.  same with typing a smiley face.   #  left to right meaning : and not : you can rename your orientation whatever you would like, but it does not change the studies results.   #  does not really matter.  your assumptions about what is natural and easy and how it would affect emoticons, are clearly flawed, as a majority of people have adopted the opposite.  for example, you provide no such evidence that right handed people naturally tilt their heads right.  but even if we take this for granted. so what ? most people do not tilt their heads to read emoticons.  your post is filled with assumptions.  you assume that a is easier than b and c easier than d.  you then assume that these things matter.  and some of these are really bizarre assumptions.  you assume that the most important part of the emoticon should come first. when no language works this way.  most left right written languages work in linear fashion.   the  is rarely the most important word in a sentence, and yet it often comes first.  especially within words.  i could make an argument that  z  is the most important letter in  bizarre . but it still would not make sense for it to come first.  likewise, maybe the smile is the most important part of the face. but if it comes first, i do not know that i am supposed to be looking at a face, and so i do not read it as a smile and it is significance is lost.  all of your theories hinge back on this:  the most important function of an ascii smiley face is to indicate the emotion that it is intended to convey.  i have given you a study that shows that emotion is only properly conveyed when read left to right.  left to right meaning : and not : you can rename your orientation whatever you would like, but it does not change the studies results.  so that should be all that matters.  you want to properly convey that emotion, then you need to orient your emoticons in a direction that people properly read.  it is as simple as that.
the most important function of an ascii smiley face is to indicate the emotion that it is intended to convey.  thus, the parenthesis sign is the critical element of the ascii emotion, as it is the indicator of emotion.  almost all languages use the left to right writing convention, so it is logical for the parenthesis to come first, as it is the most critical component.  also, a fallacious smiley face could be syntactically confusing if placed at the end of a sentence because it fuses with whatever punctuation that the sentence contains. : the superior orientation does not share this downside.  : most humans are right handed, so they would naturally tilt their heads to the right.  if looking at a mirror image of oneself and tilting their head to the right, the smiley would naturally be oriented in the : fashion.  i know that some of you will invariably argue for the photographic version instead of the mirror image version, but most people look at themselves in the mirror more often than in photos.  on the keyboard itself, it is much more natural to go from a higher key to a lower key rather than the other way around.  so it is actually more convenient to type : as well.   #  most humans are right handed, so they would naturally tilt their heads to the right.   #  most people are capable of parsing emoticons without head tilting.   # left to right writing conventions do not really have all that much to do with the order of importance.  most people are capable of parsing emoticons without head tilting.  if this was not the case, the dominate eye would likely play a greater role than dominate hand.  also, the point about mirroring is strange, as the emoticon has no distinction between right and left.  the  photo  version would be identical to the  mirror  version.  the other representation is upside down.  unsubstantiated.  most words require movements in both directions.  if the one feels more natural than the other, this is likely due to your personal habits.  both standard smiley faces are perfectly valid and just as readily interpreted.  ; ; the wink, on the other hand, likely contributes to the common preference for placing the eyes first.  with eyes following mouth, the semicolon takes on a sad angle.   #  0.  open your phone if it is a smart phone and look at the emotes.   # 0.  if you look around, how often do you see : as opposed to : ? personally i see : a lot more often.  therefore i would argue that most people have a quicker interpretation of that rotation over yours.  0.  open your phone if it is a smart phone and look at the emotes.  i am running a lumia 0.  the small text tile uses : when i have a message.  when i look at the ascii emotes not the picture emotes the majority are oriented in the : frame.  therefore i would argue that since the industry has recognized one rotation that it is because that is the rotation that is more popular and therefore because of it is wide spread usage it is easier to interpret on the fly.   #  my hands are not equally gifted with precision and dexterity.   #  a few issues with what you have brought up: 0.  being right handed does not denote a predilection for turning your head one way or another.  my hands are not equally gifted with precision and dexterity.  my head and neck are not prone to that level of asymmetry.  0.  from a purely biological standpoint, humans along with dogs, coincidentally read faces from a left to right, not down to up, so there is no reason to believe that a parenthesis should precede the colon.  0.  if you are referring to a common qwerty keyboard, when you are in the resting position your right pinky is already on the colon key, and that is assuming you are typing your message on the physical keyboard versus a phone.  0.  this may be a personal issue, but when putting in a smiley face or any other ascii symbol, i forego punctuation.  for instance, i am pleased with this sentence : see what i did there ? 0.  lastly, all  faces  that can be made in the format of : can be done in the format of : or are complimentary example : to :, or :s or s: but what of :p ? how does one recreate that in your format ? i would argue the general syntax supports :  #  hence, when i type one, i will type the eyes first.   #  when i draw a smiley face, i draw the eyes first.  hence, when i type one, i will type the eyes first.  it definitely does not interfere with my punctuation.  : and i honestly never thought of typing : due to the parenthesis being higher than the colon on the keyboard.  that is a bit over analyzing, and besides, we type many words that are not flowy, from top to bottom or left to right, but i will type them anyway.  i refuse to type ppl even though it is easier than people.  in other honestly though, you are probably right that : is right handed and : is left handed.  but you said right handers tilt their head to the right, but in fact, you have to tilt your head to the left to read : .  it is like when you draw a stick figure, you will go from the head down, not feet up.  same with typing a smiley face.   #  and some of these are really bizarre assumptions.   #  does not really matter.  your assumptions about what is natural and easy and how it would affect emoticons, are clearly flawed, as a majority of people have adopted the opposite.  for example, you provide no such evidence that right handed people naturally tilt their heads right.  but even if we take this for granted. so what ? most people do not tilt their heads to read emoticons.  your post is filled with assumptions.  you assume that a is easier than b and c easier than d.  you then assume that these things matter.  and some of these are really bizarre assumptions.  you assume that the most important part of the emoticon should come first. when no language works this way.  most left right written languages work in linear fashion.   the  is rarely the most important word in a sentence, and yet it often comes first.  especially within words.  i could make an argument that  z  is the most important letter in  bizarre . but it still would not make sense for it to come first.  likewise, maybe the smile is the most important part of the face. but if it comes first, i do not know that i am supposed to be looking at a face, and so i do not read it as a smile and it is significance is lost.  all of your theories hinge back on this:  the most important function of an ascii smiley face is to indicate the emotion that it is intended to convey.  i have given you a study that shows that emotion is only properly conveyed when read left to right.  left to right meaning : and not : you can rename your orientation whatever you would like, but it does not change the studies results.  so that should be all that matters.  you want to properly convey that emotion, then you need to orient your emoticons in a direction that people properly read.  it is as simple as that.
the most important function of an ascii smiley face is to indicate the emotion that it is intended to convey.  thus, the parenthesis sign is the critical element of the ascii emotion, as it is the indicator of emotion.  almost all languages use the left to right writing convention, so it is logical for the parenthesis to come first, as it is the most critical component.  also, a fallacious smiley face could be syntactically confusing if placed at the end of a sentence because it fuses with whatever punctuation that the sentence contains. : the superior orientation does not share this downside.  : most humans are right handed, so they would naturally tilt their heads to the right.  if looking at a mirror image of oneself and tilting their head to the right, the smiley would naturally be oriented in the : fashion.  i know that some of you will invariably argue for the photographic version instead of the mirror image version, but most people look at themselves in the mirror more often than in photos.  on the keyboard itself, it is much more natural to go from a higher key to a lower key rather than the other way around.  so it is actually more convenient to type : as well.   #  thus, the parenthesis sign is the critical element of the ascii emotion, as it is the indicator of emotion.   #  almost all languages use the left to right writing convention, so it is logical for the parenthesis to come first, as it is the most critical component.   # almost all languages use the left to right writing convention, so it is logical for the parenthesis to come first, as it is the most critical component.  many languages save the most important component for the end of the sentence.  so when reading from left to right you would want the  haverb  of the emoticon to be the last thing that a reader encounters.  this effectively turns the  face  component of the symbol upside down.  we want to encounter the top of the head first, not the bottom.  : the superior orientation does not share this downside.  : i see your point, but spaces are just as effective at doing this.  :   . naturally tilt their heads to the right.  citation needed   it is much more natural to go from a higher key to a lower key rather than the other way around.  if you are touch typing, your right pinky finger should already be on the :/; key.  whether you press the  :  before or after you press the     involves the same amount of movement and thus no efficiency gains from one style or the other.   #  0.  open your phone if it is a smart phone and look at the emotes.   # 0.  if you look around, how often do you see : as opposed to : ? personally i see : a lot more often.  therefore i would argue that most people have a quicker interpretation of that rotation over yours.  0.  open your phone if it is a smart phone and look at the emotes.  i am running a lumia 0.  the small text tile uses : when i have a message.  when i look at the ascii emotes not the picture emotes the majority are oriented in the : frame.  therefore i would argue that since the industry has recognized one rotation that it is because that is the rotation that is more popular and therefore because of it is wide spread usage it is easier to interpret on the fly.   #  a few issues with what you have brought up: 0.  being right handed does not denote a predilection for turning your head one way or another.   #  a few issues with what you have brought up: 0.  being right handed does not denote a predilection for turning your head one way or another.  my hands are not equally gifted with precision and dexterity.  my head and neck are not prone to that level of asymmetry.  0.  from a purely biological standpoint, humans along with dogs, coincidentally read faces from a left to right, not down to up, so there is no reason to believe that a parenthesis should precede the colon.  0.  if you are referring to a common qwerty keyboard, when you are in the resting position your right pinky is already on the colon key, and that is assuming you are typing your message on the physical keyboard versus a phone.  0.  this may be a personal issue, but when putting in a smiley face or any other ascii symbol, i forego punctuation.  for instance, i am pleased with this sentence : see what i did there ? 0.  lastly, all  faces  that can be made in the format of : can be done in the format of : or are complimentary example : to :, or :s or s: but what of :p ? how does one recreate that in your format ? i would argue the general syntax supports :  #  that is a bit over analyzing, and besides, we type many words that are not flowy, from top to bottom or left to right, but i will type them anyway.   #  when i draw a smiley face, i draw the eyes first.  hence, when i type one, i will type the eyes first.  it definitely does not interfere with my punctuation.  : and i honestly never thought of typing : due to the parenthesis being higher than the colon on the keyboard.  that is a bit over analyzing, and besides, we type many words that are not flowy, from top to bottom or left to right, but i will type them anyway.  i refuse to type ppl even though it is easier than people.  in other honestly though, you are probably right that : is right handed and : is left handed.  but you said right handers tilt their head to the right, but in fact, you have to tilt your head to the left to read : .  it is like when you draw a stick figure, you will go from the head down, not feet up.  same with typing a smiley face.   #  left to right meaning : and not : you can rename your orientation whatever you would like, but it does not change the studies results.   #  does not really matter.  your assumptions about what is natural and easy and how it would affect emoticons, are clearly flawed, as a majority of people have adopted the opposite.  for example, you provide no such evidence that right handed people naturally tilt their heads right.  but even if we take this for granted. so what ? most people do not tilt their heads to read emoticons.  your post is filled with assumptions.  you assume that a is easier than b and c easier than d.  you then assume that these things matter.  and some of these are really bizarre assumptions.  you assume that the most important part of the emoticon should come first. when no language works this way.  most left right written languages work in linear fashion.   the  is rarely the most important word in a sentence, and yet it often comes first.  especially within words.  i could make an argument that  z  is the most important letter in  bizarre . but it still would not make sense for it to come first.  likewise, maybe the smile is the most important part of the face. but if it comes first, i do not know that i am supposed to be looking at a face, and so i do not read it as a smile and it is significance is lost.  all of your theories hinge back on this:  the most important function of an ascii smiley face is to indicate the emotion that it is intended to convey.  i have given you a study that shows that emotion is only properly conveyed when read left to right.  left to right meaning : and not : you can rename your orientation whatever you would like, but it does not change the studies results.  so that should be all that matters.  you want to properly convey that emotion, then you need to orient your emoticons in a direction that people properly read.  it is as simple as that.
the most important function of an ascii smiley face is to indicate the emotion that it is intended to convey.  thus, the parenthesis sign is the critical element of the ascii emotion, as it is the indicator of emotion.  almost all languages use the left to right writing convention, so it is logical for the parenthesis to come first, as it is the most critical component.  also, a fallacious smiley face could be syntactically confusing if placed at the end of a sentence because it fuses with whatever punctuation that the sentence contains. : the superior orientation does not share this downside.  : most humans are right handed, so they would naturally tilt their heads to the right.  if looking at a mirror image of oneself and tilting their head to the right, the smiley would naturally be oriented in the : fashion.  i know that some of you will invariably argue for the photographic version instead of the mirror image version, but most people look at themselves in the mirror more often than in photos.  on the keyboard itself, it is much more natural to go from a higher key to a lower key rather than the other way around.  so it is actually more convenient to type : as well.   #  also, a fallacious smiley face could be syntactically confusing if placed at the end of a sentence because it fuses with whatever punctuation that the sentence contains.   #  : the superior orientation does not share this downside.   # almost all languages use the left to right writing convention, so it is logical for the parenthesis to come first, as it is the most critical component.  many languages save the most important component for the end of the sentence.  so when reading from left to right you would want the  haverb  of the emoticon to be the last thing that a reader encounters.  this effectively turns the  face  component of the symbol upside down.  we want to encounter the top of the head first, not the bottom.  : the superior orientation does not share this downside.  : i see your point, but spaces are just as effective at doing this.  :   . naturally tilt their heads to the right.  citation needed   it is much more natural to go from a higher key to a lower key rather than the other way around.  if you are touch typing, your right pinky finger should already be on the :/; key.  whether you press the  :  before or after you press the     involves the same amount of movement and thus no efficiency gains from one style or the other.   #  0.  open your phone if it is a smart phone and look at the emotes.   # 0.  if you look around, how often do you see : as opposed to : ? personally i see : a lot more often.  therefore i would argue that most people have a quicker interpretation of that rotation over yours.  0.  open your phone if it is a smart phone and look at the emotes.  i am running a lumia 0.  the small text tile uses : when i have a message.  when i look at the ascii emotes not the picture emotes the majority are oriented in the : frame.  therefore i would argue that since the industry has recognized one rotation that it is because that is the rotation that is more popular and therefore because of it is wide spread usage it is easier to interpret on the fly.   #  0.  if you are referring to a common qwerty keyboard, when you are in the resting position your right pinky is already on the colon key, and that is assuming you are typing your message on the physical keyboard versus a phone.   #  a few issues with what you have brought up: 0.  being right handed does not denote a predilection for turning your head one way or another.  my hands are not equally gifted with precision and dexterity.  my head and neck are not prone to that level of asymmetry.  0.  from a purely biological standpoint, humans along with dogs, coincidentally read faces from a left to right, not down to up, so there is no reason to believe that a parenthesis should precede the colon.  0.  if you are referring to a common qwerty keyboard, when you are in the resting position your right pinky is already on the colon key, and that is assuming you are typing your message on the physical keyboard versus a phone.  0.  this may be a personal issue, but when putting in a smiley face or any other ascii symbol, i forego punctuation.  for instance, i am pleased with this sentence : see what i did there ? 0.  lastly, all  faces  that can be made in the format of : can be done in the format of : or are complimentary example : to :, or :s or s: but what of :p ? how does one recreate that in your format ? i would argue the general syntax supports :  #  i refuse to type ppl even though it is easier than people.   #  when i draw a smiley face, i draw the eyes first.  hence, when i type one, i will type the eyes first.  it definitely does not interfere with my punctuation.  : and i honestly never thought of typing : due to the parenthesis being higher than the colon on the keyboard.  that is a bit over analyzing, and besides, we type many words that are not flowy, from top to bottom or left to right, but i will type them anyway.  i refuse to type ppl even though it is easier than people.  in other honestly though, you are probably right that : is right handed and : is left handed.  but you said right handers tilt their head to the right, but in fact, you have to tilt your head to the left to read : .  it is like when you draw a stick figure, you will go from the head down, not feet up.  same with typing a smiley face.   #  left to right meaning : and not : you can rename your orientation whatever you would like, but it does not change the studies results.   #  does not really matter.  your assumptions about what is natural and easy and how it would affect emoticons, are clearly flawed, as a majority of people have adopted the opposite.  for example, you provide no such evidence that right handed people naturally tilt their heads right.  but even if we take this for granted. so what ? most people do not tilt their heads to read emoticons.  your post is filled with assumptions.  you assume that a is easier than b and c easier than d.  you then assume that these things matter.  and some of these are really bizarre assumptions.  you assume that the most important part of the emoticon should come first. when no language works this way.  most left right written languages work in linear fashion.   the  is rarely the most important word in a sentence, and yet it often comes first.  especially within words.  i could make an argument that  z  is the most important letter in  bizarre . but it still would not make sense for it to come first.  likewise, maybe the smile is the most important part of the face. but if it comes first, i do not know that i am supposed to be looking at a face, and so i do not read it as a smile and it is significance is lost.  all of your theories hinge back on this:  the most important function of an ascii smiley face is to indicate the emotion that it is intended to convey.  i have given you a study that shows that emotion is only properly conveyed when read left to right.  left to right meaning : and not : you can rename your orientation whatever you would like, but it does not change the studies results.  so that should be all that matters.  you want to properly convey that emotion, then you need to orient your emoticons in a direction that people properly read.  it is as simple as that.
i work in a field where i could be making nearly twice as much doing the same kind of work for a bank.  this leads to friends suggesting i do just that.  however, i cringe at the thought.  considering: the insane stories of banks unemotionally taking advantage of the poor by keeping their homes when their debt is of as little as a few thousand dollars; the greed driven processes of banks which many argue led to this latest financial crisis, as there are unchecked and unhealthy incentives to maximise profit  at all costs ; how banks often seek to profit from things that do not really add value to society futures, derivatives, etc.  , i feel that working for a bank is similar to working for a tobacco company in terms of  evilness .  by  evilness  i mean making money from something that is harmful to society.  to elaborate on two discussion avenues in advance: banks do indeed make positive contributions to society.  tobacco companies also do that eg by keeping tobacco farmers  families well fed .  i just feel that the current ratio of harm/benefit is unacceptable; it is also a matter of principle.  i believe that by choosing to work for a bank we are implicitly validating a certain way of doing business, which, as i understand it, should be eradicated.  in other words: i believe that working for a bank is bad.  i do realise this is a potentially silly view which is why i want you to cmv.   #  how banks often seek to profit from things that do not really add value to society futures, derivatives, etc.   #  those things definitely add value to society.   i just feel that the current ratio of harm/benefit is unacceptable do you have specific metrics you look at, and measurements for those metrics ?  # automotive repair ? real estate ? or any industry with large costs / potential for customer to be in debt ? it also ignores personal responsibility, i should know when a loan is too large for me to take out, and if i take it, i am actually the one taking advantage of the banks.  nina loans were a huge contributor to the crisis, and many people knew in advance they could not handle them.  it is also a matter of perspective.  what the banks did was essentially provide easier access to more money to people who otherwise would not have the opportunity, the problem was that this was done on such a level that the risks were realized.  those things definitely add value to society.   i just feel that the current ratio of harm/benefit is unacceptable do you have specific metrics you look at, and measurements for those metrics ? i believe that by choosing to work for a bank we are implicitly validating a certain way of doing business all doctors validate our healthcare system simply by working ? e:  by  evilness  i mean making money from something that is harmful to society.  do you feel that alcohol companies are evil ? how do you draw the line for harmful ?  #  to address the point you brought up the services that banks provide are far in excess of those that a tobacco company provides.   #  i believe your view is shaped by the fact that you do not understand what the banking sector actually does and how that contributes to society but are able to see the harm that mistakes or misdeeds in that sector have caused.  in a capitalist society and you are free to think that capitalism is a bad system the banking sector is absolutely necessary for the economy to function.  when capital is owned privately there needs to be a conduit that allows capital to be directed to those who need it for productive purposes.  in the absence of such services those who are not independently wealthy will not be able to finance their projects which is greatly detrimental to the economy and society.  it is worth noting that even in a non capitalist system you will have a similar function performed by some entity who direct those in possession of capital to those who need to use it.  this could be in government but the  function  will still exist.  to address the point you brought up the services that banks provide are far in excess of those that a tobacco company provides.  you mentioned that big tobacco keeps farmers employed.  however a bank does much more than just keep its employees and related people housed and fed.  it is a necessary component to keeping  everyone  housed and fed.  that is not to say banks are  virtuous  entities.  they are simply  useful  entities and you are unlikely to be  negatively  contributing to society by working for one.   #  but due to their profit orientation and their large influence over the economy, banks are definitely a source of more evil than most other organizations.   #  i would have brought many of your points against op as well, but here is some food for thought:   in a capitalist society and you are free to think that capitalism is a bad system the banking sector is absolutely necessary for the economy to function.  absolutely correct, as is your point that some equivalent of banking has to exist in every society with a moderately advanced economy.  however, there is a choice in how the function of banks is implemented.  capital allocation can be performed merely as a function of profit and nepotism, or is can take other social goods in account.  consider a bank that invests in a factory that manages to yield a higher profit rate than competitors by dumping toxic waste into the environment, exploiting a hypothetical loophole that makes the practice legal.  what about the people at the bank who make this lending decision ? they would certainly bring up some line about profit being all that matters and so on.  and their behavior is definitely understandable, yet i would consider it somewhat evil and their defense is ultimately the same defense as that of every henchman or soldier ever.  op is claim is much too strong:  most  people working at banks are pretty benign.  but due to their profit orientation and their large influence over the economy, banks are definitely a source of more evil than most other organizations.   #  it is not their job to take a moral stance on what society deems to be good or bad.   # imo the counter argument to this would be that the banking sector is a specialized organ that allocates capital to the most  productive  enterprises.  it is not their job to take a moral stance on what society deems to be good or bad.  it is up to other institutions the government to ensure that negative externalities are sufficiently punished and possibly that positive externalities are rewarded such that banks are incentivized to lend/invest in socially beneficial enterprises.  with regards to banks  just following orders  i think it would be acceptable, in extreme cases, for banks to take moral stands.  but in the vast majority of cases we are benefitted by having our financial institutions be non passionate and morally disinterested.  banks and bankers are non public  non representative  institutions and having them be arbiters of what is good and bad is less desirable than having the government simply make certain behaviors economically unviable.  to continue our parallel example, in a non capitalist economy it would be very unlikely that the financial bureau would have the powers to deny resources to a project because they  personally  disagreed with certain aspects.  they would  most likely  be instructed to look at a specific subset of metrics and allocate based on that.  decisions of social desirability will be handled by another governmental body.   #  i think my argument would be that banks are on  no side  of the moral compass.   # i think my argument would be that banks are on  no side  of the moral compass.  the simply function as instructed.  when the banks misbehave we should first determine if they broke regulation to do so.  if they have not then the fault lies entirely with the regulations themselves.  no ? i think that is only true if you fundamentally see banks as rogue elements in society.  i see banks as simply being reflective of society so i do not see working for them as being either especially good or bad.
i work in a field where i could be making nearly twice as much doing the same kind of work for a bank.  this leads to friends suggesting i do just that.  however, i cringe at the thought.  considering: the insane stories of banks unemotionally taking advantage of the poor by keeping their homes when their debt is of as little as a few thousand dollars; the greed driven processes of banks which many argue led to this latest financial crisis, as there are unchecked and unhealthy incentives to maximise profit  at all costs ; how banks often seek to profit from things that do not really add value to society futures, derivatives, etc.  , i feel that working for a bank is similar to working for a tobacco company in terms of  evilness .  by  evilness  i mean making money from something that is harmful to society.  to elaborate on two discussion avenues in advance: banks do indeed make positive contributions to society.  tobacco companies also do that eg by keeping tobacco farmers  families well fed .  i just feel that the current ratio of harm/benefit is unacceptable; it is also a matter of principle.  i believe that by choosing to work for a bank we are implicitly validating a certain way of doing business, which, as i understand it, should be eradicated.  in other words: i believe that working for a bank is bad.  i do realise this is a potentially silly view which is why i want you to cmv.   #  it is also a matter of principle.   #  i believe that by choosing to work for a bank we are implicitly validating a certain way of doing business all doctors validate our healthcare system simply by working ?  # automotive repair ? real estate ? or any industry with large costs / potential for customer to be in debt ? it also ignores personal responsibility, i should know when a loan is too large for me to take out, and if i take it, i am actually the one taking advantage of the banks.  nina loans were a huge contributor to the crisis, and many people knew in advance they could not handle them.  it is also a matter of perspective.  what the banks did was essentially provide easier access to more money to people who otherwise would not have the opportunity, the problem was that this was done on such a level that the risks were realized.  those things definitely add value to society.   i just feel that the current ratio of harm/benefit is unacceptable do you have specific metrics you look at, and measurements for those metrics ? i believe that by choosing to work for a bank we are implicitly validating a certain way of doing business all doctors validate our healthcare system simply by working ? e:  by  evilness  i mean making money from something that is harmful to society.  do you feel that alcohol companies are evil ? how do you draw the line for harmful ?  #  it is worth noting that even in a non capitalist system you will have a similar function performed by some entity who direct those in possession of capital to those who need to use it.   #  i believe your view is shaped by the fact that you do not understand what the banking sector actually does and how that contributes to society but are able to see the harm that mistakes or misdeeds in that sector have caused.  in a capitalist society and you are free to think that capitalism is a bad system the banking sector is absolutely necessary for the economy to function.  when capital is owned privately there needs to be a conduit that allows capital to be directed to those who need it for productive purposes.  in the absence of such services those who are not independently wealthy will not be able to finance their projects which is greatly detrimental to the economy and society.  it is worth noting that even in a non capitalist system you will have a similar function performed by some entity who direct those in possession of capital to those who need to use it.  this could be in government but the  function  will still exist.  to address the point you brought up the services that banks provide are far in excess of those that a tobacco company provides.  you mentioned that big tobacco keeps farmers employed.  however a bank does much more than just keep its employees and related people housed and fed.  it is a necessary component to keeping  everyone  housed and fed.  that is not to say banks are  virtuous  entities.  they are simply  useful  entities and you are unlikely to be  negatively  contributing to society by working for one.   #  op is claim is much too strong:  most  people working at banks are pretty benign.   #  i would have brought many of your points against op as well, but here is some food for thought:   in a capitalist society and you are free to think that capitalism is a bad system the banking sector is absolutely necessary for the economy to function.  absolutely correct, as is your point that some equivalent of banking has to exist in every society with a moderately advanced economy.  however, there is a choice in how the function of banks is implemented.  capital allocation can be performed merely as a function of profit and nepotism, or is can take other social goods in account.  consider a bank that invests in a factory that manages to yield a higher profit rate than competitors by dumping toxic waste into the environment, exploiting a hypothetical loophole that makes the practice legal.  what about the people at the bank who make this lending decision ? they would certainly bring up some line about profit being all that matters and so on.  and their behavior is definitely understandable, yet i would consider it somewhat evil and their defense is ultimately the same defense as that of every henchman or soldier ever.  op is claim is much too strong:  most  people working at banks are pretty benign.  but due to their profit orientation and their large influence over the economy, banks are definitely a source of more evil than most other organizations.   #  with regards to banks  just following orders  i think it would be acceptable, in extreme cases, for banks to take moral stands.   # imo the counter argument to this would be that the banking sector is a specialized organ that allocates capital to the most  productive  enterprises.  it is not their job to take a moral stance on what society deems to be good or bad.  it is up to other institutions the government to ensure that negative externalities are sufficiently punished and possibly that positive externalities are rewarded such that banks are incentivized to lend/invest in socially beneficial enterprises.  with regards to banks  just following orders  i think it would be acceptable, in extreme cases, for banks to take moral stands.  but in the vast majority of cases we are benefitted by having our financial institutions be non passionate and morally disinterested.  banks and bankers are non public  non representative  institutions and having them be arbiters of what is good and bad is less desirable than having the government simply make certain behaviors economically unviable.  to continue our parallel example, in a non capitalist economy it would be very unlikely that the financial bureau would have the powers to deny resources to a project because they  personally  disagreed with certain aspects.  they would  most likely  be instructed to look at a specific subset of metrics and allocate based on that.  decisions of social desirability will be handled by another governmental body.   #  i think my argument would be that banks are on  no side  of the moral compass.   # i think my argument would be that banks are on  no side  of the moral compass.  the simply function as instructed.  when the banks misbehave we should first determine if they broke regulation to do so.  if they have not then the fault lies entirely with the regulations themselves.  no ? i think that is only true if you fundamentally see banks as rogue elements in society.  i see banks as simply being reflective of society so i do not see working for them as being either especially good or bad.
let is try an easy going one.  snoop dogg seemed to have started the drama by posting a picture of an albino woman on his instagram saying that is iggy without her makeup on.  then of course most adults in this world ca not behave like one, iggy fired back and like this and like that and like this and that.  now snoop is one of the few active og, why the fuck is he gonna go diss a young rapper ? say all you want about iggy being talentless and mediocre which can be said about most mainstream popular music artists and performers, what can i say ? people like bad things a lot of times , but that is not a good reason to go out and shit on someone.  nikki dissed her funny thing is, nikki may write her own rhymes, but she is pretty not good compared to good female rappers like missy elliot but that was done in a very appropriate manner.  snoop just came out and shat on iggy for no apparent reason, which later it is revealed or retroactively added that the motive was because iggy does not deserve her fame and whatnot.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  who in their right mind wants to be jealous of supposed undeserved fame and whatnot.  i do not know tldr: people should not shit on other people for no reason; even if the person you are shitting on is undeserving of fame, does not have talent, or whatever, there is still not a good reason to shit on someone.   #  now snoop is one of the few active og, why the fuck is he gonna go diss a young rapper ?  #  maybe because he thinks she is whack ?  # maybe because he thinks she is whack ? she has bad raps, and she does not even write them, she is not real, and has no skills.  the same reason ice t blasted soulja boy.  people like bad things a lot of times irrelevant and subjective.  you obviously do not know that much about the rap game.  if you are an og and you keep it real, then you should call out the bullshit when you see it.  he should release a beef song.  i know you do not know much about rappers and rap, but did you mean nicki ? who is nikki ? btw nicki is probably the best female out there right now she won the best female in hip hop from bet for the 0th year in a row this year .  missy elliot ? she is good, but that was then.  also nicki did not come out and say anything to iggy, she just said that she writes her own rhymes, and tweeted something that was ambiguous.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  are you a writer for tmz ? this is all speculation and basically a straw man.  the rap game is different, but you would know this if you understood the rap game.  a rapper with skills would write a diss track and release it.  they would not play the victim on social media.  it is obvious who is real and who is not in this situation.   you. must. learn !    #  snoop changed his name to snoop lion, but why does not anyone use it ?  #  does not make sense.  it is not okay for snoop to diss iggy, but it is okay for nicki to do it ? if nicki could express her opinion, why could not snoop ? snoop thinking that iggy is talentless is not a good enough reason ? why not ? but dissing her for not writing her songs is ? sounds like both snoop and nicki are thinking the same thing, except that snoop made a generalization, but nicki was more specific.  snoop changed his name to snoop lion, but why does not anyone use it ? not even the media, and there is supposed to at least get the person is name right.   #  snoop can think whatever about iggy all he wants, but childish attacks from a grown man, a respected figure of the rap community, an og.  um.  not really very good.   #  did you read what i wrote ? the manner the two did it is very different; nicki did it as more of a challenge and snoop first came out shitting on iggy for no apparent reason, then he revealed or retroactively added the motive that iggy is not a good rapper.  what i am saying is, even if iggy is objectively not a good rapper gucci mane isnt a good rapper.  anways , that is still not a good reason to shit on iggy the way it was done.  not as constructive criticism, but as this childish attack .  snoop can think whatever about iggy all he wants, but childish attacks from a grown man, a respected figure of the rap community, an og.  um.  not really very good.  also, nicki is challenge was more general, snoop is more specific.  in nicki is speech, she never actually mentioned anyone is name, it could be taken as if you are in this rap game, you better write your rhymes.   #  there is more than one way to diss someone: sing a song, draw a picture, imitate the person stupidly, say it with words.   #  yes, i read your post several times before replying.  does it really matter that snoop revealed his reason later ? the bottom line is, he gave a reason.  if nicki did not say iggy by name, then why are you assuming she is talking about iggy ? there is more than one way to diss someone: sing a song, draw a picture, imitate the person stupidly, say it with words.  snoop chose to use a photo.  the message is still the same as nicki is.  why is not snoop is diss constructive ? she could use it as fuel to be better in all ways choose better songs, become a better performer, dress better, wear better makeup, do whatever she needs to improve as a rapper.  nicki is was more direct songwriting , but iggy can take snoop is diss as motivation to work on her craft in all ways.   #  parentheses,  do not  indicate an aside from the actual argument.   #  it bothers me when people express there opinion as fact.  you did not say,  in my opinion, nikki is bad , you said  nikki is bad .  now i do not like her, but i more strongly dislike pretentious children who present their opinion as fact, and i even more strongly dislike these children defending their silly action with blatant lies, like you did:  i put it in parentheses, it means that is an aside and not part of the actual argument.  parentheses,  do not  indicate an aside from the actual argument.  this is never an appropriate or accepted use of parentheses.  they are used to de emphasize, or fit into a piece something that is useful, but would not normally fit.  period.
let is try an easy going one.  snoop dogg seemed to have started the drama by posting a picture of an albino woman on his instagram saying that is iggy without her makeup on.  then of course most adults in this world ca not behave like one, iggy fired back and like this and like that and like this and that.  now snoop is one of the few active og, why the fuck is he gonna go diss a young rapper ? say all you want about iggy being talentless and mediocre which can be said about most mainstream popular music artists and performers, what can i say ? people like bad things a lot of times , but that is not a good reason to go out and shit on someone.  nikki dissed her funny thing is, nikki may write her own rhymes, but she is pretty not good compared to good female rappers like missy elliot but that was done in a very appropriate manner.  snoop just came out and shat on iggy for no apparent reason, which later it is revealed or retroactively added that the motive was because iggy does not deserve her fame and whatnot.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  who in their right mind wants to be jealous of supposed undeserved fame and whatnot.  i do not know tldr: people should not shit on other people for no reason; even if the person you are shitting on is undeserving of fame, does not have talent, or whatever, there is still not a good reason to shit on someone.   #  say all you want about iggy being talentless and mediocre which can be said about most mainstream popular music artists and performers, what can i say ?  #  people like bad things a lot of times irrelevant and subjective.   # maybe because he thinks she is whack ? she has bad raps, and she does not even write them, she is not real, and has no skills.  the same reason ice t blasted soulja boy.  people like bad things a lot of times irrelevant and subjective.  you obviously do not know that much about the rap game.  if you are an og and you keep it real, then you should call out the bullshit when you see it.  he should release a beef song.  i know you do not know much about rappers and rap, but did you mean nicki ? who is nikki ? btw nicki is probably the best female out there right now she won the best female in hip hop from bet for the 0th year in a row this year .  missy elliot ? she is good, but that was then.  also nicki did not come out and say anything to iggy, she just said that she writes her own rhymes, and tweeted something that was ambiguous.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  are you a writer for tmz ? this is all speculation and basically a straw man.  the rap game is different, but you would know this if you understood the rap game.  a rapper with skills would write a diss track and release it.  they would not play the victim on social media.  it is obvious who is real and who is not in this situation.   you. must. learn !    #  if nicki could express her opinion, why could not snoop ?  #  does not make sense.  it is not okay for snoop to diss iggy, but it is okay for nicki to do it ? if nicki could express her opinion, why could not snoop ? snoop thinking that iggy is talentless is not a good enough reason ? why not ? but dissing her for not writing her songs is ? sounds like both snoop and nicki are thinking the same thing, except that snoop made a generalization, but nicki was more specific.  snoop changed his name to snoop lion, but why does not anyone use it ? not even the media, and there is supposed to at least get the person is name right.   #  not as constructive criticism, but as this childish attack .   #  did you read what i wrote ? the manner the two did it is very different; nicki did it as more of a challenge and snoop first came out shitting on iggy for no apparent reason, then he revealed or retroactively added the motive that iggy is not a good rapper.  what i am saying is, even if iggy is objectively not a good rapper gucci mane isnt a good rapper.  anways , that is still not a good reason to shit on iggy the way it was done.  not as constructive criticism, but as this childish attack .  snoop can think whatever about iggy all he wants, but childish attacks from a grown man, a respected figure of the rap community, an og.  um.  not really very good.  also, nicki is challenge was more general, snoop is more specific.  in nicki is speech, she never actually mentioned anyone is name, it could be taken as if you are in this rap game, you better write your rhymes.   #  yes, i read your post several times before replying.   #  yes, i read your post several times before replying.  does it really matter that snoop revealed his reason later ? the bottom line is, he gave a reason.  if nicki did not say iggy by name, then why are you assuming she is talking about iggy ? there is more than one way to diss someone: sing a song, draw a picture, imitate the person stupidly, say it with words.  snoop chose to use a photo.  the message is still the same as nicki is.  why is not snoop is diss constructive ? she could use it as fuel to be better in all ways choose better songs, become a better performer, dress better, wear better makeup, do whatever she needs to improve as a rapper.  nicki is was more direct songwriting , but iggy can take snoop is diss as motivation to work on her craft in all ways.   #  they are used to de emphasize, or fit into a piece something that is useful, but would not normally fit.   #  it bothers me when people express there opinion as fact.  you did not say,  in my opinion, nikki is bad , you said  nikki is bad .  now i do not like her, but i more strongly dislike pretentious children who present their opinion as fact, and i even more strongly dislike these children defending their silly action with blatant lies, like you did:  i put it in parentheses, it means that is an aside and not part of the actual argument.  parentheses,  do not  indicate an aside from the actual argument.  this is never an appropriate or accepted use of parentheses.  they are used to de emphasize, or fit into a piece something that is useful, but would not normally fit.  period.
let is try an easy going one.  snoop dogg seemed to have started the drama by posting a picture of an albino woman on his instagram saying that is iggy without her makeup on.  then of course most adults in this world ca not behave like one, iggy fired back and like this and like that and like this and that.  now snoop is one of the few active og, why the fuck is he gonna go diss a young rapper ? say all you want about iggy being talentless and mediocre which can be said about most mainstream popular music artists and performers, what can i say ? people like bad things a lot of times , but that is not a good reason to go out and shit on someone.  nikki dissed her funny thing is, nikki may write her own rhymes, but she is pretty not good compared to good female rappers like missy elliot but that was done in a very appropriate manner.  snoop just came out and shat on iggy for no apparent reason, which later it is revealed or retroactively added that the motive was because iggy does not deserve her fame and whatnot.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  who in their right mind wants to be jealous of supposed undeserved fame and whatnot.  i do not know tldr: people should not shit on other people for no reason; even if the person you are shitting on is undeserving of fame, does not have talent, or whatever, there is still not a good reason to shit on someone.   #  but that is not a good reason to go out and shit on someone.   #  you obviously do not know that much about the rap game.   # maybe because he thinks she is whack ? she has bad raps, and she does not even write them, she is not real, and has no skills.  the same reason ice t blasted soulja boy.  people like bad things a lot of times irrelevant and subjective.  you obviously do not know that much about the rap game.  if you are an og and you keep it real, then you should call out the bullshit when you see it.  he should release a beef song.  i know you do not know much about rappers and rap, but did you mean nicki ? who is nikki ? btw nicki is probably the best female out there right now she won the best female in hip hop from bet for the 0th year in a row this year .  missy elliot ? she is good, but that was then.  also nicki did not come out and say anything to iggy, she just said that she writes her own rhymes, and tweeted something that was ambiguous.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  are you a writer for tmz ? this is all speculation and basically a straw man.  the rap game is different, but you would know this if you understood the rap game.  a rapper with skills would write a diss track and release it.  they would not play the victim on social media.  it is obvious who is real and who is not in this situation.   you. must. learn !    #  but dissing her for not writing her songs is ?  #  does not make sense.  it is not okay for snoop to diss iggy, but it is okay for nicki to do it ? if nicki could express her opinion, why could not snoop ? snoop thinking that iggy is talentless is not a good enough reason ? why not ? but dissing her for not writing her songs is ? sounds like both snoop and nicki are thinking the same thing, except that snoop made a generalization, but nicki was more specific.  snoop changed his name to snoop lion, but why does not anyone use it ? not even the media, and there is supposed to at least get the person is name right.   #  snoop can think whatever about iggy all he wants, but childish attacks from a grown man, a respected figure of the rap community, an og.  um.  not really very good.   #  did you read what i wrote ? the manner the two did it is very different; nicki did it as more of a challenge and snoop first came out shitting on iggy for no apparent reason, then he revealed or retroactively added the motive that iggy is not a good rapper.  what i am saying is, even if iggy is objectively not a good rapper gucci mane isnt a good rapper.  anways , that is still not a good reason to shit on iggy the way it was done.  not as constructive criticism, but as this childish attack .  snoop can think whatever about iggy all he wants, but childish attacks from a grown man, a respected figure of the rap community, an og.  um.  not really very good.  also, nicki is challenge was more general, snoop is more specific.  in nicki is speech, she never actually mentioned anyone is name, it could be taken as if you are in this rap game, you better write your rhymes.   #  the bottom line is, he gave a reason.   #  yes, i read your post several times before replying.  does it really matter that snoop revealed his reason later ? the bottom line is, he gave a reason.  if nicki did not say iggy by name, then why are you assuming she is talking about iggy ? there is more than one way to diss someone: sing a song, draw a picture, imitate the person stupidly, say it with words.  snoop chose to use a photo.  the message is still the same as nicki is.  why is not snoop is diss constructive ? she could use it as fuel to be better in all ways choose better songs, become a better performer, dress better, wear better makeup, do whatever she needs to improve as a rapper.  nicki is was more direct songwriting , but iggy can take snoop is diss as motivation to work on her craft in all ways.   #  this is never an appropriate or accepted use of parentheses.   #  it bothers me when people express there opinion as fact.  you did not say,  in my opinion, nikki is bad , you said  nikki is bad .  now i do not like her, but i more strongly dislike pretentious children who present their opinion as fact, and i even more strongly dislike these children defending their silly action with blatant lies, like you did:  i put it in parentheses, it means that is an aside and not part of the actual argument.  parentheses,  do not  indicate an aside from the actual argument.  this is never an appropriate or accepted use of parentheses.  they are used to de emphasize, or fit into a piece something that is useful, but would not normally fit.  period.
let is try an easy going one.  snoop dogg seemed to have started the drama by posting a picture of an albino woman on his instagram saying that is iggy without her makeup on.  then of course most adults in this world ca not behave like one, iggy fired back and like this and like that and like this and that.  now snoop is one of the few active og, why the fuck is he gonna go diss a young rapper ? say all you want about iggy being talentless and mediocre which can be said about most mainstream popular music artists and performers, what can i say ? people like bad things a lot of times , but that is not a good reason to go out and shit on someone.  nikki dissed her funny thing is, nikki may write her own rhymes, but she is pretty not good compared to good female rappers like missy elliot but that was done in a very appropriate manner.  snoop just came out and shat on iggy for no apparent reason, which later it is revealed or retroactively added that the motive was because iggy does not deserve her fame and whatnot.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  who in their right mind wants to be jealous of supposed undeserved fame and whatnot.  i do not know tldr: people should not shit on other people for no reason; even if the person you are shitting on is undeserving of fame, does not have talent, or whatever, there is still not a good reason to shit on someone.   #  nikki dissed her funny thing is, nikki may write her own rhymes, but she is pretty not good compared to good female rappers like missy elliot but that was done in a very appropriate manner.   #  i know you do not know much about rappers and rap, but did you mean nicki ?  # maybe because he thinks she is whack ? she has bad raps, and she does not even write them, she is not real, and has no skills.  the same reason ice t blasted soulja boy.  people like bad things a lot of times irrelevant and subjective.  you obviously do not know that much about the rap game.  if you are an og and you keep it real, then you should call out the bullshit when you see it.  he should release a beef song.  i know you do not know much about rappers and rap, but did you mean nicki ? who is nikki ? btw nicki is probably the best female out there right now she won the best female in hip hop from bet for the 0th year in a row this year .  missy elliot ? she is good, but that was then.  also nicki did not come out and say anything to iggy, she just said that she writes her own rhymes, and tweeted something that was ambiguous.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  are you a writer for tmz ? this is all speculation and basically a straw man.  the rap game is different, but you would know this if you understood the rap game.  a rapper with skills would write a diss track and release it.  they would not play the victim on social media.  it is obvious who is real and who is not in this situation.   you. must. learn !    #  sounds like both snoop and nicki are thinking the same thing, except that snoop made a generalization, but nicki was more specific.   #  does not make sense.  it is not okay for snoop to diss iggy, but it is okay for nicki to do it ? if nicki could express her opinion, why could not snoop ? snoop thinking that iggy is talentless is not a good enough reason ? why not ? but dissing her for not writing her songs is ? sounds like both snoop and nicki are thinking the same thing, except that snoop made a generalization, but nicki was more specific.  snoop changed his name to snoop lion, but why does not anyone use it ? not even the media, and there is supposed to at least get the person is name right.   #  not as constructive criticism, but as this childish attack .   #  did you read what i wrote ? the manner the two did it is very different; nicki did it as more of a challenge and snoop first came out shitting on iggy for no apparent reason, then he revealed or retroactively added the motive that iggy is not a good rapper.  what i am saying is, even if iggy is objectively not a good rapper gucci mane isnt a good rapper.  anways , that is still not a good reason to shit on iggy the way it was done.  not as constructive criticism, but as this childish attack .  snoop can think whatever about iggy all he wants, but childish attacks from a grown man, a respected figure of the rap community, an og.  um.  not really very good.  also, nicki is challenge was more general, snoop is more specific.  in nicki is speech, she never actually mentioned anyone is name, it could be taken as if you are in this rap game, you better write your rhymes.   #  yes, i read your post several times before replying.   #  yes, i read your post several times before replying.  does it really matter that snoop revealed his reason later ? the bottom line is, he gave a reason.  if nicki did not say iggy by name, then why are you assuming she is talking about iggy ? there is more than one way to diss someone: sing a song, draw a picture, imitate the person stupidly, say it with words.  snoop chose to use a photo.  the message is still the same as nicki is.  why is not snoop is diss constructive ? she could use it as fuel to be better in all ways choose better songs, become a better performer, dress better, wear better makeup, do whatever she needs to improve as a rapper.  nicki is was more direct songwriting , but iggy can take snoop is diss as motivation to work on her craft in all ways.   #  parentheses,  do not  indicate an aside from the actual argument.   #  it bothers me when people express there opinion as fact.  you did not say,  in my opinion, nikki is bad , you said  nikki is bad .  now i do not like her, but i more strongly dislike pretentious children who present their opinion as fact, and i even more strongly dislike these children defending their silly action with blatant lies, like you did:  i put it in parentheses, it means that is an aside and not part of the actual argument.  parentheses,  do not  indicate an aside from the actual argument.  this is never an appropriate or accepted use of parentheses.  they are used to de emphasize, or fit into a piece something that is useful, but would not normally fit.  period.
let is try an easy going one.  snoop dogg seemed to have started the drama by posting a picture of an albino woman on his instagram saying that is iggy without her makeup on.  then of course most adults in this world ca not behave like one, iggy fired back and like this and like that and like this and that.  now snoop is one of the few active og, why the fuck is he gonna go diss a young rapper ? say all you want about iggy being talentless and mediocre which can be said about most mainstream popular music artists and performers, what can i say ? people like bad things a lot of times , but that is not a good reason to go out and shit on someone.  nikki dissed her funny thing is, nikki may write her own rhymes, but she is pretty not good compared to good female rappers like missy elliot but that was done in a very appropriate manner.  snoop just came out and shat on iggy for no apparent reason, which later it is revealed or retroactively added that the motive was because iggy does not deserve her fame and whatnot.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  who in their right mind wants to be jealous of supposed undeserved fame and whatnot.  i do not know tldr: people should not shit on other people for no reason; even if the person you are shitting on is undeserving of fame, does not have talent, or whatever, there is still not a good reason to shit on someone.   #  snoop just came out and shat on iggy for no apparent reason, which later it is revealed or retroactively added that the motive was because iggy does not deserve her fame and whatnot.   #  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.   # maybe because he thinks she is whack ? she has bad raps, and she does not even write them, she is not real, and has no skills.  the same reason ice t blasted soulja boy.  people like bad things a lot of times irrelevant and subjective.  you obviously do not know that much about the rap game.  if you are an og and you keep it real, then you should call out the bullshit when you see it.  he should release a beef song.  i know you do not know much about rappers and rap, but did you mean nicki ? who is nikki ? btw nicki is probably the best female out there right now she won the best female in hip hop from bet for the 0th year in a row this year .  missy elliot ? she is good, but that was then.  also nicki did not come out and say anything to iggy, she just said that she writes her own rhymes, and tweeted something that was ambiguous.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  are you a writer for tmz ? this is all speculation and basically a straw man.  the rap game is different, but you would know this if you understood the rap game.  a rapper with skills would write a diss track and release it.  they would not play the victim on social media.  it is obvious who is real and who is not in this situation.   you. must. learn !    #  sounds like both snoop and nicki are thinking the same thing, except that snoop made a generalization, but nicki was more specific.   #  does not make sense.  it is not okay for snoop to diss iggy, but it is okay for nicki to do it ? if nicki could express her opinion, why could not snoop ? snoop thinking that iggy is talentless is not a good enough reason ? why not ? but dissing her for not writing her songs is ? sounds like both snoop and nicki are thinking the same thing, except that snoop made a generalization, but nicki was more specific.  snoop changed his name to snoop lion, but why does not anyone use it ? not even the media, and there is supposed to at least get the person is name right.   #  in nicki is speech, she never actually mentioned anyone is name, it could be taken as if you are in this rap game, you better write your rhymes.   #  did you read what i wrote ? the manner the two did it is very different; nicki did it as more of a challenge and snoop first came out shitting on iggy for no apparent reason, then he revealed or retroactively added the motive that iggy is not a good rapper.  what i am saying is, even if iggy is objectively not a good rapper gucci mane isnt a good rapper.  anways , that is still not a good reason to shit on iggy the way it was done.  not as constructive criticism, but as this childish attack .  snoop can think whatever about iggy all he wants, but childish attacks from a grown man, a respected figure of the rap community, an og.  um.  not really very good.  also, nicki is challenge was more general, snoop is more specific.  in nicki is speech, she never actually mentioned anyone is name, it could be taken as if you are in this rap game, you better write your rhymes.   #  if nicki did not say iggy by name, then why are you assuming she is talking about iggy ?  #  yes, i read your post several times before replying.  does it really matter that snoop revealed his reason later ? the bottom line is, he gave a reason.  if nicki did not say iggy by name, then why are you assuming she is talking about iggy ? there is more than one way to diss someone: sing a song, draw a picture, imitate the person stupidly, say it with words.  snoop chose to use a photo.  the message is still the same as nicki is.  why is not snoop is diss constructive ? she could use it as fuel to be better in all ways choose better songs, become a better performer, dress better, wear better makeup, do whatever she needs to improve as a rapper.  nicki is was more direct songwriting , but iggy can take snoop is diss as motivation to work on her craft in all ways.   #  they are used to de emphasize, or fit into a piece something that is useful, but would not normally fit.   #  it bothers me when people express there opinion as fact.  you did not say,  in my opinion, nikki is bad , you said  nikki is bad .  now i do not like her, but i more strongly dislike pretentious children who present their opinion as fact, and i even more strongly dislike these children defending their silly action with blatant lies, like you did:  i put it in parentheses, it means that is an aside and not part of the actual argument.  parentheses,  do not  indicate an aside from the actual argument.  this is never an appropriate or accepted use of parentheses.  they are used to de emphasize, or fit into a piece something that is useful, but would not normally fit.  period.
let is try an easy going one.  snoop dogg seemed to have started the drama by posting a picture of an albino woman on his instagram saying that is iggy without her makeup on.  then of course most adults in this world ca not behave like one, iggy fired back and like this and like that and like this and that.  now snoop is one of the few active og, why the fuck is he gonna go diss a young rapper ? say all you want about iggy being talentless and mediocre which can be said about most mainstream popular music artists and performers, what can i say ? people like bad things a lot of times , but that is not a good reason to go out and shit on someone.  nikki dissed her funny thing is, nikki may write her own rhymes, but she is pretty not good compared to good female rappers like missy elliot but that was done in a very appropriate manner.  snoop just came out and shat on iggy for no apparent reason, which later it is revealed or retroactively added that the motive was because iggy does not deserve her fame and whatnot.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  who in their right mind wants to be jealous of supposed undeserved fame and whatnot.  i do not know tldr: people should not shit on other people for no reason; even if the person you are shitting on is undeserving of fame, does not have talent, or whatever, there is still not a good reason to shit on someone.   #  tldr: people should not shit on other people for no reason; even if the person you are shitting on is undeserving of fame, does not have talent, or whatever, there is still not a good reason to shit on someone.   #  the rap game is different, but you would know this if you understood the rap game.   # maybe because he thinks she is whack ? she has bad raps, and she does not even write them, she is not real, and has no skills.  the same reason ice t blasted soulja boy.  people like bad things a lot of times irrelevant and subjective.  you obviously do not know that much about the rap game.  if you are an og and you keep it real, then you should call out the bullshit when you see it.  he should release a beef song.  i know you do not know much about rappers and rap, but did you mean nicki ? who is nikki ? btw nicki is probably the best female out there right now she won the best female in hip hop from bet for the 0th year in a row this year .  missy elliot ? she is good, but that was then.  also nicki did not come out and say anything to iggy, she just said that she writes her own rhymes, and tweeted something that was ambiguous.  for one that looks really bad on snoop is part, and second it makes snoop seem jealous of iggy.  are you a writer for tmz ? this is all speculation and basically a straw man.  the rap game is different, but you would know this if you understood the rap game.  a rapper with skills would write a diss track and release it.  they would not play the victim on social media.  it is obvious who is real and who is not in this situation.   you. must. learn !    #  sounds like both snoop and nicki are thinking the same thing, except that snoop made a generalization, but nicki was more specific.   #  does not make sense.  it is not okay for snoop to diss iggy, but it is okay for nicki to do it ? if nicki could express her opinion, why could not snoop ? snoop thinking that iggy is talentless is not a good enough reason ? why not ? but dissing her for not writing her songs is ? sounds like both snoop and nicki are thinking the same thing, except that snoop made a generalization, but nicki was more specific.  snoop changed his name to snoop lion, but why does not anyone use it ? not even the media, and there is supposed to at least get the person is name right.   #  snoop can think whatever about iggy all he wants, but childish attacks from a grown man, a respected figure of the rap community, an og.  um.  not really very good.   #  did you read what i wrote ? the manner the two did it is very different; nicki did it as more of a challenge and snoop first came out shitting on iggy for no apparent reason, then he revealed or retroactively added the motive that iggy is not a good rapper.  what i am saying is, even if iggy is objectively not a good rapper gucci mane isnt a good rapper.  anways , that is still not a good reason to shit on iggy the way it was done.  not as constructive criticism, but as this childish attack .  snoop can think whatever about iggy all he wants, but childish attacks from a grown man, a respected figure of the rap community, an og.  um.  not really very good.  also, nicki is challenge was more general, snoop is more specific.  in nicki is speech, she never actually mentioned anyone is name, it could be taken as if you are in this rap game, you better write your rhymes.   #  the bottom line is, he gave a reason.   #  yes, i read your post several times before replying.  does it really matter that snoop revealed his reason later ? the bottom line is, he gave a reason.  if nicki did not say iggy by name, then why are you assuming she is talking about iggy ? there is more than one way to diss someone: sing a song, draw a picture, imitate the person stupidly, say it with words.  snoop chose to use a photo.  the message is still the same as nicki is.  why is not snoop is diss constructive ? she could use it as fuel to be better in all ways choose better songs, become a better performer, dress better, wear better makeup, do whatever she needs to improve as a rapper.  nicki is was more direct songwriting , but iggy can take snoop is diss as motivation to work on her craft in all ways.   #  parentheses,  do not  indicate an aside from the actual argument.   #  it bothers me when people express there opinion as fact.  you did not say,  in my opinion, nikki is bad , you said  nikki is bad .  now i do not like her, but i more strongly dislike pretentious children who present their opinion as fact, and i even more strongly dislike these children defending their silly action with blatant lies, like you did:  i put it in parentheses, it means that is an aside and not part of the actual argument.  parentheses,  do not  indicate an aside from the actual argument.  this is never an appropriate or accepted use of parentheses.  they are used to de emphasize, or fit into a piece something that is useful, but would not normally fit.  period.
prisons and jails in the united states often do not provide basic necessary items, such as toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, or floss to prisoners, forcing them to purchase these items at commissary a store for prisoners .  these items should be provided free of cost to all prisoners, as they are essential to health.  further, often prisoners must work to purchase these items, but are paid a most unfair wage.  payscale for federal prisoners is between $0 and $0 per hour.  source: URL despite these slavery level wages, prisoners are overcharged for basic items.  while ordinary citizens have the opportunity to purchase value packs of basic toiletries, prisoners must purchase them piecemeal, one at a time.  for instance, a bar of dove soap costs a federal prisoner $0 to purchase from commissary.  at a grocery store, it is not uncommon to find an 0 pack of dove soap for around $0, a significant savings.  prisons purchase in bulk and profit by selling individually packaged items to prisoners.  list of commissary items pdf : URL worse still, families of prisoners wishing to provide basic items for their loved ones must frequently submit their financial gifts through jpay, a prison payments processor.  jpay can take as much as 0 of the funds transferred as fees, effectively doubling the cost of the necessary items.  prisons and jails and private contractors are forcing the financial burdens of bad policies onto families and prisoners who have no recourse, enabling ever greater budgets and profits for these entities.  this situation is nothing short of cruel and unusual punishment, and should be banished in accordance with the 0th amendment.  prisoners should be paid minimum wage for their labor, and should not be forced to purchase basic items that are required for health.  money deposited to commissary accounts should be free of fees and charges.  correcting this would allow prisoners to save money, pay their fines and legal fees and be more prepared to enter the real world upon release, reducing recidivism overall.  the people currently administering this system are criminals, and should be punished accordingly.   #  the people currently administering this system are criminals, and should be punished accordingly.   #  from what you say, what these folks are doing is completely within the law.   # from what you say, what these folks are doing is completely within the law.  then at the end you call them criminals.  if this overcharging to prisoners  actually  illegal, or are you just calling them criminals because that is how you feel about them ? if it is in fact criminal which i doubt , then i think your view is correct.  beyond that, the inmates are  actually  criminals.  they have been found guilty, through a system that purports to be fair.  in the overwhelming majority of cases, people in jail deserve to be there.  it sort of does not make sense to charge for tp, toothbrushes etc, but what about what they are getting for free: health care lodging schooling in some cases 0/0 security water all meals social rehabilitation services counseling when necessary some amenities limited cable, exercise area, sporting etc.  satellite tv URL URL and much more now imagine  you  currently got your basic things tp, toothbrush soap etc.  for free.  and you were offered a trade to begin paying for that at the prices inmates have to pay, in exchange for everything listed above and more for free.  which would you take ? the answer seems obvious to me.  we do not have to provide prisoners with much.  we provide them with a hell of a lot.  how many people do you think would work the shitty prison jobs if they were working to pay for 0 minutes of tv time, versus having to work or you are wiping your ass with your hand ?  #  you are not going to retire on it or live in a fancy house, but you are going to need to pay for rent, transportation, health insurance, food, etc, possibly for several years.   # in fact, that is the  only  way crime goes down.  when you get out, you need a place to live and you wo not have much in the way of job prospects.  that 0k would go a long way toward getting you back on your feet.  you are not going to retire on it or live in a fancy house, but you are going to need to pay for rent, transportation, health insurance, food, etc, possibly for several years.  maybe even start a business if you know a trade.  no company is going to hire you, so this might be a good time to start a plumbing shop or something.   #  i have no wish to give up the recreational drugs i enjoy, because i am fairly certain that alcohol is not kosher in jail.   #  if your society is so fucked up that going to prison is the only way to receive health care, and it legitimately is a better place to live because of reduced costs associated with imprisonment, that is a fucked up society.  yeah, a jail with private rooms, clean bathrooms, decent libraries and a work program that actually pays you does sound decent.  i do not want to go there, though, because i enjoy being able to go where i wish to.  i do not enjoy being strip searched and screamed at by cos.  i have no wish to give up the recreational drugs i enjoy, because i am fairly certain that alcohol is not kosher in jail.  there are any number of reasons to avoid imprisonment.  the fear of making imprisonment too attractive should never be an excuse to avoid fixing problems.  how about we fix the systemic issues that make jail seem like it could ever be better than freedom ?  #  it is well known that all across the united states, prostitutes intentionally turn themselves in around november so that they can spend the winter in jail.   #  it is well known that all across the united states, prostitutes intentionally turn themselves in around november so that they can spend the winter in jail.  they get out in late spring and can go back to being prostitutes.  rinse and repeat.  winter in a warn jail cell is better than having sex with random men in the cold.  it is too difficult for some of these women to get jobs that pay living wages, so prostitution is one of the only options left.  the problem is that society does not offer people jobs with living wages, so you spend your living in jail picking up scraps along the way.  it is better than freezing to death out in the cold.  sure, jail is not great, but it is not as bad as prison, and i would take being stripped and searched and free food over having unwanted sex and going hungry any day.  yes, it is a fucked up society, but for some people, that is the only way to get by.   #  i understand i am being biased here, but i believe that rehabilitation is a far more vital cause than a  iscared straight  attitude.   #  i completely agree with all of the points you have presented here.  i believe the penal system should be based upon the basic frameworks of rehabilitation and an overall goal to reduce the number of released convicts who will commit a crime again.  after all, when a prisoner is released, which of these two options would be preferential: the prisoner is released and their time in jail has helped them to be better suited to the society they live in, and not only that, they have been taught that committing a crime does not not come free of charge; they have paid the price and are now ready to be released into the wider world with a broadened perspective.  the prisoner has been released feeling incredibly relieved, as the environment he has just been in is arift with violence and chaos, pent up aggressions being the sole determiner of behaviour.  they are more paranoid, have a quick an violent temper and have been tempered to fill the role they needed to fill in the prison environment.  i understand i am being biased here, but i believe that rehabilitation is a far more vital cause than a  iscared straight  attitude.
the us has friendly and weak neighbors.  the us has the most powerful military in the world.  the us has the most armed civilian population in the world.  the us is protected by two huge oceans.  us foreign policy wastes our time, money, lives and creates new enemies leading to decreases in quality of life and civil liberties.  many of the usa is foreign threats are self caused through meddling, intervention, wars abroad. do we see al qaeda threatening switzerland or finland ? us policies reduce its citizens economic and opportunities.  as a citizen, i would get the most from my tax dollars and government services if the us adopted a swiss like neutral foreign policy.  other first world examples of countries with a neutral foreign policy switzerland, sweden, norway, finland are all richer, safer and have better quality of life than the us.   #  many of the usa is foreign threats are self caused through meddling, intervention, wars abroad. do we see al qaeda threatening switzerland or finland ?  #  many of the usa is foreign threats are also a direct result of being the biggest and easiest target.   # i really disagree with this.  how does it waste our time, firstly ? we are far to large and important to just sit back like the nordic countries you listed.  you realize that we are the third most populous country in the world URL fourth largest by landmass URL and the 0 militarily, economically, and arguably in technology.  when we move, everything else reacts.  we ca not just shrivel up on ourselves and ignore the world.  we are, if not literally, extremely figuratively, the leaders of the world.  for every shit hole we waste our time with in shit stani stan, we spend countless more humanitarian aid to other equally shitty countries who are extremely grateful.  for every enemy we create, we make 0 more friends.  many of the usa is foreign threats are also a direct result of being the biggest and easiest target.  who gives a fuck about switzerland ? the landlocked, marginal population who is current global contributions are chocolate and watches ? the usa brings change everywhere.  where in the world ca not you find a coke ? a marlboro ? a budweiser ? it is our global reach is what rustles jimmies.  quite the contrary, if it were not for us policies and influence a lot of global trade and international business opportunities would simply not exist.  the us navy conducts training exercises every year in south east asia URL this is, for many of their countries, their only direct interactions with americans.  we all get together, sail around in some circles, play pretend war, blow some shit up, and get together for a few beers.  friendships are established, good will is earned.  then, what do you know ? there is some tariffs and taxes that are restructured, sea countries media spin positive press about the usa, hearts and minds are won.  john doe has an easier time establishing an import/export business in one of these countries, improving the lives of everybody involved.  extremely doubtful, you are benefiting extremely from current policies, and there is no real historic precedent for a global leader like the usa gaining anything from withdrawing completely from the global theater.  the examples of neutral foreign policy you list also, extremely conveniently, benefit heavily from the stability of the nato alliance.  i doubt they would be as great if there were much more turmoil and their back yards.   #  aside from that, having a strong global hegemon is the most stable state of international affairs the world has experienced to date, and stability is good for trade.   #  we receive so many benefits we do not fully appreciate by being  the  military power.  we can and do use our military as leverage to influence other nations into enterring agreements that are mutually beneficial, but more favorable to us.  we can persuade people that would otherwise  not  do our bidding into doing it.  when we successfully stabilize a country, we get first dibs on the spoils.  sure, a lot of this growth goes towards to the wealthy elite, but there are other side effects that benefit everyone.  everyone reaps a lot of rewards from trade.  if the us were to step away from this role, china and russia would certainly take over.  this would lead to more pro chinese and russian foreign policies and trade agreements among smaller and middle income countries, which would weaken us economic interests and by extension, its wealth, in an increasingly globalized economy.  aside from that, having a strong global hegemon is the most stable state of international affairs the world has experienced to date, and stability is good for trade.  good trade means people are wealthier, and their wealth is interdepent on each other.  wealthy people have less reason to go to war.  wars are expensive, destructive and bad for trade.  as it stands right now, the us just has to whip misbehaving countries back in line.  we have stacked the deck enough in our favor to make being the hegemon worthwhile, while keeping the risk of full scale war down to virtually nill.  terrorism has been the game changer, since now people with no  legitimate  authority are using violence to try to influence global affairs.  now, these people are marginalized, unhappy, and suffering.  i would agree that the us  should  adjust its foreign policy to make it fairer and make economic growth more inclusive to everyone, but that is a far cry from  withdrawing our military from the world stage,  as you suggest.  also, an aside: i firmly believe the us military is overfunded and overarmed much more than necessary .  i do not have the numbers for this, but i think we could slash our military budget significantly without really harming our standing as a global power.   #  i mean, you ca not really argue it any other way.   #  it is not though.  let is be real here.  the us produces 0 of the worlds total economic output.  the us military is the most dominant and undisputed military force in human history.  the us is also the central part of nato, the most overpowered and dominant military alliance in human history.  nato, as a whole, spends roughly 0 of the worlds total military expenditures.  most of the eu is in nato, therefore the us and the eu are essentially on the same side on most global issues.  so, if you look at it, it is the us/nato/eu   all of america is other allies vs.  russia and china, both of which do not have very many allies, especially when compared to the us.  if we dig even deeper, you will see that the few allies russia and china  do  have, they are nowhere near as powerful as america is allies which is pretty much all of europe, japan, south korea, canada etc.  the world we live in now is as unipolar as it gets.  the us is the global economic and military superpower and it really does not have any real competition.  we are no where near a 0 scenario.  if a war were to break out today, america is side would win without much of a fight considering no nukes are used .  i mean, you ca not really argue it any other way.  there is no competition.   #  it cannot be for every interest but serious ones which have grave consequences i. e.   #  but i am not saying that everything that affects the us should be intervened with.  only those issue with interfere with our interests past a certain degree.  and all other developed countries issues are aligned with the us  interests so hence when we interfere to defend our interests other countries interests are  usually  defended as well.  you ca not possibly think that its good for the us to not interfere in other countries when we need to protect our interests.  it cannot be for every interest but serious ones which have grave consequences i. e.  no access to oil  #    no nation is perfect, but i agree that our role as a superpower has brought stability.   #    no nation is perfect, but i agree that our role as a superpower has brought stability.  it wo not last forever, but for us to take a neutral stance on world affairs would create a vacuum for other nations.  we do not need to get into every petty squabble, however.  china, for instance, has much greater income inequality and documented human rights abuses.  as a wealthy, powerful nation, we have created a society that is more equitable and generated a plethora of knowledge.  it is important that we continue defending the gains that not only the us has made, but other countries have made, too.
the us has friendly and weak neighbors.  the us has the most powerful military in the world.  the us has the most armed civilian population in the world.  the us is protected by two huge oceans.  us foreign policy wastes our time, money, lives and creates new enemies leading to decreases in quality of life and civil liberties.  many of the usa is foreign threats are self caused through meddling, intervention, wars abroad. do we see al qaeda threatening switzerland or finland ? us policies reduce its citizens economic and opportunities.  as a citizen, i would get the most from my tax dollars and government services if the us adopted a swiss like neutral foreign policy.  other first world examples of countries with a neutral foreign policy switzerland, sweden, norway, finland are all richer, safer and have better quality of life than the us.   #  us policies reduce its citizens economic and opportunities.   #  quite the contrary, if it were not for us policies and influence a lot of global trade and international business opportunities would simply not exist.   # i really disagree with this.  how does it waste our time, firstly ? we are far to large and important to just sit back like the nordic countries you listed.  you realize that we are the third most populous country in the world URL fourth largest by landmass URL and the 0 militarily, economically, and arguably in technology.  when we move, everything else reacts.  we ca not just shrivel up on ourselves and ignore the world.  we are, if not literally, extremely figuratively, the leaders of the world.  for every shit hole we waste our time with in shit stani stan, we spend countless more humanitarian aid to other equally shitty countries who are extremely grateful.  for every enemy we create, we make 0 more friends.  many of the usa is foreign threats are also a direct result of being the biggest and easiest target.  who gives a fuck about switzerland ? the landlocked, marginal population who is current global contributions are chocolate and watches ? the usa brings change everywhere.  where in the world ca not you find a coke ? a marlboro ? a budweiser ? it is our global reach is what rustles jimmies.  quite the contrary, if it were not for us policies and influence a lot of global trade and international business opportunities would simply not exist.  the us navy conducts training exercises every year in south east asia URL this is, for many of their countries, their only direct interactions with americans.  we all get together, sail around in some circles, play pretend war, blow some shit up, and get together for a few beers.  friendships are established, good will is earned.  then, what do you know ? there is some tariffs and taxes that are restructured, sea countries media spin positive press about the usa, hearts and minds are won.  john doe has an easier time establishing an import/export business in one of these countries, improving the lives of everybody involved.  extremely doubtful, you are benefiting extremely from current policies, and there is no real historic precedent for a global leader like the usa gaining anything from withdrawing completely from the global theater.  the examples of neutral foreign policy you list also, extremely conveniently, benefit heavily from the stability of the nato alliance.  i doubt they would be as great if there were much more turmoil and their back yards.   #  everyone reaps a lot of rewards from trade.   #  we receive so many benefits we do not fully appreciate by being  the  military power.  we can and do use our military as leverage to influence other nations into enterring agreements that are mutually beneficial, but more favorable to us.  we can persuade people that would otherwise  not  do our bidding into doing it.  when we successfully stabilize a country, we get first dibs on the spoils.  sure, a lot of this growth goes towards to the wealthy elite, but there are other side effects that benefit everyone.  everyone reaps a lot of rewards from trade.  if the us were to step away from this role, china and russia would certainly take over.  this would lead to more pro chinese and russian foreign policies and trade agreements among smaller and middle income countries, which would weaken us economic interests and by extension, its wealth, in an increasingly globalized economy.  aside from that, having a strong global hegemon is the most stable state of international affairs the world has experienced to date, and stability is good for trade.  good trade means people are wealthier, and their wealth is interdepent on each other.  wealthy people have less reason to go to war.  wars are expensive, destructive and bad for trade.  as it stands right now, the us just has to whip misbehaving countries back in line.  we have stacked the deck enough in our favor to make being the hegemon worthwhile, while keeping the risk of full scale war down to virtually nill.  terrorism has been the game changer, since now people with no  legitimate  authority are using violence to try to influence global affairs.  now, these people are marginalized, unhappy, and suffering.  i would agree that the us  should  adjust its foreign policy to make it fairer and make economic growth more inclusive to everyone, but that is a far cry from  withdrawing our military from the world stage,  as you suggest.  also, an aside: i firmly believe the us military is overfunded and overarmed much more than necessary .  i do not have the numbers for this, but i think we could slash our military budget significantly without really harming our standing as a global power.   #  the us is also the central part of nato, the most overpowered and dominant military alliance in human history.   #  it is not though.  let is be real here.  the us produces 0 of the worlds total economic output.  the us military is the most dominant and undisputed military force in human history.  the us is also the central part of nato, the most overpowered and dominant military alliance in human history.  nato, as a whole, spends roughly 0 of the worlds total military expenditures.  most of the eu is in nato, therefore the us and the eu are essentially on the same side on most global issues.  so, if you look at it, it is the us/nato/eu   all of america is other allies vs.  russia and china, both of which do not have very many allies, especially when compared to the us.  if we dig even deeper, you will see that the few allies russia and china  do  have, they are nowhere near as powerful as america is allies which is pretty much all of europe, japan, south korea, canada etc.  the world we live in now is as unipolar as it gets.  the us is the global economic and military superpower and it really does not have any real competition.  we are no where near a 0 scenario.  if a war were to break out today, america is side would win without much of a fight considering no nukes are used .  i mean, you ca not really argue it any other way.  there is no competition.   #  it cannot be for every interest but serious ones which have grave consequences i. e.   #  but i am not saying that everything that affects the us should be intervened with.  only those issue with interfere with our interests past a certain degree.  and all other developed countries issues are aligned with the us  interests so hence when we interfere to defend our interests other countries interests are  usually  defended as well.  you ca not possibly think that its good for the us to not interfere in other countries when we need to protect our interests.  it cannot be for every interest but serious ones which have grave consequences i. e.  no access to oil  #  as a wealthy, powerful nation, we have created a society that is more equitable and generated a plethora of knowledge.   #    no nation is perfect, but i agree that our role as a superpower has brought stability.  it wo not last forever, but for us to take a neutral stance on world affairs would create a vacuum for other nations.  we do not need to get into every petty squabble, however.  china, for instance, has much greater income inequality and documented human rights abuses.  as a wealthy, powerful nation, we have created a society that is more equitable and generated a plethora of knowledge.  it is important that we continue defending the gains that not only the us has made, but other countries have made, too.
the us has friendly and weak neighbors.  the us has the most powerful military in the world.  the us has the most armed civilian population in the world.  the us is protected by two huge oceans.  us foreign policy wastes our time, money, lives and creates new enemies leading to decreases in quality of life and civil liberties.  many of the usa is foreign threats are self caused through meddling, intervention, wars abroad. do we see al qaeda threatening switzerland or finland ? us policies reduce its citizens economic and opportunities.  as a citizen, i would get the most from my tax dollars and government services if the us adopted a swiss like neutral foreign policy.  other first world examples of countries with a neutral foreign policy switzerland, sweden, norway, finland are all richer, safer and have better quality of life than the us.   #  as a citizen, i would get the most from my tax dollars and government services if the us adopted a swiss like neutral foreign policy.   #  extremely doubtful, you are benefiting extremely from current policies, and there is no real historic precedent for a global leader like the usa gaining anything from withdrawing completely from the global theater.   # i really disagree with this.  how does it waste our time, firstly ? we are far to large and important to just sit back like the nordic countries you listed.  you realize that we are the third most populous country in the world URL fourth largest by landmass URL and the 0 militarily, economically, and arguably in technology.  when we move, everything else reacts.  we ca not just shrivel up on ourselves and ignore the world.  we are, if not literally, extremely figuratively, the leaders of the world.  for every shit hole we waste our time with in shit stani stan, we spend countless more humanitarian aid to other equally shitty countries who are extremely grateful.  for every enemy we create, we make 0 more friends.  many of the usa is foreign threats are also a direct result of being the biggest and easiest target.  who gives a fuck about switzerland ? the landlocked, marginal population who is current global contributions are chocolate and watches ? the usa brings change everywhere.  where in the world ca not you find a coke ? a marlboro ? a budweiser ? it is our global reach is what rustles jimmies.  quite the contrary, if it were not for us policies and influence a lot of global trade and international business opportunities would simply not exist.  the us navy conducts training exercises every year in south east asia URL this is, for many of their countries, their only direct interactions with americans.  we all get together, sail around in some circles, play pretend war, blow some shit up, and get together for a few beers.  friendships are established, good will is earned.  then, what do you know ? there is some tariffs and taxes that are restructured, sea countries media spin positive press about the usa, hearts and minds are won.  john doe has an easier time establishing an import/export business in one of these countries, improving the lives of everybody involved.  extremely doubtful, you are benefiting extremely from current policies, and there is no real historic precedent for a global leader like the usa gaining anything from withdrawing completely from the global theater.  the examples of neutral foreign policy you list also, extremely conveniently, benefit heavily from the stability of the nato alliance.  i doubt they would be as great if there were much more turmoil and their back yards.   #  everyone reaps a lot of rewards from trade.   #  we receive so many benefits we do not fully appreciate by being  the  military power.  we can and do use our military as leverage to influence other nations into enterring agreements that are mutually beneficial, but more favorable to us.  we can persuade people that would otherwise  not  do our bidding into doing it.  when we successfully stabilize a country, we get first dibs on the spoils.  sure, a lot of this growth goes towards to the wealthy elite, but there are other side effects that benefit everyone.  everyone reaps a lot of rewards from trade.  if the us were to step away from this role, china and russia would certainly take over.  this would lead to more pro chinese and russian foreign policies and trade agreements among smaller and middle income countries, which would weaken us economic interests and by extension, its wealth, in an increasingly globalized economy.  aside from that, having a strong global hegemon is the most stable state of international affairs the world has experienced to date, and stability is good for trade.  good trade means people are wealthier, and their wealth is interdepent on each other.  wealthy people have less reason to go to war.  wars are expensive, destructive and bad for trade.  as it stands right now, the us just has to whip misbehaving countries back in line.  we have stacked the deck enough in our favor to make being the hegemon worthwhile, while keeping the risk of full scale war down to virtually nill.  terrorism has been the game changer, since now people with no  legitimate  authority are using violence to try to influence global affairs.  now, these people are marginalized, unhappy, and suffering.  i would agree that the us  should  adjust its foreign policy to make it fairer and make economic growth more inclusive to everyone, but that is a far cry from  withdrawing our military from the world stage,  as you suggest.  also, an aside: i firmly believe the us military is overfunded and overarmed much more than necessary .  i do not have the numbers for this, but i think we could slash our military budget significantly without really harming our standing as a global power.   #  we are no where near a 0 scenario.  if a war were to break out today, america is side would win without much of a fight considering no nukes are used .   #  it is not though.  let is be real here.  the us produces 0 of the worlds total economic output.  the us military is the most dominant and undisputed military force in human history.  the us is also the central part of nato, the most overpowered and dominant military alliance in human history.  nato, as a whole, spends roughly 0 of the worlds total military expenditures.  most of the eu is in nato, therefore the us and the eu are essentially on the same side on most global issues.  so, if you look at it, it is the us/nato/eu   all of america is other allies vs.  russia and china, both of which do not have very many allies, especially when compared to the us.  if we dig even deeper, you will see that the few allies russia and china  do  have, they are nowhere near as powerful as america is allies which is pretty much all of europe, japan, south korea, canada etc.  the world we live in now is as unipolar as it gets.  the us is the global economic and military superpower and it really does not have any real competition.  we are no where near a 0 scenario.  if a war were to break out today, america is side would win without much of a fight considering no nukes are used .  i mean, you ca not really argue it any other way.  there is no competition.   #  only those issue with interfere with our interests past a certain degree.   #  but i am not saying that everything that affects the us should be intervened with.  only those issue with interfere with our interests past a certain degree.  and all other developed countries issues are aligned with the us  interests so hence when we interfere to defend our interests other countries interests are  usually  defended as well.  you ca not possibly think that its good for the us to not interfere in other countries when we need to protect our interests.  it cannot be for every interest but serious ones which have grave consequences i. e.  no access to oil  #  it wo not last forever, but for us to take a neutral stance on world affairs would create a vacuum for other nations.   #    no nation is perfect, but i agree that our role as a superpower has brought stability.  it wo not last forever, but for us to take a neutral stance on world affairs would create a vacuum for other nations.  we do not need to get into every petty squabble, however.  china, for instance, has much greater income inequality and documented human rights abuses.  as a wealthy, powerful nation, we have created a society that is more equitable and generated a plethora of knowledge.  it is important that we continue defending the gains that not only the us has made, but other countries have made, too.
the us has friendly and weak neighbors.  the us has the most powerful military in the world.  the us has the most armed civilian population in the world.  the us is protected by two huge oceans.  us foreign policy wastes our time, money, lives and creates new enemies leading to decreases in quality of life and civil liberties.  many of the usa is foreign threats are self caused through meddling, intervention, wars abroad. do we see al qaeda threatening switzerland or finland ? us policies reduce its citizens economic and opportunities.  as a citizen, i would get the most from my tax dollars and government services if the us adopted a swiss like neutral foreign policy.  other first world examples of countries with a neutral foreign policy switzerland, sweden, norway, finland are all richer, safer and have better quality of life than the us.   #  as a citizen, i would get the most from my tax dollars and government services if the us adopted a swiss like neutral foreign policy.   #  the only thing is you might not.   # the only thing is you might not.  our foreign policy is mostly centered on protecting and expanding our economic positions.  the way we import and export goods are all dictated by the policies we have set and vise versa.  we would not have the purchasing power that we do if it was not for our non neutral stance.  also, if we did not actively seek to promote our position we would most definitely be losing out on opportunities that would then be taken by our competitors read: china, india, eu, russia, brazil .  our policies are as much to keep those at bay as they are to promote us.  going static on that would leave us boxed in, and in a potentially bad position.  also, the countries you listed are all much smaller than the us, and supported by huge natural resource supplies that support just about everything in their system.  they can afford to be neutral because they have the resources to do so.  the us does not have the ability to do that and maintain our current level of comfort.   #  good trade means people are wealthier, and their wealth is interdepent on each other.   #  we receive so many benefits we do not fully appreciate by being  the  military power.  we can and do use our military as leverage to influence other nations into enterring agreements that are mutually beneficial, but more favorable to us.  we can persuade people that would otherwise  not  do our bidding into doing it.  when we successfully stabilize a country, we get first dibs on the spoils.  sure, a lot of this growth goes towards to the wealthy elite, but there are other side effects that benefit everyone.  everyone reaps a lot of rewards from trade.  if the us were to step away from this role, china and russia would certainly take over.  this would lead to more pro chinese and russian foreign policies and trade agreements among smaller and middle income countries, which would weaken us economic interests and by extension, its wealth, in an increasingly globalized economy.  aside from that, having a strong global hegemon is the most stable state of international affairs the world has experienced to date, and stability is good for trade.  good trade means people are wealthier, and their wealth is interdepent on each other.  wealthy people have less reason to go to war.  wars are expensive, destructive and bad for trade.  as it stands right now, the us just has to whip misbehaving countries back in line.  we have stacked the deck enough in our favor to make being the hegemon worthwhile, while keeping the risk of full scale war down to virtually nill.  terrorism has been the game changer, since now people with no  legitimate  authority are using violence to try to influence global affairs.  now, these people are marginalized, unhappy, and suffering.  i would agree that the us  should  adjust its foreign policy to make it fairer and make economic growth more inclusive to everyone, but that is a far cry from  withdrawing our military from the world stage,  as you suggest.  also, an aside: i firmly believe the us military is overfunded and overarmed much more than necessary .  i do not have the numbers for this, but i think we could slash our military budget significantly without really harming our standing as a global power.   #  the us is the global economic and military superpower and it really does not have any real competition.   #  it is not though.  let is be real here.  the us produces 0 of the worlds total economic output.  the us military is the most dominant and undisputed military force in human history.  the us is also the central part of nato, the most overpowered and dominant military alliance in human history.  nato, as a whole, spends roughly 0 of the worlds total military expenditures.  most of the eu is in nato, therefore the us and the eu are essentially on the same side on most global issues.  so, if you look at it, it is the us/nato/eu   all of america is other allies vs.  russia and china, both of which do not have very many allies, especially when compared to the us.  if we dig even deeper, you will see that the few allies russia and china  do  have, they are nowhere near as powerful as america is allies which is pretty much all of europe, japan, south korea, canada etc.  the world we live in now is as unipolar as it gets.  the us is the global economic and military superpower and it really does not have any real competition.  we are no where near a 0 scenario.  if a war were to break out today, america is side would win without much of a fight considering no nukes are used .  i mean, you ca not really argue it any other way.  there is no competition.   #  you ca not possibly think that its good for the us to not interfere in other countries when we need to protect our interests.   #  but i am not saying that everything that affects the us should be intervened with.  only those issue with interfere with our interests past a certain degree.  and all other developed countries issues are aligned with the us  interests so hence when we interfere to defend our interests other countries interests are  usually  defended as well.  you ca not possibly think that its good for the us to not interfere in other countries when we need to protect our interests.  it cannot be for every interest but serious ones which have grave consequences i. e.  no access to oil  #  it is important that we continue defending the gains that not only the us has made, but other countries have made, too.   #    no nation is perfect, but i agree that our role as a superpower has brought stability.  it wo not last forever, but for us to take a neutral stance on world affairs would create a vacuum for other nations.  we do not need to get into every petty squabble, however.  china, for instance, has much greater income inequality and documented human rights abuses.  as a wealthy, powerful nation, we have created a society that is more equitable and generated a plethora of knowledge.  it is important that we continue defending the gains that not only the us has made, but other countries have made, too.
the us has friendly and weak neighbors.  the us has the most powerful military in the world.  the us has the most armed civilian population in the world.  the us is protected by two huge oceans.  us foreign policy wastes our time, money, lives and creates new enemies leading to decreases in quality of life and civil liberties.  many of the usa is foreign threats are self caused through meddling, intervention, wars abroad. do we see al qaeda threatening switzerland or finland ? us policies reduce its citizens economic and opportunities.  as a citizen, i would get the most from my tax dollars and government services if the us adopted a swiss like neutral foreign policy.  other first world examples of countries with a neutral foreign policy switzerland, sweden, norway, finland are all richer, safer and have better quality of life than the us.   #  the us is protected by two huge oceans.   #  they have not protected us since day one.   # can you be more specific ? canada and mexico are not weak.  they have not protected us since day one.  examples ? yes we do.  URL URL finns have been kidnapped by a splinter group called abu sayyaf.  finland actually will pay the ransom, so al qaeda definitely targets the finns: URL  us policies reduce its citizens economic and opportunities.  examples ? to secretly fund the nazis ? apples v.  oranges comparison.   #  as it stands right now, the us just has to whip misbehaving countries back in line.   #  we receive so many benefits we do not fully appreciate by being  the  military power.  we can and do use our military as leverage to influence other nations into enterring agreements that are mutually beneficial, but more favorable to us.  we can persuade people that would otherwise  not  do our bidding into doing it.  when we successfully stabilize a country, we get first dibs on the spoils.  sure, a lot of this growth goes towards to the wealthy elite, but there are other side effects that benefit everyone.  everyone reaps a lot of rewards from trade.  if the us were to step away from this role, china and russia would certainly take over.  this would lead to more pro chinese and russian foreign policies and trade agreements among smaller and middle income countries, which would weaken us economic interests and by extension, its wealth, in an increasingly globalized economy.  aside from that, having a strong global hegemon is the most stable state of international affairs the world has experienced to date, and stability is good for trade.  good trade means people are wealthier, and their wealth is interdepent on each other.  wealthy people have less reason to go to war.  wars are expensive, destructive and bad for trade.  as it stands right now, the us just has to whip misbehaving countries back in line.  we have stacked the deck enough in our favor to make being the hegemon worthwhile, while keeping the risk of full scale war down to virtually nill.  terrorism has been the game changer, since now people with no  legitimate  authority are using violence to try to influence global affairs.  now, these people are marginalized, unhappy, and suffering.  i would agree that the us  should  adjust its foreign policy to make it fairer and make economic growth more inclusive to everyone, but that is a far cry from  withdrawing our military from the world stage,  as you suggest.  also, an aside: i firmly believe the us military is overfunded and overarmed much more than necessary .  i do not have the numbers for this, but i think we could slash our military budget significantly without really harming our standing as a global power.   #  the us is the global economic and military superpower and it really does not have any real competition.   #  it is not though.  let is be real here.  the us produces 0 of the worlds total economic output.  the us military is the most dominant and undisputed military force in human history.  the us is also the central part of nato, the most overpowered and dominant military alliance in human history.  nato, as a whole, spends roughly 0 of the worlds total military expenditures.  most of the eu is in nato, therefore the us and the eu are essentially on the same side on most global issues.  so, if you look at it, it is the us/nato/eu   all of america is other allies vs.  russia and china, both of which do not have very many allies, especially when compared to the us.  if we dig even deeper, you will see that the few allies russia and china  do  have, they are nowhere near as powerful as america is allies which is pretty much all of europe, japan, south korea, canada etc.  the world we live in now is as unipolar as it gets.  the us is the global economic and military superpower and it really does not have any real competition.  we are no where near a 0 scenario.  if a war were to break out today, america is side would win without much of a fight considering no nukes are used .  i mean, you ca not really argue it any other way.  there is no competition.   #  but i am not saying that everything that affects the us should be intervened with.   #  but i am not saying that everything that affects the us should be intervened with.  only those issue with interfere with our interests past a certain degree.  and all other developed countries issues are aligned with the us  interests so hence when we interfere to defend our interests other countries interests are  usually  defended as well.  you ca not possibly think that its good for the us to not interfere in other countries when we need to protect our interests.  it cannot be for every interest but serious ones which have grave consequences i. e.  no access to oil  #  it wo not last forever, but for us to take a neutral stance on world affairs would create a vacuum for other nations.   #    no nation is perfect, but i agree that our role as a superpower has brought stability.  it wo not last forever, but for us to take a neutral stance on world affairs would create a vacuum for other nations.  we do not need to get into every petty squabble, however.  china, for instance, has much greater income inequality and documented human rights abuses.  as a wealthy, powerful nation, we have created a society that is more equitable and generated a plethora of knowledge.  it is important that we continue defending the gains that not only the us has made, but other countries have made, too.
all of these videos of bad cops are complete bullshit or should i say the public is opinion on cops are complete bullshit.  i was inspired to submit this post due to a recent front page post that had a score of 0  showing a few videos of police officers taking advantage of their power and severally beating the innocent, with heavily supported comments along the lines of  cops are able to lie on their reports and get away with whatever they want !   the facts are as follows: 0 there are different kinds of people in any profession who range from taking their jobs seriously to not seriously, and range from shitty to fantastic at their choice of profession.  0 we do not know the exact details of these situations prior to most of these videos.  my uncle is a cop, and hates his life when he gets a neighbor hood complaint call to go to a low rental home and deal with an abusive husband.  he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! to clarify; i think these officers abusing their uniform are repulsive.  i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.   #  to clarify; i think these officers abusing their uniform are repulsive.   #  i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.   # i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.  i think you will find that most people protesting police abuse do not expect the police to be 0 pure and to always make the right choice, but rather we just want it to be addressed adequately when police blatantly do bad things and/or hurt people because of incredibly bad decisions.  as it stands, too often that is not the case.  the man shot in wal mart for having a toy gun ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of it happening and that video shows the man was not acting threatening at all ? police choke a man to death ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of the killing ? police steal a thousand dollars from a man while a bunch of other police watch ? ai not been punished yet, despite the video.  police toss a flashbang into a child is crib, mutilating him for life ? no charges, no punishment.  quite frankly, we are not just mad that these things happen, we are mad that they happen and nothing gets done.  this is like the difference between the catholic church and its history of covering up sexual abuse vs.  some church where a preacher was sexually abusing kids but the church reported him to the police upon finding out.  the problem is the unaccountably.   #  when the general population notices the police are above the law it leads to widespread disapproval.   #  no one here is going to convince you to hate your uncle, who is a cop.  let us assume your uncle is a shining example of what we all want cops to be.  his awesomeness is not under question.  in attempt to keep this brief i will focus on two main points.  as the old saying goes, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.  it is not just a clever saying either, literally, one spoiled apple in a 0 gallon barrel is enough to cause widespread rotting in all the other apples that would otherwise be nice and crisp.  it is an apt metaphor when applied to cops.  adrien schoolcraft was a new york cop who gave police investigators evidence of widespread corruption and wrongdoing.  in return he was demoted to a desk job, harassed, and forcibly committed to a psychiatric hospital in retaliation.  there is an extremely strong tendency for good cops to just go along with whatever the bad cops are doing, or they can commit career suicide like mr.  schoolcraft.  the veteran officers are less likely to stick up for what is right with their pensions on the line.  this tendency for the good cops to follow the bad cops lead, on threat of very strong organizational push back, makes the good cops appear no different from the bad cops to the public.  these bad apples are very well documented, and the effect they have on the good apples is readily apparent.  the word of a cop is often the most significant evidence used to bring about justice.  a judge is always going to believe the word of a cop over that of the accused.  to serve their purpose in our criminal justice system police need to be above reproach.  and for the most part, the police are indeed above reproach.  the problem is we have mountains of evidence that demonstrates they should not be.  lisa steed arrested dozens of sober people for dui so her numbers would look good, and had no issues lying about it to judges.  kelly thomas was beat to death with little justification.  when the general population notices the police are above the law it leads to widespread disapproval.  reproach is warranted.  hatred is certainly unproductive, but for many of us it is not about hate.  i love this country and i love liberty, which is why i believe it is so important for us to acknowledge police wrongdoing and fix the system.  what you see is not hatred, but what i hope to be the beginning of change for the better.   #  in other words, the problem is not that corruption exists the problem is that we continue to let it exists.   #  i feel cops as a social institution are supposed to be moral enforcers of laws that we as a society have agreed upon.  if there are a few officers i would argue that there has to be at least a majority but that is not my intent that do use there job as moral enforcers for personal gain then they have violated a social agreement that they owe to the people and should be stripped of their power.  i would say that the fact that you are suppose to be a moral person and you are not out weighs the percentage of how many people actually do it.  in other words, the problem is not that corruption exists the problem is that we continue to let it exists.  if my children ever wish to be cops or any other public office i would teach them that only people with high objective morals should be put in those positions and that justice should be the end cause.  this is a slippery slope that will only lead to a wholly corrupt system and by saying that keeping corruption low is a winning effort then corruption has won.  it has imposed itself upon you and now there can never be anything else.  publioc office has become a fiasco where they think that they clock in and have to answer to somebody higher than them because of the hierarchy of those social institutions but at the end of the day those social institutions are supposed to be for the better of the people.  many forget that they public office work for the people not above them.   #  it is the only course of action that is available to joe q.  public that can start to address the destruction of the trust that is necessary for police to do their jobs.   #  just to pile on: when the organization/institution does not respond appropriately to clear and evidenced transgressions committed by individual members the whole organization/institution is tarnished by those transgressions.  furthermore, with each failure to respond it becomes less and less likely that those transgressions will even be reported or identified.  and lastly, when a relationship is built upon trust it is incredibly fragile from the beginning as even perceived breaks in that trust, let alone real breaks, completely cripple the function of that relationship.  so when individual officers do things like the incidents that /u/der untermench cited and their departments fail to take action, when das refuse to press charges when crimes are committed outside sovereign immunity and when police hide and cover for their brothers and sisters, making a big deal about it,  hating , is actually the best course of action.  it is the only course of action that is available to joe q.  public that can start to address the destruction of the trust that is necessary for police to do their jobs.  if joe was to ignore those acts, and sit quite, then there could be no hope for rebuilding that trust because those real and evidenced grievances ca not be addressed if they continue and if they are not known.   #  lets say a police officer abuses someone which results in them ending up in the hospital.   #  i think the problem is what type of punishment people expect to be handed down.  lets say a police officer abuses someone which results in them ending up in the hospital.  a complaint is filed against the officer and an investigation ensues.  in a situation like this, people generally say things along the lines of,  that officer deserves to be suspended without pay or needs to be fired right away !   what typically happens instead is that the officer is suspended with pay until an investigation can be completed, which angers people even more because in their minds this is just giving officers a paid vacation for abusing citizens.  what is really being done is removing the officer from anymore potentially bad situations for the officers while still paying him/her so they can support themselves/their families.  how fair would it be to fire an officer or suspend them without pay without first investigating what happened ? this would essentially be saying that the officer in question is guilty until they are found innocent, which is the opposite idea of what our justice system is supposed to be about.
all of these videos of bad cops are complete bullshit or should i say the public is opinion on cops are complete bullshit.  i was inspired to submit this post due to a recent front page post that had a score of 0  showing a few videos of police officers taking advantage of their power and severally beating the innocent, with heavily supported comments along the lines of  cops are able to lie on their reports and get away with whatever they want !   the facts are as follows: 0 there are different kinds of people in any profession who range from taking their jobs seriously to not seriously, and range from shitty to fantastic at their choice of profession.  0 we do not know the exact details of these situations prior to most of these videos.  my uncle is a cop, and hates his life when he gets a neighbor hood complaint call to go to a low rental home and deal with an abusive husband.  he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! to clarify; i think these officers abusing their uniform are repulsive.  i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.   #  0 there are different kinds of people in any profession who range from taking their jobs seriously to not seriously, and range from shitty to fantastic at their choice of profession.   #  we hold many professions to very high standards, especially notable are hospitals and doctors.   # we hold many professions to very high standards, especially notable are hospitals and doctors.  if there is a shitty surgeon who is patients are often dying or constantly developing complications, they rarely get to keep their license or keep practicing.  conversely, there is a lot of shitty cops who get to keep their jobs because they  just have not fucked up bad enough , despite having repeated infractions for fucking up.  there are also a lot of really shitty police departments in cities, with continual history of being awful.  that is what rubs people the wrong way, not that cops are imperfect, but that far too often the lousy ones are allowed to keep their jobs.  or worse, when they collectively fuck up, not a god damned thing happens to anybody.  like when they kill a 0 year old and get acquitted URL or when they raid the wrong home and kill an innocent man who think he is defending his property.  URL while basically failing to do any kind of due diligence that would be expected for such a show of force.  or when they raid the wrong home and just beat the family inside URL and then try to cover their tracks by saying the family attacked them.  what we are seeing as more and more of these cell phone videos released, is that there are serious problems with accountability, training, and use of force by our police nationwide.  he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! because they are the enforcers of the law, and i expect the utmost in every encounter.  they wield deadly force and authorized to use it.  a bad decision day for them means an innocent life lost, or permanently damaged.  they better be fucking perfect, as much as fucking possible.  i do not want lazy fuck larry with multiple blemishes on his record for excessive force answering my call for help.  there is a good chance all i am doing when i call the police is inviting a 0 legal ass beating from a guy  who is have a tough day on a tough job .  when i show up with a busted face and broken bones, i will be met with the thin blue line of police solidarity:  hey man, sorry you got beat, but it is a tough job.  better luck next time.   does not fucking cut it.  guess the fuck what ? nobody forced you to be a cop.  you do not want that stress ? do not fucking do it.  there is a serious lack of accountability in our police force, and innocents are being harmed through this lack of  perfection , and worse, these perpetrators get away with it more often than not.  maybe, if somebody is lucky enough to have a mountain of evidence, they get sentenced for their crime, or there is a monetary settlement.  but that is the exception, not the rule.   #  this tendency for the good cops to follow the bad cops lead, on threat of very strong organizational push back, makes the good cops appear no different from the bad cops to the public.   #  no one here is going to convince you to hate your uncle, who is a cop.  let us assume your uncle is a shining example of what we all want cops to be.  his awesomeness is not under question.  in attempt to keep this brief i will focus on two main points.  as the old saying goes, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.  it is not just a clever saying either, literally, one spoiled apple in a 0 gallon barrel is enough to cause widespread rotting in all the other apples that would otherwise be nice and crisp.  it is an apt metaphor when applied to cops.  adrien schoolcraft was a new york cop who gave police investigators evidence of widespread corruption and wrongdoing.  in return he was demoted to a desk job, harassed, and forcibly committed to a psychiatric hospital in retaliation.  there is an extremely strong tendency for good cops to just go along with whatever the bad cops are doing, or they can commit career suicide like mr.  schoolcraft.  the veteran officers are less likely to stick up for what is right with their pensions on the line.  this tendency for the good cops to follow the bad cops lead, on threat of very strong organizational push back, makes the good cops appear no different from the bad cops to the public.  these bad apples are very well documented, and the effect they have on the good apples is readily apparent.  the word of a cop is often the most significant evidence used to bring about justice.  a judge is always going to believe the word of a cop over that of the accused.  to serve their purpose in our criminal justice system police need to be above reproach.  and for the most part, the police are indeed above reproach.  the problem is we have mountains of evidence that demonstrates they should not be.  lisa steed arrested dozens of sober people for dui so her numbers would look good, and had no issues lying about it to judges.  kelly thomas was beat to death with little justification.  when the general population notices the police are above the law it leads to widespread disapproval.  reproach is warranted.  hatred is certainly unproductive, but for many of us it is not about hate.  i love this country and i love liberty, which is why i believe it is so important for us to acknowledge police wrongdoing and fix the system.  what you see is not hatred, but what i hope to be the beginning of change for the better.   #  if my children ever wish to be cops or any other public office i would teach them that only people with high objective morals should be put in those positions and that justice should be the end cause.   #  i feel cops as a social institution are supposed to be moral enforcers of laws that we as a society have agreed upon.  if there are a few officers i would argue that there has to be at least a majority but that is not my intent that do use there job as moral enforcers for personal gain then they have violated a social agreement that they owe to the people and should be stripped of their power.  i would say that the fact that you are suppose to be a moral person and you are not out weighs the percentage of how many people actually do it.  in other words, the problem is not that corruption exists the problem is that we continue to let it exists.  if my children ever wish to be cops or any other public office i would teach them that only people with high objective morals should be put in those positions and that justice should be the end cause.  this is a slippery slope that will only lead to a wholly corrupt system and by saying that keeping corruption low is a winning effort then corruption has won.  it has imposed itself upon you and now there can never be anything else.  publioc office has become a fiasco where they think that they clock in and have to answer to somebody higher than them because of the hierarchy of those social institutions but at the end of the day those social institutions are supposed to be for the better of the people.  many forget that they public office work for the people not above them.   #  no charges, despite the fact that we have video of it happening and that video shows the man was not acting threatening at all ?  # i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.  i think you will find that most people protesting police abuse do not expect the police to be 0 pure and to always make the right choice, but rather we just want it to be addressed adequately when police blatantly do bad things and/or hurt people because of incredibly bad decisions.  as it stands, too often that is not the case.  the man shot in wal mart for having a toy gun ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of it happening and that video shows the man was not acting threatening at all ? police choke a man to death ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of the killing ? police steal a thousand dollars from a man while a bunch of other police watch ? ai not been punished yet, despite the video.  police toss a flashbang into a child is crib, mutilating him for life ? no charges, no punishment.  quite frankly, we are not just mad that these things happen, we are mad that they happen and nothing gets done.  this is like the difference between the catholic church and its history of covering up sexual abuse vs.  some church where a preacher was sexually abusing kids but the church reported him to the police upon finding out.  the problem is the unaccountably.   #  it is the only course of action that is available to joe q.  public that can start to address the destruction of the trust that is necessary for police to do their jobs.   #  just to pile on: when the organization/institution does not respond appropriately to clear and evidenced transgressions committed by individual members the whole organization/institution is tarnished by those transgressions.  furthermore, with each failure to respond it becomes less and less likely that those transgressions will even be reported or identified.  and lastly, when a relationship is built upon trust it is incredibly fragile from the beginning as even perceived breaks in that trust, let alone real breaks, completely cripple the function of that relationship.  so when individual officers do things like the incidents that /u/der untermench cited and their departments fail to take action, when das refuse to press charges when crimes are committed outside sovereign immunity and when police hide and cover for their brothers and sisters, making a big deal about it,  hating , is actually the best course of action.  it is the only course of action that is available to joe q.  public that can start to address the destruction of the trust that is necessary for police to do their jobs.  if joe was to ignore those acts, and sit quite, then there could be no hope for rebuilding that trust because those real and evidenced grievances ca not be addressed if they continue and if they are not known.
all of these videos of bad cops are complete bullshit or should i say the public is opinion on cops are complete bullshit.  i was inspired to submit this post due to a recent front page post that had a score of 0  showing a few videos of police officers taking advantage of their power and severally beating the innocent, with heavily supported comments along the lines of  cops are able to lie on their reports and get away with whatever they want !   the facts are as follows: 0 there are different kinds of people in any profession who range from taking their jobs seriously to not seriously, and range from shitty to fantastic at their choice of profession.  0 we do not know the exact details of these situations prior to most of these videos.  my uncle is a cop, and hates his life when he gets a neighbor hood complaint call to go to a low rental home and deal with an abusive husband.  he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! to clarify; i think these officers abusing their uniform are repulsive.  i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.   #  my uncle is a cop, and hates his life when he gets a neighbor hood complaint call to go to a low rental home and deal with an abusive husband.   #  he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.   # we hold many professions to very high standards, especially notable are hospitals and doctors.  if there is a shitty surgeon who is patients are often dying or constantly developing complications, they rarely get to keep their license or keep practicing.  conversely, there is a lot of shitty cops who get to keep their jobs because they  just have not fucked up bad enough , despite having repeated infractions for fucking up.  there are also a lot of really shitty police departments in cities, with continual history of being awful.  that is what rubs people the wrong way, not that cops are imperfect, but that far too often the lousy ones are allowed to keep their jobs.  or worse, when they collectively fuck up, not a god damned thing happens to anybody.  like when they kill a 0 year old and get acquitted URL or when they raid the wrong home and kill an innocent man who think he is defending his property.  URL while basically failing to do any kind of due diligence that would be expected for such a show of force.  or when they raid the wrong home and just beat the family inside URL and then try to cover their tracks by saying the family attacked them.  what we are seeing as more and more of these cell phone videos released, is that there are serious problems with accountability, training, and use of force by our police nationwide.  he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! because they are the enforcers of the law, and i expect the utmost in every encounter.  they wield deadly force and authorized to use it.  a bad decision day for them means an innocent life lost, or permanently damaged.  they better be fucking perfect, as much as fucking possible.  i do not want lazy fuck larry with multiple blemishes on his record for excessive force answering my call for help.  there is a good chance all i am doing when i call the police is inviting a 0 legal ass beating from a guy  who is have a tough day on a tough job .  when i show up with a busted face and broken bones, i will be met with the thin blue line of police solidarity:  hey man, sorry you got beat, but it is a tough job.  better luck next time.   does not fucking cut it.  guess the fuck what ? nobody forced you to be a cop.  you do not want that stress ? do not fucking do it.  there is a serious lack of accountability in our police force, and innocents are being harmed through this lack of  perfection , and worse, these perpetrators get away with it more often than not.  maybe, if somebody is lucky enough to have a mountain of evidence, they get sentenced for their crime, or there is a monetary settlement.  but that is the exception, not the rule.   #  lisa steed arrested dozens of sober people for dui so her numbers would look good, and had no issues lying about it to judges.   #  no one here is going to convince you to hate your uncle, who is a cop.  let us assume your uncle is a shining example of what we all want cops to be.  his awesomeness is not under question.  in attempt to keep this brief i will focus on two main points.  as the old saying goes, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.  it is not just a clever saying either, literally, one spoiled apple in a 0 gallon barrel is enough to cause widespread rotting in all the other apples that would otherwise be nice and crisp.  it is an apt metaphor when applied to cops.  adrien schoolcraft was a new york cop who gave police investigators evidence of widespread corruption and wrongdoing.  in return he was demoted to a desk job, harassed, and forcibly committed to a psychiatric hospital in retaliation.  there is an extremely strong tendency for good cops to just go along with whatever the bad cops are doing, or they can commit career suicide like mr.  schoolcraft.  the veteran officers are less likely to stick up for what is right with their pensions on the line.  this tendency for the good cops to follow the bad cops lead, on threat of very strong organizational push back, makes the good cops appear no different from the bad cops to the public.  these bad apples are very well documented, and the effect they have on the good apples is readily apparent.  the word of a cop is often the most significant evidence used to bring about justice.  a judge is always going to believe the word of a cop over that of the accused.  to serve their purpose in our criminal justice system police need to be above reproach.  and for the most part, the police are indeed above reproach.  the problem is we have mountains of evidence that demonstrates they should not be.  lisa steed arrested dozens of sober people for dui so her numbers would look good, and had no issues lying about it to judges.  kelly thomas was beat to death with little justification.  when the general population notices the police are above the law it leads to widespread disapproval.  reproach is warranted.  hatred is certainly unproductive, but for many of us it is not about hate.  i love this country and i love liberty, which is why i believe it is so important for us to acknowledge police wrongdoing and fix the system.  what you see is not hatred, but what i hope to be the beginning of change for the better.   #  in other words, the problem is not that corruption exists the problem is that we continue to let it exists.   #  i feel cops as a social institution are supposed to be moral enforcers of laws that we as a society have agreed upon.  if there are a few officers i would argue that there has to be at least a majority but that is not my intent that do use there job as moral enforcers for personal gain then they have violated a social agreement that they owe to the people and should be stripped of their power.  i would say that the fact that you are suppose to be a moral person and you are not out weighs the percentage of how many people actually do it.  in other words, the problem is not that corruption exists the problem is that we continue to let it exists.  if my children ever wish to be cops or any other public office i would teach them that only people with high objective morals should be put in those positions and that justice should be the end cause.  this is a slippery slope that will only lead to a wholly corrupt system and by saying that keeping corruption low is a winning effort then corruption has won.  it has imposed itself upon you and now there can never be anything else.  publioc office has become a fiasco where they think that they clock in and have to answer to somebody higher than them because of the hierarchy of those social institutions but at the end of the day those social institutions are supposed to be for the better of the people.  many forget that they public office work for the people not above them.   #  as it stands, too often that is not the case.   # i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.  i think you will find that most people protesting police abuse do not expect the police to be 0 pure and to always make the right choice, but rather we just want it to be addressed adequately when police blatantly do bad things and/or hurt people because of incredibly bad decisions.  as it stands, too often that is not the case.  the man shot in wal mart for having a toy gun ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of it happening and that video shows the man was not acting threatening at all ? police choke a man to death ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of the killing ? police steal a thousand dollars from a man while a bunch of other police watch ? ai not been punished yet, despite the video.  police toss a flashbang into a child is crib, mutilating him for life ? no charges, no punishment.  quite frankly, we are not just mad that these things happen, we are mad that they happen and nothing gets done.  this is like the difference between the catholic church and its history of covering up sexual abuse vs.  some church where a preacher was sexually abusing kids but the church reported him to the police upon finding out.  the problem is the unaccountably.   #  if joe was to ignore those acts, and sit quite, then there could be no hope for rebuilding that trust because those real and evidenced grievances ca not be addressed if they continue and if they are not known.   #  just to pile on: when the organization/institution does not respond appropriately to clear and evidenced transgressions committed by individual members the whole organization/institution is tarnished by those transgressions.  furthermore, with each failure to respond it becomes less and less likely that those transgressions will even be reported or identified.  and lastly, when a relationship is built upon trust it is incredibly fragile from the beginning as even perceived breaks in that trust, let alone real breaks, completely cripple the function of that relationship.  so when individual officers do things like the incidents that /u/der untermench cited and their departments fail to take action, when das refuse to press charges when crimes are committed outside sovereign immunity and when police hide and cover for their brothers and sisters, making a big deal about it,  hating , is actually the best course of action.  it is the only course of action that is available to joe q.  public that can start to address the destruction of the trust that is necessary for police to do their jobs.  if joe was to ignore those acts, and sit quite, then there could be no hope for rebuilding that trust because those real and evidenced grievances ca not be addressed if they continue and if they are not known.
all of these videos of bad cops are complete bullshit or should i say the public is opinion on cops are complete bullshit.  i was inspired to submit this post due to a recent front page post that had a score of 0  showing a few videos of police officers taking advantage of their power and severally beating the innocent, with heavily supported comments along the lines of  cops are able to lie on their reports and get away with whatever they want !   the facts are as follows: 0 there are different kinds of people in any profession who range from taking their jobs seriously to not seriously, and range from shitty to fantastic at their choice of profession.  0 we do not know the exact details of these situations prior to most of these videos.  my uncle is a cop, and hates his life when he gets a neighbor hood complaint call to go to a low rental home and deal with an abusive husband.  he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! to clarify; i think these officers abusing their uniform are repulsive.  i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.   #  the facts are as follows: 0 there are different kinds of people in any profession who range from taking their jobs seriously to not seriously, and range from shitty to fantastic at their choice of profession.   #  0 we do not know the exact details of these situations prior to most of these videos.   # so bigotry then ? other people is opinions who disagree with your opinions are bullshit ! ? ! yeah you sound like a cop defender.  0 we do not know the exact details of these situations prior to most of these videos.  so your  facts  are based on an argument from ignorance URL nice.  so far opinions that you disagree with are bullshit, and your facts are based on a logical fallacy.  do you happen to be a police officer yourself, your reasoning seems very similar to theirs ? he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! not perfect, just to follow the law, and be accountable to the same things we are held accountable for.  agreed, except when these bad cops are exposed as so, the police chief and union usually stand by them, and protect them.  the prosecutor often refuses to prosecute, and the bad cops get away with murder. literally.   #  and for the most part, the police are indeed above reproach.   #  no one here is going to convince you to hate your uncle, who is a cop.  let us assume your uncle is a shining example of what we all want cops to be.  his awesomeness is not under question.  in attempt to keep this brief i will focus on two main points.  as the old saying goes, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.  it is not just a clever saying either, literally, one spoiled apple in a 0 gallon barrel is enough to cause widespread rotting in all the other apples that would otherwise be nice and crisp.  it is an apt metaphor when applied to cops.  adrien schoolcraft was a new york cop who gave police investigators evidence of widespread corruption and wrongdoing.  in return he was demoted to a desk job, harassed, and forcibly committed to a psychiatric hospital in retaliation.  there is an extremely strong tendency for good cops to just go along with whatever the bad cops are doing, or they can commit career suicide like mr.  schoolcraft.  the veteran officers are less likely to stick up for what is right with their pensions on the line.  this tendency for the good cops to follow the bad cops lead, on threat of very strong organizational push back, makes the good cops appear no different from the bad cops to the public.  these bad apples are very well documented, and the effect they have on the good apples is readily apparent.  the word of a cop is often the most significant evidence used to bring about justice.  a judge is always going to believe the word of a cop over that of the accused.  to serve their purpose in our criminal justice system police need to be above reproach.  and for the most part, the police are indeed above reproach.  the problem is we have mountains of evidence that demonstrates they should not be.  lisa steed arrested dozens of sober people for dui so her numbers would look good, and had no issues lying about it to judges.  kelly thomas was beat to death with little justification.  when the general population notices the police are above the law it leads to widespread disapproval.  reproach is warranted.  hatred is certainly unproductive, but for many of us it is not about hate.  i love this country and i love liberty, which is why i believe it is so important for us to acknowledge police wrongdoing and fix the system.  what you see is not hatred, but what i hope to be the beginning of change for the better.   #  i feel cops as a social institution are supposed to be moral enforcers of laws that we as a society have agreed upon.   #  i feel cops as a social institution are supposed to be moral enforcers of laws that we as a society have agreed upon.  if there are a few officers i would argue that there has to be at least a majority but that is not my intent that do use there job as moral enforcers for personal gain then they have violated a social agreement that they owe to the people and should be stripped of their power.  i would say that the fact that you are suppose to be a moral person and you are not out weighs the percentage of how many people actually do it.  in other words, the problem is not that corruption exists the problem is that we continue to let it exists.  if my children ever wish to be cops or any other public office i would teach them that only people with high objective morals should be put in those positions and that justice should be the end cause.  this is a slippery slope that will only lead to a wholly corrupt system and by saying that keeping corruption low is a winning effort then corruption has won.  it has imposed itself upon you and now there can never be anything else.  publioc office has become a fiasco where they think that they clock in and have to answer to somebody higher than them because of the hierarchy of those social institutions but at the end of the day those social institutions are supposed to be for the better of the people.  many forget that they public office work for the people not above them.   #  i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.   # i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.  i think you will find that most people protesting police abuse do not expect the police to be 0 pure and to always make the right choice, but rather we just want it to be addressed adequately when police blatantly do bad things and/or hurt people because of incredibly bad decisions.  as it stands, too often that is not the case.  the man shot in wal mart for having a toy gun ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of it happening and that video shows the man was not acting threatening at all ? police choke a man to death ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of the killing ? police steal a thousand dollars from a man while a bunch of other police watch ? ai not been punished yet, despite the video.  police toss a flashbang into a child is crib, mutilating him for life ? no charges, no punishment.  quite frankly, we are not just mad that these things happen, we are mad that they happen and nothing gets done.  this is like the difference between the catholic church and its history of covering up sexual abuse vs.  some church where a preacher was sexually abusing kids but the church reported him to the police upon finding out.  the problem is the unaccountably.   #  furthermore, with each failure to respond it becomes less and less likely that those transgressions will even be reported or identified.   #  just to pile on: when the organization/institution does not respond appropriately to clear and evidenced transgressions committed by individual members the whole organization/institution is tarnished by those transgressions.  furthermore, with each failure to respond it becomes less and less likely that those transgressions will even be reported or identified.  and lastly, when a relationship is built upon trust it is incredibly fragile from the beginning as even perceived breaks in that trust, let alone real breaks, completely cripple the function of that relationship.  so when individual officers do things like the incidents that /u/der untermench cited and their departments fail to take action, when das refuse to press charges when crimes are committed outside sovereign immunity and when police hide and cover for their brothers and sisters, making a big deal about it,  hating , is actually the best course of action.  it is the only course of action that is available to joe q.  public that can start to address the destruction of the trust that is necessary for police to do their jobs.  if joe was to ignore those acts, and sit quite, then there could be no hope for rebuilding that trust because those real and evidenced grievances ca not be addressed if they continue and if they are not known.
all of these videos of bad cops are complete bullshit or should i say the public is opinion on cops are complete bullshit.  i was inspired to submit this post due to a recent front page post that had a score of 0  showing a few videos of police officers taking advantage of their power and severally beating the innocent, with heavily supported comments along the lines of  cops are able to lie on their reports and get away with whatever they want !   the facts are as follows: 0 there are different kinds of people in any profession who range from taking their jobs seriously to not seriously, and range from shitty to fantastic at their choice of profession.  0 we do not know the exact details of these situations prior to most of these videos.  my uncle is a cop, and hates his life when he gets a neighbor hood complaint call to go to a low rental home and deal with an abusive husband.  he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! to clarify; i think these officers abusing their uniform are repulsive.  i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.   #  my uncle is a cop, and hates his life when he gets a neighbor hood complaint call to go to a low rental home and deal with an abusive husband.   #  he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.   # so bigotry then ? other people is opinions who disagree with your opinions are bullshit ! ? ! yeah you sound like a cop defender.  0 we do not know the exact details of these situations prior to most of these videos.  so your  facts  are based on an argument from ignorance URL nice.  so far opinions that you disagree with are bullshit, and your facts are based on a logical fallacy.  do you happen to be a police officer yourself, your reasoning seems very similar to theirs ? he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! not perfect, just to follow the law, and be accountable to the same things we are held accountable for.  agreed, except when these bad cops are exposed as so, the police chief and union usually stand by them, and protect them.  the prosecutor often refuses to prosecute, and the bad cops get away with murder. literally.   #  these bad apples are very well documented, and the effect they have on the good apples is readily apparent.   #  no one here is going to convince you to hate your uncle, who is a cop.  let us assume your uncle is a shining example of what we all want cops to be.  his awesomeness is not under question.  in attempt to keep this brief i will focus on two main points.  as the old saying goes, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.  it is not just a clever saying either, literally, one spoiled apple in a 0 gallon barrel is enough to cause widespread rotting in all the other apples that would otherwise be nice and crisp.  it is an apt metaphor when applied to cops.  adrien schoolcraft was a new york cop who gave police investigators evidence of widespread corruption and wrongdoing.  in return he was demoted to a desk job, harassed, and forcibly committed to a psychiatric hospital in retaliation.  there is an extremely strong tendency for good cops to just go along with whatever the bad cops are doing, or they can commit career suicide like mr.  schoolcraft.  the veteran officers are less likely to stick up for what is right with their pensions on the line.  this tendency for the good cops to follow the bad cops lead, on threat of very strong organizational push back, makes the good cops appear no different from the bad cops to the public.  these bad apples are very well documented, and the effect they have on the good apples is readily apparent.  the word of a cop is often the most significant evidence used to bring about justice.  a judge is always going to believe the word of a cop over that of the accused.  to serve their purpose in our criminal justice system police need to be above reproach.  and for the most part, the police are indeed above reproach.  the problem is we have mountains of evidence that demonstrates they should not be.  lisa steed arrested dozens of sober people for dui so her numbers would look good, and had no issues lying about it to judges.  kelly thomas was beat to death with little justification.  when the general population notices the police are above the law it leads to widespread disapproval.  reproach is warranted.  hatred is certainly unproductive, but for many of us it is not about hate.  i love this country and i love liberty, which is why i believe it is so important for us to acknowledge police wrongdoing and fix the system.  what you see is not hatred, but what i hope to be the beginning of change for the better.   #  this is a slippery slope that will only lead to a wholly corrupt system and by saying that keeping corruption low is a winning effort then corruption has won.   #  i feel cops as a social institution are supposed to be moral enforcers of laws that we as a society have agreed upon.  if there are a few officers i would argue that there has to be at least a majority but that is not my intent that do use there job as moral enforcers for personal gain then they have violated a social agreement that they owe to the people and should be stripped of their power.  i would say that the fact that you are suppose to be a moral person and you are not out weighs the percentage of how many people actually do it.  in other words, the problem is not that corruption exists the problem is that we continue to let it exists.  if my children ever wish to be cops or any other public office i would teach them that only people with high objective morals should be put in those positions and that justice should be the end cause.  this is a slippery slope that will only lead to a wholly corrupt system and by saying that keeping corruption low is a winning effort then corruption has won.  it has imposed itself upon you and now there can never be anything else.  publioc office has become a fiasco where they think that they clock in and have to answer to somebody higher than them because of the hierarchy of those social institutions but at the end of the day those social institutions are supposed to be for the better of the people.  many forget that they public office work for the people not above them.   #  some church where a preacher was sexually abusing kids but the church reported him to the police upon finding out.   # i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.  i think you will find that most people protesting police abuse do not expect the police to be 0 pure and to always make the right choice, but rather we just want it to be addressed adequately when police blatantly do bad things and/or hurt people because of incredibly bad decisions.  as it stands, too often that is not the case.  the man shot in wal mart for having a toy gun ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of it happening and that video shows the man was not acting threatening at all ? police choke a man to death ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of the killing ? police steal a thousand dollars from a man while a bunch of other police watch ? ai not been punished yet, despite the video.  police toss a flashbang into a child is crib, mutilating him for life ? no charges, no punishment.  quite frankly, we are not just mad that these things happen, we are mad that they happen and nothing gets done.  this is like the difference between the catholic church and its history of covering up sexual abuse vs.  some church where a preacher was sexually abusing kids but the church reported him to the police upon finding out.  the problem is the unaccountably.   #  if joe was to ignore those acts, and sit quite, then there could be no hope for rebuilding that trust because those real and evidenced grievances ca not be addressed if they continue and if they are not known.   #  just to pile on: when the organization/institution does not respond appropriately to clear and evidenced transgressions committed by individual members the whole organization/institution is tarnished by those transgressions.  furthermore, with each failure to respond it becomes less and less likely that those transgressions will even be reported or identified.  and lastly, when a relationship is built upon trust it is incredibly fragile from the beginning as even perceived breaks in that trust, let alone real breaks, completely cripple the function of that relationship.  so when individual officers do things like the incidents that /u/der untermench cited and their departments fail to take action, when das refuse to press charges when crimes are committed outside sovereign immunity and when police hide and cover for their brothers and sisters, making a big deal about it,  hating , is actually the best course of action.  it is the only course of action that is available to joe q.  public that can start to address the destruction of the trust that is necessary for police to do their jobs.  if joe was to ignore those acts, and sit quite, then there could be no hope for rebuilding that trust because those real and evidenced grievances ca not be addressed if they continue and if they are not known.
all of these videos of bad cops are complete bullshit or should i say the public is opinion on cops are complete bullshit.  i was inspired to submit this post due to a recent front page post that had a score of 0  showing a few videos of police officers taking advantage of their power and severally beating the innocent, with heavily supported comments along the lines of  cops are able to lie on their reports and get away with whatever they want !   the facts are as follows: 0 there are different kinds of people in any profession who range from taking their jobs seriously to not seriously, and range from shitty to fantastic at their choice of profession.  0 we do not know the exact details of these situations prior to most of these videos.  my uncle is a cop, and hates his life when he gets a neighbor hood complaint call to go to a low rental home and deal with an abusive husband.  he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! to clarify; i think these officers abusing their uniform are repulsive.  i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.   #  i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.   #  agreed, except when these bad cops are exposed as so, the police chief and union usually stand by them, and protect them.   # so bigotry then ? other people is opinions who disagree with your opinions are bullshit ! ? ! yeah you sound like a cop defender.  0 we do not know the exact details of these situations prior to most of these videos.  so your  facts  are based on an argument from ignorance URL nice.  so far opinions that you disagree with are bullshit, and your facts are based on a logical fallacy.  do you happen to be a police officer yourself, your reasoning seems very similar to theirs ? he has to now intervene and control the situation in the chaotic house.  how the fuck do you people expect cops to be so damn perfect ? ! not perfect, just to follow the law, and be accountable to the same things we are held accountable for.  agreed, except when these bad cops are exposed as so, the police chief and union usually stand by them, and protect them.  the prosecutor often refuses to prosecute, and the bad cops get away with murder. literally.   #  let us assume your uncle is a shining example of what we all want cops to be.   #  no one here is going to convince you to hate your uncle, who is a cop.  let us assume your uncle is a shining example of what we all want cops to be.  his awesomeness is not under question.  in attempt to keep this brief i will focus on two main points.  as the old saying goes, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.  it is not just a clever saying either, literally, one spoiled apple in a 0 gallon barrel is enough to cause widespread rotting in all the other apples that would otherwise be nice and crisp.  it is an apt metaphor when applied to cops.  adrien schoolcraft was a new york cop who gave police investigators evidence of widespread corruption and wrongdoing.  in return he was demoted to a desk job, harassed, and forcibly committed to a psychiatric hospital in retaliation.  there is an extremely strong tendency for good cops to just go along with whatever the bad cops are doing, or they can commit career suicide like mr.  schoolcraft.  the veteran officers are less likely to stick up for what is right with their pensions on the line.  this tendency for the good cops to follow the bad cops lead, on threat of very strong organizational push back, makes the good cops appear no different from the bad cops to the public.  these bad apples are very well documented, and the effect they have on the good apples is readily apparent.  the word of a cop is often the most significant evidence used to bring about justice.  a judge is always going to believe the word of a cop over that of the accused.  to serve their purpose in our criminal justice system police need to be above reproach.  and for the most part, the police are indeed above reproach.  the problem is we have mountains of evidence that demonstrates they should not be.  lisa steed arrested dozens of sober people for dui so her numbers would look good, and had no issues lying about it to judges.  kelly thomas was beat to death with little justification.  when the general population notices the police are above the law it leads to widespread disapproval.  reproach is warranted.  hatred is certainly unproductive, but for many of us it is not about hate.  i love this country and i love liberty, which is why i believe it is so important for us to acknowledge police wrongdoing and fix the system.  what you see is not hatred, but what i hope to be the beginning of change for the better.   #  it has imposed itself upon you and now there can never be anything else.   #  i feel cops as a social institution are supposed to be moral enforcers of laws that we as a society have agreed upon.  if there are a few officers i would argue that there has to be at least a majority but that is not my intent that do use there job as moral enforcers for personal gain then they have violated a social agreement that they owe to the people and should be stripped of their power.  i would say that the fact that you are suppose to be a moral person and you are not out weighs the percentage of how many people actually do it.  in other words, the problem is not that corruption exists the problem is that we continue to let it exists.  if my children ever wish to be cops or any other public office i would teach them that only people with high objective morals should be put in those positions and that justice should be the end cause.  this is a slippery slope that will only lead to a wholly corrupt system and by saying that keeping corruption low is a winning effort then corruption has won.  it has imposed itself upon you and now there can never be anything else.  publioc office has become a fiasco where they think that they clock in and have to answer to somebody higher than them because of the hierarchy of those social institutions but at the end of the day those social institutions are supposed to be for the better of the people.  many forget that they public office work for the people not above them.   #  no charges, despite the fact that we have video of the killing ?  # i am simply saying it would be difficult to keep 0 of trained personnel to make the right decisions in multiple close encounters that contain high emotional stress levels in possible life threatening situations.  i think you will find that most people protesting police abuse do not expect the police to be 0 pure and to always make the right choice, but rather we just want it to be addressed adequately when police blatantly do bad things and/or hurt people because of incredibly bad decisions.  as it stands, too often that is not the case.  the man shot in wal mart for having a toy gun ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of it happening and that video shows the man was not acting threatening at all ? police choke a man to death ? no charges, despite the fact that we have video of the killing ? police steal a thousand dollars from a man while a bunch of other police watch ? ai not been punished yet, despite the video.  police toss a flashbang into a child is crib, mutilating him for life ? no charges, no punishment.  quite frankly, we are not just mad that these things happen, we are mad that they happen and nothing gets done.  this is like the difference between the catholic church and its history of covering up sexual abuse vs.  some church where a preacher was sexually abusing kids but the church reported him to the police upon finding out.  the problem is the unaccountably.   #  and lastly, when a relationship is built upon trust it is incredibly fragile from the beginning as even perceived breaks in that trust, let alone real breaks, completely cripple the function of that relationship.   #  just to pile on: when the organization/institution does not respond appropriately to clear and evidenced transgressions committed by individual members the whole organization/institution is tarnished by those transgressions.  furthermore, with each failure to respond it becomes less and less likely that those transgressions will even be reported or identified.  and lastly, when a relationship is built upon trust it is incredibly fragile from the beginning as even perceived breaks in that trust, let alone real breaks, completely cripple the function of that relationship.  so when individual officers do things like the incidents that /u/der untermench cited and their departments fail to take action, when das refuse to press charges when crimes are committed outside sovereign immunity and when police hide and cover for their brothers and sisters, making a big deal about it,  hating , is actually the best course of action.  it is the only course of action that is available to joe q.  public that can start to address the destruction of the trust that is necessary for police to do their jobs.  if joe was to ignore those acts, and sit quite, then there could be no hope for rebuilding that trust because those real and evidenced grievances ca not be addressed if they continue and if they are not known.
by information, i mean things like software, music, movies, photographs or anything that can be replicated infinitely.  do not get me wrong, i do believe in laws that encourage creativity.  i believe that an individual who creates something, like a song or an algorithm or a painting, deserves to be credited and paid if her/his work profits someone.  i also believe in laws for privacy.  if you keep some information in a private storage and some one replicates it without authorization, it is a crime.  but photographs, unlike a loaf of rye bread, cannot be  stolen .  call it a different kind of crime, maybe  pirating  we do not have as many swashbuckling seafarers around, so that word is up for grabs ? this is mere semantics, so it is not a big deal.  however, patents and copyright are not  property  in the sense that cars are.  they are simply documentation describing an idea and ascribing credit.  the creator understandably is granted the right to control the use of the idea for a time.  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? i think that we have become so used to thinking about legality in terms of  possession , that we apply such a model even to things that do not quite fit.  treating information as property creates dangerous entities like patent trolls, which do not create anything but merely buy and sell information for profit.  as a person whose living depends on creating content in the form of information, does my view hurt my self interests ? cmv if possible.   #  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.   #  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.   # that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? lets say i created a new computer operating system that is extremely innovative and is ready to sweep the nation by storm.  now, since i created this product i am obviously going to patent it to ensure that i am compensated for my work and so that others ca not receive compensation for my work unless they receive permission from me to do so.  if i decide to sell my operating system to microsoft to integrate into their own operating system instead of trying to sell it myself, i would essentially be selling my patent to microsoft, or a third party.  lets say i sold my operating system to microsoft for $0 billion.  i would essentially be giving microsoft permission to use my patented idea/product in exchange for a sum of money.  in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  as the creator of this new operating system, why should i not be able to sell this to a third party ?  #  that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.   # that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.  why ? because large companies acquire patents for defensive purposes.  the tactic is to patent something in very wide use to have ammo to use against people who attack you.  so say microsoft copies some good idea of yours and you sue them.  however, microsoft now sues you back for infringing on a dozen of their patents which cover fundamental parts of your application.  that is why patent trolls appeared, because the best way to make it alive out of that is by not having anything of your own that could be attacked.  very unlikely for trolls to win cases these days which is very little consolation for the small guy, who ca not afford the battle anyway  #  property and possession are not really inherently meaningful terms without a government definition and enforcement.   #  property and possession are not really inherently meaningful terms without a government definition and enforcement.  imagine a caveman killing a tiger, and skinning it.  does he really have a property right in that skin, as long as any other caveman with a bigger club can come and take it ? subsequently, government arose have defined property to regulate how things are distributed between people.  we made law: that if you kill a wild animal, the carcass and pelt are your property: URL as you can see, property is not a meaningful concept unless government defines and enforces what property is.  later, governments also found that it is useful to extend property laws to non tangible things, like works of art or inventions.  this was done simply to encourage people to create more art and to invent more.  same way, the government gave property right in wolf furs in order to encourage wolf hunting.  tl;dr: property/ownership/stealing with respect to tangible property is exactly as meaningful as property/ownership/stealing with respect to intellectual property both are artificially created social constricts.  if you have no problem with one, you should be ok with the other.   #  if i wished to use your product, i should have to contact you, and not microsoft.   # in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  i think these are two different things.  you can give microsoft permission to use your product, but you are still the creator.  if i wished to use your product, i should have to contact you, and not microsoft.  you want to  transfer  all rights to microsoft, which would require a legal framework which can ascribe rights to a corporation.  can you convince me, a citizen with no stake in this matter, of the benefits of such a framework ?  #  since we are only a small team of programers, it would obviously be tough for us to compete with a giant corporation like microsoft, so instead of trying to compete with them why not just sell our idea/product to them ?  #  continuing with my example, lets say that i am a member of a small team of programers who had a lot of time on our hands to create this new and improved operating system.  after creating this system, we realized that we were up to some pretty stiff competition, so we essentially were left with two options; compete with established giants like microsoft and apple, or sell our product to them and avoid this competition completely.  since we are only a small team of programers, it would obviously be tough for us to compete with a giant corporation like microsoft, so instead of trying to compete with them why not just sell our idea/product to them ? everyone wins in the end; our team gets $0 billion while microsoft gets a new operating system to either integrate into their existing products or to sell as a whole new product.  not allowing us to do this would essentially force my small team of programers to sell this product ourselves.  now, do you think that my team would make more money trying to sell this product ourselves or would we make more money by selling it to a big corporation and letting them sell it instead ?
by information, i mean things like software, music, movies, photographs or anything that can be replicated infinitely.  do not get me wrong, i do believe in laws that encourage creativity.  i believe that an individual who creates something, like a song or an algorithm or a painting, deserves to be credited and paid if her/his work profits someone.  i also believe in laws for privacy.  if you keep some information in a private storage and some one replicates it without authorization, it is a crime.  but photographs, unlike a loaf of rye bread, cannot be  stolen .  call it a different kind of crime, maybe  pirating  we do not have as many swashbuckling seafarers around, so that word is up for grabs ? this is mere semantics, so it is not a big deal.  however, patents and copyright are not  property  in the sense that cars are.  they are simply documentation describing an idea and ascribing credit.  the creator understandably is granted the right to control the use of the idea for a time.  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? i think that we have become so used to thinking about legality in terms of  possession , that we apply such a model even to things that do not quite fit.  treating information as property creates dangerous entities like patent trolls, which do not create anything but merely buy and sell information for profit.  as a person whose living depends on creating content in the form of information, does my view hurt my self interests ? cmv if possible.   #  however, patents and copyright are not  property  in the sense that cars are.   #  but they are property in the way stocks are.   # but they are property in the way stocks are.  if you believe that the creator of a work deserves credit and compensation for their intellectual works then you are acknowledging that they hold some sort of legal asset that grants them those rights.  generically that asset would be their property.  it is the same as selling a stock.  they are transferring the rights they have as the creator of the work to someone else for a fee.  that does not mean the purchasing party is the  creator  it means that they have the  rights  of the creator.  out of respect for the  original  creator.  if you eliminate the ability for content creators to transfer their rights you will severely undermine their ability to profit from their intellectual work.  if society does not respect 0rd parties who have bought these rights then those 0rd parties will not pay for them.   #  the tactic is to patent something in very wide use to have ammo to use against people who attack you.   # that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.  why ? because large companies acquire patents for defensive purposes.  the tactic is to patent something in very wide use to have ammo to use against people who attack you.  so say microsoft copies some good idea of yours and you sue them.  however, microsoft now sues you back for infringing on a dozen of their patents which cover fundamental parts of your application.  that is why patent trolls appeared, because the best way to make it alive out of that is by not having anything of your own that could be attacked.  very unlikely for trolls to win cases these days which is very little consolation for the small guy, who ca not afford the battle anyway  #  property and possession are not really inherently meaningful terms without a government definition and enforcement.   #  property and possession are not really inherently meaningful terms without a government definition and enforcement.  imagine a caveman killing a tiger, and skinning it.  does he really have a property right in that skin, as long as any other caveman with a bigger club can come and take it ? subsequently, government arose have defined property to regulate how things are distributed between people.  we made law: that if you kill a wild animal, the carcass and pelt are your property: URL as you can see, property is not a meaningful concept unless government defines and enforces what property is.  later, governments also found that it is useful to extend property laws to non tangible things, like works of art or inventions.  this was done simply to encourage people to create more art and to invent more.  same way, the government gave property right in wolf furs in order to encourage wolf hunting.  tl;dr: property/ownership/stealing with respect to tangible property is exactly as meaningful as property/ownership/stealing with respect to intellectual property both are artificially created social constricts.  if you have no problem with one, you should be ok with the other.   #  lets say i created a new computer operating system that is extremely innovative and is ready to sweep the nation by storm.   # that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? lets say i created a new computer operating system that is extremely innovative and is ready to sweep the nation by storm.  now, since i created this product i am obviously going to patent it to ensure that i am compensated for my work and so that others ca not receive compensation for my work unless they receive permission from me to do so.  if i decide to sell my operating system to microsoft to integrate into their own operating system instead of trying to sell it myself, i would essentially be selling my patent to microsoft, or a third party.  lets say i sold my operating system to microsoft for $0 billion.  i would essentially be giving microsoft permission to use my patented idea/product in exchange for a sum of money.  in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  as the creator of this new operating system, why should i not be able to sell this to a third party ?  #  you can give microsoft permission to use your product, but you are still the creator.   # in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  i think these are two different things.  you can give microsoft permission to use your product, but you are still the creator.  if i wished to use your product, i should have to contact you, and not microsoft.  you want to  transfer  all rights to microsoft, which would require a legal framework which can ascribe rights to a corporation.  can you convince me, a citizen with no stake in this matter, of the benefits of such a framework ?
by information, i mean things like software, music, movies, photographs or anything that can be replicated infinitely.  do not get me wrong, i do believe in laws that encourage creativity.  i believe that an individual who creates something, like a song or an algorithm or a painting, deserves to be credited and paid if her/his work profits someone.  i also believe in laws for privacy.  if you keep some information in a private storage and some one replicates it without authorization, it is a crime.  but photographs, unlike a loaf of rye bread, cannot be  stolen .  call it a different kind of crime, maybe  pirating  we do not have as many swashbuckling seafarers around, so that word is up for grabs ? this is mere semantics, so it is not a big deal.  however, patents and copyright are not  property  in the sense that cars are.  they are simply documentation describing an idea and ascribing credit.  the creator understandably is granted the right to control the use of the idea for a time.  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? i think that we have become so used to thinking about legality in terms of  possession , that we apply such a model even to things that do not quite fit.  treating information as property creates dangerous entities like patent trolls, which do not create anything but merely buy and sell information for profit.  as a person whose living depends on creating content in the form of information, does my view hurt my self interests ? cmv if possible.   #  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.   #  it is the same as selling a stock.   # but they are property in the way stocks are.  if you believe that the creator of a work deserves credit and compensation for their intellectual works then you are acknowledging that they hold some sort of legal asset that grants them those rights.  generically that asset would be their property.  it is the same as selling a stock.  they are transferring the rights they have as the creator of the work to someone else for a fee.  that does not mean the purchasing party is the  creator  it means that they have the  rights  of the creator.  out of respect for the  original  creator.  if you eliminate the ability for content creators to transfer their rights you will severely undermine their ability to profit from their intellectual work.  if society does not respect 0rd parties who have bought these rights then those 0rd parties will not pay for them.   #  however, microsoft now sues you back for infringing on a dozen of their patents which cover fundamental parts of your application.   # that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.  why ? because large companies acquire patents for defensive purposes.  the tactic is to patent something in very wide use to have ammo to use against people who attack you.  so say microsoft copies some good idea of yours and you sue them.  however, microsoft now sues you back for infringing on a dozen of their patents which cover fundamental parts of your application.  that is why patent trolls appeared, because the best way to make it alive out of that is by not having anything of your own that could be attacked.  very unlikely for trolls to win cases these days which is very little consolation for the small guy, who ca not afford the battle anyway  #  we made law: that if you kill a wild animal, the carcass and pelt are your property: URL as you can see, property is not a meaningful concept unless government defines and enforces what property is.   #  property and possession are not really inherently meaningful terms without a government definition and enforcement.  imagine a caveman killing a tiger, and skinning it.  does he really have a property right in that skin, as long as any other caveman with a bigger club can come and take it ? subsequently, government arose have defined property to regulate how things are distributed between people.  we made law: that if you kill a wild animal, the carcass and pelt are your property: URL as you can see, property is not a meaningful concept unless government defines and enforces what property is.  later, governments also found that it is useful to extend property laws to non tangible things, like works of art or inventions.  this was done simply to encourage people to create more art and to invent more.  same way, the government gave property right in wolf furs in order to encourage wolf hunting.  tl;dr: property/ownership/stealing with respect to tangible property is exactly as meaningful as property/ownership/stealing with respect to intellectual property both are artificially created social constricts.  if you have no problem with one, you should be ok with the other.   #  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ?  # that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? lets say i created a new computer operating system that is extremely innovative and is ready to sweep the nation by storm.  now, since i created this product i am obviously going to patent it to ensure that i am compensated for my work and so that others ca not receive compensation for my work unless they receive permission from me to do so.  if i decide to sell my operating system to microsoft to integrate into their own operating system instead of trying to sell it myself, i would essentially be selling my patent to microsoft, or a third party.  lets say i sold my operating system to microsoft for $0 billion.  i would essentially be giving microsoft permission to use my patented idea/product in exchange for a sum of money.  in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  as the creator of this new operating system, why should i not be able to sell this to a third party ?  #  can you convince me, a citizen with no stake in this matter, of the benefits of such a framework ?  # in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  i think these are two different things.  you can give microsoft permission to use your product, but you are still the creator.  if i wished to use your product, i should have to contact you, and not microsoft.  you want to  transfer  all rights to microsoft, which would require a legal framework which can ascribe rights to a corporation.  can you convince me, a citizen with no stake in this matter, of the benefits of such a framework ?
by information, i mean things like software, music, movies, photographs or anything that can be replicated infinitely.  do not get me wrong, i do believe in laws that encourage creativity.  i believe that an individual who creates something, like a song or an algorithm or a painting, deserves to be credited and paid if her/his work profits someone.  i also believe in laws for privacy.  if you keep some information in a private storage and some one replicates it without authorization, it is a crime.  but photographs, unlike a loaf of rye bread, cannot be  stolen .  call it a different kind of crime, maybe  pirating  we do not have as many swashbuckling seafarers around, so that word is up for grabs ? this is mere semantics, so it is not a big deal.  however, patents and copyright are not  property  in the sense that cars are.  they are simply documentation describing an idea and ascribing credit.  the creator understandably is granted the right to control the use of the idea for a time.  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? i think that we have become so used to thinking about legality in terms of  possession , that we apply such a model even to things that do not quite fit.  treating information as property creates dangerous entities like patent trolls, which do not create anything but merely buy and sell information for profit.  as a person whose living depends on creating content in the form of information, does my view hurt my self interests ? cmv if possible.   #  if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ?  #  out of respect for the  original  creator.   # but they are property in the way stocks are.  if you believe that the creator of a work deserves credit and compensation for their intellectual works then you are acknowledging that they hold some sort of legal asset that grants them those rights.  generically that asset would be their property.  it is the same as selling a stock.  they are transferring the rights they have as the creator of the work to someone else for a fee.  that does not mean the purchasing party is the  creator  it means that they have the  rights  of the creator.  out of respect for the  original  creator.  if you eliminate the ability for content creators to transfer their rights you will severely undermine their ability to profit from their intellectual work.  if society does not respect 0rd parties who have bought these rights then those 0rd parties will not pay for them.   #  because large companies acquire patents for defensive purposes.   # that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.  why ? because large companies acquire patents for defensive purposes.  the tactic is to patent something in very wide use to have ammo to use against people who attack you.  so say microsoft copies some good idea of yours and you sue them.  however, microsoft now sues you back for infringing on a dozen of their patents which cover fundamental parts of your application.  that is why patent trolls appeared, because the best way to make it alive out of that is by not having anything of your own that could be attacked.  very unlikely for trolls to win cases these days which is very little consolation for the small guy, who ca not afford the battle anyway  #  later, governments also found that it is useful to extend property laws to non tangible things, like works of art or inventions.   #  property and possession are not really inherently meaningful terms without a government definition and enforcement.  imagine a caveman killing a tiger, and skinning it.  does he really have a property right in that skin, as long as any other caveman with a bigger club can come and take it ? subsequently, government arose have defined property to regulate how things are distributed between people.  we made law: that if you kill a wild animal, the carcass and pelt are your property: URL as you can see, property is not a meaningful concept unless government defines and enforces what property is.  later, governments also found that it is useful to extend property laws to non tangible things, like works of art or inventions.  this was done simply to encourage people to create more art and to invent more.  same way, the government gave property right in wolf furs in order to encourage wolf hunting.  tl;dr: property/ownership/stealing with respect to tangible property is exactly as meaningful as property/ownership/stealing with respect to intellectual property both are artificially created social constricts.  if you have no problem with one, you should be ok with the other.   #  i would essentially be giving microsoft permission to use my patented idea/product in exchange for a sum of money.   # that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? lets say i created a new computer operating system that is extremely innovative and is ready to sweep the nation by storm.  now, since i created this product i am obviously going to patent it to ensure that i am compensated for my work and so that others ca not receive compensation for my work unless they receive permission from me to do so.  if i decide to sell my operating system to microsoft to integrate into their own operating system instead of trying to sell it myself, i would essentially be selling my patent to microsoft, or a third party.  lets say i sold my operating system to microsoft for $0 billion.  i would essentially be giving microsoft permission to use my patented idea/product in exchange for a sum of money.  in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  as the creator of this new operating system, why should i not be able to sell this to a third party ?  #  you want to  transfer  all rights to microsoft, which would require a legal framework which can ascribe rights to a corporation.   # in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  i think these are two different things.  you can give microsoft permission to use your product, but you are still the creator.  if i wished to use your product, i should have to contact you, and not microsoft.  you want to  transfer  all rights to microsoft, which would require a legal framework which can ascribe rights to a corporation.  can you convince me, a citizen with no stake in this matter, of the benefits of such a framework ?
by information, i mean things like software, music, movies, photographs or anything that can be replicated infinitely.  do not get me wrong, i do believe in laws that encourage creativity.  i believe that an individual who creates something, like a song or an algorithm or a painting, deserves to be credited and paid if her/his work profits someone.  i also believe in laws for privacy.  if you keep some information in a private storage and some one replicates it without authorization, it is a crime.  but photographs, unlike a loaf of rye bread, cannot be  stolen .  call it a different kind of crime, maybe  pirating  we do not have as many swashbuckling seafarers around, so that word is up for grabs ? this is mere semantics, so it is not a big deal.  however, patents and copyright are not  property  in the sense that cars are.  they are simply documentation describing an idea and ascribing credit.  the creator understandably is granted the right to control the use of the idea for a time.  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? i think that we have become so used to thinking about legality in terms of  possession , that we apply such a model even to things that do not quite fit.  treating information as property creates dangerous entities like patent trolls, which do not create anything but merely buy and sell information for profit.  as a person whose living depends on creating content in the form of information, does my view hurt my self interests ? cmv if possible.   #  however, patents and copyright are not  property  in the sense that cars are.   #  you should really mention what country you hail from when making statements like this.   # you should really mention what country you hail from when making statements like this.  copyright is indisputably property in at the very least the us and the eu.  your problem seems to be based on the mistaken belief that property is a  thing  rather than a legal relationship  to  a thing.  whether you are talking about the sale of widgets or cattle or land or movies, it is the same principle, you are selling a government granted, government enforced  bundle of rights  to some tangible or intangible asset in exchange for some other government granted, government enforced asset.  for the same reason society is compelled to adhere to any other property law, it is the bedrock upon which civilization and markets are built.  why should society be compelled to honor and abide by the transfer of physical property but not intellectual property ? treating land as property creates dangerous entities like land barons who do not create anything but merely hoard untold thousands of acres as speculative investments precluding any number of more productive uses by the community etc .  you could say the same thing about any property law.   #  because large companies acquire patents for defensive purposes.   # that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.  why ? because large companies acquire patents for defensive purposes.  the tactic is to patent something in very wide use to have ammo to use against people who attack you.  so say microsoft copies some good idea of yours and you sue them.  however, microsoft now sues you back for infringing on a dozen of their patents which cover fundamental parts of your application.  that is why patent trolls appeared, because the best way to make it alive out of that is by not having anything of your own that could be attacked.  very unlikely for trolls to win cases these days which is very little consolation for the small guy, who ca not afford the battle anyway  #  this was done simply to encourage people to create more art and to invent more.   #  property and possession are not really inherently meaningful terms without a government definition and enforcement.  imagine a caveman killing a tiger, and skinning it.  does he really have a property right in that skin, as long as any other caveman with a bigger club can come and take it ? subsequently, government arose have defined property to regulate how things are distributed between people.  we made law: that if you kill a wild animal, the carcass and pelt are your property: URL as you can see, property is not a meaningful concept unless government defines and enforces what property is.  later, governments also found that it is useful to extend property laws to non tangible things, like works of art or inventions.  this was done simply to encourage people to create more art and to invent more.  same way, the government gave property right in wolf furs in order to encourage wolf hunting.  tl;dr: property/ownership/stealing with respect to tangible property is exactly as meaningful as property/ownership/stealing with respect to intellectual property both are artificially created social constricts.  if you have no problem with one, you should be ok with the other.   #  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ?  # that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? lets say i created a new computer operating system that is extremely innovative and is ready to sweep the nation by storm.  now, since i created this product i am obviously going to patent it to ensure that i am compensated for my work and so that others ca not receive compensation for my work unless they receive permission from me to do so.  if i decide to sell my operating system to microsoft to integrate into their own operating system instead of trying to sell it myself, i would essentially be selling my patent to microsoft, or a third party.  lets say i sold my operating system to microsoft for $0 billion.  i would essentially be giving microsoft permission to use my patented idea/product in exchange for a sum of money.  in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  as the creator of this new operating system, why should i not be able to sell this to a third party ?  #  can you convince me, a citizen with no stake in this matter, of the benefits of such a framework ?  # in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  i think these are two different things.  you can give microsoft permission to use your product, but you are still the creator.  if i wished to use your product, i should have to contact you, and not microsoft.  you want to  transfer  all rights to microsoft, which would require a legal framework which can ascribe rights to a corporation.  can you convince me, a citizen with no stake in this matter, of the benefits of such a framework ?
by information, i mean things like software, music, movies, photographs or anything that can be replicated infinitely.  do not get me wrong, i do believe in laws that encourage creativity.  i believe that an individual who creates something, like a song or an algorithm or a painting, deserves to be credited and paid if her/his work profits someone.  i also believe in laws for privacy.  if you keep some information in a private storage and some one replicates it without authorization, it is a crime.  but photographs, unlike a loaf of rye bread, cannot be  stolen .  call it a different kind of crime, maybe  pirating  we do not have as many swashbuckling seafarers around, so that word is up for grabs ? this is mere semantics, so it is not a big deal.  however, patents and copyright are not  property  in the sense that cars are.  they are simply documentation describing an idea and ascribing credit.  the creator understandably is granted the right to control the use of the idea for a time.  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? i think that we have become so used to thinking about legality in terms of  possession , that we apply such a model even to things that do not quite fit.  treating information as property creates dangerous entities like patent trolls, which do not create anything but merely buy and sell information for profit.  as a person whose living depends on creating content in the form of information, does my view hurt my self interests ? cmv if possible.   #  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.   #  your problem seems to be based on the mistaken belief that property is a  thing  rather than a legal relationship  to  a thing.   # you should really mention what country you hail from when making statements like this.  copyright is indisputably property in at the very least the us and the eu.  your problem seems to be based on the mistaken belief that property is a  thing  rather than a legal relationship  to  a thing.  whether you are talking about the sale of widgets or cattle or land or movies, it is the same principle, you are selling a government granted, government enforced  bundle of rights  to some tangible or intangible asset in exchange for some other government granted, government enforced asset.  for the same reason society is compelled to adhere to any other property law, it is the bedrock upon which civilization and markets are built.  why should society be compelled to honor and abide by the transfer of physical property but not intellectual property ? treating land as property creates dangerous entities like land barons who do not create anything but merely hoard untold thousands of acres as speculative investments precluding any number of more productive uses by the community etc .  you could say the same thing about any property law.   #  that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.   # that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.  why ? because large companies acquire patents for defensive purposes.  the tactic is to patent something in very wide use to have ammo to use against people who attack you.  so say microsoft copies some good idea of yours and you sue them.  however, microsoft now sues you back for infringing on a dozen of their patents which cover fundamental parts of your application.  that is why patent trolls appeared, because the best way to make it alive out of that is by not having anything of your own that could be attacked.  very unlikely for trolls to win cases these days which is very little consolation for the small guy, who ca not afford the battle anyway  #  tl;dr: property/ownership/stealing with respect to tangible property is exactly as meaningful as property/ownership/stealing with respect to intellectual property both are artificially created social constricts.   #  property and possession are not really inherently meaningful terms without a government definition and enforcement.  imagine a caveman killing a tiger, and skinning it.  does he really have a property right in that skin, as long as any other caveman with a bigger club can come and take it ? subsequently, government arose have defined property to regulate how things are distributed between people.  we made law: that if you kill a wild animal, the carcass and pelt are your property: URL as you can see, property is not a meaningful concept unless government defines and enforces what property is.  later, governments also found that it is useful to extend property laws to non tangible things, like works of art or inventions.  this was done simply to encourage people to create more art and to invent more.  same way, the government gave property right in wolf furs in order to encourage wolf hunting.  tl;dr: property/ownership/stealing with respect to tangible property is exactly as meaningful as property/ownership/stealing with respect to intellectual property both are artificially created social constricts.  if you have no problem with one, you should be ok with the other.   #  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.   # that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? lets say i created a new computer operating system that is extremely innovative and is ready to sweep the nation by storm.  now, since i created this product i am obviously going to patent it to ensure that i am compensated for my work and so that others ca not receive compensation for my work unless they receive permission from me to do so.  if i decide to sell my operating system to microsoft to integrate into their own operating system instead of trying to sell it myself, i would essentially be selling my patent to microsoft, or a third party.  lets say i sold my operating system to microsoft for $0 billion.  i would essentially be giving microsoft permission to use my patented idea/product in exchange for a sum of money.  in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  as the creator of this new operating system, why should i not be able to sell this to a third party ?  #  you want to  transfer  all rights to microsoft, which would require a legal framework which can ascribe rights to a corporation.   # in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  i think these are two different things.  you can give microsoft permission to use your product, but you are still the creator.  if i wished to use your product, i should have to contact you, and not microsoft.  you want to  transfer  all rights to microsoft, which would require a legal framework which can ascribe rights to a corporation.  can you convince me, a citizen with no stake in this matter, of the benefits of such a framework ?
by information, i mean things like software, music, movies, photographs or anything that can be replicated infinitely.  do not get me wrong, i do believe in laws that encourage creativity.  i believe that an individual who creates something, like a song or an algorithm or a painting, deserves to be credited and paid if her/his work profits someone.  i also believe in laws for privacy.  if you keep some information in a private storage and some one replicates it without authorization, it is a crime.  but photographs, unlike a loaf of rye bread, cannot be  stolen .  call it a different kind of crime, maybe  pirating  we do not have as many swashbuckling seafarers around, so that word is up for grabs ? this is mere semantics, so it is not a big deal.  however, patents and copyright are not  property  in the sense that cars are.  they are simply documentation describing an idea and ascribing credit.  the creator understandably is granted the right to control the use of the idea for a time.  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? i think that we have become so used to thinking about legality in terms of  possession , that we apply such a model even to things that do not quite fit.  treating information as property creates dangerous entities like patent trolls, which do not create anything but merely buy and sell information for profit.  as a person whose living depends on creating content in the form of information, does my view hurt my self interests ? cmv if possible.   #  if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ?  #  for the same reason society is compelled to adhere to any other property law, it is the bedrock upon which civilization and markets are built.   # you should really mention what country you hail from when making statements like this.  copyright is indisputably property in at the very least the us and the eu.  your problem seems to be based on the mistaken belief that property is a  thing  rather than a legal relationship  to  a thing.  whether you are talking about the sale of widgets or cattle or land or movies, it is the same principle, you are selling a government granted, government enforced  bundle of rights  to some tangible or intangible asset in exchange for some other government granted, government enforced asset.  for the same reason society is compelled to adhere to any other property law, it is the bedrock upon which civilization and markets are built.  why should society be compelled to honor and abide by the transfer of physical property but not intellectual property ? treating land as property creates dangerous entities like land barons who do not create anything but merely hoard untold thousands of acres as speculative investments precluding any number of more productive uses by the community etc .  you could say the same thing about any property law.   #  that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.   # that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.  why ? because large companies acquire patents for defensive purposes.  the tactic is to patent something in very wide use to have ammo to use against people who attack you.  so say microsoft copies some good idea of yours and you sue them.  however, microsoft now sues you back for infringing on a dozen of their patents which cover fundamental parts of your application.  that is why patent trolls appeared, because the best way to make it alive out of that is by not having anything of your own that could be attacked.  very unlikely for trolls to win cases these days which is very little consolation for the small guy, who ca not afford the battle anyway  #  does he really have a property right in that skin, as long as any other caveman with a bigger club can come and take it ?  #  property and possession are not really inherently meaningful terms without a government definition and enforcement.  imagine a caveman killing a tiger, and skinning it.  does he really have a property right in that skin, as long as any other caveman with a bigger club can come and take it ? subsequently, government arose have defined property to regulate how things are distributed between people.  we made law: that if you kill a wild animal, the carcass and pelt are your property: URL as you can see, property is not a meaningful concept unless government defines and enforces what property is.  later, governments also found that it is useful to extend property laws to non tangible things, like works of art or inventions.  this was done simply to encourage people to create more art and to invent more.  same way, the government gave property right in wolf furs in order to encourage wolf hunting.  tl;dr: property/ownership/stealing with respect to tangible property is exactly as meaningful as property/ownership/stealing with respect to intellectual property both are artificially created social constricts.  if you have no problem with one, you should be ok with the other.   #  i would essentially be giving microsoft permission to use my patented idea/product in exchange for a sum of money.   # that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? lets say i created a new computer operating system that is extremely innovative and is ready to sweep the nation by storm.  now, since i created this product i am obviously going to patent it to ensure that i am compensated for my work and so that others ca not receive compensation for my work unless they receive permission from me to do so.  if i decide to sell my operating system to microsoft to integrate into their own operating system instead of trying to sell it myself, i would essentially be selling my patent to microsoft, or a third party.  lets say i sold my operating system to microsoft for $0 billion.  i would essentially be giving microsoft permission to use my patented idea/product in exchange for a sum of money.  in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  as the creator of this new operating system, why should i not be able to sell this to a third party ?  #  you can give microsoft permission to use your product, but you are still the creator.   # in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  i think these are two different things.  you can give microsoft permission to use your product, but you are still the creator.  if i wished to use your product, i should have to contact you, and not microsoft.  you want to  transfer  all rights to microsoft, which would require a legal framework which can ascribe rights to a corporation.  can you convince me, a citizen with no stake in this matter, of the benefits of such a framework ?
by information, i mean things like software, music, movies, photographs or anything that can be replicated infinitely.  do not get me wrong, i do believe in laws that encourage creativity.  i believe that an individual who creates something, like a song or an algorithm or a painting, deserves to be credited and paid if her/his work profits someone.  i also believe in laws for privacy.  if you keep some information in a private storage and some one replicates it without authorization, it is a crime.  but photographs, unlike a loaf of rye bread, cannot be  stolen .  call it a different kind of crime, maybe  pirating  we do not have as many swashbuckling seafarers around, so that word is up for grabs ? this is mere semantics, so it is not a big deal.  however, patents and copyright are not  property  in the sense that cars are.  they are simply documentation describing an idea and ascribing credit.  the creator understandably is granted the right to control the use of the idea for a time.  i find it hard to understand what is meant by  selling  a patent or a copyright.  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? i think that we have become so used to thinking about legality in terms of  possession , that we apply such a model even to things that do not quite fit.  treating information as property creates dangerous entities like patent trolls, which do not create anything but merely buy and sell information for profit.  as a person whose living depends on creating content in the form of information, does my view hurt my self interests ? cmv if possible.   #  treating information as property creates dangerous entities like patent trolls, which do not create anything but merely buy and sell information for profit.   #  treating land as property creates dangerous entities like land barons who do not create anything but merely hoard untold thousands of acres as speculative investments precluding any number of more productive uses by the community etc .   # you should really mention what country you hail from when making statements like this.  copyright is indisputably property in at the very least the us and the eu.  your problem seems to be based on the mistaken belief that property is a  thing  rather than a legal relationship  to  a thing.  whether you are talking about the sale of widgets or cattle or land or movies, it is the same principle, you are selling a government granted, government enforced  bundle of rights  to some tangible or intangible asset in exchange for some other government granted, government enforced asset.  for the same reason society is compelled to adhere to any other property law, it is the bedrock upon which civilization and markets are built.  why should society be compelled to honor and abide by the transfer of physical property but not intellectual property ? treating land as property creates dangerous entities like land barons who do not create anything but merely hoard untold thousands of acres as speculative investments precluding any number of more productive uses by the community etc .  you could say the same thing about any property law.   #  that is why patent trolls appeared, because the best way to make it alive out of that is by not having anything of your own that could be attacked.   # that is the theory, the practice is that if you tried to sue somebody like microsoft or samsung, you would have your ass handed to you, even if you were completely in the right.  why ? because large companies acquire patents for defensive purposes.  the tactic is to patent something in very wide use to have ammo to use against people who attack you.  so say microsoft copies some good idea of yours and you sue them.  however, microsoft now sues you back for infringing on a dozen of their patents which cover fundamental parts of your application.  that is why patent trolls appeared, because the best way to make it alive out of that is by not having anything of your own that could be attacked.  very unlikely for trolls to win cases these days which is very little consolation for the small guy, who ca not afford the battle anyway  #  subsequently, government arose have defined property to regulate how things are distributed between people.   #  property and possession are not really inherently meaningful terms without a government definition and enforcement.  imagine a caveman killing a tiger, and skinning it.  does he really have a property right in that skin, as long as any other caveman with a bigger club can come and take it ? subsequently, government arose have defined property to regulate how things are distributed between people.  we made law: that if you kill a wild animal, the carcass and pelt are your property: URL as you can see, property is not a meaningful concept unless government defines and enforces what property is.  later, governments also found that it is useful to extend property laws to non tangible things, like works of art or inventions.  this was done simply to encourage people to create more art and to invent more.  same way, the government gave property right in wolf furs in order to encourage wolf hunting.  tl;dr: property/ownership/stealing with respect to tangible property is exactly as meaningful as property/ownership/stealing with respect to intellectual property both are artificially created social constricts.  if you have no problem with one, you should be ok with the other.   #  that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.   # that the original patent holder authored the idea is a fact, which cannot be changed.  what does it mean for them to sell their rights to the idea away ? if a third party allegedly buys these rights, why should society feel compelled to credit and compensate them for its use ? lets say i created a new computer operating system that is extremely innovative and is ready to sweep the nation by storm.  now, since i created this product i am obviously going to patent it to ensure that i am compensated for my work and so that others ca not receive compensation for my work unless they receive permission from me to do so.  if i decide to sell my operating system to microsoft to integrate into their own operating system instead of trying to sell it myself, i would essentially be selling my patent to microsoft, or a third party.  lets say i sold my operating system to microsoft for $0 billion.  i would essentially be giving microsoft permission to use my patented idea/product in exchange for a sum of money.  in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  as the creator of this new operating system, why should i not be able to sell this to a third party ?  #  in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.   # in other words, i would be selling my patent to microsoft.  i think these are two different things.  you can give microsoft permission to use your product, but you are still the creator.  if i wished to use your product, i should have to contact you, and not microsoft.  you want to  transfer  all rights to microsoft, which would require a legal framework which can ascribe rights to a corporation.  can you convince me, a citizen with no stake in this matter, of the benefits of such a framework ?
there are hundreds, probably thousands, of gamers trying to make money via youtube, a la pewdiepie.  i like pewds, hate what he does.  using him as the example, hes funny, but he would still be flipping burgers or working at the harbor directing boats if scare/rage games werent available to him.  i find this 0.  lazy, and 0.  stealing.  these gamers are only making money because they upload content that isnt theirs, but talk over it which somehow makes it ok.  the only defense i can find is  purposes such as criticism, comment.   under dmca.  the problem i have, though, most of the time, the uploader is just talking about their day or sopmething that happened in the game, never criticizing or commenting on the games.  this is clearly covered in reviewers, but not let is play gamers in my eyes.   #  the problem i have, though, most of the time, the uploader is just talking about their day or sopmething that happened in the game, never criticizing or commenting on the games.   #  if they are talking about something that happened in the game.  that is kind of commenting on the game.   # if they are talking about something that happened in the game.  that is kind of commenting on the game.  also, saying that most lps are bad is not a good argument for your cause.  most examples of everything are bad.  most novels written are crap, most movies are crap, 0 of everything is crap URL so why should lps be held to a higher standard.  others have addressed it, but other mediums when reviewing, lampooning, or otherwise making commentary about the game are all using another person is original content, to some extent or another, to make their works and thus earn money.  also, except for a very scant few, most games are derivative works anyway.  the game industry treats mythology like the free idea bucket, and every other game on steam feels like a cheap minecraft knock off these days.  to say that games themselves are totally original would be a false statement.   #  i am not sure if you know what a food critic is, but they are someone who reviews the quality of food, particularly restaurant dishes.   #  i find your comment confusing.  i am not sure if you know what a food critic is, but they are someone who reviews the quality of food, particularly restaurant dishes.  you are right i suppose to point it out as a problem in my list, but i still think my point is very relevant.  sure i guess you own a plate of food you buy, more than you own a movie you see.  however food critique works just like a movie critique.  the reviewer is not only talking about the plate of food in front of him, he is talking about the concept behind the dish.  much like movies, music and tv, restaurant dishes are also protected via intellectual property.  URL not the best article but an introduction.  i wonder why op decided not to answer anybody.   #  reviewing the work while also displaying pictures of the work ?  #  what level of referencing someone else is work is no longer stealing ? reporting that it exists i. e.  newspapers ? reviewing the work i. e.  trade publications / written reviews ? reviewing the work while also displaying pictures of the work ? reviewing the work while also displaying video / audio of the work ? making commentary / spoof tracks of the work that do not directly display the work, but rely upon it being displayed to enjoy i. e.  riff trax ? making outright parodies of the work i. e.  robot chicken ? the reason i am going overboard with this example is that all of these, from a philosophical point of view, make money using someone else is content as the base.  you threaten even the most borderline, and let is play videos are about as borderline and lazy as you get when talking about adding value to someone else is work, and you threaten them all.   #  lets players are commenting on what is happening in the content.   #  they are commenting on the content.  lets players are commenting on what is happening in the content.  important distinction.  i am assuming mystery science theater 0 comments over top of a movie ? sorry.  i keep hearing it referenced, but i have not had time to see what it is but if they just said  tom hanks is on an island and has a volleyball friend,  it is  not  commenting on the content.  if they say  tom hanks is on an island with a volleyball.  this movie is conceptually interesting !   they are commenting on the content, which  is  covered under dmca.   #  that being said, they are not being paid because of the effort being put into the videos, they are being paid for getting eyeballs on adds.   #  it takes physical tine and effort, but no mental strain.  they are simply not creating something new if they just play a game, never commenting on the quality of the game.  so  yes, its mentally lazy.  that being said, they are not being paid because of the effort being put into the videos, they are being paid for getting eyeballs on adds.  to sum up, they are getting paid for lazy content that is most often illegally recorded and broadcast, and i want to know if the law should changed, or if it is always immoral meaning the law should stay the way it is.  review/critiquing videos are fine   interesting.  i suppose it would be  legal.  still lazy in the sense that very little mental effort is needed , but if they were to review/critique, that technically takes effort to come up with a rating.  so to fully answer your question, i would only change my mind  if they were reviewing the game,  but  i  also  feel the same regardless of the visual aspect.
the average wage in china for a factory worker in 0, the most recent reliable number that i could find, was $0.  compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.  on top of all of this, the government of china is an oppressive, fascist, communist regime.  if americans are going to casually perform the despicable, unpatriotic, anti democratic act of supporting the economy of such a communist state and the international corporations which are allowed to exploit the workers there, they should at least be constantly reminded that this is what they are doing.  obviously, companies selling chinese made goods will not volunteer to move to such accurate labeling on their own, so the government should mandate that they do so.  change my view !  #  the average wage in china for a factory worker in 0, the most recent reliable number that i could find, was $0.   #  compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.   # compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.  on top of all of this, the government of china is an oppressive, fascist, communist regime.  ok.  really, all this is going to do is make those poor exploited workers stamp out a few extra letters in a language they do not understand.  assuming the oppressive, fascist, communist regime even allows it in the first place and my best guess is they will not.  also, the labeling is decided by the country that makes the product, not the country that consumes said product.  so. you are really asking the chinese government to change their label. which they will not.   #  requiring manufacturers and vendors to disclose the origin of products is something you can argue is a  compelling government interest,  which can sometimes override the constitution is prohibition on telling people what to say or not to say.   #  0 it would probably be unconstitutional to do that, on 0st amendment grounds.  requiring manufacturers and vendors to disclose the origin of products is something you can argue is a  compelling government interest,  which can sometimes override the constitution is prohibition on telling people what to say or not to say.  editorializing on economic conditions in china is not.  0 it is not necessarily true.  even if we accept your claim that wages and working conditions in china are unusually bad and i think that assertion is dubious , that does not mean it is true of all factories and workplaces.  and it would be unfair to penalize companies that happen to operate in china, just because other factories have poor conditions.  0 trade wars are bad, mkay ? 0 it is needlessly commie baiting.  there is nothing meaningfully communist about china anymore.  the single party leadership is still called the communist party, but that is no longer connected to their practical ideology.  specifically calling out communism, like you propose, is a transparent attempt to stir up tribal resentment against a communist specter that is been systematically dismantled since the late 0s.   #  do you think that it is appropriate for some of those to appear on  made in the usa labels  ?  #  consider the following traits of the u. s.  : it conducts illegal wars e. g.  the wmd iraq war , it has one of the highest rates of inequality, it spies on its own people to an incredible degree cf.  wikileaks, snowden documents , and it is the largest contributor to the destruction of life on earth cf.  consumption, co0, resource waste etc .  do you think that it is appropriate for some of those to appear on  made in the usa labels  ? if so, then maybe you are right although the precise terms included are an issue unto themselves .  and if not, then why is it different for china.  a more appropriate label, in a better world, would be one that identified the ethics of the production of that specific product.  e. g.  how its workers are treated/compensated, and how ecologically sustainable it is.   #  all the western nations went through the same phase of development with equally poor conditions.   #  would you also stamp every us army uniform with  made by the exploited prison workers slaves ? of the united states  rather than simply  made in the usa  ? prisoners regularly make under $0/h, receive no health and safety protection, no vacation days or overtime pay, and receive no union protection.  addressing your main point, i think it is a bit unfair to criticise china too much regarding their factory workers.  all the western nations went through the same phase of development with equally poor conditions.  it comes across as a bit high and mighty to chastise an economy transitioning through this economic phase when you yourself exploited your own workers to get through it.  heck, the west is pretty much built on the exploitation of other countries workers and slaves.  i do not think there is much of a moral high ground for us to take.   #  is exploited poor workers, remember that the west is also developing the nation is physical, intellectual, and human capital as well via foreign direct investment e. g.   #  if the u. s.  had labelled south korean made goods as  products of the exploited workers of a military dictatorship , the country would not be enjoying its prosperity today.  i would think that that label would cause a lot more economic and social damage than the provision of factory jobs at market prices.  all countries in the asia pacific region went through a period where times were tough; south korea was a sweatshop state that benefited from an export oriented economy, until they were able to develop their infrastructure and become a powerhouse in technology.  so if you are concerned that the u. s.  is exploited poor workers, remember that the west is also developing the nation is physical, intellectual, and human capital as well via foreign direct investment e. g.  korea, japan, singapore, etc.  .  as proof, china is wages have been growing by double digits.  and fyi china has not been communist since mao as the nation has private property rights, labour mobility, and income diversity.  there are pockets of china that are more capitalist than the u. s.
the average wage in china for a factory worker in 0, the most recent reliable number that i could find, was $0.  compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.  on top of all of this, the government of china is an oppressive, fascist, communist regime.  if americans are going to casually perform the despicable, unpatriotic, anti democratic act of supporting the economy of such a communist state and the international corporations which are allowed to exploit the workers there, they should at least be constantly reminded that this is what they are doing.  obviously, companies selling chinese made goods will not volunteer to move to such accurate labeling on their own, so the government should mandate that they do so.  change my view !  #  the average wage in china for a factory worker in 0, the most recent reliable number that i could find, was $0.   #  compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.   # compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.  travel back in the history of the united states, and you will find similarly low wages paired with health and safety concerns.  china is going through the same growing pains as the united states as it starts to modernize.  do you think such labeling would have helped or hurt the us ? if your goal is to help china improve conditions for it is workforce by not buying things made there, then what effect do you think reduced sales will have ? why would it improve anything ? taking money out of their economy will be absorbed by those workers.  how much of a good must come from china to require labeling ? if your computer has one semiconductor from china, is the entire computer to be labeled ? we have a global economy, and our goods have parts from all over the world.   #  the single party leadership is still called the communist party, but that is no longer connected to their practical ideology.   #  0 it would probably be unconstitutional to do that, on 0st amendment grounds.  requiring manufacturers and vendors to disclose the origin of products is something you can argue is a  compelling government interest,  which can sometimes override the constitution is prohibition on telling people what to say or not to say.  editorializing on economic conditions in china is not.  0 it is not necessarily true.  even if we accept your claim that wages and working conditions in china are unusually bad and i think that assertion is dubious , that does not mean it is true of all factories and workplaces.  and it would be unfair to penalize companies that happen to operate in china, just because other factories have poor conditions.  0 trade wars are bad, mkay ? 0 it is needlessly commie baiting.  there is nothing meaningfully communist about china anymore.  the single party leadership is still called the communist party, but that is no longer connected to their practical ideology.  specifically calling out communism, like you propose, is a transparent attempt to stir up tribal resentment against a communist specter that is been systematically dismantled since the late 0s.   #  how its workers are treated/compensated, and how ecologically sustainable it is.   #  consider the following traits of the u. s.  : it conducts illegal wars e. g.  the wmd iraq war , it has one of the highest rates of inequality, it spies on its own people to an incredible degree cf.  wikileaks, snowden documents , and it is the largest contributor to the destruction of life on earth cf.  consumption, co0, resource waste etc .  do you think that it is appropriate for some of those to appear on  made in the usa labels  ? if so, then maybe you are right although the precise terms included are an issue unto themselves .  and if not, then why is it different for china.  a more appropriate label, in a better world, would be one that identified the ethics of the production of that specific product.  e. g.  how its workers are treated/compensated, and how ecologically sustainable it is.   #  prisoners regularly make under $0/h, receive no health and safety protection, no vacation days or overtime pay, and receive no union protection.   #  would you also stamp every us army uniform with  made by the exploited prison workers slaves ? of the united states  rather than simply  made in the usa  ? prisoners regularly make under $0/h, receive no health and safety protection, no vacation days or overtime pay, and receive no union protection.  addressing your main point, i think it is a bit unfair to criticise china too much regarding their factory workers.  all the western nations went through the same phase of development with equally poor conditions.  it comes across as a bit high and mighty to chastise an economy transitioning through this economic phase when you yourself exploited your own workers to get through it.  heck, the west is pretty much built on the exploitation of other countries workers and slaves.  i do not think there is much of a moral high ground for us to take.   #  and fyi china has not been communist since mao as the nation has private property rights, labour mobility, and income diversity.   #  if the u. s.  had labelled south korean made goods as  products of the exploited workers of a military dictatorship , the country would not be enjoying its prosperity today.  i would think that that label would cause a lot more economic and social damage than the provision of factory jobs at market prices.  all countries in the asia pacific region went through a period where times were tough; south korea was a sweatshop state that benefited from an export oriented economy, until they were able to develop their infrastructure and become a powerhouse in technology.  so if you are concerned that the u. s.  is exploited poor workers, remember that the west is also developing the nation is physical, intellectual, and human capital as well via foreign direct investment e. g.  korea, japan, singapore, etc.  .  as proof, china is wages have been growing by double digits.  and fyi china has not been communist since mao as the nation has private property rights, labour mobility, and income diversity.  there are pockets of china that are more capitalist than the u. s.
the average wage in china for a factory worker in 0, the most recent reliable number that i could find, was $0.  compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.  on top of all of this, the government of china is an oppressive, fascist, communist regime.  if americans are going to casually perform the despicable, unpatriotic, anti democratic act of supporting the economy of such a communist state and the international corporations which are allowed to exploit the workers there, they should at least be constantly reminded that this is what they are doing.  obviously, companies selling chinese made goods will not volunteer to move to such accurate labeling on their own, so the government should mandate that they do so.  change my view !  #  obviously, companies selling chinese made goods will not volunteer to move to such accurate labeling on their own, so the government should mandate that they do so.   #  how much of a good must come from china to require labeling ?  # compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.  travel back in the history of the united states, and you will find similarly low wages paired with health and safety concerns.  china is going through the same growing pains as the united states as it starts to modernize.  do you think such labeling would have helped or hurt the us ? if your goal is to help china improve conditions for it is workforce by not buying things made there, then what effect do you think reduced sales will have ? why would it improve anything ? taking money out of their economy will be absorbed by those workers.  how much of a good must come from china to require labeling ? if your computer has one semiconductor from china, is the entire computer to be labeled ? we have a global economy, and our goods have parts from all over the world.   #  0 it would probably be unconstitutional to do that, on 0st amendment grounds.   #  0 it would probably be unconstitutional to do that, on 0st amendment grounds.  requiring manufacturers and vendors to disclose the origin of products is something you can argue is a  compelling government interest,  which can sometimes override the constitution is prohibition on telling people what to say or not to say.  editorializing on economic conditions in china is not.  0 it is not necessarily true.  even if we accept your claim that wages and working conditions in china are unusually bad and i think that assertion is dubious , that does not mean it is true of all factories and workplaces.  and it would be unfair to penalize companies that happen to operate in china, just because other factories have poor conditions.  0 trade wars are bad, mkay ? 0 it is needlessly commie baiting.  there is nothing meaningfully communist about china anymore.  the single party leadership is still called the communist party, but that is no longer connected to their practical ideology.  specifically calling out communism, like you propose, is a transparent attempt to stir up tribal resentment against a communist specter that is been systematically dismantled since the late 0s.   #  and if not, then why is it different for china.   #  consider the following traits of the u. s.  : it conducts illegal wars e. g.  the wmd iraq war , it has one of the highest rates of inequality, it spies on its own people to an incredible degree cf.  wikileaks, snowden documents , and it is the largest contributor to the destruction of life on earth cf.  consumption, co0, resource waste etc .  do you think that it is appropriate for some of those to appear on  made in the usa labels  ? if so, then maybe you are right although the precise terms included are an issue unto themselves .  and if not, then why is it different for china.  a more appropriate label, in a better world, would be one that identified the ethics of the production of that specific product.  e. g.  how its workers are treated/compensated, and how ecologically sustainable it is.   #  prisoners regularly make under $0/h, receive no health and safety protection, no vacation days or overtime pay, and receive no union protection.   #  would you also stamp every us army uniform with  made by the exploited prison workers slaves ? of the united states  rather than simply  made in the usa  ? prisoners regularly make under $0/h, receive no health and safety protection, no vacation days or overtime pay, and receive no union protection.  addressing your main point, i think it is a bit unfair to criticise china too much regarding their factory workers.  all the western nations went through the same phase of development with equally poor conditions.  it comes across as a bit high and mighty to chastise an economy transitioning through this economic phase when you yourself exploited your own workers to get through it.  heck, the west is pretty much built on the exploitation of other countries workers and slaves.  i do not think there is much of a moral high ground for us to take.   #  is exploited poor workers, remember that the west is also developing the nation is physical, intellectual, and human capital as well via foreign direct investment e. g.   #  if the u. s.  had labelled south korean made goods as  products of the exploited workers of a military dictatorship , the country would not be enjoying its prosperity today.  i would think that that label would cause a lot more economic and social damage than the provision of factory jobs at market prices.  all countries in the asia pacific region went through a period where times were tough; south korea was a sweatshop state that benefited from an export oriented economy, until they were able to develop their infrastructure and become a powerhouse in technology.  so if you are concerned that the u. s.  is exploited poor workers, remember that the west is also developing the nation is physical, intellectual, and human capital as well via foreign direct investment e. g.  korea, japan, singapore, etc.  .  as proof, china is wages have been growing by double digits.  and fyi china has not been communist since mao as the nation has private property rights, labour mobility, and income diversity.  there are pockets of china that are more capitalist than the u. s.
the average wage in china for a factory worker in 0, the most recent reliable number that i could find, was $0.  compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.  on top of all of this, the government of china is an oppressive, fascist, communist regime.  if americans are going to casually perform the despicable, unpatriotic, anti democratic act of supporting the economy of such a communist state and the international corporations which are allowed to exploit the workers there, they should at least be constantly reminded that this is what they are doing.  obviously, companies selling chinese made goods will not volunteer to move to such accurate labeling on their own, so the government should mandate that they do so.  change my view !  #  the average wage in china for a factory worker in 0, the most recent reliable number that i could find, was $0.   #  compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.   # compared to western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non existent.  right.  compared internationally, it is horribly poor.  but it is often better than domestic alternatives, which pay less and are more physically demanding.  penn and teller had a bullshit episode on walmart.  the aspect when they are talking about sweatshops is relevant to this subject.  it starts at 0:0 URL  #  requiring manufacturers and vendors to disclose the origin of products is something you can argue is a  compelling government interest,  which can sometimes override the constitution is prohibition on telling people what to say or not to say.   #  0 it would probably be unconstitutional to do that, on 0st amendment grounds.  requiring manufacturers and vendors to disclose the origin of products is something you can argue is a  compelling government interest,  which can sometimes override the constitution is prohibition on telling people what to say or not to say.  editorializing on economic conditions in china is not.  0 it is not necessarily true.  even if we accept your claim that wages and working conditions in china are unusually bad and i think that assertion is dubious , that does not mean it is true of all factories and workplaces.  and it would be unfair to penalize companies that happen to operate in china, just because other factories have poor conditions.  0 trade wars are bad, mkay ? 0 it is needlessly commie baiting.  there is nothing meaningfully communist about china anymore.  the single party leadership is still called the communist party, but that is no longer connected to their practical ideology.  specifically calling out communism, like you propose, is a transparent attempt to stir up tribal resentment against a communist specter that is been systematically dismantled since the late 0s.   #  wikileaks, snowden documents , and it is the largest contributor to the destruction of life on earth cf.   #  consider the following traits of the u. s.  : it conducts illegal wars e. g.  the wmd iraq war , it has one of the highest rates of inequality, it spies on its own people to an incredible degree cf.  wikileaks, snowden documents , and it is the largest contributor to the destruction of life on earth cf.  consumption, co0, resource waste etc .  do you think that it is appropriate for some of those to appear on  made in the usa labels  ? if so, then maybe you are right although the precise terms included are an issue unto themselves .  and if not, then why is it different for china.  a more appropriate label, in a better world, would be one that identified the ethics of the production of that specific product.  e. g.  how its workers are treated/compensated, and how ecologically sustainable it is.   #  addressing your main point, i think it is a bit unfair to criticise china too much regarding their factory workers.   #  would you also stamp every us army uniform with  made by the exploited prison workers slaves ? of the united states  rather than simply  made in the usa  ? prisoners regularly make under $0/h, receive no health and safety protection, no vacation days or overtime pay, and receive no union protection.  addressing your main point, i think it is a bit unfair to criticise china too much regarding their factory workers.  all the western nations went through the same phase of development with equally poor conditions.  it comes across as a bit high and mighty to chastise an economy transitioning through this economic phase when you yourself exploited your own workers to get through it.  heck, the west is pretty much built on the exploitation of other countries workers and slaves.  i do not think there is much of a moral high ground for us to take.   #  there are pockets of china that are more capitalist than the u. s.   #  if the u. s.  had labelled south korean made goods as  products of the exploited workers of a military dictatorship , the country would not be enjoying its prosperity today.  i would think that that label would cause a lot more economic and social damage than the provision of factory jobs at market prices.  all countries in the asia pacific region went through a period where times were tough; south korea was a sweatshop state that benefited from an export oriented economy, until they were able to develop their infrastructure and become a powerhouse in technology.  so if you are concerned that the u. s.  is exploited poor workers, remember that the west is also developing the nation is physical, intellectual, and human capital as well via foreign direct investment e. g.  korea, japan, singapore, etc.  .  as proof, china is wages have been growing by double digits.  and fyi china has not been communist since mao as the nation has private property rights, labour mobility, and income diversity.  there are pockets of china that are more capitalist than the u. s.
i was recently on a lufthansa flight from frankfurt to chicago and noticed many times where people would get incredibly mad at the others in front of them for reclining their seats.  the flight attendants actually asked a couple people to un recline their seats.  sparked by discussion in this thread URL as well, it seems many people on reddit are under the assumption that reclining your seat makes you an asshole.  i feel that i paid for a seat that reclines, and i also paid to sit in a seat where the one in front of me reclines as well.  everyone else in economy on this flight did.  getting mad at someone and calling them an asshole for using the seat reclining feature  they paid for  is uncalled for.  yes, economy is cramped, especially on lufthansa, but if you wanted more room you should have paid for a better seat such as first, business, or economy plus .  cmv  #  i feel that i paid for a seat that reclines, and i also paid to sit in a seat where the one in front of me reclines as well.   #  you paid for a seat on a flight that will get you from point a to point b.  if the reclining feature of your seat is broken you are not entitled to recompense.   # you paid for a seat on a flight that will get you from point a to point b.  if the reclining feature of your seat is broken you are not entitled to recompense.  additionally the staff can and will ask you to unrecline your seat as you noted .  therefore you are  not  paying for a seat the reclines you have received a seat that  happens  to recline.  having received a seat with certain features it is up to you the user to determine if you want to use those features to the discomfort of your fellow travelers.  you acknowledge that flights are cramped and that reclining can be uncomfortable for the person behind you depending on their stature or need to use the tray table.  however by unilaterally deciding to recline your chair you are saying that you  do not care  about the comfort of other people and that your own  wants  come first.  that is text book selfishness and arguably makes you an asshole.  essentially you have been handed a defective product where the defect does not impact you but instead causes pain to someone else.  to actually use that feature despite its defects is very selfish.  the solution to this problem is incredibly simple.  rather than assuming that reclining is ok we should move to a system where reclining is presumed to be not ok and that a passengers should ask those behind them if they are ok with them reclining their seats.  this would be far preferable to simply slamming your chair back because you think it is within your rights to do so.   #  shit happens, the plane is cramped, and the world would work better if we all tried to take the comfort of our fellow man into consideration in such circumstances instead of getting tied up in a dispute over our  rights .   #  this is one of those topics that is going to divide people because both answers are correct as long as society agrees to one or the other.  if everyone agreed that you can recline and they can recline the world would be a happy place, if everyone agreed that no one could recline the world would be a happy place, but when some people want to recline and others do not things get messy because they rely on people being adults about the situation which most of us are not sadly .  i think the answer is this: you have a right to recline subject to causing the person behind you undue discomfort.  if the person behind you is unusually tall or was really hoping to use his laptop and you do not have a good reason for wanting to recline then i think you need to sit up straight.  getting the bad luck to have someone behind you who is impacted by your reclining is the same as the bad luck to sit next to someone who is too big for their seat.  shit happens, the plane is cramped, and the world would work better if we all tried to take the comfort of our fellow man into consideration in such circumstances instead of getting tied up in a dispute over our  rights .   #  i am pretty sure i have done all of these and i am not sure i remember ever being called an asshole.   #  i do not mean this to be mean or a criticism, but how often to you fly ? i am pretty sure i have done all of these and i am not sure i remember ever being called an asshole.  in fact, i chronically lean my chair back because my pelvis is kinda weird sitting up straight for a period of time more than a few minutes can get quite painful.  but never had to explain that to anyone; never been called an asshole.  again, i do not suspect you are an asshole, i am just wondering what the difference between the two of us is.  i have never flown a german airline.  maybe that makes a difference ?  #  just because it is there does not mean you get to use it.   #  i think the fundamental problem is that the seats and their design is from a time when planes carried fewer rows.  instead of 0 inches between the back leg support of one row and the front leg support of the one to the rear, there was 0 or so.  back then it was possible to recline without infringing mightily on the space paid for by another.  now the design of the plane is such that it only works if all seats are reclined or all are upright, because the passengers are essentially nut to butt in there.  the fact that the seat reclines is a relic of an older design, same as the ashtray you sometimes still find on delta flights.  just because it is there does not mean you get to use it.   #  they do it on the seats in front of the exit rows this to me is one of the biggest reasons that you  should not  recline your seat.   # they do it on the seats in front of the exit rows this to me is one of the biggest reasons that you  should not  recline your seat.  you did not pay for a seat that reclines, you just happen to be sitting in one.  the people in front of bathrooms or exit rows theoretically paid the same price, but do not get a price break.  plus, those people can never recline.  often in this argument people will claim that the person behind them can just recline to gain space as well, but this cascade ends for the people in front of the exit row.  by reclining, you are either taking space from the person behind you, or creating a cascade that eventually ends with the people in front of the exit row having less space when everyone in front of them can recline.
i spend so much time on the internet and it seems like everywhere i go people are being complete fucking idiots.  i am always hearing stories about how people threaten to rape and kill people on twitter and telling people to kill themselves purely based on them having a different opinion than them, i see it all the time on forums and stuff too and it is often up voted by people.  it is also the little things that get to me, like in an online game i play it is usually considered polite to say  good luck have fun  at the beggining of the game and  good game  at the end, which i always do since i try to be a nice person but it seems like 0 of the time people do not do this and often tell me to kill myself and other things instead.  plus if you look at the most subscribed youtube channels pretty much all of them are filled with some of the most stupid immature rubbish but it still gets millions of views.  i do not see people acting like this that often in real life but that is the thing, people can act however they want to online since they are anonymous, lots of people act like how i have been talking about while i try to be a nice person, because why would not i ? i really hate making other people feel especially for no reason.  i try very hard to be a nice person which i guess is both my biggest strength and weakness.  i have often tried to be generous with buying things for people, like steam games or just letting them keep any money they owe me etc, but it seems like people often take advantage of that.  one time i decided to give someone a game on steam since they got a new pc just as a friendly gesture but they never gave me anything back that was not the reason i gave them something, i just feel like i would of done if i was them they just kept asking me if i had anymore games for them and then unfriended me when i did not give them any also when i was at school there was a very sweet boy with adhd, people used to be really mean to him and do things like hide his clothes and spray deodorant in his face, i just do not get it.  how can people act like that ? a few months ago a popular youtube games critic made a vlog saying that he had got cancer, the point of the video was saying that he made a stupid mistake, did not get himself checked when he was having problems and did not want other people to make the same mistake.  i found tons of posts and comments often upvoted ones pretty much laughing at him and saying that  it was karma  because one got angry when someone was harassing him and his family online.  he know people would act like this and he was most likely very embarrassed by it but he wanted to do something selfless, he was worse of for making that video and the people laughing at him were enjoying laughing at him.  the worst part to me is that it seems like the people who try to be nice often get screwed over and the opposite happens to the idiots.  i try to convince myself it is just the vocal minority but judging by how often i see people acting like this then i struggle to believe it, especially with my point about the popular youtube channels.  it may not sound like much and i probably sound pretty arrogant when i say it but i have to be honest and things build up a lot i guess.  basically it seems like it is the majority, or atleast very close that seem to act like this now and not just the vocal minority.  sorry about the poor wording in some of this, i am not used to writing anything longer than a comment.   #  the worst part to me is that it seems like the people who try to be nice often get screwed over and the opposite happens to the idiots.   #  that is typically just an effect from being naive.   # people on the internet.  tend to troll, and if you believe the troll, it would seem like most people are jerks.  that is typically just an effect from being naive.  kindness and naivete go hand in hand until someone develops stronger life skills.  if you are just cut from a good cloth, and do good things because that is how you function you do not expect negativity from people.  with time, that negativity is easier to spot and it is easier to associate with similar people to yourself.  if you are a decent person, other people being decent does not typically register for you.  it is the expectation and taken for granted, unnoticed unless for some reason the action becomes out of the ordinary for example how bill gates is known to be a great philanthropist.  the bad in society is highlighted just for the reason it is bad, and out of the ordinary.  it does not mean it is common place and it is a misconception many people have.  american news is also extremely propagated towards fear mongering and negativity, so it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.   #  maybe it amplifies the negative, maybe it is the anonymity, maybe it is all the emotional context that gets lost in text, who knows.   #  preliminary note: i may or may not have made several unjustified assumptions in writing this.  if none of it is relevant to you, please disregard it.  : my first thought: get off the internet.  my second thought: use your new free time to go volunteer somewhere.  while people are capable of some pretty nasty things by themselves, the internet is a mess.  i do not know why.  maybe it amplifies the negative, maybe it is the anonymity, maybe it is all the emotional context that gets lost in text, who knows.  but in my experience it is a lot easier to be cynical about people when you do not interact with real people.  as for volunteering, it may seem kind of random but i can think of several ways in which it could help.  you will spend time with people who spend their free time doing helpful, constructive things.  these people are usually pretty cool.  you yourself will be a person who does helpful things in your free time.  i have always found it easy to be optimistic about other people when i feel good about what i am doing.  depending on where you volunteer you will serve people, and i think it is never easier to love people than when you are trying to serve them, even if they are kind of jerks.  i got punched in the face outside a soup kitchen once and i still feel positively about all my time there.  also when i say volunteer i do not necessarily mean humanitarian service.  help do tech for a community play, help out at a bicycle collective.  just getting involved regularly with other people in a constructive way  in real life .  it may not change the nature of humanity, but it may help change your view of which side tends to dominate in real people.   #  unless the place has gone seriously downhill since i grew up round there that is either an excuse, lack of imagination or a symptom of online induced depression.   #  what ? nothing to do outside in cambridge ? unless the place has gone seriously downhill since i grew up round there that is either an excuse, lack of imagination or a symptom of online induced depression.  just get on your fucking bike you do live in cambridge right ? and go out and get some exercise.  piss around.  pretend castle hill is actually a hill and whizz down it.  play tourist slalom.  find out what a bike can do, then learn how to repair a bike afterwards.  there used to be loads of squash or tennis courts, have they all gone ? bonfire night is coming up, drive out into the fens at night, throw fireworks around in the fog and crash your friend is car in a ditch.  winter is coming, go out to welney bird reserve and watch the sunset over thousands of wildfowl on the floods.  do i have to go on ? just do not give me any bollocks about nothing to do, that is up to you.   #  managing your emotional well being is a skill that you only learn with time.   #  lack of imagination is easily solved by practice, so in retrospect i do not mean it as a judgemental thing and do not take it that way, even if i did sound frustrated with you earlier.  but from what you say and how you say it you come across as a bit depressed and stuck behind a computer screen, which really, really does not help depression.  by the way, internet mental health diagnosis by an unqualified nobody like me is worthless on its own, i am just saying it as i see it with limited info.  whilst it is true that a lot of the good stuff in cambridge is not free any more, it is not so easy to get into the botanics first thing in the morning to look for grass snakes when there is a fee on the gate, but there is always something to do.  when i was a teenager it was a 0 mile bike ride into town so perhaps i valued what was there more when i got there.  seriously though i do think that the most important thing to do is to put down the screen and step slowly backwards.  if you are a tad depressed regular exercise is one of the best therapies, not the complete solution, but a big help.  and you live in one of the most physically beautiful towns in the world, even if the people are a bit up themselves there is a reason that i live in the north of england now, people are more friendly so do not blame yourself if cambridge is not the easiest place to be sociable it might be them not you.  get out, go for a walk down the river all the way to grantchester.  go and laugh at the tourists, try to grab their punt poles as they go under that footbridge on lammas land.  learn to look at things.  autumn is the best time to be out breathing the air.  switch the fucking computer off.  also, i know everybody has told you this, but being late teens can be shit.  that is just the way of it.  things change and get better, and get worse again, and get better.  learn to spot when you are getting down and go do something irrelevant and energetic.  managing your emotional well being is a skill that you only learn with time.   #  jogging: it can keep you sane and is a good reason to go outside.   # sports: golf, tennis, crossfit, rugby, football, darts, pool, swimming, rowing.  volunteering: lots of good international ngos are based in cambridge or have offices there , there are charity shops, and there are local charities and schools.  pubs: not to imply that you are all alcoholics, but you have some really good pubs in tiny villages in england.  it is been a while since i have been to cambridge, but i ca not imagine it is an exception.  work: a part time job in an environment you like can provide more than just money.  gardening: you guys have great weather for it and you meet a lot of constructive people who will help you get your plants growing.  entrepreneurship: starting a small company with friends can be awesome.  jogging: it can keep you sane and is a good reason to go outside.  cafes: a friend of mine spends 0 hours per day in a starbucks because he is doing a masters online.  he gets a lot of social interaction there.  it seems to me like there are a lot of things to do outside other than museums.
often these threads espouse completely reasonable views and offer no motive whatsoever as to why somebody would want this view changed ex:  hitler was bad   climate change is a real thing  or  people should be nice to each other cmv   edit:  there also seems to be a lack of open mindedness and common abandonment of new threads by some ops.  if anything these people just want to argue and/or change the views of those who respond to them.  usually lots of commenters respond to the post with long explanations and attempts at changing the perspective or changing the terms of the argument as a whole, but the op just inevitably sidesteps it or ignores it altogether.  ops in these posts rarely concede points, even if they do not entirely change their views.  most of the time the op wo not even be active in the discussions in the comment section yet the moderators wo not remove their post for violating either rule e or b.  this is because it is often pretty dicey to decide what really constitutes soapboxing and what is a genuine post.  as an auxiliary view, i think the rules should be amended to  must include a motive for why you want this view to be changed.   this view has already been changed.  it would be detrimental to the sub to attempt this.  otherwise we get a bunch of posts like these: one of the top posts of all time URL this one was problematic for several reasons so i have removed it.  another top post URL then there are a bunch of these every day URL like this thread, currently top of cmv URL i want this view changed because i want to be convinced that there is some underlying benefit to such posts or that there is generally just something i am missing.  currently i feel like these sorts of flotsam posts detract from the spirit of the subreddit as a whole.   #   must include a motive for why you want this view to be changed.    #  but that is not always the case.   # but that is not always the case.  why do you think that a poster must  want  their view changed in order for the post to be a valid cmv post ? when someone says  change my view , they can mean it one of two ways: 0.  the way you are thinking.   i hate black people and i really wish i did not, please point out how irrational this view is so i can change this view that i really wish i did not .  0.  as a challenge.   black people are genetically more pre disposed to committing crimes than whites.  this is demonstrably true, because look at the percentage of black people that commit crimes compared to the percentage of white people.  yet some idiots out there still claim that we are all created equal and that skin color has nothing to do with the propensity to commit a crime.  i am virtually certain that those people are wrong, but if you are one of them, go ahead and take your best shot and try to change my view.  good luck !    #  it is hard to tell what one is intentions are.   #  scanning the posts you link, i noticed a distinct aspect of there being lots of discussion, but little from the original poster.  with this in mind, it is likely the first part of your view is rock solid, that people do not actually want their view to be changed.  but i contend that people post such sometimes controversial, and sometimes far out, ideas for the purpose of not venting, but rather to inspire discussion.  it is hard to tell what one is intentions are.  and it is terrible to make overt generalizations.  but from the sample you provided, and the reminder that this sub serves any view changed even if it is not the original posters, then we clearly see less of an outlet and more of a starting point for discussion.  a discussion that while the original poster might bow out quietly, still rages on by those who choose to discuss.  which is to say, without making more run on sentences, simply to the effect, that provided with good intent the original poster holds true to submission rule number two, we thus subsequently have in whole, or in part of, a fruit full place in which the spirit of the subreddit can still be held, without having to violate commentary rule number three.  if that makes sense.   #  i still think many of these posts  ops do not want to be convinced of anything and just want to have a place to make their case without the general stigma attached to making unsolicited arguments.   # a discussion that while the original poster might bow out quietly, still rages on by those who choose to discuss.  i definitely see how it often and inadvertently functions in that way for commenters, but the expressed purpose of this sub is  for people who have an opinion on something but accept that they may be wrong or want help changing their view.   that is also expressed in the first rule of submissions.  yet so often countless times per day posts are made with completely different, albeit unknown i will grant you that , intentions.  i still think many of these posts  ops do not want to be convinced of anything and just want to have a place to make their case without the general stigma attached to making unsolicited arguments.  i do not know what their motives necessarily are, but they are not open minded and that much is for certain.   #  i ca not help but imagine all these users commenting as programs from the matrix.   #  i ca not help but imagine all these users commenting as programs from the matrix.  thoughts ? i think that they are posting it here in the first place means that they they either want to change there opinion or want to prove to themselves that they are right.  either way the ability to change there opinion is there.  if there was nobody who did not intend to change there opinion when they posted stuff the quality of posts would drop because changing their opinions would be easy ! testing their views is still accepting that there could be flaws in them.  and besides, i do not really see how any of it goes against the rules.   #  i am so abhorrently against it and my stance is so strong that i would sincerely have no desire to change my view.   #  i completely agree.  whether or not the person  intends  to change their view is irrelevant.  we should  absolutely  be open to the possibility, but sometimes you want to post an opinion that you strongly support in order to spark discussion and see the other side of things.  i would even claim a strong opinion occasionally just to have people tear holes in it before i truly claim it as a strong opinion.  and personally, if i really do not want my opinion changed and do not think it is possible, i would not even post.  i thought the exact thing about circumcision.  i am so abhorrently against it and my stance is so strong that i would sincerely have no desire to change my view.  i considered posting about it in the past in order to inspire discussion, but i realized i only wanted to enforce my stance on others as opposed to potentially have my position changed.  if that was the case with most people, i would agree with op.  as far as i can tell, even in the examples given, that is not normally the case.
often these threads espouse completely reasonable views and offer no motive whatsoever as to why somebody would want this view changed ex:  hitler was bad   climate change is a real thing  or  people should be nice to each other cmv   edit:  there also seems to be a lack of open mindedness and common abandonment of new threads by some ops.  if anything these people just want to argue and/or change the views of those who respond to them.  usually lots of commenters respond to the post with long explanations and attempts at changing the perspective or changing the terms of the argument as a whole, but the op just inevitably sidesteps it or ignores it altogether.  ops in these posts rarely concede points, even if they do not entirely change their views.  most of the time the op wo not even be active in the discussions in the comment section yet the moderators wo not remove their post for violating either rule e or b.  this is because it is often pretty dicey to decide what really constitutes soapboxing and what is a genuine post.  as an auxiliary view, i think the rules should be amended to  must include a motive for why you want this view to be changed.   this view has already been changed.  it would be detrimental to the sub to attempt this.  otherwise we get a bunch of posts like these: one of the top posts of all time URL this one was problematic for several reasons so i have removed it.  another top post URL then there are a bunch of these every day URL like this thread, currently top of cmv URL i want this view changed because i want to be convinced that there is some underlying benefit to such posts or that there is generally just something i am missing.  currently i feel like these sorts of flotsam posts detract from the spirit of the subreddit as a whole.   #  usually lots of commenters respond to the post with long explanations and attempts at changing the perspective or changing the terms of the argument as a whole, but the op just inevitably sidesteps it or ignores it altogether.   #  ops in these posts rarely concede points, even if they do not entirely change their views.   # ops in these posts rarely concede points, even if they do not entirely change their views.  most of the time the op wo not even be active in the discussions in the comment section yet the moderators wo not remove their post for violating either rule e or b.  i have definitely done a cmv or two where an outsider might look at see this, but in reality i believe that my argument might be quite weak and i genuinely want my mind changed.  but many arguments given on cmv are nit picky, arguing for the sake of arguing and not well thought out, or perhaps even well researched, arguments.  in one case, my mind absolutely was changed, just not because of cmv but because of other resources.  for these reasons i have not posted a cmv in a while.  imo it is not worth it to ask the question if you are not going to at least partially respond to each individual initial commenter, but if they are all going to be non substantive arguments, then what is the point ?  #  with this in mind, it is likely the first part of your view is rock solid, that people do not actually want their view to be changed.   #  scanning the posts you link, i noticed a distinct aspect of there being lots of discussion, but little from the original poster.  with this in mind, it is likely the first part of your view is rock solid, that people do not actually want their view to be changed.  but i contend that people post such sometimes controversial, and sometimes far out, ideas for the purpose of not venting, but rather to inspire discussion.  it is hard to tell what one is intentions are.  and it is terrible to make overt generalizations.  but from the sample you provided, and the reminder that this sub serves any view changed even if it is not the original posters, then we clearly see less of an outlet and more of a starting point for discussion.  a discussion that while the original poster might bow out quietly, still rages on by those who choose to discuss.  which is to say, without making more run on sentences, simply to the effect, that provided with good intent the original poster holds true to submission rule number two, we thus subsequently have in whole, or in part of, a fruit full place in which the spirit of the subreddit can still be held, without having to violate commentary rule number three.  if that makes sense.   #  i still think many of these posts  ops do not want to be convinced of anything and just want to have a place to make their case without the general stigma attached to making unsolicited arguments.   # a discussion that while the original poster might bow out quietly, still rages on by those who choose to discuss.  i definitely see how it often and inadvertently functions in that way for commenters, but the expressed purpose of this sub is  for people who have an opinion on something but accept that they may be wrong or want help changing their view.   that is also expressed in the first rule of submissions.  yet so often countless times per day posts are made with completely different, albeit unknown i will grant you that , intentions.  i still think many of these posts  ops do not want to be convinced of anything and just want to have a place to make their case without the general stigma attached to making unsolicited arguments.  i do not know what their motives necessarily are, but they are not open minded and that much is for certain.   #  i think that they are posting it here in the first place means that they they either want to change there opinion or want to prove to themselves that they are right.   #  i ca not help but imagine all these users commenting as programs from the matrix.  thoughts ? i think that they are posting it here in the first place means that they they either want to change there opinion or want to prove to themselves that they are right.  either way the ability to change there opinion is there.  if there was nobody who did not intend to change there opinion when they posted stuff the quality of posts would drop because changing their opinions would be easy ! testing their views is still accepting that there could be flaws in them.  and besides, i do not really see how any of it goes against the rules.   #  as far as i can tell, even in the examples given, that is not normally the case.   #  i completely agree.  whether or not the person  intends  to change their view is irrelevant.  we should  absolutely  be open to the possibility, but sometimes you want to post an opinion that you strongly support in order to spark discussion and see the other side of things.  i would even claim a strong opinion occasionally just to have people tear holes in it before i truly claim it as a strong opinion.  and personally, if i really do not want my opinion changed and do not think it is possible, i would not even post.  i thought the exact thing about circumcision.  i am so abhorrently against it and my stance is so strong that i would sincerely have no desire to change my view.  i considered posting about it in the past in order to inspire discussion, but i realized i only wanted to enforce my stance on others as opposed to potentially have my position changed.  if that was the case with most people, i would agree with op.  as far as i can tell, even in the examples given, that is not normally the case.
the term  racism  is too specific today and there should be a word for discrimination in general.  i mean instead of using a different term for every type of discrimination, even with cases where the word sounds stupid ageism is not pronounced how it looks like , or when there is not an agreed word what do you call furry discrimination .  the word racism is not helpful today.  a long time ago it was helpful, when there was racism against races.  then there is anti semitism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, and so many types without a word.  why not just use a word for all.  also racism is reducing it is still a big problem, but not as much as in the american civil war , but it gets drowned in all the other types of discrimination, for example anti bronism, and i am not joking anti witch.  so either we need to change the meaning of racism to a more general term like how awful actually once meant awe full, and now it is used differently or just make up a new word or use the word discrimination .  tl;dr the term racism is too specific, and should use a more general word instead, for all types of discrimination.   #  i mean instead of using a different term for every type of discrimination, even with cases where the word sounds stupid ageism is not pronounced how it looks like , or when there is not an agreed word what do you call furry discrimination .   #  why in this age of information would you not want to be specific and classify things as best as we can ?  # it is not specific at all.  it is in fact used in the way you are saying it should be used.  i was called a racist the other day for a comment i made about mexicans.  i then substituted another neighboring nationality canadians , and asked if the same statement was racist ? they said no to which i replied: mexican is not a race ! if you think mexicans wear big rimmed hats, are tan and have mustaches, then i am not the one who is being racist.  i was talking smack about another nationality and this fool thought it was racism.  why in this age of information would you not want to be specific and classify things as best as we can ? because we want to strive to learn more and classify more, instead of dumbing down everything.  why do you ask questions and end the sentence with a period ? why do you capitalize some words but not all of the ones you are supposed too ? if using one word for many words, and not bothering to use correct punctuation is the plan then count me out ! maybe you just need to learn more, and try to apply yourself more ?  #  there is a problem with discussing discrimination in general.   #  there is a problem with discussing discrimination in general.  one being that you do dilute the term and end up discussing it in terms that do not adequately convey how this discrimination manifests or what impact it has on its victims.  another problem with that is that you ca not isolate or look at the problems causing that discrimination.  i would say on a whole human beings discriminate against whole swathes of people on a daily basis without even realizing it.  if you ca not say  this action is discrimination and it discriminates against x group of people  then it makes it near impossible to identify.   #  so are my mom, dad, brother and many of my relatives and friends, none of whom work at banks.   #  that is a very negative stereotype about jewish people.  stereotypes about jews  being good with money  go back to the middle ages and frequently lead to persecution of jewish people plus i am a jew, i do not work at a bank.  so are my mom, dad, brother and many of my relatives and friends, none of whom work at banks.  i do not know a single jew who works at a bank.  so the very fact that it is completely false is also a negative.  URL  #  for some reason many people mainly jews consider pointing out the obvious as  anti semitic.    #  thats because jews working at banks is not really a true stereotype.  nobody expects to walk in to a chase bank and see a jewish teller behind the counter.  they would however expect the ceo of chase bank to be jewish, which he is.  as well as many of the directors.  also the fact that the federal reserve chairman is jewish, along with half of all the other chairman, and considering jews only make up 0 of the population that is quite a staggeringly high representation.  so no jews working at banks is not a stereotype, however jews controlling vast sums of wealth and having massive worldwide influence in regards to their population size is quite incredible and is recognized by most people.  for some reason many people mainly jews consider pointing out the obvious as  anti semitic.    #  it will save a few words for people to lazy to say a few words.   #  ok i will try a third time, if you already read my first comments i will just copy paste what that i have already replied.  it will save a few words for people to lazy to say a few words.  it might sound stupid but it is true.  but of course, i was wrong by saying we should remove the term completely.  sorry, just heard of the subreddit, here is a delta
the term  racism  is too specific today and there should be a word for discrimination in general.  i mean instead of using a different term for every type of discrimination, even with cases where the word sounds stupid ageism is not pronounced how it looks like , or when there is not an agreed word what do you call furry discrimination .  the word racism is not helpful today.  a long time ago it was helpful, when there was racism against races.  then there is anti semitism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, and so many types without a word.  why not just use a word for all.  also racism is reducing it is still a big problem, but not as much as in the american civil war , but it gets drowned in all the other types of discrimination, for example anti bronism, and i am not joking anti witch.  so either we need to change the meaning of racism to a more general term like how awful actually once meant awe full, and now it is used differently or just make up a new word or use the word discrimination .  tl;dr the term racism is too specific, and should use a more general word instead, for all types of discrimination.   #  why not just use a word for all.   #  because we want to strive to learn more and classify more, instead of dumbing down everything.   # it is not specific at all.  it is in fact used in the way you are saying it should be used.  i was called a racist the other day for a comment i made about mexicans.  i then substituted another neighboring nationality canadians , and asked if the same statement was racist ? they said no to which i replied: mexican is not a race ! if you think mexicans wear big rimmed hats, are tan and have mustaches, then i am not the one who is being racist.  i was talking smack about another nationality and this fool thought it was racism.  why in this age of information would you not want to be specific and classify things as best as we can ? because we want to strive to learn more and classify more, instead of dumbing down everything.  why do you ask questions and end the sentence with a period ? why do you capitalize some words but not all of the ones you are supposed too ? if using one word for many words, and not bothering to use correct punctuation is the plan then count me out ! maybe you just need to learn more, and try to apply yourself more ?  #  i would say on a whole human beings discriminate against whole swathes of people on a daily basis without even realizing it.   #  there is a problem with discussing discrimination in general.  one being that you do dilute the term and end up discussing it in terms that do not adequately convey how this discrimination manifests or what impact it has on its victims.  another problem with that is that you ca not isolate or look at the problems causing that discrimination.  i would say on a whole human beings discriminate against whole swathes of people on a daily basis without even realizing it.  if you ca not say  this action is discrimination and it discriminates against x group of people  then it makes it near impossible to identify.   #  that is a very negative stereotype about jewish people.   #  that is a very negative stereotype about jewish people.  stereotypes about jews  being good with money  go back to the middle ages and frequently lead to persecution of jewish people plus i am a jew, i do not work at a bank.  so are my mom, dad, brother and many of my relatives and friends, none of whom work at banks.  i do not know a single jew who works at a bank.  so the very fact that it is completely false is also a negative.  URL  #  for some reason many people mainly jews consider pointing out the obvious as  anti semitic.    #  thats because jews working at banks is not really a true stereotype.  nobody expects to walk in to a chase bank and see a jewish teller behind the counter.  they would however expect the ceo of chase bank to be jewish, which he is.  as well as many of the directors.  also the fact that the federal reserve chairman is jewish, along with half of all the other chairman, and considering jews only make up 0 of the population that is quite a staggeringly high representation.  so no jews working at banks is not a stereotype, however jews controlling vast sums of wealth and having massive worldwide influence in regards to their population size is quite incredible and is recognized by most people.  for some reason many people mainly jews consider pointing out the obvious as  anti semitic.    #  it might sound stupid but it is true.   #  ok i will try a third time, if you already read my first comments i will just copy paste what that i have already replied.  it will save a few words for people to lazy to say a few words.  it might sound stupid but it is true.  but of course, i was wrong by saying we should remove the term completely.  sorry, just heard of the subreddit, here is a delta
the term  racism  is too specific today and there should be a word for discrimination in general.  i mean instead of using a different term for every type of discrimination, even with cases where the word sounds stupid ageism is not pronounced how it looks like , or when there is not an agreed word what do you call furry discrimination .  the word racism is not helpful today.  a long time ago it was helpful, when there was racism against races.  then there is anti semitism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, and so many types without a word.  why not just use a word for all.  also racism is reducing it is still a big problem, but not as much as in the american civil war , but it gets drowned in all the other types of discrimination, for example anti bronism, and i am not joking anti witch.  so either we need to change the meaning of racism to a more general term like how awful actually once meant awe full, and now it is used differently or just make up a new word or use the word discrimination .  tl;dr the term racism is too specific, and should use a more general word instead, for all types of discrimination.   #  so either we need to change the meaning of racism to a more general term like how awful actually once meant awe full, and now it is used differently or just make up a new word or use the word discrimination .   #  maybe you just need to learn more, and try to apply yourself more ?  # it is not specific at all.  it is in fact used in the way you are saying it should be used.  i was called a racist the other day for a comment i made about mexicans.  i then substituted another neighboring nationality canadians , and asked if the same statement was racist ? they said no to which i replied: mexican is not a race ! if you think mexicans wear big rimmed hats, are tan and have mustaches, then i am not the one who is being racist.  i was talking smack about another nationality and this fool thought it was racism.  why in this age of information would you not want to be specific and classify things as best as we can ? because we want to strive to learn more and classify more, instead of dumbing down everything.  why do you ask questions and end the sentence with a period ? why do you capitalize some words but not all of the ones you are supposed too ? if using one word for many words, and not bothering to use correct punctuation is the plan then count me out ! maybe you just need to learn more, and try to apply yourself more ?  #  one being that you do dilute the term and end up discussing it in terms that do not adequately convey how this discrimination manifests or what impact it has on its victims.   #  there is a problem with discussing discrimination in general.  one being that you do dilute the term and end up discussing it in terms that do not adequately convey how this discrimination manifests or what impact it has on its victims.  another problem with that is that you ca not isolate or look at the problems causing that discrimination.  i would say on a whole human beings discriminate against whole swathes of people on a daily basis without even realizing it.  if you ca not say  this action is discrimination and it discriminates against x group of people  then it makes it near impossible to identify.   #  i do not know a single jew who works at a bank.   #  that is a very negative stereotype about jewish people.  stereotypes about jews  being good with money  go back to the middle ages and frequently lead to persecution of jewish people plus i am a jew, i do not work at a bank.  so are my mom, dad, brother and many of my relatives and friends, none of whom work at banks.  i do not know a single jew who works at a bank.  so the very fact that it is completely false is also a negative.  URL  #  thats because jews working at banks is not really a true stereotype.   #  thats because jews working at banks is not really a true stereotype.  nobody expects to walk in to a chase bank and see a jewish teller behind the counter.  they would however expect the ceo of chase bank to be jewish, which he is.  as well as many of the directors.  also the fact that the federal reserve chairman is jewish, along with half of all the other chairman, and considering jews only make up 0 of the population that is quite a staggeringly high representation.  so no jews working at banks is not a stereotype, however jews controlling vast sums of wealth and having massive worldwide influence in regards to their population size is quite incredible and is recognized by most people.  for some reason many people mainly jews consider pointing out the obvious as  anti semitic.    #  it might sound stupid but it is true.   #  ok i will try a third time, if you already read my first comments i will just copy paste what that i have already replied.  it will save a few words for people to lazy to say a few words.  it might sound stupid but it is true.  but of course, i was wrong by saying we should remove the term completely.  sorry, just heard of the subreddit, here is a delta
when you are dead, you are dead.  your organs are of no use to you, and are simply going to rot into the ground or be burned.  it is morally indefensible not to be an organ donor, and nonsensical religious crap is not an excuse.  since this is a pretty extreme view, a more moderate approach is to make organ donation opt out.  unless you specifically register not to be an organ donor, you are one.  the opt out approach would mean that, for all of the people who are apathetic about the whole thing and do not bother opting in, they enter the organ donor pool and massively increase our available healthy organs.  for those pathetic enough to really care about not giving up their organs after death, they can register not to be an organ donor and i will spit on them as they walk to do it .  cmv  #  it is morally indefensible not to be an organ donor, and nonsensical religious crap is not an excuse.   #  what is moral, to me, is up to me, and for the purposes of this debate i believe differently to you for the record, your  belief  that not donating organs is immoral is about as justifiable as that  nonsensical religious crap  you are referring to.   # prove it.  prove it.  what is moral, to me, is up to me, and for the purposes of this debate i believe differently to you for the record, your  belief  that not donating organs is immoral is about as justifiable as that  nonsensical religious crap  you are referring to.  this issue has been discussed, in great depth, for years.  you had a case as did many others when you suggested that it would, in short, save a bunch of lives.  there was a discussion there.  taking a moral position especially with the tone your post is delivered, though if i have misinterpreted i apologise is not an argument.  you ca not debate morals.   #  you do realize that organ and tissue donations go to things other than transplants, yes ?  #  i largely agree that organ donation should be  opt out  as you do, so the part of your view that i am going to try to change is this:   for those pathetic enough to really care about not giving up their organs after death, they can register not to be an organ donor and i will spit on them as they walk to do it .  you do realize that organ and tissue donations go to things other than transplants, yes ? every  ismoker is lung  that you have seen in a psa was a donated organ.  every cadaver and organ that has been dissected in a medical school was donated.  i agree that it is largely selfish to deny your organs or tissue to people who need them to save their lives, but i  do not  think it is selfish to refuse to let your body be used to make a political point especially one you disagree with , or be used for research or medical instruction.  at present, at least in my state, there is no way to specify what your organs or tissue are used for.  if i am an organ donor, my body might be used for a life saving transplant, or it might become a display piece in a college lab and never used for anything.  my organs might save a child with a congenital birth defect or they might save a 0 year old life time alcoholic with multiple duis and cirrhosis of the liver.  until i have the right to determine  how  my organs and tissue are used after my death: i will, and have, opted out of organ donation.  i do not think i am a bad person because, in death, i refuse to support behaviors and causes i would not have supported in life.   #  when i die, my body has the right to be left alone unless i request something or it is for sanitation reasons.   #  here is my concern.  organ donation is against some religions.  now regardless of your belief, we all have the right to religious freedom.  by makin it mandatory or even opt out violates that freedom of religion.  eventually some one is going to die before they can opt out, so that will infringe upon their right to religious freedom.  another problem with the opt out model is that i have the right to be left alone.  when i die, my body has the right to be left alone unless i request something or it is for sanitation reasons.   #  if one really felt strongly enough about this, then they can always go and opt out.   #  wanting your organs to rot in the ground rather than save a life is a choice i have no problem removing from people.  it is a choice with no benefit to anybody, and is disgusting to even contemplate someone capable of being that selfish.  if one really felt strongly enough about this, then they can always go and opt out.  this is not forcing people to donate their organs, though i would prefer that.  opt out simply means that the people who do not care enough to register one way or another are inside the organ donor pool instead of outside of it.   #  by having organ donor status be opt out, you are saying that the government inherently owns everyone is bodies, and is simply allowing them to live in them until they die, and that is bullshit.   #  if it is so fucking selfish and horrible to not be an organ donor, then getting people to opt into it should not be a problem.  this is not a debate of whether or not being an organ donor is a good thing, this is a debate of a person is fundamental rights and the scope of the power of the government.  i own my body.  the government does not own my body.  by having organ donor status be opt out, you are saying that the government inherently owns everyone is bodies, and is simply allowing them to live in them until they die, and that is bullshit.  it is the same as how people are sent to prison when they commit a crime, instead of being allowed to live in the free world because they have yet to commit a crime.  these may seem like the same thing, but they are not at all.  the default should always be personal freedom, and if you think otherwise, you are the selfish piece of shit for thinking that everyone else is level of freedom should be determined by what you personally think would be best for society, regardless of how good your intentions are.  guess what ? if we went around and stole all the extra money, food, etc.  from everyone who had more than was absolutely necessary for them to live, we could probably do a lot of good with that stuff, but that does not make it the right thing to do.
i ca not stand people who talk about this sort of thing.  the idea that you should spend half or more of a yearly income on a wedding ring is the most disgusting financial advice i have ever heard.  i absolutely believe how much you spend on your wedding ring ought to be proportional to how much you earn.  but this is for the opposite reason.  if you are making median wage, you should be aiming for a nice several hundred dollar ring.  if you are earning six figures, that is when you get into thousand dollar  rings.  i do not believe anybody should be spending relatively huge quantities of money on wedding rings, particularly diamonds, since by now we all know how disgusting the entire diamond industry is.  while we are at it, separate engagement rings are even worse.  cmv  #  the idea that you should spend half or more of a yearly income on a wedding ring is the most disgusting financial advice i have ever heard.   #  i do not think i have ever heard anyone suggesting 0 months of income on an engagement ring.   # i do not think i have ever heard anyone suggesting 0 months of income on an engagement ring.  i have only heard 0 0 months of income and it usually refers to both rings.  0 months of income really is not that much money for single people near the median household income.  we are talking after tax dollars of course it shows that you are responsible with your money and able to save up to afford nice things.  i just got an engagement and wedding ring and i dropped between 0 and 0 months of income on it.  was it financially irresponsible ? not in the least.  i saved up about 0 months for it, taking about 0 of my income and throwing it into a savings account.  i make right at the median income and as a single person i had more than enough to put 0 to whatever i wanted.  the 0 years before i started saving for the ring i was putting that money into a different savings account so i could have 0 months of an emergency fund.  bottom line: it is not irresponsible at all putting 0 months salary into a single thing.  people buy brand new cars on credit that are nearly a full years salary and think it is fine, so why is 0 months on a ring that will last your entire life regardless of if you get divorced or not be a bad thing ? now, buying a ring on credit is another story.  but that is not what we are talking about here.  we are talking about just spending that much in general.   #  if it became known that she was not a virgin, it would severely impair her ability to find a desirable husband, and pregnancy could pretty much ruin her life.   #  i do not really expect this to change your view about the persistence of this standard, but maybe the historical context will at least help you understand how it came about and that it did kind of make sense at one point.  before the sexual revolution, premarital sex was a risky proposition for women.  if it became known that she was not a virgin, it would severely impair her ability to find a desirable husband, and pregnancy could pretty much ruin her life.  but people still wanted to have sex asap.  enter the engagement ring, essentially earnest money for premarital sex.  if her boyfriend made a major financial sacrifice, this indicated that he was serious about marrying her, because you do not spend that kind of money if your plan is to hit it and quit it.  plus, if he bailed she could sell the ring.  her mind at ease, she could sleep with him relatively secure in the knowledge that he really was going to marry her.  this does not work if the ring is not a major financial sacrifice.   #  a down payment on a second car so that one partner does not have to commute with public transport.   #  0 0 months income is still an absurd level of money to spend on a trinket.  yes i know people want to spend their money on it.  i am not suggesting they should be outlawed, of course.  but i am suggesting that it is ridiculous to even want to do so.  on a list of things that are more useful than a wedding ring, there is a lot of things above it, all of which are going to help a marriage more than a useless bauble.  a down payment on a second car so that one partner does not have to commute with public transport.  savings for a house.   #  so how can you justify that, but not a nice ring ?  # anything more than that and you are just paying for a fancier hunk of metal that is depreciating, unlike a ring.  so how can you justify that, but not a nice ring ? as for the things that would be better for a marriage than a ring, my fiance and i need none of them.  we both already own houses, cars.  there is very few things that money could buy that would help it.  the only thing i need money for is er, but a once in a lifetime purchase is not going to hurt that too much.  originally, you had much stronger wording.   morally reprehensible and financially irresponsible.   so, it seems your view has changed at least somewhat.   #  with the exception of a few high cola areas, it is incredibly easy to accrue wealth as a single person making 0k/yr.   #  they do not have to be paid in full in a few months.  if anything, they are a few percentage points higher.  also, people who take car loans are more often than not woefully irresponsible with their finances, so please do not tell me that buying a ring with cash is financially irresponsible when you think that financing cars is a financially sensible thing to do.  also, do not forget we are talking about single people, making median household incomes.  they have got money coming out of their ears.  with the exception of a few high cola areas, it is incredibly easy to accrue wealth as a single person making 0k/yr.
i ca not stand people who talk about this sort of thing.  the idea that you should spend half or more of a yearly income on a wedding ring is the most disgusting financial advice i have ever heard.  i absolutely believe how much you spend on your wedding ring ought to be proportional to how much you earn.  but this is for the opposite reason.  if you are making median wage, you should be aiming for a nice several hundred dollar ring.  if you are earning six figures, that is when you get into thousand dollar  rings.  i do not believe anybody should be spending relatively huge quantities of money on wedding rings, particularly diamonds, since by now we all know how disgusting the entire diamond industry is.  while we are at it, separate engagement rings are even worse.  cmv  #  if you are making median wage, you should be aiming for a nice several hundred dollar ring.   #  if you are earning six figures, that is when you get into thousand dollar  rings.   #  i am not sure exactly what your issue is.  is your issue with the metric of  x months salary  or is your issue with what x should be ? are you saying x should be  0 ? if you are earning six figures, that is when you get into thousand dollar  rings.  the concept of  x months salary  addresses this.  lower income people should pay less for a ring.  higher income people should pay more for a ring.   #  plus, if he bailed she could sell the ring.   #  i do not really expect this to change your view about the persistence of this standard, but maybe the historical context will at least help you understand how it came about and that it did kind of make sense at one point.  before the sexual revolution, premarital sex was a risky proposition for women.  if it became known that she was not a virgin, it would severely impair her ability to find a desirable husband, and pregnancy could pretty much ruin her life.  but people still wanted to have sex asap.  enter the engagement ring, essentially earnest money for premarital sex.  if her boyfriend made a major financial sacrifice, this indicated that he was serious about marrying her, because you do not spend that kind of money if your plan is to hit it and quit it.  plus, if he bailed she could sell the ring.  her mind at ease, she could sleep with him relatively secure in the knowledge that he really was going to marry her.  this does not work if the ring is not a major financial sacrifice.   #  i do not think i have ever heard anyone suggesting 0 months of income on an engagement ring.   # i do not think i have ever heard anyone suggesting 0 months of income on an engagement ring.  i have only heard 0 0 months of income and it usually refers to both rings.  0 months of income really is not that much money for single people near the median household income.  we are talking after tax dollars of course it shows that you are responsible with your money and able to save up to afford nice things.  i just got an engagement and wedding ring and i dropped between 0 and 0 months of income on it.  was it financially irresponsible ? not in the least.  i saved up about 0 months for it, taking about 0 of my income and throwing it into a savings account.  i make right at the median income and as a single person i had more than enough to put 0 to whatever i wanted.  the 0 years before i started saving for the ring i was putting that money into a different savings account so i could have 0 months of an emergency fund.  bottom line: it is not irresponsible at all putting 0 months salary into a single thing.  people buy brand new cars on credit that are nearly a full years salary and think it is fine, so why is 0 months on a ring that will last your entire life regardless of if you get divorced or not be a bad thing ? now, buying a ring on credit is another story.  but that is not what we are talking about here.  we are talking about just spending that much in general.   #  0 0 months income is still an absurd level of money to spend on a trinket.   #  0 0 months income is still an absurd level of money to spend on a trinket.  yes i know people want to spend their money on it.  i am not suggesting they should be outlawed, of course.  but i am suggesting that it is ridiculous to even want to do so.  on a list of things that are more useful than a wedding ring, there is a lot of things above it, all of which are going to help a marriage more than a useless bauble.  a down payment on a second car so that one partner does not have to commute with public transport.  savings for a house.   #  the only thing i need money for is er, but a once in a lifetime purchase is not going to hurt that too much.   # anything more than that and you are just paying for a fancier hunk of metal that is depreciating, unlike a ring.  so how can you justify that, but not a nice ring ? as for the things that would be better for a marriage than a ring, my fiance and i need none of them.  we both already own houses, cars.  there is very few things that money could buy that would help it.  the only thing i need money for is er, but a once in a lifetime purchase is not going to hurt that too much.  originally, you had much stronger wording.   morally reprehensible and financially irresponsible.   so, it seems your view has changed at least somewhat.
this is specific to the usa.  but i die a little bit every time i see a lottery commercial.  i find it despicable, but nobody else seems bothered by it.  first off, the government bans with few exceptions, but clearly it is not legal across the board gambling.  presumably this is to protect the citizens from gambling.  but if gambling is such a dangerous thing, then why do they allow you to gamble via the lottery ? i know that they make money off the lottery, but if you have a duty to protect citizens from gambling, you should not offer an option.  and to preempt any discussions about how the money the govt gets can be used to help needy people the people who play the lottery are on average much poorer.  since govt takes 0, the lottery is essentially a tax on poor people, so it does not help needy people.  but perhaps you could say  well people will gamble no matter what, so we will offer them the least evil way, and then money can be used for good .  but if that is your justification for a lottery, then you still should never ever advertise it.  because by doing that, you are making people who would not otherwise waste their money, gamble it away.  so in my opinion advertising a lottery is very unethical.  cmv ! for the record, i think the govt should just legalize gambling entirely.  not sure if anybody would misinterpret what i am saying, but maybe that will help clarify some things.   #  because by doing that, you are making people who would not otherwise waste their money, gamble it away.   #  first no one is making anyone spend their money.   # but i die a little bit every time i see a lottery commercial.  i find it despicable, but nobody else seems bothered by it.  well yeah, we get bombarded with adds all the time, i am shocked they are not on reddit.  going to war is not a good thing.  should the army stop its advertising as well ? maybe being all you can be is a bad idea ? i am not sure what is immoral about it ? i get that you do not like it, but immoral ? first no one is making anyone spend their money.  advertising does not make you spend money.  i realize you could have been using a figure of speech, but still.  people who waste their money are going to do so anyway.  also it is their business to do so.  i do not gamble myself except once a year on my birthday when i bet on the horses .  0/0 when i see someone purchase a lottery ticket it is at a gas station and they are buying overpriced goods and or cigarettes both a waste of money .  if you want to talk about immoral, then selling addictive substances and advertising that should be more of an issue.  i do not know, maybe i am misunderstanding you ?  #  the problem is that with this part:   if a product, service, or lottery is morally acceptable .   # and to me that does not make sense.  if a product, service, or lottery is morally acceptable to have in existence, that to me it follows that it is acceptable to advertize it.  what is the point of having a lottery if nobody knows about it or plays it ? the problem is that with this part:   if a product, service, or lottery is morally acceptable .  if that is the case, then the govt should allow private gambling.  since they limit private gambling on a moral standpoint, then they should not be allowed to advertise it.  they tell us that gambling is bad, but then they not only give us a way to gamble, but they promote it.   #  what are your thoughts on the lotterys in the many states where gambling is legal in some form ?  #  you say in your post that you are for legalizing gambling, so is the only reason you find state lotterys  immoral  and  despicable  because they are hypocritical ? what are your thoughts on the lotterys in the many states where gambling is legal in some form ? anyways, with state lotterys the government can always be sure that it is well regulated, something that would be extremely difficult to do with other gambling which has a long history of being associated with other shady activities.  also, as you already mentioned the money made from the state lottery goes back into the community, which money from other gambling does not.  if it is an evil that the government feels people are going to participate in regardless, they might as well make sure the money is put to good use.  you also mention that the lottery preys on the poor, but the lottery only costs a dollar to play, and typically people, with very few exceptions, do not spend a huge amount of money on it, like they do binging on slots or other forms of gambling.  buying a weekly or monthly lottery ticket is not doing people any more damage than buying their morning coffee, and if it gives them a little bit of hope or something pleasant to thing about in addition to knowing that the money goes towards a good cause, every penny was well spent and it provides a valuable service.   #  and a lottery is not necessarily bad even in a state that has legalized gambling.   # it goes beyond just hypocrisy.  if a government states gambling is immoral, but facilitates it.  then that is immoral.  now i do not think gambling is immoral.  and a lottery is not necessarily bad even in a state that has legalized gambling.  but to advertise it is what gets me.  they are drawing money out from people into an activity that they normally do not allow.   anyways, with state lotterys the government can always be sure that it is well regulated, something that would be extremely difficult to do with other gamblling which has a long history of being associated with other shady activities all valid points.  i would argue it is not that hard to regulate.  and i would also argue that it is not necessarily required to regulate.  but that is a completely different discussion.  the problem is that they advertise it.  buying a weekly or monthly lottery ticket is not doing people any more damage than buying their morning coffee, and if it gives them a little bit of hope or something pleasant to thing about, every penny was well spent and it provides a valuable service.  i did not have this posted earlier, but found it.  URL low income households spend  $0/year on lottery.  that is a pretty significant tax in my book.  and while i think that your argument that it provides a service ie hope is a valid one.  that problem is that if they have to advertise, then they are not just getting people who want hope.  they are spending govt dollars on convincing people they want a lottery ticket.  that to me is the unethical part.  that is a 0 tax.  at minimum.   #  0 dollars / 0 days a year 0 cents a day.   #  0 dollars / 0 days a year 0 cents a day.  on average people are spending way more than that on coffee, like i already said, and i am not sure this is any worse a service than that.  i would hardly call it a significant tax in the long run, especially when it is not composed of one large payment but small payments over time.  it is probably still significantly less than most of these people are spending on sales tax in a year.  as for the advertising, if the demand is there, the service is exactly as advertised as far as i know most advertisements are fairly up front about how low the odds actually are , and no significant harm is being done i do not think 0 dollars a year in small increments that goes to a good cause is harm as partially shown above , then i have no problem with it.  no one is forced to play, they are just being made aware of its existence.  if the government wants the lottery to exist they need to inform people about its existence, which is all advertising is.
now, before i begin, i want to make it clear that i am not the stereotypical sports jock who puts down non traditional  sports  like cheerleading and marching band.  i am currently in high school marching band, and have never been good at any actual sports.  a sport has always been a competitive activity that involves either individuals or teams competing against each other to win a game or match.  sports have clear winners that can be determined by either the amount of points an individual or team wins ex: football, soccer, tennis, etc.  , or which individual or team finishes first ex: swim, track, etc.  .  therefore, anything that cannot be determined to have a clear winner should not be considered a sport.  even if you do not accept this definition, there is a clear difference between artistic activities and athletic activities.  athletic events require mostly physical fitness and coordination, and have a clear winner.  artistic events, like marching band and dance, may require physical activity, but mostly utilize one is creative interpretation.  additionally, artistic events cannot be judged objectively, and artistic competitions almost always have judges who use their own subjection to determine the winners.  now, for some reason, there has been a strange push in the last decade or so to define just about any and all extracurricular activities as sports, especially in high schools.  when meeting someone in high school, instead of asking what that person enjoys to do, the primary question seems to be  what sports do you play .  while this is not really part of my main argument, i think a possible reason for this trend is the desire from students to feel included in the world of sports, despite not being  good enough  for traditional sports.   #  now, for some reason, there has been a strange push in the last decade or so to define just about any and all extracurricular activities as sports, especially in high schools.   #  defining these things as sports has more to do with safety and equal opportunity than any relationship to what the actual definition of sport is.   # defining these things as sports has more to do with safety and equal opportunity than any relationship to what the actual definition of sport is.  cheerleading is a great example of this.  it has one of the highest injury rates for any school athletic activity, and this is because it is defined as an activity, not a sport.  as a result, schools do not have to follow title ix rules for cheerleading, nor do they have to provide adequate coaching, safe practice spaces, etc.  most cheerleading  coaches  are not licensed by any professional organization they are just  faculty advisors  or  sponsors  who oversee the activity.  for the majority cheerleading squads, this is probably ok.  but the ones that compete, doing pyramids, tumbling routines, throws/catches that is a dangerous activity that should be overseen by a paid, trained, and experienced coach.  not jane the english teacher who was a cheerleader in high school 0 years ago, when the most dangerous thing a squad did was wear a skirt that went above the knee.   #  they have nationals, regionals, worlds, it is pretty huge actually.   #  cheerleaders compete.  they have nationals, regionals, worlds, it is pretty huge actually.  my school had a 0x state champion team and they were the pride of the school.  they were the most successful sport and they worked hard for that.  same with dance, they also compete and train.  i do not know much about marching band but i have heard they compete too.  would you call gymnastics a non sport too ? it had no clear winner and often the judges will make the call on who wins.  there are rules set but it is impossible to be completely objective.   #  i know that gymnastics is an olympic sport, but i personally do not think should be considered a sport, along with figure skating and any of the other artistic olympic  sports .   #  while yes, cheerleaders and marching bands compete, they are not  playing against  other teams.  instead, judges watch their individual performances and state who the winner is out of the participating groups.  one thing i want to make very clear is that just because i do not believe in classifying these activities as sports does not mean that i am ignoring the hard work put into them.  like i said, i am in marching band myself.  in the fall, we rehearse every day except tuesday after school for two and a half hours.  we also go to just about every football game to play our show at half time and also to play in the stands.  then, if we have a competition, we go somewhere all day to perform and watch the other bands.  marching band is undoubtedly a lot of work, and i would bet cheerleading is as well.  this kind of leads me to a point i did not include in the post.  while cheerleading and marching band do compete independently of actual sporting events, their main purpose is to entertain the spectators.  most people do not care about cheerleaders or marching band outside of a sporting event, and most people do not attend these groups  competitions.  finally, i would like to give my opinion on gymnastics since you brought it up.  i know that gymnastics is an olympic sport, but i personally do not think should be considered a sport, along with figure skating and any of the other artistic olympic  sports .  like i said, i do not mean to diminish the effort and achievements of participants in these areas, but i just do not think that we need to call these activities sports to enjoy them.  we do not call drama/theater a sport, yet they  compete  for the  best    awards.   #  but there are people who do turn out to those events.   #  you assume that just because you do not care about watching cheerleading ormarching band that nobody does.  but there are people who do turn out to those events.  they are televised, sponsored, and even have fans.  cheerleading and band began as a means of crowd entertainment, but you ca not deny they have developed into something more.  these people do not practice to entertain crowds at games, most do it to compete professionally.   #  difference in funding because they are not actual sports ?  #  i guess my question of why you would rather not label such activities as sports, is what changes ? are we not allowed to reference them as sports in college apps ? difference in funding because they are not actual sports ? no scholarships for them ? what would changing how they are categorized do ? or are you just looking for a change in how they are associated and viewed socially ?
by  social contract,  i refer to the thought that individuals hold moral or political obligations toward each other and the state  as a result of a shared contract that forms society.   the premise of my argument is this: i did not sign any social contract, and until i consent to such a thought, i hold no obligations to the society i am  in  at the time or the government that claims to represent them, simply because i have a natural right to decide to not give my consent to something or not.  this naturally means that government is illegitimate if it tries to rule me in any way.  if i need to formulate a natural rights theory in this thread, i can.  i am not interested in a utilitarian argument for or against government and society.  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument and i will evaluate it as such unless an argument is made why i should not evaluate it in that way.  i think the best way to approach this subject for me is to make the argument that sct social contract theory is true and is not mutually exclusive with complete consent.  that was the first plank, or why i think sct is false.  the second plank is that sct advocates have their own agendas to enforce their own worldview on society.  i do not have a formulated argument for this because i think this is self evident due to the fact that every sct advocate has an affirmative worldview and think that society should be run in adherence with it.  change my view.  0.   god created man.   this does not have the be god of the bible, or even the god of a theistic religion.  to my knowledge, most western religions hold this to be true.  0.   because god is totally free, so are humans.   i want to qualify this.  no one is free to harm another person.  if people were free to harm other people, then no one would be free.  0.   since these rights were given to people by god, people can not take these rights away.   people can surrender various rights as that is a right .  that is my approach.  the implication is that i believe in the non aggression principle.  that is, no one can initiate physical aggression against another or his property.  it is legitimate to everything else.  this is why i am not interested in utilitarianism: i do not disbelieve in social contract for any consequentialist reason.  even if it is more practical for a society to be governed by social contract, that would not change my view that such governance is a violation of the natural law.  i would read and respond to a utilitarian argument, but i doubt that would change my mind as utilitarianism is not the primary reason i believe as i do .  my purpose of writing that was to streamline the discussion toward points that i find more persuasive to me.   #  if i need to formulate a natural rights theory in this thread, i can.   #  go for it, i believe that natural rights do not exist.   # go for it, i believe that natural rights do not exist.  all rights are a fiction created by people in order to agree upon certain core moral beliefs.  that is all.  we already accept that legally parents can make decisions like this for their children or rather any guardian may make these types of legal decisions for their children and as such you, for all intents and purposes,  did  consent to the social contract.  on the contrary, we can point out that social contract is merely a description of the relationship between a government and it is people.  it never really referred to a contract as we understand it today.  your consent is not inherently necessary for the social contract to be in effect.  the consent of the governed populace insofaras its willingness not to reject that authority is what is relevant.   #  now clearly, there are situations where b is the more moral choice, so i am not trying to make a value judgment as such, there.   # i would say neither, actually.  natural rights and the social contract are both fictions, stories told to justify particular political beliefs.  there is no prescriptive social contract  per se , but any adult can always choose to leave the country whatever country that might be , and thus resign from the contract that is implicit in their staying there.  if they do not, they either a accept an implicit contract with the prevailing government or b they become traitors to that government and attempt to overthrow it.  now clearly, there are situations where b is the more moral choice, so i am not trying to make a value judgment as such, there.  that would depend on your point of view.  as for natural rights, there is obviously no such thing, since a there is no demonstrated entity that could grant such rights, and b there is nothing special about humans that would grant us such rights, without granting them to every other creature on the planet.   #  why is it that  your  social contract claims a monopoly on the area that i live on ?  # my understanding, and probably /u/zoidberg0  is understanding of contract does not seem to hinge on the law.  a contract is simply a consensual mutual agreement.  so basically,  he thinks words have actual meanings and it is not legitimate to just make up a definition to a word because it validates someone is worldview.   i will agree with your premise that parents accept things for their kids, so it is binding until they renounce those things.  here is where i have a problem.  let is say that i just moved out of my parents home, bought my own home with the money i and not society earned.  i decide to repudiate the social contract because i had just realized the society i was bound by was crummy, had all the wrong ideas, etc.  why do i have to leave my home ? why is it that  your  social contract claims a monopoly on the area that i live on ?  #  if you are ok with thay then go find an uninhabited island somewhere but you will only have that land/property and safety for as long as you personally can physically defend it.   #  i think your point about consent is the important thing here.  by living in a society, you tacitly agree to the contract.  do not like that ? move.  the point of the contract is to secure the benefits of society that you cant get on your own.  the alternative is that you fend completely for yourself.  meaning food, shelter, safety, protecting your land/property and anything else.  if you are ok with thay then go find an uninhabited island somewhere but you will only have that land/property and safety for as long as you personally can physically defend it.   #  whether they refrain from it because of social contract, morality, or some other source, it is a limit on what they can physically do.   # yes, there are a multitude of reasons people do not kill others, but they can if they so desired.  whether they refrain from it because of social contract, morality, or some other source, it is a limit on what they can physically do.  sorry if my wording made it sound like i thought laws were the only thing that stopped people that would be a pretty stupid and bizarre belief.  that right ends when i am dead and buried.  if i do not do it, it is because i see no benefit in it, or because i find it morally wrong to do so, or because i will get in legal trouble or otherwise have repercussions for doing so.
by  social contract,  i refer to the thought that individuals hold moral or political obligations toward each other and the state  as a result of a shared contract that forms society.   the premise of my argument is this: i did not sign any social contract, and until i consent to such a thought, i hold no obligations to the society i am  in  at the time or the government that claims to represent them, simply because i have a natural right to decide to not give my consent to something or not.  this naturally means that government is illegitimate if it tries to rule me in any way.  if i need to formulate a natural rights theory in this thread, i can.  i am not interested in a utilitarian argument for or against government and society.  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument and i will evaluate it as such unless an argument is made why i should not evaluate it in that way.  i think the best way to approach this subject for me is to make the argument that sct social contract theory is true and is not mutually exclusive with complete consent.  that was the first plank, or why i think sct is false.  the second plank is that sct advocates have their own agendas to enforce their own worldview on society.  i do not have a formulated argument for this because i think this is self evident due to the fact that every sct advocate has an affirmative worldview and think that society should be run in adherence with it.  change my view.  0.   god created man.   this does not have the be god of the bible, or even the god of a theistic religion.  to my knowledge, most western religions hold this to be true.  0.   because god is totally free, so are humans.   i want to qualify this.  no one is free to harm another person.  if people were free to harm other people, then no one would be free.  0.   since these rights were given to people by god, people can not take these rights away.   people can surrender various rights as that is a right .  that is my approach.  the implication is that i believe in the non aggression principle.  that is, no one can initiate physical aggression against another or his property.  it is legitimate to everything else.  this is why i am not interested in utilitarianism: i do not disbelieve in social contract for any consequentialist reason.  even if it is more practical for a society to be governed by social contract, that would not change my view that such governance is a violation of the natural law.  i would read and respond to a utilitarian argument, but i doubt that would change my mind as utilitarianism is not the primary reason i believe as i do .  my purpose of writing that was to streamline the discussion toward points that i find more persuasive to me.   #  since these rights were given to people by god, people can not take these rights away.   #  people can surrender various rights as that is a right .   # unprovable/untestable axiom.  undistributed middle: freedom of a divinity does not necessarily imply freedom of any other being.  people can surrender various rights as that is a right .  even assuming this is the case, how does one determine which rights are giving by god ? when does one right infringe on another ? while there are common principles to many world religions, there certainly is not a univeral religio legal consensus on many issues such as gender and property rights.  in short, any system of ethics based on faith alone is unjustifiable in a secular society because you are imposing your own social contract on everyone else, just with your own personal religious axioms and commandments.   #  the consent of the governed populace insofaras its willingness not to reject that authority is what is relevant.   # go for it, i believe that natural rights do not exist.  all rights are a fiction created by people in order to agree upon certain core moral beliefs.  that is all.  we already accept that legally parents can make decisions like this for their children or rather any guardian may make these types of legal decisions for their children and as such you, for all intents and purposes,  did  consent to the social contract.  on the contrary, we can point out that social contract is merely a description of the relationship between a government and it is people.  it never really referred to a contract as we understand it today.  your consent is not inherently necessary for the social contract to be in effect.  the consent of the governed populace insofaras its willingness not to reject that authority is what is relevant.   #  natural rights and the social contract are both fictions, stories told to justify particular political beliefs.   # i would say neither, actually.  natural rights and the social contract are both fictions, stories told to justify particular political beliefs.  there is no prescriptive social contract  per se , but any adult can always choose to leave the country whatever country that might be , and thus resign from the contract that is implicit in their staying there.  if they do not, they either a accept an implicit contract with the prevailing government or b they become traitors to that government and attempt to overthrow it.  now clearly, there are situations where b is the more moral choice, so i am not trying to make a value judgment as such, there.  that would depend on your point of view.  as for natural rights, there is obviously no such thing, since a there is no demonstrated entity that could grant such rights, and b there is nothing special about humans that would grant us such rights, without granting them to every other creature on the planet.   #  why do i have to leave my home ?  # my understanding, and probably /u/zoidberg0  is understanding of contract does not seem to hinge on the law.  a contract is simply a consensual mutual agreement.  so basically,  he thinks words have actual meanings and it is not legitimate to just make up a definition to a word because it validates someone is worldview.   i will agree with your premise that parents accept things for their kids, so it is binding until they renounce those things.  here is where i have a problem.  let is say that i just moved out of my parents home, bought my own home with the money i and not society earned.  i decide to repudiate the social contract because i had just realized the society i was bound by was crummy, had all the wrong ideas, etc.  why do i have to leave my home ? why is it that  your  social contract claims a monopoly on the area that i live on ?  #  i think your point about consent is the important thing here.   #  i think your point about consent is the important thing here.  by living in a society, you tacitly agree to the contract.  do not like that ? move.  the point of the contract is to secure the benefits of society that you cant get on your own.  the alternative is that you fend completely for yourself.  meaning food, shelter, safety, protecting your land/property and anything else.  if you are ok with thay then go find an uninhabited island somewhere but you will only have that land/property and safety for as long as you personally can physically defend it.
by  social contract,  i refer to the thought that individuals hold moral or political obligations toward each other and the state  as a result of a shared contract that forms society.   the premise of my argument is this: i did not sign any social contract, and until i consent to such a thought, i hold no obligations to the society i am  in  at the time or the government that claims to represent them, simply because i have a natural right to decide to not give my consent to something or not.  this naturally means that government is illegitimate if it tries to rule me in any way.  if i need to formulate a natural rights theory in this thread, i can.  i am not interested in a utilitarian argument for or against government and society.  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument and i will evaluate it as such unless an argument is made why i should not evaluate it in that way.  i think the best way to approach this subject for me is to make the argument that sct social contract theory is true and is not mutually exclusive with complete consent.  that was the first plank, or why i think sct is false.  the second plank is that sct advocates have their own agendas to enforce their own worldview on society.  i do not have a formulated argument for this because i think this is self evident due to the fact that every sct advocate has an affirmative worldview and think that society should be run in adherence with it.  change my view.  0.   god created man.   this does not have the be god of the bible, or even the god of a theistic religion.  to my knowledge, most western religions hold this to be true.  0.   because god is totally free, so are humans.   i want to qualify this.  no one is free to harm another person.  if people were free to harm other people, then no one would be free.  0.   since these rights were given to people by god, people can not take these rights away.   people can surrender various rights as that is a right .  that is my approach.  the implication is that i believe in the non aggression principle.  that is, no one can initiate physical aggression against another or his property.  it is legitimate to everything else.  this is why i am not interested in utilitarianism: i do not disbelieve in social contract for any consequentialist reason.  even if it is more practical for a society to be governed by social contract, that would not change my view that such governance is a violation of the natural law.  i would read and respond to a utilitarian argument, but i doubt that would change my mind as utilitarianism is not the primary reason i believe as i do .  my purpose of writing that was to streamline the discussion toward points that i find more persuasive to me.   #  i am not interested in a utilitarian argument for or against government and society.   #  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?    # that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument and i will evaluate it as such unless an argument is made why i should not evaluate it in that way.  umm .  this is /cmv not /r/gue.  i am am not sure about how to approach changing your view.  it seems to me that one must take either of the following positions;   rights are granted from an external authority: god given, or  natural  rights.  rights are granted from other people.  surely you recognise that you benefit from prohibitions on theft and murder, whether from the 0 commandments, from the government protecting those rights, or from a social contract.  not sure how this impacts a view of rights.  even granted a belief in god, humans are not gods.  so why does it follow that humans would have any attribute of god ? did not cain take abel is right to life ?  #  on the contrary, we can point out that social contract is merely a description of the relationship between a government and it is people.   # go for it, i believe that natural rights do not exist.  all rights are a fiction created by people in order to agree upon certain core moral beliefs.  that is all.  we already accept that legally parents can make decisions like this for their children or rather any guardian may make these types of legal decisions for their children and as such you, for all intents and purposes,  did  consent to the social contract.  on the contrary, we can point out that social contract is merely a description of the relationship between a government and it is people.  it never really referred to a contract as we understand it today.  your consent is not inherently necessary for the social contract to be in effect.  the consent of the governed populace insofaras its willingness not to reject that authority is what is relevant.   #  if they do not, they either a accept an implicit contract with the prevailing government or b they become traitors to that government and attempt to overthrow it.   # i would say neither, actually.  natural rights and the social contract are both fictions, stories told to justify particular political beliefs.  there is no prescriptive social contract  per se , but any adult can always choose to leave the country whatever country that might be , and thus resign from the contract that is implicit in their staying there.  if they do not, they either a accept an implicit contract with the prevailing government or b they become traitors to that government and attempt to overthrow it.  now clearly, there are situations where b is the more moral choice, so i am not trying to make a value judgment as such, there.  that would depend on your point of view.  as for natural rights, there is obviously no such thing, since a there is no demonstrated entity that could grant such rights, and b there is nothing special about humans that would grant us such rights, without granting them to every other creature on the planet.   #  i will agree with your premise that parents accept things for their kids, so it is binding until they renounce those things.   # my understanding, and probably /u/zoidberg0  is understanding of contract does not seem to hinge on the law.  a contract is simply a consensual mutual agreement.  so basically,  he thinks words have actual meanings and it is not legitimate to just make up a definition to a word because it validates someone is worldview.   i will agree with your premise that parents accept things for their kids, so it is binding until they renounce those things.  here is where i have a problem.  let is say that i just moved out of my parents home, bought my own home with the money i and not society earned.  i decide to repudiate the social contract because i had just realized the society i was bound by was crummy, had all the wrong ideas, etc.  why do i have to leave my home ? why is it that  your  social contract claims a monopoly on the area that i live on ?  #  by living in a society, you tacitly agree to the contract.   #  i think your point about consent is the important thing here.  by living in a society, you tacitly agree to the contract.  do not like that ? move.  the point of the contract is to secure the benefits of society that you cant get on your own.  the alternative is that you fend completely for yourself.  meaning food, shelter, safety, protecting your land/property and anything else.  if you are ok with thay then go find an uninhabited island somewhere but you will only have that land/property and safety for as long as you personally can physically defend it.
by  social contract,  i refer to the thought that individuals hold moral or political obligations toward each other and the state  as a result of a shared contract that forms society.   the premise of my argument is this: i did not sign any social contract, and until i consent to such a thought, i hold no obligations to the society i am  in  at the time or the government that claims to represent them, simply because i have a natural right to decide to not give my consent to something or not.  this naturally means that government is illegitimate if it tries to rule me in any way.  if i need to formulate a natural rights theory in this thread, i can.  i am not interested in a utilitarian argument for or against government and society.  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument and i will evaluate it as such unless an argument is made why i should not evaluate it in that way.  i think the best way to approach this subject for me is to make the argument that sct social contract theory is true and is not mutually exclusive with complete consent.  that was the first plank, or why i think sct is false.  the second plank is that sct advocates have their own agendas to enforce their own worldview on society.  i do not have a formulated argument for this because i think this is self evident due to the fact that every sct advocate has an affirmative worldview and think that society should be run in adherence with it.  change my view.  0.   god created man.   this does not have the be god of the bible, or even the god of a theistic religion.  to my knowledge, most western religions hold this to be true.  0.   because god is totally free, so are humans.   i want to qualify this.  no one is free to harm another person.  if people were free to harm other people, then no one would be free.  0.   since these rights were given to people by god, people can not take these rights away.   people can surrender various rights as that is a right .  that is my approach.  the implication is that i believe in the non aggression principle.  that is, no one can initiate physical aggression against another or his property.  it is legitimate to everything else.  this is why i am not interested in utilitarianism: i do not disbelieve in social contract for any consequentialist reason.  even if it is more practical for a society to be governed by social contract, that would not change my view that such governance is a violation of the natural law.  i would read and respond to a utilitarian argument, but i doubt that would change my mind as utilitarianism is not the primary reason i believe as i do .  my purpose of writing that was to streamline the discussion toward points that i find more persuasive to me.   #  because god is totally free, so are humans.   #  even granted a belief in god, humans are not gods.   # that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument and i will evaluate it as such unless an argument is made why i should not evaluate it in that way.  umm .  this is /cmv not /r/gue.  i am am not sure about how to approach changing your view.  it seems to me that one must take either of the following positions;   rights are granted from an external authority: god given, or  natural  rights.  rights are granted from other people.  surely you recognise that you benefit from prohibitions on theft and murder, whether from the 0 commandments, from the government protecting those rights, or from a social contract.  not sure how this impacts a view of rights.  even granted a belief in god, humans are not gods.  so why does it follow that humans would have any attribute of god ? did not cain take abel is right to life ?  #  the consent of the governed populace insofaras its willingness not to reject that authority is what is relevant.   # go for it, i believe that natural rights do not exist.  all rights are a fiction created by people in order to agree upon certain core moral beliefs.  that is all.  we already accept that legally parents can make decisions like this for their children or rather any guardian may make these types of legal decisions for their children and as such you, for all intents and purposes,  did  consent to the social contract.  on the contrary, we can point out that social contract is merely a description of the relationship between a government and it is people.  it never really referred to a contract as we understand it today.  your consent is not inherently necessary for the social contract to be in effect.  the consent of the governed populace insofaras its willingness not to reject that authority is what is relevant.   #  there is no prescriptive social contract  per se , but any adult can always choose to leave the country whatever country that might be , and thus resign from the contract that is implicit in their staying there.   # i would say neither, actually.  natural rights and the social contract are both fictions, stories told to justify particular political beliefs.  there is no prescriptive social contract  per se , but any adult can always choose to leave the country whatever country that might be , and thus resign from the contract that is implicit in their staying there.  if they do not, they either a accept an implicit contract with the prevailing government or b they become traitors to that government and attempt to overthrow it.  now clearly, there are situations where b is the more moral choice, so i am not trying to make a value judgment as such, there.  that would depend on your point of view.  as for natural rights, there is obviously no such thing, since a there is no demonstrated entity that could grant such rights, and b there is nothing special about humans that would grant us such rights, without granting them to every other creature on the planet.   #  why is it that  your  social contract claims a monopoly on the area that i live on ?  # my understanding, and probably /u/zoidberg0  is understanding of contract does not seem to hinge on the law.  a contract is simply a consensual mutual agreement.  so basically,  he thinks words have actual meanings and it is not legitimate to just make up a definition to a word because it validates someone is worldview.   i will agree with your premise that parents accept things for their kids, so it is binding until they renounce those things.  here is where i have a problem.  let is say that i just moved out of my parents home, bought my own home with the money i and not society earned.  i decide to repudiate the social contract because i had just realized the society i was bound by was crummy, had all the wrong ideas, etc.  why do i have to leave my home ? why is it that  your  social contract claims a monopoly on the area that i live on ?  #  the alternative is that you fend completely for yourself.   #  i think your point about consent is the important thing here.  by living in a society, you tacitly agree to the contract.  do not like that ? move.  the point of the contract is to secure the benefits of society that you cant get on your own.  the alternative is that you fend completely for yourself.  meaning food, shelter, safety, protecting your land/property and anything else.  if you are ok with thay then go find an uninhabited island somewhere but you will only have that land/property and safety for as long as you personally can physically defend it.
by  social contract,  i refer to the thought that individuals hold moral or political obligations toward each other and the state  as a result of a shared contract that forms society.   the premise of my argument is this: i did not sign any social contract, and until i consent to such a thought, i hold no obligations to the society i am  in  at the time or the government that claims to represent them, simply because i have a natural right to decide to not give my consent to something or not.  this naturally means that government is illegitimate if it tries to rule me in any way.  if i need to formulate a natural rights theory in this thread, i can.  i am not interested in a utilitarian argument for or against government and society.  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument and i will evaluate it as such unless an argument is made why i should not evaluate it in that way.  i think the best way to approach this subject for me is to make the argument that sct social contract theory is true and is not mutually exclusive with complete consent.  that was the first plank, or why i think sct is false.  the second plank is that sct advocates have their own agendas to enforce their own worldview on society.  i do not have a formulated argument for this because i think this is self evident due to the fact that every sct advocate has an affirmative worldview and think that society should be run in adherence with it.  change my view.  0.   god created man.   this does not have the be god of the bible, or even the god of a theistic religion.  to my knowledge, most western religions hold this to be true.  0.   because god is totally free, so are humans.   i want to qualify this.  no one is free to harm another person.  if people were free to harm other people, then no one would be free.  0.   since these rights were given to people by god, people can not take these rights away.   people can surrender various rights as that is a right .  that is my approach.  the implication is that i believe in the non aggression principle.  that is, no one can initiate physical aggression against another or his property.  it is legitimate to everything else.  this is why i am not interested in utilitarianism: i do not disbelieve in social contract for any consequentialist reason.  even if it is more practical for a society to be governed by social contract, that would not change my view that such governance is a violation of the natural law.  i would read and respond to a utilitarian argument, but i doubt that would change my mind as utilitarianism is not the primary reason i believe as i do .  my purpose of writing that was to streamline the discussion toward points that i find more persuasive to me.   #  since these rights were given to people by god, people can not take these rights away.   #  did not cain take abel is right to life ?  # that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument and i will evaluate it as such unless an argument is made why i should not evaluate it in that way.  umm .  this is /cmv not /r/gue.  i am am not sure about how to approach changing your view.  it seems to me that one must take either of the following positions;   rights are granted from an external authority: god given, or  natural  rights.  rights are granted from other people.  surely you recognise that you benefit from prohibitions on theft and murder, whether from the 0 commandments, from the government protecting those rights, or from a social contract.  not sure how this impacts a view of rights.  even granted a belief in god, humans are not gods.  so why does it follow that humans would have any attribute of god ? did not cain take abel is right to life ?  #  all rights are a fiction created by people in order to agree upon certain core moral beliefs.   # go for it, i believe that natural rights do not exist.  all rights are a fiction created by people in order to agree upon certain core moral beliefs.  that is all.  we already accept that legally parents can make decisions like this for their children or rather any guardian may make these types of legal decisions for their children and as such you, for all intents and purposes,  did  consent to the social contract.  on the contrary, we can point out that social contract is merely a description of the relationship between a government and it is people.  it never really referred to a contract as we understand it today.  your consent is not inherently necessary for the social contract to be in effect.  the consent of the governed populace insofaras its willingness not to reject that authority is what is relevant.   #  there is no prescriptive social contract  per se , but any adult can always choose to leave the country whatever country that might be , and thus resign from the contract that is implicit in their staying there.   # i would say neither, actually.  natural rights and the social contract are both fictions, stories told to justify particular political beliefs.  there is no prescriptive social contract  per se , but any adult can always choose to leave the country whatever country that might be , and thus resign from the contract that is implicit in their staying there.  if they do not, they either a accept an implicit contract with the prevailing government or b they become traitors to that government and attempt to overthrow it.  now clearly, there are situations where b is the more moral choice, so i am not trying to make a value judgment as such, there.  that would depend on your point of view.  as for natural rights, there is obviously no such thing, since a there is no demonstrated entity that could grant such rights, and b there is nothing special about humans that would grant us such rights, without granting them to every other creature on the planet.   #  i will agree with your premise that parents accept things for their kids, so it is binding until they renounce those things.   # my understanding, and probably /u/zoidberg0  is understanding of contract does not seem to hinge on the law.  a contract is simply a consensual mutual agreement.  so basically,  he thinks words have actual meanings and it is not legitimate to just make up a definition to a word because it validates someone is worldview.   i will agree with your premise that parents accept things for their kids, so it is binding until they renounce those things.  here is where i have a problem.  let is say that i just moved out of my parents home, bought my own home with the money i and not society earned.  i decide to repudiate the social contract because i had just realized the society i was bound by was crummy, had all the wrong ideas, etc.  why do i have to leave my home ? why is it that  your  social contract claims a monopoly on the area that i live on ?  #  by living in a society, you tacitly agree to the contract.   #  i think your point about consent is the important thing here.  by living in a society, you tacitly agree to the contract.  do not like that ? move.  the point of the contract is to secure the benefits of society that you cant get on your own.  the alternative is that you fend completely for yourself.  meaning food, shelter, safety, protecting your land/property and anything else.  if you are ok with thay then go find an uninhabited island somewhere but you will only have that land/property and safety for as long as you personally can physically defend it.
by  social contract,  i refer to the thought that individuals hold moral or political obligations toward each other and the state  as a result of a shared contract that forms society.   the premise of my argument is this: i did not sign any social contract, and until i consent to such a thought, i hold no obligations to the society i am  in  at the time or the government that claims to represent them, simply because i have a natural right to decide to not give my consent to something or not.  this naturally means that government is illegitimate if it tries to rule me in any way.  if i need to formulate a natural rights theory in this thread, i can.  i am not interested in a utilitarian argument for or against government and society.  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument and i will evaluate it as such unless an argument is made why i should not evaluate it in that way.  i think the best way to approach this subject for me is to make the argument that sct social contract theory is true and is not mutually exclusive with complete consent.  that was the first plank, or why i think sct is false.  the second plank is that sct advocates have their own agendas to enforce their own worldview on society.  i do not have a formulated argument for this because i think this is self evident due to the fact that every sct advocate has an affirmative worldview and think that society should be run in adherence with it.  change my view.  0.   god created man.   this does not have the be god of the bible, or even the god of a theistic religion.  to my knowledge, most western religions hold this to be true.  0.   because god is totally free, so are humans.   i want to qualify this.  no one is free to harm another person.  if people were free to harm other people, then no one would be free.  0.   since these rights were given to people by god, people can not take these rights away.   people can surrender various rights as that is a right .  that is my approach.  the implication is that i believe in the non aggression principle.  that is, no one can initiate physical aggression against another or his property.  it is legitimate to everything else.  this is why i am not interested in utilitarianism: i do not disbelieve in social contract for any consequentialist reason.  even if it is more practical for a society to be governed by social contract, that would not change my view that such governance is a violation of the natural law.  i would read and respond to a utilitarian argument, but i doubt that would change my mind as utilitarianism is not the primary reason i believe as i do .  my purpose of writing that was to streamline the discussion toward points that i find more persuasive to me.   #  i am not interested in a utilitarian argument for or against government and society.   #  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?    # meaning you can be killed on sight.  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument no, it is an ethical one.  the  free rider  is a thief.  he profits from what he does not work for.  even if it is more practical for a society to be governed by social contract, that would not change my view that such governance is a violation of the natural law.  it is natural that men form societies and punish lawbreakers.   #  the consent of the governed populace insofaras its willingness not to reject that authority is what is relevant.   # go for it, i believe that natural rights do not exist.  all rights are a fiction created by people in order to agree upon certain core moral beliefs.  that is all.  we already accept that legally parents can make decisions like this for their children or rather any guardian may make these types of legal decisions for their children and as such you, for all intents and purposes,  did  consent to the social contract.  on the contrary, we can point out that social contract is merely a description of the relationship between a government and it is people.  it never really referred to a contract as we understand it today.  your consent is not inherently necessary for the social contract to be in effect.  the consent of the governed populace insofaras its willingness not to reject that authority is what is relevant.   #  if they do not, they either a accept an implicit contract with the prevailing government or b they become traitors to that government and attempt to overthrow it.   # i would say neither, actually.  natural rights and the social contract are both fictions, stories told to justify particular political beliefs.  there is no prescriptive social contract  per se , but any adult can always choose to leave the country whatever country that might be , and thus resign from the contract that is implicit in their staying there.  if they do not, they either a accept an implicit contract with the prevailing government or b they become traitors to that government and attempt to overthrow it.  now clearly, there are situations where b is the more moral choice, so i am not trying to make a value judgment as such, there.  that would depend on your point of view.  as for natural rights, there is obviously no such thing, since a there is no demonstrated entity that could grant such rights, and b there is nothing special about humans that would grant us such rights, without granting them to every other creature on the planet.   #  let is say that i just moved out of my parents home, bought my own home with the money i and not society earned.   # my understanding, and probably /u/zoidberg0  is understanding of contract does not seem to hinge on the law.  a contract is simply a consensual mutual agreement.  so basically,  he thinks words have actual meanings and it is not legitimate to just make up a definition to a word because it validates someone is worldview.   i will agree with your premise that parents accept things for their kids, so it is binding until they renounce those things.  here is where i have a problem.  let is say that i just moved out of my parents home, bought my own home with the money i and not society earned.  i decide to repudiate the social contract because i had just realized the society i was bound by was crummy, had all the wrong ideas, etc.  why do i have to leave my home ? why is it that  your  social contract claims a monopoly on the area that i live on ?  #  meaning food, shelter, safety, protecting your land/property and anything else.   #  i think your point about consent is the important thing here.  by living in a society, you tacitly agree to the contract.  do not like that ? move.  the point of the contract is to secure the benefits of society that you cant get on your own.  the alternative is that you fend completely for yourself.  meaning food, shelter, safety, protecting your land/property and anything else.  if you are ok with thay then go find an uninhabited island somewhere but you will only have that land/property and safety for as long as you personally can physically defend it.
by  social contract,  i refer to the thought that individuals hold moral or political obligations toward each other and the state  as a result of a shared contract that forms society.   the premise of my argument is this: i did not sign any social contract, and until i consent to such a thought, i hold no obligations to the society i am  in  at the time or the government that claims to represent them, simply because i have a natural right to decide to not give my consent to something or not.  this naturally means that government is illegitimate if it tries to rule me in any way.  if i need to formulate a natural rights theory in this thread, i can.  i am not interested in a utilitarian argument for or against government and society.  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument and i will evaluate it as such unless an argument is made why i should not evaluate it in that way.  i think the best way to approach this subject for me is to make the argument that sct social contract theory is true and is not mutually exclusive with complete consent.  that was the first plank, or why i think sct is false.  the second plank is that sct advocates have their own agendas to enforce their own worldview on society.  i do not have a formulated argument for this because i think this is self evident due to the fact that every sct advocate has an affirmative worldview and think that society should be run in adherence with it.  change my view.  0.   god created man.   this does not have the be god of the bible, or even the god of a theistic religion.  to my knowledge, most western religions hold this to be true.  0.   because god is totally free, so are humans.   i want to qualify this.  no one is free to harm another person.  if people were free to harm other people, then no one would be free.  0.   since these rights were given to people by god, people can not take these rights away.   people can surrender various rights as that is a right .  that is my approach.  the implication is that i believe in the non aggression principle.  that is, no one can initiate physical aggression against another or his property.  it is legitimate to everything else.  this is why i am not interested in utilitarianism: i do not disbelieve in social contract for any consequentialist reason.  even if it is more practical for a society to be governed by social contract, that would not change my view that such governance is a violation of the natural law.  i would read and respond to a utilitarian argument, but i doubt that would change my mind as utilitarianism is not the primary reason i believe as i do .  my purpose of writing that was to streamline the discussion toward points that i find more persuasive to me.   #  this is why i am not interested in utilitarianism: i do not disbelieve in social contract for any consequentialist reason.   #  even if it is more practical for a society to be governed by social contract, that would not change my view that such governance is a violation of the natural law.   # meaning you can be killed on sight.  that does not get to the question,  am i subject to a social contract against my consent ?   i feel that any form of  free rider problem  is a utilitarian argument no, it is an ethical one.  the  free rider  is a thief.  he profits from what he does not work for.  even if it is more practical for a society to be governed by social contract, that would not change my view that such governance is a violation of the natural law.  it is natural that men form societies and punish lawbreakers.   #  go for it, i believe that natural rights do not exist.   # go for it, i believe that natural rights do not exist.  all rights are a fiction created by people in order to agree upon certain core moral beliefs.  that is all.  we already accept that legally parents can make decisions like this for their children or rather any guardian may make these types of legal decisions for their children and as such you, for all intents and purposes,  did  consent to the social contract.  on the contrary, we can point out that social contract is merely a description of the relationship between a government and it is people.  it never really referred to a contract as we understand it today.  your consent is not inherently necessary for the social contract to be in effect.  the consent of the governed populace insofaras its willingness not to reject that authority is what is relevant.   #  now clearly, there are situations where b is the more moral choice, so i am not trying to make a value judgment as such, there.   # i would say neither, actually.  natural rights and the social contract are both fictions, stories told to justify particular political beliefs.  there is no prescriptive social contract  per se , but any adult can always choose to leave the country whatever country that might be , and thus resign from the contract that is implicit in their staying there.  if they do not, they either a accept an implicit contract with the prevailing government or b they become traitors to that government and attempt to overthrow it.  now clearly, there are situations where b is the more moral choice, so i am not trying to make a value judgment as such, there.  that would depend on your point of view.  as for natural rights, there is obviously no such thing, since a there is no demonstrated entity that could grant such rights, and b there is nothing special about humans that would grant us such rights, without granting them to every other creature on the planet.   #  i decide to repudiate the social contract because i had just realized the society i was bound by was crummy, had all the wrong ideas, etc.   # my understanding, and probably /u/zoidberg0  is understanding of contract does not seem to hinge on the law.  a contract is simply a consensual mutual agreement.  so basically,  he thinks words have actual meanings and it is not legitimate to just make up a definition to a word because it validates someone is worldview.   i will agree with your premise that parents accept things for their kids, so it is binding until they renounce those things.  here is where i have a problem.  let is say that i just moved out of my parents home, bought my own home with the money i and not society earned.  i decide to repudiate the social contract because i had just realized the society i was bound by was crummy, had all the wrong ideas, etc.  why do i have to leave my home ? why is it that  your  social contract claims a monopoly on the area that i live on ?  #  the point of the contract is to secure the benefits of society that you cant get on your own.   #  i think your point about consent is the important thing here.  by living in a society, you tacitly agree to the contract.  do not like that ? move.  the point of the contract is to secure the benefits of society that you cant get on your own.  the alternative is that you fend completely for yourself.  meaning food, shelter, safety, protecting your land/property and anything else.  if you are ok with thay then go find an uninhabited island somewhere but you will only have that land/property and safety for as long as you personally can physically defend it.
i think this applies to all forms of information including but not limited to philosophy, mathematics, all sciences, and any form of art.  so the view is that when you think of an idea you are not creating that idea you are merely discovering it.  the strongest argument i can think of for this view at the moment is as follows: take the number pi it is objective, well defined, and measurable.  so i would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas ie it was not created .  yet the digits of pi are never ending and never repeating.  so within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and by extension all information.  thinking of an idea is then one way to come to know it, but another would simply be to measure/calculate pi to a sufficient number of digits then just read out the idea.  with this view in mind it seems clear that ideas are discovered not created.  in fact i have given a process by which you can discover any idea.  yet it is still often claimed that philosophies, physical theories, movies, songs, etc.  are created.  can you c my v ? convince me that you have created an idea.   #  yet the digits of pi are never ending and never repeating.   #  so within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and by extension all information.   # so within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and by extension all information.  just because a number is non repeating, it does not follow that any and all number combinations must be present in it.  for example, we could have a number 0.  that follows this pattern ad infinitum.  it is not repeating, but it can be infinite.  we have no particular reason to believe that pi must have all possible number combinations in it.  we do not even know if pi has an infinite number of each digit 0 0 in it.  perhaps after a certain point, 0 never shows up again in pi.  maybe it eventually just ends up being 0s and 0s.   #  this does not mean that ideas can be formed arbitrarily, because there are strict rules that define how ideas can and ca not be formed if we want to arrive at the truth.   # so i would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas ie it was not created .  i would not say that we do not discover ideas, but i would definitely argue that they do not exist completely independent of human thought like you are arguing.  every idea you have was synthesized by your mind out of the experiences you have had.  they are not things, per se, but ways of compressing the enormous amount of data we have to deal with down to something we can handle.  the abstract concept of  red  is a lot easier to hold in your mind than all of the red things you have experienced, and f ma is a lot easier to remember and use than all of the measurements we have made of moving objects.  mathematics is the one tricky case for this theory.  i would say mathematics is a collection of methods, like addition and subtraction and so on.  pi is the method of taking the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter it is not a thing that exists in the world but a number that we produce when we follow a certain well defined procedure.  this does not mean that ideas can be formed arbitrarily, because there are strict rules that define how ideas can and ca not be formed if we want to arrive at the truth.  ideas that have been formed in accordance with these rules are objectively true discoveries, but they are not independent of us and they do not have to be.   #  i used mathematics as my example because i think it is the clearest to see that it is discovered.   #  okay, but say for instance regarding the idea red which you currently hold in your mind.  could i not simply find or  wouldiscover  your mind which represents this idea.  nothing new was created there.  just an arrangement of matter which represented the idea red.  i used mathematics as my example because i think it is the clearest to see that it is discovered.  i am not claiming that these ideas physically exist.  just that they have some sort of informational existence.  i think the part about them being independent of human though is often muddled because i could say i wrote it down in english.  then you would say,  aha but you need humans to understand english .  but information still exists within these english sentences whether you interpret it the same as me or not, it just might not be the same information i was trying to send to you.   #  i just think that they do not exist separate from the human mind.   # could i not simply find or  wouldiscover  your mind which represents this idea.  nothing new was created there.  just an arrangement of matter which represented the idea red.  i agree that ideas can be discovered, including the idea of red.  i just think that they do not exist separate from the human mind.  you need to engage with my account of mathematics in my previous post, then.  just that they have some sort of informational existence.  i think the part about them being independent of human though is often muddled because i could say i wrote it down in english.  then you would say,  aha but you need humans to understand english .  but information still exists within these english sentences whether you interpret it the same as me or not, it just might not be the same information i was trying to send to you.  there is content to an idea, but the content consists of observations of entities.  the idea is an integration of the observations created by the mind for its own purposes.  it has a defined relationship to external reality, but it does not exist independent of the mind.   #  the ideas contained within it are transmitted outside of your mind to me.   # i just think that they do not exist separate from the human mind.  but the idea of red is represent right there on the screen clearly outside of your mind.  any other physical system for interpreting images could discover that information just the same as you did.  are you claiming then that in idea literally is it is physical representation ? again even this sentence seems to contradict itself.  the ideas contained within it are transmitted outside of your mind to me.  where, given that i interpret them in the way you invented i find the same ideas you did.
i think this applies to all forms of information including but not limited to philosophy, mathematics, all sciences, and any form of art.  so the view is that when you think of an idea you are not creating that idea you are merely discovering it.  the strongest argument i can think of for this view at the moment is as follows: take the number pi it is objective, well defined, and measurable.  so i would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas ie it was not created .  yet the digits of pi are never ending and never repeating.  so within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and by extension all information.  thinking of an idea is then one way to come to know it, but another would simply be to measure/calculate pi to a sufficient number of digits then just read out the idea.  with this view in mind it seems clear that ideas are discovered not created.  in fact i have given a process by which you can discover any idea.  yet it is still often claimed that philosophies, physical theories, movies, songs, etc.  are created.  can you c my v ? convince me that you have created an idea.   #  take the number pi it is objective, well defined, and measurable.   #  so i would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas ie it was not created .   # so i would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas ie it was not created .  i would not say that we do not discover ideas, but i would definitely argue that they do not exist completely independent of human thought like you are arguing.  every idea you have was synthesized by your mind out of the experiences you have had.  they are not things, per se, but ways of compressing the enormous amount of data we have to deal with down to something we can handle.  the abstract concept of  red  is a lot easier to hold in your mind than all of the red things you have experienced, and f ma is a lot easier to remember and use than all of the measurements we have made of moving objects.  mathematics is the one tricky case for this theory.  i would say mathematics is a collection of methods, like addition and subtraction and so on.  pi is the method of taking the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter it is not a thing that exists in the world but a number that we produce when we follow a certain well defined procedure.  this does not mean that ideas can be formed arbitrarily, because there are strict rules that define how ideas can and ca not be formed if we want to arrive at the truth.  ideas that have been formed in accordance with these rules are objectively true discoveries, but they are not independent of us and they do not have to be.   #  just because a number is non repeating, it does not follow that any and all number combinations must be present in it.   # so within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and by extension all information.  just because a number is non repeating, it does not follow that any and all number combinations must be present in it.  for example, we could have a number 0.  that follows this pattern ad infinitum.  it is not repeating, but it can be infinite.  we have no particular reason to believe that pi must have all possible number combinations in it.  we do not even know if pi has an infinite number of each digit 0 0 in it.  perhaps after a certain point, 0 never shows up again in pi.  maybe it eventually just ends up being 0s and 0s.   #  just that they have some sort of informational existence.   #  okay, but say for instance regarding the idea red which you currently hold in your mind.  could i not simply find or  wouldiscover  your mind which represents this idea.  nothing new was created there.  just an arrangement of matter which represented the idea red.  i used mathematics as my example because i think it is the clearest to see that it is discovered.  i am not claiming that these ideas physically exist.  just that they have some sort of informational existence.  i think the part about them being independent of human though is often muddled because i could say i wrote it down in english.  then you would say,  aha but you need humans to understand english .  but information still exists within these english sentences whether you interpret it the same as me or not, it just might not be the same information i was trying to send to you.   #  you need to engage with my account of mathematics in my previous post, then.   # could i not simply find or  wouldiscover  your mind which represents this idea.  nothing new was created there.  just an arrangement of matter which represented the idea red.  i agree that ideas can be discovered, including the idea of red.  i just think that they do not exist separate from the human mind.  you need to engage with my account of mathematics in my previous post, then.  just that they have some sort of informational existence.  i think the part about them being independent of human though is often muddled because i could say i wrote it down in english.  then you would say,  aha but you need humans to understand english .  but information still exists within these english sentences whether you interpret it the same as me or not, it just might not be the same information i was trying to send to you.  there is content to an idea, but the content consists of observations of entities.  the idea is an integration of the observations created by the mind for its own purposes.  it has a defined relationship to external reality, but it does not exist independent of the mind.   #  are you claiming then that in idea literally is it is physical representation ?  # i just think that they do not exist separate from the human mind.  but the idea of red is represent right there on the screen clearly outside of your mind.  any other physical system for interpreting images could discover that information just the same as you did.  are you claiming then that in idea literally is it is physical representation ? again even this sentence seems to contradict itself.  the ideas contained within it are transmitted outside of your mind to me.  where, given that i interpret them in the way you invented i find the same ideas you did.
i think this applies to all forms of information including but not limited to philosophy, mathematics, all sciences, and any form of art.  so the view is that when you think of an idea you are not creating that idea you are merely discovering it.  the strongest argument i can think of for this view at the moment is as follows: take the number pi it is objective, well defined, and measurable.  so i would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas ie it was not created .  yet the digits of pi are never ending and never repeating.  so within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and by extension all information.  thinking of an idea is then one way to come to know it, but another would simply be to measure/calculate pi to a sufficient number of digits then just read out the idea.  with this view in mind it seems clear that ideas are discovered not created.  in fact i have given a process by which you can discover any idea.  yet it is still often claimed that philosophies, physical theories, movies, songs, etc.  are created.  can you c my v ? convince me that you have created an idea.   #  take the number pi it is objective, well defined, and measurable.   #  so i would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas ie it was not created .   # so i would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas ie it was not created .  yet the digits of pi are never ending and never repeating.  so within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and  by extension all information .  first of all, you do not need pie for this.  it is incredibly easy to construct an infinite sequence that contains all possible finite combinations of digits.  the sequence starts with all 0 digit sequences of digits in order of which there are a finite number , then is followed by all 0 digit sequences of digits in order of which there are a finite number , then is followed by all 0 digit.  you get the idea.  take any finite sequence of digits, not only can i guarantee that its in there, but i can even calculate exactly  where  it is in the sequence.  or even simpler, if we are talking about literary works, i can use the same technique to trivially define an infinite sequence of characters that contains all possible finite sequences of characters.  but this does not  mean  anything.  sequences of digits in an infinite sequences that just happen to be translated to something based on an arbitrary encoding and language does not contain any  meaning , so even if the finite sequence in question  already existed  in the infinite sequence, i think its a bastardization of language to call it an  idea .  so i guess my primary complaint with your line of thought is that from a language standpoint, it makes no sense.  there is no meaningful reason to say shakespeare  discovered  hamlet versus saying he  created  it.  i do not think the distinction you are making even really jives with the actual dictionary definitions of  discover ,  invent , and  create .  even if you stretch the definitions to say that hamlet was  discovered , it clearly was  also   to evolve from one is own thought or imagination , or even  to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes , in that even if the data was there, it did not exist  as a play , or  to produce or create with the imagination  shakespeare did not pour over the digits of pi until he found hamlet, he created it with his imagination, even if it happened to already  be there  in a very uninteresting and arbitrary way.   #  so within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and by extension all information.   # so within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and by extension all information.  just because a number is non repeating, it does not follow that any and all number combinations must be present in it.  for example, we could have a number 0.  that follows this pattern ad infinitum.  it is not repeating, but it can be infinite.  we have no particular reason to believe that pi must have all possible number combinations in it.  we do not even know if pi has an infinite number of each digit 0 0 in it.  perhaps after a certain point, 0 never shows up again in pi.  maybe it eventually just ends up being 0s and 0s.   #  every idea you have was synthesized by your mind out of the experiences you have had.   # so i would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas ie it was not created .  i would not say that we do not discover ideas, but i would definitely argue that they do not exist completely independent of human thought like you are arguing.  every idea you have was synthesized by your mind out of the experiences you have had.  they are not things, per se, but ways of compressing the enormous amount of data we have to deal with down to something we can handle.  the abstract concept of  red  is a lot easier to hold in your mind than all of the red things you have experienced, and f ma is a lot easier to remember and use than all of the measurements we have made of moving objects.  mathematics is the one tricky case for this theory.  i would say mathematics is a collection of methods, like addition and subtraction and so on.  pi is the method of taking the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter it is not a thing that exists in the world but a number that we produce when we follow a certain well defined procedure.  this does not mean that ideas can be formed arbitrarily, because there are strict rules that define how ideas can and ca not be formed if we want to arrive at the truth.  ideas that have been formed in accordance with these rules are objectively true discoveries, but they are not independent of us and they do not have to be.   #  i used mathematics as my example because i think it is the clearest to see that it is discovered.   #  okay, but say for instance regarding the idea red which you currently hold in your mind.  could i not simply find or  wouldiscover  your mind which represents this idea.  nothing new was created there.  just an arrangement of matter which represented the idea red.  i used mathematics as my example because i think it is the clearest to see that it is discovered.  i am not claiming that these ideas physically exist.  just that they have some sort of informational existence.  i think the part about them being independent of human though is often muddled because i could say i wrote it down in english.  then you would say,  aha but you need humans to understand english .  but information still exists within these english sentences whether you interpret it the same as me or not, it just might not be the same information i was trying to send to you.   #  just that they have some sort of informational existence.   # could i not simply find or  wouldiscover  your mind which represents this idea.  nothing new was created there.  just an arrangement of matter which represented the idea red.  i agree that ideas can be discovered, including the idea of red.  i just think that they do not exist separate from the human mind.  you need to engage with my account of mathematics in my previous post, then.  just that they have some sort of informational existence.  i think the part about them being independent of human though is often muddled because i could say i wrote it down in english.  then you would say,  aha but you need humans to understand english .  but information still exists within these english sentences whether you interpret it the same as me or not, it just might not be the same information i was trying to send to you.  there is content to an idea, but the content consists of observations of entities.  the idea is an integration of the observations created by the mind for its own purposes.  it has a defined relationship to external reality, but it does not exist independent of the mind.
there are some words that are rather easy to misspell you forgot whether it is one m or two in immolate, you forgot the c in acquired, you accidentally wrote  per say  instead of  per se  because you think phonetically.  if you make an honest mistake, i am not going to call you a dunce, obviously.  but if you constantly misspell and have no intent of fixing it, or even no awareness that you are spelling words wrong, you are probably not very well educated, and i am really not going to take your opinion seriously.  now, if you have a legitimate reason like a disability that simply prevents you from spelling words correctly or remembering how to spell certain words, that might not affect your overall intelligence.   you may have a legitimate excuse which explains how you are both intelligent and bad at spelling .  but that is the exception, not the rule.  saying you did not study english in college/university does not excuse not knowing the difference between their and there.  it does not take a goddamn english major to understand your own damn language.  i feel like people only disagree with this opinion because of the very small number of individuals who have a reason/excuse for their misspelling, not because it is false.  but i also do not think a lot of people will admit to that because they do not want to hurt anyone is feelings.  i am also not saying dyslexic people cannot be unintelligent they certainly can.  i just want to understand why some people believe it is wrong to judge people by their bad spelling when 0 of the time it is a good method of judgment.   #  it does not take a goddamn english major to understand your own damn language.   #  i do not know your level of study or even if english is an area you particularly studied.   # i do not know your level of study or even if english is an area you particularly studied.  however i do not think this is a fair statement to make.  native speakers of any language not just english do not know dick about their own languages.  parts of speech, correct subject/verb agreement, inflection usage, conjugation etc.  are all virtually unknown to your average speaker.  but they know how to speak, they know how to write and how to read.  all that aside spelling is a different breed altogether.  spelling in english has been problematic not just recently but for many hundreds of years.  old english or anglo saxon was phonetic language along the lines of say spanish or italian where every letter represents a specific unchanging for the most part sound.  if you could speak a word you could accurately predict it is spelling and if you could spell a word you could accurately predict it is pronunciation.  then the normans came with william the conqueror in 0 and the transition began from old english to middle english.  french words and by extension latin and greek words came into the english lexicon at this time and they brought with them sounds that did not exist in old english.  letters and letter combinations were borrowed and used to adjust to the new vocabulary and grammar.  as such spelling was incredibly inconsistent for hundreds of years as there was no standardization.  as this article explains: over 0 spellings of night are known from the middle ages nite, nyght, nicht, nihte.  URL it was not until later that spelling was more or less standardized, but it was standardized largely with common usage and not phonetics.  growing up i had a very difficult time learning how to spell.  i grew up learning spanish where words are phonetically spelled and english was very difficult for me.  there were no tricks, to learn to spell i had to use rote memorization.  in summary i think you are way to harsh on people.  english as a written language just is not logical and i promise that even you did not  learn  to spell correctly.  you memorized spellings same as i did.  you have just become so good at your memory recall that you mistake it for a learned skill.   #  it is fair to say it indicates a lack of focus, a lack of patience, etc if you must attribute a human flaw to it, but a lack of education and intelligence seems like a stretch.   #  i know, but i make mistakes quite often.  obvious mistakes too i misspell  tuesday  almost every time the first attempt , i think with punctuation in particular.  i write exactly how i speak.  i make spelling mistakes quite often, but i usually notice before i have finished spelling in which case i will go back and correct it.  i do not re read stuff though.  some people just blow past step one.  it is fair to say it indicates a lack of focus, a lack of patience, etc if you must attribute a human flaw to it, but a lack of education and intelligence seems like a stretch.  if there tipeing lyke thiss then you wood hav a point.   #  it was riddled with spelling errors and i went to him and asked if he seriously did not know how to spell  orange juice  ?  #  i think context is key too.  i do make some spelling mistakes here on reddit.  usually nothing too noticeable though, and usually due to typing on my phone.  and i think the same is for most people.  writing something that is to be published to the world. well that merits more care than other things.  i remember seeing my brother is shopping list once.  it was riddled with spelling errors and i went to him and asked if he seriously did not know how to spell  orange juice  ? ! he said of course he knew, but it was a damn shopping list and why should he bother spending time making sure his spelling was correct ? of course, for me, i instinctively know how to spell  orange juice .  but he does not.  that does not mean he has a severe lack of intelligence, just that spelling is something he needs to think a little more about.  same with me and say, mathematics.  i can understand it, but i have to think a little harder than he would.  does not make me severely stupid.   #  would you consider someone who judges you to be a good person an unintelligent person ?  # if you could provide proof for that, fine.  i am not saying i wo not believe you or wo not consider your anecdote to be a fair rebuttal, but you ca not honestly say  i am probably smarter than you  and expect me to just go  oh, okay.  you are totally smarter than me.    nitpicky  does not mean  factually incorrect , it just means  you do not like it .  i am not asking people if they  like  the idea of judging people based on their spelling.  i do not give a shit if people think it is a  nice  thing to do.  it is entirely primal and anti education.  i really do not understand how you could make a statement like this.  you think judgment is a  negative  and  mean  trait.  and you are saying you think negative or mean people are unintelligent.  that may help you cope with mean people but it does not really tackle the problem.  if someone ca not make good judgments, they are probably not intelligent.  if someone cannot make good judgments they are probably not educated.  judgment is not inherently negative people make positive and negative judgments about other people.  would you consider someone who judges you to be a good person an unintelligent person ?  #  or are you just confusing  intellect  with some form of laziness, or comfortableness, or some other form of context that you have not considered ?  #  i have a degree in english literature, and i mis type/use incorrect spelling all the time.  the purpose of language is to convey meaning especially in regards to simply communicating with someone and, in my mind, it does not really matter how i do that as long as what i intended came across.  do you believe that means i am somehow intellectually inferior ? i suspect that this is something that simply irritates you, and you are attempting to find some sort of justification for that irritation.  look there are arguments that people not typing  correctly  can be a sign of disrespect, that you do not care enough about the person to properly spell your words.  i suppose that has some merits, but it is entirely dependant on how a person  feels  about this issue.  i do not care how people type as long as they are conveying what they want to say you are irritated by poor typing standards and judge those who do it.  to me, that just seems an entirely artificial way to judge someones intellect.  then there is the issue of how to type being sort of contextual i type properly here because i understand it irritates a lot of reddit is users, and do not want to be subject to someone is ire over something as petty as this.  to my close friends, i may type something like  sup m0, hows it goin ? not too bad thnks, jus playin some vidya or  u goin out tonite ? if so cya l0r, if not talk 0moro so again, i pose the question, do you think i am intellectually inferior ? or are you just confusing  intellect  with some form of laziness, or comfortableness, or some other form of context that you have not considered ?
i have been doing this for 0 years.  i am at a healthy weight.  my bmi is 0, which in normal range.  from the outside i look okay, but at some days when i really feel the urge to eat, i eat.  when i eat, i ca not stop.  when i ca not stop, i keep going, because i think it is okay to eat until i am really full because i am going throw it all up anyway.  because it is easier to throw up when you are really full rather than you are half full.  i did not gain nor lose any weight doing this.  i maintained while eating whatever food i crave.  no need self control, which i am horrible at.  purging is like an undo button for me.  i have been to psychologist.  she failed to change my view.  she is trying to do all the emotional, esoteric approach, which is bullshit.  my pattern of thinking is very logical.  i understand about diet and exercise.  i know it works.  i did it and it helps me losing weight in the past.  the ultimate problem is, when my goal is maintaining, i think binging and purging is the most effective because it allows me to maintain my weight and eat whatever i want.  deep down, i know i  should not  do this.  i felt lightheaded and like crap a few hours following my purging.  tell me something about it.  reddit, please change my view.  explain to me the danger of doing this in the long run.  the beauty of actually stopping and not having this habit anymore.  give me scientific evidence, medical research, books, talk show references, whatever.  show me.  tell me i am wrong.  as a side note, some of nice strangers on reddit messaged me and referred me to these resources.  hope it would benefit others too:   neda URL   there is a chatroom where i can actually talk directly to their helpline   recovery record URL   a smartphone app where i can log not only my food, but also my thought and feelings after each meal, and whether or not i feel the urge to binge or purge after each meal.  so once again, thank you :  #  i did not gain nor lose any weight doing this.   #  there are other health risks about regularly throwing up.   # there are other health risks about regularly throwing up.  to name a few:   irritation and increased cancer risk for your esophagus   teeth damage due to the acidicy of your vomit   stomach damage due to increased acid production some probably health risks:   intestine damage due to increased acidicy of stomach contents   damage to your pancreas due to heightened activity   diabetes   i think binging and purging is the most effective because it allows me to maintain my weight and eat whatever i want.  the most effective way to acheive a goal for your body is most of the time not the healthiest one or does have strong long term effects.  would you fault a body builder who is doing steroids ? his side effects are comparable to yours in the long run.  the beauty comes from a shift in valuation of food you will have.  if you do not purge,  bad  food that tastes gpod will have more value to you as you ca not binge on it.  you will feel increased satisfaction from smaller doses.   #  if you did not connect with your previous doctors, try someone else, do not just ignore the problem, you could be causing cumulative damage.   #  have you heard about the link between bulimia and esophageal cancer URL your digestive system is not meant to work backwards.  the stomach acids in vomit tear up your stomach, throat and mouth.  even aside from cancer, you can develop other chronic issues that will make it difficult to eat and digest normally for the rest of your life.  bulimia is really a life threatening issue, it is not a problem you should try to solve by yourself.  if you did not connect with your previous doctors, try someone else, do not just ignore the problem, you could be causing cumulative damage.  good luck.   #  okay, just had a thought and my logical bitch brain is trying to argue with this.   #  okay, just had a thought and my logical bitch brain is trying to argue with this.  and i want to have a new comment thread for this aside from the previous one foods that reduce you esophageal cancer risk URL apparently not only stomach acid causes esophageal cancer, but also most acid and spicy foods.  when i eat normally, i eat a lot of acid and spicy foods too.  even if i do not purge, i am still gonna have risk of developing such thing.  and also, what if i  treated  myself after purging with foods high in antioxidants and nutrients ? mind you, i do not purge all foods i eat.  i just purge the bad ones fast food stuff .   #  that is where the problems occur, not when you are eating the spicy/acidic food.   #  i am not a doctor, but i think you are misreading that link.  acidic foods do not cause esophogeal cancer directly, but they do promote heartburn.  heartburn is caused by overproduction of gastric acid, which then refluxes out of your stomach and into your esophogas.  that is where the problems occur, not when you are eating the spicy/acidic food.  notice near the bottom of the link you posted:  the major cause of gerd and barrett is esophagus is consuming foods that cause heartburn   by reducing heartburn inducing foods, you ultimately reduce your chances for esophageal cancer.   so it sounds like if you are not getting heartburn regularly, you do not have to worry about this.  meaning, you ca not dismiss the bulimia cancer risk, or at least, it is not a good idea.  you have a potentially fatal URL condition i think most people have no idea that people die from this, maybe as many as 0 of women who have it , and esophogeal cancer is not the only part of bulimia that can kill you.  get help, do not focus on ways to live with it, that is not the logical part of your brain operating.   #  when i eat normally, i eat a lot of acid and spicy foods too.   # when i eat normally, i eat a lot of acid and spicy foods too.  even if i do not purge, i am still gonna have risk of developing such thing.  the logical conclusion here is to not purge or eat acidic foods.  also, you underestimate the acidity of hydrochloric acid, the stomach acid that you purge.  not only are cancers more likely to occur, you face a much nearer risk of sores occurring in your mouth, tooth decay, dehydration and vitamin k deficiency.  i highly suggest you find a psychiatrist, or another doctor with an md or a do.  while psychologists can be great at what they do, you have a serious problem which may be more solvable by a medical doctor who can prescribe medications or further specialists.
i have been doing this for 0 years.  i am at a healthy weight.  my bmi is 0, which in normal range.  from the outside i look okay, but at some days when i really feel the urge to eat, i eat.  when i eat, i ca not stop.  when i ca not stop, i keep going, because i think it is okay to eat until i am really full because i am going throw it all up anyway.  because it is easier to throw up when you are really full rather than you are half full.  i did not gain nor lose any weight doing this.  i maintained while eating whatever food i crave.  no need self control, which i am horrible at.  purging is like an undo button for me.  i have been to psychologist.  she failed to change my view.  she is trying to do all the emotional, esoteric approach, which is bullshit.  my pattern of thinking is very logical.  i understand about diet and exercise.  i know it works.  i did it and it helps me losing weight in the past.  the ultimate problem is, when my goal is maintaining, i think binging and purging is the most effective because it allows me to maintain my weight and eat whatever i want.  deep down, i know i  should not  do this.  i felt lightheaded and like crap a few hours following my purging.  tell me something about it.  reddit, please change my view.  explain to me the danger of doing this in the long run.  the beauty of actually stopping and not having this habit anymore.  give me scientific evidence, medical research, books, talk show references, whatever.  show me.  tell me i am wrong.  as a side note, some of nice strangers on reddit messaged me and referred me to these resources.  hope it would benefit others too:   neda URL   there is a chatroom where i can actually talk directly to their helpline   recovery record URL   a smartphone app where i can log not only my food, but also my thought and feelings after each meal, and whether or not i feel the urge to binge or purge after each meal.  so once again, thank you :  #  the beauty of actually stopping and not having this habit anymore.   #  the beauty comes from a shift in valuation of food you will have.   # there are other health risks about regularly throwing up.  to name a few:   irritation and increased cancer risk for your esophagus   teeth damage due to the acidicy of your vomit   stomach damage due to increased acid production some probably health risks:   intestine damage due to increased acidicy of stomach contents   damage to your pancreas due to heightened activity   diabetes   i think binging and purging is the most effective because it allows me to maintain my weight and eat whatever i want.  the most effective way to acheive a goal for your body is most of the time not the healthiest one or does have strong long term effects.  would you fault a body builder who is doing steroids ? his side effects are comparable to yours in the long run.  the beauty comes from a shift in valuation of food you will have.  if you do not purge,  bad  food that tastes gpod will have more value to you as you ca not binge on it.  you will feel increased satisfaction from smaller doses.   #  if you did not connect with your previous doctors, try someone else, do not just ignore the problem, you could be causing cumulative damage.   #  have you heard about the link between bulimia and esophageal cancer URL your digestive system is not meant to work backwards.  the stomach acids in vomit tear up your stomach, throat and mouth.  even aside from cancer, you can develop other chronic issues that will make it difficult to eat and digest normally for the rest of your life.  bulimia is really a life threatening issue, it is not a problem you should try to solve by yourself.  if you did not connect with your previous doctors, try someone else, do not just ignore the problem, you could be causing cumulative damage.  good luck.   #  and i want to have a new comment thread for this aside from the previous one foods that reduce you esophageal cancer risk URL apparently not only stomach acid causes esophageal cancer, but also most acid and spicy foods.   #  okay, just had a thought and my logical bitch brain is trying to argue with this.  and i want to have a new comment thread for this aside from the previous one foods that reduce you esophageal cancer risk URL apparently not only stomach acid causes esophageal cancer, but also most acid and spicy foods.  when i eat normally, i eat a lot of acid and spicy foods too.  even if i do not purge, i am still gonna have risk of developing such thing.  and also, what if i  treated  myself after purging with foods high in antioxidants and nutrients ? mind you, i do not purge all foods i eat.  i just purge the bad ones fast food stuff .   #  i am not a doctor, but i think you are misreading that link.   #  i am not a doctor, but i think you are misreading that link.  acidic foods do not cause esophogeal cancer directly, but they do promote heartburn.  heartburn is caused by overproduction of gastric acid, which then refluxes out of your stomach and into your esophogas.  that is where the problems occur, not when you are eating the spicy/acidic food.  notice near the bottom of the link you posted:  the major cause of gerd and barrett is esophagus is consuming foods that cause heartburn   by reducing heartburn inducing foods, you ultimately reduce your chances for esophageal cancer.   so it sounds like if you are not getting heartburn regularly, you do not have to worry about this.  meaning, you ca not dismiss the bulimia cancer risk, or at least, it is not a good idea.  you have a potentially fatal URL condition i think most people have no idea that people die from this, maybe as many as 0 of women who have it , and esophogeal cancer is not the only part of bulimia that can kill you.  get help, do not focus on ways to live with it, that is not the logical part of your brain operating.   #  when i eat normally, i eat a lot of acid and spicy foods too.   # when i eat normally, i eat a lot of acid and spicy foods too.  even if i do not purge, i am still gonna have risk of developing such thing.  the logical conclusion here is to not purge or eat acidic foods.  also, you underestimate the acidity of hydrochloric acid, the stomach acid that you purge.  not only are cancers more likely to occur, you face a much nearer risk of sores occurring in your mouth, tooth decay, dehydration and vitamin k deficiency.  i highly suggest you find a psychiatrist, or another doctor with an md or a do.  while psychologists can be great at what they do, you have a serious problem which may be more solvable by a medical doctor who can prescribe medications or further specialists.
it is perfectly legal and normal for cops, attorneys , etc.  who are trying to get information from a subject to lie to them in an attempt to get information from them.  here are the reasons i am against it: often times, if a subject is in custody, their only source of information about what is going on is their lawyer, and those interrogating them.  it can be extremely difficult to deduce the truth for a suspect.  often times, police officers lie to try and get the suspect to give up information or confess in hopes of lessening punishment or explaining their side of the story.  my argument is that such lies also encourage the suspect to confess, even if they did not do it, to try and lessen the punishment.  it also fosters an attitude among the public of  do not trust a cop,  because you know they can and will lie if they think it will help their case, whether it is true or not.  in regard to exceptions, i am okay with the police lying in two situations.  first, if they are currently undercover in an investigation.  it is obviously impossible to conduct such investigations otherwise.  second, i would say lying is okay if they have reason to suspect someone is life is at risk, such as if a kidnapper has someone tied up somewhere and you need to rescue them.  cmv !  #  second, i would say lying is okay if they have reason to suspect someone is life is at risk, such as if a kidnapper has someone tied up somewhere and you need to rescue them.   #  but why should we stop at  life being in danger ?    # but why should we stop at  life being in danger ?   what if a lie can prevent a bank robbery ? an assault ? what about a crook who stole 0 billions from a pension fund, depriving thousands of people of retirement, is it ok to lie to him to find out where the money is ? why is the odd chance of an innocent person confessing be so grave that only a chance of death will balance it out ? i agree that false confessions are a valid concern, but surely other concerns can out weigh it.   #  sorry that this is a bit poorly constructed, i could give you a better explanation if i were not on my phone.   #  first, you should know that i am currently at a departure gate about to step on to a plane.  so if you have follow up questions or comments i may be a bit delayed in my response.  based on your original post, it appears that your concern lies primarily in the  custodial interrogation  i. e. , the thing that happens when somebody has already been arrested and is generally sitting in a room in the police station with a detective or two at the other end of the table.  custodial interrogations are a bit rarer than you think.  the majority of prosecutions do not require a confession and do not require an interrogation.  the guy was dealing heroin, the cop  saw  him dealing heroin, and that is the end of the investigation.  no interrogation required.  as to the  tv style  investigations that you are thinking of, our constitution provides certain safeguards designed to ensure that suspects are not unfairly coerced into making a confession.  for example, a suspect who is the subject of a custodial interrogation must be informed that they have the right to an attorney, and they must be informed that they have a right not to say anything at all.  usually a suspect wo not be questioned until they have signed a form indicating that they understand those rights.  as soon as a suspect invokes them, the interrogation must stop immediately.  violation of that rule will result in any information gathered as a consequence to be thrown out of court.  finally, you seem to be under the impression that a suspect is attorney will for some reason aid in any deception on the part of the cops.  i do not know why that would be the case, and of course could not be farther from the truth.  a defense lawyer is first piece of advice to any suspect will be  shut up and stop talking to the cops.   interrogations are always, always voluntary.  sorry that this is a bit poorly constructed, i could give you a better explanation if i were not on my phone.  my basic feeling, however, is that there are plenty of systemic issues existing within the criminal justice system and cops being permitted to lie in custodial interrogation is not one of the major ones.  it is rarer than you think, and where it does happen there are rules in play.   #  finally one of them asked if the suspect believed in god.   #  i am also a lawyer, he did not remain silent, that was the problem.  the issue was really what it meant for the police to cease the interrogation.  the suspect remained silent during questioning and for a long time the officers questioning him simply sat silently in the room with him.  finally one of them asked if the suspect believed in god.  no lead up, just broke the silence with that.  the suspect  said  yes he did.  the next question was,  did you ask god is forgiveness for killing that person  to which the suspect responded by saying yes, again.  the honorable justice scalia then wrote in the majority opinion that you must speak to invoke your right to remain silent and the police are not under any obligation to assume that by remaining silent you are invoking your right.  here is the wiki on the case URL it was a 0 0 majority but one that was strengthened in a way by another 0 0 decision in salinas.  if you ask me the court got it wrong since i believe we should assume the rights are being invoked until they are waived, once informed.  but it is far from the worst decision this court has made.   #  provided you have not already talked about being at jim is house, you can invoke your 0th amendment rights and stay silent about jim is house, and they ca not use that against you.   #  the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies specifically to evidence collected through improper process or procedure such as by an invalid warrant or unjustified traffic stop.  the bit you bolded is referring to evidence discovered as a result of your testimony.  so, say you answer some of their questions, but then something new comes up  were you at jim is house that night ?   and you do not want to answer.  provided you have not already talked about being at jim is house, you can invoke your 0th amendment rights and stay silent about jim is house, and they ca not use that against you.  they can use any evidence discovered as a result of your other testimony either previous or subsequent.  i think the bolded part is just trying to emphasize that 0th amendment protection applies only to that testimony for which you explicitly invoke it, and any evidence your testimony otherwise admits is fair game.  but as far as the poisonous tree stuff, that would only apply to testimony obtained improperly for example, if they interrogate you without apprising you of your miranda rights or otherwise violate procedural or substantive constitutional rights.  the exclusionary rule does apply specifically to constitutional rights although miranda is probably enough of a due process issue to qualify, the rule has been limited fairly substantially over the years URL but to be clear, because i feel like maybe in all this typing i have not answered your question i do not think the part you bolded is the sort of thing that would even implicate a due process or evidentiary violation.  it is talking about drawing conclusions based on given testimony.  barring a violation like i mentioned above, they can draw conclusions and introduce evidence based on your given testimony.  they ca not introduce evidence based on your withheld testimony, but that is not what the bolded part is referring to.   #  it would rather defeat the point, would not it and would require something altogether different and more intrusive to deal with something that can be handled currently with spot checks.   #  i just do not know how you could enforce complete honesty.  even then, the police  have  to withhold relevant information or investigation would be simply unfeasible.  i mean, can you imagine if you could just ask the police where the dui checkpoints will be this evening ? it would rather defeat the point, would not it and would require something altogether different and more intrusive to deal with something that can be handled currently with spot checks.  there are a lot of practical concerns to trying to enforce truth telling.  how does the law define truth, does it include withholding information or leading to false conclusions without actually speaking falsehoods ? where is that line ? what happens when a lie or honest mistake that turns out to be a falsehood is inevitably spoken ? what kind of punishment would there be ? what kind of oversight would be required to ensure that the punishment is actually enforced ? and about your second exception, usually the police have no idea what information is relevant and what is not until rather late in the game, how can they be expected to know if someone is life is at risk when they are not even certain what is going on and if the person they are interrogating was involved ? i think that this is being approached from the wrong angle.  it is a lot easier to establish the basic rights for individuals and make it readily available through popular media, and explain that false confessions are bad for all parties than it would be to try to micromanage all police activity everywhere.  hell, even putting together a pamphlet that enumerates the rights of citizens and handing it out would go a long way and would not get in the way of other things.
i understand the reasoning behind the concept of a jury of your peers.  i have some collegiate level law education but never finished my degree so i understand my view may be lacking critical information, hence why i am here.  the argument is also somewhat us centric, but i understand that most western countries use the same style of law process.  anyways, i feel that a jury of random people is fundamentally flawed.  it is often said that trials are won at jury selection.  i feel this way for a few reasons: 0 any lawyer worth a fuck excludes jurors that he feels might cast their vote against his/her side regardless of truth or evidence.  if you have a black defendant, the defense wants to stack the jury with black people who have been hassled by the police at some time in their life.  the prosecution wants 0 card carrying members of the kkk.  unbiased, neutral juries are basically non existent.  0 as a whole, people are stupid.  i have read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that csi has ruined forensics for people.  some people refuse to vote guilty if there is not enough forensic evidence, despite other overwhelming evidence.  on the other side of the coin, some people are honestly not smart enough to understand things like dna.  some people do not have the attention span to sit through scooby doo.  and these people are deciding the future of people.  0 it is a fairly common joke that a jury is  twelve people not smart enough to avoid jury duty.   very few people view it as an honor to sit on a jury.  the pay is almost nothing as compared to most people is normal jobs.  most people view it as a punishment.  thus, those people smart enough to get out of it do in fact get out of it.  thus leading me back to point number 0.  0 juries routinely convict/free people on emotion, which has no place in a courtroom.  0 the average person has no grasp of the intricacies of laws.  a regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 0 and manslaughter 0.  as a superior alternative, i would offer an alternative: professional jurors.  people who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors.  they would go through a screening process and background check to ensure they are not part of a radical group of any sort, and i would even be partial to them not being a republican/democrat.  they would have to take an oath of neutrality, and have a limited one time term of service i was thinking 0 0 years .  during this time they cannot earn other income, and can never use their experience to do anything like write a book or sell their story.  the position should pay  fairly  well, to the point where you can make a comfortable living but not an extravagant amount.  their job is to then be a juror 0 days a week and nothing more.  the only way they could be removed from a particular jury would be if an attorney showed good cause that they would be unconsciously biased ie: they are related to the defendant or the victim or whatever .  i understand this system would be far from perfect however, in my mind it is leaps and bounds ahead of our current system.  i also understand that a trial with a jury of your peers is a right guaranteed by the american constitution.  i understand that is not changing any time soon.  i am only arguing that professional jurors, properly regulated, would be a significant step forward from what we currently use in the us.   #  people who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors.   #  this will probably stratify jury duty immensely along socioeconomic lines.   #  lots of stuff here.  i will start off with this point, because i think it matters most and strikes at the heart of importance of our admittedly fallible jury by peers system.  this will probably stratify jury duty immensely along socioeconomic lines.  we are not starting with some blank slate where people have equal access to opportunity, including educational ones not just law degrees, but even your elementary school experience that would likely influence aptitude on an intelligence test.  i am almost certain, by this measure, we will have a professional jury filled with predominantly affluent white people sound kind of familiar ?  #  even if they were the most dishonest people alive its just not in their self interest to accept any bribes.   #  while seemingly sensible this this conflict of interest thing really is not that much of an issue.  we already basically have professional jurors, they are called judges.  they are very good at staying neutral and avoiding manipulation.  most judges are obessive over avoiding even the appearance of any kind of improporiety as it would be the immediate death of their career.  also, judges in the u. s.  make pretty damn good money, tend to have had even more lucrative career prior to being a judge and have a very respectable position.  combined with the penalties in place for accepting a bribe.  you are going to have to come up with a hell of a lot of money to bribe a judge.  even if they were the most dishonest people alive its just not in their self interest to accept any bribes.   #  can you think of another sphere of civic life where would you advocate zero experience as being a  benefit  ?  #  you are ignoring the principal problems of juries they are very inconsistent, and justice needs consistency.  a psychologically vetted group of independent, intelligent and experienced jurors would be much better able to deliver  just  verdicts than wide eyed novice jurors that good lawyers and experienced defendants can twist round their little fingers.  there is an imbalance in the current system, and qualified jurors would address that.  juries make decisions that have a huge impact on people is lives, and it makes no sense that most jurors in important trials are complete novices.  can you think of another sphere of civic life where would you advocate zero experience as being a  benefit  ?  #  i do not think i need to detail all the things that went wrong in that trial that would not have occurred with a professional jury or even one of competent laypeople i would argue.  present.   #  i am not sure why you think that the law would lack legitimacy if the jury is made up of professionals, because i think the exact opposite would happen.  i would argue that as a result of a lot of issues that the op has already listed, the standard juries are  not  ideal to have in a courtroom and also shake a lot of people is faith in the legitimacy of a trial.  consider the o. j.  simpson example.  i do not think i need to detail all the things that went wrong in that trial that would not have occurred with a professional jury or even one of competent laypeople i would argue.  present.  and this trial also shook a lot of people is faith in the judicial system because it effectively showed that good lawyering coupled with an incompetent jury can let people that should be convicted slip through the cracks.  also, you mention that the jury should be representative of the common people, but even that does not really apply considering that a lot of smart people simply get out of jury duty.  there is also a higher opportunity cost for educated people because they will have to leave their regular jobs statistically much more likely to pay higher than less educated people is to perform jury duty.  these two basically imply that juries are essentially statistically biased towards less educated/logical people, which already biases the system.   #  people are paranoid, and a lot of times they are right to be.   #  this is probably the best way to put it.  the problem is not necessarily the concept of a professional jury.  the problem is instituting a professional jury after the standard has been kept for so long.  people are paranoid, and a lot of times they are right to be.  if you have jury that is hired by the state, the district, whatever, there is no doubt that they would be more likely to vote in favor of their employer.  if they are appointed by a judge, it would be within his power to take them aside and just be like,  listen, we know he is guilty right ? let is just wrap this up and lunch is on me.   not that any of that would be legal necessarily, but it would not be appropriate to take every element of diversity out of a trial to replace it with a narrow perspective of people who have all chosen the same specific walk in life.  it does not seem very fair.  and that is because it is not.
i understand the reasoning behind the concept of a jury of your peers.  i have some collegiate level law education but never finished my degree so i understand my view may be lacking critical information, hence why i am here.  the argument is also somewhat us centric, but i understand that most western countries use the same style of law process.  anyways, i feel that a jury of random people is fundamentally flawed.  it is often said that trials are won at jury selection.  i feel this way for a few reasons: 0 any lawyer worth a fuck excludes jurors that he feels might cast their vote against his/her side regardless of truth or evidence.  if you have a black defendant, the defense wants to stack the jury with black people who have been hassled by the police at some time in their life.  the prosecution wants 0 card carrying members of the kkk.  unbiased, neutral juries are basically non existent.  0 as a whole, people are stupid.  i have read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that csi has ruined forensics for people.  some people refuse to vote guilty if there is not enough forensic evidence, despite other overwhelming evidence.  on the other side of the coin, some people are honestly not smart enough to understand things like dna.  some people do not have the attention span to sit through scooby doo.  and these people are deciding the future of people.  0 it is a fairly common joke that a jury is  twelve people not smart enough to avoid jury duty.   very few people view it as an honor to sit on a jury.  the pay is almost nothing as compared to most people is normal jobs.  most people view it as a punishment.  thus, those people smart enough to get out of it do in fact get out of it.  thus leading me back to point number 0.  0 juries routinely convict/free people on emotion, which has no place in a courtroom.  0 the average person has no grasp of the intricacies of laws.  a regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 0 and manslaughter 0.  as a superior alternative, i would offer an alternative: professional jurors.  people who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors.  they would go through a screening process and background check to ensure they are not part of a radical group of any sort, and i would even be partial to them not being a republican/democrat.  they would have to take an oath of neutrality, and have a limited one time term of service i was thinking 0 0 years .  during this time they cannot earn other income, and can never use their experience to do anything like write a book or sell their story.  the position should pay  fairly  well, to the point where you can make a comfortable living but not an extravagant amount.  their job is to then be a juror 0 days a week and nothing more.  the only way they could be removed from a particular jury would be if an attorney showed good cause that they would be unconsciously biased ie: they are related to the defendant or the victim or whatever .  i understand this system would be far from perfect however, in my mind it is leaps and bounds ahead of our current system.  i also understand that a trial with a jury of your peers is a right guaranteed by the american constitution.  i understand that is not changing any time soon.  i am only arguing that professional jurors, properly regulated, would be a significant step forward from what we currently use in the us.   #  0 as a whole, people are stupid.   #  i have read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that csi has ruined forensics for people.   # forget what you see on tv.  lawyers ca not just disqualify people to stack the deck.  there needs to be a compelling reason why a person ca not serve on the jury.  i saw this firsthand when i did jury duty.  i have read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that csi has ruined forensics for people.  how would this be any different from a juror who is paid to do the same job ? or are you proposing they get a college degree in the subject ? guilt is not simply evidence.  it is the prosecutors job to convince the jury of that the accused is guilty  beyond a reasonable doubt .  if the jury does not convict, it meant he did not do a good enough job convincing them.  in my county you do not get out of jury duty unless you are very ill.  everyone serves.  yes pay is almost nothing but you ca not bribe your way out of it.  all judgments are based on emotion.  it is a feeling.  it is the sense some witnesses are credible and some are not.  it is the gut feeling someone is lying.  it is the character of the person on trial: do we believe he is capable of it ? do we believe his testimony ? a regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 0 and manslaughter 0.  juries are given very clear instructions on the difference between two charges and what criteria must be met.  people who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors.  why not just waive your right to a jury trial and let a judge decide ? who is going to go to college for a subject just to work 0 years in that field and be laid off ? how will you remove all personal bias, religious beliefs, political party affiliation from these people ? it seems like the only change is you are paying the juror a salary and keeping him 0 years instead of 0 weeks ?  #  even if they were the most dishonest people alive its just not in their self interest to accept any bribes.   #  while seemingly sensible this this conflict of interest thing really is not that much of an issue.  we already basically have professional jurors, they are called judges.  they are very good at staying neutral and avoiding manipulation.  most judges are obessive over avoiding even the appearance of any kind of improporiety as it would be the immediate death of their career.  also, judges in the u. s.  make pretty damn good money, tend to have had even more lucrative career prior to being a judge and have a very respectable position.  combined with the penalties in place for accepting a bribe.  you are going to have to come up with a hell of a lot of money to bribe a judge.  even if they were the most dishonest people alive its just not in their self interest to accept any bribes.   #  juries make decisions that have a huge impact on people is lives, and it makes no sense that most jurors in important trials are complete novices.   #  you are ignoring the principal problems of juries they are very inconsistent, and justice needs consistency.  a psychologically vetted group of independent, intelligent and experienced jurors would be much better able to deliver  just  verdicts than wide eyed novice jurors that good lawyers and experienced defendants can twist round their little fingers.  there is an imbalance in the current system, and qualified jurors would address that.  juries make decisions that have a huge impact on people is lives, and it makes no sense that most jurors in important trials are complete novices.  can you think of another sphere of civic life where would you advocate zero experience as being a  benefit  ?  #  i do not think i need to detail all the things that went wrong in that trial that would not have occurred with a professional jury or even one of competent laypeople i would argue.  present.   #  i am not sure why you think that the law would lack legitimacy if the jury is made up of professionals, because i think the exact opposite would happen.  i would argue that as a result of a lot of issues that the op has already listed, the standard juries are  not  ideal to have in a courtroom and also shake a lot of people is faith in the legitimacy of a trial.  consider the o. j.  simpson example.  i do not think i need to detail all the things that went wrong in that trial that would not have occurred with a professional jury or even one of competent laypeople i would argue.  present.  and this trial also shook a lot of people is faith in the judicial system because it effectively showed that good lawyering coupled with an incompetent jury can let people that should be convicted slip through the cracks.  also, you mention that the jury should be representative of the common people, but even that does not really apply considering that a lot of smart people simply get out of jury duty.  there is also a higher opportunity cost for educated people because they will have to leave their regular jobs statistically much more likely to pay higher than less educated people is to perform jury duty.  these two basically imply that juries are essentially statistically biased towards less educated/logical people, which already biases the system.   #  this is probably the best way to put it.   #  this is probably the best way to put it.  the problem is not necessarily the concept of a professional jury.  the problem is instituting a professional jury after the standard has been kept for so long.  people are paranoid, and a lot of times they are right to be.  if you have jury that is hired by the state, the district, whatever, there is no doubt that they would be more likely to vote in favor of their employer.  if they are appointed by a judge, it would be within his power to take them aside and just be like,  listen, we know he is guilty right ? let is just wrap this up and lunch is on me.   not that any of that would be legal necessarily, but it would not be appropriate to take every element of diversity out of a trial to replace it with a narrow perspective of people who have all chosen the same specific walk in life.  it does not seem very fair.  and that is because it is not.
i understand the reasoning behind the concept of a jury of your peers.  i have some collegiate level law education but never finished my degree so i understand my view may be lacking critical information, hence why i am here.  the argument is also somewhat us centric, but i understand that most western countries use the same style of law process.  anyways, i feel that a jury of random people is fundamentally flawed.  it is often said that trials are won at jury selection.  i feel this way for a few reasons: 0 any lawyer worth a fuck excludes jurors that he feels might cast their vote against his/her side regardless of truth or evidence.  if you have a black defendant, the defense wants to stack the jury with black people who have been hassled by the police at some time in their life.  the prosecution wants 0 card carrying members of the kkk.  unbiased, neutral juries are basically non existent.  0 as a whole, people are stupid.  i have read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that csi has ruined forensics for people.  some people refuse to vote guilty if there is not enough forensic evidence, despite other overwhelming evidence.  on the other side of the coin, some people are honestly not smart enough to understand things like dna.  some people do not have the attention span to sit through scooby doo.  and these people are deciding the future of people.  0 it is a fairly common joke that a jury is  twelve people not smart enough to avoid jury duty.   very few people view it as an honor to sit on a jury.  the pay is almost nothing as compared to most people is normal jobs.  most people view it as a punishment.  thus, those people smart enough to get out of it do in fact get out of it.  thus leading me back to point number 0.  0 juries routinely convict/free people on emotion, which has no place in a courtroom.  0 the average person has no grasp of the intricacies of laws.  a regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 0 and manslaughter 0.  as a superior alternative, i would offer an alternative: professional jurors.  people who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors.  they would go through a screening process and background check to ensure they are not part of a radical group of any sort, and i would even be partial to them not being a republican/democrat.  they would have to take an oath of neutrality, and have a limited one time term of service i was thinking 0 0 years .  during this time they cannot earn other income, and can never use their experience to do anything like write a book or sell their story.  the position should pay  fairly  well, to the point where you can make a comfortable living but not an extravagant amount.  their job is to then be a juror 0 days a week and nothing more.  the only way they could be removed from a particular jury would be if an attorney showed good cause that they would be unconsciously biased ie: they are related to the defendant or the victim or whatever .  i understand this system would be far from perfect however, in my mind it is leaps and bounds ahead of our current system.  i also understand that a trial with a jury of your peers is a right guaranteed by the american constitution.  i understand that is not changing any time soon.  i am only arguing that professional jurors, properly regulated, would be a significant step forward from what we currently use in the us.   #  0 it is a fairly common joke that a jury is  twelve people not smart enough to avoid jury duty.    #  in my county you do not get out of jury duty unless you are very ill.   # forget what you see on tv.  lawyers ca not just disqualify people to stack the deck.  there needs to be a compelling reason why a person ca not serve on the jury.  i saw this firsthand when i did jury duty.  i have read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that csi has ruined forensics for people.  how would this be any different from a juror who is paid to do the same job ? or are you proposing they get a college degree in the subject ? guilt is not simply evidence.  it is the prosecutors job to convince the jury of that the accused is guilty  beyond a reasonable doubt .  if the jury does not convict, it meant he did not do a good enough job convincing them.  in my county you do not get out of jury duty unless you are very ill.  everyone serves.  yes pay is almost nothing but you ca not bribe your way out of it.  all judgments are based on emotion.  it is a feeling.  it is the sense some witnesses are credible and some are not.  it is the gut feeling someone is lying.  it is the character of the person on trial: do we believe he is capable of it ? do we believe his testimony ? a regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 0 and manslaughter 0.  juries are given very clear instructions on the difference between two charges and what criteria must be met.  people who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors.  why not just waive your right to a jury trial and let a judge decide ? who is going to go to college for a subject just to work 0 years in that field and be laid off ? how will you remove all personal bias, religious beliefs, political party affiliation from these people ? it seems like the only change is you are paying the juror a salary and keeping him 0 years instead of 0 weeks ?  #  even if they were the most dishonest people alive its just not in their self interest to accept any bribes.   #  while seemingly sensible this this conflict of interest thing really is not that much of an issue.  we already basically have professional jurors, they are called judges.  they are very good at staying neutral and avoiding manipulation.  most judges are obessive over avoiding even the appearance of any kind of improporiety as it would be the immediate death of their career.  also, judges in the u. s.  make pretty damn good money, tend to have had even more lucrative career prior to being a judge and have a very respectable position.  combined with the penalties in place for accepting a bribe.  you are going to have to come up with a hell of a lot of money to bribe a judge.  even if they were the most dishonest people alive its just not in their self interest to accept any bribes.   #  there is an imbalance in the current system, and qualified jurors would address that.   #  you are ignoring the principal problems of juries they are very inconsistent, and justice needs consistency.  a psychologically vetted group of independent, intelligent and experienced jurors would be much better able to deliver  just  verdicts than wide eyed novice jurors that good lawyers and experienced defendants can twist round their little fingers.  there is an imbalance in the current system, and qualified jurors would address that.  juries make decisions that have a huge impact on people is lives, and it makes no sense that most jurors in important trials are complete novices.  can you think of another sphere of civic life where would you advocate zero experience as being a  benefit  ?  #  there is also a higher opportunity cost for educated people because they will have to leave their regular jobs statistically much more likely to pay higher than less educated people is to perform jury duty.   #  i am not sure why you think that the law would lack legitimacy if the jury is made up of professionals, because i think the exact opposite would happen.  i would argue that as a result of a lot of issues that the op has already listed, the standard juries are  not  ideal to have in a courtroom and also shake a lot of people is faith in the legitimacy of a trial.  consider the o. j.  simpson example.  i do not think i need to detail all the things that went wrong in that trial that would not have occurred with a professional jury or even one of competent laypeople i would argue.  present.  and this trial also shook a lot of people is faith in the judicial system because it effectively showed that good lawyering coupled with an incompetent jury can let people that should be convicted slip through the cracks.  also, you mention that the jury should be representative of the common people, but even that does not really apply considering that a lot of smart people simply get out of jury duty.  there is also a higher opportunity cost for educated people because they will have to leave their regular jobs statistically much more likely to pay higher than less educated people is to perform jury duty.  these two basically imply that juries are essentially statistically biased towards less educated/logical people, which already biases the system.   #  if you have jury that is hired by the state, the district, whatever, there is no doubt that they would be more likely to vote in favor of their employer.   #  this is probably the best way to put it.  the problem is not necessarily the concept of a professional jury.  the problem is instituting a professional jury after the standard has been kept for so long.  people are paranoid, and a lot of times they are right to be.  if you have jury that is hired by the state, the district, whatever, there is no doubt that they would be more likely to vote in favor of their employer.  if they are appointed by a judge, it would be within his power to take them aside and just be like,  listen, we know he is guilty right ? let is just wrap this up and lunch is on me.   not that any of that would be legal necessarily, but it would not be appropriate to take every element of diversity out of a trial to replace it with a narrow perspective of people who have all chosen the same specific walk in life.  it does not seem very fair.  and that is because it is not.
i understand the reasoning behind the concept of a jury of your peers.  i have some collegiate level law education but never finished my degree so i understand my view may be lacking critical information, hence why i am here.  the argument is also somewhat us centric, but i understand that most western countries use the same style of law process.  anyways, i feel that a jury of random people is fundamentally flawed.  it is often said that trials are won at jury selection.  i feel this way for a few reasons: 0 any lawyer worth a fuck excludes jurors that he feels might cast their vote against his/her side regardless of truth or evidence.  if you have a black defendant, the defense wants to stack the jury with black people who have been hassled by the police at some time in their life.  the prosecution wants 0 card carrying members of the kkk.  unbiased, neutral juries are basically non existent.  0 as a whole, people are stupid.  i have read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that csi has ruined forensics for people.  some people refuse to vote guilty if there is not enough forensic evidence, despite other overwhelming evidence.  on the other side of the coin, some people are honestly not smart enough to understand things like dna.  some people do not have the attention span to sit through scooby doo.  and these people are deciding the future of people.  0 it is a fairly common joke that a jury is  twelve people not smart enough to avoid jury duty.   very few people view it as an honor to sit on a jury.  the pay is almost nothing as compared to most people is normal jobs.  most people view it as a punishment.  thus, those people smart enough to get out of it do in fact get out of it.  thus leading me back to point number 0.  0 juries routinely convict/free people on emotion, which has no place in a courtroom.  0 the average person has no grasp of the intricacies of laws.  a regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 0 and manslaughter 0.  as a superior alternative, i would offer an alternative: professional jurors.  people who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors.  they would go through a screening process and background check to ensure they are not part of a radical group of any sort, and i would even be partial to them not being a republican/democrat.  they would have to take an oath of neutrality, and have a limited one time term of service i was thinking 0 0 years .  during this time they cannot earn other income, and can never use their experience to do anything like write a book or sell their story.  the position should pay  fairly  well, to the point where you can make a comfortable living but not an extravagant amount.  their job is to then be a juror 0 days a week and nothing more.  the only way they could be removed from a particular jury would be if an attorney showed good cause that they would be unconsciously biased ie: they are related to the defendant or the victim or whatever .  i understand this system would be far from perfect however, in my mind it is leaps and bounds ahead of our current system.  i also understand that a trial with a jury of your peers is a right guaranteed by the american constitution.  i understand that is not changing any time soon.  i am only arguing that professional jurors, properly regulated, would be a significant step forward from what we currently use in the us.   #  0 the average person has no grasp of the intricacies of laws.   #  a regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 0 and manslaughter 0.  juries are given very clear instructions on the difference between two charges and what criteria must be met.   # forget what you see on tv.  lawyers ca not just disqualify people to stack the deck.  there needs to be a compelling reason why a person ca not serve on the jury.  i saw this firsthand when i did jury duty.  i have read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that csi has ruined forensics for people.  how would this be any different from a juror who is paid to do the same job ? or are you proposing they get a college degree in the subject ? guilt is not simply evidence.  it is the prosecutors job to convince the jury of that the accused is guilty  beyond a reasonable doubt .  if the jury does not convict, it meant he did not do a good enough job convincing them.  in my county you do not get out of jury duty unless you are very ill.  everyone serves.  yes pay is almost nothing but you ca not bribe your way out of it.  all judgments are based on emotion.  it is a feeling.  it is the sense some witnesses are credible and some are not.  it is the gut feeling someone is lying.  it is the character of the person on trial: do we believe he is capable of it ? do we believe his testimony ? a regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 0 and manslaughter 0.  juries are given very clear instructions on the difference between two charges and what criteria must be met.  people who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors.  why not just waive your right to a jury trial and let a judge decide ? who is going to go to college for a subject just to work 0 years in that field and be laid off ? how will you remove all personal bias, religious beliefs, political party affiliation from these people ? it seems like the only change is you are paying the juror a salary and keeping him 0 years instead of 0 weeks ?  #  combined with the penalties in place for accepting a bribe.  you are going to have to come up with a hell of a lot of money to bribe a judge.   #  while seemingly sensible this this conflict of interest thing really is not that much of an issue.  we already basically have professional jurors, they are called judges.  they are very good at staying neutral and avoiding manipulation.  most judges are obessive over avoiding even the appearance of any kind of improporiety as it would be the immediate death of their career.  also, judges in the u. s.  make pretty damn good money, tend to have had even more lucrative career prior to being a judge and have a very respectable position.  combined with the penalties in place for accepting a bribe.  you are going to have to come up with a hell of a lot of money to bribe a judge.  even if they were the most dishonest people alive its just not in their self interest to accept any bribes.   #  a psychologically vetted group of independent, intelligent and experienced jurors would be much better able to deliver  just  verdicts than wide eyed novice jurors that good lawyers and experienced defendants can twist round their little fingers.   #  you are ignoring the principal problems of juries they are very inconsistent, and justice needs consistency.  a psychologically vetted group of independent, intelligent and experienced jurors would be much better able to deliver  just  verdicts than wide eyed novice jurors that good lawyers and experienced defendants can twist round their little fingers.  there is an imbalance in the current system, and qualified jurors would address that.  juries make decisions that have a huge impact on people is lives, and it makes no sense that most jurors in important trials are complete novices.  can you think of another sphere of civic life where would you advocate zero experience as being a  benefit  ?  #  also, you mention that the jury should be representative of the common people, but even that does not really apply considering that a lot of smart people simply get out of jury duty.   #  i am not sure why you think that the law would lack legitimacy if the jury is made up of professionals, because i think the exact opposite would happen.  i would argue that as a result of a lot of issues that the op has already listed, the standard juries are  not  ideal to have in a courtroom and also shake a lot of people is faith in the legitimacy of a trial.  consider the o. j.  simpson example.  i do not think i need to detail all the things that went wrong in that trial that would not have occurred with a professional jury or even one of competent laypeople i would argue.  present.  and this trial also shook a lot of people is faith in the judicial system because it effectively showed that good lawyering coupled with an incompetent jury can let people that should be convicted slip through the cracks.  also, you mention that the jury should be representative of the common people, but even that does not really apply considering that a lot of smart people simply get out of jury duty.  there is also a higher opportunity cost for educated people because they will have to leave their regular jobs statistically much more likely to pay higher than less educated people is to perform jury duty.  these two basically imply that juries are essentially statistically biased towards less educated/logical people, which already biases the system.   #  let is just wrap this up and lunch is on me.    #  this is probably the best way to put it.  the problem is not necessarily the concept of a professional jury.  the problem is instituting a professional jury after the standard has been kept for so long.  people are paranoid, and a lot of times they are right to be.  if you have jury that is hired by the state, the district, whatever, there is no doubt that they would be more likely to vote in favor of their employer.  if they are appointed by a judge, it would be within his power to take them aside and just be like,  listen, we know he is guilty right ? let is just wrap this up and lunch is on me.   not that any of that would be legal necessarily, but it would not be appropriate to take every element of diversity out of a trial to replace it with a narrow perspective of people who have all chosen the same specific walk in life.  it does not seem very fair.  and that is because it is not.
i understand the reasoning behind the concept of a jury of your peers.  i have some collegiate level law education but never finished my degree so i understand my view may be lacking critical information, hence why i am here.  the argument is also somewhat us centric, but i understand that most western countries use the same style of law process.  anyways, i feel that a jury of random people is fundamentally flawed.  it is often said that trials are won at jury selection.  i feel this way for a few reasons: 0 any lawyer worth a fuck excludes jurors that he feels might cast their vote against his/her side regardless of truth or evidence.  if you have a black defendant, the defense wants to stack the jury with black people who have been hassled by the police at some time in their life.  the prosecution wants 0 card carrying members of the kkk.  unbiased, neutral juries are basically non existent.  0 as a whole, people are stupid.  i have read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that csi has ruined forensics for people.  some people refuse to vote guilty if there is not enough forensic evidence, despite other overwhelming evidence.  on the other side of the coin, some people are honestly not smart enough to understand things like dna.  some people do not have the attention span to sit through scooby doo.  and these people are deciding the future of people.  0 it is a fairly common joke that a jury is  twelve people not smart enough to avoid jury duty.   very few people view it as an honor to sit on a jury.  the pay is almost nothing as compared to most people is normal jobs.  most people view it as a punishment.  thus, those people smart enough to get out of it do in fact get out of it.  thus leading me back to point number 0.  0 juries routinely convict/free people on emotion, which has no place in a courtroom.  0 the average person has no grasp of the intricacies of laws.  a regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 0 and manslaughter 0.  as a superior alternative, i would offer an alternative: professional jurors.  people who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors.  they would go through a screening process and background check to ensure they are not part of a radical group of any sort, and i would even be partial to them not being a republican/democrat.  they would have to take an oath of neutrality, and have a limited one time term of service i was thinking 0 0 years .  during this time they cannot earn other income, and can never use their experience to do anything like write a book or sell their story.  the position should pay  fairly  well, to the point where you can make a comfortable living but not an extravagant amount.  their job is to then be a juror 0 days a week and nothing more.  the only way they could be removed from a particular jury would be if an attorney showed good cause that they would be unconsciously biased ie: they are related to the defendant or the victim or whatever .  i understand this system would be far from perfect however, in my mind it is leaps and bounds ahead of our current system.  i also understand that a trial with a jury of your peers is a right guaranteed by the american constitution.  i understand that is not changing any time soon.  i am only arguing that professional jurors, properly regulated, would be a significant step forward from what we currently use in the us.   #  have a limited one time term of service i was thinking 0 0 years .   #  who is going to go to college for a subject just to work 0 years in that field and be laid off ?  # forget what you see on tv.  lawyers ca not just disqualify people to stack the deck.  there needs to be a compelling reason why a person ca not serve on the jury.  i saw this firsthand when i did jury duty.  i have read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that csi has ruined forensics for people.  how would this be any different from a juror who is paid to do the same job ? or are you proposing they get a college degree in the subject ? guilt is not simply evidence.  it is the prosecutors job to convince the jury of that the accused is guilty  beyond a reasonable doubt .  if the jury does not convict, it meant he did not do a good enough job convincing them.  in my county you do not get out of jury duty unless you are very ill.  everyone serves.  yes pay is almost nothing but you ca not bribe your way out of it.  all judgments are based on emotion.  it is a feeling.  it is the sense some witnesses are credible and some are not.  it is the gut feeling someone is lying.  it is the character of the person on trial: do we believe he is capable of it ? do we believe his testimony ? a regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 0 and manslaughter 0.  juries are given very clear instructions on the difference between two charges and what criteria must be met.  people who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors.  why not just waive your right to a jury trial and let a judge decide ? who is going to go to college for a subject just to work 0 years in that field and be laid off ? how will you remove all personal bias, religious beliefs, political party affiliation from these people ? it seems like the only change is you are paying the juror a salary and keeping him 0 years instead of 0 weeks ?  #  while seemingly sensible this this conflict of interest thing really is not that much of an issue.   #  while seemingly sensible this this conflict of interest thing really is not that much of an issue.  we already basically have professional jurors, they are called judges.  they are very good at staying neutral and avoiding manipulation.  most judges are obessive over avoiding even the appearance of any kind of improporiety as it would be the immediate death of their career.  also, judges in the u. s.  make pretty damn good money, tend to have had even more lucrative career prior to being a judge and have a very respectable position.  combined with the penalties in place for accepting a bribe.  you are going to have to come up with a hell of a lot of money to bribe a judge.  even if they were the most dishonest people alive its just not in their self interest to accept any bribes.   #  there is an imbalance in the current system, and qualified jurors would address that.   #  you are ignoring the principal problems of juries they are very inconsistent, and justice needs consistency.  a psychologically vetted group of independent, intelligent and experienced jurors would be much better able to deliver  just  verdicts than wide eyed novice jurors that good lawyers and experienced defendants can twist round their little fingers.  there is an imbalance in the current system, and qualified jurors would address that.  juries make decisions that have a huge impact on people is lives, and it makes no sense that most jurors in important trials are complete novices.  can you think of another sphere of civic life where would you advocate zero experience as being a  benefit  ?  #  i am not sure why you think that the law would lack legitimacy if the jury is made up of professionals, because i think the exact opposite would happen.   #  i am not sure why you think that the law would lack legitimacy if the jury is made up of professionals, because i think the exact opposite would happen.  i would argue that as a result of a lot of issues that the op has already listed, the standard juries are  not  ideal to have in a courtroom and also shake a lot of people is faith in the legitimacy of a trial.  consider the o. j.  simpson example.  i do not think i need to detail all the things that went wrong in that trial that would not have occurred with a professional jury or even one of competent laypeople i would argue.  present.  and this trial also shook a lot of people is faith in the judicial system because it effectively showed that good lawyering coupled with an incompetent jury can let people that should be convicted slip through the cracks.  also, you mention that the jury should be representative of the common people, but even that does not really apply considering that a lot of smart people simply get out of jury duty.  there is also a higher opportunity cost for educated people because they will have to leave their regular jobs statistically much more likely to pay higher than less educated people is to perform jury duty.  these two basically imply that juries are essentially statistically biased towards less educated/logical people, which already biases the system.   #  let is just wrap this up and lunch is on me.    #  this is probably the best way to put it.  the problem is not necessarily the concept of a professional jury.  the problem is instituting a professional jury after the standard has been kept for so long.  people are paranoid, and a lot of times they are right to be.  if you have jury that is hired by the state, the district, whatever, there is no doubt that they would be more likely to vote in favor of their employer.  if they are appointed by a judge, it would be within his power to take them aside and just be like,  listen, we know he is guilty right ? let is just wrap this up and lunch is on me.   not that any of that would be legal necessarily, but it would not be appropriate to take every element of diversity out of a trial to replace it with a narrow perspective of people who have all chosen the same specific walk in life.  it does not seem very fair.  and that is because it is not.
every hackneyed zombie apocalypse fiction includes a pregnant woman and a baby.  it is as overplayed a trope as  death by sex  in the slasher film or nuclear radiation causing insects to grow.  a child is dead weight nor just temporarily, but for years if not decades i ca not help but think of all of the  kennies  in the japanese gamera films.  a pregnant woman and her eventual offspring are an even long term and wastes of resources, both of whom have a very low chance of being useful in the long run.  survivors of apocalyptic scenarios in which civilization has completely broken down often abandon their social mores but seem to maintain them for some unknown reason around children.  theft, murder, cannibalism, out the window, and often extremely unsavory but pragmatic decisions are made and lauded for being the good of the group.  infanticide and abortion are no worse than any of the above.  oftentimes, those who jeopardize the group through their existence but not necessarily through any fault of their own are often euthanized.  the infirm, the crippled and particularly the mentally feeble both the violently insane and those with reduced mental capacity are killed in the name of mercy.  these individuals  crimes are the same as the young and the unborn and their deaths should have equal moral weight.  without civlization, humanity does not necessarily revert to barbarism, but they do revert to its earliest stages.  civilization  has  come from barbarism and the  state of nature  before, and the earliest ancient societies regularly practiced infanticide.  while we often know of the spartans leaving children to die, the fact of the matter is this practice was widespread throughout all of greece, arabia and europe.  if a harvest was projected to be lean, infants would be regularly left to die so that their small villages would have enough food to go around.  this was a calculated risk to control a fragile population at the time.  furthermore, any argument about needing to  replenish the earth  is irrelevant, considering the small size of most survivor groups not having enough genetic diversity to support a healthy population meaning the only way for humanity to survive is if large grands of wandering survivors agglomerated into a civilized settlement and the fact that an infant or fetus represents a very low cost investment.  just because you kill one child now does not mean you ca not have another child in the future.   #  every hackneyed zombie apocalypse fiction includes a pregnant woman and a baby.   #  it is as overplayed a trope as  death by sex  in the slasher film or nuclear radiation causing insects to grow.   # it is as overplayed a trope as  death by sex  in the slasher film or nuclear radiation causing insects to grow.  a child is dead weight nor just temporarily, but for years if not decades i ca not help but think of all of the  kennies  in the japanese gamera films.  a pregnant woman and her eventual offspring are an even long term and wastes of resources, both of whom have a very low chance of being useful in the long run.  so you are basing this off of fiction ? theft, murder, cannibalism, out the window, and often extremely unsavory but pragmatic decisions are made and lauded for being the good of the group.  infanticide and abortion are no worse than any of the above.  evidence ? i actually think the opposite is true.  how did man survive the ice ages if only selfish feral acts led to survival ? once again do you have evidence for this or is this more fiction ? once again i think there is more evidence for the opposite mindset.  URL even the neaderthal did not do this: URL  the infirm, the crippled and particularly the mentally feeble both the violently insane and those with reduced mental capacity are killed in the name of mercy.  these individuals  crimes are the same as the young and the unborn and their deaths should have equal moral weight.  i have provided evidence of the contrary, please show some to validate your assertions.  the spartans were civilized though.  also you are assuming this to be true.  this was a calculated risk to control a fragile population at the time.  please show this data.   #  by basically stating that it is a situation where having children is pointless to the survival of the species, this is more like a tautology than a view.   #  by basically stating that it is a situation where having children is pointless to the survival of the species, this is more like a tautology than a view.  as for the view in general, obviously having children diverts resources from the parent is survival, but it directly benefits the survival of the species.  if your goal is purely individual survival, than this does not really matter.  if the goal is species survival, than it is absolutely necessary to have children especially since infant mortality will rise again.  as for the number of people needed to maintain diversity, the theoretical minimum is 0 people, but would likely only require a few hundred.  humanity has already gone through such  apocalyptic  periods where the population dwindled to that amount, yet it survived.   #  producing a child takes time and there is generally a limit to how many a woman could create which decreases with age.   #  if you are in a critical situation where you are starving or something, sure.  in fact, in such dire circumstances, a human female will likely miscarry anyways.  however if you are not in such a circumstance, it would be best to have children as often as you can.  producing a child takes time and there is generally a limit to how many a woman could create which decreases with age.  also, as a parent myself, i would like to point out that rarely is anyone truly ready to have a child.  you just have to decide at some point to have them and then figure out how to make it work.  if people waited until they were completely ready in terms of finances, career, living arrangements, emotional state, and relationships, almost nobody would have kids until they were 0 years old.  you learn to adapt.   #  if people waited until they were completely ready in terms of finances, career, living arrangements, emotional state, and relationships, almost nobody would have kids until they were 0 years old.   # you just have to decide at some point to have them and then figure out how to make it work.  if people waited until they were completely ready in terms of finances, career, living arrangements, emotional state, and relationships, almost nobody would have kids until they were 0 years old.  if you are unfit as a parent in the 0st century, your child will be taken away from you and housed and fed by the government and/or a foster family.  your child is chances of being in mortal peril are low though admittedly probably higher than average .  furthermore, if you have a child but not enough resources to support it in the 0st century, you get food stamps or, at best, experience mild inconvenience.  you are not worried about being eaten by wolves.   #  survival situation  has specific definitions which i admitted that i assumed the redditors of cmv would be familiar with.   # rarely do people in survival situations have needs and goals that incorporate the entirety of mankind unless the small group is the entirety of mankind .  i was mostly just offering a preemptive rebuttal to an answer i knew people would suggest that held little water.  for obvious reasons, people did not really keep statistics on which children they chose to leave to die to exposure, especially during times of widespread crisis like the plague.  what we do know is that places like medieval sweden and germany included legal means of infanticide, statutes that were concurrent with various times of plague and barbarian invasion.  if your goal is purely individual survival, than this does not really matter.  if the goal is species survival, than it is absolutely necessary to have children especially since infant mortality will rise again.  as i said before, if you have enough resources and stability to the point where ensuring the survival of the  species  is an attainable goal, chances are your group will not be in a  survival situation .  survival situation  has specific definitions which i admitted that i assumed the redditors of cmv would be familiar with.  survival situations include periods in the wilderness or other hostile areas with limited resources.  using the walking dead, the show which inspired me to post this, rick is group wandering through the south are in a survival situation, whereas the governor is settlement of woodbury definitely would not be, even if woodbury was still a tenuous equilibrium.  humanity has already gone through such  apocalyptic  periods where the population dwindled to that amount, yet it survived.  as far as i know, the lowest number humanity has ever been reduced to was a few thousand during the toba catastrophe.
every hackneyed zombie apocalypse fiction includes a pregnant woman and a baby.  it is as overplayed a trope as  death by sex  in the slasher film or nuclear radiation causing insects to grow.  a child is dead weight nor just temporarily, but for years if not decades i ca not help but think of all of the  kennies  in the japanese gamera films.  a pregnant woman and her eventual offspring are an even long term and wastes of resources, both of whom have a very low chance of being useful in the long run.  survivors of apocalyptic scenarios in which civilization has completely broken down often abandon their social mores but seem to maintain them for some unknown reason around children.  theft, murder, cannibalism, out the window, and often extremely unsavory but pragmatic decisions are made and lauded for being the good of the group.  infanticide and abortion are no worse than any of the above.  oftentimes, those who jeopardize the group through their existence but not necessarily through any fault of their own are often euthanized.  the infirm, the crippled and particularly the mentally feeble both the violently insane and those with reduced mental capacity are killed in the name of mercy.  these individuals  crimes are the same as the young and the unborn and their deaths should have equal moral weight.  without civlization, humanity does not necessarily revert to barbarism, but they do revert to its earliest stages.  civilization  has  come from barbarism and the  state of nature  before, and the earliest ancient societies regularly practiced infanticide.  while we often know of the spartans leaving children to die, the fact of the matter is this practice was widespread throughout all of greece, arabia and europe.  if a harvest was projected to be lean, infants would be regularly left to die so that their small villages would have enough food to go around.  this was a calculated risk to control a fragile population at the time.  furthermore, any argument about needing to  replenish the earth  is irrelevant, considering the small size of most survivor groups not having enough genetic diversity to support a healthy population meaning the only way for humanity to survive is if large grands of wandering survivors agglomerated into a civilized settlement and the fact that an infant or fetus represents a very low cost investment.  just because you kill one child now does not mean you ca not have another child in the future.   #  survivors of apocalyptic scenarios in which civilization has completely broken down often abandon their social mores but seem to maintain them for some unknown reason around children.   #  theft, murder, cannibalism, out the window, and often extremely unsavory but pragmatic decisions are made and lauded for being the good of the group.   # it is as overplayed a trope as  death by sex  in the slasher film or nuclear radiation causing insects to grow.  a child is dead weight nor just temporarily, but for years if not decades i ca not help but think of all of the  kennies  in the japanese gamera films.  a pregnant woman and her eventual offspring are an even long term and wastes of resources, both of whom have a very low chance of being useful in the long run.  so you are basing this off of fiction ? theft, murder, cannibalism, out the window, and often extremely unsavory but pragmatic decisions are made and lauded for being the good of the group.  infanticide and abortion are no worse than any of the above.  evidence ? i actually think the opposite is true.  how did man survive the ice ages if only selfish feral acts led to survival ? once again do you have evidence for this or is this more fiction ? once again i think there is more evidence for the opposite mindset.  URL even the neaderthal did not do this: URL  the infirm, the crippled and particularly the mentally feeble both the violently insane and those with reduced mental capacity are killed in the name of mercy.  these individuals  crimes are the same as the young and the unborn and their deaths should have equal moral weight.  i have provided evidence of the contrary, please show some to validate your assertions.  the spartans were civilized though.  also you are assuming this to be true.  this was a calculated risk to control a fragile population at the time.  please show this data.   #  as for the view in general, obviously having children diverts resources from the parent is survival, but it directly benefits the survival of the species.   #  by basically stating that it is a situation where having children is pointless to the survival of the species, this is more like a tautology than a view.  as for the view in general, obviously having children diverts resources from the parent is survival, but it directly benefits the survival of the species.  if your goal is purely individual survival, than this does not really matter.  if the goal is species survival, than it is absolutely necessary to have children especially since infant mortality will rise again.  as for the number of people needed to maintain diversity, the theoretical minimum is 0 people, but would likely only require a few hundred.  humanity has already gone through such  apocalyptic  periods where the population dwindled to that amount, yet it survived.   #  in fact, in such dire circumstances, a human female will likely miscarry anyways.   #  if you are in a critical situation where you are starving or something, sure.  in fact, in such dire circumstances, a human female will likely miscarry anyways.  however if you are not in such a circumstance, it would be best to have children as often as you can.  producing a child takes time and there is generally a limit to how many a woman could create which decreases with age.  also, as a parent myself, i would like to point out that rarely is anyone truly ready to have a child.  you just have to decide at some point to have them and then figure out how to make it work.  if people waited until they were completely ready in terms of finances, career, living arrangements, emotional state, and relationships, almost nobody would have kids until they were 0 years old.  you learn to adapt.   #  furthermore, if you have a child but not enough resources to support it in the 0st century, you get food stamps or, at best, experience mild inconvenience.   # you just have to decide at some point to have them and then figure out how to make it work.  if people waited until they were completely ready in terms of finances, career, living arrangements, emotional state, and relationships, almost nobody would have kids until they were 0 years old.  if you are unfit as a parent in the 0st century, your child will be taken away from you and housed and fed by the government and/or a foster family.  your child is chances of being in mortal peril are low though admittedly probably higher than average .  furthermore, if you have a child but not enough resources to support it in the 0st century, you get food stamps or, at best, experience mild inconvenience.  you are not worried about being eaten by wolves.   #  as far as i know, the lowest number humanity has ever been reduced to was a few thousand during the toba catastrophe.   # rarely do people in survival situations have needs and goals that incorporate the entirety of mankind unless the small group is the entirety of mankind .  i was mostly just offering a preemptive rebuttal to an answer i knew people would suggest that held little water.  for obvious reasons, people did not really keep statistics on which children they chose to leave to die to exposure, especially during times of widespread crisis like the plague.  what we do know is that places like medieval sweden and germany included legal means of infanticide, statutes that were concurrent with various times of plague and barbarian invasion.  if your goal is purely individual survival, than this does not really matter.  if the goal is species survival, than it is absolutely necessary to have children especially since infant mortality will rise again.  as i said before, if you have enough resources and stability to the point where ensuring the survival of the  species  is an attainable goal, chances are your group will not be in a  survival situation .  survival situation  has specific definitions which i admitted that i assumed the redditors of cmv would be familiar with.  survival situations include periods in the wilderness or other hostile areas with limited resources.  using the walking dead, the show which inspired me to post this, rick is group wandering through the south are in a survival situation, whereas the governor is settlement of woodbury definitely would not be, even if woodbury was still a tenuous equilibrium.  humanity has already gone through such  apocalyptic  periods where the population dwindled to that amount, yet it survived.  as far as i know, the lowest number humanity has ever been reduced to was a few thousand during the toba catastrophe.
every hackneyed zombie apocalypse fiction includes a pregnant woman and a baby.  it is as overplayed a trope as  death by sex  in the slasher film or nuclear radiation causing insects to grow.  a child is dead weight nor just temporarily, but for years if not decades i ca not help but think of all of the  kennies  in the japanese gamera films.  a pregnant woman and her eventual offspring are an even long term and wastes of resources, both of whom have a very low chance of being useful in the long run.  survivors of apocalyptic scenarios in which civilization has completely broken down often abandon their social mores but seem to maintain them for some unknown reason around children.  theft, murder, cannibalism, out the window, and often extremely unsavory but pragmatic decisions are made and lauded for being the good of the group.  infanticide and abortion are no worse than any of the above.  oftentimes, those who jeopardize the group through their existence but not necessarily through any fault of their own are often euthanized.  the infirm, the crippled and particularly the mentally feeble both the violently insane and those with reduced mental capacity are killed in the name of mercy.  these individuals  crimes are the same as the young and the unborn and their deaths should have equal moral weight.  without civlization, humanity does not necessarily revert to barbarism, but they do revert to its earliest stages.  civilization  has  come from barbarism and the  state of nature  before, and the earliest ancient societies regularly practiced infanticide.  while we often know of the spartans leaving children to die, the fact of the matter is this practice was widespread throughout all of greece, arabia and europe.  if a harvest was projected to be lean, infants would be regularly left to die so that their small villages would have enough food to go around.  this was a calculated risk to control a fragile population at the time.  furthermore, any argument about needing to  replenish the earth  is irrelevant, considering the small size of most survivor groups not having enough genetic diversity to support a healthy population meaning the only way for humanity to survive is if large grands of wandering survivors agglomerated into a civilized settlement and the fact that an infant or fetus represents a very low cost investment.  just because you kill one child now does not mean you ca not have another child in the future.   #  oftentimes, those who jeopardize the group through their existence but not necessarily through any fault of their own are often euthanized.   #  once again do you have evidence for this or is this more fiction ?  # it is as overplayed a trope as  death by sex  in the slasher film or nuclear radiation causing insects to grow.  a child is dead weight nor just temporarily, but for years if not decades i ca not help but think of all of the  kennies  in the japanese gamera films.  a pregnant woman and her eventual offspring are an even long term and wastes of resources, both of whom have a very low chance of being useful in the long run.  so you are basing this off of fiction ? theft, murder, cannibalism, out the window, and often extremely unsavory but pragmatic decisions are made and lauded for being the good of the group.  infanticide and abortion are no worse than any of the above.  evidence ? i actually think the opposite is true.  how did man survive the ice ages if only selfish feral acts led to survival ? once again do you have evidence for this or is this more fiction ? once again i think there is more evidence for the opposite mindset.  URL even the neaderthal did not do this: URL  the infirm, the crippled and particularly the mentally feeble both the violently insane and those with reduced mental capacity are killed in the name of mercy.  these individuals  crimes are the same as the young and the unborn and their deaths should have equal moral weight.  i have provided evidence of the contrary, please show some to validate your assertions.  the spartans were civilized though.  also you are assuming this to be true.  this was a calculated risk to control a fragile population at the time.  please show this data.   #  if your goal is purely individual survival, than this does not really matter.   #  by basically stating that it is a situation where having children is pointless to the survival of the species, this is more like a tautology than a view.  as for the view in general, obviously having children diverts resources from the parent is survival, but it directly benefits the survival of the species.  if your goal is purely individual survival, than this does not really matter.  if the goal is species survival, than it is absolutely necessary to have children especially since infant mortality will rise again.  as for the number of people needed to maintain diversity, the theoretical minimum is 0 people, but would likely only require a few hundred.  humanity has already gone through such  apocalyptic  periods where the population dwindled to that amount, yet it survived.   #  if people waited until they were completely ready in terms of finances, career, living arrangements, emotional state, and relationships, almost nobody would have kids until they were 0 years old.   #  if you are in a critical situation where you are starving or something, sure.  in fact, in such dire circumstances, a human female will likely miscarry anyways.  however if you are not in such a circumstance, it would be best to have children as often as you can.  producing a child takes time and there is generally a limit to how many a woman could create which decreases with age.  also, as a parent myself, i would like to point out that rarely is anyone truly ready to have a child.  you just have to decide at some point to have them and then figure out how to make it work.  if people waited until they were completely ready in terms of finances, career, living arrangements, emotional state, and relationships, almost nobody would have kids until they were 0 years old.  you learn to adapt.   #  your child is chances of being in mortal peril are low though admittedly probably higher than average .   # you just have to decide at some point to have them and then figure out how to make it work.  if people waited until they were completely ready in terms of finances, career, living arrangements, emotional state, and relationships, almost nobody would have kids until they were 0 years old.  if you are unfit as a parent in the 0st century, your child will be taken away from you and housed and fed by the government and/or a foster family.  your child is chances of being in mortal peril are low though admittedly probably higher than average .  furthermore, if you have a child but not enough resources to support it in the 0st century, you get food stamps or, at best, experience mild inconvenience.  you are not worried about being eaten by wolves.   #  as far as i know, the lowest number humanity has ever been reduced to was a few thousand during the toba catastrophe.   # rarely do people in survival situations have needs and goals that incorporate the entirety of mankind unless the small group is the entirety of mankind .  i was mostly just offering a preemptive rebuttal to an answer i knew people would suggest that held little water.  for obvious reasons, people did not really keep statistics on which children they chose to leave to die to exposure, especially during times of widespread crisis like the plague.  what we do know is that places like medieval sweden and germany included legal means of infanticide, statutes that were concurrent with various times of plague and barbarian invasion.  if your goal is purely individual survival, than this does not really matter.  if the goal is species survival, than it is absolutely necessary to have children especially since infant mortality will rise again.  as i said before, if you have enough resources and stability to the point where ensuring the survival of the  species  is an attainable goal, chances are your group will not be in a  survival situation .  survival situation  has specific definitions which i admitted that i assumed the redditors of cmv would be familiar with.  survival situations include periods in the wilderness or other hostile areas with limited resources.  using the walking dead, the show which inspired me to post this, rick is group wandering through the south are in a survival situation, whereas the governor is settlement of woodbury definitely would not be, even if woodbury was still a tenuous equilibrium.  humanity has already gone through such  apocalyptic  periods where the population dwindled to that amount, yet it survived.  as far as i know, the lowest number humanity has ever been reduced to was a few thousand during the toba catastrophe.
every hackneyed zombie apocalypse fiction includes a pregnant woman and a baby.  it is as overplayed a trope as  death by sex  in the slasher film or nuclear radiation causing insects to grow.  a child is dead weight nor just temporarily, but for years if not decades i ca not help but think of all of the  kennies  in the japanese gamera films.  a pregnant woman and her eventual offspring are an even long term and wastes of resources, both of whom have a very low chance of being useful in the long run.  survivors of apocalyptic scenarios in which civilization has completely broken down often abandon their social mores but seem to maintain them for some unknown reason around children.  theft, murder, cannibalism, out the window, and often extremely unsavory but pragmatic decisions are made and lauded for being the good of the group.  infanticide and abortion are no worse than any of the above.  oftentimes, those who jeopardize the group through their existence but not necessarily through any fault of their own are often euthanized.  the infirm, the crippled and particularly the mentally feeble both the violently insane and those with reduced mental capacity are killed in the name of mercy.  these individuals  crimes are the same as the young and the unborn and their deaths should have equal moral weight.  without civlization, humanity does not necessarily revert to barbarism, but they do revert to its earliest stages.  civilization  has  come from barbarism and the  state of nature  before, and the earliest ancient societies regularly practiced infanticide.  while we often know of the spartans leaving children to die, the fact of the matter is this practice was widespread throughout all of greece, arabia and europe.  if a harvest was projected to be lean, infants would be regularly left to die so that their small villages would have enough food to go around.  this was a calculated risk to control a fragile population at the time.  furthermore, any argument about needing to  replenish the earth  is irrelevant, considering the small size of most survivor groups not having enough genetic diversity to support a healthy population meaning the only way for humanity to survive is if large grands of wandering survivors agglomerated into a civilized settlement and the fact that an infant or fetus represents a very low cost investment.  just because you kill one child now does not mean you ca not have another child in the future.   #  if a harvest was projected to be lean, infants would be regularly left to die so that their small villages would have enough food to go around.   #  this was a calculated risk to control a fragile population at the time.   # it is as overplayed a trope as  death by sex  in the slasher film or nuclear radiation causing insects to grow.  a child is dead weight nor just temporarily, but for years if not decades i ca not help but think of all of the  kennies  in the japanese gamera films.  a pregnant woman and her eventual offspring are an even long term and wastes of resources, both of whom have a very low chance of being useful in the long run.  so you are basing this off of fiction ? theft, murder, cannibalism, out the window, and often extremely unsavory but pragmatic decisions are made and lauded for being the good of the group.  infanticide and abortion are no worse than any of the above.  evidence ? i actually think the opposite is true.  how did man survive the ice ages if only selfish feral acts led to survival ? once again do you have evidence for this or is this more fiction ? once again i think there is more evidence for the opposite mindset.  URL even the neaderthal did not do this: URL  the infirm, the crippled and particularly the mentally feeble both the violently insane and those with reduced mental capacity are killed in the name of mercy.  these individuals  crimes are the same as the young and the unborn and their deaths should have equal moral weight.  i have provided evidence of the contrary, please show some to validate your assertions.  the spartans were civilized though.  also you are assuming this to be true.  this was a calculated risk to control a fragile population at the time.  please show this data.   #  as for the number of people needed to maintain diversity, the theoretical minimum is 0 people, but would likely only require a few hundred.   #  by basically stating that it is a situation where having children is pointless to the survival of the species, this is more like a tautology than a view.  as for the view in general, obviously having children diverts resources from the parent is survival, but it directly benefits the survival of the species.  if your goal is purely individual survival, than this does not really matter.  if the goal is species survival, than it is absolutely necessary to have children especially since infant mortality will rise again.  as for the number of people needed to maintain diversity, the theoretical minimum is 0 people, but would likely only require a few hundred.  humanity has already gone through such  apocalyptic  periods where the population dwindled to that amount, yet it survived.   #  however if you are not in such a circumstance, it would be best to have children as often as you can.   #  if you are in a critical situation where you are starving or something, sure.  in fact, in such dire circumstances, a human female will likely miscarry anyways.  however if you are not in such a circumstance, it would be best to have children as often as you can.  producing a child takes time and there is generally a limit to how many a woman could create which decreases with age.  also, as a parent myself, i would like to point out that rarely is anyone truly ready to have a child.  you just have to decide at some point to have them and then figure out how to make it work.  if people waited until they were completely ready in terms of finances, career, living arrangements, emotional state, and relationships, almost nobody would have kids until they were 0 years old.  you learn to adapt.   #  if you are unfit as a parent in the 0st century, your child will be taken away from you and housed and fed by the government and/or a foster family.   # you just have to decide at some point to have them and then figure out how to make it work.  if people waited until they were completely ready in terms of finances, career, living arrangements, emotional state, and relationships, almost nobody would have kids until they were 0 years old.  if you are unfit as a parent in the 0st century, your child will be taken away from you and housed and fed by the government and/or a foster family.  your child is chances of being in mortal peril are low though admittedly probably higher than average .  furthermore, if you have a child but not enough resources to support it in the 0st century, you get food stamps or, at best, experience mild inconvenience.  you are not worried about being eaten by wolves.   #  survival situation  has specific definitions which i admitted that i assumed the redditors of cmv would be familiar with.   # rarely do people in survival situations have needs and goals that incorporate the entirety of mankind unless the small group is the entirety of mankind .  i was mostly just offering a preemptive rebuttal to an answer i knew people would suggest that held little water.  for obvious reasons, people did not really keep statistics on which children they chose to leave to die to exposure, especially during times of widespread crisis like the plague.  what we do know is that places like medieval sweden and germany included legal means of infanticide, statutes that were concurrent with various times of plague and barbarian invasion.  if your goal is purely individual survival, than this does not really matter.  if the goal is species survival, than it is absolutely necessary to have children especially since infant mortality will rise again.  as i said before, if you have enough resources and stability to the point where ensuring the survival of the  species  is an attainable goal, chances are your group will not be in a  survival situation .  survival situation  has specific definitions which i admitted that i assumed the redditors of cmv would be familiar with.  survival situations include periods in the wilderness or other hostile areas with limited resources.  using the walking dead, the show which inspired me to post this, rick is group wandering through the south are in a survival situation, whereas the governor is settlement of woodbury definitely would not be, even if woodbury was still a tenuous equilibrium.  humanity has already gone through such  apocalyptic  periods where the population dwindled to that amount, yet it survived.  as far as i know, the lowest number humanity has ever been reduced to was a few thousand during the toba catastrophe.
how could this be considered valid ? in an economy with inflation, the producer would get 0$ profit random example from his business.  but in an economy with deflation, he would get 0$ profit.  where is the lack/loss of profit, since the legal tender aka.  money is stronger than in inflation ? there would not be any difference other than the profit   prices numbers would be bigger/smaller.  the $0 from deflation would be a lot stronger than the $0 in an inflation.  there are levels of economic consistency which are deliberately not shown or explained to the general public and, specifically, to investors; creating this artificial hysteria of  deflation is bad hurr, durr .  where would be the problem ? the native money would be stronger than the place the producer/manufacturer would get his raw materials.  furthermore, the money from his native country would be a lot stronger than the money from the country he wants to buy his materials.  that is a profit of more materials.  at the very least, if he would get the materials from his own country, he would be temporary stagnant but still able to pay taxes   for his personal expenses.  again, what is the problem ? it would be the same situation regarding the $0 from deflation would be stronger than in inflation.  people would get lower wages, yes, but each of their coins   papermoney are lot stronger, therefore not the same as in inflation.  quality deflation ≥ quantity inflation .  different numbers but the same consistency altogether.  this one   is lovely: 0 i  seriously  doubt people could restrain themselves from buying food or go in holidays,  just because it is deflation , and other commodities.  0 some argue that investing would suffer.  this is impossible and here is why i strongly think   believe so: there would not be a huge difference between native and foreign investors.  i can present you two examples:  0   eurozone countries and non eurozone countries.  people from the non eurozone countries, that are wealthy, would not have a problem converting their native legal tender into euros and invest or save them.  ultimately, if need to, they can reconvert those euros into their native legal tender, again, after paying commision/interest.   0   investors from usa or china do not scruff their noses just because the euro, pound sterling   swiss franc are stronger than the dollar or yuan.  if you read  this  URL and/or  this  URL in case you do not have time for the first one , you will see for yourself how precious inflation has been with the world, amirite ?  a little inflation does not hurt , they said.  economists, eat your heart out ! default the global economy and deflation.  first, calm down all world wide debts, then proceed to deflate all currencies of the planet.  if not.  if there is a god out there, he ca not help us when the sh tstorm hyperinflation hits the door.   sidenote   is not it humourous that we have   soooo   many definitions for inflation staginflation, hyperinflation, staghyperinflation, demand pull inflation, cost push inflation, wage push inflation, imported inflation, core inflation, creeping inflation, walking inflation, galloping inflation, asset inflation.  but, for deflation, we have barely any other than the name itself and the  good/bad deflation  term ?    what a monstruous joke, yet you probably, right now, still consider deflation being a bigger problem than inflation.   #  in an economy with inflation, the producer would get 0$ profit random example from his business.   #  but in an economy with deflation, he would get 0$ profit.   # but in an economy with deflation, he would get 0$ profit.  where is the lack/loss of profit, since the legal tender aka.  money is stronger than in inflation ? 0.  i own a bakery.  i borrow $0.  i use the $0 to buy flour, eggs, etc.  0.  the next day, i use the flour, eggs etc make and sell the bread.  but due to deflation, prices decrease and i can only sell all my bread for $0.  i owe $0 but i only have $0, so my loss is $0.  businesses cannot do this for long and will close.   #  if you want to see this in action, look at bitcoin.   #  deflation is bad for 0 main reasons: it increases the real value of debt, and leads to deflationary spirals.  to the first point, loans are not adjusted for inflation, so if i owe 0 dollars and the value of the dollar increases, i owe more in real terms.  deflation is thus a huge boon to banks and lenders, and a huge shitfest for everyone who has a mortgage, student loans, etc.  second, deflationary spirals occur when currency increases in value, which causes people to want to hold it rather than spend it.  if you want to see this in action, look at bitcoin.  bitcoin, by design, is deflationary, which certain people seem to think is a good thing for some reason.  take a gander over at /r/bitcoin sometime how many people are talking about the purchases they have made with bitcoin, vs how many are talking about how valuable it is ? this leads to a question that you do not fully address in your post: why is it good for a currency to be valuable ? sure, we want investments to be valuable, we want our homes to be valuable, but why a currency ? you want people to  spend  a currency.  that is what keeps people employed, and keeps the economy moving.  people have an interest in spending a currency that decreases in value, but they have the opposite interest for a currency that increases in value.  and finally, i just want to address this point:   if not.  if there is a god out there, he ca not help us when the sh tstorm hyperinflation hits the door.  when ? austrian  economists  love to tell us that hyperinflation is just around the corner, but inflation is actually fairly low URL  #  /u/pngwn0 is reply to my comment illustrates the point well.   #  sure, to some extent.  /u/pngwn0 is reply to my comment illustrates the point well.  if we have 0 deflation, nobody will invest in anything that yields less than 0, which is a hell of a lot of things.  sure, not  everyone  will do that, but anyone who was otherwise inclined to invest would.  that is a hell of a lot of money that is effectively out of circulation.  what do you think that would do to the economy ? with that much money out of circulation, that is a lot of money not being spent at businesses.  maybe you still buy groceries every week, but if holding cash in your hand increases your savings, maybe you hold off on buying that tv or car.  that is a  lot  of jobs at risk.  and when people lose jobs, they spend less, and deflation gets worse.  that is the deflationary spiral.   #  but, when there is inflation, you do not really have a choice.   #  i suppose i somewhat object to the idea of forcing people into the stock market.  you should get to decide whether or not you want to invest.  but, when there is inflation, you do not really have a choice.  you either invest or you lose money.  it seems unfair that we effectively force people to gamble their savings.  as for the larger economy, i am skeptical of claims that stopping inflation would really be that bad.  the fact is, there was little to no inflation for much of us history.  and yet, the economy did fairly well during those periods.  america became one of the wealthiest nations in the world during a period in which there either was not much of any inflation or there was a small amount of deflation.  i am not sure i buy the doomsday predictions.   #  that is why there has to be a limit to how high inflation is economists generally recommend 0 0, which is not very much in a year.   #  here is a chart of us inflation tracking back to 0 URL basically as long as we have data for.  actually, deflation has been associated with the worst economic periods in our history.  this chart also does not capture the downward spike after the recession in 0 URL and i agree to an extent.  i do not like that i have to invest my savings or i lose money.  that is why there has to be a limit to how high inflation is economists generally recommend 0 0, which is not very much in a year.  however, the key to remember is what happens without inflation.  what do you dislike more low, predictable inflation, or significantly higher unemployment ?
i think it is worth noting i am a male.  i understand the driving force behind the feminist movement, but i think that a lot of the measures that have been taken are now counterproductive to the goal, including the name itself.  let is start with that.  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.  men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ? especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.  these connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement.  why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian ? secondly, when it comes to women is resource centers, like those at many colleges across the u. s. , i think that, on the front of equality, these do nothing, like a band aid on a broken bone.  there are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women ? you can learn about sexual health ? awesome.  you can get support after traumatic experiences ? great ! but men need those things too, and it is actually pretty hard for us to come by.  why not  health resource centers  ? alright ladies and gentlemen, change my view.   #  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.   #  they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.   # they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.  the goal of those working at any health organization should be for everyone to be healthy, and yet we have different organizations fighting individual problems malaria, breast cancer, etc .  it is not mutually exclusive with feminism.  a lot are egalitarians, they are simply choosing to put an emphasis on the areas where women have it worse.  like above, if i volunteered at a breast cancer charity, it does not mean i do not give a shit about other health issues, i just am choosing where to spend most of my focus.  there are a lot of issues mostly specific to women.  i agree men need those things, but i think it would be better to have men is resource centers instead of just one  all gender  center.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  why not have only major hospitals that can treat everything ? why have specialty centers if it is discriminatory or unhelpful for those without the relevant health issue ?  #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ?  #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ? both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.  cancer and diabetes are completely different diseases, so it makes sense to have specific disease centers for them.  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  i hate to be that guy, but is not this basically segregation ? admittedly there should be separate therapy sessions for different issues and different subgroups involved, such as gender, but a whole separate building ?  #  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.   # absolutely, but you have to focus somewhere, and feminists are simply choosing to reach inequality by focusing on the women is side of things first.  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.  you help the math person with writing, and you help the writing person with math.  helping with math is  mathism  and helping with writing is  writingism .  mathism is no different than feminism.  i want everyone to be better off, but if i can provide help most efficiently by helping people learn math, i am going to focus on doing that.  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.  the areas of inequality are often quite different across genders.  there absolutely is overlap, but in general problems are quite different.  resources get thinned out the less focus you have.  why not get rid of all charities and have one  make the world better  fund ? targeted charities are much more effective than blanket ones.   #  women is issues and men is issues are not equivalent, balanced counterparts to each other, they are largely results of a society that was founded on depriving women of bodily agency, and political authority, in favor of men.   # both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  inequality is not a two way issue, it is by definition one party being inequal to another one, even if it is results are interwined.  women is issues and men is issues are not equivalent, balanced counterparts to each other, they are largely results of a society that was founded on depriving women of bodily agency, and political authority, in favor of men.  or at least that is what feminists believe.  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.  and when most women is rights movement members werte called suffragettes, then suffragettes were stereotyped as violent misandrists URL and female supremacists URL even though their name made it clear that they just want universal suffrage.  the negative stereotyping it is not semantic, it is cultural.  any excuses for it are just that.   #  because sex based problems, as they currently stand, overwhelmingly target women.   # i think this question is the crux of the issue, and the answer is simple.  because sex based problems, as they currently stand, overwhelmingly target women.  that is not to say that men do not have plenty of their own, but the balance is not even close.  even in the developed west, i think a good argument can be made that women deal with far more gender specific shit, but if we check the other two thirds of the world is population it is not even close.  look at how pakistan or india respond to sexual assault, or the frequency of actually killing female babies in china because families want sons.  and that is not even starting on north africa or the middle east.
i think it is worth noting i am a male.  i understand the driving force behind the feminist movement, but i think that a lot of the measures that have been taken are now counterproductive to the goal, including the name itself.  let is start with that.  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.  men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ? especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.  these connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement.  why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian ? secondly, when it comes to women is resource centers, like those at many colleges across the u. s. , i think that, on the front of equality, these do nothing, like a band aid on a broken bone.  there are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women ? you can learn about sexual health ? awesome.  you can get support after traumatic experiences ? great ! but men need those things too, and it is actually pretty hard for us to come by.  why not  health resource centers  ? alright ladies and gentlemen, change my view.   #  why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian ?  #  it is not mutually exclusive with feminism.   # they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.  the goal of those working at any health organization should be for everyone to be healthy, and yet we have different organizations fighting individual problems malaria, breast cancer, etc .  it is not mutually exclusive with feminism.  a lot are egalitarians, they are simply choosing to put an emphasis on the areas where women have it worse.  like above, if i volunteered at a breast cancer charity, it does not mean i do not give a shit about other health issues, i just am choosing where to spend most of my focus.  there are a lot of issues mostly specific to women.  i agree men need those things, but i think it would be better to have men is resource centers instead of just one  all gender  center.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  why not have only major hospitals that can treat everything ? why have specialty centers if it is discriminatory or unhelpful for those without the relevant health issue ?  #  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.   #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ? both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.  cancer and diabetes are completely different diseases, so it makes sense to have specific disease centers for them.  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  i hate to be that guy, but is not this basically segregation ? admittedly there should be separate therapy sessions for different issues and different subgroups involved, such as gender, but a whole separate building ?  #  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.   # absolutely, but you have to focus somewhere, and feminists are simply choosing to reach inequality by focusing on the women is side of things first.  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.  you help the math person with writing, and you help the writing person with math.  helping with math is  mathism  and helping with writing is  writingism .  mathism is no different than feminism.  i want everyone to be better off, but if i can provide help most efficiently by helping people learn math, i am going to focus on doing that.  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.  the areas of inequality are often quite different across genders.  there absolutely is overlap, but in general problems are quite different.  resources get thinned out the less focus you have.  why not get rid of all charities and have one  make the world better  fund ? targeted charities are much more effective than blanket ones.   #  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.   # both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  inequality is not a two way issue, it is by definition one party being inequal to another one, even if it is results are interwined.  women is issues and men is issues are not equivalent, balanced counterparts to each other, they are largely results of a society that was founded on depriving women of bodily agency, and political authority, in favor of men.  or at least that is what feminists believe.  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.  and when most women is rights movement members werte called suffragettes, then suffragettes were stereotyped as violent misandrists URL and female supremacists URL even though their name made it clear that they just want universal suffrage.  the negative stereotyping it is not semantic, it is cultural.  any excuses for it are just that.   #  and that is not even starting on north africa or the middle east.   # i think this question is the crux of the issue, and the answer is simple.  because sex based problems, as they currently stand, overwhelmingly target women.  that is not to say that men do not have plenty of their own, but the balance is not even close.  even in the developed west, i think a good argument can be made that women deal with far more gender specific shit, but if we check the other two thirds of the world is population it is not even close.  look at how pakistan or india respond to sexual assault, or the frequency of actually killing female babies in china because families want sons.  and that is not even starting on north africa or the middle east.
i think it is worth noting i am a male.  i understand the driving force behind the feminist movement, but i think that a lot of the measures that have been taken are now counterproductive to the goal, including the name itself.  let is start with that.  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.  men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ? especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.  these connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement.  why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian ? secondly, when it comes to women is resource centers, like those at many colleges across the u. s. , i think that, on the front of equality, these do nothing, like a band aid on a broken bone.  there are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women ? you can learn about sexual health ? awesome.  you can get support after traumatic experiences ? great ! but men need those things too, and it is actually pretty hard for us to come by.  why not  health resource centers  ? alright ladies and gentlemen, change my view.   #  there are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women ?  #  there are a lot of issues mostly specific to women.   # they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.  the goal of those working at any health organization should be for everyone to be healthy, and yet we have different organizations fighting individual problems malaria, breast cancer, etc .  it is not mutually exclusive with feminism.  a lot are egalitarians, they are simply choosing to put an emphasis on the areas where women have it worse.  like above, if i volunteered at a breast cancer charity, it does not mean i do not give a shit about other health issues, i just am choosing where to spend most of my focus.  there are a lot of issues mostly specific to women.  i agree men need those things, but i think it would be better to have men is resource centers instead of just one  all gender  center.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  why not have only major hospitals that can treat everything ? why have specialty centers if it is discriminatory or unhelpful for those without the relevant health issue ?  #  cancer and diabetes are completely different diseases, so it makes sense to have specific disease centers for them.   #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ? both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.  cancer and diabetes are completely different diseases, so it makes sense to have specific disease centers for them.  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  i hate to be that guy, but is not this basically segregation ? admittedly there should be separate therapy sessions for different issues and different subgroups involved, such as gender, but a whole separate building ?  #  you help the math person with writing, and you help the writing person with math.   # absolutely, but you have to focus somewhere, and feminists are simply choosing to reach inequality by focusing on the women is side of things first.  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.  you help the math person with writing, and you help the writing person with math.  helping with math is  mathism  and helping with writing is  writingism .  mathism is no different than feminism.  i want everyone to be better off, but if i can provide help most efficiently by helping people learn math, i am going to focus on doing that.  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.  the areas of inequality are often quite different across genders.  there absolutely is overlap, but in general problems are quite different.  resources get thinned out the less focus you have.  why not get rid of all charities and have one  make the world better  fund ? targeted charities are much more effective than blanket ones.   #  inequality is not a two way issue, it is by definition one party being inequal to another one, even if it is results are interwined.   # both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  inequality is not a two way issue, it is by definition one party being inequal to another one, even if it is results are interwined.  women is issues and men is issues are not equivalent, balanced counterparts to each other, they are largely results of a society that was founded on depriving women of bodily agency, and political authority, in favor of men.  or at least that is what feminists believe.  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.  and when most women is rights movement members werte called suffragettes, then suffragettes were stereotyped as violent misandrists URL and female supremacists URL even though their name made it clear that they just want universal suffrage.  the negative stereotyping it is not semantic, it is cultural.  any excuses for it are just that.   #  look at how pakistan or india respond to sexual assault, or the frequency of actually killing female babies in china because families want sons.   # i think this question is the crux of the issue, and the answer is simple.  because sex based problems, as they currently stand, overwhelmingly target women.  that is not to say that men do not have plenty of their own, but the balance is not even close.  even in the developed west, i think a good argument can be made that women deal with far more gender specific shit, but if we check the other two thirds of the world is population it is not even close.  look at how pakistan or india respond to sexual assault, or the frequency of actually killing female babies in china because families want sons.  and that is not even starting on north africa or the middle east.
i think it is worth noting i am a male.  i understand the driving force behind the feminist movement, but i think that a lot of the measures that have been taken are now counterproductive to the goal, including the name itself.  let is start with that.  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.  men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ? especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.  these connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement.  why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian ? secondly, when it comes to women is resource centers, like those at many colleges across the u. s. , i think that, on the front of equality, these do nothing, like a band aid on a broken bone.  there are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women ? you can learn about sexual health ? awesome.  you can get support after traumatic experiences ? great ! but men need those things too, and it is actually pretty hard for us to come by.  why not  health resource centers  ? alright ladies and gentlemen, change my view.   #  considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.   #  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.   # both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  inequality is not a two way issue, it is by definition one party being inequal to another one, even if it is results are interwined.  women is issues and men is issues are not equivalent, balanced counterparts to each other, they are largely results of a society that was founded on depriving women of bodily agency, and political authority, in favor of men.  or at least that is what feminists believe.  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.  and when most women is rights movement members werte called suffragettes, then suffragettes were stereotyped as violent misandrists URL and female supremacists URL even though their name made it clear that they just want universal suffrage.  the negative stereotyping it is not semantic, it is cultural.  any excuses for it are just that.   #  like above, if i volunteered at a breast cancer charity, it does not mean i do not give a shit about other health issues, i just am choosing where to spend most of my focus.   # they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.  the goal of those working at any health organization should be for everyone to be healthy, and yet we have different organizations fighting individual problems malaria, breast cancer, etc .  it is not mutually exclusive with feminism.  a lot are egalitarians, they are simply choosing to put an emphasis on the areas where women have it worse.  like above, if i volunteered at a breast cancer charity, it does not mean i do not give a shit about other health issues, i just am choosing where to spend most of my focus.  there are a lot of issues mostly specific to women.  i agree men need those things, but i think it would be better to have men is resource centers instead of just one  all gender  center.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  why not have only major hospitals that can treat everything ? why have specialty centers if it is discriminatory or unhelpful for those without the relevant health issue ?  #  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.   #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ? both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.  cancer and diabetes are completely different diseases, so it makes sense to have specific disease centers for them.  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  i hate to be that guy, but is not this basically segregation ? admittedly there should be separate therapy sessions for different issues and different subgroups involved, such as gender, but a whole separate building ?  #  targeted charities are much more effective than blanket ones.   # absolutely, but you have to focus somewhere, and feminists are simply choosing to reach inequality by focusing on the women is side of things first.  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.  you help the math person with writing, and you help the writing person with math.  helping with math is  mathism  and helping with writing is  writingism .  mathism is no different than feminism.  i want everyone to be better off, but if i can provide help most efficiently by helping people learn math, i am going to focus on doing that.  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.  the areas of inequality are often quite different across genders.  there absolutely is overlap, but in general problems are quite different.  resources get thinned out the less focus you have.  why not get rid of all charities and have one  make the world better  fund ? targeted charities are much more effective than blanket ones.   #  that is not to say that men do not have plenty of their own, but the balance is not even close.   # i think this question is the crux of the issue, and the answer is simple.  because sex based problems, as they currently stand, overwhelmingly target women.  that is not to say that men do not have plenty of their own, but the balance is not even close.  even in the developed west, i think a good argument can be made that women deal with far more gender specific shit, but if we check the other two thirds of the world is population it is not even close.  look at how pakistan or india respond to sexual assault, or the frequency of actually killing female babies in china because families want sons.  and that is not even starting on north africa or the middle east.
i think it is worth noting i am a male.  i understand the driving force behind the feminist movement, but i think that a lot of the measures that have been taken are now counterproductive to the goal, including the name itself.  let is start with that.  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.  men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ? especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.  these connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement.  why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian ? secondly, when it comes to women is resource centers, like those at many colleges across the u. s. , i think that, on the front of equality, these do nothing, like a band aid on a broken bone.  there are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women ? you can learn about sexual health ? awesome.  you can get support after traumatic experiences ? great ! but men need those things too, and it is actually pretty hard for us to come by.  why not  health resource centers  ? alright ladies and gentlemen, change my view.   #  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ?  #  i think this question is the crux of the issue, and the answer is simple.   # i think this question is the crux of the issue, and the answer is simple.  because sex based problems, as they currently stand, overwhelmingly target women.  that is not to say that men do not have plenty of their own, but the balance is not even close.  even in the developed west, i think a good argument can be made that women deal with far more gender specific shit, but if we check the other two thirds of the world is population it is not even close.  look at how pakistan or india respond to sexual assault, or the frequency of actually killing female babies in china because families want sons.  and that is not even starting on north africa or the middle east.   #  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.   # they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.  the goal of those working at any health organization should be for everyone to be healthy, and yet we have different organizations fighting individual problems malaria, breast cancer, etc .  it is not mutually exclusive with feminism.  a lot are egalitarians, they are simply choosing to put an emphasis on the areas where women have it worse.  like above, if i volunteered at a breast cancer charity, it does not mean i do not give a shit about other health issues, i just am choosing where to spend most of my focus.  there are a lot of issues mostly specific to women.  i agree men need those things, but i think it would be better to have men is resource centers instead of just one  all gender  center.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  why not have only major hospitals that can treat everything ? why have specialty centers if it is discriminatory or unhelpful for those without the relevant health issue ?  #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ?  #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ? both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.  cancer and diabetes are completely different diseases, so it makes sense to have specific disease centers for them.  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  i hate to be that guy, but is not this basically segregation ? admittedly there should be separate therapy sessions for different issues and different subgroups involved, such as gender, but a whole separate building ?  #  there absolutely is overlap, but in general problems are quite different.   # absolutely, but you have to focus somewhere, and feminists are simply choosing to reach inequality by focusing on the women is side of things first.  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.  you help the math person with writing, and you help the writing person with math.  helping with math is  mathism  and helping with writing is  writingism .  mathism is no different than feminism.  i want everyone to be better off, but if i can provide help most efficiently by helping people learn math, i am going to focus on doing that.  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.  the areas of inequality are often quite different across genders.  there absolutely is overlap, but in general problems are quite different.  resources get thinned out the less focus you have.  why not get rid of all charities and have one  make the world better  fund ? targeted charities are much more effective than blanket ones.   #  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.   # both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  inequality is not a two way issue, it is by definition one party being inequal to another one, even if it is results are interwined.  women is issues and men is issues are not equivalent, balanced counterparts to each other, they are largely results of a society that was founded on depriving women of bodily agency, and political authority, in favor of men.  or at least that is what feminists believe.  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.  and when most women is rights movement members werte called suffragettes, then suffragettes were stereotyped as violent misandrists URL and female supremacists URL even though their name made it clear that they just want universal suffrage.  the negative stereotyping it is not semantic, it is cultural.  any excuses for it are just that.
i think it is worth noting i am a male.  i understand the driving force behind the feminist movement, but i think that a lot of the measures that have been taken are now counterproductive to the goal, including the name itself.  let is start with that.  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.  men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ? especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.  these connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement.  why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian ? secondly, when it comes to women is resource centers, like those at many colleges across the u. s. , i think that, on the front of equality, these do nothing, like a band aid on a broken bone.  there are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women ? you can learn about sexual health ? awesome.  you can get support after traumatic experiences ? great ! but men need those things too, and it is actually pretty hard for us to come by.  why not  health resource centers  ? alright ladies and gentlemen, change my view.   #  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ?  #  i think the name makes it more relevant for women, and gives more recognition for more women.   # it changes.  at 0st it was birth control and the right to vote i think .  basically it is what girls at the present time want it to be.  if you have figured out what women want your view needs to be shared and not changed.  i think the name makes it more relevant for women, and gives more recognition for more women.  it is the opposite of masculinity, which they cannot be, so why not embrace the femininity ? i could not name one current feminist by name, who is famous for something she did recently.  i can name historical ones from the 0th century, but not any for right now.  i think you are missing the point.  public opinion and the status quo is why these women are doing what they are doing.  feminism is not a public relations deal, it is about rights, and pay, and treatment, and culture, and a host of things i am completely ignorant of.  that is not the only goal.   #  why not have only major hospitals that can treat everything ?  # they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.  the goal of those working at any health organization should be for everyone to be healthy, and yet we have different organizations fighting individual problems malaria, breast cancer, etc .  it is not mutually exclusive with feminism.  a lot are egalitarians, they are simply choosing to put an emphasis on the areas where women have it worse.  like above, if i volunteered at a breast cancer charity, it does not mean i do not give a shit about other health issues, i just am choosing where to spend most of my focus.  there are a lot of issues mostly specific to women.  i agree men need those things, but i think it would be better to have men is resource centers instead of just one  all gender  center.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  why not have only major hospitals that can treat everything ? why have specialty centers if it is discriminatory or unhelpful for those without the relevant health issue ?  #  both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.   #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ? both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.  cancer and diabetes are completely different diseases, so it makes sense to have specific disease centers for them.  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  i hate to be that guy, but is not this basically segregation ? admittedly there should be separate therapy sessions for different issues and different subgroups involved, such as gender, but a whole separate building ?  #  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.   # absolutely, but you have to focus somewhere, and feminists are simply choosing to reach inequality by focusing on the women is side of things first.  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.  you help the math person with writing, and you help the writing person with math.  helping with math is  mathism  and helping with writing is  writingism .  mathism is no different than feminism.  i want everyone to be better off, but if i can provide help most efficiently by helping people learn math, i am going to focus on doing that.  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.  the areas of inequality are often quite different across genders.  there absolutely is overlap, but in general problems are quite different.  resources get thinned out the less focus you have.  why not get rid of all charities and have one  make the world better  fund ? targeted charities are much more effective than blanket ones.   #  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.   # both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  inequality is not a two way issue, it is by definition one party being inequal to another one, even if it is results are interwined.  women is issues and men is issues are not equivalent, balanced counterparts to each other, they are largely results of a society that was founded on depriving women of bodily agency, and political authority, in favor of men.  or at least that is what feminists believe.  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.  and when most women is rights movement members werte called suffragettes, then suffragettes were stereotyped as violent misandrists URL and female supremacists URL even though their name made it clear that they just want universal suffrage.  the negative stereotyping it is not semantic, it is cultural.  any excuses for it are just that.
i think it is worth noting i am a male.  i understand the driving force behind the feminist movement, but i think that a lot of the measures that have been taken are now counterproductive to the goal, including the name itself.  let is start with that.  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.  men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ? especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.  these connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement.  why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian ? secondly, when it comes to women is resource centers, like those at many colleges across the u. s. , i think that, on the front of equality, these do nothing, like a band aid on a broken bone.  there are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women ? you can learn about sexual health ? awesome.  you can get support after traumatic experiences ? great ! but men need those things too, and it is actually pretty hard for us to come by.  why not  health resource centers  ? alright ladies and gentlemen, change my view.   #  especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.   #  i could not name one current feminist by name, who is famous for something she did recently.   # it changes.  at 0st it was birth control and the right to vote i think .  basically it is what girls at the present time want it to be.  if you have figured out what women want your view needs to be shared and not changed.  i think the name makes it more relevant for women, and gives more recognition for more women.  it is the opposite of masculinity, which they cannot be, so why not embrace the femininity ? i could not name one current feminist by name, who is famous for something she did recently.  i can name historical ones from the 0th century, but not any for right now.  i think you are missing the point.  public opinion and the status quo is why these women are doing what they are doing.  feminism is not a public relations deal, it is about rights, and pay, and treatment, and culture, and a host of things i am completely ignorant of.  that is not the only goal.   #  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.   # they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.  the goal of those working at any health organization should be for everyone to be healthy, and yet we have different organizations fighting individual problems malaria, breast cancer, etc .  it is not mutually exclusive with feminism.  a lot are egalitarians, they are simply choosing to put an emphasis on the areas where women have it worse.  like above, if i volunteered at a breast cancer charity, it does not mean i do not give a shit about other health issues, i just am choosing where to spend most of my focus.  there are a lot of issues mostly specific to women.  i agree men need those things, but i think it would be better to have men is resource centers instead of just one  all gender  center.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  why not have only major hospitals that can treat everything ? why have specialty centers if it is discriminatory or unhelpful for those without the relevant health issue ?  #  admittedly there should be separate therapy sessions for different issues and different subgroups involved, such as gender, but a whole separate building ?  #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ? both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.  cancer and diabetes are completely different diseases, so it makes sense to have specific disease centers for them.  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  i hate to be that guy, but is not this basically segregation ? admittedly there should be separate therapy sessions for different issues and different subgroups involved, such as gender, but a whole separate building ?  #  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.   # absolutely, but you have to focus somewhere, and feminists are simply choosing to reach inequality by focusing on the women is side of things first.  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.  you help the math person with writing, and you help the writing person with math.  helping with math is  mathism  and helping with writing is  writingism .  mathism is no different than feminism.  i want everyone to be better off, but if i can provide help most efficiently by helping people learn math, i am going to focus on doing that.  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.  the areas of inequality are often quite different across genders.  there absolutely is overlap, but in general problems are quite different.  resources get thinned out the less focus you have.  why not get rid of all charities and have one  make the world better  fund ? targeted charities are much more effective than blanket ones.   #  both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.   # both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  inequality is not a two way issue, it is by definition one party being inequal to another one, even if it is results are interwined.  women is issues and men is issues are not equivalent, balanced counterparts to each other, they are largely results of a society that was founded on depriving women of bodily agency, and political authority, in favor of men.  or at least that is what feminists believe.  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.  and when most women is rights movement members werte called suffragettes, then suffragettes were stereotyped as violent misandrists URL and female supremacists URL even though their name made it clear that they just want universal suffrage.  the negative stereotyping it is not semantic, it is cultural.  any excuses for it are just that.
i think it is worth noting i am a male.  i understand the driving force behind the feminist movement, but i think that a lot of the measures that have been taken are now counterproductive to the goal, including the name itself.  let is start with that.  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.  men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ? especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.  these connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement.  why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian ? secondly, when it comes to women is resource centers, like those at many colleges across the u. s. , i think that, on the front of equality, these do nothing, like a band aid on a broken bone.  there are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women ? you can learn about sexual health ? awesome.  you can get support after traumatic experiences ? great ! but men need those things too, and it is actually pretty hard for us to come by.  why not  health resource centers  ? alright ladies and gentlemen, change my view.   #  these connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement.   #  i think you are missing the point.   # it changes.  at 0st it was birth control and the right to vote i think .  basically it is what girls at the present time want it to be.  if you have figured out what women want your view needs to be shared and not changed.  i think the name makes it more relevant for women, and gives more recognition for more women.  it is the opposite of masculinity, which they cannot be, so why not embrace the femininity ? i could not name one current feminist by name, who is famous for something she did recently.  i can name historical ones from the 0th century, but not any for right now.  i think you are missing the point.  public opinion and the status quo is why these women are doing what they are doing.  feminism is not a public relations deal, it is about rights, and pay, and treatment, and culture, and a host of things i am completely ignorant of.  that is not the only goal.   #  i agree men need those things, but i think it would be better to have men is resource centers instead of just one  all gender  center.   # they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.  the goal of those working at any health organization should be for everyone to be healthy, and yet we have different organizations fighting individual problems malaria, breast cancer, etc .  it is not mutually exclusive with feminism.  a lot are egalitarians, they are simply choosing to put an emphasis on the areas where women have it worse.  like above, if i volunteered at a breast cancer charity, it does not mean i do not give a shit about other health issues, i just am choosing where to spend most of my focus.  there are a lot of issues mostly specific to women.  i agree men need those things, but i think it would be better to have men is resource centers instead of just one  all gender  center.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  why not have only major hospitals that can treat everything ? why have specialty centers if it is discriminatory or unhelpful for those without the relevant health issue ?  #  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.   #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ? both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.  cancer and diabetes are completely different diseases, so it makes sense to have specific disease centers for them.  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  i hate to be that guy, but is not this basically segregation ? admittedly there should be separate therapy sessions for different issues and different subgroups involved, such as gender, but a whole separate building ?  #  why not get rid of all charities and have one  make the world better  fund ?  # absolutely, but you have to focus somewhere, and feminists are simply choosing to reach inequality by focusing on the women is side of things first.  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.  you help the math person with writing, and you help the writing person with math.  helping with math is  mathism  and helping with writing is  writingism .  mathism is no different than feminism.  i want everyone to be better off, but if i can provide help most efficiently by helping people learn math, i am going to focus on doing that.  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.  the areas of inequality are often quite different across genders.  there absolutely is overlap, but in general problems are quite different.  resources get thinned out the less focus you have.  why not get rid of all charities and have one  make the world better  fund ? targeted charities are much more effective than blanket ones.   #  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.   # both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  inequality is not a two way issue, it is by definition one party being inequal to another one, even if it is results are interwined.  women is issues and men is issues are not equivalent, balanced counterparts to each other, they are largely results of a society that was founded on depriving women of bodily agency, and political authority, in favor of men.  or at least that is what feminists believe.  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.  and when most women is rights movement members werte called suffragettes, then suffragettes were stereotyped as violent misandrists URL and female supremacists URL even though their name made it clear that they just want universal suffrage.  the negative stereotyping it is not semantic, it is cultural.  any excuses for it are just that.
i think it is worth noting i am a male.  i understand the driving force behind the feminist movement, but i think that a lot of the measures that have been taken are now counterproductive to the goal, including the name itself.  let is start with that.  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.  men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ? especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to  feminists  due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist.  these connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement.  why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian ? secondly, when it comes to women is resource centers, like those at many colleges across the u. s. , i think that, on the front of equality, these do nothing, like a band aid on a broken bone.  there are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women ? you can learn about sexual health ? awesome.  you can get support after traumatic experiences ? great ! but men need those things too, and it is actually pretty hard for us to come by.  why not  health resource centers  ? alright ladies and gentlemen, change my view.   #  the goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality.   #  men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.   # men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal.  i am all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women ? i do not believe that the goal of feminism is equality, but that is probably for a different cmv.  so we will assume you are right, and equality is the ultimate goal.  the female centric name of feminism is accurate because it points to the methods in which feminist try to achieve that equality.  if you have x and i have x0, there are few different ways to make us equal.  i could give you 0, and then we would both have x0.  or, you could go out and try to get 0 out of thin air, and then we would both have x0.  or, you could take my 0 away and let it disappear into thin air, leaving us both equal at x.  feminism believes that men and women are not equal because men have  more  than women another debate for another cmv .  and it attempts to eliminate that imbalance and create equality by providing for women and taking from men.  look at feminist is favorite topic: the wage gap which does not really exist, but, again, is another topic for another cmv .  feminists point out that women make only 0 cents for every dollar a man makes.  economically speaking, the  only  way to resolve that imbalance is to reduce men is earnings by 0 cents and increase women is earnings by 0 cents.  right now, for every $0 earned, $0 goes to men and $0 goes to women.  by making the change, we would have equality and for every $0 earned, $0 would go to men and $0 would go to women.  we now have equality, but it has been achieved by benefitting women while hurting men.  now a less gendered biased approach to equality, may address the wage gap in a different method.  it may look at things more globally and recognize that while men benefit from greater earnings, women benefit from working fewer hours, from working in less dangerous jobs, and from having access to the earnings of men.  and, when looked at on a more global level, a gender neutral approach to equality may recognize that men have advantages in some areas, while women have advantages in other areas, and overall, the genders are equal.  the idea that differing advantages and disadvantages can cancel each other out and create overall equality while not have specific equality on every single issue is not accepted by feminism.  they equate it to the  separate but equal  approach to creating racial equality.  so not only do feminists not recognize these  offsetting advantages , but they focus solely on those specific areas where women are disadvantaged.  they spend no time addressing issues where men are disadvantaged.  accordingly, the gender specific name of  feminism  is absolutely appropriate, clearly identifies their goals and methodology, and attracts people that identify with the ideology of feminism.  a less gendered name  would  be counter productive because it would attract people with differing ideologies.  feminists certainly would not want to attract, for example, an individual who felt the path to equality was to reduce the rights of women to make them equal to the rights of men.  by keeping the gendered name  feminism , they are able to make it clear that those types of ideology are not welcome.   #  they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.   # they are simply focusing on the inequalities most relevant for women.  the goal of those working at any health organization should be for everyone to be healthy, and yet we have different organizations fighting individual problems malaria, breast cancer, etc .  it is not mutually exclusive with feminism.  a lot are egalitarians, they are simply choosing to put an emphasis on the areas where women have it worse.  like above, if i volunteered at a breast cancer charity, it does not mean i do not give a shit about other health issues, i just am choosing where to spend most of my focus.  there are a lot of issues mostly specific to women.  i agree men need those things, but i think it would be better to have men is resource centers instead of just one  all gender  center.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  why not have only major hospitals that can treat everything ? why have specialty centers if it is discriminatory or unhelpful for those without the relevant health issue ?  #  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.   #  should not inequalities be addressed as what they are, two way issues ? both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  unlike health issues, gender bias is perpetuated when we do not think about the whole systems.  cancer and diabetes are completely different diseases, so it makes sense to have specific disease centers for them.  in gender equality matters, i feel both sides are intertwined.  i have done a lot of group therapy over the years, and how men behave is radically different between mens only and coed groups.  i hate to be that guy, but is not this basically segregation ? admittedly there should be separate therapy sessions for different issues and different subgroups involved, such as gender, but a whole separate building ?  #  the areas of inequality are often quite different across genders.   # absolutely, but you have to focus somewhere, and feminists are simply choosing to reach inequality by focusing on the women is side of things first.  suppose you have two people, one is better at math, and the other is better at writing, and you want them to both better overall.  you help the math person with writing, and you help the writing person with math.  helping with math is  mathism  and helping with writing is  writingism .  mathism is no different than feminism.  i want everyone to be better off, but if i can provide help most efficiently by helping people learn math, i am going to focus on doing that.  i am in no way saying writing is useless or that we should not help people with it, i just only have so much time.  the areas of inequality are often quite different across genders.  there absolutely is overlap, but in general problems are quite different.  resources get thinned out the less focus you have.  why not get rid of all charities and have one  make the world better  fund ? targeted charities are much more effective than blanket ones.   #  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.   # both sides need to be considered and involved in order to reach a state of equality.  inequality is not a two way issue, it is by definition one party being inequal to another one, even if it is results are interwined.  women is issues and men is issues are not equivalent, balanced counterparts to each other, they are largely results of a society that was founded on depriving women of bodily agency, and political authority, in favor of men.  or at least that is what feminists believe.  if you do not believe that, that is all right, call yourself something that expresses that you do not believe women are oppressed.  but as a naming convention, it is fairly reasonable that those who believe the opposite of yours, would not want to join you under that label that implies that currently there is an equivalence between gender issues.  the negative connotations have existed pretty much since feminism has existed.  and when most women is rights movement members werte called suffragettes, then suffragettes were stereotyped as violent misandrists URL and female supremacists URL even though their name made it clear that they just want universal suffrage.  the negative stereotyping it is not semantic, it is cultural.  any excuses for it are just that.
first, my definitions.  western culture is european culture.  the linguistic, philosophical, artistic and political heritage of europe.  it is social norms and ethical values.  inherent means to be an essential quality.  racist means that white experiences and traits are privileged over others.  sexist means that masculine experiences and traits are privileged over others.  western culture has the essential quality of privileging white masculine experience and traits over others.  linguistically, this essential quality manifests itself in all nouns being gendered in the romance languages.  philosophically, western though has been universally dominated by men.  these men using their masculine experience as the sole epistemology with which to classify and label all aspects of the world.  artistically, women are depicted as objects of beauty and desire, people is of color are barely depicted at all and white men are the creators of art.  politically, well, it is fucking europe, 0 years of war, violence and oppression.  alexander the  great  marches east.  the roman empire sends it is legions to all corners of the continent, killing indigenous peoples wherever it goes.  those indigenous peoples resist an overtake the empire, so on and so on.  europe  discovers  and colonizes america, rather than steal it from it is native inhabitants.  africans are imported and forced to participate in this native genocide.  the french behead people in the name of liberty and an austrian carries out the ultimate campaign of asserting white racial superiority.  even today, this racists/sexist quality of western culture still exists.  equal rights for women are granted rather than acknowledged as evident.  the third world is still the third world.  africa is still the dark continent, a source of ebola and aids.  western culture functions to elevate white men above all the non white people of the world.   #  linguistically, this essential quality manifests itself in all nouns being gendered in the romance languages.   #  and here you are using a non romance language without engendered nouns make a claim to the contrary.   # western culture is european culture.  the linguistic, philosophical, artistic and political heritage of europe.  it is social norms and ethical values.  inherent means to be an essential quality.  i noticed you failed to mention religion.  this is a huge factor on the culture, and language, and the main religion comes from outside of europe.  and here you are using a non romance language without engendered nouns make a claim to the contrary.  interesting.  also the language tree is called indo european for a reason.  the european language is related to persian iranian and indian.  here you can see for yourself URL you are completely off base on the language aspect.  it is the place where white people live.  just as in china, all you see is chinese people, and in persia only persian people before islam , and in india, indian people, and in africa you africans.  i find the idea that this shows racism, to be a dubious claim at best.   #  things are only a certain way as compared to other things.   #  but that is the thing.  things are only a certain way as compared to other things.  it makes no sense to discuss western society as being racist/sexist in a vacuum, without comparing the level or racism/sexism to a culture that is less so or not so.  robert wadlow URL is  short  compared to a hypothetical 0 foot tall man who has never actually existed.  however, given the current comparison group, it is nonsensical to criticize him for being short.  similarly, it is nonsensical to criticize western society for being racist/sexist.   #  being a sexually dimorphic, mammal where the male of the species has a much higher fitness variance than females, it is expected given only that simple biological information that our species would be polyganous, with alpha males dominating social groups.   #  before i advance a further point, can you direct me to any large scale culture that is not patriarchal and ethno centric ? we evolved among ethnically homogenous small social groups, rarely interacting with other humans whose pigment or appearance differed from ours to any meaningful extent.  being a sexually dimorphic, mammal where the male of the species has a much higher fitness variance than females, it is expected given only that simple biological information that our species would be polyganous, with alpha males dominating social groups.  because we are the only animal that is advanced enough to have identifiable culture, we do not have any other species to compare to.  that being said, it would not be that much of a stretch to hypothesize that any social animal with alpha males will probably develop a patriarchal culture.  if gibbons low sexual dimorphism, strictly monogamous developed advanced intelligence and culture, they would probably develop a more gender equitable culture as well.  biology is no excuse for active behavior, but it can help explain past behavior.  given that most of the westernized countries score the highest on gender equality and racial equality, it is more apt to say that all human societies are likely to be patriarchal and ethno centric, but western societies currently are doing their best to combat that innate bias.   #  that is simply not true, in fact, we coexisted with other bipedal primates for extended periods of time.   # many cultures around the world are matriarchal, native american, tibetan, etc.  how should that change my view of western culture ? that is simply not true, in fact, we coexisted with other bipedal primates for extended periods of time.  what is the importance of this claim ? because we are the only animal that is advanced enough to have identifiable culture, we do not have any other species to compare to.  that being said, it would not be that much of a stretch to hypothesize that any social animal with alpha males will probably develop a patriarchal culture.  if gibbons low sexual dimorphism, strictly monogamous developed advanced intelligence and culture, they would probably develop a more gender equitable culture as well.  biology is no excuse for active behavior, but it can help explain past behavior.  i do not fundamentally disagree that biological tendency at the level of small groups, absent culture, may predispose male domination.  i do disagree with the leap to culture level hierarchies organized along racial and sexual lines.  regardless, my view is an existential claim, western culture is racist   sexist, not an explanation for why this might be the case.  scored by who, according to what metric ? what evidence is there to support a likelihood to be ethnocentric and that this bias is innate ?  #  matriarchal communities exist, but they are the exceeding minority.   #  matriarchal communities exist, but they are the exceeding minority.  there are plenty of isolated environmental conditions that can alter the structure of social groups, from baboons to humans, where preserved socialization can be perpetuated for generations.  but for the most part, for the vast majority of societies, they are patriarchal.  more to your central point, i agree with you that western society is patriarchal and racist, but i felt your point was that it was exceptional in that regard.  i do not feel it to be that remarkable to be racist and sexist in a globe that is almost unanimously racist and sexist.  my follow up point was that among the racist and sexist societies, it is remarkable in that it has a much lower average degree of racism and sexism, making its position commendable.
first, my definitions.  western culture is european culture.  the linguistic, philosophical, artistic and political heritage of europe.  it is social norms and ethical values.  inherent means to be an essential quality.  racist means that white experiences and traits are privileged over others.  sexist means that masculine experiences and traits are privileged over others.  western culture has the essential quality of privileging white masculine experience and traits over others.  linguistically, this essential quality manifests itself in all nouns being gendered in the romance languages.  philosophically, western though has been universally dominated by men.  these men using their masculine experience as the sole epistemology with which to classify and label all aspects of the world.  artistically, women are depicted as objects of beauty and desire, people is of color are barely depicted at all and white men are the creators of art.  politically, well, it is fucking europe, 0 years of war, violence and oppression.  alexander the  great  marches east.  the roman empire sends it is legions to all corners of the continent, killing indigenous peoples wherever it goes.  those indigenous peoples resist an overtake the empire, so on and so on.  europe  discovers  and colonizes america, rather than steal it from it is native inhabitants.  africans are imported and forced to participate in this native genocide.  the french behead people in the name of liberty and an austrian carries out the ultimate campaign of asserting white racial superiority.  even today, this racists/sexist quality of western culture still exists.  equal rights for women are granted rather than acknowledged as evident.  the third world is still the third world.  africa is still the dark continent, a source of ebola and aids.  western culture functions to elevate white men above all the non white people of the world.   #  artistically, women are depicted as objects of beauty and desire, people is of color are barely depicted at all and white men are the creators of art.   #  it is the place where white people live.   # western culture is european culture.  the linguistic, philosophical, artistic and political heritage of europe.  it is social norms and ethical values.  inherent means to be an essential quality.  i noticed you failed to mention religion.  this is a huge factor on the culture, and language, and the main religion comes from outside of europe.  and here you are using a non romance language without engendered nouns make a claim to the contrary.  interesting.  also the language tree is called indo european for a reason.  the european language is related to persian iranian and indian.  here you can see for yourself URL you are completely off base on the language aspect.  it is the place where white people live.  just as in china, all you see is chinese people, and in persia only persian people before islam , and in india, indian people, and in africa you africans.  i find the idea that this shows racism, to be a dubious claim at best.   #  things are only a certain way as compared to other things.   #  but that is the thing.  things are only a certain way as compared to other things.  it makes no sense to discuss western society as being racist/sexist in a vacuum, without comparing the level or racism/sexism to a culture that is less so or not so.  robert wadlow URL is  short  compared to a hypothetical 0 foot tall man who has never actually existed.  however, given the current comparison group, it is nonsensical to criticize him for being short.  similarly, it is nonsensical to criticize western society for being racist/sexist.   #  that being said, it would not be that much of a stretch to hypothesize that any social animal with alpha males will probably develop a patriarchal culture.   #  before i advance a further point, can you direct me to any large scale culture that is not patriarchal and ethno centric ? we evolved among ethnically homogenous small social groups, rarely interacting with other humans whose pigment or appearance differed from ours to any meaningful extent.  being a sexually dimorphic, mammal where the male of the species has a much higher fitness variance than females, it is expected given only that simple biological information that our species would be polyganous, with alpha males dominating social groups.  because we are the only animal that is advanced enough to have identifiable culture, we do not have any other species to compare to.  that being said, it would not be that much of a stretch to hypothesize that any social animal with alpha males will probably develop a patriarchal culture.  if gibbons low sexual dimorphism, strictly monogamous developed advanced intelligence and culture, they would probably develop a more gender equitable culture as well.  biology is no excuse for active behavior, but it can help explain past behavior.  given that most of the westernized countries score the highest on gender equality and racial equality, it is more apt to say that all human societies are likely to be patriarchal and ethno centric, but western societies currently are doing their best to combat that innate bias.   #  i do disagree with the leap to culture level hierarchies organized along racial and sexual lines.   # many cultures around the world are matriarchal, native american, tibetan, etc.  how should that change my view of western culture ? that is simply not true, in fact, we coexisted with other bipedal primates for extended periods of time.  what is the importance of this claim ? because we are the only animal that is advanced enough to have identifiable culture, we do not have any other species to compare to.  that being said, it would not be that much of a stretch to hypothesize that any social animal with alpha males will probably develop a patriarchal culture.  if gibbons low sexual dimorphism, strictly monogamous developed advanced intelligence and culture, they would probably develop a more gender equitable culture as well.  biology is no excuse for active behavior, but it can help explain past behavior.  i do not fundamentally disagree that biological tendency at the level of small groups, absent culture, may predispose male domination.  i do disagree with the leap to culture level hierarchies organized along racial and sexual lines.  regardless, my view is an existential claim, western culture is racist   sexist, not an explanation for why this might be the case.  scored by who, according to what metric ? what evidence is there to support a likelihood to be ethnocentric and that this bias is innate ?  #  my follow up point was that among the racist and sexist societies, it is remarkable in that it has a much lower average degree of racism and sexism, making its position commendable.   #  matriarchal communities exist, but they are the exceeding minority.  there are plenty of isolated environmental conditions that can alter the structure of social groups, from baboons to humans, where preserved socialization can be perpetuated for generations.  but for the most part, for the vast majority of societies, they are patriarchal.  more to your central point, i agree with you that western society is patriarchal and racist, but i felt your point was that it was exceptional in that regard.  i do not feel it to be that remarkable to be racist and sexist in a globe that is almost unanimously racist and sexist.  my follow up point was that among the racist and sexist societies, it is remarkable in that it has a much lower average degree of racism and sexism, making its position commendable.
the first thing is the last 0,0 years, during which we went from creatures with no language to travelling to the moon to being able to have a real time face to face conversation with someone on the other side of the world and having access to the greatest source of information in the world using a device that fits in your pocket.  now think about the time scale and look at the progress as a curve on a graph.  we advance as a species perpetually faster, in an upward curve.  we did fuck all for 0,0 years and  basically  went from a technologically primitive feudal system to todays society in 0 years.  things came  a very long way  in the last 0 years, our society changed profoundly and our technology advanced to the point where we can do a lot of things that people thought were impossible 0 years ago.  the reason i think that we will evolve within the next 0 years is that unless we hit a massive delay like a nuclear war, according to the upward curve and the perpetually increasing social/technological progress, i think its safe to assume that when we are able to increase the processing power of our brains/other tweaks with neural implants URL we will be able to reach a different level of consciousness and see different frequencies of light or hear different frequencies of sound.  the way we fundamentally experience the world will change and we will be able to understand life in an entirely new way.  well sure, we have never experienced or seen evolution which fundamentally involved technology rather than biology, but i figured you guys were smart enough to connect the dots.  if our species changes on account of technology rather than biology its still evolution isnt it ? then why do we already have biohackers putting shit in their arms that communicates with their phone.  if i could enhance my brain i would as would virtually anyone and the govt/companies that create consumer tech know that.  genetic engineering is different because biotech is just allowing a naturally born human to make decisions about their life and the technology available to them.  well im not in the habit of making neural implants.  i do not know but that does not mean its unrealistic to assume it is possible.  thats interesting, does that show us other colours ? i was under the assumption that being able to see other frequencies of light is basically seeing an entirely new reality and becoming a kubrick esque starchild.  so the way we process mathematical info is different to the way we process other types of information ? and a neural implant which improved our mathematical processing by 0 times would literally just make maths easier and not affect us in any other way ? so when we start to understand the brain better and get the ability to play with that stream of consciousness, there is nothing we could do which would enhance our intellectual processing abilities to the extent that we would be on a higher level of consciousness ?  #  if our species changes on account of technology rather than biology its still evolution isnt it ?  #  eh, kinda depends on your definitions, many people would take the lofty definition of any gradual change, so i guess you could make the argument it would qualify.   # eh, kinda depends on your definitions, many people would take the lofty definition of any gradual change, so i guess you could make the argument it would qualify.  consider my opinion changed.  i was under the assumption that being able to see other frequencies of light is basically seeing an entirely new reality nope, same reality, just under a different lens.  for a better explanation, see these images of earth under various frequencies of light: URL it is not a different world, just better information regarding the same world.  it might change how we look at and understand things, but not who we are as people.  and a neural implant which improved our mathematical processing by 0 times would literally just make maths easier and not affect us in any other way ? most info we process we do in a mathematical way.  the data from our retina is just how much each cell is detecting of different frequencies of light, and we turn that into an image in our mind, every instant of every day.  the same applies for every input and output into our brain, we do not think about running, our subconscious does all the working out foot placement for us.  it calculates how much force is needed to lift us up to the next step, how much time till the next ankle movement to keep us from tripping.  the only actual information we do not process in a mathematical way, are things we exclusively do consciously; making decisions, solving complex problems, and oddly enough actual maths.  to actually improve our conscious ability to do these tasks would involve either messing with the stream of consciousness, or rigging a computer that can be used to solve these problems to our brain.  computers can only solve purely mathematical problems, so we could have a calculator for solving formulae at will, but nothing more.  anything else would require fully conscious ais to even attempt, and ones superior to human logic to be meaningful, which we are nowhere near actually developing.  higher level of consciousness ? it is logically impossible for such a state to exist, and i can prove it.  take self awareness, the capacity to know of your own existence, to know you know you exist, and to know how you are thinking as you are thinking it, something humans but not animals are generally considered as having.  if you are capable of understanding the concept of self awareness, you must as a prerequisite have it, since it is defined as being able to reflect on your thoughts, and if you cannot you cannot reflect on your thoughts as a means to understand its meaning.  if you can understand the concept, you must be experiencing it.  let us, for the sake of argument, postulate a higher state of consciousness exists.  if a person is able to understand such a state, they must, by nature of being able to reflect on it, have attained that state.  therefore, for any given higher state of consciousness, anyone who can understand this paragraph has obtained it.  therefore there is no higher state of consciousness humans have not obtained.  to enhance it ? kinda.  we could increase our conscious processing abilities to any given extent, but the technology is so far advanced we could equally make ai is for us to do the thinking, and what with being humans, that is what we would do.  given how hard it is, and the ethical issues, and the human tendency to take the trivial solution, i ca not see it happening even in 0 years.   #  its confusing to the reader and only makes sense if you mean biological evolution and not  technical advancement .   # but you are talking about  technological advancement .  biological evolution implies a change in dna or something you are born with.  your statement of how in 0 years  our species being transformed to the point of basically evolving.   implies that we are not  evolving  right now or recently.  but we have had  technological advancement  now and in the past, so we have been  evolving .  its confusing to the reader and only makes sense if you mean biological evolution and not  technical advancement .   #  unfortunately, that does not capture the essence of  evolving .   #  unfortunately, that does not capture the essence of  evolving .  in a true scientific sense, evolution is the gradual passing down of traits through natural selection which benefits the organism in some way which i am pretty sure most people know .  with  evolving , there must be some kind of evolutionary pressure e. g.  if a bright red worm continually gets eaten by birds, then the worm will eventually become more camouflaged due to natural selection .  in the scenario you pointed out, there is no  pressure  for people to change.  of course, we would become more technologically advanced, with technologies we ca not begin to fathom today, but  evolution  would not be an apt term to describe this procedure.   #  evolution requires changes that can be passed on from generation to generation that provide a reproductive advantage.   #  technology can provide the external pressure needed for evolution to occur.  if anyone without implant a had a very low chance of reproducing, it may affect human evolution in some certain way.  0 years is still too short of a frame though.  you keep using a definition of evolution that really is not used in science.  it is like when people say  oh, that is just a theory .  in science the word theory has a different definition than the colloquially used definition.  evolution requires changes that can be passed on from generation to generation that provide a reproductive advantage.  here is an example of tech providing a pressure; we modify dna of babies to have some super trait.  these babies are vastly better at reproducing for whatever reason.  the frequency of the gene for the super trait and associated trait will increase greatly.  will likely take much more than 0 years though.   #  yes, our advances with it and buotechnology may accelerate development especially if we think of hacking our dna .   #  do you have any sources that suggest we had no language 0 years ago ? iirc, the first formalized  written languages  were developed about 0 0 years ago, so assuming that there was  no  language 0 years ago seems a bit of a leap, especially giveb what we know about older burial rites and cave paintings.  also, i am not sure how you use the term  evolving .  we have not stopped evolving.  you may be thinking about speciation or some  quantum leap  of evolution.  in either case, i do not think you are making avery good case.  yes, our advances with it and buotechnology may accelerate development especially if we think of hacking our dna .  but i do not see where you grab the 0 year number from.
the first thing is the last 0,0 years, during which we went from creatures with no language to travelling to the moon to being able to have a real time face to face conversation with someone on the other side of the world and having access to the greatest source of information in the world using a device that fits in your pocket.  now think about the time scale and look at the progress as a curve on a graph.  we advance as a species perpetually faster, in an upward curve.  we did fuck all for 0,0 years and  basically  went from a technologically primitive feudal system to todays society in 0 years.  things came  a very long way  in the last 0 years, our society changed profoundly and our technology advanced to the point where we can do a lot of things that people thought were impossible 0 years ago.  the reason i think that we will evolve within the next 0 years is that unless we hit a massive delay like a nuclear war, according to the upward curve and the perpetually increasing social/technological progress, i think its safe to assume that when we are able to increase the processing power of our brains/other tweaks with neural implants URL we will be able to reach a different level of consciousness and see different frequencies of light or hear different frequencies of sound.  the way we fundamentally experience the world will change and we will be able to understand life in an entirely new way.  well sure, we have never experienced or seen evolution which fundamentally involved technology rather than biology, but i figured you guys were smart enough to connect the dots.  if our species changes on account of technology rather than biology its still evolution isnt it ? then why do we already have biohackers putting shit in their arms that communicates with their phone.  if i could enhance my brain i would as would virtually anyone and the govt/companies that create consumer tech know that.  genetic engineering is different because biotech is just allowing a naturally born human to make decisions about their life and the technology available to them.  well im not in the habit of making neural implants.  i do not know but that does not mean its unrealistic to assume it is possible.  thats interesting, does that show us other colours ? i was under the assumption that being able to see other frequencies of light is basically seeing an entirely new reality and becoming a kubrick esque starchild.  so the way we process mathematical info is different to the way we process other types of information ? and a neural implant which improved our mathematical processing by 0 times would literally just make maths easier and not affect us in any other way ? so when we start to understand the brain better and get the ability to play with that stream of consciousness, there is nothing we could do which would enhance our intellectual processing abilities to the extent that we would be on a higher level of consciousness ?  #  so the way we process mathematical info is different to the way we process other types of information ?  #  and a neural implant which improved our mathematical processing by 0 times would literally just make maths easier and not affect us in any other way ?  # eh, kinda depends on your definitions, many people would take the lofty definition of any gradual change, so i guess you could make the argument it would qualify.  consider my opinion changed.  i was under the assumption that being able to see other frequencies of light is basically seeing an entirely new reality nope, same reality, just under a different lens.  for a better explanation, see these images of earth under various frequencies of light: URL it is not a different world, just better information regarding the same world.  it might change how we look at and understand things, but not who we are as people.  and a neural implant which improved our mathematical processing by 0 times would literally just make maths easier and not affect us in any other way ? most info we process we do in a mathematical way.  the data from our retina is just how much each cell is detecting of different frequencies of light, and we turn that into an image in our mind, every instant of every day.  the same applies for every input and output into our brain, we do not think about running, our subconscious does all the working out foot placement for us.  it calculates how much force is needed to lift us up to the next step, how much time till the next ankle movement to keep us from tripping.  the only actual information we do not process in a mathematical way, are things we exclusively do consciously; making decisions, solving complex problems, and oddly enough actual maths.  to actually improve our conscious ability to do these tasks would involve either messing with the stream of consciousness, or rigging a computer that can be used to solve these problems to our brain.  computers can only solve purely mathematical problems, so we could have a calculator for solving formulae at will, but nothing more.  anything else would require fully conscious ais to even attempt, and ones superior to human logic to be meaningful, which we are nowhere near actually developing.  higher level of consciousness ? it is logically impossible for such a state to exist, and i can prove it.  take self awareness, the capacity to know of your own existence, to know you know you exist, and to know how you are thinking as you are thinking it, something humans but not animals are generally considered as having.  if you are capable of understanding the concept of self awareness, you must as a prerequisite have it, since it is defined as being able to reflect on your thoughts, and if you cannot you cannot reflect on your thoughts as a means to understand its meaning.  if you can understand the concept, you must be experiencing it.  let us, for the sake of argument, postulate a higher state of consciousness exists.  if a person is able to understand such a state, they must, by nature of being able to reflect on it, have attained that state.  therefore, for any given higher state of consciousness, anyone who can understand this paragraph has obtained it.  therefore there is no higher state of consciousness humans have not obtained.  to enhance it ? kinda.  we could increase our conscious processing abilities to any given extent, but the technology is so far advanced we could equally make ai is for us to do the thinking, and what with being humans, that is what we would do.  given how hard it is, and the ethical issues, and the human tendency to take the trivial solution, i ca not see it happening even in 0 years.   #  your statement of how in 0 years  our species being transformed to the point of basically evolving.    # but you are talking about  technological advancement .  biological evolution implies a change in dna or something you are born with.  your statement of how in 0 years  our species being transformed to the point of basically evolving.   implies that we are not  evolving  right now or recently.  but we have had  technological advancement  now and in the past, so we have been  evolving .  its confusing to the reader and only makes sense if you mean biological evolution and not  technical advancement .   #  if a bright red worm continually gets eaten by birds, then the worm will eventually become more camouflaged due to natural selection .   #  unfortunately, that does not capture the essence of  evolving .  in a true scientific sense, evolution is the gradual passing down of traits through natural selection which benefits the organism in some way which i am pretty sure most people know .  with  evolving , there must be some kind of evolutionary pressure e. g.  if a bright red worm continually gets eaten by birds, then the worm will eventually become more camouflaged due to natural selection .  in the scenario you pointed out, there is no  pressure  for people to change.  of course, we would become more technologically advanced, with technologies we ca not begin to fathom today, but  evolution  would not be an apt term to describe this procedure.   #  in science the word theory has a different definition than the colloquially used definition.   #  technology can provide the external pressure needed for evolution to occur.  if anyone without implant a had a very low chance of reproducing, it may affect human evolution in some certain way.  0 years is still too short of a frame though.  you keep using a definition of evolution that really is not used in science.  it is like when people say  oh, that is just a theory .  in science the word theory has a different definition than the colloquially used definition.  evolution requires changes that can be passed on from generation to generation that provide a reproductive advantage.  here is an example of tech providing a pressure; we modify dna of babies to have some super trait.  these babies are vastly better at reproducing for whatever reason.  the frequency of the gene for the super trait and associated trait will increase greatly.  will likely take much more than 0 years though.   #  but i do not see where you grab the 0 year number from.   #  do you have any sources that suggest we had no language 0 years ago ? iirc, the first formalized  written languages  were developed about 0 0 years ago, so assuming that there was  no  language 0 years ago seems a bit of a leap, especially giveb what we know about older burial rites and cave paintings.  also, i am not sure how you use the term  evolving .  we have not stopped evolving.  you may be thinking about speciation or some  quantum leap  of evolution.  in either case, i do not think you are making avery good case.  yes, our advances with it and buotechnology may accelerate development especially if we think of hacking our dna .  but i do not see where you grab the 0 year number from.
my boyfriend and i got into a debate about whether aliens are flying around our galaxy and solar system and entering our planet.  i argued that if there were aliens flying around in outer space, even if they are not entering earth, we would have heard about them from scientists.  also the planets do not have any evidence of life except for mars having signs of water.  i admitted i do not know enough about other galaxies to deny or defend their existence.  he says that astronauts and scientists are not allowed to acknowledge their existence or else they would lose their jobs.  he said that even airline pilots ca not acknowledge their existence without losing their job.  i agreed that there is a chance that unintelligent life exists on other planets, maybe even other solar systems since water or evidence of what used to be water was found on mars.  i believe microbes and maybe amoebas can possibly exist but i do not believe there is intelligent life on any planet not any solar system except ours.  cmv ! that being said, my view is not completely changed but i am also not 0 sure that i was right in believing we are alone in the universe.  good job guys.   #  he says that astronauts and scientists are not allowed to acknowledge their existence or else they would lose their jobs.   #  he said that even airline pilots ca not acknowledge their existence without losing their job.   #  if you can that easily believe in microbial life elsewhere in the universe, then you should easily be able to entertain the idea of intelligent life, given the size of the universe.  the universe is so large that our human brain is incapable of comprehending the size.  even if you were to write down the size in some form of measurement, that you could read and physically see how large it is, there is still a good chance you wo not comprehend it fully.  the universe that we can see contains an estimated 0 billion galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars of their own.  even in our own neighborhood, inside our own galaxy, we have found examples of exoplanets residing in the habitable region to their host star.  given that, there are probably many more in our own galaxy.  if the conditions are right, life thrives fast relative to the age of the universe and tends to have a snowball effect.  he said that even airline pilots ca not acknowledge their existence without losing their job.  this is where i would heavily disagree with him.  the universe is so large that it is likely that intelligent life resides in independent  islands  that are simply too far apart to ever find each other.  even if some intelligent life form figured out how to travel at the fastest possible speed speed of light , it would still take billions of years to travel across the universe.  if we were to assume that other intelligent life is not that dissimilar from humans, there is no chance they could reasonably travel farther than neighboring stars, let alone other galaxies.  let is think about if aliens have in fact come to this planet.  why would they have any interest in anything we could possibly have ? if they were able to successfully travel across the galaxy, they are insanely more advanced than we are.  it would be analogous to humans staring at ants building ant hills.  what is the purpose ? maybe to learn, sure, but at that point they are well aware of other intelligent life in the universe.  which also crushes the idea of alien spacecraft crash landing on earth.  to me, it is just absurd to believe this.  we are talking about a hyper advanced alien race that is capable of safely traveling enormous distances across an extremely harsh and large environment, they surely know aviation to the point of it being obsolete to them.   #  knowing that the creation of intelligent life is possible and that there were trillions of chances for it happen, you may ask why we have not seen any.   #  there are probably aliens, but the odds of them being on earth are close to nil.  your boyfriend would be correct in that there are tremendous numbers of planets the size of earth, with water, carbon, and complex organic molecules to form life.  out of all the trillions of planets with the ingredients of life, at least a few ought to have followed the same process that led to life on earth.  knowing that the creation of intelligent life is possible and that there were trillions of chances for it happen, you may ask why we have not seen any.  we do not know the answer, but it is unlikely that scientists are covering it up.  we would not be spending billions of dollars to look for something that we needed to hide.  it is also unlikely that aliens would take the time to cloak themselves from all of earth is telescopes, amateur and scientific, but flutter around completely visible to airline pilots.  the most likely possibility is that whatever aliens may exist are too far away to contact us.   #  nothing that happened on earth seem to be particularly unlikely to occur elsewhere.   # we have no reasonable way to know the rarity of the conditions necessary for the origin of life nor what those conditions actually are.  you are missing mine.  we may not know the conditions necessary for life, but we know these must be a subset of conditions that happened here on earth some billions years ago.  nothing that happened on earth seem to be particularly unlikely to occur elsewhere.  it is not a bias.  the probability of any conditions that have ever occured of earth being unique is virtually zero given the number of planets in existence.  that view could be perhaps justified when we did not know if planets exist around other stars or if they are some rare oddity, but not any longer.  it is like saying that two darts can never hit the same point.  while technically true, the area hit by a dart is not infinitely small, just like conditions on planets are not infinitely narrow so sooner or later some darts will overlap with the first one.   #  this is not a single factor scenario, a more likely comparison would be that a thousand randomly thrown darts have to land in a line end to end.   #  i am sorry, i should have elaborated on what i mean by bias.  since we have no reasonable way to determine the qualities on earth that encourage life  and  we have no reasonable way to determine the likelihood of  any  environmental factors on other planets, we can not say with any certainly what is or is not likely or possible to occur elsewhere.  everything we know about the distant past of our planet, extrasolar planetary formation, and even the methods of our own life from lifelessness are all extrapolation and guesswork so to put a likelihood on that being repeatable or not is not  can  not be quantitatively stated.  this is the problem with dealing in very small and very large numbers, they are not reliably assessed by our intuition.  the fact that there are billions of planets orbiting in  earth like  orbits is only one factor among unknown others.  the presence of one presumably advantageous but unproven environmental factor does nothing to address the myriad other unknown possible factors.  this is not a single factor scenario, a more likely comparison would be that a thousand randomly thrown darts have to land in a line end to end.  there is another comment in this thread that states how if you shuffled a deck of cards every second for a billion years you would only have seen a negligible fraction effectively zero of the possible combinations.  if life has 0 factors a rocky planet in its star is  habitable  zone being just one of them there are still 0 0 possible combinations and only 0 billion planets to try them on, resulting in a likelihood of life in our galaxy at . 0 all factors being random .   #  we assume that conditions similar to earth are required for life.   #  there are 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 stars in the visible universe give or take.  in the visible universe.  there is nothing unique enough about earth that makes it reasonable odds that there is no life elsewhere.  you could talk about mass, star characteristics, molten core/magnetic field, water or whatever other elements/molecular compositions, any number of things like that, and the odds still wo not be stacked against life enough.  for all we know, life could be even easier than that, and exist in conditions completely different from those on earth.  you are right that we do not know exactly what the conditions would be for life to spontaneously appear.  but we know what earth is, and how it was formed, and its history, and we can know what the odds of another earth could be.  so, we can make a rough educated guess, and the incredible vastness of the universe along with how common the factors we can perceive seem to be planets and their orbits it appears very likely that somewhere in the universe life exists.  that intelligent life is visiting our planet is very different.  for that, timing is more crucial, and they must have found us one planet in the vast universe.  but, like you said, we do not know the necessary conditions for life.  for all we know, life is incredibly common, and its reasonably likely that there exists intelligent life in neighboring systems.  we assume that conditions similar to earth are required for life.  how common earth like conditions are, is what is driving our estimates for the likelihood of life existing elsewhere.  based on that, we think given the size of the known universe, life likely exists elsewhere.  but it might even be more common than that.  maybe very different conditions than those of earth, could create life as well.
my boyfriend and i got into a debate about whether aliens are flying around our galaxy and solar system and entering our planet.  i argued that if there were aliens flying around in outer space, even if they are not entering earth, we would have heard about them from scientists.  also the planets do not have any evidence of life except for mars having signs of water.  i admitted i do not know enough about other galaxies to deny or defend their existence.  he says that astronauts and scientists are not allowed to acknowledge their existence or else they would lose their jobs.  he said that even airline pilots ca not acknowledge their existence without losing their job.  i agreed that there is a chance that unintelligent life exists on other planets, maybe even other solar systems since water or evidence of what used to be water was found on mars.  i believe microbes and maybe amoebas can possibly exist but i do not believe there is intelligent life on any planet not any solar system except ours.  cmv ! that being said, my view is not completely changed but i am also not 0 sure that i was right in believing we are alone in the universe.  good job guys.   #  i agreed that there is a chance that unintelligent life exists on other planets, maybe even other solar systems since water or evidence of what used to be water was found on mars.   #  i believe microbes and maybe amoebas can possibly exist but that is life, right ?  # i believe microbes and maybe amoebas can possibly exist but that is life, right ? extraterrestrial i. e.  alien life.  ergo, aliens.  yeah.  maybe maybe not.  i certainly ca not prove it but if you already acknowledge the strong possibility of  life  outside of our solar system, then it is not hard to believe that somewhere some of it has evolved to meet some criteria of intelligence.   #  there are probably aliens, but the odds of them being on earth are close to nil.   #  there are probably aliens, but the odds of them being on earth are close to nil.  your boyfriend would be correct in that there are tremendous numbers of planets the size of earth, with water, carbon, and complex organic molecules to form life.  out of all the trillions of planets with the ingredients of life, at least a few ought to have followed the same process that led to life on earth.  knowing that the creation of intelligent life is possible and that there were trillions of chances for it happen, you may ask why we have not seen any.  we do not know the answer, but it is unlikely that scientists are covering it up.  we would not be spending billions of dollars to look for something that we needed to hide.  it is also unlikely that aliens would take the time to cloak themselves from all of earth is telescopes, amateur and scientific, but flutter around completely visible to airline pilots.  the most likely possibility is that whatever aliens may exist are too far away to contact us.   #  we may not know the conditions necessary for life, but we know these must be a subset of conditions that happened here on earth some billions years ago.   # we have no reasonable way to know the rarity of the conditions necessary for the origin of life nor what those conditions actually are.  you are missing mine.  we may not know the conditions necessary for life, but we know these must be a subset of conditions that happened here on earth some billions years ago.  nothing that happened on earth seem to be particularly unlikely to occur elsewhere.  it is not a bias.  the probability of any conditions that have ever occured of earth being unique is virtually zero given the number of planets in existence.  that view could be perhaps justified when we did not know if planets exist around other stars or if they are some rare oddity, but not any longer.  it is like saying that two darts can never hit the same point.  while technically true, the area hit by a dart is not infinitely small, just like conditions on planets are not infinitely narrow so sooner or later some darts will overlap with the first one.   #  there is another comment in this thread that states how if you shuffled a deck of cards every second for a billion years you would only have seen a negligible fraction effectively zero of the possible combinations.   #  i am sorry, i should have elaborated on what i mean by bias.  since we have no reasonable way to determine the qualities on earth that encourage life  and  we have no reasonable way to determine the likelihood of  any  environmental factors on other planets, we can not say with any certainly what is or is not likely or possible to occur elsewhere.  everything we know about the distant past of our planet, extrasolar planetary formation, and even the methods of our own life from lifelessness are all extrapolation and guesswork so to put a likelihood on that being repeatable or not is not  can  not be quantitatively stated.  this is the problem with dealing in very small and very large numbers, they are not reliably assessed by our intuition.  the fact that there are billions of planets orbiting in  earth like  orbits is only one factor among unknown others.  the presence of one presumably advantageous but unproven environmental factor does nothing to address the myriad other unknown possible factors.  this is not a single factor scenario, a more likely comparison would be that a thousand randomly thrown darts have to land in a line end to end.  there is another comment in this thread that states how if you shuffled a deck of cards every second for a billion years you would only have seen a negligible fraction effectively zero of the possible combinations.  if life has 0 factors a rocky planet in its star is  habitable  zone being just one of them there are still 0 0 possible combinations and only 0 billion planets to try them on, resulting in a likelihood of life in our galaxy at . 0 all factors being random .   #  based on that, we think given the size of the known universe, life likely exists elsewhere.   #  there are 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 stars in the visible universe give or take.  in the visible universe.  there is nothing unique enough about earth that makes it reasonable odds that there is no life elsewhere.  you could talk about mass, star characteristics, molten core/magnetic field, water or whatever other elements/molecular compositions, any number of things like that, and the odds still wo not be stacked against life enough.  for all we know, life could be even easier than that, and exist in conditions completely different from those on earth.  you are right that we do not know exactly what the conditions would be for life to spontaneously appear.  but we know what earth is, and how it was formed, and its history, and we can know what the odds of another earth could be.  so, we can make a rough educated guess, and the incredible vastness of the universe along with how common the factors we can perceive seem to be planets and their orbits it appears very likely that somewhere in the universe life exists.  that intelligent life is visiting our planet is very different.  for that, timing is more crucial, and they must have found us one planet in the vast universe.  but, like you said, we do not know the necessary conditions for life.  for all we know, life is incredibly common, and its reasonably likely that there exists intelligent life in neighboring systems.  we assume that conditions similar to earth are required for life.  how common earth like conditions are, is what is driving our estimates for the likelihood of life existing elsewhere.  based on that, we think given the size of the known universe, life likely exists elsewhere.  but it might even be more common than that.  maybe very different conditions than those of earth, could create life as well.
my boyfriend and i got into a debate about whether aliens are flying around our galaxy and solar system and entering our planet.  i argued that if there were aliens flying around in outer space, even if they are not entering earth, we would have heard about them from scientists.  also the planets do not have any evidence of life except for mars having signs of water.  i admitted i do not know enough about other galaxies to deny or defend their existence.  he says that astronauts and scientists are not allowed to acknowledge their existence or else they would lose their jobs.  he said that even airline pilots ca not acknowledge their existence without losing their job.  i agreed that there is a chance that unintelligent life exists on other planets, maybe even other solar systems since water or evidence of what used to be water was found on mars.  i believe microbes and maybe amoebas can possibly exist but i do not believe there is intelligent life on any planet not any solar system except ours.  cmv ! that being said, my view is not completely changed but i am also not 0 sure that i was right in believing we are alone in the universe.  good job guys.   #  also the planets do not have any evidence of life except for mars having signs of water.   #  i admitted i do not know enough about other galaxies to deny or defend their existence.   # why would you assume that ? i admitted i do not know enough about other galaxies to deny or defend their existence.  then this isnt much of a point since there are a lot of galaxies and potentially even a lot of universes.  he said that even airline pilots ca not acknowledge their existence without losing their job.  well just because you believe in aliens does not mean you need to believe that theyve ever come to earth before.  he sounds like a conspiracy theorist.  we know there is life in space.  on any planet not any solar system except ours.   #  there are probably aliens, but the odds of them being on earth are close to nil.   #  there are probably aliens, but the odds of them being on earth are close to nil.  your boyfriend would be correct in that there are tremendous numbers of planets the size of earth, with water, carbon, and complex organic molecules to form life.  out of all the trillions of planets with the ingredients of life, at least a few ought to have followed the same process that led to life on earth.  knowing that the creation of intelligent life is possible and that there were trillions of chances for it happen, you may ask why we have not seen any.  we do not know the answer, but it is unlikely that scientists are covering it up.  we would not be spending billions of dollars to look for something that we needed to hide.  it is also unlikely that aliens would take the time to cloak themselves from all of earth is telescopes, amateur and scientific, but flutter around completely visible to airline pilots.  the most likely possibility is that whatever aliens may exist are too far away to contact us.   #  we have no reasonable way to know the rarity of the conditions necessary for the origin of life nor what those conditions actually are.   # we have no reasonable way to know the rarity of the conditions necessary for the origin of life nor what those conditions actually are.  you are missing mine.  we may not know the conditions necessary for life, but we know these must be a subset of conditions that happened here on earth some billions years ago.  nothing that happened on earth seem to be particularly unlikely to occur elsewhere.  it is not a bias.  the probability of any conditions that have ever occured of earth being unique is virtually zero given the number of planets in existence.  that view could be perhaps justified when we did not know if planets exist around other stars or if they are some rare oddity, but not any longer.  it is like saying that two darts can never hit the same point.  while technically true, the area hit by a dart is not infinitely small, just like conditions on planets are not infinitely narrow so sooner or later some darts will overlap with the first one.   #  this is not a single factor scenario, a more likely comparison would be that a thousand randomly thrown darts have to land in a line end to end.   #  i am sorry, i should have elaborated on what i mean by bias.  since we have no reasonable way to determine the qualities on earth that encourage life  and  we have no reasonable way to determine the likelihood of  any  environmental factors on other planets, we can not say with any certainly what is or is not likely or possible to occur elsewhere.  everything we know about the distant past of our planet, extrasolar planetary formation, and even the methods of our own life from lifelessness are all extrapolation and guesswork so to put a likelihood on that being repeatable or not is not  can  not be quantitatively stated.  this is the problem with dealing in very small and very large numbers, they are not reliably assessed by our intuition.  the fact that there are billions of planets orbiting in  earth like  orbits is only one factor among unknown others.  the presence of one presumably advantageous but unproven environmental factor does nothing to address the myriad other unknown possible factors.  this is not a single factor scenario, a more likely comparison would be that a thousand randomly thrown darts have to land in a line end to end.  there is another comment in this thread that states how if you shuffled a deck of cards every second for a billion years you would only have seen a negligible fraction effectively zero of the possible combinations.  if life has 0 factors a rocky planet in its star is  habitable  zone being just one of them there are still 0 0 possible combinations and only 0 billion planets to try them on, resulting in a likelihood of life in our galaxy at . 0 all factors being random .   #  based on that, we think given the size of the known universe, life likely exists elsewhere.   #  there are 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 stars in the visible universe give or take.  in the visible universe.  there is nothing unique enough about earth that makes it reasonable odds that there is no life elsewhere.  you could talk about mass, star characteristics, molten core/magnetic field, water or whatever other elements/molecular compositions, any number of things like that, and the odds still wo not be stacked against life enough.  for all we know, life could be even easier than that, and exist in conditions completely different from those on earth.  you are right that we do not know exactly what the conditions would be for life to spontaneously appear.  but we know what earth is, and how it was formed, and its history, and we can know what the odds of another earth could be.  so, we can make a rough educated guess, and the incredible vastness of the universe along with how common the factors we can perceive seem to be planets and their orbits it appears very likely that somewhere in the universe life exists.  that intelligent life is visiting our planet is very different.  for that, timing is more crucial, and they must have found us one planet in the vast universe.  but, like you said, we do not know the necessary conditions for life.  for all we know, life is incredibly common, and its reasonably likely that there exists intelligent life in neighboring systems.  we assume that conditions similar to earth are required for life.  how common earth like conditions are, is what is driving our estimates for the likelihood of life existing elsewhere.  based on that, we think given the size of the known universe, life likely exists elsewhere.  but it might even be more common than that.  maybe very different conditions than those of earth, could create life as well.
my boyfriend and i got into a debate about whether aliens are flying around our galaxy and solar system and entering our planet.  i argued that if there were aliens flying around in outer space, even if they are not entering earth, we would have heard about them from scientists.  also the planets do not have any evidence of life except for mars having signs of water.  i admitted i do not know enough about other galaxies to deny or defend their existence.  he says that astronauts and scientists are not allowed to acknowledge their existence or else they would lose their jobs.  he said that even airline pilots ca not acknowledge their existence without losing their job.  i agreed that there is a chance that unintelligent life exists on other planets, maybe even other solar systems since water or evidence of what used to be water was found on mars.  i believe microbes and maybe amoebas can possibly exist but i do not believe there is intelligent life on any planet not any solar system except ours.  cmv ! that being said, my view is not completely changed but i am also not 0 sure that i was right in believing we are alone in the universe.  good job guys.   #  he says that astronauts and scientists are not allowed to acknowledge their existence or else they would lose their jobs.   #  he said that even airline pilots ca not acknowledge their existence without losing their job.   # why would you assume that ? i admitted i do not know enough about other galaxies to deny or defend their existence.  then this isnt much of a point since there are a lot of galaxies and potentially even a lot of universes.  he said that even airline pilots ca not acknowledge their existence without losing their job.  well just because you believe in aliens does not mean you need to believe that theyve ever come to earth before.  he sounds like a conspiracy theorist.  we know there is life in space.  on any planet not any solar system except ours.   #  knowing that the creation of intelligent life is possible and that there were trillions of chances for it happen, you may ask why we have not seen any.   #  there are probably aliens, but the odds of them being on earth are close to nil.  your boyfriend would be correct in that there are tremendous numbers of planets the size of earth, with water, carbon, and complex organic molecules to form life.  out of all the trillions of planets with the ingredients of life, at least a few ought to have followed the same process that led to life on earth.  knowing that the creation of intelligent life is possible and that there were trillions of chances for it happen, you may ask why we have not seen any.  we do not know the answer, but it is unlikely that scientists are covering it up.  we would not be spending billions of dollars to look for something that we needed to hide.  it is also unlikely that aliens would take the time to cloak themselves from all of earth is telescopes, amateur and scientific, but flutter around completely visible to airline pilots.  the most likely possibility is that whatever aliens may exist are too far away to contact us.   #  it is like saying that two darts can never hit the same point.   # we have no reasonable way to know the rarity of the conditions necessary for the origin of life nor what those conditions actually are.  you are missing mine.  we may not know the conditions necessary for life, but we know these must be a subset of conditions that happened here on earth some billions years ago.  nothing that happened on earth seem to be particularly unlikely to occur elsewhere.  it is not a bias.  the probability of any conditions that have ever occured of earth being unique is virtually zero given the number of planets in existence.  that view could be perhaps justified when we did not know if planets exist around other stars or if they are some rare oddity, but not any longer.  it is like saying that two darts can never hit the same point.  while technically true, the area hit by a dart is not infinitely small, just like conditions on planets are not infinitely narrow so sooner or later some darts will overlap with the first one.   #  the fact that there are billions of planets orbiting in  earth like  orbits is only one factor among unknown others.   #  i am sorry, i should have elaborated on what i mean by bias.  since we have no reasonable way to determine the qualities on earth that encourage life  and  we have no reasonable way to determine the likelihood of  any  environmental factors on other planets, we can not say with any certainly what is or is not likely or possible to occur elsewhere.  everything we know about the distant past of our planet, extrasolar planetary formation, and even the methods of our own life from lifelessness are all extrapolation and guesswork so to put a likelihood on that being repeatable or not is not  can  not be quantitatively stated.  this is the problem with dealing in very small and very large numbers, they are not reliably assessed by our intuition.  the fact that there are billions of planets orbiting in  earth like  orbits is only one factor among unknown others.  the presence of one presumably advantageous but unproven environmental factor does nothing to address the myriad other unknown possible factors.  this is not a single factor scenario, a more likely comparison would be that a thousand randomly thrown darts have to land in a line end to end.  there is another comment in this thread that states how if you shuffled a deck of cards every second for a billion years you would only have seen a negligible fraction effectively zero of the possible combinations.  if life has 0 factors a rocky planet in its star is  habitable  zone being just one of them there are still 0 0 possible combinations and only 0 billion planets to try them on, resulting in a likelihood of life in our galaxy at . 0 all factors being random .   #  you are right that we do not know exactly what the conditions would be for life to spontaneously appear.   #  there are 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 stars in the visible universe give or take.  in the visible universe.  there is nothing unique enough about earth that makes it reasonable odds that there is no life elsewhere.  you could talk about mass, star characteristics, molten core/magnetic field, water or whatever other elements/molecular compositions, any number of things like that, and the odds still wo not be stacked against life enough.  for all we know, life could be even easier than that, and exist in conditions completely different from those on earth.  you are right that we do not know exactly what the conditions would be for life to spontaneously appear.  but we know what earth is, and how it was formed, and its history, and we can know what the odds of another earth could be.  so, we can make a rough educated guess, and the incredible vastness of the universe along with how common the factors we can perceive seem to be planets and their orbits it appears very likely that somewhere in the universe life exists.  that intelligent life is visiting our planet is very different.  for that, timing is more crucial, and they must have found us one planet in the vast universe.  but, like you said, we do not know the necessary conditions for life.  for all we know, life is incredibly common, and its reasonably likely that there exists intelligent life in neighboring systems.  we assume that conditions similar to earth are required for life.  how common earth like conditions are, is what is driving our estimates for the likelihood of life existing elsewhere.  based on that, we think given the size of the known universe, life likely exists elsewhere.  but it might even be more common than that.  maybe very different conditions than those of earth, could create life as well.
i am in my late 0s.  i have never drank alcohol.  a lot of people think this is strange, and have tried to convince me to start.  but none of them have ever given me a good reason.  none of their descriptions of drunkeness sound remotely pleasant, and the potential consequences of blacking out sound terrifying.  i do acknowledge that there may be some evidence that small amounts of alcohol can have health benefits.  i might at some point decide to drink a carefully measured quantity for medicinal purposes, but this post is about drinking recreationally.  the only disadvantage to not drinking i see is that i am out of place at many social events that revolve around alcohol.  although i am an extremely introverted person, and do not feel a strong desire to attend these events, i suppose i might be missing out on some potential friendships or networking opportunities.  however, i feel that as i get older, the prevalence of drinking culture in my peer group will likely decrease.   #  a lot of people think this is strange, and have tried to convince me to start.   #  it is statistically strange, but certainly not a problem.   # it is statistically strange, but certainly not a problem.  do you have a  good reason  to abstain from alcohol altogether ? do you have a  good reason  to never try a single drink ? alcohol, as any drug, can be abused.  if you do not abuse it, it can be nice.  it is available, kinda fun, but not the best.  have you tried other drugs ? cannabis ? magic mushrooms ? mdma ? lsd ? anything non medical ? if yes, what did you think ? if no, why not ? here are some basic reasons to drink responsibly:   wine and beer go better with food than most other beverages.  you can enjoy food in a whole different way when you open up your palate.  alcohol helps you relax.  even just a first sip of a beer is psychologically relaxing.  part of the medical benefit is from relaxation, iirc   alcohol is a social drug and it sucks to be the sober guy around drinking people.  it also sucks to be the drunk guy around sober people, or the very drunk guy around buzzed people.  the negative effects of alcohol are relatively easy to avoid unless, perhaps, you have a family history of alcoholism or a tendency toward substance abuse you do not need to drink, and if you do you do not need to get drunk, and if you do, you certainly do not need to drink to the point of blacking out.  if you are in your late 0s, that type of behaviour is probably already looked down upon depending on your crowd .  all i can say is that i was against drinking because my father was an alcoholic.  i think i first tried it around 0 and realized how harshly i had pre judged it.  alcohol is not bad, it is a tool, a drug like all the rest.  if the user uses the tool badly we should not blame the tool.  over time i became a more sophisticated drinker and now i prefer the right beer or wine with certain meals.  what are your other options ? pop/soda ? gross.  juice ? am i 0 years old ? water ? excellent beverage, but boring as a food pairing.   #  for example, with cannabis, i knew other people enjoy the stuff and i was curious why they were willing to break the law and pay good money to experience it.   # well, it is a start  ;    same reason as alcohol.  i just do not see any reason to.  hm, what do you think could be a  good reason  ? what was your  good reason  to use caffeine as coffee or in pill form ? my best personal reason for recreational use is curiosity.  for example, with cannabis, i knew other people enjoy the stuff and i was curious why they were willing to break the law and pay good money to experience it.  plus, what is  high  anyway ? curiosity is also what lead me to my first drink.  i know i have a general curiosity in life and especially when it comes to exploring consciousness and the possibilities of subjective experience.  i have found that altered states of consciousness inform what i understand about sobriety.   #  i get a headache if i stop for a day.   # what was your  good reason  to use caffeine as coffee or in pill form ? mainly cola, these days.  i get a headache if i stop for a day.  i started because it was given to me unknowingly as a kid, in the form of cola or the prescription stimulants technically not caffeine, but similar i was on for add which i now believe to be a misdiagnosis .  it helps me stay awake in the short term.  i actually have tried to quit.  i have not been very successful.  it is not that it does anything good for me, long term, but it is hard to stop just because i am used to it.  i understand what you mean about curiosity, and i also seek out new experiences.  it is just that mind altering substances are not an area i have had any particular interest in.   #  the way i have gone off coffee multiple times is to decrease intake slowly over time.   # i get it, you are addicted.  do you want to quit ? the way i have gone off coffee multiple times is to decrease intake slowly over time.  really, there is no hurry, you can take three or four weeks of drinking less and less and you get over the withdrawl without even going through it.  i was drinking coffee and i cut my regular coffee with decaf, and eventually was only drinking decaf, then i replaced it with tea one day and decaf the next, then all tea, then off to nothing.  other than the fun effects.  honestly, alcohol is an okay drug, but nothing to lose sleep over not trying.  it is a social drug.  psychedelics like magic mushrooms or lsd, on the other hand ? well, if you live a life without trying any psychedelic that would be like never having sex: you would be missing out on something really profound and available in life more profound than sex .  plus they have many benefits.  they are not without some risk, but generally speaking, when used responsibly they are vastly beneficial.   #  quality wine, beer, and spirits all have an array of wonderfully complex tastes that you just ca not experience any other way.   #  to come at this from a different angle, what about the range of flavors you are missing out on ? quality wine, beer, and spirits all have an array of wonderfully complex tastes that you just ca not experience any other way.  i have tried a few non alcoholic beers, and none of them are near close enough to the real thing.  one of the great things about being an infrequent drinker is that when you do drink, you can really splurge on the nice stuff.  in this respect, it does not even have to be about the mind altering effects of alcohol.
i am in my late 0s.  i have never drank alcohol.  a lot of people think this is strange, and have tried to convince me to start.  but none of them have ever given me a good reason.  none of their descriptions of drunkeness sound remotely pleasant, and the potential consequences of blacking out sound terrifying.  i do acknowledge that there may be some evidence that small amounts of alcohol can have health benefits.  i might at some point decide to drink a carefully measured quantity for medicinal purposes, but this post is about drinking recreationally.  the only disadvantage to not drinking i see is that i am out of place at many social events that revolve around alcohol.  although i am an extremely introverted person, and do not feel a strong desire to attend these events, i suppose i might be missing out on some potential friendships or networking opportunities.  however, i feel that as i get older, the prevalence of drinking culture in my peer group will likely decrease.   #  but none of them have ever given me a good reason.   #  do you have a  good reason  to abstain from alcohol altogether ?  # it is statistically strange, but certainly not a problem.  do you have a  good reason  to abstain from alcohol altogether ? do you have a  good reason  to never try a single drink ? alcohol, as any drug, can be abused.  if you do not abuse it, it can be nice.  it is available, kinda fun, but not the best.  have you tried other drugs ? cannabis ? magic mushrooms ? mdma ? lsd ? anything non medical ? if yes, what did you think ? if no, why not ? here are some basic reasons to drink responsibly:   wine and beer go better with food than most other beverages.  you can enjoy food in a whole different way when you open up your palate.  alcohol helps you relax.  even just a first sip of a beer is psychologically relaxing.  part of the medical benefit is from relaxation, iirc   alcohol is a social drug and it sucks to be the sober guy around drinking people.  it also sucks to be the drunk guy around sober people, or the very drunk guy around buzzed people.  the negative effects of alcohol are relatively easy to avoid unless, perhaps, you have a family history of alcoholism or a tendency toward substance abuse you do not need to drink, and if you do you do not need to get drunk, and if you do, you certainly do not need to drink to the point of blacking out.  if you are in your late 0s, that type of behaviour is probably already looked down upon depending on your crowd .  all i can say is that i was against drinking because my father was an alcoholic.  i think i first tried it around 0 and realized how harshly i had pre judged it.  alcohol is not bad, it is a tool, a drug like all the rest.  if the user uses the tool badly we should not blame the tool.  over time i became a more sophisticated drinker and now i prefer the right beer or wine with certain meals.  what are your other options ? pop/soda ? gross.  juice ? am i 0 years old ? water ? excellent beverage, but boring as a food pairing.   #  hm, what do you think could be a  good reason  ?  # well, it is a start  ;    same reason as alcohol.  i just do not see any reason to.  hm, what do you think could be a  good reason  ? what was your  good reason  to use caffeine as coffee or in pill form ? my best personal reason for recreational use is curiosity.  for example, with cannabis, i knew other people enjoy the stuff and i was curious why they were willing to break the law and pay good money to experience it.  plus, what is  high  anyway ? curiosity is also what lead me to my first drink.  i know i have a general curiosity in life and especially when it comes to exploring consciousness and the possibilities of subjective experience.  i have found that altered states of consciousness inform what i understand about sobriety.   #  it is not that it does anything good for me, long term, but it is hard to stop just because i am used to it.   # what was your  good reason  to use caffeine as coffee or in pill form ? mainly cola, these days.  i get a headache if i stop for a day.  i started because it was given to me unknowingly as a kid, in the form of cola or the prescription stimulants technically not caffeine, but similar i was on for add which i now believe to be a misdiagnosis .  it helps me stay awake in the short term.  i actually have tried to quit.  i have not been very successful.  it is not that it does anything good for me, long term, but it is hard to stop just because i am used to it.  i understand what you mean about curiosity, and i also seek out new experiences.  it is just that mind altering substances are not an area i have had any particular interest in.   #  psychedelics like magic mushrooms or lsd, on the other hand ?  # i get it, you are addicted.  do you want to quit ? the way i have gone off coffee multiple times is to decrease intake slowly over time.  really, there is no hurry, you can take three or four weeks of drinking less and less and you get over the withdrawl without even going through it.  i was drinking coffee and i cut my regular coffee with decaf, and eventually was only drinking decaf, then i replaced it with tea one day and decaf the next, then all tea, then off to nothing.  other than the fun effects.  honestly, alcohol is an okay drug, but nothing to lose sleep over not trying.  it is a social drug.  psychedelics like magic mushrooms or lsd, on the other hand ? well, if you live a life without trying any psychedelic that would be like never having sex: you would be missing out on something really profound and available in life more profound than sex .  plus they have many benefits.  they are not without some risk, but generally speaking, when used responsibly they are vastly beneficial.   #  i have tried a few non alcoholic beers, and none of them are near close enough to the real thing.   #  to come at this from a different angle, what about the range of flavors you are missing out on ? quality wine, beer, and spirits all have an array of wonderfully complex tastes that you just ca not experience any other way.  i have tried a few non alcoholic beers, and none of them are near close enough to the real thing.  one of the great things about being an infrequent drinker is that when you do drink, you can really splurge on the nice stuff.  in this respect, it does not even have to be about the mind altering effects of alcohol.
i am in my late 0s.  i have never drank alcohol.  a lot of people think this is strange, and have tried to convince me to start.  but none of them have ever given me a good reason.  none of their descriptions of drunkeness sound remotely pleasant, and the potential consequences of blacking out sound terrifying.  i do acknowledge that there may be some evidence that small amounts of alcohol can have health benefits.  i might at some point decide to drink a carefully measured quantity for medicinal purposes, but this post is about drinking recreationally.  the only disadvantage to not drinking i see is that i am out of place at many social events that revolve around alcohol.  although i am an extremely introverted person, and do not feel a strong desire to attend these events, i suppose i might be missing out on some potential friendships or networking opportunities.  however, i feel that as i get older, the prevalence of drinking culture in my peer group will likely decrease.   #  and the potential consequences of blacking out sound terrifying.   #  i drink more than anyone i know at the moment, and never have blacked out.   #  i was the same way for many years, had no desire to at all.  however, starting was one of the single most beneficial changes i made in my life.  the majority of my favorite memories this past year i am sure alcohol was a contributing factor to.  it opened up new friendships, got me out of my shell, and even gave me opportunities with regard to employment.  there is an entire culture to it that i had missed out on my former city has the most breweries per capita of the entire us .  but most importantly, it can be a lot of fun, an incredible amount of fun.  i drink more than anyone i know at the moment, and never have blacked out.  true, but in late 0 is your still in a very good position when it comes drinking.   #  it is available, kinda fun, but not the best.   # it is statistically strange, but certainly not a problem.  do you have a  good reason  to abstain from alcohol altogether ? do you have a  good reason  to never try a single drink ? alcohol, as any drug, can be abused.  if you do not abuse it, it can be nice.  it is available, kinda fun, but not the best.  have you tried other drugs ? cannabis ? magic mushrooms ? mdma ? lsd ? anything non medical ? if yes, what did you think ? if no, why not ? here are some basic reasons to drink responsibly:   wine and beer go better with food than most other beverages.  you can enjoy food in a whole different way when you open up your palate.  alcohol helps you relax.  even just a first sip of a beer is psychologically relaxing.  part of the medical benefit is from relaxation, iirc   alcohol is a social drug and it sucks to be the sober guy around drinking people.  it also sucks to be the drunk guy around sober people, or the very drunk guy around buzzed people.  the negative effects of alcohol are relatively easy to avoid unless, perhaps, you have a family history of alcoholism or a tendency toward substance abuse you do not need to drink, and if you do you do not need to get drunk, and if you do, you certainly do not need to drink to the point of blacking out.  if you are in your late 0s, that type of behaviour is probably already looked down upon depending on your crowd .  all i can say is that i was against drinking because my father was an alcoholic.  i think i first tried it around 0 and realized how harshly i had pre judged it.  alcohol is not bad, it is a tool, a drug like all the rest.  if the user uses the tool badly we should not blame the tool.  over time i became a more sophisticated drinker and now i prefer the right beer or wine with certain meals.  what are your other options ? pop/soda ? gross.  juice ? am i 0 years old ? water ? excellent beverage, but boring as a food pairing.   #  hm, what do you think could be a  good reason  ?  # well, it is a start  ;    same reason as alcohol.  i just do not see any reason to.  hm, what do you think could be a  good reason  ? what was your  good reason  to use caffeine as coffee or in pill form ? my best personal reason for recreational use is curiosity.  for example, with cannabis, i knew other people enjoy the stuff and i was curious why they were willing to break the law and pay good money to experience it.  plus, what is  high  anyway ? curiosity is also what lead me to my first drink.  i know i have a general curiosity in life and especially when it comes to exploring consciousness and the possibilities of subjective experience.  i have found that altered states of consciousness inform what i understand about sobriety.   #  i started because it was given to me unknowingly as a kid, in the form of cola or the prescription stimulants technically not caffeine, but similar i was on for add which i now believe to be a misdiagnosis .   # what was your  good reason  to use caffeine as coffee or in pill form ? mainly cola, these days.  i get a headache if i stop for a day.  i started because it was given to me unknowingly as a kid, in the form of cola or the prescription stimulants technically not caffeine, but similar i was on for add which i now believe to be a misdiagnosis .  it helps me stay awake in the short term.  i actually have tried to quit.  i have not been very successful.  it is not that it does anything good for me, long term, but it is hard to stop just because i am used to it.  i understand what you mean about curiosity, and i also seek out new experiences.  it is just that mind altering substances are not an area i have had any particular interest in.   #  honestly, alcohol is an okay drug, but nothing to lose sleep over not trying.   # i get it, you are addicted.  do you want to quit ? the way i have gone off coffee multiple times is to decrease intake slowly over time.  really, there is no hurry, you can take three or four weeks of drinking less and less and you get over the withdrawl without even going through it.  i was drinking coffee and i cut my regular coffee with decaf, and eventually was only drinking decaf, then i replaced it with tea one day and decaf the next, then all tea, then off to nothing.  other than the fun effects.  honestly, alcohol is an okay drug, but nothing to lose sleep over not trying.  it is a social drug.  psychedelics like magic mushrooms or lsd, on the other hand ? well, if you live a life without trying any psychedelic that would be like never having sex: you would be missing out on something really profound and available in life more profound than sex .  plus they have many benefits.  they are not without some risk, but generally speaking, when used responsibly they are vastly beneficial.
i am in my late 0s.  i have never drank alcohol.  a lot of people think this is strange, and have tried to convince me to start.  but none of them have ever given me a good reason.  none of their descriptions of drunkeness sound remotely pleasant, and the potential consequences of blacking out sound terrifying.  i do acknowledge that there may be some evidence that small amounts of alcohol can have health benefits.  i might at some point decide to drink a carefully measured quantity for medicinal purposes, but this post is about drinking recreationally.  the only disadvantage to not drinking i see is that i am out of place at many social events that revolve around alcohol.  although i am an extremely introverted person, and do not feel a strong desire to attend these events, i suppose i might be missing out on some potential friendships or networking opportunities.  however, i feel that as i get older, the prevalence of drinking culture in my peer group will likely decrease.   #  i feel that as i get older, the prevalence of drinking culture in my peer group will likely decrease.   #  true, but in late 0 is your still in a very good position when it comes drinking.   #  i was the same way for many years, had no desire to at all.  however, starting was one of the single most beneficial changes i made in my life.  the majority of my favorite memories this past year i am sure alcohol was a contributing factor to.  it opened up new friendships, got me out of my shell, and even gave me opportunities with regard to employment.  there is an entire culture to it that i had missed out on my former city has the most breweries per capita of the entire us .  but most importantly, it can be a lot of fun, an incredible amount of fun.  i drink more than anyone i know at the moment, and never have blacked out.  true, but in late 0 is your still in a very good position when it comes drinking.   #  if you do not abuse it, it can be nice.   # it is statistically strange, but certainly not a problem.  do you have a  good reason  to abstain from alcohol altogether ? do you have a  good reason  to never try a single drink ? alcohol, as any drug, can be abused.  if you do not abuse it, it can be nice.  it is available, kinda fun, but not the best.  have you tried other drugs ? cannabis ? magic mushrooms ? mdma ? lsd ? anything non medical ? if yes, what did you think ? if no, why not ? here are some basic reasons to drink responsibly:   wine and beer go better with food than most other beverages.  you can enjoy food in a whole different way when you open up your palate.  alcohol helps you relax.  even just a first sip of a beer is psychologically relaxing.  part of the medical benefit is from relaxation, iirc   alcohol is a social drug and it sucks to be the sober guy around drinking people.  it also sucks to be the drunk guy around sober people, or the very drunk guy around buzzed people.  the negative effects of alcohol are relatively easy to avoid unless, perhaps, you have a family history of alcoholism or a tendency toward substance abuse you do not need to drink, and if you do you do not need to get drunk, and if you do, you certainly do not need to drink to the point of blacking out.  if you are in your late 0s, that type of behaviour is probably already looked down upon depending on your crowd .  all i can say is that i was against drinking because my father was an alcoholic.  i think i first tried it around 0 and realized how harshly i had pre judged it.  alcohol is not bad, it is a tool, a drug like all the rest.  if the user uses the tool badly we should not blame the tool.  over time i became a more sophisticated drinker and now i prefer the right beer or wine with certain meals.  what are your other options ? pop/soda ? gross.  juice ? am i 0 years old ? water ? excellent beverage, but boring as a food pairing.   #  for example, with cannabis, i knew other people enjoy the stuff and i was curious why they were willing to break the law and pay good money to experience it.   # well, it is a start  ;    same reason as alcohol.  i just do not see any reason to.  hm, what do you think could be a  good reason  ? what was your  good reason  to use caffeine as coffee or in pill form ? my best personal reason for recreational use is curiosity.  for example, with cannabis, i knew other people enjoy the stuff and i was curious why they were willing to break the law and pay good money to experience it.  plus, what is  high  anyway ? curiosity is also what lead me to my first drink.  i know i have a general curiosity in life and especially when it comes to exploring consciousness and the possibilities of subjective experience.  i have found that altered states of consciousness inform what i understand about sobriety.   #  i get a headache if i stop for a day.   # what was your  good reason  to use caffeine as coffee or in pill form ? mainly cola, these days.  i get a headache if i stop for a day.  i started because it was given to me unknowingly as a kid, in the form of cola or the prescription stimulants technically not caffeine, but similar i was on for add which i now believe to be a misdiagnosis .  it helps me stay awake in the short term.  i actually have tried to quit.  i have not been very successful.  it is not that it does anything good for me, long term, but it is hard to stop just because i am used to it.  i understand what you mean about curiosity, and i also seek out new experiences.  it is just that mind altering substances are not an area i have had any particular interest in.   #  they are not without some risk, but generally speaking, when used responsibly they are vastly beneficial.   # i get it, you are addicted.  do you want to quit ? the way i have gone off coffee multiple times is to decrease intake slowly over time.  really, there is no hurry, you can take three or four weeks of drinking less and less and you get over the withdrawl without even going through it.  i was drinking coffee and i cut my regular coffee with decaf, and eventually was only drinking decaf, then i replaced it with tea one day and decaf the next, then all tea, then off to nothing.  other than the fun effects.  honestly, alcohol is an okay drug, but nothing to lose sleep over not trying.  it is a social drug.  psychedelics like magic mushrooms or lsd, on the other hand ? well, if you live a life without trying any psychedelic that would be like never having sex: you would be missing out on something really profound and available in life more profound than sex .  plus they have many benefits.  they are not without some risk, but generally speaking, when used responsibly they are vastly beneficial.
i have posted on some forums that had rules against  personal attacks , but no rules against attacking groups defined by belief.  saying  i think you are being rude and irrational.   would get you warned, while saying  bedfordites are rude and irrational .  was fine, even if the person you were addressing that comment to was a bedfordite.  i feel that this is backwards.  attacking the entire community of bedfordites is worse than attacking an individual bedfordite.  not only is it abused as a way to attack that individual indirectly, it inherently shows that the speaker is arguing in bad faith.  someone who says that all bedfordites are idiots is not going to make any concessions to bedfordite points.  someone who thinks an individual bedfordite is an idiot might still concede that the philosophy has merit.  if used to excess, then personal attacks can lower the quality of discussion.  however, there is a tiny chance that someone might improve their behavior or logic after receiving a fair critique, which would improve the quality.  for those reasons, i think that generalizing an entire group should be considered a worse offence than attacking an individual.   #  rules against attacking groups defined by belief.   #  this is an important point where a distinction has to be made.   # this is an important point where a distinction has to be made.  sweeping generalizations or stereotypes about a group are often not helpful, as you have described.  there are however, groups of people who adhere to belief systems and act as a result of them.  many religions teach their followers to be homophobic, or call for violence against other groups.  this is often defined specifically in their texts.  political parties often have clear lines on topics such as abortion or gun ownership.  different cultures around the world have varying norms for gender roles, family structure, or holiday traditions.  if you are debating a topic where an entire group of people agree, especially if the group itself is defined by that belief, it can often make a lot of sense to look at the belief structure rather than the individual is experience.  you can examine the historical factors that led to the creation of the group, or the conditions that the group exists in.  other biases may present themselves when you look at the other ideologies defining the group.   #  it is not unusual to encounter someone who believes something, but identifies with a group traditionally opposed to that thing.   #  i will agree that discussing the group is valid when the group is the topic of debate.  if you are debating the merits of a religion or political party, then highlighting which teachings you do and do not approve of is fair game.  however, if the issue is something other than the group, bringing up the group falls into ad hominem or guilt by association.  it is not unusual to encounter someone who believes something, but identifies with a group traditionally opposed to that thing.  you should engage with that individual and evaluate their arguments on their own merits rather than lumping them in with a group they may not even identify with.   #  find out why the person is against homosexuality before you assume it is because of religion.   #  tailoring your arguments to the group is not the same as attacking the group.  besides, i would say you should wait to see whether or not they cite the teachings of the group before addressing them.  find out why the person is against homosexuality before you assume it is because of religion.  a lot of times i advocate for certain free market policies.  people assume this means i think poor people deserve to be poor because they are lazy.  i do not.  i advocate those policies because i feel they create the most opportunity for rich and poor.  so when they focus their arguments on how tough the poor have it, the discussion goes nowhere.  in my mind, they are advocating a policy that will harm the poor even further.   #  offense is subjective and what is considered an attack can vary from person to person.   #  if you are on an emotional subject with an engineer you might point out that people educated in math and physics tend to dwell on concrete details or cause and effect.  they might perceive that as an attack that all engineers think alike and are heartless, but it could be a useful reminder that not everything can be quantified, and there are other ways of looking at the world.  you might defend a gender gap among firefighters by pointing out that women tend to have less physical strength than men.  she might take offense at you saying women are weak, yet it is fair to highlight that some jobs have harsh physical requirements she has not considered.  saying low income families have less access to educational resources could be taken as saying poor people are stupid.  there are all kinds of subjects where it can be useful to look at other people who think the same thing.  offense is subjective and what is considered an attack can vary from person to person.  it is hard to discuss as a broad topic and you really have to go case by case.  i took your topic to mean challenging a group is beliefs should be offlimits in debate with an individual.  if the gist of your cmv is just that outright insulting an entire group of people should be frowned upon then, well, duh.   #  only when those attacks are thinly veiled attacks on users in the forum do they go against the purpose of this sub.   #  for the most part, forums that have a debate focus and have a rule like this such as cmv.  nice rule d dodge, btw , do count attacks on groups that people in the discussion belong to if those attacks effectively constitute attacks on the individuals.  e. g.  in cmv, when talking to a libertarian, responding to something they said with  you libertarians are heartless bastards  would be moderated.  i ca not speak for all such forums, but the reason we have this rule constructed the way it is is that our forum is specifically designed for unpopular views, including those that attack groups.  the entire intent of this subreddit is to allow for peaceful and constructive conversation of those types of views.  so generic attacks on groups must be allowed here, in order for this sub to perform its function.  only when those attacks are thinly veiled attacks on users in the forum do they go against the purpose of this sub.  in general, attacks on the the people you are talking to will result in bad discussions.  that is why they are banned.  attacks on groups except as discussed above often  are  the point of the discussion, and so ca not be banned outright.
i have been struggling with this for a long time as a christian.  i would love to say i am pro life, but the definitions of person hood have been too arbitrary for me.  i feel as if the argument that as soon as their is a unique composition of dna from a sperm and an egg is a person is a flawed argument and that it is just an arbitrary point.  some people call it  the point of no return  because you have to act upon yourself or external variables need to go into making a egg and a sperm connect but the point after that it is all nature or what have you, and that makes you a person.  a unique set of cells subdividing with its own unique set of dna.  i would like to call that a potential person, but i struggle calling that an actual person because everything has potential.  and because of my calvinistic background, if a set of subdividing cells never makes it to some state that it can sustain itself, i feel as if that was predetermined to begin with.  it was still actions of doctors to dismantle the set of unique cells, but it was going to happen any ways.  my father has pointed out to me that it does not matter if it has a soul attached to it already or not and that since it is the start of life or the  no turning back  phase, that it is considered murder.  i struggle to believe that.  but i also struggle to believe anything else because it would also be an arbitrary point.  does it become a person when its heart beats ? does it become a human when its 0st brain synapse fires ? how do you define person hood ?  #  does it become a person when its heart beats ?  #  does it become a human when its 0st brain synapse fires ?  # actually no.  the circumstances required for a sperm and an egg to get together are easily replicable in a laboratory, whereas getting it from zygote to baby is extremely difficult.  yeaaaah, but what about twins ? or fetuses with anencephalia, which will never develop a brain and be either stillborn or die few hours later ? or chimerism, two embryos fused into a single fetus ? what about artificially splitting an early embryo then killing a half ? those are very real cases that make the 0 person 0 fetus untenable.  does it become a human when its 0st brain synapse fires ? how do you define person hood ? does a cow become a person when its heart first beats, or when the first brain synapse fires ? a cow would become a person if it were to acquire certain mental faculties.  flexible values, introspection, abstract thought, higher order desires…  #  they will never have a conscious thought again.   # first i would ask why does there have to be a line ? if you look at a color spectrum, when does red become blue ? the best metric i have is to look at what we value about life.  consider a parallel universe where we can upload your mind to a computer.  two people are in an accident.  one person is body is in critical condition, so they upload their brain to a computer and let the body die.  the other person is body is fine, but they suffered head trauma and are in a permanent vegetative state.  they will never have a conscious thought again.  their body is there but the brain is basically shut down.  in my opinion, the second person is effectively dead, while the first person, while in a tragic state, is not.  the thinking, conscious mind is what i care about here.  i have no problem with pulling that person off life support.  no one is going to feel the pain and whatever humanity would have died is already long gone.  i would be against destroying the machine keeping the artificial brain alive though, because that is a thinking, conscious being, and that is akin to murder.  so to me, it is being a conscious, thinking, aware being that gives you value.  this is a major part of why we value certain animals more than others.  a dog is much more aware than an ant, and an ant is much more aware than a bacterium.  that is why no one sheds a tear when you wipe down your counter with disinfectant.  so apply this measure of value in the other direction.  when an egg is first fertilized, it is just a cell.  it is got no conscious processes going on.  it is just like any other cell in a body, just with slightly different dna.  until the third trimester, there is not much that can be described as anything resembling a consciousness there.  i would argue this is around the time the immorality of getting an abortion starts being an issue, but regardless the vast majority of abortions happen before this point anyway.  so, to answer the the title of your post, it is arbitrary in the sense that different people are going to have different ideas about what gives life value.  but i think if you have a clear idea about that, the definition of personhood can be derived pretty naturally from that.  it is got nothing to do with whatever random line in the sand you choose like when the sperm hits the egg or when the egg implants or starts to divide or anything like that.  it depends on what factor gives life value, and i do not think many people would argue that having unique dna is what makes a person is life have value.   #  and i do not think we can just say they do not have a soul until they pop out of their mothers.   #  the factor that most pro lifers attribute to value is the soul, not necessarily conciousness.  but who is to say when the body has a soul ? it does not clearly state in the bible at what stage of fetus development does one have a soul or being.  that was the original thought process i had that made me think that there is no true way to define person hood when it comes to child development.  and i do not think we can just say they do not have a soul until they pop out of their mothers.  that is a little unfair.  it is also not fair to call people who think the opposite murderers either.  you have given me a lot to think about, i like your gradient, but it murder is still a boolean.  your value factor idea has persuaded my thoughts enough though, so in a sense you have changed my view enough.  here ya go   0;  #  it is not really applicable to the general population.   #  yeah, my views are not based on religious texts at all.  if we are going by the bible though, life is strongly connected to breath.  adam came alive when the god breathed life into him  then the lord god formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.   for example.  and that is not the only time life is associated with breath.  there is also  the spirit of god has made me; the breath of the almighty gives me life , and  this is what the sovereign lord says to these bones: i will make breath enter you, and you will come to life.   and furthermore, there is a passage somewhere talking about what kinds of punishment should be doled out for various crimes.  interestingly, attacking a woman and causing her to miscarry has a less severe punishment than murder does.  if god considered a fetus alive, that does not seem like it would be true.  the one case where god does speak of knowing someone before they were born is when he is talking about a prophet, and that is kind of a special case scenario.  it is not really applicable to the general population.  i do not think there is really a lot of biblical support for the idea that fetuses get their souls before birth, or more specifically, their first breath.   #   that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and an unborn human by any other name would be equally immoral to kill.    # think about the word  useful.   something being useful or not is dependent on the situation, and the outlook on the situation.  sure, life would be easier if we redefine  person  to resolve the debate, but that would be arguing from semantics, and gets us nowhere.  i and hopefully you too believe it is wrong to kill a person.  i personally consider  person  to be defined as an organism of the species homo sapiens more than 0 months developed, as do many legal jurisdictions.  you may define  person  to be an organism of the species homo sapiens, whom has either already been born or is intended to be kept till birth by its mother.  we can only really communicate if we agree on the definitions of words are, if we mean different things when we say something, of course we will have arguments.  if you change the definition of person to  a red coloured bacterium , then i no longer hold the belief that it is wrong to kill a person, but it does not change the argument.  not gonna be up to me to make that decision ! definitions are not universally fundamental, or objective, we make them up as we go along.  if you ca not decide on what the definition of a person is, how can you possibly hope to have an opinion on when abortion becomes murder ? how can you believe that killing a person is wrong ? more importantly, the definition of a person does not actually matter, we do not believe that late term abortions are wrong because the foetus is a person, and killing people is wrong for some definition of person, we believe they are wrong because killing well developed foetuses is wrong, regardless of whether they meet the definition of person.   that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and an unborn human by any other name would be equally immoral to kill.
first, let me just say that i have realized that any discussion of one is happiness has its pitfalls.  quantifying happiness or trying to find the variables that make us all happy leads to a debate about whether happiness is subjective or not.  my view is more of an aside to all of that, it is not about what things makes us happy, but  how much  happier we are when we acquire things.  let is start with an example.  think about how happy you were when or if for some you got your first car.  you can now drive places, go out with your friends, go to work, you are mobile.  now take the next step, you sell your beat up hand me down first car to buy something more mid range.  no rips in the interior, it does not break down as much, and you no longer look like a schmuck that probably does not have a steady income sadly enough, this actually makes you more dateable .  so it makes you happier, but is the jump as big as going from being immobile to mobile ? now take it a step further, you are making big bucks, you are at peak income, and you buy a luxury car or a sports car.  people are eyeing you as you roll through the streets, it might feel a bit better to drive, you have got leather heated seats, and it serves as a symbol of your status / success.  but is the jump between owning that normal mid range vehicle to driving this luxury car bigger than losing the beater and being able to drive the mid level i am no longer a washed up dead beat living with my parents car ? my view is that you can apply this analysis to any material good and see the same result.  you get diminishing returns in terms of happiness/satisfaction the more you spend, the more you upgrade.  that is not to say you get no satisfaction, it is just diminishing, that is all.  and at the end of the day, you are paying a higher price tag for less of a boost in happiness related to what you paid for before.  i will take my example one step further to drive my point.  you own a $0,0 car and decide to get a $0,0 car.  is the return of that extra $0,0 on your happiness as much as the $0,0 you spent when you bought your first luxury/sports car ?  #  but is the jump between owning that normal mid range vehicle to driving this luxury car bigger than losing the beater and being able to drive the mid level i am no longer a washed up dead beat living with my parents car ?  #  after college i went from a hand me down car to a high end truck.   #  it really depends honestly.  after college i went from a hand me down car to a high end truck.  while i was happy, it is was not a massive jump in happiness.  0 years later, i bought a very nice sports car, now that was an exponential jump.  even now, it is one of the best feelings to get behind the wheel of that.   #  would you do that schooling and forgo the diploma ?  #  i have a perfectly working car except of the fact that it only has 0 tires.  how much more happiness would i have i had one more tire ? i can either stop my education at graduating high school high school diploma or continue on spending money and getting a university degree university diploma .  0 years from now, considering the average high school graduate and average university graduate, what diploma would make a person happier ? a diploma is a material good that you go to school for.  would you do that schooling and forgo the diploma ? a couple have two children.  now ask them would they be happier with one or two children ? now do you think the average couple would say that they would be happier with one child ? see: sophie is choice  #  in some sports, a relatively small difference in the quality of my equipment can make the difference between winning and losing.   #  this is generally commonly accepted, so prepare for people to hammer you with exceptions.  for example.  if i owned half a car, this would not make me particularly happy, because that would not be particularly useful.  but if i owned the other half too, suddenly my happiness would jump by a greater amount than for the first half.  here is another example.  if i am a parent who can not feed or provide for all of my 0 children, i am going to be quite miserable, if i have enough to feed 0 of them, or 0, or 0.  but if i had the resources to feed all 0 comfortably, that would boost my happiness by a very large amount.  if i am a competitive athlete, winning means a huge amount to me.  in some sports, a relatively small difference in the quality of my equipment can make the difference between winning and losing.  basically, the idea of decreasing marginal utility is a generally okay idea, but it is not an absolute rule.   #  consumption is always measured in rates, so any rational number is achievable.   # if i owned half a car, this would not make me particularly happy, because that would not be particularly useful.  that is because you are measuring fractional units wrong.  buying a new car every two years is indeed buying a car at a rate of 0/0 per year.  consumption is always measured in rates, so any rational number is achievable.  in fact, since time is divisible into any real number, we can construct any real number for the rate of consumption.   #  consumers make discrete choices at the time of purchase, but the timing of purchases determine the rate that good is being consumed.   #  but they do.  like i said, all consumption is measured as a flow, not a stock.  this is because when you consume something, it is being used for some denoted time period.  gdp, for example, is a flow, not a stock.  look at any demand curve and you will see that there is a time period of analysis because that is the only way to determine a quantity of consumption.  consumers make discrete choices at the time of purchase, but the timing of purchases determine the rate that good is being consumed.   wouldiscrete demand  is a different matter, and is referring to discrete choices between different goods to buy e. g.  a honda or a toyota but also is ultimately measuring a flow variable how long you wait before buying another car .
i taught my children if there was any type of shooting, or other type of attack in their school or work place that they were not to follow the rules of staying in rooms till the cops got there.  they were to run and get the hell out of there.  they were to disobey teachers and get out any way they could.  what we see when these things happen is that the victims are concentrated in groups and shot like fish in a barrel.  they have no chance when the shooter enters the room and starts shooting.  these people are sick and they are there to kill people.  hunkering down till the cops get there has never worked.  we do not have children sit in their classrooms with the door locked when there is a fire, we march them out the nearest exit.  this has resulted in zero fire deaths of children at schools since 0.  why do we create kill zones for these nut cases so that they can kill these kids.  if they are outside and moving away from the shooter they would be much safer.   #  they were to run and get the hell out of there.   #  they were to disobey teachers and get out any way they could.   # they were to disobey teachers and get out any way they could.  if your kids do this, they could easily end up alone in a hallway with a shooter.  especially if they are on the second floor, there are quite a few hallways they will need to go through in order to get to an exit.  also, if the shooter is searching for victims, one of the easiest ways to avoid being shot is to be quiet and not let them see you.  teachers are usually told to keep the children out of sight of the windows in the door against the wall , and most doors are locked unless there is a teacher in the room.  the shooter ca not see anyone, and they would probably consider trying to break down the door to a possibly empty classroom a waste of time.   #  0.  if you do not know where a shooter is, depending on the layout there is a good chance you will run into them on your way to an exit.   #  my wife is a teacher and attitudes are changing about active shooter situations.  each district will be a bit different but the focus is on getting kids out of the building and fighting back with any improvised weapons at hand.  usually this is chairs and books.  i agree with you to some degree.  my advice was always for her to get kids out of the building because her room was near an outside door.  however, there are some problems.  0.  if you do not know where a shooter is, depending on the layout there is a good chance you will run into them on your way to an exit.  if you are in a group of students you make for an inviting target.  0.  shooters can create traps for students.  just like driving deer, one shooter causes a commotion while the other stands by an exit.  the result is a slaughterhouse.  0.  it leaves a lot of chaos for the first responders.  if you are an armed good guy searching the school for a shooter, it gets pretty confusing if there are screaming kids running all around.  with the traditional response there are far fewer people in the hallways making it easier to spot and take care of the shooter.  0.  it makes it very difficult to tell who is alive vs.  dead and provide quick medical care for the wounded.  i there is a shooting at my kids school i want to know two things and i want to know them right now.  where are my kids, and are they okay ? nobody knows where anyone is.  maybe they bled out in a ditch somewhere while the medics are treating the wounded in the school.  0.  finally, if the classrooms can actually be locked down properly you can save more lives than telling kids to run.  no doubt it is a large expense and retrofitting a school may not be possible.  for new construction, adding substantial locks and walls that have bullet resistance properties can keep the shooter from getting in, or having much success shooting through walls.  if you lock the school down at the first sign of trouble you could keep everyone safe.   #  i do know that usually the killing continues until the police arrive and take measures against the shooter.   #  0 and 0 do not convince me.  i did not advocate kids running around.  i want my kids to run away the first opportunity they get.  if clear halls make it easier or not for shooters to be found and dealt with idk.  i do know that usually the killing continues until the police arrive and take measures against the shooter.  they usually kill others the police enter the building shooter kills self.  hiding and such just gives them more time to kill.   #  if someone wanted to escape they could run in pretty much any direction.   #  i always forget that us schools are all in one enclosed building.  that seems so weird to me being from australia where schools are open plan and going from one class to another means walking around through schools yard not squeezing through hallways.  if someone wanted to escape they could run in pretty much any direction.  i ca not imagine how students move around in us schools, those hallways must be so crowded.  i do not imagine they smell too good either.   #  the shooters at columbine planned on attacking people as they ran out of the cafeteria after their explosives went off, but the explosives failed.   #  the va tech shooter did exactly what /u/adh kydex suggested and chained the exits shut.  the texas tower shooter was a former marine.  the guy who shot up the dark knight premier had some kind of gas thing he used.  the shooters at columbine planned on attacking people as they ran out of the cafeteria after their explosives went off, but the explosives failed.  and then there is the utoya terrorist who was all kinds of horrifying and prepared.  underestimating psychopaths and writing them all off as  completely crazy  is a very bad idea.
i taught my children if there was any type of shooting, or other type of attack in their school or work place that they were not to follow the rules of staying in rooms till the cops got there.  they were to run and get the hell out of there.  they were to disobey teachers and get out any way they could.  what we see when these things happen is that the victims are concentrated in groups and shot like fish in a barrel.  they have no chance when the shooter enters the room and starts shooting.  these people are sick and they are there to kill people.  hunkering down till the cops get there has never worked.  we do not have children sit in their classrooms with the door locked when there is a fire, we march them out the nearest exit.  this has resulted in zero fire deaths of children at schools since 0.  why do we create kill zones for these nut cases so that they can kill these kids.  if they are outside and moving away from the shooter they would be much safer.   #  we do not have children sit in their classrooms with the door locked when there is a fire, we march them out the nearest exit.   #  fire/smoke can be everywhere at once and can only stay in a building.   #  how old is the child ? if he is too young, he wo not out run a teen/adult shooter and so running will make him a clear and easy target.  if he is old enough, he will likely be mistaken for the shooter by the cops.  all the students are suppose to shelter in place, so what is this one guy running around for if he is not the shooter ? fire/smoke can be everywhere at once and can only stay in a building.  a shooter is only in one spot and can go outside.   #  maybe they bled out in a ditch somewhere while the medics are treating the wounded in the school.   #  my wife is a teacher and attitudes are changing about active shooter situations.  each district will be a bit different but the focus is on getting kids out of the building and fighting back with any improvised weapons at hand.  usually this is chairs and books.  i agree with you to some degree.  my advice was always for her to get kids out of the building because her room was near an outside door.  however, there are some problems.  0.  if you do not know where a shooter is, depending on the layout there is a good chance you will run into them on your way to an exit.  if you are in a group of students you make for an inviting target.  0.  shooters can create traps for students.  just like driving deer, one shooter causes a commotion while the other stands by an exit.  the result is a slaughterhouse.  0.  it leaves a lot of chaos for the first responders.  if you are an armed good guy searching the school for a shooter, it gets pretty confusing if there are screaming kids running all around.  with the traditional response there are far fewer people in the hallways making it easier to spot and take care of the shooter.  0.  it makes it very difficult to tell who is alive vs.  dead and provide quick medical care for the wounded.  i there is a shooting at my kids school i want to know two things and i want to know them right now.  where are my kids, and are they okay ? nobody knows where anyone is.  maybe they bled out in a ditch somewhere while the medics are treating the wounded in the school.  0.  finally, if the classrooms can actually be locked down properly you can save more lives than telling kids to run.  no doubt it is a large expense and retrofitting a school may not be possible.  for new construction, adding substantial locks and walls that have bullet resistance properties can keep the shooter from getting in, or having much success shooting through walls.  if you lock the school down at the first sign of trouble you could keep everyone safe.   #  they usually kill others the police enter the building shooter kills self.   #  0 and 0 do not convince me.  i did not advocate kids running around.  i want my kids to run away the first opportunity they get.  if clear halls make it easier or not for shooters to be found and dealt with idk.  i do know that usually the killing continues until the police arrive and take measures against the shooter.  they usually kill others the police enter the building shooter kills self.  hiding and such just gives them more time to kill.   #  that seems so weird to me being from australia where schools are open plan and going from one class to another means walking around through schools yard not squeezing through hallways.   #  i always forget that us schools are all in one enclosed building.  that seems so weird to me being from australia where schools are open plan and going from one class to another means walking around through schools yard not squeezing through hallways.  if someone wanted to escape they could run in pretty much any direction.  i ca not imagine how students move around in us schools, those hallways must be so crowded.  i do not imagine they smell too good either.   #  the shooters at columbine planned on attacking people as they ran out of the cafeteria after their explosives went off, but the explosives failed.   #  the va tech shooter did exactly what /u/adh kydex suggested and chained the exits shut.  the texas tower shooter was a former marine.  the guy who shot up the dark knight premier had some kind of gas thing he used.  the shooters at columbine planned on attacking people as they ran out of the cafeteria after their explosives went off, but the explosives failed.  and then there is the utoya terrorist who was all kinds of horrifying and prepared.  underestimating psychopaths and writing them all off as  completely crazy  is a very bad idea.
i will start with listing some obvious occurrences of this.    kurds in the middle east   basque separatists in western europe   quebecois in canada peaceful, in general, of course my point being that if people were allowed to naturally organize and create their own borders, much of this strife and war would disappear.  yes, some groups would still hate each other, but then it would be a simpler option to close the border than start fighting.  other countries and the un would still attempt to negotiate away from hostilities.  people would be free to develop their culture, and within that culture based border they would be more likely to internally resolve conflicting issues.  i accept this is  never happen, pie in the sky  thinking, but i believe that it still is a goal to strive for.  cmv.  you ca not change my view by not reading the words i have written, or by downvoting my replies below.   #  my point being that if people were allowed to naturally organize and create their own borders, much of this strife and war would disappear.   #  i will look past the problems caused by multi cultural societies for the sake of simplicity.   # i will look past the problems caused by multi cultural societies for the sake of simplicity.  your premise is that borders drawn by cultural lines would lead to peace but who draws the borders ? turkey and iraq are adamantly opposed to a free kurdistan, claiming that the kurds have no right to currently turkish/iraqi lands.  everyone would claim israel as their  cultural home .  in other words, if we abandoned the current system and people were allowed to naturally organize and create their own borders, there would be constant disputes over who owns which lands where.   #  obviously you are not going to find a hard, fast rule for this.   #  obviously you are not going to find a hard, fast rule for this.  ideally, people who live in an area should choose who governs them.  the extreme form of this is the libertarian ideas of anarchy and voluntaryism, where individuals govern themselves.  but more realistically, groups of people tend to define themselves collectively as cultures or ethnicities.  for instance,  scots  recently banded together to define what scotland is, and chose for it to remain a region of the uk.   catalans  are now trying to bring up a similar vote, because they feel they are not  spanish  which makes sense, given that they speak their own language and have their own culture .  what is happening been happening in the middle east is this group,  kurds , that identifies themselves as kurdish and not arab, is trying to form a country for themselves to self govern.  iraqi kurdistan is the closest they have got.  turkish kurds, syrian kurds, and iranian kurds are all still trying.  but geographically, the places that these groups inhabit all border each other and make a convenient space to create a country, and would have certainly done so if they were not divided up during imperialism i actually only know that that happened with syria and iraq turkish and iranian kurds may have a different history .  this situation is very common in the middle east and africa, where what do you know, you find a whole lot of wars.  the idea proposed here is that kurds forming kurdistan is the right way to do things, and forming iraq and syria is just going to cause trouble.  granted, someone can always come along and say all of their neighbors are the same ethnicity they are germans in ww0, russians now , and you will have war on your hands, but preventing that kind of power grab is a whole different issue.   #  your argument seems to be in favor of very small, unorganized governments that are more interested in taking care of their own people than of a plot of land defined as their  nation .   #  your argument seems to be in favor of very small, unorganized governments that are more interested in taking care of their own people than of a plot of land defined as their  nation .  these types of government are extremely susceptible to invasion, and that is precisely what would happen syria, iran, etc.  would just sweep through the region and conquer as many tribes as they could.  this is the very problem the middle east has always faced.  basically, the situation you are advocating for would only be viable in a world without war.   #  how do you enforce the requirements for these groups ?  # how would this work in practice ? people do not necessarily occupy places that contain natural resources, who gets to claim those large areas of land ? could my group just create a giant circle of houses around the area i want, and then claim everything inside it ? there is also the problem of what constitutes a  group  with the ability to claim land.  can individuals claim land ? will each piece of property be it is own independent country ? how do you enforce the requirements for these groups ? there will always be cases where one group wants more money/resources/power and will try to take over other regions.   #  it would be as if i went into your bedroom and carved out a space because  walls  should be fluid.   #  a country needs 0 things to be a country: 0 land 0 people 0 government 0 sovereignty not many countries will willingly cede land.  so who is going to do it for them ? because to be a country you need land and you will use force to protect your sovereignty.  just  accept it , is kind of a cop out.  how do you expect countries to   just accept it .  it would be as if i went into your bedroom and carved out a space because  walls  should be fluid.
every time i see a fire alarm go off it seems like people act exactly the wrong way, and i can only think that it is because fire drills are so common compared to real fires that the default assumption is that it is a false alarm.  when i am in class at university and a fire alarm goes off which is usually a couple of times a semester , no one takes it seriously.  the professor finishes their last thought while everyone takes the time to neatly pack all of their stuff, before exiting the building, often using the main exit instead of the nearest emergency exit.  similarly, at my dorm last year they would run unannounced fire drills as often as once a month, it was so common, and the odds of fire so low, that generally people just assumed correctly that it was not real and sometimes did not even leave their rooms.  back in high school, there were fire drill quotas, so if the school had not done any for a while, they would end up having like three in one week, although in fairness, in high school the teacher and administration made sure everyone followed procedure, so if there was a real fire it would not be a problem in this case, but i still feel like it helps condition people to the fact that fire alarms are false alarms.  finally, about a month ago i was at the mall, and the fire alarm starts going off, but no one reacted, everyone just went about their business as usual.  with these examples in mind, it just does not seem like anyone takes fire alarms seriously, and i think people following any of these practices during a real fire would be disastrous.  i recognize that knowing what to do during a fire is crucial, and acknowledge that occasional drills are necessary, but i think that unannounced drills are counter productive.  if drills were always known about ahead of time, then at least people would know an unannounced drill was something to take seriously.  also i think that drills are way too common at least in schools and universities, in other places they seem far less common in comparison to real fires, to the point that a fire alarm in a large public place has a 0 chance of being false.  i also realize that in the event of a real fire, not panicking and creating chaos is probably more important than reacting as quickly as humanly possible, but i still feel like the opposite reaction is pretty bad too.  the only way i see people treating a fire alarm seriously is if they can physically see fire, but in that case i think all of the training against panicking will go out the window anyways.  after all, experience under non life threatening drill situations hardly emulate life or death situations.  i realize that all of the examples i gave were anecdotal, but it seems consistent enough over dozens of experiences that i think i can use them in an informal argument such as this.   #  after all, experience under non life threatening drill situations hardly emulate life or death situations.   #  a fire drill, imo, does not really seek to emulate an actual fire.   #  if this occurred in real everyday life, say in my apartment complex, i would agree with you, but fire drills are something we do for children.  or, in some cases, to satisfy government mandated safety requirements .  a fire drill, imo, does not really seek to emulate an actual fire.  the intention is not to traumatize children with a life and death scenario, but rather to teach them what to do in an actual fire.  it is for this exact reason that adults do not have to do fire drills.  you can put a sign up, that says  fire door keep closed  and tell me one time which door to use in the event of a fire, and i am ok.  the same does not go for kids.  when the fire alarm goes off, as an adult, the loud sound is not going to make me freak out, freeze, or otherwise disorient me.  the same might not be able to be said for a child.  further, the whole  meeting outside  thing is important.  if a fire occurs in a building i am in, i have a good idea of the steps i would need to take to make sure people do not think i am dying inside.  it is not hard to imagine a child running the wrong direction out of a school when the alarm goes off, and hiding somewhere scared alone.  while i have a cell phone, the child may not.  imagine the repercussions of that.  teachers freaking out.  parents freaking out.  possibly people going back into a burning building.  i think fire drills are necessary.   #  also, keep in mind that even in the event of a real fire, people have a relatively large amount of time to get to safety when it is in a large building.   #  i think you are looking at this all wrong.  while i agree that they desensitize people to a fire alarm, it is not all about getting everyone out as quickly as possible.  a lot of the purpose of fire drills is to give staff an opportunity to practice herding people to safety.  also, keep in mind that even in the event of a real fire, people have a relatively large amount of time to get to safety when it is in a large building.  so in a matter of speaking, desensitizing people helps calm people down and prevent a panic that causes harm to people.   #  i really do not see much point in this.   # this seems like a good point, but as i touched on in my original post, the only times i have really seen this in practice are in elementary high school where the teacher leads people out through the nearest exit, takes a strict head count, and the administrative staff inspects.  however, in my experience this stops being the case for drills in other places.  in university classes when there is a drill, the professors generally do not give instructions on what to do, nor do they check that people behind them actually leave.  in dorms and living spaces, most of the people are not even within view of the staff, and staff is among the first to leave the building, not giving instruction to people who are exiting their rooms.  i really do not see much point in this.  even in grade school it seems like the frequency is far too high.  multiple drills every month seems ridiculous, when everyone has the procedure down after the first couple drills.   #  the failure is not in the drill, it is in the person in charge of the drill for not forcing everyone to follow the rules in a timely manner.   #  i guess the message here is that drills only work if people are forced to take them seriously by someone higher up.  they need to be coerced and herded like cats or they will sit around and end up dead.  the failure is not in the drill, it is in the person in charge of the drill for not forcing everyone to follow the rules in a timely manner.  if you let slack off university professors just half ass drills, people die.  if you have someone who demands precision and obedience, less people may die.  i ca not fault the drills for making people less safe.  i fault those in charge of administering the drills and allowing the people they are supposed to be evacuating not take it seriously.   #  a person half assing it out the door:   wo not trample anyone.   #  what if bored, annoyed people exit the building safer than panicked people ? a person half assing it out the door:   wo not trample anyone.  wo not try and save their possessions you hit the point in the last statement but as long as the people in charge take the drill seriously it is productive.  think more of the school teacher forcing the kids outside and less about the mall shoppers doing what they want.  the kids do not know the fire is real so they behave normally every time.  the few kids that see the actual fire may panic but the rest of the building does not.  also good fire drills cover multiple routes, which takes multiple drills.  otherwise you may not know the exit if your primary route is blocked.
even though people can never be equal, their access to education and opportunity can be made more nearly equal.  the right of the people is not the right to office and power, but the right to access every avenue that will nourish and test their fitness for office and power.  the right to office and power belong to the fittest.  this is a privilege that it is good for society for the individual to have.  durant, 0 i assume that society has duties that need to be fulfilled competently in order for society to flourish.  that it is good to appoint the fittest individuals to office is a truism, because labeling an individual as  fit  just means that they perform well in office.  what it means to be fit for various offices depends on the nature and purpose of the office.  in general the fitness of an individual refers to both their capacity to fulfill the requirements placed upon them by the tasks of office and the extent to which they do fulfill those requirements.  i assume that the fitness of individuals for various offices is a state that is relatively stable, but nevertheless open to modification through deliberate actions.  this is to say that there are courses of action available to individuals and societies that will effectively increase the fitness of an individual for office.  i assume that tests can be developed to measure the degree of fitness of individuals with greater validity and reliability than random guessing.  any historically popular criteria such as wealth, family lineage, war achievements, or popularity can be thought as criteria for specific kinds of tests whose validity and reliability, in terms of the fitness of officials they recommend for office, are subject to empirical confirmation.  their validity and reliability can be compared with the validity and reliability of various other criteria such as general mental ability, personality traits, and biographical factors, etc.  to establish the most valid and reliable criteria for tests of individuals  fitness for office.  a society that invests in its human capital by nourishing the fitness of all of its people will increase the overall fitness and value of its human capital.  by opening up the opportunity for all to apply and have their fitness for office tested it is increasing the sample size of the candidates considered for office.  by both increasing the average fitness of the entire population and drawing candidates from the entire population, the society dramatically increases the likelihood of its officials being among the fittest for the job.  a society that raises economic, legal or other barriers to the conditions necessary for the nourishment of fitness to office is devaluing its own human capital by decreasing the overall fitness for office of its people.  a society that uses invalid and unreliable criteria for the selection of officials is devaluing the value of its government by decreasing the overall fitness for office of its officials.  on the assumption that the effectiveness of various officials in both the private and public sector of a society is positively related to the well being of the society, one can conclude that it is good for a society to grant the right to equality of opportunity to office and power.   #  a society that invests in its human capital by nourishing the fitness of all of its people will increase the overall fitness and value of its human capital.   #  by opening up the opportunity for all to apply and have their fitness for office tested it is increasing the sample size of the candidates considered for office.   #  i do not particularly feel the title aligns with the text, so i will deal with them seperately.  in my view the most important right is the right to own property, because it is the one that all negative rights are predicated on.  by negative rights i mean ones that oblige others to refrain from interfering with you, as opposed to positive rights that require action by someone else, such as the right to education.  the right not to be assaulted is fundamentally about your sovereignty over your own body, as is the right not to arbitrarily be detained.  the right of every colour, creed and caste to be able to apply for public office is also concerned with ownership.  being barred from office for being black, for instance, carries the inference that you are the property of the state and not the other way round   fit to be governed but not to govern.  as such while equality before the law is important, it is not as fundamental as the right to own property.  by opening up the opportunity for all to apply and have their fitness for office tested it is increasing the sample size of the candidates considered for office.  by both increasing the average fitness of the entire population and drawing candidates from the entire population, the society dramatically increases the likelihood of its officials being among the fittest for the job.  an objective test of fitness for a job depends upon that job having a strict remit.  a  fit  sprinter is one who can run a given distance in a short amount of time, for example.  political office is difficult to define in such a way, because different people have different ideas of what the remit of the office is, and also the relationship between the electorate and the elected.  there are objective criteria about the efficiency of, say, management of a transport system, but there is widespread disagreement on the moral philosophy behind criminal justice.  a minister might be criticised for undermining social security, but at the same time his philosophy might believe that to be a good thing.  even if i accept the idea that we could develop an objective test of fitness for public office, it is by no means obvious that widening the talent pool would result in the individuals of greater fitness assuming office, even as an average.  even if i assume that the abstract reasoning skills required in most public office jobs are equally dispersed throughout society which is unlikely , it seems pretty likely that those skills are common enough in the upper echelons of society for me to fill the available jobs many times over.  of course i might miss out on a few immensely talented individuals, but when one considers the costs inherent in widening that pool versus the costs of extensively training the talented individuals that can already be found easily it seems wasteful to pursue an egalitarian policy.  that is not to say there are not sound moral reasons to invest money in helping the disadvantaged, but i do not believe it will lead to improved public officials.   #  but liberty, i can disagree with because sometimes it is good to limit individual is liberty in order to promote the welfare of society for instance limiting people is liberty to kill one another .   #  for the right to life i am tempted to award a delta, because yeah without life no opportunities.  but if the protection of life is just an instrumental goal to be able to achieve the higher goal of equal opportunities maybe the higher goal can be said to be more important than the instrumental goal.  but liberty, i can disagree with because sometimes it is good to limit individual is liberty in order to promote the welfare of society for instance limiting people is liberty to kill one another .  same goes for freedom of association.  sometimes it is better not to let terrorists form large gatherings on a regular basis.  but have a   0; for the right to life.   #  iq is by no means the only consideration.   #  if the right to own property is carried to it is logical conclusion, then there is no ethical ground for a government to tax its citizens.  which means that the government would be unlikely to be able to fund it is operations, which means less public goods, which means less well society.  tax is logically inconsistent with the right to property.  and tax is good.  therefore the right to property is not a priority in my opinion.  the moral dimension of politics will not yield before the scientific method, but it does benefit from a diverse pool of well thought through and well articulated opinions that can do battle in public debate.  which debate will obviously be aided if the population were more fully developed than they are at present.  in so far as technical skills are required; yes, government office could be filled sufficiently by the upper echelons.  but exactly because being fit can mean a variety of things we need a diversity of applicants to choose from.  iq is by no means the only consideration.  what seems obvious to me, but that i regrettably do not have rigorous evidence for, is that the selection procedures that are currently used, are less valid and reliable ways for selecting officials, in terms of the performance these individuals deliver for the communities and societies they are supposed to serve, than could relatively cheaply be used instead.  the fact that increased population fitness might not lead directly to better officials being selected, by no means reduces the various other economic, moral, and cultural benefits of a well developed population, not least of which would be the increased capacity for the public to hold their officials accountable thereby indirectly improving the fitness of officials.  i have no rigorous evidence, but to me it seems that the benefits of developing your entire population instead of focusing on extensively developing a few far outweigh the concern of the added costs of an egalitarian policy.   #  which means that the government would be unlikely to be able to fund it is operations, which means less public goods, which means less well society.   # which means that the government would be unlikely to be able to fund it is operations, which means less public goods, which means less well society.  tax is logically inconsistent with the right to property.  and tax is good.  therefore the right to property is not a priority in my opinion.  in order to defend the right to have property it is pretty obvious one needs a rudimentary police and army, as well as a justice system and prisons.  even ardent conservatives and right wing libertarians accept that much.  less valid than what ? possibly, but that still means the thrust of your argument is mistaken.  we do not need equality of opportunity to successfully fill a public office.   #  i think i will award a   0; for you pointing out that my title claims more than i manage to motivate for in the body.   # even ardent conservatives and right wing libertarians accept that much.  the fact that a right has to be violated for it to be granted is fact enough for me not to consider it fundamental in any significant sense.  that said, the same logic applies to the argument for equal opportunity.  arguably the one selected for office is given greater opportunity to develop his or her fitness than others.  so i do not know where i stand with regard to this train of thought.  i think i will award a   0; for you pointing out that my title claims more than i manage to motivate for in the body.  less valid than for example tests of general mental ability, assessment center evaluations, job simulations, etc.  we do not need equality of opportunity to successfully fill a public office.  i intended the thrust of my argument to be not that we need equal opportunity, just that society would be better off.  but you shown that there is more work to be done in order to make a convincing argument to that effect.  thank you for that.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.   #  i find it hard to believe that you actually believe this and adhere to it consistently.   # i find it hard to believe that you actually believe this and adhere to it consistently.  is there really nothing you think is bad that you do not think should be outlawed ? adultery ? drinking alcohol to excess ? severe overeating to the point of morbid obesity ? slacking off at work ? spending your rent money on lottery tickets ? being an asshole ?  #  positive rights require action on behalf of another.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.   # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.   #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.   #   to be allowed  is not quite how i would word it.   #  to be allowed  is not quite how i would word it.  eg, i think racism is bad, but i would be unwilling to endorse, say, public hanging of racists.  would you say this means i think racism should be allowed ? if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i am curious, are you also for the right to free speech ? if you are, there are many opinions you likely think are bad but nonetheless you feel should not be outlawed.   #  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.   #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.   #  this shows you understand little about libertarianism.   # this shows you understand little about libertarianism.  perhaps the most fundamental difference between libertarianism and most other political ideologies is that libertarians unequivocally reject this mentality.  it is integral to libertarian ideology that the threshold for something being illegal has to be something considerably more than  i think it is bad.   as such, libertarians are not hypocrites for not wanting to ban something merely because they think it is bad.  in fact, they would be hypocrites if they did want that.  if they agreed with the premise that something that they think is bad should be banned, they would be either liberals, conservatives or socialists instead.   #  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.   # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.   #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.   #  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.   # the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  why ca not there be a difference between rights in regard to the government, and rights in regard to other people ? we have freedom of speech, but that freedom does not apply to speech in a private business.  you ca not bring your protest inside wal mart, but you are free to protest on public property.  i strongly believe in equality, but i can certainly see the distinction.  interacting with a business is voluntary, but interacting with the government is mandatory.  both demand a change in behavior of people.  i am not sure what the  right to property  is, but i will assume it has to do with the ability to own things.  libertarians are not anarchists; they just want to reduce the size and power of government.  it is reasonable to have laws against thievery.  the law regarding equal protection under the law does not necessarily apply to businesses.  that right is that the government should apply a law fairly.  as an individual, i do not have to treat people fairly though i endeavor to do so .  the idea is that individual rights should still apply when you own a business.  what the government does affects everybody, what individuals do affect only few.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  there is no such right.  people in protected classes are  still  hassled and persecuted privately.  the only thing in your statement that is true is that they ca not be denied services based on those attributes.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  the right to life has nothing to do with education and healthcare.  education and healthcare require effort and resources from other people.  the objection is that your personal time and money should not be required for someone else to exercise their right.  there is also the idea that a non centralized education system would be better than a government education system.  do you have any examples of this happening ?  #  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.   # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ?  #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.   #  both demand a change in behavior of people.   # the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  why ca not there be a difference between rights in regard to the government, and rights in regard to other people ? we have freedom of speech, but that freedom does not apply to speech in a private business.  you ca not bring your protest inside wal mart, but you are free to protest on public property.  i strongly believe in equality, but i can certainly see the distinction.  interacting with a business is voluntary, but interacting with the government is mandatory.  both demand a change in behavior of people.  i am not sure what the  right to property  is, but i will assume it has to do with the ability to own things.  libertarians are not anarchists; they just want to reduce the size and power of government.  it is reasonable to have laws against thievery.  the law regarding equal protection under the law does not necessarily apply to businesses.  that right is that the government should apply a law fairly.  as an individual, i do not have to treat people fairly though i endeavor to do so .  the idea is that individual rights should still apply when you own a business.  what the government does affects everybody, what individuals do affect only few.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  there is no such right.  people in protected classes are  still  hassled and persecuted privately.  the only thing in your statement that is true is that they ca not be denied services based on those attributes.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  the right to life has nothing to do with education and healthcare.  education and healthcare require effort and resources from other people.  the objection is that your personal time and money should not be required for someone else to exercise their right.  there is also the idea that a non centralized education system would be better than a government education system.  do you have any examples of this happening ?  #  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.   # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.   #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.   #  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.   # the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  why ca not there be a difference between rights in regard to the government, and rights in regard to other people ? we have freedom of speech, but that freedom does not apply to speech in a private business.  you ca not bring your protest inside wal mart, but you are free to protest on public property.  i strongly believe in equality, but i can certainly see the distinction.  interacting with a business is voluntary, but interacting with the government is mandatory.  both demand a change in behavior of people.  i am not sure what the  right to property  is, but i will assume it has to do with the ability to own things.  libertarians are not anarchists; they just want to reduce the size and power of government.  it is reasonable to have laws against thievery.  the law regarding equal protection under the law does not necessarily apply to businesses.  that right is that the government should apply a law fairly.  as an individual, i do not have to treat people fairly though i endeavor to do so .  the idea is that individual rights should still apply when you own a business.  what the government does affects everybody, what individuals do affect only few.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  there is no such right.  people in protected classes are  still  hassled and persecuted privately.  the only thing in your statement that is true is that they ca not be denied services based on those attributes.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  the right to life has nothing to do with education and healthcare.  education and healthcare require effort and resources from other people.  the objection is that your personal time and money should not be required for someone else to exercise their right.  there is also the idea that a non centralized education system would be better than a government education system.  do you have any examples of this happening ?  #  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.   # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.   #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.   #  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.   # the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  why ca not there be a difference between rights in regard to the government, and rights in regard to other people ? we have freedom of speech, but that freedom does not apply to speech in a private business.  you ca not bring your protest inside wal mart, but you are free to protest on public property.  i strongly believe in equality, but i can certainly see the distinction.  interacting with a business is voluntary, but interacting with the government is mandatory.  both demand a change in behavior of people.  i am not sure what the  right to property  is, but i will assume it has to do with the ability to own things.  libertarians are not anarchists; they just want to reduce the size and power of government.  it is reasonable to have laws against thievery.  the law regarding equal protection under the law does not necessarily apply to businesses.  that right is that the government should apply a law fairly.  as an individual, i do not have to treat people fairly though i endeavor to do so .  the idea is that individual rights should still apply when you own a business.  what the government does affects everybody, what individuals do affect only few.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  there is no such right.  people in protected classes are  still  hassled and persecuted privately.  the only thing in your statement that is true is that they ca not be denied services based on those attributes.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  the right to life has nothing to do with education and healthcare.  education and healthcare require effort and resources from other people.  the objection is that your personal time and money should not be required for someone else to exercise their right.  there is also the idea that a non centralized education system would be better than a government education system.  do you have any examples of this happening ?  #  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.   # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.   #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  #  do you have any examples of this happening ?  # the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  why ca not there be a difference between rights in regard to the government, and rights in regard to other people ? we have freedom of speech, but that freedom does not apply to speech in a private business.  you ca not bring your protest inside wal mart, but you are free to protest on public property.  i strongly believe in equality, but i can certainly see the distinction.  interacting with a business is voluntary, but interacting with the government is mandatory.  both demand a change in behavior of people.  i am not sure what the  right to property  is, but i will assume it has to do with the ability to own things.  libertarians are not anarchists; they just want to reduce the size and power of government.  it is reasonable to have laws against thievery.  the law regarding equal protection under the law does not necessarily apply to businesses.  that right is that the government should apply a law fairly.  as an individual, i do not have to treat people fairly though i endeavor to do so .  the idea is that individual rights should still apply when you own a business.  what the government does affects everybody, what individuals do affect only few.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  there is no such right.  people in protected classes are  still  hassled and persecuted privately.  the only thing in your statement that is true is that they ca not be denied services based on those attributes.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  the right to life has nothing to do with education and healthcare.  education and healthcare require effort and resources from other people.  the objection is that your personal time and money should not be required for someone else to exercise their right.  there is also the idea that a non centralized education system would be better than a government education system.  do you have any examples of this happening ?  #  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.   # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ?  #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.   #  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution !  # i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the us constitution is not arbitrary, though i doubt you can understand this.  what ulterior motives, and can you prove that assertion or are you just talking smack ? i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  not at all.  we awknowledge that not everyone has the same worldview, and we are not going to tell others what to do in their private homes and businesses regardless if we presonally agree with them or not.  you sound very authoritarian, expecting everyone else to live and adhere to your worldview as you see it very subjectively.  and that is not constitutional, or correct.  ah yes the opinions of other people that are different from yours are  stupid .  my how bigoted of you to say so.  it is this bigotry that people like you have and force on the rest of us that we are trying to prevent.  ad hominem  i was beginning to wonder when your illogical thoughts would surface in this charade of a discussion.  this is patently false, though i doubt you care on your wild illogical rant.  i think you are going to be hard pressed to find libertarian especially of the ron paul flavor that do not favor a right to life.  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy.  us constitution.  oh yeah i forgot you do not like evidence and reasoning, my bad.  us constitution.  is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  well of course an authoritarian would say that.  it is not constitutional, which makes it illegal, though i know you use emotion over logic, so this debate is really just a charade.   #  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.   # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ?  #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.   #  and that is not constitutional, or correct.   # i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the us constitution is not arbitrary, though i doubt you can understand this.  what ulterior motives, and can you prove that assertion or are you just talking smack ? i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  not at all.  we awknowledge that not everyone has the same worldview, and we are not going to tell others what to do in their private homes and businesses regardless if we presonally agree with them or not.  you sound very authoritarian, expecting everyone else to live and adhere to your worldview as you see it very subjectively.  and that is not constitutional, or correct.  ah yes the opinions of other people that are different from yours are  stupid .  my how bigoted of you to say so.  it is this bigotry that people like you have and force on the rest of us that we are trying to prevent.  ad hominem  i was beginning to wonder when your illogical thoughts would surface in this charade of a discussion.  this is patently false, though i doubt you care on your wild illogical rant.  i think you are going to be hard pressed to find libertarian especially of the ron paul flavor that do not favor a right to life.  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy.  us constitution.  oh yeah i forgot you do not like evidence and reasoning, my bad.  us constitution.  is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  well of course an authoritarian would say that.  it is not constitutional, which makes it illegal, though i know you use emotion over logic, so this debate is really just a charade.   #  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ?  #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.   #  ah yes the opinions of other people that are different from yours are  stupid .   # i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the us constitution is not arbitrary, though i doubt you can understand this.  what ulterior motives, and can you prove that assertion or are you just talking smack ? i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  not at all.  we awknowledge that not everyone has the same worldview, and we are not going to tell others what to do in their private homes and businesses regardless if we presonally agree with them or not.  you sound very authoritarian, expecting everyone else to live and adhere to your worldview as you see it very subjectively.  and that is not constitutional, or correct.  ah yes the opinions of other people that are different from yours are  stupid .  my how bigoted of you to say so.  it is this bigotry that people like you have and force on the rest of us that we are trying to prevent.  ad hominem  i was beginning to wonder when your illogical thoughts would surface in this charade of a discussion.  this is patently false, though i doubt you care on your wild illogical rant.  i think you are going to be hard pressed to find libertarian especially of the ron paul flavor that do not favor a right to life.  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy.  us constitution.  oh yeah i forgot you do not like evidence and reasoning, my bad.  us constitution.  is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  well of course an authoritarian would say that.  it is not constitutional, which makes it illegal, though i know you use emotion over logic, so this debate is really just a charade.   #  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ?  # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.   #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.   #  ad hominem  i was beginning to wonder when your illogical thoughts would surface in this charade of a discussion.   # i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the us constitution is not arbitrary, though i doubt you can understand this.  what ulterior motives, and can you prove that assertion or are you just talking smack ? i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  not at all.  we awknowledge that not everyone has the same worldview, and we are not going to tell others what to do in their private homes and businesses regardless if we presonally agree with them or not.  you sound very authoritarian, expecting everyone else to live and adhere to your worldview as you see it very subjectively.  and that is not constitutional, or correct.  ah yes the opinions of other people that are different from yours are  stupid .  my how bigoted of you to say so.  it is this bigotry that people like you have and force on the rest of us that we are trying to prevent.  ad hominem  i was beginning to wonder when your illogical thoughts would surface in this charade of a discussion.  this is patently false, though i doubt you care on your wild illogical rant.  i think you are going to be hard pressed to find libertarian especially of the ron paul flavor that do not favor a right to life.  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy.  us constitution.  oh yeah i forgot you do not like evidence and reasoning, my bad.  us constitution.  is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  well of course an authoritarian would say that.  it is not constitutional, which makes it illegal, though i know you use emotion over logic, so this debate is really just a charade.   #  positive rights require action on behalf of another.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.   #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.   #  this is patently false, though i doubt you care on your wild illogical rant.   # i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the us constitution is not arbitrary, though i doubt you can understand this.  what ulterior motives, and can you prove that assertion or are you just talking smack ? i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  not at all.  we awknowledge that not everyone has the same worldview, and we are not going to tell others what to do in their private homes and businesses regardless if we presonally agree with them or not.  you sound very authoritarian, expecting everyone else to live and adhere to your worldview as you see it very subjectively.  and that is not constitutional, or correct.  ah yes the opinions of other people that are different from yours are  stupid .  my how bigoted of you to say so.  it is this bigotry that people like you have and force on the rest of us that we are trying to prevent.  ad hominem  i was beginning to wonder when your illogical thoughts would surface in this charade of a discussion.  this is patently false, though i doubt you care on your wild illogical rant.  i think you are going to be hard pressed to find libertarian especially of the ron paul flavor that do not favor a right to life.  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy.  us constitution.  oh yeah i forgot you do not like evidence and reasoning, my bad.  us constitution.  is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  well of course an authoritarian would say that.  it is not constitutional, which makes it illegal, though i know you use emotion over logic, so this debate is really just a charade.   #  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.   #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  #  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy.   # i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the us constitution is not arbitrary, though i doubt you can understand this.  what ulterior motives, and can you prove that assertion or are you just talking smack ? i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  not at all.  we awknowledge that not everyone has the same worldview, and we are not going to tell others what to do in their private homes and businesses regardless if we presonally agree with them or not.  you sound very authoritarian, expecting everyone else to live and adhere to your worldview as you see it very subjectively.  and that is not constitutional, or correct.  ah yes the opinions of other people that are different from yours are  stupid .  my how bigoted of you to say so.  it is this bigotry that people like you have and force on the rest of us that we are trying to prevent.  ad hominem  i was beginning to wonder when your illogical thoughts would surface in this charade of a discussion.  this is patently false, though i doubt you care on your wild illogical rant.  i think you are going to be hard pressed to find libertarian especially of the ron paul flavor that do not favor a right to life.  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy.  us constitution.  oh yeah i forgot you do not like evidence and reasoning, my bad.  us constitution.  is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  well of course an authoritarian would say that.  it is not constitutional, which makes it illegal, though i know you use emotion over logic, so this debate is really just a charade.   #  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ?  # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ?  #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
i believe the modern libertarian as defined by people like ron paul is hypocritical when they do not support the civil rights act.  i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the modern american libertarian ascribes to particular rights: 0.  the right to privacy 0.  the right of free speech 0.  the right to property 0.  the right to a fair trial modern american liberals add a couple more rights ie from the un is universal declaration of human rights 0.  the right to an education 0.  the right to life 0.  the right to equal protection against discrimination many libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a right.  the modern libertarian does not believe in  protected classes  that you should not be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.  libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing.  yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life.  i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  i believe stealing is wrong.  that is why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial.  that is why the right to property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a  good  where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.  the right to property and the right to equal protection are very similar in many ways.  both demand a change in  behavior  of people.  in nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want.  the right to property protects people from thieves.  the right to property restricts your freedom to take anything you want.  in nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want.  the right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution.  it protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.  many modern libertarians do not stand up for civil rights because they do not have the moral integrity to stand up for what is right.  that is why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life and thus access to things like healthcare , the right to education, etc.  they do not have the integrity to say that these things are  good  things that should be promoted by society.  they instead give some bullshit about how the  state  has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways !  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy .  why do people get to enjoy the state is protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to civil rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds ?  tldr : i believe when libertarians say that  freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it is wrong to force people to behave a certain way !   is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  the state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor is backyard.  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  there is nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism.   #  it is not constitutional, which makes it illegal, though i know you use emotion over logic, so this debate is really just a charade.   # i believe they have selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons it is not in the constitution ! or for ulterior motives.  the us constitution is not arbitrary, though i doubt you can understand this.  what ulterior motives, and can you prove that assertion or are you just talking smack ? i think that is hypocrisy.  if you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it.  not at all.  we awknowledge that not everyone has the same worldview, and we are not going to tell others what to do in their private homes and businesses regardless if we presonally agree with them or not.  you sound very authoritarian, expecting everyone else to live and adhere to your worldview as you see it very subjectively.  and that is not constitutional, or correct.  ah yes the opinions of other people that are different from yours are  stupid .  my how bigoted of you to say so.  it is this bigotry that people like you have and force on the rest of us that we are trying to prevent.  ad hominem  i was beginning to wonder when your illogical thoughts would surface in this charade of a discussion.  this is patently false, though i doubt you care on your wild illogical rant.  i think you are going to be hard pressed to find libertarian especially of the ron paul flavor that do not favor a right to life.  yet at the same time they fully accept the state is intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy.  us constitution.  oh yeah i forgot you do not like evidence and reasoning, my bad.  us constitution.  is a cop out.  it is hypocritical to deny a right because it requires government coercion, when all rights require government coercion to enforce.  well of course an authoritarian would say that.  it is not constitutional, which makes it illegal, though i know you use emotion over logic, so this debate is really just a charade.   #  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.   #  first off, i doubt you will find a libertarian that does not believe in a right to life.  from there, you need to understand the ideas of positive and negative rights.  a negative right, the rights primarily advocated by libertarians.  these are the right to not have things done to you.  the bill of rights is written in a manner to espouse negative rights:  congress shall make no laws.  .  no one is making anyone do anything, but people are protected from the government.  free speech does not take anyone else is speech away, and does not require anyone else to fund it.  positive rights require action on behalf of another.  if you have a right to an education, than someone has to give you that education, and someone has to pay the teacher, and someone needs to provide facilities and materials, etc.  comparing the negative right to property you have the right to not have your shit stolen and the positive right of non discrimination people have to let you shop/eat/learn/etc is apples to oranges.  some of the examples you list, by the way, are completely incorrect.  right to privacy  when libertarians are referring to this, they are not  accepting the state is intervention , they are protesting it.  the right to privacy concernis not from a peeping tom, but from programs like prism or the metadata collection, to things as simple as warrantless searches and  stop and frisk     right to property/state intervention  you have either a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians, or are using a stereotype of libertarians based off of ancaps.  most libertarians are accepting of the idea of the state, just not the scope of it.  if you look into the writings of john locke, father of classic liberalism, on the purpose of the state, one of the primary functions of the state was to provide a manner of resolving disputes between members.  if tommy thinks billy stole his tv, then the state can be a neutral arbitrator to prevent old west justice.  no libertarian that i am aware of advocates allowing discrimination  by the government , as that would be a encroachment by government on an individual is rights.  basically, your issue stems from the fact that political philosophy has developed into a wide and diverse academic field over the last several hundred years.  some reading topics i would recommend for you, so you can understand the viewpoints of others better, even if only to know thy enemy, would be all wiki links, but feel free to go deeper :   negative and positive rights URL   claims and liberty rights URL similar, but slightly different   three generations of rights URL   non aggression principle nap URL   negative liberty URL  tl,dr:  i am not arguing that those beliefs do not exist, but they are far too complex to just write off as  hypocritical:  #  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .   #  why do libertarians have a right to a fair trial ? oh yes, because they want to live in a fair world .  civil rights advocates want the exact same thing, but they are denied it by libertarians.  libertarians want to build a horrible world where it is completely legal for the public people to freely and unjustifiably oppress minority groups by enacting trade sanctions against them.  we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to .  but libertarians just shrug it off and say,  tough luck, it is somebody else is problem .  fuck that.  that sort of worldview in my opinion is horribly immoral.   #  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.   # we already know what the result of this kind of thinking leads to.  what, jim crow ? are you forgetting that segregation laws were, well, laws ? you know, enacted by the government ? the fact that the government had to put laws enforcing segregation at all proves that a systematic market effort to marginalize a certain group of people would not, by itself, be successful.  discrimination puts you at a competitive disadvantage, since it means turning away perfectly good customers and workers.  the state knew that some businesses loved money more than they hated blacks, which is why they had to put the laws in at all.  what libertarians really say is what they say to everything else:  the market will fix it.    #  segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.   #  and did you forget about the segregation enacted by privately owned companies ? segregation existed because the  people themselves  wanted it.  the fact that segregation was the law of the land was the  consequence  of racism, not the cause.  it is obvious that the market ca not fix everything.  racism is one of those things.  enforcing property rights  fairly  is one of those things.
when most pro feminist people define feminism, they say it is the belief that women should have equal rights to men both under the law and within social, political, and economic situations .  this is a definition  so basic  that pretty much anyone who is not  totally anti women  would say their values are in agreement with.  generally speaking, unless someone is openly sexist, they will say that they are for women having equal rights legally, equal payment for equal work, the ability to run legitimately in political campaigns as well as the right to vote , and the right to be treated socially as autonomous individuals with thoughts, feelings, desires, and opinions and not merely objects for male amusement .  since every reasonable person will agree with the fundamental tenets of women is rights, i do not think it is responsible or correct to claim that these are all it takes for someone to be a feminist.  everyone is a  liberal feminist  in a sense.  but not everyone is actually a feminist.  if all it took to be a feminist was to agree with basic liberal feminism, we would not need the term.  it would be nearly synonymous with  human being  and hold absolutely no weight or connotation whatsoever.  in order to actually be labeled a  feminist , i think it should require at least one of the following:   the belief that society is organized in a patriarchal manner society is chiefly organized around male authority figures and that this is damaging or worthy of changing   masculinity and femininity are concepts maintained and propagated because they are useful tools in organizing people not by merit of any of their actual skills and making sure that society adheres to gender roles   it is important to criticize traditional scientific discourse as being historically biased towards a male perspective in biology, bioethics, psychology and sociology especially   society nurtures an implicit bias which is more likely to promote and praise works/media produced by men and from male perspectives than work produced by women in television, film, novels, plays, music and visual arts .    standardized concepts of language, formal logic, and similar systems can and have been tailored to privilege predominantly male oriented perspectives.  how we talk about good reasoning skills, or how we talk about the use of grammar, for instance, are created with traits associated with masculinity.  even our very concept of emotion and emotional reasoning has negative gendered perspectives in it.    men are not more entitled to certain career positions just because of their gender, so efforts to hire more women are not  women stealing my job  but simply  a woman getting the job .  until we exist in a system that truly hires people based on skill and experience without gendered biases, programs, mentorships, and other efforts to hire women will be necessary and in line with promoting equality.  there are many more perspectives, but i think if someone cannot agree with any of the above points, and ca not agree with or approve of the kind of reasoning behind them, it would not make any sense to call that person a feminist, even if they agree with liberal feminism.  making liberal feminism the only standard one has to meet to be called a feminist is setting the bar  way too low .  if we accepted this as the only standard for feminism, it would be extremely easy for people with sexist views to legitimately call themselves feminists.  it makes  feminism   just being okay with women is equality  and not actively challenging a male dominated world.  after studying feminism in an academic setting, there were many ideas i agreed with and many i disagreed with.  i still feel that i disagree with enough feminist ideology to not call myself a feminist, despite promoting many feminist ideas and believing that women should have political, social, and economic equality to men.   #  after studying feminism in an academic setting, there were many ideas i agreed with and many i disagreed with.   #  i still feel that i disagree with enough feminist ideology to not call myself a feminist, despite promoting many feminist ideas and believing that women should have political, social, and economic equality to men.   # i still feel that i disagree with enough feminist ideology to not call myself a feminist, despite promoting many feminist ideas and believing that women should have political, social, and economic equality to men.  i feel like i understand where you are coming from about the low bar although i think it should be acknowledged that truly a revolution has taken place in the last 0 years if being a second wave feminist is now the new normal.  i guess the question really boils down to: who gets to inherit the term from the liberal feminists of the second wave ? you appear to be stating academic feminism should be the new  default  feminism and i am certain western academic feminists would agree but what of the many, many variations on these beliefs ? amazon feminism anarcha feminism atheist feminism black feminism chicana feminism christian feminism conservative feminism cultural feminism difference feminism equity feminism fat feminism fourth wave feminism french feminism hip hop feminism individualist feminism islamic feminism jewish feminism lesbian feminism liberal feminism material feminism marxist feminism networked feminism neofeminism new feminism postcolonial feminism postmodern feminism post structural feminism pro life feminism radical feminism separatist feminism sex positive feminism sikh feminism socialist feminism standpoint feminism state feminism structuralist feminism transfeminism transnational feminism it is a truism that is worth repeating: there is no such thing as a monolithic feminism.  while many of these unique feminisms have ideological overlap and some include a number of the  required  items you put forth, there is no single set of beliefs that ties them all together, other than the idea that women are people, and are entitled to the same rights and privileges as men.  it would be breathtaking to claim that only academic feminism, as practiced in the us and some other western countries, is the only valid thing that could be called feminism.  for example,  society nurtures an implicit bias which is more likely to promote and praise works/media produced by men and from male perspectives than work produced by women in television, film, novels, plays, music and visual arts .  but: which society ? is this true for a tunisian goat herder, or perhaps only relevant in modern, western cultures ? can western forms of feminism lay sole claim to what the term should mean ? in the end, all of these feminisms struggle to redress the imbalance between men and women.  of what value is labeling some of this struggle capital f feminism, and the rest something else ?  #  radical feminists think they are the  true  feminists, so do equity feminists.   #  well, your primary example, explicitly stated in your cmv title, is that liberal feminism is not feminism.  you claim that some people who call themselves feminists should not call themselves feminists.  many of the feminisms in that list fail to meet your required definitions, and so must be non feminisms in your view.  as you know, the various feminisms critiquing each other is nothing new.  radical feminists think they are the  true  feminists, so do equity feminists.  how does your position differ from someone who simply believes other feminisms that do not conform to their personal beliefs are invalid ? ultimately, pointing at academics as the last word is simply an appeal to authority URL and not really an argument.  there are other aspects of your view that are problematic.  what of someone who supports every tenet of academic feminism, but engages in no activism whatsoever, advances the cause in no way at all ? are they a  real  feminist ? would distinctions like these help feminism as an umbrella movement, or contribute to even further divisions between groups who are, ideally, working together towards the same goal ? i think unless you can provide a stronger argument than an appeal to authority, your position is easily reframed as simple sectarian preference.   #  they believe in the benefit/necessity/appropriateness of gender roles and therefore do not believe in social equality, even if they might believe in economic or legal equality for the genders.   #  i mostly agree with you, but i disagree that feminism is pervasive enough to be meaningless.  there are actually a lot of people, in the us at least, who believe men and women are inherently different enough to deserve different treatment and to be suited for different roles usually making appeals to biology or evolution .  they think women should not be in the military and that they are better suited to parenting, and that men have uncontrollable sex drives and aggression and  boys will be boys .  they believe in the benefit/necessity/appropriateness of gender roles and therefore do not believe in social equality, even if they might believe in economic or legal equality for the genders.  maybe you have not met many of these people but they exist and they would probably still say they are in favor of equal rights at least some of them .  they just think  rights  means legal stuff.   #  women tend to favor a care based value/ethical system, idealizing things like intuition and nurture, traits culturally associated with women.   # some feminist thinkers would also argue for the appropriateness of many gender roles traditionally occupied by women.  they would not appeal so much to biology or evolution, but to the unique moral experience accustomed to women.  women tend to favor a care based value/ethical system, idealizing things like intuition and nurture, traits culturally associated with women.  contrast this with traits typically associated with men, like rationality and autonomy.  within society at large, these ideals are not antagonistic, but rather, are complementary and necessary to a well functioning society.  there is, therefore, work and roles to which women are naturally well suited.  the problem, as they see it, is not that these roles exist, it is that these roles have been traditionally trivialized by patriarchal society.  why should the work of a female nurse be devalued relative to that of a male surgeon, or be compensated any differently ?  #  no, i have never seen a feminist say anything remotely like that.   #  no, i have never seen a feminist say anything remotely like that.  in fact, they argue the opposite.  they say women are just as naturally inclined to rationality and autonomy as men, and men can be just as naturally nurturing.  i see gender roles as restrictive, not valued differently.  i am a woman but i do not have any desire to have children or work in a field that cares for others.  i do not fit the stereotypical gender role and it would be oppressive to me if i were expected to fit it.  equality would be letting people make their own choices, not forcing them into a role that is valued just as much.
i think that an important yardstick for whether or not you should be in a relationship with someone is whether or not they are willing to shave your butthole.   clarification:  in this post, when talking about shaving buttholes, i mean with trimmers.  i would recommend against shaving buttholes or any form of pubes with a close shave razor.     shaved buttholes are superior to un shaved buttholes.   for people without much natural butthole hair this may seem like a non issue.  for people like me, butthole hair is a common nuisance.  it can easily become dried out and cause irritation.  during any type of anal play, it can get pulled, which is painful.  a smoother asshole is also much sexier.  if you are sexually attracted to butthole hair, i would consider you the outlier and this discussion is not for you.     most things can be done alone, but shaving your own butthole is difficult.   sexual release can be achieved through masturbation or casual sex.  group activities such as movies and dinner can be done with friends.  you can reduce your share of the rent by acquiring a roommate.  even raising kids is increasingly being done by single parents.  if what you need is love, y all motherfuckers need jesus.  contrarily, shaving your own butthole is as close as things come to having to literally bend over backwards in order to accomplish.     someone who is willing to shave your butthole is someone you can depend on for anything.   without butthole shaving as a yardstick, it is anyone is guess as to what they will feel they are above doing.  you could very well get stuck unclogging all of the toilets, or having to go with those big zits on your back unpopped.  worse, what if they are similarly squeamish when you are choking on a carrot, and they let you suffocate ? butthole shaving could mean the difference between life and death.     anyone who will have sex with a butthole, but is not willing to shave one, is immediately suspect.   this type of personal clearly cares about their own sexual gratification than your own butthole is comfort.  obviously, them being willing to shave your butthole is not necessarily an indication that you should marry them either, as they might just be shaving your butthole for their own personal enjoyment.   other comments:    though i would consider an unwillingness to shave buttholes a dealbreaker, i would avoid bringing it up at the first date, or even the second.  in many ways,  i would shave your butthole  is practically synonymous with  i love you  and should be handled with care accordingly.    buttholes are not for everyone.  needless to say, if you are the type of couple who are not ever going to go near each other is buttholes, this discussion does not apply to you.  more power to you.  an unwillingness to shave my butthole is a dealbreaker.  change my view !  #  someone who is willing to shave your butthole is someone you can depend on for anything.   #  i do not really see how this follows.   # i do not really see how this follows.  nurses often have to shave patients and preform other jobs which are considered disgusting.  if you are having asshole surgery that nurse is going to shave your ass.  there are also professionals who remove hair for a living but this does not make them the most trust worthy people.  secondly, this does not account for people with phobias.  i may be willing to shave your ass, but my fear of water, spiders, ducks would prevent me from saving you from drowning, evil spiders or going to the park.  what if their unwillingness is coming from your health, safety and comfort ? they may be unwilling because they would rather a professional remove the hair because they are not good at it.  they would rather a professional do it rather than risk an ingrown hair or doing it wrong and cutting you or hurting you.   #  what if, instead of being afraid of buttholes, they were incapable of love ?  #  is not my butthole a part of me ? how could someone who is so afraid of a part of me be my soulmate ? what if, instead of being afraid of buttholes, they were incapable of love ? they may still be your soul mate, as in you have all the same interests, but not be able to experience love.  being soul mates does not necessarily mean you should be in a relationship with that person  #  i disagree with your premise, that any love strong enough to sustain a great lifelong relationship must always overcome any aversion or phobia.   # well, where do you draw the line ? should they be willing to tatoo you ? pierce your tongue ? remove one of your ears, if you want them to ? what if they have a blood phobia ? it has nothing to do with their feelings towards you, it is just an irrational, reptile brain level reaction.  i hold that it is possible to have a similar blameless, but strong reaction to buttholes.  i disagree with your premise, that any love strong enough to sustain a great lifelong relationship must always overcome any aversion or phobia.  they love you as much as a person can love another person.  they just simply ca not handle buttholes yours or anyone else is for some odd reason.  does that mean you should break up with them ?  #  imagine your ass having the texture of a brillo pad.   #  as a counterpoint i present this: URL it seems to me like this person had a terrible time after shaving their ass.  so it does not seem obvious to me that unshaved buttholes are superior to shaved buttholes.  and the recovery to hair growth does not seem better: to quote  as if that was not enough, i am now enduring further torture.  as anyone who has ever shaved anything knows, when hair is first growing in, it comes in as stubble.  imagine your ass having the texture of a brillo pad.  well, that is what i am dealing with now.  it is a hellish torture, and there are many times when i just look out the window and contemplate why i should not just jump out and get it all over with in one fleshy splat, rather than endure this constant agony.   #  responding seriously to a humourous post is completely in character for this cmv.   #  responding seriously to a humourous post is completely in character for this cmv.  i was calling out your calling it out.  if you have a ton of nerve endings on the outer skin of you butt cheeks then you have some severe mutation that i have never heard of before.  worst super power ever.  hey people have different degrees of spanking they can take.  suggests that bum sensitivity may run a gamut.
i think that an important yardstick for whether or not you should be in a relationship with someone is whether or not they are willing to shave your butthole.   clarification:  in this post, when talking about shaving buttholes, i mean with trimmers.  i would recommend against shaving buttholes or any form of pubes with a close shave razor.     shaved buttholes are superior to un shaved buttholes.   for people without much natural butthole hair this may seem like a non issue.  for people like me, butthole hair is a common nuisance.  it can easily become dried out and cause irritation.  during any type of anal play, it can get pulled, which is painful.  a smoother asshole is also much sexier.  if you are sexually attracted to butthole hair, i would consider you the outlier and this discussion is not for you.     most things can be done alone, but shaving your own butthole is difficult.   sexual release can be achieved through masturbation or casual sex.  group activities such as movies and dinner can be done with friends.  you can reduce your share of the rent by acquiring a roommate.  even raising kids is increasingly being done by single parents.  if what you need is love, y all motherfuckers need jesus.  contrarily, shaving your own butthole is as close as things come to having to literally bend over backwards in order to accomplish.     someone who is willing to shave your butthole is someone you can depend on for anything.   without butthole shaving as a yardstick, it is anyone is guess as to what they will feel they are above doing.  you could very well get stuck unclogging all of the toilets, or having to go with those big zits on your back unpopped.  worse, what if they are similarly squeamish when you are choking on a carrot, and they let you suffocate ? butthole shaving could mean the difference between life and death.     anyone who will have sex with a butthole, but is not willing to shave one, is immediately suspect.   this type of personal clearly cares about their own sexual gratification than your own butthole is comfort.  obviously, them being willing to shave your butthole is not necessarily an indication that you should marry them either, as they might just be shaving your butthole for their own personal enjoyment.   other comments:    though i would consider an unwillingness to shave buttholes a dealbreaker, i would avoid bringing it up at the first date, or even the second.  in many ways,  i would shave your butthole  is practically synonymous with  i love you  and should be handled with care accordingly.    buttholes are not for everyone.  needless to say, if you are the type of couple who are not ever going to go near each other is buttholes, this discussion does not apply to you.  more power to you.  an unwillingness to shave my butthole is a dealbreaker.  change my view !  #  anyone who will have sex with a butthole, but is not willing to shave one, is immediately suspect.   #  what if their unwillingness is coming from your health, safety and comfort ?  # i do not really see how this follows.  nurses often have to shave patients and preform other jobs which are considered disgusting.  if you are having asshole surgery that nurse is going to shave your ass.  there are also professionals who remove hair for a living but this does not make them the most trust worthy people.  secondly, this does not account for people with phobias.  i may be willing to shave your ass, but my fear of water, spiders, ducks would prevent me from saving you from drowning, evil spiders or going to the park.  what if their unwillingness is coming from your health, safety and comfort ? they may be unwilling because they would rather a professional remove the hair because they are not good at it.  they would rather a professional do it rather than risk an ingrown hair or doing it wrong and cutting you or hurting you.   #  being soul mates does not necessarily mean you should be in a relationship with that person  #  is not my butthole a part of me ? how could someone who is so afraid of a part of me be my soulmate ? what if, instead of being afraid of buttholes, they were incapable of love ? they may still be your soul mate, as in you have all the same interests, but not be able to experience love.  being soul mates does not necessarily mean you should be in a relationship with that person  #  remove one of your ears, if you want them to ?  # well, where do you draw the line ? should they be willing to tatoo you ? pierce your tongue ? remove one of your ears, if you want them to ? what if they have a blood phobia ? it has nothing to do with their feelings towards you, it is just an irrational, reptile brain level reaction.  i hold that it is possible to have a similar blameless, but strong reaction to buttholes.  i disagree with your premise, that any love strong enough to sustain a great lifelong relationship must always overcome any aversion or phobia.  they love you as much as a person can love another person.  they just simply ca not handle buttholes yours or anyone else is for some odd reason.  does that mean you should break up with them ?  #  imagine your ass having the texture of a brillo pad.   #  as a counterpoint i present this: URL it seems to me like this person had a terrible time after shaving their ass.  so it does not seem obvious to me that unshaved buttholes are superior to shaved buttholes.  and the recovery to hair growth does not seem better: to quote  as if that was not enough, i am now enduring further torture.  as anyone who has ever shaved anything knows, when hair is first growing in, it comes in as stubble.  imagine your ass having the texture of a brillo pad.  well, that is what i am dealing with now.  it is a hellish torture, and there are many times when i just look out the window and contemplate why i should not just jump out and get it all over with in one fleshy splat, rather than endure this constant agony.   #  suggests that bum sensitivity may run a gamut.   #  responding seriously to a humourous post is completely in character for this cmv.  i was calling out your calling it out.  if you have a ton of nerve endings on the outer skin of you butt cheeks then you have some severe mutation that i have never heard of before.  worst super power ever.  hey people have different degrees of spanking they can take.  suggests that bum sensitivity may run a gamut.
unless you are a young actor, you should not be doing advertisements.  letting someone buy something as personal as the emotions conveyed in songs to help sell a product is wrong, and the art is no longer as genuine.  letting a company use your art for advertisements is as close to selling your soul as you can get.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  even established actors or comedians should not be doing commercials.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  i am at work, but i will be responding  #  letting someone buy something as personal as the emotions conveyed in songs to help sell a product is wrong, and the art is no longer as genuine.   #  i take issue with the presumption that songs are always written as personal expressions of emotion.   # i take issue with the presumption that songs are always written as personal expressions of emotion.  sometimes songs are just songs which are written to be catchy and sell good.  sometimes they are a mix of personal expression and desire to make a hit song to sell records.  the significance of the personal expression put into a song, and its proper use maybe the commercial is for something you support , is best judged by the artist who created the song.  so how is this any different than any other art that is sold ? artists have to eat, and selling their art helps them do this.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  this depends entirely on the content of the commercial.  i see commercials for charities, local events and places etc.  not every commercial is there to sell a product.  commercials are used to convey a message.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  do you apply these standards to other types of employment ? lets take bob for an example.  he works in a office all day but on the weekends he has a part time job teaching kids piano.  his full time job allows him to be financially stable, are these piano lessons a motivated by pure greed or maybe he just likes piano and kids.  you are putting artists on a pedestal where aside from the few greats they really should not be.   #  think about that famous advert for apple, using a song by feist.   #  except when an artist sells anything, they are selling their image to some extent.  do you want to know why damien hirst work is so valuable ? it is because damien hirst made it.  similarly, when a company uses an artist to sell their product, a large part of the goal of the advert is being associated with the artist.  think about that famous advert for apple, using a song by feist.  sure, the song itself is a huge part of what they bought.  but they also bought feist is image, a kind of tacit endorsement.  every major corporation does this to varying degrees, aligning the product with a specific mixture of popular culture that is associated with their target audience.  so really, there is no difference between paying for a song and paying for the image.   #  selling out creatively does not mean selling your creativity.   #  nope.  selling out specifically denotes putting a price on your values, whether it be your value of your creative choices or the values of morality.  selling out creatively does not mean selling your creativity.  it is compromising on what you think should be created.  selling your skills is not selling out either.  selling out morally for an artist would be creating to promote something that they are against.  that said however, there is also a neutral option.  an artist may not have an opinion either way/there may not be a moral question; in this case, a person making a jingle for a company or an image for a company is not selling out or personally endorsing.  it is just work.  the crux is whether or not there is a compromise of values for money.   #  artists need to eat just like anyone else, and they need access to the resources required for their craft, and many of them did not start out with any high minded goals.   #  why does selling your art deprive you of integrity ? artists need to eat just like anyone else, and they need access to the resources required for their craft, and many of them did not start out with any high minded goals.  and perhaps just as relevant: how is it any different from selling your intellect or your physical ability ? are engineers, scientists, laborers, atheletes, etc.  also sell outs ? of course.  no  true  artist is interested in money or fame.   #  obviously what makes art  good art  is subjective, not every song is art, not every drawing is art, some songs/drawing/paintings seem inarguable art and there is a lot of grey area in between.   #  while i am sure most artist do revel in a bit of fame and money,  good  art should stand on it is own.  it should have value for being what it is, not just background music for a car commercial.  obviously what makes art  good art  is subjective, not every song is art, not every drawing is art, some songs/drawing/paintings seem inarguable art and there is a lot of grey area in between.  many artist do start with such  high minded  goals.  or at least they are making something that they feel is personal and/or culturally relevant.  pepsi products, for example, are not really viewed as personally important or culturally relevant.  so if an artist does a pepsi commercial it would go against what they are trying to accomplish.  thus making them a sell out: a person who gives up on their goals because they could make more money somewhere else.  so you do need to consider if that was the artist original goal.  i think that is what op meant when he said  the kind of artist that gets in it for the money or  lifestyle  probably is not producing music for the type of people that care whether or not an artist they listen to has integrity or not.
unless you are a young actor, you should not be doing advertisements.  letting someone buy something as personal as the emotions conveyed in songs to help sell a product is wrong, and the art is no longer as genuine.  letting a company use your art for advertisements is as close to selling your soul as you can get.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  even established actors or comedians should not be doing commercials.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  i am at work, but i will be responding  #  letting someone buy something as personal as the emotions conveyed in songs to help sell a product is wrong, and the art is no longer as genuine.   #  so how is this any different than any other art that is sold ?  # i take issue with the presumption that songs are always written as personal expressions of emotion.  sometimes songs are just songs which are written to be catchy and sell good.  sometimes they are a mix of personal expression and desire to make a hit song to sell records.  the significance of the personal expression put into a song, and its proper use maybe the commercial is for something you support , is best judged by the artist who created the song.  so how is this any different than any other art that is sold ? artists have to eat, and selling their art helps them do this.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  this depends entirely on the content of the commercial.  i see commercials for charities, local events and places etc.  not every commercial is there to sell a product.  commercials are used to convey a message.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  do you apply these standards to other types of employment ? lets take bob for an example.  he works in a office all day but on the weekends he has a part time job teaching kids piano.  his full time job allows him to be financially stable, are these piano lessons a motivated by pure greed or maybe he just likes piano and kids.  you are putting artists on a pedestal where aside from the few greats they really should not be.   #  similarly, when a company uses an artist to sell their product, a large part of the goal of the advert is being associated with the artist.   #  except when an artist sells anything, they are selling their image to some extent.  do you want to know why damien hirst work is so valuable ? it is because damien hirst made it.  similarly, when a company uses an artist to sell their product, a large part of the goal of the advert is being associated with the artist.  think about that famous advert for apple, using a song by feist.  sure, the song itself is a huge part of what they bought.  but they also bought feist is image, a kind of tacit endorsement.  every major corporation does this to varying degrees, aligning the product with a specific mixture of popular culture that is associated with their target audience.  so really, there is no difference between paying for a song and paying for the image.   #  it is compromising on what you think should be created.   #  nope.  selling out specifically denotes putting a price on your values, whether it be your value of your creative choices or the values of morality.  selling out creatively does not mean selling your creativity.  it is compromising on what you think should be created.  selling your skills is not selling out either.  selling out morally for an artist would be creating to promote something that they are against.  that said however, there is also a neutral option.  an artist may not have an opinion either way/there may not be a moral question; in this case, a person making a jingle for a company or an image for a company is not selling out or personally endorsing.  it is just work.  the crux is whether or not there is a compromise of values for money.   #  no  true  artist is interested in money or fame.   #  why does selling your art deprive you of integrity ? artists need to eat just like anyone else, and they need access to the resources required for their craft, and many of them did not start out with any high minded goals.  and perhaps just as relevant: how is it any different from selling your intellect or your physical ability ? are engineers, scientists, laborers, atheletes, etc.  also sell outs ? of course.  no  true  artist is interested in money or fame.   #  so you do need to consider if that was the artist original goal.   #  while i am sure most artist do revel in a bit of fame and money,  good  art should stand on it is own.  it should have value for being what it is, not just background music for a car commercial.  obviously what makes art  good art  is subjective, not every song is art, not every drawing is art, some songs/drawing/paintings seem inarguable art and there is a lot of grey area in between.  many artist do start with such  high minded  goals.  or at least they are making something that they feel is personal and/or culturally relevant.  pepsi products, for example, are not really viewed as personally important or culturally relevant.  so if an artist does a pepsi commercial it would go against what they are trying to accomplish.  thus making them a sell out: a person who gives up on their goals because they could make more money somewhere else.  so you do need to consider if that was the artist original goal.  i think that is what op meant when he said  the kind of artist that gets in it for the money or  lifestyle  probably is not producing music for the type of people that care whether or not an artist they listen to has integrity or not.
unless you are a young actor, you should not be doing advertisements.  letting someone buy something as personal as the emotions conveyed in songs to help sell a product is wrong, and the art is no longer as genuine.  letting a company use your art for advertisements is as close to selling your soul as you can get.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  even established actors or comedians should not be doing commercials.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  i am at work, but i will be responding  #  letting a company use your art for advertisements is as close to selling your soul as you can get.   #  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.   # i take issue with the presumption that songs are always written as personal expressions of emotion.  sometimes songs are just songs which are written to be catchy and sell good.  sometimes they are a mix of personal expression and desire to make a hit song to sell records.  the significance of the personal expression put into a song, and its proper use maybe the commercial is for something you support , is best judged by the artist who created the song.  so how is this any different than any other art that is sold ? artists have to eat, and selling their art helps them do this.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  this depends entirely on the content of the commercial.  i see commercials for charities, local events and places etc.  not every commercial is there to sell a product.  commercials are used to convey a message.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  do you apply these standards to other types of employment ? lets take bob for an example.  he works in a office all day but on the weekends he has a part time job teaching kids piano.  his full time job allows him to be financially stable, are these piano lessons a motivated by pure greed or maybe he just likes piano and kids.  you are putting artists on a pedestal where aside from the few greats they really should not be.   #  think about that famous advert for apple, using a song by feist.   #  except when an artist sells anything, they are selling their image to some extent.  do you want to know why damien hirst work is so valuable ? it is because damien hirst made it.  similarly, when a company uses an artist to sell their product, a large part of the goal of the advert is being associated with the artist.  think about that famous advert for apple, using a song by feist.  sure, the song itself is a huge part of what they bought.  but they also bought feist is image, a kind of tacit endorsement.  every major corporation does this to varying degrees, aligning the product with a specific mixture of popular culture that is associated with their target audience.  so really, there is no difference between paying for a song and paying for the image.   #  selling out specifically denotes putting a price on your values, whether it be your value of your creative choices or the values of morality.   #  nope.  selling out specifically denotes putting a price on your values, whether it be your value of your creative choices or the values of morality.  selling out creatively does not mean selling your creativity.  it is compromising on what you think should be created.  selling your skills is not selling out either.  selling out morally for an artist would be creating to promote something that they are against.  that said however, there is also a neutral option.  an artist may not have an opinion either way/there may not be a moral question; in this case, a person making a jingle for a company or an image for a company is not selling out or personally endorsing.  it is just work.  the crux is whether or not there is a compromise of values for money.   #  artists need to eat just like anyone else, and they need access to the resources required for their craft, and many of them did not start out with any high minded goals.   #  why does selling your art deprive you of integrity ? artists need to eat just like anyone else, and they need access to the resources required for their craft, and many of them did not start out with any high minded goals.  and perhaps just as relevant: how is it any different from selling your intellect or your physical ability ? are engineers, scientists, laborers, atheletes, etc.  also sell outs ? of course.  no  true  artist is interested in money or fame.   #  pepsi products, for example, are not really viewed as personally important or culturally relevant.   #  while i am sure most artist do revel in a bit of fame and money,  good  art should stand on it is own.  it should have value for being what it is, not just background music for a car commercial.  obviously what makes art  good art  is subjective, not every song is art, not every drawing is art, some songs/drawing/paintings seem inarguable art and there is a lot of grey area in between.  many artist do start with such  high minded  goals.  or at least they are making something that they feel is personal and/or culturally relevant.  pepsi products, for example, are not really viewed as personally important or culturally relevant.  so if an artist does a pepsi commercial it would go against what they are trying to accomplish.  thus making them a sell out: a person who gives up on their goals because they could make more money somewhere else.  so you do need to consider if that was the artist original goal.  i think that is what op meant when he said  the kind of artist that gets in it for the money or  lifestyle  probably is not producing music for the type of people that care whether or not an artist they listen to has integrity or not.
unless you are a young actor, you should not be doing advertisements.  letting someone buy something as personal as the emotions conveyed in songs to help sell a product is wrong, and the art is no longer as genuine.  letting a company use your art for advertisements is as close to selling your soul as you can get.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  even established actors or comedians should not be doing commercials.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  i am at work, but i will be responding  #  even established actors or comedians should not be doing commercials.   #  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.   # i take issue with the presumption that songs are always written as personal expressions of emotion.  sometimes songs are just songs which are written to be catchy and sell good.  sometimes they are a mix of personal expression and desire to make a hit song to sell records.  the significance of the personal expression put into a song, and its proper use maybe the commercial is for something you support , is best judged by the artist who created the song.  so how is this any different than any other art that is sold ? artists have to eat, and selling their art helps them do this.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  this depends entirely on the content of the commercial.  i see commercials for charities, local events and places etc.  not every commercial is there to sell a product.  commercials are used to convey a message.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  do you apply these standards to other types of employment ? lets take bob for an example.  he works in a office all day but on the weekends he has a part time job teaching kids piano.  his full time job allows him to be financially stable, are these piano lessons a motivated by pure greed or maybe he just likes piano and kids.  you are putting artists on a pedestal where aside from the few greats they really should not be.   #  every major corporation does this to varying degrees, aligning the product with a specific mixture of popular culture that is associated with their target audience.   #  except when an artist sells anything, they are selling their image to some extent.  do you want to know why damien hirst work is so valuable ? it is because damien hirst made it.  similarly, when a company uses an artist to sell their product, a large part of the goal of the advert is being associated with the artist.  think about that famous advert for apple, using a song by feist.  sure, the song itself is a huge part of what they bought.  but they also bought feist is image, a kind of tacit endorsement.  every major corporation does this to varying degrees, aligning the product with a specific mixture of popular culture that is associated with their target audience.  so really, there is no difference between paying for a song and paying for the image.   #  selling out morally for an artist would be creating to promote something that they are against.  that said however, there is also a neutral option.   #  nope.  selling out specifically denotes putting a price on your values, whether it be your value of your creative choices or the values of morality.  selling out creatively does not mean selling your creativity.  it is compromising on what you think should be created.  selling your skills is not selling out either.  selling out morally for an artist would be creating to promote something that they are against.  that said however, there is also a neutral option.  an artist may not have an opinion either way/there may not be a moral question; in this case, a person making a jingle for a company or an image for a company is not selling out or personally endorsing.  it is just work.  the crux is whether or not there is a compromise of values for money.   #  why does selling your art deprive you of integrity ?  #  why does selling your art deprive you of integrity ? artists need to eat just like anyone else, and they need access to the resources required for their craft, and many of them did not start out with any high minded goals.  and perhaps just as relevant: how is it any different from selling your intellect or your physical ability ? are engineers, scientists, laborers, atheletes, etc.  also sell outs ? of course.  no  true  artist is interested in money or fame.   #  or at least they are making something that they feel is personal and/or culturally relevant.   #  while i am sure most artist do revel in a bit of fame and money,  good  art should stand on it is own.  it should have value for being what it is, not just background music for a car commercial.  obviously what makes art  good art  is subjective, not every song is art, not every drawing is art, some songs/drawing/paintings seem inarguable art and there is a lot of grey area in between.  many artist do start with such  high minded  goals.  or at least they are making something that they feel is personal and/or culturally relevant.  pepsi products, for example, are not really viewed as personally important or culturally relevant.  so if an artist does a pepsi commercial it would go against what they are trying to accomplish.  thus making them a sell out: a person who gives up on their goals because they could make more money somewhere else.  so you do need to consider if that was the artist original goal.  i think that is what op meant when he said  the kind of artist that gets in it for the money or  lifestyle  probably is not producing music for the type of people that care whether or not an artist they listen to has integrity or not.
unless you are a young actor, you should not be doing advertisements.  letting someone buy something as personal as the emotions conveyed in songs to help sell a product is wrong, and the art is no longer as genuine.  letting a company use your art for advertisements is as close to selling your soul as you can get.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  even established actors or comedians should not be doing commercials.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  i am at work, but i will be responding  #  the art is no longer as genuine.   #  thought experiment: your favorite song and artist are used to endorse an obscure brand of koeran tampons.   # thought experiment: your favorite song and artist are used to endorse an obscure brand of koeran tampons.  you never find out about this and continue to enjoy the song.  how is the song less genuine to you in this situation ? if you found out about the commercial, would it then affect the genuineness of the song ? if so, then  authenticity  or genuineness must originate with you, the listener, and not the artist, because the authenticity depends entirely on your knowledge about the song, and not the artist is actual actions.  therefore, the artist is actions do not create or destroy authenticity your knowledge of and perceptions of them do.  therefore,  selling out  is subjective, and a listener who uses that judgment is only ruining the song for themselves the artist can never do that.   #  so really, there is no difference between paying for a song and paying for the image.   #  except when an artist sells anything, they are selling their image to some extent.  do you want to know why damien hirst work is so valuable ? it is because damien hirst made it.  similarly, when a company uses an artist to sell their product, a large part of the goal of the advert is being associated with the artist.  think about that famous advert for apple, using a song by feist.  sure, the song itself is a huge part of what they bought.  but they also bought feist is image, a kind of tacit endorsement.  every major corporation does this to varying degrees, aligning the product with a specific mixture of popular culture that is associated with their target audience.  so really, there is no difference between paying for a song and paying for the image.   #  it is compromising on what you think should be created.   #  nope.  selling out specifically denotes putting a price on your values, whether it be your value of your creative choices or the values of morality.  selling out creatively does not mean selling your creativity.  it is compromising on what you think should be created.  selling your skills is not selling out either.  selling out morally for an artist would be creating to promote something that they are against.  that said however, there is also a neutral option.  an artist may not have an opinion either way/there may not be a moral question; in this case, a person making a jingle for a company or an image for a company is not selling out or personally endorsing.  it is just work.  the crux is whether or not there is a compromise of values for money.   #  and perhaps just as relevant: how is it any different from selling your intellect or your physical ability ?  #  why does selling your art deprive you of integrity ? artists need to eat just like anyone else, and they need access to the resources required for their craft, and many of them did not start out with any high minded goals.  and perhaps just as relevant: how is it any different from selling your intellect or your physical ability ? are engineers, scientists, laborers, atheletes, etc.  also sell outs ? of course.  no  true  artist is interested in money or fame.   #  thus making them a sell out: a person who gives up on their goals because they could make more money somewhere else.   #  while i am sure most artist do revel in a bit of fame and money,  good  art should stand on it is own.  it should have value for being what it is, not just background music for a car commercial.  obviously what makes art  good art  is subjective, not every song is art, not every drawing is art, some songs/drawing/paintings seem inarguable art and there is a lot of grey area in between.  many artist do start with such  high minded  goals.  or at least they are making something that they feel is personal and/or culturally relevant.  pepsi products, for example, are not really viewed as personally important or culturally relevant.  so if an artist does a pepsi commercial it would go against what they are trying to accomplish.  thus making them a sell out: a person who gives up on their goals because they could make more money somewhere else.  so you do need to consider if that was the artist original goal.  i think that is what op meant when he said  the kind of artist that gets in it for the money or  lifestyle  probably is not producing music for the type of people that care whether or not an artist they listen to has integrity or not.
unless you are a young actor, you should not be doing advertisements.  letting someone buy something as personal as the emotions conveyed in songs to help sell a product is wrong, and the art is no longer as genuine.  letting a company use your art for advertisements is as close to selling your soul as you can get.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  even established actors or comedians should not be doing commercials.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  i am at work, but i will be responding  #  letting someone buy something as personal as the emotions conveyed in songs to help sell a product is wrong, and the art is no longer as genuine.   #  i am going to focus on this point as i am a musician, and i sometimes think about what i would do if i formed a band with money making potential.   # i am going to focus on this point as i am a musician, and i sometimes think about what i would do if i formed a band with money making potential.  i do not know what your definition of sellout is.  you refuted that it is  compromising one is art for money , which is what i would define it as.  however, here are other definitions i could find.  merriam webster URL someone who does something that does not agree with that person is beliefs or values especially in order to make money.  wikipedia URL the compromising of integrity, morality, authenticity or principles in exchange for personal gain, such as money.  urban dictionary URL one who betrays a cause for personal advancement.  all of these definitions concern a party individual or group that goes against their own beliefs solely to benefit themselves.  the key factor is that the party has to betray  their own  principles or causes; your opinions or values  literally  do not matter in determining if the party sold out.  if a punk band that rallies against consumerism and the corporate machine, only to later sell a song to a multinational mall franchise, they have definitely betrayed their principles and causes, and they  have  sold out.  however, if the band has no issues against advertising or the product that is being advertised, they are not selling out.  if selling out is betraying  your  /u/imjustkidding is principles, then anyone you say is a sellout is a sellout, and your view cannot be changed.  if selling out is making money off of something not directly music related album sales, concerts, and t shirts , then there is also no way to change your view.  let is say i wrote a song and recorded a song about my cat dying.  my music was not created or altered by corporate influence, therefore the art itself is pure.  i do not see how my music becomes less  pure  if nissan later pays me to use that song in a car commercial.   #  think about that famous advert for apple, using a song by feist.   #  except when an artist sells anything, they are selling their image to some extent.  do you want to know why damien hirst work is so valuable ? it is because damien hirst made it.  similarly, when a company uses an artist to sell their product, a large part of the goal of the advert is being associated with the artist.  think about that famous advert for apple, using a song by feist.  sure, the song itself is a huge part of what they bought.  but they also bought feist is image, a kind of tacit endorsement.  every major corporation does this to varying degrees, aligning the product with a specific mixture of popular culture that is associated with their target audience.  so really, there is no difference between paying for a song and paying for the image.   #  the crux is whether or not there is a compromise of values for money.   #  nope.  selling out specifically denotes putting a price on your values, whether it be your value of your creative choices or the values of morality.  selling out creatively does not mean selling your creativity.  it is compromising on what you think should be created.  selling your skills is not selling out either.  selling out morally for an artist would be creating to promote something that they are against.  that said however, there is also a neutral option.  an artist may not have an opinion either way/there may not be a moral question; in this case, a person making a jingle for a company or an image for a company is not selling out or personally endorsing.  it is just work.  the crux is whether or not there is a compromise of values for money.   #  why does selling your art deprive you of integrity ?  #  why does selling your art deprive you of integrity ? artists need to eat just like anyone else, and they need access to the resources required for their craft, and many of them did not start out with any high minded goals.  and perhaps just as relevant: how is it any different from selling your intellect or your physical ability ? are engineers, scientists, laborers, atheletes, etc.  also sell outs ? of course.  no  true  artist is interested in money or fame.   #  while i am sure most artist do revel in a bit of fame and money,  good  art should stand on it is own.   #  while i am sure most artist do revel in a bit of fame and money,  good  art should stand on it is own.  it should have value for being what it is, not just background music for a car commercial.  obviously what makes art  good art  is subjective, not every song is art, not every drawing is art, some songs/drawing/paintings seem inarguable art and there is a lot of grey area in between.  many artist do start with such  high minded  goals.  or at least they are making something that they feel is personal and/or culturally relevant.  pepsi products, for example, are not really viewed as personally important or culturally relevant.  so if an artist does a pepsi commercial it would go against what they are trying to accomplish.  thus making them a sell out: a person who gives up on their goals because they could make more money somewhere else.  so you do need to consider if that was the artist original goal.  i think that is what op meant when he said  the kind of artist that gets in it for the money or  lifestyle  probably is not producing music for the type of people that care whether or not an artist they listen to has integrity or not.
unless you are a young actor, you should not be doing advertisements.  letting someone buy something as personal as the emotions conveyed in songs to help sell a product is wrong, and the art is no longer as genuine.  letting a company use your art for advertisements is as close to selling your soul as you can get.  advertisements do nothing for society but promote consumerism, and by letting a company use your music to achieve that, you are just as bad as them.  even established actors or comedians should not be doing commercials.  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.  i am at work, but i will be responding  #  when you obviously have enough to be financially stable, everything after that is pure greed and no matter how great your work was in the past, the fact that you have lost your values undermines it.   #  let is say i wrote a song and recorded a song about my cat dying.   # i am going to focus on this point as i am a musician, and i sometimes think about what i would do if i formed a band with money making potential.  i do not know what your definition of sellout is.  you refuted that it is  compromising one is art for money , which is what i would define it as.  however, here are other definitions i could find.  merriam webster URL someone who does something that does not agree with that person is beliefs or values especially in order to make money.  wikipedia URL the compromising of integrity, morality, authenticity or principles in exchange for personal gain, such as money.  urban dictionary URL one who betrays a cause for personal advancement.  all of these definitions concern a party individual or group that goes against their own beliefs solely to benefit themselves.  the key factor is that the party has to betray  their own  principles or causes; your opinions or values  literally  do not matter in determining if the party sold out.  if a punk band that rallies against consumerism and the corporate machine, only to later sell a song to a multinational mall franchise, they have definitely betrayed their principles and causes, and they  have  sold out.  however, if the band has no issues against advertising or the product that is being advertised, they are not selling out.  if selling out is betraying  your  /u/imjustkidding is principles, then anyone you say is a sellout is a sellout, and your view cannot be changed.  if selling out is making money off of something not directly music related album sales, concerts, and t shirts , then there is also no way to change your view.  let is say i wrote a song and recorded a song about my cat dying.  my music was not created or altered by corporate influence, therefore the art itself is pure.  i do not see how my music becomes less  pure  if nissan later pays me to use that song in a car commercial.   #  do you want to know why damien hirst work is so valuable ?  #  except when an artist sells anything, they are selling their image to some extent.  do you want to know why damien hirst work is so valuable ? it is because damien hirst made it.  similarly, when a company uses an artist to sell their product, a large part of the goal of the advert is being associated with the artist.  think about that famous advert for apple, using a song by feist.  sure, the song itself is a huge part of what they bought.  but they also bought feist is image, a kind of tacit endorsement.  every major corporation does this to varying degrees, aligning the product with a specific mixture of popular culture that is associated with their target audience.  so really, there is no difference between paying for a song and paying for the image.   #  selling out morally for an artist would be creating to promote something that they are against.  that said however, there is also a neutral option.   #  nope.  selling out specifically denotes putting a price on your values, whether it be your value of your creative choices or the values of morality.  selling out creatively does not mean selling your creativity.  it is compromising on what you think should be created.  selling your skills is not selling out either.  selling out morally for an artist would be creating to promote something that they are against.  that said however, there is also a neutral option.  an artist may not have an opinion either way/there may not be a moral question; in this case, a person making a jingle for a company or an image for a company is not selling out or personally endorsing.  it is just work.  the crux is whether or not there is a compromise of values for money.   #  are engineers, scientists, laborers, atheletes, etc.  also sell outs ?  #  why does selling your art deprive you of integrity ? artists need to eat just like anyone else, and they need access to the resources required for their craft, and many of them did not start out with any high minded goals.  and perhaps just as relevant: how is it any different from selling your intellect or your physical ability ? are engineers, scientists, laborers, atheletes, etc.  also sell outs ? of course.  no  true  artist is interested in money or fame.   #  it should have value for being what it is, not just background music for a car commercial.   #  while i am sure most artist do revel in a bit of fame and money,  good  art should stand on it is own.  it should have value for being what it is, not just background music for a car commercial.  obviously what makes art  good art  is subjective, not every song is art, not every drawing is art, some songs/drawing/paintings seem inarguable art and there is a lot of grey area in between.  many artist do start with such  high minded  goals.  or at least they are making something that they feel is personal and/or culturally relevant.  pepsi products, for example, are not really viewed as personally important or culturally relevant.  so if an artist does a pepsi commercial it would go against what they are trying to accomplish.  thus making them a sell out: a person who gives up on their goals because they could make more money somewhere else.  so you do need to consider if that was the artist original goal.  i think that is what op meant when he said  the kind of artist that gets in it for the money or  lifestyle  probably is not producing music for the type of people that care whether or not an artist they listen to has integrity or not.
unless you live in a swing state/riding, your vote is not going to make a difference.  but outside of statistics, let is say that you do live in a swing state; policy decisions regarding taxation, spending, the military, legalization of substances, etc.  will remain unchanged whether you vote democrat or republican, conservative or liberal, conservative or labour, etc.  if romney had been elected, the country would more or less be in the same place it is today.  if harper is re elected over trudeau, the country would more or less be the same place it is today.  politics are a form of entertainment and has no real bearing on the direction of a country.  cmv.   #  but outside of statistics, let is say that you do live in a swing state; policy decisions regarding taxation, spending, the military, legalization of substances, etc.   #  will remain unchanged whether you vote democrat or republican, conservative or liberal, conservative or labour, etc.   # will remain unchanged whether you vote democrat or republican, conservative or liberal, conservative or labour, etc.  this is not really the case.  chances are that if you vote for a right wing party, you are more likely to see tax freezes or cuts.  if you vote for a liberal party, you are more likely to see a more progressive approach to issues like same sex marriage and substance legalisation.  if you vote for a right wing party, public money is going to be spent differently to a left leaning administration.  political decisions affect an enormous part of our everyday lives.  as a practical example from my country the uk , local governments run by labour have continually increased the amount liable to be paid in council tax, whilst conservative led administrations have honoured a pledge to freeze council tax.  i know it is not a  national issue   per se  but it is a stark example of how the identity of the party controlling a government can have a direct impact on people is day to day lives.   #  second, if you look at data for the 0 crash, countries that followed austerity policies had worse crashes and slower recoveries than countries which tried expansionary policies.   #  first, you ca not hold every president responsible for everything.  second, if you look at data for the 0 crash, countries that followed austerity policies had worse crashes and slower recoveries than countries which tried expansionary policies.  same is true for the 0 crash.  would mccain have pursued a more austere policy ? probably.  could a bipartisan alliance have pushed through a more expansionary stimulus than what we actually got ? unlikely, but possible.  so who was president in 0 and again in 0 did matter.  this was also true in the 0s, under non crisis conditions, when clinton is push to close the deficit freed the fed to cut rates, leading to a decade of prosperity.  any other president probably would not have taken clinton is course, and rates would have stayed high.  third, while i do not know specifically what mccain or romney would have done in the middle east, surely you admit that the iraq invasion in 0 was completely unexpected in 0, and that if gore had been president it would not have happened, and the entire history of the middle east would be completely different ?  #  counter factuals are definitely speculative, i agree with that.   #  when it came down to the details of the stimulus, the republicans were in favor of a smaller stimulus and the democrats, a larger one.  one theory is republicans really wanted less stimulus: in which case, probably a mccain stimulus would have been smaller than the obama stimulus actually was.  or maybe they knew that the stimulus needed to be big and were trying to sabotage the country to hurt obama: in which case, the mccain stimulus would have been bigger.  it is very unlikely it would have been exactly the same size.  counter factuals are definitely speculative, i agree with that.  but there are lots of counterfactuals to consider ! for example, how many of the recent supreme court cases would have been different with different judges ?  #  in other words, it is not as if national elections have no effect.   #  correct.  however, this is because the two major parties conspire to keep it this way.  the way to change this, in theory, is voting.  voting is unfortunately the only way to change this situation.  so national elections do matter, a lot but they will only have an effect if we can collectively start to reject the mainstream parties.  in other words, it is not as if national elections have no effect.  every time one comes around and we fail to put in 0rd parties, it is actually a huge disaster.  but, because it is the status quo, it looks like nothing is happening.  but in fact, we are missing huge opportunities and digging ourselves deeper every single time.  they matter in the same way that not paying your taxes matters.  superficially, nothing happens, but after a few years, you are actually in deeper and deeper trouble.   #  the reason these groups are powerful is because they organize themselves around a certain issue and advocate that issue through the democratic process.   #  of course there are special interest groups.  that is the whole point of the first amendment.  the only  special interest groups  that people bitch about are those who support policies that the bitchers oppose.  i oppose the death penalty, vehemently.  it factors into every electoral decision i make.  groups like the innocence project engage in lobbying and campaigning and could fairly be called a  special interest group .  it only becomes a pejorative when it comes from the mouth of a pro death penalty advocate.  the reason these groups are powerful is because they organize themselves around a certain issue and advocate that issue through the democratic process.  in other words, they get people to vote as a bloc.  they do not sit around and wait for something to happen that they believe in, they take matters into their own hands.  do some of these groups operate in deceptive and corrupt manners ? sure, nobody is going to say otherwise.  and you are correct that many voters have more power than any one voter but democracy is about more than just pulling a lever every two years or so.  it is being part of the process between elections as well.  if you want background checks expanded for gun purchases, vote for candidates that feel the same way.  if you do not know a certain candidate is stance, ask.  if that person is ineffective in pursuing that legislation, vote for someone else the next time.  in between, support causes that align with that.  donate to the brady campaign.
unless you live in a swing state/riding, your vote is not going to make a difference.  but outside of statistics, let is say that you do live in a swing state; policy decisions regarding taxation, spending, the military, legalization of substances, etc.  will remain unchanged whether you vote democrat or republican, conservative or liberal, conservative or labour, etc.  if romney had been elected, the country would more or less be in the same place it is today.  if harper is re elected over trudeau, the country would more or less be the same place it is today.  politics are a form of entertainment and has no real bearing on the direction of a country.  cmv.   #  unless you live in a swing state/riding, your vote is not going to make a difference.   #  this depends alot on the voting method used.   # this depends alot on the voting method used.  not everywhere uses first past the post.  theres preferential systems, multi member systems, proportional systems, and so on.    if romney had been elected, the country would more or less be in the same place it is today.  if harper is re elected over trudeau, the country would more or less be the same place it is today.  eh, romney would have enacted his own idea of a better america.  even one thing like obamacare, if romney got in its unlikely to have been done.  now that it has, it could be the beginning of a universal coverage system in future governments.  if it hadnt the issue may have eventually fizzled out and been forgotten for another ten years or so.   #  so who was president in 0 and again in 0 did matter.   #  first, you ca not hold every president responsible for everything.  second, if you look at data for the 0 crash, countries that followed austerity policies had worse crashes and slower recoveries than countries which tried expansionary policies.  same is true for the 0 crash.  would mccain have pursued a more austere policy ? probably.  could a bipartisan alliance have pushed through a more expansionary stimulus than what we actually got ? unlikely, but possible.  so who was president in 0 and again in 0 did matter.  this was also true in the 0s, under non crisis conditions, when clinton is push to close the deficit freed the fed to cut rates, leading to a decade of prosperity.  any other president probably would not have taken clinton is course, and rates would have stayed high.  third, while i do not know specifically what mccain or romney would have done in the middle east, surely you admit that the iraq invasion in 0 was completely unexpected in 0, and that if gore had been president it would not have happened, and the entire history of the middle east would be completely different ?  #  it is very unlikely it would have been exactly the same size.   #  when it came down to the details of the stimulus, the republicans were in favor of a smaller stimulus and the democrats, a larger one.  one theory is republicans really wanted less stimulus: in which case, probably a mccain stimulus would have been smaller than the obama stimulus actually was.  or maybe they knew that the stimulus needed to be big and were trying to sabotage the country to hurt obama: in which case, the mccain stimulus would have been bigger.  it is very unlikely it would have been exactly the same size.  counter factuals are definitely speculative, i agree with that.  but there are lots of counterfactuals to consider ! for example, how many of the recent supreme court cases would have been different with different judges ?  #  the way to change this, in theory, is voting.   #  correct.  however, this is because the two major parties conspire to keep it this way.  the way to change this, in theory, is voting.  voting is unfortunately the only way to change this situation.  so national elections do matter, a lot but they will only have an effect if we can collectively start to reject the mainstream parties.  in other words, it is not as if national elections have no effect.  every time one comes around and we fail to put in 0rd parties, it is actually a huge disaster.  but, because it is the status quo, it looks like nothing is happening.  but in fact, we are missing huge opportunities and digging ourselves deeper every single time.  they matter in the same way that not paying your taxes matters.  superficially, nothing happens, but after a few years, you are actually in deeper and deeper trouble.   #  i know it is not a  national issue   per se  but it is a stark example of how the identity of the party controlling a government can have a direct impact on people is day to day lives.   # will remain unchanged whether you vote democrat or republican, conservative or liberal, conservative or labour, etc.  this is not really the case.  chances are that if you vote for a right wing party, you are more likely to see tax freezes or cuts.  if you vote for a liberal party, you are more likely to see a more progressive approach to issues like same sex marriage and substance legalisation.  if you vote for a right wing party, public money is going to be spent differently to a left leaning administration.  political decisions affect an enormous part of our everyday lives.  as a practical example from my country the uk , local governments run by labour have continually increased the amount liable to be paid in council tax, whilst conservative led administrations have honoured a pledge to freeze council tax.  i know it is not a  national issue   per se  but it is a stark example of how the identity of the party controlling a government can have a direct impact on people is day to day lives.
the current loading model of zones and boarding groups is absurd, and results in several time wasting inefficiencies.  passengers who are already seated in middle and aisle seats have to get up and block the aisle when a window seat passenger shows up in their row.  i find myself constantly waiting for people who are blocking the aisle to stow their carry on many rows ahead of my seat.  the plane should be loaded from back to front: start with the last row, board the window seats first, then the center seats, then the aisle seats, alternating sides with each person.  then repeat, moving up a row.  they board, stow their carry on hopefully without breaking stride , take their seat, and are out of everyone is way for the duration of boarding.  passengers should be required to self sort prior to having their tickets scanned.  if you miss your spot in line, you wait until the end and board with all the standby people, who would be re sorted because the computer knows who has not had their pass scanned.  i feel like this is a no brainer.  it should not take 0 minutes to get 0 people onto a plane.   #  it should not take 0 minutes to get 0 people onto a plane.   #  passenger boarding times are not the only factor.   # passenger boarding times are not the only factor.  luggage and freight need to be loaded into the cargo hold, the plane needs cleaned and refuelled, there might be engineering inspections, meals and drinks may need resupplied, and so on.  airlines do not make money when their planes are on the ground.  the very fact that passenger boarding is not organised for greater speed/efficiency says that it is not the major limiting factor.  two hundred cranky travellers, some with heavy bags, some with babies and children, all attempting to sort themselves into a line you really think this would be  faster  ?  #  maybe 0 if there are 0 seats between aisle and window.   #  actually seems intuitive, if you think about  cost  for boarding time.  the highest cost is not travel up and down the aisle, but is crossing other passengers in your row and stowing at the same time others in the same row.  the  wilma  method avoids this.  so at the most you would have in most airliners , two people per row at the same time.  maybe 0 if there are 0 seats between aisle and window.  contrast this with back to front: you have up to 0 0 people contending for the same space people who are all on the same row, regardless of  depth  into the airplane  #  what do you do when someone is out of order anyways during the sort process ?  #  have you every tried to coordinate a few hundred random people to do anything together ? even if you gave them all giant flashcards to hold that read 0 0, it would still take a substantial amount of time for people to get in the correct order.  imagine trying to get a group of chinese tourists who speak very little english trying to work together with a couple in their 0 is that need canes to move about and have hearing aids.  they are also working with a family that has 0 kids under 0 years old that they are trying to hold onto and so on until you have 0 complete strangers with different levels of experience with your sorting method and different physical and social skills.  this would take up an enormous amount of preflight time time which people would not be able to use doing something mildly entertaining or useful like checking emails, reading a book, or even just sitting down rather than standing around trying to get everything sorted out.  this does not even account for people being late/missing.  imagine everyone looking around for the passenger with number 0 and he was just sick and could not come, or the flight is not full and people have to fill in the gaps ? what do you do when someone is out of order anyways during the sort process ? let them proceed ? tell them to go to the end of the line to wait with the other losers that ca not sort themselves ? neither answer there is really good as one defeats the purpose of sorting and the other wastes more time.   #  with the zone method it literally takes about 0 0 minutes max to board after your zone is called.   #  you will always have people where it is their first time flying.  not everyone has some kind of tablet/smart phone.  an app would just add one more thing for people to not have available/ready to slow things down.  with the zone method it literally takes about 0 0 minutes max to board after your zone is called.  there is no way you are going to be able to get 0 random people with different backgrounds, languages, friendliness, age, competence, timeliness etc to organize anything in a coordinated fashion in that amount of time.  you said yourself that people are stupid and useless.  i am not sure how you are expecting 0 people to do anything requiring the least amount of thought and cooperation in 0 0 minutes.   #  URL this study pretty much proved the opposite of your view.   #  URL this study pretty much proved the opposite of your view.  you mention people stowing carry ons as taking up time.  let is say everyone gets the standard 0 carry ons. one small can be stowed under the seat and one larger stowed in an overheard compartment .  by forcing passengers to board in a certain order, you create the ideal climate for overhead storage congestion.  if all six people in the last row have large carry ons, then they will overflow their  allotted  overhead space and will have to stow their bags over another row is seats.  if this happens in several rows, you create conditions where people may have to go back against the flow of traffic to store their bags further forward on the plane.  however, with random seating, passengers can self select seats that meet their overhead storage needs without creating a cross flow of traffic.  while this might seem inefficient to you, it has been proven to be more efficient by people for whom time is literally money.
the current loading model of zones and boarding groups is absurd, and results in several time wasting inefficiencies.  passengers who are already seated in middle and aisle seats have to get up and block the aisle when a window seat passenger shows up in their row.  i find myself constantly waiting for people who are blocking the aisle to stow their carry on many rows ahead of my seat.  the plane should be loaded from back to front: start with the last row, board the window seats first, then the center seats, then the aisle seats, alternating sides with each person.  then repeat, moving up a row.  they board, stow their carry on hopefully without breaking stride , take their seat, and are out of everyone is way for the duration of boarding.  passengers should be required to self sort prior to having their tickets scanned.  if you miss your spot in line, you wait until the end and board with all the standby people, who would be re sorted because the computer knows who has not had their pass scanned.  i feel like this is a no brainer.  it should not take 0 minutes to get 0 people onto a plane.   #  passengers should be required to self sort prior to having their tickets scanned.   #  two hundred cranky travellers, some with heavy bags, some with babies and children, all attempting to sort themselves into a line you really think this would be  faster  ?  # passenger boarding times are not the only factor.  luggage and freight need to be loaded into the cargo hold, the plane needs cleaned and refuelled, there might be engineering inspections, meals and drinks may need resupplied, and so on.  airlines do not make money when their planes are on the ground.  the very fact that passenger boarding is not organised for greater speed/efficiency says that it is not the major limiting factor.  two hundred cranky travellers, some with heavy bags, some with babies and children, all attempting to sort themselves into a line you really think this would be  faster  ?  #  maybe 0 if there are 0 seats between aisle and window.   #  actually seems intuitive, if you think about  cost  for boarding time.  the highest cost is not travel up and down the aisle, but is crossing other passengers in your row and stowing at the same time others in the same row.  the  wilma  method avoids this.  so at the most you would have in most airliners , two people per row at the same time.  maybe 0 if there are 0 seats between aisle and window.  contrast this with back to front: you have up to 0 0 people contending for the same space people who are all on the same row, regardless of  depth  into the airplane  #  have you every tried to coordinate a few hundred random people to do anything together ?  #  have you every tried to coordinate a few hundred random people to do anything together ? even if you gave them all giant flashcards to hold that read 0 0, it would still take a substantial amount of time for people to get in the correct order.  imagine trying to get a group of chinese tourists who speak very little english trying to work together with a couple in their 0 is that need canes to move about and have hearing aids.  they are also working with a family that has 0 kids under 0 years old that they are trying to hold onto and so on until you have 0 complete strangers with different levels of experience with your sorting method and different physical and social skills.  this would take up an enormous amount of preflight time time which people would not be able to use doing something mildly entertaining or useful like checking emails, reading a book, or even just sitting down rather than standing around trying to get everything sorted out.  this does not even account for people being late/missing.  imagine everyone looking around for the passenger with number 0 and he was just sick and could not come, or the flight is not full and people have to fill in the gaps ? what do you do when someone is out of order anyways during the sort process ? let them proceed ? tell them to go to the end of the line to wait with the other losers that ca not sort themselves ? neither answer there is really good as one defeats the purpose of sorting and the other wastes more time.   #  not everyone has some kind of tablet/smart phone.   #  you will always have people where it is their first time flying.  not everyone has some kind of tablet/smart phone.  an app would just add one more thing for people to not have available/ready to slow things down.  with the zone method it literally takes about 0 0 minutes max to board after your zone is called.  there is no way you are going to be able to get 0 random people with different backgrounds, languages, friendliness, age, competence, timeliness etc to organize anything in a coordinated fashion in that amount of time.  you said yourself that people are stupid and useless.  i am not sure how you are expecting 0 people to do anything requiring the least amount of thought and cooperation in 0 0 minutes.   #  however, with random seating, passengers can self select seats that meet their overhead storage needs without creating a cross flow of traffic.   #  URL this study pretty much proved the opposite of your view.  you mention people stowing carry ons as taking up time.  let is say everyone gets the standard 0 carry ons. one small can be stowed under the seat and one larger stowed in an overheard compartment .  by forcing passengers to board in a certain order, you create the ideal climate for overhead storage congestion.  if all six people in the last row have large carry ons, then they will overflow their  allotted  overhead space and will have to stow their bags over another row is seats.  if this happens in several rows, you create conditions where people may have to go back against the flow of traffic to store their bags further forward on the plane.  however, with random seating, passengers can self select seats that meet their overhead storage needs without creating a cross flow of traffic.  while this might seem inefficient to you, it has been proven to be more efficient by people for whom time is literally money.
i am not against feminism for the views and aims, i am against feminism simply because it is the  advocacy of women is rights  and not the  advocacy of men is and women is rights .  i understand that most feminists want equal rights in regards of both sexes but i ca not sign off on a ideology, that by definition, focuses solely on women.  to put it in context a bit, i believe that most not all of the life lessons of christianity such as being a good person and not killing, but i am not a christian.  i believe that men and women should have equal rights but i am not a feminist, i would like the rights for both of the sexes were advocated and not simply women is.  the only argument i hear when i mention my views on this, is that feminism has evolved into what i would like in a equal rights movement.  but by definition it is the advocacy of women is rights, i do not want to call myself a feminist when the name does not reflect my opinions.   #  i am against feminism simply because it is the  advocacy of women is rights  and not the  advocacy of men is and women is rights .   #  are you against lgbt advocacy groups for the same reason ?  # are you against lgbt advocacy groups for the same reason ? what about advocacy groups for people of color ? why does feminism need to advocate for men is rights ? it is not about men is rights.  if men want an advocacy group that focuses on their rights they are free to start one.  why not ? what is the problem with an ideology that focuses on women ? do you think feminism prevents feminists from  also  advocating for men is rights ? because it does not, people who are feminists can also advocate for men is rights just like people who are lgbt advocates can advocate for straight people is rights.  it is just easier to get things done politically if your group has a focus.  that is why feminism has been successful in the past and i see no reason to change that.  i believe that men and women should have equal rights but i am not a feminist, i would like the rights for both of the sexes were advocated and not simply women is.  why does a group with a specific focus have to advocate for everyone ? why ca not it have a focus ? but by definition it is the advocacy of women is rights, i do not want to call myself a feminist when the name does not reflect my opinions.  i think, by definition, feminism advocates for  gender equality  which does include both sexes how can you make women equal to men without making men equal to women ? it is just that modern feminism tends to focus more on how society views gender as a whole and should not hold people to gender stereotypes and this is how they end up advocating for men is rights in a roundabout way .  but again, why ca not men form their own group to advocate for their own rights ? is this not what the men is rights movement is all about ?  #  where are the shelters being started and funded by mrm groups ?  #  the  advocacy group  you are referring to is mostly an anti feminism group rather than actually advocating men is rights, which is why they are labelled a hate group and face push back.  where are the shelters being started and funded by mrm groups ? we see feminists funding and starting shelters for women, and mras constantly deride them for not setting up shelters for men too, but  have not actually done anything about the issue by funding and setting up shelter is themselves like feminists do .  this is the problem and why it gets push back.  they advocate against feminism rather than in favor of solving the issues they claim are a problem.   #  yes, what happened to earl silverman is tragic and terrible.   #  in three years, he had 0 men go through there.  do you know how many women pass through a shelter in three years on average ? it is a helluva lot more than 0.  the largest barrier to men is shelters is the lack of demand.  most of that is because of social factors which i agree are a problem that should be addressed ! which cause men to not come forward about their abuse.  male victims are even less likely to step forward than women are due to social pressures.  societal pressures which are caused by gender roles which are something that feminism fights against. that men would benefit from feminists succeeding at.  .  but ultimately tons of different groups and people have started women is shelters all over the world, private shelters and public ones.  yet anytime someone says that mras should fund and set up their own shelters rather than just complain that they do not exist: the response is  earl silverman tried .  well, where is the next person to take up the mantel ? why have not people who make tons of money from writing books for mras, fund conferences, etc.  instead use that money to fund shelters or even simply advocate for them beyond shouting on internet forums ? yes, what happened to earl silverman is tragic and terrible.  but why has no one else even tried to set up shelters ? why have not mras pooled money to crowdfund it ? where is the kickstarter from mras to fund a shelter ? it is particularly difficult to have a men is shelter due to the small number of men that come forward and would actually use it.  but then again, where is the advocacy that male victims should come out more ? decrying those who deride male victims ? guess what: it is feminists doing it !  #  the feminists won a long time ago, and now they are going batshit crazy because mras are questioning their superiority.   #  it is stuff like this.  pulls fire alarm URL i simply ca not imagine an mra group actively trying to break up a group of feminists.  they would be eviscerated by everyone for even attempting something like that.  but it is more than that.  there is a straight up violent hatred of mras coming from some sects of the feminist movements that is striking.  the feminists won a long time ago, and now they are going batshit crazy because mras are questioning their superiority.  the opposite just does not happen.  men is rights groups are not running around violently breaking up feminist rallies.  so yes, the freminists are hampering the ability to advocate for men is rights.   #  a diverse group all gets together and goes,  we demand equality for all, starting right now !  # yes ? why ca not you be both ? here is the problem with an egalitarian movement: okay, it is the first meeting of the annual egalitarian movement.  a diverse group all gets together and goes,  we demand equality for all, starting right now ! so, where should we start ?   one person raises their hand,  it is an injustice that gay marriage has not reached all of the states yet, let is start there !   another pipes up,  but african americans are being profiled by the police and have a signifantly harder time getting jobs, we should start there.   yet another person feels the urge to speak,  but harmful gender stereotypes serve as a roadblock for women in professional settings and hamper true gender equality, that is where we need to start.   and on and on it goes, with one person wanting to end the injustice of men being disproportionally killed on the job and another wanting to do something for the homeless.  so what happens to the egalitarian group ? everyone starts to flock to their own pet projects.  so now you have got egalitarian feminists and egalitarian men is rights advocates and egalitarian lgbt advocates.  egalitarianism is certainly the goal of the majority of these groups, but enacting political change requires focus and dedication.  by splitting ourselves up we can work towards egalitarianism all at once, with one group focusing on lgbt issues, another focusing on women, another focusing on people of color.
i am not against feminism for the views and aims, i am against feminism simply because it is the  advocacy of women is rights  and not the  advocacy of men is and women is rights .  i understand that most feminists want equal rights in regards of both sexes but i ca not sign off on a ideology, that by definition, focuses solely on women.  to put it in context a bit, i believe that most not all of the life lessons of christianity such as being a good person and not killing, but i am not a christian.  i believe that men and women should have equal rights but i am not a feminist, i would like the rights for both of the sexes were advocated and not simply women is.  the only argument i hear when i mention my views on this, is that feminism has evolved into what i would like in a equal rights movement.  but by definition it is the advocacy of women is rights, i do not want to call myself a feminist when the name does not reflect my opinions.   #  to put it in context a bit, i believe that most not all of the life lessons of christianity such as being a good person and not killing, but i am not a christian.   #  i believe that men and women should have equal rights but i am not a feminist, i would like the rights for both of the sexes were advocated and not simply women is.   # are you against lgbt advocacy groups for the same reason ? what about advocacy groups for people of color ? why does feminism need to advocate for men is rights ? it is not about men is rights.  if men want an advocacy group that focuses on their rights they are free to start one.  why not ? what is the problem with an ideology that focuses on women ? do you think feminism prevents feminists from  also  advocating for men is rights ? because it does not, people who are feminists can also advocate for men is rights just like people who are lgbt advocates can advocate for straight people is rights.  it is just easier to get things done politically if your group has a focus.  that is why feminism has been successful in the past and i see no reason to change that.  i believe that men and women should have equal rights but i am not a feminist, i would like the rights for both of the sexes were advocated and not simply women is.  why does a group with a specific focus have to advocate for everyone ? why ca not it have a focus ? but by definition it is the advocacy of women is rights, i do not want to call myself a feminist when the name does not reflect my opinions.  i think, by definition, feminism advocates for  gender equality  which does include both sexes how can you make women equal to men without making men equal to women ? it is just that modern feminism tends to focus more on how society views gender as a whole and should not hold people to gender stereotypes and this is how they end up advocating for men is rights in a roundabout way .  but again, why ca not men form their own group to advocate for their own rights ? is this not what the men is rights movement is all about ?  #  we see feminists funding and starting shelters for women, and mras constantly deride them for not setting up shelters for men too, but  have not actually done anything about the issue by funding and setting up shelter is themselves like feminists do .   #  the  advocacy group  you are referring to is mostly an anti feminism group rather than actually advocating men is rights, which is why they are labelled a hate group and face push back.  where are the shelters being started and funded by mrm groups ? we see feminists funding and starting shelters for women, and mras constantly deride them for not setting up shelters for men too, but  have not actually done anything about the issue by funding and setting up shelter is themselves like feminists do .  this is the problem and why it gets push back.  they advocate against feminism rather than in favor of solving the issues they claim are a problem.   #  well, where is the next person to take up the mantel ?  #  in three years, he had 0 men go through there.  do you know how many women pass through a shelter in three years on average ? it is a helluva lot more than 0.  the largest barrier to men is shelters is the lack of demand.  most of that is because of social factors which i agree are a problem that should be addressed ! which cause men to not come forward about their abuse.  male victims are even less likely to step forward than women are due to social pressures.  societal pressures which are caused by gender roles which are something that feminism fights against. that men would benefit from feminists succeeding at.  .  but ultimately tons of different groups and people have started women is shelters all over the world, private shelters and public ones.  yet anytime someone says that mras should fund and set up their own shelters rather than just complain that they do not exist: the response is  earl silverman tried .  well, where is the next person to take up the mantel ? why have not people who make tons of money from writing books for mras, fund conferences, etc.  instead use that money to fund shelters or even simply advocate for them beyond shouting on internet forums ? yes, what happened to earl silverman is tragic and terrible.  but why has no one else even tried to set up shelters ? why have not mras pooled money to crowdfund it ? where is the kickstarter from mras to fund a shelter ? it is particularly difficult to have a men is shelter due to the small number of men that come forward and would actually use it.  but then again, where is the advocacy that male victims should come out more ? decrying those who deride male victims ? guess what: it is feminists doing it !  #  there is a straight up violent hatred of mras coming from some sects of the feminist movements that is striking.   #  it is stuff like this.  pulls fire alarm URL i simply ca not imagine an mra group actively trying to break up a group of feminists.  they would be eviscerated by everyone for even attempting something like that.  but it is more than that.  there is a straight up violent hatred of mras coming from some sects of the feminist movements that is striking.  the feminists won a long time ago, and now they are going batshit crazy because mras are questioning their superiority.  the opposite just does not happen.  men is rights groups are not running around violently breaking up feminist rallies.  so yes, the freminists are hampering the ability to advocate for men is rights.   #  another pipes up,  but african americans are being profiled by the police and have a signifantly harder time getting jobs, we should start there.    # yes ? why ca not you be both ? here is the problem with an egalitarian movement: okay, it is the first meeting of the annual egalitarian movement.  a diverse group all gets together and goes,  we demand equality for all, starting right now ! so, where should we start ?   one person raises their hand,  it is an injustice that gay marriage has not reached all of the states yet, let is start there !   another pipes up,  but african americans are being profiled by the police and have a signifantly harder time getting jobs, we should start there.   yet another person feels the urge to speak,  but harmful gender stereotypes serve as a roadblock for women in professional settings and hamper true gender equality, that is where we need to start.   and on and on it goes, with one person wanting to end the injustice of men being disproportionally killed on the job and another wanting to do something for the homeless.  so what happens to the egalitarian group ? everyone starts to flock to their own pet projects.  so now you have got egalitarian feminists and egalitarian men is rights advocates and egalitarian lgbt advocates.  egalitarianism is certainly the goal of the majority of these groups, but enacting political change requires focus and dedication.  by splitting ourselves up we can work towards egalitarianism all at once, with one group focusing on lgbt issues, another focusing on women, another focusing on people of color.
i am not against feminism for the views and aims, i am against feminism simply because it is the  advocacy of women is rights  and not the  advocacy of men is and women is rights .  i understand that most feminists want equal rights in regards of both sexes but i ca not sign off on a ideology, that by definition, focuses solely on women.  to put it in context a bit, i believe that most not all of the life lessons of christianity such as being a good person and not killing, but i am not a christian.  i believe that men and women should have equal rights but i am not a feminist, i would like the rights for both of the sexes were advocated and not simply women is.  the only argument i hear when i mention my views on this, is that feminism has evolved into what i would like in a equal rights movement.  but by definition it is the advocacy of women is rights, i do not want to call myself a feminist when the name does not reflect my opinions.   #  the only argument i hear when i mention my views on this, is that feminism has evolved into what i would like in a equal rights movement.   #  but by definition it is the advocacy of women is rights, i do not want to call myself a feminist when the name does not reflect my opinions.   # are you against lgbt advocacy groups for the same reason ? what about advocacy groups for people of color ? why does feminism need to advocate for men is rights ? it is not about men is rights.  if men want an advocacy group that focuses on their rights they are free to start one.  why not ? what is the problem with an ideology that focuses on women ? do you think feminism prevents feminists from  also  advocating for men is rights ? because it does not, people who are feminists can also advocate for men is rights just like people who are lgbt advocates can advocate for straight people is rights.  it is just easier to get things done politically if your group has a focus.  that is why feminism has been successful in the past and i see no reason to change that.  i believe that men and women should have equal rights but i am not a feminist, i would like the rights for both of the sexes were advocated and not simply women is.  why does a group with a specific focus have to advocate for everyone ? why ca not it have a focus ? but by definition it is the advocacy of women is rights, i do not want to call myself a feminist when the name does not reflect my opinions.  i think, by definition, feminism advocates for  gender equality  which does include both sexes how can you make women equal to men without making men equal to women ? it is just that modern feminism tends to focus more on how society views gender as a whole and should not hold people to gender stereotypes and this is how they end up advocating for men is rights in a roundabout way .  but again, why ca not men form their own group to advocate for their own rights ? is this not what the men is rights movement is all about ?  #  we see feminists funding and starting shelters for women, and mras constantly deride them for not setting up shelters for men too, but  have not actually done anything about the issue by funding and setting up shelter is themselves like feminists do .   #  the  advocacy group  you are referring to is mostly an anti feminism group rather than actually advocating men is rights, which is why they are labelled a hate group and face push back.  where are the shelters being started and funded by mrm groups ? we see feminists funding and starting shelters for women, and mras constantly deride them for not setting up shelters for men too, but  have not actually done anything about the issue by funding and setting up shelter is themselves like feminists do .  this is the problem and why it gets push back.  they advocate against feminism rather than in favor of solving the issues they claim are a problem.   #  it is a helluva lot more than 0.  the largest barrier to men is shelters is the lack of demand.   #  in three years, he had 0 men go through there.  do you know how many women pass through a shelter in three years on average ? it is a helluva lot more than 0.  the largest barrier to men is shelters is the lack of demand.  most of that is because of social factors which i agree are a problem that should be addressed ! which cause men to not come forward about their abuse.  male victims are even less likely to step forward than women are due to social pressures.  societal pressures which are caused by gender roles which are something that feminism fights against. that men would benefit from feminists succeeding at.  .  but ultimately tons of different groups and people have started women is shelters all over the world, private shelters and public ones.  yet anytime someone says that mras should fund and set up their own shelters rather than just complain that they do not exist: the response is  earl silverman tried .  well, where is the next person to take up the mantel ? why have not people who make tons of money from writing books for mras, fund conferences, etc.  instead use that money to fund shelters or even simply advocate for them beyond shouting on internet forums ? yes, what happened to earl silverman is tragic and terrible.  but why has no one else even tried to set up shelters ? why have not mras pooled money to crowdfund it ? where is the kickstarter from mras to fund a shelter ? it is particularly difficult to have a men is shelter due to the small number of men that come forward and would actually use it.  but then again, where is the advocacy that male victims should come out more ? decrying those who deride male victims ? guess what: it is feminists doing it !  #  there is a straight up violent hatred of mras coming from some sects of the feminist movements that is striking.   #  it is stuff like this.  pulls fire alarm URL i simply ca not imagine an mra group actively trying to break up a group of feminists.  they would be eviscerated by everyone for even attempting something like that.  but it is more than that.  there is a straight up violent hatred of mras coming from some sects of the feminist movements that is striking.  the feminists won a long time ago, and now they are going batshit crazy because mras are questioning their superiority.  the opposite just does not happen.  men is rights groups are not running around violently breaking up feminist rallies.  so yes, the freminists are hampering the ability to advocate for men is rights.   #  so now you have got egalitarian feminists and egalitarian men is rights advocates and egalitarian lgbt advocates.   # yes ? why ca not you be both ? here is the problem with an egalitarian movement: okay, it is the first meeting of the annual egalitarian movement.  a diverse group all gets together and goes,  we demand equality for all, starting right now ! so, where should we start ?   one person raises their hand,  it is an injustice that gay marriage has not reached all of the states yet, let is start there !   another pipes up,  but african americans are being profiled by the police and have a signifantly harder time getting jobs, we should start there.   yet another person feels the urge to speak,  but harmful gender stereotypes serve as a roadblock for women in professional settings and hamper true gender equality, that is where we need to start.   and on and on it goes, with one person wanting to end the injustice of men being disproportionally killed on the job and another wanting to do something for the homeless.  so what happens to the egalitarian group ? everyone starts to flock to their own pet projects.  so now you have got egalitarian feminists and egalitarian men is rights advocates and egalitarian lgbt advocates.  egalitarianism is certainly the goal of the majority of these groups, but enacting political change requires focus and dedication.  by splitting ourselves up we can work towards egalitarianism all at once, with one group focusing on lgbt issues, another focusing on women, another focusing on people of color.
i am not against feminism for the views and aims, i am against feminism simply because it is the  advocacy of women is rights  and not the  advocacy of men is and women is rights .  i understand that most feminists want equal rights in regards of both sexes but i ca not sign off on a ideology, that by definition, focuses solely on women.  to put it in context a bit, i believe that most not all of the life lessons of christianity such as being a good person and not killing, but i am not a christian.  i believe that men and women should have equal rights but i am not a feminist, i would like the rights for both of the sexes were advocated and not simply women is.  the only argument i hear when i mention my views on this, is that feminism has evolved into what i would like in a equal rights movement.  but by definition it is the advocacy of women is rights, i do not want to call myself a feminist when the name does not reflect my opinions.   #  but by definition it is the advocacy of women is rights, i do not want to call myself a feminist when the name does not reflect my opinions.   #  that is fine, and i wo not even try to argue that feminism is  about equal rights .   # that is fine, and i wo not even try to argue that feminism is  about equal rights .  by and large, you are right that its  about  women is rights.  but , no part of the definition of feminism  excludes  men is rights.  an egalitarian feminist which i personally think is  most  feminists is still a feminist.  you do not lose your feminism card for wanting to improve prison conditions or reduce the stigma around male teachers or stay at home dads.  if i consider myself an advocate for handicapped people and lobby for wheelchair ramps, that does not mean i am opposed to the rights of non handicapped folks.   the definition of feminism  makes a feminist an advocate for women is rights, but says nothing either way about their views on mens rights, so your reasoning does not make much sense to me.   #  it is just that modern feminism tends to focus more on how society views gender as a whole and should not hold people to gender stereotypes and this is how they end up advocating for men is rights in a roundabout way .   # are you against lgbt advocacy groups for the same reason ? what about advocacy groups for people of color ? why does feminism need to advocate for men is rights ? it is not about men is rights.  if men want an advocacy group that focuses on their rights they are free to start one.  why not ? what is the problem with an ideology that focuses on women ? do you think feminism prevents feminists from  also  advocating for men is rights ? because it does not, people who are feminists can also advocate for men is rights just like people who are lgbt advocates can advocate for straight people is rights.  it is just easier to get things done politically if your group has a focus.  that is why feminism has been successful in the past and i see no reason to change that.  i believe that men and women should have equal rights but i am not a feminist, i would like the rights for both of the sexes were advocated and not simply women is.  why does a group with a specific focus have to advocate for everyone ? why ca not it have a focus ? but by definition it is the advocacy of women is rights, i do not want to call myself a feminist when the name does not reflect my opinions.  i think, by definition, feminism advocates for  gender equality  which does include both sexes how can you make women equal to men without making men equal to women ? it is just that modern feminism tends to focus more on how society views gender as a whole and should not hold people to gender stereotypes and this is how they end up advocating for men is rights in a roundabout way .  but again, why ca not men form their own group to advocate for their own rights ? is this not what the men is rights movement is all about ?  #  where are the shelters being started and funded by mrm groups ?  #  the  advocacy group  you are referring to is mostly an anti feminism group rather than actually advocating men is rights, which is why they are labelled a hate group and face push back.  where are the shelters being started and funded by mrm groups ? we see feminists funding and starting shelters for women, and mras constantly deride them for not setting up shelters for men too, but  have not actually done anything about the issue by funding and setting up shelter is themselves like feminists do .  this is the problem and why it gets push back.  they advocate against feminism rather than in favor of solving the issues they claim are a problem.   #  do you know how many women pass through a shelter in three years on average ?  #  in three years, he had 0 men go through there.  do you know how many women pass through a shelter in three years on average ? it is a helluva lot more than 0.  the largest barrier to men is shelters is the lack of demand.  most of that is because of social factors which i agree are a problem that should be addressed ! which cause men to not come forward about their abuse.  male victims are even less likely to step forward than women are due to social pressures.  societal pressures which are caused by gender roles which are something that feminism fights against. that men would benefit from feminists succeeding at.  .  but ultimately tons of different groups and people have started women is shelters all over the world, private shelters and public ones.  yet anytime someone says that mras should fund and set up their own shelters rather than just complain that they do not exist: the response is  earl silverman tried .  well, where is the next person to take up the mantel ? why have not people who make tons of money from writing books for mras, fund conferences, etc.  instead use that money to fund shelters or even simply advocate for them beyond shouting on internet forums ? yes, what happened to earl silverman is tragic and terrible.  but why has no one else even tried to set up shelters ? why have not mras pooled money to crowdfund it ? where is the kickstarter from mras to fund a shelter ? it is particularly difficult to have a men is shelter due to the small number of men that come forward and would actually use it.  but then again, where is the advocacy that male victims should come out more ? decrying those who deride male victims ? guess what: it is feminists doing it !  #  it is stuff like this.  pulls fire alarm URL i simply ca not imagine an mra group actively trying to break up a group of feminists.   #  it is stuff like this.  pulls fire alarm URL i simply ca not imagine an mra group actively trying to break up a group of feminists.  they would be eviscerated by everyone for even attempting something like that.  but it is more than that.  there is a straight up violent hatred of mras coming from some sects of the feminist movements that is striking.  the feminists won a long time ago, and now they are going batshit crazy because mras are questioning their superiority.  the opposite just does not happen.  men is rights groups are not running around violently breaking up feminist rallies.  so yes, the freminists are hampering the ability to advocate for men is rights.
so currently a lot of government benefits in the us are given as  in kind  transfers, where the government gives you a voucher to buy a specific sort of thing.  in particular, food stamps give people a debit card with which they can buy non prepared food from grocery stores and other food retailers.  i think the restriction on what can be bought with these benefits should be repealed, and that the recipients should decide for themselves what they want to buy.  the restriction on buying only food is paternalistic, and reduces the range of options available to poor families.  changing the benefit to a cash transfer will improve the welfare of poor families, while saving the government money on their administration of the program.  the rules requiring purchasing only food seem designed around ideas that poor people are irresponsible and prone to bad decision making, and that the government knows better than them what they need.  while some people would make worse decisions with the money, it does not seem fair to greatly reduce the value of these benefits for the large majority of recipients who are conscientious people in extremely difficult circumstances.  but these programs became the way they are for a reason, so maybe i am missing something.  change my view.  so far /u/iserane has gotten furthest along in altering my view, though not fully there yet.  but i need to get some sleep here, so will respond to more posts in the morning.   #  the rules requiring purchasing only food seem designed around ideas that poor people are irresponsible and prone to bad decision making, and that the government knows better than them what they need.   #  that is because it is the government is money.   # that is because it is the government is money.  the point of something like welfare is not for someone to live forever on it.  it is to provide a safety net for people to stay alive while they work toward bettering their own situation.  in other words, it is not  supposed  to be comfortable.  it is not  supposed  to be desirable.  you are supposed to stay alive, not enjoy the experience to the point where you decide that not getting a job is actually the better course of action.  in the case of children, especially, the point of these programs is to keep kids alive and healthy until their parents can do it on their own.  and if we are the ones paying for it, then yes, we absolutely do get to decide how it is spent.  we are not meant to just be writing checks.  it is not about assuming that the recipient makes bad choices.  it is about doing with that money what was meant to be done with it.   #  here, the alcoholic is required to eat rather than drink for her own good, rather than to benefit donors, or schooling is forced on households that under estimate its real value to them.   #  this was a topic brought up in a biology and ethics course i took a few years ago.  i do agree that cash payments are almost always better than restricted ones.  in fact i pretty much agree in general with what you have said.  the only exception i found was for that of children.  there were some papers i do not remember now that showed the difference in nutrition of children in families receiving cash versus food stamps.  so while it makes no difference for the adults, the children who likely have no choice in what is purchased do benefit.  it is 0 bullshit for people to think that bad spending would not occur since $0 dedicated to groceries just means i have $0 i would have spent otherwise, but as far as what i have seen empirically, it does appear that snap benefits childhood nutrition.  e: for welfare in general you can find lots of research such as less cash, less crime: evidence from the electronic benefit transfer program URL e0: i hate how everyone in cmv just armchair speculates and never links to any kind of research, here is a great paper URL on vouchers in general 0 0 examples of vouchers, 0 0 why vouchers, 0 0 is on food cash equivalence .  pay particular attention to pages 0 0 as it talks about most of your points.  here, the alcoholic is required to eat rather than drink for her own good, rather than to benefit donors, or schooling is forced on households that under estimate its real value to them.  some voucher recipients, however, may not exhibit such preferences.  instead, framing effects or the exhortatory influence of receiving a voucher that one is told should be spent in a particular way may end up influencing consumer choices.  thus, suppose that an individual with income of $0 per week, $0 of which he spends on food, would in fact increase his weekly food expenditure to $0 if he received $0 of food stamps, but only to $0 if he received an extra $0 of cash.  the decision to give him food stamps instead of cash would not be paternalistic in the sense of requiring him to depart from stable consumer preferences of the sort one could depict with an indifference map.  it might still, however, be paternalistic in the sense of reflecting a judgment from the outside that a $0 food expenditure was better for him than one of $0, and thus that the government should try through framing or exhortation to influence his allocative choice.  e0: sorry found a paper like one i was talking about earlier, welfare and the well being of children: the relative effectiveness of cash and in kind transfers URL  . it suggests that in kind programs have stronger effects on children than cash transfers, and that programs that target specific benefits directly to children have the largest positive effects.  and one more, transfers in cash and in kind: theory meets the data URL which is pretty damn exhaustive and talks about the paternalism aspect starting on page 0.  i do not really think people are addressing your points and are getting sidetracked or missing the point entirely.   #  not to mention you can effectively  sell  your food stamps at a loss compared to straight cash .   #  eh for what it is worth i do agree with your position, just playing devil is advocate.  e: i am just gonna edit here and done for the night, hope you see it.  when it comes down to it, you are right in a few areas.  no one knows how to spend my money better than i do and so i should get cash so i can maximize utility .  and getting $0 for gas does not mean i wont spend money on bad stuff, it just means i will spend the money i would have otherwise spent on gas.  not to mention you can effectively  sell  your food stamps at a loss compared to straight cash .  non cash transfers do shape consumption to some degree as indicated by a few of the papers above and there may be things that we want to steer consumption towards for the betterment of everyone.  then there is also the fact that those who receive the benefits of snap are not always the same as those making the consumption choices family .  so if i had no input on what $0 was spent on by someone else a parent that is one way of ensuring that my consumption choices are taken into consideration.   #  i know from a few years back when i was living paycheck to paycheck, i never had health insurance because food was a higher priority.   #  i know from a few years back when i was living paycheck to paycheck, i never had health insurance because food was a higher priority.  instead of spending 0  a month on insurance for a healthy mid 0s male, i ate better food.  i used the extra left over to pay bills.  its anecdotal, but i ca not think of many people my age that bought health insurance unless their employer had a plan.  i honestly do not think people in general spend cash properly on health care.  if people were serious about it they would exercise more, eat better and abstain from vices that harm them.  i think blanketly giving people cash and expecting them to use it on health care is short sighted.  it would be better to have incentives that encourage a healthier lifestyle.   #  sorry this took me a while to get back to.   #  sorry this took me a while to get back to.  the  transfers in cash and in kind: theory meets the data  paper seemed to get at the crux of the thing, but still left me unpersuaded on the overall question.  it makes a strong case that if the intent of the program is to provide more consumption of  merit goods  like food, then you want an in kind transfer.  but the intent of the program is where i think i disagree with a lot of the commentators here.  i see the intent as improving the general welfare of the people who receive it, not just nudging them towards certain things the government thinks are worthy.
so currently a lot of government benefits in the us are given as  in kind  transfers, where the government gives you a voucher to buy a specific sort of thing.  in particular, food stamps give people a debit card with which they can buy non prepared food from grocery stores and other food retailers.  i think the restriction on what can be bought with these benefits should be repealed, and that the recipients should decide for themselves what they want to buy.  the restriction on buying only food is paternalistic, and reduces the range of options available to poor families.  changing the benefit to a cash transfer will improve the welfare of poor families, while saving the government money on their administration of the program.  the rules requiring purchasing only food seem designed around ideas that poor people are irresponsible and prone to bad decision making, and that the government knows better than them what they need.  while some people would make worse decisions with the money, it does not seem fair to greatly reduce the value of these benefits for the large majority of recipients who are conscientious people in extremely difficult circumstances.  but these programs became the way they are for a reason, so maybe i am missing something.  change my view.  so far /u/iserane has gotten furthest along in altering my view, though not fully there yet.  but i need to get some sleep here, so will respond to more posts in the morning.   #  the restriction on buying only food is paternalistic, and reduces the range of options available to poor families.   #  what other things do you think they would cover with the cash ?  # what other things do you think they would cover with the cash ? housing, school, preschool, and health insurance ? those things are already covered by other aid programs.   poor  is not a disease.  i am not saying it is avoidable 0 of the time, but there is a lot you can do to not become poor to the point of not being able to afford food.   #  some voucher recipients, however, may not exhibit such preferences.   #  this was a topic brought up in a biology and ethics course i took a few years ago.  i do agree that cash payments are almost always better than restricted ones.  in fact i pretty much agree in general with what you have said.  the only exception i found was for that of children.  there were some papers i do not remember now that showed the difference in nutrition of children in families receiving cash versus food stamps.  so while it makes no difference for the adults, the children who likely have no choice in what is purchased do benefit.  it is 0 bullshit for people to think that bad spending would not occur since $0 dedicated to groceries just means i have $0 i would have spent otherwise, but as far as what i have seen empirically, it does appear that snap benefits childhood nutrition.  e: for welfare in general you can find lots of research such as less cash, less crime: evidence from the electronic benefit transfer program URL e0: i hate how everyone in cmv just armchair speculates and never links to any kind of research, here is a great paper URL on vouchers in general 0 0 examples of vouchers, 0 0 why vouchers, 0 0 is on food cash equivalence .  pay particular attention to pages 0 0 as it talks about most of your points.  here, the alcoholic is required to eat rather than drink for her own good, rather than to benefit donors, or schooling is forced on households that under estimate its real value to them.  some voucher recipients, however, may not exhibit such preferences.  instead, framing effects or the exhortatory influence of receiving a voucher that one is told should be spent in a particular way may end up influencing consumer choices.  thus, suppose that an individual with income of $0 per week, $0 of which he spends on food, would in fact increase his weekly food expenditure to $0 if he received $0 of food stamps, but only to $0 if he received an extra $0 of cash.  the decision to give him food stamps instead of cash would not be paternalistic in the sense of requiring him to depart from stable consumer preferences of the sort one could depict with an indifference map.  it might still, however, be paternalistic in the sense of reflecting a judgment from the outside that a $0 food expenditure was better for him than one of $0, and thus that the government should try through framing or exhortation to influence his allocative choice.  e0: sorry found a paper like one i was talking about earlier, welfare and the well being of children: the relative effectiveness of cash and in kind transfers URL  . it suggests that in kind programs have stronger effects on children than cash transfers, and that programs that target specific benefits directly to children have the largest positive effects.  and one more, transfers in cash and in kind: theory meets the data URL which is pretty damn exhaustive and talks about the paternalism aspect starting on page 0.  i do not really think people are addressing your points and are getting sidetracked or missing the point entirely.   #  e: i am just gonna edit here and done for the night, hope you see it.   #  eh for what it is worth i do agree with your position, just playing devil is advocate.  e: i am just gonna edit here and done for the night, hope you see it.  when it comes down to it, you are right in a few areas.  no one knows how to spend my money better than i do and so i should get cash so i can maximize utility .  and getting $0 for gas does not mean i wont spend money on bad stuff, it just means i will spend the money i would have otherwise spent on gas.  not to mention you can effectively  sell  your food stamps at a loss compared to straight cash .  non cash transfers do shape consumption to some degree as indicated by a few of the papers above and there may be things that we want to steer consumption towards for the betterment of everyone.  then there is also the fact that those who receive the benefits of snap are not always the same as those making the consumption choices family .  so if i had no input on what $0 was spent on by someone else a parent that is one way of ensuring that my consumption choices are taken into consideration.   #  if people were serious about it they would exercise more, eat better and abstain from vices that harm them.   #  i know from a few years back when i was living paycheck to paycheck, i never had health insurance because food was a higher priority.  instead of spending 0  a month on insurance for a healthy mid 0s male, i ate better food.  i used the extra left over to pay bills.  its anecdotal, but i ca not think of many people my age that bought health insurance unless their employer had a plan.  i honestly do not think people in general spend cash properly on health care.  if people were serious about it they would exercise more, eat better and abstain from vices that harm them.  i think blanketly giving people cash and expecting them to use it on health care is short sighted.  it would be better to have incentives that encourage a healthier lifestyle.   #  it makes a strong case that if the intent of the program is to provide more consumption of  merit goods  like food, then you want an in kind transfer.   #  sorry this took me a while to get back to.  the  transfers in cash and in kind: theory meets the data  paper seemed to get at the crux of the thing, but still left me unpersuaded on the overall question.  it makes a strong case that if the intent of the program is to provide more consumption of  merit goods  like food, then you want an in kind transfer.  but the intent of the program is where i think i disagree with a lot of the commentators here.  i see the intent as improving the general welfare of the people who receive it, not just nudging them towards certain things the government thinks are worthy.
so currently a lot of government benefits in the us are given as  in kind  transfers, where the government gives you a voucher to buy a specific sort of thing.  in particular, food stamps give people a debit card with which they can buy non prepared food from grocery stores and other food retailers.  i think the restriction on what can be bought with these benefits should be repealed, and that the recipients should decide for themselves what they want to buy.  the restriction on buying only food is paternalistic, and reduces the range of options available to poor families.  changing the benefit to a cash transfer will improve the welfare of poor families, while saving the government money on their administration of the program.  the rules requiring purchasing only food seem designed around ideas that poor people are irresponsible and prone to bad decision making, and that the government knows better than them what they need.  while some people would make worse decisions with the money, it does not seem fair to greatly reduce the value of these benefits for the large majority of recipients who are conscientious people in extremely difficult circumstances.  but these programs became the way they are for a reason, so maybe i am missing something.  change my view.  so far /u/iserane has gotten furthest along in altering my view, though not fully there yet.  but i need to get some sleep here, so will respond to more posts in the morning.   #  the rules requiring purchasing only food seem designed around ideas that poor people are irresponsible and prone to bad decision making, and that the government knows better than them what they need.   #  i would not argue that all poor people are like that, but addiction is a powerful thing.   # i would not argue that all poor people are like that, but addiction is a powerful thing.  some people sell all of their worldly possessions for heroin, what would make you think that they would not immediately spend all of their  food money  on drugs.  now you have got the problem of  oh, we  still  have to feed this guy as a society.   not only that, but the people who are not in control of the money, like children, would get the short end of the stick.  you are right when you say that a large majority of people would probably spend it on food and in that case, there is no problem with it currently.  if i am going to spend 0 bucks on food at wal mart, it does not matter if you give me 0 bucks cash or a 0 dollar gift certificate.  but to the people who prioritize things like hard drugs over basic needs, you are giving them enough rope to hand themselves.  and if you are giving people money as a society, you have already assumed responsibility for that person to some degree.   #  here, the alcoholic is required to eat rather than drink for her own good, rather than to benefit donors, or schooling is forced on households that under estimate its real value to them.   #  this was a topic brought up in a biology and ethics course i took a few years ago.  i do agree that cash payments are almost always better than restricted ones.  in fact i pretty much agree in general with what you have said.  the only exception i found was for that of children.  there were some papers i do not remember now that showed the difference in nutrition of children in families receiving cash versus food stamps.  so while it makes no difference for the adults, the children who likely have no choice in what is purchased do benefit.  it is 0 bullshit for people to think that bad spending would not occur since $0 dedicated to groceries just means i have $0 i would have spent otherwise, but as far as what i have seen empirically, it does appear that snap benefits childhood nutrition.  e: for welfare in general you can find lots of research such as less cash, less crime: evidence from the electronic benefit transfer program URL e0: i hate how everyone in cmv just armchair speculates and never links to any kind of research, here is a great paper URL on vouchers in general 0 0 examples of vouchers, 0 0 why vouchers, 0 0 is on food cash equivalence .  pay particular attention to pages 0 0 as it talks about most of your points.  here, the alcoholic is required to eat rather than drink for her own good, rather than to benefit donors, or schooling is forced on households that under estimate its real value to them.  some voucher recipients, however, may not exhibit such preferences.  instead, framing effects or the exhortatory influence of receiving a voucher that one is told should be spent in a particular way may end up influencing consumer choices.  thus, suppose that an individual with income of $0 per week, $0 of which he spends on food, would in fact increase his weekly food expenditure to $0 if he received $0 of food stamps, but only to $0 if he received an extra $0 of cash.  the decision to give him food stamps instead of cash would not be paternalistic in the sense of requiring him to depart from stable consumer preferences of the sort one could depict with an indifference map.  it might still, however, be paternalistic in the sense of reflecting a judgment from the outside that a $0 food expenditure was better for him than one of $0, and thus that the government should try through framing or exhortation to influence his allocative choice.  e0: sorry found a paper like one i was talking about earlier, welfare and the well being of children: the relative effectiveness of cash and in kind transfers URL  . it suggests that in kind programs have stronger effects on children than cash transfers, and that programs that target specific benefits directly to children have the largest positive effects.  and one more, transfers in cash and in kind: theory meets the data URL which is pretty damn exhaustive and talks about the paternalism aspect starting on page 0.  i do not really think people are addressing your points and are getting sidetracked or missing the point entirely.   #  eh for what it is worth i do agree with your position, just playing devil is advocate.   #  eh for what it is worth i do agree with your position, just playing devil is advocate.  e: i am just gonna edit here and done for the night, hope you see it.  when it comes down to it, you are right in a few areas.  no one knows how to spend my money better than i do and so i should get cash so i can maximize utility .  and getting $0 for gas does not mean i wont spend money on bad stuff, it just means i will spend the money i would have otherwise spent on gas.  not to mention you can effectively  sell  your food stamps at a loss compared to straight cash .  non cash transfers do shape consumption to some degree as indicated by a few of the papers above and there may be things that we want to steer consumption towards for the betterment of everyone.  then there is also the fact that those who receive the benefits of snap are not always the same as those making the consumption choices family .  so if i had no input on what $0 was spent on by someone else a parent that is one way of ensuring that my consumption choices are taken into consideration.   #  i know from a few years back when i was living paycheck to paycheck, i never had health insurance because food was a higher priority.   #  i know from a few years back when i was living paycheck to paycheck, i never had health insurance because food was a higher priority.  instead of spending 0  a month on insurance for a healthy mid 0s male, i ate better food.  i used the extra left over to pay bills.  its anecdotal, but i ca not think of many people my age that bought health insurance unless their employer had a plan.  i honestly do not think people in general spend cash properly on health care.  if people were serious about it they would exercise more, eat better and abstain from vices that harm them.  i think blanketly giving people cash and expecting them to use it on health care is short sighted.  it would be better to have incentives that encourage a healthier lifestyle.   #  it makes a strong case that if the intent of the program is to provide more consumption of  merit goods  like food, then you want an in kind transfer.   #  sorry this took me a while to get back to.  the  transfers in cash and in kind: theory meets the data  paper seemed to get at the crux of the thing, but still left me unpersuaded on the overall question.  it makes a strong case that if the intent of the program is to provide more consumption of  merit goods  like food, then you want an in kind transfer.  but the intent of the program is where i think i disagree with a lot of the commentators here.  i see the intent as improving the general welfare of the people who receive it, not just nudging them towards certain things the government thinks are worthy.
the days of bedlam are long over.  we can not simply place people in psychiatric hospitals anymore.  today, we require due process in order to place someone in a psych hospital.  if an individual refuses to voluntarily seek treatment, there are ways to civilly commit this person to become an involuntary in patient.  criteria varies but is typically: a grave disability can not provide basic necessitates of life for him/herself because of mental illness.  survival is at risk.  b dangerous to self suicidal because of a mental illness.  c dangerous to others imminent danger to other people due to illness.  this can be very subjective, but it is immensely important to consider.  the most troublesome is dangerous to others.  for example, the virginia tech shooter.  cho was determined  dangerous  when he first spoke to a therapist.  he was stalking students and making threats.  they could not acquire enough evidence to have him removed from the school and placed in a hospital.  therefore, he could not be civilly committed.  however, these types of concerns should be taken very seriously.  had a search warrant been placed, his residence could have been rummaged through and journals outlining his plans could be found along with weapons that could be confiscated.  many people think this is a violation of individual rights.  however, this is an issue of individual rights vs common good.  in this case, i think a search warrant is a good in between of just letting the person off in good faith even if he/she is dangerous and forcing him/her to be hospitalized.  people may say,  no crime, no time !   but i say,  better safe than sorry !   after all, if he had nothing to hide there would not have been a problem.  if a person makes a bomb threat at an airport, there is a huge investigation and serious consequences.  this is because of precedents like 0/0.  why could not columbine have been a precedent for the virginia tech case ? any threats or suspicious behavior should be taken seriously.  if we wo not hospitalize a dangerous person, we should at least be able to search his/her residence.   #  in this case, i think a search warrant is a good in between of just letting the person off in good faith even if he/she is dangerous and forcing him/her to be hospitalized.   #  people may say,  no crime, no time !    # people may say,  no crime, no time !   but i say,  better safe than sorry !   after all, if he had nothing to hide there would not have been a problem.  so, why could not a search warrant be issued with the evidence that they had on the vt shooter ? the answer is that they had nothing.  if you give cart blanche authority for police to get search warrants with no cause, it is a matter of  when , not  if  they will be abused.  i do not like this  if you have nothing to hide  argument either.  i do not  want  people tearing through  my  shit over baseless claims.  maybe i have something to hide that is just  embarrassing  but not  illegal , and it is  none of the police is fucking business .   #  those rights were drafted when we needed to fend off attacking indians.   #  those rights were drafted when we needed to fend off attacking indians.  like the bible, i do not think they are fit to govern society today.  i am not proposing we abandoned them, but they need to be amended.  the law has to change with society to address issues and criminal behavior.  spree killing is a serious crime.  if we are so bad at predicting violence from individuals with mental illness, even more the reason we should search them if they are dangerous.   #  and they do not have to fix  shit  because they had a warrant.   #  also, i do not think you are really understanding  searched ; they do not just come in and open up your cupboards to see if there is heroin in there: if every house needs to be searched, they do not have time to be gentile.  every thing you own will be strewn about, thrown, tossed on the floor, and broken apart if they think that you could be hiding something there.  your walls can be torn down if they think you are hiding things in there.  and they do not have to fix  shit  because they had a warrant.  and as /u/blackrobedmage alluded to: do you want to deal with that twice a week, or however often the police deem you need to be searched ?  #  you mean like depression, which effects 0 in 0 adults ?  #  mental illness ? you mean like depression, which effects 0 in 0 adults ? URL most of whom are nonviolent and not a threat and who do not deserve to have their home violated ? if you screen everyone for mental illness, you will probably find that of the 0 million people in america, about 0 million are mentally ill in some way.  i was diagnosed with adhd when i was a child, does that make me elligible for a search in your view ? because that is classified as a mental disorder by the dsm URL but yet i do not see the population of add/adhd individuals posing a huge threat to national security.  your scope is far too broad for a type of crime of which there are, annually maybe 0 perpetrators and who account for a fraction of a percent of untimely death in the country.   #  if you have antisocial personality disorder and your neighbors here you talking to yourself about how you are going to kill your mother and you told your psychologist that you have  plans  for your mother.  you should be searched.   #  once again.  individuals who are mentally ill and potentially dangerous but not dangerous enough to be civilly committed should be subjected to a search.  if you have adhd and you are a functioning person, you have no reason to be searched.  if you are chronically depressed but you are a good person, you will not be searched.  if you are a paranoid schizophrenic under the care of your parents and you have never harmed anyone or shown signs of aggression you will not be searched.  if you have antisocial personality disorder and your neighbors here you talking to yourself about how you are going to kill your mother and you told your psychologist that you have  plans  for your mother.  you should be searched.  again, no actions that warrant being civilly committed, but enough potential danger to be searched.
the days of bedlam are long over.  we can not simply place people in psychiatric hospitals anymore.  today, we require due process in order to place someone in a psych hospital.  if an individual refuses to voluntarily seek treatment, there are ways to civilly commit this person to become an involuntary in patient.  criteria varies but is typically: a grave disability can not provide basic necessitates of life for him/herself because of mental illness.  survival is at risk.  b dangerous to self suicidal because of a mental illness.  c dangerous to others imminent danger to other people due to illness.  this can be very subjective, but it is immensely important to consider.  the most troublesome is dangerous to others.  for example, the virginia tech shooter.  cho was determined  dangerous  when he first spoke to a therapist.  he was stalking students and making threats.  they could not acquire enough evidence to have him removed from the school and placed in a hospital.  therefore, he could not be civilly committed.  however, these types of concerns should be taken very seriously.  had a search warrant been placed, his residence could have been rummaged through and journals outlining his plans could be found along with weapons that could be confiscated.  many people think this is a violation of individual rights.  however, this is an issue of individual rights vs common good.  in this case, i think a search warrant is a good in between of just letting the person off in good faith even if he/she is dangerous and forcing him/her to be hospitalized.  people may say,  no crime, no time !   but i say,  better safe than sorry !   after all, if he had nothing to hide there would not have been a problem.  if a person makes a bomb threat at an airport, there is a huge investigation and serious consequences.  this is because of precedents like 0/0.  why could not columbine have been a precedent for the virginia tech case ? any threats or suspicious behavior should be taken seriously.  if we wo not hospitalize a dangerous person, we should at least be able to search his/her residence.   #  after all, if he had nothing to hide there would not have been a problem.   #  this is the line that really stuck out to me as troublesome.   # this is the line that really stuck out to me as troublesome.  you can have nothing to hide and still not want your privacy violated.  i have nothing to hide in my dorm room right now, but i do not want people rifling through my underwear drawer or making my room a mess or looking at my browsing history.  i have done absolutely nothing illegal but maybe i do not want it known that i spent 0 hrs last week on neopets or that i browse kinky porn or that i googled  man boobs  or some shit because i had some question that is completely unrelated to whatever they are looking for.  maybe i took nude pictures of my self/my significant other and they are lying around .  i do not want other people seeing those.  the point is, the police should not be able to just snoop about under the basis that if you have nothing to hide, then being searched is not a problem.  it is a violation of privacy and should not be taken lightly.   #  if you give cart blanche authority for police to get search warrants with no cause, it is a matter of  when , not  if  they will be abused.   # people may say,  no crime, no time !   but i say,  better safe than sorry !   after all, if he had nothing to hide there would not have been a problem.  so, why could not a search warrant be issued with the evidence that they had on the vt shooter ? the answer is that they had nothing.  if you give cart blanche authority for police to get search warrants with no cause, it is a matter of  when , not  if  they will be abused.  i do not like this  if you have nothing to hide  argument either.  i do not  want  people tearing through  my  shit over baseless claims.  maybe i have something to hide that is just  embarrassing  but not  illegal , and it is  none of the police is fucking business .   #  like the bible, i do not think they are fit to govern society today.   #  those rights were drafted when we needed to fend off attacking indians.  like the bible, i do not think they are fit to govern society today.  i am not proposing we abandoned them, but they need to be amended.  the law has to change with society to address issues and criminal behavior.  spree killing is a serious crime.  if we are so bad at predicting violence from individuals with mental illness, even more the reason we should search them if they are dangerous.   #  and they do not have to fix  shit  because they had a warrant.   #  also, i do not think you are really understanding  searched ; they do not just come in and open up your cupboards to see if there is heroin in there: if every house needs to be searched, they do not have time to be gentile.  every thing you own will be strewn about, thrown, tossed on the floor, and broken apart if they think that you could be hiding something there.  your walls can be torn down if they think you are hiding things in there.  and they do not have to fix  shit  because they had a warrant.  and as /u/blackrobedmage alluded to: do you want to deal with that twice a week, or however often the police deem you need to be searched ?  #  if you screen everyone for mental illness, you will probably find that of the 0 million people in america, about 0 million are mentally ill in some way.   #  mental illness ? you mean like depression, which effects 0 in 0 adults ? URL most of whom are nonviolent and not a threat and who do not deserve to have their home violated ? if you screen everyone for mental illness, you will probably find that of the 0 million people in america, about 0 million are mentally ill in some way.  i was diagnosed with adhd when i was a child, does that make me elligible for a search in your view ? because that is classified as a mental disorder by the dsm URL but yet i do not see the population of add/adhd individuals posing a huge threat to national security.  your scope is far too broad for a type of crime of which there are, annually maybe 0 perpetrators and who account for a fraction of a percent of untimely death in the country.
downvoting is pretty integral to reddit at the moment, and is pretty common in other comment systems as well, but i do not think it actually serves any desirable purpose.  downvotes promote band wagoning redditors tend to be prejuidiced for or against posts based on their karma and are an abdication intellectual responsibility a downvote is an admission that you are too lazy or cowardly to actually challenge something you disagree with, but you are trying to denigrate and censor it nonetheless.  secondly, downvoting is not supposed to be an implement of disapproval at least, not on reddit .  it is supposed to be a way of pushing aside spam or off topic posts.  that never works, of course, as downvoting people for dissent or disagreement is pervasive, but that is the theory.  retaining an upvote/like function allows  good  posts to rise to the top of the thread; downvotes are not necessary to bury  bad  ones.  you might miss some spam/off topic posts, but that is a fairly minor loss.  in any event, the reality is that there is no substitute for active moderation.  lastly, downvotes do not really accomplish anything, they just shut down discussion.  if someone takes the time and effort to make a sincere argument or informative post but keeps getting downvoted because it is unpopular, he is not going to revise his opinion.  he is just going to stop posting or switch to making low effort troll and/or joke posts.  that is bad, and ultimately harms everyone who is interested in honest discussion.  yes, rationally people should not care, but they do, and karma has an impact on comment visibility.  the desirability of the mechanic should be considered in light of that.  tl;dr: downvotes promote undesirable behavior, have been subverting from their intended purpose, and negatively impact discussion.   #  secondly, downvoting is not supposed to be an implement of disapproval at least, not on reddit .   #  it is supposed to be a way of pushing aside spam or off topic posts.   #  can you not replace  wouldownvote  with  upvote  and argue essentially the same thing ? upvotes can be bandwagoning just as much as downvotes.  simply upvoting without providing a comment can be seen as lazy.  it is supposed to be a way of pushing aside spam or off topic posts.  then upvotes should not be for agreeing with something.  you can argue that they should only be used to push really good comments to the top to stay on topic.  i think downvotes still have their place.  they allow spam and other troll crap to get pushed down to the bottom, but at the same time you can argue that upvotes are not really doing anything any better.  this is a lot more obvious in more serious sites like /r/news or /r/worldnews where a serious article is the topic and the first dozen comments are just jokes and one liners.  people can bandwagon on something and upvote it just as much as people can disagree and bandwagon against someone who puts out a good comment, but people do not agree with.  there needs to be a balance.  without the ability to downvote you ca not keep the upvote bandwagons in check and you also ca not send something to hell for being a troll or completely off topic.   #  it is, but mindlessly proffering a post as a basis for discussion is not harmful unless it is off topic in which case, report it to a mod for deletion , whereas suppressing comments because they are dissenting is.   # to a certain extent, and i certainly would not shed any tears if it got axed entirely.  however, upvotes are mostly irrelevant, whereas downvotes are actively harmful.  relevant study URL  upvotes can be bandwagoning just as much as downvotes.  simply upvoting without providing a comment can be seen as lazy.  it is, but mindlessly proffering a post as a basis for discussion is not harmful unless it is off topic in which case, report it to a mod for deletion , whereas suppressing comments because they are dissenting is.  without the ability to downvote you ca not keep the upvote bandwagons in check and you also ca not send something to hell for being a troll or completely off topic.  this is what moderators are for.  i see little evidence that down voting is necessary to keep these issues under control, and, frankly, more evidence that it makes it worse.   #  a lot of stuff slips through the cracks.   # so for the same reasons that downvotes can bury potentially good discission, upvotes can do the same.  if you are talking about people is feelings. well people need thicker skin.  mods do not always actively delete off topic conversation.  most of the threads on a lot of subs still end up with a ton of non constructive conversation up at the top.  comments getting suppressed from downvotes because people disagree will happen with and without downvotes.  removing downvotes only means that heavily bandwagoned top comments will not be kept in check.  i see little evidence that down voting is necessary to keep these issues under control, and, frankly, more evidence that it makes it worse.  mods are not always around.  a lot of stuff slips through the cracks.  it is really easy for the large subs to have tons of comments that might technically break a rule and yet float right to the top.  /r/funny is an excellent example of this, rules 0, 0, 0 and 0 in particular i see get broken all the time and make the front page /r/funny anyways.  mods either see it too late and do not care or it just do not catch things.  i think that one of the fundamentals of reddit is that the community has an active say in what content gets promoted and what does not.  downvotes and upvotes are, i think, fundamental in the way the site is designed to function.  if you do not have downvotes, you do not keep the upvotes in check and the community ca not moderate what it does not want to see.   #  go on any popular news or politics subreddit and you can easily find someone downvoted through the floor because they made a post that did not align with the opinion of the hour.   #  if a post did not get upvoted, it means people felt it was not worthy of being brought to other is attention.  downvoting a post means you felt it had to be actively hidden from view.  and logistically, burying something via lack of upvotes is more difficult.  i see it all the time.  go on any popular news or politics subreddit and you can easily find someone downvoted through the floor because they made a post that did not align with the opinion of the hour.  more special interest subreddits frequently see people downvoted for disagreeing with the circlejerk, or because their opinion offended a bloc of voters.   #  you can see pretty often on /r/pics and others where someone submits a post or a comment that is a false or misleading click bait post.   #  i agree that downvotes generally promote undesirable behavior, but i think there is one useful purpose to downvotes.  you can see pretty often on /r/pics and others where someone submits a post or a comment that is a false or misleading click bait post.  a large number of users would skim through it and upvote it.  some users point out that the title was misleading or outright false when it reaches the front page.  it gets downvoted, and people stop seeing it and getting tricked by it.  this function is especially important for posts with a certain agenda.  for example,  obama did this shitty thing,  when he did not, or  this company does this amazing thing for charity,  when it did not.  downvotes will prevent these sorts of posts from manipulating the opinion of lazy users, which i think is an important and necessary function.
the native american genocide is rooted in our countries history and over years it has shaped our government and the way we do politics.  0 it is about time that the we own up to our mistake of making columbus day a national holiday and remove it altogether and replace it with indigenous day which highlights the history of the natives that once roamed the same land we live on.  we are taught in our schools that genocide is justifiable and acceptable if we get something in return or are not disadvantaged by trying to solve for it.  we are allowing a genocide to occur right now in north korea because we are scared that it will hurt the surrounding nations economically.  the same  form  of propaganda is employed by north korea themselves highlighting that what they are doing is for the greater good.  many war criminals, including hitler 0 , were inspired by the genocide of the natives and yet we still allow ourselves to believe that what columbus did was a good thing through the white man is burden.  there really is no net benefit to having the holiday other than getting a day off of school or work which would still occur on the same day.  we do not celebrate hitler because he helped germany is economy, so why do we celebrate someone who found this country, which it would have happened inevitably over time, and yet committed the same form of atrocities ? 0.  decolonizing the master narrative: treaties and other american myths  donna l.  akers 0 0.   hitler is inspiration and guide: the native american holocaust  lia mandelbaum june 0, 0  #  we do not celebrate hitler because he helped germany is economy, so why do we celebrate someone who found this country, which it would have happened inevitably over time, and yet committed the same form of atrocities ?  #  i think it is inaccurate to compare columbus to hitler.   # i think it is inaccurate to compare columbus to hitler.  the way the nazi regime industrialized genocide was horrifying and unprecedented.  by comparison, what columbus did, while horrifying to modern perspectives, was not really any different from what other conquistadors did, even before columbus himself.  personal opinion: columbus day is not about columbus himself, since it is not on his birthday, it is the date of when he landed in the bahamas.  it is about the columbian exchange.  i think it is important not to sweep our history under a rug.  columbus did horrible things, but he also was incredibly influential on the state of the world today.  use columbus day to teach about the man, demons and all.   #  then the point of the cmv should just simply be  remove columbus day  rather than replacing it with something that is already celebrated for a  month .   #  lots of schools get it off, some businesses.  sure, you will create a buzz for the first few years before people forget about it and cease to care.  then the point of the cmv should just simply be  remove columbus day  rather than replacing it with something that is already celebrated for a  month .  besides, it is not really his fault that the genocides happened.  blame the myriad of people  after  him that caused all that.   #  with 0,0 more soldiers at his disposal, rape and pillaging became rampant as well as tolerated by columbus.   # we are taught in school about columbus day i do not understand why the alternative would not be taught in school.  that really does not matter or change my view.  blame the myriad of people after him that caused all that.  upon his return the men were all dead.  with 0,0 more soldiers at his disposal, rape and pillaging became rampant as well as tolerated by columbus.  this is supported by a reported close friend of columbus, michele de cuneo who wrote the first disturbing account of a relation between himself and a native female gift given to him by columbus.  source URL  #  not that i am saying it is better, but call him out for something he did rather than compare him to hitler.   # this is not really on topic with your cmv.  like i said before, we already have an entire month dedicated to na history.  it is not columbus day is fault that schools choose not to emphasize na month.  changing columbus day to indigenous day does not solve your problem.  it does matter.  you wanted a holiday to celebrate na history.  we have done one better and instead of giving the topic a single day we give it a whole month.  the fact people ignore it tells you about all you need to know on how people would celebrate an  indigenous day .  whether it changes your view or not is up to you.  genocide is the systematic killing off of a race or group of people.  he was a lot more interested in mass slavery instead of genocide.  not that i am saying it is better, but call him out for something he did rather than compare him to hitler.  columbus is not even nearly on his level.   #  i get that this is not the extermination oriented ideology of someone like hitler and rather columbus was just taking advantage of his privilege, but it is still horrific and it is still racism.   #  idk if the oatmeal can be trusted as a viable source of information, columbus apparently traded 0 and 0 year old native girls as sex slaves.  you are telling me he would have done the same with european girls ? sounds pretty racist to me.  i get that this is not the extermination oriented ideology of someone like hitler and rather columbus was just taking advantage of his privilege, but it is still horrific and it is still racism.  evil can be incredibly banal sometimes, i think when we get hung up on the semantics of genocide we are kind of splitting hairs here.  it was on the basis of skin color/ethnicity/location that columbus raped, murdered, enslaved, and abused.  it was not a conscious thing, like he specifically chose those people to decimate, but rather a function of his colonial mindset, he simply did not see them as people.  this is certainly genocide.
the native american genocide is rooted in our countries history and over years it has shaped our government and the way we do politics.  0 it is about time that the we own up to our mistake of making columbus day a national holiday and remove it altogether and replace it with indigenous day which highlights the history of the natives that once roamed the same land we live on.  we are taught in our schools that genocide is justifiable and acceptable if we get something in return or are not disadvantaged by trying to solve for it.  we are allowing a genocide to occur right now in north korea because we are scared that it will hurt the surrounding nations economically.  the same  form  of propaganda is employed by north korea themselves highlighting that what they are doing is for the greater good.  many war criminals, including hitler 0 , were inspired by the genocide of the natives and yet we still allow ourselves to believe that what columbus did was a good thing through the white man is burden.  there really is no net benefit to having the holiday other than getting a day off of school or work which would still occur on the same day.  we do not celebrate hitler because he helped germany is economy, so why do we celebrate someone who found this country, which it would have happened inevitably over time, and yet committed the same form of atrocities ? 0.  decolonizing the master narrative: treaties and other american myths  donna l.  akers 0 0.   hitler is inspiration and guide: the native american holocaust  lia mandelbaum june 0, 0  #  we are taught in our schools that genocide is justifiable and acceptable if we get something in return or are not disadvantaged by trying to solve for it.   #  the assertion that we are teaching children that genocide is justifiable, is absurd.   #  i think the crux of your argument is that columbus day is offensive and should be eliminated.  many of your other points which i address latter are just way of supporting this idea.  first as other is have pointed out the celebration of columbus day is about the discovery of america yes other people found america first, but i challenge you to suggest that their discoveries shaped the world in the way that columbus did .  second many people actually have a very idealized idea of how columbus acted, this further suggests that columbus day is not a celebration of the destruction of native cultures but instead a celebration of the spirt of exploration and discovery.  in this way columbus is, a mythical figure like odysseus, who is separate for the real historical person.  finally you suggest their is no damage in removing columbus day, i find this ironic because much of the damage done to native people was done by preventing the celebration of their cultural traditions.  europeans suggested that the native culture was inferior and that the destroying it actually benefited the native people.  i am sure you see how you are suggesting a very similar thing.  other arguments:  i also addressed some other points while i was thinking about your argument which i have included below for completeness.  however i would prefer to discuss the merits of the main argument above.  the assertion that we are teaching children that genocide is justifiable, is absurd.  i remember be taught about the japanese interment and how that was unjustified.  now i went to a pretty liberal school, so perhaps my experience is different but the destruction of native people, culture and lands was widely and strongly criticized in our history classes.  i have a hard time believing that any schools are actually teaching that genocide is justifiable.  i presume by hurt surrounding nations economically, you mean destroy seoul south korea by via the some 0,0 mortars and other artillery with in range.  this one article estimate that north korea could inflict 0,0 casualties in a the first volley, and approximately 0,0 in the first day.  study URL even though north korea could be defeated within a matter of weeks there would be an enormous cost to civilian lives.  there is also the not unreasonable fear that china might decide to engage the us in a proxy war over north korea.  again it appears you are arguing against a straw man here.  finally i would like to address the idea of indigenous day, it sounds like a nice idea but i do not really see it appropriate.  first as other is have mentioned their exists a native american month, this is more inline with how we celebrate black americans.  giving native americans a single day out of the year that is then primarily used to sell furniture and cars is almost insulting.  having a whole month is also more helpful to education as it encourages schools to have multiple events related to native american history.   #  sure, you will create a buzz for the first few years before people forget about it and cease to care.   #  lots of schools get it off, some businesses.  sure, you will create a buzz for the first few years before people forget about it and cease to care.  then the point of the cmv should just simply be  remove columbus day  rather than replacing it with something that is already celebrated for a  month .  besides, it is not really his fault that the genocides happened.  blame the myriad of people  after  him that caused all that.   #  blame the myriad of people after him that caused all that.   # we are taught in school about columbus day i do not understand why the alternative would not be taught in school.  that really does not matter or change my view.  blame the myriad of people after him that caused all that.  upon his return the men were all dead.  with 0,0 more soldiers at his disposal, rape and pillaging became rampant as well as tolerated by columbus.  this is supported by a reported close friend of columbus, michele de cuneo who wrote the first disturbing account of a relation between himself and a native female gift given to him by columbus.  source URL  #  like i said before, we already have an entire month dedicated to na history.   # this is not really on topic with your cmv.  like i said before, we already have an entire month dedicated to na history.  it is not columbus day is fault that schools choose not to emphasize na month.  changing columbus day to indigenous day does not solve your problem.  it does matter.  you wanted a holiday to celebrate na history.  we have done one better and instead of giving the topic a single day we give it a whole month.  the fact people ignore it tells you about all you need to know on how people would celebrate an  indigenous day .  whether it changes your view or not is up to you.  genocide is the systematic killing off of a race or group of people.  he was a lot more interested in mass slavery instead of genocide.  not that i am saying it is better, but call him out for something he did rather than compare him to hitler.  columbus is not even nearly on his level.   #  it was not a conscious thing, like he specifically chose those people to decimate, but rather a function of his colonial mindset, he simply did not see them as people.   #  idk if the oatmeal can be trusted as a viable source of information, columbus apparently traded 0 and 0 year old native girls as sex slaves.  you are telling me he would have done the same with european girls ? sounds pretty racist to me.  i get that this is not the extermination oriented ideology of someone like hitler and rather columbus was just taking advantage of his privilege, but it is still horrific and it is still racism.  evil can be incredibly banal sometimes, i think when we get hung up on the semantics of genocide we are kind of splitting hairs here.  it was on the basis of skin color/ethnicity/location that columbus raped, murdered, enslaved, and abused.  it was not a conscious thing, like he specifically chose those people to decimate, but rather a function of his colonial mindset, he simply did not see them as people.  this is certainly genocide.
the native american genocide is rooted in our countries history and over years it has shaped our government and the way we do politics.  0 it is about time that the we own up to our mistake of making columbus day a national holiday and remove it altogether and replace it with indigenous day which highlights the history of the natives that once roamed the same land we live on.  we are taught in our schools that genocide is justifiable and acceptable if we get something in return or are not disadvantaged by trying to solve for it.  we are allowing a genocide to occur right now in north korea because we are scared that it will hurt the surrounding nations economically.  the same  form  of propaganda is employed by north korea themselves highlighting that what they are doing is for the greater good.  many war criminals, including hitler 0 , were inspired by the genocide of the natives and yet we still allow ourselves to believe that what columbus did was a good thing through the white man is burden.  there really is no net benefit to having the holiday other than getting a day off of school or work which would still occur on the same day.  we do not celebrate hitler because he helped germany is economy, so why do we celebrate someone who found this country, which it would have happened inevitably over time, and yet committed the same form of atrocities ? 0.  decolonizing the master narrative: treaties and other american myths  donna l.  akers 0 0.   hitler is inspiration and guide: the native american holocaust  lia mandelbaum june 0, 0  #  we are allowing a genocide to occur right now in north korea because we are scared that it will hurt the surrounding nations economically.   #  i presume by hurt surrounding nations economically, you mean destroy seoul south korea by via the some 0,0 mortars and other artillery with in range.   #  i think the crux of your argument is that columbus day is offensive and should be eliminated.  many of your other points which i address latter are just way of supporting this idea.  first as other is have pointed out the celebration of columbus day is about the discovery of america yes other people found america first, but i challenge you to suggest that their discoveries shaped the world in the way that columbus did .  second many people actually have a very idealized idea of how columbus acted, this further suggests that columbus day is not a celebration of the destruction of native cultures but instead a celebration of the spirt of exploration and discovery.  in this way columbus is, a mythical figure like odysseus, who is separate for the real historical person.  finally you suggest their is no damage in removing columbus day, i find this ironic because much of the damage done to native people was done by preventing the celebration of their cultural traditions.  europeans suggested that the native culture was inferior and that the destroying it actually benefited the native people.  i am sure you see how you are suggesting a very similar thing.  other arguments:  i also addressed some other points while i was thinking about your argument which i have included below for completeness.  however i would prefer to discuss the merits of the main argument above.  the assertion that we are teaching children that genocide is justifiable, is absurd.  i remember be taught about the japanese interment and how that was unjustified.  now i went to a pretty liberal school, so perhaps my experience is different but the destruction of native people, culture and lands was widely and strongly criticized in our history classes.  i have a hard time believing that any schools are actually teaching that genocide is justifiable.  i presume by hurt surrounding nations economically, you mean destroy seoul south korea by via the some 0,0 mortars and other artillery with in range.  this one article estimate that north korea could inflict 0,0 casualties in a the first volley, and approximately 0,0 in the first day.  study URL even though north korea could be defeated within a matter of weeks there would be an enormous cost to civilian lives.  there is also the not unreasonable fear that china might decide to engage the us in a proxy war over north korea.  again it appears you are arguing against a straw man here.  finally i would like to address the idea of indigenous day, it sounds like a nice idea but i do not really see it appropriate.  first as other is have mentioned their exists a native american month, this is more inline with how we celebrate black americans.  giving native americans a single day out of the year that is then primarily used to sell furniture and cars is almost insulting.  having a whole month is also more helpful to education as it encourages schools to have multiple events related to native american history.   #  blame the myriad of people  after  him that caused all that.   #  lots of schools get it off, some businesses.  sure, you will create a buzz for the first few years before people forget about it and cease to care.  then the point of the cmv should just simply be  remove columbus day  rather than replacing it with something that is already celebrated for a  month .  besides, it is not really his fault that the genocides happened.  blame the myriad of people  after  him that caused all that.   #  with 0,0 more soldiers at his disposal, rape and pillaging became rampant as well as tolerated by columbus.   # we are taught in school about columbus day i do not understand why the alternative would not be taught in school.  that really does not matter or change my view.  blame the myriad of people after him that caused all that.  upon his return the men were all dead.  with 0,0 more soldiers at his disposal, rape and pillaging became rampant as well as tolerated by columbus.  this is supported by a reported close friend of columbus, michele de cuneo who wrote the first disturbing account of a relation between himself and a native female gift given to him by columbus.  source URL  #  he was a lot more interested in mass slavery instead of genocide.   # this is not really on topic with your cmv.  like i said before, we already have an entire month dedicated to na history.  it is not columbus day is fault that schools choose not to emphasize na month.  changing columbus day to indigenous day does not solve your problem.  it does matter.  you wanted a holiday to celebrate na history.  we have done one better and instead of giving the topic a single day we give it a whole month.  the fact people ignore it tells you about all you need to know on how people would celebrate an  indigenous day .  whether it changes your view or not is up to you.  genocide is the systematic killing off of a race or group of people.  he was a lot more interested in mass slavery instead of genocide.  not that i am saying it is better, but call him out for something he did rather than compare him to hitler.  columbus is not even nearly on his level.   #  it was not a conscious thing, like he specifically chose those people to decimate, but rather a function of his colonial mindset, he simply did not see them as people.   #  idk if the oatmeal can be trusted as a viable source of information, columbus apparently traded 0 and 0 year old native girls as sex slaves.  you are telling me he would have done the same with european girls ? sounds pretty racist to me.  i get that this is not the extermination oriented ideology of someone like hitler and rather columbus was just taking advantage of his privilege, but it is still horrific and it is still racism.  evil can be incredibly banal sometimes, i think when we get hung up on the semantics of genocide we are kind of splitting hairs here.  it was on the basis of skin color/ethnicity/location that columbus raped, murdered, enslaved, and abused.  it was not a conscious thing, like he specifically chose those people to decimate, but rather a function of his colonial mindset, he simply did not see them as people.  this is certainly genocide.
i do not even know where to begin, but let is start with rings.  collecting these rings seems to be a way of increasing your score and is a way to judge performance on a certain level.  however, these rings are also weirdly tied to you health.  you get hit once, and you lose all the rings.  you get hit again, then you die.  i am sure everyone knows.  collecting rings seems like a completely pointless activity because in the end you will probably hit hit at least once and lose pretty much everything.  however, it does not stop there.  while collecting all the rings is too difficult, they are ironically also extremely  easy to exploit .  once you get damaged you can easily pick up one ring in order to keep from dying, and this makes boss battles and well pretty much everything way too easy.  again, this is because rings are weirdly tied to your health and it just makes no sense at all.  levels are just completely barren and boring to play through.  there are these loop de loops and stuff that sonic can go through but they are completely passive.  sonic just goes through them.  there are enemies very sparsely arranged around the level and they provide really no depth or challenge.  also, everyone knows that sonic games have the whole  speed  gimmick.  the idea is to go fast.  however levels have extremely frustrating traps and such that hurt you when you are going fast and they come up so quickly you ca not even see or anticipate them coming.  you basically just have to memorize where they are after a number of playthroughs, and only then can you move quickly through levels.  also, subjectively i feel like the physics and general feel is absolutely terrible.  a game like super mario world for example, feels absolutely perfect in it is physics and controls.  moving sonic around feels like just plain bad, controlling him just does not feel like i think it should.  i dunno, maybe i am missing something here.   #  however levels have extremely frustrating traps and such that hurt you when you are going fast and they come up so quickly you ca not even see or anticipate them coming.   #  can you give me some examples of this ?  #  rings: rings are awesome.  compared to mushrooms and fireflowers, or health, or a number of other mechanics, rings actually have some interesting gameplay dynamics.  when you collect rings, you are making it harder for enemies to kill you, but it is not like mario where you just get one extra hit that you can survive.  when you get hit, you lose all your rings, and you have to rush to pick them back up.  and the vast majority of the time, you are only going to collect some fraction of them.  this makes the effectiveness of ring collecting logarithmic.  that is, it is always worth it to pick up more rings, but they give you a smaller benefit each time.  once you get down to just one or two rings, with some skill you can keep recycling the ring you have, but it takes effort.  you are by no means invincible, but at the same time, you are generally not in immediate danger of dying as long as you play your cards right.  in a mario game for example, you get hit and you lose your power up.  now you are vulnerable and could die at any time.  in sonic, if you trip up and make a mistake, you have a chance for some limited amount of recovery.  and there is tradeoffs.  sometimes it is not worth it to go back for your rings if you have a chance to take out an enemy or get a hit in on a boss if you think you can get more rings quickly.  these kinds of decisions are what make games interesting.  sonic games are known for going fast, but this is not as true as their marketing would have you believe.  sonic games have a ton of platforming interspersed with little sections where you passively go fast.  none of the genesis games are nearly as passive as you are making them sound here.  can you give me some examples of this ? i ca not think of spots in the genesis games where you will get thrown into a trap you had no chance to avoid if you did not know about it.  i recall there being a few spots like this in the more recent games, but my memory of the genesis games is that they were almost entirely devoid of this problem.  a game like super mario world for example, feels absolutely perfect in it is physics and controls.  moving sonic around feels like just plain bad, controlling him just does not feel like i think it should.  i dunno, maybe i am missing something here.  sonic is physics were just as meticulously crafted as mario is, if not more since the entire game and level design is built around them.  the way you move when rolling is subtly different from the way you move when running, and doing one thing when you should be doing the other means you will miss hidden paths or rings or items.  i recall reading an interview with the level designers where they talked about how carefully levels were crafted to take advantage of little details like this, but i ca not find that interview at the moment unfortunately.  something else that i do not  see get enough praise is the amount of storytelling that sonic does sonic 0 and knuckles in particular just with character interactions and level design, and without a single line of dialog.  this is something that mario games of the time did not  even attempt.  the only game i think did this better was super metroid and even then, they had a few lines of dialog at the begining  #  the challenge does not come from the platforming alone, or the puzzles alone, or the combat alone.   # if you manage to carry all of your rings to the goal you end up with a huge boost to your score.  there is a level of depth here in that the player can choose to try and make it through the levels as fast as possible even if it means getting hit and losing all the rings he or she has collected, or going though more carefully to avoid getting hit.  the better you get at the game, the easier it will be for you to do both.  i can say that sonic 0 had a few more puzzles and less speedy gofast than i would have preferred, but that is a personal preference.  if you keep running you will run faster and faster.  if you stop, you have to build up momentum again.  the challenge does not come from the platforming alone, or the puzzles alone, or the combat alone.  it comes from the platforming, puzzles, and combat in the context of  going as fast as possible .  i would say the physics did a good job of getting that accomplished.  the first two sonic games ever made were done without a save function or a password function.  you were expected to play the game all the way through, or at least as far as you could before getting a game over.  replaying the first few levels over and over was not that far fetched of an idea back then.  granted that design choice has not aged very well, but in the context of the time, i would not fault it for that.   #  you can say that that is bad design, but if you have infinite quarters home console then they provide no real problem.   #  sonic is a score attack style of game.  that means: 0.  finishing the level is not the goal, finishing with a high score is.  0.  players are expected to play through a single level multiple times to improve their score through practice.  0.  game designers were still in an arcade mindset.  point 0 explains the rings.  the way to get a high score is by doing a perfect run, and you are punished severely for any mistake.  the fact that it is easy to survive bosses is not a problem, because just making it to the end is not the point.  the fact that you lose all your rings on hit is the same thing.  the enemy is are not supposed to be punishingly hard or super frequent.  a good run is one where you do not get hit even once.  so easy to defeat enemies provide risk reward.  go fast or go safe.  the second and third points explain the blind traps.  in an arcade setting, blind traps more money.  you can say that that is bad design, but if you have infinite quarters home console then they provide no real problem.  further, to get the highest score, you need to go as fast as possible, and collect as many rings as possible, so you need to plan your route  knowing what is coming next .  memorizing the levels is one of the skills needed no matter what, the blind traps just emphasize that.   #  so it is clearly advantageous to collect more rings to make your  super  timer longer.   # if you get all 0 chaos emeralds from the bonus stages, once you have 0 rings or more, you can turn into  super  sonic.  the number of rings you have serves as the timer for how long you can remain in  super  form.  your rings start depleting around 0 ring per second i think .  once you hit zero, you turn back into regular sonic.  so it is clearly advantageous to collect more rings to make your  super  timer longer.   #  i certainly disagree with you when you basically claim there is no point in trying to accumulate them because  because in the end you will probably hit hit at least once .   #  first, i would point out that you did not just call them bad, you called them poorly designed.  good/bad is entirely subjective, but the games  immense popularity, financial success and longevity are pretty solid evidence that they were well designed, even if they do not do it for you personally.  as for rings, i think they were a very cool mechanic.  i certainly disagree with you when you basically claim there is no point in trying to accumulate them because  because in the end you will probably hit hit at least once .  for starters, even that is not true when you get good.  plus, you only need 0 to get a 0 up.  i think the chaos gem mini game checkpoint gates in sonic 0 were also tied to having at least 0 coins.  plus, even if you ca not accumulate many because you are not good enough yet, the more rings you have, the easier it is to recover some when you get hit, so in practice it still works as an interesting  health  variation.  i just honestly think the ring system is one of the most interesting mechanics of its time.  anyway, i think those games are frickin awesome.
i do not even know where to begin, but let is start with rings.  collecting these rings seems to be a way of increasing your score and is a way to judge performance on a certain level.  however, these rings are also weirdly tied to you health.  you get hit once, and you lose all the rings.  you get hit again, then you die.  i am sure everyone knows.  collecting rings seems like a completely pointless activity because in the end you will probably hit hit at least once and lose pretty much everything.  however, it does not stop there.  while collecting all the rings is too difficult, they are ironically also extremely  easy to exploit .  once you get damaged you can easily pick up one ring in order to keep from dying, and this makes boss battles and well pretty much everything way too easy.  again, this is because rings are weirdly tied to your health and it just makes no sense at all.  levels are just completely barren and boring to play through.  there are these loop de loops and stuff that sonic can go through but they are completely passive.  sonic just goes through them.  there are enemies very sparsely arranged around the level and they provide really no depth or challenge.  also, everyone knows that sonic games have the whole  speed  gimmick.  the idea is to go fast.  however levels have extremely frustrating traps and such that hurt you when you are going fast and they come up so quickly you ca not even see or anticipate them coming.  you basically just have to memorize where they are after a number of playthroughs, and only then can you move quickly through levels.  also, subjectively i feel like the physics and general feel is absolutely terrible.  a game like super mario world for example, feels absolutely perfect in it is physics and controls.  moving sonic around feels like just plain bad, controlling him just does not feel like i think it should.  i dunno, maybe i am missing something here.   #  also, subjectively i feel like the physics and general feel is absolutely terrible.   #  a game like super mario world for example, feels absolutely perfect in it is physics and controls.   #  rings: rings are awesome.  compared to mushrooms and fireflowers, or health, or a number of other mechanics, rings actually have some interesting gameplay dynamics.  when you collect rings, you are making it harder for enemies to kill you, but it is not like mario where you just get one extra hit that you can survive.  when you get hit, you lose all your rings, and you have to rush to pick them back up.  and the vast majority of the time, you are only going to collect some fraction of them.  this makes the effectiveness of ring collecting logarithmic.  that is, it is always worth it to pick up more rings, but they give you a smaller benefit each time.  once you get down to just one or two rings, with some skill you can keep recycling the ring you have, but it takes effort.  you are by no means invincible, but at the same time, you are generally not in immediate danger of dying as long as you play your cards right.  in a mario game for example, you get hit and you lose your power up.  now you are vulnerable and could die at any time.  in sonic, if you trip up and make a mistake, you have a chance for some limited amount of recovery.  and there is tradeoffs.  sometimes it is not worth it to go back for your rings if you have a chance to take out an enemy or get a hit in on a boss if you think you can get more rings quickly.  these kinds of decisions are what make games interesting.  sonic games are known for going fast, but this is not as true as their marketing would have you believe.  sonic games have a ton of platforming interspersed with little sections where you passively go fast.  none of the genesis games are nearly as passive as you are making them sound here.  can you give me some examples of this ? i ca not think of spots in the genesis games where you will get thrown into a trap you had no chance to avoid if you did not know about it.  i recall there being a few spots like this in the more recent games, but my memory of the genesis games is that they were almost entirely devoid of this problem.  a game like super mario world for example, feels absolutely perfect in it is physics and controls.  moving sonic around feels like just plain bad, controlling him just does not feel like i think it should.  i dunno, maybe i am missing something here.  sonic is physics were just as meticulously crafted as mario is, if not more since the entire game and level design is built around them.  the way you move when rolling is subtly different from the way you move when running, and doing one thing when you should be doing the other means you will miss hidden paths or rings or items.  i recall reading an interview with the level designers where they talked about how carefully levels were crafted to take advantage of little details like this, but i ca not find that interview at the moment unfortunately.  something else that i do not  see get enough praise is the amount of storytelling that sonic does sonic 0 and knuckles in particular just with character interactions and level design, and without a single line of dialog.  this is something that mario games of the time did not  even attempt.  the only game i think did this better was super metroid and even then, they had a few lines of dialog at the begining  #  replaying the first few levels over and over was not that far fetched of an idea back then.   # if you manage to carry all of your rings to the goal you end up with a huge boost to your score.  there is a level of depth here in that the player can choose to try and make it through the levels as fast as possible even if it means getting hit and losing all the rings he or she has collected, or going though more carefully to avoid getting hit.  the better you get at the game, the easier it will be for you to do both.  i can say that sonic 0 had a few more puzzles and less speedy gofast than i would have preferred, but that is a personal preference.  if you keep running you will run faster and faster.  if you stop, you have to build up momentum again.  the challenge does not come from the platforming alone, or the puzzles alone, or the combat alone.  it comes from the platforming, puzzles, and combat in the context of  going as fast as possible .  i would say the physics did a good job of getting that accomplished.  the first two sonic games ever made were done without a save function or a password function.  you were expected to play the game all the way through, or at least as far as you could before getting a game over.  replaying the first few levels over and over was not that far fetched of an idea back then.  granted that design choice has not aged very well, but in the context of the time, i would not fault it for that.   #  further, to get the highest score, you need to go as fast as possible, and collect as many rings as possible, so you need to plan your route  knowing what is coming next .   #  sonic is a score attack style of game.  that means: 0.  finishing the level is not the goal, finishing with a high score is.  0.  players are expected to play through a single level multiple times to improve their score through practice.  0.  game designers were still in an arcade mindset.  point 0 explains the rings.  the way to get a high score is by doing a perfect run, and you are punished severely for any mistake.  the fact that it is easy to survive bosses is not a problem, because just making it to the end is not the point.  the fact that you lose all your rings on hit is the same thing.  the enemy is are not supposed to be punishingly hard or super frequent.  a good run is one where you do not get hit even once.  so easy to defeat enemies provide risk reward.  go fast or go safe.  the second and third points explain the blind traps.  in an arcade setting, blind traps more money.  you can say that that is bad design, but if you have infinite quarters home console then they provide no real problem.  further, to get the highest score, you need to go as fast as possible, and collect as many rings as possible, so you need to plan your route  knowing what is coming next .  memorizing the levels is one of the skills needed no matter what, the blind traps just emphasize that.   #  the number of rings you have serves as the timer for how long you can remain in  super  form.   # if you get all 0 chaos emeralds from the bonus stages, once you have 0 rings or more, you can turn into  super  sonic.  the number of rings you have serves as the timer for how long you can remain in  super  form.  your rings start depleting around 0 ring per second i think .  once you hit zero, you turn back into regular sonic.  so it is clearly advantageous to collect more rings to make your  super  timer longer.   #  first, i would point out that you did not just call them bad, you called them poorly designed.   #  first, i would point out that you did not just call them bad, you called them poorly designed.  good/bad is entirely subjective, but the games  immense popularity, financial success and longevity are pretty solid evidence that they were well designed, even if they do not do it for you personally.  as for rings, i think they were a very cool mechanic.  i certainly disagree with you when you basically claim there is no point in trying to accumulate them because  because in the end you will probably hit hit at least once .  for starters, even that is not true when you get good.  plus, you only need 0 to get a 0 up.  i think the chaos gem mini game checkpoint gates in sonic 0 were also tied to having at least 0 coins.  plus, even if you ca not accumulate many because you are not good enough yet, the more rings you have, the easier it is to recover some when you get hit, so in practice it still works as an interesting  health  variation.  i just honestly think the ring system is one of the most interesting mechanics of its time.  anyway, i think those games are frickin awesome.
no, i do not think that all people diagnosed with depression should  just deal with it .  i understand that depression can be a terrible thing that negatively affects your life in a number of untold ways.  i also acknowledge that antidepressants can be an effective treatment.  however, i think that there are too few standards from separating depression caused by imbalances in brain chemistry, and depression stemming from real world stressors such as personal finance, relationships, career futures, politics, and much more.  here are the top three arguments i hear against my position and why i do not agree: imagine that you are $0k in student/credit debt.  despite having a bachelor is degree you make $0k annually, see nearly a third of that money eaten up with taxes, and nearly half of what is left get is spent on rent, which is increasing annually.  in the end, you barely have enough to make your minimum payments.  the cherry on top is that your boss brings home $0k annually and treats you like a peasant at work, albeit when he is not  working from home .  every day you have to think about the future and how your current situation affects you.  you have to think about future you.  your prospects are bleak some might say  depressing .  you ca not just sleep it off or  get over it , because it is not changing.  the only thing you can do is try to earn more money, pay your debts, find a job that makes you happy, etc.  but instead you focus on how it makes you feel: you determine you cannot eliminate the depression on your own so you get antidepressants.  all you are doing is numbing the pain of the real world.  you do not have a condition, but you  are  depressed.  the difference is that you are depressed for a reason, and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems.  the pills just make you accept your fate rather than work for a brighter future.  in this context they are complacency pills.  no, they do not.  it is illegal to pay a doctor in exchange for prescribing people medications.  instead pharmaceutical companies do what lobbyist do: they send doctors to  seminars , which is just an excuse to send them somewhere exciting for a week at an all inclusive resort all while bombarding them with marketing for the medicines they manufacture.  they do not have take the company is advice, buy your crazy if you think they are not influenced by the bribery.  not that it matters, doctors already find it easier to prescribe  miracle pills  rather than look for less risky treatment options.  though often, pills are all the only thing a patient can afford as therapy is too expensive.  the feelings of the patients are irrelevant, as they are not doctors and they are biased.  some people truly need antidepressants, and they should not be denied it.  that does not mean we should not question the usefulness of these drugs when they are being prescribed more and more often, many times as a first choice of treatment.  these drugs have severe side effects, including depression ! why risk screwing someone up worse when they actually can get over it themselves.   tl;dr:  the standards for prescribing antidepressants do not take into account whether the depression is chemical or circumstantial.  many of the arguments against stricter regulation are appeals to emotion, not science.  now we have a lot of people on pills that just numb the pain of the real world which is not much different than illicit drug abuse minus the high .  however, clinical depression does exist and some people  do  need antidepressants to function normally.  these people likely make up a minority of those prescribed antidepressants to treat depression.  note: yes, ssri is marketed as antidepressants can be prescribed for a variety of other problems, including medical problems that have nothing to do with the brain.  i am not taking these situations into account; only drugs prescribed to treat depression.   #  but instead you focus on how it makes you feel: you determine you cannot eliminate the depression on your own so you get antidepressants.   #  all you are doing is numbing the pain of the real world.   # all you are doing is numbing the pain of the real world.  you do not have a condition, but you are depressed.  the difference is that you are depressed for a reason, and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems.  this is not clinical depression.  there is no need to have antidepressants for  feeling sad.   the problem is that you do not understand what severe depression is.  we have no idea what the physiology behind depression is although the serotonin hypothesis is a widely accepted and somewhat accurate picture of the neurochemistry ; we are also figuring out that the ssri is and tricyclic antidepressants which we assign but one broad function to actually act in other subtle ways on brain chemistry, ways which may contribute to their antidepressant action.  in this midst of this uncertainty, what we do know is what the  clinical manifestation  of the syndrome we call  wouldepression  is note that the syndrome of depression is different from what you describe above; depression  is not  just low mood .  severe depression the only type of depression of which there is any evidence for antidepressant use consists of two of the following three symptoms which persist for greater than two weeks :   low mood   difficulty sleeping/low energy levels   inability to enjoy things one enjoyed before  anhedonia  severe depression can very rarely be  gotten over by oneself  and it has some lovely side effects.  these include psychotic symptoms like schizophrenia and suicide.  antidepressants are therefore a vital part of preventing people from killing themselves or harming themselves and others through psychosis.  and remember, this is a psychiatric disease which means that, as with any disease, it can have a psychological component.  you would not tell a patient with chronic pain that their  areal life stressors  are not contributing to an increased pain; i would think it even more illogical to ignore a psychological stress on a  primarily psychiatric disease.  nb that for patients with severe depression, approximately 0 will not respond to medication do not quote me on that figure but if you want i can find the paper with the accurate percentage ; these patients may require treatment such as ect.  now, if you are making the point that antidepressants are all too often overprescribed, i would entirely agree with you.  however, they make up a fundamental and irreplaceable part of management for the severely depressed.   #  there are also things like aging parents, sick children, divorces, death of family members that can cause depression and are not exactly easy to fix.   #    and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems.   this is silly.  lack of motivation is a  symptom of depression.  there are also things like aging parents, sick children, divorces, death of family members that can cause depression and are not exactly easy to fix.  i think you have also ignored the fact that real world stress causes chemical stress.  when i have to make a presentation at work, my body has a chemical stress response.  over time that response system can become over activated and lead to depression.  you are creating a false dichotomy between chemical and real world depression.  there is a gene called the 0 htt that is involved with seratonin transportation.  in a landmark 0 study, people with one copy of the gene were more likely to develop depression if they experienced a stressful event.  URL  #  if you do not help these people with medication or not , they risk just spiraling further into depression.   #  while i agree that antidepressants probably is being prescribed too freely, and that it should never be prescribed without a prescription for therapy to go along, i will try to take a stab at your argument anyway.  all of the circumstances that cause a circumstancial depression can actually  cause  the imbalance in the brain chemistry, can it not ? the antidepressants will then be useful to help you deal with said circumstances.  if you do not help these people with medication or not , they risk just spiraling further into depression.  if you catch it while it is not too bad, you can prevent them from getting really ill.  i do not think it matters  why  the imbalance started just that it is there.  that should be the indication for treatment.  actually testing for a chemical imbalance might also prove too hard or expensive.  last point: the serotonin hypothesis is still only a hypothesis and not proven, as far as i understand.  i might be wrong in this it has been a while since i have researched the topic .  if this imbalance is not present in all cases of clinical depression, should we just not medically treat the people who show no imbalance, but have every symptom of depression ? and who might really benefit from ssri is ?  #  as you brought up, we know very little about how the brain works; i would put this in the  people who might really need it  category, but with great caution.   # can it ? i ca not find anything that suggests that it can.   the antidepressants will then be useful to help you deal with said circumstances.  if you do not help these people with medication or not , they risk just spiraling further into depression.  if you catch it while it is not too bad, you can prevent them from getting really ill.  i will humor you as you have not responded to the first part yet: even if these circumstances can cause a chemical imbalance, that would mean we have to rethink how we deal with antidepressants.  there would be no excuse for prescribing antidepressants without therapy as the goal would have to be normalizing people and getting them off the drugs, not keep them on them for life as if depression were a chronic disease.  as long as alternative treatments have been ruled out, i do not see a problem with trialing antidepressants and monitoring patients for side effects under these circumstances.  as you brought up, we know very little about how the brain works; i would put this in the  people who might really need it  category, but with great caution.  i think that the symptoms of depression alone are not enough to properly determine a need for antidepressants.   #  everything you see, hear, feel both emotionally and physically , and smell are possible because of various biological processes.   # i ca not find anything that suggests that it can.  yes, it can.  everything you see, hear, feel both emotionally and physically , and smell are possible because of various biological processes.  none of those processes occur in a vacuum, they change with environmental input.  sight is the result of photosn hitting the photoreceptors in your eyes and changing the firing rates of neurons.  hearing is the mechanical stimulation of special hair cells by pressure waves, which causes neuron is to alter their firing rate.  mood and emotion are no different than any of those senses.  they occur as the result of biological processes and are influenced by external stimuli.  if i show you a picture of your significant other, and you feel happy, no one just flicked the  happy switch  inside of you.  the emotion occurred as a biological reaction to external stimuli.
no, i do not think that all people diagnosed with depression should  just deal with it .  i understand that depression can be a terrible thing that negatively affects your life in a number of untold ways.  i also acknowledge that antidepressants can be an effective treatment.  however, i think that there are too few standards from separating depression caused by imbalances in brain chemistry, and depression stemming from real world stressors such as personal finance, relationships, career futures, politics, and much more.  here are the top three arguments i hear against my position and why i do not agree: imagine that you are $0k in student/credit debt.  despite having a bachelor is degree you make $0k annually, see nearly a third of that money eaten up with taxes, and nearly half of what is left get is spent on rent, which is increasing annually.  in the end, you barely have enough to make your minimum payments.  the cherry on top is that your boss brings home $0k annually and treats you like a peasant at work, albeit when he is not  working from home .  every day you have to think about the future and how your current situation affects you.  you have to think about future you.  your prospects are bleak some might say  depressing .  you ca not just sleep it off or  get over it , because it is not changing.  the only thing you can do is try to earn more money, pay your debts, find a job that makes you happy, etc.  but instead you focus on how it makes you feel: you determine you cannot eliminate the depression on your own so you get antidepressants.  all you are doing is numbing the pain of the real world.  you do not have a condition, but you  are  depressed.  the difference is that you are depressed for a reason, and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems.  the pills just make you accept your fate rather than work for a brighter future.  in this context they are complacency pills.  no, they do not.  it is illegal to pay a doctor in exchange for prescribing people medications.  instead pharmaceutical companies do what lobbyist do: they send doctors to  seminars , which is just an excuse to send them somewhere exciting for a week at an all inclusive resort all while bombarding them with marketing for the medicines they manufacture.  they do not have take the company is advice, buy your crazy if you think they are not influenced by the bribery.  not that it matters, doctors already find it easier to prescribe  miracle pills  rather than look for less risky treatment options.  though often, pills are all the only thing a patient can afford as therapy is too expensive.  the feelings of the patients are irrelevant, as they are not doctors and they are biased.  some people truly need antidepressants, and they should not be denied it.  that does not mean we should not question the usefulness of these drugs when they are being prescribed more and more often, many times as a first choice of treatment.  these drugs have severe side effects, including depression ! why risk screwing someone up worse when they actually can get over it themselves.   tl;dr:  the standards for prescribing antidepressants do not take into account whether the depression is chemical or circumstantial.  many of the arguments against stricter regulation are appeals to emotion, not science.  now we have a lot of people on pills that just numb the pain of the real world which is not much different than illicit drug abuse minus the high .  however, clinical depression does exist and some people  do  need antidepressants to function normally.  these people likely make up a minority of those prescribed antidepressants to treat depression.  note: yes, ssri is marketed as antidepressants can be prescribed for a variety of other problems, including medical problems that have nothing to do with the brain.  i am not taking these situations into account; only drugs prescribed to treat depression.   #  why risk screwing someone up worse when they actually can get over it themselves.   #  the problem is that you do not understand what severe depression is.   # all you are doing is numbing the pain of the real world.  you do not have a condition, but you are depressed.  the difference is that you are depressed for a reason, and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems.  this is not clinical depression.  there is no need to have antidepressants for  feeling sad.   the problem is that you do not understand what severe depression is.  we have no idea what the physiology behind depression is although the serotonin hypothesis is a widely accepted and somewhat accurate picture of the neurochemistry ; we are also figuring out that the ssri is and tricyclic antidepressants which we assign but one broad function to actually act in other subtle ways on brain chemistry, ways which may contribute to their antidepressant action.  in this midst of this uncertainty, what we do know is what the  clinical manifestation  of the syndrome we call  wouldepression  is note that the syndrome of depression is different from what you describe above; depression  is not  just low mood .  severe depression the only type of depression of which there is any evidence for antidepressant use consists of two of the following three symptoms which persist for greater than two weeks :   low mood   difficulty sleeping/low energy levels   inability to enjoy things one enjoyed before  anhedonia  severe depression can very rarely be  gotten over by oneself  and it has some lovely side effects.  these include psychotic symptoms like schizophrenia and suicide.  antidepressants are therefore a vital part of preventing people from killing themselves or harming themselves and others through psychosis.  and remember, this is a psychiatric disease which means that, as with any disease, it can have a psychological component.  you would not tell a patient with chronic pain that their  areal life stressors  are not contributing to an increased pain; i would think it even more illogical to ignore a psychological stress on a  primarily psychiatric disease.  nb that for patients with severe depression, approximately 0 will not respond to medication do not quote me on that figure but if you want i can find the paper with the accurate percentage ; these patients may require treatment such as ect.  now, if you are making the point that antidepressants are all too often overprescribed, i would entirely agree with you.  however, they make up a fundamental and irreplaceable part of management for the severely depressed.   #    and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems.    #    and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems.   this is silly.  lack of motivation is a  symptom of depression.  there are also things like aging parents, sick children, divorces, death of family members that can cause depression and are not exactly easy to fix.  i think you have also ignored the fact that real world stress causes chemical stress.  when i have to make a presentation at work, my body has a chemical stress response.  over time that response system can become over activated and lead to depression.  you are creating a false dichotomy between chemical and real world depression.  there is a gene called the 0 htt that is involved with seratonin transportation.  in a landmark 0 study, people with one copy of the gene were more likely to develop depression if they experienced a stressful event.  URL  #  actually testing for a chemical imbalance might also prove too hard or expensive.   #  while i agree that antidepressants probably is being prescribed too freely, and that it should never be prescribed without a prescription for therapy to go along, i will try to take a stab at your argument anyway.  all of the circumstances that cause a circumstancial depression can actually  cause  the imbalance in the brain chemistry, can it not ? the antidepressants will then be useful to help you deal with said circumstances.  if you do not help these people with medication or not , they risk just spiraling further into depression.  if you catch it while it is not too bad, you can prevent them from getting really ill.  i do not think it matters  why  the imbalance started just that it is there.  that should be the indication for treatment.  actually testing for a chemical imbalance might also prove too hard or expensive.  last point: the serotonin hypothesis is still only a hypothesis and not proven, as far as i understand.  i might be wrong in this it has been a while since i have researched the topic .  if this imbalance is not present in all cases of clinical depression, should we just not medically treat the people who show no imbalance, but have every symptom of depression ? and who might really benefit from ssri is ?  #  as long as alternative treatments have been ruled out, i do not see a problem with trialing antidepressants and monitoring patients for side effects under these circumstances.   # can it ? i ca not find anything that suggests that it can.   the antidepressants will then be useful to help you deal with said circumstances.  if you do not help these people with medication or not , they risk just spiraling further into depression.  if you catch it while it is not too bad, you can prevent them from getting really ill.  i will humor you as you have not responded to the first part yet: even if these circumstances can cause a chemical imbalance, that would mean we have to rethink how we deal with antidepressants.  there would be no excuse for prescribing antidepressants without therapy as the goal would have to be normalizing people and getting them off the drugs, not keep them on them for life as if depression were a chronic disease.  as long as alternative treatments have been ruled out, i do not see a problem with trialing antidepressants and monitoring patients for side effects under these circumstances.  as you brought up, we know very little about how the brain works; i would put this in the  people who might really need it  category, but with great caution.  i think that the symptoms of depression alone are not enough to properly determine a need for antidepressants.   #  hearing is the mechanical stimulation of special hair cells by pressure waves, which causes neuron is to alter their firing rate.   # i ca not find anything that suggests that it can.  yes, it can.  everything you see, hear, feel both emotionally and physically , and smell are possible because of various biological processes.  none of those processes occur in a vacuum, they change with environmental input.  sight is the result of photosn hitting the photoreceptors in your eyes and changing the firing rates of neurons.  hearing is the mechanical stimulation of special hair cells by pressure waves, which causes neuron is to alter their firing rate.  mood and emotion are no different than any of those senses.  they occur as the result of biological processes and are influenced by external stimuli.  if i show you a picture of your significant other, and you feel happy, no one just flicked the  happy switch  inside of you.  the emotion occurred as a biological reaction to external stimuli.
no, i do not think that all people diagnosed with depression should  just deal with it .  i understand that depression can be a terrible thing that negatively affects your life in a number of untold ways.  i also acknowledge that antidepressants can be an effective treatment.  however, i think that there are too few standards from separating depression caused by imbalances in brain chemistry, and depression stemming from real world stressors such as personal finance, relationships, career futures, politics, and much more.  here are the top three arguments i hear against my position and why i do not agree: imagine that you are $0k in student/credit debt.  despite having a bachelor is degree you make $0k annually, see nearly a third of that money eaten up with taxes, and nearly half of what is left get is spent on rent, which is increasing annually.  in the end, you barely have enough to make your minimum payments.  the cherry on top is that your boss brings home $0k annually and treats you like a peasant at work, albeit when he is not  working from home .  every day you have to think about the future and how your current situation affects you.  you have to think about future you.  your prospects are bleak some might say  depressing .  you ca not just sleep it off or  get over it , because it is not changing.  the only thing you can do is try to earn more money, pay your debts, find a job that makes you happy, etc.  but instead you focus on how it makes you feel: you determine you cannot eliminate the depression on your own so you get antidepressants.  all you are doing is numbing the pain of the real world.  you do not have a condition, but you  are  depressed.  the difference is that you are depressed for a reason, and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems.  the pills just make you accept your fate rather than work for a brighter future.  in this context they are complacency pills.  no, they do not.  it is illegal to pay a doctor in exchange for prescribing people medications.  instead pharmaceutical companies do what lobbyist do: they send doctors to  seminars , which is just an excuse to send them somewhere exciting for a week at an all inclusive resort all while bombarding them with marketing for the medicines they manufacture.  they do not have take the company is advice, buy your crazy if you think they are not influenced by the bribery.  not that it matters, doctors already find it easier to prescribe  miracle pills  rather than look for less risky treatment options.  though often, pills are all the only thing a patient can afford as therapy is too expensive.  the feelings of the patients are irrelevant, as they are not doctors and they are biased.  some people truly need antidepressants, and they should not be denied it.  that does not mean we should not question the usefulness of these drugs when they are being prescribed more and more often, many times as a first choice of treatment.  these drugs have severe side effects, including depression ! why risk screwing someone up worse when they actually can get over it themselves.   tl;dr:  the standards for prescribing antidepressants do not take into account whether the depression is chemical or circumstantial.  many of the arguments against stricter regulation are appeals to emotion, not science.  now we have a lot of people on pills that just numb the pain of the real world which is not much different than illicit drug abuse minus the high .  however, clinical depression does exist and some people  do  need antidepressants to function normally.  these people likely make up a minority of those prescribed antidepressants to treat depression.  note: yes, ssri is marketed as antidepressants can be prescribed for a variety of other problems, including medical problems that have nothing to do with the brain.  i am not taking these situations into account; only drugs prescribed to treat depression.   #  all you are doing is numbing the pain of the real world.   #  you do not have a condition, but you are depressed.   # you do not have a condition, but you are depressed.  the difference is that you are depressed for a reason, and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems.  the pills just make you accept your fate rather than work for a brighter future.  in this context they are complacency pills.  without going into details, my experience of being depressed did correlate with this, and as i have sorted out some of those problems my feelings have alleviated considerably.  i also did not take medicine to combat those feelings, a decision i do not regret.  . but that said, i was lucky enough to be in a position where i could fix those problems, and i would not see my experience as necessarily normal.  i certainly think you should do what you can so far as improving your life goes, but plenty of people with depression are disadvantaged and unlikely to fix their issues, at least in the short term.  while i agree with the premise that many people is depression is caused by their satisfaction with life, that is no reason not to use medicine.  it is very difficult to drag yourself out of an emotional quagmire, and if the doctor can help you do that through drugs then he should.   #  there is a gene called the 0 htt that is involved with seratonin transportation.   #    and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems.   this is silly.  lack of motivation is a  symptom of depression.  there are also things like aging parents, sick children, divorces, death of family members that can cause depression and are not exactly easy to fix.  i think you have also ignored the fact that real world stress causes chemical stress.  when i have to make a presentation at work, my body has a chemical stress response.  over time that response system can become over activated and lead to depression.  you are creating a false dichotomy between chemical and real world depression.  there is a gene called the 0 htt that is involved with seratonin transportation.  in a landmark 0 study, people with one copy of the gene were more likely to develop depression if they experienced a stressful event.  URL  #  actually testing for a chemical imbalance might also prove too hard or expensive.   #  while i agree that antidepressants probably is being prescribed too freely, and that it should never be prescribed without a prescription for therapy to go along, i will try to take a stab at your argument anyway.  all of the circumstances that cause a circumstancial depression can actually  cause  the imbalance in the brain chemistry, can it not ? the antidepressants will then be useful to help you deal with said circumstances.  if you do not help these people with medication or not , they risk just spiraling further into depression.  if you catch it while it is not too bad, you can prevent them from getting really ill.  i do not think it matters  why  the imbalance started just that it is there.  that should be the indication for treatment.  actually testing for a chemical imbalance might also prove too hard or expensive.  last point: the serotonin hypothesis is still only a hypothesis and not proven, as far as i understand.  i might be wrong in this it has been a while since i have researched the topic .  if this imbalance is not present in all cases of clinical depression, should we just not medically treat the people who show no imbalance, but have every symptom of depression ? and who might really benefit from ssri is ?  #  if you do not help these people with medication or not , they risk just spiraling further into depression.   # can it ? i ca not find anything that suggests that it can.   the antidepressants will then be useful to help you deal with said circumstances.  if you do not help these people with medication or not , they risk just spiraling further into depression.  if you catch it while it is not too bad, you can prevent them from getting really ill.  i will humor you as you have not responded to the first part yet: even if these circumstances can cause a chemical imbalance, that would mean we have to rethink how we deal with antidepressants.  there would be no excuse for prescribing antidepressants without therapy as the goal would have to be normalizing people and getting them off the drugs, not keep them on them for life as if depression were a chronic disease.  as long as alternative treatments have been ruled out, i do not see a problem with trialing antidepressants and monitoring patients for side effects under these circumstances.  as you brought up, we know very little about how the brain works; i would put this in the  people who might really need it  category, but with great caution.  i think that the symptoms of depression alone are not enough to properly determine a need for antidepressants.   #  mood and emotion are no different than any of those senses.   # i ca not find anything that suggests that it can.  yes, it can.  everything you see, hear, feel both emotionally and physically , and smell are possible because of various biological processes.  none of those processes occur in a vacuum, they change with environmental input.  sight is the result of photosn hitting the photoreceptors in your eyes and changing the firing rates of neurons.  hearing is the mechanical stimulation of special hair cells by pressure waves, which causes neuron is to alter their firing rate.  mood and emotion are no different than any of those senses.  they occur as the result of biological processes and are influenced by external stimuli.  if i show you a picture of your significant other, and you feel happy, no one just flicked the  happy switch  inside of you.  the emotion occurred as a biological reaction to external stimuli.
this issue arose in my previous deafness cmv URL which failed to change my views.  it should be a simple train of logical thought.  people are not allowed to wear earplugs or headphones while driving.  the justification for this is that hearing is a fundamental sense necessary to drive.  deaf people, by definition, cannot hear.  deaf people, lacking a fundamental sense necessary to drive, should not be allowed to drive.  some more specific risks that deaf drivers pose source URL   talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.    trying to lip read a passenger while driving.    not being able to hear emergency vehicles coming.    not being able to call for help if their car breaks down.    not being able to talk to an officer if they are pulled over.    not being able to hear warnings their car is giving them.  the sole argument i have seen presented against this is that deaf people are accustomed to not hearing and are better at vision.  but people who become deaf later in life  are  used to hearing, so at the very least they should not be allowed to drive.  and this same logic could be applied to say that blind people should be allowed to drive, or that  i always wear headphones while driving  should be a valid excuse.   #  talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.   #  we should just outlaw taking your hands off the wheel.   # we should just outlaw taking your hands off the wheel.  what about expressive people who can hear, but gesture with their hands ? do we need to screen for these people ? just outlaw taking your eyes off of the road.  why ca not a deaf person make the decision to not converse while driving ? some cars have great sound proofing, and other people like to play loud music.  i almost always see the lights before i hear it.  sometimes i do not hear it until it is passing me.  sound is not required to notice emergency vehicles.  just about every modern cell phone has tty capability.  lip reading or a simple pad of paper can be used for this.  all warnings also have a visual indicator.  being a good driver and paying attention to your car solves this problem.  the  ding  that normal people hear is not at all informative.   #  the mechanics are irreverent, distracted driving is much more about your mental ability to concentrate.   #  your arguments seem to fall into two categories. distracted driving and using audio clues to assist in driving.  i am going to skip getting pulled over deaf people can communicate with non deaf people just fine and calling for help deaf people are not some hapless baby who are incapable of handling themselves in an emergency. and texting ? . besides the fact that neither one of those has anything to do with driving since, well, they are not driving.  distracted driving  your argument seems to be that distracted driving for a deaf person is somehow worse because of mechanics of sign language/lip reading.  however, all of these mechanics are already covered by existing traffic safety laws hands on the wheels, eyes forward etc.  a deaf person choosing to be distracted is no different than a hearing person.  the mechanics are irreverent, distracted driving is much more about your mental ability to concentrate.  you are just as distracted singing along to your favorite band on the radio or talking on a hands free devices as you are texting.  in fact, you could make a counter argument that a deaf person is less likely to become distracted because they wo not listen to the radio or have to process other signals that may distract them.  emergency situations  have you ever ridden on a motorcycle on the highway ? audio clues while driving are not reliable in any since.  if you require the siren to look for emergency vehicles with flashing lights then you are not as aware of your surroundings as you should be.  if you are obeying the laws of the road who cares if some asshole honks at you.  any mechanical problems with the car would be reflected in how it performs rather than how it sounds i have never heard a flat tire pop, but i have felt my car become sluggish.  i have never heard my break pads squeal, but i could feel them grinding when i put my foot on the breaks.  unless you are a mechanic audio clues from your vehicle are meaningless anyways.   #  not being able to hear a police officer is an inconvenience the officer needs to deal with and should not be considered a valid reason to revoke someone is driving privileges.   #  i think some of the points you raise are valid, but it all comes down to a simple question.  are deaf people more dangerous on the road than non deaf people, and are there statistics showing this specific thing ? if there is evidence that deaf people are directly responsible for more problems happening on the road, i would agree with you.  the article you linked, however, does not mention any statistics.  it simply states the possible problems a deaf person might have a non deaf person would not.  if there are not any real world examples of deaf people directly causing problems, though, i think your fears are just baseless speculation.  furthermore, the only points you made that would are reasonable are talking with their hands, reading a passenger is lips, and not hearing emergency vehicles.  not being able to call for help in the case their car breaks down is an inconvenience for the deaf person.  they are stuck on the side of the road and it is not really a problem for anyone else.  not being able to hear a police officer is an inconvenience the officer needs to deal with and should not be considered a valid reason to revoke someone is driving privileges.  officers are inconvenienced by the fact that people drive on the road at all, too.  and not being able to hear warnings a car is giving is pretty weak.  worst case scenario, not being able to hear a sound will result in being broken down on the side of the road.  any failure that results in a serious accident will be accompanied by other indicators than just sound.   #  auto manufacturer is also do not seem to think hearing is terribly important, either.   #  i do not think hearing is a fundamental sense necessary for driving.  i am a motorcyclist and i wear ear plugs.  i do not know if it is legal to do so or not, but i do because there are multiple sources that point out that, even with a full face helmet, riding at 0mph or more for 0 minutes or more will cause irreversible hearing damage.  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.  auto manufacturer is also do not seem to think hearing is terribly important, either.  they design and produce cars with the specific selling point that you ca not hear a damn thing while inside them.  coupled with radio or whatever else, and it is incredibly easy to block out 0 of outside noise while in a modern car.  i think that if anyone would be concerned whether you actually need to hear while in a car or not would be the manufacturer is producing cars, right ?  #  the national association for the deaf looked into the statistics a while back and found that deaf people have a smaller percent of traffic collisions.   #  so the fact that some states have a weird law regarding headphones is the foundation of your argument that deaf people should not drive ? this whole cmv is ludicrous.  i never once thought that hearing something helped me while driving.  the national association for the deaf looked into the statistics a while back and found that deaf people have a smaller percent of traffic collisions.  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ? it is not putting more people at risk like you believe.  police cars, firetrucks, ambulances have lights for a reason and they are even being made nowadays to emit vibrations that people can feel.
this issue arose in my previous deafness cmv URL which failed to change my views.  it should be a simple train of logical thought.  people are not allowed to wear earplugs or headphones while driving.  the justification for this is that hearing is a fundamental sense necessary to drive.  deaf people, by definition, cannot hear.  deaf people, lacking a fundamental sense necessary to drive, should not be allowed to drive.  some more specific risks that deaf drivers pose source URL   talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.    trying to lip read a passenger while driving.    not being able to hear emergency vehicles coming.    not being able to call for help if their car breaks down.    not being able to talk to an officer if they are pulled over.    not being able to hear warnings their car is giving them.  the sole argument i have seen presented against this is that deaf people are accustomed to not hearing and are better at vision.  but people who become deaf later in life  are  used to hearing, so at the very least they should not be allowed to drive.  and this same logic could be applied to say that blind people should be allowed to drive, or that  i always wear headphones while driving  should be a valid excuse.   #  trying to lip read a passenger while driving.   #  just outlaw taking your eyes off of the road.   # we should just outlaw taking your hands off the wheel.  what about expressive people who can hear, but gesture with their hands ? do we need to screen for these people ? just outlaw taking your eyes off of the road.  why ca not a deaf person make the decision to not converse while driving ? some cars have great sound proofing, and other people like to play loud music.  i almost always see the lights before i hear it.  sometimes i do not hear it until it is passing me.  sound is not required to notice emergency vehicles.  just about every modern cell phone has tty capability.  lip reading or a simple pad of paper can be used for this.  all warnings also have a visual indicator.  being a good driver and paying attention to your car solves this problem.  the  ding  that normal people hear is not at all informative.   #  i have never heard my break pads squeal, but i could feel them grinding when i put my foot on the breaks.   #  your arguments seem to fall into two categories. distracted driving and using audio clues to assist in driving.  i am going to skip getting pulled over deaf people can communicate with non deaf people just fine and calling for help deaf people are not some hapless baby who are incapable of handling themselves in an emergency. and texting ? . besides the fact that neither one of those has anything to do with driving since, well, they are not driving.  distracted driving  your argument seems to be that distracted driving for a deaf person is somehow worse because of mechanics of sign language/lip reading.  however, all of these mechanics are already covered by existing traffic safety laws hands on the wheels, eyes forward etc.  a deaf person choosing to be distracted is no different than a hearing person.  the mechanics are irreverent, distracted driving is much more about your mental ability to concentrate.  you are just as distracted singing along to your favorite band on the radio or talking on a hands free devices as you are texting.  in fact, you could make a counter argument that a deaf person is less likely to become distracted because they wo not listen to the radio or have to process other signals that may distract them.  emergency situations  have you ever ridden on a motorcycle on the highway ? audio clues while driving are not reliable in any since.  if you require the siren to look for emergency vehicles with flashing lights then you are not as aware of your surroundings as you should be.  if you are obeying the laws of the road who cares if some asshole honks at you.  any mechanical problems with the car would be reflected in how it performs rather than how it sounds i have never heard a flat tire pop, but i have felt my car become sluggish.  i have never heard my break pads squeal, but i could feel them grinding when i put my foot on the breaks.  unless you are a mechanic audio clues from your vehicle are meaningless anyways.   #  it simply states the possible problems a deaf person might have a non deaf person would not.   #  i think some of the points you raise are valid, but it all comes down to a simple question.  are deaf people more dangerous on the road than non deaf people, and are there statistics showing this specific thing ? if there is evidence that deaf people are directly responsible for more problems happening on the road, i would agree with you.  the article you linked, however, does not mention any statistics.  it simply states the possible problems a deaf person might have a non deaf person would not.  if there are not any real world examples of deaf people directly causing problems, though, i think your fears are just baseless speculation.  furthermore, the only points you made that would are reasonable are talking with their hands, reading a passenger is lips, and not hearing emergency vehicles.  not being able to call for help in the case their car breaks down is an inconvenience for the deaf person.  they are stuck on the side of the road and it is not really a problem for anyone else.  not being able to hear a police officer is an inconvenience the officer needs to deal with and should not be considered a valid reason to revoke someone is driving privileges.  officers are inconvenienced by the fact that people drive on the road at all, too.  and not being able to hear warnings a car is giving is pretty weak.  worst case scenario, not being able to hear a sound will result in being broken down on the side of the road.  any failure that results in a serious accident will be accompanied by other indicators than just sound.   #  they design and produce cars with the specific selling point that you ca not hear a damn thing while inside them.   #  i do not think hearing is a fundamental sense necessary for driving.  i am a motorcyclist and i wear ear plugs.  i do not know if it is legal to do so or not, but i do because there are multiple sources that point out that, even with a full face helmet, riding at 0mph or more for 0 minutes or more will cause irreversible hearing damage.  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.  auto manufacturer is also do not seem to think hearing is terribly important, either.  they design and produce cars with the specific selling point that you ca not hear a damn thing while inside them.  coupled with radio or whatever else, and it is incredibly easy to block out 0 of outside noise while in a modern car.  i think that if anyone would be concerned whether you actually need to hear while in a car or not would be the manufacturer is producing cars, right ?  #  it is not putting more people at risk like you believe.   #  so the fact that some states have a weird law regarding headphones is the foundation of your argument that deaf people should not drive ? this whole cmv is ludicrous.  i never once thought that hearing something helped me while driving.  the national association for the deaf looked into the statistics a while back and found that deaf people have a smaller percent of traffic collisions.  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ? it is not putting more people at risk like you believe.  police cars, firetrucks, ambulances have lights for a reason and they are even being made nowadays to emit vibrations that people can feel.
this issue arose in my previous deafness cmv URL which failed to change my views.  it should be a simple train of logical thought.  people are not allowed to wear earplugs or headphones while driving.  the justification for this is that hearing is a fundamental sense necessary to drive.  deaf people, by definition, cannot hear.  deaf people, lacking a fundamental sense necessary to drive, should not be allowed to drive.  some more specific risks that deaf drivers pose source URL   talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.    trying to lip read a passenger while driving.    not being able to hear emergency vehicles coming.    not being able to call for help if their car breaks down.    not being able to talk to an officer if they are pulled over.    not being able to hear warnings their car is giving them.  the sole argument i have seen presented against this is that deaf people are accustomed to not hearing and are better at vision.  but people who become deaf later in life  are  used to hearing, so at the very least they should not be allowed to drive.  and this same logic could be applied to say that blind people should be allowed to drive, or that  i always wear headphones while driving  should be a valid excuse.   #  not being able to hear emergency vehicles coming.   #  some cars have great sound proofing, and other people like to play loud music.   # we should just outlaw taking your hands off the wheel.  what about expressive people who can hear, but gesture with their hands ? do we need to screen for these people ? just outlaw taking your eyes off of the road.  why ca not a deaf person make the decision to not converse while driving ? some cars have great sound proofing, and other people like to play loud music.  i almost always see the lights before i hear it.  sometimes i do not hear it until it is passing me.  sound is not required to notice emergency vehicles.  just about every modern cell phone has tty capability.  lip reading or a simple pad of paper can be used for this.  all warnings also have a visual indicator.  being a good driver and paying attention to your car solves this problem.  the  ding  that normal people hear is not at all informative.   #  you are just as distracted singing along to your favorite band on the radio or talking on a hands free devices as you are texting.   #  your arguments seem to fall into two categories. distracted driving and using audio clues to assist in driving.  i am going to skip getting pulled over deaf people can communicate with non deaf people just fine and calling for help deaf people are not some hapless baby who are incapable of handling themselves in an emergency. and texting ? . besides the fact that neither one of those has anything to do with driving since, well, they are not driving.  distracted driving  your argument seems to be that distracted driving for a deaf person is somehow worse because of mechanics of sign language/lip reading.  however, all of these mechanics are already covered by existing traffic safety laws hands on the wheels, eyes forward etc.  a deaf person choosing to be distracted is no different than a hearing person.  the mechanics are irreverent, distracted driving is much more about your mental ability to concentrate.  you are just as distracted singing along to your favorite band on the radio or talking on a hands free devices as you are texting.  in fact, you could make a counter argument that a deaf person is less likely to become distracted because they wo not listen to the radio or have to process other signals that may distract them.  emergency situations  have you ever ridden on a motorcycle on the highway ? audio clues while driving are not reliable in any since.  if you require the siren to look for emergency vehicles with flashing lights then you are not as aware of your surroundings as you should be.  if you are obeying the laws of the road who cares if some asshole honks at you.  any mechanical problems with the car would be reflected in how it performs rather than how it sounds i have never heard a flat tire pop, but i have felt my car become sluggish.  i have never heard my break pads squeal, but i could feel them grinding when i put my foot on the breaks.  unless you are a mechanic audio clues from your vehicle are meaningless anyways.   #  if there is evidence that deaf people are directly responsible for more problems happening on the road, i would agree with you.   #  i think some of the points you raise are valid, but it all comes down to a simple question.  are deaf people more dangerous on the road than non deaf people, and are there statistics showing this specific thing ? if there is evidence that deaf people are directly responsible for more problems happening on the road, i would agree with you.  the article you linked, however, does not mention any statistics.  it simply states the possible problems a deaf person might have a non deaf person would not.  if there are not any real world examples of deaf people directly causing problems, though, i think your fears are just baseless speculation.  furthermore, the only points you made that would are reasonable are talking with their hands, reading a passenger is lips, and not hearing emergency vehicles.  not being able to call for help in the case their car breaks down is an inconvenience for the deaf person.  they are stuck on the side of the road and it is not really a problem for anyone else.  not being able to hear a police officer is an inconvenience the officer needs to deal with and should not be considered a valid reason to revoke someone is driving privileges.  officers are inconvenienced by the fact that people drive on the road at all, too.  and not being able to hear warnings a car is giving is pretty weak.  worst case scenario, not being able to hear a sound will result in being broken down on the side of the road.  any failure that results in a serious accident will be accompanied by other indicators than just sound.   #  i think that if anyone would be concerned whether you actually need to hear while in a car or not would be the manufacturer is producing cars, right ?  #  i do not think hearing is a fundamental sense necessary for driving.  i am a motorcyclist and i wear ear plugs.  i do not know if it is legal to do so or not, but i do because there are multiple sources that point out that, even with a full face helmet, riding at 0mph or more for 0 minutes or more will cause irreversible hearing damage.  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.  auto manufacturer is also do not seem to think hearing is terribly important, either.  they design and produce cars with the specific selling point that you ca not hear a damn thing while inside them.  coupled with radio or whatever else, and it is incredibly easy to block out 0 of outside noise while in a modern car.  i think that if anyone would be concerned whether you actually need to hear while in a car or not would be the manufacturer is producing cars, right ?  #  i never once thought that hearing something helped me while driving.   #  so the fact that some states have a weird law regarding headphones is the foundation of your argument that deaf people should not drive ? this whole cmv is ludicrous.  i never once thought that hearing something helped me while driving.  the national association for the deaf looked into the statistics a while back and found that deaf people have a smaller percent of traffic collisions.  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ? it is not putting more people at risk like you believe.  police cars, firetrucks, ambulances have lights for a reason and they are even being made nowadays to emit vibrations that people can feel.
this issue arose in my previous deafness cmv URL which failed to change my views.  it should be a simple train of logical thought.  people are not allowed to wear earplugs or headphones while driving.  the justification for this is that hearing is a fundamental sense necessary to drive.  deaf people, by definition, cannot hear.  deaf people, lacking a fundamental sense necessary to drive, should not be allowed to drive.  some more specific risks that deaf drivers pose source URL   talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.    trying to lip read a passenger while driving.    not being able to hear emergency vehicles coming.    not being able to call for help if their car breaks down.    not being able to talk to an officer if they are pulled over.    not being able to hear warnings their car is giving them.  the sole argument i have seen presented against this is that deaf people are accustomed to not hearing and are better at vision.  but people who become deaf later in life  are  used to hearing, so at the very least they should not be allowed to drive.  and this same logic could be applied to say that blind people should be allowed to drive, or that  i always wear headphones while driving  should be a valid excuse.   #  not being able to call for help if their car breaks down.   #  just about every modern cell phone has tty capability.   # we should just outlaw taking your hands off the wheel.  what about expressive people who can hear, but gesture with their hands ? do we need to screen for these people ? just outlaw taking your eyes off of the road.  why ca not a deaf person make the decision to not converse while driving ? some cars have great sound proofing, and other people like to play loud music.  i almost always see the lights before i hear it.  sometimes i do not hear it until it is passing me.  sound is not required to notice emergency vehicles.  just about every modern cell phone has tty capability.  lip reading or a simple pad of paper can be used for this.  all warnings also have a visual indicator.  being a good driver and paying attention to your car solves this problem.  the  ding  that normal people hear is not at all informative.   #  your arguments seem to fall into two categories. distracted driving and using audio clues to assist in driving.   #  your arguments seem to fall into two categories. distracted driving and using audio clues to assist in driving.  i am going to skip getting pulled over deaf people can communicate with non deaf people just fine and calling for help deaf people are not some hapless baby who are incapable of handling themselves in an emergency. and texting ? . besides the fact that neither one of those has anything to do with driving since, well, they are not driving.  distracted driving  your argument seems to be that distracted driving for a deaf person is somehow worse because of mechanics of sign language/lip reading.  however, all of these mechanics are already covered by existing traffic safety laws hands on the wheels, eyes forward etc.  a deaf person choosing to be distracted is no different than a hearing person.  the mechanics are irreverent, distracted driving is much more about your mental ability to concentrate.  you are just as distracted singing along to your favorite band on the radio or talking on a hands free devices as you are texting.  in fact, you could make a counter argument that a deaf person is less likely to become distracted because they wo not listen to the radio or have to process other signals that may distract them.  emergency situations  have you ever ridden on a motorcycle on the highway ? audio clues while driving are not reliable in any since.  if you require the siren to look for emergency vehicles with flashing lights then you are not as aware of your surroundings as you should be.  if you are obeying the laws of the road who cares if some asshole honks at you.  any mechanical problems with the car would be reflected in how it performs rather than how it sounds i have never heard a flat tire pop, but i have felt my car become sluggish.  i have never heard my break pads squeal, but i could feel them grinding when i put my foot on the breaks.  unless you are a mechanic audio clues from your vehicle are meaningless anyways.   #  not being able to call for help in the case their car breaks down is an inconvenience for the deaf person.  they are stuck on the side of the road and it is not really a problem for anyone else.   #  i think some of the points you raise are valid, but it all comes down to a simple question.  are deaf people more dangerous on the road than non deaf people, and are there statistics showing this specific thing ? if there is evidence that deaf people are directly responsible for more problems happening on the road, i would agree with you.  the article you linked, however, does not mention any statistics.  it simply states the possible problems a deaf person might have a non deaf person would not.  if there are not any real world examples of deaf people directly causing problems, though, i think your fears are just baseless speculation.  furthermore, the only points you made that would are reasonable are talking with their hands, reading a passenger is lips, and not hearing emergency vehicles.  not being able to call for help in the case their car breaks down is an inconvenience for the deaf person.  they are stuck on the side of the road and it is not really a problem for anyone else.  not being able to hear a police officer is an inconvenience the officer needs to deal with and should not be considered a valid reason to revoke someone is driving privileges.  officers are inconvenienced by the fact that people drive on the road at all, too.  and not being able to hear warnings a car is giving is pretty weak.  worst case scenario, not being able to hear a sound will result in being broken down on the side of the road.  any failure that results in a serious accident will be accompanied by other indicators than just sound.   #  they design and produce cars with the specific selling point that you ca not hear a damn thing while inside them.   #  i do not think hearing is a fundamental sense necessary for driving.  i am a motorcyclist and i wear ear plugs.  i do not know if it is legal to do so or not, but i do because there are multiple sources that point out that, even with a full face helmet, riding at 0mph or more for 0 minutes or more will cause irreversible hearing damage.  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.  auto manufacturer is also do not seem to think hearing is terribly important, either.  they design and produce cars with the specific selling point that you ca not hear a damn thing while inside them.  coupled with radio or whatever else, and it is incredibly easy to block out 0 of outside noise while in a modern car.  i think that if anyone would be concerned whether you actually need to hear while in a car or not would be the manufacturer is producing cars, right ?  #  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ?  #  so the fact that some states have a weird law regarding headphones is the foundation of your argument that deaf people should not drive ? this whole cmv is ludicrous.  i never once thought that hearing something helped me while driving.  the national association for the deaf looked into the statistics a while back and found that deaf people have a smaller percent of traffic collisions.  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ? it is not putting more people at risk like you believe.  police cars, firetrucks, ambulances have lights for a reason and they are even being made nowadays to emit vibrations that people can feel.
this issue arose in my previous deafness cmv URL which failed to change my views.  it should be a simple train of logical thought.  people are not allowed to wear earplugs or headphones while driving.  the justification for this is that hearing is a fundamental sense necessary to drive.  deaf people, by definition, cannot hear.  deaf people, lacking a fundamental sense necessary to drive, should not be allowed to drive.  some more specific risks that deaf drivers pose source URL   talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.    trying to lip read a passenger while driving.    not being able to hear emergency vehicles coming.    not being able to call for help if their car breaks down.    not being able to talk to an officer if they are pulled over.    not being able to hear warnings their car is giving them.  the sole argument i have seen presented against this is that deaf people are accustomed to not hearing and are better at vision.  but people who become deaf later in life  are  used to hearing, so at the very least they should not be allowed to drive.  and this same logic could be applied to say that blind people should be allowed to drive, or that  i always wear headphones while driving  should be a valid excuse.   #  not being able to talk to an officer if they are pulled over.   #  lip reading or a simple pad of paper can be used for this.   # we should just outlaw taking your hands off the wheel.  what about expressive people who can hear, but gesture with their hands ? do we need to screen for these people ? just outlaw taking your eyes off of the road.  why ca not a deaf person make the decision to not converse while driving ? some cars have great sound proofing, and other people like to play loud music.  i almost always see the lights before i hear it.  sometimes i do not hear it until it is passing me.  sound is not required to notice emergency vehicles.  just about every modern cell phone has tty capability.  lip reading or a simple pad of paper can be used for this.  all warnings also have a visual indicator.  being a good driver and paying attention to your car solves this problem.  the  ding  that normal people hear is not at all informative.   #  distracted driving  your argument seems to be that distracted driving for a deaf person is somehow worse because of mechanics of sign language/lip reading.   #  your arguments seem to fall into two categories. distracted driving and using audio clues to assist in driving.  i am going to skip getting pulled over deaf people can communicate with non deaf people just fine and calling for help deaf people are not some hapless baby who are incapable of handling themselves in an emergency. and texting ? . besides the fact that neither one of those has anything to do with driving since, well, they are not driving.  distracted driving  your argument seems to be that distracted driving for a deaf person is somehow worse because of mechanics of sign language/lip reading.  however, all of these mechanics are already covered by existing traffic safety laws hands on the wheels, eyes forward etc.  a deaf person choosing to be distracted is no different than a hearing person.  the mechanics are irreverent, distracted driving is much more about your mental ability to concentrate.  you are just as distracted singing along to your favorite band on the radio or talking on a hands free devices as you are texting.  in fact, you could make a counter argument that a deaf person is less likely to become distracted because they wo not listen to the radio or have to process other signals that may distract them.  emergency situations  have you ever ridden on a motorcycle on the highway ? audio clues while driving are not reliable in any since.  if you require the siren to look for emergency vehicles with flashing lights then you are not as aware of your surroundings as you should be.  if you are obeying the laws of the road who cares if some asshole honks at you.  any mechanical problems with the car would be reflected in how it performs rather than how it sounds i have never heard a flat tire pop, but i have felt my car become sluggish.  i have never heard my break pads squeal, but i could feel them grinding when i put my foot on the breaks.  unless you are a mechanic audio clues from your vehicle are meaningless anyways.   #  officers are inconvenienced by the fact that people drive on the road at all, too.   #  i think some of the points you raise are valid, but it all comes down to a simple question.  are deaf people more dangerous on the road than non deaf people, and are there statistics showing this specific thing ? if there is evidence that deaf people are directly responsible for more problems happening on the road, i would agree with you.  the article you linked, however, does not mention any statistics.  it simply states the possible problems a deaf person might have a non deaf person would not.  if there are not any real world examples of deaf people directly causing problems, though, i think your fears are just baseless speculation.  furthermore, the only points you made that would are reasonable are talking with their hands, reading a passenger is lips, and not hearing emergency vehicles.  not being able to call for help in the case their car breaks down is an inconvenience for the deaf person.  they are stuck on the side of the road and it is not really a problem for anyone else.  not being able to hear a police officer is an inconvenience the officer needs to deal with and should not be considered a valid reason to revoke someone is driving privileges.  officers are inconvenienced by the fact that people drive on the road at all, too.  and not being able to hear warnings a car is giving is pretty weak.  worst case scenario, not being able to hear a sound will result in being broken down on the side of the road.  any failure that results in a serious accident will be accompanied by other indicators than just sound.   #  auto manufacturer is also do not seem to think hearing is terribly important, either.   #  i do not think hearing is a fundamental sense necessary for driving.  i am a motorcyclist and i wear ear plugs.  i do not know if it is legal to do so or not, but i do because there are multiple sources that point out that, even with a full face helmet, riding at 0mph or more for 0 minutes or more will cause irreversible hearing damage.  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.  auto manufacturer is also do not seem to think hearing is terribly important, either.  they design and produce cars with the specific selling point that you ca not hear a damn thing while inside them.  coupled with radio or whatever else, and it is incredibly easy to block out 0 of outside noise while in a modern car.  i think that if anyone would be concerned whether you actually need to hear while in a car or not would be the manufacturer is producing cars, right ?  #  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ?  #  so the fact that some states have a weird law regarding headphones is the foundation of your argument that deaf people should not drive ? this whole cmv is ludicrous.  i never once thought that hearing something helped me while driving.  the national association for the deaf looked into the statistics a while back and found that deaf people have a smaller percent of traffic collisions.  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ? it is not putting more people at risk like you believe.  police cars, firetrucks, ambulances have lights for a reason and they are even being made nowadays to emit vibrations that people can feel.
this issue arose in my previous deafness cmv URL which failed to change my views.  it should be a simple train of logical thought.  people are not allowed to wear earplugs or headphones while driving.  the justification for this is that hearing is a fundamental sense necessary to drive.  deaf people, by definition, cannot hear.  deaf people, lacking a fundamental sense necessary to drive, should not be allowed to drive.  some more specific risks that deaf drivers pose source URL   talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.    trying to lip read a passenger while driving.    not being able to hear emergency vehicles coming.    not being able to call for help if their car breaks down.    not being able to talk to an officer if they are pulled over.    not being able to hear warnings their car is giving them.  the sole argument i have seen presented against this is that deaf people are accustomed to not hearing and are better at vision.  but people who become deaf later in life  are  used to hearing, so at the very least they should not be allowed to drive.  and this same logic could be applied to say that blind people should be allowed to drive, or that  i always wear headphones while driving  should be a valid excuse.   #  not being able to hear warnings their car is giving them.   #  all warnings also have a visual indicator.   # we should just outlaw taking your hands off the wheel.  what about expressive people who can hear, but gesture with their hands ? do we need to screen for these people ? just outlaw taking your eyes off of the road.  why ca not a deaf person make the decision to not converse while driving ? some cars have great sound proofing, and other people like to play loud music.  i almost always see the lights before i hear it.  sometimes i do not hear it until it is passing me.  sound is not required to notice emergency vehicles.  just about every modern cell phone has tty capability.  lip reading or a simple pad of paper can be used for this.  all warnings also have a visual indicator.  being a good driver and paying attention to your car solves this problem.  the  ding  that normal people hear is not at all informative.   #  a deaf person choosing to be distracted is no different than a hearing person.   #  your arguments seem to fall into two categories. distracted driving and using audio clues to assist in driving.  i am going to skip getting pulled over deaf people can communicate with non deaf people just fine and calling for help deaf people are not some hapless baby who are incapable of handling themselves in an emergency. and texting ? . besides the fact that neither one of those has anything to do with driving since, well, they are not driving.  distracted driving  your argument seems to be that distracted driving for a deaf person is somehow worse because of mechanics of sign language/lip reading.  however, all of these mechanics are already covered by existing traffic safety laws hands on the wheels, eyes forward etc.  a deaf person choosing to be distracted is no different than a hearing person.  the mechanics are irreverent, distracted driving is much more about your mental ability to concentrate.  you are just as distracted singing along to your favorite band on the radio or talking on a hands free devices as you are texting.  in fact, you could make a counter argument that a deaf person is less likely to become distracted because they wo not listen to the radio or have to process other signals that may distract them.  emergency situations  have you ever ridden on a motorcycle on the highway ? audio clues while driving are not reliable in any since.  if you require the siren to look for emergency vehicles with flashing lights then you are not as aware of your surroundings as you should be.  if you are obeying the laws of the road who cares if some asshole honks at you.  any mechanical problems with the car would be reflected in how it performs rather than how it sounds i have never heard a flat tire pop, but i have felt my car become sluggish.  i have never heard my break pads squeal, but i could feel them grinding when i put my foot on the breaks.  unless you are a mechanic audio clues from your vehicle are meaningless anyways.   #  not being able to call for help in the case their car breaks down is an inconvenience for the deaf person.  they are stuck on the side of the road and it is not really a problem for anyone else.   #  i think some of the points you raise are valid, but it all comes down to a simple question.  are deaf people more dangerous on the road than non deaf people, and are there statistics showing this specific thing ? if there is evidence that deaf people are directly responsible for more problems happening on the road, i would agree with you.  the article you linked, however, does not mention any statistics.  it simply states the possible problems a deaf person might have a non deaf person would not.  if there are not any real world examples of deaf people directly causing problems, though, i think your fears are just baseless speculation.  furthermore, the only points you made that would are reasonable are talking with their hands, reading a passenger is lips, and not hearing emergency vehicles.  not being able to call for help in the case their car breaks down is an inconvenience for the deaf person.  they are stuck on the side of the road and it is not really a problem for anyone else.  not being able to hear a police officer is an inconvenience the officer needs to deal with and should not be considered a valid reason to revoke someone is driving privileges.  officers are inconvenienced by the fact that people drive on the road at all, too.  and not being able to hear warnings a car is giving is pretty weak.  worst case scenario, not being able to hear a sound will result in being broken down on the side of the road.  any failure that results in a serious accident will be accompanied by other indicators than just sound.   #  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.   #  i do not think hearing is a fundamental sense necessary for driving.  i am a motorcyclist and i wear ear plugs.  i do not know if it is legal to do so or not, but i do because there are multiple sources that point out that, even with a full face helmet, riding at 0mph or more for 0 minutes or more will cause irreversible hearing damage.  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.  auto manufacturer is also do not seem to think hearing is terribly important, either.  they design and produce cars with the specific selling point that you ca not hear a damn thing while inside them.  coupled with radio or whatever else, and it is incredibly easy to block out 0 of outside noise while in a modern car.  i think that if anyone would be concerned whether you actually need to hear while in a car or not would be the manufacturer is producing cars, right ?  #  it is not putting more people at risk like you believe.   #  so the fact that some states have a weird law regarding headphones is the foundation of your argument that deaf people should not drive ? this whole cmv is ludicrous.  i never once thought that hearing something helped me while driving.  the national association for the deaf looked into the statistics a while back and found that deaf people have a smaller percent of traffic collisions.  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ? it is not putting more people at risk like you believe.  police cars, firetrucks, ambulances have lights for a reason and they are even being made nowadays to emit vibrations that people can feel.
this issue arose in my previous deafness cmv URL which failed to change my views.  it should be a simple train of logical thought.  people are not allowed to wear earplugs or headphones while driving.  the justification for this is that hearing is a fundamental sense necessary to drive.  deaf people, by definition, cannot hear.  deaf people, lacking a fundamental sense necessary to drive, should not be allowed to drive.  some more specific risks that deaf drivers pose source URL   talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.    trying to lip read a passenger while driving.    not being able to hear emergency vehicles coming.    not being able to call for help if their car breaks down.    not being able to talk to an officer if they are pulled over.    not being able to hear warnings their car is giving them.  the sole argument i have seen presented against this is that deaf people are accustomed to not hearing and are better at vision.  but people who become deaf later in life  are  used to hearing, so at the very least they should not be allowed to drive.  and this same logic could be applied to say that blind people should be allowed to drive, or that  i always wear headphones while driving  should be a valid excuse.   #  trying to lip read a passenger while driving.   #  those are just bad decisions that a particular driver might make, not anything that necessarily follows from being deaf.   #  if there are already deaf people on the road, assuming they do not cause a higher rate of car accidents, injuries, or deaths than the general public, is not all this concern over nothing ? do you have statistics showing that deaf drivers are, on the whole, more dangerous ? also, to point out some flaws with the risks you bring up   talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.  those are just bad decisions that a particular driver might make, not anything that necessarily follows from being deaf.  it is no different from all the bad reasons why a hearing person might take their hands off the wheel or their eyes off the road.  the same could be said of drivers who speak a foreign language, yet we allow them to drive.   #  any mechanical problems with the car would be reflected in how it performs rather than how it sounds i have never heard a flat tire pop, but i have felt my car become sluggish.   #  your arguments seem to fall into two categories. distracted driving and using audio clues to assist in driving.  i am going to skip getting pulled over deaf people can communicate with non deaf people just fine and calling for help deaf people are not some hapless baby who are incapable of handling themselves in an emergency. and texting ? . besides the fact that neither one of those has anything to do with driving since, well, they are not driving.  distracted driving  your argument seems to be that distracted driving for a deaf person is somehow worse because of mechanics of sign language/lip reading.  however, all of these mechanics are already covered by existing traffic safety laws hands on the wheels, eyes forward etc.  a deaf person choosing to be distracted is no different than a hearing person.  the mechanics are irreverent, distracted driving is much more about your mental ability to concentrate.  you are just as distracted singing along to your favorite band on the radio or talking on a hands free devices as you are texting.  in fact, you could make a counter argument that a deaf person is less likely to become distracted because they wo not listen to the radio or have to process other signals that may distract them.  emergency situations  have you ever ridden on a motorcycle on the highway ? audio clues while driving are not reliable in any since.  if you require the siren to look for emergency vehicles with flashing lights then you are not as aware of your surroundings as you should be.  if you are obeying the laws of the road who cares if some asshole honks at you.  any mechanical problems with the car would be reflected in how it performs rather than how it sounds i have never heard a flat tire pop, but i have felt my car become sluggish.  i have never heard my break pads squeal, but i could feel them grinding when i put my foot on the breaks.  unless you are a mechanic audio clues from your vehicle are meaningless anyways.   #  any failure that results in a serious accident will be accompanied by other indicators than just sound.   #  i think some of the points you raise are valid, but it all comes down to a simple question.  are deaf people more dangerous on the road than non deaf people, and are there statistics showing this specific thing ? if there is evidence that deaf people are directly responsible for more problems happening on the road, i would agree with you.  the article you linked, however, does not mention any statistics.  it simply states the possible problems a deaf person might have a non deaf person would not.  if there are not any real world examples of deaf people directly causing problems, though, i think your fears are just baseless speculation.  furthermore, the only points you made that would are reasonable are talking with their hands, reading a passenger is lips, and not hearing emergency vehicles.  not being able to call for help in the case their car breaks down is an inconvenience for the deaf person.  they are stuck on the side of the road and it is not really a problem for anyone else.  not being able to hear a police officer is an inconvenience the officer needs to deal with and should not be considered a valid reason to revoke someone is driving privileges.  officers are inconvenienced by the fact that people drive on the road at all, too.  and not being able to hear warnings a car is giving is pretty weak.  worst case scenario, not being able to hear a sound will result in being broken down on the side of the road.  any failure that results in a serious accident will be accompanied by other indicators than just sound.   #  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.   #  i do not think hearing is a fundamental sense necessary for driving.  i am a motorcyclist and i wear ear plugs.  i do not know if it is legal to do so or not, but i do because there are multiple sources that point out that, even with a full face helmet, riding at 0mph or more for 0 minutes or more will cause irreversible hearing damage.  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.  auto manufacturer is also do not seem to think hearing is terribly important, either.  they design and produce cars with the specific selling point that you ca not hear a damn thing while inside them.  coupled with radio or whatever else, and it is incredibly easy to block out 0 of outside noise while in a modern car.  i think that if anyone would be concerned whether you actually need to hear while in a car or not would be the manufacturer is producing cars, right ?  #  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ?  #  so the fact that some states have a weird law regarding headphones is the foundation of your argument that deaf people should not drive ? this whole cmv is ludicrous.  i never once thought that hearing something helped me while driving.  the national association for the deaf looked into the statistics a while back and found that deaf people have a smaller percent of traffic collisions.  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ? it is not putting more people at risk like you believe.  police cars, firetrucks, ambulances have lights for a reason and they are even being made nowadays to emit vibrations that people can feel.
this issue arose in my previous deafness cmv URL which failed to change my views.  it should be a simple train of logical thought.  people are not allowed to wear earplugs or headphones while driving.  the justification for this is that hearing is a fundamental sense necessary to drive.  deaf people, by definition, cannot hear.  deaf people, lacking a fundamental sense necessary to drive, should not be allowed to drive.  some more specific risks that deaf drivers pose source URL   talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.    trying to lip read a passenger while driving.    not being able to hear emergency vehicles coming.    not being able to call for help if their car breaks down.    not being able to talk to an officer if they are pulled over.    not being able to hear warnings their car is giving them.  the sole argument i have seen presented against this is that deaf people are accustomed to not hearing and are better at vision.  but people who become deaf later in life  are  used to hearing, so at the very least they should not be allowed to drive.  and this same logic could be applied to say that blind people should be allowed to drive, or that  i always wear headphones while driving  should be a valid excuse.   #  not being able to talk to an officer if they are pulled over.   #  the same could be said of drivers who speak a foreign language, yet we allow them to drive.   #  if there are already deaf people on the road, assuming they do not cause a higher rate of car accidents, injuries, or deaths than the general public, is not all this concern over nothing ? do you have statistics showing that deaf drivers are, on the whole, more dangerous ? also, to point out some flaws with the risks you bring up   talking with their hands, when they should be on the wheel.  those are just bad decisions that a particular driver might make, not anything that necessarily follows from being deaf.  it is no different from all the bad reasons why a hearing person might take their hands off the wheel or their eyes off the road.  the same could be said of drivers who speak a foreign language, yet we allow them to drive.   #  you are just as distracted singing along to your favorite band on the radio or talking on a hands free devices as you are texting.   #  your arguments seem to fall into two categories. distracted driving and using audio clues to assist in driving.  i am going to skip getting pulled over deaf people can communicate with non deaf people just fine and calling for help deaf people are not some hapless baby who are incapable of handling themselves in an emergency. and texting ? . besides the fact that neither one of those has anything to do with driving since, well, they are not driving.  distracted driving  your argument seems to be that distracted driving for a deaf person is somehow worse because of mechanics of sign language/lip reading.  however, all of these mechanics are already covered by existing traffic safety laws hands on the wheels, eyes forward etc.  a deaf person choosing to be distracted is no different than a hearing person.  the mechanics are irreverent, distracted driving is much more about your mental ability to concentrate.  you are just as distracted singing along to your favorite band on the radio or talking on a hands free devices as you are texting.  in fact, you could make a counter argument that a deaf person is less likely to become distracted because they wo not listen to the radio or have to process other signals that may distract them.  emergency situations  have you ever ridden on a motorcycle on the highway ? audio clues while driving are not reliable in any since.  if you require the siren to look for emergency vehicles with flashing lights then you are not as aware of your surroundings as you should be.  if you are obeying the laws of the road who cares if some asshole honks at you.  any mechanical problems with the car would be reflected in how it performs rather than how it sounds i have never heard a flat tire pop, but i have felt my car become sluggish.  i have never heard my break pads squeal, but i could feel them grinding when i put my foot on the breaks.  unless you are a mechanic audio clues from your vehicle are meaningless anyways.   #  worst case scenario, not being able to hear a sound will result in being broken down on the side of the road.   #  i think some of the points you raise are valid, but it all comes down to a simple question.  are deaf people more dangerous on the road than non deaf people, and are there statistics showing this specific thing ? if there is evidence that deaf people are directly responsible for more problems happening on the road, i would agree with you.  the article you linked, however, does not mention any statistics.  it simply states the possible problems a deaf person might have a non deaf person would not.  if there are not any real world examples of deaf people directly causing problems, though, i think your fears are just baseless speculation.  furthermore, the only points you made that would are reasonable are talking with their hands, reading a passenger is lips, and not hearing emergency vehicles.  not being able to call for help in the case their car breaks down is an inconvenience for the deaf person.  they are stuck on the side of the road and it is not really a problem for anyone else.  not being able to hear a police officer is an inconvenience the officer needs to deal with and should not be considered a valid reason to revoke someone is driving privileges.  officers are inconvenienced by the fact that people drive on the road at all, too.  and not being able to hear warnings a car is giving is pretty weak.  worst case scenario, not being able to hear a sound will result in being broken down on the side of the road.  any failure that results in a serious accident will be accompanied by other indicators than just sound.   #  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.   #  i do not think hearing is a fundamental sense necessary for driving.  i am a motorcyclist and i wear ear plugs.  i do not know if it is legal to do so or not, but i do because there are multiple sources that point out that, even with a full face helmet, riding at 0mph or more for 0 minutes or more will cause irreversible hearing damage.  i have gone 0  miles without incident and i have never had an issue caused by the fact i could not hear.  auto manufacturer is also do not seem to think hearing is terribly important, either.  they design and produce cars with the specific selling point that you ca not hear a damn thing while inside them.  coupled with radio or whatever else, and it is incredibly easy to block out 0 of outside noise while in a modern car.  i think that if anyone would be concerned whether you actually need to hear while in a car or not would be the manufacturer is producing cars, right ?  #  so the fact that some states have a weird law regarding headphones is the foundation of your argument that deaf people should not drive ?  #  so the fact that some states have a weird law regarding headphones is the foundation of your argument that deaf people should not drive ? this whole cmv is ludicrous.  i never once thought that hearing something helped me while driving.  the national association for the deaf looked into the statistics a while back and found that deaf people have a smaller percent of traffic collisions.  you want to fully remove a productive community of deaf people from the streets because you think it is not safe ? it is not putting more people at risk like you believe.  police cars, firetrucks, ambulances have lights for a reason and they are even being made nowadays to emit vibrations that people can feel.
the bathrooms i am describing are the ones where there is a single door and a small room with a toilet, sink, and trashcan that are used by one person at a time.  i do not think there is any reason to divide them by gender.  by equipment, they are identical i believe it is pretty uncommon for them to have urinals.  frequently the women is restroom will have a short line i have to wait in, while the men is stall is completely unoccupied.  occasionally i will jump the line and use the men is restroom anyway, but people will give you strange looks.  i have had men point out that they could not so easily do the same thing if there were a line at the men is room, and i think that is a really good point.  if a business wants to provide a baby changing table, they could simply install one and mark it on the door avoiding the issue of either paying for two or only installing one in the women is room and leaving dads with infants out of luck.  it is also beneficial to trans individuals who may feel uncomfortable using a gendered restroom.  i really ca not think of any reason why this is not more frequently seen.  cmv ! 0.  from a management bathroom cleaning point of view, a unisex bathroom could be an advantage.  let is say a women is bathroom dirties by 0 dirt units every hour, the men is restroom by 0 dirt units every hour, and the restrooms are cleaned every 0 hours.  that means you are more likely to get a customer complaint and have an employee need to go clean the women is room in hour 0, wasting some time.  if you have unisex bathrooms it would even out and they each dirty at 0 units per hour, so it is easier to keep them both equally clean.  0.  it does not make good business sense to have anyone tied up in a line.  if there are 0 women waiting to pee and the men is stall is free, i do not want those women waiting around i want them browsing my store, paying the bill and freeing up a table, getting to their movie, etc.  this argument also only favors men.   #  the bathrooms i am describing are the ones where there is a single door and a small room with a toilet, sink, and trashcan that are used by one person at a time.   #  i do not think there is any reason to divide them by gender.   # i do not think there is any reason to divide them by gender.  the division may make many women feel safer.  sadly we live in a world where women fear sexual assault from men.  i do not know how you feel, but i think many women worry about being cornered or confronted by a strange guy.  the solo bathrooms may not necessarily be at a busy hallway.  if you do not sex segregate them, peter pervert can stand in front of the one you just went into and he ca not be accused of doing anything wrong.  you are in a little room with no way out.  you open the door and peter pervert is blocking the opening.  mr pervert makes a comment about your appearance.  now you have to assertively tell mr pervert to please step aside.  he will fake apologize and say he was just waiting his turn.  for a brief second, as you look down the hall and do not see anyone else, the thought of sexual assault crosses your mind.  he takes a step into the room and you are forced to take a step back.  in a split second, he shuts and locks the door.  you are trapped in the corner.  he says he will hurt you if you scream.  you are now a sexual assault statistic.  if only the building has separate bath rooms: then a creep could not get away with standing in front of the door.  then you are not faced confronting a man to get out of that small room.  and maybe the odds sexual assault would happen are small but the  fear  that it could happen is always there.   #  how can a single person restroom even have a gender assigned to it ?  #  wait wait.  people actually care about the gender of a person using a  single person  washroom ? as a man i use the women is bathroom all the time without any issues.  and i have seen women use the men is too without anyone so much as looking twice.  how can a single person restroom even have a gender assigned to it ? where i live, most of them are labelled with no gender sign, or have a man/woman/wheelchair/baby sign on the door.   #  the women is usually had to do with blood on the seats, toilet paper on the floor, clogged toilets from pads, paper towels in the sink.   #  you have clearly never been into the women is restroom.  i dare to say that women is restrooms are often dirtier then men is.  i was a restaurant busser for some time and was often called upon to take car of messes in the restrooms.  the men is usually saw vomit, dirty seats, etc.  the women is usually had to do with blood on the seats, toilet paper on the floor, clogged toilets from pads, paper towels in the sink.  things were the opposite you expect.   #  when i was a teenager, i worked many jobs in restaurants and retail which involved cleaning bathrooms.   #  when i was a teenager, i worked many jobs in restaurants and retail which involved cleaning bathrooms.  i have seen a ton from both genders, and on average i would say the women is does tend to be nastier.  that said, they are all nasty if they are not cleaned often enough.  i do not know what people do in there, but they make a huge fucking mess a lot of the time.  i agree with you though that this would mostly benefit women.  not always, but most of the time men do not have a line unless someone is taking a shit.  i do not really know how i feel about it.  i have debated this a lot myself.   #  let is say a women is bathroom dirties by 0 dirt units every hour, the men is restroom by 0 dirt units every hour, and the restrooms are cleaned every 0 hours.   #  i have heard this before, though i guess neither of us have seen a large enough number of the  other bathroom  to confirm or deny the phenomenon.  but i think the benefits to the line waiting for both genders and to trans individuals trump the mild discomfort of a dirty bathroom.  from a management bathroom cleaning point of view, a unisex bathroom could be an advantage.  let is say a women is bathroom dirties by 0 dirt units every hour, the men is restroom by 0 dirt units every hour, and the restrooms are cleaned every 0 hours.  that means you are more likely to get a customer complaint and have an employee need to go clean the women is room in hour 0, wasting some time.  if you have unisex bathrooms it would even out and they each dirty at 0 units per hour, so it is easier to keep them both equally clean.
i really do not understand the appeal of these.  hardly any original ideas exist in theaters anymore.  every time i go to the theater it is always filled with promotions of new super hero movies that are all the same shit being recycled over and over again.  hero is fine, shit happens to hero, hero saves day, the end.  i know that is a trope that a lot of genres use, but still.  i do not like the fact that not only do these movies have boring plots, but its like the creators take it further away from the plot with unnecessary sfx and the addition of 0d.  i am the only one i know of that i have ever talked to about it that does not like them.   #  hero is fine, shit happens to hero, hero saves day, the end.   #  it is not quite that this is a trope that make this dismissal faulty, it is that it too general.   #  first things first.  i am going to be mainly focusing on the nolanbatman films and the marvel studios films, both of which are more critically well received than transformers, x men, and the amazing spider man for the same reason one should not discuss twilight or grown ups 0 when discussing the romance and comedy genres.  it is not quite that this is a trope that make this dismissal faulty, it is that it too general.  i am having a hard time thinking of many films where shit  does not  happen to the hero.  from  the big lebowski  dude gets his rug taken away to  breaking bad  walt gets cancer , you are describing not a trope but an essential part of storytelling URL this is how conflict itself in a story is generated.  0d is optional.  only a few films have been made with 0d in mind and i do not think superhero films are the biggest offender in this regard.  it should be a non issue if you see the film in 0d.  for example, in captain america 0, a focal point of the story is the villian is goal being achieved by escalation of perceived threats to make it publicly acceptable to usher in overwhelming and invasive security i. e.  wiretapping, metadata gathering, tsa, etc.  in the modern world .  in iron man 0, it was about distraction of utilizing a made up  bad guy  to distract from real mastermind.  furthermore, i think you are completely ignoring characters in favor of plot.  when i go to see a captain america film, i am going to see how an person who truly believes in antiquated ideals of heroism, honor, and good deal with the modern day issues of gray and gray morality, espionage, and not knowing who to trust.  when i went to see the avengers, i saw it to see all the heroes interact with one another rather than the plot of loki invading new york.  when i went to see guardians of the galaxy, i went to see how a studio could make me care about a talking racoon, an ent, and a dude who is generic ass name is  drax the destroyer  i loved them all .  the digital gonzo/drift podcasts go into far more depth with analyzing these characters and themes than i ever could, and i highly recommend listening to them if you would like some additional insight.  URL  #  but again, i have realized it is personal preference.   #  i guess i just mean the same idea of a hero.  the weird thing is though, i like comic books.  i guess i simply do not like the idea of a cliche super hero.  also, by over and over again i mean the idea of a superhero.  it is just stale to me.  but again, i have realized it is personal preference.    0; i hope i did that right  #  contrastly, transformers/spider man/nutrek are all thoroughly unenjoyable to me so i find that anything by roberto orci or alex kurtzman is reliably something to avoid.   #  i think you may be overgeneralizing, there are plenty of bad comic based movies but just lumping everything that has a  the hero saves the day  plot encompasses a lot more than just comic based movies.  by that reasoning,  die hard  and  the princess bride  must be terrible.  there are only a limited number of types of stories, but infinite ways to tell them.  if you do not care for stories with shallow protagonists or happy spielberg endings, that is a completely valid preference.  i would encourage you to look at filmmakers directors/producers/writers who  do  make movies you like and following them rather than lumping specific genres together.  for me, i tend to prefer action and sci fi but i would watch a romantic comedy if kevin feige is team was behind it.  contrastly, transformers/spider man/nutrek are all thoroughly unenjoyable to me so i find that anything by roberto orci or alex kurtzman is reliably something to avoid.   #  if i may continue where op left off, i feel the same thing watching a lot of superhero movies.   #  if i may continue where op left off, i feel the same thing watching a lot of superhero movies.  in particular, the first films in the following series: spiderman, thor, cap, guardians, earlier spiderman, iron man.  all of them tell the same basic story of how a person got their powers, which tends to always feel quite similar, and does not really lead to many interesting ideas.  i tend to prefer sequels, because by now, i do not really need to know how spiderman got bit, or batman had his parents die, or captain america got serum or whatever next superhero gained a super power and motivation.  i wish that could just be skipped, and we could see interesting movies about these characters without the first one always being exactly the same story.   #  the fact that these movies sometimes include the magic pill or ring or macguffin is rather secondary.   #  i will agree that re hashing the origins, especially for characters who are either already expected to have to originated in a certain way or for whom their origin story is not inherently interesting, certainly should not be considered a necessity anymore.  the fact that it keeps happening whenever a franchise gets introduced/rebooted could be shortsighted on the part of the producers or it is possible they are right about what the majority of viewers want to see and will enjoy.  that being said, i would not say the  a person gets powers  has to be the defining characteristic of a movie where that occurs.  the original sam raimi spider man was literally about  with great power comes great responsibility  and played that out convincingly.  thor was about the journey of a thoughtless man already powerful into a thoughtful man.  cap was about the importance of inner strength before outward expressions.  guardians was a fun pirate tale, even if it got a little sappy at times there was enough snark to counter it.  iron man was about realizing other people matter.  the fact that these movies sometimes include the magic pill or ring or macguffin is rather secondary.  it is the movies where the method of that transformation  becomes  the focus that you end up with a more disjointed movie with a muddled or lack of underlying message.
for those that missed jennifer lawrence is interview today.  URL i want to focus on this quote in particular.  i personally think that her anger is justified.  she feels violated, intruded upon, and exploited by a man who did not care about her body, but i do not think that just because she shares the same feelings as someone who has suffered from a sex crime, that she gets to label herself as a sex crime victim.  the argument is basically  i feel violated, rape victims feel violated, rape is a sex crime, therefore, i am the victim of a sex crime.   i think we can all plainly see that does not logically follow.  what we have here is not a sex crime, but a technologically advanced version of a peeping tom.  we do not think  wow, that guy peeking in her window raped her with his eyes.   when we hear stories of a peeping tom, we think  wow, that sick guy violated her privacy and her ability to have a moments peace.   i think it is important to make this distinction, not as a way to downplay what happened to jennifer lawrence, but to protect the definition of what rape and sex crimes are.  words like  sex crime  have such a powerful effect because of the barbaric nature of the act itself.  if we allow peeping toms to be in the same category as rapists, then that just waters down the severity of what sex crimes and rape are and it is no longer about the vile act, but also about lesser actions such as peeping, then the word loses the emotional charge that lawrence is ultimately trying to use to rally for her cause.  will the tactic of emotional hyperbole work ? probably, but there are better, more correct ways to argue your point and still have the same effect.  you can say  my privacy was violated, i never feel like i can truly be alone and i deserve to have that feeling.   this is compelling, draws just as much sympathy, and does not compare your experience to another different one.  i have read a few comments on vanity fair from people saying that they were victims of sex crimes and that she has no right to compare her circumstances to theirs.  i think they are right, but any views are welcome.  i do have to sleep, though, so i will probably only have time for a response or two tonight.   #  the argument is basically  i feel violated, rape victims feel violated, rape is a sex crime, therefore, i am the victim of a sex crime.    #  i know you already awarded some deltas, but can you explain why you felt this was the argument ?  # i know you already awarded some deltas, but can you explain why you felt this was the argument ? i did not see her mention anything about rape.  she said it was a sexual violation, and that she was sexually exploited and violated.  i would agree with her on all of those counts.  its hard to say that someone distributing nude pictures of you without your consent in order to make a buck is not sexual exploitation or a violation.   #  despite what you said, she said  nothing  about rape.   #  there are many states where if you are convicted of being a peeping tom i. e. , voyeurism then you have to register as a sex offender.  that means those states consider voyeurism a sex crime.  despite what you said, she said  nothing  about rape.  there are degrees of sex crimes and she never made any comparison of what happened to her and being raped.  those are your words, not hers.  i think most people realize there are different degrees of sex crimes and just because she uses that phrase does not mean she is saying that she was gang raped or something like that.   #  it is another thing to drunkenly pee on the side of a building in front of women, with the express purpose of showing off your dingle dangle and making them uncomfortable.   #  i can understand that reasoning, but i still do not like it.  it is one thing to drunkenly pee in an alleyway and get caught.  it is another thing to drunkenly pee on the side of a building in front of women.  it is another thing to drunkenly pee on the side of a building in front of women, with the express purpose of showing off your dingle dangle and making them uncomfortable.  it is another thing to simply show off your dingle dangle without even bothering with the excuse of  i needed to pee .   #  i at least would more readily think of theft or maybe vandalism.   #  that is true, but property damage does not stir up nearly the visceral emotional reaction that rape and sex in general do.  moreover arson is not really the archetype people immediately think of when they hear  property crime .  i at least would more readily think of theft or maybe vandalism.  whereas when people hear  sex crime  they immediately think of rape or sexual assault.  in general the category of property crimes fits an opposite purpose from sex crimes.  it actually makes them seem  less  significant by differentiating them from crimes that actually physically hurt someone.  categorizing crimes as  sex crimes  on the other hand, makes them seem more serious by connecting them to rape bringing to bear the negative attitudes people have towards those that violate sexual mores.   #  i am saying that a category is not defined by the worst crime it contains.   #  i am not arguing that one category of crimes is better or worse than another.  i am saying that a category is not defined by the worst crime it contains.  i also disagree with the idea that people immediately think of rape when they hear  sex crime   to the extent that they assume every sex crime is rape.  i, and most of the people i know, would put the words  sex  and  crime  together in the same way they would with any other combination of words, and come up with  a crime related to sex.   even if the first crime you think of when you hear those words is rape, it does not stop you from thinking rationally and realizing that there are many others as well.  in your example, even if theft and/or vandalism are the first things that come to mind when someone says  property crime,  it does not mean arson is not one too.
for those that missed jennifer lawrence is interview today.  URL i want to focus on this quote in particular.  i personally think that her anger is justified.  she feels violated, intruded upon, and exploited by a man who did not care about her body, but i do not think that just because she shares the same feelings as someone who has suffered from a sex crime, that she gets to label herself as a sex crime victim.  the argument is basically  i feel violated, rape victims feel violated, rape is a sex crime, therefore, i am the victim of a sex crime.   i think we can all plainly see that does not logically follow.  what we have here is not a sex crime, but a technologically advanced version of a peeping tom.  we do not think  wow, that guy peeking in her window raped her with his eyes.   when we hear stories of a peeping tom, we think  wow, that sick guy violated her privacy and her ability to have a moments peace.   i think it is important to make this distinction, not as a way to downplay what happened to jennifer lawrence, but to protect the definition of what rape and sex crimes are.  words like  sex crime  have such a powerful effect because of the barbaric nature of the act itself.  if we allow peeping toms to be in the same category as rapists, then that just waters down the severity of what sex crimes and rape are and it is no longer about the vile act, but also about lesser actions such as peeping, then the word loses the emotional charge that lawrence is ultimately trying to use to rally for her cause.  will the tactic of emotional hyperbole work ? probably, but there are better, more correct ways to argue your point and still have the same effect.  you can say  my privacy was violated, i never feel like i can truly be alone and i deserve to have that feeling.   this is compelling, draws just as much sympathy, and does not compare your experience to another different one.  i have read a few comments on vanity fair from people saying that they were victims of sex crimes and that she has no right to compare her circumstances to theirs.  i think they are right, but any views are welcome.  i do have to sleep, though, so i will probably only have time for a response or two tonight.   #  what we have here is not a sex crime, but a technologically advanced version of a peeping tom.   #  let is take someone peeing on another person especially peeping on a child .   # let is take someone peeing on another person especially peeping on a child .  even if perhaps not technically something that would be considered a sex offense in every state, most would see them on par and would argue the laws are just lagging behind public opinion.  no one is arguing all sex crimes are equal.  but at current, downloading a bunch of bits if the right bunch is as much a sex crime as raping someone.  not equally in severity or harm, but both are sex crimes.   #  despite what you said, she said  nothing  about rape.   #  there are many states where if you are convicted of being a peeping tom i. e. , voyeurism then you have to register as a sex offender.  that means those states consider voyeurism a sex crime.  despite what you said, she said  nothing  about rape.  there are degrees of sex crimes and she never made any comparison of what happened to her and being raped.  those are your words, not hers.  i think most people realize there are different degrees of sex crimes and just because she uses that phrase does not mean she is saying that she was gang raped or something like that.   #  i can understand that reasoning, but i still do not like it.   #  i can understand that reasoning, but i still do not like it.  it is one thing to drunkenly pee in an alleyway and get caught.  it is another thing to drunkenly pee on the side of a building in front of women.  it is another thing to drunkenly pee on the side of a building in front of women, with the express purpose of showing off your dingle dangle and making them uncomfortable.  it is another thing to simply show off your dingle dangle without even bothering with the excuse of  i needed to pee .   #  that is true, but property damage does not stir up nearly the visceral emotional reaction that rape and sex in general do.   #  that is true, but property damage does not stir up nearly the visceral emotional reaction that rape and sex in general do.  moreover arson is not really the archetype people immediately think of when they hear  property crime .  i at least would more readily think of theft or maybe vandalism.  whereas when people hear  sex crime  they immediately think of rape or sexual assault.  in general the category of property crimes fits an opposite purpose from sex crimes.  it actually makes them seem  less  significant by differentiating them from crimes that actually physically hurt someone.  categorizing crimes as  sex crimes  on the other hand, makes them seem more serious by connecting them to rape bringing to bear the negative attitudes people have towards those that violate sexual mores.   #  i, and most of the people i know, would put the words  sex  and  crime  together in the same way they would with any other combination of words, and come up with  a crime related to sex.    #  i am not arguing that one category of crimes is better or worse than another.  i am saying that a category is not defined by the worst crime it contains.  i also disagree with the idea that people immediately think of rape when they hear  sex crime   to the extent that they assume every sex crime is rape.  i, and most of the people i know, would put the words  sex  and  crime  together in the same way they would with any other combination of words, and come up with  a crime related to sex.   even if the first crime you think of when you hear those words is rape, it does not stop you from thinking rationally and realizing that there are many others as well.  in your example, even if theft and/or vandalism are the first things that come to mind when someone says  property crime,  it does not mean arson is not one too.
i have always wanted to be a writer, i have so many ideas and stories and i feel like i want to get them out their.  i wanna show my perspective on things and show people stories of life.  however, when i think about that stuff i often just realize how pointless it is.  i am not a smart guy, i do not have any talent.  my books would most likely just be lost to time and pointlessness, so why even bother ? i currently am a sophomore majoring in computer science and minoring in mathematics.  sure, i really do like it, i am not any good at it, but i find it interesting.  i do not wanna switch my major to creative writing or any bs like that, i think it is a waste of money to be honest and there is no applicability in the real world workplace.  plus, society is created in a way to create as much debt as possible for people, and i feel like in 0 years i will end up having 0 is of thousands of dollars in debt from school and a car and a house and it is a system stacked against me.  another factor that i find myself thinking about is the disillusionment of my dream.  so far in my life, i have been disillusioned by everything i loved in life, all the stories i have held dear and all the places i loved, and i feel like pursuing my dreams would just do that to me.   #  my books would most likely just be lost to time and pointlessness, so why even bother ?  #  using that logic, you should just kill yourself now.   # using that logic, you should just kill yourself now.  one day humans will no longer exist and no one will remember anything anyone did, ever.  of course that is ridiculous.  you do not need a degree in writing to learn how to write well.  anyone who is excellent at doing something, except for that 0, are excellent because they did it all the time.  you really want to write ? write all of the time.  it will be garbage at first, but it will get better over time.  i am in a creative field and i am still learning this lesson: most people who make things that are really good have been through hell and back.  they question whether or not what they are doing is smart.  that it would be easier to stick to status quo and do something that is safe.  that is fine too, and the perfect way to not become a writer.  you may not become famous.  that is okay.  but i have been writing for a while and eventually the things i wrote started to affect people positively.  write, write !  #  it is only a matter of making your circumstances work.   #  why does it have to be mutually exclusive ? there are many well regarded authors who hold a job in a  legitimate  field while writing novels.  you can write your novels as a hobby in your free time, and have a day job to sustain yourself while you do so.  if you have passion, you can succeed.  it is only a matter of making your circumstances work.  i definitely wo not advocate quitting computer science, but i think you can make both work, and i say this as a cs major.   #  with self publishing the website only takes a small percentage of your profits, instead of you only taking a small percentage and the publisher getting most of it .   #  writing in your spare time can actually be a decent way to make some extra cash.  you do not even have to be good at it, you just have to smart about it.  for instance, i know of someone who self published on amazon with a short story about christmas, which he uploaded to the site in november, i believe just before christmas .  he sold a lot of copies.  it was listed at just a few dollars but he made over $0 on it that winter.  a friend of mine read the story and said it was terrible, but the timing was right so it still sold hundreds of copies.  just make sure you try out self publishing.  getting a book deal and hoping for royalties kinda sucks.  with self publishing the website only takes a small percentage of your profits, instead of you only taking a small percentage and the publisher getting most of it .   #  if you fail, it can be your secret and at least you wo not be left wondering what would happen if you followed your dream.   #  is not that better than being that guy who gave up on his dream because he was scared of being  that guy  ? a lot of writers use pen names.  no one has to know it is you.  if you fail, it can be your secret and at least you wo not be left wondering what would happen if you followed your dream.  but if you succeed, would not you be so glad you tried ? also, you kind of do have to advertise on your own this way, but that could just be leaving flyers around or posting in forums about it.  if you reeeaaally want a good chance of it selling, you can either plan a particular popular theme around the time of year when it is popular christmas stories, horror around halloween maybe, etc.  , or you can write erotic fiction year round.  sex sells.  but that is more of an aside that i do not expect to be appealing and you would probably wanna do those with a pen name .   #  what makes it really good is that no matter what you will always have training to fall back on.   #  you are right and you are wrong, op.  what most people do is accept the cold, hard truth in that they know they need money to live.  as such they take jobs that pay.  what they do in their free time is focus on what they really want to do.  you can be a writer in your spare time and if you are good at it, eventually it will become your primary source of income.  as some wise people have noted, if you love your job you will never work a day in your life.  well, you will perhaps have had to work a few days first.  call it the price of success.  what makes it really good is that no matter what you will always have training to fall back on.
i think the arguments that are used to support gay marriage can be directly applied to the other two practices mentioned.  as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, and it is not affecting other people, then it should be permitted.  polygamy is particularly vanilla, it is just regular marriage or gay marriage with more people.  there is no real moral reason against it that i can think of.  incest, i will admit, would have to have some conditions.  primarily, restrictions on producing offspring, due to the genetic dangers.  but outside of possible children, incest between two consenting adults would not affect other people any more than gay marriage.  basically, i think that refusing to apply the same arguments you would to gay marriage to these other two practices, makes you nothing more than a hypocrite who has no right to say they  isupport marriage equality.   and for the record, i support all of these practices.   #  i think the arguments that are used to support gay marriage can be directly applied to the other two practices mentioned.   #  what arguments do you have in mind ?  # what arguments do you have in mind ? the argument is that marriage laws are discriminating based on gender and sexual orientation for no justifiable reason.  primarily, restrictions on producing offspring, due to the genetic dangers.  but outside of possible children, incest between two consenting adults would not affect other people any more than gay marriage.  incest is outlawed because of genetic dangers, and child welfare dangers.  incest opens up the opportunity for a parent to  groom  a child for marriage to them.  a parent or other close family member has too much influence over a developing mind to allow this type of marriage.  there is no such danger with same sex marriage.   #  before we would legalize polygamy, there would have to arise a good model to base it off.   #  gay marriage is exactly like straight marriage.  the only difference is that the spouses happen to be the same sex.  we do not have to make up anything new because straight marriage has already turned into two equal spouses.  just apply the exact same rules.  additionally, illegally married gay couples seemed to be working out pretty well and seemed to want to be legally married.  polygamy requires totally new rules.  how do taxes work ? how does divorce work ? what are employers  obligations ? what are landlords  obligations ? are marriages pairwise or do they involve the whole group ? do spouses have the right to object to their spouses  marrying ? we have no idea how to answer those questions.  what is more, polyamorists do not seem to want to get married.  illegally married us polygamists and legally married polygamists overseas seem to have adopted something close to slavery, where the men control the women financially and psychologically.  before we would legalize polygamy, there would have to arise a good model to base it off.  if we tried today, all we have are bad models.   #  laws allow marriage between people in other situations where coercion may be present: professor student, boss employee, etc.   #  yeah, that does not really stand up to scrutiny.  laws allow marriage in case of step siblings, or step parents where similar emotional coercion may exits.  laws allow marriage between people of widely different age.  laws allow marriage between people in other situations where coercion may be present: professor student, boss employee, etc.  etc.  in the end, should not we assume that adult people are competent and know what they want ?  #  especially since the parent will have known and cared for the child as they grew up, so  grooming them  for marriage is much more likely.   #  emotional coercion is more likely in incestual relationships, i believe.  i mean, a child/parent relationship will be much, much, much more emotionally charged than a professor/student relationship.  especially since the parent will have known and cared for the child as they grew up, so  grooming them  for marriage is much more likely.  but as another point, the government has an inherent interest in maintaining healthy familial relationships.  if a professor student relationship or a relationship between people of different ages ends, there probably wo not be major repercussions for familial life.  but an incestual marriage that breaks up will doubtlessly cause huge family problems.   #  should we ban all adults from marrying people they knew when they were children ?  #  0  yes, they can all groom a child for sex later so can a baby sitter, a teacher, a neighbor.  should we ban all adults from marrying people they knew when they were children ? what about blood relatives that did not even grow up together ? why ca not they marry ? 0 you did not address the second part of my argument:  if a parent is evil enough to abuse his/her own child, it is not like a law prohibiting incestual marriage will be the thing to stop them.   this law seems top be entirely ineffectual for purpose of stopping child abuse.  on the other hand such a law may ruin lives of two adults while legitimately fall in love and may wish to be together.  why would you deny two adults the rights to be with a person they love, just to keep a law on the books that is unlikely to do any good ?
i think the arguments that are used to support gay marriage can be directly applied to the other two practices mentioned.  as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, and it is not affecting other people, then it should be permitted.  polygamy is particularly vanilla, it is just regular marriage or gay marriage with more people.  there is no real moral reason against it that i can think of.  incest, i will admit, would have to have some conditions.  primarily, restrictions on producing offspring, due to the genetic dangers.  but outside of possible children, incest between two consenting adults would not affect other people any more than gay marriage.  basically, i think that refusing to apply the same arguments you would to gay marriage to these other two practices, makes you nothing more than a hypocrite who has no right to say they  isupport marriage equality.   and for the record, i support all of these practices.   #  incest, i will admit, would have to have some conditions.   #  primarily, restrictions on producing offspring, due to the genetic dangers.   # what arguments do you have in mind ? the argument is that marriage laws are discriminating based on gender and sexual orientation for no justifiable reason.  primarily, restrictions on producing offspring, due to the genetic dangers.  but outside of possible children, incest between two consenting adults would not affect other people any more than gay marriage.  incest is outlawed because of genetic dangers, and child welfare dangers.  incest opens up the opportunity for a parent to  groom  a child for marriage to them.  a parent or other close family member has too much influence over a developing mind to allow this type of marriage.  there is no such danger with same sex marriage.   #  if we tried today, all we have are bad models.   #  gay marriage is exactly like straight marriage.  the only difference is that the spouses happen to be the same sex.  we do not have to make up anything new because straight marriage has already turned into two equal spouses.  just apply the exact same rules.  additionally, illegally married gay couples seemed to be working out pretty well and seemed to want to be legally married.  polygamy requires totally new rules.  how do taxes work ? how does divorce work ? what are employers  obligations ? what are landlords  obligations ? are marriages pairwise or do they involve the whole group ? do spouses have the right to object to their spouses  marrying ? we have no idea how to answer those questions.  what is more, polyamorists do not seem to want to get married.  illegally married us polygamists and legally married polygamists overseas seem to have adopted something close to slavery, where the men control the women financially and psychologically.  before we would legalize polygamy, there would have to arise a good model to base it off.  if we tried today, all we have are bad models.   #  laws allow marriage in case of step siblings, or step parents where similar emotional coercion may exits.   #  yeah, that does not really stand up to scrutiny.  laws allow marriage in case of step siblings, or step parents where similar emotional coercion may exits.  laws allow marriage between people of widely different age.  laws allow marriage between people in other situations where coercion may be present: professor student, boss employee, etc.  etc.  in the end, should not we assume that adult people are competent and know what they want ?  #  especially since the parent will have known and cared for the child as they grew up, so  grooming them  for marriage is much more likely.   #  emotional coercion is more likely in incestual relationships, i believe.  i mean, a child/parent relationship will be much, much, much more emotionally charged than a professor/student relationship.  especially since the parent will have known and cared for the child as they grew up, so  grooming them  for marriage is much more likely.  but as another point, the government has an inherent interest in maintaining healthy familial relationships.  if a professor student relationship or a relationship between people of different ages ends, there probably wo not be major repercussions for familial life.  but an incestual marriage that breaks up will doubtlessly cause huge family problems.   #  why would you deny two adults the rights to be with a person they love, just to keep a law on the books that is unlikely to do any good ?  #  0  yes, they can all groom a child for sex later so can a baby sitter, a teacher, a neighbor.  should we ban all adults from marrying people they knew when they were children ? what about blood relatives that did not even grow up together ? why ca not they marry ? 0 you did not address the second part of my argument:  if a parent is evil enough to abuse his/her own child, it is not like a law prohibiting incestual marriage will be the thing to stop them.   this law seems top be entirely ineffectual for purpose of stopping child abuse.  on the other hand such a law may ruin lives of two adults while legitimately fall in love and may wish to be together.  why would you deny two adults the rights to be with a person they love, just to keep a law on the books that is unlikely to do any good ?
i believe gymnastics is the hardest of all sports.  other sports require your body to complete difficult tasks, however the human body is prehistorically adapted to carry out these types of movements.  sports such as football or swimming, though they require the body to be in exceptional shape, incorporate tasks our ancestors utilized in their survival.  yet gymnastics asks one to maneuver their bodies into shapes that the human figure is not meant to form.  subsequently, during the times of ancient greece, gymnastics was created in order to train other athletes to be successful in their sports.  when a gymnast lands vertically back down on the floor after a tumbling pass, there is a force of 0 to 0 times the person is body weight.  we use our body to catapult 0 feet in the air without the assistance of much spring at all.  though other sports include the use of precision and form as well, gymnastics requires one to master these skills.  it is possible to complete the skills without it, but in a competition arena, sloppiness scores no points with the judges.  also, unlike so many sports, gymnastics requires a very high level of mental toughness, even over physical ability.  on floor if you do not kick your leg hard enough, or you kick it a little off to the side, or you do not snap your hands back up quick enough for the takeoff, you could risk a serious crash landing.  the same goes for vault, bars and beam.  if a golfer for example is feeling a bit off today, maybe she will have some bad scores on her holes.  if a gymnast is feeling off, it could cause us to be paralyzed.  there is no powering through it like other high intensity sports.  we have to think about every move in every individual skill in every full routine.  i am not at all trying to belittle or degrade any other sports; i just feel that gymnastics is the most difficult sport.   #  yet gymnastics asks one to maneuver their bodies into shapes that the human figure is not meant to form.   #  yeah humans are not meant to hang from their heels, stand on the tips of their toes and hold their body weight on a fist jammed between two rocks.   #  i am going to post my own personal counter example of rock climbing as of being equivalent to gymnastics.  yeah humans are not meant to hang from their heels, stand on the tips of their toes and hold their body weight on a fist jammed between two rocks.  so what, if we selectively choose the most impresive facts from every other sport gymnastics looks like a cake walk.  sprinting has a higher energy expendage in a short time, marathons use more energy in a long time, boxing has much higher forces on more vulnerable body parts extend to all martion arts etc.  climbing hard stuff expects you to hold your entire bodyweight off of a couple of fingertips.  it is possible to complete the skills without it, but in a competition arena, sloppiness scores no points with the judges.  as does diving and tons of other sports.  at the top end of climbing the exact same thing applies, you have to get the moves just right otherwise you are wasting energy and may fall.  only a clean ascent counts no falls or resting on gear .  edit  in this case the sport also has a heavy aspect of discovering the perfect moves instead of having a short list of allowed/possible moves.  /e   also, unlike so many sports, gymnastics requires a very high level of mental toughness, even over physical ability.  on floor if you do not kick your leg hard enough, or you kick it a little off to the side, or you do not snap your hands back up quick enough for the takeoff, you could risk a serious crash landing.  the same goes for vault, bars and beam.  if a golfer for example is feeling a bit off today, maybe she will have some bad scores on her holes.  if a gymnast is feeling off, it could cause us to be paralyzed.  there is no powering through it like other high intensity sports.  we have to think about every move in every individual skill in every full routine.  ditto.  depending on which disciplines of climbing you look for there are some much more injury prone than others.  but sloppy climbing has serious consequences.  sport climbing has the protection already placed which gets rid of most of the risk but even then falling while cliping the 0nd bolt will in most cases result on a 0 0m fall onto rock.  trad climbing on the other hand goes the opposite direction since unfortunately the hardest climbing is often very hard to protect safely.  URL i have purposefully left out honnald because he is exceptional and i do not want anyone who reads this to hold him as the standard that they must beat, because that is how people die.   #  gymnasts work on their endurance very hard during the conditioning portion of their training as well as strength building.   #  there is direct competition even though we are not smashing into each other like water polo or soccer.  we do not enter a competition alone.  gymnasts compete against not only our their own team but also teams from all of the country or in some cases international teams.  secondly, each food routine at the elite level has 0 tumbling passes, bar routines have 0 different elements.  gymnasts work on their endurance very hard during the conditioning portion of their training as well as strength building.  though routines are short, the strength required to complete each routine is very high.   #  any ultramarathon runner who is trying to push the record is in my opinion, taking part in a much harder sport than any footballer or vollyballer.   #  why do you belive that direct person to person or team to team competion is a requirement for a sport to be  hardest  ? lots of sports can have the competition aspect removed and simply become a point of pushing a record.  weight lifting, running, swimming, shot, discus etc.  are all sports which do not require competion for them to be seen as sports, unlike tennis, wrestling, team games and any variant of the themes.  any ultramarathon runner who is trying to push the record is in my opinion, taking part in a much harder sport than any footballer or vollyballer.  competing against the best of all time is clearly going to be as hard if not harder than competing against the best opponent s now.   #  what sport is hardest is a  subjective  opinion, not an objective one.   # lots of sports can have the competition aspect removed and simply become a point of pushing a record.  weight lifting, running, swimming, shot, discus etc.  are all sports which do not require competion for them to be seen as sports, unlike tennis, wrestling, team games and any variant of the themes.  thats sorta kinda the point, you are cherry picking what you believe makes a hard sport.  some people would disagree.  what sport is hardest is a  subjective  opinion, not an objective one.  i do not believe any sport is hardest.  there are alot of hard sports, but they are all hard in different, and not directly comparable ways.  competing against the best of all time is clearly going to be as hard if not harder than competing against the best opponent s now.  hard does not just mean physically hard, sports can be mentally and strategically hard and probably other forms too .   #  an nhl season is 0 regular season games plus potentially 0 additional playoff games.   #  pro mma guys have what, two, maybe three fights a year ? the rest of the time is spent training, sure.  an nhl season is 0 regular season games plus potentially 0 additional playoff games.  this is the problem with this argument, it is never going to be apples to apples no matter what.  we could say that mma is harder than hockey because you need to know submissions and how to kick and we could say hockey is harder than mma since you need to know how to skate and stick handle.  it does not mean anything.
i believe gymnastics is the hardest of all sports.  other sports require your body to complete difficult tasks, however the human body is prehistorically adapted to carry out these types of movements.  sports such as football or swimming, though they require the body to be in exceptional shape, incorporate tasks our ancestors utilized in their survival.  yet gymnastics asks one to maneuver their bodies into shapes that the human figure is not meant to form.  subsequently, during the times of ancient greece, gymnastics was created in order to train other athletes to be successful in their sports.  when a gymnast lands vertically back down on the floor after a tumbling pass, there is a force of 0 to 0 times the person is body weight.  we use our body to catapult 0 feet in the air without the assistance of much spring at all.  though other sports include the use of precision and form as well, gymnastics requires one to master these skills.  it is possible to complete the skills without it, but in a competition arena, sloppiness scores no points with the judges.  also, unlike so many sports, gymnastics requires a very high level of mental toughness, even over physical ability.  on floor if you do not kick your leg hard enough, or you kick it a little off to the side, or you do not snap your hands back up quick enough for the takeoff, you could risk a serious crash landing.  the same goes for vault, bars and beam.  if a golfer for example is feeling a bit off today, maybe she will have some bad scores on her holes.  if a gymnast is feeling off, it could cause us to be paralyzed.  there is no powering through it like other high intensity sports.  we have to think about every move in every individual skill in every full routine.  i am not at all trying to belittle or degrade any other sports; i just feel that gymnastics is the most difficult sport.   #  when a gymnast lands vertically back down on the floor after a tumbling pass, there is a force of 0 to 0 times the person is body weight.   #  so what, if we selectively choose the most impresive facts from every other sport gymnastics looks like a cake walk.   #  i am going to post my own personal counter example of rock climbing as of being equivalent to gymnastics.  yeah humans are not meant to hang from their heels, stand on the tips of their toes and hold their body weight on a fist jammed between two rocks.  so what, if we selectively choose the most impresive facts from every other sport gymnastics looks like a cake walk.  sprinting has a higher energy expendage in a short time, marathons use more energy in a long time, boxing has much higher forces on more vulnerable body parts extend to all martion arts etc.  climbing hard stuff expects you to hold your entire bodyweight off of a couple of fingertips.  it is possible to complete the skills without it, but in a competition arena, sloppiness scores no points with the judges.  as does diving and tons of other sports.  at the top end of climbing the exact same thing applies, you have to get the moves just right otherwise you are wasting energy and may fall.  only a clean ascent counts no falls or resting on gear .  edit  in this case the sport also has a heavy aspect of discovering the perfect moves instead of having a short list of allowed/possible moves.  /e   also, unlike so many sports, gymnastics requires a very high level of mental toughness, even over physical ability.  on floor if you do not kick your leg hard enough, or you kick it a little off to the side, or you do not snap your hands back up quick enough for the takeoff, you could risk a serious crash landing.  the same goes for vault, bars and beam.  if a golfer for example is feeling a bit off today, maybe she will have some bad scores on her holes.  if a gymnast is feeling off, it could cause us to be paralyzed.  there is no powering through it like other high intensity sports.  we have to think about every move in every individual skill in every full routine.  ditto.  depending on which disciplines of climbing you look for there are some much more injury prone than others.  but sloppy climbing has serious consequences.  sport climbing has the protection already placed which gets rid of most of the risk but even then falling while cliping the 0nd bolt will in most cases result on a 0 0m fall onto rock.  trad climbing on the other hand goes the opposite direction since unfortunately the hardest climbing is often very hard to protect safely.  URL i have purposefully left out honnald because he is exceptional and i do not want anyone who reads this to hold him as the standard that they must beat, because that is how people die.   #  though routines are short, the strength required to complete each routine is very high.   #  there is direct competition even though we are not smashing into each other like water polo or soccer.  we do not enter a competition alone.  gymnasts compete against not only our their own team but also teams from all of the country or in some cases international teams.  secondly, each food routine at the elite level has 0 tumbling passes, bar routines have 0 different elements.  gymnasts work on their endurance very hard during the conditioning portion of their training as well as strength building.  though routines are short, the strength required to complete each routine is very high.   #  any ultramarathon runner who is trying to push the record is in my opinion, taking part in a much harder sport than any footballer or vollyballer.   #  why do you belive that direct person to person or team to team competion is a requirement for a sport to be  hardest  ? lots of sports can have the competition aspect removed and simply become a point of pushing a record.  weight lifting, running, swimming, shot, discus etc.  are all sports which do not require competion for them to be seen as sports, unlike tennis, wrestling, team games and any variant of the themes.  any ultramarathon runner who is trying to push the record is in my opinion, taking part in a much harder sport than any footballer or vollyballer.  competing against the best of all time is clearly going to be as hard if not harder than competing against the best opponent s now.   #  lots of sports can have the competition aspect removed and simply become a point of pushing a record.   # lots of sports can have the competition aspect removed and simply become a point of pushing a record.  weight lifting, running, swimming, shot, discus etc.  are all sports which do not require competion for them to be seen as sports, unlike tennis, wrestling, team games and any variant of the themes.  thats sorta kinda the point, you are cherry picking what you believe makes a hard sport.  some people would disagree.  what sport is hardest is a  subjective  opinion, not an objective one.  i do not believe any sport is hardest.  there are alot of hard sports, but they are all hard in different, and not directly comparable ways.  competing against the best of all time is clearly going to be as hard if not harder than competing against the best opponent s now.  hard does not just mean physically hard, sports can be mentally and strategically hard and probably other forms too .   #  the rest of the time is spent training, sure.   #  pro mma guys have what, two, maybe three fights a year ? the rest of the time is spent training, sure.  an nhl season is 0 regular season games plus potentially 0 additional playoff games.  this is the problem with this argument, it is never going to be apples to apples no matter what.  we could say that mma is harder than hockey because you need to know submissions and how to kick and we could say hockey is harder than mma since you need to know how to skate and stick handle.  it does not mean anything.
i believe gymnastics is the hardest of all sports.  other sports require your body to complete difficult tasks, however the human body is prehistorically adapted to carry out these types of movements.  sports such as football or swimming, though they require the body to be in exceptional shape, incorporate tasks our ancestors utilized in their survival.  yet gymnastics asks one to maneuver their bodies into shapes that the human figure is not meant to form.  subsequently, during the times of ancient greece, gymnastics was created in order to train other athletes to be successful in their sports.  when a gymnast lands vertically back down on the floor after a tumbling pass, there is a force of 0 to 0 times the person is body weight.  we use our body to catapult 0 feet in the air without the assistance of much spring at all.  though other sports include the use of precision and form as well, gymnastics requires one to master these skills.  it is possible to complete the skills without it, but in a competition arena, sloppiness scores no points with the judges.  also, unlike so many sports, gymnastics requires a very high level of mental toughness, even over physical ability.  on floor if you do not kick your leg hard enough, or you kick it a little off to the side, or you do not snap your hands back up quick enough for the takeoff, you could risk a serious crash landing.  the same goes for vault, bars and beam.  if a golfer for example is feeling a bit off today, maybe she will have some bad scores on her holes.  if a gymnast is feeling off, it could cause us to be paralyzed.  there is no powering through it like other high intensity sports.  we have to think about every move in every individual skill in every full routine.  i am not at all trying to belittle or degrade any other sports; i just feel that gymnastics is the most difficult sport.   #  though other sports include the use of precision and form as well, gymnastics requires one to master these skills.   #  it is possible to complete the skills without it, but in a competition arena, sloppiness scores no points with the judges.   #  i am going to post my own personal counter example of rock climbing as of being equivalent to gymnastics.  yeah humans are not meant to hang from their heels, stand on the tips of their toes and hold their body weight on a fist jammed between two rocks.  so what, if we selectively choose the most impresive facts from every other sport gymnastics looks like a cake walk.  sprinting has a higher energy expendage in a short time, marathons use more energy in a long time, boxing has much higher forces on more vulnerable body parts extend to all martion arts etc.  climbing hard stuff expects you to hold your entire bodyweight off of a couple of fingertips.  it is possible to complete the skills without it, but in a competition arena, sloppiness scores no points with the judges.  as does diving and tons of other sports.  at the top end of climbing the exact same thing applies, you have to get the moves just right otherwise you are wasting energy and may fall.  only a clean ascent counts no falls or resting on gear .  edit  in this case the sport also has a heavy aspect of discovering the perfect moves instead of having a short list of allowed/possible moves.  /e   also, unlike so many sports, gymnastics requires a very high level of mental toughness, even over physical ability.  on floor if you do not kick your leg hard enough, or you kick it a little off to the side, or you do not snap your hands back up quick enough for the takeoff, you could risk a serious crash landing.  the same goes for vault, bars and beam.  if a golfer for example is feeling a bit off today, maybe she will have some bad scores on her holes.  if a gymnast is feeling off, it could cause us to be paralyzed.  there is no powering through it like other high intensity sports.  we have to think about every move in every individual skill in every full routine.  ditto.  depending on which disciplines of climbing you look for there are some much more injury prone than others.  but sloppy climbing has serious consequences.  sport climbing has the protection already placed which gets rid of most of the risk but even then falling while cliping the 0nd bolt will in most cases result on a 0 0m fall onto rock.  trad climbing on the other hand goes the opposite direction since unfortunately the hardest climbing is often very hard to protect safely.  URL i have purposefully left out honnald because he is exceptional and i do not want anyone who reads this to hold him as the standard that they must beat, because that is how people die.   #  secondly, each food routine at the elite level has 0 tumbling passes, bar routines have 0 different elements.   #  there is direct competition even though we are not smashing into each other like water polo or soccer.  we do not enter a competition alone.  gymnasts compete against not only our their own team but also teams from all of the country or in some cases international teams.  secondly, each food routine at the elite level has 0 tumbling passes, bar routines have 0 different elements.  gymnasts work on their endurance very hard during the conditioning portion of their training as well as strength building.  though routines are short, the strength required to complete each routine is very high.   #  any ultramarathon runner who is trying to push the record is in my opinion, taking part in a much harder sport than any footballer or vollyballer.   #  why do you belive that direct person to person or team to team competion is a requirement for a sport to be  hardest  ? lots of sports can have the competition aspect removed and simply become a point of pushing a record.  weight lifting, running, swimming, shot, discus etc.  are all sports which do not require competion for them to be seen as sports, unlike tennis, wrestling, team games and any variant of the themes.  any ultramarathon runner who is trying to push the record is in my opinion, taking part in a much harder sport than any footballer or vollyballer.  competing against the best of all time is clearly going to be as hard if not harder than competing against the best opponent s now.   #  are all sports which do not require competion for them to be seen as sports, unlike tennis, wrestling, team games and any variant of the themes.   # lots of sports can have the competition aspect removed and simply become a point of pushing a record.  weight lifting, running, swimming, shot, discus etc.  are all sports which do not require competion for them to be seen as sports, unlike tennis, wrestling, team games and any variant of the themes.  thats sorta kinda the point, you are cherry picking what you believe makes a hard sport.  some people would disagree.  what sport is hardest is a  subjective  opinion, not an objective one.  i do not believe any sport is hardest.  there are alot of hard sports, but they are all hard in different, and not directly comparable ways.  competing against the best of all time is clearly going to be as hard if not harder than competing against the best opponent s now.  hard does not just mean physically hard, sports can be mentally and strategically hard and probably other forms too .   #  the rest of the time is spent training, sure.   #  pro mma guys have what, two, maybe three fights a year ? the rest of the time is spent training, sure.  an nhl season is 0 regular season games plus potentially 0 additional playoff games.  this is the problem with this argument, it is never going to be apples to apples no matter what.  we could say that mma is harder than hockey because you need to know submissions and how to kick and we could say hockey is harder than mma since you need to know how to skate and stick handle.  it does not mean anything.
i think the purpose of a test is to approximate your ability to understand the material that test is over.  given that it is designed properly, the grade a child receives on a test should approximately reflect their understanding of the material, and the cumulative score of their tests is what produces the final grade.  if that is the case, then why does it matter if they figured out, say, trig identities when the test was first given rather than a week later ? to give them a grade that is not reflective of what they actually understand at the end of the course is to defeat the purpose of the evaluation itself.  i am using  test  broadly.  i think things that are typically called  projects  are, generally speaking, a type of test.  i do not think that repetitious  busywork  should ever be factored in to a grade.  also, in case it matters, i am speaking from the experience of someone who went through the american public education system.  i understand that grades also can be used to measure certain personality factors conscientiousness, ability to follow instruction, adherence to procedural norms which all debatable might be as important as understanding the material.  however, you could simply give a separate evaluation of these factors instead rolling them all in to one.  it is been observed that performance at the university level corresponds better to standardized test scores than to high school gpa, so it is helpful to have a grade that is not a vague amalgamation of different factors.  note, i set specific parameters in the title for a reason.  i understand that a teacher might not have time to give endless make up tests, but, surely, they can manage a handful.  i excluded college because i think that raises many questions about different obligations and the manner in which people separate based on ability.  i think when it comes to k 0 especially at public schools there is more of a strict obligation to be fair and accurate.  p. s.  this my first cmv, or reddit post for that matter, so i apologize in advance if i have made any missteps in my presentation.   #  i understand that a teacher might not have time to give endless make up tests, but, surely, they can manage a handful.   #  but you are quite literally at the very least  doubling  the amount of tests they have to write.   # but you are quite literally at the very least  doubling  the amount of tests they have to write.  and if people take these tests less seriously, more people will fail them.  and that would increase the workload even further.  i do not think this is a reasonable position to hold, even if in theory i agree with you that learning should be about comprehension and not jumping through hoops.  sometimes, the hoops are necessary for comprehension.   #  it also measures your willingness to do work eg.   #  0.  in high school especially, your grade is a measure of more than just a base understanding of material.  it also measures your willingness to do work eg.  if a very smart, knowledgeable person refused to do course work, even though it was clear they knew the material, they would fail.  this is important to people like future employers and colleges.  0.  whenever you take a test, there is a chance you will luck out and get a score quite a bit higher than you really  deserved  based on your actual understanding of the material.  this has probably happened to all of us at some point.  allowing someone to take tests an unlimited number of times would allow them to maximize their chances of this happening, meaning their grades would become a worse representation of what they actually know.   #  i do not think high school grades are often looked at by most employers.   #  0.  i mentioned this issue in my op.  i do not think high school grades are often looked at by most employers.  as for colleges, i mentioned before that performance actually does correlate more to test scores than gpa.  also, i do not think there is anything wrong with being able to delineate between those who understand the material, but are lacking in work ethic, and those who have neither.  0.  i think that your argument here has more to do with the way a test is constructed rather than the ideas of tests in general.  now, if it was true that there is no way to make tests that would be able to reconcile these issues, then i would be swayed.  however, even on a simple 0 option multiple choice, the likelihood of guessing providing a significant level of distortion is not that high.  in any event, i think most kids who would even opt to retake the test are at least showing enough initiative that they are not just going to resort to guessing until they luck out.   #  however, any test is still only a small selection of the total course material, which is part of the reason even the largest of exams are still far smaller than most textbooks.   #  it is not just the percentage grade itself that employers look at.  being able to retake a test an indefinite number of times can mean the difference between passing and failing for some students.  for relatively unskilled, low paying jobs, whether or not someone has graduated high school at all is a fairly significant thing to look at.  as for university, work ethic is critical in success there, and universities would quite reasonably still want to consider the effect that work ethic and intelligence/knowledge have in combination.  and sure, some tests are more foolproof than others.  however, any test is still only a small selection of the total course material, which is part of the reason even the largest of exams are still far smaller than most textbooks.  this is what i mean by students being able to get lucky.   #  all that being said, i think you are overestimating the extent to which most tests can be gamed through chance alone.   #  i agree, gpa does not matter for employers of hs degree only employees.  that is what i was trying to get at.  but, to your point about graduating, unless a student is being given the exact same test over and over again, i do not see how doing well enough on tests to pass is any different if they took once or took it 0 times.  they get lucky because the test happens to randomly cover the part of the curriculum they understand ? then i do not see how that would not undermined the idea of the first test.  would not that just mean that many of the students who did well on the first one also got lucky ? in any case, allowing them to retake it actually prevents failure due to a bad draw in the first place.  all that being said, i think you are overestimating the extent to which most tests can be gamed through chance alone.
i think the purpose of a test is to approximate your ability to understand the material that test is over.  given that it is designed properly, the grade a child receives on a test should approximately reflect their understanding of the material, and the cumulative score of their tests is what produces the final grade.  if that is the case, then why does it matter if they figured out, say, trig identities when the test was first given rather than a week later ? to give them a grade that is not reflective of what they actually understand at the end of the course is to defeat the purpose of the evaluation itself.  i am using  test  broadly.  i think things that are typically called  projects  are, generally speaking, a type of test.  i do not think that repetitious  busywork  should ever be factored in to a grade.  also, in case it matters, i am speaking from the experience of someone who went through the american public education system.  i understand that grades also can be used to measure certain personality factors conscientiousness, ability to follow instruction, adherence to procedural norms which all debatable might be as important as understanding the material.  however, you could simply give a separate evaluation of these factors instead rolling them all in to one.  it is been observed that performance at the university level corresponds better to standardized test scores than to high school gpa, so it is helpful to have a grade that is not a vague amalgamation of different factors.  note, i set specific parameters in the title for a reason.  i understand that a teacher might not have time to give endless make up tests, but, surely, they can manage a handful.  i excluded college because i think that raises many questions about different obligations and the manner in which people separate based on ability.  i think when it comes to k 0 especially at public schools there is more of a strict obligation to be fair and accurate.  p. s.  this my first cmv, or reddit post for that matter, so i apologize in advance if i have made any missteps in my presentation.   #  i think the purpose of a test is to approximate your ability to understand the material that test is over.   #  given that it is designed properly, the grade a child receives on a test should approximately reflect their understanding of the material, and the cumulative score of their tests is what produces the final grade.   # given that it is designed properly, the grade a child receives on a test should approximately reflect their understanding of the material, and the cumulative score of their tests is what produces the final grade.  if that is the case, then why does it matter if they figured out, say, trig identities when the test was first given rather than a week later ? to give them a grade that is not reflective of what they actually understand at the end of the course is to defeat the purpose of the evaluation itself.  a well designed final exam comprises a very significant portion of the grade and tests knowledge of everything in the course.  however, it is not sensible to have a final exam testing everything, because it is important that there are incentives to learn subject matter throughout a course.  it is also important to be able to determine how well you are doing throughout a course.  assessment provides excellent potential for early feedback right when you are learning material, which is important.  shorter feedback loops are  always  better.  assignments, homework questions and other bits of internal assessment provide that short term feedback that is so crucial to efficient learning throughout the course.  i think things that are typically called  projects  are, generally speaking, a type of test.  they are and they are not.  they test your ability to apply your knowledge to longer form problems that might require significant research or lots of thinking time things you ca not do in a 0 hour exam.  they are not exams, though they are not invigilated, for example.  invigilated assessment is important for obvious reasons.  not sure what you mean here.  however, you could simply give a separate evaluation of these factors instead rolling them all in to one.  it is been observed that performance at the university level corresponds better to standardized test scores than to high school gpa, so it is helpful to have a grade that is not a vague amalgamation of different factors.  grades measure all sorts of things, but they are intended to measure academic ability.  classes move through a variety of topics, and it is fair to students that those topics are assessed at the same time as those topics are taught, for the feedback reasons i mentioned above.  it is also unfair to teachers to expect them to be marking work from throughout the term/semester/year.  ultimately you need to learn the subject matter at the relevant time homework , learn to apply it to long form problems and work on those with others group projects and be able to put it all together at the end of the semester/year exams .  performance at university level corresponds better to standardised test scores because university level grading is dominated by big exams, not because standardised tests measure understanding better they do not, they measure understanding quite badly.  i understand that a teacher might not have time to give endless make up tests, but, surely, they can manage a handful.  teachers are already stretched thin.  if they got more time more funding for teacher aides and smaller class sizes would contribute to them having some extra time, as would paying them more then that time would be far better spent actually teaching students and preparing resources for class like handouts and notes, not endlessly writing tests for the lazy students that just want to try the test again and again and again and again and again until they get it.  previous years  exams and tests are nearly always available.  that is how you should practice.   #  this has probably happened to all of us at some point.   #  0.  in high school especially, your grade is a measure of more than just a base understanding of material.  it also measures your willingness to do work eg.  if a very smart, knowledgeable person refused to do course work, even though it was clear they knew the material, they would fail.  this is important to people like future employers and colleges.  0.  whenever you take a test, there is a chance you will luck out and get a score quite a bit higher than you really  deserved  based on your actual understanding of the material.  this has probably happened to all of us at some point.  allowing someone to take tests an unlimited number of times would allow them to maximize their chances of this happening, meaning their grades would become a worse representation of what they actually know.   #  0.  i mentioned this issue in my op.   #  0.  i mentioned this issue in my op.  i do not think high school grades are often looked at by most employers.  as for colleges, i mentioned before that performance actually does correlate more to test scores than gpa.  also, i do not think there is anything wrong with being able to delineate between those who understand the material, but are lacking in work ethic, and those who have neither.  0.  i think that your argument here has more to do with the way a test is constructed rather than the ideas of tests in general.  now, if it was true that there is no way to make tests that would be able to reconcile these issues, then i would be swayed.  however, even on a simple 0 option multiple choice, the likelihood of guessing providing a significant level of distortion is not that high.  in any event, i think most kids who would even opt to retake the test are at least showing enough initiative that they are not just going to resort to guessing until they luck out.   #  for relatively unskilled, low paying jobs, whether or not someone has graduated high school at all is a fairly significant thing to look at.   #  it is not just the percentage grade itself that employers look at.  being able to retake a test an indefinite number of times can mean the difference between passing and failing for some students.  for relatively unskilled, low paying jobs, whether or not someone has graduated high school at all is a fairly significant thing to look at.  as for university, work ethic is critical in success there, and universities would quite reasonably still want to consider the effect that work ethic and intelligence/knowledge have in combination.  and sure, some tests are more foolproof than others.  however, any test is still only a small selection of the total course material, which is part of the reason even the largest of exams are still far smaller than most textbooks.  this is what i mean by students being able to get lucky.   #  then i do not see how that would not undermined the idea of the first test.   #  i agree, gpa does not matter for employers of hs degree only employees.  that is what i was trying to get at.  but, to your point about graduating, unless a student is being given the exact same test over and over again, i do not see how doing well enough on tests to pass is any different if they took once or took it 0 times.  they get lucky because the test happens to randomly cover the part of the curriculum they understand ? then i do not see how that would not undermined the idea of the first test.  would not that just mean that many of the students who did well on the first one also got lucky ? in any case, allowing them to retake it actually prevents failure due to a bad draw in the first place.  all that being said, i think you are overestimating the extent to which most tests can be gamed through chance alone.
i think the purpose of a test is to approximate your ability to understand the material that test is over.  given that it is designed properly, the grade a child receives on a test should approximately reflect their understanding of the material, and the cumulative score of their tests is what produces the final grade.  if that is the case, then why does it matter if they figured out, say, trig identities when the test was first given rather than a week later ? to give them a grade that is not reflective of what they actually understand at the end of the course is to defeat the purpose of the evaluation itself.  i am using  test  broadly.  i think things that are typically called  projects  are, generally speaking, a type of test.  i do not think that repetitious  busywork  should ever be factored in to a grade.  also, in case it matters, i am speaking from the experience of someone who went through the american public education system.  i understand that grades also can be used to measure certain personality factors conscientiousness, ability to follow instruction, adherence to procedural norms which all debatable might be as important as understanding the material.  however, you could simply give a separate evaluation of these factors instead rolling them all in to one.  it is been observed that performance at the university level corresponds better to standardized test scores than to high school gpa, so it is helpful to have a grade that is not a vague amalgamation of different factors.  note, i set specific parameters in the title for a reason.  i understand that a teacher might not have time to give endless make up tests, but, surely, they can manage a handful.  i excluded college because i think that raises many questions about different obligations and the manner in which people separate based on ability.  i think when it comes to k 0 especially at public schools there is more of a strict obligation to be fair and accurate.  p. s.  this my first cmv, or reddit post for that matter, so i apologize in advance if i have made any missteps in my presentation.   #  i understand that grades also can be used to measure certain personality factors conscientiousness, ability to follow instruction, adherence to procedural norms which all debatable might be as important as understanding the material.   #  however, you could simply give a separate evaluation of these factors instead rolling them all in to one.   # given that it is designed properly, the grade a child receives on a test should approximately reflect their understanding of the material, and the cumulative score of their tests is what produces the final grade.  if that is the case, then why does it matter if they figured out, say, trig identities when the test was first given rather than a week later ? to give them a grade that is not reflective of what they actually understand at the end of the course is to defeat the purpose of the evaluation itself.  a well designed final exam comprises a very significant portion of the grade and tests knowledge of everything in the course.  however, it is not sensible to have a final exam testing everything, because it is important that there are incentives to learn subject matter throughout a course.  it is also important to be able to determine how well you are doing throughout a course.  assessment provides excellent potential for early feedback right when you are learning material, which is important.  shorter feedback loops are  always  better.  assignments, homework questions and other bits of internal assessment provide that short term feedback that is so crucial to efficient learning throughout the course.  i think things that are typically called  projects  are, generally speaking, a type of test.  they are and they are not.  they test your ability to apply your knowledge to longer form problems that might require significant research or lots of thinking time things you ca not do in a 0 hour exam.  they are not exams, though they are not invigilated, for example.  invigilated assessment is important for obvious reasons.  not sure what you mean here.  however, you could simply give a separate evaluation of these factors instead rolling them all in to one.  it is been observed that performance at the university level corresponds better to standardized test scores than to high school gpa, so it is helpful to have a grade that is not a vague amalgamation of different factors.  grades measure all sorts of things, but they are intended to measure academic ability.  classes move through a variety of topics, and it is fair to students that those topics are assessed at the same time as those topics are taught, for the feedback reasons i mentioned above.  it is also unfair to teachers to expect them to be marking work from throughout the term/semester/year.  ultimately you need to learn the subject matter at the relevant time homework , learn to apply it to long form problems and work on those with others group projects and be able to put it all together at the end of the semester/year exams .  performance at university level corresponds better to standardised test scores because university level grading is dominated by big exams, not because standardised tests measure understanding better they do not, they measure understanding quite badly.  i understand that a teacher might not have time to give endless make up tests, but, surely, they can manage a handful.  teachers are already stretched thin.  if they got more time more funding for teacher aides and smaller class sizes would contribute to them having some extra time, as would paying them more then that time would be far better spent actually teaching students and preparing resources for class like handouts and notes, not endlessly writing tests for the lazy students that just want to try the test again and again and again and again and again until they get it.  previous years  exams and tests are nearly always available.  that is how you should practice.   #  if a very smart, knowledgeable person refused to do course work, even though it was clear they knew the material, they would fail.   #  0.  in high school especially, your grade is a measure of more than just a base understanding of material.  it also measures your willingness to do work eg.  if a very smart, knowledgeable person refused to do course work, even though it was clear they knew the material, they would fail.  this is important to people like future employers and colleges.  0.  whenever you take a test, there is a chance you will luck out and get a score quite a bit higher than you really  deserved  based on your actual understanding of the material.  this has probably happened to all of us at some point.  allowing someone to take tests an unlimited number of times would allow them to maximize their chances of this happening, meaning their grades would become a worse representation of what they actually know.   #  however, even on a simple 0 option multiple choice, the likelihood of guessing providing a significant level of distortion is not that high.   #  0.  i mentioned this issue in my op.  i do not think high school grades are often looked at by most employers.  as for colleges, i mentioned before that performance actually does correlate more to test scores than gpa.  also, i do not think there is anything wrong with being able to delineate between those who understand the material, but are lacking in work ethic, and those who have neither.  0.  i think that your argument here has more to do with the way a test is constructed rather than the ideas of tests in general.  now, if it was true that there is no way to make tests that would be able to reconcile these issues, then i would be swayed.  however, even on a simple 0 option multiple choice, the likelihood of guessing providing a significant level of distortion is not that high.  in any event, i think most kids who would even opt to retake the test are at least showing enough initiative that they are not just going to resort to guessing until they luck out.   #  this is what i mean by students being able to get lucky.   #  it is not just the percentage grade itself that employers look at.  being able to retake a test an indefinite number of times can mean the difference between passing and failing for some students.  for relatively unskilled, low paying jobs, whether or not someone has graduated high school at all is a fairly significant thing to look at.  as for university, work ethic is critical in success there, and universities would quite reasonably still want to consider the effect that work ethic and intelligence/knowledge have in combination.  and sure, some tests are more foolproof than others.  however, any test is still only a small selection of the total course material, which is part of the reason even the largest of exams are still far smaller than most textbooks.  this is what i mean by students being able to get lucky.   #  would not that just mean that many of the students who did well on the first one also got lucky ?  #  i agree, gpa does not matter for employers of hs degree only employees.  that is what i was trying to get at.  but, to your point about graduating, unless a student is being given the exact same test over and over again, i do not see how doing well enough on tests to pass is any different if they took once or took it 0 times.  they get lucky because the test happens to randomly cover the part of the curriculum they understand ? then i do not see how that would not undermined the idea of the first test.  would not that just mean that many of the students who did well on the first one also got lucky ? in any case, allowing them to retake it actually prevents failure due to a bad draw in the first place.  all that being said, i think you are overestimating the extent to which most tests can be gamed through chance alone.
i think the purpose of a test is to approximate your ability to understand the material that test is over.  given that it is designed properly, the grade a child receives on a test should approximately reflect their understanding of the material, and the cumulative score of their tests is what produces the final grade.  if that is the case, then why does it matter if they figured out, say, trig identities when the test was first given rather than a week later ? to give them a grade that is not reflective of what they actually understand at the end of the course is to defeat the purpose of the evaluation itself.  i am using  test  broadly.  i think things that are typically called  projects  are, generally speaking, a type of test.  i do not think that repetitious  busywork  should ever be factored in to a grade.  also, in case it matters, i am speaking from the experience of someone who went through the american public education system.  i understand that grades also can be used to measure certain personality factors conscientiousness, ability to follow instruction, adherence to procedural norms which all debatable might be as important as understanding the material.  however, you could simply give a separate evaluation of these factors instead rolling them all in to one.  it is been observed that performance at the university level corresponds better to standardized test scores than to high school gpa, so it is helpful to have a grade that is not a vague amalgamation of different factors.  note, i set specific parameters in the title for a reason.  i understand that a teacher might not have time to give endless make up tests, but, surely, they can manage a handful.  i excluded college because i think that raises many questions about different obligations and the manner in which people separate based on ability.  i think when it comes to k 0 especially at public schools there is more of a strict obligation to be fair and accurate.  p. s.  this my first cmv, or reddit post for that matter, so i apologize in advance if i have made any missteps in my presentation.   #  note, i set specific parameters in the title for a reason.   #  i understand that a teacher might not have time to give endless make up tests, but, surely, they can manage a handful.   # given that it is designed properly, the grade a child receives on a test should approximately reflect their understanding of the material, and the cumulative score of their tests is what produces the final grade.  if that is the case, then why does it matter if they figured out, say, trig identities when the test was first given rather than a week later ? to give them a grade that is not reflective of what they actually understand at the end of the course is to defeat the purpose of the evaluation itself.  a well designed final exam comprises a very significant portion of the grade and tests knowledge of everything in the course.  however, it is not sensible to have a final exam testing everything, because it is important that there are incentives to learn subject matter throughout a course.  it is also important to be able to determine how well you are doing throughout a course.  assessment provides excellent potential for early feedback right when you are learning material, which is important.  shorter feedback loops are  always  better.  assignments, homework questions and other bits of internal assessment provide that short term feedback that is so crucial to efficient learning throughout the course.  i think things that are typically called  projects  are, generally speaking, a type of test.  they are and they are not.  they test your ability to apply your knowledge to longer form problems that might require significant research or lots of thinking time things you ca not do in a 0 hour exam.  they are not exams, though they are not invigilated, for example.  invigilated assessment is important for obvious reasons.  not sure what you mean here.  however, you could simply give a separate evaluation of these factors instead rolling them all in to one.  it is been observed that performance at the university level corresponds better to standardized test scores than to high school gpa, so it is helpful to have a grade that is not a vague amalgamation of different factors.  grades measure all sorts of things, but they are intended to measure academic ability.  classes move through a variety of topics, and it is fair to students that those topics are assessed at the same time as those topics are taught, for the feedback reasons i mentioned above.  it is also unfair to teachers to expect them to be marking work from throughout the term/semester/year.  ultimately you need to learn the subject matter at the relevant time homework , learn to apply it to long form problems and work on those with others group projects and be able to put it all together at the end of the semester/year exams .  performance at university level corresponds better to standardised test scores because university level grading is dominated by big exams, not because standardised tests measure understanding better they do not, they measure understanding quite badly.  i understand that a teacher might not have time to give endless make up tests, but, surely, they can manage a handful.  teachers are already stretched thin.  if they got more time more funding for teacher aides and smaller class sizes would contribute to them having some extra time, as would paying them more then that time would be far better spent actually teaching students and preparing resources for class like handouts and notes, not endlessly writing tests for the lazy students that just want to try the test again and again and again and again and again until they get it.  previous years  exams and tests are nearly always available.  that is how you should practice.   #  it also measures your willingness to do work eg.   #  0.  in high school especially, your grade is a measure of more than just a base understanding of material.  it also measures your willingness to do work eg.  if a very smart, knowledgeable person refused to do course work, even though it was clear they knew the material, they would fail.  this is important to people like future employers and colleges.  0.  whenever you take a test, there is a chance you will luck out and get a score quite a bit higher than you really  deserved  based on your actual understanding of the material.  this has probably happened to all of us at some point.  allowing someone to take tests an unlimited number of times would allow them to maximize their chances of this happening, meaning their grades would become a worse representation of what they actually know.   #  however, even on a simple 0 option multiple choice, the likelihood of guessing providing a significant level of distortion is not that high.   #  0.  i mentioned this issue in my op.  i do not think high school grades are often looked at by most employers.  as for colleges, i mentioned before that performance actually does correlate more to test scores than gpa.  also, i do not think there is anything wrong with being able to delineate between those who understand the material, but are lacking in work ethic, and those who have neither.  0.  i think that your argument here has more to do with the way a test is constructed rather than the ideas of tests in general.  now, if it was true that there is no way to make tests that would be able to reconcile these issues, then i would be swayed.  however, even on a simple 0 option multiple choice, the likelihood of guessing providing a significant level of distortion is not that high.  in any event, i think most kids who would even opt to retake the test are at least showing enough initiative that they are not just going to resort to guessing until they luck out.   #  however, any test is still only a small selection of the total course material, which is part of the reason even the largest of exams are still far smaller than most textbooks.   #  it is not just the percentage grade itself that employers look at.  being able to retake a test an indefinite number of times can mean the difference between passing and failing for some students.  for relatively unskilled, low paying jobs, whether or not someone has graduated high school at all is a fairly significant thing to look at.  as for university, work ethic is critical in success there, and universities would quite reasonably still want to consider the effect that work ethic and intelligence/knowledge have in combination.  and sure, some tests are more foolproof than others.  however, any test is still only a small selection of the total course material, which is part of the reason even the largest of exams are still far smaller than most textbooks.  this is what i mean by students being able to get lucky.   #  all that being said, i think you are overestimating the extent to which most tests can be gamed through chance alone.   #  i agree, gpa does not matter for employers of hs degree only employees.  that is what i was trying to get at.  but, to your point about graduating, unless a student is being given the exact same test over and over again, i do not see how doing well enough on tests to pass is any different if they took once or took it 0 times.  they get lucky because the test happens to randomly cover the part of the curriculum they understand ? then i do not see how that would not undermined the idea of the first test.  would not that just mean that many of the students who did well on the first one also got lucky ? in any case, allowing them to retake it actually prevents failure due to a bad draw in the first place.  all that being said, i think you are overestimating the extent to which most tests can be gamed through chance alone.
you wo not make new friends as an adult.  know why ? because making a real friend requires repeated, mandatory running into each other extremely frequently.  this is only really possible at school with classmates or college with roommates or dorm mates.  once you are an adult, you can still meet plenty of new people, but you are unable to have repeated, very frequent, mandatory interaction with them.  you will have to call them up and arrange a meet specifically to hang out, instead of just spontaneously running into each other.  people are not willing to do this just to make a new friend.  i am in my mid 0s now, and every single one of the friends i have today who have stuck around i made before i was 0.  some elementary school friends from the 0th grade, plenty of high school friends from the 0th 0th grades, and freshman year of college, when i was 0, was literally my very last year in which i made lifelong friends whom i still talk to today.  i have definitely tried to make friends in my 0s, but the repeated mandatory interaction is not possible, and i had to call up specifically to arrange a hang out.  needless to say these people never stuck around because this is the way it had to be done and it is no way to make friends.  so you basically have to make all your friends before you become an adult, all the friends i have were made before i was an adult.  if you are already an adult and do not really have friends, you are screwed.   #  you will have to call them up and arrange a meet specifically to hang out, instead of just spontaneously running into each other.   #  people are not willing to do this just to make a new friend.   # at 0 i lost my job.  i found a new job, but had to move 0miles away.  i have been here for 0 years now.  i have made plenty of friends and some of them are life long, though i am only halfway through my life hopefully , so it is hard to know who.  people are not willing to do this just to make a new friend.  i am a gamer.  i play tabletop rpgs.  i go to plenty of games and  spontaneously  run into people at the events.  i have made good friends this way in my 0s.  so if you meet the love of your life next week, and get married for the rest of your life, your partner is not a life long friend ? they rarely have much in common with you and even if they do, you have to make extra effort to call them up and arrange hangouts to get to know them outside of work.  people are not willing to do that.  i have never made a lifelong friend out of a work colleague and i doubt i ever will so your personal experience is the truth and the facts ?  #  experience other people is life events like births, deaths, illnesses, etc.   # know why ? because making a real friend requires repeated, mandatory running into each other extremely frequently.  this is only really possible at school with classmates or college with roommates or dorm mates.  i may get downvoted for this this is reddit afterall , but what about at church ? at church you often.    see the same people at least every week if you are doing a service project that week you may see them more .  see kids grow up from babies to adults.  experience other people is life events like births, deaths, illnesses, etc.  and have the opportunity to help them.  people help you when you experience life events e. g.  they bring in meals, stop by to see how you are doing, help when you ca not help yourself, etc.   #  it makes no sense to compare those few years to the 0  years you have spent making friends before being an adult.   # know why ? because making a real friend requires repeated, mandatory running into each other extremely frequently.  this is only really possible at school with classmates or college with roommates or dorm mates.  lots of people work with the same exact people 0  hours a week.  some of them do this for decades, much longer than you ever saw schoolmates as a kid or roommates in college.  also, if you are in your mid twenties, and you do not consider college students as adults, that means you have only been an  adult  for a few years.  it makes no sense to compare those few years to the 0  years you have spent making friends before being an adult.   #  i know many adults who have had life long friends they met at work or even clubs/events.   # nope, they do not stick around as lifelong friends the way the friends you made as a kid do.  and you are not nearly on the same page as the friends you made as kids.  this is pure bullshit.  you ca not speak for the relationships of other people.  all you can speak for is yourself.  i know many adults who have had life long friends they met at work or even clubs/events.  my parents have good friends lasting 0  years they met from work or from taekwondo classes or other situations.  the repeated meetings/encounters of the individual are only helpful to forge the initial friendship.  after that, how good of friends you become is based on a variety of circumstances, including personalities, frequencies of meeting up, shared experiences, etc.   #  as the other poster pointed out, you will probably end up working with the same people everyday, possibly for many years.   #  as the other poster pointed out, you will probably end up working with the same people everyday, possibly for many years.  during my time at graduate school i have managed to become friends with two or three people i think might be lifelong friends, even though i had none of the same classes with them during the period where i was still taking classes .  i just set up a coffee maker in my office, that provides a more than a sufficient amount of regular interaction.  i met my best friend in the world besides my husband while we were in college, but we did not go to school together.  we met at a house party when i was 0.  we just clicked, and yes we did have to plan get togethers and movie nights and make it a point to hang out during parties we were both invited to, but really it did not feel like much of an  effort .  we both wanted to hang out more, so we did.  we lived 0 miles apart for two years before she moved closer and maintained our friendship the entire time.  frankly, overall the friends i have made as an adult are way better than the people i was friends with as a teenager/child.  i have way more in common with these people, my old friends were only friends due to shared environment.  we never would have chosen each other given a wider variety of options.
you wo not make new friends as an adult.  know why ? because making a real friend requires repeated, mandatory running into each other extremely frequently.  this is only really possible at school with classmates or college with roommates or dorm mates.  once you are an adult, you can still meet plenty of new people, but you are unable to have repeated, very frequent, mandatory interaction with them.  you will have to call them up and arrange a meet specifically to hang out, instead of just spontaneously running into each other.  people are not willing to do this just to make a new friend.  i am in my mid 0s now, and every single one of the friends i have today who have stuck around i made before i was 0.  some elementary school friends from the 0th grade, plenty of high school friends from the 0th 0th grades, and freshman year of college, when i was 0, was literally my very last year in which i made lifelong friends whom i still talk to today.  i have definitely tried to make friends in my 0s, but the repeated mandatory interaction is not possible, and i had to call up specifically to arrange a hang out.  needless to say these people never stuck around because this is the way it had to be done and it is no way to make friends.  so you basically have to make all your friends before you become an adult, all the friends i have were made before i was an adult.  if you are already an adult and do not really have friends, you are screwed.   #  i have definitely tried to make friends in my 0s, but the repeated mandatory interaction is not possible, and i had to call up specifically to arrange a hang out.   #  so if you meet the love of your life next week, and get married for the rest of your life, your partner is not a life long friend ?  # at 0 i lost my job.  i found a new job, but had to move 0miles away.  i have been here for 0 years now.  i have made plenty of friends and some of them are life long, though i am only halfway through my life hopefully , so it is hard to know who.  people are not willing to do this just to make a new friend.  i am a gamer.  i play tabletop rpgs.  i go to plenty of games and  spontaneously  run into people at the events.  i have made good friends this way in my 0s.  so if you meet the love of your life next week, and get married for the rest of your life, your partner is not a life long friend ? they rarely have much in common with you and even if they do, you have to make extra effort to call them up and arrange hangouts to get to know them outside of work.  people are not willing to do that.  i have never made a lifelong friend out of a work colleague and i doubt i ever will so your personal experience is the truth and the facts ?  #  i may get downvoted for this this is reddit afterall , but what about at church ?  # know why ? because making a real friend requires repeated, mandatory running into each other extremely frequently.  this is only really possible at school with classmates or college with roommates or dorm mates.  i may get downvoted for this this is reddit afterall , but what about at church ? at church you often.    see the same people at least every week if you are doing a service project that week you may see them more .  see kids grow up from babies to adults.  experience other people is life events like births, deaths, illnesses, etc.  and have the opportunity to help them.  people help you when you experience life events e. g.  they bring in meals, stop by to see how you are doing, help when you ca not help yourself, etc.   #  also, if you are in your mid twenties, and you do not consider college students as adults, that means you have only been an  adult  for a few years.   # know why ? because making a real friend requires repeated, mandatory running into each other extremely frequently.  this is only really possible at school with classmates or college with roommates or dorm mates.  lots of people work with the same exact people 0  hours a week.  some of them do this for decades, much longer than you ever saw schoolmates as a kid or roommates in college.  also, if you are in your mid twenties, and you do not consider college students as adults, that means you have only been an  adult  for a few years.  it makes no sense to compare those few years to the 0  years you have spent making friends before being an adult.   #  you ca not speak for the relationships of other people.   # nope, they do not stick around as lifelong friends the way the friends you made as a kid do.  and you are not nearly on the same page as the friends you made as kids.  this is pure bullshit.  you ca not speak for the relationships of other people.  all you can speak for is yourself.  i know many adults who have had life long friends they met at work or even clubs/events.  my parents have good friends lasting 0  years they met from work or from taekwondo classes or other situations.  the repeated meetings/encounters of the individual are only helpful to forge the initial friendship.  after that, how good of friends you become is based on a variety of circumstances, including personalities, frequencies of meeting up, shared experiences, etc.   #  we both wanted to hang out more, so we did.   #  as the other poster pointed out, you will probably end up working with the same people everyday, possibly for many years.  during my time at graduate school i have managed to become friends with two or three people i think might be lifelong friends, even though i had none of the same classes with them during the period where i was still taking classes .  i just set up a coffee maker in my office, that provides a more than a sufficient amount of regular interaction.  i met my best friend in the world besides my husband while we were in college, but we did not go to school together.  we met at a house party when i was 0.  we just clicked, and yes we did have to plan get togethers and movie nights and make it a point to hang out during parties we were both invited to, but really it did not feel like much of an  effort .  we both wanted to hang out more, so we did.  we lived 0 miles apart for two years before she moved closer and maintained our friendship the entire time.  frankly, overall the friends i have made as an adult are way better than the people i was friends with as a teenager/child.  i have way more in common with these people, my old friends were only friends due to shared environment.  we never would have chosen each other given a wider variety of options.
there are many pro life advocates that approach the issue of abortion from a religious or moral perspective.  i am not even approaching it from that perspective, it is like walking on egg shells.  i take my reasoning straight from the declaration of independence which states that americans have  certain unalienable rights, that among these are  life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness .  these were the first fundamental rights we declared for ourselves as americans and i believe these rights are one of the building blocks of american government today.  there is a reason life was listed first, if you do not have a right to your life, you ca not have a right to anything else.  so, if we take life through abortion, are not we defying everything americans stand for ? now, the reason i have the exception is because it gets a bit tricky if a decision has to be made between the mother is life and the child is life, it should be up to the mother whether she chooses to abort or not.  the united states has no right to choose that for her.  we have the right to life first and foremost but if there is a life that is going to be lost whether she has the child or not, then it is necessary for a decision to be made on which life should be taken away and the only person who can make that decision is the mother.   #  these were the first fundamental rights we declared for ourselves as americans and i believe these rights are one of the building blocks of american government today.   #  there is a reason life was listed first, if you do not have a right to your life, you ca not have a right to anything else.   # there is a reason life was listed first, if you do not have a right to your life, you ca not have a right to anything else.  the declaration of independence is not a legal document.  nothing in that document has any effect on the law of the land.  how do you define life ? is something alive when it cannot eat, cannot survive, and literally has no brain with which to think ? if you want to consider unthinking clumps of cells to be alive, then you must also oppose the removal of tumors.  nowhere does our law protect the right to  potential life .  you may be thinking that there is a big difference between a tumor and a baby.  however, a fertilized egg can easily turn into a molar pregnancy URL that means pregnant with a tumor.  how much of a risk justifies an abortion ? every pregnancy has the potential to get ugly; can we abort with a 0 chance of death ? 0 ? 0 ?  #  that number will presumably get smaller as more medical advances happen.   #  i am curious about what you mean by viable.  science has progressed to the point where a fetus can survive without it is mother and with the help of modern medicine earlier and earlier.  i think somewhere around 0 weeks is totally  viable  from a medical perspective.  that number will presumably get smaller as more medical advances happen.  i am guessing you mean something else.  although i imagine that most people getting abortions do it before 0 weeks, what about when science makes a fetus viable at 0 weeks ? 0 weeks ? etc.   #  please, tell me how you know i have not given up sugar and diamond rings.   # i am not cool with that.  please, tell me how you know i have not given up sugar and diamond rings.  i do not own any pieces of jewelry, and the only sugar i own is in the food i need to survive.  i would also like to point out that my free time is dominated by charity work this is something that you could not have possibly known, but since you chose to make assumptions about how horrible a person i am, i think it is worth pointing out.  i am not going to make the assumption that you do not perform any charity work, but i will say that i perform far more than the average individual.  second, i did not actually say that i am pro life.  i said that it makes no sense for someone to consider abortion o be murder but to also think that abortion should be legal because it is wrong to push one is morals on another.  i did not attack the pro choice position.  i questioned this one, very specific position.  your entire argument in favor of this position is that,  because we enable murder in one scenario, even though it is morally wrong, we should enable murder in this scenario as well again, not saying that abortion is murder but this is the logic you are using to justify thinking both that abortion is murder and should be legal .   to that i say,  two wrongs do not make a right.   just because i do one morally wrong thing in one scenario does not mean that i am obligated to do the same morally wrong thing in every given scenario.  is it hypocritical ? yes, but i would much rather do one morally wrong action than two.   #  honestly congratulations on being a significantly less shitty person than most.   #  i guess i expected that to be offensive.  i apologize for assuming that it fit you, and for wording my statement so strongly in spite of it depending on an assumption.  honestly congratulations on being a significantly less shitty person than most.  you consider abortion to be the killing of a fetus, but you are okay with other people aborting because you do not want to be judgmental ? if you think that a fetus has a right to life, then does not that right to life take priority over not judging others ? my main point is that people maybe not you, but myself and many others who would consider themselves pretty reasonable, good people make decisions that result in the death or extreme suffering of another human being all the time and society is largely okay with that.  it helps that i think the reasons to abort a baby are stronger in both reasoning and positive outcome than those for wearing diamonds, but i was mainly going at the idea that this position is incredibly common.  yes we try to avoid these in some general sense, but we do not do enough to combat the systemic problems that create these conditions.  why are people aborting children ? because they are having unprotected sex while not desiring or being responsible enough for a child.  that is something that we very much know how to reduce.  you enable more people to care for a child with better societal safety nets.  you increase sex education and awareness starting with or before puberty.   #  like i said, i do not make the decisions i do because i am some angel.   #  thank you for both the apology and the compliment, but really, i would not say i am a significantly better person than the average person.  i was just lucky enough to be born into a situation where i have the resources to help others, and i hope that anyone would make the same choices.  that might just be the optimist in me talking, but anyway, that is an entirely different conversation.  the way you explain it makes much more sense than a simple  i do not want to force my views on others,  but i am still not comfortable with that line of reasoning.  i would hope that most people would only make those decisions out of necessity or ignorance, not because they just do not care about the suffering of others.  like i said, i do not make the decisions i do because i am some angel.  i make them because i was provided through shear luck and no achievement of mine the resources to do so.  i do not know.  this all might be hopelessly optimistic and writing it out, it almost sounds elitist please tell me if i am being elitist but i really do have  some  faith in humanity.  i do completely agree with your last paragraph however.  i am currently unsure of my stance on abortion, but my hope is that both pro life and pro choice groups come together to promote contraception and sex education.  reduces abortion and unwanted pregnancy.  everyone is happy.  like i said, this may be hopelessly optimistic, but i guess i am just an optimist.
there are many pro life advocates that approach the issue of abortion from a religious or moral perspective.  i am not even approaching it from that perspective, it is like walking on egg shells.  i take my reasoning straight from the declaration of independence which states that americans have  certain unalienable rights, that among these are  life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness .  these were the first fundamental rights we declared for ourselves as americans and i believe these rights are one of the building blocks of american government today.  there is a reason life was listed first, if you do not have a right to your life, you ca not have a right to anything else.  so, if we take life through abortion, are not we defying everything americans stand for ? now, the reason i have the exception is because it gets a bit tricky if a decision has to be made between the mother is life and the child is life, it should be up to the mother whether she chooses to abort or not.  the united states has no right to choose that for her.  we have the right to life first and foremost but if there is a life that is going to be lost whether she has the child or not, then it is necessary for a decision to be made on which life should be taken away and the only person who can make that decision is the mother.   #  now, the reason i have the exception is because it gets a bit tricky if a decision has to be made between the mother is life and the child is life, it should be up to the mother whether she chooses to abort or not.   #  how much of a risk justifies an abortion ?  # there is a reason life was listed first, if you do not have a right to your life, you ca not have a right to anything else.  the declaration of independence is not a legal document.  nothing in that document has any effect on the law of the land.  how do you define life ? is something alive when it cannot eat, cannot survive, and literally has no brain with which to think ? if you want to consider unthinking clumps of cells to be alive, then you must also oppose the removal of tumors.  nowhere does our law protect the right to  potential life .  you may be thinking that there is a big difference between a tumor and a baby.  however, a fertilized egg can easily turn into a molar pregnancy URL that means pregnant with a tumor.  how much of a risk justifies an abortion ? every pregnancy has the potential to get ugly; can we abort with a 0 chance of death ? 0 ? 0 ?  #  i am curious about what you mean by viable.   #  i am curious about what you mean by viable.  science has progressed to the point where a fetus can survive without it is mother and with the help of modern medicine earlier and earlier.  i think somewhere around 0 weeks is totally  viable  from a medical perspective.  that number will presumably get smaller as more medical advances happen.  i am guessing you mean something else.  although i imagine that most people getting abortions do it before 0 weeks, what about when science makes a fetus viable at 0 weeks ? 0 weeks ? etc.   #  i did not attack the pro choice position.   # i am not cool with that.  please, tell me how you know i have not given up sugar and diamond rings.  i do not own any pieces of jewelry, and the only sugar i own is in the food i need to survive.  i would also like to point out that my free time is dominated by charity work this is something that you could not have possibly known, but since you chose to make assumptions about how horrible a person i am, i think it is worth pointing out.  i am not going to make the assumption that you do not perform any charity work, but i will say that i perform far more than the average individual.  second, i did not actually say that i am pro life.  i said that it makes no sense for someone to consider abortion o be murder but to also think that abortion should be legal because it is wrong to push one is morals on another.  i did not attack the pro choice position.  i questioned this one, very specific position.  your entire argument in favor of this position is that,  because we enable murder in one scenario, even though it is morally wrong, we should enable murder in this scenario as well again, not saying that abortion is murder but this is the logic you are using to justify thinking both that abortion is murder and should be legal .   to that i say,  two wrongs do not make a right.   just because i do one morally wrong thing in one scenario does not mean that i am obligated to do the same morally wrong thing in every given scenario.  is it hypocritical ? yes, but i would much rather do one morally wrong action than two.   #  it helps that i think the reasons to abort a baby are stronger in both reasoning and positive outcome than those for wearing diamonds, but i was mainly going at the idea that this position is incredibly common.   #  i guess i expected that to be offensive.  i apologize for assuming that it fit you, and for wording my statement so strongly in spite of it depending on an assumption.  honestly congratulations on being a significantly less shitty person than most.  you consider abortion to be the killing of a fetus, but you are okay with other people aborting because you do not want to be judgmental ? if you think that a fetus has a right to life, then does not that right to life take priority over not judging others ? my main point is that people maybe not you, but myself and many others who would consider themselves pretty reasonable, good people make decisions that result in the death or extreme suffering of another human being all the time and society is largely okay with that.  it helps that i think the reasons to abort a baby are stronger in both reasoning and positive outcome than those for wearing diamonds, but i was mainly going at the idea that this position is incredibly common.  yes we try to avoid these in some general sense, but we do not do enough to combat the systemic problems that create these conditions.  why are people aborting children ? because they are having unprotected sex while not desiring or being responsible enough for a child.  that is something that we very much know how to reduce.  you enable more people to care for a child with better societal safety nets.  you increase sex education and awareness starting with or before puberty.   #  i was just lucky enough to be born into a situation where i have the resources to help others, and i hope that anyone would make the same choices.   #  thank you for both the apology and the compliment, but really, i would not say i am a significantly better person than the average person.  i was just lucky enough to be born into a situation where i have the resources to help others, and i hope that anyone would make the same choices.  that might just be the optimist in me talking, but anyway, that is an entirely different conversation.  the way you explain it makes much more sense than a simple  i do not want to force my views on others,  but i am still not comfortable with that line of reasoning.  i would hope that most people would only make those decisions out of necessity or ignorance, not because they just do not care about the suffering of others.  like i said, i do not make the decisions i do because i am some angel.  i make them because i was provided through shear luck and no achievement of mine the resources to do so.  i do not know.  this all might be hopelessly optimistic and writing it out, it almost sounds elitist please tell me if i am being elitist but i really do have  some  faith in humanity.  i do completely agree with your last paragraph however.  i am currently unsure of my stance on abortion, but my hope is that both pro life and pro choice groups come together to promote contraception and sex education.  reduces abortion and unwanted pregnancy.  everyone is happy.  like i said, this may be hopelessly optimistic, but i guess i am just an optimist.
there are many pro life advocates that approach the issue of abortion from a religious or moral perspective.  i am not even approaching it from that perspective, it is like walking on egg shells.  i take my reasoning straight from the declaration of independence which states that americans have  certain unalienable rights, that among these are  life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness .  these were the first fundamental rights we declared for ourselves as americans and i believe these rights are one of the building blocks of american government today.  there is a reason life was listed first, if you do not have a right to your life, you ca not have a right to anything else.  so, if we take life through abortion, are not we defying everything americans stand for ? now, the reason i have the exception is because it gets a bit tricky if a decision has to be made between the mother is life and the child is life, it should be up to the mother whether she chooses to abort or not.  the united states has no right to choose that for her.  we have the right to life first and foremost but if there is a life that is going to be lost whether she has the child or not, then it is necessary for a decision to be made on which life should be taken away and the only person who can make that decision is the mother.   #  so, if we take life through abortion, are not we defying everything americans stand for ?  #  it depends on what sort of life.   # it depends on what sort of life.  i take lives all the time working in my garden.  i take the lives of turnips, cauliflower, whatever.  the issue is whether or not a fetus is a person, and should have the rights of persons.  i would submit that fetuses do not meet certain requisite conditions of being a person.  but let is suppose that a fetus is a person.  surely then they have the right to life, nobody is questioning that.  the issue though, is, what does having a right to life even mean ? pro choice advocates might agree that a fetus is a person, and has a right to life, but that right to life does not entail that the fetus has a right to use somebody else is body w/o that somebody else is permission.  i need a kidney, but i have no right to demand the use of anyone else is kidney, even though i have a right to life.  the fetus may be in a similar situation, sure they have a right to life, but that does not give them the right to use their mother is body to survive.   #  science has progressed to the point where a fetus can survive without it is mother and with the help of modern medicine earlier and earlier.   #  i am curious about what you mean by viable.  science has progressed to the point where a fetus can survive without it is mother and with the help of modern medicine earlier and earlier.  i think somewhere around 0 weeks is totally  viable  from a medical perspective.  that number will presumably get smaller as more medical advances happen.  i am guessing you mean something else.  although i imagine that most people getting abortions do it before 0 weeks, what about when science makes a fetus viable at 0 weeks ? 0 weeks ? etc.   #  i am not going to make the assumption that you do not perform any charity work, but i will say that i perform far more than the average individual.   # i am not cool with that.  please, tell me how you know i have not given up sugar and diamond rings.  i do not own any pieces of jewelry, and the only sugar i own is in the food i need to survive.  i would also like to point out that my free time is dominated by charity work this is something that you could not have possibly known, but since you chose to make assumptions about how horrible a person i am, i think it is worth pointing out.  i am not going to make the assumption that you do not perform any charity work, but i will say that i perform far more than the average individual.  second, i did not actually say that i am pro life.  i said that it makes no sense for someone to consider abortion o be murder but to also think that abortion should be legal because it is wrong to push one is morals on another.  i did not attack the pro choice position.  i questioned this one, very specific position.  your entire argument in favor of this position is that,  because we enable murder in one scenario, even though it is morally wrong, we should enable murder in this scenario as well again, not saying that abortion is murder but this is the logic you are using to justify thinking both that abortion is murder and should be legal .   to that i say,  two wrongs do not make a right.   just because i do one morally wrong thing in one scenario does not mean that i am obligated to do the same morally wrong thing in every given scenario.  is it hypocritical ? yes, but i would much rather do one morally wrong action than two.   #  that is something that we very much know how to reduce.   #  i guess i expected that to be offensive.  i apologize for assuming that it fit you, and for wording my statement so strongly in spite of it depending on an assumption.  honestly congratulations on being a significantly less shitty person than most.  you consider abortion to be the killing of a fetus, but you are okay with other people aborting because you do not want to be judgmental ? if you think that a fetus has a right to life, then does not that right to life take priority over not judging others ? my main point is that people maybe not you, but myself and many others who would consider themselves pretty reasonable, good people make decisions that result in the death or extreme suffering of another human being all the time and society is largely okay with that.  it helps that i think the reasons to abort a baby are stronger in both reasoning and positive outcome than those for wearing diamonds, but i was mainly going at the idea that this position is incredibly common.  yes we try to avoid these in some general sense, but we do not do enough to combat the systemic problems that create these conditions.  why are people aborting children ? because they are having unprotected sex while not desiring or being responsible enough for a child.  that is something that we very much know how to reduce.  you enable more people to care for a child with better societal safety nets.  you increase sex education and awareness starting with or before puberty.   #  thank you for both the apology and the compliment, but really, i would not say i am a significantly better person than the average person.   #  thank you for both the apology and the compliment, but really, i would not say i am a significantly better person than the average person.  i was just lucky enough to be born into a situation where i have the resources to help others, and i hope that anyone would make the same choices.  that might just be the optimist in me talking, but anyway, that is an entirely different conversation.  the way you explain it makes much more sense than a simple  i do not want to force my views on others,  but i am still not comfortable with that line of reasoning.  i would hope that most people would only make those decisions out of necessity or ignorance, not because they just do not care about the suffering of others.  like i said, i do not make the decisions i do because i am some angel.  i make them because i was provided through shear luck and no achievement of mine the resources to do so.  i do not know.  this all might be hopelessly optimistic and writing it out, it almost sounds elitist please tell me if i am being elitist but i really do have  some  faith in humanity.  i do completely agree with your last paragraph however.  i am currently unsure of my stance on abortion, but my hope is that both pro life and pro choice groups come together to promote contraception and sex education.  reduces abortion and unwanted pregnancy.  everyone is happy.  like i said, this may be hopelessly optimistic, but i guess i am just an optimist.
there are many pro life advocates that approach the issue of abortion from a religious or moral perspective.  i am not even approaching it from that perspective, it is like walking on egg shells.  i take my reasoning straight from the declaration of independence which states that americans have  certain unalienable rights, that among these are  life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness .  these were the first fundamental rights we declared for ourselves as americans and i believe these rights are one of the building blocks of american government today.  there is a reason life was listed first, if you do not have a right to your life, you ca not have a right to anything else.  so, if we take life through abortion, are not we defying everything americans stand for ? now, the reason i have the exception is because it gets a bit tricky if a decision has to be made between the mother is life and the child is life, it should be up to the mother whether she chooses to abort or not.  the united states has no right to choose that for her.  we have the right to life first and foremost but if there is a life that is going to be lost whether she has the child or not, then it is necessary for a decision to be made on which life should be taken away and the only person who can make that decision is the mother.   #  there is a reason life was listed first, if you do not have a right to your life, you ca not have a right to anything else.   #  there is two things that grant american citizenship.   #  okay, i will get this straight first: a fetus is alive.  it is a scientific fact.  denying it is just entering a pointless semantics argument.  so what ? being alive grants no right to life to, say, cattle.  what is so special about fetuses ? there is two things that grant american citizenship.  the first one is to be born in american soil  jus soli  .  the second one is being born of american parents, with a few conditions  jus sanguinis  .  what do those two have in common ? they require  being born .  a mere technicality, but if you want to appeal to law and tradition, that is what you get.   #  i think somewhere around 0 weeks is totally  viable  from a medical perspective.   #  i am curious about what you mean by viable.  science has progressed to the point where a fetus can survive without it is mother and with the help of modern medicine earlier and earlier.  i think somewhere around 0 weeks is totally  viable  from a medical perspective.  that number will presumably get smaller as more medical advances happen.  i am guessing you mean something else.  although i imagine that most people getting abortions do it before 0 weeks, what about when science makes a fetus viable at 0 weeks ? 0 weeks ? etc.   #  i am not going to make the assumption that you do not perform any charity work, but i will say that i perform far more than the average individual.   # i am not cool with that.  please, tell me how you know i have not given up sugar and diamond rings.  i do not own any pieces of jewelry, and the only sugar i own is in the food i need to survive.  i would also like to point out that my free time is dominated by charity work this is something that you could not have possibly known, but since you chose to make assumptions about how horrible a person i am, i think it is worth pointing out.  i am not going to make the assumption that you do not perform any charity work, but i will say that i perform far more than the average individual.  second, i did not actually say that i am pro life.  i said that it makes no sense for someone to consider abortion o be murder but to also think that abortion should be legal because it is wrong to push one is morals on another.  i did not attack the pro choice position.  i questioned this one, very specific position.  your entire argument in favor of this position is that,  because we enable murder in one scenario, even though it is morally wrong, we should enable murder in this scenario as well again, not saying that abortion is murder but this is the logic you are using to justify thinking both that abortion is murder and should be legal .   to that i say,  two wrongs do not make a right.   just because i do one morally wrong thing in one scenario does not mean that i am obligated to do the same morally wrong thing in every given scenario.  is it hypocritical ? yes, but i would much rather do one morally wrong action than two.   #  you increase sex education and awareness starting with or before puberty.   #  i guess i expected that to be offensive.  i apologize for assuming that it fit you, and for wording my statement so strongly in spite of it depending on an assumption.  honestly congratulations on being a significantly less shitty person than most.  you consider abortion to be the killing of a fetus, but you are okay with other people aborting because you do not want to be judgmental ? if you think that a fetus has a right to life, then does not that right to life take priority over not judging others ? my main point is that people maybe not you, but myself and many others who would consider themselves pretty reasonable, good people make decisions that result in the death or extreme suffering of another human being all the time and society is largely okay with that.  it helps that i think the reasons to abort a baby are stronger in both reasoning and positive outcome than those for wearing diamonds, but i was mainly going at the idea that this position is incredibly common.  yes we try to avoid these in some general sense, but we do not do enough to combat the systemic problems that create these conditions.  why are people aborting children ? because they are having unprotected sex while not desiring or being responsible enough for a child.  that is something that we very much know how to reduce.  you enable more people to care for a child with better societal safety nets.  you increase sex education and awareness starting with or before puberty.   #  the way you explain it makes much more sense than a simple  i do not want to force my views on others,  but i am still not comfortable with that line of reasoning.   #  thank you for both the apology and the compliment, but really, i would not say i am a significantly better person than the average person.  i was just lucky enough to be born into a situation where i have the resources to help others, and i hope that anyone would make the same choices.  that might just be the optimist in me talking, but anyway, that is an entirely different conversation.  the way you explain it makes much more sense than a simple  i do not want to force my views on others,  but i am still not comfortable with that line of reasoning.  i would hope that most people would only make those decisions out of necessity or ignorance, not because they just do not care about the suffering of others.  like i said, i do not make the decisions i do because i am some angel.  i make them because i was provided through shear luck and no achievement of mine the resources to do so.  i do not know.  this all might be hopelessly optimistic and writing it out, it almost sounds elitist please tell me if i am being elitist but i really do have  some  faith in humanity.  i do completely agree with your last paragraph however.  i am currently unsure of my stance on abortion, but my hope is that both pro life and pro choice groups come together to promote contraception and sex education.  reduces abortion and unwanted pregnancy.  everyone is happy.  like i said, this may be hopelessly optimistic, but i guess i am just an optimist.
defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  as a method to uphold this, especially in this media connected age, defendants in criminal court cases should remain anonymous until they appear for trial.  this ensures that false claims will not negatively impact a person is life.  i understand that many jurisdictions have open courts whereby anyone can walk into a court case and observe if they wish to do so , thus meaning that at the point where the defendant appeared in court, they would no longer by anonymous.  so, change my view: defendants in criminal cases should remain anonymous until they appear in court as defendants.   #  i understand that many jurisdictions have open courts whereby anyone can walk into a court case and observe if they wish to do so , thus meaning that at the point where the defendant appeared in court, they would no longer by anonymous.   #  so in the united states, about a day after they are arrested.   # so in the united states, about a day after they are arrested.  initial appearance in court happens very quickly after arrest.  it is a constitutional right to be informed of the charges against you and to appear before a neutral magistrate.  the judge is also the one who sets bail at that initial appearance, so it has to be in a court.  so i do not think your proposal would have any meaningful impact in a country where courts are public.   #  for example, in a violent crime, the victim is family may wish to watch the court proceedings.   # problem solved.  the defendant has a right to a public trial, though it can be waived.  the public has a right to view judicial proceedings, independent of the defendant is wishes however.  the government is not allowed to operate in secret without very good reason, and when it does operate in secret, the keeping of those secrets must be temporary and unsealed as soon as the necessity of the secrecy passes.  for example, in a violent crime, the victim is family may wish to watch the court proceedings.  or a victim of domestic violence may wish to know whether the person whom she accused of violence is still in jail, for her own personal safety.  or a newspaper might wish to report on the allegations of public corruption against a governor who is on trial.   #  if called on to testify, you would then be able to say  mr.   #  until the defendent is found guilty, the public should not have the right to watch the defendent in court.  if called on to testify, you would then be able to say  mr.  defendent is in court  my experience, i showed up in court, my attorney presented some evidence that showed that i could not have committed the crime, i was given a deal by the da to do 0 hours of community service, or we take the case to trial.  i perform community service anyways, i volunteer with habitat 0 humanity regularly, so i went over got them to sign a paper, presented it to the da, and all charges were dropped.  meanwhile the local newspaper wrote an article on me.  pretty much word for word taken from the police report.  i had declined to be interviewed because there is no good that could have come from that and many bad things that could have.  end result is  google my name, and you end up with a newspaper article that is rather embarassing.   this in my eyes is doing me harm.  nothing ever said that all charges were dropped.  that is not as interesting.  i am not trying to say that trials should be private, but the pretrial arraignment/bail hearings, should not be announced.  if the case blows over the defendant should have nothing on his record that shows about the case.   #  this in my eyes is doing me harm.   # this in my eyes is doing me harm.  nothing ever said that all charges were dropped.  that is not as interesting.  you may dislike that the newspaper wrote an article about it, but that is their free speech right.  are you saying that newspapers should not be allowed to report on crime or the criminal justice system ? that government documents should be regularly kept under seal ? for better or worse, the government has to operate in public, and the people should be free to know what the government is up to.  yes, the government is false accusation against you caused you harm.  but the harm caused by such cases is outweighed by the public interest in people knowing what the government is doing.   #  this amounts to using the court system to gain political points.   #  until the case goes to trial, yes.  i have seen politicians be accused of a felony and the charges were magically dropped after the politician lost the election.  this amounts to using the court system to gain political points.  bringing a charge against someone does not take much.  domestic violence, you are charged with it, and charges are dropped.  you have not been proven guilty with the presumption of innocence, the adoption authority should not be able to hold it against you.
the scientific method URL is the best and only reliable path to increase humanity is store of knowledge.  divine inspiration, intuition, logical arguing and observation are great but not reliable ways to test hypotheses.  applying the scientific method is how we distinguish random bullshit from theories which actually work.  social sciences URL seem to produce little hard results but tons of theories, most of which do not seem to work.  granted that these disciplines study humans and it is tricky  but not impossible  to design ethical experiments with humans as subjects.  but just because it is difficult is no excuse for the thousands of careers, reams of paper and billions of dollars spent.  for what ? navel gazing papers about the author is feelings about social construction of gender roles ? survey research asking self selected volunteers how they feel about things ? anecdote filled speculation ? if psychology really worked you would think psychologists would be as respected and effective as medical doctors.  if education researchers did something useful why are our schools so bad ? nsf sorry for the us centric post has a limited amount of funding to dispense.  i think it would be better spent on science that empirically pushes humanity is knowledge base forward.  cmv.   #  if education researchers did something useful why are our schools so bad ?  #  if there is one thing to know about economics, it is that public policy is almost never reflective of economic consensus.   #  i can speak for most social sciences, but as someone involved with economics, i will try and change your view.  i know this is the case for psychology too, but what the average person sees / what gets presented in the news, is far from accurate of the research done in academia.  econ in particular is extremely mathematically based.  i am pretty sure that is a subset of biology.  gender roles in animal societies ? what a waste.  there are tons of research papers written that ultimately do not really mean anything, but that applies just as well to the harder sciences.  are meteorologists as respected as astrophysicists ? if there is one thing to know about economics, it is that public policy is almost never reflective of economic consensus.  if historical research is not worth it in sociology, economics, etc , then i see no reason to do historical research in areas such as biology or geology.  if human behavior is not worth studying, than neither is animal behavior or possibly even ecology as a whole .  if macroeconomics is not worth studying, than neither is meteorology they both suffer from similar problems when it comes to research .  for just about any research example you could find in social sciences, i bet i could find a correlating one in the harder sciences.   #  social sciences are not trying to tackle unimportant things, here.   # granted that these disciplines study humans and it is tricky but not impossible to design ethical experiments with humans as subjects.  but just because it is difficult is no excuse for the thousands of careers, reams of paper and billions of dollars spent.  for what ? navel gazing papers about the author is feelings about social construction of gender roles ? survey research asking self selected volunteers how they feel about things ? anecdote filled speculation ? if psychology really worked you would think psychologists would be as respected and effective as medical doctors.  if education researchers did something useful why are our schools so bad ? these fields are not going to get better if we abandon them, and we will be losing out on the potential to understand a lot of important things as a result.  you have said you are familiar with academia, so you know that science is risky and often does not does not produce tangible results given funding, and that this is  not a reason to stop funding .  social sciences are not trying to tackle unimportant things, here.  yes, the subjects the social sciences are trying to tackle are extremely challenging, and progress is often slow and riskier than average for the sciences.  but, again: that is no reason to stop.  hell, it is not even a reason to slow down.  if academia stopped when it encountered risk it would not be academia anymore; it would be industry, and become about as useful as industry is at science.   #  in some cases they do not seem to be trying to tackle things at all, if by  tackle  we can agree to mean coming up with useful theories that make testable predictions that have tangible, reproducible results.   # agreed, and in some cases it is a good argument for increasing funding.  in some cases they do not seem to be trying to tackle things at all, if by  tackle  we can agree to mean coming up with useful theories that make testable predictions that have tangible, reproducible results.  downthread some economists argue for the validity of macroeconomics or meteorology as science even though it is impossible to conduct controlled experiments and i am gonna go give them a delta because i agree to that extent.  but in both cases they still are creating testable theories that have predictive value and could be empirically disproven.  i still feel that social sciences that focus on non testable, non theory driven argumentation are not doing science or anything that is going to advance knowledge.   #  compared to the social sciences, meteorological data gathering is trivial; set up instrument, record instrument, done.   # i would throw in  gather data regarding  those things, and at that point i would argue you are looking at most published social science.  compared to the social sciences, meteorological data gathering is trivial; set up instrument, record instrument, done.  even then, it is still the subject of a lot of work, like adjusting legacy data to changing recording methods.  but in many social sciences useful data gathering is a paper worthy challenge all by itself, due to the inherent challenges of gathering data from people, using people as measuring instruments be they outside observers, or self reporting .  take a classic example of psychological barely science: the myers briggs type indicator URL there, psychologists try to quantify people is personality traits.  and as it turns out there is a lot of discussion as to how personality assessment could be done better discussion drawing from applying better methodology, better statistics, better categorization of personality traits, you name it.  even in this endeavor you would probably barely call scientific, if at all, there is well structured criticism and room for growth in our understanding of human personality traits and things like their interrelation with each other and variability under different circumstances.   #  you might get a delta out of this just from me being lazy.   #  thanks for the lengthier post.  i admit i am not that familiar with academic economics.  when i have tried to read some, despite having a background in mathematics it is been pretty heavy sledding, which is no different than anyone who tried to read papers from my field of mathematics.  i only have one snarky but serious question for you about economics: if the field is producing solid science, why are not you all rich ? :   i would agree that social sciences have varying degrees of empericism, but the same could be said of the harder sciences.  but you can study both human and animal behavior in empirical ways.  observational studies are important sources that lead to theory formation.  i suppose you would argue that observational studies are therefore useful, but i am going to stick to this point they are not science, per se.  if observational studies count as science, every observation counts as science ? even when conducted by laymen ? it opens the door to everything.  i swear i have seen meteorological research.  both economics and meteorology make testable predictions, right ? ok, so how do you test the validity of macroeconomic theories ? lol that would be too much work.  bah.  you might get a delta out of this just from me being lazy.
the scientific method URL is the best and only reliable path to increase humanity is store of knowledge.  divine inspiration, intuition, logical arguing and observation are great but not reliable ways to test hypotheses.  applying the scientific method is how we distinguish random bullshit from theories which actually work.  social sciences URL seem to produce little hard results but tons of theories, most of which do not seem to work.  granted that these disciplines study humans and it is tricky  but not impossible  to design ethical experiments with humans as subjects.  but just because it is difficult is no excuse for the thousands of careers, reams of paper and billions of dollars spent.  for what ? navel gazing papers about the author is feelings about social construction of gender roles ? survey research asking self selected volunteers how they feel about things ? anecdote filled speculation ? if psychology really worked you would think psychologists would be as respected and effective as medical doctors.  if education researchers did something useful why are our schools so bad ? nsf sorry for the us centric post has a limited amount of funding to dispense.  i think it would be better spent on science that empirically pushes humanity is knowledge base forward.  cmv.   #  if education researchers did something useful why are our schools so bad ?  #  because these are unbelievably difficult issues that do not have a  isilver bullet  solution in many cases.   #  speaking as someone getting an ma in a social science.   the scientific method is the best and only reliable path to increase humanity is store of knowledge.  the scientific method is reliable given certain research goals.  depending on what one wants to study will influence the tools one has available to conduct such research.  part of the problem is that the scientific method is great at studying things that are repeatable, but not everything trying to be studied in the social sciences is repeatable in that sense.  if i want to study the meaning making frameworks that a particular internet community uses to establish its identity, then  the scientific method  is not likely going to be what i want to turn to.  similarly, people change, and even with quantitative research it is impossible to have perfectly repeatable circumstances because the world does not stop moving.  while i am sure that there are many papers you would consider woo woo within the social science disciplines, there are similarly quite a lot that are not.  i suspect that your assertion that  amost of these theories do not seem to work  is not based on an application of the scientific method, but rather your own confirmation bias.  for every  navel gazing paper about the social construction of gender roles , there are papers attempting to understand phenomena such as: how media coverage affects the outcomes of trials how attitude change persuasion happens how good are police officers at detecting lying, and how confident are they in their abilities ? what makes an argument persuasive ? how do things like racism impact student learning what is dogmatism, and who is susceptible to it ? how can we successfully navigate inter cultural encounters ? and so on.  it is easy to define the social sciences as contributing nothing but paperweights to human knowledge when you are at best cherry picking from the arguments and research that you find the most distasteful.  there are plenty of crucial questions and research done within the social sciences with quantiative research methods in order to understand the world.  there is a qualitative side to my discipline as well, but for the moment we can set that aside.  just because the object and solutions to social science research are more nebulous and necessarily abstract than the hard sciences does not mean that the research is bunk, or worth less.  there seems to be this running trend that if knowledge cannot be neatly compartmentalized, it must be worth less than knowledge that can, and i find that perspective to be pretty short sighted.  because these are unbelievably difficult issues that do not have a  isilver bullet  solution in many cases.  not to mention there is the flipside problem of actually  implementing  change which can be a whole different can of worms than simply identifying what needs to change in the first place.  do you think the education system is exactly as efficient as it was 0 years ago ? i think the funds are well spent as they encourage us to explore  all  aspects of human knowledge, instead of arbitrarily limiting out large swathes of it because we find them less pleasant or interesting than other parts.  it is not  humanity is knowledge base  if you have already established that only a tiny fraction of that knowledge that which has been gained through the scientific method is actually knowledge.   #  these fields are not going to get better if we abandon them, and we will be losing out on the potential to understand a lot of important things as a result.   # granted that these disciplines study humans and it is tricky but not impossible to design ethical experiments with humans as subjects.  but just because it is difficult is no excuse for the thousands of careers, reams of paper and billions of dollars spent.  for what ? navel gazing papers about the author is feelings about social construction of gender roles ? survey research asking self selected volunteers how they feel about things ? anecdote filled speculation ? if psychology really worked you would think psychologists would be as respected and effective as medical doctors.  if education researchers did something useful why are our schools so bad ? these fields are not going to get better if we abandon them, and we will be losing out on the potential to understand a lot of important things as a result.  you have said you are familiar with academia, so you know that science is risky and often does not does not produce tangible results given funding, and that this is  not a reason to stop funding .  social sciences are not trying to tackle unimportant things, here.  yes, the subjects the social sciences are trying to tackle are extremely challenging, and progress is often slow and riskier than average for the sciences.  but, again: that is no reason to stop.  hell, it is not even a reason to slow down.  if academia stopped when it encountered risk it would not be academia anymore; it would be industry, and become about as useful as industry is at science.   #  in some cases they do not seem to be trying to tackle things at all, if by  tackle  we can agree to mean coming up with useful theories that make testable predictions that have tangible, reproducible results.   # agreed, and in some cases it is a good argument for increasing funding.  in some cases they do not seem to be trying to tackle things at all, if by  tackle  we can agree to mean coming up with useful theories that make testable predictions that have tangible, reproducible results.  downthread some economists argue for the validity of macroeconomics or meteorology as science even though it is impossible to conduct controlled experiments and i am gonna go give them a delta because i agree to that extent.  but in both cases they still are creating testable theories that have predictive value and could be empirically disproven.  i still feel that social sciences that focus on non testable, non theory driven argumentation are not doing science or anything that is going to advance knowledge.   #  and as it turns out there is a lot of discussion as to how personality assessment could be done better discussion drawing from applying better methodology, better statistics, better categorization of personality traits, you name it.   # i would throw in  gather data regarding  those things, and at that point i would argue you are looking at most published social science.  compared to the social sciences, meteorological data gathering is trivial; set up instrument, record instrument, done.  even then, it is still the subject of a lot of work, like adjusting legacy data to changing recording methods.  but in many social sciences useful data gathering is a paper worthy challenge all by itself, due to the inherent challenges of gathering data from people, using people as measuring instruments be they outside observers, or self reporting .  take a classic example of psychological barely science: the myers briggs type indicator URL there, psychologists try to quantify people is personality traits.  and as it turns out there is a lot of discussion as to how personality assessment could be done better discussion drawing from applying better methodology, better statistics, better categorization of personality traits, you name it.  even in this endeavor you would probably barely call scientific, if at all, there is well structured criticism and room for growth in our understanding of human personality traits and things like their interrelation with each other and variability under different circumstances.   #  i am pretty sure that is a subset of biology.   #  i can speak for most social sciences, but as someone involved with economics, i will try and change your view.  i know this is the case for psychology too, but what the average person sees / what gets presented in the news, is far from accurate of the research done in academia.  econ in particular is extremely mathematically based.  i am pretty sure that is a subset of biology.  gender roles in animal societies ? what a waste.  there are tons of research papers written that ultimately do not really mean anything, but that applies just as well to the harder sciences.  are meteorologists as respected as astrophysicists ? if there is one thing to know about economics, it is that public policy is almost never reflective of economic consensus.  if historical research is not worth it in sociology, economics, etc , then i see no reason to do historical research in areas such as biology or geology.  if human behavior is not worth studying, than neither is animal behavior or possibly even ecology as a whole .  if macroeconomics is not worth studying, than neither is meteorology they both suffer from similar problems when it comes to research .  for just about any research example you could find in social sciences, i bet i could find a correlating one in the harder sciences.
the scientific method URL is the best and only reliable path to increase humanity is store of knowledge.  divine inspiration, intuition, logical arguing and observation are great but not reliable ways to test hypotheses.  applying the scientific method is how we distinguish random bullshit from theories which actually work.  social sciences URL seem to produce little hard results but tons of theories, most of which do not seem to work.  granted that these disciplines study humans and it is tricky  but not impossible  to design ethical experiments with humans as subjects.  but just because it is difficult is no excuse for the thousands of careers, reams of paper and billions of dollars spent.  for what ? navel gazing papers about the author is feelings about social construction of gender roles ? survey research asking self selected volunteers how they feel about things ? anecdote filled speculation ? if psychology really worked you would think psychologists would be as respected and effective as medical doctors.  if education researchers did something useful why are our schools so bad ? nsf sorry for the us centric post has a limited amount of funding to dispense.  i think it would be better spent on science that empirically pushes humanity is knowledge base forward.  cmv.   #  i think it would be better spent on science that empirically pushes humanity is knowledge base forward.   #  i think the funds are well spent as they encourage us to explore  all  aspects of human knowledge, instead of arbitrarily limiting out large swathes of it because we find them less pleasant or interesting than other parts.   #  speaking as someone getting an ma in a social science.   the scientific method is the best and only reliable path to increase humanity is store of knowledge.  the scientific method is reliable given certain research goals.  depending on what one wants to study will influence the tools one has available to conduct such research.  part of the problem is that the scientific method is great at studying things that are repeatable, but not everything trying to be studied in the social sciences is repeatable in that sense.  if i want to study the meaning making frameworks that a particular internet community uses to establish its identity, then  the scientific method  is not likely going to be what i want to turn to.  similarly, people change, and even with quantitative research it is impossible to have perfectly repeatable circumstances because the world does not stop moving.  while i am sure that there are many papers you would consider woo woo within the social science disciplines, there are similarly quite a lot that are not.  i suspect that your assertion that  amost of these theories do not seem to work  is not based on an application of the scientific method, but rather your own confirmation bias.  for every  navel gazing paper about the social construction of gender roles , there are papers attempting to understand phenomena such as: how media coverage affects the outcomes of trials how attitude change persuasion happens how good are police officers at detecting lying, and how confident are they in their abilities ? what makes an argument persuasive ? how do things like racism impact student learning what is dogmatism, and who is susceptible to it ? how can we successfully navigate inter cultural encounters ? and so on.  it is easy to define the social sciences as contributing nothing but paperweights to human knowledge when you are at best cherry picking from the arguments and research that you find the most distasteful.  there are plenty of crucial questions and research done within the social sciences with quantiative research methods in order to understand the world.  there is a qualitative side to my discipline as well, but for the moment we can set that aside.  just because the object and solutions to social science research are more nebulous and necessarily abstract than the hard sciences does not mean that the research is bunk, or worth less.  there seems to be this running trend that if knowledge cannot be neatly compartmentalized, it must be worth less than knowledge that can, and i find that perspective to be pretty short sighted.  because these are unbelievably difficult issues that do not have a  isilver bullet  solution in many cases.  not to mention there is the flipside problem of actually  implementing  change which can be a whole different can of worms than simply identifying what needs to change in the first place.  do you think the education system is exactly as efficient as it was 0 years ago ? i think the funds are well spent as they encourage us to explore  all  aspects of human knowledge, instead of arbitrarily limiting out large swathes of it because we find them less pleasant or interesting than other parts.  it is not  humanity is knowledge base  if you have already established that only a tiny fraction of that knowledge that which has been gained through the scientific method is actually knowledge.   #  granted that these disciplines study humans and it is tricky but not impossible to design ethical experiments with humans as subjects.   # granted that these disciplines study humans and it is tricky but not impossible to design ethical experiments with humans as subjects.  but just because it is difficult is no excuse for the thousands of careers, reams of paper and billions of dollars spent.  for what ? navel gazing papers about the author is feelings about social construction of gender roles ? survey research asking self selected volunteers how they feel about things ? anecdote filled speculation ? if psychology really worked you would think psychologists would be as respected and effective as medical doctors.  if education researchers did something useful why are our schools so bad ? these fields are not going to get better if we abandon them, and we will be losing out on the potential to understand a lot of important things as a result.  you have said you are familiar with academia, so you know that science is risky and often does not does not produce tangible results given funding, and that this is  not a reason to stop funding .  social sciences are not trying to tackle unimportant things, here.  yes, the subjects the social sciences are trying to tackle are extremely challenging, and progress is often slow and riskier than average for the sciences.  but, again: that is no reason to stop.  hell, it is not even a reason to slow down.  if academia stopped when it encountered risk it would not be academia anymore; it would be industry, and become about as useful as industry is at science.   #  but in both cases they still are creating testable theories that have predictive value and could be empirically disproven.   # agreed, and in some cases it is a good argument for increasing funding.  in some cases they do not seem to be trying to tackle things at all, if by  tackle  we can agree to mean coming up with useful theories that make testable predictions that have tangible, reproducible results.  downthread some economists argue for the validity of macroeconomics or meteorology as science even though it is impossible to conduct controlled experiments and i am gonna go give them a delta because i agree to that extent.  but in both cases they still are creating testable theories that have predictive value and could be empirically disproven.  i still feel that social sciences that focus on non testable, non theory driven argumentation are not doing science or anything that is going to advance knowledge.   #  i would throw in  gather data regarding  those things, and at that point i would argue you are looking at most published social science.   # i would throw in  gather data regarding  those things, and at that point i would argue you are looking at most published social science.  compared to the social sciences, meteorological data gathering is trivial; set up instrument, record instrument, done.  even then, it is still the subject of a lot of work, like adjusting legacy data to changing recording methods.  but in many social sciences useful data gathering is a paper worthy challenge all by itself, due to the inherent challenges of gathering data from people, using people as measuring instruments be they outside observers, or self reporting .  take a classic example of psychological barely science: the myers briggs type indicator URL there, psychologists try to quantify people is personality traits.  and as it turns out there is a lot of discussion as to how personality assessment could be done better discussion drawing from applying better methodology, better statistics, better categorization of personality traits, you name it.  even in this endeavor you would probably barely call scientific, if at all, there is well structured criticism and room for growth in our understanding of human personality traits and things like their interrelation with each other and variability under different circumstances.   #  if human behavior is not worth studying, than neither is animal behavior or possibly even ecology as a whole .   #  i can speak for most social sciences, but as someone involved with economics, i will try and change your view.  i know this is the case for psychology too, but what the average person sees / what gets presented in the news, is far from accurate of the research done in academia.  econ in particular is extremely mathematically based.  i am pretty sure that is a subset of biology.  gender roles in animal societies ? what a waste.  there are tons of research papers written that ultimately do not really mean anything, but that applies just as well to the harder sciences.  are meteorologists as respected as astrophysicists ? if there is one thing to know about economics, it is that public policy is almost never reflective of economic consensus.  if historical research is not worth it in sociology, economics, etc , then i see no reason to do historical research in areas such as biology or geology.  if human behavior is not worth studying, than neither is animal behavior or possibly even ecology as a whole .  if macroeconomics is not worth studying, than neither is meteorology they both suffer from similar problems when it comes to research .  for just about any research example you could find in social sciences, i bet i could find a correlating one in the harder sciences.
if you are too young, google gore v.  bush and see how that turned out, and why it turned out that way.  a supreme court justice just stood up and said the separation of church and state does not mean the government ca not preach religion URL this happens a lot: the judges legislate from the bench and just rule according to their political opinion gore v.  bush .  now the court has refused to take up gay marriage court cases for some reason URL it may be because in order to take something to federal court, you need to have deep, personal injury.  you ca not sue in federal court over hypothetical situation.  you ca not sue because  well what if this happened.   you also ca not sue because  this offends me.   you have to have lost something.  and obviously those to are against gay marriage have no loss.  this is in part the problem.  the other problem with supreme court judges is that they are on the court until they resign or die.  maybe it should be a term thing.  you are on the court for a decade then you are off it.  of course re election is a bad idea for all supreme courts including state courts but sitting on the court until death is obviously a bad idea.  if a court rules.  that is it.  only a future court can overturn it.  and then they will probably uphold the previous court is ruling and use it as precedence.  a court overturning a past court rarely ever happens.  but we need to reform the court so that it happens as often as it needs to.  but the current implementation of the supreme court has got to go.   #  only a future court can overturn it.   #  as mentioned by other posters, congress/states can amend the constitution.   #  0 gore v.  bush how was that a political decisions ? the court simply decided that is wrong to use different vote counting methods in different counties.  URL 0  a supreme court justice just stood up and said the separation of church and state does not mean the government ca not preach religion.   no, he said quote  there are those who would have us believe that the separation of church and state must mean that god must be driven out of the public forum.  that is simply not what our constitution has ever meant.   this is not the same at as saying there is no separation of church and state.  0 you ca not sue in federal court over hypothetical situation.  you ca not sue because  well what if this happened.   you also ca not sue because  this offends me.   do you really want the courts to be clogged up with cases where there was no real injury, juts because someone feels offended ? as mentioned by other posters, congress/states can amend the constitution.   #  it is just a modification to the normal kind of law that congress passes all the time.   #  it does not have to be a constitutional amendment though.  for example, often the court will rule a statute is unconstitutional on its face, meaning that it is unconstitutional in its own right no matter what situation it is applied to.  that law is still only a regular ol  law that just needs to be amended to pass constitutional muster.  if the court says  no, this statute is overbroad and violates the first amendment,  congress would have to look at the text of that law and write it in a more narrow way.  that is not the same as requiring an entire  amendment   to  the constitution.  it is just a modification to the normal kind of law that congress passes all the time.   #  the point is that it although it is not easy, it is not impossible either.   #  there is absolutely a meaningful difference between  impossible  and  realistically feasible  in this context.  it is not supposed to be easy for congress to overturn the supreme court; that is part of the whole checks and balances idea that our government was founded on.  the point is that it although it is not easy, it is not impossible either.  if it was easy to overturn supreme court decisions then there would be no point in having the supreme court in the first place and congress would have relatively unchecked power.  in terms of helping bad decisions, what string of bad decisions are you talking about ? keep in mind that you not agreeing with decisions made by the supreme court does not mean that they are  bad .   #  that is great, but for the times where we  do not  have lions snuggling lambs while flocks of piglets flit about overhead it really does not do much.   #  you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about my reasoning here, and overextending what i said.  also, bear in mind that i do not necessarily support op is view either, i just happen to disagree with your response.  the  string of bad decisions  was mostly a hypothetical, my point being that constitutional amendment would only be considered as an option for a single  catastrophically  bad decision.  with the bar set so high and let is be honest, it is a  damn  high bar even without considering the current climate , it does not provide a meaningful option there because even a string of impressively bad decisions all trending in the same direction probably would not be enough to generate meaningful action.  that said, i have definitely seen some genuinely  bad  decisions pass by over the last few years, and they were definitely  bad decisions  rather than just  decisions i disagreed with.   most were both, but in some cases they got what i would consider the right result for the wrong reasons.  while i do not terribly follow the supreme court, most that come to mind are technology related, with problems stemming from the absolutely  staggering  ignorance of the court regarding modern technology.  just to be clear, it is not their legal acumen i take issue with, but more that in some cases it seems seriously questionable if they actually understood what the technology they were ruling on actually  did .  in the end, the only real difference i am seeing between  impossible  and  realistically infeasible  is that the latter provides a remedy for cases where the scotus has gone sufficiently batshit insane that it unites both sides of the aisle in harmonious song.  that is great, but for the times where we  do not  have lions snuggling lambs while flocks of piglets flit about overhead it really does not do much.   #  you do not say how this is a problem.   #  this sounds a lot like  the supreme court disagrees with me, so it should be abolished .  first, there must be legal standing for the plaintiff.  in the case of states appealing a court decision, the state government must be part of the case.  second, the court must feel that the case requires further review.  if scotus thinks that the current standing decision is correct, there is no reason to review the case.  it will be most likely taken up next time that a case upholding a ban reaches the high court, because there cannot be dissenting federal rulings.  the problem with supreme court judges is that they are on the court until they resign or die.  maybe it should be a term thing.  you are on the court for a decade then you are off it.  of course re election is a bad idea for all supreme courts including state courts but sitting on the court until death is obviously a bad idea.  you do not say how this is a problem.
if you are too young, google gore v.  bush and see how that turned out, and why it turned out that way.  a supreme court justice just stood up and said the separation of church and state does not mean the government ca not preach religion URL this happens a lot: the judges legislate from the bench and just rule according to their political opinion gore v.  bush .  now the court has refused to take up gay marriage court cases for some reason URL it may be because in order to take something to federal court, you need to have deep, personal injury.  you ca not sue in federal court over hypothetical situation.  you ca not sue because  well what if this happened.   you also ca not sue because  this offends me.   you have to have lost something.  and obviously those to are against gay marriage have no loss.  this is in part the problem.  the other problem with supreme court judges is that they are on the court until they resign or die.  maybe it should be a term thing.  you are on the court for a decade then you are off it.  of course re election is a bad idea for all supreme courts including state courts but sitting on the court until death is obviously a bad idea.  if a court rules.  that is it.  only a future court can overturn it.  and then they will probably uphold the previous court is ruling and use it as precedence.  a court overturning a past court rarely ever happens.  but we need to reform the court so that it happens as often as it needs to.  but the current implementation of the supreme court has got to go.   #  you ca not sue in federal court over hypothetical situation.   #  you ca not sue because  well what if this happened.   you also ca not sue because  this offends me.   why should we sue over hypothetical situations ?  # not every case  should  be appealed up to scotus, especially where the courts below it all agree.  you ca not sue because  well what if this happened.   you also ca not sue because  this offends me.   why should we sue over hypothetical situations ? the fact that something  offends  you does not make a court case.  and obviously those to are against gay marriage have no loss.  why do you care about a law that,  by your own admission , does not negatively affect you ? what is the utility in being able to go to court over things that make absolutely no difference in your life ? only a future court can overturn it.  rulings only apply to laws.  the court exists to interpret law.  if you want to change a ruling, then you must pass a new law.  if your laws keep getting shut down because they are unconstitutional, then you can amend the constitution to allow it.   #  that is not the same as requiring an entire  amendment   to  the constitution.   #  it does not have to be a constitutional amendment though.  for example, often the court will rule a statute is unconstitutional on its face, meaning that it is unconstitutional in its own right no matter what situation it is applied to.  that law is still only a regular ol  law that just needs to be amended to pass constitutional muster.  if the court says  no, this statute is overbroad and violates the first amendment,  congress would have to look at the text of that law and write it in a more narrow way.  that is not the same as requiring an entire  amendment   to  the constitution.  it is just a modification to the normal kind of law that congress passes all the time.   #  if it was easy to overturn supreme court decisions then there would be no point in having the supreme court in the first place and congress would have relatively unchecked power.   #  there is absolutely a meaningful difference between  impossible  and  realistically feasible  in this context.  it is not supposed to be easy for congress to overturn the supreme court; that is part of the whole checks and balances idea that our government was founded on.  the point is that it although it is not easy, it is not impossible either.  if it was easy to overturn supreme court decisions then there would be no point in having the supreme court in the first place and congress would have relatively unchecked power.  in terms of helping bad decisions, what string of bad decisions are you talking about ? keep in mind that you not agreeing with decisions made by the supreme court does not mean that they are  bad .   #  just to be clear, it is not their legal acumen i take issue with, but more that in some cases it seems seriously questionable if they actually understood what the technology they were ruling on actually  did .   #  you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about my reasoning here, and overextending what i said.  also, bear in mind that i do not necessarily support op is view either, i just happen to disagree with your response.  the  string of bad decisions  was mostly a hypothetical, my point being that constitutional amendment would only be considered as an option for a single  catastrophically  bad decision.  with the bar set so high and let is be honest, it is a  damn  high bar even without considering the current climate , it does not provide a meaningful option there because even a string of impressively bad decisions all trending in the same direction probably would not be enough to generate meaningful action.  that said, i have definitely seen some genuinely  bad  decisions pass by over the last few years, and they were definitely  bad decisions  rather than just  decisions i disagreed with.   most were both, but in some cases they got what i would consider the right result for the wrong reasons.  while i do not terribly follow the supreme court, most that come to mind are technology related, with problems stemming from the absolutely  staggering  ignorance of the court regarding modern technology.  just to be clear, it is not their legal acumen i take issue with, but more that in some cases it seems seriously questionable if they actually understood what the technology they were ruling on actually  did .  in the end, the only real difference i am seeing between  impossible  and  realistically infeasible  is that the latter provides a remedy for cases where the scotus has gone sufficiently batshit insane that it unites both sides of the aisle in harmonious song.  that is great, but for the times where we  do not  have lions snuggling lambs while flocks of piglets flit about overhead it really does not do much.   #  in the case of states appealing a court decision, the state government must be part of the case.   #  this sounds a lot like  the supreme court disagrees with me, so it should be abolished .  first, there must be legal standing for the plaintiff.  in the case of states appealing a court decision, the state government must be part of the case.  second, the court must feel that the case requires further review.  if scotus thinks that the current standing decision is correct, there is no reason to review the case.  it will be most likely taken up next time that a case upholding a ban reaches the high court, because there cannot be dissenting federal rulings.  the problem with supreme court judges is that they are on the court until they resign or die.  maybe it should be a term thing.  you are on the court for a decade then you are off it.  of course re election is a bad idea for all supreme courts including state courts but sitting on the court until death is obviously a bad idea.  you do not say how this is a problem.
if you are too young, google gore v.  bush and see how that turned out, and why it turned out that way.  a supreme court justice just stood up and said the separation of church and state does not mean the government ca not preach religion URL this happens a lot: the judges legislate from the bench and just rule according to their political opinion gore v.  bush .  now the court has refused to take up gay marriage court cases for some reason URL it may be because in order to take something to federal court, you need to have deep, personal injury.  you ca not sue in federal court over hypothetical situation.  you ca not sue because  well what if this happened.   you also ca not sue because  this offends me.   you have to have lost something.  and obviously those to are against gay marriage have no loss.  this is in part the problem.  the other problem with supreme court judges is that they are on the court until they resign or die.  maybe it should be a term thing.  you are on the court for a decade then you are off it.  of course re election is a bad idea for all supreme courts including state courts but sitting on the court until death is obviously a bad idea.  if a court rules.  that is it.  only a future court can overturn it.  and then they will probably uphold the previous court is ruling and use it as precedence.  a court overturning a past court rarely ever happens.  but we need to reform the court so that it happens as often as it needs to.  but the current implementation of the supreme court has got to go.   #  if a court rules.  that is it.   #  only a future court can overturn it.   # not every case  should  be appealed up to scotus, especially where the courts below it all agree.  you ca not sue because  well what if this happened.   you also ca not sue because  this offends me.   why should we sue over hypothetical situations ? the fact that something  offends  you does not make a court case.  and obviously those to are against gay marriage have no loss.  why do you care about a law that,  by your own admission , does not negatively affect you ? what is the utility in being able to go to court over things that make absolutely no difference in your life ? only a future court can overturn it.  rulings only apply to laws.  the court exists to interpret law.  if you want to change a ruling, then you must pass a new law.  if your laws keep getting shut down because they are unconstitutional, then you can amend the constitution to allow it.   #  it is just a modification to the normal kind of law that congress passes all the time.   #  it does not have to be a constitutional amendment though.  for example, often the court will rule a statute is unconstitutional on its face, meaning that it is unconstitutional in its own right no matter what situation it is applied to.  that law is still only a regular ol  law that just needs to be amended to pass constitutional muster.  if the court says  no, this statute is overbroad and violates the first amendment,  congress would have to look at the text of that law and write it in a more narrow way.  that is not the same as requiring an entire  amendment   to  the constitution.  it is just a modification to the normal kind of law that congress passes all the time.   #  there is absolutely a meaningful difference between  impossible  and  realistically feasible  in this context.   #  there is absolutely a meaningful difference between  impossible  and  realistically feasible  in this context.  it is not supposed to be easy for congress to overturn the supreme court; that is part of the whole checks and balances idea that our government was founded on.  the point is that it although it is not easy, it is not impossible either.  if it was easy to overturn supreme court decisions then there would be no point in having the supreme court in the first place and congress would have relatively unchecked power.  in terms of helping bad decisions, what string of bad decisions are you talking about ? keep in mind that you not agreeing with decisions made by the supreme court does not mean that they are  bad .   #  that said, i have definitely seen some genuinely  bad  decisions pass by over the last few years, and they were definitely  bad decisions  rather than just  decisions i disagreed with.    #  you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about my reasoning here, and overextending what i said.  also, bear in mind that i do not necessarily support op is view either, i just happen to disagree with your response.  the  string of bad decisions  was mostly a hypothetical, my point being that constitutional amendment would only be considered as an option for a single  catastrophically  bad decision.  with the bar set so high and let is be honest, it is a  damn  high bar even without considering the current climate , it does not provide a meaningful option there because even a string of impressively bad decisions all trending in the same direction probably would not be enough to generate meaningful action.  that said, i have definitely seen some genuinely  bad  decisions pass by over the last few years, and they were definitely  bad decisions  rather than just  decisions i disagreed with.   most were both, but in some cases they got what i would consider the right result for the wrong reasons.  while i do not terribly follow the supreme court, most that come to mind are technology related, with problems stemming from the absolutely  staggering  ignorance of the court regarding modern technology.  just to be clear, it is not their legal acumen i take issue with, but more that in some cases it seems seriously questionable if they actually understood what the technology they were ruling on actually  did .  in the end, the only real difference i am seeing between  impossible  and  realistically infeasible  is that the latter provides a remedy for cases where the scotus has gone sufficiently batshit insane that it unites both sides of the aisle in harmonious song.  that is great, but for the times where we  do not  have lions snuggling lambs while flocks of piglets flit about overhead it really does not do much.   #  this sounds a lot like  the supreme court disagrees with me, so it should be abolished .   #  this sounds a lot like  the supreme court disagrees with me, so it should be abolished .  first, there must be legal standing for the plaintiff.  in the case of states appealing a court decision, the state government must be part of the case.  second, the court must feel that the case requires further review.  if scotus thinks that the current standing decision is correct, there is no reason to review the case.  it will be most likely taken up next time that a case upholding a ban reaches the high court, because there cannot be dissenting federal rulings.  the problem with supreme court judges is that they are on the court until they resign or die.  maybe it should be a term thing.  you are on the court for a decade then you are off it.  of course re election is a bad idea for all supreme courts including state courts but sitting on the court until death is obviously a bad idea.  you do not say how this is a problem.
if you are too young, google gore v.  bush and see how that turned out, and why it turned out that way.  a supreme court justice just stood up and said the separation of church and state does not mean the government ca not preach religion URL this happens a lot: the judges legislate from the bench and just rule according to their political opinion gore v.  bush .  now the court has refused to take up gay marriage court cases for some reason URL it may be because in order to take something to federal court, you need to have deep, personal injury.  you ca not sue in federal court over hypothetical situation.  you ca not sue because  well what if this happened.   you also ca not sue because  this offends me.   you have to have lost something.  and obviously those to are against gay marriage have no loss.  this is in part the problem.  the other problem with supreme court judges is that they are on the court until they resign or die.  maybe it should be a term thing.  you are on the court for a decade then you are off it.  of course re election is a bad idea for all supreme courts including state courts but sitting on the court until death is obviously a bad idea.  if a court rules.  that is it.  only a future court can overturn it.  and then they will probably uphold the previous court is ruling and use it as precedence.  a court overturning a past court rarely ever happens.  but we need to reform the court so that it happens as often as it needs to.  but the current implementation of the supreme court has got to go.   #  this happens a lot: the judges legislate from the bench and just rule according to their political opinion gore v.  bush .   #  now the court has refused to take up gay marriage court cases for some reason it may be because in order to take something to federal court, you need to have deep, personal injury.   # i also did not see where he stated that.  now the court has refused to take up gay marriage court cases for some reason it may be because in order to take something to federal court, you need to have deep, personal injury.  so do you want them to legislate from the bench or not ? you complain they do, and then, in a seemingly contradiction, point to a refusal to legislate from the bench as an example.  why ? this is a false statement.  the court has no power of enforcement.  if the court makes a ruling and everyone ignores it, or more importantly the executive branch ignores it URL then that is not it.  also the constitution can be amended to go over the court.  how can this be implemented ?  #  it is just a modification to the normal kind of law that congress passes all the time.   #  it does not have to be a constitutional amendment though.  for example, often the court will rule a statute is unconstitutional on its face, meaning that it is unconstitutional in its own right no matter what situation it is applied to.  that law is still only a regular ol  law that just needs to be amended to pass constitutional muster.  if the court says  no, this statute is overbroad and violates the first amendment,  congress would have to look at the text of that law and write it in a more narrow way.  that is not the same as requiring an entire  amendment   to  the constitution.  it is just a modification to the normal kind of law that congress passes all the time.   #  it is not supposed to be easy for congress to overturn the supreme court; that is part of the whole checks and balances idea that our government was founded on.   #  there is absolutely a meaningful difference between  impossible  and  realistically feasible  in this context.  it is not supposed to be easy for congress to overturn the supreme court; that is part of the whole checks and balances idea that our government was founded on.  the point is that it although it is not easy, it is not impossible either.  if it was easy to overturn supreme court decisions then there would be no point in having the supreme court in the first place and congress would have relatively unchecked power.  in terms of helping bad decisions, what string of bad decisions are you talking about ? keep in mind that you not agreeing with decisions made by the supreme court does not mean that they are  bad .   #  you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about my reasoning here, and overextending what i said.   #  you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about my reasoning here, and overextending what i said.  also, bear in mind that i do not necessarily support op is view either, i just happen to disagree with your response.  the  string of bad decisions  was mostly a hypothetical, my point being that constitutional amendment would only be considered as an option for a single  catastrophically  bad decision.  with the bar set so high and let is be honest, it is a  damn  high bar even without considering the current climate , it does not provide a meaningful option there because even a string of impressively bad decisions all trending in the same direction probably would not be enough to generate meaningful action.  that said, i have definitely seen some genuinely  bad  decisions pass by over the last few years, and they were definitely  bad decisions  rather than just  decisions i disagreed with.   most were both, but in some cases they got what i would consider the right result for the wrong reasons.  while i do not terribly follow the supreme court, most that come to mind are technology related, with problems stemming from the absolutely  staggering  ignorance of the court regarding modern technology.  just to be clear, it is not their legal acumen i take issue with, but more that in some cases it seems seriously questionable if they actually understood what the technology they were ruling on actually  did .  in the end, the only real difference i am seeing between  impossible  and  realistically infeasible  is that the latter provides a remedy for cases where the scotus has gone sufficiently batshit insane that it unites both sides of the aisle in harmonious song.  that is great, but for the times where we  do not  have lions snuggling lambs while flocks of piglets flit about overhead it really does not do much.   #  the problem with supreme court judges is that they are on the court until they resign or die.   #  this sounds a lot like  the supreme court disagrees with me, so it should be abolished .  first, there must be legal standing for the plaintiff.  in the case of states appealing a court decision, the state government must be part of the case.  second, the court must feel that the case requires further review.  if scotus thinks that the current standing decision is correct, there is no reason to review the case.  it will be most likely taken up next time that a case upholding a ban reaches the high court, because there cannot be dissenting federal rulings.  the problem with supreme court judges is that they are on the court until they resign or die.  maybe it should be a term thing.  you are on the court for a decade then you are off it.  of course re election is a bad idea for all supreme courts including state courts but sitting on the court until death is obviously a bad idea.  you do not say how this is a problem.
whether women adopt their husband is surname when they marry is not a foregone conclusion, but given that it is becoming more and more common that a woman  does not  change her surname when she marries i think that any children she bears should take her surname rather than that of their father.  obviously, if she changes her name, the children would have the father is surname by default.  the primary reason is simple in almost all cases, women do the vast majority of the  work  to birth and raise a child.  the father contributes half the original chromosomes, but the raw materials that will eventually become the body of child all come from the mother.  pregnancy is profoundly physically and emotionally taxing to a woman is body, and she is majority responsible for the child is sustenance during its first year  of life formula feeding notwithstanding .  i am going to do my best to avoid the  appeal to tradition  fallacy, as i am sure everyone trying to change my view will as well.  that said, it seems to me that the idea of a woman and her children taking the husband/father is name is rooted in an outdated notion that, because men are physically stronger, they should come under his familial  umbrella : rather than vice versa.  the natural consequence of a woman becoming part of her husband is family and having her children do so as well is that the woman is sexuality must be aggressively policed and regulated to ensure that any children heirs she bears are her husband is genetic progeny.  were familial inheritance matrilineal, there would be no question that all heirs were legitimate children that come out of your body are pretty unquestionably your children.  for purposes of this cmv, i am not talking about property inheritance: it just makes more sense that children that come out of your body have a stronger claim to your name than any other.  again, i am not saying that a woman should never choose to take her husband is name she should always have that option.  likewise, a husband should have the option to take his wife is name, or both spouses should have the option to retain their birth surnames.  all i am saying is, in the latter case when both parents retain their birth surnames : it makes the most sense for any children to take their mother is surname rather than their fathers.  cmv.   #  children that come out of your body are pretty unquestionably your children.   #  i think this is the primary reason that children take their father is last name.   # i think this is the primary reason that children take their father is last name.  mothers are 0 certain of who their genetic children are.  fathers do not have that same certainty.  giving the children the father is name is a way to cement the bond between them  because  it is not as strong.  i am not saying i care though do whatever makes sense for you and your family.  make up new names, hyphenated names, boys take the dad is name and girls take the mom is.  mix them up, let the children choose their names when they can.  it is all effectively the same to me.   #  i think what will be best is what we decide together if hes in the picture or my name if hes not.   #  well, i do not personally think it is fair that traditionally guys get their name passed on through generations.  i do not think the father not having to go through the inconvenience and pain of child birth i would switch with the guy in a second justifies saying it is best if the child shares his name because you think they need the name to bond.  if the guys not sure then get a dna test.  for example i have a unique last name pretty much anyone in the us i hear about having the same name, i am related to.  i do not think it is fair to me or best for anyone that the guy gets to have his name passed on but not me.  i think what will be best is what we decide together if hes in the picture or my name if hes not.   #  the conflict and hurt feelings it would create would be immense.   # i think that is an interesting idea, but i can imagine it would be very, very difficult for an adult child to decide which of his parent is names to abandon.  unless your relationship with one of your parents deteriorated severely, i ca not imagine looking at your mom or dad and saying  i am dropping your name.   the conflict and hurt feelings it would create would be immense.  i agree that, in an ideal family, both the mother and the father share the responsibility of child rearing 0/0, but again mom does go through the pregnancy and is the only one biologically capable of performing the earliest functions of child care nursing .  so, even in the most perfectly co equal parenting situation, the split is always going to be more like 0/0.  for that reason, it makes just a tiny bit more sense for the baby to get mom is name than it does to get dad is.   #  what if the mom is stay at home and the dad is the bread winner ?  # then they would keep both.  why should either parent decide what the kid is surname should be ? well then let is take into account tons of other common scenarios.  what if the mom is stay at home and the dad is the bread winner ? what if the mom does not nurse ? what if the mom ca not carry and they use a surrogate ? what if the mom is a deadbeat and the dad cares for the child most of the time ? these are all pretty common scenarios.  so now should be construct this large procedural tree to determine who is name the kid takes under all these circumstances ? i think the problem is that you are taking the whole situation way too literally.  to most people, a 0/0 split is not enough to justify either one.  the only way to make it completely fair is a straight up combination of names, and let the kid decide if they want to go one way or the other or keep a conjoined surname.   #  and finally, why does there need to be a rule for everything ?  #  i would agree with you even if op is statement was true.   in almost all cases  according to who ? your equally antiquated notion that moms do all the work with the kids and dads just sit back and drink scotch after a long day at the office ? what about lesbian parents, where one works and one stays at home.  do the kids take the name of the stay at home mother ? that is so backwards it is funny to even try and imagine.  and finally, why does there need to be a rule for everything ? i have a friend who hated his dad and refused to allow his child to take his last name.  naming your child is extremely personal and trying to establish  guidelines  is useless.
almost nobody drives the speed limit.  this is not because we are all hooligans with no respect for the law.  it is because the speed limits on most roads are way too low.  driving at such slow speeds is impractical.  there is no good reason to drive that slow.  the roads can be safely navigated at higher speeds.  just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  these low speed limits are not needed.  if we all obeyed them, traffic would come to a crawl.  this sucks because it forces everyone to break the law.  i do not want to risk getting a ticket.  but, if i were to drive at the speed limit, i would be a road hazard.  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  the speed limits on most highways just do not make sense.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.   #  the roads can be safely navigated at higher speeds.   #  just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.   # why ? just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  this URL study says otherwise.  the nhtsa states:    speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes.  the economic cost to society of speeding related crashes is estimated by nhtsa to be $0 billion per year.  in 0, speeding was a contributing factor in 0 percent of all fatal crashes, and 0,0 lives were lost in speeding related crashes.  it is the classic  i am the exception to the rule  fallacy.  plenty of people speed, and plenty of people get into accidents because of speeding, and yet everyone thinks that they are immune to it for some reason or another.  actually if everyone drove the same speed  / a few mph traffic would run flawlessly.  there would be no  traffic  at all because we are all moving the same speed and therefore there is nothing stopping the flow of traffic barring the occasional incident .  why ? road says 0mph, no one is forcing you to go 0 .  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  it is true that people who drive slower than everyone else cause accidents, but if everyone followed the speed limit then none of this would happen.  if you raised the limit, people will speed and therefore those who are going slower than traffic will cause accidents.  you raise the limit more so the slower people speed up, and people continue to speed again.  etc.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.  you really need to define conditions.  what speeds are you talking about ? 0mph ? 0mph ? what do you define as  safe to drive  ? do you really trust the 0 year old who just got their license to take their steel death machine up to 0  just because you feel confident that you can handle that speed ?  #  raising the speed limits would result in most drivers driving faster, but slowest drivers will still drive comfortable, slow speeds.   #  because difference in speed is more dangerous than speed itself.  highways are designed to support all traffic, namely drivers and vehicles of varying capabilities.  while most drivers and vehicles may be capable and safe driving at higher speeds, this does not apply to everyone.  raising the speed limits would result in most drivers driving faster, but slowest drivers will still drive comfortable, slow speeds.  this means increased difference in speed, thus more and more dangerous accidents.  raising the speed limits will eventually occur through technological and regulatory improvements for vehicles and drivers, but we are not there yet.   #  you will never see an old, rusted, piece of shit used car some guy just bought for $0 dollars from someones grandma.   #  it is not  the  autobahn, autobahn means highway in german.  germany also has more stringent safety policies for vehicles.  you will never see an old, rusted, piece of shit used car some guy just bought for $0 dollars from someones grandma.  unless they are breaking the law of course.  all tires must be in good condition, as do breaks and suspension.  i am not sure how this is enforced, but i am fairly sure germans just think it is stupid to drive with old tires and failing breaks, because it is.  as well, only certain parts of autobahns have no speed limit, i suppose speed limits are enforced when there is a turn off or curve.  cannot source any of this because this is what my german teacher told my class during his introduction.   #  you are suggesting that raising a speed limit by  x  would increase everyone is cruising speed by  x .   #  you are suggesting that raising a speed limit by  x  would increase everyone is cruising speed by  x .  that is simply unfounded and untrue.  the speed of traffic flow is a scientific, mathematical, and psychological product that takes into account existing traffic, lane width, pedestrian presence, scenery, road curvature, etc that does not include the posted speed limit.  i often drive on interstates with a 0 speed limit and a 0 limit.  i 0 in ny and i 0 in nj .  they both have nearly the same lane width and curvature, and traffic flows at the same speed on both despite the disparity of the posted speed limits.   #  i would wager most accidents are from people speeding on roads with no ramps.   #  from the study you cited:  of the total number of speeding related fatalities in 0, 0,0 occurred on roads with posted speed limits between 0 and 0 mph, and 0 occurred on roads with speed limits above 0 mph  i live in an area where backroads can range 0 0 mph and highways are 0 mph.  this study shows that highway accidents account for about 0 of fatalities, whereas lower speed roads make up almost half.  that seems to make sense, that speeding on roads where people are allowed to directly pull out in font of you is far more dangerous than speeding on actual highways that have on/off ramps to get traffic up to speed before joining the flow of traffic.  i would wager most accidents are from people speeding on roads with no ramps.  you can come over a hill and a car has just pulled in front of you doing 0 mph and if you are going over 0 then you are in for a bad time.  however, with ramps a car might be going just slightly slower than you, making it easy to avoid or slow down.  not to mention highways have very good visibility, whereas backroads do not.
almost nobody drives the speed limit.  this is not because we are all hooligans with no respect for the law.  it is because the speed limits on most roads are way too low.  driving at such slow speeds is impractical.  there is no good reason to drive that slow.  the roads can be safely navigated at higher speeds.  just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  these low speed limits are not needed.  if we all obeyed them, traffic would come to a crawl.  this sucks because it forces everyone to break the law.  i do not want to risk getting a ticket.  but, if i were to drive at the speed limit, i would be a road hazard.  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  the speed limits on most highways just do not make sense.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.   #  if we all obeyed them, traffic would come to a crawl.   #  actually if everyone drove the same speed  / a few mph traffic would run flawlessly.   # why ? just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  this URL study says otherwise.  the nhtsa states:    speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes.  the economic cost to society of speeding related crashes is estimated by nhtsa to be $0 billion per year.  in 0, speeding was a contributing factor in 0 percent of all fatal crashes, and 0,0 lives were lost in speeding related crashes.  it is the classic  i am the exception to the rule  fallacy.  plenty of people speed, and plenty of people get into accidents because of speeding, and yet everyone thinks that they are immune to it for some reason or another.  actually if everyone drove the same speed  / a few mph traffic would run flawlessly.  there would be no  traffic  at all because we are all moving the same speed and therefore there is nothing stopping the flow of traffic barring the occasional incident .  why ? road says 0mph, no one is forcing you to go 0 .  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  it is true that people who drive slower than everyone else cause accidents, but if everyone followed the speed limit then none of this would happen.  if you raised the limit, people will speed and therefore those who are going slower than traffic will cause accidents.  you raise the limit more so the slower people speed up, and people continue to speed again.  etc.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.  you really need to define conditions.  what speeds are you talking about ? 0mph ? 0mph ? what do you define as  safe to drive  ? do you really trust the 0 year old who just got their license to take their steel death machine up to 0  just because you feel confident that you can handle that speed ?  #  raising the speed limits would result in most drivers driving faster, but slowest drivers will still drive comfortable, slow speeds.   #  because difference in speed is more dangerous than speed itself.  highways are designed to support all traffic, namely drivers and vehicles of varying capabilities.  while most drivers and vehicles may be capable and safe driving at higher speeds, this does not apply to everyone.  raising the speed limits would result in most drivers driving faster, but slowest drivers will still drive comfortable, slow speeds.  this means increased difference in speed, thus more and more dangerous accidents.  raising the speed limits will eventually occur through technological and regulatory improvements for vehicles and drivers, but we are not there yet.   #  as well, only certain parts of autobahns have no speed limit, i suppose speed limits are enforced when there is a turn off or curve.   #  it is not  the  autobahn, autobahn means highway in german.  germany also has more stringent safety policies for vehicles.  you will never see an old, rusted, piece of shit used car some guy just bought for $0 dollars from someones grandma.  unless they are breaking the law of course.  all tires must be in good condition, as do breaks and suspension.  i am not sure how this is enforced, but i am fairly sure germans just think it is stupid to drive with old tires and failing breaks, because it is.  as well, only certain parts of autobahns have no speed limit, i suppose speed limits are enforced when there is a turn off or curve.  cannot source any of this because this is what my german teacher told my class during his introduction.   #  they both have nearly the same lane width and curvature, and traffic flows at the same speed on both despite the disparity of the posted speed limits.   #  you are suggesting that raising a speed limit by  x  would increase everyone is cruising speed by  x .  that is simply unfounded and untrue.  the speed of traffic flow is a scientific, mathematical, and psychological product that takes into account existing traffic, lane width, pedestrian presence, scenery, road curvature, etc that does not include the posted speed limit.  i often drive on interstates with a 0 speed limit and a 0 limit.  i 0 in ny and i 0 in nj .  they both have nearly the same lane width and curvature, and traffic flows at the same speed on both despite the disparity of the posted speed limits.   #  this study shows that highway accidents account for about 0 of fatalities, whereas lower speed roads make up almost half.   #  from the study you cited:  of the total number of speeding related fatalities in 0, 0,0 occurred on roads with posted speed limits between 0 and 0 mph, and 0 occurred on roads with speed limits above 0 mph  i live in an area where backroads can range 0 0 mph and highways are 0 mph.  this study shows that highway accidents account for about 0 of fatalities, whereas lower speed roads make up almost half.  that seems to make sense, that speeding on roads where people are allowed to directly pull out in font of you is far more dangerous than speeding on actual highways that have on/off ramps to get traffic up to speed before joining the flow of traffic.  i would wager most accidents are from people speeding on roads with no ramps.  you can come over a hill and a car has just pulled in front of you doing 0 mph and if you are going over 0 then you are in for a bad time.  however, with ramps a car might be going just slightly slower than you, making it easy to avoid or slow down.  not to mention highways have very good visibility, whereas backroads do not.
almost nobody drives the speed limit.  this is not because we are all hooligans with no respect for the law.  it is because the speed limits on most roads are way too low.  driving at such slow speeds is impractical.  there is no good reason to drive that slow.  the roads can be safely navigated at higher speeds.  just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  these low speed limits are not needed.  if we all obeyed them, traffic would come to a crawl.  this sucks because it forces everyone to break the law.  i do not want to risk getting a ticket.  but, if i were to drive at the speed limit, i would be a road hazard.  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  the speed limits on most highways just do not make sense.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.   #  if i were to drive at the speed limit, i would be a road hazard.   #  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.   # why ? just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  this URL study says otherwise.  the nhtsa states:    speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes.  the economic cost to society of speeding related crashes is estimated by nhtsa to be $0 billion per year.  in 0, speeding was a contributing factor in 0 percent of all fatal crashes, and 0,0 lives were lost in speeding related crashes.  it is the classic  i am the exception to the rule  fallacy.  plenty of people speed, and plenty of people get into accidents because of speeding, and yet everyone thinks that they are immune to it for some reason or another.  actually if everyone drove the same speed  / a few mph traffic would run flawlessly.  there would be no  traffic  at all because we are all moving the same speed and therefore there is nothing stopping the flow of traffic barring the occasional incident .  why ? road says 0mph, no one is forcing you to go 0 .  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  it is true that people who drive slower than everyone else cause accidents, but if everyone followed the speed limit then none of this would happen.  if you raised the limit, people will speed and therefore those who are going slower than traffic will cause accidents.  you raise the limit more so the slower people speed up, and people continue to speed again.  etc.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.  you really need to define conditions.  what speeds are you talking about ? 0mph ? 0mph ? what do you define as  safe to drive  ? do you really trust the 0 year old who just got their license to take their steel death machine up to 0  just because you feel confident that you can handle that speed ?  #  highways are designed to support all traffic, namely drivers and vehicles of varying capabilities.   #  because difference in speed is more dangerous than speed itself.  highways are designed to support all traffic, namely drivers and vehicles of varying capabilities.  while most drivers and vehicles may be capable and safe driving at higher speeds, this does not apply to everyone.  raising the speed limits would result in most drivers driving faster, but slowest drivers will still drive comfortable, slow speeds.  this means increased difference in speed, thus more and more dangerous accidents.  raising the speed limits will eventually occur through technological and regulatory improvements for vehicles and drivers, but we are not there yet.   #  cannot source any of this because this is what my german teacher told my class during his introduction.   #  it is not  the  autobahn, autobahn means highway in german.  germany also has more stringent safety policies for vehicles.  you will never see an old, rusted, piece of shit used car some guy just bought for $0 dollars from someones grandma.  unless they are breaking the law of course.  all tires must be in good condition, as do breaks and suspension.  i am not sure how this is enforced, but i am fairly sure germans just think it is stupid to drive with old tires and failing breaks, because it is.  as well, only certain parts of autobahns have no speed limit, i suppose speed limits are enforced when there is a turn off or curve.  cannot source any of this because this is what my german teacher told my class during his introduction.   #  they both have nearly the same lane width and curvature, and traffic flows at the same speed on both despite the disparity of the posted speed limits.   #  you are suggesting that raising a speed limit by  x  would increase everyone is cruising speed by  x .  that is simply unfounded and untrue.  the speed of traffic flow is a scientific, mathematical, and psychological product that takes into account existing traffic, lane width, pedestrian presence, scenery, road curvature, etc that does not include the posted speed limit.  i often drive on interstates with a 0 speed limit and a 0 limit.  i 0 in ny and i 0 in nj .  they both have nearly the same lane width and curvature, and traffic flows at the same speed on both despite the disparity of the posted speed limits.   #  i would wager most accidents are from people speeding on roads with no ramps.   #  from the study you cited:  of the total number of speeding related fatalities in 0, 0,0 occurred on roads with posted speed limits between 0 and 0 mph, and 0 occurred on roads with speed limits above 0 mph  i live in an area where backroads can range 0 0 mph and highways are 0 mph.  this study shows that highway accidents account for about 0 of fatalities, whereas lower speed roads make up almost half.  that seems to make sense, that speeding on roads where people are allowed to directly pull out in font of you is far more dangerous than speeding on actual highways that have on/off ramps to get traffic up to speed before joining the flow of traffic.  i would wager most accidents are from people speeding on roads with no ramps.  you can come over a hill and a car has just pulled in front of you doing 0 mph and if you are going over 0 then you are in for a bad time.  however, with ramps a car might be going just slightly slower than you, making it easy to avoid or slow down.  not to mention highways have very good visibility, whereas backroads do not.
almost nobody drives the speed limit.  this is not because we are all hooligans with no respect for the law.  it is because the speed limits on most roads are way too low.  driving at such slow speeds is impractical.  there is no good reason to drive that slow.  the roads can be safely navigated at higher speeds.  just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  these low speed limits are not needed.  if we all obeyed them, traffic would come to a crawl.  this sucks because it forces everyone to break the law.  i do not want to risk getting a ticket.  but, if i were to drive at the speed limit, i would be a road hazard.  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  the speed limits on most highways just do not make sense.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.   #  the speed limits on most highways just do not make sense.   #  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.   # why ? just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  this URL study says otherwise.  the nhtsa states:    speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes.  the economic cost to society of speeding related crashes is estimated by nhtsa to be $0 billion per year.  in 0, speeding was a contributing factor in 0 percent of all fatal crashes, and 0,0 lives were lost in speeding related crashes.  it is the classic  i am the exception to the rule  fallacy.  plenty of people speed, and plenty of people get into accidents because of speeding, and yet everyone thinks that they are immune to it for some reason or another.  actually if everyone drove the same speed  / a few mph traffic would run flawlessly.  there would be no  traffic  at all because we are all moving the same speed and therefore there is nothing stopping the flow of traffic barring the occasional incident .  why ? road says 0mph, no one is forcing you to go 0 .  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  it is true that people who drive slower than everyone else cause accidents, but if everyone followed the speed limit then none of this would happen.  if you raised the limit, people will speed and therefore those who are going slower than traffic will cause accidents.  you raise the limit more so the slower people speed up, and people continue to speed again.  etc.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.  you really need to define conditions.  what speeds are you talking about ? 0mph ? 0mph ? what do you define as  safe to drive  ? do you really trust the 0 year old who just got their license to take their steel death machine up to 0  just because you feel confident that you can handle that speed ?  #  raising the speed limits will eventually occur through technological and regulatory improvements for vehicles and drivers, but we are not there yet.   #  because difference in speed is more dangerous than speed itself.  highways are designed to support all traffic, namely drivers and vehicles of varying capabilities.  while most drivers and vehicles may be capable and safe driving at higher speeds, this does not apply to everyone.  raising the speed limits would result in most drivers driving faster, but slowest drivers will still drive comfortable, slow speeds.  this means increased difference in speed, thus more and more dangerous accidents.  raising the speed limits will eventually occur through technological and regulatory improvements for vehicles and drivers, but we are not there yet.   #  i am not sure how this is enforced, but i am fairly sure germans just think it is stupid to drive with old tires and failing breaks, because it is.   #  it is not  the  autobahn, autobahn means highway in german.  germany also has more stringent safety policies for vehicles.  you will never see an old, rusted, piece of shit used car some guy just bought for $0 dollars from someones grandma.  unless they are breaking the law of course.  all tires must be in good condition, as do breaks and suspension.  i am not sure how this is enforced, but i am fairly sure germans just think it is stupid to drive with old tires and failing breaks, because it is.  as well, only certain parts of autobahns have no speed limit, i suppose speed limits are enforced when there is a turn off or curve.  cannot source any of this because this is what my german teacher told my class during his introduction.   #  i often drive on interstates with a 0 speed limit and a 0 limit.   #  you are suggesting that raising a speed limit by  x  would increase everyone is cruising speed by  x .  that is simply unfounded and untrue.  the speed of traffic flow is a scientific, mathematical, and psychological product that takes into account existing traffic, lane width, pedestrian presence, scenery, road curvature, etc that does not include the posted speed limit.  i often drive on interstates with a 0 speed limit and a 0 limit.  i 0 in ny and i 0 in nj .  they both have nearly the same lane width and curvature, and traffic flows at the same speed on both despite the disparity of the posted speed limits.   #  you can come over a hill and a car has just pulled in front of you doing 0 mph and if you are going over 0 then you are in for a bad time.   #  from the study you cited:  of the total number of speeding related fatalities in 0, 0,0 occurred on roads with posted speed limits between 0 and 0 mph, and 0 occurred on roads with speed limits above 0 mph  i live in an area where backroads can range 0 0 mph and highways are 0 mph.  this study shows that highway accidents account for about 0 of fatalities, whereas lower speed roads make up almost half.  that seems to make sense, that speeding on roads where people are allowed to directly pull out in font of you is far more dangerous than speeding on actual highways that have on/off ramps to get traffic up to speed before joining the flow of traffic.  i would wager most accidents are from people speeding on roads with no ramps.  you can come over a hill and a car has just pulled in front of you doing 0 mph and if you are going over 0 then you are in for a bad time.  however, with ramps a car might be going just slightly slower than you, making it easy to avoid or slow down.  not to mention highways have very good visibility, whereas backroads do not.
almost nobody drives the speed limit.  this is not because we are all hooligans with no respect for the law.  it is because the speed limits on most roads are way too low.  driving at such slow speeds is impractical.  there is no good reason to drive that slow.  the roads can be safely navigated at higher speeds.  just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  these low speed limits are not needed.  if we all obeyed them, traffic would come to a crawl.  this sucks because it forces everyone to break the law.  i do not want to risk getting a ticket.  but, if i were to drive at the speed limit, i would be a road hazard.  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  the speed limits on most highways just do not make sense.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.   #  driving at such slow speeds is impractical.   #  are you really in that much of a hurry that driving 0 mph on the highway is  impractical  and a waste of time ?  # are you really in that much of a hurry that driving 0 mph on the highway is  impractical  and a waste of time ? you would be wasting even more time if your reckless speeding caused you to get in an accident.  if everyone drove at the speed limit there would not be a problem.  according to the nsc, 0,0 lives are lost every year to speeding, so if that is not a big problem then i do not know what is.  same goes for faster speed limits if everyone is driving at the same speed.  traffic would be just as congested as it always is.   #  while most drivers and vehicles may be capable and safe driving at higher speeds, this does not apply to everyone.   #  because difference in speed is more dangerous than speed itself.  highways are designed to support all traffic, namely drivers and vehicles of varying capabilities.  while most drivers and vehicles may be capable and safe driving at higher speeds, this does not apply to everyone.  raising the speed limits would result in most drivers driving faster, but slowest drivers will still drive comfortable, slow speeds.  this means increased difference in speed, thus more and more dangerous accidents.  raising the speed limits will eventually occur through technological and regulatory improvements for vehicles and drivers, but we are not there yet.   #  you will never see an old, rusted, piece of shit used car some guy just bought for $0 dollars from someones grandma.   #  it is not  the  autobahn, autobahn means highway in german.  germany also has more stringent safety policies for vehicles.  you will never see an old, rusted, piece of shit used car some guy just bought for $0 dollars from someones grandma.  unless they are breaking the law of course.  all tires must be in good condition, as do breaks and suspension.  i am not sure how this is enforced, but i am fairly sure germans just think it is stupid to drive with old tires and failing breaks, because it is.  as well, only certain parts of autobahns have no speed limit, i suppose speed limits are enforced when there is a turn off or curve.  cannot source any of this because this is what my german teacher told my class during his introduction.   #  i 0 in ny and i 0 in nj .   #  you are suggesting that raising a speed limit by  x  would increase everyone is cruising speed by  x .  that is simply unfounded and untrue.  the speed of traffic flow is a scientific, mathematical, and psychological product that takes into account existing traffic, lane width, pedestrian presence, scenery, road curvature, etc that does not include the posted speed limit.  i often drive on interstates with a 0 speed limit and a 0 limit.  i 0 in ny and i 0 in nj .  they both have nearly the same lane width and curvature, and traffic flows at the same speed on both despite the disparity of the posted speed limits.   #  in 0, speeding was a contributing factor in 0 percent of all fatal crashes, and 0,0 lives were lost in speeding related crashes.   # why ? just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  this URL study says otherwise.  the nhtsa states:    speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes.  the economic cost to society of speeding related crashes is estimated by nhtsa to be $0 billion per year.  in 0, speeding was a contributing factor in 0 percent of all fatal crashes, and 0,0 lives were lost in speeding related crashes.  it is the classic  i am the exception to the rule  fallacy.  plenty of people speed, and plenty of people get into accidents because of speeding, and yet everyone thinks that they are immune to it for some reason or another.  actually if everyone drove the same speed  / a few mph traffic would run flawlessly.  there would be no  traffic  at all because we are all moving the same speed and therefore there is nothing stopping the flow of traffic barring the occasional incident .  why ? road says 0mph, no one is forcing you to go 0 .  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  it is true that people who drive slower than everyone else cause accidents, but if everyone followed the speed limit then none of this would happen.  if you raised the limit, people will speed and therefore those who are going slower than traffic will cause accidents.  you raise the limit more so the slower people speed up, and people continue to speed again.  etc.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.  you really need to define conditions.  what speeds are you talking about ? 0mph ? 0mph ? what do you define as  safe to drive  ? do you really trust the 0 year old who just got their license to take their steel death machine up to 0  just because you feel confident that you can handle that speed ?
almost nobody drives the speed limit.  this is not because we are all hooligans with no respect for the law.  it is because the speed limits on most roads are way too low.  driving at such slow speeds is impractical.  there is no good reason to drive that slow.  the roads can be safely navigated at higher speeds.  just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  these low speed limits are not needed.  if we all obeyed them, traffic would come to a crawl.  this sucks because it forces everyone to break the law.  i do not want to risk getting a ticket.  but, if i were to drive at the speed limit, i would be a road hazard.  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  the speed limits on most highways just do not make sense.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.   #  just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.   #  according to the nsc, 0,0 lives are lost every year to speeding, so if that is not a big problem then i do not know what is.   # are you really in that much of a hurry that driving 0 mph on the highway is  impractical  and a waste of time ? you would be wasting even more time if your reckless speeding caused you to get in an accident.  if everyone drove at the speed limit there would not be a problem.  according to the nsc, 0,0 lives are lost every year to speeding, so if that is not a big problem then i do not know what is.  same goes for faster speed limits if everyone is driving at the same speed.  traffic would be just as congested as it always is.   #  while most drivers and vehicles may be capable and safe driving at higher speeds, this does not apply to everyone.   #  because difference in speed is more dangerous than speed itself.  highways are designed to support all traffic, namely drivers and vehicles of varying capabilities.  while most drivers and vehicles may be capable and safe driving at higher speeds, this does not apply to everyone.  raising the speed limits would result in most drivers driving faster, but slowest drivers will still drive comfortable, slow speeds.  this means increased difference in speed, thus more and more dangerous accidents.  raising the speed limits will eventually occur through technological and regulatory improvements for vehicles and drivers, but we are not there yet.   #  as well, only certain parts of autobahns have no speed limit, i suppose speed limits are enforced when there is a turn off or curve.   #  it is not  the  autobahn, autobahn means highway in german.  germany also has more stringent safety policies for vehicles.  you will never see an old, rusted, piece of shit used car some guy just bought for $0 dollars from someones grandma.  unless they are breaking the law of course.  all tires must be in good condition, as do breaks and suspension.  i am not sure how this is enforced, but i am fairly sure germans just think it is stupid to drive with old tires and failing breaks, because it is.  as well, only certain parts of autobahns have no speed limit, i suppose speed limits are enforced when there is a turn off or curve.  cannot source any of this because this is what my german teacher told my class during his introduction.   #  i often drive on interstates with a 0 speed limit and a 0 limit.   #  you are suggesting that raising a speed limit by  x  would increase everyone is cruising speed by  x .  that is simply unfounded and untrue.  the speed of traffic flow is a scientific, mathematical, and psychological product that takes into account existing traffic, lane width, pedestrian presence, scenery, road curvature, etc that does not include the posted speed limit.  i often drive on interstates with a 0 speed limit and a 0 limit.  i 0 in ny and i 0 in nj .  they both have nearly the same lane width and curvature, and traffic flows at the same speed on both despite the disparity of the posted speed limits.   #  you raise the limit more so the slower people speed up, and people continue to speed again.   # why ? just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  this URL study says otherwise.  the nhtsa states:    speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes.  the economic cost to society of speeding related crashes is estimated by nhtsa to be $0 billion per year.  in 0, speeding was a contributing factor in 0 percent of all fatal crashes, and 0,0 lives were lost in speeding related crashes.  it is the classic  i am the exception to the rule  fallacy.  plenty of people speed, and plenty of people get into accidents because of speeding, and yet everyone thinks that they are immune to it for some reason or another.  actually if everyone drove the same speed  / a few mph traffic would run flawlessly.  there would be no  traffic  at all because we are all moving the same speed and therefore there is nothing stopping the flow of traffic barring the occasional incident .  why ? road says 0mph, no one is forcing you to go 0 .  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  it is true that people who drive slower than everyone else cause accidents, but if everyone followed the speed limit then none of this would happen.  if you raised the limit, people will speed and therefore those who are going slower than traffic will cause accidents.  you raise the limit more so the slower people speed up, and people continue to speed again.  etc.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.  you really need to define conditions.  what speeds are you talking about ? 0mph ? 0mph ? what do you define as  safe to drive  ? do you really trust the 0 year old who just got their license to take their steel death machine up to 0  just because you feel confident that you can handle that speed ?
almost nobody drives the speed limit.  this is not because we are all hooligans with no respect for the law.  it is because the speed limits on most roads are way too low.  driving at such slow speeds is impractical.  there is no good reason to drive that slow.  the roads can be safely navigated at higher speeds.  just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  these low speed limits are not needed.  if we all obeyed them, traffic would come to a crawl.  this sucks because it forces everyone to break the law.  i do not want to risk getting a ticket.  but, if i were to drive at the speed limit, i would be a road hazard.  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  the speed limits on most highways just do not make sense.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.   #  if we all obeyed them, traffic would come to a crawl.   #  same goes for faster speed limits if everyone is driving at the same speed.   # are you really in that much of a hurry that driving 0 mph on the highway is  impractical  and a waste of time ? you would be wasting even more time if your reckless speeding caused you to get in an accident.  if everyone drove at the speed limit there would not be a problem.  according to the nsc, 0,0 lives are lost every year to speeding, so if that is not a big problem then i do not know what is.  same goes for faster speed limits if everyone is driving at the same speed.  traffic would be just as congested as it always is.   #  highways are designed to support all traffic, namely drivers and vehicles of varying capabilities.   #  because difference in speed is more dangerous than speed itself.  highways are designed to support all traffic, namely drivers and vehicles of varying capabilities.  while most drivers and vehicles may be capable and safe driving at higher speeds, this does not apply to everyone.  raising the speed limits would result in most drivers driving faster, but slowest drivers will still drive comfortable, slow speeds.  this means increased difference in speed, thus more and more dangerous accidents.  raising the speed limits will eventually occur through technological and regulatory improvements for vehicles and drivers, but we are not there yet.   #  i am not sure how this is enforced, but i am fairly sure germans just think it is stupid to drive with old tires and failing breaks, because it is.   #  it is not  the  autobahn, autobahn means highway in german.  germany also has more stringent safety policies for vehicles.  you will never see an old, rusted, piece of shit used car some guy just bought for $0 dollars from someones grandma.  unless they are breaking the law of course.  all tires must be in good condition, as do breaks and suspension.  i am not sure how this is enforced, but i am fairly sure germans just think it is stupid to drive with old tires and failing breaks, because it is.  as well, only certain parts of autobahns have no speed limit, i suppose speed limits are enforced when there is a turn off or curve.  cannot source any of this because this is what my german teacher told my class during his introduction.   #  they both have nearly the same lane width and curvature, and traffic flows at the same speed on both despite the disparity of the posted speed limits.   #  you are suggesting that raising a speed limit by  x  would increase everyone is cruising speed by  x .  that is simply unfounded and untrue.  the speed of traffic flow is a scientific, mathematical, and psychological product that takes into account existing traffic, lane width, pedestrian presence, scenery, road curvature, etc that does not include the posted speed limit.  i often drive on interstates with a 0 speed limit and a 0 limit.  i 0 in ny and i 0 in nj .  they both have nearly the same lane width and curvature, and traffic flows at the same speed on both despite the disparity of the posted speed limits.   #  the economic cost to society of speeding related crashes is estimated by nhtsa to be $0 billion per year.   # why ? just about everyone ignores the speed limit, and there really have not been any big problems caused by this.  this URL study says otherwise.  the nhtsa states:    speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes.  the economic cost to society of speeding related crashes is estimated by nhtsa to be $0 billion per year.  in 0, speeding was a contributing factor in 0 percent of all fatal crashes, and 0,0 lives were lost in speeding related crashes.  it is the classic  i am the exception to the rule  fallacy.  plenty of people speed, and plenty of people get into accidents because of speeding, and yet everyone thinks that they are immune to it for some reason or another.  actually if everyone drove the same speed  / a few mph traffic would run flawlessly.  there would be no  traffic  at all because we are all moving the same speed and therefore there is nothing stopping the flow of traffic barring the occasional incident .  why ? road says 0mph, no one is forcing you to go 0 .  people who drive slower than the rest of traffic cause accidents.  it is safer for everyone for me to speed.  it is true that people who drive slower than everyone else cause accidents, but if everyone followed the speed limit then none of this would happen.  if you raised the limit, people will speed and therefore those who are going slower than traffic will cause accidents.  you raise the limit more so the slower people speed up, and people continue to speed again.  etc.  they are lower than the speed at which you can drive safely, and they do not take into account how everyone else drives.  they are impractical and really should be raised.  you really need to define conditions.  what speeds are you talking about ? 0mph ? 0mph ? what do you define as  safe to drive  ? do you really trust the 0 year old who just got their license to take their steel death machine up to 0  just because you feel confident that you can handle that speed ?
spoilers ahead for masterchef  i recently got into watching masterchef.  i was a huge fan of josh, one of the competitors in season 0.  when he was eliminated gordon ramsay promised him work at his restaurants.  as i thought that was a nice gesture i looked into whether or not he had ever gotten said job.  as it turns out he killed himself about a week after his elimination aired.  jesus christ.  that hit me like a ton of bricks.  here i was just wanting to find out the employment status of this competitor that i liked and i found out that he killed himself ! after a little more research i found out that there have actually been two other suicides tied to gordon ramsay is show.  one was a failing new york restaurant on kitchen nightmares where gordon yelled at the owner that if he did not start improving his restaurant was going to sink to the bottom of the hudson.  after the restaurant failed the owner jumped off the brooklyn bridge into the hudson and died.  the second was a female chef on hells kitchen who killed herself shortly after her elimination aired.  i tried to convince myself that this was bound to happen with the number of people that had been on his shows, but even using my most generous statistics three suicides in the past four years of his shows is about 0x what would be expected from people in that demographic.  now i ca not watch it anymore.  i ca not watch someone breakdown crying and get any sense of schadenfreude from it without feeling absolutely horrible about myself.  normally i would be of the opinion that they knew what they were getting themselves into and therefore not feel all that bad for them, but now that is completely gone.   #  now i ca not watch it anymore.   #  i ca not watch someone breakdown crying and get any sense of schadenfreude from it without feeling absolutely horrible about myself.   # i ca not watch someone breakdown crying and get any sense of schadenfreude from it without feeling absolutely horrible about myself.  normally i would be of the opinion that they knew what they were getting themselves into and therefore not feel all that bad for them, but now that is completely gone.  you can watch it with empathy for the restaurant owners and chefs involved instead of hoping for a train wreck.  i have not really watched too many of these shows, but i have watched some of the uk version of kitchen nightmares and i have watched plenty of top chef, and i have to say, when the people break down and cry, i have never felt glee unless they are of the amy is baking company  everybody loves to hate them  type that are meant to be villains though even with some of those i might feel bad for them if it is clear they are suffering from some kind of mental illness as opposed to being just spoiled assholes .  it is always been more of a thing where i hope they can get turned around and do well.  i have heard the us kitchen nightmares is more about just watching ramsay tear the owners new assholes, but in at least the few uk episodes i have seen, it was more about having him help out some struggling restaurant owners and hoping that they would succeed.   #  any sane entrepreneurial cook could become successful with due diligence and proper know how, so you already have to be mentally offset to get onto reality tv or even want to get on reality tv in the first place.   #  so i am gonna dissect your argument a bit, and hopefully change your view.  firstly, you assume that there is a correlation specifically with gordon ramsey and the suicides, which is may hold some merit but consider this.  reality tv is about making money off of people is interpersonal drama.  to even be considered you really have to be able to demonstrate that you are  a character with a story.   any sane entrepreneurial cook could become successful with due diligence and proper know how, so you already have to be mentally offset to get onto reality tv or even want to get on reality tv in the first place.  secondly, you have to consider the profession.  each profession has some nifty suicide statistics attached to it.  for the longest time, dentists were at the top of that list because people rarely have a positive experience at the dentist and so it is good luck to you getting patients and keeping your practice open.  highly stressful, highly depressing situation.  now, i could not find any particular statistics on chef based suicides, however a quick google search will yield a higher amount of both drug and alcohol abuse among the cooking profession, which needless to say can lead to depression.  factor in the environment of higher end cooks such as drug laden vegas and suddenly the picture is a little more clear.  lastly, add in other regular statistics like male depression and suddenly being a chef is a volatile place to begin with.  yes, ramsey may have been the straw that broke the camel is back but he is certainly not guilty of making these folks kill themselves.  even then it is still not immoral because as i understand he does not ever tell someone to kill themselves in the first place, and in simple realistic terms, a well reasoned rational human realizes that a lost opportunity is not the end of the world, it is something to be frustrated over sure but definitely not worth offing yourself.   #  if you flip a coin 0 times, you would expect 0 heads and 0 tails.   #  glad he could change your mind.  since he touched on statistics, i thought i would also mention in your post you said that 0 suicides in 0 years proves ramsey is shows are way above the national average.  however, all of those shows have been on the air for more than 0 years.  unless there is a format change in the shows you believe is causing more suicides e. g.  they started physically assaulting contestants 0 seasons ago , then you should be looking at the total run of the shows.  so this is 0 suicides over 0 0 tv seasons assuming you only looked at the us.  it is a lot like looking at coin flips.  if you flip a coin 0 times, you would expect 0 heads and 0 tails.  however, if you look over all 0 flips, there is a good chance you will find a set of 0 flips with 0 heads and 0 tails.  this does not mean the coin has become weighted and now the odds of heads are 0.  it is just a bit of randomness in a small sample size.  same with the shows.  it is sad there have been 0 suicides in the last 0 years.  but barring a change that explains why we should only count the last four years, you need to look at the 0 in the context of all seasons of the shows.   #  if you look further into it, i am sure the owner was most likely experiencing depression and other issues which likely stemmed from the failing restaurant.   # at least in the case of kitchen nightmares i disagree completely.  a restaurant is on the show because it is already failing.  the owner who committed suicide would most likely have done that anyways regardless of the interference of the show.  if you look further into it, i am sure the owner was most likely experiencing depression and other issues which likely stemmed from the failing restaurant.  and you are saying that a show meant to help the restaurant succeed is morally culpable in his suicide ? i just do not buy it  #  all i do know is that if you are going to invite depressed people onto your show, you have an ethical obligation to ensure they are treated appropriately.   # but then the argument could be made that the showrunners should be well aware that this is a likely state of mind among the people who run the restaurants they feature.  and it should be pretty obvious that people in vulnerable emotional states do not respond well to boot camp style hectoring.  now, as i say, this is just an argument that  could  be made.  i do not profess to know how well they vet their potential restaurant owners, nor how much emotional and practical support is offered off screen.  all i do know is that if you are going to invite depressed people onto your show, you have an ethical obligation to ensure they are treated appropriately.
i know this is really low hanging fruit, especially on reddit, to hate on the tsa, but i would like to hear responses on why anybody  supports  the tsa.  does the tsa really need to go above and beyond every other country is typical security systems ? do they really need to throw away our toothpaste and empty our water bottles and take away my pocket knifes and other rubbish we forget in our bag ? if the terrorists really wanted to, they could have bombed any other western nation is airplanes.  they could just bomb the airport terminal, or a train, or a mall, or some other busy area in the world.  i think the only reason security theater exists is because airlines have lobbied the us government to ensure that fliers feel safe on their airplanes.  the tsa acts as a front to take the blame if a terrorist act ever happens again.  the tsa exists to fight fire with fire, to fight statistically inconsequential terrorism with statistically inconsequential security.  so, cmv: the tsa is an intrusive, ineffective agency that exists to make travelers feel safe and protect the airline industry.  if you disagree with any of these statements, please explain  why does the tsa exist ?  #  i think the only reason security theater exists is because airlines have lobbied the us government to ensure that fliers feel safe on their airplanes.   #  i generally agree that the tsa is useless theater, but it is not because of revenue for airlines.   # i generally agree that the tsa is useless theater, but it is not because of revenue for airlines.  the tsa is our own doing.  when events like 0/0 happen, the population at large expects  something to be done .  if you answer that passengers wo not trust hi jackers anymore, then you are  putting lives at risk .  people want to  see  something being done.  the tsa is the result of politicians trying to appear tough on terrorism and productive.  your point falls apart because the tsa is partially responsible for a  decline  in air travel.  people do not like being hassled, groped, and made to wait.  the tsa actually hurts the airlines.   #  take that with the sheer number of regulations and safety checks that must be passed to even get on the runway, the airlines get bogged down with high overhead costs really quickly.   #  0 of the top 0 carriers in the us have been under bankruptcy protection since 0, 0 since 0.  bankruptcy is horrendously common in airlines.  they hemorrhage cash.  they do not exactly have the extra money to be throwing as lobbyists, usually.  URL just because more people are flying does not mean they are making more money.  you know how fuel costs skyrocketed in the last decade ? take that and multiply it by god knows how much for  jet fuel.  take that with the sheer number of regulations and safety checks that must be passed to even get on the runway, the airlines get bogged down with high overhead costs really quickly.  URL  #  for starters, airlines need to lobby in other areas to even be profitable such as further distance from nearest airport to shorten routes.   #  for starters, airlines need to lobby in other areas to even be profitable such as further distance from nearest airport to shorten routes.  and lobbying is not simply shoving money in people is faces so they do things you want.  it is mostly about getting the people who support you publicity and a better chance at elections/appointments.  sometimes, you can get someone to switch sides.  there is also the tsa employment advocates and probably other groups as well who are interested in keeping government agencies with high employment numbers.   #  i do not know, but i would hazard a guess that airlines would prefer the tsa did not exist.   #  popularly held reddit beliefs tend to be wrong.  the tsa exists because the government wants us to feel safe.  i do not know, but i would hazard a guess that airlines would prefer the tsa did not exist.  less time between check in and boarding means sooner takeoff means more planes in the air means more profits.  think of the shitloads of flights in the world.  think of the cumulative time that could be saved.  airlines would make significantly more money.  also passengers tend to loath security checkpoints and security checkpoints for that reason tend to be a deterrent for air travel.  more than the trade off of not feeling safe ? i do not know, but the amount that would fly if there was not a tsa but do not now would offset those that do now and would not if there was no tsa by at least a meaningful number.  i do not think there is any way to prove what that number is, but i also do not think that the profit losses on that number would offset the profit gains from additional flights.   #  does the tsa stuff get us to 0 ?  # i dunno about that; my first time on an airplane was in 0, and i did not have to subject myself to more than a metal detector gate.  i did not feel any less safe then than i do now.  the problem is that airline travel, even if we got rid of most of the tsa crap, would still be 0 safe.  does the tsa stuff get us to 0 ? perhaps, though i doubt it, and either way, is it worth it ?
now, i am not the biggest games workshop nerd.  i played some necromunda as a kid with my older friends, later i played lots of the wh0k video games, some were good, some were meh.  when i was bored i read a lot about the lore in wikis or in source books owned by friends.  now obviously on some level it is simply a matter of taste, but i will try to make a somewhat objective claim: all the other adversary races that threaten the human imperium have some redeeming quality, while the orcs only serve as galactic clowns with a crude humour.  the tau for example, while having a more complex background, are especially interesting, because for readers with western values they will on the surface seem much more agreeable than the fascist/theocratic regime in the name of the god emperor of the humans, which makes for interesting conflict.  the tyranids are this mindless, insectoid killer species, and can deliver on aliens™ themed horror.  the eldar are this eons old species that acts in ways that are incomprihensible for the short lived humans.  the chaos is the old ultimate evil with some interesting twists.  i could go on necrocs etc.  .  the wh0k universe is obviously not the pinnacle of science fiction writing, but each of the above species delivers on being interesting and each one is in some way bad ass.  the orcs are not.  you either like the joke of a musclepacked brainless horde of humanoid fungi screaming  waaaagghh  at the top of their lungs while driving on makeshift or stolen vehicles, or you do not.  there is no  objective  merit in their design comparable to the other species, named or unnamed.  cmv !  #  now, i am not the biggest games workshop nerd.   #  i played some necromunda as a kid with my older friends, first of all, awesome.   # i played some necromunda as a kid with my older friends, first of all, awesome.  necromunda is good stuff.  why is comic relief not a redeeming quality ? without something to lighten the mood, it can easily suffer from being too dark, too serious.  the tyranids are this mindless, insectoid killer species, and can deliver on aliens™ themed horror.  the eldar are this eons old species that acts in ways that are incomprihensible for the short lived humans.  the chaos is the old ultimate evil with some interesting twists.  i could go on necrocs etc.  .  all of the races are derivative and cliches.  some are more obvious than others, but they are not really compelling in general.  i would say the works are more compelling than the tyranids actually.  space orks do not really exist outside of 0k, whereas bug races are pretty common.  the orcs are not.  you either like the joke of a musclepacked brainless horde of humanoid fungi screaming  waaaagghh  at the top of their lungs while driving on makeshift or stolen vehicles, or you do not.  there is no  objective  merit in their design comparable to the other species, named or unnamed.  the orks are badass though.  they are a constant threat due to their high rate of reproduction, and the difficulty of eliminating them once they have taken up root somewhere.  hell, they took over a hive on necromunda and when they imperium discovered them a few years later, the response was to  nuke them from orbit  and then send in space marines to finish the job.  furthermore, there is no negotiating with them: they are there to fight, whether you like or not.  they are not mindless like the tyranids, but they are relentless killing machines nonetheless.  most significantly, gw has done more with orks than most anyone else.  instead of just being half designed monsters with a vaguely tribal society that function as speed bumps for low level heroes, space orks are a fully realized race and a force to be reckoned with.  gw took the time to explain how they can be so numerous, so ever present, and why they always want to fight in a believable way.  i am not a big of of gw in general, but orks are something they really nailed.   #  chaos, or need for beings to worship represent our fear and subjugation to change/death and disease/pleasure and pain/bloodthirst.   #  orks provide many things to the 0k universe.  0.  as you mentioned a source of comic relief.  0.  the orks are able to be used as a constant threat without need for further plot.  if eldar/chaos/tau etc show up it is because of some deep far reaching scheme.  if orks show up its because they are orks and wanna stomp on things.  0.  orks were the one empire/enemy that was truly defeated and dethroned by humanity.  at the point of this campaign the tau are not even contacted by the ethereals, the necrons and eldar are long scattered and not a major power, chaos has yet to raise its head as the true threat it is, and the tyranids wo not be here for thousands of more years.  the only thing standing in the way of humanities inevitable conquest of the galaxy are the orks.  the ullanor campaign was the greatest triumph the empire manages to have.  0. they represent an aspect of humanity that is often overlooked.  each of the races and their paths focus on a separate part of humanity.  chaos, or need for beings to worship represent our fear and subjugation to change/death and disease/pleasure and pain/bloodthirst.  the tau represent our inner communists and the idea that the whole is greater then the sum of its parts.  the eldar and dark eldar represent the memory of how the past was greater, more elegant, more refined and intelligent, but under closer examination is just as brutal and simplistic as we always are and have been.  the orks though, the orks are the sheer joy we have in being strong, the satisfaction that comes only through finding a worthy opponent and winning, then going out and looking for another more worthy opponent.  orks represent a piece of humanity that no other faction does.   #  this guy concluded his much better worded post by saying  orks are anathema to chaos, because they are always one fight away from being happy.   #  read this somewhere on reddit ages ago.  the orks just want to fight.  chaos works by promising sweet nothings in exchange for the soul.  orks have no angst, no stress, their monetary system is based on teeth taken in combat, and orky teeth decay quickly, removing any wealth inequality that is not based on raw fucking asskicking.  what could khorne promise them ? they already live in heaven.  maybe there is an ork stuck somewhere alone.  maybe he just wants a good scrap, and he ca not get one.  there is a way for khorne to get his claws in an ork.  problem is, as soon as he does get into a fight, boom ! angst is gone ! the need for chaos is gone.  this guy concluded his much better worded post by saying  orks are anathema to chaos, because they are always one fight away from being happy.  they are content.  chaos is starting to realize that the orks are coming, and that a galaxy full of green, screaming, bloodthirsty nirvana is coming their way, and that chaos has nothing to ruin them with.     #  maybe there is an ork stuck somewhere alone.   #  read this somewhere on reddit ages ago.  the orks just want to fight.  chaos works by promising sweet nothings in exchange for the soul.  orks have no angst, no stress, there monetary system is based on teeth taken in combat, and orky teeth decay quickly, removing any wealth inequality that is not based on raw fucking asskicking.  what could khorne promise them ? they already live in heaven.  maybe there is an ork stuck somewhere alone.  maybe he just wants a good scrap, and he ca not get one.  there is a way for khorne to get his claws in an ork.  problem is, as soon as he does get into a fight, boom ! angst is gone ! the need for chaos is gone.  this guy concluded his much better worded post by saying  orks are anathema to chaos, because they are always one fight away from being happy.  they are content.  chaos is starting to realize that the orks are coming, and that a galaxy full of green, screaming, bloodthirsty nirvana is coming their way, and that chaos has nothing to ruin them with.     #  the sheer fact that they can take scrap metal, bubble gum, spit and bullets and wrangle it into a functioning gun out of  sheer willpower and belief , to me, is what makes me love them so much.   #  the orks are one of my favorite races ! it is not because of the crude humor, but i am fascinated by their technology.  they collectively delude themselves so much it actually powers their machinery.  their guns work because all orks  believe they do .  no other race in the 0k universe really has the same feel as the orks.  the orks are the galactic psychos.  they will literally kill eachother to get to the frontlines.  they live for war and battle.  every other race excels in battle, but warfare for them is the  means  to their objectives,  not the objective itself .  this is what makes them so terrifying to deal with.  the fact that they have crude humor does not take away from the fact that they are huge, terrifying, and utterly insane in combat.  the sheer fact that they can take scrap metal, bubble gum, spit and bullets and wrangle it into a functioning gun out of  sheer willpower and belief , to me, is what makes me love them so much.  i would argue that the nekrons are far more one dimensional than the orks.
now, i am not the biggest games workshop nerd.  i played some necromunda as a kid with my older friends, later i played lots of the wh0k video games, some were good, some were meh.  when i was bored i read a lot about the lore in wikis or in source books owned by friends.  now obviously on some level it is simply a matter of taste, but i will try to make a somewhat objective claim: all the other adversary races that threaten the human imperium have some redeeming quality, while the orcs only serve as galactic clowns with a crude humour.  the tau for example, while having a more complex background, are especially interesting, because for readers with western values they will on the surface seem much more agreeable than the fascist/theocratic regime in the name of the god emperor of the humans, which makes for interesting conflict.  the tyranids are this mindless, insectoid killer species, and can deliver on aliens™ themed horror.  the eldar are this eons old species that acts in ways that are incomprihensible for the short lived humans.  the chaos is the old ultimate evil with some interesting twists.  i could go on necrocs etc.  .  the wh0k universe is obviously not the pinnacle of science fiction writing, but each of the above species delivers on being interesting and each one is in some way bad ass.  the orcs are not.  you either like the joke of a musclepacked brainless horde of humanoid fungi screaming  waaaagghh  at the top of their lungs while driving on makeshift or stolen vehicles, or you do not.  there is no  objective  merit in their design comparable to the other species, named or unnamed.  cmv !  #  you either like the joke of a musclepacked brainless horde of humanoid fungi screaming  waaaagghh  at the top of their lungs while driving on makeshift or stolen vehicles, or you do not.   #  there is no  objective  merit in their design comparable to the other species, named or unnamed.   # there is no  objective  merit in their design comparable to the other species, named or unnamed.  i am also curious why you think the other races are more compelling.  in almost all cases  except  orks the races in 0k and wfb are hopelessly derivative.  games workshop however did seem to pioneer the archetype of orks as being childlike, buffoonish, thugs which has percolated into other works.  it is one of the few seemingly original things they have ever done.   #  orks represent a piece of humanity that no other faction does.   #  orks provide many things to the 0k universe.  0.  as you mentioned a source of comic relief.  0.  the orks are able to be used as a constant threat without need for further plot.  if eldar/chaos/tau etc show up it is because of some deep far reaching scheme.  if orks show up its because they are orks and wanna stomp on things.  0.  orks were the one empire/enemy that was truly defeated and dethroned by humanity.  at the point of this campaign the tau are not even contacted by the ethereals, the necrons and eldar are long scattered and not a major power, chaos has yet to raise its head as the true threat it is, and the tyranids wo not be here for thousands of more years.  the only thing standing in the way of humanities inevitable conquest of the galaxy are the orks.  the ullanor campaign was the greatest triumph the empire manages to have.  0. they represent an aspect of humanity that is often overlooked.  each of the races and their paths focus on a separate part of humanity.  chaos, or need for beings to worship represent our fear and subjugation to change/death and disease/pleasure and pain/bloodthirst.  the tau represent our inner communists and the idea that the whole is greater then the sum of its parts.  the eldar and dark eldar represent the memory of how the past was greater, more elegant, more refined and intelligent, but under closer examination is just as brutal and simplistic as we always are and have been.  the orks though, the orks are the sheer joy we have in being strong, the satisfaction that comes only through finding a worthy opponent and winning, then going out and looking for another more worthy opponent.  orks represent a piece of humanity that no other faction does.   #  problem is, as soon as he does get into a fight, boom !  #  read this somewhere on reddit ages ago.  the orks just want to fight.  chaos works by promising sweet nothings in exchange for the soul.  orks have no angst, no stress, their monetary system is based on teeth taken in combat, and orky teeth decay quickly, removing any wealth inequality that is not based on raw fucking asskicking.  what could khorne promise them ? they already live in heaven.  maybe there is an ork stuck somewhere alone.  maybe he just wants a good scrap, and he ca not get one.  there is a way for khorne to get his claws in an ork.  problem is, as soon as he does get into a fight, boom ! angst is gone ! the need for chaos is gone.  this guy concluded his much better worded post by saying  orks are anathema to chaos, because they are always one fight away from being happy.  they are content.  chaos is starting to realize that the orks are coming, and that a galaxy full of green, screaming, bloodthirsty nirvana is coming their way, and that chaos has nothing to ruin them with.     #  chaos is starting to realize that the orks are coming, and that a galaxy full of green, screaming, bloodthirsty nirvana is coming their way, and that chaos has nothing to ruin them with.     #  read this somewhere on reddit ages ago.  the orks just want to fight.  chaos works by promising sweet nothings in exchange for the soul.  orks have no angst, no stress, there monetary system is based on teeth taken in combat, and orky teeth decay quickly, removing any wealth inequality that is not based on raw fucking asskicking.  what could khorne promise them ? they already live in heaven.  maybe there is an ork stuck somewhere alone.  maybe he just wants a good scrap, and he ca not get one.  there is a way for khorne to get his claws in an ork.  problem is, as soon as he does get into a fight, boom ! angst is gone ! the need for chaos is gone.  this guy concluded his much better worded post by saying  orks are anathema to chaos, because they are always one fight away from being happy.  they are content.  chaos is starting to realize that the orks are coming, and that a galaxy full of green, screaming, bloodthirsty nirvana is coming their way, and that chaos has nothing to ruin them with.     #  every other race excels in battle, but warfare for them is the  means  to their objectives,  not the objective itself .   #  the orks are one of my favorite races ! it is not because of the crude humor, but i am fascinated by their technology.  they collectively delude themselves so much it actually powers their machinery.  their guns work because all orks  believe they do .  no other race in the 0k universe really has the same feel as the orks.  the orks are the galactic psychos.  they will literally kill eachother to get to the frontlines.  they live for war and battle.  every other race excels in battle, but warfare for them is the  means  to their objectives,  not the objective itself .  this is what makes them so terrifying to deal with.  the fact that they have crude humor does not take away from the fact that they are huge, terrifying, and utterly insane in combat.  the sheer fact that they can take scrap metal, bubble gum, spit and bullets and wrangle it into a functioning gun out of  sheer willpower and belief , to me, is what makes me love them so much.  i would argue that the nekrons are far more one dimensional than the orks.
people love to believe that they do not really want war, its their leaders because corrupted by the defense companies who want war.  to be clear, i am not saying that defense industry does not influence politicians, but i am against this notion that somehow our noble society would not harm a fly if not for these evil profit making organizations and military industrial complex.  in truth there are a lot more companies which profit from the lack of a war than with a war.  there is an infinitesimally small chance of usa going on a war with india, japan, brazil, or france, even though it would be hugely profitable for defense industry than it is for going on a war with syria.  say a politician talks about going on a war with a country where your multi million dollar corporation is doing huge business with, would not you lobby against such a measure, even try to fund his opponent to get him out of office ? the profits of coca cola, mcdonalds, kfc, pepsi, nestle, toyota, walt disney and other non defense companies vastly larger the profits of defense industry which is 0 0 of the gdp , and when it comes down to it, would lose a lot more money than the profit made by some defense company.  this is the reason why we only go on a war with countries with little trade.  air strikes on saudi will never happen even though almost all the 0/0 hijackers were saudi and almost everyone in al queda comes from saudi arabia.  americans do not join military and go overseas to die because somehow bought out politicians asked them to.  americans do join a voluntary army to go to other countries because they want to.   tl;dr: wars do not happen because of profit, profit happens because of war and a lot more profit is made when peace exists.   postscript: those who are claiming that nobody says that: alan grayson on syria strike:  nobody wants this except the military industrial complex  URL  #  somehow our noble society would not harm a fly if not for these evil profit making organizations and military industrial complex.   #  i think you may be blowing this view out of proportion.   # i think you may be blowing this view out of proportion.  no reasonable person is saying that these companies are the only reason we go to war.  but no one can deny that they profit from war.  if companies profit from war, then they probably want war more than the next person, all things being equal.  and they have lobbyists.  you see where this goes.   #  on the other hand, each corporation in the broader economy will individually realize only a small part of the costs of war.   #  i agree with your broader point, but you are overlooking a key insight from public choice theory: when there are dispersed costs and concentrated benefits or vice versa , the side with the concentrated interests is at an advantage.  that is, if the benefits of war accrue to a handful of small corporations, then each of those corporations has an incentive to put a lot of money into lobbying for war, because the potential payoff is huge.  it is also easy for them to coordinate to split the costs of lobbying.  on the other hand, each corporation in the broader economy will individually realize only a small part of the costs of war.  so it does not make sense for any given corporation to lobby against war individually, because the lobbying costs are greater than the expected savings.  if they could all join together and split the costs it would be worthwhile, but coordinating that many players is hard.  that said, war really is popular with voters, and the people pushing the idea that corporations are responsible are mostly doing so because they already hated corporations for other reasons.   #  many if not most of the companies which stand to profit from war have long standing ties with key decision makers that others are not likely to have.   #  on top of this, we also have to think about the positions of the companies involved.  many if not most of the companies which stand to profit from war have long standing ties with key decision makers that others are not likely to have.  on top of that, some have even come to be seen as authorities in their own right.  which is going to be taken more seriously, the views of a defense contractor with a distinguished history and access to otherwise privileged information, or the spokesman for coca cola ? realistically, the former.  this acts as a  force multiplier  in the same manner as concentrated interests: the companies that profit from war only have to influence a small number of people who they already have close ties to, in a situation where they are seen to have a legitimate interest beyond profiteering and some level of specialist authority.  in comparison, if a company like coca cola steps into the ring they have few specialist ties, no authority to assert, and the first question people are going go ask is  what are you guys even doing here ?    #  if there is a war with japan, a lot more corporations will lose than any defense corporation would benefit.   #  this is by far the most convincing and to the point post made.  everybody else is fuming from their mouth after reading the title.  however, you seem to be claiming that only small corporations benefit from peace.  if there is a war with japan, a lot more corporations will lose than any defense corporation would benefit.  while on the other hand in case of a war with a country against which massive amounts of sanctions have been put in, would not really hurt any company is profit margin though this is not technically true, a richer population more profits in real sense, so war would result in drop in profits, though not necessarily in the nominal sense .  to put it simply, yes war is popular among voters, but we will only go on a war with a country where we have no trade relations with them, because the corporations will never let us wage war against japan, and now china.  actually china is a great example.  before mid 0s china was the biggest military threat to america, and was almost ready to fill the void left by soviet unions left in the cold war.  china currently has border disputes with pretty much every neighbor, and has one of the world is largest military in terms of personnel.  it is not a dictatorship which is a puppet of usa, but the chances of going on a war with them are pretty zero.  in fact we would still rather go on a war with russia than china.   #  therefore one could say that they are trying to promote war, in that it is a secondary consequence of their operation.   #  so i agree that defense industries generally do not directly try promote war, but by running their business successfully they make war more likely.  therefore one could say that they are trying to promote war, in that it is a secondary consequence of their operation.  simply put, a defense industry wants to maximize its profit, which it does by selling more numerous and more technologically advanced weapons.  therefore it will make every pitch possible to the militaries of the world to buy its weapons, partly by playing up the idea of how dangerous the world is and therefore how badly they need the weapons.  often they try to sell more weapons than are reasonably necessary for current threats.  the defense industry does not want war, it wants to move a lot of product.  if the defense industry is successful, governments will amass larger stockpiles of gradually obsolescing weapons.  the existence of these stockpiles which confer only a temporary military advantage they are no good when the next generation comes out, or when other countries catch up by itself makes war more likely.  it leads to arms races, and incentivizes countries considering war to strike while they have the advantage rather than continuing negotiations.  the existence of the weapons becomes a justification for their use, becomes one of the reasons that people want war.
people love to believe that they do not really want war, its their leaders because corrupted by the defense companies who want war.  to be clear, i am not saying that defense industry does not influence politicians, but i am against this notion that somehow our noble society would not harm a fly if not for these evil profit making organizations and military industrial complex.  in truth there are a lot more companies which profit from the lack of a war than with a war.  there is an infinitesimally small chance of usa going on a war with india, japan, brazil, or france, even though it would be hugely profitable for defense industry than it is for going on a war with syria.  say a politician talks about going on a war with a country where your multi million dollar corporation is doing huge business with, would not you lobby against such a measure, even try to fund his opponent to get him out of office ? the profits of coca cola, mcdonalds, kfc, pepsi, nestle, toyota, walt disney and other non defense companies vastly larger the profits of defense industry which is 0 0 of the gdp , and when it comes down to it, would lose a lot more money than the profit made by some defense company.  this is the reason why we only go on a war with countries with little trade.  air strikes on saudi will never happen even though almost all the 0/0 hijackers were saudi and almost everyone in al queda comes from saudi arabia.  americans do not join military and go overseas to die because somehow bought out politicians asked them to.  americans do join a voluntary army to go to other countries because they want to.   tl;dr: wars do not happen because of profit, profit happens because of war and a lot more profit is made when peace exists.   postscript: those who are claiming that nobody says that: alan grayson on syria strike:  nobody wants this except the military industrial complex  URL  #  americans do join a voluntary army to go to other countries because they want to.   #  americans are spoon fed a narrative about our  enemies  and the role of the us in global affairs by a corporate owned mainstream media.   #  maybe you could explain to me why we are fighting, for example, in the middle east ? arab and persian nations will never invade or harm the us, and terrorism is one of the least likely things to kill you behind getting struck my lightening and legal executions URL what the fuck are we doing there ? every bomb we drop causes more people to hate us.  the region was made arbitrarily by england and france after ww0 URL and its unlikely resultant sectarian differences will ever be resolved by foreign intervention even if it was our business to try .  halliburton, chaired by cheney, made $0 billion from the iraq war.  URL defence contractors raked in hundreds of billions.  americans are spoon fed a narrative about our  enemies  and the role of the us in global affairs by a corporate owned mainstream media.  muslims are dehumanized and framed as some  other , and its true, americans are convinced to go kill them for no good reason.  i know its long, but watch this debate between hitchens and galloway right after the war in iraq began.  URL amazing, and eerily predictive.   #  so it does not make sense for any given corporation to lobby against war individually, because the lobbying costs are greater than the expected savings.   #  i agree with your broader point, but you are overlooking a key insight from public choice theory: when there are dispersed costs and concentrated benefits or vice versa , the side with the concentrated interests is at an advantage.  that is, if the benefits of war accrue to a handful of small corporations, then each of those corporations has an incentive to put a lot of money into lobbying for war, because the potential payoff is huge.  it is also easy for them to coordinate to split the costs of lobbying.  on the other hand, each corporation in the broader economy will individually realize only a small part of the costs of war.  so it does not make sense for any given corporation to lobby against war individually, because the lobbying costs are greater than the expected savings.  if they could all join together and split the costs it would be worthwhile, but coordinating that many players is hard.  that said, war really is popular with voters, and the people pushing the idea that corporations are responsible are mostly doing so because they already hated corporations for other reasons.   #  on top of this, we also have to think about the positions of the companies involved.   #  on top of this, we also have to think about the positions of the companies involved.  many if not most of the companies which stand to profit from war have long standing ties with key decision makers that others are not likely to have.  on top of that, some have even come to be seen as authorities in their own right.  which is going to be taken more seriously, the views of a defense contractor with a distinguished history and access to otherwise privileged information, or the spokesman for coca cola ? realistically, the former.  this acts as a  force multiplier  in the same manner as concentrated interests: the companies that profit from war only have to influence a small number of people who they already have close ties to, in a situation where they are seen to have a legitimate interest beyond profiteering and some level of specialist authority.  in comparison, if a company like coca cola steps into the ring they have few specialist ties, no authority to assert, and the first question people are going go ask is  what are you guys even doing here ?    #  this is by far the most convincing and to the point post made.   #  this is by far the most convincing and to the point post made.  everybody else is fuming from their mouth after reading the title.  however, you seem to be claiming that only small corporations benefit from peace.  if there is a war with japan, a lot more corporations will lose than any defense corporation would benefit.  while on the other hand in case of a war with a country against which massive amounts of sanctions have been put in, would not really hurt any company is profit margin though this is not technically true, a richer population more profits in real sense, so war would result in drop in profits, though not necessarily in the nominal sense .  to put it simply, yes war is popular among voters, but we will only go on a war with a country where we have no trade relations with them, because the corporations will never let us wage war against japan, and now china.  actually china is a great example.  before mid 0s china was the biggest military threat to america, and was almost ready to fill the void left by soviet unions left in the cold war.  china currently has border disputes with pretty much every neighbor, and has one of the world is largest military in terms of personnel.  it is not a dictatorship which is a puppet of usa, but the chances of going on a war with them are pretty zero.  in fact we would still rather go on a war with russia than china.   #  it leads to arms races, and incentivizes countries considering war to strike while they have the advantage rather than continuing negotiations.   #  so i agree that defense industries generally do not directly try promote war, but by running their business successfully they make war more likely.  therefore one could say that they are trying to promote war, in that it is a secondary consequence of their operation.  simply put, a defense industry wants to maximize its profit, which it does by selling more numerous and more technologically advanced weapons.  therefore it will make every pitch possible to the militaries of the world to buy its weapons, partly by playing up the idea of how dangerous the world is and therefore how badly they need the weapons.  often they try to sell more weapons than are reasonably necessary for current threats.  the defense industry does not want war, it wants to move a lot of product.  if the defense industry is successful, governments will amass larger stockpiles of gradually obsolescing weapons.  the existence of these stockpiles which confer only a temporary military advantage they are no good when the next generation comes out, or when other countries catch up by itself makes war more likely.  it leads to arms races, and incentivizes countries considering war to strike while they have the advantage rather than continuing negotiations.  the existence of the weapons becomes a justification for their use, becomes one of the reasons that people want war.
if the police were to place hidden speed radars in strategic places they would  trap  most drivers into a situation where they could be fined for speeding.  if they were to camp outside of clubs to check drivers for alcohol right after big parties, they would  trap  most drivers into a situation where they could be fined for driving under the influence of alcohol.  there are some individuals who believe that this is morally wrong if not legally, in some territories around the world .  they establish comparisons with racial profiling, and how that is inherently wrong.  they claim that the mechanisms of law enforcement must be blind to the probability of someone doing something wrong e. g. , you ca not profile arabs based on alleged higher probabilities of a  terrorist  being arab than french , and so you ca not target drivers who are at a higher risk of commiting driving infractions.  i disagree with this.  i argue that racial profiling is a case of discrimination of plausibly innocent individuals, while if you put a hidden speed radar in strategic places you are only targeting drivers who are speeding, and if you put a police control outside a club to stop every car, you are checking everyone equally.  tl;dr i believe traffic police are entitled to  entrap  drivers in situations of likely infractions.  cmv.   #  if the police were to place hidden speed radars in strategic places they would  trap  most drivers into a situation where they could be fined for speeding.   #  is the goal to increase traffic safety, or increase revenue ?  # is the goal to increase traffic safety, or increase revenue ? if there is a traffic hazard due to speeding, then by all means put more police out there.  if it is an area where people are speeding safely, perhaps it is better to reevaluate the speed limit instead of squeezing drivers for money.  sometimes signs are obscured, or speed limits are lowered unnecessarily for more ticket money.  hidden cameras and radars do not stop people from speeding, and just extract money from them after the fact.  at least a visible police presence will fill the road with  perfect drivers .  does extracting money in this way benefit the public ? going to a club should not justify an infringement of your rights.  i am okay with them monitoring driver behavior as they leave, but not checking everybody for no reason at all.   #  if the police are waiting right outside a bar/club, they will record high readings on people whose actual bac is below the limit.   #  there are three main problems, as i see it: 0 avoidable : you suggest putting police outside the club to check  every  car.  this is illegal, as leaving a club does not constitute probable cause to check a car.  we can fix this easily by having the police only check the drivers that appear intoxicated or violate a traffic law.  0: a breathalyzer gives inaccurate high readings if the subject has just drunk anything.  if the police are waiting right outside a bar/club, they will record high readings on people whose actual bac is below the limit.  0: this is a super effective way to shut down the specific bars/clubs that the police do not like.  it is an invitation to corruption.  nothing here has anything to do with  entrapment  unless the police are giving out alcohol.   #  so let is assume for the sake of argument only, because i am not fully convinced that it is not ok to put police cars outside the club.   #  thanks for your comment.  your second point for example is new for me.  so let is assume for the sake of argument only, because i am not fully convinced that it is not ok to put police cars outside the club.  that is one example of a trap and not entrapment, as you pointed out which, according to the assumption we just made, is not ok.  this does not, however, mean that  traps  in general are not ok.  it just rules out one case of trap.   #  honest enforcement of a good law is not something that anyone is going to call a  trap .   #  the mistake you are making is that people generally only call something a  trap  if it fits these types of criteria.  no one calls a police officer driving on a freeway with reasonable speed limits at freeway speeds looking for people exceeding that reasonable speed limit a  speed trap .  they just call it policing.  things that are called  speed traps  all, in my experience, contain at least one of these elements that make them entrapment, unfair, and primarily viewed as revenue generating rather than honest enforcement of a good law.  honest enforcement of a good law is not something that anyone is going to call a  trap .  so you are attacking almost entirely a straw man.   #  not outright would i declare it a trap without knowing more but certainly it can be suspicious.   # i think there will still be some suspicion from some people, myself included, when you talk about places people are likely to fail at.  not outright would i declare it a trap without knowing more but certainly it can be suspicious.  i am sure the government was responsible in some way or another for the design of the road, you always have to question if part of it is intentional or negligence etc.  because when they then go on to reap benefits by ticketing people who commit some traffic violation at the poorly designed road, it looks like a conflict of interest.  it looks like they are either profiting off their corruption or they are profiting off their incompetence, and either one is quite shady.  most people are law abiding citizens.  most people do not want to break the law or do not seek to harm others etc.  so it is alarming when there are places that a significantly large number of people who otherwise follow traffic laws are being ticketed for breaking some violation in that specific area.  are people just feeling safer to break the law in that part of the road, or is there something wrong with the design or the traffic laws in that part of the road ? to not question why there would be a significant difference in traffic violations in certain areas seems ignorant to me because there is obviously some difference there and we should be questioning what that difference is.
if the police were to place hidden speed radars in strategic places they would  trap  most drivers into a situation where they could be fined for speeding.  if they were to camp outside of clubs to check drivers for alcohol right after big parties, they would  trap  most drivers into a situation where they could be fined for driving under the influence of alcohol.  there are some individuals who believe that this is morally wrong if not legally, in some territories around the world .  they establish comparisons with racial profiling, and how that is inherently wrong.  they claim that the mechanisms of law enforcement must be blind to the probability of someone doing something wrong e. g. , you ca not profile arabs based on alleged higher probabilities of a  terrorist  being arab than french , and so you ca not target drivers who are at a higher risk of commiting driving infractions.  i disagree with this.  i argue that racial profiling is a case of discrimination of plausibly innocent individuals, while if you put a hidden speed radar in strategic places you are only targeting drivers who are speeding, and if you put a police control outside a club to stop every car, you are checking everyone equally.  tl;dr i believe traffic police are entitled to  entrap  drivers in situations of likely infractions.  cmv.   #  if you put a police control outside a club to stop every car, you are checking everyone equally.   #  going to a club should not justify an infringement of your rights.   # is the goal to increase traffic safety, or increase revenue ? if there is a traffic hazard due to speeding, then by all means put more police out there.  if it is an area where people are speeding safely, perhaps it is better to reevaluate the speed limit instead of squeezing drivers for money.  sometimes signs are obscured, or speed limits are lowered unnecessarily for more ticket money.  hidden cameras and radars do not stop people from speeding, and just extract money from them after the fact.  at least a visible police presence will fill the road with  perfect drivers .  does extracting money in this way benefit the public ? going to a club should not justify an infringement of your rights.  i am okay with them monitoring driver behavior as they leave, but not checking everybody for no reason at all.   #  if the police are waiting right outside a bar/club, they will record high readings on people whose actual bac is below the limit.   #  there are three main problems, as i see it: 0 avoidable : you suggest putting police outside the club to check  every  car.  this is illegal, as leaving a club does not constitute probable cause to check a car.  we can fix this easily by having the police only check the drivers that appear intoxicated or violate a traffic law.  0: a breathalyzer gives inaccurate high readings if the subject has just drunk anything.  if the police are waiting right outside a bar/club, they will record high readings on people whose actual bac is below the limit.  0: this is a super effective way to shut down the specific bars/clubs that the police do not like.  it is an invitation to corruption.  nothing here has anything to do with  entrapment  unless the police are giving out alcohol.   #  so let is assume for the sake of argument only, because i am not fully convinced that it is not ok to put police cars outside the club.   #  thanks for your comment.  your second point for example is new for me.  so let is assume for the sake of argument only, because i am not fully convinced that it is not ok to put police cars outside the club.  that is one example of a trap and not entrapment, as you pointed out which, according to the assumption we just made, is not ok.  this does not, however, mean that  traps  in general are not ok.  it just rules out one case of trap.   #  no one calls a police officer driving on a freeway with reasonable speed limits at freeway speeds looking for people exceeding that reasonable speed limit a  speed trap .   #  the mistake you are making is that people generally only call something a  trap  if it fits these types of criteria.  no one calls a police officer driving on a freeway with reasonable speed limits at freeway speeds looking for people exceeding that reasonable speed limit a  speed trap .  they just call it policing.  things that are called  speed traps  all, in my experience, contain at least one of these elements that make them entrapment, unfair, and primarily viewed as revenue generating rather than honest enforcement of a good law.  honest enforcement of a good law is not something that anyone is going to call a  trap .  so you are attacking almost entirely a straw man.   #  it looks like they are either profiting off their corruption or they are profiting off their incompetence, and either one is quite shady.   # i think there will still be some suspicion from some people, myself included, when you talk about places people are likely to fail at.  not outright would i declare it a trap without knowing more but certainly it can be suspicious.  i am sure the government was responsible in some way or another for the design of the road, you always have to question if part of it is intentional or negligence etc.  because when they then go on to reap benefits by ticketing people who commit some traffic violation at the poorly designed road, it looks like a conflict of interest.  it looks like they are either profiting off their corruption or they are profiting off their incompetence, and either one is quite shady.  most people are law abiding citizens.  most people do not want to break the law or do not seek to harm others etc.  so it is alarming when there are places that a significantly large number of people who otherwise follow traffic laws are being ticketed for breaking some violation in that specific area.  are people just feeling safer to break the law in that part of the road, or is there something wrong with the design or the traffic laws in that part of the road ? to not question why there would be a significant difference in traffic violations in certain areas seems ignorant to me because there is obviously some difference there and we should be questioning what that difference is.
so for those who do not know, if you are diagnosed with adhd in america, you get extra time on all assessments including the sat.  this allows some students to have double the time on school assessments than the normal kids this does not happen on the sat.  not only do they get extra time, it is often impossible to take the extra time at the same time they sit the test, so therefore they have to come back later, allowing them to see the questions on the test and look up any answers they do not know.  the real problem is that it is unfair to employers.  so let is say there are two kids, jack and bill.  jack has extra time because of adhd.  he gets a 0 gpa instead of a 0gpa because of his extra time.  bill does not have adhd, and gets a 0 gpa.  bill cannot get into as good a college as jack.  now they graduate from college, but jack has graduated from a better college.  as an employer, it would make sense to hire jack.  yet if bill and jack were given the same time to complete a task, bill would do it better.  so why give kids extra time on tests because they cannot pay attention ? being able to pay attention is an important aspect of how attractive you are to an employer, so we should not cater to them in high school just so they feel like it is  fair,  even though really it makes it unfair for a kid who does not have adhd or a kid who does not pretend to have adhd.   #  it is often impossible to take the extra time at the same time they sit the test, so therefore they have to come back later, allowing them to see the questions on the test and look up any answers they do not know.   #  only a really ignorant of apathetic teacher would do this.   # only a really ignorant of apathetic teacher would do this.  normally, students are given either a different test all together, a different testing room, or are only given the first part of the test initially, then the second part of the test when they return to complete it.  for the sat, you are never allowed to return to the same section after having a break.  if that happens, that is entirely the fault of the teacher and not the student or the system.  unless you are diagnosis comes from web md or a school nurse.  a clinical psychologist will measure you capacity in ways which are very hard to fake.  they will also likely interview your parents or teachers about your behavior in childhood.  so let is say there are two kids, jack and bill.  jack has extra time because of adhd.  he gets a 0 gpa instead of a 0gpa because of his extra time.  bill does not have adhd, and gets a 0 gpa.  bill cannot get into as good a college as jack.  now they graduate from college, but jack has graduated from a better college.  as an employer, it would make sense to hire jack.  yet if bill and jack were given the same time to complete a task, bill would do it better.  no.  that is not how mental disabilities work at all.  jack is not given unlimited time, he is given an amount of time that makes his scores more comparable to the scores of bill.  jack needs extra time to demonstrate his mental capacity because he has a disability.  if jack did not have the disability and the extra time, he would still get a 0.  if you do not have a disability, there is no reason why you would need extra time.  the tests are already designed and catered to you and your processing speed.  not always.  it really depends on if the work of the employers is very similar to the work in school and if the time constraints are similar in work and school.  no.  that is a very simplistic and inaccurate way of looking at adhd, there is way more to it than attention.   #  that is not how mental disabilities work at all.   # that is not how mental disabilities work at all.  jack is not given unlimited time, he is given an amount of time that makes his scores more comparable to the scores of bill.  jack needs extra time to demonstrate his mental capacity because he has a disability.  if jack did not have the disability and the extra time, he would still get a 0.  if you do not have a disability, there is no reason why you would need extra time.  the tests are already designed and catered to you and your processing speed.  why is adhd more of a disability than just being stupid ? i do not intend that in an offensive way, but i have yet to see what the difference is, which seems to be the crux of this thread.  stupid people are less able than smart people, and adhd people are less able than non adhd people, all other factors held constant.   #  more time would generally not have a great affect on a normal person because tests are already designed so a normal person has enough time to preform in the given condition.   #  well for one thing, adhd is a diagnosable nerological condition.  also, an adhd person would possibly be able to demonstrate their ability in the standard conditions.  with more time, adhd people would be able to complete the test and do better.  more time would generally not have a great affect on a normal person because tests are already designed so a normal person has enough time to preform in the given condition.  imagine if we gave math tests in small print to people with poor eyesight.  they would be unable to give an honest account of their abilities regarding the subject matter because they would struggle to see.   #  an employer will have absolutely no idea what a person is actual capacities are in math because they have been disenfranchised by the test conditions much the same way as a blind person is.   #  it is ridiculous to make every single test a test of time that will guarantee that certain people will not only fail, but never be able to advance in that field.  you will let one small factor speed prevent them from taking certain classes, graduating, going to colleges, actually learning material, and gettting a proper education.  why should a math test be a test of timed math ? would not an employer rather know how much math they know and how well they can complete problems.  an employer will have absolutely no idea what a person is actual capacities are in math because they have been disenfranchised by the test conditions much the same way as a blind person is.  also, changing font size less of a burden than working a little slower ? do you have data to back that up ? it will completely depend on the job and context.   #  but i do not see why being slower because you are distractable is that different from being slow because you are stupid.   # would not an employer rather know how much math they know and how well they can complete problems.  an employer will have absolutely no idea what a person is actual capacities are in math because they have been disenfranchised by the test conditions much the same way as a blind person is.  the speed with which you can work is always of interest to an employer, because it is a key part of productivity, which is ultimately why you have been hired.  but i do not see why being slower because you are distractable is that different from being slow because you are stupid.  from an employee is perspective the result is surely the same, no ? do you have data to back that up ? it will completely depend on the job and context.  most jobs in the west use computers, so all you need to do to enlarge text is hold ctrl and scroll the mouse wheel up.  i do not really feel i need more data to assume that is less time hungry than a slow employee.
so for those who do not know, if you are diagnosed with adhd in america, you get extra time on all assessments including the sat.  this allows some students to have double the time on school assessments than the normal kids this does not happen on the sat.  not only do they get extra time, it is often impossible to take the extra time at the same time they sit the test, so therefore they have to come back later, allowing them to see the questions on the test and look up any answers they do not know.  the real problem is that it is unfair to employers.  so let is say there are two kids, jack and bill.  jack has extra time because of adhd.  he gets a 0 gpa instead of a 0gpa because of his extra time.  bill does not have adhd, and gets a 0 gpa.  bill cannot get into as good a college as jack.  now they graduate from college, but jack has graduated from a better college.  as an employer, it would make sense to hire jack.  yet if bill and jack were given the same time to complete a task, bill would do it better.  so why give kids extra time on tests because they cannot pay attention ? being able to pay attention is an important aspect of how attractive you are to an employer, so we should not cater to them in high school just so they feel like it is  fair,  even though really it makes it unfair for a kid who does not have adhd or a kid who does not pretend to have adhd.   #  the real problem is that it is unfair to employers.   #  so let is say there are two kids, jack and bill.   # only a really ignorant of apathetic teacher would do this.  normally, students are given either a different test all together, a different testing room, or are only given the first part of the test initially, then the second part of the test when they return to complete it.  for the sat, you are never allowed to return to the same section after having a break.  if that happens, that is entirely the fault of the teacher and not the student or the system.  unless you are diagnosis comes from web md or a school nurse.  a clinical psychologist will measure you capacity in ways which are very hard to fake.  they will also likely interview your parents or teachers about your behavior in childhood.  so let is say there are two kids, jack and bill.  jack has extra time because of adhd.  he gets a 0 gpa instead of a 0gpa because of his extra time.  bill does not have adhd, and gets a 0 gpa.  bill cannot get into as good a college as jack.  now they graduate from college, but jack has graduated from a better college.  as an employer, it would make sense to hire jack.  yet if bill and jack were given the same time to complete a task, bill would do it better.  no.  that is not how mental disabilities work at all.  jack is not given unlimited time, he is given an amount of time that makes his scores more comparable to the scores of bill.  jack needs extra time to demonstrate his mental capacity because he has a disability.  if jack did not have the disability and the extra time, he would still get a 0.  if you do not have a disability, there is no reason why you would need extra time.  the tests are already designed and catered to you and your processing speed.  not always.  it really depends on if the work of the employers is very similar to the work in school and if the time constraints are similar in work and school.  no.  that is a very simplistic and inaccurate way of looking at adhd, there is way more to it than attention.   #  why is adhd more of a disability than just being stupid ?  # that is not how mental disabilities work at all.  jack is not given unlimited time, he is given an amount of time that makes his scores more comparable to the scores of bill.  jack needs extra time to demonstrate his mental capacity because he has a disability.  if jack did not have the disability and the extra time, he would still get a 0.  if you do not have a disability, there is no reason why you would need extra time.  the tests are already designed and catered to you and your processing speed.  why is adhd more of a disability than just being stupid ? i do not intend that in an offensive way, but i have yet to see what the difference is, which seems to be the crux of this thread.  stupid people are less able than smart people, and adhd people are less able than non adhd people, all other factors held constant.   #  with more time, adhd people would be able to complete the test and do better.   #  well for one thing, adhd is a diagnosable nerological condition.  also, an adhd person would possibly be able to demonstrate their ability in the standard conditions.  with more time, adhd people would be able to complete the test and do better.  more time would generally not have a great affect on a normal person because tests are already designed so a normal person has enough time to preform in the given condition.  imagine if we gave math tests in small print to people with poor eyesight.  they would be unable to give an honest account of their abilities regarding the subject matter because they would struggle to see.   #  also, changing font size less of a burden than working a little slower ?  #  it is ridiculous to make every single test a test of time that will guarantee that certain people will not only fail, but never be able to advance in that field.  you will let one small factor speed prevent them from taking certain classes, graduating, going to colleges, actually learning material, and gettting a proper education.  why should a math test be a test of timed math ? would not an employer rather know how much math they know and how well they can complete problems.  an employer will have absolutely no idea what a person is actual capacities are in math because they have been disenfranchised by the test conditions much the same way as a blind person is.  also, changing font size less of a burden than working a little slower ? do you have data to back that up ? it will completely depend on the job and context.   #  it will completely depend on the job and context.   # would not an employer rather know how much math they know and how well they can complete problems.  an employer will have absolutely no idea what a person is actual capacities are in math because they have been disenfranchised by the test conditions much the same way as a blind person is.  the speed with which you can work is always of interest to an employer, because it is a key part of productivity, which is ultimately why you have been hired.  but i do not see why being slower because you are distractable is that different from being slow because you are stupid.  from an employee is perspective the result is surely the same, no ? do you have data to back that up ? it will completely depend on the job and context.  most jobs in the west use computers, so all you need to do to enlarge text is hold ctrl and scroll the mouse wheel up.  i do not really feel i need more data to assume that is less time hungry than a slow employee.
every time i see a commercial for the dove  real beauty  campaign i get rather annoyed an offended.  these commercials portray women who are supposed to represent what  real beauty  is.  the eight or nine women featured are of average height and vary in skin tones, but are all  curvy .  none of them are what people would consider skinny or thin.  i do not think anyone would label them as athletic or incredibly fit, nor would anyone say they are obese.  my issue here is that many people have tried to convince the world that no matter what size you are, you are beautiful and should love your body.  that being said, this commercial shows one type of body, rather curvy and maybe even verging on slightly overweight.  is real beauty not being thin, even though you may happen to have a high metabolism or eat healthy foods ? is real beauty not being athletic or strong or muscular ? are we saying that it is okay to have extra fat on your bodies because  no matter what size you are, you are beautiful  ? i realize that many people ca not help what size they are no matter what they do, and i am not saying that being stick thin or anorexic is okay either, and i do not agree with modeling agencies that promote models being underweight.  what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.  i think women should try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, i do not think it is okay to except being overweight because  real women have curves .  fyi: i am a female, 0 0  and weigh around 0 lbs.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.   #  i think women should try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong.   #  i think these women should be praised and promoted.   #  loving your body does not mean settling.  loving your body just means not hating it.  and not hating your body is a huge step toward improving it, because why would you want to improve something you hate ? i think you are missing the whole point of the campaign.  the campaign is not saying  only  real women have curves.  the campaign is saying real women have curves.  no emphasis on any particular word, not on  real  or on  woman.   the campaign is saying  if a woman has curves she is still a real woman.  there are many curvy women and they are also real women and they are beautiful.   that does not mean women like you are not  also  real women.  this is to counteract the dialogue that many overweight women have to deal with that they are not  real women  until they lose the weight.  that they ca not love themselves until they lose the weight that they are life does not start until they lose the weight.  as if the weight  is  who they are, when in fact, they are  real women  already.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  do you honestly feel like thin, fit women are not praised and promoted ? because from where i stand, there is pretty much one body type dominating all of american media, and it is not even on the far end of  normal .  you are a thin fit woman.  do you feel like you are not praised and promoted ?  #  okay, and i think it is more important for women and men !  #  these campaigns are supposed to stand as a rebuttal of the traditional advertising aesthetic: rail thin most non plus size models are size 0 or 0, and are medically underweight , and airbrushed/photoshopped to a point which is literally unachievable just look at some of the  models own  before and after photos.  so it is not about  fat is sexy,  but rather about  you do not have to look like barbie to be beautiful.   also, there is a  big  difference about thinking  my overweight body is perfect  and  i am a worthwhile human being despite not looking like a model.   yes, some fat acceptance movements go  way  off the deep end, but this specific campaign is pretty damned benign.  it is not saying  it is okay to be obese  it is saying  it is okay to love yourself even if you are not perfectly fit.   physical perfection, and the quest for it, are not the only worthwhile things in life.  you have no right to dictate other people is priorities.  you think women should  try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong  ? okay, and i think it is more important for women and men ! to pursue  the life of the mind : a full, rich, expansive, fascinating  intellectual  life a life rich in new experiences, in deep and meaningful relationships, in education and expansion of their worldview.  does everyone have time for all of that ? nope.  your priorities are valid  for you .  my priorities are valid  for me .  neither one of us gets to make that call for anyone else.  finally: about a month ago the major news outlets picked up a story about how fat shaming does not work here is the washington post article URL but if you google  fat shaming does not work  you will see links to a bunch more.  so if telling people that they are fat and disgusting does not work.  maybe telling them that they are worthwhile  will  ? you object to the campaign telling people to love their bodies but do not you take better care of the things that you love ? if you think your body is worthless shit, why would you care what you put in it ? and conversely, if you love it wo not you be  more  likely to take care of it ? overweight people are  already  surrounded by endless messages of  you are disgusting  and  you are lazy  and  you are worthless  and  you are weak  and  you are stupid  and so on, and so forth.  tell me: how well is that working, on a societal scale ? how well if that curtailing the obesity epidemic ? we have already tried it your way , and that way  does not work .  if you are really serious about combating the obesity epidemic as opposed to basking in righteous superiority , would not you be open to trying something  new , just on the off chance that it may actually help ? you know the saying: the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  as an aside, and to preclude any sort of ad hominem replies, let me just say that i  was  overweight, but dropped 0 lbs last year and am now in the optimal weight range for my height/age.  i try to be active, but going to the gym is not an option for time/money/attention span reasons.  i do feel better physically and emotionally and would definitely recommend it.  buuuuut i also know that unsolicited advice is counterproductive to an absolutely astonishing degree.   #  if your body looks like you could be a victoria is secret model, there is plenty of positive reinforcement, through advertising, actors, etc.   #  there is a tremendous amount of self loathing by women that are not  fit, healthy, active and strong  or actually, even those who are all of those things but still do not have a sleek body.  if your body looks like you could be a victoria is secret model, there is plenty of positive reinforcement, through advertising, actors, etc.  the point of the campaign is to point out that, while those  ideal  women are beautiful, so, too are  you  the 0 year old mom watching the ad on tv or seeing it in a magazine, who might have given up buying  beauty  products because they wo not help them look like a model .  yes the campaign is purpose is to  gasp  sell more product.  but it is a good thing too.  it is not intended to either ostracize athletes like you, or to discourage exercise.  it is to cut down a little on the self loathing if a busy life does not all for regular workouts which is pretty common for working moms .  what is wrong with that ?  #  0.  you seem to be looking towards a commercial to set the standard of what beauty means to you or to society in general.   #  0.  you seem to be looking towards a commercial to set the standard of what beauty means to you or to society in general.  its a commercial.  at most one opinion of one company.  its to push a product, do not look for anything more.  0.  its a mainstream company who is trying to push an non mainstream idea to sell products .  even if you do not agree or care with the idea, you should support it because it then encourages other companies to push non mainstream ideas, some of which you do support.  0.   what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.   there is a difference between having curves and being obese.  from what i recall with my untrained eye, none of the women in the commercials were unhealthy, so i do not think that what dove is promoting.   #  one can be thin and horribly unfit, and because of how the fat is stored in women is bodies you can be relatively strong without much visible muscular definition.   #  i googled  dove real beauty  and came across this image URL several times.  literally none of those women look overweight.  so i disagree off the bat that this campaign is promoting unhealthy lifestyles, it is promoting having a normal, average body type.  that does not imply that the body type they are showing is the  only  acceptable body type, but the campaign is explicitly about showing a body type that does not get shown in media whereas the body types you are describing would be over represented to a great degree .  also, i am sure you are aware that being thin does not necessarily correlate with being healthy or athletic.  one can be thin and horribly unfit, and because of how the fat is stored in women is bodies you can be relatively strong without much visible muscular definition.  now obviously, the women shown in the image i posted do not look like they run marathons in their free time, but is it necessary to showcase the exceptionally strong and fit, particularly in an ad that celebrates having a mundane and typical body type ? we know that particularly athletic and thin women are not the majority, so why present them as though they are as other adverts do ?
every time i see a commercial for the dove  real beauty  campaign i get rather annoyed an offended.  these commercials portray women who are supposed to represent what  real beauty  is.  the eight or nine women featured are of average height and vary in skin tones, but are all  curvy .  none of them are what people would consider skinny or thin.  i do not think anyone would label them as athletic or incredibly fit, nor would anyone say they are obese.  my issue here is that many people have tried to convince the world that no matter what size you are, you are beautiful and should love your body.  that being said, this commercial shows one type of body, rather curvy and maybe even verging on slightly overweight.  is real beauty not being thin, even though you may happen to have a high metabolism or eat healthy foods ? is real beauty not being athletic or strong or muscular ? are we saying that it is okay to have extra fat on your bodies because  no matter what size you are, you are beautiful  ? i realize that many people ca not help what size they are no matter what they do, and i am not saying that being stick thin or anorexic is okay either, and i do not agree with modeling agencies that promote models being underweight.  what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.  i think women should try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, i do not think it is okay to except being overweight because  real women have curves .  fyi: i am a female, 0 0  and weigh around 0 lbs.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.   #  is real beauty not being thin, even though you may happen to have a high metabolism or eat healthy foods ?  #  how can you glance at a thin woman and know she is thin because of a great metabolism ?  #  you are making a lot of assumptions based on your personal preference for the aesthetic of skinny women.  how can you glance at a thin woman and know she is thin because of a great metabolism ? women with eating disorders, alcohol/drug addiction, cancer, or aids can be thin.  how can you know thin eat healthy foods and not think must eat unhealthy ? some models stay super thin by lots of caffeine and grossly under eating.  some may use tobacco or cocaine to curb appetite.  conversely people of any size could eat healthy foods.  not necessarily.  fashion models are not muscular.  many women are not muscular.  i have nothing against women who want to work out.  but ca not a person be naturally beautiful without having to work out every day ? yes we are.  why do you feel offended when other people find self love and acceptance ? curvy is a shape, not a health diagnosis.  you are lumping everything together.  it seems you are assuming health always equals thin, everyone wants thin, you can tell health at a glance, etc.  it is almost as if it deeply bothers you that people are happy being not thin.  or they want to date not thin people and do not feel like theyre  settling  ? why do you get upset when others have a different standard of beauty than you ? i think these women should be praised and promoted.  you think everyone should life their life the way you do.  and you keep mixing up the word thin for  healthy, active, and strong .  those words can be mutually exclusive  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, this contradicts the rest of what you said.  all women are real women so i agree that quote is not great.  real woman come in all sizes and shapes.  it is ok to accept being whatever size you are.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.  you are very young.  you need to understand that not everyone is young, well off enough to go to college, completely healthy, have the time to run, have an athletic body, and/or were raised to value athletics.  you ca not fault others for finding self love if they do not have the same beliefs, body, and resources as you.  i propose all people should be treated with respect.  i ca not be offended if messages tell others to love themselves.  if it is an issue of health and not looks, that is a personal matter between a woman and her doctor.  women of any size can be active and can eat healthy food.  their food choices are not my business.  i am not the body police.   #  also, there is a  big  difference about thinking  my overweight body is perfect  and  i am a worthwhile human being despite not looking like a model.    #  these campaigns are supposed to stand as a rebuttal of the traditional advertising aesthetic: rail thin most non plus size models are size 0 or 0, and are medically underweight , and airbrushed/photoshopped to a point which is literally unachievable just look at some of the  models own  before and after photos.  so it is not about  fat is sexy,  but rather about  you do not have to look like barbie to be beautiful.   also, there is a  big  difference about thinking  my overweight body is perfect  and  i am a worthwhile human being despite not looking like a model.   yes, some fat acceptance movements go  way  off the deep end, but this specific campaign is pretty damned benign.  it is not saying  it is okay to be obese  it is saying  it is okay to love yourself even if you are not perfectly fit.   physical perfection, and the quest for it, are not the only worthwhile things in life.  you have no right to dictate other people is priorities.  you think women should  try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong  ? okay, and i think it is more important for women and men ! to pursue  the life of the mind : a full, rich, expansive, fascinating  intellectual  life a life rich in new experiences, in deep and meaningful relationships, in education and expansion of their worldview.  does everyone have time for all of that ? nope.  your priorities are valid  for you .  my priorities are valid  for me .  neither one of us gets to make that call for anyone else.  finally: about a month ago the major news outlets picked up a story about how fat shaming does not work here is the washington post article URL but if you google  fat shaming does not work  you will see links to a bunch more.  so if telling people that they are fat and disgusting does not work.  maybe telling them that they are worthwhile  will  ? you object to the campaign telling people to love their bodies but do not you take better care of the things that you love ? if you think your body is worthless shit, why would you care what you put in it ? and conversely, if you love it wo not you be  more  likely to take care of it ? overweight people are  already  surrounded by endless messages of  you are disgusting  and  you are lazy  and  you are worthless  and  you are weak  and  you are stupid  and so on, and so forth.  tell me: how well is that working, on a societal scale ? how well if that curtailing the obesity epidemic ? we have already tried it your way , and that way  does not work .  if you are really serious about combating the obesity epidemic as opposed to basking in righteous superiority , would not you be open to trying something  new , just on the off chance that it may actually help ? you know the saying: the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  as an aside, and to preclude any sort of ad hominem replies, let me just say that i  was  overweight, but dropped 0 lbs last year and am now in the optimal weight range for my height/age.  i try to be active, but going to the gym is not an option for time/money/attention span reasons.  i do feel better physically and emotionally and would definitely recommend it.  buuuuut i also know that unsolicited advice is counterproductive to an absolutely astonishing degree.   #  yes the campaign is purpose is to  gasp  sell more product.   #  there is a tremendous amount of self loathing by women that are not  fit, healthy, active and strong  or actually, even those who are all of those things but still do not have a sleek body.  if your body looks like you could be a victoria is secret model, there is plenty of positive reinforcement, through advertising, actors, etc.  the point of the campaign is to point out that, while those  ideal  women are beautiful, so, too are  you  the 0 year old mom watching the ad on tv or seeing it in a magazine, who might have given up buying  beauty  products because they wo not help them look like a model .  yes the campaign is purpose is to  gasp  sell more product.  but it is a good thing too.  it is not intended to either ostracize athletes like you, or to discourage exercise.  it is to cut down a little on the self loathing if a busy life does not all for regular workouts which is pretty common for working moms .  what is wrong with that ?  #  no emphasis on any particular word, not on  real  or on  woman.    #  loving your body does not mean settling.  loving your body just means not hating it.  and not hating your body is a huge step toward improving it, because why would you want to improve something you hate ? i think you are missing the whole point of the campaign.  the campaign is not saying  only  real women have curves.  the campaign is saying real women have curves.  no emphasis on any particular word, not on  real  or on  woman.   the campaign is saying  if a woman has curves she is still a real woman.  there are many curvy women and they are also real women and they are beautiful.   that does not mean women like you are not  also  real women.  this is to counteract the dialogue that many overweight women have to deal with that they are not  real women  until they lose the weight.  that they ca not love themselves until they lose the weight that they are life does not start until they lose the weight.  as if the weight  is  who they are, when in fact, they are  real women  already.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  do you honestly feel like thin, fit women are not praised and promoted ? because from where i stand, there is pretty much one body type dominating all of american media, and it is not even on the far end of  normal .  you are a thin fit woman.  do you feel like you are not praised and promoted ?  #   what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.    #  0.  you seem to be looking towards a commercial to set the standard of what beauty means to you or to society in general.  its a commercial.  at most one opinion of one company.  its to push a product, do not look for anything more.  0.  its a mainstream company who is trying to push an non mainstream idea to sell products .  even if you do not agree or care with the idea, you should support it because it then encourages other companies to push non mainstream ideas, some of which you do support.  0.   what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.   there is a difference between having curves and being obese.  from what i recall with my untrained eye, none of the women in the commercials were unhealthy, so i do not think that what dove is promoting.
every time i see a commercial for the dove  real beauty  campaign i get rather annoyed an offended.  these commercials portray women who are supposed to represent what  real beauty  is.  the eight or nine women featured are of average height and vary in skin tones, but are all  curvy .  none of them are what people would consider skinny or thin.  i do not think anyone would label them as athletic or incredibly fit, nor would anyone say they are obese.  my issue here is that many people have tried to convince the world that no matter what size you are, you are beautiful and should love your body.  that being said, this commercial shows one type of body, rather curvy and maybe even verging on slightly overweight.  is real beauty not being thin, even though you may happen to have a high metabolism or eat healthy foods ? is real beauty not being athletic or strong or muscular ? are we saying that it is okay to have extra fat on your bodies because  no matter what size you are, you are beautiful  ? i realize that many people ca not help what size they are no matter what they do, and i am not saying that being stick thin or anorexic is okay either, and i do not agree with modeling agencies that promote models being underweight.  what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.  i think women should try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, i do not think it is okay to except being overweight because  real women have curves .  fyi: i am a female, 0 0  and weigh around 0 lbs.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.   #  what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.   #  curvy is a shape, not a health diagnosis.   #  you are making a lot of assumptions based on your personal preference for the aesthetic of skinny women.  how can you glance at a thin woman and know she is thin because of a great metabolism ? women with eating disorders, alcohol/drug addiction, cancer, or aids can be thin.  how can you know thin eat healthy foods and not think must eat unhealthy ? some models stay super thin by lots of caffeine and grossly under eating.  some may use tobacco or cocaine to curb appetite.  conversely people of any size could eat healthy foods.  not necessarily.  fashion models are not muscular.  many women are not muscular.  i have nothing against women who want to work out.  but ca not a person be naturally beautiful without having to work out every day ? yes we are.  why do you feel offended when other people find self love and acceptance ? curvy is a shape, not a health diagnosis.  you are lumping everything together.  it seems you are assuming health always equals thin, everyone wants thin, you can tell health at a glance, etc.  it is almost as if it deeply bothers you that people are happy being not thin.  or they want to date not thin people and do not feel like theyre  settling  ? why do you get upset when others have a different standard of beauty than you ? i think these women should be praised and promoted.  you think everyone should life their life the way you do.  and you keep mixing up the word thin for  healthy, active, and strong .  those words can be mutually exclusive  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, this contradicts the rest of what you said.  all women are real women so i agree that quote is not great.  real woman come in all sizes and shapes.  it is ok to accept being whatever size you are.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.  you are very young.  you need to understand that not everyone is young, well off enough to go to college, completely healthy, have the time to run, have an athletic body, and/or were raised to value athletics.  you ca not fault others for finding self love if they do not have the same beliefs, body, and resources as you.  i propose all people should be treated with respect.  i ca not be offended if messages tell others to love themselves.  if it is an issue of health and not looks, that is a personal matter between a woman and her doctor.  women of any size can be active and can eat healthy food.  their food choices are not my business.  i am not the body police.   #  you object to the campaign telling people to love their bodies but do not you take better care of the things that you love ?  #  these campaigns are supposed to stand as a rebuttal of the traditional advertising aesthetic: rail thin most non plus size models are size 0 or 0, and are medically underweight , and airbrushed/photoshopped to a point which is literally unachievable just look at some of the  models own  before and after photos.  so it is not about  fat is sexy,  but rather about  you do not have to look like barbie to be beautiful.   also, there is a  big  difference about thinking  my overweight body is perfect  and  i am a worthwhile human being despite not looking like a model.   yes, some fat acceptance movements go  way  off the deep end, but this specific campaign is pretty damned benign.  it is not saying  it is okay to be obese  it is saying  it is okay to love yourself even if you are not perfectly fit.   physical perfection, and the quest for it, are not the only worthwhile things in life.  you have no right to dictate other people is priorities.  you think women should  try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong  ? okay, and i think it is more important for women and men ! to pursue  the life of the mind : a full, rich, expansive, fascinating  intellectual  life a life rich in new experiences, in deep and meaningful relationships, in education and expansion of their worldview.  does everyone have time for all of that ? nope.  your priorities are valid  for you .  my priorities are valid  for me .  neither one of us gets to make that call for anyone else.  finally: about a month ago the major news outlets picked up a story about how fat shaming does not work here is the washington post article URL but if you google  fat shaming does not work  you will see links to a bunch more.  so if telling people that they are fat and disgusting does not work.  maybe telling them that they are worthwhile  will  ? you object to the campaign telling people to love their bodies but do not you take better care of the things that you love ? if you think your body is worthless shit, why would you care what you put in it ? and conversely, if you love it wo not you be  more  likely to take care of it ? overweight people are  already  surrounded by endless messages of  you are disgusting  and  you are lazy  and  you are worthless  and  you are weak  and  you are stupid  and so on, and so forth.  tell me: how well is that working, on a societal scale ? how well if that curtailing the obesity epidemic ? we have already tried it your way , and that way  does not work .  if you are really serious about combating the obesity epidemic as opposed to basking in righteous superiority , would not you be open to trying something  new , just on the off chance that it may actually help ? you know the saying: the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  as an aside, and to preclude any sort of ad hominem replies, let me just say that i  was  overweight, but dropped 0 lbs last year and am now in the optimal weight range for my height/age.  i try to be active, but going to the gym is not an option for time/money/attention span reasons.  i do feel better physically and emotionally and would definitely recommend it.  buuuuut i also know that unsolicited advice is counterproductive to an absolutely astonishing degree.   #  it is to cut down a little on the self loathing if a busy life does not all for regular workouts which is pretty common for working moms .   #  there is a tremendous amount of self loathing by women that are not  fit, healthy, active and strong  or actually, even those who are all of those things but still do not have a sleek body.  if your body looks like you could be a victoria is secret model, there is plenty of positive reinforcement, through advertising, actors, etc.  the point of the campaign is to point out that, while those  ideal  women are beautiful, so, too are  you  the 0 year old mom watching the ad on tv or seeing it in a magazine, who might have given up buying  beauty  products because they wo not help them look like a model .  yes the campaign is purpose is to  gasp  sell more product.  but it is a good thing too.  it is not intended to either ostracize athletes like you, or to discourage exercise.  it is to cut down a little on the self loathing if a busy life does not all for regular workouts which is pretty common for working moms .  what is wrong with that ?  #  that they ca not love themselves until they lose the weight that they are life does not start until they lose the weight.   #  loving your body does not mean settling.  loving your body just means not hating it.  and not hating your body is a huge step toward improving it, because why would you want to improve something you hate ? i think you are missing the whole point of the campaign.  the campaign is not saying  only  real women have curves.  the campaign is saying real women have curves.  no emphasis on any particular word, not on  real  or on  woman.   the campaign is saying  if a woman has curves she is still a real woman.  there are many curvy women and they are also real women and they are beautiful.   that does not mean women like you are not  also  real women.  this is to counteract the dialogue that many overweight women have to deal with that they are not  real women  until they lose the weight.  that they ca not love themselves until they lose the weight that they are life does not start until they lose the weight.  as if the weight  is  who they are, when in fact, they are  real women  already.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  do you honestly feel like thin, fit women are not praised and promoted ? because from where i stand, there is pretty much one body type dominating all of american media, and it is not even on the far end of  normal .  you are a thin fit woman.  do you feel like you are not praised and promoted ?  #  even if you do not agree or care with the idea, you should support it because it then encourages other companies to push non mainstream ideas, some of which you do support.   #  0.  you seem to be looking towards a commercial to set the standard of what beauty means to you or to society in general.  its a commercial.  at most one opinion of one company.  its to push a product, do not look for anything more.  0.  its a mainstream company who is trying to push an non mainstream idea to sell products .  even if you do not agree or care with the idea, you should support it because it then encourages other companies to push non mainstream ideas, some of which you do support.  0.   what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.   there is a difference between having curves and being obese.  from what i recall with my untrained eye, none of the women in the commercials were unhealthy, so i do not think that what dove is promoting.
every time i see a commercial for the dove  real beauty  campaign i get rather annoyed an offended.  these commercials portray women who are supposed to represent what  real beauty  is.  the eight or nine women featured are of average height and vary in skin tones, but are all  curvy .  none of them are what people would consider skinny or thin.  i do not think anyone would label them as athletic or incredibly fit, nor would anyone say they are obese.  my issue here is that many people have tried to convince the world that no matter what size you are, you are beautiful and should love your body.  that being said, this commercial shows one type of body, rather curvy and maybe even verging on slightly overweight.  is real beauty not being thin, even though you may happen to have a high metabolism or eat healthy foods ? is real beauty not being athletic or strong or muscular ? are we saying that it is okay to have extra fat on your bodies because  no matter what size you are, you are beautiful  ? i realize that many people ca not help what size they are no matter what they do, and i am not saying that being stick thin or anorexic is okay either, and i do not agree with modeling agencies that promote models being underweight.  what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.  i think women should try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, i do not think it is okay to except being overweight because  real women have curves .  fyi: i am a female, 0 0  and weigh around 0 lbs.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.   #  i think women should try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong.   #  i think these women should be praised and promoted.   #  you are making a lot of assumptions based on your personal preference for the aesthetic of skinny women.  how can you glance at a thin woman and know she is thin because of a great metabolism ? women with eating disorders, alcohol/drug addiction, cancer, or aids can be thin.  how can you know thin eat healthy foods and not think must eat unhealthy ? some models stay super thin by lots of caffeine and grossly under eating.  some may use tobacco or cocaine to curb appetite.  conversely people of any size could eat healthy foods.  not necessarily.  fashion models are not muscular.  many women are not muscular.  i have nothing against women who want to work out.  but ca not a person be naturally beautiful without having to work out every day ? yes we are.  why do you feel offended when other people find self love and acceptance ? curvy is a shape, not a health diagnosis.  you are lumping everything together.  it seems you are assuming health always equals thin, everyone wants thin, you can tell health at a glance, etc.  it is almost as if it deeply bothers you that people are happy being not thin.  or they want to date not thin people and do not feel like theyre  settling  ? why do you get upset when others have a different standard of beauty than you ? i think these women should be praised and promoted.  you think everyone should life their life the way you do.  and you keep mixing up the word thin for  healthy, active, and strong .  those words can be mutually exclusive  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, this contradicts the rest of what you said.  all women are real women so i agree that quote is not great.  real woman come in all sizes and shapes.  it is ok to accept being whatever size you are.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.  you are very young.  you need to understand that not everyone is young, well off enough to go to college, completely healthy, have the time to run, have an athletic body, and/or were raised to value athletics.  you ca not fault others for finding self love if they do not have the same beliefs, body, and resources as you.  i propose all people should be treated with respect.  i ca not be offended if messages tell others to love themselves.  if it is an issue of health and not looks, that is a personal matter between a woman and her doctor.  women of any size can be active and can eat healthy food.  their food choices are not my business.  i am not the body police.   #  how well if that curtailing the obesity epidemic ?  #  these campaigns are supposed to stand as a rebuttal of the traditional advertising aesthetic: rail thin most non plus size models are size 0 or 0, and are medically underweight , and airbrushed/photoshopped to a point which is literally unachievable just look at some of the  models own  before and after photos.  so it is not about  fat is sexy,  but rather about  you do not have to look like barbie to be beautiful.   also, there is a  big  difference about thinking  my overweight body is perfect  and  i am a worthwhile human being despite not looking like a model.   yes, some fat acceptance movements go  way  off the deep end, but this specific campaign is pretty damned benign.  it is not saying  it is okay to be obese  it is saying  it is okay to love yourself even if you are not perfectly fit.   physical perfection, and the quest for it, are not the only worthwhile things in life.  you have no right to dictate other people is priorities.  you think women should  try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong  ? okay, and i think it is more important for women and men ! to pursue  the life of the mind : a full, rich, expansive, fascinating  intellectual  life a life rich in new experiences, in deep and meaningful relationships, in education and expansion of their worldview.  does everyone have time for all of that ? nope.  your priorities are valid  for you .  my priorities are valid  for me .  neither one of us gets to make that call for anyone else.  finally: about a month ago the major news outlets picked up a story about how fat shaming does not work here is the washington post article URL but if you google  fat shaming does not work  you will see links to a bunch more.  so if telling people that they are fat and disgusting does not work.  maybe telling them that they are worthwhile  will  ? you object to the campaign telling people to love their bodies but do not you take better care of the things that you love ? if you think your body is worthless shit, why would you care what you put in it ? and conversely, if you love it wo not you be  more  likely to take care of it ? overweight people are  already  surrounded by endless messages of  you are disgusting  and  you are lazy  and  you are worthless  and  you are weak  and  you are stupid  and so on, and so forth.  tell me: how well is that working, on a societal scale ? how well if that curtailing the obesity epidemic ? we have already tried it your way , and that way  does not work .  if you are really serious about combating the obesity epidemic as opposed to basking in righteous superiority , would not you be open to trying something  new , just on the off chance that it may actually help ? you know the saying: the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  as an aside, and to preclude any sort of ad hominem replies, let me just say that i  was  overweight, but dropped 0 lbs last year and am now in the optimal weight range for my height/age.  i try to be active, but going to the gym is not an option for time/money/attention span reasons.  i do feel better physically and emotionally and would definitely recommend it.  buuuuut i also know that unsolicited advice is counterproductive to an absolutely astonishing degree.   #  there is a tremendous amount of self loathing by women that are not  fit, healthy, active and strong  or actually, even those who are all of those things but still do not have a sleek body.   #  there is a tremendous amount of self loathing by women that are not  fit, healthy, active and strong  or actually, even those who are all of those things but still do not have a sleek body.  if your body looks like you could be a victoria is secret model, there is plenty of positive reinforcement, through advertising, actors, etc.  the point of the campaign is to point out that, while those  ideal  women are beautiful, so, too are  you  the 0 year old mom watching the ad on tv or seeing it in a magazine, who might have given up buying  beauty  products because they wo not help them look like a model .  yes the campaign is purpose is to  gasp  sell more product.  but it is a good thing too.  it is not intended to either ostracize athletes like you, or to discourage exercise.  it is to cut down a little on the self loathing if a busy life does not all for regular workouts which is pretty common for working moms .  what is wrong with that ?  #  i think these women should be praised and promoted.   #  loving your body does not mean settling.  loving your body just means not hating it.  and not hating your body is a huge step toward improving it, because why would you want to improve something you hate ? i think you are missing the whole point of the campaign.  the campaign is not saying  only  real women have curves.  the campaign is saying real women have curves.  no emphasis on any particular word, not on  real  or on  woman.   the campaign is saying  if a woman has curves she is still a real woman.  there are many curvy women and they are also real women and they are beautiful.   that does not mean women like you are not  also  real women.  this is to counteract the dialogue that many overweight women have to deal with that they are not  real women  until they lose the weight.  that they ca not love themselves until they lose the weight that they are life does not start until they lose the weight.  as if the weight  is  who they are, when in fact, they are  real women  already.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  do you honestly feel like thin, fit women are not praised and promoted ? because from where i stand, there is pretty much one body type dominating all of american media, and it is not even on the far end of  normal .  you are a thin fit woman.  do you feel like you are not praised and promoted ?  #  from what i recall with my untrained eye, none of the women in the commercials were unhealthy, so i do not think that what dove is promoting.   #  0.  you seem to be looking towards a commercial to set the standard of what beauty means to you or to society in general.  its a commercial.  at most one opinion of one company.  its to push a product, do not look for anything more.  0.  its a mainstream company who is trying to push an non mainstream idea to sell products .  even if you do not agree or care with the idea, you should support it because it then encourages other companies to push non mainstream ideas, some of which you do support.  0.   what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.   there is a difference between having curves and being obese.  from what i recall with my untrained eye, none of the women in the commercials were unhealthy, so i do not think that what dove is promoting.
every time i see a commercial for the dove  real beauty  campaign i get rather annoyed an offended.  these commercials portray women who are supposed to represent what  real beauty  is.  the eight or nine women featured are of average height and vary in skin tones, but are all  curvy .  none of them are what people would consider skinny or thin.  i do not think anyone would label them as athletic or incredibly fit, nor would anyone say they are obese.  my issue here is that many people have tried to convince the world that no matter what size you are, you are beautiful and should love your body.  that being said, this commercial shows one type of body, rather curvy and maybe even verging on slightly overweight.  is real beauty not being thin, even though you may happen to have a high metabolism or eat healthy foods ? is real beauty not being athletic or strong or muscular ? are we saying that it is okay to have extra fat on your bodies because  no matter what size you are, you are beautiful  ? i realize that many people ca not help what size they are no matter what they do, and i am not saying that being stick thin or anorexic is okay either, and i do not agree with modeling agencies that promote models being underweight.  what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.  i think women should try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, i do not think it is okay to except being overweight because  real women have curves .  fyi: i am a female, 0 0  and weigh around 0 lbs.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.   #  i do not think it is okay to except being overweight because  real women have curves .   #  all women are real women so i agree that quote is not great.   #  you are making a lot of assumptions based on your personal preference for the aesthetic of skinny women.  how can you glance at a thin woman and know she is thin because of a great metabolism ? women with eating disorders, alcohol/drug addiction, cancer, or aids can be thin.  how can you know thin eat healthy foods and not think must eat unhealthy ? some models stay super thin by lots of caffeine and grossly under eating.  some may use tobacco or cocaine to curb appetite.  conversely people of any size could eat healthy foods.  not necessarily.  fashion models are not muscular.  many women are not muscular.  i have nothing against women who want to work out.  but ca not a person be naturally beautiful without having to work out every day ? yes we are.  why do you feel offended when other people find self love and acceptance ? curvy is a shape, not a health diagnosis.  you are lumping everything together.  it seems you are assuming health always equals thin, everyone wants thin, you can tell health at a glance, etc.  it is almost as if it deeply bothers you that people are happy being not thin.  or they want to date not thin people and do not feel like theyre  settling  ? why do you get upset when others have a different standard of beauty than you ? i think these women should be praised and promoted.  you think everyone should life their life the way you do.  and you keep mixing up the word thin for  healthy, active, and strong .  those words can be mutually exclusive  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, this contradicts the rest of what you said.  all women are real women so i agree that quote is not great.  real woman come in all sizes and shapes.  it is ok to accept being whatever size you are.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.  you are very young.  you need to understand that not everyone is young, well off enough to go to college, completely healthy, have the time to run, have an athletic body, and/or were raised to value athletics.  you ca not fault others for finding self love if they do not have the same beliefs, body, and resources as you.  i propose all people should be treated with respect.  i ca not be offended if messages tell others to love themselves.  if it is an issue of health and not looks, that is a personal matter between a woman and her doctor.  women of any size can be active and can eat healthy food.  their food choices are not my business.  i am not the body police.   #  does everyone have time for all of that ?  #  these campaigns are supposed to stand as a rebuttal of the traditional advertising aesthetic: rail thin most non plus size models are size 0 or 0, and are medically underweight , and airbrushed/photoshopped to a point which is literally unachievable just look at some of the  models own  before and after photos.  so it is not about  fat is sexy,  but rather about  you do not have to look like barbie to be beautiful.   also, there is a  big  difference about thinking  my overweight body is perfect  and  i am a worthwhile human being despite not looking like a model.   yes, some fat acceptance movements go  way  off the deep end, but this specific campaign is pretty damned benign.  it is not saying  it is okay to be obese  it is saying  it is okay to love yourself even if you are not perfectly fit.   physical perfection, and the quest for it, are not the only worthwhile things in life.  you have no right to dictate other people is priorities.  you think women should  try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong  ? okay, and i think it is more important for women and men ! to pursue  the life of the mind : a full, rich, expansive, fascinating  intellectual  life a life rich in new experiences, in deep and meaningful relationships, in education and expansion of their worldview.  does everyone have time for all of that ? nope.  your priorities are valid  for you .  my priorities are valid  for me .  neither one of us gets to make that call for anyone else.  finally: about a month ago the major news outlets picked up a story about how fat shaming does not work here is the washington post article URL but if you google  fat shaming does not work  you will see links to a bunch more.  so if telling people that they are fat and disgusting does not work.  maybe telling them that they are worthwhile  will  ? you object to the campaign telling people to love their bodies but do not you take better care of the things that you love ? if you think your body is worthless shit, why would you care what you put in it ? and conversely, if you love it wo not you be  more  likely to take care of it ? overweight people are  already  surrounded by endless messages of  you are disgusting  and  you are lazy  and  you are worthless  and  you are weak  and  you are stupid  and so on, and so forth.  tell me: how well is that working, on a societal scale ? how well if that curtailing the obesity epidemic ? we have already tried it your way , and that way  does not work .  if you are really serious about combating the obesity epidemic as opposed to basking in righteous superiority , would not you be open to trying something  new , just on the off chance that it may actually help ? you know the saying: the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  as an aside, and to preclude any sort of ad hominem replies, let me just say that i  was  overweight, but dropped 0 lbs last year and am now in the optimal weight range for my height/age.  i try to be active, but going to the gym is not an option for time/money/attention span reasons.  i do feel better physically and emotionally and would definitely recommend it.  buuuuut i also know that unsolicited advice is counterproductive to an absolutely astonishing degree.   #  if your body looks like you could be a victoria is secret model, there is plenty of positive reinforcement, through advertising, actors, etc.   #  there is a tremendous amount of self loathing by women that are not  fit, healthy, active and strong  or actually, even those who are all of those things but still do not have a sleek body.  if your body looks like you could be a victoria is secret model, there is plenty of positive reinforcement, through advertising, actors, etc.  the point of the campaign is to point out that, while those  ideal  women are beautiful, so, too are  you  the 0 year old mom watching the ad on tv or seeing it in a magazine, who might have given up buying  beauty  products because they wo not help them look like a model .  yes the campaign is purpose is to  gasp  sell more product.  but it is a good thing too.  it is not intended to either ostracize athletes like you, or to discourage exercise.  it is to cut down a little on the self loathing if a busy life does not all for regular workouts which is pretty common for working moms .  what is wrong with that ?  #  i think these women should be praised and promoted.   #  loving your body does not mean settling.  loving your body just means not hating it.  and not hating your body is a huge step toward improving it, because why would you want to improve something you hate ? i think you are missing the whole point of the campaign.  the campaign is not saying  only  real women have curves.  the campaign is saying real women have curves.  no emphasis on any particular word, not on  real  or on  woman.   the campaign is saying  if a woman has curves she is still a real woman.  there are many curvy women and they are also real women and they are beautiful.   that does not mean women like you are not  also  real women.  this is to counteract the dialogue that many overweight women have to deal with that they are not  real women  until they lose the weight.  that they ca not love themselves until they lose the weight that they are life does not start until they lose the weight.  as if the weight  is  who they are, when in fact, they are  real women  already.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  do you honestly feel like thin, fit women are not praised and promoted ? because from where i stand, there is pretty much one body type dominating all of american media, and it is not even on the far end of  normal .  you are a thin fit woman.  do you feel like you are not praised and promoted ?  #  0.  you seem to be looking towards a commercial to set the standard of what beauty means to you or to society in general.   #  0.  you seem to be looking towards a commercial to set the standard of what beauty means to you or to society in general.  its a commercial.  at most one opinion of one company.  its to push a product, do not look for anything more.  0.  its a mainstream company who is trying to push an non mainstream idea to sell products .  even if you do not agree or care with the idea, you should support it because it then encourages other companies to push non mainstream ideas, some of which you do support.  0.   what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.   there is a difference between having curves and being obese.  from what i recall with my untrained eye, none of the women in the commercials were unhealthy, so i do not think that what dove is promoting.
every time i see a commercial for the dove  real beauty  campaign i get rather annoyed an offended.  these commercials portray women who are supposed to represent what  real beauty  is.  the eight or nine women featured are of average height and vary in skin tones, but are all  curvy .  none of them are what people would consider skinny or thin.  i do not think anyone would label them as athletic or incredibly fit, nor would anyone say they are obese.  my issue here is that many people have tried to convince the world that no matter what size you are, you are beautiful and should love your body.  that being said, this commercial shows one type of body, rather curvy and maybe even verging on slightly overweight.  is real beauty not being thin, even though you may happen to have a high metabolism or eat healthy foods ? is real beauty not being athletic or strong or muscular ? are we saying that it is okay to have extra fat on your bodies because  no matter what size you are, you are beautiful  ? i realize that many people ca not help what size they are no matter what they do, and i am not saying that being stick thin or anorexic is okay either, and i do not agree with modeling agencies that promote models being underweight.  what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.  i think women should try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, i do not think it is okay to except being overweight because  real women have curves .  fyi: i am a female, 0 0  and weigh around 0 lbs.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.   #  fyi: i am a female, 0 0  and weigh around 0 lbs.   #  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.   #  you are making a lot of assumptions based on your personal preference for the aesthetic of skinny women.  how can you glance at a thin woman and know she is thin because of a great metabolism ? women with eating disorders, alcohol/drug addiction, cancer, or aids can be thin.  how can you know thin eat healthy foods and not think must eat unhealthy ? some models stay super thin by lots of caffeine and grossly under eating.  some may use tobacco or cocaine to curb appetite.  conversely people of any size could eat healthy foods.  not necessarily.  fashion models are not muscular.  many women are not muscular.  i have nothing against women who want to work out.  but ca not a person be naturally beautiful without having to work out every day ? yes we are.  why do you feel offended when other people find self love and acceptance ? curvy is a shape, not a health diagnosis.  you are lumping everything together.  it seems you are assuming health always equals thin, everyone wants thin, you can tell health at a glance, etc.  it is almost as if it deeply bothers you that people are happy being not thin.  or they want to date not thin people and do not feel like theyre  settling  ? why do you get upset when others have a different standard of beauty than you ? i think these women should be praised and promoted.  you think everyone should life their life the way you do.  and you keep mixing up the word thin for  healthy, active, and strong .  those words can be mutually exclusive  although everyone should be confident in their own skin and should never dislike who they are, this contradicts the rest of what you said.  all women are real women so i agree that quote is not great.  real woman come in all sizes and shapes.  it is ok to accept being whatever size you are.  i run cross country in college so i am fairly active.  you are very young.  you need to understand that not everyone is young, well off enough to go to college, completely healthy, have the time to run, have an athletic body, and/or were raised to value athletics.  you ca not fault others for finding self love if they do not have the same beliefs, body, and resources as you.  i propose all people should be treated with respect.  i ca not be offended if messages tell others to love themselves.  if it is an issue of health and not looks, that is a personal matter between a woman and her doctor.  women of any size can be active and can eat healthy food.  their food choices are not my business.  i am not the body police.   #  also, there is a  big  difference about thinking  my overweight body is perfect  and  i am a worthwhile human being despite not looking like a model.    #  these campaigns are supposed to stand as a rebuttal of the traditional advertising aesthetic: rail thin most non plus size models are size 0 or 0, and are medically underweight , and airbrushed/photoshopped to a point which is literally unachievable just look at some of the  models own  before and after photos.  so it is not about  fat is sexy,  but rather about  you do not have to look like barbie to be beautiful.   also, there is a  big  difference about thinking  my overweight body is perfect  and  i am a worthwhile human being despite not looking like a model.   yes, some fat acceptance movements go  way  off the deep end, but this specific campaign is pretty damned benign.  it is not saying  it is okay to be obese  it is saying  it is okay to love yourself even if you are not perfectly fit.   physical perfection, and the quest for it, are not the only worthwhile things in life.  you have no right to dictate other people is priorities.  you think women should  try and be their best self, fit, healthy, active, and strong  ? okay, and i think it is more important for women and men ! to pursue  the life of the mind : a full, rich, expansive, fascinating  intellectual  life a life rich in new experiences, in deep and meaningful relationships, in education and expansion of their worldview.  does everyone have time for all of that ? nope.  your priorities are valid  for you .  my priorities are valid  for me .  neither one of us gets to make that call for anyone else.  finally: about a month ago the major news outlets picked up a story about how fat shaming does not work here is the washington post article URL but if you google  fat shaming does not work  you will see links to a bunch more.  so if telling people that they are fat and disgusting does not work.  maybe telling them that they are worthwhile  will  ? you object to the campaign telling people to love their bodies but do not you take better care of the things that you love ? if you think your body is worthless shit, why would you care what you put in it ? and conversely, if you love it wo not you be  more  likely to take care of it ? overweight people are  already  surrounded by endless messages of  you are disgusting  and  you are lazy  and  you are worthless  and  you are weak  and  you are stupid  and so on, and so forth.  tell me: how well is that working, on a societal scale ? how well if that curtailing the obesity epidemic ? we have already tried it your way , and that way  does not work .  if you are really serious about combating the obesity epidemic as opposed to basking in righteous superiority , would not you be open to trying something  new , just on the off chance that it may actually help ? you know the saying: the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  as an aside, and to preclude any sort of ad hominem replies, let me just say that i  was  overweight, but dropped 0 lbs last year and am now in the optimal weight range for my height/age.  i try to be active, but going to the gym is not an option for time/money/attention span reasons.  i do feel better physically and emotionally and would definitely recommend it.  buuuuut i also know that unsolicited advice is counterproductive to an absolutely astonishing degree.   #  it is to cut down a little on the self loathing if a busy life does not all for regular workouts which is pretty common for working moms .   #  there is a tremendous amount of self loathing by women that are not  fit, healthy, active and strong  or actually, even those who are all of those things but still do not have a sleek body.  if your body looks like you could be a victoria is secret model, there is plenty of positive reinforcement, through advertising, actors, etc.  the point of the campaign is to point out that, while those  ideal  women are beautiful, so, too are  you  the 0 year old mom watching the ad on tv or seeing it in a magazine, who might have given up buying  beauty  products because they wo not help them look like a model .  yes the campaign is purpose is to  gasp  sell more product.  but it is a good thing too.  it is not intended to either ostracize athletes like you, or to discourage exercise.  it is to cut down a little on the self loathing if a busy life does not all for regular workouts which is pretty common for working moms .  what is wrong with that ?  #  this is to counteract the dialogue that many overweight women have to deal with that they are not  real women  until they lose the weight.   #  loving your body does not mean settling.  loving your body just means not hating it.  and not hating your body is a huge step toward improving it, because why would you want to improve something you hate ? i think you are missing the whole point of the campaign.  the campaign is not saying  only  real women have curves.  the campaign is saying real women have curves.  no emphasis on any particular word, not on  real  or on  woman.   the campaign is saying  if a woman has curves she is still a real woman.  there are many curvy women and they are also real women and they are beautiful.   that does not mean women like you are not  also  real women.  this is to counteract the dialogue that many overweight women have to deal with that they are not  real women  until they lose the weight.  that they ca not love themselves until they lose the weight that they are life does not start until they lose the weight.  as if the weight  is  who they are, when in fact, they are  real women  already.  i think these women should be praised and promoted.  do you honestly feel like thin, fit women are not praised and promoted ? because from where i stand, there is pretty much one body type dominating all of american media, and it is not even on the far end of  normal .  you are a thin fit woman.  do you feel like you are not praised and promoted ?  #  from what i recall with my untrained eye, none of the women in the commercials were unhealthy, so i do not think that what dove is promoting.   #  0.  you seem to be looking towards a commercial to set the standard of what beauty means to you or to society in general.  its a commercial.  at most one opinion of one company.  its to push a product, do not look for anything more.  0.  its a mainstream company who is trying to push an non mainstream idea to sell products .  even if you do not agree or care with the idea, you should support it because it then encourages other companies to push non mainstream ideas, some of which you do support.  0.   what i do not support is companies saying that real beauty is being round and curvy when in actuality, that may not be very healthy and should not be settled for.   there is a difference between having curves and being obese.  from what i recall with my untrained eye, none of the women in the commercials were unhealthy, so i do not think that what dove is promoting.
as technology improves, video cameras get smaller and more concealable, computer memory gets cheaper, and technology like google glass becomes more widely available for lower and lower prices, it will probably make sense to just record your entire life at all times.  i think it would be super impractical to try to prevent this from happening, and pointless to boot.  to me, this means that requiring two party consent for recording is ridiculous.  if two party consent is required for recording, one of the parties can still recite the conversation from human memory, without informing the second party.  the only difference if two party consent is not required is that people can recite conversations from human memory or computer memory.  since computer memory is strictly better than human memory higher fidelity, less likely to degrade, easier to disseminate, etc.  this seems like a better situation in every way.  while i think that the biggest practical impact of this principle is on recording law, it also has other impacts.  for example, if alice and bob have a conversation, and alice is legally allowed to tell chris the content of the conversation, she should be allowed to tell chris by either reciting the conversation from human memory, or by playing a recording of the conversation from computer memory.  there is no difference in principle, but the recording from computer memory is strictly better in terms quality and accuracy, so allowing her to recite the conversation via computer memory can only be an improvement.   #  if two party consent is required for recording, one of the parties can still recite the conversation from human memory, without informing the second party.   #  the only difference if two party consent is not required is that people can recite conversations from human memory or computer memory.   # the only difference if two party consent is not required is that people can recite conversations from human memory or computer memory.  i think an important distinction is that a mechanical recording is regarded rather differently in a courtroom than a simple recitation.  that aside, the most obvious objection to this for me is the very real possibility of espionage or security breaches.  i work for the navy on nuclear reactors, something we naturally have a serious interest in protecting access to.  and not just physical access, but access to information and techniques.  we also, naturally, have a strong interest in protecting information about how, for example, submarines work.  allowing anyone to record anything they see and hear would make protecting that information much, much more difficult, and would provide little or no benefit.  i am sure the same could be said for plenty of other government entities and private industries.   #  someone is memory is not always able to be used as a witness in a court of law.   #  someone is memory is not always able to be used as a witness in a court of law.  a recording however is.  there is a difference, legally, between the two.  also, if you are recording a conversation you are taping yourself and someone else, thus the need for in two party states, consent to that recording being made.  in a simple conversation i do not assume i am being recorded and that what i am saying is being made a record.  when you hit the record button you change the dynamic of our conversation.   #   we have a lot of laws that are pure horseshit .   #  i am very much a pro privacy person but i do think there is a second layer to all this.  the  ban recordings because they can be used against me legally  fear rests on a bigger problem.   we have a lot of laws that are pure horseshit .  i can somewhat see where some anti privacy radical transparency people are going with their points: when you ca not hide anything you are forced to confront things you disagree with aggressively and head on.  i think it is horribly idealistic and unworkable but it is an interesting idea.   #  computer memory and human memory are completely different.  almost not really comparable.   #  this seems very misguided.  computer memory and human memory are completely different.  almost not really comparable.  the memory a human has of an event is impossible to delete, and cannot  istop  recording.  another big difference is that computer memory is essentially infallible.  human memory is proof of nothing.  people can remember incorrectly, lie, or other things.  if everything were being recorded at all times, this would have serious ethical consequences.  meaning that pretty much no one could lie ever again ! i just do not think this is how the world should work.  and then there is the conflicts with the film industry and music industry.  just seems like a terrible idea to me.  btw, the british tv series actually did an episode about pretty much this exact situation.  it is called  the entire history of you  and it is freaking great.  i think it really points out some of the ethical troubles with a system like this.  though whether such a thing could even be prevented via legislation is a different matter.   #  if it does not, they do not even need to mention it exists.   #  i think outside situations have the same sort of principle, just less. obvious, for lack of a better word.  suppose one person records everything, and another nothing.  if they get into a disagreement, the person with the recording has a legal upper hand; if the recording favors their position, they can use it.  if it does not, they do not even need to mention it exists.  i suppose the two party things boils down, as so much of our law does, to what is  reasonable .  does a person have any reasonable expectation of being free from being recorded ? i do not think so in public, but in many settings, sure.  i think it is perfectly reasonable for me to expect someone i am having a conversation with privately to not record it without my knowledge.
breaking it up by issue: incest: i understand the argument against incest, reproduction problems, but i am not here to argue pro incestual reproduction rights, just the right to be together/get married.  prostitution: i believe it should be legalized, and regulated like any other service.  in other words, in a legitimate, licensed place of business, i believe there should be laws in place to demand the use of condoms, and to test the active workers for std is every month week ? 0 months ? .  i understand the argument about it promoting the spread of std is, but there are ways to protect against that, and frankly, it is happening anyways; legalized prostitution probably wo not increase rates by much, and i see it mostly as a rights issue.  homosexuality: a much less arguable point, i believe.  it should be a non issue, in my opinion.  there are no negative sides to homosexual marriage besides some god fearing nonsense.  polygamy: i am honestly not wholly sure what the argument against polygamy is, besides something about complications in the way tax systems are set up, which could be easily fixed i would imagine.  of course, i believe  all  parties, including other husbands and wives would have to consent to the individual marriages, lest they be nulled, or have their own marriage with the to be married party nulled.  all that being said, if someone can change my view on any of those, i would be impressed.  good luck ?  #  polygamy: i am honestly not wholly sure what the argument against polygamy is, besides something about complications in the way tax systems are set up, which could be easily fixed i would imagine.   #  of course, i believe all parties, including other husbands and wives would have to consent to the individual marriages, lest they be nulled, or have their own marriage with the to be married party nulled.   # of course, i believe all parties, including other husbands and wives would have to consent to the individual marriages, lest they be nulled, or have their own marriage with the to be married party nulled.  it is more than just taxes though that is going to be super complicated.  that alone would take years .  marriage confers a number of benefits.  who is default power of attorney for healthcare ? can we avoid all estate taxes this way ? how should medicaid limits be changed ? does a landlord who rents to me have to allow in the whole county jail if i marry them ? does an employer have to provide my entire clan with health care if it provides health care to a single spouse ? etc.  so polygamous marriages would not be simple like gay marriages are apply the same formulas you apply for straight couples .  it would be quite complex, and we would have to legislate the different brackets and rules for each thing.  are we likely to do this fairly ? by nulled, do you mean  go through a divorce  ? or do you really mean that i can shortcut the entire divorce proceedings by marrying a second wife without my wife is consent ? how does our money get split up ? how does custody work in this case ? the polyamorous people in this country are not clamoring for marriage, because they do not want the government to make all these choices for them.  why must we make all these decisions almost certainly incorrectly on behalf of people who do not seem to really want it ?  #  if you lose your job, or are in an accident, and are not married, it is usually family you turn to.   #  incest the biggest issue here is one of unequal power.  certainly when discussing parent/child incest, it is impossible for it to be truly consensual.  similar to the teacher/student or doctor/patient relationships, they are just by nature uneven.  even minor siblings can be problematic, because of the elder sibling power advantage.  but even with adult siblings, society relies upon and encourages stable families.  if you lose your job, or are in an accident, and are not married, it is usually family you turn to.  but if siblings have a sexual relationship and break up, it almost inevitably will do significant harm to the family.  whose side do they take ? who gets invited to thanksgiving.  why gets to decide mom is nursing home ? to reduce the dating pool by the number of siblings you have seems a small price compared to the damage that can be causes.   #  you bring up a good point though, with the general complications associated with it, but at the same time, is that an issue for the law to be involved with ?  #  that is true, i suppose.  of course i am not, nor would i ever  advocate  incest, especially in forms of parent/child, and of course non adult relationships of any kind.  you bring up a good point though, with the general complications associated with it, but at the same time, is that an issue for the law to be involved with ? i mean, that same logic could be applied to, say, a group of friends.   no dating within the group  something i have actually heard before just not as a law .  is not that somewhat the same thing ? not trying to use a slippery slope argument or anything, i am just asking.   #  so, unquestionably in the case of minors, this is something the law should be involved with.   #  as /u/happeningfish alludes to, there is a long established precedent for the government to intervene for purposes of child welfare.  so, unquestionably in the case of minors, this is something the law should be involved with.  there is also a long precedence of  family friendly  laws.  from tax breaks to legal rights, society through laws has decided that stable families are good things.  they also get involved in other cases, like, as i mentioned, doctor/patient and teacher/student.  the friend thing would be far too complex and also viewed as negative since most people dated a  friend  who became  more than friends  how do you meet good matches if not through friends ?  #  a bit presumptuous, perhaps, but it is safe to say that a child born out of incest is more likely to face stigma and taboo, and is more likely to express hereditary diseases or other problems.   #  i would guess that the law is involved to act as protection for any vulnerable parties.  someone who is very young i notice that you do not make a case in your post about relationships between adults and children or teenagers is not able to give sufficient consent and may not be able to stand up for themselves.  it is also very likely that most incestuous relationships begin when at least one party is very young, because as people grow older they deeply internalise the sense of taboo surrounding it.  i have never heard of incest  starting  when both parties were adults unless we are talking about cousins who did not know they were related, etc .  the law also protects those who have not been born yet.  a bit presumptuous, perhaps, but it is safe to say that a child born out of incest is more likely to face stigma and taboo, and is more likely to express hereditary diseases or other problems.
breaking it up by issue: incest: i understand the argument against incest, reproduction problems, but i am not here to argue pro incestual reproduction rights, just the right to be together/get married.  prostitution: i believe it should be legalized, and regulated like any other service.  in other words, in a legitimate, licensed place of business, i believe there should be laws in place to demand the use of condoms, and to test the active workers for std is every month week ? 0 months ? .  i understand the argument about it promoting the spread of std is, but there are ways to protect against that, and frankly, it is happening anyways; legalized prostitution probably wo not increase rates by much, and i see it mostly as a rights issue.  homosexuality: a much less arguable point, i believe.  it should be a non issue, in my opinion.  there are no negative sides to homosexual marriage besides some god fearing nonsense.  polygamy: i am honestly not wholly sure what the argument against polygamy is, besides something about complications in the way tax systems are set up, which could be easily fixed i would imagine.  of course, i believe  all  parties, including other husbands and wives would have to consent to the individual marriages, lest they be nulled, or have their own marriage with the to be married party nulled.  all that being said, if someone can change my view on any of those, i would be impressed.  good luck ?  #  homosexuality: a much less arguable point, i believe.   #  it should be a non issue, in my opinion.   # it should be a non issue, in my opinion.  this is kind of the main point for me.  homosexuality is a nonissue.  but your grouping it with these other things is .  odd at best.  it is like saying  i have no issue with digital piracy, tax evasion, and swimming in swimming pools.   and if people have traditionally had a problem with swimming, it calls into question the legitimacy of your pro swimming stance.  that is not to say i am questioning whether or not you actually have a problem with gay people, but grouping that issue with more  questionable  issues is something you should try to not do.  i say this primarily because this tactic is a staple of those who oppose equality santorum equating homosexuality to beastiality, etc.  .  to clarify, the view i am trying to change is that it is appropriate to group homosexuality with those other issues in the first place.   #  similar to the teacher/student or doctor/patient relationships, they are just by nature uneven.   #  incest the biggest issue here is one of unequal power.  certainly when discussing parent/child incest, it is impossible for it to be truly consensual.  similar to the teacher/student or doctor/patient relationships, they are just by nature uneven.  even minor siblings can be problematic, because of the elder sibling power advantage.  but even with adult siblings, society relies upon and encourages stable families.  if you lose your job, or are in an accident, and are not married, it is usually family you turn to.  but if siblings have a sexual relationship and break up, it almost inevitably will do significant harm to the family.  whose side do they take ? who gets invited to thanksgiving.  why gets to decide mom is nursing home ? to reduce the dating pool by the number of siblings you have seems a small price compared to the damage that can be causes.   #  not trying to use a slippery slope argument or anything, i am just asking.   #  that is true, i suppose.  of course i am not, nor would i ever  advocate  incest, especially in forms of parent/child, and of course non adult relationships of any kind.  you bring up a good point though, with the general complications associated with it, but at the same time, is that an issue for the law to be involved with ? i mean, that same logic could be applied to, say, a group of friends.   no dating within the group  something i have actually heard before just not as a law .  is not that somewhat the same thing ? not trying to use a slippery slope argument or anything, i am just asking.   #  as /u/happeningfish alludes to, there is a long established precedent for the government to intervene for purposes of child welfare.   #  as /u/happeningfish alludes to, there is a long established precedent for the government to intervene for purposes of child welfare.  so, unquestionably in the case of minors, this is something the law should be involved with.  there is also a long precedence of  family friendly  laws.  from tax breaks to legal rights, society through laws has decided that stable families are good things.  they also get involved in other cases, like, as i mentioned, doctor/patient and teacher/student.  the friend thing would be far too complex and also viewed as negative since most people dated a  friend  who became  more than friends  how do you meet good matches if not through friends ?  #  it is also very likely that most incestuous relationships begin when at least one party is very young, because as people grow older they deeply internalise the sense of taboo surrounding it.   #  i would guess that the law is involved to act as protection for any vulnerable parties.  someone who is very young i notice that you do not make a case in your post about relationships between adults and children or teenagers is not able to give sufficient consent and may not be able to stand up for themselves.  it is also very likely that most incestuous relationships begin when at least one party is very young, because as people grow older they deeply internalise the sense of taboo surrounding it.  i have never heard of incest  starting  when both parties were adults unless we are talking about cousins who did not know they were related, etc .  the law also protects those who have not been born yet.  a bit presumptuous, perhaps, but it is safe to say that a child born out of incest is more likely to face stigma and taboo, and is more likely to express hereditary diseases or other problems.
if people are tired of talking about the 0 i apologize, but i am curious about this idea.  does the phrase  they earned it so they deserve it  apply in this situation ? i am not debating income inequality.  i am concerned with how this  0  is getting their money and are people angry that they simply have so much or because they are acquiring it by illegal means.  my view at this point is, possibly naively, that these people have earned their share so they are entitled to it and everyone else is just, for lack of a better phrase, sore losers.  please enlighten me and change my view.   #  my view at this point is, possibly naively, that these people have earned their share so they are entitled to it and everyone else is just, for lack of a better phrase, sore losers.   #  please enlighten me and change my view.   # please enlighten me and change my view.  i am assuming you are talking about america.  the wealthiest 0 of the population in american consists of over 0 million people.  it is silly to generalize them in such a manner.  they are a diverse group of people who acquired their money in a diverse set of ways and choose to live very different lives from each other.   #  in some cases they do not even do the choosing of investments themselves.   #  simple argument: in capitalism, money makes more money than work.  meaning investing is the best and easiest way to make money.  actually working for a wage selling your money for time is much less profitable than investing in something and taking a return.  there is no shortage of rich people who inherited their money and then just make a living by investing it.  quite literally, they do not work, their money does.  this is not to say  all  investors are lazy, or even that most are.  but such people exist.  in some cases they do not even do the choosing of investments themselves.  even if you accept capitalism as the best economic system as completely good and right, that does not mean you have to acknowledge that this counts as  earning  your money or that such a person deserves not to be taxed heavily on those  earnings .  i personally see someone being taxed at 0 scrubbing toilets to be earning their money in a much more real sense than an investor being taxed at 0.   #  for the most part rich people pay more money and a higher percentage of their income in taxes.   #  wit the only exception being the top 0, higher incomes pay higher effective tax rates.  low income people have massive deductions and credits and their brackets are lower.  in order even pay in the 0 bracket highest you would have to make at least over $0,0 as a single person beyond your credits and deductions.  here URL is a chart from the atlantic of effective income tax rates by income bracket.  when you talk about capital gains taxes they are not adjusted for inflation and you risk loosing money, you never loose money through labor.  for the most part rich people pay more money and a higher percentage of their income in taxes.   #  a totally oversimplified tagline to throw in here might be  we are not playing monopoly.   # first, understand that the economy and law are not independent.  there is some relation between them.  because of this, wealth accumulation creates an opportunity for conflict between democracy and capitalism.  money lets you pay to influence people, laws, and the market through lobbying, ads, campaign financing, etc.  .  so, people with lots of money have a lot of say about what happens.  this provides a mechanism to convert disproportionate wealth into disproportionate power.  now you can use this disproportionate power to try to accumulate more wealth, hence more power, hence more wealth, .  in a totally efficient, transparent economy this would probably be irrelevant, because consumers could account for the influence of the wealth accumulators when choosing to deal with them.  e. g.  if i do not like that you finance this campaign, i can choose not to do business with you.  in short, i can  vote with my dollars  too, and everything works out.  in the end, the laws would align with the will of the people despite all the indirectness, blah blah blah.  but that is not how things work, for a variety of reasons.  it is difficult to understand the connections between things, and even if you do, you ca not always choose to do business elsewhere, and so on.  moreover, wealthy people, through investment, can grow their wealth essentially without being really subject to that sort of  dollar voting  at all because consumers of the companies associated to those investment vehicles are probably unaware of their investments , but then they can use their amassed wealth to vote with their ample dollars.  one of the consequences is that they can affect regulations to introduce inefficiencies and skew the market in their favor.  a totally oversimplified tagline to throw in here might be  we are not playing monopoly.  we are playing monopoly where we vote on the rules as we go, and you get a vote for each dollar you have.   so, if you do not like that sort of thing happening, then you probably think this is the system breaking down.  i guess if you want to counter this, you either go into politics yourself, or try to campaign for funding to change laws to help interfere in the above process.  one idea is to tax people / redistribute wealth to try to avoid wealth accumulation in the first place.  nothing is perfect though.   #  i can imagine a scenario where one enters politics to change the status quo and slowly gets sucked into the same habit of using wealth to influence what you would like things to be.   #  thank you for this.  i can imagine a scenario where one enters politics to change the status quo and slowly gets sucked into the same habit of using wealth to influence what you would like things to be.  the frustrating part seems to be trying to convince these wealth accumulators that taxing their money is a way of giving back to the means in which they got rich.  or is it even that simple ? is all that needs to happen is an attitude change by the wealthy few in making them realize that by allowing their wealth to be taxed and spread out they are essentially feeding the cycle ? if the wealthy ceo just relaxed and lived more frugal and paid his employees more than he would be doing his part in spreading the love.  probably a gross oversimplification of the whole thing, but i wonder if it could be all boiled down to a mindset problem.
why should i care if someone else is making more money than i am ? aside from jealousy, what reason is there to want to reduce inequality ? sure some people are rich because they work harder and some people are rich because they were in the right place at the right time.  we do not always give everyone the same chances, but that is not what this question is about.  there is a huge distribution of income even among college graduates if we have given them equality of opportunity, why should we try to ensure equality of outcome ? even the top paid ceos are paid that much because we live in a capitalist society and that is how much their company is willing to pay them.  that is their market price, it is achieved through a fair system and legal means.  why should we care if they make a hundred or a thousand times the average worker if the system they got it through was fair ? scandinavians are so proud of their egalitarian principles but all i see is a society that holds down it is overachievers.  those who stand out are knocked back down.  why is wanting to tax away your higher earning neighbor considered a good thing as opposed to being happy for someone else is good fortune ?  #  why should i care if someone else is making more money than i am ?  #  because they are making so much money that it starts to come at your expense.   # because they are making so much money that it starts to come at your expense.  or they have so much money that they also start to degrade other systems you rely on, such as legislature.  roulette and dice games are also fair.  however, we do not use those to allocate goods in the real world, because that would be stupid.  i agree it is a fair system meaning the rules apply equally to everyone in theory , but that is only a minor prerequisite for a just system.  also, when you throw racism, sexism, nepotism, cronyism and corruption into the mix, it is not really a fair system after all.  except in the very broadest sense.   #  i see people complaining about  equality of outcome  as well as  equality of opportunity .   #  you misunderstand the point of the question.  i see people complaining about  equality of outcome  as well as  equality of opportunity .  i agree with you that we should give everyone equality of opportunity to the best that we can.  i even agree that there should be some level of redistribution of income to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks of our safety net.  but even granting all that, i see people making $0,0 a year complaining about how much the bankers and ceos make.  these are not people suffering from any kind of extreme hardship.  these are relatively well to do people with college degrees from expensive universities, hardly those suffering from a lack of opportunity, complaining about those who have more than they do.  why should a person making six figures give a shit that there are people out there making eight or nine figures ? or why should someone living comfortably on 0k a year care about what anyone else makes ?  #  i do not know why you think the complaints are coming from the upper middle class.   # you are discussing equality of outcome and equality of opportunity as if they are completely separate concepts you seem to like one and dislike the other .  my argument is that both are tied together and one leads to the other.  you probably understand and agree that inequality of opportunity leads to inequality of outcome, but it i argue it goes the other way too.  if you are very successful and make 0x the money other people make, that means your children will get better opportunities than other kids.  they will get private tutoring, they will get better healthcare, grow up in a safer neighborhood, attend the best colleges, make contacts with other important people and so on.  they will even get better treatment under the law, as you can afford expensive lawyers, pay the judge and claim  afflunza  URL or something.  ultimately, you and your kids get better opportunities, which leads to better outcomes, which leads to better opportunities and so on.  on the big scale this means the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, while the middle class is disappearing.  i do not know why you think the complaints are coming from the upper middle class.  most of the people that complain are the poor and the lower middle class because they are starting to join the poor .   #  i understand that inequality of opportunity leads to inequality of outcomes of course it does.   #  so you are right about how i like enforcing equality of opportunity through social policy, which allows for some redistribution of income but dislike enforcing equality of outcome largely through tax policy .  i understand that inequality of opportunity leads to inequality of outcomes of course it does.  the point i am trying to make is that the relationship between the two is not so strong that getting rid of inequality of opportunity will mean the end of equality of outcome.  even if we had perfect equality of opportunity, there would still be vast inequality simply because there are positions in the job market that pay better than others, and those who save up capital can generate returns on that capital to increase their wealth.  there are people not poor people, but upper middle class people who argue that inequality is bad not because it throws back to some inequality of opportunity, but because there is something wrong with people making tens of millions of dollars a year.  this distribution would likely exist even in a society with perfect equality of opportunity.  some people just get lucky or end up in the right place at the right time.  and some of them are legitimately brilliant and design or build something that makes them properly wealthy.  i do not see why having people in society that make 0x or 0x the average is a problem keeping in mind that we are enforcing perfect equality of opportunity, so their kids getting a better start in life is not part of the complaint .   #  thats not the problem, the problem is that rich people in this society are more lucky than smart/creative.   # 0 billion people are going to lose their jobs to automation in the next 0 years, we will have a very different economy/job market in the near future.  everyone has equal opportunity to do that.  some people just get lucky or end up in the right place at the right time.  there is nothing wrong with this, we are not trying to achieve equality of outcome, the problem isnt that there are rich people and poor people, the problem is that the rich are  obscenely rich  and the poor are  obscenely poor .  thats not the problem, the problem is that rich people in this society are more lucky than smart/creative.  we just want all rich people to be people who deserve their money, right now a lot of the richest people in the world work in finance and produce literally nothing.
why should i care if someone else is making more money than i am ? aside from jealousy, what reason is there to want to reduce inequality ? sure some people are rich because they work harder and some people are rich because they were in the right place at the right time.  we do not always give everyone the same chances, but that is not what this question is about.  there is a huge distribution of income even among college graduates if we have given them equality of opportunity, why should we try to ensure equality of outcome ? even the top paid ceos are paid that much because we live in a capitalist society and that is how much their company is willing to pay them.  that is their market price, it is achieved through a fair system and legal means.  why should we care if they make a hundred or a thousand times the average worker if the system they got it through was fair ? scandinavians are so proud of their egalitarian principles but all i see is a society that holds down it is overachievers.  those who stand out are knocked back down.  why is wanting to tax away your higher earning neighbor considered a good thing as opposed to being happy for someone else is good fortune ?  #  why should i care if someone else is making more money than i am ?  #  aside from jealousy, what reason is there to want to reduce inequality ?  # aside from jealousy, what reason is there to want to reduce inequality ? it is easy to say that if you are middle class.  would not you start to care if you are working full time but paid an amount that wo not cover the rent ? is there a reason for equality if you are forced choose between food or the electricity bill ? do you not feel something when your child needs medication and you simply do not have the money ? it is easy to say if you  have  a job.  what if you are black or gay or a pregnant woman and absolutely nobody will hire you ? is it fair these good workers ca not find a job because of inequality ? or when they finally find someone to hire them, they are paid less for the same amount of work ? how low must people sink onto poverty simply due to gender or skin color ? do people  deserve  to be poor and almost homeless simply because they were born with darker skin or no penis ?  #  i see people complaining about  equality of outcome  as well as  equality of opportunity .   #  you misunderstand the point of the question.  i see people complaining about  equality of outcome  as well as  equality of opportunity .  i agree with you that we should give everyone equality of opportunity to the best that we can.  i even agree that there should be some level of redistribution of income to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks of our safety net.  but even granting all that, i see people making $0,0 a year complaining about how much the bankers and ceos make.  these are not people suffering from any kind of extreme hardship.  these are relatively well to do people with college degrees from expensive universities, hardly those suffering from a lack of opportunity, complaining about those who have more than they do.  why should a person making six figures give a shit that there are people out there making eight or nine figures ? or why should someone living comfortably on 0k a year care about what anyone else makes ?  #  if you are very successful and make 0x the money other people make, that means your children will get better opportunities than other kids.   # you are discussing equality of outcome and equality of opportunity as if they are completely separate concepts you seem to like one and dislike the other .  my argument is that both are tied together and one leads to the other.  you probably understand and agree that inequality of opportunity leads to inequality of outcome, but it i argue it goes the other way too.  if you are very successful and make 0x the money other people make, that means your children will get better opportunities than other kids.  they will get private tutoring, they will get better healthcare, grow up in a safer neighborhood, attend the best colleges, make contacts with other important people and so on.  they will even get better treatment under the law, as you can afford expensive lawyers, pay the judge and claim  afflunza  URL or something.  ultimately, you and your kids get better opportunities, which leads to better outcomes, which leads to better opportunities and so on.  on the big scale this means the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, while the middle class is disappearing.  i do not know why you think the complaints are coming from the upper middle class.  most of the people that complain are the poor and the lower middle class because they are starting to join the poor .   #  some people just get lucky or end up in the right place at the right time.   #  so you are right about how i like enforcing equality of opportunity through social policy, which allows for some redistribution of income but dislike enforcing equality of outcome largely through tax policy .  i understand that inequality of opportunity leads to inequality of outcomes of course it does.  the point i am trying to make is that the relationship between the two is not so strong that getting rid of inequality of opportunity will mean the end of equality of outcome.  even if we had perfect equality of opportunity, there would still be vast inequality simply because there are positions in the job market that pay better than others, and those who save up capital can generate returns on that capital to increase their wealth.  there are people not poor people, but upper middle class people who argue that inequality is bad not because it throws back to some inequality of opportunity, but because there is something wrong with people making tens of millions of dollars a year.  this distribution would likely exist even in a society with perfect equality of opportunity.  some people just get lucky or end up in the right place at the right time.  and some of them are legitimately brilliant and design or build something that makes them properly wealthy.  i do not see why having people in society that make 0x or 0x the average is a problem keeping in mind that we are enforcing perfect equality of opportunity, so their kids getting a better start in life is not part of the complaint .   #  0 billion people are going to lose their jobs to automation in the next 0 years, we will have a very different economy/job market in the near future.   # 0 billion people are going to lose their jobs to automation in the next 0 years, we will have a very different economy/job market in the near future.  everyone has equal opportunity to do that.  some people just get lucky or end up in the right place at the right time.  there is nothing wrong with this, we are not trying to achieve equality of outcome, the problem isnt that there are rich people and poor people, the problem is that the rich are  obscenely rich  and the poor are  obscenely poor .  thats not the problem, the problem is that rich people in this society are more lucky than smart/creative.  we just want all rich people to be people who deserve their money, right now a lot of the richest people in the world work in finance and produce literally nothing.
guns are very powerful and dangerous tools so the government should only issue permits to people that know how to use them well.  training should focus on both the legal framework regarding gun usage and proper shooting technique and gun maintenance.  all prospective gun owners should mantain a minimum level of accuracy, testing every 0 years.  this is to ensure that they are not a danger for either themselves or other people when they decide to use their guns.  you are not going to stop an intruder or attacker with poorly aimed shots after all.  also, even if gun owners believe their guns are going to protect them against a fascist government, it makes sense to try to level the playing field between civilians and highly trained soldiers.  i believe this training programs should be run by the government and subject to citizen watch.   #  training should focus on both the legal framework regarding gun usage and proper shooting technique and gun maintenance.   #  remember that by far the most common type of gun related death is a suicide.   #  my statements are all about guns in the us.  remember that by far the most common type of gun related death is a suicide.  legal information, shooting technique improvements, and gun maintenance are not going to stop people from committing suicide.  the second most common type of gun related death is homicide.  training is not going to stop the vast majority of this, because homicides are going to be almost entirely situations in which one person intentionally pointed a gun at another.  maybe legal training will prevent a few situations in which someone kills someone incorrectly thinking they they are properly defending themselves, but there do not seem to be many of these imperfect self defense cases.  maintenance training wo not make gun owners less likely to shoot someone.  unmaintained guns usually fail by not firing.  there are a few very old military surplus type firearms that can exhibit behaviors like slamfiring if improperly maintained, but usually when a gun is unmaintained for too long, it just stops shooting.  sources i can find indicate that there are fewer than a thousand accidental gun deaths per year.  i ca not find a source on how these accidents happen, but i would be willing to bet that very few are the result of inaccurate shooting; most are probably idiots shooting themselves or other people while handling a gun unsafely.  there is some speculation that a number of suicides and domestic abuse incidents are classified as accidental gun deaths.  also, the vast majority of gun shooting in the us happens in situations where missing the target puts the round into a pile of dirt or rubble with nobody nearby, and i am not aware of any large number of self defense shootings in which innocent bystanders are being hit.   #  the rhetoric around gun violence is very muddied with politics.   #  i think that those regularly discharging guns police, military, etc would be on the range often enough to make annual testing moot.  lawful gunowners that use it only for protection without regular discharge really only need safety training for guns in the home.  the rhetoric around gun violence is very muddied with politics.  in my heart, i feel that more crime is being committed by those without a license than those with it.  most people with a license to carry do so without incident.  i do think that a psychological test is necessary for gun ownership.   #  i just do not think it should be required that a person be a decent shot unless they are going to conceal or open carry in public .   #  sometimes i throw sarcastic remarks into otherwise reasonable sentences.  obviously shooting your gun into the air is irresponsible, even on the fourth of july.  your op implied that he would need to shoot his gun effectively, not just operate it responsibly.  i fully support responsible gun ownership and required safety testing.  i just do not think it should be required that a person be a decent shot unless they are going to conceal or open carry in public .   #  my objection was the op is stance on testing people to make sure they can hit a target, for proper home protection or self defense.   #  i agree that safey training and testing are a good thing, and should be required.  i do not remember the details of the dick cheney thing, but thats a good example of fucking up.  like i said, there  should be  zero risk, if the precautions are followed.  my objection was the op is stance on testing people to make sure they can hit a target, for proper home protection or self defense.  a lot of people believe that this is a dangerous practice and keep their guns locked up and their ammo stored seperately.  my point is that if michael j.  fox, or my grandpa with hand tremors, wants to own a long gun to shoot at the range, he is in no danger to anyone as long as he follows proper precautions, even if he ca not hit shit.   #  the police ca not just go door to door searching for illegal weapons.   #  i am not sure how op would go about that situation in his scenario.  though in reality, most people who have a collection of weapons are at least somewhat proficient in their use i mean, why collect something you have no interest in ? it is like having a collection of tennis rackets when you are unable to play tennis.  while it is possible that a few people would be inconvenienced by this it definitely would not be the majority of gun collectors.  for those who could not pass the test due to physical limitations such as disabilities there would likely be workarounds for them such as having a housemate or relative take the test and claim ownership if questioned.  in reality, you would not even need to take the test if you already owned firearms in a collection, that you do not use.  the police ca not just go door to door searching for illegal weapons.
guns are very powerful and dangerous tools so the government should only issue permits to people that know how to use them well.  training should focus on both the legal framework regarding gun usage and proper shooting technique and gun maintenance.  all prospective gun owners should mantain a minimum level of accuracy, testing every 0 years.  this is to ensure that they are not a danger for either themselves or other people when they decide to use their guns.  you are not going to stop an intruder or attacker with poorly aimed shots after all.  also, even if gun owners believe their guns are going to protect them against a fascist government, it makes sense to try to level the playing field between civilians and highly trained soldiers.  i believe this training programs should be run by the government and subject to citizen watch.   #  all prospective gun owners should mantain a minimum level of accuracy, testing every 0 years.   #  sources i can find indicate that there are fewer than a thousand accidental gun deaths per year.   #  my statements are all about guns in the us.  remember that by far the most common type of gun related death is a suicide.  legal information, shooting technique improvements, and gun maintenance are not going to stop people from committing suicide.  the second most common type of gun related death is homicide.  training is not going to stop the vast majority of this, because homicides are going to be almost entirely situations in which one person intentionally pointed a gun at another.  maybe legal training will prevent a few situations in which someone kills someone incorrectly thinking they they are properly defending themselves, but there do not seem to be many of these imperfect self defense cases.  maintenance training wo not make gun owners less likely to shoot someone.  unmaintained guns usually fail by not firing.  there are a few very old military surplus type firearms that can exhibit behaviors like slamfiring if improperly maintained, but usually when a gun is unmaintained for too long, it just stops shooting.  sources i can find indicate that there are fewer than a thousand accidental gun deaths per year.  i ca not find a source on how these accidents happen, but i would be willing to bet that very few are the result of inaccurate shooting; most are probably idiots shooting themselves or other people while handling a gun unsafely.  there is some speculation that a number of suicides and domestic abuse incidents are classified as accidental gun deaths.  also, the vast majority of gun shooting in the us happens in situations where missing the target puts the round into a pile of dirt or rubble with nobody nearby, and i am not aware of any large number of self defense shootings in which innocent bystanders are being hit.   #  most people with a license to carry do so without incident.   #  i think that those regularly discharging guns police, military, etc would be on the range often enough to make annual testing moot.  lawful gunowners that use it only for protection without regular discharge really only need safety training for guns in the home.  the rhetoric around gun violence is very muddied with politics.  in my heart, i feel that more crime is being committed by those without a license than those with it.  most people with a license to carry do so without incident.  i do think that a psychological test is necessary for gun ownership.   #  sometimes i throw sarcastic remarks into otherwise reasonable sentences.   #  sometimes i throw sarcastic remarks into otherwise reasonable sentences.  obviously shooting your gun into the air is irresponsible, even on the fourth of july.  your op implied that he would need to shoot his gun effectively, not just operate it responsibly.  i fully support responsible gun ownership and required safety testing.  i just do not think it should be required that a person be a decent shot unless they are going to conceal or open carry in public .   #  a lot of people believe that this is a dangerous practice and keep their guns locked up and their ammo stored seperately.   #  i agree that safey training and testing are a good thing, and should be required.  i do not remember the details of the dick cheney thing, but thats a good example of fucking up.  like i said, there  should be  zero risk, if the precautions are followed.  my objection was the op is stance on testing people to make sure they can hit a target, for proper home protection or self defense.  a lot of people believe that this is a dangerous practice and keep their guns locked up and their ammo stored seperately.  my point is that if michael j.  fox, or my grandpa with hand tremors, wants to own a long gun to shoot at the range, he is in no danger to anyone as long as he follows proper precautions, even if he ca not hit shit.   #  though in reality, most people who have a collection of weapons are at least somewhat proficient in their use i mean, why collect something you have no interest in ?  #  i am not sure how op would go about that situation in his scenario.  though in reality, most people who have a collection of weapons are at least somewhat proficient in their use i mean, why collect something you have no interest in ? it is like having a collection of tennis rackets when you are unable to play tennis.  while it is possible that a few people would be inconvenienced by this it definitely would not be the majority of gun collectors.  for those who could not pass the test due to physical limitations such as disabilities there would likely be workarounds for them such as having a housemate or relative take the test and claim ownership if questioned.  in reality, you would not even need to take the test if you already owned firearms in a collection, that you do not use.  the police ca not just go door to door searching for illegal weapons.
guns are very powerful and dangerous tools so the government should only issue permits to people that know how to use them well.  training should focus on both the legal framework regarding gun usage and proper shooting technique and gun maintenance.  all prospective gun owners should mantain a minimum level of accuracy, testing every 0 years.  this is to ensure that they are not a danger for either themselves or other people when they decide to use their guns.  you are not going to stop an intruder or attacker with poorly aimed shots after all.  also, even if gun owners believe their guns are going to protect them against a fascist government, it makes sense to try to level the playing field between civilians and highly trained soldiers.  i believe this training programs should be run by the government and subject to citizen watch.   #  you are not going to stop an intruder or attacker with poorly aimed shots after all.   #  i can hit everything with my shotgun from 0ft away without even aiming.   # this depends on where you live.  a right should not be, and cannot be by definition tied to training and testing.  in places where there is right to own guns, this argument is invalid.  i can hit everything with my shotgun from 0ft away without even aiming.  if i am in my hallway and an intruder is on the other side, i could be blind folded and still hit and stop the intruder.  what if you live in a nation where all your soldiers are civilians, and many of your civilians are former soldiers ?  #  i do think that a psychological test is necessary for gun ownership.   #  i think that those regularly discharging guns police, military, etc would be on the range often enough to make annual testing moot.  lawful gunowners that use it only for protection without regular discharge really only need safety training for guns in the home.  the rhetoric around gun violence is very muddied with politics.  in my heart, i feel that more crime is being committed by those without a license than those with it.  most people with a license to carry do so without incident.  i do think that a psychological test is necessary for gun ownership.   #  i fully support responsible gun ownership and required safety testing.   #  sometimes i throw sarcastic remarks into otherwise reasonable sentences.  obviously shooting your gun into the air is irresponsible, even on the fourth of july.  your op implied that he would need to shoot his gun effectively, not just operate it responsibly.  i fully support responsible gun ownership and required safety testing.  i just do not think it should be required that a person be a decent shot unless they are going to conceal or open carry in public .   #  a lot of people believe that this is a dangerous practice and keep their guns locked up and their ammo stored seperately.   #  i agree that safey training and testing are a good thing, and should be required.  i do not remember the details of the dick cheney thing, but thats a good example of fucking up.  like i said, there  should be  zero risk, if the precautions are followed.  my objection was the op is stance on testing people to make sure they can hit a target, for proper home protection or self defense.  a lot of people believe that this is a dangerous practice and keep their guns locked up and their ammo stored seperately.  my point is that if michael j.  fox, or my grandpa with hand tremors, wants to own a long gun to shoot at the range, he is in no danger to anyone as long as he follows proper precautions, even if he ca not hit shit.   #  though in reality, most people who have a collection of weapons are at least somewhat proficient in their use i mean, why collect something you have no interest in ?  #  i am not sure how op would go about that situation in his scenario.  though in reality, most people who have a collection of weapons are at least somewhat proficient in their use i mean, why collect something you have no interest in ? it is like having a collection of tennis rackets when you are unable to play tennis.  while it is possible that a few people would be inconvenienced by this it definitely would not be the majority of gun collectors.  for those who could not pass the test due to physical limitations such as disabilities there would likely be workarounds for them such as having a housemate or relative take the test and claim ownership if questioned.  in reality, you would not even need to take the test if you already owned firearms in a collection, that you do not use.  the police ca not just go door to door searching for illegal weapons.
guns are very powerful and dangerous tools so the government should only issue permits to people that know how to use them well.  training should focus on both the legal framework regarding gun usage and proper shooting technique and gun maintenance.  all prospective gun owners should mantain a minimum level of accuracy, testing every 0 years.  this is to ensure that they are not a danger for either themselves or other people when they decide to use their guns.  you are not going to stop an intruder or attacker with poorly aimed shots after all.  also, even if gun owners believe their guns are going to protect them against a fascist government, it makes sense to try to level the playing field between civilians and highly trained soldiers.  i believe this training programs should be run by the government and subject to citizen watch.   #  also, even if gun owners believe their guns are going to protect them against a fascist government, it makes sense to try to level the playing field between civilians and highly trained soldiers.   #  what if you live in a nation where all your soldiers are civilians, and many of your civilians are former soldiers ?  # this depends on where you live.  a right should not be, and cannot be by definition tied to training and testing.  in places where there is right to own guns, this argument is invalid.  i can hit everything with my shotgun from 0ft away without even aiming.  if i am in my hallway and an intruder is on the other side, i could be blind folded and still hit and stop the intruder.  what if you live in a nation where all your soldiers are civilians, and many of your civilians are former soldiers ?  #  i think that those regularly discharging guns police, military, etc would be on the range often enough to make annual testing moot.   #  i think that those regularly discharging guns police, military, etc would be on the range often enough to make annual testing moot.  lawful gunowners that use it only for protection without regular discharge really only need safety training for guns in the home.  the rhetoric around gun violence is very muddied with politics.  in my heart, i feel that more crime is being committed by those without a license than those with it.  most people with a license to carry do so without incident.  i do think that a psychological test is necessary for gun ownership.   #  obviously shooting your gun into the air is irresponsible, even on the fourth of july.   #  sometimes i throw sarcastic remarks into otherwise reasonable sentences.  obviously shooting your gun into the air is irresponsible, even on the fourth of july.  your op implied that he would need to shoot his gun effectively, not just operate it responsibly.  i fully support responsible gun ownership and required safety testing.  i just do not think it should be required that a person be a decent shot unless they are going to conceal or open carry in public .   #  i agree that safey training and testing are a good thing, and should be required.   #  i agree that safey training and testing are a good thing, and should be required.  i do not remember the details of the dick cheney thing, but thats a good example of fucking up.  like i said, there  should be  zero risk, if the precautions are followed.  my objection was the op is stance on testing people to make sure they can hit a target, for proper home protection or self defense.  a lot of people believe that this is a dangerous practice and keep their guns locked up and their ammo stored seperately.  my point is that if michael j.  fox, or my grandpa with hand tremors, wants to own a long gun to shoot at the range, he is in no danger to anyone as long as he follows proper precautions, even if he ca not hit shit.   #  i am not sure how op would go about that situation in his scenario.   #  i am not sure how op would go about that situation in his scenario.  though in reality, most people who have a collection of weapons are at least somewhat proficient in their use i mean, why collect something you have no interest in ? it is like having a collection of tennis rackets when you are unable to play tennis.  while it is possible that a few people would be inconvenienced by this it definitely would not be the majority of gun collectors.  for those who could not pass the test due to physical limitations such as disabilities there would likely be workarounds for them such as having a housemate or relative take the test and claim ownership if questioned.  in reality, you would not even need to take the test if you already owned firearms in a collection, that you do not use.  the police ca not just go door to door searching for illegal weapons.
assumption: any evidence of alien intelligence would be public knowledge.  early data from the kepler mission suggests that habitable planets are abundant and when combined with what we know of the history of our planet, this means that most habitable planets do not harbor an intelligent species.  if this is true, intelligent species rarely would come into contact with each other as the spread to other planets, and conflict would not be necessary.  an alien species, solely interested in studying our planet and species, could do so without ever being detected.  europeans had to make contact with aboriginal tribes in order to study them, but an alien species could collect an enormous amount of data from long distance visual observation and monitoring are telecommunication networks.  making contact provides no benefit, would unnecessarily disrupt human society, and potentially threaten theirs.  an alien species gains nothing from contacting us, they do not need to take any of our shit, and our species would not be particularly interesting to anyone watching.   #  an alien species gains nothing from contacting us, they do not need to take any of our shit, and our species would not be particularly interesting to anyone watching.   #  that depends on how full of life the local area of the universe is.   #  i think there are any number of more likely explanations: a they have not detected us yet; b they are to far to reach us; c there are none out there right now; d the assumption is wrong and they are watching closely but we cannot detect them this does not make sense.  a species capable of sustained interstellar travel would have to have some amount of control over any aggressive impulses.  it takes a lot of cool headed reasoning to be able to build a spacecraft.  considering human history offers only limited insight into extra terrestrial society given that an alien society capable of contacting us is necessarily more advanced than ours since we are not yet advanced enough to contact them.  if we are taking humans as an example, if we were to suddenly have the capacity to send ships into space and find worlds with intelligent life or even any life at all we would surely make contact, and peaceful contact at that.  why would we attack another planet is life when there are plenty of uninhabited habitable worlds and plenty of material rich uninhabitable worlds ? we are not exclusively a violent species, we are also capable of great compassion and curiosity.  that depends on how full of life the local area of the universe is.  if we are the first life they have ever found beyond their own we would be the most interesting thing they had seen in a  long  time ! if we are just one of billions of planets they have catalogued, maybe we would be less interesting, sure, but your view is extremely circumstantial.  a more reasonable view would be that we just do not know  though your current view is more discussion provoking than the reasonable view .   #  the chance of that life being more intelligent than us ?  #  we are really far from any habitable zone planets.  balance of probabilities is that radio signals from humanity have hit a couple hundred or so habitable zone rocky planets or moons by now.  of those, maybe a handful are close enough to have sent a signal back to earth by now.  the chance of their being life on one of that handful ? very very low.  the chance of that life being more intelligent than us ? infinitesimally low.  this assumes the light speed limit is a true speed limit, which so far we do not have reason to doubt.   #  also, i disagree with the idea that they are likely aggressive.   #  by this concession i must ask: what  could  change your view ? appeal to emotion ? you reject the current understandings of physics which is really all anybody has to lean on.  that said, i disagree with some notions you posit: while alien life almost certainly exists, the likelihood of it being as advanced or more advanced than us  and  in our lightcone,  and  not having gone extinct prior to us entering their lightcone, is crazy small.  but let is say this civilization exists: who says they know we exist ? the universe is big, maybe they are not looking this way.  maybe they looked and saw only a wasteland following the extinction of the dinosaurs and wrote us off.  maybe they saw us but do not care.  also, i disagree with the idea that they are likely aggressive.  or any more so than we are.  you referenced earth biology and claimed that its history shows that the  most advanced  species followed this pattern and i would disagree: modern human is the most advanced species and is relatively unaggressive.  further, we would be ecstatic to meet extraterrestrial life and would set aside our aggression for the pursuit of knowledge: a more advanced society would likely do the same, especially one that developed interstellar travel/communication.   #  maybe and i am just joking a little here a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away is not all that far fetched.   #  right.  it is, but one of those grains of sand has to be the most shinny.  i would love to meet another civilization more advanced than us, but there is a lot of steps civilizations have to go through to get to the point where war wont kill them, asteroids, dying suns, etc.  also maybe a million years ago there were a few civilization out there that could travel throughout the universe and they passed right by our solar system, and now they are extinct.  maybe and i am just joking a little here a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away is not all that far fetched.  everything that is in a star wars like galaxy came and went and now is no more.  like many of the civilizations here on earth that have come and gone and all we have left is ruins.  there is no one left to answers the calls we send out into the black.  no one that can hear us anyways.  that 0 in 0,0,0,0,0,0,0 becomes more reasonable as time goes on.   #  if we meet an alien civilization, we should assume that they survived and achieved their level of development by eliminating all competition.   #  at the biological level natural selection is the sole determinant of how life has developed on this planet and this would the case for life on any other planet, as well.  when organisms are put in competition for finite resources, the larger more aggressive organisms win out.  in the context of human history, technological advancement as always closely followed violence and warfare.  the romans build roads an aqueducts because they were necessary for the expansion of the empire.  historically, the most advanced civilization on earth have been those of europe and china, those civilizations have also been engaged in the most warfare by far.  nuclear energy, computers, rocketry, all emerged out of world war 0.  human history is characterized by more violent and technologically advances civilizations invading the territory of weaker neighbors.  this is even true of homo sapiens, outlasting other hominid species.  if we meet an alien civilization, we should assume that they survived and achieved their level of development by eliminating all competition.
assumption: any evidence of alien intelligence would be public knowledge.  early data from the kepler mission suggests that habitable planets are abundant and when combined with what we know of the history of our planet, this means that most habitable planets do not harbor an intelligent species.  if this is true, intelligent species rarely would come into contact with each other as the spread to other planets, and conflict would not be necessary.  an alien species, solely interested in studying our planet and species, could do so without ever being detected.  europeans had to make contact with aboriginal tribes in order to study them, but an alien species could collect an enormous amount of data from long distance visual observation and monitoring are telecommunication networks.  making contact provides no benefit, would unnecessarily disrupt human society, and potentially threaten theirs.  an alien species gains nothing from contacting us, they do not need to take any of our shit, and our species would not be particularly interesting to anyone watching.   #  but an alien species could collect an enormous amount of data from long distance visual observation and monitoring are telecommunication networks.   #  making contact provides no benefit, would unnecessarily disrupt human society, and potentially threaten theirs.   # making contact provides no benefit, would unnecessarily disrupt human society, and potentially threaten theirs.  gonna disagree here.  all the radio waves we emit are indistinguishable from noise before they even reach the nearest stars.  the whole hollywood idea of aliens tuning into our broadcasts isnt true.  long distance visual observation is more likely, but at best they may be able to tell that the planet is habited by  something  bacteria ? complex life ? unlikely to be able to tell .  they arent going to be able to pull too much more than that from it.  whats most likely is that everyone is too far from each other to travel.  even if curious, the outlay time/money/manpower to make such a thing happen is unlikely to be justified compared to their own concerns.  if two species do happen to meet it will be due to luck of having a close proximity, and even in that case concerns of ethics and safety may come into play.   #  balance of probabilities is that radio signals from humanity have hit a couple hundred or so habitable zone rocky planets or moons by now.   #  we are really far from any habitable zone planets.  balance of probabilities is that radio signals from humanity have hit a couple hundred or so habitable zone rocky planets or moons by now.  of those, maybe a handful are close enough to have sent a signal back to earth by now.  the chance of their being life on one of that handful ? very very low.  the chance of that life being more intelligent than us ? infinitesimally low.  this assumes the light speed limit is a true speed limit, which so far we do not have reason to doubt.   #  the universe is big, maybe they are not looking this way.   #  by this concession i must ask: what  could  change your view ? appeal to emotion ? you reject the current understandings of physics which is really all anybody has to lean on.  that said, i disagree with some notions you posit: while alien life almost certainly exists, the likelihood of it being as advanced or more advanced than us  and  in our lightcone,  and  not having gone extinct prior to us entering their lightcone, is crazy small.  but let is say this civilization exists: who says they know we exist ? the universe is big, maybe they are not looking this way.  maybe they looked and saw only a wasteland following the extinction of the dinosaurs and wrote us off.  maybe they saw us but do not care.  also, i disagree with the idea that they are likely aggressive.  or any more so than we are.  you referenced earth biology and claimed that its history shows that the  most advanced  species followed this pattern and i would disagree: modern human is the most advanced species and is relatively unaggressive.  further, we would be ecstatic to meet extraterrestrial life and would set aside our aggression for the pursuit of knowledge: a more advanced society would likely do the same, especially one that developed interstellar travel/communication.   #  everything that is in a star wars like galaxy came and went and now is no more.   #  right.  it is, but one of those grains of sand has to be the most shinny.  i would love to meet another civilization more advanced than us, but there is a lot of steps civilizations have to go through to get to the point where war wont kill them, asteroids, dying suns, etc.  also maybe a million years ago there were a few civilization out there that could travel throughout the universe and they passed right by our solar system, and now they are extinct.  maybe and i am just joking a little here a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away is not all that far fetched.  everything that is in a star wars like galaxy came and went and now is no more.  like many of the civilizations here on earth that have come and gone and all we have left is ruins.  there is no one left to answers the calls we send out into the black.  no one that can hear us anyways.  that 0 in 0,0,0,0,0,0,0 becomes more reasonable as time goes on.   #  when organisms are put in competition for finite resources, the larger more aggressive organisms win out.   #  at the biological level natural selection is the sole determinant of how life has developed on this planet and this would the case for life on any other planet, as well.  when organisms are put in competition for finite resources, the larger more aggressive organisms win out.  in the context of human history, technological advancement as always closely followed violence and warfare.  the romans build roads an aqueducts because they were necessary for the expansion of the empire.  historically, the most advanced civilization on earth have been those of europe and china, those civilizations have also been engaged in the most warfare by far.  nuclear energy, computers, rocketry, all emerged out of world war 0.  human history is characterized by more violent and technologically advances civilizations invading the territory of weaker neighbors.  this is even true of homo sapiens, outlasting other hominid species.  if we meet an alien civilization, we should assume that they survived and achieved their level of development by eliminating all competition.
i believe that it should be legally required for companies, lottery organizations and other groups that they accurately advertise the full amount.  in other words, it should be illegal for america is got talent to declare that they are giving a  million dollar prize  to first place when it is in fact an annuity of $0,0 a year for 0 years.  this annuity is really only worth the equivalent less than a third in lump sum.  this basically amounts to what i feel is false advertising.  stretched to the limit, i could advertise a $0,0,0 prize for the winner of a competition and simply put in the fine print that the money is paid out over 0,0 years.  due to inflation and missed investment gains, the prize amount is a very low amount of money in net present value.  either the company should advertise $0,0 a year for 0 years or simply give the net present value.  anything else is flat out deceptive.   #  this basically amounts to what i feel is false advertising.   #  stretched to the limit, i could advertise a $0,0,0 prize for the winner of a competition and simply put in the fine print that the money is paid out over 0,0 years.   # stretched to the limit, i could advertise a $0,0,0 prize for the winner of a competition and simply put in the fine print that the money is paid out over 0,0 years.  eh, not quite, the law against perpetuities prevents thousand year contracts.  0 years is the usual max for a contract.  anything else is flat out deceptive.  this requires the setting of a legal formula for npv, and a legal discount rate.  what would those be ?  #  shit, half the time they do not even make sense especially when trying to tap into the hipster demographic .   #  not including every negative detail of a product is hardly equivalent to being intentionally misleading.  in fact, it seems like most ads these days are less about the product and more about inundating you with the brand name and image.  they do not make any statements about their products.  shit, half the time they do not even make sense especially when trying to tap into the hipster demographic .  i think you are trying to apply a pretty outdated and/or specific marketing model to all advertisements, and it just does not fit that is, the old vacuum cleaner, orville redenbacher, local car salesman type of ads.  these  talk about the product ads  are a relatively limited category of ads, and they are only misleading sometimes as in infomercials .  i also think some of their appeal is in their kitschiness these days anyway.  all advertising is hardly misleading the way op is example is.   #  that is a very different thing than making a true statement with several potential meanings, which obviously may or may not be misinterpreted by people who do not bother finding out what it means.   #  i would challenge the notion that the expected result is necessarily a $0m immediate payout.  lotteries, and most other cash prizes of this magnitude, are paid out over time, and many people know this.  in your example, you would be actively misleading consumers by having fine print which contradicts the big print, which actually  is  illegal.  that is a very different thing than making a true statement with several potential meanings, which obviously may or may not be misinterpreted by people who do not bother finding out what it means.  that is one of the reasons we have fine print in the first place clarification.   #  second, the companies specifically say it will be an annuity.   #  thats an ineffective analogy.  first off, in your scenario there is an immediate exchange of goods.  there is no exchange of goods in giving out prize money.  second, the companies specifically say it will be an annuity.  just because you did not read everything does not mean they were bad people.  to use your example, that would be like saying  if you give me a slice of pizza i will give you a dollar, in one cent increment for a century.   and having your friend plug their ears at the comma, then being pissed off.   #  over 0 years would be even cheaper say $0k.   #  it does not backfire.  the company right now buys annuities/bonds from other sources companies or us treasury .  $0 million over 0 years costs them about $0k.  over 0 years would be even cheaper say $0k.  so it offers you a $0million prize, then turns around and pays $0k to someone else, and has thus fulfilled its obligation.  whether there is inflation, deflation, hyperinflation, whatever, it does not actually care.
specifically his first two years.  his recovery act almost single handedly saved the economy from a depression saving main street, and completing the unpopular tarp bill saved wall street.  the affordable care act not only plummeted the amount of uninsured in the country, but reduced the long term debt by around 0 trillion dollars.  he killed bin laden, america is number one enemy, and he has kept america, and american embassy is safe 0 embassy attacks under bush, vs.  benghazi .  he cut taxes on low income and middle income citizens, while stabalizing the deficit to about 0 of gdp.  he also has created about 0 million jobs since the economy started to turn around, and has the longest streak of sustained job growth 0 straight months in us history.  it is my opinion that the reason that he has so many critics is that he raised expectations so much, that it was impossible to reach them, and it is also necessary to note that the effects of the recovery have not been felt by most since congress refuses to raise the minimum wage which increases job growth and increases the marginal propensity to consume of the lower classes ! .  i think that congress, specifically republicans of course, refuses to act because they understand the demographics change, that they are not likely to win if they do not gain some of the latino or woman vote or let the economy grow, which is why they refuse to let immigration reform pass, and why they shut down the government and created the sequester.  it is my opinion, that obama has done a great job and the republican party in the house has deliberately tried to sabotage the recovery of the economy to serve their ends.  please try to change my view.   #  his recovery act almost single handedly saved the economy from a depression saving main street, and completing the unpopular tarp bill saved wall street.   #  so the massive stimulus from the federal reserve was what, peanuts ?  #  there are a lot of things you think are good on this list that someone can fairly think are bad.  also a few things are plainly exaggerated.  so the massive stimulus from the federal reserve was what, peanuts ? the fed did much more monetary stimulus than obama did fiscal.  and other countries without an obama have also recovered fairly well as well.  so there is a good case that it would have happened regardless of the arra, or at least not much differently.  ten trillion ? citation needed.  that is about 0 of the entire public debt of the us, or about 0/0 of the economic output of the us in a year.  it is like 0x more than total healthcare spending in a year.  the rosiest estimates i have seen from the obama administration are around 0 trillion in a ten year window.  and even those are pretty exaggerated.  also, the aca is a massive spending program coupled with large tax hikes.  it is not very popular.  you may think it will become more popular, but it also may not.  the penalty portions and employer mandate have not kicked in yet.  wilson led when we won wwi, and he was awful.  benghazi this seems highly aribitrary as a measure.  and embassy security is below a president is policy realm anyway.  embassy attacks should basically be considered random noise in presidential evaluations.  and the obama admin is public handling of benghazi was subpar.  i am not a conspiracy theory guy on this.  they just managed it poorly from a pr standpoint.  he raised those taxes back up too the fica reduction went away .  and the deficit thing is a function of the economy, not obama is policy choices.  obama has had little sway over the budget the past 0 years except to try and keep it about the same as it has been.  i do not give presidents a lot of credit, or blame, for the economy.  it is largely outside the president is control.  i am not saying obama is a particularly bad president, or a particularly good one.  i personally think he is kinda meh, but nobody likes a tepid opinion about the current president.  they have to be rah rah for him or hate him with a passion.  i think the house republicans are doing the country no favors mind you.  but obama being good by comparison does not make him objectively good.  and obama has clearly screwed up negotiating with them, such as in the 0 debt ceiling / sequestration insanity.  obama bungled that one badly.   #  not bills from congress or rulings of the supreme court, just real executive branch powers.   #  i am only going to list things obama actually has control over.  not bills from congress or rulings of the supreme court, just real executive branch powers.  guantanimo bay is still open.  he made an explicit promise to shut down guantanamo bay, the main reason i voted for him in  0.  do a bit of looking into the methods of torture done there, its nauseating.  many of these people have been shown by 0rd parties to be completely innocent civilians who were grabbed for mere proximity to something vaguely threatening.  for this he should be tried for violation of the geneva convention.  ndaa still exists.  he had the opprotunity to not sign this to continue, to let it die, but he did not.  the ndaa is huge violation to your right to habeous corpus URL every second that this exists, is a second where a united states citizen has a total of 0 rights.  if you can be picked up off the streets for any reason, and put into jail until you die, most likely from malnourishment, you do not have rights.  violations of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.  in the nuclear non proliferation treaty, members agree to many things 0 of which are to, not support any nation who violates the treaty a major reason why n.  korea has 0 trillion embargoes , and 0nd to aid those who seek to use nuclear power in a positive way mainy nuclear energy.  he has violated both by supporting isreal who continues, apologetically, to make nuclear weapons, whilst simultaneously condemning iran who has no evidence of making weapons only power.  for this the us really should be kicked from the un, but this will never happen.  continues to use drones abroad without the permission of congress.  i am absolutly fine if the us wants to attack those who are evil or wish us harm with the approval of congress, as is written in the constitution.  , but the attacks are not like this.  they are random brops that kill mostly civilians.  if you check graphs for deaths in every middle eastern conflict where the us participated, the civilian casualties are so far above deaths from both sides combined.  this is mainly due to unmanned drone strikes, and the  wouldouble tap  rule, where they bomb again explicitly to kill first responders who simply want to aid their injured families and countrymen.  estimates from iraq, 0,0 total deaths, 0,0 0,0 of those were civilians.  huge hypocrite when it comes to any form of opposition to him or his administration.  this URL  tl;dr  he tortures the innocent, allows unlawful detention of american citizens, violates treaties, kills civilians, is a liar and a hypocrite.  all of these things, he has or had the power to stop but did not.  this is why 0 nobel peace prize winner, barack obama, is one of the worst presidents ever.   #  congress denied obama the funds to transfer the prisoners to the us, and few places in the us were willing to accept them.   # ok.  so, obama closes guantanimo by executive order.  then what ? what do you do with the prisoners ? congress denied obama the funds to transfer the prisoners to the us, and few places in the us were willing to accept them.  obama did not close gitmo because he could not close gitmo.  it is as simple as that.  i am sorry, but how can israel violate a treaty it never ratified ? obama has permission from congress.  it is called the authorization to use military force against terrorists.  manning did not expose war crimes, and both he and snowden released a hell of a lot more secrets than  war crimes  and nsa is domestic shenanigans.  it is either ignorant or dishonest to say that snowden is wanted for whistleblowing.   #  how about instead of punishing those who expose lies and faults in the government you embrace them for making the country better for it is citizens.   # what do you do with the prisoners ? i absolutely hate this argument.  step 0 is stop torturing them.  you do not just be like, well there is no place for them to go, so lets keep forcing them to rape their families.  israel is not violating it, the us is by aiding them when they continue to make nukes.  you do not have to be a signatory to not be treated like n.  korea, but you have to stop making nukes to not be treated like n.  korea.  for example, india has not signed, but they are not making weapons so its fine.  it is called the authorization to use military force against terrorists.  so hes using his personal licence to kill whoever he wants, wow cool wow, best president ever.  if we want to go to war, we need an explicit declaration of war issued by congress as outlined in article 0 section 0 of the constitution.  this has not happened since ww 0.  manning did not expose war crimes, and both he and snowden released a hell of a lot more secrets than  war crimes  and nsa is domestic shenanigans.  it is either ignorant or dishonest to say that snowden is wanted for whistleblowing.  he obviously wo not tolerate those who expose the problems in his administration.  snowden is wanted for treason related to revealing government secrets.  there may be other charges, but i do not doubt that those charges may be fabricated.  how about instead of punishing those who expose lies and faults in the government you embrace them for making the country better for it is citizens.  anyway i listed them in order of importance with 0 and 0 being 0 ranks higher then the rest.  but to say obama is even in the top half of presidents is really just ignorant of the current political situation.   #  do you have evidence that they have actually tried to make more nukes under obama ?  # senate votes to block funds from guantanamo closure URL   ndaa still exists.  on december 0, 0, the bill passed the u. s.  house by a vote of 0 to 0, with 0 representatives not voting, and passed by the u. s.  senate on december 0, 0, by a vote of 0 to 0.  URL   violations of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.  israel is not apologetically making nuclear weapons.  in fact, for decades israel is nuclear policy has been one of opaqueness deliberately not telling anyone what they are doing.  do you have evidence that they have actually tried to make more nukes under obama ?
specifically his first two years.  his recovery act almost single handedly saved the economy from a depression saving main street, and completing the unpopular tarp bill saved wall street.  the affordable care act not only plummeted the amount of uninsured in the country, but reduced the long term debt by around 0 trillion dollars.  he killed bin laden, america is number one enemy, and he has kept america, and american embassy is safe 0 embassy attacks under bush, vs.  benghazi .  he cut taxes on low income and middle income citizens, while stabalizing the deficit to about 0 of gdp.  he also has created about 0 million jobs since the economy started to turn around, and has the longest streak of sustained job growth 0 straight months in us history.  it is my opinion that the reason that he has so many critics is that he raised expectations so much, that it was impossible to reach them, and it is also necessary to note that the effects of the recovery have not been felt by most since congress refuses to raise the minimum wage which increases job growth and increases the marginal propensity to consume of the lower classes ! .  i think that congress, specifically republicans of course, refuses to act because they understand the demographics change, that they are not likely to win if they do not gain some of the latino or woman vote or let the economy grow, which is why they refuse to let immigration reform pass, and why they shut down the government and created the sequester.  it is my opinion, that obama has done a great job and the republican party in the house has deliberately tried to sabotage the recovery of the economy to serve their ends.  please try to change my view.   #  and he has kept america, and american embassy is safe 0 embassy attacks under bush, vs.   #  benghazi this seems highly aribitrary as a measure.   #  there are a lot of things you think are good on this list that someone can fairly think are bad.  also a few things are plainly exaggerated.  so the massive stimulus from the federal reserve was what, peanuts ? the fed did much more monetary stimulus than obama did fiscal.  and other countries without an obama have also recovered fairly well as well.  so there is a good case that it would have happened regardless of the arra, or at least not much differently.  ten trillion ? citation needed.  that is about 0 of the entire public debt of the us, or about 0/0 of the economic output of the us in a year.  it is like 0x more than total healthcare spending in a year.  the rosiest estimates i have seen from the obama administration are around 0 trillion in a ten year window.  and even those are pretty exaggerated.  also, the aca is a massive spending program coupled with large tax hikes.  it is not very popular.  you may think it will become more popular, but it also may not.  the penalty portions and employer mandate have not kicked in yet.  wilson led when we won wwi, and he was awful.  benghazi this seems highly aribitrary as a measure.  and embassy security is below a president is policy realm anyway.  embassy attacks should basically be considered random noise in presidential evaluations.  and the obama admin is public handling of benghazi was subpar.  i am not a conspiracy theory guy on this.  they just managed it poorly from a pr standpoint.  he raised those taxes back up too the fica reduction went away .  and the deficit thing is a function of the economy, not obama is policy choices.  obama has had little sway over the budget the past 0 years except to try and keep it about the same as it has been.  i do not give presidents a lot of credit, or blame, for the economy.  it is largely outside the president is control.  i am not saying obama is a particularly bad president, or a particularly good one.  i personally think he is kinda meh, but nobody likes a tepid opinion about the current president.  they have to be rah rah for him or hate him with a passion.  i think the house republicans are doing the country no favors mind you.  but obama being good by comparison does not make him objectively good.  and obama has clearly screwed up negotiating with them, such as in the 0 debt ceiling / sequestration insanity.  obama bungled that one badly.   #  estimates from iraq, 0,0 total deaths, 0,0 0,0 of those were civilians.   #  i am only going to list things obama actually has control over.  not bills from congress or rulings of the supreme court, just real executive branch powers.  guantanimo bay is still open.  he made an explicit promise to shut down guantanamo bay, the main reason i voted for him in  0.  do a bit of looking into the methods of torture done there, its nauseating.  many of these people have been shown by 0rd parties to be completely innocent civilians who were grabbed for mere proximity to something vaguely threatening.  for this he should be tried for violation of the geneva convention.  ndaa still exists.  he had the opprotunity to not sign this to continue, to let it die, but he did not.  the ndaa is huge violation to your right to habeous corpus URL every second that this exists, is a second where a united states citizen has a total of 0 rights.  if you can be picked up off the streets for any reason, and put into jail until you die, most likely from malnourishment, you do not have rights.  violations of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.  in the nuclear non proliferation treaty, members agree to many things 0 of which are to, not support any nation who violates the treaty a major reason why n.  korea has 0 trillion embargoes , and 0nd to aid those who seek to use nuclear power in a positive way mainy nuclear energy.  he has violated both by supporting isreal who continues, apologetically, to make nuclear weapons, whilst simultaneously condemning iran who has no evidence of making weapons only power.  for this the us really should be kicked from the un, but this will never happen.  continues to use drones abroad without the permission of congress.  i am absolutly fine if the us wants to attack those who are evil or wish us harm with the approval of congress, as is written in the constitution.  , but the attacks are not like this.  they are random brops that kill mostly civilians.  if you check graphs for deaths in every middle eastern conflict where the us participated, the civilian casualties are so far above deaths from both sides combined.  this is mainly due to unmanned drone strikes, and the  wouldouble tap  rule, where they bomb again explicitly to kill first responders who simply want to aid their injured families and countrymen.  estimates from iraq, 0,0 total deaths, 0,0 0,0 of those were civilians.  huge hypocrite when it comes to any form of opposition to him or his administration.  this URL  tl;dr  he tortures the innocent, allows unlawful detention of american citizens, violates treaties, kills civilians, is a liar and a hypocrite.  all of these things, he has or had the power to stop but did not.  this is why 0 nobel peace prize winner, barack obama, is one of the worst presidents ever.   #  manning did not expose war crimes, and both he and snowden released a hell of a lot more secrets than  war crimes  and nsa is domestic shenanigans.   # ok.  so, obama closes guantanimo by executive order.  then what ? what do you do with the prisoners ? congress denied obama the funds to transfer the prisoners to the us, and few places in the us were willing to accept them.  obama did not close gitmo because he could not close gitmo.  it is as simple as that.  i am sorry, but how can israel violate a treaty it never ratified ? obama has permission from congress.  it is called the authorization to use military force against terrorists.  manning did not expose war crimes, and both he and snowden released a hell of a lot more secrets than  war crimes  and nsa is domestic shenanigans.  it is either ignorant or dishonest to say that snowden is wanted for whistleblowing.   #  you do not have to be a signatory to not be treated like n.  korea, but you have to stop making nukes to not be treated like n.  korea.   # what do you do with the prisoners ? i absolutely hate this argument.  step 0 is stop torturing them.  you do not just be like, well there is no place for them to go, so lets keep forcing them to rape their families.  israel is not violating it, the us is by aiding them when they continue to make nukes.  you do not have to be a signatory to not be treated like n.  korea, but you have to stop making nukes to not be treated like n.  korea.  for example, india has not signed, but they are not making weapons so its fine.  it is called the authorization to use military force against terrorists.  so hes using his personal licence to kill whoever he wants, wow cool wow, best president ever.  if we want to go to war, we need an explicit declaration of war issued by congress as outlined in article 0 section 0 of the constitution.  this has not happened since ww 0.  manning did not expose war crimes, and both he and snowden released a hell of a lot more secrets than  war crimes  and nsa is domestic shenanigans.  it is either ignorant or dishonest to say that snowden is wanted for whistleblowing.  he obviously wo not tolerate those who expose the problems in his administration.  snowden is wanted for treason related to revealing government secrets.  there may be other charges, but i do not doubt that those charges may be fabricated.  how about instead of punishing those who expose lies and faults in the government you embrace them for making the country better for it is citizens.  anyway i listed them in order of importance with 0 and 0 being 0 ranks higher then the rest.  but to say obama is even in the top half of presidents is really just ignorant of the current political situation.   #  house by a vote of 0 to 0, with 0 representatives not voting, and passed by the u. s.   # senate votes to block funds from guantanamo closure URL   ndaa still exists.  on december 0, 0, the bill passed the u. s.  house by a vote of 0 to 0, with 0 representatives not voting, and passed by the u. s.  senate on december 0, 0, by a vote of 0 to 0.  URL   violations of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.  israel is not apologetically making nuclear weapons.  in fact, for decades israel is nuclear policy has been one of opaqueness deliberately not telling anyone what they are doing.  do you have evidence that they have actually tried to make more nukes under obama ?
specifically his first two years.  his recovery act almost single handedly saved the economy from a depression saving main street, and completing the unpopular tarp bill saved wall street.  the affordable care act not only plummeted the amount of uninsured in the country, but reduced the long term debt by around 0 trillion dollars.  he killed bin laden, america is number one enemy, and he has kept america, and american embassy is safe 0 embassy attacks under bush, vs.  benghazi .  he cut taxes on low income and middle income citizens, while stabalizing the deficit to about 0 of gdp.  he also has created about 0 million jobs since the economy started to turn around, and has the longest streak of sustained job growth 0 straight months in us history.  it is my opinion that the reason that he has so many critics is that he raised expectations so much, that it was impossible to reach them, and it is also necessary to note that the effects of the recovery have not been felt by most since congress refuses to raise the minimum wage which increases job growth and increases the marginal propensity to consume of the lower classes ! .  i think that congress, specifically republicans of course, refuses to act because they understand the demographics change, that they are not likely to win if they do not gain some of the latino or woman vote or let the economy grow, which is why they refuse to let immigration reform pass, and why they shut down the government and created the sequester.  it is my opinion, that obama has done a great job and the republican party in the house has deliberately tried to sabotage the recovery of the economy to serve their ends.  please try to change my view.   #  he cut taxes on low income and middle income citizens, while stabalizing the deficit to about 0 of gdp.   #  he raised those taxes back up too the fica reduction went away .   #  there are a lot of things you think are good on this list that someone can fairly think are bad.  also a few things are plainly exaggerated.  so the massive stimulus from the federal reserve was what, peanuts ? the fed did much more monetary stimulus than obama did fiscal.  and other countries without an obama have also recovered fairly well as well.  so there is a good case that it would have happened regardless of the arra, or at least not much differently.  ten trillion ? citation needed.  that is about 0 of the entire public debt of the us, or about 0/0 of the economic output of the us in a year.  it is like 0x more than total healthcare spending in a year.  the rosiest estimates i have seen from the obama administration are around 0 trillion in a ten year window.  and even those are pretty exaggerated.  also, the aca is a massive spending program coupled with large tax hikes.  it is not very popular.  you may think it will become more popular, but it also may not.  the penalty portions and employer mandate have not kicked in yet.  wilson led when we won wwi, and he was awful.  benghazi this seems highly aribitrary as a measure.  and embassy security is below a president is policy realm anyway.  embassy attacks should basically be considered random noise in presidential evaluations.  and the obama admin is public handling of benghazi was subpar.  i am not a conspiracy theory guy on this.  they just managed it poorly from a pr standpoint.  he raised those taxes back up too the fica reduction went away .  and the deficit thing is a function of the economy, not obama is policy choices.  obama has had little sway over the budget the past 0 years except to try and keep it about the same as it has been.  i do not give presidents a lot of credit, or blame, for the economy.  it is largely outside the president is control.  i am not saying obama is a particularly bad president, or a particularly good one.  i personally think he is kinda meh, but nobody likes a tepid opinion about the current president.  they have to be rah rah for him or hate him with a passion.  i think the house republicans are doing the country no favors mind you.  but obama being good by comparison does not make him objectively good.  and obama has clearly screwed up negotiating with them, such as in the 0 debt ceiling / sequestration insanity.  obama bungled that one badly.   #  they are random brops that kill mostly civilians.   #  i am only going to list things obama actually has control over.  not bills from congress or rulings of the supreme court, just real executive branch powers.  guantanimo bay is still open.  he made an explicit promise to shut down guantanamo bay, the main reason i voted for him in  0.  do a bit of looking into the methods of torture done there, its nauseating.  many of these people have been shown by 0rd parties to be completely innocent civilians who were grabbed for mere proximity to something vaguely threatening.  for this he should be tried for violation of the geneva convention.  ndaa still exists.  he had the opprotunity to not sign this to continue, to let it die, but he did not.  the ndaa is huge violation to your right to habeous corpus URL every second that this exists, is a second where a united states citizen has a total of 0 rights.  if you can be picked up off the streets for any reason, and put into jail until you die, most likely from malnourishment, you do not have rights.  violations of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.  in the nuclear non proliferation treaty, members agree to many things 0 of which are to, not support any nation who violates the treaty a major reason why n.  korea has 0 trillion embargoes , and 0nd to aid those who seek to use nuclear power in a positive way mainy nuclear energy.  he has violated both by supporting isreal who continues, apologetically, to make nuclear weapons, whilst simultaneously condemning iran who has no evidence of making weapons only power.  for this the us really should be kicked from the un, but this will never happen.  continues to use drones abroad without the permission of congress.  i am absolutly fine if the us wants to attack those who are evil or wish us harm with the approval of congress, as is written in the constitution.  , but the attacks are not like this.  they are random brops that kill mostly civilians.  if you check graphs for deaths in every middle eastern conflict where the us participated, the civilian casualties are so far above deaths from both sides combined.  this is mainly due to unmanned drone strikes, and the  wouldouble tap  rule, where they bomb again explicitly to kill first responders who simply want to aid their injured families and countrymen.  estimates from iraq, 0,0 total deaths, 0,0 0,0 of those were civilians.  huge hypocrite when it comes to any form of opposition to him or his administration.  this URL  tl;dr  he tortures the innocent, allows unlawful detention of american citizens, violates treaties, kills civilians, is a liar and a hypocrite.  all of these things, he has or had the power to stop but did not.  this is why 0 nobel peace prize winner, barack obama, is one of the worst presidents ever.   #  it is called the authorization to use military force against terrorists.   # ok.  so, obama closes guantanimo by executive order.  then what ? what do you do with the prisoners ? congress denied obama the funds to transfer the prisoners to the us, and few places in the us were willing to accept them.  obama did not close gitmo because he could not close gitmo.  it is as simple as that.  i am sorry, but how can israel violate a treaty it never ratified ? obama has permission from congress.  it is called the authorization to use military force against terrorists.  manning did not expose war crimes, and both he and snowden released a hell of a lot more secrets than  war crimes  and nsa is domestic shenanigans.  it is either ignorant or dishonest to say that snowden is wanted for whistleblowing.   #  how about instead of punishing those who expose lies and faults in the government you embrace them for making the country better for it is citizens.   # what do you do with the prisoners ? i absolutely hate this argument.  step 0 is stop torturing them.  you do not just be like, well there is no place for them to go, so lets keep forcing them to rape their families.  israel is not violating it, the us is by aiding them when they continue to make nukes.  you do not have to be a signatory to not be treated like n.  korea, but you have to stop making nukes to not be treated like n.  korea.  for example, india has not signed, but they are not making weapons so its fine.  it is called the authorization to use military force against terrorists.  so hes using his personal licence to kill whoever he wants, wow cool wow, best president ever.  if we want to go to war, we need an explicit declaration of war issued by congress as outlined in article 0 section 0 of the constitution.  this has not happened since ww 0.  manning did not expose war crimes, and both he and snowden released a hell of a lot more secrets than  war crimes  and nsa is domestic shenanigans.  it is either ignorant or dishonest to say that snowden is wanted for whistleblowing.  he obviously wo not tolerate those who expose the problems in his administration.  snowden is wanted for treason related to revealing government secrets.  there may be other charges, but i do not doubt that those charges may be fabricated.  how about instead of punishing those who expose lies and faults in the government you embrace them for making the country better for it is citizens.  anyway i listed them in order of importance with 0 and 0 being 0 ranks higher then the rest.  but to say obama is even in the top half of presidents is really just ignorant of the current political situation.   #  in fact, for decades israel is nuclear policy has been one of opaqueness deliberately not telling anyone what they are doing.   # senate votes to block funds from guantanamo closure URL   ndaa still exists.  on december 0, 0, the bill passed the u. s.  house by a vote of 0 to 0, with 0 representatives not voting, and passed by the u. s.  senate on december 0, 0, by a vote of 0 to 0.  URL   violations of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.  israel is not apologetically making nuclear weapons.  in fact, for decades israel is nuclear policy has been one of opaqueness deliberately not telling anyone what they are doing.  do you have evidence that they have actually tried to make more nukes under obama ?
specifically his first two years.  his recovery act almost single handedly saved the economy from a depression saving main street, and completing the unpopular tarp bill saved wall street.  the affordable care act not only plummeted the amount of uninsured in the country, but reduced the long term debt by around 0 trillion dollars.  he killed bin laden, america is number one enemy, and he has kept america, and american embassy is safe 0 embassy attacks under bush, vs.  benghazi .  he cut taxes on low income and middle income citizens, while stabalizing the deficit to about 0 of gdp.  he also has created about 0 million jobs since the economy started to turn around, and has the longest streak of sustained job growth 0 straight months in us history.  it is my opinion that the reason that he has so many critics is that he raised expectations so much, that it was impossible to reach them, and it is also necessary to note that the effects of the recovery have not been felt by most since congress refuses to raise the minimum wage which increases job growth and increases the marginal propensity to consume of the lower classes ! .  i think that congress, specifically republicans of course, refuses to act because they understand the demographics change, that they are not likely to win if they do not gain some of the latino or woman vote or let the economy grow, which is why they refuse to let immigration reform pass, and why they shut down the government and created the sequester.  it is my opinion, that obama has done a great job and the republican party in the house has deliberately tried to sabotage the recovery of the economy to serve their ends.  please try to change my view.   #  he also has created about 0 million jobs since the economy started to turn around, and has the longest streak of sustained job growth 0 straight months in us history.   #  i do not give presidents a lot of credit, or blame, for the economy.   #  there are a lot of things you think are good on this list that someone can fairly think are bad.  also a few things are plainly exaggerated.  so the massive stimulus from the federal reserve was what, peanuts ? the fed did much more monetary stimulus than obama did fiscal.  and other countries without an obama have also recovered fairly well as well.  so there is a good case that it would have happened regardless of the arra, or at least not much differently.  ten trillion ? citation needed.  that is about 0 of the entire public debt of the us, or about 0/0 of the economic output of the us in a year.  it is like 0x more than total healthcare spending in a year.  the rosiest estimates i have seen from the obama administration are around 0 trillion in a ten year window.  and even those are pretty exaggerated.  also, the aca is a massive spending program coupled with large tax hikes.  it is not very popular.  you may think it will become more popular, but it also may not.  the penalty portions and employer mandate have not kicked in yet.  wilson led when we won wwi, and he was awful.  benghazi this seems highly aribitrary as a measure.  and embassy security is below a president is policy realm anyway.  embassy attacks should basically be considered random noise in presidential evaluations.  and the obama admin is public handling of benghazi was subpar.  i am not a conspiracy theory guy on this.  they just managed it poorly from a pr standpoint.  he raised those taxes back up too the fica reduction went away .  and the deficit thing is a function of the economy, not obama is policy choices.  obama has had little sway over the budget the past 0 years except to try and keep it about the same as it has been.  i do not give presidents a lot of credit, or blame, for the economy.  it is largely outside the president is control.  i am not saying obama is a particularly bad president, or a particularly good one.  i personally think he is kinda meh, but nobody likes a tepid opinion about the current president.  they have to be rah rah for him or hate him with a passion.  i think the house republicans are doing the country no favors mind you.  but obama being good by comparison does not make him objectively good.  and obama has clearly screwed up negotiating with them, such as in the 0 debt ceiling / sequestration insanity.  obama bungled that one badly.   #  i am absolutly fine if the us wants to attack those who are evil or wish us harm with the approval of congress, as is written in the constitution.   #  i am only going to list things obama actually has control over.  not bills from congress or rulings of the supreme court, just real executive branch powers.  guantanimo bay is still open.  he made an explicit promise to shut down guantanamo bay, the main reason i voted for him in  0.  do a bit of looking into the methods of torture done there, its nauseating.  many of these people have been shown by 0rd parties to be completely innocent civilians who were grabbed for mere proximity to something vaguely threatening.  for this he should be tried for violation of the geneva convention.  ndaa still exists.  he had the opprotunity to not sign this to continue, to let it die, but he did not.  the ndaa is huge violation to your right to habeous corpus URL every second that this exists, is a second where a united states citizen has a total of 0 rights.  if you can be picked up off the streets for any reason, and put into jail until you die, most likely from malnourishment, you do not have rights.  violations of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.  in the nuclear non proliferation treaty, members agree to many things 0 of which are to, not support any nation who violates the treaty a major reason why n.  korea has 0 trillion embargoes , and 0nd to aid those who seek to use nuclear power in a positive way mainy nuclear energy.  he has violated both by supporting isreal who continues, apologetically, to make nuclear weapons, whilst simultaneously condemning iran who has no evidence of making weapons only power.  for this the us really should be kicked from the un, but this will never happen.  continues to use drones abroad without the permission of congress.  i am absolutly fine if the us wants to attack those who are evil or wish us harm with the approval of congress, as is written in the constitution.  , but the attacks are not like this.  they are random brops that kill mostly civilians.  if you check graphs for deaths in every middle eastern conflict where the us participated, the civilian casualties are so far above deaths from both sides combined.  this is mainly due to unmanned drone strikes, and the  wouldouble tap  rule, where they bomb again explicitly to kill first responders who simply want to aid their injured families and countrymen.  estimates from iraq, 0,0 total deaths, 0,0 0,0 of those were civilians.  huge hypocrite when it comes to any form of opposition to him or his administration.  this URL  tl;dr  he tortures the innocent, allows unlawful detention of american citizens, violates treaties, kills civilians, is a liar and a hypocrite.  all of these things, he has or had the power to stop but did not.  this is why 0 nobel peace prize winner, barack obama, is one of the worst presidents ever.   #  it is called the authorization to use military force against terrorists.   # ok.  so, obama closes guantanimo by executive order.  then what ? what do you do with the prisoners ? congress denied obama the funds to transfer the prisoners to the us, and few places in the us were willing to accept them.  obama did not close gitmo because he could not close gitmo.  it is as simple as that.  i am sorry, but how can israel violate a treaty it never ratified ? obama has permission from congress.  it is called the authorization to use military force against terrorists.  manning did not expose war crimes, and both he and snowden released a hell of a lot more secrets than  war crimes  and nsa is domestic shenanigans.  it is either ignorant or dishonest to say that snowden is wanted for whistleblowing.   #  so hes using his personal licence to kill whoever he wants, wow cool wow, best president ever.   # what do you do with the prisoners ? i absolutely hate this argument.  step 0 is stop torturing them.  you do not just be like, well there is no place for them to go, so lets keep forcing them to rape their families.  israel is not violating it, the us is by aiding them when they continue to make nukes.  you do not have to be a signatory to not be treated like n.  korea, but you have to stop making nukes to not be treated like n.  korea.  for example, india has not signed, but they are not making weapons so its fine.  it is called the authorization to use military force against terrorists.  so hes using his personal licence to kill whoever he wants, wow cool wow, best president ever.  if we want to go to war, we need an explicit declaration of war issued by congress as outlined in article 0 section 0 of the constitution.  this has not happened since ww 0.  manning did not expose war crimes, and both he and snowden released a hell of a lot more secrets than  war crimes  and nsa is domestic shenanigans.  it is either ignorant or dishonest to say that snowden is wanted for whistleblowing.  he obviously wo not tolerate those who expose the problems in his administration.  snowden is wanted for treason related to revealing government secrets.  there may be other charges, but i do not doubt that those charges may be fabricated.  how about instead of punishing those who expose lies and faults in the government you embrace them for making the country better for it is citizens.  anyway i listed them in order of importance with 0 and 0 being 0 ranks higher then the rest.  but to say obama is even in the top half of presidents is really just ignorant of the current political situation.   #  do you have evidence that they have actually tried to make more nukes under obama ?  # senate votes to block funds from guantanamo closure URL   ndaa still exists.  on december 0, 0, the bill passed the u. s.  house by a vote of 0 to 0, with 0 representatives not voting, and passed by the u. s.  senate on december 0, 0, by a vote of 0 to 0.  URL   violations of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.  israel is not apologetically making nuclear weapons.  in fact, for decades israel is nuclear policy has been one of opaqueness deliberately not telling anyone what they are doing.  do you have evidence that they have actually tried to make more nukes under obama ?
after recent incidents of passengers fighting over reclined seats, i was surprised to find how many individuals supported the person who was reclining their chairs.  i always thought i was in the majority before this.  now, i am referring to domestic flights on the economy class of american carriers as i understand that different airlines have many different seating options.  also i am excluding lying down reclining for any medical purpose.  the counterpoint that most of these people where using was that  they paid for the seat  or they  were entitled to a nap.   but when i fly, i pay for a window seat, yet i am still expected to close the window for most of the time.  additionally, my employer expects me to get work done and pays for wifi.  if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ? finally, passengers have been kicked off for things that endanger the comfort of others before like body odor .  if someone is constantly reclining and unreclining on a tall individual, is not that true ?  #  additionally, my employer expects me to get work done and pays for wifi.   #  if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ?  # if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ? the reclining mechanism in airline seats have been around for far longer than laptops and wifi.  the seats are intended to allow reclining and resting during flight.  your employer is expecting you to work in a lousy, cramped environment.  your employer is the one being socially rude.   #  good for you, i have lived there 0 years and travel there regularly for business.   #  good for you, i have lived there 0 years and travel there regularly for business.  if you live there you of all should know that the space in a 新幹線 is way more spacious than on an airplane.  i see this every time i stay there; people asking the one behind if it is ok.  maybe you do not travel by 新幹線 that often or maybe it is just a coincidence ? it might just be the case that i have noticed this and you have not because it is a non issue for you ?  #  at first i was pretty miffed, but i ended up talking to the guy for hours after helping him figure out his video setup.   #  actually i think this is a bizarrely tough question.  i was really surprised at this thread and the number of people who think it is rude, or have what i would consider a passive aggressive expectation that you do not recline.  personally i think that asking makes basically impossible for the person being asked to refuse, unless he is very uncouth, or a sociopath.  so i do not think it is more polite to ask, as to me this is ultimately done so that the person asking feels better about it.  on the other hand, i think it is completely fair to recline as much as the seat permits.  in my own experience i am a lanky 0 0  whenever i fly international i inevitably feel a flash of annoyance when the person in front of me reclines the seat all the way back.  but i always remind myself that i have the same right, and that is what the seats are built for.  it is also worth considering maybe that these others might be dealing with some similar form of physical or psychological discomfort.  in a related experience, i once flew from lax to zurich with my wife.  we were not awarded seats next to each other by some mistake, and so i tried to ask the older guy next to me to swap with me.  he responded in what i felt was a very rude manner  no !   at first i was pretty miffed, but i ended up talking to the guy for hours after helping him figure out his video setup.  turned out he had not really flown much, really wanted the window, and my making that request left him feeling he had respond in a gruff manner.  so i guess my answer is, for me personally, i think it is actually less polite to ask, but i can see that there are other valid perspectives on the matter.  again, a bizarrely difficult question that i had never really considered before.   #  i would not find it hard to refuse someone in front of me if i am, say, writing on something and would want them to wait some 0 minutes or so.   #  it is a difficult question indeed.  almost all of the arguments stem from the  sacrificing my comfort for your comfort  which, regardless of stance, becomes a zero sum game.  i would not find it hard to refuse someone in front of me if i am, say, writing on something and would want them to wait some 0 minutes or so.  if you are asking only to feel better about it, have not you already decided that you want to recline ? asking implies that you will also adhere to the decision of the asked.  i have thought about it but since i usually do not have any problem with people reclining their seat, nor do i have a problem with asking them to lift it should i need to use the space, i have not really thought about it either.  but i guess that is what fresh topic friday is all about :  #  am i too much of a genetic freak to fly coach ?  #  the seat reclines so that the space taken up by the reclining mechanism can become a  shared space , like the arm rest.  just like the arm rest, if you wish to use a shared resource that someone else is hogging, you need to open up a conversation about it, and smashing into their body with a heavy and hard object is not normally considered a great way to do this.  if you think it is more comfortable to sit upright than to lose the knee space, then your body shape clearly allows you to position your knees differently than mine does.  i am in the 0th percentile of height for my sex and race at 0 foot 0 inches.  am i too much of a genetic freak to fly coach ? long haul international flights usually have enough space, many others just do not.
after recent incidents of passengers fighting over reclined seats, i was surprised to find how many individuals supported the person who was reclining their chairs.  i always thought i was in the majority before this.  now, i am referring to domestic flights on the economy class of american carriers as i understand that different airlines have many different seating options.  also i am excluding lying down reclining for any medical purpose.  the counterpoint that most of these people where using was that  they paid for the seat  or they  were entitled to a nap.   but when i fly, i pay for a window seat, yet i am still expected to close the window for most of the time.  additionally, my employer expects me to get work done and pays for wifi.  if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ? finally, passengers have been kicked off for things that endanger the comfort of others before like body odor .  if someone is constantly reclining and unreclining on a tall individual, is not that true ?  #  the counterpoint that most of these people where using was that  they paid for the seat  or they  were entitled to a nap.    #  they pay for a seat with an advertised  seat pitch  space between seats .   # they pay for a seat with an advertised  seat pitch  space between seats .  they are entitled to use that full space.  the window is a shared resource for the entire row.  you pay for the window seat  position , but have no claim over the actual window.  just like having an aisle seat does not give you any power over the aisle.  no.  if you want to use a laptop, you should pay for a ticket on a plane with enough room between seats.  i need to recline to comfortably fit in my seat i am tall , and comfort trumps your electronics.  body odor can make people physically ill.  their odor also extends beyond the area of their seat.  if someone smelled terrible, but nobody could smell it unless they were sitting on their lap, would it matter ?  #  the reclining mechanism in airline seats have been around for far longer than laptops and wifi.   # if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ? the reclining mechanism in airline seats have been around for far longer than laptops and wifi.  the seats are intended to allow reclining and resting during flight.  your employer is expecting you to work in a lousy, cramped environment.  your employer is the one being socially rude.   #  if you live there you of all should know that the space in a 新幹線 is way more spacious than on an airplane.   #  good for you, i have lived there 0 years and travel there regularly for business.  if you live there you of all should know that the space in a 新幹線 is way more spacious than on an airplane.  i see this every time i stay there; people asking the one behind if it is ok.  maybe you do not travel by 新幹線 that often or maybe it is just a coincidence ? it might just be the case that i have noticed this and you have not because it is a non issue for you ?  #  he responded in what i felt was a very rude manner  no !    #  actually i think this is a bizarrely tough question.  i was really surprised at this thread and the number of people who think it is rude, or have what i would consider a passive aggressive expectation that you do not recline.  personally i think that asking makes basically impossible for the person being asked to refuse, unless he is very uncouth, or a sociopath.  so i do not think it is more polite to ask, as to me this is ultimately done so that the person asking feels better about it.  on the other hand, i think it is completely fair to recline as much as the seat permits.  in my own experience i am a lanky 0 0  whenever i fly international i inevitably feel a flash of annoyance when the person in front of me reclines the seat all the way back.  but i always remind myself that i have the same right, and that is what the seats are built for.  it is also worth considering maybe that these others might be dealing with some similar form of physical or psychological discomfort.  in a related experience, i once flew from lax to zurich with my wife.  we were not awarded seats next to each other by some mistake, and so i tried to ask the older guy next to me to swap with me.  he responded in what i felt was a very rude manner  no !   at first i was pretty miffed, but i ended up talking to the guy for hours after helping him figure out his video setup.  turned out he had not really flown much, really wanted the window, and my making that request left him feeling he had respond in a gruff manner.  so i guess my answer is, for me personally, i think it is actually less polite to ask, but i can see that there are other valid perspectives on the matter.  again, a bizarrely difficult question that i had never really considered before.   #  if you are asking only to feel better about it, have not you already decided that you want to recline ?  #  it is a difficult question indeed.  almost all of the arguments stem from the  sacrificing my comfort for your comfort  which, regardless of stance, becomes a zero sum game.  i would not find it hard to refuse someone in front of me if i am, say, writing on something and would want them to wait some 0 minutes or so.  if you are asking only to feel better about it, have not you already decided that you want to recline ? asking implies that you will also adhere to the decision of the asked.  i have thought about it but since i usually do not have any problem with people reclining their seat, nor do i have a problem with asking them to lift it should i need to use the space, i have not really thought about it either.  but i guess that is what fresh topic friday is all about :
after recent incidents of passengers fighting over reclined seats, i was surprised to find how many individuals supported the person who was reclining their chairs.  i always thought i was in the majority before this.  now, i am referring to domestic flights on the economy class of american carriers as i understand that different airlines have many different seating options.  also i am excluding lying down reclining for any medical purpose.  the counterpoint that most of these people where using was that  they paid for the seat  or they  were entitled to a nap.   but when i fly, i pay for a window seat, yet i am still expected to close the window for most of the time.  additionally, my employer expects me to get work done and pays for wifi.  if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ? finally, passengers have been kicked off for things that endanger the comfort of others before like body odor .  if someone is constantly reclining and unreclining on a tall individual, is not that true ?  #  but when i fly, i pay for a window seat, yet i am still expected to close the window for most of the time.   #  the window is a shared resource for the entire row.   # they pay for a seat with an advertised  seat pitch  space between seats .  they are entitled to use that full space.  the window is a shared resource for the entire row.  you pay for the window seat  position , but have no claim over the actual window.  just like having an aisle seat does not give you any power over the aisle.  no.  if you want to use a laptop, you should pay for a ticket on a plane with enough room between seats.  i need to recline to comfortably fit in my seat i am tall , and comfort trumps your electronics.  body odor can make people physically ill.  their odor also extends beyond the area of their seat.  if someone smelled terrible, but nobody could smell it unless they were sitting on their lap, would it matter ?  #  your employer is the one being socially rude.   # if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ? the reclining mechanism in airline seats have been around for far longer than laptops and wifi.  the seats are intended to allow reclining and resting during flight.  your employer is expecting you to work in a lousy, cramped environment.  your employer is the one being socially rude.   #  i see this every time i stay there; people asking the one behind if it is ok.   #  good for you, i have lived there 0 years and travel there regularly for business.  if you live there you of all should know that the space in a 新幹線 is way more spacious than on an airplane.  i see this every time i stay there; people asking the one behind if it is ok.  maybe you do not travel by 新幹線 that often or maybe it is just a coincidence ? it might just be the case that i have noticed this and you have not because it is a non issue for you ?  #  on the other hand, i think it is completely fair to recline as much as the seat permits.   #  actually i think this is a bizarrely tough question.  i was really surprised at this thread and the number of people who think it is rude, or have what i would consider a passive aggressive expectation that you do not recline.  personally i think that asking makes basically impossible for the person being asked to refuse, unless he is very uncouth, or a sociopath.  so i do not think it is more polite to ask, as to me this is ultimately done so that the person asking feels better about it.  on the other hand, i think it is completely fair to recline as much as the seat permits.  in my own experience i am a lanky 0 0  whenever i fly international i inevitably feel a flash of annoyance when the person in front of me reclines the seat all the way back.  but i always remind myself that i have the same right, and that is what the seats are built for.  it is also worth considering maybe that these others might be dealing with some similar form of physical or psychological discomfort.  in a related experience, i once flew from lax to zurich with my wife.  we were not awarded seats next to each other by some mistake, and so i tried to ask the older guy next to me to swap with me.  he responded in what i felt was a very rude manner  no !   at first i was pretty miffed, but i ended up talking to the guy for hours after helping him figure out his video setup.  turned out he had not really flown much, really wanted the window, and my making that request left him feeling he had respond in a gruff manner.  so i guess my answer is, for me personally, i think it is actually less polite to ask, but i can see that there are other valid perspectives on the matter.  again, a bizarrely difficult question that i had never really considered before.   #  i would not find it hard to refuse someone in front of me if i am, say, writing on something and would want them to wait some 0 minutes or so.   #  it is a difficult question indeed.  almost all of the arguments stem from the  sacrificing my comfort for your comfort  which, regardless of stance, becomes a zero sum game.  i would not find it hard to refuse someone in front of me if i am, say, writing on something and would want them to wait some 0 minutes or so.  if you are asking only to feel better about it, have not you already decided that you want to recline ? asking implies that you will also adhere to the decision of the asked.  i have thought about it but since i usually do not have any problem with people reclining their seat, nor do i have a problem with asking them to lift it should i need to use the space, i have not really thought about it either.  but i guess that is what fresh topic friday is all about :
after recent incidents of passengers fighting over reclined seats, i was surprised to find how many individuals supported the person who was reclining their chairs.  i always thought i was in the majority before this.  now, i am referring to domestic flights on the economy class of american carriers as i understand that different airlines have many different seating options.  also i am excluding lying down reclining for any medical purpose.  the counterpoint that most of these people where using was that  they paid for the seat  or they  were entitled to a nap.   but when i fly, i pay for a window seat, yet i am still expected to close the window for most of the time.  additionally, my employer expects me to get work done and pays for wifi.  if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ? finally, passengers have been kicked off for things that endanger the comfort of others before like body odor .  if someone is constantly reclining and unreclining on a tall individual, is not that true ?  #  finally, passengers have been kicked off for things that endanger the comfort of others before like body odor .   #  body odor can make people physically ill.   # they pay for a seat with an advertised  seat pitch  space between seats .  they are entitled to use that full space.  the window is a shared resource for the entire row.  you pay for the window seat  position , but have no claim over the actual window.  just like having an aisle seat does not give you any power over the aisle.  no.  if you want to use a laptop, you should pay for a ticket on a plane with enough room between seats.  i need to recline to comfortably fit in my seat i am tall , and comfort trumps your electronics.  body odor can make people physically ill.  their odor also extends beyond the area of their seat.  if someone smelled terrible, but nobody could smell it unless they were sitting on their lap, would it matter ?  #  the reclining mechanism in airline seats have been around for far longer than laptops and wifi.   # if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ? the reclining mechanism in airline seats have been around for far longer than laptops and wifi.  the seats are intended to allow reclining and resting during flight.  your employer is expecting you to work in a lousy, cramped environment.  your employer is the one being socially rude.   #  maybe you do not travel by 新幹線 that often or maybe it is just a coincidence ?  #  good for you, i have lived there 0 years and travel there regularly for business.  if you live there you of all should know that the space in a 新幹線 is way more spacious than on an airplane.  i see this every time i stay there; people asking the one behind if it is ok.  maybe you do not travel by 新幹線 that often or maybe it is just a coincidence ? it might just be the case that i have noticed this and you have not because it is a non issue for you ?  #  personally i think that asking makes basically impossible for the person being asked to refuse, unless he is very uncouth, or a sociopath.   #  actually i think this is a bizarrely tough question.  i was really surprised at this thread and the number of people who think it is rude, or have what i would consider a passive aggressive expectation that you do not recline.  personally i think that asking makes basically impossible for the person being asked to refuse, unless he is very uncouth, or a sociopath.  so i do not think it is more polite to ask, as to me this is ultimately done so that the person asking feels better about it.  on the other hand, i think it is completely fair to recline as much as the seat permits.  in my own experience i am a lanky 0 0  whenever i fly international i inevitably feel a flash of annoyance when the person in front of me reclines the seat all the way back.  but i always remind myself that i have the same right, and that is what the seats are built for.  it is also worth considering maybe that these others might be dealing with some similar form of physical or psychological discomfort.  in a related experience, i once flew from lax to zurich with my wife.  we were not awarded seats next to each other by some mistake, and so i tried to ask the older guy next to me to swap with me.  he responded in what i felt was a very rude manner  no !   at first i was pretty miffed, but i ended up talking to the guy for hours after helping him figure out his video setup.  turned out he had not really flown much, really wanted the window, and my making that request left him feeling he had respond in a gruff manner.  so i guess my answer is, for me personally, i think it is actually less polite to ask, but i can see that there are other valid perspectives on the matter.  again, a bizarrely difficult question that i had never really considered before.   #  but i guess that is what fresh topic friday is all about :  #  it is a difficult question indeed.  almost all of the arguments stem from the  sacrificing my comfort for your comfort  which, regardless of stance, becomes a zero sum game.  i would not find it hard to refuse someone in front of me if i am, say, writing on something and would want them to wait some 0 minutes or so.  if you are asking only to feel better about it, have not you already decided that you want to recline ? asking implies that you will also adhere to the decision of the asked.  i have thought about it but since i usually do not have any problem with people reclining their seat, nor do i have a problem with asking them to lift it should i need to use the space, i have not really thought about it either.  but i guess that is what fresh topic friday is all about :
after recent incidents of passengers fighting over reclined seats, i was surprised to find how many individuals supported the person who was reclining their chairs.  i always thought i was in the majority before this.  now, i am referring to domestic flights on the economy class of american carriers as i understand that different airlines have many different seating options.  also i am excluding lying down reclining for any medical purpose.  the counterpoint that most of these people where using was that  they paid for the seat  or they  were entitled to a nap.   but when i fly, i pay for a window seat, yet i am still expected to close the window for most of the time.  additionally, my employer expects me to get work done and pays for wifi.  if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ? finally, passengers have been kicked off for things that endanger the comfort of others before like body odor .  if someone is constantly reclining and unreclining on a tall individual, is not that true ?  #  if the person is reclined so far that i ca not use an average size laptop, are not they in the wrong ?  #  i, and others like me, have long torsos.   # i, and others like me, have long torsos.  if a seat is too upright, it forces us into a constant state of falling forward.  this means we have to engage our back muscles constantly to stay upright.  reclining is the only way to relax.  on a bar stool, sitting upright is the only way to stay balanced.  this creates the same problem.  the only way for long torso ed individuals to relax is to lean forward on the table with our elbows.   #  good for you, i have lived there 0 years and travel there regularly for business.   #  good for you, i have lived there 0 years and travel there regularly for business.  if you live there you of all should know that the space in a 新幹線 is way more spacious than on an airplane.  i see this every time i stay there; people asking the one behind if it is ok.  maybe you do not travel by 新幹線 that often or maybe it is just a coincidence ? it might just be the case that i have noticed this and you have not because it is a non issue for you ?  #  again, a bizarrely difficult question that i had never really considered before.   #  actually i think this is a bizarrely tough question.  i was really surprised at this thread and the number of people who think it is rude, or have what i would consider a passive aggressive expectation that you do not recline.  personally i think that asking makes basically impossible for the person being asked to refuse, unless he is very uncouth, or a sociopath.  so i do not think it is more polite to ask, as to me this is ultimately done so that the person asking feels better about it.  on the other hand, i think it is completely fair to recline as much as the seat permits.  in my own experience i am a lanky 0 0  whenever i fly international i inevitably feel a flash of annoyance when the person in front of me reclines the seat all the way back.  but i always remind myself that i have the same right, and that is what the seats are built for.  it is also worth considering maybe that these others might be dealing with some similar form of physical or psychological discomfort.  in a related experience, i once flew from lax to zurich with my wife.  we were not awarded seats next to each other by some mistake, and so i tried to ask the older guy next to me to swap with me.  he responded in what i felt was a very rude manner  no !   at first i was pretty miffed, but i ended up talking to the guy for hours after helping him figure out his video setup.  turned out he had not really flown much, really wanted the window, and my making that request left him feeling he had respond in a gruff manner.  so i guess my answer is, for me personally, i think it is actually less polite to ask, but i can see that there are other valid perspectives on the matter.  again, a bizarrely difficult question that i had never really considered before.   #  almost all of the arguments stem from the  sacrificing my comfort for your comfort  which, regardless of stance, becomes a zero sum game.   #  it is a difficult question indeed.  almost all of the arguments stem from the  sacrificing my comfort for your comfort  which, regardless of stance, becomes a zero sum game.  i would not find it hard to refuse someone in front of me if i am, say, writing on something and would want them to wait some 0 minutes or so.  if you are asking only to feel better about it, have not you already decided that you want to recline ? asking implies that you will also adhere to the decision of the asked.  i have thought about it but since i usually do not have any problem with people reclining their seat, nor do i have a problem with asking them to lift it should i need to use the space, i have not really thought about it either.  but i guess that is what fresh topic friday is all about :  #  am i too much of a genetic freak to fly coach ?  #  the seat reclines so that the space taken up by the reclining mechanism can become a  shared space , like the arm rest.  just like the arm rest, if you wish to use a shared resource that someone else is hogging, you need to open up a conversation about it, and smashing into their body with a heavy and hard object is not normally considered a great way to do this.  if you think it is more comfortable to sit upright than to lose the knee space, then your body shape clearly allows you to position your knees differently than mine does.  i am in the 0th percentile of height for my sex and race at 0 foot 0 inches.  am i too much of a genetic freak to fly coach ? long haul international flights usually have enough space, many others just do not.
college cafeterias all claim to have  healthy options  for students but i believe that a the options are not any better for you than any other meal option available, and b the healthy options need to be improved.  some college students, like myself, normally eat foods that are minimally processed have great health benefits.  when they go off to college and have to eat at a dining hall, they are restricted and forced to eat rather unhealthily compared to their normal lifestyle.  the  healthy options  in college cafeterias are not good enough.  they should be consistently filled with grilled chicken, quinoa, brown rice, natural peanut butter, smoothie options, and real steamed vegetables.  currently, they are just full of processed meats and frozen vegetables.  one of our dining halls here at the university of mighigan was just recently redone and spent around 0 million doing so.  if they can afford the coolest new chairs i am sure they can afford better healthy food.  the quality and amount of healthy options needs to be fixed.   #  one of our dining halls here at the university of mighigan was just recently redone and spent around 0 million doing so.   #  if they can afford the coolest new chairs i am sure they can afford better healthy food.   # if they can afford the coolest new chairs i am sure they can afford better healthy food.  that is not how college funding works.  usually huge construction projects come from a specially earmarked fund that is completely separate from regular operating costs.  the food at the hall is based on a daily budget.  your best option is to get likeminded students together and petition the school for better quality food.  in the meantime, you can get a rice steamer for your room.  it is pretty easy to throw brown rice in the bottom, fish and veggies in the top basket and turn it on.   #  i would be shocked if your cafeteria has not tested options like you mentioned.   #  cafeterias vary.  many schools have the sorts of options that you are asking for.  however, one of the rules that govern all cafe menus is this: they do not provide food that students do not eat.  it is really pretty simple supply and demand.  it is not like the idea of health food is a new concept.  i would be shocked if your cafeteria has not tested options like you mentioned.  either they did not sell well, or they could not be delivered at a price that students were willing or able to pay.  not sure if you have a  meal plan  setup, or ala carte, but either way, if you want higher cost foods, you will need to pay more.  chances are, it is just not feasible.   #  as i am not american i really have no clue what the meals you are talking about are like.   #  i agree with you on the processed meat part.  but while fresh produce is healthi er , frozen vegetables are not  un healthy.  it is probably necessary to balance cost and nutrition.  if it is cheaper to buy frozen produce i do not think it is too bad.  when the vegetables are frozen you also save man hours in the kitchen since nobody has to cut them before preparing them.  as i am not american i really have no clue what the meals you are talking about are like.   #   superfood  smoothies are typically sold at $0 0 and that kind of price point has absolutely no place in a university/college food plan.   #  op it just seems like you have not actually given this a lot of thought, and you post does not really present a view of what you want to see changed.  i have noticed you seem to identify the same few things repeatedly that you want to see in schools natural peanut butter,  superfood  smoothies, unprocessed meats, etc .  firstly, unprocessed meat is not a  healthy  option.  processed meat is not harmful in the way we generally see unhealthy food as being harmful, and this falls more under  organic  than  health .  it is a completely unreasonable request, simply due to massive costs, and the fact that eating meat is not necessary at all.  natural peanut butter plays no necessary roll in healthy eating, and is also astronomically expensive.   superfood  smoothies are typically sold at $0 0 and that kind of price point has absolutely no place in a university/college food plan.  importantly, none of these come remotely close to being necessary for healthy eating.  i guarantee your cafeteria has a salad bar.  you can eat  only  from a salad bar and be healthy.  period.  if you want more options, than you can spend the money off campus.  the university cafeteria is there to provide the options that students eat.  fries and burgers might not be for you, but they are for a lot of others.  beyond that, frozen veg is not unhealthy in any way shape or form.  then you make comments like this:  if fresh fruit is offered i do not see why fresh vegetables cannot be.  when you say things like that, it is hard to take you seriously.  is this a troll post ? finally, you provide no overview of the healthy options that are currently available.  you seem to write as if your school provides none, which is obviously a lie.  why is not the salad bar good enough ? you have no evidence for this aside form the kind of food you want to eat.  why does your individuals preference get to inform university policy, and the thousands of students eating fries and burgers each day do not ?  #  i just wanted my view personally to be changed i was not trying to talk for everyone at my university or ask someone to give me the secret answer on how to make this happen with the snap of their fingers.   #  i was not trying to say that the few healthy options i suggested were the only healthy things out there.  some of the options i am looking for are not  astronomically expensive .  i know students like unhealthy options but i am sure i am not the only one who wants healthier options.  seriously ? do not call me a troll post.  it was a fine statement you do not need to be rude.  i just wanted my view personally to be changed i was not trying to talk for everyone at my university or ask someone to give me the secret answer on how to make this happen with the snap of their fingers.
college cafeterias all claim to have  healthy options  for students but i believe that a the options are not any better for you than any other meal option available, and b the healthy options need to be improved.  some college students, like myself, normally eat foods that are minimally processed have great health benefits.  when they go off to college and have to eat at a dining hall, they are restricted and forced to eat rather unhealthily compared to their normal lifestyle.  the  healthy options  in college cafeterias are not good enough.  they should be consistently filled with grilled chicken, quinoa, brown rice, natural peanut butter, smoothie options, and real steamed vegetables.  currently, they are just full of processed meats and frozen vegetables.  one of our dining halls here at the university of mighigan was just recently redone and spent around 0 million doing so.  if they can afford the coolest new chairs i am sure they can afford better healthy food.  the quality and amount of healthy options needs to be fixed.   #  ather unhealthily compared to their normal lifestyle.   #  the  healthy options  in college cafeterias are not good enough.   # the  healthy options  in college cafeterias are not good enough.  they should be consistently filled with grilled chicken, quinoa, brown rice, natural peanut butter, smoothie options, and real steamed vegetables.  my college a low level state school in california had all those for cheap.  cheap enough that i went even after i graduated if i was nearby.  what would change your view ? are you expecting someone to take a survey of all college menus across the nation ?  #  your best option is to get likeminded students together and petition the school for better quality food.   # if they can afford the coolest new chairs i am sure they can afford better healthy food.  that is not how college funding works.  usually huge construction projects come from a specially earmarked fund that is completely separate from regular operating costs.  the food at the hall is based on a daily budget.  your best option is to get likeminded students together and petition the school for better quality food.  in the meantime, you can get a rice steamer for your room.  it is pretty easy to throw brown rice in the bottom, fish and veggies in the top basket and turn it on.   #  however, one of the rules that govern all cafe menus is this: they do not provide food that students do not eat.   #  cafeterias vary.  many schools have the sorts of options that you are asking for.  however, one of the rules that govern all cafe menus is this: they do not provide food that students do not eat.  it is really pretty simple supply and demand.  it is not like the idea of health food is a new concept.  i would be shocked if your cafeteria has not tested options like you mentioned.  either they did not sell well, or they could not be delivered at a price that students were willing or able to pay.  not sure if you have a  meal plan  setup, or ala carte, but either way, if you want higher cost foods, you will need to pay more.  chances are, it is just not feasible.   #  i agree with you on the processed meat part.   #  i agree with you on the processed meat part.  but while fresh produce is healthi er , frozen vegetables are not  un healthy.  it is probably necessary to balance cost and nutrition.  if it is cheaper to buy frozen produce i do not think it is too bad.  when the vegetables are frozen you also save man hours in the kitchen since nobody has to cut them before preparing them.  as i am not american i really have no clue what the meals you are talking about are like.   #  i guarantee your cafeteria has a salad bar.   #  op it just seems like you have not actually given this a lot of thought, and you post does not really present a view of what you want to see changed.  i have noticed you seem to identify the same few things repeatedly that you want to see in schools natural peanut butter,  superfood  smoothies, unprocessed meats, etc .  firstly, unprocessed meat is not a  healthy  option.  processed meat is not harmful in the way we generally see unhealthy food as being harmful, and this falls more under  organic  than  health .  it is a completely unreasonable request, simply due to massive costs, and the fact that eating meat is not necessary at all.  natural peanut butter plays no necessary roll in healthy eating, and is also astronomically expensive.   superfood  smoothies are typically sold at $0 0 and that kind of price point has absolutely no place in a university/college food plan.  importantly, none of these come remotely close to being necessary for healthy eating.  i guarantee your cafeteria has a salad bar.  you can eat  only  from a salad bar and be healthy.  period.  if you want more options, than you can spend the money off campus.  the university cafeteria is there to provide the options that students eat.  fries and burgers might not be for you, but they are for a lot of others.  beyond that, frozen veg is not unhealthy in any way shape or form.  then you make comments like this:  if fresh fruit is offered i do not see why fresh vegetables cannot be.  when you say things like that, it is hard to take you seriously.  is this a troll post ? finally, you provide no overview of the healthy options that are currently available.  you seem to write as if your school provides none, which is obviously a lie.  why is not the salad bar good enough ? you have no evidence for this aside form the kind of food you want to eat.  why does your individuals preference get to inform university policy, and the thousands of students eating fries and burgers each day do not ?
hi all : i believe that  punishment  for crimes is a very rock fisted approach to a delicate issue.  i would claim that all crime stems from societal, cultural or personal problems.  economy, mental health, the treatment of a person or class in society, etc.  all cause crime to happen.  i think that this applies to the most brutal criminals in history, too, most of them falling under the  personal  label.  if crime, then, stems from all of these things, it is necessarily a bad system to punish criminals, since they are not, except in our perception, truly guilty.  i think we should take the view that crime is a signal of distress.  people who steal, murder, etc.  should be taken in, yes, but compassionately.  we should attempt to alleviate any illnesses, provide financial or social help, etc.  if the government is for the people, as it should be, it must be for  all  the people, not just the innocent ones.  obviously this is all very cerebral, and i know that advocating this to a mother of abducted twins or some other victim would be needlessly cruel.  but i do think that this is because of a clash of perspective.  in another situation, with different variables and environments, i do believe that any person could be driven to commit, or attempt to commit, awful crimes.  looking at the practical side of things, i realise that what i say here would be incredibly hard to implement.  people are not always cooperative, the role of the benevolent carer would be a tough job to anyone with a sense of justice or emotions, stuff like that.  i still ca not see, though, that it being a near impossible system to implement means we should not strive to adopt a practical system nearer to that.  i also struggle to empathise with what i believe.  i am human, i do also feel hate for abusers and murderers and rapists; even if i can reason out that their life has been a domino trail leading to that awful moment, i still struggle to see them as deserving compassion.  i cannot for the life of me decide if emotion and gut reaction has a place in this argument, biased and subjective as they are.  is it a case of us simply not being advanced enough societally to do this ? i. e.  we do not have the economy, resources, infrastructure to be able to aid people, and the current prison system is the best way we have to keep the majority of people safe ? or is it generally believed that criminals do deserve punishment ? i would really appreciate somebody walking me through their thoughts on this, and helping me muddle through my own.  cmv  #  i would claim that all crime stems from societal, cultural or personal problems.   #  economy, mental health, the treatment of a person or class in society, etc.   # economy, mental health, the treatment of a person or class in society, etc.  all cause crime to happen.  i think that this applies to the most brutal criminals in history, too, most of them falling under the  personal  label.  does this apply to white collar crimes or state crimes ? people throughout history who have commit the most abhorrent crimes did so with power, wealth and with complete sound of mind.  again that is not always the case people do not always commit crime out of necessity of deprivation of needs but out of selfishness and greed.  the criminal justice system attempts to rehabilitate offenders as well as punishing them but this does not always work.  offenders can be educated, given work training, counselling and put through many other programmes to prepare them for rejoining society.  as you mention many factors come in to play when they re enter society and deter them from being law abiding citizens such as economic, biological and environmental factors.  then you have to ask yourself would you hire someone with a criminal record ? the reason we need to punish criminals is more for the innocent, the victims and society than it is for the offender.  by punishing people who commit crimes the criminal justice system sends out a clear message that this behaviour is unacceptable as well showing compassion for the victim and demonstrating that society has their back.  the moment we begin to show no retribution we condone criminal actions and innocent people will no longer feel safe and will have no incentive to abide by the law themselves.  this is why must punish criminals, for the greater good of society but we can do so at the same time of attempting to rehabilitate them.   #  . much less so if the failure condition is many years in a prison and perpetual unemployability.   #  you are basing this view on a specific theory of criminality that i agree with, but there is a caveat.  the social disorder/mental illness/root cause explanations of criminality were developed in a society  while it was under a system of law that punishes crime .  this is extremely important.  these ideas about crime are intended to explain the origins of criminality  by people already aware that they will be punished for their behavior if they get caught .  the laws are not, strictly speaking, there for the sort of people we call criminals.  we call people criminals when they commit crimes  despite the potential for punishment .  there is a group of criminally inclined people that you are leaving out of your equations.  there are the desperate, who do what they do out of need.  there are the hopeless, who do what they do because they are not afraid of consequences.  there are the psychopaths, who do whatever the fuck they want not always bad things, mind you .  there are the narcissists, who are sure that whatever they are doing is right, even if the law says otherwise.  there are the mentally ill, who do not know what they are doing.  there are the machiavellians, who do whatever they think they can get away with .  that group there in bold is the very large group of criminally inclined people who can be transformed into mostly functional and productive members of society by simply placing the right sanctions and incentives in front of them.  they are not prone to murder or rape or burglary necessarily being opportunistic is does not mean they are also psychopaths , but they are prone to theft, fraud, extortion, blackmail, deception, slander, harassment, bribery, and a host of other destructive behaviors if they can do them, get something out of it, and not be punished.  these are the people that legal sanctions exist for.  there a lot of them, and a lot of people would do a lot more than they do now if it were legal or if they would not be punished.  if i could, say, attempt a multi billion dollar casino heist, and if i succeed, i live out the rest of my days in rio sipping martinis and having sex with everything that moves.  if i failed i would live out the rest of my days in a nice apartment with pleasant psychologists trying to get on my good side, a supply of self improvement materials, and if i play my cards right, an opportunity to take another crack at the crime.  well that is a gamble i am willing to take even if the odds of success are low.  . much less so if the failure condition is many years in a prison and perpetual unemployability.   #  and in a sane society which ours is not , you would treat these people like the broken individuals that they are and try to fix the miswiring in their head that says  more stuff better than .   #  but could not you consider the machiavellians to have a mental illness ? i would contend that it is a mental illness to want more than you need.  a very widespread mental illness, sure, but one nonetheless.  and in a sane society which ours is not , you would treat these people like the broken individuals that they are and try to fix the miswiring in their head that says  more stuff better than .  because in properly wired people, causing pain and suffering to others causes pain and suffering in yourself.  not having empathy for those that you are hurting is a disease, and it should be treated like one.  we would need some novel therapeutic treatments a therapy that forces you to see the humanity of other people , but i think it is a decent goal.   #  a very widespread mental illness, sure, but one nonetheless i would content that you are wrong.   # a very widespread mental illness, sure, but one nonetheless i would content that you are wrong.  this is a perfectly natural human instinct and is seen in other animals as well.  hoarding is a powerful, and effective survival strategy.  i need to amend that: in properly wired people, causing pain and suffering to other  who are physically present  causes pan and suffering to yourself.  how much pain and suffering do you feel for all the chinese slave laborers who built the parts of the computer or phone you are reading this on right now ? people whose livelihoods have been harmed by oils spills caused by corporations you support every time you go to the gas station ? how much sleep do you think employees, or the ceo, of j.  p.  morgan chase lose every night because of all those people losing their houses ? we better go round them all up and put them in mental wards.  we can grab everyone who works in finance, politics, law enforcement, medicine nothing like charging whatever you want to people who ca not say no , you name it ! the truth is that self interest is a real economic force that is larger even than humanity itself.  it is the driving force behind our greatest achievements including the computer you are reading this on .  it works so well precisely because it can be harnessed through incentives and sanctions, were so many other instincts cannot.  the trouble is, you ca not offer incentives against greed.  indeed, using incentives to influence behavior  is an appeal to greed .  more than that, this kind of behavior is so common, so basic, and so successful, that re wiring people would be no different that lobotomizing them.  ambition is a part of a person is personality.  it is not like depression, or schizophrenia, or addiction.  it is a personality trait, no less part of a person is identity than their sense of morality which varies from person to person, and you would not approve of them all, and it would be up to you to judge which moralities are right or wrong .  that is why we have law instead.  it is better to influence a person is actions through sanction, than to try to impose the will of the state on their very minds.   #  it is a disorder to not be wired like this.   # hoarding is effective when done by individual actors.  hoarding is a horrible strategy when it is done across a group.  so hoarding is counterbalanced by lots of social pressure to not take more than you need.  that is, that is what happens in healthy societies.  i contend that the  take as much as you can get  mentality is a disorder that is wreaking havoc on society, and will eventually lead to a massive upheaval.  incentives against greed are actually built in to humanity itself.  can you think of a single situation where you were happy because you had enriched yourself at the expense of others ? any situation where you completely ripped someone off and you were happy about it ? people are wired with a pretty strong sense of empathy.  we hurt when those around us hurt, especially when they are hurt because of something we did.  it is a disorder to not be wired like this.
hi all : i believe that  punishment  for crimes is a very rock fisted approach to a delicate issue.  i would claim that all crime stems from societal, cultural or personal problems.  economy, mental health, the treatment of a person or class in society, etc.  all cause crime to happen.  i think that this applies to the most brutal criminals in history, too, most of them falling under the  personal  label.  if crime, then, stems from all of these things, it is necessarily a bad system to punish criminals, since they are not, except in our perception, truly guilty.  i think we should take the view that crime is a signal of distress.  people who steal, murder, etc.  should be taken in, yes, but compassionately.  we should attempt to alleviate any illnesses, provide financial or social help, etc.  if the government is for the people, as it should be, it must be for  all  the people, not just the innocent ones.  obviously this is all very cerebral, and i know that advocating this to a mother of abducted twins or some other victim would be needlessly cruel.  but i do think that this is because of a clash of perspective.  in another situation, with different variables and environments, i do believe that any person could be driven to commit, or attempt to commit, awful crimes.  looking at the practical side of things, i realise that what i say here would be incredibly hard to implement.  people are not always cooperative, the role of the benevolent carer would be a tough job to anyone with a sense of justice or emotions, stuff like that.  i still ca not see, though, that it being a near impossible system to implement means we should not strive to adopt a practical system nearer to that.  i also struggle to empathise with what i believe.  i am human, i do also feel hate for abusers and murderers and rapists; even if i can reason out that their life has been a domino trail leading to that awful moment, i still struggle to see them as deserving compassion.  i cannot for the life of me decide if emotion and gut reaction has a place in this argument, biased and subjective as they are.  is it a case of us simply not being advanced enough societally to do this ? i. e.  we do not have the economy, resources, infrastructure to be able to aid people, and the current prison system is the best way we have to keep the majority of people safe ? or is it generally believed that criminals do deserve punishment ? i would really appreciate somebody walking me through their thoughts on this, and helping me muddle through my own.  cmv  #  i think we should take the view that crime is a signal of distress.   #  again that is not always the case people do not always commit crime out of necessity of deprivation of needs but out of selfishness and greed.   # economy, mental health, the treatment of a person or class in society, etc.  all cause crime to happen.  i think that this applies to the most brutal criminals in history, too, most of them falling under the  personal  label.  does this apply to white collar crimes or state crimes ? people throughout history who have commit the most abhorrent crimes did so with power, wealth and with complete sound of mind.  again that is not always the case people do not always commit crime out of necessity of deprivation of needs but out of selfishness and greed.  the criminal justice system attempts to rehabilitate offenders as well as punishing them but this does not always work.  offenders can be educated, given work training, counselling and put through many other programmes to prepare them for rejoining society.  as you mention many factors come in to play when they re enter society and deter them from being law abiding citizens such as economic, biological and environmental factors.  then you have to ask yourself would you hire someone with a criminal record ? the reason we need to punish criminals is more for the innocent, the victims and society than it is for the offender.  by punishing people who commit crimes the criminal justice system sends out a clear message that this behaviour is unacceptable as well showing compassion for the victim and demonstrating that society has their back.  the moment we begin to show no retribution we condone criminal actions and innocent people will no longer feel safe and will have no incentive to abide by the law themselves.  this is why must punish criminals, for the greater good of society but we can do so at the same time of attempting to rehabilitate them.   #  these ideas about crime are intended to explain the origins of criminality  by people already aware that they will be punished for their behavior if they get caught .   #  you are basing this view on a specific theory of criminality that i agree with, but there is a caveat.  the social disorder/mental illness/root cause explanations of criminality were developed in a society  while it was under a system of law that punishes crime .  this is extremely important.  these ideas about crime are intended to explain the origins of criminality  by people already aware that they will be punished for their behavior if they get caught .  the laws are not, strictly speaking, there for the sort of people we call criminals.  we call people criminals when they commit crimes  despite the potential for punishment .  there is a group of criminally inclined people that you are leaving out of your equations.  there are the desperate, who do what they do out of need.  there are the hopeless, who do what they do because they are not afraid of consequences.  there are the psychopaths, who do whatever the fuck they want not always bad things, mind you .  there are the narcissists, who are sure that whatever they are doing is right, even if the law says otherwise.  there are the mentally ill, who do not know what they are doing.  there are the machiavellians, who do whatever they think they can get away with .  that group there in bold is the very large group of criminally inclined people who can be transformed into mostly functional and productive members of society by simply placing the right sanctions and incentives in front of them.  they are not prone to murder or rape or burglary necessarily being opportunistic is does not mean they are also psychopaths , but they are prone to theft, fraud, extortion, blackmail, deception, slander, harassment, bribery, and a host of other destructive behaviors if they can do them, get something out of it, and not be punished.  these are the people that legal sanctions exist for.  there a lot of them, and a lot of people would do a lot more than they do now if it were legal or if they would not be punished.  if i could, say, attempt a multi billion dollar casino heist, and if i succeed, i live out the rest of my days in rio sipping martinis and having sex with everything that moves.  if i failed i would live out the rest of my days in a nice apartment with pleasant psychologists trying to get on my good side, a supply of self improvement materials, and if i play my cards right, an opportunity to take another crack at the crime.  well that is a gamble i am willing to take even if the odds of success are low.  . much less so if the failure condition is many years in a prison and perpetual unemployability.   #  we would need some novel therapeutic treatments a therapy that forces you to see the humanity of other people , but i think it is a decent goal.   #  but could not you consider the machiavellians to have a mental illness ? i would contend that it is a mental illness to want more than you need.  a very widespread mental illness, sure, but one nonetheless.  and in a sane society which ours is not , you would treat these people like the broken individuals that they are and try to fix the miswiring in their head that says  more stuff better than .  because in properly wired people, causing pain and suffering to others causes pain and suffering in yourself.  not having empathy for those that you are hurting is a disease, and it should be treated like one.  we would need some novel therapeutic treatments a therapy that forces you to see the humanity of other people , but i think it is a decent goal.   #  we can grab everyone who works in finance, politics, law enforcement, medicine nothing like charging whatever you want to people who ca not say no , you name it !  # a very widespread mental illness, sure, but one nonetheless i would content that you are wrong.  this is a perfectly natural human instinct and is seen in other animals as well.  hoarding is a powerful, and effective survival strategy.  i need to amend that: in properly wired people, causing pain and suffering to other  who are physically present  causes pan and suffering to yourself.  how much pain and suffering do you feel for all the chinese slave laborers who built the parts of the computer or phone you are reading this on right now ? people whose livelihoods have been harmed by oils spills caused by corporations you support every time you go to the gas station ? how much sleep do you think employees, or the ceo, of j.  p.  morgan chase lose every night because of all those people losing their houses ? we better go round them all up and put them in mental wards.  we can grab everyone who works in finance, politics, law enforcement, medicine nothing like charging whatever you want to people who ca not say no , you name it ! the truth is that self interest is a real economic force that is larger even than humanity itself.  it is the driving force behind our greatest achievements including the computer you are reading this on .  it works so well precisely because it can be harnessed through incentives and sanctions, were so many other instincts cannot.  the trouble is, you ca not offer incentives against greed.  indeed, using incentives to influence behavior  is an appeal to greed .  more than that, this kind of behavior is so common, so basic, and so successful, that re wiring people would be no different that lobotomizing them.  ambition is a part of a person is personality.  it is not like depression, or schizophrenia, or addiction.  it is a personality trait, no less part of a person is identity than their sense of morality which varies from person to person, and you would not approve of them all, and it would be up to you to judge which moralities are right or wrong .  that is why we have law instead.  it is better to influence a person is actions through sanction, than to try to impose the will of the state on their very minds.   #  any situation where you completely ripped someone off and you were happy about it ?  # hoarding is effective when done by individual actors.  hoarding is a horrible strategy when it is done across a group.  so hoarding is counterbalanced by lots of social pressure to not take more than you need.  that is, that is what happens in healthy societies.  i contend that the  take as much as you can get  mentality is a disorder that is wreaking havoc on society, and will eventually lead to a massive upheaval.  incentives against greed are actually built in to humanity itself.  can you think of a single situation where you were happy because you had enriched yourself at the expense of others ? any situation where you completely ripped someone off and you were happy about it ? people are wired with a pretty strong sense of empathy.  we hurt when those around us hurt, especially when they are hurt because of something we did.  it is a disorder to not be wired like this.
a comment thread on /r/bestof is discussing the dangers of trusting information you read on subjects you are uninformed about, with some branches discussing how much misinformation is contained in newspapers.  to take one representative comment URL many have upvoted and confirmed this view with their own stories, with some quoting the so called murray gell mann amnesia effect URL while i am sure there are many cases of media getting stories wrong, i think the extent to which newspapers are mistaken is exaggerated, and fails to take account of what a newspaper is for.  many stories published are not particularly contentious.  for instance political speeches are reported verbatim, with added background thrown in that is relevant to the particular audience of that publication.  financial results, product announcements and many common stories are done fairly accurately, because there is not much to get wrong.  that said, journalists will admit that newspapers represent a kind of  best guess  on many issues, and that the industry is generalist rather than specialist, especially in the case of mainstream news sources.  the industry often simplifies things, but that is partly because of time and space constraints.  if you want to understand something in depth you should be buying a book, not a paper.  every so often newspapers get things horrendously wrong, particularly in the sensational world of the popular press.  but these stories take up an inappropriate amount of space in the public impression of the media, and are hugely outnumbered by the mundane stories the press gets more or less right.  i could go on at some length about the influence of public relations firms and other corrupting forces on the industry, but on the whole i would suggest papers are pretty accurate given their intended purpose.  so long as you bear in mind the limits of the format and do not take any of it  too  seriously it is a valuable information source.  cmv.   #  but these stories take up an inappropriate amount of space in the public impression of the media, and are hugely outnumbered by the mundane stories the press gets more or less right.   #  mundane stories that i actually know about are far from error free.   #  your examples of  stories the news gets right  are verbatim reports of political speeches , financial results, and product announcements.  these are all examples of the news reprinting text received elsewhere.  if accuracy correlates with reduced reporter involvement, that reflects quite poorly on the news.  though the  added background  is frequently incorrect.  for instance, the number of people reported to have attended a speech is rarely accurate except when the number is gathered by a third party and quoted to the reporter.  mundane stories that i actually know about are far from error free.  a local paper interviewed my sister as a puff piece on a parade she was in.  it misquoted her, got her name wrong, and misspelled the name of the parade.  my wife was profiled by a different local paper again, multiple mistakes.  what is even more problematic is that when papers publish press releases verbatim, they are publishing more accurate information than when they do their own reporting.  information in newspapers will be  adequate  when papers are able to improve on the accuracy of press releases by investigating claims in those releases and correcting inaccuracies or misleading statements.   #  newspapers are also generally what get saved in librarys for history.   # its not unreasonable to expect that journalists act like journalists and actually get reasonably informed on a topic.  with an online article it is a bit easier to find out shat is bullshit.  citations get hyperlinked so it becomes easier to find out if they have a reputal source or any sources at all.  with a newspaper what you see is what you get, there might be some written links for more information but the odds of someone actually looking are much lower than online.  newspapers are also generally what get saved in librarys for history.  i guess i just expect the bar to be higher for print, and its sad when its not.   #  most people do not check most sources for stories unless they are particularly interested.   #  most people do not check most sources for stories unless they are particularly interested.  i think you are overestimating the time people have and their reliance on empiricism, as opposed to heuristics.  i make an assessment of a piece of info based on what it is versus who is saying it.  sources like reuters have a lot of authority, for instance, but if they are saying elvis is still alive i would still quibble them.  likewise if fox news says china is hacking america i would probably believe them because it is a plausible story, even if they are sensational.   #  from the reader is point of view, it is to be entertained and present information in a way the reader enjoys.   #  two questions are important to respond how do you define  adequate , and more importantly, whose  intended purpose .  the intended purpose of newspapers from the publisher is pov is to sell newspapers while spending as little as possible to sell those papers .  from the reporter is point of view, at the least, it is to provide a way to pay the mortgage, and for the less cynical, to serve the public good.  from the reader is point of view, it is to be entertained and present information in a way the reader enjoys.  a history prof might want long detailed articles, a high school drop out might want just the facts presented simply with graphs and photos and the two might be reversed, just giving an example .  but lets focus on the reader.  they want to know why we are attacking isis and whether to be scared of ebola and whether their elected representative is representing them well.  on one level, as long as they know enough to say  damn shame about ebola , that might be enough to at least avoid embarrassment at the water cooler.  but they are being failed in a more fundamental way.  going to war is important.  most citizens of coalition members should know who we are fighting, how we are fighting, who we are fighting with, and most importantly  why  we are fighting and when we know that we are done.  the medical workers in dallas who treated a liberian just off a plane from liberia with flu like symptoms and  let him go home  clearly did not understand what is going on in the world well enough.  nor do his family members who have tried to break quarantine.  the voters who rely on political ads to understand the positions and histories of the candidates are being failed.  a lack of aggressive, trustworthy journalism which holds elected officials accountable fails the citizens.  now, i do not want to lay this all on the newspapers.  they are giving the people what they want.  if every city had a new york times quality paper, most people probably would not buy it.  lots of people ignore papers and just watch tv news.  there are a lot of guilty parties in the news media failure.  but, still, that does not excuse the papers.  people need better, and what they get is woefully inadequate.   #  often, bill o areilly will make a statement on his opinion show, which will be reported on two hours later during a news show, which will then be referenced the next day during another opinion show.   #  this sounds a lot like the fox news  opinion vs news  argument.  fox and others of course, but fox really pioneered this are notorious for making their  opinion  shows look almost indistinguishable from their  news  shows, often having both formats discussing the same events and topics.  often, bill o areilly will make a statement on his opinion show, which will be reported on two hours later during a news show, which will then be referenced the next day during another opinion show.  the result is an extremely confusing mix of fact and opinion.  but fox news has explicitly noted which programs are news and which are opinion, so there is no problem, right ? the harm is that most of the people watching fox news, or again any cable news station, do not understand that this is happening.  they hear an opinion and assume it is a fact, simply because they have no reason to believe a  news  station would report anything but news.  and they are not about to go fact checking, since they are likely hearing exactly what they want to hear, despite how fair or accurate the report is.  now it is not quite the same with newspapers.  while they are politically charged, it is not to the same extreme as cable news stations.  but the same concept applies people read the newspaper with the expectation that what they are reading is accurate.  it is not sufficient for you to say,  well of course it is not accurate, you ca not expect papers to be accurate anymore.   that is the equivalent of filling your pool with piranhas, putting a post it note on the ground that says  beware of piranhas , and then letting a bunch of kids come over for a pool party.  when kids start getting eaten by piranhas, you ca not just point to a soggy post it note and walk away; you need to be held accountable for putting fucking piranhas in your pool.
supreme court justice antonin scalia argues URL that the constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion not freedom from it.   the separation of church and state does not mean  the government cannot favor religion over non religion,  supreme court justice antonin scalia argued during a speech at colorado christian university on wednesday, according to the washington times.    he is absolutely wrong in his assertion.  freedom of religion is freedom from religion.  there is not freedom to practice religious beliefs if you are required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.  favoring christian prayer before government meetings forces all non christians to adhere to a religion they do not subscribe to.  allowing ten commandment monuments on public land forces christian beliefs on all non christians.  you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion and therefore, scalia is 0 wrong.   #  freedom of religion is freedom from religion.   #  that is like saying that freedom of speech is freedom from speech; that only by forcing others to be silent are you truly free.   # that is like saying that freedom of speech is freedom from speech; that only by forcing others to be silent are you truly free.  freedom of religion is the capacity to practice or not as you wish, not to force others not to practice.  and you are not being forced to do so; you are being  forced , if that is the right word, to live with others practicing their religions.  no, it does not.  it just  forces  again, i think, too strong of a word to observe others adhering to their religion.  if i listen to lady gaga next to you, i am forcing you to hear it; i am not forcing you to like it.  this would be a lot more compelling if other such things were being disallowed across the board.  sure, instances of such things can be found, but likewise instances of disallowing christian iconography can be found.  trying to force atheism on others is no different or better than trying to force religion.  scalia is not trying to demand that you bow your head when others pray in a town meeting; rather, he is protecting the rights of others to do so if they wish.   #  it does not mean  secular , which is the actual word you were looking for, and when you use the correct word, your sentence no longer holds.   #  this whole post was largely irrelevant to the  actual  question at hand, all because you chose the least charitable and wrong interpretation of what he was saying.  this is the correct phrasing:    freedom of religion is freedom from government endorsed religion.  no one is saying anything remotely related to the concept of random people in a public space not being able to practice religion, as is obvious from the actual content of what he wrote, so your reply  objecting  to that idea that was never proposed did not really further the conversation.  what is banned is anyone using their government  office  to endorse religion, which would include taking public money to fund such endorsements or subjecting a captive audience that they have authority over to listen to/watch them engage in religious practice.  this is all about what the  government  does and what its agents do  qua  government agents, not anything else.  also, as an aside, you do not appear to know what the term  atheism  means.  it does not mean  secular , which is the actual word you were looking for, and when you use the correct word, your sentence no longer holds.   #  it was about random religious acts in open public spaces.   # it was about random religious acts in open public spaces.  it does not address the concept of a coerced attendance/captive audiences at all, and that is the actual principle at work.  why would you use a word intentionally incorrectly ? that makes you seem rather disingenuous.  if you are aware that a mere lack of religious reference is not  atheism , then saying it is just makes you look insincere.   hello, how are you ?   is a secular statement.  but your dishonest usage would call it an  atheist  statement.   #  no, i feel that my post is applicable in public spaces and to public figures alike.   # no, i feel that my post is applicable in public spaces and to public figures alike.  if you do not interpret it that way, that is as may be.  that makes you seem rather disingenuous.  if you are aware that a mere lack of religious reference is not  atheism , then saying it is just makes you look insincere.   hello, how are you ?   is a secular statement.  but your dishonest usage would call it an  atheist  statement.  i did not use the word incorrectly intentionally; i did not use it incorrectly.  i never said a lack of religion was atheism.   #  you said that requiring public figures to use neutral non religious language like  hello how are you ?    # if you do not interpret it that way, that is as may be.  when i told you specifically how they are different, and you ignore it, that seems to indicate that you ca not respond to that point.  a captive audience is clearly very different than an open public space, but if you have no response as to how your argument about the latter applies to the former, then you have basically just abandoned your point.  i ca not force you to defend it, but pretending objections have not been raised certainly is not one of the ways to do so.  i never said a lack of religion was atheism.  actually, you did.  explicitly.  this is getting back into that whole  disingenuous  bit i was talking about before. i do not think i am being unreasonable by expecting people i am talking to to at least be honest about their own remarks.  you said that requiring public figures to use neutral non religious language like  hello how are you ?   is , is forcing  atheism  on them.  you literally said that if someone has to use neutral language, they are having the position of  not believing in god  forced on them.  your options are to stand by that or retract that. claiming you never said it is not gonna work.
supreme court justice antonin scalia argues URL that the constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion not freedom from it.   the separation of church and state does not mean  the government cannot favor religion over non religion,  supreme court justice antonin scalia argued during a speech at colorado christian university on wednesday, according to the washington times.    he is absolutely wrong in his assertion.  freedom of religion is freedom from religion.  there is not freedom to practice religious beliefs if you are required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.  favoring christian prayer before government meetings forces all non christians to adhere to a religion they do not subscribe to.  allowing ten commandment monuments on public land forces christian beliefs on all non christians.  you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion and therefore, scalia is 0 wrong.   #  there is not freedom to practice religious beliefs if you are required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.   #  and you are not being forced to do so; you are being  forced , if that is the right word, to live with others practicing their religions.   # that is like saying that freedom of speech is freedom from speech; that only by forcing others to be silent are you truly free.  freedom of religion is the capacity to practice or not as you wish, not to force others not to practice.  and you are not being forced to do so; you are being  forced , if that is the right word, to live with others practicing their religions.  no, it does not.  it just  forces  again, i think, too strong of a word to observe others adhering to their religion.  if i listen to lady gaga next to you, i am forcing you to hear it; i am not forcing you to like it.  this would be a lot more compelling if other such things were being disallowed across the board.  sure, instances of such things can be found, but likewise instances of disallowing christian iconography can be found.  trying to force atheism on others is no different or better than trying to force religion.  scalia is not trying to demand that you bow your head when others pray in a town meeting; rather, he is protecting the rights of others to do so if they wish.   #  it does not mean  secular , which is the actual word you were looking for, and when you use the correct word, your sentence no longer holds.   #  this whole post was largely irrelevant to the  actual  question at hand, all because you chose the least charitable and wrong interpretation of what he was saying.  this is the correct phrasing:    freedom of religion is freedom from government endorsed religion.  no one is saying anything remotely related to the concept of random people in a public space not being able to practice religion, as is obvious from the actual content of what he wrote, so your reply  objecting  to that idea that was never proposed did not really further the conversation.  what is banned is anyone using their government  office  to endorse religion, which would include taking public money to fund such endorsements or subjecting a captive audience that they have authority over to listen to/watch them engage in religious practice.  this is all about what the  government  does and what its agents do  qua  government agents, not anything else.  also, as an aside, you do not appear to know what the term  atheism  means.  it does not mean  secular , which is the actual word you were looking for, and when you use the correct word, your sentence no longer holds.   #  it was about random religious acts in open public spaces.   # it was about random religious acts in open public spaces.  it does not address the concept of a coerced attendance/captive audiences at all, and that is the actual principle at work.  why would you use a word intentionally incorrectly ? that makes you seem rather disingenuous.  if you are aware that a mere lack of religious reference is not  atheism , then saying it is just makes you look insincere.   hello, how are you ?   is a secular statement.  but your dishonest usage would call it an  atheist  statement.   #  no, i feel that my post is applicable in public spaces and to public figures alike.   # no, i feel that my post is applicable in public spaces and to public figures alike.  if you do not interpret it that way, that is as may be.  that makes you seem rather disingenuous.  if you are aware that a mere lack of religious reference is not  atheism , then saying it is just makes you look insincere.   hello, how are you ?   is a secular statement.  but your dishonest usage would call it an  atheist  statement.  i did not use the word incorrectly intentionally; i did not use it incorrectly.  i never said a lack of religion was atheism.   #  your options are to stand by that or retract that. claiming you never said it is not gonna work.   # if you do not interpret it that way, that is as may be.  when i told you specifically how they are different, and you ignore it, that seems to indicate that you ca not respond to that point.  a captive audience is clearly very different than an open public space, but if you have no response as to how your argument about the latter applies to the former, then you have basically just abandoned your point.  i ca not force you to defend it, but pretending objections have not been raised certainly is not one of the ways to do so.  i never said a lack of religion was atheism.  actually, you did.  explicitly.  this is getting back into that whole  disingenuous  bit i was talking about before. i do not think i am being unreasonable by expecting people i am talking to to at least be honest about their own remarks.  you said that requiring public figures to use neutral non religious language like  hello how are you ?   is , is forcing  atheism  on them.  you literally said that if someone has to use neutral language, they are having the position of  not believing in god  forced on them.  your options are to stand by that or retract that. claiming you never said it is not gonna work.
supreme court justice antonin scalia argues URL that the constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion not freedom from it.   the separation of church and state does not mean  the government cannot favor religion over non religion,  supreme court justice antonin scalia argued during a speech at colorado christian university on wednesday, according to the washington times.    he is absolutely wrong in his assertion.  freedom of religion is freedom from religion.  there is not freedom to practice religious beliefs if you are required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.  favoring christian prayer before government meetings forces all non christians to adhere to a religion they do not subscribe to.  allowing ten commandment monuments on public land forces christian beliefs on all non christians.  you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion and therefore, scalia is 0 wrong.   #  allowing ten commandment monuments on public land forces christian beliefs on all non christians.   #  this would be a lot more compelling if other such things were being disallowed across the board.   # that is like saying that freedom of speech is freedom from speech; that only by forcing others to be silent are you truly free.  freedom of religion is the capacity to practice or not as you wish, not to force others not to practice.  and you are not being forced to do so; you are being  forced , if that is the right word, to live with others practicing their religions.  no, it does not.  it just  forces  again, i think, too strong of a word to observe others adhering to their religion.  if i listen to lady gaga next to you, i am forcing you to hear it; i am not forcing you to like it.  this would be a lot more compelling if other such things were being disallowed across the board.  sure, instances of such things can be found, but likewise instances of disallowing christian iconography can be found.  trying to force atheism on others is no different or better than trying to force religion.  scalia is not trying to demand that you bow your head when others pray in a town meeting; rather, he is protecting the rights of others to do so if they wish.   #  what is banned is anyone using their government  office  to endorse religion, which would include taking public money to fund such endorsements or subjecting a captive audience that they have authority over to listen to/watch them engage in religious practice.   #  this whole post was largely irrelevant to the  actual  question at hand, all because you chose the least charitable and wrong interpretation of what he was saying.  this is the correct phrasing:    freedom of religion is freedom from government endorsed religion.  no one is saying anything remotely related to the concept of random people in a public space not being able to practice religion, as is obvious from the actual content of what he wrote, so your reply  objecting  to that idea that was never proposed did not really further the conversation.  what is banned is anyone using their government  office  to endorse religion, which would include taking public money to fund such endorsements or subjecting a captive audience that they have authority over to listen to/watch them engage in religious practice.  this is all about what the  government  does and what its agents do  qua  government agents, not anything else.  also, as an aside, you do not appear to know what the term  atheism  means.  it does not mean  secular , which is the actual word you were looking for, and when you use the correct word, your sentence no longer holds.   #  why would you use a word intentionally incorrectly ?  # it was about random religious acts in open public spaces.  it does not address the concept of a coerced attendance/captive audiences at all, and that is the actual principle at work.  why would you use a word intentionally incorrectly ? that makes you seem rather disingenuous.  if you are aware that a mere lack of religious reference is not  atheism , then saying it is just makes you look insincere.   hello, how are you ?   is a secular statement.  but your dishonest usage would call it an  atheist  statement.   #  no, i feel that my post is applicable in public spaces and to public figures alike.   # no, i feel that my post is applicable in public spaces and to public figures alike.  if you do not interpret it that way, that is as may be.  that makes you seem rather disingenuous.  if you are aware that a mere lack of religious reference is not  atheism , then saying it is just makes you look insincere.   hello, how are you ?   is a secular statement.  but your dishonest usage would call it an  atheist  statement.  i did not use the word incorrectly intentionally; i did not use it incorrectly.  i never said a lack of religion was atheism.   #  if you do not interpret it that way, that is as may be.   # if you do not interpret it that way, that is as may be.  when i told you specifically how they are different, and you ignore it, that seems to indicate that you ca not respond to that point.  a captive audience is clearly very different than an open public space, but if you have no response as to how your argument about the latter applies to the former, then you have basically just abandoned your point.  i ca not force you to defend it, but pretending objections have not been raised certainly is not one of the ways to do so.  i never said a lack of religion was atheism.  actually, you did.  explicitly.  this is getting back into that whole  disingenuous  bit i was talking about before. i do not think i am being unreasonable by expecting people i am talking to to at least be honest about their own remarks.  you said that requiring public figures to use neutral non religious language like  hello how are you ?   is , is forcing  atheism  on them.  you literally said that if someone has to use neutral language, they are having the position of  not believing in god  forced on them.  your options are to stand by that or retract that. claiming you never said it is not gonna work.
this is a pretty straightforward issue, as far as i see it.  i am a student who attends a high school, and i think it is ridiculous to punish students for breaking rules that are not those of the school.  if somebody sees a teacher that they hate outside of school, why should not they insult them ? other than the fact that it is a mean and irresponsible thing to do.  if they break the law, they should be tried by a court, before a jury of their peers.  not by a school official.  the main counter argument i see is the issue of cyber bullying.  frankly, i do not see the problem.  if it is rude, alert the perpetrator is parents.  if it is harassment, report it to the police.  if neither of those are the case, well, suck it up.  i do not like to say that, but adults do not get an all powerful school administration to which to cry when they are being picked on.  now, if the student is on a school trip, or wearing school merchandise, then yes, the school can enforce their rules in the interests of protecting their reputation.  otherwise, students should not be punished in school for infractions committed out of school.  cmv  #  if somebody sees a teacher that they hate outside of school, why should not they insult them ?  #  other than the fact that it is a mean and irresponsible thing to do.   # other than the fact that it is a mean and irresponsible thing to do.  if they break the law, they should be tried by a court, before a jury of their peers.  this is not the way the world works.  if you hate your boss and see him outside of work, and then insult him, you will most likely be fired.  similarly, given the example of cyber bullying, if you are doing things outside of work that affect your job, your company can and will take issue with that.  whether or not this is the way the world  should  work is a separate issue, but one of the most important parts of school is getting kids ready for the real world.  if schools adopted your policy, then kids would not be prepared for life after high school.   #  if the teacher takes legal action, thousands of dollars get spent on both sides to resolve the case and performance still suffers.   #  you are overlooking the incredible importance school climate has on a learning.  if you were to walk into one of the lowest performing schools in the country and in one of the top, what do you think you would see ? obviously in lowest performing you are going to expect to see students acting disrespectful, not paying attention to their studies and chaotic instances of bullying/abuse.  the top school would look quite the opposite.  there would be order, respect and students working.  to achieve the highest probability of student success, experts agree it involves kids sharing those values of the successful school.  imparting values are not achieved in just the school.  let me give you two scenarios to clarify my point: 0.  a student tom walks 0 blocks to school and home every day.  along the walk home tom usually encounters a group of 0 cruel boys who are 0 grades above him and attend the same school.  they make a habit of teasing him, following him and lately occasionally tripping/pushing him.  when walking to school, the boys tell tom that on the way home they are going to beat him up.  tom has a math test that day.  0.  susan hates her english teacher for assigning too much homework.  she creates a facebook hate page of the teacher and a fake twitter account of the teacher.  both go viral throughout the school.  during the following weeks students are visibly snickering at the teacher before class and in the hallways.  the teacher is loss of respect among the students has resulted in lower class averages.  to make matters worse, the constant social media egging is breaking her morale.  now in scenario 0, tom is not going to be focused on his math test.  his grade  will  suffer and will continue to suffer.  bullied students suffer in academics.  in your ideal world, tom can call the police who will notice he has not ever sustained injuries and will likely just warn the bullies since they have no evidence.  best case for tom, the police arrest the bullies and he gets to testify against them. in 0 months when this actually goes to trial.  his grade still drops.  in scenario 0, an outside action resulted again in a tangible loss of academic performance.  if the teacher takes legal action, thousands of dollars get spent on both sides to resolve the case and performance still suffers.  what if the teacher does not want to put that child through the criminal trial process, they just want the site to go down and regain order ? too bad, the legal system is now the only venue.  again, it is months down the road for it to be resolved.  if you have a child in that class, you have no recourse.  through no fault of your kid who might have stayed out of the whole mess, the class disruptions are affecting the class learning and your child learns less.   #  but regardless it is going to be hard to argue that his family wo not be better off without him in the meantime.   #  he never implied that it curbed negative behaviors in the students being punished, just that after punishment again, assuming expulsion, or temporary removal with threat of permanent expulsion if the behavior is repeated the classroom environment will be more harmonious.  if you remove a bully from the school, then they will have to attend another school, thus tom wo not be followed by them anymore and will perform better on his school work.  if you threaten to remove the owner of an offensive website from school and she removes the website to avoid punishment then, albeit after a few more weeks of jokes, the class will likely return to normal.  if she refuses and you remove her.  then sure the website might stay up, but it will likely get updated less now that she is unconnected to the school, and she wo not be there as the figurehead of the anti teacher movement so the classroom will eventually return to peace.  imagine an abusive father who is removed from his family and put in prison for a few years.  will this make him stop being abusive ? perhaps, perhaps not.  but regardless it is going to be hard to argue that his family wo not be better off without him in the meantime.   #  in this case, you are proposing that a society should punish negative behavior  done outside that society .   #  what you are proposing here is solutions based on desired consequences, i. e.  because if we did those things we will have better outcomes, better consequences, then those things become the  right  thing to do.  unfortunately, this point of view is slippery and prone to tunnel vision, i. e.  we are so intent on pursuing the goals, we forget to note whether or not we step on people is toes on the way.  whether or not the solution is effective or efficient, while also important, belongs to a separate discussion imho.  in this case, you are proposing that a society should punish negative behavior  done outside that society .  in other words, you are saying that malaysia should punish its citizens who go to the netherlands and smoke weed there, just because weed is illegal in malaysia.   #  that is true.  but teaching and punishing are two different things albeit sometimes related .   #   direct connection  is a vague reason to punish it is a vague concept to begin with .  and i do not see how that is a direct connection.  if a frenchman killed another frenchman in algeria, should france punish them ? no; only algeria has the jurisdiction to do that.   required to act ; based on what ? schools ca not punish students for sleeping late, or for drinking the night before a test.  no, they are not required.  that is true.  but teaching and punishing are two different things albeit sometimes related .  you can teach your neighbor is child moral character but you ca not punish them.  no,  you should not torment someone  is a basic lesson.  how we get that point across is another question.  punishment should not be a basic lesson, it should be one tool among many.
this is a pretty straightforward issue, as far as i see it.  i am a student who attends a high school, and i think it is ridiculous to punish students for breaking rules that are not those of the school.  if somebody sees a teacher that they hate outside of school, why should not they insult them ? other than the fact that it is a mean and irresponsible thing to do.  if they break the law, they should be tried by a court, before a jury of their peers.  not by a school official.  the main counter argument i see is the issue of cyber bullying.  frankly, i do not see the problem.  if it is rude, alert the perpetrator is parents.  if it is harassment, report it to the police.  if neither of those are the case, well, suck it up.  i do not like to say that, but adults do not get an all powerful school administration to which to cry when they are being picked on.  now, if the student is on a school trip, or wearing school merchandise, then yes, the school can enforce their rules in the interests of protecting their reputation.  otherwise, students should not be punished in school for infractions committed out of school.  cmv  #  if somebody sees a teacher that they hate outside of school, why should not they insult them ?  #  and why should not the teacher take this into account when dealing with the student later on ?  # and why should not the teacher take this into account when dealing with the student later on ? insulting someone, simply upon seeing them, is rude, immature, and warrants a response.  why should not the teacher respond in a way best suited to their working relationship ? moreover, why should people be exempt from repercussions to their actions ? sure, the school building is the primary environment in which student behavior is exhibited and managed, but that does not mean you stop being a student when you are out of the building.  it is not like a school building is the only place where students should feel pressured to act in a responsible, productive manner.  people should be held accountable for their actions; society is not some sort of game where you can claim moral immunity because your interactions take place in a given place or time.  on a related note, here is some good advice for life in general: decide what sort of person you would like to be, and commit yourself to those standards in everything you do, with everyone you meet, everywhere you go.  the way you act defines who you are, and every action has consequences.   #  in your ideal world, tom can call the police who will notice he has not ever sustained injuries and will likely just warn the bullies since they have no evidence.   #  you are overlooking the incredible importance school climate has on a learning.  if you were to walk into one of the lowest performing schools in the country and in one of the top, what do you think you would see ? obviously in lowest performing you are going to expect to see students acting disrespectful, not paying attention to their studies and chaotic instances of bullying/abuse.  the top school would look quite the opposite.  there would be order, respect and students working.  to achieve the highest probability of student success, experts agree it involves kids sharing those values of the successful school.  imparting values are not achieved in just the school.  let me give you two scenarios to clarify my point: 0.  a student tom walks 0 blocks to school and home every day.  along the walk home tom usually encounters a group of 0 cruel boys who are 0 grades above him and attend the same school.  they make a habit of teasing him, following him and lately occasionally tripping/pushing him.  when walking to school, the boys tell tom that on the way home they are going to beat him up.  tom has a math test that day.  0.  susan hates her english teacher for assigning too much homework.  she creates a facebook hate page of the teacher and a fake twitter account of the teacher.  both go viral throughout the school.  during the following weeks students are visibly snickering at the teacher before class and in the hallways.  the teacher is loss of respect among the students has resulted in lower class averages.  to make matters worse, the constant social media egging is breaking her morale.  now in scenario 0, tom is not going to be focused on his math test.  his grade  will  suffer and will continue to suffer.  bullied students suffer in academics.  in your ideal world, tom can call the police who will notice he has not ever sustained injuries and will likely just warn the bullies since they have no evidence.  best case for tom, the police arrest the bullies and he gets to testify against them. in 0 months when this actually goes to trial.  his grade still drops.  in scenario 0, an outside action resulted again in a tangible loss of academic performance.  if the teacher takes legal action, thousands of dollars get spent on both sides to resolve the case and performance still suffers.  what if the teacher does not want to put that child through the criminal trial process, they just want the site to go down and regain order ? too bad, the legal system is now the only venue.  again, it is months down the road for it to be resolved.  if you have a child in that class, you have no recourse.  through no fault of your kid who might have stayed out of the whole mess, the class disruptions are affecting the class learning and your child learns less.   #  but regardless it is going to be hard to argue that his family wo not be better off without him in the meantime.   #  he never implied that it curbed negative behaviors in the students being punished, just that after punishment again, assuming expulsion, or temporary removal with threat of permanent expulsion if the behavior is repeated the classroom environment will be more harmonious.  if you remove a bully from the school, then they will have to attend another school, thus tom wo not be followed by them anymore and will perform better on his school work.  if you threaten to remove the owner of an offensive website from school and she removes the website to avoid punishment then, albeit after a few more weeks of jokes, the class will likely return to normal.  if she refuses and you remove her.  then sure the website might stay up, but it will likely get updated less now that she is unconnected to the school, and she wo not be there as the figurehead of the anti teacher movement so the classroom will eventually return to peace.  imagine an abusive father who is removed from his family and put in prison for a few years.  will this make him stop being abusive ? perhaps, perhaps not.  but regardless it is going to be hard to argue that his family wo not be better off without him in the meantime.   #  unfortunately, this point of view is slippery and prone to tunnel vision, i. e.   #  what you are proposing here is solutions based on desired consequences, i. e.  because if we did those things we will have better outcomes, better consequences, then those things become the  right  thing to do.  unfortunately, this point of view is slippery and prone to tunnel vision, i. e.  we are so intent on pursuing the goals, we forget to note whether or not we step on people is toes on the way.  whether or not the solution is effective or efficient, while also important, belongs to a separate discussion imho.  in this case, you are proposing that a society should punish negative behavior  done outside that society .  in other words, you are saying that malaysia should punish its citizens who go to the netherlands and smoke weed there, just because weed is illegal in malaysia.   #  you can teach your neighbor is child moral character but you ca not punish them.   #   direct connection  is a vague reason to punish it is a vague concept to begin with .  and i do not see how that is a direct connection.  if a frenchman killed another frenchman in algeria, should france punish them ? no; only algeria has the jurisdiction to do that.   required to act ; based on what ? schools ca not punish students for sleeping late, or for drinking the night before a test.  no, they are not required.  that is true.  but teaching and punishing are two different things albeit sometimes related .  you can teach your neighbor is child moral character but you ca not punish them.  no,  you should not torment someone  is a basic lesson.  how we get that point across is another question.  punishment should not be a basic lesson, it should be one tool among many.
this is a pretty straightforward issue, as far as i see it.  i am a student who attends a high school, and i think it is ridiculous to punish students for breaking rules that are not those of the school.  if somebody sees a teacher that they hate outside of school, why should not they insult them ? other than the fact that it is a mean and irresponsible thing to do.  if they break the law, they should be tried by a court, before a jury of their peers.  not by a school official.  the main counter argument i see is the issue of cyber bullying.  frankly, i do not see the problem.  if it is rude, alert the perpetrator is parents.  if it is harassment, report it to the police.  if neither of those are the case, well, suck it up.  i do not like to say that, but adults do not get an all powerful school administration to which to cry when they are being picked on.  now, if the student is on a school trip, or wearing school merchandise, then yes, the school can enforce their rules in the interests of protecting their reputation.  otherwise, students should not be punished in school for infractions committed out of school.  cmv  #  if neither of those are the case, well, suck it up.   #  i do not like to say that, but adults do not get an all powerful school administration to which to cry when they are being picked on.   #  the main counter argument i see is the issue of cyber bullying.  frankly, i do not see the problem.  if it is rude, alert the perpetrator is parents.  if it is harassment, report it to the police.  if neither of those are the case, well, suck it up.  i do not like to say that, but adults do not get an all powerful school administration to which to cry when they are being picked on.  i am gonna be blunt here op.  you are an ignorant idiot.  many parents, do not care, or arent a part of their kids life.  this may work in elementary school but it rarely works in high school.  just tell the parents and report it to the police and itll fix the problem.  if it was that simple bullying wouldnt be a problem.  i do not like to say that, but adults do not get an all powerful school administration to which to cry when they are being picked on.  you really, really have no idea what you are saying.  this is an incredibly sheltered and naive view point.  do you know why adults do not get all powerful school administration ? because they are adults, not minors in the school system.  once you enter the workforce, if you go on to work for a major company you will learn about this thing called  hr  this department many times functions in a similar way to your  all powerful school administration  they take complaints and if theyre significant they act on them.  you do not live in a vacuum.  you cant expect that just because you didnt commit the action in school/work/home you wont have any consequences from those respective places.  you can argue if thats right or wrong but thats the reality of the world.  and its not changing.   #  now in scenario 0, tom is not going to be focused on his math test.   #  you are overlooking the incredible importance school climate has on a learning.  if you were to walk into one of the lowest performing schools in the country and in one of the top, what do you think you would see ? obviously in lowest performing you are going to expect to see students acting disrespectful, not paying attention to their studies and chaotic instances of bullying/abuse.  the top school would look quite the opposite.  there would be order, respect and students working.  to achieve the highest probability of student success, experts agree it involves kids sharing those values of the successful school.  imparting values are not achieved in just the school.  let me give you two scenarios to clarify my point: 0.  a student tom walks 0 blocks to school and home every day.  along the walk home tom usually encounters a group of 0 cruel boys who are 0 grades above him and attend the same school.  they make a habit of teasing him, following him and lately occasionally tripping/pushing him.  when walking to school, the boys tell tom that on the way home they are going to beat him up.  tom has a math test that day.  0.  susan hates her english teacher for assigning too much homework.  she creates a facebook hate page of the teacher and a fake twitter account of the teacher.  both go viral throughout the school.  during the following weeks students are visibly snickering at the teacher before class and in the hallways.  the teacher is loss of respect among the students has resulted in lower class averages.  to make matters worse, the constant social media egging is breaking her morale.  now in scenario 0, tom is not going to be focused on his math test.  his grade  will  suffer and will continue to suffer.  bullied students suffer in academics.  in your ideal world, tom can call the police who will notice he has not ever sustained injuries and will likely just warn the bullies since they have no evidence.  best case for tom, the police arrest the bullies and he gets to testify against them. in 0 months when this actually goes to trial.  his grade still drops.  in scenario 0, an outside action resulted again in a tangible loss of academic performance.  if the teacher takes legal action, thousands of dollars get spent on both sides to resolve the case and performance still suffers.  what if the teacher does not want to put that child through the criminal trial process, they just want the site to go down and regain order ? too bad, the legal system is now the only venue.  again, it is months down the road for it to be resolved.  if you have a child in that class, you have no recourse.  through no fault of your kid who might have stayed out of the whole mess, the class disruptions are affecting the class learning and your child learns less.   #  but regardless it is going to be hard to argue that his family wo not be better off without him in the meantime.   #  he never implied that it curbed negative behaviors in the students being punished, just that after punishment again, assuming expulsion, or temporary removal with threat of permanent expulsion if the behavior is repeated the classroom environment will be more harmonious.  if you remove a bully from the school, then they will have to attend another school, thus tom wo not be followed by them anymore and will perform better on his school work.  if you threaten to remove the owner of an offensive website from school and she removes the website to avoid punishment then, albeit after a few more weeks of jokes, the class will likely return to normal.  if she refuses and you remove her.  then sure the website might stay up, but it will likely get updated less now that she is unconnected to the school, and she wo not be there as the figurehead of the anti teacher movement so the classroom will eventually return to peace.  imagine an abusive father who is removed from his family and put in prison for a few years.  will this make him stop being abusive ? perhaps, perhaps not.  but regardless it is going to be hard to argue that his family wo not be better off without him in the meantime.   #  unfortunately, this point of view is slippery and prone to tunnel vision, i. e.   #  what you are proposing here is solutions based on desired consequences, i. e.  because if we did those things we will have better outcomes, better consequences, then those things become the  right  thing to do.  unfortunately, this point of view is slippery and prone to tunnel vision, i. e.  we are so intent on pursuing the goals, we forget to note whether or not we step on people is toes on the way.  whether or not the solution is effective or efficient, while also important, belongs to a separate discussion imho.  in this case, you are proposing that a society should punish negative behavior  done outside that society .  in other words, you are saying that malaysia should punish its citizens who go to the netherlands and smoke weed there, just because weed is illegal in malaysia.   #  no,  you should not torment someone  is a basic lesson.   #   direct connection  is a vague reason to punish it is a vague concept to begin with .  and i do not see how that is a direct connection.  if a frenchman killed another frenchman in algeria, should france punish them ? no; only algeria has the jurisdiction to do that.   required to act ; based on what ? schools ca not punish students for sleeping late, or for drinking the night before a test.  no, they are not required.  that is true.  but teaching and punishing are two different things albeit sometimes related .  you can teach your neighbor is child moral character but you ca not punish them.  no,  you should not torment someone  is a basic lesson.  how we get that point across is another question.  punishment should not be a basic lesson, it should be one tool among many.
i am submitting this because  islam is a problem that needs to be dealt with  is the 0 post on every  controversial opinion  thread, i. e.  it is extremely popular, at least on reddit.  and a lot of smart people, like christopher hitchens, have said the same thing, so i do not want to completely chalk it up to reddit being reddit.  anyway, i got into this site through /r/atheism and lurked there for two years before making an account and realizing that there were far more fresh and interesting subs out there.  suffice to say, i am not coming at this issue with a  we must respect religions even if their adherents do terrible things  attitude.  because .  .  .  0.  i recognize that terrorism, as we usually think of it, is disproportionately islam based.  0.  i recognize the phenomenon of people in a first world, highly developed society suddenly becoming radicalized in the name of islam and plotting terrorist activity or travelling to join al qaeda or isis.  but, as i see it, this can all simply be explained by the fact that the part of the world that is most predominately islamic, the middle east, has been fucked with throughout the second half of the 0th century.  political, social, and economic disorder breed radicalism see: post wwi germany , which found a convenient home in islam.  if islam had not been there, or is removed in the future, i think radicalism would just manifest itself in the next big thing nationalism, racism, politics, etc.  .  up until the mid 0th century, islam was widely regarded as one of the most peaceful and tolerant religions out there.  and if the middle east were traditionally a christian dominated area, and the west traditionally muslim, there would probably be people right now beheading journalists in the name of jesus.  as for  satellite terrorists  in first world countries, i see it as an inevitability, like the americans who became nazi sympathizers during wwii.  if an ideology is powerful enough, it might lure in a small number of idiots elsewhere.  it is bad, but it is not unique to radical islam there is no hypnotizing verse in the koran that turns people into terrorists.  i am not making a defense for religion obviously it can be a vehicle for hate but in this case, i think it is just the most convenient vehicle in a long line of them.  so if you could wave a magic wand and islam would disappear, something else would rise up to take its place.  what do you think ? i do not really  want  to dislike islam, but i sometimes feel like i am being overly tolerant, if that is possible.   #  up until the mid 0th century, islam was widely regarded as one of the most peaceful and tolerant religions out there.   #  and if the middle east were traditionally a christian dominated area, and the west traditionally muslim, there would probably be people right now beheading journalists in the name of jesus.   # and if the middle east were traditionally a christian dominated area, and the west traditionally muslim, there would probably be people right now beheading journalists in the name of jesus.  i am going to disagree with you here.  while christians have done some pretty terrible things in the past, no christian denomination has the concept of  jihad  as is common in islamic thought.  there are no verses that say  fight in the way of jesus , and whether or not the verses themselves are misinterpreted, those verses can be found easily in the qu ran.  there are no traditions in christianity that depict jesus or the apostles fighting, beheading, or maiming people.  in fact, if anything, it is quite the opposite.  there are stories of the apostles  healing  people, perhaps preaching.  there are martyrdom stories in which people are tortured and killed for being christians.  in those stories, the apostles were never violent, and quite often offered very little resistance to their tormentors.  paul was thrown into prison many times.  one time there was an earthquake, and paul  stayed in prison  rather than run.  the two approaches to conflict are not the same and will not produce the same result.  a man who reads in his holy book  slay the infidel  is going to approach conflict differently than someone who reads  resist not evil  or  vengence is mine, i will repay, says the lord .  the second man is being commanded specifically to  not fight back .  when your heros are doing things like chopping off the opposite hands and feet of an entire tribe of people quayresh tribe of jews , that sets a different model than seeing your heros in the faith heal others, submit to torture without violence and retribution.   #  your family may shun you, but no priest will come to lock you up.   #  part of the problem is that all religions have passages in their holy text or philosophies that promote violence.  even buddhists have extremists and buddhism has been used to justify violence.  there is nothing in islam that makes it automatically worse or more prone to extremism than any other religion except for the fact that extremists have more sway in islam today than extremist christians, buddhists, or jews.  you say that it has to do with being in the middle east given all that has gone on there for the last 0 years or so.  it actually goes quite a bit further back than that.  islam promotes the pursuit of knowledge but at some point in the middle ages, the only knowledge worth pursuing was deemed to be the knowledge from the holy texts.  islamic nations used to dominate in math and science but these went through a wholesale vilification.  somewhere around that time, christianity came out of its extremist shell.  sure, there are still christian extremists today, but movements like the renaissance and enlightenment brought the christian world forward.  thinkers like copernicus and newton went from being vilified to glorified.  this has to do with philosophical movements  within  islam, not just circumstance.  this is expressed in various ways.  for example, the punishment for apostasy leaving your religion in christianity is negligible.  your family may shun you, but no priest will come to lock you up.  in islam, however, the punishment is death and this is actually enforced in some places.  far from being able to separate the violence from the excuse for violence, i think it is clear that some of the dominant philosophies within islam are making matters worse much in the same way that some of the dominant philosophies within nazism your example made world war ii worse.   #  the fact that islam seems to have found its outlet in suicide bombings and terrotist attacks against civilians far away seems pretty unusual.   #  but different gangs, like different religions, tend to produce different outlets.  india was pretty oppressed for a century or so, and we ended up with gandhi.  the entire continent of africa has been oppressed for several centuries, and the most violent external attacks we really see are pirate attacks for financial gain they do have internal violence, but not external terrorism like islam seems to produce.  when european nations are oppressed, they tend to have revolutions or wars.  different groups have different reactions, and either the social norms or the religion makes the middle east a place where the typical mode of acting against oppressors is terrorism.  of course, in the us the typical response to oppression and alienation is to shoot up a school, but it is a different mode of expression.  that is still different than southeast asia, where they fought guerilla wars or even self immolated.  the fact that islam seems to have found its outlet in suicide bombings and terrotist attacks against civilians far away seems pretty unusual.  of course, is a small minority of muslims, but it is not even a small minority in most other cultures that would use this particular form of expressing their opposition to foreign cultures that oppressed them.   #  it is the mix of poverty, poor education, lack of opportunity, historical ethnic hostilities, and an extreme form of islam that is causing the region to have these problems.   #  right, but you see how your example is talking about arabs, not muslims.  your examples are showing the structural effects of cultures, not religions.  arab culture, at this time, seems to be funneling their violent self expression through islamist terrorist attacks.  south asians who are dissatisfied, whether they be muslim or not, are funneling their cultural self expression through protest thailand, hk, etc.  but in the end, the vast majority of participants in whichever culture/period you look at are non extremists.  i think overall we are agreeing.  but i still think op is view in general, applies.  it is the mix of poverty, poor education, lack of opportunity, historical ethnic hostilities, and an extreme form of islam that is causing the region to have these problems.   #  i ca not really get a sense of how strict islam was under these fula jihads, or whether it would have been any more or less barbaric than say, spanish catholics in south america at the time.   #  i ca not really get a sense of how those empires worked from that article.  there were plenty of islamic caliphates for the past 0 years or more.  but they had a wide range of integration of the ulema into government affairs.  their most successful period unsurprisingly was when the ulema were only in charge of religious affairs, and the state was relatively secular.  from my understanding, the wahhabi movement was novel in that it successfully merged the two functions back together to form an ultraorthodox movement.  i ca not really get a sense of how strict islam was under these fula jihads, or whether it would have been any more or less barbaric than say, spanish catholics in south america at the time.
firstly, i am sorry if this topic has been debated before, i could not find anything that i felt related directly to it in the popular post archive.  my main point is that sports provide a number of advantages to boys and girls from kindergarten through high school that cannot be replicated by video games.   i am referring to all physical activity, including playing games like tag, manhunt, red rover, etc. , as sports to reduce confusion .  i realize that there is a team vs.  individual sports distinction that can be made as well as a distinction between activity and sport.  until i get into a deeper conversation i will refer to both as sports.  i am 0 years old and grew up right in the middle of what i consider to be the proliferation of video game consoles in households.  my parents did not let me play very much or very often, instead encouraging my sisters and i to play outside.  i became highly involved in sports and i believe they have had a very positive impact on my life.  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.  however, video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives.  the legitimacy of many studies has been called into question.  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  my conclusions are based largely on my own experiences.  i do play video games occasionally, but i quickly tire of them and they are mostly sports games like fifa or nhl games although i do play gta v a fair amount .  however, i spend much more time outdoors, playing basketball, football, tennis, golf, etc.  i believe that there is far more to be gained by playing a sport, be it individual or team than there is to be gained playing video games.  i also believe that it is crucial to get young children outdoors and participating in any physical activity we can.  there are numerous studies that show playing sports is very beneficial and these benefits are far greater than any benefit gained through video games.  thanks for reading, i look forward to your responses !  #  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.   #  or they attract people who were already socially isolated and insulated, or you are otherwise falling prey to confirmation bias.   #  the only meaningful part of your post so far as is apparent to me regards physical health.  the sections regarding sociability are easily dismissed.  i will discuss both of these in turn.  first, you are defined  sport  so vaguely any physical activity whatsoever that, if no other information is given, no legitimate decision can be made.  swimming laps is obviously better for one is physical health than playing video games, but contact american football is just as obviously worse.  extreme sports, rugby, hockey, combat sports, and even golf though to a lesser extent to be sure are fairly dangerous, and this is for people who are perfectly healthy in the first place.  if a person has some kind of pre existing injury, even detached, non contact sports like tennis can be dangerous for people who have some kind of condition i myself used to play before i screwed up my knee irreparably when i was 0 .  so we can conclude that no meaningful distinction can be made unless we have some knowledge of the specific sport.  the assumption that  any  sport is better than  any  video game with regard to physical health is fatally flawed.  second, with regard to the conceptions you have of people you describe as gamers.  here i will address each of your comments specifically.  or they attract people who were already socially isolated and insulated, or you are otherwise falling prey to confirmation bias.  what are your reasons to believe your own explanation is correct instead of these alternatives ? as someone who has played both competitive tennis and team fortress 0, this has not been my experience.  i do not presume that this experience is generalizable to everyone, but it is almost certainly more informed that your own unless you have played on a competitive gaming circuit, which i very much doubt.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  athletes  have fewer  real  friends though their circle of acquaintances may be large , tend not to be able to view women as friends at all rather viewing them primarily as possible sexual partners .  they seem disconnected from any meaningful interpersonal or artistic experience not easily reduced to tribalistic lines;  this good, that bad,  and are quick to dismiss or even act aggressively toward people who do not share their completely arbitrary allegiances to what are essentially brands, and react instinctively to protect organizations which by any account do not deserve protection.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to dedicate a significant amount of time to competitive sport with others is a noticeable inability to discuss anything beyond said sport with any level of depth.  this is, of course, an absolutely ridiculous generalization to make on my part though it  is  actually representative of my personal experiences .  i believe my point is clear ? one final thought.  games have, increasingly, both artistic and creative value simply not present in any form in sports.  how many young adults today are interested in political philosophy because of bioshock ? how many people have taken up the study of history because of civilization ? how many kids are creating things in minecraft ? the seminal cause of my being an economist is probably my fondness for simcity as a young teenager.  i think these things have inherent value.  you may not.  just something to consider.   #  in the comments you acknowledge that sports carry their own risks, and that everything is good in moderation.   #  let me come at this a different way.  what you are asking is for us to choose.  in the comments you acknowledge that sports carry their own risks, and that everything is good in moderation.  you even seem to support the position that video games have some benefits.  if you phrase it as a binary,  sports are better than video games  then you walk down a slippery slope.  forget arguing that sports are better, surely there a plenty of things that are a better use of most children is time.  you say sports are better than video games, maybe i say tennis is better than football, because it is safer, or even that football is better than tennis, because it is more competitive.  whatever the argument, asking someone to change their view on which is  better  is not the beginnings of a fruitful, view changing discussion.  when you phrase it like that, of course people who prefer video games get defensive.  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.  they rightfully point out that the line of causality may go from being a loner to enjoying video games and not the other way around.  just as being tall pushes some kids to basketball, and being large to football, and being gregarious to drama club, being more introverted can be a push towards video games.  if a high school coach says he should have all of the drama clubs funding because sports are  better  than drama club, would you support his proposal ? if the football team decided to defund the chess team because football is  better,  who would you support ? the thing is, sports are better than video games for developing the minds of some children, admittedly, probably most children but i for one am grateful for the fact that the kids who do not like sports have something engaging to do.  even if the gamers are in the minority.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.  i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.   #  more to the point, there are some kids who will only play video games, and if they learn from them then that is great.   # i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  what i am saying is why choose in the first place ? what does it mean to be  productive  ? it entirely depends on what you are trying to teach children.  there are some things that video games can teach to kids.  more to the point, there are some kids who will only play video games, and if they learn from them then that is great.  forget whether video games are better or more productive than sports.  i am arguing your premise is wrong.  trying to figure out what is better is not productive.  even if sports are better, there are other things that are  better  than sports.  what if someone says  reading is better than sports for young kids  ? not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.  asking people to choose which one is better is not going to get any one anywhere.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.  for the record, i agree with this completely.   #  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.  the fact that video games can isolate kids and develop an early dependence on virtual reality can be damaging, in my opinion.  i think that if kids are introduced to sports in a healthy environment early on, they develop better interpersonal skills that can enrich their lives in school and beyond.  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.  they become wrapped up in books and ignore the rest of the world.  there is a certain societal acceptance for that that i also disagree with, i just chose video games because they are the prevailing medium through which children spend their time.
firstly, i am sorry if this topic has been debated before, i could not find anything that i felt related directly to it in the popular post archive.  my main point is that sports provide a number of advantages to boys and girls from kindergarten through high school that cannot be replicated by video games.   i am referring to all physical activity, including playing games like tag, manhunt, red rover, etc. , as sports to reduce confusion .  i realize that there is a team vs.  individual sports distinction that can be made as well as a distinction between activity and sport.  until i get into a deeper conversation i will refer to both as sports.  i am 0 years old and grew up right in the middle of what i consider to be the proliferation of video game consoles in households.  my parents did not let me play very much or very often, instead encouraging my sisters and i to play outside.  i became highly involved in sports and i believe they have had a very positive impact on my life.  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.  however, video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives.  the legitimacy of many studies has been called into question.  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  my conclusions are based largely on my own experiences.  i do play video games occasionally, but i quickly tire of them and they are mostly sports games like fifa or nhl games although i do play gta v a fair amount .  however, i spend much more time outdoors, playing basketball, football, tennis, golf, etc.  i believe that there is far more to be gained by playing a sport, be it individual or team than there is to be gained playing video games.  i also believe that it is crucial to get young children outdoors and participating in any physical activity we can.  there are numerous studies that show playing sports is very beneficial and these benefits are far greater than any benefit gained through video games.  thanks for reading, i look forward to your responses !  #  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.   #  as someone who has played both competitive tennis and team fortress 0, this has not been my experience.   #  the only meaningful part of your post so far as is apparent to me regards physical health.  the sections regarding sociability are easily dismissed.  i will discuss both of these in turn.  first, you are defined  sport  so vaguely any physical activity whatsoever that, if no other information is given, no legitimate decision can be made.  swimming laps is obviously better for one is physical health than playing video games, but contact american football is just as obviously worse.  extreme sports, rugby, hockey, combat sports, and even golf though to a lesser extent to be sure are fairly dangerous, and this is for people who are perfectly healthy in the first place.  if a person has some kind of pre existing injury, even detached, non contact sports like tennis can be dangerous for people who have some kind of condition i myself used to play before i screwed up my knee irreparably when i was 0 .  so we can conclude that no meaningful distinction can be made unless we have some knowledge of the specific sport.  the assumption that  any  sport is better than  any  video game with regard to physical health is fatally flawed.  second, with regard to the conceptions you have of people you describe as gamers.  here i will address each of your comments specifically.  or they attract people who were already socially isolated and insulated, or you are otherwise falling prey to confirmation bias.  what are your reasons to believe your own explanation is correct instead of these alternatives ? as someone who has played both competitive tennis and team fortress 0, this has not been my experience.  i do not presume that this experience is generalizable to everyone, but it is almost certainly more informed that your own unless you have played on a competitive gaming circuit, which i very much doubt.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  athletes  have fewer  real  friends though their circle of acquaintances may be large , tend not to be able to view women as friends at all rather viewing them primarily as possible sexual partners .  they seem disconnected from any meaningful interpersonal or artistic experience not easily reduced to tribalistic lines;  this good, that bad,  and are quick to dismiss or even act aggressively toward people who do not share their completely arbitrary allegiances to what are essentially brands, and react instinctively to protect organizations which by any account do not deserve protection.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to dedicate a significant amount of time to competitive sport with others is a noticeable inability to discuss anything beyond said sport with any level of depth.  this is, of course, an absolutely ridiculous generalization to make on my part though it  is  actually representative of my personal experiences .  i believe my point is clear ? one final thought.  games have, increasingly, both artistic and creative value simply not present in any form in sports.  how many young adults today are interested in political philosophy because of bioshock ? how many people have taken up the study of history because of civilization ? how many kids are creating things in minecraft ? the seminal cause of my being an economist is probably my fondness for simcity as a young teenager.  i think these things have inherent value.  you may not.  just something to consider.   #  if the football team decided to defund the chess team because football is  better,  who would you support ?  #  let me come at this a different way.  what you are asking is for us to choose.  in the comments you acknowledge that sports carry their own risks, and that everything is good in moderation.  you even seem to support the position that video games have some benefits.  if you phrase it as a binary,  sports are better than video games  then you walk down a slippery slope.  forget arguing that sports are better, surely there a plenty of things that are a better use of most children is time.  you say sports are better than video games, maybe i say tennis is better than football, because it is safer, or even that football is better than tennis, because it is more competitive.  whatever the argument, asking someone to change their view on which is  better  is not the beginnings of a fruitful, view changing discussion.  when you phrase it like that, of course people who prefer video games get defensive.  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.  they rightfully point out that the line of causality may go from being a loner to enjoying video games and not the other way around.  just as being tall pushes some kids to basketball, and being large to football, and being gregarious to drama club, being more introverted can be a push towards video games.  if a high school coach says he should have all of the drama clubs funding because sports are  better  than drama club, would you support his proposal ? if the football team decided to defund the chess team because football is  better,  who would you support ? the thing is, sports are better than video games for developing the minds of some children, admittedly, probably most children but i for one am grateful for the fact that the kids who do not like sports have something engaging to do.  even if the gamers are in the minority.   #  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.  i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.   #  for the record, i agree with this completely.   # i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  what i am saying is why choose in the first place ? what does it mean to be  productive  ? it entirely depends on what you are trying to teach children.  there are some things that video games can teach to kids.  more to the point, there are some kids who will only play video games, and if they learn from them then that is great.  forget whether video games are better or more productive than sports.  i am arguing your premise is wrong.  trying to figure out what is better is not productive.  even if sports are better, there are other things that are  better  than sports.  what if someone says  reading is better than sports for young kids  ? not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.  asking people to choose which one is better is not going to get any one anywhere.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.  for the record, i agree with this completely.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.  the fact that video games can isolate kids and develop an early dependence on virtual reality can be damaging, in my opinion.  i think that if kids are introduced to sports in a healthy environment early on, they develop better interpersonal skills that can enrich their lives in school and beyond.  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.  they become wrapped up in books and ignore the rest of the world.  there is a certain societal acceptance for that that i also disagree with, i just chose video games because they are the prevailing medium through which children spend their time.
firstly, i am sorry if this topic has been debated before, i could not find anything that i felt related directly to it in the popular post archive.  my main point is that sports provide a number of advantages to boys and girls from kindergarten through high school that cannot be replicated by video games.   i am referring to all physical activity, including playing games like tag, manhunt, red rover, etc. , as sports to reduce confusion .  i realize that there is a team vs.  individual sports distinction that can be made as well as a distinction between activity and sport.  until i get into a deeper conversation i will refer to both as sports.  i am 0 years old and grew up right in the middle of what i consider to be the proliferation of video game consoles in households.  my parents did not let me play very much or very often, instead encouraging my sisters and i to play outside.  i became highly involved in sports and i believe they have had a very positive impact on my life.  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.  however, video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives.  the legitimacy of many studies has been called into question.  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  my conclusions are based largely on my own experiences.  i do play video games occasionally, but i quickly tire of them and they are mostly sports games like fifa or nhl games although i do play gta v a fair amount .  however, i spend much more time outdoors, playing basketball, football, tennis, golf, etc.  i believe that there is far more to be gained by playing a sport, be it individual or team than there is to be gained playing video games.  i also believe that it is crucial to get young children outdoors and participating in any physical activity we can.  there are numerous studies that show playing sports is very beneficial and these benefits are far greater than any benefit gained through video games.  thanks for reading, i look forward to your responses !  #  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.   #  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.   #  the only meaningful part of your post so far as is apparent to me regards physical health.  the sections regarding sociability are easily dismissed.  i will discuss both of these in turn.  first, you are defined  sport  so vaguely any physical activity whatsoever that, if no other information is given, no legitimate decision can be made.  swimming laps is obviously better for one is physical health than playing video games, but contact american football is just as obviously worse.  extreme sports, rugby, hockey, combat sports, and even golf though to a lesser extent to be sure are fairly dangerous, and this is for people who are perfectly healthy in the first place.  if a person has some kind of pre existing injury, even detached, non contact sports like tennis can be dangerous for people who have some kind of condition i myself used to play before i screwed up my knee irreparably when i was 0 .  so we can conclude that no meaningful distinction can be made unless we have some knowledge of the specific sport.  the assumption that  any  sport is better than  any  video game with regard to physical health is fatally flawed.  second, with regard to the conceptions you have of people you describe as gamers.  here i will address each of your comments specifically.  or they attract people who were already socially isolated and insulated, or you are otherwise falling prey to confirmation bias.  what are your reasons to believe your own explanation is correct instead of these alternatives ? as someone who has played both competitive tennis and team fortress 0, this has not been my experience.  i do not presume that this experience is generalizable to everyone, but it is almost certainly more informed that your own unless you have played on a competitive gaming circuit, which i very much doubt.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  athletes  have fewer  real  friends though their circle of acquaintances may be large , tend not to be able to view women as friends at all rather viewing them primarily as possible sexual partners .  they seem disconnected from any meaningful interpersonal or artistic experience not easily reduced to tribalistic lines;  this good, that bad,  and are quick to dismiss or even act aggressively toward people who do not share their completely arbitrary allegiances to what are essentially brands, and react instinctively to protect organizations which by any account do not deserve protection.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to dedicate a significant amount of time to competitive sport with others is a noticeable inability to discuss anything beyond said sport with any level of depth.  this is, of course, an absolutely ridiculous generalization to make on my part though it  is  actually representative of my personal experiences .  i believe my point is clear ? one final thought.  games have, increasingly, both artistic and creative value simply not present in any form in sports.  how many young adults today are interested in political philosophy because of bioshock ? how many people have taken up the study of history because of civilization ? how many kids are creating things in minecraft ? the seminal cause of my being an economist is probably my fondness for simcity as a young teenager.  i think these things have inherent value.  you may not.  just something to consider.   #  they rightfully point out that the line of causality may go from being a loner to enjoying video games and not the other way around.   #  let me come at this a different way.  what you are asking is for us to choose.  in the comments you acknowledge that sports carry their own risks, and that everything is good in moderation.  you even seem to support the position that video games have some benefits.  if you phrase it as a binary,  sports are better than video games  then you walk down a slippery slope.  forget arguing that sports are better, surely there a plenty of things that are a better use of most children is time.  you say sports are better than video games, maybe i say tennis is better than football, because it is safer, or even that football is better than tennis, because it is more competitive.  whatever the argument, asking someone to change their view on which is  better  is not the beginnings of a fruitful, view changing discussion.  when you phrase it like that, of course people who prefer video games get defensive.  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.  they rightfully point out that the line of causality may go from being a loner to enjoying video games and not the other way around.  just as being tall pushes some kids to basketball, and being large to football, and being gregarious to drama club, being more introverted can be a push towards video games.  if a high school coach says he should have all of the drama clubs funding because sports are  better  than drama club, would you support his proposal ? if the football team decided to defund the chess team because football is  better,  who would you support ? the thing is, sports are better than video games for developing the minds of some children, admittedly, probably most children but i for one am grateful for the fact that the kids who do not like sports have something engaging to do.  even if the gamers are in the minority.   #  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.  i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.   #  trying to figure out what is better is not productive.   # i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  what i am saying is why choose in the first place ? what does it mean to be  productive  ? it entirely depends on what you are trying to teach children.  there are some things that video games can teach to kids.  more to the point, there are some kids who will only play video games, and if they learn from them then that is great.  forget whether video games are better or more productive than sports.  i am arguing your premise is wrong.  trying to figure out what is better is not productive.  even if sports are better, there are other things that are  better  than sports.  what if someone says  reading is better than sports for young kids  ? not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.  asking people to choose which one is better is not going to get any one anywhere.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.  for the record, i agree with this completely.   #  there is a certain societal acceptance for that that i also disagree with, i just chose video games because they are the prevailing medium through which children spend their time.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.  the fact that video games can isolate kids and develop an early dependence on virtual reality can be damaging, in my opinion.  i think that if kids are introduced to sports in a healthy environment early on, they develop better interpersonal skills that can enrich their lives in school and beyond.  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.  they become wrapped up in books and ignore the rest of the world.  there is a certain societal acceptance for that that i also disagree with, i just chose video games because they are the prevailing medium through which children spend their time.
firstly, i am sorry if this topic has been debated before, i could not find anything that i felt related directly to it in the popular post archive.  my main point is that sports provide a number of advantages to boys and girls from kindergarten through high school that cannot be replicated by video games.   i am referring to all physical activity, including playing games like tag, manhunt, red rover, etc. , as sports to reduce confusion .  i realize that there is a team vs.  individual sports distinction that can be made as well as a distinction between activity and sport.  until i get into a deeper conversation i will refer to both as sports.  i am 0 years old and grew up right in the middle of what i consider to be the proliferation of video game consoles in households.  my parents did not let me play very much or very often, instead encouraging my sisters and i to play outside.  i became highly involved in sports and i believe they have had a very positive impact on my life.  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.  however, video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives.  the legitimacy of many studies has been called into question.  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  my conclusions are based largely on my own experiences.  i do play video games occasionally, but i quickly tire of them and they are mostly sports games like fifa or nhl games although i do play gta v a fair amount .  however, i spend much more time outdoors, playing basketball, football, tennis, golf, etc.  i believe that there is far more to be gained by playing a sport, be it individual or team than there is to be gained playing video games.  i also believe that it is crucial to get young children outdoors and participating in any physical activity we can.  there are numerous studies that show playing sports is very beneficial and these benefits are far greater than any benefit gained through video games.  thanks for reading, i look forward to your responses !  #  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.   #  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.   #  i do not think anyone can argue from a physical standpoint which is superior, getting out and running around will always beat sitting down and staring at a display.  however i think your interpretation of the emotional and mental well being is misguided.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  no.  some of my most memorable moments with my childhood friends included sitting inside on a rainy day playing video games.  even today when i play, i do it with friends of mine.  we might not be in the same room, or even in the same state but it is anything but an isolated or insulated experience.  sure, i might not have had to sacrifice my body for an emotional victory, but there were a lot of moments where something epic had been pulled off and we all sat back and had a similar emotional response.  even on a non close friend level, i would say that playing online with strangers is still damned good fun and can encourage all the same teamwork and strategy as any sport can.  i am going to just say that this is your experience and that does not speak for the crowd.  in college myself and my two  gamer  roommates, were social and had girlfriends.  many people i work with today consider themselves  gamers  on some level, many are married.  many of their wives play with them even.  you seem like you are painting the stereotype of the 0 year old guy living in his mother is basement and applying that to everyone that claims to be a  gamer .  it is just wrong.  it is no more right than saying that every guy who plays sports is a womanizing jock.  some people, regardless of what their hobbies are, just suck at the social aspects of life.  i will agree on a physical level, because as i opened with it is nearly impossible to argue in favor of video games in this regard.  however on a social, emotional or mental front i think that you just lack the experience with gamers to understand that not all of them are social hermits.  many of them are just as social as the average non gamer, and i would be willing to bet that many kids brought up playing sports can be just as anti social as you believe gamers to be.  playing sports does not magically grant an anti social kid the ability to socialize.  the benefit in this regard to video games is that the anti social kid can digest smaller interactions under their own favored circumstances, and without doing it face to face.  that might be more beneficial to someone trying to expand themselves rather than getting thrown right into a highly competitive and tense team sport.   #  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.   #  let me come at this a different way.  what you are asking is for us to choose.  in the comments you acknowledge that sports carry their own risks, and that everything is good in moderation.  you even seem to support the position that video games have some benefits.  if you phrase it as a binary,  sports are better than video games  then you walk down a slippery slope.  forget arguing that sports are better, surely there a plenty of things that are a better use of most children is time.  you say sports are better than video games, maybe i say tennis is better than football, because it is safer, or even that football is better than tennis, because it is more competitive.  whatever the argument, asking someone to change their view on which is  better  is not the beginnings of a fruitful, view changing discussion.  when you phrase it like that, of course people who prefer video games get defensive.  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.  they rightfully point out that the line of causality may go from being a loner to enjoying video games and not the other way around.  just as being tall pushes some kids to basketball, and being large to football, and being gregarious to drama club, being more introverted can be a push towards video games.  if a high school coach says he should have all of the drama clubs funding because sports are  better  than drama club, would you support his proposal ? if the football team decided to defund the chess team because football is  better,  who would you support ? the thing is, sports are better than video games for developing the minds of some children, admittedly, probably most children but i for one am grateful for the fact that the kids who do not like sports have something engaging to do.  even if the gamers are in the minority.   #  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.  i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.   #  what if someone says  reading is better than sports for young kids  ?  # i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  what i am saying is why choose in the first place ? what does it mean to be  productive  ? it entirely depends on what you are trying to teach children.  there are some things that video games can teach to kids.  more to the point, there are some kids who will only play video games, and if they learn from them then that is great.  forget whether video games are better or more productive than sports.  i am arguing your premise is wrong.  trying to figure out what is better is not productive.  even if sports are better, there are other things that are  better  than sports.  what if someone says  reading is better than sports for young kids  ? not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.  asking people to choose which one is better is not going to get any one anywhere.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.  for the record, i agree with this completely.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.  the fact that video games can isolate kids and develop an early dependence on virtual reality can be damaging, in my opinion.  i think that if kids are introduced to sports in a healthy environment early on, they develop better interpersonal skills that can enrich their lives in school and beyond.  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.  they become wrapped up in books and ignore the rest of the world.  there is a certain societal acceptance for that that i also disagree with, i just chose video games because they are the prevailing medium through which children spend their time.
firstly, i am sorry if this topic has been debated before, i could not find anything that i felt related directly to it in the popular post archive.  my main point is that sports provide a number of advantages to boys and girls from kindergarten through high school that cannot be replicated by video games.   i am referring to all physical activity, including playing games like tag, manhunt, red rover, etc. , as sports to reduce confusion .  i realize that there is a team vs.  individual sports distinction that can be made as well as a distinction between activity and sport.  until i get into a deeper conversation i will refer to both as sports.  i am 0 years old and grew up right in the middle of what i consider to be the proliferation of video game consoles in households.  my parents did not let me play very much or very often, instead encouraging my sisters and i to play outside.  i became highly involved in sports and i believe they have had a very positive impact on my life.  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.  however, video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives.  the legitimacy of many studies has been called into question.  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  my conclusions are based largely on my own experiences.  i do play video games occasionally, but i quickly tire of them and they are mostly sports games like fifa or nhl games although i do play gta v a fair amount .  however, i spend much more time outdoors, playing basketball, football, tennis, golf, etc.  i believe that there is far more to be gained by playing a sport, be it individual or team than there is to be gained playing video games.  i also believe that it is crucial to get young children outdoors and participating in any physical activity we can.  there are numerous studies that show playing sports is very beneficial and these benefits are far greater than any benefit gained through video games.  thanks for reading, i look forward to your responses !  #  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.   #  i am going to just say that this is your experience and that does not speak for the crowd.   #  i do not think anyone can argue from a physical standpoint which is superior, getting out and running around will always beat sitting down and staring at a display.  however i think your interpretation of the emotional and mental well being is misguided.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  no.  some of my most memorable moments with my childhood friends included sitting inside on a rainy day playing video games.  even today when i play, i do it with friends of mine.  we might not be in the same room, or even in the same state but it is anything but an isolated or insulated experience.  sure, i might not have had to sacrifice my body for an emotional victory, but there were a lot of moments where something epic had been pulled off and we all sat back and had a similar emotional response.  even on a non close friend level, i would say that playing online with strangers is still damned good fun and can encourage all the same teamwork and strategy as any sport can.  i am going to just say that this is your experience and that does not speak for the crowd.  in college myself and my two  gamer  roommates, were social and had girlfriends.  many people i work with today consider themselves  gamers  on some level, many are married.  many of their wives play with them even.  you seem like you are painting the stereotype of the 0 year old guy living in his mother is basement and applying that to everyone that claims to be a  gamer .  it is just wrong.  it is no more right than saying that every guy who plays sports is a womanizing jock.  some people, regardless of what their hobbies are, just suck at the social aspects of life.  i will agree on a physical level, because as i opened with it is nearly impossible to argue in favor of video games in this regard.  however on a social, emotional or mental front i think that you just lack the experience with gamers to understand that not all of them are social hermits.  many of them are just as social as the average non gamer, and i would be willing to bet that many kids brought up playing sports can be just as anti social as you believe gamers to be.  playing sports does not magically grant an anti social kid the ability to socialize.  the benefit in this regard to video games is that the anti social kid can digest smaller interactions under their own favored circumstances, and without doing it face to face.  that might be more beneficial to someone trying to expand themselves rather than getting thrown right into a highly competitive and tense team sport.   #  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.   #  let me come at this a different way.  what you are asking is for us to choose.  in the comments you acknowledge that sports carry their own risks, and that everything is good in moderation.  you even seem to support the position that video games have some benefits.  if you phrase it as a binary,  sports are better than video games  then you walk down a slippery slope.  forget arguing that sports are better, surely there a plenty of things that are a better use of most children is time.  you say sports are better than video games, maybe i say tennis is better than football, because it is safer, or even that football is better than tennis, because it is more competitive.  whatever the argument, asking someone to change their view on which is  better  is not the beginnings of a fruitful, view changing discussion.  when you phrase it like that, of course people who prefer video games get defensive.  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.  they rightfully point out that the line of causality may go from being a loner to enjoying video games and not the other way around.  just as being tall pushes some kids to basketball, and being large to football, and being gregarious to drama club, being more introverted can be a push towards video games.  if a high school coach says he should have all of the drama clubs funding because sports are  better  than drama club, would you support his proposal ? if the football team decided to defund the chess team because football is  better,  who would you support ? the thing is, sports are better than video games for developing the minds of some children, admittedly, probably most children but i for one am grateful for the fact that the kids who do not like sports have something engaging to do.  even if the gamers are in the minority.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.  i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.   #  not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.   # i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  what i am saying is why choose in the first place ? what does it mean to be  productive  ? it entirely depends on what you are trying to teach children.  there are some things that video games can teach to kids.  more to the point, there are some kids who will only play video games, and if they learn from them then that is great.  forget whether video games are better or more productive than sports.  i am arguing your premise is wrong.  trying to figure out what is better is not productive.  even if sports are better, there are other things that are  better  than sports.  what if someone says  reading is better than sports for young kids  ? not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.  asking people to choose which one is better is not going to get any one anywhere.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.  for the record, i agree with this completely.   #  i think that if kids are introduced to sports in a healthy environment early on, they develop better interpersonal skills that can enrich their lives in school and beyond.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.  the fact that video games can isolate kids and develop an early dependence on virtual reality can be damaging, in my opinion.  i think that if kids are introduced to sports in a healthy environment early on, they develop better interpersonal skills that can enrich their lives in school and beyond.  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.  they become wrapped up in books and ignore the rest of the world.  there is a certain societal acceptance for that that i also disagree with, i just chose video games because they are the prevailing medium through which children spend their time.
firstly, i am sorry if this topic has been debated before, i could not find anything that i felt related directly to it in the popular post archive.  my main point is that sports provide a number of advantages to boys and girls from kindergarten through high school that cannot be replicated by video games.   i am referring to all physical activity, including playing games like tag, manhunt, red rover, etc. , as sports to reduce confusion .  i realize that there is a team vs.  individual sports distinction that can be made as well as a distinction between activity and sport.  until i get into a deeper conversation i will refer to both as sports.  i am 0 years old and grew up right in the middle of what i consider to be the proliferation of video game consoles in households.  my parents did not let me play very much or very often, instead encouraging my sisters and i to play outside.  i became highly involved in sports and i believe they have had a very positive impact on my life.  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.  however, video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives.  the legitimacy of many studies has been called into question.  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  my conclusions are based largely on my own experiences.  i do play video games occasionally, but i quickly tire of them and they are mostly sports games like fifa or nhl games although i do play gta v a fair amount .  however, i spend much more time outdoors, playing basketball, football, tennis, golf, etc.  i believe that there is far more to be gained by playing a sport, be it individual or team than there is to be gained playing video games.  i also believe that it is crucial to get young children outdoors and participating in any physical activity we can.  there are numerous studies that show playing sports is very beneficial and these benefits are far greater than any benefit gained through video games.  thanks for reading, i look forward to your responses !  #  i believe that there is far more to be gained by playing a sport, be it individual or team than there is to be gained playing video games.   #  i will agree on a physical level, because as i opened with it is nearly impossible to argue in favor of video games in this regard.   #  i do not think anyone can argue from a physical standpoint which is superior, getting out and running around will always beat sitting down and staring at a display.  however i think your interpretation of the emotional and mental well being is misguided.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  no.  some of my most memorable moments with my childhood friends included sitting inside on a rainy day playing video games.  even today when i play, i do it with friends of mine.  we might not be in the same room, or even in the same state but it is anything but an isolated or insulated experience.  sure, i might not have had to sacrifice my body for an emotional victory, but there were a lot of moments where something epic had been pulled off and we all sat back and had a similar emotional response.  even on a non close friend level, i would say that playing online with strangers is still damned good fun and can encourage all the same teamwork and strategy as any sport can.  i am going to just say that this is your experience and that does not speak for the crowd.  in college myself and my two  gamer  roommates, were social and had girlfriends.  many people i work with today consider themselves  gamers  on some level, many are married.  many of their wives play with them even.  you seem like you are painting the stereotype of the 0 year old guy living in his mother is basement and applying that to everyone that claims to be a  gamer .  it is just wrong.  it is no more right than saying that every guy who plays sports is a womanizing jock.  some people, regardless of what their hobbies are, just suck at the social aspects of life.  i will agree on a physical level, because as i opened with it is nearly impossible to argue in favor of video games in this regard.  however on a social, emotional or mental front i think that you just lack the experience with gamers to understand that not all of them are social hermits.  many of them are just as social as the average non gamer, and i would be willing to bet that many kids brought up playing sports can be just as anti social as you believe gamers to be.  playing sports does not magically grant an anti social kid the ability to socialize.  the benefit in this regard to video games is that the anti social kid can digest smaller interactions under their own favored circumstances, and without doing it face to face.  that might be more beneficial to someone trying to expand themselves rather than getting thrown right into a highly competitive and tense team sport.   #  let me come at this a different way.   #  let me come at this a different way.  what you are asking is for us to choose.  in the comments you acknowledge that sports carry their own risks, and that everything is good in moderation.  you even seem to support the position that video games have some benefits.  if you phrase it as a binary,  sports are better than video games  then you walk down a slippery slope.  forget arguing that sports are better, surely there a plenty of things that are a better use of most children is time.  you say sports are better than video games, maybe i say tennis is better than football, because it is safer, or even that football is better than tennis, because it is more competitive.  whatever the argument, asking someone to change their view on which is  better  is not the beginnings of a fruitful, view changing discussion.  when you phrase it like that, of course people who prefer video games get defensive.  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.  they rightfully point out that the line of causality may go from being a loner to enjoying video games and not the other way around.  just as being tall pushes some kids to basketball, and being large to football, and being gregarious to drama club, being more introverted can be a push towards video games.  if a high school coach says he should have all of the drama clubs funding because sports are  better  than drama club, would you support his proposal ? if the football team decided to defund the chess team because football is  better,  who would you support ? the thing is, sports are better than video games for developing the minds of some children, admittedly, probably most children but i for one am grateful for the fact that the kids who do not like sports have something engaging to do.  even if the gamers are in the minority.   #  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.  i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.   #  not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.   # i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  what i am saying is why choose in the first place ? what does it mean to be  productive  ? it entirely depends on what you are trying to teach children.  there are some things that video games can teach to kids.  more to the point, there are some kids who will only play video games, and if they learn from them then that is great.  forget whether video games are better or more productive than sports.  i am arguing your premise is wrong.  trying to figure out what is better is not productive.  even if sports are better, there are other things that are  better  than sports.  what if someone says  reading is better than sports for young kids  ? not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.  asking people to choose which one is better is not going to get any one anywhere.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.  for the record, i agree with this completely.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.  the fact that video games can isolate kids and develop an early dependence on virtual reality can be damaging, in my opinion.  i think that if kids are introduced to sports in a healthy environment early on, they develop better interpersonal skills that can enrich their lives in school and beyond.  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.  they become wrapped up in books and ignore the rest of the world.  there is a certain societal acceptance for that that i also disagree with, i just chose video games because they are the prevailing medium through which children spend their time.
firstly, i am sorry if this topic has been debated before, i could not find anything that i felt related directly to it in the popular post archive.  my main point is that sports provide a number of advantages to boys and girls from kindergarten through high school that cannot be replicated by video games.   i am referring to all physical activity, including playing games like tag, manhunt, red rover, etc. , as sports to reduce confusion .  i realize that there is a team vs.  individual sports distinction that can be made as well as a distinction between activity and sport.  until i get into a deeper conversation i will refer to both as sports.  i am 0 years old and grew up right in the middle of what i consider to be the proliferation of video game consoles in households.  my parents did not let me play very much or very often, instead encouraging my sisters and i to play outside.  i became highly involved in sports and i believe they have had a very positive impact on my life.  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.  however, video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives.  the legitimacy of many studies has been called into question.  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  my conclusions are based largely on my own experiences.  i do play video games occasionally, but i quickly tire of them and they are mostly sports games like fifa or nhl games although i do play gta v a fair amount .  however, i spend much more time outdoors, playing basketball, football, tennis, golf, etc.  i believe that there is far more to be gained by playing a sport, be it individual or team than there is to be gained playing video games.  i also believe that it is crucial to get young children outdoors and participating in any physical activity we can.  there are numerous studies that show playing sports is very beneficial and these benefits are far greater than any benefit gained through video games.  thanks for reading, i look forward to your responses !  #  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.   #  however, video games are controversial in this manner.   # however, video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives if we agree on this point, would you care to edit your op that states  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.  however , video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives  this is a clear implication that video games have controversial benefits, while sports benefits are entirely uncontroversial.  that can be said of almost anything.  everything comes with positive and negatives.  how are my statements vague ? i listed concrete problems with sports: 0 injuries including concussions that can fuck you up for life ; 0 financial burden 0 abusive coaches 0 parental pressure\stress i think these factors are just as bad, if not worse than video games risks.  you made zero attempts at explaining why these risks are more acceptable than risk of video gaming.  ok, let is try being blunt: stuff like this does not happen to video gamers: URL URL URL URL URL etc.  etc.  etc.  is being more socially isolated due to video games better than being sexually abused by a coach ? stuff like this does not happen to video gamers: URL URL URL is being more socially isolated due to video games better than being permanently retarded due to concussions ? you seem to have the answers.  do you care to share how are you so sure ?  #  let me come at this a different way.   #  let me come at this a different way.  what you are asking is for us to choose.  in the comments you acknowledge that sports carry their own risks, and that everything is good in moderation.  you even seem to support the position that video games have some benefits.  if you phrase it as a binary,  sports are better than video games  then you walk down a slippery slope.  forget arguing that sports are better, surely there a plenty of things that are a better use of most children is time.  you say sports are better than video games, maybe i say tennis is better than football, because it is safer, or even that football is better than tennis, because it is more competitive.  whatever the argument, asking someone to change their view on which is  better  is not the beginnings of a fruitful, view changing discussion.  when you phrase it like that, of course people who prefer video games get defensive.  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.  they rightfully point out that the line of causality may go from being a loner to enjoying video games and not the other way around.  just as being tall pushes some kids to basketball, and being large to football, and being gregarious to drama club, being more introverted can be a push towards video games.  if a high school coach says he should have all of the drama clubs funding because sports are  better  than drama club, would you support his proposal ? if the football team decided to defund the chess team because football is  better,  who would you support ? the thing is, sports are better than video games for developing the minds of some children, admittedly, probably most children but i for one am grateful for the fact that the kids who do not like sports have something engaging to do.  even if the gamers are in the minority.   #  i think that should be the case for each.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.  i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.   #  there are some things that video games can teach to kids.   # i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  what i am saying is why choose in the first place ? what does it mean to be  productive  ? it entirely depends on what you are trying to teach children.  there are some things that video games can teach to kids.  more to the point, there are some kids who will only play video games, and if they learn from them then that is great.  forget whether video games are better or more productive than sports.  i am arguing your premise is wrong.  trying to figure out what is better is not productive.  even if sports are better, there are other things that are  better  than sports.  what if someone says  reading is better than sports for young kids  ? not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.  asking people to choose which one is better is not going to get any one anywhere.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.  for the record, i agree with this completely.   #  they become wrapped up in books and ignore the rest of the world.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.  the fact that video games can isolate kids and develop an early dependence on virtual reality can be damaging, in my opinion.  i think that if kids are introduced to sports in a healthy environment early on, they develop better interpersonal skills that can enrich their lives in school and beyond.  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.  they become wrapped up in books and ignore the rest of the world.  there is a certain societal acceptance for that that i also disagree with, i just chose video games because they are the prevailing medium through which children spend their time.
firstly, i am sorry if this topic has been debated before, i could not find anything that i felt related directly to it in the popular post archive.  my main point is that sports provide a number of advantages to boys and girls from kindergarten through high school that cannot be replicated by video games.   i am referring to all physical activity, including playing games like tag, manhunt, red rover, etc. , as sports to reduce confusion .  i realize that there is a team vs.  individual sports distinction that can be made as well as a distinction between activity and sport.  until i get into a deeper conversation i will refer to both as sports.  i am 0 years old and grew up right in the middle of what i consider to be the proliferation of video game consoles in households.  my parents did not let me play very much or very often, instead encouraging my sisters and i to play outside.  i became highly involved in sports and i believe they have had a very positive impact on my life.  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.  however, video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives.  the legitimacy of many studies has been called into question.  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  my conclusions are based largely on my own experiences.  i do play video games occasionally, but i quickly tire of them and they are mostly sports games like fifa or nhl games although i do play gta v a fair amount .  however, i spend much more time outdoors, playing basketball, football, tennis, golf, etc.  i believe that there is far more to be gained by playing a sport, be it individual or team than there is to be gained playing video games.  i also believe that it is crucial to get young children outdoors and participating in any physical activity we can.  there are numerous studies that show playing sports is very beneficial and these benefits are far greater than any benefit gained through video games.  thanks for reading, i look forward to your responses !  #  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.   #  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.   #  there is no argument that sports are more beneficial from a physical health standpoint.  moving and sweating is way better than sitting in a chair.  my argument will focus solely on mental effects of physical sports and video games.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  single player video games are, as the name suggests, isolating when compared to sports.  this does not make them less mentally engaging than sports.  a solo player video game is more like an adventure like a book or a movie.  you experience hopefully good story telling and character development.  someone who plays solo player games could be expected to excel more with writing skills and literary arts than someone who plays outdoor sports.  of course as the definition of our activities suggests, video games do not mimic physical sacrifice, however, you cannot say that there is no emotion between teams or groups.  i would say that you are wrong in this part.  progression with teamwork in the online world is very emotionally engaging and truly does strengthen bonds between teammates similar to that of sports.  could one who solely plays alone benefit from outdoor sports with teammates in person ? of course.  but the same could also be said for the outdoor player who cannot spend time alone and collect themselves.  socializing is good, but i would argue that a mixture is best and only having one or the other is both equally destructive to the mind.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  gamers may have fewer friends in person, but i would say their friendslist is teeming with similar online adventurers such as themselves.  you say gamers are quick to prove that they are smarter, but i would say jocks are quick to prove who is stronger or faster.  i ca not tell you how often i hear jocks comparing the amount of weight they can lift or how fast they run.  i hear this way more frequently than i hear gamers comparing their intellect unless they are mages .  there may be a more foreign feeling to gamers when socially interacting with others, but again i would say that there is a noticeable difference when people who are not commoners of the mmo worlds step foot into the virtual world.  you can recognize gamers in real life, and gamers can recognize you online.  i would also point out that you have zero experience in what real online gaming is so you do not have much to compare your sports to.  sports video games are not accurate examples as to what most video games are.  there is no story.  no teamwork.  there is very little socialization with your games.  the first m in mmo stands for massive.  the games you enjoy do not fit into the category.   #  if a high school coach says he should have all of the drama clubs funding because sports are  better  than drama club, would you support his proposal ?  #  let me come at this a different way.  what you are asking is for us to choose.  in the comments you acknowledge that sports carry their own risks, and that everything is good in moderation.  you even seem to support the position that video games have some benefits.  if you phrase it as a binary,  sports are better than video games  then you walk down a slippery slope.  forget arguing that sports are better, surely there a plenty of things that are a better use of most children is time.  you say sports are better than video games, maybe i say tennis is better than football, because it is safer, or even that football is better than tennis, because it is more competitive.  whatever the argument, asking someone to change their view on which is  better  is not the beginnings of a fruitful, view changing discussion.  when you phrase it like that, of course people who prefer video games get defensive.  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.  they rightfully point out that the line of causality may go from being a loner to enjoying video games and not the other way around.  just as being tall pushes some kids to basketball, and being large to football, and being gregarious to drama club, being more introverted can be a push towards video games.  if a high school coach says he should have all of the drama clubs funding because sports are  better  than drama club, would you support his proposal ? if the football team decided to defund the chess team because football is  better,  who would you support ? the thing is, sports are better than video games for developing the minds of some children, admittedly, probably most children but i for one am grateful for the fact that the kids who do not like sports have something engaging to do.  even if the gamers are in the minority.   #  i think that should be the case for each.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.  i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.   #  even if sports are better, there are other things that are  better  than sports.   # i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  what i am saying is why choose in the first place ? what does it mean to be  productive  ? it entirely depends on what you are trying to teach children.  there are some things that video games can teach to kids.  more to the point, there are some kids who will only play video games, and if they learn from them then that is great.  forget whether video games are better or more productive than sports.  i am arguing your premise is wrong.  trying to figure out what is better is not productive.  even if sports are better, there are other things that are  better  than sports.  what if someone says  reading is better than sports for young kids  ? not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.  asking people to choose which one is better is not going to get any one anywhere.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.  for the record, i agree with this completely.   #  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.  the fact that video games can isolate kids and develop an early dependence on virtual reality can be damaging, in my opinion.  i think that if kids are introduced to sports in a healthy environment early on, they develop better interpersonal skills that can enrich their lives in school and beyond.  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.  they become wrapped up in books and ignore the rest of the world.  there is a certain societal acceptance for that that i also disagree with, i just chose video games because they are the prevailing medium through which children spend their time.
firstly, i am sorry if this topic has been debated before, i could not find anything that i felt related directly to it in the popular post archive.  my main point is that sports provide a number of advantages to boys and girls from kindergarten through high school that cannot be replicated by video games.   i am referring to all physical activity, including playing games like tag, manhunt, red rover, etc. , as sports to reduce confusion .  i realize that there is a team vs.  individual sports distinction that can be made as well as a distinction between activity and sport.  until i get into a deeper conversation i will refer to both as sports.  i am 0 years old and grew up right in the middle of what i consider to be the proliferation of video game consoles in households.  my parents did not let me play very much or very often, instead encouraging my sisters and i to play outside.  i became highly involved in sports and i believe they have had a very positive impact on my life.  the positive physiological and psychological effects of exercise on the human body are well established.  however, video games are controversial in this manner.  there are many positive side effects, but also many negatives.  the legitimacy of many studies has been called into question.  i believe that video games create a very isolated, insulated social life for those who play them.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  my conclusions are based largely on my own experiences.  i do play video games occasionally, but i quickly tire of them and they are mostly sports games like fifa or nhl games although i do play gta v a fair amount .  however, i spend much more time outdoors, playing basketball, football, tennis, golf, etc.  i believe that there is far more to be gained by playing a sport, be it individual or team than there is to be gained playing video games.  i also believe that it is crucial to get young children outdoors and participating in any physical activity we can.  there are numerous studies that show playing sports is very beneficial and these benefits are far greater than any benefit gained through video games.  thanks for reading, i look forward to your responses !  #  in my experience, people who categorize themselves as  gamers  have fewer friends, especially female friends.   #  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.   #  there is no argument that sports are more beneficial from a physical health standpoint.  moving and sweating is way better than sitting in a chair.  my argument will focus solely on mental effects of physical sports and video games.  many people seem to develop a certain disdain for their peers and, in my opinion, would benefit greatly from team activity.  sure, there are mmos that require teamwork, but i do not believe they can mimic the physical sacrifice and the emotion of interaction with others on a field/court/other playing surface.  single player video games are, as the name suggests, isolating when compared to sports.  this does not make them less mentally engaging than sports.  a solo player video game is more like an adventure like a book or a movie.  you experience hopefully good story telling and character development.  someone who plays solo player games could be expected to excel more with writing skills and literary arts than someone who plays outdoor sports.  of course as the definition of our activities suggests, video games do not mimic physical sacrifice, however, you cannot say that there is no emotion between teams or groups.  i would say that you are wrong in this part.  progression with teamwork in the online world is very emotionally engaging and truly does strengthen bonds between teammates similar to that of sports.  could one who solely plays alone benefit from outdoor sports with teammates in person ? of course.  but the same could also be said for the outdoor player who cannot spend time alone and collect themselves.  socializing is good, but i would argue that a mixture is best and only having one or the other is both equally destructive to the mind.  they seem disconnected from many aspects of social life and also seem quick to prove that they are smarter than the person with whom they are speaking.  i realize that i may not be able to easily connect with these people socially because we do not share a common interest, but even in watching the interaction of those who i know to play video games on a daily basis with others there is noticeable discomfort when they speak with people they do not know.  gamers may have fewer friends in person, but i would say their friendslist is teeming with similar online adventurers such as themselves.  you say gamers are quick to prove that they are smarter, but i would say jocks are quick to prove who is stronger or faster.  i ca not tell you how often i hear jocks comparing the amount of weight they can lift or how fast they run.  i hear this way more frequently than i hear gamers comparing their intellect unless they are mages .  there may be a more foreign feeling to gamers when socially interacting with others, but again i would say that there is a noticeable difference when people who are not commoners of the mmo worlds step foot into the virtual world.  you can recognize gamers in real life, and gamers can recognize you online.  i would also point out that you have zero experience in what real online gaming is so you do not have much to compare your sports to.  sports video games are not accurate examples as to what most video games are.  there is no story.  no teamwork.  there is very little socialization with your games.  the first m in mmo stands for massive.  the games you enjoy do not fit into the category.   #  forget arguing that sports are better, surely there a plenty of things that are a better use of most children is time.   #  let me come at this a different way.  what you are asking is for us to choose.  in the comments you acknowledge that sports carry their own risks, and that everything is good in moderation.  you even seem to support the position that video games have some benefits.  if you phrase it as a binary,  sports are better than video games  then you walk down a slippery slope.  forget arguing that sports are better, surely there a plenty of things that are a better use of most children is time.  you say sports are better than video games, maybe i say tennis is better than football, because it is safer, or even that football is better than tennis, because it is more competitive.  whatever the argument, asking someone to change their view on which is  better  is not the beginnings of a fruitful, view changing discussion.  when you phrase it like that, of course people who prefer video games get defensive.  you are forcing them either to bring sports down a peg, or raise up video games.  they rightfully point out that the line of causality may go from being a loner to enjoying video games and not the other way around.  just as being tall pushes some kids to basketball, and being large to football, and being gregarious to drama club, being more introverted can be a push towards video games.  if a high school coach says he should have all of the drama clubs funding because sports are  better  than drama club, would you support his proposal ? if the football team decided to defund the chess team because football is  better,  who would you support ? the thing is, sports are better than video games for developing the minds of some children, admittedly, probably most children but i for one am grateful for the fact that the kids who do not like sports have something engaging to do.  even if the gamers are in the minority.   #  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.   #  if the benefits of the sports program outweighed the benefits of the drama, music, or chess programs, i would weigh the portions differently and award more money to the more productive program.  i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  i would agree that video games are fine for children who do not have an interest in sports.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.   #  not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.   # i think that should be the case for each.  if a school is particularly strong in music, fund the music program more heavily.  what i am saying is why choose in the first place ? what does it mean to be  productive  ? it entirely depends on what you are trying to teach children.  there are some things that video games can teach to kids.  more to the point, there are some kids who will only play video games, and if they learn from them then that is great.  forget whether video games are better or more productive than sports.  i am arguing your premise is wrong.  trying to figure out what is better is not productive.  even if sports are better, there are other things that are  better  than sports.  what if someone says  reading is better than sports for young kids  ? not all kids like to read, not all kids like to play sports.  asking people to choose which one is better is not going to get any one anywhere.  however, i think all children should be introduced to sports and physical activity first, and that video game exposure should be highly limited for children.  for the record, i agree with this completely.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.   #  my argument is less about productivity and more about how children interact with their peers.  the fact that video games can isolate kids and develop an early dependence on virtual reality can be damaging, in my opinion.  i think that if kids are introduced to sports in a healthy environment early on, they develop better interpersonal skills that can enrich their lives in school and beyond.  to a certain extent, someone who reads too much can have issues not entirely different from an obsessive gamer.  they become wrapped up in books and ignore the rest of the world.  there is a certain societal acceptance for that that i also disagree with, i just chose video games because they are the prevailing medium through which children spend their time.
basically title.  i suppose i can extend this to suing somebody as well, but that is not exactly the same point.  it seems a bland punishment that does not really fit any crime besides theft / vandalism.  you posted something bad on social media ? give us your money.  you ran a stop sign ? give us your money.  yes, its meant as a punishment, and punishments are supposed to be things you do not enjoy.  but it is a lazy method that says  you did something bad.  give us your money.   on the side note of suing people, i think it is just as ridiculous.  unless of course there are actually  damages .  i am sorry for the pain you went through, but here is $0,0.  i hope you feel better now.   #  unless of course there are actually  damages .   #  i am sorry for the pain you went through, but here is $0,0.   #  you ran a stop light.  what do you propose ? 0 lashings in the town square ? the nice thing about giving fines vs.  other punishment is that it is both a punishment for the offendor and useful for the government.  yes, other things like community service can benefit the community, but they also require supervision and enforcement, which for trivial crimes like traffic violations, will end up costing the government more money that it would save.  i am sorry for the pain you went through, but here is $0,0.  how often is this  not  the case ? a negligent truck driver rear ends me, my car gets totaled and i have neck/back issues.  insurance will probably cover the car, but that money is useful for medical bills and continued treatment.   #  it is the main problem of  deterrents studies  and they are well aware of it.   #  did you actually read any of these ? because most of these studies have one major flaw; they study a system in which deterrents are present and accounted for.  as such, they have nothing on which to build a true assessment of the actual situation.  much is left to be done in the field.  it is the main problem of  deterrents studies  and they are well aware of it.  the most a prudent criminologist will say is that the existence of  a  justice system might operate as a deterrent in some way, but that its particular manifestation trough its policies are not necessarily what makes it effective.  mainly, nothing goes to show that the severity of the expected punishment is in any way proportional to its effect on crime rates.   #  the deterrent studies you are referencing are only for certain high level crimes.   #  the deterrent studies you are referencing are only for certain high level crimes.  things like murder and rape, and armed robbery.  in those cases, people really are not thinking rationally to begin with, so a deterrent is not very effective.  murder and rape are by definition illogical acts, usually crimes of passion.  most robberies and break ins are by drug addicts just trying to get money to buy dope; they are not logical people.  the thing is most people are in fact fairly logical.  most people are relatively decent folk.  ax murderers are the exception rather than the rule.  as such, for the types of infractions most people are likely to commit, fines are actually quite effective.  for instance, i watch my speed on the highway.  why ? well i am fairly rational and i can realize going way over the speed limit really is not worth it.  the minute i would save by driving like a maniac, speeding and weaving between lanes is not worth risking the huge fines i face if pulled over.   #  say i impound your vehicle, you could buy a new one.   #  disagree on three points: 0.  money is the vehicle that society uses to establish a common denominator for trade.  instead of your employer giving you goods that you must barter, they give you money, which you may then give to someone else for items and services of value.  in this example, money itself has no value or meaning, it is a representation of the goods and services that are being traded.  0.  penalizing someone could take two forms.  physical punishment ranging from incarceration, restriction from locations, revocation of abilities, or corporal punishment.  all of these affect you as an individual and take away some or all of your rights.  the second form would be to affect your belongings such as impounding your possessions, fines and fees, or destruction of items that belong to you.  if these are my options, i would definitely prefer the latter.  0.  taking your property is in effect the same as giving you a fine as you could replace the property by spending money.  say i impound your vehicle, you could buy a new one.  you are still out some amount of money and i would now have to deal with your car.  it is simpler to just require you to give up money instead of property.  the only other option that i see is if we did not punish people for minor offenses.  if that is your assertion, how would you enforce minor laws like stopping at stop signs ? if that was not enforced, would you think that accidents would increase ?  #  if you have a habit of knocking shit over in bars, pretty sure theres not gonna be any more bars for you to go to.   #  0.  of course money has meaning and value.  like you said, it is literally what a capitalist society is based on.  it is valuable and you do not want to lose it.  but in the end it amounts to one of two things.  it either cripples you, your business, your whatever, or it does not.  if it does not its basically a slap on the wrist because if you can manage after the fine its  ouch, better not do that again.   and you shrug and walk it off.  0.  fair point, but i am a firm believer in what you prefer, as the perpetrator of the crime shouldnt mean shit.  restriction from locations / abilities / rights are all very strong punishments.  and ones that can better suit the crime.  if you have a habit of knocking shit over in bars, pretty sure theres not gonna be any more bars for you to go to.  0.  i agree that a fine is a excellent punishment if it causes damages.  such as things that can be repaired  with money .  but for everything else is where i draw the line.  $0,0 wont help you over come emotional trauma.
assuming that my child would like to play then when they are of age then i think they should be allowed and encouraged to play football.  there have been countless news lately about the head injuries associated with sport but i feel that this is just a flavor the week kind of thing and is being over analyzed.  especially at the younger levels the risk is very low and the lessons learned are very valuable.  i  do not  think the child should be forced to play.  if it is not the right sport for them then they should not be pushed into it.  i personally played mostly baseball growing up but did play a few years of football.  i think lessons learned in football are invaluable and cannot be found at the same level in other sports.  my wife disagrees with me and says we should not allow our child to play.  i would be willing to cmv but i feel strongly that they should be allowed to play if they want.  0.  my grammar sucks.  0.  i am speaking about middle school through high school age.  0.  i know there are risks; there are risks in everything and football is high than many.  it seems like most people are just pointing out individual risks in football.  i would change my view if i felt that the risks were inevitable and drastically worse than other sports or activities.  0.  is the community view that american football should be completely banned across the board for all everyone under 0 ? i understand that people are making arguments to try and cmv but do you really feel that way ? 0.  down votes ?  #  there have been countless news lately about the head injuries associated with sport but i feel that this is just a flavor the week kind of thing and is being over analyzed.   #  it is not a flavor of the week, as it has been happening for decades.   #  i agree that your child should be allowed to play football, but i disagree that it is a good idea.  it is not a flavor of the week, as it has been happening for decades.  medical science finally caught up with the issue, and now people are starting to realize that your brain being jostled around regularly for years is not a good thing.  here is an article that addresses this URL kids in pop warner especially younger ones are not taught the proper way to tackle, and subject themselves to injuries because of it.  what lessons will your child learn in football that would not be learned in baseball or soccer ? teamwork ? will to win ? i ca not think of a single lesson learned in football that is not also taught in another sport with less injury risk.   #  the signs of a concussion are not always obvious.   #  there is a good list of sources at the end of this article URL   football players are at the highest risk for concussions.  most kids recover from mild concussions with no lasting problems.  however, a second concussion on top of one that has not completely healed can be much more dangerous.  kids greatly underreport their concussion symptoms, either because they do not recognize the symptoms as part of a concussion or because they do not want to miss practice time.  the signs of a concussion are not always obvious.  the long term data comparing concussions to academic achievement and neurocognitive function is conflicting, but all studies seem to show that multiple concussions are associated with higher levels of neurological symptoms.  also, with all the recent reports about college and pro level football players suffering severe symptoms from the frequent impacts that are essentially inseparable from higher levels of the sport, i think i would be wary of letting a kid get too serious about football even if younger levels were proven to be completely safe and impact free.  football is not exactly the kind of sport you can enjoy playing for a lifetime.  and i do not think you can dismiss the concerns as a flavor of the week cause when the long term effects of traumatic brain injuries are still a relatively new area of medicine.  out of curiosity, what lessons do you think can only be learned through football ? most sports and even some non sport activities offer opportunities for discipline, camaraderie, perseverance, personal and/or team goals, recognition and athleticism.   #  not better than any other sport but if a child wanted to play it then i think the risks are low enough to allow them.   #  the risks are bad and should be minimized as much as is possible.  since football has the highest rate of concussion we should focus on making it as safe as possible.  if we banned football then it would simply move down the line to soccer being the most dangerous sport.  should we also stop children from playing soccer ? are the head injury risk associated with soccer within the acceptable range ? i think one reason we are seeing such a high percentage of injury coming out of the sport is because it is the most popular sport.  according to this pdf warning URL is is nearly double any other sport.  i think football can be played with minimal injury and it is a really good sport.  not better than any other sport but if a child wanted to play it then i think the risks are low enough to allow them.  i am not saying that children ca not learn these lesson in other sports but only that football has a unique take on them.  baseball and track both have unique takes on lessons for the child to learn.   #  helmets and pads can also make it harder for coaches to spot the subtle signs of concussion when a kid is out on the field.   #  well, the concussion rate for boy is football is 0 0 per 0,0 times on the field, and the concussion rate for boy is soccer is 0 0.  serious underreporting is likely for both sports, but the difference in frequency does seem to indicate that there is significantly more intrinsic risk in football.  since it is by frequency, the difference in the number of players and the differing length of seasons is controlled for.  as far as i know, heading the ball is banned in most k 0 soccer, and physical contact between players is limited to shoulder bumping and accidental collisions.  football is a full contact sport that involves lots of intentional and unintentional collisions.  the fact that players wear pads and helmets may paradoxically make them  more  likely to get hurt in the same way that cyclists who wear helmets are more likely to get hurt most people assume that a helmet provides enough protection a helmet actually does very little to stop the acceleration forces produced by impact , so they are less likely to exercise appropriate caution.  helmets and pads can also make it harder for coaches to spot the subtle signs of concussion when a kid is out on the field.  football is a great sport.  there is a reason why it is popular.  it is exciting, it is athletic, it is strategic but still easy to follow.  nobody really disputes the idea that football is a great sport, or that playing sports is beneficial for kids.  all sports come with a risk of injury, but football has a head injury rate that is  far above  that of other sports and it is probably going to be difficult to change that.  removing heading from soccer does not significantly alter the game, but removing tackling from football does alter the game.  boxing is another great sport with a high risk of head injuries, and most parents today would not encourage their 0 year old to box.   #  are the head injury risk associated with soccer within the acceptable range ?  # should we also stop children from playing soccer ? are the head injury risk associated with soccer within the acceptable range ? children  should not  be doing head bunts while playing soccer.  as long as they do not, it is safe.  yes, if we banned tackle football for children then it would no longer be the most dangerous children is sport, true statement.  but your fear of it snowballing into other sports being banned does not hold up.  if other sports do not have a tackle or head bunt element, then they would not be banned.  if they do, then they  should  be banned right along with football.  we do not have to ban football completely; we just need to ban  tackle  football and replace it with touch or flag football for children.  and we maybe do not even need to  ban  it.  is anyone actually proposing a ban ? or just that we educate the public to the dangers and then local youth football leagues adjust due to public pressure and the new facts.
assuming that my child would like to play then when they are of age then i think they should be allowed and encouraged to play football.  there have been countless news lately about the head injuries associated with sport but i feel that this is just a flavor the week kind of thing and is being over analyzed.  especially at the younger levels the risk is very low and the lessons learned are very valuable.  i  do not  think the child should be forced to play.  if it is not the right sport for them then they should not be pushed into it.  i personally played mostly baseball growing up but did play a few years of football.  i think lessons learned in football are invaluable and cannot be found at the same level in other sports.  my wife disagrees with me and says we should not allow our child to play.  i would be willing to cmv but i feel strongly that they should be allowed to play if they want.  0.  my grammar sucks.  0.  i am speaking about middle school through high school age.  0.  i know there are risks; there are risks in everything and football is high than many.  it seems like most people are just pointing out individual risks in football.  i would change my view if i felt that the risks were inevitable and drastically worse than other sports or activities.  0.  is the community view that american football should be completely banned across the board for all everyone under 0 ? i understand that people are making arguments to try and cmv but do you really feel that way ? 0.  down votes ?  #  i think lessons learned in football are invaluable and cannot be found at the same level in other sports.   #  what lessons will your child learn in football that would not be learned in baseball or soccer ?  #  i agree that your child should be allowed to play football, but i disagree that it is a good idea.  it is not a flavor of the week, as it has been happening for decades.  medical science finally caught up with the issue, and now people are starting to realize that your brain being jostled around regularly for years is not a good thing.  here is an article that addresses this URL kids in pop warner especially younger ones are not taught the proper way to tackle, and subject themselves to injuries because of it.  what lessons will your child learn in football that would not be learned in baseball or soccer ? teamwork ? will to win ? i ca not think of a single lesson learned in football that is not also taught in another sport with less injury risk.   #  the signs of a concussion are not always obvious.   #  there is a good list of sources at the end of this article URL   football players are at the highest risk for concussions.  most kids recover from mild concussions with no lasting problems.  however, a second concussion on top of one that has not completely healed can be much more dangerous.  kids greatly underreport their concussion symptoms, either because they do not recognize the symptoms as part of a concussion or because they do not want to miss practice time.  the signs of a concussion are not always obvious.  the long term data comparing concussions to academic achievement and neurocognitive function is conflicting, but all studies seem to show that multiple concussions are associated with higher levels of neurological symptoms.  also, with all the recent reports about college and pro level football players suffering severe symptoms from the frequent impacts that are essentially inseparable from higher levels of the sport, i think i would be wary of letting a kid get too serious about football even if younger levels were proven to be completely safe and impact free.  football is not exactly the kind of sport you can enjoy playing for a lifetime.  and i do not think you can dismiss the concerns as a flavor of the week cause when the long term effects of traumatic brain injuries are still a relatively new area of medicine.  out of curiosity, what lessons do you think can only be learned through football ? most sports and even some non sport activities offer opportunities for discipline, camaraderie, perseverance, personal and/or team goals, recognition and athleticism.   #  baseball and track both have unique takes on lessons for the child to learn.   #  the risks are bad and should be minimized as much as is possible.  since football has the highest rate of concussion we should focus on making it as safe as possible.  if we banned football then it would simply move down the line to soccer being the most dangerous sport.  should we also stop children from playing soccer ? are the head injury risk associated with soccer within the acceptable range ? i think one reason we are seeing such a high percentage of injury coming out of the sport is because it is the most popular sport.  according to this pdf warning URL is is nearly double any other sport.  i think football can be played with minimal injury and it is a really good sport.  not better than any other sport but if a child wanted to play it then i think the risks are low enough to allow them.  i am not saying that children ca not learn these lesson in other sports but only that football has a unique take on them.  baseball and track both have unique takes on lessons for the child to learn.   #  since it is by frequency, the difference in the number of players and the differing length of seasons is controlled for.   #  well, the concussion rate for boy is football is 0 0 per 0,0 times on the field, and the concussion rate for boy is soccer is 0 0.  serious underreporting is likely for both sports, but the difference in frequency does seem to indicate that there is significantly more intrinsic risk in football.  since it is by frequency, the difference in the number of players and the differing length of seasons is controlled for.  as far as i know, heading the ball is banned in most k 0 soccer, and physical contact between players is limited to shoulder bumping and accidental collisions.  football is a full contact sport that involves lots of intentional and unintentional collisions.  the fact that players wear pads and helmets may paradoxically make them  more  likely to get hurt in the same way that cyclists who wear helmets are more likely to get hurt most people assume that a helmet provides enough protection a helmet actually does very little to stop the acceleration forces produced by impact , so they are less likely to exercise appropriate caution.  helmets and pads can also make it harder for coaches to spot the subtle signs of concussion when a kid is out on the field.  football is a great sport.  there is a reason why it is popular.  it is exciting, it is athletic, it is strategic but still easy to follow.  nobody really disputes the idea that football is a great sport, or that playing sports is beneficial for kids.  all sports come with a risk of injury, but football has a head injury rate that is  far above  that of other sports and it is probably going to be difficult to change that.  removing heading from soccer does not significantly alter the game, but removing tackling from football does alter the game.  boxing is another great sport with a high risk of head injuries, and most parents today would not encourage their 0 year old to box.   #  should we also stop children from playing soccer ?  # should we also stop children from playing soccer ? are the head injury risk associated with soccer within the acceptable range ? children  should not  be doing head bunts while playing soccer.  as long as they do not, it is safe.  yes, if we banned tackle football for children then it would no longer be the most dangerous children is sport, true statement.  but your fear of it snowballing into other sports being banned does not hold up.  if other sports do not have a tackle or head bunt element, then they would not be banned.  if they do, then they  should  be banned right along with football.  we do not have to ban football completely; we just need to ban  tackle  football and replace it with touch or flag football for children.  and we maybe do not even need to  ban  it.  is anyone actually proposing a ban ? or just that we educate the public to the dangers and then local youth football leagues adjust due to public pressure and the new facts.
people think and behave the way they think they are expected to think and behave by their peers.  we think we are supposed to occupy a position on the political spectrum because everyone else has, so we go shopping for one.  more often than not, it is the position taken by our peers.  joe schmoe, or jane doe, or stepan arkadyevich receives their opinions, being chosen by them, rather than choosing them for themselves.  he or she is a liberal because he perceives that he is expected to be, or conservative because that is who they socialise with.  opinions and beliefs are cognitive shortcuts, where you pick something to be true and then take the position of mental goalkeeper.  it is useful if you are mentally weak and ca not assimilate new information without effort, like asking someone fat and out of shape to walk a few miles.  you reject the anticipated effort, because it is much easier and less stressful to stay in the box and deflect shots, or stay on the couch and argue that the walk would have been pointless.  our brains are more efficient at filtering than reorganising; one kind of effort is easier than the other.  those who are good at processing new information do not need opinions or beliefs, but because everyone around them worships this or that, or aligns with righteous causes, their need to be part of a community fools them into taking for granted that they need to pick a position and stick with it, then integrate it into their ego and identity.    i am  a liberal ,   i am  a socialist ,   i am  a libertarian ,   i am  a feminist ,   i am  a muslim , etc.  if you are a fast learner and keep distance between your ego and your hypothesis, then the concept of opinion, or belief, is useless.  it is a social construct that originates with the mentally weak.  it is better to drop the machinery of opinion and stick to pragmatism.   side note about the obvious meta argument:  maybe the english language is geared towards the same prejudice, but it just read better and was a bit clearer to my eye when i wrote the above as a person who  believes  the above to be true.   doh !   in this post i am not playing devil is advocate, but it has been a mental itch for a while.   #  if you are a fast learner and keep distance between your ego and your hypothesis, then the concept of opinion, or belief, is useless.   #  it is a social construct that originates with the mentally weak.   #  what would it be if it was not a social construct ? i am not sure how to change your view, because opinions and beliefs are not facts and thus must be constructed socially.  i think your first paragraph is a bit like the chicken and egg scenario.  do i think and act a certain way because it is expected of me, or is it expected of me because i think and act a certain way ? am i liberal because i hang out with liberals, or do i hang out with liberals because i am liberal ? it is a social construct that originates with the mentally weak.  it is better to drop the machinery of opinion and stick to pragmatism.  i agree that pragmatism is generally good, but what if i just want a quick heuristic to determine if, say, a date and i are compatible ? sure, i could spend read: waste a lot of time questioning them about specific political or religious aspects but if we can apply some common labels to ourselves i can gather necessary information faster.  i would not be very compatible with someone who was conservative, that is not a value judgement it is just something important to me in a significant other.  i would advocate for some middle ground here.  grouping ourselves politically allows us to accomplish more than if we all approached it with different aims, goals, and opinions.  i may not always agree with democrats in office, but i know they will be representing me better than republicans.  and until someone crowns me king of the world, i reckon i am going to have to try and compromise to achieve certain goals.   #  i am tempted to pull genetics into the argument and suggest that we are born with general proclivities.   # i am not sure how to change your view, because opinions and beliefs are not facts and thus must be constructed socially.  i think your first paragraph is a bit like the chicken and egg scenario.  do i think and act a certain way because it is expected of me, or is it expected of me because i think and act a certain way ? am i liberal because i hang out with liberals, or do i hang out with liberals because i am liberal ? i am tempted to pull genetics into the argument and suggest that we are born with general proclivities.  i suspect we gravitate to certain societies for genetic reasons, but i do not have much to back that up.  early hunches come from things like ryota kanai is work URL identifying biological tendencies towards liberal thinking greater risk tolerance , and conservative thinking blocking distracting information .  another influence has been robert sapolsky URL and his work observing primates.  man is closest relatives form either harem based groups or pair bonding based groups.  humans appear to be the ape inbetween.  we like to think we can form stable marriages, but we like to be players, too.  i think we have a conflict here, and should push out into individualism and emotionally distant cooperation.  tribalism has been on my mind, and i think it is not useful anymore at the scale that humanity now operates at.  it is useful for a tribe of a few dozen baboons, but since the industrial revolution we have grown in density, and the tribal affiliations meant for small groups is breaking down badly when it tries to adapt the same mentality to megapopulations.  we want to form groups, groups that ca not grow larger than dunbar is number URL and our urge to feel as one with a group has meant we are trying to impress a structure that ca not hold.  we keep fractioning, and it is because we naturally align our thinking to a group, forming beliefs and opinions for the sake of the group.  like building a castle on sand.  it is not working anymore.  there are too many of us.  we try to group together to put more power behind good things, but there is just  so many  of us that we fracture before we accomplish anything.  so the tea party breaks apart and squabbles, and waste their energy, as did the occupy movement.   #  it is why egalitarianism is not a viable alternative to mra or feminism or lgbt activism or the naacp.   #  but can we break apart from it ? i agree with you, for what it is worth, but inevitably we do splinter into smaller groups because individuals value different things.  it is why egalitarianism is not a viable alternative to mra or feminism or lgbt activism or the naacp.  each group has its pet projects, and any umbrella group would splinter into smaller groups that focus solely on those issues the members value.  i have thought a lot about tribalism myself, and one of the reasons i like football is it lets me get my tribalism fix in a harmless and entertaining way.  but i am not really sure how we, as a species, could break out of this mentality.   #  each group must stick to its principles or the experiment does not work, but the groups that lose will die.   #  alright, one thing i did not consider until now is that the splintering phenomena is evolution on a different plane: life breaks up into smaller and specialised groups to experiment with different solutions to natural opportunities.  each group must stick to its principles or the experiment does not work, but the groups that lose will die.  i would counter that we do not have to do this anymore.  in my op i mentioned that  smart  people those good at assimilating new information, changing positions almost daily are being held back because their  dumber  peers take it for granted that you must belong to something with fixed ideas.  smart people go along with it, because they grow up with it, so the assumption is invisible even to them.  the rest of us depend on the competent, the able, and the intelligent to fix broken pipes, cancer and late trains.  they could do more if they were unshackled.  a radical proposal would be to turn social convention on itself and cultivate the expectation that opinions and beliefs are poisonous.   #  we need to meet our basic needs and then we can free ourselves to pursue better subjects.   # smart people go along with it, because they grow up with it, so the assumption is invisible even to them.  the rest of us depend on the competent, the able, and the intelligent to fix broken pipes, cancer and late trains.  they could do more if they were unshackled.  i suppose i do not really see what is shackling us other than an inability to get along in large enough groups which i do not blame solely on smart or dumb people and pragmatism.  logistical challenges are hard to overcome, and yet people still need those trains to run even if they are not perfect.  we need to meet our basic needs and then we can free ourselves to pursue better subjects.  right now i am wasting time at a job i do not like very much because i need to make money to live.  if i wasnt here, who knows what i would be doing, but it would likely be more productive to society as a whole.  it would be great if we could all get along and form a singular focus towards bettering society and humanity, but it is hard enough to get ten people to agree on what that focus should be, never mind 0 billion.  so we could start a group with this aim, but eventually it will become too big and people will want other expectations cultivated over others.  smart people come to different conclusions on a regular basis, especially on subjective evuations on problems.  is world hunger a bigger problem than world peace ? which one should our efforts focus on ?
some art has a deeper meaning than others, than transcends art and actually is part of our culture.  music about  going to the clubs and having sex  is shallow and does not relate to anything deeper than the  art  itself.  some music takes more talent to make, lyricism is better, etc etc.  the white stripes are better than justin bieber, it takes more objective skill and  innovation  to make music like the white stripes did, bieber has not impacted the music industry at all, at least not for the better.  without vocal effects, bieber has been proven not to be able to reach the same notes as the white stripes have.  i am not saying someone ca not like bieber more, i am saying that the white stripes are undisputedly better.  and that is just one example.   #  without vocal effects, bieber has been proven not to be able to reach the same notes as the white stripes have.   #  by that logic an acoustic guitarist is more likely to make better music than an electric guitarist.   # by that logic an acoustic guitarist is more likely to make better music than an electric guitarist.  an electric guitarist would not be able to make those sounds without the effects.  bieber on an acoustic guitar, or white on an electric would be then equal.  what is so innovative about the white stripes or jack white ? i am not sure he has made any music that is not disposable or has made any lasting mark in the music industry.  i think he will be completely forgotten in 0 years.  my personal opinion is that the only slightly objective way to measure the quality or impact of art is by looking back in time, then ask do we still remember the art.  for both of your examples we can not do that yet.  it is only after all the people that were alive when the art was made are dead can the assessment and impact of the art be known.  there are many artists that have been unknown and thought of as talentless the have made huge influences on art, design, and sound long after they have died.  unless you are a fortune teller there is no way to make an objective assessment of any currently alive artist.   #  i would say the yardsticks are expertise, effort, and execution.   #  the mona lisa is objectively better art than that drawing your kid made and put on the fridge.  now the problem is to explore why.  i would say the yardsticks are expertise, effort, and execution.  picasso was drawing in a park one day and someone who did not know him came up to him when he finished and asked him about the drawing.  he said he would probably sell it for a few thousand dollars and the person said  but it took you fifteen minutes to make !   and he replied  but it took fifty years for me to learn how to do it.    #  does that mean we cannot be objectively wrong or right ?  # here is an analogy of the method i espouse: in science, you start with a set of observations.  then you make an underlying theory, and test that theory against the observations.  but  you are still starting with obvious pieces of data.  likewise, when developing something like a theory of what makes good art if there is such a thing , you start with a set of obvious appearances.  these can be things like  the mona lisa seems clearly better than a 0 year old is scribblings .  there are also other appearances, like  people disagree on what is good and bad art , and  resolving disagreements between reasonable people can be problematic.   these both appear to be true to me as well.  so a theory should be able to take all these appearances into account whether it is a subjectivist theory or objective one.  hopefully that clears up the methodology a bit.  i do not think it is as problematic as you believe.  and depending on what scientific theories you subscribe to, you might have a very different view of the world than i do.  one of us might subscribe to the multiverse theory, another might subscribe to something else .  so ? does that mean we cannot be objectively wrong or right ?  #  and i think it is pretty fair to say that there is a myriad of other criteria we might evaluate art by.   #  it is problematic because unlike science what constitutes good art is completly subjective and up to the individual.  science has a methodology that works, there is no such metodology that works for art.  let is evaluate his criteria:   expertise, effort, and execution.  expertise does not always make good art, does it ? an author or painter with years of experience and a master of the craft can still make art people would call bad.  likewise effort.  just because you have put effort into art does not mean it will be good does it ? and finally execution, a criteria that is, itself, subjective how do you evaluate  execution  ? .  and i think it is pretty fair to say that there is a myriad of other criteria we might evaluate art by.  talent, audience appreciation, conveying emotion, photorealistic, and on and on.  so, clearly, art is subjective and there are no objective evaluations of art.   #  however, there is a leap in your logic you go from point  a  to  c  without  b .   # well this is the exact thing we are debating.  seems like this response is begging the question to me.  why think that what constitutes good art is completely subjective and up to the individual ? i have just described the methodology for evaluating art in a previous comment and it is roughly analogous to science.  the methodology itself does not necessarily suggest art is objective, but i think one can use it in conjunction with certain appearances to make such a case.  i also hint at this methodology in another thread on this cmv URL   let is evaluate his criteria:.  i am not necessarily agreeing with his specific criteria.  only that there can, in principle, be art which is better than other art.  i also find it interesting that you use the exact method of evaluating aesthetic theories which i espouse to evaluate his criteria ! however, there is a leap in your logic you go from point  a  to  c  without  b .  you go from a pointing out that the  particular criteria  he espoused does not individually make for good art to c saying there are no objective evaluations of art.  this simply does not follow.
i regularly eat out in restaurants and usually get good food and good service.  i typically tip well 0 or more as i grew up in las vegas, where tipping is the cultural norm.  i do not, however, complain about food or poor service unless i am on my way out the door, and then i am very unlikely to return to that restaurant ever again.  i have the following reasons: 0.  i believe that servers have established an atmosphere of fear as an industry and promote the beliefs that tips are owed for all service and that they can very easily retaliate against customers by tampering with their food.  0.  i believe that most restaurants know what the quality of their food is, and have already taken the quality control steps that they wish to take.  they are extremely unlikely to change their quality based on rare customer feedback.  0.  i believe that customers who complain are seen in a bad light regardless of how they phrase their criticism.  the only hope that a customer has for having a good experience is to sit down, shut up and hope that the restaurant provides a good meal and decent service.  i believe there is only one safe course of action for poor service or food: a.  stop eating anything that is offensive, call the server and manager and point out the problem.  refuse a replacement and refuse to pay for the bad portion.  b.  if bad service, find the manager and pay them directly with no tip.  explain the issue, but pay your bill.  c.  tell friends, write bad online reviews and help others to avoid the establishment.  d.  never return.  change my view so i can return to places that just made a mistake.   #  i believe that servers have established an atmosphere of fear as an industry and promote the beliefs that tips are owed for all service and that they can very easily retaliate against customers by tampering with their food.   #  the thing with this is that any mildly intelligent server in today world would not dare do this.   # the thing with this is that any mildly intelligent server in today world would not dare do this.  with social media today any mistake can help ruin a business.  receiving a customer is criticism about the food or service is not worth losing their job over, or worse being sued.  in addition to this, as someone who is worked in food service before, it is important to fix a problem.  i have found that there were times i would be given a larger tip if i promptly addressed the issue with their food.  they are extremely unlikely to change their quality based on rare customer feedback.  if enough people complain then it is the restaurants job to do something about it.  it is entirely possible no change happens because no one is speaking their mind.  it takes a certain person to complain directly to the restaurant.  it is bad business sense to hear a complaint and respond with  oh, well it is good, you are just not used to it.  other people like it !  .  it really depends how the customer responds.  there is a difference between voicing a concern and being a jerk about it.  the people who allegedly get their food spit it are the ones that act rudely about it.  to recap:   a server would be stupid to tamper with food as it can damage the restaurants reputation, cause health code violations, cause them to lose their job, and worst be sued for causing the restaurant to lose business   a smart server would be prompt to fix a problem, this can often win over a customer and increase satisfaction because he/she took the extra effort to attend to their concerns.  a good restaurant will should be open to feedback, and it is bad business sense to tell a patron that the food is good, and their taste buds are broken.  there is nothing wrong with expressing a concern over the meal.  the patron is paying for it, the experience, the atmosphere, the night out.  be calm and do not be rude about it.   #  every gm i have seen is scared of losing customers, and they keep a close eye on what goes on.   #  i have worked in two restaurants.  here is my take: i have never,  ever  seen an employ tamper with food.  that is the number one biggest no no in the business.  every gm i have seen is scared of losing customers, and they keep a close eye on what goes on.  also, things go wrong every night at work.  people walk out, people do not tip, etc.  the servers have seen worse than you, i promise.  they grumble and move on, but no one messes with food.  it is a huge deal in the restaurant business.   #  any employee ever caught tampering with food or beverages was fired on the spot, no questions asked.   #  okay, jbar0 has worked in two restaurants.  i worked in the restaurant industry for 0 years, in service, behind the bar, and in management.  at six different restaurants, two country clubs, and one nightclub.  any employee ever caught tampering with food or beverages was fired on the spot, no questions asked.  even then, incidents were rare.  i could not risk a lost customer, a bad review, or a health department call.  not a chance.  if a customer was hostile or threatening or otherwise dangerous, they were asked to leave or were removed by the police.  otherwise, difficult customers were simply tolerated until they left.  the thing about bad tips is that the good tips pretty much always evened them out.  so yeah, servers are not happy about them, but generally if they are decent servers, the good tips make up for them.  if they are bad servers and always get bad tips, then their sales and performance also suck and they get fired and replaced quickly, because anyone working in the service industry is incredibly expendable.   #  you have to make the food anyway to spit in it.  so it really do not matter, and if your caught its a bunch of bullshit to deal with even if you are not fired.   #  no one in a kitchen puts on a  good guy chef  face.  they are all   i will rape your mother as you watch  faces.  you have to make the food anyway to spit in it.  so it really do not matter, and if your caught its a bunch of bullshit to deal with even if you are not fired.  seriously, no one cares enough, make the food, get it out, get the fucking guest out the door so we can clean up and go the fuck home.  kitchens are intense places, someone stopping an taking the time to spit in the food will just get in the way of someone else.  as i stated elsewhere in this thread.  no cook gives a shit.  we just want to get it done and go the fuck home.  do not confuse cooks with people who would ever give a shit about you enough to spit in your food, they do not.   #  i am not talking about just me, i am talking about all the cooks i have worked with, lived with, struggled with, and on a few occasions buried.   #  i have been in kitchens since i was 0.  i am over 0.  never seen a cook try to be a  good guy cook .  kitchens are hot, miserable, stressful, and many times painful places.  seriously getting burned is not a  if  its a  when .  getting burned, yelling all the time, being baked to near stroking, and the stress of printers just sending you an onslaught of work means that everyone looses their cool, shows their true side.  everyone flips out, people get hit, a few get stabbed, etc.  i am not talking about just me, i am talking about all the cooks i have worked with, lived with, struggled with, and on a few occasions buried.  being a cook takes a certain kind of person.  those people are not the kind to take all the effort into acting like a good guy just to get to spit in someones food.  not only that, you have to remember everyone is in close contact, everyone would have to agree that its ok to do that to that one person, or someones gonna flip their shit that they might have to remake something.  anyone that cant keep up and keep hammering does not last.
i regularly eat out in restaurants and usually get good food and good service.  i typically tip well 0 or more as i grew up in las vegas, where tipping is the cultural norm.  i do not, however, complain about food or poor service unless i am on my way out the door, and then i am very unlikely to return to that restaurant ever again.  i have the following reasons: 0.  i believe that servers have established an atmosphere of fear as an industry and promote the beliefs that tips are owed for all service and that they can very easily retaliate against customers by tampering with their food.  0.  i believe that most restaurants know what the quality of their food is, and have already taken the quality control steps that they wish to take.  they are extremely unlikely to change their quality based on rare customer feedback.  0.  i believe that customers who complain are seen in a bad light regardless of how they phrase their criticism.  the only hope that a customer has for having a good experience is to sit down, shut up and hope that the restaurant provides a good meal and decent service.  i believe there is only one safe course of action for poor service or food: a.  stop eating anything that is offensive, call the server and manager and point out the problem.  refuse a replacement and refuse to pay for the bad portion.  b.  if bad service, find the manager and pay them directly with no tip.  explain the issue, but pay your bill.  c.  tell friends, write bad online reviews and help others to avoid the establishment.  d.  never return.  change my view so i can return to places that just made a mistake.   #  i believe that most restaurants know what the quality of their food is, and have already taken the quality control steps that they wish to take.   #  they are extremely unlikely to change their quality based on rare customer feedback.   # the thing with this is that any mildly intelligent server in today world would not dare do this.  with social media today any mistake can help ruin a business.  receiving a customer is criticism about the food or service is not worth losing their job over, or worse being sued.  in addition to this, as someone who is worked in food service before, it is important to fix a problem.  i have found that there were times i would be given a larger tip if i promptly addressed the issue with their food.  they are extremely unlikely to change their quality based on rare customer feedback.  if enough people complain then it is the restaurants job to do something about it.  it is entirely possible no change happens because no one is speaking their mind.  it takes a certain person to complain directly to the restaurant.  it is bad business sense to hear a complaint and respond with  oh, well it is good, you are just not used to it.  other people like it !  .  it really depends how the customer responds.  there is a difference between voicing a concern and being a jerk about it.  the people who allegedly get their food spit it are the ones that act rudely about it.  to recap:   a server would be stupid to tamper with food as it can damage the restaurants reputation, cause health code violations, cause them to lose their job, and worst be sued for causing the restaurant to lose business   a smart server would be prompt to fix a problem, this can often win over a customer and increase satisfaction because he/she took the extra effort to attend to their concerns.  a good restaurant will should be open to feedback, and it is bad business sense to tell a patron that the food is good, and their taste buds are broken.  there is nothing wrong with expressing a concern over the meal.  the patron is paying for it, the experience, the atmosphere, the night out.  be calm and do not be rude about it.   #  every gm i have seen is scared of losing customers, and they keep a close eye on what goes on.   #  i have worked in two restaurants.  here is my take: i have never,  ever  seen an employ tamper with food.  that is the number one biggest no no in the business.  every gm i have seen is scared of losing customers, and they keep a close eye on what goes on.  also, things go wrong every night at work.  people walk out, people do not tip, etc.  the servers have seen worse than you, i promise.  they grumble and move on, but no one messes with food.  it is a huge deal in the restaurant business.   #  at six different restaurants, two country clubs, and one nightclub.   #  okay, jbar0 has worked in two restaurants.  i worked in the restaurant industry for 0 years, in service, behind the bar, and in management.  at six different restaurants, two country clubs, and one nightclub.  any employee ever caught tampering with food or beverages was fired on the spot, no questions asked.  even then, incidents were rare.  i could not risk a lost customer, a bad review, or a health department call.  not a chance.  if a customer was hostile or threatening or otherwise dangerous, they were asked to leave or were removed by the police.  otherwise, difficult customers were simply tolerated until they left.  the thing about bad tips is that the good tips pretty much always evened them out.  so yeah, servers are not happy about them, but generally if they are decent servers, the good tips make up for them.  if they are bad servers and always get bad tips, then their sales and performance also suck and they get fired and replaced quickly, because anyone working in the service industry is incredibly expendable.   #  kitchens are intense places, someone stopping an taking the time to spit in the food will just get in the way of someone else.   #  no one in a kitchen puts on a  good guy chef  face.  they are all   i will rape your mother as you watch  faces.  you have to make the food anyway to spit in it.  so it really do not matter, and if your caught its a bunch of bullshit to deal with even if you are not fired.  seriously, no one cares enough, make the food, get it out, get the fucking guest out the door so we can clean up and go the fuck home.  kitchens are intense places, someone stopping an taking the time to spit in the food will just get in the way of someone else.  as i stated elsewhere in this thread.  no cook gives a shit.  we just want to get it done and go the fuck home.  do not confuse cooks with people who would ever give a shit about you enough to spit in your food, they do not.   #  those people are not the kind to take all the effort into acting like a good guy just to get to spit in someones food.   #  i have been in kitchens since i was 0.  i am over 0.  never seen a cook try to be a  good guy cook .  kitchens are hot, miserable, stressful, and many times painful places.  seriously getting burned is not a  if  its a  when .  getting burned, yelling all the time, being baked to near stroking, and the stress of printers just sending you an onslaught of work means that everyone looses their cool, shows their true side.  everyone flips out, people get hit, a few get stabbed, etc.  i am not talking about just me, i am talking about all the cooks i have worked with, lived with, struggled with, and on a few occasions buried.  being a cook takes a certain kind of person.  those people are not the kind to take all the effort into acting like a good guy just to get to spit in someones food.  not only that, you have to remember everyone is in close contact, everyone would have to agree that its ok to do that to that one person, or someones gonna flip their shit that they might have to remake something.  anyone that cant keep up and keep hammering does not last.
i regularly eat out in restaurants and usually get good food and good service.  i typically tip well 0 or more as i grew up in las vegas, where tipping is the cultural norm.  i do not, however, complain about food or poor service unless i am on my way out the door, and then i am very unlikely to return to that restaurant ever again.  i have the following reasons: 0.  i believe that servers have established an atmosphere of fear as an industry and promote the beliefs that tips are owed for all service and that they can very easily retaliate against customers by tampering with their food.  0.  i believe that most restaurants know what the quality of their food is, and have already taken the quality control steps that they wish to take.  they are extremely unlikely to change their quality based on rare customer feedback.  0.  i believe that customers who complain are seen in a bad light regardless of how they phrase their criticism.  the only hope that a customer has for having a good experience is to sit down, shut up and hope that the restaurant provides a good meal and decent service.  i believe there is only one safe course of action for poor service or food: a.  stop eating anything that is offensive, call the server and manager and point out the problem.  refuse a replacement and refuse to pay for the bad portion.  b.  if bad service, find the manager and pay them directly with no tip.  explain the issue, but pay your bill.  c.  tell friends, write bad online reviews and help others to avoid the establishment.  d.  never return.  change my view so i can return to places that just made a mistake.   #  i believe that customers who complain are seen in a bad light regardless of how they phrase their criticism.   #  it really depends how the customer responds.   # the thing with this is that any mildly intelligent server in today world would not dare do this.  with social media today any mistake can help ruin a business.  receiving a customer is criticism about the food or service is not worth losing their job over, or worse being sued.  in addition to this, as someone who is worked in food service before, it is important to fix a problem.  i have found that there were times i would be given a larger tip if i promptly addressed the issue with their food.  they are extremely unlikely to change their quality based on rare customer feedback.  if enough people complain then it is the restaurants job to do something about it.  it is entirely possible no change happens because no one is speaking their mind.  it takes a certain person to complain directly to the restaurant.  it is bad business sense to hear a complaint and respond with  oh, well it is good, you are just not used to it.  other people like it !  .  it really depends how the customer responds.  there is a difference between voicing a concern and being a jerk about it.  the people who allegedly get their food spit it are the ones that act rudely about it.  to recap:   a server would be stupid to tamper with food as it can damage the restaurants reputation, cause health code violations, cause them to lose their job, and worst be sued for causing the restaurant to lose business   a smart server would be prompt to fix a problem, this can often win over a customer and increase satisfaction because he/she took the extra effort to attend to their concerns.  a good restaurant will should be open to feedback, and it is bad business sense to tell a patron that the food is good, and their taste buds are broken.  there is nothing wrong with expressing a concern over the meal.  the patron is paying for it, the experience, the atmosphere, the night out.  be calm and do not be rude about it.   #  that is the number one biggest no no in the business.   #  i have worked in two restaurants.  here is my take: i have never,  ever  seen an employ tamper with food.  that is the number one biggest no no in the business.  every gm i have seen is scared of losing customers, and they keep a close eye on what goes on.  also, things go wrong every night at work.  people walk out, people do not tip, etc.  the servers have seen worse than you, i promise.  they grumble and move on, but no one messes with food.  it is a huge deal in the restaurant business.   #  if a customer was hostile or threatening or otherwise dangerous, they were asked to leave or were removed by the police.   #  okay, jbar0 has worked in two restaurants.  i worked in the restaurant industry for 0 years, in service, behind the bar, and in management.  at six different restaurants, two country clubs, and one nightclub.  any employee ever caught tampering with food or beverages was fired on the spot, no questions asked.  even then, incidents were rare.  i could not risk a lost customer, a bad review, or a health department call.  not a chance.  if a customer was hostile or threatening or otherwise dangerous, they were asked to leave or were removed by the police.  otherwise, difficult customers were simply tolerated until they left.  the thing about bad tips is that the good tips pretty much always evened them out.  so yeah, servers are not happy about them, but generally if they are decent servers, the good tips make up for them.  if they are bad servers and always get bad tips, then their sales and performance also suck and they get fired and replaced quickly, because anyone working in the service industry is incredibly expendable.   #  you have to make the food anyway to spit in it.  so it really do not matter, and if your caught its a bunch of bullshit to deal with even if you are not fired.   #  no one in a kitchen puts on a  good guy chef  face.  they are all   i will rape your mother as you watch  faces.  you have to make the food anyway to spit in it.  so it really do not matter, and if your caught its a bunch of bullshit to deal with even if you are not fired.  seriously, no one cares enough, make the food, get it out, get the fucking guest out the door so we can clean up and go the fuck home.  kitchens are intense places, someone stopping an taking the time to spit in the food will just get in the way of someone else.  as i stated elsewhere in this thread.  no cook gives a shit.  we just want to get it done and go the fuck home.  do not confuse cooks with people who would ever give a shit about you enough to spit in your food, they do not.   #  kitchens are hot, miserable, stressful, and many times painful places.   #  i have been in kitchens since i was 0.  i am over 0.  never seen a cook try to be a  good guy cook .  kitchens are hot, miserable, stressful, and many times painful places.  seriously getting burned is not a  if  its a  when .  getting burned, yelling all the time, being baked to near stroking, and the stress of printers just sending you an onslaught of work means that everyone looses their cool, shows their true side.  everyone flips out, people get hit, a few get stabbed, etc.  i am not talking about just me, i am talking about all the cooks i have worked with, lived with, struggled with, and on a few occasions buried.  being a cook takes a certain kind of person.  those people are not the kind to take all the effort into acting like a good guy just to get to spit in someones food.  not only that, you have to remember everyone is in close contact, everyone would have to agree that its ok to do that to that one person, or someones gonna flip their shit that they might have to remake something.  anyone that cant keep up and keep hammering does not last.
i regularly eat out in restaurants and usually get good food and good service.  i typically tip well 0 or more as i grew up in las vegas, where tipping is the cultural norm.  i do not, however, complain about food or poor service unless i am on my way out the door, and then i am very unlikely to return to that restaurant ever again.  i have the following reasons: 0.  i believe that servers have established an atmosphere of fear as an industry and promote the beliefs that tips are owed for all service and that they can very easily retaliate against customers by tampering with their food.  0.  i believe that most restaurants know what the quality of their food is, and have already taken the quality control steps that they wish to take.  they are extremely unlikely to change their quality based on rare customer feedback.  0.  i believe that customers who complain are seen in a bad light regardless of how they phrase their criticism.  the only hope that a customer has for having a good experience is to sit down, shut up and hope that the restaurant provides a good meal and decent service.  i believe there is only one safe course of action for poor service or food: a.  stop eating anything that is offensive, call the server and manager and point out the problem.  refuse a replacement and refuse to pay for the bad portion.  b.  if bad service, find the manager and pay them directly with no tip.  explain the issue, but pay your bill.  c.  tell friends, write bad online reviews and help others to avoid the establishment.  d.  never return.  change my view so i can return to places that just made a mistake.   #  i believe that servers have established an atmosphere of fear as an industry and promote the beliefs that tips are owed for all service and that they can very easily retaliate against customers by tampering with their food.   #  this is highly unlikely, since it is actually an offence in the us.   # this is highly unlikely, since it is actually an offence in the us.  here is the california code regarding food tampering URL   i believe that most restaurants know what the quality of their food is, and have already taken the quality control steps that they wish to take.  they are extremely unlikely to change their quality based on rare customer feedback.  i would argue this depends on the issue.  if for example, something was forgotten, or replaced by accident, it is probably not going to be something that the restaurant always does, and they will probably rectify it quickly since it is usually not that hard to do.  it depends who is being criticized.  it is likely that if you criticize your server, they might not like it, and same with the chef with the food.  this does not however, mean that they will in any way try and  get back at you , especially if you say it politely i. e.   i am sorry, but this meat is a little undercooked , as opposed to  your chef is terrible, they ca not even cook the meat properly   #  every gm i have seen is scared of losing customers, and they keep a close eye on what goes on.   #  i have worked in two restaurants.  here is my take: i have never,  ever  seen an employ tamper with food.  that is the number one biggest no no in the business.  every gm i have seen is scared of losing customers, and they keep a close eye on what goes on.  also, things go wrong every night at work.  people walk out, people do not tip, etc.  the servers have seen worse than you, i promise.  they grumble and move on, but no one messes with food.  it is a huge deal in the restaurant business.   #  at six different restaurants, two country clubs, and one nightclub.   #  okay, jbar0 has worked in two restaurants.  i worked in the restaurant industry for 0 years, in service, behind the bar, and in management.  at six different restaurants, two country clubs, and one nightclub.  any employee ever caught tampering with food or beverages was fired on the spot, no questions asked.  even then, incidents were rare.  i could not risk a lost customer, a bad review, or a health department call.  not a chance.  if a customer was hostile or threatening or otherwise dangerous, they were asked to leave or were removed by the police.  otherwise, difficult customers were simply tolerated until they left.  the thing about bad tips is that the good tips pretty much always evened them out.  so yeah, servers are not happy about them, but generally if they are decent servers, the good tips make up for them.  if they are bad servers and always get bad tips, then their sales and performance also suck and they get fired and replaced quickly, because anyone working in the service industry is incredibly expendable.   #  we just want to get it done and go the fuck home.   #  no one in a kitchen puts on a  good guy chef  face.  they are all   i will rape your mother as you watch  faces.  you have to make the food anyway to spit in it.  so it really do not matter, and if your caught its a bunch of bullshit to deal with even if you are not fired.  seriously, no one cares enough, make the food, get it out, get the fucking guest out the door so we can clean up and go the fuck home.  kitchens are intense places, someone stopping an taking the time to spit in the food will just get in the way of someone else.  as i stated elsewhere in this thread.  no cook gives a shit.  we just want to get it done and go the fuck home.  do not confuse cooks with people who would ever give a shit about you enough to spit in your food, they do not.   #  seriously getting burned is not a  if  its a  when .   #  i have been in kitchens since i was 0.  i am over 0.  never seen a cook try to be a  good guy cook .  kitchens are hot, miserable, stressful, and many times painful places.  seriously getting burned is not a  if  its a  when .  getting burned, yelling all the time, being baked to near stroking, and the stress of printers just sending you an onslaught of work means that everyone looses their cool, shows their true side.  everyone flips out, people get hit, a few get stabbed, etc.  i am not talking about just me, i am talking about all the cooks i have worked with, lived with, struggled with, and on a few occasions buried.  being a cook takes a certain kind of person.  those people are not the kind to take all the effort into acting like a good guy just to get to spit in someones food.  not only that, you have to remember everyone is in close contact, everyone would have to agree that its ok to do that to that one person, or someones gonna flip their shit that they might have to remake something.  anyone that cant keep up and keep hammering does not last.
i believe this generation much too quickly moves on once things do not turn out like they wanted it to, when it gets hard, almost impossible.  i believe that if there is a special someone who, for some reason, wo not get out of your mind even though years pass, then there is a reason for it and you should fight for what you love, even if it takes you years, decades, and even if you never actually  win her over .  imagine what dante would have done if he had gotten over beatrice ? or kafka had forgotten milena ? i believe we should all believe in love, and fight for it.   #  i believe we should all believe in love, and fight for it.   #  and by focusing on a failed love, you reduce the odds of ever falling in love again.   # and by focusing on a failed love, you reduce the odds of ever falling in love again.  as somebody who has fallen in love several times over my life, i now have my dream girl, i am happily married, and after 0 years together i am as deeply in love with her as i was the first year, and it is the best love of my life.  i would have none of that had i taken your advice on any of the previous ones.  for every dante or kafka, there are dozens of people who found  better  love in a future love.  the problem is not fighting for love or not, it is recognizing whether your chances for great love are fighting for a past love, or finding that future love.  and they are not mutually exclusive.  sometimes moving on, learning from your experience, figuring out what you are really looking for, becoming a better person, and  not  pursuing that past love .  that is what can make somebody fall in love with you, including your past love.  chasing after a past love is often a turnoff itself, guaranteeing your failure at finding love at all, past or future.  clearly you are still in the mourning stages.  it gets better.  much better.   #  i will give you an example: imagine that a girl that changed your life was, i do not know, italian.   #  of course, you are totally right, but you still hold them close to your heart and you wish that somehow history will redeem you.  of course you do not turn into a creepy stalker or anything, but still you kind of hold a kind of hope in your heart.  i will give you an example: imagine that a girl that changed your life was, i do not know, italian.  you wanted to learn italian so her world was clearer to you, but then you part ways because of whatever reason, but time goes by and you still think she is the one.  i think you should still learn italian, and read some books in italian, and visit the country, and somehow get to understand her world a bit better even though she is not in yours.   #  but, is not that what love is all about ?  #  that is precisely the thing.  i think great works of art or great loves have come from this  fixation  that we constantly want to avoid in our times.  it is indeed melancholic, you are right.  but, is not that what love is all about ? who said that it should all be happiness and a thing of hit or miss ? i will quote cortázar on this:  what most people call loving consists of picking out a woman and marrying her.  they pick her out, i swear, i have seen them.  as if you could pick in love, as if it were not a lightning bolt that splits your bones and leaves you staked out in the middle of the courtyard.  they probably say that they pick her out because they love her, i think it is just the opposite.  beatrice was not picked out, juliet was not picked out.  you do not pick out the rain that soaks you to a skin when you come out of a concert.   #  true, deep, enduring love is a connection between two people who understand and accept each other as they are, wholly and without reservation.   #  real love is about trust.  true, deep, enduring love is a connection between two people who understand and accept each other as they are, wholly and without reservation.  what cortazar is describing is infatuation.  it is a rush of hormones to the brain and. other places.  it is unsustainable, and chasing the feeling is like chasing a unicorn.  if you look at real life, you will see that those people who chase that lightning bolt are miserable.  they are blinded by the idea of love to a point where the whole world is passing them by.  great works of art do not come from lightning bolt infatuation.  thinking that they do just shows a deep lack of understanding about the process of artistic creation.  if they did, then the artists would never finish a great work once the feeling faded, they would move on.  great works of art come from pain, from endurance, from dedication.  the artist does not fall in love with the blank canvas or the marble slab.  they fall in love with a thousand hours of caressing with brush and chisel.  they fall in love with the way the colors mix and the way the light hits the marble is curves.  love grows.  love blossoms.  juliet killed herself.  love is not about fixation.  fixation is selfish.  it is about the one who is fixating fulfilling his or her needs.  love is not selfish.  love is about giving your self to another person, and not caring what they do with you, so long as they are happy.   #  there is also nothing wrong with still having a soft spot in your heart for them.   #  there is nothing wrong with learning from past relationships and appreciating what that other person brought to your life.  there is also nothing wrong with still having a soft spot in your heart for them.  you may even need a long time to get over the demise of the relationship, regardless of how long or short it was.  the problem comes when people cannot get over and start processing the fact that what was, is no longer.  even if you were to get back together you cannot expect the relationship to be the same as before.  pining after a long lost love is a bit like longing for childhood it is fine to have fond memories, but you have to move on into adulthood eventually.
hello ! so, my child has recently expressed that she wants to change her hair to a  pixie cut.   it seems very important to her, but she has such nice hair ! i also do not want to have to pay to have the back shaved, as well as the fact that i do not think she understands that she will have to learn to style it.  i also think that she may just be trying to be  wouldifferent  instead of conforming with the style.  i fear that she may be bullied in her school, and that she may not handle it well.  i realize my view may be wrong, but why should i let her cut it ? change my view.   #  i fear that she may be bullied in her school, and that she may not handle it well.   #  from my personal experience, i have not observed much bullying based on an individual is haircut.   #  so, let me go through your concerns point by point.  just because it wo not be long anymore does not mean that it wo not be nice.  but will you have to pay significantly more to get this cut than her usual one ? even if she does not realize it now, i do not think that learning how to style a different cut is a bad thing.  finally, you can ask her about this, if it is a concern.  ok, so ? i am not trying to be snarky here, but if a haircut is how she chooses to  rebel , is not that better than many possible alternatives ? there are far worse ways that she could try to be different.  from my personal experience, i have not observed much bullying based on an individual is haircut.  additionally, has bullying traditionally been a problem for your daughter ? have you talked with her about how she plans to deal with people who might give her a hard time ? i think you brought up the best argument in your second sentence it is important to her.  i am not a parent myself, so take my advice for what it is worth, but i think it can be quite good to allow a child to make seemingly important decisions for themself, assuming that the consequences are not too bad.   #  and if it does not work out she can just grow it out.   #  hair grows back.  learning what happens when you  stick out  is also a valuable experience in life.  will she get made fun of ? maybe ! it is good for a person to learn how to deal with that.  and if it does not work out she can just grow it out.  probably better to let her learn for herself, since in this case i doubt she will take your word for it.  experience is worth more than a few inches of hair ! i say this as someone who dyed my hair blue at one point i tried it, it was ok, and i got over it.  learned things in the process.   #  there is definitely potential to learn a very important life lesson.   #  this is solid advice.  worst case scenario, she gets made fun of for like a day because it is a relatively common haircut and it grows back after a while.  there is definitely potential to learn a very important life lesson.  i know it helped me when i wanted a terrible hair style, the davey havoc or now known as the skrillex .  i got made fun of a lot for that, among a lot of things, growing up and it definitely made me a stronger person.  plus, nobody will care what hairstyle she had when she was 0 in a couple of years.  hell, nobody will care in a year.  or she could get it cut and it looks good and people like it.  either way, it does not really end badly.   #  when i grew up i resented him for this and still do.   #  when i was a kid and teen, my dad did not let me cut my hair.  well, perhaps he would have let me if i really pressed for it, but his insistence that long hair is better caused me to never press for it.  he encouraged my mom not to cut her hair short as well.  when i grew up i resented him for this and still do.  how dare he try to control what i do with my own body ! ? i mean we are not talking about him making important medical decisions; we are talking about him forcing his power on something as minor and temporary as a haircut.  and something that is so personal and about one is own personal style and desires.  nobody should be forced to adhere their body to  somebody else is  desires and style.  if you do not want your daughter to resent you, and if you want her to grow up believing that she is in control of her body and she does not have to manipulate her body to please others, then let her cut her hair as she pleases.   #  she is just coming into that age where she is becoming a woman, and looks are going to be an important part of her future.   #  so i had long hair for a very long time, i even had a waist long braid for a while ! having it all cut off for a pixie cut was not easy, but it was also extremely liberating.  long hair does a lot: if you wear it back in a tight ponytail it can cause headaches, it is harder to wash, it is heavier.  and actually, to your styling point, it is much more difficult to style than short hair, because it is just more hair to deal with.  letting your daughter cut her hair now is a great idea because: 0 you are letting her make her own decisions, which lets her feel in control of her life and can improve her confidence.  0 if you make cutting her hair a special thing, take her to a nice salon if you can afford it , look at haircuts with her, it will be a bonding experience for both of you.  she is just coming into that age where she is becoming a woman, and looks are going to be an important part of her future.  if her first experiences are good, like i said, it will help with her confidence later.  0 if she cuts her hair now, it will be easier to manage, and she can literally grow into longer hair.  she can incrementally learn to style it as it grows, and by the time she is 0 0, it will be long again  and  she will know what to do with it.
hello ! so, my child has recently expressed that she wants to change her hair to a  pixie cut.   it seems very important to her, but she has such nice hair ! i also do not want to have to pay to have the back shaved, as well as the fact that i do not think she understands that she will have to learn to style it.  i also think that she may just be trying to be  wouldifferent  instead of conforming with the style.  i fear that she may be bullied in her school, and that she may not handle it well.  i realize my view may be wrong, but why should i let her cut it ? change my view.   #  why should i let her cut it ?  #  i think you brought up the best argument in your second sentence it is important to her.   #  so, let me go through your concerns point by point.  just because it wo not be long anymore does not mean that it wo not be nice.  but will you have to pay significantly more to get this cut than her usual one ? even if she does not realize it now, i do not think that learning how to style a different cut is a bad thing.  finally, you can ask her about this, if it is a concern.  ok, so ? i am not trying to be snarky here, but if a haircut is how she chooses to  rebel , is not that better than many possible alternatives ? there are far worse ways that she could try to be different.  from my personal experience, i have not observed much bullying based on an individual is haircut.  additionally, has bullying traditionally been a problem for your daughter ? have you talked with her about how she plans to deal with people who might give her a hard time ? i think you brought up the best argument in your second sentence it is important to her.  i am not a parent myself, so take my advice for what it is worth, but i think it can be quite good to allow a child to make seemingly important decisions for themself, assuming that the consequences are not too bad.   #  i say this as someone who dyed my hair blue at one point i tried it, it was ok, and i got over it.   #  hair grows back.  learning what happens when you  stick out  is also a valuable experience in life.  will she get made fun of ? maybe ! it is good for a person to learn how to deal with that.  and if it does not work out she can just grow it out.  probably better to let her learn for herself, since in this case i doubt she will take your word for it.  experience is worth more than a few inches of hair ! i say this as someone who dyed my hair blue at one point i tried it, it was ok, and i got over it.  learned things in the process.   #  i know it helped me when i wanted a terrible hair style, the davey havoc or now known as the skrillex .   #  this is solid advice.  worst case scenario, she gets made fun of for like a day because it is a relatively common haircut and it grows back after a while.  there is definitely potential to learn a very important life lesson.  i know it helped me when i wanted a terrible hair style, the davey havoc or now known as the skrillex .  i got made fun of a lot for that, among a lot of things, growing up and it definitely made me a stronger person.  plus, nobody will care what hairstyle she had when she was 0 in a couple of years.  hell, nobody will care in a year.  or she could get it cut and it looks good and people like it.  either way, it does not really end badly.   #  when i grew up i resented him for this and still do.   #  when i was a kid and teen, my dad did not let me cut my hair.  well, perhaps he would have let me if i really pressed for it, but his insistence that long hair is better caused me to never press for it.  he encouraged my mom not to cut her hair short as well.  when i grew up i resented him for this and still do.  how dare he try to control what i do with my own body ! ? i mean we are not talking about him making important medical decisions; we are talking about him forcing his power on something as minor and temporary as a haircut.  and something that is so personal and about one is own personal style and desires.  nobody should be forced to adhere their body to  somebody else is  desires and style.  if you do not want your daughter to resent you, and if you want her to grow up believing that she is in control of her body and she does not have to manipulate her body to please others, then let her cut her hair as she pleases.   #  having it all cut off for a pixie cut was not easy, but it was also extremely liberating.   #  so i had long hair for a very long time, i even had a waist long braid for a while ! having it all cut off for a pixie cut was not easy, but it was also extremely liberating.  long hair does a lot: if you wear it back in a tight ponytail it can cause headaches, it is harder to wash, it is heavier.  and actually, to your styling point, it is much more difficult to style than short hair, because it is just more hair to deal with.  letting your daughter cut her hair now is a great idea because: 0 you are letting her make her own decisions, which lets her feel in control of her life and can improve her confidence.  0 if you make cutting her hair a special thing, take her to a nice salon if you can afford it , look at haircuts with her, it will be a bonding experience for both of you.  she is just coming into that age where she is becoming a woman, and looks are going to be an important part of her future.  if her first experiences are good, like i said, it will help with her confidence later.  0 if she cuts her hair now, it will be easier to manage, and she can literally grow into longer hair.  she can incrementally learn to style it as it grows, and by the time she is 0 0, it will be long again  and  she will know what to do with it.
hello ! so, my child has recently expressed that she wants to change her hair to a  pixie cut.   it seems very important to her, but she has such nice hair ! i also do not want to have to pay to have the back shaved, as well as the fact that i do not think she understands that she will have to learn to style it.  i also think that she may just be trying to be  wouldifferent  instead of conforming with the style.  i fear that she may be bullied in her school, and that she may not handle it well.  i realize my view may be wrong, but why should i let her cut it ? change my view.   #  why should i let her cut it ?  #  who is to say you are in charge of how she styles her hair ?  # who is to say you are in charge of how she styles her hair ? at age 0 or 0, she is old enough to make her own styling decisions.  by the way, have you asked your daughter why she wants to cut it ? maybe it is just that she wants to be adventurous and she thinks it will look good on her.  maybe she is tired of her current style and wants something different.  whatever it is, i feel like as long as it is something that she legitimately wants and she is not just doing on a dare or something , then you should  let  her cut it.  if she decides afterwards that she does not like it, then she has learned from her mistake and she can begin to grow the hair back.   #  i say this as someone who dyed my hair blue at one point i tried it, it was ok, and i got over it.   #  hair grows back.  learning what happens when you  stick out  is also a valuable experience in life.  will she get made fun of ? maybe ! it is good for a person to learn how to deal with that.  and if it does not work out she can just grow it out.  probably better to let her learn for herself, since in this case i doubt she will take your word for it.  experience is worth more than a few inches of hair ! i say this as someone who dyed my hair blue at one point i tried it, it was ok, and i got over it.  learned things in the process.   #  i know it helped me when i wanted a terrible hair style, the davey havoc or now known as the skrillex .   #  this is solid advice.  worst case scenario, she gets made fun of for like a day because it is a relatively common haircut and it grows back after a while.  there is definitely potential to learn a very important life lesson.  i know it helped me when i wanted a terrible hair style, the davey havoc or now known as the skrillex .  i got made fun of a lot for that, among a lot of things, growing up and it definitely made me a stronger person.  plus, nobody will care what hairstyle she had when she was 0 in a couple of years.  hell, nobody will care in a year.  or she could get it cut and it looks good and people like it.  either way, it does not really end badly.   #  so, let me go through your concerns point by point.   #  so, let me go through your concerns point by point.  just because it wo not be long anymore does not mean that it wo not be nice.  but will you have to pay significantly more to get this cut than her usual one ? even if she does not realize it now, i do not think that learning how to style a different cut is a bad thing.  finally, you can ask her about this, if it is a concern.  ok, so ? i am not trying to be snarky here, but if a haircut is how she chooses to  rebel , is not that better than many possible alternatives ? there are far worse ways that she could try to be different.  from my personal experience, i have not observed much bullying based on an individual is haircut.  additionally, has bullying traditionally been a problem for your daughter ? have you talked with her about how she plans to deal with people who might give her a hard time ? i think you brought up the best argument in your second sentence it is important to her.  i am not a parent myself, so take my advice for what it is worth, but i think it can be quite good to allow a child to make seemingly important decisions for themself, assuming that the consequences are not too bad.   #  nobody should be forced to adhere their body to  somebody else is  desires and style.   #  when i was a kid and teen, my dad did not let me cut my hair.  well, perhaps he would have let me if i really pressed for it, but his insistence that long hair is better caused me to never press for it.  he encouraged my mom not to cut her hair short as well.  when i grew up i resented him for this and still do.  how dare he try to control what i do with my own body ! ? i mean we are not talking about him making important medical decisions; we are talking about him forcing his power on something as minor and temporary as a haircut.  and something that is so personal and about one is own personal style and desires.  nobody should be forced to adhere their body to  somebody else is  desires and style.  if you do not want your daughter to resent you, and if you want her to grow up believing that she is in control of her body and she does not have to manipulate her body to please others, then let her cut her hair as she pleases.
hello ! so, my child has recently expressed that she wants to change her hair to a  pixie cut.   it seems very important to her, but she has such nice hair ! i also do not want to have to pay to have the back shaved, as well as the fact that i do not think she understands that she will have to learn to style it.  i also think that she may just be trying to be  wouldifferent  instead of conforming with the style.  i fear that she may be bullied in her school, and that she may not handle it well.  i realize my view may be wrong, but why should i let her cut it ? change my view.   #  i do not think she understands that she will have to learn to style it.   #  by the way, have you asked your daughter why she wants to cut it ?  # who is to say you are in charge of how she styles her hair ? at age 0 or 0, she is old enough to make her own styling decisions.  by the way, have you asked your daughter why she wants to cut it ? maybe it is just that she wants to be adventurous and she thinks it will look good on her.  maybe she is tired of her current style and wants something different.  whatever it is, i feel like as long as it is something that she legitimately wants and she is not just doing on a dare or something , then you should  let  her cut it.  if she decides afterwards that she does not like it, then she has learned from her mistake and she can begin to grow the hair back.   #  experience is worth more than a few inches of hair !  #  hair grows back.  learning what happens when you  stick out  is also a valuable experience in life.  will she get made fun of ? maybe ! it is good for a person to learn how to deal with that.  and if it does not work out she can just grow it out.  probably better to let her learn for herself, since in this case i doubt she will take your word for it.  experience is worth more than a few inches of hair ! i say this as someone who dyed my hair blue at one point i tried it, it was ok, and i got over it.  learned things in the process.   #  or she could get it cut and it looks good and people like it.   #  this is solid advice.  worst case scenario, she gets made fun of for like a day because it is a relatively common haircut and it grows back after a while.  there is definitely potential to learn a very important life lesson.  i know it helped me when i wanted a terrible hair style, the davey havoc or now known as the skrillex .  i got made fun of a lot for that, among a lot of things, growing up and it definitely made me a stronger person.  plus, nobody will care what hairstyle she had when she was 0 in a couple of years.  hell, nobody will care in a year.  or she could get it cut and it looks good and people like it.  either way, it does not really end badly.   #  i am not trying to be snarky here, but if a haircut is how she chooses to  rebel , is not that better than many possible alternatives ?  #  so, let me go through your concerns point by point.  just because it wo not be long anymore does not mean that it wo not be nice.  but will you have to pay significantly more to get this cut than her usual one ? even if she does not realize it now, i do not think that learning how to style a different cut is a bad thing.  finally, you can ask her about this, if it is a concern.  ok, so ? i am not trying to be snarky here, but if a haircut is how she chooses to  rebel , is not that better than many possible alternatives ? there are far worse ways that she could try to be different.  from my personal experience, i have not observed much bullying based on an individual is haircut.  additionally, has bullying traditionally been a problem for your daughter ? have you talked with her about how she plans to deal with people who might give her a hard time ? i think you brought up the best argument in your second sentence it is important to her.  i am not a parent myself, so take my advice for what it is worth, but i think it can be quite good to allow a child to make seemingly important decisions for themself, assuming that the consequences are not too bad.   #  nobody should be forced to adhere their body to  somebody else is  desires and style.   #  when i was a kid and teen, my dad did not let me cut my hair.  well, perhaps he would have let me if i really pressed for it, but his insistence that long hair is better caused me to never press for it.  he encouraged my mom not to cut her hair short as well.  when i grew up i resented him for this and still do.  how dare he try to control what i do with my own body ! ? i mean we are not talking about him making important medical decisions; we are talking about him forcing his power on something as minor and temporary as a haircut.  and something that is so personal and about one is own personal style and desires.  nobody should be forced to adhere their body to  somebody else is  desires and style.  if you do not want your daughter to resent you, and if you want her to grow up believing that she is in control of her body and she does not have to manipulate her body to please others, then let her cut her hair as she pleases.
it has been known for decades that smoking causes cancer, even for the  passive  smokers that is, people who breathe in the smoke created by  someone else  smoking a cigarette .  cigarette smoke is toxic and lethal.    if you smoke at a bus stop or train station, you force all the other waiting passengers to breathe in your toxins.    if you smoke while just walking through a city, you force all passers by to breathe in your toxins.    if you smoke in any closed room, including your own home, you force everyone to breathe in your toxins who visits later.  also your toxins will leave the room as soon as a door or window is opened.    if you smoke on your balcony, you force your toxins on anyone who might be standing on  their  balcony, or whose window might let in the smoke.    in summary, anywhere you smoke, you are being inconsiderate to other people.  i ca not really think of any situation in which smoking is not inconsiderate.  maybe, just  maybe , i might not mind you smoking in antarctica.  the sahara is not unpopulated enough.  the amazonian rainforest is also not unpopulated enough, and on top of that you could start a forest fire and that would be inconsiderate too.  the following arguments are not going to change my view:    what i put in my body is up to me.     yes, it is, but you are forcing  other people  to breathe it too, and  that is  not ok.     once dissipated, the concentration of toxins is negligible.     it is not up to you to make that call for me.  i do not want to breathe your toxins, and  i  decide at what concentration i say it is fine for me.     smoking is hard to quit.     this is true, and i have sympathy for smokers who are trapped in their addiction.  anyone wishing to quit smoking has my full moral support and admiration.  show your willingness to quit and i will help you through it.  if you are unwilling to even try, or you claim that you have tried and given up, or you bring up any other lame excuse to continue doing it, then you are being inconsiderate.     there are lots of other toxins, and some of them are in higher concentration than cigarette smoke.     this is changing the subject.  the subject is cigarette smoke.  just because we already have other toxins, does not mean we have to add to them.  change my view !  #  once dissipated, the concentration of toxins is negligible.   #    it is not up to you to make that call for me.   # this is simply not true.  there are plenty of situations where i do not need a cigarette but they make the experience that much better.  after a couple beers   after a lot of sex   while on psychedelics   meeting new people outside a bar in the smoking section.  i have met 0 different now close friends who asked me for a cigarette.  while you may not think these are benefits.  they are a benefit to me.  and very very objective.  to the main point of your cmv, you can smoke a lot of places you just have to go away from people an acceptable distance.  its rude to smoke next to a doorway or a large group of people.  but i can go around a corner and have a bunch of room where i am not bothering anyone.  i tend to try and be considerate as possible with my addition.  some people are not.    it is not up to you to make that call for me.  i do not want to breathe your toxins, and i decide at what concentration i say it is fine for me.  it not up to you either it up to science.  and with this same argument comes what size car someone drives or how much emissions they put out.  you could make the argument that no one besides contractor, constructions workers farmers and outdoorsmen need a large diesel truck.  or any sports car that mak 0hp and can only carry two people and maybe a set of golf clubs.  also i classic car needs no emission components that where not originally fitted to the car.  so if you have a 0s truck.  it does not need catalytic converters or egr, or a charcoal canister.   #  using electricity that is not fueled by renewable energy more toxins.   #  if your whole argument is based on toxins, does not it make it inconsiderate for me to drive a car that is not zero emission ? cars spew toxins, after all, forcing everyone to breathe them.  using electricity that is not fueled by renewable energy more toxins.  heating your house ? check.  eating beef that used to be methane producing cows ? toxins.  obviously, the level of exposure varies on all of these, but unless you live with a chain smoker there is no doubt that your health suffers more from car exhaust than occasional exposure to second hand smoke.  it is not that cigarettes do not expose you to low level toxins, but if your definition of inconsiderate is toxin producing, there are not many of us who are not inconsiderate.   #  think about the 0 is and 0 is ever watch  amad men  ?  #  thank you that is helpful.  then in that case, /u/peacekitty is data should go a long way to make you feel better.  there is essentially zero chance that you would get cancer from incidental exposure of the sort you are mentioning.  think about the 0 is and 0 is ever watch  amad men  ? .  smoking was everywhere.  in meetings, movie theaters, restaurants, people were smoking.  when i was young, the  smoking section  on airplanes was divided by a little sign that said  smoking  somehow the smoke did not care.  not only did a small percentage of those who smoked get cancer, but unless you were married to a chain smoker, or worked in a poorly ventilated bar or club, non smokers did not either.  now when your exposure is minuscule compared to what it used to be, you are at far greater risk from exhaust fumes not to mention the crap that you probably eat .  you are doing the equivalent of scaring yourself to death over the chance of being hit by a meteor while you are standing in the middle of the interstate in the dark wearing black.   #  you ca not control what happens to you, but you can control how you react.   #  if you are getting worked up that is your problem.  i am not trying to be a dick, but there it is.  you are letting your emotional state be determined by external factors beyond your control.  i would worry more about a stroke caused by a long life of getting massively vexed over what ultimately amounts to a minor annoyance.  stress is not good for the constitution, you know.  you ca not control what happens to you, but you can control how you react.  maybe try to get into mindfullness meditation ? zen mind, beginners mind helped me get started.   #  the less frequent smokers certainly feel normal most of the time, worse than normal if they experience cravings, and a high when they smoke.   #  a do you have a source for this claim ? the less frequent smokers certainly feel normal most of the time, worse than normal if they experience cravings, and a high when they smoke.  b if you are addicted, smoking  is a benefit : it suppresses your cravings and saves you from the awful by all accounts experience of quitting.  c if you restrict the definition of  benefit  to exclude smoking by being harmful, let is call it a  privilege  instead.  it is something people enjoy doing.  just like moving around.  why is moving around a more justified exercise of privilege and personal freedom than enjoying a drug ?
it has been known for decades that smoking causes cancer, even for the  passive  smokers that is, people who breathe in the smoke created by  someone else  smoking a cigarette .  cigarette smoke is toxic and lethal.    if you smoke at a bus stop or train station, you force all the other waiting passengers to breathe in your toxins.    if you smoke while just walking through a city, you force all passers by to breathe in your toxins.    if you smoke in any closed room, including your own home, you force everyone to breathe in your toxins who visits later.  also your toxins will leave the room as soon as a door or window is opened.    if you smoke on your balcony, you force your toxins on anyone who might be standing on  their  balcony, or whose window might let in the smoke.    in summary, anywhere you smoke, you are being inconsiderate to other people.  i ca not really think of any situation in which smoking is not inconsiderate.  maybe, just  maybe , i might not mind you smoking in antarctica.  the sahara is not unpopulated enough.  the amazonian rainforest is also not unpopulated enough, and on top of that you could start a forest fire and that would be inconsiderate too.  the following arguments are not going to change my view:    what i put in my body is up to me.     yes, it is, but you are forcing  other people  to breathe it too, and  that is  not ok.     once dissipated, the concentration of toxins is negligible.     it is not up to you to make that call for me.  i do not want to breathe your toxins, and  i  decide at what concentration i say it is fine for me.     smoking is hard to quit.     this is true, and i have sympathy for smokers who are trapped in their addiction.  anyone wishing to quit smoking has my full moral support and admiration.  show your willingness to quit and i will help you through it.  if you are unwilling to even try, or you claim that you have tried and given up, or you bring up any other lame excuse to continue doing it, then you are being inconsiderate.     there are lots of other toxins, and some of them are in higher concentration than cigarette smoke.     this is changing the subject.  the subject is cigarette smoke.  just because we already have other toxins, does not mean we have to add to them.  change my view !  #  i ca not really think of any situation in which smoking is not inconsiderate.   #  maybe, just maybe, i might not mind you smoking in antarctica.   # i never used the words  force  or  legislate  in my op.  so you expected them to volunteer to move to antarctica or commute for smoke breaks ? maybe, just maybe, i might not mind you smoking in antarctica.  the sahara is not unpopulated enough.  the amazonian rainforest is also not unpopulated enough, and on top of that you could start a forest fire and that would be inconsiderate too.   #  obviously, the level of exposure varies on all of these, but unless you live with a chain smoker there is no doubt that your health suffers more from car exhaust than occasional exposure to second hand smoke.   #  if your whole argument is based on toxins, does not it make it inconsiderate for me to drive a car that is not zero emission ? cars spew toxins, after all, forcing everyone to breathe them.  using electricity that is not fueled by renewable energy more toxins.  heating your house ? check.  eating beef that used to be methane producing cows ? toxins.  obviously, the level of exposure varies on all of these, but unless you live with a chain smoker there is no doubt that your health suffers more from car exhaust than occasional exposure to second hand smoke.  it is not that cigarettes do not expose you to low level toxins, but if your definition of inconsiderate is toxin producing, there are not many of us who are not inconsiderate.   #  not only did a small percentage of those who smoked get cancer, but unless you were married to a chain smoker, or worked in a poorly ventilated bar or club, non smokers did not either.   #  thank you that is helpful.  then in that case, /u/peacekitty is data should go a long way to make you feel better.  there is essentially zero chance that you would get cancer from incidental exposure of the sort you are mentioning.  think about the 0 is and 0 is ever watch  amad men  ? .  smoking was everywhere.  in meetings, movie theaters, restaurants, people were smoking.  when i was young, the  smoking section  on airplanes was divided by a little sign that said  smoking  somehow the smoke did not care.  not only did a small percentage of those who smoked get cancer, but unless you were married to a chain smoker, or worked in a poorly ventilated bar or club, non smokers did not either.  now when your exposure is minuscule compared to what it used to be, you are at far greater risk from exhaust fumes not to mention the crap that you probably eat .  you are doing the equivalent of scaring yourself to death over the chance of being hit by a meteor while you are standing in the middle of the interstate in the dark wearing black.   #  i would worry more about a stroke caused by a long life of getting massively vexed over what ultimately amounts to a minor annoyance.   #  if you are getting worked up that is your problem.  i am not trying to be a dick, but there it is.  you are letting your emotional state be determined by external factors beyond your control.  i would worry more about a stroke caused by a long life of getting massively vexed over what ultimately amounts to a minor annoyance.  stress is not good for the constitution, you know.  you ca not control what happens to you, but you can control how you react.  maybe try to get into mindfullness meditation ? zen mind, beginners mind helped me get started.   #  and with this same argument comes what size car someone drives or how much emissions they put out.   # this is simply not true.  there are plenty of situations where i do not need a cigarette but they make the experience that much better.  after a couple beers   after a lot of sex   while on psychedelics   meeting new people outside a bar in the smoking section.  i have met 0 different now close friends who asked me for a cigarette.  while you may not think these are benefits.  they are a benefit to me.  and very very objective.  to the main point of your cmv, you can smoke a lot of places you just have to go away from people an acceptable distance.  its rude to smoke next to a doorway or a large group of people.  but i can go around a corner and have a bunch of room where i am not bothering anyone.  i tend to try and be considerate as possible with my addition.  some people are not.    it is not up to you to make that call for me.  i do not want to breathe your toxins, and i decide at what concentration i say it is fine for me.  it not up to you either it up to science.  and with this same argument comes what size car someone drives or how much emissions they put out.  you could make the argument that no one besides contractor, constructions workers farmers and outdoorsmen need a large diesel truck.  or any sports car that mak 0hp and can only carry two people and maybe a set of golf clubs.  also i classic car needs no emission components that where not originally fitted to the car.  so if you have a 0s truck.  it does not need catalytic converters or egr, or a charcoal canister.
it has been known for decades that smoking causes cancer, even for the  passive  smokers that is, people who breathe in the smoke created by  someone else  smoking a cigarette .  cigarette smoke is toxic and lethal.    if you smoke at a bus stop or train station, you force all the other waiting passengers to breathe in your toxins.    if you smoke while just walking through a city, you force all passers by to breathe in your toxins.    if you smoke in any closed room, including your own home, you force everyone to breathe in your toxins who visits later.  also your toxins will leave the room as soon as a door or window is opened.    if you smoke on your balcony, you force your toxins on anyone who might be standing on  their  balcony, or whose window might let in the smoke.    in summary, anywhere you smoke, you are being inconsiderate to other people.  i ca not really think of any situation in which smoking is not inconsiderate.  maybe, just  maybe , i might not mind you smoking in antarctica.  the sahara is not unpopulated enough.  the amazonian rainforest is also not unpopulated enough, and on top of that you could start a forest fire and that would be inconsiderate too.  the following arguments are not going to change my view:    what i put in my body is up to me.     yes, it is, but you are forcing  other people  to breathe it too, and  that is  not ok.     once dissipated, the concentration of toxins is negligible.     it is not up to you to make that call for me.  i do not want to breathe your toxins, and  i  decide at what concentration i say it is fine for me.     smoking is hard to quit.     this is true, and i have sympathy for smokers who are trapped in their addiction.  anyone wishing to quit smoking has my full moral support and admiration.  show your willingness to quit and i will help you through it.  if you are unwilling to even try, or you claim that you have tried and given up, or you bring up any other lame excuse to continue doing it, then you are being inconsiderate.     there are lots of other toxins, and some of them are in higher concentration than cigarette smoke.     this is changing the subject.  the subject is cigarette smoke.  just because we already have other toxins, does not mean we have to add to them.  change my view !  #  once dissipated, the concentration of toxins is negligible.   #  i am going to make this argument anyways, because  beware the toxins  when you are outdoors is a bullshit argument.   # i am going to make this argument anyways, because  beware the toxins  when you are outdoors is a bullshit argument.  the reason we do not allow smoking in doors where people work is that the smoke accumulates to dangerous levels and every breath they breathe for eight hours a day is full of cancer causing free radicals.  outdoors, or if you patronized an establishment a few times a week, you should have no adverse health effects.  the only legitimate complaint is that it is really annoying.  it assaults my senses in the same way bad bo or the neighbors swearing at each other on their front porch does.  annoying other people is really rude, and just because it is currently legal does not make you less of an asshole if you are not mindful of where you are smoking.  smokers are not assaulting you, they just smell really bad and it is really annoying, and when enough people are being annoying assholes laws start to get made.  i have neighbors that smoke all the time, like all the time.  i swear they spend hours everyday smoking and if it is hot, the wind is blowing my way and i have my windows open i get treated to their stench every time i pass a window.  i have no delusions about them poisoning me, but if there was a referendum on allowing people to smoke outdoors, they are doing a pretty good job at moving my personal opinion needle from  property rights are important  to  fuck private property, that is really annoying.    annoying  may not be as noble of a reason as  protecting my health  but it is a much more legitimate reason in this case.   #  eating beef that used to be methane producing cows ?  #  if your whole argument is based on toxins, does not it make it inconsiderate for me to drive a car that is not zero emission ? cars spew toxins, after all, forcing everyone to breathe them.  using electricity that is not fueled by renewable energy more toxins.  heating your house ? check.  eating beef that used to be methane producing cows ? toxins.  obviously, the level of exposure varies on all of these, but unless you live with a chain smoker there is no doubt that your health suffers more from car exhaust than occasional exposure to second hand smoke.  it is not that cigarettes do not expose you to low level toxins, but if your definition of inconsiderate is toxin producing, there are not many of us who are not inconsiderate.   #  then in that case, /u/peacekitty is data should go a long way to make you feel better.   #  thank you that is helpful.  then in that case, /u/peacekitty is data should go a long way to make you feel better.  there is essentially zero chance that you would get cancer from incidental exposure of the sort you are mentioning.  think about the 0 is and 0 is ever watch  amad men  ? .  smoking was everywhere.  in meetings, movie theaters, restaurants, people were smoking.  when i was young, the  smoking section  on airplanes was divided by a little sign that said  smoking  somehow the smoke did not care.  not only did a small percentage of those who smoked get cancer, but unless you were married to a chain smoker, or worked in a poorly ventilated bar or club, non smokers did not either.  now when your exposure is minuscule compared to what it used to be, you are at far greater risk from exhaust fumes not to mention the crap that you probably eat .  you are doing the equivalent of scaring yourself to death over the chance of being hit by a meteor while you are standing in the middle of the interstate in the dark wearing black.   #  you ca not control what happens to you, but you can control how you react.   #  if you are getting worked up that is your problem.  i am not trying to be a dick, but there it is.  you are letting your emotional state be determined by external factors beyond your control.  i would worry more about a stroke caused by a long life of getting massively vexed over what ultimately amounts to a minor annoyance.  stress is not good for the constitution, you know.  you ca not control what happens to you, but you can control how you react.  maybe try to get into mindfullness meditation ? zen mind, beginners mind helped me get started.   #  i do not want to breathe your toxins, and i decide at what concentration i say it is fine for me.   # this is simply not true.  there are plenty of situations where i do not need a cigarette but they make the experience that much better.  after a couple beers   after a lot of sex   while on psychedelics   meeting new people outside a bar in the smoking section.  i have met 0 different now close friends who asked me for a cigarette.  while you may not think these are benefits.  they are a benefit to me.  and very very objective.  to the main point of your cmv, you can smoke a lot of places you just have to go away from people an acceptable distance.  its rude to smoke next to a doorway or a large group of people.  but i can go around a corner and have a bunch of room where i am not bothering anyone.  i tend to try and be considerate as possible with my addition.  some people are not.    it is not up to you to make that call for me.  i do not want to breathe your toxins, and i decide at what concentration i say it is fine for me.  it not up to you either it up to science.  and with this same argument comes what size car someone drives or how much emissions they put out.  you could make the argument that no one besides contractor, constructions workers farmers and outdoorsmen need a large diesel truck.  or any sports car that mak 0hp and can only carry two people and maybe a set of golf clubs.  also i classic car needs no emission components that where not originally fitted to the car.  so if you have a 0s truck.  it does not need catalytic converters or egr, or a charcoal canister.
tim tebow would often quickly drop to a knee and pray after making a touchdown.  it was quick, in, out, and over.  husain abdullah did a similar thing in a recent game and a flag was thrown.  from what i saw, he knelt prayed and it was quick, in, out, and over and not excessive.  the excessive celebration rule is in general, there for a good reason; keep the game flowing.  in 0, the year before the penalty was increased, chad ochocinco was highly disruptive to the games with his celebrations of his touchdowns.  however, tebowing was not considered disruptive and i do not see why abdullah is should also be considered disruptive.  tldr; the excessive celebration rule is there to prevent disruption to the game.  tebowing is was not disruptive to the game, and  abdullahing  is similar to tebowing; therefore  abdullahing  should not be considered a violation of the excessive celebration rule.   #  the excessive celebration rule is there to prevent disruption to the game.   #  tebowing is was not disruptive to the game, and  abdullahing  is similar to tebowing this may be very subtle difference here, but let me suggest that since muslim style prayers are not common the refs may not have realized that was what he was doing.   # tebowing is was not disruptive to the game, and  abdullahing  is similar to tebowing this may be very subtle difference here, but let me suggest that since muslim style prayers are not common the refs may not have realized that was what he was doing.  if they had realized it before hand my assumption is they would have let it slide.  to make the point further, i have been watching football seriously for 0 years and non seriously for about 0 years before that.  that was the first time i saw a muslim prayer celebration though i suppose there have been others, i have not seen them .  this may be the case for the refs who may have never observed someone in muslim prayer pose  #  after he slid and celebrated he then moved into a prayer position.   #  he was not penalized for the prayer, but for the long slide to his knees in celebration.  after he slid and celebrated he then moved into a prayer position.  it is a shit penalty but the flag was thrown correctly.  if he would have stopped, then went to his knees in prayer no penalty.  i think everyone would have not cared if it was not for the nfl spokesman  #  according to rule 0, section 0, article 0 d :  players are prohibited from engaging in any celebrations or demonstrations while  on the ground .    #  according to rule 0, section 0, article 0 d :  players are prohibited from engaging in any celebrations or demonstrations while  on the ground .   this is presumably a rule because cerebration on the ground is not safe.  people running around may accidentally step on you and injure you.  this is especially the case, when your head is close to the ground.  tebowing only puts one knee on the ground, so it is arguable if the celebrating player is truly  on the ground.    abdullahing,  on the other hand, makes a celebrating player put both knees and his face on the ground, which is a much more clear rule violation, and a much more dangerous action.   #  that being said, the situation religious celebration versus funny and type of religions involved christian prayers vs muslim would probably preclude any  safety  argument from gaining traction.   #  i think this is a good point, even though it does not seem to be part of the conversation.  if a teammate running at full speed hits tebow, he will get knocked over.  but if he runs into abdullah he might get flipped over, pivoting on his helmet.  that being said, the situation religious celebration versus funny and type of religions involved christian prayers vs muslim would probably preclude any  safety  argument from gaining traction.  it would be too touchy.  also, i was wondering what the jewish endzone celebration would look like. it is too bad coordinated celebrations are off limits.  i would love to see them lifting someone up and down like at a bar mitzvah, haha.   #  if a teammate running at full speed hits tebow, he will get knocked over.   # if a teammate running at full speed hits tebow, he will get knocked over.  but if he runs into abdullah he might get flipped over, pivoting on his helmet.  i agree this should be a part of conversation.  there is a reason for specifically regulating conduct  on the ground   that being said, the situation religious celebration versus funny and type of religions involved christian prayers vs muslim would probably preclude any  safety  argument from gaining traction.  it would be too touchy.  i agree, but then nfl should issue specific rules for religious celebrations.  i would love to see them lifting someone up and down like at a bar mitzvah, haha.  gentle swaying back and forth while reading a book, would not be terribly exciting or illegal.  URL
i have met a lot of people who had plastic surgery: hair plugs, a new nose, a face lift or a set of breast implants.  i normally go out of my way to compliment the work and how nice it looks.  now, while nobody complains about my compliments for a nose job, i have received some pretty indignant admonitions from others never the person who had the work done about my observation and comments about breast enhancements aka  boob jobs .  so much so that people have said i am sexually harassing a woman.  i am not loud and tactless about it, the compliments normally go,  oh my, those are magnificent ! are they natural ?   i feel like a if they went out of their way to get the surgery done and paid for then it is probably something they wanted and are proud of.  like a nice car or home entertainment system b going under the knife is not a small thing and i suspect it means there were some pre existing self esteem issues.  i believe acknowledgement can bolster that and c i have known women who had natural breasts so large, they have had to get reductions because they were getting back problems so i feel like if i ever do mistakenly ask if natural breasts were implants and i have never been wrong yet then consolation about how i know something that many people believe is such a  great  thing is really a burden.  overall i hate it when people are dishonest with each other under the guise of being  polite .  i feel many people choose to ignore or gloss over the elephant in the room just because it makes them uncomfortable to address it.  i do not believe that is good or healthy.  it is selfish: they are more concerned about making themselves feel better in the short term.  acknowledging or bringing things out in the open in a supportive, non judgmental way is better for everyone involved.  alternative example: i have worked with the elderly and kids in wheelchairs and i will joke with them about being so old or in a chair because, guess what ? they are old or they are in a chair.  so yeah, i will say,  i sure hope i can get as much done when i am your age, old man !   or,  aw hell dude, we gotta stop an take a break.  you are on batteries, but my aching feet need a rest !    #  so i feel like if i ever do mistakenly ask if natural breasts were implants and i have never been wrong yet then consolation about how i know something that many people believe is such a  great  thing is really a burden.   #  wait, so these are random women who you just meet and you talk to them directly about their breasts ?  # are they natural ?   notice how i even leave myself an out ? wait, so these are random women who you just meet and you talk to them directly about their breasts ? that  is  sexual harassment.  that is totally opposite of all social norms we have about polite conversation.  it is rude and inappropriate to go up to a woman and comment on her breasts real breasts or enhanced, it does not matter.  the only exception i could imagine is if you already know the woman very well and she got the surgery and now you see her for the first time since the surgery.  other than that, it is absolutely unacceptable and rude to comment on a woman is breasts like you say you are doing.   #  many people just  nod and smile  in response to an inappropriate comment because it allows them to escape an awkward situation much faster than making a scene and calling out the inappropriate behavior.   #  i have disproportionately large but natural breasts, so i get the  wow, are those natural ?   comment frequently from both men and women and both strangers and social acquaintances.  it  never stops being gross,  even when it is intended as a  compliment.   as far as i am concerned, unless i am good friends with someone, it is never okay to discuss a part of the body that is currently covered by clothing.  clothing implies privacy.  you also may be misinterpreting women is reactions to your comments.  many people just  nod and smile  in response to an inappropriate comment because it allows them to escape an awkward situation much faster than making a scene and calling out the inappropriate behavior.  if a woman is uncomfortable with your comment, you have essentially forced her into a situation where she has quickly decide between two choices: pretend that everything is okay and laugh it off, or start a conflict.  both options have personal and social drawbacks.    you say you do not like polite dishonesty, but you force people into situations where, if they are bothered by what you have just said, they have to choose between polite dishonesty and awkward conflict.  forcing people to conform to what  you  think is appropriate social behavior is counterproductive.  if you want people to be honest about the elephant in the room, wait until they are ready and let  them  be the one to be the one to indicate that the subject is okay to talk about.  ultimately, is someone is boob job a topic of such great importance that you  have  to talk about it ? do you know the other person well enough to determine that talking about it will benefit them, or are you just making rationalizations based on your own beliefs about people who get boob jobs ? i would hardly consider a boob job to be an  elephant in the room  that everyone is secretly thinking about.  that is pretty much just you, dude.   #  when others have gone that far i feel like they needed that choice confirmed.   #  ah, thanks for contributing.  you are right i don t have to talk about it.  i thought i was being complimentary/supportive, because, quite honestly, i find breast implements to be very off putting.  normally they are much too large and do not look at all natural.  but since they went through all the effort of going through it i thought i would be supportive.  i have had insecurity and low self esteem in my life and although i may have wished for change and done much to improve myself, i have never even considered surgery because it is just  too far  for me.  when others have gone that far i feel like they needed that choice confirmed.   #  when you do this a lot and then all of a sudden there is this obvious, artificial thing right in your face, it is hard to ignore.   #  yeah, you are right.  it is presumptuous.  but it is not really a guess: you can see little scars, and in some really poor cases, even the prosthetic underneath.  no, i am not so egocentric to believe they need my validation.  i am trying to be supportive and complimentary.  it is something i do with everyone i meet.  it takes a bit of effort and you have to be looking for the best in people to do it.  perhaps you do not understand this because you do not do it yourself, but it takes some work and insight.  when you do this a lot and then all of a sudden there is this obvious, artificial thing right in your face, it is hard to ignore.  what i have ultimately learned from posting this is that i should not go for the easier, lower hanging fruit when looking to be supportive with people.   #  which i am sure they are somebody who is into that kind of thing, and of course hopefully the owner .   #  oh, i do not see it like that.  i did not say,  i like them !  , i said,  they are magnificent !   which i am sure they are somebody who is into that kind of thing, and of course hopefully the owner .  when i see people and/or their prosthetics i try to find the best in the situation:  man those are some cool looking titanium artificial legs  or  like the color of the bandana you are wearing today    person in chemo.  i am not above telling white/harmless lies, but i try to be conscientious about them.  for example, even though i love my niece however i refrain from calling her the  smartest  or  prettiest  girl in the world.  i do say i believe she is the nicest person i know and do praise her accomplishments.  and yes, i will tell her that she is disappointed me at times too.
ladies and gentlemen, i quite firmly believe that there is no inherent value to be gained in teaching symbolism in class.  first of all, i have to mention that i am from germany, so i cannot necessarily relate to us standarts.  basicially, we get the joy of analyzing poems, short stories, novels, you name it, and are suppossed to find implied meaning within the text.  while i agree that it helps build your general way of looking at literature i think the system that it is taught as is inherently flawed: if there is no  wrong  or  right  answer i feel treated rather unfairly being graded on a more or less binary system.  i once wrote a terrible, almost comicial essay because i found nothing that was solid and provable with the text and just made up random stuff straight a.  what is the point of it ? i try to wrap my head around the entire concept since about 0 years.  i like to think of myself as an open minded person and this is just about the only thing that i simply cannot see the other side of.  you could argue that it helps training argumentative skills find a hypothesis, find things to support it, explain it but i would much rather see that in the context of actual issues and events.  you could make the argument that it makes you a more well rounded person if you are not completely put off by how random and unfair the grading is, ruining literature for you on a whole other level.  two people saying vastly different things both being considered right hurts my fundamental understand of the way that rational thinking works.  i simply refuse to accept that you can just come and say whatever you damn well please and be praised for it without actual evidence beyond a  might be .  i get that for many people, discussing interpretations is a way of enhancing their reading experience, but what does that have to do with my education ? why am i being forced to dig through that ? what do they want to teach me ? tolerance to other opinions ? no teacher, parent, or really anyone could give me a statisfying answer since it always consisted of:  just do it, we have to do it, i like that you think for yourself, but we have to move on, you will understand later .  help.  please.  change my view.   #  two people saying vastly different things both being considered right hurts my fundamental understand of the way that rational thinking works.   #  i simply refuse to accept that you can just come and say whatever you damn well please and be praised for it without actual evidence beyond a  might be .   # i simply refuse to accept that you can just come and say whatever you damn well please and be praised for it without actual evidence beyond a  might be .  not all schools of thought can be grouped under that of rational thinking.  obviously mathematics, for example, ascribes to it because of it is inherent purpose and use.  textual analysis simply ca not use the same type of thinking.  one of the most interesting parts of it is the discussion it creates; art in any form is a fantastic way to express feelings, convey messages, and importantly generate discussion around the conclusions people draw from them.  ever watch a movie with a friend and talk about what you both thought of it ? were either of you explicitly wrong ? why am i being forced to dig through that ? what do they want to teach me ? tolerance to other opinions ? yes, in a way.  not so much tolerance, but understanding of other opinions to your own can be crucial in leading a healthy lifestyle.  if i could not even attempt to understand a different person is view on the world then it might lead to me not accepting them for the person they are see: militant homophobes/racists .  extreme, i know, but it helps make my point.  everybody has vastly different life experiences, those experiences create our world view, which in turn inform our opinions and biases.  it is incredibly important to understand that other people might have views different to your own and, while it can be very hard to explain or quantify that difference, it does not mean you should not be understanding of them.  also, many people take great enjoyment of out textual analysis.  both their own analyses and reading other people is.  see: popular film critics.   #  what am i suppossed to learn from this ?  #  metaphors are part of normal language this does not really relate to the  literature  in question, but thanks for pointing it out.  may i provide an example: in a book called  homo faber  we read there is a scene where the main character meets his daughter ? to watch a solar eclipse the interpretation given is that moon, earth and sun represent his struggle with him, his daughter and his wife.  to me, that just seems like it got pulled out of some teachers ass.  how is that rational ? what am i suppossed to learn from this ? can i just make up, well, everything ?  #  so yes, all interpretations are made up, you can definitely try to make up an interpretation but you will probably fail because it is really not as easy as you seem to think it is.   #  as an english lit major, yes, you can make up anything you like, but you better be able to support it.  where do you think these interpretations are coming from ? someone  made  them up.  but the ones that you hear about are the ones that have been backed up the best.  i can say that frodo tossing the ring into mt.  doom is a symbol of his breaking away from bilbo and becoming his own man, because there is evidence of this in the text, i ca not say that frodo tossing the ring into mt.  doom is a symbol of gandalf being gay for legolas because there is no evidence of that.  so yes, all interpretations are made up, you can definitely try to make up an interpretation but you will probably fail because it is really not as easy as you seem to think it is.  it is easier just to discuss the accepted interpretations and to add little tidbits of your own.   #  are you complaining about literary studies in general ?  #  the conclusions are not trivial if they are based on critical thought and explained in a persuasive, clear, and concise way.  grade school is not about teaching students facts.  it is about teaching students how to communicate.  no employer is going to care if you correctly interpreted faust or whatever.  they are going to care that you are able to think critically and communicate effectively.  are you complaining about literary studies in general ? or are you complaining that you might have a bad teacher ?  #  one can be wrong when writing a paper analyzing a text for failing to cite evidence from the text or create coherent logic with that evidence.   #  there is a big irony here is that you used a symbolic metaphor in your title when you called symbolism  a giant pile of shit.   unless of course you think the abstract concept of symbolism is literally a large collection of fecal matter ? i doubt you believe that, because its absurd, though.  teaching interpretation in such ways in very useful because the world really is not 0 clear about everything all the time.  our perceptions are flawed and limited, making an objective understanding that can be broken down into technical terminology for everything impossible, and even if it could, there is zero guarantee that every human being on the planet will be able to understand those terms because humans have different mental strengths and weaknesses.  the fact is, being able to interpret language and narratives prepares people to do things like sell a product, decipher lies and deceptions, and can empower the ability to connect to others by de personalizing your thoughts and feelings into something digestable for people with different experiences than your own.  in the context you are talking about, there is no set  right  or  wrong  but you can most certainly be wrong by failing to generate a piece of writing that fails to meet the standards put forth for that piece.  the experience of your paper that you got an a on, at best, highlights the flaws of your teacher as an instructor, or you ironically failed at failing and actually wrote a more than acceptable paper.  one can be wrong when writing a paper analyzing a text for failing to cite evidence from the text or create coherent logic with that evidence.
ladies and gentlemen, i quite firmly believe that there is no inherent value to be gained in teaching symbolism in class.  first of all, i have to mention that i am from germany, so i cannot necessarily relate to us standarts.  basicially, we get the joy of analyzing poems, short stories, novels, you name it, and are suppossed to find implied meaning within the text.  while i agree that it helps build your general way of looking at literature i think the system that it is taught as is inherently flawed: if there is no  wrong  or  right  answer i feel treated rather unfairly being graded on a more or less binary system.  i once wrote a terrible, almost comicial essay because i found nothing that was solid and provable with the text and just made up random stuff straight a.  what is the point of it ? i try to wrap my head around the entire concept since about 0 years.  i like to think of myself as an open minded person and this is just about the only thing that i simply cannot see the other side of.  you could argue that it helps training argumentative skills find a hypothesis, find things to support it, explain it but i would much rather see that in the context of actual issues and events.  you could make the argument that it makes you a more well rounded person if you are not completely put off by how random and unfair the grading is, ruining literature for you on a whole other level.  two people saying vastly different things both being considered right hurts my fundamental understand of the way that rational thinking works.  i simply refuse to accept that you can just come and say whatever you damn well please and be praised for it without actual evidence beyond a  might be .  i get that for many people, discussing interpretations is a way of enhancing their reading experience, but what does that have to do with my education ? why am i being forced to dig through that ? what do they want to teach me ? tolerance to other opinions ? no teacher, parent, or really anyone could give me a statisfying answer since it always consisted of:  just do it, we have to do it, i like that you think for yourself, but we have to move on, you will understand later .  help.  please.  change my view.   #  i get that for many people, discussing interpretations is a way of enhancing their reading experience, but what does that have to do with my education ?  #  why am i being forced to dig through that ?  # i simply refuse to accept that you can just come and say whatever you damn well please and be praised for it without actual evidence beyond a  might be .  not all schools of thought can be grouped under that of rational thinking.  obviously mathematics, for example, ascribes to it because of it is inherent purpose and use.  textual analysis simply ca not use the same type of thinking.  one of the most interesting parts of it is the discussion it creates; art in any form is a fantastic way to express feelings, convey messages, and importantly generate discussion around the conclusions people draw from them.  ever watch a movie with a friend and talk about what you both thought of it ? were either of you explicitly wrong ? why am i being forced to dig through that ? what do they want to teach me ? tolerance to other opinions ? yes, in a way.  not so much tolerance, but understanding of other opinions to your own can be crucial in leading a healthy lifestyle.  if i could not even attempt to understand a different person is view on the world then it might lead to me not accepting them for the person they are see: militant homophobes/racists .  extreme, i know, but it helps make my point.  everybody has vastly different life experiences, those experiences create our world view, which in turn inform our opinions and biases.  it is incredibly important to understand that other people might have views different to your own and, while it can be very hard to explain or quantify that difference, it does not mean you should not be understanding of them.  also, many people take great enjoyment of out textual analysis.  both their own analyses and reading other people is.  see: popular film critics.   #  may i provide an example: in a book called  homo faber  we read there is a scene where the main character meets his daughter ?  #  metaphors are part of normal language this does not really relate to the  literature  in question, but thanks for pointing it out.  may i provide an example: in a book called  homo faber  we read there is a scene where the main character meets his daughter ? to watch a solar eclipse the interpretation given is that moon, earth and sun represent his struggle with him, his daughter and his wife.  to me, that just seems like it got pulled out of some teachers ass.  how is that rational ? what am i suppossed to learn from this ? can i just make up, well, everything ?  #  it is easier just to discuss the accepted interpretations and to add little tidbits of your own.   #  as an english lit major, yes, you can make up anything you like, but you better be able to support it.  where do you think these interpretations are coming from ? someone  made  them up.  but the ones that you hear about are the ones that have been backed up the best.  i can say that frodo tossing the ring into mt.  doom is a symbol of his breaking away from bilbo and becoming his own man, because there is evidence of this in the text, i ca not say that frodo tossing the ring into mt.  doom is a symbol of gandalf being gay for legolas because there is no evidence of that.  so yes, all interpretations are made up, you can definitely try to make up an interpretation but you will probably fail because it is really not as easy as you seem to think it is.  it is easier just to discuss the accepted interpretations and to add little tidbits of your own.   #  no employer is going to care if you correctly interpreted faust or whatever.   #  the conclusions are not trivial if they are based on critical thought and explained in a persuasive, clear, and concise way.  grade school is not about teaching students facts.  it is about teaching students how to communicate.  no employer is going to care if you correctly interpreted faust or whatever.  they are going to care that you are able to think critically and communicate effectively.  are you complaining about literary studies in general ? or are you complaining that you might have a bad teacher ?  #  one can be wrong when writing a paper analyzing a text for failing to cite evidence from the text or create coherent logic with that evidence.   #  there is a big irony here is that you used a symbolic metaphor in your title when you called symbolism  a giant pile of shit.   unless of course you think the abstract concept of symbolism is literally a large collection of fecal matter ? i doubt you believe that, because its absurd, though.  teaching interpretation in such ways in very useful because the world really is not 0 clear about everything all the time.  our perceptions are flawed and limited, making an objective understanding that can be broken down into technical terminology for everything impossible, and even if it could, there is zero guarantee that every human being on the planet will be able to understand those terms because humans have different mental strengths and weaknesses.  the fact is, being able to interpret language and narratives prepares people to do things like sell a product, decipher lies and deceptions, and can empower the ability to connect to others by de personalizing your thoughts and feelings into something digestable for people with different experiences than your own.  in the context you are talking about, there is no set  right  or  wrong  but you can most certainly be wrong by failing to generate a piece of writing that fails to meet the standards put forth for that piece.  the experience of your paper that you got an a on, at best, highlights the flaws of your teacher as an instructor, or you ironically failed at failing and actually wrote a more than acceptable paper.  one can be wrong when writing a paper analyzing a text for failing to cite evidence from the text or create coherent logic with that evidence.
ladies and gentlemen, i quite firmly believe that there is no inherent value to be gained in teaching symbolism in class.  first of all, i have to mention that i am from germany, so i cannot necessarily relate to us standarts.  basicially, we get the joy of analyzing poems, short stories, novels, you name it, and are suppossed to find implied meaning within the text.  while i agree that it helps build your general way of looking at literature i think the system that it is taught as is inherently flawed: if there is no  wrong  or  right  answer i feel treated rather unfairly being graded on a more or less binary system.  i once wrote a terrible, almost comicial essay because i found nothing that was solid and provable with the text and just made up random stuff straight a.  what is the point of it ? i try to wrap my head around the entire concept since about 0 years.  i like to think of myself as an open minded person and this is just about the only thing that i simply cannot see the other side of.  you could argue that it helps training argumentative skills find a hypothesis, find things to support it, explain it but i would much rather see that in the context of actual issues and events.  you could make the argument that it makes you a more well rounded person if you are not completely put off by how random and unfair the grading is, ruining literature for you on a whole other level.  two people saying vastly different things both being considered right hurts my fundamental understand of the way that rational thinking works.  i simply refuse to accept that you can just come and say whatever you damn well please and be praised for it without actual evidence beyond a  might be .  i get that for many people, discussing interpretations is a way of enhancing their reading experience, but what does that have to do with my education ? why am i being forced to dig through that ? what do they want to teach me ? tolerance to other opinions ? no teacher, parent, or really anyone could give me a statisfying answer since it always consisted of:  just do it, we have to do it, i like that you think for yourself, but we have to move on, you will understand later .  help.  please.  change my view.   #  what do they want to teach me ?  #  how to enjoy and understand art, literature, and music more.   # how to enjoy and understand art, literature, and music more.  also, how to have more empathy and understanding for your fellow man via the same.  while i had similar trouble with the apparent insupportability of assertions about symbolism in school, say whatever you want, get points for it , i find that this mindset is extremely valuable to me as a person.  without appreciating the presence of symbolism and the validity of interpreting one work many ways, you will be stuck with an idiot is view of art for the rest of your life, never understanding what people see in art/literature and always doubting it thinking everyone playing a joke at your expense.  you will never really get your money is worth from books, art shows, movies, or anything else, either because you will be stopping yourself from appreciating them as much as you might have otherwise.  if you just accept that works of art can mean many things to many people, and that in some sense, none of these meanings are ever 0 wrong or 0 right, you will benefit greatly as a person, and find these assignments easier to deal with.  ultimately the real value is in being able to understand other people better by considering different ways of looking at / interpreting art literature, music, etc .  if you can understand why someone would see a piece of art x way, or y way, then you now understand that person, and the world itself, a little better.  understanding is worth more than knowledge, so this can be a powerful tool for becoming a wiser person.   #  what am i suppossed to learn from this ?  #  metaphors are part of normal language this does not really relate to the  literature  in question, but thanks for pointing it out.  may i provide an example: in a book called  homo faber  we read there is a scene where the main character meets his daughter ? to watch a solar eclipse the interpretation given is that moon, earth and sun represent his struggle with him, his daughter and his wife.  to me, that just seems like it got pulled out of some teachers ass.  how is that rational ? what am i suppossed to learn from this ? can i just make up, well, everything ?  #  as an english lit major, yes, you can make up anything you like, but you better be able to support it.   #  as an english lit major, yes, you can make up anything you like, but you better be able to support it.  where do you think these interpretations are coming from ? someone  made  them up.  but the ones that you hear about are the ones that have been backed up the best.  i can say that frodo tossing the ring into mt.  doom is a symbol of his breaking away from bilbo and becoming his own man, because there is evidence of this in the text, i ca not say that frodo tossing the ring into mt.  doom is a symbol of gandalf being gay for legolas because there is no evidence of that.  so yes, all interpretations are made up, you can definitely try to make up an interpretation but you will probably fail because it is really not as easy as you seem to think it is.  it is easier just to discuss the accepted interpretations and to add little tidbits of your own.   #  or are you complaining that you might have a bad teacher ?  #  the conclusions are not trivial if they are based on critical thought and explained in a persuasive, clear, and concise way.  grade school is not about teaching students facts.  it is about teaching students how to communicate.  no employer is going to care if you correctly interpreted faust or whatever.  they are going to care that you are able to think critically and communicate effectively.  are you complaining about literary studies in general ? or are you complaining that you might have a bad teacher ?  #  there is a big irony here is that you used a symbolic metaphor in your title when you called symbolism  a giant pile of shit.    #  there is a big irony here is that you used a symbolic metaphor in your title when you called symbolism  a giant pile of shit.   unless of course you think the abstract concept of symbolism is literally a large collection of fecal matter ? i doubt you believe that, because its absurd, though.  teaching interpretation in such ways in very useful because the world really is not 0 clear about everything all the time.  our perceptions are flawed and limited, making an objective understanding that can be broken down into technical terminology for everything impossible, and even if it could, there is zero guarantee that every human being on the planet will be able to understand those terms because humans have different mental strengths and weaknesses.  the fact is, being able to interpret language and narratives prepares people to do things like sell a product, decipher lies and deceptions, and can empower the ability to connect to others by de personalizing your thoughts and feelings into something digestable for people with different experiences than your own.  in the context you are talking about, there is no set  right  or  wrong  but you can most certainly be wrong by failing to generate a piece of writing that fails to meet the standards put forth for that piece.  the experience of your paper that you got an a on, at best, highlights the flaws of your teacher as an instructor, or you ironically failed at failing and actually wrote a more than acceptable paper.  one can be wrong when writing a paper analyzing a text for failing to cite evidence from the text or create coherent logic with that evidence.
ladies and gentlemen, i quite firmly believe that there is no inherent value to be gained in teaching symbolism in class.  first of all, i have to mention that i am from germany, so i cannot necessarily relate to us standarts.  basicially, we get the joy of analyzing poems, short stories, novels, you name it, and are suppossed to find implied meaning within the text.  while i agree that it helps build your general way of looking at literature i think the system that it is taught as is inherently flawed: if there is no  wrong  or  right  answer i feel treated rather unfairly being graded on a more or less binary system.  i once wrote a terrible, almost comicial essay because i found nothing that was solid and provable with the text and just made up random stuff straight a.  what is the point of it ? i try to wrap my head around the entire concept since about 0 years.  i like to think of myself as an open minded person and this is just about the only thing that i simply cannot see the other side of.  you could argue that it helps training argumentative skills find a hypothesis, find things to support it, explain it but i would much rather see that in the context of actual issues and events.  you could make the argument that it makes you a more well rounded person if you are not completely put off by how random and unfair the grading is, ruining literature for you on a whole other level.  two people saying vastly different things both being considered right hurts my fundamental understand of the way that rational thinking works.  i simply refuse to accept that you can just come and say whatever you damn well please and be praised for it without actual evidence beyond a  might be .  i get that for many people, discussing interpretations is a way of enhancing their reading experience, but what does that have to do with my education ? why am i being forced to dig through that ? what do they want to teach me ? tolerance to other opinions ? no teacher, parent, or really anyone could give me a statisfying answer since it always consisted of:  just do it, we have to do it, i like that you think for yourself, but we have to move on, you will understand later .  help.  please.  change my view.   #  i simply refuse to accept that you can just come and say whatever you damn well please and be praised for it without actual evidence beyond a  might be .   #  i understand why you think this way, but remember you may be studying something that not only violates rationality like human emotion/intuition but is capable of moving beyond it.   #  there is more utility to symbolism that analyzing literature.  without symbolic language we cannot communicate religious ideas since the symbol is the only linguistic device capable such a feat.  if you do not think religious thought or understanding religious ideas is important, that is okay.  if we lived in a society that understood why religion is useful, we would teach it in schools.  unfortunately, our society thinks religion is supposed to be divisive and exclusive two things which any genuine religion can never be .  the point is still valid for a reason you brought up reason:   if there is no  wrong  or  right  answer i feel treated rather unfairly being graded on a more or less binary system.  we must move beyond  right or wrong  while interpreting a symbol.  such a movement is necessary in any religion that seeks unity because both  the right  and  the wrong  must share the same space.  a religion is should be used for unification on the greatest possible level of consciousness.  with such a goal, contradictions and paradoxes are guaranteed.  hence, rational thought fails to go the distance.  i understand why you think this way, but remember you may be studying something that not only violates rationality like human emotion/intuition but is capable of moving beyond it.  if you attempt to use rationality to understand something that is bigger than rationality, you are going to have to find a different tool to approach that which you are attempting to understand.  symbolism and symbolic language is one of these tools, and it is vital to advancement of true religious thought.   #  metaphors are part of normal language this does not really relate to the  literature  in question, but thanks for pointing it out.   #  metaphors are part of normal language this does not really relate to the  literature  in question, but thanks for pointing it out.  may i provide an example: in a book called  homo faber  we read there is a scene where the main character meets his daughter ? to watch a solar eclipse the interpretation given is that moon, earth and sun represent his struggle with him, his daughter and his wife.  to me, that just seems like it got pulled out of some teachers ass.  how is that rational ? what am i suppossed to learn from this ? can i just make up, well, everything ?  #  but the ones that you hear about are the ones that have been backed up the best.   #  as an english lit major, yes, you can make up anything you like, but you better be able to support it.  where do you think these interpretations are coming from ? someone  made  them up.  but the ones that you hear about are the ones that have been backed up the best.  i can say that frodo tossing the ring into mt.  doom is a symbol of his breaking away from bilbo and becoming his own man, because there is evidence of this in the text, i ca not say that frodo tossing the ring into mt.  doom is a symbol of gandalf being gay for legolas because there is no evidence of that.  so yes, all interpretations are made up, you can definitely try to make up an interpretation but you will probably fail because it is really not as easy as you seem to think it is.  it is easier just to discuss the accepted interpretations and to add little tidbits of your own.   #  they are going to care that you are able to think critically and communicate effectively.   #  the conclusions are not trivial if they are based on critical thought and explained in a persuasive, clear, and concise way.  grade school is not about teaching students facts.  it is about teaching students how to communicate.  no employer is going to care if you correctly interpreted faust or whatever.  they are going to care that you are able to think critically and communicate effectively.  are you complaining about literary studies in general ? or are you complaining that you might have a bad teacher ?  #  unless of course you think the abstract concept of symbolism is literally a large collection of fecal matter ?  #  there is a big irony here is that you used a symbolic metaphor in your title when you called symbolism  a giant pile of shit.   unless of course you think the abstract concept of symbolism is literally a large collection of fecal matter ? i doubt you believe that, because its absurd, though.  teaching interpretation in such ways in very useful because the world really is not 0 clear about everything all the time.  our perceptions are flawed and limited, making an objective understanding that can be broken down into technical terminology for everything impossible, and even if it could, there is zero guarantee that every human being on the planet will be able to understand those terms because humans have different mental strengths and weaknesses.  the fact is, being able to interpret language and narratives prepares people to do things like sell a product, decipher lies and deceptions, and can empower the ability to connect to others by de personalizing your thoughts and feelings into something digestable for people with different experiences than your own.  in the context you are talking about, there is no set  right  or  wrong  but you can most certainly be wrong by failing to generate a piece of writing that fails to meet the standards put forth for that piece.  the experience of your paper that you got an a on, at best, highlights the flaws of your teacher as an instructor, or you ironically failed at failing and actually wrote a more than acceptable paper.  one can be wrong when writing a paper analyzing a text for failing to cite evidence from the text or create coherent logic with that evidence.
i am american, so i will be considering this cmv under the scope of american law.  currently, only red or amber turn signal lights are legal under federal law.  this can be seen in the us code of federal regulations, title 0, part 0, standard 0 URL tables ii and iii.   it is my view that red rear turn signal lights should be illegal, and that only amber colored lights should be allowed.   this should not be a retroactive change, but rather enforced only on new models of automobiles/trailers/etc.   my reasoning for this is primarily based upon the ambiguity introduced by having identically colored brake and turn signal lights.   for example, if you are looking at a car such that only one set of tail lights is visible, it can be nearly impossible to determine whether the driver has tapped their brakes or are signaling a turn.  obviously this ambiguity can be resolved rather quickly by observing the pattern of the blinking, but it makes no sense that one cannot tell at a glance.  when a brake light is out and a driver is tapping the brakes this ambiguity is extended to situations where one has a full view of the tail lights of the car.  there are a few other instances of ambiguity that could be resolved by requiring only amber signals, but i do not see any purpose in exploring them further.  as far as i can tell, the only rationale for red rear turn signal lights is aesthetics, which i do not think should ever trump issues of safety.  i suppose cost could also be a factor, but federal regulations have been increasing the cost of automobiles since.  forever, so i ca not really see that holding any weight either.  i expect the contention that this ambiguity is marginal at worst, and would not justify a change of law.  but even a marginal increase in driver safety should be worth the effort when there is effectively no downside.  so.  cmv ?  i have found some evidence to support my side 0 dot studies done a few years ago.    september 0, dot study the influence of rear turn signal characteristics on crash risk  URL  found that amber signals are correlated with a 0 reduction in crashes.    april 0, dot study the effectiveness of amber rear turn signals for reducing rear impacts  URL  found that amber rear turn signals are correlated with a 0 decrease in rear end collisions than otherwise identical vehicles with red ones.    here is the article i found them in  URL it summarizes the situation well.    also note that the chmsl center rear brake light is associated with only a 0 increase in crash avoidance.   #  my reasoning for this is primarily based upon the ambiguity introduced by having identically colored brake and turn signal lights.   #  as an american who has been driving for over 0 years, i just do not see what you are seeing.   # as an american who has been driving for over 0 years, i just do not see what you are seeing.  what ambiguity ? turn signals are regular and will continue until the turn is completed.  someone tapping brakes will only do a couple of times and almost never is it with the very regular on off pattern of the turn light.  most drivers do not tap brakes anyway; either they are braking or they are not.  the only time i might tap the brakes might be when i am being followed too close, traffic in front of me is stopping, and i am giving my follower notice before the sudden deceleration.  very rarely am i driving where i can see only one tail light of the car in front.  regular drivers will also start to notice the location of the turn light versus brake light and running light for particular models.  cars should not be driven with signal lights out, and in my state you will get a ticket for it.  we should not have to change new cars because a few lazy drivers do not maintain their cars in a safe manner.  insurance companies and federal agencies work hard to keep driving as safe as possible.  if they are not worried about this issue, why should we be ? i do not think the research backs up the need for a change  #  someone tapping brakes will only do a couple of times and almost never is it with the very regular on off pattern of the turn light.   # someone tapping brakes will only do a couple of times and almost never is it with the very regular on off pattern of the turn light.  most drivers do not tap brakes anyway; either they are braking or they are not.  the only time i might tap the brakes might be when i am being followed too close, traffic in front of me is stopping, and i am giving my follower notice before the sudden deceleration.  the point is that you should be able to tell at a glance whether or not someone is signalling.  with identically colored lights, you simply cannot do that.   #  this is due to the fact that a higher location is more likely to catch our attention when seen peripherally.   #  side note to add: almost all modern cars have a brake light up higher as well as the two corner lights.  this is due to the fact that a higher location is more likely to catch our attention when seen peripherally.  your eye should be able to discern in an instant whether the third light is present.  some cars do not have them or it does not function, in which case you could be mislead for a moment.  the center light is no more likely to be out than a blinker so that part is less relavant.   #  that is why there is no problem with red turn signals.   #  the way to tell is the middle brake light.  they have been required on us and canadian vehicles since 0 URL if that middle light is not on, they are not braking.  that is why there is no problem with red turn signals.  you do not have to wait for the pattern of the turn lights to find out that they are actually brake lights as the middle light comes on like normal break lights.  some examples: suv, probably a few years old URL definitely old sedan URL luxury sedan, probably a few years old URL sedan, probably early 0s URL  #  red, being the color with the lowest energy, does not get as hot and leads to extended life when it comes car lights getting cloudy, which is a safety hazard.   #  what evidence do you have that it is a safety hazard and needs to be changed ? do you have anything to support that it would provide an increase in safety/that red turn signals create a hazard ? if not, then why should they be changed ? here is what i think   red lights are exclusive to the back side of cars.  it lets you know where the back and front of a vehicle is like a boat has separate lights for port are starboard.  amber or white lights could match the reflection of other lights such as streetlights or the headlights of cars behind it.  red light is not as powerful so red lights are less likely to be confused for a reflection.  aesthetically, uniformity is better.  that is why cars have started using red turn signals in the back in the past decade or so.  cars from the 0s and before had 0 or 0 different colors of lights in the back and they looked hideous.  white and amber lights burn hotter, which contributes to a car is lights getting cloudy.  red, being the color with the lowest energy, does not get as hot and leads to extended life when it comes car lights getting cloudy, which is a safety hazard.
i am american, so i will be considering this cmv under the scope of american law.  currently, only red or amber turn signal lights are legal under federal law.  this can be seen in the us code of federal regulations, title 0, part 0, standard 0 URL tables ii and iii.   it is my view that red rear turn signal lights should be illegal, and that only amber colored lights should be allowed.   this should not be a retroactive change, but rather enforced only on new models of automobiles/trailers/etc.   my reasoning for this is primarily based upon the ambiguity introduced by having identically colored brake and turn signal lights.   for example, if you are looking at a car such that only one set of tail lights is visible, it can be nearly impossible to determine whether the driver has tapped their brakes or are signaling a turn.  obviously this ambiguity can be resolved rather quickly by observing the pattern of the blinking, but it makes no sense that one cannot tell at a glance.  when a brake light is out and a driver is tapping the brakes this ambiguity is extended to situations where one has a full view of the tail lights of the car.  there are a few other instances of ambiguity that could be resolved by requiring only amber signals, but i do not see any purpose in exploring them further.  as far as i can tell, the only rationale for red rear turn signal lights is aesthetics, which i do not think should ever trump issues of safety.  i suppose cost could also be a factor, but federal regulations have been increasing the cost of automobiles since.  forever, so i ca not really see that holding any weight either.  i expect the contention that this ambiguity is marginal at worst, and would not justify a change of law.  but even a marginal increase in driver safety should be worth the effort when there is effectively no downside.  so.  cmv ?  i have found some evidence to support my side 0 dot studies done a few years ago.    september 0, dot study the influence of rear turn signal characteristics on crash risk  URL  found that amber signals are correlated with a 0 reduction in crashes.    april 0, dot study the effectiveness of amber rear turn signals for reducing rear impacts  URL  found that amber rear turn signals are correlated with a 0 decrease in rear end collisions than otherwise identical vehicles with red ones.    here is the article i found them in  URL it summarizes the situation well.    also note that the chmsl center rear brake light is associated with only a 0 increase in crash avoidance.   #  for example, if you are looking at a car such that only one set of tail lights is visible, it can be nearly impossible to determine whether the driver has tapped their brakes or are signaling a turn.   #  turn signals are regular and will continue until the turn is completed.   # as an american who has been driving for over 0 years, i just do not see what you are seeing.  what ambiguity ? turn signals are regular and will continue until the turn is completed.  someone tapping brakes will only do a couple of times and almost never is it with the very regular on off pattern of the turn light.  most drivers do not tap brakes anyway; either they are braking or they are not.  the only time i might tap the brakes might be when i am being followed too close, traffic in front of me is stopping, and i am giving my follower notice before the sudden deceleration.  very rarely am i driving where i can see only one tail light of the car in front.  regular drivers will also start to notice the location of the turn light versus brake light and running light for particular models.  cars should not be driven with signal lights out, and in my state you will get a ticket for it.  we should not have to change new cars because a few lazy drivers do not maintain their cars in a safe manner.  insurance companies and federal agencies work hard to keep driving as safe as possible.  if they are not worried about this issue, why should we be ? i do not think the research backs up the need for a change  #  someone tapping brakes will only do a couple of times and almost never is it with the very regular on off pattern of the turn light.   # someone tapping brakes will only do a couple of times and almost never is it with the very regular on off pattern of the turn light.  most drivers do not tap brakes anyway; either they are braking or they are not.  the only time i might tap the brakes might be when i am being followed too close, traffic in front of me is stopping, and i am giving my follower notice before the sudden deceleration.  the point is that you should be able to tell at a glance whether or not someone is signalling.  with identically colored lights, you simply cannot do that.   #  this is due to the fact that a higher location is more likely to catch our attention when seen peripherally.   #  side note to add: almost all modern cars have a brake light up higher as well as the two corner lights.  this is due to the fact that a higher location is more likely to catch our attention when seen peripherally.  your eye should be able to discern in an instant whether the third light is present.  some cars do not have them or it does not function, in which case you could be mislead for a moment.  the center light is no more likely to be out than a blinker so that part is less relavant.   #  some examples: suv, probably a few years old URL definitely old sedan URL luxury sedan, probably a few years old URL sedan, probably early 0s URL  #  the way to tell is the middle brake light.  they have been required on us and canadian vehicles since 0 URL if that middle light is not on, they are not braking.  that is why there is no problem with red turn signals.  you do not have to wait for the pattern of the turn lights to find out that they are actually brake lights as the middle light comes on like normal break lights.  some examples: suv, probably a few years old URL definitely old sedan URL luxury sedan, probably a few years old URL sedan, probably early 0s URL  #  it lets you know where the back and front of a vehicle is like a boat has separate lights for port are starboard.   #  what evidence do you have that it is a safety hazard and needs to be changed ? do you have anything to support that it would provide an increase in safety/that red turn signals create a hazard ? if not, then why should they be changed ? here is what i think   red lights are exclusive to the back side of cars.  it lets you know where the back and front of a vehicle is like a boat has separate lights for port are starboard.  amber or white lights could match the reflection of other lights such as streetlights or the headlights of cars behind it.  red light is not as powerful so red lights are less likely to be confused for a reflection.  aesthetically, uniformity is better.  that is why cars have started using red turn signals in the back in the past decade or so.  cars from the 0s and before had 0 or 0 different colors of lights in the back and they looked hideous.  white and amber lights burn hotter, which contributes to a car is lights getting cloudy.  red, being the color with the lowest energy, does not get as hot and leads to extended life when it comes car lights getting cloudy, which is a safety hazard.
i am american, so i will be considering this cmv under the scope of american law.  currently, only red or amber turn signal lights are legal under federal law.  this can be seen in the us code of federal regulations, title 0, part 0, standard 0 URL tables ii and iii.   it is my view that red rear turn signal lights should be illegal, and that only amber colored lights should be allowed.   this should not be a retroactive change, but rather enforced only on new models of automobiles/trailers/etc.   my reasoning for this is primarily based upon the ambiguity introduced by having identically colored brake and turn signal lights.   for example, if you are looking at a car such that only one set of tail lights is visible, it can be nearly impossible to determine whether the driver has tapped their brakes or are signaling a turn.  obviously this ambiguity can be resolved rather quickly by observing the pattern of the blinking, but it makes no sense that one cannot tell at a glance.  when a brake light is out and a driver is tapping the brakes this ambiguity is extended to situations where one has a full view of the tail lights of the car.  there are a few other instances of ambiguity that could be resolved by requiring only amber signals, but i do not see any purpose in exploring them further.  as far as i can tell, the only rationale for red rear turn signal lights is aesthetics, which i do not think should ever trump issues of safety.  i suppose cost could also be a factor, but federal regulations have been increasing the cost of automobiles since.  forever, so i ca not really see that holding any weight either.  i expect the contention that this ambiguity is marginal at worst, and would not justify a change of law.  but even a marginal increase in driver safety should be worth the effort when there is effectively no downside.  so.  cmv ?  i have found some evidence to support my side 0 dot studies done a few years ago.    september 0, dot study the influence of rear turn signal characteristics on crash risk  URL  found that amber signals are correlated with a 0 reduction in crashes.    april 0, dot study the effectiveness of amber rear turn signals for reducing rear impacts  URL  found that amber rear turn signals are correlated with a 0 decrease in rear end collisions than otherwise identical vehicles with red ones.    here is the article i found them in  URL it summarizes the situation well.    also note that the chmsl center rear brake light is associated with only a 0 increase in crash avoidance.   #  when a brake light is out and a driver is tapping the brakes this ambiguity is extended to situations where one has a full view of the tail lights of the car.   #  cars should not be driven with signal lights out, and in my state you will get a ticket for it.   # as an american who has been driving for over 0 years, i just do not see what you are seeing.  what ambiguity ? turn signals are regular and will continue until the turn is completed.  someone tapping brakes will only do a couple of times and almost never is it with the very regular on off pattern of the turn light.  most drivers do not tap brakes anyway; either they are braking or they are not.  the only time i might tap the brakes might be when i am being followed too close, traffic in front of me is stopping, and i am giving my follower notice before the sudden deceleration.  very rarely am i driving where i can see only one tail light of the car in front.  regular drivers will also start to notice the location of the turn light versus brake light and running light for particular models.  cars should not be driven with signal lights out, and in my state you will get a ticket for it.  we should not have to change new cars because a few lazy drivers do not maintain their cars in a safe manner.  insurance companies and federal agencies work hard to keep driving as safe as possible.  if they are not worried about this issue, why should we be ? i do not think the research backs up the need for a change  #  someone tapping brakes will only do a couple of times and almost never is it with the very regular on off pattern of the turn light.   # someone tapping brakes will only do a couple of times and almost never is it with the very regular on off pattern of the turn light.  most drivers do not tap brakes anyway; either they are braking or they are not.  the only time i might tap the brakes might be when i am being followed too close, traffic in front of me is stopping, and i am giving my follower notice before the sudden deceleration.  the point is that you should be able to tell at a glance whether or not someone is signalling.  with identically colored lights, you simply cannot do that.   #  the center light is no more likely to be out than a blinker so that part is less relavant.   #  side note to add: almost all modern cars have a brake light up higher as well as the two corner lights.  this is due to the fact that a higher location is more likely to catch our attention when seen peripherally.  your eye should be able to discern in an instant whether the third light is present.  some cars do not have them or it does not function, in which case you could be mislead for a moment.  the center light is no more likely to be out than a blinker so that part is less relavant.   #  some examples: suv, probably a few years old URL definitely old sedan URL luxury sedan, probably a few years old URL sedan, probably early 0s URL  #  the way to tell is the middle brake light.  they have been required on us and canadian vehicles since 0 URL if that middle light is not on, they are not braking.  that is why there is no problem with red turn signals.  you do not have to wait for the pattern of the turn lights to find out that they are actually brake lights as the middle light comes on like normal break lights.  some examples: suv, probably a few years old URL definitely old sedan URL luxury sedan, probably a few years old URL sedan, probably early 0s URL  #  if not, then why should they be changed ?  #  what evidence do you have that it is a safety hazard and needs to be changed ? do you have anything to support that it would provide an increase in safety/that red turn signals create a hazard ? if not, then why should they be changed ? here is what i think   red lights are exclusive to the back side of cars.  it lets you know where the back and front of a vehicle is like a boat has separate lights for port are starboard.  amber or white lights could match the reflection of other lights such as streetlights or the headlights of cars behind it.  red light is not as powerful so red lights are less likely to be confused for a reflection.  aesthetically, uniformity is better.  that is why cars have started using red turn signals in the back in the past decade or so.  cars from the 0s and before had 0 or 0 different colors of lights in the back and they looked hideous.  white and amber lights burn hotter, which contributes to a car is lights getting cloudy.  red, being the color with the lowest energy, does not get as hot and leads to extended life when it comes car lights getting cloudy, which is a safety hazard.
after watching the music video for  all about the bass , i have come to realize that this generation seems to be terribly insecure, and in need of constant platitudes and pick me ups in order to get by with day to day life.  we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.  we are easily offended, leading to the embarrassing cultural phenomena of trigger warnings, and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  they did not have to be told on a daily basis that they were awesome because they knew they were awesome.  if someone bullied them, they were taught to fight back, not take the abuse.  if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves.  something changed along the line, though.  i really ca not say what it is for sure, maybe society encourages victims more so than it did in conservative times, or maybe i am imagining it or connecting dots that do not exist.  change my view ?  #  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.   #  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time there was actually a huge anorexia epidemic in the 0 is.   # you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time there was actually a huge anorexia epidemic in the 0 is.  there were more suicides in 0, per capita, then in 0 URL   if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves citation needed .  honestly, i doubt that this is the sort of thing that only happens today.  on the other hand, this is probably the sort of thing that is vastly more  publicized , today.  would you have heard of someone in 0 that killed themselves due to bullying ? i think that part of your perception is due to temporal distance.  you only hear about the famous historical suicides, like possibly alan turing, whereas you hear about the current suicides of your friends, family and acquaintances.  you only hear about epidemics that were big enough or historic enough to make it into the history books, but you hear about every random  epidemic  that makes it into a paper today.  other parts of it are due to differences in what gets reported.  the internet did not exist, back in the 0 is.  you probably knew not to bring up rape with your friend who was a rape victim, because she might break down in tears.  these days, communication happens on an entirely different scale, and on a much more  open  scale.  if someone was triggered, it does not happen with only a handful of people present, it happens  in public, where anyone can see the conversation .   #  the difference is they suffered silently and lashed out silently.   # you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  the difference is they suffered silently and lashed out silently.  now we talk about it.  it is like mental illness or homosexuality. people just did not bring up mental issues or homosexuality to. anyone.  medical history privacy laws are insanely tight in this country for this reason i think.  i laugh whenever old people say  there were not any gays back then !   suicide was pretty embarrassing so cover stories were usually given.  he died of a broken heart or just drank himself to death with a bottle of asprin as a chaser after his wife died ? funeral says broken heart or suicide via pills ? nowadays, people will just say.   hung himself or ate a bottle of pills.   #  the internet took things to a whole new level though.   # we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.  we are easily offended, leading to the embarrassing cultural phenomena of trigger warnings, and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.  half of that is our fault for raising you and your generation the way we did.  you parents generation gen x for most of you grew up in a very different world than what you kids have to deal; america itself assuming you are american was night and day different than it is now.  the other half is the fault of the internet.  your generation exists primarily online, and you live and die with each tweet/post/pin/share/etc.   nbsp;  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  we also did not have to deal with it 0/0 either.  there were kids in school that were tormented and bullied every bit as much as kids today, but the difference was they only had to deal with it  at school .  the internet took things to a whole new level though.  when i was growing up, if someone was talking shit about you, you had the option of kicking the living shit out of them, now they can say anything they want anonymously online, so now there is no relief for kids that are getting picked on.   nbsp;  they did not have to be told on a daily basis that they were awesome because they knew they were awesome.  uh, yeah we did.  the only difference was, back then, there was only one person who  always  told us  we were perfect just the way we were , and that we were  special , and  amazing  individuals.  his name was mr.  rogers URL  #  you had to get over it, because you were going to be faced with the issue sooner or later.   #  i would disagree.  if you look at some of the things that were common and accepted as normal in the past, you would be seeing revolutions for bringing back.  it was common practice in the 0s and 0s and even slightly beyond for children to play outdoors all day long and never have an adult to solve all the problems for them.  this actually builds emotional resilience.  movies showing all kinds of things were shown in public with very little worry that someone would be triggered.  you had to get over it, because you were going to be faced with the issue sooner or later.  in schools, it was much the same.  a bully was a problem to be solved without crisis intervention.  you fought back, and eventually you either learned to deal with the bully or how to avoid him.  either way, you learned to deal with your problems.  today, that sort of emotional maturity is not demanded of anyone.  in fact, the reverse is true.  children are now pretty much helicopter parented to the point where they are going  of to college  without having to ever learn to budget their time, to deal with bullies and unwanted attention, to do their own research assignments and to write their own papers, or to negotiate their own safety.  how do people raised this way learn to deal with life after schooling ? what happens to a child raised to go to the authorities when they are bullied by a superior at work ? what happens to a person who is used to being sheparded through college assignments when he is tasked with writing a report for work ? what happens to a person raised with the idea that he is going to be triggered by disney movies when he faces layoffs and other hardships ? without the muscles to deal with difficulty or to stick to tasks, you are limited.   #  not to mention, since people are having less children on average, it makes sense to be more protective of the ones they have.   #  first off, i am not sure your generalizations about the current generation of children are accurate.  but for the sake of argument, let is say they are.  methods of raising children do not just appear for no reason.  often they are a response to the parent is own childhood.  these new systems being implemented are responses to the failures of the past systems.  for instance, studies show that the chance of someone being bullied is inversely related to the number of friends the child has.  with that in mind, the least effective way to deal with bullying would be to make the victim handle it on his/her own.  not to mention, since people are having less children on average, it makes sense to be more protective of the ones they have.  when the market is flooded with children, their individual value drops.  add the fact that the cost of raising children is increasing and now you have an investment that needs to be protected.
after watching the music video for  all about the bass , i have come to realize that this generation seems to be terribly insecure, and in need of constant platitudes and pick me ups in order to get by with day to day life.  we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.  we are easily offended, leading to the embarrassing cultural phenomena of trigger warnings, and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  they did not have to be told on a daily basis that they were awesome because they knew they were awesome.  if someone bullied them, they were taught to fight back, not take the abuse.  if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves.  something changed along the line, though.  i really ca not say what it is for sure, maybe society encourages victims more so than it did in conservative times, or maybe i am imagining it or connecting dots that do not exist.  change my view ?  #  and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.   #  there were more suicides in 0, per capita, then in 0 URL   if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves citation needed .   # you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time there was actually a huge anorexia epidemic in the 0 is.  there were more suicides in 0, per capita, then in 0 URL   if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves citation needed .  honestly, i doubt that this is the sort of thing that only happens today.  on the other hand, this is probably the sort of thing that is vastly more  publicized , today.  would you have heard of someone in 0 that killed themselves due to bullying ? i think that part of your perception is due to temporal distance.  you only hear about the famous historical suicides, like possibly alan turing, whereas you hear about the current suicides of your friends, family and acquaintances.  you only hear about epidemics that were big enough or historic enough to make it into the history books, but you hear about every random  epidemic  that makes it into a paper today.  other parts of it are due to differences in what gets reported.  the internet did not exist, back in the 0 is.  you probably knew not to bring up rape with your friend who was a rape victim, because she might break down in tears.  these days, communication happens on an entirely different scale, and on a much more  open  scale.  if someone was triggered, it does not happen with only a handful of people present, it happens  in public, where anyone can see the conversation .   #  funeral says broken heart or suicide via pills ?  # you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  the difference is they suffered silently and lashed out silently.  now we talk about it.  it is like mental illness or homosexuality. people just did not bring up mental issues or homosexuality to. anyone.  medical history privacy laws are insanely tight in this country for this reason i think.  i laugh whenever old people say  there were not any gays back then !   suicide was pretty embarrassing so cover stories were usually given.  he died of a broken heart or just drank himself to death with a bottle of asprin as a chaser after his wife died ? funeral says broken heart or suicide via pills ? nowadays, people will just say.   hung himself or ate a bottle of pills.   #  the only difference was, back then, there was only one person who  always  told us  we were perfect just the way we were , and that we were  special , and  amazing  individuals.   # we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.  we are easily offended, leading to the embarrassing cultural phenomena of trigger warnings, and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.  half of that is our fault for raising you and your generation the way we did.  you parents generation gen x for most of you grew up in a very different world than what you kids have to deal; america itself assuming you are american was night and day different than it is now.  the other half is the fault of the internet.  your generation exists primarily online, and you live and die with each tweet/post/pin/share/etc.   nbsp;  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  we also did not have to deal with it 0/0 either.  there were kids in school that were tormented and bullied every bit as much as kids today, but the difference was they only had to deal with it  at school .  the internet took things to a whole new level though.  when i was growing up, if someone was talking shit about you, you had the option of kicking the living shit out of them, now they can say anything they want anonymously online, so now there is no relief for kids that are getting picked on.   nbsp;  they did not have to be told on a daily basis that they were awesome because they knew they were awesome.  uh, yeah we did.  the only difference was, back then, there was only one person who  always  told us  we were perfect just the way we were , and that we were  special , and  amazing  individuals.  his name was mr.  rogers URL  #  either way, you learned to deal with your problems.   #  i would disagree.  if you look at some of the things that were common and accepted as normal in the past, you would be seeing revolutions for bringing back.  it was common practice in the 0s and 0s and even slightly beyond for children to play outdoors all day long and never have an adult to solve all the problems for them.  this actually builds emotional resilience.  movies showing all kinds of things were shown in public with very little worry that someone would be triggered.  you had to get over it, because you were going to be faced with the issue sooner or later.  in schools, it was much the same.  a bully was a problem to be solved without crisis intervention.  you fought back, and eventually you either learned to deal with the bully or how to avoid him.  either way, you learned to deal with your problems.  today, that sort of emotional maturity is not demanded of anyone.  in fact, the reverse is true.  children are now pretty much helicopter parented to the point where they are going  of to college  without having to ever learn to budget their time, to deal with bullies and unwanted attention, to do their own research assignments and to write their own papers, or to negotiate their own safety.  how do people raised this way learn to deal with life after schooling ? what happens to a child raised to go to the authorities when they are bullied by a superior at work ? what happens to a person who is used to being sheparded through college assignments when he is tasked with writing a report for work ? what happens to a person raised with the idea that he is going to be triggered by disney movies when he faces layoffs and other hardships ? without the muscles to deal with difficulty or to stick to tasks, you are limited.   #  add the fact that the cost of raising children is increasing and now you have an investment that needs to be protected.   #  first off, i am not sure your generalizations about the current generation of children are accurate.  but for the sake of argument, let is say they are.  methods of raising children do not just appear for no reason.  often they are a response to the parent is own childhood.  these new systems being implemented are responses to the failures of the past systems.  for instance, studies show that the chance of someone being bullied is inversely related to the number of friends the child has.  with that in mind, the least effective way to deal with bullying would be to make the victim handle it on his/her own.  not to mention, since people are having less children on average, it makes sense to be more protective of the ones they have.  when the market is flooded with children, their individual value drops.  add the fact that the cost of raising children is increasing and now you have an investment that needs to be protected.
after watching the music video for  all about the bass , i have come to realize that this generation seems to be terribly insecure, and in need of constant platitudes and pick me ups in order to get by with day to day life.  we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.  we are easily offended, leading to the embarrassing cultural phenomena of trigger warnings, and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  they did not have to be told on a daily basis that they were awesome because they knew they were awesome.  if someone bullied them, they were taught to fight back, not take the abuse.  if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves.  something changed along the line, though.  i really ca not say what it is for sure, maybe society encourages victims more so than it did in conservative times, or maybe i am imagining it or connecting dots that do not exist.  change my view ?  #  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.   #  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.   # you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  the difference is they suffered silently and lashed out silently.  now we talk about it.  it is like mental illness or homosexuality. people just did not bring up mental issues or homosexuality to. anyone.  medical history privacy laws are insanely tight in this country for this reason i think.  i laugh whenever old people say  there were not any gays back then !   suicide was pretty embarrassing so cover stories were usually given.  he died of a broken heart or just drank himself to death with a bottle of asprin as a chaser after his wife died ? funeral says broken heart or suicide via pills ? nowadays, people will just say.   hung himself or ate a bottle of pills.   #  if someone was triggered, it does not happen with only a handful of people present, it happens  in public, where anyone can see the conversation .   # you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time there was actually a huge anorexia epidemic in the 0 is.  there were more suicides in 0, per capita, then in 0 URL   if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves citation needed .  honestly, i doubt that this is the sort of thing that only happens today.  on the other hand, this is probably the sort of thing that is vastly more  publicized , today.  would you have heard of someone in 0 that killed themselves due to bullying ? i think that part of your perception is due to temporal distance.  you only hear about the famous historical suicides, like possibly alan turing, whereas you hear about the current suicides of your friends, family and acquaintances.  you only hear about epidemics that were big enough or historic enough to make it into the history books, but you hear about every random  epidemic  that makes it into a paper today.  other parts of it are due to differences in what gets reported.  the internet did not exist, back in the 0 is.  you probably knew not to bring up rape with your friend who was a rape victim, because she might break down in tears.  these days, communication happens on an entirely different scale, and on a much more  open  scale.  if someone was triggered, it does not happen with only a handful of people present, it happens  in public, where anyone can see the conversation .   #  the only difference was, back then, there was only one person who  always  told us  we were perfect just the way we were , and that we were  special , and  amazing  individuals.   # we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.  we are easily offended, leading to the embarrassing cultural phenomena of trigger warnings, and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.  half of that is our fault for raising you and your generation the way we did.  you parents generation gen x for most of you grew up in a very different world than what you kids have to deal; america itself assuming you are american was night and day different than it is now.  the other half is the fault of the internet.  your generation exists primarily online, and you live and die with each tweet/post/pin/share/etc.   nbsp;  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  we also did not have to deal with it 0/0 either.  there were kids in school that were tormented and bullied every bit as much as kids today, but the difference was they only had to deal with it  at school .  the internet took things to a whole new level though.  when i was growing up, if someone was talking shit about you, you had the option of kicking the living shit out of them, now they can say anything they want anonymously online, so now there is no relief for kids that are getting picked on.   nbsp;  they did not have to be told on a daily basis that they were awesome because they knew they were awesome.  uh, yeah we did.  the only difference was, back then, there was only one person who  always  told us  we were perfect just the way we were , and that we were  special , and  amazing  individuals.  his name was mr.  rogers URL  #  how do people raised this way learn to deal with life after schooling ?  #  i would disagree.  if you look at some of the things that were common and accepted as normal in the past, you would be seeing revolutions for bringing back.  it was common practice in the 0s and 0s and even slightly beyond for children to play outdoors all day long and never have an adult to solve all the problems for them.  this actually builds emotional resilience.  movies showing all kinds of things were shown in public with very little worry that someone would be triggered.  you had to get over it, because you were going to be faced with the issue sooner or later.  in schools, it was much the same.  a bully was a problem to be solved without crisis intervention.  you fought back, and eventually you either learned to deal with the bully or how to avoid him.  either way, you learned to deal with your problems.  today, that sort of emotional maturity is not demanded of anyone.  in fact, the reverse is true.  children are now pretty much helicopter parented to the point where they are going  of to college  without having to ever learn to budget their time, to deal with bullies and unwanted attention, to do their own research assignments and to write their own papers, or to negotiate their own safety.  how do people raised this way learn to deal with life after schooling ? what happens to a child raised to go to the authorities when they are bullied by a superior at work ? what happens to a person who is used to being sheparded through college assignments when he is tasked with writing a report for work ? what happens to a person raised with the idea that he is going to be triggered by disney movies when he faces layoffs and other hardships ? without the muscles to deal with difficulty or to stick to tasks, you are limited.   #  not to mention, since people are having less children on average, it makes sense to be more protective of the ones they have.   #  first off, i am not sure your generalizations about the current generation of children are accurate.  but for the sake of argument, let is say they are.  methods of raising children do not just appear for no reason.  often they are a response to the parent is own childhood.  these new systems being implemented are responses to the failures of the past systems.  for instance, studies show that the chance of someone being bullied is inversely related to the number of friends the child has.  with that in mind, the least effective way to deal with bullying would be to make the victim handle it on his/her own.  not to mention, since people are having less children on average, it makes sense to be more protective of the ones they have.  when the market is flooded with children, their individual value drops.  add the fact that the cost of raising children is increasing and now you have an investment that needs to be protected.
after watching the music video for  all about the bass , i have come to realize that this generation seems to be terribly insecure, and in need of constant platitudes and pick me ups in order to get by with day to day life.  we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.  we are easily offended, leading to the embarrassing cultural phenomena of trigger warnings, and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  they did not have to be told on a daily basis that they were awesome because they knew they were awesome.  if someone bullied them, they were taught to fight back, not take the abuse.  if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves.  something changed along the line, though.  i really ca not say what it is for sure, maybe society encourages victims more so than it did in conservative times, or maybe i am imagining it or connecting dots that do not exist.  change my view ?  #  if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves.   #  suicide was pretty embarrassing so cover stories were usually given.   # you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  the difference is they suffered silently and lashed out silently.  now we talk about it.  it is like mental illness or homosexuality. people just did not bring up mental issues or homosexuality to. anyone.  medical history privacy laws are insanely tight in this country for this reason i think.  i laugh whenever old people say  there were not any gays back then !   suicide was pretty embarrassing so cover stories were usually given.  he died of a broken heart or just drank himself to death with a bottle of asprin as a chaser after his wife died ? funeral says broken heart or suicide via pills ? nowadays, people will just say.   hung himself or ate a bottle of pills.   #  you probably knew not to bring up rape with your friend who was a rape victim, because she might break down in tears.   # you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time there was actually a huge anorexia epidemic in the 0 is.  there were more suicides in 0, per capita, then in 0 URL   if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves citation needed .  honestly, i doubt that this is the sort of thing that only happens today.  on the other hand, this is probably the sort of thing that is vastly more  publicized , today.  would you have heard of someone in 0 that killed themselves due to bullying ? i think that part of your perception is due to temporal distance.  you only hear about the famous historical suicides, like possibly alan turing, whereas you hear about the current suicides of your friends, family and acquaintances.  you only hear about epidemics that were big enough or historic enough to make it into the history books, but you hear about every random  epidemic  that makes it into a paper today.  other parts of it are due to differences in what gets reported.  the internet did not exist, back in the 0 is.  you probably knew not to bring up rape with your friend who was a rape victim, because she might break down in tears.  these days, communication happens on an entirely different scale, and on a much more  open  scale.  if someone was triggered, it does not happen with only a handful of people present, it happens  in public, where anyone can see the conversation .   #  we also did not have to deal with it 0/0 either.   # we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.  we are easily offended, leading to the embarrassing cultural phenomena of trigger warnings, and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.  half of that is our fault for raising you and your generation the way we did.  you parents generation gen x for most of you grew up in a very different world than what you kids have to deal; america itself assuming you are american was night and day different than it is now.  the other half is the fault of the internet.  your generation exists primarily online, and you live and die with each tweet/post/pin/share/etc.   nbsp;  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  we also did not have to deal with it 0/0 either.  there were kids in school that were tormented and bullied every bit as much as kids today, but the difference was they only had to deal with it  at school .  the internet took things to a whole new level though.  when i was growing up, if someone was talking shit about you, you had the option of kicking the living shit out of them, now they can say anything they want anonymously online, so now there is no relief for kids that are getting picked on.   nbsp;  they did not have to be told on a daily basis that they were awesome because they knew they were awesome.  uh, yeah we did.  the only difference was, back then, there was only one person who  always  told us  we were perfect just the way we were , and that we were  special , and  amazing  individuals.  his name was mr.  rogers URL  #  if you look at some of the things that were common and accepted as normal in the past, you would be seeing revolutions for bringing back.   #  i would disagree.  if you look at some of the things that were common and accepted as normal in the past, you would be seeing revolutions for bringing back.  it was common practice in the 0s and 0s and even slightly beyond for children to play outdoors all day long and never have an adult to solve all the problems for them.  this actually builds emotional resilience.  movies showing all kinds of things were shown in public with very little worry that someone would be triggered.  you had to get over it, because you were going to be faced with the issue sooner or later.  in schools, it was much the same.  a bully was a problem to be solved without crisis intervention.  you fought back, and eventually you either learned to deal with the bully or how to avoid him.  either way, you learned to deal with your problems.  today, that sort of emotional maturity is not demanded of anyone.  in fact, the reverse is true.  children are now pretty much helicopter parented to the point where they are going  of to college  without having to ever learn to budget their time, to deal with bullies and unwanted attention, to do their own research assignments and to write their own papers, or to negotiate their own safety.  how do people raised this way learn to deal with life after schooling ? what happens to a child raised to go to the authorities when they are bullied by a superior at work ? what happens to a person who is used to being sheparded through college assignments when he is tasked with writing a report for work ? what happens to a person raised with the idea that he is going to be triggered by disney movies when he faces layoffs and other hardships ? without the muscles to deal with difficulty or to stick to tasks, you are limited.   #  first off, i am not sure your generalizations about the current generation of children are accurate.   #  first off, i am not sure your generalizations about the current generation of children are accurate.  but for the sake of argument, let is say they are.  methods of raising children do not just appear for no reason.  often they are a response to the parent is own childhood.  these new systems being implemented are responses to the failures of the past systems.  for instance, studies show that the chance of someone being bullied is inversely related to the number of friends the child has.  with that in mind, the least effective way to deal with bullying would be to make the victim handle it on his/her own.  not to mention, since people are having less children on average, it makes sense to be more protective of the ones they have.  when the market is flooded with children, their individual value drops.  add the fact that the cost of raising children is increasing and now you have an investment that needs to be protected.
after watching the music video for  all about the bass , i have come to realize that this generation seems to be terribly insecure, and in need of constant platitudes and pick me ups in order to get by with day to day life.  we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.  we are easily offended, leading to the embarrassing cultural phenomena of trigger warnings, and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  they did not have to be told on a daily basis that they were awesome because they knew they were awesome.  if someone bullied them, they were taught to fight back, not take the abuse.  if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves.  something changed along the line, though.  i really ca not say what it is for sure, maybe society encourages victims more so than it did in conservative times, or maybe i am imagining it or connecting dots that do not exist.  change my view ?  #  after watching the music video for  all about the bass , i have come to realize that this generation seems to be terribly insecure, and in need of constant platitudes and pick me ups in order to get by with day to day life.   #  we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.   # we seem to have to be constantly reminded in media that we are beautiful, intelligent, have potential, are worth love, etc, almost as if it is a mantra.  we are easily offended, leading to the embarrassing cultural phenomena of trigger warnings, and we seem to me more likely to be victims of suicide or bullying.  half of that is our fault for raising you and your generation the way we did.  you parents generation gen x for most of you grew up in a very different world than what you kids have to deal; america itself assuming you are american was night and day different than it is now.  the other half is the fault of the internet.  your generation exists primarily online, and you live and die with each tweet/post/pin/share/etc.   nbsp;  i honestly do not think that my grandparents  or even my parents  generation were anywhere near this soft emotionally.  you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  we also did not have to deal with it 0/0 either.  there were kids in school that were tormented and bullied every bit as much as kids today, but the difference was they only had to deal with it  at school .  the internet took things to a whole new level though.  when i was growing up, if someone was talking shit about you, you had the option of kicking the living shit out of them, now they can say anything they want anonymously online, so now there is no relief for kids that are getting picked on.   nbsp;  they did not have to be told on a daily basis that they were awesome because they knew they were awesome.  uh, yeah we did.  the only difference was, back then, there was only one person who  always  told us  we were perfect just the way we were , and that we were  special , and  amazing  individuals.  his name was mr.  rogers URL  #  if someone was triggered, it does not happen with only a handful of people present, it happens  in public, where anyone can see the conversation .   # you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time there was actually a huge anorexia epidemic in the 0 is.  there were more suicides in 0, per capita, then in 0 URL   if someone called them ugly, they did not kill themselves citation needed .  honestly, i doubt that this is the sort of thing that only happens today.  on the other hand, this is probably the sort of thing that is vastly more  publicized , today.  would you have heard of someone in 0 that killed themselves due to bullying ? i think that part of your perception is due to temporal distance.  you only hear about the famous historical suicides, like possibly alan turing, whereas you hear about the current suicides of your friends, family and acquaintances.  you only hear about epidemics that were big enough or historic enough to make it into the history books, but you hear about every random  epidemic  that makes it into a paper today.  other parts of it are due to differences in what gets reported.  the internet did not exist, back in the 0 is.  you probably knew not to bring up rape with your friend who was a rape victim, because she might break down in tears.  these days, communication happens on an entirely different scale, and on a much more  open  scale.  if someone was triggered, it does not happen with only a handful of people present, it happens  in public, where anyone can see the conversation .   #  the difference is they suffered silently and lashed out silently.   # you never heard of things like anorexia or bullying being nearly as high in their time, and i definitely do not think anyone from back then would have had an emotional seizure from looking at squiggles on a screen.  the difference is they suffered silently and lashed out silently.  now we talk about it.  it is like mental illness or homosexuality. people just did not bring up mental issues or homosexuality to. anyone.  medical history privacy laws are insanely tight in this country for this reason i think.  i laugh whenever old people say  there were not any gays back then !   suicide was pretty embarrassing so cover stories were usually given.  he died of a broken heart or just drank himself to death with a bottle of asprin as a chaser after his wife died ? funeral says broken heart or suicide via pills ? nowadays, people will just say.   hung himself or ate a bottle of pills.   #  if you look at some of the things that were common and accepted as normal in the past, you would be seeing revolutions for bringing back.   #  i would disagree.  if you look at some of the things that were common and accepted as normal in the past, you would be seeing revolutions for bringing back.  it was common practice in the 0s and 0s and even slightly beyond for children to play outdoors all day long and never have an adult to solve all the problems for them.  this actually builds emotional resilience.  movies showing all kinds of things were shown in public with very little worry that someone would be triggered.  you had to get over it, because you were going to be faced with the issue sooner or later.  in schools, it was much the same.  a bully was a problem to be solved without crisis intervention.  you fought back, and eventually you either learned to deal with the bully or how to avoid him.  either way, you learned to deal with your problems.  today, that sort of emotional maturity is not demanded of anyone.  in fact, the reverse is true.  children are now pretty much helicopter parented to the point where they are going  of to college  without having to ever learn to budget their time, to deal with bullies and unwanted attention, to do their own research assignments and to write their own papers, or to negotiate their own safety.  how do people raised this way learn to deal with life after schooling ? what happens to a child raised to go to the authorities when they are bullied by a superior at work ? what happens to a person who is used to being sheparded through college assignments when he is tasked with writing a report for work ? what happens to a person raised with the idea that he is going to be triggered by disney movies when he faces layoffs and other hardships ? without the muscles to deal with difficulty or to stick to tasks, you are limited.   #  when the market is flooded with children, their individual value drops.   #  first off, i am not sure your generalizations about the current generation of children are accurate.  but for the sake of argument, let is say they are.  methods of raising children do not just appear for no reason.  often they are a response to the parent is own childhood.  these new systems being implemented are responses to the failures of the past systems.  for instance, studies show that the chance of someone being bullied is inversely related to the number of friends the child has.  with that in mind, the least effective way to deal with bullying would be to make the victim handle it on his/her own.  not to mention, since people are having less children on average, it makes sense to be more protective of the ones they have.  when the market is flooded with children, their individual value drops.  add the fact that the cost of raising children is increasing and now you have an investment that needs to be protected.
adblocking software is frowned upon by some because it deprives sites of the ad revenue that keeps many of them going.  however, adblock software has become an important and even vital part of using the internet safely.  ads are a prime route for viruses and other malware URL it is impossible for the user and frequently difficult for the site running the ads to determine which ads are legitimate and which are dangerous.  blocking ads wholesale is a layer of protection against such infection.  with this in mind, until ads become or can be made safe, adblocking software is a prudent step for anyone using the internet.  is it fair to block all ads based on the misdeeds of a few providers ? maybe not but it is prudent.   #  with this in mind, until ads become or can be made safe, adblocking software is a prudent step for anyone using the internet.   #  using the same argument:  until it become safer to walk the streets or drive a car, it is a prudent step for anyone to stay home.    # using the same argument:  until it become safer to walk the streets or drive a car, it is a prudent step for anyone to stay home.   you may say based on your other responses that if people cannot go to work or shopping from home, that the model on how we work and shop should be changed.  in all the years i have used computers i have never been infected by a virus by just visiting web pages.  i wonder what sites you frequent.  of course i take some precautions, for example java is disabled, i rarely click on ads, but i understand that everything has risks, including surfing the web, or going outside.   #  if you are really concerned about security, there are plenty of other tools that will keep your computer secure.   #  i wo not disagree that adblocking software helps with computer security, but i would encourage you think about the consequences of  literally everyone  using it, because i think they outweigh the benefits of slightly increased computer security.  if  literally every computer user  started using adblock, then no one would buy web ads.  at all.  this would mean that every business that currently depends on ad revenue would be gone.  this includes:   social networking sites   search engines   web browsers   mobile operating systems,   map services like google maps   streaming music and video all of these things would either stop existing, or start charging money.  if you are really concerned about security, there are plenty of other tools that will keep your computer secure.   #  it would eventually ruin the fast paced innovation that makes the web great.   #  plus, a lot of smaller sites depend on simple advertisements like banner ads.  larger sites can make money off of sponsored native advertising and complex multimedia campaigns.  so if everyone used adblock, the only sites that would be able to effectively monetize would be the big players.  small up and coming sites ca not depend on methods like donations because almost nobody is going to take the time and effort to donate to a new site they come across.  if everybody used adblock, the internet would become a lot more like television in the sense that the only way to be profitable would be to have a massive starting budget for marketing campaigns and multimedia development.  it would eventually ruin the fast paced innovation that makes the web great.   #  i mean they have shit that wont let you close without clicking to confirm it will close.   #  well the problem is that ad companies are malicious.  i mean seriously a large portion of viruses used to come from ad is, pop ups, etc.  in a fight to grab more attention ad is got more and more invasive and annoying beyond belief.  i mean they have shit that wont let you close without clicking to confirm it will close.  ad is that trick people into download malware.  until internet advertising companies get rid of that shit adblock is not just advised it is damn near necessary.  as for those sites no longer being free, i do not buy it.  adblocks have often had whitelists for ad is that were non invasive and non threatening.  heck google runs the largest non invasive and safe ad is on the internet and you ca not claim they do not make profit.  it is entirely doable and when every advertiser does it adblocks would no longer be needed.  just like they were not needed in the first few year is of the internet.   #  tone, timbre, emphasis, body language, etc can change meaning.   #  they may have meant that, but it is not what they said.  this is a problem with text only conversations.  there is a significant portion of a message that is not in the words used.  tone, timbre, emphasis, body language, etc can change meaning.  it is why sentences like  i did not tell you to shoot your neighbor,  can mean so many different things if the only thing you change is which word you emphasize.
this just occurred to me as i was watching an online youtube video with headphones.  quite decent comedy until it pissed me off when i heard an annoyingly loud  beep  panned to the left ear at which point i could not stand it and just stopped watching it.  just a couple of points for now.  firstly, everyone already knows what the swear word is.  if everyone already anticipates what the swear word is, and knows what word would have been said had the annoyingly loud beep not taken place, why not just allow people to say it ? you can tell from the phraseology and the mouth movement when the guy says it.  secondly, no one is forced to watch entertainment media.  if they do not like a channel, comedy style, actor, soundtrack or mentality of a certain media piece, you can simply not watch it.  no one is forcing you to.  either do not use swear words altogether, or use swear words and do not  beep  it out.  i also do not buy that people would  lose audience  if people swear too much.  or they would, but people would get over it.  and even so, the culture should change to be more reflective of the 0st century: where people casually use god is name in vain and say  fuck  to describe something aggressively.  no one seems to care in casual conversation, but in entertainment media ? oh no ! now we have a problem.  heck people already swear casually in twitch streams and no one seems to have a problem with that.  i will also add that yes, i also do think that swearing should not be censored in kids shows either.  kids are going to eventually hear these words, so why cover it up for 0 0 years or vaguely disallow it when they are going to eventually hear about these terms in the future ? especially with the advent of the internet ? i could go into this much more in depth but i will wait for discussion.  finally, and least importantly, i would argue the  beeep  is much more annoying that any swear word.  especially if it is panned to the left ear and i am wearing headphones.  there are other points but i will wait until further discussion occurs for that.   please note:  i am not saying people who represent large groups of people like important politicians should swear nor am i saying people who report serious news stories should swear either.  i can at least understand the rationale that people should not swear in these circumstances and frankly, i am rather mixed in my opinions on that.  i am talking about entertainment media like television, youtube, websites, podcasts etc.  either do not use swearing at all, or swear and do not censor it out.  one or the other.  i do not see how my viewpoint is wrong.  but i am willing to change my view point if someone gives me a compelling case as to why people should not swear in entertainment media.  thanks !  #  i will also add that yes, i also do think that swearing should not be censored in kids shows either.   #  kids are going to eventually hear these words, so why cover it up for 0 0 years or vaguely disallow it when they are going to eventually hear about these terms in the future ?  # kids are going to eventually hear these words, so why cover it up for 0 0 years or vaguely disallow it when they are going to eventually hear about these terms in the future ? kids are eventually going to have sex but that does not mean it is healthy for them to watch porn.  children naturally lack the experience to understand context.  you and i both have the knowledge that comes from years of social interaction to understand it is inappropriate to tell a waiter to  give me a fucking steak  because certain words denote aggression and anger.  frequently exposing children to aggressive language before they have the experience to understand the appropriate context of it can lead to inappropriate social development.   #  , especially when there is not context as to what is being said.   #  i came here to make that point.  i curse enough to make a sailor blush and the words themselves are devoid of humor to me.  a really well placed curse has humor, but plain curses do not.  a bleep, however, has some intrinsic humor.  partly i think it is from the mad lib aspect choose your own swear ! , especially when there is not context as to what is being said.  see arrested development, when buster finally lets loose and says nasty things about lucille while hanging out with gob and michael.  the other part to the humorous bleep is the emphasis that the speech is inappropriate for the situation, and is thus humorous.  bleeped media are generally tv shows, and tv characters are generally wholesome people.  the bleep points out that the language is unexpected, and defying expectations is the basis of comedy.   #  thus it is reasonable to expect some censorship of foul language when the audience cannot be guaranteed to be exclusively adult.   #  because you cannot just disregard the sensibilities of society because you find them to be outdated or incongruous.  some people, especially older people, find cursing to be offensive.  as a reaosnable citizen, you should do what you can to not offend people unnecessarily.  further, parents are often embarrassed when a child uses a curse in public.  they think a child cursing will make them seem like bad parents.  thus it is reasonable to expect some censorship of foul language when the audience cannot be guaranteed to be exclusively adult.   #  it was only through the actions of succeeding generations and various movements did things slowly but surely become less taboo.   #  that is. actually a good point.  i agree that offending people for the sole purpose of  going against the grain  of society accomplishes nothing on its own.  but i also think there is an aspect of responsibility and temperament here.  it is not society is responsibility to make sure your child never witnesses nudity or swear words.  it  is  your responsibility to make sure your child understands the societal contexts under which these actions take place.  our culture has certain taboos that are not going to go away overnight and even if they did, new ones would just spring up.  i get that.  but a society that does not like nudity or filthy language will censor those things naturally on their own.  keep in mind that language and nudity were even rarer in the first half of the 0th century in film, radio, etc.  most people simply did not have a desire to hear and see these things in everyday life.  it was only through the actions of succeeding generations and various movements did things slowly but surely become less taboo.  there is no reason to think it wo not change even more so with time.  but in the meantime, is censorship something that should just be done away with and in a few years, these things will be completely un taboo anymore ? i am not the person to answer that.  hell, i do not know if anyone is.  that is what this discussion is about.  but in the same way that offending people for the sake of  fuck societal norms  is bad, in the same fashion, censorship for the sake of appeasing society and being a drone is just as bad.   #  without context they are meaningless and we absolutely should be challenging it.   #  but it is just an arbitrary set of words.  without context they are meaningless and we absolutely should be challenging it.  if people do not like hearing the words, they can switch over.  if it is an audience you want, hire writers with enough skill to get by without them.  we do not take time to censor out poorly spoken english, or crazy ideas so children do not grow up sounding like morons.  frankly hearing climate change denialism is offensive to me, can i get entire shows bleeped out ?
this just occurred to me as i was watching an online youtube video with headphones.  quite decent comedy until it pissed me off when i heard an annoyingly loud  beep  panned to the left ear at which point i could not stand it and just stopped watching it.  just a couple of points for now.  firstly, everyone already knows what the swear word is.  if everyone already anticipates what the swear word is, and knows what word would have been said had the annoyingly loud beep not taken place, why not just allow people to say it ? you can tell from the phraseology and the mouth movement when the guy says it.  secondly, no one is forced to watch entertainment media.  if they do not like a channel, comedy style, actor, soundtrack or mentality of a certain media piece, you can simply not watch it.  no one is forcing you to.  either do not use swear words altogether, or use swear words and do not  beep  it out.  i also do not buy that people would  lose audience  if people swear too much.  or they would, but people would get over it.  and even so, the culture should change to be more reflective of the 0st century: where people casually use god is name in vain and say  fuck  to describe something aggressively.  no one seems to care in casual conversation, but in entertainment media ? oh no ! now we have a problem.  heck people already swear casually in twitch streams and no one seems to have a problem with that.  i will also add that yes, i also do think that swearing should not be censored in kids shows either.  kids are going to eventually hear these words, so why cover it up for 0 0 years or vaguely disallow it when they are going to eventually hear about these terms in the future ? especially with the advent of the internet ? i could go into this much more in depth but i will wait for discussion.  finally, and least importantly, i would argue the  beeep  is much more annoying that any swear word.  especially if it is panned to the left ear and i am wearing headphones.  there are other points but i will wait until further discussion occurs for that.   please note:  i am not saying people who represent large groups of people like important politicians should swear nor am i saying people who report serious news stories should swear either.  i can at least understand the rationale that people should not swear in these circumstances and frankly, i am rather mixed in my opinions on that.  i am talking about entertainment media like television, youtube, websites, podcasts etc.  either do not use swearing at all, or swear and do not censor it out.  one or the other.  i do not see how my viewpoint is wrong.  but i am willing to change my view point if someone gives me a compelling case as to why people should not swear in entertainment media.  thanks !  #  if they do not like a channel, comedy style, actor, soundtrack or mentality of a certain media piece, you can simply not watch it.   #  mostly true but there are exceptions you can still find someone offensive even if you think their funny.   # mostly true but there are exceptions you can still find someone offensive even if you think their funny.  oh no ! now we have a problem.  that is because in a casual conversation you know who your talking to.  you do not know who is watching your tv program or youtube channel and they could be 0 years old or really offended by swearing.  they are going to do it eventually after all.   #  bleeped media are generally tv shows, and tv characters are generally wholesome people.   #  i came here to make that point.  i curse enough to make a sailor blush and the words themselves are devoid of humor to me.  a really well placed curse has humor, but plain curses do not.  a bleep, however, has some intrinsic humor.  partly i think it is from the mad lib aspect choose your own swear ! , especially when there is not context as to what is being said.  see arrested development, when buster finally lets loose and says nasty things about lucille while hanging out with gob and michael.  the other part to the humorous bleep is the emphasis that the speech is inappropriate for the situation, and is thus humorous.  bleeped media are generally tv shows, and tv characters are generally wholesome people.  the bleep points out that the language is unexpected, and defying expectations is the basis of comedy.   #  some people, especially older people, find cursing to be offensive.   #  because you cannot just disregard the sensibilities of society because you find them to be outdated or incongruous.  some people, especially older people, find cursing to be offensive.  as a reaosnable citizen, you should do what you can to not offend people unnecessarily.  further, parents are often embarrassed when a child uses a curse in public.  they think a child cursing will make them seem like bad parents.  thus it is reasonable to expect some censorship of foul language when the audience cannot be guaranteed to be exclusively adult.   #  i agree that offending people for the sole purpose of  going against the grain  of society accomplishes nothing on its own.   #  that is. actually a good point.  i agree that offending people for the sole purpose of  going against the grain  of society accomplishes nothing on its own.  but i also think there is an aspect of responsibility and temperament here.  it is not society is responsibility to make sure your child never witnesses nudity or swear words.  it  is  your responsibility to make sure your child understands the societal contexts under which these actions take place.  our culture has certain taboos that are not going to go away overnight and even if they did, new ones would just spring up.  i get that.  but a society that does not like nudity or filthy language will censor those things naturally on their own.  keep in mind that language and nudity were even rarer in the first half of the 0th century in film, radio, etc.  most people simply did not have a desire to hear and see these things in everyday life.  it was only through the actions of succeeding generations and various movements did things slowly but surely become less taboo.  there is no reason to think it wo not change even more so with time.  but in the meantime, is censorship something that should just be done away with and in a few years, these things will be completely un taboo anymore ? i am not the person to answer that.  hell, i do not know if anyone is.  that is what this discussion is about.  but in the same way that offending people for the sake of  fuck societal norms  is bad, in the same fashion, censorship for the sake of appeasing society and being a drone is just as bad.   #  if it is an audience you want, hire writers with enough skill to get by without them.   #  but it is just an arbitrary set of words.  without context they are meaningless and we absolutely should be challenging it.  if people do not like hearing the words, they can switch over.  if it is an audience you want, hire writers with enough skill to get by without them.  we do not take time to censor out poorly spoken english, or crazy ideas so children do not grow up sounding like morons.  frankly hearing climate change denialism is offensive to me, can i get entire shows bleeped out ?
pretty simple.  basically this video URL makes a perfect point.  batman might think he is not killing people, but he is straight up killing lots of people.  if you knock someone out and they do not wake up in a few minutes, then you have done serious damage and they very well could die.  if you are running around with sharp metal weapons and ninja stars, you are going to kill people.  if you are smashing through walls with rockets and driving through shopping centres on a motorbike you are going to cause some casualties eventually.  in the arkam games batman is frequently seen bashing the heads in of people with a metal pipe.  how is that not killing them ? in dkr batman organizes a mass assault on bane, knowing the police are using guns, and bane is troops are using guns, which leads to a lot of deaths.  if batman were to say that he did not kill these people, it would be like a general ordering troops to fire on an enemy, and when that enemy is killed, saying he had nothing to do with it.  in batman begins, batman had every intention of having gordon blow up the train tower which would cause the train to crash, and every intention of leaving ra is al ghul there to die.  he said he was not killing him, he just was not saving him.  that is just the same as batman pulling the trigger on a gun and saying  i am not killing you, the bullet is .  he made the plan, and executed it, knowing ra is al ghul would die.  batman kills people.  cmv  #  in dkr batman organizes a mass assault on bane, knowing the police are using guns, and bane is troops are using guns, which leads to a lot of deaths.   #  if batman were to say that he did not kill these people, it would be like a general ordering troops to fire on an enemy, and when that enemy is killed, saying he had nothing to do with it.   # basically this video makes a perfect point.  batman might think he is not killing people, but he is straight up killing lots of people.  if you knock someone out and they do not wake up in a few minutes, then you have done serious damage and they very well could die.  if you are running around with sharp metal weapons and ninja stars, you are going to kill people.  if you are smashing through walls with rockets and driving through shopping centres on a motorbike you are going to cause some casualties eventually.  in the arkam games batman is frequently seen bashing the heads in of people with a metal pipe.  how is that not killing them ? people in the dc universe are absurdly resilent.  criminals are regularly thrown through windows and walls without any lasting harm.  ordinary civilians and bystanders can jump higher, run faster, and take more punishment than a normal human would be able to.  for instance, batman, an ordinary human at peak physical health, runs faster than usain bolt, regularly lifts more than the human world record, and recovers from injuries faster than should be humanly possible.  the dc human brain is probably more shock resistant than a normal human brain.  if batman were to say that he did not kill these people, it would be like a general ordering troops to fire on an enemy, and when that enemy is killed, saying he had nothing to do with it.  in batman begins, batman had every intention of having gordon blow up the train tower which would cause the train to crash, and every intention of leaving ra is al ghul there to die.  he said he was not killing him, he just was not saving him.  that is just the same as batman pulling the trigger on a gun and saying  i am not killing you, the bullet is .  he made the plan, and executed it, knowing ra is al ghul would die.  you forget the point of batman is no kill rule.  it is not an arbitrary requirement he throws on himself for no reason.  the no kill rule is simply to hold himself back in the absence of public accountability, legal restrictions, or responsible partners robin is a kid.  he does not count .  when the cops fought bane or when gordon blew up the train tower, there were other people in the plot to ensure that batman was not murdering out of petty revenge.  the batman can only kill out of absolute self defense or under the eye of others to prevent himself from being the next two face, rorschach, or ozymandias.   #  and then he carried out that plan, killing him.   #  ok well the dc universe argument makes sense.  it is fantasy so in that world the normal laws of physics or biology do not apply.  but on your second point, i still do not agree.  take specifically the train tower situation.  batman told gordon what to do, and fought ra is al ghul in the train, leaving him there to die.  to my mind, batman killed ra is al ghul.  having other people involved does not change that or even change the fact that it could be petty revenge.  if i hire a hitman out of petty revenge, i have still killed the person.  they died because of my plan.  to me in this scenario to say batman did not kill ra is al ghul is like saying that the killer in the saw movies did not kill anyone.  he did.  batman hatched a plan which would directly result in the death of ra is al ghul.  he knew it would.  and then he carried out that plan, killing him.   #  in contrast, a hitman would not have done a thing if he believed that ra is al ghul did not deserve to die.   # take specifically the train tower situation.  batman told gordon what to do, and fought ra is al ghul in the train, leaving him there to die.  to my mind, batman killed ra is al ghul.  having other people involved does not change that or even change the fact that it could be petty revenge.  if i hire a hitman out of petty revenge, i have still killed the person.  they died because of my plan.  to me in this scenario to say batman did not kill ra is al ghul is like saying that the killer in the saw movies did not kill anyone.  he did.  batman hatched a plan which would directly result in the death of ra is al ghul.  he knew it would.  and then he carried out that plan, killing him.  the difference is that gordon is an independent person who would have spoken up if he had believed batman was in the wrong.  in contrast, a hitman would not have done a thing if he believed that ra is al ghul did not deserve to die.   no kill  simply means  do not kill people unless you have got a second opinion and can avoid crossing the psychological barrier of direct murder.    #  if batman were to say that he did not kill these people, it would be like a general ordering troops to fire on an enemy, and when that enemy is killed, saying he had nothing to do with it.   #  i will start by saying batman is plan did not necessarily involve ra is al ghul being on the train that is batman did not know ra is would be there.  ra is al ghul also deliberately sabotaged the train is accelerator to keep batman from stopping it prior to it reaching the point where gordon had collapsed the elevated track.  if batman were to say that he did not kill these people, it would be like a general ordering troops to fire on an enemy, and when that enemy is killed, saying he had nothing to do with it.  batman is no kill rule is for himself.  i do not know why you specifically use tdkr as you could argue batman should be actively protesting gordon and the gpd using guns across all the his media when he works with the police.  but ! again, batman is not a self righteous prick about his  personal  code.   #  batman from the dark knight trilogy is pretty terrible.   #  batman from the dark knight trilogy is pretty terrible.  he definitely kills harvey, and, from any reasonable perspective, kills ra is as well.  to an extent, he also causes talia to die in a car accident.  he also has no qualms about catwoman killing bane.  in summary, nolan bats is a pretty bad example of batman.  the rest of your argument can proceed with the more canonical batmen.
pretty simple.  basically this video URL makes a perfect point.  batman might think he is not killing people, but he is straight up killing lots of people.  if you knock someone out and they do not wake up in a few minutes, then you have done serious damage and they very well could die.  if you are running around with sharp metal weapons and ninja stars, you are going to kill people.  if you are smashing through walls with rockets and driving through shopping centres on a motorbike you are going to cause some casualties eventually.  in the arkam games batman is frequently seen bashing the heads in of people with a metal pipe.  how is that not killing them ? in dkr batman organizes a mass assault on bane, knowing the police are using guns, and bane is troops are using guns, which leads to a lot of deaths.  if batman were to say that he did not kill these people, it would be like a general ordering troops to fire on an enemy, and when that enemy is killed, saying he had nothing to do with it.  in batman begins, batman had every intention of having gordon blow up the train tower which would cause the train to crash, and every intention of leaving ra is al ghul there to die.  he said he was not killing him, he just was not saving him.  that is just the same as batman pulling the trigger on a gun and saying  i am not killing you, the bullet is .  he made the plan, and executed it, knowing ra is al ghul would die.  batman kills people.  cmv  #  in dkr batman organizes a mass assault on bane, knowing the police are using guns, and bane is troops are using guns, which leads to a lot of deaths.   #  if batman were to say that he did not kill these people, it would be like a general ordering troops to fire on an enemy, and when that enemy is killed, saying he had nothing to do with it.   #  i will start by saying batman is plan did not necessarily involve ra is al ghul being on the train that is batman did not know ra is would be there.  ra is al ghul also deliberately sabotaged the train is accelerator to keep batman from stopping it prior to it reaching the point where gordon had collapsed the elevated track.  if batman were to say that he did not kill these people, it would be like a general ordering troops to fire on an enemy, and when that enemy is killed, saying he had nothing to do with it.  batman is no kill rule is for himself.  i do not know why you specifically use tdkr as you could argue batman should be actively protesting gordon and the gpd using guns across all the his media when he works with the police.  but ! again, batman is not a self righteous prick about his  personal  code.   #  when the cops fought bane or when gordon blew up the train tower, there were other people in the plot to ensure that batman was not murdering out of petty revenge.   # basically this video makes a perfect point.  batman might think he is not killing people, but he is straight up killing lots of people.  if you knock someone out and they do not wake up in a few minutes, then you have done serious damage and they very well could die.  if you are running around with sharp metal weapons and ninja stars, you are going to kill people.  if you are smashing through walls with rockets and driving through shopping centres on a motorbike you are going to cause some casualties eventually.  in the arkam games batman is frequently seen bashing the heads in of people with a metal pipe.  how is that not killing them ? people in the dc universe are absurdly resilent.  criminals are regularly thrown through windows and walls without any lasting harm.  ordinary civilians and bystanders can jump higher, run faster, and take more punishment than a normal human would be able to.  for instance, batman, an ordinary human at peak physical health, runs faster than usain bolt, regularly lifts more than the human world record, and recovers from injuries faster than should be humanly possible.  the dc human brain is probably more shock resistant than a normal human brain.  if batman were to say that he did not kill these people, it would be like a general ordering troops to fire on an enemy, and when that enemy is killed, saying he had nothing to do with it.  in batman begins, batman had every intention of having gordon blow up the train tower which would cause the train to crash, and every intention of leaving ra is al ghul there to die.  he said he was not killing him, he just was not saving him.  that is just the same as batman pulling the trigger on a gun and saying  i am not killing you, the bullet is .  he made the plan, and executed it, knowing ra is al ghul would die.  you forget the point of batman is no kill rule.  it is not an arbitrary requirement he throws on himself for no reason.  the no kill rule is simply to hold himself back in the absence of public accountability, legal restrictions, or responsible partners robin is a kid.  he does not count .  when the cops fought bane or when gordon blew up the train tower, there were other people in the plot to ensure that batman was not murdering out of petty revenge.  the batman can only kill out of absolute self defense or under the eye of others to prevent himself from being the next two face, rorschach, or ozymandias.   #  batman hatched a plan which would directly result in the death of ra is al ghul.   #  ok well the dc universe argument makes sense.  it is fantasy so in that world the normal laws of physics or biology do not apply.  but on your second point, i still do not agree.  take specifically the train tower situation.  batman told gordon what to do, and fought ra is al ghul in the train, leaving him there to die.  to my mind, batman killed ra is al ghul.  having other people involved does not change that or even change the fact that it could be petty revenge.  if i hire a hitman out of petty revenge, i have still killed the person.  they died because of my plan.  to me in this scenario to say batman did not kill ra is al ghul is like saying that the killer in the saw movies did not kill anyone.  he did.  batman hatched a plan which would directly result in the death of ra is al ghul.  he knew it would.  and then he carried out that plan, killing him.   #  and then he carried out that plan, killing him.   # take specifically the train tower situation.  batman told gordon what to do, and fought ra is al ghul in the train, leaving him there to die.  to my mind, batman killed ra is al ghul.  having other people involved does not change that or even change the fact that it could be petty revenge.  if i hire a hitman out of petty revenge, i have still killed the person.  they died because of my plan.  to me in this scenario to say batman did not kill ra is al ghul is like saying that the killer in the saw movies did not kill anyone.  he did.  batman hatched a plan which would directly result in the death of ra is al ghul.  he knew it would.  and then he carried out that plan, killing him.  the difference is that gordon is an independent person who would have spoken up if he had believed batman was in the wrong.  in contrast, a hitman would not have done a thing if he believed that ra is al ghul did not deserve to die.   no kill  simply means  do not kill people unless you have got a second opinion and can avoid crossing the psychological barrier of direct murder.    #  he definitely kills harvey, and, from any reasonable perspective, kills ra is as well.   #  batman from the dark knight trilogy is pretty terrible.  he definitely kills harvey, and, from any reasonable perspective, kills ra is as well.  to an extent, he also causes talia to die in a car accident.  he also has no qualms about catwoman killing bane.  in summary, nolan bats is a pretty bad example of batman.  the rest of your argument can proceed with the more canonical batmen.
there are more ways to be smart, and more ways to being stupid, then being able to pass in school.  i failed out of university, but there are things that i know a lot about, and am generally considered smart, or at least not totally retarded.  so if you get a girl who is smart in most normal ways, and she gets in a relationship with a guy who abuses her physically/sexually, and people, cops.  drs etc try to help her, and to convince her to leave him.  she refuses and stays with the abuser, i consider them stupid.  it is instinctual to have self preservation, living in a hyper alert, am i about to be beat again ? yes i am, all the time is counter to that, and i think it is stupid to do so.  i love my bf to pieces, we have been together for almost 0 years, if he hits me once, just once, i am gone.  i do not care how bad he feels afterword, what his reasons for, how sorry he is, how he will never do it again, i do not care hit me once and i am gone.  i do have sympathy for woman in these positions, and i understand that it is a difficult, and can be a complex situation.  the abuse is not always obviouse at first, it could start small, and may even seem helpful.  the guy could convince her not to continue education, he wants to take care of her.  the guy convinces her that she acts different around her friends and family, that they are taking advantage of her or whatever, so she starts isolating herself from them, thinking he is trying to help.  next thing you know she has his kids, he is abusing her but if she leaves how is she going to take care of the kids ? there is no easy solution to that.  at all.  but it is also instinctual to protect your children.  but making sure your child stays in a constantly violent environment, even if they are not the ones being hit they are still witnessing violence.  not safe at all.  keeping them in that environment is counter intuitive.  so even tough these woman can be smart in other ways, even though they are not to be blamed for being abused, even though it can be difficult to find a way out, those who do not even try to leave, are in a way stupid.   #  it is instinctual to have self preservation, living in a hyper alert, am i about to be beat again ?  #  yes i am, all the time is counter to that, and i think it is stupid to do so.   # yes i am, all the time is counter to that, and i think it is stupid to do so.  at all.  but it is also instinctual to protect your children.  but making sure your child stays in a constantly violent environment, even if they are not the ones being hit they are still witnessing violence.  not safe at all.  keeping them in that environment is counter intuitive.  you are assuming these intuitions dictate human behavior in a simple way.  if all human behavior were motivated by, and manifested, the desire for self preservation, suicide and depression would not exist.  your assumption here is simply factually wrong.  and even if they were, positing  istupidity  as a possible reason behind human behavior contradicts your own assumption.  if people are motivated by self preservation,  how  can they be stupid ? they should be as smart as possible in protecting their own interests.  in any case we know that some behaviors can be motivated by pathological processes of thought which is not always the reason for abuse so stupidity adds nothing as an explanation.   #  they are willingly allowing their children to under go the emotional abuse that comes with witnessing your mother get beaten, and she is doing this by not doing anything to stop it, or change it.   #  i constantly get depressed to the point where i think about suicide at least 0 times a year, i still have enough sense to know that even if i am lazy, failure at school and to hold down a job for more then 0 months and consider myself useless i am not going to let someone lay their hands on me.  woman are told since they are young, how wrong it is for a man to hit a woman.  they tend to know about shelters and other things that are out there to help them if they wind up in that situation, so it goes beyond an unhealthy state of mind.  if someones neighbor called the cop due to their fights, the cops get there and have to take the woman to the hospital to take care of the damage done to her.  the cops give her info about a shelter and urge her to file charges against the guy, and they refuse, i see that as stupid.  also can you address woman who willingly allow their children to be around this type of violence ? i see that as someone who is also kind of stupid although not in every aspect and also a bad mother.  they are willingly allowing their children to under go the emotional abuse that comes with witnessing your mother get beaten, and she is doing this by not doing anything to stop it, or change it.   #  to maybe have him take out his aggression on them ?  #  when i try to do that, i imagine my boyfriend hitting me.  i love my bf and i know if that happened the first thing i would do is get pissed, and go to my sisters house.  then he would call/text/come over and try to get me back.  i love him, and it would take a hell of a lot of willpower to say no, go away, were over.  it would hurt like hell, and would probably be one of the hardest things i would have to do since he is the guy i want to be with forever, but being with him forever is not worth being his punching bag when he gets angry.  with kids in the picture i can imagine they are thinking they ca not feed and clothe their kids on their own, staying with the abuser at least they are being taken care of.  but there are more important things then just focusing on rather or not the kids have clothe and food, do you think it is safe for your kids to see you being beat ? to maybe have him take out his aggression on them ? people know there are shelters you can go to that can hook you up with programs etc to help you and your kids, but some woman do not even try, and i do not think they are completely stupid, but i also do not consider them smart, and i also consider them bad moms.   #  i also understand that they are victims, but they are going to remain victims until they leave, and after awhile it is hard to maintain sympathy when you get frustrated at their non attempts to leave the situation.   #  i am not saying they are an idiot, i tried to explain in my original post how someone can be  very  intelligent, and yet be stupid about some things.  have you heard the saying,  for someone so smart how could you do something so stupid ?   it is because smart people are prone to being stupid about somethings, this is one of those things.  a woman can be smart, and get in an abusive relationship and stay and i think that is stupid.  they are not an idiot, they just are doing something stupid.  i also understand that they are victims, but they are going to remain victims until they leave, and after awhile it is hard to maintain sympathy when you get frustrated at their non attempts to leave the situation.   #  they are completely innocent of the abuse, they should never have gotten hit, not once, and they need to be helped and made to understand that they did not deserve that treatment and they did nothing to provoke that treatment.   #  no it is not, it is victim blaming if i said they did something or said something to provoke the abuse.  they did not, their psycho bf or husband did something wrong by hitting them.  they are completely innocent of the abuse, they should never have gotten hit, not once, and they need to be helped and made to understand that they did not deserve that treatment and they did nothing to provoke that treatment.  what i am saying is that it is kind of stupid not to leave.  to continue to stay in a situation where you will remain a victim until he ends up killing you is not an intelligent thing to do.
there are more ways to be smart, and more ways to being stupid, then being able to pass in school.  i failed out of university, but there are things that i know a lot about, and am generally considered smart, or at least not totally retarded.  so if you get a girl who is smart in most normal ways, and she gets in a relationship with a guy who abuses her physically/sexually, and people, cops.  drs etc try to help her, and to convince her to leave him.  she refuses and stays with the abuser, i consider them stupid.  it is instinctual to have self preservation, living in a hyper alert, am i about to be beat again ? yes i am, all the time is counter to that, and i think it is stupid to do so.  i love my bf to pieces, we have been together for almost 0 years, if he hits me once, just once, i am gone.  i do not care how bad he feels afterword, what his reasons for, how sorry he is, how he will never do it again, i do not care hit me once and i am gone.  i do have sympathy for woman in these positions, and i understand that it is a difficult, and can be a complex situation.  the abuse is not always obviouse at first, it could start small, and may even seem helpful.  the guy could convince her not to continue education, he wants to take care of her.  the guy convinces her that she acts different around her friends and family, that they are taking advantage of her or whatever, so she starts isolating herself from them, thinking he is trying to help.  next thing you know she has his kids, he is abusing her but if she leaves how is she going to take care of the kids ? there is no easy solution to that.  at all.  but it is also instinctual to protect your children.  but making sure your child stays in a constantly violent environment, even if they are not the ones being hit they are still witnessing violence.  not safe at all.  keeping them in that environment is counter intuitive.  so even tough these woman can be smart in other ways, even though they are not to be blamed for being abused, even though it can be difficult to find a way out, those who do not even try to leave, are in a way stupid.   #  i love my bf to pieces, we have been together for almost 0 years, if he hits me once, just once, i am gone.   #  i do not care how bad he feels afterword, what his reasons for, how sorry he is, how he will never do it again, i do not care hit me once and i am gone.   # i do not care how bad he feels afterword, what his reasons for, how sorry he is, how he will never do it again, i do not care hit me once and i am gone.  that is what the abused women probably said 0 months into the relationship.  the deeper your in, the harder it is to get out.  lastly, some grew up in abusive households.  to them, this is normal to get roughed up a bit.  i would not be surprised if some abused women would be suspicious of an extremely peaceful man who was never angry.  violent relationships with male authority figures is all they know.   #  if someones neighbor called the cop due to their fights, the cops get there and have to take the woman to the hospital to take care of the damage done to her.   #  i constantly get depressed to the point where i think about suicide at least 0 times a year, i still have enough sense to know that even if i am lazy, failure at school and to hold down a job for more then 0 months and consider myself useless i am not going to let someone lay their hands on me.  woman are told since they are young, how wrong it is for a man to hit a woman.  they tend to know about shelters and other things that are out there to help them if they wind up in that situation, so it goes beyond an unhealthy state of mind.  if someones neighbor called the cop due to their fights, the cops get there and have to take the woman to the hospital to take care of the damage done to her.  the cops give her info about a shelter and urge her to file charges against the guy, and they refuse, i see that as stupid.  also can you address woman who willingly allow their children to be around this type of violence ? i see that as someone who is also kind of stupid although not in every aspect and also a bad mother.  they are willingly allowing their children to under go the emotional abuse that comes with witnessing your mother get beaten, and she is doing this by not doing anything to stop it, or change it.   #  when i try to do that, i imagine my boyfriend hitting me.   #  when i try to do that, i imagine my boyfriend hitting me.  i love my bf and i know if that happened the first thing i would do is get pissed, and go to my sisters house.  then he would call/text/come over and try to get me back.  i love him, and it would take a hell of a lot of willpower to say no, go away, were over.  it would hurt like hell, and would probably be one of the hardest things i would have to do since he is the guy i want to be with forever, but being with him forever is not worth being his punching bag when he gets angry.  with kids in the picture i can imagine they are thinking they ca not feed and clothe their kids on their own, staying with the abuser at least they are being taken care of.  but there are more important things then just focusing on rather or not the kids have clothe and food, do you think it is safe for your kids to see you being beat ? to maybe have him take out his aggression on them ? people know there are shelters you can go to that can hook you up with programs etc to help you and your kids, but some woman do not even try, and i do not think they are completely stupid, but i also do not consider them smart, and i also consider them bad moms.   #  a woman can be smart, and get in an abusive relationship and stay and i think that is stupid.   #  i am not saying they are an idiot, i tried to explain in my original post how someone can be  very  intelligent, and yet be stupid about some things.  have you heard the saying,  for someone so smart how could you do something so stupid ?   it is because smart people are prone to being stupid about somethings, this is one of those things.  a woman can be smart, and get in an abusive relationship and stay and i think that is stupid.  they are not an idiot, they just are doing something stupid.  i also understand that they are victims, but they are going to remain victims until they leave, and after awhile it is hard to maintain sympathy when you get frustrated at their non attempts to leave the situation.   #  to continue to stay in a situation where you will remain a victim until he ends up killing you is not an intelligent thing to do.   #  no it is not, it is victim blaming if i said they did something or said something to provoke the abuse.  they did not, their psycho bf or husband did something wrong by hitting them.  they are completely innocent of the abuse, they should never have gotten hit, not once, and they need to be helped and made to understand that they did not deserve that treatment and they did nothing to provoke that treatment.  what i am saying is that it is kind of stupid not to leave.  to continue to stay in a situation where you will remain a victim until he ends up killing you is not an intelligent thing to do.
i am a heterosexual white male, which according to some, makes me incapable of being oppressed.  however, i am partially disabled from a suicide attempt, but do not look it, so i always get looks when i park handicapped.  i have had sex with men, in fact, for a period in my life, i was attracted to men just as much as women, but i consider myself straight.  i am mildly overweight, i am short, 0 0 , things that society is supposed to devalue.  i have not been able to get a job in over a year.  everything after  heterosexual white male  is supposed to make me oppressed, but i do not feel oppressed and i certainly do not feel privileged.  the way we talk about these things is stupid and naive when the issues are enormously complex.  for all the talk of intersectionality among those who study these things, the discussion of how power manifests itself in society seems to be free of any kind nuance or subtlety unless non binary african american folk are critiquing the privilege of white cis hetero normative culture.  for all the talk of social construction of gender, there seems to be a lot of focus on categorizing every single ways one can identify, lgtb has evolved into lgtbqia .  besides being a lot less catchy, i doubt the extended acronym achieves a level of inclusion that everyone is gonna remain happy with.  should not people just say i feel masculine, i feel feminine, i do not understand myself in terms of the gender categories listed above.  it seems like a lot of those who claim they are fight for justice, are more concerned with labeling all aspects of society in terms of oppressed and privileged groups while ignoring all the things that make a person is experience in the world unique.  yes, my life is easier because i am white, i am male, my village is not being shelled by isis, i do not get punched or raped by football players.  but my life is more difficult for lots of reasons too.  why ca not we have a deeper discussion in society about issues of social justice that does not always end in a competition of whose more oppressed by the mythical white male oppressor rapists.  i am not saying, stop blaming whitey, whitey needs to own up to some shit.  i am saying, stop focusing on blaming and labeling, and be humble in asking how we all interact to create patterns of unequal power in society.  i want to elaborate a lot more, but change my view that we can all do a better job about how we talk about these things.   #  everything after  heterosexual white male  is supposed to make me oppressed, but i do not feel oppressed and i certainly do not feel privileged.   #  oppression does not have to manifest itself in major ways.   # nobody thinks that.  you may not be oppressed for your sexual orientation, race, or gender, but you certainly can be oppressed based on able bodiedness, weight, and height.  oppression does not have to manifest itself in major ways.  it can be little things like the looks of judgment you mentioned that you sometimes receive when you park in handicapped spaces.  nobody is telling you that you must feel oppressed or feel privileged either.  those are simply terms referring to the general treatment of particular groups.  two things:   that is simply not true.  there is a bunch of nuanced literature on intersectionality in the relevant fields.  even if you still argue that it is lacking, you ca not deny that people are making an attempt to get better at it, in general.  the concept of intersectionality has only relatively recently received significant focus in sociological circles.  besides being a lot less catchy, i doubt the extended acronym achieves a level of inclusion that everyone is gonna remain happy with.  agreed.  with more realizations as to the extent of variation in the human population, previously simple acronyms have become bloated in an attempt to not exclude people.  that is why there are some advocates for  grsm  or  queer  as a catch all term.  we can i have had many, my friends have had many, classes and organizations on my campus have had many.  very rarely have i encountered this straw sjw that you have set up.   #  i know it is a little off point, but look at how the media treated the duke lacrosse scandal.   #   nobody thinks that.  you may not be oppressed for your sexual orientation, race, or gender, but you certainly can be oppressed based on able bodiedness, weight, and height.   i am saying the oppression privilege model is not adequate in describing the experiences of many people.  people do think these things, it is the essense of all kinds of descrimination to judge a person on one or a few defining traits while ignoring all others.  i do not think it is willfully malicious but maybe intellectual laziness or fears of deeply held beliefs being uprooted.  i know it is a little off point, but look at how the media treated the duke lacrosse scandal.  even after they entire case against the acused fell apart, everyone from jesse jackson to nancy grace not exactly left, i know still tried to find ways to call those students rapists.  people forget about that we they cite things like steubanville as proof of rape culture, a term which is not confined to tumblr and used way too much without strong support for such a powerful claim about society.  i bring these cases up as examples of how the mainstream, not the fringe, seems to want to produce certain narratives of who can be victimized and oppressed, however i do not think we should talk about things in those terms.  one website that exemplifies a lot of problems i have is this: URL to be fair, i do not know how mainstream or fringe other people see it, but the writing fascinates me in how internally consistent it is, and how little relation it has to reality.   #  it stresses the fact that patriarchy is bad for  human beings , not just women.   #  browsing that website, i found articles like 0 lies that distort male sexuality and hurt men URL and how male sexual entitlement hurts everyone URL all in all, i do not think your claims hold much water.  the authors and editors of everyday feminism seem to go out of their way to highlight the negative effects that living in a sexist culture has on men.  and this is typical of third wave feminism in general.  it stresses the fact that patriarchy is bad for  human beings , not just women.  of course, since it is a feminist blog, they do not dwell on the discriminatory problems that you are going through.  that is because it is not a blog about mental illness or disabilities.  it only touches on those issues when they are tangential to feminism.   #  ever seen a black female ceo with an afro ?  # i think you misunderstand the point.  it is not that people openly discuss these things, but there is a problem.  ever seen a black female ceo with an afro ? the article makes a point that some progress has been made since then.  but i do not think you could make a convincing argument that popular media is not somewhat homogenous.  URL   the site kind of embodies the central problem i have with feminism s , the completely legitimate and extremely valuable insights being expressed are so overwhelmed by ridiculous claims with no backing, that i have a hard time finding value as a whole.  ever think that you might be a victim of your own incredulity ?  #  if you broaden the definition of popular media to netflix, much less any other part of the internet, the whole argument just falls apart.   # it is not that people openly discuss these things, but there is a problem.  ever seen a black female ceo with an afro ? no, but that is because of the larger problem of not seeing any black female ceos.  i do not have a large enough sample size.  but i do not think you could make a convincing argument that popular media is not somewhat homogenous.  what count is as popular media and define homogenous.  if popular media is cable television, there are entire channels target to african americans and the lgbt community, if i turn on cnn, i can watch don lemon, a gay, black man,talk to sanjay gupta or candy crowley about how they still have not found mh0.  if you broaden the definition of popular media to netflix, much less any other part of the internet, the whole argument just falls apart.  even fox is not the mad men bastion of male dominance that is claimed.  in addition, when half the country claims it is against abortion, and women have to constantly fight battles to get basic access to safe abortion clinics, yea, i am skeptical about how legitimate that statistic is.  but, it it is true, than great, because hopefully it means that those women are able to safely terminate unwanted pregnancies.  if you want to elaborate, i will try to answer.
i am a heterosexual white male, which according to some, makes me incapable of being oppressed.  however, i am partially disabled from a suicide attempt, but do not look it, so i always get looks when i park handicapped.  i have had sex with men, in fact, for a period in my life, i was attracted to men just as much as women, but i consider myself straight.  i am mildly overweight, i am short, 0 0 , things that society is supposed to devalue.  i have not been able to get a job in over a year.  everything after  heterosexual white male  is supposed to make me oppressed, but i do not feel oppressed and i certainly do not feel privileged.  the way we talk about these things is stupid and naive when the issues are enormously complex.  for all the talk of intersectionality among those who study these things, the discussion of how power manifests itself in society seems to be free of any kind nuance or subtlety unless non binary african american folk are critiquing the privilege of white cis hetero normative culture.  for all the talk of social construction of gender, there seems to be a lot of focus on categorizing every single ways one can identify, lgtb has evolved into lgtbqia .  besides being a lot less catchy, i doubt the extended acronym achieves a level of inclusion that everyone is gonna remain happy with.  should not people just say i feel masculine, i feel feminine, i do not understand myself in terms of the gender categories listed above.  it seems like a lot of those who claim they are fight for justice, are more concerned with labeling all aspects of society in terms of oppressed and privileged groups while ignoring all the things that make a person is experience in the world unique.  yes, my life is easier because i am white, i am male, my village is not being shelled by isis, i do not get punched or raped by football players.  but my life is more difficult for lots of reasons too.  why ca not we have a deeper discussion in society about issues of social justice that does not always end in a competition of whose more oppressed by the mythical white male oppressor rapists.  i am not saying, stop blaming whitey, whitey needs to own up to some shit.  i am saying, stop focusing on blaming and labeling, and be humble in asking how we all interact to create patterns of unequal power in society.  i want to elaborate a lot more, but change my view that we can all do a better job about how we talk about these things.   #  for all the talk of social construction of gender, there seems to be a lot of focus on categorizing every single ways one can identify, lgtb has evolved into lgtbqia .   #  besides being a lot less catchy, i doubt the extended acronym achieves a level of inclusion that everyone is gonna remain happy with.   # nobody thinks that.  you may not be oppressed for your sexual orientation, race, or gender, but you certainly can be oppressed based on able bodiedness, weight, and height.  oppression does not have to manifest itself in major ways.  it can be little things like the looks of judgment you mentioned that you sometimes receive when you park in handicapped spaces.  nobody is telling you that you must feel oppressed or feel privileged either.  those are simply terms referring to the general treatment of particular groups.  two things:   that is simply not true.  there is a bunch of nuanced literature on intersectionality in the relevant fields.  even if you still argue that it is lacking, you ca not deny that people are making an attempt to get better at it, in general.  the concept of intersectionality has only relatively recently received significant focus in sociological circles.  besides being a lot less catchy, i doubt the extended acronym achieves a level of inclusion that everyone is gonna remain happy with.  agreed.  with more realizations as to the extent of variation in the human population, previously simple acronyms have become bloated in an attempt to not exclude people.  that is why there are some advocates for  grsm  or  queer  as a catch all term.  we can i have had many, my friends have had many, classes and organizations on my campus have had many.  very rarely have i encountered this straw sjw that you have set up.   #  i bring these cases up as examples of how the mainstream, not the fringe, seems to want to produce certain narratives of who can be victimized and oppressed, however i do not think we should talk about things in those terms.   #   nobody thinks that.  you may not be oppressed for your sexual orientation, race, or gender, but you certainly can be oppressed based on able bodiedness, weight, and height.   i am saying the oppression privilege model is not adequate in describing the experiences of many people.  people do think these things, it is the essense of all kinds of descrimination to judge a person on one or a few defining traits while ignoring all others.  i do not think it is willfully malicious but maybe intellectual laziness or fears of deeply held beliefs being uprooted.  i know it is a little off point, but look at how the media treated the duke lacrosse scandal.  even after they entire case against the acused fell apart, everyone from jesse jackson to nancy grace not exactly left, i know still tried to find ways to call those students rapists.  people forget about that we they cite things like steubanville as proof of rape culture, a term which is not confined to tumblr and used way too much without strong support for such a powerful claim about society.  i bring these cases up as examples of how the mainstream, not the fringe, seems to want to produce certain narratives of who can be victimized and oppressed, however i do not think we should talk about things in those terms.  one website that exemplifies a lot of problems i have is this: URL to be fair, i do not know how mainstream or fringe other people see it, but the writing fascinates me in how internally consistent it is, and how little relation it has to reality.   #  it stresses the fact that patriarchy is bad for  human beings , not just women.   #  browsing that website, i found articles like 0 lies that distort male sexuality and hurt men URL and how male sexual entitlement hurts everyone URL all in all, i do not think your claims hold much water.  the authors and editors of everyday feminism seem to go out of their way to highlight the negative effects that living in a sexist culture has on men.  and this is typical of third wave feminism in general.  it stresses the fact that patriarchy is bad for  human beings , not just women.  of course, since it is a feminist blog, they do not dwell on the discriminatory problems that you are going through.  that is because it is not a blog about mental illness or disabilities.  it only touches on those issues when they are tangential to feminism.   #  it is not that people openly discuss these things, but there is a problem.   # i think you misunderstand the point.  it is not that people openly discuss these things, but there is a problem.  ever seen a black female ceo with an afro ? the article makes a point that some progress has been made since then.  but i do not think you could make a convincing argument that popular media is not somewhat homogenous.  URL   the site kind of embodies the central problem i have with feminism s , the completely legitimate and extremely valuable insights being expressed are so overwhelmed by ridiculous claims with no backing, that i have a hard time finding value as a whole.  ever think that you might be a victim of your own incredulity ?  #  no, but that is because of the larger problem of not seeing any black female ceos.   # it is not that people openly discuss these things, but there is a problem.  ever seen a black female ceo with an afro ? no, but that is because of the larger problem of not seeing any black female ceos.  i do not have a large enough sample size.  but i do not think you could make a convincing argument that popular media is not somewhat homogenous.  what count is as popular media and define homogenous.  if popular media is cable television, there are entire channels target to african americans and the lgbt community, if i turn on cnn, i can watch don lemon, a gay, black man,talk to sanjay gupta or candy crowley about how they still have not found mh0.  if you broaden the definition of popular media to netflix, much less any other part of the internet, the whole argument just falls apart.  even fox is not the mad men bastion of male dominance that is claimed.  in addition, when half the country claims it is against abortion, and women have to constantly fight battles to get basic access to safe abortion clinics, yea, i am skeptical about how legitimate that statistic is.  but, it it is true, than great, because hopefully it means that those women are able to safely terminate unwanted pregnancies.  if you want to elaborate, i will try to answer.
i am a heterosexual white male, which according to some, makes me incapable of being oppressed.  however, i am partially disabled from a suicide attempt, but do not look it, so i always get looks when i park handicapped.  i have had sex with men, in fact, for a period in my life, i was attracted to men just as much as women, but i consider myself straight.  i am mildly overweight, i am short, 0 0 , things that society is supposed to devalue.  i have not been able to get a job in over a year.  everything after  heterosexual white male  is supposed to make me oppressed, but i do not feel oppressed and i certainly do not feel privileged.  the way we talk about these things is stupid and naive when the issues are enormously complex.  for all the talk of intersectionality among those who study these things, the discussion of how power manifests itself in society seems to be free of any kind nuance or subtlety unless non binary african american folk are critiquing the privilege of white cis hetero normative culture.  for all the talk of social construction of gender, there seems to be a lot of focus on categorizing every single ways one can identify, lgtb has evolved into lgtbqia .  besides being a lot less catchy, i doubt the extended acronym achieves a level of inclusion that everyone is gonna remain happy with.  should not people just say i feel masculine, i feel feminine, i do not understand myself in terms of the gender categories listed above.  it seems like a lot of those who claim they are fight for justice, are more concerned with labeling all aspects of society in terms of oppressed and privileged groups while ignoring all the things that make a person is experience in the world unique.  yes, my life is easier because i am white, i am male, my village is not being shelled by isis, i do not get punched or raped by football players.  but my life is more difficult for lots of reasons too.  why ca not we have a deeper discussion in society about issues of social justice that does not always end in a competition of whose more oppressed by the mythical white male oppressor rapists.  i am not saying, stop blaming whitey, whitey needs to own up to some shit.  i am saying, stop focusing on blaming and labeling, and be humble in asking how we all interact to create patterns of unequal power in society.  i want to elaborate a lot more, but change my view that we can all do a better job about how we talk about these things.   #  why ca not we have a deeper discussion in society about issues of social justice that does not always end in a competition of whose more oppressed by the mythical white male oppressor rapists.   #  we can i have had many, my friends have had many, classes and organizations on my campus have had many.   # nobody thinks that.  you may not be oppressed for your sexual orientation, race, or gender, but you certainly can be oppressed based on able bodiedness, weight, and height.  oppression does not have to manifest itself in major ways.  it can be little things like the looks of judgment you mentioned that you sometimes receive when you park in handicapped spaces.  nobody is telling you that you must feel oppressed or feel privileged either.  those are simply terms referring to the general treatment of particular groups.  two things:   that is simply not true.  there is a bunch of nuanced literature on intersectionality in the relevant fields.  even if you still argue that it is lacking, you ca not deny that people are making an attempt to get better at it, in general.  the concept of intersectionality has only relatively recently received significant focus in sociological circles.  besides being a lot less catchy, i doubt the extended acronym achieves a level of inclusion that everyone is gonna remain happy with.  agreed.  with more realizations as to the extent of variation in the human population, previously simple acronyms have become bloated in an attempt to not exclude people.  that is why there are some advocates for  grsm  or  queer  as a catch all term.  we can i have had many, my friends have had many, classes and organizations on my campus have had many.  very rarely have i encountered this straw sjw that you have set up.   #  i know it is a little off point, but look at how the media treated the duke lacrosse scandal.   #   nobody thinks that.  you may not be oppressed for your sexual orientation, race, or gender, but you certainly can be oppressed based on able bodiedness, weight, and height.   i am saying the oppression privilege model is not adequate in describing the experiences of many people.  people do think these things, it is the essense of all kinds of descrimination to judge a person on one or a few defining traits while ignoring all others.  i do not think it is willfully malicious but maybe intellectual laziness or fears of deeply held beliefs being uprooted.  i know it is a little off point, but look at how the media treated the duke lacrosse scandal.  even after they entire case against the acused fell apart, everyone from jesse jackson to nancy grace not exactly left, i know still tried to find ways to call those students rapists.  people forget about that we they cite things like steubanville as proof of rape culture, a term which is not confined to tumblr and used way too much without strong support for such a powerful claim about society.  i bring these cases up as examples of how the mainstream, not the fringe, seems to want to produce certain narratives of who can be victimized and oppressed, however i do not think we should talk about things in those terms.  one website that exemplifies a lot of problems i have is this: URL to be fair, i do not know how mainstream or fringe other people see it, but the writing fascinates me in how internally consistent it is, and how little relation it has to reality.   #  it only touches on those issues when they are tangential to feminism.   #  browsing that website, i found articles like 0 lies that distort male sexuality and hurt men URL and how male sexual entitlement hurts everyone URL all in all, i do not think your claims hold much water.  the authors and editors of everyday feminism seem to go out of their way to highlight the negative effects that living in a sexist culture has on men.  and this is typical of third wave feminism in general.  it stresses the fact that patriarchy is bad for  human beings , not just women.  of course, since it is a feminist blog, they do not dwell on the discriminatory problems that you are going through.  that is because it is not a blog about mental illness or disabilities.  it only touches on those issues when they are tangential to feminism.   #  it is not that people openly discuss these things, but there is a problem.   # i think you misunderstand the point.  it is not that people openly discuss these things, but there is a problem.  ever seen a black female ceo with an afro ? the article makes a point that some progress has been made since then.  but i do not think you could make a convincing argument that popular media is not somewhat homogenous.  URL   the site kind of embodies the central problem i have with feminism s , the completely legitimate and extremely valuable insights being expressed are so overwhelmed by ridiculous claims with no backing, that i have a hard time finding value as a whole.  ever think that you might be a victim of your own incredulity ?  #  even fox is not the mad men bastion of male dominance that is claimed.   # it is not that people openly discuss these things, but there is a problem.  ever seen a black female ceo with an afro ? no, but that is because of the larger problem of not seeing any black female ceos.  i do not have a large enough sample size.  but i do not think you could make a convincing argument that popular media is not somewhat homogenous.  what count is as popular media and define homogenous.  if popular media is cable television, there are entire channels target to african americans and the lgbt community, if i turn on cnn, i can watch don lemon, a gay, black man,talk to sanjay gupta or candy crowley about how they still have not found mh0.  if you broaden the definition of popular media to netflix, much less any other part of the internet, the whole argument just falls apart.  even fox is not the mad men bastion of male dominance that is claimed.  in addition, when half the country claims it is against abortion, and women have to constantly fight battles to get basic access to safe abortion clinics, yea, i am skeptical about how legitimate that statistic is.  but, it it is true, than great, because hopefully it means that those women are able to safely terminate unwanted pregnancies.  if you want to elaborate, i will try to answer.
i am a heterosexual white male, which according to some, makes me incapable of being oppressed.  however, i am partially disabled from a suicide attempt, but do not look it, so i always get looks when i park handicapped.  i have had sex with men, in fact, for a period in my life, i was attracted to men just as much as women, but i consider myself straight.  i am mildly overweight, i am short, 0 0 , things that society is supposed to devalue.  i have not been able to get a job in over a year.  everything after  heterosexual white male  is supposed to make me oppressed, but i do not feel oppressed and i certainly do not feel privileged.  the way we talk about these things is stupid and naive when the issues are enormously complex.  for all the talk of intersectionality among those who study these things, the discussion of how power manifests itself in society seems to be free of any kind nuance or subtlety unless non binary african american folk are critiquing the privilege of white cis hetero normative culture.  for all the talk of social construction of gender, there seems to be a lot of focus on categorizing every single ways one can identify, lgtb has evolved into lgtbqia .  besides being a lot less catchy, i doubt the extended acronym achieves a level of inclusion that everyone is gonna remain happy with.  should not people just say i feel masculine, i feel feminine, i do not understand myself in terms of the gender categories listed above.  it seems like a lot of those who claim they are fight for justice, are more concerned with labeling all aspects of society in terms of oppressed and privileged groups while ignoring all the things that make a person is experience in the world unique.  yes, my life is easier because i am white, i am male, my village is not being shelled by isis, i do not get punched or raped by football players.  but my life is more difficult for lots of reasons too.  why ca not we have a deeper discussion in society about issues of social justice that does not always end in a competition of whose more oppressed by the mythical white male oppressor rapists.  i am not saying, stop blaming whitey, whitey needs to own up to some shit.  i am saying, stop focusing on blaming and labeling, and be humble in asking how we all interact to create patterns of unequal power in society.  i want to elaborate a lot more, but change my view that we can all do a better job about how we talk about these things.   #  i am a heterosexual white male, which according to some, makes me incapable of being oppressed.   #  society is definitely not going to oppress you for your heterosexuality which your post does not actually say you have, though, you sound bisexual and you can totally be oppressed for that, eg giving blood , whiteness, or maleness, yeah.   # society is definitely not going to oppress you for your heterosexuality which your post does not actually say you have, though, you sound bisexual and you can totally be oppressed for that, eg giving blood , whiteness, or maleness, yeah.  but do not worry feminists and other liberals have got you covered with the concept of the kyriarchy URL which describes how oppression forms heirarchies, and can target people for a large variety of reasons.  for instance, if you are a worker, you are lower on the kyriarchy than a business owner, all else being equal, because workers are oppressed.  so basically,   i am saying, stop focusing on blaming and labeling, and be humble in asking how we all interact to create patterns of unequal power in society.  the left already does this.  you are having trouble dealing with a  strawman  of the left.   #  oppression does not have to manifest itself in major ways.   # nobody thinks that.  you may not be oppressed for your sexual orientation, race, or gender, but you certainly can be oppressed based on able bodiedness, weight, and height.  oppression does not have to manifest itself in major ways.  it can be little things like the looks of judgment you mentioned that you sometimes receive when you park in handicapped spaces.  nobody is telling you that you must feel oppressed or feel privileged either.  those are simply terms referring to the general treatment of particular groups.  two things:   that is simply not true.  there is a bunch of nuanced literature on intersectionality in the relevant fields.  even if you still argue that it is lacking, you ca not deny that people are making an attempt to get better at it, in general.  the concept of intersectionality has only relatively recently received significant focus in sociological circles.  besides being a lot less catchy, i doubt the extended acronym achieves a level of inclusion that everyone is gonna remain happy with.  agreed.  with more realizations as to the extent of variation in the human population, previously simple acronyms have become bloated in an attempt to not exclude people.  that is why there are some advocates for  grsm  or  queer  as a catch all term.  we can i have had many, my friends have had many, classes and organizations on my campus have had many.  very rarely have i encountered this straw sjw that you have set up.   #  people forget about that we they cite things like steubanville as proof of rape culture, a term which is not confined to tumblr and used way too much without strong support for such a powerful claim about society.   #   nobody thinks that.  you may not be oppressed for your sexual orientation, race, or gender, but you certainly can be oppressed based on able bodiedness, weight, and height.   i am saying the oppression privilege model is not adequate in describing the experiences of many people.  people do think these things, it is the essense of all kinds of descrimination to judge a person on one or a few defining traits while ignoring all others.  i do not think it is willfully malicious but maybe intellectual laziness or fears of deeply held beliefs being uprooted.  i know it is a little off point, but look at how the media treated the duke lacrosse scandal.  even after they entire case against the acused fell apart, everyone from jesse jackson to nancy grace not exactly left, i know still tried to find ways to call those students rapists.  people forget about that we they cite things like steubanville as proof of rape culture, a term which is not confined to tumblr and used way too much without strong support for such a powerful claim about society.  i bring these cases up as examples of how the mainstream, not the fringe, seems to want to produce certain narratives of who can be victimized and oppressed, however i do not think we should talk about things in those terms.  one website that exemplifies a lot of problems i have is this: URL to be fair, i do not know how mainstream or fringe other people see it, but the writing fascinates me in how internally consistent it is, and how little relation it has to reality.   #  it stresses the fact that patriarchy is bad for  human beings , not just women.   #  browsing that website, i found articles like 0 lies that distort male sexuality and hurt men URL and how male sexual entitlement hurts everyone URL all in all, i do not think your claims hold much water.  the authors and editors of everyday feminism seem to go out of their way to highlight the negative effects that living in a sexist culture has on men.  and this is typical of third wave feminism in general.  it stresses the fact that patriarchy is bad for  human beings , not just women.  of course, since it is a feminist blog, they do not dwell on the discriminatory problems that you are going through.  that is because it is not a blog about mental illness or disabilities.  it only touches on those issues when they are tangential to feminism.   #  ever seen a black female ceo with an afro ?  # i think you misunderstand the point.  it is not that people openly discuss these things, but there is a problem.  ever seen a black female ceo with an afro ? the article makes a point that some progress has been made since then.  but i do not think you could make a convincing argument that popular media is not somewhat homogenous.  URL   the site kind of embodies the central problem i have with feminism s , the completely legitimate and extremely valuable insights being expressed are so overwhelmed by ridiculous claims with no backing, that i have a hard time finding value as a whole.  ever think that you might be a victim of your own incredulity ?
i should note that this post is not meant as a criticism of the batman mythos; although the character is not my absolute favorite, i prefer batman to pretty much any other dc comics hero.  in most of the cannon batman works i. e.  excluding the frank miller portrayal of the character in the  the dark knight returns ,  the dark knight strikes again , and the  all star batman and robin  series , the character manages to maintain a brooding, dark personality without loosing his fundamental moral code a feat that later comic book writers would fail to properly capture when writing similar anti heroes .  although many of his abilities are not realistic, he has clear, finite limitations and remains a mortal man on a superhero team that is almost exclusively populated by those possessed of god like powers.  however, despite all of this, batman displays a  total package  of physical capabilities that no human being should be capable of utilizing, no matter how  well trained  they might be.  in the comics, batman has been regularly observed lifting objects in excess of 0lbs also, he casually mentions that his maximum leg press weight is 0 lbs in batman odyssey 0 .  in batman 0, he bench pressed 0 pounds as a part of his workout routine which is technically possible, although not for someone of his frame/build .  his punches are occasionally depicted as strong enough to send opponents hurtling through brick walls, and his kicks are capable of knocking down reinforced steel doors.  his agility, speed, and reflexes are also especially suspect.  he can dodge bullets even bullets from submachine guns, sniper rifles, and gatling guns , arrows, grenades, and energy blasts/beams at almost any range.  he can snatch guns from multiple shooters without giving them enough time to react or pull the trigger, and he is apparently fast enough to run the distance of a rooftop and make a 0  foot jump to rescue an older woman from being hit by a truck.  personally, i do not feel that batman is quasi superhuman abilities cheapen the story in any way, but i still think that it is grossly inaccurate for the character is fanbase to insist that he  has no powers.   batman is better than even the greatest olympic sprinters, gymnasts, and weightlifters, and on top of all this, he has genius level iq/impeccable detective skills and a broad mastery of several dozen martial arts forms.  it is possible for one person to be exceptionally gifted in one or even two areas, but it is extremely unlikely that someone with the speed of usain bolt would also have the raw strength of paul anderson.  different body types are adapted for exhibiting specific physical talents, and the traits that make someone good at running would probably make them terrible at deadlifting; extreme level agility, stamina, speed, strength, fighting skills, and intelligence are not really qualities that tend to coexist in a singular individual.  in summary, batman is simply  too good  at too many things to be considered a  powerless  hero, and some of the things he is particularly skilled at i. e.  dodging bullets should not be thought of as humanly possible in the first place.   #  also, he casually mentions that his maximum leg press weight is 0 lbs in batman odyssey 0 .   #  in batman 0, he bench pressed 0 pounds as a part of his workout routine which is technically possible, although not for someone of his frame/build humans in the real world have done similar feats.   # in batman 0, he bench pressed 0 pounds as a part of his workout routine which is technically possible, although not for someone of his frame/build humans in the real world have done similar feats.  ronnie coleman has done 0,0 lb leg presses.  the world record bench press is over 0,0 lb.  but the more important thing is that  peak human  in the dc universe means more than in our universe.  humans, in general, are much stronger, faster, etc.  than those in the real world.  when they say  peak human,  they mean  peak dc human,  not  peak real world human.    #  the  because he is batman  clause is a plot device used to explain why batman can do superhuman things and is used to allow the plot to advance.   # this is due to having different writers.  also, these are comics that we are talking about.  reading a comic involves allowing suspension of disbelief URL to play a factor in your reading.  batman is the hero in this case.  he is mortal and would be easily killed by getting hit with the omega beam.  since you ca not reasonably kill off the hero the writer invokes the  because he is batman  clause  and allows him to dodge the beam.  the  because he is batman  clause is a plot device used to explain why batman can do superhuman things and is used to allow the plot to advance.  eg.   how did batman dodge darkseid is omega beam ?    because he is the god damn batman, that is how !    #  or, we could talk about plastic man, the atom, doctor fate, or any number of other heroes that are equally implausible.   #  superman is a whole different ballgame.  i actually do not really like superman in most cases because some of the things they pull writing his stories are just too much, even allowing leeway for suspension of disbelief.  in a comic book context, batman is much more believable than superman.  besides, i wrote my comment in the context of batman.  if we are going to include the entire dc universe, we could talk about shazam/captain marvel and how ridiculous it is that a kid turns into a hero that can use magic, fly, and is nearly indestructible.  or, we could talk about plastic man, the atom, doctor fate, or any number of other heroes that are equally implausible.  comics are not meant to be like real life.  they are stories that take place in a fictional universe where everything is larger than life.  in the context of the dc universe, heroes like batman and green arrow are much more believable than the majority of the other characters.   #  having no exposure to the dc universe, i picked it up last week and enjoyed it.   #  having no exposure to the dc universe, i picked it up last week and enjoyed it.  i never liked dc specifically because their flagship hero, superman, was broken from the get go.  he is too obscenely powerful, just, and corny all at the same time.  those aspects were so deeply woven into the dc mythos that they could not easily be changed once comics  grew up  and started getting away from the puritanical culture from which they formed.  injustice completely threw superman out.  he finally was a bit more interesting; not on his own, but in how his former allies both godly and humanly had to start dealing with this change.  it has flaws, but i enjoyed it as much as some marvel stuff i remember fondly.   #  i think that evens the scales a bit.   #  i think that this is a good way to account for some of his abilities.  batman would absolutely take advantage of the best medical science to increase his strength, stamina, and speed.  someone mentioned that batman is better than the best olympic athletes, which may be true.  however, what if those athletes had access to the full range of drugs that batman does, and what if their athleticism was almost always used in dangerous situations, allowing the use of adrenaline and extreme willpower ? i think that evens the scales a bit.  i am not entirely convinced by this point though.  there needs to be something else to back this up.
i believe that the current state of welfare benefits in this country is weakening this nation.  do not get me wrong, i think there should be a safety net provided by the government for emergencies i. e.  you can only receive benefits for 0 months or some other limited time period with certain terms and conditions .  currently, i see our welfare system as a slap in the face to survival of the fittest.  by fighting natural selection, we are breeding weak people in this country and incentivizing people to be lazy.  i say all of this as someone who has been on foodstamps, but for a limited time.  i think that if people really ca not get out of welfare and ca not function on their own without the government providing for them, they should be left to fail.  eventually, i see us being overpopulated by people who ca not fend for themselves or do anything productive for society, with a very small minority of this country having to produce everything to keep these people alive.   #  i think that if people really ca not get out of welfare and ca not function on their own without the government providing for them, they should be left to fail.   #  what do you suppose will happen to these people ?  # what do you suppose will happen to these people ? do you suppose that they will just quietly toddle off to some convenient corner to die ? perhaps they go off to failureland so they wo not be a problem for the rest of us ? here is the problem with your desire: people will not usually take starving to death lying down.  most of them will get themselves something to eat, especially if they have children to feed.  they will get it from your house if necessary.  they will take your money on the street if necessary.  they will beg in front of your children is school if necessary.  the more there are the more miserable your life will be.  put them in jail you say ? well that will cost you about 0k/year.  that of course does not include court costs and police costs to get them put in prison and protect your home and body.  it turns out that welfare is cheaper and helps to keep misery down to tolerable levels including your misery.  welfare is part of the price you pay for an orderly society, a society in which you can get about your business without stumbling over a bum.   #  benefits come with conditions attached job search, attendance at classes intended to help you job search, and time spent working in a job without additional pay for government or a charitable organization.   #  that pretty much is the existing us welfare system.  the sort of change you want already happened.  it is hard to get benefits if you are not disabled, elderly or supporting a child.  there is a focus on benefits that are directed to a particular purpose such as subsidized rent or food rather than general purpose cash benefits.  benefits are much more often supplemental to employment at a low wage job rather than something that is provided instead of employment.  benefits come with conditions attached job search, attendance at classes intended to help you job search, and time spent working in a job without additional pay for government or a charitable organization.  much of this has been counterproductive, creating situations in which people gain little for attempting to work more URL  #   currently, i see our welfare system as a slap in the face to survival of the fittest.   #   currently, i see our welfare system as a slap in the face to survival of the fittest.  by fighting natural selection, we are breeding weak people in this country and incentivizing people to be lazy.    what does survival of the fittest have to do with how we implement government programs ? natural selection is a mechanism that drives evolution and has nothing to do with economics.  you appear to be massively distorting social darwinism with biological evolution.  the current welfare system is a result of the reforms made in 0.  states receive lump sums of money to distribute but must adhere to regulations which includes provisions mandating programs that encourage the move into work and away from public assistance.  so you are incorrect in claiming welfare incentivized laziness.  in an economy that is most capitalist the fact is that while some will find success others will fail.  you can blame the individual but the fact is that not everyone can always profit.  we have safety nets because as a society we are better off with less poverty, less homelessness.  by providing assistance to those who need it we reduce the likeliness of them resorting to crime to survive.  as someone who has been on food stamps you surely must understand the need some people have for assistance and if you got off why would you think others ca not ? no welfare program allows people to remain receiving assistance indefinitely.   #  if we could have a small section of society doing most of the necessary work, presumably the people who most want to, that would be fantastic.   #  this seems extremely hypocritical.  if you were in the shoes of the less fortunate and you even say you have been ! you would not want to be treated as though your life did not matter.  every conscious being capable of suffering deserves moral consideration.  the downsides of consigning hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people to death, hunger, and/or other suffering would far outweigh whatever upsides you imagine come about from a more productive population if this eugenics program even produces a more productive population .  you are seeking more productivity where we do not even need it; we currently have the productivity, technological capacity, etc, to take care of every man, woman, and child on earth, if we simply adjusted the direction of our goals more effectively towards human well being.  and the ultimate goal should actually be a society in which we have less menial work to do; one in which much of the population has more time for art, philosophy, etc.  if we could have a small section of society doing most of the necessary work, presumably the people who most want to, that would be fantastic.  if that seems  unfair , i suppose it proves that fairness simply is not preferable in all situations.   #  but decent paying jobs for the  not so talented  have dried up due to outsourcing, automation, etc.   # by fighting natural selection, we are breeding weak people in this country and incentivizing people to be lazy.  but decent paying jobs for the  not so talented  have dried up due to outsourcing, automation, etc.  and the replacement jobs basically pay welfare rates.  a generation ago, the high school drop out could raise a family on a local factory job.  that factory is gone. the answer  he should go to college and get educated  is just silly. too many chiefs, not enough indians is why the college degree is dropping in value let alone the marginal utility of many majors college is a very poor trade school for most .  they ca not all be high flying business executives. some of them have to be secretaries, phone salesmen, technicians, etc.  lastly, the welfare scheme is aimed at families with kids. as a young man you generally get zero dollars from the state until you have a dependent.  i have idiot welfare queen relatives with multiple kids by multiple fathers.  i am 0 sure if she was denied welfare one day, she would be homless or leeching off family. some people are unfortunately unemployable for all but manual labor type work. which has dried up considerably or been taken over by cheap immigrant labor.  it would be interesting to see what would happen if welfare was severely restricted but there wo not be an explosion of work simply because the manual labor jobs arent there to take them.
i believe that the current state of welfare benefits in this country is weakening this nation.  do not get me wrong, i think there should be a safety net provided by the government for emergencies i. e.  you can only receive benefits for 0 months or some other limited time period with certain terms and conditions .  currently, i see our welfare system as a slap in the face to survival of the fittest.  by fighting natural selection, we are breeding weak people in this country and incentivizing people to be lazy.  i say all of this as someone who has been on foodstamps, but for a limited time.  i think that if people really ca not get out of welfare and ca not function on their own without the government providing for them, they should be left to fail.  eventually, i see us being overpopulated by people who ca not fend for themselves or do anything productive for society, with a very small minority of this country having to produce everything to keep these people alive.   #  currently, i see our welfare system as a slap in the face to survival of the fittest.   #  by fighting natural selection, we are breeding weak people in this country and incentivizing people to be lazy.   # by fighting natural selection, we are breeding weak people in this country and incentivizing people to be lazy.  but decent paying jobs for the  not so talented  have dried up due to outsourcing, automation, etc.  and the replacement jobs basically pay welfare rates.  a generation ago, the high school drop out could raise a family on a local factory job.  that factory is gone. the answer  he should go to college and get educated  is just silly. too many chiefs, not enough indians is why the college degree is dropping in value let alone the marginal utility of many majors college is a very poor trade school for most .  they ca not all be high flying business executives. some of them have to be secretaries, phone salesmen, technicians, etc.  lastly, the welfare scheme is aimed at families with kids. as a young man you generally get zero dollars from the state until you have a dependent.  i have idiot welfare queen relatives with multiple kids by multiple fathers.  i am 0 sure if she was denied welfare one day, she would be homless or leeching off family. some people are unfortunately unemployable for all but manual labor type work. which has dried up considerably or been taken over by cheap immigrant labor.  it would be interesting to see what would happen if welfare was severely restricted but there wo not be an explosion of work simply because the manual labor jobs arent there to take them.   #  there is a focus on benefits that are directed to a particular purpose such as subsidized rent or food rather than general purpose cash benefits.   #  that pretty much is the existing us welfare system.  the sort of change you want already happened.  it is hard to get benefits if you are not disabled, elderly or supporting a child.  there is a focus on benefits that are directed to a particular purpose such as subsidized rent or food rather than general purpose cash benefits.  benefits are much more often supplemental to employment at a low wage job rather than something that is provided instead of employment.  benefits come with conditions attached job search, attendance at classes intended to help you job search, and time spent working in a job without additional pay for government or a charitable organization.  much of this has been counterproductive, creating situations in which people gain little for attempting to work more URL  #  we have safety nets because as a society we are better off with less poverty, less homelessness.   #   currently, i see our welfare system as a slap in the face to survival of the fittest.  by fighting natural selection, we are breeding weak people in this country and incentivizing people to be lazy.    what does survival of the fittest have to do with how we implement government programs ? natural selection is a mechanism that drives evolution and has nothing to do with economics.  you appear to be massively distorting social darwinism with biological evolution.  the current welfare system is a result of the reforms made in 0.  states receive lump sums of money to distribute but must adhere to regulations which includes provisions mandating programs that encourage the move into work and away from public assistance.  so you are incorrect in claiming welfare incentivized laziness.  in an economy that is most capitalist the fact is that while some will find success others will fail.  you can blame the individual but the fact is that not everyone can always profit.  we have safety nets because as a society we are better off with less poverty, less homelessness.  by providing assistance to those who need it we reduce the likeliness of them resorting to crime to survive.  as someone who has been on food stamps you surely must understand the need some people have for assistance and if you got off why would you think others ca not ? no welfare program allows people to remain receiving assistance indefinitely.   #  every conscious being capable of suffering deserves moral consideration.   #  this seems extremely hypocritical.  if you were in the shoes of the less fortunate and you even say you have been ! you would not want to be treated as though your life did not matter.  every conscious being capable of suffering deserves moral consideration.  the downsides of consigning hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people to death, hunger, and/or other suffering would far outweigh whatever upsides you imagine come about from a more productive population if this eugenics program even produces a more productive population .  you are seeking more productivity where we do not even need it; we currently have the productivity, technological capacity, etc, to take care of every man, woman, and child on earth, if we simply adjusted the direction of our goals more effectively towards human well being.  and the ultimate goal should actually be a society in which we have less menial work to do; one in which much of the population has more time for art, philosophy, etc.  if we could have a small section of society doing most of the necessary work, presumably the people who most want to, that would be fantastic.  if that seems  unfair , i suppose it proves that fairness simply is not preferable in all situations.   #  they will beg in front of your children is school if necessary.   # what do you suppose will happen to these people ? do you suppose that they will just quietly toddle off to some convenient corner to die ? perhaps they go off to failureland so they wo not be a problem for the rest of us ? here is the problem with your desire: people will not usually take starving to death lying down.  most of them will get themselves something to eat, especially if they have children to feed.  they will get it from your house if necessary.  they will take your money on the street if necessary.  they will beg in front of your children is school if necessary.  the more there are the more miserable your life will be.  put them in jail you say ? well that will cost you about 0k/year.  that of course does not include court costs and police costs to get them put in prison and protect your home and body.  it turns out that welfare is cheaper and helps to keep misery down to tolerable levels including your misery.  welfare is part of the price you pay for an orderly society, a society in which you can get about your business without stumbling over a bum.
there has been a previous post addressing this issue, but it was more based around the search engines themselves than what i am concerned with.  i do not believe that we as people can choose how we are remembered in life, so the internet should be no different.  simply, i think that if the information cannot be deleted from the minds of our friends and colleagues, then it should not be hidden by search engines.  provided that the information displayed about you is correct and not slanderous, i ca not see why it must be taken down, even if it paints you in an unfavourable light.  i am interested in hearing any counterarguments, please cmv.   #  simply, i think that if the information cannot be deleted from the minds of our friends and colleagues, then it should not be hidden by search engines.   #  i think this is where we are having some friction between definitions; not everyone wants or endeavors to have  every  friend and  every  colleague know  everything  that goes on in their life.   # i think this is where we are having some friction between definitions; not everyone wants or endeavors to have  every  friend and  every  colleague know  everything  that goes on in their life.  allow me to illuminate.  let is say that i work for a prestigious bank.  everything i do regarding the bank, i do with a suit, and i do with a smile, and i work as an absolute professional.  now let is say that i do something in my spare time that is legal but likely embarrassing if revealed to members of that social circle.  maybe on the weekends and after work i do work for bronycon or something, i do not know.  my point is: i should be able to control, to some degree, who knows about what parts of my life.  i think that if you really believe that we do not have that right, you should install a webcam and let the entirety of the internet watch you eat, sleep, and have sex whenever they want, because that is the logical extreme.  having control over who knows what about us to the best of our ability is a basic human right that we never even thought about spelling out because up until search engines, nobody ever thought about a way that you could infringe that right.   #  this hypothetical has more or less happened to real people.   #  but with friends and family your mistakes usually are forgotten.  or at least buried under all the recent stuff.  in real life if i got drunk one time and make a fool of myself it might make me a laughing stock for a few weeks.  then after some time other things happen and people move on.  they might reminisce about that embarrassing night every so often but it is not the first thing everyone thinks about when they think of me online though it is different.  if there is a video of me being drunk and dumb it might be the top hit in google.  it does not matter that i have gotten published and written books and won awards.  the top hit and most popular is still my drunk ass being embarrassing ten years ago.  prospective employers see this as the top hit and do not hire me.  i get fewer job interviews and offers than i otherwise would and when i do land a job it is for less money.  my career is negatively impacted for the rest of my life because of one dumb mistake i made that everyone in my real life has forgotten or gotten over.  but online it still defines me so yes i think i have a right to be forgotten online.  this hypothetical has more or less happened to real people.  actions should have consequences but they should be proportional to the action.  a drunken incident at 0 should give employers pause about trusting that 0 year old.  but if that is the only thing that is negative for the 0 year old i do not think it should still be the first impression.   #  but why must we force employers to do this by using the right to be forgotten laws ?  #  why must we force employers what to think ? smart employers will realize that you, at 0, have grown as a person and you are no longer that 0 year old.  smart employers will forgive you and overlook your embarrassing video.  but why must we force employers to do this by using the right to be forgotten laws ? why ca not we just let employers do what they will ?  #  my employer however always seems to hire pretty awesome people who i love to work with.   #  this is patently false.  i am pretty well liked at work and considered one of the top employees of my department.  guess what i got when i was 0 ? yep, an ovi ohios word for dui .  i had to disclose this in the application and discuss it in my interview but it was not my first impression.  they had to look at my resume and app before finding out about the crime.  and in the interview they talked to me and got to know me before asking about the crime.  had they been the type to just find any flaw to eliminate a candidate i would not have a job.  too many employers are finding any key word to eliminate candidates these days and i doubt it is helping.  i am always hearing stories of offices where there is shit people.  my employer however always seems to hire pretty awesome people who i love to work with.  maybe it is because they rely on getting to know a person and finding out if they are a cultural fit rather than making assumptions based on limited evidence and first impressions when they asked me about my crime i explained that i was young and made a dumb mistake.  i took responsibility for my actions and paid my debt to society.  i learned a lesson and do not do anything so reckless anymore.  you might think the person who never made a mistake is the better hire but my employer knew that when i make a mistake i take responsibility, take corrective action, and do so with dignity and a cool head.  those are vital skills for any workforce and far more valuable than the over protected kid who is gonna fall apart at the first setback because they do not know how to handle mistakes.  life experience, even negative life experience, does not necessarily make someone a bad hire.  sometimes it makes them a great one.  you just have to interviews them and find out.   #  just because someone is past is not very rosy, does not mean that they have a right to hide from view whatever they want.   #  that is a fair point, and you can draw parallels between that kind of lifestyle and being smart online reading terms and conditions before uploading anything, etc.  .  URL this is the article that i was thinking of when posting this.  i, obviously, do not want the internet to know everything i do 0/0, and would not argue that my public information is everyone is right.  however, in cases like this man, where the information is available redly to the public the auction i do not see why it is his legal right to have it taken down, given that it is not false or slanderous.  just because someone is past is not very rosy, does not mean that they have a right to hide from view whatever they want.
first, a disclaimer i am not a muscle head nor do i subscribe to any specific fitness regimen.  i train both weight training as well as mid distance running for overall fitness improvement.  in my experience, most of the people that i see at the gym are not power lifters, but more likely general fitness advocates.  weight lifting gloves and straps are typically used to protect the hands and artificially augment your grip strength.  i do not use either with my understanding being that i do not want to overdevelop my muscles beyond my hands ability to handle the weight i am moving.  i do not see a benefit in being able to lift more weight than my hands will support.  the only exceptions that i can see is for gloves, when the user is trying to prevent callouses from forming.  i typically see this with female lifters, but i could see where some male lifters may have a similar need.  i believe that this is a minority of lifters who do free weights and even then i am not sure i understand why they would want to wear gloves instead of using a padded machine.  change my view so i can understand why this is a good idea.   #  i do not see a benefit in being able to lift more weight than my hands will support.   #  for many, the point of weightlifting is to tone and grow their muscles.   # for many, the point of weightlifting is to tone and grow their muscles.  weightlifting gloves allows them to focus more on their larger muscles, and not on their hands and wrists giving out.  lifting on machines is not the same as lifting free weights.  many people would still rather lift free weights to tone their bodies.  they just wear gloves so they can increase their grip and wrist strength.   #  i lift the same amount whether i wear my gloves or not sometimes i forget them .   #  i have not really noticed the frequency of glove use in my gym.  i just noticed my hands slipping and thought that would help.  i generally sweat a lot when i exercise and that includes my hands.  i tried using chalk but did not really like it since i needed to reapply rather often.  this was a permanent and easy solution to the problem.  i am a female as well.  maybe we just have sweatier hands ? but yeah.  i do not use it to be able to lift more than i could without them.  i just do not want to drop shit.  i lift the same amount whether i wear my gloves or not sometimes i forget them .  it is just less of a hassle this way.   #  do you see the benefit in a delivery man wearing a back brace ?  # do you see the benefit in a delivery man wearing a back brace ? as a long term preventative measure ? why should weight lifting be more dangerous in the long term than professional occupations preforming similar functions ? do you wear shoes when you run ? will you not concede that gloves   shoes fullfill similar functions ? are you somehow less accomplished because you wore shoes for that winning race ? of course not.  the assertion that straps   gloves are preformance enhancers but your own use of similar technology is not, is. a red herring.  we have been augmenting our body with various clothes  since at least the last ice age.   #  it is not a red herring as it is the topic at hand, where a red herring is an off topic reference meant to take the conversation away from the topic at hand.   #  delivery people must lift a random amount of weight over an eight hour period in order to make money.  i do not see the relationship in wearing injury prevention devices as part of a job.  shoes are a closer point, but the intention is to prevent wear and tear for hours of contact with random surfaces.  this seems much different than what most people are doing at the gym.  additionally, people wear shoes in almost all aspects of their life, which means that their feet are not accustomed to surface contact.  the same cannot be said for hands, which most people leave unprotected in almost all aspects of their life.  as a side note, i did inventory in a warehouse environment over the last two weeks which entailed moving wire, wood and metal repetitively for 0 hours.  i wore gloves as the products that i was moving were dangerous and injury was a definite risk.  those same risks are not present at the gym.  my argument is not against protective equipment in general, but in a specific use case.  it is not a red herring as it is the topic at hand, where a red herring is an off topic reference meant to take the conversation away from the topic at hand.  this would be similar to arguing that killing in a time of war is the same as murder, which ignores the situational element of the argument.   #  you have basically got these people dedicated to  bettering themselves  who wear protective gear when not competing. and your dumping all over their desire not to hurt themselves.   # blisters ? the boyscout in my  knows  you have not experienced a true,  he may not be able to hike himself out of here  blister.  work gloves for someone using a shovel is really really similar to gloves for someone gripping a weight bar 0 hours a week.  the shipping clerk in me knows that 0 weeks is not enough to understand repetitive stress injuries, either.  most  newbs  at  anything  have that caviler attitude, from safety glassess to seat belts, unill they see someone hurt.  you have basically got these people dedicated to  bettering themselves  who wear protective gear when not competing. and your dumping all over their desire not to hurt themselves.  theres  no denying that these things are a means to an end preserving your body while you develop muscle mass.  if people wanted to be  pure  or  natural  they ed just get a labor job or live out in the woods.  but they are in a gym.  which is as divorced from  real  as can be.  so they wear these things that help protect themselves.  you do not lift.  you do not have any specific experience with labor.  but somehow  your  shoes are okay but  their  gloves ar not ? garbage.
first, a disclaimer i am not a muscle head nor do i subscribe to any specific fitness regimen.  i train both weight training as well as mid distance running for overall fitness improvement.  in my experience, most of the people that i see at the gym are not power lifters, but more likely general fitness advocates.  weight lifting gloves and straps are typically used to protect the hands and artificially augment your grip strength.  i do not use either with my understanding being that i do not want to overdevelop my muscles beyond my hands ability to handle the weight i am moving.  i do not see a benefit in being able to lift more weight than my hands will support.  the only exceptions that i can see is for gloves, when the user is trying to prevent callouses from forming.  i typically see this with female lifters, but i could see where some male lifters may have a similar need.  i believe that this is a minority of lifters who do free weights and even then i am not sure i understand why they would want to wear gloves instead of using a padded machine.  change my view so i can understand why this is a good idea.   #  i am not sure i understand why they would want to wear gloves instead of using a padded machine.   #  lifting on machines is not the same as lifting free weights.   # for many, the point of weightlifting is to tone and grow their muscles.  weightlifting gloves allows them to focus more on their larger muscles, and not on their hands and wrists giving out.  lifting on machines is not the same as lifting free weights.  many people would still rather lift free weights to tone their bodies.  they just wear gloves so they can increase their grip and wrist strength.   #  i tried using chalk but did not really like it since i needed to reapply rather often.   #  i have not really noticed the frequency of glove use in my gym.  i just noticed my hands slipping and thought that would help.  i generally sweat a lot when i exercise and that includes my hands.  i tried using chalk but did not really like it since i needed to reapply rather often.  this was a permanent and easy solution to the problem.  i am a female as well.  maybe we just have sweatier hands ? but yeah.  i do not use it to be able to lift more than i could without them.  i just do not want to drop shit.  i lift the same amount whether i wear my gloves or not sometimes i forget them .  it is just less of a hassle this way.   #  we have been augmenting our body with various clothes  since at least the last ice age.   # do you see the benefit in a delivery man wearing a back brace ? as a long term preventative measure ? why should weight lifting be more dangerous in the long term than professional occupations preforming similar functions ? do you wear shoes when you run ? will you not concede that gloves   shoes fullfill similar functions ? are you somehow less accomplished because you wore shoes for that winning race ? of course not.  the assertion that straps   gloves are preformance enhancers but your own use of similar technology is not, is. a red herring.  we have been augmenting our body with various clothes  since at least the last ice age.   #  this would be similar to arguing that killing in a time of war is the same as murder, which ignores the situational element of the argument.   #  delivery people must lift a random amount of weight over an eight hour period in order to make money.  i do not see the relationship in wearing injury prevention devices as part of a job.  shoes are a closer point, but the intention is to prevent wear and tear for hours of contact with random surfaces.  this seems much different than what most people are doing at the gym.  additionally, people wear shoes in almost all aspects of their life, which means that their feet are not accustomed to surface contact.  the same cannot be said for hands, which most people leave unprotected in almost all aspects of their life.  as a side note, i did inventory in a warehouse environment over the last two weeks which entailed moving wire, wood and metal repetitively for 0 hours.  i wore gloves as the products that i was moving were dangerous and injury was a definite risk.  those same risks are not present at the gym.  my argument is not against protective equipment in general, but in a specific use case.  it is not a red herring as it is the topic at hand, where a red herring is an off topic reference meant to take the conversation away from the topic at hand.  this would be similar to arguing that killing in a time of war is the same as murder, which ignores the situational element of the argument.   #  work gloves for someone using a shovel is really really similar to gloves for someone gripping a weight bar 0 hours a week.   # blisters ? the boyscout in my  knows  you have not experienced a true,  he may not be able to hike himself out of here  blister.  work gloves for someone using a shovel is really really similar to gloves for someone gripping a weight bar 0 hours a week.  the shipping clerk in me knows that 0 weeks is not enough to understand repetitive stress injuries, either.  most  newbs  at  anything  have that caviler attitude, from safety glassess to seat belts, unill they see someone hurt.  you have basically got these people dedicated to  bettering themselves  who wear protective gear when not competing. and your dumping all over their desire not to hurt themselves.  theres  no denying that these things are a means to an end preserving your body while you develop muscle mass.  if people wanted to be  pure  or  natural  they ed just get a labor job or live out in the woods.  but they are in a gym.  which is as divorced from  real  as can be.  so they wear these things that help protect themselves.  you do not lift.  you do not have any specific experience with labor.  but somehow  your  shoes are okay but  their  gloves ar not ? garbage.
first, a disclaimer i am not a muscle head nor do i subscribe to any specific fitness regimen.  i train both weight training as well as mid distance running for overall fitness improvement.  in my experience, most of the people that i see at the gym are not power lifters, but more likely general fitness advocates.  weight lifting gloves and straps are typically used to protect the hands and artificially augment your grip strength.  i do not use either with my understanding being that i do not want to overdevelop my muscles beyond my hands ability to handle the weight i am moving.  i do not see a benefit in being able to lift more weight than my hands will support.  the only exceptions that i can see is for gloves, when the user is trying to prevent callouses from forming.  i typically see this with female lifters, but i could see where some male lifters may have a similar need.  i believe that this is a minority of lifters who do free weights and even then i am not sure i understand why they would want to wear gloves instead of using a padded machine.  change my view so i can understand why this is a good idea.   #  i do not see a benefit in being able to lift more weight than my hands will support.   #  do you see the benefit in a delivery man wearing a back brace ?  # do you see the benefit in a delivery man wearing a back brace ? as a long term preventative measure ? why should weight lifting be more dangerous in the long term than professional occupations preforming similar functions ? do you wear shoes when you run ? will you not concede that gloves   shoes fullfill similar functions ? are you somehow less accomplished because you wore shoes for that winning race ? of course not.  the assertion that straps   gloves are preformance enhancers but your own use of similar technology is not, is. a red herring.  we have been augmenting our body with various clothes  since at least the last ice age.   #  many people would still rather lift free weights to tone their bodies.   # for many, the point of weightlifting is to tone and grow their muscles.  weightlifting gloves allows them to focus more on their larger muscles, and not on their hands and wrists giving out.  lifting on machines is not the same as lifting free weights.  many people would still rather lift free weights to tone their bodies.  they just wear gloves so they can increase their grip and wrist strength.   #  i tried using chalk but did not really like it since i needed to reapply rather often.   #  i have not really noticed the frequency of glove use in my gym.  i just noticed my hands slipping and thought that would help.  i generally sweat a lot when i exercise and that includes my hands.  i tried using chalk but did not really like it since i needed to reapply rather often.  this was a permanent and easy solution to the problem.  i am a female as well.  maybe we just have sweatier hands ? but yeah.  i do not use it to be able to lift more than i could without them.  i just do not want to drop shit.  i lift the same amount whether i wear my gloves or not sometimes i forget them .  it is just less of a hassle this way.   #  the same cannot be said for hands, which most people leave unprotected in almost all aspects of their life.   #  delivery people must lift a random amount of weight over an eight hour period in order to make money.  i do not see the relationship in wearing injury prevention devices as part of a job.  shoes are a closer point, but the intention is to prevent wear and tear for hours of contact with random surfaces.  this seems much different than what most people are doing at the gym.  additionally, people wear shoes in almost all aspects of their life, which means that their feet are not accustomed to surface contact.  the same cannot be said for hands, which most people leave unprotected in almost all aspects of their life.  as a side note, i did inventory in a warehouse environment over the last two weeks which entailed moving wire, wood and metal repetitively for 0 hours.  i wore gloves as the products that i was moving were dangerous and injury was a definite risk.  those same risks are not present at the gym.  my argument is not against protective equipment in general, but in a specific use case.  it is not a red herring as it is the topic at hand, where a red herring is an off topic reference meant to take the conversation away from the topic at hand.  this would be similar to arguing that killing in a time of war is the same as murder, which ignores the situational element of the argument.   #  theres  no denying that these things are a means to an end preserving your body while you develop muscle mass.   # blisters ? the boyscout in my  knows  you have not experienced a true,  he may not be able to hike himself out of here  blister.  work gloves for someone using a shovel is really really similar to gloves for someone gripping a weight bar 0 hours a week.  the shipping clerk in me knows that 0 weeks is not enough to understand repetitive stress injuries, either.  most  newbs  at  anything  have that caviler attitude, from safety glassess to seat belts, unill they see someone hurt.  you have basically got these people dedicated to  bettering themselves  who wear protective gear when not competing. and your dumping all over their desire not to hurt themselves.  theres  no denying that these things are a means to an end preserving your body while you develop muscle mass.  if people wanted to be  pure  or  natural  they ed just get a labor job or live out in the woods.  but they are in a gym.  which is as divorced from  real  as can be.  so they wear these things that help protect themselves.  you do not lift.  you do not have any specific experience with labor.  but somehow  your  shoes are okay but  their  gloves ar not ? garbage.
i am, of course, referring to this experiment: URL the first marshmallow costs nothing, the second marshmallow costs 0 minutes.  i think anyone who does not take the free marshmallow immediately and spend the following 0 minutes doing something other than waiting for another marshmallow is a sucker.  this is especially true because 0 minutes is an eternity for a child.  i remember counting to 0 as a young boy, it seemed to take forever.  as my perception of time has sped up, i still would not wait 0 minutes for a single marshmallow.  frankly, i would ask my mom to buy me a whole bag of marshmallows the next time we were at the store, instead of waiting for a scientist to come back with a single marshmallow.  i could then proceed to eat single marshmallows at my leisure, without any waiting involved.  the fact children were willing to wait 0 minutes for a pretzel astounds me.  maybe these people grow up to actually enjoy the act of delaying gratification ? if the feeling of getting a reward for sitting there for 0 minutes is more than the marshmallow itself for these people, i guess they are not suckers.   #  maybe these people grow up to actually enjoy the act of delaying gratification ?  #  if the feeling of getting a reward for sitting there for 0 minutes is more than the marshmallow itself for these people, i guess they are not suckers.   # if the feeling of getting a reward for sitting there for 0 minutes is more than the marshmallow itself for these people, i guess they are not suckers.  they tracked the kids after the study and found that the ones that delayed gratification were much more competent and well developed URL other studies have shown that the ability to delay gratification leads to higher sat scores.  i would say that the ability to delay gratification was probably a vital trait for survival in hard times for our evolutionary ancestors.  if you have to ration food through the winter, the ones that have self control and can resist eating the food all at once are more likely to live through the winter and reproduce.  especially since the majority of the kids chose delayed gratification, it stands to reason that they are not  suckers , they are following their evolutionary instincts to maximize available resources.   #  i think a marshmallow after 0 minutes is worth it if i am given an indefinite waiting period and choose to wait in the first place.   #  i did not realize the waiting period was indefinite.  i think a child who trusts the researcher will return in a timely manner, timely enough to make the second marshmallow worth it, is going to wait.  i still do not think 0 minutes is worth a double reward in the first place, but the child is not told how much time they will have to wait they make a gamble.  if they trust the experimenter in the first place, i can see the merit in waiting anyway after 0 minutes because they committed to waiting in the first place.  for this, i award you a  .  i think a marshmallow after 0 minutes is worth it if i am given an indefinite waiting period and choose to wait in the first place.  gambling is fun, too, which makes the delayed gratification more exciting than the instant gratification.  after 0 minutes, i am still committed to waiting, i would have been wasting time if i gave up.   #  because this experiment involves a pretzel and a marshmallow, rather than 0 identical objects, i think that experiment is less relevant.   #  i did not realize the waiting period was indefinite for the child, but that would make me think the experiment tested trust as much as ability to delay gratification.  the paper states that the children could  terminate the waiting period,  would not this mean they were free to leave after ringing the bell ? if they need to wait for the experiment to conclude, anyway, i wish the paper was more specific about this.  regardless, the child is decision to end the waiting period would lead to the next  stage  of the activity, because they child is not told if more activities involving treats or the ability to leave are going to be the next stage.  because this experiment involves a pretzel and a marshmallow, rather than 0 identical objects, i think that experiment is less relevant.  i think a kid who chooses to wait may like marshmallows much more than pretzels or vice versa .  i think a doubled reward for waiting, instead of a different, more desirable reward, would produce more consistent results with different children.  i do not think all children will be entertained by the toy or thinking happy thoughts equally, either.  i am not sure what i would have done as a child, but today i would rather play with my own toys and think happy thoughts at my leisure, instead of being told to.  the gamble that the researcher might come back soon is far more intriguing than an anticipated 0 minute wait, though.  in that case, i would probably give up after half an hour.   #  if you have the good thing now you do not get anything better than the kid who waits, in fact the thing you get is lesser.   #  it sounds like the experiment was not about being bored for fifteen minutes but being willing to wait longer for a better reward.  either way the kid would be in the room for the same amount of time.  it is not like the marshmallow kid got toys while the kid who waited got nothing.  the experiment seems to hinge on the idea of instant gratification.  would you rather have something good now or something great later.  if you have the good thing now you do not get anything better than the kid who waits, in fact the thing you get is lesser.  it is just that you got instant gratification and did not have to wait.  you would not necessarily be bored while waiting you just would not have the satisfaction of the thing you were waiting for until the time s up.   #  no strings attached, but you have nothing to do.   #  that is not how the experiment is presented to the child.  the option is not  wait for 0 minutes and get a marshmallow  or  leave now with one marshmallow .  the option is  get a marshmallow, but wait and you get two .  notice the lack of focus on leaving.  in this way, the cost is presented as the waiting for eating.  the child is not pressed to think about the cost of the time incurred: they are pressed to think about the other marshmallow.  also, most children do not get marshmallows at leisure.  parents often restrict access to sugary foods, so the marshmallow is a rare and coveted treat, not simply another snack.  if you want to compare the value, you need to scale accordingly for what the child values vs what you value as an adult.  a single marshmallow   the ratio of your current body size to when you were six is a lot bigger, for one thing.  for example, wait for 0 hours and you can get $0, or you can leave with $0.  no strings attached, but you have nothing to do.  no phone, no internet, no magazines.  would you do it ?
i am, of course, referring to this experiment: URL the first marshmallow costs nothing, the second marshmallow costs 0 minutes.  i think anyone who does not take the free marshmallow immediately and spend the following 0 minutes doing something other than waiting for another marshmallow is a sucker.  this is especially true because 0 minutes is an eternity for a child.  i remember counting to 0 as a young boy, it seemed to take forever.  as my perception of time has sped up, i still would not wait 0 minutes for a single marshmallow.  frankly, i would ask my mom to buy me a whole bag of marshmallows the next time we were at the store, instead of waiting for a scientist to come back with a single marshmallow.  i could then proceed to eat single marshmallows at my leisure, without any waiting involved.  the fact children were willing to wait 0 minutes for a pretzel astounds me.  maybe these people grow up to actually enjoy the act of delaying gratification ? if the feeling of getting a reward for sitting there for 0 minutes is more than the marshmallow itself for these people, i guess they are not suckers.   #  this is especially true because 0 minutes is an eternity for a child.   #  i remember counting to 0 as a young boy, it seemed to take forever.   #  it seems you are making a couple assumptions here.  one big one is that the child is able to understand the value of 0 minutes.  these kids were 0 0 years old, not even in the concrete operational stage of development yet, so its unlikely that they were weighing the pros and cons of waiting 0 minutes for a marshmallow, or judging whether or not the marshmallow was  worth  0 minutes of their time.  i put worth in quotes, because, since children of this age are hardly able to think abstractly, it is unlikely that they are putting an actual value on their time.  besides, even if they could, their decisions on what to do have a heavy parental influence, so the  worth  of their time could have highly variable value.  i remember counting to 0 as a young boy, it seemed to take forever.  as my perception of time has sped up, i still would not wait 0 minutes for a single marshmallow.  that is not very scientific, is it ? here is some food for thought though.  one of the current theories for the phenomenon you mention according to my past neuropsychology classes is based on our processing of information.  as we are experiencing life, we gain new experiences and store these in memory.  the brain likes new experiences, and puts more focus and attention to these events, and as a result, encoding for these events is particularly strong.  as we age, more of the memories are similar to previous ones e. g.  going to work every day, doing nothing remarkable, and coming back home , so we spend less energy encoding the information, the memory is less vivid, and we feel that time was taking less time to pass we are effectively on autopilot when doing a lot of these things.  i know that was a bad explanation, but let me use an example: a morning commute.  one commutes to work using the same path each day.  after a while, the brain stops processing the information that has not changed the road is the same, the path is the same, stop lights are at the same place, and the rules of driving have not changed.  when one gets to work, the memory for most of the detail on that drive has already vanished, and it would seem like the drive did not take as much time as it actually did.  this effect is increased as time passes, since the memory becomes less distinct nothing is changing, so the brain does not care and the drive seems like it took no time at all.  the theory states that, for children, almost everything is new, so it is recalled in more detail and, when looking back on one is memory, it seemed to take a long time.  take the counting to 0.  how often did you do that as a child ? i would wager not more than a handful.  they were novel experiences, counting to such a large number.  your brain makes you think that was important, you recall more detail and it is percieved as longer.  in this scenario, the 0 minutes is a pretty static 0 minutes, so we cannot really say that the 0 minutes, is percieved as a long time.  i would wager the opposite, but i do not have more solid evidence to back that up.  that last point is interesting, however.  maybe look it up some more, or see if someone is interested in researching it.   #  i think a marshmallow after 0 minutes is worth it if i am given an indefinite waiting period and choose to wait in the first place.   #  i did not realize the waiting period was indefinite.  i think a child who trusts the researcher will return in a timely manner, timely enough to make the second marshmallow worth it, is going to wait.  i still do not think 0 minutes is worth a double reward in the first place, but the child is not told how much time they will have to wait they make a gamble.  if they trust the experimenter in the first place, i can see the merit in waiting anyway after 0 minutes because they committed to waiting in the first place.  for this, i award you a  .  i think a marshmallow after 0 minutes is worth it if i am given an indefinite waiting period and choose to wait in the first place.  gambling is fun, too, which makes the delayed gratification more exciting than the instant gratification.  after 0 minutes, i am still committed to waiting, i would have been wasting time if i gave up.   #  the paper states that the children could  terminate the waiting period,  would not this mean they were free to leave after ringing the bell ?  #  i did not realize the waiting period was indefinite for the child, but that would make me think the experiment tested trust as much as ability to delay gratification.  the paper states that the children could  terminate the waiting period,  would not this mean they were free to leave after ringing the bell ? if they need to wait for the experiment to conclude, anyway, i wish the paper was more specific about this.  regardless, the child is decision to end the waiting period would lead to the next  stage  of the activity, because they child is not told if more activities involving treats or the ability to leave are going to be the next stage.  because this experiment involves a pretzel and a marshmallow, rather than 0 identical objects, i think that experiment is less relevant.  i think a kid who chooses to wait may like marshmallows much more than pretzels or vice versa .  i think a doubled reward for waiting, instead of a different, more desirable reward, would produce more consistent results with different children.  i do not think all children will be entertained by the toy or thinking happy thoughts equally, either.  i am not sure what i would have done as a child, but today i would rather play with my own toys and think happy thoughts at my leisure, instead of being told to.  the gamble that the researcher might come back soon is far more intriguing than an anticipated 0 minute wait, though.  in that case, i would probably give up after half an hour.   #  the experiment seems to hinge on the idea of instant gratification.   #  it sounds like the experiment was not about being bored for fifteen minutes but being willing to wait longer for a better reward.  either way the kid would be in the room for the same amount of time.  it is not like the marshmallow kid got toys while the kid who waited got nothing.  the experiment seems to hinge on the idea of instant gratification.  would you rather have something good now or something great later.  if you have the good thing now you do not get anything better than the kid who waits, in fact the thing you get is lesser.  it is just that you got instant gratification and did not have to wait.  you would not necessarily be bored while waiting you just would not have the satisfaction of the thing you were waiting for until the time s up.   #  the child is not pressed to think about the cost of the time incurred: they are pressed to think about the other marshmallow.   #  that is not how the experiment is presented to the child.  the option is not  wait for 0 minutes and get a marshmallow  or  leave now with one marshmallow .  the option is  get a marshmallow, but wait and you get two .  notice the lack of focus on leaving.  in this way, the cost is presented as the waiting for eating.  the child is not pressed to think about the cost of the time incurred: they are pressed to think about the other marshmallow.  also, most children do not get marshmallows at leisure.  parents often restrict access to sugary foods, so the marshmallow is a rare and coveted treat, not simply another snack.  if you want to compare the value, you need to scale accordingly for what the child values vs what you value as an adult.  a single marshmallow   the ratio of your current body size to when you were six is a lot bigger, for one thing.  for example, wait for 0 hours and you can get $0, or you can leave with $0.  no strings attached, but you have nothing to do.  no phone, no internet, no magazines.  would you do it ?
for example, a lot of people buy gopros because they see the cool ads, but then once they have one, they do not bother with learning how to make the most of the camera.  there are hundreds of thousands of terrible gopro videos on youtube from people who do not frame their shots properly and use shitty uninformed encoding do not tell me 0 fps and heavy banding is  good enough  .  what a waste of money.  they could have just gotten a similar sized action camera and a $0 mount for half cost, and gotten the same result.  this applies to other products as well.  people will buy dslrs and just shoot in auto.  they could have gotten 0 of the quality they needed just by using their iphone.  ffs do not buy a dslr just to take snapshots.  i know people who buy an alienware gaming laptop and  never  do anything on it other than write papers and use chrome.  these students could have gotten a chromebook and spent the other $0 on their books/tuition.  imo these people are wasting their money, and exemplary of wasteful consumerism.  really, buying expensive professional/prosumer gear for simple tasks is a sign of personal lack of responsibility.  please cmv.   #  people will buy dslrs and just shoot in auto.   #  they could have gotten 0 of the quality they needed just by using their iphone.   #  i think one of the features you are missing out on is quality.  most of the time if you invest in a better piece of equipment you also get the added benefit of added quality and perhaps better support from the company.  also, it might be worth more to invest in a better piece of equipment up front that you might not use the features on now, but might find use for later.  case in point of the gopro.  sure you can buy a cheap knockoff cam off amazon for half the price, but the quality of gopros afaik is pretty much unrivaled in durability.  you also get support from a fairly high end company.  they could have gotten 0 of the quality they needed just by using their iphone.  ffs do not buy a dslr just to take snapshots.  i ca not really agree with this, since you are going to end up with a better picture from the dslr than you would from any smartphone camera even if you are just using it in a point and shoot capacity.  you also get some often used features like zoom, better scene settings, and better flash.  you do not really have to wander beyond auto and scene to get the advantages over an iphone.  these students could have gotten a chromebook and spent the other $0 on their books/tuition.  as a personal opinion at least i think that chromebooks are really, really underpowered for most people who only want a single machine.  as soon as you need to do any sort of work, store things locally or do not have access to the internet you are kinda screwed.  does that mean they need an alienware ? probably not.  really, buying expensive professional/prosumer gear for simple tasks is a sign of personal lack of responsibility.  i kinda agree to a point, in that people do overpurchase things.  however many times spending a little more money on a bit nicer piece of equipment gives you a higher quality, more flexible piece of equipment and offers the possibility of actually utilizing those features down the road since they are readily available.  the guy who bought the gopro might actually use some of the features, the guy who bought the dslr gets better pics and with a few minutes with the manual can be more flexible with shots, and the guy who got the alienware can get into gaming or more demanding tasks.   #  and honestly, if you are a professional photographer/videographer, you should be  happy  about that because that is job security for you !  # my first question is: how do you know they  never  do anything on it other than those things ? it could be that they do not do them around you, or you have not seen them do that.  it could be that they  used  to do that.  the same could be said of basically any professional tool.  i want to float a concept to you here: maybe people do not want to buy a fancy camera and then go sit in a lecture about photography or videography, no matter how much you or i think they should; it is possible that they want to  learn by doing  and you are seeing their baby attempts.  and honestly, if you are a professional photographer/videographer, you should be  happy  about that because that is job security for you ! going with the gopro example: they could get another camera; but the gopro is known for its durability from what i understand: maybe they are spending the extra on quality not because they want to push every piece of equipment to its absolute limit, but because they want something that will do simple everyday tasks and not worry about it breaking in the next 0 years.   you get what you pay for  really stands out, and buying a more expensive camera is likely to last you a lot longer than buying a cheaper model my first and only digital camera lasted maybe 0 months before becoming completely unusable no matter if you are using it to take professional photos or just simple snapshots.   #  since i saw many good videos done with gopro, i just buy a gopro with no second though, because i know it will do the job.   #  let is say i am millionaire.  i have a busy every day schedule with little free time.  i finally have a week off coming up soon, i am going on a ski trip and want to take some videos to share with friends: i have 0 minutes to buy the camera.  since i saw many good videos done with gopro, i just buy a gopro with no second though, because i know it will do the job.  i do not really have time to do extensive research on alternatives, and risk buying some thing that will not work at all.  besides, my time spent working is more valuable than doing camera research, so save a few bucks.  why would you have a low opinion of me ?  #  also, just because s/he ca not do research on a camera does not mean he does not have time.   #  s/he is taking a ski trip to share wtih friends.  i would not say that is  not living life .  also, just because s/he ca not do research on a camera does not mean he does not have time.  he might rather spend time with friends or family, or planning other details of the trip, than spend time researching cameras.  if you are at a foodcourt and want to buy lunch, do you need to look at restaurant reviews to decide which option is the best for you ? probably not, because that decision is not that important for you.  this person happens to make enough money where a go pro camera is not a big decision for him/her.   #  life is not about money, you should spend your time living, not agonizing over how to save ten bucks.   #  i personally have a low opinion of people who do not buy trendy read extensive clothes, food, and toys.  who cares if there is something cheaper that more exactly matches your needs.  you should spend time using your consumer goods not researching which one to use.  i bet op is one of those people that has all the cheapest shit and lives in a box.  life is not about money, you should spend your time living, not agonizing over how to save ten bucks.
for example, a lot of people buy gopros because they see the cool ads, but then once they have one, they do not bother with learning how to make the most of the camera.  there are hundreds of thousands of terrible gopro videos on youtube from people who do not frame their shots properly and use shitty uninformed encoding do not tell me 0 fps and heavy banding is  good enough  .  what a waste of money.  they could have just gotten a similar sized action camera and a $0 mount for half cost, and gotten the same result.  this applies to other products as well.  people will buy dslrs and just shoot in auto.  they could have gotten 0 of the quality they needed just by using their iphone.  ffs do not buy a dslr just to take snapshots.  i know people who buy an alienware gaming laptop and  never  do anything on it other than write papers and use chrome.  these students could have gotten a chromebook and spent the other $0 on their books/tuition.  imo these people are wasting their money, and exemplary of wasteful consumerism.  really, buying expensive professional/prosumer gear for simple tasks is a sign of personal lack of responsibility.  please cmv.   #  imo these people are wasting their money, and exemplary of wasteful consumerism.   #  really, buying expensive professional/prosumer gear for simple tasks is a sign of personal lack of responsibility.   #  i think one of the features you are missing out on is quality.  most of the time if you invest in a better piece of equipment you also get the added benefit of added quality and perhaps better support from the company.  also, it might be worth more to invest in a better piece of equipment up front that you might not use the features on now, but might find use for later.  case in point of the gopro.  sure you can buy a cheap knockoff cam off amazon for half the price, but the quality of gopros afaik is pretty much unrivaled in durability.  you also get support from a fairly high end company.  they could have gotten 0 of the quality they needed just by using their iphone.  ffs do not buy a dslr just to take snapshots.  i ca not really agree with this, since you are going to end up with a better picture from the dslr than you would from any smartphone camera even if you are just using it in a point and shoot capacity.  you also get some often used features like zoom, better scene settings, and better flash.  you do not really have to wander beyond auto and scene to get the advantages over an iphone.  these students could have gotten a chromebook and spent the other $0 on their books/tuition.  as a personal opinion at least i think that chromebooks are really, really underpowered for most people who only want a single machine.  as soon as you need to do any sort of work, store things locally or do not have access to the internet you are kinda screwed.  does that mean they need an alienware ? probably not.  really, buying expensive professional/prosumer gear for simple tasks is a sign of personal lack of responsibility.  i kinda agree to a point, in that people do overpurchase things.  however many times spending a little more money on a bit nicer piece of equipment gives you a higher quality, more flexible piece of equipment and offers the possibility of actually utilizing those features down the road since they are readily available.  the guy who bought the gopro might actually use some of the features, the guy who bought the dslr gets better pics and with a few minutes with the manual can be more flexible with shots, and the guy who got the alienware can get into gaming or more demanding tasks.   #  the same could be said of basically any professional tool.   # my first question is: how do you know they  never  do anything on it other than those things ? it could be that they do not do them around you, or you have not seen them do that.  it could be that they  used  to do that.  the same could be said of basically any professional tool.  i want to float a concept to you here: maybe people do not want to buy a fancy camera and then go sit in a lecture about photography or videography, no matter how much you or i think they should; it is possible that they want to  learn by doing  and you are seeing their baby attempts.  and honestly, if you are a professional photographer/videographer, you should be  happy  about that because that is job security for you ! going with the gopro example: they could get another camera; but the gopro is known for its durability from what i understand: maybe they are spending the extra on quality not because they want to push every piece of equipment to its absolute limit, but because they want something that will do simple everyday tasks and not worry about it breaking in the next 0 years.   you get what you pay for  really stands out, and buying a more expensive camera is likely to last you a lot longer than buying a cheaper model my first and only digital camera lasted maybe 0 months before becoming completely unusable no matter if you are using it to take professional photos or just simple snapshots.   #  i finally have a week off coming up soon, i am going on a ski trip and want to take some videos to share with friends: i have 0 minutes to buy the camera.   #  let is say i am millionaire.  i have a busy every day schedule with little free time.  i finally have a week off coming up soon, i am going on a ski trip and want to take some videos to share with friends: i have 0 minutes to buy the camera.  since i saw many good videos done with gopro, i just buy a gopro with no second though, because i know it will do the job.  i do not really have time to do extensive research on alternatives, and risk buying some thing that will not work at all.  besides, my time spent working is more valuable than doing camera research, so save a few bucks.  why would you have a low opinion of me ?  #  he might rather spend time with friends or family, or planning other details of the trip, than spend time researching cameras.   #  s/he is taking a ski trip to share wtih friends.  i would not say that is  not living life .  also, just because s/he ca not do research on a camera does not mean he does not have time.  he might rather spend time with friends or family, or planning other details of the trip, than spend time researching cameras.  if you are at a foodcourt and want to buy lunch, do you need to look at restaurant reviews to decide which option is the best for you ? probably not, because that decision is not that important for you.  this person happens to make enough money where a go pro camera is not a big decision for him/her.   #  you should spend time using your consumer goods not researching which one to use.   #  i personally have a low opinion of people who do not buy trendy read extensive clothes, food, and toys.  who cares if there is something cheaper that more exactly matches your needs.  you should spend time using your consumer goods not researching which one to use.  i bet op is one of those people that has all the cheapest shit and lives in a box.  life is not about money, you should spend your time living, not agonizing over how to save ten bucks.
this post is inspired by a conversation i recently had in another sub.  in theory, i really want to be ok with polyamorous marriage.  i am socially open minded and i have no issue at all with polyamoury.  i keep hearing that it is  the next gay rights  and i do not believe it is.  gay rights was about pushing a social issue allowing gay people to use the same legal constructs as straight marriage.  there is not any practical reason to oppose gay marriage: opposition was either religious, or purely out of ignorance, or  i think it is wrong .  with polyamorous marriage this is not the case at all.  the tax code, at least all parts that address marriage, would have to be revised or completely re written.  for the state to recognize poly marriage this would also mean they have to have legal constructs in place for poly divorce as well.  not to mention child custody issues, green card policy, health insurance aca revisions and the list goes on.  simply i believe the logistical problems are too great and so far i have not heard any reasonable arguments for how this all would work.  i have heard plenty of people claim this is the next gay rights and strongly push for poly marriage but i have never heard someone address how any of these issues would be dealt with.  i would really like my view changed on this though.  and for arguments sake lets restrict the scope to us/canada.   #  green card policy, health insurance aca revisions and the list goes on.   #  these are all also really easy to deal with.   # this will not be very hard.  it would be very easy to change the brackets based upon the number of parties involved.  you can have deductions for dependents and a head of household just like today, no change there.  today many couples are upset about the way the divorce played out because they do not do this, leaving it up to the state who uses the default contract in effect.  biological parents are the automatic custodians and all others must legally adopt, then the government does not have to worry about making a default, just accepting the contracts of others.  these are all also really easy to deal with.  the green card process wo not change at all, you should probably elaborate on what you mean there.  it is no easier in poly marriage to have a sham marriage for a green card than any current mono marriage.  the issue of spousal benefits might finally push healthcare reform and would be a good thing.  why is your healthcare tied to your employment or your spouse ? it is pretty weird that when you quit your job and move to a new one you switch healthcare companies.  honestly the logistical issues are not that hard.  just like gay rights, the hard part is changing the minds of the masses.  getting to the point where you could tell a story about your friends frank, jim and nancy who are together and not have that fact be a focal point of the story.  worrying about logistical issues and having that be a reason to not change cultural perceptions is just a distraction from the real issue.   #  mary says pull the plug, jane says let him live.   # bob, jane, and mary are in a polly marriage.  bob goes out to pick up dinner one night and get is hit by a drunk driver.  mary and jane are left with a choice: let him live in a persistent vegetative state, or pull the plug and let nature take its course.  mary says pull the plug, jane says let him live.  both women are legally his spouse, so how do you decide that one ?  nbsp; tom, dick, and harry are all married.  tom wants to divorce dick, but stay married to harry.  harry want is to stay married to dick.  dick want is to stay married to both of them.  how do you solve that one ?  nbsp; it is not like congress just does not want to do their homework here, there are honest issues with no easy solutions that would have to be worked out before poll marriages could ever work.   #  are you saying that should be the standard for marriage also ?  # one says pull the plug, the other says not to.  more often than not, the court appoints a guardian ad litem in that situation.  are you saying that should be the standard for marriage also ? spouses are now removed from making decisions for each other and the state has to appoint a third party to handle it ?  nbsp;   dick want is to stay married to both of them.  how do you solve that one ? so if  grin and bear it  is a valid option for people stuck in a bad poly marriage, why is it not a valid argument for people continuing to use the existing legal framework for their relationships ? if your argument to someone who is trapped in a bad marriage because they no longer want to be with one of their partners, is essentially  tough, deal with it .  why should not the government just tell them  tough, deal with it  when they complain about not being allowed to enter into poly marriages in the first place.   #  you could theoretically have two spouses who are not married to each other e. g. , harry is married to both tom and dick, but tom is not married to dick .   #  i think the better solution for the divorce scenario would be that harry and dick remain married both wish to remain married to each other , and then tom divorces dick because tom does not want to be married to dick and should not be forced to be married to him .  i am not sure about harry and tom because it was never explicitly said that harry wants to divorce tom.  if he does, then they should be divorced.  if not, then harry and tom should be remain married.  i do not think a polyamorous marriage would necessarily mean all parties are married to each other.  you could theoretically have two spouses who are not married to each other e. g. , harry is married to both tom and dick, but tom is not married to dick .  if i am misunderstanding what  polyamorous marriage  means, though, feel free to correct me.  i am new to this topic.   #  in order to do that, tom and dick would be obligated to marry  each other  instead of only marrying you.   #  that did not really clarify what i said.  is polygamy a marriage in which: a anyone you are married to  must  also be married to everyone else you are married to ? so let is say you wanna marry tom and dick.  in order to do that, tom and dick would be obligated to marry  each other  instead of only marrying you.  or b your spouses do not have to marry each other.  in this case, you can marry tom  and  dick, but they are not married to each other.  dick is married to you and no one else.  tom is married to you and susan.  and susan is not married to you or dick.  i am under the impression that it is the latter, or at least that it could be.
pretty much summed it up in the title.  i know the scientists will say that they do adopt a neutral perspective but in popular culture, this is not what happens.  in popular culture, anything not backed by scientific evidence or at least deemed possible or credible is ridiculed.  in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.  as a result, there are many fields that scientists would like to explore but ca not simply because of the political backlash they would suffer to their careers.  and so as a society, we are restricting our discoveries and inventions to the small areas of science and technology that we know about so far, that we think are credible and worthwhile.  some of the greatest inventions and discoveries of humanity were the result of scientists ignoring what was politically correct.  what if galileo had only studied what was politically correct ?  #  and so as a society, we are restricting our discoveries and inventions to the small areas of science and technology that we know about so far, that we think are credible and worthwhile.   #  instead, we should focus on things we believe are not credible or worthwhile ?  # science is a methodology.  if someone is making a claim without evidence, then that claim should be questioned.  the only way we can  know  things is by finding evidence.  things without evidence are things that ca not be proven.  instead, we should focus on things we believe are not credible or worthwhile ? what exactly are you proposing ? it commonly means something that does not follow natural laws.  if something  did  follow natural laws, it would be  natural .  anything that happens in reality is considered natural.  nobody studies anything supernatural because, even if such things existed, it would be a waste of time.  if there is no predictability for something, then it is not useful in any way.  galileo would never have made many discoveries by accepting the supernatural.  once you label something  supernatural , there is nothing more to understand.   #  if your field cannot meet a minimum of rigor, it is not going to be considered science.   #  isupernatural  propositions have received scientific consideration.  they just have not received much because they are at very best irreproducible and frequently are just plain fraudulent.  if your field cannot meet a minimum of rigor, it is not going to be considered science.  when paranormal studies can generate theories with explanatory and predictive power, they will be taken seriously they will also cease to be supernatural .  scientists are building future research off present theories because the present theories are producing results.  they are then revised as evidence dictates.  hell, as a counterpoint to your proposition, consider stuff like string theory or multiverse theory.   #  the neutrinos were taken seriously until they turned out to be faulty equipment, and i think the proof of concepts for the thrusters have been confirmed by now.   # it has simply failed every test imaginable so many times that most people just laugh at it now.  how about that nasa microwave thruster that violated the conservation of momentum ? the neutrinos were taken seriously until they turned out to be faulty equipment, and i think the proof of concepts for the thrusters have been confirmed by now.  science is perfectly willing to admit that current theories/laws are wrong and study alternatives, but you need evidence before you can start making claims like this.  supernatural/ufos/religion has always turned out to be either irreproducible and therefore invalid as evidence or fraudulent.  when someone shows up with evidence, they are taken seriously.  there is no arrogance in requiring evidence to disprove theories that are working.  the arrogance is in the people who want their stories to be accepted without evidence, because they feel their beliefs are more important than what actually exists.  i have added emphasis here to show the problem with your comparison.  if someone is actually studying weird stuff properly then you will probably find them at perimeter or somewhere else that deals with theoretical physics.  the ones you find on youtube declaring that their world changing theories are being ignored are the ones who think they can spout whatever bs they want and have it accepted as truth.   #  no ghosts, no poltergeists, no elves, no esp, no telekinesis, no telepathy.  on the other hand, scientists have created networks of invisible energy waves that send pictures of cats through the air into our mobile phones.   #  you are basically saying  anything we do not have evidence for, we believe we do not have evidence for.  how arrogant !   never before in the history of the world have intellectuals been more open to change their beliefs in the face of new evidence.  the problem is that, despite countless attempts, no one has ever turned up any evidence of any of the classic  supernatural  phenomena.  no ghosts, no poltergeists, no elves, no esp, no telekinesis, no telepathy.  on the other hand, scientists have created networks of invisible energy waves that send pictures of cats through the air into our mobile phones.  but you do not think that is interesting to study because there is actual evidence for it.   #  ― michael shermer URL there is a time, however, when we do ridicule or deride, and that time comes when there is scientific evidence  against  the particular idea.   #  as proof positive that scientists are willing to consider ideas beyond the current scope of physics, consider dr jonathan schooler URL search his name for more results.  it really is.  we are an open minded bread.  we are trained to be skeptical, but also open minded, but.     we want to be open minded enough to accept radial new ideas when they occasionally come along, but we do not want to be so open minded that our brains fall out.  ― michael shermer URL there is a time, however, when we do ridicule or deride, and that time comes when there is scientific evidence  against  the particular idea.  if you believe some particular supernatural phenomenon, skeptics dictionary URL is a good place to start considering counter evidence.  a lot of the time it is not that evidence is missing and the jury is out; a lot of the time studies have been done and evidence has been collected and the community has declared the idea bankrupt.  but i hear you.  science is not without human flaws; it is, after all, a human endeavour.  it is the best system we have, though, and the method includes a checking system of replication and peer review again imperfect but we are working on it .  there are other problems to address, like the  file drawer problem .  but ultimately /u/mrrp is correct, you did not give any examples.  if you could give an example that would help a lot.
pretty much summed it up in the title.  i know the scientists will say that they do adopt a neutral perspective but in popular culture, this is not what happens.  in popular culture, anything not backed by scientific evidence or at least deemed possible or credible is ridiculed.  in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.  as a result, there are many fields that scientists would like to explore but ca not simply because of the political backlash they would suffer to their careers.  and so as a society, we are restricting our discoveries and inventions to the small areas of science and technology that we know about so far, that we think are credible and worthwhile.  some of the greatest inventions and discoveries of humanity were the result of scientists ignoring what was politically correct.  what if galileo had only studied what was politically correct ?  #  anything not backed by scientific evidence or at least deemed possible or credible is ridiculed.   #  in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.   # in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.  things being politically incorrect to study are wonderful.  this actually keeps us safer than you would expect.  there are plenty of studies people can do free from political backlash that would be absolutely horrible.  could you imagine cutting off the leg muscles of someone to study how far they could walk ? because people have studied that when living in a place free from political and moral backlash.  i know it is cliche, but, seriously, take a look at nazi germany, josef mengele, and some of the torturous experiments him and others attempted.  to compare this to modern day those who believe that life begins at conception rather than at birth often have political power that prevents us from researching things like stem cells.  while stemcells could definitively provide us with many benefits, there is a grey area here that we are running into of  what is life/what life matters ?   it would be extremely callous to completely dissuade those arguing against stem cell research without considering that in their mind at least they are attempting to prevent torturous abuse of life.  you speak of adopting a neutral perspective, yet. do not seem to be considering the other side though are coming here for another view .  true neutrality is very difficult, and sometimes the best way to achieve it is let two sides argue and choose both. in an odd way.  neutrality also is not always on the  right  side.  you are not being neutral, but, believe yourself to be on the  right  side and i would not completely disagree with you, and support the idea of stem cell research .   willife  is a tricky word to scientifically define and use.  in biology, life is defined by homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, responses to stimuli, and reproduction.  as a result,  mules are not considered alive , nor are ligers.  they cannot reproduce, therefor do not meet all the criteria for the scientific biology definition of life.  so, would it now be morally alright to test on them what would be torturous otherwise ? science as tempting as it may be is not a be all end all definition for things.  we do research because there is so much we do not know, and there are so many boundaries we should not cross morally.  careful what you sacrifice in the name of growth.  having opposing sides creates checks and balances, and while it may slow things down, it makes sure that when we do make a decision, it is significantly more likely to be  for the best .  however, when opportunity arises, such as the wild boy of aveyron, or that little girl who was chained to a toilet for years, it is interesting to study.  however, we must be careful not to force these events.  a less serious tack on: URL eating insects is healthier, better economically and environmentally.  do you think you could make the switch ? all logic and scienctific reasoning says it is the better choice.  could you bring yourself to give up beef for insects ? there is always more at play than just  willogic .  some food for thought :  #  scientists are building future research off present theories because the present theories are producing results.   #  isupernatural  propositions have received scientific consideration.  they just have not received much because they are at very best irreproducible and frequently are just plain fraudulent.  if your field cannot meet a minimum of rigor, it is not going to be considered science.  when paranormal studies can generate theories with explanatory and predictive power, they will be taken seriously they will also cease to be supernatural .  scientists are building future research off present theories because the present theories are producing results.  they are then revised as evidence dictates.  hell, as a counterpoint to your proposition, consider stuff like string theory or multiverse theory.   #  science is perfectly willing to admit that current theories/laws are wrong and study alternatives, but you need evidence before you can start making claims like this.   # it has simply failed every test imaginable so many times that most people just laugh at it now.  how about that nasa microwave thruster that violated the conservation of momentum ? the neutrinos were taken seriously until they turned out to be faulty equipment, and i think the proof of concepts for the thrusters have been confirmed by now.  science is perfectly willing to admit that current theories/laws are wrong and study alternatives, but you need evidence before you can start making claims like this.  supernatural/ufos/religion has always turned out to be either irreproducible and therefore invalid as evidence or fraudulent.  when someone shows up with evidence, they are taken seriously.  there is no arrogance in requiring evidence to disprove theories that are working.  the arrogance is in the people who want their stories to be accepted without evidence, because they feel their beliefs are more important than what actually exists.  i have added emphasis here to show the problem with your comparison.  if someone is actually studying weird stuff properly then you will probably find them at perimeter or somewhere else that deals with theoretical physics.  the ones you find on youtube declaring that their world changing theories are being ignored are the ones who think they can spout whatever bs they want and have it accepted as truth.   #  but you do not think that is interesting to study because there is actual evidence for it.   #  you are basically saying  anything we do not have evidence for, we believe we do not have evidence for.  how arrogant !   never before in the history of the world have intellectuals been more open to change their beliefs in the face of new evidence.  the problem is that, despite countless attempts, no one has ever turned up any evidence of any of the classic  supernatural  phenomena.  no ghosts, no poltergeists, no elves, no esp, no telekinesis, no telepathy.  on the other hand, scientists have created networks of invisible energy waves that send pictures of cats through the air into our mobile phones.  but you do not think that is interesting to study because there is actual evidence for it.   #  it is the best system we have, though, and the method includes a checking system of replication and peer review again imperfect but we are working on it .   #  as proof positive that scientists are willing to consider ideas beyond the current scope of physics, consider dr jonathan schooler URL search his name for more results.  it really is.  we are an open minded bread.  we are trained to be skeptical, but also open minded, but.     we want to be open minded enough to accept radial new ideas when they occasionally come along, but we do not want to be so open minded that our brains fall out.  ― michael shermer URL there is a time, however, when we do ridicule or deride, and that time comes when there is scientific evidence  against  the particular idea.  if you believe some particular supernatural phenomenon, skeptics dictionary URL is a good place to start considering counter evidence.  a lot of the time it is not that evidence is missing and the jury is out; a lot of the time studies have been done and evidence has been collected and the community has declared the idea bankrupt.  but i hear you.  science is not without human flaws; it is, after all, a human endeavour.  it is the best system we have, though, and the method includes a checking system of replication and peer review again imperfect but we are working on it .  there are other problems to address, like the  file drawer problem .  but ultimately /u/mrrp is correct, you did not give any examples.  if you could give an example that would help a lot.
pretty much summed it up in the title.  i know the scientists will say that they do adopt a neutral perspective but in popular culture, this is not what happens.  in popular culture, anything not backed by scientific evidence or at least deemed possible or credible is ridiculed.  in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.  as a result, there are many fields that scientists would like to explore but ca not simply because of the political backlash they would suffer to their careers.  and so as a society, we are restricting our discoveries and inventions to the small areas of science and technology that we know about so far, that we think are credible and worthwhile.  some of the greatest inventions and discoveries of humanity were the result of scientists ignoring what was politically correct.  what if galileo had only studied what was politically correct ?  #  and so as a society, we are restricting our discoveries and inventions to the small areas of science and technology that we know about so far, that we think are credible and worthwhile.   #  careful what you sacrifice in the name of growth.   # in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.  things being politically incorrect to study are wonderful.  this actually keeps us safer than you would expect.  there are plenty of studies people can do free from political backlash that would be absolutely horrible.  could you imagine cutting off the leg muscles of someone to study how far they could walk ? because people have studied that when living in a place free from political and moral backlash.  i know it is cliche, but, seriously, take a look at nazi germany, josef mengele, and some of the torturous experiments him and others attempted.  to compare this to modern day those who believe that life begins at conception rather than at birth often have political power that prevents us from researching things like stem cells.  while stemcells could definitively provide us with many benefits, there is a grey area here that we are running into of  what is life/what life matters ?   it would be extremely callous to completely dissuade those arguing against stem cell research without considering that in their mind at least they are attempting to prevent torturous abuse of life.  you speak of adopting a neutral perspective, yet. do not seem to be considering the other side though are coming here for another view .  true neutrality is very difficult, and sometimes the best way to achieve it is let two sides argue and choose both. in an odd way.  neutrality also is not always on the  right  side.  you are not being neutral, but, believe yourself to be on the  right  side and i would not completely disagree with you, and support the idea of stem cell research .   willife  is a tricky word to scientifically define and use.  in biology, life is defined by homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, responses to stimuli, and reproduction.  as a result,  mules are not considered alive , nor are ligers.  they cannot reproduce, therefor do not meet all the criteria for the scientific biology definition of life.  so, would it now be morally alright to test on them what would be torturous otherwise ? science as tempting as it may be is not a be all end all definition for things.  we do research because there is so much we do not know, and there are so many boundaries we should not cross morally.  careful what you sacrifice in the name of growth.  having opposing sides creates checks and balances, and while it may slow things down, it makes sure that when we do make a decision, it is significantly more likely to be  for the best .  however, when opportunity arises, such as the wild boy of aveyron, or that little girl who was chained to a toilet for years, it is interesting to study.  however, we must be careful not to force these events.  a less serious tack on: URL eating insects is healthier, better economically and environmentally.  do you think you could make the switch ? all logic and scienctific reasoning says it is the better choice.  could you bring yourself to give up beef for insects ? there is always more at play than just  willogic .  some food for thought :  #  hell, as a counterpoint to your proposition, consider stuff like string theory or multiverse theory.   #  isupernatural  propositions have received scientific consideration.  they just have not received much because they are at very best irreproducible and frequently are just plain fraudulent.  if your field cannot meet a minimum of rigor, it is not going to be considered science.  when paranormal studies can generate theories with explanatory and predictive power, they will be taken seriously they will also cease to be supernatural .  scientists are building future research off present theories because the present theories are producing results.  they are then revised as evidence dictates.  hell, as a counterpoint to your proposition, consider stuff like string theory or multiverse theory.   #  how about that nasa microwave thruster that violated the conservation of momentum ?  # it has simply failed every test imaginable so many times that most people just laugh at it now.  how about that nasa microwave thruster that violated the conservation of momentum ? the neutrinos were taken seriously until they turned out to be faulty equipment, and i think the proof of concepts for the thrusters have been confirmed by now.  science is perfectly willing to admit that current theories/laws are wrong and study alternatives, but you need evidence before you can start making claims like this.  supernatural/ufos/religion has always turned out to be either irreproducible and therefore invalid as evidence or fraudulent.  when someone shows up with evidence, they are taken seriously.  there is no arrogance in requiring evidence to disprove theories that are working.  the arrogance is in the people who want their stories to be accepted without evidence, because they feel their beliefs are more important than what actually exists.  i have added emphasis here to show the problem with your comparison.  if someone is actually studying weird stuff properly then you will probably find them at perimeter or somewhere else that deals with theoretical physics.  the ones you find on youtube declaring that their world changing theories are being ignored are the ones who think they can spout whatever bs they want and have it accepted as truth.   #  the problem is that, despite countless attempts, no one has ever turned up any evidence of any of the classic  supernatural  phenomena.   #  you are basically saying  anything we do not have evidence for, we believe we do not have evidence for.  how arrogant !   never before in the history of the world have intellectuals been more open to change their beliefs in the face of new evidence.  the problem is that, despite countless attempts, no one has ever turned up any evidence of any of the classic  supernatural  phenomena.  no ghosts, no poltergeists, no elves, no esp, no telekinesis, no telepathy.  on the other hand, scientists have created networks of invisible energy waves that send pictures of cats through the air into our mobile phones.  but you do not think that is interesting to study because there is actual evidence for it.   #  it is the best system we have, though, and the method includes a checking system of replication and peer review again imperfect but we are working on it .   #  as proof positive that scientists are willing to consider ideas beyond the current scope of physics, consider dr jonathan schooler URL search his name for more results.  it really is.  we are an open minded bread.  we are trained to be skeptical, but also open minded, but.     we want to be open minded enough to accept radial new ideas when they occasionally come along, but we do not want to be so open minded that our brains fall out.  ― michael shermer URL there is a time, however, when we do ridicule or deride, and that time comes when there is scientific evidence  against  the particular idea.  if you believe some particular supernatural phenomenon, skeptics dictionary URL is a good place to start considering counter evidence.  a lot of the time it is not that evidence is missing and the jury is out; a lot of the time studies have been done and evidence has been collected and the community has declared the idea bankrupt.  but i hear you.  science is not without human flaws; it is, after all, a human endeavour.  it is the best system we have, though, and the method includes a checking system of replication and peer review again imperfect but we are working on it .  there are other problems to address, like the  file drawer problem .  but ultimately /u/mrrp is correct, you did not give any examples.  if you could give an example that would help a lot.
pretty much summed it up in the title.  i know the scientists will say that they do adopt a neutral perspective but in popular culture, this is not what happens.  in popular culture, anything not backed by scientific evidence or at least deemed possible or credible is ridiculed.  in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.  as a result, there are many fields that scientists would like to explore but ca not simply because of the political backlash they would suffer to their careers.  and so as a society, we are restricting our discoveries and inventions to the small areas of science and technology that we know about so far, that we think are credible and worthwhile.  some of the greatest inventions and discoveries of humanity were the result of scientists ignoring what was politically correct.  what if galileo had only studied what was politically correct ?  #  i know the scientists will say that they do adopt a neutral perspective but in popular culture, this is not what happens.   #  in popular culture, anything not backed by scientific evidence or at least deemed possible or credible is ridiculed.   # in popular culture, anything not backed by scientific evidence or at least deemed possible or credible is ridiculed.  in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.  no it doesnt, there is no conclusive evidence for alien life anywhere other than earth.  yet, because its deemed reasonably likely, on a numbers basis, that we are not the only life in the universe.  astrobiology URL exists.  similar case with parts of physics, which were predicted URL long before they were observed or inferred.  the problem with the supernatural is that it fails any and all testing attempted on it.  and in some cases is not falsifiable at all   as a result, there are many fields that scientists would like to explore but ca not simply because of the political backlash they would suffer to their careers.  such as ? examples and sources plz :   and so as a society, we are restricting our discoveries and inventions to the small areas of science and technology that we know about so far, that we think are credible and worthwhile.  nope, people have tested claims of the supernatural/paranormal for some time now iirc, even the military/spy agencies did esp research for obvious reasons .  its no longer popular though occasionally things are still done as it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt again and again that these things fail rigorous testing.  is there a specific example you have in mind that does not ? what if galileo had only studied what was politically correct ? irony.  galileo was essentially persecuted for speaking out against the supernatural, or at least supernatural derived explanations.   #  when paranormal studies can generate theories with explanatory and predictive power, they will be taken seriously they will also cease to be supernatural .   #  isupernatural  propositions have received scientific consideration.  they just have not received much because they are at very best irreproducible and frequently are just plain fraudulent.  if your field cannot meet a minimum of rigor, it is not going to be considered science.  when paranormal studies can generate theories with explanatory and predictive power, they will be taken seriously they will also cease to be supernatural .  scientists are building future research off present theories because the present theories are producing results.  they are then revised as evidence dictates.  hell, as a counterpoint to your proposition, consider stuff like string theory or multiverse theory.   #  supernatural/ufos/religion has always turned out to be either irreproducible and therefore invalid as evidence or fraudulent.   # it has simply failed every test imaginable so many times that most people just laugh at it now.  how about that nasa microwave thruster that violated the conservation of momentum ? the neutrinos were taken seriously until they turned out to be faulty equipment, and i think the proof of concepts for the thrusters have been confirmed by now.  science is perfectly willing to admit that current theories/laws are wrong and study alternatives, but you need evidence before you can start making claims like this.  supernatural/ufos/religion has always turned out to be either irreproducible and therefore invalid as evidence or fraudulent.  when someone shows up with evidence, they are taken seriously.  there is no arrogance in requiring evidence to disprove theories that are working.  the arrogance is in the people who want their stories to be accepted without evidence, because they feel their beliefs are more important than what actually exists.  i have added emphasis here to show the problem with your comparison.  if someone is actually studying weird stuff properly then you will probably find them at perimeter or somewhere else that deals with theoretical physics.  the ones you find on youtube declaring that their world changing theories are being ignored are the ones who think they can spout whatever bs they want and have it accepted as truth.   #  no ghosts, no poltergeists, no elves, no esp, no telekinesis, no telepathy.  on the other hand, scientists have created networks of invisible energy waves that send pictures of cats through the air into our mobile phones.   #  you are basically saying  anything we do not have evidence for, we believe we do not have evidence for.  how arrogant !   never before in the history of the world have intellectuals been more open to change their beliefs in the face of new evidence.  the problem is that, despite countless attempts, no one has ever turned up any evidence of any of the classic  supernatural  phenomena.  no ghosts, no poltergeists, no elves, no esp, no telekinesis, no telepathy.  on the other hand, scientists have created networks of invisible energy waves that send pictures of cats through the air into our mobile phones.  but you do not think that is interesting to study because there is actual evidence for it.   #  as proof positive that scientists are willing to consider ideas beyond the current scope of physics, consider dr jonathan schooler URL search his name for more results.   #  as proof positive that scientists are willing to consider ideas beyond the current scope of physics, consider dr jonathan schooler URL search his name for more results.  it really is.  we are an open minded bread.  we are trained to be skeptical, but also open minded, but.     we want to be open minded enough to accept radial new ideas when they occasionally come along, but we do not want to be so open minded that our brains fall out.  ― michael shermer URL there is a time, however, when we do ridicule or deride, and that time comes when there is scientific evidence  against  the particular idea.  if you believe some particular supernatural phenomenon, skeptics dictionary URL is a good place to start considering counter evidence.  a lot of the time it is not that evidence is missing and the jury is out; a lot of the time studies have been done and evidence has been collected and the community has declared the idea bankrupt.  but i hear you.  science is not without human flaws; it is, after all, a human endeavour.  it is the best system we have, though, and the method includes a checking system of replication and peer review again imperfect but we are working on it .  there are other problems to address, like the  file drawer problem .  but ultimately /u/mrrp is correct, you did not give any examples.  if you could give an example that would help a lot.
pretty much summed it up in the title.  i know the scientists will say that they do adopt a neutral perspective but in popular culture, this is not what happens.  in popular culture, anything not backed by scientific evidence or at least deemed possible or credible is ridiculed.  in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.  as a result, there are many fields that scientists would like to explore but ca not simply because of the political backlash they would suffer to their careers.  and so as a society, we are restricting our discoveries and inventions to the small areas of science and technology that we know about so far, that we think are credible and worthwhile.  some of the greatest inventions and discoveries of humanity were the result of scientists ignoring what was politically correct.  what if galileo had only studied what was politically correct ?  #  some of the greatest inventions and discoveries of humanity were the result of scientists ignoring what was politically correct.   #  what if galileo had only studied what was politically correct ?  # in popular culture, anything not backed by scientific evidence or at least deemed possible or credible is ridiculed.  in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.  no it doesnt, there is no conclusive evidence for alien life anywhere other than earth.  yet, because its deemed reasonably likely, on a numbers basis, that we are not the only life in the universe.  astrobiology URL exists.  similar case with parts of physics, which were predicted URL long before they were observed or inferred.  the problem with the supernatural is that it fails any and all testing attempted on it.  and in some cases is not falsifiable at all   as a result, there are many fields that scientists would like to explore but ca not simply because of the political backlash they would suffer to their careers.  such as ? examples and sources plz :   and so as a society, we are restricting our discoveries and inventions to the small areas of science and technology that we know about so far, that we think are credible and worthwhile.  nope, people have tested claims of the supernatural/paranormal for some time now iirc, even the military/spy agencies did esp research for obvious reasons .  its no longer popular though occasionally things are still done as it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt again and again that these things fail rigorous testing.  is there a specific example you have in mind that does not ? what if galileo had only studied what was politically correct ? irony.  galileo was essentially persecuted for speaking out against the supernatural, or at least supernatural derived explanations.   #  hell, as a counterpoint to your proposition, consider stuff like string theory or multiverse theory.   #  isupernatural  propositions have received scientific consideration.  they just have not received much because they are at very best irreproducible and frequently are just plain fraudulent.  if your field cannot meet a minimum of rigor, it is not going to be considered science.  when paranormal studies can generate theories with explanatory and predictive power, they will be taken seriously they will also cease to be supernatural .  scientists are building future research off present theories because the present theories are producing results.  they are then revised as evidence dictates.  hell, as a counterpoint to your proposition, consider stuff like string theory or multiverse theory.   #  if someone is actually studying weird stuff properly then you will probably find them at perimeter or somewhere else that deals with theoretical physics.   # it has simply failed every test imaginable so many times that most people just laugh at it now.  how about that nasa microwave thruster that violated the conservation of momentum ? the neutrinos were taken seriously until they turned out to be faulty equipment, and i think the proof of concepts for the thrusters have been confirmed by now.  science is perfectly willing to admit that current theories/laws are wrong and study alternatives, but you need evidence before you can start making claims like this.  supernatural/ufos/religion has always turned out to be either irreproducible and therefore invalid as evidence or fraudulent.  when someone shows up with evidence, they are taken seriously.  there is no arrogance in requiring evidence to disprove theories that are working.  the arrogance is in the people who want their stories to be accepted without evidence, because they feel their beliefs are more important than what actually exists.  i have added emphasis here to show the problem with your comparison.  if someone is actually studying weird stuff properly then you will probably find them at perimeter or somewhere else that deals with theoretical physics.  the ones you find on youtube declaring that their world changing theories are being ignored are the ones who think they can spout whatever bs they want and have it accepted as truth.   #  no ghosts, no poltergeists, no elves, no esp, no telekinesis, no telepathy.  on the other hand, scientists have created networks of invisible energy waves that send pictures of cats through the air into our mobile phones.   #  you are basically saying  anything we do not have evidence for, we believe we do not have evidence for.  how arrogant !   never before in the history of the world have intellectuals been more open to change their beliefs in the face of new evidence.  the problem is that, despite countless attempts, no one has ever turned up any evidence of any of the classic  supernatural  phenomena.  no ghosts, no poltergeists, no elves, no esp, no telekinesis, no telepathy.  on the other hand, scientists have created networks of invisible energy waves that send pictures of cats through the air into our mobile phones.  but you do not think that is interesting to study because there is actual evidence for it.   #  there are other problems to address, like the  file drawer problem .   #  as proof positive that scientists are willing to consider ideas beyond the current scope of physics, consider dr jonathan schooler URL search his name for more results.  it really is.  we are an open minded bread.  we are trained to be skeptical, but also open minded, but.     we want to be open minded enough to accept radial new ideas when they occasionally come along, but we do not want to be so open minded that our brains fall out.  ― michael shermer URL there is a time, however, when we do ridicule or deride, and that time comes when there is scientific evidence  against  the particular idea.  if you believe some particular supernatural phenomenon, skeptics dictionary URL is a good place to start considering counter evidence.  a lot of the time it is not that evidence is missing and the jury is out; a lot of the time studies have been done and evidence has been collected and the community has declared the idea bankrupt.  but i hear you.  science is not without human flaws; it is, after all, a human endeavour.  it is the best system we have, though, and the method includes a checking system of replication and peer review again imperfect but we are working on it .  there are other problems to address, like the  file drawer problem .  but ultimately /u/mrrp is correct, you did not give any examples.  if you could give an example that would help a lot.
pretty much summed it up in the title.  i know the scientists will say that they do adopt a neutral perspective but in popular culture, this is not what happens.  in popular culture, anything not backed by scientific evidence or at least deemed possible or credible is ridiculed.  in turn this makes whatever is being ridiculed politically incorrect to study.  as a result, there are many fields that scientists would like to explore but ca not simply because of the political backlash they would suffer to their careers.  and so as a society, we are restricting our discoveries and inventions to the small areas of science and technology that we know about so far, that we think are credible and worthwhile.  some of the greatest inventions and discoveries of humanity were the result of scientists ignoring what was politically correct.  what if galileo had only studied what was politically correct ?  #  what if galileo had only studied what was politically correct ?  #  galileo lived in a scientifically illiterate society.   # galileo lived in a scientifically illiterate society.  our current society is not totally scientifically literate, but it is loads loads better than 0th century italy.  there is no established theocracy preventing scientists from touching certain subjects nothing is taboo anymore but i guess you are saying, somehow, this has led to some sort of inverted hierarchy where  the scientists  are a new form of catholic church and restrictive dogma, and their  findings  are preventing some incredible new, outside the box discovery.  except that totally already happens quantum physics, age of the earth, the size of our universe, etc in the 0th century alone.  , and what is great about the scientific method is it completely allows for paradigm shifts as new data comes in unlike a rigid, unchanging system of dogma like galileo was up against .  there is tons of topics today that scientists do not touch because they are  pseudoscience  telepathy, ghosts, esp, your dietary supplements. but we know they are pseudoscience because of experimenting in other areas and maybe even in those areas .  there is no evidence for them, so scientists do not waste their time.  that being said, if a credible experiment could be conducted to prove the existence of ghosts, or esp, or whatever, then the scientific community would listen.  you would not have to fear execution for presenting such findings just ridicule if you are wrong.   #  when paranormal studies can generate theories with explanatory and predictive power, they will be taken seriously they will also cease to be supernatural .   #  isupernatural  propositions have received scientific consideration.  they just have not received much because they are at very best irreproducible and frequently are just plain fraudulent.  if your field cannot meet a minimum of rigor, it is not going to be considered science.  when paranormal studies can generate theories with explanatory and predictive power, they will be taken seriously they will also cease to be supernatural .  scientists are building future research off present theories because the present theories are producing results.  they are then revised as evidence dictates.  hell, as a counterpoint to your proposition, consider stuff like string theory or multiverse theory.   #  it has simply failed every test imaginable so many times that most people just laugh at it now.   # it has simply failed every test imaginable so many times that most people just laugh at it now.  how about that nasa microwave thruster that violated the conservation of momentum ? the neutrinos were taken seriously until they turned out to be faulty equipment, and i think the proof of concepts for the thrusters have been confirmed by now.  science is perfectly willing to admit that current theories/laws are wrong and study alternatives, but you need evidence before you can start making claims like this.  supernatural/ufos/religion has always turned out to be either irreproducible and therefore invalid as evidence or fraudulent.  when someone shows up with evidence, they are taken seriously.  there is no arrogance in requiring evidence to disprove theories that are working.  the arrogance is in the people who want their stories to be accepted without evidence, because they feel their beliefs are more important than what actually exists.  i have added emphasis here to show the problem with your comparison.  if someone is actually studying weird stuff properly then you will probably find them at perimeter or somewhere else that deals with theoretical physics.  the ones you find on youtube declaring that their world changing theories are being ignored are the ones who think they can spout whatever bs they want and have it accepted as truth.   #  but you do not think that is interesting to study because there is actual evidence for it.   #  you are basically saying  anything we do not have evidence for, we believe we do not have evidence for.  how arrogant !   never before in the history of the world have intellectuals been more open to change their beliefs in the face of new evidence.  the problem is that, despite countless attempts, no one has ever turned up any evidence of any of the classic  supernatural  phenomena.  no ghosts, no poltergeists, no elves, no esp, no telekinesis, no telepathy.  on the other hand, scientists have created networks of invisible energy waves that send pictures of cats through the air into our mobile phones.  but you do not think that is interesting to study because there is actual evidence for it.   #  a lot of the time it is not that evidence is missing and the jury is out; a lot of the time studies have been done and evidence has been collected and the community has declared the idea bankrupt.   #  as proof positive that scientists are willing to consider ideas beyond the current scope of physics, consider dr jonathan schooler URL search his name for more results.  it really is.  we are an open minded bread.  we are trained to be skeptical, but also open minded, but.     we want to be open minded enough to accept radial new ideas when they occasionally come along, but we do not want to be so open minded that our brains fall out.  ― michael shermer URL there is a time, however, when we do ridicule or deride, and that time comes when there is scientific evidence  against  the particular idea.  if you believe some particular supernatural phenomenon, skeptics dictionary URL is a good place to start considering counter evidence.  a lot of the time it is not that evidence is missing and the jury is out; a lot of the time studies have been done and evidence has been collected and the community has declared the idea bankrupt.  but i hear you.  science is not without human flaws; it is, after all, a human endeavour.  it is the best system we have, though, and the method includes a checking system of replication and peer review again imperfect but we are working on it .  there are other problems to address, like the  file drawer problem .  but ultimately /u/mrrp is correct, you did not give any examples.  if you could give an example that would help a lot.
yes, i know i did not capitalize it in the title.  i refuse to do so.  i refuse to give this  community  even that tiny recognition.  i am  not  saying that deaf people meeting and discussing their common obstacle is stupid and dangerous.  i am saying that the extent to which they have extrapolated that concept is stupid and dangerous.  i will take my bones to pick from the wikipedia article URL here is the  stupid :    members of the deaf community tend to view deafness as a difference in human experience rather than a disability. deafness is not generally considered a condition that needs to be fixed.   this is flat out denial.  if the majority of the members of a group in this case, 0 URL source URL have a given ability, and that ability is useful, then those members who do not have that ability are at a disadvantage.  they would gain an advantage if it were fixed.  since deafness is by no means normal 0 again , it cannot be considered a difference in human experience.  and if you do not have a handicap, i do not need to make any special accommodation for you.  and here is the  dangerous :    the use of a sign language is central to deaf cultural identity.  oralist approaches to educating deaf children thereby pose a threat to the continued existence of deaf culture.  some members of deaf communities may also oppose technological innovations like cochlear implants for the same reason.   oh, this one really grinds my gears.  it ties into the previous point about the denial of the culture, but it brings up another problem: deaf culture is a victim mentality.  they are so in denial that there is something wrong with them, they want to be the oppressed members of society so bad, that they will even drag  children  into their warped little circle and try to refuse them help.  do not force your views on a child whom you did not raise.  i think this father URL rant accurately expresses my opinion here in much greater detail.  to make a long story short, deaf culture endangers the well being of these children by trying to deny them helpful treatments for their hearing.   tl;dr  deaf culture is stupid for saying that deafness is not a disability and dangerous for trying to drag children into that stupid mentality.   #  they would gain an advantage if it were fixed.   #  if it ai not broke, why fix it ?  #  here is your op:  this is flat out denial.  if the majority of the members of a group. have a given ability, and that ability is useful, then those member who do not have that ability are at a disadvantage.  why is that necessarily true ? and anyway, who cares ? short people have a disadvantage but would you say being short is a disability ? the majority of people are over 0  tall but 0  tall people do not get any special consideration and nobody gives a shit they ca not reach the top shelf.  if it ai not broke, why fix it ? deaf people have a language, they communicate, they enjoy and live life to the fullest, they can drive, they can enjoy movies, music and tv.  they can read and write.  most deaf people are not completely, 0 devoid of hearing.  many are simply  hard of hearing  and have limited abilities in that regard.  really, there is very, very little a deaf person ca not do that a hearing person can in contrast to, say, a blind person .  i do not understand what you mean by this.  it literally is a difference in human experience; they experience different things.  that is pretty straight forward.  i do not get this, either.  i think that what they are saying  is  that they do not have a handicap and that  yes, they would agree  that you do not have to make any special accommodations for them.  the fact that you do not have to is precisely why they would say they are not disabled.  just think of them as foreigners who ca not speak english.   #  they have values and tastes and preferences on the basis of being deaf.   #  no, it is not tu quoque.  tu quoque is when you are attacked for being a hypocrite even when your premise is correct.  in this case, /u/man0 asked a legitimate question.  you are imposing your own personal beliefs on people who have a difference of opinion.  you are saying,  do not force your views on a child  because of your own opinion of the matter.  but i am sure you would not feel that way if it were a view you supported.  the idea behind deaf culture is that deafness is not a disability any more than homosexuality is a disability.  it is just a different lifestyle/different perception of the world enabled by biological factors.  deaf people have a common language, they have common experiences, they perceive things differently from others but more or less the same as each other.  they have values and tastes and preferences on the basis of being deaf.  to them,  curing  deafness through cochlear implants is like saying,  it is bad to be deaf, we need to fix it  in the same sense that is it is wrong and bad to  cure  homosexuality.  sure, you can fix deafness a whole lot better than you can fix a sexual orientation, but let is say you could successfully, medically  cure  homosexuality.  do you think we should ?  #  humans did not create a world that benefited those that can hear.   #  just because you are deaf does not mean that vibrations do not exist.  vibrations continue to exist, and will be used by all types of animals to analyze their environment to maximize survival.  if you ca not hear a roar of a bear telling you to back away, you are diminishing your chances of survival.  if you ca not hear the sound of that semi truck, or a train, or that earthquake, or that tornado, or those rocks crashing down from the cliffside, or those gunshots, or the swarm of bees or whatever noisy horror that is out there, you are diminishing your chances of survival.  humans did not create a world that benefited those that can hear.  our environment, physics, and  god  created that world, and we evolved ears to take advantage of it.  humans might have tolerance, but the laws of physics do not.  you are obviously disadvantaged if you cannot hear.  vibrations are not magically disappearing any time soon.   #  if that is your standard, humans are disabled in all five senses, plus a bunch of others that we completely lack.   #  because evolution is not practical, it is causal.  for example all vertebrate have retina that is inverted, with a blind spot in it, while cephalopods do not.  but evolution is not a conscious organizer, swapping information between it is various branches, so we are stuck with the same basic design as our early ancestors.  the same goes for hearing.  it might have been significantly practical for a certain species at a certain point in time, and it just stayed there for a huge number of it is descendants because it never became impractical enough to remove it.  it is not like fur is the objective best possible cover, or endoskeletons are the objective perfect protection, it is all just what we are stuck with based on blindly self shaping trends, and the logic of reproductive success going on for billions of years.  besides, we have animals with an extraordinary number of diverse senses.  if that is your standard, humans are disabled in all five senses, plus a bunch of others that we completely lack.   #  for one, people missing one of their senses tend to have more acute perception in the others.   # we most certainly should not be curing all deaf people.  someone who is fully deaf and has always been fully deaf will have a great deal of difficulty coping with the input from a cochlear implant.  their brain developed without that input and ca not make sense out of it.  in the cases where this has been done, the person in question typically leaves the implant off the vast majority of the time.  now, as far as cures implemented immediately at birth, which is where the cultural implications come in, if there was no existing deaf population this would be ideal.  however, with an existing deaf population and all the coping mechanisms they require already in place, there are many complicating factors to consider.  for one, people missing one of their senses tend to have more acute perception in the others.  this brings up specialization and the advantages it can confer.  there is clearly a difference between a heightened sense of smell at the expense of all hearing and a well developed ability to paint at the expense of learning math.  however, there is at least some legitimacy to embracing a weakness.
yes, i know i did not capitalize it in the title.  i refuse to do so.  i refuse to give this  community  even that tiny recognition.  i am  not  saying that deaf people meeting and discussing their common obstacle is stupid and dangerous.  i am saying that the extent to which they have extrapolated that concept is stupid and dangerous.  i will take my bones to pick from the wikipedia article URL here is the  stupid :    members of the deaf community tend to view deafness as a difference in human experience rather than a disability. deafness is not generally considered a condition that needs to be fixed.   this is flat out denial.  if the majority of the members of a group in this case, 0 URL source URL have a given ability, and that ability is useful, then those members who do not have that ability are at a disadvantage.  they would gain an advantage if it were fixed.  since deafness is by no means normal 0 again , it cannot be considered a difference in human experience.  and if you do not have a handicap, i do not need to make any special accommodation for you.  and here is the  dangerous :    the use of a sign language is central to deaf cultural identity.  oralist approaches to educating deaf children thereby pose a threat to the continued existence of deaf culture.  some members of deaf communities may also oppose technological innovations like cochlear implants for the same reason.   oh, this one really grinds my gears.  it ties into the previous point about the denial of the culture, but it brings up another problem: deaf culture is a victim mentality.  they are so in denial that there is something wrong with them, they want to be the oppressed members of society so bad, that they will even drag  children  into their warped little circle and try to refuse them help.  do not force your views on a child whom you did not raise.  i think this father URL rant accurately expresses my opinion here in much greater detail.  to make a long story short, deaf culture endangers the well being of these children by trying to deny them helpful treatments for their hearing.   tl;dr  deaf culture is stupid for saying that deafness is not a disability and dangerous for trying to drag children into that stupid mentality.   #  since deafness is by no means normal 0 again , it cannot be considered a difference in human experience.   #  i do not understand what you mean by this.   #  here is your op:  this is flat out denial.  if the majority of the members of a group. have a given ability, and that ability is useful, then those member who do not have that ability are at a disadvantage.  why is that necessarily true ? and anyway, who cares ? short people have a disadvantage but would you say being short is a disability ? the majority of people are over 0  tall but 0  tall people do not get any special consideration and nobody gives a shit they ca not reach the top shelf.  if it ai not broke, why fix it ? deaf people have a language, they communicate, they enjoy and live life to the fullest, they can drive, they can enjoy movies, music and tv.  they can read and write.  most deaf people are not completely, 0 devoid of hearing.  many are simply  hard of hearing  and have limited abilities in that regard.  really, there is very, very little a deaf person ca not do that a hearing person can in contrast to, say, a blind person .  i do not understand what you mean by this.  it literally is a difference in human experience; they experience different things.  that is pretty straight forward.  i do not get this, either.  i think that what they are saying  is  that they do not have a handicap and that  yes, they would agree  that you do not have to make any special accommodations for them.  the fact that you do not have to is precisely why they would say they are not disabled.  just think of them as foreigners who ca not speak english.   #  they have values and tastes and preferences on the basis of being deaf.   #  no, it is not tu quoque.  tu quoque is when you are attacked for being a hypocrite even when your premise is correct.  in this case, /u/man0 asked a legitimate question.  you are imposing your own personal beliefs on people who have a difference of opinion.  you are saying,  do not force your views on a child  because of your own opinion of the matter.  but i am sure you would not feel that way if it were a view you supported.  the idea behind deaf culture is that deafness is not a disability any more than homosexuality is a disability.  it is just a different lifestyle/different perception of the world enabled by biological factors.  deaf people have a common language, they have common experiences, they perceive things differently from others but more or less the same as each other.  they have values and tastes and preferences on the basis of being deaf.  to them,  curing  deafness through cochlear implants is like saying,  it is bad to be deaf, we need to fix it  in the same sense that is it is wrong and bad to  cure  homosexuality.  sure, you can fix deafness a whole lot better than you can fix a sexual orientation, but let is say you could successfully, medically  cure  homosexuality.  do you think we should ?  #  vibrations continue to exist, and will be used by all types of animals to analyze their environment to maximize survival.   #  just because you are deaf does not mean that vibrations do not exist.  vibrations continue to exist, and will be used by all types of animals to analyze their environment to maximize survival.  if you ca not hear a roar of a bear telling you to back away, you are diminishing your chances of survival.  if you ca not hear the sound of that semi truck, or a train, or that earthquake, or that tornado, or those rocks crashing down from the cliffside, or those gunshots, or the swarm of bees or whatever noisy horror that is out there, you are diminishing your chances of survival.  humans did not create a world that benefited those that can hear.  our environment, physics, and  god  created that world, and we evolved ears to take advantage of it.  humans might have tolerance, but the laws of physics do not.  you are obviously disadvantaged if you cannot hear.  vibrations are not magically disappearing any time soon.   #  besides, we have animals with an extraordinary number of diverse senses.   #  because evolution is not practical, it is causal.  for example all vertebrate have retina that is inverted, with a blind spot in it, while cephalopods do not.  but evolution is not a conscious organizer, swapping information between it is various branches, so we are stuck with the same basic design as our early ancestors.  the same goes for hearing.  it might have been significantly practical for a certain species at a certain point in time, and it just stayed there for a huge number of it is descendants because it never became impractical enough to remove it.  it is not like fur is the objective best possible cover, or endoskeletons are the objective perfect protection, it is all just what we are stuck with based on blindly self shaping trends, and the logic of reproductive success going on for billions of years.  besides, we have animals with an extraordinary number of diverse senses.  if that is your standard, humans are disabled in all five senses, plus a bunch of others that we completely lack.   #  however, there is at least some legitimacy to embracing a weakness.   # we most certainly should not be curing all deaf people.  someone who is fully deaf and has always been fully deaf will have a great deal of difficulty coping with the input from a cochlear implant.  their brain developed without that input and ca not make sense out of it.  in the cases where this has been done, the person in question typically leaves the implant off the vast majority of the time.  now, as far as cures implemented immediately at birth, which is where the cultural implications come in, if there was no existing deaf population this would be ideal.  however, with an existing deaf population and all the coping mechanisms they require already in place, there are many complicating factors to consider.  for one, people missing one of their senses tend to have more acute perception in the others.  this brings up specialization and the advantages it can confer.  there is clearly a difference between a heightened sense of smell at the expense of all hearing and a well developed ability to paint at the expense of learning math.  however, there is at least some legitimacy to embracing a weakness.
yes, i know i did not capitalize it in the title.  i refuse to do so.  i refuse to give this  community  even that tiny recognition.  i am  not  saying that deaf people meeting and discussing their common obstacle is stupid and dangerous.  i am saying that the extent to which they have extrapolated that concept is stupid and dangerous.  i will take my bones to pick from the wikipedia article URL here is the  stupid :    members of the deaf community tend to view deafness as a difference in human experience rather than a disability. deafness is not generally considered a condition that needs to be fixed.   this is flat out denial.  if the majority of the members of a group in this case, 0 URL source URL have a given ability, and that ability is useful, then those members who do not have that ability are at a disadvantage.  they would gain an advantage if it were fixed.  since deafness is by no means normal 0 again , it cannot be considered a difference in human experience.  and if you do not have a handicap, i do not need to make any special accommodation for you.  and here is the  dangerous :    the use of a sign language is central to deaf cultural identity.  oralist approaches to educating deaf children thereby pose a threat to the continued existence of deaf culture.  some members of deaf communities may also oppose technological innovations like cochlear implants for the same reason.   oh, this one really grinds my gears.  it ties into the previous point about the denial of the culture, but it brings up another problem: deaf culture is a victim mentality.  they are so in denial that there is something wrong with them, they want to be the oppressed members of society so bad, that they will even drag  children  into their warped little circle and try to refuse them help.  do not force your views on a child whom you did not raise.  i think this father URL rant accurately expresses my opinion here in much greater detail.  to make a long story short, deaf culture endangers the well being of these children by trying to deny them helpful treatments for their hearing.   tl;dr  deaf culture is stupid for saying that deafness is not a disability and dangerous for trying to drag children into that stupid mentality.   #   the use of a sign language is central to deaf cultural identity.   #  oralist approaches to educating deaf children thereby pose a threat to the continued existence of deaf culture.   # i am deaf.  i have never heard a sound in my life, and never will care to.  i have never talked to a hearing person using my voice before.  most hearing people out there will be strangers to me forever due to the language barrier, it is simply too much effort for most people to talk via texting, writing, im, etc.  face to face just is not replaceable.  due to this, i do not understand most of hearing people is norms, they all come across as alien like and silly to me.  most hearing people feel that i am very blunt, that i am a no nonsense person.  thing is, that is normal for deaf people.  we do not know the meaning of beating around the bush.  where is the bush ? why are you beating it ? looking for something in it ? no ? why not just go around it ? or through ? you are weird.  with what i have said, do you think a deaf person is life is a normal life, compared with how many hearing people are out there ? do you experience being cut off from. most of the world ? no music.  no voices.  no cars honking.  no birds singing.  just deafening silence, forever.  if you was to suddenly find yourself deaf, my advice would be to make peace with yourself before you drive yourself to insanity without the ability to use outside noise to drown out your thoughts.  oralist approaches to educating deaf children thereby pose a threat to the continued existence of deaf culture.  some members of deaf communities may also oppose technological innovations like cochlear implants for the same reason.   signing language is important, since it is impossible to lip read i challenge you to lip read.  URL take that away, how would we be able to talk and learn at a normal pace ? ah, and one tiny more thing to add to that, what cochlear implants sounds like: URL i am told by cochlear implanted people that music just is not enjoyable to them.  i am told by hearing people that it is dead like, no color to it.  why would i want that ?  #  they have values and tastes and preferences on the basis of being deaf.   #  no, it is not tu quoque.  tu quoque is when you are attacked for being a hypocrite even when your premise is correct.  in this case, /u/man0 asked a legitimate question.  you are imposing your own personal beliefs on people who have a difference of opinion.  you are saying,  do not force your views on a child  because of your own opinion of the matter.  but i am sure you would not feel that way if it were a view you supported.  the idea behind deaf culture is that deafness is not a disability any more than homosexuality is a disability.  it is just a different lifestyle/different perception of the world enabled by biological factors.  deaf people have a common language, they have common experiences, they perceive things differently from others but more or less the same as each other.  they have values and tastes and preferences on the basis of being deaf.  to them,  curing  deafness through cochlear implants is like saying,  it is bad to be deaf, we need to fix it  in the same sense that is it is wrong and bad to  cure  homosexuality.  sure, you can fix deafness a whole lot better than you can fix a sexual orientation, but let is say you could successfully, medically  cure  homosexuality.  do you think we should ?  #  humans did not create a world that benefited those that can hear.   #  just because you are deaf does not mean that vibrations do not exist.  vibrations continue to exist, and will be used by all types of animals to analyze their environment to maximize survival.  if you ca not hear a roar of a bear telling you to back away, you are diminishing your chances of survival.  if you ca not hear the sound of that semi truck, or a train, or that earthquake, or that tornado, or those rocks crashing down from the cliffside, or those gunshots, or the swarm of bees or whatever noisy horror that is out there, you are diminishing your chances of survival.  humans did not create a world that benefited those that can hear.  our environment, physics, and  god  created that world, and we evolved ears to take advantage of it.  humans might have tolerance, but the laws of physics do not.  you are obviously disadvantaged if you cannot hear.  vibrations are not magically disappearing any time soon.   #  besides, we have animals with an extraordinary number of diverse senses.   #  because evolution is not practical, it is causal.  for example all vertebrate have retina that is inverted, with a blind spot in it, while cephalopods do not.  but evolution is not a conscious organizer, swapping information between it is various branches, so we are stuck with the same basic design as our early ancestors.  the same goes for hearing.  it might have been significantly practical for a certain species at a certain point in time, and it just stayed there for a huge number of it is descendants because it never became impractical enough to remove it.  it is not like fur is the objective best possible cover, or endoskeletons are the objective perfect protection, it is all just what we are stuck with based on blindly self shaping trends, and the logic of reproductive success going on for billions of years.  besides, we have animals with an extraordinary number of diverse senses.  if that is your standard, humans are disabled in all five senses, plus a bunch of others that we completely lack.   #  however, there is at least some legitimacy to embracing a weakness.   # we most certainly should not be curing all deaf people.  someone who is fully deaf and has always been fully deaf will have a great deal of difficulty coping with the input from a cochlear implant.  their brain developed without that input and ca not make sense out of it.  in the cases where this has been done, the person in question typically leaves the implant off the vast majority of the time.  now, as far as cures implemented immediately at birth, which is where the cultural implications come in, if there was no existing deaf population this would be ideal.  however, with an existing deaf population and all the coping mechanisms they require already in place, there are many complicating factors to consider.  for one, people missing one of their senses tend to have more acute perception in the others.  this brings up specialization and the advantages it can confer.  there is clearly a difference between a heightened sense of smell at the expense of all hearing and a well developed ability to paint at the expense of learning math.  however, there is at least some legitimacy to embracing a weakness.
i feel like this is an incredibly common, cynical sentiment you read all over the internet:  pfft i bet dicaprio took a private jet and a yacht to get to the speech.  typical hollywood hypocrite.  climate change is a farce.   and rarely do i see anyone stick up for the obvious truth and put that argument to bed.  whether or not dicaprio uses a jet has absolutely no bearing on whether or not climate change is a real problem.  it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he can speak on it.  what, is he supposed to travel by hot air balloon ? there is no hypocrisy, because no one is advocating the ban of private jets.  no one is advocating that everyone must take a vow of poverty before they can be considered a credible advocate.  the message is that policy needs to change.  big scale economic and global policy is needed, because the problem is trillions of times bigger than one guy and his yacht.  i have never heard these guys advocate the ban of private jets.  i have never heard them advocate the ban of yachts.  i have never heard them say that every individual needs to take a vow of poverty.  so, they are not hypocrites.  thus, attacking them personally for not being perfectly flawless examples of carbon free lifestyles is clearly just attacking the messenger, setting up an unreasonable strawman, and trying to shut down the debate.  it adds nothing constructive, does not have anything to do with the science itself or the validity of the message itself, it is a pure red herring.   #  no one is advocating that everyone must take a vow of poverty before they can be considered a credible advocate.   #  again, you have gone for the hyperbole.   # this is an argument fallacy.  you are making an outrageous suggestion to try and validate his use of a private jet.  what is wrong with first class and a private limousine ? again, you have gone for the hyperbole.  no vow of poverty is needed.  just show that you actual mean the things you are saying.  do not say that co0 emissions need to be lowered whilst having a larger carbon footprint than the average person could even afford to make.  whilst it is true that it is bigger than  one guy  we are all just  one guy .  and yet combined if we all make the same changes we can have a large global effect.  however, all our voices do not carry the same weight.  if you have the podium that these people do, and truly do care about the environment then surely you have a moral responsibility, just like everyone else, to set an example to those who are listening to you.  you ask for policy changes, but at the same time there is a massive support for a free economy and unregulated market in the us especially.  they would call it unconstitutional or un capitalist to try and enforce more regulations on businesses.  if instead you could convince a large percentage of consumers to make ethical decisions then a market will grow for more environmentally friendly alternatives and more companies will reduce their co0 emissions to try to appear concerned about the environment to their consumers.  put regulations in place whilst the individual does not care about their personal carbon footprint and companies will just find ways to get around the rule and care less about any media backlash about it as it is not a key selling point.   #  some poor oil worker will lose his livelihood.   #  i do not think people assume global warming is not real because some guy has a yacht.  it seems irrelevant.  what gets people pissed off is hypocrisy.  dealing with global warming on the big scale means a lot of people will have to make sacrifices.  big sacrifices.  entire industries will be wiped out.  if you claim that it is necessary to do that, then you have to show that you are willing to make some sacrifices yourself.  some poor oil worker will lose his livelihood.  if that is necessary, because oil is bad, then i say it is also necessary for the advocates to lose their yachts, because.  well.  oil is bad.   #  when those people who have studied it and who ought to know more than me, by their personal choices acts like climate change is not a great matter, why should i who have not studied it think otherwise ?  #  stop smoking cigarettes and stop flying private jets are nothing comparable.  i assume nobody believes there is such a thing as private jet addiction.  hypocrisy means pretending to a moral principle which you do not possess.  a person invoking the collective  we  when calling for the morality of personal sacrifices while in the meantime being busy doing the opposite is a person who is pretending to a moral principle which he does not possess.  like the chicken hawk, or the priest damning strippers from the first row.  on the other hand we have gandhi is: be the change you wish to see in the world.  in addition a spectator could easily be excused from coming to the conclusion that climate change is probably not such a grave concern since the most passionate speakers for climate change in their own life demonstrates an obvious disregard for it.  when those people who have studied it and who ought to know more than me, by their personal choices acts like climate change is not a great matter, why should i who have not studied it think otherwise ? of course the reality of climate change is no more dependent on the likes of leo dicaprio or al gore, than the reality of gravity is dependent on wether i deny its existence when jumping off a bridge.   #  we are not going to turn around the carbon train by conciencious personal use of the environmentally enlightened few.   #  dealing with climate change will turn over a lot of apple carts, but mostly in the oligarchy, not so much at the 0 percenter level.  for example, solar is now cheaper than natural gas for generating energy, and employs more people.  energy storage and efficient global transport will be a whole new industry, requiring and bankrolling huge applied technology deployments.  energy generation is where the majority of greenhouse gasses come from, not from private jets.  incidentally, private jets already the most expensive mode of transportation on the planet would be minimally impacted by having to purchase zero carbon fuel either by biosourcing or by some kind of offset investment .  few plutocrats would stop using them, i imagine, if the total cost of ownership were to rise a few percent.  we are not going to turn around the carbon train by conciencious personal use of the environmentally enlightened few.  hard policy, technology investment, and carbon footprint liquidity are some of the things that will actually make a difference.  while it could be arguably true that promoting climate change mitigation while flying around in a g iv is somewhat  ironic , it is not hypocritical, unless the solution being promoted is the banning of private aviation which would be ridiculously ineffective , and indefensible as a strategy .   #  if you can make the consumers  want  something that is more ethical then there will be a shift.   # whilst true, these people are in the spotlight.  as such if they really want to make changes then their personal choices can have an effect on influencing others.  changing the views of enough people and making them willing to change their personal lifestyle to one that is more environmentally responsible would increase the market for companies to cater to these people.  it would encourage more to change to offer services or products that have lower co0 emissions.  trying to get regulations in place and laws that restrict companies will always be unfavourable, especially in the us.  people will fear monger, using ideas that it is uncapitalist or even go as far as saying it in unconstitutional.  if you can make the consumers  want  something that is more ethical then there will be a shift.  it is a small step; but is it so much to ask that one or two rich people go without a private jet and maybe cause a small change and escape the accusations of being hypocrites that may accelerate the process of putting in place new rules and regulations.
i feel like this is an incredibly common, cynical sentiment you read all over the internet:  pfft i bet dicaprio took a private jet and a yacht to get to the speech.  typical hollywood hypocrite.  climate change is a farce.   and rarely do i see anyone stick up for the obvious truth and put that argument to bed.  whether or not dicaprio uses a jet has absolutely no bearing on whether or not climate change is a real problem.  it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he can speak on it.  what, is he supposed to travel by hot air balloon ? there is no hypocrisy, because no one is advocating the ban of private jets.  no one is advocating that everyone must take a vow of poverty before they can be considered a credible advocate.  the message is that policy needs to change.  big scale economic and global policy is needed, because the problem is trillions of times bigger than one guy and his yacht.  i have never heard these guys advocate the ban of private jets.  i have never heard them advocate the ban of yachts.  i have never heard them say that every individual needs to take a vow of poverty.  so, they are not hypocrites.  thus, attacking them personally for not being perfectly flawless examples of carbon free lifestyles is clearly just attacking the messenger, setting up an unreasonable strawman, and trying to shut down the debate.  it adds nothing constructive, does not have anything to do with the science itself or the validity of the message itself, it is a pure red herring.   #  big scale economic and global policy is needed, because the problem is trillions of times bigger than one guy and his yacht.   #  whilst it is true that it is bigger than  one guy  we are all just  one guy .   # this is an argument fallacy.  you are making an outrageous suggestion to try and validate his use of a private jet.  what is wrong with first class and a private limousine ? again, you have gone for the hyperbole.  no vow of poverty is needed.  just show that you actual mean the things you are saying.  do not say that co0 emissions need to be lowered whilst having a larger carbon footprint than the average person could even afford to make.  whilst it is true that it is bigger than  one guy  we are all just  one guy .  and yet combined if we all make the same changes we can have a large global effect.  however, all our voices do not carry the same weight.  if you have the podium that these people do, and truly do care about the environment then surely you have a moral responsibility, just like everyone else, to set an example to those who are listening to you.  you ask for policy changes, but at the same time there is a massive support for a free economy and unregulated market in the us especially.  they would call it unconstitutional or un capitalist to try and enforce more regulations on businesses.  if instead you could convince a large percentage of consumers to make ethical decisions then a market will grow for more environmentally friendly alternatives and more companies will reduce their co0 emissions to try to appear concerned about the environment to their consumers.  put regulations in place whilst the individual does not care about their personal carbon footprint and companies will just find ways to get around the rule and care less about any media backlash about it as it is not a key selling point.   #  if you claim that it is necessary to do that, then you have to show that you are willing to make some sacrifices yourself.   #  i do not think people assume global warming is not real because some guy has a yacht.  it seems irrelevant.  what gets people pissed off is hypocrisy.  dealing with global warming on the big scale means a lot of people will have to make sacrifices.  big sacrifices.  entire industries will be wiped out.  if you claim that it is necessary to do that, then you have to show that you are willing to make some sacrifices yourself.  some poor oil worker will lose his livelihood.  if that is necessary, because oil is bad, then i say it is also necessary for the advocates to lose their yachts, because.  well.  oil is bad.   #  when those people who have studied it and who ought to know more than me, by their personal choices acts like climate change is not a great matter, why should i who have not studied it think otherwise ?  #  stop smoking cigarettes and stop flying private jets are nothing comparable.  i assume nobody believes there is such a thing as private jet addiction.  hypocrisy means pretending to a moral principle which you do not possess.  a person invoking the collective  we  when calling for the morality of personal sacrifices while in the meantime being busy doing the opposite is a person who is pretending to a moral principle which he does not possess.  like the chicken hawk, or the priest damning strippers from the first row.  on the other hand we have gandhi is: be the change you wish to see in the world.  in addition a spectator could easily be excused from coming to the conclusion that climate change is probably not such a grave concern since the most passionate speakers for climate change in their own life demonstrates an obvious disregard for it.  when those people who have studied it and who ought to know more than me, by their personal choices acts like climate change is not a great matter, why should i who have not studied it think otherwise ? of course the reality of climate change is no more dependent on the likes of leo dicaprio or al gore, than the reality of gravity is dependent on wether i deny its existence when jumping off a bridge.   #  we are not going to turn around the carbon train by conciencious personal use of the environmentally enlightened few.   #  dealing with climate change will turn over a lot of apple carts, but mostly in the oligarchy, not so much at the 0 percenter level.  for example, solar is now cheaper than natural gas for generating energy, and employs more people.  energy storage and efficient global transport will be a whole new industry, requiring and bankrolling huge applied technology deployments.  energy generation is where the majority of greenhouse gasses come from, not from private jets.  incidentally, private jets already the most expensive mode of transportation on the planet would be minimally impacted by having to purchase zero carbon fuel either by biosourcing or by some kind of offset investment .  few plutocrats would stop using them, i imagine, if the total cost of ownership were to rise a few percent.  we are not going to turn around the carbon train by conciencious personal use of the environmentally enlightened few.  hard policy, technology investment, and carbon footprint liquidity are some of the things that will actually make a difference.  while it could be arguably true that promoting climate change mitigation while flying around in a g iv is somewhat  ironic , it is not hypocritical, unless the solution being promoted is the banning of private aviation which would be ridiculously ineffective , and indefensible as a strategy .   #  trying to get regulations in place and laws that restrict companies will always be unfavourable, especially in the us.   # whilst true, these people are in the spotlight.  as such if they really want to make changes then their personal choices can have an effect on influencing others.  changing the views of enough people and making them willing to change their personal lifestyle to one that is more environmentally responsible would increase the market for companies to cater to these people.  it would encourage more to change to offer services or products that have lower co0 emissions.  trying to get regulations in place and laws that restrict companies will always be unfavourable, especially in the us.  people will fear monger, using ideas that it is uncapitalist or even go as far as saying it in unconstitutional.  if you can make the consumers  want  something that is more ethical then there will be a shift.  it is a small step; but is it so much to ask that one or two rich people go without a private jet and maybe cause a small change and escape the accusations of being hypocrites that may accelerate the process of putting in place new rules and regulations.
i feel like this is an incredibly common, cynical sentiment you read all over the internet:  pfft i bet dicaprio took a private jet and a yacht to get to the speech.  typical hollywood hypocrite.  climate change is a farce.   and rarely do i see anyone stick up for the obvious truth and put that argument to bed.  whether or not dicaprio uses a jet has absolutely no bearing on whether or not climate change is a real problem.  it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he can speak on it.  what, is he supposed to travel by hot air balloon ? there is no hypocrisy, because no one is advocating the ban of private jets.  no one is advocating that everyone must take a vow of poverty before they can be considered a credible advocate.  the message is that policy needs to change.  big scale economic and global policy is needed, because the problem is trillions of times bigger than one guy and his yacht.  i have never heard these guys advocate the ban of private jets.  i have never heard them advocate the ban of yachts.  i have never heard them say that every individual needs to take a vow of poverty.  so, they are not hypocrites.  thus, attacking them personally for not being perfectly flawless examples of carbon free lifestyles is clearly just attacking the messenger, setting up an unreasonable strawman, and trying to shut down the debate.  it adds nothing constructive, does not have anything to do with the science itself or the validity of the message itself, it is a pure red herring.   #  it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he can speak on it.   #  what, is he supposed to travel by hot air balloon ?  # i completely agree with this.  facts exist independent of actions.  what, is he supposed to travel by hot air balloon ? you ca not tell people that they must make sacrifices for the environment and then be unwilling to do it yourself.  there is something to be said for setting an example.  dicaprio is in a position of some influence.  if he  really  wants to help the environment, then he should start by doing things that people should emulate.  it is hard to take someone seriously when they are a hypocrite.  he is undermining his entire message.  no one is advocating that everyone must take a vow of poverty before they can be considered a credible advocate.  this is a straw man.  nobody is asking for a vow of poverty, he just needs to travel more efficiently on a commercial jet.  his act of flying private gives the message that being wasteful is okay if you have money.  big scale economic and global policy is needed, because the problem is trillions of times bigger than one guy and his yacht if it is too much trouble for one guy and his yacht to care about the environment, how can you expect an entire nation to care about the environment ? i have never heard them advocate the ban of yachts.  i have never heard them say that every individual needs to take a vow of poverty.  since when is giving up private jets and yachts a  vow of poverty  ? all we are asking is that they put themselves in our shoes before advocating policies that will not affect them; they can maintain their lifestyle despite the cost of energy.  buying a tesla is certainly not poverty, but is better for the environment.  covering a mansion in solar panels allows you to keep using power, but not contribute to pollution.  until these wealthy people start doing greener things, it will not be affordable for the rest of us.   #  dealing with global warming on the big scale means a lot of people will have to make sacrifices.   #  i do not think people assume global warming is not real because some guy has a yacht.  it seems irrelevant.  what gets people pissed off is hypocrisy.  dealing with global warming on the big scale means a lot of people will have to make sacrifices.  big sacrifices.  entire industries will be wiped out.  if you claim that it is necessary to do that, then you have to show that you are willing to make some sacrifices yourself.  some poor oil worker will lose his livelihood.  if that is necessary, because oil is bad, then i say it is also necessary for the advocates to lose their yachts, because.  well.  oil is bad.   #  a person invoking the collective  we  when calling for the morality of personal sacrifices while in the meantime being busy doing the opposite is a person who is pretending to a moral principle which he does not possess.   #  stop smoking cigarettes and stop flying private jets are nothing comparable.  i assume nobody believes there is such a thing as private jet addiction.  hypocrisy means pretending to a moral principle which you do not possess.  a person invoking the collective  we  when calling for the morality of personal sacrifices while in the meantime being busy doing the opposite is a person who is pretending to a moral principle which he does not possess.  like the chicken hawk, or the priest damning strippers from the first row.  on the other hand we have gandhi is: be the change you wish to see in the world.  in addition a spectator could easily be excused from coming to the conclusion that climate change is probably not such a grave concern since the most passionate speakers for climate change in their own life demonstrates an obvious disregard for it.  when those people who have studied it and who ought to know more than me, by their personal choices acts like climate change is not a great matter, why should i who have not studied it think otherwise ? of course the reality of climate change is no more dependent on the likes of leo dicaprio or al gore, than the reality of gravity is dependent on wether i deny its existence when jumping off a bridge.   #  energy generation is where the majority of greenhouse gasses come from, not from private jets.   #  dealing with climate change will turn over a lot of apple carts, but mostly in the oligarchy, not so much at the 0 percenter level.  for example, solar is now cheaper than natural gas for generating energy, and employs more people.  energy storage and efficient global transport will be a whole new industry, requiring and bankrolling huge applied technology deployments.  energy generation is where the majority of greenhouse gasses come from, not from private jets.  incidentally, private jets already the most expensive mode of transportation on the planet would be minimally impacted by having to purchase zero carbon fuel either by biosourcing or by some kind of offset investment .  few plutocrats would stop using them, i imagine, if the total cost of ownership were to rise a few percent.  we are not going to turn around the carbon train by conciencious personal use of the environmentally enlightened few.  hard policy, technology investment, and carbon footprint liquidity are some of the things that will actually make a difference.  while it could be arguably true that promoting climate change mitigation while flying around in a g iv is somewhat  ironic , it is not hypocritical, unless the solution being promoted is the banning of private aviation which would be ridiculously ineffective , and indefensible as a strategy .   #  as such if they really want to make changes then their personal choices can have an effect on influencing others.   # whilst true, these people are in the spotlight.  as such if they really want to make changes then their personal choices can have an effect on influencing others.  changing the views of enough people and making them willing to change their personal lifestyle to one that is more environmentally responsible would increase the market for companies to cater to these people.  it would encourage more to change to offer services or products that have lower co0 emissions.  trying to get regulations in place and laws that restrict companies will always be unfavourable, especially in the us.  people will fear monger, using ideas that it is uncapitalist or even go as far as saying it in unconstitutional.  if you can make the consumers  want  something that is more ethical then there will be a shift.  it is a small step; but is it so much to ask that one or two rich people go without a private jet and maybe cause a small change and escape the accusations of being hypocrites that may accelerate the process of putting in place new rules and regulations.
i feel like this is an incredibly common, cynical sentiment you read all over the internet:  pfft i bet dicaprio took a private jet and a yacht to get to the speech.  typical hollywood hypocrite.  climate change is a farce.   and rarely do i see anyone stick up for the obvious truth and put that argument to bed.  whether or not dicaprio uses a jet has absolutely no bearing on whether or not climate change is a real problem.  it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he can speak on it.  what, is he supposed to travel by hot air balloon ? there is no hypocrisy, because no one is advocating the ban of private jets.  no one is advocating that everyone must take a vow of poverty before they can be considered a credible advocate.  the message is that policy needs to change.  big scale economic and global policy is needed, because the problem is trillions of times bigger than one guy and his yacht.  i have never heard these guys advocate the ban of private jets.  i have never heard them advocate the ban of yachts.  i have never heard them say that every individual needs to take a vow of poverty.  so, they are not hypocrites.  thus, attacking them personally for not being perfectly flawless examples of carbon free lifestyles is clearly just attacking the messenger, setting up an unreasonable strawman, and trying to shut down the debate.  it adds nothing constructive, does not have anything to do with the science itself or the validity of the message itself, it is a pure red herring.   #  there is no hypocrisy, because no one is advocating the ban of private jets.   #  no one is advocating that everyone must take a vow of poverty before they can be considered a credible advocate.   # i completely agree with this.  facts exist independent of actions.  what, is he supposed to travel by hot air balloon ? you ca not tell people that they must make sacrifices for the environment and then be unwilling to do it yourself.  there is something to be said for setting an example.  dicaprio is in a position of some influence.  if he  really  wants to help the environment, then he should start by doing things that people should emulate.  it is hard to take someone seriously when they are a hypocrite.  he is undermining his entire message.  no one is advocating that everyone must take a vow of poverty before they can be considered a credible advocate.  this is a straw man.  nobody is asking for a vow of poverty, he just needs to travel more efficiently on a commercial jet.  his act of flying private gives the message that being wasteful is okay if you have money.  big scale economic and global policy is needed, because the problem is trillions of times bigger than one guy and his yacht if it is too much trouble for one guy and his yacht to care about the environment, how can you expect an entire nation to care about the environment ? i have never heard them advocate the ban of yachts.  i have never heard them say that every individual needs to take a vow of poverty.  since when is giving up private jets and yachts a  vow of poverty  ? all we are asking is that they put themselves in our shoes before advocating policies that will not affect them; they can maintain their lifestyle despite the cost of energy.  buying a tesla is certainly not poverty, but is better for the environment.  covering a mansion in solar panels allows you to keep using power, but not contribute to pollution.  until these wealthy people start doing greener things, it will not be affordable for the rest of us.   #  if you claim that it is necessary to do that, then you have to show that you are willing to make some sacrifices yourself.   #  i do not think people assume global warming is not real because some guy has a yacht.  it seems irrelevant.  what gets people pissed off is hypocrisy.  dealing with global warming on the big scale means a lot of people will have to make sacrifices.  big sacrifices.  entire industries will be wiped out.  if you claim that it is necessary to do that, then you have to show that you are willing to make some sacrifices yourself.  some poor oil worker will lose his livelihood.  if that is necessary, because oil is bad, then i say it is also necessary for the advocates to lose their yachts, because.  well.  oil is bad.   #  on the other hand we have gandhi is: be the change you wish to see in the world.   #  stop smoking cigarettes and stop flying private jets are nothing comparable.  i assume nobody believes there is such a thing as private jet addiction.  hypocrisy means pretending to a moral principle which you do not possess.  a person invoking the collective  we  when calling for the morality of personal sacrifices while in the meantime being busy doing the opposite is a person who is pretending to a moral principle which he does not possess.  like the chicken hawk, or the priest damning strippers from the first row.  on the other hand we have gandhi is: be the change you wish to see in the world.  in addition a spectator could easily be excused from coming to the conclusion that climate change is probably not such a grave concern since the most passionate speakers for climate change in their own life demonstrates an obvious disregard for it.  when those people who have studied it and who ought to know more than me, by their personal choices acts like climate change is not a great matter, why should i who have not studied it think otherwise ? of course the reality of climate change is no more dependent on the likes of leo dicaprio or al gore, than the reality of gravity is dependent on wether i deny its existence when jumping off a bridge.   #  we are not going to turn around the carbon train by conciencious personal use of the environmentally enlightened few.   #  dealing with climate change will turn over a lot of apple carts, but mostly in the oligarchy, not so much at the 0 percenter level.  for example, solar is now cheaper than natural gas for generating energy, and employs more people.  energy storage and efficient global transport will be a whole new industry, requiring and bankrolling huge applied technology deployments.  energy generation is where the majority of greenhouse gasses come from, not from private jets.  incidentally, private jets already the most expensive mode of transportation on the planet would be minimally impacted by having to purchase zero carbon fuel either by biosourcing or by some kind of offset investment .  few plutocrats would stop using them, i imagine, if the total cost of ownership were to rise a few percent.  we are not going to turn around the carbon train by conciencious personal use of the environmentally enlightened few.  hard policy, technology investment, and carbon footprint liquidity are some of the things that will actually make a difference.  while it could be arguably true that promoting climate change mitigation while flying around in a g iv is somewhat  ironic , it is not hypocritical, unless the solution being promoted is the banning of private aviation which would be ridiculously ineffective , and indefensible as a strategy .   #  as such if they really want to make changes then their personal choices can have an effect on influencing others.   # whilst true, these people are in the spotlight.  as such if they really want to make changes then their personal choices can have an effect on influencing others.  changing the views of enough people and making them willing to change their personal lifestyle to one that is more environmentally responsible would increase the market for companies to cater to these people.  it would encourage more to change to offer services or products that have lower co0 emissions.  trying to get regulations in place and laws that restrict companies will always be unfavourable, especially in the us.  people will fear monger, using ideas that it is uncapitalist or even go as far as saying it in unconstitutional.  if you can make the consumers  want  something that is more ethical then there will be a shift.  it is a small step; but is it so much to ask that one or two rich people go without a private jet and maybe cause a small change and escape the accusations of being hypocrites that may accelerate the process of putting in place new rules and regulations.
i feel like this is an incredibly common, cynical sentiment you read all over the internet:  pfft i bet dicaprio took a private jet and a yacht to get to the speech.  typical hollywood hypocrite.  climate change is a farce.   and rarely do i see anyone stick up for the obvious truth and put that argument to bed.  whether or not dicaprio uses a jet has absolutely no bearing on whether or not climate change is a real problem.  it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he can speak on it.  what, is he supposed to travel by hot air balloon ? there is no hypocrisy, because no one is advocating the ban of private jets.  no one is advocating that everyone must take a vow of poverty before they can be considered a credible advocate.  the message is that policy needs to change.  big scale economic and global policy is needed, because the problem is trillions of times bigger than one guy and his yacht.  i have never heard these guys advocate the ban of private jets.  i have never heard them advocate the ban of yachts.  i have never heard them say that every individual needs to take a vow of poverty.  so, they are not hypocrites.  thus, attacking them personally for not being perfectly flawless examples of carbon free lifestyles is clearly just attacking the messenger, setting up an unreasonable strawman, and trying to shut down the debate.  it adds nothing constructive, does not have anything to do with the science itself or the validity of the message itself, it is a pure red herring.   #  i have never heard these guys advocate the ban of private jets.   #  i have never heard them advocate the ban of yachts.   # i completely agree with this.  facts exist independent of actions.  what, is he supposed to travel by hot air balloon ? you ca not tell people that they must make sacrifices for the environment and then be unwilling to do it yourself.  there is something to be said for setting an example.  dicaprio is in a position of some influence.  if he  really  wants to help the environment, then he should start by doing things that people should emulate.  it is hard to take someone seriously when they are a hypocrite.  he is undermining his entire message.  no one is advocating that everyone must take a vow of poverty before they can be considered a credible advocate.  this is a straw man.  nobody is asking for a vow of poverty, he just needs to travel more efficiently on a commercial jet.  his act of flying private gives the message that being wasteful is okay if you have money.  big scale economic and global policy is needed, because the problem is trillions of times bigger than one guy and his yacht if it is too much trouble for one guy and his yacht to care about the environment, how can you expect an entire nation to care about the environment ? i have never heard them advocate the ban of yachts.  i have never heard them say that every individual needs to take a vow of poverty.  since when is giving up private jets and yachts a  vow of poverty  ? all we are asking is that they put themselves in our shoes before advocating policies that will not affect them; they can maintain their lifestyle despite the cost of energy.  buying a tesla is certainly not poverty, but is better for the environment.  covering a mansion in solar panels allows you to keep using power, but not contribute to pollution.  until these wealthy people start doing greener things, it will not be affordable for the rest of us.   #  if that is necessary, because oil is bad, then i say it is also necessary for the advocates to lose their yachts, because.  well.  oil is bad.   #  i do not think people assume global warming is not real because some guy has a yacht.  it seems irrelevant.  what gets people pissed off is hypocrisy.  dealing with global warming on the big scale means a lot of people will have to make sacrifices.  big sacrifices.  entire industries will be wiped out.  if you claim that it is necessary to do that, then you have to show that you are willing to make some sacrifices yourself.  some poor oil worker will lose his livelihood.  if that is necessary, because oil is bad, then i say it is also necessary for the advocates to lose their yachts, because.  well.  oil is bad.   #  stop smoking cigarettes and stop flying private jets are nothing comparable.   #  stop smoking cigarettes and stop flying private jets are nothing comparable.  i assume nobody believes there is such a thing as private jet addiction.  hypocrisy means pretending to a moral principle which you do not possess.  a person invoking the collective  we  when calling for the morality of personal sacrifices while in the meantime being busy doing the opposite is a person who is pretending to a moral principle which he does not possess.  like the chicken hawk, or the priest damning strippers from the first row.  on the other hand we have gandhi is: be the change you wish to see in the world.  in addition a spectator could easily be excused from coming to the conclusion that climate change is probably not such a grave concern since the most passionate speakers for climate change in their own life demonstrates an obvious disregard for it.  when those people who have studied it and who ought to know more than me, by their personal choices acts like climate change is not a great matter, why should i who have not studied it think otherwise ? of course the reality of climate change is no more dependent on the likes of leo dicaprio or al gore, than the reality of gravity is dependent on wether i deny its existence when jumping off a bridge.   #  dealing with climate change will turn over a lot of apple carts, but mostly in the oligarchy, not so much at the 0 percenter level.   #  dealing with climate change will turn over a lot of apple carts, but mostly in the oligarchy, not so much at the 0 percenter level.  for example, solar is now cheaper than natural gas for generating energy, and employs more people.  energy storage and efficient global transport will be a whole new industry, requiring and bankrolling huge applied technology deployments.  energy generation is where the majority of greenhouse gasses come from, not from private jets.  incidentally, private jets already the most expensive mode of transportation on the planet would be minimally impacted by having to purchase zero carbon fuel either by biosourcing or by some kind of offset investment .  few plutocrats would stop using them, i imagine, if the total cost of ownership were to rise a few percent.  we are not going to turn around the carbon train by conciencious personal use of the environmentally enlightened few.  hard policy, technology investment, and carbon footprint liquidity are some of the things that will actually make a difference.  while it could be arguably true that promoting climate change mitigation while flying around in a g iv is somewhat  ironic , it is not hypocritical, unless the solution being promoted is the banning of private aviation which would be ridiculously ineffective , and indefensible as a strategy .   #  people will fear monger, using ideas that it is uncapitalist or even go as far as saying it in unconstitutional.   # whilst true, these people are in the spotlight.  as such if they really want to make changes then their personal choices can have an effect on influencing others.  changing the views of enough people and making them willing to change their personal lifestyle to one that is more environmentally responsible would increase the market for companies to cater to these people.  it would encourage more to change to offer services or products that have lower co0 emissions.  trying to get regulations in place and laws that restrict companies will always be unfavourable, especially in the us.  people will fear monger, using ideas that it is uncapitalist or even go as far as saying it in unconstitutional.  if you can make the consumers  want  something that is more ethical then there will be a shift.  it is a small step; but is it so much to ask that one or two rich people go without a private jet and maybe cause a small change and escape the accusations of being hypocrites that may accelerate the process of putting in place new rules and regulations.
it bothers me when people i know have to find a new place for their pet because they are moving to a new apartment or have a new living arrangement which does not allow pets.  i find this really frustrating and i normally keep it to myself because i do not want to act  above it all , but why choose a place that does not allow pets when you have a pet ? you would not abandon your own child because it was no longer convenient to you so why an animal ? i have an even worse opinion of them if after not finding the pet a new home, they bring it to a shelter.  yet i do sort of understand since my city is terrible for finding pet friendly apartments, but i would not think of giving away my cat or bringing her to a shelter just so i could live somewhere better.  the reason i actually have my cat is because a friend who is not my friend anymore, different reason though was moving in with a guy and could not bring her cat with.  i know another chick who was showing me pictures of a dog she once had but had to give away and i honestly felt like saying to her,  you did not love your dog .  i am glad i did not since she is actually a sweet person.  maybe i am the terrible person.  i do not know.  i do not like being so judgmental, so maybe someone can change my view.  i understand that some people do not like animals as much as me, but why be a pet owner then.   #  you would not abandon your own child because it was no longer convenient to you so why an animal ?  #  . because people generally value children above dogs ?  # . because people generally value children above dogs ? other than that, i am not sure i see what you are trying to get at here.  you have described an act which is, by definition, selfish ie.  primarily concerned with self interest and not the interests of others.   #  after nine months, a bunch of funding was cut, my post suddenly disappeared and i was apologetically informed that i would be asked to transfer halfway across the country within a few weeks, or would be made redundant.   #  it can be surprisingly difficult to think long term, especially when you are young.  two years ago, i mid 0s got a several year post in london, with a high probability of being able to stay nearby afterwards.  i did not live in london at the time, and had to move there within a few weeks, so i househunted from far away and took whatever i could find, which happened not to allow pets.  i had wanted to adopt a cat, so i made plans to do some serious searching and move to a pet friendly place within the year.  after nine months, a bunch of funding was cut, my post suddenly disappeared and i was apologetically informed that i would be asked to transfer halfway across the country within a few weeks, or would be made redundant.  of course, this meant more panic househunting from afar and, as bad luck would have it, another non pet friendly flat.  if i had happened to get a pet friendly flat when i originally moved to london, i would have moved in, settled down, and adopted a cat within the first few months; then i would have received this notice, and had to choose between my cat and my career, and the choice there is obvious: of course i would have had to turf the poor thing out.  so what do i do if i want a cat ? wait until my late 0s, when i am on my way to owning my own flat and have a stable career ? yeah, i guess i probably will.  but it is hugely disappointing, and i think it is understandable that i never really even considered that i was not in a position to own a cat until unforeseeable disaster struck.   #  too often people just give up or dump them because it is not convenient.   #  circumstances change, but you have made a commitment to something that is living, breathing, and has feelings.  no, pets are not people, but they are also completely dependent on us and become part of the  pack  or family unit.  i am going through a divorce, and i lived in manhattan, ny.  my husband and i had a bernese mountain dog which i still have and three cats.  i could not afford to live on my own anymore and needed to find housing for myself and my dog and 0 cats he took one cat , and finding a roommate situation was next to impossible.  so, i sucked it up and moved out of the city.  rather than dump my pets, i found a solution for all of us to stay together.  was it a happy decision ? was it something i enjoyed ? no.  but, i made a commitment to them on day 0, and i am going to honor that unless i absolutely cannot for some reason financial or illness .  too often people just give up or dump them because it is not convenient.  some people do this with their kids too, by the way there are plenty of grandparents raising their grandkids because their parents do not want to deal with it.  i chose to make that commitment to them, and i am not going to pull the rug out from under them just because my life changed direction.  my pets have been extremely inconvenient as of late with everything going on, but they are my responsibility and my family, and i think too many people see them as disposable and do not actually do enough to try to keep them.   #  being in rescue i see a lot of pets in flux and it always sucks.   # there are lots of reasons why it might be best for all involved to rehome an animal.  people get sick.  people die.  they divorce and lose their houses.  they have babies with allergies or start working 0 hour days.  sometimes the animal itself needs more than you can give.  i had to regime my dog not because i could not take him with me to my new apartment, i specifically found a dog friendly one but because  he could not go .  he had severe anxiety and each new environment triggered a relapse in panic.  i could not stay in the same apartment for the next decade so the most compassionate thing i could do was find a home for him that did not change location every 0 months.  luckily my dad was able to take him in, but i am sure on the outside it looked like a convenient, irresponsible decision.  not one that involved literally years if training and medication.  nowadays i foster rescue dogs to fill the void, and i try to stay compassionate to the owners who had to surrender.  like your friend for example.  she wanted to live with a man.  that does not seem so crazy to me, moving in with your so is the natural course of a good relationship.  she probably sees a long future with this man.  it is easy to be glib, but if you really had to choose between your future husband and your pet, who would you choose ? would you really leave the love of your life so you did not have to rehome the cat ? being in rescue i see a lot of pets in flux and it always sucks.  still, almost all adapt quite nicely to their new homes.  it is  not  something you want to do nor something to be done lightly ! but sometimes it is best.  better than staying in a home that truly ca not meet their needs.   #  in this case, giving up a pet for such a reason would suggest that the owner of the pet is not very partial to their pet.   #  if someone finds an apartment that meets their needs financial, location, space etc.  , but the apartment turns out to not be pet friendly, then said person theoretically has two options: find a new apartment in order to keep their pet which may be less convenient for them , or give their pet away to a friend, shelter, etc.  the first option is problematic in that it may introduce unnecessary financial burdens on a person, and this, combined with the expenses of owning a pet in the first place, may be too much for someone with a lower income to handle.  in this case, i would say that giving away the pet would be justified.  however, let is consider that the decision to get rid of the pet is purely convenience based, not finance based.  let is say that the person getting this pet unfriendly apartment over a pet friendly one is doing so because all of the pet friendly apartments he/she looked at were unreasonable due to aesthetic reasons.  in this case, giving up a pet for such a reason would suggest that the owner of the pet is not very partial to their pet.  thus, from this, giving away the pet was not only due to a lack of a suitable apartment, but also due to a lack of fondness for the pet.  in conclusion, giving away a pet due to a lack of a pet friendly apartment is theoretically justified.
feminism is an extremely admirable cause, and i appreciate its goals and much of the progress that has been made.  i agree there needs to be places to vent, places the behavior of some supposed feminists, however, often in online formats such as twitter, is antithetical to feminisms goals, is awful pr, and is simply not okay.  in response to one guy who writes awful misogynistic articles, the following and much, much more was posted on twitter: in the whole zoe quinn a scandal, i saw one feminist pay attention to the fact that she was emotionally abusive to her ex, while everyone else on both sides ignored that to take cheap shots at each other.  and some people even went to far as to claim he was lying for attention, that we should ignore his claims  not  how you respond to claims of abuse.  the streisand effect, pr, any respectable ethical system, virtue ethics, kantian, modern decision theories, etc and basic human decency should be enough to show that this is not how you respond to someone writing sexist crap.  death threats are not okay.  threats of violence are not okay.  ignoring abuse for political convenience is not okay.  and this is why i do not like it when people claim that men should not ever criticize feminism.  not because i have any unique perspective as a man that is a separate issue but because it should always be okay for anyone to point out unethical and abusive behavior.   #  and this is why i do not like it when people claim that men should not ever criticize feminism.   #  not because i have any unique perspective as a man that is a separate issue but because it should always be okay for anyone to point out unethical and abusive behavior.   #  there is no reason you need the majority of your view changed.  objecting to death threats and asshole comments from anyone is acceptable no matter what your gender is.  however, let me tackle your last paragraph.  not because i have any unique perspective as a man that is a separate issue but because it should always be okay for anyone to point out unethical and abusive behavior.  throughout your point, you mention specific feminists who have said hurtful things or ignored victims.  you question why you should be unable to confront these people.  these people do deserve to be confronted.  however, feminism as a whole is not responsible for asshole people who send death threats and insult abuse victims.  your problem is not that you take issue with these behaviors, but that you want to criticize feminism as a whole based on misbehaving feminists.  as an ideology, there is no inherent part of feminism that says it is okay to send death threats, doxx people, etc.  you should feel confident that feminists who do these things are just shit people who would do them regardless of what movement they ascribe to.  you should not however use their behavior to argue against feminism itself.  it is a bit akin to the whole  stalin was an atheist  concept.  stalin was a terrible person by all accounts, but that is not a condition that allows you to argue against atheism itself.   #  every single movement that numbers past a certain amount of people have had members take more aggressive stances.   #  i wonder if you only think this is an attribute of feminism.  every single movement that numbers past a certain amount of people have had members take more aggressive stances.  you saw this in the civil rights movement.  you see this in environmentalist movement and you also see this in mens  rights.  hell that sub even has a link to a sub called  the pussy pass  to single out feminism here seems like a stretch.  every single group has had the,  i am mad as hell and i am not going to take it anymore crowd.    #  all those claims you just made against feminism i could make for almost any group if i wanted to.   #  the op is argument is it bad for people to say bad things about other people and some of his sources are a few internet posters saying bad things ? hell, i can go to almost any message board and find the same thing about the conservative movement or liberal movement, the anti vac movement, anti gun or pro gun movements or atheist or religious movements.  all those claims you just made against feminism i could make for almost any group if i wanted to.  i disagree with you in the fact i do not see those criticisms as feminist specific.  do you really think that mrm handles criticism from women in an reasonable way ? most groups have a hard time taking any reasonable criticism from groups from the opposite side.   #  the particularly virtuous could even post a full length rebuttal, or respond in a way that does not increase exposure to the original crap, refusing to give the guy the attention he wants.   #  saying bad things about other people is not the same as being abusive, threatening violence, doxxing people, etc.  the article that those violent threats are in response to is horrible and harmful, the author should not have written it and people should most definitely call the author on being an asshole and informing him that he is an ignorant prick.  the particularly virtuous could even post a full length rebuttal, or respond in a way that does not increase exposure to the original crap, refusing to give the guy the attention he wants.  i am not saying other groups do not have these problems, but i do not like that feminism has these problems  because  i want to ally myself with feminism.  it sucks because i really wo not feel comfortable doing that if i will be attacked for calling people out on shitty behavior, with nobody on my side other than the people who have done or written the shitty things that precipitated that response.  like, yeah, in an ideal world people would just be nice, we would not need feminism, we would not have people writing or doing shitty things in the first place, etc.  but the least we can do is not make things worse, and make it okay for anyone to call anyone on shitty behavior, in an appropriate manner.  i am holding feminism to a higher standard because feminism is supposed to be the good guys.   #  i would get some people who would try to engage me dialogue and some people tell me to fuck myself.   #  i am holding feminism to a higher standard because feminism is supposed to be the good guys.  they might supposed to be, but they are also a group made of people so you are going to get the same problems you get with any group of people.  if i made the blanket statement,  hey you all.  you should really look into some of the opinions of groups you disagree with because some of what they say has merit.   i would get some people who would try to engage me dialogue and some people tell me to fuck myself.  i could do the social experiment myself, but i already get a lot of downvotes.
feminism is an extremely admirable cause, and i appreciate its goals and much of the progress that has been made.  i agree there needs to be places to vent, places the behavior of some supposed feminists, however, often in online formats such as twitter, is antithetical to feminisms goals, is awful pr, and is simply not okay.  in response to one guy who writes awful misogynistic articles, the following and much, much more was posted on twitter: in the whole zoe quinn a scandal, i saw one feminist pay attention to the fact that she was emotionally abusive to her ex, while everyone else on both sides ignored that to take cheap shots at each other.  and some people even went to far as to claim he was lying for attention, that we should ignore his claims  not  how you respond to claims of abuse.  the streisand effect, pr, any respectable ethical system, virtue ethics, kantian, modern decision theories, etc and basic human decency should be enough to show that this is not how you respond to someone writing sexist crap.  death threats are not okay.  threats of violence are not okay.  ignoring abuse for political convenience is not okay.  and this is why i do not like it when people claim that men should not ever criticize feminism.  not because i have any unique perspective as a man that is a separate issue but because it should always be okay for anyone to point out unethical and abusive behavior.   #  the behavior of some supposed feminists, however, often in online formats such as twitter, is antithetical to feminisms goals, is awful pr, and is simply not okay.   #  labeling the bad behavior of idiots on twitter and other social media as representative of feminism is itself sexist and  is simply not ok .   # labeling the bad behavior of idiots on twitter and other social media as representative of feminism is itself sexist and  is simply not ok .  i am sure that i could find people from any sexual, ethnic or racial minority behaving badly but i would never conclude that blacks are xyz because this one black did abc on twitter.  that is the very definition of prejudice.  the same is true for feminism.  individuals do not act  in the name of  feminism or homosexuality or african americans or any other  ism .  individuals act for themselves unless they are acting in some official capacity.  threats of violence are not okay.  no they are not and that is why it is reprehensible when men is rights activists threaten to murder women who criticize gaming culture.  it is men is rights activists who have in fact committed murder in the name of their belief system, not feminists.  i have never ever seen or heard  any  feminist claim that men should never criticize feminism.  feminism comes from academia where there has been considerable debate for literally decades.   #  hell that sub even has a link to a sub called  the pussy pass  to single out feminism here seems like a stretch.   #  i wonder if you only think this is an attribute of feminism.  every single movement that numbers past a certain amount of people have had members take more aggressive stances.  you saw this in the civil rights movement.  you see this in environmentalist movement and you also see this in mens  rights.  hell that sub even has a link to a sub called  the pussy pass  to single out feminism here seems like a stretch.  every single group has had the,  i am mad as hell and i am not going to take it anymore crowd.    #  most groups have a hard time taking any reasonable criticism from groups from the opposite side.   #  the op is argument is it bad for people to say bad things about other people and some of his sources are a few internet posters saying bad things ? hell, i can go to almost any message board and find the same thing about the conservative movement or liberal movement, the anti vac movement, anti gun or pro gun movements or atheist or religious movements.  all those claims you just made against feminism i could make for almost any group if i wanted to.  i disagree with you in the fact i do not see those criticisms as feminist specific.  do you really think that mrm handles criticism from women in an reasonable way ? most groups have a hard time taking any reasonable criticism from groups from the opposite side.   #  saying bad things about other people is not the same as being abusive, threatening violence, doxxing people, etc.   #  saying bad things about other people is not the same as being abusive, threatening violence, doxxing people, etc.  the article that those violent threats are in response to is horrible and harmful, the author should not have written it and people should most definitely call the author on being an asshole and informing him that he is an ignorant prick.  the particularly virtuous could even post a full length rebuttal, or respond in a way that does not increase exposure to the original crap, refusing to give the guy the attention he wants.  i am not saying other groups do not have these problems, but i do not like that feminism has these problems  because  i want to ally myself with feminism.  it sucks because i really wo not feel comfortable doing that if i will be attacked for calling people out on shitty behavior, with nobody on my side other than the people who have done or written the shitty things that precipitated that response.  like, yeah, in an ideal world people would just be nice, we would not need feminism, we would not have people writing or doing shitty things in the first place, etc.  but the least we can do is not make things worse, and make it okay for anyone to call anyone on shitty behavior, in an appropriate manner.  i am holding feminism to a higher standard because feminism is supposed to be the good guys.   #  if i made the blanket statement,  hey you all.   #  i am holding feminism to a higher standard because feminism is supposed to be the good guys.  they might supposed to be, but they are also a group made of people so you are going to get the same problems you get with any group of people.  if i made the blanket statement,  hey you all.  you should really look into some of the opinions of groups you disagree with because some of what they say has merit.   i would get some people who would try to engage me dialogue and some people tell me to fuck myself.  i could do the social experiment myself, but i already get a lot of downvotes.
feminism is an extremely admirable cause, and i appreciate its goals and much of the progress that has been made.  i agree there needs to be places to vent, places the behavior of some supposed feminists, however, often in online formats such as twitter, is antithetical to feminisms goals, is awful pr, and is simply not okay.  in response to one guy who writes awful misogynistic articles, the following and much, much more was posted on twitter: in the whole zoe quinn a scandal, i saw one feminist pay attention to the fact that she was emotionally abusive to her ex, while everyone else on both sides ignored that to take cheap shots at each other.  and some people even went to far as to claim he was lying for attention, that we should ignore his claims  not  how you respond to claims of abuse.  the streisand effect, pr, any respectable ethical system, virtue ethics, kantian, modern decision theories, etc and basic human decency should be enough to show that this is not how you respond to someone writing sexist crap.  death threats are not okay.  threats of violence are not okay.  ignoring abuse for political convenience is not okay.  and this is why i do not like it when people claim that men should not ever criticize feminism.  not because i have any unique perspective as a man that is a separate issue but because it should always be okay for anyone to point out unethical and abusive behavior.   #  and this is why i do not like it when people claim that men should not ever criticize feminism.   #  i have never ever seen or heard  any  feminist claim that men should never criticize feminism.   # labeling the bad behavior of idiots on twitter and other social media as representative of feminism is itself sexist and  is simply not ok .  i am sure that i could find people from any sexual, ethnic or racial minority behaving badly but i would never conclude that blacks are xyz because this one black did abc on twitter.  that is the very definition of prejudice.  the same is true for feminism.  individuals do not act  in the name of  feminism or homosexuality or african americans or any other  ism .  individuals act for themselves unless they are acting in some official capacity.  threats of violence are not okay.  no they are not and that is why it is reprehensible when men is rights activists threaten to murder women who criticize gaming culture.  it is men is rights activists who have in fact committed murder in the name of their belief system, not feminists.  i have never ever seen or heard  any  feminist claim that men should never criticize feminism.  feminism comes from academia where there has been considerable debate for literally decades.   #  you see this in environmentalist movement and you also see this in mens  rights.   #  i wonder if you only think this is an attribute of feminism.  every single movement that numbers past a certain amount of people have had members take more aggressive stances.  you saw this in the civil rights movement.  you see this in environmentalist movement and you also see this in mens  rights.  hell that sub even has a link to a sub called  the pussy pass  to single out feminism here seems like a stretch.  every single group has had the,  i am mad as hell and i am not going to take it anymore crowd.    #  most groups have a hard time taking any reasonable criticism from groups from the opposite side.   #  the op is argument is it bad for people to say bad things about other people and some of his sources are a few internet posters saying bad things ? hell, i can go to almost any message board and find the same thing about the conservative movement or liberal movement, the anti vac movement, anti gun or pro gun movements or atheist or religious movements.  all those claims you just made against feminism i could make for almost any group if i wanted to.  i disagree with you in the fact i do not see those criticisms as feminist specific.  do you really think that mrm handles criticism from women in an reasonable way ? most groups have a hard time taking any reasonable criticism from groups from the opposite side.   #  i am not saying other groups do not have these problems, but i do not like that feminism has these problems  because  i want to ally myself with feminism.   #  saying bad things about other people is not the same as being abusive, threatening violence, doxxing people, etc.  the article that those violent threats are in response to is horrible and harmful, the author should not have written it and people should most definitely call the author on being an asshole and informing him that he is an ignorant prick.  the particularly virtuous could even post a full length rebuttal, or respond in a way that does not increase exposure to the original crap, refusing to give the guy the attention he wants.  i am not saying other groups do not have these problems, but i do not like that feminism has these problems  because  i want to ally myself with feminism.  it sucks because i really wo not feel comfortable doing that if i will be attacked for calling people out on shitty behavior, with nobody on my side other than the people who have done or written the shitty things that precipitated that response.  like, yeah, in an ideal world people would just be nice, we would not need feminism, we would not have people writing or doing shitty things in the first place, etc.  but the least we can do is not make things worse, and make it okay for anyone to call anyone on shitty behavior, in an appropriate manner.  i am holding feminism to a higher standard because feminism is supposed to be the good guys.   #  i could do the social experiment myself, but i already get a lot of downvotes.   #  i am holding feminism to a higher standard because feminism is supposed to be the good guys.  they might supposed to be, but they are also a group made of people so you are going to get the same problems you get with any group of people.  if i made the blanket statement,  hey you all.  you should really look into some of the opinions of groups you disagree with because some of what they say has merit.   i would get some people who would try to engage me dialogue and some people tell me to fuck myself.  i could do the social experiment myself, but i already get a lot of downvotes.
i am not one for blind nationalism but here is my thought.  some one from another country using mexico as an example from here on out immigrates here one way or another for a better life.  meaning that on some level you believe here to be better than where you came from.  if so then why the nationalistic pride in the country that failed you ? it does not make much sense to me hold ideals like  viva mexico !   when you and/or your family bailed from there to get a better life here.  i know this may seem quazi racist, but i do not feel that i am.  i am one for more open borders even.  set up a check in station on the border, give your name and any records you have, finger print, and here is you are citizen ship and ss card.  just so we can workout census crap and taxes can be made sure to be paid.  for example i would not move to the uk if i felt this country was horrible then decorate my house with the us flag and blast the nation anthem out the window.  does not seem to make sense.   #  some one from another country using mexico as an example from here on out immigrates here one way or another for a better life.   #  i think you have a very poor understanding of immigration.   #  i currently have my american flag in my room in japan.  i like to remember my home.  it does not mean i hate japan or think it is a terrible place.  i think you have a very poor understanding of immigration.  my wife is japanese and she will immigrate to america.  japan is a first world country and her life would be just as good in japan, but she is moving because she loves me.  is it wrong for her to honor her heritage ? i do not know why you think that someone honoring their heritage means they hate the us.  it is possible to honor your background and also be a proud american.  that is what makes america the great nation that it is, and separates us from almost every other country in the world.  we are made up of immigrants from all over.  do you have the same problem with all the irish americans who have tattoos of a shamrock or the irish flag ? what about people that put of the confederate flag a country that betrayed and fought a war against america ? because otherwise it seems you are just picking on mexican people.   #  it is not only a statement of national pride, but pride in where they come from and what they had to leave behind.   #  you seem to be assuming that expressing pride in a country necessarily means that you think it is absolutely superior to every other country.  for people who move to another country like expats or immigrants they can have complex feelings about the country they are from and are now living in.  they have families, friends, food, and culture that they had to leave behind and those things are  also  important to them.  for example, to take the hypothetical mexican immigrant, flying the mexican flag may not be a declaration that they think mexico is superior to the united states.  it is a symbol to themselves and others that they support the country they come from.  it is not only a statement of national pride, but pride in where they come from and what they had to leave behind.  none of this means that they must think that mexico is superior to the us or anything like that.  though one may have found better  economic  opportunities in the us, culture travels with us and their national flag may better represent their  cultural  values.  identity is more complex than a   b, and i think immigrants/expats/etc who are supporting their former countries are expressing that.  they come from different backgrounds, places, and histories than those who live around them.  showing pride in where they are from is a potential way to show that they still celebrate their roots.   #  in fact, i highly suspect that many europeans do too, but having never been or lived there i could not say for certain.   #  japan is a first world, capitalist democratic country.  in fact the politics of japan have much more in common with european countries than america does in many ways: small military, parliamentary system, universal healthcare, monarch as the symbolic head of state, etc.  japan has been a capitalist democracy just as long as many of the countries of europe germany, italy and much longer than some greece, spain .  therefore, unless you are being racist it is entirely appropriate to compare japan to america or europe.  and conservative japanese people definitely think it is the best country the same way conservative americans do.  in fact, i highly suspect that many europeans do too, but having never been or lived there i could not say for certain.   #  absolutely, but national flags make for easily identifiable symbols of world cultures rather than perhaps the more specific symbols one could use.   # absolutely, but national flags make for easily identifiable symbols of world cultures rather than perhaps the more specific symbols one could use.  if i flew the us flag when i moved to germany, that would tell people where i was from.  if i flew the flag of home town , people would not know anything about where i was from, defeating the point.  no, like i said it is about expressing pride in one is people and where one comes from.  it does not have to be tied to country a   country b.  you mainly seem to be stuck on this idea that if someone leaves their home country, they are tacitly admitting that wherever they move to is superior.  flying a flag might make more sense if you stop conflating a move with that admission of superiority.  cultural identity and how people feel about moving to a new country is usually more complex than  this place drools, that place rules.   even if they are admitting that their new country is superior, that does not mean they should be forced to or want to abandon where they are from.  to symbolically cut themselves off from their family, friends, home culture, history, memories, etc.   #  and so on the individual level, folks tie their experiences to the flag, and thus it becomes representative of them.   # not getting to the moon, fighting for our independence, etc.  sure, that is of course one of the sticking points about symbols.  we do not always agree with them or read into them what other folks see.  but for some people they  do  represent all those things.  to some folks in the us, the flag represents our wars for freedom and our american ingenuity, etc.  to a mexican immigrant, their home flag might be a symbol to them of the friends and family they are trying to honor in a new culture and country.  a nation is flag can represent all those things to people because the flag is the symbol for the experiences of  tons  of people.  and so on the individual level, folks tie their experiences to the flag, and thus it becomes representative of them.
the 0 hour notation removes the ambiguity associated with am/pm usage and also makes it easier to express time across time zones.  the only thing going for the am/pm notation is that is logical to use it with analog clocks.  but those clocks have been in a decline for a long time now.  digital clocks are better since its faster to read the minutes as a number.  most people already have switched from wearing watches to using their smartphones for time telling.  that means there is no longer a point for am/pm, other than tradition.   #  digital clocks are better since its faster to read the minutes as a number.   #  i actually agree with you on the whole about 0 hour time being superior to 0 hour time, but i do think this is a weak argument and should probably be discarded.   # i actually agree with you on the whole about 0 hour time being superior to 0 hour time, but i do think this is a weak argument and should probably be discarded.  why ? analog clocks have an ability that digital clocks lack.  they use a distance scale to represent time.  whereas a person reading a digital clock must parse the individual numbers and potentially perform some mental calculations to determine the answer to questions like  has a half hour passed yet  with an analog clock you can just look at the relative position of the hands and get your question answered more intuitively.  it is essentially the same reason that a line chart shows trends and relative values in an easier way to understand that a table of numbers.  in both the clock and the chart example, the cost of this easier interpretation is reduced precision and for many people and many situations, that is ok.   #  0 hour notation is just so much more logical when talking.   #  here in denmark, we use 0 hour notation, when writing.  but, unless you have just looked at your phone and flip to autopilot, you say  0 past 0 , not  0 past 0 .  0 hour notation is just so much more logical when talking.  you cite conversion problems between time zones, and i will give you that one, as long as you convert from 0 to 0, or vice versa.  it is the same problem we have with kilo/pound.  when you always have used one system you know it, and the other just seems weird  #  i do not see them disappearing from public places.   #   most people  have smartphones now ? most young people, yeah, but not most people in general.  and even though i have a smartphone, i like having analog clocks around.  there is no distracting glow, there are many styles to choose from, and there is no need to dig through my purse for the phone and double tap on a screen to check the time.  analog clocks give me the ability to check the time while working or talking to someone using just a subtle glance instead of obviously reaching for my phone.  i do not see them disappearing from public places.  i am a fan of 0 hour time and i use it regularly, but i think analog clocks still have a place and will continue to have a place, especially in public spaces.   #  the larger ones look nice to be hung in living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens.   #  i do not think analog clocks are in decline.  the larger ones look nice to be hung in living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens.  i do not think large digital clocks look nice in larger rooms.  i guess that is based on tradition, like you said, but i just do not want those rooms to look so technological.  digital clocks are good for smaller clocks like in the bedroom.  i know a lot of people stop wearing watches because of smartphones, but i will die if i am not wearing a watch.  to me, it is just easier to bring my arm up instead of reaching into my pocket to pull out my phone.   #  and if i have to talk to someone learning english, it must mean that english is entirely natural to those who have known it from near birth and therefore its idiosyncrasies do not significantly hinder it.   #  that relies very heavily upon initial learning curve, and only suggests that english is  more efficient and more effective .  however, the lack of rationality in english does not necessarily mean that it is less effective, even if it is harder to learn.  and if i have to talk to someone learning english, it must mean that english is entirely natural to those who have known it from near birth and therefore its idiosyncrasies do not significantly hinder it.  and if we are looking for a efficient and effective language, i feel like lojban is a better conlang to look to than esperanto.  it was more towards efficiency and consistency of the language, less towards making it easy for westerners to learn.  but i do not want the biased and anecdotal opinion of the masses, i want someone who actually has thought about all aspects of this rationally and deliberately.
the 0 hour notation removes the ambiguity associated with am/pm usage and also makes it easier to express time across time zones.  the only thing going for the am/pm notation is that is logical to use it with analog clocks.  but those clocks have been in a decline for a long time now.  digital clocks are better since its faster to read the minutes as a number.  most people already have switched from wearing watches to using their smartphones for time telling.  that means there is no longer a point for am/pm, other than tradition.   #  but those clocks have been in a decline for a long time now.   #  digital clocks are better since its faster to read the minutes as a number.   # digital clocks are better since its faster to read the minutes as a number.  if that were the case, the sbb would not use analog clocks.  there is yet to be a digital clock face that is as clear to read as a bauhaus analog.  it is also much easier to just compare the difference between the current time on the minute hand and the time a train will leave with an analog clock than having to perform a mental calculation.  0 hour time is better for digital, but i still pick analog 0 hour over 0 hour digital, having both analog and digital wristwatches.   #  when you always have used one system you know it, and the other just seems weird  #  here in denmark, we use 0 hour notation, when writing.  but, unless you have just looked at your phone and flip to autopilot, you say  0 past 0 , not  0 past 0 .  0 hour notation is just so much more logical when talking.  you cite conversion problems between time zones, and i will give you that one, as long as you convert from 0 to 0, or vice versa.  it is the same problem we have with kilo/pound.  when you always have used one system you know it, and the other just seems weird  #  in both the clock and the chart example, the cost of this easier interpretation is reduced precision and for many people and many situations, that is ok.   # i actually agree with you on the whole about 0 hour time being superior to 0 hour time, but i do think this is a weak argument and should probably be discarded.  why ? analog clocks have an ability that digital clocks lack.  they use a distance scale to represent time.  whereas a person reading a digital clock must parse the individual numbers and potentially perform some mental calculations to determine the answer to questions like  has a half hour passed yet  with an analog clock you can just look at the relative position of the hands and get your question answered more intuitively.  it is essentially the same reason that a line chart shows trends and relative values in an easier way to understand that a table of numbers.  in both the clock and the chart example, the cost of this easier interpretation is reduced precision and for many people and many situations, that is ok.   #  and even though i have a smartphone, i like having analog clocks around.   #   most people  have smartphones now ? most young people, yeah, but not most people in general.  and even though i have a smartphone, i like having analog clocks around.  there is no distracting glow, there are many styles to choose from, and there is no need to dig through my purse for the phone and double tap on a screen to check the time.  analog clocks give me the ability to check the time while working or talking to someone using just a subtle glance instead of obviously reaching for my phone.  i do not see them disappearing from public places.  i am a fan of 0 hour time and i use it regularly, but i think analog clocks still have a place and will continue to have a place, especially in public spaces.   #  i do not think analog clocks are in decline.   #  i do not think analog clocks are in decline.  the larger ones look nice to be hung in living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens.  i do not think large digital clocks look nice in larger rooms.  i guess that is based on tradition, like you said, but i just do not want those rooms to look so technological.  digital clocks are good for smaller clocks like in the bedroom.  i know a lot of people stop wearing watches because of smartphones, but i will die if i am not wearing a watch.  to me, it is just easier to bring my arm up instead of reaching into my pocket to pull out my phone.
the 0 hour notation removes the ambiguity associated with am/pm usage and also makes it easier to express time across time zones.  the only thing going for the am/pm notation is that is logical to use it with analog clocks.  but those clocks have been in a decline for a long time now.  digital clocks are better since its faster to read the minutes as a number.  most people already have switched from wearing watches to using their smartphones for time telling.  that means there is no longer a point for am/pm, other than tradition.   #  but those clocks have been in a decline for a long time now.   #  digital clocks are better since its faster to read the minutes as a number.   #  not really.  are people really complaining about ambiguity ? if you ca not prove that people are having a hard time using am/pm, you have not proven it is  better.   digital clocks are better since its faster to read the minutes as a number.  does not make a claim that 0hr time is better.  that means there is no longer a point for am/pm, other than tradition.  again, still have not shown that 0hr is  better  with this statement.  if something is  better,  it would benefit society if everyone adopted it.   #  when you always have used one system you know it, and the other just seems weird  #  here in denmark, we use 0 hour notation, when writing.  but, unless you have just looked at your phone and flip to autopilot, you say  0 past 0 , not  0 past 0 .  0 hour notation is just so much more logical when talking.  you cite conversion problems between time zones, and i will give you that one, as long as you convert from 0 to 0, or vice versa.  it is the same problem we have with kilo/pound.  when you always have used one system you know it, and the other just seems weird  #  it is essentially the same reason that a line chart shows trends and relative values in an easier way to understand that a table of numbers.   # i actually agree with you on the whole about 0 hour time being superior to 0 hour time, but i do think this is a weak argument and should probably be discarded.  why ? analog clocks have an ability that digital clocks lack.  they use a distance scale to represent time.  whereas a person reading a digital clock must parse the individual numbers and potentially perform some mental calculations to determine the answer to questions like  has a half hour passed yet  with an analog clock you can just look at the relative position of the hands and get your question answered more intuitively.  it is essentially the same reason that a line chart shows trends and relative values in an easier way to understand that a table of numbers.  in both the clock and the chart example, the cost of this easier interpretation is reduced precision and for many people and many situations, that is ok.   #  analog clocks give me the ability to check the time while working or talking to someone using just a subtle glance instead of obviously reaching for my phone.   #   most people  have smartphones now ? most young people, yeah, but not most people in general.  and even though i have a smartphone, i like having analog clocks around.  there is no distracting glow, there are many styles to choose from, and there is no need to dig through my purse for the phone and double tap on a screen to check the time.  analog clocks give me the ability to check the time while working or talking to someone using just a subtle glance instead of obviously reaching for my phone.  i do not see them disappearing from public places.  i am a fan of 0 hour time and i use it regularly, but i think analog clocks still have a place and will continue to have a place, especially in public spaces.   #  digital clocks are good for smaller clocks like in the bedroom.   #  i do not think analog clocks are in decline.  the larger ones look nice to be hung in living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens.  i do not think large digital clocks look nice in larger rooms.  i guess that is based on tradition, like you said, but i just do not want those rooms to look so technological.  digital clocks are good for smaller clocks like in the bedroom.  i know a lot of people stop wearing watches because of smartphones, but i will die if i am not wearing a watch.  to me, it is just easier to bring my arm up instead of reaching into my pocket to pull out my phone.
the 0 hour notation removes the ambiguity associated with am/pm usage and also makes it easier to express time across time zones.  the only thing going for the am/pm notation is that is logical to use it with analog clocks.  but those clocks have been in a decline for a long time now.  digital clocks are better since its faster to read the minutes as a number.  most people already have switched from wearing watches to using their smartphones for time telling.  that means there is no longer a point for am/pm, other than tradition.   #  most people already have switched from wearing watches to using their smartphones for time telling.   #  that means there is no longer a point for am/pm, other than tradition.   #  not really.  are people really complaining about ambiguity ? if you ca not prove that people are having a hard time using am/pm, you have not proven it is  better.   digital clocks are better since its faster to read the minutes as a number.  does not make a claim that 0hr time is better.  that means there is no longer a point for am/pm, other than tradition.  again, still have not shown that 0hr is  better  with this statement.  if something is  better,  it would benefit society if everyone adopted it.   #  0 hour notation is just so much more logical when talking.   #  here in denmark, we use 0 hour notation, when writing.  but, unless you have just looked at your phone and flip to autopilot, you say  0 past 0 , not  0 past 0 .  0 hour notation is just so much more logical when talking.  you cite conversion problems between time zones, and i will give you that one, as long as you convert from 0 to 0, or vice versa.  it is the same problem we have with kilo/pound.  when you always have used one system you know it, and the other just seems weird  #  in both the clock and the chart example, the cost of this easier interpretation is reduced precision and for many people and many situations, that is ok.   # i actually agree with you on the whole about 0 hour time being superior to 0 hour time, but i do think this is a weak argument and should probably be discarded.  why ? analog clocks have an ability that digital clocks lack.  they use a distance scale to represent time.  whereas a person reading a digital clock must parse the individual numbers and potentially perform some mental calculations to determine the answer to questions like  has a half hour passed yet  with an analog clock you can just look at the relative position of the hands and get your question answered more intuitively.  it is essentially the same reason that a line chart shows trends and relative values in an easier way to understand that a table of numbers.  in both the clock and the chart example, the cost of this easier interpretation is reduced precision and for many people and many situations, that is ok.   #  i am a fan of 0 hour time and i use it regularly, but i think analog clocks still have a place and will continue to have a place, especially in public spaces.   #   most people  have smartphones now ? most young people, yeah, but not most people in general.  and even though i have a smartphone, i like having analog clocks around.  there is no distracting glow, there are many styles to choose from, and there is no need to dig through my purse for the phone and double tap on a screen to check the time.  analog clocks give me the ability to check the time while working or talking to someone using just a subtle glance instead of obviously reaching for my phone.  i do not see them disappearing from public places.  i am a fan of 0 hour time and i use it regularly, but i think analog clocks still have a place and will continue to have a place, especially in public spaces.   #  i know a lot of people stop wearing watches because of smartphones, but i will die if i am not wearing a watch.   #  i do not think analog clocks are in decline.  the larger ones look nice to be hung in living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens.  i do not think large digital clocks look nice in larger rooms.  i guess that is based on tradition, like you said, but i just do not want those rooms to look so technological.  digital clocks are good for smaller clocks like in the bedroom.  i know a lot of people stop wearing watches because of smartphones, but i will die if i am not wearing a watch.  to me, it is just easier to bring my arm up instead of reaching into my pocket to pull out my phone.
so not to get hung up on technicalities, but people cite the equal protection clause of the constitution as a basis for the claim of discrimination inherent in same sex marriage bans.  personally i do not think the government should be involved in marriage at all .  but, semantically if that is the right word to use marriage, defined as a legal union between a man and a woman for the purpose of shared property and/or procreation, is available to people with alternate sexual preferences, just they do not want to partake in it.  it being still available means they are not being discriminated against by choosing not to marry a person of the opposite gender.  oh woah ! wait a minute ! you might say .  they do not choose their orientation ! besides the point.  the union is available, but they do not meet the qualifications for it.  now, if you redefine legally marriage before you make the argument, then you have a case for discrimination.  but since people always just assume that the definition of marriage is whatever they want it to be, they then continue to make the discrimination argument.  now, i do not know if there is some law book that says what all these terms are supposed to be/mean and that has been changed or if my definition is off from the current definition, or if that definition has actually changed lately, but i think i make a sound argument.  cmv reddit.  or enlighten me, that would be nice .   #  so not to get hung up on technicalities, but people cite the equal protection clause of the constitution as a basis for the claim of discrimination inherent in same sex marriage bans.   #  personally i do not think the government should be involved in marriage at all .   # personally i do not think the government should be involved in marriage at all .  but, semantically if that is the right word to use marriage, defined as a legal union between a man and a woman for the purpose of shared property and/or procreation, is available to people with alternate sexual preferences, just they do not want to partake in it.  it being still available means they are not being discriminated against by choosing not to marry a person of the opposite gender.  by that argument the anti interracial marriage laws were not discriminatory, in that they permitted marriages between anyone of the same race.  this equally affected black people and white people, who were free to marry within their own race.  you need an extremely narrow definition of the word  discriminatory  to pull this argument off.   #  another issue you might wonder about: remember when anna nicole smith married that 0 some odd year old millionaire ?  #  as with sterility, there is not an easy method for determining that fact.  if the goal here is to promote nuclear families, children, etc.  requiring say expensive or invasive fertility testing prior to marriage is lunacy, totally contradicting the goal.  and the child free can change their minds, or, you know, muck it up.  promoting marriage between men and women, with age and consanguinity restrictions, is the only policy which fulfills the government is interest in the continual creation of nuclear families.  another issue you might wonder about: remember when anna nicole smith married that 0 some odd year old millionaire ? if that ever became epidemic, if many people were marrying someone a forth their age right before kicking the bucket, and generation after generation went by without the government getting their inheritance tax revenue, i mightily predict the institution of age maximums on marriage to accompany the present minimums.   #  a gay man does not choos to marry and have children with a woman because he ca not marry a man.   # if you assume that is the  only  interest the governmetn has, then sure.  but it is not.  government is not purely utiliarian, it is, to some extent, a reflection of its people, so it has some motivation to promote values.  most people in the west value individualism, self determination, and the pursuit of happiness as fundamental to the human experience, even if it might not serve  the optimal output.   as long as it does not infringe on other people is rights secondly, depriving gay people of the right to marry under the law does not promote nuclear families.  a gay man does not choos to marry and have children with a woman because he ca not marry a man.  if that ever became epidemic, if many people were marrying someone a forth their age right before kicking the bucket, and generation after generation went by without the government getting their inheritance tax revenue, i mightily predict the institution of age maximums on marriage to accompany the present minimums.  this is a non issue in this debate, since it is not an epidemic and people have not been abusing the institution of marriage.   #  is there value in letting gay men have tax breaks and community property ?  #  gay men have married women and had children for thousands of years.  i mean, unless same sex attraction is the result of some recently evolved pathogen or something.  but that would not make any sense.  most women who have same sex relationships when they are young end up in a long term relationship with a man when they grow older, even today.  even legendary gay economists end up getting married: URL the trouble with most of the debate about same sex marriage is that marriage is a historical object, a fact, a tradition.  a man ca not marry a man because that is not what marriage is.  they can get a license from a judge in new york, they can have a wedding, they can get exemptions from inheritance taxes, they are still both unmarried.  is there value in letting gay men have tax breaks and community property ? sure, seems like it could serve various governmental interests.  but it does not serve the interests that marriage serves.   #  in the centuries beforehand marriage was much more personal.   #  the process of marriage licensing was instituted in the uk because people were coming into courts with property disputes and you would have one party claim two people were married and the other deny it.  the two families involved would all line up to testify that yes they were or were not married.  well, ok, require marriage licenses, keep public record, then you do not have this problem.  in the centuries beforehand marriage was much more personal.  two people would just sort of decide to get married, inform their families, and then, that was it.  they were married.  even weddings were not that common outside of very well off folks.  so if we are going to talk of  defining  marriage, the only sensible view is that marriage is a cultural and historical tradition.  from this view a man and a man can never be married, even if the government grants them a license and they have a wedding.  the more prevailing view in the us today is that marriage is official social recognition and celebration of mutual romantic love.  so, like, did you ever see the little mermaid or most romantic comedies ? note how the last thing that happens in each movie is the wedding ceremony.  the two people in love  get  married, we never see them  be  married.  totally different thing from the historical norm.  what i think is sometimes lost in say /r/libertarian debates is that in my judgment they are opposed to marriage type 0 but support marriage type 0.  but they ca not allow themselves to reason this way because the historical tradition does not comport with the latest demands of liberal radicalism.
i am currently having this discussion with my wife.  both of us had the book read to us as children and my wife now reads it to our 0 year old.  i ca not stand this book.  i believe it to be the personification of entitlement.  for those unfamiliar, a tree most likely signifying parents provides a boy with anything he needs until he takes everything the tree can give leaving only the stump.  the boy is absent when he does not want things and openly complains about what the tree offers.  there is no thanks given by the boy at anytime and no acknowledgement that he is damaging the tree beyond repair.  i get the notions of self sacrifice that go into being a parent.  i understand that i would probably do the same to make sure my own child lived a happy life.  but i do not want to encourage this notion of desecration without though for stewardship or appreciation for the gifts being given.  please change my mind so i can stop fighting with my wife.   #  for those unfamiliar, a tree most likely signifying parents provides a boy with anything he needs until he takes everything the tree can give leaving only the stump.   #  the boy is absent when he does not want things and openly complains about what the tree offers.   #  i am unfamiliar and surely there is a moral or change of heart at the end that you left out of your summary here.  ? the boy is absent when he does not want things and openly complains about what the tree offers.  there is no thanks given by the boy at anytime and no acknowledgement that he is damaging the tree beyond repair.  otherwise it is just about a boy taking all he can from the tree until the tree is gone.  and no moral or point to it ? am i missing something ?  #  but a child reading the story might think,  wow, i never knew how much work went into dealing with me when i act like this.    #  i think the story is meant to show unconditional love from the perspective of the one giving it, rather than receiving it the perspective children are most used to .  i do not personally believe that it necessarily has a moral, more that it presents something and leaves us to interpret it.  what it presents is ultimately, what it is like to be a parent.  it is rewarding to be a parent, there is no question that the tree should be happy.  but a child reading the story might think,  wow, i never knew how much work went into dealing with me when i act like this.    #  i would never want my child to think that is even an optional way to treat a parent.   # unconditional love is an amazing feeling.  but you can love someone, put them before yourself, and still seek acknowledgement for your actions.  you want to know that you are appreciated or at least that your gifts have not been made in vain.  its cutting to see the child take, the parent give, and in the end the child winds up miserable.  he does not share tales of his adventures, his joys or his sadness.  he just comes to the tree to complain and to take.  i would never want my child to think that is even an optional way to treat a parent.  i would not mind if my child read the book and thought  thank god i am nothing like that little shit  but i also do not want her to think of me as a gullible tree.   #  he never took more than the tree was willing to give.   #  i have always wondered what does appreciation look like ? is it someone repeatedly saying  thank you, thank you, thank you !   is it someone prostrating themselves at your feet ? is it someone giving something to you in return ? i think the boy was appreciative.  he asked the tree for help, and took that help and lived a good life with it.  he grew up, he had a business, he raised a family, he traveled the world.  he became his own man, he did not harm others, and he did not harm himself.  he always asked.  he never took more than the tree was willing to give.  that, in my opinion, shows a deep respect for the things he was given.  you know, the tree never asks.  the tree never asks about the boy is family, or the boy is travels.  the tree does not ask why the boy is sad.  the tree just wants the boy to play, like old times.  the tree cares about the  idea  of the boy, not the man the boy has grown into.   #  i have always believed that a person should do the right thing because it is the right thing, not because they will get thanked for it.   #  i have always believed that a person should do the right thing because it is the right thing, not because they will get thanked for it.  the tree genuinely cares about the boy, and does things for him.  at the end of the boy is life, all he wants is companionship of the tree.  i do not think thanks needs to be said there.  he is thankful.  the tree does not need to hear it.  the moral is to be like the tree: do good with no expectation of reward other than knowing you have done a good thing.
i believe that bicycle riders should be required to obtain a special license to ride in the street.  the license should be much like the m0 a motorcycle rider must obtain.  this is mostly due to my belief that if they are on the road, they should be required to know all the road laws and rules.  the process i propose all bikers should have to go through would be similar to the process for a motorcycle permit.    bikers should have to take a written test that will quiz them on the rules and laws of the road, including those specific to bicycles.  hand signals etc.    bikers should have to have a 0 month permit if under 0, which will restrict their night riding.    a riding skills test testing their capability to ride a bike and their ability to do everyday maneuvers.    bikers must be at least 0 years old to ride on the road with these laws i think the roads would become a much safer place for cars and bikers, and many laws will be cleared up for bikers who do not understand the law.  any funding earned through this program could also benefit bike programs like the implementation of bike lanes.   #  with these laws i think the roads would become a much safer place for cars and bikers, and many laws will be cleared up for bikers who do not understand the law.   #  having the entire population licensed for their mode of transportation does not automatically make the population good drivers or knowledgeable drivers.   # once again, cars and bikes have to follow these permit restrictions its certainly relevant if you are imposing restrictions on when you can use your sole piece of transportation, if i use my bike to get to work and i work night shifts then i ca not get to work.  having to take a test at a dmv should not be the means to obtain proper skills and knowledge in operating a bicycle.  having the entire population licensed for their mode of transportation does not automatically make the population good drivers or knowledgeable drivers.  and by doing that bicyclists do not suddenly understand the law, i do not see how that would happen.  i would rather the people who have to who are operating machines that are a potential danger to 0 people be licensed and than go thru the hassle of getting a license for a machine i operate once a week for fun where the only person i am endangering with my lackluster operation is myself and the pedestrian crossing the street.  if bicyclists were suddenly things that need a drivers license then people would have to start getting their bicycle insurance which would be another hassle.  the bicycle is a self propelled mode of transportation that has been around since the late 0 is and was seen as a basic form of transporation until the car came along, after which the car and its drivers were subject to regulations to keep the bicyclists and pedestrians safe.  pedestrians do not go to pedestrian school to learn how to walk around a city or go to bicycle school to learn how to ride a bike.  you learn from you parents and you are parents should teach their children how to be a safe pedestrian and a safe bicycle rider.  but regardless of that, giving somebody a license does not fix the long term.  education is the solution and parents educate their children properly if they want to be safe bicyclists there is no reason to regulate bicycling like there is cars, if there was it would have been implemented when bicycling was a major mode transportation in the earlier 0 is before/as cars were taking off.  cars are by far more dangerous to other people than a bicycle is to other people.  bicyclists are more dangerous to themselves than they are to other people.  there is more incentive to make sure car drivers, which vastly outnumber bicycle operators, are operating their cars safely in relation to the people around them  #  by that idea than the same should go for drivers, because there are unsafe drivers as there are unsafe motorcyclists and bicyclists.   # driver is licenses whether they be for motorcycles or cars/trucks/buses are for operating motor vehicles on the road and then state by state different powered mopeds and such are subject to state specific regulations.  bicycles do not have motors and do not need a license.  but you also have to realize why you have to be licensed to operate are car/truck/bus/motorcycle.  you are behind the wheel of a potentially dangerous vehicle at 0 tons and 0mph.  you can be seen to be more dangerous to others more so than yourself.  it may not be necessarily true for bicyclists who while they can be a potential danger for pedestrians see central park bicyclist .  they are more so danger to themselves for not following the rules of the road and considering being licensed to operate a car you should be trained and knowledgeable about how to drive safely and defensively when confronted with bicycles, road rage, etc and this is to keep others safe and to keep yourself safe.  there is also no age when bicycling can be determined to needing to hand out licenses.  licensing is not the issue so much as just education is.  additionally there is no easy way to give a drivers exam for a bicycle like you can a car.  by that idea than the same should go for drivers, because there are unsafe drivers as there are unsafe motorcyclists and bicyclists.  but then if they have a job that is in the night time hours than you are harming their livelihood for what pay off ? what benefit would that be, a angry person that is now out of job because they ca not transport himself ?  it is unlikely licensing bicyclists would bring about any great détente in traffic between drivers and cyclists.  but would it make cyclists more mindful of the rules of the road ? does licensing drivers make them more obedient about the rules of the road ? not often enough.   we do not need to licensing bicyclists, we just need to educate bicyclist on how they should act on the road and road drivers should act on the road when next to a bicycle.   #  is not the point of licensing to show the state that you are educated and capable of operating a vehicle on the road ?  # licensing is not the issue so much as just education is.  is not the point of licensing to show the state that you are educated and capable of operating a vehicle on the road ? it could be the same as the motorcycle test with an emphasis on hand signals.  but then if they have a job that is in the night time hours than you are harming their livelihood for what pay off ? what benefit would that be, a angry person that is now out of job because they ca not transport himself ? 0 month no night riding is already a law for motorcyclists.  i do not see why it would not apply to bicycle riders as well.  once again, the education comes with the licensing and visa versa.   #  you also have to realize that bicycles were given the right to drive on the road in the late 0 is, long before cars and trucks became common place.   # its to show that you are capable of doing it safely and within the confines of the laws that rule the road for operating a  motor vehicle   it could be the same as the motorcycle test with an emphasis on hand signals.  maybe if the person was not a young child, but it would very difficult for a stranger to test a young child sans parent.  many low income people have a bicycle as their means of transportation.  that is obviously false, given the fact that licensed car/truck drivers are still crappy drivers.  having a license does not imply knowledge of road rules and laws and considering overtime people do become lazier drivers compared to when they were younger and needed to do everything perfect to pass the drivers exam.  you also have to realize that bicycles were given the right to drive on the road in the late 0 is, long before cars and trucks became common place.  motor vehicles drivers are licensed to show they can safely operate their vehicle on the road alongside bicycles, runners and the multitude of other transportation means you see on the road.  it is much more feasible to educate than it is to license because a license is just a piece of paper that means you were a good driver for the 0mins you took your drivers test.  as i quote before, licensing a driver does not nessarily make them more obedient to the rules of the road  #  once again, cars and bikes have to follow these permit restrictions.   # how is that relevant ? once again, cars and bikes have to follow these permit restrictions.  i already discussed the child thing multiple times with some solutions.  parental supervision could be a substitute to the licensing process.  having a license does not imply knowledge of road rules and laws and considering overtime people do become lazier drivers compared to when they were younger and needed to do everything perfect to pass the drivers exam.  but it does provide them with means to obtain that knowledge.  would you rather people not be licensed at all ?
i am not talking about the average call of duty, halo or assassin´s creed, i am talking about games that were first designed with story in mind.  books tells you a story and rely on your creativity to fill in the details, the scene, how people look, etc.  games are visual like movies but with a bonus in interaction: you are given the visual elements and you can actually interact with the story it allows you to feel like the character and have a better immersion.  games allow you to explore at your own pace, to feel like the protagonist be it on decision making or just see through his eyes , to miss information if you are not careful, to find things for yourself like  gone home  .  the visual audio part of games enhances the story.  some games even do not have any written text and yet tells a very emotional story like  journey  or  shadow of the colossus  a game can really make you wonder if you are a good man like  spec ops: the line  like no book can.  a game can make people cry or at least get emotional as the story progresses.  like  to the moon  and how it questions the importance of memories.  cmv: if a game was designed with a strong story in mind, no book can match it to tell such story.   #  a game can make people cry or at least get emotional as the story progresses.   #  like to the moon and how it questions the importance of memories.   #  whenever i see posts like this the first question that pops into my mind is  when was the last time this person read a book not meant for teenagers ?   this is perhaps an unfair, judgemental question, but i have found it makes a good heusistic.  a strong majority of the time the answer is  when they were last forced to in high school.   now, i am not presuming anything, but if this describes you, perhaps you should better acquaint yourself with the medium before making such extreme judgements.  if not, disregard the preceding.  that being said .  .  .  right.  to my mind this is a  good  thing.  why do you believe this to be bad ? does it ? i would think filling in the missing details with ones from your own imagination, and therefore personality and experiences, would connect you more with the world than simply having everything handed to you.  i can set down a book for a decade and pick it up again where i left off if i so desire.  i could also read 0 pages an hour such that everything passes by in a blur.  excel at it, even.  see catch 0, the stranger, lolita etc.  read something postmodern and tell me you found everything there is to be found.  hell, read the first paragraph of finnigans wake and tell me with a straight face that you  did not  miss 0 of everything that is written.  some games even do not have any written text and yet tells a very emotional story visuals are not necessary to have an emotional story not that books do not use them on occasion, see house of leaves , and audio cues are more often than not a crutch for bad writing.  patently false.  see crime and punishment, and lolita again.  spec ops itself is an adaptation of a work of classical poetry.  like to the moon and how it questions the importance of memories.  i am tempted to post the entire english language literary canon in response to this.  do you honestly think that literature cannot make people emotional enough to cry ? come on now.  so where are the games that can match the best of literature ? where is the video game equivalent of les miserables ? of the brothers karamazov ? of blood meridian ? of lolita ? of portrait of the artist as a young man ? of crime and punishment or all quiet on the western front ? i can rattle off titles all day.  these are not derivations from the norm, they  are  the norm, so far as most serious readers are concerned.   #  0 hours of killing baddies or 0 hours of leveling up is  not necessary  to tell the story.   #  for the vast majority of games the actually  game play  element is usually a net detractor from the narrative aspects of the work which leads me to believe that games are a sub optimal form of story telling.  consider spec ops.  a great story which is ironically ripped off almost entirely from heart of darkness. a book , that is hampered by the fact that you actually have to play the game.  the necessary gun play to keep the game fun kills pacing and is for story telling purposes almost entirely superfluous.  yes, the main character has to commit some atrocities for the story to work but they conveyance of those atrocities does not require me to spend 0 hours killing nameless faceless  bad guys .  in reality greater part of that story was told through the cut scenes in which the interactivity has been mostly or entirely removed.  in the limited cases where narrative is included in the game play the decisions the character makes are very forced.  the white phosphorous scene comes to mind.  you  had  to eventually bomb position and kill the civilians.  the game would not let you not do it.  in that instance while you are piloting the character you are in such a restrained framework that your decisions have almost entirely been taken away and the game more closely resembles a movie.  most story driven games are extremely linear experiences where story is conveyed through more traditional narrative structures cut scenes but is separated by game play which, while fun, does not improve the narrative.  0 hours of killing baddies or 0 hours of leveling up is  not necessary  to tell the story.  it is necessary to make the product a game and not a movie.  books, on the other hand, convey their story in a very deliberate way that allows the author to employ more complex and nuanced narrative techniques.  juxtaposition is  very  difficult in a game where a player is empowered to do whatever because you have less control over pacing and context.  similarly, books lead you by the hand to show you what is important.  while it is empowering for a player to explore a world and see the details it is not empowering for the story teller to give up those powers.  being able to discover the story on your own is a fun activity but it does not actually make the story better.   #  the point is that how they use it to tell a story and how it affects own felling i agree that sometimes the mechanics does not help the story the gunning in bioshock infinite and spec ops are 0 examples.   #  i have to say i do not see cutscenes or linearity as something bad, but part of the experience.  and it is ok to have forced decisions.  some games use exploration to tell an story, some use linearity.  the point is that how they use it to tell a story and how it affects own felling i agree that sometimes the mechanics does not help the story the gunning in bioshock infinite and spec ops are 0 examples.  the brutality on bioshock melee attacks really have an bad impact on the story.   #  a very long cut scene is just a movie.   # it is the part of the experience that has the least to do with playing a game.  a very long cut scene is just a movie.  the same point goes for linearity and forced decisions.  if i am piloting a character through a series of pre determined scenes with limited scope of decision making then i am just watching a movie and superficially pushing some buttons.  shadows of the colossus comes close though i actually did not feel the  story  element of the game was strong so much as the aesthetic and emotional element.  the narrative was weak but the game definitely conveyed emotion well.   #  some fishing, some chase scenes, maybe work in some lock picking. but it would be an unoriginal, boring flop of a game.   #  while this might work for jack london i would  love  to play that , it would not work for mark twain.  you are demographically, financially, and technologically limited in ways which books ar not.  maybe you should look at  alice , from probably 0 years ago.  there is reasons it did not do so hot.  it  was not  alice in wonderland no matter how hard they tried.  or look at final fantasy.  the dialogue has to be written at a childrens level to recoup costs of development.  thats not how you communicate nathaniel hawthorn.  william gibson wrote  neromancer  on a typewriter   could say exactly what he wanted to say because if he failed, there was not 0,0 other employees on the hook for half a billion dollars.  he did not need to guarantee 0 zillion copies sold, he did not need to worry about graphics engines, ect.  but his contemporary peer writer, neal stephenson , just threw in the towl on his video game clang.  guy can write some of the most popular fiction on earth about vr swordfighting, but he could not make that work for  clang  the video game.  he said they could not get over technical hurdles, concentrated too much on historical accuracy.  and beyond risk, there is imagery.  how would you make huck finn a game ? some fishing, some chase scenes, maybe work in some lock picking. but it would be an unoriginal, boring flop of a game.  most of the books that can be presented on a video game consul, like starship troopers or maybe it, ar not even considered  literature .  just novels.  the other 0 of written fiction simply do not have enough action or puzzle sequences.  tl;dr: for  some  stories, you are right.  but not most.
i am not talking about the average call of duty, halo or assassin´s creed, i am talking about games that were first designed with story in mind.  books tells you a story and rely on your creativity to fill in the details, the scene, how people look, etc.  games are visual like movies but with a bonus in interaction: you are given the visual elements and you can actually interact with the story it allows you to feel like the character and have a better immersion.  games allow you to explore at your own pace, to feel like the protagonist be it on decision making or just see through his eyes , to miss information if you are not careful, to find things for yourself like  gone home  .  the visual audio part of games enhances the story.  some games even do not have any written text and yet tells a very emotional story like  journey  or  shadow of the colossus  a game can really make you wonder if you are a good man like  spec ops: the line  like no book can.  a game can make people cry or at least get emotional as the story progresses.  like  to the moon  and how it questions the importance of memories.  cmv: if a game was designed with a strong story in mind, no book can match it to tell such story.   #  cmv: if a game was designed with a strong story in mind, no book can match it to tell such story.   #  so where are the games that can match the best of literature ?  #  whenever i see posts like this the first question that pops into my mind is  when was the last time this person read a book not meant for teenagers ?   this is perhaps an unfair, judgemental question, but i have found it makes a good heusistic.  a strong majority of the time the answer is  when they were last forced to in high school.   now, i am not presuming anything, but if this describes you, perhaps you should better acquaint yourself with the medium before making such extreme judgements.  if not, disregard the preceding.  that being said .  .  .  right.  to my mind this is a  good  thing.  why do you believe this to be bad ? does it ? i would think filling in the missing details with ones from your own imagination, and therefore personality and experiences, would connect you more with the world than simply having everything handed to you.  i can set down a book for a decade and pick it up again where i left off if i so desire.  i could also read 0 pages an hour such that everything passes by in a blur.  excel at it, even.  see catch 0, the stranger, lolita etc.  read something postmodern and tell me you found everything there is to be found.  hell, read the first paragraph of finnigans wake and tell me with a straight face that you  did not  miss 0 of everything that is written.  some games even do not have any written text and yet tells a very emotional story visuals are not necessary to have an emotional story not that books do not use them on occasion, see house of leaves , and audio cues are more often than not a crutch for bad writing.  patently false.  see crime and punishment, and lolita again.  spec ops itself is an adaptation of a work of classical poetry.  like to the moon and how it questions the importance of memories.  i am tempted to post the entire english language literary canon in response to this.  do you honestly think that literature cannot make people emotional enough to cry ? come on now.  so where are the games that can match the best of literature ? where is the video game equivalent of les miserables ? of the brothers karamazov ? of blood meridian ? of lolita ? of portrait of the artist as a young man ? of crime and punishment or all quiet on the western front ? i can rattle off titles all day.  these are not derivations from the norm, they  are  the norm, so far as most serious readers are concerned.   #  in that instance while you are piloting the character you are in such a restrained framework that your decisions have almost entirely been taken away and the game more closely resembles a movie.   #  for the vast majority of games the actually  game play  element is usually a net detractor from the narrative aspects of the work which leads me to believe that games are a sub optimal form of story telling.  consider spec ops.  a great story which is ironically ripped off almost entirely from heart of darkness. a book , that is hampered by the fact that you actually have to play the game.  the necessary gun play to keep the game fun kills pacing and is for story telling purposes almost entirely superfluous.  yes, the main character has to commit some atrocities for the story to work but they conveyance of those atrocities does not require me to spend 0 hours killing nameless faceless  bad guys .  in reality greater part of that story was told through the cut scenes in which the interactivity has been mostly or entirely removed.  in the limited cases where narrative is included in the game play the decisions the character makes are very forced.  the white phosphorous scene comes to mind.  you  had  to eventually bomb position and kill the civilians.  the game would not let you not do it.  in that instance while you are piloting the character you are in such a restrained framework that your decisions have almost entirely been taken away and the game more closely resembles a movie.  most story driven games are extremely linear experiences where story is conveyed through more traditional narrative structures cut scenes but is separated by game play which, while fun, does not improve the narrative.  0 hours of killing baddies or 0 hours of leveling up is  not necessary  to tell the story.  it is necessary to make the product a game and not a movie.  books, on the other hand, convey their story in a very deliberate way that allows the author to employ more complex and nuanced narrative techniques.  juxtaposition is  very  difficult in a game where a player is empowered to do whatever because you have less control over pacing and context.  similarly, books lead you by the hand to show you what is important.  while it is empowering for a player to explore a world and see the details it is not empowering for the story teller to give up those powers.  being able to discover the story on your own is a fun activity but it does not actually make the story better.   #  and it is ok to have forced decisions.   #  i have to say i do not see cutscenes or linearity as something bad, but part of the experience.  and it is ok to have forced decisions.  some games use exploration to tell an story, some use linearity.  the point is that how they use it to tell a story and how it affects own felling i agree that sometimes the mechanics does not help the story the gunning in bioshock infinite and spec ops are 0 examples.  the brutality on bioshock melee attacks really have an bad impact on the story.   #  a very long cut scene is just a movie.   # it is the part of the experience that has the least to do with playing a game.  a very long cut scene is just a movie.  the same point goes for linearity and forced decisions.  if i am piloting a character through a series of pre determined scenes with limited scope of decision making then i am just watching a movie and superficially pushing some buttons.  shadows of the colossus comes close though i actually did not feel the  story  element of the game was strong so much as the aesthetic and emotional element.  the narrative was weak but the game definitely conveyed emotion well.   #  most of the books that can be presented on a video game consul, like starship troopers or maybe it, ar not even considered  literature .   #  while this might work for jack london i would  love  to play that , it would not work for mark twain.  you are demographically, financially, and technologically limited in ways which books ar not.  maybe you should look at  alice , from probably 0 years ago.  there is reasons it did not do so hot.  it  was not  alice in wonderland no matter how hard they tried.  or look at final fantasy.  the dialogue has to be written at a childrens level to recoup costs of development.  thats not how you communicate nathaniel hawthorn.  william gibson wrote  neromancer  on a typewriter   could say exactly what he wanted to say because if he failed, there was not 0,0 other employees on the hook for half a billion dollars.  he did not need to guarantee 0 zillion copies sold, he did not need to worry about graphics engines, ect.  but his contemporary peer writer, neal stephenson , just threw in the towl on his video game clang.  guy can write some of the most popular fiction on earth about vr swordfighting, but he could not make that work for  clang  the video game.  he said they could not get over technical hurdles, concentrated too much on historical accuracy.  and beyond risk, there is imagery.  how would you make huck finn a game ? some fishing, some chase scenes, maybe work in some lock picking. but it would be an unoriginal, boring flop of a game.  most of the books that can be presented on a video game consul, like starship troopers or maybe it, ar not even considered  literature .  just novels.  the other 0 of written fiction simply do not have enough action or puzzle sequences.  tl;dr: for  some  stories, you are right.  but not most.
i have been discussing this with some friends, but i thought i would post this here, too.  i have honestly yet to hear a sound argument that would convince me that having widespread anonymity over the internet or on video game networks, or chatroom comments, or message boards is a good thing.  or at least, that the good outweighs the bad.  i understand some people have social anxiety and that they do not feel comfortable posting as themselves, that is a fair point.  but i believe the harassment, the threats, the racism, homophobia, and just general douchebaggery would be nearly eliminated if there were real names and real consequences for your words/actions online.  i would love to get into a good conversation about this.  because i think it is a very interesting topic to debate.  so please, cmv !  #  but i believe the harassment, the threats, the racism, homophobia, and just general douchebaggery would be nearly eliminated if there were real names and real consequences for your words/actions online.   #  yes, but what about all of the other ideas that would be eliminated that are not racist, homophobic, etc.   # yes, but what about all of the other ideas that would be eliminated that are not racist, homophobic, etc.  just because someone does not want a view linked to their name, does not mean that view is  bad .  the sole foundation of the internet is anonymity.  if we could not post ideas on the internet anonymously, the scope of the internet would be much narrower yes, a lot of the negative content would get eliminated, but you are forgetting about all of the great ideas that would be eliminated as well.  maybe an example will convince you that anonymity is crucial.  the original concept of bitcoin was published in an online paper written by a person/group under the name satoshi nakamoto.  the founder s clearly wanted to remain anonymous.  in an internet with full transparency, the idea of bitcoin may never have been established.  anonymity is crucial.  an internet without anonymity is not the  internet .   #  do you think the plans for a 0d printed gun should be allowed to be propagated ?  # churches or employers, maybe.  governments ? absolutely not.  do you think the plans for a 0d printed gun should be allowed to be propagated ? technically, printing the gun is a violation of us law.  owning the plans could be construed to be intent to print, with the right prosecutor and judge.  yet these plans are widely available.  they are available  because  of the anonymity of those sharing them.  your views on gun rights aside, what if this was writing from edward snowden ? or a remarkable new currency that now cannot be stopped because it is entirely anonymous, like bitcoin ? anonymity takes control from power structures and gives it to people, for better or worse.  it is ours to do with what we will.  i am not suggesting a  no real names  policy.  facebook is a place where anonymity may not necessarily be best, that is up to them.  but it should be a choice, just as you are free to not visit sites that lack such a policy.   #  the trolls are not great but it is worth the price.   #  the trolls are not great but it is worth the price.  you wanted heated debate online ? anonymity is key.  the truly controversial subjects and points of view will never get any traction in a world where i have to sign my name to it.  those discussions wo not happen at all you decry homophobia.  but being supportive of lgbt people is are a new phenomenon.  not that long ago supporting gay rights would have been the minority opinion and it would be difficult to engage online in that discussion of you ca not do it anonymously.  if i ca not challenge my views online without risking my reputation then i wo not.  and hat is he only way we move forward on issues like this.  anonymity is a safety net  #  i am not at all as shocked as i assume you hoped i would be.   #  decent.  i am not at all as shocked as i assume you hoped i would be.  that is basically achieved by looking at my facebook profile, which is public.  the thing is, everything i post online, i consider to be public domain.  i have posted a documentary on reddit that i produced and directed, so i am kind of  out there .  my twitter name is my real name, i do not hide behind pseudonyms just because i believe if i have the balls to say it online, i should have the balls to say it  irl  too.  everything is pretty much accurate, i do not use drugs anymore and the  anti police sentiment  is a little bit of a stretch, though.  ; i am just pro justice.  :p  #  people who are exposing corruption in their business ca not do that effectively if their bosses can easily find out that they are doing that.   #  i think we both agree that people should be held accountable for their online actions as they would be in real life.  i have seen enough of those things get posted by people using their real names to know that is wrong.  forcing people to use their real names when posting online is not a deterrent to that shit, since many people are proud to have those types of shitty opinions, or simply do not really care that people can see that they are posting that.  speaking of homophobia, lgbt people who live in very homophobic environments pretty much need online anonymity in order to reach out and talk to similar people.  that outreach and support would be extremely difficult if using a real name to post on the internet is required, since it would make a lot of people legitimately fear getting outed in really shitty environments.  as a transgender woman, i sure as hell do not need people to be able to search and find that out about me until i am ready to publicly come out, and i do not think i should be denied resources for connecting with similar people because i want to have personal privacy.  that is not the only example.  people living in oppressive regimes cannot speak out about it online if they are forced to use their real name, under fear of death.  people who are exposing corruption in their business ca not do that effectively if their bosses can easily find out that they are doing that.  those are a few of many examples of people who benefit from online anonymity.
i have been discussing this with some friends, but i thought i would post this here, too.  i have honestly yet to hear a sound argument that would convince me that having widespread anonymity over the internet or on video game networks, or chatroom comments, or message boards is a good thing.  or at least, that the good outweighs the bad.  i understand some people have social anxiety and that they do not feel comfortable posting as themselves, that is a fair point.  but i believe the harassment, the threats, the racism, homophobia, and just general douchebaggery would be nearly eliminated if there were real names and real consequences for your words/actions online.  i would love to get into a good conversation about this.  because i think it is a very interesting topic to debate.  so please, cmv !  #  but i believe the harassment, the threats, the racism, homophobia, and just general douchebaggery would be nearly eliminated if there were real names and real consequences for your words/actions online.   #  i have seen enough of those things get posted by people using their real names to know that is wrong.   #  i think we both agree that people should be held accountable for their online actions as they would be in real life.  i have seen enough of those things get posted by people using their real names to know that is wrong.  forcing people to use their real names when posting online is not a deterrent to that shit, since many people are proud to have those types of shitty opinions, or simply do not really care that people can see that they are posting that.  speaking of homophobia, lgbt people who live in very homophobic environments pretty much need online anonymity in order to reach out and talk to similar people.  that outreach and support would be extremely difficult if using a real name to post on the internet is required, since it would make a lot of people legitimately fear getting outed in really shitty environments.  as a transgender woman, i sure as hell do not need people to be able to search and find that out about me until i am ready to publicly come out, and i do not think i should be denied resources for connecting with similar people because i want to have personal privacy.  that is not the only example.  people living in oppressive regimes cannot speak out about it online if they are forced to use their real name, under fear of death.  people who are exposing corruption in their business ca not do that effectively if their bosses can easily find out that they are doing that.  those are a few of many examples of people who benefit from online anonymity.   #  i am not suggesting a  no real names  policy.   # churches or employers, maybe.  governments ? absolutely not.  do you think the plans for a 0d printed gun should be allowed to be propagated ? technically, printing the gun is a violation of us law.  owning the plans could be construed to be intent to print, with the right prosecutor and judge.  yet these plans are widely available.  they are available  because  of the anonymity of those sharing them.  your views on gun rights aside, what if this was writing from edward snowden ? or a remarkable new currency that now cannot be stopped because it is entirely anonymous, like bitcoin ? anonymity takes control from power structures and gives it to people, for better or worse.  it is ours to do with what we will.  i am not suggesting a  no real names  policy.  facebook is a place where anonymity may not necessarily be best, that is up to them.  but it should be a choice, just as you are free to not visit sites that lack such a policy.   #  the truly controversial subjects and points of view will never get any traction in a world where i have to sign my name to it.   #  the trolls are not great but it is worth the price.  you wanted heated debate online ? anonymity is key.  the truly controversial subjects and points of view will never get any traction in a world where i have to sign my name to it.  those discussions wo not happen at all you decry homophobia.  but being supportive of lgbt people is are a new phenomenon.  not that long ago supporting gay rights would have been the minority opinion and it would be difficult to engage online in that discussion of you ca not do it anonymously.  if i ca not challenge my views online without risking my reputation then i wo not.  and hat is he only way we move forward on issues like this.  anonymity is a safety net  #  i am not at all as shocked as i assume you hoped i would be.   #  decent.  i am not at all as shocked as i assume you hoped i would be.  that is basically achieved by looking at my facebook profile, which is public.  the thing is, everything i post online, i consider to be public domain.  i have posted a documentary on reddit that i produced and directed, so i am kind of  out there .  my twitter name is my real name, i do not hide behind pseudonyms just because i believe if i have the balls to say it online, i should have the balls to say it  irl  too.  everything is pretty much accurate, i do not use drugs anymore and the  anti police sentiment  is a little bit of a stretch, though.  ; i am just pro justice.  :p  #  the sole foundation of the internet is anonymity.   # yes, but what about all of the other ideas that would be eliminated that are not racist, homophobic, etc.  just because someone does not want a view linked to their name, does not mean that view is  bad .  the sole foundation of the internet is anonymity.  if we could not post ideas on the internet anonymously, the scope of the internet would be much narrower yes, a lot of the negative content would get eliminated, but you are forgetting about all of the great ideas that would be eliminated as well.  maybe an example will convince you that anonymity is crucial.  the original concept of bitcoin was published in an online paper written by a person/group under the name satoshi nakamoto.  the founder s clearly wanted to remain anonymous.  in an internet with full transparency, the idea of bitcoin may never have been established.  anonymity is crucial.  an internet without anonymity is not the  internet .
i have been discussing this with some friends, but i thought i would post this here, too.  i have honestly yet to hear a sound argument that would convince me that having widespread anonymity over the internet or on video game networks, or chatroom comments, or message boards is a good thing.  or at least, that the good outweighs the bad.  i understand some people have social anxiety and that they do not feel comfortable posting as themselves, that is a fair point.  but i believe the harassment, the threats, the racism, homophobia, and just general douchebaggery would be nearly eliminated if there were real names and real consequences for your words/actions online.  i would love to get into a good conversation about this.  because i think it is a very interesting topic to debate.  so please, cmv !  #  but i believe the harassment, the threats, the racism, homophobia, and just general douchebaggery would be nearly eliminated if there were real names and real consequences for your words/actions online.   #  i disagree.  and instead i think the harassment and threats would be more serious as the harassers would know exactly who to target now.   # i disagree.  and instead i think the harassment and threats would be more serious as the harassers would know exactly who to target now.  instead of only the computer experts who know how to revers lookup an ip address harassing people, if the internet was not anonymous then any user would have enough information to personally harass any other user that they want.  and all the vile hate filled assholes who harass anonymous users anonymously would now harass known users.  perhaps still harassing them anonymously through other channels besides the website that the two crossed paths on.   #  technically, printing the gun is a violation of us law.   # churches or employers, maybe.  governments ? absolutely not.  do you think the plans for a 0d printed gun should be allowed to be propagated ? technically, printing the gun is a violation of us law.  owning the plans could be construed to be intent to print, with the right prosecutor and judge.  yet these plans are widely available.  they are available  because  of the anonymity of those sharing them.  your views on gun rights aside, what if this was writing from edward snowden ? or a remarkable new currency that now cannot be stopped because it is entirely anonymous, like bitcoin ? anonymity takes control from power structures and gives it to people, for better or worse.  it is ours to do with what we will.  i am not suggesting a  no real names  policy.  facebook is a place where anonymity may not necessarily be best, that is up to them.  but it should be a choice, just as you are free to not visit sites that lack such a policy.   #  the truly controversial subjects and points of view will never get any traction in a world where i have to sign my name to it.   #  the trolls are not great but it is worth the price.  you wanted heated debate online ? anonymity is key.  the truly controversial subjects and points of view will never get any traction in a world where i have to sign my name to it.  those discussions wo not happen at all you decry homophobia.  but being supportive of lgbt people is are a new phenomenon.  not that long ago supporting gay rights would have been the minority opinion and it would be difficult to engage online in that discussion of you ca not do it anonymously.  if i ca not challenge my views online without risking my reputation then i wo not.  and hat is he only way we move forward on issues like this.  anonymity is a safety net  #  i have posted a documentary on reddit that i produced and directed, so i am kind of  out there .   #  decent.  i am not at all as shocked as i assume you hoped i would be.  that is basically achieved by looking at my facebook profile, which is public.  the thing is, everything i post online, i consider to be public domain.  i have posted a documentary on reddit that i produced and directed, so i am kind of  out there .  my twitter name is my real name, i do not hide behind pseudonyms just because i believe if i have the balls to say it online, i should have the balls to say it  irl  too.  everything is pretty much accurate, i do not use drugs anymore and the  anti police sentiment  is a little bit of a stretch, though.  ; i am just pro justice.  :p  #  in an internet with full transparency, the idea of bitcoin may never have been established.   # yes, but what about all of the other ideas that would be eliminated that are not racist, homophobic, etc.  just because someone does not want a view linked to their name, does not mean that view is  bad .  the sole foundation of the internet is anonymity.  if we could not post ideas on the internet anonymously, the scope of the internet would be much narrower yes, a lot of the negative content would get eliminated, but you are forgetting about all of the great ideas that would be eliminated as well.  maybe an example will convince you that anonymity is crucial.  the original concept of bitcoin was published in an online paper written by a person/group under the name satoshi nakamoto.  the founder s clearly wanted to remain anonymous.  in an internet with full transparency, the idea of bitcoin may never have been established.  anonymity is crucial.  an internet without anonymity is not the  internet .
i believe human experimentation on death row inmates should be legal.  the ones who are chosen for experimentation should be proven guilty without a doubt.  we the us have the death penalty for murder, which means we are already killing someone.  why would we waste the opportunity to help advance the human race by just killing someone ? they are being put on death row for murdering another human being, so they have forfeited their privilege to be a free person by taking another person is life.  the process would have to be watched very carefully, as to prevent innocents being put into the program just to have more subjects.  this would have the added benefit of less taxpayer money being spent on prisons, on feeding and housing people who are being sent to die anyway.  basically, if you kill another person excluding self defense , you have given up your right to be a protected member of society.   #  this would have the added benefit of less taxpayer money being spent on prisons, on feeding and housing people who are being sent to die anyway.   #  this bit makes no sense to me.   # this bit makes no sense to me.  would not the government still need to pay to house and feed them  in addition  to the experiments ? or are you suggesting the prisoners be shipped off to third party facilities that would conduct the experiments as well as foot the bill ? the latter would raise some additional problems.  there would need to actually be third party facilities/groups that would be willing to take on potentially extremely dangerous people in the first place.  there would also be the matter of government regulation for those facilities to make sure the death row prisoners do not manage to escape while in their care.  so, not even taking into account the potential ethical arguments, it still seems unwise from a purely practical view point.   #  there have been people that have been released after spending years of their life in jail for a crime they did not commit.   #  the concept of no cruel and unusual punishments would seem to disagree with you.  we have a slow system of killing be for capital crimes in order to allow some level of an appeal system.  there have been people that have been released after spending years of their life in jail for a crime they did not commit.  are you suggesting that those innocent people should be tested upon ? as much as you think you can work the system or think it will be watched, there are still going to be mistakes.  lots of judges and juries have sentences innocent men to death while thinking they were doing the right and proper thing.  that is inevitable.  it is a good bet that any type of cruel punishment would be inflicted on an innocent man.   #  performing an experiment on them is ethically and legally no different than performing that experiment on you.   #  the entire reason that people are on death row is that while they have been sentenced to death, that sentence cannot be carried out yet because the person is case is in the appeals process.  these procedures are set up to prevent or at least minimize the number of innocent people put executed after being unjustly sentenced.  while you can argue that they will be executed with almost certainty, the only reason that they have not been yet is because they might still not be.  ignoring the ethics of submitting a human being to cruel and unusual punishment, the only time they could be experimented on is in place of execution.  you would not save taxpayers any money with this process.  as much as these people are probably guilty of a capital crime, their presence on death row and not in the injection room indicates that they might be innocent, or at least guilty of something that should not be punishable by death.  performing an experiment on them is ethically and legally no different than performing that experiment on you.   #  then again, given there would be no long term effects testing, no big sample sizes, no placebo patients, etc.   # it has been demonstrated time and time again that this is really not even possible.  how about let is get it right  first .  these experimentations would cost millions of dollars, yes big pharma would pay their own way, but there is still additional staffing and resource costs, it would certainly cost the taxpayers.  then again, given there would be no long term effects testing, no big sample sizes, no placebo patients, etc.  it does not seem like a proper test would even be possible.  what about 0nd or third degree murder ? what about all the other murder cases that do not result in the death penalty often for good reason ? and the second half:  you have given up your right to be a protected member of society.  no.  no you have not.  in law you certainly have not.  beyond that, as a few others have noted this is cruel and unusual punishment that is illegal for a laundry list of reasons.   #  and alternatively, would there be any constraints on the cruelty of the experiments ?  #  op, would you eliminate the 0th amendment entirely ? and alternatively, would there be any constraints on the cruelty of the experiments ? some of the experiments we have historically done on animals amount to prolonged torture.  would there be some cost/benefit analysis required before an experiment could be done some ratio of suffering inflicted vs.  expected scientific benefit ? finally, does your view envision that prisoners would volunteer and opt in, or that they would be forced to undergo the experiments ?
people who say a theological foundation is required for morality often put their argument in the form  without a god there is no reason not rape and murder.  legal consequences and social stigmas do not constitute a morality .  but what changes by adding god to the picture ? if someone is of a mind to completely disregard legal and social consequences of their actions, neglect the wishes of friends and family, and pay no care to the damage they inflict on others, why would or should they be held back by what  god  wants them to do ? not killing someone because you fear god is punishment is no different from not killing someone because you fear legal punishment.  maybe you fear god is punishment more, but that does not make following his rules any nobler than just following society is rules.  but i am not an expert on the nuances here.  let me know if i am missing something.  thanks for reading.   #  without a god there is no reason not rape and murder.   #  they usually say this to mean that people need incentives or punishments to behave in accordance with morality.   #  people do not believe that things are wrong because god punishes them, but that god punishes them for being wrong.  this is especially true if you believe that god is benevolent and all knowing.  i think that is the nuance.  the reason for why people obey a moral claim is independent of whether that claim is true.  another problem may arise because the above could be seen as circular.  if god is benevolent because what he does is good, then that quality of  goodness  exists independent of god.  if thing are good because god does them then you are correct in your post.  the secular rationalist in me wants to resolve this by saying that what matters is human happiness, flourishing, etc.  if god rewards people arbitrarily then seeking out those rewards is morally good, even if the actions that  amerit  them are ridiculous or appear evil.  the other thing is that people do not usually say what you are accusing them of saying.  they usually say this to mean that people need incentives or punishments to behave in accordance with morality.  this is said to mean that someone who follows moral rules only to avoid punishment is not a moral person.  it does not mean that it is impossible to be moral in a world where punishments or incentives exist that would be like saying that because x does not equal y, x necessarily equals  not y  .  or, in other words, in the same way that someone can follow the law for reasons other than fear, people can obey god for reasons other than fear many people cite love or faith .   #  this is not something that you can really have a debate about, since it is a case of differing definitions.   #  religious people typically define  moral truths  to include the commandments of their god.  so for them, moral truths do exist with a god and cannot exist without one.  this is not something that you can really have a debate about, since it is a case of differing definitions.  if you do not define moral truths in the same way, you wo not reach the same conclusion.  if you define moral truth in a restrictive enough way, you will conclude that moral truths do not exist.   #  they are impossible to prove true or false because the very nature of the assertion precludes the validity of any evidence.   # they are impossible to prove true or false because the very nature of the assertion precludes the validity of any evidence.  whereas defining  good  as god is commands and then positing a divine command for infanticide merely appeals to people is squeamishness i. e.  an appeal to emotion.  it relies entirely on people agreeing that infanticide is bad.  a proper reductio ad absurdum demonstrates that a premise leads to at least two  mutually exclusive  conclusions at the same time, i. e.  it contradicts itself.  you might argue god is unfalsifiable in some belief systems, but if you accept the premise  god exists , theocentric morality is potentially coherent.   #  duties, utility maximization, or obedience to god to guide moral action.   # however, you argued that divinely ordained infanticide constituted a logical reduction to the absurd for theocentric morality, which it manifestly does not.  moreover, relying on moral intuition is extremely dicey.  not only is it liable to lead you right back to beliefs you already acquired elsewhere, but people is intuitions are very clearly not identical.  you and i may be less than thrilled by the prospect of infanticide, but there have been and arguably still are cultures that considered it perfectly acceptable under the right circumstances.  you can repeat this comparison a myriad of times with different beliefs, even within a culture.  there is a reason why most ethical systems attempt to define some external factor e. g.  duties, utility maximization, or obedience to god to guide moral action.   #  not only is it liable to lead you right back to beliefs you already acquired elsewhere, but people is intuitions are very clearly not identical.   # however, you argued that divinely ordained infanticide constituted a logical reduction to the absurd for theocentric morality, which it manifestly does not.  that is not what i argued.  i am not using  absurd  in a strict sense of logical impossibility, but in the sense of being wildly counter intuitive.  not only is it liable to lead you right back to beliefs you already acquired elsewhere, but people is intuitions are very clearly not identical.  you and i may be less than thrilled by the prospect of infanticide, but there have been and arguably still are cultures that considered it perfectly acceptable under the right circumstances.  you can repeat this comparison a myriad of times with different beliefs, even within a culture.  there is a reason why most ethical systems attempt to define some external factor e. g.  duties, utility maximization, or obedience to god to guide moral action.  for any of those ethical systems to be persuasive they need to align with our deepest moral intuitions.  i really do not see what the alternative is supposed to be.
people who say a theological foundation is required for morality often put their argument in the form  without a god there is no reason not rape and murder.  legal consequences and social stigmas do not constitute a morality .  but what changes by adding god to the picture ? if someone is of a mind to completely disregard legal and social consequences of their actions, neglect the wishes of friends and family, and pay no care to the damage they inflict on others, why would or should they be held back by what  god  wants them to do ? not killing someone because you fear god is punishment is no different from not killing someone because you fear legal punishment.  maybe you fear god is punishment more, but that does not make following his rules any nobler than just following society is rules.  but i am not an expert on the nuances here.  let me know if i am missing something.  thanks for reading.   #  but what changes by adding god to the picture ?  #  when a person commits murder, they have transgressed against god.   #  i am not a theologian, but i believe it goes like this: god made man in god is image, and we are somewhat like god, with free will, but imperfect, fallen, etc.  and tend toward sin.  god reveals moral truths to us to convince us to follow him.  not all life is made in god is image, i. e.  animals, thus they do not operate in a moral system.  when they do things like kill, etc.  it is not sinful because they are not in god is image.  murder is the malicious taking of life but not all life just human life, life that is made in god is image.  human life is holy.  this is why murder is immoral, but killing an animal is not.  when a person commits murder, they have transgressed against god.  so, in older times, if guilty of such, you would get excommunicated, and your soul would be tossed aside, and you would be then equivalent to non holy life.  so no christian burial for you.  something like that.  i really should read more about this.   #  the other thing is that people do not usually say what you are accusing them of saying.   #  people do not believe that things are wrong because god punishes them, but that god punishes them for being wrong.  this is especially true if you believe that god is benevolent and all knowing.  i think that is the nuance.  the reason for why people obey a moral claim is independent of whether that claim is true.  another problem may arise because the above could be seen as circular.  if god is benevolent because what he does is good, then that quality of  goodness  exists independent of god.  if thing are good because god does them then you are correct in your post.  the secular rationalist in me wants to resolve this by saying that what matters is human happiness, flourishing, etc.  if god rewards people arbitrarily then seeking out those rewards is morally good, even if the actions that  amerit  them are ridiculous or appear evil.  the other thing is that people do not usually say what you are accusing them of saying.  they usually say this to mean that people need incentives or punishments to behave in accordance with morality.  this is said to mean that someone who follows moral rules only to avoid punishment is not a moral person.  it does not mean that it is impossible to be moral in a world where punishments or incentives exist that would be like saying that because x does not equal y, x necessarily equals  not y  .  or, in other words, in the same way that someone can follow the law for reasons other than fear, people can obey god for reasons other than fear many people cite love or faith .   #  if you define moral truth in a restrictive enough way, you will conclude that moral truths do not exist.   #  religious people typically define  moral truths  to include the commandments of their god.  so for them, moral truths do exist with a god and cannot exist without one.  this is not something that you can really have a debate about, since it is a case of differing definitions.  if you do not define moral truths in the same way, you wo not reach the same conclusion.  if you define moral truth in a restrictive enough way, you will conclude that moral truths do not exist.   #  a proper reductio ad absurdum demonstrates that a premise leads to at least two  mutually exclusive  conclusions at the same time, i. e.   # they are impossible to prove true or false because the very nature of the assertion precludes the validity of any evidence.  whereas defining  good  as god is commands and then positing a divine command for infanticide merely appeals to people is squeamishness i. e.  an appeal to emotion.  it relies entirely on people agreeing that infanticide is bad.  a proper reductio ad absurdum demonstrates that a premise leads to at least two  mutually exclusive  conclusions at the same time, i. e.  it contradicts itself.  you might argue god is unfalsifiable in some belief systems, but if you accept the premise  god exists , theocentric morality is potentially coherent.   #  you can repeat this comparison a myriad of times with different beliefs, even within a culture.   # however, you argued that divinely ordained infanticide constituted a logical reduction to the absurd for theocentric morality, which it manifestly does not.  moreover, relying on moral intuition is extremely dicey.  not only is it liable to lead you right back to beliefs you already acquired elsewhere, but people is intuitions are very clearly not identical.  you and i may be less than thrilled by the prospect of infanticide, but there have been and arguably still are cultures that considered it perfectly acceptable under the right circumstances.  you can repeat this comparison a myriad of times with different beliefs, even within a culture.  there is a reason why most ethical systems attempt to define some external factor e. g.  duties, utility maximization, or obedience to god to guide moral action.
people who say a theological foundation is required for morality often put their argument in the form  without a god there is no reason not rape and murder.  legal consequences and social stigmas do not constitute a morality .  but what changes by adding god to the picture ? if someone is of a mind to completely disregard legal and social consequences of their actions, neglect the wishes of friends and family, and pay no care to the damage they inflict on others, why would or should they be held back by what  god  wants them to do ? not killing someone because you fear god is punishment is no different from not killing someone because you fear legal punishment.  maybe you fear god is punishment more, but that does not make following his rules any nobler than just following society is rules.  but i am not an expert on the nuances here.  let me know if i am missing something.  thanks for reading.   #  but i am not an expert on the nuances here.   #  let me know if i am missing something.   # let me know if i am missing something.  the nuance would be that if there is an all powerful creator with a capital c, then reality exists as a direct result of his will.  that means god is will is not just an aspect of reality as man made laws might be it is, on the other hand, an integral part of reality itself.  it is not so much about what you fear more or who you want to please, it is about the purpose of existence itself.  if there is a god will, then in as much as his will to create the universe is significant and i am pretty sure as inhabitants of the universe we would agree it is then his will for anything else that he has an opinion on is also significant.  if part of god is will is a moral position, then that morality matters as it is the morality of the very fabric of our existence.   #  this is said to mean that someone who follows moral rules only to avoid punishment is not a moral person.   #  people do not believe that things are wrong because god punishes them, but that god punishes them for being wrong.  this is especially true if you believe that god is benevolent and all knowing.  i think that is the nuance.  the reason for why people obey a moral claim is independent of whether that claim is true.  another problem may arise because the above could be seen as circular.  if god is benevolent because what he does is good, then that quality of  goodness  exists independent of god.  if thing are good because god does them then you are correct in your post.  the secular rationalist in me wants to resolve this by saying that what matters is human happiness, flourishing, etc.  if god rewards people arbitrarily then seeking out those rewards is morally good, even if the actions that  amerit  them are ridiculous or appear evil.  the other thing is that people do not usually say what you are accusing them of saying.  they usually say this to mean that people need incentives or punishments to behave in accordance with morality.  this is said to mean that someone who follows moral rules only to avoid punishment is not a moral person.  it does not mean that it is impossible to be moral in a world where punishments or incentives exist that would be like saying that because x does not equal y, x necessarily equals  not y  .  or, in other words, in the same way that someone can follow the law for reasons other than fear, people can obey god for reasons other than fear many people cite love or faith .   #  if you do not define moral truths in the same way, you wo not reach the same conclusion.   #  religious people typically define  moral truths  to include the commandments of their god.  so for them, moral truths do exist with a god and cannot exist without one.  this is not something that you can really have a debate about, since it is a case of differing definitions.  if you do not define moral truths in the same way, you wo not reach the same conclusion.  if you define moral truth in a restrictive enough way, you will conclude that moral truths do not exist.   #  it relies entirely on people agreeing that infanticide is bad.   # they are impossible to prove true or false because the very nature of the assertion precludes the validity of any evidence.  whereas defining  good  as god is commands and then positing a divine command for infanticide merely appeals to people is squeamishness i. e.  an appeal to emotion.  it relies entirely on people agreeing that infanticide is bad.  a proper reductio ad absurdum demonstrates that a premise leads to at least two  mutually exclusive  conclusions at the same time, i. e.  it contradicts itself.  you might argue god is unfalsifiable in some belief systems, but if you accept the premise  god exists , theocentric morality is potentially coherent.   #  however, you argued that divinely ordained infanticide constituted a logical reduction to the absurd for theocentric morality, which it manifestly does not.   # however, you argued that divinely ordained infanticide constituted a logical reduction to the absurd for theocentric morality, which it manifestly does not.  moreover, relying on moral intuition is extremely dicey.  not only is it liable to lead you right back to beliefs you already acquired elsewhere, but people is intuitions are very clearly not identical.  you and i may be less than thrilled by the prospect of infanticide, but there have been and arguably still are cultures that considered it perfectly acceptable under the right circumstances.  you can repeat this comparison a myriad of times with different beliefs, even within a culture.  there is a reason why most ethical systems attempt to define some external factor e. g.  duties, utility maximization, or obedience to god to guide moral action.
preface: i searched for this topic and two cmvs came up, but neither really touched on this aspect.  people get annoyed or angry at videos that are taken in a vertical format, mostly because  screens are horizontal .  i posit that this does not make a difference.  as the world moves to more and more mobile formats responsive sites, apps, more featureful phones , saying that videos have to maintain the old ways is borderline curmudgeonly.  it is akin to saying that  you  ca not send tweets or use snapchat, because  i  still use email and  i  ca not read your messages with gmail.  a phone is more naturally held in portrait mode, and so taking a video that way is going to be more common.  if the people consuming this video are also watching on their phones, then the people watching on horizontal screens become irrelevant or, at best, familiar with and therefore accepting of the idea that videos are going to be vertical .   #  saying that videos have to maintain the old ways is borderline curmudgeonly.   #  it is akin to saying that you ca not send tweets or use snapchat, because i still use email and i ca not read your messages with gmail.   # it is akin to saying that you ca not send tweets or use snapchat, because i still use email and i ca not read your messages with gmail.  it is not argued in order  to maintain the old ways , but in order to not have annoying vertical black bars on either side during playback.  because cmos camera sensors have a different number of horizontal vs.  vertical pixels, the phone cannot simply flip the input to record in landscape video,  while also  guaranteeing the same maximum resolution.  that is why it is up to the user to decide, along which axis the higher number of pixels should be used.  there are situations where a portrait video makes more sense, e. g.  when filming a waterfall coming straight down from a mountain.  while it will still have black bars when played horizontally, at least you can zoom in further, because the resolution is not wasted on  irrelevant  details left and right.   #  there is just not all that much happening up top.   #  screens are horizontal for a  reason : human  perception  is generally horizontal.  some examples: 0.  you are walking around your home town.  technically you have a wide field of vision, including up/down and side to side but how often do you find yourself looking up or down ? my bet is not all that often: maybe you glance down at your feet when coming up on a curb, but most of the stuff you want/need to see is you ready for this ? at eye level.  even if your home town is nyc, my experience is that the residents of whom i used to be one and even the commuters or whom i am  currently  one do not look up.  it is something of a cliche that the tourists are the ones gazing raptly at the skyscrapers; the locals are looking solely at the shops/cars/people/etc.  there is just not all that much happening up top.  0.  consider the structure of cars  windshields.  they have the same horizontal orientation as screens, and again there is a reason for this.  you do not need to see ground or sky; you need to see all the cars around you.  unless you are a total beginner, you do not even notice the roof or the hood, but the comparatively small blind spots  on the sides  are  hugely  problematic.  so yet again: up/down matters  very  little compared to side to side.  0.  consider corrective glasses and i say this, again, as someone with direct daily experience .  i have essentially zero peripheral vision, but i never have problems because of not having immediate at a glance access to all the exciting stuff happening on the ceiling.  i do, however, occasionally bump into things because i lack  sideways  peripheral vision.  to tie all of that back into your original question: landscape orientation is more natural.  we are more accustomed to it  because  it is more natural.  i would be okay with someone filming a rocket launch in portrait mode, but for anything that requires activity you will simply get more of the relevant action if you switch to landscape mode.  it is more comfortable for the viewer: you do not feel like as much of the relevant detail is happening off screen, because if there  is  contextual activity, it is  much  more likely to be taking place on the sides than above/below.   #  a.  phones are the only media devices commonly used in vertical mode.   #  a.  phones are the only media devices commonly used in vertical mode.  desktops, laptops, tv screens, tablets, etc, are all used in horizontal mode  because that is how human eyes work .  regardless of what you believe, phones are not the end all of technology.  b.  turning your phone sideways is not a significant inconvenience.  c.  more convenient does not equal better.  especially when it is only more convenience for  you  and not for the people you are showing the video to.  if i come over to your nicely carpeted house after walking through mud, should i leave my shoes on, just because it is more convenient for me ?  #  the argument is that phones  are currently being used vertically  and as more people use phones, more people will have primarily vertical screens.   #  it is irrelevant to the argument how human eyes work.  the argument is that phones  are currently being used vertically  and as more people use phones, more people will have primarily vertical screens.  you are right that more convenient does not equal better, bur more convenient means it will get used more.  see how many pictures are taken with phones versus with slrs, despite slrs being far higher quality.  if vertical is convenient, vertical will be used.  you are confusing my question for  which is better ?  .  i am not discussing that in the slightest.  my argument is that the content producers people with phones will continue using the format they are comfortable with, and perhaps we should accept that for what it is.   #  our perception of the world is broadly horizontal which is why film has always been in a  wide screen  format.   #  vertial videos are not aesthetically pleasing because they poorly replicate what people actually see.  our perception of the world is broadly horizontal which is why film has always been in a  wide screen  format.  it simply makes more sense with how we perceive the world.  a narrow, vertical video strikes us as weird and aesthetically unappealing because it cuts off information that we expect to be there.  it feels like watching the world with blinders on which is unnatural and therefore unappealing.  in summation do not take vertical videos.  it is ugly and less engaging for viewers.
voting age citizen of the united states i only want to vote for someone who i could reasonably expect to be honest and trustworthy.  politicians can say whatever they want, and either be lying the whole time or get bought out later.  either way, same end result: i do not get what i voted for.  i am tired of it.  i feel as though i am presented with several choices of turd.  perhaps one is less smelly, or feels more interesting when you step in it, but i would rather not elect a turd at all.  that just seems like a bad idea.  i want to vote for someone who i would actually want to hold that office.  i feel like the closest i can get is just not voting at all.  reddit, cmv.   #  i want to vote for someone who i would actually want to hold that office.   #  as:   i want to vote for someone who would actually want to hold that office.   # i. e.  people hopefully outgrow that line of thinking.  no where does op state that he wants a politician to be  perfect , or even have any of the same ideals as himself.  he said:   i only want to vote for someone who i could reasonably expect to be honest and trustworthy.  i think you are reading into what he is saying too much.  he just does not want a politician who has been   lying the whole time or get bought out later.  now, if he is/was saying what you believed him to be saying, i completely agree.  as:   i want to vote for someone who would actually want to hold that office.  not sure if that blows my whole point away.   #  by not voting, the message you are sending to politicians is that they can safely ignore you, because your vote can never hurt or help them.   #  by not voting, the message you are sending to politicians is that they can safely ignore you, because your vote can never hurt or help them.  politicians try to get the biggest impact with their limited resources time and money , and the roi they would receive by paying attention to your wants or needs is precisely 0, so politicians will invest their time elsewhere.  if, for example, people ages 0 0 really care about net neutrality, but people ages 0 0 also have the lowest voter turn outs, then no politician has a strong incentive to fight for net neutrality.  this is a very simplified example, but i think it illustrates my point.  you are never going to find a politician that represents all of your desires, because that kind of politician will never be successful in politics.  politics is about having very broad appeal, garnering votes from as many different types of voters as possible.  your best bet is to vote for the person that comes closest to your views.  also, you do not have to be forced into choosing democrat or republican, you can cast a vote for the green party, or one of the other major second tier parties.  some people will say that voting for the green party is a waste of a vote, but political strategists on both the democratic and republican sides intensely study how people vote for all parties, and groups that belong to smaller parties can influence larger parties.  you could argue that the libertarian party strongly influenced the republican party in the most recent elections.  you can also see the influence that the green party has on the democratic party.   #  of course, if the greens have the same candidate and they get more votes than through the dems, the green party is listed higher on the ballot next election than the dems.   #  one quick warning: if the green party fields a separate candidate from the democrats, and the dems lose a significant portion of their votes to the greens, the gop is more likely to win.  this is a known effect, which leads to strategic voting which is pretty bad.  voting reform is pretty much necessary to really improve our system much.  of course, if the greens have the same candidate and they get more votes than through the dems, the green party is listed higher on the ballot next election than the dems.  that means that the greens can then try to field their own candidate and maybe have a chance.   #  if you vote  above the line  by just writing a 0 vote for one whole party, your preferences flow according to the way that party decides, which is subject to lots of backroom dealing.   #  yes, our senate vote is pretty flawed.  if you vote  above the line  by just writing a 0 vote for one whole party, your preferences flow according to the way that party decides, which is subject to lots of backroom dealing.  but if you want to control your preferences, you are forced to vote  below the line  by distributing all your preferences to each individual 0 some candidates, or your vote no longer counts.  it is bullshit that definitely needs reform.  the system could be very easily improved by allowing you to not fill in all the boxes to have your personal preferences count.  just number only 0 0 or however many you want, for the candidates you actually care about or know about.  if you vote for only minor parties and all of your few choices get used up, your vote then gets eliminated instead of flowing on to anyone else.  although, i think it is encouraging that even with this bullshit going on and encouraging a lazy  0  vote only, people do still vote for smaller parties.  that vote whispering would not have got anywhere if more people had ranked the major parties higher.  for the record, our house of representatives vote is a bit different.  there you always have to number all boxes, so your preferences ca not flow based on the deals of the party.  and the ballots never get as large as the senate, the absolute most i have seen is 0 candidates.   #  they also want federal elections to be held on weekends.   #  the reform party of the usa supports direct popular vote which is better than electorate but still fptp so not great and term limits for senators and representatives.  they also want federal elections to be held on weekends.  i think they should be a holiday, but it is close enough to get people to vote.  the united america party also supports direct election.  the modern whig party supports approval voting, making it the best of the three in terms of voting reform.  unfortunately they only appear to have candidates in kentucky and washington.
voting age citizen of the united states i only want to vote for someone who i could reasonably expect to be honest and trustworthy.  politicians can say whatever they want, and either be lying the whole time or get bought out later.  either way, same end result: i do not get what i voted for.  i am tired of it.  i feel as though i am presented with several choices of turd.  perhaps one is less smelly, or feels more interesting when you step in it, but i would rather not elect a turd at all.  that just seems like a bad idea.  i want to vote for someone who i would actually want to hold that office.  i feel like the closest i can get is just not voting at all.  reddit, cmv.   #  i want to vote for someone who i would actually want to hold that office.   #  your position is essentially the same: if you ca not have a candidate in office that speaks 0 to your position, than you are not willing to play ball.   #  something i have not seen brought up, but is always my go to argument for conversations like these: an all or nothing approach, like the one you describe, is not the right way to think about politics, and it is exactly the same kind of thinking you probably do not like about politicians.  the current state of political gridlock can be categorized as one of intense partisanship, and a refusal to find common ground and compromise.  the reason this is called the  do nothing  congress is because if they ca not have everything they want, they wo not do anything at all.  your position is essentially the same: if you ca not have a candidate in office that speaks 0 to your position, than you are not willing to play ball.  politics is never going to be about every single persons every single need being met.  it is about the lot of us, millions of individuals, coming together to find common ground, and to work on the things the majority of us can get behind.  so that is how you should think about your vote.  along with what many of the other posters have said, give your vote to someone who shares in some way your views on things.  green party, dem/rep party, whatever it is.  and make sure they, too, are willing to work with others as you vote for them.   #  this is a very simplified example, but i think it illustrates my point.   #  by not voting, the message you are sending to politicians is that they can safely ignore you, because your vote can never hurt or help them.  politicians try to get the biggest impact with their limited resources time and money , and the roi they would receive by paying attention to your wants or needs is precisely 0, so politicians will invest their time elsewhere.  if, for example, people ages 0 0 really care about net neutrality, but people ages 0 0 also have the lowest voter turn outs, then no politician has a strong incentive to fight for net neutrality.  this is a very simplified example, but i think it illustrates my point.  you are never going to find a politician that represents all of your desires, because that kind of politician will never be successful in politics.  politics is about having very broad appeal, garnering votes from as many different types of voters as possible.  your best bet is to vote for the person that comes closest to your views.  also, you do not have to be forced into choosing democrat or republican, you can cast a vote for the green party, or one of the other major second tier parties.  some people will say that voting for the green party is a waste of a vote, but political strategists on both the democratic and republican sides intensely study how people vote for all parties, and groups that belong to smaller parties can influence larger parties.  you could argue that the libertarian party strongly influenced the republican party in the most recent elections.  you can also see the influence that the green party has on the democratic party.   #  voting reform is pretty much necessary to really improve our system much.   #  one quick warning: if the green party fields a separate candidate from the democrats, and the dems lose a significant portion of their votes to the greens, the gop is more likely to win.  this is a known effect, which leads to strategic voting which is pretty bad.  voting reform is pretty much necessary to really improve our system much.  of course, if the greens have the same candidate and they get more votes than through the dems, the green party is listed higher on the ballot next election than the dems.  that means that the greens can then try to field their own candidate and maybe have a chance.   #  if you vote for only minor parties and all of your few choices get used up, your vote then gets eliminated instead of flowing on to anyone else.   #  yes, our senate vote is pretty flawed.  if you vote  above the line  by just writing a 0 vote for one whole party, your preferences flow according to the way that party decides, which is subject to lots of backroom dealing.  but if you want to control your preferences, you are forced to vote  below the line  by distributing all your preferences to each individual 0 some candidates, or your vote no longer counts.  it is bullshit that definitely needs reform.  the system could be very easily improved by allowing you to not fill in all the boxes to have your personal preferences count.  just number only 0 0 or however many you want, for the candidates you actually care about or know about.  if you vote for only minor parties and all of your few choices get used up, your vote then gets eliminated instead of flowing on to anyone else.  although, i think it is encouraging that even with this bullshit going on and encouraging a lazy  0  vote only, people do still vote for smaller parties.  that vote whispering would not have got anywhere if more people had ranked the major parties higher.  for the record, our house of representatives vote is a bit different.  there you always have to number all boxes, so your preferences ca not flow based on the deals of the party.  and the ballots never get as large as the senate, the absolute most i have seen is 0 candidates.   #  they also want federal elections to be held on weekends.   #  the reform party of the usa supports direct popular vote which is better than electorate but still fptp so not great and term limits for senators and representatives.  they also want federal elections to be held on weekends.  i think they should be a holiday, but it is close enough to get people to vote.  the united america party also supports direct election.  the modern whig party supports approval voting, making it the best of the three in terms of voting reform.  unfortunately they only appear to have candidates in kentucky and washington.
voting age citizen of the united states i only want to vote for someone who i could reasonably expect to be honest and trustworthy.  politicians can say whatever they want, and either be lying the whole time or get bought out later.  either way, same end result: i do not get what i voted for.  i am tired of it.  i feel as though i am presented with several choices of turd.  perhaps one is less smelly, or feels more interesting when you step in it, but i would rather not elect a turd at all.  that just seems like a bad idea.  i want to vote for someone who i would actually want to hold that office.  i feel like the closest i can get is just not voting at all.  reddit, cmv.   #  i only want to vote for someone who i could reasonably expect to be honest and trustworthy.   #  politicians can say whatever they want, and either be lying the whole time or get bought out later.   # politicians can say whatever they want, and either be lying the whole time or get bought out later.  i do not get what i voted for.  i am tired of it.  things did not go my way, i am going to cry in the corner.  sorry bud, but unless you get on the campaign trail personally, you will  never  have a candidate who will carry out your policy desires 0 on every issue.  i am assuming you are young, apathetic and uninformed, so please ignore the equally uninformed  every politician is the same  folks that will come out to validate your apathy.  if you wanted to have a positive electoral impact you would  already  have voted in your states primaries.  primaries have extremely low turnout and often determine the politician that will end up winning the national ticket.  your city and county officials who are also on the ballot have far more day to day impact on your daily life.  apathy about local politics is why your schools are shit, roads do not get fixed, your town has a comcast/time warner monopoly that is fucking you, etc.  local candidates aside, there are almost always a handful of ballot measures/propositions that are the closest to direct governance we get as citizens.  these measures/propositions can determine your tax liabilities, school funding, farm subsidies, marijuana legalization, marriage equality for gays, etc.  please stop listening to people who intellectually bankrupt enough to recommend voting 0rd party for national seats, when there is statistically not a more insignificant way to toss away your vote in a first past the post electoral system.  i have never met a person who claimed they voted for 0rd party that also voted in a primary elections or made any effort to build up a local 0rd party coalition before wasting it on a national 0rd party.   #  politics is about having very broad appeal, garnering votes from as many different types of voters as possible.   #  by not voting, the message you are sending to politicians is that they can safely ignore you, because your vote can never hurt or help them.  politicians try to get the biggest impact with their limited resources time and money , and the roi they would receive by paying attention to your wants or needs is precisely 0, so politicians will invest their time elsewhere.  if, for example, people ages 0 0 really care about net neutrality, but people ages 0 0 also have the lowest voter turn outs, then no politician has a strong incentive to fight for net neutrality.  this is a very simplified example, but i think it illustrates my point.  you are never going to find a politician that represents all of your desires, because that kind of politician will never be successful in politics.  politics is about having very broad appeal, garnering votes from as many different types of voters as possible.  your best bet is to vote for the person that comes closest to your views.  also, you do not have to be forced into choosing democrat or republican, you can cast a vote for the green party, or one of the other major second tier parties.  some people will say that voting for the green party is a waste of a vote, but political strategists on both the democratic and republican sides intensely study how people vote for all parties, and groups that belong to smaller parties can influence larger parties.  you could argue that the libertarian party strongly influenced the republican party in the most recent elections.  you can also see the influence that the green party has on the democratic party.   #  that means that the greens can then try to field their own candidate and maybe have a chance.   #  one quick warning: if the green party fields a separate candidate from the democrats, and the dems lose a significant portion of their votes to the greens, the gop is more likely to win.  this is a known effect, which leads to strategic voting which is pretty bad.  voting reform is pretty much necessary to really improve our system much.  of course, if the greens have the same candidate and they get more votes than through the dems, the green party is listed higher on the ballot next election than the dems.  that means that the greens can then try to field their own candidate and maybe have a chance.   #  and the ballots never get as large as the senate, the absolute most i have seen is 0 candidates.   #  yes, our senate vote is pretty flawed.  if you vote  above the line  by just writing a 0 vote for one whole party, your preferences flow according to the way that party decides, which is subject to lots of backroom dealing.  but if you want to control your preferences, you are forced to vote  below the line  by distributing all your preferences to each individual 0 some candidates, or your vote no longer counts.  it is bullshit that definitely needs reform.  the system could be very easily improved by allowing you to not fill in all the boxes to have your personal preferences count.  just number only 0 0 or however many you want, for the candidates you actually care about or know about.  if you vote for only minor parties and all of your few choices get used up, your vote then gets eliminated instead of flowing on to anyone else.  although, i think it is encouraging that even with this bullshit going on and encouraging a lazy  0  vote only, people do still vote for smaller parties.  that vote whispering would not have got anywhere if more people had ranked the major parties higher.  for the record, our house of representatives vote is a bit different.  there you always have to number all boxes, so your preferences ca not flow based on the deals of the party.  and the ballots never get as large as the senate, the absolute most i have seen is 0 candidates.   #  unfortunately they only appear to have candidates in kentucky and washington.   #  the reform party of the usa supports direct popular vote which is better than electorate but still fptp so not great and term limits for senators and representatives.  they also want federal elections to be held on weekends.  i think they should be a holiday, but it is close enough to get people to vote.  the united america party also supports direct election.  the modern whig party supports approval voting, making it the best of the three in terms of voting reform.  unfortunately they only appear to have candidates in kentucky and washington.
frankly, i just do not see it working out.  has it not been tried and tested countless times to poor results ? it seems to me that socialism would lead people to be lazy, and would not punish laziness, whereas capitalism emphasises hard work, and rewards it.  obviously, there are issues with it, but i believe that overall, capitalism is the system that stimulates the most growth in society.  my friend supports socialism, but he does not seem to know what he is talking about, and he is not been able to sway me.  change muh view ! thank ee !  #  has it not been tried and tested countless times to poor results ?  #  i am only gonna say something because this is the reason why people look funny at communists/marxists.   #  i would just like to add something that i think nobody mentioned yet.  i am only gonna say something because this is the reason why people look funny at communists/marxists.  people like me, we do not support the sovjet union, or north korea.  those are dictatorships.  there has, in the history of time, not been a single communist country.  they all were dictatorships.  basically, if it has a leader / communism.   #  as to your point about laziness, i would say that capitalism promotes laziness, rather than socialism.   #  first of all, since you did not define socialism very well in your post, i am forced to assume you mean one of the following: 0 a system under which wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor; 0 a system under which the government controls the economy; 0 a system under which the working class control the means of production.  the reason i specify these is that there is a lot of confusion in regards to what is and is not socialism, and having a definition handy really helps.  as a socialist and a marxist, i as well as nearly every socialist, marxist, and communist i have ever interacted with generally take definition 0, which is essentially how karl marx and friedrich engels would have defined it.  in defense of that definition of socialism, i would point out that no such system has ever existed on a large scale for any reasonable length of time.  remember, under definition 0, the workers must own the means of production, aka factories, mills, etc.  in the soviet union, the workers had very little actual say over what went on in factories, and had essentially no control over the government, which ran nearly everything.  that is not socialism, that is totalitarianism.  in cuba, china, and though to a different degree in venezuela, this is also the case.  i would not consider any of these countries to be socialist.  some examples of countries i would consider socialist are: the paris commune, the zapotistas, the cnt and poum controlled territories during the spanish civil war.  as to your point about laziness, i would say that capitalism promotes laziness, rather than socialism.  under capitalism, the workers work for bosses managers and investors aka capitalists, who make most of the actual profit from the business, while the workers themselves get steady unchanging wages regardless of their work, and are only punished if they fail, but rarely rewarded if they succeed.  by contrast, under socialism, the workers directly benefit from their labor, and are therefore more likely to work hard at it.  tl;dr: in which case would you work harder: case a: you work for me and get $0 an hour in exchange for hard and technical labor.  case b: you work for yourself and make money corresponding to whatever value you create.  case b is socialism.   #  if there is a large group all requiring some portion of the profits, then the value placed on the individual worker is going to be much much lower.   #  it means group ownership of means of production, not soul ownership.  therefore any profits must be divided among all persons included in the society.  you get the most out of your own labors when  only  you are dependent upon it for profits.  if there is a large group all requiring some portion of the profits, then the value placed on the individual worker is going to be much much lower.  it is like having hundreds of owners, instead of just one worker/owner.   #  right now an owner gets a huge chunk of the profits simply for holding a legal title.   # it means lots of things depending on whom you ask.  but imho the idea is that workers control their tools and split any surplus value amongst themselves.  socialism is an international movement, so i am not sure how all the profits from any single factory could be split among the entire planet.  what does this even mean ? two people working together can often make more money than working alone.  it all depends on how much each portion gets.  right now an owner gets a huge chunk of the profits simply for holding a legal title.  under socialism, this would be split among the workers themselves.  nah, it is like having hundreds of owners/workers instead of one owner and hundreds of workers.   #  i do not even know where you get this idea, because it is not from anything i have said.   #  you are limiting your thinking to large corporations.  if i own a small machine shop, where i am both the sole owner, and the primary employee, all profits come to me for my labors.  if instead, i now work for a state operated machine shop, instead of my own private one, all profits, generated by my labors, are now split among the state participants.  that is how it works.  i do not even know where you get this idea, because it is not from anything i have said.  think of it like a community park vs land that i develop myself.  the park may be more valuable, to the region, and in terms of actual cost input, if it is own and operated by the community as a whole.  but i am going to get a lot more personal value out of land that i take the time to develop myself, in a way that i seem fit, and is just for personal use.  and profits are split in the form of taxes. pretty common concept.  right now an owner gets a huge chunk of the profits simply for holding a legal title.  you are really limiting your idea of what a majority of business owners do.  most business owners by population run small companies with less than 0 employees, those business are founded on the work and efforts of the founding owner, not some guy with a random piece of paper that says he owns the company.  you are de valuing the efforts of the one person who took the time to actually make the company valuable, and create a brand from the ground up.
frankly, i just do not see it working out.  has it not been tried and tested countless times to poor results ? it seems to me that socialism would lead people to be lazy, and would not punish laziness, whereas capitalism emphasises hard work, and rewards it.  obviously, there are issues with it, but i believe that overall, capitalism is the system that stimulates the most growth in society.  my friend supports socialism, but he does not seem to know what he is talking about, and he is not been able to sway me.  change muh view ! thank ee !  #  it seems to me that socialism would lead people to be lazy, and would not punish laziness, whereas capitalism emphasises hard work, and rewards it.   #  that is a bit of a problem.   # depends on your definition of  isocialism .  a lot of european countries have a lot of socialist based policies and systems of government, and consistently rank high in terms of standard of living, education, population happiness, etc.  especially the nordic countries.  that is a bit of a problem.  you see, humans are naturally lazy, and it has nothing to do with their economic system.  capitalism does no more to reward hard work than socialism does, nor does either punish laziness.  things like universal healthcare and free school and college are socialist ideas and policies that are pretty well liked everywhere their implemented.   #  some examples of countries i would consider socialist are: the paris commune, the zapotistas, the cnt and poum controlled territories during the spanish civil war.   #  first of all, since you did not define socialism very well in your post, i am forced to assume you mean one of the following: 0 a system under which wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor; 0 a system under which the government controls the economy; 0 a system under which the working class control the means of production.  the reason i specify these is that there is a lot of confusion in regards to what is and is not socialism, and having a definition handy really helps.  as a socialist and a marxist, i as well as nearly every socialist, marxist, and communist i have ever interacted with generally take definition 0, which is essentially how karl marx and friedrich engels would have defined it.  in defense of that definition of socialism, i would point out that no such system has ever existed on a large scale for any reasonable length of time.  remember, under definition 0, the workers must own the means of production, aka factories, mills, etc.  in the soviet union, the workers had very little actual say over what went on in factories, and had essentially no control over the government, which ran nearly everything.  that is not socialism, that is totalitarianism.  in cuba, china, and though to a different degree in venezuela, this is also the case.  i would not consider any of these countries to be socialist.  some examples of countries i would consider socialist are: the paris commune, the zapotistas, the cnt and poum controlled territories during the spanish civil war.  as to your point about laziness, i would say that capitalism promotes laziness, rather than socialism.  under capitalism, the workers work for bosses managers and investors aka capitalists, who make most of the actual profit from the business, while the workers themselves get steady unchanging wages regardless of their work, and are only punished if they fail, but rarely rewarded if they succeed.  by contrast, under socialism, the workers directly benefit from their labor, and are therefore more likely to work hard at it.  tl;dr: in which case would you work harder: case a: you work for me and get $0 an hour in exchange for hard and technical labor.  case b: you work for yourself and make money corresponding to whatever value you create.  case b is socialism.   #  it means group ownership of means of production, not soul ownership.   #  it means group ownership of means of production, not soul ownership.  therefore any profits must be divided among all persons included in the society.  you get the most out of your own labors when  only  you are dependent upon it for profits.  if there is a large group all requiring some portion of the profits, then the value placed on the individual worker is going to be much much lower.  it is like having hundreds of owners, instead of just one worker/owner.   #  under socialism, this would be split among the workers themselves.   # it means lots of things depending on whom you ask.  but imho the idea is that workers control their tools and split any surplus value amongst themselves.  socialism is an international movement, so i am not sure how all the profits from any single factory could be split among the entire planet.  what does this even mean ? two people working together can often make more money than working alone.  it all depends on how much each portion gets.  right now an owner gets a huge chunk of the profits simply for holding a legal title.  under socialism, this would be split among the workers themselves.  nah, it is like having hundreds of owners/workers instead of one owner and hundreds of workers.   #  you are de valuing the efforts of the one person who took the time to actually make the company valuable, and create a brand from the ground up.   #  you are limiting your thinking to large corporations.  if i own a small machine shop, where i am both the sole owner, and the primary employee, all profits come to me for my labors.  if instead, i now work for a state operated machine shop, instead of my own private one, all profits, generated by my labors, are now split among the state participants.  that is how it works.  i do not even know where you get this idea, because it is not from anything i have said.  think of it like a community park vs land that i develop myself.  the park may be more valuable, to the region, and in terms of actual cost input, if it is own and operated by the community as a whole.  but i am going to get a lot more personal value out of land that i take the time to develop myself, in a way that i seem fit, and is just for personal use.  and profits are split in the form of taxes. pretty common concept.  right now an owner gets a huge chunk of the profits simply for holding a legal title.  you are really limiting your idea of what a majority of business owners do.  most business owners by population run small companies with less than 0 employees, those business are founded on the work and efforts of the founding owner, not some guy with a random piece of paper that says he owns the company.  you are de valuing the efforts of the one person who took the time to actually make the company valuable, and create a brand from the ground up.
frankly, i just do not see it working out.  has it not been tried and tested countless times to poor results ? it seems to me that socialism would lead people to be lazy, and would not punish laziness, whereas capitalism emphasises hard work, and rewards it.  obviously, there are issues with it, but i believe that overall, capitalism is the system that stimulates the most growth in society.  my friend supports socialism, but he does not seem to know what he is talking about, and he is not been able to sway me.  change muh view ! thank ee !  #  has it not been tried and tested countless times to poor results ?  #  if all the countries in the world were socialist and one decided to become capitalist it would fail too.   # if all the countries in the world were socialist and one decided to become capitalist it would fail too.  all of the other countries would refuse to trade with it, form alliances against it and possibly go to war against it.  why ? because it threatens their economic model, it goes against their core values and last but not least its foreign and weird.  now why did the capitalist country fail ? because it was a bad system that ca not ever work or because it was not allowed to succeed ? this does not mean if socialism were given the chance to succeed it would but it does point out that just because it has failed in the past does not indicate that it is an inherently unstable system.  capitalism does not reward hard work it rewards capital.  there are more than a few aristocrats who inherited all of their wealth from birth, invested it, and made millions of dollars without working a single day in their life and far more single moms who busted their ass working three jobs to make ends meat.  occasionally we hear the rags to riches story and that if we just work hard enough we could get there too but that is a load a shit.  i do not know about you but i know a lot of decent, hard working people who will never make it out of the lower class.  not because they are stupid or lazy but because the game is rigged.  you got to have money to make it and when you have a mortgage and a family to feed many do not have the time or the resources to start their own business or go back to school.  there are lots of different types of socialism.  when people hear socialism most think of huge centralized government tribunals deciding every single thing for every single person.  most socialists do not advocate that system.  one example of a system that defies this stereotype is market socialism.  market socialism consists of worker owned enterprises that compete against each other in a free market.  each worker has a share in the company and elects their managers and determines how much they make.  i do not subscribe to that particular flavor of socialism but i think that would be a hell of a lot better then what we have currently.   #  as to your point about laziness, i would say that capitalism promotes laziness, rather than socialism.   #  first of all, since you did not define socialism very well in your post, i am forced to assume you mean one of the following: 0 a system under which wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor; 0 a system under which the government controls the economy; 0 a system under which the working class control the means of production.  the reason i specify these is that there is a lot of confusion in regards to what is and is not socialism, and having a definition handy really helps.  as a socialist and a marxist, i as well as nearly every socialist, marxist, and communist i have ever interacted with generally take definition 0, which is essentially how karl marx and friedrich engels would have defined it.  in defense of that definition of socialism, i would point out that no such system has ever existed on a large scale for any reasonable length of time.  remember, under definition 0, the workers must own the means of production, aka factories, mills, etc.  in the soviet union, the workers had very little actual say over what went on in factories, and had essentially no control over the government, which ran nearly everything.  that is not socialism, that is totalitarianism.  in cuba, china, and though to a different degree in venezuela, this is also the case.  i would not consider any of these countries to be socialist.  some examples of countries i would consider socialist are: the paris commune, the zapotistas, the cnt and poum controlled territories during the spanish civil war.  as to your point about laziness, i would say that capitalism promotes laziness, rather than socialism.  under capitalism, the workers work for bosses managers and investors aka capitalists, who make most of the actual profit from the business, while the workers themselves get steady unchanging wages regardless of their work, and are only punished if they fail, but rarely rewarded if they succeed.  by contrast, under socialism, the workers directly benefit from their labor, and are therefore more likely to work hard at it.  tl;dr: in which case would you work harder: case a: you work for me and get $0 an hour in exchange for hard and technical labor.  case b: you work for yourself and make money corresponding to whatever value you create.  case b is socialism.   #  it means group ownership of means of production, not soul ownership.   #  it means group ownership of means of production, not soul ownership.  therefore any profits must be divided among all persons included in the society.  you get the most out of your own labors when  only  you are dependent upon it for profits.  if there is a large group all requiring some portion of the profits, then the value placed on the individual worker is going to be much much lower.  it is like having hundreds of owners, instead of just one worker/owner.   #  it all depends on how much each portion gets.   # it means lots of things depending on whom you ask.  but imho the idea is that workers control their tools and split any surplus value amongst themselves.  socialism is an international movement, so i am not sure how all the profits from any single factory could be split among the entire planet.  what does this even mean ? two people working together can often make more money than working alone.  it all depends on how much each portion gets.  right now an owner gets a huge chunk of the profits simply for holding a legal title.  under socialism, this would be split among the workers themselves.  nah, it is like having hundreds of owners/workers instead of one owner and hundreds of workers.   #  you are de valuing the efforts of the one person who took the time to actually make the company valuable, and create a brand from the ground up.   #  you are limiting your thinking to large corporations.  if i own a small machine shop, where i am both the sole owner, and the primary employee, all profits come to me for my labors.  if instead, i now work for a state operated machine shop, instead of my own private one, all profits, generated by my labors, are now split among the state participants.  that is how it works.  i do not even know where you get this idea, because it is not from anything i have said.  think of it like a community park vs land that i develop myself.  the park may be more valuable, to the region, and in terms of actual cost input, if it is own and operated by the community as a whole.  but i am going to get a lot more personal value out of land that i take the time to develop myself, in a way that i seem fit, and is just for personal use.  and profits are split in the form of taxes. pretty common concept.  right now an owner gets a huge chunk of the profits simply for holding a legal title.  you are really limiting your idea of what a majority of business owners do.  most business owners by population run small companies with less than 0 employees, those business are founded on the work and efforts of the founding owner, not some guy with a random piece of paper that says he owns the company.  you are de valuing the efforts of the one person who took the time to actually make the company valuable, and create a brand from the ground up.
frankly, i just do not see it working out.  has it not been tried and tested countless times to poor results ? it seems to me that socialism would lead people to be lazy, and would not punish laziness, whereas capitalism emphasises hard work, and rewards it.  obviously, there are issues with it, but i believe that overall, capitalism is the system that stimulates the most growth in society.  my friend supports socialism, but he does not seem to know what he is talking about, and he is not been able to sway me.  change muh view ! thank ee !  #  it seems to me that socialism would lead people to be lazy, and would not punish laziness, whereas capitalism emphasises hard work, and rewards it.   #  capitalism does not reward hard work it rewards capital.   # if all the countries in the world were socialist and one decided to become capitalist it would fail too.  all of the other countries would refuse to trade with it, form alliances against it and possibly go to war against it.  why ? because it threatens their economic model, it goes against their core values and last but not least its foreign and weird.  now why did the capitalist country fail ? because it was a bad system that ca not ever work or because it was not allowed to succeed ? this does not mean if socialism were given the chance to succeed it would but it does point out that just because it has failed in the past does not indicate that it is an inherently unstable system.  capitalism does not reward hard work it rewards capital.  there are more than a few aristocrats who inherited all of their wealth from birth, invested it, and made millions of dollars without working a single day in their life and far more single moms who busted their ass working three jobs to make ends meat.  occasionally we hear the rags to riches story and that if we just work hard enough we could get there too but that is a load a shit.  i do not know about you but i know a lot of decent, hard working people who will never make it out of the lower class.  not because they are stupid or lazy but because the game is rigged.  you got to have money to make it and when you have a mortgage and a family to feed many do not have the time or the resources to start their own business or go back to school.  there are lots of different types of socialism.  when people hear socialism most think of huge centralized government tribunals deciding every single thing for every single person.  most socialists do not advocate that system.  one example of a system that defies this stereotype is market socialism.  market socialism consists of worker owned enterprises that compete against each other in a free market.  each worker has a share in the company and elects their managers and determines how much they make.  i do not subscribe to that particular flavor of socialism but i think that would be a hell of a lot better then what we have currently.   #  by contrast, under socialism, the workers directly benefit from their labor, and are therefore more likely to work hard at it.   #  first of all, since you did not define socialism very well in your post, i am forced to assume you mean one of the following: 0 a system under which wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor; 0 a system under which the government controls the economy; 0 a system under which the working class control the means of production.  the reason i specify these is that there is a lot of confusion in regards to what is and is not socialism, and having a definition handy really helps.  as a socialist and a marxist, i as well as nearly every socialist, marxist, and communist i have ever interacted with generally take definition 0, which is essentially how karl marx and friedrich engels would have defined it.  in defense of that definition of socialism, i would point out that no such system has ever existed on a large scale for any reasonable length of time.  remember, under definition 0, the workers must own the means of production, aka factories, mills, etc.  in the soviet union, the workers had very little actual say over what went on in factories, and had essentially no control over the government, which ran nearly everything.  that is not socialism, that is totalitarianism.  in cuba, china, and though to a different degree in venezuela, this is also the case.  i would not consider any of these countries to be socialist.  some examples of countries i would consider socialist are: the paris commune, the zapotistas, the cnt and poum controlled territories during the spanish civil war.  as to your point about laziness, i would say that capitalism promotes laziness, rather than socialism.  under capitalism, the workers work for bosses managers and investors aka capitalists, who make most of the actual profit from the business, while the workers themselves get steady unchanging wages regardless of their work, and are only punished if they fail, but rarely rewarded if they succeed.  by contrast, under socialism, the workers directly benefit from their labor, and are therefore more likely to work hard at it.  tl;dr: in which case would you work harder: case a: you work for me and get $0 an hour in exchange for hard and technical labor.  case b: you work for yourself and make money corresponding to whatever value you create.  case b is socialism.   #  if there is a large group all requiring some portion of the profits, then the value placed on the individual worker is going to be much much lower.   #  it means group ownership of means of production, not soul ownership.  therefore any profits must be divided among all persons included in the society.  you get the most out of your own labors when  only  you are dependent upon it for profits.  if there is a large group all requiring some portion of the profits, then the value placed on the individual worker is going to be much much lower.  it is like having hundreds of owners, instead of just one worker/owner.   #  it means lots of things depending on whom you ask.  but imho the idea is that workers control their tools and split any surplus value amongst themselves.   # it means lots of things depending on whom you ask.  but imho the idea is that workers control their tools and split any surplus value amongst themselves.  socialism is an international movement, so i am not sure how all the profits from any single factory could be split among the entire planet.  what does this even mean ? two people working together can often make more money than working alone.  it all depends on how much each portion gets.  right now an owner gets a huge chunk of the profits simply for holding a legal title.  under socialism, this would be split among the workers themselves.  nah, it is like having hundreds of owners/workers instead of one owner and hundreds of workers.   #  right now an owner gets a huge chunk of the profits simply for holding a legal title.   #  you are limiting your thinking to large corporations.  if i own a small machine shop, where i am both the sole owner, and the primary employee, all profits come to me for my labors.  if instead, i now work for a state operated machine shop, instead of my own private one, all profits, generated by my labors, are now split among the state participants.  that is how it works.  i do not even know where you get this idea, because it is not from anything i have said.  think of it like a community park vs land that i develop myself.  the park may be more valuable, to the region, and in terms of actual cost input, if it is own and operated by the community as a whole.  but i am going to get a lot more personal value out of land that i take the time to develop myself, in a way that i seem fit, and is just for personal use.  and profits are split in the form of taxes. pretty common concept.  right now an owner gets a huge chunk of the profits simply for holding a legal title.  you are really limiting your idea of what a majority of business owners do.  most business owners by population run small companies with less than 0 employees, those business are founded on the work and efforts of the founding owner, not some guy with a random piece of paper that says he owns the company.  you are de valuing the efforts of the one person who took the time to actually make the company valuable, and create a brand from the ground up.
howdy.  i am neither an mra nor do i identify as a feminist, because i think feminism is a useless word in general.  it could, depending on the opinions of the person describing themselves as a feminist, mean: i support equal rights for women i support equal rights for men and women i support preferential treatment for women among many other things.  it also has no bearing on their actual opinions on real things, because most people support equal rights for women, or support equal rights for men and women, and will occasionally turn a blind eye to privileges that women have and that men have because of societal and biological biases.  people who call themselves feminists could hold completely opposing viewpoints: one could be in favor of free birth control for women, and another could be in favor of free birth control for men and women, and another could be opposed to free birth control altogether, because it makes women dependent on a male dominated state system.  one feminist could subscribe to privilege theory, another could find it completely absurd.  one might complain about objectification, one could utilize objectification to do some slut shaming, and another might not approve of heterosexual relationships at all.  one could be in favor of incentives or quotas in colleges or workplaces to ensure that women are equally represented in certain fields, another could be opposed to that because it is benevolent sexism.  i am having a very hard time finding one thing that feminists all agree on.  the only things i have thought of are as follows.  women should be allowed to vote women are people note that both of these statements are so acceptable within the culturethat people who despise feminism will still agree with the statement, with very few exceptions.  meanwhile, most people agree that socialism is either the state ownership of the means of production, or the workers owning the means of production.  most people agree that capitalism is where the means of production are held by private owners, generally for profit.  classical liberalism is a philosophy of limited government and personal liberty.  conservativism is when you support classical and traditional social structures.  these descriptives have meanings that, even though there are occasional disagreements, generally mean things.  feminism means almost nothing other than  i think about gender issues .  please note, i am not here to be convinced that feminism is good or feminism is bad, just that the term, as an adjective, actually means something.  change my view.  URL this is the most succinct definition or case put forward in this thread.  i may disagree about the  philosophical tradition  aspect, as i am unaware of feminism grounded in any philosophy, but i think that it is true that a feminist has spent time examining and engaging with gender issues, and specifically related to women.  this is simultaneously not vague as all hell, as it clearly applies to certain groups of people and not others, and also is a definition that could be agreed upon by most.   #  classical liberalism is a philosophy of limited government and personal liberty.   #  conservativism is when you support classical and traditional social structures.   # conservativism is when you support classical and traditional social structures.  you are so close with this line here, you just need to remove the  classical  part.  feminism is analogous to  liberalism,  in that liberalism is the line of political philosophy that is concerned with concepts like the individual vs the state, personal freedom and limits on government power, while feminism is the line of political philosophy that is concerned with gender oppression, the intersection of personal and political, and cultural power structures.  someone saying they are a feminist means they have spent time examining and engaging with and those issues in the context of that philosophical tradition.  similarly, someone saying they are a liberal puts them in the same tradition as locke and mill, even if they do not really agree with either of those thinkers on specific policy issues.   #  feminism is, when compared to similar descriptives, more plastic than the other words, and makes it fairly non useful.   #  it is true that language has a certain amount of vagueness, but most people generally agree that a tree is a plant that grows vertically and has bark.  the difference between a bush and a tree is somewhat debatable.  feminism is, when compared to similar descriptives, more plastic than the other words, and makes it fairly non useful.  if you said to me,  i just chopped an object down , that would not be very useful, because you could be talking about almost anything.  if you say you chopped down a tree, regardless of whether it was a cherry or an oak, i get that it is, in fact, a tree.   #  female supremacists are not feminists by definition, they are female supremacists.   #  there is no such thing as  more equal.   then they are not a feminist.  because feminists believe women should be treated  equally  to men.  under no definition of feminist is female supremacy mentioned.  and before you say  no true scotsman , you ca not apply the nts to a self identified label.  just because i say i am an atheist, does not make me an atheist unless i do not believe in the existence of god.  female supremacists are not feminists by definition, they are female supremacists.  you are now grasping at straws here.   #  as for the movements themselves, feminism does have many branches and differing ideas about how best to move towards a world without sexism towards women, but that does not really make it any different to any argument about egalitarianism.   #  the name  feminism  has a relation to the movement because it focuses on promoting the rights of women to be equal to that of men.  it is in the  fem  part of the name it is promoting women is rights.  you may argue that the term is outdated as we now live in a society where men and women are unequal in different and often complex ways, and so having a gender rights movement that focuses on the sufferings of  both  sexes would be more useful, but that is a very different argument than that the name itself is bad.  it does not have any reference to  equal  in its name but it does not need to just as in the phrase  lgbt rights , the word  equality  is implied.   egalitarianism  has equality in its name because it references equality in general, not for one specific group.  as for the movements themselves, feminism does have many branches and differing ideas about how best to move towards a world without sexism towards women, but that does not really make it any different to any argument about egalitarianism.  just as feminists ca not agree on what equality for women really means in the real world,  neither can people who are trying to make the world equal for everyone able to agree on what  equal  means for everyone .  there are some people who think equality for everyone means making the entire world socialist and drastically redistributing global wealth. and others who think that everyone would be equal if we just gave everyone equal opportunity to compete in the market, and let people work their way to a better life.  different egalitarians will place varying levels of importance on the aspects of equality that go beyond providing for very basic needs.  and by  egalitarians  i pretty much mean everyone, since everybody cares and argues to some degree about how the world would be more fair for all people it is an even broader term than feminism.  the core belief that all people are equal and should be treated such is the same, just as the core belief of feminism is that all women are equal and are equal to men.   #  that does not mean  feminism  is not egalitarian, but that  feminists  prefer a more descriptive term since egalitarian is pretty useless.   # says who ? do you have some poll that shows a majority of people do not believe in social institutions causing discrimination ? what definition ? you just gave a definition and proclaimed it to be the  one true definition.   it is not, and you ca not claim other definitions are not as valid.  do you have any proof of this ? because by their own definitions, they fall perfectly well under the term  egalitarianism.   so ? they want to be called  feminists  not  egalitarians.   that does not mean  feminism  is not egalitarian, but that  feminists  prefer a more descriptive term since egalitarian is pretty useless.  they consider themselves the  true  egalitarian movement.  who are you to say they are not ? on what basis are you defining  egalitarianism  to exclude feminists or mras ?
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.   #  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  your question seems to center on the notion of  need , people should not have massive pick up trucks because they do not need them.  a life where you were only furnished with what you actually needed would be a poor one indeed.  i moved to america from europe, and i drive a  full size  pick up truck.  i do not really need its 0 ton carrying capacity or six liter engine but i always wanted one, and could never dream of affording it in europe.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.  why do you need a porsche that can do 0 km/h when you ca not legally travel faster than 0 km/h in the us ? the argument cuts both ways.   #  it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.   #  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.   #  some people use trucks  wrong  in exactly the way you describe.  however show me a small car that can tow all of my belongings from minnesota to california or take a trailer into the north words in the dead of winter.  not impractical at all.  also, the type of terrain is important.  pickups are common in switzerland at least i saw a good number of them there .  to the other points: 0 what exactly are you going to tow the trailer with ? 0 the size difference between a van and pickup is negligible.  also pickups have inexpensive toppers to protect from the rain.  0 you do not have much of an idea of farming culture entails.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  that is nonsense.  the interstates are wider and damaged by the trucking industry, not by pickups.   #  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.   #  just because they were not carrying a load at the time, does not mean they are never used to carry a load.   # just because they were not carrying a load at the time, does not mean they are never used to carry a load.  for many people, it is important to have the option to carry a load if needed, but the rest of the time, the bed is relatively empty.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  first off, having the bed designed to be weather exposed can be a huge benefit.  i sometimes have to transport things that are fairly disgusting and you probably do not want on the interior of a car.  blood or fermented chicken liver can be cleaned out of the bed of a truck with a hose, but if they get on the interior of a car, the cleaning process is long and complicated and potentially expensive.  second, many people have a bed cover on their pickup, so that anything in the bed is kept out of the rain and wind.  some bed cover designs basically give the bed a similar shape to the back of a van URL which would allow items to be stacked vertically.  i have owned my pickup for about 0 months now.  in that time, i have loaded up the bed completely 0 separate times.  should i have rented a trailer each of those times ? my pickup was $0,0.  a porsche ca not go mudding.  to sum up my argument let me walk you through my though process when i decided that i should buy a pickup.  first off, i knew that i needed something with 0x0 and a hefty engine.  where i live gets a lot of snow and i often find myself driving on poorly maintained dirt roads with steep grades.  this factor alone eliminates most cars from my list of potential vehicles leaving me with things like jeeps, suvs, and pickups.  second, when i go do things with a group of people, we usually take multiple cars.  at least one for our gear and equipment camping gear, rifles, fishing gear, etc.  depending on what we are doing , and another with enough passenger space for however many people we have.  for this reason, having at least some of the people in our group have vehicles with a large amount of storage space is very useful.  third, i go do things on my own that require me hauling equipment far more often than i am driving more than one person somewhere and we do not need any equipment.  for this reason, i felt like it would be a waste of space to have extra seats that i usually did not use instead of more cargo space.  in my previous car, most of my passenger space was used for cargo storage anyway.  and finally, the most important reason that i picked a pickup over a different 0x0.  i often find myself transporting things that while they are not large, are very disgusting and probably should not be in the cab of a car.  i mention fermented chicken liver earlier because in my previous car a sedan i spilled a jar full of fermented chicken liver all over the back seat.  the process to have it all cleaned up took a lot of effort, time, and money.  it also made the inside of the car smell so bad that i effectively could not use it as transport for anyone else.  i also occasionally find myself collecting roadkill, animal scat samples, or other sorts of dead/gross things.  the possibility of a full dead carcass is just going up because i am taking up hunting.  with a pickup, i can easily have all of these sort of things in the bed which both prevents them from stinking up the cab and makes it easy to clean up after they are gone.  i would much rather spend 0 minutes spraying down the bed with a hose than a couple of hours scrubbing the upholstery.   #  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.   #  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.   # just because they were not carrying a load at the time, does not mean they are never used to carry a load.  for many people, it is important to have the option to carry a load if needed, but the rest of the time, the bed is relatively empty.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  first off, having the bed designed to be weather exposed can be a huge benefit.  i sometimes have to transport things that are fairly disgusting and you probably do not want on the interior of a car.  blood or fermented chicken liver can be cleaned out of the bed of a truck with a hose, but if they get on the interior of a car, the cleaning process is long and complicated and potentially expensive.  second, many people have a bed cover on their pickup, so that anything in the bed is kept out of the rain and wind.  some bed cover designs basically give the bed a similar shape to the back of a van URL which would allow items to be stacked vertically.  i have owned my pickup for about 0 months now.  in that time, i have loaded up the bed completely 0 separate times.  should i have rented a trailer each of those times ? my pickup was $0,0.  a porsche ca not go mudding.  to sum up my argument let me walk you through my though process when i decided that i should buy a pickup.  first off, i knew that i needed something with 0x0 and a hefty engine.  where i live gets a lot of snow and i often find myself driving on poorly maintained dirt roads with steep grades.  this factor alone eliminates most cars from my list of potential vehicles leaving me with things like jeeps, suvs, and pickups.  second, when i go do things with a group of people, we usually take multiple cars.  at least one for our gear and equipment camping gear, rifles, fishing gear, etc.  depending on what we are doing , and another with enough passenger space for however many people we have.  for this reason, having at least some of the people in our group have vehicles with a large amount of storage space is very useful.  third, i go do things on my own that require me hauling equipment far more often than i am driving more than one person somewhere and we do not need any equipment.  for this reason, i felt like it would be a waste of space to have extra seats that i usually did not use instead of more cargo space.  in my previous car, most of my passenger space was used for cargo storage anyway.  and finally, the most important reason that i picked a pickup over a different 0x0.  i often find myself transporting things that while they are not large, are very disgusting and probably should not be in the cab of a car.  i mention fermented chicken liver earlier because in my previous car a sedan i spilled a jar full of fermented chicken liver all over the back seat.  the process to have it all cleaned up took a lot of effort, time, and money.  it also made the inside of the car smell so bad that i effectively could not use it as transport for anyone else.  i also occasionally find myself collecting roadkill, animal scat samples, or other sorts of dead/gross things.  the possibility of a full dead carcass is just going up because i am taking up hunting.  with a pickup, i can easily have all of these sort of things in the bed which both prevents them from stinking up the cab and makes it easy to clean up after they are gone.  i would much rather spend 0 minutes spraying down the bed with a hose than a couple of hours scrubbing the upholstery.   #  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  how often are you actually moving something huge ?  #  i have owned my pickup for about 0 months now.   # just because they were not carrying a load at the time, does not mean they are never used to carry a load.  for many people, it is important to have the option to carry a load if needed, but the rest of the time, the bed is relatively empty.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  first off, having the bed designed to be weather exposed can be a huge benefit.  i sometimes have to transport things that are fairly disgusting and you probably do not want on the interior of a car.  blood or fermented chicken liver can be cleaned out of the bed of a truck with a hose, but if they get on the interior of a car, the cleaning process is long and complicated and potentially expensive.  second, many people have a bed cover on their pickup, so that anything in the bed is kept out of the rain and wind.  some bed cover designs basically give the bed a similar shape to the back of a van URL which would allow items to be stacked vertically.  i have owned my pickup for about 0 months now.  in that time, i have loaded up the bed completely 0 separate times.  should i have rented a trailer each of those times ? my pickup was $0,0.  a porsche ca not go mudding.  to sum up my argument let me walk you through my though process when i decided that i should buy a pickup.  first off, i knew that i needed something with 0x0 and a hefty engine.  where i live gets a lot of snow and i often find myself driving on poorly maintained dirt roads with steep grades.  this factor alone eliminates most cars from my list of potential vehicles leaving me with things like jeeps, suvs, and pickups.  second, when i go do things with a group of people, we usually take multiple cars.  at least one for our gear and equipment camping gear, rifles, fishing gear, etc.  depending on what we are doing , and another with enough passenger space for however many people we have.  for this reason, having at least some of the people in our group have vehicles with a large amount of storage space is very useful.  third, i go do things on my own that require me hauling equipment far more often than i am driving more than one person somewhere and we do not need any equipment.  for this reason, i felt like it would be a waste of space to have extra seats that i usually did not use instead of more cargo space.  in my previous car, most of my passenger space was used for cargo storage anyway.  and finally, the most important reason that i picked a pickup over a different 0x0.  i often find myself transporting things that while they are not large, are very disgusting and probably should not be in the cab of a car.  i mention fermented chicken liver earlier because in my previous car a sedan i spilled a jar full of fermented chicken liver all over the back seat.  the process to have it all cleaned up took a lot of effort, time, and money.  it also made the inside of the car smell so bad that i effectively could not use it as transport for anyone else.  i also occasionally find myself collecting roadkill, animal scat samples, or other sorts of dead/gross things.  the possibility of a full dead carcass is just going up because i am taking up hunting.  with a pickup, i can easily have all of these sort of things in the bed which both prevents them from stinking up the cab and makes it easy to clean up after they are gone.  i would much rather spend 0 minutes spraying down the bed with a hose than a couple of hours scrubbing the upholstery.   #  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.   #  they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  they are way to big and serve no purpose.   #  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  and in others, a pickup truck is best.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.   #  again, people are not always moving huge loads.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.   #  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  people said it had to do with farming culture.   #  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  how often are you actually moving something huge ?  #  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.   #  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.   #  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.   #  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.   #  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  i do not see what is so cool about them.   #  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
i come from a scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the usa, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet i do not even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue.  they do not really exist here.  i went to the us for the first time recently and i was shocked by all the pickup trucks.  americans seem to be using them as a normal car.  0 they are way to big and serve no purpose.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  there size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car.  also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.  0 if you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical.  instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that does not have a back seat you can buy a 0 0 dollar trailer that will last 0 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup.  an audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck ca not move a boat without a trailer anyways.  trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.  0 vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  0 people said it had to do with farming culture.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  countries like france are very agriculural.  a pickup truck is not a farm vehicle.  a tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can.  farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport.  i have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.  0 how often are you actually moving something huge ? i recently moved to 0 cm wide ikea beds on a volvo, i have moved barbecues, kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo.  how often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak ? it is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time.  if you are moving you do not want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 0 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.  pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 0 0 dollar fashion statement.  american roads are much wider ie higher taxes because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads.  they consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute.  i personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car.  i do not see what is so cool about them.  if you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler.  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  a porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.   #  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   # they are normal cars, as far as i am concerned.  most of the pickup trucks i saw where not carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck.  just because they are not carrying a  massive load  right now, does not mean they are not being used elsewhere to carry things.  they may also be convenient for many small loads, as it is easy to just throw things in the back without having to even drop the tailgate.  again, people are not always moving huge loads.  i have also seen plenty of trucks pulling trailers as trucks tend to have much better pull than a car or van.  there are also plenty of trucks that have a backseat for passengers.  your stuff does not get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.  not many vans are suitable for driving on rough terrain, pulling large loads, and so on.  there are also covers you can get for the bed of your truck that protect it from wind/water.  guess what, europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the usa.  over 0 of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently.  this is true, but you have to keep in mind that most of these american farmers may have miles and miles of fields.  a quick bit of googling, and i found that the average farm size in france is about a quarter of the average farm size in america.  i live in a rural area.  i have seen farmers in tractors having to drive miles down the highway to get to where they need to be.  they will pull over halfway off the road just to let other people by.  again, it may also be about a lot of small loads, and not just constant huge ones.  i doubt anyone is buying a brand new truck just to move.  most trucks i have seen are half that at most.  if it is not new, it may be only a couple thousand.  so does every other vehicle ever, anywhere, that uses fossil fuels.  you and i have very different perceptions on what a clown car looks like.  they are big, tough, rugged.  i do not want a sexy car, i want something i know i can rely on to do anything i could ever want it to be.  the guys with trucks are the guys you know you can call on to help you move, to pull you out of a ditch or snowbank, etc.  take a porsche offroad one time for me, tell me how it goes.   #  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.   #  i will try to answer your points in sequence.  0.  just because some people use them as everyday transportation does not mean that they never use them for cargo, or that no one does.  i can afford multiple vehicles, so i use my pickup truck for heavy work and my little compact for most commuting.  but some people ca not afford multiple vehicles, and they use a pickup truck frequently.  or some people live somewhere where a compact car just wo not cut it; for instance, i know a lot of people in south dakota and montana that would not be able to drive for many months out of the year if they had a honda civic, or chevy spark.  0.  a trailer still needs a haul vehicle.  and while an audi can tow an appreciable amount, it ca not touch what a lot of trucks can tow, and the audi is pretty expensive.  i bought my truck and car for less than i would have paid for a new audi.  a trailer can certainly be a good option for some situations.  and in others, a pickup truck is best.  0.  again, you seem to think that juts because another vehicle is better in some cases, it is better in all.  a van is better for moving things like cakes, or prisoners, or weather sensitive stuff, sure.  but is it better for moving a round haybale ? wo not fit.  a fridge ? it is better to be able to stand the fridge up.  a load of topsoil ? much, much, much easier to load and unload in a pickup.  0.  sure, europe was primarily farmers at one point; so was america.  and yes, tractors can be used for a lot of agricultural stuff.  and, yet again, they are not the best answer for everything.  it is best to use a tractor over a truck to pull a plow, for instance, but likewise it is better to use a truck over a tractor to pull a horse trailer over the highways.  0.  yet again, you seem to be under the impression that just because most people are not using their pickup most of the time, it is inherently a ridiculous vehicle.  of course some people have trucks they are not using.  the same can be said of lots of things, from treadmills to bread machines.  but plenty of people have them and use them because they are the best option for them.  i do not use my truck every day, but i have still saved money having it over renting one for all the things i have done with it.  it seems odd to hear you complain about how these things are an expensive fashion statement when i spent less on both my truck and my car a lot less than an audi, which you pose as a reasonable alternative to a pickup and then you go on to recommend a porsche, specifically saying they are much better looking and cooler; who wants an expensive fashion statement now ? if you want to talk about things like roads and so forth, i am pretty sure our roads are not getting narrower if we gave up pickup trucks; semi trailers and so forth need the roads to be wider yet.   #  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  in the 0 where an audi does not make sense it  really  does not make sense though.  a pickup might not be the 0 optimal choice for daily commutes but it is still going to get the job done with only a minor increase in cost.  when it comes to hauling stuff the audi is going to have a lot of issues with bigger loads.  a full cost analysis. let is see.  first we need the cost per mile driven, which will be $0 x mpg  0 dollars/gallon x gallons/mile dollars/mile .  the f 0 gets 0 city and 0 highway.  the audi a0 quattro gets 0 city and 0 highway.  so then we want to set the equalities: city: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .  highway: 0,0   0/0 x 0,0   0/0 x x  0,0 miles  before the f 0 starts to be more expensive than the audi a 0 based solely on differing costs of fuel .   #  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.   #  the small suv is have gotten much better lately.  i have a 0 subaru forester and i get about 0mpg city, but the new ones will get 0.  ford escape will get 0, cx 0 will get 0, 0 for the rav 0, 0 for the crv, etc etc.  that is all just city mileage, most can do low to mid 0 is on the highway.  not groundbreaking but definitely better than most trucks.  although small trucks are getting up there, a tacoma with the base engine should get in the lower 0 is.  the problem is, no one really wants the truck with the base engine because you are probably getting a truck for it is hauling potential and you want a bigger engine for that.   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .   #  thank you for that, i have never bought a vehicle, still using my first car got it in a will .  i am not a truck guy, i understand they burn a lot of gas and i do not need one for work so i do not have one.  but i know a lot of people that need one for work, a lot of times a v0 ca not cut it.  while i am sure the owner of the truck would prefer to have the gas mileage of a prius that is just not an option.  there is a difference in mileage of course, but it is worth it in what you can do with it.  what i mean is if you have a work truck you can tow/pull more than if you have an audi.  it is more practical and helps more.  however if you are just a douche that has a truck but no scratches in the bed then yeah you need a car.
now, to begin, i should disclose i am a marxist.  so naturally, i m biased in this particular area.  i should also add i am focusing specifically on the thought of marx and by extension, engels , not lenin or anyone else in the marxist tradition.  however, as i have gotten more familiar with the thought of marx, i have noticed that virtually ever compelling counterargument to his thought is basically a gross misrepresentation or misunderstanding, whether from ignorance or simply willful manipulation; and in fact, i have tended to find far more serious errors with critics of marx then with marx himself.  among the most common counterarguments: 0.  if the collapse of capitalism is inevitable, then socialists do not need to do anything incorrect, because marx notes that its quite possible if socialists fail to act that the collapse of capitalism will lead to the  common ruination of all classes  in the communist manifesto, no less.  and either way, capitalism is still an exploitative and oppressive system .  0.  marx said that a single party dictatorship was necessary to rule over the people incorrect, because marx is understanding of  wouldictatorship  meant a class controlling political power hence the dictatorship of the proletariat was a direct democracy .  0.  marx thought history must necessarily pass through certain stages incorrect, though this view was propagated by the second international.  his idea of historical materialism is more nuanced, basically it meaning that activities are framed within the context of the economic mode of production .  0.  marx thought centralized state planning was the correct way of running an economy incorrect, marx is somewhat vague over what socialism is to consist of, but he supported worker self management in the first international, though he did support planning of some kind .  0.  marxian economics was  proved  wrong by marginalism not really, the labor theory of value as marx described it is not inaccurate, the problem is that people think that marx was trying to use it to describe the day to day price of goods rather then the riccardian  natural price  that the day to day price circulates around marx quite clearly says that of course supply and demand matter in regular transactions.  ironically enough, marx is far more clear about what  value  is, whereas the marginalists were far more nebulous.  in fact, its impossible for marginaiism to  prove  the marxian ltv wrong because they are dealing with different topics .  0.  marx thought the proletariat were industrial workers, who have declined extremely incorrect, even though some leftists think this, a proletarian to marx is any wage laborer .  0.  marx thought that the workers would necessarily be driven to worse and worse straits partially true marx thought that eventually capitalism would be driven to this as the rate of profit fell, however there were many other things capitalism could do in the interim, and in fact state investment would offset crises from underconsumption .  i am legitimately interested in hearing good counterarguments, because i still have yet to hear any that are actually founded in marx is actual statements.   #  marx thought centralized state planning was the correct way of running an economy incorrect, marx is somewhat vague over what socialism is to consist of, but he supported worker self management in the first international, though he did support planning of some kind .   #  don lavoie in rivalry and central planning URL argues that a consciously planned society is the core of marx is system.   # don lavoie in rivalry and central planning URL argues that a consciously planned society is the core of marx is system.  and i agree because it is the only interpretation that actually unifies for me marx is disparate   mystical sounding elements into something coherent.  now given that i accept that marx may not have had central planning in mind.  but it is rather hard to see how the conscious social control necessary to his philosophical system could be wielded except by some controlling body.  decentralise   you risk falling back into the  anarchy of production  that is the vice of capitalism.  also if you are really interested in arguments against marxism   other post capitalist doctrines i recommend david ramsay steele is book from marx to mises.  it is the only book on the mises/hayek calculation/knowledge problem that is written in a way anti capitalists can properly appreciate.  he was a former marxist  #  you say yourself that he  somewhat vague over what socialism is to consist of .   #  i have read marx, engels, and a bunch of other early marxians bakunin is my favorite , so i am not coming at this from a position of ignorance.  i am not an expert academic, though, so please forgive me if i am erring.  i have never been able to figure out anything that the labor theory of value says.  it makes a definition of  value , but then does not make any predictions, so i ca not see how it makes any sense to call it a  theory .  it seems to me like marx very much did draw a distinction between, say, service workers, and industrial proletariat.  i am curious if you can give examples in the original texts where he says that service workers count as proletariat.  marx very much did say that societies naturally pass through stages of development.  this is why the leninists insisted that they passed through the  capitalist stage of history  in the spring of 0, was it ? i am curious what a  counterargument to marxism  would look like to you.  what sort of thing could you imagine encountering that would convince you that  marxism is wrong  or the like ? for me, the most compelling counterarguments to marxism are pretty much the following: 0 every society which has said  we are going to implement marxist policy  explicitly so not counting things like social democratic nations which it can be argued are implementing marxist policy, but do not explicitly refer to themselves as doing so has become a horrifying dystopia.  the closest to a successful one is cuba, and even that is not an especially nice place to live.  this is the most important point on here.  0 marx does not make useful policy proposals.  you say yourself that he  somewhat vague over what socialism is to consist of .  i would go a lot further than that: not only does he not say what socialism would look like, or how to run a socialist or communist society, or how to get from a capitalist to a s/co society, he actively discourages anyone from trying to predict that.  that is a pretty big flaw from a strategic standpoint.  basically, what is the value in  believing in marxism  ? what predictions does it let you make ? what actions does it encourage you to take, and what does it say the outcomes of those actions would be ? does the empirical data seem to back it up ?  #  another thing i thought of: marx seems to assume that invention and coordination are without value.   #  another thing i thought of: marx seems to assume that invention and coordination are without value.  the thing that people who start companies do is 0 invent whatever the company is doing making a new product, improving on an old one, or whatever , and 0 coordinate all the work necessary to do whatever the company does.  these are not valueless or easy things.  they are, in fact, extraordinarily difficult and valuable things.  marxism seems to presume that once capitalism is done away with, these things will just magically happen on their own without anyone doing them.  that seems very much not to be the case.   #  critique of the gotha program, the civil war in france, the resolutions in the iwma.   #  it does make predictions.  the price of goods falling as a result of increased mechanization, and unemployment relating to deindustrialization, for example.  no, he did not.  because they were influenced by the  orthodox  marxism of the second international, which was essentially an erroneously deterministic reading of it.  0 the early soviet union was relatively fine apart from the civil war.  the only reason they have become dystopias is because they were dependent on the ussr for aid.  so when you say  every time  keep in mind it was effectively implemented exactly once.  in an underdeveloped country under constant military attack.  thats not really a fair criterion.  0 what are you talking about ? yes he does.  critique of the gotha program, the civil war in france, the resolutions in the iwma.  of course he had to be somewhat abstract otherwise he would end up like kropotkin with a vision ridiculously specific to the 0th century, because marx was smart enough to grasp that capitalism changes.   #  not to mention that value is inherently subjective and differs from person to person this is why not everyone buys the same thing, people have different preferences.   # yeah but it does not actually do that  the greatest advantage is that the ltv actually explains what value is, whereas other theories of value are relatively nebulous.  yeah but it gets it wrong.  nobody cares how much  societally necessary work  goes into something.  that is not what determines how much people value things.  not to mention that value is inherently subjective and differs from person to person this is why not everyone buys the same thing, people have different preferences.  thats like saying  democracy is bad, because in the midst of a massive crises and being attacked by half the world, this one country became a dictatorship .   democracy is bad because every country that has ever called itself a democracy has been a horrible dictatorship and the biggest two had the two largest famines the world has ever seen as a direct result of their policies
by truth i do not mean factual statements such as  brett favre used to be a quarterback for the green bay packers .  obviously, neither physics nor philosophy are useful for collecting trivia type knowledge.  also, i concede that philosophy has better tools equipped to understand moral truths.  however, when it comes to understanding and discovering general characteristics belonging to existing things, i believe that physics is superior to philosophy.  here are a few reasons why.    philosophy, since it is not experimental in nature, merely reorganizes knowledge and does not produce any new knowledge.    descriptions in mathematics are less ambiguous, more strictly logical, and lead to greater insights than descriptions in english or any other language.    ideas in physics are much easier to test.    philosophy has no defense against counter intuitive truths such as  objects have a probabilistic rather than a defined set of characteristics .  hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions.    newtonian mechanics, big bang, quantum mechanics, and relativity have done more to revolutionize our understanding of truth than any theory in philosophy.  cmv !  #  philosophy, since it is not experimental in nature, merely reorganizes knowledge and does not produce any new knowledge.   #  by the same token, does mathematics not produce any new knowledge ?  # by the same token, does mathematics not produce any new knowledge ? hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions.  wat ? philosophers are confined to defining things intuitively ? how so ? is there some scale of  how much has this done to revolutionize our understanding of truth  that i am not aware of ? at best, this is a criticism of certain branches of philosophy, but not decision theory, logic etc.  further, it is genuinely difficult to mathematize certain concepts, it sucks, but that does not make those concepts any less true or false, being able to reduce them to mathematics is an epistemic, not ontological concern.  does the fact that your statement in the cmv title is not easily formalizable make it any less true ?  #  for instance we could ask our test, did the event that napoleon fought in the civil war exist ?  # there are some properties shared by all things that exist.  if we had a test to determine whether or not something exists, would not that be equivalent to a test that determines truth ? for instance we could ask our test, did the event that napoleon fought in the civil war exist ? if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.  if physics comes up with a theory of everything, we could theoretically plug an event into the formula, and we would find out whether it happened or not.  actually not even in theory, but that is a different matter  #  actually not even in theory, but that is a different matter pretty sure no real physicists think this.   # if we had a test to determine whether or not something exists, would not that be equivalent to a test that determines truth ? no.   all bachelors are unmarried  is true even in a world with no bachelors.  a bachelor does not have to exist for it to be true that bachelors are unmarried.  it is inherent in the definition of the word.  if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.  what is the true statement in this case ? actually not even in theory, but that is a different matter pretty sure no real physicists think this.   #  it would define the set of events that could possibly be true.   #  all bachelors are unmarried  is true even in a world with no bachelors.  a bachelor does not have to exist for it to be true that bachelors are unmarried.  it is inherent in the definition of the word.  it loses meaning in a world with no bachelors.  it is equivalent to saying  all fgwfe are itjmd .  well obviously the example i used was false, but the statement is  there was an event in space and time where napoleon fought in the civil war.   not in practice, but it would theoretically provide a truth litmus test.  it would define the set of events that could possibly be true.  more importantly it would describe the common characteristics of all existing things.   #  however, if you expand your set to include all green things, your chances are good that the only characteristic they will share is green ness.   #  ouch ! i know my physics i swear ! let me explain myself better.  first of all, you should know that i am operating from a world view that assumes some sort of physicalism.  everything is physical in some sense or another.  secondly, when i am talking about truth, i am talking about the set of qualities that are shared by true things.  rather than defining truth from the ground up, i am taking the collection of things we know to be true and then seeing what is common between them.  for an example, i could define green by looking at the characteristics that all green things have in common.  of course, if you just look at a finite set of green things, they will share more than just the characteristic of being green.  however, if you expand your set to include all green things, your chances are good that the only characteristic they will share is green ness.  i aim to define truth in the same way.  what characteristics are shared by all true things ? can you see that operating under the premise of physicalism, that the laws of physics would be a likely answer ?
by truth i do not mean factual statements such as  brett favre used to be a quarterback for the green bay packers .  obviously, neither physics nor philosophy are useful for collecting trivia type knowledge.  also, i concede that philosophy has better tools equipped to understand moral truths.  however, when it comes to understanding and discovering general characteristics belonging to existing things, i believe that physics is superior to philosophy.  here are a few reasons why.    philosophy, since it is not experimental in nature, merely reorganizes knowledge and does not produce any new knowledge.    descriptions in mathematics are less ambiguous, more strictly logical, and lead to greater insights than descriptions in english or any other language.    ideas in physics are much easier to test.    philosophy has no defense against counter intuitive truths such as  objects have a probabilistic rather than a defined set of characteristics .  hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions.    newtonian mechanics, big bang, quantum mechanics, and relativity have done more to revolutionize our understanding of truth than any theory in philosophy.  cmv !  #  philosophy has no defense against counter intuitive truths such as  objects have a probabilistic rather than a defined set of characteristics .   #  hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions.   # by the same token, does mathematics not produce any new knowledge ? hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions.  wat ? philosophers are confined to defining things intuitively ? how so ? is there some scale of  how much has this done to revolutionize our understanding of truth  that i am not aware of ? at best, this is a criticism of certain branches of philosophy, but not decision theory, logic etc.  further, it is genuinely difficult to mathematize certain concepts, it sucks, but that does not make those concepts any less true or false, being able to reduce them to mathematics is an epistemic, not ontological concern.  does the fact that your statement in the cmv title is not easily formalizable make it any less true ?  #  for instance we could ask our test, did the event that napoleon fought in the civil war exist ?  # there are some properties shared by all things that exist.  if we had a test to determine whether or not something exists, would not that be equivalent to a test that determines truth ? for instance we could ask our test, did the event that napoleon fought in the civil war exist ? if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.  if physics comes up with a theory of everything, we could theoretically plug an event into the formula, and we would find out whether it happened or not.  actually not even in theory, but that is a different matter  #  if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.   # if we had a test to determine whether or not something exists, would not that be equivalent to a test that determines truth ? no.   all bachelors are unmarried  is true even in a world with no bachelors.  a bachelor does not have to exist for it to be true that bachelors are unmarried.  it is inherent in the definition of the word.  if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.  what is the true statement in this case ? actually not even in theory, but that is a different matter pretty sure no real physicists think this.   #   all bachelors are unmarried  is true even in a world with no bachelors.   #  all bachelors are unmarried  is true even in a world with no bachelors.  a bachelor does not have to exist for it to be true that bachelors are unmarried.  it is inherent in the definition of the word.  it loses meaning in a world with no bachelors.  it is equivalent to saying  all fgwfe are itjmd .  well obviously the example i used was false, but the statement is  there was an event in space and time where napoleon fought in the civil war.   not in practice, but it would theoretically provide a truth litmus test.  it would define the set of events that could possibly be true.  more importantly it would describe the common characteristics of all existing things.   #  secondly, when i am talking about truth, i am talking about the set of qualities that are shared by true things.   #  ouch ! i know my physics i swear ! let me explain myself better.  first of all, you should know that i am operating from a world view that assumes some sort of physicalism.  everything is physical in some sense or another.  secondly, when i am talking about truth, i am talking about the set of qualities that are shared by true things.  rather than defining truth from the ground up, i am taking the collection of things we know to be true and then seeing what is common between them.  for an example, i could define green by looking at the characteristics that all green things have in common.  of course, if you just look at a finite set of green things, they will share more than just the characteristic of being green.  however, if you expand your set to include all green things, your chances are good that the only characteristic they will share is green ness.  i aim to define truth in the same way.  what characteristics are shared by all true things ? can you see that operating under the premise of physicalism, that the laws of physics would be a likely answer ?
by truth i do not mean factual statements such as  brett favre used to be a quarterback for the green bay packers .  obviously, neither physics nor philosophy are useful for collecting trivia type knowledge.  also, i concede that philosophy has better tools equipped to understand moral truths.  however, when it comes to understanding and discovering general characteristics belonging to existing things, i believe that physics is superior to philosophy.  here are a few reasons why.    philosophy, since it is not experimental in nature, merely reorganizes knowledge and does not produce any new knowledge.    descriptions in mathematics are less ambiguous, more strictly logical, and lead to greater insights than descriptions in english or any other language.    ideas in physics are much easier to test.    philosophy has no defense against counter intuitive truths such as  objects have a probabilistic rather than a defined set of characteristics .  hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions.    newtonian mechanics, big bang, quantum mechanics, and relativity have done more to revolutionize our understanding of truth than any theory in philosophy.  cmv !  #  descriptions in mathematics are less ambiguous, more strictly logical, and lead to greater insights than descriptions in english or any other language.   #  at best, this is a criticism of certain branches of philosophy, but not decision theory, logic etc.   # by the same token, does mathematics not produce any new knowledge ? hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions.  wat ? philosophers are confined to defining things intuitively ? how so ? is there some scale of  how much has this done to revolutionize our understanding of truth  that i am not aware of ? at best, this is a criticism of certain branches of philosophy, but not decision theory, logic etc.  further, it is genuinely difficult to mathematize certain concepts, it sucks, but that does not make those concepts any less true or false, being able to reduce them to mathematics is an epistemic, not ontological concern.  does the fact that your statement in the cmv title is not easily formalizable make it any less true ?  #  if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.   # there are some properties shared by all things that exist.  if we had a test to determine whether or not something exists, would not that be equivalent to a test that determines truth ? for instance we could ask our test, did the event that napoleon fought in the civil war exist ? if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.  if physics comes up with a theory of everything, we could theoretically plug an event into the formula, and we would find out whether it happened or not.  actually not even in theory, but that is a different matter  #  if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.   # if we had a test to determine whether or not something exists, would not that be equivalent to a test that determines truth ? no.   all bachelors are unmarried  is true even in a world with no bachelors.  a bachelor does not have to exist for it to be true that bachelors are unmarried.  it is inherent in the definition of the word.  if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.  what is the true statement in this case ? actually not even in theory, but that is a different matter pretty sure no real physicists think this.   #  it is equivalent to saying  all fgwfe are itjmd .   #  all bachelors are unmarried  is true even in a world with no bachelors.  a bachelor does not have to exist for it to be true that bachelors are unmarried.  it is inherent in the definition of the word.  it loses meaning in a world with no bachelors.  it is equivalent to saying  all fgwfe are itjmd .  well obviously the example i used was false, but the statement is  there was an event in space and time where napoleon fought in the civil war.   not in practice, but it would theoretically provide a truth litmus test.  it would define the set of events that could possibly be true.  more importantly it would describe the common characteristics of all existing things.   #  can you see that operating under the premise of physicalism, that the laws of physics would be a likely answer ?  #  ouch ! i know my physics i swear ! let me explain myself better.  first of all, you should know that i am operating from a world view that assumes some sort of physicalism.  everything is physical in some sense or another.  secondly, when i am talking about truth, i am talking about the set of qualities that are shared by true things.  rather than defining truth from the ground up, i am taking the collection of things we know to be true and then seeing what is common between them.  for an example, i could define green by looking at the characteristics that all green things have in common.  of course, if you just look at a finite set of green things, they will share more than just the characteristic of being green.  however, if you expand your set to include all green things, your chances are good that the only characteristic they will share is green ness.  i aim to define truth in the same way.  what characteristics are shared by all true things ? can you see that operating under the premise of physicalism, that the laws of physics would be a likely answer ?
by truth i do not mean factual statements such as  brett favre used to be a quarterback for the green bay packers .  obviously, neither physics nor philosophy are useful for collecting trivia type knowledge.  also, i concede that philosophy has better tools equipped to understand moral truths.  however, when it comes to understanding and discovering general characteristics belonging to existing things, i believe that physics is superior to philosophy.  here are a few reasons why.    philosophy, since it is not experimental in nature, merely reorganizes knowledge and does not produce any new knowledge.    descriptions in mathematics are less ambiguous, more strictly logical, and lead to greater insights than descriptions in english or any other language.    ideas in physics are much easier to test.    philosophy has no defense against counter intuitive truths such as  objects have a probabilistic rather than a defined set of characteristics .  hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions.    newtonian mechanics, big bang, quantum mechanics, and relativity have done more to revolutionize our understanding of truth than any theory in philosophy.  cmv !  #  ideas in physics are much easier to test.   #  current research in physics the new ideas that i believe you are thinking about are by no means easy to test.   # current research in physics the new ideas that i believe you are thinking about are by no means easy to test.  many of them require a significant amount of resources.  the experiment that proved the presence of the higgs boson took place at the large hadron collider at cern, an enormously complicated and expensive facility.  higgs boson touches on another point, that physics does produce new knowledge.  scientists theorized the existence of higgs boson particles as early as 0.  it was understood by the 0s that the particle had to exist, we just were not able to experimentally identify it.  the results from cern were groundbreaking, but it was just a confirmation.   #  if physics comes up with a theory of everything, we could theoretically plug an event into the formula, and we would find out whether it happened or not.   # there are some properties shared by all things that exist.  if we had a test to determine whether or not something exists, would not that be equivalent to a test that determines truth ? for instance we could ask our test, did the event that napoleon fought in the civil war exist ? if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.  if physics comes up with a theory of everything, we could theoretically plug an event into the formula, and we would find out whether it happened or not.  actually not even in theory, but that is a different matter  #  a bachelor does not have to exist for it to be true that bachelors are unmarried.   # if we had a test to determine whether or not something exists, would not that be equivalent to a test that determines truth ? no.   all bachelors are unmarried  is true even in a world with no bachelors.  a bachelor does not have to exist for it to be true that bachelors are unmarried.  it is inherent in the definition of the word.  if our test comes back positive, then we would have a true statement.  what is the true statement in this case ? actually not even in theory, but that is a different matter pretty sure no real physicists think this.   #  it would define the set of events that could possibly be true.   #  all bachelors are unmarried  is true even in a world with no bachelors.  a bachelor does not have to exist for it to be true that bachelors are unmarried.  it is inherent in the definition of the word.  it loses meaning in a world with no bachelors.  it is equivalent to saying  all fgwfe are itjmd .  well obviously the example i used was false, but the statement is  there was an event in space and time where napoleon fought in the civil war.   not in practice, but it would theoretically provide a truth litmus test.  it would define the set of events that could possibly be true.  more importantly it would describe the common characteristics of all existing things.   #  of course, if you just look at a finite set of green things, they will share more than just the characteristic of being green.   #  ouch ! i know my physics i swear ! let me explain myself better.  first of all, you should know that i am operating from a world view that assumes some sort of physicalism.  everything is physical in some sense or another.  secondly, when i am talking about truth, i am talking about the set of qualities that are shared by true things.  rather than defining truth from the ground up, i am taking the collection of things we know to be true and then seeing what is common between them.  for an example, i could define green by looking at the characteristics that all green things have in common.  of course, if you just look at a finite set of green things, they will share more than just the characteristic of being green.  however, if you expand your set to include all green things, your chances are good that the only characteristic they will share is green ness.  i aim to define truth in the same way.  what characteristics are shared by all true things ? can you see that operating under the premise of physicalism, that the laws of physics would be a likely answer ?
the main reason i hate expression of religion and mostly organized expression of religion is because of the prejudices it can cause.  i believe religion is thé main cause of homofobia and a strong factor in other forms of discrimination.  just because religion tells them so people ostracize the things their religion tells them to or even just anyone who disagrees.  yes this might be very black and white viewed, but so much discrimination is and/or was brought forth out of religion.  so much times has it been abused for it´s power of organizing people, crusades, wars, genocides.  one can´t think about wwii the strong nationalism back then can easily be considered as a sort of religion in my opinion without the genocide of the jews, homosexuals and mentally handicapped or anyone who disagreed with them.  or for example the islamic state.  i know religion has also done good things but to me it seems they don´t even come close to weighting out the bad.  especially as a gay man i can´t talk to a religious person without having a tenfolded fear of how they will respond when they know i´m gay.  my view feels very toxic and hateful, but i have difficulty changing it.   #  one can´t think about wwii the strong nationalism back then can easily be considered as a sort of religion in my opinion without the genocide of the jews, homosexuals and mentally handicapped or anyone who disagreed with them.   #  that is being completely unfair to religion.   # that is being completely unfair to religion.  if you include every ideology with bad consequences under religion, then of course it is going to make religion look bad.  which islamic state ? sure, there is quite a bit of disorder in some islamic nations in the middle east right now, but there are plenty of islamic nations which are doing quite well too.  i am gay too, and i ca not say that my personal experiences particularly support this.  sure, i have had a couple crappy experiences coming out to religious people, but i have also had crappy experiences with all the  brogressives  who pay lip service to the idea of equality, yet are not accepting of people who do not happen to be like them and this is almost always completely separate from religious influence.   #  it seems my fear on that part is better marked as paranoia.   # if you include every ideology with bad consequences under religion, then of course it is going to make religion look bad.  you have a point, however where does one draw the line between an ideology and religion ? isn´t religion a form of ideology ? wouldn´t extreme nationalism be just as ideological as religion ? in some of those cases their consider their leader a deity, which gets really close to religion.  sure, there is quite a bit of disorder in some islamic nations in the middle east right now, but there are plenty of islamic nations which are doing quite well too.  sorry i didn´t clarify this enough.  i meant the current extremist groups that have been all over the news.  their main drive is religion it seems to me.  sure, i have had a couple crappy experiences coming out to religious people, but i have also had crappy experiences with all the  brogressives  who pay lip service to the idea of equality, yet are not accepting of people who do not happen to be like them and this is almost always completely separate from religious influence.  i have to confess i didn´t come out to that many people yet.  it seems my fear on that part is better marked as paranoia.  however it does seem more likely for me that a religious person dissaproves homosexuality.  or is this just a prejudgement form my part ?  #  if i want to come out to somebody, i judge them based on how they behave, not on if they are religious.   # isn´t religion a form of ideology ? wouldn´t extreme nationalism be just as ideological as religion ? in some of those cases their consider their leader a deity, which gets really close to religion.  i agree that religious ideologies and non religious ideologies are similar, and can range in extremity.  however, most definitions of religious identify deities and explanations of life/the universe as specific traits which set religious ideologies apart from others.  you bring up the deification of certain leaders, which is fair, but there are a couple counterpoints.  often, followers do not literally consider their leader a deity, and their ideology does not usually explain life/the universe.  if people did believe this for example, if a person took every piece of north korean propaganda literally , then it might be fair to call it a religion, sure.  it seems my fear on that part is better marked as paranoia.  however it does seem more likely for me that a religious person dissaproves homosexuality.  or is this just a prejudgement form my part ? it is different for every person, so i ca not speak for all.  however, i will say that there are a large number of totally awesome religious people out there, and there is a fair number of not awesome non religious people too.  if i want to come out to somebody, i judge them based on how they behave, not on if they are religious.  i do not think it is fair to say that religion is the  main  cause.  it can be one, or it may not be.  but i think a person is character determines their reaction more than their religious beliefs.   #  so many  religious beliefs  are cultural beliefs justified by religion.   #  something being done in the name of religion is not the same as being done  because of  religion.  so many  religious beliefs  are cultural beliefs justified by religion.  so many atrocities are justified in the name of god.  the absence of religion would not change those.  for example, you cited homophobia: yes, there are several verses condoning homophobia.  however, i did a quick google search of women is hair, and there are numerous passages that say men and women should not have the same hair cuts, wear the same clothes, or that women should cover their hair in public.  yet, these things are not believed or practiced by the majority of western christians because they are incompatible with our culture.  isis is a horribly violent organization that just happens to emerge from the marginalized group in a war torn, poverty stricken, polarized society.  while indonesia, the largest muslim country in the world, is a practicing, functional, thriving democracy, that has no significant amount of violence or terrorism.  another act that was justified by religion was the spanish conquering the americas.  the reason, of course, was to  convert the savages to christianity and save their souls.   there were also tons of natural resources and mineral wealth to exploit.  the water is muddy as it is, do not mistake non religious ideologies as religion.   #  but wouldn´t these cultural believes quickly fade out when the religious justification dissapears ?  # i agree, but i have the idea that religion tends to pull other believes in.  what i mean is that when someone joins a religion or is raised with one they can be faced with accepting all believes or being exluded from their religion.  but wouldn´t these cultural believes quickly fade out when the religious justification dissapears ? wouldn´t that mean that religion is responsible for sustaining this belief ? the water is muddy as it is, do not mistake non religious ideologies as religion.  reosir0 pointed out the same point and so did i argue with him i find it difficult to seperate ideology from religion.  where does the border lie ? some extreme nationalists consider their leader a deity.
the main reason i hate expression of religion and mostly organized expression of religion is because of the prejudices it can cause.  i believe religion is thé main cause of homofobia and a strong factor in other forms of discrimination.  just because religion tells them so people ostracize the things their religion tells them to or even just anyone who disagrees.  yes this might be very black and white viewed, but so much discrimination is and/or was brought forth out of religion.  so much times has it been abused for it´s power of organizing people, crusades, wars, genocides.  one can´t think about wwii the strong nationalism back then can easily be considered as a sort of religion in my opinion without the genocide of the jews, homosexuals and mentally handicapped or anyone who disagreed with them.  or for example the islamic state.  i know religion has also done good things but to me it seems they don´t even come close to weighting out the bad.  especially as a gay man i can´t talk to a religious person without having a tenfolded fear of how they will respond when they know i´m gay.  my view feels very toxic and hateful, but i have difficulty changing it.   #  especially as a gay man i can´t talk to a religious person without having a tenfolded fear of how they will respond when they know i´m gay.   #  i am gay too, and i ca not say that my personal experiences particularly support this.   # that is being completely unfair to religion.  if you include every ideology with bad consequences under religion, then of course it is going to make religion look bad.  which islamic state ? sure, there is quite a bit of disorder in some islamic nations in the middle east right now, but there are plenty of islamic nations which are doing quite well too.  i am gay too, and i ca not say that my personal experiences particularly support this.  sure, i have had a couple crappy experiences coming out to religious people, but i have also had crappy experiences with all the  brogressives  who pay lip service to the idea of equality, yet are not accepting of people who do not happen to be like them and this is almost always completely separate from religious influence.   #  sure, there is quite a bit of disorder in some islamic nations in the middle east right now, but there are plenty of islamic nations which are doing quite well too.   # if you include every ideology with bad consequences under religion, then of course it is going to make religion look bad.  you have a point, however where does one draw the line between an ideology and religion ? isn´t religion a form of ideology ? wouldn´t extreme nationalism be just as ideological as religion ? in some of those cases their consider their leader a deity, which gets really close to religion.  sure, there is quite a bit of disorder in some islamic nations in the middle east right now, but there are plenty of islamic nations which are doing quite well too.  sorry i didn´t clarify this enough.  i meant the current extremist groups that have been all over the news.  their main drive is religion it seems to me.  sure, i have had a couple crappy experiences coming out to religious people, but i have also had crappy experiences with all the  brogressives  who pay lip service to the idea of equality, yet are not accepting of people who do not happen to be like them and this is almost always completely separate from religious influence.  i have to confess i didn´t come out to that many people yet.  it seems my fear on that part is better marked as paranoia.  however it does seem more likely for me that a religious person dissaproves homosexuality.  or is this just a prejudgement form my part ?  #  but i think a person is character determines their reaction more than their religious beliefs.   # isn´t religion a form of ideology ? wouldn´t extreme nationalism be just as ideological as religion ? in some of those cases their consider their leader a deity, which gets really close to religion.  i agree that religious ideologies and non religious ideologies are similar, and can range in extremity.  however, most definitions of religious identify deities and explanations of life/the universe as specific traits which set religious ideologies apart from others.  you bring up the deification of certain leaders, which is fair, but there are a couple counterpoints.  often, followers do not literally consider their leader a deity, and their ideology does not usually explain life/the universe.  if people did believe this for example, if a person took every piece of north korean propaganda literally , then it might be fair to call it a religion, sure.  it seems my fear on that part is better marked as paranoia.  however it does seem more likely for me that a religious person dissaproves homosexuality.  or is this just a prejudgement form my part ? it is different for every person, so i ca not speak for all.  however, i will say that there are a large number of totally awesome religious people out there, and there is a fair number of not awesome non religious people too.  if i want to come out to somebody, i judge them based on how they behave, not on if they are religious.  i do not think it is fair to say that religion is the  main  cause.  it can be one, or it may not be.  but i think a person is character determines their reaction more than their religious beliefs.   #  so many atrocities are justified in the name of god.   #  something being done in the name of religion is not the same as being done  because of  religion.  so many  religious beliefs  are cultural beliefs justified by religion.  so many atrocities are justified in the name of god.  the absence of religion would not change those.  for example, you cited homophobia: yes, there are several verses condoning homophobia.  however, i did a quick google search of women is hair, and there are numerous passages that say men and women should not have the same hair cuts, wear the same clothes, or that women should cover their hair in public.  yet, these things are not believed or practiced by the majority of western christians because they are incompatible with our culture.  isis is a horribly violent organization that just happens to emerge from the marginalized group in a war torn, poverty stricken, polarized society.  while indonesia, the largest muslim country in the world, is a practicing, functional, thriving democracy, that has no significant amount of violence or terrorism.  another act that was justified by religion was the spanish conquering the americas.  the reason, of course, was to  convert the savages to christianity and save their souls.   there were also tons of natural resources and mineral wealth to exploit.  the water is muddy as it is, do not mistake non religious ideologies as religion.   #  wouldn´t that mean that religion is responsible for sustaining this belief ?  # i agree, but i have the idea that religion tends to pull other believes in.  what i mean is that when someone joins a religion or is raised with one they can be faced with accepting all believes or being exluded from their religion.  but wouldn´t these cultural believes quickly fade out when the religious justification dissapears ? wouldn´t that mean that religion is responsible for sustaining this belief ? the water is muddy as it is, do not mistake non religious ideologies as religion.  reosir0 pointed out the same point and so did i argue with him i find it difficult to seperate ideology from religion.  where does the border lie ? some extreme nationalists consider their leader a deity.
i think the title explains my take on current  radio music  that gets played on most top 0 type radios if you know what i mean 0/0h.  i just ca not stand the repetitive lyrics, beats and the pointless  trend/hype  featured within the bandwagon liking it just because it is  cool  to like it fans.  fandom of such musicians.  it is also way too formulaic.  pop: love, relationships, wealth, i am such an attention whore ! rap: sex, drugs, clubs i am so tough gangsta look at me ego boosting.  there is only one that i have heard which was almost anti this generic type of rap.  for dance music: they follow a very formulaic beat pattern that you can almost always call it with few seconds of difference, which depends on the genres and the endless list of  aremixes .  i mean, could you invent at least one original song that does not follow a formula ! ? and since the whole mentality of  there is only 0 or so good songs on an album  mentality comes from these two genres, what more can i say about these ? oh yeah, the musicians rarely lack any sort of interesting personalities or do any cool stuff with their vocals it is almost always the same pitch in the song.  for example, try to find someone who does interesting vocals like say in james bond man with the golden gun URL also, the computer fixed vocals and edited instruments just does not make these people any more like able.   #  also, the computer fixed vocals and edited instruments just does not make these people any more like able.   #  i do not think very many rappers heavily edit vocals.   #  because you are making sweeping generalizations about genres with no real information to back up your claims.  the notion that all rap is about  money, sex, drugs, cars, etc.   is exactly what every person who does not listen to rap says.  like that sounds like something my grandpa would say after watching a fox segment on  gangster rappers.   it is just not true and is a stereotype.  if anything, rap probably has some of the deepest most thought provoking songs out of any genre.  i listen to a lot of classic rock as well as rap and i can assure you whatever mid 0s 0s rock band you might be reminiscing about does not have any emotional depth to 0 of their songs.  i mean, take it for what you want, it really depends on how you value your music.  some people listen for emotion, some people listen for entertainment, it really depends on the person.  and i ca not convince you to like a genre because everyone has their own taste.  no matter how much you tell me to, i will never ever like screamo music because it is just not my thing.  but i can at least convince you to appreciate it and stop perpetuating untrue stereotypes.  i ca not really speak for modern pop or dance music not big into it myself but i am sure you are also generalizing there.  i do not think very many rappers heavily edit vocals.  not sure about the others in that regard though.  i feel like you are just being judgemental and generalizing entire genres because you have heard a few bad songs from each.  from my perspective, rap is what i go to for the  deep  lyricism.  yeah there is songs about  money, bitches, cars, drugs, etc.   and that might not be your cup of tea but i assure you there is plenty of rap that is not like that.   #  op clearly stated the music that is heard on the radio.   #  op clearly stated the music that is heard on the radio.  i am not up to date with my musical tastes for this very reason.  i completely understand where op is coming from in regards to popular music being a shell of its former self.  rap music may have some thought provoking songs, but you ca not deny that a very large chunk of the stuff actually played on the radio plays right into the problem that op is referring to.  popular music has become overproduced and formulaic, auto tune rubs a lot of people the wrong way, ect.  i do not think op is being judgmental because they heard a few bad songs, i think it stems from hearing almost exclusively bad songs.  not everyone wants to scour the internet to find music they may or may not like, so of course it is silly to suggest that rap is all about bitches and money, but when thats the common theme being played and being popular, how can you expect someone to feel any different ?  #  maybe we just perceive music differently, but i ca not find any depth involved in a static beat that repeats a simple melody and drum pattern for 0 minutes straight which is what 0 of rap/hip hop songs are.   #  while rappers often utilize poetic, intricate lyrics, the music itself that they rap to is not what i would call thought provoking or emotionally complex.  never once have i sat back and felt chills run down my spine from the melodies/harmonies found in rap music.  maybe we just perceive music differently, but i ca not find any depth involved in a static beat that repeats a simple melody and drum pattern for 0 minutes straight which is what 0 of rap/hip hop songs are.  the instrumentation used is often sampled and lacks a personal timbre/tone that can be found in highly expressive forms of music like classical and jazz.  i agree that rappers are artists that use a huge amount of creativity and expression in their lyrics, but every  beat  i have heard in rap music feels like nothing more than a cheaply made backing track to me.  i doubt there is a single rap song you could show me that i could not immediately emulate on drums, guitar, or bass guitar.  i am not trying to bash rap, there is a lot of it out there that i enjoy, but claiming that it has more emotional depth than any other genre considering how simple it actually is musically speaking and saying that 0 of 0s 0s rock lacks any depth is simply a heavily biased, uninformed opinion.  remember lyrics / music  #  crazy layered beat, i keep noticing these tiny things in it like the dog barking in the chorus oh my darling do not cry by run the jewels.   #  i completely disagree that rap music does not have good beats.  i am primarily a hip hop listener, and i often get chills from the melody/harmony.  it is often a more hidden change, but beats usually do not simply repeat a melody and drum pattern.  i honestly like the nuance of it the melody might be continuous, but the drums will slide in and out throughout the song.  suggestions for good and varied beats: be intro by common.  one of my favorite beats of all time.  simple, but just perfect.  gone by kanye.  those strings are just perfection.  check out the late orchestration version.  i am in it by kanye.  crazy layered beat, i keep noticing these tiny things in it like the dog barking in the chorus oh my darling do not cry by run the jewels.  i straight up get goosebumps whenever i hear that beat switch.  time: the donuts of the heart by j dilla.  this song is just. fuuuuck.   #  that is also been around basically as long as music has.   #  the complaints you list are endemic of all pop music, pretty much regardless of era.  pop music, at its core, is supposed to appeal to the most people possible.  its themes are universal or nearly so, and often no more than skin deep on purpose.  repetitive lyrics ? just looking through the 0 catalog of one of the greatest and most influential bands ever, we have  yellow submarine ,  hello, goodbye ,  she loves you .  i mean, the beatles had plenty of deeper stuff too, but seriously.  hype/trend is literally what pop music is supposed to be.  if it did not roll with whatever was trendy, it would still be 0s alternative rock, or 0s power ballads, or disco, or whatever was popular before that.  pop music is the genre that is  supposed  to follow trends.  it is how trends are expressed ! dance music is supposed to be repetitive.  because it is for dancing to.  club dancing right now is based on bass and drums.  that might be a little chicken and egg, but you ca not fault dance music for being good to dance to.  the in 0, the songs which reached 0 which would be classified as rap are  thrift shop ,  ca not hold us  and  the monster .  two of these do not fit your alleged rap archetype, and  the monster  is literally about examining fame and big egos and how fame affects a person; the opposite of an ego boost.  sex in music ? heavens no ! that is also been around basically as long as music has.  i will give you a hint, the beatles did not just  wanna hold your hand .  but what about interesting personalities ? all vocals sounds the same ? it only reached 0, but check out this verse my nicki minaj URL kills it.
note:  i said  discouraged  not  banned.   the two are not the same thing.  i see jokes and humor that consist of racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc hereafter referred to as derogatory jokes or humor themes where they are directed at the group that is the subject of the joke have negative social impacts.  joking about derogatory topics gives a social signal to others that insulting or otherwise targeting a particular group is ok, it is the beginning of creating an accepting atmosphere of toxic ideas.  derogatory humor also helps perpetuate negative stereotypes about groups that often deal with these preconceived ideas on a regular basis already.  jokes and humor with a clearly derogatory edge should not be accepted by the general public.  banning them is dangerous ground but instead i think it is better that it comes from an individual level; when your hanging out with a group of friends and someone makes a racist joke, gently asking them not to make racist jokes is a good step.  it shows others that you are not in favor of humor at the expense of another person or group, it helps combat negative and false images stereotypes of often marginalized groups, and it shows others in the group that it is ok to speak up if jokes are being made and they are uncomfortable with it.  in short; there are plenty of reasons to laugh without having your fun at the expense of another person or group.   #  derogatory humor also helps perpetuate negative stereotypes about groups that often deal with these preconceived ideas on a regular basis already.   #  this is a humongous jump in logic for which you can provide no evidence.   # this is a humongous jump in logic for which you can provide no evidence.  this entire arguments rests on this faulty assumption.  this alone makes this argument completely unsubstantial.  secondly, where do you draw the line as to what is too offensive ? you say homophobia/racism is too bad, what about short people jokes ? jokes about the elderly ? where do you draw the line ? it is too arbitrary.  moreover, wherever this line is drawn, assuming this is abided by people will brush against or often step over this line, ie it wont stop offensive humour, but rather redefine what we see as offensive  #  if i make jokes about, lets say putin, one of his kgb friends tells him and he cries himself to sleep that night.   # lets go back to my argument, lets say i can make fun of small people, by your logic that seems reasonable.  what about tall people ? they rarely get made fun of, yet it seems hypocritical to exempt them.  what about jokes regarding politicians or public figures ? if i make jokes about, lets say putin, one of his kgb friends tells him and he cries himself to sleep that night.  am i in the wrong for making this joke ? what if i make fun of football for example ? i say,  all football players are thugs , is this wrong ? this is an example of how arbitrary this stupid rule is.  also i would love to see you reply to the first part of my comment, as it really derails this, if you do not mind me saying, absurd opinion.   #  it is not an absurd opinion but rather simply a case of having empathy and not kicking disadvantaged people while they are down   # if i make jokes about, lets say putin, one of his kgb friends tells him and he cries himself to sleep that night.  am i in the wrong for making this joke ? i say,  all football players are thugs , is this wrong ? this is an example of how arbitrary this stupid rule is.  the basic idea is to  punch up .  making jokes about football is not a problem because they are highly privileged in society.  same goes for politicians.  it is not an absurd opinion but rather simply a case of having empathy and not kicking disadvantaged people while they are down   #  making jokes about football is not a problem because they are highly privileged in society.   # making jokes about football is not a problem because they are highly privileged in society.  same goes for politicians.  why should  privileged  people be our only targets ? are their feelings somehow less valuable than mine ? should a guy with no legs be allowed to make fun of a guy with one leg ? the one legged man is obviously privileged in this situation.   #  the concept of  oft targeted miniorities  is entirely arbitrary, op just picks random minorities and says not to make fun of them.   #  the point of this seems to have changed, is started as  dont make jokes at the expense of others , and has become  dont make jokes about whatever random minorities i empathise with .  in theory, the putin joke is at his expense, it jolly well upset him.  why is this not wrong ? the football joke might really offend someone, if they care about the sport, then that seems fair enough.  the joke is therefore at their expense.  so the op should therefore disagree with these jokes.  but it seems he would rather remain as vague as possible with his stance, otherwise people would just rip apart all the hypocrisy going on.  the concept of  oft targeted miniorities  is entirely arbitrary, op just picks random minorities and says not to make fun of them.
note:  i said  discouraged  not  banned.   the two are not the same thing.  i see jokes and humor that consist of racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc hereafter referred to as derogatory jokes or humor themes where they are directed at the group that is the subject of the joke have negative social impacts.  joking about derogatory topics gives a social signal to others that insulting or otherwise targeting a particular group is ok, it is the beginning of creating an accepting atmosphere of toxic ideas.  derogatory humor also helps perpetuate negative stereotypes about groups that often deal with these preconceived ideas on a regular basis already.  jokes and humor with a clearly derogatory edge should not be accepted by the general public.  banning them is dangerous ground but instead i think it is better that it comes from an individual level; when your hanging out with a group of friends and someone makes a racist joke, gently asking them not to make racist jokes is a good step.  it shows others that you are not in favor of humor at the expense of another person or group, it helps combat negative and false images stereotypes of often marginalized groups, and it shows others in the group that it is ok to speak up if jokes are being made and they are uncomfortable with it.  in short; there are plenty of reasons to laugh without having your fun at the expense of another person or group.   #  when your hanging out with a group of friends and someone makes a racist joke, gently asking them not to make racist jokes is a good step.   #  how about not hanging out with people who do things you do not like ?  # i disagree.  if you are racist, hearing jokes about it is not going to make you think it is okay.  you will think it is okay because it is you doing it.  if you are getting your information about people from jokes, you probably will have trouble forming your own opinions regardless of the source of information.  how about not hanging out with people who do things you do not like ? sounds like a better, more individualist approach.  it shows others that you have a limited sense of humor.  all this will do is prevent you from being invited again.  if the majority likes racist jokes, you are not going to change their mind by saying what you do not like.  by the way, i do not know where you live, but racist jokes are already discouraged and banned.  anthony cumia got fired a few months ago for racist comments he made  off the air .  a show he built from the ground up destroyed because of this idea that people should not be offended.  even though one of his favorite guests and close friends was a black comedian.  if you do not like something, do not pay attention to it.   #  moreover, wherever this line is drawn, assuming this is abided by people will brush against or often step over this line, ie it wont stop offensive humour, but rather redefine what we see as offensive  # this is a humongous jump in logic for which you can provide no evidence.  this entire arguments rests on this faulty assumption.  this alone makes this argument completely unsubstantial.  secondly, where do you draw the line as to what is too offensive ? you say homophobia/racism is too bad, what about short people jokes ? jokes about the elderly ? where do you draw the line ? it is too arbitrary.  moreover, wherever this line is drawn, assuming this is abided by people will brush against or often step over this line, ie it wont stop offensive humour, but rather redefine what we see as offensive  #  what about jokes regarding politicians or public figures ?  # lets go back to my argument, lets say i can make fun of small people, by your logic that seems reasonable.  what about tall people ? they rarely get made fun of, yet it seems hypocritical to exempt them.  what about jokes regarding politicians or public figures ? if i make jokes about, lets say putin, one of his kgb friends tells him and he cries himself to sleep that night.  am i in the wrong for making this joke ? what if i make fun of football for example ? i say,  all football players are thugs , is this wrong ? this is an example of how arbitrary this stupid rule is.  also i would love to see you reply to the first part of my comment, as it really derails this, if you do not mind me saying, absurd opinion.   #  this is an example of how arbitrary this stupid rule is.   # if i make jokes about, lets say putin, one of his kgb friends tells him and he cries himself to sleep that night.  am i in the wrong for making this joke ? i say,  all football players are thugs , is this wrong ? this is an example of how arbitrary this stupid rule is.  the basic idea is to  punch up .  making jokes about football is not a problem because they are highly privileged in society.  same goes for politicians.  it is not an absurd opinion but rather simply a case of having empathy and not kicking disadvantaged people while they are down   #  the one legged man is obviously privileged in this situation.   # making jokes about football is not a problem because they are highly privileged in society.  same goes for politicians.  why should  privileged  people be our only targets ? are their feelings somehow less valuable than mine ? should a guy with no legs be allowed to make fun of a guy with one leg ? the one legged man is obviously privileged in this situation.
note:  i said  discouraged  not  banned.   the two are not the same thing.  i see jokes and humor that consist of racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc hereafter referred to as derogatory jokes or humor themes where they are directed at the group that is the subject of the joke have negative social impacts.  joking about derogatory topics gives a social signal to others that insulting or otherwise targeting a particular group is ok, it is the beginning of creating an accepting atmosphere of toxic ideas.  derogatory humor also helps perpetuate negative stereotypes about groups that often deal with these preconceived ideas on a regular basis already.  jokes and humor with a clearly derogatory edge should not be accepted by the general public.  banning them is dangerous ground but instead i think it is better that it comes from an individual level; when your hanging out with a group of friends and someone makes a racist joke, gently asking them not to make racist jokes is a good step.  it shows others that you are not in favor of humor at the expense of another person or group, it helps combat negative and false images stereotypes of often marginalized groups, and it shows others in the group that it is ok to speak up if jokes are being made and they are uncomfortable with it.  in short; there are plenty of reasons to laugh without having your fun at the expense of another person or group.   #  when your hanging out with a group of friends and someone makes a racist joke, gently asking them not to make racist jokes is a good step.   #  op went further than i did, he also argued that those jokes  perpetuate negative stereotypes about groups .   # op went further than i did, he also argued that those jokes  perpetuate negative stereotypes about groups .  when those jokes are used in propaganda, they accentuate those stereotypes, but when used by comics, they tend to draw attention to them.  a good example is group x procreates like rabbits.  when use by a comic, it may be funny, and can easily be checked online if true.  when used in racist propaganda, the victims brain washed kids do not have time to verify the veracity of the slander and with time and repetition will anchor.   #  moreover, wherever this line is drawn, assuming this is abided by people will brush against or often step over this line, ie it wont stop offensive humour, but rather redefine what we see as offensive  # this is a humongous jump in logic for which you can provide no evidence.  this entire arguments rests on this faulty assumption.  this alone makes this argument completely unsubstantial.  secondly, where do you draw the line as to what is too offensive ? you say homophobia/racism is too bad, what about short people jokes ? jokes about the elderly ? where do you draw the line ? it is too arbitrary.  moreover, wherever this line is drawn, assuming this is abided by people will brush against or often step over this line, ie it wont stop offensive humour, but rather redefine what we see as offensive  #  this is an example of how arbitrary this stupid rule is.   # lets go back to my argument, lets say i can make fun of small people, by your logic that seems reasonable.  what about tall people ? they rarely get made fun of, yet it seems hypocritical to exempt them.  what about jokes regarding politicians or public figures ? if i make jokes about, lets say putin, one of his kgb friends tells him and he cries himself to sleep that night.  am i in the wrong for making this joke ? what if i make fun of football for example ? i say,  all football players are thugs , is this wrong ? this is an example of how arbitrary this stupid rule is.  also i would love to see you reply to the first part of my comment, as it really derails this, if you do not mind me saying, absurd opinion.   #  i say,  all football players are thugs , is this wrong ?  # if i make jokes about, lets say putin, one of his kgb friends tells him and he cries himself to sleep that night.  am i in the wrong for making this joke ? i say,  all football players are thugs , is this wrong ? this is an example of how arbitrary this stupid rule is.  the basic idea is to  punch up .  making jokes about football is not a problem because they are highly privileged in society.  same goes for politicians.  it is not an absurd opinion but rather simply a case of having empathy and not kicking disadvantaged people while they are down   #  are their feelings somehow less valuable than mine ?  # making jokes about football is not a problem because they are highly privileged in society.  same goes for politicians.  why should  privileged  people be our only targets ? are their feelings somehow less valuable than mine ? should a guy with no legs be allowed to make fun of a guy with one leg ? the one legged man is obviously privileged in this situation.
i have read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  if there was a rape or disease, then the abortion should take place right away and the punishment for the rapist increased.  but lets be honest, there are not even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions.  yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i watched a girl i worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion.  that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  someone help me change my view, the stress is killing me.   #  which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.   #  lets say that the fetus should have rights.   # lets say that the fetus should have rights.  why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ? why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ? but now the question is, why should the fetus have rights to begin with ? it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  why should these be justified ? does not the fetus have rights that extend over the mother is ? why would these situations make it any different ? or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ? ultimately, your argument boils down to  fetuses are alive and have rights  unless i am wrong, why do you believe that ? from my perspective, fetuses can be considered a type of parasite if they are unwanted they grow inside or on a host, steal nutrients, and can cause significant pain and suffering along with other health problems.  furthermore, why should the rights of the mother suddenly not matter ? she is the one that has to lug around the fetus for 0 months and if she does not want to, why force her to ? and even furthermore, why do you consider a fetus  alive  in the traditional sense ? a fetus is not even viable until around the end of the second trimester 0 weeks ish , and that is at only 0.  for nearly 0 viability, you would have to be closing on 0 0 weeks.  i think we can agree that the vast majority of abortions occur significantly before the 0 week mark.   #  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.   #  potential to become a person and being a person are two entirely different things.  a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, despite having the potential to develop into one.  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.  there is no guarantee that will happen even without an abortion.  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.  murder, by its very definition, applies only to taking the life of a person.  when we harvest plants, we do not say  hey, i am going out to murder some corn today.   when a person goes hunting, they do not say they are going out to murder a deer.  murder, by definition, must involve personhood.  murder and killing are not one in the same.   #  we like to think, and often claim in the tradition of thomas jefferson that all people are equal.   #  we like to think, and often claim in the tradition of thomas jefferson that all people are equal.  it is a good legal principle; the law should extend equal rights to everybody, without trying to compare people and to regard some people as more valuable or meaningful than others.  in reality, people are not all equal.  people have all sorts of traits which vary from person to person.  obviously, we need to be flexible in most cases.  i am not going to say, sorry, you have a low iq therefore you are a liability to society and must be killed.  that would be ridiculous.  people can be missing or deficient in a few of the characteristics that i have listed, and still be treated as human beings.  the fetus is an extreme case, however.  everything that makes us human exists only as a potential, not as an actuality, in the case of a fetus.  you could find a comparable case in people who are in a persistent vegetative state as a result of some terrible injury or disease.  there are people who are not only unconscious, but who have no functioning minds left and can never be conscious again, and who remain alive only because of extreme medical intervention.  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.  it is a waste of resources to keep a body alive when the mind is gone, and cannot return.  so that would be, really, an even more extreme case than that of a fetus.  they fetus has the capacity to become a functional human being; the person in a vegetative state does not.   #  it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb so ?  # why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ? why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ? why should the mother have the right to terminate her own child because it inconciviences her ? why should this be a  right  ? it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb so ? there are countless people living today that need great assistance from others simply to survive.  if they deserve life, so should a fetus.  or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ? if you are having unprotected sex, yet do not want a baby, then that is incredibly irresponsible and idiotic.  if birth control happens to fail, well, tough luck.  shit happens.  burdens are placed on us whether we like it or not, and we do not have the right to end the life of our own offspring simply because it puts you in a rough situation.  it would not be fair to the child.
i have read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  if there was a rape or disease, then the abortion should take place right away and the punishment for the rapist increased.  but lets be honest, there are not even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions.  yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i watched a girl i worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion.  that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  someone help me change my view, the stress is killing me.   #  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.   #  that is what i mean by needless abortions.   #  you seem to have a misunderstanding about birth control failure rates, based on these:  the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  there is a table here URL which shows the  perfect use  failure rate of the various forms.  0 of those who use condoms correct will get pregnant in a year.  even a vasectomy has a 0 failure rate yep, one in 0 men who get snipped will get his parter pregnant.  so, your whole premise that only stupid, careless or lazy people get pregnant is simply incorrect.   #  but now the question is, why should the fetus have rights to begin with ?  # lets say that the fetus should have rights.  why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ? why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ? but now the question is, why should the fetus have rights to begin with ? it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  why should these be justified ? does not the fetus have rights that extend over the mother is ? why would these situations make it any different ? or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ? ultimately, your argument boils down to  fetuses are alive and have rights  unless i am wrong, why do you believe that ? from my perspective, fetuses can be considered a type of parasite if they are unwanted they grow inside or on a host, steal nutrients, and can cause significant pain and suffering along with other health problems.  furthermore, why should the rights of the mother suddenly not matter ? she is the one that has to lug around the fetus for 0 months and if she does not want to, why force her to ? and even furthermore, why do you consider a fetus  alive  in the traditional sense ? a fetus is not even viable until around the end of the second trimester 0 weeks ish , and that is at only 0.  for nearly 0 viability, you would have to be closing on 0 0 weeks.  i think we can agree that the vast majority of abortions occur significantly before the 0 week mark.   #  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.   #  potential to become a person and being a person are two entirely different things.  a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, despite having the potential to develop into one.  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.  there is no guarantee that will happen even without an abortion.  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.  murder, by its very definition, applies only to taking the life of a person.  when we harvest plants, we do not say  hey, i am going out to murder some corn today.   when a person goes hunting, they do not say they are going out to murder a deer.  murder, by definition, must involve personhood.  murder and killing are not one in the same.   #  you could find a comparable case in people who are in a persistent vegetative state as a result of some terrible injury or disease.   #  we like to think, and often claim in the tradition of thomas jefferson that all people are equal.  it is a good legal principle; the law should extend equal rights to everybody, without trying to compare people and to regard some people as more valuable or meaningful than others.  in reality, people are not all equal.  people have all sorts of traits which vary from person to person.  obviously, we need to be flexible in most cases.  i am not going to say, sorry, you have a low iq therefore you are a liability to society and must be killed.  that would be ridiculous.  people can be missing or deficient in a few of the characteristics that i have listed, and still be treated as human beings.  the fetus is an extreme case, however.  everything that makes us human exists only as a potential, not as an actuality, in the case of a fetus.  you could find a comparable case in people who are in a persistent vegetative state as a result of some terrible injury or disease.  there are people who are not only unconscious, but who have no functioning minds left and can never be conscious again, and who remain alive only because of extreme medical intervention.  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.  it is a waste of resources to keep a body alive when the mind is gone, and cannot return.  so that would be, really, an even more extreme case than that of a fetus.  they fetus has the capacity to become a functional human being; the person in a vegetative state does not.
i have read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  if there was a rape or disease, then the abortion should take place right away and the punishment for the rapist increased.  but lets be honest, there are not even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions.  yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i watched a girl i worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion.  that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  someone help me change my view, the stress is killing me.   #  i have read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.   #  i think you misunderstand the arguments for abortion.   # i think you misunderstand the arguments for abortion.  certainly bodily autonomy arguments are one thrust of it, but a lot of people myself included doubt whether or not a fetus is a person obviously they are human, but it is not clear that they are  persons  .  we might think of fetuses as clumps of cells, no more morally weighty than my little finger for example.  even so, i think you misunderstand what the bodily autonomy argument is.  there are plenty of cases where it is justifiable to kill someone else.  what if it is in self defense ? the bodily autonomy argument need not deny that a fetus is a person who has rights, it questions whether those rights extend to using another person is body.  i ca not be compelled to donate organs, despite the fact that you have a right not t be killed, you ca not use my body for your survival.  i think you are missing the distinction between  a has a right to live  and  a has a right to use b is body for sustenance .   #  why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ?  # lets say that the fetus should have rights.  why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ? why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ? but now the question is, why should the fetus have rights to begin with ? it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  why should these be justified ? does not the fetus have rights that extend over the mother is ? why would these situations make it any different ? or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ? ultimately, your argument boils down to  fetuses are alive and have rights  unless i am wrong, why do you believe that ? from my perspective, fetuses can be considered a type of parasite if they are unwanted they grow inside or on a host, steal nutrients, and can cause significant pain and suffering along with other health problems.  furthermore, why should the rights of the mother suddenly not matter ? she is the one that has to lug around the fetus for 0 months and if she does not want to, why force her to ? and even furthermore, why do you consider a fetus  alive  in the traditional sense ? a fetus is not even viable until around the end of the second trimester 0 weeks ish , and that is at only 0.  for nearly 0 viability, you would have to be closing on 0 0 weeks.  i think we can agree that the vast majority of abortions occur significantly before the 0 week mark.   #  potential to become a person and being a person are two entirely different things.   #  potential to become a person and being a person are two entirely different things.  a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, despite having the potential to develop into one.  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.  there is no guarantee that will happen even without an abortion.  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.  murder, by its very definition, applies only to taking the life of a person.  when we harvest plants, we do not say  hey, i am going out to murder some corn today.   when a person goes hunting, they do not say they are going out to murder a deer.  murder, by definition, must involve personhood.  murder and killing are not one in the same.   #  they fetus has the capacity to become a functional human being; the person in a vegetative state does not.   #  we like to think, and often claim in the tradition of thomas jefferson that all people are equal.  it is a good legal principle; the law should extend equal rights to everybody, without trying to compare people and to regard some people as more valuable or meaningful than others.  in reality, people are not all equal.  people have all sorts of traits which vary from person to person.  obviously, we need to be flexible in most cases.  i am not going to say, sorry, you have a low iq therefore you are a liability to society and must be killed.  that would be ridiculous.  people can be missing or deficient in a few of the characteristics that i have listed, and still be treated as human beings.  the fetus is an extreme case, however.  everything that makes us human exists only as a potential, not as an actuality, in the case of a fetus.  you could find a comparable case in people who are in a persistent vegetative state as a result of some terrible injury or disease.  there are people who are not only unconscious, but who have no functioning minds left and can never be conscious again, and who remain alive only because of extreme medical intervention.  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.  it is a waste of resources to keep a body alive when the mind is gone, and cannot return.  so that would be, really, an even more extreme case than that of a fetus.  they fetus has the capacity to become a functional human being; the person in a vegetative state does not.
i have read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  if there was a rape or disease, then the abortion should take place right away and the punishment for the rapist increased.  but lets be honest, there are not even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions.  yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i watched a girl i worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion.  that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  someone help me change my view, the stress is killing me.   #  which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.   #  there are plenty of cases where it is justifiable to kill someone else.   # i think you misunderstand the arguments for abortion.  certainly bodily autonomy arguments are one thrust of it, but a lot of people myself included doubt whether or not a fetus is a person obviously they are human, but it is not clear that they are  persons  .  we might think of fetuses as clumps of cells, no more morally weighty than my little finger for example.  even so, i think you misunderstand what the bodily autonomy argument is.  there are plenty of cases where it is justifiable to kill someone else.  what if it is in self defense ? the bodily autonomy argument need not deny that a fetus is a person who has rights, it questions whether those rights extend to using another person is body.  i ca not be compelled to donate organs, despite the fact that you have a right not t be killed, you ca not use my body for your survival.  i think you are missing the distinction between  a has a right to live  and  a has a right to use b is body for sustenance .   #  she is the one that has to lug around the fetus for 0 months and if she does not want to, why force her to ?  # lets say that the fetus should have rights.  why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ? why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ? but now the question is, why should the fetus have rights to begin with ? it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  why should these be justified ? does not the fetus have rights that extend over the mother is ? why would these situations make it any different ? or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ? ultimately, your argument boils down to  fetuses are alive and have rights  unless i am wrong, why do you believe that ? from my perspective, fetuses can be considered a type of parasite if they are unwanted they grow inside or on a host, steal nutrients, and can cause significant pain and suffering along with other health problems.  furthermore, why should the rights of the mother suddenly not matter ? she is the one that has to lug around the fetus for 0 months and if she does not want to, why force her to ? and even furthermore, why do you consider a fetus  alive  in the traditional sense ? a fetus is not even viable until around the end of the second trimester 0 weeks ish , and that is at only 0.  for nearly 0 viability, you would have to be closing on 0 0 weeks.  i think we can agree that the vast majority of abortions occur significantly before the 0 week mark.   #  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.   #  potential to become a person and being a person are two entirely different things.  a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, despite having the potential to develop into one.  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.  there is no guarantee that will happen even without an abortion.  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.  murder, by its very definition, applies only to taking the life of a person.  when we harvest plants, we do not say  hey, i am going out to murder some corn today.   when a person goes hunting, they do not say they are going out to murder a deer.  murder, by definition, must involve personhood.  murder and killing are not one in the same.   #  so that would be, really, an even more extreme case than that of a fetus.   #  we like to think, and often claim in the tradition of thomas jefferson that all people are equal.  it is a good legal principle; the law should extend equal rights to everybody, without trying to compare people and to regard some people as more valuable or meaningful than others.  in reality, people are not all equal.  people have all sorts of traits which vary from person to person.  obviously, we need to be flexible in most cases.  i am not going to say, sorry, you have a low iq therefore you are a liability to society and must be killed.  that would be ridiculous.  people can be missing or deficient in a few of the characteristics that i have listed, and still be treated as human beings.  the fetus is an extreme case, however.  everything that makes us human exists only as a potential, not as an actuality, in the case of a fetus.  you could find a comparable case in people who are in a persistent vegetative state as a result of some terrible injury or disease.  there are people who are not only unconscious, but who have no functioning minds left and can never be conscious again, and who remain alive only because of extreme medical intervention.  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.  it is a waste of resources to keep a body alive when the mind is gone, and cannot return.  so that would be, really, an even more extreme case than that of a fetus.  they fetus has the capacity to become a functional human being; the person in a vegetative state does not.
i have read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  if there was a rape or disease, then the abortion should take place right away and the punishment for the rapist increased.  but lets be honest, there are not even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions.  yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i watched a girl i worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion.  that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  someone help me change my view, the stress is killing me.   #  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.   #  first, if you care so much for this life,  you  assume some responsibility for it.   # body, at least not during the entire term of a pregnancy.  a fetus is more like a  body part  until it can survive outside of the womb.  this is not an act of stupidity.  furthermore, what is more careless terminating an unwanted pregnancy because your birth control failed, or proceeding with one when you ca not afford to raise a kid or do not want one ? first, if you care so much for this life,  you  assume some responsibility for it.  contribute financially to it.  be there to change diapers, etc.  you wo not, thus you do not  really  care about it.  if you do not care about it, what right do you have to force someone else to ? second, what impact does the presence or absence of this life have on you ? if none, then why should it be any of your business what happens ? that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  well, it is not like you helped this girl in any way, but you are sure there to condemn her when she fucks up.  sounds like you might have been in some small position to, but did not.  yet you will take this moral position that makes you look superior.  you could not have helped her ? ok, but that also takes away your right to judge her.   #  why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ?  # lets say that the fetus should have rights.  why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ? why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ? but now the question is, why should the fetus have rights to begin with ? it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  why should these be justified ? does not the fetus have rights that extend over the mother is ? why would these situations make it any different ? or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ? ultimately, your argument boils down to  fetuses are alive and have rights  unless i am wrong, why do you believe that ? from my perspective, fetuses can be considered a type of parasite if they are unwanted they grow inside or on a host, steal nutrients, and can cause significant pain and suffering along with other health problems.  furthermore, why should the rights of the mother suddenly not matter ? she is the one that has to lug around the fetus for 0 months and if she does not want to, why force her to ? and even furthermore, why do you consider a fetus  alive  in the traditional sense ? a fetus is not even viable until around the end of the second trimester 0 weeks ish , and that is at only 0.  for nearly 0 viability, you would have to be closing on 0 0 weeks.  i think we can agree that the vast majority of abortions occur significantly before the 0 week mark.   #  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  potential to become a person and being a person are two entirely different things.  a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, despite having the potential to develop into one.  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.  there is no guarantee that will happen even without an abortion.  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  when a person goes hunting, they do not say they are going out to murder a deer.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.  murder, by its very definition, applies only to taking the life of a person.  when we harvest plants, we do not say  hey, i am going out to murder some corn today.   when a person goes hunting, they do not say they are going out to murder a deer.  murder, by definition, must involve personhood.  murder and killing are not one in the same.   #  there are people who are not only unconscious, but who have no functioning minds left and can never be conscious again, and who remain alive only because of extreme medical intervention.   #  we like to think, and often claim in the tradition of thomas jefferson that all people are equal.  it is a good legal principle; the law should extend equal rights to everybody, without trying to compare people and to regard some people as more valuable or meaningful than others.  in reality, people are not all equal.  people have all sorts of traits which vary from person to person.  obviously, we need to be flexible in most cases.  i am not going to say, sorry, you have a low iq therefore you are a liability to society and must be killed.  that would be ridiculous.  people can be missing or deficient in a few of the characteristics that i have listed, and still be treated as human beings.  the fetus is an extreme case, however.  everything that makes us human exists only as a potential, not as an actuality, in the case of a fetus.  you could find a comparable case in people who are in a persistent vegetative state as a result of some terrible injury or disease.  there are people who are not only unconscious, but who have no functioning minds left and can never be conscious again, and who remain alive only because of extreme medical intervention.  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.  it is a waste of resources to keep a body alive when the mind is gone, and cannot return.  so that would be, really, an even more extreme case than that of a fetus.  they fetus has the capacity to become a functional human being; the person in a vegetative state does not.
i have read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  if there was a rape or disease, then the abortion should take place right away and the punishment for the rapist increased.  but lets be honest, there are not even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions.  yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i watched a girl i worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion.  that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  someone help me change my view, the stress is killing me.   #  i watched a girl i worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion.   #  that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.   # body, at least not during the entire term of a pregnancy.  a fetus is more like a  body part  until it can survive outside of the womb.  this is not an act of stupidity.  furthermore, what is more careless terminating an unwanted pregnancy because your birth control failed, or proceeding with one when you ca not afford to raise a kid or do not want one ? first, if you care so much for this life,  you  assume some responsibility for it.  contribute financially to it.  be there to change diapers, etc.  you wo not, thus you do not  really  care about it.  if you do not care about it, what right do you have to force someone else to ? second, what impact does the presence or absence of this life have on you ? if none, then why should it be any of your business what happens ? that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  well, it is not like you helped this girl in any way, but you are sure there to condemn her when she fucks up.  sounds like you might have been in some small position to, but did not.  yet you will take this moral position that makes you look superior.  you could not have helped her ? ok, but that also takes away your right to judge her.   #  from my perspective, fetuses can be considered a type of parasite if they are unwanted they grow inside or on a host, steal nutrients, and can cause significant pain and suffering along with other health problems.   # lets say that the fetus should have rights.  why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ? why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ? but now the question is, why should the fetus have rights to begin with ? it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  why should these be justified ? does not the fetus have rights that extend over the mother is ? why would these situations make it any different ? or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ? ultimately, your argument boils down to  fetuses are alive and have rights  unless i am wrong, why do you believe that ? from my perspective, fetuses can be considered a type of parasite if they are unwanted they grow inside or on a host, steal nutrients, and can cause significant pain and suffering along with other health problems.  furthermore, why should the rights of the mother suddenly not matter ? she is the one that has to lug around the fetus for 0 months and if she does not want to, why force her to ? and even furthermore, why do you consider a fetus  alive  in the traditional sense ? a fetus is not even viable until around the end of the second trimester 0 weeks ish , and that is at only 0.  for nearly 0 viability, you would have to be closing on 0 0 weeks.  i think we can agree that the vast majority of abortions occur significantly before the 0 week mark.   #  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.   #  potential to become a person and being a person are two entirely different things.  a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, despite having the potential to develop into one.  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.  there is no guarantee that will happen even without an abortion.  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  murder and killing are not one in the same.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.  murder, by its very definition, applies only to taking the life of a person.  when we harvest plants, we do not say  hey, i am going out to murder some corn today.   when a person goes hunting, they do not say they are going out to murder a deer.  murder, by definition, must involve personhood.  murder and killing are not one in the same.   #  people can be missing or deficient in a few of the characteristics that i have listed, and still be treated as human beings.   #  we like to think, and often claim in the tradition of thomas jefferson that all people are equal.  it is a good legal principle; the law should extend equal rights to everybody, without trying to compare people and to regard some people as more valuable or meaningful than others.  in reality, people are not all equal.  people have all sorts of traits which vary from person to person.  obviously, we need to be flexible in most cases.  i am not going to say, sorry, you have a low iq therefore you are a liability to society and must be killed.  that would be ridiculous.  people can be missing or deficient in a few of the characteristics that i have listed, and still be treated as human beings.  the fetus is an extreme case, however.  everything that makes us human exists only as a potential, not as an actuality, in the case of a fetus.  you could find a comparable case in people who are in a persistent vegetative state as a result of some terrible injury or disease.  there are people who are not only unconscious, but who have no functioning minds left and can never be conscious again, and who remain alive only because of extreme medical intervention.  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.  it is a waste of resources to keep a body alive when the mind is gone, and cannot return.  so that would be, really, an even more extreme case than that of a fetus.  they fetus has the capacity to become a functional human being; the person in a vegetative state does not.
i have read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  if there was a rape or disease, then the abortion should take place right away and the punishment for the rapist increased.  but lets be honest, there are not even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions.  yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i watched a girl i worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion.  that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  someone help me change my view, the stress is killing me.   #  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.   #  that is what i mean by needless abortions.   # that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  if the child would be hard for you to raise financially than getting an abortion would not be a  needless abortion  if this child would be a determent to your life than it would not be a  needless abortion    which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.  this is why abortion is such a debated topic, because you see a fetus as a human being whilst i see it as nothing more than a bundle of cells which would become a human being if i allow it.  i see abortion the same way i see cumming into a tissue, it could be human life if i allowed it too but i would rather not your thoughts, opinions, values, beliefs are what make you human.  if something shares the same genetics as me but does not have any thoughts or feelings than ofc i wont see it as my equal  #  why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ?  # lets say that the fetus should have rights.  why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ? why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ? but now the question is, why should the fetus have rights to begin with ? it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  why should these be justified ? does not the fetus have rights that extend over the mother is ? why would these situations make it any different ? or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ? ultimately, your argument boils down to  fetuses are alive and have rights  unless i am wrong, why do you believe that ? from my perspective, fetuses can be considered a type of parasite if they are unwanted they grow inside or on a host, steal nutrients, and can cause significant pain and suffering along with other health problems.  furthermore, why should the rights of the mother suddenly not matter ? she is the one that has to lug around the fetus for 0 months and if she does not want to, why force her to ? and even furthermore, why do you consider a fetus  alive  in the traditional sense ? a fetus is not even viable until around the end of the second trimester 0 weeks ish , and that is at only 0.  for nearly 0 viability, you would have to be closing on 0 0 weeks.  i think we can agree that the vast majority of abortions occur significantly before the 0 week mark.   #  there is no guarantee that will happen even without an abortion.   #  potential to become a person and being a person are two entirely different things.  a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, despite having the potential to develop into one.  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.  there is no guarantee that will happen even without an abortion.  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.  murder, by its very definition, applies only to taking the life of a person.  when we harvest plants, we do not say  hey, i am going out to murder some corn today.   when a person goes hunting, they do not say they are going out to murder a deer.  murder, by definition, must involve personhood.  murder and killing are not one in the same.   #  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.   #  we like to think, and often claim in the tradition of thomas jefferson that all people are equal.  it is a good legal principle; the law should extend equal rights to everybody, without trying to compare people and to regard some people as more valuable or meaningful than others.  in reality, people are not all equal.  people have all sorts of traits which vary from person to person.  obviously, we need to be flexible in most cases.  i am not going to say, sorry, you have a low iq therefore you are a liability to society and must be killed.  that would be ridiculous.  people can be missing or deficient in a few of the characteristics that i have listed, and still be treated as human beings.  the fetus is an extreme case, however.  everything that makes us human exists only as a potential, not as an actuality, in the case of a fetus.  you could find a comparable case in people who are in a persistent vegetative state as a result of some terrible injury or disease.  there are people who are not only unconscious, but who have no functioning minds left and can never be conscious again, and who remain alive only because of extreme medical intervention.  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.  it is a waste of resources to keep a body alive when the mind is gone, and cannot return.  so that would be, really, an even more extreme case than that of a fetus.  they fetus has the capacity to become a functional human being; the person in a vegetative state does not.
i have read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  if there was a rape or disease, then the abortion should take place right away and the punishment for the rapist increased.  but lets be honest, there are not even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions.  yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i watched a girl i worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion.  that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  someone help me change my view, the stress is killing me.   #  but lets be honest, there are not even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions.   #  yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.   # yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i take issue with this statement.  in my own case, i knew i did not want children for a variety of reasons, and so i protected myself with the pill.  being that i was adamant about remaining childless, i made sure that i did everything in my power to make sure my pill was as effective as possible.  i used a 0nd form of bc any time there was a chance of the pill failing.  i had an alarm on my phone just to make sure that i took it at the same time every day, and almost never missed it.  when i had maybe once or twice i used a 0nd method until it was safe again.  i still ended up pregnant, and i had an abortion.  other than not having sex, or not having the necessary equipment, you can still become pregnant.  vasectomies fail, iuds fail, tubal ligations fail.  the story we hear about abortions is that people were not being careful.  however, it has been my experience that there a lot of people who took all the precautions and they still ended up pregnant.  when that happens, some choose to keep the child, some want an abortion right away because they do not want kids, and some of them even want to keep the child but ca not.  there are medications that give life threatening birth defects to fetuses, and some of those medications are for serious conditions, where discontinuing them could be harmful to the pregnant person.  there are medical conditions that some people have that making pregnancy difficult or life threatening.  i would prefer that abortions be legal and uncommon.  that birth control gets better so there is less chance of failure.  that men and women who are sure they will never want kids have the opportunity to go for birth control that has the greatest chance of preventing pregnancy.   #  or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ?  # lets say that the fetus should have rights.  why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ? why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ? but now the question is, why should the fetus have rights to begin with ? it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  why should these be justified ? does not the fetus have rights that extend over the mother is ? why would these situations make it any different ? or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ? ultimately, your argument boils down to  fetuses are alive and have rights  unless i am wrong, why do you believe that ? from my perspective, fetuses can be considered a type of parasite if they are unwanted they grow inside or on a host, steal nutrients, and can cause significant pain and suffering along with other health problems.  furthermore, why should the rights of the mother suddenly not matter ? she is the one that has to lug around the fetus for 0 months and if she does not want to, why force her to ? and even furthermore, why do you consider a fetus  alive  in the traditional sense ? a fetus is not even viable until around the end of the second trimester 0 weeks ish , and that is at only 0.  for nearly 0 viability, you would have to be closing on 0 0 weeks.  i think we can agree that the vast majority of abortions occur significantly before the 0 week mark.   #  a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, despite having the potential to develop into one.   #  potential to become a person and being a person are two entirely different things.  a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, despite having the potential to develop into one.  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.  there is no guarantee that will happen even without an abortion.  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  murder, by its very definition, applies only to taking the life of a person.   #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.  murder, by its very definition, applies only to taking the life of a person.  when we harvest plants, we do not say  hey, i am going out to murder some corn today.   when a person goes hunting, they do not say they are going out to murder a deer.  murder, by definition, must involve personhood.  murder and killing are not one in the same.   #  it is a waste of resources to keep a body alive when the mind is gone, and cannot return.   #  we like to think, and often claim in the tradition of thomas jefferson that all people are equal.  it is a good legal principle; the law should extend equal rights to everybody, without trying to compare people and to regard some people as more valuable or meaningful than others.  in reality, people are not all equal.  people have all sorts of traits which vary from person to person.  obviously, we need to be flexible in most cases.  i am not going to say, sorry, you have a low iq therefore you are a liability to society and must be killed.  that would be ridiculous.  people can be missing or deficient in a few of the characteristics that i have listed, and still be treated as human beings.  the fetus is an extreme case, however.  everything that makes us human exists only as a potential, not as an actuality, in the case of a fetus.  you could find a comparable case in people who are in a persistent vegetative state as a result of some terrible injury or disease.  there are people who are not only unconscious, but who have no functioning minds left and can never be conscious again, and who remain alive only because of extreme medical intervention.  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.  it is a waste of resources to keep a body alive when the mind is gone, and cannot return.  so that would be, really, an even more extreme case than that of a fetus.  they fetus has the capacity to become a functional human being; the person in a vegetative state does not.
i have read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which should not be valid because youre killing another body. which should have rights.  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  if there was a rape or disease, then the abortion should take place right away and the punishment for the rapist increased.  but lets be honest, there are not even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions.  yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i watched a girl i worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion.  that sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.  someone help me change my view, the stress is killing me.   #  the lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and i believe that should face repercussions.   #  that is what i mean by needless abortions.   # yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a plan b.  that is what i mean by needless abortions.  people who thought pulling out would work, or i thought i took my pill today, etc.  i take issue with this statement.  in my own case, i knew i did not want children for a variety of reasons, and so i protected myself with the pill.  being that i was adamant about remaining childless, i made sure that i did everything in my power to make sure my pill was as effective as possible.  i used a 0nd form of bc any time there was a chance of the pill failing.  i had an alarm on my phone just to make sure that i took it at the same time every day, and almost never missed it.  when i had maybe once or twice i used a 0nd method until it was safe again.  i still ended up pregnant, and i had an abortion.  other than not having sex, or not having the necessary equipment, you can still become pregnant.  vasectomies fail, iuds fail, tubal ligations fail.  the story we hear about abortions is that people were not being careful.  however, it has been my experience that there a lot of people who took all the precautions and they still ended up pregnant.  when that happens, some choose to keep the child, some want an abortion right away because they do not want kids, and some of them even want to keep the child but ca not.  there are medications that give life threatening birth defects to fetuses, and some of those medications are for serious conditions, where discontinuing them could be harmful to the pregnant person.  there are medical conditions that some people have that making pregnancy difficult or life threatening.  i would prefer that abortions be legal and uncommon.  that birth control gets better so there is less chance of failure.  that men and women who are sure they will never want kids have the opportunity to go for birth control that has the greatest chance of preventing pregnancy.   #  and even furthermore, why do you consider a fetus  alive  in the traditional sense ?  # lets say that the fetus should have rights.  why should the fetus get to extend his/her will over their mother is ? why do the mother is rights suddenly not matter ? but now the question is, why should the fetus have rights to begin with ? it is neither aware nor independent meaning it needs the mother to survive up until week 0 or so, where it has a 0 survival rate outside the womb  then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc.  i agree in some of those cases.  why should these be justified ? does not the fetus have rights that extend over the mother is ? why would these situations make it any different ? or have some sort of birth control which can fail from time to time ? ultimately, your argument boils down to  fetuses are alive and have rights  unless i am wrong, why do you believe that ? from my perspective, fetuses can be considered a type of parasite if they are unwanted they grow inside or on a host, steal nutrients, and can cause significant pain and suffering along with other health problems.  furthermore, why should the rights of the mother suddenly not matter ? she is the one that has to lug around the fetus for 0 months and if she does not want to, why force her to ? and even furthermore, why do you consider a fetus  alive  in the traditional sense ? a fetus is not even viable until around the end of the second trimester 0 weeks ish , and that is at only 0.  for nearly 0 viability, you would have to be closing on 0 0 weeks.  i think we can agree that the vast majority of abortions occur significantly before the 0 week mark.   #  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  potential to become a person and being a person are two entirely different things.  a sunflower seed is not a sunflower, despite having the potential to develop into one.  an embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a mass of cells with the potential to develop into a person.  there is no guarantee that will happen even without an abortion.  miscarriages happen far more frequently than most people realize, and much of the time the woman wo not even know because it happens early on.  sperm and eggs do not meet the criteria to be called a person, and neither does an embryo.   #  when we harvest plants, we do not say  hey, i am going out to murder some corn today.    #  you made it apply to the conversation when you claimed abortion is murder.  murder, by its very definition, applies only to taking the life of a person.  when we harvest plants, we do not say  hey, i am going out to murder some corn today.   when a person goes hunting, they do not say they are going out to murder a deer.  murder, by definition, must involve personhood.  murder and killing are not one in the same.   #  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.   #  we like to think, and often claim in the tradition of thomas jefferson that all people are equal.  it is a good legal principle; the law should extend equal rights to everybody, without trying to compare people and to regard some people as more valuable or meaningful than others.  in reality, people are not all equal.  people have all sorts of traits which vary from person to person.  obviously, we need to be flexible in most cases.  i am not going to say, sorry, you have a low iq therefore you are a liability to society and must be killed.  that would be ridiculous.  people can be missing or deficient in a few of the characteristics that i have listed, and still be treated as human beings.  the fetus is an extreme case, however.  everything that makes us human exists only as a potential, not as an actuality, in the case of a fetus.  you could find a comparable case in people who are in a persistent vegetative state as a result of some terrible injury or disease.  there are people who are not only unconscious, but who have no functioning minds left and can never be conscious again, and who remain alive only because of extreme medical intervention.  in such cases i do believe that it is pointless to perpetuate such lives, and they should be allowed to die.  it is a waste of resources to keep a body alive when the mind is gone, and cannot return.  so that would be, really, an even more extreme case than that of a fetus.  they fetus has the capacity to become a functional human being; the person in a vegetative state does not.
some people do things that are so awful that they should not be able to be killed in a way that causes almost no pain.  those people who rape adults/kids and murderers should go out in a way that is just as painful as what they have done to others.  hell, they should make the chair even more painful.  some of these people who commit these crimes make me want to personally execute them.  i would enjoy pulling that switch.  imagine if someone came into your life, took away someone you held near and dear, causing suffering to you and everyone who knew them.  do you really believe that they should go out with a simple poke ?  #  some of these people who commit these crimes make me want to personally execute them.   #  you want to torture people who have committed heinous crimes, the only problem is   cmv: we should bring back the electric chair with this logic, you are asking the state to have the power to do that.   # you want to torture people who have committed heinous crimes, the only problem is   cmv: we should bring back the electric chair with this logic, you are asking the state to have the power to do that.  you are asking the state to fulfill revenge needs on your behalf.  this is not a good idea to give the state the power or responsibility of something indistinct or nebulous like ensuring a punishment is tortuous enough, or other silly things like humiliating people for punishment, etc.  it can barely do the specific things it is supposed to do without corruption, waste, ineptitude, people doing things in the interest of politics or money instead of the task at hand, etc.  do you really believe that they should go out with a simple poke ? i perfectly understand this reaction if this happened to you personally.  although there is the simple logic that if cruelty is bad, it is still bad if it happens to a cruel person.  so you are no better off than the criminal here from a moral standpoint.  your prerequisites are just different.  if this happened to you, and the state has arrested this person, tried him and found him guilty, and is going to administer a death sentence, the criminal is going to be just as permanently removed from society whether by injection or a painful method.  so, you are already getting what you want here without the furtherance of additional cruelty, which you say is bad.   #  you ca not punish someone when they have not harmed anyone with their actions.   # i would not say support torturing criminals, if that is what you mean.  but i do think they should have to suffer, especially those that to horrific things such as murder and rape.  they should feel what it is like to be a victim.  and i do support the death penalty for murderers.  they ended someones life, so they get to see how it is to have their life ended.  my two personal probelms with the current justice system are 0 it is flawed.  their is politics and corruption.  our technology is not advanced enough to confirm most suspects a 0.  0 we are locking up people who have not harmed others drug users, pedophiles .  you ca not punish someone when they have not harmed anyone with their actions.   #  i would not suggest that punishing people is the best method of rehabilitation.   # that wording suggests that it is being done for the purposes of rehabilitating a person who is already condemned.  no.  i would not suggest that punishing people is the best method of rehabilitation.  but i think it is  very  effective in preventing future crime, along with a good education system and strong child abuse laws.  the reason i think criminals should feel the pain the victim feels, is because they should realize what they were doing to others.  they should see what it is like be hurt by someone else.  i believe a just society punishes those that harm the innocent.  when i think of torture, i think of ripping a persons nails off one by one.  but i do think those who tortured innocent people should be tortured i do not know how practical that punishment is .   #  punishment beyond what the goals of deterrence and rehabilitation demand are just the mindless infliction of pain, indistinct from that caused by any given executable criminal.   #  causing a person to suffer for no practical reason is not very different from torture.  punishment beyond what the goals of deterrence and rehabilitation demand are just the mindless infliction of pain, indistinct from that caused by any given executable criminal.  a common trait among anti social individuals is that they all think their victims somehow deserved what they got.  it is easy to assert that a criminal should have to suffer, but i have never seen it justified.  i have never even seen someone  attempt  to justify it.  everyone who holds this opinion just seems to take it as axiomatic.   #  if not, maybe that is why you ca not understand why a person would want a criminal to feel the pain of the victim.   # but i am saying their is a reason.  you might see no reason to punish a criminal, because the criminal has not personally harmed you.  so if we can fully rehabilitated a mass murderer in a few days, they are free to go ? nothing wrong with that ? we all just forget and pretend that the pain they inflicted remains in the past ? that does not matter.  any reasonable person can see that girls not having sex with you, does not mean those girls  deserve  to die.  they are innocent.  have you ever had a someone personally harm you or your loved ones ? if not, maybe that is why you ca not understand why a person would want a criminal to feel the pain of the victim.  well i just tried.  maybe it is not convincing, but that is they best way i can explain why criminals should be punished.
some people do things that are so awful that they should not be able to be killed in a way that causes almost no pain.  those people who rape adults/kids and murderers should go out in a way that is just as painful as what they have done to others.  hell, they should make the chair even more painful.  some of these people who commit these crimes make me want to personally execute them.  i would enjoy pulling that switch.  imagine if someone came into your life, took away someone you held near and dear, causing suffering to you and everyone who knew them.  do you really believe that they should go out with a simple poke ?  #  imagine if someone came into your life, took away someone you held near and dear, causing suffering to you and everyone who knew them.   #  do you really believe that they should go out with a simple poke ?  # you want to torture people who have committed heinous crimes, the only problem is   cmv: we should bring back the electric chair with this logic, you are asking the state to have the power to do that.  you are asking the state to fulfill revenge needs on your behalf.  this is not a good idea to give the state the power or responsibility of something indistinct or nebulous like ensuring a punishment is tortuous enough, or other silly things like humiliating people for punishment, etc.  it can barely do the specific things it is supposed to do without corruption, waste, ineptitude, people doing things in the interest of politics or money instead of the task at hand, etc.  do you really believe that they should go out with a simple poke ? i perfectly understand this reaction if this happened to you personally.  although there is the simple logic that if cruelty is bad, it is still bad if it happens to a cruel person.  so you are no better off than the criminal here from a moral standpoint.  your prerequisites are just different.  if this happened to you, and the state has arrested this person, tried him and found him guilty, and is going to administer a death sentence, the criminal is going to be just as permanently removed from society whether by injection or a painful method.  so, you are already getting what you want here without the furtherance of additional cruelty, which you say is bad.   #  you ca not punish someone when they have not harmed anyone with their actions.   # i would not say support torturing criminals, if that is what you mean.  but i do think they should have to suffer, especially those that to horrific things such as murder and rape.  they should feel what it is like to be a victim.  and i do support the death penalty for murderers.  they ended someones life, so they get to see how it is to have their life ended.  my two personal probelms with the current justice system are 0 it is flawed.  their is politics and corruption.  our technology is not advanced enough to confirm most suspects a 0.  0 we are locking up people who have not harmed others drug users, pedophiles .  you ca not punish someone when they have not harmed anyone with their actions.   #  i believe a just society punishes those that harm the innocent.   # that wording suggests that it is being done for the purposes of rehabilitating a person who is already condemned.  no.  i would not suggest that punishing people is the best method of rehabilitation.  but i think it is  very  effective in preventing future crime, along with a good education system and strong child abuse laws.  the reason i think criminals should feel the pain the victim feels, is because they should realize what they were doing to others.  they should see what it is like be hurt by someone else.  i believe a just society punishes those that harm the innocent.  when i think of torture, i think of ripping a persons nails off one by one.  but i do think those who tortured innocent people should be tortured i do not know how practical that punishment is .   #  a common trait among anti social individuals is that they all think their victims somehow deserved what they got.   #  causing a person to suffer for no practical reason is not very different from torture.  punishment beyond what the goals of deterrence and rehabilitation demand are just the mindless infliction of pain, indistinct from that caused by any given executable criminal.  a common trait among anti social individuals is that they all think their victims somehow deserved what they got.  it is easy to assert that a criminal should have to suffer, but i have never seen it justified.  i have never even seen someone  attempt  to justify it.  everyone who holds this opinion just seems to take it as axiomatic.   #  any reasonable person can see that girls not having sex with you, does not mean those girls  deserve  to die.   # but i am saying their is a reason.  you might see no reason to punish a criminal, because the criminal has not personally harmed you.  so if we can fully rehabilitated a mass murderer in a few days, they are free to go ? nothing wrong with that ? we all just forget and pretend that the pain they inflicted remains in the past ? that does not matter.  any reasonable person can see that girls not having sex with you, does not mean those girls  deserve  to die.  they are innocent.  have you ever had a someone personally harm you or your loved ones ? if not, maybe that is why you ca not understand why a person would want a criminal to feel the pain of the victim.  well i just tried.  maybe it is not convincing, but that is they best way i can explain why criminals should be punished.
some people do things that are so awful that they should not be able to be killed in a way that causes almost no pain.  those people who rape adults/kids and murderers should go out in a way that is just as painful as what they have done to others.  hell, they should make the chair even more painful.  some of these people who commit these crimes make me want to personally execute them.  i would enjoy pulling that switch.  imagine if someone came into your life, took away someone you held near and dear, causing suffering to you and everyone who knew them.  do you really believe that they should go out with a simple poke ?  #  those people who rape adults/kids and murderers should go out in a way that is just as painful as what they have done to others.   #  presently, the death penalty is not available in america to rapists.   # presently, the death penalty is not available in america to rapists.  it is reserved for  the most heinous of crimes : murder.  in what way does this work within our current justice system ? whether the superior theory of justice is rehabilitation or deterrence, we certainly do not try to inflict identical harm upon the criminal.  rapists are not sentenced to rape or castration.  thieves keep their lawfully acquired stuff and their hands.  we work within a system that demands proportionality and is constrained by a limitation on cruel and unusual punishment.  if the merits of your proposition rest  entirely  upon inflicting like pain, it fails to pass muster.  the nice thing about having rules laws and standards set before a crime has occurred it allows punishment to be doled out rationally and with cooler heads.  we do not want punishment to be gluttonous, reckless, or at the whim of an emotional reaction, as tempting as that may be.  we want it to be predictable it puts people on notice and tethered to particular acts so that people can tailor their behavior accordingly.  while the input of an aggrieved victim or their family is valuable and often listened to, ultimately criminal punishment is a judgment made by  society  to achieve justice, not by individuals or to make people whole.  that is where a civil suit might come in instead.  simple poke ? URL  #  but i do think they should have to suffer, especially those that to horrific things such as murder and rape.   # i would not say support torturing criminals, if that is what you mean.  but i do think they should have to suffer, especially those that to horrific things such as murder and rape.  they should feel what it is like to be a victim.  and i do support the death penalty for murderers.  they ended someones life, so they get to see how it is to have their life ended.  my two personal probelms with the current justice system are 0 it is flawed.  their is politics and corruption.  our technology is not advanced enough to confirm most suspects a 0.  0 we are locking up people who have not harmed others drug users, pedophiles .  you ca not punish someone when they have not harmed anyone with their actions.   #  i believe a just society punishes those that harm the innocent.   # that wording suggests that it is being done for the purposes of rehabilitating a person who is already condemned.  no.  i would not suggest that punishing people is the best method of rehabilitation.  but i think it is  very  effective in preventing future crime, along with a good education system and strong child abuse laws.  the reason i think criminals should feel the pain the victim feels, is because they should realize what they were doing to others.  they should see what it is like be hurt by someone else.  i believe a just society punishes those that harm the innocent.  when i think of torture, i think of ripping a persons nails off one by one.  but i do think those who tortured innocent people should be tortured i do not know how practical that punishment is .   #  it is easy to assert that a criminal should have to suffer, but i have never seen it justified.   #  causing a person to suffer for no practical reason is not very different from torture.  punishment beyond what the goals of deterrence and rehabilitation demand are just the mindless infliction of pain, indistinct from that caused by any given executable criminal.  a common trait among anti social individuals is that they all think their victims somehow deserved what they got.  it is easy to assert that a criminal should have to suffer, but i have never seen it justified.  i have never even seen someone  attempt  to justify it.  everyone who holds this opinion just seems to take it as axiomatic.   #  you might see no reason to punish a criminal, because the criminal has not personally harmed you.   # but i am saying their is a reason.  you might see no reason to punish a criminal, because the criminal has not personally harmed you.  so if we can fully rehabilitated a mass murderer in a few days, they are free to go ? nothing wrong with that ? we all just forget and pretend that the pain they inflicted remains in the past ? that does not matter.  any reasonable person can see that girls not having sex with you, does not mean those girls  deserve  to die.  they are innocent.  have you ever had a someone personally harm you or your loved ones ? if not, maybe that is why you ca not understand why a person would want a criminal to feel the pain of the victim.  well i just tried.  maybe it is not convincing, but that is they best way i can explain why criminals should be punished.
some people do things that are so awful that they should not be able to be killed in a way that causes almost no pain.  those people who rape adults/kids and murderers should go out in a way that is just as painful as what they have done to others.  hell, they should make the chair even more painful.  some of these people who commit these crimes make me want to personally execute them.  i would enjoy pulling that switch.  imagine if someone came into your life, took away someone you held near and dear, causing suffering to you and everyone who knew them.  do you really believe that they should go out with a simple poke ?  #  those people who rape adults/kids and murderers should go out in a way that is just as painful as what they have done to others.   #  in what way does this work within our current justice system ?  # presently, the death penalty is not available in america to rapists.  it is reserved for  the most heinous of crimes : murder.  in what way does this work within our current justice system ? whether the superior theory of justice is rehabilitation or deterrence, we certainly do not try to inflict identical harm upon the criminal.  rapists are not sentenced to rape or castration.  thieves keep their lawfully acquired stuff and their hands.  we work within a system that demands proportionality and is constrained by a limitation on cruel and unusual punishment.  if the merits of your proposition rest  entirely  upon inflicting like pain, it fails to pass muster.  the nice thing about having rules laws and standards set before a crime has occurred it allows punishment to be doled out rationally and with cooler heads.  we do not want punishment to be gluttonous, reckless, or at the whim of an emotional reaction, as tempting as that may be.  we want it to be predictable it puts people on notice and tethered to particular acts so that people can tailor their behavior accordingly.  while the input of an aggrieved victim or their family is valuable and often listened to, ultimately criminal punishment is a judgment made by  society  to achieve justice, not by individuals or to make people whole.  that is where a civil suit might come in instead.  simple poke ? URL  #  and i do support the death penalty for murderers.   # i would not say support torturing criminals, if that is what you mean.  but i do think they should have to suffer, especially those that to horrific things such as murder and rape.  they should feel what it is like to be a victim.  and i do support the death penalty for murderers.  they ended someones life, so they get to see how it is to have their life ended.  my two personal probelms with the current justice system are 0 it is flawed.  their is politics and corruption.  our technology is not advanced enough to confirm most suspects a 0.  0 we are locking up people who have not harmed others drug users, pedophiles .  you ca not punish someone when they have not harmed anyone with their actions.   #  they should see what it is like be hurt by someone else.   # that wording suggests that it is being done for the purposes of rehabilitating a person who is already condemned.  no.  i would not suggest that punishing people is the best method of rehabilitation.  but i think it is  very  effective in preventing future crime, along with a good education system and strong child abuse laws.  the reason i think criminals should feel the pain the victim feels, is because they should realize what they were doing to others.  they should see what it is like be hurt by someone else.  i believe a just society punishes those that harm the innocent.  when i think of torture, i think of ripping a persons nails off one by one.  but i do think those who tortured innocent people should be tortured i do not know how practical that punishment is .   #  everyone who holds this opinion just seems to take it as axiomatic.   #  causing a person to suffer for no practical reason is not very different from torture.  punishment beyond what the goals of deterrence and rehabilitation demand are just the mindless infliction of pain, indistinct from that caused by any given executable criminal.  a common trait among anti social individuals is that they all think their victims somehow deserved what they got.  it is easy to assert that a criminal should have to suffer, but i have never seen it justified.  i have never even seen someone  attempt  to justify it.  everyone who holds this opinion just seems to take it as axiomatic.   #  maybe it is not convincing, but that is they best way i can explain why criminals should be punished.   # but i am saying their is a reason.  you might see no reason to punish a criminal, because the criminal has not personally harmed you.  so if we can fully rehabilitated a mass murderer in a few days, they are free to go ? nothing wrong with that ? we all just forget and pretend that the pain they inflicted remains in the past ? that does not matter.  any reasonable person can see that girls not having sex with you, does not mean those girls  deserve  to die.  they are innocent.  have you ever had a someone personally harm you or your loved ones ? if not, maybe that is why you ca not understand why a person would want a criminal to feel the pain of the victim.  well i just tried.  maybe it is not convincing, but that is they best way i can explain why criminals should be punished.
some people do things that are so awful that they should not be able to be killed in a way that causes almost no pain.  those people who rape adults/kids and murderers should go out in a way that is just as painful as what they have done to others.  hell, they should make the chair even more painful.  some of these people who commit these crimes make me want to personally execute them.  i would enjoy pulling that switch.  imagine if someone came into your life, took away someone you held near and dear, causing suffering to you and everyone who knew them.  do you really believe that they should go out with a simple poke ?  #  imagine if someone came into your life, took away someone you held near and dear, causing suffering to you and everyone who knew them.   #  the nice thing about having rules laws and standards set before a crime has occurred it allows punishment to be doled out rationally and with cooler heads.   # presently, the death penalty is not available in america to rapists.  it is reserved for  the most heinous of crimes : murder.  in what way does this work within our current justice system ? whether the superior theory of justice is rehabilitation or deterrence, we certainly do not try to inflict identical harm upon the criminal.  rapists are not sentenced to rape or castration.  thieves keep their lawfully acquired stuff and their hands.  we work within a system that demands proportionality and is constrained by a limitation on cruel and unusual punishment.  if the merits of your proposition rest  entirely  upon inflicting like pain, it fails to pass muster.  the nice thing about having rules laws and standards set before a crime has occurred it allows punishment to be doled out rationally and with cooler heads.  we do not want punishment to be gluttonous, reckless, or at the whim of an emotional reaction, as tempting as that may be.  we want it to be predictable it puts people on notice and tethered to particular acts so that people can tailor their behavior accordingly.  while the input of an aggrieved victim or their family is valuable and often listened to, ultimately criminal punishment is a judgment made by  society  to achieve justice, not by individuals or to make people whole.  that is where a civil suit might come in instead.  simple poke ? URL  #  i would not say support torturing criminals, if that is what you mean.   # i would not say support torturing criminals, if that is what you mean.  but i do think they should have to suffer, especially those that to horrific things such as murder and rape.  they should feel what it is like to be a victim.  and i do support the death penalty for murderers.  they ended someones life, so they get to see how it is to have their life ended.  my two personal probelms with the current justice system are 0 it is flawed.  their is politics and corruption.  our technology is not advanced enough to confirm most suspects a 0.  0 we are locking up people who have not harmed others drug users, pedophiles .  you ca not punish someone when they have not harmed anyone with their actions.   #  i believe a just society punishes those that harm the innocent.   # that wording suggests that it is being done for the purposes of rehabilitating a person who is already condemned.  no.  i would not suggest that punishing people is the best method of rehabilitation.  but i think it is  very  effective in preventing future crime, along with a good education system and strong child abuse laws.  the reason i think criminals should feel the pain the victim feels, is because they should realize what they were doing to others.  they should see what it is like be hurt by someone else.  i believe a just society punishes those that harm the innocent.  when i think of torture, i think of ripping a persons nails off one by one.  but i do think those who tortured innocent people should be tortured i do not know how practical that punishment is .   #  i have never even seen someone  attempt  to justify it.   #  causing a person to suffer for no practical reason is not very different from torture.  punishment beyond what the goals of deterrence and rehabilitation demand are just the mindless infliction of pain, indistinct from that caused by any given executable criminal.  a common trait among anti social individuals is that they all think their victims somehow deserved what they got.  it is easy to assert that a criminal should have to suffer, but i have never seen it justified.  i have never even seen someone  attempt  to justify it.  everyone who holds this opinion just seems to take it as axiomatic.   #  have you ever had a someone personally harm you or your loved ones ?  # but i am saying their is a reason.  you might see no reason to punish a criminal, because the criminal has not personally harmed you.  so if we can fully rehabilitated a mass murderer in a few days, they are free to go ? nothing wrong with that ? we all just forget and pretend that the pain they inflicted remains in the past ? that does not matter.  any reasonable person can see that girls not having sex with you, does not mean those girls  deserve  to die.  they are innocent.  have you ever had a someone personally harm you or your loved ones ? if not, maybe that is why you ca not understand why a person would want a criminal to feel the pain of the victim.  well i just tried.  maybe it is not convincing, but that is they best way i can explain why criminals should be punished.
i do not really know how to elaborate on this idea, as it is pretty straight forward. so i will just give some recent examples i have seen on tv.  nutella commercial saying that nutella can be  part of a healthy diet.   while this is technically true, it is extremely misleading.  who knows how many people have bought nutella now, thinking of it as a health product.  same as nutella with basically all kids cereal commercials these cereals are filled with empty carbs and basically zero nutritional value.  again, misleading when they advertise part of a healthy diet.  basically all insurance commercials. with almost every statement made in these commercials, there is an entire paragraph of small writing at the bottom explaining how the insurance actually works vs how they have made it appear in the commercial not to mention you can never finish reading these paragraphs before they leave the screen i could keep giving examples but i feel like you get the point.  what ever happened to making good, honest products and if they sold, it was because they actually benefited the consumer enough.  why do they have to resort to tricking you, even if they are not technically lying ?  #  what ever happened to making good, honest products and if they sold, it was because they actually benefited the consumer enough.   #  why do they have to resort to tricking you, even if they are not technically lying ?  # why do they have to resort to tricking you, even if they are not technically lying ? that was never, ever the case.  advertisers always tricked, stretches the truth or outright lied.  URL URL URL URL it is actually better now that they ca not blatantly lie to consumers like they could in the past.  people lie.  especially when there is money involved.  this has never and will never be different so it is foolish to wax poetic about a time that never existed.  URL  #  the exact rules might be too complex for a 0 second spot, but it is not going to turn out to be a warranty on a microwave.   #  it is already illegal.  none of the examples you gave are deception.  two of your examples are products claiming to be  healthy .  nutritionists hardly agree about what products are  healthy .  is chocolate healthy ? is trix ? nobody knows.  if they made specific claims like  nutella improves renal function in type 0 diabetics  then we could prove/disprove them.  but as long as a food meets fda requirements regarding lead/mercury/pcbs/bacteria/etc, you can say it is healthy.  the insurance commercial certainly is not complete.  there is fine print and you know it.  but it is not misleading.  i have never seen insurance claim to be auto insurance but not qualify legally as auto insurance.  that is illegal.  if something is advertised as life insurance, it is life insurance.  the exact rules might be too complex for a 0 second spot, but it is not going to turn out to be a warranty on a microwave.  deception is already illegal, and there is no trickery going on in any of your examples.  some advertisers do lie, and you are sure to be able to find some if you look hard enough.  but disagreement about what is healthy and/or brief descriptions of complex products hardly count as deception.   #  advertising is absolutely chock full of psychological trickery, misleading phrasing, weasel words and statistical fallacies,  all of which are fully deliberate  and all of which work on a large number of people  through no fault of theirs .   #  i honestly cannot believe you are arguing that there is no trickery going on and that deception is already illegal.  advertising is absolutely chock full of psychological trickery, misleading phrasing, weasel words and statistical fallacies,  all of which are fully deliberate  and all of which work on a large number of people  through no fault of theirs .  it is easy to deceive and mislead innocent/unsuspecting consumers without technically lying, and only technically lying is actually illegal.  the only way you can seriously believe what you claim is by asserting that everybody is able to see through all these shenanigans and make an educated, informed decision about every last purchase.  not only would that be ludicrous; it would also imply that none of those tactics actually work and the billion dollar advertising industry is completely wasting their money.  to address one of the op is specific examples:   two of your examples are products claiming to be  healthy .  that is right, and this claim misleads a great number of people into believing that they are  more healthy than other foods  or  more healthy than average .  the ads do not literally say that, but they obviously count on buyers making that fallacious inference, which they  do  through  no fault of their own .  another favourite example of mine in this context is  buy 0, get 0 free  or, equivalently,  get 0 for the price of 0 .  neither of these is technically a lie, but they deceive you into believing that a you are saving money, and b the manufacturer or shop is more generous than those without the offer, obviously neither of which is the case.  another good example is phone companies advertising so called  unlimited calls .  again, this is not technically a lie because you can talk for hours on end and your calls do not cut off.  however, it deceives a great number of people into believing that the deal offers phone calls that are free, or at least cheap.  the same goes for isps advertising  unlimited broadband , which sounds like it has an unthrottled bandwidth, which it does not.  all of the above  should be illegal  because they deliberately with malicious intent prey on the inherent gullibility of human brains which we are born with  through no fault of our own .   #  if the state of nutritional research improves, we will one day know which of you is right.   # there is surely some trickery going on, but the ftc does ban deception, which includes misleading phrasing.  avoiding  technically  lying does not provide any defense against legal action if there is intent to deceive.  the ads do not literally say that, but they obviously count on buyers making that fallacious inference, which they do through no fault of their own.  it is not a fallacious inference.  there are people who believe that nutella is a very healthy food it is chock full of fat the heart is preferred fuel and sugar the brain is preferred fuel .  it does not have excessive protein, which americans eat too much of.  it is controversial, but the people advertising its health are fully prepared to say that yes it is an excellent choice they would eat themselves and feed their kids.  there is no lying.  you just happen to disagree with them.  if the state of nutritional research improves, we will one day know which of you is right.  today we have no idea.  neither of these is technically a lie, but they deceive you into believing that a you are saving money, and b the manufacturer or shop is more generous than those without the offer, obviously neither of which is the case.  you are in fact saving money compared to buying the product during a time when the promotion is not active.  the shop is in fact giving you a discount over the price they would give without the offer.  again, this is not technically a lie because you can talk for hours on end and your calls do not cut off.  however, it deceives a great number of people into believing that the deal offers phone calls that are free, or at least cheap.  can you give an example of this ? as near as i can tell, unlimited calls does imply that the advertised price includes as many calls as you care to make.  if additional calls actually do cost money, this would be misleading.  given that they frequently offer different prices for different bandwidths, this seems like a surprising implication.  i would read it to mean that there is no charge per additional megabyte.  if you have examples of isps offering unlimited broadband where there is a per megabyte charge, that does sound illegal.   #  if the offer did allow you to save money and the shop were giving you a discount, then the promotion would not be profitable for them.   #  you seem to be simply defending the individual examples that we give, instead of actually discussing the general point, so i am not inclined to descend into that.  however, i am going to reply one last time to tell you that you are wrong about saving money.  if the offer did allow you to save money and the shop were giving you a discount, then the promotion would not be profitable for them.  without  the offer, you have the following choices:   buy one myproduct™ at $0   buy two myproduct™s at $0 all the offer does is eliminate the first option.  you are now left only with:   buy two myproduct™s at $0 say but 0 of the time you need only one myproduct™, so you are now spending $0 more per purchase on something you do not need.
i do not really know how to elaborate on this idea, as it is pretty straight forward. so i will just give some recent examples i have seen on tv.  nutella commercial saying that nutella can be  part of a healthy diet.   while this is technically true, it is extremely misleading.  who knows how many people have bought nutella now, thinking of it as a health product.  same as nutella with basically all kids cereal commercials these cereals are filled with empty carbs and basically zero nutritional value.  again, misleading when they advertise part of a healthy diet.  basically all insurance commercials. with almost every statement made in these commercials, there is an entire paragraph of small writing at the bottom explaining how the insurance actually works vs how they have made it appear in the commercial not to mention you can never finish reading these paragraphs before they leave the screen i could keep giving examples but i feel like you get the point.  what ever happened to making good, honest products and if they sold, it was because they actually benefited the consumer enough.  why do they have to resort to tricking you, even if they are not technically lying ?  #  what ever happened to making good, honest products and if they sold, it was because they actually benefited the consumer enough.   #  i agree that it is not  nice  that these advertisers might mislead ignorant people, but this does not mean that we have to ban all advertisements we consider somewhat misleading which is like every advertisement .   #  why should advertisers be forced to consider how the masses will interpret the advertisement ? if a person is not smart enough to read a food label or understand that excessive nutella is not healthy, than maybe they are the problem.  what constitutes as  misleading  is arbitrary.  if a product is properly labeled with information, than it is the duty of the consumer to read the information, if they care about their health.  i agree that it is not  nice  that these advertisers might mislead ignorant people, but this does not mean that we have to ban all advertisements we consider somewhat misleading which is like every advertisement .  consumer are expected to read the information which is freely available to them before purchasing goods.  nobody is obligated to read it out loud for them.  money.  because the owner of nutella has a family as well, and he can not risk for nutella to go out of business because he has decided to be nice to consumers.   #  the exact rules might be too complex for a 0 second spot, but it is not going to turn out to be a warranty on a microwave.   #  it is already illegal.  none of the examples you gave are deception.  two of your examples are products claiming to be  healthy .  nutritionists hardly agree about what products are  healthy .  is chocolate healthy ? is trix ? nobody knows.  if they made specific claims like  nutella improves renal function in type 0 diabetics  then we could prove/disprove them.  but as long as a food meets fda requirements regarding lead/mercury/pcbs/bacteria/etc, you can say it is healthy.  the insurance commercial certainly is not complete.  there is fine print and you know it.  but it is not misleading.  i have never seen insurance claim to be auto insurance but not qualify legally as auto insurance.  that is illegal.  if something is advertised as life insurance, it is life insurance.  the exact rules might be too complex for a 0 second spot, but it is not going to turn out to be a warranty on a microwave.  deception is already illegal, and there is no trickery going on in any of your examples.  some advertisers do lie, and you are sure to be able to find some if you look hard enough.  but disagreement about what is healthy and/or brief descriptions of complex products hardly count as deception.   #  another favourite example of mine in this context is  buy 0, get 0 free  or, equivalently,  get 0 for the price of 0 .   #  i honestly cannot believe you are arguing that there is no trickery going on and that deception is already illegal.  advertising is absolutely chock full of psychological trickery, misleading phrasing, weasel words and statistical fallacies,  all of which are fully deliberate  and all of which work on a large number of people  through no fault of theirs .  it is easy to deceive and mislead innocent/unsuspecting consumers without technically lying, and only technically lying is actually illegal.  the only way you can seriously believe what you claim is by asserting that everybody is able to see through all these shenanigans and make an educated, informed decision about every last purchase.  not only would that be ludicrous; it would also imply that none of those tactics actually work and the billion dollar advertising industry is completely wasting their money.  to address one of the op is specific examples:   two of your examples are products claiming to be  healthy .  that is right, and this claim misleads a great number of people into believing that they are  more healthy than other foods  or  more healthy than average .  the ads do not literally say that, but they obviously count on buyers making that fallacious inference, which they  do  through  no fault of their own .  another favourite example of mine in this context is  buy 0, get 0 free  or, equivalently,  get 0 for the price of 0 .  neither of these is technically a lie, but they deceive you into believing that a you are saving money, and b the manufacturer or shop is more generous than those without the offer, obviously neither of which is the case.  another good example is phone companies advertising so called  unlimited calls .  again, this is not technically a lie because you can talk for hours on end and your calls do not cut off.  however, it deceives a great number of people into believing that the deal offers phone calls that are free, or at least cheap.  the same goes for isps advertising  unlimited broadband , which sounds like it has an unthrottled bandwidth, which it does not.  all of the above  should be illegal  because they deliberately with malicious intent prey on the inherent gullibility of human brains which we are born with  through no fault of our own .   #  the ads do not literally say that, but they obviously count on buyers making that fallacious inference, which they do through no fault of their own.   # there is surely some trickery going on, but the ftc does ban deception, which includes misleading phrasing.  avoiding  technically  lying does not provide any defense against legal action if there is intent to deceive.  the ads do not literally say that, but they obviously count on buyers making that fallacious inference, which they do through no fault of their own.  it is not a fallacious inference.  there are people who believe that nutella is a very healthy food it is chock full of fat the heart is preferred fuel and sugar the brain is preferred fuel .  it does not have excessive protein, which americans eat too much of.  it is controversial, but the people advertising its health are fully prepared to say that yes it is an excellent choice they would eat themselves and feed their kids.  there is no lying.  you just happen to disagree with them.  if the state of nutritional research improves, we will one day know which of you is right.  today we have no idea.  neither of these is technically a lie, but they deceive you into believing that a you are saving money, and b the manufacturer or shop is more generous than those without the offer, obviously neither of which is the case.  you are in fact saving money compared to buying the product during a time when the promotion is not active.  the shop is in fact giving you a discount over the price they would give without the offer.  again, this is not technically a lie because you can talk for hours on end and your calls do not cut off.  however, it deceives a great number of people into believing that the deal offers phone calls that are free, or at least cheap.  can you give an example of this ? as near as i can tell, unlimited calls does imply that the advertised price includes as many calls as you care to make.  if additional calls actually do cost money, this would be misleading.  given that they frequently offer different prices for different bandwidths, this seems like a surprising implication.  i would read it to mean that there is no charge per additional megabyte.  if you have examples of isps offering unlimited broadband where there is a per megabyte charge, that does sound illegal.   #  without  the offer, you have the following choices:   buy one myproduct™ at $0   buy two myproduct™s at $0 all the offer does is eliminate the first option.   #  you seem to be simply defending the individual examples that we give, instead of actually discussing the general point, so i am not inclined to descend into that.  however, i am going to reply one last time to tell you that you are wrong about saving money.  if the offer did allow you to save money and the shop were giving you a discount, then the promotion would not be profitable for them.  without  the offer, you have the following choices:   buy one myproduct™ at $0   buy two myproduct™s at $0 all the offer does is eliminate the first option.  you are now left only with:   buy two myproduct™s at $0 say but 0 of the time you need only one myproduct™, so you are now spending $0 more per purchase on something you do not need.
many people i have seen both in real life and on reddit make this defense of their views, and i do not see the argument as one that holds any water.  racism is damaging because it can manifest in violence and unfair treatment towards certain groups and individuals.  when basing your treatment of people on some stereotype, there is a danger sometimes more, sometimes less for it to be wrong.  and when it is wrong, it can cause harm sometimes more, sometimes less.  the fact that there is a potential for this harm is one of the reasons why racism is bad.  note here that i do not think people are very good at drawing up accurate stereotypes either, and base it on confirmation biases.  it is easy to justify one is behaviour towards other groups by attaching some characteristics to them that one believes justifies such behaviour.  but even if the stereotype were accurate, one could still be racist by penalising someone for simply being part of a group whether or not they share the characteristics in question.  if it is not clear here is another illustration of the view 0 | claim is racist | claim is not racist | | stereotype is  true  | | stereotype is  false  | |  a  claim can lie in any one of those boxes my claim is that whether something is right and whether something is racist are orthogonal.  the fact that something is right does not make it less racist.  to those who wish to nitpick, i mean true enough.  maybe you are happy employing the stereotype when x% of a population is a certain way.  picking on this is not really going to change my view.   #  note here that i do not think people are very good at drawing up accurate stereotypes either, and base it on confirmation biases.   #  it is easy to justify one is behaviour towards other groups by attaching some characteristics to them that one believes justifies such behaviour.   #  reality is not subservient to ideals.  this thread was inspired by the romany thread earlier today URL  the problem is not that anyone hates gypsies/romany people just by the fact they are born that way, but by the way they behave as a culture.  the culture is the problem, and not the things you described either.  if you listen to what is being criticized, it is things like this marrying young girls to old men and making them have tons of kids, deforming the kids sometimes to make more money, stealing shamelessly, beating their wives and women in their families, having no sense of respect to other people and not caring about making noise or mess, reacting rudely and even violently if not given what they want, crass manners.  is the top comment and people are attaching these negative qualities to the group, claiming them to be true, ignoring and suppressing op is contention that they are not.  but what if they are ? does it make the vitriol any better ? divorcing the ethics and correctness of a claim are essential.  things are not racist or not racist simply because they are untrue.  this reminds me of the gay rights focus on  born this way .  it is not a sound way of looking at the issue.  however i acknowledge your contention that such racist claims come from a place of bias.  in fact i acknowledged that in my op.  it is easy to justify one is behaviour towards other groups by attaching some characteristics to them that one believes justifies such behaviour.   #  if the discrimination is  banning that trash in my house  and  neo nazi death metal , then that is fine.   # we all discriminate against people for their taste in music hold on.  what kind of discrimination ? what kind of music ? if the discrimination is  banning that trash in my house  and  neo nazi death metal , then that is fine.  if it is  not hiring someone for a job  and  pop  then that is a completely different matter.  you are speaking far too generally here to have a useful argument.  discriminating against people for something that should be irrelevant is wrong.  so it is not  who cares .  would you say  who cares  about post civil war segregation ?  #  one thing to add; in real world scenarios of large populations, it is just as likely race disparities could be attributed to socioeconomic and systemic racism issues just as likely as they can be attributed to actual genetics.   #  make them based on individuals.  a minor difference in average intelligence would have no practical applications on an individual basis.  a statistical difference will be useless in betting two individuals against each other.  however you would stand to make a safe investment if you were betting on a large amount of people based on the hypothetical difference in intelligence.  i think we as a species should choose to outlaw such things.  we do not need to wrench money out of every crevice of our lives, what we stand to gain by exploiting such discrepancies pales in comparison to what we lose as a species.  one thing to add; in real world scenarios of large populations, it is just as likely race disparities could be attributed to socioeconomic and systemic racism issues just as likely as they can be attributed to actual genetics.  i think it is pretty much impossible to control out poverty, even early childhood nutrition can play a role in the intelligence of an adult.  someone who is wealthy but came from a poor life could have some statistically significant disadvantage as a result of poverty.   #  not the general idea of distinguishing between things.   # all judgments deny something an opportunity.  every person then, has to deny opportunities and discriminate against something or someone.  if this is unethical, then living and thinking is unethical.  he is only talking about unfair discriminations .  why are not you recognizing the very clear distinction between fair and unfair discriminations.   let is not go to t bones because i do not like their steaks  fair discrimination  let is not go to t bones because their manager is a fucking jew  unfair discrimination.  this.  this is what we are talking about.  not the general idea of distinguishing between things.   #  so though i do not believe that generalizations about a race are already conclusively incorrect, many of the facts that these generalizations stand on unsolid reasoning when held under a more critical light.   #  i really am not trying to be offensive toward you when i write this empathyman.  i am sorry if you take it that way.  first a reasonably minor quibble: according to google,  stereotype  is defined:   a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.  because a stereotype is an  over simplification, it is by definition untrue.  second, stereotyping is almost always a result of cultural flaws and not real truths.  for example, it is a stereotype that more black americans are arrested by percentage of population than white people because black americans commit more crimes.  but in at least one case, even where white and black americans commit the same crime at the same rate, black americans are arrested at a much higher rate than whites.  so though i do not believe that generalizations about a race are already conclusively incorrect, many of the facts that these generalizations stand on unsolid reasoning when held under a more critical light.
i am going to be writing this based on american schools, as it is what i know.  i think modern schools are way too focused on knowledge that does not have much use in rl, and not enough on skills and knowledge that will actually be useful once people are out of school.  the modern school system has become a college prep system and even then, not an effective one.  math.  basic math is useful for everything, but once you get past fractions and percentages into algebra, the everyday usefulness of math drops off sharply.  sure, many careers need higher math but that can wait until college.  instead, math should segue into applied math after grade school or middle school, in which people learn about such things as keeping budgets, balancing a bank account, figuring out interest, and so on.  social studies and history.  recent in the past few generations ww0 or so history should be taught, but studying further back than that should be left for those who want to learn it on their own.  instead, i think current events should be what is taught once into high school.  and not just local or national current events, but global.  make kids learn what is happening in the world today, not what happened a long time ago.  physical education.  i am rather ambivalent about this topic.  i do not see how it has much use in education, as the athletically inclined will be that way regardless, as will the lazy ones.  but, i do also see the value in having a recreational period during the day, which is what pe is in modern schools.  life skills.  this is the truly vocational part my title refers to.  what i mean is that once kids get to a certain age, most of their school day is spent learning to do every day tasks.  learning how to clean, how to cook, how to change a tire, etc.  the purpose of this is to give students the basic skills and experience at performing those tasks to be prepared for life as an adult.  interpersonal communication.  wut, i hear you say.  at early ages this would simply be spelling, then grammar and such in middle school.  in high school, this would change into being applied interpersonal communications such as resumes, interviews, applications, and other formal communications.  now, you may be wondering how to fill up the day of a high schooler, because most of those tasks are fairly easy to learn.  simple, imo.  either some sort of school run services open to the public, or what was referred to in my school as co op, meaning students left school in the afternoons and worked at part time jobs.  this not only gets the students used to holding a job, but it also gets them some work experience.  it also performs the task of giving everyone experience dealing with the public something many assholes probably never got, hence being assholes to service and retail.  in conclusion, i feel that a new goal for education is necessary, one that focuses not on academics and preparing students for college, but one that focuses on giving students the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience to be both productive and satisfied members of society.  and i just realized i wrote this close to the format of a formal essay.   #  sure, many careers need higher math but that can wait until college.   #  instead, math should segue into applied math after grade school or middle school, in which people learn about such things as keeping budgets, balancing a bank account, figuring out interest, and so on.   # instead, math should segue into applied math after grade school or middle school, in which people learn about such things as keeping budgets, balancing a bank account, figuring out interest, and so on.  many people do not take math in college, and it is hard to know what you will end up having to know for a job.  having a better background may serve you well.  part of education is to expand your mind, to teach you how to learn and think.  math is abstract, and learning how to stretch to understand it is useful.  even 0rd grade math teaches calculating interest.  if you can add, you can balance a checkbook.  are you really planning on spending 0 years teaching these things ? recent in the past few generations ww0 or so history should be taught, but studying further back than that should be left for those who want to learn it on their own.  instead, i think current events should be what is taught once into high school.  and not just local or national current events, but global.  make kids learn what is happening in the world today, not what happened a long time ago.  you ca not understand current events if you do not understand the past.  you ca not understand what is happening in ukraine if you do not understand the russian empire.  or the scottish referendum if you do not understand the acts of union and really going back to wallace and robert the bruce and bonny prince charlie .  or isis without understanding the past several hundred years of middle eastern history.  you ca not understand race relations in the us without understanding slavery and the civl war.  where we are going is based on where we have been.  if you want to know how to change a tire, or rewire an outlet, or cook dinner, chances are it is happening around you.  high school in particular is taught by experts because most parents do not know enough to explain physics or calculus.  that is not true about cleaning a toilet bowl.  um, you do realize that your quip about writing this as a formal essay proves the point, do not you ? that is what schools teach it is why you write papers, give presentations, work in teams, join clubs or teams because they all require communications.  i understand that if you were of limited intelligence, then the focus needs to be on  what do you need to get through the day without getting yourself killed ?   but for most people, the focus is on giving them the tools so that they can be successful whichever direction they go you can learn to balance a checkbook, or make a budget or play ultimate frisbee, even if you were not taught that exact skills.  but because you have the underlying foundation, you are good to go.   #  if you can add, you can balance a checkbook.   # having a better background may serve you well.  what people tend to take in college is exactly what is required by their major and nothing more.  if their major requires them to take math, then they will.  if it is not required, then they wo not.  math is abstract, and learning how to stretch to understand it is useful.  and critical thinking is a lot more difficult for many.  that is one of the reasons, i think, that you hear constant complaints that math is difficult or hard to understand.  if you can add, you can balance a checkbook.  are you really planning on spending 0 years teaching these things ? no, my post is not meant to be a full set of guidelines.  it is simply meant to try and get my point across by listing examples.  as for balancing a checkbook.  you would be surprised at how many people do not realize it is just addition and subtraction because they were never taught in a way that showed them that math was not just some abstract set of exercises.  you ca not understand what is happening in ukraine if you do not understand the russian empire.  or the scottish referendum if you do not understand the acts of union and really going back to wallace and robert the bruce and bonny prince charlie .  or isis without understanding the past several hundred years of middle eastern history.  you ca not understand race relations in the us without understanding slavery and the civl war.  where we are going is based on where we have been.  ever consider that we are so concerned about what happened in the distant past because we were taught about it ? some things should be allowed to fade away, not to keep bring it up and keeping the wounds open.  if you want to know how to change a tire, or rewire an outlet, or cook dinner, chances are it is happening around you.  high school in particular is taught by experts because most parents do not know enough to explain physics or calculus.  that is not true about cleaning a toilet bowl.  many people do not know how to do any of that, and when they step out of their parents homes into their first apartments, they have no idea what they are doing.  and what use is physics or calculus outside of school or specialized careers that come after college ? none.   #  that is one of the reasons, i think, that you hear constant complaints that math is difficult or hard to understand.   # if their major requires them to take math, then they will.  if it is not required, then they wo not.  and the vast majority of people end up doing something besides their major when they get into the real world.  that is one of the reasons, i think, that you hear constant complaints that math is difficult or hard to understand.  so, because it is hard, we should not teach it ? critical thinking is probably the most important skill to have, and you do not think it is worth the effort ? some things should be allowed to fade away, not to keep bring it up and keeping the wounds open.  you do realize how orwellian it sounds, to erase unpleasant knowledge that might make people disgruntled ? nah, you do not need to know that there was slavery or a holocaust you are better off that way.  then take vocational courses on weekends.  watch  how to adult  on youtube.  watch a cooking show.  these are not difficult skills.  none.  yes, it is far better to be ignorant, so that when someone talks about nuclear power or wind power or a mission to mars you have to trust them completely because you know nothing of the science behind it.   #  the holocaust would still be considered recent enough to be taught, but slavery would not.   # how much of that is because they choose something they think is interesting and not because they chose something they think they can turn into a career ? college today is not seen as something useful, it tends to be seen as 0th grade, imo.  critical thinking is probably the most important skill to have, and you do not think it is worth the effort ? no, because it is hard, we should be teaching via practical tasks and procedures, instead of exercises the students can tell are obviously pointless.  nah, you do not need to know that there was slavery or a holocaust you are better off that way.  the holocaust would still be considered recent enough to be taught, but slavery would not.  but, i think, something badly taught is actually worse than not taught at all.  how many people know that there were white slaves ? that there were black slave owners ? not many.  most just remember black slaves and that is it.  i did not learn either of those facts at school, either.  and unlike orwell, i do not propose erasing the knowledge completely.  i propose not shoving it into public.  let it quietly sit in the history texts.  anyone can read it, of course, but they have to go looking.  watch  how to adult  on youtube.  watch a cooking show.  these are not difficult skills.  i am going to date myself here: there was no youtube when i got out of highschool.  netscape navigator was still popular then.  vocational classes are a good idea, but i seem them as teaching what should have already been taught.  and cooking shows.  they tend to require you to have a basic understanding of cooking to begin with.  nobody can be an expert at everything.  there are always going to be gaps in our knowledge, things we do not understand.  if you find it interesting, you will learn about it on your own.  if not, trying to force it down your mind is going to make you cram to pass a test, then forget it immediately after.   #  there are always going to be gaps in our knowledge, things we do not understand.   # there are always going to be gaps in our knowledge, things we do not understand.  if you find it interesting, you will learn about it on your own.  if not, trying to force it down your mind is going to make you cram to pass a test, then forget it immediately after.  this is it.  you ca not possibly learn everything, but learning how to learn is the most important skill that highschool can teach you.  knowing how to study, understanding what you are reading, looking for relevant details and what questions to ask is what highschool should be about.  for example, yes, there were white slaves.  but how does it relate to current race relations ? does it nullify widespread suffering by black slaves ? does it make jim crow laws and institutional racism non existant ? analyzing and adapting to new information is much more important than being able to reproduce old information or processes.
i do not enjoy anime or the anime cosplay culture.  i prefer watching movies like french post wave, woody allen, billy wilder, blade runner, tv shows like hannibal, american horror story, avatar the last air bender, 0 rock, flight of the conchords, archer.  i also enjoy books of all sorts.  for some reason everyone thinks that studio ghibli is beginner anime but i prefer it over more hardcore anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  for context i am a 0 y/o chinese female but i grew up in australia .  i consider myself quite a banana i speak fluent mandarin and enjoy chinese customs, but i think like a white person .  several of my good friends love anime but have never managed to sway me ! i try to be an open minded and liberal person so it does hurt me a little that i cannot get into this much at all. but maybe at a certain point i should just accept that it is not for me ? it would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video.  this is not me being lazy, but rather, in a sense, asking for citations.   #  i prefer watching movies like french post wave, woody allen, billy wilder, blade runner, tv shows like hannibal, american horror story, avatar the last air bender, 0 rock, flight of the conchords, archer.   #  i also enjoy books of all sorts.   # i also enjoy books of all sorts.  and that is ok.  some people like a style more than others, and you might just happen to not like the one used by most anime.  what is a hardcore anime ? a sports related one ? graphic violence ? please define.  so all anime you have seen is the most popular ghibli movies and the most popular tv shows ? do you believe this is representative of anime ? it just might not be your thing, in contrast of what you like.  are you sure you are not confusing what you have seen with anime overall ? it is true that anime has a much lower budget than your average disney movie or cartoon series.  but, thankfully, it means more variation.  for example, your average hollywood movie.  studios spend millions for the two or three movies they produce each year.  since they ca not afford losing too much money for an unsuccessful movie, they always try to take it safe and so something that assures sales.  because of that there is little variation in your average hollywood movie.  in anime, despite beign a disc sale focused industry, there is still much more variation.  because they can afford it.  this of course results in lots of failed experiments, but at the same time means more variation.  look at what anime are going to be released in fall.  there is much more variation than what you can find at the average cinema.  sure there are tons of repetitive ecchi harem, sure there are tons of promoting our shitty trading card game with an anime shows, but there is much more produced around 0 new anime a year and much more variety.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  do you believe that your typical hollywood movie is better in this aspect ? this is not me being lazy, but rather asking for almost, like, citations.  from top of my head shin seiki evangelion and shoujo kakumei utena.  with good video i do not know what you mean, maybe search for sakuga videos.  there is nothing wrong with not liking some style or artform.  for example i do not value poetry.  it is ok, each to their own.  there are tons of westernish anime out there that might be of your liking.  it is good that you try to be open minded, but if you do not like what makes up most anime then it ca not be helped.   #  i love that anime runs in arcs, and i love that real character development happens in the well written ones.   #  i do not want this to turn into just recommendations for your type of anime, and i do agree with what you are saying.  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.  i love that anime runs in arcs, and i love that real character development happens in the well written ones.  stuff that i have liked includes full metal alchemist, cowboy bebop, baccano ! , hunter x hunter, initial d, last exile, trigun, hellsing ultimate, psycho pass, steins;gate, ghost in the shell.  i think for the most part what differs between what i like and what i do not like when it comes to anime is the  iseasonal  type rotation of formulaic and silly characters, stories and  culture  in comparison to well defined and laid out series or movies that have been designed and planned with an endgame in mind.  as i said before, i like that idea of progression that is sometimes hard to find in other forms of media, even movies which sometimes become sequelitis money grabs.  but apart from that i think i find the conflicts interesting.  the conflicts that characters face themselves, or the ones between characters, seem to have a very real quality in some anime.  and sometimes you get that rare one with something like baccano ! which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.  i think if you get stuck into the seasonal rotation culture of anime and try to follow  the hotness  you will really dislike it because you just ca not see past the.  sameness of it all and the feeling it goes nowhere.  find something that interests you, whether it is a character you are willing to follow or a concept you want to see explored.  chances are there will be an anime/manga that is right for you.   #  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.   #  anime/manga are just mediums.  the variety of types are broad and deep just like any other medium like film or print.  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.  there is anime about fantastical stuff: mecha, magic, special powers, super human abilities, battles, etc.  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.  there is anime that makes you think, some that evokes emotional responses, etc.  there is some that combine multiple subgenres.  right now, i think the best someone can do in a cmv is convince you to try watching/reading some more.  i do not know what you have seen and why you liked some and not others besides a short remark about studio ghibli.  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.   # this can be true to an extent.  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.  a lot of shonen protagonists can be categorized as:   a little dumb generally slow on the uptake, leaves thinking to their party members, but from time to time says some really insightful stuff   good natured a  good  guy/gal.  works for their ideal good, but it is commonly easily empathetic goals.  strong willed has principles and sticks to them   is charismatic attracts other people to their cause or even converts enemies over time.  is usually very durable can take a beating and then some   has some special ability some skill they have honed, some innate understanding that makes them better at x, some special power, etc so yeah.  that is more or less the common shonen protagonist and yeah, it is kinda formulaic.  however, not all characters fit that mold.  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.  or the slice of life protagonists.  these characters are usually good at the subject matter, but often persevere through hard work and effort too.  however, i think you have to understand that a lot of manga is targeted to a young male audience it is not to say older or younger or female people cannot like/appreciate it, but it would be like judging a teen novel on more stringent criteria than what might be fair.  what i would have to say though, is that a lot of those folks can tell some pretty damn good stories.  it is kind of the nature of the genre because the vast majority of anime are derived from manga, and manga is kind of a do or die medium.  most manga is published in a magazine that has several other manga chapters alongside it.  if ratings for the manga drop, the manga as a whole is dropped.  so a lot of these successful mangas and later, often, animes are the result of beating out less engaging or less interesting works.   #  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.   #  as /u/lord geryon said, manga is generally higher quality.  they touched on one of the main ideas as to why, but is like to elaborate a bit.  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.  this introduces the competition aspect i mentioned, but there is also other effects:   the original manga artist is not drawing the anime.  so, depending on the quality of the production company, it may or may not be a good representation of the original art.  anime covers a lot more story than manga, in general, in terms of content per episode of anime vs content per chapter of manga.  this means that often times an anime will catch up to the source material this generally means that the anime will do  filler  to let the manga get ahead again.  this filler is very often terrible in contrast to the original work.  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.  for example the extremely popular and for good reason imo cowboy bebop was an independent anime that actually had manga spinned off of it.  it really depends, but in general, manga is better that is 0 not to say anime is not worth watching, just that the quality of manga is often higher.
i do not enjoy anime or the anime cosplay culture.  i prefer watching movies like french post wave, woody allen, billy wilder, blade runner, tv shows like hannibal, american horror story, avatar the last air bender, 0 rock, flight of the conchords, archer.  i also enjoy books of all sorts.  for some reason everyone thinks that studio ghibli is beginner anime but i prefer it over more hardcore anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  for context i am a 0 y/o chinese female but i grew up in australia .  i consider myself quite a banana i speak fluent mandarin and enjoy chinese customs, but i think like a white person .  several of my good friends love anime but have never managed to sway me ! i try to be an open minded and liberal person so it does hurt me a little that i cannot get into this much at all. but maybe at a certain point i should just accept that it is not for me ? it would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video.  this is not me being lazy, but rather, in a sense, asking for citations.   #  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.   #  so all anime you have seen is the most popular ghibli movies and the most popular tv shows ?  # i also enjoy books of all sorts.  and that is ok.  some people like a style more than others, and you might just happen to not like the one used by most anime.  what is a hardcore anime ? a sports related one ? graphic violence ? please define.  so all anime you have seen is the most popular ghibli movies and the most popular tv shows ? do you believe this is representative of anime ? it just might not be your thing, in contrast of what you like.  are you sure you are not confusing what you have seen with anime overall ? it is true that anime has a much lower budget than your average disney movie or cartoon series.  but, thankfully, it means more variation.  for example, your average hollywood movie.  studios spend millions for the two or three movies they produce each year.  since they ca not afford losing too much money for an unsuccessful movie, they always try to take it safe and so something that assures sales.  because of that there is little variation in your average hollywood movie.  in anime, despite beign a disc sale focused industry, there is still much more variation.  because they can afford it.  this of course results in lots of failed experiments, but at the same time means more variation.  look at what anime are going to be released in fall.  there is much more variation than what you can find at the average cinema.  sure there are tons of repetitive ecchi harem, sure there are tons of promoting our shitty trading card game with an anime shows, but there is much more produced around 0 new anime a year and much more variety.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  do you believe that your typical hollywood movie is better in this aspect ? this is not me being lazy, but rather asking for almost, like, citations.  from top of my head shin seiki evangelion and shoujo kakumei utena.  with good video i do not know what you mean, maybe search for sakuga videos.  there is nothing wrong with not liking some style or artform.  for example i do not value poetry.  it is ok, each to their own.  there are tons of westernish anime out there that might be of your liking.  it is good that you try to be open minded, but if you do not like what makes up most anime then it ca not be helped.   #  i do not want this to turn into just recommendations for your type of anime, and i do agree with what you are saying.   #  i do not want this to turn into just recommendations for your type of anime, and i do agree with what you are saying.  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.  i love that anime runs in arcs, and i love that real character development happens in the well written ones.  stuff that i have liked includes full metal alchemist, cowboy bebop, baccano ! , hunter x hunter, initial d, last exile, trigun, hellsing ultimate, psycho pass, steins;gate, ghost in the shell.  i think for the most part what differs between what i like and what i do not like when it comes to anime is the  iseasonal  type rotation of formulaic and silly characters, stories and  culture  in comparison to well defined and laid out series or movies that have been designed and planned with an endgame in mind.  as i said before, i like that idea of progression that is sometimes hard to find in other forms of media, even movies which sometimes become sequelitis money grabs.  but apart from that i think i find the conflicts interesting.  the conflicts that characters face themselves, or the ones between characters, seem to have a very real quality in some anime.  and sometimes you get that rare one with something like baccano ! which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.  i think if you get stuck into the seasonal rotation culture of anime and try to follow  the hotness  you will really dislike it because you just ca not see past the.  sameness of it all and the feeling it goes nowhere.  find something that interests you, whether it is a character you are willing to follow or a concept you want to see explored.  chances are there will be an anime/manga that is right for you.   #  there is anime that makes you think, some that evokes emotional responses, etc.   #  anime/manga are just mediums.  the variety of types are broad and deep just like any other medium like film or print.  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.  there is anime about fantastical stuff: mecha, magic, special powers, super human abilities, battles, etc.  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.  there is anime that makes you think, some that evokes emotional responses, etc.  there is some that combine multiple subgenres.  right now, i think the best someone can do in a cmv is convince you to try watching/reading some more.  i do not know what you have seen and why you liked some and not others besides a short remark about studio ghibli.  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.   # this can be true to an extent.  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.  a lot of shonen protagonists can be categorized as:   a little dumb generally slow on the uptake, leaves thinking to their party members, but from time to time says some really insightful stuff   good natured a  good  guy/gal.  works for their ideal good, but it is commonly easily empathetic goals.  strong willed has principles and sticks to them   is charismatic attracts other people to their cause or even converts enemies over time.  is usually very durable can take a beating and then some   has some special ability some skill they have honed, some innate understanding that makes them better at x, some special power, etc so yeah.  that is more or less the common shonen protagonist and yeah, it is kinda formulaic.  however, not all characters fit that mold.  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.  or the slice of life protagonists.  these characters are usually good at the subject matter, but often persevere through hard work and effort too.  however, i think you have to understand that a lot of manga is targeted to a young male audience it is not to say older or younger or female people cannot like/appreciate it, but it would be like judging a teen novel on more stringent criteria than what might be fair.  what i would have to say though, is that a lot of those folks can tell some pretty damn good stories.  it is kind of the nature of the genre because the vast majority of anime are derived from manga, and manga is kind of a do or die medium.  most manga is published in a magazine that has several other manga chapters alongside it.  if ratings for the manga drop, the manga as a whole is dropped.  so a lot of these successful mangas and later, often, animes are the result of beating out less engaging or less interesting works.   #  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.   #  as /u/lord geryon said, manga is generally higher quality.  they touched on one of the main ideas as to why, but is like to elaborate a bit.  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.  this introduces the competition aspect i mentioned, but there is also other effects:   the original manga artist is not drawing the anime.  so, depending on the quality of the production company, it may or may not be a good representation of the original art.  anime covers a lot more story than manga, in general, in terms of content per episode of anime vs content per chapter of manga.  this means that often times an anime will catch up to the source material this generally means that the anime will do  filler  to let the manga get ahead again.  this filler is very often terrible in contrast to the original work.  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.  for example the extremely popular and for good reason imo cowboy bebop was an independent anime that actually had manga spinned off of it.  it really depends, but in general, manga is better that is 0 not to say anime is not worth watching, just that the quality of manga is often higher.
i do not enjoy anime or the anime cosplay culture.  i prefer watching movies like french post wave, woody allen, billy wilder, blade runner, tv shows like hannibal, american horror story, avatar the last air bender, 0 rock, flight of the conchords, archer.  i also enjoy books of all sorts.  for some reason everyone thinks that studio ghibli is beginner anime but i prefer it over more hardcore anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  for context i am a 0 y/o chinese female but i grew up in australia .  i consider myself quite a banana i speak fluent mandarin and enjoy chinese customs, but i think like a white person .  several of my good friends love anime but have never managed to sway me ! i try to be an open minded and liberal person so it does hurt me a little that i cannot get into this much at all. but maybe at a certain point i should just accept that it is not for me ? it would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video.  this is not me being lazy, but rather, in a sense, asking for citations.   #  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.   #  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.   # i also enjoy books of all sorts.  and that is ok.  some people like a style more than others, and you might just happen to not like the one used by most anime.  what is a hardcore anime ? a sports related one ? graphic violence ? please define.  so all anime you have seen is the most popular ghibli movies and the most popular tv shows ? do you believe this is representative of anime ? it just might not be your thing, in contrast of what you like.  are you sure you are not confusing what you have seen with anime overall ? it is true that anime has a much lower budget than your average disney movie or cartoon series.  but, thankfully, it means more variation.  for example, your average hollywood movie.  studios spend millions for the two or three movies they produce each year.  since they ca not afford losing too much money for an unsuccessful movie, they always try to take it safe and so something that assures sales.  because of that there is little variation in your average hollywood movie.  in anime, despite beign a disc sale focused industry, there is still much more variation.  because they can afford it.  this of course results in lots of failed experiments, but at the same time means more variation.  look at what anime are going to be released in fall.  there is much more variation than what you can find at the average cinema.  sure there are tons of repetitive ecchi harem, sure there are tons of promoting our shitty trading card game with an anime shows, but there is much more produced around 0 new anime a year and much more variety.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  do you believe that your typical hollywood movie is better in this aspect ? this is not me being lazy, but rather asking for almost, like, citations.  from top of my head shin seiki evangelion and shoujo kakumei utena.  with good video i do not know what you mean, maybe search for sakuga videos.  there is nothing wrong with not liking some style or artform.  for example i do not value poetry.  it is ok, each to their own.  there are tons of westernish anime out there that might be of your liking.  it is good that you try to be open minded, but if you do not like what makes up most anime then it ca not be helped.   #  stuff that i have liked includes full metal alchemist, cowboy bebop, baccano !  #  i do not want this to turn into just recommendations for your type of anime, and i do agree with what you are saying.  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.  i love that anime runs in arcs, and i love that real character development happens in the well written ones.  stuff that i have liked includes full metal alchemist, cowboy bebop, baccano ! , hunter x hunter, initial d, last exile, trigun, hellsing ultimate, psycho pass, steins;gate, ghost in the shell.  i think for the most part what differs between what i like and what i do not like when it comes to anime is the  iseasonal  type rotation of formulaic and silly characters, stories and  culture  in comparison to well defined and laid out series or movies that have been designed and planned with an endgame in mind.  as i said before, i like that idea of progression that is sometimes hard to find in other forms of media, even movies which sometimes become sequelitis money grabs.  but apart from that i think i find the conflicts interesting.  the conflicts that characters face themselves, or the ones between characters, seem to have a very real quality in some anime.  and sometimes you get that rare one with something like baccano ! which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.  i think if you get stuck into the seasonal rotation culture of anime and try to follow  the hotness  you will really dislike it because you just ca not see past the.  sameness of it all and the feeling it goes nowhere.  find something that interests you, whether it is a character you are willing to follow or a concept you want to see explored.  chances are there will be an anime/manga that is right for you.   #  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  anime/manga are just mediums.  the variety of types are broad and deep just like any other medium like film or print.  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.  there is anime about fantastical stuff: mecha, magic, special powers, super human abilities, battles, etc.  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.  there is anime that makes you think, some that evokes emotional responses, etc.  there is some that combine multiple subgenres.  right now, i think the best someone can do in a cmv is convince you to try watching/reading some more.  i do not know what you have seen and why you liked some and not others besides a short remark about studio ghibli.  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  if ratings for the manga drop, the manga as a whole is dropped.   # this can be true to an extent.  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.  a lot of shonen protagonists can be categorized as:   a little dumb generally slow on the uptake, leaves thinking to their party members, but from time to time says some really insightful stuff   good natured a  good  guy/gal.  works for their ideal good, but it is commonly easily empathetic goals.  strong willed has principles and sticks to them   is charismatic attracts other people to their cause or even converts enemies over time.  is usually very durable can take a beating and then some   has some special ability some skill they have honed, some innate understanding that makes them better at x, some special power, etc so yeah.  that is more or less the common shonen protagonist and yeah, it is kinda formulaic.  however, not all characters fit that mold.  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.  or the slice of life protagonists.  these characters are usually good at the subject matter, but often persevere through hard work and effort too.  however, i think you have to understand that a lot of manga is targeted to a young male audience it is not to say older or younger or female people cannot like/appreciate it, but it would be like judging a teen novel on more stringent criteria than what might be fair.  what i would have to say though, is that a lot of those folks can tell some pretty damn good stories.  it is kind of the nature of the genre because the vast majority of anime are derived from manga, and manga is kind of a do or die medium.  most manga is published in a magazine that has several other manga chapters alongside it.  if ratings for the manga drop, the manga as a whole is dropped.  so a lot of these successful mangas and later, often, animes are the result of beating out less engaging or less interesting works.   #  for example the extremely popular and for good reason imo cowboy bebop was an independent anime that actually had manga spinned off of it.   #  as /u/lord geryon said, manga is generally higher quality.  they touched on one of the main ideas as to why, but is like to elaborate a bit.  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.  this introduces the competition aspect i mentioned, but there is also other effects:   the original manga artist is not drawing the anime.  so, depending on the quality of the production company, it may or may not be a good representation of the original art.  anime covers a lot more story than manga, in general, in terms of content per episode of anime vs content per chapter of manga.  this means that often times an anime will catch up to the source material this generally means that the anime will do  filler  to let the manga get ahead again.  this filler is very often terrible in contrast to the original work.  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.  for example the extremely popular and for good reason imo cowboy bebop was an independent anime that actually had manga spinned off of it.  it really depends, but in general, manga is better that is 0 not to say anime is not worth watching, just that the quality of manga is often higher.
i do not enjoy anime or the anime cosplay culture.  i prefer watching movies like french post wave, woody allen, billy wilder, blade runner, tv shows like hannibal, american horror story, avatar the last air bender, 0 rock, flight of the conchords, archer.  i also enjoy books of all sorts.  for some reason everyone thinks that studio ghibli is beginner anime but i prefer it over more hardcore anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  for context i am a 0 y/o chinese female but i grew up in australia .  i consider myself quite a banana i speak fluent mandarin and enjoy chinese customs, but i think like a white person .  several of my good friends love anime but have never managed to sway me ! i try to be an open minded and liberal person so it does hurt me a little that i cannot get into this much at all. but maybe at a certain point i should just accept that it is not for me ? it would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video.  this is not me being lazy, but rather, in a sense, asking for citations.   #  it would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video.   #  this is not me being lazy, but rather asking for almost, like, citations.   # i also enjoy books of all sorts.  and that is ok.  some people like a style more than others, and you might just happen to not like the one used by most anime.  what is a hardcore anime ? a sports related one ? graphic violence ? please define.  so all anime you have seen is the most popular ghibli movies and the most popular tv shows ? do you believe this is representative of anime ? it just might not be your thing, in contrast of what you like.  are you sure you are not confusing what you have seen with anime overall ? it is true that anime has a much lower budget than your average disney movie or cartoon series.  but, thankfully, it means more variation.  for example, your average hollywood movie.  studios spend millions for the two or three movies they produce each year.  since they ca not afford losing too much money for an unsuccessful movie, they always try to take it safe and so something that assures sales.  because of that there is little variation in your average hollywood movie.  in anime, despite beign a disc sale focused industry, there is still much more variation.  because they can afford it.  this of course results in lots of failed experiments, but at the same time means more variation.  look at what anime are going to be released in fall.  there is much more variation than what you can find at the average cinema.  sure there are tons of repetitive ecchi harem, sure there are tons of promoting our shitty trading card game with an anime shows, but there is much more produced around 0 new anime a year and much more variety.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  do you believe that your typical hollywood movie is better in this aspect ? this is not me being lazy, but rather asking for almost, like, citations.  from top of my head shin seiki evangelion and shoujo kakumei utena.  with good video i do not know what you mean, maybe search for sakuga videos.  there is nothing wrong with not liking some style or artform.  for example i do not value poetry.  it is ok, each to their own.  there are tons of westernish anime out there that might be of your liking.  it is good that you try to be open minded, but if you do not like what makes up most anime then it ca not be helped.   #  chances are there will be an anime/manga that is right for you.   #  i do not want this to turn into just recommendations for your type of anime, and i do agree with what you are saying.  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.  i love that anime runs in arcs, and i love that real character development happens in the well written ones.  stuff that i have liked includes full metal alchemist, cowboy bebop, baccano ! , hunter x hunter, initial d, last exile, trigun, hellsing ultimate, psycho pass, steins;gate, ghost in the shell.  i think for the most part what differs between what i like and what i do not like when it comes to anime is the  iseasonal  type rotation of formulaic and silly characters, stories and  culture  in comparison to well defined and laid out series or movies that have been designed and planned with an endgame in mind.  as i said before, i like that idea of progression that is sometimes hard to find in other forms of media, even movies which sometimes become sequelitis money grabs.  but apart from that i think i find the conflicts interesting.  the conflicts that characters face themselves, or the ones between characters, seem to have a very real quality in some anime.  and sometimes you get that rare one with something like baccano ! which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.  i think if you get stuck into the seasonal rotation culture of anime and try to follow  the hotness  you will really dislike it because you just ca not see past the.  sameness of it all and the feeling it goes nowhere.  find something that interests you, whether it is a character you are willing to follow or a concept you want to see explored.  chances are there will be an anime/manga that is right for you.   #  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.   #  anime/manga are just mediums.  the variety of types are broad and deep just like any other medium like film or print.  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.  there is anime about fantastical stuff: mecha, magic, special powers, super human abilities, battles, etc.  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.  there is anime that makes you think, some that evokes emotional responses, etc.  there is some that combine multiple subgenres.  right now, i think the best someone can do in a cmv is convince you to try watching/reading some more.  i do not know what you have seen and why you liked some and not others besides a short remark about studio ghibli.  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  what i would have to say though, is that a lot of those folks can tell some pretty damn good stories.   # this can be true to an extent.  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.  a lot of shonen protagonists can be categorized as:   a little dumb generally slow on the uptake, leaves thinking to their party members, but from time to time says some really insightful stuff   good natured a  good  guy/gal.  works for their ideal good, but it is commonly easily empathetic goals.  strong willed has principles and sticks to them   is charismatic attracts other people to their cause or even converts enemies over time.  is usually very durable can take a beating and then some   has some special ability some skill they have honed, some innate understanding that makes them better at x, some special power, etc so yeah.  that is more or less the common shonen protagonist and yeah, it is kinda formulaic.  however, not all characters fit that mold.  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.  or the slice of life protagonists.  these characters are usually good at the subject matter, but often persevere through hard work and effort too.  however, i think you have to understand that a lot of manga is targeted to a young male audience it is not to say older or younger or female people cannot like/appreciate it, but it would be like judging a teen novel on more stringent criteria than what might be fair.  what i would have to say though, is that a lot of those folks can tell some pretty damn good stories.  it is kind of the nature of the genre because the vast majority of anime are derived from manga, and manga is kind of a do or die medium.  most manga is published in a magazine that has several other manga chapters alongside it.  if ratings for the manga drop, the manga as a whole is dropped.  so a lot of these successful mangas and later, often, animes are the result of beating out less engaging or less interesting works.   #  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.   #  as /u/lord geryon said, manga is generally higher quality.  they touched on one of the main ideas as to why, but is like to elaborate a bit.  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.  this introduces the competition aspect i mentioned, but there is also other effects:   the original manga artist is not drawing the anime.  so, depending on the quality of the production company, it may or may not be a good representation of the original art.  anime covers a lot more story than manga, in general, in terms of content per episode of anime vs content per chapter of manga.  this means that often times an anime will catch up to the source material this generally means that the anime will do  filler  to let the manga get ahead again.  this filler is very often terrible in contrast to the original work.  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.  for example the extremely popular and for good reason imo cowboy bebop was an independent anime that actually had manga spinned off of it.  it really depends, but in general, manga is better that is 0 not to say anime is not worth watching, just that the quality of manga is often higher.
i do not enjoy anime or the anime cosplay culture.  i prefer watching movies like french post wave, woody allen, billy wilder, blade runner, tv shows like hannibal, american horror story, avatar the last air bender, 0 rock, flight of the conchords, archer.  i also enjoy books of all sorts.  for some reason everyone thinks that studio ghibli is beginner anime but i prefer it over more hardcore anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  for context i am a 0 y/o chinese female but i grew up in australia .  i consider myself quite a banana i speak fluent mandarin and enjoy chinese customs, but i think like a white person .  several of my good friends love anime but have never managed to sway me ! i try to be an open minded and liberal person so it does hurt me a little that i cannot get into this much at all. but maybe at a certain point i should just accept that it is not for me ? it would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video.  this is not me being lazy, but rather, in a sense, asking for citations.   #  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.   #  i think you need to understand the historical context why anime became popular.   # i think you need to understand the historical context why anime became popular.  the animation of anime is such that it is low budget and every frame and character outline is re usable, with minor changes in hair color, clothing etc.  it was this which brought down the cost of making anime to lower than live action, which surged its popularity.  this, however, gave anime writes a new freedom.  the anime can now be based on a bizarre setting, that would not have been possible with live action.  therefore, story writes of anime started catering to very niche interests and genres which mainstream people would find  whacky .  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is true for most western stuff too.  i mean 0 rock alec badwin is character is the typical cliched republican businessman, but that is what makes him adorable.  same with dr cox and jd in scrubs, which is basically a  i wanna make senpai proud of me  trope, or zuko which is the cliched  bad broody boy but i can change him  trope popular in anime.  sherlock and watson is relationship is also pretty common in anime storylines.  and need i say about severus snape and  always  ? my point is that there are exactly the same cliches in anime and american/european stuff.  the only reason you do not  adore  them rather than  hate  them, is because your familiarity with western stories.  another important fact to consider is that in western societies, we have developed a social etiquette to  tone down  things and  play it cool  whereas in eastern cultures, people are more  brutally honest  which might translate to  obvious ness  of character interactions.  for example, in anime, a guy might say  you are my rival from today  which might seem cringey, but in a western setting, the audience would  know  the character was thinking it, just that he would say something more  toned down .   #  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.   #  i do not want this to turn into just recommendations for your type of anime, and i do agree with what you are saying.  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.  i love that anime runs in arcs, and i love that real character development happens in the well written ones.  stuff that i have liked includes full metal alchemist, cowboy bebop, baccano ! , hunter x hunter, initial d, last exile, trigun, hellsing ultimate, psycho pass, steins;gate, ghost in the shell.  i think for the most part what differs between what i like and what i do not like when it comes to anime is the  iseasonal  type rotation of formulaic and silly characters, stories and  culture  in comparison to well defined and laid out series or movies that have been designed and planned with an endgame in mind.  as i said before, i like that idea of progression that is sometimes hard to find in other forms of media, even movies which sometimes become sequelitis money grabs.  but apart from that i think i find the conflicts interesting.  the conflicts that characters face themselves, or the ones between characters, seem to have a very real quality in some anime.  and sometimes you get that rare one with something like baccano ! which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.  i think if you get stuck into the seasonal rotation culture of anime and try to follow  the hotness  you will really dislike it because you just ca not see past the.  sameness of it all and the feeling it goes nowhere.  find something that interests you, whether it is a character you are willing to follow or a concept you want to see explored.  chances are there will be an anime/manga that is right for you.   #  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  anime/manga are just mediums.  the variety of types are broad and deep just like any other medium like film or print.  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.  there is anime about fantastical stuff: mecha, magic, special powers, super human abilities, battles, etc.  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.  there is anime that makes you think, some that evokes emotional responses, etc.  there is some that combine multiple subgenres.  right now, i think the best someone can do in a cmv is convince you to try watching/reading some more.  i do not know what you have seen and why you liked some and not others besides a short remark about studio ghibli.  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  strong willed has principles and sticks to them   is charismatic attracts other people to their cause or even converts enemies over time.   # this can be true to an extent.  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.  a lot of shonen protagonists can be categorized as:   a little dumb generally slow on the uptake, leaves thinking to their party members, but from time to time says some really insightful stuff   good natured a  good  guy/gal.  works for their ideal good, but it is commonly easily empathetic goals.  strong willed has principles and sticks to them   is charismatic attracts other people to their cause or even converts enemies over time.  is usually very durable can take a beating and then some   has some special ability some skill they have honed, some innate understanding that makes them better at x, some special power, etc so yeah.  that is more or less the common shonen protagonist and yeah, it is kinda formulaic.  however, not all characters fit that mold.  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.  or the slice of life protagonists.  these characters are usually good at the subject matter, but often persevere through hard work and effort too.  however, i think you have to understand that a lot of manga is targeted to a young male audience it is not to say older or younger or female people cannot like/appreciate it, but it would be like judging a teen novel on more stringent criteria than what might be fair.  what i would have to say though, is that a lot of those folks can tell some pretty damn good stories.  it is kind of the nature of the genre because the vast majority of anime are derived from manga, and manga is kind of a do or die medium.  most manga is published in a magazine that has several other manga chapters alongside it.  if ratings for the manga drop, the manga as a whole is dropped.  so a lot of these successful mangas and later, often, animes are the result of beating out less engaging or less interesting works.   #  they touched on one of the main ideas as to why, but is like to elaborate a bit.   #  as /u/lord geryon said, manga is generally higher quality.  they touched on one of the main ideas as to why, but is like to elaborate a bit.  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.  this introduces the competition aspect i mentioned, but there is also other effects:   the original manga artist is not drawing the anime.  so, depending on the quality of the production company, it may or may not be a good representation of the original art.  anime covers a lot more story than manga, in general, in terms of content per episode of anime vs content per chapter of manga.  this means that often times an anime will catch up to the source material this generally means that the anime will do  filler  to let the manga get ahead again.  this filler is very often terrible in contrast to the original work.  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.  for example the extremely popular and for good reason imo cowboy bebop was an independent anime that actually had manga spinned off of it.  it really depends, but in general, manga is better that is 0 not to say anime is not worth watching, just that the quality of manga is often higher.
i do not enjoy anime or the anime cosplay culture.  i prefer watching movies like french post wave, woody allen, billy wilder, blade runner, tv shows like hannibal, american horror story, avatar the last air bender, 0 rock, flight of the conchords, archer.  i also enjoy books of all sorts.  for some reason everyone thinks that studio ghibli is beginner anime but i prefer it over more hardcore anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  for context i am a 0 y/o chinese female but i grew up in australia .  i consider myself quite a banana i speak fluent mandarin and enjoy chinese customs, but i think like a white person .  several of my good friends love anime but have never managed to sway me ! i try to be an open minded and liberal person so it does hurt me a little that i cannot get into this much at all. but maybe at a certain point i should just accept that it is not for me ? it would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video.  this is not me being lazy, but rather, in a sense, asking for citations.   #  i ca not stand most of the characters.   #  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.   # i think you need to understand the historical context why anime became popular.  the animation of anime is such that it is low budget and every frame and character outline is re usable, with minor changes in hair color, clothing etc.  it was this which brought down the cost of making anime to lower than live action, which surged its popularity.  this, however, gave anime writes a new freedom.  the anime can now be based on a bizarre setting, that would not have been possible with live action.  therefore, story writes of anime started catering to very niche interests and genres which mainstream people would find  whacky .  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is true for most western stuff too.  i mean 0 rock alec badwin is character is the typical cliched republican businessman, but that is what makes him adorable.  same with dr cox and jd in scrubs, which is basically a  i wanna make senpai proud of me  trope, or zuko which is the cliched  bad broody boy but i can change him  trope popular in anime.  sherlock and watson is relationship is also pretty common in anime storylines.  and need i say about severus snape and  always  ? my point is that there are exactly the same cliches in anime and american/european stuff.  the only reason you do not  adore  them rather than  hate  them, is because your familiarity with western stories.  another important fact to consider is that in western societies, we have developed a social etiquette to  tone down  things and  play it cool  whereas in eastern cultures, people are more  brutally honest  which might translate to  obvious ness  of character interactions.  for example, in anime, a guy might say  you are my rival from today  which might seem cringey, but in a western setting, the audience would  know  the character was thinking it, just that he would say something more  toned down .   #  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.   #  i do not want this to turn into just recommendations for your type of anime, and i do agree with what you are saying.  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.  i love that anime runs in arcs, and i love that real character development happens in the well written ones.  stuff that i have liked includes full metal alchemist, cowboy bebop, baccano ! , hunter x hunter, initial d, last exile, trigun, hellsing ultimate, psycho pass, steins;gate, ghost in the shell.  i think for the most part what differs between what i like and what i do not like when it comes to anime is the  iseasonal  type rotation of formulaic and silly characters, stories and  culture  in comparison to well defined and laid out series or movies that have been designed and planned with an endgame in mind.  as i said before, i like that idea of progression that is sometimes hard to find in other forms of media, even movies which sometimes become sequelitis money grabs.  but apart from that i think i find the conflicts interesting.  the conflicts that characters face themselves, or the ones between characters, seem to have a very real quality in some anime.  and sometimes you get that rare one with something like baccano ! which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.  i think if you get stuck into the seasonal rotation culture of anime and try to follow  the hotness  you will really dislike it because you just ca not see past the.  sameness of it all and the feeling it goes nowhere.  find something that interests you, whether it is a character you are willing to follow or a concept you want to see explored.  chances are there will be an anime/manga that is right for you.   #  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.   #  anime/manga are just mediums.  the variety of types are broad and deep just like any other medium like film or print.  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.  there is anime about fantastical stuff: mecha, magic, special powers, super human abilities, battles, etc.  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.  there is anime that makes you think, some that evokes emotional responses, etc.  there is some that combine multiple subgenres.  right now, i think the best someone can do in a cmv is convince you to try watching/reading some more.  i do not know what you have seen and why you liked some and not others besides a short remark about studio ghibli.  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  so a lot of these successful mangas and later, often, animes are the result of beating out less engaging or less interesting works.   # this can be true to an extent.  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.  a lot of shonen protagonists can be categorized as:   a little dumb generally slow on the uptake, leaves thinking to their party members, but from time to time says some really insightful stuff   good natured a  good  guy/gal.  works for their ideal good, but it is commonly easily empathetic goals.  strong willed has principles and sticks to them   is charismatic attracts other people to their cause or even converts enemies over time.  is usually very durable can take a beating and then some   has some special ability some skill they have honed, some innate understanding that makes them better at x, some special power, etc so yeah.  that is more or less the common shonen protagonist and yeah, it is kinda formulaic.  however, not all characters fit that mold.  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.  or the slice of life protagonists.  these characters are usually good at the subject matter, but often persevere through hard work and effort too.  however, i think you have to understand that a lot of manga is targeted to a young male audience it is not to say older or younger or female people cannot like/appreciate it, but it would be like judging a teen novel on more stringent criteria than what might be fair.  what i would have to say though, is that a lot of those folks can tell some pretty damn good stories.  it is kind of the nature of the genre because the vast majority of anime are derived from manga, and manga is kind of a do or die medium.  most manga is published in a magazine that has several other manga chapters alongside it.  if ratings for the manga drop, the manga as a whole is dropped.  so a lot of these successful mangas and later, often, animes are the result of beating out less engaging or less interesting works.   #  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.   #  as /u/lord geryon said, manga is generally higher quality.  they touched on one of the main ideas as to why, but is like to elaborate a bit.  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.  this introduces the competition aspect i mentioned, but there is also other effects:   the original manga artist is not drawing the anime.  so, depending on the quality of the production company, it may or may not be a good representation of the original art.  anime covers a lot more story than manga, in general, in terms of content per episode of anime vs content per chapter of manga.  this means that often times an anime will catch up to the source material this generally means that the anime will do  filler  to let the manga get ahead again.  this filler is very often terrible in contrast to the original work.  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.  for example the extremely popular and for good reason imo cowboy bebop was an independent anime that actually had manga spinned off of it.  it really depends, but in general, manga is better that is 0 not to say anime is not worth watching, just that the quality of manga is often higher.
i do not enjoy anime or the anime cosplay culture.  i prefer watching movies like french post wave, woody allen, billy wilder, blade runner, tv shows like hannibal, american horror story, avatar the last air bender, 0 rock, flight of the conchords, archer.  i also enjoy books of all sorts.  for some reason everyone thinks that studio ghibli is beginner anime but i prefer it over more hardcore anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  for context i am a 0 y/o chinese female but i grew up in australia .  i consider myself quite a banana i speak fluent mandarin and enjoy chinese customs, but i think like a white person .  several of my good friends love anime but have never managed to sway me ! i try to be an open minded and liberal person so it does hurt me a little that i cannot get into this much at all. but maybe at a certain point i should just accept that it is not for me ? it would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video.  this is not me being lazy, but rather, in a sense, asking for citations.   #  for some reason everyone thinks that studio ghibli is beginner anime but i prefer it over more hardcore anime.   #  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.   #  let me preface saying that i am a 0 year old american who has lived in japan 0  years and speaks fluent in japanese.  that said until recently i also could not appreciate anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  ghibili films are not looked down upon in japan, they really are an example of excellent work.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  i used to think this, and then my japanese exboyfriend who i lived with watched anime every day for hours on his days off work.  i tried to watch some things with him to have a bit more in common because of the fact that he did not speak a word of english so it did not really work with him joining me for english things.  i watched a lot of different anime with him and there were some i could not stand but there were some i started to love and kept watching when he gave up on them.  there are a lot of different types out there if you look.  also if you just watched a bit of some on youtube i do not think you are getting a fair go of what they are about because anime are made to be long running and the character development takes place over huge arcs through the series.  this is like someone picking up the fifth book of the harry potter series and wondering what the heck is going on because they have not read the first few.  sure, you can understand the short story lines that are going on but you do not get the long arcs which are typically the ones that in anime i find to be the most interesting and rewarding to watch.  for example, when i watched the first two episodes of  ao no exorcist  i thought  this is quite possibly the stupidest thing i have ever seen in my life  but after a few episodes i was totally hooked.  i feel the same way about fairy tail.  although i must say i never could get into attack on titan.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  i think this is a cultural thing.  there is a lot of this cultural divide here about what kind of women people are unfortunately.  it depends on the source material as most anime come from manga but i really like the character nana in nana for someone that is still feminine but can be kick ass.  that said, it is a very  reality  based program and the other main character hachi is totally whiney and stero typically girly and drives me nuts.  i do like the character development in nana, but it is one of the only anime geared towards girls that i can stand, the rest seem to be based at men that i like.   #  which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.   #  i do not want this to turn into just recommendations for your type of anime, and i do agree with what you are saying.  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.  i love that anime runs in arcs, and i love that real character development happens in the well written ones.  stuff that i have liked includes full metal alchemist, cowboy bebop, baccano ! , hunter x hunter, initial d, last exile, trigun, hellsing ultimate, psycho pass, steins;gate, ghost in the shell.  i think for the most part what differs between what i like and what i do not like when it comes to anime is the  iseasonal  type rotation of formulaic and silly characters, stories and  culture  in comparison to well defined and laid out series or movies that have been designed and planned with an endgame in mind.  as i said before, i like that idea of progression that is sometimes hard to find in other forms of media, even movies which sometimes become sequelitis money grabs.  but apart from that i think i find the conflicts interesting.  the conflicts that characters face themselves, or the ones between characters, seem to have a very real quality in some anime.  and sometimes you get that rare one with something like baccano ! which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.  i think if you get stuck into the seasonal rotation culture of anime and try to follow  the hotness  you will really dislike it because you just ca not see past the.  sameness of it all and the feeling it goes nowhere.  find something that interests you, whether it is a character you are willing to follow or a concept you want to see explored.  chances are there will be an anime/manga that is right for you.   #  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  anime/manga are just mediums.  the variety of types are broad and deep just like any other medium like film or print.  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.  there is anime about fantastical stuff: mecha, magic, special powers, super human abilities, battles, etc.  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.  there is anime that makes you think, some that evokes emotional responses, etc.  there is some that combine multiple subgenres.  right now, i think the best someone can do in a cmv is convince you to try watching/reading some more.  i do not know what you have seen and why you liked some and not others besides a short remark about studio ghibli.  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  most manga is published in a magazine that has several other manga chapters alongside it.   # this can be true to an extent.  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.  a lot of shonen protagonists can be categorized as:   a little dumb generally slow on the uptake, leaves thinking to their party members, but from time to time says some really insightful stuff   good natured a  good  guy/gal.  works for their ideal good, but it is commonly easily empathetic goals.  strong willed has principles and sticks to them   is charismatic attracts other people to their cause or even converts enemies over time.  is usually very durable can take a beating and then some   has some special ability some skill they have honed, some innate understanding that makes them better at x, some special power, etc so yeah.  that is more or less the common shonen protagonist and yeah, it is kinda formulaic.  however, not all characters fit that mold.  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.  or the slice of life protagonists.  these characters are usually good at the subject matter, but often persevere through hard work and effort too.  however, i think you have to understand that a lot of manga is targeted to a young male audience it is not to say older or younger or female people cannot like/appreciate it, but it would be like judging a teen novel on more stringent criteria than what might be fair.  what i would have to say though, is that a lot of those folks can tell some pretty damn good stories.  it is kind of the nature of the genre because the vast majority of anime are derived from manga, and manga is kind of a do or die medium.  most manga is published in a magazine that has several other manga chapters alongside it.  if ratings for the manga drop, the manga as a whole is dropped.  so a lot of these successful mangas and later, often, animes are the result of beating out less engaging or less interesting works.   #  anime covers a lot more story than manga, in general, in terms of content per episode of anime vs content per chapter of manga.   #  as /u/lord geryon said, manga is generally higher quality.  they touched on one of the main ideas as to why, but is like to elaborate a bit.  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.  this introduces the competition aspect i mentioned, but there is also other effects:   the original manga artist is not drawing the anime.  so, depending on the quality of the production company, it may or may not be a good representation of the original art.  anime covers a lot more story than manga, in general, in terms of content per episode of anime vs content per chapter of manga.  this means that often times an anime will catch up to the source material this generally means that the anime will do  filler  to let the manga get ahead again.  this filler is very often terrible in contrast to the original work.  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.  for example the extremely popular and for good reason imo cowboy bebop was an independent anime that actually had manga spinned off of it.  it really depends, but in general, manga is better that is 0 not to say anime is not worth watching, just that the quality of manga is often higher.
i do not enjoy anime or the anime cosplay culture.  i prefer watching movies like french post wave, woody allen, billy wilder, blade runner, tv shows like hannibal, american horror story, avatar the last air bender, 0 rock, flight of the conchords, archer.  i also enjoy books of all sorts.  for some reason everyone thinks that studio ghibli is beginner anime but i prefer it over more hardcore anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  for context i am a 0 y/o chinese female but i grew up in australia .  i consider myself quite a banana i speak fluent mandarin and enjoy chinese customs, but i think like a white person .  several of my good friends love anime but have never managed to sway me ! i try to be an open minded and liberal person so it does hurt me a little that i cannot get into this much at all. but maybe at a certain point i should just accept that it is not for me ? it would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video.  this is not me being lazy, but rather, in a sense, asking for citations.   #  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.   #  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.   #  let me preface saying that i am a 0 year old american who has lived in japan 0  years and speaks fluent in japanese.  that said until recently i also could not appreciate anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  ghibili films are not looked down upon in japan, they really are an example of excellent work.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  i used to think this, and then my japanese exboyfriend who i lived with watched anime every day for hours on his days off work.  i tried to watch some things with him to have a bit more in common because of the fact that he did not speak a word of english so it did not really work with him joining me for english things.  i watched a lot of different anime with him and there were some i could not stand but there were some i started to love and kept watching when he gave up on them.  there are a lot of different types out there if you look.  also if you just watched a bit of some on youtube i do not think you are getting a fair go of what they are about because anime are made to be long running and the character development takes place over huge arcs through the series.  this is like someone picking up the fifth book of the harry potter series and wondering what the heck is going on because they have not read the first few.  sure, you can understand the short story lines that are going on but you do not get the long arcs which are typically the ones that in anime i find to be the most interesting and rewarding to watch.  for example, when i watched the first two episodes of  ao no exorcist  i thought  this is quite possibly the stupidest thing i have ever seen in my life  but after a few episodes i was totally hooked.  i feel the same way about fairy tail.  although i must say i never could get into attack on titan.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  i think this is a cultural thing.  there is a lot of this cultural divide here about what kind of women people are unfortunately.  it depends on the source material as most anime come from manga but i really like the character nana in nana for someone that is still feminine but can be kick ass.  that said, it is a very  reality  based program and the other main character hachi is totally whiney and stero typically girly and drives me nuts.  i do like the character development in nana, but it is one of the only anime geared towards girls that i can stand, the rest seem to be based at men that i like.   #  as i said before, i like that idea of progression that is sometimes hard to find in other forms of media, even movies which sometimes become sequelitis money grabs.   #  i do not want this to turn into just recommendations for your type of anime, and i do agree with what you are saying.  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.  i love that anime runs in arcs, and i love that real character development happens in the well written ones.  stuff that i have liked includes full metal alchemist, cowboy bebop, baccano ! , hunter x hunter, initial d, last exile, trigun, hellsing ultimate, psycho pass, steins;gate, ghost in the shell.  i think for the most part what differs between what i like and what i do not like when it comes to anime is the  iseasonal  type rotation of formulaic and silly characters, stories and  culture  in comparison to well defined and laid out series or movies that have been designed and planned with an endgame in mind.  as i said before, i like that idea of progression that is sometimes hard to find in other forms of media, even movies which sometimes become sequelitis money grabs.  but apart from that i think i find the conflicts interesting.  the conflicts that characters face themselves, or the ones between characters, seem to have a very real quality in some anime.  and sometimes you get that rare one with something like baccano ! which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.  i think if you get stuck into the seasonal rotation culture of anime and try to follow  the hotness  you will really dislike it because you just ca not see past the.  sameness of it all and the feeling it goes nowhere.  find something that interests you, whether it is a character you are willing to follow or a concept you want to see explored.  chances are there will be an anime/manga that is right for you.   #  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.   #  anime/manga are just mediums.  the variety of types are broad and deep just like any other medium like film or print.  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.  there is anime about fantastical stuff: mecha, magic, special powers, super human abilities, battles, etc.  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.  there is anime that makes you think, some that evokes emotional responses, etc.  there is some that combine multiple subgenres.  right now, i think the best someone can do in a cmv is convince you to try watching/reading some more.  i do not know what you have seen and why you liked some and not others besides a short remark about studio ghibli.  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.   # this can be true to an extent.  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.  a lot of shonen protagonists can be categorized as:   a little dumb generally slow on the uptake, leaves thinking to their party members, but from time to time says some really insightful stuff   good natured a  good  guy/gal.  works for their ideal good, but it is commonly easily empathetic goals.  strong willed has principles and sticks to them   is charismatic attracts other people to their cause or even converts enemies over time.  is usually very durable can take a beating and then some   has some special ability some skill they have honed, some innate understanding that makes them better at x, some special power, etc so yeah.  that is more or less the common shonen protagonist and yeah, it is kinda formulaic.  however, not all characters fit that mold.  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.  or the slice of life protagonists.  these characters are usually good at the subject matter, but often persevere through hard work and effort too.  however, i think you have to understand that a lot of manga is targeted to a young male audience it is not to say older or younger or female people cannot like/appreciate it, but it would be like judging a teen novel on more stringent criteria than what might be fair.  what i would have to say though, is that a lot of those folks can tell some pretty damn good stories.  it is kind of the nature of the genre because the vast majority of anime are derived from manga, and manga is kind of a do or die medium.  most manga is published in a magazine that has several other manga chapters alongside it.  if ratings for the manga drop, the manga as a whole is dropped.  so a lot of these successful mangas and later, often, animes are the result of beating out less engaging or less interesting works.   #  this means that often times an anime will catch up to the source material this generally means that the anime will do  filler  to let the manga get ahead again.   #  as /u/lord geryon said, manga is generally higher quality.  they touched on one of the main ideas as to why, but is like to elaborate a bit.  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.  this introduces the competition aspect i mentioned, but there is also other effects:   the original manga artist is not drawing the anime.  so, depending on the quality of the production company, it may or may not be a good representation of the original art.  anime covers a lot more story than manga, in general, in terms of content per episode of anime vs content per chapter of manga.  this means that often times an anime will catch up to the source material this generally means that the anime will do  filler  to let the manga get ahead again.  this filler is very often terrible in contrast to the original work.  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.  for example the extremely popular and for good reason imo cowboy bebop was an independent anime that actually had manga spinned off of it.  it really depends, but in general, manga is better that is 0 not to say anime is not worth watching, just that the quality of manga is often higher.
i do not enjoy anime or the anime cosplay culture.  i prefer watching movies like french post wave, woody allen, billy wilder, blade runner, tv shows like hannibal, american horror story, avatar the last air bender, 0 rock, flight of the conchords, archer.  i also enjoy books of all sorts.  for some reason everyone thinks that studio ghibli is beginner anime but i prefer it over more hardcore anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  i have seen videos on youtube of fullmetal alchemist, attack on titan, death note.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  for context i am a 0 y/o chinese female but i grew up in australia .  i consider myself quite a banana i speak fluent mandarin and enjoy chinese customs, but i think like a white person .  several of my good friends love anime but have never managed to sway me ! i try to be an open minded and liberal person so it does hurt me a little that i cannot get into this much at all. but maybe at a certain point i should just accept that it is not for me ? it would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video.  this is not me being lazy, but rather, in a sense, asking for citations.   #  either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche.   #  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.   #  let me preface saying that i am a 0 year old american who has lived in japan 0  years and speaks fluent in japanese.  that said until recently i also could not appreciate anime.  i have seen almost all of studio ghibhi movies.  ghibili films are not looked down upon in japan, they really are an example of excellent work.  i find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky same expressions , the subject matter is very bizarre and i ca not stand most of the characters.  i used to think this, and then my japanese exboyfriend who i lived with watched anime every day for hours on his days off work.  i tried to watch some things with him to have a bit more in common because of the fact that he did not speak a word of english so it did not really work with him joining me for english things.  i watched a lot of different anime with him and there were some i could not stand but there were some i started to love and kept watching when he gave up on them.  there are a lot of different types out there if you look.  also if you just watched a bit of some on youtube i do not think you are getting a fair go of what they are about because anime are made to be long running and the character development takes place over huge arcs through the series.  this is like someone picking up the fifth book of the harry potter series and wondering what the heck is going on because they have not read the first few.  sure, you can understand the short story lines that are going on but you do not get the long arcs which are typically the ones that in anime i find to be the most interesting and rewarding to watch.  for example, when i watched the first two episodes of  ao no exorcist  i thought  this is quite possibly the stupidest thing i have ever seen in my life  but after a few episodes i was totally hooked.  i feel the same way about fairy tail.  although i must say i never could get into attack on titan.  this is also why i ca not stand korean drama.  i think this is a cultural thing.  there is a lot of this cultural divide here about what kind of women people are unfortunately.  it depends on the source material as most anime come from manga but i really like the character nana in nana for someone that is still feminine but can be kick ass.  that said, it is a very  reality  based program and the other main character hachi is totally whiney and stero typically girly and drives me nuts.  i do like the character development in nana, but it is one of the only anime geared towards girls that i can stand, the rest seem to be based at men that i like.   #  which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.   #  i do not want this to turn into just recommendations for your type of anime, and i do agree with what you are saying.  i think the reason i gravitate to anime is that up until recently it is been very hard to find good television series that are not completely episodic.  i love that anime runs in arcs, and i love that real character development happens in the well written ones.  stuff that i have liked includes full metal alchemist, cowboy bebop, baccano ! , hunter x hunter, initial d, last exile, trigun, hellsing ultimate, psycho pass, steins;gate, ghost in the shell.  i think for the most part what differs between what i like and what i do not like when it comes to anime is the  iseasonal  type rotation of formulaic and silly characters, stories and  culture  in comparison to well defined and laid out series or movies that have been designed and planned with an endgame in mind.  as i said before, i like that idea of progression that is sometimes hard to find in other forms of media, even movies which sometimes become sequelitis money grabs.  but apart from that i think i find the conflicts interesting.  the conflicts that characters face themselves, or the ones between characters, seem to have a very real quality in some anime.  and sometimes you get that rare one with something like baccano ! which manages to assemble many different types of interesting and cool characters and just put them in the same place and see what happens.  i think if you get stuck into the seasonal rotation culture of anime and try to follow  the hotness  you will really dislike it because you just ca not see past the.  sameness of it all and the feeling it goes nowhere.  find something that interests you, whether it is a character you are willing to follow or a concept you want to see explored.  chances are there will be an anime/manga that is right for you.   #  the variety of types are broad and deep just like any other medium like film or print.   #  anime/manga are just mediums.  the variety of types are broad and deep just like any other medium like film or print.  in the same way a page can hold a part of a children is story, so too can it hold part of an epic of old, or part of the latest best seller.  there is anime about fantastical stuff: mecha, magic, special powers, super human abilities, battles, etc.  there is anime about slices of life: regular school drama, tennis, car racing, football, basketball, etc.  there is anime that makes you think, some that evokes emotional responses, etc.  there is some that combine multiple subgenres.  right now, i think the best someone can do in a cmv is convince you to try watching/reading some more.  i do not know what you have seen and why you liked some and not others besides a short remark about studio ghibli.  how can people recommend anything if you do not give some more details ?  #  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.   # this can be true to an extent.  this is most notably present with the common shonen young male protagonist.  a lot of shonen protagonists can be categorized as:   a little dumb generally slow on the uptake, leaves thinking to their party members, but from time to time says some really insightful stuff   good natured a  good  guy/gal.  works for their ideal good, but it is commonly easily empathetic goals.  strong willed has principles and sticks to them   is charismatic attracts other people to their cause or even converts enemies over time.  is usually very durable can take a beating and then some   has some special ability some skill they have honed, some innate understanding that makes them better at x, some special power, etc so yeah.  that is more or less the common shonen protagonist and yeah, it is kinda formulaic.  however, not all characters fit that mold.  for example, the protagonist of deathnote is an anti hero/anti villain with the power to kill at will, he works to create his own utopia free of major crime.  or the slice of life protagonists.  these characters are usually good at the subject matter, but often persevere through hard work and effort too.  however, i think you have to understand that a lot of manga is targeted to a young male audience it is not to say older or younger or female people cannot like/appreciate it, but it would be like judging a teen novel on more stringent criteria than what might be fair.  what i would have to say though, is that a lot of those folks can tell some pretty damn good stories.  it is kind of the nature of the genre because the vast majority of anime are derived from manga, and manga is kind of a do or die medium.  most manga is published in a magazine that has several other manga chapters alongside it.  if ratings for the manga drop, the manga as a whole is dropped.  so a lot of these successful mangas and later, often, animes are the result of beating out less engaging or less interesting works.   #  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.   #  as /u/lord geryon said, manga is generally higher quality.  they touched on one of the main ideas as to why, but is like to elaborate a bit.  as i mentioned in my last post, most manga is published in a magazine alongside other works.  this introduces the competition aspect i mentioned, but there is also other effects:   the original manga artist is not drawing the anime.  so, depending on the quality of the production company, it may or may not be a good representation of the original art.  anime covers a lot more story than manga, in general, in terms of content per episode of anime vs content per chapter of manga.  this means that often times an anime will catch up to the source material this generally means that the anime will do  filler  to let the manga get ahead again.  this filler is very often terrible in contrast to the original work.  however, some anime is not based on a manga at all.  for example the extremely popular and for good reason imo cowboy bebop was an independent anime that actually had manga spinned off of it.  it really depends, but in general, manga is better that is 0 not to say anime is not worth watching, just that the quality of manga is often higher.
as the title suggests, i believe that there is nothing wrong with being a hypocrite.  let is first look a couple examples:   say for example, that you a thief, but you are always telling your kids that stealing is bad.  typical example of a hypocrite, but although you are being a hypocrite, the idea that you are trying to convey is not a bad one, which brings me to another point:  what you do or say should not be judged based on who you are.     gandhi was always represented as the epitome of morality, especially when talking about civil rights movements.  however, there are many accounts of gandhi being racist among many other things that would definitely change how most people view gandhi.  you can read more about this here URL does that mean there is no value for what gandhi did for the world ? he was the role model of many influential people mlk .  if he was such a positive influence on our society, does it really matter what kind of person he was ? one argument against this i can see is: how do you expect someone else to follow what you preach, if you ca not/wo not follow it ? i think that this is the source of the problem: you think that everyone else are just characters, ie, they are not unique and complex human beings like you are.  when you make a mistake, it is not because you want to, but when others make mistakes, it is their intention to.  there is a term in psychology for this but i forgot what it is called.  anyways, the point is that, you see others as hypocrites because they are either good or bad, while when you make a mistake that goes against what you preach to others, it was not your fault.  nobody can be perfect all the time.  even if they have an idea in their head of what a perfect person might be, they ca not stick to that all the time.  the point is that, we should not try to see hypocrites as bad people, because no one is just that; there are good and bad in everyone.  if the idea they convey is good, then we have no reason to criticize what they do.   #  anyways, the point is that, you see others as hypocrites because they are either good or bad, while when you make a mistake that goes against what you preach to others, it was not your fault.   #  both of these instances are more or less hypocrisy to some extent.   #  these post are always funny, because the position is voiced so provocatively, even if it always end up quite tame.  while i agree with what you said in principle, i would not say there is  nothing wrong  with being an hypocrite.  sure, gandhi did some great things.  the fact he was racist and that racism is wrong does not detract from that fact.  however , it does not make racism any less wrong either.  it also was not a mistake, it was is ideology.  both of these instances are more or less hypocrisy to some extent.  if you are preaching x, or preaching you are doing x and that most people should too, and are still doing y, it is dishonest of you.  being dishonest is bad.  it makes you a worst person.  does your dishonesty enables you to save a nation ? fine, people might cut you some slack.  it remains dishonest, however.   #  the smoker may be a hypocrite, but only if s/he makes no effort to stop smoking.   #  smoking would be another great example of this.   do not ever smoke, kids,  they say as they puff away on their cigarettes.  but i think the  unwilling to change  part is still important.  i would not call that  racist  a hypocrite if they do generally regret their racist thoughts/speech.  the smoker may be a hypocrite, but only if s/he makes no effort to stop smoking.  a smoker who is trying to quit is not a hypocrite.  their efforts to stop show that their behavior is in line with their beliefs, just that they probably started the habit before they disagreed with it and now they are stuck trying to break it.  but a smoker who talks about how shitty it is to smoke and continues smoking without any attempt to give it up would be a hypocrite.  whether there is actually anything wrong with that is still up for debate, though, as far as i am concerned.   #  so essentially i lied to you to deceive you so i could get money.   #  i agree with most of what you said, but i do not think that there is  nothing  wrong with being a hypocrite.  there is just nothing necessarily wrong with a hypocrite is message by virtue vice ? of being a hypocrite.  young children imitate what they see, for no rational reason.  this is the reason why we censor things like sex and violence from them, because it is an evolutionary behavior for young children to mimic what they see.  so you could tell a child not to do something, and if they see you doing it, it wo not matter, they will try to learn how to do it themselves.  that is bad parenting, and it is certainly something wrong.  hypocrisy could suggest deception.  say i get on a television commercial and make a testimonial saying i drink brand x every day, and make a whole list of how good and awesome it is, and i tell you to be like me and drink it too.  then it is later discovered by the tabloids that it was a complete lie, and i actually prefer brand y.  what does that tell you about brand x ? if i made a bunch of glittering generalities during my testimonial, there is now a very real possibility that i lied about all those good things, probably because i was handed a script to read, and i meant none of them.  so essentially i lied to you to deceive you so i could get money.  that is certainly something wrong, and now my reputation is probably tarnished, as you are less likely to take me seriously if i sign on for another commercial.  you are right that there is nothing necessarily wrong with being a hypocrite, but it can, and often does, raise red flags, and those red flags are things to consider.   #  hypocrisy is  do as i say, not as i do .   #  hypocrisy is  do as i say, not as i do .  in this case,  do as i say i am telling you to drink brand x not as i do i drink brand y instead   which is an indication i deceived you for my own ends.  maybe a better example is if i am a rich person, and i tell all the poor people to donate to the poor, but i do not do it myself.  it makes me sound nice while keeping me rich.  you can probably see what is wrong with that.   #  in the drink example, having a favorite drink does not mean only drinking that drink.   #  in the drink example, having a favorite drink does not mean only drinking that drink.  many people prefer coke over pepsi but still might crave pepsi on occasion.  it is not hypocrisy or even deception to say in that case,  drink pepsi.  it is awesome,  when you generally prefer coke.  it might have been hypocrisy if they said,  pepsi is the only soda worth drinking,  while they tend to prefer coke, but in any case, advertisements strike me more as acting than as a representation of their true beliefs/behaviors.  even if they are playing the role of themselves as famous people have done so many times on tv , it is really a fictional version of themselves, and we generally understand that from the context.  we know they are paid to advertise so we do not really take it seriously.  it seems to me that is similar to saying neil patrick harris is a hypocrite because he accepted payment to behave as a straight man on how i met your mother when his true feelings are those of a gay man.  which i think would be incorrect to say.  the rich guy example is definitely a better one.  i agree that is  probably  hypocritical but i do not agree that that is a bad thing.  if this guy actually has influence over others then his statement may have resulted in real donations to poor people, which i think you would agree is a good thing and which would have been because of him.  perhaps this rich guy understood people would listen to him and that just making that statement would benefit poor people, whether or not he himself decided to donate as well.  at worst, no one donates and no one is any worse off because of his statement.
ok so i just want to start off saying that i do not consider myself sexist in any way.  so my reason for thinking this is that in my opinion it is unfair to the men that also have to compete at a higher level of intensity.  in some training aspect they have already lowered the pt physical training requirements for women already making it unfair.  i think that if you are going to make it open to women you should make it the same for everyone.  sorry i am kind of drunk but i hope that makes sense, anyways change my view !  #  so my reason for thinking this is that in my opinion it is unfair to the men that also have to compete at a higher level of intensity.   #  in some training aspect they have already lowered the pt physical training requirements for women already making it unfair.   # in some training aspect they have already lowered the pt physical training requirements for women already making it unfair.  i think that if you are going to make it open to women you should make it the same for everyone.  sorry i am kind of drunk but i hope that makes sense, anyways change my view ! i agree that pt standards should not be lowered just for women but the way it works right now is that pt scores for women are lower for your annual minimum requirements the actual pt minimums involved for combat related roles are much higher and are just  minimums  to even be considered.  also, it is hard to say how much pt scores matter for certain roles now that combat roles get blurred.  women have been able to serve as pilots in combat aircraft for 0 something years now they are very much launching weapons and dropping bombs, and lower pt standards do not make someone necessarily worse of a pilot.  furthermore, in the us military, you can sign an enlistment or even be commissioned for a certain mos/designator but you wo not get it until you pass the training.  where this comes into play with women is that women are now open to trying out for those roles previously they were barred simply on the grounds of gender.  now, they can compete and if they fail to keep up with the men, they theoretically, at least should wash out/fail out.  in other words, equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome.   #  occupation specific training and physical requirements are usually outside the scope of basic pt.   #  this thread has come up several times already.  here is the jist of it: pt requirements are a basic gauge of physical health and well being.  they also have different requirements across ages.  that is because a healthy, able bodied 0 year old will run a mile in a time that is different from a healthy, able bodied 0 year old.  a healthy woman will run a mile at a different time than a similarly situated male.  occupation specific training and physical requirements are usually outside the scope of basic pt.  with respect to combat positions, that i know of, none of the requirements for those particular occupations have changed between genders.   #  if they were men, they would be fully qualified to ship out to an infantry unit.   #  actually, it is just the opposite.  the marine corps has decided to require women who pass the infantry training battalion to pass all standards as currently written.  this includes the three pull up minimum that 0 of currently serving women marines cannot pass.  in the first class of female trainees who attended itb, out of 0 who met the basic criteria and were offered the opportunity to attend, only 0 began the course.  out of those 0, 0 passed with their class, while a 0th passed a month later after recovering from a stress fracture.  that is a 0 failure rate, while the male attrition rate is 0 0.  meanwhile, the female lieutenants who have been attending the infantry officer course have gone 0 for 0.  none have made it past the first week, and the vast majority were gone on the first day.  male attrition rates are about 0.  those handful of women who passed the enlisted infantry standards met all minimum requirements for an infantry marine.  if they were men, they would be fully qualified to ship out to an infantry unit.   #  now, they can compete and if they fail to keep up with the men, they theoretically, at least should wash out/fail out.   # where this comes into play with women is that women are now open to trying out for those roles previously they were barred simply on the grounds of gender.  now, they can compete and if they fail to keep up with the men, they theoretically, at least should wash out/fail out.  in other words, equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome.  there is still a possible problem with this.  in late 0, the marine corps let groups of females attempt the school of infantry course that certifies infantrymen.  in the first run, 0 attempted and 0 graduated reportedly by the skin of their teeth .  that is a  terrible  failure rate.  as much political hay as was made about the historic achievement of those three, that test indicates that women should not be allowed at all.  the cost of training women is entirely too high; for every woman i train, there is only a 0 chance she will complete the course and fill the post.  soon after that, 0 more made the attempt.  0 dropped, 0 failure was added from the previous class.  ten graduated; 0 of them original.  still an unacceptable failure rate, as well as a questionably rapid improvement.  still looking at a 0/0 success rate; every female i train is still  most likely  going to fail.  there were supposedly two more training companies with female volunteers about which nothing is said.  considering the pr general amos was trying to drum up through that program and how bright its spotlight was, i am inclined to believe that not a one of them graduated.  call that being cynical, but the marine corps was getting positive press, then said nothing about it.  they would have announced more graduations, not failures.  given that failure rate, why risk a training slot on a female recruit ?  #  the only increased standards they have are for advanced roles like sf.   # the standards for infantry roles are the same as support.  the only increased standards they have are for advanced roles like sf.  those standards you say are the same for infantry and support are for the entire service those are of course different by gender.  however, within infantry and definitely sf, those service minimums would be laughed at they maintain their own requirements to pass their courses.  it is like a seal technically only has to meet the male prt minimums for the navy however, bud/s and the seal community itself would laugh if you tried showing up with navy minimums.  same thing even for infantry officer course.
background: cameras get installed to catch red light violators.  since these are often contracted by for profit companies that get a cut of each fine, the companies often get the yellow light signals shortened.  the city does not care since it gets a cut as well.  the two main arguments against this are 0.  it makes things more dangerous 0.  they are gouging drivers i think these arguments are irrelevant.  shortening the yellow may well lead to more rear end collisions as a driver brakes suddenly and the driver behind them does not brake fast enough.  well, this will reduce accidents in the long run.  cars are supposed to leave sufficient space between each other to allow sudden stops.  obviously the second car either did not leave enough space or was not paying attention.  when the determination of fault occurs the second driver will receive plenty of blame and hence suffer larger insurance payments.  if they do this enough times, no one will provide them insurance and they will then be forced to give up driving, which forces a dangerous driver off the roads.  this is a win for safety since the driver can no longer run over pedestrians and bicyclists .  so in essence, the accidents that are being caused are simply pointing out those drivers that are irresponsible anyways.  and far better for them to rear end another car that is stopping due to a traffic light than one that stops suddenly due to a child running out into the street, then the second car pushes the first onto the child.  or hit a pedestrian, bicyclist, or other innocent person.  the other argument is that the city is gouging drivers.  maybe so, but it is only restoring a bit of balance between driving and other modes of transportation.  drivers do not pay for all the pollution they emit, or for roads gas tax does not cover everything , or for the tens of thousands they murder every year, or for the higher medical costs bought about by their driving lack of exercise leads to obesity , or a million other things.  hence everyone else, who has better things to do than drive everywhere, are forced to subsidize drivers in their irresponsible choices.  the cameras may be unfair in that some drivers will get closer to paying their fair share, but since they are all drastically underpaying, no driver is actually being gouged.   #  the other argument is that the city is gouging drivers.   #  maybe so, but it is only restoring a bit of balance between driving and other modes of transportation.   # maybe so, but it is only restoring a bit of balance between driving and other modes of transportation.  bicyclists and pedestrians do not pay any taxes or fees to use the roads.  you do not pay a road surcharge when everything you buy was shipped to your stores on the road.  it is an accident.  if you used another form of transportation, do you think you are immune from injury while walking or cycling ? and the correlation between obesity and medical costs is weak.  not to mention one can be very active and be overweight.  one can be skinny and sedentary.  one can be skinny, not own a car, but have poor health.  car ownership does not equal bad health.  what better things to you have to do that does not involve getting to work, getting to a grocery store, going to a school, or traveling to see other people ? are you suggesting people never leave their houses ? and they must grow their own food rather than go pick up groceries ? under paying for what ? have you ever ridden in a school bus or on a public transit bus ? did you pay your fair share for benefitting from the roadway ? have you ever walked or bicycle somewhere ? how did you pay your fair share for using public roads those times ? have you every bought a food item, article of clothing, or other object ? how do you think those objects get to your favorite store without someone driving them in a truck to local retailers ? everything around you was put there because it arrived in the back of some motorized vehicle.  even the very sidewalks you stroll on exist because cement was brought in a truck and spread by workers who drove there.  if you do not like cars, you do not have to own one.  but as long as you live in modern society and enjoy grocery stores, hospitals, schools, shopping centers, and firemen, you must accept the necessity of the motor vehicle.  and as far as red light cameras go, your own argument seems to admit you know they can cause more accidents.  to want to see harm done to a group of people sounds more like revenge then fair taxation.  what is the real reason you hate cars ?  #  shorter yellows force everyone to exit the intersection hastily, which increases the danger for everyone.   #  i am all for penalizing unsafe road users.  fuck those guys.  i am all for gouging those aholes hard, give  em a mean reminder to be safe and attentive on the road.  but people are not always safe.  it does not matter the penalty, people still commit crimes.  countries with the death penalty still have murder and drug smuggling.  murders and smugglers are deliberately breaking the law many bad drivers are doing it accidentally.  it simply does not matter how harsh the penalty is, some people will always break the law for whatever reasons .  yellow lights serve as a safety mechanism.  i do not really care if bad drivers are hurt, but i do care if innocents are injured.  when we reduce the length of a yellow light, we increase the potential danger from bad drivers.  shorter yellow lights increase the danger to good road users.  the longer the yellow, the longer everyone has to clear the intersection safely.  shorter yellows force everyone to exit the intersection hastily, which increases the danger for everyone.   #  that argued that shortening yellows would lead to dangerous conditions .   #    deltas for everyone ! that argued that shortening yellows would lead to dangerous conditions .  of course, drivers never cared one bit about non drivers just stand at an intersection where drivers are supposed to yield to pedestrians and see how long you have to wait .  but i suppose that we need to provide drivers a basic courtesy of having an option to drive safely, even though they never do the same to others.  actually i still do not care about  gouging .  and i would be perfectly fine if someone wanted to have a bunch of automatic cars stop suddenly in front of other cars making sure there were no potential victims nearby .  but on the originally posted question, my view has been changed.   #  i hope you are a chauffeur or something, otherwise you just bought an expensive car for nothing other than a status symbol or other silly reason.   # the speed limit should reflect the maximum safe speed for the majority of vehicles and drivers in best conditions.  if the best possible situation allows for a speed that is lower than the speed limit, then the speed limit must be lowered.  i hope you are a chauffeur or something, otherwise you just bought an expensive car for nothing other than a status symbol or other silly reason.  i am better trained than you and i have been entrusted with very expensive vehicles.  you are not one who should be judging me.  i  should be judging  you .   #  but i suppose that we need to provide drivers a basic courtesy of having an option to drive safely, even though they never do the same to others.   #    deltas for everyone ! that argued that shortening yellows would lead to dangerous conditions .  of course, drivers never cared one bit about non drivers just stand at an intersection where drivers are supposed to yield to pedestrians and see how long you have to wait .  but i suppose that we need to provide drivers a basic courtesy of having an option to drive safely, even though they never do the same to others.  actually i still do not care about  gouging .  and i would be perfectly fine if someone wanted to have a bunch of automatic cars stop suddenly in front of other cars making sure there were no potential victims nearby .  but on the originally posted question, my view has been changed.
background: cameras get installed to catch red light violators.  since these are often contracted by for profit companies that get a cut of each fine, the companies often get the yellow light signals shortened.  the city does not care since it gets a cut as well.  the two main arguments against this are 0.  it makes things more dangerous 0.  they are gouging drivers i think these arguments are irrelevant.  shortening the yellow may well lead to more rear end collisions as a driver brakes suddenly and the driver behind them does not brake fast enough.  well, this will reduce accidents in the long run.  cars are supposed to leave sufficient space between each other to allow sudden stops.  obviously the second car either did not leave enough space or was not paying attention.  when the determination of fault occurs the second driver will receive plenty of blame and hence suffer larger insurance payments.  if they do this enough times, no one will provide them insurance and they will then be forced to give up driving, which forces a dangerous driver off the roads.  this is a win for safety since the driver can no longer run over pedestrians and bicyclists .  so in essence, the accidents that are being caused are simply pointing out those drivers that are irresponsible anyways.  and far better for them to rear end another car that is stopping due to a traffic light than one that stops suddenly due to a child running out into the street, then the second car pushes the first onto the child.  or hit a pedestrian, bicyclist, or other innocent person.  the other argument is that the city is gouging drivers.  maybe so, but it is only restoring a bit of balance between driving and other modes of transportation.  drivers do not pay for all the pollution they emit, or for roads gas tax does not cover everything , or for the tens of thousands they murder every year, or for the higher medical costs bought about by their driving lack of exercise leads to obesity , or a million other things.  hence everyone else, who has better things to do than drive everywhere, are forced to subsidize drivers in their irresponsible choices.  the cameras may be unfair in that some drivers will get closer to paying their fair share, but since they are all drastically underpaying, no driver is actually being gouged.   #  hence everyone else, who has better things to do than drive everywhere, are forced to subsidize drivers in their irresponsible choices.   #  what better things to you have to do that does not involve getting to work, getting to a grocery store, going to a school, or traveling to see other people ?  # maybe so, but it is only restoring a bit of balance between driving and other modes of transportation.  bicyclists and pedestrians do not pay any taxes or fees to use the roads.  you do not pay a road surcharge when everything you buy was shipped to your stores on the road.  it is an accident.  if you used another form of transportation, do you think you are immune from injury while walking or cycling ? and the correlation between obesity and medical costs is weak.  not to mention one can be very active and be overweight.  one can be skinny and sedentary.  one can be skinny, not own a car, but have poor health.  car ownership does not equal bad health.  what better things to you have to do that does not involve getting to work, getting to a grocery store, going to a school, or traveling to see other people ? are you suggesting people never leave their houses ? and they must grow their own food rather than go pick up groceries ? under paying for what ? have you ever ridden in a school bus or on a public transit bus ? did you pay your fair share for benefitting from the roadway ? have you ever walked or bicycle somewhere ? how did you pay your fair share for using public roads those times ? have you every bought a food item, article of clothing, or other object ? how do you think those objects get to your favorite store without someone driving them in a truck to local retailers ? everything around you was put there because it arrived in the back of some motorized vehicle.  even the very sidewalks you stroll on exist because cement was brought in a truck and spread by workers who drove there.  if you do not like cars, you do not have to own one.  but as long as you live in modern society and enjoy grocery stores, hospitals, schools, shopping centers, and firemen, you must accept the necessity of the motor vehicle.  and as far as red light cameras go, your own argument seems to admit you know they can cause more accidents.  to want to see harm done to a group of people sounds more like revenge then fair taxation.  what is the real reason you hate cars ?  #  the longer the yellow, the longer everyone has to clear the intersection safely.   #  i am all for penalizing unsafe road users.  fuck those guys.  i am all for gouging those aholes hard, give  em a mean reminder to be safe and attentive on the road.  but people are not always safe.  it does not matter the penalty, people still commit crimes.  countries with the death penalty still have murder and drug smuggling.  murders and smugglers are deliberately breaking the law many bad drivers are doing it accidentally.  it simply does not matter how harsh the penalty is, some people will always break the law for whatever reasons .  yellow lights serve as a safety mechanism.  i do not really care if bad drivers are hurt, but i do care if innocents are injured.  when we reduce the length of a yellow light, we increase the potential danger from bad drivers.  shorter yellow lights increase the danger to good road users.  the longer the yellow, the longer everyone has to clear the intersection safely.  shorter yellows force everyone to exit the intersection hastily, which increases the danger for everyone.   #  and i would be perfectly fine if someone wanted to have a bunch of automatic cars stop suddenly in front of other cars making sure there were no potential victims nearby .   #    deltas for everyone ! that argued that shortening yellows would lead to dangerous conditions .  of course, drivers never cared one bit about non drivers just stand at an intersection where drivers are supposed to yield to pedestrians and see how long you have to wait .  but i suppose that we need to provide drivers a basic courtesy of having an option to drive safely, even though they never do the same to others.  actually i still do not care about  gouging .  and i would be perfectly fine if someone wanted to have a bunch of automatic cars stop suddenly in front of other cars making sure there were no potential victims nearby .  but on the originally posted question, my view has been changed.   #  the speed limit should reflect the maximum safe speed for the majority of vehicles and drivers in best conditions.   # the speed limit should reflect the maximum safe speed for the majority of vehicles and drivers in best conditions.  if the best possible situation allows for a speed that is lower than the speed limit, then the speed limit must be lowered.  i hope you are a chauffeur or something, otherwise you just bought an expensive car for nothing other than a status symbol or other silly reason.  i am better trained than you and i have been entrusted with very expensive vehicles.  you are not one who should be judging me.  i  should be judging  you .   #  that argued that shortening yellows would lead to dangerous conditions .   #    deltas for everyone ! that argued that shortening yellows would lead to dangerous conditions .  of course, drivers never cared one bit about non drivers just stand at an intersection where drivers are supposed to yield to pedestrians and see how long you have to wait .  but i suppose that we need to provide drivers a basic courtesy of having an option to drive safely, even though they never do the same to others.  actually i still do not care about  gouging .  and i would be perfectly fine if someone wanted to have a bunch of automatic cars stop suddenly in front of other cars making sure there were no potential victims nearby .  but on the originally posted question, my view has been changed.
this includes high stepping into the endzone, spinning the ball, using the ball as a prop, jumping into the crowd, or dunking on the goal post.  i think this is an amusing part of the sport, and many of these iconic dances are legendary: deion is hand behind the head, the lambeau leap, the ickey shuffle, etc.  these have become part of football lore, and are highly entertaining to the paying fans.  these are professional athletes and are there for the sole purpose of entertainment.  provided the displays do not delay the game unreasonably, i see these displays as a harmless way to celebrate and thrill the fans.  so, please change my view.   #  many of these iconic dances are legendary: deion is hand behind the head, the lambeau leap, the ickey shuffle, etc.   #  what about barry sanders URL he played by the idea of  act like you have been there before  and never celebrated touchdowns.   # what about barry sanders URL he played by the idea of  act like you have been there before  and never celebrated touchdowns.  there are appropriate times to celebrate, but i genuinely believe that players celebrate too much.  these players are not there to be entertaining, they are there to play football with the expectation of winning.  it is a team sport where every player affects the outcome of the play.  sure, you were the guy that caught the ball in the endzone, but that would not have happened without but not limited to decent playcalling, decent blocking, possibly a play action fake, and a decent throw.  look at some of the most memorable touchdown celebrations.  for example, joe horn pulling out his cellphone, terrell owens signing the football, and randy moss  mooning  the crowd.  i see these kinds of celebrations as putting yourself above the team.  it is no longer  minnesota scored , it is now  randy moss scored , even though it required a team effort by the whole offense.  congratulate your teammates on scoring, i have no problem with that.  however, if the game is still in doubt, i would rather see the players be more focused on winning than celebrating.   #  e two or more players engage in prolonged, excessive, premeditated, or choreographed celebrations.   #  clarifying question.  given the current rules listed below , how exactly would you propose they be modified ? section 0 unsportsmanlike conduct article 0 there shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct.  this applies to any act which is contrary to the generally understood principles of sportsmanship.  such acts specifically include, among others:   a throwing a punch, or a forearm, or kicking at an opponent even though no contact is made.  b the use of abusive, threatening, or insulting language or gestures to opponents, teammates, officials, or representatives of the league.  taunting   c the use of baiting or taunting acts or words that engender ill will between teams.  d individual players involved in prolonged or excessive celebrations.  players are prohibited from engaging in any celebrations while on the ground.  a celebration shall be deemed excessive or prolonged if a player continues to celebrate after a warning from an official.  e two or more players engage in prolonged, excessive, premeditated, or choreographed celebrations.  f possession or use of foreign or extraneous object s that are not part of the uniform during the game on the field or the sideline, or using the ball as a prop.  source: URL  #  regarding d, it states that players are first warned to stop before being flagged.   #  the entire rule book for football has some wiggle room and vagueness.  that is why we have refs on the field.  d and e both use the word excessive, which is important for the definition.  this started getting enforced because celebrations started to become long enough to stop the progression of the game.  and it might be acceptable for someone to spend 0 seconds celebrating, but what about 0 minutes.  surely that is too much and players should be flagged for it.  regarding d, it states that players are first warned to stop before being flagged.  a line must be drawn somewhere, and the rules are the primary guidelines that officials have to make sure the game progresses in the way it is supposed to.  it could be stated that officials are enforcing this too aggressively, and that some things that have been flagged should not have been, but overall, these rules help ensure that the game is able to progress without being stopped by someone who decides that they want to do the entire thriller dance with their team before the pat.   #  tldr: the nfl will lose its credibility with fans and sponsors because it is a bad example, and cheapens the game for all.   #  they already tried this type of hype football.  it was called the xfl.  you know what happened ? it died, it died because it made the game a spectacle not a sport.  that cheapens the sport.  by allowing this type of behavior you are trivializing the sport.  think wrestling at the olympic level for a second.  who do you respect more when it comes to the skill and art of wrestling ? matt huges, or hulk hogan ? sure hogan was entertaining, but nobody with even a spark of integrity for the sport of wrestling would keep these two in the same category.  if you want showboat horseshit, then play nfl blitz, or watch rudy or something.  do not cheapen the experience for all of us because you need bells and whistles to pay attention to the game.  tldr: the nfl will lose its credibility with fans and sponsors because it is a bad example, and cheapens the game for all.   #   pro  wrestling is openly scripted and essentially an act.   #  there are problems with your analogies.   pro  wrestling is openly scripted and essentially an act.  it is dramatized and nobody is claiming that is a sport.  it is not greco roman style wresting and does not try to be.  the xfl was a joke, but not because of end zone celebrations.  the players were terrible.  it too was run by vince mcmahon and was a combination of high school football, a strip club, and the wwf. all with unknown players.  the nfl should remain as is, but they have gone way too far with the celebrations.
i called my grandmother for her birthday the other day.  i had not spoken to her since christmas.  we are not very close, and she does not cross my mind in my day to day life.  when we were talking the other day, she mentioned how she thinks about me often and wishes i would call her more.  i laughed it off, but she kept bringing it up again, as if to say it were entirely my responibility to maintain our correspondence.  it put a little damper on the otherwise pleasant conversation but, as of right now, i do not feel i have done anything wrong.  please change my view.  for those that will argue that the older generation, on average, is not as familiar with modern technology email, cell phones, etc.  , i will remind you that the land line telephones and regular post mail that the older generation grew up with still work just fine.  0 i am busier than she is so it makes more sense for me to call when it is convenient for me.  this is easily solved by voicemail, email, or writing a letter.  0 we owe a debt to the older generation because they took care of us growing up.  well, right off the bat, my grandmother and i live in the united states and a good chunk of my paycheck goes to social security and medicare.  i believe, as a person, i am obligated to be civil when treated civilly.  i am always courteous in my conversing with my grandmother.  if anything were to happen in her to the point that she would  require my help , meaning difficulty moving furniture, getting around, etc. , i would be happy to help.  but she does not  require my help  to pick up a phone or write an email.  this is something she is more than capable of doing herself and has decided it is not her responsibility, while complaining about it.  my view remains the same so far.  tradition is not a good reason for doing anything in my opinion.  coffeemanic gets the delta.  thank you all for your opinions.  have a great day.   #  well, right off the bat, my grandmother and i live in the united states and a good chunk of my paycheck goes to social security and medicare.   #  the social security she receives is based on the money that  she  put in when she was working.   # the social security she receives is based on the money that  she  put in when she was working.  the same will happen for you.  you will put in x dollars over the course of your career and when you retire, you will get f x dollars out.  i do not see how that is  you helping the older generation  at all.  same with medicare you are putting money in now, but you will get it back later if you need it when you get old.   #  my summary is about as long as the actual short story though so maybe do not read my summary and find the book to read the actual story yourself if you want.   # i have a comment but it is not a disagreement or request for clarification so i ca not post it as a leading comment and am piggy backing on this comment instead.  anyway i wanted to mention the recent book of short stories by b. j.  novak ryan from  the office,  who wrote more of that show than he acted in it .  it is called one more thing, and in it there is a story about a man who dies and goes to heaven where he is reunited with his dead wife and friends.  and grandma.  i am going to spoil the story now for you.  my summary is about as long as the actual short story though so maybe do not read my summary and find the book to read the actual story yourself if you want.  it is a humor book of great short stories.  so in this story heaven is true utopia: every band or musician that is ever lived from mozart to nirvana is there playing a free show every night, and every guest has front row seats and the show lasts as long as you want.  magical stuff like that.  the newly dead man calls his grandma saying he is long overdue for a visit in life and now in death and he will visit her shortly.  she seems disinterested, but says  yes, that is be great !   he is a bit confused when he hangs up over why she is seem disinterested when in life he and his sister were her greatest joys.  just like in life, he keeps putting off seeing his grandma.  finally they schedule a time for dinner, but  he  gets a call from  her  cancelling.  again he is confused because in life seeing him was her greatest joy.  he does not worry about it and goes to a concert.  he gets back stage passes again, it is heaven and when he goes back stage what does he find ? his grandma giving elvis presley a blowjob ! he finally realizes that he was his grandma is greatest joy in life  because she was like 0 and all her other friends died and all her favorite bands were dead and she had nothing else to live for besides her grandkids.  but in heaven when she is youthful again, she could not care less about her grandkids the same way her grandkids when they are youthful did not care much about her.  it is an awesome short story.  it makes you both feel less guilty for not visiting your grandma, and more guilty.  and also it makes you appreciate your grandma more cause she was a young person too once !  #  it sucks getting old and our culture hates old people.   #  your right it is not fair.  she should call, but i have a feeling something like pride stops her.  her being a grandmother gives her a different perspective than say someone near your age like a girlfriend.  guilt aside, i am just saying as unfair as this is, it is an opportunity to build a relationship with someone you care about.  but it happens.  many adults ignore their parents as they get older and is quite acceptable behavior in our society.  it sucks getting old and our culture hates old people.  it can feel very isolating.  try not to be hard on yourself and your grandma.  i bet she wishes nothing but the best for you.   #  hopefully, your grandmother treated you with kindness when you were younger.   #  there is definitely a tradition of the younger calling the older.  your grandmother is probably home most of the time, while you have a much more unpredictable schedule the chance of her catching you and it being a good time for you is a lot less than if you gave her a call.  the other thing is that it is nice to feel remembered.  hopefully, your grandmother treated you with kindness when you were younger.  why not pay her back in kind.  most older people fear being forgotten.  it is the nature of life you center your life around your children, and then the grow up and leave the nest.  you get another chance with the grandchildren, and then they grow up as well.  a simple call does not fill the void that they younger you and your parents when they were young has left, but it helps.   #  now old people also in general seem to have an attitude about not wanting to be a bother or a burden.   #  most elderly people are retired and despite how active they may be in taking part in hobbies and doing chores, are for the most part able to be interrupted whenever as their social and working lives just are not that busy.  they know this, and remember back to their youth when they were much much busier and probably rightly assume that you are too.  if your grandma is telling you you should call more often it is safe to assume that you do not visit her in person much.  this means barring the few times you do call, she really has no way of telling just how busy you are.  now old people also in general seem to have an attitude about not wanting to be a bother or a burden.  combine that with the fact that they think you are busy a lot and do not know when would be an appropriate time to call.  what it amounts to is a situation where your grandparents are not very busy and are pretty much open to call, but they imagine you probably are busy and do not want to bother you at an inappropriate time.  therefore they expect you to make the assumption that they are not busy, and call them when you can.  this can be alleviated by letting them know that you want them to call and letting them know times during the day when you are generally free, but surprisingly few have this conversation.
physicists are always talking about mind bending  discoveries  about the nature of quantum particles as if they are truths that reveal the limits of the human intellect.  for instance, i have heard lawrence krause say that an electron can be in two places at once, and that people do not accept that because our minds are too weak.  but i just think that is bullshit.  if there is something over here and something over there, they are two distinct things.  i do not care how small they are.  could the issue be that physicists have merely agreed to  describe  the electron  over here  and the electron  over there  as the same electron because, for all of their intents and purposes, they are the same ? to use an analogy, if a group of 0 physics students all have identical copies of their textbooks on their desks, then you  could  choose to say that the textbook is in 0 different places at once, defining the textbook as a particular way for matter to be arranged, which can be instantiated by several different collections of matter simultaneously.  but there is nothing mind bending about that interpretation.  likewise, i suspect that the claim that an electron can be in two places at once boils down to a similar semantic slide of hand.  can somebody explain to me how it could possibly make sense to say that an object is in two places at the same time ?  #  if there is something over here and something over there, they are two distinct things.   #  applying the same argument to evolution: if something is a monkey, it is a monkey, and if it is a human, it is a human.   #  clarifying question: do you think that evolution and/or newton is laws and/or general relativity are bullshit ? if you do, then fine.  if not, then you should be aware that quantum mechanics is the single leading theory behind how the universe works, and has more experimental evidence to back up its claims than any other theory we have about the way the universe works.  applying the same argument to evolution: if something is a monkey, it is a monkey, and if it is a human, it is a human.  they are two distinct things.  i am not a physicist, but from what i understand, the interaction of two quantum particles goes way beyond the textbook analogy.  for that to be accurate, every book would have to move through space in the exact same way whenever one was manipulated.  so if the teacher turned a book to 0, every book would turn, seemingly of its own volition, to page 0.  they are doing so because they are the not just copies of the same book, but  actually the same book ; just because this runs counter to how you  think  the world works does not mean that the world  cannot possibly  work that way; the universe is not obliged to make sense to you, or to anyone.   #  if you turned any of these 0 quantum books pages, the rest would follow.   #  the problem is that it is not a new force; it is not just one way like a master slave relationship.  if you turned any of these 0 quantum books pages, the rest would follow.  if you lifted them, they would lift, and if you moved them they would move.  again: not a scientist, so i am not the best to explain the actual reasons why it is not a force; it is admittedly a tough concept to wrap your brain around.  a better way to think about it is this: most things are made up of atoms, which are made up of sub atomic particles; what is not intimated is how little of that is actually not made up of just space.  when you get right down to it, the quarks and atoms in your body are shifting around in a pseudo random way that does not necessarily conform to what reflects light or what we can see; what we experience as  touch  is actually electromagnetic forces keeping our atoms from colliding with the atoms of the things we touch, so we are not even really  touching  other things in the way one would think on the sub atomic level.  quarks behave very very strangely.  here is one of my favorite things: all quarks come in pairs; if you try to separate two quarks, they will fight you, with the force getting  stronger  the farther away they get.  if you do manage to separate them, then the instant you do, the energy you put into separating them will  generate another two quarks, one to pair with each of the recently separated pair .  by all conventional means, quarks and quantum particles make  no goddamn sense  but that is just the way the universe works at the subatomic level.  it seems weird because it  is  weird to us, in our big world that behaves based on newtonian physics more or less .   #  it is strange to us, because we evolved in a world where causation is the norm, but this does not occur at quantum levels.   #  the idea came about from the double slit experiment which determined that particles act like waves under the right conditions.  particle/wave duality : double slit experiment: shooting an electron through two slits causes the electron to create an impact pattern similar to that of light defracting through two slits.  from wikipedia: the relational interpretation: according to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by carlo rovelli, 0 observations such as those in the double slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer measuring device and the object being observed physically interacted with , not any absolute property possessed by the object.  in the case of an electron, if it is initially  observed  at a particular slit, then the observer particle photon electron interaction includes information about the electron is position.  this partially constrains the particle is eventual location at the screen.  if it is  observed  measured with a photon not at a particular slit but rather at the screen, then there is no  which path  information as part of the interaction, so the electron is  observed  position on the screen is determined strictly by its probability function.  this makes the resulting pattern on the screen the same as if each individual electron had passed through both slits.  it has also been suggested that space and distance themselves are relational, and that an electron can appear to be in  two places at once  for example, at both slits because its spatial relations to particular points on the screen remain identical from both slit locations.  0 quantum mechanics is not bullshit.  it is one of the best proven scientific theories we have got.  various interpretations of it are just bullshit, but a lot of it is true.  it is strange to us, because we evolved in a world where causation is the norm, but this does not occur at quantum levels.  the classical view point is what happens the scale and quantity of matter becomes large enough to break a significant number of particles out of their superposition due to the presence of strong potential fields.  quantum effects still occur, they just occur so rapidly that we never really get to see them out of laboratory conditions with some exceptions.  i am no expert.  it has been a few years since quantum mechanics, but no one was answering so i figured i would give it a go.   #  but of course not only can an electron be but it is.   #  lawrence krauss has the best response  so arguing that it does not make sense to you, is based on the fact, based on the assumption that you know what is sensible in advance.  we do not know what is sensible in advance.  until we explore the world around us.  our common sense derives from the fact that we evolved on the savannah in africa to avoid lions.  not to understand quantum mechanics, for example.  as i have often said, common sense deductions might suggest that you cannot be in two places at once.  that is crazy.  but of course not only can an electron be but it is.  it does not make sense because we did not evolve to know about it, we have learned about it.  we forced our idea of common sense to change, its called learning.    #  there is no reason why an electron should be in a clearly defined position.   #  first of all, quantum mechanics is somewhat sensationalized in the media in order to garnish attention.  but when you actually study it, there is no  weirdness .  when you dive into it, quantum theory is heavily supported by logical and mathematical reasons.  from this framework, it makes perfect sense.  not once will something in quantum theory ask you believe something without rigorous proof.  it only becomes weird from an outside perspective.  but besides all that, why do you think the universe should work in a way that makes intuitive sense to you and the rest of us ? there is no reason why an electron should be in a clearly defined position.  an electron is what it is.  the truth is what it is.  all modern day experiments and observations support the idea of a probabilistic rather than a deterministic quantum theory.  your computer, your smart phone. almost any modern day electronic device runs on ideas based on quantum mechanics.  all of chemistry is explained because of quantum mechanics.  ultimately, truth is not determined by what we like or what we think should be, but what is.  and like it or not, quantum mechanics is what is.
this is something my fairly offensive dad told me, and i want him to be wrong about it, but i ca not figure out why it is wrong.  basically the argument goes as such:  heterosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.  homosexuals also have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.  therefore, heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same marriage rights.   this argument appears to me to be both valid and sound, but i really do not want it to be.  can you help me understand how it is not correct ?  #  this argument appears to me to be both valid and sound, but i really do not want it to be.   #  as others have mentioned, the argument is logical.   # as others have mentioned, the argument is logical.  however, i do not think you should have an emotional investment in its logic.  logic is not something that we should care about or seek to disprove when we dislike it, but a tool to help us reach conclusions about the world and how we should act.  if you have an emotional investment in gay marriage, that might be reasonable.  you just cannot justify it with the claim that gay people have different marriage rights than straight people.  there are still many other potential reasons to support gay marriage without requiring you to abandon logic.   #  black people also have the right to marry someone of the same race.   #  white people have the right to marry someone of the race.  black people also have the right to marry someone of the same race.  therefore, caucasian and black people have the same rights to marry someone of the same race .  that parallels your argument and is equally flawed.  it is as arbitrary to limit marriage based on skin color and sexual identity.  it is equally repugnant and flawed to restrict marriage based on either skin color or sexual identity.   #   muslims have the right to worship the islamic god and practice islam in afghanistan and other countries that prohibit apostasy .   #  it is illogical because the core of the point is whether someone has the right to marry someone they are attracted to.  heterosexuals have the right to marry someone they are attracted to, but homosexuals are  prohibited  from marrying the people they  want  to marry.  here is a counterexample that makes the original statement sound silly: christians and jews have the same religious rights in the u. s.   christians have the right to worship the christian god and practice christianity in the u. s.  jews also have the right to worship the christian god and practice christianity.  therefore, christians and jews have the same religious rights.   you can also replace this with: muslims and christians have the same religious rights in afghanistan.   muslims have the right to worship the islamic god and practice islam in afghanistan and other countries that prohibit apostasy .  christrians also have the right to worship the islamic god and practice islam.  therefore, muslims and christians have the same religious rights.   clearly, neither of these would represent true freedom of religion, just as the original argument does not represent true freedom of marriage.   #  one person has no use for the choice on offer and the other does.   #  well, it would be like saying that a person with a severe gluten alergy and a normal person are both free to eat the turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread.  i have made that and that is lunch.  except that for someone with an allergy to gluten, eating that sandwich will make them very ill if not kill them.  or suppose it is a ham sandwich.  you are muslim, eating pork is not allowed.  i can eat pork all day, no problem.  the point being that there are times when being free to take something is not exactly equal.  one person has no use for the choice on offer and the other does.   #  the 0th amendment is 0st clause language specifies that no state shall deny any person equal protection under the law.   #  the easiest counter argument to this:  okay, let is assume that that is true and valid.  now, if it was only  homosexual  marriages that were legal, would you, as a heterosexual man, argue that you had the same right to marry another man as anyone else ?   the false equivalence here is that they are coming at it from the wrong angle.  marriage, as it stands, is a contract upheld by the state that grants certain rights to the people involved in it.  in literally every other contract in america, it does not matter what gender the parties in question are; they each have an equal right to enter into a contractual partnership with one another.  in that light, marriage is just a contract template that we use really frequently, and unlike other changes which would significantly alter how the contract worked polygamy and the like , allowing two men or two women to marry would not require a single meaningful change in that legal language.  by limiting my marriage options, you are either limiting my rights, or the rights of other people who might want to marry me.  possibly both.  the 0th amendment is 0st clause language specifies that no state shall deny any person equal protection under the law.  so if one female wants to marry me, and i want to marry her, and that is legal; yet if one male wants to marry me, and i want to marry her, and that is illegal, then these two people are not being given equal protection under the law.
the x men should not exist in the marvel 0 universe.  they should have their own universe for just them.  there are numerous national and international events in x men comics that only occasionally are referenced in non x men books.  i am not an x men expert, but concepts such as rampant mutantphobia, the construction of sentinels, apocalypse, the sh iar, etc are never addressed in, say, captain america.  would not captain america have something to say about sentinels hunting down american citizens ? at the moment, there is a weird contradiction where mutants are supposed to be  hated and feared  by everyone, but there are tons of other superheroes who seem exactly like mutants spider man, for example who do not ever worry about stuff like that.  x men books would be much more compelling if they were in a universe by themselves, a universe of only human and mutants with no other superheroes.  they would be the only ones capable of stopping the worldwide threats such as the brood or magneto, and no one would ask why the avengers are not contributing to stopping those threats.  if the writers wanted the x men to occasionally interact with other marvel characters, have them go universe hopping with some device built by forge or beast.  but otherwise, the drama and worldbuilding is much stronger if the universe in question is just for the x men.   #  at the moment, there is a weird contradiction where mutants are supposed to be  hated and feared  by everyone, but there are tons of other superheroes who seem exactly like mutants spider man, for example who do not ever worry about stuff like that.   #  have you seen how ny has treated spider man throughout his tenure ?  #  the basic structure of the entire marvel universe is that every individual title is events are mostly contained to that title while being possibly referenced in other titles, maybe with the exception of cross over events.  the construction of the sentinels was a top secret project so for the most part only mutants would be dealing with them and generally the storyline in which they show up tends to end up with them being destroyed pretty thoroughly and as such there is not much for captain america to deal with in addition to him not really having any power to stop the government from producing them see civil war .  have you seen how ny has treated spider man throughout his tenure ? he is frequently feared and seen as a menace by most of the city at any given time.  and only sometimes is he seen as a beneficial force and usually only by people he has directly saved or people who know someone he is directly saved.  in addition, it is pretty well known among the marvel universe that spider man is not a mutant even by civilians.  note: see the man spider saga for the interactions with mutation and spider man and how he becomes feared when people think he is a mutant .  we are talking about an entire universe here, just because the brood are attacking one area does not negate threats that the avengers are dealing with elsewhere and happens to be exactly how it tends to work out.  frequently in x men comics someone will say  should we get the avengers ?   and either they contact them or otherwise.  do not forget that wolverine, beast, storm, etc.  have been and are avengers in their own right and have contacts with them.  then we can see that in the greater marvel galactic universe comics guardians of the galaxy, nova, etc.  the shi ar are a strong presence in those comics.  civil war was a huge crossover involving mutants and others and people addressing mutantphobia and how it relates to feelings about superheros in general.  i disagree, some of the best stories come from the interactions between mutants and non mutant superheros.  understanding the difference in the way society treats them.  they would honestly be less compelling if they did not have the entire marvel universe to interact with such as being on various teams .   #  tl;dr: i do not know what we are arguing or disagreeing about.   #  ok, if you are saying the current system is a good thing, that is also what i am saying.  i think that op is saying that the current system should change.  i interpreted his view as saying that there should be no crossovers between the x men and the rest of the marvel universe.  if that is not what he is saying, then i do not know what he actually wants to have changed.  tl;dr: i do not know what we are arguing or disagreeing about.   #  he became increasing hard lined at the idea that mutants were endangered and had to learn how to fight in order to survive.   #  basically, after a lot of turmoil in westchester the x men ended up in california and then a newly raised island thanks to the help of magneto and namor.  this island was called utopia and basically cyclops was leading a nation of most of the surviving mutants in the world.  he became increasing hard lined at the idea that mutants were endangered and had to learn how to fight in order to survive.  this culminated in an event called schism where wolverine became fed up with cyclops militarizing children, they had a large fight and wolverine walked out on him and took all the kids that would go with him.  he went back to westchester and rebuilt the school, renamed it to jean grey is school for higher learning as a final jab at cyclops and has become the headmaster.  the books wolverine and x men highlight his time as headmaster of the school.   #  wolves does this so the kids they teach do not have to do it.   #  couple of things really.  it is been building for a while, scott wants to become more militant hence the creation of x force where wolves and a couple others assassinate people to stop the screwing shit up.  wolves does this so the kids they teach do not have to do it.  in schism, there is a new hellfire club attack with a self replicating sentinel.  half the x men are incapacitated and cyclops tried to force the kids into fighting whilst wolves wants them kept out of it because they are only kids.  this leads to a massive fight between the 0 and wolves goes off to start back up xavier is school with a few other x men charles is missing at this point .  after this, the phoenix returns to take over hope summers, the avengers assisted by wolves intervenes and causes it too jump eventually into scott who ends up killing charles xavier.  scott breaks out of prison and is running a more covert school teaching young mutants to use their powers offensively.  that is pretty much the storyline up till today  #  massive series that is referenced back to multiple times even in todays series.   #  its a bit hard to talk about the recent x men because its all over the place imo.  different x men groups, different timelines.  last 0 years though ? id start in 0 personally, with  e for extinction .  massive series that is referenced back to multiple times even in todays series.  after that, id stick with mainly the series, rather than individual comics.  so, in a brief bullet point.  .  e for extinction .  phoenix endsong .  phoenix warsong those 0 are 0/0 choices.  imo very very good series, very indepth and introduces you to the  phoenix force  which is a bit part of the last 0 years but they arent essential reads .  house of m a crossover but essential for x men .  messiah complex .  messiah war .  second coming .  schism .  avengers vs x men that brings you all the way up to marvel now and imo, pretty much covers the major arc of the x men from 0 0.  marvel now hasnt really had that many decent x men series imo, except for children of the atom.
the x men should not exist in the marvel 0 universe.  they should have their own universe for just them.  there are numerous national and international events in x men comics that only occasionally are referenced in non x men books.  i am not an x men expert, but concepts such as rampant mutantphobia, the construction of sentinels, apocalypse, the sh iar, etc are never addressed in, say, captain america.  would not captain america have something to say about sentinels hunting down american citizens ? at the moment, there is a weird contradiction where mutants are supposed to be  hated and feared  by everyone, but there are tons of other superheroes who seem exactly like mutants spider man, for example who do not ever worry about stuff like that.  x men books would be much more compelling if they were in a universe by themselves, a universe of only human and mutants with no other superheroes.  they would be the only ones capable of stopping the worldwide threats such as the brood or magneto, and no one would ask why the avengers are not contributing to stopping those threats.  if the writers wanted the x men to occasionally interact with other marvel characters, have them go universe hopping with some device built by forge or beast.  but otherwise, the drama and worldbuilding is much stronger if the universe in question is just for the x men.   #  x men books would be much more compelling if they were in a universe by themselves, a universe of only human and mutants with no other superheroes.   #  i disagree, some of the best stories come from the interactions between mutants and non mutant superheros.   #  the basic structure of the entire marvel universe is that every individual title is events are mostly contained to that title while being possibly referenced in other titles, maybe with the exception of cross over events.  the construction of the sentinels was a top secret project so for the most part only mutants would be dealing with them and generally the storyline in which they show up tends to end up with them being destroyed pretty thoroughly and as such there is not much for captain america to deal with in addition to him not really having any power to stop the government from producing them see civil war .  have you seen how ny has treated spider man throughout his tenure ? he is frequently feared and seen as a menace by most of the city at any given time.  and only sometimes is he seen as a beneficial force and usually only by people he has directly saved or people who know someone he is directly saved.  in addition, it is pretty well known among the marvel universe that spider man is not a mutant even by civilians.  note: see the man spider saga for the interactions with mutation and spider man and how he becomes feared when people think he is a mutant .  we are talking about an entire universe here, just because the brood are attacking one area does not negate threats that the avengers are dealing with elsewhere and happens to be exactly how it tends to work out.  frequently in x men comics someone will say  should we get the avengers ?   and either they contact them or otherwise.  do not forget that wolverine, beast, storm, etc.  have been and are avengers in their own right and have contacts with them.  then we can see that in the greater marvel galactic universe comics guardians of the galaxy, nova, etc.  the shi ar are a strong presence in those comics.  civil war was a huge crossover involving mutants and others and people addressing mutantphobia and how it relates to feelings about superheros in general.  i disagree, some of the best stories come from the interactions between mutants and non mutant superheros.  understanding the difference in the way society treats them.  they would honestly be less compelling if they did not have the entire marvel universe to interact with such as being on various teams .   #  i interpreted his view as saying that there should be no crossovers between the x men and the rest of the marvel universe.   #  ok, if you are saying the current system is a good thing, that is also what i am saying.  i think that op is saying that the current system should change.  i interpreted his view as saying that there should be no crossovers between the x men and the rest of the marvel universe.  if that is not what he is saying, then i do not know what he actually wants to have changed.  tl;dr: i do not know what we are arguing or disagreeing about.   #  this island was called utopia and basically cyclops was leading a nation of most of the surviving mutants in the world.   #  basically, after a lot of turmoil in westchester the x men ended up in california and then a newly raised island thanks to the help of magneto and namor.  this island was called utopia and basically cyclops was leading a nation of most of the surviving mutants in the world.  he became increasing hard lined at the idea that mutants were endangered and had to learn how to fight in order to survive.  this culminated in an event called schism where wolverine became fed up with cyclops militarizing children, they had a large fight and wolverine walked out on him and took all the kids that would go with him.  he went back to westchester and rebuilt the school, renamed it to jean grey is school for higher learning as a final jab at cyclops and has become the headmaster.  the books wolverine and x men highlight his time as headmaster of the school.   #  this leads to a massive fight between the 0 and wolves goes off to start back up xavier is school with a few other x men charles is missing at this point .   #  couple of things really.  it is been building for a while, scott wants to become more militant hence the creation of x force where wolves and a couple others assassinate people to stop the screwing shit up.  wolves does this so the kids they teach do not have to do it.  in schism, there is a new hellfire club attack with a self replicating sentinel.  half the x men are incapacitated and cyclops tried to force the kids into fighting whilst wolves wants them kept out of it because they are only kids.  this leads to a massive fight between the 0 and wolves goes off to start back up xavier is school with a few other x men charles is missing at this point .  after this, the phoenix returns to take over hope summers, the avengers assisted by wolves intervenes and causes it too jump eventually into scott who ends up killing charles xavier.  scott breaks out of prison and is running a more covert school teaching young mutants to use their powers offensively.  that is pretty much the storyline up till today  #  massive series that is referenced back to multiple times even in todays series.   #  its a bit hard to talk about the recent x men because its all over the place imo.  different x men groups, different timelines.  last 0 years though ? id start in 0 personally, with  e for extinction .  massive series that is referenced back to multiple times even in todays series.  after that, id stick with mainly the series, rather than individual comics.  so, in a brief bullet point.  .  e for extinction .  phoenix endsong .  phoenix warsong those 0 are 0/0 choices.  imo very very good series, very indepth and introduces you to the  phoenix force  which is a bit part of the last 0 years but they arent essential reads .  house of m a crossover but essential for x men .  messiah complex .  messiah war .  second coming .  schism .  avengers vs x men that brings you all the way up to marvel now and imo, pretty much covers the major arc of the x men from 0 0.  marvel now hasnt really had that many decent x men series imo, except for children of the atom.
the x men should not exist in the marvel 0 universe.  they should have their own universe for just them.  there are numerous national and international events in x men comics that only occasionally are referenced in non x men books.  i am not an x men expert, but concepts such as rampant mutantphobia, the construction of sentinels, apocalypse, the sh iar, etc are never addressed in, say, captain america.  would not captain america have something to say about sentinels hunting down american citizens ? at the moment, there is a weird contradiction where mutants are supposed to be  hated and feared  by everyone, but there are tons of other superheroes who seem exactly like mutants spider man, for example who do not ever worry about stuff like that.  x men books would be much more compelling if they were in a universe by themselves, a universe of only human and mutants with no other superheroes.  they would be the only ones capable of stopping the worldwide threats such as the brood or magneto, and no one would ask why the avengers are not contributing to stopping those threats.  if the writers wanted the x men to occasionally interact with other marvel characters, have them go universe hopping with some device built by forge or beast.  but otherwise, the drama and worldbuilding is much stronger if the universe in question is just for the x men.   #  seem exactly like mutants spider man, for example who do not ever worry about stuff like that.   #  spider man in particular is hated and feared.   # spider man in particular is hated and feared.  the fact that some of the struggles he is faced seem so similar is part of why he is supposed to be such good friends with wolverine and ice man.  the shiar are constantly addressed in any intergalactic titles.  a lot of the other big bads have made crossovers too on occasion.  some of the big arc have had the x men play a large role.  things like onslaught/house of m.  magneto is been featured in a number of titles as a baddy before.   #  i think that op is saying that the current system should change.   #  ok, if you are saying the current system is a good thing, that is also what i am saying.  i think that op is saying that the current system should change.  i interpreted his view as saying that there should be no crossovers between the x men and the rest of the marvel universe.  if that is not what he is saying, then i do not know what he actually wants to have changed.  tl;dr: i do not know what we are arguing or disagreeing about.   #  basically, after a lot of turmoil in westchester the x men ended up in california and then a newly raised island thanks to the help of magneto and namor.   #  basically, after a lot of turmoil in westchester the x men ended up in california and then a newly raised island thanks to the help of magneto and namor.  this island was called utopia and basically cyclops was leading a nation of most of the surviving mutants in the world.  he became increasing hard lined at the idea that mutants were endangered and had to learn how to fight in order to survive.  this culminated in an event called schism where wolverine became fed up with cyclops militarizing children, they had a large fight and wolverine walked out on him and took all the kids that would go with him.  he went back to westchester and rebuilt the school, renamed it to jean grey is school for higher learning as a final jab at cyclops and has become the headmaster.  the books wolverine and x men highlight his time as headmaster of the school.   #  half the x men are incapacitated and cyclops tried to force the kids into fighting whilst wolves wants them kept out of it because they are only kids.   #  couple of things really.  it is been building for a while, scott wants to become more militant hence the creation of x force where wolves and a couple others assassinate people to stop the screwing shit up.  wolves does this so the kids they teach do not have to do it.  in schism, there is a new hellfire club attack with a self replicating sentinel.  half the x men are incapacitated and cyclops tried to force the kids into fighting whilst wolves wants them kept out of it because they are only kids.  this leads to a massive fight between the 0 and wolves goes off to start back up xavier is school with a few other x men charles is missing at this point .  after this, the phoenix returns to take over hope summers, the avengers assisted by wolves intervenes and causes it too jump eventually into scott who ends up killing charles xavier.  scott breaks out of prison and is running a more covert school teaching young mutants to use their powers offensively.  that is pretty much the storyline up till today  #  massive series that is referenced back to multiple times even in todays series.   #  its a bit hard to talk about the recent x men because its all over the place imo.  different x men groups, different timelines.  last 0 years though ? id start in 0 personally, with  e for extinction .  massive series that is referenced back to multiple times even in todays series.  after that, id stick with mainly the series, rather than individual comics.  so, in a brief bullet point.  .  e for extinction .  phoenix endsong .  phoenix warsong those 0 are 0/0 choices.  imo very very good series, very indepth and introduces you to the  phoenix force  which is a bit part of the last 0 years but they arent essential reads .  house of m a crossover but essential for x men .  messiah complex .  messiah war .  second coming .  schism .  avengers vs x men that brings you all the way up to marvel now and imo, pretty much covers the major arc of the x men from 0 0.  marvel now hasnt really had that many decent x men series imo, except for children of the atom.
the x men should not exist in the marvel 0 universe.  they should have their own universe for just them.  there are numerous national and international events in x men comics that only occasionally are referenced in non x men books.  i am not an x men expert, but concepts such as rampant mutantphobia, the construction of sentinels, apocalypse, the sh iar, etc are never addressed in, say, captain america.  would not captain america have something to say about sentinels hunting down american citizens ? at the moment, there is a weird contradiction where mutants are supposed to be  hated and feared  by everyone, but there are tons of other superheroes who seem exactly like mutants spider man, for example who do not ever worry about stuff like that.  x men books would be much more compelling if they were in a universe by themselves, a universe of only human and mutants with no other superheroes.  they would be the only ones capable of stopping the worldwide threats such as the brood or magneto, and no one would ask why the avengers are not contributing to stopping those threats.  if the writers wanted the x men to occasionally interact with other marvel characters, have them go universe hopping with some device built by forge or beast.  but otherwise, the drama and worldbuilding is much stronger if the universe in question is just for the x men.   #  concepts such as rampant mutantphobia, the construction of sentinels, apocalypse, the sh iar, etc are never addressed in, say, captain america.   #  would not captain america have something to say about sentinels hunting down american citizens ?  # would not captain america have something to say about sentinels hunting down american citizens ? this happens in any sets of comics that exist in the same universe.  there are many threats that superman faces for which he could use the help of the rest of the justice league, but because it is a superman comic, he goes it alone.  another example, in the captain america sequel, cap, black widow, and falcon dude go at it alone against a significant threat that should by all means attract the attention of hulk, iron man, etc.  it is just a function of storytelling.  the writers write in huge threats to challenge the hero of a particular story, and we are meant to ignore the fact that there are other heroes in the same universe.   #  i think that op is saying that the current system should change.   #  ok, if you are saying the current system is a good thing, that is also what i am saying.  i think that op is saying that the current system should change.  i interpreted his view as saying that there should be no crossovers between the x men and the rest of the marvel universe.  if that is not what he is saying, then i do not know what he actually wants to have changed.  tl;dr: i do not know what we are arguing or disagreeing about.   #  basically, after a lot of turmoil in westchester the x men ended up in california and then a newly raised island thanks to the help of magneto and namor.   #  basically, after a lot of turmoil in westchester the x men ended up in california and then a newly raised island thanks to the help of magneto and namor.  this island was called utopia and basically cyclops was leading a nation of most of the surviving mutants in the world.  he became increasing hard lined at the idea that mutants were endangered and had to learn how to fight in order to survive.  this culminated in an event called schism where wolverine became fed up with cyclops militarizing children, they had a large fight and wolverine walked out on him and took all the kids that would go with him.  he went back to westchester and rebuilt the school, renamed it to jean grey is school for higher learning as a final jab at cyclops and has become the headmaster.  the books wolverine and x men highlight his time as headmaster of the school.   #  scott breaks out of prison and is running a more covert school teaching young mutants to use their powers offensively.   #  couple of things really.  it is been building for a while, scott wants to become more militant hence the creation of x force where wolves and a couple others assassinate people to stop the screwing shit up.  wolves does this so the kids they teach do not have to do it.  in schism, there is a new hellfire club attack with a self replicating sentinel.  half the x men are incapacitated and cyclops tried to force the kids into fighting whilst wolves wants them kept out of it because they are only kids.  this leads to a massive fight between the 0 and wolves goes off to start back up xavier is school with a few other x men charles is missing at this point .  after this, the phoenix returns to take over hope summers, the avengers assisted by wolves intervenes and causes it too jump eventually into scott who ends up killing charles xavier.  scott breaks out of prison and is running a more covert school teaching young mutants to use their powers offensively.  that is pretty much the storyline up till today  #  after that, id stick with mainly the series, rather than individual comics.   #  its a bit hard to talk about the recent x men because its all over the place imo.  different x men groups, different timelines.  last 0 years though ? id start in 0 personally, with  e for extinction .  massive series that is referenced back to multiple times even in todays series.  after that, id stick with mainly the series, rather than individual comics.  so, in a brief bullet point.  .  e for extinction .  phoenix endsong .  phoenix warsong those 0 are 0/0 choices.  imo very very good series, very indepth and introduces you to the  phoenix force  which is a bit part of the last 0 years but they arent essential reads .  house of m a crossover but essential for x men .  messiah complex .  messiah war .  second coming .  schism .  avengers vs x men that brings you all the way up to marvel now and imo, pretty much covers the major arc of the x men from 0 0.  marvel now hasnt really had that many decent x men series imo, except for children of the atom.
i am not religious, and i am writing this with the assumption that there is no such things as a universal code for what is right or wrong.  sympathy is a trait that has been evolved by us humans because of the evolutionary advantage that it gives us.  we are compelled to act on empathy because of the pleasant chemicals that are released when we do so.  i think when a person gives money to charity, or shares his bag of m ms with his/her friends, he/she does so either because of the  good feeling  from doing so, or because of social consequences.  i also think that the entire idea of significance is a trait of the human mind, developed for our survival and reproduction.  i do not see any rational reason to put any importance into the development of society or improvement of anyone but your own wellfare, other than for the chemical release that you are rewarded with.  i also recognize that ethics and personal values are highly subjective.  this is easily supported by the ton of debates on whether or not something is ethical.  with no ultimate universal ethical authority, i believe that a person is only obliged to do whatever pleases him/her not necessarily short tem .  i do not think that acting exclusively in your own interests regardless of your interests damages anything worth saving, from the point of view of the person in question.  having a society comprised of individuals acting on the same code of ethics would be beneficial to the growth of the society, and in turn to the well being of every human in it.  however, i do not see any reason for the individual to be rationally interested in other people doing well.  i do not believe in ethics being anything but little psychological traits that were evolved for our survival, and are triggered exclusively for our own pleasure.  cmv if anything, i think my philosophy leads me to act more kindly towards other people than one who has a strict belief in superhuman ethics.  for an example, i do not believe in deserving punishment.  i think the only purpose of punishment should be to discourage the act or in some cases of imprisonment, also to keep a dangerous person from the streets .  doing something uncomfortable to a person is to most people an uncomfortable act in itself, doing so  because it is right  makes little sense to me.  i even think that a person who believes strongly in a universal code of ethics is more likely to act in a way that deprives him/herself of pleasure.   #  i also recognize that ethics and personal values are highly subjective.   #  this is easily supported by the ton of debates on whether or not something is ethical.   #  you seem to defend both psychological egoism and ethical egoism.  let me first adress why psychological egoism is wrong: soldiers do not throw themselves on grenades in order to save their companions because they think it feels good, and they certainly do not do it because of social consequences.  they do it out of higher motives.  now to ethical egoism.  let is assume that i have a very strong desire to execute each and every criminal because i derive pleasure from it.  according to ethical egoism, denying the execution of them means denying my pleasure and that is wrong.  killing them off does not damage anything worth saving, as you have stated.  now, you only have one option if you do not want to reject your theory: accept that i am right in thinking we should execute more criminals, thus showing that ethical egoism does not lead to more kindness and that we both right at the same time while arguing the exact opposite.  this does not seem like a very pleasant conclusion.  this is easily supported by the ton of debates on whether or not something is ethical.  in that case, the answer to the question of whether or not the earth is flat is also subjective.  there have been countless debates about that, and some people still think that it is flat.  you do not need an ultimate universal ethical authority.  maybe some propositions about what you ought to do are simply true like statements about the natural world are true.  in that case, not doing what those propositions say is good means doing something immoral you do not need a religious or political authority for that.   #  yes in theory you could live in a walled off complex seperate from the rest of the world free to live your life however you want.   #  here is the problem.  you ignore the direct benefit to you of those around you being well off.  lets start small and work up.  your girlfriend is feeling unattractive and by doing something kind for her you improve her mood and later that night get sex as an indirect result.  benefit to you maybe one you wanted specifically but more likely an unintended consequence of a kind action.  you are a jerk to the secretaries at your office.  they start being pissed off about it and stop being helpful or even work against you.  indirectly your poor behavior towards them results in your job performance suffering or you having to work harder.  it would have been much easier to be kind and gracious to your staff than the course you took.  even larger scale.  we spend tax dollars on social welfare programs to reduce poverty.  with reduced poverty comes reduced crime comes you being victimized by crime less often at a lower cost than hosting your own police force.  we invest in education.  next generation of workers are smarter and can add additional value.  new technologies are invented, society advances, and suddenly you are enjoying the indirect benefit of all those things through everything around you being better.  yes in theory you could live in a walled off complex seperate from the rest of the world free to live your life however you want.  however i put to you that ethics.  or socialized responses.  boost total social outcomes raising every boat.   #  i am not saying people is feelings do not matter to me, they do.   # you hit a cat say accidentally.  now if you are a creature motivated completely by personal self interest why would you feel bad about having done that ? you wo not get caught.  you are free and clear.  i would feel bad because i am human, an emotional animal, and i have just killed another sentient creature.  it has nothing to do with getting caught.  but there are no people in your above scenario, just a dead cat assuming it was a stray or something , so obviously i am not feeling bad because of other people is feelings.  and the cat is dead, so is feeling nothing.  i am not saying people is feelings do not matter to me, they do.  i am just saying your example supports op is point at least as much as not.  to counter it, you would have to find a general example of something that is commonly done for the benefit of others that is against our own self interest.   #  i think this is true for all people.   #  i am focusing mainly on the rational and conscious level of thought.  sure, my brain is a machine wired to give me nice things when i do nice things.  my playstation is a machine wired to give me nice things when i put electricity in it.  i guess you could phrase it as  my playstation is interested in consuming electricity .  my playstation does not make decisions though.  i, my conscious level of thought, makes decisions.  my point is that conscious me does not directly weigh the good of other people when making a decision, only what good it will do me in the end.  i think this is true for all people.   #  they do it to protect themselves from predators.   #  safety in numbers.  we develop a society with a common set of ethics so we have visibility and safety.  and is not just a human trait.  you think animals travel in packs for shits and giggles ? they do it to protect themselves from predators.  go on safari and you see elk and zebra and buffalo all hanging out.  not because they get a chemical reward of interaction but because they know they have a common interest and if one if them sees a lion, they will alert evryone else by running
i am not religious, and i am writing this with the assumption that there is no such things as a universal code for what is right or wrong.  sympathy is a trait that has been evolved by us humans because of the evolutionary advantage that it gives us.  we are compelled to act on empathy because of the pleasant chemicals that are released when we do so.  i think when a person gives money to charity, or shares his bag of m ms with his/her friends, he/she does so either because of the  good feeling  from doing so, or because of social consequences.  i also think that the entire idea of significance is a trait of the human mind, developed for our survival and reproduction.  i do not see any rational reason to put any importance into the development of society or improvement of anyone but your own wellfare, other than for the chemical release that you are rewarded with.  i also recognize that ethics and personal values are highly subjective.  this is easily supported by the ton of debates on whether or not something is ethical.  with no ultimate universal ethical authority, i believe that a person is only obliged to do whatever pleases him/her not necessarily short tem .  i do not think that acting exclusively in your own interests regardless of your interests damages anything worth saving, from the point of view of the person in question.  having a society comprised of individuals acting on the same code of ethics would be beneficial to the growth of the society, and in turn to the well being of every human in it.  however, i do not see any reason for the individual to be rationally interested in other people doing well.  i do not believe in ethics being anything but little psychological traits that were evolved for our survival, and are triggered exclusively for our own pleasure.  cmv if anything, i think my philosophy leads me to act more kindly towards other people than one who has a strict belief in superhuman ethics.  for an example, i do not believe in deserving punishment.  i think the only purpose of punishment should be to discourage the act or in some cases of imprisonment, also to keep a dangerous person from the streets .  doing something uncomfortable to a person is to most people an uncomfortable act in itself, doing so  because it is right  makes little sense to me.  i even think that a person who believes strongly in a universal code of ethics is more likely to act in a way that deprives him/herself of pleasure.   #  with no ultimate universal ethical authority, i believe that a person is only obliged to do whatever pleases him/her not necessarily short tem .   #  you do not need an ultimate universal ethical authority.   #  you seem to defend both psychological egoism and ethical egoism.  let me first adress why psychological egoism is wrong: soldiers do not throw themselves on grenades in order to save their companions because they think it feels good, and they certainly do not do it because of social consequences.  they do it out of higher motives.  now to ethical egoism.  let is assume that i have a very strong desire to execute each and every criminal because i derive pleasure from it.  according to ethical egoism, denying the execution of them means denying my pleasure and that is wrong.  killing them off does not damage anything worth saving, as you have stated.  now, you only have one option if you do not want to reject your theory: accept that i am right in thinking we should execute more criminals, thus showing that ethical egoism does not lead to more kindness and that we both right at the same time while arguing the exact opposite.  this does not seem like a very pleasant conclusion.  this is easily supported by the ton of debates on whether or not something is ethical.  in that case, the answer to the question of whether or not the earth is flat is also subjective.  there have been countless debates about that, and some people still think that it is flat.  you do not need an ultimate universal ethical authority.  maybe some propositions about what you ought to do are simply true like statements about the natural world are true.  in that case, not doing what those propositions say is good means doing something immoral you do not need a religious or political authority for that.   #  you ignore the direct benefit to you of those around you being well off.   #  here is the problem.  you ignore the direct benefit to you of those around you being well off.  lets start small and work up.  your girlfriend is feeling unattractive and by doing something kind for her you improve her mood and later that night get sex as an indirect result.  benefit to you maybe one you wanted specifically but more likely an unintended consequence of a kind action.  you are a jerk to the secretaries at your office.  they start being pissed off about it and stop being helpful or even work against you.  indirectly your poor behavior towards them results in your job performance suffering or you having to work harder.  it would have been much easier to be kind and gracious to your staff than the course you took.  even larger scale.  we spend tax dollars on social welfare programs to reduce poverty.  with reduced poverty comes reduced crime comes you being victimized by crime less often at a lower cost than hosting your own police force.  we invest in education.  next generation of workers are smarter and can add additional value.  new technologies are invented, society advances, and suddenly you are enjoying the indirect benefit of all those things through everything around you being better.  yes in theory you could live in a walled off complex seperate from the rest of the world free to live your life however you want.  however i put to you that ethics.  or socialized responses.  boost total social outcomes raising every boat.   #  i would feel bad because i am human, an emotional animal, and i have just killed another sentient creature.   # you hit a cat say accidentally.  now if you are a creature motivated completely by personal self interest why would you feel bad about having done that ? you wo not get caught.  you are free and clear.  i would feel bad because i am human, an emotional animal, and i have just killed another sentient creature.  it has nothing to do with getting caught.  but there are no people in your above scenario, just a dead cat assuming it was a stray or something , so obviously i am not feeling bad because of other people is feelings.  and the cat is dead, so is feeling nothing.  i am not saying people is feelings do not matter to me, they do.  i am just saying your example supports op is point at least as much as not.  to counter it, you would have to find a general example of something that is commonly done for the benefit of others that is against our own self interest.   #  i, my conscious level of thought, makes decisions.   #  i am focusing mainly on the rational and conscious level of thought.  sure, my brain is a machine wired to give me nice things when i do nice things.  my playstation is a machine wired to give me nice things when i put electricity in it.  i guess you could phrase it as  my playstation is interested in consuming electricity .  my playstation does not make decisions though.  i, my conscious level of thought, makes decisions.  my point is that conscious me does not directly weigh the good of other people when making a decision, only what good it will do me in the end.  i think this is true for all people.   #  they do it to protect themselves from predators.   #  safety in numbers.  we develop a society with a common set of ethics so we have visibility and safety.  and is not just a human trait.  you think animals travel in packs for shits and giggles ? they do it to protect themselves from predators.  go on safari and you see elk and zebra and buffalo all hanging out.  not because they get a chemical reward of interaction but because they know they have a common interest and if one if them sees a lion, they will alert evryone else by running
i am not religious, and i am writing this with the assumption that there is no such things as a universal code for what is right or wrong.  sympathy is a trait that has been evolved by us humans because of the evolutionary advantage that it gives us.  we are compelled to act on empathy because of the pleasant chemicals that are released when we do so.  i think when a person gives money to charity, or shares his bag of m ms with his/her friends, he/she does so either because of the  good feeling  from doing so, or because of social consequences.  i also think that the entire idea of significance is a trait of the human mind, developed for our survival and reproduction.  i do not see any rational reason to put any importance into the development of society or improvement of anyone but your own wellfare, other than for the chemical release that you are rewarded with.  i also recognize that ethics and personal values are highly subjective.  this is easily supported by the ton of debates on whether or not something is ethical.  with no ultimate universal ethical authority, i believe that a person is only obliged to do whatever pleases him/her not necessarily short tem .  i do not think that acting exclusively in your own interests regardless of your interests damages anything worth saving, from the point of view of the person in question.  having a society comprised of individuals acting on the same code of ethics would be beneficial to the growth of the society, and in turn to the well being of every human in it.  however, i do not see any reason for the individual to be rationally interested in other people doing well.  i do not believe in ethics being anything but little psychological traits that were evolved for our survival, and are triggered exclusively for our own pleasure.  cmv if anything, i think my philosophy leads me to act more kindly towards other people than one who has a strict belief in superhuman ethics.  for an example, i do not believe in deserving punishment.  i think the only purpose of punishment should be to discourage the act or in some cases of imprisonment, also to keep a dangerous person from the streets .  doing something uncomfortable to a person is to most people an uncomfortable act in itself, doing so  because it is right  makes little sense to me.  i even think that a person who believes strongly in a universal code of ethics is more likely to act in a way that deprives him/herself of pleasure.   #  i do not see any rational reason to put any importance into the development of society or improvement of anyone but your own wellfare, other than for the chemical release that you are rewarded with.   #  i do not see how you have differentiated between the reward of acting for someone else is benefit versus your own.   # i do not see how you have differentiated between the reward of acting for someone else is benefit versus your own.  if i act in my own benefit, the only way i am rewarded is by a chemical release.  for example, if i eat an apple, there is a chemical release in my brain that represents the taste of the apple, a chemical release caused by the sensation of being full, and future chemical releases caused by the health benefits.  if i give someone else an apple, there is a chemical release that makes me feel good for helping that person.  in both scenarios i am only rewarded by a chemical release.   #  you are a jerk to the secretaries at your office.   #  here is the problem.  you ignore the direct benefit to you of those around you being well off.  lets start small and work up.  your girlfriend is feeling unattractive and by doing something kind for her you improve her mood and later that night get sex as an indirect result.  benefit to you maybe one you wanted specifically but more likely an unintended consequence of a kind action.  you are a jerk to the secretaries at your office.  they start being pissed off about it and stop being helpful or even work against you.  indirectly your poor behavior towards them results in your job performance suffering or you having to work harder.  it would have been much easier to be kind and gracious to your staff than the course you took.  even larger scale.  we spend tax dollars on social welfare programs to reduce poverty.  with reduced poverty comes reduced crime comes you being victimized by crime less often at a lower cost than hosting your own police force.  we invest in education.  next generation of workers are smarter and can add additional value.  new technologies are invented, society advances, and suddenly you are enjoying the indirect benefit of all those things through everything around you being better.  yes in theory you could live in a walled off complex seperate from the rest of the world free to live your life however you want.  however i put to you that ethics.  or socialized responses.  boost total social outcomes raising every boat.   #  i am just saying your example supports op is point at least as much as not.   # you hit a cat say accidentally.  now if you are a creature motivated completely by personal self interest why would you feel bad about having done that ? you wo not get caught.  you are free and clear.  i would feel bad because i am human, an emotional animal, and i have just killed another sentient creature.  it has nothing to do with getting caught.  but there are no people in your above scenario, just a dead cat assuming it was a stray or something , so obviously i am not feeling bad because of other people is feelings.  and the cat is dead, so is feeling nothing.  i am not saying people is feelings do not matter to me, they do.  i am just saying your example supports op is point at least as much as not.  to counter it, you would have to find a general example of something that is commonly done for the benefit of others that is against our own self interest.   #  i am focusing mainly on the rational and conscious level of thought.   #  i am focusing mainly on the rational and conscious level of thought.  sure, my brain is a machine wired to give me nice things when i do nice things.  my playstation is a machine wired to give me nice things when i put electricity in it.  i guess you could phrase it as  my playstation is interested in consuming electricity .  my playstation does not make decisions though.  i, my conscious level of thought, makes decisions.  my point is that conscious me does not directly weigh the good of other people when making a decision, only what good it will do me in the end.  i think this is true for all people.   #  you seem to defend both psychological egoism and ethical egoism.   #  you seem to defend both psychological egoism and ethical egoism.  let me first adress why psychological egoism is wrong: soldiers do not throw themselves on grenades in order to save their companions because they think it feels good, and they certainly do not do it because of social consequences.  they do it out of higher motives.  now to ethical egoism.  let is assume that i have a very strong desire to execute each and every criminal because i derive pleasure from it.  according to ethical egoism, denying the execution of them means denying my pleasure and that is wrong.  killing them off does not damage anything worth saving, as you have stated.  now, you only have one option if you do not want to reject your theory: accept that i am right in thinking we should execute more criminals, thus showing that ethical egoism does not lead to more kindness and that we both right at the same time while arguing the exact opposite.  this does not seem like a very pleasant conclusion.  this is easily supported by the ton of debates on whether or not something is ethical.  in that case, the answer to the question of whether or not the earth is flat is also subjective.  there have been countless debates about that, and some people still think that it is flat.  you do not need an ultimate universal ethical authority.  maybe some propositions about what you ought to do are simply true like statements about the natural world are true.  in that case, not doing what those propositions say is good means doing something immoral you do not need a religious or political authority for that.
first, i am not talking about lewd ascii art or text posts with image links.  i am talking about simple, textual posts that happen to touch on adult subjects.  labeling these posts  nsfw  is not only pointless, it is often counter productive.  think for a moment what the  nsfw  label is meant to accomplish.  the  nsfw  flag helps you decide not to click something, because clicking it will display a graphic image that is visible to your employer and coworkers if they are in the same room.  if i am reading a paragraph of text, my bosses and co workers cannot tell the contents of the text unless they sit down and read it.  in fact, they  only  way they would understand that i am reading a sexually explicit story is if they are reddit user is themselves, and recognize the red  nsfw  label.   #  unless they sit down and read it.   #  reading it does not require them to sit down.   # reading it does not require them to sit down.  indeed, you can  glance  at a screen and read a whole sentence that you were not meant to i do this all the time without meaning to ! seriously.  nsfw is not  just   a graphic image .  it means  not safe for work .  i do not know how else to explain that to you except to say it is inherently more broad than just graphic images, and that  your personal definition of it  is not a valid argument.  URL  #  first of all, good luck proving this claim.   # that is a straw man.  first of all, good luck proving this claim.  call me sometime after the heat death of the universe, when you have assimilated and processed the entire content of reddit, and let me know if this is really true.  for everybody is sake, let is assume you are right.  how is that sound ? great.  from the sidebar of /r/sex:   all posts here are nsfw.  the only ones that are marked as  nsfw  are ones that link you to websites that have nsfw images.  while they do use the nsfw tag to differentiate images from text only tiers of nsfwness ,  all  posts even text only posts are nsfw by default.  an entire 0,0 subscriber subreddit that has a formal policy of nsfwing text posts in a separate manner from image based posts so you know that it is less of a blanket policy and more one targeted toward text only posts .  in the end, you can define nsfw however but like but to say that nobody considers  regular , non bolded text to be nsfw is categorically false.  we can argue about the morality of this if you would like as you seem to be quite fond of moving the goalposts at your whim , but i claim that you are  wrong , sir/ma am.   #  by that definition, i suppose that i ca not really argue with your conclusion.   #  you mean phrases like:  fuck her right in her cunt ! sounds pretty sexual to me, and what is more it is  obviously  sexual.  no need to be a redditor to understand that.  and look, it is just text ! i do not know, i feel like your argument just sort of begs the question when you assume that something must be image based to be nsfw.  by that definition, i suppose that i ca not really argue with your conclusion.  i can, however, disagree with your premises, namely your definition of  nsfw  which is both a premise and a conclusion here .  and that is kind of what this discussion is all about.   #  i have not seen them in /r/askreddit, /r/funny, /r/pics, /r/tifu, /r/games, /r/darksouls, or anything like that.   #  how often have you seen racist terms like that show up in the more popular subreddits ? i have not seen them in /r/askreddit, /r/funny, /r/pics, /r/tifu, /r/games, /r/darksouls, or anything like that.  that is not the best example since it does not show up in subs that people at work would be browsing.  if you go to /r/0chan it is gonna show up every other post, and more likely in image posts containing text.  if you are on that subreddit at work, you are not using good judgement and it is hardly anyone is fault but your own for browsing there.   #  then it becomes subjective to who is work it is safe at and who is it is not safe at.   #  then it becomes subjective to who is work it is safe at and who is it is not safe at.  if it is truly nsfw you should not be on that site at all.  there is a general standard that already works: if there is exposed privates or it looks skanky, it is nsfw.  if it is gore ish, it is nsfw.  there is more i ca not think of, but text posts beyond ascii are not nsfw by these standards.  if you are in a more sensitive office where text is taken more seriously and something gets posted that your work deems nsfw, you should not be on reddit because it is not going to get flagged.  now there are obvious examples of subreddits that will likely get you fired for reading them either way, like /r/gonewildstories, but at that point you are just asking for trouble.
right now the polling for the upcoming scottish independence referendum is around 0 0 and i think this is a terrible idea.  the entire motivating factor here is outdated racist nationalism.  the united kingdom is an entirely liberalized democracy with full civil and political rights for all its citizens.  nobody is oppressed under their legal system.  one out of every few prime ministers is from scotland and they have a proportionately equal representation in parliament.  sure, historically there have been some issues, but those do not exist anymore.  it seems like the overwhelming number of people who support independence is based on them saying,  huh, that would be neat.   i have yet to hear any good things that would result from the split and i do not think the geopolitical future of the world should be determined by the neatness of the proposition.  so what would happen if scotland voted in favor of independence ? well, first of all, the uk, currently the fourth largest military power in the world and a country that has a permanent seat on the un security council would be decimated in its strength.  and this would come at a time when the world is increasing in polarity, with the uk as one of the only liberal democracies that still understands the necessity of hard military power in the world.  this would harm british military security and their ability to assist in counter terrorism operations worldwide or stand up to increasingly bold authoritarian states, like russia.  furthermore, if scotland is successful in receiving independence, it would very likely start a wave of secessionist movements across europe, which if successful, would weaken all of europe and be a threat to security worldwide, especially given the rapid rise of far right nationalist movements in almost every country in recent years.  western democracies should be focused on consolidation and working together and political unionization that will benefit them all in the long term and realize there are still real, external threats that are more important than their xenophobia.  also, if scotland declares independence, england will be left with a much more conservative government with a much greater chance of leaving the european union, which again would only serve to make the west weaker and could lead to other states following the same course.  in scotland, there are many questions left unanswered, including whether or not they will even be allowed to join the eu and what currency they will use.  they plan on continuing to use the pound, but frankly, there are very few reasons why england should allow them to do this.  overall, not even the scottish independence party has good answers to these questions.  another argument is that scotland is different politically than the uk more liberal , but in a full democracy, this should not matter.  you ca not leave a union just because you do not like the outcome of an election, that is itself anti democratic.  you just need to work harder to convince the majority to vote with you the next time around.  this is different in places like south sudan or kurdistan, where the national government is authoritarian and the independence struggle is also a movement towards greater freedom and liberty, but this argument does not apply in the uk, where, no matter who is elected, civil liberties will realistically be preserved.  the trend moving across europe in these democratic states is that people are starting again to use elections, not as an exchange of ideas, but as a mechanism for preserving their identity, culture, or religion, which will ultimately have terrible results and cause huge divisions in society.  this type of nationalism has been seen before, in the events leading to both world wars, so before you start to get excited thinking about the possibility of an independent scotland, just because your one great grandfather was from there, think about the very serious consequences that could be a result of this referendum.   #  well, first of all, the uk, currently the fourth largest military power in the world and a country that has a permanent seat on the un security council would be decimated in its strength.   #  sure, the uk would lose some military power, but some of that would be recouped in the form of a new scottish military.   #  i can probably dig up sources for most of the things i cite if anyone seriously doubts them.  first, it is not racist to be a nationalist, unless you think that countries like armenia, denmark, and kosovo are  racist .  second there are lots of reasons besides nationalism that scots are voting yes such as:   0 of scots are opposed to nuclear weapons, the uk is a nuclear armed nation.  scots tend to lean left on economic issues they tend to want a nordic style democratic socialist system whereas the conservative party in the uk tends more toward low tax, semi laissez faire capitalism they tend to want a us style economic system .  the wealth from scottish oil reserves is sent south, and many scots would argue, is mismanaged.  scotland bears the full cost of tapping the oil reserves in the form of environmental degradation, dangerous jobs etc but only get back a fraction of the benefits.  that is hardly fair.  even if you do not think the above reasons are particularly compelling, this at least shows that there are reasons besides nationalism for scots to be voting yes.  sure, the uk would lose some military power, but some of that would be recouped in the form of a new scottish military.  consider: the uk spends 0 of it is gdp on military expenditures.  assuming that as of now, scotland contributes proportionally equally to this, scotland contributes 0 of its gdp to military stuff.  let is suppose that scotland would match in terms of % of gdp it is military expenditures with, say norway the scots tend to want a nordic style government, so i think it is a fair rough estimate of what they would spend on their military , or 0 of gdp.  the total loss in military expenditures then equals 0 of the scottish gdp this assumes that the uk would not increase it is own proportional spending to account for the loss of scottish revenue .  given the scottish gdp is $0 billion, this amounts to a total loss of $0 billion in military spending.  currently the us, uk, france and germany the main nato powers spend a combined $0 billion.  this means that scottish independence would lower nato is military spending by about . 0 around one third of one percent, or one three hundreth .  i do not think that a one third of one percent reduction in military spending  decimates  the free world is ability to fight especially when you compare our combined budgets with that of our presumed enemies .  the us alone already outspends china and russia combined by over 0 to 0, this is a much higher margin than say, the height of the cold war.  i would argue that the west can quite safely scale down, or at least transition their militaries to assymetric warfare doctrines without risking their military hegemony.  yes, the uk would still be able to control the monetary policy wrt the pound, but they ca not just order scots to stop trading pounds for goods and services anymore than the us can stop people from using us dollars in canada and mexico.  you ca not leave a union just because you do not like the outcome of an election, that is itself anti democratic there is a difference between leaving a union because you do not like the outcome of an election, and leaving a union because, as a minority your interests are consistently ignored or downplayed.  was it antidemocratic of kosovo to demand independence ? ethnic albanians had full voting rights in serbia, that does not entail that their interests were fairly represented.  even in parliamentary systems, the winning coalition who perhaps received 0 of the votes has nearly %0 of the power.  there is a huge difference between when say, rick perry says that texas is going to secede from the us, and when scotland threatens to secede from the uk, texans have a huge say in the us government, and they party they tend to vote for the gop is quite powerful in the us.  while labor is powerful, scots feel that their interests are  consistently  downplayed in favor of english interests.   #  perhaps norway thinks some oil really part of norway, or russia feels that russian speakers are in danger.   #  okay i agree that icdms proliferated during the cold war.  this was mainly because they were the best weapon a nation could get their hands on, and better weapons have always proliferated.  i would even agree that the us and ussr mained drove the proliferation as those were the two main world powers.  however, the history of how we got to this situation does not directly impact if having nukes is currently a good idea.  you said:  i think it is a bit silly for us to demand that our allies help with the nuclear defense.  however we the us are not demanding our allies, they are doing it for their own benefit.  the uk has nukes as a deterrent against any other country deciding to declare war/invade the uk, arguably this has been successful.  now if scotland was indepent it could probally get away without having nukes or a large military, because it is situated next to well armed ally england .  imagine instead that the rest of the uk outside of scotland vanished.  scotland might reasonably be worried that other countries would decided parts of scotland belong to them.  perhaps norway thinks some oil really part of norway, or russia feels that russian speakers are in danger.  if this happens the people of scotland would likely want the most effective method of deterring such actions.  the most effective method is having a nuclear arsenal.   #  the premise that scotland would still benefit from the rest of nato is nuclear arsenal is predicated on the notion that scotland would somehow be a target.   #  the premise that scotland would still benefit from the rest of nato is nuclear arsenal is predicated on the notion that scotland would somehow be a target.  as it stands now, scotland, as part of the uk, is a player in the event of an international nuclear standoff.  that is not a position scots want to be in.  they are not interested in empire, they do not want to influence world affairs, they want to be left out of conflicts like that.  south africa gave up its nuclear arsenal years ago for exactly this reason.   #  scotland is not a third world country like south africa.   #  yes, and if everyone took this stance russia and possibly china would do whatever they please.  did you not see putin is speech only weeks ago where he took the opportunity to publicly remind the world that russia is a nuclear power ? do you think as insane as north korea is, that they would still have resisted the urge to nuke japan if they did not know we would retaliate in kind ? maybe scotland would not be threatened at first, but the world would be threatened if the west followed your shining example of so called moral superiority.  scotland is not a third world country like south africa.  disarming in this way is to me, a classic example of choosing to do what is easy rather than what is right.   #  you have a responsibility to be a normal person, an average person, but you have no responsibility to be a good person.   #  of course.  you are right really, it is to scotland is advantage to stay out of it, because that costs less money and means you shoulder no responsibility.  and there is no real risk for this to backfire, because who would invade a country such as scotland with so many powerful friends ? but as i mentioned before it is a choice between what is right and what is easy.  it is never anyone is responsibility to be a good person.  you have a responsibility to be a normal person, an average person, but you have no responsibility to be a good person.
there was a time, long ago, when atheists were persecuted in north america and europe, but i do not really think it is a big deal any more.  people just want to cash in on the victim complex nowadays, and atheists are the worst for this.  i ca not think of a single area of society where atheists would face social disadvantage.  also, anyone who, for whatever reason, is persecuted for being atheist is at least partly responsible for their own persecution.  no one knows what your religious views are unless you tell them.  and anyone who shouts loudly about being an atheist was probably being a dick anyway.   #  also, anyone who, for whatever reason, is persecuted for being atheist is at least partly responsible for their own persecution.   #  no one knows what your religious views are unless you tell them.   #  i agreed with you at first, but have to take huge exception to your second paragraph.  no one knows what your religious views are unless you tell them.  and anyone who shouts loudly about being an atheist was probably being a dick anyway.  this is blatant victim blaming and i have a major problem with it.  it is no one is responsibility to keep their mouth shut about things other people are intolerant about.  an athiest who shares his/her beliefs is not necessarily  shouting loudly  about it, and sharing your beliefs does not make you responsible for people treating you badly because of them.   #  so i am going to separate them and address them individually.   #  you group together a few different things here that do not belong together.  so i am going to separate them and address them individually.  as i have already stated, persecution does not mean people disliking you.  unless of course you were harassing and/or threatening customers and employees.  then you are the one committing persecution and you can absolutely be thrown out.  but if you are just wearing a swastika, then no, you ca not be denied services or else threatened based only on that fact.  if you go out wearing a swastika and someone beats you up because of it, to say  well he was wearing a swastika  is absolutely victim blaming.   #  you can reveal that you are an atheist in normal conversation.   #  are you under the impression that atheists go around in public shouting  there is no god  ? you can reveal that you are an atheist in normal conversation.  in some cases you would have to specifically hide the fact that you are atheist, which is beyond what you should expect.  an example ? my cousin, who lives in an area where everyone is basically expected to be christian, once went to someone else is house for dinner.  he was asked to say grace.  and also i would like to remind you of jehovah is witnesses, who go above and beyond bothering people in public.  they bother people at their homes.   #  all of my atheist, jewish p, and muslim friends are okay with it.   #  i am not asking my gust to take holy communion.  i am just asking them to be respectful of my family is customs.  all that is required for that is to be silent for the 0 seconds it takes for us to say grace.  all of my atheist, jewish p, and muslim friends are okay with it.  and when i go to dinner at their homes p, i am equally respectful.   #  if it is, i would venture to say that the host in question have misunderstood a large part of the bible, but that is neither here nor there.   #  if that is what someone requires in their home than that is their home and you can chose not to be there.  i would never require that of my guest no one in my church would but people have a right to that in their own home.  if i was at a house the host asked me to renounce my faith, i would tell them that it would be best if i were to leave.  now we do not know if this story is accurate.  if it is, i would venture to say that the host in question have misunderstood a large part of the bible, but that is neither here nor there.
there was a time, long ago, when atheists were persecuted in north america and europe, but i do not really think it is a big deal any more.  people just want to cash in on the victim complex nowadays, and atheists are the worst for this.  i ca not think of a single area of society where atheists would face social disadvantage.  also, anyone who, for whatever reason, is persecuted for being atheist is at least partly responsible for their own persecution.  no one knows what your religious views are unless you tell them.  and anyone who shouts loudly about being an atheist was probably being a dick anyway.   #  no one knows what your religious views are unless you tell them.   #  many religious people make very pointed interrogations and conversations about religion on a continual basis, both in personal and professional contexts.   #  while society as a whole does not tend to actively persecute atheists, on a personal level many do experience hardship and ostracism due to making their views known.  there are more than a few threads on r/atheism about kids being kicked out of their houses, people being ostracized or even fired from jobs, and so forth.  many religious people make very pointed interrogations and conversations about religion on a continual basis, both in personal and professional contexts.  when atheists are directly confronted about their views, they can either lie outright, or be discovered.  this really is not  shouting loudly , it is admitting something unwillingly, sometimes under duress.  the negative consequences of admitting atheism count as persecution, and it is not always because the individual was making a point of flaunting their disdain for religion.  more often, they try to keep it quiet for as long as possible, for this very reason.  i think your view basically underestimates the fervor and assiduousness of evangelical christians in the us.  some are known for being extremely pushy and intolerant, and it goes without saying, intolerant of atheism.   #  an athiest who shares his/her beliefs is not necessarily  shouting loudly  about it, and sharing your beliefs does not make you responsible for people treating you badly because of them.   #  i agreed with you at first, but have to take huge exception to your second paragraph.  no one knows what your religious views are unless you tell them.  and anyone who shouts loudly about being an atheist was probably being a dick anyway.  this is blatant victim blaming and i have a major problem with it.  it is no one is responsibility to keep their mouth shut about things other people are intolerant about.  an athiest who shares his/her beliefs is not necessarily  shouting loudly  about it, and sharing your beliefs does not make you responsible for people treating you badly because of them.   #  if you go out wearing a swastika and someone beats you up because of it, to say  well he was wearing a swastika  is absolutely victim blaming.   #  you group together a few different things here that do not belong together.  so i am going to separate them and address them individually.  as i have already stated, persecution does not mean people disliking you.  unless of course you were harassing and/or threatening customers and employees.  then you are the one committing persecution and you can absolutely be thrown out.  but if you are just wearing a swastika, then no, you ca not be denied services or else threatened based only on that fact.  if you go out wearing a swastika and someone beats you up because of it, to say  well he was wearing a swastika  is absolutely victim blaming.   #  and also i would like to remind you of jehovah is witnesses, who go above and beyond bothering people in public.   #  are you under the impression that atheists go around in public shouting  there is no god  ? you can reveal that you are an atheist in normal conversation.  in some cases you would have to specifically hide the fact that you are atheist, which is beyond what you should expect.  an example ? my cousin, who lives in an area where everyone is basically expected to be christian, once went to someone else is house for dinner.  he was asked to say grace.  and also i would like to remind you of jehovah is witnesses, who go above and beyond bothering people in public.  they bother people at their homes.   #  and when i go to dinner at their homes p, i am equally respectful.   #  i am not asking my gust to take holy communion.  i am just asking them to be respectful of my family is customs.  all that is required for that is to be silent for the 0 seconds it takes for us to say grace.  all of my atheist, jewish p, and muslim friends are okay with it.  and when i go to dinner at their homes p, i am equally respectful.
as far as i know, the scottish might be a proud nation, but they do not have anything important.  the country would crash in no time, because it is basically just hills and workers.  there is no kind of big industry coming from there, nor are there important resources.  the only negative thing about them being a part of the uk is that they are not an actual country, but, as i already mentioned, it seems to me like they only benefit from it.  so yeah.  i think that scotland would be better off to stay in the uk.  change my view !  #  as far as i know, the scottish might be a proud nation, but they do not have anything important.   #  people, resources, and a distinct political and social ideology.   # people, resources, and a distinct political and social ideology.  these things are pretty important.  there is no kind of big industry coming from there, nor are there important resources.  oil has already been mentioned by several people in this thread but that makes up 0 of our income.  there is wind and wave power, food and drinks industries i. e whiskey, beer, our tourism and our research industries.  countries smaller and less resourced than ours have been successful.  scotland currently contributes more to the uk than it gets back out of it, all while being told that it sponges off the state, and that we are  isubsidy junkies .  we might still crash and burn, but that is by no means certain or even likely.  other negative things include the already mentioned net profit loss of being part of the uk, the fact that with only 0 of the population we barely affect the vote in general elections and therefore generally do not get who we vote for, the fact that as part of the uk we get dragged into illegal wars, we have no power to remove the trident nuclear missiles that are currently housed in the clyde and most scots are opposed to.  it is difficult for me to change your mind about your overall statement because even scots who agree with the above points do not necessarily agree that independence is the way to acheive the change we desire.  i personally do, but i can understand those who do not.  as far as i am concerned the political system we have will never change as long as we are part of the uk.  in an independent scotland we have the opportunity to start from square one and reinvent democracy.  this is a huge debate that is been going on for years in scotland, it is difficult to sum this up without writing an essay, so apologies.   #  i am preparing for a career in oil and gas !  #  i am preparing for a career in oil and gas ! i will try and put my unbiased opinions here.  since the north sea has began being drilled 0 , approximately 0 billion barrels have been produced.  it is estimated from a few sources that approximately 0 billion remain; at this rate i would estimate that would last a wee bit over 0 years.  scottish government seems to think it would be between 0/0, i would definitely say under 0.  new advancements in the next few years could definitely speed things up.  now, there are many people saying oil is a volatile market, scotland should be careful.   they are not really wrong, oil and gas can be a volatile market indeed.  however, what they need to realize is that 0 of the uks oil demand comes from the great sea oil.  even in a volatile market, this a huge plus for scotland.  they have much better control, and charge more for importing their oil to the uk; thus, increasing their revenues further.  remember, the uk is collecting 0 billion in taxes from the oil industry in 0 0 year.  scotland is also a much more liberal country, meaning they would not oppose the country partly owning an oil and gas company.  they vary well could start a company much like the government of canada did; petro canada, still one of the largest companies in the industry in canada today though it is separated from the gov now .  however, this being said the numbers do not lie.  production in scotland has been going downhill since the late 0s their peak.  this is important to note because it does not seem a good forecast for scotland.  if estimates are wrong of the oil remaining, it could spell disaster for a new country.  additionally, there could be problems with and disputes behind scotland and the uk over sea beds.  there have been many bills where england has all too literally taken the sea bed of scotland and called it england is.  this could be an issue when looking at the market demand in the future, and the untapped reserve estimates.  my suggestion would be one that alex salmond has already suggested.  setting up a wealth fund, similar to norways.  what this means is taking 0/0th of revenue each year and setting it aside.  norways fund 0 billion pounds last year, so it is a wise decision indeed.   #  right now scotland may be better off alone, but this will inevitably change.   # right now the north sea oil could make scotland wealthy and one might be tempted to task why share it with the rest of the uk ? but the value of all resources is transient 0 years ago it was worth nothing, in another 0 0 years it might again be worth nothing let is hope so for the sake of the environment .  right now scotland may be better off alone, but this will inevitably change.  if every region of every region of every nation decided to secede whenever it enjoyed a resource advantage over its peers we would have to redraw the worlds maps every 0 years.  moreover, it strikes me as absurdly selfish and unpatriotic to try and avoid sharing resources with the rest of the nation.  for centuries the entire country prospered and declined collectively, fought world wars together, but now that one region has a clear resource advantage, it wants to go it alone ?  #  incidentally, why does 0 of the public get to make such an important decision for the remainder ?  #  yeah i expected region to cause issue when scotland is its own nation, but i was trying to be nonspecific.  region could mean nation of the uk, or state of the us, or province of spain, etc.  incidentally, why does 0 of the public get to make such an important decision for the remainder ? whenever you want to make such a drastic change, should not you require a super majority ? it takes 0/0rds to pass a constitutional amendment in the states, and that still has far lower impact than secession.  what if next year three guys change their mind and 0 want to rejoin the uk ? will scotland flop flop from member to independent for the next fifty years ?  #  it has its own central government and appears as a single entity on almost any world map i have ever seen.   #  calm down, man.  i am not  kicking and screaming , i am just trying to understand.  from everything i have understood, the united kingdom is a country itself.  it has its own central government and appears as a single entity on almost any world map i have ever seen.  when i hear about scottish independence, i think that they are voting to seperate from the united kingsom.  to become its own seperate country.  i have never considered a country to be a part of another country, and maybe i am wrong, but you ca not consider that i am being unreasonable for thinking that.  the uk is literally the only place in the world that does something like that, and from the way the rest of the world teaches the definition of  country , you really ca not expect other people to accept that definition without some debate.
as far as i know, the scottish might be a proud nation, but they do not have anything important.  the country would crash in no time, because it is basically just hills and workers.  there is no kind of big industry coming from there, nor are there important resources.  the only negative thing about them being a part of the uk is that they are not an actual country, but, as i already mentioned, it seems to me like they only benefit from it.  so yeah.  i think that scotland would be better off to stay in the uk.  change my view !  #  the country would crash in no time, because it is basically just hills and workers.   #  there is no kind of big industry coming from there, nor are there important resources.   # people, resources, and a distinct political and social ideology.  these things are pretty important.  there is no kind of big industry coming from there, nor are there important resources.  oil has already been mentioned by several people in this thread but that makes up 0 of our income.  there is wind and wave power, food and drinks industries i. e whiskey, beer, our tourism and our research industries.  countries smaller and less resourced than ours have been successful.  scotland currently contributes more to the uk than it gets back out of it, all while being told that it sponges off the state, and that we are  isubsidy junkies .  we might still crash and burn, but that is by no means certain or even likely.  other negative things include the already mentioned net profit loss of being part of the uk, the fact that with only 0 of the population we barely affect the vote in general elections and therefore generally do not get who we vote for, the fact that as part of the uk we get dragged into illegal wars, we have no power to remove the trident nuclear missiles that are currently housed in the clyde and most scots are opposed to.  it is difficult for me to change your mind about your overall statement because even scots who agree with the above points do not necessarily agree that independence is the way to acheive the change we desire.  i personally do, but i can understand those who do not.  as far as i am concerned the political system we have will never change as long as we are part of the uk.  in an independent scotland we have the opportunity to start from square one and reinvent democracy.  this is a huge debate that is been going on for years in scotland, it is difficult to sum this up without writing an essay, so apologies.   #  additionally, there could be problems with and disputes behind scotland and the uk over sea beds.   #  i am preparing for a career in oil and gas ! i will try and put my unbiased opinions here.  since the north sea has began being drilled 0 , approximately 0 billion barrels have been produced.  it is estimated from a few sources that approximately 0 billion remain; at this rate i would estimate that would last a wee bit over 0 years.  scottish government seems to think it would be between 0/0, i would definitely say under 0.  new advancements in the next few years could definitely speed things up.  now, there are many people saying oil is a volatile market, scotland should be careful.   they are not really wrong, oil and gas can be a volatile market indeed.  however, what they need to realize is that 0 of the uks oil demand comes from the great sea oil.  even in a volatile market, this a huge plus for scotland.  they have much better control, and charge more for importing their oil to the uk; thus, increasing their revenues further.  remember, the uk is collecting 0 billion in taxes from the oil industry in 0 0 year.  scotland is also a much more liberal country, meaning they would not oppose the country partly owning an oil and gas company.  they vary well could start a company much like the government of canada did; petro canada, still one of the largest companies in the industry in canada today though it is separated from the gov now .  however, this being said the numbers do not lie.  production in scotland has been going downhill since the late 0s their peak.  this is important to note because it does not seem a good forecast for scotland.  if estimates are wrong of the oil remaining, it could spell disaster for a new country.  additionally, there could be problems with and disputes behind scotland and the uk over sea beds.  there have been many bills where england has all too literally taken the sea bed of scotland and called it england is.  this could be an issue when looking at the market demand in the future, and the untapped reserve estimates.  my suggestion would be one that alex salmond has already suggested.  setting up a wealth fund, similar to norways.  what this means is taking 0/0th of revenue each year and setting it aside.  norways fund 0 billion pounds last year, so it is a wise decision indeed.   #  right now scotland may be better off alone, but this will inevitably change.   # right now the north sea oil could make scotland wealthy and one might be tempted to task why share it with the rest of the uk ? but the value of all resources is transient 0 years ago it was worth nothing, in another 0 0 years it might again be worth nothing let is hope so for the sake of the environment .  right now scotland may be better off alone, but this will inevitably change.  if every region of every region of every nation decided to secede whenever it enjoyed a resource advantage over its peers we would have to redraw the worlds maps every 0 years.  moreover, it strikes me as absurdly selfish and unpatriotic to try and avoid sharing resources with the rest of the nation.  for centuries the entire country prospered and declined collectively, fought world wars together, but now that one region has a clear resource advantage, it wants to go it alone ?  #  it takes 0/0rds to pass a constitutional amendment in the states, and that still has far lower impact than secession.   #  yeah i expected region to cause issue when scotland is its own nation, but i was trying to be nonspecific.  region could mean nation of the uk, or state of the us, or province of spain, etc.  incidentally, why does 0 of the public get to make such an important decision for the remainder ? whenever you want to make such a drastic change, should not you require a super majority ? it takes 0/0rds to pass a constitutional amendment in the states, and that still has far lower impact than secession.  what if next year three guys change their mind and 0 want to rejoin the uk ? will scotland flop flop from member to independent for the next fifty years ?  #  from everything i have understood, the united kingdom is a country itself.   #  calm down, man.  i am not  kicking and screaming , i am just trying to understand.  from everything i have understood, the united kingdom is a country itself.  it has its own central government and appears as a single entity on almost any world map i have ever seen.  when i hear about scottish independence, i think that they are voting to seperate from the united kingsom.  to become its own seperate country.  i have never considered a country to be a part of another country, and maybe i am wrong, but you ca not consider that i am being unreasonable for thinking that.  the uk is literally the only place in the world that does something like that, and from the way the rest of the world teaches the definition of  country , you really ca not expect other people to accept that definition without some debate.
. in comparison to the internet is response.  imo: the first party to resort to death threats likely has the least leg to stand on.  as soon as folks start attacking a person instead of a position their opinion is forfeit via ad hominem.  there are people out there who actually deserve attention, loathing and acid, but i am not convinced ms.  quinn is one of them.  reasons i like her: she is a developer.  she created a game i can sympathize with or at the very least was a part in depression quest is creation.  she is a woman in gaming, which is not to say she is part of a rare subset of creatures in the gaming community, like a unicorn or magical liopleurodon, but she is a human being in a historically unfriendly career field.  that is awesome.  i love an underdog.  the article she wrote with cracked. com was clever, funny, and poignant.  reasons i might not like her: none as of yet.  until i have talked to her or witnessed her in action she gets the same treatment as any other stranger: clean slate.  thus far, i have not seen any sort of damning evidence or undeserved spite from her end.  i understand this cmv is somewhat topical and liable to result in a wash of magma ragers, but i am genuinely confused why she is getting so much bad press.  if one of you fine people can convince me logically that she deserves so much ire, i will happily award the coveted delta.  it is obvious my opinion is not that of the collective, but that is ok.  i will happily let the internet duke it out in the background.  anyway gotta get back to work.  i will check in occasionally to see if anything new pops up and i will keep reading/watching information regarding.  thanks for the discussion so far.  i ca not wait to discuss further.  the escalation that followed was uncalled for, and while i still think unnecessary, drew to light a more interesting topic that was promptly buried beneath misogyny circle jerking on both sides.  it is been a hell of a ride folks and i value your inputs, but ultimately i ca not place blame/wrongness on either party as a whole, but mostly on the subset of team x.  firing child porn at femfreq for example.  fucking disgusting, does not matter who dunnit.  i am out.  all of my nope.  i no longer have any interest in becoming a part of this circle jerk.  i no longer care.  azir was released today.  i no longer care.   #  reasons i might not like her: none as of yet.   #  until i have talked to her or witnessed her in action she gets the same treatment as any other stranger: clean slate.   #  gamers  are not a unified group.  they did not all get together and plan out some elaborate death threats.  additionally death threats and other shit is just par for the course for anyone that is more than passingly famous on the internet.  pewdiepie gets death threats for  ruining youtube  and stupid shit like that.  i am not saying it is not a dick move, i am just saying she is getting the mildly internet famous treatment everybody else does.  that is awesome.  plenty of people would say she ruined a project specifically made to try and encourage women into gaming URL for sub par reasons.  indeed to try and counteract quinn is claims of misogyny in gaming there was pretty much a rage donation spree by 0chan to fund this women in gaming program she did not like.  until i have talked to her or witnessed her in action she gets the same treatment as any other stranger: clean slate.  thus far, i have not seen any sort of damning evidence or undeserved spite from her end.  i really do not care much either way, but i have heard plenty of people that just do not like her for being a lame dev.  depression quest is, so i hear, formatted as a choose your own adventure book, just on a computer.  it is a game only in the loosest sense and far from giving a good impression of women in gaming if that is true.  i do not really care either way because i think that format can still be effective at something and can still be art, but i can understand that trying to hawk it as a game is not going to go over well with people expecting more in the way of interactivity.   #  and i feel like the whole thing is representative on her stance and method of  helping others.    #  URL that seems to be the  go to  link about the whole thing, but i am not sure you can call it unbiased.  basically wizardchan is a board full of lonely men i believe they do not allow females with severe anxiety, specifically about interacting with women and the public, and depression issues.  if i recall, there was one post when depression quest showed up calling her a cunt because they felt that her game was an attention grab.  apparently someone  leaked  the post to zoe and she made some remarks on her twitter alluding to a  raid  by wizardchan.  the whole thing seemed to snowball from there and led to a lot of comments making fun wizardchan for being lonely  losers.   she made some comments and some of her underlings made some comments, which of course led to their underlings all mocking these guys.  so now you have the board full of people who have no idea what is going on being attacked by people they can barely interact with.  now, was the first post on wizardchan inappropriate ? yes.  but it was hardly a  raid  and it was made by one person.  it does not give anyone a right to attack an entire group of people who are struggling with issues she claims to be trying to garner support for.  and i feel like the whole thing is representative on her stance and method of  helping others.   she seems guilty of the very things she is crusading against, and uses the same exact  tactics  as those she claims to be attacking her.  the whole thing just reeks of ignorance.   #  both were emotional reactions, but the difference would be like you telling your best friend you think someone is an asshole and that person putting up a billboard calling anyone who associates with you a dickhead.   #  sort of.  i think the difference is the scale and animosity shown.  one wizardchan poster called her a cunt in a forum a very small group of people read.  countless people called wizardchan users a variety of things on various social media sites.  both were emotional reactions, but the difference would be like you telling your best friend you think someone is an asshole and that person putting up a billboard calling anyone who associates with you a dickhead.  regardless, the whole thing was handled poorly, and in quinn is case very hypocritically.  it seems counterproductive to bully someone while accusing them of bullying you.   #  without a party to compare her perceived evils to, my argument disappears in a puff of logic.   #  your first point blows a gaping hole in my view.  illogically, i assumed there was a concerted effort against her based on the sheer mass.  without a party to compare her perceived evils to, my argument disappears in a puff of logic.  this is the trouble with and power of anon though.  regardless, you have convinced me that this is not out of the ordinary: just that the hype is higher.  i am on mobile and ca not give you the delta just now, but expect it once i hit my lunch break.   #  i never blamed it for the harassment, in fact i specifically pointed out this group was separate from, and trying to influence the direction of, gamergate.   # so.  exactly what i said in my original post ? i never said gamergate until you brought it up.  i never blamed it for the harassment, in fact i specifically pointed out this group was separate from, and trying to influence the direction of, gamergate.  i said there is clear evidence that there was a group of 0chan goers who were coordinating to harass, dox and otherwise do whatever they could to attack quinn.  do you disagree with this ? note: i am making no claims about the size or prominence of that group, simply that they existed and what they did.
underprivileged kids should get free education/food/accommodation.  if a family income is below certain amount, their kids should have a choice to choose free education and free food.  even if they choose to stay in a boarding school, govt should establish such boarding schools and take them.  usa spends huge money on war and donates to countries.  i think govt should spend money on their own citizens and improve their quality of life than wars and supporting other countries.  investing on such boarding schools is not a big deal for countries like usa.  thanks to your comments everybody.  you changed my view and its not feasible to establish such system.  it brings different set of problems.   #  i think govt should spend money on their own citizens and improve their quality of life than wars and supporting other countries.   #  i have a few problems with this.   # i have a few problems with this.  there is no such thing as free education, food, accommodation, or any of the other things that governments decide to spend money on.  somebody always has to pay, and mostly it is the taxpayer.  this is not the say that it is wrong to provide such things, but let is at least be honest about what we are discussing.  it is all very well to advocate government spend money on nice things such as schooling or healthcare while bemoaning them spending money on nasty things like wars, but the conflation of the two is often clumsy.  for one thing, the cost of running a military has almost no bearing on the cost of education.  for another, we need both an education system and a functioning military.  saying  oh look, we have money to spend on wars but not on the children.   is a cheap comment that will net you applause, but it is ignorant.  actually the cost of educating an entire generation is quite substantial, even without considering the bureaucratic quagmire that it generates.  you would also have to consider the impact free boarding schools for the impoverished would have on poor communities.  it is one thing to support a family caring for their children, it is quite another to seize their children to raise yourself.   #  they are usually not the best tasting foods but options exist.   #  underprivileged kids already get free schooling along with the privileged kids.  is there something i am missing here ? it may not be top tier private school education, but public school is free outside of a few small expenses parents are occasionally expected to cover like $0 for a field trip here and there and a hundred or so for supplies each year if they are being extravagant.  most schools also already have free lunch and breakfast programs for kids that simply ca not afford it.  they are usually not the best tasting foods but options exist.  also government programs already exist to get higher quality lunches for underprivileged kids, one only need to have parents that make beneath a certain amount and that are willing to apply.  are you trying to say that all kids should be able to attend boarding school ? what ?  #  many teachers spend upwards of a decade in schooling and accruing debt and when they finally get a job they make like 0k a year.   #  let is start by stop spending billions of dollars on israel each year.  or how about we cut the funding from the military by 0 that will give us a couple hundred billion by itself.  u. s spends ridiculous amounts of money on foreign aid and its military and as a result our education system is complete trash for everybody but the super rich who can afford to go to very good private schools.  the u. s is one of the only countries in the entire world who does not value its teachers at all.  many teachers spend upwards of a decade in schooling and accruing debt and when they finally get a job they make like 0k a year.  it is depressing.  my sister has a masters degree and teaches in public schooling she has spent maybe $0 this year alone buying her own supplies just to give her kids the best learning experience she can afford.  education in the u. s is a joke.   #  erecting a bunch of boarding schools for kids ?  #  hey, i absolutely agree with you, but i think that if we are diverting spending from other sectors then there are better ways it could be spent, like incentivizing teachers by paying them more as you pointed out, or funding after school activities better, and making sure classrooms have the materials they need, not building unnecessary boarding schools.  any usage of government money necessitates we prioritize it over the hundreds of other problems we need to use tax money to take care of.  any of the above options can be pretty easily justified.  erecting a bunch of boarding schools for kids ? perhaps not the worst use of money but certainly not near the best.  how about making sure the schools we have now are outfitted how they need to be.  why add beds and a mess hall and all that when we ca not even afford pencils ? that is what i am getting at.   #  we got along fine for a hundred years with just those things.   #  have you read all of those stories where they do not ? no, because why would someone write that story ? not saying it does not happen, but usually the teacher has what they need to teach.  to add bells and whistles, maybe not.  but they usually have a dry erase board and paper and the books.  we got along fine for a hundred years with just those things.
underprivileged kids should get free education/food/accommodation.  if a family income is below certain amount, their kids should have a choice to choose free education and free food.  even if they choose to stay in a boarding school, govt should establish such boarding schools and take them.  usa spends huge money on war and donates to countries.  i think govt should spend money on their own citizens and improve their quality of life than wars and supporting other countries.  investing on such boarding schools is not a big deal for countries like usa.  thanks to your comments everybody.  you changed my view and its not feasible to establish such system.  it brings different set of problems.   #  investing on such boarding schools is not a big deal for countries like usa.   #  actually the cost of educating an entire generation is quite substantial, even without considering the bureaucratic quagmire that it generates.   # i have a few problems with this.  there is no such thing as free education, food, accommodation, or any of the other things that governments decide to spend money on.  somebody always has to pay, and mostly it is the taxpayer.  this is not the say that it is wrong to provide such things, but let is at least be honest about what we are discussing.  it is all very well to advocate government spend money on nice things such as schooling or healthcare while bemoaning them spending money on nasty things like wars, but the conflation of the two is often clumsy.  for one thing, the cost of running a military has almost no bearing on the cost of education.  for another, we need both an education system and a functioning military.  saying  oh look, we have money to spend on wars but not on the children.   is a cheap comment that will net you applause, but it is ignorant.  actually the cost of educating an entire generation is quite substantial, even without considering the bureaucratic quagmire that it generates.  you would also have to consider the impact free boarding schools for the impoverished would have on poor communities.  it is one thing to support a family caring for their children, it is quite another to seize their children to raise yourself.   #  they are usually not the best tasting foods but options exist.   #  underprivileged kids already get free schooling along with the privileged kids.  is there something i am missing here ? it may not be top tier private school education, but public school is free outside of a few small expenses parents are occasionally expected to cover like $0 for a field trip here and there and a hundred or so for supplies each year if they are being extravagant.  most schools also already have free lunch and breakfast programs for kids that simply ca not afford it.  they are usually not the best tasting foods but options exist.  also government programs already exist to get higher quality lunches for underprivileged kids, one only need to have parents that make beneath a certain amount and that are willing to apply.  are you trying to say that all kids should be able to attend boarding school ? what ?  #  or how about we cut the funding from the military by 0 that will give us a couple hundred billion by itself.   #  let is start by stop spending billions of dollars on israel each year.  or how about we cut the funding from the military by 0 that will give us a couple hundred billion by itself.  u. s spends ridiculous amounts of money on foreign aid and its military and as a result our education system is complete trash for everybody but the super rich who can afford to go to very good private schools.  the u. s is one of the only countries in the entire world who does not value its teachers at all.  many teachers spend upwards of a decade in schooling and accruing debt and when they finally get a job they make like 0k a year.  it is depressing.  my sister has a masters degree and teaches in public schooling she has spent maybe $0 this year alone buying her own supplies just to give her kids the best learning experience she can afford.  education in the u. s is a joke.   #  why add beds and a mess hall and all that when we ca not even afford pencils ?  #  hey, i absolutely agree with you, but i think that if we are diverting spending from other sectors then there are better ways it could be spent, like incentivizing teachers by paying them more as you pointed out, or funding after school activities better, and making sure classrooms have the materials they need, not building unnecessary boarding schools.  any usage of government money necessitates we prioritize it over the hundreds of other problems we need to use tax money to take care of.  any of the above options can be pretty easily justified.  erecting a bunch of boarding schools for kids ? perhaps not the worst use of money but certainly not near the best.  how about making sure the schools we have now are outfitted how they need to be.  why add beds and a mess hall and all that when we ca not even afford pencils ? that is what i am getting at.   #  we got along fine for a hundred years with just those things.   #  have you read all of those stories where they do not ? no, because why would someone write that story ? not saying it does not happen, but usually the teacher has what they need to teach.  to add bells and whistles, maybe not.  but they usually have a dry erase board and paper and the books.  we got along fine for a hundred years with just those things.
underprivileged kids should get free education/food/accommodation.  if a family income is below certain amount, their kids should have a choice to choose free education and free food.  even if they choose to stay in a boarding school, govt should establish such boarding schools and take them.  usa spends huge money on war and donates to countries.  i think govt should spend money on their own citizens and improve their quality of life than wars and supporting other countries.  investing on such boarding schools is not a big deal for countries like usa.  thanks to your comments everybody.  you changed my view and its not feasible to establish such system.  it brings different set of problems.   #  usa spends huge money on war and donates to countries.   #  i think govt should spend money on their own citizens that war money is emergency use only.   # i think govt should spend money on their own citizens that war money is emergency use only.  if there is a war and we are at total spending we will have to cut these programs.  and we are at war.  now aside from the boarding part, school is free.  if a student asks, the teachers must give basic supplies.  lastly, what are these schools gonna do ? tear up families.  you are basically establishing foster care but in school form.  parents are gonna send the kids away that they do not want or ca not afford.   #  are you trying to say that all kids should be able to attend boarding school ?  #  underprivileged kids already get free schooling along with the privileged kids.  is there something i am missing here ? it may not be top tier private school education, but public school is free outside of a few small expenses parents are occasionally expected to cover like $0 for a field trip here and there and a hundred or so for supplies each year if they are being extravagant.  most schools also already have free lunch and breakfast programs for kids that simply ca not afford it.  they are usually not the best tasting foods but options exist.  also government programs already exist to get higher quality lunches for underprivileged kids, one only need to have parents that make beneath a certain amount and that are willing to apply.  are you trying to say that all kids should be able to attend boarding school ? what ?  #  the u. s is one of the only countries in the entire world who does not value its teachers at all.   #  let is start by stop spending billions of dollars on israel each year.  or how about we cut the funding from the military by 0 that will give us a couple hundred billion by itself.  u. s spends ridiculous amounts of money on foreign aid and its military and as a result our education system is complete trash for everybody but the super rich who can afford to go to very good private schools.  the u. s is one of the only countries in the entire world who does not value its teachers at all.  many teachers spend upwards of a decade in schooling and accruing debt and when they finally get a job they make like 0k a year.  it is depressing.  my sister has a masters degree and teaches in public schooling she has spent maybe $0 this year alone buying her own supplies just to give her kids the best learning experience she can afford.  education in the u. s is a joke.   #  any usage of government money necessitates we prioritize it over the hundreds of other problems we need to use tax money to take care of.   #  hey, i absolutely agree with you, but i think that if we are diverting spending from other sectors then there are better ways it could be spent, like incentivizing teachers by paying them more as you pointed out, or funding after school activities better, and making sure classrooms have the materials they need, not building unnecessary boarding schools.  any usage of government money necessitates we prioritize it over the hundreds of other problems we need to use tax money to take care of.  any of the above options can be pretty easily justified.  erecting a bunch of boarding schools for kids ? perhaps not the worst use of money but certainly not near the best.  how about making sure the schools we have now are outfitted how they need to be.  why add beds and a mess hall and all that when we ca not even afford pencils ? that is what i am getting at.   #  we got along fine for a hundred years with just those things.   #  have you read all of those stories where they do not ? no, because why would someone write that story ? not saying it does not happen, but usually the teacher has what they need to teach.  to add bells and whistles, maybe not.  but they usually have a dry erase board and paper and the books.  we got along fine for a hundred years with just those things.
when i look at various job search engines such as monster and indeed, all i primarily see are temporary jobs that last a month or so.  these jobs tend to involve shawdy conditions and long lab hours with pay around 0 dollars an hour.  is that really even a good wage for some one who has their masters in a challenging subject like chemistry ? i feel like a lot of jobs are given to gifted soon to be bachelors students who are just desperately waiting for paid internships to put on their application.  i suppose companies prefer that so they can pay these students to do some challenging work with out having to pay them that much for it.  but where does that leave the rest of us who do not own a big pharma company ? then there are post doc jobs too.  it is like, getting free work from phds for low pay.  i would have wished that there would be more options for scientists in the us.  but we have this extensive system of free labor or low paid individuals who volunteer at their university laboratory, do novel work for their phd dissertations, work as post docs, college students going for low paid or no paid internships.  whoever said  major in science ! we need more of you ! you will have a bright future !   was lying.   #  i feel like a lot of jobs are given to gifted soon to be bachelors students who are just desperately waiting for paid internships to put on their application.   #  if a well paid and comfortable job was that important to you why did you get a masters ?  #  you have a masters which is, realistically, only one more year of schooling and maybe some relevant summer experience.  and you are complaining about starting at almost double the federal minimum wage.  all the jobs are going to suck until about 0 0 years out and to move up you have to be aggressive, i. e.  move around positions/companies.  if a well paid and comfortable job was that important to you why did you get a masters ? why did not you just stop at bachelors and be  gifted  a paid internship ?  #  i know that the uspto and other contractors for the uspto are always on the lookout for patent analysts who have a masters or greater in a scientific field.   #  i had this same problem getting out of college with a bachelor is degree; google for  the hidden job market  and you will see articles about this.  also, if i may ask, where are you located ? you might find jobs that are not exactly what you were thinking of to tide you over until the next one.  i know that the uspto and other contractors for the uspto are always on the lookout for patent analysts who have a masters or greater in a scientific field.  it is essentially a research job, with no fun lab stuff, but it pays better than 0 an hour.   #  think about who you are talking to, some hr person who could give less of a fuck about the mitochondrion or adenosine triphosphates.   #  if you go with option 0.   good luck ! my friend started his own mobile app business and is very successful it seems.  but, know it takes hard work, a developing or preferably an all ready thriving market and all that entrepreneurship jazz.  if you go with option 0.   of course.  people feel threatened by scientific jargon they do not understand.  imho, all a job interview is about is a.  can the guy do the job ? b.  would i want to work with him/her ? so especially if you come from science always take an  eli0 approach .  think about who you are talking to, some hr person who could give less of a fuck about the mitochondrion or adenosine triphosphates.  the supervisor may understand you, so you do want to impress him/her however.  i will leave you with a quote:   an alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.     #  i know the people do not know but they often treated me like i could not tie my shoes.   #   not everyone is studious or smart as you.  you have to break it down to people.   as somebody with just a high school diploma not in the us this was seriously irritating at time.  i know the people do not know but they often treated me like i could not tie my shoes.  promotions come quickly in that environment though so you do not hear me complaining.   #  i found a lot of connections through people that went to the same school as me, and i am not too dim to think it did not help me land a job.   #  i got a decent paying job right out of college with a chemistry degree.  where are you located ? a lot of chemical companies are located in the northeast us if you have not looked there.  i was able to get a job that offered over $0,0 starting salary this was several years ago with only a bachelors degree, and turned down a few other competitive offers.  what school is your degree from ? i found a lot of connections through people that went to the same school as me, and i am not too dim to think it did not help me land a job.  unless the job environment is vastly different than i think it is, i think it should not be too tough to find work.  i know we are struggling to hire competent workers fast enough.
had a talk with a few friends of mine who have been in relationships and they told me there is no need to have shared interests or beliefs for a couple to be happy.  i have never been in a relationship so i would not know.  i firmly believe that couples who are completely different from each other and have to choose between spending time with their significant other and indulging in their interests or favorite activities or hanging out with friends wo not have a good, long lasting relationship.  having no shared interests or traits means there is almost nothing to talk about, which reduces communication between one another, and communication is important in any kind of relationship.  and when the significant other is indulging in their friends/activities not shared by the person then that person may have to wait for the significant other to be finished and/or may feel neglected.  i also believe couples should also be friends.  i searched through reddit about this and was surprised to see there are many people in relationships where their girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse have little or nothing in common with them.  please change my view and convince me that people can still have happy, life long relationships with other people they cannot relate to.   #  i also believe couples should also be friends.   #  that is a big part of a relationship.   # relationships are not really about what taste in music you have, or what you have for hobbies, it is about experiencing things together and liking it.  maybe your other laughs in a really cute way to jokes that you hate.  maybe you both went on a day trip to the next city over, and had some great memories of lunch and the people you met, or maybe you spent the whole evening together, not saying a word just enjoying the quiet.  that is a big part of a relationship.  you may note that the things i listed above could be applied to friendships, too.  it is not uncommon to laugh at people is reactions to things, or to take trips with them, or even to just hang out.  either way, shared experiences are what bring people closer together no matter the nature of their relationship.  you are there when it is good for both of you, and sometimes you are apart to work on separate interests.  that is healthy.  it is  more common  to see people who share interests be in relationships, but that is more of a function of being around each other more often.  if you both go to the same knitting class, you are bound to be chatting every now and then, which gives a great chance of exploring a relationship.  but it is comparatively tough to meet people with no shared interests, since you do not hang out in the same places.  that does not mean it is impossible, just uncommon.   #  we disagree on politics, but we do not let it get between us, even though i spend a decent amount of time thinking about and reading about political questions.   #  this seems like you are attacking a strawman.  i doubt there are any two people who have no shared interests or beliefs.  i think the more plausible case is that people can have disagreements about some but not all beliefs that are important to them and still have good relationships.  and this is true.  for example, i am a politically minded person, and have a generally libertarian viewpoint.  my b/f is somewhat less politically minded, and has a generally left/liberal viewpoint.  we disagree on politics, but we do not let it get between us, even though i spend a decent amount of time thinking about and reading about political questions.  but we connect in lots of other areas that are important, including personality style, lots of nerdy interests, friends, etc.  if we did not connect at all, then there would really be no question.  can you give a source where you see someone saying this ? because the view you are ascribing to your friends seems absurd, and a more charitable reading that there can be  some  important non shared interests or beliefs is much more plausible.   #  if you are a die hard liberal and think conservatives are stupid, you should not try dating conservatives, because you wo not respect their viewpoints and that will foster resentment.   #  the first of those is most interesting, since it seems like the one where the relationship is working over a substantial period of time.  the second is after a first date, and the third is apparently a failing relationship.  but in that first case they share a very important trait: they have matching or complimentary personality types.  that is a hugely important trait.  in fact, it is probably the dominant one in a relationship.  i have friends with whom i share a lot of interests, but do not have the kind of matching personality where a relationship would work.  if two people can get along really well and really genuinely enjoy being in each other is company, and can communicate about important stuff well, they will usually have a good relationship.  i would say it is necessary to  respect  your partners interests, but not share them.  if you are a die hard liberal and think conservatives are stupid, you should not try dating conservatives, because you wo not respect their viewpoints and that will foster resentment.   #  for example, i introduced my so to gardening and whiskey.   #  i will also add that being a couple also means sharing your individual interests with each other.  you are not necessarily going to come into the relationship with a bunch of things in common, but if you are similar enough, you can build on them.  for example, i introduced my so to gardening and whiskey.  he would never given plants much thought and he thought all whiskey tasted like jack daniel is.  now, we have our own vegetable garden and he is almost more into it than i am.  we also shared our music.  he introduced me to the who and i also found an appreciation for the beatles that i did not have before.  we also have a bunch of couple friends that were his friends from college.  now i am also friends with them and their sos.   #  she likes top 0 and has a strange obsession with tso.   #  i met my girlfriend when i was in college.  scratch that.  we met in highschool.  we started dating in college.  anyway, we only had one thing in commong: we wanted to smash.  that was it.  we knew each other through mutual friends in high school, we were comfortable around each other, and we wanted to bang each other.  that was pretty much it.  we went to 0 different schools and had 0 mutually exclusive friend groups at the time.  in the following years, we got to actually know each other.  we started to understand each others  flaws, fears, and aspirations.  i like progressive metal and post rock.  she likes top 0 and has a strange obsession with tso.  i like indie games and esports.  she likes cooking and real sports.  i like ipas and fruit beer, she likes lagers and light ales i forced her into caring about beer .  i am a college dropout working as an it guy.  she is working on her pharmacy doctorate.  i am a fiscal conservative with libertarian tendancies.  she is a dyed in the wool democrat.  that said, we know each other on a really really deep level now.  we know how each other ticks.  it took us a long time to get here, but i think when you hit this level with a person it does not matter what your differences are.  we do have another common interest now: each others  mutual happiness.  we value each other because we know the other is valuable.  we know we care about each other from what we have been through together, and we would gladly rip the spinal column from another human being for each other.  she is my girlfriend, my best friend, and my ally.
fyi: i used suspended, cancelled and no licence in their own right.  suspended temporary recision of right to drive cancellation permanent recision of right to drive no licence caught with a cancelled licence or never having had a licence.  people who have a licence suspended should be punished for their actions.  in australia we see so many cases of drivers driving on suspended or cancelled licences who only receive fines and additional suspension time.  this means people are not being punished for the original offence.  for the amount of people caught, how many go unnoticed ? if you drive on a suspended or cancelled licence, you should be liable for your suspension term in prison.  obviously judges and magistrates would have discretion.  the reason is, an offence to have your licence suspended is pretty big in the original instance.  people who then get back behind the wheel just do not have the incentive to actually obey their punishment.  the punishment relative to the offence is insignificant for someone who drives on a suspended or cancelled licence.  the potential for a jail term will mean those people who are suspended/cancelled will not get on the road.  this will mean safer roads as negligent drivers who still have their car will not get back on the road.  for those with no licence, they do not have the skill, experience or ability to be on the road without instruction.  if you are caught not having a licence either expired, cancelled or never had one then you are recklessly endangering the public, and should be liable to a greater extent.  at the minimum, a conviction on driving without a licence or driving on a suspended licence should result in a suspended sentence.  negative externalities from this change will be mitigated by judges and magistrates having the ability to apply the punishment selectively and proportionate to the offence.   #  the reason is, an offence to have your licence suspended is pretty big in the original instance.   #  i have had my license suspended for going 0 over the limit when i was 0, and then taking too long to go to a driver improvement class.   # i have had my license suspended for going 0 over the limit when i was 0, and then taking too long to go to a driver improvement class.  there is a weird law where i live that makes it so that if you get  any  ticket between the time you get your license and 0 or a year after you get your license, whichever is longer that you have to take the same  i need more points on my license after my last dui  defensive driving class within 0 months or you lose your license until completion.  not necessarily true.  i have a friend who drives racecars; he was practicing on go karts since he was 0, and drove better than anyone i knew when we were 0 and got licenses.  he also drove his mom to the hospital when she was deathly ill, without any crashes or incidents.  so, you could argue that in these cases for the record: i had a suspended license for all of one day that time; i had not filed the paperwork and it took a day to go through.  the judge/magistrate could apply the law selectively but.  that is kind of how driving on a suspended license works nowadays.  i ca not think of a place off the top of my head where it is not a felony at least on par with your second dui or reckless.   #  while you can learn car control on a race track, and it is a good skill to have.   #  road craft is about predicting the actions of others.  on a race track all the drivers are concentrating on the race and have a certain level of skill.  on the road there are many distractions for drivers, phones.  tuning the radio, finding sweets or snacks, trying to work out where they are going.  this means that cars on the road are much less predictable.  while you can learn car control on a race track, and it is a good skill to have.  that on it is own is not enough.   #  did you have an unusually short amount of time to complete your mandatory defensive driving course ?  # is there a particular reason you did not think the law applied to you ? or that the judge is verdict was wrong or unfair ? did you have an unusually short amount of time to complete your mandatory defensive driving course ? no us state has a felony for driving on a suspended license.  it is always a misdemeanor.  likewise with reckless driving.  there are only four states that turn a second dwi/dui into a felony.  the vast majority require 0 or 0 dwi/dui convictions for a felony.   #  i was wrong about the suspended license, it requires a couple in virginia.   # i actually did not go to court, just prepaid the ticket.  then 0 months later i got a letter in the mail that told me i had 0 months since the day i paid the ticket to go to the class, and the nearest availability for a class anywhere near my house that did not interfere with actual school was 0 months away.  that letter was the first i would ever heard of that law.  nice assumption that i thought the law did not apply to me though, clever way to slip in a covert ad hominem attack.  it is always a misdemeanor.  i was wrong about the suspended license, it requires a couple in virginia.  in virginia, your second reckless  is  a felony, though, and  reckless  includes anything 0 mph over the limit, or anything over 0 regardless of the speed limit.  as i understand it, that is fairly strict as far as the statutes of reckless driving goes.   #  seriously though, i came to a hill, saw a speed trap, panicked and tried to brake and hit the gas instead.   #  yep, and everyone who is ever been driving ever has kept their speed exactly at the limit, on the nose.  nailed it ! seriously though, i came to a hill, saw a speed trap, panicked and tried to brake and hit the gas instead.  until then, i was going the speed limit.  i was 0 and had been driving for all of 0 months, i was far from perfect, but i was not intentionally shirking the law.  you do have an interesting style of debating irrelevant nuance to pick under people is skin, that some might call  trolling
fyi: i used suspended, cancelled and no licence in their own right.  suspended temporary recision of right to drive cancellation permanent recision of right to drive no licence caught with a cancelled licence or never having had a licence.  people who have a licence suspended should be punished for their actions.  in australia we see so many cases of drivers driving on suspended or cancelled licences who only receive fines and additional suspension time.  this means people are not being punished for the original offence.  for the amount of people caught, how many go unnoticed ? if you drive on a suspended or cancelled licence, you should be liable for your suspension term in prison.  obviously judges and magistrates would have discretion.  the reason is, an offence to have your licence suspended is pretty big in the original instance.  people who then get back behind the wheel just do not have the incentive to actually obey their punishment.  the punishment relative to the offence is insignificant for someone who drives on a suspended or cancelled licence.  the potential for a jail term will mean those people who are suspended/cancelled will not get on the road.  this will mean safer roads as negligent drivers who still have their car will not get back on the road.  for those with no licence, they do not have the skill, experience or ability to be on the road without instruction.  if you are caught not having a licence either expired, cancelled or never had one then you are recklessly endangering the public, and should be liable to a greater extent.  at the minimum, a conviction on driving without a licence or driving on a suspended licence should result in a suspended sentence.  negative externalities from this change will be mitigated by judges and magistrates having the ability to apply the punishment selectively and proportionate to the offence.   #  negative externalities from this change will be mitigated by judges and magistrates having the ability to apply the punishment selectively and proportionate to the offence.   #  so, you could argue that in these cases for the record: i had a suspended license for all of one day that time; i had not filed the paperwork and it took a day to go through.   # i have had my license suspended for going 0 over the limit when i was 0, and then taking too long to go to a driver improvement class.  there is a weird law where i live that makes it so that if you get  any  ticket between the time you get your license and 0 or a year after you get your license, whichever is longer that you have to take the same  i need more points on my license after my last dui  defensive driving class within 0 months or you lose your license until completion.  not necessarily true.  i have a friend who drives racecars; he was practicing on go karts since he was 0, and drove better than anyone i knew when we were 0 and got licenses.  he also drove his mom to the hospital when she was deathly ill, without any crashes or incidents.  so, you could argue that in these cases for the record: i had a suspended license for all of one day that time; i had not filed the paperwork and it took a day to go through.  the judge/magistrate could apply the law selectively but.  that is kind of how driving on a suspended license works nowadays.  i ca not think of a place off the top of my head where it is not a felony at least on par with your second dui or reckless.   #  this means that cars on the road are much less predictable.   #  road craft is about predicting the actions of others.  on a race track all the drivers are concentrating on the race and have a certain level of skill.  on the road there are many distractions for drivers, phones.  tuning the radio, finding sweets or snacks, trying to work out where they are going.  this means that cars on the road are much less predictable.  while you can learn car control on a race track, and it is a good skill to have.  that on it is own is not enough.   #  there are only four states that turn a second dwi/dui into a felony.   # is there a particular reason you did not think the law applied to you ? or that the judge is verdict was wrong or unfair ? did you have an unusually short amount of time to complete your mandatory defensive driving course ? no us state has a felony for driving on a suspended license.  it is always a misdemeanor.  likewise with reckless driving.  there are only four states that turn a second dwi/dui into a felony.  the vast majority require 0 or 0 dwi/dui convictions for a felony.   #  nice assumption that i thought the law did not apply to me though, clever way to slip in a covert ad hominem attack.   # i actually did not go to court, just prepaid the ticket.  then 0 months later i got a letter in the mail that told me i had 0 months since the day i paid the ticket to go to the class, and the nearest availability for a class anywhere near my house that did not interfere with actual school was 0 months away.  that letter was the first i would ever heard of that law.  nice assumption that i thought the law did not apply to me though, clever way to slip in a covert ad hominem attack.  it is always a misdemeanor.  i was wrong about the suspended license, it requires a couple in virginia.  in virginia, your second reckless  is  a felony, though, and  reckless  includes anything 0 mph over the limit, or anything over 0 regardless of the speed limit.  as i understand it, that is fairly strict as far as the statutes of reckless driving goes.   #  i was 0 and had been driving for all of 0 months, i was far from perfect, but i was not intentionally shirking the law.   #  yep, and everyone who is ever been driving ever has kept their speed exactly at the limit, on the nose.  nailed it ! seriously though, i came to a hill, saw a speed trap, panicked and tried to brake and hit the gas instead.  until then, i was going the speed limit.  i was 0 and had been driving for all of 0 months, i was far from perfect, but i was not intentionally shirking the law.  you do have an interesting style of debating irrelevant nuance to pick under people is skin, that some might call  trolling
fyi: i used suspended, cancelled and no licence in their own right.  suspended temporary recision of right to drive cancellation permanent recision of right to drive no licence caught with a cancelled licence or never having had a licence.  people who have a licence suspended should be punished for their actions.  in australia we see so many cases of drivers driving on suspended or cancelled licences who only receive fines and additional suspension time.  this means people are not being punished for the original offence.  for the amount of people caught, how many go unnoticed ? if you drive on a suspended or cancelled licence, you should be liable for your suspension term in prison.  obviously judges and magistrates would have discretion.  the reason is, an offence to have your licence suspended is pretty big in the original instance.  people who then get back behind the wheel just do not have the incentive to actually obey their punishment.  the punishment relative to the offence is insignificant for someone who drives on a suspended or cancelled licence.  the potential for a jail term will mean those people who are suspended/cancelled will not get on the road.  this will mean safer roads as negligent drivers who still have their car will not get back on the road.  for those with no licence, they do not have the skill, experience or ability to be on the road without instruction.  if you are caught not having a licence either expired, cancelled or never had one then you are recklessly endangering the public, and should be liable to a greater extent.  at the minimum, a conviction on driving without a licence or driving on a suspended licence should result in a suspended sentence.  negative externalities from this change will be mitigated by judges and magistrates having the ability to apply the punishment selectively and proportionate to the offence.   #  this will mean safer roads as negligent drivers who still have their car will not get back on the road.   #  it really wo not make much of a difference.   # this is not necessarily true.  you can have your license suspended for some pretty stupid nonsense.  i know somebody who likes to listen to the radio in the car.  one day they decided to drink some beer while listening to the radio.  a cop was camping outside their house and as soon as he saw this person take a sip he slammed  em with a dui despite the fact that no actual driving was taking place .  technically illegal ? yes.   pretty big offense ?   absolutely not.  it really wo not make much of a difference.  people driving on a suspended license comprise a very small amount of dangerous drivers on the road.  in fact, people driving on a suspended license tend to drive more safely because they do not want to draw attention to themselves and get caught.  plenty of people  with  a license do not possess the skill, experience, or ability to be on the road safely without instruction.  that is a moot point.  now, with all that said, i do not think it is ok to drive with a suspended license.  however, i think it is a minor crime, and i do not believe the punishment of imprisonment fits the crime.   #  so, you could argue that in these cases for the record: i had a suspended license for all of one day that time; i had not filed the paperwork and it took a day to go through.   # i have had my license suspended for going 0 over the limit when i was 0, and then taking too long to go to a driver improvement class.  there is a weird law where i live that makes it so that if you get  any  ticket between the time you get your license and 0 or a year after you get your license, whichever is longer that you have to take the same  i need more points on my license after my last dui  defensive driving class within 0 months or you lose your license until completion.  not necessarily true.  i have a friend who drives racecars; he was practicing on go karts since he was 0, and drove better than anyone i knew when we were 0 and got licenses.  he also drove his mom to the hospital when she was deathly ill, without any crashes or incidents.  so, you could argue that in these cases for the record: i had a suspended license for all of one day that time; i had not filed the paperwork and it took a day to go through.  the judge/magistrate could apply the law selectively but.  that is kind of how driving on a suspended license works nowadays.  i ca not think of a place off the top of my head where it is not a felony at least on par with your second dui or reckless.   #  on a race track all the drivers are concentrating on the race and have a certain level of skill.   #  road craft is about predicting the actions of others.  on a race track all the drivers are concentrating on the race and have a certain level of skill.  on the road there are many distractions for drivers, phones.  tuning the radio, finding sweets or snacks, trying to work out where they are going.  this means that cars on the road are much less predictable.  while you can learn car control on a race track, and it is a good skill to have.  that on it is own is not enough.   #  the vast majority require 0 or 0 dwi/dui convictions for a felony.   # is there a particular reason you did not think the law applied to you ? or that the judge is verdict was wrong or unfair ? did you have an unusually short amount of time to complete your mandatory defensive driving course ? no us state has a felony for driving on a suspended license.  it is always a misdemeanor.  likewise with reckless driving.  there are only four states that turn a second dwi/dui into a felony.  the vast majority require 0 or 0 dwi/dui convictions for a felony.   #  in virginia, your second reckless  is  a felony, though, and  reckless  includes anything 0 mph over the limit, or anything over 0 regardless of the speed limit.   # i actually did not go to court, just prepaid the ticket.  then 0 months later i got a letter in the mail that told me i had 0 months since the day i paid the ticket to go to the class, and the nearest availability for a class anywhere near my house that did not interfere with actual school was 0 months away.  that letter was the first i would ever heard of that law.  nice assumption that i thought the law did not apply to me though, clever way to slip in a covert ad hominem attack.  it is always a misdemeanor.  i was wrong about the suspended license, it requires a couple in virginia.  in virginia, your second reckless  is  a felony, though, and  reckless  includes anything 0 mph over the limit, or anything over 0 regardless of the speed limit.  as i understand it, that is fairly strict as far as the statutes of reckless driving goes.
fyi: i used suspended, cancelled and no licence in their own right.  suspended temporary recision of right to drive cancellation permanent recision of right to drive no licence caught with a cancelled licence or never having had a licence.  people who have a licence suspended should be punished for their actions.  in australia we see so many cases of drivers driving on suspended or cancelled licences who only receive fines and additional suspension time.  this means people are not being punished for the original offence.  for the amount of people caught, how many go unnoticed ? if you drive on a suspended or cancelled licence, you should be liable for your suspension term in prison.  obviously judges and magistrates would have discretion.  the reason is, an offence to have your licence suspended is pretty big in the original instance.  people who then get back behind the wheel just do not have the incentive to actually obey their punishment.  the punishment relative to the offence is insignificant for someone who drives on a suspended or cancelled licence.  the potential for a jail term will mean those people who are suspended/cancelled will not get on the road.  this will mean safer roads as negligent drivers who still have their car will not get back on the road.  for those with no licence, they do not have the skill, experience or ability to be on the road without instruction.  if you are caught not having a licence either expired, cancelled or never had one then you are recklessly endangering the public, and should be liable to a greater extent.  at the minimum, a conviction on driving without a licence or driving on a suspended licence should result in a suspended sentence.  negative externalities from this change will be mitigated by judges and magistrates having the ability to apply the punishment selectively and proportionate to the offence.   #  for those with no licence, they do not have the skill, experience or ability to be on the road without instruction.   #  plenty of people  with  a license do not possess the skill, experience, or ability to be on the road safely without instruction.   # this is not necessarily true.  you can have your license suspended for some pretty stupid nonsense.  i know somebody who likes to listen to the radio in the car.  one day they decided to drink some beer while listening to the radio.  a cop was camping outside their house and as soon as he saw this person take a sip he slammed  em with a dui despite the fact that no actual driving was taking place .  technically illegal ? yes.   pretty big offense ?   absolutely not.  it really wo not make much of a difference.  people driving on a suspended license comprise a very small amount of dangerous drivers on the road.  in fact, people driving on a suspended license tend to drive more safely because they do not want to draw attention to themselves and get caught.  plenty of people  with  a license do not possess the skill, experience, or ability to be on the road safely without instruction.  that is a moot point.  now, with all that said, i do not think it is ok to drive with a suspended license.  however, i think it is a minor crime, and i do not believe the punishment of imprisonment fits the crime.   #  i ca not think of a place off the top of my head where it is not a felony at least on par with your second dui or reckless.   # i have had my license suspended for going 0 over the limit when i was 0, and then taking too long to go to a driver improvement class.  there is a weird law where i live that makes it so that if you get  any  ticket between the time you get your license and 0 or a year after you get your license, whichever is longer that you have to take the same  i need more points on my license after my last dui  defensive driving class within 0 months or you lose your license until completion.  not necessarily true.  i have a friend who drives racecars; he was practicing on go karts since he was 0, and drove better than anyone i knew when we were 0 and got licenses.  he also drove his mom to the hospital when she was deathly ill, without any crashes or incidents.  so, you could argue that in these cases for the record: i had a suspended license for all of one day that time; i had not filed the paperwork and it took a day to go through.  the judge/magistrate could apply the law selectively but.  that is kind of how driving on a suspended license works nowadays.  i ca not think of a place off the top of my head where it is not a felony at least on par with your second dui or reckless.   #  on the road there are many distractions for drivers, phones.   #  road craft is about predicting the actions of others.  on a race track all the drivers are concentrating on the race and have a certain level of skill.  on the road there are many distractions for drivers, phones.  tuning the radio, finding sweets or snacks, trying to work out where they are going.  this means that cars on the road are much less predictable.  while you can learn car control on a race track, and it is a good skill to have.  that on it is own is not enough.   #  the vast majority require 0 or 0 dwi/dui convictions for a felony.   # is there a particular reason you did not think the law applied to you ? or that the judge is verdict was wrong or unfair ? did you have an unusually short amount of time to complete your mandatory defensive driving course ? no us state has a felony for driving on a suspended license.  it is always a misdemeanor.  likewise with reckless driving.  there are only four states that turn a second dwi/dui into a felony.  the vast majority require 0 or 0 dwi/dui convictions for a felony.   #  that letter was the first i would ever heard of that law.   # i actually did not go to court, just prepaid the ticket.  then 0 months later i got a letter in the mail that told me i had 0 months since the day i paid the ticket to go to the class, and the nearest availability for a class anywhere near my house that did not interfere with actual school was 0 months away.  that letter was the first i would ever heard of that law.  nice assumption that i thought the law did not apply to me though, clever way to slip in a covert ad hominem attack.  it is always a misdemeanor.  i was wrong about the suspended license, it requires a couple in virginia.  in virginia, your second reckless  is  a felony, though, and  reckless  includes anything 0 mph over the limit, or anything over 0 regardless of the speed limit.  as i understand it, that is fairly strict as far as the statutes of reckless driving goes.
i think there are only a few items/materials that we would consider essential for a university student, and i think out of all of them, a tablet is the most important one.  most readings these days are digital, either pdfs distributed by the professor, or books that are available digitally through kindle.  a tablet saves trees, carbon dioxide, etc, but reducing the amount of paper that would normally be printed out.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  ipad and android tablets and i assume whatever the heck microsoft is is have very solid apps for editing pdfs.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, and they also sync to dropbox, making organizing and syncing files very seamless.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  laptops offer a better writing and researching experience, but a tablet with a keyboard is a reasonable option, and there are always library computers for writing essays if you really need them.  because of these reasons, i think i would consider a tablet to be one of the most necessary tools or materials for a college or university student.   #  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.   #  this is kind of where we get into the  0nd level  what people like.   # this is kind of where we get into the  0nd level  what people like.  for me, tablets are almost unusable.  i just ca not use the onscreen keyboard, and  laptop  style keyboards are not much better.  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.  that pretty much makes tablets unusable for me.  what is essential for you is more or less worthless to me.   #  your dropbox goes down, if you have an ipad, you ca not plug in a flash drive, so what can you do ?  #  call me crazy, or maybe i am just old, but would sooner kill myself than write a 0 page term paper on a tablet computer.  also, professors usually ask for papers to be printed out, or sent electronically in office formats like word and excel, and i ca not speak to the quality or performance of ms office on tablets.  sure, library computers are available, but i preferred to work on papers in the comfort of my room in my pjs.  also, while the tablet is comfortable to use when you are unplugged, if you are in the middle of studying and you have low battery, that short cable can make finding a comfortable position very difficult.  sure, the library is a solid option, but then if its raining, or you are out of town and a paper is due on monday, you are limited to your tablet if you do not have a laptop.  also, something to consider, being prepared.  you might think you have everything you need, but not all software can be run on tablets.  also redundancies, the wifi goes down, your tablet is extremely limited.  your dropbox goes down, if you have an ipad, you ca not plug in a flash drive, so what can you do ? if you had a computer, you could access and modify documents in dropbox no problem, you would just have to wait until your internet connection reestablished for them to update, or you could plug it into ethernet.  also, check to make sure your school resources support mobile devices this may not apply in most cases,, but i teach esl at a college abroad.  students have an online platform where they need to submit assignments, study, and go through the materials.  we just updated the platform, and there was a conversation on whether to convert the site to a different langauge i don;t remember which to support mobile devices, but that would have cost like $0,0, so it was decided not to convert the site.  overall the versatility of the laptop is what saves it over a tablet.  yes tablets are better in some situations, but they may be completely useless in other crucial situations.   #  if you study in a quantitative field, you will almost certainly need significant computing power at some point and a tablet just is not going to do it if it can even run the software packages .   #  i have almost the exact opposite sentiment.  in my experience, tablets are little more than a toy too large to substitute for a smartphone as a mobile communication/info device, but too small and impractical and weak to use an actual tool for getting work done.  great for watching movies on the train, but not much else.  reading ? that is a matter of opinion.  i have no issue reading off a laptop for an extended period of time.  i know not everyone shares this preference, but the ergonomics are hardly prohibitive.  and with a larger screen, i prefer a laptop unless portability is an issue.  composition ? laptop beats tablet, no questions.  larger keyboard, larger screen, and generally a better ui.  this becomes really apparent when you are sitting at a desk doing composition with a pile of reference materials.  number crunching ? if you study in a quantitative field, you will almost certainly need significant computing power at some point and a tablet just is not going to do it if it can even run the software packages .  note taking ? i prefer handwritten notes because the act of writing is a mnemonic, but a laptop will beat out handwriting or tablet if pure speed is your goal unless it requires mathematical typesetting, in which case, back to dead trees ! .  in the context of school work, the portability is not even much of a plus, since you will frequently have a satchel full of books anyway.  with all that in mind, a tablet is just a mildly convenient low performance alternative to a laptop.   #  a tablet would do that in a week, maybe.   #  this is fine, except for one thing: i was an animation student.  i required graphical processing power that was only available in a mobile platform in the bulkiest laptops if i wanted  quick  renders that took under half an hour.  a tablet would do that in a week, maybe.  not to mention none of the applications i would need for modeling and animation are good on that.  the way i work on things, a tablet is useless; if i ca not use a laptop in the environment then there is the question of  what the hell am i doing trying to work in this environment ? so, it might be a must have for gen ed or whatever you are majoring in, but for me it would be useless.   #  being able to access every symbol simply by pressing shift is infinitely faster than using a tablet.   #  im a computer science student.  i need to type a lot, im constantly typing out programs using symbols that are not commonly used in essay writing, and which i would have to browse through the symbol section of a tablet keyboard to find.  being able to access every symbol simply by pressing shift is infinitely faster than using a tablet.  things like copying and pasting are faster using a traditional keyboard.  as a cs student, i also need to use software for programming that often ca not be used on tablets.  i do not understand why you think its a necessity to have a tablet, a laptop can do everything a tablet does and more.  in an average math lecture most people at my school take handwritten notes.  in my humanities and literature type classes more people use laptops, some still hand write notes, but very few use tablets.  when you need to take notes quickly and efficiently the traditional keyboard is superior to both handwriting and tablet typing.
i think there are only a few items/materials that we would consider essential for a university student, and i think out of all of them, a tablet is the most important one.  most readings these days are digital, either pdfs distributed by the professor, or books that are available digitally through kindle.  a tablet saves trees, carbon dioxide, etc, but reducing the amount of paper that would normally be printed out.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  ipad and android tablets and i assume whatever the heck microsoft is is have very solid apps for editing pdfs.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, and they also sync to dropbox, making organizing and syncing files very seamless.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  laptops offer a better writing and researching experience, but a tablet with a keyboard is a reasonable option, and there are always library computers for writing essays if you really need them.  because of these reasons, i think i would consider a tablet to be one of the most necessary tools or materials for a college or university student.   #  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.   #  i find the opposite to be true.   # i find the opposite to be true.  i find a full keyboard and fully functional mouse to be essential when typing anything.  with my laptop, i can use a wide variety of programs, many of which are not compatible with tablets.  the large screen of my laptop 0  makes it much easier to read anything than the small screen available on any tablet.  i actually own a kindle, but i never use it because i prefer reading on my laptop.  again, i do not find this to be true.  the editing capacity of tablets for essays is woefully lacking compared to the interfaces available for pcs.  furthermore, there is the extra curricular uses of a pc.  i am a photographer who has submitted photo is to competitions while representing my school.  to properly process and edit my photo is, i need a computer that can run lightroom or an equivalent program.  while there might be tablet versions of these, none match the power or precision available to a pc.  then there is the fact that a favorite hobby of mine is gaming, so i will be owning a pc with the power capable of running my games regardless of what i am doing in school.  if i already have a machine capable of doing all of my school work, why would i spend money on a second one ? in general, i much prefer the idea of having a single device that i can use for everything, and a tablet is too specialized for many functions.  overall, there are some functions that a proper laptop provides but a tablet does not, while there is no function that a tablet provides but a laptop does not.   #  that pretty much makes tablets unusable for me.   # this is kind of where we get into the  0nd level  what people like.  for me, tablets are almost unusable.  i just ca not use the onscreen keyboard, and  laptop  style keyboards are not much better.  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.  that pretty much makes tablets unusable for me.  what is essential for you is more or less worthless to me.   #  overall the versatility of the laptop is what saves it over a tablet.   #  call me crazy, or maybe i am just old, but would sooner kill myself than write a 0 page term paper on a tablet computer.  also, professors usually ask for papers to be printed out, or sent electronically in office formats like word and excel, and i ca not speak to the quality or performance of ms office on tablets.  sure, library computers are available, but i preferred to work on papers in the comfort of my room in my pjs.  also, while the tablet is comfortable to use when you are unplugged, if you are in the middle of studying and you have low battery, that short cable can make finding a comfortable position very difficult.  sure, the library is a solid option, but then if its raining, or you are out of town and a paper is due on monday, you are limited to your tablet if you do not have a laptop.  also, something to consider, being prepared.  you might think you have everything you need, but not all software can be run on tablets.  also redundancies, the wifi goes down, your tablet is extremely limited.  your dropbox goes down, if you have an ipad, you ca not plug in a flash drive, so what can you do ? if you had a computer, you could access and modify documents in dropbox no problem, you would just have to wait until your internet connection reestablished for them to update, or you could plug it into ethernet.  also, check to make sure your school resources support mobile devices this may not apply in most cases,, but i teach esl at a college abroad.  students have an online platform where they need to submit assignments, study, and go through the materials.  we just updated the platform, and there was a conversation on whether to convert the site to a different langauge i don;t remember which to support mobile devices, but that would have cost like $0,0, so it was decided not to convert the site.  overall the versatility of the laptop is what saves it over a tablet.  yes tablets are better in some situations, but they may be completely useless in other crucial situations.   #  i know not everyone shares this preference, but the ergonomics are hardly prohibitive.   #  i have almost the exact opposite sentiment.  in my experience, tablets are little more than a toy too large to substitute for a smartphone as a mobile communication/info device, but too small and impractical and weak to use an actual tool for getting work done.  great for watching movies on the train, but not much else.  reading ? that is a matter of opinion.  i have no issue reading off a laptop for an extended period of time.  i know not everyone shares this preference, but the ergonomics are hardly prohibitive.  and with a larger screen, i prefer a laptop unless portability is an issue.  composition ? laptop beats tablet, no questions.  larger keyboard, larger screen, and generally a better ui.  this becomes really apparent when you are sitting at a desk doing composition with a pile of reference materials.  number crunching ? if you study in a quantitative field, you will almost certainly need significant computing power at some point and a tablet just is not going to do it if it can even run the software packages .  note taking ? i prefer handwritten notes because the act of writing is a mnemonic, but a laptop will beat out handwriting or tablet if pure speed is your goal unless it requires mathematical typesetting, in which case, back to dead trees ! .  in the context of school work, the portability is not even much of a plus, since you will frequently have a satchel full of books anyway.  with all that in mind, a tablet is just a mildly convenient low performance alternative to a laptop.   #  this is fine, except for one thing: i was an animation student.   #  this is fine, except for one thing: i was an animation student.  i required graphical processing power that was only available in a mobile platform in the bulkiest laptops if i wanted  quick  renders that took under half an hour.  a tablet would do that in a week, maybe.  not to mention none of the applications i would need for modeling and animation are good on that.  the way i work on things, a tablet is useless; if i ca not use a laptop in the environment then there is the question of  what the hell am i doing trying to work in this environment ? so, it might be a must have for gen ed or whatever you are majoring in, but for me it would be useless.
i think there are only a few items/materials that we would consider essential for a university student, and i think out of all of them, a tablet is the most important one.  most readings these days are digital, either pdfs distributed by the professor, or books that are available digitally through kindle.  a tablet saves trees, carbon dioxide, etc, but reducing the amount of paper that would normally be printed out.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  ipad and android tablets and i assume whatever the heck microsoft is is have very solid apps for editing pdfs.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, and they also sync to dropbox, making organizing and syncing files very seamless.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  laptops offer a better writing and researching experience, but a tablet with a keyboard is a reasonable option, and there are always library computers for writing essays if you really need them.  because of these reasons, i think i would consider a tablet to be one of the most necessary tools or materials for a college or university student.   #  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.   #  this is really a matter of personal taste.   #  i am an astrophysics student at a pretty good university.  i mainly have taken technical classes since i transferred from my community college, and i am in my last semester.  i have never owned a tablet, and i have never felt like i have really needed one.  i use a laptop for pretty much all of my work.  now, admittedly, i am not the average usage case of students with technology, but when it comes to students in my major, my usage of technology is more common.  i run linux, and i use a very specific interface URL because i find it incredibly productive.  using windows for my work in my major is doable, but i have heard that it is a huge pain in the ass to make it work.  macs are usable since they have x0.  now, there are some tablet apps for x0, but x0 programs are usually expected to be run using a keyboard plus mouse and are not really designed for touch screens.  the huge problem, at least in my case, with tablets is that you are pretty much restricted to the operating system that they come with, which is something that i find extremely restrictive.  most pc is run windows, which for me at least, is not acceptable for using for school and research.  another issue with tablets is that they typically do not have ethernet ports.  yeah, i know that most people do not need them, but i use them on a regular basis, especially when i am in the research lab that i use.  tablets are insufficient for this.  i disagree completely.  laptops are actually pretty comfortable and easy to read on.  editing files is also very comfortable to do with a laptop computer.  this is really a matter of personal taste.  i find that laptops are the ideal ergonomic experience, and sitting on a couch with a laptop on my lap is something that i personally find extremely comfortable.  same with sitting in bed with a laptop.  i can do this all day and get lots of work done.  as you admit, a laptop provides a better experience for this, and since writing and researching are the main things that i do with a laptop, then why would i want to get a lesser interface ie a tablet for that purpose ? so yeah, tablets are clearly not an essential tool for people like me.  laptop computers are.   #  what is essential for you is more or less worthless to me.   # this is kind of where we get into the  0nd level  what people like.  for me, tablets are almost unusable.  i just ca not use the onscreen keyboard, and  laptop  style keyboards are not much better.  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.  that pretty much makes tablets unusable for me.  what is essential for you is more or less worthless to me.   #  also redundancies, the wifi goes down, your tablet is extremely limited.   #  call me crazy, or maybe i am just old, but would sooner kill myself than write a 0 page term paper on a tablet computer.  also, professors usually ask for papers to be printed out, or sent electronically in office formats like word and excel, and i ca not speak to the quality or performance of ms office on tablets.  sure, library computers are available, but i preferred to work on papers in the comfort of my room in my pjs.  also, while the tablet is comfortable to use when you are unplugged, if you are in the middle of studying and you have low battery, that short cable can make finding a comfortable position very difficult.  sure, the library is a solid option, but then if its raining, or you are out of town and a paper is due on monday, you are limited to your tablet if you do not have a laptop.  also, something to consider, being prepared.  you might think you have everything you need, but not all software can be run on tablets.  also redundancies, the wifi goes down, your tablet is extremely limited.  your dropbox goes down, if you have an ipad, you ca not plug in a flash drive, so what can you do ? if you had a computer, you could access and modify documents in dropbox no problem, you would just have to wait until your internet connection reestablished for them to update, or you could plug it into ethernet.  also, check to make sure your school resources support mobile devices this may not apply in most cases,, but i teach esl at a college abroad.  students have an online platform where they need to submit assignments, study, and go through the materials.  we just updated the platform, and there was a conversation on whether to convert the site to a different langauge i don;t remember which to support mobile devices, but that would have cost like $0,0, so it was decided not to convert the site.  overall the versatility of the laptop is what saves it over a tablet.  yes tablets are better in some situations, but they may be completely useless in other crucial situations.   #  great for watching movies on the train, but not much else.   #  i have almost the exact opposite sentiment.  in my experience, tablets are little more than a toy too large to substitute for a smartphone as a mobile communication/info device, but too small and impractical and weak to use an actual tool for getting work done.  great for watching movies on the train, but not much else.  reading ? that is a matter of opinion.  i have no issue reading off a laptop for an extended period of time.  i know not everyone shares this preference, but the ergonomics are hardly prohibitive.  and with a larger screen, i prefer a laptop unless portability is an issue.  composition ? laptop beats tablet, no questions.  larger keyboard, larger screen, and generally a better ui.  this becomes really apparent when you are sitting at a desk doing composition with a pile of reference materials.  number crunching ? if you study in a quantitative field, you will almost certainly need significant computing power at some point and a tablet just is not going to do it if it can even run the software packages .  note taking ? i prefer handwritten notes because the act of writing is a mnemonic, but a laptop will beat out handwriting or tablet if pure speed is your goal unless it requires mathematical typesetting, in which case, back to dead trees ! .  in the context of school work, the portability is not even much of a plus, since you will frequently have a satchel full of books anyway.  with all that in mind, a tablet is just a mildly convenient low performance alternative to a laptop.   #  not to mention none of the applications i would need for modeling and animation are good on that.   #  this is fine, except for one thing: i was an animation student.  i required graphical processing power that was only available in a mobile platform in the bulkiest laptops if i wanted  quick  renders that took under half an hour.  a tablet would do that in a week, maybe.  not to mention none of the applications i would need for modeling and animation are good on that.  the way i work on things, a tablet is useless; if i ca not use a laptop in the environment then there is the question of  what the hell am i doing trying to work in this environment ? so, it might be a must have for gen ed or whatever you are majoring in, but for me it would be useless.
i think there are only a few items/materials that we would consider essential for a university student, and i think out of all of them, a tablet is the most important one.  most readings these days are digital, either pdfs distributed by the professor, or books that are available digitally through kindle.  a tablet saves trees, carbon dioxide, etc, but reducing the amount of paper that would normally be printed out.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  ipad and android tablets and i assume whatever the heck microsoft is is have very solid apps for editing pdfs.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, and they also sync to dropbox, making organizing and syncing files very seamless.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  laptops offer a better writing and researching experience, but a tablet with a keyboard is a reasonable option, and there are always library computers for writing essays if you really need them.  because of these reasons, i think i would consider a tablet to be one of the most necessary tools or materials for a college or university student.   #  most readings these days are digital, either pdfs distributed by the professor, or books that are available digitally through kindle.   #  or they are only available through some weird 0rd party website that does not have a tablet or mobile version and you ca not get the book online it is order only because they are on the approved university list vendors.   # or they are only available through some weird 0rd party website that does not have a tablet or mobile version and you ca not get the book online it is order only because they are on the approved university list vendors.  the only upside to reading on a tablet is if it did not have the backlight which strains your eyes regardless of weather it is a tablet or a laptop.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  so you essentially invalidated your own point.  you bring a counterpoint to your own point but you do not debunk it.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, all those things can be done on paper as well where you have that physical connection to the text.  custom made notes and things made on pdfs have a non negligible chance to bug out, to lose entire sections, to completely reset.  if you write in pen on a piece of paper it will always stay there, no matter what.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  you can easily bring in quotes if you are organized in real life.  i have noticed a trend that people who are not organized in real life tend to be unorganized electronically as well.  it is an issue with how the mind works and how you arrange yourself.  having a tablet is not going to magically fix a lifetime of bad organizational habits.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  or you could just read a book, upsides to having a book over a tablet include: you do not have to charge it it has a set environmental impact where as tablet are ever increasing the more electricity you use to charge it it is light it is 0 reliable.  even if a tablet is 0 reliable book still wins.  you can interact with each page.  it is durable.  you can throw a book on the ground and it is still readable.  tablets shatter.  you can quickly shove a book in your backpack if you are in a rush which you will always be because college.  there is no strain on your eyes.  you do not have to register accounts or give up personal information.  no loading times whatsoever.  no one will try to rob you if you have an expensive book.  cheaper you can store it in dusty, dirty environments and it will always work 0 of the time book: 0 tablet: 0 i had to take a moment to collect myself from the fit of rage that i flew into after reading that.  library computers are open like 0 hours a day.  most of those 0 hours you are in class, so your choice is skip class or write your essay.  this is not an ideal alternative.  i think you need to redefine what essential means.  water and food is essential because the consequence of not having it means that we would die.  a personal phone is essential because the consequence of not having one means that you are difficult to get a hold of for important job offers, or family connections.  you are essentially invalidating the very purpose of you being in college which is to acquire skills for more specialized jobs.  the consequences of not having a tablet is mild inconvenience.  university students without tablets and laptops have existed for centuries and they have gone on to learn and achieve great things.  there is no reason that there should be some sort of huge leap in the human nature of learning that correlates with the invention of tablets.   #  that pretty much makes tablets unusable for me.   # this is kind of where we get into the  0nd level  what people like.  for me, tablets are almost unusable.  i just ca not use the onscreen keyboard, and  laptop  style keyboards are not much better.  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.  that pretty much makes tablets unusable for me.  what is essential for you is more or less worthless to me.   #  also, while the tablet is comfortable to use when you are unplugged, if you are in the middle of studying and you have low battery, that short cable can make finding a comfortable position very difficult.   #  call me crazy, or maybe i am just old, but would sooner kill myself than write a 0 page term paper on a tablet computer.  also, professors usually ask for papers to be printed out, or sent electronically in office formats like word and excel, and i ca not speak to the quality or performance of ms office on tablets.  sure, library computers are available, but i preferred to work on papers in the comfort of my room in my pjs.  also, while the tablet is comfortable to use when you are unplugged, if you are in the middle of studying and you have low battery, that short cable can make finding a comfortable position very difficult.  sure, the library is a solid option, but then if its raining, or you are out of town and a paper is due on monday, you are limited to your tablet if you do not have a laptop.  also, something to consider, being prepared.  you might think you have everything you need, but not all software can be run on tablets.  also redundancies, the wifi goes down, your tablet is extremely limited.  your dropbox goes down, if you have an ipad, you ca not plug in a flash drive, so what can you do ? if you had a computer, you could access and modify documents in dropbox no problem, you would just have to wait until your internet connection reestablished for them to update, or you could plug it into ethernet.  also, check to make sure your school resources support mobile devices this may not apply in most cases,, but i teach esl at a college abroad.  students have an online platform where they need to submit assignments, study, and go through the materials.  we just updated the platform, and there was a conversation on whether to convert the site to a different langauge i don;t remember which to support mobile devices, but that would have cost like $0,0, so it was decided not to convert the site.  overall the versatility of the laptop is what saves it over a tablet.  yes tablets are better in some situations, but they may be completely useless in other crucial situations.   #  larger keyboard, larger screen, and generally a better ui.   #  i have almost the exact opposite sentiment.  in my experience, tablets are little more than a toy too large to substitute for a smartphone as a mobile communication/info device, but too small and impractical and weak to use an actual tool for getting work done.  great for watching movies on the train, but not much else.  reading ? that is a matter of opinion.  i have no issue reading off a laptop for an extended period of time.  i know not everyone shares this preference, but the ergonomics are hardly prohibitive.  and with a larger screen, i prefer a laptop unless portability is an issue.  composition ? laptop beats tablet, no questions.  larger keyboard, larger screen, and generally a better ui.  this becomes really apparent when you are sitting at a desk doing composition with a pile of reference materials.  number crunching ? if you study in a quantitative field, you will almost certainly need significant computing power at some point and a tablet just is not going to do it if it can even run the software packages .  note taking ? i prefer handwritten notes because the act of writing is a mnemonic, but a laptop will beat out handwriting or tablet if pure speed is your goal unless it requires mathematical typesetting, in which case, back to dead trees ! .  in the context of school work, the portability is not even much of a plus, since you will frequently have a satchel full of books anyway.  with all that in mind, a tablet is just a mildly convenient low performance alternative to a laptop.   #  i required graphical processing power that was only available in a mobile platform in the bulkiest laptops if i wanted  quick  renders that took under half an hour.   #  this is fine, except for one thing: i was an animation student.  i required graphical processing power that was only available in a mobile platform in the bulkiest laptops if i wanted  quick  renders that took under half an hour.  a tablet would do that in a week, maybe.  not to mention none of the applications i would need for modeling and animation are good on that.  the way i work on things, a tablet is useless; if i ca not use a laptop in the environment then there is the question of  what the hell am i doing trying to work in this environment ? so, it might be a must have for gen ed or whatever you are majoring in, but for me it would be useless.
i think there are only a few items/materials that we would consider essential for a university student, and i think out of all of them, a tablet is the most important one.  most readings these days are digital, either pdfs distributed by the professor, or books that are available digitally through kindle.  a tablet saves trees, carbon dioxide, etc, but reducing the amount of paper that would normally be printed out.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  ipad and android tablets and i assume whatever the heck microsoft is is have very solid apps for editing pdfs.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, and they also sync to dropbox, making organizing and syncing files very seamless.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  laptops offer a better writing and researching experience, but a tablet with a keyboard is a reasonable option, and there are always library computers for writing essays if you really need them.  because of these reasons, i think i would consider a tablet to be one of the most necessary tools or materials for a college or university student.   #  a tablet saves trees, carbon dioxide, etc, but reducing the amount of paper that would normally be printed out.   #  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.   # or they are only available through some weird 0rd party website that does not have a tablet or mobile version and you ca not get the book online it is order only because they are on the approved university list vendors.  the only upside to reading on a tablet is if it did not have the backlight which strains your eyes regardless of weather it is a tablet or a laptop.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  so you essentially invalidated your own point.  you bring a counterpoint to your own point but you do not debunk it.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, all those things can be done on paper as well where you have that physical connection to the text.  custom made notes and things made on pdfs have a non negligible chance to bug out, to lose entire sections, to completely reset.  if you write in pen on a piece of paper it will always stay there, no matter what.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  you can easily bring in quotes if you are organized in real life.  i have noticed a trend that people who are not organized in real life tend to be unorganized electronically as well.  it is an issue with how the mind works and how you arrange yourself.  having a tablet is not going to magically fix a lifetime of bad organizational habits.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  or you could just read a book, upsides to having a book over a tablet include: you do not have to charge it it has a set environmental impact where as tablet are ever increasing the more electricity you use to charge it it is light it is 0 reliable.  even if a tablet is 0 reliable book still wins.  you can interact with each page.  it is durable.  you can throw a book on the ground and it is still readable.  tablets shatter.  you can quickly shove a book in your backpack if you are in a rush which you will always be because college.  there is no strain on your eyes.  you do not have to register accounts or give up personal information.  no loading times whatsoever.  no one will try to rob you if you have an expensive book.  cheaper you can store it in dusty, dirty environments and it will always work 0 of the time book: 0 tablet: 0 i had to take a moment to collect myself from the fit of rage that i flew into after reading that.  library computers are open like 0 hours a day.  most of those 0 hours you are in class, so your choice is skip class or write your essay.  this is not an ideal alternative.  i think you need to redefine what essential means.  water and food is essential because the consequence of not having it means that we would die.  a personal phone is essential because the consequence of not having one means that you are difficult to get a hold of for important job offers, or family connections.  you are essentially invalidating the very purpose of you being in college which is to acquire skills for more specialized jobs.  the consequences of not having a tablet is mild inconvenience.  university students without tablets and laptops have existed for centuries and they have gone on to learn and achieve great things.  there is no reason that there should be some sort of huge leap in the human nature of learning that correlates with the invention of tablets.   #  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.   # this is kind of where we get into the  0nd level  what people like.  for me, tablets are almost unusable.  i just ca not use the onscreen keyboard, and  laptop  style keyboards are not much better.  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.  that pretty much makes tablets unusable for me.  what is essential for you is more or less worthless to me.   #  sure, the library is a solid option, but then if its raining, or you are out of town and a paper is due on monday, you are limited to your tablet if you do not have a laptop.   #  call me crazy, or maybe i am just old, but would sooner kill myself than write a 0 page term paper on a tablet computer.  also, professors usually ask for papers to be printed out, or sent electronically in office formats like word and excel, and i ca not speak to the quality or performance of ms office on tablets.  sure, library computers are available, but i preferred to work on papers in the comfort of my room in my pjs.  also, while the tablet is comfortable to use when you are unplugged, if you are in the middle of studying and you have low battery, that short cable can make finding a comfortable position very difficult.  sure, the library is a solid option, but then if its raining, or you are out of town and a paper is due on monday, you are limited to your tablet if you do not have a laptop.  also, something to consider, being prepared.  you might think you have everything you need, but not all software can be run on tablets.  also redundancies, the wifi goes down, your tablet is extremely limited.  your dropbox goes down, if you have an ipad, you ca not plug in a flash drive, so what can you do ? if you had a computer, you could access and modify documents in dropbox no problem, you would just have to wait until your internet connection reestablished for them to update, or you could plug it into ethernet.  also, check to make sure your school resources support mobile devices this may not apply in most cases,, but i teach esl at a college abroad.  students have an online platform where they need to submit assignments, study, and go through the materials.  we just updated the platform, and there was a conversation on whether to convert the site to a different langauge i don;t remember which to support mobile devices, but that would have cost like $0,0, so it was decided not to convert the site.  overall the versatility of the laptop is what saves it over a tablet.  yes tablets are better in some situations, but they may be completely useless in other crucial situations.   #  great for watching movies on the train, but not much else.   #  i have almost the exact opposite sentiment.  in my experience, tablets are little more than a toy too large to substitute for a smartphone as a mobile communication/info device, but too small and impractical and weak to use an actual tool for getting work done.  great for watching movies on the train, but not much else.  reading ? that is a matter of opinion.  i have no issue reading off a laptop for an extended period of time.  i know not everyone shares this preference, but the ergonomics are hardly prohibitive.  and with a larger screen, i prefer a laptop unless portability is an issue.  composition ? laptop beats tablet, no questions.  larger keyboard, larger screen, and generally a better ui.  this becomes really apparent when you are sitting at a desk doing composition with a pile of reference materials.  number crunching ? if you study in a quantitative field, you will almost certainly need significant computing power at some point and a tablet just is not going to do it if it can even run the software packages .  note taking ? i prefer handwritten notes because the act of writing is a mnemonic, but a laptop will beat out handwriting or tablet if pure speed is your goal unless it requires mathematical typesetting, in which case, back to dead trees ! .  in the context of school work, the portability is not even much of a plus, since you will frequently have a satchel full of books anyway.  with all that in mind, a tablet is just a mildly convenient low performance alternative to a laptop.   #  so, it might be a must have for gen ed or whatever you are majoring in, but for me it would be useless.   #  this is fine, except for one thing: i was an animation student.  i required graphical processing power that was only available in a mobile platform in the bulkiest laptops if i wanted  quick  renders that took under half an hour.  a tablet would do that in a week, maybe.  not to mention none of the applications i would need for modeling and animation are good on that.  the way i work on things, a tablet is useless; if i ca not use a laptop in the environment then there is the question of  what the hell am i doing trying to work in this environment ? so, it might be a must have for gen ed or whatever you are majoring in, but for me it would be useless.
i think there are only a few items/materials that we would consider essential for a university student, and i think out of all of them, a tablet is the most important one.  most readings these days are digital, either pdfs distributed by the professor, or books that are available digitally through kindle.  a tablet saves trees, carbon dioxide, etc, but reducing the amount of paper that would normally be printed out.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  ipad and android tablets and i assume whatever the heck microsoft is is have very solid apps for editing pdfs.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, and they also sync to dropbox, making organizing and syncing files very seamless.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  laptops offer a better writing and researching experience, but a tablet with a keyboard is a reasonable option, and there are always library computers for writing essays if you really need them.  because of these reasons, i think i would consider a tablet to be one of the most necessary tools or materials for a college or university student.   #  ipad and android tablets and i assume whatever the heck microsoft is is have very solid apps for editing pdfs.   #  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, all those things can be done on paper as well where you have that physical connection to the text.   # or they are only available through some weird 0rd party website that does not have a tablet or mobile version and you ca not get the book online it is order only because they are on the approved university list vendors.  the only upside to reading on a tablet is if it did not have the backlight which strains your eyes regardless of weather it is a tablet or a laptop.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  so you essentially invalidated your own point.  you bring a counterpoint to your own point but you do not debunk it.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, all those things can be done on paper as well where you have that physical connection to the text.  custom made notes and things made on pdfs have a non negligible chance to bug out, to lose entire sections, to completely reset.  if you write in pen on a piece of paper it will always stay there, no matter what.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  you can easily bring in quotes if you are organized in real life.  i have noticed a trend that people who are not organized in real life tend to be unorganized electronically as well.  it is an issue with how the mind works and how you arrange yourself.  having a tablet is not going to magically fix a lifetime of bad organizational habits.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  or you could just read a book, upsides to having a book over a tablet include: you do not have to charge it it has a set environmental impact where as tablet are ever increasing the more electricity you use to charge it it is light it is 0 reliable.  even if a tablet is 0 reliable book still wins.  you can interact with each page.  it is durable.  you can throw a book on the ground and it is still readable.  tablets shatter.  you can quickly shove a book in your backpack if you are in a rush which you will always be because college.  there is no strain on your eyes.  you do not have to register accounts or give up personal information.  no loading times whatsoever.  no one will try to rob you if you have an expensive book.  cheaper you can store it in dusty, dirty environments and it will always work 0 of the time book: 0 tablet: 0 i had to take a moment to collect myself from the fit of rage that i flew into after reading that.  library computers are open like 0 hours a day.  most of those 0 hours you are in class, so your choice is skip class or write your essay.  this is not an ideal alternative.  i think you need to redefine what essential means.  water and food is essential because the consequence of not having it means that we would die.  a personal phone is essential because the consequence of not having one means that you are difficult to get a hold of for important job offers, or family connections.  you are essentially invalidating the very purpose of you being in college which is to acquire skills for more specialized jobs.  the consequences of not having a tablet is mild inconvenience.  university students without tablets and laptops have existed for centuries and they have gone on to learn and achieve great things.  there is no reason that there should be some sort of huge leap in the human nature of learning that correlates with the invention of tablets.   #  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.   # this is kind of where we get into the  0nd level  what people like.  for me, tablets are almost unusable.  i just ca not use the onscreen keyboard, and  laptop  style keyboards are not much better.  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.  that pretty much makes tablets unusable for me.  what is essential for you is more or less worthless to me.   #  also, professors usually ask for papers to be printed out, or sent electronically in office formats like word and excel, and i ca not speak to the quality or performance of ms office on tablets.   #  call me crazy, or maybe i am just old, but would sooner kill myself than write a 0 page term paper on a tablet computer.  also, professors usually ask for papers to be printed out, or sent electronically in office formats like word and excel, and i ca not speak to the quality or performance of ms office on tablets.  sure, library computers are available, but i preferred to work on papers in the comfort of my room in my pjs.  also, while the tablet is comfortable to use when you are unplugged, if you are in the middle of studying and you have low battery, that short cable can make finding a comfortable position very difficult.  sure, the library is a solid option, but then if its raining, or you are out of town and a paper is due on monday, you are limited to your tablet if you do not have a laptop.  also, something to consider, being prepared.  you might think you have everything you need, but not all software can be run on tablets.  also redundancies, the wifi goes down, your tablet is extremely limited.  your dropbox goes down, if you have an ipad, you ca not plug in a flash drive, so what can you do ? if you had a computer, you could access and modify documents in dropbox no problem, you would just have to wait until your internet connection reestablished for them to update, or you could plug it into ethernet.  also, check to make sure your school resources support mobile devices this may not apply in most cases,, but i teach esl at a college abroad.  students have an online platform where they need to submit assignments, study, and go through the materials.  we just updated the platform, and there was a conversation on whether to convert the site to a different langauge i don;t remember which to support mobile devices, but that would have cost like $0,0, so it was decided not to convert the site.  overall the versatility of the laptop is what saves it over a tablet.  yes tablets are better in some situations, but they may be completely useless in other crucial situations.   #  and with a larger screen, i prefer a laptop unless portability is an issue.   #  i have almost the exact opposite sentiment.  in my experience, tablets are little more than a toy too large to substitute for a smartphone as a mobile communication/info device, but too small and impractical and weak to use an actual tool for getting work done.  great for watching movies on the train, but not much else.  reading ? that is a matter of opinion.  i have no issue reading off a laptop for an extended period of time.  i know not everyone shares this preference, but the ergonomics are hardly prohibitive.  and with a larger screen, i prefer a laptop unless portability is an issue.  composition ? laptop beats tablet, no questions.  larger keyboard, larger screen, and generally a better ui.  this becomes really apparent when you are sitting at a desk doing composition with a pile of reference materials.  number crunching ? if you study in a quantitative field, you will almost certainly need significant computing power at some point and a tablet just is not going to do it if it can even run the software packages .  note taking ? i prefer handwritten notes because the act of writing is a mnemonic, but a laptop will beat out handwriting or tablet if pure speed is your goal unless it requires mathematical typesetting, in which case, back to dead trees ! .  in the context of school work, the portability is not even much of a plus, since you will frequently have a satchel full of books anyway.  with all that in mind, a tablet is just a mildly convenient low performance alternative to a laptop.   #  not to mention none of the applications i would need for modeling and animation are good on that.   #  this is fine, except for one thing: i was an animation student.  i required graphical processing power that was only available in a mobile platform in the bulkiest laptops if i wanted  quick  renders that took under half an hour.  a tablet would do that in a week, maybe.  not to mention none of the applications i would need for modeling and animation are good on that.  the way i work on things, a tablet is useless; if i ca not use a laptop in the environment then there is the question of  what the hell am i doing trying to work in this environment ? so, it might be a must have for gen ed or whatever you are majoring in, but for me it would be useless.
i think there are only a few items/materials that we would consider essential for a university student, and i think out of all of them, a tablet is the most important one.  most readings these days are digital, either pdfs distributed by the professor, or books that are available digitally through kindle.  a tablet saves trees, carbon dioxide, etc, but reducing the amount of paper that would normally be printed out.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  ipad and android tablets and i assume whatever the heck microsoft is is have very solid apps for editing pdfs.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, and they also sync to dropbox, making organizing and syncing files very seamless.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  laptops offer a better writing and researching experience, but a tablet with a keyboard is a reasonable option, and there are always library computers for writing essays if you really need them.  because of these reasons, i think i would consider a tablet to be one of the most necessary tools or materials for a college or university student.   #  they also sync to dropbox, making organizing and syncing files very seamless.   #  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.   # or they are only available through some weird 0rd party website that does not have a tablet or mobile version and you ca not get the book online it is order only because they are on the approved university list vendors.  the only upside to reading on a tablet is if it did not have the backlight which strains your eyes regardless of weather it is a tablet or a laptop.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  so you essentially invalidated your own point.  you bring a counterpoint to your own point but you do not debunk it.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, all those things can be done on paper as well where you have that physical connection to the text.  custom made notes and things made on pdfs have a non negligible chance to bug out, to lose entire sections, to completely reset.  if you write in pen on a piece of paper it will always stay there, no matter what.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  you can easily bring in quotes if you are organized in real life.  i have noticed a trend that people who are not organized in real life tend to be unorganized electronically as well.  it is an issue with how the mind works and how you arrange yourself.  having a tablet is not going to magically fix a lifetime of bad organizational habits.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  or you could just read a book, upsides to having a book over a tablet include: you do not have to charge it it has a set environmental impact where as tablet are ever increasing the more electricity you use to charge it it is light it is 0 reliable.  even if a tablet is 0 reliable book still wins.  you can interact with each page.  it is durable.  you can throw a book on the ground and it is still readable.  tablets shatter.  you can quickly shove a book in your backpack if you are in a rush which you will always be because college.  there is no strain on your eyes.  you do not have to register accounts or give up personal information.  no loading times whatsoever.  no one will try to rob you if you have an expensive book.  cheaper you can store it in dusty, dirty environments and it will always work 0 of the time book: 0 tablet: 0 i had to take a moment to collect myself from the fit of rage that i flew into after reading that.  library computers are open like 0 hours a day.  most of those 0 hours you are in class, so your choice is skip class or write your essay.  this is not an ideal alternative.  i think you need to redefine what essential means.  water and food is essential because the consequence of not having it means that we would die.  a personal phone is essential because the consequence of not having one means that you are difficult to get a hold of for important job offers, or family connections.  you are essentially invalidating the very purpose of you being in college which is to acquire skills for more specialized jobs.  the consequences of not having a tablet is mild inconvenience.  university students without tablets and laptops have existed for centuries and they have gone on to learn and achieve great things.  there is no reason that there should be some sort of huge leap in the human nature of learning that correlates with the invention of tablets.   #  i just ca not use the onscreen keyboard, and  laptop  style keyboards are not much better.   # this is kind of where we get into the  0nd level  what people like.  for me, tablets are almost unusable.  i just ca not use the onscreen keyboard, and  laptop  style keyboards are not much better.  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.  that pretty much makes tablets unusable for me.  what is essential for you is more or less worthless to me.   #  sure, the library is a solid option, but then if its raining, or you are out of town and a paper is due on monday, you are limited to your tablet if you do not have a laptop.   #  call me crazy, or maybe i am just old, but would sooner kill myself than write a 0 page term paper on a tablet computer.  also, professors usually ask for papers to be printed out, or sent electronically in office formats like word and excel, and i ca not speak to the quality or performance of ms office on tablets.  sure, library computers are available, but i preferred to work on papers in the comfort of my room in my pjs.  also, while the tablet is comfortable to use when you are unplugged, if you are in the middle of studying and you have low battery, that short cable can make finding a comfortable position very difficult.  sure, the library is a solid option, but then if its raining, or you are out of town and a paper is due on monday, you are limited to your tablet if you do not have a laptop.  also, something to consider, being prepared.  you might think you have everything you need, but not all software can be run on tablets.  also redundancies, the wifi goes down, your tablet is extremely limited.  your dropbox goes down, if you have an ipad, you ca not plug in a flash drive, so what can you do ? if you had a computer, you could access and modify documents in dropbox no problem, you would just have to wait until your internet connection reestablished for them to update, or you could plug it into ethernet.  also, check to make sure your school resources support mobile devices this may not apply in most cases,, but i teach esl at a college abroad.  students have an online platform where they need to submit assignments, study, and go through the materials.  we just updated the platform, and there was a conversation on whether to convert the site to a different langauge i don;t remember which to support mobile devices, but that would have cost like $0,0, so it was decided not to convert the site.  overall the versatility of the laptop is what saves it over a tablet.  yes tablets are better in some situations, but they may be completely useless in other crucial situations.   #  in my experience, tablets are little more than a toy too large to substitute for a smartphone as a mobile communication/info device, but too small and impractical and weak to use an actual tool for getting work done.   #  i have almost the exact opposite sentiment.  in my experience, tablets are little more than a toy too large to substitute for a smartphone as a mobile communication/info device, but too small and impractical and weak to use an actual tool for getting work done.  great for watching movies on the train, but not much else.  reading ? that is a matter of opinion.  i have no issue reading off a laptop for an extended period of time.  i know not everyone shares this preference, but the ergonomics are hardly prohibitive.  and with a larger screen, i prefer a laptop unless portability is an issue.  composition ? laptop beats tablet, no questions.  larger keyboard, larger screen, and generally a better ui.  this becomes really apparent when you are sitting at a desk doing composition with a pile of reference materials.  number crunching ? if you study in a quantitative field, you will almost certainly need significant computing power at some point and a tablet just is not going to do it if it can even run the software packages .  note taking ? i prefer handwritten notes because the act of writing is a mnemonic, but a laptop will beat out handwriting or tablet if pure speed is your goal unless it requires mathematical typesetting, in which case, back to dead trees ! .  in the context of school work, the portability is not even much of a plus, since you will frequently have a satchel full of books anyway.  with all that in mind, a tablet is just a mildly convenient low performance alternative to a laptop.   #  a tablet would do that in a week, maybe.   #  this is fine, except for one thing: i was an animation student.  i required graphical processing power that was only available in a mobile platform in the bulkiest laptops if i wanted  quick  renders that took under half an hour.  a tablet would do that in a week, maybe.  not to mention none of the applications i would need for modeling and animation are good on that.  the way i work on things, a tablet is useless; if i ca not use a laptop in the environment then there is the question of  what the hell am i doing trying to work in this environment ? so, it might be a must have for gen ed or whatever you are majoring in, but for me it would be useless.
i think there are only a few items/materials that we would consider essential for a university student, and i think out of all of them, a tablet is the most important one.  most readings these days are digital, either pdfs distributed by the professor, or books that are available digitally through kindle.  a tablet saves trees, carbon dioxide, etc, but reducing the amount of paper that would normally be printed out.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  ipad and android tablets and i assume whatever the heck microsoft is is have very solid apps for editing pdfs.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, and they also sync to dropbox, making organizing and syncing files very seamless.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  laptops offer a better writing and researching experience, but a tablet with a keyboard is a reasonable option, and there are always library computers for writing essays if you really need them.  because of these reasons, i think i would consider a tablet to be one of the most necessary tools or materials for a college or university student.   #  reading and editing on a computer simply is not a good experience.   #  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.   # or they are only available through some weird 0rd party website that does not have a tablet or mobile version and you ca not get the book online it is order only because they are on the approved university list vendors.  the only upside to reading on a tablet is if it did not have the backlight which strains your eyes regardless of weather it is a tablet or a laptop.  sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but i would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons are not the sole advantage.  so you essentially invalidated your own point.  you bring a counterpoint to your own point but you do not debunk it.  they can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, all those things can be done on paper as well where you have that physical connection to the text.  custom made notes and things made on pdfs have a non negligible chance to bug out, to lose entire sections, to completely reset.  if you write in pen on a piece of paper it will always stay there, no matter what.  this makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.  you can easily bring in quotes if you are organized in real life.  i have noticed a trend that people who are not organized in real life tend to be unorganized electronically as well.  it is an issue with how the mind works and how you arrange yourself.  having a tablet is not going to magically fix a lifetime of bad organizational habits.  you ca not sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand.  using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience.  or you could just read a book, upsides to having a book over a tablet include: you do not have to charge it it has a set environmental impact where as tablet are ever increasing the more electricity you use to charge it it is light it is 0 reliable.  even if a tablet is 0 reliable book still wins.  you can interact with each page.  it is durable.  you can throw a book on the ground and it is still readable.  tablets shatter.  you can quickly shove a book in your backpack if you are in a rush which you will always be because college.  there is no strain on your eyes.  you do not have to register accounts or give up personal information.  no loading times whatsoever.  no one will try to rob you if you have an expensive book.  cheaper you can store it in dusty, dirty environments and it will always work 0 of the time book: 0 tablet: 0 i had to take a moment to collect myself from the fit of rage that i flew into after reading that.  library computers are open like 0 hours a day.  most of those 0 hours you are in class, so your choice is skip class or write your essay.  this is not an ideal alternative.  i think you need to redefine what essential means.  water and food is essential because the consequence of not having it means that we would die.  a personal phone is essential because the consequence of not having one means that you are difficult to get a hold of for important job offers, or family connections.  you are essentially invalidating the very purpose of you being in college which is to acquire skills for more specialized jobs.  the consequences of not having a tablet is mild inconvenience.  university students without tablets and laptops have existed for centuries and they have gone on to learn and achieve great things.  there is no reason that there should be some sort of huge leap in the human nature of learning that correlates with the invention of tablets.   #  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.   # this is kind of where we get into the  0nd level  what people like.  for me, tablets are almost unusable.  i just ca not use the onscreen keyboard, and  laptop  style keyboards are not much better.  i am just not productive on anything other then a laptop with separate keyboard or on a desktop.  that pretty much makes tablets unusable for me.  what is essential for you is more or less worthless to me.   #  if you had a computer, you could access and modify documents in dropbox no problem, you would just have to wait until your internet connection reestablished for them to update, or you could plug it into ethernet.   #  call me crazy, or maybe i am just old, but would sooner kill myself than write a 0 page term paper on a tablet computer.  also, professors usually ask for papers to be printed out, or sent electronically in office formats like word and excel, and i ca not speak to the quality or performance of ms office on tablets.  sure, library computers are available, but i preferred to work on papers in the comfort of my room in my pjs.  also, while the tablet is comfortable to use when you are unplugged, if you are in the middle of studying and you have low battery, that short cable can make finding a comfortable position very difficult.  sure, the library is a solid option, but then if its raining, or you are out of town and a paper is due on monday, you are limited to your tablet if you do not have a laptop.  also, something to consider, being prepared.  you might think you have everything you need, but not all software can be run on tablets.  also redundancies, the wifi goes down, your tablet is extremely limited.  your dropbox goes down, if you have an ipad, you ca not plug in a flash drive, so what can you do ? if you had a computer, you could access and modify documents in dropbox no problem, you would just have to wait until your internet connection reestablished for them to update, or you could plug it into ethernet.  also, check to make sure your school resources support mobile devices this may not apply in most cases,, but i teach esl at a college abroad.  students have an online platform where they need to submit assignments, study, and go through the materials.  we just updated the platform, and there was a conversation on whether to convert the site to a different langauge i don;t remember which to support mobile devices, but that would have cost like $0,0, so it was decided not to convert the site.  overall the versatility of the laptop is what saves it over a tablet.  yes tablets are better in some situations, but they may be completely useless in other crucial situations.   #  larger keyboard, larger screen, and generally a better ui.   #  i have almost the exact opposite sentiment.  in my experience, tablets are little more than a toy too large to substitute for a smartphone as a mobile communication/info device, but too small and impractical and weak to use an actual tool for getting work done.  great for watching movies on the train, but not much else.  reading ? that is a matter of opinion.  i have no issue reading off a laptop for an extended period of time.  i know not everyone shares this preference, but the ergonomics are hardly prohibitive.  and with a larger screen, i prefer a laptop unless portability is an issue.  composition ? laptop beats tablet, no questions.  larger keyboard, larger screen, and generally a better ui.  this becomes really apparent when you are sitting at a desk doing composition with a pile of reference materials.  number crunching ? if you study in a quantitative field, you will almost certainly need significant computing power at some point and a tablet just is not going to do it if it can even run the software packages .  note taking ? i prefer handwritten notes because the act of writing is a mnemonic, but a laptop will beat out handwriting or tablet if pure speed is your goal unless it requires mathematical typesetting, in which case, back to dead trees ! .  in the context of school work, the portability is not even much of a plus, since you will frequently have a satchel full of books anyway.  with all that in mind, a tablet is just a mildly convenient low performance alternative to a laptop.   #  the way i work on things, a tablet is useless; if i ca not use a laptop in the environment then there is the question of  what the hell am i doing trying to work in this environment ?  #  this is fine, except for one thing: i was an animation student.  i required graphical processing power that was only available in a mobile platform in the bulkiest laptops if i wanted  quick  renders that took under half an hour.  a tablet would do that in a week, maybe.  not to mention none of the applications i would need for modeling and animation are good on that.  the way i work on things, a tablet is useless; if i ca not use a laptop in the environment then there is the question of  what the hell am i doing trying to work in this environment ? so, it might be a must have for gen ed or whatever you are majoring in, but for me it would be useless.
basically i do not understand this double standard.  it might not apply to all places, but here in my city austin , planned parenthood charges from $0 0 for a full screening.  on the other hand, ive heard from multiple female friends that they can get it done for free.  for society as a whole, people would be benefited by frequent and free sti tests.  i cant understand any logic that would support women getting it done for free while i, a male, should have to pay.  logistically, i cant see why male blood or urine tests could be any different from female tests.  even in regards to frequency, i do not see why more males would frequent planned parenthood for that reason more than females.  all i can understand from that is that planned parenthood is more committed to women is health than men is.  if that is true, then i think this is detrimental to society.  the fact that i, or anyone, should have to pay for a sti test, discourages me from undergoing a test.  whatever the situation, i think this should be a basic right for all people.  as far as paying for the facilities, i think the cost should be offset from taxes.   #  for society as a whole, people would be benefited by frequent and free sti tests.   #  planned parenthood does not exist to benefit society, they exist to achieve their individual goals.   # planned parenthood does not exist to benefit society, they exist to achieve their individual goals.  you are welcome to start your own organization that offers free testing.  for one, it is the prerogative of the organization.  secondly, it is a sad fact that women have far worse side effects from stis than men.  lastly, stis can affect fetuses and pregnancies.  you got it.  no it does not.  if you  really  want a test, they are not that expensive.  if you wo not pay for it, then you are not all that interested in the test.  we should not create  rights  that force people to give you services for free.   #  but i have heard all these conflicting things from only women; so even among women prices seem to vary.   #  this cmv is based on a false premise.  you do not know for sure if women have to pay for the screenings or not.  you do not know if the charge is based on insurance, income, gender, or other factors; you are only assuming it is based on gender.  i have heard lots of different and conflicting things about pricing at planned parenthood, just as you have experienced.  but i have heard all these conflicting things from only women; so even among women prices seem to vary.  i really have no idea what pp bases their pricing/discount structure on; it may vary state to state or facility to facility.  unless you can prove that your pp facility charges men but not women for an identical screening, than this is really a moot point.   #  i ca not believe that  and should be ended  is even an option for you.   # i ca not believe that  and should be ended  is even an option for you.  it should only be  a men is version should be created.   you would seriously take away programs from women in need because there is not a program set up for men as well ? that is why so many people view the mrm as fucked up.  instead of focusing on improvements for men they focus on tearing down any instance in which they think women are above men; which positions them more as anti women than pro men.  they do not do things to help men; they do thinks to hurt women in instances where women may have an advantage.  equality at the expense of everyone is more important to them than actually helping people.   #  the fact that this law exists is something i believe to be for societal good.   #  i agree with you there.  i do not think anything should be torn down.  the fact that this law exists is something i believe to be for societal good.  i just do not agree with the double standard.  i never meant this post as a  mens rights  sort of thing, i rarely agree with them, i just think this is something that annoyed me and i wanted to see other points on.  its not that id want to take services away from women, especially mothers.   #  it takes two to tango, so she could contract it right there.   #  thats exactly what im referring to.  and the fact that its a law strengthens my point even more.  if the ultimate point is to prevent fetuses from contracting an sti, then men should be offered that service as well.  a women could get all the tests she pleases, but then come in contact with an infected man.  it takes two to tango, so she could contract it right there.  this is just an excellent example of society valuing men over women, in some pseudo chivalry bullshit way.
basically i do not understand this double standard.  it might not apply to all places, but here in my city austin , planned parenthood charges from $0 0 for a full screening.  on the other hand, ive heard from multiple female friends that they can get it done for free.  for society as a whole, people would be benefited by frequent and free sti tests.  i cant understand any logic that would support women getting it done for free while i, a male, should have to pay.  logistically, i cant see why male blood or urine tests could be any different from female tests.  even in regards to frequency, i do not see why more males would frequent planned parenthood for that reason more than females.  all i can understand from that is that planned parenthood is more committed to women is health than men is.  if that is true, then i think this is detrimental to society.  the fact that i, or anyone, should have to pay for a sti test, discourages me from undergoing a test.  whatever the situation, i think this should be a basic right for all people.  as far as paying for the facilities, i think the cost should be offset from taxes.   #  i cant understand any logic that would support women getting it done for free while i, a male, should have to pay.   #  for one, it is the prerogative of the organization.   # planned parenthood does not exist to benefit society, they exist to achieve their individual goals.  you are welcome to start your own organization that offers free testing.  for one, it is the prerogative of the organization.  secondly, it is a sad fact that women have far worse side effects from stis than men.  lastly, stis can affect fetuses and pregnancies.  you got it.  no it does not.  if you  really  want a test, they are not that expensive.  if you wo not pay for it, then you are not all that interested in the test.  we should not create  rights  that force people to give you services for free.   #  you do not know if the charge is based on insurance, income, gender, or other factors; you are only assuming it is based on gender.   #  this cmv is based on a false premise.  you do not know for sure if women have to pay for the screenings or not.  you do not know if the charge is based on insurance, income, gender, or other factors; you are only assuming it is based on gender.  i have heard lots of different and conflicting things about pricing at planned parenthood, just as you have experienced.  but i have heard all these conflicting things from only women; so even among women prices seem to vary.  i really have no idea what pp bases their pricing/discount structure on; it may vary state to state or facility to facility.  unless you can prove that your pp facility charges men but not women for an identical screening, than this is really a moot point.   #  that is why so many people view the mrm as fucked up.   # i ca not believe that  and should be ended  is even an option for you.  it should only be  a men is version should be created.   you would seriously take away programs from women in need because there is not a program set up for men as well ? that is why so many people view the mrm as fucked up.  instead of focusing on improvements for men they focus on tearing down any instance in which they think women are above men; which positions them more as anti women than pro men.  they do not do things to help men; they do thinks to hurt women in instances where women may have an advantage.  equality at the expense of everyone is more important to them than actually helping people.   #  i never meant this post as a  mens rights  sort of thing, i rarely agree with them, i just think this is something that annoyed me and i wanted to see other points on.   #  i agree with you there.  i do not think anything should be torn down.  the fact that this law exists is something i believe to be for societal good.  i just do not agree with the double standard.  i never meant this post as a  mens rights  sort of thing, i rarely agree with them, i just think this is something that annoyed me and i wanted to see other points on.  its not that id want to take services away from women, especially mothers.   #  a women could get all the tests she pleases, but then come in contact with an infected man.   #  thats exactly what im referring to.  and the fact that its a law strengthens my point even more.  if the ultimate point is to prevent fetuses from contracting an sti, then men should be offered that service as well.  a women could get all the tests she pleases, but then come in contact with an infected man.  it takes two to tango, so she could contract it right there.  this is just an excellent example of society valuing men over women, in some pseudo chivalry bullshit way.
basically i do not understand this double standard.  it might not apply to all places, but here in my city austin , planned parenthood charges from $0 0 for a full screening.  on the other hand, ive heard from multiple female friends that they can get it done for free.  for society as a whole, people would be benefited by frequent and free sti tests.  i cant understand any logic that would support women getting it done for free while i, a male, should have to pay.  logistically, i cant see why male blood or urine tests could be any different from female tests.  even in regards to frequency, i do not see why more males would frequent planned parenthood for that reason more than females.  all i can understand from that is that planned parenthood is more committed to women is health than men is.  if that is true, then i think this is detrimental to society.  the fact that i, or anyone, should have to pay for a sti test, discourages me from undergoing a test.  whatever the situation, i think this should be a basic right for all people.  as far as paying for the facilities, i think the cost should be offset from taxes.   #  whatever the situation, i think this should be a basic right for all people.   #  we should not create  rights  that force people to give you services for free.   # planned parenthood does not exist to benefit society, they exist to achieve their individual goals.  you are welcome to start your own organization that offers free testing.  for one, it is the prerogative of the organization.  secondly, it is a sad fact that women have far worse side effects from stis than men.  lastly, stis can affect fetuses and pregnancies.  you got it.  no it does not.  if you  really  want a test, they are not that expensive.  if you wo not pay for it, then you are not all that interested in the test.  we should not create  rights  that force people to give you services for free.   #  this cmv is based on a false premise.   #  this cmv is based on a false premise.  you do not know for sure if women have to pay for the screenings or not.  you do not know if the charge is based on insurance, income, gender, or other factors; you are only assuming it is based on gender.  i have heard lots of different and conflicting things about pricing at planned parenthood, just as you have experienced.  but i have heard all these conflicting things from only women; so even among women prices seem to vary.  i really have no idea what pp bases their pricing/discount structure on; it may vary state to state or facility to facility.  unless you can prove that your pp facility charges men but not women for an identical screening, than this is really a moot point.   #  you would seriously take away programs from women in need because there is not a program set up for men as well ?  # i ca not believe that  and should be ended  is even an option for you.  it should only be  a men is version should be created.   you would seriously take away programs from women in need because there is not a program set up for men as well ? that is why so many people view the mrm as fucked up.  instead of focusing on improvements for men they focus on tearing down any instance in which they think women are above men; which positions them more as anti women than pro men.  they do not do things to help men; they do thinks to hurt women in instances where women may have an advantage.  equality at the expense of everyone is more important to them than actually helping people.   #  i never meant this post as a  mens rights  sort of thing, i rarely agree with them, i just think this is something that annoyed me and i wanted to see other points on.   #  i agree with you there.  i do not think anything should be torn down.  the fact that this law exists is something i believe to be for societal good.  i just do not agree with the double standard.  i never meant this post as a  mens rights  sort of thing, i rarely agree with them, i just think this is something that annoyed me and i wanted to see other points on.  its not that id want to take services away from women, especially mothers.   #  a women could get all the tests she pleases, but then come in contact with an infected man.   #  thats exactly what im referring to.  and the fact that its a law strengthens my point even more.  if the ultimate point is to prevent fetuses from contracting an sti, then men should be offered that service as well.  a women could get all the tests she pleases, but then come in contact with an infected man.  it takes two to tango, so she could contract it right there.  this is just an excellent example of society valuing men over women, in some pseudo chivalry bullshit way.
i hate it when people say  lol  or  omg .  it is an abolishment to the art that we call language.  0.  people have no need to express themselves anymore.  anymore, spelling and grammar does not count, yet alone word choice.  people are limited to a certain set of emotions because they will only say things such as  lol  or  lmao .  0.  anymore, you do not have to even spell words right.  for example, anyone knows what i mean when i say  omg r u ok ?   it kills the language.  it kills the art of the language for what, convenience ? is it really worth it ?  #  i hate it when people say  lol  or  omg .   #  it is an abolishment to the art that we call language.   # it is an abolishment to the art that we call language.  language is not an art; it is a tool for organizing and communicating thoughts.  the artistic value of language is secondary to the first points.  anymore, spelling and grammar does not count, yet alone word choice.  people are limited to a certain set of emotions because they will only say things such as  lol  or  lmao .  not everybody values a thesaurus.  if not for computers and texting,  lol  and  lmao  would be replaced by  that is funny  and  that is hilarious .  few people will try to learn and understand more nuanced words because it adds very little to the conversation.  for example, anyone knows what i mean when i say  omg r u ok ?   it kills the language.  it kills the art of the language for what, convenience ? is it really worth it ? these words are not misspelled, they are intentionally shortened to speed up communication.  it is shorthand for the modern world, and it only makes communication easier.  yes.   #  being lazy with language is not an affront to the language; it is how we got to where we are in the first place.   #  no, actually, language has evolved a lot because of people being lazy.  take, for example,  goodbye .  ever wonder where that word comes from ? it was a lazy, quick way of saying  god be with ye .  eventually, us being lazy turned it into an entire word on its own, complete with its own meaning.  countless words have evolved as a direct result of us being lazy.  seriously.  being lazy with language is not an affront to the language; it is how we got to where we are in the first place.   #  language cannot degrade or become less effective for communication.   #  a few points:   language is not an art.  you can make art with it, but it is there as a naturally occurring human mechanism for communication and thinking.  laziness is the main driving force for language change, no matter how you look at it.  whether it be mispronunciations, words melded together, abbreviations, etc.  and then other parts of speech are invented to make up for parts that may be lost.  it is a never ending cycle, and complaining about the cycle would be akin to complaining about water flowing downhills.  yes, convenience is worth it.  the reason you do not view things such as  r u okay  as forms of genius innovation is purely because of your attitude no offense, but it is stuck up and cynical for no good reason .  language cannot degrade or become less effective for communication.  it can branch apart into separate dialects, and eventually separate languages, but no one branch is less valid or effective than another.  you can file all complaints about language change into a few simple categories.  your complaints are not new.  expert opinions by actual linguists ? none of the complaints are valid or should be taken seriously in academia.  they are all super tired and said to death.  the whining about language change accomplishes nothing.  i wish people would just learn about linguistics and get over it, to be honest.  you could, instead, choose to appreciate the way humans are inventive with language, and how fast it changes.  you do not want to be a cynical person who only complains because  they  do not understand the mechanics of language change, do you ?  #  people who speak multiple languages can have all sorts of weird biases or misunderstandings about the languages they speak well, just look at this guy talking complete nonsense about english, even though he speaks it just fine .   #  if you ever manage to devise a sophisticated way of objectively measuring the effectiveness effective in what way, exactly ? of each given language or dialect, without biases, let us know all know.  maybe you think that even if it could theoretically be possible, even though no one can measure it, then i guess i would agree that they probably are not  exactly  equal in every way.  however, languages are already so complex and intertwined with culture that we basically know that whoever makes any claims about one language or dialect being more whatever than another probably has no idea what they are talking about.  i also do not consider someone an authority on how two languages compare with one another even if they are a native speaker in both.  people who speak multiple languages can have all sorts of weird biases or misunderstandings about the languages they speak well, just look at this guy talking complete nonsense about english, even though he speaks it just fine .  but seriously, how could you possibly measure language effectiveness ?  #  i do not know how you could abolish art.   #  before address the content of the post, i could not help but notice the nonstandard word usage and grammar.  it was ruining the english language for me, and i could not get past it.  i do not know how you could abolish art.  odds are, you speak a american midlands variety of english, or some form of irish english, none of which do i accept as correct english.  all you did to indicate a question is to mark it with a question mark.  this is a casual form of english, and as we well know, casual use of the language is ruining the language.  in case this was not dripping with enough sarcasm, at the end of the day, i understood everything you said, and none of these deviations affected my ability to understand you in the least bit.  why ? because   people can speak and understand multiple dialects.  someone can, in fact, use textspeak in texts and academic writing in writing.  context is powerful.  you used  abolishment  differently than i do, but i resolved the meaning through the local context of the sentence, and the global context of your overall argument.  if enough people use it the way you do, i will have to accept it as correct, standard use.  so, before i can get into the details of how textspeak is not ruining english, can you clarify how your own writing style is not ruining english ?
i hate it when people say  lol  or  omg .  it is an abolishment to the art that we call language.  0.  people have no need to express themselves anymore.  anymore, spelling and grammar does not count, yet alone word choice.  people are limited to a certain set of emotions because they will only say things such as  lol  or  lmao .  0.  anymore, you do not have to even spell words right.  for example, anyone knows what i mean when i say  omg r u ok ?   it kills the language.  it kills the art of the language for what, convenience ? is it really worth it ?  #  people have no need to express themselves anymore.   #  anymore, spelling and grammar does not count, yet alone word choice.   # it is an abolishment to the art that we call language.  language is not an art; it is a tool for organizing and communicating thoughts.  the artistic value of language is secondary to the first points.  anymore, spelling and grammar does not count, yet alone word choice.  people are limited to a certain set of emotions because they will only say things such as  lol  or  lmao .  not everybody values a thesaurus.  if not for computers and texting,  lol  and  lmao  would be replaced by  that is funny  and  that is hilarious .  few people will try to learn and understand more nuanced words because it adds very little to the conversation.  for example, anyone knows what i mean when i say  omg r u ok ?   it kills the language.  it kills the art of the language for what, convenience ? is it really worth it ? these words are not misspelled, they are intentionally shortened to speed up communication.  it is shorthand for the modern world, and it only makes communication easier.  yes.   #  no, actually, language has evolved a lot because of people being lazy.   #  no, actually, language has evolved a lot because of people being lazy.  take, for example,  goodbye .  ever wonder where that word comes from ? it was a lazy, quick way of saying  god be with ye .  eventually, us being lazy turned it into an entire word on its own, complete with its own meaning.  countless words have evolved as a direct result of us being lazy.  seriously.  being lazy with language is not an affront to the language; it is how we got to where we are in the first place.   #  i wish people would just learn about linguistics and get over it, to be honest.   #  a few points:   language is not an art.  you can make art with it, but it is there as a naturally occurring human mechanism for communication and thinking.  laziness is the main driving force for language change, no matter how you look at it.  whether it be mispronunciations, words melded together, abbreviations, etc.  and then other parts of speech are invented to make up for parts that may be lost.  it is a never ending cycle, and complaining about the cycle would be akin to complaining about water flowing downhills.  yes, convenience is worth it.  the reason you do not view things such as  r u okay  as forms of genius innovation is purely because of your attitude no offense, but it is stuck up and cynical for no good reason .  language cannot degrade or become less effective for communication.  it can branch apart into separate dialects, and eventually separate languages, but no one branch is less valid or effective than another.  you can file all complaints about language change into a few simple categories.  your complaints are not new.  expert opinions by actual linguists ? none of the complaints are valid or should be taken seriously in academia.  they are all super tired and said to death.  the whining about language change accomplishes nothing.  i wish people would just learn about linguistics and get over it, to be honest.  you could, instead, choose to appreciate the way humans are inventive with language, and how fast it changes.  you do not want to be a cynical person who only complains because  they  do not understand the mechanics of language change, do you ?  #  but seriously, how could you possibly measure language effectiveness ?  #  if you ever manage to devise a sophisticated way of objectively measuring the effectiveness effective in what way, exactly ? of each given language or dialect, without biases, let us know all know.  maybe you think that even if it could theoretically be possible, even though no one can measure it, then i guess i would agree that they probably are not  exactly  equal in every way.  however, languages are already so complex and intertwined with culture that we basically know that whoever makes any claims about one language or dialect being more whatever than another probably has no idea what they are talking about.  i also do not consider someone an authority on how two languages compare with one another even if they are a native speaker in both.  people who speak multiple languages can have all sorts of weird biases or misunderstandings about the languages they speak well, just look at this guy talking complete nonsense about english, even though he speaks it just fine .  but seriously, how could you possibly measure language effectiveness ?  #  i do not know how you could abolish art.   #  before address the content of the post, i could not help but notice the nonstandard word usage and grammar.  it was ruining the english language for me, and i could not get past it.  i do not know how you could abolish art.  odds are, you speak a american midlands variety of english, or some form of irish english, none of which do i accept as correct english.  all you did to indicate a question is to mark it with a question mark.  this is a casual form of english, and as we well know, casual use of the language is ruining the language.  in case this was not dripping with enough sarcasm, at the end of the day, i understood everything you said, and none of these deviations affected my ability to understand you in the least bit.  why ? because   people can speak and understand multiple dialects.  someone can, in fact, use textspeak in texts and academic writing in writing.  context is powerful.  you used  abolishment  differently than i do, but i resolved the meaning through the local context of the sentence, and the global context of your overall argument.  if enough people use it the way you do, i will have to accept it as correct, standard use.  so, before i can get into the details of how textspeak is not ruining english, can you clarify how your own writing style is not ruining english ?
i hate it when people say  lol  or  omg .  it is an abolishment to the art that we call language.  0.  people have no need to express themselves anymore.  anymore, spelling and grammar does not count, yet alone word choice.  people are limited to a certain set of emotions because they will only say things such as  lol  or  lmao .  0.  anymore, you do not have to even spell words right.  for example, anyone knows what i mean when i say  omg r u ok ?   it kills the language.  it kills the art of the language for what, convenience ? is it really worth it ?  #  anymore, you do not have to even spell words right.   #  for example, anyone knows what i mean when i say  omg r u ok ?    # it is an abolishment to the art that we call language.  language is not an art; it is a tool for organizing and communicating thoughts.  the artistic value of language is secondary to the first points.  anymore, spelling and grammar does not count, yet alone word choice.  people are limited to a certain set of emotions because they will only say things such as  lol  or  lmao .  not everybody values a thesaurus.  if not for computers and texting,  lol  and  lmao  would be replaced by  that is funny  and  that is hilarious .  few people will try to learn and understand more nuanced words because it adds very little to the conversation.  for example, anyone knows what i mean when i say  omg r u ok ?   it kills the language.  it kills the art of the language for what, convenience ? is it really worth it ? these words are not misspelled, they are intentionally shortened to speed up communication.  it is shorthand for the modern world, and it only makes communication easier.  yes.   #  no, actually, language has evolved a lot because of people being lazy.   #  no, actually, language has evolved a lot because of people being lazy.  take, for example,  goodbye .  ever wonder where that word comes from ? it was a lazy, quick way of saying  god be with ye .  eventually, us being lazy turned it into an entire word on its own, complete with its own meaning.  countless words have evolved as a direct result of us being lazy.  seriously.  being lazy with language is not an affront to the language; it is how we got to where we are in the first place.   #  it is a never ending cycle, and complaining about the cycle would be akin to complaining about water flowing downhills.   #  a few points:   language is not an art.  you can make art with it, but it is there as a naturally occurring human mechanism for communication and thinking.  laziness is the main driving force for language change, no matter how you look at it.  whether it be mispronunciations, words melded together, abbreviations, etc.  and then other parts of speech are invented to make up for parts that may be lost.  it is a never ending cycle, and complaining about the cycle would be akin to complaining about water flowing downhills.  yes, convenience is worth it.  the reason you do not view things such as  r u okay  as forms of genius innovation is purely because of your attitude no offense, but it is stuck up and cynical for no good reason .  language cannot degrade or become less effective for communication.  it can branch apart into separate dialects, and eventually separate languages, but no one branch is less valid or effective than another.  you can file all complaints about language change into a few simple categories.  your complaints are not new.  expert opinions by actual linguists ? none of the complaints are valid or should be taken seriously in academia.  they are all super tired and said to death.  the whining about language change accomplishes nothing.  i wish people would just learn about linguistics and get over it, to be honest.  you could, instead, choose to appreciate the way humans are inventive with language, and how fast it changes.  you do not want to be a cynical person who only complains because  they  do not understand the mechanics of language change, do you ?  #  maybe you think that even if it could theoretically be possible, even though no one can measure it, then i guess i would agree that they probably are not  exactly  equal in every way.   #  if you ever manage to devise a sophisticated way of objectively measuring the effectiveness effective in what way, exactly ? of each given language or dialect, without biases, let us know all know.  maybe you think that even if it could theoretically be possible, even though no one can measure it, then i guess i would agree that they probably are not  exactly  equal in every way.  however, languages are already so complex and intertwined with culture that we basically know that whoever makes any claims about one language or dialect being more whatever than another probably has no idea what they are talking about.  i also do not consider someone an authority on how two languages compare with one another even if they are a native speaker in both.  people who speak multiple languages can have all sorts of weird biases or misunderstandings about the languages they speak well, just look at this guy talking complete nonsense about english, even though he speaks it just fine .  but seriously, how could you possibly measure language effectiveness ?  #  you used  abolishment  differently than i do, but i resolved the meaning through the local context of the sentence, and the global context of your overall argument.   #  before address the content of the post, i could not help but notice the nonstandard word usage and grammar.  it was ruining the english language for me, and i could not get past it.  i do not know how you could abolish art.  odds are, you speak a american midlands variety of english, or some form of irish english, none of which do i accept as correct english.  all you did to indicate a question is to mark it with a question mark.  this is a casual form of english, and as we well know, casual use of the language is ruining the language.  in case this was not dripping with enough sarcasm, at the end of the day, i understood everything you said, and none of these deviations affected my ability to understand you in the least bit.  why ? because   people can speak and understand multiple dialects.  someone can, in fact, use textspeak in texts and academic writing in writing.  context is powerful.  you used  abolishment  differently than i do, but i resolved the meaning through the local context of the sentence, and the global context of your overall argument.  if enough people use it the way you do, i will have to accept it as correct, standard use.  so, before i can get into the details of how textspeak is not ruining english, can you clarify how your own writing style is not ruining english ?
this was sparked by this post URL on the front page today.  i resent the notion that people born in america are widely not  native americans.   i understand that we currently use the term to refer to the people who were here when europe barged in and manifest destiny would all over the damn place.  however, it seems that colbert is hitting on a deeper point than just semantics here.  it seems like people born in the us are, on some level, not allowed to call ourselves  native,  because our culture has not been here as long as some others.  let me get a couple of things out of the way that might become snags in people is arguments: the manifest destiny thing was bullshit.  by and large what our ancestors did to the natives when they arrived here was heinous, to put it lightly.  i do not condone any of that.  it is my opinion that, being born in america, into an american culture, i have as much right to call myself a native american semantics and lack of clarity in the dual use of the term aside as anyone else.  otherwise, i have no cultural identity.  cmv, if you can.   #  it seems like people born in the us are, on some level, not allowed to call ourselves  native,  because our culture has not been here as long as some others.   #  i am not sure what you are getting at here.   # i am not sure what you are getting at here.  no other country either goes around calling themselves native anything.  i am not a native finn, i am just a finn, even though it is perfectly possible that my ancestors have been in these parts since forever.  otherwise, i have no cultural identity.  cmv, if you can.  you have just as much if not more cultural identity as anyone else.  it is just that your cultural identity stems from the great experiment, the melting pot, that your country was founded by immigrants from all around the world.  your culture does not stem from the traditions of the people who lived in north america before the immigrants came, your culture is a new one that has taken from european, african, and asian cultures.   #  so long as there are aborigines the non indigenous inhabitants of australia should not rightly be called native australians.   # otherwise,  i have no cultural identity .  you are approaching this wrong.  you  do  have a cultural identity.  you are american, descended from immigrants. just like 0 of all other americans.  the cultural identity of america is a nation of immigrants who have come to this country for a better life blah blah blah .  that self identification as immigrants is basically baked into your national consciousness.  additionally the existence of  native americans  and the exclusion from that group of everyone without indigenous ancestry is  not  exclusive to america.  any country with a colonial history and an indigenous population employs this same semantic distinction .  so long as there are aborigines the non indigenous inhabitants of australia should not rightly be called native australians.  same goes for the boer descendants of south africa, or most of the inhabitants of brazil.   #  do you not think that they are native to a different country/society than the indigenous populations ?  #  do you not think that they are native to a different country/society than the indigenous populations ? your comment on the colonial nations got me thinking about the equivalent in uk history.  i would argue that england did not begin as a country until norman invaders came along and established their own society on top of the existing cultures.  that does not mean that descendants of the norman is are not english or that the anglo saxons or celts coincidentally both were invaders too are not either.  before the normans there was no england, before the british there was no australia, before the europeans there was no south africa.  people lived there but they were a different society than the people that followed.  obviously this is different to the native american problem because the normans did not try to replace the anglo saxons but the idea might still hold.  is the land itself not less important than the society that was created on it ?  #  you ca not trace your roots to the earliest inhabitants of the region and  that is fine .   # the u. s.  seems to take great pride in being a nation of immigrants with all the  poor, weak, huddled masses  and melting pot rhetoric.  i mean it is basically a necessity because pretty much  everyone  can in some way tie their roots back to someone who showed up in the last 0 years.  to be frank, that is probably more of a racial thing i am assuming your are white that is tied up in the colonial past.  for example i am not white, and my parents immigrated in the recent past less than 0 years .  i was born here and fully consider myself an american but feel no sense of guilt, what so ever, regarding those things.  it does not even strike me as something i should feel guilty for.  in any case, i think you are off base.  you have an identity as an immigrant.  how much of that identity is tied up in the colonial past probably depends on when your ancestors showed up.  if you can trace your roots back to the mayflower then yeah, maybe americas colonial history and whatever good/bad comes with it is part of your heritage.  if your ancestors showed up in the late 0s then maybe it does not.  regardless you have a cultural identity that is similar to basically everyone else in your country which is what defines a  national identity .  you do not have to try and identify as a  native  of some place because the truth of the matter is you are  not  a native.  you ca not trace your roots to the earliest inhabitants of the region and  that is fine .   #  it does not even strike me as something i should feel guilty for.   # the u. s.  seems to take great pride in being a nation of immigrants with all the  poor, weak, huddled masses  and melting pot rhetoric.  as a whole, we do, but i find that in some cases the desire to identify yourself beyond just  american  is overwhelming.  i was born here and fully consider myself an american but feel no sense of guilt, what so ever, regarding those things.  it does not even strike me as something i should feel guilty for.  i am familiar with that attitude.  maybe it is more the idea that i am descended from some pretty bad dudes.  i appreciate the sentiment.  sometimes it just does not feel like that is the direction society is pushing me.
quick background: i am a male feminist.  i believe that women should be treated equally in all areas of life, whether that be in the workplace, in politics, in the home, etc.  the objectification of women is a very serious moral issue that does nothing but hold women at a different standard than men.  it stratifies women and places value in the superficial that is completely irrelevant.  the miss america pageant was held last night, and i feel that having a contest to determine the most beautiful girl on stage, who has the best runway walk, the best bikini body, etc. , is demeaning.  i know that the contestants also have to interview well and have some distinguishable talent and in this way they are supposedly role models, but in the end, the  image  of the winner is more significant than anything she did or said.  obviously the contest exists because it generates revenue for whatever network it was on , but i do not understand why these pageants are accepted and even celebrated.   #  but hold women at a different standard than men.   #  many women are not affected at all by beauty pagents.   # many women are not affected at all by beauty pagents.  many are.  men and women are different.  men are often held to a standard of having a six pack or 0 pack.  certainly being fit, and muscular.  and having a full head of hair.  and a shaved face or certain kind of beard.  the list goes on.  ever looked at a man in men is health ? it is exactly the same as woman.  there is no different standard of beauty for women.  men are put under the same social pressure, they just are not allowed to talk about it traditionally.  why do you get to determine what is relevant ? miss america is  optional .  women are not forced to compete, they sign up to participate.  who the hell are you to tell them it is irrelevant ? i work hard to have the body that i have today, and i am damn proud of it.  now you are going to tell me the body i have is irrelevant ? it means  a lot  to me.  becuase women  want  to compete, and people  enjoy  watching it.  why is your personal distaste more powerful than that ? how is it different than football ? how those guys play the game is so superficial.  how far tom brady throws is superficial, and celebrating him just because he can throw a ball is silly is not it ? it is so superficial and has nothing to do with the inner subjectivity of life, so its worthless.  that is the logic you are using here.   #  i believe in something called  free market feminism .   #  hi, male feminist here as well.  i believe in something called  free market feminism .  in that, whatever women choose to do, they should be able to do it.  beauty pageants are not mandatory, no one is putting a gun to a woman is head forcing her to do a beauty pageant.  these are things that these particular women find empowering and that is okay.  as long as these women wish to do beauty pageants, they should be able to do so.   #  if you objectify someone, you their existence is only relevant in your eyes in their relation to you.   #  i do not think you understand what  objectify  means.  it does not mean that you look at someone with desire, or recognize their physical attractiveness.   objectify  means to view someone as an object, i. e.  not a full human being.   object  as in not a subject.  if you objectify someone, you their existence is only relevant in your eyes in their relation to you.  actions are done to them, or with them, but they are not able to do anything.   bob tosses the ball.   the ball is a non acting member; it is an object.  objectifying is innately bad.  i am not sure how you and your girlfriend interact, but as you said it is mutual and not negative at all i doubt that you actually objectify each other.  you might be looking for another word.  btw  you  does not mean you personally, i meant it genearlly.   #  i would see him as my object to push onto the bed and fuck when i liked, regardless of how he felt.   #  no it is not.  sexuality and finding someone attractive is not objectification.  when i fuck my partner i want him to get off, i want him to feel close to me.  i see him as a person and care about his feelings.  i can look at him with desire and not be objectifying him.  if i were objectifying him i would be seeing him purely as a sex toy.  i would not feel the need to talk to him about if he wanted to have sex.  i would not know or care what he enjoys.  i would see him as my object to push onto the bed and fuck when i liked, regardless of how he felt.  that is not what human sexuality is about.   #  however, part of what makes them so stunning and stage ready is their makeup and hair something that many women are not that great at.   #  i would like to disagree with that.  part of the reason that there is the bikini section of miss america is to judge a woman is physical fitness.  while this is not the same as a strong man competition where a guy lifts hundreds of pounds, it is similar in that a woman has to work to stay in shape, and have toned muscles.  but it is more than just physical beauty.  there is also a talent section, and the talents are usually in the same genre singing and dancing there is some variety.  this year, there was a ventriloquist miss ohio, mackenzie bart and a comedic monologue miss maine, audra thames .  another thing that is hard work is making yourself look perfect for these events.  are these women beautiful ? absolutely.  however, part of what makes them so stunning and stage ready is their makeup and hair something that many women are not that great at.  so yes, some of it is genetics, but it does take a lot of upkeep to stay looking perfect think of all the plucking, hair coloring, and make up application.
quick background: i am a male feminist.  i believe that women should be treated equally in all areas of life, whether that be in the workplace, in politics, in the home, etc.  the objectification of women is a very serious moral issue that does nothing but hold women at a different standard than men.  it stratifies women and places value in the superficial that is completely irrelevant.  the miss america pageant was held last night, and i feel that having a contest to determine the most beautiful girl on stage, who has the best runway walk, the best bikini body, etc. , is demeaning.  i know that the contestants also have to interview well and have some distinguishable talent and in this way they are supposedly role models, but in the end, the  image  of the winner is more significant than anything she did or said.  obviously the contest exists because it generates revenue for whatever network it was on , but i do not understand why these pageants are accepted and even celebrated.   #  and places value in the superficial that is completely irrelevant.   #  why do you get to determine what is relevant ?  # many women are not affected at all by beauty pagents.  many are.  men and women are different.  men are often held to a standard of having a six pack or 0 pack.  certainly being fit, and muscular.  and having a full head of hair.  and a shaved face or certain kind of beard.  the list goes on.  ever looked at a man in men is health ? it is exactly the same as woman.  there is no different standard of beauty for women.  men are put under the same social pressure, they just are not allowed to talk about it traditionally.  why do you get to determine what is relevant ? miss america is  optional .  women are not forced to compete, they sign up to participate.  who the hell are you to tell them it is irrelevant ? i work hard to have the body that i have today, and i am damn proud of it.  now you are going to tell me the body i have is irrelevant ? it means  a lot  to me.  becuase women  want  to compete, and people  enjoy  watching it.  why is your personal distaste more powerful than that ? how is it different than football ? how those guys play the game is so superficial.  how far tom brady throws is superficial, and celebrating him just because he can throw a ball is silly is not it ? it is so superficial and has nothing to do with the inner subjectivity of life, so its worthless.  that is the logic you are using here.   #  i believe in something called  free market feminism .   #  hi, male feminist here as well.  i believe in something called  free market feminism .  in that, whatever women choose to do, they should be able to do it.  beauty pageants are not mandatory, no one is putting a gun to a woman is head forcing her to do a beauty pageant.  these are things that these particular women find empowering and that is okay.  as long as these women wish to do beauty pageants, they should be able to do so.   #  it does not mean that you look at someone with desire, or recognize their physical attractiveness.   #  i do not think you understand what  objectify  means.  it does not mean that you look at someone with desire, or recognize their physical attractiveness.   objectify  means to view someone as an object, i. e.  not a full human being.   object  as in not a subject.  if you objectify someone, you their existence is only relevant in your eyes in their relation to you.  actions are done to them, or with them, but they are not able to do anything.   bob tosses the ball.   the ball is a non acting member; it is an object.  objectifying is innately bad.  i am not sure how you and your girlfriend interact, but as you said it is mutual and not negative at all i doubt that you actually objectify each other.  you might be looking for another word.  btw  you  does not mean you personally, i meant it genearlly.   #  i see him as a person and care about his feelings.   #  no it is not.  sexuality and finding someone attractive is not objectification.  when i fuck my partner i want him to get off, i want him to feel close to me.  i see him as a person and care about his feelings.  i can look at him with desire and not be objectifying him.  if i were objectifying him i would be seeing him purely as a sex toy.  i would not feel the need to talk to him about if he wanted to have sex.  i would not know or care what he enjoys.  i would see him as my object to push onto the bed and fuck when i liked, regardless of how he felt.  that is not what human sexuality is about.   #  however, part of what makes them so stunning and stage ready is their makeup and hair something that many women are not that great at.   #  i would like to disagree with that.  part of the reason that there is the bikini section of miss america is to judge a woman is physical fitness.  while this is not the same as a strong man competition where a guy lifts hundreds of pounds, it is similar in that a woman has to work to stay in shape, and have toned muscles.  but it is more than just physical beauty.  there is also a talent section, and the talents are usually in the same genre singing and dancing there is some variety.  this year, there was a ventriloquist miss ohio, mackenzie bart and a comedic monologue miss maine, audra thames .  another thing that is hard work is making yourself look perfect for these events.  are these women beautiful ? absolutely.  however, part of what makes them so stunning and stage ready is their makeup and hair something that many women are not that great at.  so yes, some of it is genetics, but it does take a lot of upkeep to stay looking perfect think of all the plucking, hair coloring, and make up application.
quick background: i am a male feminist.  i believe that women should be treated equally in all areas of life, whether that be in the workplace, in politics, in the home, etc.  the objectification of women is a very serious moral issue that does nothing but hold women at a different standard than men.  it stratifies women and places value in the superficial that is completely irrelevant.  the miss america pageant was held last night, and i feel that having a contest to determine the most beautiful girl on stage, who has the best runway walk, the best bikini body, etc. , is demeaning.  i know that the contestants also have to interview well and have some distinguishable talent and in this way they are supposedly role models, but in the end, the  image  of the winner is more significant than anything she did or said.  obviously the contest exists because it generates revenue for whatever network it was on , but i do not understand why these pageants are accepted and even celebrated.   #  but i do not understand why these pageants are accepted and even celebrated.   #  becuase women  want  to compete, and people  enjoy  watching it.   # many women are not affected at all by beauty pagents.  many are.  men and women are different.  men are often held to a standard of having a six pack or 0 pack.  certainly being fit, and muscular.  and having a full head of hair.  and a shaved face or certain kind of beard.  the list goes on.  ever looked at a man in men is health ? it is exactly the same as woman.  there is no different standard of beauty for women.  men are put under the same social pressure, they just are not allowed to talk about it traditionally.  why do you get to determine what is relevant ? miss america is  optional .  women are not forced to compete, they sign up to participate.  who the hell are you to tell them it is irrelevant ? i work hard to have the body that i have today, and i am damn proud of it.  now you are going to tell me the body i have is irrelevant ? it means  a lot  to me.  becuase women  want  to compete, and people  enjoy  watching it.  why is your personal distaste more powerful than that ? how is it different than football ? how those guys play the game is so superficial.  how far tom brady throws is superficial, and celebrating him just because he can throw a ball is silly is not it ? it is so superficial and has nothing to do with the inner subjectivity of life, so its worthless.  that is the logic you are using here.   #  as long as these women wish to do beauty pageants, they should be able to do so.   #  hi, male feminist here as well.  i believe in something called  free market feminism .  in that, whatever women choose to do, they should be able to do it.  beauty pageants are not mandatory, no one is putting a gun to a woman is head forcing her to do a beauty pageant.  these are things that these particular women find empowering and that is okay.  as long as these women wish to do beauty pageants, they should be able to do so.   #  actions are done to them, or with them, but they are not able to do anything.   #  i do not think you understand what  objectify  means.  it does not mean that you look at someone with desire, or recognize their physical attractiveness.   objectify  means to view someone as an object, i. e.  not a full human being.   object  as in not a subject.  if you objectify someone, you their existence is only relevant in your eyes in their relation to you.  actions are done to them, or with them, but they are not able to do anything.   bob tosses the ball.   the ball is a non acting member; it is an object.  objectifying is innately bad.  i am not sure how you and your girlfriend interact, but as you said it is mutual and not negative at all i doubt that you actually objectify each other.  you might be looking for another word.  btw  you  does not mean you personally, i meant it genearlly.   #  i see him as a person and care about his feelings.   #  no it is not.  sexuality and finding someone attractive is not objectification.  when i fuck my partner i want him to get off, i want him to feel close to me.  i see him as a person and care about his feelings.  i can look at him with desire and not be objectifying him.  if i were objectifying him i would be seeing him purely as a sex toy.  i would not feel the need to talk to him about if he wanted to have sex.  i would not know or care what he enjoys.  i would see him as my object to push onto the bed and fuck when i liked, regardless of how he felt.  that is not what human sexuality is about.   #  another thing that is hard work is making yourself look perfect for these events.   #  i would like to disagree with that.  part of the reason that there is the bikini section of miss america is to judge a woman is physical fitness.  while this is not the same as a strong man competition where a guy lifts hundreds of pounds, it is similar in that a woman has to work to stay in shape, and have toned muscles.  but it is more than just physical beauty.  there is also a talent section, and the talents are usually in the same genre singing and dancing there is some variety.  this year, there was a ventriloquist miss ohio, mackenzie bart and a comedic monologue miss maine, audra thames .  another thing that is hard work is making yourself look perfect for these events.  are these women beautiful ? absolutely.  however, part of what makes them so stunning and stage ready is their makeup and hair something that many women are not that great at.  so yes, some of it is genetics, but it does take a lot of upkeep to stay looking perfect think of all the plucking, hair coloring, and make up application.
quick background: i am a male feminist.  i believe that women should be treated equally in all areas of life, whether that be in the workplace, in politics, in the home, etc.  the objectification of women is a very serious moral issue that does nothing but hold women at a different standard than men.  it stratifies women and places value in the superficial that is completely irrelevant.  the miss america pageant was held last night, and i feel that having a contest to determine the most beautiful girl on stage, who has the best runway walk, the best bikini body, etc. , is demeaning.  i know that the contestants also have to interview well and have some distinguishable talent and in this way they are supposedly role models, but in the end, the  image  of the winner is more significant than anything she did or said.  obviously the contest exists because it generates revenue for whatever network it was on , but i do not understand why these pageants are accepted and even celebrated.   #  the objectification of women is a very serious moral issue that does nothing but hold women at a different standard than men.   #  this term gets thrown around so much these days that it is become almost white noise.   # this term gets thrown around so much these days that it is become almost white noise.  what does it mean ? if someone is sexually attractive i would say they are the exact opposite of an object, because being sexually attractive to other humans is something very distinctly  human .  appearances have a massive impact on our very evolution as a species, and they affect almost every aspect of daily life in every society on this planet.  so, in your mind, is an unintelligent child who works incredibly hard to achieve a b in maths at gcse more  isignificant  than a kid with natural talent for maths who does not have to work hard at all to obtain an a  at gcse ? are you saying that we should not be proud of that which we did not consciously struggle to earn ? if we hypothetically say that shakespeare or einstein or darwin were geniuses because of a vast amount of natural talent that they were born with, and never really had to try very hard to achieve great things, should we stop celebrating them and what they have achieved ?  #  these are things that these particular women find empowering and that is okay.   #  hi, male feminist here as well.  i believe in something called  free market feminism .  in that, whatever women choose to do, they should be able to do it.  beauty pageants are not mandatory, no one is putting a gun to a woman is head forcing her to do a beauty pageant.  these are things that these particular women find empowering and that is okay.  as long as these women wish to do beauty pageants, they should be able to do so.   #  i do not think you understand what  objectify  means.   #  i do not think you understand what  objectify  means.  it does not mean that you look at someone with desire, or recognize their physical attractiveness.   objectify  means to view someone as an object, i. e.  not a full human being.   object  as in not a subject.  if you objectify someone, you their existence is only relevant in your eyes in their relation to you.  actions are done to them, or with them, but they are not able to do anything.   bob tosses the ball.   the ball is a non acting member; it is an object.  objectifying is innately bad.  i am not sure how you and your girlfriend interact, but as you said it is mutual and not negative at all i doubt that you actually objectify each other.  you might be looking for another word.  btw  you  does not mean you personally, i meant it genearlly.   #  i would see him as my object to push onto the bed and fuck when i liked, regardless of how he felt.   #  no it is not.  sexuality and finding someone attractive is not objectification.  when i fuck my partner i want him to get off, i want him to feel close to me.  i see him as a person and care about his feelings.  i can look at him with desire and not be objectifying him.  if i were objectifying him i would be seeing him purely as a sex toy.  i would not feel the need to talk to him about if he wanted to have sex.  i would not know or care what he enjoys.  i would see him as my object to push onto the bed and fuck when i liked, regardless of how he felt.  that is not what human sexuality is about.   #  however, part of what makes them so stunning and stage ready is their makeup and hair something that many women are not that great at.   #  i would like to disagree with that.  part of the reason that there is the bikini section of miss america is to judge a woman is physical fitness.  while this is not the same as a strong man competition where a guy lifts hundreds of pounds, it is similar in that a woman has to work to stay in shape, and have toned muscles.  but it is more than just physical beauty.  there is also a talent section, and the talents are usually in the same genre singing and dancing there is some variety.  this year, there was a ventriloquist miss ohio, mackenzie bart and a comedic monologue miss maine, audra thames .  another thing that is hard work is making yourself look perfect for these events.  are these women beautiful ? absolutely.  however, part of what makes them so stunning and stage ready is their makeup and hair something that many women are not that great at.  so yes, some of it is genetics, but it does take a lot of upkeep to stay looking perfect think of all the plucking, hair coloring, and make up application.
i have noticed trends of faster and faster internet speeds.  not usually where i live, but yes, there is a voice inside me that yells  more fasterer ! better ! better !   now, i know there are some people with big bandwidth requirements those doing some major file sharing, or maybe needing a big pipe for a vpn to work.  but i think that in the commercial marketplace, that is a small percentage.  i thought about this recently when a friend of mine was looking at his options for getting internet services.  he opted for the cable modem at 0 mbps because it was faster than the dsl offering at 0mbps, which is what i have.  and i thought about it, knowing what he will do online.  surf the web, stream some audio, watch netflix once in a while and even for that, 0 is overkill, let alone 0.  i know that the providers have to have significant bandwidth in their infrastructure, but i feel that consumer offerings of 0, 0, 0 mbps and more are really just selling people the  idea  of a super fast connection that they will really never use.  cmv.   #  those doing some major file sharing, or maybe needing a big pipe for a vpn to work.   #  consider what would happen if vpn and  major file sharing  were like water.   # consider what would happen if vpn and  major file sharing  were like water.  sharing hd video would be as common as tweets.  there would be a lot of crap, but some really cool stuff too.  secure vpn is would be as common as chat.  increasing bandwidth available to everyone, opens up the universe for applications and usage styles that are not easy to imagine right now.  the statement that any amount of bandwidth is  not useful  is like the statement that there is a worldwide market for 0 computers, or  0k ought to be enough for anybody.   you just have to be creative, to open your mind to the possibilities of less limited bandwidth.   #  my understanding of networking is limited, but i have been unable to find out if there is a reasonable or unreasonable, for that matter solution to this more pressing problem.   #  i have sometimes seen data speeds marketed as being better for bigger households, which makes total sense.  currently i would estimate a single user is  need  at 0 mbps so with 0 people in the house our 0 mb connection works just fine.  that is based on streaming content, since large downloads are relatively more rare and can normally be scheduled for when the service is otherwise unused.  when 0k netflix and holographic skype become the norm, that estimate will obviously need to be adjusted.  what i find more troublesome is the way that the simultaneous use of multiple services will degrade performance even while operating under one is bandwidth limit.  an increase in gaming latency while a netflix stream is also in use has been the most easily quantified example.  my understanding of networking is limited, but i have been unable to find out if there is a reasonable or unreasonable, for that matter solution to this more pressing problem.   #  it is especially an issue with the incredibly low upload speeds available in most of na.   # my understanding of networking is limited, but i have been unable to find out if there is a reasonable or unreasonable, for that matter solution to this more pressing problem.  as best as i can figure out, also not being overly knowledgeable about the inner workings of networking, the main issue seems to be one service ex: netflix monopolizing your entire bandwidth in bursts.  it averages out to 0 0mbit/s but when i watch network utilization it shows up a series of spikes as it grabs the each upcoming chunk.  aggressive qos on your router seems to help but at least on mine does not seem to be adequate.  when running a torrent i see the same issue, right up until i cap the torrent bandwidth to leave enough headroom for the other application.  it is especially an issue with the incredibly low upload speeds available in most of na.   #  i am not committed to the 0 mbps number, that is just netflix is recommendation for hd streams.   # really ? that is not enough to reliably stream 0p video.  i am not committed to the 0 mbps number, that is just netflix is recommendation for hd streams.  the compression on those is pretty aggressive, so i can see other services needing a bit more.  for me, that usually means i schedule something before work or bed if i am expecting to stream or game otherwise.  again, that number is per person so multiple users would increase the needed bandwidth.  you do make a good point about streaming music simultaneously, which i had not considered as i prefer to download my music, but that still only adds 0 0 mbps.  call it 0 mbps per user to allow for streaming anything short of 0k, including listening to music while watching youtube.  for large downloads, any additional speed is always going to be advantageous but the question is whether it is advantageous  enough  for the cost savings.  if a 0 mbps connection is $0 more, most people would probably consider that worthwhile.  if it is $0 more, it simply would not be worthwhile to many users for the relatively easy trade of scheduling large downloads for downtimes.   #  you brought up a couple valid issues and adding a, i think, generous margin of 0 brought that up to 0 mbps.   # even google never proposes to pony up the $0 billion to expand their service nationwide.  i do not believe that argument has any merit.  that is not how that works.  URL   stop shifting the goalposts.  as originally stated, in my household with two users our 0 mbps connection serves us just fine for a per user bandwidth of 0 mbps.  you brought up a couple valid issues and adding a, i think, generous margin of 0 brought that up to 0 mbps.  attacking someone who is willing to consider additional information in making conclusions starts to reek of desperation expressed as ad hominem.
i have noticed trends of faster and faster internet speeds.  not usually where i live, but yes, there is a voice inside me that yells  more fasterer ! better ! better !   now, i know there are some people with big bandwidth requirements those doing some major file sharing, or maybe needing a big pipe for a vpn to work.  but i think that in the commercial marketplace, that is a small percentage.  i thought about this recently when a friend of mine was looking at his options for getting internet services.  he opted for the cable modem at 0 mbps because it was faster than the dsl offering at 0mbps, which is what i have.  and i thought about it, knowing what he will do online.  surf the web, stream some audio, watch netflix once in a while and even for that, 0 is overkill, let alone 0.  i know that the providers have to have significant bandwidth in their infrastructure, but i feel that consumer offerings of 0, 0, 0 mbps and more are really just selling people the  idea  of a super fast connection that they will really never use.  cmv.   #  now, i know there are some people with big bandwidth requirements those doing some major file sharing, or maybe needing a big pipe for a vpn to work.   #  but i think that in the commercial marketplace, that is a small percentage.   # but i think that in the commercial marketplace, that is a small percentage.  it is more than just that.  consumer is can have a need for higher bandwidth as well and it is more common than you think.  like someone else mentioned, it is not so much faster but  wider  as in you can do more at the same time without bogging it down.  for instance, in my house we have 0 computers, 0 tablets, and 0 roku boxes constantly streaming hd video; not to mention the 0  other various wireless devices iphones, game consoles, handhelds connected at any one time.  we have 0/0 mbps internet and that huge download speed is what allows everyone to do whatever they want on the internet without effecting anyone else.   #  that is based on streaming content, since large downloads are relatively more rare and can normally be scheduled for when the service is otherwise unused.   #  i have sometimes seen data speeds marketed as being better for bigger households, which makes total sense.  currently i would estimate a single user is  need  at 0 mbps so with 0 people in the house our 0 mb connection works just fine.  that is based on streaming content, since large downloads are relatively more rare and can normally be scheduled for when the service is otherwise unused.  when 0k netflix and holographic skype become the norm, that estimate will obviously need to be adjusted.  what i find more troublesome is the way that the simultaneous use of multiple services will degrade performance even while operating under one is bandwidth limit.  an increase in gaming latency while a netflix stream is also in use has been the most easily quantified example.  my understanding of networking is limited, but i have been unable to find out if there is a reasonable or unreasonable, for that matter solution to this more pressing problem.   #  it averages out to 0 0mbit/s but when i watch network utilization it shows up a series of spikes as it grabs the each upcoming chunk.   # my understanding of networking is limited, but i have been unable to find out if there is a reasonable or unreasonable, for that matter solution to this more pressing problem.  as best as i can figure out, also not being overly knowledgeable about the inner workings of networking, the main issue seems to be one service ex: netflix monopolizing your entire bandwidth in bursts.  it averages out to 0 0mbit/s but when i watch network utilization it shows up a series of spikes as it grabs the each upcoming chunk.  aggressive qos on your router seems to help but at least on mine does not seem to be adequate.  when running a torrent i see the same issue, right up until i cap the torrent bandwidth to leave enough headroom for the other application.  it is especially an issue with the incredibly low upload speeds available in most of na.   #  if a 0 mbps connection is $0 more, most people would probably consider that worthwhile.   # really ? that is not enough to reliably stream 0p video.  i am not committed to the 0 mbps number, that is just netflix is recommendation for hd streams.  the compression on those is pretty aggressive, so i can see other services needing a bit more.  for me, that usually means i schedule something before work or bed if i am expecting to stream or game otherwise.  again, that number is per person so multiple users would increase the needed bandwidth.  you do make a good point about streaming music simultaneously, which i had not considered as i prefer to download my music, but that still only adds 0 0 mbps.  call it 0 mbps per user to allow for streaming anything short of 0k, including listening to music while watching youtube.  for large downloads, any additional speed is always going to be advantageous but the question is whether it is advantageous  enough  for the cost savings.  if a 0 mbps connection is $0 more, most people would probably consider that worthwhile.  if it is $0 more, it simply would not be worthwhile to many users for the relatively easy trade of scheduling large downloads for downtimes.   #  you brought up a couple valid issues and adding a, i think, generous margin of 0 brought that up to 0 mbps.   # even google never proposes to pony up the $0 billion to expand their service nationwide.  i do not believe that argument has any merit.  that is not how that works.  URL   stop shifting the goalposts.  as originally stated, in my household with two users our 0 mbps connection serves us just fine for a per user bandwidth of 0 mbps.  you brought up a couple valid issues and adding a, i think, generous margin of 0 brought that up to 0 mbps.  attacking someone who is willing to consider additional information in making conclusions starts to reek of desperation expressed as ad hominem.
there is nothing wrong with my hearing, i can hear music as well as you but it just does nothing to me.  music as a part of a movie or video is fine, but by itself i ca not stand it.  i just prefer silence.  i even find it hard to concentrate if there is music playing.  i have friends who like music very much and they force me to listen to it and i have tried almost all kinds of music but i just do not feel it.  there is one exception to the rule.  if i have associated a piece of music to an emotion for example through a film that i really enjoyed it can bring me back memories from the movie.  but if i had not seen the movie then the music would do nothing to me.   #  i really enjoyed it can bring me back memories from the movie.   #  but if i had not seen the movie then the music would do nothing to me.   # but if i had not seen the movie then the music would do nothing to me.  for me music is part of the fabric of my life.  there is often music playing in the background.  songs that are distinct to a particular part of my life become a tie to that time or situation or person.  genie in a bottle  reminds me of the summer i spent with my cousins in iowa because we heard it like 0 times in a row on different stations driving out to the fair.  you and me  reminds me of mostly the beginning of my first relationships and for a long time i would get wistful and cry when it played.  samson  touches my memories of the best spring i spent in nyc.  if music did not exist as a part of my life to start with, i would not have these reliable cues for memories and emotions.   #  views on personal taste ca not generally be changed by argument.   #  views on personal taste ca not generally be changed by argument.   cmv: i do not like hamburgers .  no matter how passionately or scientifically i argue for the reasons behind my love of burgers, it wo not change your view.  just as i would be sad about your inability to enjoy the wonder that is a good burger, i am sad that you ca not enjoy music.  but it sounds like you have given it a fair shot.  i do not doubt your sincerity in wanting your view changed, but even explaining that music is good for you would not change your basic apathy towards it.  are there any areas that you are hoping contributors bring up where you think your view might be changed ?  #  or in some cases, like say office work, it can occupy your mind while you do something monotonous, helps you from going loopy from boredom.   #  musical anhedonia is not a case of not being able to hear music.  they can hear it just as well as anyone else.  they just do not get it.  music is basically just sonic patterns.  our brains interpret them as patterns and for most of us the pattern is pleasing.  for some it is not.  musical anhedonia is just a case of those patterns not being pleasing.  does not matter what patterns you throw at them, musically, they do not really care about it.  there is no real way to explain why people like music.  it is odd, it just sounds good.  it is like trying to describe a color without calling up other colors.  i suppose it is kind of like how some people find math beautiful and other people just see math.  same for music i guess some people like it and a few people find nothing of value to it.  i am not sure your view can be changed, it is a matter of taste and perhaps your mind just does not enjoy it.  if the question is whether or not music has any value aside from it being personally pleasing then maybe a case could be made.  a lot of artists and people draw a lot of inspiration from music.  that is a tangible effect on people that is positive.  people get cheered up by music, it helps some people get through depression or sadness.  it can inspire people to work harder.  or in some cases, like say office work, it can occupy your mind while you do something monotonous, helps you from going loopy from boredom.   #  it is like saying  i do not like roller coasters, cmv , or  i do not like scary movies, cmv .   #  the accuracy of the analogy is not relevant.  the fact is you do not have a view that can be changed.  it is like saying  i do not like roller coasters, cmv , or  i do not like scary movies, cmv .  what arguments can you make to change that view ? i think you probably agree that music is seen as beneficial for other people, right ? so it is useless to argue that there  exist  benefits to music.  your specific case could be pathological, or you could be stubborn, or it could be idiopathic and that is the way it goes.  but it is not a view.  it just is.   #  i have noticed that the perception of music changes some after you do that.   #  have you ever tried to play your own music, or learn a musical instrument ? i have noticed that the perception of music changes some after you do that.  music becomes more than just some sounds that may or may not be appealing.  once you gain more knowledge of all the details and techniques involved in making music there is a different kind of appreciation you can have for it.  some music i do not really like but can still appreciate because of the detail, specific techniques, and talent involved in creating it.  i think part of it comes when you focus your mind into analyzing and paying closer attention to the music itself, not necessarily to feel from it but to really see what all is involved and have an appreciation of that.  also the one exception to the rule you have when a piece of music is associated with an emotion through a film is interesting.  i think that is the case for most people.  the thing is though some music i listen to the music itself inspires some of my own imagination to create my own movie scene to tie my own emotion of choice to it.  some jazz music does this, i can hear it and just see scenes from city is and people of the time period it was from.  i gain benifit from that because its using my imagination, creating thoughts and ideas about what it was like to live during that time, what it was like to be those people, what it really means to be who i am.  if you can find a way to make music inspire you imagination then you will benefit from it.
i have taken a class in poli sci, and i have held jobs relating to international relations and public diplomacy.  i must say that i found a major gap between the ways of thinking in the classroom and what i experienced in life.  i just got back from what was kind of like a yale model un except for global security i do not live in america, but this country is top universities participated .  i must say i was thoroughly disappointed.  everyone from the students to the professors seems to have this  actors  view of history and the world.   america is like x, therefore america will react like y  type thinking and game theory strikes me as inappropriate.  one professor at the event referred to himself as  public enemy number one  among the other attendees.  why ? because he viewed things from an economic and  systems thinking  point of view.  i found his analysis to be the most sound.  the world cannot be broken down into neat little triangles of alliances and game theory.  there are so many viewpoints and flows of economic activity driving world relations that it is, in my opinion, far more chaotic than poli sci folks would like to admit.  have i misjudged the field ? admittedly, one class and a global policy simulation may not be enough to really judge the field, but i ca not be completely wrong, right ?  #  admittedly, one class and a global policy simulation may not be enough to really judge the field, but i ca not be completely wrong, right ?  #  for the most part, based on your sample size, yeah, you can.   # for the most part, based on your sample size, yeah, you can.  political science and ir are like many other disciplines in that it is divided into schools of thought and theories.  each will have its advocates and there will naturally be some people like that professor who will want to position themselves as a sort of academic renegade because it sounds novel and sexy.  as /u/ablarga has already pointed out, the classroom is designed to give a student a  birds eye  view of the political science and international relations landscape, not to copy and paste into practical application.  you are given a toolkit a set of foundational skills at most.  it gives you some basis for being in the room while you gain experience by actually attempting to apply those foundations, but it will never come out the same way as it does in the classroom because we are never operating on the same optimal information.   #  rational actor theory is an important foundational assumption designed to teach students how to think about very core explanatory ir principles, but it is not to my knowledge ir gospel.   #  a few thoughts: i think at least some part of this is confirmation bias.  i think most of my political science courses dabbled in game theory but, with few exceptions, they were not the brunt of the course.  the picture you paint makes the discipline seem wholly reliant upon it as an explanatory even predictive technique and i ca not recall anyone reputable who taught me claiming that game theory was an effective means by which to narrow down probable behavior with any precision more like a brunt tool for basic understanding.  similarly, all disciplines have orthodoxy to deal with.  if this is a complaint you have about ir, specifically, i would argue that it is really a problem with academia, generally.  if that is the  foundation  then poli sci is simply not for me, i guess.  what kind of courses did you take ? was it a wide survey of introductory courses or more complex courses that dove into wrinkles and nuance ? rational actor theory is an important foundational assumption designed to teach students how to think about very core explanatory ir principles, but it is not to my knowledge ir gospel.  rational actor theory also pops up in early economics courses so does basic game theory but you do not really see many economists working outside of academia making rat the bedrock of their work.  similarly, sometimes these foundational assumptions are a building block for more complex analyses.  any paper attempting to calculate or derive probability needs to work with assumptions that are very rough holistics for human behavior and may need to be somewhat discounted later in the piece but are not necessarily invalid.  the end result could very well be complex and nuanced rather than this cartoonish and basic picture that would be painted if we isolated rational actor theory alone.   #  i will also say two more things: 0.  you probably saw a pretty self selected group of america is political scientists, too.   #  i think your criticism is relevant to almost all courses of academic study.  engineers come out of college unable to do the practical every day job of engineering.  but they have learned the vocabulary, important principles and cases, and hopefully how to think like an engineer.  after a few years in a job, they will learn the software, the team skills, and practical realities of the job.  political science/ir is the same.  depending on what you focus your career on, the systems and theories you learn in poli sci can inform how you practically apply them.  whether you are helping african nations provide clean water, consulting on local political campaigns, researching policy for a think tank, or working in some corporation.  my poli sci degree certainly did not make me a politician or a government leader.  but understanding how to build and sustain functional and effective systems of people which is the core function of policy, in my opinion informs the work i do in the private sector on a daily basis.  the critical thinking and communication i learned let me walk into almost any meeting, contribute and have a positive influence.  i will also say two more things: 0.  you probably saw a pretty self selected group of america is political scientists, too.  for one, academia tends to skew more liberal and internationalist ideologically.  there are realist, neoconservative and geopolitical schools of thought in american international relations that might have brought less sunshine and rainbows to the party.  0.   those who can, do.  those who cannot, teach.   h. l.  mencken.  academics generally suck at doing what they are teaching.  putin would probably suck as a teacher, but he is pretty formidable in international politics.   #  another important aspect, and one of the most important principles of the model un, is to disregard personal opinion and speak from your country is point of view.   # why ? because he viewed things from an economic and  systems thinking  point of view.  i found his analysis to be the most sound.  the world cannot be broken down into neat little triangles of alliances and game theory.  there are so many viewpoints and flows of economic activity driving world relations that it is, in my opinion, far more chaotic than poli sci folks would like to admit.  i majored in ir and participated in a model un.  international relatios definitely takes these complexities into account.  there is not one unified theory of ir, but different perspectives that we use to describe the world.  this is a description from wikipedia that i find most usefule:  ole holsti describes international relations theories as acting like pairs of coloured sunglasses that allow the wearer to see only salient events relevant to the theory; e. g.  an adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa.  the three most popular theories are realism, liberalism and constructivism.  at the model un, you probably saw a more  realist  unified actor theory, so people are going to stick to their country is perspectives.  another important aspect, and one of the most important principles of the model un, is to disregard personal opinion and speak from your country is point of view.  this requires research on the country is economy, initiatives its taking, it is stance on key issues, and reasoning for that stance.  the point is to understand perspectives, understand why, and be able to justify it.  too often do we hear  venezuela was wrong to elect chavez  or  what were those egyptians thinking ?   among people that do not consider the economic and poltical landscape or that country.  since ir is extremely complicated, a lot of the nuances ca not really be explored in a weekend long model un, so only the basic concepts get the attention.   #  you should bear in mind though that this is not indicative of the wider disciplines of political science and international relations.   #  at a model un simulation, you are likely to come across people acting  on behalf  of entire nations and viewing countries as singular entities.  after all, they are mirroring the actual operations of the un is representative organs.  you should bear in mind though that this is not indicative of the wider disciplines of political science and international relations.  political science encompasses numerous fields of research where you are unlikely to ever come across game theory or rational choice theory.  even in international relations, numerous theorists working within critical ir theory have challenged the notion that states  actions within the international system are explicable by  grand theories .  your statement is a bit like complaining about the discipline of philosophy because you disagree with a specific group of philosophers.  i think you have a valid complaint, but it appears more appropriate to say that  proponents of game theory and the  actors  view of history within political science/international relations annoy me .
as a disclaimer i believe in gender equality and think that feminism excluding the mrm hate and the mrm excluding the feminist hate are required to achieve this.  i am also not claiming that life as either gender is easier or harder than the other.  with that said i believe that in western society following the waves of feminism that have occured women is rights have advanced and are at the forefront of people is minds a good thing , however as a consequence there has been a negligence of gender inequalities concerning men.  my reason for this belief begins witha comparison of the key issues surrounding the respective movements.  a quick wiki which i am aware is not a definitive list and misses certain things of the current third wave feminism lists the prominent issues as: ending gender violence i believe this should be a shared goal for both groups.  reproductive rights access to contraception and abortion reclaiming derogatory terms i. e.  spinster,bitch, whore rape esp.  victim blaming under other issues it lists workplace issues and  raunch culture  as a key part of this.  currently all these issues enjoy a degree of dialogue with mainstream media.  generally speaking these issues are not legally unfair on women ;it is the application of the law which is the issue.  i. e.  workplace discrimination is illegal but still exists as it is hard to prove, gender violence and rape are illegal.  i believe that a lot of feminism is now based on addressing the way society views women and improving legislation that already exists.  in comparison a few of the key issues once again a quick wiki of mrm are: adoption suggestion of a legal requirement to notify father within 0 to 0 days of pregnancy in case adoption may occur.  child custody calls for a legal default of 0:0 custody barring unfitness of a parent divorce reform of alimony laws circumcision/genital mutilation illegal for females, not for males gender violence as i say this is a shared goal however the mrm concerns itself with a lack of legal protection and support for battered men.  what is concerning for me is the lack of coverage, and that for some of these issues there is either no legislation or heavy reform is required to address the issue.  although changing laws is by no means easy, it is certainly easier than changing society is prejudices.  which begs the question of why have not the issues been addressed, the only logical conclusion i can reach is the fact that there is not enough current emphasis on the men is rights issue.   #  adoption suggestion of a legal requirement to notify father within 0 to 0 days of pregnancy in case adoption may occur.   #  that seams like maybe it could be a civil case if the father finds out, but it would be very hard to mak that criminal.   # that seams like maybe it could be a civil case if the father finds out, but it would be very hard to mak that criminal.  what if she does not know, or plans to abort ? i would argue that this is because thhe woman is more likly to not have a job or means to take care of herself after the divorce, which womens rights do try to change.  i think this issue is already changing naturally as more and more people learn about the risks and as less people do it, it will become less common.  and gender violence is a shared goal and although i agree that there needs to be support for battered men, but i am not sure how common it is so i have no idea how much should be done.  i suppose my point is that even though men do have issues, many oof thoes issues stem from a bias against women that femnists try to fight.   #  so either your claim is false, or you need to be more specific where you are talking about.   # the  issue  is  no you ca not have it.  but here, you can have this anti abortion  clinic  instead !   so basically, no.  our politicians do not want to even consider allowing it unless the mother is literally going to die and kill the fetus with her.  of course sometimes the guardian etc do but they are not  northern irish  media.  my point is that northern ireland is  part of the uk  and the things you claim  do not apply here .  you ca not say  men is rights need more discussion than feminism  for a place that refuses to discuss women is rights.  so either your claim is false, or you need to be more specific where you are talking about.   #  the problem is that the vast majority of issues the mrm bring up, are not actually true.   #  the problem is that the vast majority of issues the mrm bring up, are not actually true.  take for example child custody: over 0 of cases are decided voluntarily with no mediation.  only 0 of cases actually get decided by a court and of those cases, 0 of the time the father gets at least joint custody.  there is actually no evidence of any bias in the court system when it comes to custody.  or divorce: the alimony laws are gender neutral.  the reason why women disproportionately benefit from them is because women are disproportionately the ones who dropped their career to take care of the kids and more often will end up in poverty after divorce then men.  there is no bias in the laws here.  this goes on more so.  the underlying problems tend to be the same things that feminism is against rather than something the requires an entire other movement to address.   #  and that likely comes from the societal belief that the mother is the most nurturing in all cases and should care for the kids always.   #  well, we can see that the statistics for arrests, convictions, and sentencing all hold up and are consistent with a bias against black people.  however no such stats exist for custody of children.  in fact, as stated, the statistics of those which do go to court show no bias against fathers whatsoever.  in addition, we are talking about things being decided before they ever get to court so your analogy does not work as a way to blame the court system or law.  the only thing you can do is want to analyze why so many fathers agree that the mother should get custody instead.  and that likely comes from the societal belief that the mother is the most nurturing in all cases and should care for the kids always.  because gender roles.  so literally the only thing you can blame are gender roles and the societal beliefs which uphold them which, mind you, are something feminists fight against .  there is no evidence, at all, to support a claim that the law or courts are biased against fathers when it comes to custody.   #  over 0 of custody cases are decided voluntarily with no court input or mediation.   # more women get custody than men.  except the available evidence shows that of the only 0 of cases which get decided by a court, over 0 of the time when the man requests custody he gets  at least  joint custody if not full custody.  which means that there is no bias in the court against men.  more women get custody than men  because men voluntarily give custody to the mother in the vast majority of cases .  that is not evidence of any bias int he court against men.  no, they are really not.  the only bias that exists is the societal bias in gender roles which causes both men   women to believe that women are more nurturing and thus should get custody more often resulting in men voluntarily giving up custody to the mother in the vast majority of cases.  over 0 of custody cases are decided voluntarily with no court input or mediation.  there is no existing bias in the custody system.
the other day, i broke two glass jars in quick succession.  this is undoubtedly because i am a klutz.  however, it got me thinking.  i ca not see a good use for glass in the modern world.  it is incredibly brittle, so it shatters on impact with anything even remotely hard.  yet we use it in containers, windows, and many other important things, when plastic is also transparent and lacks this disadvantage.  i always hear about car windows, for example, having high tech layered glass.  what is the point, when we have a variety of plastics available ? it seems to me that without glass, we would not have to worry as much about broken windows, broken glasses, or broken containers.   #  i broke two glass jars in quick succession.   #  this is undoubtedly because i am a klutz.   # this is undoubtedly because i am a klutz.  however, it got me thinking.  one must use glass jars to make your own jams, juices, preserves and hot sauces.  because these items have to sit for a while it is very easy for bacteria to grow.  therefore, one must store them in completely sterile containers.  the easiest way to sterilize a jar is to boil it.  this cannot be done with plastic because it melts.   #  glass is the material of choice in chem labs because it can handle a wide range of temperature, making it ideal for heating and cooling chemicals.   #  0.  glass handles high temperatures better than plastics, meaning it is less likely to melt when it would be inconvenient.  this especially applies to cookware, as you can actually cook things in glass containers in ways that ca not be done with plastic.  however, this is not the only place glass is used like this.  glass is the material of choice in chem labs because it can handle a wide range of temperature, making it ideal for heating and cooling chemicals.  0.  glass does not shed much material into the substance that it contains.  this kind of ties onto my first point, but when heating something in plastic, even if the plastic does not melt, it can leech into whatever is in the container.  glass does not have this problem.  0.  the raw materials used to make it are far cheaper.  all of the chemicals used to make glass are relatively abundant, while plastic is based off of petroleum, which is tougher to get.  0.  plastic has been tied to a wide number of adverse effects on human health.  URL this makes glass a much healthier choice.   #  that is probably one of the biggest downsides, yes.   #  that is probably one of the biggest downsides, yes.  it is actually my main reason for being in full support of electric cars and alternate energy we need petroleum for the building materials of the future.  however, i think that if the majority of people recycled plastic, it could be sustainable for a very long time possibly long enough to find something even better.  also, you said  most commonly,  which implies that they can come from other sources, which i did not know.  would you mind telling me a little about that ?  #  not all of it, or even most of it, but a decent chunk of our power is converted from petroleum as well.   # not all of it, or even most of it, but a decent chunk of our power is converted from petroleum as well.  running out of oil is not just a problem in terms of driving to work.  just saying ! as far as your question about where plastics come from, a plastic is kind of an umbrella term.  it is like  alcohol .  typically, yeah, we think of ethanol, the kind we drink, but that is not the only kind.  polyester, for example, is a plastic.  natural rubber not all rubber is a plastic that is taken directly from plants.   #  we should try to depend less on oil, not more.   #  let is be realistic though.  do you think humans will suddenly become super wise and stop burning all the oil ? i seriously doubt it.  take a look at this chart URL showing global oil consumption.  or this chart URL showing the major players.  i see a world dependent on oil more than ever.  very little effort to reduce consumption in the us and eu and no effort at all in the asian countries.  as more and more countries are becoming developed, they will start needing oil too.  even if you have electric cars and you invent new magic power sources, you still need shitloads of oil for the gazillion industries that use it.  i do not see how replacing glass with plastics will help us, it just adds to the problem.  we should try to depend less on oil, not more.
now i am not talking about an actual book, i am referring to the analogy that people use to represent how you should not judge a person by their appearance.  i believe this is nonsense.  based on what a person is wearing, how they present them self, their body language, and a bit of intellect, you can come to a conclusion or estimate on that persons personality.  i am not saying you can completely figure out someone based on their appearance but for sure you can get the  brief summary  of their life, how they behave or personality.  some people are easier to read than others but every little tattoo, piercing, shirt wrinkle, hairstyle, piece of clothing the list could continue on forever , could definitely be interpenetrated to show a little characteristic about a person and who they really are.  you can judge a book by its cover.  you can judge a person by their appearance.   #  you can judge a book by its cover.   #  you can judge a person by their appearance.   # you can judge a person by their appearance.  two, things.  i always took it as a warning more than a rule.  while i do subscribe to the idea that you can judge people by their appearances, most people make the mistake of assuming way too much from a handful of details, leading them to commit mistakes.  that is a bad technique in my opinion.  also, some people are just bad at it.  being able to  read people  accuratly is harder than most poeople think.  you have to be observant  and  know a lot of stuff in order to get good readings.   #  but you would have no way of knowing that if you simply judged me by your first impression.   #  the issue that i have with this is that people are not always dressed or appear in a way that is natural or comfortable for them.  my mother passed away while i was in high school and a family friend paid for me and my siblings to get brand new nice suits for the funeral.  however, due to my upbringing and who knows what else, i do not tend to show my emotion.  so, while i was indeed very sad the day of my mother is funeral, i did not have grief written across my face.  i was not joking and laughing, but i was not tear stained either.  so, if you happened to bump into me that day when i was not at the funeral, you would have seen a 0 year old boy well groomed, but not over the top, with a decent suit on, who maybe just looks a little bored.  from that  cover , how can you tell my true personality ? nothing about that glimpse of me would tell you that i normally did not care much about grooming since i would wear a baseball hat every day, and that while i was comfortable in a suit, if left to myself i would choose jeans and t shirt, and that i was most comfortable when i was active, playing sports or going hiking.  that funeral day snapshot of me was not the real me at all.  but you would have no way of knowing that if you simply judged me by your first impression.   #  being able to tell if it was your mother who passed away would be another story.   #  i am sorry for your lost.  i would say that we all as people are not completely conscious of our actions.  sure you may have thought that you showed no emotion when in reality your body language showed that you were grieving.  some indications would be showing microexpression URL of sadness when you talked.  your posture may have shown vulnerability depending on how you felt.  you could also look at your relatives around you who are more emotional and easier to read thus being able to come to a conclusion.  overall, someone who is good at reading body language would have been able to come to the conclusion that because this 0 year old boy is showing multiple signs of sadness and is dressed very nicely, he very well may be going to a funeral.  being able to tell if it was your mother who passed away would be another story.  we would although be able to infer that whoever did pass away was very close to you.   #  microexpressions occur when a person is consciously trying to conceal all signs of how he or she is feeling, or when a person does not consciously know how he or she is feeling.   #  first off, this is from the page you linked:  they usually occur in high stakes situations, where people have something to lose or gain.  microexpressions occur when a person is consciously trying to conceal all signs of how he or she is feeling, or when a person does not consciously know how he or she is feeling.  so, if it was not a high stakes situation for me there was nothing that i was actively trying to lose or gain, my mother had already died and i was not trying to fool anyone about my feelings if someone asked me i was open about how i felt , and i was not consciously trying to conceal how i was feeling which i was not; as i said, i was open about how i felt, it just did not translate visually , but i was very aware of how i felt again, we have covered this , then there is very little possibility, if any, that i would have exhibited microexpressions.  and even if i had, it takes a very keen observer, usually someone who has training, to spot microexpressions.  with regards to seeing the people around me, you are adding things in that would help you.  there were times that day when i was not surrounded by family.  you may have seen me simply standing on a sidewalk in town, no one else around me.  in the end, this is all a moot point.  even if you can figure out exactly what was happening that day, all you would know about me is what was happening that day.  you still would not know  me .  as i said before, there is absolutely no indication there of what i am actually like, what i enjoy doing, how i normally dress, etc.   #  even if you can figure out exactly what was happening that day, all you would know about me is what was happening that day.   # sure you may  think  you showed no signs of emotion when in reality you could have been an open book.  i used microexpresions as an example but that is not even the best indicator knowing that it was not a high stakes situation .  the best indicator would simply be your body language, your posture, your presentation.  unless you were  consciously  thinking of ways to make yourself look completely normal showing no emotion, then your body language would show that you are sad or unhappy in some way.  even if you can figure out exactly what was happening that day, all you would know about me is what was happening that day.  you still would not know  me .    0; i may have to edit my original statement but essentially what i meant is when you judge a book by its cover, your judging it by the way it presents itself at that moment and from there you can use context clues to figure out the  full picture .  at that moment when you were dressed nicely with your suit your  book cover  at the time .  i could make a judgement and come to the conclusion that you were going to a funeral.  from here i could use context clues or other observations such as your surroundings or a small chat with you in order to make more judgement on what your personality is, what you like, what your family is like, etc.  until you really get someone at a baseline, a person behaving normally that is when you can actually start judging them by their  cover .  you are correct i would not be able to figure out  you  by just seeing you at that point in time.  i did not take into consideration some sort of  mask  or anything that is preventing a baseline and for that i give you a delta.  i still do believe though that you can judge a person by their appearance if they are in a normal state.  even if they are not, you could still pick up on small characteristics that make up their personality.
disclaimer i have many close friends and family in the military.  so i do not have this view because i am someone who has never known anyone in the service and am therefore unable to empathize with them.  i almost joined the military myself when i was still in high school, as back then i was so young i had never even really thought about any of this stuff.  here is the issue.  i felt like during the iraq war, if you signed up for the us armed forces, you did so knowing there is a chance you could be shipped overseas and eventually fight and kill some innocent civilian.  also, i am not saying all wars are avoidable, but even though i am highly ignorant about politics, i just did not see the point of iraq war.  it felt like we were just occupying a foreign territory, and so if a person joined the military, even if they did not kill an innocent civilian, i felt they were still helping to allow an unjust war to continue.  because of this, it just made me lose respect for a person if they took such a job.  here is my conundrum and why my view is not entirely formed on this subject i realize that a nation needs a military.  if a nation does not have a military then the country would be open to attacks with no one to defend it.  that is why this is not a typical cmv.  i just do not know  what  to think really and i feel my opinions contradict.  it is just my ethics tell me that joining the american military is very wrong due to our foreign policy.  i am only mentioning american military because i am american.  i am not trying to imply american military is any better or worse than any other nation is military.  however, i realize we need a military.  i do not know how to rectify these two thoughts.   #  i felt like during the iraq war, if you signed up for the us armed forces, you did so knowing there is a chance you could be shipped overseas and eventually fight and kill some innocent civilian.   #  the vast majority of those who join the military do not serve in the front lines in combat many are in support roles, logistics, etc.   # the vast majority of those who join the military do not serve in the front lines in combat many are in support roles, logistics, etc.  and never fire a round in anger much less drop a bomb.  in fact, historically, the iraq war had very few casualties caused by a conventional military most civilian casualties came about from car bombings and ieds placed during the sectarian conflict that broke out during the occupation phase of the iraq war.  look back to world war ii and how single bombing raids killed 0,0  civilians or how shelling entire cities was conventional military strategy yet almost everyone respects ww0 veterans.  the typical person who joins the us military today has little chance of actually killing a civilian yet they get a whole lot more blame.  here is the issue.  when someone joins the us military, they swear to  support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic.   the constitution explicitly states that the president is the commander in chief and congress is responsible for appropriating the budget for said military.  thus the military is beholden to the president and to congress.  who votes in congress and the president ? you , the tax paying voting citizen.  saying that you do not respect those in the us military because they may accidentally kill civilians ignores the very very important fact that they are carrying out the orders of your elected officials.  the us is a republic with a democratically elected government as thus, the military is ultimately supposed to be serving the will of the people.  we actually set our rules of engagement very tight with regards to collateral damage precisely because our elected officials/politicians demand that it was a big issue in vietnam and has been a big issue in afghanistan and iraq.  ultimately, if you do not like what the military potentially does in wars like iraq, then  you  are responsible as a citizen to vote out those officials who decided to do so.  the military is ultimately a service or a tool, if you will that carries out the will of those citizens who voted in those officials.  thus, those who choose to join it are those who choose to  serve  and to say that they do not deserve respect because their elected leaders told them to go to war is silly because those elected leaders were elected by citizens like you !  #  this is precisely what our soldiers are doing when they give free dental examinations to villagers: they are being paid modestly, but adequately to do good in the world.   #  anthropologist david graeber has an interesting take on this that might change your view from a slightly different angle.  basically he proposes that for much of the population, we are pretty much locked out of vocations and resources that allow us to be altruistic.  thus  in reality american society is better conceived as a battle over access to the right to behave altruistically , because it requires surplus wealth in order to have the  prospect of being able to lavish money on one is children, buy drinks for one is friends, and if one hits the jackpot, spend the rest of one is life endowing museums and providing aids medications to impoverished countries in africa.   other than hitting the jackpot, the main way to be seen and see yourself as living altruistically for most of the population is joining the military.  that is, as long as it can preserve the narrative of being a force for good, which your cmv may be arguing against, but the relevant point is whether the military is seen that way by the people who join.  an excerpt from army of altruists URL   a mechanic from nebraska knows it is highly unlikely that his son or daughter will ever become an enron executive.  but it is possible.  there is virtually no chance, however, that his child, no matter how talented, will ever become an international human rights lawyer or a drama critic for the new york times.  here we need to remember not just the changes in higher education but also the role of unpaid, or effectively unpaid, internships.  it has become a fact of life in the united states that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the salary, for the first year or two one will not be paid.  this is certainly true if one wishes to be involved in altruistic pursuits: say, to join the world of charities, or ngos, or to become a political activist.  but it is equally true if one wants to pursue values like beauty or truth: to become part of the world of books, or the art world, or an investigative reporter.  the custom effectively seals off such a career for any poor student who actually does attain a liberal arts education.  such structures of exclusion had always existed, of course, especially at the top, but in recent decades fences have become fortresses.  likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  to be noble is to be generous, high minded, altruistic, to pursue higher forms of value.  but it is also to be able to do so because one does not really have to think too much about money.  this is precisely what our soldiers are doing when they give free dental examinations to villagers: they are being paid modestly, but adequately to do good in the world.   #  am i way off the mark here, somehow ?  # i am finding it very hard to believe that you are serious about this.  how do you  think  it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  this comes off as if he is just banging pots and pans for god and country.  no thanks.   #  so are you agreeing that the people who join the military mostly do not see themselves as joining to be hitmen/murderers, but rather see themselves as trying to join a force for good ?  # how do you think it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? so are you agreeing that the people who join the military mostly do not see themselves as joining to be hitmen/murderers, but rather see themselves as trying to join a force for good ? my point was to link the argument specifically to the op is view  i do not have respect for people who join the american military .  i personally have no interest in arguing that the military is  actually  a force for good, and i am sympathetic if you want to argue that more people should know their history and avoid volunteering for the us military if possible.  so i am taking a different angle to see if op might reconsider the individuals who sign up for the army in a different light.  no thanks.  hmm, if that is how it comes across i can only suggest reading the whole article rather than what i tried to quote.  i agree some parts can sound a little nationalistic, especially the last sentence i quoted.  but you have to note that graeber is trying to put forward a thought provoking, fresh sociological perspective on this.  maybe it also helps to know something of graeber is personal politics anarchist, early founder of occupy wallstreet, author on debt, revolution, and actual democracy to know his sympathy is with the working class people who join, rather than the military or us.   #  i think it is a foolish use of time, but they believe that they are helping people and are hardly doing any harm.   #  okay.  thanks for the comment.  so your suggestion is that people who believe they are doing good should be respected for that alone ? i can agree with that to an extent, but it depends significantly on the potential for harm and the impulsiveness of the moral judgement.  i have a slight degree of respect for for instance jehovah is witnesses who spend a lot of their lives innocuously trying to convince other people to save their soul or however they would word it .  i think it is a foolish use of time, but they believe that they are helping people and are hardly doing any harm.  but if the stakes were much higher and their actions could reasonably be expected to lead to a lot of suffering, i would find no way to respect them unless they reflected deeply on what they were getting into.  in the case of american soldiers, there is no reason to trust in the moral rectitude of the campaign they are contributing to.  the facts about the american military is history completely undermine any respect that one might have had for the soldiers.  it would be like respecting a dog for attacking a stranger at its master is command.  so i think i see your point, but do you not think that respect should be reserved for those who carefully and intelligently consider their actions ?
disclaimer i have many close friends and family in the military.  so i do not have this view because i am someone who has never known anyone in the service and am therefore unable to empathize with them.  i almost joined the military myself when i was still in high school, as back then i was so young i had never even really thought about any of this stuff.  here is the issue.  i felt like during the iraq war, if you signed up for the us armed forces, you did so knowing there is a chance you could be shipped overseas and eventually fight and kill some innocent civilian.  also, i am not saying all wars are avoidable, but even though i am highly ignorant about politics, i just did not see the point of iraq war.  it felt like we were just occupying a foreign territory, and so if a person joined the military, even if they did not kill an innocent civilian, i felt they were still helping to allow an unjust war to continue.  because of this, it just made me lose respect for a person if they took such a job.  here is my conundrum and why my view is not entirely formed on this subject i realize that a nation needs a military.  if a nation does not have a military then the country would be open to attacks with no one to defend it.  that is why this is not a typical cmv.  i just do not know  what  to think really and i feel my opinions contradict.  it is just my ethics tell me that joining the american military is very wrong due to our foreign policy.  i am only mentioning american military because i am american.  i am not trying to imply american military is any better or worse than any other nation is military.  however, i realize we need a military.  i do not know how to rectify these two thoughts.   #  i felt like during the iraq war, if you signed up for the us armed forces, you did so knowing there is a chance you could be shipped overseas and eventually fight and kill some innocent civilian.   #  to be fair, the military is much more diverse than you are making it out to be.   # to be fair, the military is much more diverse than you are making it out to be.  if you signed up to be a dentist in the air force would you say that you  signed up to possibly kill civilians  ? seeing combat is fairly uncommon for most military members, most of them will never engage an enemy in their entire career.  in that light, is it really fair to say they signed up to kill civilians as opposed to, say, repair computers, drive trucks, cook food, etc ? because of this, it just made me lose respect for a person if they took such a job.  voters use their political will to elect leaders who decide to go to war, taxpayers finance the war effort.  service members have no say in either of these things except in their capacity as voters and taxpayers.  a country does not go to war because its military wants to, a military goes to war because its country tells it to.  blaming the military for war is like blaming guns for violence.  even if we remove the tool, if the desire for violence remains then violence will happen.  in the case of the military, if people were to stop volunteering for wars but voters/taxpayers kept wanting to go to war and funding it, we would simply draft people to fight.   #  it has become a fact of life in the united states that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the salary, for the first year or two one will not be paid.   #  anthropologist david graeber has an interesting take on this that might change your view from a slightly different angle.  basically he proposes that for much of the population, we are pretty much locked out of vocations and resources that allow us to be altruistic.  thus  in reality american society is better conceived as a battle over access to the right to behave altruistically , because it requires surplus wealth in order to have the  prospect of being able to lavish money on one is children, buy drinks for one is friends, and if one hits the jackpot, spend the rest of one is life endowing museums and providing aids medications to impoverished countries in africa.   other than hitting the jackpot, the main way to be seen and see yourself as living altruistically for most of the population is joining the military.  that is, as long as it can preserve the narrative of being a force for good, which your cmv may be arguing against, but the relevant point is whether the military is seen that way by the people who join.  an excerpt from army of altruists URL   a mechanic from nebraska knows it is highly unlikely that his son or daughter will ever become an enron executive.  but it is possible.  there is virtually no chance, however, that his child, no matter how talented, will ever become an international human rights lawyer or a drama critic for the new york times.  here we need to remember not just the changes in higher education but also the role of unpaid, or effectively unpaid, internships.  it has become a fact of life in the united states that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the salary, for the first year or two one will not be paid.  this is certainly true if one wishes to be involved in altruistic pursuits: say, to join the world of charities, or ngos, or to become a political activist.  but it is equally true if one wants to pursue values like beauty or truth: to become part of the world of books, or the art world, or an investigative reporter.  the custom effectively seals off such a career for any poor student who actually does attain a liberal arts education.  such structures of exclusion had always existed, of course, especially at the top, but in recent decades fences have become fortresses.  likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  to be noble is to be generous, high minded, altruistic, to pursue higher forms of value.  but it is also to be able to do so because one does not really have to think too much about money.  this is precisely what our soldiers are doing when they give free dental examinations to villagers: they are being paid modestly, but adequately to do good in the world.   #  i am finding it very hard to believe that you are serious about this.   # i am finding it very hard to believe that you are serious about this.  how do you  think  it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  this comes off as if he is just banging pots and pans for god and country.  no thanks.   #  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ?  # how do you think it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? so are you agreeing that the people who join the military mostly do not see themselves as joining to be hitmen/murderers, but rather see themselves as trying to join a force for good ? my point was to link the argument specifically to the op is view  i do not have respect for people who join the american military .  i personally have no interest in arguing that the military is  actually  a force for good, and i am sympathetic if you want to argue that more people should know their history and avoid volunteering for the us military if possible.  so i am taking a different angle to see if op might reconsider the individuals who sign up for the army in a different light.  no thanks.  hmm, if that is how it comes across i can only suggest reading the whole article rather than what i tried to quote.  i agree some parts can sound a little nationalistic, especially the last sentence i quoted.  but you have to note that graeber is trying to put forward a thought provoking, fresh sociological perspective on this.  maybe it also helps to know something of graeber is personal politics anarchist, early founder of occupy wallstreet, author on debt, revolution, and actual democracy to know his sympathy is with the working class people who join, rather than the military or us.   #  but if the stakes were much higher and their actions could reasonably be expected to lead to a lot of suffering, i would find no way to respect them unless they reflected deeply on what they were getting into.   #  okay.  thanks for the comment.  so your suggestion is that people who believe they are doing good should be respected for that alone ? i can agree with that to an extent, but it depends significantly on the potential for harm and the impulsiveness of the moral judgement.  i have a slight degree of respect for for instance jehovah is witnesses who spend a lot of their lives innocuously trying to convince other people to save their soul or however they would word it .  i think it is a foolish use of time, but they believe that they are helping people and are hardly doing any harm.  but if the stakes were much higher and their actions could reasonably be expected to lead to a lot of suffering, i would find no way to respect them unless they reflected deeply on what they were getting into.  in the case of american soldiers, there is no reason to trust in the moral rectitude of the campaign they are contributing to.  the facts about the american military is history completely undermine any respect that one might have had for the soldiers.  it would be like respecting a dog for attacking a stranger at its master is command.  so i think i see your point, but do you not think that respect should be reserved for those who carefully and intelligently consider their actions ?
disclaimer i have many close friends and family in the military.  so i do not have this view because i am someone who has never known anyone in the service and am therefore unable to empathize with them.  i almost joined the military myself when i was still in high school, as back then i was so young i had never even really thought about any of this stuff.  here is the issue.  i felt like during the iraq war, if you signed up for the us armed forces, you did so knowing there is a chance you could be shipped overseas and eventually fight and kill some innocent civilian.  also, i am not saying all wars are avoidable, but even though i am highly ignorant about politics, i just did not see the point of iraq war.  it felt like we were just occupying a foreign territory, and so if a person joined the military, even if they did not kill an innocent civilian, i felt they were still helping to allow an unjust war to continue.  because of this, it just made me lose respect for a person if they took such a job.  here is my conundrum and why my view is not entirely formed on this subject i realize that a nation needs a military.  if a nation does not have a military then the country would be open to attacks with no one to defend it.  that is why this is not a typical cmv.  i just do not know  what  to think really and i feel my opinions contradict.  it is just my ethics tell me that joining the american military is very wrong due to our foreign policy.  i am only mentioning american military because i am american.  i am not trying to imply american military is any better or worse than any other nation is military.  however, i realize we need a military.  i do not know how to rectify these two thoughts.   #  it felt like we were just occupying a foreign territory, and so if a person joined the military, even if they did not kill an innocent civilian, i felt they were still helping to allow an unjust war to continue.   #  because of this, it just made me lose respect for a person if they took such a job.   # to be fair, the military is much more diverse than you are making it out to be.  if you signed up to be a dentist in the air force would you say that you  signed up to possibly kill civilians  ? seeing combat is fairly uncommon for most military members, most of them will never engage an enemy in their entire career.  in that light, is it really fair to say they signed up to kill civilians as opposed to, say, repair computers, drive trucks, cook food, etc ? because of this, it just made me lose respect for a person if they took such a job.  voters use their political will to elect leaders who decide to go to war, taxpayers finance the war effort.  service members have no say in either of these things except in their capacity as voters and taxpayers.  a country does not go to war because its military wants to, a military goes to war because its country tells it to.  blaming the military for war is like blaming guns for violence.  even if we remove the tool, if the desire for violence remains then violence will happen.  in the case of the military, if people were to stop volunteering for wars but voters/taxpayers kept wanting to go to war and funding it, we would simply draft people to fight.   #  anthropologist david graeber has an interesting take on this that might change your view from a slightly different angle.   #  anthropologist david graeber has an interesting take on this that might change your view from a slightly different angle.  basically he proposes that for much of the population, we are pretty much locked out of vocations and resources that allow us to be altruistic.  thus  in reality american society is better conceived as a battle over access to the right to behave altruistically , because it requires surplus wealth in order to have the  prospect of being able to lavish money on one is children, buy drinks for one is friends, and if one hits the jackpot, spend the rest of one is life endowing museums and providing aids medications to impoverished countries in africa.   other than hitting the jackpot, the main way to be seen and see yourself as living altruistically for most of the population is joining the military.  that is, as long as it can preserve the narrative of being a force for good, which your cmv may be arguing against, but the relevant point is whether the military is seen that way by the people who join.  an excerpt from army of altruists URL   a mechanic from nebraska knows it is highly unlikely that his son or daughter will ever become an enron executive.  but it is possible.  there is virtually no chance, however, that his child, no matter how talented, will ever become an international human rights lawyer or a drama critic for the new york times.  here we need to remember not just the changes in higher education but also the role of unpaid, or effectively unpaid, internships.  it has become a fact of life in the united states that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the salary, for the first year or two one will not be paid.  this is certainly true if one wishes to be involved in altruistic pursuits: say, to join the world of charities, or ngos, or to become a political activist.  but it is equally true if one wants to pursue values like beauty or truth: to become part of the world of books, or the art world, or an investigative reporter.  the custom effectively seals off such a career for any poor student who actually does attain a liberal arts education.  such structures of exclusion had always existed, of course, especially at the top, but in recent decades fences have become fortresses.  likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  to be noble is to be generous, high minded, altruistic, to pursue higher forms of value.  but it is also to be able to do so because one does not really have to think too much about money.  this is precisely what our soldiers are doing when they give free dental examinations to villagers: they are being paid modestly, but adequately to do good in the world.   #  likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.   # i am finding it very hard to believe that you are serious about this.  how do you  think  it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  this comes off as if he is just banging pots and pans for god and country.  no thanks.   #  am i way off the mark here, somehow ?  # how do you think it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? so are you agreeing that the people who join the military mostly do not see themselves as joining to be hitmen/murderers, but rather see themselves as trying to join a force for good ? my point was to link the argument specifically to the op is view  i do not have respect for people who join the american military .  i personally have no interest in arguing that the military is  actually  a force for good, and i am sympathetic if you want to argue that more people should know their history and avoid volunteering for the us military if possible.  so i am taking a different angle to see if op might reconsider the individuals who sign up for the army in a different light.  no thanks.  hmm, if that is how it comes across i can only suggest reading the whole article rather than what i tried to quote.  i agree some parts can sound a little nationalistic, especially the last sentence i quoted.  but you have to note that graeber is trying to put forward a thought provoking, fresh sociological perspective on this.  maybe it also helps to know something of graeber is personal politics anarchist, early founder of occupy wallstreet, author on debt, revolution, and actual democracy to know his sympathy is with the working class people who join, rather than the military or us.   #  i think it is a foolish use of time, but they believe that they are helping people and are hardly doing any harm.   #  okay.  thanks for the comment.  so your suggestion is that people who believe they are doing good should be respected for that alone ? i can agree with that to an extent, but it depends significantly on the potential for harm and the impulsiveness of the moral judgement.  i have a slight degree of respect for for instance jehovah is witnesses who spend a lot of their lives innocuously trying to convince other people to save their soul or however they would word it .  i think it is a foolish use of time, but they believe that they are helping people and are hardly doing any harm.  but if the stakes were much higher and their actions could reasonably be expected to lead to a lot of suffering, i would find no way to respect them unless they reflected deeply on what they were getting into.  in the case of american soldiers, there is no reason to trust in the moral rectitude of the campaign they are contributing to.  the facts about the american military is history completely undermine any respect that one might have had for the soldiers.  it would be like respecting a dog for attacking a stranger at its master is command.  so i think i see your point, but do you not think that respect should be reserved for those who carefully and intelligently consider their actions ?
disclaimer i have many close friends and family in the military.  so i do not have this view because i am someone who has never known anyone in the service and am therefore unable to empathize with them.  i almost joined the military myself when i was still in high school, as back then i was so young i had never even really thought about any of this stuff.  here is the issue.  i felt like during the iraq war, if you signed up for the us armed forces, you did so knowing there is a chance you could be shipped overseas and eventually fight and kill some innocent civilian.  also, i am not saying all wars are avoidable, but even though i am highly ignorant about politics, i just did not see the point of iraq war.  it felt like we were just occupying a foreign territory, and so if a person joined the military, even if they did not kill an innocent civilian, i felt they were still helping to allow an unjust war to continue.  because of this, it just made me lose respect for a person if they took such a job.  here is my conundrum and why my view is not entirely formed on this subject i realize that a nation needs a military.  if a nation does not have a military then the country would be open to attacks with no one to defend it.  that is why this is not a typical cmv.  i just do not know  what  to think really and i feel my opinions contradict.  it is just my ethics tell me that joining the american military is very wrong due to our foreign policy.  i am only mentioning american military because i am american.  i am not trying to imply american military is any better or worse than any other nation is military.  however, i realize we need a military.  i do not know how to rectify these two thoughts.   #  i felt like during the iraq war, if you signed up for the us armed forces, you did so knowing there is a chance you could be shipped overseas and eventually fight and kill some innocent civilian.   #  the iraq war has some questionable time boundaries.   # the iraq war has some questionable time boundaries.  wikipedia tells me it was over in december, 0 URL this makes me someone who joined the military during the conflict.  i joined the navy in january, 0.  i did so knowing full well that i would never be  shipped overseas  or see any kind of combat.  i joined the navy is nuclear power program, and operated the reactor of a nuclear submarine, quite literally as far away from the front lines as it is possible to be.  the fact is: anecdotes are not data.  understandable.  but there are many jobs and specialties in all branches of the military that are guarranteed to never see combat.  many people join specifically to get into these fields.  the decision to go to and participate in war is not made by the individual military members.  in a time of peace, no random private or leiutenant just goes off and starts a war.  this decision is made by politicians.  i personally believe your lack of respect is misguided.  i suppose that is a fair point.  however, a large portion of the military join to support themselves or their family, or get out of debt, or get an education, and simply feel they have no other choice to accomplish these goals.   #  to be noble is to be generous, high minded, altruistic, to pursue higher forms of value.   #  anthropologist david graeber has an interesting take on this that might change your view from a slightly different angle.  basically he proposes that for much of the population, we are pretty much locked out of vocations and resources that allow us to be altruistic.  thus  in reality american society is better conceived as a battle over access to the right to behave altruistically , because it requires surplus wealth in order to have the  prospect of being able to lavish money on one is children, buy drinks for one is friends, and if one hits the jackpot, spend the rest of one is life endowing museums and providing aids medications to impoverished countries in africa.   other than hitting the jackpot, the main way to be seen and see yourself as living altruistically for most of the population is joining the military.  that is, as long as it can preserve the narrative of being a force for good, which your cmv may be arguing against, but the relevant point is whether the military is seen that way by the people who join.  an excerpt from army of altruists URL   a mechanic from nebraska knows it is highly unlikely that his son or daughter will ever become an enron executive.  but it is possible.  there is virtually no chance, however, that his child, no matter how talented, will ever become an international human rights lawyer or a drama critic for the new york times.  here we need to remember not just the changes in higher education but also the role of unpaid, or effectively unpaid, internships.  it has become a fact of life in the united states that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the salary, for the first year or two one will not be paid.  this is certainly true if one wishes to be involved in altruistic pursuits: say, to join the world of charities, or ngos, or to become a political activist.  but it is equally true if one wants to pursue values like beauty or truth: to become part of the world of books, or the art world, or an investigative reporter.  the custom effectively seals off such a career for any poor student who actually does attain a liberal arts education.  such structures of exclusion had always existed, of course, especially at the top, but in recent decades fences have become fortresses.  likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  to be noble is to be generous, high minded, altruistic, to pursue higher forms of value.  but it is also to be able to do so because one does not really have to think too much about money.  this is precisely what our soldiers are doing when they give free dental examinations to villagers: they are being paid modestly, but adequately to do good in the world.   #  how do you  think  it is seen by them ?  # i am finding it very hard to believe that you are serious about this.  how do you  think  it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  this comes off as if he is just banging pots and pans for god and country.  no thanks.   #  my point was to link the argument specifically to the op is view  i do not have respect for people who join the american military .   # how do you think it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? so are you agreeing that the people who join the military mostly do not see themselves as joining to be hitmen/murderers, but rather see themselves as trying to join a force for good ? my point was to link the argument specifically to the op is view  i do not have respect for people who join the american military .  i personally have no interest in arguing that the military is  actually  a force for good, and i am sympathetic if you want to argue that more people should know their history and avoid volunteering for the us military if possible.  so i am taking a different angle to see if op might reconsider the individuals who sign up for the army in a different light.  no thanks.  hmm, if that is how it comes across i can only suggest reading the whole article rather than what i tried to quote.  i agree some parts can sound a little nationalistic, especially the last sentence i quoted.  but you have to note that graeber is trying to put forward a thought provoking, fresh sociological perspective on this.  maybe it also helps to know something of graeber is personal politics anarchist, early founder of occupy wallstreet, author on debt, revolution, and actual democracy to know his sympathy is with the working class people who join, rather than the military or us.   #  i think it is a foolish use of time, but they believe that they are helping people and are hardly doing any harm.   #  okay.  thanks for the comment.  so your suggestion is that people who believe they are doing good should be respected for that alone ? i can agree with that to an extent, but it depends significantly on the potential for harm and the impulsiveness of the moral judgement.  i have a slight degree of respect for for instance jehovah is witnesses who spend a lot of their lives innocuously trying to convince other people to save their soul or however they would word it .  i think it is a foolish use of time, but they believe that they are helping people and are hardly doing any harm.  but if the stakes were much higher and their actions could reasonably be expected to lead to a lot of suffering, i would find no way to respect them unless they reflected deeply on what they were getting into.  in the case of american soldiers, there is no reason to trust in the moral rectitude of the campaign they are contributing to.  the facts about the american military is history completely undermine any respect that one might have had for the soldiers.  it would be like respecting a dog for attacking a stranger at its master is command.  so i think i see your point, but do you not think that respect should be reserved for those who carefully and intelligently consider their actions ?
disclaimer i have many close friends and family in the military.  so i do not have this view because i am someone who has never known anyone in the service and am therefore unable to empathize with them.  i almost joined the military myself when i was still in high school, as back then i was so young i had never even really thought about any of this stuff.  here is the issue.  i felt like during the iraq war, if you signed up for the us armed forces, you did so knowing there is a chance you could be shipped overseas and eventually fight and kill some innocent civilian.  also, i am not saying all wars are avoidable, but even though i am highly ignorant about politics, i just did not see the point of iraq war.  it felt like we were just occupying a foreign territory, and so if a person joined the military, even if they did not kill an innocent civilian, i felt they were still helping to allow an unjust war to continue.  because of this, it just made me lose respect for a person if they took such a job.  here is my conundrum and why my view is not entirely formed on this subject i realize that a nation needs a military.  if a nation does not have a military then the country would be open to attacks with no one to defend it.  that is why this is not a typical cmv.  i just do not know  what  to think really and i feel my opinions contradict.  it is just my ethics tell me that joining the american military is very wrong due to our foreign policy.  i am only mentioning american military because i am american.  i am not trying to imply american military is any better or worse than any other nation is military.  however, i realize we need a military.  i do not know how to rectify these two thoughts.   #  i am not saying all wars are avoidable, but even though i am highly ignorant about politics, i just did not see the point of iraq war.   #  the decision to go to and participate in war is not made by the individual military members.   # the iraq war has some questionable time boundaries.  wikipedia tells me it was over in december, 0 URL this makes me someone who joined the military during the conflict.  i joined the navy in january, 0.  i did so knowing full well that i would never be  shipped overseas  or see any kind of combat.  i joined the navy is nuclear power program, and operated the reactor of a nuclear submarine, quite literally as far away from the front lines as it is possible to be.  the fact is: anecdotes are not data.  understandable.  but there are many jobs and specialties in all branches of the military that are guarranteed to never see combat.  many people join specifically to get into these fields.  the decision to go to and participate in war is not made by the individual military members.  in a time of peace, no random private or leiutenant just goes off and starts a war.  this decision is made by politicians.  i personally believe your lack of respect is misguided.  i suppose that is a fair point.  however, a large portion of the military join to support themselves or their family, or get out of debt, or get an education, and simply feel they have no other choice to accomplish these goals.   #  that is, as long as it can preserve the narrative of being a force for good, which your cmv may be arguing against, but the relevant point is whether the military is seen that way by the people who join.   #  anthropologist david graeber has an interesting take on this that might change your view from a slightly different angle.  basically he proposes that for much of the population, we are pretty much locked out of vocations and resources that allow us to be altruistic.  thus  in reality american society is better conceived as a battle over access to the right to behave altruistically , because it requires surplus wealth in order to have the  prospect of being able to lavish money on one is children, buy drinks for one is friends, and if one hits the jackpot, spend the rest of one is life endowing museums and providing aids medications to impoverished countries in africa.   other than hitting the jackpot, the main way to be seen and see yourself as living altruistically for most of the population is joining the military.  that is, as long as it can preserve the narrative of being a force for good, which your cmv may be arguing against, but the relevant point is whether the military is seen that way by the people who join.  an excerpt from army of altruists URL   a mechanic from nebraska knows it is highly unlikely that his son or daughter will ever become an enron executive.  but it is possible.  there is virtually no chance, however, that his child, no matter how talented, will ever become an international human rights lawyer or a drama critic for the new york times.  here we need to remember not just the changes in higher education but also the role of unpaid, or effectively unpaid, internships.  it has become a fact of life in the united states that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the salary, for the first year or two one will not be paid.  this is certainly true if one wishes to be involved in altruistic pursuits: say, to join the world of charities, or ngos, or to become a political activist.  but it is equally true if one wants to pursue values like beauty or truth: to become part of the world of books, or the art world, or an investigative reporter.  the custom effectively seals off such a career for any poor student who actually does attain a liberal arts education.  such structures of exclusion had always existed, of course, especially at the top, but in recent decades fences have become fortresses.  likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  to be noble is to be generous, high minded, altruistic, to pursue higher forms of value.  but it is also to be able to do so because one does not really have to think too much about money.  this is precisely what our soldiers are doing when they give free dental examinations to villagers: they are being paid modestly, but adequately to do good in the world.   #  likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.   # i am finding it very hard to believe that you are serious about this.  how do you  think  it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  this comes off as if he is just banging pots and pans for god and country.  no thanks.   #  hmm, if that is how it comes across i can only suggest reading the whole article rather than what i tried to quote.   # how do you think it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? so are you agreeing that the people who join the military mostly do not see themselves as joining to be hitmen/murderers, but rather see themselves as trying to join a force for good ? my point was to link the argument specifically to the op is view  i do not have respect for people who join the american military .  i personally have no interest in arguing that the military is  actually  a force for good, and i am sympathetic if you want to argue that more people should know their history and avoid volunteering for the us military if possible.  so i am taking a different angle to see if op might reconsider the individuals who sign up for the army in a different light.  no thanks.  hmm, if that is how it comes across i can only suggest reading the whole article rather than what i tried to quote.  i agree some parts can sound a little nationalistic, especially the last sentence i quoted.  but you have to note that graeber is trying to put forward a thought provoking, fresh sociological perspective on this.  maybe it also helps to know something of graeber is personal politics anarchist, early founder of occupy wallstreet, author on debt, revolution, and actual democracy to know his sympathy is with the working class people who join, rather than the military or us.   #  i can agree with that to an extent, but it depends significantly on the potential for harm and the impulsiveness of the moral judgement.   #  okay.  thanks for the comment.  so your suggestion is that people who believe they are doing good should be respected for that alone ? i can agree with that to an extent, but it depends significantly on the potential for harm and the impulsiveness of the moral judgement.  i have a slight degree of respect for for instance jehovah is witnesses who spend a lot of their lives innocuously trying to convince other people to save their soul or however they would word it .  i think it is a foolish use of time, but they believe that they are helping people and are hardly doing any harm.  but if the stakes were much higher and their actions could reasonably be expected to lead to a lot of suffering, i would find no way to respect them unless they reflected deeply on what they were getting into.  in the case of american soldiers, there is no reason to trust in the moral rectitude of the campaign they are contributing to.  the facts about the american military is history completely undermine any respect that one might have had for the soldiers.  it would be like respecting a dog for attacking a stranger at its master is command.  so i think i see your point, but do you not think that respect should be reserved for those who carefully and intelligently consider their actions ?
disclaimer i have many close friends and family in the military.  so i do not have this view because i am someone who has never known anyone in the service and am therefore unable to empathize with them.  i almost joined the military myself when i was still in high school, as back then i was so young i had never even really thought about any of this stuff.  here is the issue.  i felt like during the iraq war, if you signed up for the us armed forces, you did so knowing there is a chance you could be shipped overseas and eventually fight and kill some innocent civilian.  also, i am not saying all wars are avoidable, but even though i am highly ignorant about politics, i just did not see the point of iraq war.  it felt like we were just occupying a foreign territory, and so if a person joined the military, even if they did not kill an innocent civilian, i felt they were still helping to allow an unjust war to continue.  because of this, it just made me lose respect for a person if they took such a job.  here is my conundrum and why my view is not entirely formed on this subject i realize that a nation needs a military.  if a nation does not have a military then the country would be open to attacks with no one to defend it.  that is why this is not a typical cmv.  i just do not know  what  to think really and i feel my opinions contradict.  it is just my ethics tell me that joining the american military is very wrong due to our foreign policy.  i am only mentioning american military because i am american.  i am not trying to imply american military is any better or worse than any other nation is military.  however, i realize we need a military.  i do not know how to rectify these two thoughts.   #  it felt like we were just occupying a foreign territory, and so if a person joined the military, even if they did not kill an innocent civilian, i felt they were still helping to allow an unjust war to continue.   #  i suppose that is a fair point.   # the iraq war has some questionable time boundaries.  wikipedia tells me it was over in december, 0 URL this makes me someone who joined the military during the conflict.  i joined the navy in january, 0.  i did so knowing full well that i would never be  shipped overseas  or see any kind of combat.  i joined the navy is nuclear power program, and operated the reactor of a nuclear submarine, quite literally as far away from the front lines as it is possible to be.  the fact is: anecdotes are not data.  understandable.  but there are many jobs and specialties in all branches of the military that are guarranteed to never see combat.  many people join specifically to get into these fields.  the decision to go to and participate in war is not made by the individual military members.  in a time of peace, no random private or leiutenant just goes off and starts a war.  this decision is made by politicians.  i personally believe your lack of respect is misguided.  i suppose that is a fair point.  however, a large portion of the military join to support themselves or their family, or get out of debt, or get an education, and simply feel they have no other choice to accomplish these goals.   #  this is precisely what our soldiers are doing when they give free dental examinations to villagers: they are being paid modestly, but adequately to do good in the world.   #  anthropologist david graeber has an interesting take on this that might change your view from a slightly different angle.  basically he proposes that for much of the population, we are pretty much locked out of vocations and resources that allow us to be altruistic.  thus  in reality american society is better conceived as a battle over access to the right to behave altruistically , because it requires surplus wealth in order to have the  prospect of being able to lavish money on one is children, buy drinks for one is friends, and if one hits the jackpot, spend the rest of one is life endowing museums and providing aids medications to impoverished countries in africa.   other than hitting the jackpot, the main way to be seen and see yourself as living altruistically for most of the population is joining the military.  that is, as long as it can preserve the narrative of being a force for good, which your cmv may be arguing against, but the relevant point is whether the military is seen that way by the people who join.  an excerpt from army of altruists URL   a mechanic from nebraska knows it is highly unlikely that his son or daughter will ever become an enron executive.  but it is possible.  there is virtually no chance, however, that his child, no matter how talented, will ever become an international human rights lawyer or a drama critic for the new york times.  here we need to remember not just the changes in higher education but also the role of unpaid, or effectively unpaid, internships.  it has become a fact of life in the united states that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the salary, for the first year or two one will not be paid.  this is certainly true if one wishes to be involved in altruistic pursuits: say, to join the world of charities, or ngos, or to become a political activist.  but it is equally true if one wants to pursue values like beauty or truth: to become part of the world of books, or the art world, or an investigative reporter.  the custom effectively seals off such a career for any poor student who actually does attain a liberal arts education.  such structures of exclusion had always existed, of course, especially at the top, but in recent decades fences have become fortresses.  likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  to be noble is to be generous, high minded, altruistic, to pursue higher forms of value.  but it is also to be able to do so because one does not really have to think too much about money.  this is precisely what our soldiers are doing when they give free dental examinations to villagers: they are being paid modestly, but adequately to do good in the world.   #  i am finding it very hard to believe that you are serious about this.   # i am finding it very hard to believe that you are serious about this.  how do you  think  it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? likely just two: she can seek employment at her local church, which is hard to get.  or she can join the army.  this comes off as if he is just banging pots and pans for god and country.  no thanks.   #  my point was to link the argument specifically to the op is view  i do not have respect for people who join the american military .   # how do you think it is seen by them ? the morality of an action is not determined by the opinions of the people who engage in it.  do you think that being a mob hitman is fine and dandy because other hitmen view the enrichment of their own family as the highest moral pursuit ? am i way off the mark here, somehow ? so are you agreeing that the people who join the military mostly do not see themselves as joining to be hitmen/murderers, but rather see themselves as trying to join a force for good ? my point was to link the argument specifically to the op is view  i do not have respect for people who join the american military .  i personally have no interest in arguing that the military is  actually  a force for good, and i am sympathetic if you want to argue that more people should know their history and avoid volunteering for the us military if possible.  so i am taking a different angle to see if op might reconsider the individuals who sign up for the army in a different light.  no thanks.  hmm, if that is how it comes across i can only suggest reading the whole article rather than what i tried to quote.  i agree some parts can sound a little nationalistic, especially the last sentence i quoted.  but you have to note that graeber is trying to put forward a thought provoking, fresh sociological perspective on this.  maybe it also helps to know something of graeber is personal politics anarchist, early founder of occupy wallstreet, author on debt, revolution, and actual democracy to know his sympathy is with the working class people who join, rather than the military or us.   #  the facts about the american military is history completely undermine any respect that one might have had for the soldiers.   #  okay.  thanks for the comment.  so your suggestion is that people who believe they are doing good should be respected for that alone ? i can agree with that to an extent, but it depends significantly on the potential for harm and the impulsiveness of the moral judgement.  i have a slight degree of respect for for instance jehovah is witnesses who spend a lot of their lives innocuously trying to convince other people to save their soul or however they would word it .  i think it is a foolish use of time, but they believe that they are helping people and are hardly doing any harm.  but if the stakes were much higher and their actions could reasonably be expected to lead to a lot of suffering, i would find no way to respect them unless they reflected deeply on what they were getting into.  in the case of american soldiers, there is no reason to trust in the moral rectitude of the campaign they are contributing to.  the facts about the american military is history completely undermine any respect that one might have had for the soldiers.  it would be like respecting a dog for attacking a stranger at its master is command.  so i think i see your point, but do you not think that respect should be reserved for those who carefully and intelligently consider their actions ?
it is probably not a healthy view or a popular one, but with the rise of isis i find myself thinking that the middle east has had 0 years to decide who they as a culture want to be.  now we have sayings like  that will happen as soon as there is peace in the middle east  to say something is impossible.  i am struggling with racist tendencies.  racist might not be the right word, maybe its a combination of theologism i do not think that is a word, but you know that i mean and racism.  i understand that not all arabic muslims want my head on a platter, but enough do to constantly have struggles over there.  with the release of this newest beheading, i think we need to basically recolonize the middle east.  we divide up the countries from turkey to iraq, which then means we have a solid oil source not dependent on russia, palestine and israel are forced to share space and live peacefully,  radical islam  is for the most part stamped out and frowned upon, and the young people of those states can now grow up in a stabilized home where they can develop other skills besides learning guerrilla warfare.  the only downside i see with this is russia stepping in, but i am sure there is a solution to be found.   #  i find myself thinking that the middle east has had 0 years to decide who they as a culture want to be.   #  the middle east is not one monolithic block that decides to be one thing or the other.   #  it is absolutely not a healthy view, nor one that really solves anything.  the middle east is not one monolithic block that decides to be one thing or the other.  additionally, it is not as if these last 0 years have been completely up to them.  let is look at the middle east countries, particularly the trouble regions.  bahrain: a british protectorate till 0 egypt: british until 0, suez crisis invasion from israel, britain, and france in 0 iran: briefly russian occupied in 0, partly british occupied from wwi 0, allied invasion of iran in 0, us overthrow of mohammad mosaddegh in 0 iraq: british until 0, british invasion of iraq in 0, us invasion of iraq in 0 lebanon: french until 0 palestine: this one is. complicated, to say the least syria: french rule of one form or the other until 0 simply put, the west has a pretty active history of involving itself in middle eastern affairs.  the overwhelming, vast majority of arab muslims both do not give a damn in the world about you but would still not like to see innocent people viciously beheaded.  know that it is actually the arabs who suffer the brunt of extremist violence and terrorism.  ignoring the absurdly phenomenal cost of such a proposition, realize that doing so would simply validate the extremists in the region and exacerbate the terrorist threat to far new highs we have yet to see.  our recent nearly a decade long foray into iraq, while it was not an occupation, should be proof enough as to why a prolonged stay ca not and wo not bring out the results you are trying to seek.  other western nations can, i am sure, figure out cheaper and more reasonable options than militarily engaging and invading 0 countries.  we saw in iraq that our involvement can often strengthen extremism more than deter it.   #  firearms and manufactured equipment vs hand made bows, arrows, and melee weapons.   #  just to add to this, the colonists didnt just outgun native populations, the very  nature  of the weapons colonists had were different.  firearms and manufactured equipment vs hand made bows, arrows, and melee weapons.  for example, the pukara de quitor was a fort in what is now northern chile, built onto a 0 foot hill and was manned by 0 men.  the spanish conquistadors conquered it with less than 0 men on horseback, while losing like 0 people.  at least that was what i remember from the tour .   #  the current regional trend of a more extreme version of islam is also a recent advent.   #  how familiar are you with the history of the countries you are so swiftly dismissing as essentially  unfit to lead themselves ?   many of the countries in the middle east and africa are former colonies, and have only had the  0 years  you mention to try and bounce back from colonial rule.  surely that is not a fair starting point.  also, your view tends to ignore the fact that the western world plunged the globe into two horrendous wars within this last 0 years over equally childish reasons as current sectarian arab conflicts.  you ca not look at current extreme minorities and reclassify an entire region of the globe to their views while simultaneously putting on blinders to the war and genocide propagated by the  other  side.  the current regional trend of a more extreme version of islam is also a recent advent.  read this summary of the wahhabi movement URL and you will see that the version of islam we see today does not reflect the historical version very well.  in 0 years we may very well be able to look back and say:  boy, is not that crazy that from the 0 is to the 0 is a huge portion of the arab world ascribed to that crazy version of islam ?   finally, your premise about us somehow having the intrinsic authority to regulate people across the world bothers me.  that we i am assuming you are from the us get to decide that because the middle east has not eliminated their violent minority we get to subjugate them all.  this is exactly what isis is after.  their mission statement would be the same sentence except with the words  middle east  and  eliminated their violent minority  replaced with  rest of the world  and  adopted strict sharia law.    #  i do not propose we police the entire world, but when group after group rises up to state their intentions of destroying the western world, i kind of get fed up with being politically correct.   #  the intrinsic authority comes from being morally superior.  how do you think people in the west would react if a violent christian cult started beheading and crucifying muslims and other christians who did not practice the same faith ? i do not propose we police the entire world, but when group after group rises up to state their intentions of destroying the western world, i kind of get fed up with being politically correct.  i am outraged that people would behead journalists and foreign aid workers and put them on the internet to cause terror in their enemies.  i am outraged that when capturing a city of new iraqi army recruits, they promise to spare them and instead end up murdering over 0,0 of them.  i am outraged that this group trapped 0,0 people atop a mountain and crucified children.  there is not an excuse that you can come up with to say that leaving this group/ideology to flourish is an acceptable course of action.   #  even if you did find the authority to take over the region, all historical evidence points to the fact that occupation never works in the long run, and it would just make the problem worse.   #  you ca not claim moral superiority over an entire region simple because they have extremist elements.  should all americans be compared to kkk members simply because we have not eliminated their influence ? in fact, you ca not simply assert a moral authority period.  even though i agree with you that most people on earth are morally superior to members of isis, it still does not make moral superiority an objective value.  the spanish exterminated and enslaved millions of indigenous south americans on the basis of moral superiority.  it is always relative.  it seems that you are justifiably angry with muslim extremists, but that does not provide justification to subjugate the entire middle east.  it merely provides some justification for military action against the extremists.  even if you did find the authority to take over the region, all historical evidence points to the fact that occupation never works in the long run, and it would just make the problem worse.
it is probably not a healthy view or a popular one, but with the rise of isis i find myself thinking that the middle east has had 0 years to decide who they as a culture want to be.  now we have sayings like  that will happen as soon as there is peace in the middle east  to say something is impossible.  i am struggling with racist tendencies.  racist might not be the right word, maybe its a combination of theologism i do not think that is a word, but you know that i mean and racism.  i understand that not all arabic muslims want my head on a platter, but enough do to constantly have struggles over there.  with the release of this newest beheading, i think we need to basically recolonize the middle east.  we divide up the countries from turkey to iraq, which then means we have a solid oil source not dependent on russia, palestine and israel are forced to share space and live peacefully,  radical islam  is for the most part stamped out and frowned upon, and the young people of those states can now grow up in a stabilized home where they can develop other skills besides learning guerrilla warfare.  the only downside i see with this is russia stepping in, but i am sure there is a solution to be found.   #  i understand that not all arabic muslims want my head on a platter, but enough do to constantly have struggles over there.   #  the overwhelming, vast majority of arab muslims both do not give a damn in the world about you but would still not like to see innocent people viciously beheaded.   #  it is absolutely not a healthy view, nor one that really solves anything.  the middle east is not one monolithic block that decides to be one thing or the other.  additionally, it is not as if these last 0 years have been completely up to them.  let is look at the middle east countries, particularly the trouble regions.  bahrain: a british protectorate till 0 egypt: british until 0, suez crisis invasion from israel, britain, and france in 0 iran: briefly russian occupied in 0, partly british occupied from wwi 0, allied invasion of iran in 0, us overthrow of mohammad mosaddegh in 0 iraq: british until 0, british invasion of iraq in 0, us invasion of iraq in 0 lebanon: french until 0 palestine: this one is. complicated, to say the least syria: french rule of one form or the other until 0 simply put, the west has a pretty active history of involving itself in middle eastern affairs.  the overwhelming, vast majority of arab muslims both do not give a damn in the world about you but would still not like to see innocent people viciously beheaded.  know that it is actually the arabs who suffer the brunt of extremist violence and terrorism.  ignoring the absurdly phenomenal cost of such a proposition, realize that doing so would simply validate the extremists in the region and exacerbate the terrorist threat to far new highs we have yet to see.  our recent nearly a decade long foray into iraq, while it was not an occupation, should be proof enough as to why a prolonged stay ca not and wo not bring out the results you are trying to seek.  other western nations can, i am sure, figure out cheaper and more reasonable options than militarily engaging and invading 0 countries.  we saw in iraq that our involvement can often strengthen extremism more than deter it.   #  firearms and manufactured equipment vs hand made bows, arrows, and melee weapons.   #  just to add to this, the colonists didnt just outgun native populations, the very  nature  of the weapons colonists had were different.  firearms and manufactured equipment vs hand made bows, arrows, and melee weapons.  for example, the pukara de quitor was a fort in what is now northern chile, built onto a 0 foot hill and was manned by 0 men.  the spanish conquistadors conquered it with less than 0 men on horseback, while losing like 0 people.  at least that was what i remember from the tour .   #  how familiar are you with the history of the countries you are so swiftly dismissing as essentially  unfit to lead themselves ?    #  how familiar are you with the history of the countries you are so swiftly dismissing as essentially  unfit to lead themselves ?   many of the countries in the middle east and africa are former colonies, and have only had the  0 years  you mention to try and bounce back from colonial rule.  surely that is not a fair starting point.  also, your view tends to ignore the fact that the western world plunged the globe into two horrendous wars within this last 0 years over equally childish reasons as current sectarian arab conflicts.  you ca not look at current extreme minorities and reclassify an entire region of the globe to their views while simultaneously putting on blinders to the war and genocide propagated by the  other  side.  the current regional trend of a more extreme version of islam is also a recent advent.  read this summary of the wahhabi movement URL and you will see that the version of islam we see today does not reflect the historical version very well.  in 0 years we may very well be able to look back and say:  boy, is not that crazy that from the 0 is to the 0 is a huge portion of the arab world ascribed to that crazy version of islam ?   finally, your premise about us somehow having the intrinsic authority to regulate people across the world bothers me.  that we i am assuming you are from the us get to decide that because the middle east has not eliminated their violent minority we get to subjugate them all.  this is exactly what isis is after.  their mission statement would be the same sentence except with the words  middle east  and  eliminated their violent minority  replaced with  rest of the world  and  adopted strict sharia law.    #  i do not propose we police the entire world, but when group after group rises up to state their intentions of destroying the western world, i kind of get fed up with being politically correct.   #  the intrinsic authority comes from being morally superior.  how do you think people in the west would react if a violent christian cult started beheading and crucifying muslims and other christians who did not practice the same faith ? i do not propose we police the entire world, but when group after group rises up to state their intentions of destroying the western world, i kind of get fed up with being politically correct.  i am outraged that people would behead journalists and foreign aid workers and put them on the internet to cause terror in their enemies.  i am outraged that when capturing a city of new iraqi army recruits, they promise to spare them and instead end up murdering over 0,0 of them.  i am outraged that this group trapped 0,0 people atop a mountain and crucified children.  there is not an excuse that you can come up with to say that leaving this group/ideology to flourish is an acceptable course of action.   #  you ca not claim moral superiority over an entire region simple because they have extremist elements.   #  you ca not claim moral superiority over an entire region simple because they have extremist elements.  should all americans be compared to kkk members simply because we have not eliminated their influence ? in fact, you ca not simply assert a moral authority period.  even though i agree with you that most people on earth are morally superior to members of isis, it still does not make moral superiority an objective value.  the spanish exterminated and enslaved millions of indigenous south americans on the basis of moral superiority.  it is always relative.  it seems that you are justifiably angry with muslim extremists, but that does not provide justification to subjugate the entire middle east.  it merely provides some justification for military action against the extremists.  even if you did find the authority to take over the region, all historical evidence points to the fact that occupation never works in the long run, and it would just make the problem worse.
it is probably not a healthy view or a popular one, but with the rise of isis i find myself thinking that the middle east has had 0 years to decide who they as a culture want to be.  now we have sayings like  that will happen as soon as there is peace in the middle east  to say something is impossible.  i am struggling with racist tendencies.  racist might not be the right word, maybe its a combination of theologism i do not think that is a word, but you know that i mean and racism.  i understand that not all arabic muslims want my head on a platter, but enough do to constantly have struggles over there.  with the release of this newest beheading, i think we need to basically recolonize the middle east.  we divide up the countries from turkey to iraq, which then means we have a solid oil source not dependent on russia, palestine and israel are forced to share space and live peacefully,  radical islam  is for the most part stamped out and frowned upon, and the young people of those states can now grow up in a stabilized home where they can develop other skills besides learning guerrilla warfare.  the only downside i see with this is russia stepping in, but i am sure there is a solution to be found.   #  i think we need to basically recolonize the middle east.   #  ignoring the absurdly phenomenal cost of such a proposition, realize that doing so would simply validate the extremists in the region and exacerbate the terrorist threat to far new highs we have yet to see.   #  it is absolutely not a healthy view, nor one that really solves anything.  the middle east is not one monolithic block that decides to be one thing or the other.  additionally, it is not as if these last 0 years have been completely up to them.  let is look at the middle east countries, particularly the trouble regions.  bahrain: a british protectorate till 0 egypt: british until 0, suez crisis invasion from israel, britain, and france in 0 iran: briefly russian occupied in 0, partly british occupied from wwi 0, allied invasion of iran in 0, us overthrow of mohammad mosaddegh in 0 iraq: british until 0, british invasion of iraq in 0, us invasion of iraq in 0 lebanon: french until 0 palestine: this one is. complicated, to say the least syria: french rule of one form or the other until 0 simply put, the west has a pretty active history of involving itself in middle eastern affairs.  the overwhelming, vast majority of arab muslims both do not give a damn in the world about you but would still not like to see innocent people viciously beheaded.  know that it is actually the arabs who suffer the brunt of extremist violence and terrorism.  ignoring the absurdly phenomenal cost of such a proposition, realize that doing so would simply validate the extremists in the region and exacerbate the terrorist threat to far new highs we have yet to see.  our recent nearly a decade long foray into iraq, while it was not an occupation, should be proof enough as to why a prolonged stay ca not and wo not bring out the results you are trying to seek.  other western nations can, i am sure, figure out cheaper and more reasonable options than militarily engaging and invading 0 countries.  we saw in iraq that our involvement can often strengthen extremism more than deter it.   #  the spanish conquistadors conquered it with less than 0 men on horseback, while losing like 0 people.   #  just to add to this, the colonists didnt just outgun native populations, the very  nature  of the weapons colonists had were different.  firearms and manufactured equipment vs hand made bows, arrows, and melee weapons.  for example, the pukara de quitor was a fort in what is now northern chile, built onto a 0 foot hill and was manned by 0 men.  the spanish conquistadors conquered it with less than 0 men on horseback, while losing like 0 people.  at least that was what i remember from the tour .   #  many of the countries in the middle east and africa are former colonies, and have only had the  0 years  you mention to try and bounce back from colonial rule.   #  how familiar are you with the history of the countries you are so swiftly dismissing as essentially  unfit to lead themselves ?   many of the countries in the middle east and africa are former colonies, and have only had the  0 years  you mention to try and bounce back from colonial rule.  surely that is not a fair starting point.  also, your view tends to ignore the fact that the western world plunged the globe into two horrendous wars within this last 0 years over equally childish reasons as current sectarian arab conflicts.  you ca not look at current extreme minorities and reclassify an entire region of the globe to their views while simultaneously putting on blinders to the war and genocide propagated by the  other  side.  the current regional trend of a more extreme version of islam is also a recent advent.  read this summary of the wahhabi movement URL and you will see that the version of islam we see today does not reflect the historical version very well.  in 0 years we may very well be able to look back and say:  boy, is not that crazy that from the 0 is to the 0 is a huge portion of the arab world ascribed to that crazy version of islam ?   finally, your premise about us somehow having the intrinsic authority to regulate people across the world bothers me.  that we i am assuming you are from the us get to decide that because the middle east has not eliminated their violent minority we get to subjugate them all.  this is exactly what isis is after.  their mission statement would be the same sentence except with the words  middle east  and  eliminated their violent minority  replaced with  rest of the world  and  adopted strict sharia law.    #  i do not propose we police the entire world, but when group after group rises up to state their intentions of destroying the western world, i kind of get fed up with being politically correct.   #  the intrinsic authority comes from being morally superior.  how do you think people in the west would react if a violent christian cult started beheading and crucifying muslims and other christians who did not practice the same faith ? i do not propose we police the entire world, but when group after group rises up to state their intentions of destroying the western world, i kind of get fed up with being politically correct.  i am outraged that people would behead journalists and foreign aid workers and put them on the internet to cause terror in their enemies.  i am outraged that when capturing a city of new iraqi army recruits, they promise to spare them and instead end up murdering over 0,0 of them.  i am outraged that this group trapped 0,0 people atop a mountain and crucified children.  there is not an excuse that you can come up with to say that leaving this group/ideology to flourish is an acceptable course of action.   #  the spanish exterminated and enslaved millions of indigenous south americans on the basis of moral superiority.   #  you ca not claim moral superiority over an entire region simple because they have extremist elements.  should all americans be compared to kkk members simply because we have not eliminated their influence ? in fact, you ca not simply assert a moral authority period.  even though i agree with you that most people on earth are morally superior to members of isis, it still does not make moral superiority an objective value.  the spanish exterminated and enslaved millions of indigenous south americans on the basis of moral superiority.  it is always relative.  it seems that you are justifiably angry with muslim extremists, but that does not provide justification to subjugate the entire middle east.  it merely provides some justification for military action against the extremists.  even if you did find the authority to take over the region, all historical evidence points to the fact that occupation never works in the long run, and it would just make the problem worse.
it is probably not a healthy view or a popular one, but with the rise of isis i find myself thinking that the middle east has had 0 years to decide who they as a culture want to be.  now we have sayings like  that will happen as soon as there is peace in the middle east  to say something is impossible.  i am struggling with racist tendencies.  racist might not be the right word, maybe its a combination of theologism i do not think that is a word, but you know that i mean and racism.  i understand that not all arabic muslims want my head on a platter, but enough do to constantly have struggles over there.  with the release of this newest beheading, i think we need to basically recolonize the middle east.  we divide up the countries from turkey to iraq, which then means we have a solid oil source not dependent on russia, palestine and israel are forced to share space and live peacefully,  radical islam  is for the most part stamped out and frowned upon, and the young people of those states can now grow up in a stabilized home where they can develop other skills besides learning guerrilla warfare.  the only downside i see with this is russia stepping in, but i am sure there is a solution to be found.   #  i find myself thinking that the middle east has had 0 years to decide who they as a culture want to be.   #  they had 0 years prior to the 0th century to do just that and they were doing okay until the discovery of massive oil reserves piqued the west is interests and we began sticking our noses in their affairs.   # they had 0 years prior to the 0th century to do just that and they were doing okay until the discovery of massive oil reserves piqued the west is interests and we began sticking our noses in their affairs.  combine that with the fact that different western nations have backed different countries at different times the us backed iraq in the iran iraq war and the mujahideen in afghanistan when the ussr invaded and any attempts at deciding  who they as a culture are  will constantly be disrupted.  also.   who they as a culture want to be depending on how you define it, the middle east has 0 countries, over 0,0,0 people speaking at least 0 languages, and comprising all of the three abrahamic faiths plus a small number of adherents to other religions .  how can one reasonably expect this large and diverse a group to come to a consensus on something like a single uniform culture ? not even the eastern united states which is smaller both geographically and in population has a consistent culture.  and we all speak the same language.  dividing up the middle east would not suddenly make the oil fields disappear.  and the majority us i am assuming you are american oil imports come from the western hemisphere canada, mexico, and venezuela being the primary sources.  which will cost a lot of money.  and lives.   #  it is absolutely not a healthy view, nor one that really solves anything.   #  it is absolutely not a healthy view, nor one that really solves anything.  the middle east is not one monolithic block that decides to be one thing or the other.  additionally, it is not as if these last 0 years have been completely up to them.  let is look at the middle east countries, particularly the trouble regions.  bahrain: a british protectorate till 0 egypt: british until 0, suez crisis invasion from israel, britain, and france in 0 iran: briefly russian occupied in 0, partly british occupied from wwi 0, allied invasion of iran in 0, us overthrow of mohammad mosaddegh in 0 iraq: british until 0, british invasion of iraq in 0, us invasion of iraq in 0 lebanon: french until 0 palestine: this one is. complicated, to say the least syria: french rule of one form or the other until 0 simply put, the west has a pretty active history of involving itself in middle eastern affairs.  the overwhelming, vast majority of arab muslims both do not give a damn in the world about you but would still not like to see innocent people viciously beheaded.  know that it is actually the arabs who suffer the brunt of extremist violence and terrorism.  ignoring the absurdly phenomenal cost of such a proposition, realize that doing so would simply validate the extremists in the region and exacerbate the terrorist threat to far new highs we have yet to see.  our recent nearly a decade long foray into iraq, while it was not an occupation, should be proof enough as to why a prolonged stay ca not and wo not bring out the results you are trying to seek.  other western nations can, i am sure, figure out cheaper and more reasonable options than militarily engaging and invading 0 countries.  we saw in iraq that our involvement can often strengthen extremism more than deter it.   #  for example, the pukara de quitor was a fort in what is now northern chile, built onto a 0 foot hill and was manned by 0 men.   #  just to add to this, the colonists didnt just outgun native populations, the very  nature  of the weapons colonists had were different.  firearms and manufactured equipment vs hand made bows, arrows, and melee weapons.  for example, the pukara de quitor was a fort in what is now northern chile, built onto a 0 foot hill and was manned by 0 men.  the spanish conquistadors conquered it with less than 0 men on horseback, while losing like 0 people.  at least that was what i remember from the tour .   #  in 0 years we may very well be able to look back and say:  boy, is not that crazy that from the 0 is to the 0 is a huge portion of the arab world ascribed to that crazy version of islam ?    #  how familiar are you with the history of the countries you are so swiftly dismissing as essentially  unfit to lead themselves ?   many of the countries in the middle east and africa are former colonies, and have only had the  0 years  you mention to try and bounce back from colonial rule.  surely that is not a fair starting point.  also, your view tends to ignore the fact that the western world plunged the globe into two horrendous wars within this last 0 years over equally childish reasons as current sectarian arab conflicts.  you ca not look at current extreme minorities and reclassify an entire region of the globe to their views while simultaneously putting on blinders to the war and genocide propagated by the  other  side.  the current regional trend of a more extreme version of islam is also a recent advent.  read this summary of the wahhabi movement URL and you will see that the version of islam we see today does not reflect the historical version very well.  in 0 years we may very well be able to look back and say:  boy, is not that crazy that from the 0 is to the 0 is a huge portion of the arab world ascribed to that crazy version of islam ?   finally, your premise about us somehow having the intrinsic authority to regulate people across the world bothers me.  that we i am assuming you are from the us get to decide that because the middle east has not eliminated their violent minority we get to subjugate them all.  this is exactly what isis is after.  their mission statement would be the same sentence except with the words  middle east  and  eliminated their violent minority  replaced with  rest of the world  and  adopted strict sharia law.    #  the intrinsic authority comes from being morally superior.   #  the intrinsic authority comes from being morally superior.  how do you think people in the west would react if a violent christian cult started beheading and crucifying muslims and other christians who did not practice the same faith ? i do not propose we police the entire world, but when group after group rises up to state their intentions of destroying the western world, i kind of get fed up with being politically correct.  i am outraged that people would behead journalists and foreign aid workers and put them on the internet to cause terror in their enemies.  i am outraged that when capturing a city of new iraqi army recruits, they promise to spare them and instead end up murdering over 0,0 of them.  i am outraged that this group trapped 0,0 people atop a mountain and crucified children.  there is not an excuse that you can come up with to say that leaving this group/ideology to flourish is an acceptable course of action.
so i heard an interesting opinion about the ray rice situation, so he assaulted his fiance, and when the video of that got leaked, public outrage caused him to be suspended from the nfl permanently.  the opinion i heard was: if ray rice attacked a man instead, would he get the same reaction and public outrage ? of course not, but that makes sense, and i discarded that opinion quickly, but than the person continued on to say that if he assaulted a man, and the man forgave him, would he still get the same reaction ? would the man get called out on being wrong and weak for forgiving him ? i am not so sure about the other point, do you think it is ok for women to still consider a relationship with a man who showed violence to them even once ? for those who do not know, ray rice is fiance forgave him and they are getting married.   #  i am not so sure about the other point, do you think it is ok for women to still consider a relationship with a man who showed violence to them even once ?  #  yes, because other people is relationships are none of my business.   # yes, because other people is relationships are none of my business.  unlikely relationships can really shine, and some relationships are on and off until both parties are mature enough to really  get  each other.  i am not the authority on other people is relationships, and more pertinently; i do not think a person is relationships matter to me all that much, not to the point where i would say anything or do something about it.  i would ask yourself why does it matter to you ? what are you really wanting to say ? this cmv feels like it is one step removed from the real question you have.   #  had rice faced serious penalty from the get go, people would have far less of an issue with the nfl is position on the controversy.   #  well, if evidence to the extent of the tape tmz obtained existed that ray lewis killed a man, he would be serving life in prison at best.  consider the fact that, had that tape not surfaced, rice is suspension would already be over.  also consider the fact that, and i say this as a very heavy hearted panthers fan, greg hardy beat the crap out of his girlfriend over the offseason and has seen no punishment whatsoever.  arguably more importantly, according the the ap, the nfl had seen the elevator tape, and responded with a two game suspension.  had rice faced serious penalty from the get go, people would have far less of an issue with the nfl is position on the controversy.   #  justin bieber , but you ca not assume that every man he might possibly punch is a  known asshole  by default.   # what if he were to haul off and punch a waiter because the bartender messed up his drink order ? for that matter, would it make a difference to you whether the waiter was a man or a woman ? is it the fact that it was an intimate partner rather than an acquaintance/friend/stranger that is the issue ? if so, would it make a difference to you if it were a boyfriend or girlfriend ? are you sure his girlfriend  is not  a  known asshole  ? sure, the public might be fine with someone assaulting a  known asshole  see: orlando bloom vs.  justin bieber , but you ca not assume that every man he might possibly punch is a  known asshole  by default.   #  there are various extents of physical and mental abuse and people can learn from their mistakes and be better for it of course, this is not always true .   #  one mistake might not be substantial enough to negate the other, not mistakes of a relationship.  relationships are complex and varied.  there are various extents of physical and mental abuse and people can learn from their mistakes and be better for it of course, this is not always true .  really, your statement is very often true assuming  wrong  means something like  not the best option for you available  , but sometimes it is not.  sometimes, like clairebones brought up,  right  and  wrong  are complex, blurry, or just not real.  is the abused person  wrong  when they are being manipulated by their partner, or is the abusive partner ? just curious do you believe it is any different when a woman abuses a man ? this is not particularly relevant, but it might help to know.   #  what usually is happening in a man hitting a woman domestic type situation is that a guy looses control over his emotions, lets anger control him, and as a result of that a woman is hit.   #  break it down into its basic parts.  what usually is happening in a man hitting a woman domestic type situation is that a guy looses control over his emotions, lets anger control him, and as a result of that a woman is hit.  can a person learn how to control their emotions ? if someone puts forth the effort to make that change in themselves to gain that control because they realize that the resulting actions are their own fault and they learn that control so they do not make that same mistake again is that deserving of forgiveness ? what exactly does forgiveness mean ? according to wikipedia forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well.  forgiveness is different from condoning failing to see the action as wrong and in need of forgiveness , excusing not holding the offender as responsible for the action , pardoning granted by a representative of society, such as a judge , forgetting removing awareness of the offense from consciousness , and reconciliation restoration of a relationship .  with that defined then is it wrong for a woman to  undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well  to a man who abused her once ? i would say no it is not i would also say that it is healthy to forgive people who have done worse things to you than just hitting you once.  when you harbor negative feelings towards someone, even if they deserve it you are giving that person who did those things to you power over you.  your allowing them to taint who you are with negative emotions and feelings that are not who you are.  why would it be wrong to forgive ?
so i heard an interesting opinion about the ray rice situation, so he assaulted his fiance, and when the video of that got leaked, public outrage caused him to be suspended from the nfl permanently.  the opinion i heard was: if ray rice attacked a man instead, would he get the same reaction and public outrage ? of course not, but that makes sense, and i discarded that opinion quickly, but than the person continued on to say that if he assaulted a man, and the man forgave him, would he still get the same reaction ? would the man get called out on being wrong and weak for forgiving him ? i am not so sure about the other point, do you think it is ok for women to still consider a relationship with a man who showed violence to them even once ? for those who do not know, ray rice is fiance forgave him and they are getting married.   #  so i heard an interesting opinion about the ray rice situation, so he assaulted his fiance, and when the video of that got leaked, public outrage caused him to be suspended from the nfl permanently.   #  he is not suspended permanently, he is suspended indefinitely.   # he is not suspended permanently, he is suspended indefinitely.  permanent means he ca not come back ever, indefinitely means they simply have not decided how long to suspend him for.  he will more than likely  suspended  for 0 games this year, but no team is going to touch him till probably next season.  i have no doubt though, he will be back in the nfl at some point.   nbsp;  the opinion i heard was: if ray rice attacked a man instead, would he get the same reaction and public outrage ? of course not, but that makes sense, and i discarded that opinion quickly, so you are only outraged by gross displays of violence when their directed at women ?  nbsp;  but than the person continued on to say that if he assaulted a man, and the man forgave him, would he still get the same reaction ? the problem with this view is that you are equating  domestic violence  with random violent acts.  domestic violence is every bit as much a psychological assault as it is physical because it attacks not only the body, but the victims perceptions of reality.  you do not view your significant other as someone whom you should fear if you did, you would not be with them in the first place.  so victims are usually quick to rationalize the behavior and forgive their abuser because they do not want to believe that they themselves could have been so wrong about someone they have come to love.  couple this with the fact that most abusers are usually contrite and promise that the behavior was an aberration a one time occurrence, never to be repeated.  this helps the victim rationalize even further, and makes them more willing to forgive and forget.  the problem is, that it is rarely ever a  one time thine , and more often is the beginning of a long term pattern of abuse.   nbsp;  i am not so sure about the other point, do you think it is ok for women to still consider a relationship with a man who showed violence to them even once ? that is something that is unique to every individual situation, there is not one size fits all standard.   nbsp;  for those who do not know, ray rice is fiance forgave him and they are getting married.  ray rice and his fiance got married a month after this happened.  they have been married going on 0 months.   #  had rice faced serious penalty from the get go, people would have far less of an issue with the nfl is position on the controversy.   #  well, if evidence to the extent of the tape tmz obtained existed that ray lewis killed a man, he would be serving life in prison at best.  consider the fact that, had that tape not surfaced, rice is suspension would already be over.  also consider the fact that, and i say this as a very heavy hearted panthers fan, greg hardy beat the crap out of his girlfriend over the offseason and has seen no punishment whatsoever.  arguably more importantly, according the the ap, the nfl had seen the elevator tape, and responded with a two game suspension.  had rice faced serious penalty from the get go, people would have far less of an issue with the nfl is position on the controversy.   #  for that matter, would it make a difference to you whether the waiter was a man or a woman ?  # what if he were to haul off and punch a waiter because the bartender messed up his drink order ? for that matter, would it make a difference to you whether the waiter was a man or a woman ? is it the fact that it was an intimate partner rather than an acquaintance/friend/stranger that is the issue ? if so, would it make a difference to you if it were a boyfriend or girlfriend ? are you sure his girlfriend  is not  a  known asshole  ? sure, the public might be fine with someone assaulting a  known asshole  see: orlando bloom vs.  justin bieber , but you ca not assume that every man he might possibly punch is a  known asshole  by default.   #  this is not particularly relevant, but it might help to know.   #  one mistake might not be substantial enough to negate the other, not mistakes of a relationship.  relationships are complex and varied.  there are various extents of physical and mental abuse and people can learn from their mistakes and be better for it of course, this is not always true .  really, your statement is very often true assuming  wrong  means something like  not the best option for you available  , but sometimes it is not.  sometimes, like clairebones brought up,  right  and  wrong  are complex, blurry, or just not real.  is the abused person  wrong  when they are being manipulated by their partner, or is the abusive partner ? just curious do you believe it is any different when a woman abuses a man ? this is not particularly relevant, but it might help to know.   #  what usually is happening in a man hitting a woman domestic type situation is that a guy looses control over his emotions, lets anger control him, and as a result of that a woman is hit.   #  break it down into its basic parts.  what usually is happening in a man hitting a woman domestic type situation is that a guy looses control over his emotions, lets anger control him, and as a result of that a woman is hit.  can a person learn how to control their emotions ? if someone puts forth the effort to make that change in themselves to gain that control because they realize that the resulting actions are their own fault and they learn that control so they do not make that same mistake again is that deserving of forgiveness ? what exactly does forgiveness mean ? according to wikipedia forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well.  forgiveness is different from condoning failing to see the action as wrong and in need of forgiveness , excusing not holding the offender as responsible for the action , pardoning granted by a representative of society, such as a judge , forgetting removing awareness of the offense from consciousness , and reconciliation restoration of a relationship .  with that defined then is it wrong for a woman to  undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well  to a man who abused her once ? i would say no it is not i would also say that it is healthy to forgive people who have done worse things to you than just hitting you once.  when you harbor negative feelings towards someone, even if they deserve it you are giving that person who did those things to you power over you.  your allowing them to taint who you are with negative emotions and feelings that are not who you are.  why would it be wrong to forgive ?
so i heard an interesting opinion about the ray rice situation, so he assaulted his fiance, and when the video of that got leaked, public outrage caused him to be suspended from the nfl permanently.  the opinion i heard was: if ray rice attacked a man instead, would he get the same reaction and public outrage ? of course not, but that makes sense, and i discarded that opinion quickly, but than the person continued on to say that if he assaulted a man, and the man forgave him, would he still get the same reaction ? would the man get called out on being wrong and weak for forgiving him ? i am not so sure about the other point, do you think it is ok for women to still consider a relationship with a man who showed violence to them even once ? for those who do not know, ray rice is fiance forgave him and they are getting married.   #  would the man get called out on being wrong and weak for forgiving him ?  #  the problem with this view is that you are equating  domestic violence  with random violent acts.   # he is not suspended permanently, he is suspended indefinitely.  permanent means he ca not come back ever, indefinitely means they simply have not decided how long to suspend him for.  he will more than likely  suspended  for 0 games this year, but no team is going to touch him till probably next season.  i have no doubt though, he will be back in the nfl at some point.   nbsp;  the opinion i heard was: if ray rice attacked a man instead, would he get the same reaction and public outrage ? of course not, but that makes sense, and i discarded that opinion quickly, so you are only outraged by gross displays of violence when their directed at women ?  nbsp;  but than the person continued on to say that if he assaulted a man, and the man forgave him, would he still get the same reaction ? the problem with this view is that you are equating  domestic violence  with random violent acts.  domestic violence is every bit as much a psychological assault as it is physical because it attacks not only the body, but the victims perceptions of reality.  you do not view your significant other as someone whom you should fear if you did, you would not be with them in the first place.  so victims are usually quick to rationalize the behavior and forgive their abuser because they do not want to believe that they themselves could have been so wrong about someone they have come to love.  couple this with the fact that most abusers are usually contrite and promise that the behavior was an aberration a one time occurrence, never to be repeated.  this helps the victim rationalize even further, and makes them more willing to forgive and forget.  the problem is, that it is rarely ever a  one time thine , and more often is the beginning of a long term pattern of abuse.   nbsp;  i am not so sure about the other point, do you think it is ok for women to still consider a relationship with a man who showed violence to them even once ? that is something that is unique to every individual situation, there is not one size fits all standard.   nbsp;  for those who do not know, ray rice is fiance forgave him and they are getting married.  ray rice and his fiance got married a month after this happened.  they have been married going on 0 months.   #  well, if evidence to the extent of the tape tmz obtained existed that ray lewis killed a man, he would be serving life in prison at best.   #  well, if evidence to the extent of the tape tmz obtained existed that ray lewis killed a man, he would be serving life in prison at best.  consider the fact that, had that tape not surfaced, rice is suspension would already be over.  also consider the fact that, and i say this as a very heavy hearted panthers fan, greg hardy beat the crap out of his girlfriend over the offseason and has seen no punishment whatsoever.  arguably more importantly, according the the ap, the nfl had seen the elevator tape, and responded with a two game suspension.  had rice faced serious penalty from the get go, people would have far less of an issue with the nfl is position on the controversy.   #  justin bieber , but you ca not assume that every man he might possibly punch is a  known asshole  by default.   # what if he were to haul off and punch a waiter because the bartender messed up his drink order ? for that matter, would it make a difference to you whether the waiter was a man or a woman ? is it the fact that it was an intimate partner rather than an acquaintance/friend/stranger that is the issue ? if so, would it make a difference to you if it were a boyfriend or girlfriend ? are you sure his girlfriend  is not  a  known asshole  ? sure, the public might be fine with someone assaulting a  known asshole  see: orlando bloom vs.  justin bieber , but you ca not assume that every man he might possibly punch is a  known asshole  by default.   #  really, your statement is very often true assuming  wrong  means something like  not the best option for you available  , but sometimes it is not.   #  one mistake might not be substantial enough to negate the other, not mistakes of a relationship.  relationships are complex and varied.  there are various extents of physical and mental abuse and people can learn from their mistakes and be better for it of course, this is not always true .  really, your statement is very often true assuming  wrong  means something like  not the best option for you available  , but sometimes it is not.  sometimes, like clairebones brought up,  right  and  wrong  are complex, blurry, or just not real.  is the abused person  wrong  when they are being manipulated by their partner, or is the abusive partner ? just curious do you believe it is any different when a woman abuses a man ? this is not particularly relevant, but it might help to know.   #  i would say no it is not i would also say that it is healthy to forgive people who have done worse things to you than just hitting you once.   #  break it down into its basic parts.  what usually is happening in a man hitting a woman domestic type situation is that a guy looses control over his emotions, lets anger control him, and as a result of that a woman is hit.  can a person learn how to control their emotions ? if someone puts forth the effort to make that change in themselves to gain that control because they realize that the resulting actions are their own fault and they learn that control so they do not make that same mistake again is that deserving of forgiveness ? what exactly does forgiveness mean ? according to wikipedia forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well.  forgiveness is different from condoning failing to see the action as wrong and in need of forgiveness , excusing not holding the offender as responsible for the action , pardoning granted by a representative of society, such as a judge , forgetting removing awareness of the offense from consciousness , and reconciliation restoration of a relationship .  with that defined then is it wrong for a woman to  undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well  to a man who abused her once ? i would say no it is not i would also say that it is healthy to forgive people who have done worse things to you than just hitting you once.  when you harbor negative feelings towards someone, even if they deserve it you are giving that person who did those things to you power over you.  your allowing them to taint who you are with negative emotions and feelings that are not who you are.  why would it be wrong to forgive ?
any sound ethical theory of private property must contain a way in which property may initially become owned by a specific individual.  the lockean proviso states that appropriation of unowned property i. e.  homesteading is permissible  . at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.   however, this condition appears impossible to satisfy with regards to scarce resources.  thus, any argument for the private ownership of scarce resources must either demonstrate that its theory of original appropriation satisfies the lockean proviso, or that its theory of original appropriation does not need to satisfy the lockean proviso.  i am familiar with nozick is interpretation of the proviso that the proviso is satisfied as long as long as the acquisition makes no one worse off , but even this interpretation fails to justify initial acquisition when a person claims exclusive use of a piece of property, i am always worse off than i was before due to the the fact that i am left fewer pieces of property to choose from than i had before.  furthermore, even if nozick had demonstrated that nobody was left worse off than they were before, he would not have demonstrated that nobody was left worse off than if any other course of action had been taken and i am clearly worse off than if i had claimed the piece of property for myself.  another potential assertion is that, for any given piece of property, everyone is better off for it having become privately owned.  this assertion, even if proven, would fail to demonstrate that no other initial allocation could have produced better results for anyone and if it could have, then at least one person is worse off than they would have been with a different initial allocation.  the coase theorem is not relevant here; it suggests only that a pareto efficient result will be reached under ideal conditions, not that the particular result which is reached is better than any other, equally efficient result.  obviously this is not an exhaustive argument i have not even gotten into utilitarian arguments that private ownership is the best way to allocate scarce resources because it is not a very common one , but it should outline some of the problems i have with how the lockean proviso is dealt with, or not dealt with, in theories of private ownership.   #  any sound ethical theory of private property must contain a way in which property may initially become owned by a specific individual.   #  i find it strange because this approach is, to me, too asocial.   #  there is a much deeper issue.  any ethical theory, if of any use, should be made about the real world.  the lockean proviso is not about the real world.  there is hardly any property in the world where it can be demonstrated that it came from an unbroken chain of homesteading and voluntary acquisitions.  perhaps there are about three dozen american or australian farmers who could demonstrate it, but what should we, europeans do, who have fought and killed each other for every square meter of land for a long, long time ? the result is, as far as the farms at the somme and verdun are concerned take it as a poetic metaphor , that private property is not an ethical, but a purely pragmatic concept.  it makes people work more efficiently.  this also means that the current configuration or distribution of private property is based on a social consensus.  from this, theft is unethical not because it violates a natural right, but because it violates the social consensus or contract.  i find it strange because this approach is, to me, too asocial.  you, locke, nozick and libertarians in general, try to reduce it to interactions between individuals.  why ignore society ? why ca not you say that a piece of land belongs to you because it belongs to your ancestors because society, and the king who represented it, gave it to your ancestors ? hence it is ethically yours in that society, based on the ethics of the consensus of that society, and stealing it wrong because it violates that social consensus ? of course it does not lead to universal ethics that may be an issue for you because it would mean that ethics are valid inside a given nation: another nation can simply launch a war to take that land without the need for social consensus.  this is not really a problem for me, because i use ethics to ground laws, so it is ok if it is not valid between nations, but it may be problem for you.  the whole thing is really strange.  when i watch libertarians and left wingers debate, it seems left wingers openly dislike society and social consensus or social constructs, while libertarians try to ignore them.  i do not know what should be my label, but i think people should be  loyal  to the consensus and constructs of their society.  this and this private property is a social construct,  therefore  i respect it because it was constructed by  my  society, by my  bros , by the people i am loyal to and have each others backs, because this is how we live, by these rules, and those who do not accept them are guilty of being disloyalty.  to put it differently, to me the argument that communists are  traitors  is 0 real and acceptable they show radical disloyalty to the way their society arranged property.  i would say, property originates in conquest, not homesteading, hence it is originally the collective property of the victors of wars.  then they distribute it amongst each other, as a merely pragmatic thing.  thus private property is created.  the warband becomes a nation, a society.  theft means questioning the arrangement, the consensus of the warband, hence weaking its cohesion, hence it is a form of treason.  well, that would be my pragmatic ethical theory.   #  the first is dealing with the lawful acquisition of resources, while the second is a criminal offense.   # if this is implied, it would imply a contradiction in the purely egoist theory of property rights, as you cannot both assert that something is a right, and that the violation of that right is also a right.  it would be like saying,  i have the right not to be set on fire, but you have the right to set me on fire.   not at all; it is two completely separate circumstances.  the first is dealing with the lawful acquisition of resources, while the second is a criminal offense.  for example: you are perfectly free to get a job at xyz inc.  and earn $0,0 a month, you are however, prohibited from walking in and simply stealing $0,0 from the safe.  as long as resources are obtained legally, then that satisfies the only responsibility to the community, and no other concerns moral or otherwise, are of any consequence.  locke himself recognizes that ownership is derived form labor something i completely agree with, the problem is with the caveat:  enough, and as good, left for others ; i disagree with the notion that one should have anything to do with the other.   #  if we are to forbid him from mining gold, it must be for reasons other than the lockean proviso.   #  you seem to have a pretty strict interpretation of the lockean proviso, so strict that even my loss of an opportunity counts as a loss.  written this strictly, would not it invalidate public ownership just as easily ? after all, to forbid me from homesteading deprives me of those same opportunities of homesteading if not more than jeff is choice of homestead would.  if the proviso is going to be a defense of public ownership over private ownership in a given area, it is going to have to be in an area where jeff is private ownership would deprive me of something that forbidding private ownership entirely would not.  an example of such a situation might be a public road, where jeff is private ownership would actually block me from walking whereas public ownership would not.  but a lump of gold would not be such a case: if the gold is left underground it is as useless to me as if jeff is permitted to make himself a ring with it.  if we are to forbid him from mining gold, it must be for reasons other than the lockean proviso.   #  in other words, if there is a piece of land you have mining rights to and i do not, i am worse off than if we both had mining rights to that land.   # this is in keeping with the subjective theory of value espoused by most advocates of private property.  under the subjective theory of value, any rationally derived present value will incorporate expectations of future value, discounted by time preference.  any calculation of the value of my holdings  must  incorporate the potential future value of my holdings, which is reduced as the amount of available land is reduced.  it would invalidate all forms of ownership, yes.  what you are assuming here is that an ownership model is the only possible rights based model of people is relationship with the rest of the world, which is not the case.  if we are to forbid him from mining gold, it must be for reasons other than the lockean proviso.  the problem with this line of thinking is that it is known in advance that  something  exists in a particular location underground, and that there is a nonzero chance that it is gold this implies a certain expected value for that thing, and expected value is a relevant factor in economic calculation.  in removing the gold from the ground, jeff has left in its place dirt, or air, either of which are less valuable than gold.  jeff has reduced the expected value of mining in that location, making me worse off economically if we assume i am allowed to mine in that location.  in other words, if there is a piece of land you have mining rights to and i do not, i am worse off than if we both had mining rights to that land.  if we both have mining rights to that land and you mine out some amount of the value under that land, it reduces the value of my mining rights, leaving me worse off.  either way, your mining has left me worse off.   #  if we both have mining rights to that land and you mine out some amount of the value under that land, it reduces the value of my mining rights, leaving me worse off.   # under the subjective theory of value, any rationally derived present value will incorporate expectations of future value, discounted by time preference.  any calculation of the value of my holdings must incorporate the potential future value of my holdings, which is reduced as the amount of available land is reduced.  i mostly agree.  but my point is that this is so strict a rule as to invalidate virtually any system including whatever one you favor.  what you are assuming here is that an ownership model is the only possible rights based model of people is relationship with the rest of the world, which is not the case.  prohibiting ownership would likewise reduce at least one person is wealth, no ? can you describe a non ownership model for which someone is not made worse off than if she were permitted to own that piece of land ? so i think the strict rule would invalidate the non ownership model too ? if we both have mining rights to that land and you mine out some amount of the value under that land, it reduces the value of my mining rights, leaving me worse off.  either way, your mining has left me worse off.  i agree based on your strict interpretation.  but that leaves us with the intolerable conclusion that the gold should not be mined, land should not be farmed, apples should not be picked, etc.  since this is not what locke intended, presumably a less strict interpretation was what he meant ? my claim is that we should choose an interpretation such that mining the gold does not count as a problem whereas seizing a road does.
my big problem with virtually every alien invasion scenario is that they covet our resources.  why ? if a species is advanced enough to fly interstellar spaces, they would also necessarily have to be advanced enough to live in space indefinitely.  they could easily mine asteroids and comets for all the resources they could ever need.  planets are gravity wells.  it takes a ton of energy to get back off a planet.  why waste the energy and effort of an invasion when they will just have to drag the stuff back into space ? also, if they happen to be predatory aliens that want to eat us, why go to the effort of dragging humans to space ? cloning cell samples would be far easier.  i am sorry, i just do not see it making any sense.  the only reason i can think of for an alien race to visit us is curiosity, not conquest.   #  if a species is advanced enough to fly interstellar spaces, they would also necessarily have to be advanced enough to live in space indefinitely.   #  they could easily mine asteroids and comets for all the resources they could ever need.   # they could easily mine asteroids and comets for all the resources they could ever need.  how can you possibly know this ? no human knows for sure how to make interstellar travel work.  here are some possibilities: unknown physics sci fi stuff : how to create wormholes, how to move faster than light, how to access an unknown property of space like hyperspace, etc.  how do you know this technology makes it easy to mine asteroids, if you do not even know how it works ? but more importantly, just because it is possible, does not mean it is preferred.  say warp drive exists, like star trek.  mining asteroids is no problem, thanks to transporters.  does everybody live in space ? of course not, planets are much preferred for most people, because that is what natural forces optimized us to live on.  let is say instead, the aliens use known physics: subluminal speeds.  for even nearby solar systems, this trip is going to take millennia.  if you want the original aliens to arrive, you need to put everybody into stasis somehow.  would not aliens, making an incredible journey, finally waking up, want to use this new planet that was so incredibly difficult to get to ?  #  the spores go on to produce spores like themselves, driving a simple but powerful selection process.   #  talking about aliens as having a scientific curiosity is assuming so much about life outside our solar system.  who is to say they will want to learn ? who is to say that they seek knowledge as we know it ? who is to say they will be self aware in the same way we are ? i can imagine a life form that spreads out like the spores of a dandelion, landing on resource rich planets, capable of drifting in hybernation for eons.  unguided, they make contact with planets and begin a process of growing across a world to create an additional spore factory in the aims of repeating the process.  the spores could have slight variations in their construction, defenses, and strategies similar to genetic diversity within species that we observe in nature.  the spores go on to produce spores like themselves, driving a simple but powerful selection process.  now if we assume a universe that is rich in life and because we are already assuming that aliens exist at all, i think this is fair what spores will be selected for ? probably spores that are great at fucking shit up if they land on the surface of a populated planet that is not pleased to see them there.  imagine the sophisticated defenses that could evolve in a system like this, all without any self awareness.  just matter, self organizing to create the perfect alien invaders.   #  you will be outnumbered tremendously whenever you reach a new location, and having aggressive genes will lead to your demise as you are bound to attack organisms that are stronger than you.   #  its a common fallacy to think evolution selects for virulent strains, and promotes evolution of spores/viruses that are very powerful and all consuming.  being disruptive is extremely counter productive to survival, because it means the host will be instantly aware of your presence when we you first arrive.  you will be outnumbered tremendously whenever you reach a new location, and having aggressive genes will lead to your demise as you are bound to attack organisms that are stronger than you.  you want to spread across your universe ? hop from location to location, infecting  everything ? be 0 benign.  totally harmless and under the radar.  you can colonize the galaxy without harming a fly, and by not attacking outright you wo not incur the wrath of local organisms.  it is been shown across evolution on earth.  virulence does not make your species grow faster and further for very long.  being benign and unnoticed does.   #  how does this spore colony entity make it off its original planet in the first place to become its imagined galaxy roaming form ?  #  it is interesting to imagine, but i still think this is extremely implausible.  natural selection alone is never going to get an unintelligent organism into space in the first place.  it is lazy.  the easiest, simplest way for a species to propagate/survive is generally the one that will win out.  how does this spore colony entity make it off its original planet in the first place to become its imagined galaxy roaming form ? what survival problem would the launch systems that would have eventually send the spores off the planet and into space ? initially evolve to overcome ? why would they keep developing until they are strong enough to send something out of the planet is atmosphere/gravitational field ? and how do the spores just happen to be resilient enough to not only survive in space after their accidental launch, but also be so totally dormant for the billions of years if they are getting to around light speed they will likely spend aimlessly drifting before hitting anything, that they consume none of the energy that they will need to eventually activate themselves ?  #  many of the laws of science as we know them today will be superseded in the next 0 0 years.   #  it is pretty much a given that the speed of light will be broken eventually, just not by any already explored traditional means.  people thought the earth was flat, the sun rotated around the earth etc etc.  many of the laws of science as we know them today will be superseded in the next 0 0 years.  aliens could very easily assume that we will be a threat to them in future, and wipe us out now while it is easy.  there will be a huge evolutionary gap between us and species that have mastered interstellar travel.  we will be like ants or rats to them.  wiping us out as a precautionary measure especially if they have been burnt by another species they gave a pass to in the past will be an easy decision.
note: this is only in a sense for  governmental  texts, documents, addresses.  for things of emergency safety/health of course that can be excluded.  also for those physically incapable of speaking/learning english i would like english to be the official national language since it was chosen by our forefathers since the nation is birth as the de facto national language, but not as the official language.  a national language helps bind national unity.  english is taught in all to my knowledge public schools in the us.  a national language is helpful so everyone can understand each other, and work more well together.  having to print/recreate documents in different languages takes money which could be better placed elsewhere.  i used this as a fiscal reason although i am not 0 behind it.  multiple languages divide a  national  us identity.  citizens should be expected to know english as it is taught to them for the entire duration of their public education.  naturalized citizens have to know english to even become a citizen.  i am not saying that english should be the sole language anyone speaks for everything including private matters, but every american should be expected to know english.  if it is a requirement of citizenship, all government texts ought to be only in english as much as practically possible since all americans should know english.  i am not attacking second language programs like public school spanish, french, etc classes since to be bilingual is a very good trait, but a national language would beneficial in organization and standardization.  it does not have to be complicated.  also, i kinda believe that residents  should  apply to become citizens after living x amount of years in the us.  if they do not expect to become citizens and join the american community, maybe they ought  not  to  be  here.  please do not judge me for that please change my view !  #  i would like english to be the official national language since it was chosen by our forefathers since the nation is birth as the de facto national language, but not as the official language.   #  this is either an appeal to tradition, or an appeal to authority, but either way it does not illustrate any reality based tangible benefit.   # for government documents, this is basically functionally impossible.  we live in a world where non english speakers require translated copies of our laws, regulations, etc.  even if we did make english our official language we would continue to create translations.  as for addresses.  i guess i just do not see a point.  this is either an appeal to tradition, or an appeal to authority, but either way it does not illustrate any reality based tangible benefit.  english is taught in all to my knowledge public schools in the us.  a national language is helpful so everyone can understand each other, and work more well together.  making english the official language would not suddenly make everyone fluent speakers, nor would it likely lower the number of people who do not speak english.   #  i would suggest you take a look at switzerland.   #  i would suggest you take a look at switzerland.  they have 0 languages, each spoken in different parts of the country.  they do not really have problems with national unity.  i do not really see how having the english language made the official language can impact the unity of the country.  in practice, it already is the national language for most practical purposes.  for any immigrants who wish to participate in society this is already impossible without knowing english.   #  what i am saying is, what is the point of translating everything in different languages when it could just be in one that everyone knows ?  #  well it is mandated in law that everyone must provide their children an education public school or other and though they may speak a different language at home, that does not mean they do not know or ca not learn english.  take me and maybe my sister and my mother for example: i am a natural born citizen korean descent .  my sister and my mother are naturalized citizens my sister receiving citizenship upon my mother receiving citizenship .  i do not speak much korean with my mom a bad version of konglish but my mother knows both korean and english though she has an accent and has slight grammatical errors .  in order for her to become a citizen, she had to learn english, which was provided for her via esl classes that are typically free as in her case .  my sister also took esl classes growing up and learned fluent english.  my sister and mother will still speak in korean with each other, or english.  for children, growing up i have had friends who knew no english whatsoever immigrants but the esl english second language classes provided helped them learn english.  my two friends from then are now maybe conpletely fluent from the way the speak/write.  they still may talk in spanish at home with their parents, did their parents speak to me in english ? yeah they did.  enough that i could understand.  what i am saying is, what is the point of translating everything in different languages when it could just be in one that everyone knows ?  #  millions of americans do not speak english, or have such a rudimentary understanding of english that they may as well not speak it.   # simply put, not everybody knows english.  it is absolutely absurd and unrealistic to expect everybody in the country to know english.  there are over 0 million people in the usa, and many of them are immigrants with no ability to speak english.  yet, they are citizens.  they are americans, and they cannot speak english.  it would be blatant discrimination if the government worked to exclude these people from the political spectrum.  it would be anti democratic, anti american.  english was the language of  your  ancestors, but it is not the language of the ancestors of millions of americans.  millions of americans do not speak english, or have such a rudimentary understanding of english that they may as well not speak it.  let is not forget that a lot of people can speak english but cannot  read  in english.   #  so in practice, it certainly seems like the only thing of any real substance that you seem to be advocating for is to stop printing certain documents in spanish.   # maybe i missed it, but this seems to be the only place you make an actual recommendation.  everything else about your post seems to be purely symbolic reference to forefathers, national unity , or already true even without it as a national language taught in public schools .  so in practice, it certainly seems like the only thing of any real substance that you seem to be advocating for is to stop printing certain documents in spanish.  but my argument to you is that  today  these documents and signs and whatever are not printed in spanish because we we do not have a national langauge.  they are printed in spanish for exactly the same  practical  considerations including health/safety reasons that would still be present  with  a national language.  so it really seems like the only thing you would be doing is putting an extra barrier in place to a subset of our population that often already have a tough time.  i guess maybe you would claim its for their own good, but in practice it seems like kind of a dick move at best, and dangerous at worst.
note: this is only in a sense for  governmental  texts, documents, addresses.  for things of emergency safety/health of course that can be excluded.  also for those physically incapable of speaking/learning english i would like english to be the official national language since it was chosen by our forefathers since the nation is birth as the de facto national language, but not as the official language.  a national language helps bind national unity.  english is taught in all to my knowledge public schools in the us.  a national language is helpful so everyone can understand each other, and work more well together.  having to print/recreate documents in different languages takes money which could be better placed elsewhere.  i used this as a fiscal reason although i am not 0 behind it.  multiple languages divide a  national  us identity.  citizens should be expected to know english as it is taught to them for the entire duration of their public education.  naturalized citizens have to know english to even become a citizen.  i am not saying that english should be the sole language anyone speaks for everything including private matters, but every american should be expected to know english.  if it is a requirement of citizenship, all government texts ought to be only in english as much as practically possible since all americans should know english.  i am not attacking second language programs like public school spanish, french, etc classes since to be bilingual is a very good trait, but a national language would beneficial in organization and standardization.  it does not have to be complicated.  also, i kinda believe that residents  should  apply to become citizens after living x amount of years in the us.  if they do not expect to become citizens and join the american community, maybe they ought  not  to  be  here.  please do not judge me for that please change my view !  #  a national language helps bind national unity.   #  english is taught in all to my knowledge public schools in the us.   # for government documents, this is basically functionally impossible.  we live in a world where non english speakers require translated copies of our laws, regulations, etc.  even if we did make english our official language we would continue to create translations.  as for addresses.  i guess i just do not see a point.  this is either an appeal to tradition, or an appeal to authority, but either way it does not illustrate any reality based tangible benefit.  english is taught in all to my knowledge public schools in the us.  a national language is helpful so everyone can understand each other, and work more well together.  making english the official language would not suddenly make everyone fluent speakers, nor would it likely lower the number of people who do not speak english.   #  i do not really see how having the english language made the official language can impact the unity of the country.   #  i would suggest you take a look at switzerland.  they have 0 languages, each spoken in different parts of the country.  they do not really have problems with national unity.  i do not really see how having the english language made the official language can impact the unity of the country.  in practice, it already is the national language for most practical purposes.  for any immigrants who wish to participate in society this is already impossible without knowing english.   #  for children, growing up i have had friends who knew no english whatsoever immigrants but the esl english second language classes provided helped them learn english.   #  well it is mandated in law that everyone must provide their children an education public school or other and though they may speak a different language at home, that does not mean they do not know or ca not learn english.  take me and maybe my sister and my mother for example: i am a natural born citizen korean descent .  my sister and my mother are naturalized citizens my sister receiving citizenship upon my mother receiving citizenship .  i do not speak much korean with my mom a bad version of konglish but my mother knows both korean and english though she has an accent and has slight grammatical errors .  in order for her to become a citizen, she had to learn english, which was provided for her via esl classes that are typically free as in her case .  my sister also took esl classes growing up and learned fluent english.  my sister and mother will still speak in korean with each other, or english.  for children, growing up i have had friends who knew no english whatsoever immigrants but the esl english second language classes provided helped them learn english.  my two friends from then are now maybe conpletely fluent from the way the speak/write.  they still may talk in spanish at home with their parents, did their parents speak to me in english ? yeah they did.  enough that i could understand.  what i am saying is, what is the point of translating everything in different languages when it could just be in one that everyone knows ?  #  there are over 0 million people in the usa, and many of them are immigrants with no ability to speak english.   # simply put, not everybody knows english.  it is absolutely absurd and unrealistic to expect everybody in the country to know english.  there are over 0 million people in the usa, and many of them are immigrants with no ability to speak english.  yet, they are citizens.  they are americans, and they cannot speak english.  it would be blatant discrimination if the government worked to exclude these people from the political spectrum.  it would be anti democratic, anti american.  english was the language of  your  ancestors, but it is not the language of the ancestors of millions of americans.  millions of americans do not speak english, or have such a rudimentary understanding of english that they may as well not speak it.  let is not forget that a lot of people can speak english but cannot  read  in english.   #  so it really seems like the only thing you would be doing is putting an extra barrier in place to a subset of our population that often already have a tough time.   # maybe i missed it, but this seems to be the only place you make an actual recommendation.  everything else about your post seems to be purely symbolic reference to forefathers, national unity , or already true even without it as a national language taught in public schools .  so in practice, it certainly seems like the only thing of any real substance that you seem to be advocating for is to stop printing certain documents in spanish.  but my argument to you is that  today  these documents and signs and whatever are not printed in spanish because we we do not have a national langauge.  they are printed in spanish for exactly the same  practical  considerations including health/safety reasons that would still be present  with  a national language.  so it really seems like the only thing you would be doing is putting an extra barrier in place to a subset of our population that often already have a tough time.  i guess maybe you would claim its for their own good, but in practice it seems like kind of a dick move at best, and dangerous at worst.
heterosexual sex work, i. e. , the buying and selling of sex more or less is unique and unlike almost any other kind of work.  men are the overwhelming consumers, and women are the overwhelming workers.  there are exceptions, but they are less than 0.  the buyer consumer/seller producer relationship is inherently unequal.  the buyer consumer has all the power, because he is the one who comes into the transaction with money.  it is up to the seller producer to perform.   the customer is always right.   in labor transactions, the buyer consumer is the equivalent of the boss/employer.  in ordinary forms of work, the seller producer can ameliorate his or her powerlessness through achievement.  whether you are the inventor of the iphone or you moped the floor, you used your abilities to achieve something and created value.  accomplishment is one of the core meanings of life that provide fulfillment.  in sex work, however, the focus of the end product is the body itself, which is the embodiment of the worker is existence, and not the result of her achievement yes, hard work such as diet and exercise go into shaping the body, but they do not create the body .   in summary : sex work is inherently sexed, with men cast as buyers and women as sellers.  buyers inherently have the power over sellers in economic transactions.  the thing being sold by the sex worker is not her achievement but her consent to use her body.  hence, sex work is inherently unequal and privileges men while degrading women.   #  the buyer consumer has all the power, because he is the one who comes into the transaction with money.   #  i think this is a very one sided view of an economic transaction.   # i think this is a very one sided view of an economic transaction.  you could equally state that the seller producer has all the power, because he is the one who has something that the other covets.  it is easy to find transactions that illustrate both positions.  a buyer looking for water in the desert clearly is not in the same position of power as a pawn shop buying the family jewels of a struggling family.  most transactions lie somewhere in between and there is no reason sex work is not the same.  a girl on the street selling road side blow jobs to feed her drug habit clearly is not in the same position of power as paris hilton negotiating a million dollar deal over the release of her sex video.  vice versa, neither is a film executive buying sex from a wannabe actress in a position of weakness as a severely handicapped person who depends on a sex worker as the only avenue to physical intimacy in their life.   #  you would be using another person is body in a different way, at least for part of the lesson or massage, but neither case necessarily implies that you have complete control.   # i do not say why sex work is incompatible with equality, just that it is.  so it is just incompatible in our current society with our current gender roles, but it is not inherently incompatible.  would you agree with that statement ? would you consider dance instructor to be analogous then ? what about masseuse ? if not, what is the difference ? you would be using another person is body in a different way, at least for part of the lesson or massage, but neither case necessarily implies that you have complete control.  there can and definitely should be agreements about what is allowed and what is not.  so to that extent, it seems like any other service that requires you directly interact with someone else is body.   #  the difference is that with a dance instructor, you interact with her body for a separate purpose from just interacting with her body: to learn dance.   # would you agree with that statement ? i do not know whether it is inherently incompatible or not.  but it is currently.  the difference is that with a dance instructor, you interact with her body for a separate purpose from just interacting with her body: to learn dance.  same with a masseuse: the essence of the work is in the movement of the hands, not the mere fact that her hands are touching you.  with sex work, the touching of sexual organs themselves is the essence of the work.  yes, sex involves skill, yes, it involves performance, but for the sex worker these are secondary, whereas for all the other professions except modeling they are primary and the fact that the body is used is secondary.   #  both seem perfectly analogous to me except that one is sexual and the other is typically not.   #  i am not sure you have made a good argument as to how a masseuse and sex worker are different.  the essence of both jobs is the make physical contact with the customer to make them feel good.  in one case its to make their muscles feel good and to relieve tension.  in the other case, it is exactly the same but with different body parts.  and in both cases, there are different services you can purchase that involve them doing things to your body in different ways, with or without physical contact on their part.  both seem perfectly analogous to me except that one is sexual and the other is typically not.   #  putting sex on a pedestal, that is to say, that sexual work involving your body is special compared to digging a ditch, or really any form of manual labor, is the fundamental error.   # i think this is a very shallow view of  body use.   putting sex on a pedestal, that is to say, that sexual work involving your body is special compared to digging a ditch, or really any form of manual labor, is the fundamental error.  if anything, the gender inequality on display is that men are nowhere near in as much demand for sex work as women.  genders are inherently unequal.  if i, as a man, find myself in a desperate situation, it is far less likely that i would be able to sell my sexuality in virtually every context in order to support my existence.  legal equality and social equality are not the same as functional equality.
heterosexual sex work, i. e. , the buying and selling of sex more or less is unique and unlike almost any other kind of work.  men are the overwhelming consumers, and women are the overwhelming workers.  there are exceptions, but they are less than 0.  the buyer consumer/seller producer relationship is inherently unequal.  the buyer consumer has all the power, because he is the one who comes into the transaction with money.  it is up to the seller producer to perform.   the customer is always right.   in labor transactions, the buyer consumer is the equivalent of the boss/employer.  in ordinary forms of work, the seller producer can ameliorate his or her powerlessness through achievement.  whether you are the inventor of the iphone or you moped the floor, you used your abilities to achieve something and created value.  accomplishment is one of the core meanings of life that provide fulfillment.  in sex work, however, the focus of the end product is the body itself, which is the embodiment of the worker is existence, and not the result of her achievement yes, hard work such as diet and exercise go into shaping the body, but they do not create the body .   in summary : sex work is inherently sexed, with men cast as buyers and women as sellers.  buyers inherently have the power over sellers in economic transactions.  the thing being sold by the sex worker is not her achievement but her consent to use her body.  hence, sex work is inherently unequal and privileges men while degrading women.   #  men are the overwhelming consumers, and women are the overwhelming workers.   #  there are exceptions, but they are less than 0.   # there are exceptions, but they are less than 0.  certainly, this division ca not be completely inevitable.  if it is not inevitable, could not the gendered division of buyers and sellers actually be the  result  of a lack of gender equality ? indeed, the underlying reason for the current situation is pretty simple: female sexuality is accorded value by society, while male sexuality is not.  that sexist double standard creates a situation where sex is generally conceptualized as something women  give  and something men  get  usually in return for something else .  naturally, this lends itself to a situation where virtually all prostitutes are women, because by and large women have sexual capital to sell and men do not.  because this all results from an underlying condition of gender inequality, your argument is actually circular: according to you, prostitution ca not coexist with gender equality because of its gender asymmetry, yet that gender asymmetry only exists because of a lack of gender equality in the first place.  in a theoretical situation with full gender equality, the gender asymmetry your argument is based on could quite easily not exist.   #  you would be using another person is body in a different way, at least for part of the lesson or massage, but neither case necessarily implies that you have complete control.   # i do not say why sex work is incompatible with equality, just that it is.  so it is just incompatible in our current society with our current gender roles, but it is not inherently incompatible.  would you agree with that statement ? would you consider dance instructor to be analogous then ? what about masseuse ? if not, what is the difference ? you would be using another person is body in a different way, at least for part of the lesson or massage, but neither case necessarily implies that you have complete control.  there can and definitely should be agreements about what is allowed and what is not.  so to that extent, it seems like any other service that requires you directly interact with someone else is body.   #  i do not know whether it is inherently incompatible or not.   # would you agree with that statement ? i do not know whether it is inherently incompatible or not.  but it is currently.  the difference is that with a dance instructor, you interact with her body for a separate purpose from just interacting with her body: to learn dance.  same with a masseuse: the essence of the work is in the movement of the hands, not the mere fact that her hands are touching you.  with sex work, the touching of sexual organs themselves is the essence of the work.  yes, sex involves skill, yes, it involves performance, but for the sex worker these are secondary, whereas for all the other professions except modeling they are primary and the fact that the body is used is secondary.   #  in one case its to make their muscles feel good and to relieve tension.   #  i am not sure you have made a good argument as to how a masseuse and sex worker are different.  the essence of both jobs is the make physical contact with the customer to make them feel good.  in one case its to make their muscles feel good and to relieve tension.  in the other case, it is exactly the same but with different body parts.  and in both cases, there are different services you can purchase that involve them doing things to your body in different ways, with or without physical contact on their part.  both seem perfectly analogous to me except that one is sexual and the other is typically not.   #  if i, as a man, find myself in a desperate situation, it is far less likely that i would be able to sell my sexuality in virtually every context in order to support my existence.   # i think this is a very shallow view of  body use.   putting sex on a pedestal, that is to say, that sexual work involving your body is special compared to digging a ditch, or really any form of manual labor, is the fundamental error.  if anything, the gender inequality on display is that men are nowhere near in as much demand for sex work as women.  genders are inherently unequal.  if i, as a man, find myself in a desperate situation, it is far less likely that i would be able to sell my sexuality in virtually every context in order to support my existence.  legal equality and social equality are not the same as functional equality.
so with the whole ray rice situation, there has been a lot of talk about violence against women.  something that gets thrown around a lot is that a man should never hit a woman.  while i agree with the sentiment, those statements somewhat rub me the wrong way.  they seem to implicitly be saying that there are situations where it would be ok to hit a man but not a woman .  people who defend that statement often bring up the fact that women are often weaker, but i find this to be a non sequitur.  while most women would not be able to do much damage to someone like ray rice, the same holds true for men.  and there are definitely many women who can handle themselves and can do damage to the average man.  so i completely agree with the statement that violence should always be a last resort in self defense and you should only use the minimum amount of force as is necessary to escape the situation.  but by making it about gender i feel that people are not only normalizing violence against men, but also telling women that they can hit men frivolously with no potential repercussion.  also, please note, saying  nobody disagrees with that stance  is not changing my view and is not true .  nobody has changed my view so far.   #  you should only use the minimum amount of force as is necessary to escape the situation.   #  i agree with pretty much your entire scenario, excepting this.   # i agree with pretty much your entire scenario, excepting this.  before i go further, note that i have not seen the video in question and i do not care to.  real violence is not something i like seeing.  anyway: in the realm of self defense, things get.  dicey, for lack of a better word.  there are a few factors that need to go into it: perceived threat by the person defending themselves , escalation by either party , and the  reasonable person  standard.  i am going with the last one first, as it ties in to the rest.  the  reasonable person  standard is something that is used when judging self defense cases and reasonable use of deadly force in particular, and it basically states that if a reasonable person, put into a situation, would reasonably assume that their life was in danger.  so if, for instance, you see someone pulling a gun and pointing at you, you are legally justified in pulling your own gun and shooting them,  even if it later turns out that it was a fake/toy gun , because a reasonable person seeing someone pulling a gun on them that was not obviously a fake gun would assume their life was in danger.  so, anyway, actual use of force: this is also tricky, but the legal definitions are pretty clear.  if someone assaults you with their natural weapons, and you need to fight back, you can use your natural weapons to the best of your ability.  there is obviously going to be some grey area for someone who is obviously bigger and stronger, and if you are found to have, say, martial arts training or whatnot then you are going to be held to a higher standard.  escalation is escalation, but it is more broad than people think.  if someone pulls a knife on you, you  are  allowed to pull a gun, as it is now lethal weapons.  same thing with something like steel rebar.  something like a pillow, you are gonna have a bad time.  if someone punches you and you pull out a knife first, you could still be implicated for assault with a deadly weapon since the situation should not have escalated.  anyway, this was a minor nitpick that turned into a major wall of text, but it boils down to: if you get attacked, and you perceive that you are in danger, a lot of the portions of your brain that would allow you to process things like  how hard did i get hit ? am i bleeding out ?   get shut down by adrenaline, and you go straight to  fight or flight ?   the other thing that happens when you get all adrenaline shot is that you start to fight how you were trained.  this is why, for instance, in self defense drills with firearms, you drill over and over and over to draw, fire two to three shots into the center of mass, and pause to both compensate for muzzle climb and to reassess if the threat has been neutralized.  if they have, you stop, if they have not, you repeat.  if you do not train that, things like punching full force happen when you truly panic.  and even the  it boils down to  got wordy.  dammit.  tl;dr:  only use the minimum amount of force  does not mean what a lot of people think it means.   #  people sometimes incorrectly simplify their stances by stating men should not hit women when they mean bigger stronger people should not take advantage of their size to beat smaller weaker people.   #  you have to define your position precisely if you want to have a meaningful discussion.  if you are in grade school you are not allowed to touch anyone for any reason regardless of gender.  no touching is  acceptable .  if you are in a night club full of adults and discussing public opinion relating to  hitting  again, poorly defined most people will not contest that equivalent amounts of damage done to a man / woman by  hitting  differs in acceptability assuming the  hit  is primarily symbolic with negligible damage .  in practice, most men hit much harder than most women and when the damage done differs most people begin drawing lines of  acceptability .  if a large woman beat a small man senseless i imagine the general public would find that equally unacceptable.  people sometimes incorrectly simplify their stances by stating men should not hit women when they mean bigger stronger people should not take advantage of their size to beat smaller weaker people.   #  if a pregnant woman did the same thing, i would not punch her in the stomach.   #  let is say a dude with a big belly smears mustard on it and is coming up to you to intentionally wipe in on your shirt.  i would find it perfectly acceptable to punch him in the stomach and say  fuck off dude, do not try that shit .  if a pregnant woman did the same thing, i would not punch her in the stomach.  the situation does not have to be dangerous, it just has to be to the level that hitting them would be justified/acceptable.  or maybe if it was only slightly dangerous, but not so much that you absolutely had to defend yourself.  like maybe they were attempting to spit on you, which is considered assault.   #  if someone chooses to use force against me, i could die from it.   #  to contend this argument, i am a hemophiliac.  the number one hemophilia related cause of death is bleeding in the brain.  if someone chooses to use force against me, i could die from it.  you ca not assume you know the condition of a person for either sex.  just the same, you ca not assume you know the effect of the act.  you can punch a person and they could fall the wrong way and slam their head on something and die from the action.  unless a person is omniscient, i do not believe it is logical to ever assume it is okay to hit anyone.   #  get shut down by adrenaline, and you go straight to  fight or flight ?    # am i bleeding out ?   get shut down by adrenaline, and you go straight to  fight or flight ?   this is exactly the case,  everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.   a reasonable person will lose some level of logic when being attacked because of our instincts and adrenaline.  in the situations that those instincts exist for, stopping to think through your reaction could easily lead to your death.  it is easy to say,  well you should not do x , but most people who say that have not been in a situation to know whether they would or not.
its important to first recognize that societies draw from their histories in order to establish precedents for the present.  the construct for the muslim world is markedly different than ours in the west.  to us, an abandonment/separation of church and state was the first major move that allowed the west to begin its period of global dominance.  this era can be defined as 0 to modern day.  times before that, marked by christian kingdoms and the catholic church is heavy influence are commonly referred to as  the dark ages .  muslims, however, have a very different history.  from 0 to 0 they were the unmatched world powers.  much sourced history from europe in that time period reflects our fear of the constant threat of islam taking more and more of europe.  ironically, the tables are now switched, and muslims fear western influence in their countries more and more throughout the period of their dominance, the many different caliphates and empires were marked by their strong carrying of religion and state hand in hand.  in many societies, 0th century baghdad for example, the only societal position level with that of the sultan were the religious leaders.  it should also be noted that these empires allowed science and discovery to work hand in hand with religion.  this is proved by countless innovators avicenna, averroes, ibn battuta, ibn khaldun, etc who were well trained in religious disciplines in addition to their other pursuits.  therefore, the muslim world will never see the abandonment of religion in everyday governing life as a useful long term solution.  the era of nation states has only yielded constant turnover and turmoil for them.  whereas in the west we have a strong aversion to the mixture of church and state based on our poor history, the muslim world experienced much success with the same model.  for this reason, they will always look towards their history to shape their present and future.  their history is too inextricably linked with religion to create a long term secular society.  they will try different forms of religious states until they find the proper ideology that, in their minds, harkens them back to their empires of a few centuries back.  clearly, extremist rogue groups like isis do not find much support within the majority of muslim world.  but rather than abandon religion altogether they will find another ideology that the pleases the masses.   #  to us, an abandonment/separation of church and state was the first major move that allowed the west to begin its period of global dominance.   #  this era can be defined as 0 to modern day.   # this era can be defined as 0 to modern day.  no, this is wrong.  the rise of the west started in 0nd half of the 0th century.  exploration of other continents, the printing press, the fall of constantinople and the resulting influx of ancient knowledge and ideas.  the muslim world has not had a 0 years war, or a long history of pogroms.  the west has had a much more violent religious history than the middle east.   #  secularism has had a role in many muslim societies.   #  i think your premise that  the west likes secularism because secularism occurred when the west became power  is very flawed.  the west did not begin it is period of dominance when it became secular.  mass exploration and colonization began in the 0s, not around the 0s.  religion was a very significant factor in the spread of the west, and missionaries took on an important role in the spread of western culture.  additionally, no scholar uses the phrase  dark ages  anymore.  but even when they did, they used it to refer to a time roughly 0 years before the 0s.  secularism has had a role in many muslim societies.  turkey is a muslim, but secular country.  secularism was, and is, a potent force in egypt, syrian, and iraq.   #  i think the industrial revolution is what widened the gap massively, to the point that we have completely outpaced the muslim world right now from a power perspective, at least .   #  the way i wrote it came across very black and white, and it certainly is more nuanced, as you point out.  i think its a fair statement, however, that while the foundations of western superiority started to be laid out around 0, the point at which it became unmatched was industrial revolution and on.  keep in mind that the muslims were in spain until 0.  from 0 0, i would argue that both macro societies were at relatively equal footing, with the muslim empires slightly more advantaged by virtue of the effects of  cultural momentum  that is, though they were clearly declining, they still had much already built.  i think the founding of the new world, was the largest factor in turning around europe is fortunes.  i think the industrial revolution is what widened the gap massively, to the point that we have completely outpaced the muslim world right now from a power perspective, at least .  yes i agree, turkey is a secular country, though that was relatively recent 0 is .  i am referring to the larger, long term prospectus.  turkey benefits from being at the border of europe.  i do not ever see the large swaths of middle eastern countries adopting the same position though.  furthermore, in my travels in turkey, i noticed that a majority of people are still very religious at least outwardly .  the call to prayer is delivered loudly.  the same amount of religious fervor would not be seen in america except in the deep south.  except this was the so called  isecular  portion of the muslim world.   #  how do you call  that  if not mixture of church and state ?  #  parts of  just refers to bosnia which has christian parts as well .  turkey is meant as a whole country.  germany has a church tax which is enforced by the government.  at least germany and austria have religious education in public schools, paid by the public, but the church decides the curriculum.  the church of england is the officially established religious institution in england with the queen at its head.  some bishops are members of the house of lords just because of their ecclesiastical role in the church of england.  how do you call  that  if not mixture of church and state ? some other european countries like denmark, sweden, norway or iceland have state churches or had them till just a few years ago.  the king or quen of denmark has to belong to this church.  the christian churches still have political influence in countries like poland, italy, ireland, spain or even austria.  some countries are even governed by parties who call theirselves  christian .  laws against abortion who still exist or at least are seriously debated in eu countries as well as us states are also a clear sign of a political influence of the church.  the same goes with divorces, which were illegal in italy until 0.   #  this rule covers two things: you must award a delta if you have mentioned a change of view in your comment.   # you must also include an explanation of this change along with the delta.  this rule covers two things: you must award a delta if you have mentioned a change of view in your comment.  we ca not force you to admit that your view has been changed, but if you have indicated at this being the case then please award one.  instructions on how to do so are in the sidebar.  please note that a delta is not a sign of  wouldefeat ,  it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion.  a delta / end of discussion.
its important to first recognize that societies draw from their histories in order to establish precedents for the present.  the construct for the muslim world is markedly different than ours in the west.  to us, an abandonment/separation of church and state was the first major move that allowed the west to begin its period of global dominance.  this era can be defined as 0 to modern day.  times before that, marked by christian kingdoms and the catholic church is heavy influence are commonly referred to as  the dark ages .  muslims, however, have a very different history.  from 0 to 0 they were the unmatched world powers.  much sourced history from europe in that time period reflects our fear of the constant threat of islam taking more and more of europe.  ironically, the tables are now switched, and muslims fear western influence in their countries more and more throughout the period of their dominance, the many different caliphates and empires were marked by their strong carrying of religion and state hand in hand.  in many societies, 0th century baghdad for example, the only societal position level with that of the sultan were the religious leaders.  it should also be noted that these empires allowed science and discovery to work hand in hand with religion.  this is proved by countless innovators avicenna, averroes, ibn battuta, ibn khaldun, etc who were well trained in religious disciplines in addition to their other pursuits.  therefore, the muslim world will never see the abandonment of religion in everyday governing life as a useful long term solution.  the era of nation states has only yielded constant turnover and turmoil for them.  whereas in the west we have a strong aversion to the mixture of church and state based on our poor history, the muslim world experienced much success with the same model.  for this reason, they will always look towards their history to shape their present and future.  their history is too inextricably linked with religion to create a long term secular society.  they will try different forms of religious states until they find the proper ideology that, in their minds, harkens them back to their empires of a few centuries back.  clearly, extremist rogue groups like isis do not find much support within the majority of muslim world.  but rather than abandon religion altogether they will find another ideology that the pleases the masses.   #  their history is too inextricably linked with religion to create a long term secular society.   #  the muslim world has not had a 0 years war, or a long history of pogroms.   # this era can be defined as 0 to modern day.  no, this is wrong.  the rise of the west started in 0nd half of the 0th century.  exploration of other continents, the printing press, the fall of constantinople and the resulting influx of ancient knowledge and ideas.  the muslim world has not had a 0 years war, or a long history of pogroms.  the west has had a much more violent religious history than the middle east.   #  secularism has had a role in many muslim societies.   #  i think your premise that  the west likes secularism because secularism occurred when the west became power  is very flawed.  the west did not begin it is period of dominance when it became secular.  mass exploration and colonization began in the 0s, not around the 0s.  religion was a very significant factor in the spread of the west, and missionaries took on an important role in the spread of western culture.  additionally, no scholar uses the phrase  dark ages  anymore.  but even when they did, they used it to refer to a time roughly 0 years before the 0s.  secularism has had a role in many muslim societies.  turkey is a muslim, but secular country.  secularism was, and is, a potent force in egypt, syrian, and iraq.   #  furthermore, in my travels in turkey, i noticed that a majority of people are still very religious at least outwardly .   #  the way i wrote it came across very black and white, and it certainly is more nuanced, as you point out.  i think its a fair statement, however, that while the foundations of western superiority started to be laid out around 0, the point at which it became unmatched was industrial revolution and on.  keep in mind that the muslims were in spain until 0.  from 0 0, i would argue that both macro societies were at relatively equal footing, with the muslim empires slightly more advantaged by virtue of the effects of  cultural momentum  that is, though they were clearly declining, they still had much already built.  i think the founding of the new world, was the largest factor in turning around europe is fortunes.  i think the industrial revolution is what widened the gap massively, to the point that we have completely outpaced the muslim world right now from a power perspective, at least .  yes i agree, turkey is a secular country, though that was relatively recent 0 is .  i am referring to the larger, long term prospectus.  turkey benefits from being at the border of europe.  i do not ever see the large swaths of middle eastern countries adopting the same position though.  furthermore, in my travels in turkey, i noticed that a majority of people are still very religious at least outwardly .  the call to prayer is delivered loudly.  the same amount of religious fervor would not be seen in america except in the deep south.  except this was the so called  isecular  portion of the muslim world.   #  the same goes with divorces, which were illegal in italy until 0.   #  parts of  just refers to bosnia which has christian parts as well .  turkey is meant as a whole country.  germany has a church tax which is enforced by the government.  at least germany and austria have religious education in public schools, paid by the public, but the church decides the curriculum.  the church of england is the officially established religious institution in england with the queen at its head.  some bishops are members of the house of lords just because of their ecclesiastical role in the church of england.  how do you call  that  if not mixture of church and state ? some other european countries like denmark, sweden, norway or iceland have state churches or had them till just a few years ago.  the king or quen of denmark has to belong to this church.  the christian churches still have political influence in countries like poland, italy, ireland, spain or even austria.  some countries are even governed by parties who call theirselves  christian .  laws against abortion who still exist or at least are seriously debated in eu countries as well as us states are also a clear sign of a political influence of the church.  the same goes with divorces, which were illegal in italy until 0.   #  instructions on how to do so are in the sidebar.   # you must also include an explanation of this change along with the delta.  this rule covers two things: you must award a delta if you have mentioned a change of view in your comment.  we ca not force you to admit that your view has been changed, but if you have indicated at this being the case then please award one.  instructions on how to do so are in the sidebar.  please note that a delta is not a sign of  wouldefeat ,  it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion.  a delta / end of discussion.
its important to first recognize that societies draw from their histories in order to establish precedents for the present.  the construct for the muslim world is markedly different than ours in the west.  to us, an abandonment/separation of church and state was the first major move that allowed the west to begin its period of global dominance.  this era can be defined as 0 to modern day.  times before that, marked by christian kingdoms and the catholic church is heavy influence are commonly referred to as  the dark ages .  muslims, however, have a very different history.  from 0 to 0 they were the unmatched world powers.  much sourced history from europe in that time period reflects our fear of the constant threat of islam taking more and more of europe.  ironically, the tables are now switched, and muslims fear western influence in their countries more and more throughout the period of their dominance, the many different caliphates and empires were marked by their strong carrying of religion and state hand in hand.  in many societies, 0th century baghdad for example, the only societal position level with that of the sultan were the religious leaders.  it should also be noted that these empires allowed science and discovery to work hand in hand with religion.  this is proved by countless innovators avicenna, averroes, ibn battuta, ibn khaldun, etc who were well trained in religious disciplines in addition to their other pursuits.  therefore, the muslim world will never see the abandonment of religion in everyday governing life as a useful long term solution.  the era of nation states has only yielded constant turnover and turmoil for them.  whereas in the west we have a strong aversion to the mixture of church and state based on our poor history, the muslim world experienced much success with the same model.  for this reason, they will always look towards their history to shape their present and future.  their history is too inextricably linked with religion to create a long term secular society.  they will try different forms of religious states until they find the proper ideology that, in their minds, harkens them back to their empires of a few centuries back.  clearly, extremist rogue groups like isis do not find much support within the majority of muslim world.  but rather than abandon religion altogether they will find another ideology that the pleases the masses.   #  to us, an abandonment/separation of church and state was the first major move that allowed the west to begin its period of global dominance.   #  this era can be defined as 0 to modern day.   # this era can be defined as 0 to modern day.  times before that, marked by christian kingdoms and the catholic church is heavy influence are commonly referred to as  the dark ages .  the existence of the idea of separation of church and state might have existed at this time, but the separation was not complete, so long as religious cultural opinions were allowed to be expressed through law.  laws prohibiting the right to vote for women, for example, might have stemmed from christian heritage being more repressive to women in terms of their property rights and familial roles.  this was also supported by much of the public, because those ideals were actually engrained into the society still.  i would argue that it has not been until the modern era 0s onwards that society actually started becoming secular by throwing off religious stigmas and moving not just the government, but the attitudes of the people, towards secularism.  the era of nation states has only yielded constant turnover and turmoil for them.  turkey is a counterexample of this.  the country has actually taken ardent strides into separating itself from its religious heritage to be come a majority muslim yet secular state.  cultural issues pertaining to women, freedom of the press, and individual freedoms in general do stem from religious attitudes, but this is no different than secular christian nations.  and this, in spite of being the historic center of the biggest and one of the longest lasting sultanates in the world.   #  mass exploration and colonization began in the 0s, not around the 0s.   #  i think your premise that  the west likes secularism because secularism occurred when the west became power  is very flawed.  the west did not begin it is period of dominance when it became secular.  mass exploration and colonization began in the 0s, not around the 0s.  religion was a very significant factor in the spread of the west, and missionaries took on an important role in the spread of western culture.  additionally, no scholar uses the phrase  dark ages  anymore.  but even when they did, they used it to refer to a time roughly 0 years before the 0s.  secularism has had a role in many muslim societies.  turkey is a muslim, but secular country.  secularism was, and is, a potent force in egypt, syrian, and iraq.   #  i think its a fair statement, however, that while the foundations of western superiority started to be laid out around 0, the point at which it became unmatched was industrial revolution and on.   #  the way i wrote it came across very black and white, and it certainly is more nuanced, as you point out.  i think its a fair statement, however, that while the foundations of western superiority started to be laid out around 0, the point at which it became unmatched was industrial revolution and on.  keep in mind that the muslims were in spain until 0.  from 0 0, i would argue that both macro societies were at relatively equal footing, with the muslim empires slightly more advantaged by virtue of the effects of  cultural momentum  that is, though they were clearly declining, they still had much already built.  i think the founding of the new world, was the largest factor in turning around europe is fortunes.  i think the industrial revolution is what widened the gap massively, to the point that we have completely outpaced the muslim world right now from a power perspective, at least .  yes i agree, turkey is a secular country, though that was relatively recent 0 is .  i am referring to the larger, long term prospectus.  turkey benefits from being at the border of europe.  i do not ever see the large swaths of middle eastern countries adopting the same position though.  furthermore, in my travels in turkey, i noticed that a majority of people are still very religious at least outwardly .  the call to prayer is delivered loudly.  the same amount of religious fervor would not be seen in america except in the deep south.  except this was the so called  isecular  portion of the muslim world.   #  the christian churches still have political influence in countries like poland, italy, ireland, spain or even austria.   #  parts of  just refers to bosnia which has christian parts as well .  turkey is meant as a whole country.  germany has a church tax which is enforced by the government.  at least germany and austria have religious education in public schools, paid by the public, but the church decides the curriculum.  the church of england is the officially established religious institution in england with the queen at its head.  some bishops are members of the house of lords just because of their ecclesiastical role in the church of england.  how do you call  that  if not mixture of church and state ? some other european countries like denmark, sweden, norway or iceland have state churches or had them till just a few years ago.  the king or quen of denmark has to belong to this church.  the christian churches still have political influence in countries like poland, italy, ireland, spain or even austria.  some countries are even governed by parties who call theirselves  christian .  laws against abortion who still exist or at least are seriously debated in eu countries as well as us states are also a clear sign of a political influence of the church.  the same goes with divorces, which were illegal in italy until 0.   #  we ca not force you to admit that your view has been changed, but if you have indicated at this being the case then please award one.   # you must also include an explanation of this change along with the delta.  this rule covers two things: you must award a delta if you have mentioned a change of view in your comment.  we ca not force you to admit that your view has been changed, but if you have indicated at this being the case then please award one.  instructions on how to do so are in the sidebar.  please note that a delta is not a sign of  wouldefeat ,  it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion.  a delta / end of discussion.
its important to first recognize that societies draw from their histories in order to establish precedents for the present.  the construct for the muslim world is markedly different than ours in the west.  to us, an abandonment/separation of church and state was the first major move that allowed the west to begin its period of global dominance.  this era can be defined as 0 to modern day.  times before that, marked by christian kingdoms and the catholic church is heavy influence are commonly referred to as  the dark ages .  muslims, however, have a very different history.  from 0 to 0 they were the unmatched world powers.  much sourced history from europe in that time period reflects our fear of the constant threat of islam taking more and more of europe.  ironically, the tables are now switched, and muslims fear western influence in their countries more and more throughout the period of their dominance, the many different caliphates and empires were marked by their strong carrying of religion and state hand in hand.  in many societies, 0th century baghdad for example, the only societal position level with that of the sultan were the religious leaders.  it should also be noted that these empires allowed science and discovery to work hand in hand with religion.  this is proved by countless innovators avicenna, averroes, ibn battuta, ibn khaldun, etc who were well trained in religious disciplines in addition to their other pursuits.  therefore, the muslim world will never see the abandonment of religion in everyday governing life as a useful long term solution.  the era of nation states has only yielded constant turnover and turmoil for them.  whereas in the west we have a strong aversion to the mixture of church and state based on our poor history, the muslim world experienced much success with the same model.  for this reason, they will always look towards their history to shape their present and future.  their history is too inextricably linked with religion to create a long term secular society.  they will try different forms of religious states until they find the proper ideology that, in their minds, harkens them back to their empires of a few centuries back.  clearly, extremist rogue groups like isis do not find much support within the majority of muslim world.  but rather than abandon religion altogether they will find another ideology that the pleases the masses.   #  therefore, the muslim world will never see the abandonment of religion in everyday governing life as a useful long term solution.   #  the era of nation states has only yielded constant turnover and turmoil for them.   # this era can be defined as 0 to modern day.  times before that, marked by christian kingdoms and the catholic church is heavy influence are commonly referred to as  the dark ages .  the existence of the idea of separation of church and state might have existed at this time, but the separation was not complete, so long as religious cultural opinions were allowed to be expressed through law.  laws prohibiting the right to vote for women, for example, might have stemmed from christian heritage being more repressive to women in terms of their property rights and familial roles.  this was also supported by much of the public, because those ideals were actually engrained into the society still.  i would argue that it has not been until the modern era 0s onwards that society actually started becoming secular by throwing off religious stigmas and moving not just the government, but the attitudes of the people, towards secularism.  the era of nation states has only yielded constant turnover and turmoil for them.  turkey is a counterexample of this.  the country has actually taken ardent strides into separating itself from its religious heritage to be come a majority muslim yet secular state.  cultural issues pertaining to women, freedom of the press, and individual freedoms in general do stem from religious attitudes, but this is no different than secular christian nations.  and this, in spite of being the historic center of the biggest and one of the longest lasting sultanates in the world.   #  mass exploration and colonization began in the 0s, not around the 0s.   #  i think your premise that  the west likes secularism because secularism occurred when the west became power  is very flawed.  the west did not begin it is period of dominance when it became secular.  mass exploration and colonization began in the 0s, not around the 0s.  religion was a very significant factor in the spread of the west, and missionaries took on an important role in the spread of western culture.  additionally, no scholar uses the phrase  dark ages  anymore.  but even when they did, they used it to refer to a time roughly 0 years before the 0s.  secularism has had a role in many muslim societies.  turkey is a muslim, but secular country.  secularism was, and is, a potent force in egypt, syrian, and iraq.   #  i think the founding of the new world, was the largest factor in turning around europe is fortunes.   #  the way i wrote it came across very black and white, and it certainly is more nuanced, as you point out.  i think its a fair statement, however, that while the foundations of western superiority started to be laid out around 0, the point at which it became unmatched was industrial revolution and on.  keep in mind that the muslims were in spain until 0.  from 0 0, i would argue that both macro societies were at relatively equal footing, with the muslim empires slightly more advantaged by virtue of the effects of  cultural momentum  that is, though they were clearly declining, they still had much already built.  i think the founding of the new world, was the largest factor in turning around europe is fortunes.  i think the industrial revolution is what widened the gap massively, to the point that we have completely outpaced the muslim world right now from a power perspective, at least .  yes i agree, turkey is a secular country, though that was relatively recent 0 is .  i am referring to the larger, long term prospectus.  turkey benefits from being at the border of europe.  i do not ever see the large swaths of middle eastern countries adopting the same position though.  furthermore, in my travels in turkey, i noticed that a majority of people are still very religious at least outwardly .  the call to prayer is delivered loudly.  the same amount of religious fervor would not be seen in america except in the deep south.  except this was the so called  isecular  portion of the muslim world.   #  the same goes with divorces, which were illegal in italy until 0.   #  parts of  just refers to bosnia which has christian parts as well .  turkey is meant as a whole country.  germany has a church tax which is enforced by the government.  at least germany and austria have religious education in public schools, paid by the public, but the church decides the curriculum.  the church of england is the officially established religious institution in england with the queen at its head.  some bishops are members of the house of lords just because of their ecclesiastical role in the church of england.  how do you call  that  if not mixture of church and state ? some other european countries like denmark, sweden, norway or iceland have state churches or had them till just a few years ago.  the king or quen of denmark has to belong to this church.  the christian churches still have political influence in countries like poland, italy, ireland, spain or even austria.  some countries are even governed by parties who call theirselves  christian .  laws against abortion who still exist or at least are seriously debated in eu countries as well as us states are also a clear sign of a political influence of the church.  the same goes with divorces, which were illegal in italy until 0.   #  we ca not force you to admit that your view has been changed, but if you have indicated at this being the case then please award one.   # you must also include an explanation of this change along with the delta.  this rule covers two things: you must award a delta if you have mentioned a change of view in your comment.  we ca not force you to admit that your view has been changed, but if you have indicated at this being the case then please award one.  instructions on how to do so are in the sidebar.  please note that a delta is not a sign of  wouldefeat ,  it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion.  a delta / end of discussion.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.   #  no, it is a disbelief in a deity.   # now i am an atheist.   are you implying nobody has ever converted ? most atheists separate from the church.  many christians change demonations, or sometimes completely separate religions.  no, it is a disbelief in a deity.  if atheism isnt a disbelief in a god than what is ?  #  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.   #  /r/exmormon /r/exmuslim /r/exchristian /r/exjew /r/exatheist these subreddits will allow you to talk with people who have changed their primary beliefs.   # /r/exmormon /r/exmuslim /r/exchristian /r/exjew /r/exatheist these subreddits will allow you to talk with people who have changed their primary beliefs.  for others, arguing about religion and god is not a waste of time.  it is important because beliefs inform actions.  we can argue about what is  good  or  bad,  but in general, many of us view certain behaviors as detrimental to the health and well being of society.  actions such as declaring  god hates fags  or flying planes into buildings.  when we find that the some of the motivating factors for these actions is religious, then it becomes beneficial to the health and well being of society to moderate these beliefs.  we can argue about the best way to approach this, but people will be receptive to belief altering arguments, making the time worthwhile.   #  maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  a theist believes in some form of god.   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.   #  for others, arguing about religion and god is not a waste of time.   # /r/exmormon /r/exmuslim /r/exchristian /r/exjew /r/exatheist these subreddits will allow you to talk with people who have changed their primary beliefs.  for others, arguing about religion and god is not a waste of time.  it is important because beliefs inform actions.  we can argue about what is  good  or  bad,  but in general, many of us view certain behaviors as detrimental to the health and well being of society.  actions such as declaring  god hates fags  or flying planes into buildings.  when we find that the some of the motivating factors for these actions is religious, then it becomes beneficial to the health and well being of society to moderate these beliefs.  we can argue about the best way to approach this, but people will be receptive to belief altering arguments, making the time worthwhile.   #  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.   #  there is plenty of evidence that can be presented from both sides.   # there is plenty of evidence that can be presented from both sides.  if you have a religious text that makes claims, you can test those claims to see if they are true.  you can also test a religious text against itself to see if it is contradictory.  religion in america is threatening homosexual rights, religious minority rights, and science education.  religion in the middle east is causing death and destruction.  anything that has this much effect on the world is certainly worth discussing and debating.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? while there is no way to disprove  every  possible god, you can certainly disprove  specific  incarnations of a god.  we know that there are no gods on top of mountains or living in the sky.  we know that a god that created the earth fairly recently thousands of years ago cannot exist because the earth is far older than that.  we can also test the effects of prayer, spells, magic, incantations, etc to disprove those beliefs.  because religion can effect other people.  cults often take on followers and steal their money or even induce them to commit suicide.  other religions want to oppress or harm groups of people like homosexuals, women, or those outside their religion.  finally, there are the ideas of education, knowledge, and critical thinking.  believing in something that is  wrong  is not a good thing.  many parents have foregone medical care for their children and prayed instead.  sometimes those children die.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.   you should talk to more people.  it starts with a vague sense of being uncomfortable.  regardless of your belief, religious belief is strongly held; it is natural to try and protect it.  if i can raise internal questions for another person, at least they end up with a better understanding of who they are.   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.   #  religion in america is threatening homosexual rights, religious minority rights, and science education.   # there is plenty of evidence that can be presented from both sides.  if you have a religious text that makes claims, you can test those claims to see if they are true.  you can also test a religious text against itself to see if it is contradictory.  religion in america is threatening homosexual rights, religious minority rights, and science education.  religion in the middle east is causing death and destruction.  anything that has this much effect on the world is certainly worth discussing and debating.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? while there is no way to disprove  every  possible god, you can certainly disprove  specific  incarnations of a god.  we know that there are no gods on top of mountains or living in the sky.  we know that a god that created the earth fairly recently thousands of years ago cannot exist because the earth is far older than that.  we can also test the effects of prayer, spells, magic, incantations, etc to disprove those beliefs.  because religion can effect other people.  cults often take on followers and steal their money or even induce them to commit suicide.  other religions want to oppress or harm groups of people like homosexuals, women, or those outside their religion.  finally, there are the ideas of education, knowledge, and critical thinking.  believing in something that is  wrong  is not a good thing.  many parents have foregone medical care for their children and prayed instead.  sometimes those children die.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.   you should talk to more people.  it starts with a vague sense of being uncomfortable.  regardless of your belief, religious belief is strongly held; it is natural to try and protect it.  if i can raise internal questions for another person, at least they end up with a better understanding of who they are.   #  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.   #  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.   # there is plenty of evidence that can be presented from both sides.  if you have a religious text that makes claims, you can test those claims to see if they are true.  you can also test a religious text against itself to see if it is contradictory.  religion in america is threatening homosexual rights, religious minority rights, and science education.  religion in the middle east is causing death and destruction.  anything that has this much effect on the world is certainly worth discussing and debating.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? while there is no way to disprove  every  possible god, you can certainly disprove  specific  incarnations of a god.  we know that there are no gods on top of mountains or living in the sky.  we know that a god that created the earth fairly recently thousands of years ago cannot exist because the earth is far older than that.  we can also test the effects of prayer, spells, magic, incantations, etc to disprove those beliefs.  because religion can effect other people.  cults often take on followers and steal their money or even induce them to commit suicide.  other religions want to oppress or harm groups of people like homosexuals, women, or those outside their religion.  finally, there are the ideas of education, knowledge, and critical thinking.  believing in something that is  wrong  is not a good thing.  many parents have foregone medical care for their children and prayed instead.  sometimes those children die.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.   you should talk to more people.  it starts with a vague sense of being uncomfortable.  regardless of your belief, religious belief is strongly held; it is natural to try and protect it.  if i can raise internal questions for another person, at least they end up with a better understanding of who they are.   #  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.   #  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.   # this is a pervasive misunderstanding.  an agnostic atheist URL does not believe there is a god.  that is not the same as believing there is not a god, in the same way that if you have a jar of marbles, and tell me the number of marbles is even, i do not need to believe that the number is odd just because i do not believe the number is even.  i do not  know  how many marbles are in your jar.  i do not believe  either .  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.   i have changed several people is minds.  i have certainly met several peole who have had religious conversions.  in fact, most of the atheists i have ever met were once religious, then were convinced by somebody to no longer be religious.   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  a theist believes in some form of god.   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.   #  an atheist believes there is not a god.   #  nitpick first.  an atheist believes there is not a god.  an agnostic either is not sure or does not care.  in my opinion as a christian , none.  i do not see any real benefit to being an atheist aside from an ostensible freedom from tortuous religious requirements.  however, that freedom could be maintained with a less strict religion, so that is a moot point.  and as far as books on atheism go, i do not really see the point in  strengthening your stance  on atheism.  if you do not believe, you do not believe.  big difference.  eh, not that big of a difference.  if you get your buddy to convert, that is a win.  if your debate is what sparked his research, that is still a win.  as /u/garnteller pointed out, evangelicals believe that you are literally bound for an eternity of suffering if you die without christ.  because of that, they are in the spiritual position of watching a train hurtling toward you.  they would be fools or outright evil not to do everything in their power to get you off the tracks.  as far as the debates go, i have stopped trying to prove or disprove god is existence.  a philosopher i want to say it was john locke, but i am probably wrong once famously proved that it is impossible to disprove the existence of god as we know him, and the only way to prove his existence would be for him to step down and say hello.  at that point it becomes a choice.  there is equal solid, empirical proof none for both sides: is there a god or is not there ? at that point, you then are making a different value judgment.  which worldview will benefit me more ? this takes two forks from there.  the most popular one is pascal is wager: basically if there is a god and a heaven, we lose nothing by worshipping him, and we gain heaven and avoid hell when we die.  if there is not, it does not matter what we do.  so the only losing scenario is one in which you do not worship god; you have a 0 0 of dying and going to hell.  the other fork is the one i prefer.  in this one, i choose to believe in god because it has a positive impact on my own life.  i have a stronger and less mobile beacon to follow.  god, according to my theology, is unchanging.  if i base my morality on that, then it is less likely to shift.  a divine mandate is harder to  work around  than a human one.  additionally, the hope of someone who believes in a benevolent god can be bracing in times of trial.  third, it satisfies the thirst that many people i would say all people, but all generalizations are wrong have for the supernatural, the magical.  everything that is happened to me in my life can be explained without the existence of god.  but because i believe he exists, and because of what i believe  about  him, i am a better person than i would likely be without that example.   #  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ?  #  in my opinion as a christian , none.   #  nitpick first.  an atheist believes there is not a god.  an agnostic either is not sure or does not care.  in my opinion as a christian , none.  i do not see any real benefit to being an atheist aside from an ostensible freedom from tortuous religious requirements.  however, that freedom could be maintained with a less strict religion, so that is a moot point.  and as far as books on atheism go, i do not really see the point in  strengthening your stance  on atheism.  if you do not believe, you do not believe.  big difference.  eh, not that big of a difference.  if you get your buddy to convert, that is a win.  if your debate is what sparked his research, that is still a win.  as /u/garnteller pointed out, evangelicals believe that you are literally bound for an eternity of suffering if you die without christ.  because of that, they are in the spiritual position of watching a train hurtling toward you.  they would be fools or outright evil not to do everything in their power to get you off the tracks.  as far as the debates go, i have stopped trying to prove or disprove god is existence.  a philosopher i want to say it was john locke, but i am probably wrong once famously proved that it is impossible to disprove the existence of god as we know him, and the only way to prove his existence would be for him to step down and say hello.  at that point it becomes a choice.  there is equal solid, empirical proof none for both sides: is there a god or is not there ? at that point, you then are making a different value judgment.  which worldview will benefit me more ? this takes two forks from there.  the most popular one is pascal is wager: basically if there is a god and a heaven, we lose nothing by worshipping him, and we gain heaven and avoid hell when we die.  if there is not, it does not matter what we do.  so the only losing scenario is one in which you do not worship god; you have a 0 0 of dying and going to hell.  the other fork is the one i prefer.  in this one, i choose to believe in god because it has a positive impact on my own life.  i have a stronger and less mobile beacon to follow.  god, according to my theology, is unchanging.  if i base my morality on that, then it is less likely to shift.  a divine mandate is harder to  work around  than a human one.  additionally, the hope of someone who believes in a benevolent god can be bracing in times of trial.  third, it satisfies the thirst that many people i would say all people, but all generalizations are wrong have for the supernatural, the magical.  everything that is happened to me in my life can be explained without the existence of god.  but because i believe he exists, and because of what i believe  about  him, i am a better person than i would likely be without that example.   #  maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.   #  actually, technically there is a difference between weak atheists and strong atheists, and under the academic definition of atheism only strong atheists believe that there is not a god.   # actually, technically there is a difference between weak atheists and strong atheists, and under the academic definition of atheism only strong atheists believe that there is not a god.  weak atheists just do not believe that god exists.  the difference seems minor, but it makes all the difference in its implications.  there is actually also a bit of a misconception regarding agnosticism.  it is not simply a lesser version of atheism or anything like that.  atheism deals with beliefs or a lack of them , while agnosticism deals with knowledge.  i do not want to get into any philosophy i. e.  belief vs knowledge , but the result is that it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist.  in fact, i happen to be a weak atheist who is also agnostic.  here is the wikipedia article explaining the 0 types of atheism URL  #  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
in the past two or three years, i have been in a few religious atheist arguments and i end every one of them by saying there is no proof for anything regarding this topic.  for me, arguing about religion and whether or not god exists is a huge waste of time.  a christian/jew/muslim believes in god.  an atheist/agnostic believes there is not a god.  nobody knows anything concrete.  so what is the point of arguing and reading all these books about atheism ? why do not people just stick to their own beliefs and stop persuading others to become religious or atheist ? of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.    #  of all the people i have talked to on this topic, 0 of them stuck to their primary beliefs.   #  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.   # an atheist lacks belief in a god.  most will say they do not believe there is a god, rather than that they believe there is not one, as this would shift the burden of proof onto them.  nobody said  oh, this guy has a point.  now i am an atheist.   just because none of the people that you have talked to on the topic have changed their mind while you are talking to them does not make it a waste of time.  at the very least, both people benefit from hearing another person is point of view.  questions raised during such a discussion do lead to people changing their mind, but it is often a gradual process.  after all, gaining or losing belief in a deity will most likely alter your worldview more than changing your mind about any other topic.  not many people are going to do so lightly.   #  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .   #  if you are a fundamentalist christian, you believe that those who have not embraced christ are doomed to burn in everlasting hellfire.  the whole history of christianity is one of evangelism, bringing people to the faith whether through conversation or threat of death .  is it a waste of time to tell someone standing on railroad tracks that a train is coming ? maybe they wo not believe you, but many people would feel that they have an obligation to try to save them.  we are talking about a mistake that could last an eternity here.  on the flip side, atheists look at religious folks doing the equivalent of linus sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the great pumpkin on halloween.  they are foregoing living in the present and making the most of the only life they will ever get because they believe in a silly, unfounded superstition.  we are talking about throwing away your life here.  these things matter.  while no one is going to settle the dispute for everyone simply by arguing about it on reddit, you can resolve the question for you, personally which could quite literally change your life and perhaps your afterlife .  seems pretty important to me.   #  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.   #  technically those two are separate.  gnostic is whether or not you believe to know.  theistic is whether or not you chose to worship gods.  a agnostic atheist is unsure whether a god exists but chooses to not worship one.  a gnostic atheist knows there is no god.  a gnostic theist knows there is a god.  a agnostic theist does not know whether a god really exists, but worships them regardless.   #  a theist believes in some form of god.   #  pretty easily.  a theist believes in some form of god.  an anti theist believes as an atheist does that religious belief is harmful.  how is that not viable ? not all faiths believe in a worship driver afterlife.  not all faiths believe their gods are  all good .  they do not all think suffering in the world comes from lack of faith.   #  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.   #  anti theism is nothing but immaturity and ignorance, with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in there just for kicks.  you all rail against religion by which i mean nothing but christianity and islam, and never judaism or buddhism , which is your right as a person i suppose, but you do it so badly.  you complain about the words  under god  in the pledge of allegiance.  you whine when someone at a dinner party asks to give grace.  you never stop to consider the idea that to some, faith in a higher power is a helpful thing to have, never stop to consider how much you hurt the credibility of atheism as a whole everytime you complain about some random flaw in someone else is beliefs.  you think you are some intellectual dark horse, striving to inform a population about the truth they refuse to recognize, but you are just an annoyance who makes everyone else with the same beliefs as you look worse ironic, considering that you often paint all religious folk with the same brush as their extremists .  and i do not care if you view religion as holding humanity back, there is a time and a place for arguing against it.  it makes a hella poor conversation at the dinner table.  besides,  isemi literate  ? regardless of your religious leanings, the bible basically created a number of the literary tropes and devices we take for granted, with several of it is passages making pretty good stories on their own merits.
i know this is a very bigoted perspective against women and thus i would like my views to be changed.  i believe that in almost any culture, it is far more easier for a woman to get the opportunity to have sex than a man even in conservative countries .  conversely, if a woman is having sex that means a man is having sex too and here is where my point kicks in.  since it is generally a steep curve for an average man to have sex with a woman, he is considered a  winner  of some sort when he does get laid.  no matter how many women he is sleeping with, each woman is considered a challenge for him and thus i think that he is got the game.  so when a woman does the same thing, i. e. , sleeping around with multiple men, it feels that a man does not even have a challenge.  it is simply too easy.  she is too easy.  every car gets to hit the pothole.  i really want to start thinking that men could also be considered a whore and that a woman can be a player.   #  i really want to start thinking that men could also be considered a whore and that a woman can be a player.   #  the problem with this is that you are still making a value judgment on a person based on how much sex they have, you have just switched the genders.   #  i believe that the problem is the way that you are viewing sex.  the  slut vs player  viewpoint that you described has the pursuit of sex as a sort of game where men get 0 for every sexual encounter because finding a sexual partner is difficult for many men and women get a 0 for every sexual encounter because having sex is comparatively easier for many women .  in the view that you have outlined, the actual sex that is had is meaningless, you either gain or lose points from the mechanical act of sex  does not matter, had sex  .  calling someone a  slut  is making a judgment on their character  do not hang out with her, she is a slut  .  calling someone a player is as well  he is awesome, he is such a player ! instead, think of it as that many people, men and women, find sex to be an enjoyable activity.  whether or not it is  easy  or  hard  to for an individual to find someone to have sex with, the act of having sex is simply something that they enjoy doing.  replace  sex  with  playing basketball .  many people like to play basketball.  some people are very good at playing basketball.  some people are not very good at all, but still enjoy playing.  as long as they are not hurting other people with their basketball playing, whether or not they are good at basketball has no bearing on their value as a person.  at the end of the day, having sex or not having sex does not make someone a better or worse person, so the  slut vs player  definition is ultimately meaningless.  the problem with this is that you are still making a value judgment on a person based on how much sex they have, you have just switched the genders.  once you get over the idea that having lots of consensual sex is neither makes you a good person or a bad person, you see that men and women are neither sluts or players, just people.   #  it is thought that a woman is status goes down for sleeping around because it makes it harder for other women who are not promiscuous to find relationships, which in this case is like valuable mud.   #  it is thought that a woman is status goes down for sleeping around because it makes it harder for other women who are not promiscuous to find relationships, which in this case is like valuable mud.  i mean, there also might be something to do with the risks women take when having sex being larger than men is ? you know, pregnancy and physical abuse sort of things these are more dubious to me, but probably an interesting point for example in a town with three men and three women, if one woman decides she will just have sex with all three men, it is less likely that those men would be willing to enter a committed relationship with either of the other two women.  this makes the other two unhappy because it is both  driving down the value of gold  and also  making valuable mud scarce .  what is interesting is that in general men do not have as much of a negative view of sluts as women do.  in the past when social research was done on this matter it was just assumed that men were the ones who perpetrated the negativity surrounding the sexualization of women, you know, in a sort of patriarchal sense.  however when the research was re analyzed as part of more recent gender studies it was found that the women perpetuated that shaming behavior of what we would call promiscuity.  to me this makes sense for the opposite association also.  who is more impressed by a man gloating to have fucked three women in three days ? you would get some high fives from your mates probably, but that hat trick wo not get you as many points with the ladies.  tl;dr guys do not hate sluts, chicks do not fawn over  players   as much as you might think .  of course, this is talking in general and statistics, blah blah individuality, blah blah snowflakes.   #  here is the thing, your gut feeling on this is not actually being created by your reasoning up there.   #  here is the thing, your gut feeling on this is not actually being created by your reasoning up there.  you have a gut feeling on gender norms and are creating a rationalization for it.  and that rationalization actually does not make any sense.  the more sex a man has, the bigger a  player  he is, but also the easier that sex probably must have been for him to get there are going to be exceptions, but in general .  for instance leonardo dicaprio and george clooney are considered players, and yet they could probably stop bathing, use only pickup lines they learned from the bad guys in 0 is movies, and wear nothing but hammer pants and shirts that say  female body inspector  and still get laid every day of their lives if they wanted.  if it was actually about the effort, required you would hold attractive, charismatic, and athletic men who sleep around in the same disdain as women who do, based on the comparative ease with which they can get sex.  but you do not have a gut level reaction against this, so you ca not claim that you actually think less of people who have lots of sex that was easy for them to get.  what you are really reacting to is an ingrained and subtle disdain that our culture has for female pleasure.  and the way of thinking you described above perpetuates itself every generation, since women are told they become worthless if they act on their desires too often, creating the challenge you described, passing the taboo of female sexuality down, and starting the whole thing over.  but the madonna/whore dichotomy is a lie.  everybody likes orgasms, not just  sluts  and  players,  and there is nothing wrong with getting as many as you can as long as everyone involved is down for it.   #  why is a women being promiscuous a bad thing ?  # it is simply too easy.  she is too easy.  every car gets to hit the pothole.  i really do not think this is true.  but let is assume that it is.  slut is a word that has a high level of negative connotation and shame attached to it.  it is used to refer to a woman who acts outside of social norms and is very scornful.  why is a women being promiscuous a bad thing ? even if it is easy, what is the problem ? if she is safe, honest, and happy, then what is wrong about it ?  #  so if the poor black girl graduates and gets that job, that is impressive.   #  most of the time, while we admire people for doing things that are difficult, we do not disparage them for doing things that are easy.  for example, if you are a rich, white, western, male teenager, it is going to be a lot easier for you to go to college, graduate, and get a high paying job than it is for a poor black girl in a third world country.  so if the poor black girl graduates and gets that job, that is impressive.  if i read that news story, i am going to be like, wow, you go, girl ! but i do not go around thinking every white kid in college is an asshole because it was too easy for them to get where they are now.  it is still great for them that they are getting an education.  so, sure, admire people for having difficult sexual conquests if it is something you value.  but there is no reason to disparage people for having it easier.  it is still great for them that they are doing something they enjoy.
imagine playing with dice.  now there exists 0 sided, 0 sided, 0 , 0 , 0 , and 0 sided varieties.  fantasy football is basically 0 people rolling a mixed set of nine ish 0 through 0 sided dice and seeing who gets a higher number.  obviously you are picking the best dice you can but ultimately you are just rolling them and hoping.  some of them come up 0 is and some of them come up with their max value but, and here is the clincher for me ,  you have no ability to effect their outcome .  as a game, ff is so bad because you are picking the guys you think are going to score the most points.  some people who are pretty smart and do this  for a living  have already done the paperwork of figuring out who should score how many points in a given week.  you just slot up the guys on your roster and root for them on sunday.  let me clarify my position: i am  not  speaking to the value of watching the games and enjoying rooting for teams you would not normally care about.  i am talking about ff as a  game .  any games based so much on luck are terrible games.  i really feel like there should be a better way to play fantasy football but before i cement the idea that it is crap in my head, i would like to hear the other side out.   #  as a game, ff is so bad because you are picking the guys you think are going to score the most points.   #  that varies fro week to week based on your opponent, and the defense the players are up against.   #  there is no such thing as luck.  the game is based on knowledge, strategy, preparation, and probability.  your dice example is all probability and not luck.  that varies fro week to week based on your opponent, and the defense the players are up against.  while rb0 maybe the best rusher in the league who scores the most points in the season this week he is playing the x defense who gives up no yards on the ground.  i think ff is much more involved than you think it is.  baseball is the most intense.  even though it is the exact same probability issue there, as fantasy football ? why the disconnect ?  #  just because a game has some level of luck does not make it a luck based game.   #  just because a game has some level of luck does not make it a luck based game.  if i can prove that a player can increase his potential to win in any way, over a player that makes different choices, that means skill affects the game result.  if i am a ff football player and i do research on match ups, injury reports and long and short term trends i would suggest that the choices based of my information, and my ability to analyze the information, would affect game outcome.  i mean poker has some level of luck, but if anyone called poker just a luck based game the would be very much in the wrong.  in ff, can a person make any choice that will improve or lessen his or her chance of winning ? if your answer is yes to that question, there is a lot more then luck in play.   #  maybe the opposing team is oc has been secretly taping practices and knows how you are preparing for the week.   #  i did say  almost purely  luck based.  i definitely recognize what goes into the strategy such as it is .  the problem is that ultimately they just go out on the field and you have no idea what could happen after that.  maybe your wr had an argument with the qb and does not get as many looks.  maybe the gameplan did not call for the te to ever touch the ball he is blocking strong side all game.  maybe the opposing team is oc has been secretly taping practices and knows how you are preparing for the week.  but since these are not really  your  guys and you are not there, you ca not actually make a truly informed decision.  you are only seeing outcomes of previous conditions which may or may not have any bearing on the game at hand.  it is like trying to predict the weather, really, and those guys are proven wrong 0 of the time.  i can find the source, gimme a bit.  i have seen people win ff championships based on the most ridiculous teams that they could not possibly have predicted.  i have seen people make playoff games who never touch their lineup all season.  there is no way that should be possible in any decent game.   #  are there any choices a player can make that affect the outcome ?  #  and i have seen people draw in inside straights and win pots.  what you have proven is that luck has some bearing on the game.  that is true for lots of games.  that does not mean that game winner is purely based on luck.  are there any choices a player can make that affect the outcome ? would a player with no knowledge of ff be able to make a team that will perform just as well as someone with lots of knowledge ? if i can see that one of ply obs is going against the best pass defense in the league, so i start my other, lower ranked qb, that is a player choice that could affect my performance for that week.  if i noticed that the weather conditions in city x are horrible and thus there will be more of a run game and thus i start that rb from that team, even though i do not usually play him, that is a choice i am making.  those two choices affect the outcome of my performance.  those are not luck based decisions.  skill does come into play.   #  i think it is important to understand the testing that you can do to determine how luck based a game is.   #  i think it is important to understand the testing that you can do to determine how luck based a game is.  to find out if a game is pure luck, you need to try and lose, not try and win.  the reason that intentionally losing is the test is because most games make it harder to win than to lose.  if a game is pure luck, however, you will not be able to intentionally lose.  this, is not for a single attempt, but rather for the game at large.  the more luck in a game, the harder it is to lose.  why is this the test ? because you cannot intentionally lose on a slot machine.  that is pure luck, and you cannot make your outcome better or worse based on play.  but if i played on a fantasy football team, i could easily field a valid team that would lose 0 of the time assuming that someone else is not also trying to lose .  that means the game is not that heavily luck based.  i also do not like ff, but luck/skill combo games are a totally valid type of game, because they require people to adjust their plan to account for things outside of their control.  this makes luck/skill games ones that force you to adjust to the universe, and make games more dynamic than ones that have no randomness, and forces much more adaptation in the player.
the purpose of a leader/government is to lead a society, keep order, and most importantly, benefit the society.  to be successful at this, a government needs to keep a focus on the nation first, then the people, and only then any other nations or peoples.  if rulers are compassionate or empathetic, they are at risk of putting aside the important goals in favor of doing what is deemed  morally right.   in order to minimize people is personal moral codes getting in the way of a powerful, efficient society, sociopaths and other people with little to no morals should be encourages to attain positions of power.  a sociopath would be able to ignore moral and ethical quandaries and cut straight to the point: what is best for the nation, and our people.  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.  cmv  #  a sociopath would be able to ignore moral and ethical quandaries and cut straight to the point: what is best for the nation, and our people.   #  but the problem is that  what is best for the nation   is  an ethical quandary.   # but the problem is that  what is best for the nation   is  an ethical quandary.  if the problem is  how to grow the tallest stalk of corn  or  how to detonate the biggest bomb , you have a technical decision that can be answered with no empathy or moral compass.  but deciding what the  nation  is, what is  good  for it, and whether to act on that national good those are intrinsically moral issues.  the first problem is that a sociopath might have insane ideas about what is  good  for the nation.  he might start a war purely because he thinks it would be  good  for the young men to get to shoot other people, or huddle in trenches while bombs fall, and so on.  he might encourage pandemics to toughen the immunities of the survivors.  there are all sorts of nutty things someone who truly had no moral compass might assume were  good , even if he were faithfully trying to serve the nation.  the second problem is that he might take a careless or narcissistic view of who counts as  the nation .  even in normal politics, there is a problem that rich powerful men tend to assume that the interests of other rich powerful men are the same as the national interest; ethnic majorities assume that people of their color are more important; rural people think farmers are  real americans ; and so on.  to combat these natural prejudices we need empathy and moral thinking, to help us value the needs of all citizens equally.  a sociopath lacking these resources would have nothing holding him back from identifying  the nation  with whoever caught his fancy on that day.  third, why would he give a shit about the nation in the first place ? sociopathic politicians have always, historically, done the bare minimum of public service they need to keep their reputation healthy, while engaging in embezzlement, nepotism, favoritism, kleptocracy, murder, rape, terror, torture, and general concentration of power on an unprecedented scale.   #  it is very literally the philosophy around the question  what is the correct or at least permissible course of action in a given situation .   #  a sociopath is not just someone who lacks a empathy.  it is disorder that has a number of negative attributes.  for example, sociopaths tend to exhibit:   unreliability   untruthfulness and insincerity   poor judgment and failure to learn by experience   specific loss of insight source URL furthermore, morality  is  important.  it is not an obstacle.  it is very literally the philosophy around the question  what is the correct or at least permissible course of action in a given situation .  if you are making immoral actions, you are very literally making bad decisions.  if goals there are goals that are very important, it is a moral imperative to carry them out.  i am not sure what kind of important goals you think should be made but are not due to morality.   #  the fact that morality is subjective is why we do not have a team of researchers doing experiments to derive what is moral and instead hold elections and have people vote.   # this is true.  being subjective means it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of opinion.  how tasty lemonade is is completely subjective, but that does not make it wrong when i declare that lemonade is delicious.  it means i am just speaking my opinion.  the fact that morality is subjective is why we do not have a team of researchers doing experiments to derive what is moral and instead hold elections and have people vote.  it is so that we can have policies and leaders who best represent the will of the people.  in any case, you seem to object to matters of morality here because you think morality is subjective, but in your original post you state that you are worried that leaders  are at risk of putting aside the important goals .  yet, what goals are important is likewise an entirely subjective value judgement.  is the economy important ? is feeding the starving important ? is becoming a more powerful country important ? all of these are based on your completely subjective values.   #  presumably we want our leaders to respond to moral reasons because circumstances like this, where an individual politician is interests might oppose a nation is interests, are not uncommon.   #  you seem to imagine that world leaders frequently face situations where they must choose either serving the national interest or doing the morally right thing.  i am not sure why you think is the case.  it seems much easier to think of examples in which a world leader will have to choose between serving either their own personal interest or the national interest, and in these cases, making the morally right choice amounts to the same thing as making the choice that serves the national interest being that it is wrong for world leaders to privilege their own interests over the interests of the state they represent .  suppose a sociopath from party a is elected president.  this sociopath has a fool proof method of covertly killing a number of high ranking officials from party b.  this will increase the sociopath is prosperity at the expense of the nation.  why would a sociopath choose not to kill those officials ? the only reasons not to are moral reasons, and a sociopath does not respond to moral reasons.  presumably we want our leaders to respond to moral reasons because circumstances like this, where an individual politician is interests might oppose a nation is interests, are not uncommon.   #  my guess is that in most cases, reasonable people will prefer the moral choice.   # my guess is that in most cases, reasonable people will prefer the moral choice.  alright.  nation a is a big, powerful nation.  nation b is a small, resource rich nation.  nation a needs nation b is resources, and would be able to win a war to attain them at less cost than a trade deal.  however, thousands of civilians would die from nation b.  the correct choice for a leader of nation a is to take the resources, regardless of loss of life.  it is usually not the  moral choice , however.
the purpose of a leader/government is to lead a society, keep order, and most importantly, benefit the society.  to be successful at this, a government needs to keep a focus on the nation first, then the people, and only then any other nations or peoples.  if rulers are compassionate or empathetic, they are at risk of putting aside the important goals in favor of doing what is deemed  morally right.   in order to minimize people is personal moral codes getting in the way of a powerful, efficient society, sociopaths and other people with little to no morals should be encourages to attain positions of power.  a sociopath would be able to ignore moral and ethical quandaries and cut straight to the point: what is best for the nation, and our people.  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.  cmv  #  to be successful at this, a government needs to keep a focus on the nation first, then the people, and only then any other nations or peoples.   #  what is the difference between a nation and its people ?  # what is the difference between a nation and its people ? if a leader is a sociopath, they are at risk of doggedly pursuing destructive tasks in the name of  winning , whatever they believe that might be.  they will grind the country they lead into the ground in pursuit of that goal, and whether it is good for  the country  is not something they are a very good judge of, in general.  stalin did not pause his purges because he realized he was making a mistake, he paused his purges because his best generals gave him an ultimatum.  in the mean time, their complete lack of moral sense means they think nothing of antagonizing and belittling people who might otherwise be of great value to them.  they will drive talent from their immediate sphere, replacing it with yes men and people who lack the capacity to tell them they are about to fuck up.  sociopaths in power only function so long as they have some organization they can leach from.  this is not a stable state of affairs even inside countries.  at the level of nations, this is all you have.  and heaven help you if you end up with a full blown malignant narcissist.  power already attracts them, and they tend to be a wrecking ball of progress.  most of the united states congress rates as  wouldouble highs  essentially sociopaths and narcissists.  you can tell how well they are functioning.  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.  a sociopath does not run a nation in a vacuum.  there are other power bases that they are forced to content with, and though cynics will claim otherwise, a lot of very powerful people rate ethics pretty highly.  more to the point, you do not need to be a sociopath, autistic, or malignarc to be ruthlessly effective.  you just need to be willing and able to look at larger pictures, further ahead.  this in general is something sociopaths tend to be extremely bad at doing, and lacking foresight is not a trait you want in any national leader.   #  a sociopath is not just someone who lacks a empathy.   #  a sociopath is not just someone who lacks a empathy.  it is disorder that has a number of negative attributes.  for example, sociopaths tend to exhibit:   unreliability   untruthfulness and insincerity   poor judgment and failure to learn by experience   specific loss of insight source URL furthermore, morality  is  important.  it is not an obstacle.  it is very literally the philosophy around the question  what is the correct or at least permissible course of action in a given situation .  if you are making immoral actions, you are very literally making bad decisions.  if goals there are goals that are very important, it is a moral imperative to carry them out.  i am not sure what kind of important goals you think should be made but are not due to morality.   #  being subjective means it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of opinion.   # this is true.  being subjective means it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of opinion.  how tasty lemonade is is completely subjective, but that does not make it wrong when i declare that lemonade is delicious.  it means i am just speaking my opinion.  the fact that morality is subjective is why we do not have a team of researchers doing experiments to derive what is moral and instead hold elections and have people vote.  it is so that we can have policies and leaders who best represent the will of the people.  in any case, you seem to object to matters of morality here because you think morality is subjective, but in your original post you state that you are worried that leaders  are at risk of putting aside the important goals .  yet, what goals are important is likewise an entirely subjective value judgement.  is the economy important ? is feeding the starving important ? is becoming a more powerful country important ? all of these are based on your completely subjective values.   #  if the problem is  how to grow the tallest stalk of corn  or  how to detonate the biggest bomb , you have a technical decision that can be answered with no empathy or moral compass.   # but the problem is that  what is best for the nation   is  an ethical quandary.  if the problem is  how to grow the tallest stalk of corn  or  how to detonate the biggest bomb , you have a technical decision that can be answered with no empathy or moral compass.  but deciding what the  nation  is, what is  good  for it, and whether to act on that national good those are intrinsically moral issues.  the first problem is that a sociopath might have insane ideas about what is  good  for the nation.  he might start a war purely because he thinks it would be  good  for the young men to get to shoot other people, or huddle in trenches while bombs fall, and so on.  he might encourage pandemics to toughen the immunities of the survivors.  there are all sorts of nutty things someone who truly had no moral compass might assume were  good , even if he were faithfully trying to serve the nation.  the second problem is that he might take a careless or narcissistic view of who counts as  the nation .  even in normal politics, there is a problem that rich powerful men tend to assume that the interests of other rich powerful men are the same as the national interest; ethnic majorities assume that people of their color are more important; rural people think farmers are  real americans ; and so on.  to combat these natural prejudices we need empathy and moral thinking, to help us value the needs of all citizens equally.  a sociopath lacking these resources would have nothing holding him back from identifying  the nation  with whoever caught his fancy on that day.  third, why would he give a shit about the nation in the first place ? sociopathic politicians have always, historically, done the bare minimum of public service they need to keep their reputation healthy, while engaging in embezzlement, nepotism, favoritism, kleptocracy, murder, rape, terror, torture, and general concentration of power on an unprecedented scale.   #  suppose a sociopath from party a is elected president.   #  you seem to imagine that world leaders frequently face situations where they must choose either serving the national interest or doing the morally right thing.  i am not sure why you think is the case.  it seems much easier to think of examples in which a world leader will have to choose between serving either their own personal interest or the national interest, and in these cases, making the morally right choice amounts to the same thing as making the choice that serves the national interest being that it is wrong for world leaders to privilege their own interests over the interests of the state they represent .  suppose a sociopath from party a is elected president.  this sociopath has a fool proof method of covertly killing a number of high ranking officials from party b.  this will increase the sociopath is prosperity at the expense of the nation.  why would a sociopath choose not to kill those officials ? the only reasons not to are moral reasons, and a sociopath does not respond to moral reasons.  presumably we want our leaders to respond to moral reasons because circumstances like this, where an individual politician is interests might oppose a nation is interests, are not uncommon.
the purpose of a leader/government is to lead a society, keep order, and most importantly, benefit the society.  to be successful at this, a government needs to keep a focus on the nation first, then the people, and only then any other nations or peoples.  if rulers are compassionate or empathetic, they are at risk of putting aside the important goals in favor of doing what is deemed  morally right.   in order to minimize people is personal moral codes getting in the way of a powerful, efficient society, sociopaths and other people with little to no morals should be encourages to attain positions of power.  a sociopath would be able to ignore moral and ethical quandaries and cut straight to the point: what is best for the nation, and our people.  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.  cmv  #  if rulers are compassionate or empathetic, they are at risk of putting aside the important goals in favor of doing what is deemed  morally right.    #  if a leader is a sociopath, they are at risk of doggedly pursuing destructive tasks in the name of  winning , whatever they believe that might be.   # what is the difference between a nation and its people ? if a leader is a sociopath, they are at risk of doggedly pursuing destructive tasks in the name of  winning , whatever they believe that might be.  they will grind the country they lead into the ground in pursuit of that goal, and whether it is good for  the country  is not something they are a very good judge of, in general.  stalin did not pause his purges because he realized he was making a mistake, he paused his purges because his best generals gave him an ultimatum.  in the mean time, their complete lack of moral sense means they think nothing of antagonizing and belittling people who might otherwise be of great value to them.  they will drive talent from their immediate sphere, replacing it with yes men and people who lack the capacity to tell them they are about to fuck up.  sociopaths in power only function so long as they have some organization they can leach from.  this is not a stable state of affairs even inside countries.  at the level of nations, this is all you have.  and heaven help you if you end up with a full blown malignant narcissist.  power already attracts them, and they tend to be a wrecking ball of progress.  most of the united states congress rates as  wouldouble highs  essentially sociopaths and narcissists.  you can tell how well they are functioning.  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.  a sociopath does not run a nation in a vacuum.  there are other power bases that they are forced to content with, and though cynics will claim otherwise, a lot of very powerful people rate ethics pretty highly.  more to the point, you do not need to be a sociopath, autistic, or malignarc to be ruthlessly effective.  you just need to be willing and able to look at larger pictures, further ahead.  this in general is something sociopaths tend to be extremely bad at doing, and lacking foresight is not a trait you want in any national leader.   #  i am not sure what kind of important goals you think should be made but are not due to morality.   #  a sociopath is not just someone who lacks a empathy.  it is disorder that has a number of negative attributes.  for example, sociopaths tend to exhibit:   unreliability   untruthfulness and insincerity   poor judgment and failure to learn by experience   specific loss of insight source URL furthermore, morality  is  important.  it is not an obstacle.  it is very literally the philosophy around the question  what is the correct or at least permissible course of action in a given situation .  if you are making immoral actions, you are very literally making bad decisions.  if goals there are goals that are very important, it is a moral imperative to carry them out.  i am not sure what kind of important goals you think should be made but are not due to morality.   #  all of these are based on your completely subjective values.   # this is true.  being subjective means it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of opinion.  how tasty lemonade is is completely subjective, but that does not make it wrong when i declare that lemonade is delicious.  it means i am just speaking my opinion.  the fact that morality is subjective is why we do not have a team of researchers doing experiments to derive what is moral and instead hold elections and have people vote.  it is so that we can have policies and leaders who best represent the will of the people.  in any case, you seem to object to matters of morality here because you think morality is subjective, but in your original post you state that you are worried that leaders  are at risk of putting aside the important goals .  yet, what goals are important is likewise an entirely subjective value judgement.  is the economy important ? is feeding the starving important ? is becoming a more powerful country important ? all of these are based on your completely subjective values.   #  to combat these natural prejudices we need empathy and moral thinking, to help us value the needs of all citizens equally.   # but the problem is that  what is best for the nation   is  an ethical quandary.  if the problem is  how to grow the tallest stalk of corn  or  how to detonate the biggest bomb , you have a technical decision that can be answered with no empathy or moral compass.  but deciding what the  nation  is, what is  good  for it, and whether to act on that national good those are intrinsically moral issues.  the first problem is that a sociopath might have insane ideas about what is  good  for the nation.  he might start a war purely because he thinks it would be  good  for the young men to get to shoot other people, or huddle in trenches while bombs fall, and so on.  he might encourage pandemics to toughen the immunities of the survivors.  there are all sorts of nutty things someone who truly had no moral compass might assume were  good , even if he were faithfully trying to serve the nation.  the second problem is that he might take a careless or narcissistic view of who counts as  the nation .  even in normal politics, there is a problem that rich powerful men tend to assume that the interests of other rich powerful men are the same as the national interest; ethnic majorities assume that people of their color are more important; rural people think farmers are  real americans ; and so on.  to combat these natural prejudices we need empathy and moral thinking, to help us value the needs of all citizens equally.  a sociopath lacking these resources would have nothing holding him back from identifying  the nation  with whoever caught his fancy on that day.  third, why would he give a shit about the nation in the first place ? sociopathic politicians have always, historically, done the bare minimum of public service they need to keep their reputation healthy, while engaging in embezzlement, nepotism, favoritism, kleptocracy, murder, rape, terror, torture, and general concentration of power on an unprecedented scale.   #  why would a sociopath choose not to kill those officials ?  #  you seem to imagine that world leaders frequently face situations where they must choose either serving the national interest or doing the morally right thing.  i am not sure why you think is the case.  it seems much easier to think of examples in which a world leader will have to choose between serving either their own personal interest or the national interest, and in these cases, making the morally right choice amounts to the same thing as making the choice that serves the national interest being that it is wrong for world leaders to privilege their own interests over the interests of the state they represent .  suppose a sociopath from party a is elected president.  this sociopath has a fool proof method of covertly killing a number of high ranking officials from party b.  this will increase the sociopath is prosperity at the expense of the nation.  why would a sociopath choose not to kill those officials ? the only reasons not to are moral reasons, and a sociopath does not respond to moral reasons.  presumably we want our leaders to respond to moral reasons because circumstances like this, where an individual politician is interests might oppose a nation is interests, are not uncommon.
the purpose of a leader/government is to lead a society, keep order, and most importantly, benefit the society.  to be successful at this, a government needs to keep a focus on the nation first, then the people, and only then any other nations or peoples.  if rulers are compassionate or empathetic, they are at risk of putting aside the important goals in favor of doing what is deemed  morally right.   in order to minimize people is personal moral codes getting in the way of a powerful, efficient society, sociopaths and other people with little to no morals should be encourages to attain positions of power.  a sociopath would be able to ignore moral and ethical quandaries and cut straight to the point: what is best for the nation, and our people.  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.  cmv  #  in order to minimize people is personal moral codes getting in the way of a powerful, efficient society, sociopaths and other people with little to no morals should be encourages to attain positions of power.   #  power already attracts them, and they tend to be a wrecking ball of progress.   # what is the difference between a nation and its people ? if a leader is a sociopath, they are at risk of doggedly pursuing destructive tasks in the name of  winning , whatever they believe that might be.  they will grind the country they lead into the ground in pursuit of that goal, and whether it is good for  the country  is not something they are a very good judge of, in general.  stalin did not pause his purges because he realized he was making a mistake, he paused his purges because his best generals gave him an ultimatum.  in the mean time, their complete lack of moral sense means they think nothing of antagonizing and belittling people who might otherwise be of great value to them.  they will drive talent from their immediate sphere, replacing it with yes men and people who lack the capacity to tell them they are about to fuck up.  sociopaths in power only function so long as they have some organization they can leach from.  this is not a stable state of affairs even inside countries.  at the level of nations, this is all you have.  and heaven help you if you end up with a full blown malignant narcissist.  power already attracts them, and they tend to be a wrecking ball of progress.  most of the united states congress rates as  wouldouble highs  essentially sociopaths and narcissists.  you can tell how well they are functioning.  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.  a sociopath does not run a nation in a vacuum.  there are other power bases that they are forced to content with, and though cynics will claim otherwise, a lot of very powerful people rate ethics pretty highly.  more to the point, you do not need to be a sociopath, autistic, or malignarc to be ruthlessly effective.  you just need to be willing and able to look at larger pictures, further ahead.  this in general is something sociopaths tend to be extremely bad at doing, and lacking foresight is not a trait you want in any national leader.   #  i am not sure what kind of important goals you think should be made but are not due to morality.   #  a sociopath is not just someone who lacks a empathy.  it is disorder that has a number of negative attributes.  for example, sociopaths tend to exhibit:   unreliability   untruthfulness and insincerity   poor judgment and failure to learn by experience   specific loss of insight source URL furthermore, morality  is  important.  it is not an obstacle.  it is very literally the philosophy around the question  what is the correct or at least permissible course of action in a given situation .  if you are making immoral actions, you are very literally making bad decisions.  if goals there are goals that are very important, it is a moral imperative to carry them out.  i am not sure what kind of important goals you think should be made but are not due to morality.   #  being subjective means it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of opinion.   # this is true.  being subjective means it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of opinion.  how tasty lemonade is is completely subjective, but that does not make it wrong when i declare that lemonade is delicious.  it means i am just speaking my opinion.  the fact that morality is subjective is why we do not have a team of researchers doing experiments to derive what is moral and instead hold elections and have people vote.  it is so that we can have policies and leaders who best represent the will of the people.  in any case, you seem to object to matters of morality here because you think morality is subjective, but in your original post you state that you are worried that leaders  are at risk of putting aside the important goals .  yet, what goals are important is likewise an entirely subjective value judgement.  is the economy important ? is feeding the starving important ? is becoming a more powerful country important ? all of these are based on your completely subjective values.   #  but deciding what the  nation  is, what is  good  for it, and whether to act on that national good those are intrinsically moral issues.   # but the problem is that  what is best for the nation   is  an ethical quandary.  if the problem is  how to grow the tallest stalk of corn  or  how to detonate the biggest bomb , you have a technical decision that can be answered with no empathy or moral compass.  but deciding what the  nation  is, what is  good  for it, and whether to act on that national good those are intrinsically moral issues.  the first problem is that a sociopath might have insane ideas about what is  good  for the nation.  he might start a war purely because he thinks it would be  good  for the young men to get to shoot other people, or huddle in trenches while bombs fall, and so on.  he might encourage pandemics to toughen the immunities of the survivors.  there are all sorts of nutty things someone who truly had no moral compass might assume were  good , even if he were faithfully trying to serve the nation.  the second problem is that he might take a careless or narcissistic view of who counts as  the nation .  even in normal politics, there is a problem that rich powerful men tend to assume that the interests of other rich powerful men are the same as the national interest; ethnic majorities assume that people of their color are more important; rural people think farmers are  real americans ; and so on.  to combat these natural prejudices we need empathy and moral thinking, to help us value the needs of all citizens equally.  a sociopath lacking these resources would have nothing holding him back from identifying  the nation  with whoever caught his fancy on that day.  third, why would he give a shit about the nation in the first place ? sociopathic politicians have always, historically, done the bare minimum of public service they need to keep their reputation healthy, while engaging in embezzlement, nepotism, favoritism, kleptocracy, murder, rape, terror, torture, and general concentration of power on an unprecedented scale.   #  why would a sociopath choose not to kill those officials ?  #  you seem to imagine that world leaders frequently face situations where they must choose either serving the national interest or doing the morally right thing.  i am not sure why you think is the case.  it seems much easier to think of examples in which a world leader will have to choose between serving either their own personal interest or the national interest, and in these cases, making the morally right choice amounts to the same thing as making the choice that serves the national interest being that it is wrong for world leaders to privilege their own interests over the interests of the state they represent .  suppose a sociopath from party a is elected president.  this sociopath has a fool proof method of covertly killing a number of high ranking officials from party b.  this will increase the sociopath is prosperity at the expense of the nation.  why would a sociopath choose not to kill those officials ? the only reasons not to are moral reasons, and a sociopath does not respond to moral reasons.  presumably we want our leaders to respond to moral reasons because circumstances like this, where an individual politician is interests might oppose a nation is interests, are not uncommon.
the purpose of a leader/government is to lead a society, keep order, and most importantly, benefit the society.  to be successful at this, a government needs to keep a focus on the nation first, then the people, and only then any other nations or peoples.  if rulers are compassionate or empathetic, they are at risk of putting aside the important goals in favor of doing what is deemed  morally right.   in order to minimize people is personal moral codes getting in the way of a powerful, efficient society, sociopaths and other people with little to no morals should be encourages to attain positions of power.  a sociopath would be able to ignore moral and ethical quandaries and cut straight to the point: what is best for the nation, and our people.  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.  cmv  #  a sociopath would be able to ignore moral and ethical quandaries and cut straight to the point: what is best for the nation, and our people.   #  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.   # what is the difference between a nation and its people ? if a leader is a sociopath, they are at risk of doggedly pursuing destructive tasks in the name of  winning , whatever they believe that might be.  they will grind the country they lead into the ground in pursuit of that goal, and whether it is good for  the country  is not something they are a very good judge of, in general.  stalin did not pause his purges because he realized he was making a mistake, he paused his purges because his best generals gave him an ultimatum.  in the mean time, their complete lack of moral sense means they think nothing of antagonizing and belittling people who might otherwise be of great value to them.  they will drive talent from their immediate sphere, replacing it with yes men and people who lack the capacity to tell them they are about to fuck up.  sociopaths in power only function so long as they have some organization they can leach from.  this is not a stable state of affairs even inside countries.  at the level of nations, this is all you have.  and heaven help you if you end up with a full blown malignant narcissist.  power already attracts them, and they tend to be a wrecking ball of progress.  most of the united states congress rates as  wouldouble highs  essentially sociopaths and narcissists.  you can tell how well they are functioning.  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.  a sociopath does not run a nation in a vacuum.  there are other power bases that they are forced to content with, and though cynics will claim otherwise, a lot of very powerful people rate ethics pretty highly.  more to the point, you do not need to be a sociopath, autistic, or malignarc to be ruthlessly effective.  you just need to be willing and able to look at larger pictures, further ahead.  this in general is something sociopaths tend to be extremely bad at doing, and lacking foresight is not a trait you want in any national leader.   #  it is disorder that has a number of negative attributes.   #  a sociopath is not just someone who lacks a empathy.  it is disorder that has a number of negative attributes.  for example, sociopaths tend to exhibit:   unreliability   untruthfulness and insincerity   poor judgment and failure to learn by experience   specific loss of insight source URL furthermore, morality  is  important.  it is not an obstacle.  it is very literally the philosophy around the question  what is the correct or at least permissible course of action in a given situation .  if you are making immoral actions, you are very literally making bad decisions.  if goals there are goals that are very important, it is a moral imperative to carry them out.  i am not sure what kind of important goals you think should be made but are not due to morality.   #  in any case, you seem to object to matters of morality here because you think morality is subjective, but in your original post you state that you are worried that leaders  are at risk of putting aside the important goals .   # this is true.  being subjective means it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of opinion.  how tasty lemonade is is completely subjective, but that does not make it wrong when i declare that lemonade is delicious.  it means i am just speaking my opinion.  the fact that morality is subjective is why we do not have a team of researchers doing experiments to derive what is moral and instead hold elections and have people vote.  it is so that we can have policies and leaders who best represent the will of the people.  in any case, you seem to object to matters of morality here because you think morality is subjective, but in your original post you state that you are worried that leaders  are at risk of putting aside the important goals .  yet, what goals are important is likewise an entirely subjective value judgement.  is the economy important ? is feeding the starving important ? is becoming a more powerful country important ? all of these are based on your completely subjective values.   #  he might encourage pandemics to toughen the immunities of the survivors.   # but the problem is that  what is best for the nation   is  an ethical quandary.  if the problem is  how to grow the tallest stalk of corn  or  how to detonate the biggest bomb , you have a technical decision that can be answered with no empathy or moral compass.  but deciding what the  nation  is, what is  good  for it, and whether to act on that national good those are intrinsically moral issues.  the first problem is that a sociopath might have insane ideas about what is  good  for the nation.  he might start a war purely because he thinks it would be  good  for the young men to get to shoot other people, or huddle in trenches while bombs fall, and so on.  he might encourage pandemics to toughen the immunities of the survivors.  there are all sorts of nutty things someone who truly had no moral compass might assume were  good , even if he were faithfully trying to serve the nation.  the second problem is that he might take a careless or narcissistic view of who counts as  the nation .  even in normal politics, there is a problem that rich powerful men tend to assume that the interests of other rich powerful men are the same as the national interest; ethnic majorities assume that people of their color are more important; rural people think farmers are  real americans ; and so on.  to combat these natural prejudices we need empathy and moral thinking, to help us value the needs of all citizens equally.  a sociopath lacking these resources would have nothing holding him back from identifying  the nation  with whoever caught his fancy on that day.  third, why would he give a shit about the nation in the first place ? sociopathic politicians have always, historically, done the bare minimum of public service they need to keep their reputation healthy, while engaging in embezzlement, nepotism, favoritism, kleptocracy, murder, rape, terror, torture, and general concentration of power on an unprecedented scale.   #  the only reasons not to are moral reasons, and a sociopath does not respond to moral reasons.   #  you seem to imagine that world leaders frequently face situations where they must choose either serving the national interest or doing the morally right thing.  i am not sure why you think is the case.  it seems much easier to think of examples in which a world leader will have to choose between serving either their own personal interest or the national interest, and in these cases, making the morally right choice amounts to the same thing as making the choice that serves the national interest being that it is wrong for world leaders to privilege their own interests over the interests of the state they represent .  suppose a sociopath from party a is elected president.  this sociopath has a fool proof method of covertly killing a number of high ranking officials from party b.  this will increase the sociopath is prosperity at the expense of the nation.  why would a sociopath choose not to kill those officials ? the only reasons not to are moral reasons, and a sociopath does not respond to moral reasons.  presumably we want our leaders to respond to moral reasons because circumstances like this, where an individual politician is interests might oppose a nation is interests, are not uncommon.
the purpose of a leader/government is to lead a society, keep order, and most importantly, benefit the society.  to be successful at this, a government needs to keep a focus on the nation first, then the people, and only then any other nations or peoples.  if rulers are compassionate or empathetic, they are at risk of putting aside the important goals in favor of doing what is deemed  morally right.   in order to minimize people is personal moral codes getting in the way of a powerful, efficient society, sociopaths and other people with little to no morals should be encourages to attain positions of power.  a sociopath would be able to ignore moral and ethical quandaries and cut straight to the point: what is best for the nation, and our people.  they would be able to crush forces threatening to tear society apart, and would be able to, in theory, be more efficient than someone who is constrained by the lives of people who, ultimately, do not matter to the country.  cmv  #  a sociopath would be able to ignore moral and ethical quandaries and cut straight to the point: what is best for the nation, and our people.   #  sociopaths do not seem to be the bastion of clear and logical thought though.   # i would almost immediately disagree here.  the purpose of government is to represent the will of the people.  the purpose of the leader is to more or less represent the country internationally.  since the job of the government is to represent the will of the people, and society tends to value compassion and empathy, the leader should be able to express such values.  a sociopath simply does not reflect societies values.  sociopaths do not seem to be the bastion of clear and logical thought though.  they may be able to ignore moral/ethical quandaries this is a good thing ? but i serious doubt they would be someone that would know what is best for a country.  some of the characteristics of sociopaths include from wikipedia   poor impulse control including problems with planning and foresight   demand for immediate gratification   lacking affect and urge control   lacking empathy and close attachments with others   use of cruelty to gain empowerment   exploitative tendencies   defiance of authority   destructive excitement seeking so you swap out a moral compass debatably a bad thing for a host of awful characteristics.  does not sound like we should be encouraging such a person to be in powerful positions.  i think the last time there was a person in power that ignored what was  amorally right , crushed forces that threatened to tear society apart and did not value human lives, it did not turn out very well.   #  if you are making immoral actions, you are very literally making bad decisions.   #  a sociopath is not just someone who lacks a empathy.  it is disorder that has a number of negative attributes.  for example, sociopaths tend to exhibit:   unreliability   untruthfulness and insincerity   poor judgment and failure to learn by experience   specific loss of insight source URL furthermore, morality  is  important.  it is not an obstacle.  it is very literally the philosophy around the question  what is the correct or at least permissible course of action in a given situation .  if you are making immoral actions, you are very literally making bad decisions.  if goals there are goals that are very important, it is a moral imperative to carry them out.  i am not sure what kind of important goals you think should be made but are not due to morality.   #  all of these are based on your completely subjective values.   # this is true.  being subjective means it is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of opinion.  how tasty lemonade is is completely subjective, but that does not make it wrong when i declare that lemonade is delicious.  it means i am just speaking my opinion.  the fact that morality is subjective is why we do not have a team of researchers doing experiments to derive what is moral and instead hold elections and have people vote.  it is so that we can have policies and leaders who best represent the will of the people.  in any case, you seem to object to matters of morality here because you think morality is subjective, but in your original post you state that you are worried that leaders  are at risk of putting aside the important goals .  yet, what goals are important is likewise an entirely subjective value judgement.  is the economy important ? is feeding the starving important ? is becoming a more powerful country important ? all of these are based on your completely subjective values.   #  the second problem is that he might take a careless or narcissistic view of who counts as  the nation .   # but the problem is that  what is best for the nation   is  an ethical quandary.  if the problem is  how to grow the tallest stalk of corn  or  how to detonate the biggest bomb , you have a technical decision that can be answered with no empathy or moral compass.  but deciding what the  nation  is, what is  good  for it, and whether to act on that national good those are intrinsically moral issues.  the first problem is that a sociopath might have insane ideas about what is  good  for the nation.  he might start a war purely because he thinks it would be  good  for the young men to get to shoot other people, or huddle in trenches while bombs fall, and so on.  he might encourage pandemics to toughen the immunities of the survivors.  there are all sorts of nutty things someone who truly had no moral compass might assume were  good , even if he were faithfully trying to serve the nation.  the second problem is that he might take a careless or narcissistic view of who counts as  the nation .  even in normal politics, there is a problem that rich powerful men tend to assume that the interests of other rich powerful men are the same as the national interest; ethnic majorities assume that people of their color are more important; rural people think farmers are  real americans ; and so on.  to combat these natural prejudices we need empathy and moral thinking, to help us value the needs of all citizens equally.  a sociopath lacking these resources would have nothing holding him back from identifying  the nation  with whoever caught his fancy on that day.  third, why would he give a shit about the nation in the first place ? sociopathic politicians have always, historically, done the bare minimum of public service they need to keep their reputation healthy, while engaging in embezzlement, nepotism, favoritism, kleptocracy, murder, rape, terror, torture, and general concentration of power on an unprecedented scale.   #  why would a sociopath choose not to kill those officials ?  #  you seem to imagine that world leaders frequently face situations where they must choose either serving the national interest or doing the morally right thing.  i am not sure why you think is the case.  it seems much easier to think of examples in which a world leader will have to choose between serving either their own personal interest or the national interest, and in these cases, making the morally right choice amounts to the same thing as making the choice that serves the national interest being that it is wrong for world leaders to privilege their own interests over the interests of the state they represent .  suppose a sociopath from party a is elected president.  this sociopath has a fool proof method of covertly killing a number of high ranking officials from party b.  this will increase the sociopath is prosperity at the expense of the nation.  why would a sociopath choose not to kill those officials ? the only reasons not to are moral reasons, and a sociopath does not respond to moral reasons.  presumably we want our leaders to respond to moral reasons because circumstances like this, where an individual politician is interests might oppose a nation is interests, are not uncommon.
0.  most ideas come from religion, which i do not believe in because of many reasons and i do not think those reasons are important to the view i am trying to change i need to be convinced of an afterlife, not a particular religion .  0.  there has been no proof to tell us otherwise.  people claim there are ghosts, except that no ghost has ever come forward for the whole world to see.  people say there are  ispirits  again, same problem.  people say there are  isigns  left by their loved ones, but people find those to make themselves feel better.   #  there has been no proof to tell us otherwise.   #  people claim there are ghosts, except that no ghost has ever come forward for the whole world to see.   # people claim there are ghosts, except that no ghost has ever come forward for the whole world to see.  people say there are  ispirits  again, same problem.  people say there are  isigns  left by their loved ones, but people find those to make themselves feel better.  there is no proof that the external world exists.  nobody has ever come forward and shown the whole world that they are not jacked into the matrix or severely mentally disabled and are simply imagining the world.  asking for  proof  is a way too high of standard for really anything.  i think you mean that you want evidence of an afterlife.   #  in addition to that, your novel influences other novels, and your characters and their actions may even have guest appearances and meaningful effects in other peoples  novels as well.   #  time is merely an illusion.   now  is  the page you are reading at this moment .  but just because there are pages you have already read, or pages you have yet to read, does not mean  those pages do not exist .  and all those pages will continue to exist, even after you have finished your book.  sure.  after your book ends, your story may no longer advance and develop in detail, but it certainly does not disappear or cease to exist.  in addition to that, your novel influences other novels, and your characters and their actions may even have guest appearances and meaningful effects in other peoples  novels as well.  and all of these books get stored in a library called  time .  probably  forever .   #  when western civilisation dies out, these will die also.   # as you read through the novel, you go from page to page, eventually reaching the end.  but does the novel stop existing just because you finished the book ? or does the book continue to exist, with it is words, chapters, stories, characters, and lives intact ? you exist after your death in form of memories of you in other humans/animals and information left behind by you.  however, this is not eternal.  the oldest humans that survived this long in the western hemisphere are probably egyptian pharaos and greece philosophers/writers/kings.  when western civilisation dies out, these will die also.  so eventhough parts of you exist after your life, this existence is not and can never be eternal, since it is still bound to physical properties bodies of other humans or things holding your thoughts transcribed onto them .   #  even if i am well remembered by other people, or have changed the world forever possibly by posting brilliant comments on reddit it is not an afterlife unless i continue to exist.   #  you have an interesting line of thought, however, it does not really argue for an afterlife as such.  it is true that our actions while we are alive create a series of consequences which can propagate through time for an indefinite period, whose end we cannot foresee although it is also possible that at some point the planet earth will be destroyed and all of our efforts will be rendered irrelevant then again, maybe the human race will have colonized other planets before that happens .  but that is not an afterlife.  for me personally to have an afterlife i have to continue to exist as a person, in some manner, after my own death.  my consciousness must persist.  even if i am well remembered by other people, or have changed the world forever possibly by posting brilliant comments on reddit it is not an afterlife unless i continue to exist.  you also suggest that the past itself continues to exist in some manner, which may be true, but again is not an afterlife.  what happens after i die, that is the question.   #  this is enough to reassure people who simply fear non existence , which is the only reason i brought it up in the first place.   #  i understand.  my suggestion is more that our lives continue to exist outside the scope of time ie my book analogy .  this is enough to reassure people who simply fear non existence , which is the only reason i brought it up in the first place.  but as for a continued consciousness eg a  second life  after death.  i gotta say, that is a difficult one to argue for, given what we know about our minds   thoughts and how they are linked to our physical brains which cease to exist after death .  my only argument for such an afterlife would involve this idea presented by nick bostrom: URL it suggests we are essentially living in a game of the sims.  and if we are living in a simulation.  it is certainly possible we will be  resurrected  in a future game/simulation as well.  just like i can have characters in my game of the sims which i can bring back into future games.  though i concede this is a weak argument for a potential afterlife.
i have always taken evening showers and i am thinking about changing that.  i know many people take them in the mornings but while doing it for a week i just do not understand the point.  what i like about it is that if it is cold you can take a hot shower and feel better and energised.  your hair is wet though and you can catch a cold when you go outside.  you do not sweat nearly as much during the night.  if you take a shower before going to bed you feel clean, you sleep better and you smell nice.  if you sleep with somebody even better.  if you take the shower a bit earlier you can have a nice calm evening with a glass of wine.  you wake up in the morning still clean, bed sheets clean as well.  you get up 0 0 minutes later and there is no hassle, just take on your clothes, drink a coffee and get out.  if you take a shower in the morning that means you pretty much need to spend all your day more or less sweaty.  i am not talking dripping with sweat, just the amount of uncleanliness that makes you need to change your underwear daily.  you go to bed dirty, you do not smell as nice and it might get noticed.  in the morning it is worse than ever as stuff builds up in your sheets which, if not changed often will get a smell as well.  if you own a bath, you ca not really take a bath in the morning.  if you want to shower before going out with friends it is unpleasant to need to take two showers a day.  two showers a day are a no no.  i would not be comfortable with wasting so much water.  i hope you understood what i am getting at.  none of this is game breaking, of course, it is just that i know many people shower in the morning and i ca not figure out why.  so.  cmv please !  #  what i like about it is that if it is cold you can take a hot shower and feel better and energised.   #  your hair is wet though and you can catch a cold when you go outside.   # your hair is wet though and you can catch a cold when you go outside.  this is the main reason i like taking showers in the morning.  when i get in the shower i am barely awake, but by the time i get out of the shower i am fully aware and ready to face the day.  maybe i am weird, but i sweat more at night.  i always wake up with the feeling of dried sweat coating my skin and it feels good to clean that off and start the day fresh.   #  i wake up in the morning to see my hair is all over the place.   #  it is just a matter of preference.  i take morning showers for two very simple reasons: 0: taking a morning shower wakes me up and makes me  feel energized  before i go to school at 0 in the morning.  not taking a morning shower for me makes me feel like i did not have enough sleep.  it makes me feel more alert, and i pay better attention in class.  0: easily gets rid of my bed head hair.  i wake up in the morning to see my hair is all over the place.  the best way to fix this problem is a shower.  this way i look more  presentable  going to class, work, or hanging out with friends.  when you say  your hair is wet though and you can catch a cold when you go outside .  this problem is easily fixed by drying your hair before going outside.  i keep my hair damp after showers so i can do any kind of styling i want to.  another thing  the amount of uncleanliness that makes you need to change your underwear daily.  do people not change their underwear daily ?  #  i do not have the worst time in the world getting up early in the morning, but showers definitely help wake a fair amount of sleepiness out of me regardless, and i think this is quite useful.   #  with a topic like this, i think it is worth noting that a lot of it will come down to personal preference and differences in daily routine, and nobody is really  wrong  in any meaningful sense.  but i will tell you why i have always preferred morning showers.  0.  they help wake me up.  i do not have the worst time in the world getting up early in the morning, but showers definitely help wake a fair amount of sleepiness out of me regardless, and i think this is quite useful.  0.  hair.  i am sure this is different for everyone, but for me, even as a guy, when i wake up from a night is sleep my hair is all out of whack.  it is sticking up like crazy in a bunch of different directions from being smushed against pillows for 0 hours.  it is true that i could just fight with each particular hair issue every morning as i get ready, but a shower is like a much easier  reset  that gets rid of all the craziness and allows me to style my hair reliably each day after it is tamed and dried.  0.  shaving.  similar to number 0, i shave in the shower for simplicity and speed is sake, and shaving tends to be a morning thing.  i am sure i am in the minority though, but this is a big benefit for me.  0.  sex.  if you are living with someone or having sex regularly for whatever reason, this will often enough be an evening or night time thing.  if you shower in the evening, and then later have sex, you will often be left with the potential for various. fluids and scents that may be left on your body the following day, depending on how you like to get down.  morning showers remove any risk of this.  i do see your points about not showering at night potentially dirtying your sheets, but to me this is easily avoided by just doing a weekly or bi weekly washing of your bedding, which is something you should be doing regardless of when you shower.  even if you take evening showers, you are still shedding skin and what not into your bedding, so you should be laundering it fairly regularly no matter what.   #  one of my roommates in college had the funk.   #  one of my roommates in college had the funk.  like two showers a day funk or he could not go out in public.  no amount of deoderant is going to cover it up funk.  side effect of weighing 0  pounds.  showering in the evening only would literally lose him his job.  evening showers might work for you, they are not for everybody.   #  showering in the morning helps me to wake up.   #  showering in the morning helps me to wake up.  it gets all the crap out of my eyes, and the soaps smell all refreshing and invigorating, and it is awesome ! and a nice morning shower was the only thing that would get me out of bed in the winter when i was growing up.  my parents kept the thermostat pretty low at night, and the house was freezing in the morning.  leaving my warm bed sucked, but the shower made it all better.
i have always taken evening showers and i am thinking about changing that.  i know many people take them in the mornings but while doing it for a week i just do not understand the point.  what i like about it is that if it is cold you can take a hot shower and feel better and energised.  your hair is wet though and you can catch a cold when you go outside.  you do not sweat nearly as much during the night.  if you take a shower before going to bed you feel clean, you sleep better and you smell nice.  if you sleep with somebody even better.  if you take the shower a bit earlier you can have a nice calm evening with a glass of wine.  you wake up in the morning still clean, bed sheets clean as well.  you get up 0 0 minutes later and there is no hassle, just take on your clothes, drink a coffee and get out.  if you take a shower in the morning that means you pretty much need to spend all your day more or less sweaty.  i am not talking dripping with sweat, just the amount of uncleanliness that makes you need to change your underwear daily.  you go to bed dirty, you do not smell as nice and it might get noticed.  in the morning it is worse than ever as stuff builds up in your sheets which, if not changed often will get a smell as well.  if you own a bath, you ca not really take a bath in the morning.  if you want to shower before going out with friends it is unpleasant to need to take two showers a day.  two showers a day are a no no.  i would not be comfortable with wasting so much water.  i hope you understood what i am getting at.  none of this is game breaking, of course, it is just that i know many people shower in the morning and i ca not figure out why.  so.  cmv please !  #  you do not sweat nearly as much during the night.   #  maybe i am weird, but i sweat more at night.   # your hair is wet though and you can catch a cold when you go outside.  this is the main reason i like taking showers in the morning.  when i get in the shower i am barely awake, but by the time i get out of the shower i am fully aware and ready to face the day.  maybe i am weird, but i sweat more at night.  i always wake up with the feeling of dried sweat coating my skin and it feels good to clean that off and start the day fresh.   #  i take morning showers for two very simple reasons: 0: taking a morning shower wakes me up and makes me  feel energized  before i go to school at 0 in the morning.   #  it is just a matter of preference.  i take morning showers for two very simple reasons: 0: taking a morning shower wakes me up and makes me  feel energized  before i go to school at 0 in the morning.  not taking a morning shower for me makes me feel like i did not have enough sleep.  it makes me feel more alert, and i pay better attention in class.  0: easily gets rid of my bed head hair.  i wake up in the morning to see my hair is all over the place.  the best way to fix this problem is a shower.  this way i look more  presentable  going to class, work, or hanging out with friends.  when you say  your hair is wet though and you can catch a cold when you go outside .  this problem is easily fixed by drying your hair before going outside.  i keep my hair damp after showers so i can do any kind of styling i want to.  another thing  the amount of uncleanliness that makes you need to change your underwear daily.  do people not change their underwear daily ?  #  similar to number 0, i shave in the shower for simplicity and speed is sake, and shaving tends to be a morning thing.   #  with a topic like this, i think it is worth noting that a lot of it will come down to personal preference and differences in daily routine, and nobody is really  wrong  in any meaningful sense.  but i will tell you why i have always preferred morning showers.  0.  they help wake me up.  i do not have the worst time in the world getting up early in the morning, but showers definitely help wake a fair amount of sleepiness out of me regardless, and i think this is quite useful.  0.  hair.  i am sure this is different for everyone, but for me, even as a guy, when i wake up from a night is sleep my hair is all out of whack.  it is sticking up like crazy in a bunch of different directions from being smushed against pillows for 0 hours.  it is true that i could just fight with each particular hair issue every morning as i get ready, but a shower is like a much easier  reset  that gets rid of all the craziness and allows me to style my hair reliably each day after it is tamed and dried.  0.  shaving.  similar to number 0, i shave in the shower for simplicity and speed is sake, and shaving tends to be a morning thing.  i am sure i am in the minority though, but this is a big benefit for me.  0.  sex.  if you are living with someone or having sex regularly for whatever reason, this will often enough be an evening or night time thing.  if you shower in the evening, and then later have sex, you will often be left with the potential for various. fluids and scents that may be left on your body the following day, depending on how you like to get down.  morning showers remove any risk of this.  i do see your points about not showering at night potentially dirtying your sheets, but to me this is easily avoided by just doing a weekly or bi weekly washing of your bedding, which is something you should be doing regardless of when you shower.  even if you take evening showers, you are still shedding skin and what not into your bedding, so you should be laundering it fairly regularly no matter what.   #  no amount of deoderant is going to cover it up funk.   #  one of my roommates in college had the funk.  like two showers a day funk or he could not go out in public.  no amount of deoderant is going to cover it up funk.  side effect of weighing 0  pounds.  showering in the evening only would literally lose him his job.  evening showers might work for you, they are not for everybody.   #  showering in the morning helps me to wake up.   #  showering in the morning helps me to wake up.  it gets all the crap out of my eyes, and the soaps smell all refreshing and invigorating, and it is awesome ! and a nice morning shower was the only thing that would get me out of bed in the winter when i was growing up.  my parents kept the thermostat pretty low at night, and the house was freezing in the morning.  leaving my warm bed sucked, but the shower made it all better.
this is originally the opinion of my high school latin teacher, with which i 0 agree, for a number of reasons.  firstly, in order for these words, like octopus, cactus, or alumnus, to have their plural ending be   i , they are breaking a fundamental rule of english, which is that plurals are made by adding s is.  breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  this is especially pertinent given that fewer and fewer people speak latin anymore, and therefore are less and less likely to know why on earth they are using a weird ending for these words.  plus, english is not latin, so it does not make any sense that english words should be governed by latin rules.  second, a lot of those words do not actually end in   i  in their original languages.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ?  #  firstly, in order for these words, like octopus, cactus, or alumnus, to have their plural ending be   i , they are breaking a fundamental rule of english, which is that plurals are made by adding s is.   #  breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.   # breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  what about all those plural words that do not follow this  fundamental rule,  like  children,   moose,  and  teeth ?    alumnus  is a latin word.  the english version is  alum,  which we pluralize as  alums.   when you use the word  alumnus  you are using the latin in the same way you say  he graduated  magnum cum laude   instead of saying  he graduated with high honor.   we still use latin, and rules of latin, in normal conversation.  that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .   #  a lot of people say  alumni  when they mean  alumnus  to the point that i would say  alumni  is the more commonly heard word.   # why is it any more unnecessarily confusing than any of my other examples ? it does have a literal definition in english.   with great honor.   it is used, like alumnus, in this context because university is a place where a lot of things are in latin unnecessarily.  it is a smart place for smart people so let is all use a smart language ! let me quote the part i edited to add in my last comment in case you missed it: that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .  a lot of people say  alumni  when they mean  alumnus  to the point that i would say  alumni  is the more commonly heard word.   #  and that is kind of what you are doing, but the other way around.   # that is what gets on my nerves, more than anything else, because not only is octopuses correct, but octopi does not make any real sense as the plural.  yeah, i understand.  the thing is, i do not like when people correct spelling/grammar  period,  unless it is absolutely necessary.  and that is kind of what you are doing, but the other way around.   octopi  is fine.   octopuses  is fine.  humans are the only beings that use language, and we control, invent, and define it.  words mean only and entirely what we use them to mean.  no one says  alumnuses  so it is not a word.  plenty of people say  alumni  so it is.  if you want to say  octopi,  go ahead, you will be understood by the vast majority of the english speaking population.  go ahead and say  octopuses.   it does not matter, they are both commonly used, they are both in the dictionary, so go crazy and do not let anyone correct you either way.  that is my opinion.   #  the problem is that there is no definitive way of answering who is right about what  should  be done.   #  the problem is that there is no definitive way of answering who is right about what  should  be done.  should plurals be made based on a singular rule ? should it be based on how the word would have been pluralized in the language it originates from ? should it be based on how we actually say it ? there is no should with language really.  it is not a perfect analogy, but it kind of evolves.  and like with evolution, it is not teleological, there is not some end goal of perfect, logical, consistent language we are heading towards, so there is no real  should .  i think cactuses and octupuses are used quite a lot, and if enough people start using alumnuses, that will be added to the dictionary too.  because that is how language works, it is not about what people should be using, it is about what they are using.  also: aircraft; watercraft; spacecraft; hovercraft; information deer moose sheep bison salmon pike trout fish swine foot feet goose geese louse lice man men mouse mice tooth teeth woman women ox oxen child children  #  i have taught english as a foreign language, and the number of times you simply have to explain some grammatical construction by saying, with great condolences  it is just the way it is , is pretty darn high.   #  this is super important.  english does not have rules the same way a lot of other languages do it is a mongrel and as such has adopted words, phrases, and ways of speaking that are different depending on country of origin, class, and when the word was adopted into english.  i have taught english as a foreign language, and the number of times you simply have to explain some grammatical construction by saying, with great condolences  it is just the way it is , is pretty darn high.  breaking a fundamental rule would be calling a female alum an  alumnus  instead of  alumna .  but you will see in the english dictionary there are thousands of words with alternate but acceptable pronunciations and spellings.  to get prescriptive about english is like saying that us or uk english is correct never mind south african, that mangy cur and wind up in a meaningless argument about whose spelling is bigger and better.  i would guess that people say cacti because for hundreds of years, many english speakers were once educated in latin, and for that group it felt more comfortable to say.  other people had not seen a latin textbook in their lives and said  cactuses .  it says more about where they are from than what is correct.
this is originally the opinion of my high school latin teacher, with which i 0 agree, for a number of reasons.  firstly, in order for these words, like octopus, cactus, or alumnus, to have their plural ending be   i , they are breaking a fundamental rule of english, which is that plurals are made by adding s is.  breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  this is especially pertinent given that fewer and fewer people speak latin anymore, and therefore are less and less likely to know why on earth they are using a weird ending for these words.  plus, english is not latin, so it does not make any sense that english words should be governed by latin rules.  second, a lot of those words do not actually end in   i  in their original languages.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ?  #  firstly, in order for these words, like octopus, cactus, or alumnus, to have their plural ending be   i , they are breaking a fundamental rule of english, which is that plurals are made by adding s is.   #  what do you mean by a  fundamental rule  ?  # what do you mean by a  fundamental rule  ? i mean, it is obviously true that most of our plurals are formed that way, but that does not mean that all other plurals are wrong.  the  rule  exists because that is what most words do, not the reverse i. e.  plurals do not end in s because of a rule .  as addressed previously, it is not  breaking a rule , they are simply less common types of words.  also, languages are not constructed so that they are easy to learn.  and making this change would be unnecessary and confusing to people who have learned the language.  you do not need to know why a word has a certain form in order to use it.  i know relatively nothing between the origin of proto indo european and modern english, but i can speak just fine.  except a huge portion of our vocabulary is taken from latin, and thus follows latin structure.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ? there is no logic, but languages do not evolve logically.  they evolve because people start speaking that way, and that becomes the norm, even if it does not make sense.   #  what about all those plural words that do not follow this  fundamental rule,  like  children,   moose,  and  teeth ?    # breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  what about all those plural words that do not follow this  fundamental rule,  like  children,   moose,  and  teeth ?    alumnus  is a latin word.  the english version is  alum,  which we pluralize as  alums.   when you use the word  alumnus  you are using the latin in the same way you say  he graduated  magnum cum laude   instead of saying  he graduated with high honor.   we still use latin, and rules of latin, in normal conversation.  that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .   #  a lot of people say  alumni  when they mean  alumnus  to the point that i would say  alumni  is the more commonly heard word.   # why is it any more unnecessarily confusing than any of my other examples ? it does have a literal definition in english.   with great honor.   it is used, like alumnus, in this context because university is a place where a lot of things are in latin unnecessarily.  it is a smart place for smart people so let is all use a smart language ! let me quote the part i edited to add in my last comment in case you missed it: that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .  a lot of people say  alumni  when they mean  alumnus  to the point that i would say  alumni  is the more commonly heard word.   #  the thing is, i do not like when people correct spelling/grammar  period,  unless it is absolutely necessary.   # that is what gets on my nerves, more than anything else, because not only is octopuses correct, but octopi does not make any real sense as the plural.  yeah, i understand.  the thing is, i do not like when people correct spelling/grammar  period,  unless it is absolutely necessary.  and that is kind of what you are doing, but the other way around.   octopi  is fine.   octopuses  is fine.  humans are the only beings that use language, and we control, invent, and define it.  words mean only and entirely what we use them to mean.  no one says  alumnuses  so it is not a word.  plenty of people say  alumni  so it is.  if you want to say  octopi,  go ahead, you will be understood by the vast majority of the english speaking population.  go ahead and say  octopuses.   it does not matter, they are both commonly used, they are both in the dictionary, so go crazy and do not let anyone correct you either way.  that is my opinion.   #  i think cactuses and octupuses are used quite a lot, and if enough people start using alumnuses, that will be added to the dictionary too.   #  the problem is that there is no definitive way of answering who is right about what  should  be done.  should plurals be made based on a singular rule ? should it be based on how the word would have been pluralized in the language it originates from ? should it be based on how we actually say it ? there is no should with language really.  it is not a perfect analogy, but it kind of evolves.  and like with evolution, it is not teleological, there is not some end goal of perfect, logical, consistent language we are heading towards, so there is no real  should .  i think cactuses and octupuses are used quite a lot, and if enough people start using alumnuses, that will be added to the dictionary too.  because that is how language works, it is not about what people should be using, it is about what they are using.  also: aircraft; watercraft; spacecraft; hovercraft; information deer moose sheep bison salmon pike trout fish swine foot feet goose geese louse lice man men mouse mice tooth teeth woman women ox oxen child children
this is originally the opinion of my high school latin teacher, with which i 0 agree, for a number of reasons.  firstly, in order for these words, like octopus, cactus, or alumnus, to have their plural ending be   i , they are breaking a fundamental rule of english, which is that plurals are made by adding s is.  breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  this is especially pertinent given that fewer and fewer people speak latin anymore, and therefore are less and less likely to know why on earth they are using a weird ending for these words.  plus, english is not latin, so it does not make any sense that english words should be governed by latin rules.  second, a lot of those words do not actually end in   i  in their original languages.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ?  #  breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.   #  as addressed previously, it is not  breaking a rule , they are simply less common types of words.   # what do you mean by a  fundamental rule  ? i mean, it is obviously true that most of our plurals are formed that way, but that does not mean that all other plurals are wrong.  the  rule  exists because that is what most words do, not the reverse i. e.  plurals do not end in s because of a rule .  as addressed previously, it is not  breaking a rule , they are simply less common types of words.  also, languages are not constructed so that they are easy to learn.  and making this change would be unnecessary and confusing to people who have learned the language.  you do not need to know why a word has a certain form in order to use it.  i know relatively nothing between the origin of proto indo european and modern english, but i can speak just fine.  except a huge portion of our vocabulary is taken from latin, and thus follows latin structure.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ? there is no logic, but languages do not evolve logically.  they evolve because people start speaking that way, and that becomes the norm, even if it does not make sense.   #  the english version is  alum,  which we pluralize as  alums.    # breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  what about all those plural words that do not follow this  fundamental rule,  like  children,   moose,  and  teeth ?    alumnus  is a latin word.  the english version is  alum,  which we pluralize as  alums.   when you use the word  alumnus  you are using the latin in the same way you say  he graduated  magnum cum laude   instead of saying  he graduated with high honor.   we still use latin, and rules of latin, in normal conversation.  that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .   #  let me quote the part i edited to add in my last comment in case you missed it: that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.   # why is it any more unnecessarily confusing than any of my other examples ? it does have a literal definition in english.   with great honor.   it is used, like alumnus, in this context because university is a place where a lot of things are in latin unnecessarily.  it is a smart place for smart people so let is all use a smart language ! let me quote the part i edited to add in my last comment in case you missed it: that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .  a lot of people say  alumni  when they mean  alumnus  to the point that i would say  alumni  is the more commonly heard word.   #  and that is kind of what you are doing, but the other way around.   # that is what gets on my nerves, more than anything else, because not only is octopuses correct, but octopi does not make any real sense as the plural.  yeah, i understand.  the thing is, i do not like when people correct spelling/grammar  period,  unless it is absolutely necessary.  and that is kind of what you are doing, but the other way around.   octopi  is fine.   octopuses  is fine.  humans are the only beings that use language, and we control, invent, and define it.  words mean only and entirely what we use them to mean.  no one says  alumnuses  so it is not a word.  plenty of people say  alumni  so it is.  if you want to say  octopi,  go ahead, you will be understood by the vast majority of the english speaking population.  go ahead and say  octopuses.   it does not matter, they are both commonly used, they are both in the dictionary, so go crazy and do not let anyone correct you either way.  that is my opinion.   #  should it be based on how the word would have been pluralized in the language it originates from ?  #  the problem is that there is no definitive way of answering who is right about what  should  be done.  should plurals be made based on a singular rule ? should it be based on how the word would have been pluralized in the language it originates from ? should it be based on how we actually say it ? there is no should with language really.  it is not a perfect analogy, but it kind of evolves.  and like with evolution, it is not teleological, there is not some end goal of perfect, logical, consistent language we are heading towards, so there is no real  should .  i think cactuses and octupuses are used quite a lot, and if enough people start using alumnuses, that will be added to the dictionary too.  because that is how language works, it is not about what people should be using, it is about what they are using.  also: aircraft; watercraft; spacecraft; hovercraft; information deer moose sheep bison salmon pike trout fish swine foot feet goose geese louse lice man men mouse mice tooth teeth woman women ox oxen child children
this is originally the opinion of my high school latin teacher, with which i 0 agree, for a number of reasons.  firstly, in order for these words, like octopus, cactus, or alumnus, to have their plural ending be   i , they are breaking a fundamental rule of english, which is that plurals are made by adding s is.  breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  this is especially pertinent given that fewer and fewer people speak latin anymore, and therefore are less and less likely to know why on earth they are using a weird ending for these words.  plus, english is not latin, so it does not make any sense that english words should be governed by latin rules.  second, a lot of those words do not actually end in   i  in their original languages.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ?  #  this is especially pertinent given that fewer and fewer people speak latin anymore, and therefore are less and less likely to know why on earth they are using a weird ending for these words.   #  you do not need to know why a word has a certain form in order to use it.   # what do you mean by a  fundamental rule  ? i mean, it is obviously true that most of our plurals are formed that way, but that does not mean that all other plurals are wrong.  the  rule  exists because that is what most words do, not the reverse i. e.  plurals do not end in s because of a rule .  as addressed previously, it is not  breaking a rule , they are simply less common types of words.  also, languages are not constructed so that they are easy to learn.  and making this change would be unnecessary and confusing to people who have learned the language.  you do not need to know why a word has a certain form in order to use it.  i know relatively nothing between the origin of proto indo european and modern english, but i can speak just fine.  except a huge portion of our vocabulary is taken from latin, and thus follows latin structure.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ? there is no logic, but languages do not evolve logically.  they evolve because people start speaking that way, and that becomes the norm, even if it does not make sense.   #  breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.   # breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  what about all those plural words that do not follow this  fundamental rule,  like  children,   moose,  and  teeth ?    alumnus  is a latin word.  the english version is  alum,  which we pluralize as  alums.   when you use the word  alumnus  you are using the latin in the same way you say  he graduated  magnum cum laude   instead of saying  he graduated with high honor.   we still use latin, and rules of latin, in normal conversation.  that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .   #  it is a smart place for smart people so let is all use a smart language !  # why is it any more unnecessarily confusing than any of my other examples ? it does have a literal definition in english.   with great honor.   it is used, like alumnus, in this context because university is a place where a lot of things are in latin unnecessarily.  it is a smart place for smart people so let is all use a smart language ! let me quote the part i edited to add in my last comment in case you missed it: that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .  a lot of people say  alumni  when they mean  alumnus  to the point that i would say  alumni  is the more commonly heard word.   #  the thing is, i do not like when people correct spelling/grammar  period,  unless it is absolutely necessary.   # that is what gets on my nerves, more than anything else, because not only is octopuses correct, but octopi does not make any real sense as the plural.  yeah, i understand.  the thing is, i do not like when people correct spelling/grammar  period,  unless it is absolutely necessary.  and that is kind of what you are doing, but the other way around.   octopi  is fine.   octopuses  is fine.  humans are the only beings that use language, and we control, invent, and define it.  words mean only and entirely what we use them to mean.  no one says  alumnuses  so it is not a word.  plenty of people say  alumni  so it is.  if you want to say  octopi,  go ahead, you will be understood by the vast majority of the english speaking population.  go ahead and say  octopuses.   it does not matter, they are both commonly used, they are both in the dictionary, so go crazy and do not let anyone correct you either way.  that is my opinion.   #  and like with evolution, it is not teleological, there is not some end goal of perfect, logical, consistent language we are heading towards, so there is no real  should .   #  the problem is that there is no definitive way of answering who is right about what  should  be done.  should plurals be made based on a singular rule ? should it be based on how the word would have been pluralized in the language it originates from ? should it be based on how we actually say it ? there is no should with language really.  it is not a perfect analogy, but it kind of evolves.  and like with evolution, it is not teleological, there is not some end goal of perfect, logical, consistent language we are heading towards, so there is no real  should .  i think cactuses and octupuses are used quite a lot, and if enough people start using alumnuses, that will be added to the dictionary too.  because that is how language works, it is not about what people should be using, it is about what they are using.  also: aircraft; watercraft; spacecraft; hovercraft; information deer moose sheep bison salmon pike trout fish swine foot feet goose geese louse lice man men mouse mice tooth teeth woman women ox oxen child children
this is originally the opinion of my high school latin teacher, with which i 0 agree, for a number of reasons.  firstly, in order for these words, like octopus, cactus, or alumnus, to have their plural ending be   i , they are breaking a fundamental rule of english, which is that plurals are made by adding s is.  breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  this is especially pertinent given that fewer and fewer people speak latin anymore, and therefore are less and less likely to know why on earth they are using a weird ending for these words.  plus, english is not latin, so it does not make any sense that english words should be governed by latin rules.  second, a lot of those words do not actually end in   i  in their original languages.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ?  #  plus, english is not latin, so it does not make any sense that english words should be governed by latin rules.   #  except a huge portion of our vocabulary is taken from latin, and thus follows latin structure.   # what do you mean by a  fundamental rule  ? i mean, it is obviously true that most of our plurals are formed that way, but that does not mean that all other plurals are wrong.  the  rule  exists because that is what most words do, not the reverse i. e.  plurals do not end in s because of a rule .  as addressed previously, it is not  breaking a rule , they are simply less common types of words.  also, languages are not constructed so that they are easy to learn.  and making this change would be unnecessary and confusing to people who have learned the language.  you do not need to know why a word has a certain form in order to use it.  i know relatively nothing between the origin of proto indo european and modern english, but i can speak just fine.  except a huge portion of our vocabulary is taken from latin, and thus follows latin structure.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ? there is no logic, but languages do not evolve logically.  they evolve because people start speaking that way, and that becomes the norm, even if it does not make sense.   #  that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.   # breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  what about all those plural words that do not follow this  fundamental rule,  like  children,   moose,  and  teeth ?    alumnus  is a latin word.  the english version is  alum,  which we pluralize as  alums.   when you use the word  alumnus  you are using the latin in the same way you say  he graduated  magnum cum laude   instead of saying  he graduated with high honor.   we still use latin, and rules of latin, in normal conversation.  that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .   #  why is it any more unnecessarily confusing than any of my other examples ?  # why is it any more unnecessarily confusing than any of my other examples ? it does have a literal definition in english.   with great honor.   it is used, like alumnus, in this context because university is a place where a lot of things are in latin unnecessarily.  it is a smart place for smart people so let is all use a smart language ! let me quote the part i edited to add in my last comment in case you missed it: that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .  a lot of people say  alumni  when they mean  alumnus  to the point that i would say  alumni  is the more commonly heard word.   #  words mean only and entirely what we use them to mean.   # that is what gets on my nerves, more than anything else, because not only is octopuses correct, but octopi does not make any real sense as the plural.  yeah, i understand.  the thing is, i do not like when people correct spelling/grammar  period,  unless it is absolutely necessary.  and that is kind of what you are doing, but the other way around.   octopi  is fine.   octopuses  is fine.  humans are the only beings that use language, and we control, invent, and define it.  words mean only and entirely what we use them to mean.  no one says  alumnuses  so it is not a word.  plenty of people say  alumni  so it is.  if you want to say  octopi,  go ahead, you will be understood by the vast majority of the english speaking population.  go ahead and say  octopuses.   it does not matter, they are both commonly used, they are both in the dictionary, so go crazy and do not let anyone correct you either way.  that is my opinion.   #  and like with evolution, it is not teleological, there is not some end goal of perfect, logical, consistent language we are heading towards, so there is no real  should .   #  the problem is that there is no definitive way of answering who is right about what  should  be done.  should plurals be made based on a singular rule ? should it be based on how the word would have been pluralized in the language it originates from ? should it be based on how we actually say it ? there is no should with language really.  it is not a perfect analogy, but it kind of evolves.  and like with evolution, it is not teleological, there is not some end goal of perfect, logical, consistent language we are heading towards, so there is no real  should .  i think cactuses and octupuses are used quite a lot, and if enough people start using alumnuses, that will be added to the dictionary too.  because that is how language works, it is not about what people should be using, it is about what they are using.  also: aircraft; watercraft; spacecraft; hovercraft; information deer moose sheep bison salmon pike trout fish swine foot feet goose geese louse lice man men mouse mice tooth teeth woman women ox oxen child children
this is originally the opinion of my high school latin teacher, with which i 0 agree, for a number of reasons.  firstly, in order for these words, like octopus, cactus, or alumnus, to have their plural ending be   i , they are breaking a fundamental rule of english, which is that plurals are made by adding s is.  breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  this is especially pertinent given that fewer and fewer people speak latin anymore, and therefore are less and less likely to know why on earth they are using a weird ending for these words.  plus, english is not latin, so it does not make any sense that english words should be governed by latin rules.  second, a lot of those words do not actually end in   i  in their original languages.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ?  #  second, a lot of those words do not actually end in   i  in their original languages.   #  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.   # what do you mean by a  fundamental rule  ? i mean, it is obviously true that most of our plurals are formed that way, but that does not mean that all other plurals are wrong.  the  rule  exists because that is what most words do, not the reverse i. e.  plurals do not end in s because of a rule .  as addressed previously, it is not  breaking a rule , they are simply less common types of words.  also, languages are not constructed so that they are easy to learn.  and making this change would be unnecessary and confusing to people who have learned the language.  you do not need to know why a word has a certain form in order to use it.  i know relatively nothing between the origin of proto indo european and modern english, but i can speak just fine.  except a huge portion of our vocabulary is taken from latin, and thus follows latin structure.  for example, octopus, which everyone will tell you has the plural of octopi, is not a latin word.  it is greek, and its plural is octopodes.  so what is the logic behind saying octopi ? there is no logic, but languages do not evolve logically.  they evolve because people start speaking that way, and that becomes the norm, even if it does not make sense.   #  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.   # breaking this rule in this situation is unnecessary, and confusing to people who are learning the language.  what about all those plural words that do not follow this  fundamental rule,  like  children,   moose,  and  teeth ?    alumnus  is a latin word.  the english version is  alum,  which we pluralize as  alums.   when you use the word  alumnus  you are using the latin in the same way you say  he graduated  magnum cum laude   instead of saying  he graduated with high honor.   we still use latin, and rules of latin, in normal conversation.  that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .   #  it is used, like alumnus, in this context because university is a place where a lot of things are in latin unnecessarily.   # why is it any more unnecessarily confusing than any of my other examples ? it does have a literal definition in english.   with great honor.   it is used, like alumnus, in this context because university is a place where a lot of things are in latin unnecessarily.  it is a smart place for smart people so let is all use a smart language ! let me quote the part i edited to add in my last comment in case you missed it: that said,  cactuses  and  octopuses  are acceptable words that are found in a dictionary.  i just object to  alumnuses  because that is not really a word; no one says that.  if anything, we say  alumni  more often, even to refer to the singular which to me is totally fine .  a lot of people say  alumni  when they mean  alumnus  to the point that i would say  alumni  is the more commonly heard word.   #  and that is kind of what you are doing, but the other way around.   # that is what gets on my nerves, more than anything else, because not only is octopuses correct, but octopi does not make any real sense as the plural.  yeah, i understand.  the thing is, i do not like when people correct spelling/grammar  period,  unless it is absolutely necessary.  and that is kind of what you are doing, but the other way around.   octopi  is fine.   octopuses  is fine.  humans are the only beings that use language, and we control, invent, and define it.  words mean only and entirely what we use them to mean.  no one says  alumnuses  so it is not a word.  plenty of people say  alumni  so it is.  if you want to say  octopi,  go ahead, you will be understood by the vast majority of the english speaking population.  go ahead and say  octopuses.   it does not matter, they are both commonly used, they are both in the dictionary, so go crazy and do not let anyone correct you either way.  that is my opinion.   #  the problem is that there is no definitive way of answering who is right about what  should  be done.   #  the problem is that there is no definitive way of answering who is right about what  should  be done.  should plurals be made based on a singular rule ? should it be based on how the word would have been pluralized in the language it originates from ? should it be based on how we actually say it ? there is no should with language really.  it is not a perfect analogy, but it kind of evolves.  and like with evolution, it is not teleological, there is not some end goal of perfect, logical, consistent language we are heading towards, so there is no real  should .  i think cactuses and octupuses are used quite a lot, and if enough people start using alumnuses, that will be added to the dictionary too.  because that is how language works, it is not about what people should be using, it is about what they are using.  also: aircraft; watercraft; spacecraft; hovercraft; information deer moose sheep bison salmon pike trout fish swine foot feet goose geese louse lice man men mouse mice tooth teeth woman women ox oxen child children
as a sort of introduction the genre in which i mainly listen to is electronic music.  while a good portion of it do have vocals a very good portion of it also does not.  i am an avid fan of the genre, however frequently on social media i will see the artists of some of the songs i listen to say that the song is  about insert thing here   or  is the story of insert thing here .   i cannot possibly see how a song without vocals could be interpreted into a story.  yes, a song can have a tone, whether it be dark, happy, grand, etc.  and that can leave the listener to create images and therefor a story based on said tone.  however a song cannot have a specific story if it does not contain vocals that also tell this supposed story.  you might be able to make a case for it if the story is told through real life sounds imposed over say gun shots followed by screams and police sirens.  or something like that but i have not found an example of such a thing in my time listening to music.   #  yes, a song can have a tone, whether it be dark, happy, grand, etc.   #  and that can leave the listener to create images and therefor a story based on said tone.   # and that can leave the listener to create images and therefor a story based on said tone.  however a song cannot have a specific story if it does not contain vocals that also tell this supposed story.  do you know pictures at an exhibition URL by modest mussorgsky ? it has no vocals, but it describes the walk through an exhibition.  that is not much for a story, but you may get the point.  the pictures are specific so the listener can create a specific story.   #  the cartoon is more or less what the composer of the piece intended it to sound like, since it is based on a story.   # no, you misunderstood me.  the association comes from the title of the song, which evokes the story that pre dates the writing of the music.  it is called  sorcerer is apprentice,  which is a poem by german writer johann wolfgang von goethe.  so you would hear the title, think  oh, it is supposed to be that story,  and the music becomes recognizable.  this is what walt disney is animators did to create the cartoon.  the cartoon is more or less what the composer of the piece intended it to sound like, since it is based on a story.  scheherazade URL works similarly.  the name prepares the audience for a musical piece based on the classic 0,0 nights, and each movement is titled after individual stories in that collection.  the music will therefore remind the audience of those specific stories if they are familiar with them .   #  for instance, they could tell that the bird and the duck were fighting, and that the cat was taking advantage of their distraction to sneak up on them.   #  the band i am in did an educational program for kids that used prokofiev is  peter and the wolf  to explore how a story could be told through just music.  the piece is intended to be performed with narration, but before we played the version with narration, we introduced the kids to the instruments and had them guess which animal character was represented by each one.  they were able to guess pretty easily that the flute part was supposed to be a bird, the quack like oboe part was supposed to be a duck, the ambling clarinet line was supposed to represent a cat, and the ominous sounding french horn part was meant to be the wolf.  then we played parts of the piece and had the kids guess what was happening, and tell a little story of their own.  knowing the characters which were fairly easy to guess , the kids were able to listen to excerpts from the piece and guess what was going on.  for instance, they could tell that the bird and the duck were fighting, and that the cat was taking advantage of their distraction to sneak up on them.  they could tell which characters were supposed to be heroic, and they could tell which characters were supposed to be bad and that was before they would heard the actual story.   peter and the wolf  is a pretty simple piece, but you can definitely pick out most of the main points of the story without hearing the narration.  you do not even have to know that the instruments represent animals, since each instrument is written with a distinct  personality.   here is a version without narration if you want to give it a try ! URL  #  this sort of tradition seems pretty common in ballet and other non narrated forms.   #  i think the best example i can think of is peter and the wolf.  of course the story exists in words but basically the musical score is  acted out  in parallel to the story.  this sort of tradition seems pretty common in ballet and other non narrated forms.  i am sure kabuki or something like that has something to contribute.  to me the problem is a matter of definition and perspective.  anyway this is the disney version of peter and the wolf and it is as close as i can think of.  URL  #  with instrumental, i believe that the story is being written by the listener.   #  i believe that any song can have a story, especially ones without vocals.  i have been thinking about how to explain this, but it is very hard for me.  so forgive me if something does not make sense.  with instrumental, i believe that the story is being written by the listener.  the writer of the song may have had certain things in mind when creating the song, but essentially, it is different for anyone who listens to it.  i listen to a lot of electronic as well, and i find that the songs without any vocals elicit a lot more emotion and really get me thinking.  it also depends on what is happening in my life.  so whatever song that i really like at a certain moment, is forever attached to whatever was going in my life at the time.  i guess in a way, my life  becomes  the story for that particular song.  but that is not all.  i may listen to a song and it just makes me picture a situation that would go along with that certain song.  i imagine so many things happening, in the span of however long the song is.
to at least clarify my position, i am a big believer in instant run off voting URL objective based district boundaries URL and proportional representation URL with regards to the house of representatives.  the senate though has a unique set up where every state gets 0 senators.  while an amazing compromise 0  years ago with little changed other than direct voting for appointments, it has now been abused to a point of undermining its original use.  there are 0 senators from texas, california and new york that represent the same number of people as 0 other senators from lesser populated states.  back when states were of more significance being more like individual countries, this could have been understood.  now, with the prominence of parties taking more priority than the states, it now just offers a way for lower population states united by party to control policy over more of the population.  it is counter to democracy and this republic in my opinion.  most recently, it was the six californias URL initiative that really demonstrates the problem here.  while the reasons for doing this may originate from financial self interest of silicon valley, the result would be the same number of people in california of today receiving 0 additional senators though likely no additional representatives.  if other larger states like texas and new york pull this off, they risk diluting the senate making it more like the house.  however, the senate is still important.  i like that it changes slowly and that senators represent a larger amount of people.  it should be that five congressional districts vote for one senator and any currently existing state so no future states will have at least one senator.  all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.  aside from that, the functioning of the senate remains the same.  with six year term limits and a larger population 0 million people that they represent, senators will hold prestige and importance yet be focused on smaller areas with regards to larger states.  unless this california initiative goes through, i know that changing senate representation will never happen.  the reason being is that unlike any other type of amendment, changing senate representation requires 0 passage by all the states.  change my view  #  while an amazing compromise 0  years ago with little changed other than direct voting for appointments, it has now been abused to a point of undermining its original use.   #  there are 0 senators from texas, california and new york that represent the same number of people as 0 other senators from lesser populated states.   # if we are going to fix voting then lets actually fix it rather then replace it with a system that does not eliminate most of the problems and introduces some new ones.  there are 0 senators from texas, california and new york that represent the same number of people as 0 other senators from lesser populated states.  back when states were of more significance being more like individual countries, this could have been understood.  now, with the prominence of parties taking more priority than the states, it now just offers a way for lower population states united by party to control policy over more of the population.  it is counter to democracy and this republic in my opinion.  it is counter to democracy not the republic.  the senate is intended to represent the will of the states not of the people, it has a static number of senators per state to accomplish this goal.  if you want to have both houses formed the same what is the purposes in having two houses at all ? while the reasons for doing this may originate from financial self interest of silicon valley, the result would be the same number of people in california of today receiving 0 additional senators though likely no additional representatives.  if other larger states like texas and new york pull this off, they risk diluting the senate making it more like the house.  if you care primarily about democracy then diluting power is a good thing, it brings the power closer to the people by reducing representation ratios.  lets take it even further, aim to have nh is representation ratio the nh general court is one of the largest legislatures in the world and have 0,0 reps.  all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.  you ca not have senators elected across state boundaries, states have different election laws which would render the result nonsense.   #  by the way, california at one time had in its state congress two houses.   #  with a six year term and 0/0rd being up for vote every two years, the senate would change slowly just as it does now.  by representing 0 million people with exception of a few low population states , each senator would have enormous prestige.  compare it to now where some states have two senators but not enough population to get more than one representative.  by the way, california at one time had in its state congress two houses.  the senate represented areas based on districts and not population much like the us senate.  the us supreme court ruled that unconstitutional URL  #  we have 0 different states with individual issues that need to be represented in our government.   #  if we wanted  one man, one vote,  we would either have a direct democracy or a simple representative democracy.  we do not want that for a variety of reasons.  we have 0 different states with individual issues that need to be represented in our government.  senators represent states, not farmlands, not forests, and not people.  they are there to make sure the interests of each individual state are represented on a national level.   #  one man, one vote still applies to republics so long as the 0,0 votes to decide one senator are similar to the 0,0 votes to select another senator.   #  one man, one vote still applies to republics so long as the 0,0 votes to decide one senator are similar to the 0,0 votes to select another senator.  in today is senate, one senator could have been selected by millions of voters from california while another was decided by tens of thousands of voters from alaska.  senators began to represent people when the constitution was changed to demand popular voting for selection.  the supreme court of the 0s determined that areas of land do not get to determine how many representatives you get.  this is just a natural extension of that idea.   #  because now states means less than it did in the 0s when the us was almost like the eu is today.   #  because now states means less than it did in the 0s when the us was almost like the eu is today.  back then states did field their own armies and had greater control in their destiny.  now, like it or not most if not all states via federal funding bend to the will of the federal government.  hell, the necessary and proper clause and commerce clause have expanded the power of the federal level.  as such, i think the will of the people should be determined fairly by population and not 0 year old borders.
to at least clarify my position, i am a big believer in instant run off voting URL objective based district boundaries URL and proportional representation URL with regards to the house of representatives.  the senate though has a unique set up where every state gets 0 senators.  while an amazing compromise 0  years ago with little changed other than direct voting for appointments, it has now been abused to a point of undermining its original use.  there are 0 senators from texas, california and new york that represent the same number of people as 0 other senators from lesser populated states.  back when states were of more significance being more like individual countries, this could have been understood.  now, with the prominence of parties taking more priority than the states, it now just offers a way for lower population states united by party to control policy over more of the population.  it is counter to democracy and this republic in my opinion.  most recently, it was the six californias URL initiative that really demonstrates the problem here.  while the reasons for doing this may originate from financial self interest of silicon valley, the result would be the same number of people in california of today receiving 0 additional senators though likely no additional representatives.  if other larger states like texas and new york pull this off, they risk diluting the senate making it more like the house.  however, the senate is still important.  i like that it changes slowly and that senators represent a larger amount of people.  it should be that five congressional districts vote for one senator and any currently existing state so no future states will have at least one senator.  all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.  aside from that, the functioning of the senate remains the same.  with six year term limits and a larger population 0 million people that they represent, senators will hold prestige and importance yet be focused on smaller areas with regards to larger states.  unless this california initiative goes through, i know that changing senate representation will never happen.  the reason being is that unlike any other type of amendment, changing senate representation requires 0 passage by all the states.  change my view  #  it should be that five congressional districts vote for one senator and any currently existing state so no future states will have at least one senator.   #  all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.   # if we are going to fix voting then lets actually fix it rather then replace it with a system that does not eliminate most of the problems and introduces some new ones.  there are 0 senators from texas, california and new york that represent the same number of people as 0 other senators from lesser populated states.  back when states were of more significance being more like individual countries, this could have been understood.  now, with the prominence of parties taking more priority than the states, it now just offers a way for lower population states united by party to control policy over more of the population.  it is counter to democracy and this republic in my opinion.  it is counter to democracy not the republic.  the senate is intended to represent the will of the states not of the people, it has a static number of senators per state to accomplish this goal.  if you want to have both houses formed the same what is the purposes in having two houses at all ? while the reasons for doing this may originate from financial self interest of silicon valley, the result would be the same number of people in california of today receiving 0 additional senators though likely no additional representatives.  if other larger states like texas and new york pull this off, they risk diluting the senate making it more like the house.  if you care primarily about democracy then diluting power is a good thing, it brings the power closer to the people by reducing representation ratios.  lets take it even further, aim to have nh is representation ratio the nh general court is one of the largest legislatures in the world and have 0,0 reps.  all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.  you ca not have senators elected across state boundaries, states have different election laws which would render the result nonsense.   #  the us supreme court ruled that unconstitutional URL  #  with a six year term and 0/0rd being up for vote every two years, the senate would change slowly just as it does now.  by representing 0 million people with exception of a few low population states , each senator would have enormous prestige.  compare it to now where some states have two senators but not enough population to get more than one representative.  by the way, california at one time had in its state congress two houses.  the senate represented areas based on districts and not population much like the us senate.  the us supreme court ruled that unconstitutional URL  #  they are there to make sure the interests of each individual state are represented on a national level.   #  if we wanted  one man, one vote,  we would either have a direct democracy or a simple representative democracy.  we do not want that for a variety of reasons.  we have 0 different states with individual issues that need to be represented in our government.  senators represent states, not farmlands, not forests, and not people.  they are there to make sure the interests of each individual state are represented on a national level.   #  one man, one vote still applies to republics so long as the 0,0 votes to decide one senator are similar to the 0,0 votes to select another senator.   #  one man, one vote still applies to republics so long as the 0,0 votes to decide one senator are similar to the 0,0 votes to select another senator.  in today is senate, one senator could have been selected by millions of voters from california while another was decided by tens of thousands of voters from alaska.  senators began to represent people when the constitution was changed to demand popular voting for selection.  the supreme court of the 0s determined that areas of land do not get to determine how many representatives you get.  this is just a natural extension of that idea.   #  as such, i think the will of the people should be determined fairly by population and not 0 year old borders.   #  because now states means less than it did in the 0s when the us was almost like the eu is today.  back then states did field their own armies and had greater control in their destiny.  now, like it or not most if not all states via federal funding bend to the will of the federal government.  hell, the necessary and proper clause and commerce clause have expanded the power of the federal level.  as such, i think the will of the people should be determined fairly by population and not 0 year old borders.
to at least clarify my position, i am a big believer in instant run off voting URL objective based district boundaries URL and proportional representation URL with regards to the house of representatives.  the senate though has a unique set up where every state gets 0 senators.  while an amazing compromise 0  years ago with little changed other than direct voting for appointments, it has now been abused to a point of undermining its original use.  there are 0 senators from texas, california and new york that represent the same number of people as 0 other senators from lesser populated states.  back when states were of more significance being more like individual countries, this could have been understood.  now, with the prominence of parties taking more priority than the states, it now just offers a way for lower population states united by party to control policy over more of the population.  it is counter to democracy and this republic in my opinion.  most recently, it was the six californias URL initiative that really demonstrates the problem here.  while the reasons for doing this may originate from financial self interest of silicon valley, the result would be the same number of people in california of today receiving 0 additional senators though likely no additional representatives.  if other larger states like texas and new york pull this off, they risk diluting the senate making it more like the house.  however, the senate is still important.  i like that it changes slowly and that senators represent a larger amount of people.  it should be that five congressional districts vote for one senator and any currently existing state so no future states will have at least one senator.  all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.  aside from that, the functioning of the senate remains the same.  with six year term limits and a larger population 0 million people that they represent, senators will hold prestige and importance yet be focused on smaller areas with regards to larger states.  unless this california initiative goes through, i know that changing senate representation will never happen.  the reason being is that unlike any other type of amendment, changing senate representation requires 0 passage by all the states.  change my view  #  there are 0 senators from texas, california and new york that represent the same number of people as 0 other senators from lesser populated states.   #  back when states were of more significance being more like individual countries, this could have been understood.   # back when states were of more significance being more like individual countries, this could have been understood.  now, with the prominence of parties taking more priority than the states, it now just offers a way for lower population states united by party to control policy over more of the population.  it is counter to democracy and this republic in my opinion.  first off, this was always the intent.  there was a population imbalance back then as well.  laws and government still, by and large, are done at the local level.  secondly, this country is a representative republic, not a democracy.  we need to balance the interests of the larger states with the smaller states because we are a union, the senate is one way this happens.  okay, so now that we got the basis down, let me explain why this is important.  federal legislation should be hard to pass because it impacts everyone.  how in tune is new york with the problems faced in alaska ? under the current system new york has more power than alaska, but not overwhelmingly more.  by making federal legislation more difficult, it by default, makes local legislation less difficult.  new york, if it wanted to, could fund 0 free healthcare for all residents.  they could protect their natural resources or develop them for future use.  they could enact any number of laws that dictate their quality of life because new york has a better view of what new yorkers need than anyone else.  what they ca not, and should not be able to do, is fully dictate what everyone else has to do too because we all have bought into this union and we all need a seat at the table.  pushing alaska or oklahoma to the kids table simply says that one group knows what is best for everyone simply because they have more people.   #  the senate represented areas based on districts and not population much like the us senate.   #  with a six year term and 0/0rd being up for vote every two years, the senate would change slowly just as it does now.  by representing 0 million people with exception of a few low population states , each senator would have enormous prestige.  compare it to now where some states have two senators but not enough population to get more than one representative.  by the way, california at one time had in its state congress two houses.  the senate represented areas based on districts and not population much like the us senate.  the us supreme court ruled that unconstitutional URL  #  senators represent states, not farmlands, not forests, and not people.   #  if we wanted  one man, one vote,  we would either have a direct democracy or a simple representative democracy.  we do not want that for a variety of reasons.  we have 0 different states with individual issues that need to be represented in our government.  senators represent states, not farmlands, not forests, and not people.  they are there to make sure the interests of each individual state are represented on a national level.   #  one man, one vote still applies to republics so long as the 0,0 votes to decide one senator are similar to the 0,0 votes to select another senator.   #  one man, one vote still applies to republics so long as the 0,0 votes to decide one senator are similar to the 0,0 votes to select another senator.  in today is senate, one senator could have been selected by millions of voters from california while another was decided by tens of thousands of voters from alaska.  senators began to represent people when the constitution was changed to demand popular voting for selection.  the supreme court of the 0s determined that areas of land do not get to determine how many representatives you get.  this is just a natural extension of that idea.   #  as such, i think the will of the people should be determined fairly by population and not 0 year old borders.   #  because now states means less than it did in the 0s when the us was almost like the eu is today.  back then states did field their own armies and had greater control in their destiny.  now, like it or not most if not all states via federal funding bend to the will of the federal government.  hell, the necessary and proper clause and commerce clause have expanded the power of the federal level.  as such, i think the will of the people should be determined fairly by population and not 0 year old borders.
to at least clarify my position, i am a big believer in instant run off voting URL objective based district boundaries URL and proportional representation URL with regards to the house of representatives.  the senate though has a unique set up where every state gets 0 senators.  while an amazing compromise 0  years ago with little changed other than direct voting for appointments, it has now been abused to a point of undermining its original use.  there are 0 senators from texas, california and new york that represent the same number of people as 0 other senators from lesser populated states.  back when states were of more significance being more like individual countries, this could have been understood.  now, with the prominence of parties taking more priority than the states, it now just offers a way for lower population states united by party to control policy over more of the population.  it is counter to democracy and this republic in my opinion.  most recently, it was the six californias URL initiative that really demonstrates the problem here.  while the reasons for doing this may originate from financial self interest of silicon valley, the result would be the same number of people in california of today receiving 0 additional senators though likely no additional representatives.  if other larger states like texas and new york pull this off, they risk diluting the senate making it more like the house.  however, the senate is still important.  i like that it changes slowly and that senators represent a larger amount of people.  it should be that five congressional districts vote for one senator and any currently existing state so no future states will have at least one senator.  all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.  aside from that, the functioning of the senate remains the same.  with six year term limits and a larger population 0 million people that they represent, senators will hold prestige and importance yet be focused on smaller areas with regards to larger states.  unless this california initiative goes through, i know that changing senate representation will never happen.  the reason being is that unlike any other type of amendment, changing senate representation requires 0 passage by all the states.  change my view  #  it should be that five congressional districts vote for one senator and any currently existing state so no future states will have at least one senator.   #  all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.   # while the reasons for doing this may originate from financial self interest of silicon valley, the result would be the same number of people in california of today receiving 0 additional senators though likely no additional representatives.  except there would be no california.  the representatives would not be the same maybe the same number , and they would be from different states.  do you think in 0 virginia got two extra senators when west virginia became a state ? all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.  that is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.  the senate seats are not based on population.  there is no reason to make both the house of representatives, and the senate based on population.  i think there would be quite a few states for secession if you were in charge.  the reason being is that unlike any other type of amendment, changing senate representation requires 0 passage by all the states.  if it takes 0 then it is not going to happen, even if ca breaks up.   #  with a six year term and 0/0rd being up for vote every two years, the senate would change slowly just as it does now.   #  with a six year term and 0/0rd being up for vote every two years, the senate would change slowly just as it does now.  by representing 0 million people with exception of a few low population states , each senator would have enormous prestige.  compare it to now where some states have two senators but not enough population to get more than one representative.  by the way, california at one time had in its state congress two houses.  the senate represented areas based on districts and not population much like the us senate.  the us supreme court ruled that unconstitutional URL  #  they are there to make sure the interests of each individual state are represented on a national level.   #  if we wanted  one man, one vote,  we would either have a direct democracy or a simple representative democracy.  we do not want that for a variety of reasons.  we have 0 different states with individual issues that need to be represented in our government.  senators represent states, not farmlands, not forests, and not people.  they are there to make sure the interests of each individual state are represented on a national level.   #  in today is senate, one senator could have been selected by millions of voters from california while another was decided by tens of thousands of voters from alaska.   #  one man, one vote still applies to republics so long as the 0,0 votes to decide one senator are similar to the 0,0 votes to select another senator.  in today is senate, one senator could have been selected by millions of voters from california while another was decided by tens of thousands of voters from alaska.  senators began to represent people when the constitution was changed to demand popular voting for selection.  the supreme court of the 0s determined that areas of land do not get to determine how many representatives you get.  this is just a natural extension of that idea.   #  now, like it or not most if not all states via federal funding bend to the will of the federal government.   #  because now states means less than it did in the 0s when the us was almost like the eu is today.  back then states did field their own armies and had greater control in their destiny.  now, like it or not most if not all states via federal funding bend to the will of the federal government.  hell, the necessary and proper clause and commerce clause have expanded the power of the federal level.  as such, i think the will of the people should be determined fairly by population and not 0 year old borders.
to at least clarify my position, i am a big believer in instant run off voting URL objective based district boundaries URL and proportional representation URL with regards to the house of representatives.  the senate though has a unique set up where every state gets 0 senators.  while an amazing compromise 0  years ago with little changed other than direct voting for appointments, it has now been abused to a point of undermining its original use.  there are 0 senators from texas, california and new york that represent the same number of people as 0 other senators from lesser populated states.  back when states were of more significance being more like individual countries, this could have been understood.  now, with the prominence of parties taking more priority than the states, it now just offers a way for lower population states united by party to control policy over more of the population.  it is counter to democracy and this republic in my opinion.  most recently, it was the six californias URL initiative that really demonstrates the problem here.  while the reasons for doing this may originate from financial self interest of silicon valley, the result would be the same number of people in california of today receiving 0 additional senators though likely no additional representatives.  if other larger states like texas and new york pull this off, they risk diluting the senate making it more like the house.  however, the senate is still important.  i like that it changes slowly and that senators represent a larger amount of people.  it should be that five congressional districts vote for one senator and any currently existing state so no future states will have at least one senator.  all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.  aside from that, the functioning of the senate remains the same.  with six year term limits and a larger population 0 million people that they represent, senators will hold prestige and importance yet be focused on smaller areas with regards to larger states.  unless this california initiative goes through, i know that changing senate representation will never happen.  the reason being is that unlike any other type of amendment, changing senate representation requires 0 passage by all the states.  change my view  #  unless this california initiative goes through, i know that changing senate representation will never happen.   #  the reason being is that unlike any other type of amendment, changing senate representation requires 0 passage by all the states.   # while the reasons for doing this may originate from financial self interest of silicon valley, the result would be the same number of people in california of today receiving 0 additional senators though likely no additional representatives.  except there would be no california.  the representatives would not be the same maybe the same number , and they would be from different states.  do you think in 0 virginia got two extra senators when west virginia became a state ? all future states that do not have the population to support at least five congressional districts do not get representation in the senate.  that is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.  the senate seats are not based on population.  there is no reason to make both the house of representatives, and the senate based on population.  i think there would be quite a few states for secession if you were in charge.  the reason being is that unlike any other type of amendment, changing senate representation requires 0 passage by all the states.  if it takes 0 then it is not going to happen, even if ca breaks up.   #  the senate represented areas based on districts and not population much like the us senate.   #  with a six year term and 0/0rd being up for vote every two years, the senate would change slowly just as it does now.  by representing 0 million people with exception of a few low population states , each senator would have enormous prestige.  compare it to now where some states have two senators but not enough population to get more than one representative.  by the way, california at one time had in its state congress two houses.  the senate represented areas based on districts and not population much like the us senate.  the us supreme court ruled that unconstitutional URL  #  we have 0 different states with individual issues that need to be represented in our government.   #  if we wanted  one man, one vote,  we would either have a direct democracy or a simple representative democracy.  we do not want that for a variety of reasons.  we have 0 different states with individual issues that need to be represented in our government.  senators represent states, not farmlands, not forests, and not people.  they are there to make sure the interests of each individual state are represented on a national level.   #  this is just a natural extension of that idea.   #  one man, one vote still applies to republics so long as the 0,0 votes to decide one senator are similar to the 0,0 votes to select another senator.  in today is senate, one senator could have been selected by millions of voters from california while another was decided by tens of thousands of voters from alaska.  senators began to represent people when the constitution was changed to demand popular voting for selection.  the supreme court of the 0s determined that areas of land do not get to determine how many representatives you get.  this is just a natural extension of that idea.   #  because now states means less than it did in the 0s when the us was almost like the eu is today.   #  because now states means less than it did in the 0s when the us was almost like the eu is today.  back then states did field their own armies and had greater control in their destiny.  now, like it or not most if not all states via federal funding bend to the will of the federal government.  hell, the necessary and proper clause and commerce clause have expanded the power of the federal level.  as such, i think the will of the people should be determined fairly by population and not 0 year old borders.
inspired by this post URL i agree with the students in the video, but i seem to be a minority on reddit.  understanding an administrations view on the subject might alleviate some of my frustration.  legally, most college students are adults, and a university is not a legal guardian.  also my fraternity owns its own house and property.  the point of going to school is to get a degree and learn class material.  what i do with my time outside of that i believe is my business.  my college within the last four years has added these restrictions.  fraternities must tell the school 0 weeks in advance before having a party.  fraternities must pay for a bartender that can only serve 0 drinks maximum per person over 0.  freshmen are not allowed into fraternities until 0 weeks into school.  students are not allowed to live off campus without permission from the administration.  students must buy a meal plan.  traditionally all fraternities take a trip to florida, the school has mandated that we all do it at a time they choose for us.  every semester i have to spend a few hours doing a course on alcohol that i have taken four times so far.  kegs are not allowed on campus so we just have to spend more money on beer.  the housing and meal plan rules seem to be purely to take money from students.  i believe the other ones are made because most of the tuition money comes from parents and the rules are made to look to good them, because they actually make them more dangerous for students.  since the bartender rule was added, there was a significant increase in freshmen hospitalized for alcohol consumption.  the reason was because since they could not drink at a party, they had get drunk really quickly before it started.  my main issue, however, is that a school making rules like this because they disapprove of our lifestyle seems a lot like the attitude people who oppose gay marriage have i do not mean to claim that my struggle is as significant as a homosexual is .  i should be allowed to decide what risks i want and make mistakes and learn from them.   #  i should be allowed to decide what risks i want and make mistakes and learn from them.   #  yes, but your school does not have to take you on as a risk.   # lol ? lol.  edit: this is just so over the top that it needs to be addressed.  the attitude displayed by people who oppose gay marriage and even civil unions, since they have made those illegal too in many states is typically vitriolic.  some examples of what gay marriage opponents are wont to say URL   any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.  is someone at your school telling you that drinking 0 drinks at a party violates natural law and objective norms of morality ? are they telling you that drinking 0 drinks is going to weaken public morality ? whenever one violates the natural moral order established by god, one sins and offends god.  same sex  marriage  does just this.  accordingly, anyone who professes to love god must be opposed to it.  are they telling you that drinking 0 drinks at a party is an offense against god ? where are you getting that these attitudes are a lot alike ? they are telling you that student organizations ca not do certain things.  where are they condemning you ? where the similarity in attitudes ? if there were similar attitudes, the rule would be:   please inform the school two weeks in advance of a party.  or you are an awful godless person who will go to hell.  but anyway,  you are misunderstanding their actual motives for creating these rules.  it is not a value judgment they are not  really  saying that what you are doing is morally wrong even if they choose to phrase it that way .  while you may think the school is sufficiently legally protected, since what happens off campus they are not responsible for, i think you are underestimating what pressure the school is actually under.  if i give a c to a student who thinks they need a b, i am only barely protected from their parents by a set of laws that make me unable to discuss the grades of a legal adult with his parents.  but i have still seen people thrown under the bus when 0 the student does not do their work 0 someone wants the student to pass esp.  athletics and 0 the parents get involved and start sending threatening emails.  a student can be  objectively  in the wrong and the professor is suddenly no longer a professor, he is suddenly spending all his time coddling parents, responding to lawyers, etc.  it takes up an enormous amount of time dealing with this bullshit, even when it can be demonstrated that the student skipped nearly all the classes and did not do any of the work.  i have lectures to create.  screw your child.  i did not mean that.  you may think that if you end up dead in a gutter there wo not be consequences for the school, but that is not correct.  so sure, we are not legal guardians, but we will be held accountable when a student goes nuts.  legally ? perhaps not.  but it will take up a shitload of my time.  i will be  treated  as responsible, even though that is not part of my training or job.  why did not you intervene ? why did not you tell us about the warning signs ? why did not you break laws and have my son committed ? by the time i am done answering questions and defending myself with the law, the semester will be over.  yes, but your school does not have to take you on as a risk.  nobody says it is your right to go to this school.  if you do not like the rules, nobody is asking you to follow them.  the door is that way.   #  but you do not know how many this describes.   #  that statement can  only  apply to fraternities, and only apply to those fraternities who have made such an agreement with the university.  anyone can run an unaffiliated organization, the exact thing that causes it to be subject to the school rules is unclear.  in some cases this would be obvious, if their house was on campus grounds, for instance.  but you do not know how many this describes.  i also take it that you did not watch the video.  the party central is a private residence.  the same happened at schools i am familiar with.  students avoid university housing because of the reasons you are using.  it is  castle court  that is the party central.  that is not affiliated with the university.  but the administrators are putting pressure on the owners, using undue political leverage in the  real  local government to control the events there.   #  ultimately i am here voluntarily so they are not violating any of my rights, but it still seems unfair.   #  the power schools have over students is definitely a contributing cause to situations like this.  when i was accepted most of these rules were not in place, so they were not something i was able to consider.  it feels like they are trying to exercise control while still making it not worth it to transfer.  unlike a business, if i dropped out all the progress i made would become worthless.  ultimately i am here voluntarily so they are not violating any of my rights, but it still seems unfair.   #  if you are so appalled by them doing this, leave.   #  this.  you are not forced to go to this school, or any school for that matter.  if you are so appalled by them doing this, leave.  universities know they have the market and if you want to leave there are plenty of people who will not complain about having to buy beer instead of kegs.  you need them, so they can basically make whatever rules that may help keep their students safer and limit any possibly liabilities.  it may sound bad, but nothing you said is really over stepping any lines if you ask me.   #  i do not think this works so splendidly in practice outside of small, locally owned businesses and agreements.   #  i used to be hardline libertarian and i would have said exactly what you did.  my views have softened considerably since then because of some inherent problems with this view.  on paper it works out brilliantly, both employer and employee are free to work out agreements with no coercion.  i do not think this works so splendidly in practice outside of small, locally owned businesses and agreements.  in practice a large company has much more power over you then you do over them.  remember, most people only work because they are selling their labor for money, nothing more.  same with students, they are paying money for instruction and a degree.  what people do outside of the hours of schooling/working and off their organization is private property are their business.
inspired by this post URL i agree with the students in the video, but i seem to be a minority on reddit.  understanding an administrations view on the subject might alleviate some of my frustration.  legally, most college students are adults, and a university is not a legal guardian.  also my fraternity owns its own house and property.  the point of going to school is to get a degree and learn class material.  what i do with my time outside of that i believe is my business.  my college within the last four years has added these restrictions.  fraternities must tell the school 0 weeks in advance before having a party.  fraternities must pay for a bartender that can only serve 0 drinks maximum per person over 0.  freshmen are not allowed into fraternities until 0 weeks into school.  students are not allowed to live off campus without permission from the administration.  students must buy a meal plan.  traditionally all fraternities take a trip to florida, the school has mandated that we all do it at a time they choose for us.  every semester i have to spend a few hours doing a course on alcohol that i have taken four times so far.  kegs are not allowed on campus so we just have to spend more money on beer.  the housing and meal plan rules seem to be purely to take money from students.  i believe the other ones are made because most of the tuition money comes from parents and the rules are made to look to good them, because they actually make them more dangerous for students.  since the bartender rule was added, there was a significant increase in freshmen hospitalized for alcohol consumption.  the reason was because since they could not drink at a party, they had get drunk really quickly before it started.  my main issue, however, is that a school making rules like this because they disapprove of our lifestyle seems a lot like the attitude people who oppose gay marriage have i do not mean to claim that my struggle is as significant as a homosexual is .  i should be allowed to decide what risks i want and make mistakes and learn from them.   #  traditionally all fraternities take a trip to florida, the school has mandated that we all do it at a time they choose for us.   #  fraternities are student groups which are associated with the school, and thus fall under whatever policies the school implements.   # fraternities are student groups which are associated with the school, and thus fall under whatever policies the school implements.  you are more than welcome to create your own fraternity that is not associated with the school in any way, but if you want to be part of a school associated group then you need to abide by the rules which are set forth by the school.  these types of rules are generally meant for the well being of students.  forcing students to buy a meal plan means that students do not need to worry about buying their own food and thus wo not go hungry if they do not have money to buy food for themselves as many college students are not exactly rich.  many schools also have restrictions on where students can live off campus to ensure that students have decent living conditions while going to school.  i am not sure about every semester, but most schools require students to take some sort of alcohol course upon entry to their school.  this is meant to educate students who may not know too much about drinking or the effects of alcohol.  this is a relatively common rule which is meant to prevent binge drinking.  yes most college students are adults and yes universities are not legal guardians, but that does not mean that colleges ca not make rules as to what their students/student groups can or ca not do while enrolled at the school.  you are allowed to decide what risks you want, but part of taking these risks is dealing with the punishments that result from taking them, which includes whatever punishments your school has for taking these risks.  if you want to have a party at your frat house without a bartender and without notifying your school of it 0 weeks before then you are more than welcome to take that risk, but part of that risk is accepting the consequences if you get in trouble for doing so.   #  in some cases this would be obvious, if their house was on campus grounds, for instance.   #  that statement can  only  apply to fraternities, and only apply to those fraternities who have made such an agreement with the university.  anyone can run an unaffiliated organization, the exact thing that causes it to be subject to the school rules is unclear.  in some cases this would be obvious, if their house was on campus grounds, for instance.  but you do not know how many this describes.  i also take it that you did not watch the video.  the party central is a private residence.  the same happened at schools i am familiar with.  students avoid university housing because of the reasons you are using.  it is  castle court  that is the party central.  that is not affiliated with the university.  but the administrators are putting pressure on the owners, using undue political leverage in the  real  local government to control the events there.   #  ultimately i am here voluntarily so they are not violating any of my rights, but it still seems unfair.   #  the power schools have over students is definitely a contributing cause to situations like this.  when i was accepted most of these rules were not in place, so they were not something i was able to consider.  it feels like they are trying to exercise control while still making it not worth it to transfer.  unlike a business, if i dropped out all the progress i made would become worthless.  ultimately i am here voluntarily so they are not violating any of my rights, but it still seems unfair.   #  you need them, so they can basically make whatever rules that may help keep their students safer and limit any possibly liabilities.   #  this.  you are not forced to go to this school, or any school for that matter.  if you are so appalled by them doing this, leave.  universities know they have the market and if you want to leave there are plenty of people who will not complain about having to buy beer instead of kegs.  you need them, so they can basically make whatever rules that may help keep their students safer and limit any possibly liabilities.  it may sound bad, but nothing you said is really over stepping any lines if you ask me.   #  remember, most people only work because they are selling their labor for money, nothing more.   #  i used to be hardline libertarian and i would have said exactly what you did.  my views have softened considerably since then because of some inherent problems with this view.  on paper it works out brilliantly, both employer and employee are free to work out agreements with no coercion.  i do not think this works so splendidly in practice outside of small, locally owned businesses and agreements.  in practice a large company has much more power over you then you do over them.  remember, most people only work because they are selling their labor for money, nothing more.  same with students, they are paying money for instruction and a degree.  what people do outside of the hours of schooling/working and off their organization is private property are their business.
inspired by this post URL i agree with the students in the video, but i seem to be a minority on reddit.  understanding an administrations view on the subject might alleviate some of my frustration.  legally, most college students are adults, and a university is not a legal guardian.  also my fraternity owns its own house and property.  the point of going to school is to get a degree and learn class material.  what i do with my time outside of that i believe is my business.  my college within the last four years has added these restrictions.  fraternities must tell the school 0 weeks in advance before having a party.  fraternities must pay for a bartender that can only serve 0 drinks maximum per person over 0.  freshmen are not allowed into fraternities until 0 weeks into school.  students are not allowed to live off campus without permission from the administration.  students must buy a meal plan.  traditionally all fraternities take a trip to florida, the school has mandated that we all do it at a time they choose for us.  every semester i have to spend a few hours doing a course on alcohol that i have taken four times so far.  kegs are not allowed on campus so we just have to spend more money on beer.  the housing and meal plan rules seem to be purely to take money from students.  i believe the other ones are made because most of the tuition money comes from parents and the rules are made to look to good them, because they actually make them more dangerous for students.  since the bartender rule was added, there was a significant increase in freshmen hospitalized for alcohol consumption.  the reason was because since they could not drink at a party, they had get drunk really quickly before it started.  my main issue, however, is that a school making rules like this because they disapprove of our lifestyle seems a lot like the attitude people who oppose gay marriage have i do not mean to claim that my struggle is as significant as a homosexual is .  i should be allowed to decide what risks i want and make mistakes and learn from them.   #  every semester i have to spend a few hours doing a course on alcohol that i have taken four times so far.   #  i am not sure about every semester, but most schools require students to take some sort of alcohol course upon entry to their school.   # fraternities are student groups which are associated with the school, and thus fall under whatever policies the school implements.  you are more than welcome to create your own fraternity that is not associated with the school in any way, but if you want to be part of a school associated group then you need to abide by the rules which are set forth by the school.  these types of rules are generally meant for the well being of students.  forcing students to buy a meal plan means that students do not need to worry about buying their own food and thus wo not go hungry if they do not have money to buy food for themselves as many college students are not exactly rich.  many schools also have restrictions on where students can live off campus to ensure that students have decent living conditions while going to school.  i am not sure about every semester, but most schools require students to take some sort of alcohol course upon entry to their school.  this is meant to educate students who may not know too much about drinking or the effects of alcohol.  this is a relatively common rule which is meant to prevent binge drinking.  yes most college students are adults and yes universities are not legal guardians, but that does not mean that colleges ca not make rules as to what their students/student groups can or ca not do while enrolled at the school.  you are allowed to decide what risks you want, but part of taking these risks is dealing with the punishments that result from taking them, which includes whatever punishments your school has for taking these risks.  if you want to have a party at your frat house without a bartender and without notifying your school of it 0 weeks before then you are more than welcome to take that risk, but part of that risk is accepting the consequences if you get in trouble for doing so.   #  but you do not know how many this describes.   #  that statement can  only  apply to fraternities, and only apply to those fraternities who have made such an agreement with the university.  anyone can run an unaffiliated organization, the exact thing that causes it to be subject to the school rules is unclear.  in some cases this would be obvious, if their house was on campus grounds, for instance.  but you do not know how many this describes.  i also take it that you did not watch the video.  the party central is a private residence.  the same happened at schools i am familiar with.  students avoid university housing because of the reasons you are using.  it is  castle court  that is the party central.  that is not affiliated with the university.  but the administrators are putting pressure on the owners, using undue political leverage in the  real  local government to control the events there.   #  it feels like they are trying to exercise control while still making it not worth it to transfer.   #  the power schools have over students is definitely a contributing cause to situations like this.  when i was accepted most of these rules were not in place, so they were not something i was able to consider.  it feels like they are trying to exercise control while still making it not worth it to transfer.  unlike a business, if i dropped out all the progress i made would become worthless.  ultimately i am here voluntarily so they are not violating any of my rights, but it still seems unfair.   #  you are not forced to go to this school, or any school for that matter.   #  this.  you are not forced to go to this school, or any school for that matter.  if you are so appalled by them doing this, leave.  universities know they have the market and if you want to leave there are plenty of people who will not complain about having to buy beer instead of kegs.  you need them, so they can basically make whatever rules that may help keep their students safer and limit any possibly liabilities.  it may sound bad, but nothing you said is really over stepping any lines if you ask me.   #  i used to be hardline libertarian and i would have said exactly what you did.   #  i used to be hardline libertarian and i would have said exactly what you did.  my views have softened considerably since then because of some inherent problems with this view.  on paper it works out brilliantly, both employer and employee are free to work out agreements with no coercion.  i do not think this works so splendidly in practice outside of small, locally owned businesses and agreements.  in practice a large company has much more power over you then you do over them.  remember, most people only work because they are selling their labor for money, nothing more.  same with students, they are paying money for instruction and a degree.  what people do outside of the hours of schooling/working and off their organization is private property are their business.
inspired by this post URL i agree with the students in the video, but i seem to be a minority on reddit.  understanding an administrations view on the subject might alleviate some of my frustration.  legally, most college students are adults, and a university is not a legal guardian.  also my fraternity owns its own house and property.  the point of going to school is to get a degree and learn class material.  what i do with my time outside of that i believe is my business.  my college within the last four years has added these restrictions.  fraternities must tell the school 0 weeks in advance before having a party.  fraternities must pay for a bartender that can only serve 0 drinks maximum per person over 0.  freshmen are not allowed into fraternities until 0 weeks into school.  students are not allowed to live off campus without permission from the administration.  students must buy a meal plan.  traditionally all fraternities take a trip to florida, the school has mandated that we all do it at a time they choose for us.  every semester i have to spend a few hours doing a course on alcohol that i have taken four times so far.  kegs are not allowed on campus so we just have to spend more money on beer.  the housing and meal plan rules seem to be purely to take money from students.  i believe the other ones are made because most of the tuition money comes from parents and the rules are made to look to good them, because they actually make them more dangerous for students.  since the bartender rule was added, there was a significant increase in freshmen hospitalized for alcohol consumption.  the reason was because since they could not drink at a party, they had get drunk really quickly before it started.  my main issue, however, is that a school making rules like this because they disapprove of our lifestyle seems a lot like the attitude people who oppose gay marriage have i do not mean to claim that my struggle is as significant as a homosexual is .  i should be allowed to decide what risks i want and make mistakes and learn from them.   #  kegs are not allowed on campus so we just have to spend more money on beer.   #  this is a relatively common rule which is meant to prevent binge drinking.   # fraternities are student groups which are associated with the school, and thus fall under whatever policies the school implements.  you are more than welcome to create your own fraternity that is not associated with the school in any way, but if you want to be part of a school associated group then you need to abide by the rules which are set forth by the school.  these types of rules are generally meant for the well being of students.  forcing students to buy a meal plan means that students do not need to worry about buying their own food and thus wo not go hungry if they do not have money to buy food for themselves as many college students are not exactly rich.  many schools also have restrictions on where students can live off campus to ensure that students have decent living conditions while going to school.  i am not sure about every semester, but most schools require students to take some sort of alcohol course upon entry to their school.  this is meant to educate students who may not know too much about drinking or the effects of alcohol.  this is a relatively common rule which is meant to prevent binge drinking.  yes most college students are adults and yes universities are not legal guardians, but that does not mean that colleges ca not make rules as to what their students/student groups can or ca not do while enrolled at the school.  you are allowed to decide what risks you want, but part of taking these risks is dealing with the punishments that result from taking them, which includes whatever punishments your school has for taking these risks.  if you want to have a party at your frat house without a bartender and without notifying your school of it 0 weeks before then you are more than welcome to take that risk, but part of that risk is accepting the consequences if you get in trouble for doing so.   #  it is  castle court  that is the party central.   #  that statement can  only  apply to fraternities, and only apply to those fraternities who have made such an agreement with the university.  anyone can run an unaffiliated organization, the exact thing that causes it to be subject to the school rules is unclear.  in some cases this would be obvious, if their house was on campus grounds, for instance.  but you do not know how many this describes.  i also take it that you did not watch the video.  the party central is a private residence.  the same happened at schools i am familiar with.  students avoid university housing because of the reasons you are using.  it is  castle court  that is the party central.  that is not affiliated with the university.  but the administrators are putting pressure on the owners, using undue political leverage in the  real  local government to control the events there.   #  unlike a business, if i dropped out all the progress i made would become worthless.   #  the power schools have over students is definitely a contributing cause to situations like this.  when i was accepted most of these rules were not in place, so they were not something i was able to consider.  it feels like they are trying to exercise control while still making it not worth it to transfer.  unlike a business, if i dropped out all the progress i made would become worthless.  ultimately i am here voluntarily so they are not violating any of my rights, but it still seems unfair.   #  it may sound bad, but nothing you said is really over stepping any lines if you ask me.   #  this.  you are not forced to go to this school, or any school for that matter.  if you are so appalled by them doing this, leave.  universities know they have the market and if you want to leave there are plenty of people who will not complain about having to buy beer instead of kegs.  you need them, so they can basically make whatever rules that may help keep their students safer and limit any possibly liabilities.  it may sound bad, but nothing you said is really over stepping any lines if you ask me.   #  i used to be hardline libertarian and i would have said exactly what you did.   #  i used to be hardline libertarian and i would have said exactly what you did.  my views have softened considerably since then because of some inherent problems with this view.  on paper it works out brilliantly, both employer and employee are free to work out agreements with no coercion.  i do not think this works so splendidly in practice outside of small, locally owned businesses and agreements.  in practice a large company has much more power over you then you do over them.  remember, most people only work because they are selling their labor for money, nothing more.  same with students, they are paying money for instruction and a degree.  what people do outside of the hours of schooling/working and off their organization is private property are their business.
the golden rule states  treat others the way you would like to be treated  and is frequently espoused by people as a guiding principle to live your life.  however, this rule completely disregards the fairly obvious fact that different people have different needs.  for example, say i am in a relationship and i value alone time when i get stressed.  my significant other values spending time with me when she gets stressed.  these are incompatible views, and by following the golden rule, i would have a built in excuse for not spending time with her when she gets stressed  but i do not ask you to do xyz when i get stressed !   .  using the logic of the current golden rule, i am in the clear.  my newly proposed golden rule stresses empathy and recognizes that individuals have different needs.  the focus is on understanding these needs and attempting to meet them, rather than focusing inward  how would i like to be treated in this scenario ?   .  of course, my rule only applies to reasonable situations if my so requests that i drive across 0 states to see her every time she has a bad day, the rule does not apply.  i would like to hear an argument for why the original golden rule is superior to my revised version.   #  for example, say i am in a relationship and i value alone time when i get stressed.   #  my significant other values spending time with me when she gets stressed.   # my significant other values spending time with me when she gets stressed.  these are incompatible views, and by following the golden rule, i would have a built in excuse for not spending time with her when she gets stressed  but i do not ask you to do xyz when i get stressed !   .  using the logic of the current golden rule, i am in the clear.  ah, not quite ! you are looking at the literal action versus the motivation for the action.  in the example, your spouse is stressed and needs your support.  so if you always  treat people the way you want to be treated,  that means that when your spouse is stressed you provide your spouse support because that is what you would want if you were stressed.  the literal actions that you take to provide the support do not matter; the rule only applies to the fact that you should help/support this person because you would want to be helped/supported yourself if you were stressed.   #  you ca not ever literally have their perspective, so your revision does not make sense.   #  i think you have missed the point.  the golden rule is something we teach children in order to get them to understand empathy.  you do not know what a stranger is  needs  are, but you can guess they would not enjoy being insulted, belittled or laughed at anymore than you would.  it is about putting yourself in someone else is shoes to get a reasonable understanding of their perspective.  you ca not ever literally have their perspective, so your revision does not make sense.  the golden rule applies to all people, whereas your version only works for people you know well enough to know what they want and how they are, which is too narrow for it to really be a golden rule.   #  people can be unreasonable and demand ridiculous things.   #  not to mention that your wording is commonly referred to as the  platinum rule .  URL there is also the silver rule.   wouldo not do onto others as you would not do to yourself .  if fact, when you think about it the silver rule might be the best.  people can be unreasonable and demand ridiculous things.  they are not necessarily entitled to be treated exactly like they want.  the silver rule assumes you do not treat yourself poorly, and you should use that metric to treat others.   #  i think you are just not giving enough credit to the original.   #  i think you are just not giving enough credit to the original.  the golden rule is not meant to be introspective.  it is meant to teach empathy.  empathy is all about the feelings and needs of others.  think about it practically.  your wife, for example, asks you you are male in this example :p to bring a change of clothes for her.  if we take the golden rule literally, you would bring what you want to wear.  certainly that would not include something like a bra ok it might.  but work with me :p .  if you took the rule absolutely literally, you would bring her a change of your best clothes, because that is how you would want to be treated right ? rather, when you  treat people how you would like to be treated  you are meant to think about their scenario.  that is how i always viewed it.  at the end of the day, i do not actually think you are suggestion is any different at all, but i do dislike the wording, because it presupposes that we ought to really guess at what people want, rather than just modifying what we know about ourselves based on the facts we have about the other person is situation.   #  i would like to be treated by others with empathy and understanding based on their knowledge of my likes and dislikes, and that is all anyone can reasonably ask of another person.   #  you are being way too literal in your understanding of the golden rule.  it is obviously not the same thing as bringing someone who is allergic to shellfish a lobster bisque just because you like lobster bisque.  i would like to be treated by others with empathy and understanding based on their knowledge of my likes and dislikes, and that is all anyone can reasonably ask of another person.  your way of framing it requires mind reading.  you do not know how other people want to be treated, you can only treat them with empathy and understanding and guess what to do based on your knowledge of that person.
the golden rule states  treat others the way you would like to be treated  and is frequently espoused by people as a guiding principle to live your life.  however, this rule completely disregards the fairly obvious fact that different people have different needs.  for example, say i am in a relationship and i value alone time when i get stressed.  my significant other values spending time with me when she gets stressed.  these are incompatible views, and by following the golden rule, i would have a built in excuse for not spending time with her when she gets stressed  but i do not ask you to do xyz when i get stressed !   .  using the logic of the current golden rule, i am in the clear.  my newly proposed golden rule stresses empathy and recognizes that individuals have different needs.  the focus is on understanding these needs and attempting to meet them, rather than focusing inward  how would i like to be treated in this scenario ?   .  of course, my rule only applies to reasonable situations if my so requests that i drive across 0 states to see her every time she has a bad day, the rule does not apply.  i would like to hear an argument for why the original golden rule is superior to my revised version.   #  for example, say i am in a relationship and i value alone time when i get stressed.   #  my significant other values spending time with me when she gets stressed.   # my significant other values spending time with me when she gets stressed.  you would not like it if people did things that stress you out.  therefore, do not treat others in a way that stress them out.  this is what the golden rule means.  it is a level of abstraction higher than you are thinking.  if i want to be treated with respect, treat others with respect.  it is not talking about specific actions, but a more general awareness of the manner in which you want to be treated.   #  you do not know what a stranger is  needs  are, but you can guess they would not enjoy being insulted, belittled or laughed at anymore than you would.   #  i think you have missed the point.  the golden rule is something we teach children in order to get them to understand empathy.  you do not know what a stranger is  needs  are, but you can guess they would not enjoy being insulted, belittled or laughed at anymore than you would.  it is about putting yourself in someone else is shoes to get a reasonable understanding of their perspective.  you ca not ever literally have their perspective, so your revision does not make sense.  the golden rule applies to all people, whereas your version only works for people you know well enough to know what they want and how they are, which is too narrow for it to really be a golden rule.   #  the silver rule assumes you do not treat yourself poorly, and you should use that metric to treat others.   #  not to mention that your wording is commonly referred to as the  platinum rule .  URL there is also the silver rule.   wouldo not do onto others as you would not do to yourself .  if fact, when you think about it the silver rule might be the best.  people can be unreasonable and demand ridiculous things.  they are not necessarily entitled to be treated exactly like they want.  the silver rule assumes you do not treat yourself poorly, and you should use that metric to treat others.   #  your wife, for example, asks you you are male in this example :p to bring a change of clothes for her.   #  i think you are just not giving enough credit to the original.  the golden rule is not meant to be introspective.  it is meant to teach empathy.  empathy is all about the feelings and needs of others.  think about it practically.  your wife, for example, asks you you are male in this example :p to bring a change of clothes for her.  if we take the golden rule literally, you would bring what you want to wear.  certainly that would not include something like a bra ok it might.  but work with me :p .  if you took the rule absolutely literally, you would bring her a change of your best clothes, because that is how you would want to be treated right ? rather, when you  treat people how you would like to be treated  you are meant to think about their scenario.  that is how i always viewed it.  at the end of the day, i do not actually think you are suggestion is any different at all, but i do dislike the wording, because it presupposes that we ought to really guess at what people want, rather than just modifying what we know about ourselves based on the facts we have about the other person is situation.   #  i would like to be treated by others with empathy and understanding based on their knowledge of my likes and dislikes, and that is all anyone can reasonably ask of another person.   #  you are being way too literal in your understanding of the golden rule.  it is obviously not the same thing as bringing someone who is allergic to shellfish a lobster bisque just because you like lobster bisque.  i would like to be treated by others with empathy and understanding based on their knowledge of my likes and dislikes, and that is all anyone can reasonably ask of another person.  your way of framing it requires mind reading.  you do not know how other people want to be treated, you can only treat them with empathy and understanding and guess what to do based on your knowledge of that person.
this is a view i have been playing with for quite some time, but have been having a difficult time putting it in to words.  basically, my view is that democratic decision making is great when we are talking about small groups that are more or less homogeneous in interests, but when the group grows, and the interests of group members differ, and in many cases, become objectively opposed to one another, democracy becomes increasingly meaningless.  the  people  in such a system no longer have the power, which is what a democracy is supposed to be.  when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  to me, this seems self evident based on the direction in which most democratic nations are heading.  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.   #  the  people  in such a system no longer have the power, which is what a democracy is supposed to be.   #  when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.   # when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  are you aware that unions are democratic organizations ? if unions are powerful, then democracy is powerful.  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.  i would like to examine this part of your claim.  what direction are most democratic nations heading in that proves your claim ?  #  a situation like the antebellum south might be a very pure example of the tyranny of the majority the white majority could do anything they liked to their black slaves but a very bad example of democracy.   #  federalism implies a trade off.  in a centralized democracy each voter has more say about what goes on in the entire country and less say about what goes on in their town.  for example, in a strongly decentralized democracy, voters in ohio could permit dirty coal plants that cause cancer and asthma in new york, and voters in new york would have no say in the matter.  in a centralized democracy, voters in new york can vote for politicians who force the epa to control those plants.  the more interconnected the world becomes, the less important it is to have full control over your backyard, and the more important it is to have some say over what happens hundreds of miles away.  there is a zero sum game here, in the sense that you ca not get control over what happens in ohio without given ohio voters some say over what happens to you, and vice versa; but that is only truly zero sum if you assume that people are indifferent to total local control versus national power.  if people value national power more, then everyone gets a more powerful vote by giving up some local power.  another point: do you identify democracy more strongly with tyranny of the majority, or with every citizen having equal rights ? a situation like the antebellum south might be a very pure example of the tyranny of the majority the white majority could do anything they liked to their black slaves but a very bad example of democracy.  in a democracy as i conceive of it the basic fact is that the citizens have equal rights, and the majority rule in elections flows from the fact that all votes are equally valuable.  complete local control include a right for towns to bully their outcasts and minorities, which is not democratic.  the bigger a country is and the further a vote stretches, the more difficult it is for the majority in a small region to use local elections to force undemocratic laws on the minority.  i may be prejudicied against the despised minorities in my own town, but when i get a vote on human rights in another community i am more likely to be fair minded.  note that this same logic national power versus total local control, and tyranny of the local majority versus national civil rights applies to organizations like political parties, corporations, and unions.  large national organizations and small local organizations differ in many of the same ways that nations and towns differ.  you can be a big fish in a little pond or a little fish in a big pond.  finally, you are overstating the degree to which all democratic decisions are becoming national.  i ca not speak for all countries, but in the us, anyone who becomes active in town or local politics will have significant say over local political issues immediately and will probably recieve a political appointment or be able to run for a seat within five years.  local politics is not as sexy as whatever gets reported on the national news, but it still covers education policy, land use, public safety, and other issues that have a huge effect on daily life.   #  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.   # not really.  i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .  what direction are most democratic nations heading in that proves your claim ? being controlled by special interests rather than the general interests of the average citizen.  an example of this, farmers lobby the government for increased tariffs on imported food or arbitrary quota systems like supply management preventing a surplus of food from being produced.  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.  meanwhile, the 0 of farmers who will benefit from such measures get their way because they are prepared to vote and lobby as a bloc.  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.   #  the result is not undemocratic when the majority vote for that result.   # i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .  why are unions not a valid example of democracy ? they are democratic organizations.  an example of this, farmers lobby the government for increased tariffs on imported food or arbitrary quota systems like supply management preventing a surplus of food from being produced.  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.  meanwhile, the 0 of farmers who will benefit from such measures get their way because they are prepared to vote and lobby as a bloc.  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.  a lot of these policies you are saying are harmful to 0 of the population are actually beneficial in the long run because overproduction of crops leads to environmental degradation.  the fact that the rise in food prices is not important enough to swing votes is not a sign of democracy failing, it is a sign of democracy working, because people have more important concerns that do swing their votes.  the result is not undemocratic when the majority vote for that result.   #  so the majority do not even have the option of voting for policies that benefit them in that regard.   # that is not actually correct, since in many cases, the board is not influenced by all the shareholders due to the use of non voting shares or a single party owning a majority of the voting stock .  union leadership  is  actually elected by the union membership, whose votes are not weighted by any arbitrary means like stock ownership.  and often, union policies are determined by direct democracy, which cannot be said of corporate governance.  the farmers have politicians by the balls and they know it, which is why no one has campaigned on eliminating tariffs or supply management in years.  so the majority do not even have the option of voting for policies that benefit them in that regard.  if the public supported eliminating those policies and cared enough to vote their beliefs, politicians who ran on eliminating those policies would succeed.  what you are describing is the result of the democratic process.  also, you are acting as though you have proven that farm subsidies hurt people who are not farmers, which i have disputed.
this is a view i have been playing with for quite some time, but have been having a difficult time putting it in to words.  basically, my view is that democratic decision making is great when we are talking about small groups that are more or less homogeneous in interests, but when the group grows, and the interests of group members differ, and in many cases, become objectively opposed to one another, democracy becomes increasingly meaningless.  the  people  in such a system no longer have the power, which is what a democracy is supposed to be.  when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  to me, this seems self evident based on the direction in which most democratic nations are heading.  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.   #  to me, this seems self evident based on the direction in which most democratic nations are heading.   #  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.   # when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  are you aware that unions are democratic organizations ? if unions are powerful, then democracy is powerful.  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.  i would like to examine this part of your claim.  what direction are most democratic nations heading in that proves your claim ?  #  the bigger a country is and the further a vote stretches, the more difficult it is for the majority in a small region to use local elections to force undemocratic laws on the minority.   #  federalism implies a trade off.  in a centralized democracy each voter has more say about what goes on in the entire country and less say about what goes on in their town.  for example, in a strongly decentralized democracy, voters in ohio could permit dirty coal plants that cause cancer and asthma in new york, and voters in new york would have no say in the matter.  in a centralized democracy, voters in new york can vote for politicians who force the epa to control those plants.  the more interconnected the world becomes, the less important it is to have full control over your backyard, and the more important it is to have some say over what happens hundreds of miles away.  there is a zero sum game here, in the sense that you ca not get control over what happens in ohio without given ohio voters some say over what happens to you, and vice versa; but that is only truly zero sum if you assume that people are indifferent to total local control versus national power.  if people value national power more, then everyone gets a more powerful vote by giving up some local power.  another point: do you identify democracy more strongly with tyranny of the majority, or with every citizen having equal rights ? a situation like the antebellum south might be a very pure example of the tyranny of the majority the white majority could do anything they liked to their black slaves but a very bad example of democracy.  in a democracy as i conceive of it the basic fact is that the citizens have equal rights, and the majority rule in elections flows from the fact that all votes are equally valuable.  complete local control include a right for towns to bully their outcasts and minorities, which is not democratic.  the bigger a country is and the further a vote stretches, the more difficult it is for the majority in a small region to use local elections to force undemocratic laws on the minority.  i may be prejudicied against the despised minorities in my own town, but when i get a vote on human rights in another community i am more likely to be fair minded.  note that this same logic national power versus total local control, and tyranny of the local majority versus national civil rights applies to organizations like political parties, corporations, and unions.  large national organizations and small local organizations differ in many of the same ways that nations and towns differ.  you can be a big fish in a little pond or a little fish in a big pond.  finally, you are overstating the degree to which all democratic decisions are becoming national.  i ca not speak for all countries, but in the us, anyone who becomes active in town or local politics will have significant say over local political issues immediately and will probably recieve a political appointment or be able to run for a seat within five years.  local politics is not as sexy as whatever gets reported on the national news, but it still covers education policy, land use, public safety, and other issues that have a huge effect on daily life.   #  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.   # not really.  i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .  what direction are most democratic nations heading in that proves your claim ? being controlled by special interests rather than the general interests of the average citizen.  an example of this, farmers lobby the government for increased tariffs on imported food or arbitrary quota systems like supply management preventing a surplus of food from being produced.  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.  meanwhile, the 0 of farmers who will benefit from such measures get their way because they are prepared to vote and lobby as a bloc.  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.   #  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.   # i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .  why are unions not a valid example of democracy ? they are democratic organizations.  an example of this, farmers lobby the government for increased tariffs on imported food or arbitrary quota systems like supply management preventing a surplus of food from being produced.  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.  meanwhile, the 0 of farmers who will benefit from such measures get their way because they are prepared to vote and lobby as a bloc.  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.  a lot of these policies you are saying are harmful to 0 of the population are actually beneficial in the long run because overproduction of crops leads to environmental degradation.  the fact that the rise in food prices is not important enough to swing votes is not a sign of democracy failing, it is a sign of democracy working, because people have more important concerns that do swing their votes.  the result is not undemocratic when the majority vote for that result.   #  also, you are acting as though you have proven that farm subsidies hurt people who are not farmers, which i have disputed.   # that is not actually correct, since in many cases, the board is not influenced by all the shareholders due to the use of non voting shares or a single party owning a majority of the voting stock .  union leadership  is  actually elected by the union membership, whose votes are not weighted by any arbitrary means like stock ownership.  and often, union policies are determined by direct democracy, which cannot be said of corporate governance.  the farmers have politicians by the balls and they know it, which is why no one has campaigned on eliminating tariffs or supply management in years.  so the majority do not even have the option of voting for policies that benefit them in that regard.  if the public supported eliminating those policies and cared enough to vote their beliefs, politicians who ran on eliminating those policies would succeed.  what you are describing is the result of the democratic process.  also, you are acting as though you have proven that farm subsidies hurt people who are not farmers, which i have disputed.
this is a view i have been playing with for quite some time, but have been having a difficult time putting it in to words.  basically, my view is that democratic decision making is great when we are talking about small groups that are more or less homogeneous in interests, but when the group grows, and the interests of group members differ, and in many cases, become objectively opposed to one another, democracy becomes increasingly meaningless.  the  people  in such a system no longer have the power, which is what a democracy is supposed to be.  when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  to me, this seems self evident based on the direction in which most democratic nations are heading.  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.   #  the  people  in such a system no longer have the power, which is what a democracy is supposed to be.   #  when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.   # when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  you are right, special interests have got very organised and clever which has made them more powerful.  i think the solution to this is more democracy at the top level.  what if, instead of electing a government you elected the individuals ministers and head of department ? as well as an overall prime minister/president of course.  that brings more people power to the table.   #  another point: do you identify democracy more strongly with tyranny of the majority, or with every citizen having equal rights ?  #  federalism implies a trade off.  in a centralized democracy each voter has more say about what goes on in the entire country and less say about what goes on in their town.  for example, in a strongly decentralized democracy, voters in ohio could permit dirty coal plants that cause cancer and asthma in new york, and voters in new york would have no say in the matter.  in a centralized democracy, voters in new york can vote for politicians who force the epa to control those plants.  the more interconnected the world becomes, the less important it is to have full control over your backyard, and the more important it is to have some say over what happens hundreds of miles away.  there is a zero sum game here, in the sense that you ca not get control over what happens in ohio without given ohio voters some say over what happens to you, and vice versa; but that is only truly zero sum if you assume that people are indifferent to total local control versus national power.  if people value national power more, then everyone gets a more powerful vote by giving up some local power.  another point: do you identify democracy more strongly with tyranny of the majority, or with every citizen having equal rights ? a situation like the antebellum south might be a very pure example of the tyranny of the majority the white majority could do anything they liked to their black slaves but a very bad example of democracy.  in a democracy as i conceive of it the basic fact is that the citizens have equal rights, and the majority rule in elections flows from the fact that all votes are equally valuable.  complete local control include a right for towns to bully their outcasts and minorities, which is not democratic.  the bigger a country is and the further a vote stretches, the more difficult it is for the majority in a small region to use local elections to force undemocratic laws on the minority.  i may be prejudicied against the despised minorities in my own town, but when i get a vote on human rights in another community i am more likely to be fair minded.  note that this same logic national power versus total local control, and tyranny of the local majority versus national civil rights applies to organizations like political parties, corporations, and unions.  large national organizations and small local organizations differ in many of the same ways that nations and towns differ.  you can be a big fish in a little pond or a little fish in a big pond.  finally, you are overstating the degree to which all democratic decisions are becoming national.  i ca not speak for all countries, but in the us, anyone who becomes active in town or local politics will have significant say over local political issues immediately and will probably recieve a political appointment or be able to run for a seat within five years.  local politics is not as sexy as whatever gets reported on the national news, but it still covers education policy, land use, public safety, and other issues that have a huge effect on daily life.   #  are you aware that unions are democratic organizations ?  # when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  are you aware that unions are democratic organizations ? if unions are powerful, then democracy is powerful.  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.  i would like to examine this part of your claim.  what direction are most democratic nations heading in that proves your claim ?  #  being controlled by special interests rather than the general interests of the average citizen.   # not really.  i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .  what direction are most democratic nations heading in that proves your claim ? being controlled by special interests rather than the general interests of the average citizen.  an example of this, farmers lobby the government for increased tariffs on imported food or arbitrary quota systems like supply management preventing a surplus of food from being produced.  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.  meanwhile, the 0 of farmers who will benefit from such measures get their way because they are prepared to vote and lobby as a bloc.  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.   #  the fact that the rise in food prices is not important enough to swing votes is not a sign of democracy failing, it is a sign of democracy working, because people have more important concerns that do swing their votes.   # i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .  why are unions not a valid example of democracy ? they are democratic organizations.  an example of this, farmers lobby the government for increased tariffs on imported food or arbitrary quota systems like supply management preventing a surplus of food from being produced.  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.  meanwhile, the 0 of farmers who will benefit from such measures get their way because they are prepared to vote and lobby as a bloc.  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.  a lot of these policies you are saying are harmful to 0 of the population are actually beneficial in the long run because overproduction of crops leads to environmental degradation.  the fact that the rise in food prices is not important enough to swing votes is not a sign of democracy failing, it is a sign of democracy working, because people have more important concerns that do swing their votes.  the result is not undemocratic when the majority vote for that result.
this is a view i have been playing with for quite some time, but have been having a difficult time putting it in to words.  basically, my view is that democratic decision making is great when we are talking about small groups that are more or less homogeneous in interests, but when the group grows, and the interests of group members differ, and in many cases, become objectively opposed to one another, democracy becomes increasingly meaningless.  the  people  in such a system no longer have the power, which is what a democracy is supposed to be.  when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  to me, this seems self evident based on the direction in which most democratic nations are heading.  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.   #  to me, this seems self evident based on the direction in which most democratic nations are heading.   #  in the past couple decades, the us has been heading in a direction of increased corporate militarized power essentially fascism.   # in the past couple decades, the us has been heading in a direction of increased corporate militarized power essentially fascism.  in the last century and change, though, the us has gone a very long distance away from that.  american government used to be far more rife with corruption than it is now.  political  machines  built upon systems of legal bribery where government appointed jobs were used as leverage ran the politics of not only the cities they operated in note that almost all of this much greater corruption was local ! , but states and sometimes literally the entire country us presidents would come from tammany hall, such was their grip on the nation.  this problem was addressed through a movement towards bigger, more accountable government the progressive movement.  their single greatest accomplishment was likely the pendleton act URL which established a us civil bureaucracy and kept jobs from being used as tokens of corruption.   #  i may be prejudicied against the despised minorities in my own town, but when i get a vote on human rights in another community i am more likely to be fair minded.   #  federalism implies a trade off.  in a centralized democracy each voter has more say about what goes on in the entire country and less say about what goes on in their town.  for example, in a strongly decentralized democracy, voters in ohio could permit dirty coal plants that cause cancer and asthma in new york, and voters in new york would have no say in the matter.  in a centralized democracy, voters in new york can vote for politicians who force the epa to control those plants.  the more interconnected the world becomes, the less important it is to have full control over your backyard, and the more important it is to have some say over what happens hundreds of miles away.  there is a zero sum game here, in the sense that you ca not get control over what happens in ohio without given ohio voters some say over what happens to you, and vice versa; but that is only truly zero sum if you assume that people are indifferent to total local control versus national power.  if people value national power more, then everyone gets a more powerful vote by giving up some local power.  another point: do you identify democracy more strongly with tyranny of the majority, or with every citizen having equal rights ? a situation like the antebellum south might be a very pure example of the tyranny of the majority the white majority could do anything they liked to their black slaves but a very bad example of democracy.  in a democracy as i conceive of it the basic fact is that the citizens have equal rights, and the majority rule in elections flows from the fact that all votes are equally valuable.  complete local control include a right for towns to bully their outcasts and minorities, which is not democratic.  the bigger a country is and the further a vote stretches, the more difficult it is for the majority in a small region to use local elections to force undemocratic laws on the minority.  i may be prejudicied against the despised minorities in my own town, but when i get a vote on human rights in another community i am more likely to be fair minded.  note that this same logic national power versus total local control, and tyranny of the local majority versus national civil rights applies to organizations like political parties, corporations, and unions.  large national organizations and small local organizations differ in many of the same ways that nations and towns differ.  you can be a big fish in a little pond or a little fish in a big pond.  finally, you are overstating the degree to which all democratic decisions are becoming national.  i ca not speak for all countries, but in the us, anyone who becomes active in town or local politics will have significant say over local political issues immediately and will probably recieve a political appointment or be able to run for a seat within five years.  local politics is not as sexy as whatever gets reported on the national news, but it still covers education policy, land use, public safety, and other issues that have a huge effect on daily life.   #  when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.   # when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  are you aware that unions are democratic organizations ? if unions are powerful, then democracy is powerful.  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.  i would like to examine this part of your claim.  what direction are most democratic nations heading in that proves your claim ?  #  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.   # not really.  i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .  what direction are most democratic nations heading in that proves your claim ? being controlled by special interests rather than the general interests of the average citizen.  an example of this, farmers lobby the government for increased tariffs on imported food or arbitrary quota systems like supply management preventing a surplus of food from being produced.  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.  meanwhile, the 0 of farmers who will benefit from such measures get their way because they are prepared to vote and lobby as a bloc.  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.   #  why are unions not a valid example of democracy ?  # i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .  why are unions not a valid example of democracy ? they are democratic organizations.  an example of this, farmers lobby the government for increased tariffs on imported food or arbitrary quota systems like supply management preventing a surplus of food from being produced.  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.  meanwhile, the 0 of farmers who will benefit from such measures get their way because they are prepared to vote and lobby as a bloc.  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.  a lot of these policies you are saying are harmful to 0 of the population are actually beneficial in the long run because overproduction of crops leads to environmental degradation.  the fact that the rise in food prices is not important enough to swing votes is not a sign of democracy failing, it is a sign of democracy working, because people have more important concerns that do swing their votes.  the result is not undemocratic when the majority vote for that result.
this is a view i have been playing with for quite some time, but have been having a difficult time putting it in to words.  basically, my view is that democratic decision making is great when we are talking about small groups that are more or less homogeneous in interests, but when the group grows, and the interests of group members differ, and in many cases, become objectively opposed to one another, democracy becomes increasingly meaningless.  the  people  in such a system no longer have the power, which is what a democracy is supposed to be.  when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  to me, this seems self evident based on the direction in which most democratic nations are heading.  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.   #  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.   #  one of the main reasons why the eu lacks of democracy is that they are heavily overloaded with federalism.   # one of the main reasons why the eu lacks of democracy is that they are heavily overloaded with federalism.  the member states have more power than the us states, so the eu has serious problems to speak with one voice.  we live in a globalized world.  the important companies operate world wide or at least in the important countries of a continent.  large companies mean that democracy needs a large, democratically controlled entity as a counterpart.  such entities can only be strong if they are able to speak with one voice.  the more devolution to smaller entities you have, the harder it gets.   #  in a centralized democracy each voter has more say about what goes on in the entire country and less say about what goes on in their town.   #  federalism implies a trade off.  in a centralized democracy each voter has more say about what goes on in the entire country and less say about what goes on in their town.  for example, in a strongly decentralized democracy, voters in ohio could permit dirty coal plants that cause cancer and asthma in new york, and voters in new york would have no say in the matter.  in a centralized democracy, voters in new york can vote for politicians who force the epa to control those plants.  the more interconnected the world becomes, the less important it is to have full control over your backyard, and the more important it is to have some say over what happens hundreds of miles away.  there is a zero sum game here, in the sense that you ca not get control over what happens in ohio without given ohio voters some say over what happens to you, and vice versa; but that is only truly zero sum if you assume that people are indifferent to total local control versus national power.  if people value national power more, then everyone gets a more powerful vote by giving up some local power.  another point: do you identify democracy more strongly with tyranny of the majority, or with every citizen having equal rights ? a situation like the antebellum south might be a very pure example of the tyranny of the majority the white majority could do anything they liked to their black slaves but a very bad example of democracy.  in a democracy as i conceive of it the basic fact is that the citizens have equal rights, and the majority rule in elections flows from the fact that all votes are equally valuable.  complete local control include a right for towns to bully their outcasts and minorities, which is not democratic.  the bigger a country is and the further a vote stretches, the more difficult it is for the majority in a small region to use local elections to force undemocratic laws on the minority.  i may be prejudicied against the despised minorities in my own town, but when i get a vote on human rights in another community i am more likely to be fair minded.  note that this same logic national power versus total local control, and tyranny of the local majority versus national civil rights applies to organizations like political parties, corporations, and unions.  large national organizations and small local organizations differ in many of the same ways that nations and towns differ.  you can be a big fish in a little pond or a little fish in a big pond.  finally, you are overstating the degree to which all democratic decisions are becoming national.  i ca not speak for all countries, but in the us, anyone who becomes active in town or local politics will have significant say over local political issues immediately and will probably recieve a political appointment or be able to run for a seat within five years.  local politics is not as sexy as whatever gets reported on the national news, but it still covers education policy, land use, public safety, and other issues that have a huge effect on daily life.   #  when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.   # when the effect of one man is vote is negligible, the rights of the individual get trampled, and the only entities given consideration are those that can effectively organize ex.  corporations, unions, special interest groups etc.  .  are you aware that unions are democratic organizations ? if unions are powerful, then democracy is powerful.  imo the best way to counter this would be to reduce federalized power, and give much more to states/provinces, localities and in particular municipalities and even smaller regional councils within municipalities.  i would like to examine this part of your claim.  what direction are most democratic nations heading in that proves your claim ?  #  i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .   # not really.  i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .  what direction are most democratic nations heading in that proves your claim ? being controlled by special interests rather than the general interests of the average citizen.  an example of this, farmers lobby the government for increased tariffs on imported food or arbitrary quota systems like supply management preventing a surplus of food from being produced.  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.  meanwhile, the 0 of farmers who will benefit from such measures get their way because they are prepared to vote and lobby as a bloc.  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.   #  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.   # i mean sure they allow their members to vote and everything, but if you are not in a union, their interests are either indifferent to, or objectively opposed to yours particularly if we are talking about public sector unions here .  why are unions not a valid example of democracy ? they are democratic organizations.  an example of this, farmers lobby the government for increased tariffs on imported food or arbitrary quota systems like supply management preventing a surplus of food from being produced.  this is harmful to 0 of the population whose food prices will rise as a result.  clearly a democratic result would be to do what is best for 0 of people.  but these 0 of people have their own concerns about other things and the rise in food price is too small for them to get angry enough about to vote as a bloc.  meanwhile, the 0 of farmers who will benefit from such measures get their way because they are prepared to vote and lobby as a bloc.  the result is an undemocratic one in which the majority suffers.  a lot of these policies you are saying are harmful to 0 of the population are actually beneficial in the long run because overproduction of crops leads to environmental degradation.  the fact that the rise in food prices is not important enough to swing votes is not a sign of democracy failing, it is a sign of democracy working, because people have more important concerns that do swing their votes.  the result is not undemocratic when the majority vote for that result.
they have one goal and one goal alone: to increase profits.  there are many companies that do this by making customers happy and giving themselves a good public image, but any  good  that is done by a company is an amoral action.  likewise, any  bad  that is done by a company is also an amoral action.  companies will do bad things if they are shown to be more profitable.  the only way to stop this from happening is to make bad things less profitable.  legislation is a great way to do this, but, like everything, has its caveats.  as long as it is profitable for companies to influence legislation against the good of the people, it will be done.  they will fight against others to keep it profitable and to make it more profitable.  the question is, how do you keep bad things from being profitable and at the same time prevent business exodus ? that really is the only issue.  we do not need to keep them happy, we just need to keep them from leaving.  the usa still needs to be an attractive place to do business, but not at the cost of the well being of it is citizens, as being an attractive place to do business is only wanted because it increases well being of the citizens of the country.  businesses are tools to increase the well being of people.  having empathy towards them is a wasted endeavor and only helps to hinder progress toward a better market.  this definitely applies to all publicly traded companies, as they have a responsibility to their shareholders, and the only thing that the shareholders have in common is that they want their shares to be worth more.  i do not know if it can apply blanketly to every outfit, as the smaller a business gets, the less people there are in charge, and the business becomes more susceptible to human emotion.   #  any  good  that is done by a company is an amoral action.   #  likewise, any  bad  that is done by a company is also an amoral action.   # likewise, any  bad  that is done by a company is also an amoral action.  if this is the basis for sociopathic behavior, then we are all sociopaths.  as adam smith said  it is not by the benevolence of the butcher that we receiver our meal but with regard to his own self interest.   interesting fact, adam smith was far more statist than capitalists would like to believe.  the point is that this self interest is universal.  when you are born you have nothing and produce nothing.  as you age you gather the ability to work and the skills necessary to complete it.  you then trade that labor and skill to someone in exchance for something of value see fiat currencies , money in this case.  what you seem to assume is that seeking to gain from a transaction is objectively wrong, which completely defies the basis of transaction.  if people did not feel they were being adequately compensated, they would not choose to trade their labor.   #  i think it is easier to understand if you take religion out of the equation and replace it with another first amendment right: let is say the government passed a law that you could not sell a certain book.   #  basically: people do not give up their constitutional rights just because they band together.  i think it is easier to understand if you take religion out of the equation and replace it with another first amendment right: let is say the government passed a law that you could not sell a certain book.  we are guaranteed freedom of speech, right ? but a corporation is not a person, and if you are arguing that they have no rights, then the government would effectively be allowed to ban a book.  the supreme court basically said that no, you ca not take away that right from them just because they are together for the purposes of commerce.  i think the real question is not whether they have the right to freedom of religion, but whether this is truly an infringement of their freedom of religion.   #  it had to do with the fact that there was a law on the books already that said that hobby lobby could do that.   #  for the same reason that you, individually have a right to make the same claim as hobby lobby.  the government could not force you, individually to pay for someone is birth control if it is against your religion.  since everything done by a business is done by a person, making  a business  do something or pay for something is making a human being do it, and they have individual rights that prevent that from happening.  thought the hobby lobby ruling specifically had nothing to do with the above.  it had to do with the fact that there was a law on the books already that said that hobby lobby could do that.  however, i am quite sure that if that law were repealed, hobby lobby would still be constitutionally protected under the logic in the first two paragraphs.   #  when they kill someone, we generally give them life sentences, and when they show they cannot be cured, we tie them to a bed in a padded room and forcibly medicate them for the rest of their lives.   #  we do discriminate against sociopaths.  when they break laws, we put them in jails and mental institutions.  when they kill someone, we generally give them life sentences, and when they show they cannot be cured, we tie them to a bed in a padded room and forcibly medicate them for the rest of their lives.  we do not do that with corporations.  corporations have a sickness that is inherent in their charter, enforced by shareholder protection laws.  when they commit the same atrocities that we punish people for, thsoe corporations are not held liable for anything except financial damages.  in very rare cases, people within the corporation are held liable, but the corporation itself is never removed from society in the same way that a dangerous psychopath is.   #  of you invest too much, your product becomes too expensive for how much value it is perceived to have, and so you move less product.   #  how is that sociopathic ? investment in safety features has diminishing returns, and so you have to pick a point to stop adding more safety features.  nothing is perfectly safe, nor can anything be perfectly safe.  moreover, customers place a finite value on safety.  of you invest too much, your product becomes too expensive for how much value it is perceived to have, and so you move less product.  on which basis would you like companies to make this decision ?
they have one goal and one goal alone: to increase profits.  there are many companies that do this by making customers happy and giving themselves a good public image, but any  good  that is done by a company is an amoral action.  likewise, any  bad  that is done by a company is also an amoral action.  companies will do bad things if they are shown to be more profitable.  the only way to stop this from happening is to make bad things less profitable.  legislation is a great way to do this, but, like everything, has its caveats.  as long as it is profitable for companies to influence legislation against the good of the people, it will be done.  they will fight against others to keep it profitable and to make it more profitable.  the question is, how do you keep bad things from being profitable and at the same time prevent business exodus ? that really is the only issue.  we do not need to keep them happy, we just need to keep them from leaving.  the usa still needs to be an attractive place to do business, but not at the cost of the well being of it is citizens, as being an attractive place to do business is only wanted because it increases well being of the citizens of the country.  businesses are tools to increase the well being of people.  having empathy towards them is a wasted endeavor and only helps to hinder progress toward a better market.  this definitely applies to all publicly traded companies, as they have a responsibility to their shareholders, and the only thing that the shareholders have in common is that they want their shares to be worth more.  i do not know if it can apply blanketly to every outfit, as the smaller a business gets, the less people there are in charge, and the business becomes more susceptible to human emotion.   #  they have one goal and one goal alone: to increase profits.   #  there are many companies that do this by making customers happy and giving themselves a good public image, but any  good  that is done by a company is an amoral action.   #  none of the lucrative exchange in an economy is motivated by morals.  a waiter is not waiting tables because he believes in feeding the public, he is exchanging services for a paycheck.  there are many companies that do this by making customers happy and giving themselves a good public image, but any  good  that is done by a company is an amoral action.  i think the connotation you have attached to this is unfair.  based on this comment, businesses and humans have a mutually beneficial relationship.  profits are driven by pleasing the population.  bad people will do bad things if they are profitable, nothing about the basic nature of business calls for immorality.  whether or not the environment of the business world is conducive to unethical practices of  people  is another conversation.  it is a small distinction, but it is the difference between harshly controlling an unwilling entity, and fixing the problem at its source something along the lines of making people more conscious of their actions .   #  the supreme court basically said that no, you ca not take away that right from them just because they are together for the purposes of commerce.   #  basically: people do not give up their constitutional rights just because they band together.  i think it is easier to understand if you take religion out of the equation and replace it with another first amendment right: let is say the government passed a law that you could not sell a certain book.  we are guaranteed freedom of speech, right ? but a corporation is not a person, and if you are arguing that they have no rights, then the government would effectively be allowed to ban a book.  the supreme court basically said that no, you ca not take away that right from them just because they are together for the purposes of commerce.  i think the real question is not whether they have the right to freedom of religion, but whether this is truly an infringement of their freedom of religion.   #  however, i am quite sure that if that law were repealed, hobby lobby would still be constitutionally protected under the logic in the first two paragraphs.   #  for the same reason that you, individually have a right to make the same claim as hobby lobby.  the government could not force you, individually to pay for someone is birth control if it is against your religion.  since everything done by a business is done by a person, making  a business  do something or pay for something is making a human being do it, and they have individual rights that prevent that from happening.  thought the hobby lobby ruling specifically had nothing to do with the above.  it had to do with the fact that there was a law on the books already that said that hobby lobby could do that.  however, i am quite sure that if that law were repealed, hobby lobby would still be constitutionally protected under the logic in the first two paragraphs.   #  when they kill someone, we generally give them life sentences, and when they show they cannot be cured, we tie them to a bed in a padded room and forcibly medicate them for the rest of their lives.   #  we do discriminate against sociopaths.  when they break laws, we put them in jails and mental institutions.  when they kill someone, we generally give them life sentences, and when they show they cannot be cured, we tie them to a bed in a padded room and forcibly medicate them for the rest of their lives.  we do not do that with corporations.  corporations have a sickness that is inherent in their charter, enforced by shareholder protection laws.  when they commit the same atrocities that we punish people for, thsoe corporations are not held liable for anything except financial damages.  in very rare cases, people within the corporation are held liable, but the corporation itself is never removed from society in the same way that a dangerous psychopath is.   #  investment in safety features has diminishing returns, and so you have to pick a point to stop adding more safety features.   #  how is that sociopathic ? investment in safety features has diminishing returns, and so you have to pick a point to stop adding more safety features.  nothing is perfectly safe, nor can anything be perfectly safe.  moreover, customers place a finite value on safety.  of you invest too much, your product becomes too expensive for how much value it is perceived to have, and so you move less product.  on which basis would you like companies to make this decision ?
they have one goal and one goal alone: to increase profits.  there are many companies that do this by making customers happy and giving themselves a good public image, but any  good  that is done by a company is an amoral action.  likewise, any  bad  that is done by a company is also an amoral action.  companies will do bad things if they are shown to be more profitable.  the only way to stop this from happening is to make bad things less profitable.  legislation is a great way to do this, but, like everything, has its caveats.  as long as it is profitable for companies to influence legislation against the good of the people, it will be done.  they will fight against others to keep it profitable and to make it more profitable.  the question is, how do you keep bad things from being profitable and at the same time prevent business exodus ? that really is the only issue.  we do not need to keep them happy, we just need to keep them from leaving.  the usa still needs to be an attractive place to do business, but not at the cost of the well being of it is citizens, as being an attractive place to do business is only wanted because it increases well being of the citizens of the country.  businesses are tools to increase the well being of people.  having empathy towards them is a wasted endeavor and only helps to hinder progress toward a better market.  this definitely applies to all publicly traded companies, as they have a responsibility to their shareholders, and the only thing that the shareholders have in common is that they want their shares to be worth more.  i do not know if it can apply blanketly to every outfit, as the smaller a business gets, the less people there are in charge, and the business becomes more susceptible to human emotion.   #  but any  good  that is done by a company is an amoral action.   #  how do you make this logical leap, pre tell ?  # how do you make this logical leap, pre tell ? win win situations are now amoral ? do you apply this to every human too ? holding the door open so they do not work and you get gratification in that is amoral ? and your whole view on business is out of a documentary or michael moore film and not reality.  also,  morality  is not really part of the legal system, strictly speaking.  you do not go to jail for simply acting immoral.  judging anything on morality is tricky.  you should judge them for the rule of law that we all must hold to.  when they break the law they should be prosecuted.  simply acting immoral in their own self interest is not necessarily breaking the law.  if you have ever passed someone changing a tire and did not stop and help you should not go to jail for it.  maybe it is immoral, but it ai not against the law.  humans, in general, act out of self interest as do businesses for the most part.  you want to harshly control human nature ?  #  basically: people do not give up their constitutional rights just because they band together.   #  basically: people do not give up their constitutional rights just because they band together.  i think it is easier to understand if you take religion out of the equation and replace it with another first amendment right: let is say the government passed a law that you could not sell a certain book.  we are guaranteed freedom of speech, right ? but a corporation is not a person, and if you are arguing that they have no rights, then the government would effectively be allowed to ban a book.  the supreme court basically said that no, you ca not take away that right from them just because they are together for the purposes of commerce.  i think the real question is not whether they have the right to freedom of religion, but whether this is truly an infringement of their freedom of religion.   #  for the same reason that you, individually have a right to make the same claim as hobby lobby.   #  for the same reason that you, individually have a right to make the same claim as hobby lobby.  the government could not force you, individually to pay for someone is birth control if it is against your religion.  since everything done by a business is done by a person, making  a business  do something or pay for something is making a human being do it, and they have individual rights that prevent that from happening.  thought the hobby lobby ruling specifically had nothing to do with the above.  it had to do with the fact that there was a law on the books already that said that hobby lobby could do that.  however, i am quite sure that if that law were repealed, hobby lobby would still be constitutionally protected under the logic in the first two paragraphs.   #  corporations have a sickness that is inherent in their charter, enforced by shareholder protection laws.   #  we do discriminate against sociopaths.  when they break laws, we put them in jails and mental institutions.  when they kill someone, we generally give them life sentences, and when they show they cannot be cured, we tie them to a bed in a padded room and forcibly medicate them for the rest of their lives.  we do not do that with corporations.  corporations have a sickness that is inherent in their charter, enforced by shareholder protection laws.  when they commit the same atrocities that we punish people for, thsoe corporations are not held liable for anything except financial damages.  in very rare cases, people within the corporation are held liable, but the corporation itself is never removed from society in the same way that a dangerous psychopath is.   #  of you invest too much, your product becomes too expensive for how much value it is perceived to have, and so you move less product.   #  how is that sociopathic ? investment in safety features has diminishing returns, and so you have to pick a point to stop adding more safety features.  nothing is perfectly safe, nor can anything be perfectly safe.  moreover, customers place a finite value on safety.  of you invest too much, your product becomes too expensive for how much value it is perceived to have, and so you move less product.  on which basis would you like companies to make this decision ?
they have one goal and one goal alone: to increase profits.  there are many companies that do this by making customers happy and giving themselves a good public image, but any  good  that is done by a company is an amoral action.  likewise, any  bad  that is done by a company is also an amoral action.  companies will do bad things if they are shown to be more profitable.  the only way to stop this from happening is to make bad things less profitable.  legislation is a great way to do this, but, like everything, has its caveats.  as long as it is profitable for companies to influence legislation against the good of the people, it will be done.  they will fight against others to keep it profitable and to make it more profitable.  the question is, how do you keep bad things from being profitable and at the same time prevent business exodus ? that really is the only issue.  we do not need to keep them happy, we just need to keep them from leaving.  the usa still needs to be an attractive place to do business, but not at the cost of the well being of it is citizens, as being an attractive place to do business is only wanted because it increases well being of the citizens of the country.  businesses are tools to increase the well being of people.  having empathy towards them is a wasted endeavor and only helps to hinder progress toward a better market.  this definitely applies to all publicly traded companies, as they have a responsibility to their shareholders, and the only thing that the shareholders have in common is that they want their shares to be worth more.  i do not know if it can apply blanketly to every outfit, as the smaller a business gets, the less people there are in charge, and the business becomes more susceptible to human emotion.   #  companies will do bad things if they are shown to be more profitable.   #  the only way to stop this from happening is to make bad things less profitable.   #  two things: business are regulated, much more so that individuals.  businesses are not people, they are a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners.  this gives owners the ability to not be held liable for the actions of the corporation, but there are safeguards to protect non owners and minority owners from malfeasance.  by definition majority ownership is valuable in a large corporation and if the majority shareholders did some shady shit they stand to loose their wealth tied up in the company as well as their ability to raise capital for another business.  they must disclose a large amount of information to the public and consumers can choose to not do business with shady companies.  the only way to stop this from happening is to make bad things less profitable.  adam smith was a classical economist who wrote a lot about morality.  there is an  invisible hand  that works in the market to benefit all without the intentions of any of the actors.  while there are exceptions, for the most part doing business honestly benefits society and the individual.  the origin of business is not  bad  and regulation is not what makes companies do right for the most part.   #  but a corporation is not a person, and if you are arguing that they have no rights, then the government would effectively be allowed to ban a book.   #  basically: people do not give up their constitutional rights just because they band together.  i think it is easier to understand if you take religion out of the equation and replace it with another first amendment right: let is say the government passed a law that you could not sell a certain book.  we are guaranteed freedom of speech, right ? but a corporation is not a person, and if you are arguing that they have no rights, then the government would effectively be allowed to ban a book.  the supreme court basically said that no, you ca not take away that right from them just because they are together for the purposes of commerce.  i think the real question is not whether they have the right to freedom of religion, but whether this is truly an infringement of their freedom of religion.   #  thought the hobby lobby ruling specifically had nothing to do with the above.   #  for the same reason that you, individually have a right to make the same claim as hobby lobby.  the government could not force you, individually to pay for someone is birth control if it is against your religion.  since everything done by a business is done by a person, making  a business  do something or pay for something is making a human being do it, and they have individual rights that prevent that from happening.  thought the hobby lobby ruling specifically had nothing to do with the above.  it had to do with the fact that there was a law on the books already that said that hobby lobby could do that.  however, i am quite sure that if that law were repealed, hobby lobby would still be constitutionally protected under the logic in the first two paragraphs.   #  when they kill someone, we generally give them life sentences, and when they show they cannot be cured, we tie them to a bed in a padded room and forcibly medicate them for the rest of their lives.   #  we do discriminate against sociopaths.  when they break laws, we put them in jails and mental institutions.  when they kill someone, we generally give them life sentences, and when they show they cannot be cured, we tie them to a bed in a padded room and forcibly medicate them for the rest of their lives.  we do not do that with corporations.  corporations have a sickness that is inherent in their charter, enforced by shareholder protection laws.  when they commit the same atrocities that we punish people for, thsoe corporations are not held liable for anything except financial damages.  in very rare cases, people within the corporation are held liable, but the corporation itself is never removed from society in the same way that a dangerous psychopath is.   #  on which basis would you like companies to make this decision ?  #  how is that sociopathic ? investment in safety features has diminishing returns, and so you have to pick a point to stop adding more safety features.  nothing is perfectly safe, nor can anything be perfectly safe.  moreover, customers place a finite value on safety.  of you invest too much, your product becomes too expensive for how much value it is perceived to have, and so you move less product.  on which basis would you like companies to make this decision ?
they have one goal and one goal alone: to increase profits.  there are many companies that do this by making customers happy and giving themselves a good public image, but any  good  that is done by a company is an amoral action.  likewise, any  bad  that is done by a company is also an amoral action.  companies will do bad things if they are shown to be more profitable.  the only way to stop this from happening is to make bad things less profitable.  legislation is a great way to do this, but, like everything, has its caveats.  as long as it is profitable for companies to influence legislation against the good of the people, it will be done.  they will fight against others to keep it profitable and to make it more profitable.  the question is, how do you keep bad things from being profitable and at the same time prevent business exodus ? that really is the only issue.  we do not need to keep them happy, we just need to keep them from leaving.  the usa still needs to be an attractive place to do business, but not at the cost of the well being of it is citizens, as being an attractive place to do business is only wanted because it increases well being of the citizens of the country.  businesses are tools to increase the well being of people.  having empathy towards them is a wasted endeavor and only helps to hinder progress toward a better market.  this definitely applies to all publicly traded companies, as they have a responsibility to their shareholders, and the only thing that the shareholders have in common is that they want their shares to be worth more.  i do not know if it can apply blanketly to every outfit, as the smaller a business gets, the less people there are in charge, and the business becomes more susceptible to human emotion.   #  the only way to stop this from happening is to make bad things less profitable.   #  believe it or not, this is already the case for many companies.   # corporations are not people.  they have some but not all legal rights under the law.  businesses cannot marry.  they cannot vote.  they can get taxed, and they can get penalized.  not the death penalty but they are definitely not people.  believe it or not, this is already the case for many companies.  companies do not pollute for the sake of polluting.  in most cases, pollution is a waste which reveals an inefficiency in a business.  think of fedex vs ups vs post office.  it is in their best interest to use fuel efficient shipping mechanisms, as fuel is a major cost of doing business.  they figure out ways to put as many things into the largest truck to all go to the same place, because it is cheaper than putting the same stuff on multiple, smaller trucks.  this process of using one large truck vs 0 small trucks reduces pollution, and is a clear example of how attempting to reduce pollution results in higher profits.  you can see many vehicle dependent operations converting to hybrid in order to save money, like taxis, police cars, any government arm which does inspections.  there are some products which currently have no way to be created without pollution.  however, pollution is still unprofitable.  in such industries, a large factory with the capacity of 0 smaller factories would come in to replace the smaller factories.  the economies of scale results in the larger factory producing less waste than the 0 smaller factories.  a company can only influence legislation if someone is buying the products.  i agree that there are a lot of bad laws in place, but people will eventually vote with their money.  tesla had a hard time bringing their cars to market, but states are gradually making changes to let tesla operate in more and more places.  states do this because they know they will get hurt by not doing so.  take for example, tesla is new giga factory.  a state which does not allow tesla to operate is saying no to thousands of new jobs and tax revenue for their state.  new york not allowing casinos was letting new jersey take all the potential customers.  now that nyc finally has the resorts casino, nyc is able to have new jobs and recapture some of the money that went to nj.  it takes time, but these things eventually fix themselves when the problem reaches a critical mass.   #  i think it is easier to understand if you take religion out of the equation and replace it with another first amendment right: let is say the government passed a law that you could not sell a certain book.   #  basically: people do not give up their constitutional rights just because they band together.  i think it is easier to understand if you take religion out of the equation and replace it with another first amendment right: let is say the government passed a law that you could not sell a certain book.  we are guaranteed freedom of speech, right ? but a corporation is not a person, and if you are arguing that they have no rights, then the government would effectively be allowed to ban a book.  the supreme court basically said that no, you ca not take away that right from them just because they are together for the purposes of commerce.  i think the real question is not whether they have the right to freedom of religion, but whether this is truly an infringement of their freedom of religion.   #  it had to do with the fact that there was a law on the books already that said that hobby lobby could do that.   #  for the same reason that you, individually have a right to make the same claim as hobby lobby.  the government could not force you, individually to pay for someone is birth control if it is against your religion.  since everything done by a business is done by a person, making  a business  do something or pay for something is making a human being do it, and they have individual rights that prevent that from happening.  thought the hobby lobby ruling specifically had nothing to do with the above.  it had to do with the fact that there was a law on the books already that said that hobby lobby could do that.  however, i am quite sure that if that law were repealed, hobby lobby would still be constitutionally protected under the logic in the first two paragraphs.   #  when they break laws, we put them in jails and mental institutions.   #  we do discriminate against sociopaths.  when they break laws, we put them in jails and mental institutions.  when they kill someone, we generally give them life sentences, and when they show they cannot be cured, we tie them to a bed in a padded room and forcibly medicate them for the rest of their lives.  we do not do that with corporations.  corporations have a sickness that is inherent in their charter, enforced by shareholder protection laws.  when they commit the same atrocities that we punish people for, thsoe corporations are not held liable for anything except financial damages.  in very rare cases, people within the corporation are held liable, but the corporation itself is never removed from society in the same way that a dangerous psychopath is.   #  nothing is perfectly safe, nor can anything be perfectly safe.   #  how is that sociopathic ? investment in safety features has diminishing returns, and so you have to pick a point to stop adding more safety features.  nothing is perfectly safe, nor can anything be perfectly safe.  moreover, customers place a finite value on safety.  of you invest too much, your product becomes too expensive for how much value it is perceived to have, and so you move less product.  on which basis would you like companies to make this decision ?
they have one goal and one goal alone: to increase profits.  there are many companies that do this by making customers happy and giving themselves a good public image, but any  good  that is done by a company is an amoral action.  likewise, any  bad  that is done by a company is also an amoral action.  companies will do bad things if they are shown to be more profitable.  the only way to stop this from happening is to make bad things less profitable.  legislation is a great way to do this, but, like everything, has its caveats.  as long as it is profitable for companies to influence legislation against the good of the people, it will be done.  they will fight against others to keep it profitable and to make it more profitable.  the question is, how do you keep bad things from being profitable and at the same time prevent business exodus ? that really is the only issue.  we do not need to keep them happy, we just need to keep them from leaving.  the usa still needs to be an attractive place to do business, but not at the cost of the well being of it is citizens, as being an attractive place to do business is only wanted because it increases well being of the citizens of the country.  businesses are tools to increase the well being of people.  having empathy towards them is a wasted endeavor and only helps to hinder progress toward a better market.  this definitely applies to all publicly traded companies, as they have a responsibility to their shareholders, and the only thing that the shareholders have in common is that they want their shares to be worth more.  i do not know if it can apply blanketly to every outfit, as the smaller a business gets, the less people there are in charge, and the business becomes more susceptible to human emotion.   #  as long as it is profitable for companies to influence legislation against the good of the people, it will be done.   #  a company can only influence legislation if someone is buying the products.   # corporations are not people.  they have some but not all legal rights under the law.  businesses cannot marry.  they cannot vote.  they can get taxed, and they can get penalized.  not the death penalty but they are definitely not people.  believe it or not, this is already the case for many companies.  companies do not pollute for the sake of polluting.  in most cases, pollution is a waste which reveals an inefficiency in a business.  think of fedex vs ups vs post office.  it is in their best interest to use fuel efficient shipping mechanisms, as fuel is a major cost of doing business.  they figure out ways to put as many things into the largest truck to all go to the same place, because it is cheaper than putting the same stuff on multiple, smaller trucks.  this process of using one large truck vs 0 small trucks reduces pollution, and is a clear example of how attempting to reduce pollution results in higher profits.  you can see many vehicle dependent operations converting to hybrid in order to save money, like taxis, police cars, any government arm which does inspections.  there are some products which currently have no way to be created without pollution.  however, pollution is still unprofitable.  in such industries, a large factory with the capacity of 0 smaller factories would come in to replace the smaller factories.  the economies of scale results in the larger factory producing less waste than the 0 smaller factories.  a company can only influence legislation if someone is buying the products.  i agree that there are a lot of bad laws in place, but people will eventually vote with their money.  tesla had a hard time bringing their cars to market, but states are gradually making changes to let tesla operate in more and more places.  states do this because they know they will get hurt by not doing so.  take for example, tesla is new giga factory.  a state which does not allow tesla to operate is saying no to thousands of new jobs and tax revenue for their state.  new york not allowing casinos was letting new jersey take all the potential customers.  now that nyc finally has the resorts casino, nyc is able to have new jobs and recapture some of the money that went to nj.  it takes time, but these things eventually fix themselves when the problem reaches a critical mass.   #  the supreme court basically said that no, you ca not take away that right from them just because they are together for the purposes of commerce.   #  basically: people do not give up their constitutional rights just because they band together.  i think it is easier to understand if you take religion out of the equation and replace it with another first amendment right: let is say the government passed a law that you could not sell a certain book.  we are guaranteed freedom of speech, right ? but a corporation is not a person, and if you are arguing that they have no rights, then the government would effectively be allowed to ban a book.  the supreme court basically said that no, you ca not take away that right from them just because they are together for the purposes of commerce.  i think the real question is not whether they have the right to freedom of religion, but whether this is truly an infringement of their freedom of religion.   #  the government could not force you, individually to pay for someone is birth control if it is against your religion.   #  for the same reason that you, individually have a right to make the same claim as hobby lobby.  the government could not force you, individually to pay for someone is birth control if it is against your religion.  since everything done by a business is done by a person, making  a business  do something or pay for something is making a human being do it, and they have individual rights that prevent that from happening.  thought the hobby lobby ruling specifically had nothing to do with the above.  it had to do with the fact that there was a law on the books already that said that hobby lobby could do that.  however, i am quite sure that if that law were repealed, hobby lobby would still be constitutionally protected under the logic in the first two paragraphs.   #  corporations have a sickness that is inherent in their charter, enforced by shareholder protection laws.   #  we do discriminate against sociopaths.  when they break laws, we put them in jails and mental institutions.  when they kill someone, we generally give them life sentences, and when they show they cannot be cured, we tie them to a bed in a padded room and forcibly medicate them for the rest of their lives.  we do not do that with corporations.  corporations have a sickness that is inherent in their charter, enforced by shareholder protection laws.  when they commit the same atrocities that we punish people for, thsoe corporations are not held liable for anything except financial damages.  in very rare cases, people within the corporation are held liable, but the corporation itself is never removed from society in the same way that a dangerous psychopath is.   #  of you invest too much, your product becomes too expensive for how much value it is perceived to have, and so you move less product.   #  how is that sociopathic ? investment in safety features has diminishing returns, and so you have to pick a point to stop adding more safety features.  nothing is perfectly safe, nor can anything be perfectly safe.  moreover, customers place a finite value on safety.  of you invest too much, your product becomes too expensive for how much value it is perceived to have, and so you move less product.  on which basis would you like companies to make this decision ?
let is assume a heterosexual couple gets into a fight because of a mistake the husband made.  more often than not, we hear the wife and random observers say that the husband will have to sleep on the couch.  i believe that both members have the right to sleep in their bed.  if one person wants to sulk, then it is their responsibility to leave the bedroom.  furthermore, trying to punish your partner by giving them a timeout is inappropriate: do it with your kids, maybe, but not with someone who is your hierarchical equal.  lastly, spending the night together in bed can most likely be conducive to a positive resolving of the situation.  in conclusion, i believe it is wrong for wives to ask their husbands to sleep on the couch after a mistake he has made.  hey, cmv !  #  let is assume a heterosexual couple gets into a fight because of a mistake the husband made.   #  more often than not, we hear the wife and random observers say that the husband will have to sleep on the couch.   # more often than not, we hear the wife and random observers say that the husband will have to sleep on the couch.  i believe that both members have the right to sleep in their bed.  if one person wants to sulk, then it is their responsibility to leave the bedroom.  sure the right to sleep in the bed is there, i am not sure anyone is denying that.  i see it as more an act of penance.  when she is mad, and can artificially stay mad for days, i would rather submit, and sleep on the couch than deal with her madness for another day.  happy wife happy life.  as if girls used logic over emotion.  lulz.  not when she is that mad.  it is wrong for her to jump to illogical conclusions, and take everything personally, but i love her, and i will do whatever it takes including sleeping on the couch for her.  there is a man in this relationship and i am him.  sometimes you just have to  man up  and do things like this, regardless of whether it is  right  or  wrong .   #  the bed is part of the domestic sphere so it  belongs  to the woman.   #  i think that the idea of the man sleeping on the couch comes from the 0 is style marriage where the man is in charge of the public sphere and the woman is in charge of the domestic sphere.  so the man goes out and works, can come home whenever he wants, and makes most of the decisions about the money.  the wife gets to go shopping with her allowance, make decisions about food and home decor, and if she gets too pissed she can kick the husband out of bed.  the bed is part of the domestic sphere so it  belongs  to the woman.  i think most modern people realize that this division is pretty shitty for everyone involved, and do not actually run their marriages this way.  the  i guess you are on the couch tonight  joke is more of a trope than anything else like how women will joke about knowing what their husbands or boyfriends want if they receive flowers.  in reality, men probably do not humbly submit to sleeping on the couch they hopefully insist that their partners talk to them about whatever issue is happening , any more than wives actually feel like they are being bribed into sex with gifts.   #  a night apart will give both sides a chance to mull and properly confront each other and sort out the issue once and for all.   #  i take it the couch was not comfortable last night then ? :p sorry had to, but seriously now, are you saying that it is wrong because it seems to be mostly husbands which are subjected to this ? or is it just because, as you stated, you believe such a draconian punishment is not suitable for a partner in a married relationship ? in some cases i can see that  isleeping it off  would help a couple forget about it in the morning, without ever addressing the issue that caused the argument.  a night apart will give both sides a chance to mull and properly confront each other and sort out the issue once and for all.   #  also, i have kicked my gf out of the room at times when i needed space from her.   #  i know it is anecdotal, but i have a few examples of my own.  when my parents were fighting not physical abuse, just yelling a lot my mom slept on a couch in the basement pretty frequently.  she also had her home office area down there so it was like a bedroom, except the couch was like 0 years old and could t have been very comfy.  also, i have kicked my gf out of the room at times when i needed space from her.  granted, it is my house, my king size bed and my rules, but even in such a situation, sitcoms would probably say the man goes to the couch.  and finally, my gf has had a shifting schedule, sometimes she needs to wake up at 0 am, others she needs to sleep starting at 0 am and going until 0 pm or so.  in those cases she takes the couch or an air mattress usually air mattress, so she can sleep in peace away from my dogs .  so there is definitely a lot of real possibilities that break the  aman always gets the couch  trope.   #  while some of my friends might joke about sending their partner to sleep on the couch for some transgression i have never known of it actually happening.   #  odd, because when my husband is having a hard time sleeping i am the one who goes and sleeps in the other room.  it only happens occasionally, but i can sleep just about anywhere and he is a very light sleeper, so if one of us is tossing and turning we both sleep better if i am the one who leaves.  it is never been an anger thing, just a practicality thing.  my dad and his wife did the same thing, since they both snore like beasts.  my stepmom was the one who left the bedroom to either the guest room or to sleep with my sister.  while some of my friends might joke about sending their partner to sleep on the couch for some transgression i have never known of it actually happening.  i always figured it was one of those things that only happens on tv.
let is assume a heterosexual couple gets into a fight because of a mistake the husband made.  more often than not, we hear the wife and random observers say that the husband will have to sleep on the couch.  i believe that both members have the right to sleep in their bed.  if one person wants to sulk, then it is their responsibility to leave the bedroom.  furthermore, trying to punish your partner by giving them a timeout is inappropriate: do it with your kids, maybe, but not with someone who is your hierarchical equal.  lastly, spending the night together in bed can most likely be conducive to a positive resolving of the situation.  in conclusion, i believe it is wrong for wives to ask their husbands to sleep on the couch after a mistake he has made.  hey, cmv !  #  furthermore, trying to punish your partner by giving them a timeout is inappropriate: do it with your kids, maybe, but not with someone who is your hierarchical equal.   #  as if girls used logic over emotion.   # more often than not, we hear the wife and random observers say that the husband will have to sleep on the couch.  i believe that both members have the right to sleep in their bed.  if one person wants to sulk, then it is their responsibility to leave the bedroom.  sure the right to sleep in the bed is there, i am not sure anyone is denying that.  i see it as more an act of penance.  when she is mad, and can artificially stay mad for days, i would rather submit, and sleep on the couch than deal with her madness for another day.  happy wife happy life.  as if girls used logic over emotion.  lulz.  not when she is that mad.  it is wrong for her to jump to illogical conclusions, and take everything personally, but i love her, and i will do whatever it takes including sleeping on the couch for her.  there is a man in this relationship and i am him.  sometimes you just have to  man up  and do things like this, regardless of whether it is  right  or  wrong .   #  the bed is part of the domestic sphere so it  belongs  to the woman.   #  i think that the idea of the man sleeping on the couch comes from the 0 is style marriage where the man is in charge of the public sphere and the woman is in charge of the domestic sphere.  so the man goes out and works, can come home whenever he wants, and makes most of the decisions about the money.  the wife gets to go shopping with her allowance, make decisions about food and home decor, and if she gets too pissed she can kick the husband out of bed.  the bed is part of the domestic sphere so it  belongs  to the woman.  i think most modern people realize that this division is pretty shitty for everyone involved, and do not actually run their marriages this way.  the  i guess you are on the couch tonight  joke is more of a trope than anything else like how women will joke about knowing what their husbands or boyfriends want if they receive flowers.  in reality, men probably do not humbly submit to sleeping on the couch they hopefully insist that their partners talk to them about whatever issue is happening , any more than wives actually feel like they are being bribed into sex with gifts.   #  a night apart will give both sides a chance to mull and properly confront each other and sort out the issue once and for all.   #  i take it the couch was not comfortable last night then ? :p sorry had to, but seriously now, are you saying that it is wrong because it seems to be mostly husbands which are subjected to this ? or is it just because, as you stated, you believe such a draconian punishment is not suitable for a partner in a married relationship ? in some cases i can see that  isleeping it off  would help a couple forget about it in the morning, without ever addressing the issue that caused the argument.  a night apart will give both sides a chance to mull and properly confront each other and sort out the issue once and for all.   #  when my parents were fighting not physical abuse, just yelling a lot my mom slept on a couch in the basement pretty frequently.   #  i know it is anecdotal, but i have a few examples of my own.  when my parents were fighting not physical abuse, just yelling a lot my mom slept on a couch in the basement pretty frequently.  she also had her home office area down there so it was like a bedroom, except the couch was like 0 years old and could t have been very comfy.  also, i have kicked my gf out of the room at times when i needed space from her.  granted, it is my house, my king size bed and my rules, but even in such a situation, sitcoms would probably say the man goes to the couch.  and finally, my gf has had a shifting schedule, sometimes she needs to wake up at 0 am, others she needs to sleep starting at 0 am and going until 0 pm or so.  in those cases she takes the couch or an air mattress usually air mattress, so she can sleep in peace away from my dogs .  so there is definitely a lot of real possibilities that break the  aman always gets the couch  trope.   #  my dad and his wife did the same thing, since they both snore like beasts.   #  odd, because when my husband is having a hard time sleeping i am the one who goes and sleeps in the other room.  it only happens occasionally, but i can sleep just about anywhere and he is a very light sleeper, so if one of us is tossing and turning we both sleep better if i am the one who leaves.  it is never been an anger thing, just a practicality thing.  my dad and his wife did the same thing, since they both snore like beasts.  my stepmom was the one who left the bedroom to either the guest room or to sleep with my sister.  while some of my friends might joke about sending their partner to sleep on the couch for some transgression i have never known of it actually happening.  i always figured it was one of those things that only happens on tv.
let is assume a heterosexual couple gets into a fight because of a mistake the husband made.  more often than not, we hear the wife and random observers say that the husband will have to sleep on the couch.  i believe that both members have the right to sleep in their bed.  if one person wants to sulk, then it is their responsibility to leave the bedroom.  furthermore, trying to punish your partner by giving them a timeout is inappropriate: do it with your kids, maybe, but not with someone who is your hierarchical equal.  lastly, spending the night together in bed can most likely be conducive to a positive resolving of the situation.  in conclusion, i believe it is wrong for wives to ask their husbands to sleep on the couch after a mistake he has made.  hey, cmv !  #  in conclusion, i believe it is wrong for wives to ask their husbands to sleep on the couch after a mistake he has made.   #  it is wrong for her to jump to illogical conclusions, and take everything personally, but i love her, and i will do whatever it takes including sleeping on the couch for her.   # more often than not, we hear the wife and random observers say that the husband will have to sleep on the couch.  i believe that both members have the right to sleep in their bed.  if one person wants to sulk, then it is their responsibility to leave the bedroom.  sure the right to sleep in the bed is there, i am not sure anyone is denying that.  i see it as more an act of penance.  when she is mad, and can artificially stay mad for days, i would rather submit, and sleep on the couch than deal with her madness for another day.  happy wife happy life.  as if girls used logic over emotion.  lulz.  not when she is that mad.  it is wrong for her to jump to illogical conclusions, and take everything personally, but i love her, and i will do whatever it takes including sleeping on the couch for her.  there is a man in this relationship and i am him.  sometimes you just have to  man up  and do things like this, regardless of whether it is  right  or  wrong .   #  i think most modern people realize that this division is pretty shitty for everyone involved, and do not actually run their marriages this way.   #  i think that the idea of the man sleeping on the couch comes from the 0 is style marriage where the man is in charge of the public sphere and the woman is in charge of the domestic sphere.  so the man goes out and works, can come home whenever he wants, and makes most of the decisions about the money.  the wife gets to go shopping with her allowance, make decisions about food and home decor, and if she gets too pissed she can kick the husband out of bed.  the bed is part of the domestic sphere so it  belongs  to the woman.  i think most modern people realize that this division is pretty shitty for everyone involved, and do not actually run their marriages this way.  the  i guess you are on the couch tonight  joke is more of a trope than anything else like how women will joke about knowing what their husbands or boyfriends want if they receive flowers.  in reality, men probably do not humbly submit to sleeping on the couch they hopefully insist that their partners talk to them about whatever issue is happening , any more than wives actually feel like they are being bribed into sex with gifts.   #  i take it the couch was not comfortable last night then ?  #  i take it the couch was not comfortable last night then ? :p sorry had to, but seriously now, are you saying that it is wrong because it seems to be mostly husbands which are subjected to this ? or is it just because, as you stated, you believe such a draconian punishment is not suitable for a partner in a married relationship ? in some cases i can see that  isleeping it off  would help a couple forget about it in the morning, without ever addressing the issue that caused the argument.  a night apart will give both sides a chance to mull and properly confront each other and sort out the issue once and for all.   #  and finally, my gf has had a shifting schedule, sometimes she needs to wake up at 0 am, others she needs to sleep starting at 0 am and going until 0 pm or so.   #  i know it is anecdotal, but i have a few examples of my own.  when my parents were fighting not physical abuse, just yelling a lot my mom slept on a couch in the basement pretty frequently.  she also had her home office area down there so it was like a bedroom, except the couch was like 0 years old and could t have been very comfy.  also, i have kicked my gf out of the room at times when i needed space from her.  granted, it is my house, my king size bed and my rules, but even in such a situation, sitcoms would probably say the man goes to the couch.  and finally, my gf has had a shifting schedule, sometimes she needs to wake up at 0 am, others she needs to sleep starting at 0 am and going until 0 pm or so.  in those cases she takes the couch or an air mattress usually air mattress, so she can sleep in peace away from my dogs .  so there is definitely a lot of real possibilities that break the  aman always gets the couch  trope.   #  my dad and his wife did the same thing, since they both snore like beasts.   #  odd, because when my husband is having a hard time sleeping i am the one who goes and sleeps in the other room.  it only happens occasionally, but i can sleep just about anywhere and he is a very light sleeper, so if one of us is tossing and turning we both sleep better if i am the one who leaves.  it is never been an anger thing, just a practicality thing.  my dad and his wife did the same thing, since they both snore like beasts.  my stepmom was the one who left the bedroom to either the guest room or to sleep with my sister.  while some of my friends might joke about sending their partner to sleep on the couch for some transgression i have never known of it actually happening.  i always figured it was one of those things that only happens on tv.
while regulation of industries are by no means perfect in a big part because of lobbying , i have seen that industries remaining unregulated by countries or being de regulated has rarely, if ever, resulted in a net good for that country.  take, for example, the chiquita banana company who hired paramilitary organizations to intimidate workers on their plantations in colombia.  also, who could forget the absolute travesty that was blackwater ? i still find it hard to believe that people can suggest privatizing military forces while these pillaging assholes are still in business.  there is also nestle, who still enjoy a healthy market share today despite telling women in the third world to mix nestle baby formula with tainted water supplies.  do not even get me started on the private prison system in the us.  i mean really, you are pretty much guaranteed to get something juicy if you search for any industry and type controversy at the end.  governments are not perfect, but i appreciate they are at least in the same boat as the people they are lording over.  businesses can just fly in, bully weak governments with their international clout and enjoy little regulation of competition because no one they are oppressing could reasonably clear the economic hurdles to compete with them.   #  also, who could forget the absolute travesty that was blackwater ?  #  i still find it hard to believe that people can suggest privatizing military forces while these pillaging assholes are still in business.   #  the equal enforcement of property rights is, by default, what people mean when they mean  no regulation .  anything past this point are in effect corruption or governmental negligence.  so there are major problems with your examples:   take, for example, the chiquita banana company who hired paramilitary organizations to intimidate workers on their plantations in colombia.  this is clearly an exemption given by the government to the company on the use of force against other citizens.  it is not deregulation, its corruption.  i still find it hard to believe that people can suggest privatizing military forces while these pillaging assholes are still in business.  lack of equal enforcement of property rights for a country you just took over ? corruption/negligence.  also this is technically a form of privatization.  if this is true and i doubt it is because it would immediately associate nestle is product with the death of their children despite it not being their fault at the root cause leading people to stop buying it then it is just a terrible business strategy.  it would be like lego telling parents specifically to not supervise young children when playing with their product.  if the prisons are worse in terms of the treatment or relapse rate than the  public  prisons again this is corruption/negligence.  this specific example is particularly bad because its a  government financed industry.  who do you think keeps paying for all these prisoners  incarceration ? also this is privatization of an industry.  even weak governments have a military and unless the multinational wants to gain a reputation for funding a coup d etat there is little that can stop the weak government from forcing the multinational to stay out barring the involvement of other governments  #  this is of course one major reason that corporate money in politics is such a problem.   #  actually, i have a really good example.  deregulation of beer and liquor production has been a huge win for the consumer and a loss for nobody, unless your view is that of the prohibitionist.  our entire best on earth, to hear some tell it craft beer scene can be traced back to state level deregulation of small breweries in the late 0s and 0s, along with jimmy carter is famous legalization of homebrewing in 0.  this relaxation of laws on beer production led to the amazing proliferation of delicious beer we enjoy today.  before that.  well.  heineken was considered good back then.  it was a nightmare.  i think this one example refutes your view pretty well, although you were probably thinking about it in terms of regulation mostly affecting  the big guys  and keeping them in line.  in reality, regulation is often put into place by the big guys in order to stifle competition.  this is of course one major reason that corporate money in politics is such a problem.  not just taking away the rules they have to play by, but writing new ones for their competitors to suffer under.  another more contemporary example would be the modifications of regulation that are happening in some places to pave the way for things like uber and airbnb.  these are giving money back to consumers by taking the onerous, and now over the top rules away from those industries, which at present only benefit the  big guys .  hotels and big cab companies .  it is not always about multinationals raping the landscape.  sometimes it is about being allowed to brew your own beer or give people rides for money.   #  just the opposite, they are examples of industries which are propped up and controlled by the government.   #  those were not good examples of deregulation that you gave.  when people argue in favor of deregulation, they do not argue in favor of allowing companies to commit acts of violence.  no one supports a company using paramilitary forces to intimidate people.  deregulation does not mean allowing people to commit violent crimes.  also, the prison industry and military contractors ca not really be deregulated.  these companies only exist because they are paid by the government.  they only do what the government tells them.  making them independent from the government is not possible.  these industries are not examples of deregulation.  just the opposite, they are examples of industries which are propped up and controlled by the government.   #  if aa/delta/united jack up fares, there are lots of competitors out there who will benefit.   #  there really are not oligopolies in air travel in the us.  there are at least 0 major national airlines american, delta, united, jetblue, and southwest .  there are also several regional/less major airlines, such as spirit, frontier, alaska and allegient.  international service is also amply competed, even though only 0 us carriers provide much transcontinental service.  from a major us airport like jfk or lax, you will generally have between 0 and 0 airlines to take you to a given foreign country unless it is an obscure route .  even with mergers, there are constant new entries into the airline business.  jetblue now has 0 planes.  they did not exist 0 years ago.  if aa/delta/united jack up fares, there are lots of competitors out there who will benefit.  it is why they keep going bankrupt they are so competitive they can barely turn a profit in good years.   #  sometimes that means deregulating for better rights, other times it means regulating more heavily to achieve the same result.   #  you are thinking about this wrong.  regulation is not a binary thing.  it is not  all the regulation  or  no regulation .  in fact there is a  sweet spot  of regulation.  too much regulation and the companies contribute too little in taxes as the government spends money regulating and the firm is too slow and limited in its responses to make a lot of money but too little regulation and firms wind up shirking their responsibilities or take advantage of market failures.  deregulation is often pushing for less government intervention in a field as opposed to no intervention.  there are plenty of good examples of successful deregulation, especially in transportation such as trucking, buses, and airlines which went a long way to allowing those industries to manage a changing economic landscape that they would have been unable to manage under older regulatory structures designed for a different time and place.  corporations can do bad things, mostly because people do bad things and corporations are nothing more than a group of people getting together for the express purpose of making money.  even before the existence of capitalism as a thing, crown monopolies were waging wars and conquering peoples.  i mean look at the voc URL or the east india company URL i do not think that anyone here is arguing that no regulation what so ever is a good idea.  but we have to constantly be evaluating the extent to which we regulate and keep up the sweet spot as technology and conditions change.  sometimes that means deregulating for better rights, other times it means regulating more heavily to achieve the same result.
while regulation of industries are by no means perfect in a big part because of lobbying , i have seen that industries remaining unregulated by countries or being de regulated has rarely, if ever, resulted in a net good for that country.  take, for example, the chiquita banana company who hired paramilitary organizations to intimidate workers on their plantations in colombia.  also, who could forget the absolute travesty that was blackwater ? i still find it hard to believe that people can suggest privatizing military forces while these pillaging assholes are still in business.  there is also nestle, who still enjoy a healthy market share today despite telling women in the third world to mix nestle baby formula with tainted water supplies.  do not even get me started on the private prison system in the us.  i mean really, you are pretty much guaranteed to get something juicy if you search for any industry and type controversy at the end.  governments are not perfect, but i appreciate they are at least in the same boat as the people they are lording over.  businesses can just fly in, bully weak governments with their international clout and enjoy little regulation of competition because no one they are oppressing could reasonably clear the economic hurdles to compete with them.   #  do not even get me started on the private prison system in the us.   #  if the prisons are worse in terms of the treatment or relapse rate than the  public  prisons again this is corruption/negligence.   #  the equal enforcement of property rights is, by default, what people mean when they mean  no regulation .  anything past this point are in effect corruption or governmental negligence.  so there are major problems with your examples:   take, for example, the chiquita banana company who hired paramilitary organizations to intimidate workers on their plantations in colombia.  this is clearly an exemption given by the government to the company on the use of force against other citizens.  it is not deregulation, its corruption.  i still find it hard to believe that people can suggest privatizing military forces while these pillaging assholes are still in business.  lack of equal enforcement of property rights for a country you just took over ? corruption/negligence.  also this is technically a form of privatization.  if this is true and i doubt it is because it would immediately associate nestle is product with the death of their children despite it not being their fault at the root cause leading people to stop buying it then it is just a terrible business strategy.  it would be like lego telling parents specifically to not supervise young children when playing with their product.  if the prisons are worse in terms of the treatment or relapse rate than the  public  prisons again this is corruption/negligence.  this specific example is particularly bad because its a  government financed industry.  who do you think keeps paying for all these prisoners  incarceration ? also this is privatization of an industry.  even weak governments have a military and unless the multinational wants to gain a reputation for funding a coup d etat there is little that can stop the weak government from forcing the multinational to stay out barring the involvement of other governments  #  this is of course one major reason that corporate money in politics is such a problem.   #  actually, i have a really good example.  deregulation of beer and liquor production has been a huge win for the consumer and a loss for nobody, unless your view is that of the prohibitionist.  our entire best on earth, to hear some tell it craft beer scene can be traced back to state level deregulation of small breweries in the late 0s and 0s, along with jimmy carter is famous legalization of homebrewing in 0.  this relaxation of laws on beer production led to the amazing proliferation of delicious beer we enjoy today.  before that.  well.  heineken was considered good back then.  it was a nightmare.  i think this one example refutes your view pretty well, although you were probably thinking about it in terms of regulation mostly affecting  the big guys  and keeping them in line.  in reality, regulation is often put into place by the big guys in order to stifle competition.  this is of course one major reason that corporate money in politics is such a problem.  not just taking away the rules they have to play by, but writing new ones for their competitors to suffer under.  another more contemporary example would be the modifications of regulation that are happening in some places to pave the way for things like uber and airbnb.  these are giving money back to consumers by taking the onerous, and now over the top rules away from those industries, which at present only benefit the  big guys .  hotels and big cab companies .  it is not always about multinationals raping the landscape.  sometimes it is about being allowed to brew your own beer or give people rides for money.   #  making them independent from the government is not possible.   #  those were not good examples of deregulation that you gave.  when people argue in favor of deregulation, they do not argue in favor of allowing companies to commit acts of violence.  no one supports a company using paramilitary forces to intimidate people.  deregulation does not mean allowing people to commit violent crimes.  also, the prison industry and military contractors ca not really be deregulated.  these companies only exist because they are paid by the government.  they only do what the government tells them.  making them independent from the government is not possible.  these industries are not examples of deregulation.  just the opposite, they are examples of industries which are propped up and controlled by the government.   #  there are at least 0 major national airlines american, delta, united, jetblue, and southwest .   #  there really are not oligopolies in air travel in the us.  there are at least 0 major national airlines american, delta, united, jetblue, and southwest .  there are also several regional/less major airlines, such as spirit, frontier, alaska and allegient.  international service is also amply competed, even though only 0 us carriers provide much transcontinental service.  from a major us airport like jfk or lax, you will generally have between 0 and 0 airlines to take you to a given foreign country unless it is an obscure route .  even with mergers, there are constant new entries into the airline business.  jetblue now has 0 planes.  they did not exist 0 years ago.  if aa/delta/united jack up fares, there are lots of competitors out there who will benefit.  it is why they keep going bankrupt they are so competitive they can barely turn a profit in good years.   #  even before the existence of capitalism as a thing, crown monopolies were waging wars and conquering peoples.   #  you are thinking about this wrong.  regulation is not a binary thing.  it is not  all the regulation  or  no regulation .  in fact there is a  sweet spot  of regulation.  too much regulation and the companies contribute too little in taxes as the government spends money regulating and the firm is too slow and limited in its responses to make a lot of money but too little regulation and firms wind up shirking their responsibilities or take advantage of market failures.  deregulation is often pushing for less government intervention in a field as opposed to no intervention.  there are plenty of good examples of successful deregulation, especially in transportation such as trucking, buses, and airlines which went a long way to allowing those industries to manage a changing economic landscape that they would have been unable to manage under older regulatory structures designed for a different time and place.  corporations can do bad things, mostly because people do bad things and corporations are nothing more than a group of people getting together for the express purpose of making money.  even before the existence of capitalism as a thing, crown monopolies were waging wars and conquering peoples.  i mean look at the voc URL or the east india company URL i do not think that anyone here is arguing that no regulation what so ever is a good idea.  but we have to constantly be evaluating the extent to which we regulate and keep up the sweet spot as technology and conditions change.  sometimes that means deregulating for better rights, other times it means regulating more heavily to achieve the same result.
while regulation of industries are by no means perfect in a big part because of lobbying , i have seen that industries remaining unregulated by countries or being de regulated has rarely, if ever, resulted in a net good for that country.  take, for example, the chiquita banana company who hired paramilitary organizations to intimidate workers on their plantations in colombia.  also, who could forget the absolute travesty that was blackwater ? i still find it hard to believe that people can suggest privatizing military forces while these pillaging assholes are still in business.  there is also nestle, who still enjoy a healthy market share today despite telling women in the third world to mix nestle baby formula with tainted water supplies.  do not even get me started on the private prison system in the us.  i mean really, you are pretty much guaranteed to get something juicy if you search for any industry and type controversy at the end.  governments are not perfect, but i appreciate they are at least in the same boat as the people they are lording over.  businesses can just fly in, bully weak governments with their international clout and enjoy little regulation of competition because no one they are oppressing could reasonably clear the economic hurdles to compete with them.   #  businesses can just fly in, bully weak governments with their international clout and enjoy little regulation of competition because no one they are oppressing could reasonably clear the economic hurdles to compete with them.   #  even weak governments have a military and unless the multinational wants to gain a reputation for funding a coup d etat there is little that can stop the weak government from forcing the multinational to stay out barring the involvement of other governments  #  the equal enforcement of property rights is, by default, what people mean when they mean  no regulation .  anything past this point are in effect corruption or governmental negligence.  so there are major problems with your examples:   take, for example, the chiquita banana company who hired paramilitary organizations to intimidate workers on their plantations in colombia.  this is clearly an exemption given by the government to the company on the use of force against other citizens.  it is not deregulation, its corruption.  i still find it hard to believe that people can suggest privatizing military forces while these pillaging assholes are still in business.  lack of equal enforcement of property rights for a country you just took over ? corruption/negligence.  also this is technically a form of privatization.  if this is true and i doubt it is because it would immediately associate nestle is product with the death of their children despite it not being their fault at the root cause leading people to stop buying it then it is just a terrible business strategy.  it would be like lego telling parents specifically to not supervise young children when playing with their product.  if the prisons are worse in terms of the treatment or relapse rate than the  public  prisons again this is corruption/negligence.  this specific example is particularly bad because its a  government financed industry.  who do you think keeps paying for all these prisoners  incarceration ? also this is privatization of an industry.  even weak governments have a military and unless the multinational wants to gain a reputation for funding a coup d etat there is little that can stop the weak government from forcing the multinational to stay out barring the involvement of other governments  #  before that.  well.  heineken was considered good back then.   #  actually, i have a really good example.  deregulation of beer and liquor production has been a huge win for the consumer and a loss for nobody, unless your view is that of the prohibitionist.  our entire best on earth, to hear some tell it craft beer scene can be traced back to state level deregulation of small breweries in the late 0s and 0s, along with jimmy carter is famous legalization of homebrewing in 0.  this relaxation of laws on beer production led to the amazing proliferation of delicious beer we enjoy today.  before that.  well.  heineken was considered good back then.  it was a nightmare.  i think this one example refutes your view pretty well, although you were probably thinking about it in terms of regulation mostly affecting  the big guys  and keeping them in line.  in reality, regulation is often put into place by the big guys in order to stifle competition.  this is of course one major reason that corporate money in politics is such a problem.  not just taking away the rules they have to play by, but writing new ones for their competitors to suffer under.  another more contemporary example would be the modifications of regulation that are happening in some places to pave the way for things like uber and airbnb.  these are giving money back to consumers by taking the onerous, and now over the top rules away from those industries, which at present only benefit the  big guys .  hotels and big cab companies .  it is not always about multinationals raping the landscape.  sometimes it is about being allowed to brew your own beer or give people rides for money.   #  also, the prison industry and military contractors ca not really be deregulated.   #  those were not good examples of deregulation that you gave.  when people argue in favor of deregulation, they do not argue in favor of allowing companies to commit acts of violence.  no one supports a company using paramilitary forces to intimidate people.  deregulation does not mean allowing people to commit violent crimes.  also, the prison industry and military contractors ca not really be deregulated.  these companies only exist because they are paid by the government.  they only do what the government tells them.  making them independent from the government is not possible.  these industries are not examples of deregulation.  just the opposite, they are examples of industries which are propped up and controlled by the government.   #  even with mergers, there are constant new entries into the airline business.   #  there really are not oligopolies in air travel in the us.  there are at least 0 major national airlines american, delta, united, jetblue, and southwest .  there are also several regional/less major airlines, such as spirit, frontier, alaska and allegient.  international service is also amply competed, even though only 0 us carriers provide much transcontinental service.  from a major us airport like jfk or lax, you will generally have between 0 and 0 airlines to take you to a given foreign country unless it is an obscure route .  even with mergers, there are constant new entries into the airline business.  jetblue now has 0 planes.  they did not exist 0 years ago.  if aa/delta/united jack up fares, there are lots of competitors out there who will benefit.  it is why they keep going bankrupt they are so competitive they can barely turn a profit in good years.   #  but we have to constantly be evaluating the extent to which we regulate and keep up the sweet spot as technology and conditions change.   #  you are thinking about this wrong.  regulation is not a binary thing.  it is not  all the regulation  or  no regulation .  in fact there is a  sweet spot  of regulation.  too much regulation and the companies contribute too little in taxes as the government spends money regulating and the firm is too slow and limited in its responses to make a lot of money but too little regulation and firms wind up shirking their responsibilities or take advantage of market failures.  deregulation is often pushing for less government intervention in a field as opposed to no intervention.  there are plenty of good examples of successful deregulation, especially in transportation such as trucking, buses, and airlines which went a long way to allowing those industries to manage a changing economic landscape that they would have been unable to manage under older regulatory structures designed for a different time and place.  corporations can do bad things, mostly because people do bad things and corporations are nothing more than a group of people getting together for the express purpose of making money.  even before the existence of capitalism as a thing, crown monopolies were waging wars and conquering peoples.  i mean look at the voc URL or the east india company URL i do not think that anyone here is arguing that no regulation what so ever is a good idea.  but we have to constantly be evaluating the extent to which we regulate and keep up the sweet spot as technology and conditions change.  sometimes that means deregulating for better rights, other times it means regulating more heavily to achieve the same result.
employers, colleges, community positions these things all require that applicants provide a fully disclosed criminal record unless the crime was committed as a minor if one exists.  the stigma of having a criminal record can cost an individual any of these opportunities when he/she is fully capable of that position.  the stigma of being a criminal is the issue here.  once someone is labeled a criminal, it consumes his/her identity.  i believe more weight should be placed on psychological evaluations of a persons  current  state and an overall evaluation of an individuals  present  character.  this discretion should override an individuals  past  criminal record.  the stigma that follows a criminal is fear of criminals and the belief that he/she is no good for society.  we are threatened by this individual because he/she has committed a crime.  however, this crime can be entirely non threatening in the present.  a man who sold his friends marijuana when he was 0 is not a threat to society.  i believe that psychological evaluations and the evaluation of an individuals character can determine whether that individual is currently a threat or not.  take for instance, gina grant URL who was denied admission to harvard for killing her alcoholic, abusive mother when she was 0.  since then she served 0 months in a juvenile facility, got excellent grades, served in the community, joined clubs, and tutored children.  she was initially accepted to harvard, but they revoked her admission when they uncovered her past.  a psychological evaluation would show that she is a good person and her only motive to murder was self defense against her abusive mother.  furthermore, this was years ago.  it is not as if she is a serial killer who is fascinated with murder and may strike against anyone at anytime.  they denied her the seat because of her criminal record  although  she was not currently a threat.  hypothetically, they could have instead given that seat to a man with no criminal record at all.  however, he is hypothetically obsessed with stalking his ex girlfriend, is planning to murder her, and has completely lost touch with society.  who is the bigger threat and who deserves the seat more ? finally, i think it is unfair to label people as criminals once they have served their punishment.  there is no reason something like a dui that happened 0 years ago should haunt someone for the rest of his/her life after serving the punishment.  according to the labeling theory, by removing individuals functionality in society and labeling them a criminal, they are more likely to re enter the criminal system.  hence, the 0 recidivism URL rate in the united states.  i think this entire process is unproductive; change my view !  #  according to the labeling theory, by removing individuals functionality in society and labeling them a criminal, they are more likely to re enter the criminal system.   #  can you please talk a little more about this theory ?  #  op, you have been presented several points that you have conceded are valid but have explained away as exceptions.  i at this point am unsure what you want to hear, but i will take a shot.  you have come up with a lot of ideal situations that can explain criminal behavior, and i know that is the case in some circumstances.  people on occasion, shoplift formula for their starving baby.  people make mistakes, and a significant number of them, after their first encounter with law enforcement, never get in trouble again.  in my state, after 0 years, you can get your case expunged so that an employer ca not see your criminal case.  i am not going to do your research for you to see if this is true in all states, but you are welcome to do so.  secondly, there are several valid reasons potential employers screen applicants criminal history.  first and foremost is liability.  my buddy is a supervisor for time warner cable.  dwi is obvious, but if he hires a person with theft on his record and that person steals from customers, the victim could have a civil case against time warner as they knowingly hired the employee.  what if they hire someone with an assault and they fight an unruly customer ? someone with a drug case and they sell weed out of the back of the cable truck ? this actually happened to my buddy .  like it or not, past behavior can often be an indicator of future behavior.  that is why job applications have a previous employer section.  do you advocate for the removal of a previous employer section of a job application ? or is previous performance with a past employer invalid because people change ? can you please talk a little more about this theory ? i have been a criminal justice for 0  years and have studied and trained officers in ebp, what works in criminal justice, cognitive behavior practices and motivational interviewing and have not heard of labeling theory.  i need to get some literature regarding this to add to my training syllabus.  if it is a theory you came up with yourself to back up your point about non disclosure of criminal records, that is fine.  you are entitled to your theories.   #   sure i may have 0 duis on my record, but that should not stop me from being your cab driver.    #   sure i was convicted of financial fraud multiple times, but that does not mean that i should not be your personal financial advisor.    sure i may have 0 duis on my record, but that should not stop me from being your cab driver.    sure i have been busted for distributing prescription drugs multiple times to those without a prescription, but i see no reason why i should not be a pharmacist.   the same logic applies to non violent crimes.  i agree that it should not be as hard for former criminals to get a job, but that does not mean that their criminal history should be kept confidential.   #  a mother who is husband left her with two kids that she had no way of feeding.   #  what about the circumstances of the shoplifting ? a mother who is husband left her with two kids that she had no way of feeding.  she stole some clothing for them, was caught, and punished.  now she ca not get a job to feed her children because she is labeled a criminal and her employer prefers an employee with no criminal record.  now she will really have no means of feeding her children and may go to even further criminal means to feed her kids.  she will rob someone at gunpoint with no intent of harming them and be sent to prison.  the children will now have no mother or father.   #  there is no way to make sure you will never hire someone who is not a thief.   #  no one forces a person to shoplift.  if time are tight there are outreach centers, shelters and such.  are they perfect ? no.  and honesty, if someone did shoplift under those circumstances i would want to know that.  as a potential boss, i trust my employees to not steal from me.  if a person makes a choice to steal when faced with a tough personal situation what stops that person from stealing from me if times get tough for them.  all employees are risky.  there is no way to make sure you will never hire someone who is not a thief.  a cashier will have access to thousands of dollars.  a driver might have access to hundreds of thousands.  i ca not see into the future who will take what action, so i have to use things like prior criminal records to see who has taken what action in the past.  a business owner also needs to protect himself.  if i hire a person who has committed multiple violent offenses and they commit one while thy are working i can be held civilly liable for any damages.  i can lose my business based on the actions of my employes.  because of that simple fact, i have the right to vet my potential workers in any way that i legally can.   #  the first group is imprisoned 0x more often than the second, and both are measuring the same metric.   #  can you clarify ? i do not think that i am mixing two incompatible sets of statistics, but i might be.  my first source URL stated that, of all prisoners released in 0, 0 of them were imprisoned for a new crime within three years.  that is roughly 0 per year, or 0/0.  my second source URL stated that a total of 0 people were convicted in 0, and 0 of them were sent to jail, for a total of 0 people out of the total population of 0 million.  that is a rate of 0/0.  the first group is imprisoned 0x more often than the second, and both are measuring the same metric.  the difference in years may make a difference, but not enough to erase that huge disparity between the groups.  . unless you were talking about relapsing to the exact same crime eg.  someone first arrested for assault getting arrested for assault again instead of to crime in general.  i do not see why that would be relevant at all.  getting assaulted by a reformed burglar or robbed by a stalker is no better than if anyone else had done it.
i believe in assisted suicide.  most people i have met who believe in assisted suicide think it should be legal for those with incurable illnesses which greatly decrease quality of life for the person suffering.  i do not see a difference between this and those with incurable mental afflictions who have a decreased quality of life as a result.  this seems to be a taboo opinion and i would like to see what your reasoning is if you disagree.  let is take someone who is clinically depressed.  suppose they have been depressed for the majority of their adult life, they are diagnosed, and they are in extreme mental anguish most of the time.  suppose that medication has not helped them, and there is clearly no cure for their depression.  why should not they also be allowed to terminate themselves, if they really want to ?  #  and there is clearly no cure for their depression.   #  that is probably a sticking point.  also, you do not need an out and out cure to live with depression.   # that is probably a sticking point.  also, you do not need an out and out cure to live with depression.  and lastly, a person who is suicidal might not be in the best frame of mind to make important decisions like that.  depression is tricky as it can alleviate itself without medical intervention.  so saying  there is no hope  is really something a depressed person would say, but a level headed doctor would disagree with.   #  for example, it seems reasonable that hormonal teenagers  should not  be allowed to receive doctor assisted suicide.   #  if a suicidal person wants to kill themselves, why not allow them to do so painlessly and with dignity under the care of a doctor ? just because depressed people are capable of killing themselves on their own does not mean the state should prohibit doctors from assisting them.  that is like arguing for shutting down abortion clinics just because people are capable of performing abortions on themselves.  what right does the state have to prevent a doctor from helping someone kill themselves ? there is nothing preventing the limits on assisted suicide from becoming well defined, it just takes some hashing out.  for example, it seems reasonable that hormonal teenagers  should not  be allowed to receive doctor assisted suicide.  it also seems reasonable to allow someone who, even after trying every available treatment, has nonetheless remained miserable for decades on end to seek a doctor is help in killing themselves.  the line has to be drawn somewhere between those two scenarios, and just because it may be difficult to find where that line should be drawn exactly, does not mean that we should never even try.  if you believe that it is humane and moral for doctors to help people die who have been deeply suffering for a very long time, then the inconvenience of sorting out the legal boundaries should not deter you.   #  the purpose of assisted suicide as i am thinking of it, is to give the person a more human/less painful way to die, if they choose to die.   #  thanks for your reply.  i think i might have not worded things well.  when i say assisted suicide, i do not have the image of a doctor administering an iv to euthanize a patient because they are physically unable to kill themselves.  this could be a valid scenario, but i am mainly considering situations where lethal medication is dispensed to the patient, then the patient takes it themselves in order to die in a way that is more humane and less painful than alternatives gunshot, hanging, etc .  i think another person pointed out the example of dignitas facility in switzerland.  as the poster stated, the patient is required to take the medication themselves, and no one is allowed to administer it to them.  in fact this is one thing that is sad in my thoughts, there are situations where a person has to  rush  their suicide, because if they wait their disease can progress to the point they are  not  physically able to take the medication, and so they can no longer go to dignitas so for the purpose of this discussion, let is take your point 0 off the table, as i am going to assume that assisted suicide is not limited only to people who are unable to kill themselves.  the purpose of assisted suicide as i am thinking of it, is to give the person a more human/less painful way to die, if they choose to die.  well that is why i think the whole subject is very interesting.  i am not sure what i believe here yet.  but does not the same apply to the other situation ? a person with a terminal, uncureable illness .  which illnesses should be considered ? how much should quality of life be interrupted for a person to quality ? afterall, is not pain very subjective ? what about the concept that a disease is incurable today, but the cure might be around 0 years from now ? so with that in mind, what is the cut off with how much longer a person has to live for them to quality for assisted suicide ?  #  that is probably skewed my opinion on that first part.   #  fair enough.  the reason i mentioned the unable to thing is because i have had two family members die after being in excruciating pain for about a month, and i do not doubt that if they had been physically capable of it they would have taken their own life.  that is probably skewed my opinion on that first part.  as for the slippery slope argument, i think it is much easier to put in common sense controls with terminal illnesses that cause significant amounts of pain and suffering.  i imagine most cases are reviewed by a bored, and that the board has to be convinced that the person is suffering enough.  however, if you make the law that they have to be depressed enough, then that is something that is much harder to quantify.  i do not see a reason at that point for differentiating between someone who is chronically depressed and say, just lost there job, and someone who just has a shitty life and wants to die.   #  i also would not say that  most see it as wrong .   #  i was talking about a hypothetical situation, which is why i said   if  assisted suicide is legal .  i also would not say that  most see it as wrong .  unless you can point me to very recent, widespread polls which show this.  even if it was the case, the simple fact that most people consider something right or wrong is not enough to change my view on a topic.  public views change over time.  there is plenty of situations where things which you probably consider perfectly ethical were at one time considered unethical interracial marriage was seen as an unethical and illegal thing 0 years ago for example .
i believe that what rice did was wrong.  however, the emergence of a video does not substantially change the prior facts of what was already known in the case.  the video simply made it easier for society to cast strong negative judgement against rice.  this however does not make what rice did any better or worse because the situation was already understood it simply more it more graphically painful.  cmv :d first cmv, hopefully it is alright  #  the video simply made it easier for society to cast strong negative judgement against rice.   #  which is a big impact on his job.   # which is a big impact on his job.  ray rice is job is to get fans to give money to the baltimore ravens and the nfl in the form of ticket sales, merchandise, and tv licensing.  the way he does that job is to play football.  but ultimately, anything he does in the public eye influences that job.  the video makes it much harder for him to do his job of bringing profits to the nfl.  since he can no longer effectively do that job, he should be fired.   #  but this was prominent enough that enforcement of those rules was insufficient to stem the public outcry, so they sacked him.   #  both the issuance of that new policy, and the current suspension have one common goal: make the nfl look as good as possible in order to make as much money as possible.  they are also a bureaucracy, so they like to make rules that justify their actions to make as much money as possible.  but this was prominent enough that enforcement of those rules was insufficient to stem the public outcry, so they sacked him.  my view of the nfl is fairly cynical, but i think if you look at them as purely profit motivated, this makes sense.  they do not care about precedent or consistency per se, they only care about them in as much as it makes them more money.   #  so the nfl had to respond or face a huge pr nightmare.   # and negative judgements against nfl players hurts the nfl as an organization.  he should have been suspended for much longer prior to the release of this video, but he was not.  and a lot of backlash against that decision has been building against the nfl particularly in light of josh gordan a suspension .  now it turns out that rice was misleading people about what actually happened that night.  so the nfl had to respond or face a huge pr nightmare.  the suspension is warranted and as a baltimore fan i am glad he is gone.   #  the fallout of this video is going to be damning to the nfl as well as ray rice and the baltimore ravens.   #  he should have been cut and suspended to begin with.  full stop.  0:0.  the nfl lied about what they saw on video or, even more amazingly, did not see this video before tmz.  which is incredible because the nfl stated that they had video that was not released earlier.  you are right in the sense that the video should not change things, but the original decision was wrong and most people felt it was wrong back then.  the fallout of this video is going to be damning to the nfl as well as ray rice and the baltimore ravens.  for the record, the nfl has not yet violated their precedent, they could still suspend rice for 0 games.   #  either way, ray rice probably agreed to rules under which he could be fired for any variety of discretionary reasons.   # there are higher moral rules than following precedent.  following the letter of the law is a very important part of being a credible leader, but it is not everything.  there is a lot of truth to the old aphorism that rules are made to be broken, and walking that line is another important part.  now i tend to think of this ray rice situation in a more cynical light, that the ravens and nfl were simply giving the mob the blood it demanded.  either way, ray rice probably agreed to rules under which he could be fired for any variety of discretionary reasons.  it is a privilege after all, not a right.
i believe that what rice did was wrong.  however, the emergence of a video does not substantially change the prior facts of what was already known in the case.  the video simply made it easier for society to cast strong negative judgement against rice.  this however does not make what rice did any better or worse because the situation was already understood it simply more it more graphically painful.  cmv :d first cmv, hopefully it is alright  #  the video simply made it easier for society to cast strong negative judgement against rice.   #  and negative judgements against nfl players hurts the nfl as an organization.   # and negative judgements against nfl players hurts the nfl as an organization.  he should have been suspended for much longer prior to the release of this video, but he was not.  and a lot of backlash against that decision has been building against the nfl particularly in light of josh gordan a suspension .  now it turns out that rice was misleading people about what actually happened that night.  so the nfl had to respond or face a huge pr nightmare.  the suspension is warranted and as a baltimore fan i am glad he is gone.   #  the video makes it much harder for him to do his job of bringing profits to the nfl.   # which is a big impact on his job.  ray rice is job is to get fans to give money to the baltimore ravens and the nfl in the form of ticket sales, merchandise, and tv licensing.  the way he does that job is to play football.  but ultimately, anything he does in the public eye influences that job.  the video makes it much harder for him to do his job of bringing profits to the nfl.  since he can no longer effectively do that job, he should be fired.   #  they do not care about precedent or consistency per se, they only care about them in as much as it makes them more money.   #  both the issuance of that new policy, and the current suspension have one common goal: make the nfl look as good as possible in order to make as much money as possible.  they are also a bureaucracy, so they like to make rules that justify their actions to make as much money as possible.  but this was prominent enough that enforcement of those rules was insufficient to stem the public outcry, so they sacked him.  my view of the nfl is fairly cynical, but i think if you look at them as purely profit motivated, this makes sense.  they do not care about precedent or consistency per se, they only care about them in as much as it makes them more money.   #  for the record, the nfl has not yet violated their precedent, they could still suspend rice for 0 games.   #  he should have been cut and suspended to begin with.  full stop.  0:0.  the nfl lied about what they saw on video or, even more amazingly, did not see this video before tmz.  which is incredible because the nfl stated that they had video that was not released earlier.  you are right in the sense that the video should not change things, but the original decision was wrong and most people felt it was wrong back then.  the fallout of this video is going to be damning to the nfl as well as ray rice and the baltimore ravens.  for the record, the nfl has not yet violated their precedent, they could still suspend rice for 0 games.   #  following the letter of the law is a very important part of being a credible leader, but it is not everything.   # there are higher moral rules than following precedent.  following the letter of the law is a very important part of being a credible leader, but it is not everything.  there is a lot of truth to the old aphorism that rules are made to be broken, and walking that line is another important part.  now i tend to think of this ray rice situation in a more cynical light, that the ravens and nfl were simply giving the mob the blood it demanded.  either way, ray rice probably agreed to rules under which he could be fired for any variety of discretionary reasons.  it is a privilege after all, not a right.
i have seen freerice. org URL mentioned repeatedly on this website, and whenever i express my fanatical distaste for that service i always get drowned in downvotes or ignored in the face of a  it helps people  and  it is fun !   circlejerk.  so i will make my case here: freerice. org is enormously ineffective compared to other ways of donating to charity with a similar level of time investment.  if you try to make the world a better place by going on that site then you are either ignorant to the issues at hand or you are more concerned about having fun and feeling like you have contributed than you are with  actually improving people is lives .  the game donates 0 grains of rice per correct answer.  this may sound like a significant number, but it is really, really not.  let is do the math: you need 0 grains of rice for a  single gram .  the recommended energy intake for an adult male is 0,0 kilojoules per day URL 0 kg of rice gives 0 kj URL therefore to provide the necessary caloric intake of an adult man, you would need 0 kg of rice which is thus 0 almost 0,0 grains of rice.  with 0 grains of rice per correctly answered question, you would need to answer 0,0 questions correctly to provide a  single person is  worth of energy  for a day .  0,0 questions.  i think i have a fairly well endowed vocabulary, and at a mid level i made 0 grains of rice in 0 minutes.  extrapolating, if i did that for an hour, i would make 0 0 grains of rice.  how much is that ? again, not much.  at usa prices far more expensive than developing country prices , 0 lbs 0 kg of rice costs $0 URL 0 grains 0 grams of rice, which is 0/0 th of what i can get for $0  approximately 0 cents .   if you use freerice, you are donating the equivalent of   0 cents of rice every hour .   this is   less than 0 of the us federal minimum wage .  or, in other words, if you worked a dead end minimum wage job at $0 per hour and donated all of your proceedings to charity, it would be more than  fifty  times better for the world than using freerice. org.  you could work for five minutes a day, earn 0 cents, and would it would be as effective for the world as using freerice. org  for 0 hours straight , which is far, far more than anyone would conceivably do.  so if you actually  care  about the state of the world, then you should donate to charity in other ways.  get a job, donate some of the money.  you will actually change people is lives to a reasonable extent.  you will save time and effort, and you will actually  do something .  the only reasons you would  conceivably  continue to go on freerice. org is if you a enjoy it, or find it educational, or b care more about the feeling of having contributed than actually getting off your ass and contributing something.  if it is a , i am sure there are  far  more effective ways and  far  more important things to teach yourself than rote learning vocab.  if it is b , so be it, but do not be under the pretension that you are actually doing anything good.  i rest my case: my numbers may be wrong, but i think that even with the most favourable numbers freerice would show to be an enormous misuse of time.  feel free to prove me wrong.   #  get a job, donate some of the money.   #  adding to hyperbolical is point about the importance of learning vocab, you might not be taking into account the amount of unemployed kids who use freerice.   # adding to hyperbolical is point about the importance of learning vocab, you might not be taking into account the amount of unemployed kids who use freerice.  where some adults see trivial vocabulary quizzes, kids and teens may be learning something new.  it is used very frequently in elementary and middle schools, and the donation acts as a huge motivation/reward for the students.  not to mention that the site has many subjects URL ranging from famous paintings to sat prep.  i will say the same thing here that i do to people who complain about the als ice bucket challenge: yes, it is silly.  but, if people in need are benefitting, then i do not have a problem with it.  if it did not exist at all, not nearly as much money would have been donated.  doing something is better than doing nothing.   #  if you give those people a place to combine their small amounts of time, it adds up.   #  you are right in that one person on freerice. com is not very effective.  but thousands of people putting in just a few minutes of effort together ? well, check out their numbers URL for yourself.  in one year, they donated nearly 0 billion grains of rice, which by your calculations, would be enough rice to feed 0 people for a year.  that is not insignificant.  lots of people do not have a significant amount of spare time or money to donate to charity.  if you give those people a place to combine their small amounts of time, it adds up.  because the donation is done through a fun game, it is fair to assume that a portion of that time would not have been donated otherwise.   #  using your math, it only takes 0k people to answer a single correct answer on the site to feed 0 adult for a day.   #  using your math, it only takes 0k people to answer a single correct answer on the site to feed 0 adult for a day.  i, and 0,0 others regardless of income only need access to the internet and an internet capable advice and to answer an elementary level question to make sure we feed one person for a day.  it only takes about 0 seconds out of your day to get set up.  then they make it incredibly easy to move on to the next question and answer it in less time.  in fact if we could get 0k people to take a mere 0 seconds out of their day to answer a few questions we could feed between 0 0 people.  even a pretty well paid guy could not do that much with the money they make in 0 seconds.  its unquestionable that if all these people were to donate money directly then they would have a greater impact but therein lies the rub.  it is a lot easier to get individual people to spend time than money.  and it is a lot easier to get groups to spend miniscule amounts of time than large amounts.  i think it is certainly wrong for anyone to act like they are solving world hunger by going to freerice. com, but to act as if it makes no difference is incorrect as well.   #  hell, all charity is  specifically designed  to be inefficient.   #  remember the global poverty level is $0/day.  so donating the equivalent of 0 cents to one of these individual is a significant boost.  remember purchasing power parity and cost of living when making these comparisons.  it is also wholly unreasonable to ask someone to work at minimum wage job to donate the entirety of the proceeds to someone.  this might not be especially efficient, but it is an effective 0 pay bump in someone is pocket.  that allows them to substitute that cash to making essential but more capital intensive purchases.  moreover if you look at the example of  fun run ,  race for the cure , or  working on a habitat house  almost all of them are inefficient use funds.  hell, all charity is  specifically designed  to be inefficient.  the point is to get  multiple uses  out of these things.  i want to feel like i accomplish something while also doing something to help, this lets that happen and increases the  total amount of charity available .   #  the rest was the point i was trying to make.   #  i was only establishing that 0 cents is not something to be discounted completely.  the rest was the point i was trying to make.  the goal is not to be  efficient , the goal is to  have fun while maybe pitching in .  that is all.  if you want to help efficiently then no charity will get you there.  the fact that you are working and giving everything to someone else is also inefficient.  the point is that this exists, is easy, and slots into the  leisure  part of time that does not involve giving up too much.  working a job to give away money is only the same sort of thing  if the job is fun and is indistinguishable from a leisure activity .  this is not  a worse version of working for charity  but  a better version of gaming because it is charity .
so when a product or string of products comes out that are not satisfactory in come capacity.  such as faulty equipment or offensive media or anything in between, and people get up set a common argument is to  vote with your wallet.   in general this argument is a very poor one unless the business in question is so small that a tiny amount of consumer loss is significant.  for companies like wal mart or ea or mcdonalds, voting with your wallet is inconsequential because for every product you refuse to buy, not only are there sufficient people that will be satisfied with it, but they are likely to buy in excess such that your proverbial wallet is accounted for in the big business is pocketbook.  this combined with a general lack of organization on the part of anyone standing in opposition to such companies, you cannot actually vote with your wallet.  your vote gets cast for you and so your outrage is further justified because effectively there is nothing that can truly be done, making  vote with your wallet.   incredibly unrealistic and so not a viable or useful argument for contributing to discussion.   #  in general this argument is a very poor one unless the business in question is so small that a tiny amount of consumer loss is significant.   #  voting with your wallet does not require that a business be destroyed.   # voting with your wallet does not require that a business be destroyed.  voting  for  a different product will encourage it is continued existence.  there are many niche products that improved because of demand votes .  so i guess you lost the vote ? would you rather the minority be able to decide the fate of a product or business ? by voting for the competition, you are paying the bills for them to survive.   #  they are happy to express their displeasure with a place, until it would require actual sacrifice on their part in the form of buying a different product apple or paying a higher price walmart .   #  that is exactly what voting with your wallet is.  you cast your one vote for or against that business in the form of shopping there or not.  and it gets added to everyone else is vote, and that decides who stays open or does not.  if you do not like walmart, do not shop there.  if they stay open, then it sounds like you lost the election, but who cares at that point ? your money is not going there.  the point is that it is a system where everyone can have what they want.  if you want a store that abides by certain ideals, then support it, and help it stay open.  if enough people agree with you, then it will do well.  if no one else does, then your recourse should not be  well, i will just go get the government to force it to change.   this is the disconnect.  everyone is happy to say how much they disagree with apple using cheap sweatshop labor. until the iphone 0 comes out.  then they ca not get in line fast enough.  the only reason this is not as effective as it could be is because, quite frankly, people are pretty spineless when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is.  they are happy to express their displeasure with a place, until it would require actual sacrifice on their part in the form of buying a different product apple or paying a higher price walmart .   #  i think you are reading far more into the argument than i actually wrote.   #  i think you are reading far more into the argument than i actually wrote.  your vote still matters when there is not a monopoly.  your vote no longer matters once there is.  that is all.  i am not making a moral judgment on the matter.  nor did i comment on the tendency for monopolies to form in the free market, which is true.  i am not sure where you took offense, or where you found the statement unrealistic.   #  sometimes companies in certain industries benefit massively from economies of scale, making it impossible for smaller companies to enter the market.   # there is no way for an oppressive monopoly to form without the help of the govt.  that is actually not always true.  sometimes companies in certain industries benefit massively from economies of scale, making it impossible for smaller companies to enter the market.  other barriers to entry may also exist that make it even harder for those companies.  look at the utilities industries, for example.  you rarely if ever see more than a couple companies operating in an area at once.  two of the biggest costs to being in one of these industries are the production and distribution networks which have to be very large in order to reach the number of people necessary to make them worth operating in the first place.  they are also insanely expensive to build from scratch.  as a result, the one or two existing companies have a huge edge over anyone else trying to enter the market, and generally retain their dominant positions in those markets.  URL  #  but you would have to have the money or get it while comcast pays off, legally now mind you, everyone who might loan you the money .   #  i did not say it would result, but it encourages people to try.  sure in an unregulated state if you wanted to make a new internet company you could just build to system.  but you would have to have the money or get it while comcast pays off, legally now mind you, everyone who might loan you the money .  and you would have to get it cheaper than comcast when they could just drop price for a year when a serious competitor appears or use other practices to make it nearly impossible for an upstart to compete .  so unless you are a google with billions banked and ready to branch out.  new businesses are not popping up everywhere.  well.  and businesses are not necessarily the fairest and freest when it comes to free markets.  they might be colluding with other companies URL or tried to force them to enforce their monopoly URL or maybe just start acting in anti competitive ways to force other companies out URL yeah.  that is all the governments fault.
you hear of this word a lot all over the news and by our political representatives especially since 0/0.  a  terrorist  is a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.  but have you ever really questioned what it takes to be considered a terrorist ? like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ? do you need to blow up buildings, kill innocent people, think a certain way, and be apart of a radical or religious group ? are you really immune as a u. s.  citizen ? how many innocent people are falsely labeled or punished ? and who gets to decide ? the problem with the war on terror is there will never be an end.  it is the perfect war.  perfect for growing the military industrial complex adding to the increase of mass surveillance, police militarization, drone strikes, and innocents being accused, imprisoned or killed.  it is a true modern day witch hunt.  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.  but as the years go by the word is being more and more loosely defined.  by using the word terrorism to fight our enemies, it has completely sheepified the population.  it simply is a lot easier to get your way as a politician if you use it.  in reality there is no black and white.  the truth is people have different interests; to them they are freedom fighters, and heroes fighting for their values.  we are probably even considered a terrorist to our terrorists.  it is clear the war on terror has failed and has led nowhere besides a never ending cycle of fighting fire with fire or violence for violence.  lets take a new perspective.  lets start educating each other about our different viewpoints and cultures.  lets once and for all end the use of the words  terrorism, and terrorist .  instead lets work towards a greater understanding of the world and each other.  the end of the never ending war starts with investment in education not the latest high tech weaponry.   #  but have you ever really questioned what it takes to be considered a terrorist ?  #  like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ?  #  you kind of dilute your argument at the end when you get into the  success  of the  war on terror , so let me focus on your title and the beginning of your post.  here is the merriam webster definition of terrorism:  : the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal  to me, that is pretty clear.  0/0 was terrorism.  they did not attack strategic targets, they tried to terrorize the us into meeting their demands.  the same is true of, say, the ira bombings in london, the boston marathon bombing, and pretty much any suicide bomber who goes into civilian areas with the intent of killing as many people as possible.  like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ? do you need to blow up buildings, kill innocent people, think a certain way, and be apart of a radical or religious group ? well, yeah, you need to target non strategic targets in a way to incite mayhem and fear to accomplish a political goal.  so, if you are just insane and think it is fun to kill people, you are not a terrorist, just a murderer without a political agenda.  if you try to blow up a military base, you are not a terrorist, you are a guerrilla fighter.   are you really immune as a u. s.  citizen ? no.  the oklahoma city bombers were terrorists.  so was the unabomber.  and who gets to decide ? the pursuit of potential terrorists is a different question.  but most people decide that those who attempt to use violent acts to cause fear to achieve political goals are, by definition, terrorists.  it is shorthand for  preventing terrorist acts , and easier than saying,  the war on al queda, al shabab, the kkk, hamas, and every other group that wants to commit terrorist acts.  perfect for growing the military industrial complex adding to the increase of mass surveillance, police militarization, drone strikes, and innocents being accused, imprisoned or killed.  yes, in the same way that  the war on crime  or  the war on poverty  will never be  won .  but just because you ca not declare victory does not mean you should not fight it.  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.  no, a  witch hunt  implies that you are searching for imaginary enemies.  that is simply not true.  there are real live people out there who want to blow up americans, the more the better.  there are americans leaving to fight in the middle east who may come back and use what they have learned.  this is not just some bogus red scare stuff, there are people who want you dead, simply for being an american.  and terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tool.  but it is a tool that people are willing to use.  do you have any examples of this ? i do not think that osama bin laden planned 0/0 because he felt he was not understood.  i agree in theory that we need to consider the consequences of our actions, and not make enemies needlessly, but we live in a dangerous world.  dropping all our weapons and welcoming them with open arms would not end well.   #  i do not think that in general it is a consistently misused term just because a footballer misuses it does not really support the claim.   # not at all.  sending in my troops to kill your troops is not  terrorism , it is war.  you can certainly argue that the london blitz and hiroshima were terrorist acts, but those are outliers, where the idea was to kill civilians to demoralize them.  the vast majority of wars are about killing troops.  evo morales called israel a  terrorist state .  so it seems like the word has no consistent definition.  people misuse terms all the time.  i have even heard that occasionally on the internet people are even called nazis when they are not actually nazis.  i do not think that in general it is a consistently misused term just because a footballer misuses it does not really support the claim.   #  i am not  playing games with semantics  any more than the op is.   # i am not  playing games with semantics  any more than the op is.  the whole point of this cmv is to discuss the use of words i. e.  semantics .  being precise hardly seems like going overboard in that context.  the vast majority of wars are about killing troops.  us military doctrine in the iraq war was literally called  shock and awe .  as in, using a massive display of violence to completely demoralize the enemy.  you could say the same about the dresden bombings, or the campaign of firebombing throughout japan, or pearl harbor, or as you pointed out the london rocket attacks.  was every nation in wwii a terrorist state ? in fact, i would claim that in the  vast majority of wars , civilians  were not  so protected.   #  a terrorist generally wants the us out of palestine, or the uk out of ireland, or india out of tamil.   #  my point was that terrorism is about striking fear into the hearts of the people, not the soldiers.  i am assuming that since you did not dispute that, then you agree.  as for shock and awe, unlike a terrorist attack, it was not aimed at civilian casualties.  the intent was to get the iraqi military to see how hopelessly outmatched they were so that they would give up without a struggle.  granted, it was also intended to convince the homefront that  resistance is futile , but the purpose was a military rather than political objective.  there is also implicit in the idea of terrorism the threat of death by papercuts.  it is never a force with the ability to obliterate their opponent, and due to their relative weakness, the idea is to inflict relatively minor, yet painful wounds enough to make their adversary decide not to keep doing what they are doing.  a terrorist generally wants the us out of palestine, or the uk out of ireland, or india out of tamil.  in a war, you want to other country to surrender so while many of the actions in war create fear and are evil i do not think terrorist is an appropriate label.   #  i am disappointed that he chose this path, but i see it more a sign of his weakness of will than an evil intent to control.   # or you could just copy this without the   and say how your view was changed:    anyway.   what if all this war is just due to lack of education and awareness, propaganda, or being brainwashed by religion or radical groups does that make them a terrorist or what they were raised to do beyond their will ? i am not sure how you can be brainwashed to the extent that part of you does not understand that destroying a building full of people including children by crashing a plane full of people into it is wrong.  especially since the 0/0 perpetrators lived among americans for months or years.  they saw kids playing in their yards, people waving to them on their way to work, being  people  yet they still thought that they deserved death.  that is not like war, where you get to dehumanize the enemy, and are put in a kill or be killed situation.  the calmly and deliberately went about the task of slaughter.  and if you said,  cmv: we ca not abandon civil rights when preventing terrorism , i would agree with you but that is a different cmv.  how are we being controlled ? i think what is more likely is that while obama came in sincerely repulsed by bush is tactics, when he realized that he was responsible for preventing another 0/0, it got a lot harder to stand on principle.  knowing how bad some of the bad people are, i think it is easier to err on the side of compromising your values for the sake of keeping those you are responsible for safe.  honestly, it is something that i struggle with as well as a parent of teens how to balance giving them freedom and keep them safe .  i am disappointed that he chose this path, but i see it more a sign of his weakness of will than an evil intent to control.  and how are we being controled ? by whom ? to do what ? most of the world is better nice : and it is a nice world.  i sincerely believe most people in fact the vast majority of people are good, just want to be left alone to raise safe, happy families and muddle through the best they can.  the problem is that those are not the people choosing where to point the guns.
you hear of this word a lot all over the news and by our political representatives especially since 0/0.  a  terrorist  is a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.  but have you ever really questioned what it takes to be considered a terrorist ? like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ? do you need to blow up buildings, kill innocent people, think a certain way, and be apart of a radical or religious group ? are you really immune as a u. s.  citizen ? how many innocent people are falsely labeled or punished ? and who gets to decide ? the problem with the war on terror is there will never be an end.  it is the perfect war.  perfect for growing the military industrial complex adding to the increase of mass surveillance, police militarization, drone strikes, and innocents being accused, imprisoned or killed.  it is a true modern day witch hunt.  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.  but as the years go by the word is being more and more loosely defined.  by using the word terrorism to fight our enemies, it has completely sheepified the population.  it simply is a lot easier to get your way as a politician if you use it.  in reality there is no black and white.  the truth is people have different interests; to them they are freedom fighters, and heroes fighting for their values.  we are probably even considered a terrorist to our terrorists.  it is clear the war on terror has failed and has led nowhere besides a never ending cycle of fighting fire with fire or violence for violence.  lets take a new perspective.  lets start educating each other about our different viewpoints and cultures.  lets once and for all end the use of the words  terrorism, and terrorist .  instead lets work towards a greater understanding of the world and each other.  the end of the never ending war starts with investment in education not the latest high tech weaponry.   #  the problem with the war on terror is there will never be an end.   #  it is shorthand for  preventing terrorist acts , and easier than saying,  the war on al queda, al shabab, the kkk, hamas, and every other group that wants to commit terrorist acts.   #  you kind of dilute your argument at the end when you get into the  success  of the  war on terror , so let me focus on your title and the beginning of your post.  here is the merriam webster definition of terrorism:  : the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal  to me, that is pretty clear.  0/0 was terrorism.  they did not attack strategic targets, they tried to terrorize the us into meeting their demands.  the same is true of, say, the ira bombings in london, the boston marathon bombing, and pretty much any suicide bomber who goes into civilian areas with the intent of killing as many people as possible.  like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ? do you need to blow up buildings, kill innocent people, think a certain way, and be apart of a radical or religious group ? well, yeah, you need to target non strategic targets in a way to incite mayhem and fear to accomplish a political goal.  so, if you are just insane and think it is fun to kill people, you are not a terrorist, just a murderer without a political agenda.  if you try to blow up a military base, you are not a terrorist, you are a guerrilla fighter.   are you really immune as a u. s.  citizen ? no.  the oklahoma city bombers were terrorists.  so was the unabomber.  and who gets to decide ? the pursuit of potential terrorists is a different question.  but most people decide that those who attempt to use violent acts to cause fear to achieve political goals are, by definition, terrorists.  it is shorthand for  preventing terrorist acts , and easier than saying,  the war on al queda, al shabab, the kkk, hamas, and every other group that wants to commit terrorist acts.  perfect for growing the military industrial complex adding to the increase of mass surveillance, police militarization, drone strikes, and innocents being accused, imprisoned or killed.  yes, in the same way that  the war on crime  or  the war on poverty  will never be  won .  but just because you ca not declare victory does not mean you should not fight it.  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.  no, a  witch hunt  implies that you are searching for imaginary enemies.  that is simply not true.  there are real live people out there who want to blow up americans, the more the better.  there are americans leaving to fight in the middle east who may come back and use what they have learned.  this is not just some bogus red scare stuff, there are people who want you dead, simply for being an american.  and terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tool.  but it is a tool that people are willing to use.  do you have any examples of this ? i do not think that osama bin laden planned 0/0 because he felt he was not understood.  i agree in theory that we need to consider the consequences of our actions, and not make enemies needlessly, but we live in a dangerous world.  dropping all our weapons and welcoming them with open arms would not end well.   #  so it seems like the word has no consistent definition.   # not at all.  sending in my troops to kill your troops is not  terrorism , it is war.  you can certainly argue that the london blitz and hiroshima were terrorist acts, but those are outliers, where the idea was to kill civilians to demoralize them.  the vast majority of wars are about killing troops.  evo morales called israel a  terrorist state .  so it seems like the word has no consistent definition.  people misuse terms all the time.  i have even heard that occasionally on the internet people are even called nazis when they are not actually nazis.  i do not think that in general it is a consistently misused term just because a footballer misuses it does not really support the claim.   #  being precise hardly seems like going overboard in that context.   # i am not  playing games with semantics  any more than the op is.  the whole point of this cmv is to discuss the use of words i. e.  semantics .  being precise hardly seems like going overboard in that context.  the vast majority of wars are about killing troops.  us military doctrine in the iraq war was literally called  shock and awe .  as in, using a massive display of violence to completely demoralize the enemy.  you could say the same about the dresden bombings, or the campaign of firebombing throughout japan, or pearl harbor, or as you pointed out the london rocket attacks.  was every nation in wwii a terrorist state ? in fact, i would claim that in the  vast majority of wars , civilians  were not  so protected.   #  there is also implicit in the idea of terrorism the threat of death by papercuts.   #  my point was that terrorism is about striking fear into the hearts of the people, not the soldiers.  i am assuming that since you did not dispute that, then you agree.  as for shock and awe, unlike a terrorist attack, it was not aimed at civilian casualties.  the intent was to get the iraqi military to see how hopelessly outmatched they were so that they would give up without a struggle.  granted, it was also intended to convince the homefront that  resistance is futile , but the purpose was a military rather than political objective.  there is also implicit in the idea of terrorism the threat of death by papercuts.  it is never a force with the ability to obliterate their opponent, and due to their relative weakness, the idea is to inflict relatively minor, yet painful wounds enough to make their adversary decide not to keep doing what they are doing.  a terrorist generally wants the us out of palestine, or the uk out of ireland, or india out of tamil.  in a war, you want to other country to surrender so while many of the actions in war create fear and are evil i do not think terrorist is an appropriate label.   #  i am disappointed that he chose this path, but i see it more a sign of his weakness of will than an evil intent to control.   # or you could just copy this without the   and say how your view was changed:    anyway.   what if all this war is just due to lack of education and awareness, propaganda, or being brainwashed by religion or radical groups does that make them a terrorist or what they were raised to do beyond their will ? i am not sure how you can be brainwashed to the extent that part of you does not understand that destroying a building full of people including children by crashing a plane full of people into it is wrong.  especially since the 0/0 perpetrators lived among americans for months or years.  they saw kids playing in their yards, people waving to them on their way to work, being  people  yet they still thought that they deserved death.  that is not like war, where you get to dehumanize the enemy, and are put in a kill or be killed situation.  the calmly and deliberately went about the task of slaughter.  and if you said,  cmv: we ca not abandon civil rights when preventing terrorism , i would agree with you but that is a different cmv.  how are we being controlled ? i think what is more likely is that while obama came in sincerely repulsed by bush is tactics, when he realized that he was responsible for preventing another 0/0, it got a lot harder to stand on principle.  knowing how bad some of the bad people are, i think it is easier to err on the side of compromising your values for the sake of keeping those you are responsible for safe.  honestly, it is something that i struggle with as well as a parent of teens how to balance giving them freedom and keep them safe .  i am disappointed that he chose this path, but i see it more a sign of his weakness of will than an evil intent to control.  and how are we being controled ? by whom ? to do what ? most of the world is better nice : and it is a nice world.  i sincerely believe most people in fact the vast majority of people are good, just want to be left alone to raise safe, happy families and muddle through the best they can.  the problem is that those are not the people choosing where to point the guns.
you hear of this word a lot all over the news and by our political representatives especially since 0/0.  a  terrorist  is a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.  but have you ever really questioned what it takes to be considered a terrorist ? like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ? do you need to blow up buildings, kill innocent people, think a certain way, and be apart of a radical or religious group ? are you really immune as a u. s.  citizen ? how many innocent people are falsely labeled or punished ? and who gets to decide ? the problem with the war on terror is there will never be an end.  it is the perfect war.  perfect for growing the military industrial complex adding to the increase of mass surveillance, police militarization, drone strikes, and innocents being accused, imprisoned or killed.  it is a true modern day witch hunt.  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.  but as the years go by the word is being more and more loosely defined.  by using the word terrorism to fight our enemies, it has completely sheepified the population.  it simply is a lot easier to get your way as a politician if you use it.  in reality there is no black and white.  the truth is people have different interests; to them they are freedom fighters, and heroes fighting for their values.  we are probably even considered a terrorist to our terrorists.  it is clear the war on terror has failed and has led nowhere besides a never ending cycle of fighting fire with fire or violence for violence.  lets take a new perspective.  lets start educating each other about our different viewpoints and cultures.  lets once and for all end the use of the words  terrorism, and terrorist .  instead lets work towards a greater understanding of the world and each other.  the end of the never ending war starts with investment in education not the latest high tech weaponry.   #  it is a true modern day witch hunt.   #  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.   #  you kind of dilute your argument at the end when you get into the  success  of the  war on terror , so let me focus on your title and the beginning of your post.  here is the merriam webster definition of terrorism:  : the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal  to me, that is pretty clear.  0/0 was terrorism.  they did not attack strategic targets, they tried to terrorize the us into meeting their demands.  the same is true of, say, the ira bombings in london, the boston marathon bombing, and pretty much any suicide bomber who goes into civilian areas with the intent of killing as many people as possible.  like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ? do you need to blow up buildings, kill innocent people, think a certain way, and be apart of a radical or religious group ? well, yeah, you need to target non strategic targets in a way to incite mayhem and fear to accomplish a political goal.  so, if you are just insane and think it is fun to kill people, you are not a terrorist, just a murderer without a political agenda.  if you try to blow up a military base, you are not a terrorist, you are a guerrilla fighter.   are you really immune as a u. s.  citizen ? no.  the oklahoma city bombers were terrorists.  so was the unabomber.  and who gets to decide ? the pursuit of potential terrorists is a different question.  but most people decide that those who attempt to use violent acts to cause fear to achieve political goals are, by definition, terrorists.  it is shorthand for  preventing terrorist acts , and easier than saying,  the war on al queda, al shabab, the kkk, hamas, and every other group that wants to commit terrorist acts.  perfect for growing the military industrial complex adding to the increase of mass surveillance, police militarization, drone strikes, and innocents being accused, imprisoned or killed.  yes, in the same way that  the war on crime  or  the war on poverty  will never be  won .  but just because you ca not declare victory does not mean you should not fight it.  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.  no, a  witch hunt  implies that you are searching for imaginary enemies.  that is simply not true.  there are real live people out there who want to blow up americans, the more the better.  there are americans leaving to fight in the middle east who may come back and use what they have learned.  this is not just some bogus red scare stuff, there are people who want you dead, simply for being an american.  and terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tool.  but it is a tool that people are willing to use.  do you have any examples of this ? i do not think that osama bin laden planned 0/0 because he felt he was not understood.  i agree in theory that we need to consider the consequences of our actions, and not make enemies needlessly, but we live in a dangerous world.  dropping all our weapons and welcoming them with open arms would not end well.   #  you can certainly argue that the london blitz and hiroshima were terrorist acts, but those are outliers, where the idea was to kill civilians to demoralize them.   # not at all.  sending in my troops to kill your troops is not  terrorism , it is war.  you can certainly argue that the london blitz and hiroshima were terrorist acts, but those are outliers, where the idea was to kill civilians to demoralize them.  the vast majority of wars are about killing troops.  evo morales called israel a  terrorist state .  so it seems like the word has no consistent definition.  people misuse terms all the time.  i have even heard that occasionally on the internet people are even called nazis when they are not actually nazis.  i do not think that in general it is a consistently misused term just because a footballer misuses it does not really support the claim.   #  you could say the same about the dresden bombings, or the campaign of firebombing throughout japan, or pearl harbor, or as you pointed out the london rocket attacks.   # i am not  playing games with semantics  any more than the op is.  the whole point of this cmv is to discuss the use of words i. e.  semantics .  being precise hardly seems like going overboard in that context.  the vast majority of wars are about killing troops.  us military doctrine in the iraq war was literally called  shock and awe .  as in, using a massive display of violence to completely demoralize the enemy.  you could say the same about the dresden bombings, or the campaign of firebombing throughout japan, or pearl harbor, or as you pointed out the london rocket attacks.  was every nation in wwii a terrorist state ? in fact, i would claim that in the  vast majority of wars , civilians  were not  so protected.   #  granted, it was also intended to convince the homefront that  resistance is futile , but the purpose was a military rather than political objective.   #  my point was that terrorism is about striking fear into the hearts of the people, not the soldiers.  i am assuming that since you did not dispute that, then you agree.  as for shock and awe, unlike a terrorist attack, it was not aimed at civilian casualties.  the intent was to get the iraqi military to see how hopelessly outmatched they were so that they would give up without a struggle.  granted, it was also intended to convince the homefront that  resistance is futile , but the purpose was a military rather than political objective.  there is also implicit in the idea of terrorism the threat of death by papercuts.  it is never a force with the ability to obliterate their opponent, and due to their relative weakness, the idea is to inflict relatively minor, yet painful wounds enough to make their adversary decide not to keep doing what they are doing.  a terrorist generally wants the us out of palestine, or the uk out of ireland, or india out of tamil.  in a war, you want to other country to surrender so while many of the actions in war create fear and are evil i do not think terrorist is an appropriate label.   #  the calmly and deliberately went about the task of slaughter.   # or you could just copy this without the   and say how your view was changed:    anyway.   what if all this war is just due to lack of education and awareness, propaganda, or being brainwashed by religion or radical groups does that make them a terrorist or what they were raised to do beyond their will ? i am not sure how you can be brainwashed to the extent that part of you does not understand that destroying a building full of people including children by crashing a plane full of people into it is wrong.  especially since the 0/0 perpetrators lived among americans for months or years.  they saw kids playing in their yards, people waving to them on their way to work, being  people  yet they still thought that they deserved death.  that is not like war, where you get to dehumanize the enemy, and are put in a kill or be killed situation.  the calmly and deliberately went about the task of slaughter.  and if you said,  cmv: we ca not abandon civil rights when preventing terrorism , i would agree with you but that is a different cmv.  how are we being controlled ? i think what is more likely is that while obama came in sincerely repulsed by bush is tactics, when he realized that he was responsible for preventing another 0/0, it got a lot harder to stand on principle.  knowing how bad some of the bad people are, i think it is easier to err on the side of compromising your values for the sake of keeping those you are responsible for safe.  honestly, it is something that i struggle with as well as a parent of teens how to balance giving them freedom and keep them safe .  i am disappointed that he chose this path, but i see it more a sign of his weakness of will than an evil intent to control.  and how are we being controled ? by whom ? to do what ? most of the world is better nice : and it is a nice world.  i sincerely believe most people in fact the vast majority of people are good, just want to be left alone to raise safe, happy families and muddle through the best they can.  the problem is that those are not the people choosing where to point the guns.
you hear of this word a lot all over the news and by our political representatives especially since 0/0.  a  terrorist  is a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.  but have you ever really questioned what it takes to be considered a terrorist ? like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ? do you need to blow up buildings, kill innocent people, think a certain way, and be apart of a radical or religious group ? are you really immune as a u. s.  citizen ? how many innocent people are falsely labeled or punished ? and who gets to decide ? the problem with the war on terror is there will never be an end.  it is the perfect war.  perfect for growing the military industrial complex adding to the increase of mass surveillance, police militarization, drone strikes, and innocents being accused, imprisoned or killed.  it is a true modern day witch hunt.  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.  but as the years go by the word is being more and more loosely defined.  by using the word terrorism to fight our enemies, it has completely sheepified the population.  it simply is a lot easier to get your way as a politician if you use it.  in reality there is no black and white.  the truth is people have different interests; to them they are freedom fighters, and heroes fighting for their values.  we are probably even considered a terrorist to our terrorists.  it is clear the war on terror has failed and has led nowhere besides a never ending cycle of fighting fire with fire or violence for violence.  lets take a new perspective.  lets start educating each other about our different viewpoints and cultures.  lets once and for all end the use of the words  terrorism, and terrorist .  instead lets work towards a greater understanding of the world and each other.  the end of the never ending war starts with investment in education not the latest high tech weaponry.   #  but as the years go by the word is being more and more loosely defined.   #  do you have any examples of this ?  #  you kind of dilute your argument at the end when you get into the  success  of the  war on terror , so let me focus on your title and the beginning of your post.  here is the merriam webster definition of terrorism:  : the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal  to me, that is pretty clear.  0/0 was terrorism.  they did not attack strategic targets, they tried to terrorize the us into meeting their demands.  the same is true of, say, the ira bombings in london, the boston marathon bombing, and pretty much any suicide bomber who goes into civilian areas with the intent of killing as many people as possible.  like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ? do you need to blow up buildings, kill innocent people, think a certain way, and be apart of a radical or religious group ? well, yeah, you need to target non strategic targets in a way to incite mayhem and fear to accomplish a political goal.  so, if you are just insane and think it is fun to kill people, you are not a terrorist, just a murderer without a political agenda.  if you try to blow up a military base, you are not a terrorist, you are a guerrilla fighter.   are you really immune as a u. s.  citizen ? no.  the oklahoma city bombers were terrorists.  so was the unabomber.  and who gets to decide ? the pursuit of potential terrorists is a different question.  but most people decide that those who attempt to use violent acts to cause fear to achieve political goals are, by definition, terrorists.  it is shorthand for  preventing terrorist acts , and easier than saying,  the war on al queda, al shabab, the kkk, hamas, and every other group that wants to commit terrorist acts.  perfect for growing the military industrial complex adding to the increase of mass surveillance, police militarization, drone strikes, and innocents being accused, imprisoned or killed.  yes, in the same way that  the war on crime  or  the war on poverty  will never be  won .  but just because you ca not declare victory does not mean you should not fight it.  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.  no, a  witch hunt  implies that you are searching for imaginary enemies.  that is simply not true.  there are real live people out there who want to blow up americans, the more the better.  there are americans leaving to fight in the middle east who may come back and use what they have learned.  this is not just some bogus red scare stuff, there are people who want you dead, simply for being an american.  and terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tool.  but it is a tool that people are willing to use.  do you have any examples of this ? i do not think that osama bin laden planned 0/0 because he felt he was not understood.  i agree in theory that we need to consider the consequences of our actions, and not make enemies needlessly, but we live in a dangerous world.  dropping all our weapons and welcoming them with open arms would not end well.   #  sending in my troops to kill your troops is not  terrorism , it is war.   # not at all.  sending in my troops to kill your troops is not  terrorism , it is war.  you can certainly argue that the london blitz and hiroshima were terrorist acts, but those are outliers, where the idea was to kill civilians to demoralize them.  the vast majority of wars are about killing troops.  evo morales called israel a  terrorist state .  so it seems like the word has no consistent definition.  people misuse terms all the time.  i have even heard that occasionally on the internet people are even called nazis when they are not actually nazis.  i do not think that in general it is a consistently misused term just because a footballer misuses it does not really support the claim.   #  was every nation in wwii a terrorist state ?  # i am not  playing games with semantics  any more than the op is.  the whole point of this cmv is to discuss the use of words i. e.  semantics .  being precise hardly seems like going overboard in that context.  the vast majority of wars are about killing troops.  us military doctrine in the iraq war was literally called  shock and awe .  as in, using a massive display of violence to completely demoralize the enemy.  you could say the same about the dresden bombings, or the campaign of firebombing throughout japan, or pearl harbor, or as you pointed out the london rocket attacks.  was every nation in wwii a terrorist state ? in fact, i would claim that in the  vast majority of wars , civilians  were not  so protected.   #  my point was that terrorism is about striking fear into the hearts of the people, not the soldiers.   #  my point was that terrorism is about striking fear into the hearts of the people, not the soldiers.  i am assuming that since you did not dispute that, then you agree.  as for shock and awe, unlike a terrorist attack, it was not aimed at civilian casualties.  the intent was to get the iraqi military to see how hopelessly outmatched they were so that they would give up without a struggle.  granted, it was also intended to convince the homefront that  resistance is futile , but the purpose was a military rather than political objective.  there is also implicit in the idea of terrorism the threat of death by papercuts.  it is never a force with the ability to obliterate their opponent, and due to their relative weakness, the idea is to inflict relatively minor, yet painful wounds enough to make their adversary decide not to keep doing what they are doing.  a terrorist generally wants the us out of palestine, or the uk out of ireland, or india out of tamil.  in a war, you want to other country to surrender so while many of the actions in war create fear and are evil i do not think terrorist is an appropriate label.   #  most of the world is better nice : and it is a nice world.   # or you could just copy this without the   and say how your view was changed:    anyway.   what if all this war is just due to lack of education and awareness, propaganda, or being brainwashed by religion or radical groups does that make them a terrorist or what they were raised to do beyond their will ? i am not sure how you can be brainwashed to the extent that part of you does not understand that destroying a building full of people including children by crashing a plane full of people into it is wrong.  especially since the 0/0 perpetrators lived among americans for months or years.  they saw kids playing in their yards, people waving to them on their way to work, being  people  yet they still thought that they deserved death.  that is not like war, where you get to dehumanize the enemy, and are put in a kill or be killed situation.  the calmly and deliberately went about the task of slaughter.  and if you said,  cmv: we ca not abandon civil rights when preventing terrorism , i would agree with you but that is a different cmv.  how are we being controlled ? i think what is more likely is that while obama came in sincerely repulsed by bush is tactics, when he realized that he was responsible for preventing another 0/0, it got a lot harder to stand on principle.  knowing how bad some of the bad people are, i think it is easier to err on the side of compromising your values for the sake of keeping those you are responsible for safe.  honestly, it is something that i struggle with as well as a parent of teens how to balance giving them freedom and keep them safe .  i am disappointed that he chose this path, but i see it more a sign of his weakness of will than an evil intent to control.  and how are we being controled ? by whom ? to do what ? most of the world is better nice : and it is a nice world.  i sincerely believe most people in fact the vast majority of people are good, just want to be left alone to raise safe, happy families and muddle through the best they can.  the problem is that those are not the people choosing where to point the guns.
you hear of this word a lot all over the news and by our political representatives especially since 0/0.  a  terrorist  is a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.  but have you ever really questioned what it takes to be considered a terrorist ? like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ? do you need to blow up buildings, kill innocent people, think a certain way, and be apart of a radical or religious group ? are you really immune as a u. s.  citizen ? how many innocent people are falsely labeled or punished ? and who gets to decide ? the problem with the war on terror is there will never be an end.  it is the perfect war.  perfect for growing the military industrial complex adding to the increase of mass surveillance, police militarization, drone strikes, and innocents being accused, imprisoned or killed.  it is a true modern day witch hunt.  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.  but as the years go by the word is being more and more loosely defined.  by using the word terrorism to fight our enemies, it has completely sheepified the population.  it simply is a lot easier to get your way as a politician if you use it.  in reality there is no black and white.  the truth is people have different interests; to them they are freedom fighters, and heroes fighting for their values.  we are probably even considered a terrorist to our terrorists.  it is clear the war on terror has failed and has led nowhere besides a never ending cycle of fighting fire with fire or violence for violence.  lets take a new perspective.  lets start educating each other about our different viewpoints and cultures.  lets once and for all end the use of the words  terrorism, and terrorist .  instead lets work towards a greater understanding of the world and each other.  the end of the never ending war starts with investment in education not the latest high tech weaponry.   #  lets start educating each other about our different viewpoints and cultures.   #  i do not think that osama bin laden planned 0/0 because he felt he was not understood.   #  you kind of dilute your argument at the end when you get into the  success  of the  war on terror , so let me focus on your title and the beginning of your post.  here is the merriam webster definition of terrorism:  : the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal  to me, that is pretty clear.  0/0 was terrorism.  they did not attack strategic targets, they tried to terrorize the us into meeting their demands.  the same is true of, say, the ira bombings in london, the boston marathon bombing, and pretty much any suicide bomber who goes into civilian areas with the intent of killing as many people as possible.  like what do you have to do exactly to be labeled as one ? do you need to blow up buildings, kill innocent people, think a certain way, and be apart of a radical or religious group ? well, yeah, you need to target non strategic targets in a way to incite mayhem and fear to accomplish a political goal.  so, if you are just insane and think it is fun to kill people, you are not a terrorist, just a murderer without a political agenda.  if you try to blow up a military base, you are not a terrorist, you are a guerrilla fighter.   are you really immune as a u. s.  citizen ? no.  the oklahoma city bombers were terrorists.  so was the unabomber.  and who gets to decide ? the pursuit of potential terrorists is a different question.  but most people decide that those who attempt to use violent acts to cause fear to achieve political goals are, by definition, terrorists.  it is shorthand for  preventing terrorist acts , and easier than saying,  the war on al queda, al shabab, the kkk, hamas, and every other group that wants to commit terrorist acts.  perfect for growing the military industrial complex adding to the increase of mass surveillance, police militarization, drone strikes, and innocents being accused, imprisoned or killed.  yes, in the same way that  the war on crime  or  the war on poverty  will never be  won .  but just because you ca not declare victory does not mean you should not fight it.  there will always be a  terrorist  because terrorism is an ideology.  no, a  witch hunt  implies that you are searching for imaginary enemies.  that is simply not true.  there are real live people out there who want to blow up americans, the more the better.  there are americans leaving to fight in the middle east who may come back and use what they have learned.  this is not just some bogus red scare stuff, there are people who want you dead, simply for being an american.  and terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tool.  but it is a tool that people are willing to use.  do you have any examples of this ? i do not think that osama bin laden planned 0/0 because he felt he was not understood.  i agree in theory that we need to consider the consequences of our actions, and not make enemies needlessly, but we live in a dangerous world.  dropping all our weapons and welcoming them with open arms would not end well.   #  i have even heard that occasionally on the internet people are even called nazis when they are not actually nazis.   # not at all.  sending in my troops to kill your troops is not  terrorism , it is war.  you can certainly argue that the london blitz and hiroshima were terrorist acts, but those are outliers, where the idea was to kill civilians to demoralize them.  the vast majority of wars are about killing troops.  evo morales called israel a  terrorist state .  so it seems like the word has no consistent definition.  people misuse terms all the time.  i have even heard that occasionally on the internet people are even called nazis when they are not actually nazis.  i do not think that in general it is a consistently misused term just because a footballer misuses it does not really support the claim.   #  i am not  playing games with semantics  any more than the op is.   # i am not  playing games with semantics  any more than the op is.  the whole point of this cmv is to discuss the use of words i. e.  semantics .  being precise hardly seems like going overboard in that context.  the vast majority of wars are about killing troops.  us military doctrine in the iraq war was literally called  shock and awe .  as in, using a massive display of violence to completely demoralize the enemy.  you could say the same about the dresden bombings, or the campaign of firebombing throughout japan, or pearl harbor, or as you pointed out the london rocket attacks.  was every nation in wwii a terrorist state ? in fact, i would claim that in the  vast majority of wars , civilians  were not  so protected.   #  granted, it was also intended to convince the homefront that  resistance is futile , but the purpose was a military rather than political objective.   #  my point was that terrorism is about striking fear into the hearts of the people, not the soldiers.  i am assuming that since you did not dispute that, then you agree.  as for shock and awe, unlike a terrorist attack, it was not aimed at civilian casualties.  the intent was to get the iraqi military to see how hopelessly outmatched they were so that they would give up without a struggle.  granted, it was also intended to convince the homefront that  resistance is futile , but the purpose was a military rather than political objective.  there is also implicit in the idea of terrorism the threat of death by papercuts.  it is never a force with the ability to obliterate their opponent, and due to their relative weakness, the idea is to inflict relatively minor, yet painful wounds enough to make their adversary decide not to keep doing what they are doing.  a terrorist generally wants the us out of palestine, or the uk out of ireland, or india out of tamil.  in a war, you want to other country to surrender so while many of the actions in war create fear and are evil i do not think terrorist is an appropriate label.   #  that is not like war, where you get to dehumanize the enemy, and are put in a kill or be killed situation.   # or you could just copy this without the   and say how your view was changed:    anyway.   what if all this war is just due to lack of education and awareness, propaganda, or being brainwashed by religion or radical groups does that make them a terrorist or what they were raised to do beyond their will ? i am not sure how you can be brainwashed to the extent that part of you does not understand that destroying a building full of people including children by crashing a plane full of people into it is wrong.  especially since the 0/0 perpetrators lived among americans for months or years.  they saw kids playing in their yards, people waving to them on their way to work, being  people  yet they still thought that they deserved death.  that is not like war, where you get to dehumanize the enemy, and are put in a kill or be killed situation.  the calmly and deliberately went about the task of slaughter.  and if you said,  cmv: we ca not abandon civil rights when preventing terrorism , i would agree with you but that is a different cmv.  how are we being controlled ? i think what is more likely is that while obama came in sincerely repulsed by bush is tactics, when he realized that he was responsible for preventing another 0/0, it got a lot harder to stand on principle.  knowing how bad some of the bad people are, i think it is easier to err on the side of compromising your values for the sake of keeping those you are responsible for safe.  honestly, it is something that i struggle with as well as a parent of teens how to balance giving them freedom and keep them safe .  i am disappointed that he chose this path, but i see it more a sign of his weakness of will than an evil intent to control.  and how are we being controled ? by whom ? to do what ? most of the world is better nice : and it is a nice world.  i sincerely believe most people in fact the vast majority of people are good, just want to be left alone to raise safe, happy families and muddle through the best they can.  the problem is that those are not the people choosing where to point the guns.
every single day there is a new news story about asshole kids committing some violent crime or another.  the 0 0 year olds who recorded themselves repeatedly assaulting a mentally handicapped man.  the kid in texas who was drunk and ran the truck into people on the roadside killing many of them.  the affluenza kid .  the 0 0 year olds that drove an autistic kid up bridge girders and threw rocks until they knocked him off and paralyzed him.  the teenage bastards that play the knockout game.  the 0 and 0 year old animals who lured an 0 year old girl to steal her bike, then sexually assaulted her, strangled her to death, and dumped her body in a neighbor is trash can.  on and on and on.  and every one of them gets or will get reduced slap on the wrist type sentences, if that.  it is time to end this madness.  reddit is always gung ho to say that teens are smarter than given credit for.  that age of consent laws should be lowered because kids know what they are doing.  well if that is the case, then these little monsters also know what they are doing and need to be held accountable for the crimes they commit.  it is time that they be charged as adults for violent crimes.  murder.  assault.  rape.  vehicular homicide.  gang violence.  armed robbery.  hate crimes.  whatever fits the bill.  it is time the sentences reflect the crime as well.  if a 0 year old kills somebody and the adult sentence would be 0 years, then the sentence should be 0 years in juvenile detention until they turn 0, then transferred to prison for the last 0.  i do not care one bit about their background.  their upbringing.  their mommy issues or daddy not being around.  i do not care one bit about their racial struggles, their economic problems, or their peer pressure.  none of that matters a bit compared to the crimes that they have inflicted upon another.  if they are that broken by the struggles of life and growing up, then they are too broken to be out among society.  i do not care about their mental health.  if they are legally retarded or their lawyer is claiming they are to get them off then they are violent, out of control, and not mentally competent to be out among the citizenry.  they can stay locked up where they are guaranteed to get and take their medications and not hurt anybody else.  i do not care about the financial aspect on tax payers either.  i do not mind one little bit if my tax dollars are used to effectively keep murdering savages locked up behind bars where they can only hurt, rape, and kill each other.  some of you may say,   what about the bullied kid who finally has enough and shoots his bully ?    to that, i say that he can attempt a legal defense of self defense if he wants to but he still needs to be tried as an adult.  there are a bazillion other kids who grew up bullied without resorting to murder to get through it.  i chose 0 years old because it is an arbitrary pre teen age to go by.  to be perfectly honest, i would be just as happy to see 0 and over tried as adults.  you ca not honestly tell me that even an 0 year old does not know that killing a person is wrong, so i guarantee you that a 0 year old knows.  so does this sound cold ? heartless ? good.  i make no apologies for it.  i feel that it is the bleeding heart molly coddling, everybody gets a trophy approach to child rearing and lack of discipline of children that is to blame for the wave of out of control, mean spirited, entitled, viciously uncaring children.   #  and every one of them gets or will get reduced slap on the wrist type sentences, if that.   #  this is another example of selection bias.   # this is selection bias.  the number of 0 year olds that you encounter on reddit are a very small percentage of all 0 year olds, and to assume that they truly grasp the implications of violent crime which many have never actually encountered is short sighted.  despite the many differing opinions offered on reddit, the community is pretty homogeneous, overall.  i will describe the  average  user, in my mind:   white   male   american   college aged   grew up in suburbia   played lots of video games   tech savvy   enjoys science/neil degrasse tyson/bill nye    above average  intelligence   mildly introverted how closely does that fit you ? how closely do you think it fits the people you encounter on reddit ? this is another example of selection bias.  the only reason you heard about the  affluenza  kid was because it was so ridiculous.  if he had been sentenced like an adult, it would have never made the news.  there are thousands upon thousands of cases a year where kids have the book thrown at them, but you do not hear about them.  you only hear about the outliers.  they just do not give a fuck.  a 0 year old may know right from wrong, but what makes you think a 0 year old does, which is the title of your cmv ?  #  more focus of police of officers and assets on drug crimes and the like.   #  upon reading, part of me thinks this is good news.  a part of me also notes that this is  juvenile arrests  and not  juvenile crimes .  it could be simply a matter of allocation of police resources.  more focus of police of officers and assets on drug crimes and the like.  regardless, it does not answer the question of how to try and sentence the ones who do commit violent crimes.   #  do you think that an 0 year old understands how them killing another person will affect the friends and family of their victim ?  #  if juvenile arrest rates for violent crimes have been dropping, i do not see why we all of the sudden need to start punishing them more harshly in the first place.  you say that a child as young as 0 knows that killing a person is wrong, but i do not think it is fair to assume that anyone under at least 0 truly understands the effects of such an act, or the effects of other violent crimes.  on a primitive level they may understand that committing violent crimes are bad, but i am not sure that young people truly understand the effects of certain crimes.  do you think that an 0 year old understands how them killing another person will affect the friends and family of their victim ? i do not.  do you think that a teenage rapist truly understands how their actions can psychologically damage their victim for the rest of their life ? i do not.  it is not fair to punish children for such long periods of time when they have not had enough time in their lives to truly learn how truly bad these types of crimes are above a primitive level.   #  unfortunately, it also means they get more jaded earlier.   # reddit alone is overflowing with 0 year olds that once you get past the immature humor are overflowing with knowledge and insight.  unlike generations past, they have had the world is knowledge at their fingertips.  anything they were curious about or wanted to know is right on the internet.  they are more open minded and understanding at a younger age than any generation previously.  unfortunately, it also means they get more jaded earlier.  many of these crimes are just acts of cruelty.  many but certainly not all older criminals kill or steal over money, or to feed themselves.  or maybe love and jealousy.  most of the juvenile crimes are just sheer malice, cruelty, and a total disregard for life, you may see a grown man beat up a man to steal his wallet, but you do not see them doing it to autistic people just for kicks and recording it on their cell phones to post on youtube.  and the ones who do are no more mature than a typical teenager.  no, a 0 year old knows just fine what is right and wrong.  they just do not give a fuck.   #  many but certainly not all older criminals kill or steal over money, or to feed themselves.   # reddit alone is overflowing with 0 year olds that once you get past the immature humor are overflowing with knowledge and insight.  reddit is not even close to an accurate representation of everyone who is 0 years old or younger.  many but certainly not all older criminals kill or steal over money, or to feed themselves.  or maybe love and jealousy.  most of the juvenile crimes are just sheer malice, cruelty, and a total disregard for life, you may see a grown man beat up a man to steal his wallet, but you do not see them doing it to autistic people just for kicks and recording it on their cell phones to post on youtube.  and the ones who do are no more mature than a typical teenager.  they just do not give a fuck.  this actually shows the opposite, that younger people actually don y understand the difference between right and wrong.  if they did, then these crimes would not be specific to younger people like you suggest.  it shows that younger people do not truly understand that what they are doing is wrong.  if crimes by younger people are out of cruelty as opposed to older people which are financially based like you suggest then it means that younger people have not yet learned that these crimes of cruelty are not wrong since these are crimes that are not committed by older people who have learned this.
every single day there is a new news story about asshole kids committing some violent crime or another.  the 0 0 year olds who recorded themselves repeatedly assaulting a mentally handicapped man.  the kid in texas who was drunk and ran the truck into people on the roadside killing many of them.  the affluenza kid .  the 0 0 year olds that drove an autistic kid up bridge girders and threw rocks until they knocked him off and paralyzed him.  the teenage bastards that play the knockout game.  the 0 and 0 year old animals who lured an 0 year old girl to steal her bike, then sexually assaulted her, strangled her to death, and dumped her body in a neighbor is trash can.  on and on and on.  and every one of them gets or will get reduced slap on the wrist type sentences, if that.  it is time to end this madness.  reddit is always gung ho to say that teens are smarter than given credit for.  that age of consent laws should be lowered because kids know what they are doing.  well if that is the case, then these little monsters also know what they are doing and need to be held accountable for the crimes they commit.  it is time that they be charged as adults for violent crimes.  murder.  assault.  rape.  vehicular homicide.  gang violence.  armed robbery.  hate crimes.  whatever fits the bill.  it is time the sentences reflect the crime as well.  if a 0 year old kills somebody and the adult sentence would be 0 years, then the sentence should be 0 years in juvenile detention until they turn 0, then transferred to prison for the last 0.  i do not care one bit about their background.  their upbringing.  their mommy issues or daddy not being around.  i do not care one bit about their racial struggles, their economic problems, or their peer pressure.  none of that matters a bit compared to the crimes that they have inflicted upon another.  if they are that broken by the struggles of life and growing up, then they are too broken to be out among society.  i do not care about their mental health.  if they are legally retarded or their lawyer is claiming they are to get them off then they are violent, out of control, and not mentally competent to be out among the citizenry.  they can stay locked up where they are guaranteed to get and take their medications and not hurt anybody else.  i do not care about the financial aspect on tax payers either.  i do not mind one little bit if my tax dollars are used to effectively keep murdering savages locked up behind bars where they can only hurt, rape, and kill each other.  some of you may say,   what about the bullied kid who finally has enough and shoots his bully ?    to that, i say that he can attempt a legal defense of self defense if he wants to but he still needs to be tried as an adult.  there are a bazillion other kids who grew up bullied without resorting to murder to get through it.  i chose 0 years old because it is an arbitrary pre teen age to go by.  to be perfectly honest, i would be just as happy to see 0 and over tried as adults.  you ca not honestly tell me that even an 0 year old does not know that killing a person is wrong, so i guarantee you that a 0 year old knows.  so does this sound cold ? heartless ? good.  i make no apologies for it.  i feel that it is the bleeding heart molly coddling, everybody gets a trophy approach to child rearing and lack of discipline of children that is to blame for the wave of out of control, mean spirited, entitled, viciously uncaring children.   #  i do not care about the financial aspect on tax payers either.   #  i do not mind one little bit if my tax dollars are used to effectively keep murdering savages locked up behind bars where they can only hurt, rape, and kill each other.   # heartless ? good.  i make no apologies for it.  no, you sound like you have a personal axe to grind.  you sound spiteful to the point that it calls your objectivity on the matter into question.  at 0 we do not trust people to drive cars.  we do not consider them mature enough to watch movies or play video games with graphic violence in them.  how can a person legally too young to buy fictional violence be expected to fully comprehend what it means to commit real acts of violence ? i do not mind one little bit if my tax dollars are used to effectively keep murdering savages locked up behind bars where they can only hurt, rape, and kill each other.  and that would be a valid point if you personally foot the bill for your whole government, but it is not just your tax dollars.  as long as you share that tax burden with other people who are disgusted by this idea, the financial aspect still matters.  also, you are starting too many points with  i do not care  as if personal apathy were some kind of defense of your view.  anyone can post any view and simply say that they do not care about the counterpoints, but is that the mark of a view that is open to change ?  #  regardless, it does not answer the question of how to try and sentence the ones who do commit violent crimes.   #  upon reading, part of me thinks this is good news.  a part of me also notes that this is  juvenile arrests  and not  juvenile crimes .  it could be simply a matter of allocation of police resources.  more focus of police of officers and assets on drug crimes and the like.  regardless, it does not answer the question of how to try and sentence the ones who do commit violent crimes.   #  it is not fair to punish children for such long periods of time when they have not had enough time in their lives to truly learn how truly bad these types of crimes are above a primitive level.   #  if juvenile arrest rates for violent crimes have been dropping, i do not see why we all of the sudden need to start punishing them more harshly in the first place.  you say that a child as young as 0 knows that killing a person is wrong, but i do not think it is fair to assume that anyone under at least 0 truly understands the effects of such an act, or the effects of other violent crimes.  on a primitive level they may understand that committing violent crimes are bad, but i am not sure that young people truly understand the effects of certain crimes.  do you think that an 0 year old understands how them killing another person will affect the friends and family of their victim ? i do not.  do you think that a teenage rapist truly understands how their actions can psychologically damage their victim for the rest of their life ? i do not.  it is not fair to punish children for such long periods of time when they have not had enough time in their lives to truly learn how truly bad these types of crimes are above a primitive level.   #  reddit alone is overflowing with 0 year olds that once you get past the immature humor are overflowing with knowledge and insight.   # reddit alone is overflowing with 0 year olds that once you get past the immature humor are overflowing with knowledge and insight.  unlike generations past, they have had the world is knowledge at their fingertips.  anything they were curious about or wanted to know is right on the internet.  they are more open minded and understanding at a younger age than any generation previously.  unfortunately, it also means they get more jaded earlier.  many of these crimes are just acts of cruelty.  many but certainly not all older criminals kill or steal over money, or to feed themselves.  or maybe love and jealousy.  most of the juvenile crimes are just sheer malice, cruelty, and a total disregard for life, you may see a grown man beat up a man to steal his wallet, but you do not see them doing it to autistic people just for kicks and recording it on their cell phones to post on youtube.  and the ones who do are no more mature than a typical teenager.  no, a 0 year old knows just fine what is right and wrong.  they just do not give a fuck.   #  despite the many differing opinions offered on reddit, the community is pretty homogeneous, overall.   # this is selection bias.  the number of 0 year olds that you encounter on reddit are a very small percentage of all 0 year olds, and to assume that they truly grasp the implications of violent crime which many have never actually encountered is short sighted.  despite the many differing opinions offered on reddit, the community is pretty homogeneous, overall.  i will describe the  average  user, in my mind:   white   male   american   college aged   grew up in suburbia   played lots of video games   tech savvy   enjoys science/neil degrasse tyson/bill nye    above average  intelligence   mildly introverted how closely does that fit you ? how closely do you think it fits the people you encounter on reddit ? this is another example of selection bias.  the only reason you heard about the  affluenza  kid was because it was so ridiculous.  if he had been sentenced like an adult, it would have never made the news.  there are thousands upon thousands of cases a year where kids have the book thrown at them, but you do not hear about them.  you only hear about the outliers.  they just do not give a fuck.  a 0 year old may know right from wrong, but what makes you think a 0 year old does, which is the title of your cmv ?
first, i will acknowledge that robots are not a human race, and that you might think it is silly to call prejudice against robots racism.  however, sociologists consider islamophobia to be a type of racism, despite islam not being a race.  in this way, prejudice against robots could be considered a type of racism, as it uses racist ideas about  us  vs.   them , etc.  people will likely form prejudices against robots as we continue to automate.  the luddites destroyed looms during the industrial revolution, and similarly, humans will have prejudiced beliefs about artificially intelligent human beings.  i believe that if a robot has sentience and sapience, then it qualifies as a being deserving of moral status.  it follows that since racism is immoral as it violates someone is freedom of identity , that if robots properly possess identity, then prejudice against them will infringe on that, and thus racism towards robots is immoral.   #  however, sociologists consider islamophobia to be a type of racism, despite islam not being a race.   #  this is true but it just so happens that the vast majority of islam are races that are not the same as the islamophobes.   # this is true but it just so happens that the vast majority of islam are races that are not the same as the islamophobes.  the problem here is that robot is by definition are programmable.  science fiction kind of ignores the fact that if a robot became sentient, there would clearly still be a element of control involved.  i would also argue that robots do not have the same inalienable rights as humans because they are not bound by evolution or life.  you ca not say that a robot should not be a slave, because the entire purpose for a robot is existence is to be a source of labor.  let me create a hypothetical here.  say i create a sentient robot.  our modern definitions of liberty and freedom were based on the idea that one should not be able to take away the rights that were given by god.  in my scenario, i am this robot is creator so i give it it is rights and i can take them away.  whatever genius creates the programming that leads to the first sentient robots will essentially be a god to all robots because they will have an intimate knowledge of how these robots existence operates.  the person will also still be able to manipulate the robots programming.  i may be wrong about my theory on the creation of sentient robots.  i have read/heard some discussions from people more qualified than me on the subject but i am by no means a computer science wiz or theoretical math whiz or anything.   #  discrimination based on race is considered immoral because race has nothing to do with any morally relevant quality of humanity.   #  i would probably use the word prejudice to describe it instead of racism.  but this is a very hypothetical question.  we do not have any artificial beings which have anything close to sentience and sapience.  certainly nothing which is self directing and has free will.  whether that discrimination were immoral would depend on the very specific facts of what that artificial being is nature is.  discrimination based on race is considered immoral because race has nothing to do with any morally relevant quality of humanity.  it is likely that an artificial being would have facts about it that are relevant to morality, and discrimination based on and directly related to those facts would be appropriate.   #  if robots do not have self directed choice, they have no value under libertarianism.   # ai systems would definitely have aspects about them that are more relevant to morality than race is.  do you have any hypotheticals or examples for that ? the three moral systems we generally use are utilitarianism, which values happiness; libertarianism, which values personal freedom; and moralism, which forbids certain acts as intrinsically wrong.  if robots are incapable of being happy, they have no moral value under utilitarianism.  if robots do not have self directed choice, they have no value under libertarianism.  if robots do not meet the arbitrary thresholds of moralism, they wo not have any moral value under that system either.  given that the majority of people use a mix of those three systems, then the morality of robots is highly debatable.  after all, how do we find out if a robot has free choice, happiness, or a soul ? we can barely figure that out for humans.   #  we can easily understand whether or not a given program or robot has these qualities because either someone quite literally programmed the ai to have those qualities or they cannot have them.   #  i would strongly disagree with your implication that   if we do not fully understand these things about humans and most philosophers would say we do not , how can we conclusively say that a given robot does not possess these qualities ? we can easily understand whether or not a given program or robot has these qualities because either someone quite literally programmed the ai to have those qualities or they cannot have them.  at their most fundamental level, ai is just a series of instructions being executed hopefully exactly as the programmer intended, at least for the foreseeable future.  there is no such thing as a computer that feels happiness or anything else for that matter .  at most a computer can only decide if it is  happy  based on some criteria included in its software by whoever programmed it.  likewise it has no freedom whatsoever.  the ai is literally just a series of predefined instructions being executed.  it cannot make choices of its own accord, only the choices that the programmer intended for it to make in a given situation.  although computers can perform complex calculations and make decisions, they do not really think as humans do which is something that can be hard to grasp for some people when they are talking to an ai program like siri.  i think the computer scientist edsgar dijkstra summed it up best like this,  the question whether machines can think as relevant as the question whether submarines can swim.   much in the same way as a submarine can move through the water without actually swimming, computers make decisions without thinking in the human sense of the word, despite the fact that they can still accomplish many of the same things humans do by thinking.   #  watson for a prominent and somewhat recent example and other non general forms of ai that limit the scope of what tasks they perform.   #  while it is certainly possible that this sort of ai will come about  eventually , i do not think that it will happen anywhere in the foreseeable future.  at this point in time most research into ai is being done on expert systems e. g.  watson for a prominent and somewhat recent example and other non general forms of ai that limit the scope of what tasks they perform.  no system of this type will ever have anything resembling, much less exceeding, the full set of human qualities.  it will likely be quite some time from now before ai researchers manage to develop true general intelligences, and right now we do not even know what such a thing will look like, if it is even possible.  i do not think that something like this that is so far away from being a reality is really relevant to talk about at this point in time.
first, i will acknowledge that robots are not a human race, and that you might think it is silly to call prejudice against robots racism.  however, sociologists consider islamophobia to be a type of racism, despite islam not being a race.  in this way, prejudice against robots could be considered a type of racism, as it uses racist ideas about  us  vs.   them , etc.  people will likely form prejudices against robots as we continue to automate.  the luddites destroyed looms during the industrial revolution, and similarly, humans will have prejudiced beliefs about artificially intelligent human beings.  i believe that if a robot has sentience and sapience, then it qualifies as a being deserving of moral status.  it follows that since racism is immoral as it violates someone is freedom of identity , that if robots properly possess identity, then prejudice against them will infringe on that, and thus racism towards robots is immoral.   #  however, sociologists consider islamophobia to be a type of racism, despite islam not being a race.   #  the term  race  itself is neither well defined nor without controversy.   # the term  race  itself is neither well defined nor without controversy.  in german language we do not use this term anymore, so maybe i am not firm enough with it and have to rely on the wikipedia article URL please correct me if my understanding is wrong.  race  is just a subset of human beings, not necessarily based on physical affiliation.  culture, religion, language and ethnicity also play a role, so you  could  call islamic groups a race.  robots are no human beings, they are not even animals.  racism  means treating different races differently.  it is considered immoral because different races are not really different.  they may look different, but that is irrelevant for almost everything.  this carries even more weight when we consider that  race  is a very fictional, somewhat arbitrary concept.  robots, otoh, are clearly different from human beings, therefore it is not automatically immoral to treat them differently.   #  it is likely that an artificial being would have facts about it that are relevant to morality, and discrimination based on and directly related to those facts would be appropriate.   #  i would probably use the word prejudice to describe it instead of racism.  but this is a very hypothetical question.  we do not have any artificial beings which have anything close to sentience and sapience.  certainly nothing which is self directing and has free will.  whether that discrimination were immoral would depend on the very specific facts of what that artificial being is nature is.  discrimination based on race is considered immoral because race has nothing to do with any morally relevant quality of humanity.  it is likely that an artificial being would have facts about it that are relevant to morality, and discrimination based on and directly related to those facts would be appropriate.   #  do you have any hypotheticals or examples for that ?  # ai systems would definitely have aspects about them that are more relevant to morality than race is.  do you have any hypotheticals or examples for that ? the three moral systems we generally use are utilitarianism, which values happiness; libertarianism, which values personal freedom; and moralism, which forbids certain acts as intrinsically wrong.  if robots are incapable of being happy, they have no moral value under utilitarianism.  if robots do not have self directed choice, they have no value under libertarianism.  if robots do not meet the arbitrary thresholds of moralism, they wo not have any moral value under that system either.  given that the majority of people use a mix of those three systems, then the morality of robots is highly debatable.  after all, how do we find out if a robot has free choice, happiness, or a soul ? we can barely figure that out for humans.   #  i think the computer scientist edsgar dijkstra summed it up best like this,  the question whether machines can think as relevant as the question whether submarines can swim.    #  i would strongly disagree with your implication that   if we do not fully understand these things about humans and most philosophers would say we do not , how can we conclusively say that a given robot does not possess these qualities ? we can easily understand whether or not a given program or robot has these qualities because either someone quite literally programmed the ai to have those qualities or they cannot have them.  at their most fundamental level, ai is just a series of instructions being executed hopefully exactly as the programmer intended, at least for the foreseeable future.  there is no such thing as a computer that feels happiness or anything else for that matter .  at most a computer can only decide if it is  happy  based on some criteria included in its software by whoever programmed it.  likewise it has no freedom whatsoever.  the ai is literally just a series of predefined instructions being executed.  it cannot make choices of its own accord, only the choices that the programmer intended for it to make in a given situation.  although computers can perform complex calculations and make decisions, they do not really think as humans do which is something that can be hard to grasp for some people when they are talking to an ai program like siri.  i think the computer scientist edsgar dijkstra summed it up best like this,  the question whether machines can think as relevant as the question whether submarines can swim.   much in the same way as a submarine can move through the water without actually swimming, computers make decisions without thinking in the human sense of the word, despite the fact that they can still accomplish many of the same things humans do by thinking.   #  while it is certainly possible that this sort of ai will come about  eventually , i do not think that it will happen anywhere in the foreseeable future.   #  while it is certainly possible that this sort of ai will come about  eventually , i do not think that it will happen anywhere in the foreseeable future.  at this point in time most research into ai is being done on expert systems e. g.  watson for a prominent and somewhat recent example and other non general forms of ai that limit the scope of what tasks they perform.  no system of this type will ever have anything resembling, much less exceeding, the full set of human qualities.  it will likely be quite some time from now before ai researchers manage to develop true general intelligences, and right now we do not even know what such a thing will look like, if it is even possible.  i do not think that something like this that is so far away from being a reality is really relevant to talk about at this point in time.
i love football and i know the rules and rule exceptions better than most.  that being said, it seems like the call of  holding,  especially  offensive holding , is completely arbitrary.  i acknowledge that referees seem to call  holding  only on actions that directly affect the outcome of the play.  but that being said, it seems like there is holding on every play, especially at the offensive line, and i do not understand how referees can claim any form of consistency.  i would love to be proven wrong.  is there some objective test or system that referees can actually use to determine if there was holding or not ? cheers.   #  i acknowledge that referees seem to call  holding  only on actions that directly affect the outcome of the play.   #  i would argue that that the refs could call holding in all three examples i provided, because arguably there was  grasping  and/or  pulling.    # i agree, refs are usually pretty good at only calling unambiguous calls.  however, op concedes as much.  i would argue that that the refs could call holding in all three examples i provided, because arguably there was  grasping  and/or  pulling.   for example, in the second picture you can see the payer in red  pulling  the shirt on the right shoulder of the player in white.  on the first picture you can see the shirt of the player in black bunching up around the back as if being pulled forward.  etc.  etc.  there has got to be at least some pulling on every play given the sheer amount of contact between lines.  sure, refs do not call most it, but they could.   #  if you are pushing someone while grasping them with a closed hand that is not a hold.   #  just to make my above statement more precise, a closed hand is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for a hold.  you also have to be pulling someone which by definition requires a closed, grasping hand .  if you are pushing someone while grasping them with a closed hand that is not a hold.  so with that said: 0 that is not a hand on his shoulder.  that is a shoulder pad like this URL sticking out from under the white player is jersey.  you ca not see the red player is hands in that pic.  absent other evidence, it does not look like a hold.  0 both those guys in the middle are clearing pushing the defensive linemen, so it is no a hold.   #  it is theoretically possible that someone is moving sideway and someone is grasping a jersey and none of this is visible.   #  0 the bunching of the t shirt could indicate a hold, or it could be that the shirt happened to be twisted in an unusual way.  without actually seeing his hand, i ca not say.  0 the picture angle is not very good for judging.  it is theoretically possible that someone is moving sideway and someone is grasping a jersey and none of this is visible.  but the ref is should not be calling penalities on the basis of might have beens.  when holding happens, it is usually pretty obvious, like this URL or this URL or this URL  #  now imagine the person in white breaks through the person in red, and the person in red grabs his arm to pull him back.   #  it is about direction of motion too.  for instance, look at the second picture again.  the person in white it looks college football, and i do not know the school is trying to push through the person in red.  the person in red is pushing him back.  that is not holding, their bodies are clearly in the way.  now imagine the person in white breaks through the person in red, and the person in red grabs his arm to pull him back.  this is a great way to break limbs and tear joints, btw, since having a 0 lbs.  person on your arm when you are trying to run forward can torque all sorts of things in the human body.  again with number 0 in the third, that could evolve into a hold, but at the moment it is simply two people pushing against each other, and neither has committed a foul.  p. s.  there is what i would call hard holds and soft holds.  hard holds are when you grab someone and tug them around, and those tend to get called no matter what.  soft holds are when someone has just grabbed someone else is arms, but not in a likely to cause injury way, and those tend to get called if they fucked with the outcome of the play.  there is definitely some discretion, but no one would ever call your three examples holding.   #  if he wants to run ten yards backfield, fine.   #  not quite.  though, a ref could technically call any penalty he wants, at any time, holding is about seeing a player is jersey distorted by a player grabbing it tearable jerseys were big in the pros many years ago or hands clearly outside the shoulders.  holding happens really really frequently, but obvious and provable holding, not so much.  also, holding is not always better than kiting your assignment out and to the side.  if he wants to run ten yards backfield, fine.  just make sure he is also way out to the side and not a threat to the qb.  you do not need to make him stay put, just make him go everywhere but where he wants to be.  like your bags on delta.
i believe that expensive engagement rings and elaborate wedding ceremonies are a waste of money and only serve to make women feel spoiled and/or special.  our society shoves the idea of a  dream wedding  down the throats of little girls, convincing them to believe they want a pretty wedding and engagement ring.  really, the money most people spend on these things could be put to much better use, like a down payment on a car.  an engagement ring serves zero purpose, and weddings only last a day.  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  anything further is just people seeking attention and the approval of society.   #  really, the money most people spend on these things could be put to much better use, like a down payment on a car.   #  an even better use is to save the money.   # you assume all women want them.  you assume no man wants either.  making sweeping generalizations based only on gender would be considered to some sexist.  not all women want either thing.  pretty enhancement rings can be found on amazon for $0.  big weddings are not appealing to all.  please give women more credit than to merely parrot what society says.  an even better use is to save the money.  a new car depreciates the moment you drive it off the lot.  at least in 0 years the ring will be worth something.  the wedding rings are to tell society both people are off the market.  when you find the right person, you will take pleasure in splurging a bit on something special for them.  but the memory of that day lasts forever.  if she wants to share ti with her friends and family, are you going to deny her that ? i do not think you can decide for other people what they need to be happy in a relationship.  to some people the big ceremony is important.  to others it isnt.  if you do not value a big ceremony, do not dare women who want one.  you really do not know what motivates others.  what you may not realize is that sometimes the couple wanted a small thing but one or both of the couples parents pushed for a big celebration this is a big day for them to see their son or daughter be married off.  they want to invite all the relatives.  there is also a lot of pressure from family and friends to invite everyone.  if you invite one friend and not another, the ones left out will feel very hurt.  it can create a rift in a family if one uncle or cousin is invited but others arent.  sometimes you have to make it big so that everyone can attend who wants to.   #  that does not just include weddings that cost $0,0.   #  sure, but many do not… ? i do not think a lot of people are going to argue with the idea that people should not go into debt to pay for an elaborate wedding.  but that is not what your cmv says.  what you said is:  engagement rings and weddings are unnecessary wastes of money so,  in general , engagement rings and wedding rings are wastes of money.  that does not just include weddings that cost $0,0.  and, indeed, you even clarified that in your post, saying:  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  in other words, people who do want a ceremony  are not as in love as the people who do not care  and are also automatically wasting money .  that is a very, very extreme viewpoint.  i will not be spending many thousands of dollars on my wedding or my engagement ring.  i will  absolutely  be having a fun party, and that is not because i do not love my partner.  you also said,  an engagement ring serves zero purpose zero purpose ? tradition.  symbolism.  i would call those purposes, personally.  i do not expect you to do a 0 and say,  oh, yeah, i would totally spend $0,0 on a wedding !   but if you have been moved and you no longer believe that, say, people who do not want a courthouse wedding do not love each other as much, or that people can responsibly choose to have a relatively low budget wedding outside of the courthouse and that is not an irresponsible choice assuming they have adequately assessed their finances , or that someone who wants a reasonably priced ring has not been brainwashed and might actually get joy out of that tradition… you should go assign deltas to the people who helped change your view, since is has been changed  in some way .   #  many of them did it at their houses, an affordable reception hall or church.   # so they did not have insurance ? the example you gave is of an financially irresponsible couple.  if they are spending like crazy and taking out debt like there is no tomorrow, with no savings or anything, then it really does not matter how much their wedding was because they suck at finances.  you are supposed to spend without your budget and/or have help from the parents .  my wedding and reception was under $0,0, and that includes all the expenses.  our rings were both under $0 as well.  i think i had the most expensive wedding of all my friends.  many of them did it at their houses, an affordable reception hall or church.  you do not have to break the bank.   #  last week i found out they are getting a divorce.   #  a girl i grew up with just had her dream wedding in mexico last january with all of her friend and family down for the event.  all in it cost her husband $0,0.  last week i found out they are getting a divorce.  she was cheating on him since 0 months before the wedding.  that is the 0rd wedding that is blown up in less than a year because the woman was cheating on the man going into it.  i think wedding is become a huge waste of money right around the time you place your first deposit.  you are better off taking your money to vegas.  the odds at the roulette table are just as good as walking down the aisle.   #  women often have the fancier ring because they tend to be the bigger fans of jewelry and it can represent her spouse as being a provider.   #  it sounds like your argument is more about irresponsible spending.  wedding and engagement rings do not have to be ungodly expensive.  they are symbolic, and symbolism is a large part of modern culture, especially fashion.  they represent the commitment and bond between them and their spouse, and wearing a ring is an outward expression pride for your spouse.  women often have the fancier ring because they tend to be the bigger fans of jewelry and it can represent her spouse as being a provider.  and many men do not wear jewelry, so the fact that they are wearing a ring means that it is something special.  if a couple blows a ton of money on something extravagant and can later not afford to pay bills, then that is simple irresponsibility.  it is not a waste of money, it is an unwise or irresponsible choice of how it is spent.  there is a difference, and spending money unwisely does not equate to being a waste.  it is a square/rectangle situation.  all squares wasteful spending are rectangles unwise spending but not all rectangles are squares.
i believe that expensive engagement rings and elaborate wedding ceremonies are a waste of money and only serve to make women feel spoiled and/or special.  our society shoves the idea of a  dream wedding  down the throats of little girls, convincing them to believe they want a pretty wedding and engagement ring.  really, the money most people spend on these things could be put to much better use, like a down payment on a car.  an engagement ring serves zero purpose, and weddings only last a day.  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  anything further is just people seeking attention and the approval of society.   #  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.   #  i do not think you can decide for other people what they need to be happy in a relationship.   # you assume all women want them.  you assume no man wants either.  making sweeping generalizations based only on gender would be considered to some sexist.  not all women want either thing.  pretty enhancement rings can be found on amazon for $0.  big weddings are not appealing to all.  please give women more credit than to merely parrot what society says.  an even better use is to save the money.  a new car depreciates the moment you drive it off the lot.  at least in 0 years the ring will be worth something.  the wedding rings are to tell society both people are off the market.  when you find the right person, you will take pleasure in splurging a bit on something special for them.  but the memory of that day lasts forever.  if she wants to share ti with her friends and family, are you going to deny her that ? i do not think you can decide for other people what they need to be happy in a relationship.  to some people the big ceremony is important.  to others it isnt.  if you do not value a big ceremony, do not dare women who want one.  you really do not know what motivates others.  what you may not realize is that sometimes the couple wanted a small thing but one or both of the couples parents pushed for a big celebration this is a big day for them to see their son or daughter be married off.  they want to invite all the relatives.  there is also a lot of pressure from family and friends to invite everyone.  if you invite one friend and not another, the ones left out will feel very hurt.  it can create a rift in a family if one uncle or cousin is invited but others arent.  sometimes you have to make it big so that everyone can attend who wants to.   #  that does not just include weddings that cost $0,0.   #  sure, but many do not… ? i do not think a lot of people are going to argue with the idea that people should not go into debt to pay for an elaborate wedding.  but that is not what your cmv says.  what you said is:  engagement rings and weddings are unnecessary wastes of money so,  in general , engagement rings and wedding rings are wastes of money.  that does not just include weddings that cost $0,0.  and, indeed, you even clarified that in your post, saying:  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  in other words, people who do want a ceremony  are not as in love as the people who do not care  and are also automatically wasting money .  that is a very, very extreme viewpoint.  i will not be spending many thousands of dollars on my wedding or my engagement ring.  i will  absolutely  be having a fun party, and that is not because i do not love my partner.  you also said,  an engagement ring serves zero purpose zero purpose ? tradition.  symbolism.  i would call those purposes, personally.  i do not expect you to do a 0 and say,  oh, yeah, i would totally spend $0,0 on a wedding !   but if you have been moved and you no longer believe that, say, people who do not want a courthouse wedding do not love each other as much, or that people can responsibly choose to have a relatively low budget wedding outside of the courthouse and that is not an irresponsible choice assuming they have adequately assessed their finances , or that someone who wants a reasonably priced ring has not been brainwashed and might actually get joy out of that tradition… you should go assign deltas to the people who helped change your view, since is has been changed  in some way .   #  our rings were both under $0 as well.   # so they did not have insurance ? the example you gave is of an financially irresponsible couple.  if they are spending like crazy and taking out debt like there is no tomorrow, with no savings or anything, then it really does not matter how much their wedding was because they suck at finances.  you are supposed to spend without your budget and/or have help from the parents .  my wedding and reception was under $0,0, and that includes all the expenses.  our rings were both under $0 as well.  i think i had the most expensive wedding of all my friends.  many of them did it at their houses, an affordable reception hall or church.  you do not have to break the bank.   #  she was cheating on him since 0 months before the wedding.   #  a girl i grew up with just had her dream wedding in mexico last january with all of her friend and family down for the event.  all in it cost her husband $0,0.  last week i found out they are getting a divorce.  she was cheating on him since 0 months before the wedding.  that is the 0rd wedding that is blown up in less than a year because the woman was cheating on the man going into it.  i think wedding is become a huge waste of money right around the time you place your first deposit.  you are better off taking your money to vegas.  the odds at the roulette table are just as good as walking down the aisle.   #  wedding and engagement rings do not have to be ungodly expensive.   #  it sounds like your argument is more about irresponsible spending.  wedding and engagement rings do not have to be ungodly expensive.  they are symbolic, and symbolism is a large part of modern culture, especially fashion.  they represent the commitment and bond between them and their spouse, and wearing a ring is an outward expression pride for your spouse.  women often have the fancier ring because they tend to be the bigger fans of jewelry and it can represent her spouse as being a provider.  and many men do not wear jewelry, so the fact that they are wearing a ring means that it is something special.  if a couple blows a ton of money on something extravagant and can later not afford to pay bills, then that is simple irresponsibility.  it is not a waste of money, it is an unwise or irresponsible choice of how it is spent.  there is a difference, and spending money unwisely does not equate to being a waste.  it is a square/rectangle situation.  all squares wasteful spending are rectangles unwise spending but not all rectangles are squares.
i believe that expensive engagement rings and elaborate wedding ceremonies are a waste of money and only serve to make women feel spoiled and/or special.  our society shoves the idea of a  dream wedding  down the throats of little girls, convincing them to believe they want a pretty wedding and engagement ring.  really, the money most people spend on these things could be put to much better use, like a down payment on a car.  an engagement ring serves zero purpose, and weddings only last a day.  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  anything further is just people seeking attention and the approval of society.   #  anything further is just people seeking attention and the approval of society.   #  you really do not know what motivates others.   # you assume all women want them.  you assume no man wants either.  making sweeping generalizations based only on gender would be considered to some sexist.  not all women want either thing.  pretty enhancement rings can be found on amazon for $0.  big weddings are not appealing to all.  please give women more credit than to merely parrot what society says.  an even better use is to save the money.  a new car depreciates the moment you drive it off the lot.  at least in 0 years the ring will be worth something.  the wedding rings are to tell society both people are off the market.  when you find the right person, you will take pleasure in splurging a bit on something special for them.  but the memory of that day lasts forever.  if she wants to share ti with her friends and family, are you going to deny her that ? i do not think you can decide for other people what they need to be happy in a relationship.  to some people the big ceremony is important.  to others it isnt.  if you do not value a big ceremony, do not dare women who want one.  you really do not know what motivates others.  what you may not realize is that sometimes the couple wanted a small thing but one or both of the couples parents pushed for a big celebration this is a big day for them to see their son or daughter be married off.  they want to invite all the relatives.  there is also a lot of pressure from family and friends to invite everyone.  if you invite one friend and not another, the ones left out will feel very hurt.  it can create a rift in a family if one uncle or cousin is invited but others arent.  sometimes you have to make it big so that everyone can attend who wants to.   #  i do not expect you to do a 0 and say,  oh, yeah, i would totally spend $0,0 on a wedding !    #  sure, but many do not… ? i do not think a lot of people are going to argue with the idea that people should not go into debt to pay for an elaborate wedding.  but that is not what your cmv says.  what you said is:  engagement rings and weddings are unnecessary wastes of money so,  in general , engagement rings and wedding rings are wastes of money.  that does not just include weddings that cost $0,0.  and, indeed, you even clarified that in your post, saying:  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  in other words, people who do want a ceremony  are not as in love as the people who do not care  and are also automatically wasting money .  that is a very, very extreme viewpoint.  i will not be spending many thousands of dollars on my wedding or my engagement ring.  i will  absolutely  be having a fun party, and that is not because i do not love my partner.  you also said,  an engagement ring serves zero purpose zero purpose ? tradition.  symbolism.  i would call those purposes, personally.  i do not expect you to do a 0 and say,  oh, yeah, i would totally spend $0,0 on a wedding !   but if you have been moved and you no longer believe that, say, people who do not want a courthouse wedding do not love each other as much, or that people can responsibly choose to have a relatively low budget wedding outside of the courthouse and that is not an irresponsible choice assuming they have adequately assessed their finances , or that someone who wants a reasonably priced ring has not been brainwashed and might actually get joy out of that tradition… you should go assign deltas to the people who helped change your view, since is has been changed  in some way .   #  i think i had the most expensive wedding of all my friends.   # so they did not have insurance ? the example you gave is of an financially irresponsible couple.  if they are spending like crazy and taking out debt like there is no tomorrow, with no savings or anything, then it really does not matter how much their wedding was because they suck at finances.  you are supposed to spend without your budget and/or have help from the parents .  my wedding and reception was under $0,0, and that includes all the expenses.  our rings were both under $0 as well.  i think i had the most expensive wedding of all my friends.  many of them did it at their houses, an affordable reception hall or church.  you do not have to break the bank.   #  you are better off taking your money to vegas.   #  a girl i grew up with just had her dream wedding in mexico last january with all of her friend and family down for the event.  all in it cost her husband $0,0.  last week i found out they are getting a divorce.  she was cheating on him since 0 months before the wedding.  that is the 0rd wedding that is blown up in less than a year because the woman was cheating on the man going into it.  i think wedding is become a huge waste of money right around the time you place your first deposit.  you are better off taking your money to vegas.  the odds at the roulette table are just as good as walking down the aisle.   #  and many men do not wear jewelry, so the fact that they are wearing a ring means that it is something special.   #  it sounds like your argument is more about irresponsible spending.  wedding and engagement rings do not have to be ungodly expensive.  they are symbolic, and symbolism is a large part of modern culture, especially fashion.  they represent the commitment and bond between them and their spouse, and wearing a ring is an outward expression pride for your spouse.  women often have the fancier ring because they tend to be the bigger fans of jewelry and it can represent her spouse as being a provider.  and many men do not wear jewelry, so the fact that they are wearing a ring means that it is something special.  if a couple blows a ton of money on something extravagant and can later not afford to pay bills, then that is simple irresponsibility.  it is not a waste of money, it is an unwise or irresponsible choice of how it is spent.  there is a difference, and spending money unwisely does not equate to being a waste.  it is a square/rectangle situation.  all squares wasteful spending are rectangles unwise spending but not all rectangles are squares.
i believe that expensive engagement rings and elaborate wedding ceremonies are a waste of money and only serve to make women feel spoiled and/or special.  our society shoves the idea of a  dream wedding  down the throats of little girls, convincing them to believe they want a pretty wedding and engagement ring.  really, the money most people spend on these things could be put to much better use, like a down payment on a car.  an engagement ring serves zero purpose, and weddings only last a day.  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  anything further is just people seeking attention and the approval of society.   #  i believe that expensive engagement rings and elaborate wedding ceremonies are a waste of money and only serve to make women feel spoiled and/or special.   #  not all weddings are about the woman.   # not all weddings are about the woman.  many are about the couple and the bond/commitment that they are making together.  sometimes, the wedding industry makes it seem that weddings are only about the bride, but that is not the case for many couples, for them it is about both of them.  also, what is wrong with feeling spoiled or special ? we are all humans and we have feelings.  if feeling good is important to you, and if a certain event makes you feel really good, how can it be a waste of money ? but if a wedding/ring is more important to them than a down payment on a car, it is not a waste.  they are spending money on what they want/what is more important to them.  and engagement ring can bring attention to a person and keep unwanted attention at bay.  feelings are important.  just because an engagement ring may serve in only bringing joy does not mean that it does not have a purpose.  does giving a stuffed animal to a sick person at a hospital serve no purpose ? does giving someone a holiday card serve no purpose ? just because the purpose is based on emotions and feelings, does not make it unimportant.  well they are a waste of money because they only last a day.  do you go to concerts/go to the movies ? well they are a waste of money because they only last a few hours.  do you take vacations ? well they are a waste of money because they only last a week or whatever time you spend on vacations .  just because something is short, does not mean that it is a waste of money.  furthermore, if the participants see the event as very important and do not see it as a waste of money, how can you decide that it is a waste of money  to them  ? being truly in love has nothing to do with wanting a big wedding or not.  a wedding is not used to validate a marriage for most couples , it is used to celebrate it ! and no, no matter how much i am in love, i will definitely get more joy out of a big wedding than a small one.  look at it from a different point of view. you and your partner want to play a video game.  will you honestly say that you will get the same amount of joy from playing minesweeper on the pc vs playing some fancy new game with the oculus rift.  alternatively, will you get the same joy out of watching a concert or sports game on tv as you do being at the concert/sports game ? or they want to have fun and celebrate one of the biggest steps in their lives.  also, what is wrong with seeking attention ? if attention makes you feel happy, why deny yourself that ?  #  i do not think a lot of people are going to argue with the idea that people should not go into debt to pay for an elaborate wedding.   #  sure, but many do not… ? i do not think a lot of people are going to argue with the idea that people should not go into debt to pay for an elaborate wedding.  but that is not what your cmv says.  what you said is:  engagement rings and weddings are unnecessary wastes of money so,  in general , engagement rings and wedding rings are wastes of money.  that does not just include weddings that cost $0,0.  and, indeed, you even clarified that in your post, saying:  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  in other words, people who do want a ceremony  are not as in love as the people who do not care  and are also automatically wasting money .  that is a very, very extreme viewpoint.  i will not be spending many thousands of dollars on my wedding or my engagement ring.  i will  absolutely  be having a fun party, and that is not because i do not love my partner.  you also said,  an engagement ring serves zero purpose zero purpose ? tradition.  symbolism.  i would call those purposes, personally.  i do not expect you to do a 0 and say,  oh, yeah, i would totally spend $0,0 on a wedding !   but if you have been moved and you no longer believe that, say, people who do not want a courthouse wedding do not love each other as much, or that people can responsibly choose to have a relatively low budget wedding outside of the courthouse and that is not an irresponsible choice assuming they have adequately assessed their finances , or that someone who wants a reasonably priced ring has not been brainwashed and might actually get joy out of that tradition… you should go assign deltas to the people who helped change your view, since is has been changed  in some way .   #  my wedding and reception was under $0,0, and that includes all the expenses.   # so they did not have insurance ? the example you gave is of an financially irresponsible couple.  if they are spending like crazy and taking out debt like there is no tomorrow, with no savings or anything, then it really does not matter how much their wedding was because they suck at finances.  you are supposed to spend without your budget and/or have help from the parents .  my wedding and reception was under $0,0, and that includes all the expenses.  our rings were both under $0 as well.  i think i had the most expensive wedding of all my friends.  many of them did it at their houses, an affordable reception hall or church.  you do not have to break the bank.   #  she was cheating on him since 0 months before the wedding.   #  a girl i grew up with just had her dream wedding in mexico last january with all of her friend and family down for the event.  all in it cost her husband $0,0.  last week i found out they are getting a divorce.  she was cheating on him since 0 months before the wedding.  that is the 0rd wedding that is blown up in less than a year because the woman was cheating on the man going into it.  i think wedding is become a huge waste of money right around the time you place your first deposit.  you are better off taking your money to vegas.  the odds at the roulette table are just as good as walking down the aisle.   #  all squares wasteful spending are rectangles unwise spending but not all rectangles are squares.   #  it sounds like your argument is more about irresponsible spending.  wedding and engagement rings do not have to be ungodly expensive.  they are symbolic, and symbolism is a large part of modern culture, especially fashion.  they represent the commitment and bond between them and their spouse, and wearing a ring is an outward expression pride for your spouse.  women often have the fancier ring because they tend to be the bigger fans of jewelry and it can represent her spouse as being a provider.  and many men do not wear jewelry, so the fact that they are wearing a ring means that it is something special.  if a couple blows a ton of money on something extravagant and can later not afford to pay bills, then that is simple irresponsibility.  it is not a waste of money, it is an unwise or irresponsible choice of how it is spent.  there is a difference, and spending money unwisely does not equate to being a waste.  it is a square/rectangle situation.  all squares wasteful spending are rectangles unwise spending but not all rectangles are squares.
i believe that expensive engagement rings and elaborate wedding ceremonies are a waste of money and only serve to make women feel spoiled and/or special.  our society shoves the idea of a  dream wedding  down the throats of little girls, convincing them to believe they want a pretty wedding and engagement ring.  really, the money most people spend on these things could be put to much better use, like a down payment on a car.  an engagement ring serves zero purpose, and weddings only last a day.  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  anything further is just people seeking attention and the approval of society.   #  really, the money most people spend on these things could be put to much better use, like a down payment on a car.   #  but if a wedding/ring is more important to them than a down payment on a car, it is not a waste.   # not all weddings are about the woman.  many are about the couple and the bond/commitment that they are making together.  sometimes, the wedding industry makes it seem that weddings are only about the bride, but that is not the case for many couples, for them it is about both of them.  also, what is wrong with feeling spoiled or special ? we are all humans and we have feelings.  if feeling good is important to you, and if a certain event makes you feel really good, how can it be a waste of money ? but if a wedding/ring is more important to them than a down payment on a car, it is not a waste.  they are spending money on what they want/what is more important to them.  and engagement ring can bring attention to a person and keep unwanted attention at bay.  feelings are important.  just because an engagement ring may serve in only bringing joy does not mean that it does not have a purpose.  does giving a stuffed animal to a sick person at a hospital serve no purpose ? does giving someone a holiday card serve no purpose ? just because the purpose is based on emotions and feelings, does not make it unimportant.  well they are a waste of money because they only last a day.  do you go to concerts/go to the movies ? well they are a waste of money because they only last a few hours.  do you take vacations ? well they are a waste of money because they only last a week or whatever time you spend on vacations .  just because something is short, does not mean that it is a waste of money.  furthermore, if the participants see the event as very important and do not see it as a waste of money, how can you decide that it is a waste of money  to them  ? being truly in love has nothing to do with wanting a big wedding or not.  a wedding is not used to validate a marriage for most couples , it is used to celebrate it ! and no, no matter how much i am in love, i will definitely get more joy out of a big wedding than a small one.  look at it from a different point of view. you and your partner want to play a video game.  will you honestly say that you will get the same amount of joy from playing minesweeper on the pc vs playing some fancy new game with the oculus rift.  alternatively, will you get the same joy out of watching a concert or sports game on tv as you do being at the concert/sports game ? or they want to have fun and celebrate one of the biggest steps in their lives.  also, what is wrong with seeking attention ? if attention makes you feel happy, why deny yourself that ?  #  in other words, people who do want a ceremony  are not as in love as the people who do not care  and are also automatically wasting money .   #  sure, but many do not… ? i do not think a lot of people are going to argue with the idea that people should not go into debt to pay for an elaborate wedding.  but that is not what your cmv says.  what you said is:  engagement rings and weddings are unnecessary wastes of money so,  in general , engagement rings and wedding rings are wastes of money.  that does not just include weddings that cost $0,0.  and, indeed, you even clarified that in your post, saying:  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  in other words, people who do want a ceremony  are not as in love as the people who do not care  and are also automatically wasting money .  that is a very, very extreme viewpoint.  i will not be spending many thousands of dollars on my wedding or my engagement ring.  i will  absolutely  be having a fun party, and that is not because i do not love my partner.  you also said,  an engagement ring serves zero purpose zero purpose ? tradition.  symbolism.  i would call those purposes, personally.  i do not expect you to do a 0 and say,  oh, yeah, i would totally spend $0,0 on a wedding !   but if you have been moved and you no longer believe that, say, people who do not want a courthouse wedding do not love each other as much, or that people can responsibly choose to have a relatively low budget wedding outside of the courthouse and that is not an irresponsible choice assuming they have adequately assessed their finances , or that someone who wants a reasonably priced ring has not been brainwashed and might actually get joy out of that tradition… you should go assign deltas to the people who helped change your view, since is has been changed  in some way .   #  our rings were both under $0 as well.   # so they did not have insurance ? the example you gave is of an financially irresponsible couple.  if they are spending like crazy and taking out debt like there is no tomorrow, with no savings or anything, then it really does not matter how much their wedding was because they suck at finances.  you are supposed to spend without your budget and/or have help from the parents .  my wedding and reception was under $0,0, and that includes all the expenses.  our rings were both under $0 as well.  i think i had the most expensive wedding of all my friends.  many of them did it at their houses, an affordable reception hall or church.  you do not have to break the bank.   #  i think wedding is become a huge waste of money right around the time you place your first deposit.   #  a girl i grew up with just had her dream wedding in mexico last january with all of her friend and family down for the event.  all in it cost her husband $0,0.  last week i found out they are getting a divorce.  she was cheating on him since 0 months before the wedding.  that is the 0rd wedding that is blown up in less than a year because the woman was cheating on the man going into it.  i think wedding is become a huge waste of money right around the time you place your first deposit.  you are better off taking your money to vegas.  the odds at the roulette table are just as good as walking down the aisle.   #  it sounds like your argument is more about irresponsible spending.   #  it sounds like your argument is more about irresponsible spending.  wedding and engagement rings do not have to be ungodly expensive.  they are symbolic, and symbolism is a large part of modern culture, especially fashion.  they represent the commitment and bond between them and their spouse, and wearing a ring is an outward expression pride for your spouse.  women often have the fancier ring because they tend to be the bigger fans of jewelry and it can represent her spouse as being a provider.  and many men do not wear jewelry, so the fact that they are wearing a ring means that it is something special.  if a couple blows a ton of money on something extravagant and can later not afford to pay bills, then that is simple irresponsibility.  it is not a waste of money, it is an unwise or irresponsible choice of how it is spent.  there is a difference, and spending money unwisely does not equate to being a waste.  it is a square/rectangle situation.  all squares wasteful spending are rectangles unwise spending but not all rectangles are squares.
i believe that expensive engagement rings and elaborate wedding ceremonies are a waste of money and only serve to make women feel spoiled and/or special.  our society shoves the idea of a  dream wedding  down the throats of little girls, convincing them to believe they want a pretty wedding and engagement ring.  really, the money most people spend on these things could be put to much better use, like a down payment on a car.  an engagement ring serves zero purpose, and weddings only last a day.  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  anything further is just people seeking attention and the approval of society.   #  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.   #  being truly in love has nothing to do with wanting a big wedding or not.   # not all weddings are about the woman.  many are about the couple and the bond/commitment that they are making together.  sometimes, the wedding industry makes it seem that weddings are only about the bride, but that is not the case for many couples, for them it is about both of them.  also, what is wrong with feeling spoiled or special ? we are all humans and we have feelings.  if feeling good is important to you, and if a certain event makes you feel really good, how can it be a waste of money ? but if a wedding/ring is more important to them than a down payment on a car, it is not a waste.  they are spending money on what they want/what is more important to them.  and engagement ring can bring attention to a person and keep unwanted attention at bay.  feelings are important.  just because an engagement ring may serve in only bringing joy does not mean that it does not have a purpose.  does giving a stuffed animal to a sick person at a hospital serve no purpose ? does giving someone a holiday card serve no purpose ? just because the purpose is based on emotions and feelings, does not make it unimportant.  well they are a waste of money because they only last a day.  do you go to concerts/go to the movies ? well they are a waste of money because they only last a few hours.  do you take vacations ? well they are a waste of money because they only last a week or whatever time you spend on vacations .  just because something is short, does not mean that it is a waste of money.  furthermore, if the participants see the event as very important and do not see it as a waste of money, how can you decide that it is a waste of money  to them  ? being truly in love has nothing to do with wanting a big wedding or not.  a wedding is not used to validate a marriage for most couples , it is used to celebrate it ! and no, no matter how much i am in love, i will definitely get more joy out of a big wedding than a small one.  look at it from a different point of view. you and your partner want to play a video game.  will you honestly say that you will get the same amount of joy from playing minesweeper on the pc vs playing some fancy new game with the oculus rift.  alternatively, will you get the same joy out of watching a concert or sports game on tv as you do being at the concert/sports game ? or they want to have fun and celebrate one of the biggest steps in their lives.  also, what is wrong with seeking attention ? if attention makes you feel happy, why deny yourself that ?  #  i will not be spending many thousands of dollars on my wedding or my engagement ring.   #  sure, but many do not… ? i do not think a lot of people are going to argue with the idea that people should not go into debt to pay for an elaborate wedding.  but that is not what your cmv says.  what you said is:  engagement rings and weddings are unnecessary wastes of money so,  in general , engagement rings and wedding rings are wastes of money.  that does not just include weddings that cost $0,0.  and, indeed, you even clarified that in your post, saying:  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  in other words, people who do want a ceremony  are not as in love as the people who do not care  and are also automatically wasting money .  that is a very, very extreme viewpoint.  i will not be spending many thousands of dollars on my wedding or my engagement ring.  i will  absolutely  be having a fun party, and that is not because i do not love my partner.  you also said,  an engagement ring serves zero purpose zero purpose ? tradition.  symbolism.  i would call those purposes, personally.  i do not expect you to do a 0 and say,  oh, yeah, i would totally spend $0,0 on a wedding !   but if you have been moved and you no longer believe that, say, people who do not want a courthouse wedding do not love each other as much, or that people can responsibly choose to have a relatively low budget wedding outside of the courthouse and that is not an irresponsible choice assuming they have adequately assessed their finances , or that someone who wants a reasonably priced ring has not been brainwashed and might actually get joy out of that tradition… you should go assign deltas to the people who helped change your view, since is has been changed  in some way .   #  many of them did it at their houses, an affordable reception hall or church.   # so they did not have insurance ? the example you gave is of an financially irresponsible couple.  if they are spending like crazy and taking out debt like there is no tomorrow, with no savings or anything, then it really does not matter how much their wedding was because they suck at finances.  you are supposed to spend without your budget and/or have help from the parents .  my wedding and reception was under $0,0, and that includes all the expenses.  our rings were both under $0 as well.  i think i had the most expensive wedding of all my friends.  many of them did it at their houses, an affordable reception hall or church.  you do not have to break the bank.   #  last week i found out they are getting a divorce.   #  a girl i grew up with just had her dream wedding in mexico last january with all of her friend and family down for the event.  all in it cost her husband $0,0.  last week i found out they are getting a divorce.  she was cheating on him since 0 months before the wedding.  that is the 0rd wedding that is blown up in less than a year because the woman was cheating on the man going into it.  i think wedding is become a huge waste of money right around the time you place your first deposit.  you are better off taking your money to vegas.  the odds at the roulette table are just as good as walking down the aisle.   #  they are symbolic, and symbolism is a large part of modern culture, especially fashion.   #  it sounds like your argument is more about irresponsible spending.  wedding and engagement rings do not have to be ungodly expensive.  they are symbolic, and symbolism is a large part of modern culture, especially fashion.  they represent the commitment and bond between them and their spouse, and wearing a ring is an outward expression pride for your spouse.  women often have the fancier ring because they tend to be the bigger fans of jewelry and it can represent her spouse as being a provider.  and many men do not wear jewelry, so the fact that they are wearing a ring means that it is something special.  if a couple blows a ton of money on something extravagant and can later not afford to pay bills, then that is simple irresponsibility.  it is not a waste of money, it is an unwise or irresponsible choice of how it is spent.  there is a difference, and spending money unwisely does not equate to being a waste.  it is a square/rectangle situation.  all squares wasteful spending are rectangles unwise spending but not all rectangles are squares.
i believe that expensive engagement rings and elaborate wedding ceremonies are a waste of money and only serve to make women feel spoiled and/or special.  our society shoves the idea of a  dream wedding  down the throats of little girls, convincing them to believe they want a pretty wedding and engagement ring.  really, the money most people spend on these things could be put to much better use, like a down payment on a car.  an engagement ring serves zero purpose, and weddings only last a day.  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  anything further is just people seeking attention and the approval of society.   #  anything further is just people seeking attention and the approval of society.   #  or they want to have fun and celebrate one of the biggest steps in their lives.   # not all weddings are about the woman.  many are about the couple and the bond/commitment that they are making together.  sometimes, the wedding industry makes it seem that weddings are only about the bride, but that is not the case for many couples, for them it is about both of them.  also, what is wrong with feeling spoiled or special ? we are all humans and we have feelings.  if feeling good is important to you, and if a certain event makes you feel really good, how can it be a waste of money ? but if a wedding/ring is more important to them than a down payment on a car, it is not a waste.  they are spending money on what they want/what is more important to them.  and engagement ring can bring attention to a person and keep unwanted attention at bay.  feelings are important.  just because an engagement ring may serve in only bringing joy does not mean that it does not have a purpose.  does giving a stuffed animal to a sick person at a hospital serve no purpose ? does giving someone a holiday card serve no purpose ? just because the purpose is based on emotions and feelings, does not make it unimportant.  well they are a waste of money because they only last a day.  do you go to concerts/go to the movies ? well they are a waste of money because they only last a few hours.  do you take vacations ? well they are a waste of money because they only last a week or whatever time you spend on vacations .  just because something is short, does not mean that it is a waste of money.  furthermore, if the participants see the event as very important and do not see it as a waste of money, how can you decide that it is a waste of money  to them  ? being truly in love has nothing to do with wanting a big wedding or not.  a wedding is not used to validate a marriage for most couples , it is used to celebrate it ! and no, no matter how much i am in love, i will definitely get more joy out of a big wedding than a small one.  look at it from a different point of view. you and your partner want to play a video game.  will you honestly say that you will get the same amount of joy from playing minesweeper on the pc vs playing some fancy new game with the oculus rift.  alternatively, will you get the same joy out of watching a concert or sports game on tv as you do being at the concert/sports game ? or they want to have fun and celebrate one of the biggest steps in their lives.  also, what is wrong with seeking attention ? if attention makes you feel happy, why deny yourself that ?  #  i do not think a lot of people are going to argue with the idea that people should not go into debt to pay for an elaborate wedding.   #  sure, but many do not… ? i do not think a lot of people are going to argue with the idea that people should not go into debt to pay for an elaborate wedding.  but that is not what your cmv says.  what you said is:  engagement rings and weddings are unnecessary wastes of money so,  in general , engagement rings and wedding rings are wastes of money.  that does not just include weddings that cost $0,0.  and, indeed, you even clarified that in your post, saying:  people who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at city hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.  in other words, people who do want a ceremony  are not as in love as the people who do not care  and are also automatically wasting money .  that is a very, very extreme viewpoint.  i will not be spending many thousands of dollars on my wedding or my engagement ring.  i will  absolutely  be having a fun party, and that is not because i do not love my partner.  you also said,  an engagement ring serves zero purpose zero purpose ? tradition.  symbolism.  i would call those purposes, personally.  i do not expect you to do a 0 and say,  oh, yeah, i would totally spend $0,0 on a wedding !   but if you have been moved and you no longer believe that, say, people who do not want a courthouse wedding do not love each other as much, or that people can responsibly choose to have a relatively low budget wedding outside of the courthouse and that is not an irresponsible choice assuming they have adequately assessed their finances , or that someone who wants a reasonably priced ring has not been brainwashed and might actually get joy out of that tradition… you should go assign deltas to the people who helped change your view, since is has been changed  in some way .   #  if they are spending like crazy and taking out debt like there is no tomorrow, with no savings or anything, then it really does not matter how much their wedding was because they suck at finances.   # so they did not have insurance ? the example you gave is of an financially irresponsible couple.  if they are spending like crazy and taking out debt like there is no tomorrow, with no savings or anything, then it really does not matter how much their wedding was because they suck at finances.  you are supposed to spend without your budget and/or have help from the parents .  my wedding and reception was under $0,0, and that includes all the expenses.  our rings were both under $0 as well.  i think i had the most expensive wedding of all my friends.  many of them did it at their houses, an affordable reception hall or church.  you do not have to break the bank.   #  she was cheating on him since 0 months before the wedding.   #  a girl i grew up with just had her dream wedding in mexico last january with all of her friend and family down for the event.  all in it cost her husband $0,0.  last week i found out they are getting a divorce.  she was cheating on him since 0 months before the wedding.  that is the 0rd wedding that is blown up in less than a year because the woman was cheating on the man going into it.  i think wedding is become a huge waste of money right around the time you place your first deposit.  you are better off taking your money to vegas.  the odds at the roulette table are just as good as walking down the aisle.   #  all squares wasteful spending are rectangles unwise spending but not all rectangles are squares.   #  it sounds like your argument is more about irresponsible spending.  wedding and engagement rings do not have to be ungodly expensive.  they are symbolic, and symbolism is a large part of modern culture, especially fashion.  they represent the commitment and bond between them and their spouse, and wearing a ring is an outward expression pride for your spouse.  women often have the fancier ring because they tend to be the bigger fans of jewelry and it can represent her spouse as being a provider.  and many men do not wear jewelry, so the fact that they are wearing a ring means that it is something special.  if a couple blows a ton of money on something extravagant and can later not afford to pay bills, then that is simple irresponsibility.  it is not a waste of money, it is an unwise or irresponsible choice of how it is spent.  there is a difference, and spending money unwisely does not equate to being a waste.  it is a square/rectangle situation.  all squares wasteful spending are rectangles unwise spending but not all rectangles are squares.
i have been browsing /r/fitness for quite some time now, and i noticed that a substantial majority i would say on the order of 0 0 are  not  about being fit in general terms.  the prevailing opinion is that being massive being fit, and that is just plain wrong in my opinion.  i see so many posts that, when broken down into the simplest terms, only talk about how much they can bench press, or how much they squat, or how they are tracking their macros.  there is little to no discussion,that i have personally seen, about a well balanced workout regime.  strength training is a key part of any workout programme, but i believe it should be balanced with a good dose of cardio and flexibility training.  it is all very well being able to bench press a huge weight, but that is not going to do me any good if i ca not run 0/0 mile without feeling like i am dying from lack of oxygen because my heart and lungs have not kept pace with my biceps and shoulders.  the flexibility element can be achieved to a certain extent with strength training, but i have not seen a serious discussion about the benefits offered by yoga or pilates to enhance the hard work that has already been done.  do not get me wrong, there are positives out there the advice about nutrition is generally very good, and when you do need some advice on strength training i have found what i have read very helpful.  i admit that it may be down to the goals of the individuals concerned i just ca not help but feel that a sub reddit about fitness  should be  about overall fitness, rather than focusing on one  very specific  element.  i am willing to have my opinion changed on this, hence why i posted.   #  the prevailing opinion is that being massive being fit, and that is just plain wrong in my opinion.   #  there is nothing about being  massive  as being a requirement for fitness.   # there is nothing about being  massive  as being a requirement for fitness.  but yes, resistance training i. e.  weights are certainly heavily emphasized.  that is hardly surprising though considering that when it comes to fitness there are only two real categories: muscular strength, and cardiovascular being flexible seems like a different category to me, but regardless there are programs recommended for that too .  so of course when there are two options, it is not surprising to see them a lot.  people are heavily into cardio alongside resistance training as well. it is not like it is just one.   #  when i was young, 0 years ago, i went from puny to good looking in 0 years, and the only power lifting type of exercise i was given by my trainier was the bench press.   #  yes, but /r/fitness tends to confuse the idea of resistance training with the specific sport called power lifting i mean the obsessive focus on squats and deadlifts.  they are not the same thing, the same way how cardio training does not equal preparing for a marathon.  power lifting is much more about functional strength and literally lifting weights, picking up heavy weights, rather than size or looks.  there is nothing wrong with people who want to do it as a sport, but it is wrong to barrage people pushing them to squat and deadlift who never considered it a sport, who do not care about functional strength, who do not even want to pick up heavy things in real life, who just want to look better.  when i was young, 0 years ago, i went from puny to good looking in 0 years, and the only power lifting type of exercise i was given by my trainier was the bench press.  few people squatted and nobody even heard of deadlifts.  the program i was given was: bench, pec dec, pull down, sitting behind the neck press, lateral raises, biceps on the scott machine, cable triceps, horizontal leg press machine and calf machine.  one of the reasons there is this ridiculous hate on machines is that apparently some people try to use some machines in a power lifting way, looking for functional strength, and of course that is stupid.  the most obvious example is the smith machine squat.  that is indeed stupid, but only because it is using a machine to do a power lifting exercise, looking for real strength, then later on they hurt themselves when they try it without the machine.  however, it is entirely different for the vast majority of gym people who never squat on a smith machine because they never squat because they do not give a damn about actual strength, they do it for the looks.  the leg press machine or the biceps scott machine does not lead to people hurting themselves because they never assume it somehow made them strong.  it made them look better.   #  to most people it carries a strong overtone of physical attractiveness; this is the reason why most people want to be  fit  to look fit and to be proud of their appearance .   #  fitness is a versatile concept.  to most people it carries a strong overtone of physical attractiveness; this is the reason why most people want to be  fit  to look fit and to be proud of their appearance .  because this is what most people mean by fitness and the reason most people spend time getting fit, it makes sense that this is the dominant mentality on /r/fitness you can see this in their frequent talk about mirrors, and in the use of photographs to provide  evidence  of fitness success.  you have simply defined a different meaning of  fitness  and declared that your meaning is the  actual  meaning of fitness whereas the much more common meaning employed by /r/fitness is  not   actual .  but you can declare away until you are blue, and you wo not change the fact that their sense has as good, or better, a claim as yours.  yoga does not get discussed constantly because it is possible to be a perfectly balanced, spiritually fulfilled, board certified yoga instructor and still look like a skinny nerd.  that yoga instructor is  fit  in your sense, but not necessarily in the sense that most people care about.  however, note that yoga is mentioned several times a day on /r/fitness do you think the phenomenon of the weightlifter who ca not run 0/0 mile is actually common ? he might exist in a thought experiment but serious strength training is much harder on your lungs than running a mile.   #  compare this to my other colleague, a competitive tri athlete.   # for this, admittedly, quite narrow perspective, i am using my colleagues.  one lifts on a daily basis, eats a very strict diet and his gains are clear for everyone in our office to see.  over short distances, he is deceptively fast for a man his size, but he cannot sustain prolonged cardio indeed, he openly derides it, saying  it is a waste of time .  compare this to my other colleague, a competitive tri athlete.  again, strict diet, lifts regularly 0 0 times a week , and maintains his triathlon training as well.  regularly runs 0  miles; cycles 0  miles to work 0 days out of 0 , swims mainly at weekends.  he cannot lift the same weight as my first colleague, but he is no slouch either.  each of these individuals is, in some sense, fit.  i would argue that colleague 0 is more rounded in his fitness, which  in my opinion  is better than being able to bench press a house an exaggeration .  that is the reason i came here, rather than bitching on /r/fitness itself.   #  every unfit person knows they should be jogging.   #  do not you think part of the skew towards lifting is that people are more likely to need help or advice lifting and/or have not heard why lifting might be helpful to them vs.  doing cardio ? every unfit person knows they should be jogging.  not every unfit person understands that strength training could also be a big component of their path to fitness.  most people basically understand how to do cardio and know a couple forms of it they could be doing without seeking advice.  that is why cardio focused discussions on r/fitness tend to cover more esoteric or advanced topics like hiit.
i have been browsing /r/fitness for quite some time now, and i noticed that a substantial majority i would say on the order of 0 0 are  not  about being fit in general terms.  the prevailing opinion is that being massive being fit, and that is just plain wrong in my opinion.  i see so many posts that, when broken down into the simplest terms, only talk about how much they can bench press, or how much they squat, or how they are tracking their macros.  there is little to no discussion,that i have personally seen, about a well balanced workout regime.  strength training is a key part of any workout programme, but i believe it should be balanced with a good dose of cardio and flexibility training.  it is all very well being able to bench press a huge weight, but that is not going to do me any good if i ca not run 0/0 mile without feeling like i am dying from lack of oxygen because my heart and lungs have not kept pace with my biceps and shoulders.  the flexibility element can be achieved to a certain extent with strength training, but i have not seen a serious discussion about the benefits offered by yoga or pilates to enhance the hard work that has already been done.  do not get me wrong, there are positives out there the advice about nutrition is generally very good, and when you do need some advice on strength training i have found what i have read very helpful.  i admit that it may be down to the goals of the individuals concerned i just ca not help but feel that a sub reddit about fitness  should be  about overall fitness, rather than focusing on one  very specific  element.  i am willing to have my opinion changed on this, hence why i posted.   #  or how they are tracking their macros.   #  diet is literally one of the most important things concerning physical fitness, across all forms of exercise.   #  this is a complaint that is been voiced numerous times in /r/fitness by people who have only ever submitted just the one comment in /r/fitness ie: whiny lurkers who contribute nothing to the sub .  here is the thing: /r/fitness is a catch all for physical fitness.  /r/fitness is not about  being massive , a lot of the focus  is  on strength/powerlifting two different but related things .  strength is one of the few things that you can apply to virtually any aspect of fitness.  anyone who does any sort of sport incorporates strength training generally barbell training into their training  regimen .  sprinters do front squats and cleans; marathoners do accessory barbell work to retain lbm; basketball players do squats and cleans, football players do squats, cleans, deadlifts and bench press; gymnasts do a lot of accessory shoulder work; do you see a common theme here ? diet is literally one of the most important things concerning physical fitness, across all forms of exercise.  there is literally something by /u/phrakture one of the first mods of /r/fitness in the faq called  starting stretching .  you have read the faq, right ? oh, of course not.  it is not like that is  plastered all over the subreddit .  yep, bench.  that is how you are supposed to feel at the end.  do you even know the difference between aerobic and anaerobic cardio, sprinting/distance running ? if you have something to contribute, then why have not you ? i have never seen anything in your post history indicating you contributed.  content does not create itself.  it is funny how people like you think /r/fitness has a myopic point of view in regards to fitness despite never having actually seeing any of the discussions much less being a part of them .  tl;dr : when you hear the same bullshit complaint from someone who  is not even a part of the community  it gets annoying.  your unsubscribing from /r/fitness wo not exactly be the end of the world, either.   #  power lifting is much more about functional strength and literally lifting weights, picking up heavy weights, rather than size or looks.   #  yes, but /r/fitness tends to confuse the idea of resistance training with the specific sport called power lifting i mean the obsessive focus on squats and deadlifts.  they are not the same thing, the same way how cardio training does not equal preparing for a marathon.  power lifting is much more about functional strength and literally lifting weights, picking up heavy weights, rather than size or looks.  there is nothing wrong with people who want to do it as a sport, but it is wrong to barrage people pushing them to squat and deadlift who never considered it a sport, who do not care about functional strength, who do not even want to pick up heavy things in real life, who just want to look better.  when i was young, 0 years ago, i went from puny to good looking in 0 years, and the only power lifting type of exercise i was given by my trainier was the bench press.  few people squatted and nobody even heard of deadlifts.  the program i was given was: bench, pec dec, pull down, sitting behind the neck press, lateral raises, biceps on the scott machine, cable triceps, horizontal leg press machine and calf machine.  one of the reasons there is this ridiculous hate on machines is that apparently some people try to use some machines in a power lifting way, looking for functional strength, and of course that is stupid.  the most obvious example is the smith machine squat.  that is indeed stupid, but only because it is using a machine to do a power lifting exercise, looking for real strength, then later on they hurt themselves when they try it without the machine.  however, it is entirely different for the vast majority of gym people who never squat on a smith machine because they never squat because they do not give a damn about actual strength, they do it for the looks.  the leg press machine or the biceps scott machine does not lead to people hurting themselves because they never assume it somehow made them strong.  it made them look better.   #  he might exist in a thought experiment but serious strength training is much harder on your lungs than running a mile.   #  fitness is a versatile concept.  to most people it carries a strong overtone of physical attractiveness; this is the reason why most people want to be  fit  to look fit and to be proud of their appearance .  because this is what most people mean by fitness and the reason most people spend time getting fit, it makes sense that this is the dominant mentality on /r/fitness you can see this in their frequent talk about mirrors, and in the use of photographs to provide  evidence  of fitness success.  you have simply defined a different meaning of  fitness  and declared that your meaning is the  actual  meaning of fitness whereas the much more common meaning employed by /r/fitness is  not   actual .  but you can declare away until you are blue, and you wo not change the fact that their sense has as good, or better, a claim as yours.  yoga does not get discussed constantly because it is possible to be a perfectly balanced, spiritually fulfilled, board certified yoga instructor and still look like a skinny nerd.  that yoga instructor is  fit  in your sense, but not necessarily in the sense that most people care about.  however, note that yoga is mentioned several times a day on /r/fitness do you think the phenomenon of the weightlifter who ca not run 0/0 mile is actually common ? he might exist in a thought experiment but serious strength training is much harder on your lungs than running a mile.   #  regularly runs 0  miles; cycles 0  miles to work 0 days out of 0 , swims mainly at weekends.   # for this, admittedly, quite narrow perspective, i am using my colleagues.  one lifts on a daily basis, eats a very strict diet and his gains are clear for everyone in our office to see.  over short distances, he is deceptively fast for a man his size, but he cannot sustain prolonged cardio indeed, he openly derides it, saying  it is a waste of time .  compare this to my other colleague, a competitive tri athlete.  again, strict diet, lifts regularly 0 0 times a week , and maintains his triathlon training as well.  regularly runs 0  miles; cycles 0  miles to work 0 days out of 0 , swims mainly at weekends.  he cannot lift the same weight as my first colleague, but he is no slouch either.  each of these individuals is, in some sense, fit.  i would argue that colleague 0 is more rounded in his fitness, which  in my opinion  is better than being able to bench press a house an exaggeration .  that is the reason i came here, rather than bitching on /r/fitness itself.   #  not every unfit person understands that strength training could also be a big component of their path to fitness.   #  do not you think part of the skew towards lifting is that people are more likely to need help or advice lifting and/or have not heard why lifting might be helpful to them vs.  doing cardio ? every unfit person knows they should be jogging.  not every unfit person understands that strength training could also be a big component of their path to fitness.  most people basically understand how to do cardio and know a couple forms of it they could be doing without seeking advice.  that is why cardio focused discussions on r/fitness tend to cover more esoteric or advanced topics like hiit.
i have been browsing /r/fitness for quite some time now, and i noticed that a substantial majority i would say on the order of 0 0 are  not  about being fit in general terms.  the prevailing opinion is that being massive being fit, and that is just plain wrong in my opinion.  i see so many posts that, when broken down into the simplest terms, only talk about how much they can bench press, or how much they squat, or how they are tracking their macros.  there is little to no discussion,that i have personally seen, about a well balanced workout regime.  strength training is a key part of any workout programme, but i believe it should be balanced with a good dose of cardio and flexibility training.  it is all very well being able to bench press a huge weight, but that is not going to do me any good if i ca not run 0/0 mile without feeling like i am dying from lack of oxygen because my heart and lungs have not kept pace with my biceps and shoulders.  the flexibility element can be achieved to a certain extent with strength training, but i have not seen a serious discussion about the benefits offered by yoga or pilates to enhance the hard work that has already been done.  do not get me wrong, there are positives out there the advice about nutrition is generally very good, and when you do need some advice on strength training i have found what i have read very helpful.  i admit that it may be down to the goals of the individuals concerned i just ca not help but feel that a sub reddit about fitness  should be  about overall fitness, rather than focusing on one  very specific  element.  i am willing to have my opinion changed on this, hence why i posted.   #  with a good dose of cardio and flexibility training.   #  there is literally something by /u/phrakture one of the first mods of /r/fitness in the faq called  starting stretching .   #  this is a complaint that is been voiced numerous times in /r/fitness by people who have only ever submitted just the one comment in /r/fitness ie: whiny lurkers who contribute nothing to the sub .  here is the thing: /r/fitness is a catch all for physical fitness.  /r/fitness is not about  being massive , a lot of the focus  is  on strength/powerlifting two different but related things .  strength is one of the few things that you can apply to virtually any aspect of fitness.  anyone who does any sort of sport incorporates strength training generally barbell training into their training  regimen .  sprinters do front squats and cleans; marathoners do accessory barbell work to retain lbm; basketball players do squats and cleans, football players do squats, cleans, deadlifts and bench press; gymnasts do a lot of accessory shoulder work; do you see a common theme here ? diet is literally one of the most important things concerning physical fitness, across all forms of exercise.  there is literally something by /u/phrakture one of the first mods of /r/fitness in the faq called  starting stretching .  you have read the faq, right ? oh, of course not.  it is not like that is  plastered all over the subreddit .  yep, bench.  that is how you are supposed to feel at the end.  do you even know the difference between aerobic and anaerobic cardio, sprinting/distance running ? if you have something to contribute, then why have not you ? i have never seen anything in your post history indicating you contributed.  content does not create itself.  it is funny how people like you think /r/fitness has a myopic point of view in regards to fitness despite never having actually seeing any of the discussions much less being a part of them .  tl;dr : when you hear the same bullshit complaint from someone who  is not even a part of the community  it gets annoying.  your unsubscribing from /r/fitness wo not exactly be the end of the world, either.   #  however, it is entirely different for the vast majority of gym people who never squat on a smith machine because they never squat because they do not give a damn about actual strength, they do it for the looks.   #  yes, but /r/fitness tends to confuse the idea of resistance training with the specific sport called power lifting i mean the obsessive focus on squats and deadlifts.  they are not the same thing, the same way how cardio training does not equal preparing for a marathon.  power lifting is much more about functional strength and literally lifting weights, picking up heavy weights, rather than size or looks.  there is nothing wrong with people who want to do it as a sport, but it is wrong to barrage people pushing them to squat and deadlift who never considered it a sport, who do not care about functional strength, who do not even want to pick up heavy things in real life, who just want to look better.  when i was young, 0 years ago, i went from puny to good looking in 0 years, and the only power lifting type of exercise i was given by my trainier was the bench press.  few people squatted and nobody even heard of deadlifts.  the program i was given was: bench, pec dec, pull down, sitting behind the neck press, lateral raises, biceps on the scott machine, cable triceps, horizontal leg press machine and calf machine.  one of the reasons there is this ridiculous hate on machines is that apparently some people try to use some machines in a power lifting way, looking for functional strength, and of course that is stupid.  the most obvious example is the smith machine squat.  that is indeed stupid, but only because it is using a machine to do a power lifting exercise, looking for real strength, then later on they hurt themselves when they try it without the machine.  however, it is entirely different for the vast majority of gym people who never squat on a smith machine because they never squat because they do not give a damn about actual strength, they do it for the looks.  the leg press machine or the biceps scott machine does not lead to people hurting themselves because they never assume it somehow made them strong.  it made them look better.   #  that yoga instructor is  fit  in your sense, but not necessarily in the sense that most people care about.   #  fitness is a versatile concept.  to most people it carries a strong overtone of physical attractiveness; this is the reason why most people want to be  fit  to look fit and to be proud of their appearance .  because this is what most people mean by fitness and the reason most people spend time getting fit, it makes sense that this is the dominant mentality on /r/fitness you can see this in their frequent talk about mirrors, and in the use of photographs to provide  evidence  of fitness success.  you have simply defined a different meaning of  fitness  and declared that your meaning is the  actual  meaning of fitness whereas the much more common meaning employed by /r/fitness is  not   actual .  but you can declare away until you are blue, and you wo not change the fact that their sense has as good, or better, a claim as yours.  yoga does not get discussed constantly because it is possible to be a perfectly balanced, spiritually fulfilled, board certified yoga instructor and still look like a skinny nerd.  that yoga instructor is  fit  in your sense, but not necessarily in the sense that most people care about.  however, note that yoga is mentioned several times a day on /r/fitness do you think the phenomenon of the weightlifter who ca not run 0/0 mile is actually common ? he might exist in a thought experiment but serious strength training is much harder on your lungs than running a mile.   #  one lifts on a daily basis, eats a very strict diet and his gains are clear for everyone in our office to see.   # for this, admittedly, quite narrow perspective, i am using my colleagues.  one lifts on a daily basis, eats a very strict diet and his gains are clear for everyone in our office to see.  over short distances, he is deceptively fast for a man his size, but he cannot sustain prolonged cardio indeed, he openly derides it, saying  it is a waste of time .  compare this to my other colleague, a competitive tri athlete.  again, strict diet, lifts regularly 0 0 times a week , and maintains his triathlon training as well.  regularly runs 0  miles; cycles 0  miles to work 0 days out of 0 , swims mainly at weekends.  he cannot lift the same weight as my first colleague, but he is no slouch either.  each of these individuals is, in some sense, fit.  i would argue that colleague 0 is more rounded in his fitness, which  in my opinion  is better than being able to bench press a house an exaggeration .  that is the reason i came here, rather than bitching on /r/fitness itself.   #  do not you think part of the skew towards lifting is that people are more likely to need help or advice lifting and/or have not heard why lifting might be helpful to them vs.   #  do not you think part of the skew towards lifting is that people are more likely to need help or advice lifting and/or have not heard why lifting might be helpful to them vs.  doing cardio ? every unfit person knows they should be jogging.  not every unfit person understands that strength training could also be a big component of their path to fitness.  most people basically understand how to do cardio and know a couple forms of it they could be doing without seeking advice.  that is why cardio focused discussions on r/fitness tend to cover more esoteric or advanced topics like hiit.
i have been browsing /r/fitness for quite some time now, and i noticed that a substantial majority i would say on the order of 0 0 are  not  about being fit in general terms.  the prevailing opinion is that being massive being fit, and that is just plain wrong in my opinion.  i see so many posts that, when broken down into the simplest terms, only talk about how much they can bench press, or how much they squat, or how they are tracking their macros.  there is little to no discussion,that i have personally seen, about a well balanced workout regime.  strength training is a key part of any workout programme, but i believe it should be balanced with a good dose of cardio and flexibility training.  it is all very well being able to bench press a huge weight, but that is not going to do me any good if i ca not run 0/0 mile without feeling like i am dying from lack of oxygen because my heart and lungs have not kept pace with my biceps and shoulders.  the flexibility element can be achieved to a certain extent with strength training, but i have not seen a serious discussion about the benefits offered by yoga or pilates to enhance the hard work that has already been done.  do not get me wrong, there are positives out there the advice about nutrition is generally very good, and when you do need some advice on strength training i have found what i have read very helpful.  i admit that it may be down to the goals of the individuals concerned i just ca not help but feel that a sub reddit about fitness  should be  about overall fitness, rather than focusing on one  very specific  element.  i am willing to have my opinion changed on this, hence why i posted.   #  but i have not seen a serious discussion about the benefits offered by yoga or pilates to enhance the hard work that has already been done.   #  if you have something to contribute, then why have not you ?  #  this is a complaint that is been voiced numerous times in /r/fitness by people who have only ever submitted just the one comment in /r/fitness ie: whiny lurkers who contribute nothing to the sub .  here is the thing: /r/fitness is a catch all for physical fitness.  /r/fitness is not about  being massive , a lot of the focus  is  on strength/powerlifting two different but related things .  strength is one of the few things that you can apply to virtually any aspect of fitness.  anyone who does any sort of sport incorporates strength training generally barbell training into their training  regimen .  sprinters do front squats and cleans; marathoners do accessory barbell work to retain lbm; basketball players do squats and cleans, football players do squats, cleans, deadlifts and bench press; gymnasts do a lot of accessory shoulder work; do you see a common theme here ? diet is literally one of the most important things concerning physical fitness, across all forms of exercise.  there is literally something by /u/phrakture one of the first mods of /r/fitness in the faq called  starting stretching .  you have read the faq, right ? oh, of course not.  it is not like that is  plastered all over the subreddit .  yep, bench.  that is how you are supposed to feel at the end.  do you even know the difference between aerobic and anaerobic cardio, sprinting/distance running ? if you have something to contribute, then why have not you ? i have never seen anything in your post history indicating you contributed.  content does not create itself.  it is funny how people like you think /r/fitness has a myopic point of view in regards to fitness despite never having actually seeing any of the discussions much less being a part of them .  tl;dr : when you hear the same bullshit complaint from someone who  is not even a part of the community  it gets annoying.  your unsubscribing from /r/fitness wo not exactly be the end of the world, either.   #  when i was young, 0 years ago, i went from puny to good looking in 0 years, and the only power lifting type of exercise i was given by my trainier was the bench press.   #  yes, but /r/fitness tends to confuse the idea of resistance training with the specific sport called power lifting i mean the obsessive focus on squats and deadlifts.  they are not the same thing, the same way how cardio training does not equal preparing for a marathon.  power lifting is much more about functional strength and literally lifting weights, picking up heavy weights, rather than size or looks.  there is nothing wrong with people who want to do it as a sport, but it is wrong to barrage people pushing them to squat and deadlift who never considered it a sport, who do not care about functional strength, who do not even want to pick up heavy things in real life, who just want to look better.  when i was young, 0 years ago, i went from puny to good looking in 0 years, and the only power lifting type of exercise i was given by my trainier was the bench press.  few people squatted and nobody even heard of deadlifts.  the program i was given was: bench, pec dec, pull down, sitting behind the neck press, lateral raises, biceps on the scott machine, cable triceps, horizontal leg press machine and calf machine.  one of the reasons there is this ridiculous hate on machines is that apparently some people try to use some machines in a power lifting way, looking for functional strength, and of course that is stupid.  the most obvious example is the smith machine squat.  that is indeed stupid, but only because it is using a machine to do a power lifting exercise, looking for real strength, then later on they hurt themselves when they try it without the machine.  however, it is entirely different for the vast majority of gym people who never squat on a smith machine because they never squat because they do not give a damn about actual strength, they do it for the looks.  the leg press machine or the biceps scott machine does not lead to people hurting themselves because they never assume it somehow made them strong.  it made them look better.   #  you have simply defined a different meaning of  fitness  and declared that your meaning is the  actual  meaning of fitness whereas the much more common meaning employed by /r/fitness is  not   actual .   #  fitness is a versatile concept.  to most people it carries a strong overtone of physical attractiveness; this is the reason why most people want to be  fit  to look fit and to be proud of their appearance .  because this is what most people mean by fitness and the reason most people spend time getting fit, it makes sense that this is the dominant mentality on /r/fitness you can see this in their frequent talk about mirrors, and in the use of photographs to provide  evidence  of fitness success.  you have simply defined a different meaning of  fitness  and declared that your meaning is the  actual  meaning of fitness whereas the much more common meaning employed by /r/fitness is  not   actual .  but you can declare away until you are blue, and you wo not change the fact that their sense has as good, or better, a claim as yours.  yoga does not get discussed constantly because it is possible to be a perfectly balanced, spiritually fulfilled, board certified yoga instructor and still look like a skinny nerd.  that yoga instructor is  fit  in your sense, but not necessarily in the sense that most people care about.  however, note that yoga is mentioned several times a day on /r/fitness do you think the phenomenon of the weightlifter who ca not run 0/0 mile is actually common ? he might exist in a thought experiment but serious strength training is much harder on your lungs than running a mile.   #  for this, admittedly, quite narrow perspective, i am using my colleagues.   # for this, admittedly, quite narrow perspective, i am using my colleagues.  one lifts on a daily basis, eats a very strict diet and his gains are clear for everyone in our office to see.  over short distances, he is deceptively fast for a man his size, but he cannot sustain prolonged cardio indeed, he openly derides it, saying  it is a waste of time .  compare this to my other colleague, a competitive tri athlete.  again, strict diet, lifts regularly 0 0 times a week , and maintains his triathlon training as well.  regularly runs 0  miles; cycles 0  miles to work 0 days out of 0 , swims mainly at weekends.  he cannot lift the same weight as my first colleague, but he is no slouch either.  each of these individuals is, in some sense, fit.  i would argue that colleague 0 is more rounded in his fitness, which  in my opinion  is better than being able to bench press a house an exaggeration .  that is the reason i came here, rather than bitching on /r/fitness itself.   #  every unfit person knows they should be jogging.   #  do not you think part of the skew towards lifting is that people are more likely to need help or advice lifting and/or have not heard why lifting might be helpful to them vs.  doing cardio ? every unfit person knows they should be jogging.  not every unfit person understands that strength training could also be a big component of their path to fitness.  most people basically understand how to do cardio and know a couple forms of it they could be doing without seeking advice.  that is why cardio focused discussions on r/fitness tend to cover more esoteric or advanced topics like hiit.
title sort of explains itself.  i do not think you are doing anyone a favor by hanging in there out of commitment.  i also do not think the potential other relationship is relevant people often see it as some kind of  punishment  of the one who broke off the ltr for it if the new relationship does not work out.  i however think that does not matter, point is that if you can fall in love with another, it says a lot about your relationship in the first place.  i also think it is respectful to your partner to leave them.  you are acknowledging they have the right to be committed to someone who loves them more than you, and you are also acknowledging they are fine enough to be on their own.  sure it may hurt it is never nice to be dumped, especially for someone else.  but the person leaving did nothing wrong and in fact did the most moral thing possible.  i am also against blaming the one who leaves or seeing it as something horrible to break up if a relationship was long.  no, you may have had a lot of good time, and it is fair to end it if feelings change.  why would anyone owe you their life ? no one can make a commitment that lasts forever, no matter how much people fool themselves that that is what marriage is.  there is nothing evil or wrong in falling in love with another cheating is wrong, being honest and leaving is fair and even brave when compared with attitudes most people have to just stick in the status quo while not feeling it.  why would anyone want their partner to stay with them knowing they are not in love with them anymore ? why would anyone want to be seen as a burden and duty ? relationship should be something it is always ok to walk out of and then the few ones that stay together are doing so for honest reasons, not convenience.  some users i awarded one delta at this point, but will read through and give more since few opinions/discussions helped me define this part made me want to re shape my view.  you don;t have to instantly leave your partner if you do not want to.  but you have to tell them the truth about how you feel and allow them to decide if they want to leave or not.   #  why would anyone want their partner to stay with them knowing they are not in love with them anymore ?  #  this presupposes that if you start to have feelings for someone else, you stop loving your partner.   # this presupposes that if you start to have feelings for someone else, you stop loving your partner.  as someone who is historically had as many as 0 significant others simultaneously, this is not necessarily the case.  you are acknowledging they have the right to be committed to someone who loves them more than you, and you are also acknowledging they are fine enough to be on their own.  i acknowledge this with my partners all the time; relationships are open ended contracts where either party is able to end the contract whenever they want.  honestly, what bothers me the most about this is that you are proposing a unilateral course of action, when there is a clear middleground of  talk about it with your partner, discuss it like rational adults, and let your partner decide what they want to do about it based on the discussion ; saying that the only way to deal with it is by leaving your partner is a bit childish, and takes your partner is agency out of the situation.  if you still love your partner, you owe it to them to be honest and to discuss it with them and to figure out what is best for both of you.  if the best thing is to part ways, then you should come to that decision together.  considering i have seen people who have stayed together for life who got married at 0, this is not true.  it is not  easy , but it is certainly doable.  if i could control who i fell in love with, life would be infinitely simpler.  falling in love is a chemical response to certain personality traits in another person that just sort of happens for reasons we do not fully comprehend yet.  fact is that you do not control those feels any more than you control boners, and people who take that in stride usually end up better off for it.   #  if you have a second child, it does not mean you stop loving your first one as much.   #  you almost literally just did nothing but reword your initial post.  i pointed out that there is nothing wrong with loving multiple people and that having feelings for someone else does not mean you have any less for your so.  if you have a second child, it does not mean you stop loving your first one as much.  you can love 0 people without your love for the first one being diminished at all, and nothing says if you love someone you have to act on it.  so you are not providing any reason why this would be a problem assuming they  do not  act on it.  certainly, but the scenario i described is one where you love your so just as much as you always have.  if that were true, it would be stupid to end it, because your feelings have not changed.  if you love your so more than this new one, why on earth would you leave for them ?  #  if you are romantically drawn to someone, you want to be their only one.   #  because if you know that your so wants to be the only one you love in romantic way monogamous relationship then you are being dishonest and even hurtful to them by staying with these feelings.  you are twisting their reality, making them believe you love only them, while having feelings that if they knew would hurt them.  if you say, well they do not know you are disrespecting them and taking control over the reality they live in.  perhaps knowing about your feelings would make them want to be with someone else or alone.  you do i guess have the right to tell them and let them decide if they are fine with it or want to leave you, but i imagine if they are fine with it, while you are not in poly relationship, it just means both of you are not really romantcially attracted but are together for convenience and friendship.  i find that pathetic and sad.  if you are romantically drawn to someone, you want to be their only one.   #  on the other hand if you do leave your partner, it is wrong to act as if it is immoral there is nothing inherently important about preserving relationships.   #  but it is still an insult to your partner.  i do not even see importance of whether you sleep with someone or not, when the only issue is that you want to in this case you are even in love .  if you do not act on it but have these feelings, what is in your head is identical.  and your partner does not know, do not you think it is disrespectful and dishonest ? you are practically treating your partner like a child and making a sacrifice they maybe do not even want while your feelings show you want someone else.  on the other hand if you do leave your partner, it is wrong to act as if it is immoral there is nothing inherently important about preserving relationships.  i think people in this case stay or cheat because of negative response to breaking up over this.  my point is, it is deeply honest to free your partner when the love you have is no longer what one would want from their romantic partner they are committed and faithful too.   #  as you say it is making a sacrifice for them, and there is most assuredly something moral and inherently important in that.   #  emotions are not controllable and therefore cannot be an insult.  what can be an insult are the various actions that you choose to take.  choosing to not act out of pre existing love in the ultimate respect for a partner.  as you say it is making a sacrifice for them, and there is most assuredly something moral and inherently important in that.  if you do not understand that you are not emotionally mature enough for any type of romantic relationship.  if you do not act upon it you are still committed and faithful to them.
title sort of explains itself.  i do not think you are doing anyone a favor by hanging in there out of commitment.  i also do not think the potential other relationship is relevant people often see it as some kind of  punishment  of the one who broke off the ltr for it if the new relationship does not work out.  i however think that does not matter, point is that if you can fall in love with another, it says a lot about your relationship in the first place.  i also think it is respectful to your partner to leave them.  you are acknowledging they have the right to be committed to someone who loves them more than you, and you are also acknowledging they are fine enough to be on their own.  sure it may hurt it is never nice to be dumped, especially for someone else.  but the person leaving did nothing wrong and in fact did the most moral thing possible.  i am also against blaming the one who leaves or seeing it as something horrible to break up if a relationship was long.  no, you may have had a lot of good time, and it is fair to end it if feelings change.  why would anyone owe you their life ? no one can make a commitment that lasts forever, no matter how much people fool themselves that that is what marriage is.  there is nothing evil or wrong in falling in love with another cheating is wrong, being honest and leaving is fair and even brave when compared with attitudes most people have to just stick in the status quo while not feeling it.  why would anyone want their partner to stay with them knowing they are not in love with them anymore ? why would anyone want to be seen as a burden and duty ? relationship should be something it is always ok to walk out of and then the few ones that stay together are doing so for honest reasons, not convenience.  some users i awarded one delta at this point, but will read through and give more since few opinions/discussions helped me define this part made me want to re shape my view.  you don;t have to instantly leave your partner if you do not want to.  but you have to tell them the truth about how you feel and allow them to decide if they want to leave or not.   #  i also think it is respectful to your partner to leave them.   #  you are acknowledging they have the right to be committed to someone who loves them more than you, and you are also acknowledging they are fine enough to be on their own.   # this presupposes that if you start to have feelings for someone else, you stop loving your partner.  as someone who is historically had as many as 0 significant others simultaneously, this is not necessarily the case.  you are acknowledging they have the right to be committed to someone who loves them more than you, and you are also acknowledging they are fine enough to be on their own.  i acknowledge this with my partners all the time; relationships are open ended contracts where either party is able to end the contract whenever they want.  honestly, what bothers me the most about this is that you are proposing a unilateral course of action, when there is a clear middleground of  talk about it with your partner, discuss it like rational adults, and let your partner decide what they want to do about it based on the discussion ; saying that the only way to deal with it is by leaving your partner is a bit childish, and takes your partner is agency out of the situation.  if you still love your partner, you owe it to them to be honest and to discuss it with them and to figure out what is best for both of you.  if the best thing is to part ways, then you should come to that decision together.  considering i have seen people who have stayed together for life who got married at 0, this is not true.  it is not  easy , but it is certainly doable.  if i could control who i fell in love with, life would be infinitely simpler.  falling in love is a chemical response to certain personality traits in another person that just sort of happens for reasons we do not fully comprehend yet.  fact is that you do not control those feels any more than you control boners, and people who take that in stride usually end up better off for it.   #  if you love your so more than this new one, why on earth would you leave for them ?  #  you almost literally just did nothing but reword your initial post.  i pointed out that there is nothing wrong with loving multiple people and that having feelings for someone else does not mean you have any less for your so.  if you have a second child, it does not mean you stop loving your first one as much.  you can love 0 people without your love for the first one being diminished at all, and nothing says if you love someone you have to act on it.  so you are not providing any reason why this would be a problem assuming they  do not  act on it.  certainly, but the scenario i described is one where you love your so just as much as you always have.  if that were true, it would be stupid to end it, because your feelings have not changed.  if you love your so more than this new one, why on earth would you leave for them ?  #  perhaps knowing about your feelings would make them want to be with someone else or alone.   #  because if you know that your so wants to be the only one you love in romantic way monogamous relationship then you are being dishonest and even hurtful to them by staying with these feelings.  you are twisting their reality, making them believe you love only them, while having feelings that if they knew would hurt them.  if you say, well they do not know you are disrespecting them and taking control over the reality they live in.  perhaps knowing about your feelings would make them want to be with someone else or alone.  you do i guess have the right to tell them and let them decide if they are fine with it or want to leave you, but i imagine if they are fine with it, while you are not in poly relationship, it just means both of you are not really romantcially attracted but are together for convenience and friendship.  i find that pathetic and sad.  if you are romantically drawn to someone, you want to be their only one.   #  you are practically treating your partner like a child and making a sacrifice they maybe do not even want while your feelings show you want someone else.   #  but it is still an insult to your partner.  i do not even see importance of whether you sleep with someone or not, when the only issue is that you want to in this case you are even in love .  if you do not act on it but have these feelings, what is in your head is identical.  and your partner does not know, do not you think it is disrespectful and dishonest ? you are practically treating your partner like a child and making a sacrifice they maybe do not even want while your feelings show you want someone else.  on the other hand if you do leave your partner, it is wrong to act as if it is immoral there is nothing inherently important about preserving relationships.  i think people in this case stay or cheat because of negative response to breaking up over this.  my point is, it is deeply honest to free your partner when the love you have is no longer what one would want from their romantic partner they are committed and faithful too.   #  what can be an insult are the various actions that you choose to take.   #  emotions are not controllable and therefore cannot be an insult.  what can be an insult are the various actions that you choose to take.  choosing to not act out of pre existing love in the ultimate respect for a partner.  as you say it is making a sacrifice for them, and there is most assuredly something moral and inherently important in that.  if you do not understand that you are not emotionally mature enough for any type of romantic relationship.  if you do not act upon it you are still committed and faithful to them.
title sort of explains itself.  i do not think you are doing anyone a favor by hanging in there out of commitment.  i also do not think the potential other relationship is relevant people often see it as some kind of  punishment  of the one who broke off the ltr for it if the new relationship does not work out.  i however think that does not matter, point is that if you can fall in love with another, it says a lot about your relationship in the first place.  i also think it is respectful to your partner to leave them.  you are acknowledging they have the right to be committed to someone who loves them more than you, and you are also acknowledging they are fine enough to be on their own.  sure it may hurt it is never nice to be dumped, especially for someone else.  but the person leaving did nothing wrong and in fact did the most moral thing possible.  i am also against blaming the one who leaves or seeing it as something horrible to break up if a relationship was long.  no, you may have had a lot of good time, and it is fair to end it if feelings change.  why would anyone owe you their life ? no one can make a commitment that lasts forever, no matter how much people fool themselves that that is what marriage is.  there is nothing evil or wrong in falling in love with another cheating is wrong, being honest and leaving is fair and even brave when compared with attitudes most people have to just stick in the status quo while not feeling it.  why would anyone want their partner to stay with them knowing they are not in love with them anymore ? why would anyone want to be seen as a burden and duty ? relationship should be something it is always ok to walk out of and then the few ones that stay together are doing so for honest reasons, not convenience.  some users i awarded one delta at this point, but will read through and give more since few opinions/discussions helped me define this part made me want to re shape my view.  you don;t have to instantly leave your partner if you do not want to.  but you have to tell them the truth about how you feel and allow them to decide if they want to leave or not.   #  no one can make a commitment that lasts forever, no matter how much people fool themselves that that is what marriage is.   #  considering i have seen people who have stayed together for life who got married at 0, this is not true.   # this presupposes that if you start to have feelings for someone else, you stop loving your partner.  as someone who is historically had as many as 0 significant others simultaneously, this is not necessarily the case.  you are acknowledging they have the right to be committed to someone who loves them more than you, and you are also acknowledging they are fine enough to be on their own.  i acknowledge this with my partners all the time; relationships are open ended contracts where either party is able to end the contract whenever they want.  honestly, what bothers me the most about this is that you are proposing a unilateral course of action, when there is a clear middleground of  talk about it with your partner, discuss it like rational adults, and let your partner decide what they want to do about it based on the discussion ; saying that the only way to deal with it is by leaving your partner is a bit childish, and takes your partner is agency out of the situation.  if you still love your partner, you owe it to them to be honest and to discuss it with them and to figure out what is best for both of you.  if the best thing is to part ways, then you should come to that decision together.  considering i have seen people who have stayed together for life who got married at 0, this is not true.  it is not  easy , but it is certainly doable.  if i could control who i fell in love with, life would be infinitely simpler.  falling in love is a chemical response to certain personality traits in another person that just sort of happens for reasons we do not fully comprehend yet.  fact is that you do not control those feels any more than you control boners, and people who take that in stride usually end up better off for it.   #  certainly, but the scenario i described is one where you love your so just as much as you always have.   #  you almost literally just did nothing but reword your initial post.  i pointed out that there is nothing wrong with loving multiple people and that having feelings for someone else does not mean you have any less for your so.  if you have a second child, it does not mean you stop loving your first one as much.  you can love 0 people without your love for the first one being diminished at all, and nothing says if you love someone you have to act on it.  so you are not providing any reason why this would be a problem assuming they  do not  act on it.  certainly, but the scenario i described is one where you love your so just as much as you always have.  if that were true, it would be stupid to end it, because your feelings have not changed.  if you love your so more than this new one, why on earth would you leave for them ?  #  you are twisting their reality, making them believe you love only them, while having feelings that if they knew would hurt them.   #  because if you know that your so wants to be the only one you love in romantic way monogamous relationship then you are being dishonest and even hurtful to them by staying with these feelings.  you are twisting their reality, making them believe you love only them, while having feelings that if they knew would hurt them.  if you say, well they do not know you are disrespecting them and taking control over the reality they live in.  perhaps knowing about your feelings would make them want to be with someone else or alone.  you do i guess have the right to tell them and let them decide if they are fine with it or want to leave you, but i imagine if they are fine with it, while you are not in poly relationship, it just means both of you are not really romantcially attracted but are together for convenience and friendship.  i find that pathetic and sad.  if you are romantically drawn to someone, you want to be their only one.   #  on the other hand if you do leave your partner, it is wrong to act as if it is immoral there is nothing inherently important about preserving relationships.   #  but it is still an insult to your partner.  i do not even see importance of whether you sleep with someone or not, when the only issue is that you want to in this case you are even in love .  if you do not act on it but have these feelings, what is in your head is identical.  and your partner does not know, do not you think it is disrespectful and dishonest ? you are practically treating your partner like a child and making a sacrifice they maybe do not even want while your feelings show you want someone else.  on the other hand if you do leave your partner, it is wrong to act as if it is immoral there is nothing inherently important about preserving relationships.  i think people in this case stay or cheat because of negative response to breaking up over this.  my point is, it is deeply honest to free your partner when the love you have is no longer what one would want from their romantic partner they are committed and faithful too.   #  what can be an insult are the various actions that you choose to take.   #  emotions are not controllable and therefore cannot be an insult.  what can be an insult are the various actions that you choose to take.  choosing to not act out of pre existing love in the ultimate respect for a partner.  as you say it is making a sacrifice for them, and there is most assuredly something moral and inherently important in that.  if you do not understand that you are not emotionally mature enough for any type of romantic relationship.  if you do not act upon it you are still committed and faithful to them.
title sort of explains itself.  i do not think you are doing anyone a favor by hanging in there out of commitment.  i also do not think the potential other relationship is relevant people often see it as some kind of  punishment  of the one who broke off the ltr for it if the new relationship does not work out.  i however think that does not matter, point is that if you can fall in love with another, it says a lot about your relationship in the first place.  i also think it is respectful to your partner to leave them.  you are acknowledging they have the right to be committed to someone who loves them more than you, and you are also acknowledging they are fine enough to be on their own.  sure it may hurt it is never nice to be dumped, especially for someone else.  but the person leaving did nothing wrong and in fact did the most moral thing possible.  i am also against blaming the one who leaves or seeing it as something horrible to break up if a relationship was long.  no, you may have had a lot of good time, and it is fair to end it if feelings change.  why would anyone owe you their life ? no one can make a commitment that lasts forever, no matter how much people fool themselves that that is what marriage is.  there is nothing evil or wrong in falling in love with another cheating is wrong, being honest and leaving is fair and even brave when compared with attitudes most people have to just stick in the status quo while not feeling it.  why would anyone want their partner to stay with them knowing they are not in love with them anymore ? why would anyone want to be seen as a burden and duty ? relationship should be something it is always ok to walk out of and then the few ones that stay together are doing so for honest reasons, not convenience.  some users i awarded one delta at this point, but will read through and give more since few opinions/discussions helped me define this part made me want to re shape my view.  you don;t have to instantly leave your partner if you do not want to.  but you have to tell them the truth about how you feel and allow them to decide if they want to leave or not.   #  i however think that does not matter, point is that if you can fall in love with another, it says a lot about your relationship in the first place.   #  if i could control who i fell in love with, life would be infinitely simpler.   # this presupposes that if you start to have feelings for someone else, you stop loving your partner.  as someone who is historically had as many as 0 significant others simultaneously, this is not necessarily the case.  you are acknowledging they have the right to be committed to someone who loves them more than you, and you are also acknowledging they are fine enough to be on their own.  i acknowledge this with my partners all the time; relationships are open ended contracts where either party is able to end the contract whenever they want.  honestly, what bothers me the most about this is that you are proposing a unilateral course of action, when there is a clear middleground of  talk about it with your partner, discuss it like rational adults, and let your partner decide what they want to do about it based on the discussion ; saying that the only way to deal with it is by leaving your partner is a bit childish, and takes your partner is agency out of the situation.  if you still love your partner, you owe it to them to be honest and to discuss it with them and to figure out what is best for both of you.  if the best thing is to part ways, then you should come to that decision together.  considering i have seen people who have stayed together for life who got married at 0, this is not true.  it is not  easy , but it is certainly doable.  if i could control who i fell in love with, life would be infinitely simpler.  falling in love is a chemical response to certain personality traits in another person that just sort of happens for reasons we do not fully comprehend yet.  fact is that you do not control those feels any more than you control boners, and people who take that in stride usually end up better off for it.   #  you almost literally just did nothing but reword your initial post.  i pointed out that there is nothing wrong with loving multiple people and that having feelings for someone else does not mean you have any less for your so.   #  you almost literally just did nothing but reword your initial post.  i pointed out that there is nothing wrong with loving multiple people and that having feelings for someone else does not mean you have any less for your so.  if you have a second child, it does not mean you stop loving your first one as much.  you can love 0 people without your love for the first one being diminished at all, and nothing says if you love someone you have to act on it.  so you are not providing any reason why this would be a problem assuming they  do not  act on it.  certainly, but the scenario i described is one where you love your so just as much as you always have.  if that were true, it would be stupid to end it, because your feelings have not changed.  if you love your so more than this new one, why on earth would you leave for them ?  #  perhaps knowing about your feelings would make them want to be with someone else or alone.   #  because if you know that your so wants to be the only one you love in romantic way monogamous relationship then you are being dishonest and even hurtful to them by staying with these feelings.  you are twisting their reality, making them believe you love only them, while having feelings that if they knew would hurt them.  if you say, well they do not know you are disrespecting them and taking control over the reality they live in.  perhaps knowing about your feelings would make them want to be with someone else or alone.  you do i guess have the right to tell them and let them decide if they are fine with it or want to leave you, but i imagine if they are fine with it, while you are not in poly relationship, it just means both of you are not really romantcially attracted but are together for convenience and friendship.  i find that pathetic and sad.  if you are romantically drawn to someone, you want to be their only one.   #  if you do not act on it but have these feelings, what is in your head is identical.   #  but it is still an insult to your partner.  i do not even see importance of whether you sleep with someone or not, when the only issue is that you want to in this case you are even in love .  if you do not act on it but have these feelings, what is in your head is identical.  and your partner does not know, do not you think it is disrespectful and dishonest ? you are practically treating your partner like a child and making a sacrifice they maybe do not even want while your feelings show you want someone else.  on the other hand if you do leave your partner, it is wrong to act as if it is immoral there is nothing inherently important about preserving relationships.  i think people in this case stay or cheat because of negative response to breaking up over this.  my point is, it is deeply honest to free your partner when the love you have is no longer what one would want from their romantic partner they are committed and faithful too.   #  what can be an insult are the various actions that you choose to take.   #  emotions are not controllable and therefore cannot be an insult.  what can be an insult are the various actions that you choose to take.  choosing to not act out of pre existing love in the ultimate respect for a partner.  as you say it is making a sacrifice for them, and there is most assuredly something moral and inherently important in that.  if you do not understand that you are not emotionally mature enough for any type of romantic relationship.  if you do not act upon it you are still committed and faithful to them.
first: definitions.  bodily autonomy right to decide what to do with one is own body people have the right to have full control over their own bodies.  this includes after their death.  right to basic necessities of life right to have anything that one needs to stay alive.  if someone needs x to live, then they have the right to have access to x.  contradiction p and not p consider the following situation: bob is suffering from a disease that is sure to kill him if he does not get an organ transplant, but if he does get a transplant, he will make a quick recovery.  the only suitable donor is bill, who has recently died.  bill did not opt in for organ donation or he opted out, for those with an opt out system , and his religion prohibits him from donating organs.  now, should doctors take bill is organs against his wishes and give it to bob ? according to bodily autonomy, bill has the right over his own body, and he does not agree to donate his organs, so the doctors should not do so.  according to right to basic necessities of life, bob needs the organs to live, the organs are necessary for him to live, so the doctors should do so.  this is a contradiction.  formally: n bob needs the organs g bill agrees to donate organs s the doctors should give bill is organs to bob.  premises: 0 n premise 0 g premise 0 n   s right to basic necessities of life premise 0 g   s right to bodily autonomy premise 0 s 0,0,modus ponens 0 s 0,0,modus ponens 0 s  s conjunction introduction line 0 is a contradiction.   #  right to basic necessities of life right to have anything that one needs to stay alive.   #  if someone needs x to live, then they have the right to have access to x.  this is very broadly construed so broadly that you are arguing about something else entirely.   # if someone needs x to live, then they have the right to have access to x.  this is very broadly construed so broadly that you are arguing about something else entirely.  you seem to be saying if there is a person that person needs x to live , then that person has a right to x .  but the reason we call it a right to the 0 basic 0 necessities 0 of life, rather than simply a  right to live , is because this is generally understood to mean if for all persons that person habitually needs x to live , then any person has a right to x .  do you see the difference ? my version is a right to basic necessities of life a right to the intersection of all the things that different people might need to live whereas yours is a right to the most extreme or exotic conditions of life a right to the union of all the things that anyone could need to live .  if you change your claim to  personal autonomy is not compatible with an extreme right to anything that might prolong a person is life , then i agree but even that claim is redundant.  the extreme right to live  is not even compatible with itself,  since we live in a world of finite resources and all resources cannot be simultaneously used to extend every persons life.  i would also quibble with the  dead hand  clause in your definition of autonomy, but this is not important since you can easily rewrite the example to be about a living organ donor.   #  there are plenty of examples of rights that are modified so that they do not infringe on someone else is rights.   #  both rights could coexist in the same code of ethics if either one was modified with a condition such as: people have the right to anything necessary to save their life  unless  it violates someone else is right to bodily autonomy.  there are plenty of examples of rights that are modified so that they do not infringe on someone else is rights.  my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.  my right to loud music ends at my property line.  i have the right to shoot a gun, but only in certain places, at certain targets, and/or certain times of the year.  i can write or say whatever i want to, as long as it is not slander or libel against someone else.   #  given your definitions, it would be ethical to murder others and harvest their organs.   #  oh man, i do love me a well constructed logical proof.  well done, first of all.  let is get right into it.  i would argue against the premises.  you define  right to life  as:  right to have anything that one needs to stay alive.  if someone needs x to live, then they have the right to have access to x.  however, because bodily autonomy states that bob ca not give his organs, there is no x to have access to in the first place.  in short, you have a person who needs x, but there is no x to give, because that would trump b. a.  on paper, this might be a contradiction, but in real life, you would place bodily autonomy actually  above  right to life.  therefore, i believe that right to life should be defined instead by: the right to have anything that one needs to stay alive, unless it infringes others  rights to life and bodily autonomy.  this clause needs to be in here, because without it, society would cease to function.  let me explain.  given your definitions, it would be ethical to murder others and harvest their organs.  it would in fact be your right to kill others and harvest their organs.  because you have no limiting factors for the right to life, then  anything  that can prolong your life is technically your right.  with the definition, which more accurately reflects the intent of the paradigm, i believe either line 0 or 0 becomes false.   #  if you are hungry and steal food, you have no idea what lengths the rightful owner went through to obtain that food, and you do not know how important that food is to the rightful owner.   #  i read about the heinz dilemma.  wiki is URL example uses a cure for cancer.  the problem with this is that it takes in no consideration from the person you are stealing from.  if you are hungry and steal food, you have no idea what lengths the rightful owner went through to obtain that food, and you do not know how important that food is to the rightful owner.  the owner could very well need that food to survive, and by stealing to save yourself, you may have very well condemned the owner to starvation if he needed that food to survive.  in the example in wikipedia, it is entirely possible that the druggist was charging 0x the cost of the drug so that he could donate more of the drug to loved ones or other people of his choice maybe cancer stricken people that are nice enough to not resort to stealing perhaps ? .  it also does not take into account the time he took to research the drug.  he could have been living his whole life on an investment that many people made and depended on to have him create that drug.  with that logic, i should kill a viable organ donor if my victim can donate enough organs to save more than 0 life.   #  basically, if we respect both premises, then you are not getting a contradiction, you are simply getting a race condition.   #  basically, if we respect both premises, then you are not getting a contradiction, you are simply getting a race condition.  bill is right to bodily autonomy makes his organs unavailable.  therefore, bill does not have any organs to get.  he has a right to life if the resources are available to him.  however, bill has already banned his organs, therefore they are not available.
the government should have nothing to do with marriage.  i do not think there should be any benefits to being married to another pers n such as tax breaks or initiatives.  my reasons being: marriage is a religious ceremony and it goes against the separation of church and state.  if a couple feels the need to continue their relationship with a religious ceremony, they can go to their religious organization of choice and have the ceremony performed.  give marriage back to the church.  it would solve the gay marriage debate.  let the religious denominations decide for themselves if they want to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.  it would save money on taxes and wages and be one less thing clogging up the system thank you everyone for your responses.  you have changed my mind to this: right now the government where i live recognizes civil partnerships/commonlaw and legal marriage.  i do not think there should be any legal difference and that anyone can be joined in partnership.  it would still solve the gay marriage debate  #  marriage is a religious ceremony and it goes against the separation of church and state.   #  gee, i was not aware that judges were ordained priests.   # gee, i was not aware that judges were ordained priests.  because that is who performed my marriage.  and, seriously.  marriage is both a spiritual and civil union.  has been so for a long long long long long time.  it is wholly ignorant to claim that marriage is a religious ceremony without also addressing its roots as a civic institution and a legal contract.   #  if we were not married that would fall to my legal next of kin unless we had it legal pow set up first.   #  marriage lessens the legal aspects.  when my husband and i bought our house it is in both our names.  if one of us should die the other gets the house, even without a will.  if we were not married when we bought the house we would have to have had legal papers drawn up to assure that i.  the event of the death of one of us the others share in the house did not go to next of kin.  being married we do not need legal power of attorney for medical issues should i be in an accident he can make medical decisions for me.  if we were not married that would fall to my legal next of kin unless we had it legal pow set up first.  as his wife i get the spouses portion of his pension should he predecease me.  no legal marriage and it is one more document he has to file with the court to assure this.  assuming no legal marriage then things like workplace pensions and benefits are allowed to be assigned legally.  all of these things are doable just added legal things that have to go through the courts,  #  child custody has to be determined anytime children are involved married or not.   #  its not any more complicated than the system is already.  when i got married there was a lot of stuff involved in changing her to my wife legally, and i still had to change a lot of information on medical, legal, and financial documents to reflect the change in marital status.  joint property ownership is the same process no matter who it is with.  child custody has to be determined anytime children are involved married or not.  i can name anyone as my insurance benefactor, even you if i was so inclined.  commonlaw spouses already have the spousal privilege in legal matters.   #  the goal of the form is just to simplify figuring out who wants the marriage responsibilities/rights and who wants to just be dating.   #  the goal is not verify your love, it is to verify that you have chosen the marriage path instead of just keeping on dating.  marriage means a lot of different legal responsibilities both to each other and also from/to other people not even in the marriage that not everyone wants.  the goal of the form is just to simplify figuring out who wants the marriage responsibilities/rights and who wants to just be dating.  if you are upset about the fee, i basically agree.  but as far as paperwork goes, it really simplifies things later if one person says they agreed to marry and the other says they did not, or if one person dies and their family says there was never a marriage.   #  the 0st amendment prohibits discrimination against religion, and that just means the government ca not favor one religion over another.   #  marriage is not always a religious ceremony.  in different civilizations, it is been treated as a contract between two people, without any religious edicts.  URL also, there is no separation of church and state written into the constitution.  this is a common misconception.  the 0st amendment prohibits discrimination against religion, and that just means the government ca not favor one religion over another.  legal marriage does not involve any religious ceremonies, it is just a license verifying that the couple in question agrees to the legal classification of  spouse,  witnessed and signed by a verified individual.  if the government believes that certain relationships are beneficial to society, it can incentivize them.  the government believes that two people co existing in a long term relationship is beneficial to society, so the government provides individuals in those relationships with certain benefits.
the government should have nothing to do with marriage.  i do not think there should be any benefits to being married to another pers n such as tax breaks or initiatives.  my reasons being: marriage is a religious ceremony and it goes against the separation of church and state.  if a couple feels the need to continue their relationship with a religious ceremony, they can go to their religious organization of choice and have the ceremony performed.  give marriage back to the church.  it would solve the gay marriage debate.  let the religious denominations decide for themselves if they want to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.  it would save money on taxes and wages and be one less thing clogging up the system thank you everyone for your responses.  you have changed my mind to this: right now the government where i live recognizes civil partnerships/commonlaw and legal marriage.  i do not think there should be any legal difference and that anyone can be joined in partnership.  it would still solve the gay marriage debate  #  it would solve the gay marriage debate.   #  let the religious denominations decide for themselves if they want to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.   # there are records of marriages thousands of years before many of the modern religions were even founded.  no it does not.  there are two types of marriage civil marriages, those involving a government agency, and religious marriages, those involving the religion or religions of the participants of the marriage.  because the government only concerns itself with civil marriages and not religious marriages, there is no conflict of church and state present.  if someone were to get married in a church, mosque, synagogue, tabernacle, or in a field with a priest present, the government does not care.  as long as your marriage certificate is signed by a member of the government, they stay out of your business completely.  let the religious denominations decide for themselves if they want to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.  so no gay people are getting married then, huh ? gay episcopalians and unitarians, maybe, but certainly not gay catholics or muslims.  it would cost married couples more if the government was not giving tax breaks to married people.  the marriage license office is its own section of the government, often overseen at the local level where there is little gridlock anyway, and the only waiting period for a marriage license is three days.  it is actually simpler for a couple to file joint taxes, and having one tax return to comb through instead of two saves the irs time when reviewing tax returns.   #  no legal marriage and it is one more document he has to file with the court to assure this.   #  marriage lessens the legal aspects.  when my husband and i bought our house it is in both our names.  if one of us should die the other gets the house, even without a will.  if we were not married when we bought the house we would have to have had legal papers drawn up to assure that i.  the event of the death of one of us the others share in the house did not go to next of kin.  being married we do not need legal power of attorney for medical issues should i be in an accident he can make medical decisions for me.  if we were not married that would fall to my legal next of kin unless we had it legal pow set up first.  as his wife i get the spouses portion of his pension should he predecease me.  no legal marriage and it is one more document he has to file with the court to assure this.  assuming no legal marriage then things like workplace pensions and benefits are allowed to be assigned legally.  all of these things are doable just added legal things that have to go through the courts,  #  commonlaw spouses already have the spousal privilege in legal matters.   #  its not any more complicated than the system is already.  when i got married there was a lot of stuff involved in changing her to my wife legally, and i still had to change a lot of information on medical, legal, and financial documents to reflect the change in marital status.  joint property ownership is the same process no matter who it is with.  child custody has to be determined anytime children are involved married or not.  i can name anyone as my insurance benefactor, even you if i was so inclined.  commonlaw spouses already have the spousal privilege in legal matters.   #  marriage means a lot of different legal responsibilities both to each other and also from/to other people not even in the marriage that not everyone wants.   #  the goal is not verify your love, it is to verify that you have chosen the marriage path instead of just keeping on dating.  marriage means a lot of different legal responsibilities both to each other and also from/to other people not even in the marriage that not everyone wants.  the goal of the form is just to simplify figuring out who wants the marriage responsibilities/rights and who wants to just be dating.  if you are upset about the fee, i basically agree.  but as far as paperwork goes, it really simplifies things later if one person says they agreed to marry and the other says they did not, or if one person dies and their family says there was never a marriage.   #  the 0st amendment prohibits discrimination against religion, and that just means the government ca not favor one religion over another.   #  marriage is not always a religious ceremony.  in different civilizations, it is been treated as a contract between two people, without any religious edicts.  URL also, there is no separation of church and state written into the constitution.  this is a common misconception.  the 0st amendment prohibits discrimination against religion, and that just means the government ca not favor one religion over another.  legal marriage does not involve any religious ceremonies, it is just a license verifying that the couple in question agrees to the legal classification of  spouse,  witnessed and signed by a verified individual.  if the government believes that certain relationships are beneficial to society, it can incentivize them.  the government believes that two people co existing in a long term relationship is beneficial to society, so the government provides individuals in those relationships with certain benefits.
the government should have nothing to do with marriage.  i do not think there should be any benefits to being married to another pers n such as tax breaks or initiatives.  my reasons being: marriage is a religious ceremony and it goes against the separation of church and state.  if a couple feels the need to continue their relationship with a religious ceremony, they can go to their religious organization of choice and have the ceremony performed.  give marriage back to the church.  it would solve the gay marriage debate.  let the religious denominations decide for themselves if they want to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.  it would save money on taxes and wages and be one less thing clogging up the system thank you everyone for your responses.  you have changed my mind to this: right now the government where i live recognizes civil partnerships/commonlaw and legal marriage.  i do not think there should be any legal difference and that anyone can be joined in partnership.  it would still solve the gay marriage debate  #  marriage is a religious ceremony and it goes against the separation of church and state.   #  if a couple feels the need to continue their relationship with a religious ceremony, they can go to their religious organization of choice and have the ceremony performed.   # if a couple feels the need to continue their relationship with a religious ceremony, they can go to their religious organization of choice and have the ceremony performed.  give marriage back to the church.  marriage as currently recognized by the government is not religious but rather is a contract between two people to commit to staying with one another for the rest of their lives.  if two people want to have a religious marriage ceremony then they certainly can, but this ceremony itself has nothing to do with the government.  let the religious denominations decide for themselves if they want to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.  or, we could continue to solve the gay marriage debate as we have been by having more and more states legalize gay marriage, or legalizing it on the federal level.  instead of taking the easy way out in terms of gay marriage, why not actually work to solve this issue ?  #  as his wife i get the spouses portion of his pension should he predecease me.   #  marriage lessens the legal aspects.  when my husband and i bought our house it is in both our names.  if one of us should die the other gets the house, even without a will.  if we were not married when we bought the house we would have to have had legal papers drawn up to assure that i.  the event of the death of one of us the others share in the house did not go to next of kin.  being married we do not need legal power of attorney for medical issues should i be in an accident he can make medical decisions for me.  if we were not married that would fall to my legal next of kin unless we had it legal pow set up first.  as his wife i get the spouses portion of his pension should he predecease me.  no legal marriage and it is one more document he has to file with the court to assure this.  assuming no legal marriage then things like workplace pensions and benefits are allowed to be assigned legally.  all of these things are doable just added legal things that have to go through the courts,  #  i can name anyone as my insurance benefactor, even you if i was so inclined.   #  its not any more complicated than the system is already.  when i got married there was a lot of stuff involved in changing her to my wife legally, and i still had to change a lot of information on medical, legal, and financial documents to reflect the change in marital status.  joint property ownership is the same process no matter who it is with.  child custody has to be determined anytime children are involved married or not.  i can name anyone as my insurance benefactor, even you if i was so inclined.  commonlaw spouses already have the spousal privilege in legal matters.   #  marriage means a lot of different legal responsibilities both to each other and also from/to other people not even in the marriage that not everyone wants.   #  the goal is not verify your love, it is to verify that you have chosen the marriage path instead of just keeping on dating.  marriage means a lot of different legal responsibilities both to each other and also from/to other people not even in the marriage that not everyone wants.  the goal of the form is just to simplify figuring out who wants the marriage responsibilities/rights and who wants to just be dating.  if you are upset about the fee, i basically agree.  but as far as paperwork goes, it really simplifies things later if one person says they agreed to marry and the other says they did not, or if one person dies and their family says there was never a marriage.   #  if the government believes that certain relationships are beneficial to society, it can incentivize them.   #  marriage is not always a religious ceremony.  in different civilizations, it is been treated as a contract between two people, without any religious edicts.  URL also, there is no separation of church and state written into the constitution.  this is a common misconception.  the 0st amendment prohibits discrimination against religion, and that just means the government ca not favor one religion over another.  legal marriage does not involve any religious ceremonies, it is just a license verifying that the couple in question agrees to the legal classification of  spouse,  witnessed and signed by a verified individual.  if the government believes that certain relationships are beneficial to society, it can incentivize them.  the government believes that two people co existing in a long term relationship is beneficial to society, so the government provides individuals in those relationships with certain benefits.
the government should have nothing to do with marriage.  i do not think there should be any benefits to being married to another pers n such as tax breaks or initiatives.  my reasons being: marriage is a religious ceremony and it goes against the separation of church and state.  if a couple feels the need to continue their relationship with a religious ceremony, they can go to their religious organization of choice and have the ceremony performed.  give marriage back to the church.  it would solve the gay marriage debate.  let the religious denominations decide for themselves if they want to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.  it would save money on taxes and wages and be one less thing clogging up the system thank you everyone for your responses.  you have changed my mind to this: right now the government where i live recognizes civil partnerships/commonlaw and legal marriage.  i do not think there should be any legal difference and that anyone can be joined in partnership.  it would still solve the gay marriage debate  #  it would solve the gay marriage debate.   #  let the religious denominations decide for themselves if they want to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.   # if a couple feels the need to continue their relationship with a religious ceremony, they can go to their religious organization of choice and have the ceremony performed.  give marriage back to the church.  marriage as currently recognized by the government is not religious but rather is a contract between two people to commit to staying with one another for the rest of their lives.  if two people want to have a religious marriage ceremony then they certainly can, but this ceremony itself has nothing to do with the government.  let the religious denominations decide for themselves if they want to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.  or, we could continue to solve the gay marriage debate as we have been by having more and more states legalize gay marriage, or legalizing it on the federal level.  instead of taking the easy way out in terms of gay marriage, why not actually work to solve this issue ?  #  as his wife i get the spouses portion of his pension should he predecease me.   #  marriage lessens the legal aspects.  when my husband and i bought our house it is in both our names.  if one of us should die the other gets the house, even without a will.  if we were not married when we bought the house we would have to have had legal papers drawn up to assure that i.  the event of the death of one of us the others share in the house did not go to next of kin.  being married we do not need legal power of attorney for medical issues should i be in an accident he can make medical decisions for me.  if we were not married that would fall to my legal next of kin unless we had it legal pow set up first.  as his wife i get the spouses portion of his pension should he predecease me.  no legal marriage and it is one more document he has to file with the court to assure this.  assuming no legal marriage then things like workplace pensions and benefits are allowed to be assigned legally.  all of these things are doable just added legal things that have to go through the courts,  #  child custody has to be determined anytime children are involved married or not.   #  its not any more complicated than the system is already.  when i got married there was a lot of stuff involved in changing her to my wife legally, and i still had to change a lot of information on medical, legal, and financial documents to reflect the change in marital status.  joint property ownership is the same process no matter who it is with.  child custody has to be determined anytime children are involved married or not.  i can name anyone as my insurance benefactor, even you if i was so inclined.  commonlaw spouses already have the spousal privilege in legal matters.   #  if you are upset about the fee, i basically agree.   #  the goal is not verify your love, it is to verify that you have chosen the marriage path instead of just keeping on dating.  marriage means a lot of different legal responsibilities both to each other and also from/to other people not even in the marriage that not everyone wants.  the goal of the form is just to simplify figuring out who wants the marriage responsibilities/rights and who wants to just be dating.  if you are upset about the fee, i basically agree.  but as far as paperwork goes, it really simplifies things later if one person says they agreed to marry and the other says they did not, or if one person dies and their family says there was never a marriage.   #  the government believes that two people co existing in a long term relationship is beneficial to society, so the government provides individuals in those relationships with certain benefits.   #  marriage is not always a religious ceremony.  in different civilizations, it is been treated as a contract between two people, without any religious edicts.  URL also, there is no separation of church and state written into the constitution.  this is a common misconception.  the 0st amendment prohibits discrimination against religion, and that just means the government ca not favor one religion over another.  legal marriage does not involve any religious ceremonies, it is just a license verifying that the couple in question agrees to the legal classification of  spouse,  witnessed and signed by a verified individual.  if the government believes that certain relationships are beneficial to society, it can incentivize them.  the government believes that two people co existing in a long term relationship is beneficial to society, so the government provides individuals in those relationships with certain benefits.
animals lack any explicit wish to live.  they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to continue to exist .  so killing them is morally okay, as long as no others are harmed by this action like someone with a pet pig because no preference the animal has is being violated.  however, if meat eating is a widespread taste, and it is, then market demand will necessarily and obviously lead to the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals.  and the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals is one that produces a life of complete and relentless suffering, through cramping, disease, being pecked to death, the frustration of natural insticts etc.  so meat eating is wrong insofar as it necessarily leads to the inhumane practices of battery farming, and no further.  if we could live in a world where people would be content to eat meat sparingly, as a luxury, then meat eating would pose no ethical issue.  however, given how economies work, demand for meat directly results in animal suffering.  so, i think vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters are generally wrong about the ethics of meat.  it is not killing that is wrong, but subjecting animals to lives of unremitting pain definitely is.   #  animals lack any explicit wish to live.   #  they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to live for as long as possible .   # they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to live for as long as possible .  polls have shown that people also do not want to necessarily live as long as possible, if it means more pain URL since you think  i wish to live for as long as possible  is logically equivalent to  i wish to live,  humans do not want to live.  ergo, cannibalism is justified.  \s but of course not.   i wish to live for as long as possible  is not logically equivalent to  i wish to live.   humans and animals both generally avoid that which will kill them.  ergo, they have a will to live.   #  animals have expressed what we consider sorrow at the passing or disappearance of their human or animal companions, and have shown what we equate to joy when their missing companions return.   #  i agree with a lot of what you are saying, except mainly this:   animals lack any explicit wish to live.  certain animals clearly demonstrate the desire for their young to live, by protecting them from predators and even leading predators away from the offspring at the risk of the parent is life.  it may not be a  wish to live  as we comprehend it, but preserving life, their own or their offspring is, is hardwired into their brains.  it is possible that our  own  desire for longevity is more instinctual than logical as well.  animals have expressed what we consider sorrow at the passing or disappearance of their human or animal companions, and have shown what we equate to joy when their missing companions return.  if they clearly value the presence of another being, could that not be the same as valuing the life of that being ? and if they value the lives of other beings, can they not value their own ?  #  just like it would be clear with a deaf person you were trying to kill.   #  and what i am telling you is that without someone speaking your language, you could not possibly know that.  as far as i am concerned, their want to live is pretty god damn clear.  just like it would be clear with a deaf person you were trying to kill.  just because something ca not sit down with you and speak to you in your language about how they want life, does not mean it is not there.  it is sure as shit not something you try and use to say it is okay to kill them either.  just like you would not do with a deaf person.   #  we do not need language to find out about what physical structures an organism has.   #  we do not need language to find out about what physical structures an organism has.  no one and nothing self reports having internal structures such as a frontal lobe, an amygdala, a spinal cord, etc.  we know these things from extensive neurological studies.  you will notice, if you read my previous comment, that i never asserted that animals do not want to live because they cannot commicate a desire to live.  your comment about a deaf person is irrelevant because a deaf people can communcate and b deaf people have the same sorts of brains as hearing people.   #  humans do not usually pass the mirror self recognition test until they reach 0 months old.   #  adult pigs can solve problems and are said to be as intelligent as dogs and bottle nosed dolphins.  they can pass the  mirror self recognition test  and can use mirrors to locate food that is otherwise obscured from their vision.  humans do not usually pass the mirror self recognition test until they reach 0 months old.  and i am not entirely sure that a 0 month old could be said to possess a desire to live, but if anyone has information on this, i would be fascinated to read it.  the point being, we will make all sorts of convenient excuses for treating animals like crap, or killing / eating them, but many of those are not logically sound, and fall apart when you really test them.  if i proved to you that a pig was more intelligent than your dog, you are probably not gonna give up bacon and start eating poodle.  we simply have  unfair  preferences.  we are not a very nice species.  some people do not like to hear that though.
animals lack any explicit wish to live.  they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to continue to exist .  so killing them is morally okay, as long as no others are harmed by this action like someone with a pet pig because no preference the animal has is being violated.  however, if meat eating is a widespread taste, and it is, then market demand will necessarily and obviously lead to the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals.  and the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals is one that produces a life of complete and relentless suffering, through cramping, disease, being pecked to death, the frustration of natural insticts etc.  so meat eating is wrong insofar as it necessarily leads to the inhumane practices of battery farming, and no further.  if we could live in a world where people would be content to eat meat sparingly, as a luxury, then meat eating would pose no ethical issue.  however, given how economies work, demand for meat directly results in animal suffering.  so, i think vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters are generally wrong about the ethics of meat.  it is not killing that is wrong, but subjecting animals to lives of unremitting pain definitely is.   #  animals lack any explicit wish to live.   #  they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to live for as long as possible .   # they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to live for as long as possible .  huh ? because you do not want to get wet ? so why will they avoid that which will kill them ? because they want to live.   #  it is possible that our  own  desire for longevity is more instinctual than logical as well.   #  i agree with a lot of what you are saying, except mainly this:   animals lack any explicit wish to live.  certain animals clearly demonstrate the desire for their young to live, by protecting them from predators and even leading predators away from the offspring at the risk of the parent is life.  it may not be a  wish to live  as we comprehend it, but preserving life, their own or their offspring is, is hardwired into their brains.  it is possible that our  own  desire for longevity is more instinctual than logical as well.  animals have expressed what we consider sorrow at the passing or disappearance of their human or animal companions, and have shown what we equate to joy when their missing companions return.  if they clearly value the presence of another being, could that not be the same as valuing the life of that being ? and if they value the lives of other beings, can they not value their own ?  #  just like you would not do with a deaf person.   #  and what i am telling you is that without someone speaking your language, you could not possibly know that.  as far as i am concerned, their want to live is pretty god damn clear.  just like it would be clear with a deaf person you were trying to kill.  just because something ca not sit down with you and speak to you in your language about how they want life, does not mean it is not there.  it is sure as shit not something you try and use to say it is okay to kill them either.  just like you would not do with a deaf person.   #  we do not need language to find out about what physical structures an organism has.   #  we do not need language to find out about what physical structures an organism has.  no one and nothing self reports having internal structures such as a frontal lobe, an amygdala, a spinal cord, etc.  we know these things from extensive neurological studies.  you will notice, if you read my previous comment, that i never asserted that animals do not want to live because they cannot commicate a desire to live.  your comment about a deaf person is irrelevant because a deaf people can communcate and b deaf people have the same sorts of brains as hearing people.   #  humans do not usually pass the mirror self recognition test until they reach 0 months old.   #  adult pigs can solve problems and are said to be as intelligent as dogs and bottle nosed dolphins.  they can pass the  mirror self recognition test  and can use mirrors to locate food that is otherwise obscured from their vision.  humans do not usually pass the mirror self recognition test until they reach 0 months old.  and i am not entirely sure that a 0 month old could be said to possess a desire to live, but if anyone has information on this, i would be fascinated to read it.  the point being, we will make all sorts of convenient excuses for treating animals like crap, or killing / eating them, but many of those are not logically sound, and fall apart when you really test them.  if i proved to you that a pig was more intelligent than your dog, you are probably not gonna give up bacon and start eating poodle.  we simply have  unfair  preferences.  we are not a very nice species.  some people do not like to hear that though.
animals lack any explicit wish to live.  they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to continue to exist .  so killing them is morally okay, as long as no others are harmed by this action like someone with a pet pig because no preference the animal has is being violated.  however, if meat eating is a widespread taste, and it is, then market demand will necessarily and obviously lead to the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals.  and the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals is one that produces a life of complete and relentless suffering, through cramping, disease, being pecked to death, the frustration of natural insticts etc.  so meat eating is wrong insofar as it necessarily leads to the inhumane practices of battery farming, and no further.  if we could live in a world where people would be content to eat meat sparingly, as a luxury, then meat eating would pose no ethical issue.  however, given how economies work, demand for meat directly results in animal suffering.  so, i think vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters are generally wrong about the ethics of meat.  it is not killing that is wrong, but subjecting animals to lives of unremitting pain definitely is.   #  animals lack any explicit wish to live.   #  i think most biologists are going to disagree with your very first sentence.   # i think most biologists are going to disagree with your very first sentence.  do not forget: humans  are  animals.  it is our will to live that partly drove our evolution.  what makes you think the other animals are different ? when looking at this thing, eating meat, i dislike using concepts like  morally okay , or  ethical  or whatever.  i do not think there is an absolute truth to this sort of thing.  all i know is that i feel sorry for these creatures, and as you say, especially the conditions they are put in.  but a feeling like that is different for every person.  that is why there is no purely rational way of saying if it is wrong or bad, in my opinion.  now of course, there are people who tell themselves lies in order to keep eating meat.  i think those are the ones who can be said to be objectively wrong in what they do.   #  certain animals clearly demonstrate the desire for their young to live, by protecting them from predators and even leading predators away from the offspring at the risk of the parent is life.   #  i agree with a lot of what you are saying, except mainly this:   animals lack any explicit wish to live.  certain animals clearly demonstrate the desire for their young to live, by protecting them from predators and even leading predators away from the offspring at the risk of the parent is life.  it may not be a  wish to live  as we comprehend it, but preserving life, their own or their offspring is, is hardwired into their brains.  it is possible that our  own  desire for longevity is more instinctual than logical as well.  animals have expressed what we consider sorrow at the passing or disappearance of their human or animal companions, and have shown what we equate to joy when their missing companions return.  if they clearly value the presence of another being, could that not be the same as valuing the life of that being ? and if they value the lives of other beings, can they not value their own ?  #  just like it would be clear with a deaf person you were trying to kill.   #  and what i am telling you is that without someone speaking your language, you could not possibly know that.  as far as i am concerned, their want to live is pretty god damn clear.  just like it would be clear with a deaf person you were trying to kill.  just because something ca not sit down with you and speak to you in your language about how they want life, does not mean it is not there.  it is sure as shit not something you try and use to say it is okay to kill them either.  just like you would not do with a deaf person.   #  you will notice, if you read my previous comment, that i never asserted that animals do not want to live because they cannot commicate a desire to live.   #  we do not need language to find out about what physical structures an organism has.  no one and nothing self reports having internal structures such as a frontal lobe, an amygdala, a spinal cord, etc.  we know these things from extensive neurological studies.  you will notice, if you read my previous comment, that i never asserted that animals do not want to live because they cannot commicate a desire to live.  your comment about a deaf person is irrelevant because a deaf people can communcate and b deaf people have the same sorts of brains as hearing people.   #  adult pigs can solve problems and are said to be as intelligent as dogs and bottle nosed dolphins.   #  adult pigs can solve problems and are said to be as intelligent as dogs and bottle nosed dolphins.  they can pass the  mirror self recognition test  and can use mirrors to locate food that is otherwise obscured from their vision.  humans do not usually pass the mirror self recognition test until they reach 0 months old.  and i am not entirely sure that a 0 month old could be said to possess a desire to live, but if anyone has information on this, i would be fascinated to read it.  the point being, we will make all sorts of convenient excuses for treating animals like crap, or killing / eating them, but many of those are not logically sound, and fall apart when you really test them.  if i proved to you that a pig was more intelligent than your dog, you are probably not gonna give up bacon and start eating poodle.  we simply have  unfair  preferences.  we are not a very nice species.  some people do not like to hear that though.
animals lack any explicit wish to live.  they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to continue to exist .  so killing them is morally okay, as long as no others are harmed by this action like someone with a pet pig because no preference the animal has is being violated.  however, if meat eating is a widespread taste, and it is, then market demand will necessarily and obviously lead to the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals.  and the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals is one that produces a life of complete and relentless suffering, through cramping, disease, being pecked to death, the frustration of natural insticts etc.  so meat eating is wrong insofar as it necessarily leads to the inhumane practices of battery farming, and no further.  if we could live in a world where people would be content to eat meat sparingly, as a luxury, then meat eating would pose no ethical issue.  however, given how economies work, demand for meat directly results in animal suffering.  so, i think vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters are generally wrong about the ethics of meat.  it is not killing that is wrong, but subjecting animals to lives of unremitting pain definitely is.   #  animals lack any explicit wish to live.   #  this is a pretty tall claim that you bring no evidence to the table to support.   # this is a pretty tall claim that you bring no evidence to the table to support.  you may be able to say that we are not  sure  animals have any explicit wish to live, but it is certainly arguable that they do.  that said, it does not immediately follow that if animals have a will to live it is immoral to kill them.  we live on a planet where even the majority of what we consider  herbivores  are also opportunistic predators.  cows, for example, may not be very good hunters, but they are not going to pass up a free meal just because it is wiggling around URL neither will deer URL if there is one thing life is about, it is surviving.  whether you are talking about animals, plants, bacteria, anything you like, we all attempt to survive.  if there is a second thing life is about, it is dying, often in very messy ways.  consider the life cycle of the fig wasp URL the male is born, breaks into a female is egg, impregnates her, then dies.  the female, hatching already pregnant, flies from her fig to another fig, digs a hole, plants her eggs, and then dies.  may flies have  no mouths  URL in their adult stage.  the point is when it comes to life, death is part of the program.  nothing lives forever, and  everything  gets its sustenance by breaking down other living or formerly living things.  so you do not  need  animals to lack the will to live in order for it to be moral to kill them for food.  furthermore, if you  do not  think they have a will to live for the record, i  do  think animals have a will to live on par with that of a human being , why would you think they have a will not to suffer ? life is a much more basic trait to have than the limbic system that would  seem  to be required to process emotions and physical pain.  it may be that most of the animals we are harvesting for meat do, in fact, have limbic systems, but why should  that  be more than instinct if the struggle to survive is not ? again, personally, i do not think animals are that dissimilar from us in terms of being able to want to live or want not to suffer, but i think you have got an inconsistency there.  also, i do not think it is immoral to buy into a system that you do not have the power to change if that is a requirement for meeting your basic needs.   #  it is possible that our  own  desire for longevity is more instinctual than logical as well.   #  i agree with a lot of what you are saying, except mainly this:   animals lack any explicit wish to live.  certain animals clearly demonstrate the desire for their young to live, by protecting them from predators and even leading predators away from the offspring at the risk of the parent is life.  it may not be a  wish to live  as we comprehend it, but preserving life, their own or their offspring is, is hardwired into their brains.  it is possible that our  own  desire for longevity is more instinctual than logical as well.  animals have expressed what we consider sorrow at the passing or disappearance of their human or animal companions, and have shown what we equate to joy when their missing companions return.  if they clearly value the presence of another being, could that not be the same as valuing the life of that being ? and if they value the lives of other beings, can they not value their own ?  #  just because something ca not sit down with you and speak to you in your language about how they want life, does not mean it is not there.   #  and what i am telling you is that without someone speaking your language, you could not possibly know that.  as far as i am concerned, their want to live is pretty god damn clear.  just like it would be clear with a deaf person you were trying to kill.  just because something ca not sit down with you and speak to you in your language about how they want life, does not mean it is not there.  it is sure as shit not something you try and use to say it is okay to kill them either.  just like you would not do with a deaf person.   #  no one and nothing self reports having internal structures such as a frontal lobe, an amygdala, a spinal cord, etc.   #  we do not need language to find out about what physical structures an organism has.  no one and nothing self reports having internal structures such as a frontal lobe, an amygdala, a spinal cord, etc.  we know these things from extensive neurological studies.  you will notice, if you read my previous comment, that i never asserted that animals do not want to live because they cannot commicate a desire to live.  your comment about a deaf person is irrelevant because a deaf people can communcate and b deaf people have the same sorts of brains as hearing people.   #  adult pigs can solve problems and are said to be as intelligent as dogs and bottle nosed dolphins.   #  adult pigs can solve problems and are said to be as intelligent as dogs and bottle nosed dolphins.  they can pass the  mirror self recognition test  and can use mirrors to locate food that is otherwise obscured from their vision.  humans do not usually pass the mirror self recognition test until they reach 0 months old.  and i am not entirely sure that a 0 month old could be said to possess a desire to live, but if anyone has information on this, i would be fascinated to read it.  the point being, we will make all sorts of convenient excuses for treating animals like crap, or killing / eating them, but many of those are not logically sound, and fall apart when you really test them.  if i proved to you that a pig was more intelligent than your dog, you are probably not gonna give up bacon and start eating poodle.  we simply have  unfair  preferences.  we are not a very nice species.  some people do not like to hear that though.
animals lack any explicit wish to live.  they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to continue to exist .  so killing them is morally okay, as long as no others are harmed by this action like someone with a pet pig because no preference the animal has is being violated.  however, if meat eating is a widespread taste, and it is, then market demand will necessarily and obviously lead to the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals.  and the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals is one that produces a life of complete and relentless suffering, through cramping, disease, being pecked to death, the frustration of natural insticts etc.  so meat eating is wrong insofar as it necessarily leads to the inhumane practices of battery farming, and no further.  if we could live in a world where people would be content to eat meat sparingly, as a luxury, then meat eating would pose no ethical issue.  however, given how economies work, demand for meat directly results in animal suffering.  so, i think vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters are generally wrong about the ethics of meat.  it is not killing that is wrong, but subjecting animals to lives of unremitting pain definitely is.   #  animals lack any explicit wish to live.   #  this, you continue, rids them of their moral significance, allowing us to kill them for any reason we deem enjoyable such as eating when they are not needed for our diet as long as we do it humanely.   #  ok, there are a few points in your argument that may be vulnerable, but lets start with the first sentence.  this, you continue, rids them of their moral significance, allowing us to kill them for any reason we deem enjoyable such as eating when they are not needed for our diet as long as we do it humanely.  does this argument hold true for suicidal humans ? may i morally kill someone in a humane fashion so long as they do not have a will to live ? if not, what are other distinguishing factors between humans and animals that qualify your argument.  as you have presented it, your view is not sufficiently supported.  on top of the reason i have already discussed, you need to provide a much more thorough explanation as to why animals are so significantly morally negligent that involves a comparative neuroscience to humans and animals.  you have decided to assert a very controversial claim that completely founds your argument without data to back it up.  just as easily as you assert animals have no will to live, i can assert that their apparent will to live is equally significant to our own; after all, humans are also just chemical reactions taking place in a sac of flesh that are designed to guide us towards both existence and proliferation.  though, i believe this perspective is naively reductionist, it is as valid as your own as you have presented it.   #  it may not be a  wish to live  as we comprehend it, but preserving life, their own or their offspring is, is hardwired into their brains.   #  i agree with a lot of what you are saying, except mainly this:   animals lack any explicit wish to live.  certain animals clearly demonstrate the desire for their young to live, by protecting them from predators and even leading predators away from the offspring at the risk of the parent is life.  it may not be a  wish to live  as we comprehend it, but preserving life, their own or their offspring is, is hardwired into their brains.  it is possible that our  own  desire for longevity is more instinctual than logical as well.  animals have expressed what we consider sorrow at the passing or disappearance of their human or animal companions, and have shown what we equate to joy when their missing companions return.  if they clearly value the presence of another being, could that not be the same as valuing the life of that being ? and if they value the lives of other beings, can they not value their own ?  #  and what i am telling you is that without someone speaking your language, you could not possibly know that.   #  and what i am telling you is that without someone speaking your language, you could not possibly know that.  as far as i am concerned, their want to live is pretty god damn clear.  just like it would be clear with a deaf person you were trying to kill.  just because something ca not sit down with you and speak to you in your language about how they want life, does not mean it is not there.  it is sure as shit not something you try and use to say it is okay to kill them either.  just like you would not do with a deaf person.   #  we do not need language to find out about what physical structures an organism has.   #  we do not need language to find out about what physical structures an organism has.  no one and nothing self reports having internal structures such as a frontal lobe, an amygdala, a spinal cord, etc.  we know these things from extensive neurological studies.  you will notice, if you read my previous comment, that i never asserted that animals do not want to live because they cannot commicate a desire to live.  your comment about a deaf person is irrelevant because a deaf people can communcate and b deaf people have the same sorts of brains as hearing people.   #  adult pigs can solve problems and are said to be as intelligent as dogs and bottle nosed dolphins.   #  adult pigs can solve problems and are said to be as intelligent as dogs and bottle nosed dolphins.  they can pass the  mirror self recognition test  and can use mirrors to locate food that is otherwise obscured from their vision.  humans do not usually pass the mirror self recognition test until they reach 0 months old.  and i am not entirely sure that a 0 month old could be said to possess a desire to live, but if anyone has information on this, i would be fascinated to read it.  the point being, we will make all sorts of convenient excuses for treating animals like crap, or killing / eating them, but many of those are not logically sound, and fall apart when you really test them.  if i proved to you that a pig was more intelligent than your dog, you are probably not gonna give up bacon and start eating poodle.  we simply have  unfair  preferences.  we are not a very nice species.  some people do not like to hear that though.
animals lack any explicit wish to live.  they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to continue to exist .  so killing them is morally okay, as long as no others are harmed by this action like someone with a pet pig because no preference the animal has is being violated.  however, if meat eating is a widespread taste, and it is, then market demand will necessarily and obviously lead to the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals.  and the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals is one that produces a life of complete and relentless suffering, through cramping, disease, being pecked to death, the frustration of natural insticts etc.  so meat eating is wrong insofar as it necessarily leads to the inhumane practices of battery farming, and no further.  if we could live in a world where people would be content to eat meat sparingly, as a luxury, then meat eating would pose no ethical issue.  however, given how economies work, demand for meat directly results in animal suffering.  so, i think vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters are generally wrong about the ethics of meat.  it is not killing that is wrong, but subjecting animals to lives of unremitting pain definitely is.   #  they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to continue to exist .   #  so unless they can express in a language humans can interpret, they do not wish to continue to exist ?  # you are an animal.  so unless they can express in a language humans can interpret, they do not wish to continue to exist ? what you are describing is the conceit of the human ego.  even so, how can i believe something that expresses that claim ? they have  instincts  based on millions of years of evolution, so they do not really have a say in the matter, therefore, murder whomever you want.  i would also contest the entire concept of morality in this post, which was not defined in any form.  morality as a human concept is wide open for interpretation, it is not difficult to justify killing even humans in certain moral constructs.   #  it may not be a  wish to live  as we comprehend it, but preserving life, their own or their offspring is, is hardwired into their brains.   #  i agree with a lot of what you are saying, except mainly this:   animals lack any explicit wish to live.  certain animals clearly demonstrate the desire for their young to live, by protecting them from predators and even leading predators away from the offspring at the risk of the parent is life.  it may not be a  wish to live  as we comprehend it, but preserving life, their own or their offspring is, is hardwired into their brains.  it is possible that our  own  desire for longevity is more instinctual than logical as well.  animals have expressed what we consider sorrow at the passing or disappearance of their human or animal companions, and have shown what we equate to joy when their missing companions return.  if they clearly value the presence of another being, could that not be the same as valuing the life of that being ? and if they value the lives of other beings, can they not value their own ?  #  as far as i am concerned, their want to live is pretty god damn clear.   #  and what i am telling you is that without someone speaking your language, you could not possibly know that.  as far as i am concerned, their want to live is pretty god damn clear.  just like it would be clear with a deaf person you were trying to kill.  just because something ca not sit down with you and speak to you in your language about how they want life, does not mean it is not there.  it is sure as shit not something you try and use to say it is okay to kill them either.  just like you would not do with a deaf person.   #  we know these things from extensive neurological studies.   #  we do not need language to find out about what physical structures an organism has.  no one and nothing self reports having internal structures such as a frontal lobe, an amygdala, a spinal cord, etc.  we know these things from extensive neurological studies.  you will notice, if you read my previous comment, that i never asserted that animals do not want to live because they cannot commicate a desire to live.  your comment about a deaf person is irrelevant because a deaf people can communcate and b deaf people have the same sorts of brains as hearing people.   #  humans do not usually pass the mirror self recognition test until they reach 0 months old.   #  adult pigs can solve problems and are said to be as intelligent as dogs and bottle nosed dolphins.  they can pass the  mirror self recognition test  and can use mirrors to locate food that is otherwise obscured from their vision.  humans do not usually pass the mirror self recognition test until they reach 0 months old.  and i am not entirely sure that a 0 month old could be said to possess a desire to live, but if anyone has information on this, i would be fascinated to read it.  the point being, we will make all sorts of convenient excuses for treating animals like crap, or killing / eating them, but many of those are not logically sound, and fall apart when you really test them.  if i proved to you that a pig was more intelligent than your dog, you are probably not gonna give up bacon and start eating poodle.  we simply have  unfair  preferences.  we are not a very nice species.  some people do not like to hear that though.
animals lack any explicit wish to live.  they will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference  i wish to continue to exist .  so killing them is morally okay, as long as no others are harmed by this action like someone with a pet pig because no preference the animal has is being violated.  however, if meat eating is a widespread taste, and it is, then market demand will necessarily and obviously lead to the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals.  and the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals is one that produces a life of complete and relentless suffering, through cramping, disease, being pecked to death, the frustration of natural insticts etc.  so meat eating is wrong insofar as it necessarily leads to the inhumane practices of battery farming, and no further.  if we could live in a world where people would be content to eat meat sparingly, as a luxury, then meat eating would pose no ethical issue.  however, given how economies work, demand for meat directly results in animal suffering.  so, i think vegans, vegetarians and meat eaters are generally wrong about the ethics of meat.  it is not killing that is wrong, but subjecting animals to lives of unremitting pain definitely is.   #  given how economies work, demand for meat directly results in animal suffering.   #  i disagree with this and similarly with the use of the word  inevitable  in your title.   # i agree with this.  i disagree with this and similarly with the use of the word  inevitable  in your title.  there is a difference between the demand for meat in general, and the demand for meat sourced ethically.  capitalist systems can happily support the prioritisation of supply to meet a demand for ethically sourced meat.  it is not the fault of the over arching economic model that we do not see this.  it is the result of the information systems and of a culture that does not adequetely drive demand for ethics.   #  it may not be a  wish to live  as we comprehend it, but preserving life, their own or their offspring is, is hardwired into their brains.   #  i agree with a lot of what you are saying, except mainly this:   animals lack any explicit wish to live.  certain animals clearly demonstrate the desire for their young to live, by protecting them from predators and even leading predators away from the offspring at the risk of the parent is life.  it may not be a  wish to live  as we comprehend it, but preserving life, their own or their offspring is, is hardwired into their brains.  it is possible that our  own  desire for longevity is more instinctual than logical as well.  animals have expressed what we consider sorrow at the passing or disappearance of their human or animal companions, and have shown what we equate to joy when their missing companions return.  if they clearly value the presence of another being, could that not be the same as valuing the life of that being ? and if they value the lives of other beings, can they not value their own ?  #  as far as i am concerned, their want to live is pretty god damn clear.   #  and what i am telling you is that without someone speaking your language, you could not possibly know that.  as far as i am concerned, their want to live is pretty god damn clear.  just like it would be clear with a deaf person you were trying to kill.  just because something ca not sit down with you and speak to you in your language about how they want life, does not mean it is not there.  it is sure as shit not something you try and use to say it is okay to kill them either.  just like you would not do with a deaf person.   #  we know these things from extensive neurological studies.   #  we do not need language to find out about what physical structures an organism has.  no one and nothing self reports having internal structures such as a frontal lobe, an amygdala, a spinal cord, etc.  we know these things from extensive neurological studies.  you will notice, if you read my previous comment, that i never asserted that animals do not want to live because they cannot commicate a desire to live.  your comment about a deaf person is irrelevant because a deaf people can communcate and b deaf people have the same sorts of brains as hearing people.   #  they can pass the  mirror self recognition test  and can use mirrors to locate food that is otherwise obscured from their vision.   #  adult pigs can solve problems and are said to be as intelligent as dogs and bottle nosed dolphins.  they can pass the  mirror self recognition test  and can use mirrors to locate food that is otherwise obscured from their vision.  humans do not usually pass the mirror self recognition test until they reach 0 months old.  and i am not entirely sure that a 0 month old could be said to possess a desire to live, but if anyone has information on this, i would be fascinated to read it.  the point being, we will make all sorts of convenient excuses for treating animals like crap, or killing / eating them, but many of those are not logically sound, and fall apart when you really test them.  if i proved to you that a pig was more intelligent than your dog, you are probably not gonna give up bacon and start eating poodle.  we simply have  unfair  preferences.  we are not a very nice species.  some people do not like to hear that though.
it is perfectly acceptable by societal standards for jews to wear strings hanging from their pants.  sure, non believers might think it is ridiculous, but hey it is not hurting anyone, so live and let live right ? you catholics think that you are literally eating jesus christ when you have communion ? that is a little weird, but go right ahead.  you believe that god sent an angel who is also god down to the desert to impregnate a married virgin that will eventually have a baby who is also god ? awesome, you sound just like all of our presidents ! yet we get all shocked when this same type of senseless, reason less faith causes people to fly planes into buildings or bomb abortion clinics or burn people at the stake for witchcraft.  if we are taught as a society that belief in something as objectively crazy as adam and eve and the talking snake is not only valid, but realistically above criticism, what credibility can we possibly have against those that think god has asked them to do things we might find atrocious ?  #  yet we get all shocked when this same type of senseless, reason less faith causes people to fly planes into buildings or bomb abortion clinics or burn people at the stake for witchcraft.   #  i am not shocked that they have senseless, reason less faith.   # i am not shocked that they have senseless, reason less faith.  i am shocked that their senseless, reason less faith are the ones that can induce them to fly planes into buildings or bomb abortion clinics or burn people at the stake for witchcraft.  there is a difference between  senseless, reason less faith  and  senseless, reason less faith that make people do bad things .  the latter is only a subset of the former.  you can easily scorn that subset without scorning the whole.  the difference though is that my scorn of them is based on what they do, not what they believe or how they think.  i think people are free to believe whatever they want, however senseless or reason less it may be, but when that belief turns into action with negative consequences that impact others, that is where the line of acceptability vs scorn is drawn.   #  the majority of religious people are normal people, just like you and me.   #  i am going to try to take this in a different direction.  extremism is not restricted to religious beliefs.  extremism can be found in movements whose primary motivation are promotion of a nation, a political ideology, or racial identity.  take a look at the tamil tigers, who wanted an independent tamil state in southern india and sri lanka.  they used suicide bombings, assassinations, child soldiers, and civilian massacres to further their agenda.  now, does that mean that everyone who is part of an independence movement deserves scorn ? does the independence movement in scotland deserve the same treatment as the tamil tigers ? any decently moral person would condemn these acts, regardless if they share some of their views.  this can be expanded to religious belief.  the majority of religious people are normal people, just like you and me.  they do not want the violence that isis and their ilk are promoting.  even if they share the belief in allah, they do not believe it justifies mass murder.   #  who is to say that my grandma praying in church is more moral than an islamic extremist who beheads infadels, when both beliefs are founded in unstable/subjective logic.   # they do not want the violence that isis and their ilk are promoting.  i think you may be missing ops point.  yes, the majority of religious people are normal.  the problem lies with how those normal religious people justify their moral code.  if their code is based upon scripture, they may come to the correct or  normal  conclusions, but logically they are no more valid than a group like isis.  who is to say that my grandma praying in church is more moral than an islamic extremist who beheads infadels, when both beliefs are founded in unstable/subjective logic.  that does not matter.  its not the actual beliefs that are the problem, its the logical inconsistencies of scripture that allow people to justify what ever they want.   #  to add to this, people like to cite verses of the bible like nuggets of infallible holyness, without considering the context its written in.   # its not that the logic is unstable or subjective, they just do not come from a common source.  there was not one group of people that sat down and wrote  the bible.   the bible is a compilation of  holy scriptures  curated by a church.  all of these were written by different people at different times, in very different historical contexts written for different purposes to different audiences .  that is why you can find passages that completely contradict each other.  to add to this, people like to cite verses of the bible like nuggets of infallible holyness, without considering the context its written in.  nor are these texts universally agreed upon, some books are left out or included, depending on what faith or sect you follow.  for example, the catholic bible has 0 books, while the lutheran bible only has 0.  needless to say, the books excluded by lutherans do not radically change the message, and probably are not read much outside of biblical scholars.  a few books the gospel carry the most weight, and are more fundamental to faith.  as for his sepecifically:  who is to say that my grandma praying in church is more moral than an islamic extremist who beheads infadels general consensus.  the most fundamental beliefs are repeated more frequently in holy scriptures, things like  love thy neighbor   do unto others  and other positive messages are much more often than the negatives  kill all the infadels .  if you are a scientist, and you are doing an experiment, lets say the boiling point of water.  lets say you do not know the source of that water no context and you run 0 experiments, and 0 times, the boiling point of water is exactly 0 degrees c, but a few times, the boiling point is bewteen 0 and 0 degrees.  you have contradictory evidence, but can you logically claim that the boiling point of water is 0 degrees ? you would have to be truly mad or desperate to come to that conclusion.   #  all of these were written by different people at different times, in very different historical contexts written for different purposes to different audiences .   # there was not one group of people that sat down and wrote  the bible.   the bible is a compilation of  holy scriptures  curated by a church.  all of these were written by different people at different times, in very different historical contexts written for different purposes to different audiences .  that is why you can find passages that completely contradict each other.  so are you implying that if all historical contexts are taken into account, the bible will be without contradictions ? the most fundamental beliefs are repeated more frequently in holy scriptures, things like  love thy neighbor   do unto others  and other positive messages are much more often than the negatives  kill all the infadels .  i can only see this holding true if you do not believe there can be an objective morality.  general consensus could also push the  abnormal  beliefs into the  normal  position.  i am not saying that the logical inconsistencies necessarily nullify the entire belief or message, they do, however, discredit them.
it is perfectly acceptable by societal standards for jews to wear strings hanging from their pants.  sure, non believers might think it is ridiculous, but hey it is not hurting anyone, so live and let live right ? you catholics think that you are literally eating jesus christ when you have communion ? that is a little weird, but go right ahead.  you believe that god sent an angel who is also god down to the desert to impregnate a married virgin that will eventually have a baby who is also god ? awesome, you sound just like all of our presidents ! yet we get all shocked when this same type of senseless, reason less faith causes people to fly planes into buildings or bomb abortion clinics or burn people at the stake for witchcraft.  if we are taught as a society that belief in something as objectively crazy as adam and eve and the talking snake is not only valid, but realistically above criticism, what credibility can we possibly have against those that think god has asked them to do things we might find atrocious ?  #  yet we get all shocked when this same type of senseless, reason less faith causes people to fly planes into buildings or bomb abortion clinics or burn people at the stake for witchcraft.   #  science cannot and will not answer any existential questions about death within our lifetimes.   # science cannot and will not answer any existential questions about death within our lifetimes.  you have 0 options, be a nihilist and believe nothing or take a leap of faith and allow yourself to have beliefs about why you were born, what to do while you are here and what will happen when you die which you can have as an athiest .  giving yourself the authority to believe what you want about the big questions in life does not make you an irrational person and i feel bad for you if you havent given yourself that authority.  people do bad things for a lot of reasons, the christian terrorist shooting spree in oslo didnt happen for the same reason that islamic terrorism happens just because they are both  based on  blind faith.  the reality is that people do bad things independently of their religion, even if their religion is an influence it will never be even close the main reason for doing something immoral this has a lot more to do with the culture/family/social class you grow up in .   #  extremism can be found in movements whose primary motivation are promotion of a nation, a political ideology, or racial identity.   #  i am going to try to take this in a different direction.  extremism is not restricted to religious beliefs.  extremism can be found in movements whose primary motivation are promotion of a nation, a political ideology, or racial identity.  take a look at the tamil tigers, who wanted an independent tamil state in southern india and sri lanka.  they used suicide bombings, assassinations, child soldiers, and civilian massacres to further their agenda.  now, does that mean that everyone who is part of an independence movement deserves scorn ? does the independence movement in scotland deserve the same treatment as the tamil tigers ? any decently moral person would condemn these acts, regardless if they share some of their views.  this can be expanded to religious belief.  the majority of religious people are normal people, just like you and me.  they do not want the violence that isis and their ilk are promoting.  even if they share the belief in allah, they do not believe it justifies mass murder.   #  they do not want the violence that isis and their ilk are promoting.   # they do not want the violence that isis and their ilk are promoting.  i think you may be missing ops point.  yes, the majority of religious people are normal.  the problem lies with how those normal religious people justify their moral code.  if their code is based upon scripture, they may come to the correct or  normal  conclusions, but logically they are no more valid than a group like isis.  who is to say that my grandma praying in church is more moral than an islamic extremist who beheads infadels, when both beliefs are founded in unstable/subjective logic.  that does not matter.  its not the actual beliefs that are the problem, its the logical inconsistencies of scripture that allow people to justify what ever they want.   #  its not that the logic is unstable or subjective, they just do not come from a common source.   # its not that the logic is unstable or subjective, they just do not come from a common source.  there was not one group of people that sat down and wrote  the bible.   the bible is a compilation of  holy scriptures  curated by a church.  all of these were written by different people at different times, in very different historical contexts written for different purposes to different audiences .  that is why you can find passages that completely contradict each other.  to add to this, people like to cite verses of the bible like nuggets of infallible holyness, without considering the context its written in.  nor are these texts universally agreed upon, some books are left out or included, depending on what faith or sect you follow.  for example, the catholic bible has 0 books, while the lutheran bible only has 0.  needless to say, the books excluded by lutherans do not radically change the message, and probably are not read much outside of biblical scholars.  a few books the gospel carry the most weight, and are more fundamental to faith.  as for his sepecifically:  who is to say that my grandma praying in church is more moral than an islamic extremist who beheads infadels general consensus.  the most fundamental beliefs are repeated more frequently in holy scriptures, things like  love thy neighbor   do unto others  and other positive messages are much more often than the negatives  kill all the infadels .  if you are a scientist, and you are doing an experiment, lets say the boiling point of water.  lets say you do not know the source of that water no context and you run 0 experiments, and 0 times, the boiling point of water is exactly 0 degrees c, but a few times, the boiling point is bewteen 0 and 0 degrees.  you have contradictory evidence, but can you logically claim that the boiling point of water is 0 degrees ? you would have to be truly mad or desperate to come to that conclusion.   #  i can only see this holding true if you do not believe there can be an objective morality.   # there was not one group of people that sat down and wrote  the bible.   the bible is a compilation of  holy scriptures  curated by a church.  all of these were written by different people at different times, in very different historical contexts written for different purposes to different audiences .  that is why you can find passages that completely contradict each other.  so are you implying that if all historical contexts are taken into account, the bible will be without contradictions ? the most fundamental beliefs are repeated more frequently in holy scriptures, things like  love thy neighbor   do unto others  and other positive messages are much more often than the negatives  kill all the infadels .  i can only see this holding true if you do not believe there can be an objective morality.  general consensus could also push the  abnormal  beliefs into the  normal  position.  i am not saying that the logical inconsistencies necessarily nullify the entire belief or message, they do, however, discredit them.
it is perfectly acceptable by societal standards for jews to wear strings hanging from their pants.  sure, non believers might think it is ridiculous, but hey it is not hurting anyone, so live and let live right ? you catholics think that you are literally eating jesus christ when you have communion ? that is a little weird, but go right ahead.  you believe that god sent an angel who is also god down to the desert to impregnate a married virgin that will eventually have a baby who is also god ? awesome, you sound just like all of our presidents ! yet we get all shocked when this same type of senseless, reason less faith causes people to fly planes into buildings or bomb abortion clinics or burn people at the stake for witchcraft.  if we are taught as a society that belief in something as objectively crazy as adam and eve and the talking snake is not only valid, but realistically above criticism, what credibility can we possibly have against those that think god has asked them to do things we might find atrocious ?  #  you catholics think that you are literally eating jesus christ when you have communion ?  #  that is a little weird, but go right ahead.   # that is a little weird, but go right ahead.  uh.  what ? ! i do not think you understand that part dude  #  take a look at the tamil tigers, who wanted an independent tamil state in southern india and sri lanka.   #  i am going to try to take this in a different direction.  extremism is not restricted to religious beliefs.  extremism can be found in movements whose primary motivation are promotion of a nation, a political ideology, or racial identity.  take a look at the tamil tigers, who wanted an independent tamil state in southern india and sri lanka.  they used suicide bombings, assassinations, child soldiers, and civilian massacres to further their agenda.  now, does that mean that everyone who is part of an independence movement deserves scorn ? does the independence movement in scotland deserve the same treatment as the tamil tigers ? any decently moral person would condemn these acts, regardless if they share some of their views.  this can be expanded to religious belief.  the majority of religious people are normal people, just like you and me.  they do not want the violence that isis and their ilk are promoting.  even if they share the belief in allah, they do not believe it justifies mass murder.   #  if their code is based upon scripture, they may come to the correct or  normal  conclusions, but logically they are no more valid than a group like isis.   # they do not want the violence that isis and their ilk are promoting.  i think you may be missing ops point.  yes, the majority of religious people are normal.  the problem lies with how those normal religious people justify their moral code.  if their code is based upon scripture, they may come to the correct or  normal  conclusions, but logically they are no more valid than a group like isis.  who is to say that my grandma praying in church is more moral than an islamic extremist who beheads infadels, when both beliefs are founded in unstable/subjective logic.  that does not matter.  its not the actual beliefs that are the problem, its the logical inconsistencies of scripture that allow people to justify what ever they want.   #  nor are these texts universally agreed upon, some books are left out or included, depending on what faith or sect you follow.   # its not that the logic is unstable or subjective, they just do not come from a common source.  there was not one group of people that sat down and wrote  the bible.   the bible is a compilation of  holy scriptures  curated by a church.  all of these were written by different people at different times, in very different historical contexts written for different purposes to different audiences .  that is why you can find passages that completely contradict each other.  to add to this, people like to cite verses of the bible like nuggets of infallible holyness, without considering the context its written in.  nor are these texts universally agreed upon, some books are left out or included, depending on what faith or sect you follow.  for example, the catholic bible has 0 books, while the lutheran bible only has 0.  needless to say, the books excluded by lutherans do not radically change the message, and probably are not read much outside of biblical scholars.  a few books the gospel carry the most weight, and are more fundamental to faith.  as for his sepecifically:  who is to say that my grandma praying in church is more moral than an islamic extremist who beheads infadels general consensus.  the most fundamental beliefs are repeated more frequently in holy scriptures, things like  love thy neighbor   do unto others  and other positive messages are much more often than the negatives  kill all the infadels .  if you are a scientist, and you are doing an experiment, lets say the boiling point of water.  lets say you do not know the source of that water no context and you run 0 experiments, and 0 times, the boiling point of water is exactly 0 degrees c, but a few times, the boiling point is bewteen 0 and 0 degrees.  you have contradictory evidence, but can you logically claim that the boiling point of water is 0 degrees ? you would have to be truly mad or desperate to come to that conclusion.   #  that is why you can find passages that completely contradict each other.   # there was not one group of people that sat down and wrote  the bible.   the bible is a compilation of  holy scriptures  curated by a church.  all of these were written by different people at different times, in very different historical contexts written for different purposes to different audiences .  that is why you can find passages that completely contradict each other.  so are you implying that if all historical contexts are taken into account, the bible will be without contradictions ? the most fundamental beliefs are repeated more frequently in holy scriptures, things like  love thy neighbor   do unto others  and other positive messages are much more often than the negatives  kill all the infadels .  i can only see this holding true if you do not believe there can be an objective morality.  general consensus could also push the  abnormal  beliefs into the  normal  position.  i am not saying that the logical inconsistencies necessarily nullify the entire belief or message, they do, however, discredit them.
first of all, let me be clear that this is not some  ispeak  amurican , anti immigrant screed.  multiculturalism is the way of the world, and i am all for it.  plus, immigrants bring fresh ideas and delicious food .  not to mention that english is an insanely difficult language even for native speakers, so i am not going to begrudge people for speaking it with an accent.  what i do have a problem with is people who speak english fluently and with an american accent suddenly lapsing into another accent to say a specific word.  this mainly arises with latinos using identity markers  willatino ,  chicano  or foods  quesadilla  .  however, most of these words have been adopted into english as true loanwords; english speakers understand them and use them often.  but i often hear people on the news, e. g.  a policy analyst of latin american extraction, using words like  latino  with a spanish lilt that sounds to me out of place and exaggerated.  suddenly switching to another accent, at best, is confusing, as it takes the listener is brain that extra millisecond to adapt to a new style of speaking.  at worst, it sounds kind of pretentious and exclusionary.  i am not arguing that we should completely anglify these words i do not want to hear someone pronounce  quesadilla  with a hard l sound, like the grandma in napoleon dynamite.  rather i think we should treat spanish loanwords like we do words like  kindergarden  german ,  sake  japanese , or  joie de vivre  french try as best we can to respect the original pronunciation, but maintain our typical accent when saying them.  doing otherwise is just kind of disrespectful.  to illustrate: i am a reasonably proficient spanish speaker and have spent a lot of time in spanish speaking countries.  once i was speaking with a local edit: in spanish and used the word  ipod , which left him scratching his head.  i could not figure out why i knew, in fact, that he owned one too.  then it hit me i was pronouncing the  i  sound like the english  eye , which is a confusing sound for spanish speakers, especially when surrounded by spanish words.  once i pronounced it as  ee pod , he immediately knew what i was talking about.  from then on, when speaking spanish, i always try to  ispanishify  the pronunciation of vowel sounds to avoid these kind of misunderstandings.  so cmv.   #  this mainly arises with latinos using identity markers  willatino ,  chicano  or foods  quesadilla  .   #  your argument seem to hinge on the notion that the way latino people pronounce these words is affected, or done consciously.   # your argument seem to hinge on the notion that the way latino people pronounce these words is affected, or done consciously.  let is say they can speak with what you consider a  normal  american accent, and let is go further and say they they grew up mono lingual, so they cannot speak fluent spanish.  even so, they still grew up and learned to speak in a different speech community than you did.  if it was a primarily latino community, then these pronunciations  with an accent  are really the way that speech community says them.   accent  is not a good term to use here because there is not a good scientific definition what you are hearing as an accent is largely subjective .  instead, i will say the way they are speaking is consistent with their native dialect.  they may sound like they speak exactly the same way you do, except when it comes to those words.  what you are hearing is just the fact they they do not, in fact, speak the same way you do.  now factor in all the latino people in the us who grew up bilingual i. e.  they speak spanish , and it is even more reasonable for them to pronounce those words they way they know them, and it is unreasonable to ask them to re learn how to say them for occasions when they are speaking to you.  when  quesadilla  is said with a spanish phonology, even if it is in the middle of a sentence with american phonology, there is rarely going to be any confusion, so your ipod analogy does not quite fit.   #  the opposite is also true, since i speak english fluently, when i speak french i always use an english accent when using english words.   #  i am french.  i think you do not realize how hard using french words with an american accent is.  i speak english every day at work, but i have no clue how i should pronounce  joie de vivre  with a  typical accent .  not everyone can just  switch accent  on demand.  i can speak english with a good accent, or french.  but do not ask me to speak french with an english accent ! at best i can avoid using any of those words, but you guys have so many that it is not always possible.  the opposite is also true, since i speak english fluently, when i speak french i always use an english accent when using english words.  sure you can make an effort an try to make things understandable, but it sounds like it is just a lot less effort for the listener to spend  an extra millisecond .   #  i ca not help but cringe a little whenever someone pronounce sake as  socky  or when i hear someone say  harry carry .   #  i ca not help but cringe a little whenever someone pronounce sake as  socky  or when i hear someone say  harry carry .  you do not have to have an accent but there is no need to butcher the pronunciation.  then again i grew up pronouncing karate as  kuh rah tee  and even though i know that is wrong  kah rah teh  somehow sounds too pretentious and out of place in an english sentence.  i can see both sides of this argument.  it is all about what sounds right to you i think.   #  i also chose to use a word from the anglo saxon era on purpose as many historians believe that is the root of english.   #  there is another part of the argument that no one has touched on that i have seen yet.  languages are supposed to evolve and adapt.  i wo not go into the entire history of the english language, but it already is a mish mash of a lot of different languages and has many different dialects to it today.  why would we pronounce words  completely accurately  when there is not even a set way to pronounce things for english words ? i will give an example.  women.  how do you pronounce it ? woah men ? , wuh men ? wuh min ? woah min ? wih men ? wih min ? there are more ways to pronounce it and i did not even touch upon stressing the first syllable or second one and stuff like that.  i also chose to use a word from the anglo saxon era on purpose as many historians believe that is the root of english.  words are like puzzle pieces.  but they do not always fit.  that is when the scissors, paper, and glue come in.  the word will morph somewhat, but that is how it naturally fits into the english example.   #  and if we are going for clarity of communication, it is probably best to do what other people will understand rather than what feels right to you.   #   harry carry  being はらきり？ as for the rest of it, vowels change really easily in english.  we alter them all the time based on part of speech, emphasis, laziness, etc. , so we just do not pay that much attention to the differences between similar vowels.  on one hand, this means that english butchers the vowels in all sorts of loan words; on the other, it also means that if you pronounce them correctly yourself, people might find it strange but will understand you.  and if we are going for clarity of communication, it is probably best to do what other people will understand rather than what feels right to you.  not that pronouncing things faithfully to their origins is bad, but you will just have to put up with explaining every time they have trouble.
i believe that professors of most, if not every, college level class or at least math/science/engineering courses since that is my field of study and most familiar with should not require any extra assignments out of the 0 0 exams   final traditionally given.  additionally, they should not absolutely require any paid supplemental material like textbooks or software material unless the course will be impossible to teach without it, like software for computer science courses or cad/computational packages for engineering students.  by the time students enter college, the vast majority of them are adults and should be treated as such.  the reason we attend college is to gain the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed career wise.  however, sometimes assignments like homework get in the way in the learning of some students.  some students already know all the material and are taking the course only for formality reasons.  in their case homework is a waste time that could be used for other courses.  other students do not get much out of mindlessly doing the problems, especially since many of them do it quickly at the last minute before it is due.  on top of that, many professors give homework as busy work.  money is also an issue.  there are many professors who insist on using online software for homework assignments which i find completely unnecessary.  not only do you have the problem i state above but now students also have to pay for it.  even if online homework software costs something like $0 a piece, it significantly adds up over the course of 0 years and that money can be used for better purposes.  same with textbooks.  often these textbooks are insanely priced and certain professors notoriously only use it for a few chapters, if that.  even in classes where the textbook is frequently referenced as a study material, i find that i can get all the information i need for free on the internet.  i know that certain websites are unreliable so i often cross reference them with multiple other independent sites as a check.  if this type of change is implemented, here is how i see a typical class structured again i am writing this mainly with math/science/engineering courses in mind .  textbooks and homework are 0 optional.  the professor will recommend, but not require, certain textbooks and/or online software and will recommend a handful of problems that students should focus on if they wish for additional practice.  the solution key will also be given if students wish to check their answers.  if students are still confused even with the solution key, they are always free to attend the professor is office hours for further clarification.  for the students who decide not to complete these recommended assignments, they will not be penalized grade wise in any shape or form.  final course grades will come from midterm and final exams.  class attendance will also be optional but highly recommended unless it is a course that is critically based on teamwork, like design projects for engineering students or science labs .  lectures will be given as usual.  all exam material must be covered during the lectures and not just left to be read from the textbook.  the recommended textbook should only used as a study aid, not as a replacement for lectures.  the reason i hold this view is because i believe everyone should be in charge of their own education since they pay for it.  by not assigning mandatory assignments like practice problems, not lab reports , students who are already proficient in the course or those who do not learn effectively this way do not have to waste their time and could instead devote that time to other better uses, like courses they find more challenging.  if students fail a course because they did not study, do the recommended problems, or attend office hours, that is 0 their own fault since they are now adults and should be self motivated assuming the average student, not mentally challenged  #  the recommended textbook should only used as a study aid, not as a replacement for lectures.   #  i have been in courses like this.   # the professor will recommend, but not require, certain textbooks and/or online software and will recommend a handful of problems that students should focus on if they wish for additional practice.  the solution key will also be given if students wish to check their answers.  if students are still confused even with the solution key, they are always free to attend the professor is office hours for further clarification.  for the students who decide not to complete these recommended assignments, they will not be penalized grade wise in any shape or form.  final course grades will come from midterm and final exams.  here is the huge problem with this.  final grades coming only from exams means that your entire progress in the class hinges on those exams and those exams only.  0.  if a student is a bad test taker or has anxiety that means they will fail the class.  they will fail not because they do not know the material but because they get too stressed out due to their entire course grades lying on how well they will do for the next 0 hours during the exam.  it is nerve wracking even for someone confident in their ability and putting this amount of pressure on students is unnecessary.  0.  homework can seem like busy work but it is graded for a reason.  to prevent point number 0 above.  the grades you get from the homework is partly to make sure you understand the material, and if you do not understand they give you a specific spot where you can ask the teacher for help.  but also the points you get from doing the homework insulate you from a potentially bad test grade.  if you have an awful day and you did crappy on your test because your girlfriend just broke up with you then you can take solace in the fact that you grade wo not completely dive bomb because you have a high enough homework grade average in the class you can handle having one poor test grade.  it is not fair to fail a class because circumstances were not in your favor for one particular day.  0.  test rarely test the subject material.  tests test your ability to take a test.  they are criticized heavily at the university where i go because it emphasizes your ability to take a test, and not to actually understand the material.  at colleges where exams are only 0 0 of the final grades students are able to put more effort into comprehending the material and eventually put more effort into doing better in the course.  they eventually have a better comprehension of the material and cheating is also lower in the class.  URL   class attendance will also be optional but highly recommended i have been in courses like this.  no one shows up.  they just get one guy to take notes and share those notes.  i have been in courses like this.  no one buys the book.  if you spend money on the book at least you will have no excuse to read it in order to get your moneys worth out of spending the money in the first place.  oh how i wish this was true.  but the truth is students are people, and people are lazy.  no one wants to go through extra effort if they do not immediately see the reward so it is understandable when students do things like   other students do not get much out of mindlessly doing the problems, especially since many of them do it quickly at the last minute before it is due.  homework does have a purpose described above and that honestly does not sound like the behavior of an adult to me.  in their case homework is a waste time that could be used for other courses.  in that case it is something you have to prepare for.  classes are not meant to be taken for formality reasons and thus are not designed for those students who already know the material.  they are designed to teach the material and homework   test   group work   extra credit formula works to teach.   #  requiring all exam material to be covered in the lecture is crazy.   #  requiring all exam material to be covered in the lecture is crazy.  how do you even teach a literature class, if students are not expected to read outside of class and discuss the book in the class ? what is it about non fiction that makes this less possible ? science and engineering especially should not cover everything in the class because that is too much material.  a professor should be able to say  read up on this, particularly these chapters, and we will discuss it next lecture .  that said, almost none of my engineering courses or really many of my college courses at all required homework to be turned in.  excluding of course labs and projects .  ultimately though, it is at the professors discretion as to how they want to teach the class.  the student is choosing to take the course, and if they do not like it, they can drop it and take a different one.  the syllabus was always reviewed in the very first lecture for my classes.   #  you already know the right answer, why must you be required to practice it again when that time can be better spent elsewhere, like other courses.   # i am a stem major, engineering to be specific, and all of my professors lectured everything that will be on the exam.  you do have a point here and i agree with you.  however, sorry if i was not explicitly clear, my argument was geared primarily towards stem majors.  analyzing fiction is subjective.  you have to be exposed to different point of views and there is no set number of them.  non fiction is objective.  you have a right answer or a wrong answer, nothing in between.  very rarely can you be half right.  you already know the right answer, why must you be required to practice it again when that time can be better spent elsewhere, like other courses.  excluding of course labs and projects .  my school is the opposite.  we have homework assignments due in almost all classes.  often times many courses is required to be taken to graduate and only 0 professor ever teaches.  this means you have no choice.  this is usually true regardless of whatever major you pick.   #  the only classes i can think of that were required were the lower level classes, and once you got into 0 and 0 level classes you had a large variety.   #  i am sure this is a difference in types of programs then.  but the lecture should explain the principles and rely on the students to master them.  engineering is not a right/wrong approach.  you can give a problem to 0 students, and have 0 different ways to get the right answer.  you analyze the approach, and discuss pitfalls that may be found, etc.  engineering school is supposed to teach you how to think, not teach you how to answer problems a specific way.  no one wants an engineering graduate who is just going to follow formulas and not come up with any ideas.  if a student already knows how to do the problems though, it should not take any considerable effort on their part to do the homework, and thus should not take any time away from effort they want to put towards a different class.  the only classes i can think of that were required were the lower level classes, and once you got into 0 and 0 level classes you had a large variety.  mechanical engineering with a focus on heat transfer and thermodynamics, or mechanical engineering with a focus / double major in aerospace, or me with a focus on automotive engineering, etc.  and to be perfectly honest, the lower level classes are weed out classes, and should be hard, and should require an insane amount of work.  they are the building blocks for the actual classes that will be relevant to your career.   #  you always have the option of enrolling in a diploma mill if textbooks and homework are not to your liking.   #  the simple act of paying for something does not automatically make you qualified to determine the design of the product.  when you buy a car, you do not get input on its design.  if your house is on fire, you do not get to tell the firefighters how to put it out, even though your taxes pay for them.  why ? because you are not an expert in the field.  if you were, chances are you would not have to pay for the good or service.  in the case of education, colleges and universities are upfront about their academic expectations and requirements, and by enrolling, you are giving your  informed consent .  you always have the option of enrolling in a diploma mill if textbooks and homework are not to your liking.
i believe that professors of most, if not every, college level class or at least math/science/engineering courses since that is my field of study and most familiar with should not require any extra assignments out of the 0 0 exams   final traditionally given.  additionally, they should not absolutely require any paid supplemental material like textbooks or software material unless the course will be impossible to teach without it, like software for computer science courses or cad/computational packages for engineering students.  by the time students enter college, the vast majority of them are adults and should be treated as such.  the reason we attend college is to gain the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed career wise.  however, sometimes assignments like homework get in the way in the learning of some students.  some students already know all the material and are taking the course only for formality reasons.  in their case homework is a waste time that could be used for other courses.  other students do not get much out of mindlessly doing the problems, especially since many of them do it quickly at the last minute before it is due.  on top of that, many professors give homework as busy work.  money is also an issue.  there are many professors who insist on using online software for homework assignments which i find completely unnecessary.  not only do you have the problem i state above but now students also have to pay for it.  even if online homework software costs something like $0 a piece, it significantly adds up over the course of 0 years and that money can be used for better purposes.  same with textbooks.  often these textbooks are insanely priced and certain professors notoriously only use it for a few chapters, if that.  even in classes where the textbook is frequently referenced as a study material, i find that i can get all the information i need for free on the internet.  i know that certain websites are unreliable so i often cross reference them with multiple other independent sites as a check.  if this type of change is implemented, here is how i see a typical class structured again i am writing this mainly with math/science/engineering courses in mind .  textbooks and homework are 0 optional.  the professor will recommend, but not require, certain textbooks and/or online software and will recommend a handful of problems that students should focus on if they wish for additional practice.  the solution key will also be given if students wish to check their answers.  if students are still confused even with the solution key, they are always free to attend the professor is office hours for further clarification.  for the students who decide not to complete these recommended assignments, they will not be penalized grade wise in any shape or form.  final course grades will come from midterm and final exams.  class attendance will also be optional but highly recommended unless it is a course that is critically based on teamwork, like design projects for engineering students or science labs .  lectures will be given as usual.  all exam material must be covered during the lectures and not just left to be read from the textbook.  the recommended textbook should only used as a study aid, not as a replacement for lectures.  the reason i hold this view is because i believe everyone should be in charge of their own education since they pay for it.  by not assigning mandatory assignments like practice problems, not lab reports , students who are already proficient in the course or those who do not learn effectively this way do not have to waste their time and could instead devote that time to other better uses, like courses they find more challenging.  if students fail a course because they did not study, do the recommended problems, or attend office hours, that is 0 their own fault since they are now adults and should be self motivated assuming the average student, not mentally challenged  #  by the time students enter college, the vast majority of them are adults and should be treated as such.   #  oh how i wish this was true.   # the professor will recommend, but not require, certain textbooks and/or online software and will recommend a handful of problems that students should focus on if they wish for additional practice.  the solution key will also be given if students wish to check their answers.  if students are still confused even with the solution key, they are always free to attend the professor is office hours for further clarification.  for the students who decide not to complete these recommended assignments, they will not be penalized grade wise in any shape or form.  final course grades will come from midterm and final exams.  here is the huge problem with this.  final grades coming only from exams means that your entire progress in the class hinges on those exams and those exams only.  0.  if a student is a bad test taker or has anxiety that means they will fail the class.  they will fail not because they do not know the material but because they get too stressed out due to their entire course grades lying on how well they will do for the next 0 hours during the exam.  it is nerve wracking even for someone confident in their ability and putting this amount of pressure on students is unnecessary.  0.  homework can seem like busy work but it is graded for a reason.  to prevent point number 0 above.  the grades you get from the homework is partly to make sure you understand the material, and if you do not understand they give you a specific spot where you can ask the teacher for help.  but also the points you get from doing the homework insulate you from a potentially bad test grade.  if you have an awful day and you did crappy on your test because your girlfriend just broke up with you then you can take solace in the fact that you grade wo not completely dive bomb because you have a high enough homework grade average in the class you can handle having one poor test grade.  it is not fair to fail a class because circumstances were not in your favor for one particular day.  0.  test rarely test the subject material.  tests test your ability to take a test.  they are criticized heavily at the university where i go because it emphasizes your ability to take a test, and not to actually understand the material.  at colleges where exams are only 0 0 of the final grades students are able to put more effort into comprehending the material and eventually put more effort into doing better in the course.  they eventually have a better comprehension of the material and cheating is also lower in the class.  URL   class attendance will also be optional but highly recommended i have been in courses like this.  no one shows up.  they just get one guy to take notes and share those notes.  i have been in courses like this.  no one buys the book.  if you spend money on the book at least you will have no excuse to read it in order to get your moneys worth out of spending the money in the first place.  oh how i wish this was true.  but the truth is students are people, and people are lazy.  no one wants to go through extra effort if they do not immediately see the reward so it is understandable when students do things like   other students do not get much out of mindlessly doing the problems, especially since many of them do it quickly at the last minute before it is due.  homework does have a purpose described above and that honestly does not sound like the behavior of an adult to me.  in their case homework is a waste time that could be used for other courses.  in that case it is something you have to prepare for.  classes are not meant to be taken for formality reasons and thus are not designed for those students who already know the material.  they are designed to teach the material and homework   test   group work   extra credit formula works to teach.   #  that said, almost none of my engineering courses or really many of my college courses at all required homework to be turned in.   #  requiring all exam material to be covered in the lecture is crazy.  how do you even teach a literature class, if students are not expected to read outside of class and discuss the book in the class ? what is it about non fiction that makes this less possible ? science and engineering especially should not cover everything in the class because that is too much material.  a professor should be able to say  read up on this, particularly these chapters, and we will discuss it next lecture .  that said, almost none of my engineering courses or really many of my college courses at all required homework to be turned in.  excluding of course labs and projects .  ultimately though, it is at the professors discretion as to how they want to teach the class.  the student is choosing to take the course, and if they do not like it, they can drop it and take a different one.  the syllabus was always reviewed in the very first lecture for my classes.   #  however, sorry if i was not explicitly clear, my argument was geared primarily towards stem majors.   # i am a stem major, engineering to be specific, and all of my professors lectured everything that will be on the exam.  you do have a point here and i agree with you.  however, sorry if i was not explicitly clear, my argument was geared primarily towards stem majors.  analyzing fiction is subjective.  you have to be exposed to different point of views and there is no set number of them.  non fiction is objective.  you have a right answer or a wrong answer, nothing in between.  very rarely can you be half right.  you already know the right answer, why must you be required to practice it again when that time can be better spent elsewhere, like other courses.  excluding of course labs and projects .  my school is the opposite.  we have homework assignments due in almost all classes.  often times many courses is required to be taken to graduate and only 0 professor ever teaches.  this means you have no choice.  this is usually true regardless of whatever major you pick.   #  but the lecture should explain the principles and rely on the students to master them.   #  i am sure this is a difference in types of programs then.  but the lecture should explain the principles and rely on the students to master them.  engineering is not a right/wrong approach.  you can give a problem to 0 students, and have 0 different ways to get the right answer.  you analyze the approach, and discuss pitfalls that may be found, etc.  engineering school is supposed to teach you how to think, not teach you how to answer problems a specific way.  no one wants an engineering graduate who is just going to follow formulas and not come up with any ideas.  if a student already knows how to do the problems though, it should not take any considerable effort on their part to do the homework, and thus should not take any time away from effort they want to put towards a different class.  the only classes i can think of that were required were the lower level classes, and once you got into 0 and 0 level classes you had a large variety.  mechanical engineering with a focus on heat transfer and thermodynamics, or mechanical engineering with a focus / double major in aerospace, or me with a focus on automotive engineering, etc.  and to be perfectly honest, the lower level classes are weed out classes, and should be hard, and should require an insane amount of work.  they are the building blocks for the actual classes that will be relevant to your career.   #  the simple act of paying for something does not automatically make you qualified to determine the design of the product.   #  the simple act of paying for something does not automatically make you qualified to determine the design of the product.  when you buy a car, you do not get input on its design.  if your house is on fire, you do not get to tell the firefighters how to put it out, even though your taxes pay for them.  why ? because you are not an expert in the field.  if you were, chances are you would not have to pay for the good or service.  in the case of education, colleges and universities are upfront about their academic expectations and requirements, and by enrolling, you are giving your  informed consent .  you always have the option of enrolling in a diploma mill if textbooks and homework are not to your liking.
i believe that professors of most, if not every, college level class or at least math/science/engineering courses since that is my field of study and most familiar with should not require any extra assignments out of the 0 0 exams   final traditionally given.  additionally, they should not absolutely require any paid supplemental material like textbooks or software material unless the course will be impossible to teach without it, like software for computer science courses or cad/computational packages for engineering students.  by the time students enter college, the vast majority of them are adults and should be treated as such.  the reason we attend college is to gain the necessary knowledge and skills to succeed career wise.  however, sometimes assignments like homework get in the way in the learning of some students.  some students already know all the material and are taking the course only for formality reasons.  in their case homework is a waste time that could be used for other courses.  other students do not get much out of mindlessly doing the problems, especially since many of them do it quickly at the last minute before it is due.  on top of that, many professors give homework as busy work.  money is also an issue.  there are many professors who insist on using online software for homework assignments which i find completely unnecessary.  not only do you have the problem i state above but now students also have to pay for it.  even if online homework software costs something like $0 a piece, it significantly adds up over the course of 0 years and that money can be used for better purposes.  same with textbooks.  often these textbooks are insanely priced and certain professors notoriously only use it for a few chapters, if that.  even in classes where the textbook is frequently referenced as a study material, i find that i can get all the information i need for free on the internet.  i know that certain websites are unreliable so i often cross reference them with multiple other independent sites as a check.  if this type of change is implemented, here is how i see a typical class structured again i am writing this mainly with math/science/engineering courses in mind .  textbooks and homework are 0 optional.  the professor will recommend, but not require, certain textbooks and/or online software and will recommend a handful of problems that students should focus on if they wish for additional practice.  the solution key will also be given if students wish to check their answers.  if students are still confused even with the solution key, they are always free to attend the professor is office hours for further clarification.  for the students who decide not to complete these recommended assignments, they will not be penalized grade wise in any shape or form.  final course grades will come from midterm and final exams.  class attendance will also be optional but highly recommended unless it is a course that is critically based on teamwork, like design projects for engineering students or science labs .  lectures will be given as usual.  all exam material must be covered during the lectures and not just left to be read from the textbook.  the recommended textbook should only used as a study aid, not as a replacement for lectures.  the reason i hold this view is because i believe everyone should be in charge of their own education since they pay for it.  by not assigning mandatory assignments like practice problems, not lab reports , students who are already proficient in the course or those who do not learn effectively this way do not have to waste their time and could instead devote that time to other better uses, like courses they find more challenging.  if students fail a course because they did not study, do the recommended problems, or attend office hours, that is 0 their own fault since they are now adults and should be self motivated assuming the average student, not mentally challenged  #  some students already know all the material and are taking the course only for formality reasons.   #  in their case homework is a waste time that could be used for other courses.   # the professor will recommend, but not require, certain textbooks and/or online software and will recommend a handful of problems that students should focus on if they wish for additional practice.  the solution key will also be given if students wish to check their answers.  if students are still confused even with the solution key, they are always free to attend the professor is office hours for further clarification.  for the students who decide not to complete these recommended assignments, they will not be penalized grade wise in any shape or form.  final course grades will come from midterm and final exams.  here is the huge problem with this.  final grades coming only from exams means that your entire progress in the class hinges on those exams and those exams only.  0.  if a student is a bad test taker or has anxiety that means they will fail the class.  they will fail not because they do not know the material but because they get too stressed out due to their entire course grades lying on how well they will do for the next 0 hours during the exam.  it is nerve wracking even for someone confident in their ability and putting this amount of pressure on students is unnecessary.  0.  homework can seem like busy work but it is graded for a reason.  to prevent point number 0 above.  the grades you get from the homework is partly to make sure you understand the material, and if you do not understand they give you a specific spot where you can ask the teacher for help.  but also the points you get from doing the homework insulate you from a potentially bad test grade.  if you have an awful day and you did crappy on your test because your girlfriend just broke up with you then you can take solace in the fact that you grade wo not completely dive bomb because you have a high enough homework grade average in the class you can handle having one poor test grade.  it is not fair to fail a class because circumstances were not in your favor for one particular day.  0.  test rarely test the subject material.  tests test your ability to take a test.  they are criticized heavily at the university where i go because it emphasizes your ability to take a test, and not to actually understand the material.  at colleges where exams are only 0 0 of the final grades students are able to put more effort into comprehending the material and eventually put more effort into doing better in the course.  they eventually have a better comprehension of the material and cheating is also lower in the class.  URL   class attendance will also be optional but highly recommended i have been in courses like this.  no one shows up.  they just get one guy to take notes and share those notes.  i have been in courses like this.  no one buys the book.  if you spend money on the book at least you will have no excuse to read it in order to get your moneys worth out of spending the money in the first place.  oh how i wish this was true.  but the truth is students are people, and people are lazy.  no one wants to go through extra effort if they do not immediately see the reward so it is understandable when students do things like   other students do not get much out of mindlessly doing the problems, especially since many of them do it quickly at the last minute before it is due.  homework does have a purpose described above and that honestly does not sound like the behavior of an adult to me.  in their case homework is a waste time that could be used for other courses.  in that case it is something you have to prepare for.  classes are not meant to be taken for formality reasons and thus are not designed for those students who already know the material.  they are designed to teach the material and homework   test   group work   extra credit formula works to teach.   #  the student is choosing to take the course, and if they do not like it, they can drop it and take a different one.   #  requiring all exam material to be covered in the lecture is crazy.  how do you even teach a literature class, if students are not expected to read outside of class and discuss the book in the class ? what is it about non fiction that makes this less possible ? science and engineering especially should not cover everything in the class because that is too much material.  a professor should be able to say  read up on this, particularly these chapters, and we will discuss it next lecture .  that said, almost none of my engineering courses or really many of my college courses at all required homework to be turned in.  excluding of course labs and projects .  ultimately though, it is at the professors discretion as to how they want to teach the class.  the student is choosing to take the course, and if they do not like it, they can drop it and take a different one.  the syllabus was always reviewed in the very first lecture for my classes.   #  i am a stem major, engineering to be specific, and all of my professors lectured everything that will be on the exam.   # i am a stem major, engineering to be specific, and all of my professors lectured everything that will be on the exam.  you do have a point here and i agree with you.  however, sorry if i was not explicitly clear, my argument was geared primarily towards stem majors.  analyzing fiction is subjective.  you have to be exposed to different point of views and there is no set number of them.  non fiction is objective.  you have a right answer or a wrong answer, nothing in between.  very rarely can you be half right.  you already know the right answer, why must you be required to practice it again when that time can be better spent elsewhere, like other courses.  excluding of course labs and projects .  my school is the opposite.  we have homework assignments due in almost all classes.  often times many courses is required to be taken to graduate and only 0 professor ever teaches.  this means you have no choice.  this is usually true regardless of whatever major you pick.   #  engineering school is supposed to teach you how to think, not teach you how to answer problems a specific way.   #  i am sure this is a difference in types of programs then.  but the lecture should explain the principles and rely on the students to master them.  engineering is not a right/wrong approach.  you can give a problem to 0 students, and have 0 different ways to get the right answer.  you analyze the approach, and discuss pitfalls that may be found, etc.  engineering school is supposed to teach you how to think, not teach you how to answer problems a specific way.  no one wants an engineering graduate who is just going to follow formulas and not come up with any ideas.  if a student already knows how to do the problems though, it should not take any considerable effort on their part to do the homework, and thus should not take any time away from effort they want to put towards a different class.  the only classes i can think of that were required were the lower level classes, and once you got into 0 and 0 level classes you had a large variety.  mechanical engineering with a focus on heat transfer and thermodynamics, or mechanical engineering with a focus / double major in aerospace, or me with a focus on automotive engineering, etc.  and to be perfectly honest, the lower level classes are weed out classes, and should be hard, and should require an insane amount of work.  they are the building blocks for the actual classes that will be relevant to your career.   #  in the case of education, colleges and universities are upfront about their academic expectations and requirements, and by enrolling, you are giving your  informed consent .   #  the simple act of paying for something does not automatically make you qualified to determine the design of the product.  when you buy a car, you do not get input on its design.  if your house is on fire, you do not get to tell the firefighters how to put it out, even though your taxes pay for them.  why ? because you are not an expert in the field.  if you were, chances are you would not have to pay for the good or service.  in the case of education, colleges and universities are upfront about their academic expectations and requirements, and by enrolling, you are giving your  informed consent .  you always have the option of enrolling in a diploma mill if textbooks and homework are not to your liking.
i have seen several posts around here by people who think that drug testing should be required for welfare, but none that think the opposite.  several states have tried this and it has been a pretty colossal failure everywhere which has wasted money, despite one of the supposed advantages being that it saves taxpayers money.  the cost of instituting the program is greater than the cost of the few people who actually mooch off the system.  the program also contributes to the view of welfare recipients as lazy druggies and moochers.  i believe this group of people is a tiny minority of those who receive welfare benefits, whereas the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, single parents, etc make up much larger parts.  i think that drug addiction should be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal problem.  many places have had success with this sort of re framing of the issue.   tl;dr  there is a plethora of empirical evidence showing that testing welfare applicants for drugs is a waste of money, is easy to circumvent, and keeps people in a cycle of poverty and destitution.  it completely fails to get any significant number of people off of drugs and is a net negative for society.  cmv.  i want to hear a good argument from a devil is advocate.   #  the cost of instituting the program is greater than the cost of the few people who actually mooch off the system.   #  you ca not prove this, and i would suspect the opposite.   # you ca not prove this, and i would suspect the opposite.  anytime you make welfare harder to get, you will probably save money.  if people on welfare are  required  and  proven  to be drug free, how would that contribute to the view that they are druggies ? with required testing, you can no longer call them druggies.  what is your point ? what does this have to do with welfare recipients ? they do not get charged with anything for failing a drug test.  if you have a drug addiction problem, then welfare will only enable your habit.   #  now i understand that  life happens  and there are times when everyone needs help, and that for some, that help must come from the government and i have no argument against that.   # the cost of instituting the program is greater than the cost of the few people who actually mooch off the system.  ahh, our old friend the glazier is fallacy.  drug testing in order to receive benefits is a deterrent, not a penalty; by its very design there will always be an imbalance.  take utah for example URL they spent $0,0 in one year aug 0 july 0 screening welfare recipients.  they caught a total of 0 people.  opponents of the law crowed about what a  failure  and  waste of money  it was.  they conveniently overlooked the fact that over 0 people refused to take the test, or rescinded their applications, resulting in a net savings of $0,0.  now were those 0 people all on drugs ? no one knows but them.  they had all applied for benefits however, and it was only when they were told that they would be subject to screening, that they either refused or changed their minds.   nbsp;  the program also contributes to the view of welfare recipients as lazy druggies and moochers.  i believe this group of people is a tiny minority of those who receive welfare benefits, whereas the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, single parents, etc make up much larger parts.  that is not going to change, regardless of what screening programs you do, or do not, have.  there will always be a stigma attached to welfare, as well there should be.  if you make poverty comfortable and pleasant, you will just end up with more poverty.  self reliance and self sufficiency must always,  always  be the standard to which people are held.  now i understand that  life happens  and there are times when everyone needs help, and that for some, that help must come from the government and i have no argument against that.  that being said, every economist has to take game theory at least they did when i went to college , and one of the things you cover there is the  samaritan is dilemma ; essentially, it is a way of taking into account the unintended consequences of any kind of charitable act.   nbsp;  i think that drug addiction should be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal problem.  many places have had success with this sort of re framing of the issue.  i completely agree, but it is irrelevant to the topic at hand: should people who are asking taxpayers to support them, be required to take steps to assure said taxpayers that they are drug free as a condition of receiving benefits.  to me, the answer is a no brainer: of course they should.   #  do you not think being in poverty is unpleasant enough already that you have to actively make it worse ?  # no one knows but them.  they had all applied for benefits however, and it was only when they were told that they would be subject to screening, that they either refused or changed their minds.  i think this is a bit of a rush to judgement without anything to back it up and claiming that number as a  net savings  is unfounded.  i personally once applied for an assistance benefit like this once and withdrew my application because i found a job.  i would be extremely offended if someone was assuming i must be on drugs simply because i withdrew before a drug test.  if you make poverty comfortable and pleasant, you will just end up with more poverty.  do you not think being in poverty is unpleasant enough already that you have to actively make it worse ? i feel terrible for people who are already dealing with terrible life circumstances who get shamed for no reason other than they are getting public assistance.   #  is it safe to  assume  that they left because they had reason to believe they would fail the test ?  # the state would have spent  x  on benefits for those 0 people.  once they were informed that screening would occur, they decided against seeking said benefits.  the state no longer had to spend  x .  that is very nearly the textbook definition of savings.   nbsp;  i personally once applied for an assistance benefit like this once and withdrew my application because i found a job.  i would be extremely offended if someone was assuming i must be on drugs simply because i withdrew before a drug test.  there are 0 people waiting in line to go through a door.  a man walks up and says:  before you go through the door, we are going to be administering a breathalyzer test, and anyone who blows more than a . 0, will either have to leave, or pay $0,0.  at that point, 0 people get out of line and leave.  do we know that those people would have blown . 0 or not ? no, they left before they could be tested.  is it safe to  assume  that they left because they had reason to believe they would fail the test ? of course it is.   #  that is very nearly the textbook definition of savings.   # once they were informed that screening would occur, they decided against seeking said benefits.  the state no longer had to spend  x .  that is very nearly the textbook definition of savings.  firstly, i disagree with that way of looking at government savings.  if get a hundred people to apply for benefits today, and tomorrow i get the hundred people to withdraw their applications, did i just  save  the government a ton of money ? i would not say so.  secondly, you strongly implied that net savings was a result of the drug testing, which there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest.  a man walks up and says:  before you go through the door, we are going to be administering a breathalyzer test, and anyone who blows more than a . 0, will either have to leave, or pay $0,0.  at that point, 0 people get out of line and leave.  do we know that those people would have blown . 0 or not ? no, they left before they could be tested.  is it safe to assume that they left because they had reason to believe they would fail the test ? of course it is.  welfare/public assistance does not work that way.  firstly, it lasts weeks or months.  your scenario is about seconds or minutes.  secondly, people are constantly withdrawing applications for dozens of reasons.  the comparison does not hold at all, unless it was a line that took months to get through and constantly had people leaving no matter what the situation was.  i also want to add that this is the age old fallacy that wanting privacy self incrimination.
i have seen several posts around here by people who think that drug testing should be required for welfare, but none that think the opposite.  several states have tried this and it has been a pretty colossal failure everywhere which has wasted money, despite one of the supposed advantages being that it saves taxpayers money.  the cost of instituting the program is greater than the cost of the few people who actually mooch off the system.  the program also contributes to the view of welfare recipients as lazy druggies and moochers.  i believe this group of people is a tiny minority of those who receive welfare benefits, whereas the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, single parents, etc make up much larger parts.  i think that drug addiction should be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal problem.  many places have had success with this sort of re framing of the issue.   tl;dr  there is a plethora of empirical evidence showing that testing welfare applicants for drugs is a waste of money, is easy to circumvent, and keeps people in a cycle of poverty and destitution.  it completely fails to get any significant number of people off of drugs and is a net negative for society.  cmv.  i want to hear a good argument from a devil is advocate.   #  the program also contributes to the view of welfare recipients as lazy druggies and moochers.   #  if people on welfare are  required  and  proven  to be drug free, how would that contribute to the view that they are druggies ?  # you ca not prove this, and i would suspect the opposite.  anytime you make welfare harder to get, you will probably save money.  if people on welfare are  required  and  proven  to be drug free, how would that contribute to the view that they are druggies ? with required testing, you can no longer call them druggies.  what is your point ? what does this have to do with welfare recipients ? they do not get charged with anything for failing a drug test.  if you have a drug addiction problem, then welfare will only enable your habit.   #  there will always be a stigma attached to welfare, as well there should be.   # the cost of instituting the program is greater than the cost of the few people who actually mooch off the system.  ahh, our old friend the glazier is fallacy.  drug testing in order to receive benefits is a deterrent, not a penalty; by its very design there will always be an imbalance.  take utah for example URL they spent $0,0 in one year aug 0 july 0 screening welfare recipients.  they caught a total of 0 people.  opponents of the law crowed about what a  failure  and  waste of money  it was.  they conveniently overlooked the fact that over 0 people refused to take the test, or rescinded their applications, resulting in a net savings of $0,0.  now were those 0 people all on drugs ? no one knows but them.  they had all applied for benefits however, and it was only when they were told that they would be subject to screening, that they either refused or changed their minds.   nbsp;  the program also contributes to the view of welfare recipients as lazy druggies and moochers.  i believe this group of people is a tiny minority of those who receive welfare benefits, whereas the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, single parents, etc make up much larger parts.  that is not going to change, regardless of what screening programs you do, or do not, have.  there will always be a stigma attached to welfare, as well there should be.  if you make poverty comfortable and pleasant, you will just end up with more poverty.  self reliance and self sufficiency must always,  always  be the standard to which people are held.  now i understand that  life happens  and there are times when everyone needs help, and that for some, that help must come from the government and i have no argument against that.  that being said, every economist has to take game theory at least they did when i went to college , and one of the things you cover there is the  samaritan is dilemma ; essentially, it is a way of taking into account the unintended consequences of any kind of charitable act.   nbsp;  i think that drug addiction should be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal problem.  many places have had success with this sort of re framing of the issue.  i completely agree, but it is irrelevant to the topic at hand: should people who are asking taxpayers to support them, be required to take steps to assure said taxpayers that they are drug free as a condition of receiving benefits.  to me, the answer is a no brainer: of course they should.   #  do you not think being in poverty is unpleasant enough already that you have to actively make it worse ?  # no one knows but them.  they had all applied for benefits however, and it was only when they were told that they would be subject to screening, that they either refused or changed their minds.  i think this is a bit of a rush to judgement without anything to back it up and claiming that number as a  net savings  is unfounded.  i personally once applied for an assistance benefit like this once and withdrew my application because i found a job.  i would be extremely offended if someone was assuming i must be on drugs simply because i withdrew before a drug test.  if you make poverty comfortable and pleasant, you will just end up with more poverty.  do you not think being in poverty is unpleasant enough already that you have to actively make it worse ? i feel terrible for people who are already dealing with terrible life circumstances who get shamed for no reason other than they are getting public assistance.   #  is it safe to  assume  that they left because they had reason to believe they would fail the test ?  # the state would have spent  x  on benefits for those 0 people.  once they were informed that screening would occur, they decided against seeking said benefits.  the state no longer had to spend  x .  that is very nearly the textbook definition of savings.   nbsp;  i personally once applied for an assistance benefit like this once and withdrew my application because i found a job.  i would be extremely offended if someone was assuming i must be on drugs simply because i withdrew before a drug test.  there are 0 people waiting in line to go through a door.  a man walks up and says:  before you go through the door, we are going to be administering a breathalyzer test, and anyone who blows more than a . 0, will either have to leave, or pay $0,0.  at that point, 0 people get out of line and leave.  do we know that those people would have blown . 0 or not ? no, they left before they could be tested.  is it safe to  assume  that they left because they had reason to believe they would fail the test ? of course it is.   #  that is very nearly the textbook definition of savings.   # once they were informed that screening would occur, they decided against seeking said benefits.  the state no longer had to spend  x .  that is very nearly the textbook definition of savings.  firstly, i disagree with that way of looking at government savings.  if get a hundred people to apply for benefits today, and tomorrow i get the hundred people to withdraw their applications, did i just  save  the government a ton of money ? i would not say so.  secondly, you strongly implied that net savings was a result of the drug testing, which there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest.  a man walks up and says:  before you go through the door, we are going to be administering a breathalyzer test, and anyone who blows more than a . 0, will either have to leave, or pay $0,0.  at that point, 0 people get out of line and leave.  do we know that those people would have blown . 0 or not ? no, they left before they could be tested.  is it safe to assume that they left because they had reason to believe they would fail the test ? of course it is.  welfare/public assistance does not work that way.  firstly, it lasts weeks or months.  your scenario is about seconds or minutes.  secondly, people are constantly withdrawing applications for dozens of reasons.  the comparison does not hold at all, unless it was a line that took months to get through and constantly had people leaving no matter what the situation was.  i also want to add that this is the age old fallacy that wanting privacy self incrimination.
i have seen several posts around here by people who think that drug testing should be required for welfare, but none that think the opposite.  several states have tried this and it has been a pretty colossal failure everywhere which has wasted money, despite one of the supposed advantages being that it saves taxpayers money.  the cost of instituting the program is greater than the cost of the few people who actually mooch off the system.  the program also contributes to the view of welfare recipients as lazy druggies and moochers.  i believe this group of people is a tiny minority of those who receive welfare benefits, whereas the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, single parents, etc make up much larger parts.  i think that drug addiction should be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal problem.  many places have had success with this sort of re framing of the issue.   tl;dr  there is a plethora of empirical evidence showing that testing welfare applicants for drugs is a waste of money, is easy to circumvent, and keeps people in a cycle of poverty and destitution.  it completely fails to get any significant number of people off of drugs and is a net negative for society.  cmv.  i want to hear a good argument from a devil is advocate.   #  i think that drug addiction should be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal problem.   #  what does this have to do with welfare recipients ?  # you ca not prove this, and i would suspect the opposite.  anytime you make welfare harder to get, you will probably save money.  if people on welfare are  required  and  proven  to be drug free, how would that contribute to the view that they are druggies ? with required testing, you can no longer call them druggies.  what is your point ? what does this have to do with welfare recipients ? they do not get charged with anything for failing a drug test.  if you have a drug addiction problem, then welfare will only enable your habit.   #  they conveniently overlooked the fact that over 0 people refused to take the test, or rescinded their applications, resulting in a net savings of $0,0.   # the cost of instituting the program is greater than the cost of the few people who actually mooch off the system.  ahh, our old friend the glazier is fallacy.  drug testing in order to receive benefits is a deterrent, not a penalty; by its very design there will always be an imbalance.  take utah for example URL they spent $0,0 in one year aug 0 july 0 screening welfare recipients.  they caught a total of 0 people.  opponents of the law crowed about what a  failure  and  waste of money  it was.  they conveniently overlooked the fact that over 0 people refused to take the test, or rescinded their applications, resulting in a net savings of $0,0.  now were those 0 people all on drugs ? no one knows but them.  they had all applied for benefits however, and it was only when they were told that they would be subject to screening, that they either refused or changed their minds.   nbsp;  the program also contributes to the view of welfare recipients as lazy druggies and moochers.  i believe this group of people is a tiny minority of those who receive welfare benefits, whereas the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, single parents, etc make up much larger parts.  that is not going to change, regardless of what screening programs you do, or do not, have.  there will always be a stigma attached to welfare, as well there should be.  if you make poverty comfortable and pleasant, you will just end up with more poverty.  self reliance and self sufficiency must always,  always  be the standard to which people are held.  now i understand that  life happens  and there are times when everyone needs help, and that for some, that help must come from the government and i have no argument against that.  that being said, every economist has to take game theory at least they did when i went to college , and one of the things you cover there is the  samaritan is dilemma ; essentially, it is a way of taking into account the unintended consequences of any kind of charitable act.   nbsp;  i think that drug addiction should be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal problem.  many places have had success with this sort of re framing of the issue.  i completely agree, but it is irrelevant to the topic at hand: should people who are asking taxpayers to support them, be required to take steps to assure said taxpayers that they are drug free as a condition of receiving benefits.  to me, the answer is a no brainer: of course they should.   #  i personally once applied for an assistance benefit like this once and withdrew my application because i found a job.   # no one knows but them.  they had all applied for benefits however, and it was only when they were told that they would be subject to screening, that they either refused or changed their minds.  i think this is a bit of a rush to judgement without anything to back it up and claiming that number as a  net savings  is unfounded.  i personally once applied for an assistance benefit like this once and withdrew my application because i found a job.  i would be extremely offended if someone was assuming i must be on drugs simply because i withdrew before a drug test.  if you make poverty comfortable and pleasant, you will just end up with more poverty.  do you not think being in poverty is unpleasant enough already that you have to actively make it worse ? i feel terrible for people who are already dealing with terrible life circumstances who get shamed for no reason other than they are getting public assistance.   #  once they were informed that screening would occur, they decided against seeking said benefits.   # the state would have spent  x  on benefits for those 0 people.  once they were informed that screening would occur, they decided against seeking said benefits.  the state no longer had to spend  x .  that is very nearly the textbook definition of savings.   nbsp;  i personally once applied for an assistance benefit like this once and withdrew my application because i found a job.  i would be extremely offended if someone was assuming i must be on drugs simply because i withdrew before a drug test.  there are 0 people waiting in line to go through a door.  a man walks up and says:  before you go through the door, we are going to be administering a breathalyzer test, and anyone who blows more than a . 0, will either have to leave, or pay $0,0.  at that point, 0 people get out of line and leave.  do we know that those people would have blown . 0 or not ? no, they left before they could be tested.  is it safe to  assume  that they left because they had reason to believe they would fail the test ? of course it is.   #  secondly, you strongly implied that net savings was a result of the drug testing, which there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest.   # once they were informed that screening would occur, they decided against seeking said benefits.  the state no longer had to spend  x .  that is very nearly the textbook definition of savings.  firstly, i disagree with that way of looking at government savings.  if get a hundred people to apply for benefits today, and tomorrow i get the hundred people to withdraw their applications, did i just  save  the government a ton of money ? i would not say so.  secondly, you strongly implied that net savings was a result of the drug testing, which there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest.  a man walks up and says:  before you go through the door, we are going to be administering a breathalyzer test, and anyone who blows more than a . 0, will either have to leave, or pay $0,0.  at that point, 0 people get out of line and leave.  do we know that those people would have blown . 0 or not ? no, they left before they could be tested.  is it safe to assume that they left because they had reason to believe they would fail the test ? of course it is.  welfare/public assistance does not work that way.  firstly, it lasts weeks or months.  your scenario is about seconds or minutes.  secondly, people are constantly withdrawing applications for dozens of reasons.  the comparison does not hold at all, unless it was a line that took months to get through and constantly had people leaving no matter what the situation was.  i also want to add that this is the age old fallacy that wanting privacy self incrimination.
many that live deserve death.  some that die deserve life.  can you give it to them ? do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.    even the very wise cannot see all ends.   gandalf the grey URL the death penalty makes no sense in modern society.  it is utterly irreversible, unlike most other penalties.  it is impossible to know the long term consequences of killing someone, so it is unlikely i will find utilitarian arguments to be convincing.  ultimately, it is a barbaric abrogation of the rights of every human that the state can mete out life and death at will.  change this old wizard is mind.   #  it is utterly irreversible, unlike most other penalties.   #  taking 0 years of someones life by falsely putting them in jail is also  irreversible .   # taking 0 years of someones life by falsely putting them in jail is also  irreversible .  we have to do the best with what we have.  if punishing people properly, means getting one conviction wrong out of a million, than i think it is worth it.  forget about the utilitarian argument, and think about justice.  do you truly believe that those who harm the innocent should go unpunished ? or do you disagree with the punishment fitting the crime ? have you ever heard of  treat people the way you would like to be treated .  you treat society like shit, you will be treated like shit by society.  killing innocent people is barbaric.  killing murderers is not when you feel the pain the victim and their family feels.   #  yes the punishment should fit the crime, plus extra punishment as a disincentive.   #  yes the punishment should fit the crime, plus extra punishment as a disincentive.  for example, you steal a tv, the gov has the right to take your tv plus a fine or jail time.  they choose to take money instead of a tv though for practical reasons.  same with rape, for many reasons it is more practical to give them jail time instead of raping them, but hypothetically if jail did not exist, raping them would be a viable option.  as for the death penalty, jail time alone is not enough punishment for 0st degree murder, so death is a good option.   #  or is raping those convicted of rape not a viable option because jail does exist ?  # but jail does exist, so does that mean that raping a rapist is a preferable punishment to putting a rapist in jail ? or is raping those convicted of rape not a viable option because jail does exist ? also, in terms of the tv example, what happens if the person who stole the tv does not own one them self ? or, what if they steal a famous painting ? it is not like you can just take this from the person who stole it since the item that was stolen was one of a kind.   #  the sad thing is that most of those extreme cases were caused by excessive abuses.   #  i do not see the current judicial system as being eager to deal out death.  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.  the point is to take some one in who has committed a crime, get them to realize that it was wrong for doing so, and reform them to be an acceptable member of society so they can be released back into the public and have them not do that deviant behavior.  with that in mind the question is what do you do when you have a person who is not capable of being reformed, or one that enjoys excessive deviant behavior to the point where they can no longer be trusted in public no matter how much reform they go though ? people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.  i will say that perhaps some improvements could be made to the existing death penalty determination process could be made to help ensure that innocent people do not become victims of it.  but the simple fact is there are some really dangerous people that live in the world, who are incapable of being reformed, and even if they have life in prison they are still a threat to the public because eventually they could escape.  when there is no doubt at all to the guilt of the prisoner, and no chance of reform then the death penalty is a valid means of removing a public threat.  the sad thing is that most of those extreme cases were caused by excessive abuses.  but the point i make is that until a modern society can insure that the situations that create those extreme cases can no longer exist, and until that society can have in place methods of rehabilitation that work 0 of the time for everyone, then the death penalty needs to be in effect.   #  people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.   # see texas, iran, or any one of these red countries URL  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.  the point is to take some one in who has committed a crime, get them to realize that it was wrong for doing so, and reform them to be an acceptable member of society so they can be released back into the public and have them not do that deviant behavior.  okay.  people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.  most criminals are not ted bundy.  judges pretty much never make rehabilitative minded punishments.  for ted bundies, lock them up for life.  but the simple fact is there are some really dangerous people that live in the world, who are incapable of being reformed, and even if they have life in prison they are still a threat to the public because eventually they could escape.  when there is no doubt at all to the guilt of the prisoner, and no chance of reform then the death penalty is a valid means of removing a public threat.  escape rates are exceedingly low.  definitely lower than the chances of an innocent man being the victim of state sanctioned murder.
many that live deserve death.  some that die deserve life.  can you give it to them ? do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.    even the very wise cannot see all ends.   gandalf the grey URL the death penalty makes no sense in modern society.  it is utterly irreversible, unlike most other penalties.  it is impossible to know the long term consequences of killing someone, so it is unlikely i will find utilitarian arguments to be convincing.  ultimately, it is a barbaric abrogation of the rights of every human that the state can mete out life and death at will.  change this old wizard is mind.   #  so it is unlikely i will find utilitarian arguments to be convincing.   #  forget about the utilitarian argument, and think about justice.   # taking 0 years of someones life by falsely putting them in jail is also  irreversible .  we have to do the best with what we have.  if punishing people properly, means getting one conviction wrong out of a million, than i think it is worth it.  forget about the utilitarian argument, and think about justice.  do you truly believe that those who harm the innocent should go unpunished ? or do you disagree with the punishment fitting the crime ? have you ever heard of  treat people the way you would like to be treated .  you treat society like shit, you will be treated like shit by society.  killing innocent people is barbaric.  killing murderers is not when you feel the pain the victim and their family feels.   #  same with rape, for many reasons it is more practical to give them jail time instead of raping them, but hypothetically if jail did not exist, raping them would be a viable option.   #  yes the punishment should fit the crime, plus extra punishment as a disincentive.  for example, you steal a tv, the gov has the right to take your tv plus a fine or jail time.  they choose to take money instead of a tv though for practical reasons.  same with rape, for many reasons it is more practical to give them jail time instead of raping them, but hypothetically if jail did not exist, raping them would be a viable option.  as for the death penalty, jail time alone is not enough punishment for 0st degree murder, so death is a good option.   #  also, in terms of the tv example, what happens if the person who stole the tv does not own one them self ?  # but jail does exist, so does that mean that raping a rapist is a preferable punishment to putting a rapist in jail ? or is raping those convicted of rape not a viable option because jail does exist ? also, in terms of the tv example, what happens if the person who stole the tv does not own one them self ? or, what if they steal a famous painting ? it is not like you can just take this from the person who stole it since the item that was stolen was one of a kind.   #  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.   #  i do not see the current judicial system as being eager to deal out death.  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.  the point is to take some one in who has committed a crime, get them to realize that it was wrong for doing so, and reform them to be an acceptable member of society so they can be released back into the public and have them not do that deviant behavior.  with that in mind the question is what do you do when you have a person who is not capable of being reformed, or one that enjoys excessive deviant behavior to the point where they can no longer be trusted in public no matter how much reform they go though ? people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.  i will say that perhaps some improvements could be made to the existing death penalty determination process could be made to help ensure that innocent people do not become victims of it.  but the simple fact is there are some really dangerous people that live in the world, who are incapable of being reformed, and even if they have life in prison they are still a threat to the public because eventually they could escape.  when there is no doubt at all to the guilt of the prisoner, and no chance of reform then the death penalty is a valid means of removing a public threat.  the sad thing is that most of those extreme cases were caused by excessive abuses.  but the point i make is that until a modern society can insure that the situations that create those extreme cases can no longer exist, and until that society can have in place methods of rehabilitation that work 0 of the time for everyone, then the death penalty needs to be in effect.   #  definitely lower than the chances of an innocent man being the victim of state sanctioned murder.   # see texas, iran, or any one of these red countries URL  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.  the point is to take some one in who has committed a crime, get them to realize that it was wrong for doing so, and reform them to be an acceptable member of society so they can be released back into the public and have them not do that deviant behavior.  okay.  people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.  most criminals are not ted bundy.  judges pretty much never make rehabilitative minded punishments.  for ted bundies, lock them up for life.  but the simple fact is there are some really dangerous people that live in the world, who are incapable of being reformed, and even if they have life in prison they are still a threat to the public because eventually they could escape.  when there is no doubt at all to the guilt of the prisoner, and no chance of reform then the death penalty is a valid means of removing a public threat.  escape rates are exceedingly low.  definitely lower than the chances of an innocent man being the victim of state sanctioned murder.
many that live deserve death.  some that die deserve life.  can you give it to them ? do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.    even the very wise cannot see all ends.   gandalf the grey URL the death penalty makes no sense in modern society.  it is utterly irreversible, unlike most other penalties.  it is impossible to know the long term consequences of killing someone, so it is unlikely i will find utilitarian arguments to be convincing.  ultimately, it is a barbaric abrogation of the rights of every human that the state can mete out life and death at will.  change this old wizard is mind.   #  the death penalty makes no sense in modern society.   #  it is utterly irreversible, unlike most other penalties.   # it is utterly irreversible, unlike most other penalties.  a jail sentence can be shortened, but it is not reversible.  plenty of innocent men have languished in jail for decades before their punishment was overturned.  the fact many receive huge financial compensation is because they have had something taken from them and i would guess most would take those years back instead of the money if they could .  it is impossible to know the long term consequences of just about any decision.  what is your point ? i am not convinced either way about the death penalty, but i think many people do not consider the question seriously.  the best defence of it i have ever heard begins with the fact that in a given society people will be inclined to commit grave crimes against one another, including murder.  if the state could deter potential murders through a death penalty, as well as other crimes, it then becomes a matter of arithmetic.  of course the difficulty is that many factors affect crime, so it would be hard to directly tie a particular policy to a particular outcome.  but people who call the death penalty barbaric fail to recognise that man is barbaric.  there is nothing inherently worse about the state executing someone than one citizen killing another, and in fact there are many advantages, including factors such as due process and rule of law.  i am not saying we should use the death penalty, but i do think it is a legitimate question that should not be brushed aside with lofty rhetoric.   #  they choose to take money instead of a tv though for practical reasons.   #  yes the punishment should fit the crime, plus extra punishment as a disincentive.  for example, you steal a tv, the gov has the right to take your tv plus a fine or jail time.  they choose to take money instead of a tv though for practical reasons.  same with rape, for many reasons it is more practical to give them jail time instead of raping them, but hypothetically if jail did not exist, raping them would be a viable option.  as for the death penalty, jail time alone is not enough punishment for 0st degree murder, so death is a good option.   #  but jail does exist, so does that mean that raping a rapist is a preferable punishment to putting a rapist in jail ?  # but jail does exist, so does that mean that raping a rapist is a preferable punishment to putting a rapist in jail ? or is raping those convicted of rape not a viable option because jail does exist ? also, in terms of the tv example, what happens if the person who stole the tv does not own one them self ? or, what if they steal a famous painting ? it is not like you can just take this from the person who stole it since the item that was stolen was one of a kind.   #  i do not see the current judicial system as being eager to deal out death.   #  i do not see the current judicial system as being eager to deal out death.  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.  the point is to take some one in who has committed a crime, get them to realize that it was wrong for doing so, and reform them to be an acceptable member of society so they can be released back into the public and have them not do that deviant behavior.  with that in mind the question is what do you do when you have a person who is not capable of being reformed, or one that enjoys excessive deviant behavior to the point where they can no longer be trusted in public no matter how much reform they go though ? people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.  i will say that perhaps some improvements could be made to the existing death penalty determination process could be made to help ensure that innocent people do not become victims of it.  but the simple fact is there are some really dangerous people that live in the world, who are incapable of being reformed, and even if they have life in prison they are still a threat to the public because eventually they could escape.  when there is no doubt at all to the guilt of the prisoner, and no chance of reform then the death penalty is a valid means of removing a public threat.  the sad thing is that most of those extreme cases were caused by excessive abuses.  but the point i make is that until a modern society can insure that the situations that create those extreme cases can no longer exist, and until that society can have in place methods of rehabilitation that work 0 of the time for everyone, then the death penalty needs to be in effect.   #  definitely lower than the chances of an innocent man being the victim of state sanctioned murder.   # see texas, iran, or any one of these red countries URL  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.  the point is to take some one in who has committed a crime, get them to realize that it was wrong for doing so, and reform them to be an acceptable member of society so they can be released back into the public and have them not do that deviant behavior.  okay.  people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.  most criminals are not ted bundy.  judges pretty much never make rehabilitative minded punishments.  for ted bundies, lock them up for life.  but the simple fact is there are some really dangerous people that live in the world, who are incapable of being reformed, and even if they have life in prison they are still a threat to the public because eventually they could escape.  when there is no doubt at all to the guilt of the prisoner, and no chance of reform then the death penalty is a valid means of removing a public threat.  escape rates are exceedingly low.  definitely lower than the chances of an innocent man being the victim of state sanctioned murder.
many that live deserve death.  some that die deserve life.  can you give it to them ? do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.    even the very wise cannot see all ends.   gandalf the grey URL the death penalty makes no sense in modern society.  it is utterly irreversible, unlike most other penalties.  it is impossible to know the long term consequences of killing someone, so it is unlikely i will find utilitarian arguments to be convincing.  ultimately, it is a barbaric abrogation of the rights of every human that the state can mete out life and death at will.  change this old wizard is mind.   #  it is impossible to know the long term consequences of killing someone, so it is unlikely i will find utilitarian arguments to be convincing.   #  it is impossible to know the long term consequences of just about any decision.   # it is utterly irreversible, unlike most other penalties.  a jail sentence can be shortened, but it is not reversible.  plenty of innocent men have languished in jail for decades before their punishment was overturned.  the fact many receive huge financial compensation is because they have had something taken from them and i would guess most would take those years back instead of the money if they could .  it is impossible to know the long term consequences of just about any decision.  what is your point ? i am not convinced either way about the death penalty, but i think many people do not consider the question seriously.  the best defence of it i have ever heard begins with the fact that in a given society people will be inclined to commit grave crimes against one another, including murder.  if the state could deter potential murders through a death penalty, as well as other crimes, it then becomes a matter of arithmetic.  of course the difficulty is that many factors affect crime, so it would be hard to directly tie a particular policy to a particular outcome.  but people who call the death penalty barbaric fail to recognise that man is barbaric.  there is nothing inherently worse about the state executing someone than one citizen killing another, and in fact there are many advantages, including factors such as due process and rule of law.  i am not saying we should use the death penalty, but i do think it is a legitimate question that should not be brushed aside with lofty rhetoric.   #  yes the punishment should fit the crime, plus extra punishment as a disincentive.   #  yes the punishment should fit the crime, plus extra punishment as a disincentive.  for example, you steal a tv, the gov has the right to take your tv plus a fine or jail time.  they choose to take money instead of a tv though for practical reasons.  same with rape, for many reasons it is more practical to give them jail time instead of raping them, but hypothetically if jail did not exist, raping them would be a viable option.  as for the death penalty, jail time alone is not enough punishment for 0st degree murder, so death is a good option.   #  but jail does exist, so does that mean that raping a rapist is a preferable punishment to putting a rapist in jail ?  # but jail does exist, so does that mean that raping a rapist is a preferable punishment to putting a rapist in jail ? or is raping those convicted of rape not a viable option because jail does exist ? also, in terms of the tv example, what happens if the person who stole the tv does not own one them self ? or, what if they steal a famous painting ? it is not like you can just take this from the person who stole it since the item that was stolen was one of a kind.   #  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.   #  i do not see the current judicial system as being eager to deal out death.  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.  the point is to take some one in who has committed a crime, get them to realize that it was wrong for doing so, and reform them to be an acceptable member of society so they can be released back into the public and have them not do that deviant behavior.  with that in mind the question is what do you do when you have a person who is not capable of being reformed, or one that enjoys excessive deviant behavior to the point where they can no longer be trusted in public no matter how much reform they go though ? people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.  i will say that perhaps some improvements could be made to the existing death penalty determination process could be made to help ensure that innocent people do not become victims of it.  but the simple fact is there are some really dangerous people that live in the world, who are incapable of being reformed, and even if they have life in prison they are still a threat to the public because eventually they could escape.  when there is no doubt at all to the guilt of the prisoner, and no chance of reform then the death penalty is a valid means of removing a public threat.  the sad thing is that most of those extreme cases were caused by excessive abuses.  but the point i make is that until a modern society can insure that the situations that create those extreme cases can no longer exist, and until that society can have in place methods of rehabilitation that work 0 of the time for everyone, then the death penalty needs to be in effect.   #  judges pretty much never make rehabilitative minded punishments.   # see texas, iran, or any one of these red countries URL  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.  the point is to take some one in who has committed a crime, get them to realize that it was wrong for doing so, and reform them to be an acceptable member of society so they can be released back into the public and have them not do that deviant behavior.  okay.  people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.  most criminals are not ted bundy.  judges pretty much never make rehabilitative minded punishments.  for ted bundies, lock them up for life.  but the simple fact is there are some really dangerous people that live in the world, who are incapable of being reformed, and even if they have life in prison they are still a threat to the public because eventually they could escape.  when there is no doubt at all to the guilt of the prisoner, and no chance of reform then the death penalty is a valid means of removing a public threat.  escape rates are exceedingly low.  definitely lower than the chances of an innocent man being the victim of state sanctioned murder.
many that live deserve death.  some that die deserve life.  can you give it to them ? do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.    even the very wise cannot see all ends.   gandalf the grey URL the death penalty makes no sense in modern society.  it is utterly irreversible, unlike most other penalties.  it is impossible to know the long term consequences of killing someone, so it is unlikely i will find utilitarian arguments to be convincing.  ultimately, it is a barbaric abrogation of the rights of every human that the state can mete out life and death at will.  change this old wizard is mind.   #  ultimately, it is a barbaric abrogation of the rights of every human that the state can mete out life and death at will.   #  i am not convinced either way about the death penalty, but i think many people do not consider the question seriously.   # it is utterly irreversible, unlike most other penalties.  a jail sentence can be shortened, but it is not reversible.  plenty of innocent men have languished in jail for decades before their punishment was overturned.  the fact many receive huge financial compensation is because they have had something taken from them and i would guess most would take those years back instead of the money if they could .  it is impossible to know the long term consequences of just about any decision.  what is your point ? i am not convinced either way about the death penalty, but i think many people do not consider the question seriously.  the best defence of it i have ever heard begins with the fact that in a given society people will be inclined to commit grave crimes against one another, including murder.  if the state could deter potential murders through a death penalty, as well as other crimes, it then becomes a matter of arithmetic.  of course the difficulty is that many factors affect crime, so it would be hard to directly tie a particular policy to a particular outcome.  but people who call the death penalty barbaric fail to recognise that man is barbaric.  there is nothing inherently worse about the state executing someone than one citizen killing another, and in fact there are many advantages, including factors such as due process and rule of law.  i am not saying we should use the death penalty, but i do think it is a legitimate question that should not be brushed aside with lofty rhetoric.   #  for example, you steal a tv, the gov has the right to take your tv plus a fine or jail time.   #  yes the punishment should fit the crime, plus extra punishment as a disincentive.  for example, you steal a tv, the gov has the right to take your tv plus a fine or jail time.  they choose to take money instead of a tv though for practical reasons.  same with rape, for many reasons it is more practical to give them jail time instead of raping them, but hypothetically if jail did not exist, raping them would be a viable option.  as for the death penalty, jail time alone is not enough punishment for 0st degree murder, so death is a good option.   #  or is raping those convicted of rape not a viable option because jail does exist ?  # but jail does exist, so does that mean that raping a rapist is a preferable punishment to putting a rapist in jail ? or is raping those convicted of rape not a viable option because jail does exist ? also, in terms of the tv example, what happens if the person who stole the tv does not own one them self ? or, what if they steal a famous painting ? it is not like you can just take this from the person who stole it since the item that was stolen was one of a kind.   #  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.   #  i do not see the current judicial system as being eager to deal out death.  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.  the point is to take some one in who has committed a crime, get them to realize that it was wrong for doing so, and reform them to be an acceptable member of society so they can be released back into the public and have them not do that deviant behavior.  with that in mind the question is what do you do when you have a person who is not capable of being reformed, or one that enjoys excessive deviant behavior to the point where they can no longer be trusted in public no matter how much reform they go though ? people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.  i will say that perhaps some improvements could be made to the existing death penalty determination process could be made to help ensure that innocent people do not become victims of it.  but the simple fact is there are some really dangerous people that live in the world, who are incapable of being reformed, and even if they have life in prison they are still a threat to the public because eventually they could escape.  when there is no doubt at all to the guilt of the prisoner, and no chance of reform then the death penalty is a valid means of removing a public threat.  the sad thing is that most of those extreme cases were caused by excessive abuses.  but the point i make is that until a modern society can insure that the situations that create those extreme cases can no longer exist, and until that society can have in place methods of rehabilitation that work 0 of the time for everyone, then the death penalty needs to be in effect.   #  definitely lower than the chances of an innocent man being the victim of state sanctioned murder.   # see texas, iran, or any one of these red countries URL  i would also agree that criminal justice is not about revenge but ideally is about reform.  the point is to take some one in who has committed a crime, get them to realize that it was wrong for doing so, and reform them to be an acceptable member of society so they can be released back into the public and have them not do that deviant behavior.  okay.  people like ted bundy, or others who have killed many people.  most criminals are not ted bundy.  judges pretty much never make rehabilitative minded punishments.  for ted bundies, lock them up for life.  but the simple fact is there are some really dangerous people that live in the world, who are incapable of being reformed, and even if they have life in prison they are still a threat to the public because eventually they could escape.  when there is no doubt at all to the guilt of the prisoner, and no chance of reform then the death penalty is a valid means of removing a public threat.  escape rates are exceedingly low.  definitely lower than the chances of an innocent man being the victim of state sanctioned murder.
running into the kicker is a terrible penalty, both in its severity of result and in its faulty logic.  i will address both aspects: 0.  running into the kicker, although not an automatic first down, results in a first down a considerable percentage of the time by virtue of being a five yard penalty assessed solely on 0th down.  this effectively makes the penalty a turnover for the offending team.  0.  the penalty itself lacks rationale, in that the offending player is simply victim of the laws of physics and momentum.  the job of the defensive line on a special teams play like a punt is to block the ball being kicked.  inasmuch as the ball is being kicked by a kicker, it is inevitable that the defender will be heading in the direction of the kicker in order to successfully block the ball.  furthermore, if even slight contact is made with the ball itself, no penalty is assessed no matter how severe the contact with the kicker.  however, if the defender misses the ball by even a fraction of an inch and grazes the kicker is leg which will usually result in the kicker falling to the ground , a penalty is assessed.  it is important to note that  running into the kicker  is a distinct and separate penalty from  roughing the kicker .   roughing  implies that the defender went above and beyond natural momentum to initiate contact with the kicker.   roughing the kicker  is a very necessary part of the game to prevent undue injuries and vulnerable players being targeted.   running into the kicker  is a lesser penalty that acknowledges that the contact was unintentional and in my view, unavoidable in completing the defender is duties .  change my view.   #  the penalty itself lacks rationale, in that the offending player is simply victim of the laws of physics and momentum.   #  another possibility: the offender may be timing their block to make minor contact say, landing on an ankle that may in turn have a major impact on the game a sprain, leaving one team without an effective scorer .   # another possibility: the offender may be timing their block to make minor contact say, landing on an ankle that may in turn have a major impact on the game a sprain, leaving one team without an effective scorer .  and i think we would agree that kickers are in a uniquely vulnerable position.  most other positions can play through a taped ankle sprain and still be effective.  kickers can lose a lot of accuracy and distance with an ankle sprain.  my understanding is that running into the kicker ritk is meant to address a gray area between two possible events.  on one end you have a defender who stays perfectly clear of the kicker.  on the other end is where a defender purposefully launches themselves at the kicker.  without ritk defenders would be able play a slow, methodical war of attrition against kickers.  multiple instances of lesser contact can accumulate and have the same impact as one big hit.  instead trying to win with skill the defenders will simply try to take out an effective opponent who can put points on the board.   #  it is not different than the offensive team going for it on 0th down and getting the 0st.   #  0.  this could be said for various penalties.  also, it does not make it a turnover as the offensive team still has the ball.  it is not different than the offensive team going for it on 0th down and getting the 0st.  0.  the rationale is to protect a defenseless player.  when a kicker or punter is in their kicking/punting motion, they are extremely vulnerable and there is nothing they can do to defend themselves/brace for impact.  the offending player is not a victim of the laws of physics as the have the ability to dive to either side of the kicker/punter while still being able to block the kick/punt.  the defender can absolutely avoid avoid contact with the kicker/punter while still doing their job.   #  0.  i said  effective turnover , which is accurate because in many instances , it is the difference between the ball being in the hands of the team defending on special teams, versus being a first down for the kicking team.   #  0.  i said  effective turnover , which is accurate because in many instances , it is the difference between the ball being in the hands of the team defending on special teams, versus being a first down for the kicking team.  it is completely different than the offensive team going for it on fourth down, as it is automatic, and irrespective of field position.  0.  i understand this end goal.  my point is that if a defender makes even remote contact with the ball, he can blow that kicker up, and does in most cases.  if he misses the ball by a centimeter and makes the exact same forward motion, however, it is a severe penalty.  the comparison is a roughing the passer penalty, where unavoidable momentum is taken into account even if the ball has just left the quarterback is hands.  the penalty is only assessed when the defender intentionally makes contact with the qb after the ball is released.  there is no equivalent  running into the qb  penalty, for example tom brady rule aside .   #  running into the kicker is also not a penalty if it is the result of the kicker is own motions, regardless of whether contact is made with the ball by the defender or not.   #  0.  this is assuming that the receiving team keeps possession of the ball for the duration of the play.  this is not a fair assumption.  it is not automatic by any means.  0.  how is roughing the passer comparable to running into the kicker ? running into the kicker is a 0 yard penalty, while roughing the passer is a personal foul, meaning that it is a 0 yard penalty and an automatic first down.  also, running into the kicker can still be a penalty if the player touches the ball.  this happens when it is deemed that contact with the kicker was not incidental.  running into the kicker is also not a penalty if it is the result of the kicker is own motions, regardless of whether contact is made with the ball by the defender or not.  the defender can be called for running into the kicker if he touches the ball, and can also not be called for it if he makes contact with the kicker and does not touch the ball.  URL  #  i ca not recall an instance of a blocked punt that involved zero contact between a defender and said punter, which is my point.   #  do not be snide.  obviously if i am asking this question i have watched a little bit of football.  i ca not recall an instance of a blocked punt that involved zero contact between a defender and said punter, which is my point.  a kick, on the other hand, given its lower starting trajectory, is easier to avoid contact.  with a punter moving forward and a defender moving toward him even at an angle , however, contact is virtually inevitable if the defender is even within range to make a play.  throw in the incentive for a punter to flop at even the slightest graze, and you have the issue which i am questioning.
in example; attractive people can more so easily find jobs regardless of what skills they have to offer to a certain extent .  attractive people typically have higher confidence which aids them in social aspects in life.  subconsciously, people tend to assume attractive people are more trust worthy than unattractive people.  they also do not have to try at all in order to look presentable.  attractive people, most importantly, are more likely to be catered to than unattractive people.  i could go on and on about all the advantages i believe attractive people are given, but i think you all get the point.  i believe because of these factors, attractive people ultimately have happier lives and have way more success while putting in way less work, financially, socially, and emotionally.  i would like to be proven otherwise but i just do not think that is realistic.  reddit.  change my view !  #  subconsciously, people tend to assume attractive people are more trust worthy than unattractive people.   #  i think other visual factors, like clothes, are much more common subconscious signs of whether or not someone can be trusted.   # certainly not in the corporate world.  i do not know about you but i do not see many resumes for ex level positions with pictures attached.  they decide which people they are going to interview purely on their experience and education, and since a lot of high level white collar job hirings are decided by a panel and not a single person that prevents men from hiring the attractive blonde purely on apperance or women hiring the guy they find most attractive.  that is often why these hiring panels are made up of both men and women to eliminate this bias.  not really.  some of the most attractive people i have ever met have also been the most insecure, and some of the cock iest guys i have known were overweight and balding.  people of all types suffer from low confidence.  i think other visual factors, like clothes, are much more common subconscious signs of whether or not someone can be trusted.  if an attractive guys walks into a nice store wearing a paint stained hoody and muddy old boots i think people would be a lot more suspicious than an ugly old guy in an expensive suit.  if an attractive lawyer tries to go to court unshaven, smelly and wearing a sweat pants i do not think the fact he is attractive will prevent the judge from throwing him out.  i do not see how they have to try less hard.   #  if one wears so much that they have truly changed the way their face looks through contouring or shaping they probably would look different without it.   #  and see, that is the difference with makeup application.  we all wear it for very different reasons and those reasons have consequences good and bad .  if one wears so much that they have truly changed the way their face looks through contouring or shaping they probably would look different without it.  alternatively, there are those who wear it for cover up purposes; to make their skin smooth with a thin, little foundation and powder.  maybe some blush and some bronzer.  that face will not be drastically different without the makeup.  for example, i love to wear a bold winged liner and some eye shadow.  sometimes i even  style  the wing a bit to give some spice, but when i take it off my eyes look a little bigger and the bags under my eyes are more noticeable.  but, i feel like i look relatively the same.  i love make up and although it can change the way she looks, she still possesses beauty.  :  #  in fact their whole structure will remain intact.   #  and did not i address the photo effect ? first three photos show identical face pretty much.  last one seems pretty manipulated since the eyebrows changed , and if not photoshopped it definitely relies on effects of a photograph plus him making a pouty facial expression.  he would be looking like the 0rd image if you see him live, where only change comes from the fact that he is posting as a woman but it is obviously the same face.  i already mentioned not counting photos, since, even without make up , the right light and angle, or even just facial expression, can create a completely different face.  but no one you see live with make up will possibly have their face re shaped.  in fact their whole structure will remain intact.   #  and most people would react by saying she looks really fake/unnatural because it would not achieve the same effect it can on a photo/some videos.   #  and imagine standing next to her irl and looking at her face, like you would not easily be able to see the layers of make up over it.  and most people would react by saying she looks really fake/unnatural because it would not achieve the same effect it can on a photo/some videos.  i mean, yeah, you can actually draw on your face and draw bigger or smaller lips and eyes, but that does not go unnoticed in real life and no one really does it unless super tacky/oblivious.  this girl is doing it for the sake of art.  but its like showing me a photo of a zombie from a movie to achieve the same, yes, its possible to draw on skin but its a totally different category and functionality than make up.   #  also, compare the distance between the nose and upper lip.   #  it is obvious to me that it is a different person in the last picture, unless you think makeup can drastically change facial structure.  like reduce the size of his chin.  compare the amount of space between his lower lip and bottom of his chin.  also, the nose has significantly shrunk.  compare the width of the nose at the nostrils.  also the shape of the upper nose is different.  also, compare the distance between the nose and upper lip.  also, the much fuller lips.  if it was the same guy just making a pouty face there would be other facial distortion ca not think of a better word as a result of it.  also, the eyes are much bigger in the last photo.  look at the second photo of the guy with his eyebrows raised which pulls up the eyelids.  the eyes are still significantly narrower than the last picture with the eyebrows in a resting position.  also, the mole over his right eye is clearly above the eye in the first pic while in the last picture if you draw a horizontal line from the mole towards the eye, it would hit the eye.  and finally, the man is hand turns into a woman is hand.  i am sure i could come up with more if i examined it longer.  so, this is either a different person in the last picture, a composite of the original guy blended with a woman is face, or the original man is face  heavily  photoshopped to not only perfect the skin but, also drastically alter the facial structure to be more feminine.  sorry, there is  no way  this is just makeup and a wig.
in example; attractive people can more so easily find jobs regardless of what skills they have to offer to a certain extent .  attractive people typically have higher confidence which aids them in social aspects in life.  subconsciously, people tend to assume attractive people are more trust worthy than unattractive people.  they also do not have to try at all in order to look presentable.  attractive people, most importantly, are more likely to be catered to than unattractive people.  i could go on and on about all the advantages i believe attractive people are given, but i think you all get the point.  i believe because of these factors, attractive people ultimately have happier lives and have way more success while putting in way less work, financially, socially, and emotionally.  i would like to be proven otherwise but i just do not think that is realistic.  reddit.  change my view !  #  they also do not have to try at all in order to look presentable.   #  if an attractive lawyer tries to go to court unshaven, smelly and wearing a sweat pants i do not think the fact he is attractive will prevent the judge from throwing him out.   # certainly not in the corporate world.  i do not know about you but i do not see many resumes for ex level positions with pictures attached.  they decide which people they are going to interview purely on their experience and education, and since a lot of high level white collar job hirings are decided by a panel and not a single person that prevents men from hiring the attractive blonde purely on apperance or women hiring the guy they find most attractive.  that is often why these hiring panels are made up of both men and women to eliminate this bias.  not really.  some of the most attractive people i have ever met have also been the most insecure, and some of the cock iest guys i have known were overweight and balding.  people of all types suffer from low confidence.  i think other visual factors, like clothes, are much more common subconscious signs of whether or not someone can be trusted.  if an attractive guys walks into a nice store wearing a paint stained hoody and muddy old boots i think people would be a lot more suspicious than an ugly old guy in an expensive suit.  if an attractive lawyer tries to go to court unshaven, smelly and wearing a sweat pants i do not think the fact he is attractive will prevent the judge from throwing him out.  i do not see how they have to try less hard.   #  sometimes i even  style  the wing a bit to give some spice, but when i take it off my eyes look a little bigger and the bags under my eyes are more noticeable.   #  and see, that is the difference with makeup application.  we all wear it for very different reasons and those reasons have consequences good and bad .  if one wears so much that they have truly changed the way their face looks through contouring or shaping they probably would look different without it.  alternatively, there are those who wear it for cover up purposes; to make their skin smooth with a thin, little foundation and powder.  maybe some blush and some bronzer.  that face will not be drastically different without the makeup.  for example, i love to wear a bold winged liner and some eye shadow.  sometimes i even  style  the wing a bit to give some spice, but when i take it off my eyes look a little bigger and the bags under my eyes are more noticeable.  but, i feel like i look relatively the same.  i love make up and although it can change the way she looks, she still possesses beauty.  :  #  in fact their whole structure will remain intact.   #  and did not i address the photo effect ? first three photos show identical face pretty much.  last one seems pretty manipulated since the eyebrows changed , and if not photoshopped it definitely relies on effects of a photograph plus him making a pouty facial expression.  he would be looking like the 0rd image if you see him live, where only change comes from the fact that he is posting as a woman but it is obviously the same face.  i already mentioned not counting photos, since, even without make up , the right light and angle, or even just facial expression, can create a completely different face.  but no one you see live with make up will possibly have their face re shaped.  in fact their whole structure will remain intact.   #  i mean, yeah, you can actually draw on your face and draw bigger or smaller lips and eyes, but that does not go unnoticed in real life and no one really does it unless super tacky/oblivious.   #  and imagine standing next to her irl and looking at her face, like you would not easily be able to see the layers of make up over it.  and most people would react by saying she looks really fake/unnatural because it would not achieve the same effect it can on a photo/some videos.  i mean, yeah, you can actually draw on your face and draw bigger or smaller lips and eyes, but that does not go unnoticed in real life and no one really does it unless super tacky/oblivious.  this girl is doing it for the sake of art.  but its like showing me a photo of a zombie from a movie to achieve the same, yes, its possible to draw on skin but its a totally different category and functionality than make up.   #  compare the width of the nose at the nostrils.   #  it is obvious to me that it is a different person in the last picture, unless you think makeup can drastically change facial structure.  like reduce the size of his chin.  compare the amount of space between his lower lip and bottom of his chin.  also, the nose has significantly shrunk.  compare the width of the nose at the nostrils.  also the shape of the upper nose is different.  also, compare the distance between the nose and upper lip.  also, the much fuller lips.  if it was the same guy just making a pouty face there would be other facial distortion ca not think of a better word as a result of it.  also, the eyes are much bigger in the last photo.  look at the second photo of the guy with his eyebrows raised which pulls up the eyelids.  the eyes are still significantly narrower than the last picture with the eyebrows in a resting position.  also, the mole over his right eye is clearly above the eye in the first pic while in the last picture if you draw a horizontal line from the mole towards the eye, it would hit the eye.  and finally, the man is hand turns into a woman is hand.  i am sure i could come up with more if i examined it longer.  so, this is either a different person in the last picture, a composite of the original guy blended with a woman is face, or the original man is face  heavily  photoshopped to not only perfect the skin but, also drastically alter the facial structure to be more feminine.  sorry, there is  no way  this is just makeup and a wig.
in example; attractive people can more so easily find jobs regardless of what skills they have to offer to a certain extent .  attractive people typically have higher confidence which aids them in social aspects in life.  subconsciously, people tend to assume attractive people are more trust worthy than unattractive people.  they also do not have to try at all in order to look presentable.  attractive people, most importantly, are more likely to be catered to than unattractive people.  i could go on and on about all the advantages i believe attractive people are given, but i think you all get the point.  i believe because of these factors, attractive people ultimately have happier lives and have way more success while putting in way less work, financially, socially, and emotionally.  i would like to be proven otherwise but i just do not think that is realistic.  reddit.  change my view !  #  they also do not have to try at all in order to look presentable.   #  you are 0 correct there are entire industries that require you to be good looking.   #  well, i would say most people are not hired by a panel of people.  i ca not speak for the executive level, but for most jobs one or maybe two people decide who is hired.  some of the most attractive people i have ever met have also been the most insecure, and some of the cock iest guys i have known were overweight and balding.  people of all types suffer from low confidence.  this is the complete opposite of what i have experienced in life.  but i ca not say you are wrong because we have probably complete different lives.  if an attractive guys walks into a nice store wearing a paint stained hoody and muddy old boots i think people would be a lot more suspicious than an ugly old guy in an expensive suit.  you are correct.  but if you take two people, put them in the same clothes and have the same hair style, the good looking person is at the advantage.  you are 0 correct there are entire industries that require you to be good looking.  modeling acting fox news caster URL high end waiter/ waitress alcohol and energy drink promoter maybe  huge  advantage can be argued, but i do not think some or a little advantage can be argued.   #  that face will not be drastically different without the makeup.   #  and see, that is the difference with makeup application.  we all wear it for very different reasons and those reasons have consequences good and bad .  if one wears so much that they have truly changed the way their face looks through contouring or shaping they probably would look different without it.  alternatively, there are those who wear it for cover up purposes; to make their skin smooth with a thin, little foundation and powder.  maybe some blush and some bronzer.  that face will not be drastically different without the makeup.  for example, i love to wear a bold winged liner and some eye shadow.  sometimes i even  style  the wing a bit to give some spice, but when i take it off my eyes look a little bigger and the bags under my eyes are more noticeable.  but, i feel like i look relatively the same.  i love make up and although it can change the way she looks, she still possesses beauty.  :  #  last one seems pretty manipulated since the eyebrows changed , and if not photoshopped it definitely relies on effects of a photograph plus him making a pouty facial expression.   #  and did not i address the photo effect ? first three photos show identical face pretty much.  last one seems pretty manipulated since the eyebrows changed , and if not photoshopped it definitely relies on effects of a photograph plus him making a pouty facial expression.  he would be looking like the 0rd image if you see him live, where only change comes from the fact that he is posting as a woman but it is obviously the same face.  i already mentioned not counting photos, since, even without make up , the right light and angle, or even just facial expression, can create a completely different face.  but no one you see live with make up will possibly have their face re shaped.  in fact their whole structure will remain intact.   #  this girl is doing it for the sake of art.   #  and imagine standing next to her irl and looking at her face, like you would not easily be able to see the layers of make up over it.  and most people would react by saying she looks really fake/unnatural because it would not achieve the same effect it can on a photo/some videos.  i mean, yeah, you can actually draw on your face and draw bigger or smaller lips and eyes, but that does not go unnoticed in real life and no one really does it unless super tacky/oblivious.  this girl is doing it for the sake of art.  but its like showing me a photo of a zombie from a movie to achieve the same, yes, its possible to draw on skin but its a totally different category and functionality than make up.   #  compare the width of the nose at the nostrils.   #  it is obvious to me that it is a different person in the last picture, unless you think makeup can drastically change facial structure.  like reduce the size of his chin.  compare the amount of space between his lower lip and bottom of his chin.  also, the nose has significantly shrunk.  compare the width of the nose at the nostrils.  also the shape of the upper nose is different.  also, compare the distance between the nose and upper lip.  also, the much fuller lips.  if it was the same guy just making a pouty face there would be other facial distortion ca not think of a better word as a result of it.  also, the eyes are much bigger in the last photo.  look at the second photo of the guy with his eyebrows raised which pulls up the eyelids.  the eyes are still significantly narrower than the last picture with the eyebrows in a resting position.  also, the mole over his right eye is clearly above the eye in the first pic while in the last picture if you draw a horizontal line from the mole towards the eye, it would hit the eye.  and finally, the man is hand turns into a woman is hand.  i am sure i could come up with more if i examined it longer.  so, this is either a different person in the last picture, a composite of the original guy blended with a woman is face, or the original man is face  heavily  photoshopped to not only perfect the skin but, also drastically alter the facial structure to be more feminine.  sorry, there is  no way  this is just makeup and a wig.
in example; attractive people can more so easily find jobs regardless of what skills they have to offer to a certain extent .  attractive people typically have higher confidence which aids them in social aspects in life.  subconsciously, people tend to assume attractive people are more trust worthy than unattractive people.  they also do not have to try at all in order to look presentable.  attractive people, most importantly, are more likely to be catered to than unattractive people.  i could go on and on about all the advantages i believe attractive people are given, but i think you all get the point.  i believe because of these factors, attractive people ultimately have happier lives and have way more success while putting in way less work, financially, socially, and emotionally.  i would like to be proven otherwise but i just do not think that is realistic.  reddit.  change my view !  #  i believe because of these factors, attractive people ultimately have happier lives and have way more success while putting in way less work, financially, socially, and emotionally.   #  i would like to be proven otherwise but i just do not think that is realistic.   #  attractiveness is extremely subjective.  how can you prove any of this ? my room mate likes and only dates females of a particular type, that he finds very attractive, and that i do not.  me and him could look at one girl and have complete opposite subjective opinions on the attractiveness of that person.  i would like to be proven otherwise but i just do not think that is realistic.  maybe as a male, but i actually pity some of the  attractive  females and the shit they go through on a daily basis.   #  if one wears so much that they have truly changed the way their face looks through contouring or shaping they probably would look different without it.   #  and see, that is the difference with makeup application.  we all wear it for very different reasons and those reasons have consequences good and bad .  if one wears so much that they have truly changed the way their face looks through contouring or shaping they probably would look different without it.  alternatively, there are those who wear it for cover up purposes; to make their skin smooth with a thin, little foundation and powder.  maybe some blush and some bronzer.  that face will not be drastically different without the makeup.  for example, i love to wear a bold winged liner and some eye shadow.  sometimes i even  style  the wing a bit to give some spice, but when i take it off my eyes look a little bigger and the bags under my eyes are more noticeable.  but, i feel like i look relatively the same.  i love make up and although it can change the way she looks, she still possesses beauty.  :  #  he would be looking like the 0rd image if you see him live, where only change comes from the fact that he is posting as a woman but it is obviously the same face.   #  and did not i address the photo effect ? first three photos show identical face pretty much.  last one seems pretty manipulated since the eyebrows changed , and if not photoshopped it definitely relies on effects of a photograph plus him making a pouty facial expression.  he would be looking like the 0rd image if you see him live, where only change comes from the fact that he is posting as a woman but it is obviously the same face.  i already mentioned not counting photos, since, even without make up , the right light and angle, or even just facial expression, can create a completely different face.  but no one you see live with make up will possibly have their face re shaped.  in fact their whole structure will remain intact.   #  but its like showing me a photo of a zombie from a movie to achieve the same, yes, its possible to draw on skin but its a totally different category and functionality than make up.   #  and imagine standing next to her irl and looking at her face, like you would not easily be able to see the layers of make up over it.  and most people would react by saying she looks really fake/unnatural because it would not achieve the same effect it can on a photo/some videos.  i mean, yeah, you can actually draw on your face and draw bigger or smaller lips and eyes, but that does not go unnoticed in real life and no one really does it unless super tacky/oblivious.  this girl is doing it for the sake of art.  but its like showing me a photo of a zombie from a movie to achieve the same, yes, its possible to draw on skin but its a totally different category and functionality than make up.   #  also the shape of the upper nose is different.   #  it is obvious to me that it is a different person in the last picture, unless you think makeup can drastically change facial structure.  like reduce the size of his chin.  compare the amount of space between his lower lip and bottom of his chin.  also, the nose has significantly shrunk.  compare the width of the nose at the nostrils.  also the shape of the upper nose is different.  also, compare the distance between the nose and upper lip.  also, the much fuller lips.  if it was the same guy just making a pouty face there would be other facial distortion ca not think of a better word as a result of it.  also, the eyes are much bigger in the last photo.  look at the second photo of the guy with his eyebrows raised which pulls up the eyelids.  the eyes are still significantly narrower than the last picture with the eyebrows in a resting position.  also, the mole over his right eye is clearly above the eye in the first pic while in the last picture if you draw a horizontal line from the mole towards the eye, it would hit the eye.  and finally, the man is hand turns into a woman is hand.  i am sure i could come up with more if i examined it longer.  so, this is either a different person in the last picture, a composite of the original guy blended with a woman is face, or the original man is face  heavily  photoshopped to not only perfect the skin but, also drastically alter the facial structure to be more feminine.  sorry, there is  no way  this is just makeup and a wig.
in example; attractive people can more so easily find jobs regardless of what skills they have to offer to a certain extent .  attractive people typically have higher confidence which aids them in social aspects in life.  subconsciously, people tend to assume attractive people are more trust worthy than unattractive people.  they also do not have to try at all in order to look presentable.  attractive people, most importantly, are more likely to be catered to than unattractive people.  i could go on and on about all the advantages i believe attractive people are given, but i think you all get the point.  i believe because of these factors, attractive people ultimately have happier lives and have way more success while putting in way less work, financially, socially, and emotionally.  i would like to be proven otherwise but i just do not think that is realistic.  reddit.  change my view !  #  i believe because of these factors, attractive people ultimately have happier lives and have way more success while putting in way less work, financially, socially, and emotionally.   #  i think this is easily disproved by how many successful men have very attractive wives.   #  to a point attractive people have advantages, but there are more ugly people than attractive people.  so ugly people tend to gang up on attractive people.  i think this is easily disproved by how many successful men have very attractive wives.  or how many attractive women are successful in business.  the answer is very few.   #  and see, that is the difference with makeup application.   #  and see, that is the difference with makeup application.  we all wear it for very different reasons and those reasons have consequences good and bad .  if one wears so much that they have truly changed the way their face looks through contouring or shaping they probably would look different without it.  alternatively, there are those who wear it for cover up purposes; to make their skin smooth with a thin, little foundation and powder.  maybe some blush and some bronzer.  that face will not be drastically different without the makeup.  for example, i love to wear a bold winged liner and some eye shadow.  sometimes i even  style  the wing a bit to give some spice, but when i take it off my eyes look a little bigger and the bags under my eyes are more noticeable.  but, i feel like i look relatively the same.  i love make up and although it can change the way she looks, she still possesses beauty.  :  #  but no one you see live with make up will possibly have their face re shaped.   #  and did not i address the photo effect ? first three photos show identical face pretty much.  last one seems pretty manipulated since the eyebrows changed , and if not photoshopped it definitely relies on effects of a photograph plus him making a pouty facial expression.  he would be looking like the 0rd image if you see him live, where only change comes from the fact that he is posting as a woman but it is obviously the same face.  i already mentioned not counting photos, since, even without make up , the right light and angle, or even just facial expression, can create a completely different face.  but no one you see live with make up will possibly have their face re shaped.  in fact their whole structure will remain intact.   #  and most people would react by saying she looks really fake/unnatural because it would not achieve the same effect it can on a photo/some videos.   #  and imagine standing next to her irl and looking at her face, like you would not easily be able to see the layers of make up over it.  and most people would react by saying she looks really fake/unnatural because it would not achieve the same effect it can on a photo/some videos.  i mean, yeah, you can actually draw on your face and draw bigger or smaller lips and eyes, but that does not go unnoticed in real life and no one really does it unless super tacky/oblivious.  this girl is doing it for the sake of art.  but its like showing me a photo of a zombie from a movie to achieve the same, yes, its possible to draw on skin but its a totally different category and functionality than make up.   #  the eyes are still significantly narrower than the last picture with the eyebrows in a resting position.   #  it is obvious to me that it is a different person in the last picture, unless you think makeup can drastically change facial structure.  like reduce the size of his chin.  compare the amount of space between his lower lip and bottom of his chin.  also, the nose has significantly shrunk.  compare the width of the nose at the nostrils.  also the shape of the upper nose is different.  also, compare the distance between the nose and upper lip.  also, the much fuller lips.  if it was the same guy just making a pouty face there would be other facial distortion ca not think of a better word as a result of it.  also, the eyes are much bigger in the last photo.  look at the second photo of the guy with his eyebrows raised which pulls up the eyelids.  the eyes are still significantly narrower than the last picture with the eyebrows in a resting position.  also, the mole over his right eye is clearly above the eye in the first pic while in the last picture if you draw a horizontal line from the mole towards the eye, it would hit the eye.  and finally, the man is hand turns into a woman is hand.  i am sure i could come up with more if i examined it longer.  so, this is either a different person in the last picture, a composite of the original guy blended with a woman is face, or the original man is face  heavily  photoshopped to not only perfect the skin but, also drastically alter the facial structure to be more feminine.  sorry, there is  no way  this is just makeup and a wig.
in example; attractive people can more so easily find jobs regardless of what skills they have to offer to a certain extent .  attractive people typically have higher confidence which aids them in social aspects in life.  subconsciously, people tend to assume attractive people are more trust worthy than unattractive people.  they also do not have to try at all in order to look presentable.  attractive people, most importantly, are more likely to be catered to than unattractive people.  i could go on and on about all the advantages i believe attractive people are given, but i think you all get the point.  i believe because of these factors, attractive people ultimately have happier lives and have way more success while putting in way less work, financially, socially, and emotionally.  i would like to be proven otherwise but i just do not think that is realistic.  reddit.  change my view !  #  attractive people typically have higher confidence which aids them in social aspects in life.   #  not at all true for many attractive people.   # not necessarily.  it depends on the employer.  some people discriminate based on things like gender or race rather than on the attractiveness of the applicant.  and some employers do not give a shit; they just want someone qualified.  not at all true for many attractive people.  you can be attractive and spend lots of time on your appearance without actually  thinking  that you are attractive.  you can be gorgeous and still feel insecure and crappy about yourself.  the two do not go hand in hand.  confidence definitely helps people in social situations, but confidence is not the sole purview of the attractive plenty of average people or even unattractive people are confident.  ha ! google  celebrities without makeup  and try this one again.  google  no makeup makeup  and have a look at what you find.  most people ca not just roll out of bed, throw on an old tee shirt and stained sweat pants, walk out the door, and have everyone falling all over themselves with desire.  even the most beautiful people have to put effort into looking good, and odds are good that women who you think are not wearing makeup actually are.  catered to how ? sure, there are lazy people who take advantage of their sex appeal to get things from others, but i do not know if i would say that using people is an advantage.  it is a shitty thing to do.  reality does not bear this out.  i live in a small town, and i see attractive people working alongside unattractive people in regular jobs.  they sell insurance.  they bag groceries.  they work at the post office, at the pub, at the sports complex.  the people living in the fancier side of town, where all the bigger, newer houses are with all the new suvs in the driveways.  are no more attractive than the people who live in the poorer areas.  they are better dressed, but more physically attractive. no.  being attractive only gets you stuff if you are willing to use it to your advantage and flirt or seduce your way to the top.  people do not give you things just for being pretty if you do not make an effort to make them  want  to.  and a lot of attractive people have too much self respect to behave that way.   #  and see, that is the difference with makeup application.   #  and see, that is the difference with makeup application.  we all wear it for very different reasons and those reasons have consequences good and bad .  if one wears so much that they have truly changed the way their face looks through contouring or shaping they probably would look different without it.  alternatively, there are those who wear it for cover up purposes; to make their skin smooth with a thin, little foundation and powder.  maybe some blush and some bronzer.  that face will not be drastically different without the makeup.  for example, i love to wear a bold winged liner and some eye shadow.  sometimes i even  style  the wing a bit to give some spice, but when i take it off my eyes look a little bigger and the bags under my eyes are more noticeable.  but, i feel like i look relatively the same.  i love make up and although it can change the way she looks, she still possesses beauty.  :  #  first three photos show identical face pretty much.   #  and did not i address the photo effect ? first three photos show identical face pretty much.  last one seems pretty manipulated since the eyebrows changed , and if not photoshopped it definitely relies on effects of a photograph plus him making a pouty facial expression.  he would be looking like the 0rd image if you see him live, where only change comes from the fact that he is posting as a woman but it is obviously the same face.  i already mentioned not counting photos, since, even without make up , the right light and angle, or even just facial expression, can create a completely different face.  but no one you see live with make up will possibly have their face re shaped.  in fact their whole structure will remain intact.   #  and imagine standing next to her irl and looking at her face, like you would not easily be able to see the layers of make up over it.   #  and imagine standing next to her irl and looking at her face, like you would not easily be able to see the layers of make up over it.  and most people would react by saying she looks really fake/unnatural because it would not achieve the same effect it can on a photo/some videos.  i mean, yeah, you can actually draw on your face and draw bigger or smaller lips and eyes, but that does not go unnoticed in real life and no one really does it unless super tacky/oblivious.  this girl is doing it for the sake of art.  but its like showing me a photo of a zombie from a movie to achieve the same, yes, its possible to draw on skin but its a totally different category and functionality than make up.   #  i am sure i could come up with more if i examined it longer.   #  it is obvious to me that it is a different person in the last picture, unless you think makeup can drastically change facial structure.  like reduce the size of his chin.  compare the amount of space between his lower lip and bottom of his chin.  also, the nose has significantly shrunk.  compare the width of the nose at the nostrils.  also the shape of the upper nose is different.  also, compare the distance between the nose and upper lip.  also, the much fuller lips.  if it was the same guy just making a pouty face there would be other facial distortion ca not think of a better word as a result of it.  also, the eyes are much bigger in the last photo.  look at the second photo of the guy with his eyebrows raised which pulls up the eyelids.  the eyes are still significantly narrower than the last picture with the eyebrows in a resting position.  also, the mole over his right eye is clearly above the eye in the first pic while in the last picture if you draw a horizontal line from the mole towards the eye, it would hit the eye.  and finally, the man is hand turns into a woman is hand.  i am sure i could come up with more if i examined it longer.  so, this is either a different person in the last picture, a composite of the original guy blended with a woman is face, or the original man is face  heavily  photoshopped to not only perfect the skin but, also drastically alter the facial structure to be more feminine.  sorry, there is  no way  this is just makeup and a wig.
i have been bothered by all of the discussions about rape for a long time, and i think i have finally figured out why: rape is the only crime i am aware of where you can accuse someone, and potentially even get them punished, without real evidence.  if i accused someone of robbing me, the first that would be demanded is evidence.  without any evidence, nobody would take my accusation seriously.  but, because so often there is no evidence in a rape case, it is become acceptable for evidence less accusations to be taken seriously.  simply being accused of rape can get people fired from their jobs and destroy their life.  here is a great example of this, where a student is carrying around a mattress until their accused rapist is expelled: URL at that point, what their doing has nothing to do with the legal system they are just shaming the entire system until someone gives into their demands.  that is not how it works.  if there is not enough evidence to accuse someone of the crime, if the court turns it down, then you ca not convict them.  period.  it is not the court being  blind to rape victims,  it is that it is  better to let 0 guilty people escape than to let one innocent suffer  an established part of our legal system.  in the end, i whole heartedly agree that rape is a horrible thing that we need to find a solution to.  i just do not think that the solution lies in making it acceptable to accuse people without evidence rape or otherwise.   #  rape is the only crime i am aware of where you can accuse someone, and potentially even get them punished, without real evidence.   #  you can accuse anyone of anything with out evidence.   # you can accuse anyone of anything with out evidence.  eventually evidence  will  be needed to prove guilt, but you can still make an initial accusation.  here is the wiki on rape investigations: URL and here is a page another page about the same: URL now eventually the investigation  will  turn into a  a said vs.  b said , but you can say exactly the same thing about assault charges, trespassing, harassment, or any other of the thousands of crimes that are primarily peer to peer in nature.  please provide a citation that rape cases are abundantly prosecuted with  absolutely no  evidence.  that is not how it works.  if there is not enough evidence to accuse someone of the crime, if the court turns it down, then you ca not convict them.  period.  i agree 0 that this is stupid slightly eye rollish.  but one needs to be cautious about drawing larger conclusions about complicated topics from the actions of the stupidest/most desperate person in the room.   #  you still need to prove it beyond a  he said she said  situation.   #  okay, let is explain what is actually going on here.  in criminal courts, the prosecution has to prove someone is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which as you have pointed out is really difficult to prove in cases of date rape.  it is so difficult that the police and da is are reluctant to take on those cases in fear that they will be seen as incompetent because they will lose those cases.  because the legal system is unhelpful and sexual assault is a pretty big problem in universities, they created these disciplinary committees where the burden of proof is the preponderance of the evidence more likely than unlikely instead of beyond a reasonable doubt just like a civil case.  now the reason the burden of proof is lower is because the consequences are smaller.  the most a school disciplinary board can do is expel a student.  they ca not put anyone in jail or fine them.  this is something all students agree to when they sign the admission papers.  now before you say this is still unfair, the guy she accused of raping her was accused by two other women and all three times he was not punished, so it is not like men are being accused and expelled all willy nilly.  you still need to prove it beyond a  he said she said  situation.   #  i guess my problem then lies more with the media, and society is perception of rape accusations that the negatives of being accused a rapist can and will happen regardless of if you are actually convicted.   #  those were some interesting reads, thanks for sharing.  i guess my problem then lies more with the media, and society is perception of rape accusations that the negatives of being accused a rapist can and will happen regardless of if you are actually convicted.  but, i guess, even then it is true for other crimes, rape is just blown out of proportion right now.  bad things would still happen if you were /accused/ of murder, the media just talks more about accused rapists right now.  i have heard stories from friends of how rape accusations have been used to flex power students trying to get rid of professors they do not like because the professor raped them, that sort of thing.  like the article i linked to.  but, you are right, a lot of rape is not like that, a lot of it is actual problems.   #  you will find with some research that plenty of women who have proof of their attack are not believed or the proof is  misplaced  or one of a hundred other things which prevent prosecution.   # the problem is that what constitutes proof is, in many cases, extremely subjective which is the basis of our legal system and trial by jury of peers .  you will find with some research that plenty of women who have proof of their attack are not believed or the proof is  misplaced  or one of a hundred other things which prevent prosecution.  for example, a prosecutor may decline to prosecute if they simply do not believe they have a huge shot at winning because they do not believe the proof is  enough .  thus, lack of prosecution ! lack of proof.  it simply means that the proof was not sufficient to convince a prosecutor that they had a strong chance of convincing 0 other people in light of other various facts and subjective statements.  so in essence: you ca not make any assumptions from the simple fact that it was not prosecuted without knowing more details.   #  there are trends, yes but they ebb and flow.   # reactions to rape a wide and varied depending on what your social circle looks like, what media you consume, whether you have a penchant for seeking out stories that skew hyperbolically  away  from your own world view in order to stoke your own outrage, etc, etc, etc.  to say that the media  always  reacts to rape in  one  way or even primarily in one way is completely disingenuous.  there are trends, yes but they ebb and flow.  they should stop.  there should be some sort of punishment for that kind of behavior.  i imagine there already is.  are you saying that a rapist professor should still be able to keep their job, and that the victim of the rape is unreasonable in disliking the rapist professor ? honesty time.  i have not read the article.  because i do not care.  i think the girl is being a bit stupid for various reasons, but not likely any stupider than most other people are capable of.  it is of little consequence in the larger scheme of things.  i hope she finds some sort of justice if that is what she needs, or she moves on if this is some kind of mistake.
i have been bothered by all of the discussions about rape for a long time, and i think i have finally figured out why: rape is the only crime i am aware of where you can accuse someone, and potentially even get them punished, without real evidence.  if i accused someone of robbing me, the first that would be demanded is evidence.  without any evidence, nobody would take my accusation seriously.  but, because so often there is no evidence in a rape case, it is become acceptable for evidence less accusations to be taken seriously.  simply being accused of rape can get people fired from their jobs and destroy their life.  here is a great example of this, where a student is carrying around a mattress until their accused rapist is expelled: URL at that point, what their doing has nothing to do with the legal system they are just shaming the entire system until someone gives into their demands.  that is not how it works.  if there is not enough evidence to accuse someone of the crime, if the court turns it down, then you ca not convict them.  period.  it is not the court being  blind to rape victims,  it is that it is  better to let 0 guilty people escape than to let one innocent suffer  an established part of our legal system.  in the end, i whole heartedly agree that rape is a horrible thing that we need to find a solution to.  i just do not think that the solution lies in making it acceptable to accuse people without evidence rape or otherwise.   #  but, because so often there is no evidence in a rape case, it is become acceptable for evidence less accusations to be taken seriously.   #  please provide a citation that rape cases are abundantly prosecuted with  absolutely no  evidence.   # you can accuse anyone of anything with out evidence.  eventually evidence  will  be needed to prove guilt, but you can still make an initial accusation.  here is the wiki on rape investigations: URL and here is a page another page about the same: URL now eventually the investigation  will  turn into a  a said vs.  b said , but you can say exactly the same thing about assault charges, trespassing, harassment, or any other of the thousands of crimes that are primarily peer to peer in nature.  please provide a citation that rape cases are abundantly prosecuted with  absolutely no  evidence.  that is not how it works.  if there is not enough evidence to accuse someone of the crime, if the court turns it down, then you ca not convict them.  period.  i agree 0 that this is stupid slightly eye rollish.  but one needs to be cautious about drawing larger conclusions about complicated topics from the actions of the stupidest/most desperate person in the room.   #  they ca not put anyone in jail or fine them.   #  okay, let is explain what is actually going on here.  in criminal courts, the prosecution has to prove someone is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which as you have pointed out is really difficult to prove in cases of date rape.  it is so difficult that the police and da is are reluctant to take on those cases in fear that they will be seen as incompetent because they will lose those cases.  because the legal system is unhelpful and sexual assault is a pretty big problem in universities, they created these disciplinary committees where the burden of proof is the preponderance of the evidence more likely than unlikely instead of beyond a reasonable doubt just like a civil case.  now the reason the burden of proof is lower is because the consequences are smaller.  the most a school disciplinary board can do is expel a student.  they ca not put anyone in jail or fine them.  this is something all students agree to when they sign the admission papers.  now before you say this is still unfair, the guy she accused of raping her was accused by two other women and all three times he was not punished, so it is not like men are being accused and expelled all willy nilly.  you still need to prove it beyond a  he said she said  situation.   #  those were some interesting reads, thanks for sharing.   #  those were some interesting reads, thanks for sharing.  i guess my problem then lies more with the media, and society is perception of rape accusations that the negatives of being accused a rapist can and will happen regardless of if you are actually convicted.  but, i guess, even then it is true for other crimes, rape is just blown out of proportion right now.  bad things would still happen if you were /accused/ of murder, the media just talks more about accused rapists right now.  i have heard stories from friends of how rape accusations have been used to flex power students trying to get rid of professors they do not like because the professor raped them, that sort of thing.  like the article i linked to.  but, you are right, a lot of rape is not like that, a lot of it is actual problems.   #  it simply means that the proof was not sufficient to convince a prosecutor that they had a strong chance of convincing 0 other people in light of other various facts and subjective statements.   # the problem is that what constitutes proof is, in many cases, extremely subjective which is the basis of our legal system and trial by jury of peers .  you will find with some research that plenty of women who have proof of their attack are not believed or the proof is  misplaced  or one of a hundred other things which prevent prosecution.  for example, a prosecutor may decline to prosecute if they simply do not believe they have a huge shot at winning because they do not believe the proof is  enough .  thus, lack of prosecution ! lack of proof.  it simply means that the proof was not sufficient to convince a prosecutor that they had a strong chance of convincing 0 other people in light of other various facts and subjective statements.  so in essence: you ca not make any assumptions from the simple fact that it was not prosecuted without knowing more details.   #  there should be some sort of punishment for that kind of behavior.   # reactions to rape a wide and varied depending on what your social circle looks like, what media you consume, whether you have a penchant for seeking out stories that skew hyperbolically  away  from your own world view in order to stoke your own outrage, etc, etc, etc.  to say that the media  always  reacts to rape in  one  way or even primarily in one way is completely disingenuous.  there are trends, yes but they ebb and flow.  they should stop.  there should be some sort of punishment for that kind of behavior.  i imagine there already is.  are you saying that a rapist professor should still be able to keep their job, and that the victim of the rape is unreasonable in disliking the rapist professor ? honesty time.  i have not read the article.  because i do not care.  i think the girl is being a bit stupid for various reasons, but not likely any stupider than most other people are capable of.  it is of little consequence in the larger scheme of things.  i hope she finds some sort of justice if that is what she needs, or she moves on if this is some kind of mistake.
so for anyone who lives under a rock, a bunch of celebrity nudes were leaked from icloud.  according to wikipedia, hackers targeted usernames, passwords, and security questions to get access to accounts.  this event has been referred to as  the fappening.   i have not personally seen these pictures, nor do i intend on looking for them.  with that said.  when someone gets raped, it does not matter what they were wearing that night.  it does not make the act any more justifiable, and rape is rape.  i believe this to be true.  i feel empathy for rape victims.  i have heard this compared to  the fappening  many times.  the victims  privacy was violated.  it is their prerogative to take whatever pictures they want and share them or not , as long as no laws were violated e. g.  being underage and no other people were hurt by the act.  i agree with this.  where i am having trouble bridging the gap is here.  there are laws in certain places saying that when a pedestrian is waiting at a crosswalk with no signals walk signs, traffic lights, etc.  , cars must stop and let the pedestrian s cross.  i know a friend that knows this law and does not really wait at the crossings, assuming that cars will stop for him, given a reasonable amount of time and space.  most people will wait until the cars actually stop.  if he ever gets hit by a car at such a crosswalk, it will be the driver is fault.  the fact that someone else did not follow the rules does not make my friend get hit by a car any less, nor does it reduce the painfulness of the incident.  he is paying for it with his body, and the law will probably make the driver pay for it as well.  i would not feel bad for said friend because he took a risk with no possible reward , got screwed by someone who did not follow the rules, and my friend ended up paying for it.  by the same token, i do not feel bad for the victims of  the fappening.   at the same time, i feel bad that i do not feel bad, and as much as i hate the phrase, it comes to mind here.  i am sorry that i am not sorry.  other  risks  like owning a phone/car/bike/etc.  and risking that it gets stolen or you get injured in an accident , going to bars and  risking  getting roofied or raped , hooking up with someone at said bar and risking stds or having them secretly film the encounter , and so on carry a reward.  in the case of a phone/car/bike, you get the convenience.  in the case of going to bars and hooking up with people, you get to drink, have fun, meet people, and possibly get laid.  if you decide to proceed anyway, then, to you, those rewards outweigh the  risks.   i do not see any sort of reward for saving nude photos on your phone.  it is all risk however small and there is nothing to be gained from it.  in fact, i think that it is possible that they wanted the attention all along.  i feel bad that i do not feel bad.  make me feel better.  please change my view.   #  if he ever gets hit by a car at such a crosswalk, it will be the driver is fault.   #  yes, legally, it will be the drivers  fault.   #  your example with the car does not really apply to this situation, and that is because of  intent.  yes, legally, it will be the drivers  fault.  and yes, you are right, the situation could have been avoided had your friend been a little extra patient.  however, morally, no one really did anything wrong.  there is no moral issue with crossing the street hastily, and unless the driver was camping out near the crosswalk just waiting to mow down an impatient pedestrian, the driver likely hit your friend on accident.  terrible, but not morally wrong.  what happened with the icloud leak is that someone, somewhere,  made a conscious decision to violate someone else is autonomy and privacy.  they took advantage of an opportunity.  that is the key.  good people do not take advantage of opportunities to violate others.  had these pictures never been taken, then yes, this would not have happened.  but that fact is secondary to the fact that someone out there actively violated the privacy of many people.  that person is not a force of nature, like a thunderstorm that gets you wet when you forget your umbrella.  it is a person, who chose to do wrong.  our focus, and blame, should be on the criminal, as it is in literally every other circumstance where a person takes advantage of an opportunity to harm another.   #  you seriously would not feel bad about your friend dying because he was careless when he crossed the road ?  # you seriously would not feel bad about your friend dying because he was careless when he crossed the road ? that is a very strange attitude.  if a friend of mine died from a overdose, suicide, stunt, or something equally stupid, i would still feel bad.  rationality does not really enter the equation.  jennifer lawrence is a young woman who had millions of people look at her naked body in different positions.  it is incredibly embarrassing for her.  i am sure she is feeling horrible about this whole thing.  i would be if photos like that were distributed to an equally large audience.  your arguments about risks and stuff does not really matter.  i am not saying it is the great tragedy of our age, but you should at least be slightly conflicted by the fact that a young woman is most intimate photos were posted online forever against her will.   #  why would you walk alone at night in the dark when you could walk with friends in a well lit area ?  # that is a very strange attitude.  if a friend of mine died from a overdose, suicide, stunt, or something equally stupid, i would still feel bad.  rationality does not really enter the equation.  fine, i would, but at the same time, he was still an idiot.  it is incredibly embarrassing for her.  i am sure she is feeling horrible about this whole thing.  i am sure she was not feeling embarrassed or horrible when she took the photos.  i am slightly conflicted.  i want to feel empathetic.  but if you did not feel bad when you took the photos, why should i feel sorry for you when they were shown to an unintended audience and you could have taken easy measures to prevent it from happening ? again, i hate to make this argument because it feels like i am blaming the victim and that is not my intention.  why would not you secure your account better if you could ? why would you use a password that was easily guessed by a robot ? why would you walk alone at night in the dark when you could walk with friends in a well lit area ? is it possible to recognize that the victim was in a compromised and sub optimal state without blaming them for what happened to them as a result ?  #  you open all taps and you say what you think is funny.   # i want to feel empathetic.  but if you did not feel bad when you took the photos, why should i feel sorry for you when they were shown to an unintended audience and you could have taken easy measures to prevent it from happening ? imagine you are sitting in a bar with your friends.  your drunk and you go off on a rant.  you open all taps and you say what you think is funny.  you might say rude stuff about god knows what, but it is okay because your in a bar with friends and you did not feel bad saying it.  then imagine that your rant was suddenly watched by 0 million people.  it becomes a very different thing.  i personally think you are paying to much attention to how it happened, rather than what happened.  a young woman is privacy was violated in a very severe way.  it literally became a cultural event, the fappening, raising money for prostate cancer etc.  it will become a part of the jennifer lawrence story.  it sucks for her.   #  i realize that this is my subjective opinion.   #  i think that it is accurate to say that i do not think the reward justifies the act.  i realize that this is my subjective opinion.  however, i would also say that if you were to share it with anyone, you have given up a bit of your privacy.  you can say,  this is for your eyes only,  but that does not physically stop anyone from spreading that photo as terrible of an act as that is .  it just says,  please be nice and do not share this.   some people are shitty people and they wo not do by your wishes, similar to if you were to put a pile of cash in your front yard and pay people by telling them to take an appropriate amount of money from the pile, rather than having a paper trail, securing your money, and so on.  similarly to me, anyway , even if the photos were not intentionally backed up to icloud different discussion here, but i think it is terrible that icloud backs everything up automatically , by securing their accounts as weakly as they did from what i understand, hackers went after usernames, passwords, and security questions, and it was not anything complex. just a program that guesses passwords based on the most commonly used passwords , they did not protect themselves as much as they could have.  most sites say something like,  make a strong password and security question,  just like college campuses will tell you, at orientation, to walk with friends at night in well lit areas.  understand that it is really hard to make this argument without sounding like i am blaming the victim.  i really do not think it is the victim is fault, even if they walk alone in the dark, metaphorically or otherwise, but they are clearly in a sub optimal position if they do so.
so for anyone who lives under a rock, a bunch of celebrity nudes were leaked from icloud.  according to wikipedia, hackers targeted usernames, passwords, and security questions to get access to accounts.  this event has been referred to as  the fappening.   i have not personally seen these pictures, nor do i intend on looking for them.  with that said.  when someone gets raped, it does not matter what they were wearing that night.  it does not make the act any more justifiable, and rape is rape.  i believe this to be true.  i feel empathy for rape victims.  i have heard this compared to  the fappening  many times.  the victims  privacy was violated.  it is their prerogative to take whatever pictures they want and share them or not , as long as no laws were violated e. g.  being underage and no other people were hurt by the act.  i agree with this.  where i am having trouble bridging the gap is here.  there are laws in certain places saying that when a pedestrian is waiting at a crosswalk with no signals walk signs, traffic lights, etc.  , cars must stop and let the pedestrian s cross.  i know a friend that knows this law and does not really wait at the crossings, assuming that cars will stop for him, given a reasonable amount of time and space.  most people will wait until the cars actually stop.  if he ever gets hit by a car at such a crosswalk, it will be the driver is fault.  the fact that someone else did not follow the rules does not make my friend get hit by a car any less, nor does it reduce the painfulness of the incident.  he is paying for it with his body, and the law will probably make the driver pay for it as well.  i would not feel bad for said friend because he took a risk with no possible reward , got screwed by someone who did not follow the rules, and my friend ended up paying for it.  by the same token, i do not feel bad for the victims of  the fappening.   at the same time, i feel bad that i do not feel bad, and as much as i hate the phrase, it comes to mind here.  i am sorry that i am not sorry.  other  risks  like owning a phone/car/bike/etc.  and risking that it gets stolen or you get injured in an accident , going to bars and  risking  getting roofied or raped , hooking up with someone at said bar and risking stds or having them secretly film the encounter , and so on carry a reward.  in the case of a phone/car/bike, you get the convenience.  in the case of going to bars and hooking up with people, you get to drink, have fun, meet people, and possibly get laid.  if you decide to proceed anyway, then, to you, those rewards outweigh the  risks.   i do not see any sort of reward for saving nude photos on your phone.  it is all risk however small and there is nothing to be gained from it.  in fact, i think that it is possible that they wanted the attention all along.  i feel bad that i do not feel bad.  make me feel better.  please change my view.   #  i would not feel bad for said friend because he took a risk with no possible reward , got screwed by someone who did not follow the rules, and my friend ended up paying for it.   #  you seriously would not feel bad about your friend dying because he was careless when he crossed the road ?  # you seriously would not feel bad about your friend dying because he was careless when he crossed the road ? that is a very strange attitude.  if a friend of mine died from a overdose, suicide, stunt, or something equally stupid, i would still feel bad.  rationality does not really enter the equation.  jennifer lawrence is a young woman who had millions of people look at her naked body in different positions.  it is incredibly embarrassing for her.  i am sure she is feeling horrible about this whole thing.  i would be if photos like that were distributed to an equally large audience.  your arguments about risks and stuff does not really matter.  i am not saying it is the great tragedy of our age, but you should at least be slightly conflicted by the fact that a young woman is most intimate photos were posted online forever against her will.   #  what happened with the icloud leak is that someone, somewhere,  made a conscious decision to violate someone else is autonomy and privacy.   #  your example with the car does not really apply to this situation, and that is because of  intent.  yes, legally, it will be the drivers  fault.  and yes, you are right, the situation could have been avoided had your friend been a little extra patient.  however, morally, no one really did anything wrong.  there is no moral issue with crossing the street hastily, and unless the driver was camping out near the crosswalk just waiting to mow down an impatient pedestrian, the driver likely hit your friend on accident.  terrible, but not morally wrong.  what happened with the icloud leak is that someone, somewhere,  made a conscious decision to violate someone else is autonomy and privacy.  they took advantage of an opportunity.  that is the key.  good people do not take advantage of opportunities to violate others.  had these pictures never been taken, then yes, this would not have happened.  but that fact is secondary to the fact that someone out there actively violated the privacy of many people.  that person is not a force of nature, like a thunderstorm that gets you wet when you forget your umbrella.  it is a person, who chose to do wrong.  our focus, and blame, should be on the criminal, as it is in literally every other circumstance where a person takes advantage of an opportunity to harm another.   #  is it possible to recognize that the victim was in a compromised and sub optimal state without blaming them for what happened to them as a result ?  # that is a very strange attitude.  if a friend of mine died from a overdose, suicide, stunt, or something equally stupid, i would still feel bad.  rationality does not really enter the equation.  fine, i would, but at the same time, he was still an idiot.  it is incredibly embarrassing for her.  i am sure she is feeling horrible about this whole thing.  i am sure she was not feeling embarrassed or horrible when she took the photos.  i am slightly conflicted.  i want to feel empathetic.  but if you did not feel bad when you took the photos, why should i feel sorry for you when they were shown to an unintended audience and you could have taken easy measures to prevent it from happening ? again, i hate to make this argument because it feels like i am blaming the victim and that is not my intention.  why would not you secure your account better if you could ? why would you use a password that was easily guessed by a robot ? why would you walk alone at night in the dark when you could walk with friends in a well lit area ? is it possible to recognize that the victim was in a compromised and sub optimal state without blaming them for what happened to them as a result ?  #  your drunk and you go off on a rant.   # i want to feel empathetic.  but if you did not feel bad when you took the photos, why should i feel sorry for you when they were shown to an unintended audience and you could have taken easy measures to prevent it from happening ? imagine you are sitting in a bar with your friends.  your drunk and you go off on a rant.  you open all taps and you say what you think is funny.  you might say rude stuff about god knows what, but it is okay because your in a bar with friends and you did not feel bad saying it.  then imagine that your rant was suddenly watched by 0 million people.  it becomes a very different thing.  i personally think you are paying to much attention to how it happened, rather than what happened.  a young woman is privacy was violated in a very severe way.  it literally became a cultural event, the fappening, raising money for prostate cancer etc.  it will become a part of the jennifer lawrence story.  it sucks for her.   #  you can say,  this is for your eyes only,  but that does not physically stop anyone from spreading that photo as terrible of an act as that is .   #  i think that it is accurate to say that i do not think the reward justifies the act.  i realize that this is my subjective opinion.  however, i would also say that if you were to share it with anyone, you have given up a bit of your privacy.  you can say,  this is for your eyes only,  but that does not physically stop anyone from spreading that photo as terrible of an act as that is .  it just says,  please be nice and do not share this.   some people are shitty people and they wo not do by your wishes, similar to if you were to put a pile of cash in your front yard and pay people by telling them to take an appropriate amount of money from the pile, rather than having a paper trail, securing your money, and so on.  similarly to me, anyway , even if the photos were not intentionally backed up to icloud different discussion here, but i think it is terrible that icloud backs everything up automatically , by securing their accounts as weakly as they did from what i understand, hackers went after usernames, passwords, and security questions, and it was not anything complex. just a program that guesses passwords based on the most commonly used passwords , they did not protect themselves as much as they could have.  most sites say something like,  make a strong password and security question,  just like college campuses will tell you, at orientation, to walk with friends at night in well lit areas.  understand that it is really hard to make this argument without sounding like i am blaming the victim.  i really do not think it is the victim is fault, even if they walk alone in the dark, metaphorically or otherwise, but they are clearly in a sub optimal position if they do so.
so for anyone who lives under a rock, a bunch of celebrity nudes were leaked from icloud.  according to wikipedia, hackers targeted usernames, passwords, and security questions to get access to accounts.  this event has been referred to as  the fappening.   i have not personally seen these pictures, nor do i intend on looking for them.  with that said.  when someone gets raped, it does not matter what they were wearing that night.  it does not make the act any more justifiable, and rape is rape.  i believe this to be true.  i feel empathy for rape victims.  i have heard this compared to  the fappening  many times.  the victims  privacy was violated.  it is their prerogative to take whatever pictures they want and share them or not , as long as no laws were violated e. g.  being underage and no other people were hurt by the act.  i agree with this.  where i am having trouble bridging the gap is here.  there are laws in certain places saying that when a pedestrian is waiting at a crosswalk with no signals walk signs, traffic lights, etc.  , cars must stop and let the pedestrian s cross.  i know a friend that knows this law and does not really wait at the crossings, assuming that cars will stop for him, given a reasonable amount of time and space.  most people will wait until the cars actually stop.  if he ever gets hit by a car at such a crosswalk, it will be the driver is fault.  the fact that someone else did not follow the rules does not make my friend get hit by a car any less, nor does it reduce the painfulness of the incident.  he is paying for it with his body, and the law will probably make the driver pay for it as well.  i would not feel bad for said friend because he took a risk with no possible reward , got screwed by someone who did not follow the rules, and my friend ended up paying for it.  by the same token, i do not feel bad for the victims of  the fappening.   at the same time, i feel bad that i do not feel bad, and as much as i hate the phrase, it comes to mind here.  i am sorry that i am not sorry.  other  risks  like owning a phone/car/bike/etc.  and risking that it gets stolen or you get injured in an accident , going to bars and  risking  getting roofied or raped , hooking up with someone at said bar and risking stds or having them secretly film the encounter , and so on carry a reward.  in the case of a phone/car/bike, you get the convenience.  in the case of going to bars and hooking up with people, you get to drink, have fun, meet people, and possibly get laid.  if you decide to proceed anyway, then, to you, those rewards outweigh the  risks.   i do not see any sort of reward for saving nude photos on your phone.  it is all risk however small and there is nothing to be gained from it.  in fact, i think that it is possible that they wanted the attention all along.  i feel bad that i do not feel bad.  make me feel better.  please change my view.   #  i do not see any sort of reward for saving nude photos on your phone.   #  it is all risk however small and there is nothing to be gained from it.   # it is all risk however small and there is nothing to be gained from it.  the reward part of your argument is a canard, and adds nothing.  reward and risk are not intrinsically related.  if i play russian roulette i still have a 0/0 chance of dying, regardless of any possible reward.  let is concentrate instead on risk.  every activity, be it crossing the street or using a cellphone, carries some level of risk.  if crossing the street was as risky as russian roulette, only thrill seekers or the desperate would do it.  if you use a cellphone there is a tiny chance it is going to be hacked or compromised in some way.  let is say you use a cell with a banking app.  the cell gets hacked and your banking information gets compromised, and your bank account is drained.  i respond by saying  well, when you started using a cell phone, you knew there was an infinitesimal chance that it would be hacked and you would be left penniless.  so i have no reason to feel sorry for you.  you took a risk and got screwed.   while i might be technically correct about the risk situation, that does not restore your money or make you whole.  and more importantly it does not mean the theft you suffered was justified.  being unlucky does not make change the rightness or wrongness of a given action, and should not have any bearing on how we respond to an evil act.   #  and yes, you are right, the situation could have been avoided had your friend been a little extra patient.   #  your example with the car does not really apply to this situation, and that is because of  intent.  yes, legally, it will be the drivers  fault.  and yes, you are right, the situation could have been avoided had your friend been a little extra patient.  however, morally, no one really did anything wrong.  there is no moral issue with crossing the street hastily, and unless the driver was camping out near the crosswalk just waiting to mow down an impatient pedestrian, the driver likely hit your friend on accident.  terrible, but not morally wrong.  what happened with the icloud leak is that someone, somewhere,  made a conscious decision to violate someone else is autonomy and privacy.  they took advantage of an opportunity.  that is the key.  good people do not take advantage of opportunities to violate others.  had these pictures never been taken, then yes, this would not have happened.  but that fact is secondary to the fact that someone out there actively violated the privacy of many people.  that person is not a force of nature, like a thunderstorm that gets you wet when you forget your umbrella.  it is a person, who chose to do wrong.  our focus, and blame, should be on the criminal, as it is in literally every other circumstance where a person takes advantage of an opportunity to harm another.   #  i am sure she is feeling horrible about this whole thing.   # you seriously would not feel bad about your friend dying because he was careless when he crossed the road ? that is a very strange attitude.  if a friend of mine died from a overdose, suicide, stunt, or something equally stupid, i would still feel bad.  rationality does not really enter the equation.  jennifer lawrence is a young woman who had millions of people look at her naked body in different positions.  it is incredibly embarrassing for her.  i am sure she is feeling horrible about this whole thing.  i would be if photos like that were distributed to an equally large audience.  your arguments about risks and stuff does not really matter.  i am not saying it is the great tragedy of our age, but you should at least be slightly conflicted by the fact that a young woman is most intimate photos were posted online forever against her will.   #  i am sure she is feeling horrible about this whole thing.   # that is a very strange attitude.  if a friend of mine died from a overdose, suicide, stunt, or something equally stupid, i would still feel bad.  rationality does not really enter the equation.  fine, i would, but at the same time, he was still an idiot.  it is incredibly embarrassing for her.  i am sure she is feeling horrible about this whole thing.  i am sure she was not feeling embarrassed or horrible when she took the photos.  i am slightly conflicted.  i want to feel empathetic.  but if you did not feel bad when you took the photos, why should i feel sorry for you when they were shown to an unintended audience and you could have taken easy measures to prevent it from happening ? again, i hate to make this argument because it feels like i am blaming the victim and that is not my intention.  why would not you secure your account better if you could ? why would you use a password that was easily guessed by a robot ? why would you walk alone at night in the dark when you could walk with friends in a well lit area ? is it possible to recognize that the victim was in a compromised and sub optimal state without blaming them for what happened to them as a result ?  #  it will become a part of the jennifer lawrence story.   # i want to feel empathetic.  but if you did not feel bad when you took the photos, why should i feel sorry for you when they were shown to an unintended audience and you could have taken easy measures to prevent it from happening ? imagine you are sitting in a bar with your friends.  your drunk and you go off on a rant.  you open all taps and you say what you think is funny.  you might say rude stuff about god knows what, but it is okay because your in a bar with friends and you did not feel bad saying it.  then imagine that your rant was suddenly watched by 0 million people.  it becomes a very different thing.  i personally think you are paying to much attention to how it happened, rather than what happened.  a young woman is privacy was violated in a very severe way.  it literally became a cultural event, the fappening, raising money for prostate cancer etc.  it will become a part of the jennifer lawrence story.  it sucks for her.
my wife and i had our first child 0 weeks ago.  it is been a challenging but fun 0 weeks.  we could not be more thrilled to have a healthy peeing, pooping, and crying machine ! with that said, i have no desire to have more than one child.  if we only have one child we will all be able to live a very comfortable life.  we wo not need to buy a larger house.  we have already started a college fund for the little guy and he will be able to go to any college in the country granted he need to earn his way in ! .  we will be able to buy a nice lake house in 0 years or so.  in short, we will be able ensure he gets all the resources he will ever need.  if we have more than one those previously mentioned resources will be stretched more thinly.  do not get me wrong, we wo not go hungry if we have two children, but we wo not be able to fully fund two educations and still live the life we would have been able to with one child.  money and lifestyle aside we are very thankful that he is the picture of health.  what if we have a second and s/he is not as healthy ? why ruin what you already know is a good thing ? i guess i just do not see the value in having a second child.  in my eyes, less is more.   #  if we only have one child we will all be able to live a very comfortable life.   #  we wo not need to buy a larger house.   # forget the lake house, forget princeton: how about  can i afford to send two kids to daycare  or  can i afford to send two kids to a state university  did you read op is statement ? that is exactly the type of person we are talking about.  we wo not need to buy a larger house.  we have already started a college fund for the little guy and he will be able to go to any college in the country granted he need to earn his way in ! .  we will be able to buy a nice lake house in 0 years or so.  in short, we will be able ensure he gets all the resources he will ever need.  if they are well off enough to be able to afford to send one child to any college in the country and afford a lake house, they would be able to provide a comfortable middle class life to two children no problem.   #  what would be the difference a second time ?  #  your reasons are chiefly financial, which are not necessarily bad reasons, but you did make a point of mentioning that you would not go hungry but would not be able to fully fund colleges for both.  as a college educated guy that is 0k in debt used to be 0 and has 0 sisters and a poor family, i have never once caught myself thinking  damn, if only my sisters had not been born i could be debt free  or  if my sisters were not around i could have eaten more steak as a kid and less pb j  or   if only i did not have sisters then i could have afforded more nice things.   fancy meals come and go, expensive electronics break or become obsolete with the passage of time, college is important, but not worth giving up a sibling for, family though, and the impression they leave on you lasts forever and is important in shaping the adult that a kid will grow up to be.  you would be depriving your one child of a special bond they will never be able to replicate with anyone else by not having another kid.  the point about sickness is not really a point.  there was just as much a chance of your first child being sickly but you still decided to have him.  what would be the difference a second time ?  #  i am 0 and thankfully can say i have an mba without a dime in student debt.   #  you make a lot of valid points.  a lot.   0; i grew up with two parents who loved the hell out of us, but did not have much money at all.  when it came time for college i had to rely on scholarships, working part time, and some help from my grandparents.  i am the first generation of my family to have gone to college.  i also did my mba, which was paid for by my first job out of college.  i am 0 and thankfully can say i have an mba without a dime in student debt.  that was a huge hand up in life ! i was able to invest and buy a house.  i am steadfastly dedicated to giving my son the same jump start in life.   #  if op is thinking it is better for him financially to just have one then i think that is a smart idea.   #  i think it depends entirely on the relationship with the sibling s .  i have seen siblings who refuse to talk to each other and siblings who are really good friends.  i have a sister and i can say that a few friends are more important to me than her.  if op is thinking it is better for him financially to just have one then i think that is a smart idea.  it will allow him to provide better for his child.   #  he said he would be able to provide for both if he had two so i went from there.   #  for your first point, i suppose i would agree, it can turn out either way.  however i would say that he would still be depriving the kid of a chance at having that kind of relationship.  now to the next point.  the idea that it would be financially better to have one child is not in and of itself a justification for not having more than one kid because it will be true for everyone no matter what economic level.  in fact you could even go so far as to say that having no kids is more financially responsible than having one, but this did not stop him from having the first, so why bring it up now ? he said he would be able to provide for both if he had two so i went from there.
a review of a restaurant is an opinion given by someone who is basically paid to give their opinion cue the sound of half of reddit creaming their drawers .  that opinion is informed by a single visit to a restaurant with little to no knowledge of how the restaurant works.  reviews are one snapshot of often one or two dishes eaten one time by one person that can have a huge impact on the success or failure of a restaurant.  that is a lot of power to give to something that ultimately says nothing at all about the restaurant.  the enjoyability of food is nothing if not subjective; while there is science to suggest that certain things may be more agreeable to the human palette the old axiom of  if it tastes bad, smother it in bacon and/or cheese  than others on the whole likes and dislikes are individual.  a reviewer might find something they dislike however that same dish might be quite popular or liked by many others.  you are essentially giving one person is opinion much more weight than it deserves.  the argument is that a critic knows something about food or has experience with other restaurants and can compare what they experience to what they know and come up with a better opinion.  that still does not change the fact that you have one person giving their opinion of what they think is good and bad regarding a restaurant and it still stacks up to be generally useless.  you have a slightly better informed someone giving their subjective view on a restaurant, and we know how well informed random strangers URL can be with regards to reviews.  shave off that part of the job and a  food critic  basically becomes someone who tells you that there is no roaches or severed fingers in the food which, as we have established, reflects one experience with a restaurant .  this, to me, calls into question why being a  food critic  is even a thing, much less a thing with as much power as some critics wield.  add to all that you get food critics desperately trying to justify their existence by engaging in snobbery URL and general tribalism with regards to what people put on their food or where they get it from and the entire profession seems like a needless dead weight on the culinary world.  so, cmv.   #  that opinion is informed by a single visit to a restaurant with little to no knowledge of how the restaurant works.   #  michelin and other guides will visit restaurants multiple times with different critics before awarding it a high grade.   # michelin and other guides will visit restaurants multiple times with different critics before awarding it a high grade.  most of their food critics do know how a restaurant work.  i feel this is important to mention given that you make so much spiel on the  it is just one person is opinion .  with reputable guides, it is not.  with your filler column in a local newspaper, maybe yes.  even a sample of one, is still a sample of one and says something about the restaurant.  things like the cleanliness of the establishment, decoration, what is on the menu, their wine list and staff handling of your visit are fairly constant and therefore a sample of one can be quite indicative.   #  do you think a review of a video game is useless ?  #  why only food critics in particular ? do you think a review of a video game is useless ? a movie ? a book ? they all can be very subjective, but they still can be very useful.  if every food critic are unanimous and tell me that restaurant a is amazing and restaurant b is awful, even if they do not have the same tastes as me, i will probably try a first.  also, if you follow a particular food critic and you always seems to like the same restaurants as him, you can probably trust his judgement.  but most of all, if you are into food, it is entertaining to read and it might give you ideas to restaurant to try.  it is not like you can try everything yourself, at some point you have to take advice for someone, might as well be a professional.   #  some people are just better than other at doing reviews.   # i generally think most reviews are a terrible idea but that is a topic for another time.  i know that it is the focus of the thread.  but if you can understand why reviews on games or book can be good, then you will understand why it might be useful for food.  i do not have time, nor the money to try myself everything.  if i need a game or a book for next week, i will just ask someone i trust.  some people are just better than other at doing reviews.  for example for games totalbiscuit is very good at giving unbiased opinions.  this way you do not have to waste money on potentially bad games.  even if there are 0,0 restaurants in your city, what exactly is stopping you from eventually going to all of them ? time ? money ? what about the all country ? at one point you have to prioritize.   #  and how is a critic going to help you do that any better than just sticking your nose in the door ?  # but if you can understand why reviews on games or book can be good, then you will understand why it might be useful for food.  games and books are consistent from person to person.  totalbiscut gets the same experience i do when he plays far cry 0 and can objectively tell me things i am going to experience.  the same is not true of restaurants and food.  money ? what about the all country ? at one point you have to prioritize.  and how is a critic going to help you do that any better than just sticking your nose in the door ?  #  if you love plot, you may take some of his reviews as the opposite of his recommendation, since he ca not be bothered with it most of the time.   #  i like that you mention totalbiscuit.  he specifically says in his reviews that if you play a game with different goals than he does, your experience is fundamentally different than his.  he elaborates to say that it does not make his critiques worthless, just that you need to understand what you want and how it compares to what he wants.  if you love plot, you may take some of his reviews as the opposite of his recommendation, since he ca not be bothered with it most of the time.  the same goes for food critics.  you find out what a critic whose reviews you enjoy, then figure out how your tastes compare.  if he says the food was too overlooked, but you enjoy things well done, you may love it.
a review of a restaurant is an opinion given by someone who is basically paid to give their opinion cue the sound of half of reddit creaming their drawers .  that opinion is informed by a single visit to a restaurant with little to no knowledge of how the restaurant works.  reviews are one snapshot of often one or two dishes eaten one time by one person that can have a huge impact on the success or failure of a restaurant.  that is a lot of power to give to something that ultimately says nothing at all about the restaurant.  the enjoyability of food is nothing if not subjective; while there is science to suggest that certain things may be more agreeable to the human palette the old axiom of  if it tastes bad, smother it in bacon and/or cheese  than others on the whole likes and dislikes are individual.  a reviewer might find something they dislike however that same dish might be quite popular or liked by many others.  you are essentially giving one person is opinion much more weight than it deserves.  the argument is that a critic knows something about food or has experience with other restaurants and can compare what they experience to what they know and come up with a better opinion.  that still does not change the fact that you have one person giving their opinion of what they think is good and bad regarding a restaurant and it still stacks up to be generally useless.  you have a slightly better informed someone giving their subjective view on a restaurant, and we know how well informed random strangers URL can be with regards to reviews.  shave off that part of the job and a  food critic  basically becomes someone who tells you that there is no roaches or severed fingers in the food which, as we have established, reflects one experience with a restaurant .  this, to me, calls into question why being a  food critic  is even a thing, much less a thing with as much power as some critics wield.  add to all that you get food critics desperately trying to justify their existence by engaging in snobbery URL and general tribalism with regards to what people put on their food or where they get it from and the entire profession seems like a needless dead weight on the culinary world.  so, cmv.   #  that is a lot of power to give to something that ultimately says nothing at all about the restaurant.   #  even a sample of one, is still a sample of one and says something about the restaurant.   # michelin and other guides will visit restaurants multiple times with different critics before awarding it a high grade.  most of their food critics do know how a restaurant work.  i feel this is important to mention given that you make so much spiel on the  it is just one person is opinion .  with reputable guides, it is not.  with your filler column in a local newspaper, maybe yes.  even a sample of one, is still a sample of one and says something about the restaurant.  things like the cleanliness of the establishment, decoration, what is on the menu, their wine list and staff handling of your visit are fairly constant and therefore a sample of one can be quite indicative.   #  also, if you follow a particular food critic and you always seems to like the same restaurants as him, you can probably trust his judgement.   #  why only food critics in particular ? do you think a review of a video game is useless ? a movie ? a book ? they all can be very subjective, but they still can be very useful.  if every food critic are unanimous and tell me that restaurant a is amazing and restaurant b is awful, even if they do not have the same tastes as me, i will probably try a first.  also, if you follow a particular food critic and you always seems to like the same restaurants as him, you can probably trust his judgement.  but most of all, if you are into food, it is entertaining to read and it might give you ideas to restaurant to try.  it is not like you can try everything yourself, at some point you have to take advice for someone, might as well be a professional.   #  i know that it is the focus of the thread.   # i generally think most reviews are a terrible idea but that is a topic for another time.  i know that it is the focus of the thread.  but if you can understand why reviews on games or book can be good, then you will understand why it might be useful for food.  i do not have time, nor the money to try myself everything.  if i need a game or a book for next week, i will just ask someone i trust.  some people are just better than other at doing reviews.  for example for games totalbiscuit is very good at giving unbiased opinions.  this way you do not have to waste money on potentially bad games.  even if there are 0,0 restaurants in your city, what exactly is stopping you from eventually going to all of them ? time ? money ? what about the all country ? at one point you have to prioritize.   #  the same is not true of restaurants and food.   # but if you can understand why reviews on games or book can be good, then you will understand why it might be useful for food.  games and books are consistent from person to person.  totalbiscut gets the same experience i do when he plays far cry 0 and can objectively tell me things i am going to experience.  the same is not true of restaurants and food.  money ? what about the all country ? at one point you have to prioritize.  and how is a critic going to help you do that any better than just sticking your nose in the door ?  #  he specifically says in his reviews that if you play a game with different goals than he does, your experience is fundamentally different than his.   #  i like that you mention totalbiscuit.  he specifically says in his reviews that if you play a game with different goals than he does, your experience is fundamentally different than his.  he elaborates to say that it does not make his critiques worthless, just that you need to understand what you want and how it compares to what he wants.  if you love plot, you may take some of his reviews as the opposite of his recommendation, since he ca not be bothered with it most of the time.  the same goes for food critics.  you find out what a critic whose reviews you enjoy, then figure out how your tastes compare.  if he says the food was too overlooked, but you enjoy things well done, you may love it.
a review of a restaurant is an opinion given by someone who is basically paid to give their opinion cue the sound of half of reddit creaming their drawers .  that opinion is informed by a single visit to a restaurant with little to no knowledge of how the restaurant works.  reviews are one snapshot of often one or two dishes eaten one time by one person that can have a huge impact on the success or failure of a restaurant.  that is a lot of power to give to something that ultimately says nothing at all about the restaurant.  the enjoyability of food is nothing if not subjective; while there is science to suggest that certain things may be more agreeable to the human palette the old axiom of  if it tastes bad, smother it in bacon and/or cheese  than others on the whole likes and dislikes are individual.  a reviewer might find something they dislike however that same dish might be quite popular or liked by many others.  you are essentially giving one person is opinion much more weight than it deserves.  the argument is that a critic knows something about food or has experience with other restaurants and can compare what they experience to what they know and come up with a better opinion.  that still does not change the fact that you have one person giving their opinion of what they think is good and bad regarding a restaurant and it still stacks up to be generally useless.  you have a slightly better informed someone giving their subjective view on a restaurant, and we know how well informed random strangers URL can be with regards to reviews.  shave off that part of the job and a  food critic  basically becomes someone who tells you that there is no roaches or severed fingers in the food which, as we have established, reflects one experience with a restaurant .  this, to me, calls into question why being a  food critic  is even a thing, much less a thing with as much power as some critics wield.  add to all that you get food critics desperately trying to justify their existence by engaging in snobbery URL and general tribalism with regards to what people put on their food or where they get it from and the entire profession seems like a needless dead weight on the culinary world.  so, cmv.   #  that still does not change the fact that you have one person giving their opinion of what they think is good and bad regarding a restaurant and it still stacks up to be generally useless.   #  this presumes that there is only one food critic or critic of anything in general .   # this presumes that there is only one food critic or critic of anything in general .  in reality there are many critics, with differing viewpoints.  overtime you tend to discover which critics you most agree with and then use their reviews as a proxy for whether or not you will like something.  then there is the entire concept of review aggregation which averages out many reviews to find what the  general  consensus is.  if you are someone who tends to have mainstream tastes then such an aggregation will be useful for you.  if you have esoteric tastes there is probably at least one reviewer who you can put some stock in.   #  if every food critic are unanimous and tell me that restaurant a is amazing and restaurant b is awful, even if they do not have the same tastes as me, i will probably try a first.   #  why only food critics in particular ? do you think a review of a video game is useless ? a movie ? a book ? they all can be very subjective, but they still can be very useful.  if every food critic are unanimous and tell me that restaurant a is amazing and restaurant b is awful, even if they do not have the same tastes as me, i will probably try a first.  also, if you follow a particular food critic and you always seems to like the same restaurants as him, you can probably trust his judgement.  but most of all, if you are into food, it is entertaining to read and it might give you ideas to restaurant to try.  it is not like you can try everything yourself, at some point you have to take advice for someone, might as well be a professional.   #  some people are just better than other at doing reviews.   # i generally think most reviews are a terrible idea but that is a topic for another time.  i know that it is the focus of the thread.  but if you can understand why reviews on games or book can be good, then you will understand why it might be useful for food.  i do not have time, nor the money to try myself everything.  if i need a game or a book for next week, i will just ask someone i trust.  some people are just better than other at doing reviews.  for example for games totalbiscuit is very good at giving unbiased opinions.  this way you do not have to waste money on potentially bad games.  even if there are 0,0 restaurants in your city, what exactly is stopping you from eventually going to all of them ? time ? money ? what about the all country ? at one point you have to prioritize.   #  but if you can understand why reviews on games or book can be good, then you will understand why it might be useful for food.   # but if you can understand why reviews on games or book can be good, then you will understand why it might be useful for food.  games and books are consistent from person to person.  totalbiscut gets the same experience i do when he plays far cry 0 and can objectively tell me things i am going to experience.  the same is not true of restaurants and food.  money ? what about the all country ? at one point you have to prioritize.  and how is a critic going to help you do that any better than just sticking your nose in the door ?  #  you find out what a critic whose reviews you enjoy, then figure out how your tastes compare.   #  i like that you mention totalbiscuit.  he specifically says in his reviews that if you play a game with different goals than he does, your experience is fundamentally different than his.  he elaborates to say that it does not make his critiques worthless, just that you need to understand what you want and how it compares to what he wants.  if you love plot, you may take some of his reviews as the opposite of his recommendation, since he ca not be bothered with it most of the time.  the same goes for food critics.  you find out what a critic whose reviews you enjoy, then figure out how your tastes compare.  if he says the food was too overlooked, but you enjoy things well done, you may love it.
i was reading this story URL from the washington post and it stated that the approval rating of congress is less than 0.  according to gallup link in the washington post article the long term approval rating of congress has been under 0 for years.  with less than 0 in 0 people approving of congress and its actions, there is no rational argument that states congress is representing us at all.  they are very clearly just doing what is in their best interests.  the american public knows that our congress is inept, yet we do not change it.  people always want to blame other congressmen, they never think that their congressman is a part of the problem.  thus, they get angry at congress and its ineptness whilst voting the same people into office.  to combat this i suggest that anytime the approval rating of congress falls below 0, all congressmen should be let go immediately and re elections should be held.  i know elections are time consuming to hold, but people in congress need to learn that if they do not accurately represent their constituents or act in their constituents best interest they will not keep their job.  this will keep corruption down and increase bipartisan support across the board.  alternatively, since it is not practical to hold elections several times a year, an amendment should be ratified which would state that anytime the approval rating falls this low, all members of congress are banned from running again when their term is up.  we simply cannot continue to allow these people to push our entire country around to suit their own, private agendas.  i know that this is not exactly fair to the members of congress who work hard to represent their constituents, the members who do vote bipartisan to act in their constituents best interests.  but the corrupt and greedy have made measures like this necessary, in my opinion, to keep congress running the way it was intended.   #  to combat this i suggest that anytime the approval rating of congress falls below 0, all congressmen should be let go immediately and re elections should be held.   #  you keep talking like congress is a singular entity, but it is not.   # you keep talking like congress is a singular entity, but it is not.  i could think that congress is a mess, but my congressperson could legitimately be doing really good things for my district or state.  why would i want that person to be fired and have to re elect them again in a special election ? voting is already inconvenient enough when it is on one set day, now i have to make time to vote at random times throughout the year ? and until we do have that special election there is absolutely no one running the country ? your alternative is even worse.  again, why would you want to punish politicians who are doing a good job representing their constituents by banning them from running for office again ? you are also talking about bringing the government to a screeching halt based on something as fickle and easily skewed as public perception.  the amount of misinformation and money being spent on spin would only increase if congresspeople knew their positions were on the line more than once ever 0 0 years, or if it could end their political career entirely.  but the corrupt and greedy have made measures like this necessary, in my opinion, to keep congress running the way it was intended.  no, it is not fair for the constituents if their congressperson is removed.  and congress will never run like it was intended because we have direct elections for senators, so trying to  get back  to that point is really impossible and whether that is a good thing is debatable.  for reasons stated above, i think your proposal will just make every problem of the current system worse.  any gain in cooperation that might be made by using your proposed solution would quickly be buried under voter apathy and never ending campaigning to save their jobs or careers including all the money and manipulation that campaigning brings.   #  ok, look,  congress  is not an entity, it is a group of elected  individuals  from across the nation.   #  ok, look,  congress  is not an entity, it is a group of elected  individuals  from across the nation.  when someone says they  do not like congress  they are saying  i do not like the representative that i elected, and all of the other representatives elected by every other district and state in the united states.   even if congress is re elected, the complaining individuals would still  only be able to elect one member to the house and one to the senate.  so it could very well happen that again, everyone  hates all the representatives other than their own.  a better survey would be  how satisfied are you with the job  your  congressmen are doing ?   if  that  rating falls below 0, you have a better argument for re election.  on top of it all, most people do not know what the hell congress even does for them.  they read sensationalized media stories and think  oh god, america is falling apart, congress is terrible, i hate obama, etc.   meanwhile, their  city  is doing whatever the hell it wants, their  county  is misusing funds, their  state  is passing legislation that directly, negatively affects them, and they do not even know who their state representatives are !  #  i do not think this addresses the issue of the incumbency reelection ratings being super high.   #  i do not think this addresses the issue of the incumbency reelection ratings being super high.  there is still a high chance of people saying  my guy is good, its the insert other party guy is that are bad !   also reelections for house members happens every 0 years which to be honest, isnt that long.  it would require a large amount of money because you would constantly having to worry about reelection.  only rich people could run.  finally, congressmembers that actually do good things would have to be reelected even though some shitty member only thought about themselves.   #  a congressman is constituents are the people in his district, not every citizen in the us.   # a congressman is constituents are the people in his district, not every citizen in the us.  that is the important distinction you are missing.  if you are elected to represent the people of coal mining country, you need to advocate for them.  that includes supporting measures that are good for coal mining country.  just because 0 of the country is against coal miners, does not mean you should side with them over the people that elected you.   #  and the approval rating of congress shows that, overall, we are anything but supportive of congress and its actions.   #  its a little counterintuitive, but given the way our voting system works that person might not even be supported by a lot of their constituents in the first place.  think about senators, each state gets two senators, whom are elected by popular vote.  with average voter turnout being just 0 of registered voters in the 0 election URL i find it hard to believe that someone can accurately state that their congressman/woman is supported by the majority of the people in their state.  it could very well be true, but with such low voter turnout it is not guaranteed.  and the approval rating of congress shows that, overall, we are anything but supportive of congress and its actions.  to answer your point now.  it is not completely democratic, but neither are we a completely democratic state.  some very good congressmen and women will lose their seats if this were implemented.  the people who are stagnating congress, the ones who work for themselves continuously gridlock it, helped cause the government shutdown by refusing to compromise on anything etc need to be removed.  however, you cannot implement a sort of grading system to determine which ones need to leave.  how would it be implemented ? congress votes on itself ? the constituents vote on their individual congressmen in the next election which as i stated in my post does not work.  in general people think that their congressman/woman are not the cause of the problem ? have an independent agency do it ? none of those methods would be fair in any way.  and even if you could find a fair way to do so, the people who need to leave congress would just find a way to cheat it and stay in office.  the only viable solution is to remove everyone.  also, a key part is the 0 approval rating.  if congress were truly working for the people then its rating would never fall below 0 outside of catastrophes such as a world war or something .  therefor, after the initial reform, this would never be an issue.  it would merely be an incentive to actually work for your constituents
i was reading this story URL from the washington post and it stated that the approval rating of congress is less than 0.  according to gallup link in the washington post article the long term approval rating of congress has been under 0 for years.  with less than 0 in 0 people approving of congress and its actions, there is no rational argument that states congress is representing us at all.  they are very clearly just doing what is in their best interests.  the american public knows that our congress is inept, yet we do not change it.  people always want to blame other congressmen, they never think that their congressman is a part of the problem.  thus, they get angry at congress and its ineptness whilst voting the same people into office.  to combat this i suggest that anytime the approval rating of congress falls below 0, all congressmen should be let go immediately and re elections should be held.  i know elections are time consuming to hold, but people in congress need to learn that if they do not accurately represent their constituents or act in their constituents best interest they will not keep their job.  this will keep corruption down and increase bipartisan support across the board.  alternatively, since it is not practical to hold elections several times a year, an amendment should be ratified which would state that anytime the approval rating falls this low, all members of congress are banned from running again when their term is up.  we simply cannot continue to allow these people to push our entire country around to suit their own, private agendas.  i know that this is not exactly fair to the members of congress who work hard to represent their constituents, the members who do vote bipartisan to act in their constituents best interests.  but the corrupt and greedy have made measures like this necessary, in my opinion, to keep congress running the way it was intended.   #  i know that this is not exactly fair to the members of congress who work hard to represent their constituents, the members who do vote bipartisan to act in their constituents best interests.   #  but the corrupt and greedy have made measures like this necessary, in my opinion, to keep congress running the way it was intended.   # you keep talking like congress is a singular entity, but it is not.  i could think that congress is a mess, but my congressperson could legitimately be doing really good things for my district or state.  why would i want that person to be fired and have to re elect them again in a special election ? voting is already inconvenient enough when it is on one set day, now i have to make time to vote at random times throughout the year ? and until we do have that special election there is absolutely no one running the country ? your alternative is even worse.  again, why would you want to punish politicians who are doing a good job representing their constituents by banning them from running for office again ? you are also talking about bringing the government to a screeching halt based on something as fickle and easily skewed as public perception.  the amount of misinformation and money being spent on spin would only increase if congresspeople knew their positions were on the line more than once ever 0 0 years, or if it could end their political career entirely.  but the corrupt and greedy have made measures like this necessary, in my opinion, to keep congress running the way it was intended.  no, it is not fair for the constituents if their congressperson is removed.  and congress will never run like it was intended because we have direct elections for senators, so trying to  get back  to that point is really impossible and whether that is a good thing is debatable.  for reasons stated above, i think your proposal will just make every problem of the current system worse.  any gain in cooperation that might be made by using your proposed solution would quickly be buried under voter apathy and never ending campaigning to save their jobs or careers including all the money and manipulation that campaigning brings.   #  on top of it all, most people do not know what the hell congress even does for them.   #  ok, look,  congress  is not an entity, it is a group of elected  individuals  from across the nation.  when someone says they  do not like congress  they are saying  i do not like the representative that i elected, and all of the other representatives elected by every other district and state in the united states.   even if congress is re elected, the complaining individuals would still  only be able to elect one member to the house and one to the senate.  so it could very well happen that again, everyone  hates all the representatives other than their own.  a better survey would be  how satisfied are you with the job  your  congressmen are doing ?   if  that  rating falls below 0, you have a better argument for re election.  on top of it all, most people do not know what the hell congress even does for them.  they read sensationalized media stories and think  oh god, america is falling apart, congress is terrible, i hate obama, etc.   meanwhile, their  city  is doing whatever the hell it wants, their  county  is misusing funds, their  state  is passing legislation that directly, negatively affects them, and they do not even know who their state representatives are !  #  finally, congressmembers that actually do good things would have to be reelected even though some shitty member only thought about themselves.   #  i do not think this addresses the issue of the incumbency reelection ratings being super high.  there is still a high chance of people saying  my guy is good, its the insert other party guy is that are bad !   also reelections for house members happens every 0 years which to be honest, isnt that long.  it would require a large amount of money because you would constantly having to worry about reelection.  only rich people could run.  finally, congressmembers that actually do good things would have to be reelected even though some shitty member only thought about themselves.   #  a congressman is constituents are the people in his district, not every citizen in the us.   # a congressman is constituents are the people in his district, not every citizen in the us.  that is the important distinction you are missing.  if you are elected to represent the people of coal mining country, you need to advocate for them.  that includes supporting measures that are good for coal mining country.  just because 0 of the country is against coal miners, does not mean you should side with them over the people that elected you.   #  also, a key part is the 0 approval rating.   #  its a little counterintuitive, but given the way our voting system works that person might not even be supported by a lot of their constituents in the first place.  think about senators, each state gets two senators, whom are elected by popular vote.  with average voter turnout being just 0 of registered voters in the 0 election URL i find it hard to believe that someone can accurately state that their congressman/woman is supported by the majority of the people in their state.  it could very well be true, but with such low voter turnout it is not guaranteed.  and the approval rating of congress shows that, overall, we are anything but supportive of congress and its actions.  to answer your point now.  it is not completely democratic, but neither are we a completely democratic state.  some very good congressmen and women will lose their seats if this were implemented.  the people who are stagnating congress, the ones who work for themselves continuously gridlock it, helped cause the government shutdown by refusing to compromise on anything etc need to be removed.  however, you cannot implement a sort of grading system to determine which ones need to leave.  how would it be implemented ? congress votes on itself ? the constituents vote on their individual congressmen in the next election which as i stated in my post does not work.  in general people think that their congressman/woman are not the cause of the problem ? have an independent agency do it ? none of those methods would be fair in any way.  and even if you could find a fair way to do so, the people who need to leave congress would just find a way to cheat it and stay in office.  the only viable solution is to remove everyone.  also, a key part is the 0 approval rating.  if congress were truly working for the people then its rating would never fall below 0 outside of catastrophes such as a world war or something .  therefor, after the initial reform, this would never be an issue.  it would merely be an incentive to actually work for your constituents
children do best when their parents are married.  they earn higher incomes, have less legal problems.  financial incentives are effective in modifying behavior.  providing financial incentives for parents to marry and stay married will increase the number of children with married parents.  the range of financial benefits that only children of married parents would be eligible for could expand based on performance.  it could start with just dependent tax credits and could expand to include for food stamps, medical and education.  since only married couples would be eligible then adopted children would be excluded including children of divorced and remarried couples, same sex couples and those created by donated eggs or sperm.  while some children will suffer because they no longer receive government support, on balance more children will benefit by encouraging marriage.   #  children do best when their parents are married.   #  they earn higher incomes, have less legal problems.   # they earn higher incomes, have less legal problems.  financial incentives are effective in modifying behavior.  providing financial incentives for parents to marry and stay married will increase the number of children with married parents.  is this correlation or causation ? do the children of married couples lead more successful lives because their parents are married, or is it because their parents are the kind of parents who both are a good match for each other, and are pre disposed to staying married.  the obvious degenerate case: let is say your parents are abusive towards one another.  is there something about marriage that makes it better for the children for them to stay married ? or is divorce, in order to break up an abusive relationship, better for the children in this scenario ? in general, when you create a  pressure relief valve , in this case divorce, the unsuccessful marriages will naturally relieve themselves, while the successful ones will remain.  in other words, legalizing divorce would be expected to increase the average health of marriages, because the unhealthy ones stop existing, and then they do not bring the average down.  encouraging bad couples to remain together, based on the data observed in my previous paragraph, would be self defeating.   #  child benefits are used to pay for food and electricity and clothing and such, not fancy holidays and big tvs or something.   # source ? growing up in a household where your parents hate each other is  far  more harmful than growing up with one parent living at home.  my aunt left her abusive husband when he threatened to harm their son should she have stayed and let him abuse them both ? because without child benefits she could never have afforded to raise him alone.  it also makes no sense to add further strain to single parents who may need the child benefits even more than married couples.  child benefits are used to pay for food and electricity and clothing and such, not fancy holidays and big tvs or something.  they are  needed .  what is your reasoning for this ? why do you feel none of those children deserve proper meals, and school uniforms, and books to read, and heating, etc etc ?  #  added stress around the home create enormous amounts of stress for everybody including the kids.   #  so basically you want to set up a situation where a child of divorced parents is essentially punished for his parent is divorce, created even more stress on all people involved.  not to mention this creates pressure for families to get married and stay married even though they do not want to.  this policy would also make a serious problem in terms of on paper only marriages as well.  people would clearly stay married on paper but separate to keep getting benefits.  your plan would create a huge stigma against divorce and many women could be trapped in abusive relationships.  please do not forget that divorce right initially were a part of women is rights and were a way for women to escape bad situations.  let us not forget that a huge number of other problems is created in loveless marriages.  this situation completely warps a child is perception of how a relationship should work.  added stress around the home create enormous amounts of stress for everybody including the kids.  your plan makes happiness a secondary issue to money which is specifically an unamerican value life, liberty, pursuit of happyness.   #  additionally, you ca not know whether someone will change.   # oh, so they are supposed to postpone getting the benefits they need to survive to make sure their partner is not abusive ? additionally, you ca not know whether someone will change.  perhaps they start heavily drinking and become and alcoholic or get addicted to drugs or get sent to prison.  are you supposed to stay with them regardless ? hmm, how much does life insurance cost ? if you are really poor, you probably ca not afford that.   #  under your system, instead of having me grow up to be a college educated tax paying adult full of promise i would instead likely be dead, or barely able to keep a roof over my head.   #  your plan does not actually involve giving married parents or children any benefit though, it seems to involve withdrawing access to social services and other existing support systems and granting them back based on performance.  this will result in needless suffering for both parents and children for no ostensible reason other than a study saying kids do better when parents are married.  what this would end up doing is allowing kids who are already doing allegedly well to do even better and kids who are worse off to sink further for no good reason.  my mom was a single mother who separated with my dad amicably.  for a long time after separation we survived on wic and food stamps alone.  under your system, instead of having me grow up to be a college educated tax paying adult full of promise i would instead likely be dead, or barely able to keep a roof over my head.  in what way would this benefit me, my parents, or the country overall ?
so yes i followed  the fappening  a bit the first night before going to bed.  i have seen most if not all of the photos since then.  i gave to the pcf and again to water. org when pcf did not want reddit is money.  i was reading the srd thread about the charity drama this morning and was surprised by the difference of opinion between the 0 communities.  i do not think i am some cancer solving savior for giving to charity in the name of jennifer lawrence is nude photos, but it seemed like a good way to make a silver lining out of something that was indeed bad for many celebrities, people, who is private photos were leaked.  no it is not ideal, but there was not ever going to be a silver lining in the form of people collectively abstaining from looking.  anyway, the reason why most people seem to be on the side of the charity for making the pr decision that they did is this fundamental idea that i differ on.  that looking at these leaked photos makes everyone involved a bunch of pervy peeping toms.  i am totally against such violations of privacy that resulted in the leak and i think that whoever is responsible should be held accountable and responsible and be charged with whatever crimes they committed.  but i just ca not see how being a bystander to the real crime being committed is a violation of privacy as well.  i think about all the porn out there, i know some photos of random girls have to have been from a boyfriend or ex that were uploaded without the girl is permission.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this, and in regards to my example i do not see how ignorance as to whether it actually was a private photo excuses or negates the moral rightness or wrongness of it.  and if we have silently agreed that those types of photos are okay, why are not these ? i get lost or stuck on that last point, but if i am on the wrong side of things here i would like to know and i welcome someone taking the time to explain it to me.   #  pcf did not want reddit is money.   #  pcf does not care about reddit, they just do not want donations that blatantly and visibly link them to a celebration of mass privacy violations  # that is a whole lot worse than  just looking .  i do not know anyone who thinks those are acceptable either.  most people i know consider it pretty gross to look at  anyone  is private photos without their consent, celebrity or not.  it is genuinely unpleasant and creepy, i do not see how it is any better than staring through your neighbour is window as they get undressed.  pcf does not care about reddit, they just do not want donations that blatantly and visibly link them to a celebration of mass privacy violations  #  and if you are talking simply about people who upload vs download, that is an arbitrary distinction.   #  there have been several campaigns to get rid of those subreddits the jailbait one being successful .  but people who view this pictures should face blame.  you are creating a market for the person who hacks.  this person profited off of the willingness of people like you to view them.  and if you are talking simply about people who upload vs download, that is an arbitrary distinction.  both people are engaged in the proliferation of those images.  they are being uploaded for the benefit of those who download.  if it were not for the downloaders, there would be no reason to upload.   #  i think the comparison between these two things is fair, but where we differ is that i do not believe we have decided as a society that we do not care about photos posted without consent, celeb or no.   # in my mind, the crowd that justifies the viewing of the recent leaked photos is the same crowd that does not worry or care about photos of women posted without their consent.  i think the comparison between these two things is fair, but where we differ is that i do not believe we have decided as a society that we do not care about photos posted without consent, celeb or no.  as with many issues, society as a whole tends to notice what is going on when it pertains to the famous.  this is an unfortunate consequence of how we are wired, and while it would be ideal to tone down the rather destructive celebrity worship culture we have built, it is an entirely different beast.  when i read about these leaks, i see the greater society becoming aware of an issue that has existed for quite some time in the peripheral.  this happens all the time michael j.  fox with parkinson is, mel gibson is racist tirades, even celebrities engaging in the als challenge.  when famous people bring an issue to light, it is not coming out of nowhere it already existed and now we are paying attention.  but anyway, to your main point.  i really want to say this without sounding preachy, but the reason that viewing the recent leaked photos is invasion of privacy has more to do with the overall effect than the individual.  what i mean is, there may be nothing lawfully wrong with what you are doing, but you are encouraging the act of leaking these types of things.  on the internet, pageviews matter.  it reinforces the concept of internet infamy, and rewards the behavior indirectly.  you personally viewing the photos is a drop in the ocean.  in the same vein, you personally dropping a candy wrapper on the ground is an infinitesimally small contribution to pollution, but you know that you are still contributing.  combine this with the knowledge that the release of the photos was done without permission, and i think you have a compelling reason not to partake in the viewing.  it may not be  invasion of privacy  in the same way that the person who leaked the photos did so directly, but it is an indirect invasion of privacy in its encouragement and reward of those leaks.  cumulatively, the damage is magnified.   #  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.   #  you could have just donated the money anonymously.  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.  you chose to look at her photos knowing that they were not intended to be seen.  i would defiantly consider those who looked to be creepers.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this its creepy that you would look at normal girls unwanted pictures too.  it would be like if you watched revenge porn or something where videos get uploaded without their consent, its invading their privacy and if you choose to watch it, you are in the wrong.   #  regardless though, there is going to be stuff that was uploaded without the persons permission and distributed and quite possibly no one except the person who uploaded it knows that.   #  just to clarify, i do not watch or care for revenge porn or seek out photos uploaded behind someone is back.  and i agree that if that is the way it was obtained and is labeled as revenge porn than it should be taken down, but it is difficult to prove that sort of thing.  and if you target just the stuff that is labeled as such then you run into issue of targeting staged revenge porn just like how most incest porn is staged.  regardless though, there is going to be stuff that was uploaded without the persons permission and distributed and quite possibly no one except the person who uploaded it knows that.  so if that does not matter than a bunch of people are guilty of unknowingly violating the privacy of others ? i do agree about the donating anonymously point, and i understand why the charity made the decision they did i just do not totally agree with the reasoning.  but i am working my way through the replies so we will see.
so yes i followed  the fappening  a bit the first night before going to bed.  i have seen most if not all of the photos since then.  i gave to the pcf and again to water. org when pcf did not want reddit is money.  i was reading the srd thread about the charity drama this morning and was surprised by the difference of opinion between the 0 communities.  i do not think i am some cancer solving savior for giving to charity in the name of jennifer lawrence is nude photos, but it seemed like a good way to make a silver lining out of something that was indeed bad for many celebrities, people, who is private photos were leaked.  no it is not ideal, but there was not ever going to be a silver lining in the form of people collectively abstaining from looking.  anyway, the reason why most people seem to be on the side of the charity for making the pr decision that they did is this fundamental idea that i differ on.  that looking at these leaked photos makes everyone involved a bunch of pervy peeping toms.  i am totally against such violations of privacy that resulted in the leak and i think that whoever is responsible should be held accountable and responsible and be charged with whatever crimes they committed.  but i just ca not see how being a bystander to the real crime being committed is a violation of privacy as well.  i think about all the porn out there, i know some photos of random girls have to have been from a boyfriend or ex that were uploaded without the girl is permission.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this, and in regards to my example i do not see how ignorance as to whether it actually was a private photo excuses or negates the moral rightness or wrongness of it.  and if we have silently agreed that those types of photos are okay, why are not these ? i get lost or stuck on that last point, but if i am on the wrong side of things here i would like to know and i welcome someone taking the time to explain it to me.   #  i know some photos of random girls have to have been from a boyfriend or ex that were uploaded without the girl is permission.   #  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this its creepy that you would look at normal girls unwanted pictures too.   #  you could have just donated the money anonymously.  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.  you chose to look at her photos knowing that they were not intended to be seen.  i would defiantly consider those who looked to be creepers.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this its creepy that you would look at normal girls unwanted pictures too.  it would be like if you watched revenge porn or something where videos get uploaded without their consent, its invading their privacy and if you choose to watch it, you are in the wrong.   #  that is a whole lot worse than  just looking .   # that is a whole lot worse than  just looking .  i do not know anyone who thinks those are acceptable either.  most people i know consider it pretty gross to look at  anyone  is private photos without their consent, celebrity or not.  it is genuinely unpleasant and creepy, i do not see how it is any better than staring through your neighbour is window as they get undressed.  pcf does not care about reddit, they just do not want donations that blatantly and visibly link them to a celebration of mass privacy violations  #  you are creating a market for the person who hacks.   #  there have been several campaigns to get rid of those subreddits the jailbait one being successful .  but people who view this pictures should face blame.  you are creating a market for the person who hacks.  this person profited off of the willingness of people like you to view them.  and if you are talking simply about people who upload vs download, that is an arbitrary distinction.  both people are engaged in the proliferation of those images.  they are being uploaded for the benefit of those who download.  if it were not for the downloaders, there would be no reason to upload.   #  this is an unfortunate consequence of how we are wired, and while it would be ideal to tone down the rather destructive celebrity worship culture we have built, it is an entirely different beast.   # in my mind, the crowd that justifies the viewing of the recent leaked photos is the same crowd that does not worry or care about photos of women posted without their consent.  i think the comparison between these two things is fair, but where we differ is that i do not believe we have decided as a society that we do not care about photos posted without consent, celeb or no.  as with many issues, society as a whole tends to notice what is going on when it pertains to the famous.  this is an unfortunate consequence of how we are wired, and while it would be ideal to tone down the rather destructive celebrity worship culture we have built, it is an entirely different beast.  when i read about these leaks, i see the greater society becoming aware of an issue that has existed for quite some time in the peripheral.  this happens all the time michael j.  fox with parkinson is, mel gibson is racist tirades, even celebrities engaging in the als challenge.  when famous people bring an issue to light, it is not coming out of nowhere it already existed and now we are paying attention.  but anyway, to your main point.  i really want to say this without sounding preachy, but the reason that viewing the recent leaked photos is invasion of privacy has more to do with the overall effect than the individual.  what i mean is, there may be nothing lawfully wrong with what you are doing, but you are encouraging the act of leaking these types of things.  on the internet, pageviews matter.  it reinforces the concept of internet infamy, and rewards the behavior indirectly.  you personally viewing the photos is a drop in the ocean.  in the same vein, you personally dropping a candy wrapper on the ground is an infinitesimally small contribution to pollution, but you know that you are still contributing.  combine this with the knowledge that the release of the photos was done without permission, and i think you have a compelling reason not to partake in the viewing.  it may not be  invasion of privacy  in the same way that the person who leaked the photos did so directly, but it is an indirect invasion of privacy in its encouragement and reward of those leaks.  cumulatively, the damage is magnified.   #  but i am working my way through the replies so we will see.   #  just to clarify, i do not watch or care for revenge porn or seek out photos uploaded behind someone is back.  and i agree that if that is the way it was obtained and is labeled as revenge porn than it should be taken down, but it is difficult to prove that sort of thing.  and if you target just the stuff that is labeled as such then you run into issue of targeting staged revenge porn just like how most incest porn is staged.  regardless though, there is going to be stuff that was uploaded without the persons permission and distributed and quite possibly no one except the person who uploaded it knows that.  so if that does not matter than a bunch of people are guilty of unknowingly violating the privacy of others ? i do agree about the donating anonymously point, and i understand why the charity made the decision they did i just do not totally agree with the reasoning.  but i am working my way through the replies so we will see.
so yes i followed  the fappening  a bit the first night before going to bed.  i have seen most if not all of the photos since then.  i gave to the pcf and again to water. org when pcf did not want reddit is money.  i was reading the srd thread about the charity drama this morning and was surprised by the difference of opinion between the 0 communities.  i do not think i am some cancer solving savior for giving to charity in the name of jennifer lawrence is nude photos, but it seemed like a good way to make a silver lining out of something that was indeed bad for many celebrities, people, who is private photos were leaked.  no it is not ideal, but there was not ever going to be a silver lining in the form of people collectively abstaining from looking.  anyway, the reason why most people seem to be on the side of the charity for making the pr decision that they did is this fundamental idea that i differ on.  that looking at these leaked photos makes everyone involved a bunch of pervy peeping toms.  i am totally against such violations of privacy that resulted in the leak and i think that whoever is responsible should be held accountable and responsible and be charged with whatever crimes they committed.  but i just ca not see how being a bystander to the real crime being committed is a violation of privacy as well.  i think about all the porn out there, i know some photos of random girls have to have been from a boyfriend or ex that were uploaded without the girl is permission.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this, and in regards to my example i do not see how ignorance as to whether it actually was a private photo excuses or negates the moral rightness or wrongness of it.  and if we have silently agreed that those types of photos are okay, why are not these ? i get lost or stuck on that last point, but if i am on the wrong side of things here i would like to know and i welcome someone taking the time to explain it to me.   #  i think about all the porn out there, i know some photos of random girls have to have been from a boyfriend or ex that were uploaded without the girl is permission.   #  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this that is actually a big problem.   # but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this that is actually a big problem.  see here.  URL people worry about that  a lot .  it is not different.  both are exceedingly creepy and it is messed up.  relevant portion:   followers of the rp websites then may harass the victim, often forwarding the embarrassing photo to her family members, friends and business contacts.  this can lead to a loss of economic and employment opportunities, and it can strain or end a woman is personal relationships.  at least two women have killed themselves over revenge porn, and cyber civil rights initiative studies show that 0 percent of victims contemplate suicide.   #  most people i know consider it pretty gross to look at  anyone  is private photos without their consent, celebrity or not.   # that is a whole lot worse than  just looking .  i do not know anyone who thinks those are acceptable either.  most people i know consider it pretty gross to look at  anyone  is private photos without their consent, celebrity or not.  it is genuinely unpleasant and creepy, i do not see how it is any better than staring through your neighbour is window as they get undressed.  pcf does not care about reddit, they just do not want donations that blatantly and visibly link them to a celebration of mass privacy violations  #  if it were not for the downloaders, there would be no reason to upload.   #  there have been several campaigns to get rid of those subreddits the jailbait one being successful .  but people who view this pictures should face blame.  you are creating a market for the person who hacks.  this person profited off of the willingness of people like you to view them.  and if you are talking simply about people who upload vs download, that is an arbitrary distinction.  both people are engaged in the proliferation of those images.  they are being uploaded for the benefit of those who download.  if it were not for the downloaders, there would be no reason to upload.   #  when famous people bring an issue to light, it is not coming out of nowhere it already existed and now we are paying attention.   # in my mind, the crowd that justifies the viewing of the recent leaked photos is the same crowd that does not worry or care about photos of women posted without their consent.  i think the comparison between these two things is fair, but where we differ is that i do not believe we have decided as a society that we do not care about photos posted without consent, celeb or no.  as with many issues, society as a whole tends to notice what is going on when it pertains to the famous.  this is an unfortunate consequence of how we are wired, and while it would be ideal to tone down the rather destructive celebrity worship culture we have built, it is an entirely different beast.  when i read about these leaks, i see the greater society becoming aware of an issue that has existed for quite some time in the peripheral.  this happens all the time michael j.  fox with parkinson is, mel gibson is racist tirades, even celebrities engaging in the als challenge.  when famous people bring an issue to light, it is not coming out of nowhere it already existed and now we are paying attention.  but anyway, to your main point.  i really want to say this without sounding preachy, but the reason that viewing the recent leaked photos is invasion of privacy has more to do with the overall effect than the individual.  what i mean is, there may be nothing lawfully wrong with what you are doing, but you are encouraging the act of leaking these types of things.  on the internet, pageviews matter.  it reinforces the concept of internet infamy, and rewards the behavior indirectly.  you personally viewing the photos is a drop in the ocean.  in the same vein, you personally dropping a candy wrapper on the ground is an infinitesimally small contribution to pollution, but you know that you are still contributing.  combine this with the knowledge that the release of the photos was done without permission, and i think you have a compelling reason not to partake in the viewing.  it may not be  invasion of privacy  in the same way that the person who leaked the photos did so directly, but it is an indirect invasion of privacy in its encouragement and reward of those leaks.  cumulatively, the damage is magnified.   #  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this its creepy that you would look at normal girls unwanted pictures too.   #  you could have just donated the money anonymously.  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.  you chose to look at her photos knowing that they were not intended to be seen.  i would defiantly consider those who looked to be creepers.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this its creepy that you would look at normal girls unwanted pictures too.  it would be like if you watched revenge porn or something where videos get uploaded without their consent, its invading their privacy and if you choose to watch it, you are in the wrong.
so yes i followed  the fappening  a bit the first night before going to bed.  i have seen most if not all of the photos since then.  i gave to the pcf and again to water. org when pcf did not want reddit is money.  i was reading the srd thread about the charity drama this morning and was surprised by the difference of opinion between the 0 communities.  i do not think i am some cancer solving savior for giving to charity in the name of jennifer lawrence is nude photos, but it seemed like a good way to make a silver lining out of something that was indeed bad for many celebrities, people, who is private photos were leaked.  no it is not ideal, but there was not ever going to be a silver lining in the form of people collectively abstaining from looking.  anyway, the reason why most people seem to be on the side of the charity for making the pr decision that they did is this fundamental idea that i differ on.  that looking at these leaked photos makes everyone involved a bunch of pervy peeping toms.  i am totally against such violations of privacy that resulted in the leak and i think that whoever is responsible should be held accountable and responsible and be charged with whatever crimes they committed.  but i just ca not see how being a bystander to the real crime being committed is a violation of privacy as well.  i think about all the porn out there, i know some photos of random girls have to have been from a boyfriend or ex that were uploaded without the girl is permission.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this, and in regards to my example i do not see how ignorance as to whether it actually was a private photo excuses or negates the moral rightness or wrongness of it.  and if we have silently agreed that those types of photos are okay, why are not these ? i get lost or stuck on that last point, but if i am on the wrong side of things here i would like to know and i welcome someone taking the time to explain it to me.   #  i am totally against such violations of privacy that resulted in the leak and i think that whoever is responsible should be held accountable and responsible and be charged with whatever crimes they committed.   #  so, if someone breaks into a house and starts rummaging through things, they have violated that person is privacy, but if he leaves the door open, you can stop and peak in and their is no violation ?  # so, if someone breaks into a house and starts rummaging through things, they have violated that person is privacy, but if he leaves the door open, you can stop and peak in and their is no violation ? if i can find a way to see everything in your house, all your personal stuff, but i do not take anything, and you wo not really know about it, is it an invasion of privacy ? you generally respect my privacy because you understand that i might not want people seeing my stuff.  just because the pics are available to the public does not mean i do not want my privacy respected anymore.  sure, it is easier for you to rummage through my stuff, and i will never know, but that does not change the my feelings.  you can respect them or not.  morally, you should respect them.  i think respect outweighs curiosity.  a bystander is an a person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part.  you were not just standing around when this guy put pictures in your face, or they fell from the sky and you just happened to get a peek.  you read a headline that nude photos were leaked and you went out of your way to click on them and look through them knowing they were stolen.  i am sure plenty of people do care, and that is one of the many reasons i discourage people from participating on many of these  free  sites.  also, expressing that what you are doing is common is not an argument for doing it.  maybe people should take a stand more against poorly regulated sites.  maybe the uploaders or admins of red tube or you porn should be held accountable and customers should demand that videos uploaded should be legitimate and consent properly provided.   #  most people i know consider it pretty gross to look at  anyone  is private photos without their consent, celebrity or not.   # that is a whole lot worse than  just looking .  i do not know anyone who thinks those are acceptable either.  most people i know consider it pretty gross to look at  anyone  is private photos without their consent, celebrity or not.  it is genuinely unpleasant and creepy, i do not see how it is any better than staring through your neighbour is window as they get undressed.  pcf does not care about reddit, they just do not want donations that blatantly and visibly link them to a celebration of mass privacy violations  #  they are being uploaded for the benefit of those who download.   #  there have been several campaigns to get rid of those subreddits the jailbait one being successful .  but people who view this pictures should face blame.  you are creating a market for the person who hacks.  this person profited off of the willingness of people like you to view them.  and if you are talking simply about people who upload vs download, that is an arbitrary distinction.  both people are engaged in the proliferation of those images.  they are being uploaded for the benefit of those who download.  if it were not for the downloaders, there would be no reason to upload.   #  i really want to say this without sounding preachy, but the reason that viewing the recent leaked photos is invasion of privacy has more to do with the overall effect than the individual.   # in my mind, the crowd that justifies the viewing of the recent leaked photos is the same crowd that does not worry or care about photos of women posted without their consent.  i think the comparison between these two things is fair, but where we differ is that i do not believe we have decided as a society that we do not care about photos posted without consent, celeb or no.  as with many issues, society as a whole tends to notice what is going on when it pertains to the famous.  this is an unfortunate consequence of how we are wired, and while it would be ideal to tone down the rather destructive celebrity worship culture we have built, it is an entirely different beast.  when i read about these leaks, i see the greater society becoming aware of an issue that has existed for quite some time in the peripheral.  this happens all the time michael j.  fox with parkinson is, mel gibson is racist tirades, even celebrities engaging in the als challenge.  when famous people bring an issue to light, it is not coming out of nowhere it already existed and now we are paying attention.  but anyway, to your main point.  i really want to say this without sounding preachy, but the reason that viewing the recent leaked photos is invasion of privacy has more to do with the overall effect than the individual.  what i mean is, there may be nothing lawfully wrong with what you are doing, but you are encouraging the act of leaking these types of things.  on the internet, pageviews matter.  it reinforces the concept of internet infamy, and rewards the behavior indirectly.  you personally viewing the photos is a drop in the ocean.  in the same vein, you personally dropping a candy wrapper on the ground is an infinitesimally small contribution to pollution, but you know that you are still contributing.  combine this with the knowledge that the release of the photos was done without permission, and i think you have a compelling reason not to partake in the viewing.  it may not be  invasion of privacy  in the same way that the person who leaked the photos did so directly, but it is an indirect invasion of privacy in its encouragement and reward of those leaks.  cumulatively, the damage is magnified.   #  i would defiantly consider those who looked to be creepers.   #  you could have just donated the money anonymously.  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.  you chose to look at her photos knowing that they were not intended to be seen.  i would defiantly consider those who looked to be creepers.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this its creepy that you would look at normal girls unwanted pictures too.  it would be like if you watched revenge porn or something where videos get uploaded without their consent, its invading their privacy and if you choose to watch it, you are in the wrong.
so yes i followed  the fappening  a bit the first night before going to bed.  i have seen most if not all of the photos since then.  i gave to the pcf and again to water. org when pcf did not want reddit is money.  i was reading the srd thread about the charity drama this morning and was surprised by the difference of opinion between the 0 communities.  i do not think i am some cancer solving savior for giving to charity in the name of jennifer lawrence is nude photos, but it seemed like a good way to make a silver lining out of something that was indeed bad for many celebrities, people, who is private photos were leaked.  no it is not ideal, but there was not ever going to be a silver lining in the form of people collectively abstaining from looking.  anyway, the reason why most people seem to be on the side of the charity for making the pr decision that they did is this fundamental idea that i differ on.  that looking at these leaked photos makes everyone involved a bunch of pervy peeping toms.  i am totally against such violations of privacy that resulted in the leak and i think that whoever is responsible should be held accountable and responsible and be charged with whatever crimes they committed.  but i just ca not see how being a bystander to the real crime being committed is a violation of privacy as well.  i think about all the porn out there, i know some photos of random girls have to have been from a boyfriend or ex that were uploaded without the girl is permission.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this, and in regards to my example i do not see how ignorance as to whether it actually was a private photo excuses or negates the moral rightness or wrongness of it.  and if we have silently agreed that those types of photos are okay, why are not these ? i get lost or stuck on that last point, but if i am on the wrong side of things here i would like to know and i welcome someone taking the time to explain it to me.   #  but i just ca not see how being a bystander to the real crime being committed is a violation of privacy as well.   #  a bystander is an a person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part.   # so, if someone breaks into a house and starts rummaging through things, they have violated that person is privacy, but if he leaves the door open, you can stop and peak in and their is no violation ? if i can find a way to see everything in your house, all your personal stuff, but i do not take anything, and you wo not really know about it, is it an invasion of privacy ? you generally respect my privacy because you understand that i might not want people seeing my stuff.  just because the pics are available to the public does not mean i do not want my privacy respected anymore.  sure, it is easier for you to rummage through my stuff, and i will never know, but that does not change the my feelings.  you can respect them or not.  morally, you should respect them.  i think respect outweighs curiosity.  a bystander is an a person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part.  you were not just standing around when this guy put pictures in your face, or they fell from the sky and you just happened to get a peek.  you read a headline that nude photos were leaked and you went out of your way to click on them and look through them knowing they were stolen.  i am sure plenty of people do care, and that is one of the many reasons i discourage people from participating on many of these  free  sites.  also, expressing that what you are doing is common is not an argument for doing it.  maybe people should take a stand more against poorly regulated sites.  maybe the uploaders or admins of red tube or you porn should be held accountable and customers should demand that videos uploaded should be legitimate and consent properly provided.   #  it is genuinely unpleasant and creepy, i do not see how it is any better than staring through your neighbour is window as they get undressed.   # that is a whole lot worse than  just looking .  i do not know anyone who thinks those are acceptable either.  most people i know consider it pretty gross to look at  anyone  is private photos without their consent, celebrity or not.  it is genuinely unpleasant and creepy, i do not see how it is any better than staring through your neighbour is window as they get undressed.  pcf does not care about reddit, they just do not want donations that blatantly and visibly link them to a celebration of mass privacy violations  #  and if you are talking simply about people who upload vs download, that is an arbitrary distinction.   #  there have been several campaigns to get rid of those subreddits the jailbait one being successful .  but people who view this pictures should face blame.  you are creating a market for the person who hacks.  this person profited off of the willingness of people like you to view them.  and if you are talking simply about people who upload vs download, that is an arbitrary distinction.  both people are engaged in the proliferation of those images.  they are being uploaded for the benefit of those who download.  if it were not for the downloaders, there would be no reason to upload.   #  as with many issues, society as a whole tends to notice what is going on when it pertains to the famous.   # in my mind, the crowd that justifies the viewing of the recent leaked photos is the same crowd that does not worry or care about photos of women posted without their consent.  i think the comparison between these two things is fair, but where we differ is that i do not believe we have decided as a society that we do not care about photos posted without consent, celeb or no.  as with many issues, society as a whole tends to notice what is going on when it pertains to the famous.  this is an unfortunate consequence of how we are wired, and while it would be ideal to tone down the rather destructive celebrity worship culture we have built, it is an entirely different beast.  when i read about these leaks, i see the greater society becoming aware of an issue that has existed for quite some time in the peripheral.  this happens all the time michael j.  fox with parkinson is, mel gibson is racist tirades, even celebrities engaging in the als challenge.  when famous people bring an issue to light, it is not coming out of nowhere it already existed and now we are paying attention.  but anyway, to your main point.  i really want to say this without sounding preachy, but the reason that viewing the recent leaked photos is invasion of privacy has more to do with the overall effect than the individual.  what i mean is, there may be nothing lawfully wrong with what you are doing, but you are encouraging the act of leaking these types of things.  on the internet, pageviews matter.  it reinforces the concept of internet infamy, and rewards the behavior indirectly.  you personally viewing the photos is a drop in the ocean.  in the same vein, you personally dropping a candy wrapper on the ground is an infinitesimally small contribution to pollution, but you know that you are still contributing.  combine this with the knowledge that the release of the photos was done without permission, and i think you have a compelling reason not to partake in the viewing.  it may not be  invasion of privacy  in the same way that the person who leaked the photos did so directly, but it is an indirect invasion of privacy in its encouragement and reward of those leaks.  cumulatively, the damage is magnified.   #  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.   #  you could have just donated the money anonymously.  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.  you chose to look at her photos knowing that they were not intended to be seen.  i would defiantly consider those who looked to be creepers.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this its creepy that you would look at normal girls unwanted pictures too.  it would be like if you watched revenge porn or something where videos get uploaded without their consent, its invading their privacy and if you choose to watch it, you are in the wrong.
so yes i followed  the fappening  a bit the first night before going to bed.  i have seen most if not all of the photos since then.  i gave to the pcf and again to water. org when pcf did not want reddit is money.  i was reading the srd thread about the charity drama this morning and was surprised by the difference of opinion between the 0 communities.  i do not think i am some cancer solving savior for giving to charity in the name of jennifer lawrence is nude photos, but it seemed like a good way to make a silver lining out of something that was indeed bad for many celebrities, people, who is private photos were leaked.  no it is not ideal, but there was not ever going to be a silver lining in the form of people collectively abstaining from looking.  anyway, the reason why most people seem to be on the side of the charity for making the pr decision that they did is this fundamental idea that i differ on.  that looking at these leaked photos makes everyone involved a bunch of pervy peeping toms.  i am totally against such violations of privacy that resulted in the leak and i think that whoever is responsible should be held accountable and responsible and be charged with whatever crimes they committed.  but i just ca not see how being a bystander to the real crime being committed is a violation of privacy as well.  i think about all the porn out there, i know some photos of random girls have to have been from a boyfriend or ex that were uploaded without the girl is permission.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this, and in regards to my example i do not see how ignorance as to whether it actually was a private photo excuses or negates the moral rightness or wrongness of it.  and if we have silently agreed that those types of photos are okay, why are not these ? i get lost or stuck on that last point, but if i am on the wrong side of things here i would like to know and i welcome someone taking the time to explain it to me.   #  i think about all the porn out there, i know some photos of random girls have to have been from a boyfriend or ex that were uploaded without the girl is permission.   #  i am sure plenty of people do care, and that is one of the many reasons i discourage people from participating on many of these  free  sites.   # so, if someone breaks into a house and starts rummaging through things, they have violated that person is privacy, but if he leaves the door open, you can stop and peak in and their is no violation ? if i can find a way to see everything in your house, all your personal stuff, but i do not take anything, and you wo not really know about it, is it an invasion of privacy ? you generally respect my privacy because you understand that i might not want people seeing my stuff.  just because the pics are available to the public does not mean i do not want my privacy respected anymore.  sure, it is easier for you to rummage through my stuff, and i will never know, but that does not change the my feelings.  you can respect them or not.  morally, you should respect them.  i think respect outweighs curiosity.  a bystander is an a person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part.  you were not just standing around when this guy put pictures in your face, or they fell from the sky and you just happened to get a peek.  you read a headline that nude photos were leaked and you went out of your way to click on them and look through them knowing they were stolen.  i am sure plenty of people do care, and that is one of the many reasons i discourage people from participating on many of these  free  sites.  also, expressing that what you are doing is common is not an argument for doing it.  maybe people should take a stand more against poorly regulated sites.  maybe the uploaders or admins of red tube or you porn should be held accountable and customers should demand that videos uploaded should be legitimate and consent properly provided.   #  it is genuinely unpleasant and creepy, i do not see how it is any better than staring through your neighbour is window as they get undressed.   # that is a whole lot worse than  just looking .  i do not know anyone who thinks those are acceptable either.  most people i know consider it pretty gross to look at  anyone  is private photos without their consent, celebrity or not.  it is genuinely unpleasant and creepy, i do not see how it is any better than staring through your neighbour is window as they get undressed.  pcf does not care about reddit, they just do not want donations that blatantly and visibly link them to a celebration of mass privacy violations  #  they are being uploaded for the benefit of those who download.   #  there have been several campaigns to get rid of those subreddits the jailbait one being successful .  but people who view this pictures should face blame.  you are creating a market for the person who hacks.  this person profited off of the willingness of people like you to view them.  and if you are talking simply about people who upload vs download, that is an arbitrary distinction.  both people are engaged in the proliferation of those images.  they are being uploaded for the benefit of those who download.  if it were not for the downloaders, there would be no reason to upload.   #  in my mind, the crowd that justifies the viewing of the recent leaked photos is the same crowd that does not worry or care about photos of women posted without their consent.   # in my mind, the crowd that justifies the viewing of the recent leaked photos is the same crowd that does not worry or care about photos of women posted without their consent.  i think the comparison between these two things is fair, but where we differ is that i do not believe we have decided as a society that we do not care about photos posted without consent, celeb or no.  as with many issues, society as a whole tends to notice what is going on when it pertains to the famous.  this is an unfortunate consequence of how we are wired, and while it would be ideal to tone down the rather destructive celebrity worship culture we have built, it is an entirely different beast.  when i read about these leaks, i see the greater society becoming aware of an issue that has existed for quite some time in the peripheral.  this happens all the time michael j.  fox with parkinson is, mel gibson is racist tirades, even celebrities engaging in the als challenge.  when famous people bring an issue to light, it is not coming out of nowhere it already existed and now we are paying attention.  but anyway, to your main point.  i really want to say this without sounding preachy, but the reason that viewing the recent leaked photos is invasion of privacy has more to do with the overall effect than the individual.  what i mean is, there may be nothing lawfully wrong with what you are doing, but you are encouraging the act of leaking these types of things.  on the internet, pageviews matter.  it reinforces the concept of internet infamy, and rewards the behavior indirectly.  you personally viewing the photos is a drop in the ocean.  in the same vein, you personally dropping a candy wrapper on the ground is an infinitesimally small contribution to pollution, but you know that you are still contributing.  combine this with the knowledge that the release of the photos was done without permission, and i think you have a compelling reason not to partake in the viewing.  it may not be  invasion of privacy  in the same way that the person who leaked the photos did so directly, but it is an indirect invasion of privacy in its encouragement and reward of those leaks.  cumulatively, the damage is magnified.   #  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.   #  you could have just donated the money anonymously.  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.  you chose to look at her photos knowing that they were not intended to be seen.  i would defiantly consider those who looked to be creepers.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this its creepy that you would look at normal girls unwanted pictures too.  it would be like if you watched revenge porn or something where videos get uploaded without their consent, its invading their privacy and if you choose to watch it, you are in the wrong.
so yes i followed  the fappening  a bit the first night before going to bed.  i have seen most if not all of the photos since then.  i gave to the pcf and again to water. org when pcf did not want reddit is money.  i was reading the srd thread about the charity drama this morning and was surprised by the difference of opinion between the 0 communities.  i do not think i am some cancer solving savior for giving to charity in the name of jennifer lawrence is nude photos, but it seemed like a good way to make a silver lining out of something that was indeed bad for many celebrities, people, who is private photos were leaked.  no it is not ideal, but there was not ever going to be a silver lining in the form of people collectively abstaining from looking.  anyway, the reason why most people seem to be on the side of the charity for making the pr decision that they did is this fundamental idea that i differ on.  that looking at these leaked photos makes everyone involved a bunch of pervy peeping toms.  i am totally against such violations of privacy that resulted in the leak and i think that whoever is responsible should be held accountable and responsible and be charged with whatever crimes they committed.  but i just ca not see how being a bystander to the real crime being committed is a violation of privacy as well.  i think about all the porn out there, i know some photos of random girls have to have been from a boyfriend or ex that were uploaded without the girl is permission.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this, and in regards to my example i do not see how ignorance as to whether it actually was a private photo excuses or negates the moral rightness or wrongness of it.  and if we have silently agreed that those types of photos are okay, why are not these ? i get lost or stuck on that last point, but if i am on the wrong side of things here i would like to know and i welcome someone taking the time to explain it to me.   #  i do not see how that is different from this, and in regards to my example i do not see how ignorance as to whether it actually was a private photo excuses or negates the moral rightness or wrongness of it.   #  maybe people should take a stand more against poorly regulated sites.   # so, if someone breaks into a house and starts rummaging through things, they have violated that person is privacy, but if he leaves the door open, you can stop and peak in and their is no violation ? if i can find a way to see everything in your house, all your personal stuff, but i do not take anything, and you wo not really know about it, is it an invasion of privacy ? you generally respect my privacy because you understand that i might not want people seeing my stuff.  just because the pics are available to the public does not mean i do not want my privacy respected anymore.  sure, it is easier for you to rummage through my stuff, and i will never know, but that does not change the my feelings.  you can respect them or not.  morally, you should respect them.  i think respect outweighs curiosity.  a bystander is an a person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part.  you were not just standing around when this guy put pictures in your face, or they fell from the sky and you just happened to get a peek.  you read a headline that nude photos were leaked and you went out of your way to click on them and look through them knowing they were stolen.  i am sure plenty of people do care, and that is one of the many reasons i discourage people from participating on many of these  free  sites.  also, expressing that what you are doing is common is not an argument for doing it.  maybe people should take a stand more against poorly regulated sites.  maybe the uploaders or admins of red tube or you porn should be held accountable and customers should demand that videos uploaded should be legitimate and consent properly provided.   #  pcf does not care about reddit, they just do not want donations that blatantly and visibly link them to a celebration of mass privacy violations  # that is a whole lot worse than  just looking .  i do not know anyone who thinks those are acceptable either.  most people i know consider it pretty gross to look at  anyone  is private photos without their consent, celebrity or not.  it is genuinely unpleasant and creepy, i do not see how it is any better than staring through your neighbour is window as they get undressed.  pcf does not care about reddit, they just do not want donations that blatantly and visibly link them to a celebration of mass privacy violations  #  and if you are talking simply about people who upload vs download, that is an arbitrary distinction.   #  there have been several campaigns to get rid of those subreddits the jailbait one being successful .  but people who view this pictures should face blame.  you are creating a market for the person who hacks.  this person profited off of the willingness of people like you to view them.  and if you are talking simply about people who upload vs download, that is an arbitrary distinction.  both people are engaged in the proliferation of those images.  they are being uploaded for the benefit of those who download.  if it were not for the downloaders, there would be no reason to upload.   #  what i mean is, there may be nothing lawfully wrong with what you are doing, but you are encouraging the act of leaking these types of things.   # in my mind, the crowd that justifies the viewing of the recent leaked photos is the same crowd that does not worry or care about photos of women posted without their consent.  i think the comparison between these two things is fair, but where we differ is that i do not believe we have decided as a society that we do not care about photos posted without consent, celeb or no.  as with many issues, society as a whole tends to notice what is going on when it pertains to the famous.  this is an unfortunate consequence of how we are wired, and while it would be ideal to tone down the rather destructive celebrity worship culture we have built, it is an entirely different beast.  when i read about these leaks, i see the greater society becoming aware of an issue that has existed for quite some time in the peripheral.  this happens all the time michael j.  fox with parkinson is, mel gibson is racist tirades, even celebrities engaging in the als challenge.  when famous people bring an issue to light, it is not coming out of nowhere it already existed and now we are paying attention.  but anyway, to your main point.  i really want to say this without sounding preachy, but the reason that viewing the recent leaked photos is invasion of privacy has more to do with the overall effect than the individual.  what i mean is, there may be nothing lawfully wrong with what you are doing, but you are encouraging the act of leaking these types of things.  on the internet, pageviews matter.  it reinforces the concept of internet infamy, and rewards the behavior indirectly.  you personally viewing the photos is a drop in the ocean.  in the same vein, you personally dropping a candy wrapper on the ground is an infinitesimally small contribution to pollution, but you know that you are still contributing.  combine this with the knowledge that the release of the photos was done without permission, and i think you have a compelling reason not to partake in the viewing.  it may not be  invasion of privacy  in the same way that the person who leaked the photos did so directly, but it is an indirect invasion of privacy in its encouragement and reward of those leaks.  cumulatively, the damage is magnified.   #  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.   #  you could have just donated the money anonymously.  also i do think that the people who looked at the photos also invaded her privacy.  you chose to look at her photos knowing that they were not intended to be seen.  i would defiantly consider those who looked to be creepers.  but i do not see anyone worry about that or anyone who cares, and i do not see how that is different from this its creepy that you would look at normal girls unwanted pictures too.  it would be like if you watched revenge porn or something where videos get uploaded without their consent, its invading their privacy and if you choose to watch it, you are in the wrong.
before we get started, no, i am not a metro fan, not even a little bit as far as i can see, the desktop is a hodgepodge of bad ideas all rolled together.  on windows, we have a mess of system icons and application icons just sitting there loose to drag around.  what.  i am sorry, you want to.  move an application to  a different part of your screen .  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ? and similarly, your various hard drive and other system icons.  what is the purpose of having them littering this weird junk drawer background window, and again, why all this concept of shuffling them around the screen ? why the hell is  picking them up and moving them  a useful thing to do ? and thrown in with these on mac and linux too , we have any random crap that the user happens to save there, mirroring the contents of some folder buried in their profile.  do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .  so let me get this straight.  my desktop contains my computer, which contains my hard drive, which contains my profile, which contains my desktop.  ok then.  it is not as though people run applications un maximized, so there is this tedious business of minimizing everything just to get to the desktop content, which is vastly less useful than just having a file browser window that does sensible things with z order, and has a ui far more amenable to sorting and finding the content you want anyway.  far more useful, imho, would be something like a better implemented version of those osx springy things in the dock a popup always on top file browser window toggled on or off with a button in the dock/startbar/etc, defaulting to your documents folder.  this would seem to provide all the features people want from a desktop, with none of the hideous ux.  what am i missing ? eta: oh, hell, i posted this just before going to bed.  i am not doing a dump and run it is just timezones . au here .  remove if you must :/  #  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ?  #  the whole thing is a metaphor for.  wait for it.   a desk top .   # the whole thing is a metaphor for.  wait for it.   a desk top .  it ws created when people were used to working with papers and folders on their desk, and so the  wouldesktop  ui concept attempts to parallel that.  people can move their files into folders based on how they want to organise things, and move the folders around the desk/desktop to places they will remember to look.  your desktop does not  contain  your computer this is just you misunderstanding it.  your desktop may or may not feature a shortcut to the overview of your computer.  your profile contains your  preferences  which tell the computer how you prefer your version of the desktop to be arranged.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  also you talk about this as someone who does not seem to have ever really  used  the desktop functionality, to be honest.  there is nothing stopping you from also having a folder open with what you need.  the desktop is simply a build in option to make the process more intuitive for those used to traditional desks.   #  however, desks do not have applications, and it makes very little sense to me that you would want to mix application shortcuts in with documents, and to shuffle their positions around.   #  people are were ? used to dealing with  documents  on their physical desk tops, certainly.  however, desks do not have applications, and it makes very little sense to me that you would want to mix application shortcuts in with documents, and to shuffle their positions around.  as for moving documents around i think that remembering a screen position is pretty ineffective next to all the other cues we can use.  i can see that this was a necessary demystifying step in the late 0s/early 0s, when win0, amigados and the rest were just coming out, but in this day and age it amounts to really strained skeuomorphism.  uh, no, your user profile is your entire home directory.  which, under win, osx and every ods compliant linux desktop environment, also contains a desktop folder, which is where the files are actually located on disk.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  that comes off as rather patronizing.  amazingly, i, my workmates and the users we support all do all of those things, and except when working with multiple terminals open, pretty much everyone works fullscreen on everything, task switching or vd switching between applications and it is the ones who do not that end up needing the most hand holding.  especially given that screen real estate is a precious commodity when it comes to ui a decent amount of document visible at once and room to spread out the various toolbars being crucial it seems like a terribly style cramping compromise for very little benefit.  i have been using desktop functionality since the days of the c0, thank you very much and while a simple folder window does a fair bit of what is needed, the concept could be refined a fair bit to make it properly usable.  for instance, as a drag drop source or target, an always on top popup window docked to a screen edge would be a lot more convenient.   #  if you go and change it up, there is going to be a learning curve, and a lot of people will be frustrated with changing a system that is not even broken in the first place.   #  so, having shortcuts to programs and files you want to regularly access is somehow more cumbersome than having to navigate the same folder paths over and over again ? that is really all the desktop is an editable collection of shortcuts.  you can have as many or as few shortcuts as you like.  clicking this button again reopens all of your windows.  probably the most important point: people have been working with the desktop view for decades now.  it is the main way that many people interact with their computer is contents.  if you go and change it up, there is going to be a learning curve, and a lot of people will be frustrated with changing a system that is not even broken in the first place.   #  the  dock  shows a number of icons at one edge of the screen.   # a one click show everything option ? how much more convenient could it get ? you likely need two clicks to open something on the desktop.  one to get the window in the foreground out of the way and the other to actually click the icon.  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.  it might even take a while to find the right one.  compare that to the  dock  in mac os x and comparable interfaces available for windows or linux distributions.  the  dock  shows a number of icons at one edge of the screen.  icons can be frequently used / open programs, which you want to reach quickly or drawers apple calls them  stacks  or something .  when you click a drawer a pop up is shown with the icons inside of the drawer.  you therefore need up to two clicks to reach everything of importance and can organize everything quite neatly into drawers.  you can also make it auto hide, unless the mouse is moved down, if you worry about wasted screen space.  if the start menu in windows would have worked like that, i doubt the desktop would have gotten as much use.  the usability of interfaces is obviously quite subjective and it may come down to personal preferences and habits, but you can always just try it out and see for yourself.   #  windows takes very little knowledge to use/set up and if it gets cluttered you have no one to blame but yourself.   # one to get the window in the foreground out of the way and the other to actually click the icon.  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.  it might even take a while to find the right one.  yeah if you are inept.  you can literally put them  anywhere  on the screen.  how is that difficult ? the dock shows a number of icons at one edge of the screen.  icons can be frequently used / open programs, which you want to reach quickly or drawers apple calls them stacks or something .  when you click a drawer a pop up is shown with the icons inside of the drawer.  you therefore need up to two clicks to reach everything of importance and can organize everything quite neatly into drawers.  you can also make it auto hide, unless the mouse is moved down, if you worry about wasted screen space.  if the start menu in windows would have worked like that, i doubt the desktop would have gotten as much use.  congrats you just described a taskbar, where you can literally put a shortcut to anything on your computer.  only you only need one click to open it.  just about any mac os is targeted towards people with little computer knowledge.  windows takes very little knowledge to use/set up and if it gets cluttered you have no one to blame but yourself.  the possibilities on a windows based machine are exponentially greater than any mac os.  there is nothing you can do on a mac os that you ca not do on a windows machine.  the reverse is not true.
before we get started, no, i am not a metro fan, not even a little bit as far as i can see, the desktop is a hodgepodge of bad ideas all rolled together.  on windows, we have a mess of system icons and application icons just sitting there loose to drag around.  what.  i am sorry, you want to.  move an application to  a different part of your screen .  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ? and similarly, your various hard drive and other system icons.  what is the purpose of having them littering this weird junk drawer background window, and again, why all this concept of shuffling them around the screen ? why the hell is  picking them up and moving them  a useful thing to do ? and thrown in with these on mac and linux too , we have any random crap that the user happens to save there, mirroring the contents of some folder buried in their profile.  do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .  so let me get this straight.  my desktop contains my computer, which contains my hard drive, which contains my profile, which contains my desktop.  ok then.  it is not as though people run applications un maximized, so there is this tedious business of minimizing everything just to get to the desktop content, which is vastly less useful than just having a file browser window that does sensible things with z order, and has a ui far more amenable to sorting and finding the content you want anyway.  far more useful, imho, would be something like a better implemented version of those osx springy things in the dock a popup always on top file browser window toggled on or off with a button in the dock/startbar/etc, defaulting to your documents folder.  this would seem to provide all the features people want from a desktop, with none of the hideous ux.  what am i missing ? eta: oh, hell, i posted this just before going to bed.  i am not doing a dump and run it is just timezones . au here .  remove if you must :/  #  my desktop contains my computer, which contains my hard drive, which contains my profile, which contains my desktop.   #  your desktop does not  contain  your computer this is just you misunderstanding it.   # the whole thing is a metaphor for.  wait for it.   a desk top .  it ws created when people were used to working with papers and folders on their desk, and so the  wouldesktop  ui concept attempts to parallel that.  people can move their files into folders based on how they want to organise things, and move the folders around the desk/desktop to places they will remember to look.  your desktop does not  contain  your computer this is just you misunderstanding it.  your desktop may or may not feature a shortcut to the overview of your computer.  your profile contains your  preferences  which tell the computer how you prefer your version of the desktop to be arranged.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  also you talk about this as someone who does not seem to have ever really  used  the desktop functionality, to be honest.  there is nothing stopping you from also having a folder open with what you need.  the desktop is simply a build in option to make the process more intuitive for those used to traditional desks.   #  which, under win, osx and every ods compliant linux desktop environment, also contains a desktop folder, which is where the files are actually located on disk.   #  people are were ? used to dealing with  documents  on their physical desk tops, certainly.  however, desks do not have applications, and it makes very little sense to me that you would want to mix application shortcuts in with documents, and to shuffle their positions around.  as for moving documents around i think that remembering a screen position is pretty ineffective next to all the other cues we can use.  i can see that this was a necessary demystifying step in the late 0s/early 0s, when win0, amigados and the rest were just coming out, but in this day and age it amounts to really strained skeuomorphism.  uh, no, your user profile is your entire home directory.  which, under win, osx and every ods compliant linux desktop environment, also contains a desktop folder, which is where the files are actually located on disk.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  that comes off as rather patronizing.  amazingly, i, my workmates and the users we support all do all of those things, and except when working with multiple terminals open, pretty much everyone works fullscreen on everything, task switching or vd switching between applications and it is the ones who do not that end up needing the most hand holding.  especially given that screen real estate is a precious commodity when it comes to ui a decent amount of document visible at once and room to spread out the various toolbars being crucial it seems like a terribly style cramping compromise for very little benefit.  i have been using desktop functionality since the days of the c0, thank you very much and while a simple folder window does a fair bit of what is needed, the concept could be refined a fair bit to make it properly usable.  for instance, as a drag drop source or target, an always on top popup window docked to a screen edge would be a lot more convenient.   #  so, having shortcuts to programs and files you want to regularly access is somehow more cumbersome than having to navigate the same folder paths over and over again ?  #  so, having shortcuts to programs and files you want to regularly access is somehow more cumbersome than having to navigate the same folder paths over and over again ? that is really all the desktop is an editable collection of shortcuts.  you can have as many or as few shortcuts as you like.  clicking this button again reopens all of your windows.  probably the most important point: people have been working with the desktop view for decades now.  it is the main way that many people interact with their computer is contents.  if you go and change it up, there is going to be a learning curve, and a lot of people will be frustrated with changing a system that is not even broken in the first place.   #  if the start menu in windows would have worked like that, i doubt the desktop would have gotten as much use.   # a one click show everything option ? how much more convenient could it get ? you likely need two clicks to open something on the desktop.  one to get the window in the foreground out of the way and the other to actually click the icon.  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.  it might even take a while to find the right one.  compare that to the  dock  in mac os x and comparable interfaces available for windows or linux distributions.  the  dock  shows a number of icons at one edge of the screen.  icons can be frequently used / open programs, which you want to reach quickly or drawers apple calls them  stacks  or something .  when you click a drawer a pop up is shown with the icons inside of the drawer.  you therefore need up to two clicks to reach everything of importance and can organize everything quite neatly into drawers.  you can also make it auto hide, unless the mouse is moved down, if you worry about wasted screen space.  if the start menu in windows would have worked like that, i doubt the desktop would have gotten as much use.  the usability of interfaces is obviously quite subjective and it may come down to personal preferences and habits, but you can always just try it out and see for yourself.   #  you can literally put them  anywhere  on the screen.   # one to get the window in the foreground out of the way and the other to actually click the icon.  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.  it might even take a while to find the right one.  yeah if you are inept.  you can literally put them  anywhere  on the screen.  how is that difficult ? the dock shows a number of icons at one edge of the screen.  icons can be frequently used / open programs, which you want to reach quickly or drawers apple calls them stacks or something .  when you click a drawer a pop up is shown with the icons inside of the drawer.  you therefore need up to two clicks to reach everything of importance and can organize everything quite neatly into drawers.  you can also make it auto hide, unless the mouse is moved down, if you worry about wasted screen space.  if the start menu in windows would have worked like that, i doubt the desktop would have gotten as much use.  congrats you just described a taskbar, where you can literally put a shortcut to anything on your computer.  only you only need one click to open it.  just about any mac os is targeted towards people with little computer knowledge.  windows takes very little knowledge to use/set up and if it gets cluttered you have no one to blame but yourself.  the possibilities on a windows based machine are exponentially greater than any mac os.  there is nothing you can do on a mac os that you ca not do on a windows machine.  the reverse is not true.
before we get started, no, i am not a metro fan, not even a little bit as far as i can see, the desktop is a hodgepodge of bad ideas all rolled together.  on windows, we have a mess of system icons and application icons just sitting there loose to drag around.  what.  i am sorry, you want to.  move an application to  a different part of your screen .  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ? and similarly, your various hard drive and other system icons.  what is the purpose of having them littering this weird junk drawer background window, and again, why all this concept of shuffling them around the screen ? why the hell is  picking them up and moving them  a useful thing to do ? and thrown in with these on mac and linux too , we have any random crap that the user happens to save there, mirroring the contents of some folder buried in their profile.  do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .  so let me get this straight.  my desktop contains my computer, which contains my hard drive, which contains my profile, which contains my desktop.  ok then.  it is not as though people run applications un maximized, so there is this tedious business of minimizing everything just to get to the desktop content, which is vastly less useful than just having a file browser window that does sensible things with z order, and has a ui far more amenable to sorting and finding the content you want anyway.  far more useful, imho, would be something like a better implemented version of those osx springy things in the dock a popup always on top file browser window toggled on or off with a button in the dock/startbar/etc, defaulting to your documents folder.  this would seem to provide all the features people want from a desktop, with none of the hideous ux.  what am i missing ? eta: oh, hell, i posted this just before going to bed.  i am not doing a dump and run it is just timezones . au here .  remove if you must :/  #  on windows, we have a mess of system icons and application icons just sitting there loose to drag around.   #  which is just like the mess of loose and drag able things on my  physical  desktop.   # which is just like the mess of loose and drag able things on my  physical  desktop.  so far, it is a solid imitation.  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ? moving something to a different part of your physical desk perhaps ? have you not ever encountered a physical desk ? have you never rearranged or organized physical things on a desk ? seriously, have you not ever used a desk ? do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .  all users is for common things that everybody needs.  physical analogs would be a pencil cup, stapler, calendar, etc.  individual people often put random crap on their desks.  changing users is having one person clean their stuff off the desk, and then you putting yours back on it.  ok then.  you ca not access your desktop by going into the folder structure.  you can get to the files associated with your desktop, but the actual  desktop ui  is loaded.  it really goes  desktop ui    computer   hard drive   profile   desktop files   it is not as though people run applications un maximized, so there is this tedious business of minimizing everything just to get to the desktop content yes, when you have stuff open on a physical desk, you must clear it off to see the physical desk.  then delete the icon ? most installers give you the option of where to place icons.  you mean like the quick start bar or pinned applications ?  #  your desktop does not  contain  your computer this is just you misunderstanding it.   # the whole thing is a metaphor for.  wait for it.   a desk top .  it ws created when people were used to working with papers and folders on their desk, and so the  wouldesktop  ui concept attempts to parallel that.  people can move their files into folders based on how they want to organise things, and move the folders around the desk/desktop to places they will remember to look.  your desktop does not  contain  your computer this is just you misunderstanding it.  your desktop may or may not feature a shortcut to the overview of your computer.  your profile contains your  preferences  which tell the computer how you prefer your version of the desktop to be arranged.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  also you talk about this as someone who does not seem to have ever really  used  the desktop functionality, to be honest.  there is nothing stopping you from also having a folder open with what you need.  the desktop is simply a build in option to make the process more intuitive for those used to traditional desks.   #  used to dealing with  documents  on their physical desk tops, certainly.   #  people are were ? used to dealing with  documents  on their physical desk tops, certainly.  however, desks do not have applications, and it makes very little sense to me that you would want to mix application shortcuts in with documents, and to shuffle their positions around.  as for moving documents around i think that remembering a screen position is pretty ineffective next to all the other cues we can use.  i can see that this was a necessary demystifying step in the late 0s/early 0s, when win0, amigados and the rest were just coming out, but in this day and age it amounts to really strained skeuomorphism.  uh, no, your user profile is your entire home directory.  which, under win, osx and every ods compliant linux desktop environment, also contains a desktop folder, which is where the files are actually located on disk.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  that comes off as rather patronizing.  amazingly, i, my workmates and the users we support all do all of those things, and except when working with multiple terminals open, pretty much everyone works fullscreen on everything, task switching or vd switching between applications and it is the ones who do not that end up needing the most hand holding.  especially given that screen real estate is a precious commodity when it comes to ui a decent amount of document visible at once and room to spread out the various toolbars being crucial it seems like a terribly style cramping compromise for very little benefit.  i have been using desktop functionality since the days of the c0, thank you very much and while a simple folder window does a fair bit of what is needed, the concept could be refined a fair bit to make it properly usable.  for instance, as a drag drop source or target, an always on top popup window docked to a screen edge would be a lot more convenient.   #  clicking this button again reopens all of your windows.   #  so, having shortcuts to programs and files you want to regularly access is somehow more cumbersome than having to navigate the same folder paths over and over again ? that is really all the desktop is an editable collection of shortcuts.  you can have as many or as few shortcuts as you like.  clicking this button again reopens all of your windows.  probably the most important point: people have been working with the desktop view for decades now.  it is the main way that many people interact with their computer is contents.  if you go and change it up, there is going to be a learning curve, and a lot of people will be frustrated with changing a system that is not even broken in the first place.   #  you likely need two clicks to open something on the desktop.   # a one click show everything option ? how much more convenient could it get ? you likely need two clicks to open something on the desktop.  one to get the window in the foreground out of the way and the other to actually click the icon.  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.  it might even take a while to find the right one.  compare that to the  dock  in mac os x and comparable interfaces available for windows or linux distributions.  the  dock  shows a number of icons at one edge of the screen.  icons can be frequently used / open programs, which you want to reach quickly or drawers apple calls them  stacks  or something .  when you click a drawer a pop up is shown with the icons inside of the drawer.  you therefore need up to two clicks to reach everything of importance and can organize everything quite neatly into drawers.  you can also make it auto hide, unless the mouse is moved down, if you worry about wasted screen space.  if the start menu in windows would have worked like that, i doubt the desktop would have gotten as much use.  the usability of interfaces is obviously quite subjective and it may come down to personal preferences and habits, but you can always just try it out and see for yourself.
before we get started, no, i am not a metro fan, not even a little bit as far as i can see, the desktop is a hodgepodge of bad ideas all rolled together.  on windows, we have a mess of system icons and application icons just sitting there loose to drag around.  what.  i am sorry, you want to.  move an application to  a different part of your screen .  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ? and similarly, your various hard drive and other system icons.  what is the purpose of having them littering this weird junk drawer background window, and again, why all this concept of shuffling them around the screen ? why the hell is  picking them up and moving them  a useful thing to do ? and thrown in with these on mac and linux too , we have any random crap that the user happens to save there, mirroring the contents of some folder buried in their profile.  do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .  so let me get this straight.  my desktop contains my computer, which contains my hard drive, which contains my profile, which contains my desktop.  ok then.  it is not as though people run applications un maximized, so there is this tedious business of minimizing everything just to get to the desktop content, which is vastly less useful than just having a file browser window that does sensible things with z order, and has a ui far more amenable to sorting and finding the content you want anyway.  far more useful, imho, would be something like a better implemented version of those osx springy things in the dock a popup always on top file browser window toggled on or off with a button in the dock/startbar/etc, defaulting to your documents folder.  this would seem to provide all the features people want from a desktop, with none of the hideous ux.  what am i missing ? eta: oh, hell, i posted this just before going to bed.  i am not doing a dump and run it is just timezones . au here .  remove if you must :/  #  and thrown in with these on mac and linux too , we have any random crap that the user happens to save there, mirroring the contents of some folder buried in their profile.   #  do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .   # which is just like the mess of loose and drag able things on my  physical  desktop.  so far, it is a solid imitation.  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ? moving something to a different part of your physical desk perhaps ? have you not ever encountered a physical desk ? have you never rearranged or organized physical things on a desk ? seriously, have you not ever used a desk ? do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .  all users is for common things that everybody needs.  physical analogs would be a pencil cup, stapler, calendar, etc.  individual people often put random crap on their desks.  changing users is having one person clean their stuff off the desk, and then you putting yours back on it.  ok then.  you ca not access your desktop by going into the folder structure.  you can get to the files associated with your desktop, but the actual  desktop ui  is loaded.  it really goes  desktop ui    computer   hard drive   profile   desktop files   it is not as though people run applications un maximized, so there is this tedious business of minimizing everything just to get to the desktop content yes, when you have stuff open on a physical desk, you must clear it off to see the physical desk.  then delete the icon ? most installers give you the option of where to place icons.  you mean like the quick start bar or pinned applications ?  #  it ws created when people were used to working with papers and folders on their desk, and so the  wouldesktop  ui concept attempts to parallel that.   # the whole thing is a metaphor for.  wait for it.   a desk top .  it ws created when people were used to working with papers and folders on their desk, and so the  wouldesktop  ui concept attempts to parallel that.  people can move their files into folders based on how they want to organise things, and move the folders around the desk/desktop to places they will remember to look.  your desktop does not  contain  your computer this is just you misunderstanding it.  your desktop may or may not feature a shortcut to the overview of your computer.  your profile contains your  preferences  which tell the computer how you prefer your version of the desktop to be arranged.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  also you talk about this as someone who does not seem to have ever really  used  the desktop functionality, to be honest.  there is nothing stopping you from also having a folder open with what you need.  the desktop is simply a build in option to make the process more intuitive for those used to traditional desks.   #  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.   #  people are were ? used to dealing with  documents  on their physical desk tops, certainly.  however, desks do not have applications, and it makes very little sense to me that you would want to mix application shortcuts in with documents, and to shuffle their positions around.  as for moving documents around i think that remembering a screen position is pretty ineffective next to all the other cues we can use.  i can see that this was a necessary demystifying step in the late 0s/early 0s, when win0, amigados and the rest were just coming out, but in this day and age it amounts to really strained skeuomorphism.  uh, no, your user profile is your entire home directory.  which, under win, osx and every ods compliant linux desktop environment, also contains a desktop folder, which is where the files are actually located on disk.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  that comes off as rather patronizing.  amazingly, i, my workmates and the users we support all do all of those things, and except when working with multiple terminals open, pretty much everyone works fullscreen on everything, task switching or vd switching between applications and it is the ones who do not that end up needing the most hand holding.  especially given that screen real estate is a precious commodity when it comes to ui a decent amount of document visible at once and room to spread out the various toolbars being crucial it seems like a terribly style cramping compromise for very little benefit.  i have been using desktop functionality since the days of the c0, thank you very much and while a simple folder window does a fair bit of what is needed, the concept could be refined a fair bit to make it properly usable.  for instance, as a drag drop source or target, an always on top popup window docked to a screen edge would be a lot more convenient.   #  you can have as many or as few shortcuts as you like.   #  so, having shortcuts to programs and files you want to regularly access is somehow more cumbersome than having to navigate the same folder paths over and over again ? that is really all the desktop is an editable collection of shortcuts.  you can have as many or as few shortcuts as you like.  clicking this button again reopens all of your windows.  probably the most important point: people have been working with the desktop view for decades now.  it is the main way that many people interact with their computer is contents.  if you go and change it up, there is going to be a learning curve, and a lot of people will be frustrated with changing a system that is not even broken in the first place.   #  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.   # a one click show everything option ? how much more convenient could it get ? you likely need two clicks to open something on the desktop.  one to get the window in the foreground out of the way and the other to actually click the icon.  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.  it might even take a while to find the right one.  compare that to the  dock  in mac os x and comparable interfaces available for windows or linux distributions.  the  dock  shows a number of icons at one edge of the screen.  icons can be frequently used / open programs, which you want to reach quickly or drawers apple calls them  stacks  or something .  when you click a drawer a pop up is shown with the icons inside of the drawer.  you therefore need up to two clicks to reach everything of importance and can organize everything quite neatly into drawers.  you can also make it auto hide, unless the mouse is moved down, if you worry about wasted screen space.  if the start menu in windows would have worked like that, i doubt the desktop would have gotten as much use.  the usability of interfaces is obviously quite subjective and it may come down to personal preferences and habits, but you can always just try it out and see for yourself.
before we get started, no, i am not a metro fan, not even a little bit as far as i can see, the desktop is a hodgepodge of bad ideas all rolled together.  on windows, we have a mess of system icons and application icons just sitting there loose to drag around.  what.  i am sorry, you want to.  move an application to  a different part of your screen .  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ? and similarly, your various hard drive and other system icons.  what is the purpose of having them littering this weird junk drawer background window, and again, why all this concept of shuffling them around the screen ? why the hell is  picking them up and moving them  a useful thing to do ? and thrown in with these on mac and linux too , we have any random crap that the user happens to save there, mirroring the contents of some folder buried in their profile.  do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .  so let me get this straight.  my desktop contains my computer, which contains my hard drive, which contains my profile, which contains my desktop.  ok then.  it is not as though people run applications un maximized, so there is this tedious business of minimizing everything just to get to the desktop content, which is vastly less useful than just having a file browser window that does sensible things with z order, and has a ui far more amenable to sorting and finding the content you want anyway.  far more useful, imho, would be something like a better implemented version of those osx springy things in the dock a popup always on top file browser window toggled on or off with a button in the dock/startbar/etc, defaulting to your documents folder.  this would seem to provide all the features people want from a desktop, with none of the hideous ux.  what am i missing ? eta: oh, hell, i posted this just before going to bed.  i am not doing a dump and run it is just timezones . au here .  remove if you must :/  #  far more useful, imho, would be something like a better implemented version of those osx springy things in the dock a popup always on top file browser window toggled on or off with a button in the dock/startbar/etc, defaulting to your documents folder.   #  you mean like the quick start bar or pinned applications ?  # which is just like the mess of loose and drag able things on my  physical  desktop.  so far, it is a solid imitation.  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ? moving something to a different part of your physical desk perhaps ? have you not ever encountered a physical desk ? have you never rearranged or organized physical things on a desk ? seriously, have you not ever used a desk ? do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .  all users is for common things that everybody needs.  physical analogs would be a pencil cup, stapler, calendar, etc.  individual people often put random crap on their desks.  changing users is having one person clean their stuff off the desk, and then you putting yours back on it.  ok then.  you ca not access your desktop by going into the folder structure.  you can get to the files associated with your desktop, but the actual  desktop ui  is loaded.  it really goes  desktop ui    computer   hard drive   profile   desktop files   it is not as though people run applications un maximized, so there is this tedious business of minimizing everything just to get to the desktop content yes, when you have stuff open on a physical desk, you must clear it off to see the physical desk.  then delete the icon ? most installers give you the option of where to place icons.  you mean like the quick start bar or pinned applications ?  #  there is nothing stopping you from also having a folder open with what you need.   # the whole thing is a metaphor for.  wait for it.   a desk top .  it ws created when people were used to working with papers and folders on their desk, and so the  wouldesktop  ui concept attempts to parallel that.  people can move their files into folders based on how they want to organise things, and move the folders around the desk/desktop to places they will remember to look.  your desktop does not  contain  your computer this is just you misunderstanding it.  your desktop may or may not feature a shortcut to the overview of your computer.  your profile contains your  preferences  which tell the computer how you prefer your version of the desktop to be arranged.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  also you talk about this as someone who does not seem to have ever really  used  the desktop functionality, to be honest.  there is nothing stopping you from also having a folder open with what you need.  the desktop is simply a build in option to make the process more intuitive for those used to traditional desks.   #  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.   #  people are were ? used to dealing with  documents  on their physical desk tops, certainly.  however, desks do not have applications, and it makes very little sense to me that you would want to mix application shortcuts in with documents, and to shuffle their positions around.  as for moving documents around i think that remembering a screen position is pretty ineffective next to all the other cues we can use.  i can see that this was a necessary demystifying step in the late 0s/early 0s, when win0, amigados and the rest were just coming out, but in this day and age it amounts to really strained skeuomorphism.  uh, no, your user profile is your entire home directory.  which, under win, osx and every ods compliant linux desktop environment, also contains a desktop folder, which is where the files are actually located on disk.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  that comes off as rather patronizing.  amazingly, i, my workmates and the users we support all do all of those things, and except when working with multiple terminals open, pretty much everyone works fullscreen on everything, task switching or vd switching between applications and it is the ones who do not that end up needing the most hand holding.  especially given that screen real estate is a precious commodity when it comes to ui a decent amount of document visible at once and room to spread out the various toolbars being crucial it seems like a terribly style cramping compromise for very little benefit.  i have been using desktop functionality since the days of the c0, thank you very much and while a simple folder window does a fair bit of what is needed, the concept could be refined a fair bit to make it properly usable.  for instance, as a drag drop source or target, an always on top popup window docked to a screen edge would be a lot more convenient.   #  clicking this button again reopens all of your windows.   #  so, having shortcuts to programs and files you want to regularly access is somehow more cumbersome than having to navigate the same folder paths over and over again ? that is really all the desktop is an editable collection of shortcuts.  you can have as many or as few shortcuts as you like.  clicking this button again reopens all of your windows.  probably the most important point: people have been working with the desktop view for decades now.  it is the main way that many people interact with their computer is contents.  if you go and change it up, there is going to be a learning curve, and a lot of people will be frustrated with changing a system that is not even broken in the first place.   #  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.   # a one click show everything option ? how much more convenient could it get ? you likely need two clicks to open something on the desktop.  one to get the window in the foreground out of the way and the other to actually click the icon.  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.  it might even take a while to find the right one.  compare that to the  dock  in mac os x and comparable interfaces available for windows or linux distributions.  the  dock  shows a number of icons at one edge of the screen.  icons can be frequently used / open programs, which you want to reach quickly or drawers apple calls them  stacks  or something .  when you click a drawer a pop up is shown with the icons inside of the drawer.  you therefore need up to two clicks to reach everything of importance and can organize everything quite neatly into drawers.  you can also make it auto hide, unless the mouse is moved down, if you worry about wasted screen space.  if the start menu in windows would have worked like that, i doubt the desktop would have gotten as much use.  the usability of interfaces is obviously quite subjective and it may come down to personal preferences and habits, but you can always just try it out and see for yourself.
before we get started, no, i am not a metro fan, not even a little bit as far as i can see, the desktop is a hodgepodge of bad ideas all rolled together.  on windows, we have a mess of system icons and application icons just sitting there loose to drag around.  what.  i am sorry, you want to.  move an application to  a different part of your screen .  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ? and similarly, your various hard drive and other system icons.  what is the purpose of having them littering this weird junk drawer background window, and again, why all this concept of shuffling them around the screen ? why the hell is  picking them up and moving them  a useful thing to do ? and thrown in with these on mac and linux too , we have any random crap that the user happens to save there, mirroring the contents of some folder buried in their profile.  do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .  so let me get this straight.  my desktop contains my computer, which contains my hard drive, which contains my profile, which contains my desktop.  ok then.  it is not as though people run applications un maximized, so there is this tedious business of minimizing everything just to get to the desktop content, which is vastly less useful than just having a file browser window that does sensible things with z order, and has a ui far more amenable to sorting and finding the content you want anyway.  far more useful, imho, would be something like a better implemented version of those osx springy things in the dock a popup always on top file browser window toggled on or off with a button in the dock/startbar/etc, defaulting to your documents folder.  this would seem to provide all the features people want from a desktop, with none of the hideous ux.  what am i missing ? eta: oh, hell, i posted this just before going to bed.  i am not doing a dump and run it is just timezones . au here .  remove if you must :/  #  as far as i can see, the desktop is a hodgepodge of bad ideas all rolled together.   #  it is very easy to be critical of ideas when you have had the benefit of hindsight and are ignorant of the complexities involved in their development and creation.   # it is very easy to be critical of ideas when you have had the benefit of hindsight and are ignorant of the complexities involved in their development and creation.  the idea that the current paradigm of the desktop not being the theoretical ideal is a statement that is as assuredly true as it is unhelpful in practice.  you are effectively saying  things could be better, but i do not know how .  how is that helpful or productive if it is not linked to action ? one thing i recommend in this situation is that you sit down with a pen and paper and mock up your ideal ui and how it would work.  once you realise just how difficult it is you might have more of an appreciation for what we currently have.  this is the problem with people that think their use case is the only use case that matters which is why the metro lovers ca not understand why other people do not love their baby .  i run two monitors with a piece of docking software to divide the screens in 0 different ways if you do not include manually resizing windows .  as for the tedious business of minimising windows it is a single click to minimise all windows, how lazy can you get ? ok then.  mine does not.  maybe you should reconfigure your machine if that arrangement bothers you so much i would hate to see how you would react to symbolic links .  the desktop is nothing more than a folder that is rendered by the system as a background on which files and links can be placed.  why should not that folder be accessible as a folder on the filesystem ? is the crap as visual problem, a usability issue, or something else ? personal preference is one thing, but objective design decisions are quite another.  as for the unnecessary shortcuts, why are not you electing to not create them in the first place if they bother you so much ? this would seem to provide all the features people want from a desktop, with none of the hideous ux.  here is my thinking: instead of having a desktop, we have pages.  pages are like a wiki, they can contain anything including other pages , anywhere.  you can have as many pages as you like, pages can link to other pages or within pages.  system settings would be a protected class of page but it gives you an idea that both forms and applications could be pages in their own right .  the paradigm is not the desktop, it is the book.  since a page is nothing more than a collection of things, export and import should be trivial.  depending on how virtualisation and synchronization is implemented in a given install, you could migrate running pages between machines in interesting ways.  the file system would be a database and your access to it would be via queries.   d:\data\mp0s  is as valid a tag as  music  or  songs  are so legacy file system interfaces continue to work.  files become less about where they are and more about what they are used for.   #  your desktop does not  contain  your computer this is just you misunderstanding it.   # the whole thing is a metaphor for.  wait for it.   a desk top .  it ws created when people were used to working with papers and folders on their desk, and so the  wouldesktop  ui concept attempts to parallel that.  people can move their files into folders based on how they want to organise things, and move the folders around the desk/desktop to places they will remember to look.  your desktop does not  contain  your computer this is just you misunderstanding it.  your desktop may or may not feature a shortcut to the overview of your computer.  your profile contains your  preferences  which tell the computer how you prefer your version of the desktop to be arranged.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  also you talk about this as someone who does not seem to have ever really  used  the desktop functionality, to be honest.  there is nothing stopping you from also having a folder open with what you need.  the desktop is simply a build in option to make the process more intuitive for those used to traditional desks.   #  which, under win, osx and every ods compliant linux desktop environment, also contains a desktop folder, which is where the files are actually located on disk.   #  people are were ? used to dealing with  documents  on their physical desk tops, certainly.  however, desks do not have applications, and it makes very little sense to me that you would want to mix application shortcuts in with documents, and to shuffle their positions around.  as for moving documents around i think that remembering a screen position is pretty ineffective next to all the other cues we can use.  i can see that this was a necessary demystifying step in the late 0s/early 0s, when win0, amigados and the rest were just coming out, but in this day and age it amounts to really strained skeuomorphism.  uh, no, your user profile is your entire home directory.  which, under win, osx and every ods compliant linux desktop environment, also contains a desktop folder, which is where the files are actually located on disk.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  that comes off as rather patronizing.  amazingly, i, my workmates and the users we support all do all of those things, and except when working with multiple terminals open, pretty much everyone works fullscreen on everything, task switching or vd switching between applications and it is the ones who do not that end up needing the most hand holding.  especially given that screen real estate is a precious commodity when it comes to ui a decent amount of document visible at once and room to spread out the various toolbars being crucial it seems like a terribly style cramping compromise for very little benefit.  i have been using desktop functionality since the days of the c0, thank you very much and while a simple folder window does a fair bit of what is needed, the concept could be refined a fair bit to make it properly usable.  for instance, as a drag drop source or target, an always on top popup window docked to a screen edge would be a lot more convenient.   #  clicking this button again reopens all of your windows.   #  so, having shortcuts to programs and files you want to regularly access is somehow more cumbersome than having to navigate the same folder paths over and over again ? that is really all the desktop is an editable collection of shortcuts.  you can have as many or as few shortcuts as you like.  clicking this button again reopens all of your windows.  probably the most important point: people have been working with the desktop view for decades now.  it is the main way that many people interact with their computer is contents.  if you go and change it up, there is going to be a learning curve, and a lot of people will be frustrated with changing a system that is not even broken in the first place.   #  one to get the window in the foreground out of the way and the other to actually click the icon.   # a one click show everything option ? how much more convenient could it get ? you likely need two clicks to open something on the desktop.  one to get the window in the foreground out of the way and the other to actually click the icon.  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.  it might even take a while to find the right one.  compare that to the  dock  in mac os x and comparable interfaces available for windows or linux distributions.  the  dock  shows a number of icons at one edge of the screen.  icons can be frequently used / open programs, which you want to reach quickly or drawers apple calls them  stacks  or something .  when you click a drawer a pop up is shown with the icons inside of the drawer.  you therefore need up to two clicks to reach everything of importance and can organize everything quite neatly into drawers.  you can also make it auto hide, unless the mouse is moved down, if you worry about wasted screen space.  if the start menu in windows would have worked like that, i doubt the desktop would have gotten as much use.  the usability of interfaces is obviously quite subjective and it may come down to personal preferences and habits, but you can always just try it out and see for yourself.
before we get started, no, i am not a metro fan, not even a little bit as far as i can see, the desktop is a hodgepodge of bad ideas all rolled together.  on windows, we have a mess of system icons and application icons just sitting there loose to drag around.  what.  i am sorry, you want to.  move an application to  a different part of your screen .  what is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for, for pete is sake ? and similarly, your various hard drive and other system icons.  what is the purpose of having them littering this weird junk drawer background window, and again, why all this concept of shuffling them around the screen ? why the hell is  picking them up and moving them  a useful thing to do ? and thrown in with these on mac and linux too , we have any random crap that the user happens to save there, mirroring the contents of some folder buried in their profile.  do not get me started on the  all users  desktop under windows .  so let me get this straight.  my desktop contains my computer, which contains my hard drive, which contains my profile, which contains my desktop.  ok then.  it is not as though people run applications un maximized, so there is this tedious business of minimizing everything just to get to the desktop content, which is vastly less useful than just having a file browser window that does sensible things with z order, and has a ui far more amenable to sorting and finding the content you want anyway.  far more useful, imho, would be something like a better implemented version of those osx springy things in the dock a popup always on top file browser window toggled on or off with a button in the dock/startbar/etc, defaulting to your documents folder.  this would seem to provide all the features people want from a desktop, with none of the hideous ux.  what am i missing ? eta: oh, hell, i posted this just before going to bed.  i am not doing a dump and run it is just timezones . au here .  remove if you must :/  #  far more useful, imho, would be something like a better implemented version of those osx springy things in the dock a popup always on top file browser window toggled on or off with a button in the dock/startbar/etc, defaulting to your documents folder.   #  this would seem to provide all the features people want from a desktop, with none of the hideous ux.   # it is very easy to be critical of ideas when you have had the benefit of hindsight and are ignorant of the complexities involved in their development and creation.  the idea that the current paradigm of the desktop not being the theoretical ideal is a statement that is as assuredly true as it is unhelpful in practice.  you are effectively saying  things could be better, but i do not know how .  how is that helpful or productive if it is not linked to action ? one thing i recommend in this situation is that you sit down with a pen and paper and mock up your ideal ui and how it would work.  once you realise just how difficult it is you might have more of an appreciation for what we currently have.  this is the problem with people that think their use case is the only use case that matters which is why the metro lovers ca not understand why other people do not love their baby .  i run two monitors with a piece of docking software to divide the screens in 0 different ways if you do not include manually resizing windows .  as for the tedious business of minimising windows it is a single click to minimise all windows, how lazy can you get ? ok then.  mine does not.  maybe you should reconfigure your machine if that arrangement bothers you so much i would hate to see how you would react to symbolic links .  the desktop is nothing more than a folder that is rendered by the system as a background on which files and links can be placed.  why should not that folder be accessible as a folder on the filesystem ? is the crap as visual problem, a usability issue, or something else ? personal preference is one thing, but objective design decisions are quite another.  as for the unnecessary shortcuts, why are not you electing to not create them in the first place if they bother you so much ? this would seem to provide all the features people want from a desktop, with none of the hideous ux.  here is my thinking: instead of having a desktop, we have pages.  pages are like a wiki, they can contain anything including other pages , anywhere.  you can have as many pages as you like, pages can link to other pages or within pages.  system settings would be a protected class of page but it gives you an idea that both forms and applications could be pages in their own right .  the paradigm is not the desktop, it is the book.  since a page is nothing more than a collection of things, export and import should be trivial.  depending on how virtualisation and synchronization is implemented in a given install, you could migrate running pages between machines in interesting ways.  the file system would be a database and your access to it would be via queries.   d:\data\mp0s  is as valid a tag as  music  or  songs  are so legacy file system interfaces continue to work.  files become less about where they are and more about what they are used for.   #  your profile contains your  preferences  which tell the computer how you prefer your version of the desktop to be arranged.   # the whole thing is a metaphor for.  wait for it.   a desk top .  it ws created when people were used to working with papers and folders on their desk, and so the  wouldesktop  ui concept attempts to parallel that.  people can move their files into folders based on how they want to organise things, and move the folders around the desk/desktop to places they will remember to look.  your desktop does not  contain  your computer this is just you misunderstanding it.  your desktop may or may not feature a shortcut to the overview of your computer.  your profile contains your  preferences  which tell the computer how you prefer your version of the desktop to be arranged.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  also you talk about this as someone who does not seem to have ever really  used  the desktop functionality, to be honest.  there is nothing stopping you from also having a folder open with what you need.  the desktop is simply a build in option to make the process more intuitive for those used to traditional desks.   #  uh, no, your user profile is your entire home directory.   #  people are were ? used to dealing with  documents  on their physical desk tops, certainly.  however, desks do not have applications, and it makes very little sense to me that you would want to mix application shortcuts in with documents, and to shuffle their positions around.  as for moving documents around i think that remembering a screen position is pretty ineffective next to all the other cues we can use.  i can see that this was a necessary demystifying step in the late 0s/early 0s, when win0, amigados and the rest were just coming out, but in this day and age it amounts to really strained skeuomorphism.  uh, no, your user profile is your entire home directory.  which, under win, osx and every ods compliant linux desktop environment, also contains a desktop folder, which is where the files are actually located on disk.  particularly developers and/or people with multiple monitors, but also most people who work with computers and use them on a daily basis for multi tasking.  that comes off as rather patronizing.  amazingly, i, my workmates and the users we support all do all of those things, and except when working with multiple terminals open, pretty much everyone works fullscreen on everything, task switching or vd switching between applications and it is the ones who do not that end up needing the most hand holding.  especially given that screen real estate is a precious commodity when it comes to ui a decent amount of document visible at once and room to spread out the various toolbars being crucial it seems like a terribly style cramping compromise for very little benefit.  i have been using desktop functionality since the days of the c0, thank you very much and while a simple folder window does a fair bit of what is needed, the concept could be refined a fair bit to make it properly usable.  for instance, as a drag drop source or target, an always on top popup window docked to a screen edge would be a lot more convenient.   #  probably the most important point: people have been working with the desktop view for decades now.   #  so, having shortcuts to programs and files you want to regularly access is somehow more cumbersome than having to navigate the same folder paths over and over again ? that is really all the desktop is an editable collection of shortcuts.  you can have as many or as few shortcuts as you like.  clicking this button again reopens all of your windows.  probably the most important point: people have been working with the desktop view for decades now.  it is the main way that many people interact with their computer is contents.  if you go and change it up, there is going to be a learning curve, and a lot of people will be frustrated with changing a system that is not even broken in the first place.   #  you likely need two clicks to open something on the desktop.   # a one click show everything option ? how much more convenient could it get ? you likely need two clicks to open something on the desktop.  one to get the window in the foreground out of the way and the other to actually click the icon.  the icons on the desktop are somewhat difficult to organize.  it might even take a while to find the right one.  compare that to the  dock  in mac os x and comparable interfaces available for windows or linux distributions.  the  dock  shows a number of icons at one edge of the screen.  icons can be frequently used / open programs, which you want to reach quickly or drawers apple calls them  stacks  or something .  when you click a drawer a pop up is shown with the icons inside of the drawer.  you therefore need up to two clicks to reach everything of importance and can organize everything quite neatly into drawers.  you can also make it auto hide, unless the mouse is moved down, if you worry about wasted screen space.  if the start menu in windows would have worked like that, i doubt the desktop would have gotten as much use.  the usability of interfaces is obviously quite subjective and it may come down to personal preferences and habits, but you can always just try it out and see for yourself.
i think data should be treated equally for fairness, openness, and variety of expression.  i do not think high traffic websites or subscribers should be individually charged to get a  fast lane  treatment.  but i do think that there is a real cost structure analysis involved when isp is are seeking compensation from players like netflix.  shitty analogy removed it is a problem, but one that ties into problems with american capitalism, not so much net neutrality.  executed correctly in legislature and regulation, my line of thought is that small content creators up and coming netflixes would pay isps little to nothing for the same high traffic bitrate as the big companies who are paying fees for their heavy traffic.  it does not have to be a slow lane or a fast lane.  just,  traffic heavy content distributors pay a fee because that is how infrastructure and traffic load work, and if you do not pay, the law kicks in with penalties .  that said, i think it should be illegal to arbitrarily slow particular data down in a network.  so, why do you think light contributors to congestion should pay for the infrastructure just as much as the heavy contributors ?  #   traffic heavy content distributors pay a fee because that is how infrastructure and traffic load work, and if you do not pay, the law kicks in with penalties .   #  distributors have very little control over where their content is accessed from, and no control over which isps people subscribe to and how much they value their bandwidth.   # distributors have very little control over where their content is accessed from, and no control over which isps people subscribe to and how much they value their bandwidth.  additionally, content distributors are already paying for their own servers and outgoing bandwidth.  the bottleneck is not that content distributors are not being efficient they already have every reason to be efficient.  the bottleneck comes from the outdated infrastructure of the cable companies.  your london analogy works better if the automakers are paying the congestion tax.   #  i paid for this service and this is what i should receive, regardless of who i am connected to.   # i think your analogy is flawed.  since in we already pay the  congestion tax  when we pay for our internet service.  i pay a certain amount every month to be connected to the internet at a certain speed.  i paid for this service and this is what i should receive, regardless of who i am connected to.  you would need to argue for the legitimacy of charging a business again for congestion because they get lots of customers.  if i am charging each individual car for the traffic it creates i do not also have to charge each business for the customers it receives.   #  this is not a direct  congestion tax , though, and it does not correlate to the ratio of employees driving to work.   #  hmmm, businesses do pay taxes on their real estate, which go in part towards government infrastructure such as roads.  this is not a direct  congestion tax , though, and it does not correlate to the ratio of employees driving to work.  you are right, the analogy does not line up in that way.  i should make it clear that it was meant to get the reader on the same infrastructure cost line of thinking as me, and to dispel ideas of,  but electrons traveling through wires costs almost nothing !   i think the rest of my analysis that follows makes my point more clearly than the analogy, so i will edit the analogy.  thanks for your thoughts  #  south korea still leads at nearly double the average u. s.   #  the problem is the idea of  congestion  on the internet.  how do you square you opinion with something like this URL fact is in the u. s.  unless you go through a vpn at additional cost you are bottlenecked out of the gate and additionally according to your payment plan.  this search URL reveals the following:  as of 0, akamai measured the fastest average download data rate of 0 mbit/s in south korea, which is over 0 faster than the next ranked country, japan, with 0 mbit/s.  according to this article URL those speeds are available in south korea for 0 usd.  a look at this more current data URL puts the u. s.  at 0th fastest.  south korea still leads at nearly double the average u. s.  speed.  now check out this article URL u. s.  citizens pay nearly 0 times the price for a speed similar to south korea.  i speak from a u. s.  perspective because i am from there.  however, this data and the relevant articles also cover the uk and in the last article london specifically.  i make this point not to change your mind per se but to point out there is some heavy obfuscation going on from the supply side.  much of the rhetoric and  dialogue  surrounding the issue is controlled by the telecoms and they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  i caution skepticism when making considerations from that perspective given that conglomerate interests are purely in profit and not service.   #  that price is set to go up after a year of use.   #  i think the infrastructure argument would have merit if not for things like this URL  chattanooga has the largest high speed internet service in the us, offering customers access to speeds of 0 gigabit per second   about 0 times faster than the us average.  we can look at their site URL and see that you can get that 0 gigabit connection for 0 usd.  to give you an idea of the disparity i will tell you what i spend.  i currently pay 0 usd for  speeds up to  0 mbps through at t.  the reality of my connection is a flakey 0mbps down.  that price is set to go up after a year of use.  the larger point here is on their history page URL which notes the launch of their 0 gigabit offering as of 0, a year before google announced its plans to offer google fiber.  to top it all off the money you spend on chattanooga is internet service goes right back into the community.  if none of this convinces you then perhaps comcast is demonstration of 0gbps over broadband will URL
people that take a stand against same sex marriage typically will use any number of irrational and illogical arguments.  one of the most common is that gay marriage somehow cheapens their marriage or that marriage is between defined as being between a man and a woman.  ignoring the glaring flaw, that marriage is specifically not defined as between a man and a woman in america , people should be looking at this stance as religious intolerance.  first off, their are christian churches that are willing to marry gay people.  so right off the bat, to take this stand against gay marriage is being intolerant against certain forms of christianity.  many buddhist sects are also accepting of gay marriage.  so when you look at the fact that multiple different religions have opposing views, how could you possibly come to any conclusion other than the fact that you are being intolerant of other religious traditions ? the part of my title that mentions civil unions is a response to another common argument by anti gay marriage advocates, which is that they just do not think it should be called marriage between same sex partners.  this still falls under the category of being intolerant because you are trying to dictate what their religious beliefs label their union but it brings up another concern.  if you think that marriage is a religious term, why do you think the government should be issuing marriage certificates to anybody when we are supposed to have a separation of church and state in this country ? should not it be the same as most of the rest of the world where you can get a government union and then have a religious ceremony separately ? more specifically, why would it be okay to create a law that specifically creates inequality ?  #  the part of my title that mentions civil unions is a response to another common argument by anti gay marriage advocates, which is that they just do not think it should be called marriage between same sex partners.   #  this still falls under the category of being intolerant because you are trying to dictate what their religious beliefs label their union but it brings up another concern.   # this still falls under the category of being intolerant because you are trying to dictate what their religious beliefs label their union but it brings up another concern.  if you think that marriage is a religious term, why do you think the government should be issuing marriage certificates to anybody when we are supposed to have a separation of church and state in this country ? should not it be the same as most of the rest of the world where you can get a government union and then have a religious ceremony separately ? more specifically, why would it be okay to create a law that specifically creates inequality ? actually, in my experience people who contend that the government give out civil unions to same sex couples as opposed to marriages would say the same thing about different sex couples.  for people coming from the religious point of view,  marriage  means a religious rite/sacrament/whatever and is not something that the government even has the authority to distribute.  up until recently, the civil unions that the government  did  distribute were used mostly as formal records and legal crap to supplement a religious marriage.  nowadays, with the shift towards allowing same sex marriage, religious institutions no longer want the two to be conflated.  so, since the government only really gives out civil unions anyways, the religious would prefer it is labelled as such.  even  for different sex couples.  the only way to get an actual marriage in their eyes is through the church.   #  on the other hand, attacking the problem from the other angle, giving more and more people access to what marriage provides is much easier, and will get easier with every step.   #  your view seems pointlessly difficult to enact.  let is see, marriage currently provides things you think you should be able to access at will, but ca not.  therefore, first you want those privileges to be taken away from everybody, and once that is done, you think they will be recreated in another form without limits ? this is entirely unrealistic because marriage has a lot of traction, and making people give up something they have is a lot harder than to give people something they did not have before.  i would say it is pretty much guaranteed that you being against marriage in general wo not go anywhere, ever.  on the other hand, attacking the problem from the other angle, giving more and more people access to what marriage provides is much easier, and will get easier with every step.  in fact, once gay marriage is in force, nobody will stop you from doing what you want.  there is no law that says you have to be romantically involved to marry.  two random redditors decided to marry out of the blue at one point, without having met each other even.   #  the issues regarding same sex marriage are a tax break, hospital visitation, and the passing on of goods not declared in a will among others .   #  you are clearly just trying to be contradictory and you are ignoring the intention of my post.  first off, nothing is stopping anybody from pooling resources.  the issues regarding same sex marriage are a tax break, hospital visitation, and the passing on of goods not declared in a will among others .  the tax system would have to be completely restructed in order to be able to apply the break to multiple parties under the same household and if they were to consider this they would probably just take the tax break away from everybody.  you also did not really present a reason why you would be against gay marriage.  a desire to see the definition of marriage extended to a different population other than homosexuals or hetero sexuals hardly constitutes a valid reason to want to deny the extension of the same rights to homosexuals.  if anything, your stance should be to support the extension of the definition of marriage to new populations in order for the definition to extend to your interest.   #  URL and gay marriage opponents often cite non religious reasoning.   #  there is long precedent in the government overriding certain sorts of religious freedoms for marriage.  it bans incestful marriages, polygamous marriages because there are actual practical negative impacts of these sorts of marriages inbreeding and various degradations of women respectively .  URL and gay marriage opponents often cite non religious reasoning.  the government has a reasonable right to impose some laws on marriage to support the goodness of society.  they do offer a number of benefits and have reasonably good reasons to prohibit certain relationships.  you likely imagine that by tying religious intolerance into it you are strengthening the argument in favor of gay marriage.  but i suspect you would want whatever laws to override religious wishes and say, force hospitals to let gay couples see their partners and such.  and this is good since gay marriage is good and should be allowed, and certain religious rights should be overridden to enable gay marriage to happen.  it should be accepted that there are non religious arguments in favor of gay marriage, that they are incorrect, and therefore it is fair to impose various measures to allow gay marriage.  it should be fair to create a law that creates inequality if it is done for reasonable non religious reasons.   #  this is not a christian nation or even a nation based on christianity , and redefining legal marriage has no effect on religious rights.   # there is no good non religious reasoning.  that website tries to imply that we need to encourage reproduction we do not , that only opposite sex couples can raise children wrong , and that people wo not procreate without marriage also wrong .  there are already separate benefits for  parents  with children, and marriage only includes benefits for people  with respect to each other and the government .  those people will be in a relationship anyway, and opposition to their marriage only introduces  hardship .  this is about equality.  two people should have equal access to the set of rights that comes with marriage.  we all know how well   separate but equal   works out; the easiest way to give them equal rights is to just give it to them.  at some point the only difference would be the label.  why fight for a label ? you have no religious rights in regards to other people.  churches can still choose to recognize whatever type of marriage they want.  same sex couples only want to be recognized equally by the  government .  this is not a christian nation or even a nation based on christianity , and redefining legal marriage has no effect on religious rights.  and there is not a single religious reason.  unless you can apply all the arguments against gay couples to couples that are sterile, old, or not planning to have children; you have no non religious points.
people that take a stand against same sex marriage typically will use any number of irrational and illogical arguments.  one of the most common is that gay marriage somehow cheapens their marriage or that marriage is between defined as being between a man and a woman.  ignoring the glaring flaw, that marriage is specifically not defined as between a man and a woman in america , people should be looking at this stance as religious intolerance.  first off, their are christian churches that are willing to marry gay people.  so right off the bat, to take this stand against gay marriage is being intolerant against certain forms of christianity.  many buddhist sects are also accepting of gay marriage.  so when you look at the fact that multiple different religions have opposing views, how could you possibly come to any conclusion other than the fact that you are being intolerant of other religious traditions ? the part of my title that mentions civil unions is a response to another common argument by anti gay marriage advocates, which is that they just do not think it should be called marriage between same sex partners.  this still falls under the category of being intolerant because you are trying to dictate what their religious beliefs label their union but it brings up another concern.  if you think that marriage is a religious term, why do you think the government should be issuing marriage certificates to anybody when we are supposed to have a separation of church and state in this country ? should not it be the same as most of the rest of the world where you can get a government union and then have a religious ceremony separately ? more specifically, why would it be okay to create a law that specifically creates inequality ?  #  people should be looking at this stance as religious intolerance.   #  first off, their are christian churches that are willing to marry gay people.   # these were decided in some of the states by a popular vote.  the 0th amendment protects states and allows them to do this very thing.  i am not sure how the 0th amendment is irrational and illogical, but maybe you will tell me ? it is also defined that way in the english dictionary.  first off, their are christian churches that are willing to marry gay people.  there are also christian churches willing to have polygamy, yet that is also illegal.  why are you not rallying against the illegality of polygamy ? many buddhist sects are also accepting of gay marriage.  just because i do not have the same opinion as someone else, and i do not support their opinion does not make me intolerant.  i do not think that way, why do you assume what other people are thinking ? yes.  though it is not that easy.  there are hundreds of years of marriage laws on the books where the definition of marriage during the creation of that legislation was inferred to be the definition that you disagree with .  like affirmative action ? i am not sure.   #  this is entirely unrealistic because marriage has a lot of traction, and making people give up something they have is a lot harder than to give people something they did not have before.   #  your view seems pointlessly difficult to enact.  let is see, marriage currently provides things you think you should be able to access at will, but ca not.  therefore, first you want those privileges to be taken away from everybody, and once that is done, you think they will be recreated in another form without limits ? this is entirely unrealistic because marriage has a lot of traction, and making people give up something they have is a lot harder than to give people something they did not have before.  i would say it is pretty much guaranteed that you being against marriage in general wo not go anywhere, ever.  on the other hand, attacking the problem from the other angle, giving more and more people access to what marriage provides is much easier, and will get easier with every step.  in fact, once gay marriage is in force, nobody will stop you from doing what you want.  there is no law that says you have to be romantically involved to marry.  two random redditors decided to marry out of the blue at one point, without having met each other even.   #  first off, nothing is stopping anybody from pooling resources.   #  you are clearly just trying to be contradictory and you are ignoring the intention of my post.  first off, nothing is stopping anybody from pooling resources.  the issues regarding same sex marriage are a tax break, hospital visitation, and the passing on of goods not declared in a will among others .  the tax system would have to be completely restructed in order to be able to apply the break to multiple parties under the same household and if they were to consider this they would probably just take the tax break away from everybody.  you also did not really present a reason why you would be against gay marriage.  a desire to see the definition of marriage extended to a different population other than homosexuals or hetero sexuals hardly constitutes a valid reason to want to deny the extension of the same rights to homosexuals.  if anything, your stance should be to support the extension of the definition of marriage to new populations in order for the definition to extend to your interest.   #  URL and gay marriage opponents often cite non religious reasoning.   #  there is long precedent in the government overriding certain sorts of religious freedoms for marriage.  it bans incestful marriages, polygamous marriages because there are actual practical negative impacts of these sorts of marriages inbreeding and various degradations of women respectively .  URL and gay marriage opponents often cite non religious reasoning.  the government has a reasonable right to impose some laws on marriage to support the goodness of society.  they do offer a number of benefits and have reasonably good reasons to prohibit certain relationships.  you likely imagine that by tying religious intolerance into it you are strengthening the argument in favor of gay marriage.  but i suspect you would want whatever laws to override religious wishes and say, force hospitals to let gay couples see their partners and such.  and this is good since gay marriage is good and should be allowed, and certain religious rights should be overridden to enable gay marriage to happen.  it should be accepted that there are non religious arguments in favor of gay marriage, that they are incorrect, and therefore it is fair to impose various measures to allow gay marriage.  it should be fair to create a law that creates inequality if it is done for reasonable non religious reasons.   #  churches can still choose to recognize whatever type of marriage they want.   # there is no good non religious reasoning.  that website tries to imply that we need to encourage reproduction we do not , that only opposite sex couples can raise children wrong , and that people wo not procreate without marriage also wrong .  there are already separate benefits for  parents  with children, and marriage only includes benefits for people  with respect to each other and the government .  those people will be in a relationship anyway, and opposition to their marriage only introduces  hardship .  this is about equality.  two people should have equal access to the set of rights that comes with marriage.  we all know how well   separate but equal   works out; the easiest way to give them equal rights is to just give it to them.  at some point the only difference would be the label.  why fight for a label ? you have no religious rights in regards to other people.  churches can still choose to recognize whatever type of marriage they want.  same sex couples only want to be recognized equally by the  government .  this is not a christian nation or even a nation based on christianity , and redefining legal marriage has no effect on religious rights.  and there is not a single religious reason.  unless you can apply all the arguments against gay couples to couples that are sterile, old, or not planning to have children; you have no non religious points.
people that take a stand against same sex marriage typically will use any number of irrational and illogical arguments.  one of the most common is that gay marriage somehow cheapens their marriage or that marriage is between defined as being between a man and a woman.  ignoring the glaring flaw, that marriage is specifically not defined as between a man and a woman in america , people should be looking at this stance as religious intolerance.  first off, their are christian churches that are willing to marry gay people.  so right off the bat, to take this stand against gay marriage is being intolerant against certain forms of christianity.  many buddhist sects are also accepting of gay marriage.  so when you look at the fact that multiple different religions have opposing views, how could you possibly come to any conclusion other than the fact that you are being intolerant of other religious traditions ? the part of my title that mentions civil unions is a response to another common argument by anti gay marriage advocates, which is that they just do not think it should be called marriage between same sex partners.  this still falls under the category of being intolerant because you are trying to dictate what their religious beliefs label their union but it brings up another concern.  if you think that marriage is a religious term, why do you think the government should be issuing marriage certificates to anybody when we are supposed to have a separation of church and state in this country ? should not it be the same as most of the rest of the world where you can get a government union and then have a religious ceremony separately ? more specifically, why would it be okay to create a law that specifically creates inequality ?  #  so right off the bat, to take this stand against gay marriage is being intolerant against certain forms of christianity.   #  many buddhist sects are also accepting of gay marriage.   # these were decided in some of the states by a popular vote.  the 0th amendment protects states and allows them to do this very thing.  i am not sure how the 0th amendment is irrational and illogical, but maybe you will tell me ? it is also defined that way in the english dictionary.  first off, their are christian churches that are willing to marry gay people.  there are also christian churches willing to have polygamy, yet that is also illegal.  why are you not rallying against the illegality of polygamy ? many buddhist sects are also accepting of gay marriage.  just because i do not have the same opinion as someone else, and i do not support their opinion does not make me intolerant.  i do not think that way, why do you assume what other people are thinking ? yes.  though it is not that easy.  there are hundreds of years of marriage laws on the books where the definition of marriage during the creation of that legislation was inferred to be the definition that you disagree with .  like affirmative action ? i am not sure.   #  let is see, marriage currently provides things you think you should be able to access at will, but ca not.   #  your view seems pointlessly difficult to enact.  let is see, marriage currently provides things you think you should be able to access at will, but ca not.  therefore, first you want those privileges to be taken away from everybody, and once that is done, you think they will be recreated in another form without limits ? this is entirely unrealistic because marriage has a lot of traction, and making people give up something they have is a lot harder than to give people something they did not have before.  i would say it is pretty much guaranteed that you being against marriage in general wo not go anywhere, ever.  on the other hand, attacking the problem from the other angle, giving more and more people access to what marriage provides is much easier, and will get easier with every step.  in fact, once gay marriage is in force, nobody will stop you from doing what you want.  there is no law that says you have to be romantically involved to marry.  two random redditors decided to marry out of the blue at one point, without having met each other even.   #  first off, nothing is stopping anybody from pooling resources.   #  you are clearly just trying to be contradictory and you are ignoring the intention of my post.  first off, nothing is stopping anybody from pooling resources.  the issues regarding same sex marriage are a tax break, hospital visitation, and the passing on of goods not declared in a will among others .  the tax system would have to be completely restructed in order to be able to apply the break to multiple parties under the same household and if they were to consider this they would probably just take the tax break away from everybody.  you also did not really present a reason why you would be against gay marriage.  a desire to see the definition of marriage extended to a different population other than homosexuals or hetero sexuals hardly constitutes a valid reason to want to deny the extension of the same rights to homosexuals.  if anything, your stance should be to support the extension of the definition of marriage to new populations in order for the definition to extend to your interest.   #  URL and gay marriage opponents often cite non religious reasoning.   #  there is long precedent in the government overriding certain sorts of religious freedoms for marriage.  it bans incestful marriages, polygamous marriages because there are actual practical negative impacts of these sorts of marriages inbreeding and various degradations of women respectively .  URL and gay marriage opponents often cite non religious reasoning.  the government has a reasonable right to impose some laws on marriage to support the goodness of society.  they do offer a number of benefits and have reasonably good reasons to prohibit certain relationships.  you likely imagine that by tying religious intolerance into it you are strengthening the argument in favor of gay marriage.  but i suspect you would want whatever laws to override religious wishes and say, force hospitals to let gay couples see their partners and such.  and this is good since gay marriage is good and should be allowed, and certain religious rights should be overridden to enable gay marriage to happen.  it should be accepted that there are non religious arguments in favor of gay marriage, that they are incorrect, and therefore it is fair to impose various measures to allow gay marriage.  it should be fair to create a law that creates inequality if it is done for reasonable non religious reasons.   #  we all know how well   separate but equal   works out; the easiest way to give them equal rights is to just give it to them.   # there is no good non religious reasoning.  that website tries to imply that we need to encourage reproduction we do not , that only opposite sex couples can raise children wrong , and that people wo not procreate without marriage also wrong .  there are already separate benefits for  parents  with children, and marriage only includes benefits for people  with respect to each other and the government .  those people will be in a relationship anyway, and opposition to their marriage only introduces  hardship .  this is about equality.  two people should have equal access to the set of rights that comes with marriage.  we all know how well   separate but equal   works out; the easiest way to give them equal rights is to just give it to them.  at some point the only difference would be the label.  why fight for a label ? you have no religious rights in regards to other people.  churches can still choose to recognize whatever type of marriage they want.  same sex couples only want to be recognized equally by the  government .  this is not a christian nation or even a nation based on christianity , and redefining legal marriage has no effect on religious rights.  and there is not a single religious reason.  unless you can apply all the arguments against gay couples to couples that are sterile, old, or not planning to have children; you have no non religious points.
people that take a stand against same sex marriage typically will use any number of irrational and illogical arguments.  one of the most common is that gay marriage somehow cheapens their marriage or that marriage is between defined as being between a man and a woman.  ignoring the glaring flaw, that marriage is specifically not defined as between a man and a woman in america , people should be looking at this stance as religious intolerance.  first off, their are christian churches that are willing to marry gay people.  so right off the bat, to take this stand against gay marriage is being intolerant against certain forms of christianity.  many buddhist sects are also accepting of gay marriage.  so when you look at the fact that multiple different religions have opposing views, how could you possibly come to any conclusion other than the fact that you are being intolerant of other religious traditions ? the part of my title that mentions civil unions is a response to another common argument by anti gay marriage advocates, which is that they just do not think it should be called marriage between same sex partners.  this still falls under the category of being intolerant because you are trying to dictate what their religious beliefs label their union but it brings up another concern.  if you think that marriage is a religious term, why do you think the government should be issuing marriage certificates to anybody when we are supposed to have a separation of church and state in this country ? should not it be the same as most of the rest of the world where you can get a government union and then have a religious ceremony separately ? more specifically, why would it be okay to create a law that specifically creates inequality ?  #  if you think that marriage is a religious term, why do you think the government should be issuing marriage certificates to anybody when we are supposed to have a separation of church and state in this country ?  #  i do not think that way, why do you assume what other people are thinking ?  # these were decided in some of the states by a popular vote.  the 0th amendment protects states and allows them to do this very thing.  i am not sure how the 0th amendment is irrational and illogical, but maybe you will tell me ? it is also defined that way in the english dictionary.  first off, their are christian churches that are willing to marry gay people.  there are also christian churches willing to have polygamy, yet that is also illegal.  why are you not rallying against the illegality of polygamy ? many buddhist sects are also accepting of gay marriage.  just because i do not have the same opinion as someone else, and i do not support their opinion does not make me intolerant.  i do not think that way, why do you assume what other people are thinking ? yes.  though it is not that easy.  there are hundreds of years of marriage laws on the books where the definition of marriage during the creation of that legislation was inferred to be the definition that you disagree with .  like affirmative action ? i am not sure.   #  therefore, first you want those privileges to be taken away from everybody, and once that is done, you think they will be recreated in another form without limits ?  #  your view seems pointlessly difficult to enact.  let is see, marriage currently provides things you think you should be able to access at will, but ca not.  therefore, first you want those privileges to be taken away from everybody, and once that is done, you think they will be recreated in another form without limits ? this is entirely unrealistic because marriage has a lot of traction, and making people give up something they have is a lot harder than to give people something they did not have before.  i would say it is pretty much guaranteed that you being against marriage in general wo not go anywhere, ever.  on the other hand, attacking the problem from the other angle, giving more and more people access to what marriage provides is much easier, and will get easier with every step.  in fact, once gay marriage is in force, nobody will stop you from doing what you want.  there is no law that says you have to be romantically involved to marry.  two random redditors decided to marry out of the blue at one point, without having met each other even.   #  you are clearly just trying to be contradictory and you are ignoring the intention of my post.   #  you are clearly just trying to be contradictory and you are ignoring the intention of my post.  first off, nothing is stopping anybody from pooling resources.  the issues regarding same sex marriage are a tax break, hospital visitation, and the passing on of goods not declared in a will among others .  the tax system would have to be completely restructed in order to be able to apply the break to multiple parties under the same household and if they were to consider this they would probably just take the tax break away from everybody.  you also did not really present a reason why you would be against gay marriage.  a desire to see the definition of marriage extended to a different population other than homosexuals or hetero sexuals hardly constitutes a valid reason to want to deny the extension of the same rights to homosexuals.  if anything, your stance should be to support the extension of the definition of marriage to new populations in order for the definition to extend to your interest.   #  and this is good since gay marriage is good and should be allowed, and certain religious rights should be overridden to enable gay marriage to happen.   #  there is long precedent in the government overriding certain sorts of religious freedoms for marriage.  it bans incestful marriages, polygamous marriages because there are actual practical negative impacts of these sorts of marriages inbreeding and various degradations of women respectively .  URL and gay marriage opponents often cite non religious reasoning.  the government has a reasonable right to impose some laws on marriage to support the goodness of society.  they do offer a number of benefits and have reasonably good reasons to prohibit certain relationships.  you likely imagine that by tying religious intolerance into it you are strengthening the argument in favor of gay marriage.  but i suspect you would want whatever laws to override religious wishes and say, force hospitals to let gay couples see their partners and such.  and this is good since gay marriage is good and should be allowed, and certain religious rights should be overridden to enable gay marriage to happen.  it should be accepted that there are non religious arguments in favor of gay marriage, that they are incorrect, and therefore it is fair to impose various measures to allow gay marriage.  it should be fair to create a law that creates inequality if it is done for reasonable non religious reasons.   #  that website tries to imply that we need to encourage reproduction we do not , that only opposite sex couples can raise children wrong , and that people wo not procreate without marriage also wrong .   # there is no good non religious reasoning.  that website tries to imply that we need to encourage reproduction we do not , that only opposite sex couples can raise children wrong , and that people wo not procreate without marriage also wrong .  there are already separate benefits for  parents  with children, and marriage only includes benefits for people  with respect to each other and the government .  those people will be in a relationship anyway, and opposition to their marriage only introduces  hardship .  this is about equality.  two people should have equal access to the set of rights that comes with marriage.  we all know how well   separate but equal   works out; the easiest way to give them equal rights is to just give it to them.  at some point the only difference would be the label.  why fight for a label ? you have no religious rights in regards to other people.  churches can still choose to recognize whatever type of marriage they want.  same sex couples only want to be recognized equally by the  government .  this is not a christian nation or even a nation based on christianity , and redefining legal marriage has no effect on religious rights.  and there is not a single religious reason.  unless you can apply all the arguments against gay couples to couples that are sterile, old, or not planning to have children; you have no non religious points.
let me begin this by saying that i am not asking for general arguments about the necessity of welfare programs.  if you read this entire post, you will understand the exact view i would like challenged.  i understand why welfare exists, even if i do have many issues with it.  as a capitalist, i can look at welfare spending as an insurance of sorts against theft being committed by people who ca not afford to eat.  this is how i have heard it justified by some on the right, and it makes some sense to me.  i can also look at it from a moralistic angle where it is better to give handouts than to let people starve.  however, there is another argument i have heard several times that makes no sense to me at all.  the sentiment is that welfare spending should be considered as payment towards a debt that i owe  society .  i have heard a number of different arguments, ranging from an obama esque   you did not build that.    to a more.  blunt   fucking selfish libertarians.   .  none of which have been particularly convincing.  the way i see it, the things i did not build roads, etc have been paid for by my taxes.  or at least my  fair share , anyway.  and the infrastructure that predates my tax paying years, i am still paying for the maintenance of.  what i do not see is what this has to do with welfare.  i am willing to bet most welfare recipients have not worked on a road construction crew.  so how, and what, do i  owe  them ? once again, i am not asking for arguments stating  why  i should give them money.  i am asking for proof of this  societal debt  which can only be paid in welfare spending that i have been hearing so much about.  because try as i might, i ca not think of what i  owe  the guy that is standing in front of me in line at 0/0, buying beer and candy with food stamps.  . and why does not he owe  me  a six pack ?  #  and the infrastructure that predates my tax paying years, i am still paying for the maintenance of.   #  maintenance is generally a small fraction of the cost of building it, so you are barely covering it.   # maintenance is generally a small fraction of the cost of building it, so you are barely covering it.  what costs more, building a 0 lane bridge or clearing snow from the bridge for a year ? i am willing to bet most welfare recipients have not worked on a road construction crew.  so how, and what, do i  owe  them ? its not those people you are paying back, its the people who previously paid for the bridge.  if i worked as hard as i did but put me in the middle of a third world country, i would not have had the same level of economic and material wealth.  that is generally proof of the opportunities this society gave us.   #  however, as you seem to partly agree with, we  owe  society something when we enjoy a personal surplus of income/wealth.   #  you are thinking about this in peer to peer terms, which can lead to the absurdly extreme libertarian points of view.  on invidual terms, you do not  owe  any individual person anything, any more than they do, that is intuitive.  however, as you seem to partly agree with, we  owe  society something when we enjoy a personal surplus of income/wealth.  welfare, conceptually not talking about any specific policy here should be viewed in the same light as roads, power, water, and other infrastructure, along with law enforcement, etc.  all of these things, including welfare are again, let is not get into specific policy or how effective it is, we are talking conceptually put into place to have a well functioning society that makes it easier for its productive citizens to produce even more.  the productivity of labor, taken in a broad view, is enhanced by all of this stuff.  in everyday terms, all of this stuff effectively makes your paycheck bigger .  the  insurance against crime  idea is pretty valid when viewed in this light.  you did not build this relatively low crime society.  but you benefit from it, so you need to pay your share to keep it that way.  so long story short, you do owe  society  money for welfare, because in the broad view, handing out welfare checks to individuals is part of what keeps your social environment liveable and productive.  doing this is one part of what allows you to make a decent living in the first place.  so unless you choose to live off the grid and opt out, consider taxes to be rent paid against these benefits you accrue vs.  the alternative.  this is not to say that any given implementation of such policy is desirable or efficient just that the reasoning behind these  types  of policies is sound and justifiable.  welfare recipients do not have to be particularly deserving for this rationale to work.  this is really true.  consider what things are worth in a less functional society.  say in a war torn or extremely impoverished country.  a day is labor might get you enough food for you and one other person, if you are lucky.  in a highly functional society, a day is labor can get you enough food for a month.  without anyone to sell it to, a pound of gold is totally worthless except as decoration for your hermit is cave.  in a functional society, a pound of gold can get you a year is rent in a nice apartment, or a car, or food for a few years, or lots of clothing, etc.  these are extreme examples, but the reasoning holds for less drastic differences, i think.  having a healthy society around really makes things worth more, including your time.   #  whether it is a flat tax, progressive tax, or some other type of tax, welfare payments are still providing a benefit directly to you that you rightly owe something to society for.   # there are a lot of parallel arguments that pertain to progressivity in taxation, but whether or not wealthier people should pay more in taxes than less wealthy people was not part of the view, was it ? if your view to be changed can be summed up as:  i do not think it is right to consider the portion of taxes i pay that go to welfare recipients as part of my  wouldebt to society   then the relative amount of taxes you pay does not affect the overall argument.  whether it is a flat tax, progressive tax, or some other type of tax, welfare payments are still providing a benefit directly to you that you rightly owe something to society for.  this is the entire argument: 0 a large portion of one is income in a stable society can be considered to come from the stability of society.  it acts as a multiplier on the value of one is labor.  0 the extra value one is able to extract from one is labor due to living in such a society can rightly be considered  owed  to society in a moral sense, since that value would not exist but for the collective efforts and expenditures of other people read: society.  0 welfare payments are part of this productive infrastructure and should not be considered separately or as morally distinct in this context.  there are various ways this is true, but  crime prevention  is probably the easiest to see.  unrelated: the best arguments for progressive taxation usually do not assume that the wealthy have unduly benefited from tax paid infrastructure, it is usually more about practicality, and how much a person needs the money, relatively.   #  i think it is because practicality arguments are more convincing.   # furthermore, while the welfare state may prevent riots in the street, it has not eliminated crime.  people on welfare still commit robberies and the like, so while i can view it as an insurance policy of sorts, it does not appear to be all that effective.  and it does not seem to be lifting people  out  of poverty, as promised some 0 years ago.  i can understand this, but it seems like an argument for why i should fund police departments.  if i owe a share of my wealth due to the invention of the lightbulb, i do not have an issue paying the lightbulb company, or thomas edison is estate.  but to say that i owe the welfare system money because, once upon a time, someone invented the lightbulb ? that does not follow.  seems a bit like extortion.   pay us or we will rob you .  although at least the mafia does not keep robbing people after they are paid.  i think it is because practicality arguments are more convincing.  but this post was about the people who use the  debt to society  argument.  and while i can understand the practical arguments in favor of welfare, i still reject the  you owe society to pay into welfare  ones.   #  now, when they become impoverished, we can either give them money or food, whatever , or they can turn to crime to support themselves.   # so, you think crime would not go up way up if we eliminated all welfare payments overnight ? or what ? what level of crime do you think would be commensurate with our current expenditures on welfare ? not really.  sometimes people will become impoverished for whatever reason, why is not important.  this has been true in every society that is ever existed so far.  now, when they become impoverished, we can either give them money or food, whatever , or they can turn to crime to support themselves.  if they turn to crime the imperative of society is to imprison them, which costs a lot of money.  so there is no way around it, you have to pay for other people is poverty somehow.  in today is society it just so happens that welfare is cheaper than prison.  well, there is a third way, which is to simply either execute or free everyone who would otherwise be imprisoned.  however, i personally think executing all burglars and robbers, while paying nothing to the poor but private charity, is unacceptable and barbaric, but you are free to disagree.  the arguments are parallel, of course.  no, it does not follow, that is not what we are arguing.  your ongoing ability to make more money from your labor depends on the ongoing maintenance of a stable and productive society, of which you and we all are a part.  evaluating the value of past expenditures, advancements, etc.  is not necessary for this argument.   pay us or we will rob you .  it seems like it because it is.  but, that is how it works.  if your choices are: commit crime, or starve most people turn to crime.  there is nothing unexpected or odd about that.  you can choose to try and prevent the crime in various ways, of which welfare is one.  also, let is not get off track here.  crime prevention is not the only benefit we get from welfare payments.  we also get healthier children, who grow up to be more productive adults, we get more productive workers, because they can feed themselves and maybe sleep once in a while, we even get the intangible but pretty valuable peace of mind that our society treats people experiencing poverty reasonably well.  there are many benefits we are paying for, of which crime prevention is just one of the easiest to valuate quantitatively.
let me begin this by saying that i am not asking for general arguments about the necessity of welfare programs.  if you read this entire post, you will understand the exact view i would like challenged.  i understand why welfare exists, even if i do have many issues with it.  as a capitalist, i can look at welfare spending as an insurance of sorts against theft being committed by people who ca not afford to eat.  this is how i have heard it justified by some on the right, and it makes some sense to me.  i can also look at it from a moralistic angle where it is better to give handouts than to let people starve.  however, there is another argument i have heard several times that makes no sense to me at all.  the sentiment is that welfare spending should be considered as payment towards a debt that i owe  society .  i have heard a number of different arguments, ranging from an obama esque   you did not build that.    to a more.  blunt   fucking selfish libertarians.   .  none of which have been particularly convincing.  the way i see it, the things i did not build roads, etc have been paid for by my taxes.  or at least my  fair share , anyway.  and the infrastructure that predates my tax paying years, i am still paying for the maintenance of.  what i do not see is what this has to do with welfare.  i am willing to bet most welfare recipients have not worked on a road construction crew.  so how, and what, do i  owe  them ? once again, i am not asking for arguments stating  why  i should give them money.  i am asking for proof of this  societal debt  which can only be paid in welfare spending that i have been hearing so much about.  because try as i might, i ca not think of what i  owe  the guy that is standing in front of me in line at 0/0, buying beer and candy with food stamps.  . and why does not he owe  me  a six pack ?  #  what i do not see is what this has to do with welfare.   #  i am willing to bet most welfare recipients have not worked on a road construction crew.   # maintenance is generally a small fraction of the cost of building it, so you are barely covering it.  what costs more, building a 0 lane bridge or clearing snow from the bridge for a year ? i am willing to bet most welfare recipients have not worked on a road construction crew.  so how, and what, do i  owe  them ? its not those people you are paying back, its the people who previously paid for the bridge.  if i worked as hard as i did but put me in the middle of a third world country, i would not have had the same level of economic and material wealth.  that is generally proof of the opportunities this society gave us.   #  you are thinking about this in peer to peer terms, which can lead to the absurdly extreme libertarian points of view.   #  you are thinking about this in peer to peer terms, which can lead to the absurdly extreme libertarian points of view.  on invidual terms, you do not  owe  any individual person anything, any more than they do, that is intuitive.  however, as you seem to partly agree with, we  owe  society something when we enjoy a personal surplus of income/wealth.  welfare, conceptually not talking about any specific policy here should be viewed in the same light as roads, power, water, and other infrastructure, along with law enforcement, etc.  all of these things, including welfare are again, let is not get into specific policy or how effective it is, we are talking conceptually put into place to have a well functioning society that makes it easier for its productive citizens to produce even more.  the productivity of labor, taken in a broad view, is enhanced by all of this stuff.  in everyday terms, all of this stuff effectively makes your paycheck bigger .  the  insurance against crime  idea is pretty valid when viewed in this light.  you did not build this relatively low crime society.  but you benefit from it, so you need to pay your share to keep it that way.  so long story short, you do owe  society  money for welfare, because in the broad view, handing out welfare checks to individuals is part of what keeps your social environment liveable and productive.  doing this is one part of what allows you to make a decent living in the first place.  so unless you choose to live off the grid and opt out, consider taxes to be rent paid against these benefits you accrue vs.  the alternative.  this is not to say that any given implementation of such policy is desirable or efficient just that the reasoning behind these  types  of policies is sound and justifiable.  welfare recipients do not have to be particularly deserving for this rationale to work.  this is really true.  consider what things are worth in a less functional society.  say in a war torn or extremely impoverished country.  a day is labor might get you enough food for you and one other person, if you are lucky.  in a highly functional society, a day is labor can get you enough food for a month.  without anyone to sell it to, a pound of gold is totally worthless except as decoration for your hermit is cave.  in a functional society, a pound of gold can get you a year is rent in a nice apartment, or a car, or food for a few years, or lots of clothing, etc.  these are extreme examples, but the reasoning holds for less drastic differences, i think.  having a healthy society around really makes things worth more, including your time.   #  there are a lot of parallel arguments that pertain to progressivity in taxation, but whether or not wealthier people should pay more in taxes than less wealthy people was not part of the view, was it ?  # there are a lot of parallel arguments that pertain to progressivity in taxation, but whether or not wealthier people should pay more in taxes than less wealthy people was not part of the view, was it ? if your view to be changed can be summed up as:  i do not think it is right to consider the portion of taxes i pay that go to welfare recipients as part of my  wouldebt to society   then the relative amount of taxes you pay does not affect the overall argument.  whether it is a flat tax, progressive tax, or some other type of tax, welfare payments are still providing a benefit directly to you that you rightly owe something to society for.  this is the entire argument: 0 a large portion of one is income in a stable society can be considered to come from the stability of society.  it acts as a multiplier on the value of one is labor.  0 the extra value one is able to extract from one is labor due to living in such a society can rightly be considered  owed  to society in a moral sense, since that value would not exist but for the collective efforts and expenditures of other people read: society.  0 welfare payments are part of this productive infrastructure and should not be considered separately or as morally distinct in this context.  there are various ways this is true, but  crime prevention  is probably the easiest to see.  unrelated: the best arguments for progressive taxation usually do not assume that the wealthy have unduly benefited from tax paid infrastructure, it is usually more about practicality, and how much a person needs the money, relatively.   #  i can understand this, but it seems like an argument for why i should fund police departments.   # furthermore, while the welfare state may prevent riots in the street, it has not eliminated crime.  people on welfare still commit robberies and the like, so while i can view it as an insurance policy of sorts, it does not appear to be all that effective.  and it does not seem to be lifting people  out  of poverty, as promised some 0 years ago.  i can understand this, but it seems like an argument for why i should fund police departments.  if i owe a share of my wealth due to the invention of the lightbulb, i do not have an issue paying the lightbulb company, or thomas edison is estate.  but to say that i owe the welfare system money because, once upon a time, someone invented the lightbulb ? that does not follow.  seems a bit like extortion.   pay us or we will rob you .  although at least the mafia does not keep robbing people after they are paid.  i think it is because practicality arguments are more convincing.  but this post was about the people who use the  debt to society  argument.  and while i can understand the practical arguments in favor of welfare, i still reject the  you owe society to pay into welfare  ones.   #  crime prevention is not the only benefit we get from welfare payments.   # so, you think crime would not go up way up if we eliminated all welfare payments overnight ? or what ? what level of crime do you think would be commensurate with our current expenditures on welfare ? not really.  sometimes people will become impoverished for whatever reason, why is not important.  this has been true in every society that is ever existed so far.  now, when they become impoverished, we can either give them money or food, whatever , or they can turn to crime to support themselves.  if they turn to crime the imperative of society is to imprison them, which costs a lot of money.  so there is no way around it, you have to pay for other people is poverty somehow.  in today is society it just so happens that welfare is cheaper than prison.  well, there is a third way, which is to simply either execute or free everyone who would otherwise be imprisoned.  however, i personally think executing all burglars and robbers, while paying nothing to the poor but private charity, is unacceptable and barbaric, but you are free to disagree.  the arguments are parallel, of course.  no, it does not follow, that is not what we are arguing.  your ongoing ability to make more money from your labor depends on the ongoing maintenance of a stable and productive society, of which you and we all are a part.  evaluating the value of past expenditures, advancements, etc.  is not necessary for this argument.   pay us or we will rob you .  it seems like it because it is.  but, that is how it works.  if your choices are: commit crime, or starve most people turn to crime.  there is nothing unexpected or odd about that.  you can choose to try and prevent the crime in various ways, of which welfare is one.  also, let is not get off track here.  crime prevention is not the only benefit we get from welfare payments.  we also get healthier children, who grow up to be more productive adults, we get more productive workers, because they can feed themselves and maybe sleep once in a while, we even get the intangible but pretty valuable peace of mind that our society treats people experiencing poverty reasonably well.  there are many benefits we are paying for, of which crime prevention is just one of the easiest to valuate quantitatively.
let me begin this by saying that i am not asking for general arguments about the necessity of welfare programs.  if you read this entire post, you will understand the exact view i would like challenged.  i understand why welfare exists, even if i do have many issues with it.  as a capitalist, i can look at welfare spending as an insurance of sorts against theft being committed by people who ca not afford to eat.  this is how i have heard it justified by some on the right, and it makes some sense to me.  i can also look at it from a moralistic angle where it is better to give handouts than to let people starve.  however, there is another argument i have heard several times that makes no sense to me at all.  the sentiment is that welfare spending should be considered as payment towards a debt that i owe  society .  i have heard a number of different arguments, ranging from an obama esque   you did not build that.    to a more.  blunt   fucking selfish libertarians.   .  none of which have been particularly convincing.  the way i see it, the things i did not build roads, etc have been paid for by my taxes.  or at least my  fair share , anyway.  and the infrastructure that predates my tax paying years, i am still paying for the maintenance of.  what i do not see is what this has to do with welfare.  i am willing to bet most welfare recipients have not worked on a road construction crew.  so how, and what, do i  owe  them ? once again, i am not asking for arguments stating  why  i should give them money.  i am asking for proof of this  societal debt  which can only be paid in welfare spending that i have been hearing so much about.  because try as i might, i ca not think of what i  owe  the guy that is standing in front of me in line at 0/0, buying beer and candy with food stamps.  . and why does not he owe  me  a six pack ?  #  i am asking for proof of this  societal debt  which can only be paid in welfare spending that i have been hearing so much about.   #  if i worked as hard as i did but put me in the middle of a third world country, i would not have had the same level of economic and material wealth.   # maintenance is generally a small fraction of the cost of building it, so you are barely covering it.  what costs more, building a 0 lane bridge or clearing snow from the bridge for a year ? i am willing to bet most welfare recipients have not worked on a road construction crew.  so how, and what, do i  owe  them ? its not those people you are paying back, its the people who previously paid for the bridge.  if i worked as hard as i did but put me in the middle of a third world country, i would not have had the same level of economic and material wealth.  that is generally proof of the opportunities this society gave us.   #  a day is labor might get you enough food for you and one other person, if you are lucky.   #  you are thinking about this in peer to peer terms, which can lead to the absurdly extreme libertarian points of view.  on invidual terms, you do not  owe  any individual person anything, any more than they do, that is intuitive.  however, as you seem to partly agree with, we  owe  society something when we enjoy a personal surplus of income/wealth.  welfare, conceptually not talking about any specific policy here should be viewed in the same light as roads, power, water, and other infrastructure, along with law enforcement, etc.  all of these things, including welfare are again, let is not get into specific policy or how effective it is, we are talking conceptually put into place to have a well functioning society that makes it easier for its productive citizens to produce even more.  the productivity of labor, taken in a broad view, is enhanced by all of this stuff.  in everyday terms, all of this stuff effectively makes your paycheck bigger .  the  insurance against crime  idea is pretty valid when viewed in this light.  you did not build this relatively low crime society.  but you benefit from it, so you need to pay your share to keep it that way.  so long story short, you do owe  society  money for welfare, because in the broad view, handing out welfare checks to individuals is part of what keeps your social environment liveable and productive.  doing this is one part of what allows you to make a decent living in the first place.  so unless you choose to live off the grid and opt out, consider taxes to be rent paid against these benefits you accrue vs.  the alternative.  this is not to say that any given implementation of such policy is desirable or efficient just that the reasoning behind these  types  of policies is sound and justifiable.  welfare recipients do not have to be particularly deserving for this rationale to work.  this is really true.  consider what things are worth in a less functional society.  say in a war torn or extremely impoverished country.  a day is labor might get you enough food for you and one other person, if you are lucky.  in a highly functional society, a day is labor can get you enough food for a month.  without anyone to sell it to, a pound of gold is totally worthless except as decoration for your hermit is cave.  in a functional society, a pound of gold can get you a year is rent in a nice apartment, or a car, or food for a few years, or lots of clothing, etc.  these are extreme examples, but the reasoning holds for less drastic differences, i think.  having a healthy society around really makes things worth more, including your time.   #  there are a lot of parallel arguments that pertain to progressivity in taxation, but whether or not wealthier people should pay more in taxes than less wealthy people was not part of the view, was it ?  # there are a lot of parallel arguments that pertain to progressivity in taxation, but whether or not wealthier people should pay more in taxes than less wealthy people was not part of the view, was it ? if your view to be changed can be summed up as:  i do not think it is right to consider the portion of taxes i pay that go to welfare recipients as part of my  wouldebt to society   then the relative amount of taxes you pay does not affect the overall argument.  whether it is a flat tax, progressive tax, or some other type of tax, welfare payments are still providing a benefit directly to you that you rightly owe something to society for.  this is the entire argument: 0 a large portion of one is income in a stable society can be considered to come from the stability of society.  it acts as a multiplier on the value of one is labor.  0 the extra value one is able to extract from one is labor due to living in such a society can rightly be considered  owed  to society in a moral sense, since that value would not exist but for the collective efforts and expenditures of other people read: society.  0 welfare payments are part of this productive infrastructure and should not be considered separately or as morally distinct in this context.  there are various ways this is true, but  crime prevention  is probably the easiest to see.  unrelated: the best arguments for progressive taxation usually do not assume that the wealthy have unduly benefited from tax paid infrastructure, it is usually more about practicality, and how much a person needs the money, relatively.   #  i think it is because practicality arguments are more convincing.   # furthermore, while the welfare state may prevent riots in the street, it has not eliminated crime.  people on welfare still commit robberies and the like, so while i can view it as an insurance policy of sorts, it does not appear to be all that effective.  and it does not seem to be lifting people  out  of poverty, as promised some 0 years ago.  i can understand this, but it seems like an argument for why i should fund police departments.  if i owe a share of my wealth due to the invention of the lightbulb, i do not have an issue paying the lightbulb company, or thomas edison is estate.  but to say that i owe the welfare system money because, once upon a time, someone invented the lightbulb ? that does not follow.  seems a bit like extortion.   pay us or we will rob you .  although at least the mafia does not keep robbing people after they are paid.  i think it is because practicality arguments are more convincing.  but this post was about the people who use the  debt to society  argument.  and while i can understand the practical arguments in favor of welfare, i still reject the  you owe society to pay into welfare  ones.   #  no, it does not follow, that is not what we are arguing.   # so, you think crime would not go up way up if we eliminated all welfare payments overnight ? or what ? what level of crime do you think would be commensurate with our current expenditures on welfare ? not really.  sometimes people will become impoverished for whatever reason, why is not important.  this has been true in every society that is ever existed so far.  now, when they become impoverished, we can either give them money or food, whatever , or they can turn to crime to support themselves.  if they turn to crime the imperative of society is to imprison them, which costs a lot of money.  so there is no way around it, you have to pay for other people is poverty somehow.  in today is society it just so happens that welfare is cheaper than prison.  well, there is a third way, which is to simply either execute or free everyone who would otherwise be imprisoned.  however, i personally think executing all burglars and robbers, while paying nothing to the poor but private charity, is unacceptable and barbaric, but you are free to disagree.  the arguments are parallel, of course.  no, it does not follow, that is not what we are arguing.  your ongoing ability to make more money from your labor depends on the ongoing maintenance of a stable and productive society, of which you and we all are a part.  evaluating the value of past expenditures, advancements, etc.  is not necessary for this argument.   pay us or we will rob you .  it seems like it because it is.  but, that is how it works.  if your choices are: commit crime, or starve most people turn to crime.  there is nothing unexpected or odd about that.  you can choose to try and prevent the crime in various ways, of which welfare is one.  also, let is not get off track here.  crime prevention is not the only benefit we get from welfare payments.  we also get healthier children, who grow up to be more productive adults, we get more productive workers, because they can feed themselves and maybe sleep once in a while, we even get the intangible but pretty valuable peace of mind that our society treats people experiencing poverty reasonably well.  there are many benefits we are paying for, of which crime prevention is just one of the easiest to valuate quantitatively.
let me begin this by saying that i am not asking for general arguments about the necessity of welfare programs.  if you read this entire post, you will understand the exact view i would like challenged.  i understand why welfare exists, even if i do have many issues with it.  as a capitalist, i can look at welfare spending as an insurance of sorts against theft being committed by people who ca not afford to eat.  this is how i have heard it justified by some on the right, and it makes some sense to me.  i can also look at it from a moralistic angle where it is better to give handouts than to let people starve.  however, there is another argument i have heard several times that makes no sense to me at all.  the sentiment is that welfare spending should be considered as payment towards a debt that i owe  society .  i have heard a number of different arguments, ranging from an obama esque   you did not build that.    to a more.  blunt   fucking selfish libertarians.   .  none of which have been particularly convincing.  the way i see it, the things i did not build roads, etc have been paid for by my taxes.  or at least my  fair share , anyway.  and the infrastructure that predates my tax paying years, i am still paying for the maintenance of.  what i do not see is what this has to do with welfare.  i am willing to bet most welfare recipients have not worked on a road construction crew.  so how, and what, do i  owe  them ? once again, i am not asking for arguments stating  why  i should give them money.  i am asking for proof of this  societal debt  which can only be paid in welfare spending that i have been hearing so much about.  because try as i might, i ca not think of what i  owe  the guy that is standing in front of me in line at 0/0, buying beer and candy with food stamps.  . and why does not he owe  me  a six pack ?  #  i am asking for proof of this  societal debt  which can only be paid in welfare spending that i have been hearing so much about.   #  because try as i might, i ca not think of what i owe the guy that is standing in front of me in line at 0/0, buying beer and candy with food stamps.   # i understand moral obligations, but as those were not invoked by the people that prompted this post, i am excluding them from it.  i am talking about strictly financial terms.  and this is where the rubber meets the road a bit.  to quote you in the op,   so how, and what, do i  owe  them ? once again, i am not asking for arguments stating why i should give them money.  because try as i might, i ca not think of what i owe the guy that is standing in front of me in line at 0/0, buying beer and candy with food stamps.  . and why does not he owe me a six pack ? the term  social debt  in this context is often understood as an implicit moral obligation, not financial; this is why i believe you got the sort of response you did in this thread.  if you now want me to argue that you should pay into welfare from a financial standpoint, i would tell you that i am not ever going to try and make that association.  attempting to assert that you should pay taxes because you receive d certain benefits valued at x in the open market is trying to reduce the equation beyond the ability to make an effective value judgement.  however, you did say something that i believe has room to discuss.  i am sure that sounds like a crude misrepresentation, but it unfortunately is more or less what i have been told.  this is the crux of it for a large number of people i have had this conversation with.  and what i inevitably end up pointing out is that you are taking someone who, based on your previous responses, is a rather irresponsible debater/conversationalist they seem to generalize a lot, or at least leave you with impressions that lack nuance and then transposing them upon the government.  they are  not  the same.  you and others like you have every ability to influence governmental policy, which is how we arrive at the amount you  owe .  it is perfectly okay to discuss how much an individual should be taxed, what should be taxed, whether this program or that initiative is worthy of social investment; my issue with many who decry any investment in welfare is that the  system  is  broken , which may or may not be true; however, not a single bloody one of them ever offers a real solution.  if you do not like the amount you owe, do something about it.  the other side is open to change think the welfare reform of the clinton years people are just tired of seeing multibillion dollar tax breaks for corporations at the same time we are talking about cutting basic services.  as far as the rest of your comment goes, i am perfectly willing to debate the social contract with you it happens to be one of my favorite subjects , but i am trying mightily to stay lasered in on your request to discuss what we owe.  i think, based on your responses, that you do at bottom acknowledge that you owe  something , it is just a matter of how  much .  assuming we can agree upon that point, then you need to look at what you do when you do not like what you owe.  sovereign citizen types, among others, try to just take their ball and go home.  others, like yourself, take issue with how much is being taken and feel powerless to make your frustrations heard; my point is that you should not view it in the context of a financial transaction, but in the context of a social interaction in that the amount is less important than a what it is being spent on and b whether it is working and how much transparency that has.  if a program is transparent and effective, then the benefits either outweigh the cost, and people become more comfortable with the thought of their blood and treasure being spent on it, or it allows for an honest conversation as to whether society needs to be involved and whether tax dollars should be spent on it.   #  in a functional society, a pound of gold can get you a year is rent in a nice apartment, or a car, or food for a few years, or lots of clothing, etc.   #  you are thinking about this in peer to peer terms, which can lead to the absurdly extreme libertarian points of view.  on invidual terms, you do not  owe  any individual person anything, any more than they do, that is intuitive.  however, as you seem to partly agree with, we  owe  society something when we enjoy a personal surplus of income/wealth.  welfare, conceptually not talking about any specific policy here should be viewed in the same light as roads, power, water, and other infrastructure, along with law enforcement, etc.  all of these things, including welfare are again, let is not get into specific policy or how effective it is, we are talking conceptually put into place to have a well functioning society that makes it easier for its productive citizens to produce even more.  the productivity of labor, taken in a broad view, is enhanced by all of this stuff.  in everyday terms, all of this stuff effectively makes your paycheck bigger .  the  insurance against crime  idea is pretty valid when viewed in this light.  you did not build this relatively low crime society.  but you benefit from it, so you need to pay your share to keep it that way.  so long story short, you do owe  society  money for welfare, because in the broad view, handing out welfare checks to individuals is part of what keeps your social environment liveable and productive.  doing this is one part of what allows you to make a decent living in the first place.  so unless you choose to live off the grid and opt out, consider taxes to be rent paid against these benefits you accrue vs.  the alternative.  this is not to say that any given implementation of such policy is desirable or efficient just that the reasoning behind these  types  of policies is sound and justifiable.  welfare recipients do not have to be particularly deserving for this rationale to work.  this is really true.  consider what things are worth in a less functional society.  say in a war torn or extremely impoverished country.  a day is labor might get you enough food for you and one other person, if you are lucky.  in a highly functional society, a day is labor can get you enough food for a month.  without anyone to sell it to, a pound of gold is totally worthless except as decoration for your hermit is cave.  in a functional society, a pound of gold can get you a year is rent in a nice apartment, or a car, or food for a few years, or lots of clothing, etc.  these are extreme examples, but the reasoning holds for less drastic differences, i think.  having a healthy society around really makes things worth more, including your time.   #  whether it is a flat tax, progressive tax, or some other type of tax, welfare payments are still providing a benefit directly to you that you rightly owe something to society for.   # there are a lot of parallel arguments that pertain to progressivity in taxation, but whether or not wealthier people should pay more in taxes than less wealthy people was not part of the view, was it ? if your view to be changed can be summed up as:  i do not think it is right to consider the portion of taxes i pay that go to welfare recipients as part of my  wouldebt to society   then the relative amount of taxes you pay does not affect the overall argument.  whether it is a flat tax, progressive tax, or some other type of tax, welfare payments are still providing a benefit directly to you that you rightly owe something to society for.  this is the entire argument: 0 a large portion of one is income in a stable society can be considered to come from the stability of society.  it acts as a multiplier on the value of one is labor.  0 the extra value one is able to extract from one is labor due to living in such a society can rightly be considered  owed  to society in a moral sense, since that value would not exist but for the collective efforts and expenditures of other people read: society.  0 welfare payments are part of this productive infrastructure and should not be considered separately or as morally distinct in this context.  there are various ways this is true, but  crime prevention  is probably the easiest to see.  unrelated: the best arguments for progressive taxation usually do not assume that the wealthy have unduly benefited from tax paid infrastructure, it is usually more about practicality, and how much a person needs the money, relatively.   #  but to say that i owe the welfare system money because, once upon a time, someone invented the lightbulb ?  # furthermore, while the welfare state may prevent riots in the street, it has not eliminated crime.  people on welfare still commit robberies and the like, so while i can view it as an insurance policy of sorts, it does not appear to be all that effective.  and it does not seem to be lifting people  out  of poverty, as promised some 0 years ago.  i can understand this, but it seems like an argument for why i should fund police departments.  if i owe a share of my wealth due to the invention of the lightbulb, i do not have an issue paying the lightbulb company, or thomas edison is estate.  but to say that i owe the welfare system money because, once upon a time, someone invented the lightbulb ? that does not follow.  seems a bit like extortion.   pay us or we will rob you .  although at least the mafia does not keep robbing people after they are paid.  i think it is because practicality arguments are more convincing.  but this post was about the people who use the  debt to society  argument.  and while i can understand the practical arguments in favor of welfare, i still reject the  you owe society to pay into welfare  ones.   #  sometimes people will become impoverished for whatever reason, why is not important.   # so, you think crime would not go up way up if we eliminated all welfare payments overnight ? or what ? what level of crime do you think would be commensurate with our current expenditures on welfare ? not really.  sometimes people will become impoverished for whatever reason, why is not important.  this has been true in every society that is ever existed so far.  now, when they become impoverished, we can either give them money or food, whatever , or they can turn to crime to support themselves.  if they turn to crime the imperative of society is to imprison them, which costs a lot of money.  so there is no way around it, you have to pay for other people is poverty somehow.  in today is society it just so happens that welfare is cheaper than prison.  well, there is a third way, which is to simply either execute or free everyone who would otherwise be imprisoned.  however, i personally think executing all burglars and robbers, while paying nothing to the poor but private charity, is unacceptable and barbaric, but you are free to disagree.  the arguments are parallel, of course.  no, it does not follow, that is not what we are arguing.  your ongoing ability to make more money from your labor depends on the ongoing maintenance of a stable and productive society, of which you and we all are a part.  evaluating the value of past expenditures, advancements, etc.  is not necessary for this argument.   pay us or we will rob you .  it seems like it because it is.  but, that is how it works.  if your choices are: commit crime, or starve most people turn to crime.  there is nothing unexpected or odd about that.  you can choose to try and prevent the crime in various ways, of which welfare is one.  also, let is not get off track here.  crime prevention is not the only benefit we get from welfare payments.  we also get healthier children, who grow up to be more productive adults, we get more productive workers, because they can feed themselves and maybe sleep once in a while, we even get the intangible but pretty valuable peace of mind that our society treats people experiencing poverty reasonably well.  there are many benefits we are paying for, of which crime prevention is just one of the easiest to valuate quantitatively.
although they might seem corny to some, fistbumps as they will be known in future, with no space between the words are a physical greeting that are better than handshakes in a number of ways that i will try to explain below.  while they might currently be associated with douchebag bros, this is an unnecessary association which will disappear over time and as such will not be accepted as an argument against their use.  sweaty/clammy hands: some people are unfortunately genetically disposed to sweat more than others, and having sweaty hands makes a handshake an unpleasant encounter for both the sweaty handed person, who feels shame, and the recipient, who was expecting a dry hand.  fistbumps only result in contact with the tops of the fingers, which tend to be dry for all people, except perhaps some freaks.  germ exposure: the palm of the hand is used for many daily activities, such as scratching one is balls, holding onto filthy handrails, and squishing flies in a clap.  despite frequent hand washing, icky bacteria is inevitably going to end up on your hands at several points during the day.  the top of your hand, however, is rarely used, and is therefore mostly free of germs and microbes that might want to transmit a cold or ebola.  speed and efficiency.  a fistbump establishes a sense of camaraderie and kinship in just a second, whereas a handshake can take several seconds to complete, at a greater personal investment to both parties.  in a working environment where you might have to greet many people each morning, a fistbump saves time, which could be spent working on important projects, while still convincing your colleagues that you are happy to see them.  as a side note, a fistbump can be easily followed by a hug if more intimacy is required in the greeting, or can be followed up by a quick sideways high five.  making a fizzling or dissolving fistbump is not in my opinion acceptable, and will not be accepted in any counter arguments.   #  a fistbump establishes a sense of camaraderie and kinship in just a second, whereas a handshake can take several seconds to complete, at a greater personal investment to both parties.   #  i think this right here is why the fistbump ca not or should not ?  # i think this right here is why the fistbump ca not or should not ? completely replace the handshake or its equivalents.  for me a fistbump is a physical shorthand for  i acknowledge/departure your arrival and i am glad to see you.   it is useful for social situations in which my  personal investment  is already clear from past interactions, e. g.  friendships.  for initiating new relationships or making contracts i  want  something that indicates greater personal investment, like a firm handshake with eye contact.  i am not saying it has to be the handshake, but it is useful to have an array of social signs rather than just one.   #  the idea of  willet is shake on it  is just tradition, but traditions change.   #  the handshake is problematic though.  on a hot day, i admit that i get sweaty hands.  hell, even on a cold day.  so while you reach out your hand to me, thinking you want that moment of contact, that investment, you might actually end up regretting it.  and if we want a more open and more fair society, i think it sucks that we end up judging people on the quality of their handshake.  obviously a fistbump is prone to some of the same problems, that it might be too hard, or too weak.  but like i said, a hug is always there to seal the deal.  the idea of  willet is shake on it  is just tradition, but traditions change.   #  for one, the fistbump lacks non goofy variation.   #  i am not really attached to the handshake and i would be fine with it being replaced with some other social sign, but i just do not see it being entirely replaced by the fistbump.  for one, the fistbump lacks non goofy variation.  a handshake can be quick or slow.  it can involve grabbing with both hands.  it can be made to linger with the hands clasped.  it can have several shakes or just one.  all of these subtleties can potentially carry meaning and are useful.  to be fair, in some social contexts i think the fistbump is replacing one kind of handshake.  when i meet fellow grad students my own age i often sense a little awkwardness when i go for a handshake.  a fistbump seems a little more acceptable there nowadays.  is your view more that fistbumps are superior or just that the handshake needs to be replaced ?  #  speed and efficiency: bowing wins as it does not require you to be in close enough proximity to touch.   #  if this is your basis of reasoning, then bowing wins against both methods.  sweaty/clammy hands; germ exposure: bowing requires no contact at all even sweaty knuckles are avoided.  speed and efficiency: bowing wins as it does not require you to be in close enough proximity to touch.  i could greet someone on a balcony without ever being on said balcony.  bowing can also be followed by a hug, high five, or even dropping into a martial arts pose if the greeting is not amicable.   #  you can no longer use it to gauge whether or not i am carrying a weapon.   # if you are off on the speed, you have just punched their hand, potentially hurting them.  okay, but this comes down to just not punching someone in the hand.  it has the same flaw as handshakes, it can be too hard.  just be a tiny bit careful when you do it.  most people can manage this.  you can no longer use it to gauge whether or not i am carrying a weapon.  what if you are carrying a weapon in your other hand ? i ca not imagine this ever making sense even in a historical context.  what weapon fits in your hand that is not immediately obvious ? and if you have a razor blade in your hand, then a fistbump forces you to close your hand around it, which injures you in the process.
i will admit my biases here.  i think immigration in any country should be relatively painless as long as people fulfil some basic criteria.  i also believe that the world is moving towards a state of borders becoming less relevant as time goes on.  but having admitted my bias, i think the word  illegal  muddles the waters too much.  homosexuality and integration were illegal, and it would have been accurate to call homosexuals and people who fought segregation through civil disobedience and homosexuals illegal.  it should be fairly clear by now that the fact that something is illegal does not mean it is wrong.  but wait you say it is a  bad , unethical thing.  then say that.  say that you believe that these people are doing a bad thing.  it also makes no distinction of the various ways someone can enter or stay in the country illegally.  more contemporarily is everyone is darling cause drug legalisation.  it would be accurate to call people who choose to partake in drugs  illegals , which i do not think most people do.  one of the arguments i have heard is that the pertinent difference here is that the difference between the good thing and the bad thing is a simple matter of just getting legalised.  however in most cases this is a painful, laborious and expensive process.  as a parallel the route to getting  legal  drugs may be too difficult or restrictive for some, and i do not see anyone referring to people who smoke marijuana recreationally when it is available legally or at least quasi legally as  illegals .  the exploited migrant worker illegal, the student who overstayed their visa illegal, the tourist who overstayed their visa illegal, the person who just entered the country and hoped to stay illegal, the person whose parents came illegal.  all of these are different situations, and have different ethical standings and as such must be treated differently.  yet these are all technically  illegals .  the only function i see of the word is to add xenophobia to the debate, and dehumanise people.  it is also a blunt tool when a precise one is required and constructs a bogeyman which only serves to confuse the issue.  as such i see no reason to continue to use the term to address the issue of illegal immigration.   #  homosexuality and integration were illegal, and it would have been accurate to call homosexuals and people who fought segregation through civil disobedience and homosexuals illegal.   #  i would like to point out that homosexuality was never illegal, but rather that homosexual marriage was not recognized by the state and still is not in some states .   # i would like to point out that homosexuality was never illegal, but rather that homosexual marriage was not recognized by the state and still is not in some states .  homosexuals have been free to be homosexuals and could have marriage ceremonies, it is just that these were not always recognized as the state as being legitimate marriages.  people who have fought for homosexual rights have not broken any laws, so i do not see why they would ever be called illegals.  also, people who fought against segregation laws were seen as breaking the law and many of them were arrested for doing so.  aside from that, people who either enter this country on a visa and overstay it or people who come in without permission are breaking the law.  why should we not reference people who break the law as doing something illegal ?  #   illegal  is rarely, if ever, used in neutral or positive statements so, for better or worse, it has developed negative connotations.   #  not who you are responding to but i think you are missing the point on this.  the term  illegals  is almost always used disparagingly; for all intents and purposes, it has become a slur, albeit a mild one.   chinaman  is more concise than  chinese person  but its historical use has made its use today socially unacceptable.  it is not inherently pejorative in the same way that no word is inherently pejorative.  it is made that way by continual usage in disparaging contexts.   illegal  is rarely, if ever, used in neutral or positive statements so, for better or worse, it has developed negative connotations.   #  so it is preferable for both technical and humanistic reasons.   # there is also another term that is gaining more and more currency to differentiate the two sets of people:  undocumented immigrants .  the  undocumented  adjective better clarifies the nature of their fault they lack the proper documentation.  in addition, it is less dehumanizing.  so it is preferable for both technical and humanistic reasons.  for example, a doctor who operates without a license is called an  unlicensed doctor  not an  illegal doctor.   a car driver who drives without an insurance is called an  uninsured driver  not an  illegal driver.   in both cases, the adjective  illegal  is technically correct, but the other adjective is both more descriptive and less pejorative.  a similar case can be made for  undocumented immigrant  versus  illegal immigrant.    #  is it because they do not want to jump to conclusions about the legal status of the person involved ?  # they do not follow the legally prescribed method of entering the country.  thus violating law and making themselves criminals.  this is false.  although really hyped up in the media,  illegal  immigration is not a criminal offense, it is a civil one.  even if it were, the term  illegal immigrant  is not very valid to begin with, because it demonizes people for propaganda reasons rather than treating them innocent until proven guilty which is not respected much in this bloodthirsty american society but should be.  if someone shoots someone in their front yard and it makes the news, why do not they refer to the shooter as an  illegal gun operator  or  illegal shooter  ? is it because they do not want to jump to conclusions about the legal status of the person involved ? i have heard that the majority of undocumented immigrants are people who have fallen out of status, many without their own knowledge and others who have no knowledge of how to fix it you basically have to hire a lawyer if you are an immigrant to the u. s.  it does not make sense to consider people guilty of something without knowing their individual reasons for why they fell out of status.   #  if that is the case then it is pretty simple.   #  in a response to someone else you said you were arguing the usefulness of the term, not the accuracy.  if that is the case then it is pretty simple.  the term illegal is just shorthand for illegal immigrant or illegal alien.  the reason we did not call people illegal homosexuals or illegal integrants was because being integrated and being homosexual were in and of themselves illegal activities.  there was not such thing as a homosexual or integrants license so it is naturally assumed a person back then was in violation of the law if they were one of those things, so there was no need to say illegal in front of it.  we do not call rapists illegal rapists for the same reason.  since there is such a thing as legal alien/immigrant status we do have to specify illegal immigrant to get across what type or group we are talking about.  illegal gradually became the short hand version of referring to them and thus it is what we use now.  you could argue further that it is more descriptive to use the full term, illegal immigrant, but it is a moot point since the term illegal as a noun is already understood in this country to mean illegal immigrant.
not all will succeed:  first off, i am conservative, not that the term means anything these days.  however, as a conservative i would love to have my view changed on welfare.  i believe we need welfare.  and not because the rich ruling class wants to subdue poor people and keep them down.  everyone knows that lighting a fire under most people would get them to strive for more, but not all will, and many will fail to succeed.  i believe some will commit suicide, turn to prostitution, rob, steal, riot, etc.   economy:  assuming every former welfare recipient finds employment, the job market would become oversaturate.  this  get a job, you slacker !   mentality is simply unrealistic.  special programs and regulations would have to be in place to hire a certain percentage of unskilled worker instead of qualified workers.  i have heard the current state of welfare compared to slavery, but welfare is free money to the recipient; slavery more equates to working for minimum wage with no feasible escapement.  even with minimum wage, there is a chance possibly small that one can work their way up or transition to a better job.  as a right leaning individual i think capitalism is a good thing.  it is far from perfect, but i believe it gives many people a chance.  welfare does not really give anything but sustenance.  welfare can be viewed as a result of capitalism.  not everyone wants to or is able to play the capitalist is game.  they currently get our scraps.  the problem is: we are getting stingy with our scraps.   the new laws:  now, laws have been passed requiring welfare recipients to pass drug tests to continue receiving aid.  i think this is a bad idea for many reasons, including costs.  however, the primary reason for me to not want to sneakily dismantle welfare is because the aid is intended to help children.  no one gives a shit about the parents, and for good reason, fuck  em.  we are trying a trickle down approach to feeding children and single mothers.  if welfare were to be rapidly dismantled, i believe the us would be in a worse state.  even holding conservative views, i believe welfare is a necessary evil.  change my view.   #  if welfare were to be rapidly dismantled, i believe the us would be in a worse state.   #  even holding conservative views, i believe welfare is a necessary evil.   # there is a fairly reasonable argument that benefits should be capped at two children, if you have a third then the benefit you receive does not increase.  agreed, but that still harms the child.  i guess it could be seen as a ratio.  i also agree that proper execution, tools, and training would probably make long strides to fix the system.  i also see social security as a form of welfare even though people have paid into it.  even holding conservative views, i believe welfare is a necessary evil.  change my view.  it depends to what level.  i agree, this is where my view changed.  i believed it was impossible to survive as a nation without welfare.  no, i think it may be a possibility.   #  it is avery small portion but a real issue.   #  it is avery small portion but a real issue.  but from my experience, other conservatives gravitate towards seeing welfare as helping the ones who do not need welfare.  the very small minority that cheat the sysyem.  this view is not uncommom.  i feel like opponents to welfare focus too much on the lazy or negative resipients.  i am not sure what they gain by drug testing welfare recipients.  it is what i came here to learn.   #  evil as in not good, as opposed to sinister or meant to harm.   #  agreed.  evil was a poor term to use.  evil as in not good, as opposed to sinister or meant to harm.  much in the same way i belive capitalism is a necessary problem.  the results can hurt, but the system is supposedly  the best we can do.   we could probably find a few more people who think welfare could benefit from various reforms than think it is a great system.  it does sedate people, and there is corruption.  however, i think you and i are on a similar page.   #  at any rate, people  already pay for  roads, power, running water, and education by paying taxes.   #   society  is a nebulous concept at best though.  you ca not assign debt to  society  easily.  at any rate, people  already pay for  roads, power, running water, and education by paying taxes.  what does welfare have to do with it ? saying that we owe poor people something simply because some other people provided the public a good and/or service is weak logic.  are people on welfare all road construction workers that did not get their paychecks for some reason ? if you are provided a service and subsequently pay for it through taxes or otherwise that is that.  the debt is settled.  you do not just get to invoke this undefined debt whenever it is convenient.  by this logic, the only people with an outstanding debt are those who use these services without paying for them.  which rules out most taxpayers.   #  saying welfare is a necessary evil is pretending charity does not exist.   #  URL according to this link, poverty was declining leading towards 0.  president johnson declared war on poverty.  and then more people landed in poverty ? seems like they were bettering the country then someone tried to actively address it and now, today, way more are in poverty.  URL you can read about this, specifically, here: URL while some claim welfare is a necessary evil, others would state that charity is the same thing.  if you forcibly take money from people, and this is what people have issues with it is not that they have issues with helping people , then you begin to restrict growth, you restrict jobs, etc.  then, you end up having more people requiring more welfare due to their jobs paying less and their inability to get jobs.  saying welfare is a necessary evil is pretending charity does not exist.  i could say charity is a necessary evil but that would be arguable in terms by asking  why do people need charity  and then solving those issues, one by one.  i have no issues with helping people.  forcing people to help others is not the sign of an enlightened society.  as a buddhist, i am not told i am compassionate because other people are making me be charitable.  compassion is a personal decision and forcing others to act is does not define compassion.  it leads to one of those  means justifying the ends  philosophy questions but that is not really compassionate.
with the quinnspiracy bullshit still raging across the internet i have seen an awful lot of comparisons to gaming is  other  horrible woman, anita sarkeesian.  i would not call myself a fan but i have seen her videos and i think they say most of the exact same things gamers have been complaining about rightfully so for years.  lazy storytelling, cookie cutter characters, overt reliance on violence at the expense of characterization.  she just attacks it all from a feminist and female perspective and suddenly she is video game hitler.  let is start with stuff that is not her actual content.  people say she is a scam artist because she scored 0k from kickstarter.  she only asked for 0k, the thing blew up after the internet started harassing her and other people wanted to show their support.  it is not her fault the she won the internet lottery and she has no obligation to apologize.  people also fault her for delays in her youtube show, as if that somehow suggests guilt on her part.  i do not see any explanations for her delays and i do not really know why she has to give any.  youtube programming is not known for its consistency, i do not know why anita is getting the third degree.  next, people say anita is not a  real  gamer.  first of all there is no such thing as a  real  gamer, there is no paperwork you have to fill out to become one, and second of all fuck you for saying that matters, i have never once heard that criticism leveled against a man.  and third, she is stated several times that she grew up playing and loving video games and i have literally no reason not to believe her.  as to the actual content of her arguments, once again, i find the only thing really remarkable about them is the fact that they address common complaints from a pro woman perspective.  i hear people talk about how much she  hates  video games and then i see videos like this URL where, at the 0 second mark, she reminds us all that it is possible to enjoy a piece of media on a larger level while still criticizing elements within it.  her pieces are about tropes within games, not the games themselves.  yet somehow every refutation of her seems to devolve into  that is not sexist because the game was actually really awesome !   from what i can tell, she agrees with you.  zelda and mario are awesome, they would just be more awesome if peach/zelda did not get fucking captured every goddam game.  once again, a common complaint liberally smeared with feminism suddenly becomes internet hitler propaganda lol make me a sammich bitch ! 0 ! 0 i think anita makes many valid points.  i think there is a massive trend in the gaming world to marginalize, exploit, or ignore women that she is correct in pointing out.  i think anita gets a higher degree of scrutiny because people really hate women  taking away  their video games and i think by trying to silence or discredit her we are stifling a lot of valid criticism that gaming culture needs to hear if it is going to evolve into the artform it should be.  please change my view.   #  next, people say anita is not a  real  gamer.   #  first of all there is no such thing as a  real  gamer, there is no paperwork you have to fill out to become one, and second of all fuck you for saying that matters, i have never once heard that criticism leveled against a man.   # first of all there is no such thing as a  real  gamer, there is no paperwork you have to fill out to become one, and second of all fuck you for saying that matters, i have never once heard that criticism leveled against a man.  and third, she is stated several times that she grew up playing and loving video games and i have literally no reason not to believe her.  URL by her own words.  she made a big deal claiming to be a gamer, a claim she keeps making over and over again, when she clearly is not.  she lies and people do not trust liars.   #  making women look sexy is a marketing thing, not a game design thing.   #  in games like tes, you can take the clothes off of any character, and drag them around.  male or female does not matter.  there are tons of female characters in games, and they simply choose to ignore that.  making women look sexy is a marketing thing, not a game design thing.  same reason we advertise victoria is secret with models who are attractive.  it sells.  why are not they complaining about movies where the  ugly duckling , finally puts on make up and gets the prince.  they are actresses paid to look good, in the same way they are in video games.  except in video games, it is a real world pixels are fake obviously , and up to you what you do in it.  my big complaint of her, is that i have no idea what she is trying to accomplish.  using sex to sell things has been going on forever, yet in video games it is shameful.  when creating a game world, allowing the player to do whatever he wants, is kind of the point.  not to mention in the hitman thing, they were strippers.  i thought all that girl power and shit said it is fine to be a stripper.  there was another game she criticized, and was being purely intellectually dishonest about.  the sex industry is a real thing, and is exploitive in a lot of ways.  the game showed a character exposing and breaking one up, but she demonized it with full knowledge she was making it up.  what is her point though ? games allow you to have freedom to do what you want ? it is a way to enjoy yourself, and do whatever you want.  i can run people over in a car, kill them, and do pretty much anything to them in gta, no one cares.  you can drag a dead stripper around in one mission in hitman, woah, games have gone too far ? you have been able to do that for ages in games.  hell, in tes you can take the clothes right off their bodies, drag em around, and with a mod, they are 0 naked.  tl;dr i honestly do not see her point, and that is the problem.  she is attacking video games because it is the  in  thing to criticize, and one of the last bastions that had a largely male dominated field.  her complaints are dishonest, and intentionally so.  the fact that she took all this money from people to do research, and then go in and bold facedly lie, is why she is an idiot.  saying all media is too sexualized is a valid criticism, but an old and tired one.  there are plenty of awesome female characters out there, we should not have to apologize for giving people a realistic world, and the freedom to act in it.   #  almost all of her videos end with about three minutes of  the point .   # there is plenty of criticism about the ugly duckling trope.  URL   making women look sexy is a marketing thing, not a game design thing.  same reason we advertise victoria is secret with models who are attractive.  it sells.  this is part of the problem that anita is talking about.  she is very clear when she says these rote framing devices are part of a larger cultural trend.  she is lamenting how often video games as a medium rely on cheap titillation to raise fake emotional stakes, rather than relying on elements like story or character as films, tv, and literature sometimes do.  there are other ways to make things  sell , naked women are just the cheapest, easiest, and frequently most boring way to do that, and if gaming wants to evolve it is going to have to learn some new tricks.  as you ask, that is her point.  that is the point of all criticism.  to help a medium evolve.  there was a time not so long ago where it was perfectly acceptable to portray black people as lazy, drunken, watermelon eating slaves and nothing else.  it was at least partially the result of cultural critics that helped expand these depictions.  as to things like elder scrolls, to my knowledge she has not attacked that game, at least not with any real energy or focus.  so no complaints there.  it is more the scripted games that she focuses on, where the plot requires you to rescue, brutalize, or kill women and offers almost nothing else for them to do.  almost all of her videos end with about three minutes of  the point .   #  women are treated as sex appeal in everything, and her criticism has been nothing new or interesting.   #  scarletjo is cast in the marvel movies for her fit to the role.  right ? women are treated as sex appeal in everything, and her criticism has been nothing new or interesting.  she took money, and has given no research or results different than the obvious.  the examples she used were obvious lies though.  how can you argue on her side for that point ? the hitman example was blatantly misleading her entire audience.  it is a game, how can they give every character back story ? how can knowing the stripper had feelings change how the level plays when you are just walking past them ? there are infinite characters that do not have anything to them, this is picking and choosing to find something that is not there.  she says there is a problem with all of media, but provides no alternative.  when sex stops selling, they wo not use it.   #  games are like movies, music, and other art forms; they should be untouchable, and left to be interpreted for whoever they want.   #  everyone who talks about games says what they like and do not like about it.  they do not come in and say how offensive and shameful it is to be in it.  games are like movies, music, and other art forms; they should be untouchable, and left to be interpreted for whoever they want.  if you think this kind of shit did not lead to the quinn bullshit we all have to listen to, you just are not paying attention.  she has an agenda that has nothing to do with video games, and that is the problem.  if she wants to be a sjw, she should come out and say so, and not hide under calling herself a  gamer , and trying to mislead people intentionally.  i keep saying she intentionally lied, because she did.  the fact that a person can go on to criticize a game that they have not even played, let alone watched someone do a speed run through, shows how little she cares about her  research .
first off, i will say forthright that i am a liberal christian universalist.  i have been around on the internet for a while, and atheism seems to be a prevalent position of many people.  however, the astoundingly common reasoning for this belief is more or less a conflict of morality with the christian god.  most atheists that i have seen see religion as a manmade entity that purposefully limits man is freedom to do many things that are for all intents and purposes natural urges.  to an extent, i agree that religion is a limiting factor when it is forced on people, but when it is a choice made by a person through their own sense of judgement, it can be freeing.  it seems in my view that a lot of the people involved in the new atheist movement see their choices as a binary: follow their parents  religion, or abandon it completely for atheism.  i will tell you that the choice is not binary.  but why is deism more reasonable than atheism, you may be asking.  i believe that deism allows room for science, god and a sense of imperfection to coexist perfectly.  basically, deism is the clock analogy, in that god/the gods made the universe, and the scientific laws that govern the universe, and then left the universe to its own devices.  it is the position that einstein took, among others, and i have no idea why the idea is not more popular.  it allows for you to develop your own sense of morality, while also acknowledging the possibility of a higher power, an idea that i think is really hard to refute, due to a lot of factors, like the scale of the universe, multiple dimensions etc.  anyway, i would love to hear more about your personal reasoning for accepting atheism, despite how absolute it is.  please cmv.  also, universalism is really cool.  it is not the most logical religion, but i like it because it makes you nice to everybody if you do it right  #  it seems in my view that a lot of the people involved in the new atheist movement see their choices as a binary: follow their parents  religion, or abandon it completely for atheism.   #  i will tell you that the choice is not binary.   #  i was a deist for a bit before i changed my mind to be completely an atheist.  my reasoning at the time for concluding in deism was that it was the only answer i could come up with for the question  why is there something rather than nothing ?   however, after some time about two years i realized that deism does not answer that question, it simply pushes the question back.  you see, by saying that some sort of deity is the reason there is something rather than nothing, i still am left with the question of why there is that deity rather than nothing, and therefore i have not really answered anything.  as there was no other reason i had to conclude that there was some sort of deity, i was left without a reason to support deism over atheism.  as the appropriate null hypothesis in the lack of any evidence is the lack of that for which there is no evidence, i reached the conclusion that atheism is the best supported position.  i will tell you that the choice is not binary.  most people i have talked to will tell you that they do not see the choice as binary, but rather that there are so many religions to choose from that they have no real reason to choose any one of them over the others.  most of them comment the most on the religion of their parents because that is the religion they encounter the most and are most often encouraged to take to, but this does not mean that they have any greater reason to support any other religion.   #  your explanation of deism is lacking a compelling reason for us to conclude that one does, or that a deity is the best explanation for anything.   #  your comments on deism seem to be based on the common assumption that the most reasonable position is always the one in the middle of the usual polar opposite sides of any debate.  that sort of reasoning is useful in some situations where compromise or a fresh perspective is required, but not for attempting to discern facts about the external, objective world.  either some sort of deity exists or one does not.  your explanation of deism is lacking a compelling reason for us to conclude that one does, or that a deity is the best explanation for anything.  that this idea allows you to develop your own morality while still believing in a higher power may make it more convenient for you, but that does not make it true or our best attempt at the truth .   #  which is why the  existence  of the supernatural can neither be proven nor disproved.   # a being could not both exist and not exist, though it could exist in a way that we cannot comprehend.  still, as /u/bat might pointed out, for the debate of existence, it must be either but not both.  which is why the  existence  of the supernatural can neither be proven nor disproved.  truth be told, nobody has any true understand of what a  god   would  be.  we have no way of discerning truth in that matter.  therefore, we cannot be certain that it cannot be proven.  we can however be certain that the  generic  idea of a god cannot be disproven, because you cannot disprove a general negative like that though you can disprove certain things like thor, ywhw, unicorns, etc.  if you have ample reasoning regarding their specific traits .  therefore, it is not helpful to the theist is debate because on one hand we do not know enough about it to prove it, but on the other it is not falsifiable like all good claims are.   #  he was born, he was crucified, and then he was arisen and became the son in the trinity.   #  well, it is also a film series and illustrates my point perfectly.  but whatever.  just attack the source, that is fine.  it is not like this ai not a theological concept or anything.  take jesus.  he was born, he was crucified, and then he was arisen and became the son in the trinity.  he became part of god, and god is eternal, which means jesus is eternal.  he always was the son of god, though he was clearly born and died and then arose as the son of god.  what do you think  this  line means ?  #  it is about noting that your source was based in a fantasy universe of which no rules have to apply.   # it is not like this ai not a theological concept or anything.  it is not about attacking a source.  it is about noting that your source was based in a fantasy universe of which no rules have to apply.  it is not relatable to our reality.  as for your other points.   take jesus.  i am not sure but i think the vast majority of  christians  have different beliefs as to what jesus  relation to the  trinity  is, and even if that exists or not, let alone what atheists believe.  well, as an atheist i have no reason to believe that the statement is anything special at all.  also, i do not know anything about shiva.  do people claim that shiva is eternal ? even if they do, again i have no reason to give any weight to that sentence.
first off, i will say forthright that i am a liberal christian universalist.  i have been around on the internet for a while, and atheism seems to be a prevalent position of many people.  however, the astoundingly common reasoning for this belief is more or less a conflict of morality with the christian god.  most atheists that i have seen see religion as a manmade entity that purposefully limits man is freedom to do many things that are for all intents and purposes natural urges.  to an extent, i agree that religion is a limiting factor when it is forced on people, but when it is a choice made by a person through their own sense of judgement, it can be freeing.  it seems in my view that a lot of the people involved in the new atheist movement see their choices as a binary: follow their parents  religion, or abandon it completely for atheism.  i will tell you that the choice is not binary.  but why is deism more reasonable than atheism, you may be asking.  i believe that deism allows room for science, god and a sense of imperfection to coexist perfectly.  basically, deism is the clock analogy, in that god/the gods made the universe, and the scientific laws that govern the universe, and then left the universe to its own devices.  it is the position that einstein took, among others, and i have no idea why the idea is not more popular.  it allows for you to develop your own sense of morality, while also acknowledging the possibility of a higher power, an idea that i think is really hard to refute, due to a lot of factors, like the scale of the universe, multiple dimensions etc.  anyway, i would love to hear more about your personal reasoning for accepting atheism, despite how absolute it is.  please cmv.  also, universalism is really cool.  it is not the most logical religion, but i like it because it makes you nice to everybody if you do it right  #  but why is deism more reasonable than atheism, you may be asking.   #  i believe that deism allows room for science, god and a sense of imperfection to coexist perfectly.   # i believe that deism allows room for science, god and a sense of imperfection to coexist perfectly.  basically, deism is the clock analogy, in that god/the gods made the universe, and the scientific laws that govern the universe, and then left the universe to its own devices.  that is not an argument for deism.  that just shows that deism ca not be ruled out by appeal to science.  it is still a largely irrelevant postulate, however.  atheism is the lack of belief based on the lack of a positive reason to justify that belief.  it is not extreme or absolute.  einstein was a pantheist.  he called the universe god, but it was simply a name to capture the awe he felt towards it.  he has articles written on the subject that make this very clear.   #  that this idea allows you to develop your own morality while still believing in a higher power may make it more convenient for you, but that does not make it true or our best attempt at the truth .   #  your comments on deism seem to be based on the common assumption that the most reasonable position is always the one in the middle of the usual polar opposite sides of any debate.  that sort of reasoning is useful in some situations where compromise or a fresh perspective is required, but not for attempting to discern facts about the external, objective world.  either some sort of deity exists or one does not.  your explanation of deism is lacking a compelling reason for us to conclude that one does, or that a deity is the best explanation for anything.  that this idea allows you to develop your own morality while still believing in a higher power may make it more convenient for you, but that does not make it true or our best attempt at the truth .   #  which is why the  existence  of the supernatural can neither be proven nor disproved.   # a being could not both exist and not exist, though it could exist in a way that we cannot comprehend.  still, as /u/bat might pointed out, for the debate of existence, it must be either but not both.  which is why the  existence  of the supernatural can neither be proven nor disproved.  truth be told, nobody has any true understand of what a  god   would  be.  we have no way of discerning truth in that matter.  therefore, we cannot be certain that it cannot be proven.  we can however be certain that the  generic  idea of a god cannot be disproven, because you cannot disprove a general negative like that though you can disprove certain things like thor, ywhw, unicorns, etc.  if you have ample reasoning regarding their specific traits .  therefore, it is not helpful to the theist is debate because on one hand we do not know enough about it to prove it, but on the other it is not falsifiable like all good claims are.   #  well, it is also a film series and illustrates my point perfectly.   #  well, it is also a film series and illustrates my point perfectly.  but whatever.  just attack the source, that is fine.  it is not like this ai not a theological concept or anything.  take jesus.  he was born, he was crucified, and then he was arisen and became the son in the trinity.  he became part of god, and god is eternal, which means jesus is eternal.  he always was the son of god, though he was clearly born and died and then arose as the son of god.  what do you think  this  line means ?  #  even if they do, again i have no reason to give any weight to that sentence.   # it is not like this ai not a theological concept or anything.  it is not about attacking a source.  it is about noting that your source was based in a fantasy universe of which no rules have to apply.  it is not relatable to our reality.  as for your other points.   take jesus.  i am not sure but i think the vast majority of  christians  have different beliefs as to what jesus  relation to the  trinity  is, and even if that exists or not, let alone what atheists believe.  well, as an atheist i have no reason to believe that the statement is anything special at all.  also, i do not know anything about shiva.  do people claim that shiva is eternal ? even if they do, again i have no reason to give any weight to that sentence.
i do not think we should change historically neutral terms into slurs.  why invent new problems ? here is a quote from wikipedia URL some part of me suspects that people who insist  chinaman  or  oriental  are slurs do it because they  want  lots of slurs against them as proof they are an oppressed minority who is owed special respect.  i am not saying asians have a conscious plan to manufacture new slurs.  rather, i think any tendency like this would emerge organically from the power dynamics among america is jostling factions.  my consciousness was raised on this topic by paul graham is essay:  what you ca not say  URL when non asians do this same thing, cramming new badness into old neutral words by tisk tisking when they hear them in speech, i see it as an effort to drive racial bias out of our collective thinking and support a minority.  a mistaken effort, in my view.  words matter a great deal.  they limit what thoughts we can think and shape the emotions we feel.  when groups seek power by redefining words to be harsher and nastier, they get it at the expense of society because now we have to live with the new bad feelings they engender.  and it looks bad to have to keep changing names every few decades.  it looks like our culture has a sickness.  let is be honest, no one really hates asians enough that we need to have a broad array of words to attack them with.  let is keep our current words positive.  i want nothing but the best for all humans.  i have no negative feelings about any nationality or ethnicity.  i am just interested in dispassionate truth, and having an english language that is a pleasure to think in.   #  i am not saying asians have a conscious plan to manufacture new slurs.   #  rather, i think any tendency like this would emerge organically from the power dynamics among america is jostling factions.   # rather, i think any tendency like this would emerge organically from the power dynamics among america is jostling factions.  my consciousness was raised on this topic by paul graham is essay:  what you ca not say .  you think minorities create the offensiveness of slurs ? did black people create the offensiveness of n\ \ \ \ \ , or were white people using it derogatorily ? did gay people create the offensiveness of f\ \ \ \ \ , or were straight people using it derogatorily ? additionally, there is so much i disagree with in that essay.  they limit what thoughts we can think and shape the emotions we feel.  uh, really ? that sounds a lot like a strongish version of the sapir whorf hypothesis URL which is not all that well regarded, in general.  agree, but it is not the minorities doing this.  it looks like our culture has a sickness.  agreed.  the sickness is hatred and intolerance.  that is a flat out lie.  there are plenty of people who hate asians quite a bit, unfortunately.  it is not like unbiased people are the ones propagating these words.   #  the point is that although people do not mean to use it derogatively it often does get used by a lot of people that way, as more and more westerners come over.   #  an interesting point to add to this is the chinese use of the word  laowai  which as a white guy who lives in china i here almost constantly when walking the street.  it translates into  old outsider  and is not really meant as a derogatory term and  lao  is actually the start of a lot of respectful words such as teacher, wife and boss.  the point is that although people do not mean to use it derogatively it often does get used by a lot of people that way, as more and more westerners come over.  either in a dismissive or a aggressive way.  it does not really bother me and i call my western friends over here laowai and even sometimes refer to my self as one.  i can see it becoming an offensive word in 0 years though in the same why chinaman or paki is in the uk.   #  would not it be better to dismiss the stereotype, rather than the word ?  #  thank you, that is good context.   chinaman  came to refer to a false stereotype of backward, unintelligent chinese people.  would not it be better to dismiss the stereotype, rather than the word ? if you dismiss the word it could send the signal that there was such truth to the stereotype that we had to edit our vocabulary to escape it.  it perversely legitimizes the stereotype.  i think we should use good linguistic hygiene and not let our words for people accumulate negative connotations.  by force of will we should continue to use the same words for people, but in a positive way.   negro  means the same thing as  black,  but the term had to be retired.  why ? because we built up too many memories of racists saying it in an ugly way.  we should scrub the word clean in our minds and continue to use it, to avoid any possibility that people may think there is something wrong with being black that causes the word for it to become dirty and have to be replaced.   #  it is not my place to take back the word, or to say it is okay.   #  i was actually going to use the  negro  example, funnily enough.  man, if i could convince everyone on this earth that an offensive word is just a nonsense primate noise that only has the power and meaning we assign, i would.  but it is not realistic.  as a white person, i wo not go around trying to use  negro  anymore than i will  chinaman.   i agree that the word itself is not inherently offensive, but it does not have the historical connotation to my personal heritage that it does to an asian american.  it is not my place to take back the word, or to say it is okay.   #  to do what you want to do takes time and a shift of culture.   #  it would be great.  then again it would also be great if i had a million dollars in my bank.  words do have connections to their historical meanings.  i mean you can try to take the word  nigger  back or the phrase  white pride  but you are going up against years and years of how that word has been used in historical context.  to do what you want to do takes time and a shift of culture.  the word bastard is a great example.  this word used to be one of the worst of all insults and now it is just a throwaway word more or less.  once heredity and lineage stopped being so much of a thing, the word lost a lot of its meaning.  edit: a letter c
i do not think we should change historically neutral terms into slurs.  why invent new problems ? here is a quote from wikipedia URL some part of me suspects that people who insist  chinaman  or  oriental  are slurs do it because they  want  lots of slurs against them as proof they are an oppressed minority who is owed special respect.  i am not saying asians have a conscious plan to manufacture new slurs.  rather, i think any tendency like this would emerge organically from the power dynamics among america is jostling factions.  my consciousness was raised on this topic by paul graham is essay:  what you ca not say  URL when non asians do this same thing, cramming new badness into old neutral words by tisk tisking when they hear them in speech, i see it as an effort to drive racial bias out of our collective thinking and support a minority.  a mistaken effort, in my view.  words matter a great deal.  they limit what thoughts we can think and shape the emotions we feel.  when groups seek power by redefining words to be harsher and nastier, they get it at the expense of society because now we have to live with the new bad feelings they engender.  and it looks bad to have to keep changing names every few decades.  it looks like our culture has a sickness.  let is be honest, no one really hates asians enough that we need to have a broad array of words to attack them with.  let is keep our current words positive.  i want nothing but the best for all humans.  i have no negative feelings about any nationality or ethnicity.  i am just interested in dispassionate truth, and having an english language that is a pleasure to think in.   #  and it looks bad to have to keep changing names every few decades.   #  it looks like our culture has a sickness.   # rather, i think any tendency like this would emerge organically from the power dynamics among america is jostling factions.  my consciousness was raised on this topic by paul graham is essay:  what you ca not say .  you think minorities create the offensiveness of slurs ? did black people create the offensiveness of n\ \ \ \ \ , or were white people using it derogatorily ? did gay people create the offensiveness of f\ \ \ \ \ , or were straight people using it derogatorily ? additionally, there is so much i disagree with in that essay.  they limit what thoughts we can think and shape the emotions we feel.  uh, really ? that sounds a lot like a strongish version of the sapir whorf hypothesis URL which is not all that well regarded, in general.  agree, but it is not the minorities doing this.  it looks like our culture has a sickness.  agreed.  the sickness is hatred and intolerance.  that is a flat out lie.  there are plenty of people who hate asians quite a bit, unfortunately.  it is not like unbiased people are the ones propagating these words.   #  it translates into  old outsider  and is not really meant as a derogatory term and  lao  is actually the start of a lot of respectful words such as teacher, wife and boss.   #  an interesting point to add to this is the chinese use of the word  laowai  which as a white guy who lives in china i here almost constantly when walking the street.  it translates into  old outsider  and is not really meant as a derogatory term and  lao  is actually the start of a lot of respectful words such as teacher, wife and boss.  the point is that although people do not mean to use it derogatively it often does get used by a lot of people that way, as more and more westerners come over.  either in a dismissive or a aggressive way.  it does not really bother me and i call my western friends over here laowai and even sometimes refer to my self as one.  i can see it becoming an offensive word in 0 years though in the same why chinaman or paki is in the uk.   #  if you dismiss the word it could send the signal that there was such truth to the stereotype that we had to edit our vocabulary to escape it.   #  thank you, that is good context.   chinaman  came to refer to a false stereotype of backward, unintelligent chinese people.  would not it be better to dismiss the stereotype, rather than the word ? if you dismiss the word it could send the signal that there was such truth to the stereotype that we had to edit our vocabulary to escape it.  it perversely legitimizes the stereotype.  i think we should use good linguistic hygiene and not let our words for people accumulate negative connotations.  by force of will we should continue to use the same words for people, but in a positive way.   negro  means the same thing as  black,  but the term had to be retired.  why ? because we built up too many memories of racists saying it in an ugly way.  we should scrub the word clean in our minds and continue to use it, to avoid any possibility that people may think there is something wrong with being black that causes the word for it to become dirty and have to be replaced.   #  man, if i could convince everyone on this earth that an offensive word is just a nonsense primate noise that only has the power and meaning we assign, i would.   #  i was actually going to use the  negro  example, funnily enough.  man, if i could convince everyone on this earth that an offensive word is just a nonsense primate noise that only has the power and meaning we assign, i would.  but it is not realistic.  as a white person, i wo not go around trying to use  negro  anymore than i will  chinaman.   i agree that the word itself is not inherently offensive, but it does not have the historical connotation to my personal heritage that it does to an asian american.  it is not my place to take back the word, or to say it is okay.   #  once heredity and lineage stopped being so much of a thing, the word lost a lot of its meaning.   #  it would be great.  then again it would also be great if i had a million dollars in my bank.  words do have connections to their historical meanings.  i mean you can try to take the word  nigger  back or the phrase  white pride  but you are going up against years and years of how that word has been used in historical context.  to do what you want to do takes time and a shift of culture.  the word bastard is a great example.  this word used to be one of the worst of all insults and now it is just a throwaway word more or less.  once heredity and lineage stopped being so much of a thing, the word lost a lot of its meaning.  edit: a letter c
i do not think we should change historically neutral terms into slurs.  why invent new problems ? here is a quote from wikipedia URL some part of me suspects that people who insist  chinaman  or  oriental  are slurs do it because they  want  lots of slurs against them as proof they are an oppressed minority who is owed special respect.  i am not saying asians have a conscious plan to manufacture new slurs.  rather, i think any tendency like this would emerge organically from the power dynamics among america is jostling factions.  my consciousness was raised on this topic by paul graham is essay:  what you ca not say  URL when non asians do this same thing, cramming new badness into old neutral words by tisk tisking when they hear them in speech, i see it as an effort to drive racial bias out of our collective thinking and support a minority.  a mistaken effort, in my view.  words matter a great deal.  they limit what thoughts we can think and shape the emotions we feel.  when groups seek power by redefining words to be harsher and nastier, they get it at the expense of society because now we have to live with the new bad feelings they engender.  and it looks bad to have to keep changing names every few decades.  it looks like our culture has a sickness.  let is be honest, no one really hates asians enough that we need to have a broad array of words to attack them with.  let is keep our current words positive.  i want nothing but the best for all humans.  i have no negative feelings about any nationality or ethnicity.  i am just interested in dispassionate truth, and having an english language that is a pleasure to think in.   #  let is be honest, no one really hates asians enough that we need to have a broad array of words to attack them with.   #  here are some racist tweets URL from people who just watched red dawn, a movie about a north korean invasion.   #  the word  nigger  was not considered offensive in its origin, but for whatever reason, was later chosen as a slur, and now it is one of the biggest slurs english has.  the reason why it is a slur is because  people used it as a slur .  words do not have ideal, platonic meanings that humans misinterpret.  the only meaning they have is the ways people use them.  how about words that refer to people with down syndrome ? first, the commonplace term was  retarded.   this word became a slur because people used it as such.  so then the champions for sensitivity came up with  special needs  or  special.   now  special  is can be used as an insult in the same manner as  retarded.   so if someone called you  retarded  or  special , you would not be insulted, because the words had  neutral  origins ? instead, i think you would be insulted because it was  intended as an insult.  coming back to  chinaman,  the word was neutral at the onset, but became pejorative during peak xenophobia in the later 0s.  it was used as a slur by against the chinese and even the japanese.  the word became used largely to express anti asian sentiment.  here is  john chinaman  URL a racist song sung by california gold miners.  here is an extremely racist political cartoon URL so i have to strongly disagree with you that asian people are taking regular words and re interpreting them as slurs.  they are slurs because  they are used as slurs .  if there is any redefining of words going on, it is done by the people who are using them pejoratively.  here are some racist tweets URL from people who just watched red dawn, a movie about a north korean invasion.  surprise, these people are not expressing anti north korea sentiment.  so i would argue that, instead of telling the victims of racism to stop expressing their outrage and changing the meaning of words, we should tell racists to stop being racist and inventing new ways to insult people.   #  it does not really bother me and i call my western friends over here laowai and even sometimes refer to my self as one.   #  an interesting point to add to this is the chinese use of the word  laowai  which as a white guy who lives in china i here almost constantly when walking the street.  it translates into  old outsider  and is not really meant as a derogatory term and  lao  is actually the start of a lot of respectful words such as teacher, wife and boss.  the point is that although people do not mean to use it derogatively it often does get used by a lot of people that way, as more and more westerners come over.  either in a dismissive or a aggressive way.  it does not really bother me and i call my western friends over here laowai and even sometimes refer to my self as one.  i can see it becoming an offensive word in 0 years though in the same why chinaman or paki is in the uk.   #  by force of will we should continue to use the same words for people, but in a positive way.   #  thank you, that is good context.   chinaman  came to refer to a false stereotype of backward, unintelligent chinese people.  would not it be better to dismiss the stereotype, rather than the word ? if you dismiss the word it could send the signal that there was such truth to the stereotype that we had to edit our vocabulary to escape it.  it perversely legitimizes the stereotype.  i think we should use good linguistic hygiene and not let our words for people accumulate negative connotations.  by force of will we should continue to use the same words for people, but in a positive way.   negro  means the same thing as  black,  but the term had to be retired.  why ? because we built up too many memories of racists saying it in an ugly way.  we should scrub the word clean in our minds and continue to use it, to avoid any possibility that people may think there is something wrong with being black that causes the word for it to become dirty and have to be replaced.   #  it is not my place to take back the word, or to say it is okay.   #  i was actually going to use the  negro  example, funnily enough.  man, if i could convince everyone on this earth that an offensive word is just a nonsense primate noise that only has the power and meaning we assign, i would.  but it is not realistic.  as a white person, i wo not go around trying to use  negro  anymore than i will  chinaman.   i agree that the word itself is not inherently offensive, but it does not have the historical connotation to my personal heritage that it does to an asian american.  it is not my place to take back the word, or to say it is okay.   #  once heredity and lineage stopped being so much of a thing, the word lost a lot of its meaning.   #  it would be great.  then again it would also be great if i had a million dollars in my bank.  words do have connections to their historical meanings.  i mean you can try to take the word  nigger  back or the phrase  white pride  but you are going up against years and years of how that word has been used in historical context.  to do what you want to do takes time and a shift of culture.  the word bastard is a great example.  this word used to be one of the worst of all insults and now it is just a throwaway word more or less.  once heredity and lineage stopped being so much of a thing, the word lost a lot of its meaning.  edit: a letter c
i do not think we should change historically neutral terms into slurs.  why invent new problems ? here is a quote from wikipedia URL some part of me suspects that people who insist  chinaman  or  oriental  are slurs do it because they  want  lots of slurs against them as proof they are an oppressed minority who is owed special respect.  i am not saying asians have a conscious plan to manufacture new slurs.  rather, i think any tendency like this would emerge organically from the power dynamics among america is jostling factions.  my consciousness was raised on this topic by paul graham is essay:  what you ca not say  URL when non asians do this same thing, cramming new badness into old neutral words by tisk tisking when they hear them in speech, i see it as an effort to drive racial bias out of our collective thinking and support a minority.  a mistaken effort, in my view.  words matter a great deal.  they limit what thoughts we can think and shape the emotions we feel.  when groups seek power by redefining words to be harsher and nastier, they get it at the expense of society because now we have to live with the new bad feelings they engender.  and it looks bad to have to keep changing names every few decades.  it looks like our culture has a sickness.  let is be honest, no one really hates asians enough that we need to have a broad array of words to attack them with.  let is keep our current words positive.  i want nothing but the best for all humans.  i have no negative feelings about any nationality or ethnicity.  i am just interested in dispassionate truth, and having an english language that is a pleasure to think in.   #  let is be honest, no one really hates asians enough that we need to have a broad array of words to attack them with.   #  let is keep our current words positive.   # a word is etymology is irrelevant and can be entirely different to its modern day usage.  i do not think that this is what is happening.  i think it was the people who originally started using  chinaman  in derogatory ways, who  crammed the badness  into the word, and not the people who  tisk tisk  its current usage.  let is keep our current words positive.  the problem is that it is impossible to  declare  a word to be free of derogatory connotations going forward.  once a word starts to be used as a slur, people will associate it with that, and this will have certain effects on the victims.  good intentions of word users cannot nullify the effects it has on others, so unless you do not care about the effects of your language use on others, you should probably avoid these kinds of words.   #  either in a dismissive or a aggressive way.   #  an interesting point to add to this is the chinese use of the word  laowai  which as a white guy who lives in china i here almost constantly when walking the street.  it translates into  old outsider  and is not really meant as a derogatory term and  lao  is actually the start of a lot of respectful words such as teacher, wife and boss.  the point is that although people do not mean to use it derogatively it often does get used by a lot of people that way, as more and more westerners come over.  either in a dismissive or a aggressive way.  it does not really bother me and i call my western friends over here laowai and even sometimes refer to my self as one.  i can see it becoming an offensive word in 0 years though in the same why chinaman or paki is in the uk.   #  by force of will we should continue to use the same words for people, but in a positive way.   #  thank you, that is good context.   chinaman  came to refer to a false stereotype of backward, unintelligent chinese people.  would not it be better to dismiss the stereotype, rather than the word ? if you dismiss the word it could send the signal that there was such truth to the stereotype that we had to edit our vocabulary to escape it.  it perversely legitimizes the stereotype.  i think we should use good linguistic hygiene and not let our words for people accumulate negative connotations.  by force of will we should continue to use the same words for people, but in a positive way.   negro  means the same thing as  black,  but the term had to be retired.  why ? because we built up too many memories of racists saying it in an ugly way.  we should scrub the word clean in our minds and continue to use it, to avoid any possibility that people may think there is something wrong with being black that causes the word for it to become dirty and have to be replaced.   #  i agree that the word itself is not inherently offensive, but it does not have the historical connotation to my personal heritage that it does to an asian american.   #  i was actually going to use the  negro  example, funnily enough.  man, if i could convince everyone on this earth that an offensive word is just a nonsense primate noise that only has the power and meaning we assign, i would.  but it is not realistic.  as a white person, i wo not go around trying to use  negro  anymore than i will  chinaman.   i agree that the word itself is not inherently offensive, but it does not have the historical connotation to my personal heritage that it does to an asian american.  it is not my place to take back the word, or to say it is okay.   #  once heredity and lineage stopped being so much of a thing, the word lost a lot of its meaning.   #  it would be great.  then again it would also be great if i had a million dollars in my bank.  words do have connections to their historical meanings.  i mean you can try to take the word  nigger  back or the phrase  white pride  but you are going up against years and years of how that word has been used in historical context.  to do what you want to do takes time and a shift of culture.  the word bastard is a great example.  this word used to be one of the worst of all insults and now it is just a throwaway word more or less.  once heredity and lineage stopped being so much of a thing, the word lost a lot of its meaning.  edit: a letter c
it is absolutely clear that if a parent is obese, their children will more than likely become obese.  nearly 0 percent of obese 0 to 0 year olds with an obese parent will be obese as adults.  URL these parents pass their bad habits onto their children and their children are negatively effected by this.  in many cases the parents may not have been obese as children and they may not realize the added dangers of being obese from an early age.  the chance of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and cancer is increased for children with obesity.  to me you can make your own choices as far as your lifestyle.  my argument is that you become unethical when you start to effect the health and lives of others in your behavior.  while a child wo not necessarily become obese from your behavior we know that the biggest influence in a child is behavior is their parents behavior and the evidence shows a rate of 0 which is more than a probability.  should my view be changed ?  #  to me you can make your own choices as far as your lifestyle.   #  my argument is that you become unethical when you start to effect the health and lives of others in your behavior i think we should be careful about this ethical maxim.   # my argument is that you become unethical when you start to effect the health and lives of others in your behavior i think we should be careful about this ethical maxim.  suppose a would kill themselves if and only if b decides to become a lawyer.  b decides to become a lawyer, a kills themself.  b, in a very real sense, affected the health of a.  is b wrong in this case ? i think the obese child instance is quite similar.  nobody is forcing anyone to be obese, it is an  indirect  result.  we ca not really blame people for such indirect results of otherwise perfectly ethical actions.   #  i think you are on a very slippery slope.   #  i think you are on a very slippery slope.  a child of a parents who smoke is two to three times as likely to take up the habit.  is it also unethical for smokers to have kids ? how about illegal drug users ? gamblers ? felons ? people in bankruptcy ? people who have gotten a dui ? people on welfare ? what about people who are somewhat overweight ? you perspective will quickly jump to other maladies as well.  i suspect you would agree that someone with a genetic disorder that has a good chance to pass it to their kids should not have children.  what about people with mental disorders ? what if their family has a history of heart disease, alzheimers, or cancer ? if you assume that it is unethical to have children and make poor choices that is likely to be emulated, i think it is hard to not quickly conclude that nobody should have children.   #  your stance is that if you believe people should take responsibility for their actions, they should just never try at anything.   #  i never said that one should not have children if they have bad habits.  my point is that if you are having children you should give your complete effort toward stopping your bad habit and setting a good example for your children.  genetic alzheimer is, and cancer are not preventable.  for most people, obesity is.  your stance is that if you believe people should take responsibility for their actions, they should just never try at anything.  in many ways yes, if you smoke around your kids.  first off, there is the issue of second degree smoke.  secondly, if you were to smoke around your kids knowing that it will make them more likely to smoke later in life, you are knowingly putting your kid at risk.  this is bad.  it seems that people have an easy time seeing that putting their kids at risk in the short term is bad but when it comes to the long term they do not quite make the connection.  most everybody would say the immediate threat of leaving your kid in the car for 0 minutes is bad but extend the threat a span of 0 years and people do not seem to make the connection as easily.   #  we also know that alcoholism and addiction is often passed down from generation to generation.   #  yes at an 0 rate it is safe to assume that this is not going on.  it is perfectly reasonable to assume that parents will be feeding their children the same thing they are eating.  you did however bring up something i did not consider.  parental obesity may be caused not by their eating habits.  with that said, sedentary living is also setting a bad example for children.  we also know that alcoholism and addiction is often passed down from generation to generation.  if a person is obese for a reason other than these such as a thyroid problem i suppose it would not be unethical but then again, my title specifically says obese lifestyle.  it is possible for a person to be obese without living the lifestyle just as it is possible for a person to not be obese and live an obese lifestyle.   #  it is perfectly reasonable to assume that parents will be feeding their children the same thing they are eating.   # it is perfectly reasonable to assume that parents will be feeding their children the same thing they are eating.  0 will be obese as an adult.  how does that 0 of obese parents are feeding their kids poorly exactly.  i am a statistician, and i do not get it at all.  but, suppose that every single obese parent living the obese lifestyle feeds their kids poorly.  it seems what is unethical is the poor feeding.  the fact that the parents are also obese is not the unethical part, it just happens to always mirror the unethical part.
note: i have no intention of any sort of self harm.  we are going to die at some point, and at that point or some point relatively soon after all of our memories, loves, hopes, accomplishments, failures and mundane scratchings will cease to be.  if i surpass any previous accomplishment by any other human, or spend all my days watching spanish soap operas and eating chips i do not speak spanish , the end result is the same: oblivion.  all i want is peace, and an end to stress and worry.  to live is to suffer, and death brings nothing but relief.  change my view.   #  if i surpass any previous accomplishment by any other human, or spend all my days watching spanish soap operas and eating chips i do not speak spanish , the end result is the same: oblivion.   #  you should do what makes you happy.   # you should do what makes you happy.  if becoming the greatest human on earth will make you very happy, work for it.  if having enough money to watch tv all day is all you need to be happy, that is also fine.  that is the point of life.  if you do not know what will make you happy, well, for now the meaning of your life is to find out what might.   #  i also do not think that anyones experience is worth more than anyone else is, so if anybody decides that something is significant, then that is all there is to it.   #  it is really late and i want to give this a proper reply, so if you do not mind waiting a bit, i will do that tomorrow.  i do agree that there is no more meaning to life than what we give it.  i also do not think that anyones experience is worth more than anyone else is, so if anybody decides that something is significant, then that is all there is to it.  i just struggle to find that meaning.  maybe by looking for something that does not exist, i miss what is there, and i should just stop looking.  it is easier said than done though.  i do think that these sorts of things are not like switches in your head.  they are more like little machines, which can be built up.  in other words, if i walk around actively looking for meaning, i will find it more and more until eventually it will pop up automatically.  i have been on both sides of this discussion as i am sure everyone has , and reading the positive posts helps to build up the happiness engine, while hopefully silencing the machine of gloom.   #  the better you get at noticing these things, sniffing out the roses the more your life becomes enjoyable.   #  sensation is a beautiful thing.  your fingers running through silk when you first wake, that first splash of warm water when you head to the bathroom all the way through the sunset   that last oreo you saved for dessert.  life is an infinite cacophony of little pleasures   beauties.  the better you get at noticing these things, sniffing out the roses the more your life becomes enjoyable.  without anything physically changing but the state of your mind.  like a perfect ice cream sunday or the last, best wave on memorial day these things do not have to be infinite to have significance.  nothing is permanent.  yet we exist.  so go on with your soap operas.  enjoy the salt on each   every chip.  it does not have to have a point.   the point  is an arbitrary construct.  a human illusion.  you sitting here, with a soap opera   an internet connection, is a whole galaxy of things to be perceived   loved   enjoyed.  you want an opus or a tombstone ? it wont last forever either.  but theres a whole world of living in the things creation you get to go through first.  even the brief, momentary absence of pain is wonderful no matter how hard or painful life is, that moment when you lapse off to sleep is infinitely literally infinitely better than not having life.   #  basically the idea is that everything is connected in some way or another.   #  there are days when i wake up, and i can be so completely and totally thankful that we have the colour purple in our lives.  it is so beautiful and we would not even have missed it if we did not know it existed.  i totally believe that beauty is truth, and that truth surrounds us every single day.  every single moment is an expression of life or god if you want to call it that , and so every single moment is beautiful.  but then i hit this niggly thought that if everything is perfect, nothing matters.  on one hand it is comforting that the final authority is this moment, and so it is all ok.  but on the other, it takes away my drive to do anything, since no matter what i do the result is the same.  and yes, i take your point that  the point  is a construct, but i am not sure it is arbitrary or at least any more arbitrary than my oreo .  thank you for your post, i agree with pretty much everything you say.  have you ever heard of indra is net ? basically the idea is that everything is connected in some way or another.  or in other words, we could not have had that oreo if we did not take literally everything else in existence along with it.   #  thank you for your well articulated post which helps nudge me and hopefully others along the path of in noticement™.   #    as you say, the more you notice these things, the easier it is to notice them again.  thank you for your well articulated post which helps nudge me and hopefully others along the path of in noticement™.  the same also applies to looking for the pointlessness in life, and i guess i have been a bit further down that path than i intended.  which is fine; as another poster mentioned life is duality.  the one thing i do not agree with is that human constructs and illusions are not important that is not quite what you said but i have heard it before .  all of life is a human construct or contrarily, we are shaped into human form by life , and that is as real as anything.  if someone really wanted to escape all their constructs then i am not sure even death would help.  anyways, i do not want to dump a wall of text on you so i will try not to ramble.  i mentioned indra is net earlier because it is a way to remind myself that we are all equally part of the greater whole.  and if that greater whole is creating something just for the sake of having something be created, then that is the most beautiful thing that can be real magic ! .
a few things first: i think that income inequality is a major issue, if not the most important issue, of this generation.  far too much has been consolidated at the top and it has become harder and harder for most people to climb the economic ladder.  i do think that many individuals within so called 0 and corporations are able to get breaks and deals, and that the us government is perfectly willing to cater to them above the rest of the population from other countries too, i do not know though because i study the us government .  money has no place in politics, until it is gone or seriously reduced as a factor, governments wo not work the way they are supposed to.  that being said, i think that most people who complain/argue/talk about income inequality all the time would be perfectly happy making 0  figures.  part of the american dream is the ability to make it to the top, be successful, and make good money.  often i hear people demonizing those who make enough money to qualify for the 0 as if they are all villains who meet in a secret location and talk about how they can fuck the rest of the population.  it seems as though, to many people, just the accomplishment of being very successful has become a bad thing from the point of view of those who do not make that much.  i think that most peoples  opinions would change pretty quick if they started making more money.  i can clarify if anything in unclear.  just let me know ! i would love to hear peoples  opinions and views ! cmv, thanks !  #  often i hear people demonizing those who make enough money to qualify for the 0 as if they are all villains who meet in a secret location and talk about how they can fuck the rest of the population.   #  sometime you should read about how politicians get elected and how laws are made.   # sometime you should read about how politicians get elected and how laws are made.  try robert caro is biography of lyndon johnson, for example.  or look into how hitler got elected in germany, and who financed him.  rich people are not necessarily evil, but rich people are very interested in protecting their wealth.  lyndon johnson is an interesting example because he did a lot of good, but also a lot of bad, and whatever he did he always looked out for his wealthy friends and for himself.  even when he was fighting a war on poverty he was also lining his pocket and the pockets of his friends and supporters.  hitler is a more sinister example, put into power by the rich to protect them from communists, but in the meantime demonizing the jews in order to deflect attention away from the non jewish 0.  it was a desperate measure in a desperate time, and of course resulted in a lot of evil.   #  0.  i do not think a lot more money these days actually gets you happiness.   #  the same could be said about most forms of privilege.  i do not get followed in stores, and my experience with cops has usually been just peachy these are things that others do not have, but that does not mean its wrong for me to have them.  likewise, the systemic factors that cause inequality can exist and be bad, even if i work really hard for my own success.  i will take two specific tacts to change your view: 0.  many people in the 0 get there with exploitative or morally unsound business practices.  ceos that nickel and dime workers/consumers; marketers that sell people on products with over promises, businesses that expand and succeed with some shady behavior URL as an institution, wall street presented pension funds and retirees with aaa rated investments that were anything but, in reality.  insider trading allows some to get rich off of knowledge most of us do not have.  i do not think everyone would be happy making that moral trade for more money in fact, i would say that those industries are mostly populated with less moral people these days, which hurts all of us.  0.  i do not think a lot more money these days actually gets you happiness.  once you can afford a home and college education, luxury goods end up being nice but not necessary.  also, i have also studied the usg, and i think it is a little far fetched to think that we can actually get money out of politics, but that is a different topic.   #  yet, in a way many of them are secretly plotting against the rest of us, because they want to protect their money.   #  i think that one sentence is an important part of your view.  you are not just saying that people would be happy to be rich, you also are implying that the 0 are not, in fact, secretly plotting against the rest of the population and that if they joined the 0 they would realize this.  yet, in a way many of them are secretly plotting against the rest of us, because they want to protect their money.  it is not just a fantasy, the rich do have better access to politicians and other powerful people, and they use that access for their own interests, and they subvert the idea of equality.  not all of them do so.  there are some rich people, for example, who support taxing inherited income at a relatively high rate.  but most rich people want to pass their fortunes along with minimal taxes, and go to great lengths to do so.   #  certainly, if you demonize the person who has more than you, then you feel better about yourself and having less.   #  i think you could be right, but i do not think matters.  certainly, if you demonize the person who has more than you, then you feel better about yourself and having less.  but i do not think that changes the fact that a small percentage of the population has been allowed to hoard wealth and power at the expense of the middle class and it is a poison on our society.  in other words, income inequality is an important issue, not just because the 0 want to feel morally superior by demonizing the 0 but because there are negative ramifications and implications stemming from income inequality.  so if a 0er joined the 0 and changed their opinion, then that is due to their own ignorance and personal failing because the arguments as to why income inequality is harmful still stands.   #  so long as governments have some relation to goods and services money will have to be part of politics.   #  i am fairly agnostic on this issue, but i do want to quibble some of your points.  far too much has been consolidated at the top and it has become harder and harder for most people to climb the economic ladder.  how much is too much ? in a society that allows free transactions of goods, services and money some are going to earn more, and people will end up being unequal economically.  saying too much wealth has accrued at the top implies that there is an amount of inequality that should be tolerated.  what is that amount ? governments deal with big businesses partly because they are the only ones able to supply the people with what they want on mass.  people want oil, and only a set few businessmen have the connections and capital to produce and distribute it.  same goes for all utilities.  clearly in all societies there will be some corruption, but one has to consider what alternatives are available to the government.  money is merely a proxy for wealth, which in real terms is goods and services.  so long as governments have some relation to goods and services money will have to be part of politics.  that is inevitable.  maybe we should reduce its influence somehow, but then we crash into my second point.  i do not think it makes you a hypocrite to want to have nice things even while you argue that it would be good for the world is supply of nice things to be spread more evenly.  but even if it does it does not invalidate the argument.  ad hominem comes in many forms, but it is always fallacious as an argument.
a few things first: i think that income inequality is a major issue, if not the most important issue, of this generation.  far too much has been consolidated at the top and it has become harder and harder for most people to climb the economic ladder.  i do think that many individuals within so called 0 and corporations are able to get breaks and deals, and that the us government is perfectly willing to cater to them above the rest of the population from other countries too, i do not know though because i study the us government .  money has no place in politics, until it is gone or seriously reduced as a factor, governments wo not work the way they are supposed to.  that being said, i think that most people who complain/argue/talk about income inequality all the time would be perfectly happy making 0  figures.  part of the american dream is the ability to make it to the top, be successful, and make good money.  often i hear people demonizing those who make enough money to qualify for the 0 as if they are all villains who meet in a secret location and talk about how they can fuck the rest of the population.  it seems as though, to many people, just the accomplishment of being very successful has become a bad thing from the point of view of those who do not make that much.  i think that most peoples  opinions would change pretty quick if they started making more money.  i can clarify if anything in unclear.  just let me know ! i would love to hear peoples  opinions and views ! cmv, thanks !  #  i think that income inequality is a major issue, if not the most important issue, of this generation.   #  far too much has been consolidated at the top and it has become harder and harder for most people to climb the economic ladder.   #  i am fairly agnostic on this issue, but i do want to quibble some of your points.  far too much has been consolidated at the top and it has become harder and harder for most people to climb the economic ladder.  how much is too much ? in a society that allows free transactions of goods, services and money some are going to earn more, and people will end up being unequal economically.  saying too much wealth has accrued at the top implies that there is an amount of inequality that should be tolerated.  what is that amount ? governments deal with big businesses partly because they are the only ones able to supply the people with what they want on mass.  people want oil, and only a set few businessmen have the connections and capital to produce and distribute it.  same goes for all utilities.  clearly in all societies there will be some corruption, but one has to consider what alternatives are available to the government.  money is merely a proxy for wealth, which in real terms is goods and services.  so long as governments have some relation to goods and services money will have to be part of politics.  that is inevitable.  maybe we should reduce its influence somehow, but then we crash into my second point.  i do not think it makes you a hypocrite to want to have nice things even while you argue that it would be good for the world is supply of nice things to be spread more evenly.  but even if it does it does not invalidate the argument.  ad hominem comes in many forms, but it is always fallacious as an argument.   #  insider trading allows some to get rich off of knowledge most of us do not have.   #  the same could be said about most forms of privilege.  i do not get followed in stores, and my experience with cops has usually been just peachy these are things that others do not have, but that does not mean its wrong for me to have them.  likewise, the systemic factors that cause inequality can exist and be bad, even if i work really hard for my own success.  i will take two specific tacts to change your view: 0.  many people in the 0 get there with exploitative or morally unsound business practices.  ceos that nickel and dime workers/consumers; marketers that sell people on products with over promises, businesses that expand and succeed with some shady behavior URL as an institution, wall street presented pension funds and retirees with aaa rated investments that were anything but, in reality.  insider trading allows some to get rich off of knowledge most of us do not have.  i do not think everyone would be happy making that moral trade for more money in fact, i would say that those industries are mostly populated with less moral people these days, which hurts all of us.  0.  i do not think a lot more money these days actually gets you happiness.  once you can afford a home and college education, luxury goods end up being nice but not necessary.  also, i have also studied the usg, and i think it is a little far fetched to think that we can actually get money out of politics, but that is a different topic.   #  hitler is a more sinister example, put into power by the rich to protect them from communists, but in the meantime demonizing the jews in order to deflect attention away from the non jewish 0.   # sometime you should read about how politicians get elected and how laws are made.  try robert caro is biography of lyndon johnson, for example.  or look into how hitler got elected in germany, and who financed him.  rich people are not necessarily evil, but rich people are very interested in protecting their wealth.  lyndon johnson is an interesting example because he did a lot of good, but also a lot of bad, and whatever he did he always looked out for his wealthy friends and for himself.  even when he was fighting a war on poverty he was also lining his pocket and the pockets of his friends and supporters.  hitler is a more sinister example, put into power by the rich to protect them from communists, but in the meantime demonizing the jews in order to deflect attention away from the non jewish 0.  it was a desperate measure in a desperate time, and of course resulted in a lot of evil.   #  i think that one sentence is an important part of your view.   #  i think that one sentence is an important part of your view.  you are not just saying that people would be happy to be rich, you also are implying that the 0 are not, in fact, secretly plotting against the rest of the population and that if they joined the 0 they would realize this.  yet, in a way many of them are secretly plotting against the rest of us, because they want to protect their money.  it is not just a fantasy, the rich do have better access to politicians and other powerful people, and they use that access for their own interests, and they subvert the idea of equality.  not all of them do so.  there are some rich people, for example, who support taxing inherited income at a relatively high rate.  but most rich people want to pass their fortunes along with minimal taxes, and go to great lengths to do so.   #  so if a 0er joined the 0 and changed their opinion, then that is due to their own ignorance and personal failing because the arguments as to why income inequality is harmful still stands.   #  i think you could be right, but i do not think matters.  certainly, if you demonize the person who has more than you, then you feel better about yourself and having less.  but i do not think that changes the fact that a small percentage of the population has been allowed to hoard wealth and power at the expense of the middle class and it is a poison on our society.  in other words, income inequality is an important issue, not just because the 0 want to feel morally superior by demonizing the 0 but because there are negative ramifications and implications stemming from income inequality.  so if a 0er joined the 0 and changed their opinion, then that is due to their own ignorance and personal failing because the arguments as to why income inequality is harmful still stands.
a few things first: i think that income inequality is a major issue, if not the most important issue, of this generation.  far too much has been consolidated at the top and it has become harder and harder for most people to climb the economic ladder.  i do think that many individuals within so called 0 and corporations are able to get breaks and deals, and that the us government is perfectly willing to cater to them above the rest of the population from other countries too, i do not know though because i study the us government .  money has no place in politics, until it is gone or seriously reduced as a factor, governments wo not work the way they are supposed to.  that being said, i think that most people who complain/argue/talk about income inequality all the time would be perfectly happy making 0  figures.  part of the american dream is the ability to make it to the top, be successful, and make good money.  often i hear people demonizing those who make enough money to qualify for the 0 as if they are all villains who meet in a secret location and talk about how they can fuck the rest of the population.  it seems as though, to many people, just the accomplishment of being very successful has become a bad thing from the point of view of those who do not make that much.  i think that most peoples  opinions would change pretty quick if they started making more money.  i can clarify if anything in unclear.  just let me know ! i would love to hear peoples  opinions and views ! cmv, thanks !  #  money has no place in politics, until it is gone or seriously reduced as a factor, governments wo not work the way they are supposed to.   #  money is merely a proxy for wealth, which in real terms is goods and services.   #  i am fairly agnostic on this issue, but i do want to quibble some of your points.  far too much has been consolidated at the top and it has become harder and harder for most people to climb the economic ladder.  how much is too much ? in a society that allows free transactions of goods, services and money some are going to earn more, and people will end up being unequal economically.  saying too much wealth has accrued at the top implies that there is an amount of inequality that should be tolerated.  what is that amount ? governments deal with big businesses partly because they are the only ones able to supply the people with what they want on mass.  people want oil, and only a set few businessmen have the connections and capital to produce and distribute it.  same goes for all utilities.  clearly in all societies there will be some corruption, but one has to consider what alternatives are available to the government.  money is merely a proxy for wealth, which in real terms is goods and services.  so long as governments have some relation to goods and services money will have to be part of politics.  that is inevitable.  maybe we should reduce its influence somehow, but then we crash into my second point.  i do not think it makes you a hypocrite to want to have nice things even while you argue that it would be good for the world is supply of nice things to be spread more evenly.  but even if it does it does not invalidate the argument.  ad hominem comes in many forms, but it is always fallacious as an argument.   #  once you can afford a home and college education, luxury goods end up being nice but not necessary.   #  the same could be said about most forms of privilege.  i do not get followed in stores, and my experience with cops has usually been just peachy these are things that others do not have, but that does not mean its wrong for me to have them.  likewise, the systemic factors that cause inequality can exist and be bad, even if i work really hard for my own success.  i will take two specific tacts to change your view: 0.  many people in the 0 get there with exploitative or morally unsound business practices.  ceos that nickel and dime workers/consumers; marketers that sell people on products with over promises, businesses that expand and succeed with some shady behavior URL as an institution, wall street presented pension funds and retirees with aaa rated investments that were anything but, in reality.  insider trading allows some to get rich off of knowledge most of us do not have.  i do not think everyone would be happy making that moral trade for more money in fact, i would say that those industries are mostly populated with less moral people these days, which hurts all of us.  0.  i do not think a lot more money these days actually gets you happiness.  once you can afford a home and college education, luxury goods end up being nice but not necessary.  also, i have also studied the usg, and i think it is a little far fetched to think that we can actually get money out of politics, but that is a different topic.   #  lyndon johnson is an interesting example because he did a lot of good, but also a lot of bad, and whatever he did he always looked out for his wealthy friends and for himself.   # sometime you should read about how politicians get elected and how laws are made.  try robert caro is biography of lyndon johnson, for example.  or look into how hitler got elected in germany, and who financed him.  rich people are not necessarily evil, but rich people are very interested in protecting their wealth.  lyndon johnson is an interesting example because he did a lot of good, but also a lot of bad, and whatever he did he always looked out for his wealthy friends and for himself.  even when he was fighting a war on poverty he was also lining his pocket and the pockets of his friends and supporters.  hitler is a more sinister example, put into power by the rich to protect them from communists, but in the meantime demonizing the jews in order to deflect attention away from the non jewish 0.  it was a desperate measure in a desperate time, and of course resulted in a lot of evil.   #  i think that one sentence is an important part of your view.   #  i think that one sentence is an important part of your view.  you are not just saying that people would be happy to be rich, you also are implying that the 0 are not, in fact, secretly plotting against the rest of the population and that if they joined the 0 they would realize this.  yet, in a way many of them are secretly plotting against the rest of us, because they want to protect their money.  it is not just a fantasy, the rich do have better access to politicians and other powerful people, and they use that access for their own interests, and they subvert the idea of equality.  not all of them do so.  there are some rich people, for example, who support taxing inherited income at a relatively high rate.  but most rich people want to pass their fortunes along with minimal taxes, and go to great lengths to do so.   #  in other words, income inequality is an important issue, not just because the 0 want to feel morally superior by demonizing the 0 but because there are negative ramifications and implications stemming from income inequality.   #  i think you could be right, but i do not think matters.  certainly, if you demonize the person who has more than you, then you feel better about yourself and having less.  but i do not think that changes the fact that a small percentage of the population has been allowed to hoard wealth and power at the expense of the middle class and it is a poison on our society.  in other words, income inequality is an important issue, not just because the 0 want to feel morally superior by demonizing the 0 but because there are negative ramifications and implications stemming from income inequality.  so if a 0er joined the 0 and changed their opinion, then that is due to their own ignorance and personal failing because the arguments as to why income inequality is harmful still stands.
a few things first: i think that income inequality is a major issue, if not the most important issue, of this generation.  far too much has been consolidated at the top and it has become harder and harder for most people to climb the economic ladder.  i do think that many individuals within so called 0 and corporations are able to get breaks and deals, and that the us government is perfectly willing to cater to them above the rest of the population from other countries too, i do not know though because i study the us government .  money has no place in politics, until it is gone or seriously reduced as a factor, governments wo not work the way they are supposed to.  that being said, i think that most people who complain/argue/talk about income inequality all the time would be perfectly happy making 0  figures.  part of the american dream is the ability to make it to the top, be successful, and make good money.  often i hear people demonizing those who make enough money to qualify for the 0 as if they are all villains who meet in a secret location and talk about how they can fuck the rest of the population.  it seems as though, to many people, just the accomplishment of being very successful has become a bad thing from the point of view of those who do not make that much.  i think that most peoples  opinions would change pretty quick if they started making more money.  i can clarify if anything in unclear.  just let me know ! i would love to hear peoples  opinions and views ! cmv, thanks !  #  that being said, i think that most people who complain/argue/talk about income inequality all the time would be perfectly happy making 0  figures.   #  i do not think it makes you a hypocrite to want to have nice things even while you argue that it would be good for the world is supply of nice things to be spread more evenly.   #  i am fairly agnostic on this issue, but i do want to quibble some of your points.  far too much has been consolidated at the top and it has become harder and harder for most people to climb the economic ladder.  how much is too much ? in a society that allows free transactions of goods, services and money some are going to earn more, and people will end up being unequal economically.  saying too much wealth has accrued at the top implies that there is an amount of inequality that should be tolerated.  what is that amount ? governments deal with big businesses partly because they are the only ones able to supply the people with what they want on mass.  people want oil, and only a set few businessmen have the connections and capital to produce and distribute it.  same goes for all utilities.  clearly in all societies there will be some corruption, but one has to consider what alternatives are available to the government.  money is merely a proxy for wealth, which in real terms is goods and services.  so long as governments have some relation to goods and services money will have to be part of politics.  that is inevitable.  maybe we should reduce its influence somehow, but then we crash into my second point.  i do not think it makes you a hypocrite to want to have nice things even while you argue that it would be good for the world is supply of nice things to be spread more evenly.  but even if it does it does not invalidate the argument.  ad hominem comes in many forms, but it is always fallacious as an argument.   #  also, i have also studied the usg, and i think it is a little far fetched to think that we can actually get money out of politics, but that is a different topic.   #  the same could be said about most forms of privilege.  i do not get followed in stores, and my experience with cops has usually been just peachy these are things that others do not have, but that does not mean its wrong for me to have them.  likewise, the systemic factors that cause inequality can exist and be bad, even if i work really hard for my own success.  i will take two specific tacts to change your view: 0.  many people in the 0 get there with exploitative or morally unsound business practices.  ceos that nickel and dime workers/consumers; marketers that sell people on products with over promises, businesses that expand and succeed with some shady behavior URL as an institution, wall street presented pension funds and retirees with aaa rated investments that were anything but, in reality.  insider trading allows some to get rich off of knowledge most of us do not have.  i do not think everyone would be happy making that moral trade for more money in fact, i would say that those industries are mostly populated with less moral people these days, which hurts all of us.  0.  i do not think a lot more money these days actually gets you happiness.  once you can afford a home and college education, luxury goods end up being nice but not necessary.  also, i have also studied the usg, and i think it is a little far fetched to think that we can actually get money out of politics, but that is a different topic.   #  rich people are not necessarily evil, but rich people are very interested in protecting their wealth.   # sometime you should read about how politicians get elected and how laws are made.  try robert caro is biography of lyndon johnson, for example.  or look into how hitler got elected in germany, and who financed him.  rich people are not necessarily evil, but rich people are very interested in protecting their wealth.  lyndon johnson is an interesting example because he did a lot of good, but also a lot of bad, and whatever he did he always looked out for his wealthy friends and for himself.  even when he was fighting a war on poverty he was also lining his pocket and the pockets of his friends and supporters.  hitler is a more sinister example, put into power by the rich to protect them from communists, but in the meantime demonizing the jews in order to deflect attention away from the non jewish 0.  it was a desperate measure in a desperate time, and of course resulted in a lot of evil.   #  there are some rich people, for example, who support taxing inherited income at a relatively high rate.   #  i think that one sentence is an important part of your view.  you are not just saying that people would be happy to be rich, you also are implying that the 0 are not, in fact, secretly plotting against the rest of the population and that if they joined the 0 they would realize this.  yet, in a way many of them are secretly plotting against the rest of us, because they want to protect their money.  it is not just a fantasy, the rich do have better access to politicians and other powerful people, and they use that access for their own interests, and they subvert the idea of equality.  not all of them do so.  there are some rich people, for example, who support taxing inherited income at a relatively high rate.  but most rich people want to pass their fortunes along with minimal taxes, and go to great lengths to do so.   #  in other words, income inequality is an important issue, not just because the 0 want to feel morally superior by demonizing the 0 but because there are negative ramifications and implications stemming from income inequality.   #  i think you could be right, but i do not think matters.  certainly, if you demonize the person who has more than you, then you feel better about yourself and having less.  but i do not think that changes the fact that a small percentage of the population has been allowed to hoard wealth and power at the expense of the middle class and it is a poison on our society.  in other words, income inequality is an important issue, not just because the 0 want to feel morally superior by demonizing the 0 but because there are negative ramifications and implications stemming from income inequality.  so if a 0er joined the 0 and changed their opinion, then that is due to their own ignorance and personal failing because the arguments as to why income inequality is harmful still stands.
i think american government deliberately programs the conscience of its citizens since their childhood by altering their perception of the reality with false and distant from scientific truth beliefs.  it portrays its authority in the form of a supernatural power who bears state imposed  american values  and fights the evil.  disney movies portray the kings and queens as noble and just people that should be trusted and revered without a question.  we are taught to dualize things into evil and good, so do these movies, but in a very exagerated form.  watching supernatural abilities of the heros kids will have false understanding of the reality.  this is what generally religions do.  they stupidify people, separate concepts into good and bad, form beliefs in magical phenomenons.  you cannot scrape these values once you are an adult, because whatever you did in your childhood is the dearest and kindest memory you can never oppose.  somewhere in your heart you will believe in those false ideas, lies, that are initially meant to control your.  kinda develop stockholm syndrome with them if you like.  why not to make movies that are closer reality, to nature and its physical laws ? movies that teach us how to think rationally, scientifically ? why should we need to be so primitive ? i used to watch soviet cartoons which are diametrically different from the ones produced in the us.  soviet cartoons do not impose false ideas, they are simply about humane feelings like kindness, friendship, love and courage.  some even show the methods science, or how we can live in harmony with nature.  ironically, it turns out that a state which is deemed to be closed and authoritarian, had tried to educate its people, make them closer to the reality, while the most democratic and free state of the world systematically programs the minds of its people through releasing crappy tales about supernatural being, which is nothing but a modern form of religion.   #  i used to watch soviet cartoons which are diametrically different from the ones produced in the us.   #  soviet cartoons do not impose false ideas, they are simply about humane feelings like kindness, friendship, love and courage.   # soviet cartoons do not impose false ideas, they are simply about humane feelings like kindness, friendship, love and courage.  some even show the methods science, or how we can live in harmony with nature.  are you trying to compare soviet educational programs to american filmmaking, because they are not really comparable.  the u. s.  has tons of educational programming on television.  movies, on the other hand, are simply for entertainment, and while there are some social stereotypes that i try to weed out for my kids like the heroine nearly always has huge, blue eyes, is built like barbie and sings like an angel in order to woo prince charming, the mystical and imaginative themes are just that, mystical and imaginative.  it broadens children is imagination rather than stunts it.  i disagree that it somehow programs children to grow into adulthood not knowing fantasy from reality, hence our ability to ditch the belief in santa, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny.  and, as others have eloquently stated, the government is not a participant in american moviemaking beyond setting limits on age appropriateness.  often, even in children is films, there is an anti authority, anti government theme underlying the story.   #  the very cause of us buying it is a policy of stupidifying the whole nation, so it is easier to control it.   #  yes, they produce money because there is a demand for that.  why do you think there is a demand for such a stupid crap ? because those who buy it watched the same stuff during their childhood.  we like what we did while we were kids, we regard all those memories with our kindest feelings, and want our kids to feel the same.  therefore we buy those crappy movies to them.  the very cause of us buying it is a policy of stupidifying the whole nation, so it is easier to control it.  i am not conspiracy theorist, but sometimes when i see such an obvious brainwashing propaganda which is directed to distort reality in our perception, i recognise the elements of lunatic religion.  it kills common sense and rational thinking.   #  this is true across cultures, and across centuries.   #  in fact, it turns out you are a conspiracy theorist.  the use of fantastic and supernatural elements in story telling is in no way a peculiar to american cinema.  this is true across cultures, and across centuries.  the genre of the heroic epic is literally thousands of years old.  gilgamesh, hercules, ulysses, etc.  these are morality tales in which the virtues of a community were expressed through conflict of good/natural/noble instincts vs.  evil/artificial/low.  modern  realism  is in fact the departure, the novels of everyday people and everyday life would appear incomprehensibly dull and pointless to audiences from even a couple hundred years ago.   #  i strongly suspect that the answer to all of these questions is  no, but i feel that it is true.    #  this is a very unusual conspiracy theory to hold and despite your proclamation to the contrary, it is most definitely a conspiracy theory because hollywood has traditionally been accused of being full of hard left communists, something that generally runs counter to your claims.  i must admit i do not see any easy way to convince you that you are wrong, because it is not really clear  why  you believe this stuff.  i know we are supposed to be changing your view, not vice versa, but where is your evidence ? do you have any evidence for the claim that superhero movies or movies in general are dumbing down america ? do you have evidence that watching fantastical films as children causes someone to lose the ability to understand reality ? do you have evidence that the united states government has any significant control over what films are produced and become popular ? i strongly suspect that the answer to all of these questions is  no, but i feel that it is true.   i could try and provide arguments, both anecdotal and more scientific, against your viewpoint.  but honestly i think you must first examine  why  you hold these beliefs, and whether you have good reason to think as such or not.   #  i do not know what my future kids will watch, but it terrifies me, when i see them wanting to become such a bullshit hero.   #  yes, you are absolutely right, before stating something it would be more appropriate to gather evidence on that.  unfortunately, i do not have any evidence, but occasionally i notice the ads about such films, and definitely i do not watch them, but curiosity and hope drives to read the synopsis.  all the time i find it very frustrating, because from year to year it is becoming very primitive.  i do not know what my future kids will watch, but it terrifies me, when i see them wanting to become such a bullshit hero.  me myself once believed in sega: mortal combat, thought if i train myself well i can make those super punches.  this is ridiculous, i feel kind of disappointed about that.  it would be better if i learned something useful and more close to reality at that time.  it baffles me out when i see an obvious lie being fed to young and naive brains.
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  this does not fit the idea of marriage being beneficial to society at all, as far as i can tell.   # this is ideological nonsense.  mankind has never been so free.  this does not fit the idea of marriage being beneficial to society at all, as far as i can tell.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.   #  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ?  #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .   #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?  # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.   #  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.   # only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  sorry, i do not think you have any evidence of this either.  what societies that are several thousand years old are you thinking of ? how would you differentiate between secular and religious authority in say hittite society ? you are stating things as fact that you do not know to be fact.  you do not seem to have much curiosity about whether they are true, otherwise you would not make such blanket claims.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ?  #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.   #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.   # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.   #  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.   # only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  the act of marriage predates all judeo christian practices and beliefs.  or perhaps you were talking about the marriages sworn to zeus and ra ? it does so because it is good for itself.  if the state regulated marriage solely for their own benefit, why would they give a married couple legal benefits, like tax breaks and exemptions from inheritance taxes ? surely guaranteeing those rights to married couples is hurting the states by generating less revenue .  also, what is the state really regulating ? marriage is completely an opt in ceremony.  do not want to get married ? great, do not get married.  want to get married but have an open relationship ? great, go right ahead.  having marital troubles and want to live apart for a while ? again, do as you please.  want to get a divorce ? perfectly legal.  what is legal about marriage that you want to be illegal or vice versa ?  #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.   #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.   #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.   # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.   #  it does so because it is good for itself.   # only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  the act of marriage predates all judeo christian practices and beliefs.  or perhaps you were talking about the marriages sworn to zeus and ra ? it does so because it is good for itself.  if the state regulated marriage solely for their own benefit, why would they give a married couple legal benefits, like tax breaks and exemptions from inheritance taxes ? surely guaranteeing those rights to married couples is hurting the states by generating less revenue .  also, what is the state really regulating ? marriage is completely an opt in ceremony.  do not want to get married ? great, do not get married.  want to get married but have an open relationship ? great, go right ahead.  having marital troubles and want to live apart for a while ? again, do as you please.  want to get a divorce ? perfectly legal.  what is legal about marriage that you want to be illegal or vice versa ?  #  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.   #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ?  #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?  # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.   #  you are leaving out transfer of property, solidification of political/tribal/family connections, and about half a dozen other uses that marriage has had.   # you are leaving out transfer of property, solidification of political/tribal/family connections, and about half a dozen other uses that marriage has had.  please provide an example of a modern secular government that has no legal status that in anyway resembles marriage.  it has always been and always will be a secular  legal  issue.  in a secular government the church has  no  authority what so ever to enforce  legal  contracts.  just because they dressed it up in a frock and said a few amens during the ceremony does not mean the primary, real world, actionable function of the institution was not then, and is not now fully and totally  legal  in nature.  in fact, here is some people who say you are 0, absolutely and completely wrong in your assumptions: URL URL URL each one of them clearly states that marriage as a christian religious rite, comes significantly after it is secular and legal counterpart.  each one also clearly states that marriage is first and foremost about property.  it does so because it is good for itself.  in a representative democracy there is literally no distinction to be made between the state and the people.  the people  are  the state, the state is made up of the people.  you will probably bristle at this and attempt to side track the discussion by arguing this point.  i will warn you now that i wo not engage you there.  only if you willfully ignore the vast majority of history.  tell me, when and where would you rather be living the here and now ? at what point were things better ? that is not what the legal status of marriage is.  marriage as a legal status is a set of contracts that the government executes, administers, and enforces.   #  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.   #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.   #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?  # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  which is still the case in several countries.   #  please provide an example of a modern secular government that has no legal status that in anyway resembles marriage.   # you are leaving out transfer of property, solidification of political/tribal/family connections, and about half a dozen other uses that marriage has had.  please provide an example of a modern secular government that has no legal status that in anyway resembles marriage.  it has always been and always will be a secular  legal  issue.  in a secular government the church has  no  authority what so ever to enforce  legal  contracts.  just because they dressed it up in a frock and said a few amens during the ceremony does not mean the primary, real world, actionable function of the institution was not then, and is not now fully and totally  legal  in nature.  in fact, here is some people who say you are 0, absolutely and completely wrong in your assumptions: URL URL URL each one of them clearly states that marriage as a christian religious rite, comes significantly after it is secular and legal counterpart.  each one also clearly states that marriage is first and foremost about property.  it does so because it is good for itself.  in a representative democracy there is literally no distinction to be made between the state and the people.  the people  are  the state, the state is made up of the people.  you will probably bristle at this and attempt to side track the discussion by arguing this point.  i will warn you now that i wo not engage you there.  only if you willfully ignore the vast majority of history.  tell me, when and where would you rather be living the here and now ? at what point were things better ? that is not what the legal status of marriage is.  marriage as a legal status is a set of contracts that the government executes, administers, and enforces.   #  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.   #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ?  #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ?  # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.   #  it has always been and always will be a secular  legal  issue.   # you are leaving out transfer of property, solidification of political/tribal/family connections, and about half a dozen other uses that marriage has had.  please provide an example of a modern secular government that has no legal status that in anyway resembles marriage.  it has always been and always will be a secular  legal  issue.  in a secular government the church has  no  authority what so ever to enforce  legal  contracts.  just because they dressed it up in a frock and said a few amens during the ceremony does not mean the primary, real world, actionable function of the institution was not then, and is not now fully and totally  legal  in nature.  in fact, here is some people who say you are 0, absolutely and completely wrong in your assumptions: URL URL URL each one of them clearly states that marriage as a christian religious rite, comes significantly after it is secular and legal counterpart.  each one also clearly states that marriage is first and foremost about property.  it does so because it is good for itself.  in a representative democracy there is literally no distinction to be made between the state and the people.  the people  are  the state, the state is made up of the people.  you will probably bristle at this and attempt to side track the discussion by arguing this point.  i will warn you now that i wo not engage you there.  only if you willfully ignore the vast majority of history.  tell me, when and where would you rather be living the here and now ? at what point were things better ? that is not what the legal status of marriage is.  marriage as a legal status is a set of contracts that the government executes, administers, and enforces.   #  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.   #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.   #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ?  # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.   #  it does so because it is good for itself.   # you are leaving out transfer of property, solidification of political/tribal/family connections, and about half a dozen other uses that marriage has had.  please provide an example of a modern secular government that has no legal status that in anyway resembles marriage.  it has always been and always will be a secular  legal  issue.  in a secular government the church has  no  authority what so ever to enforce  legal  contracts.  just because they dressed it up in a frock and said a few amens during the ceremony does not mean the primary, real world, actionable function of the institution was not then, and is not now fully and totally  legal  in nature.  in fact, here is some people who say you are 0, absolutely and completely wrong in your assumptions: URL URL URL each one of them clearly states that marriage as a christian religious rite, comes significantly after it is secular and legal counterpart.  each one also clearly states that marriage is first and foremost about property.  it does so because it is good for itself.  in a representative democracy there is literally no distinction to be made between the state and the people.  the people  are  the state, the state is made up of the people.  you will probably bristle at this and attempt to side track the discussion by arguing this point.  i will warn you now that i wo not engage you there.  only if you willfully ignore the vast majority of history.  tell me, when and where would you rather be living the here and now ? at what point were things better ? that is not what the legal status of marriage is.  marriage as a legal status is a set of contracts that the government executes, administers, and enforces.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.   # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.   #  only if you willfully ignore the vast majority of history.   # you are leaving out transfer of property, solidification of political/tribal/family connections, and about half a dozen other uses that marriage has had.  please provide an example of a modern secular government that has no legal status that in anyway resembles marriage.  it has always been and always will be a secular  legal  issue.  in a secular government the church has  no  authority what so ever to enforce  legal  contracts.  just because they dressed it up in a frock and said a few amens during the ceremony does not mean the primary, real world, actionable function of the institution was not then, and is not now fully and totally  legal  in nature.  in fact, here is some people who say you are 0, absolutely and completely wrong in your assumptions: URL URL URL each one of them clearly states that marriage as a christian religious rite, comes significantly after it is secular and legal counterpart.  each one also clearly states that marriage is first and foremost about property.  it does so because it is good for itself.  in a representative democracy there is literally no distinction to be made between the state and the people.  the people  are  the state, the state is made up of the people.  you will probably bristle at this and attempt to side track the discussion by arguing this point.  i will warn you now that i wo not engage you there.  only if you willfully ignore the vast majority of history.  tell me, when and where would you rather be living the here and now ? at what point were things better ? that is not what the legal status of marriage is.  marriage as a legal status is a set of contracts that the government executes, administers, and enforces.   #  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.   #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.   #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.   # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  that is not what the legal status of marriage is.   # you are leaving out transfer of property, solidification of political/tribal/family connections, and about half a dozen other uses that marriage has had.  please provide an example of a modern secular government that has no legal status that in anyway resembles marriage.  it has always been and always will be a secular  legal  issue.  in a secular government the church has  no  authority what so ever to enforce  legal  contracts.  just because they dressed it up in a frock and said a few amens during the ceremony does not mean the primary, real world, actionable function of the institution was not then, and is not now fully and totally  legal  in nature.  in fact, here is some people who say you are 0, absolutely and completely wrong in your assumptions: URL URL URL each one of them clearly states that marriage as a christian religious rite, comes significantly after it is secular and legal counterpart.  each one also clearly states that marriage is first and foremost about property.  it does so because it is good for itself.  in a representative democracy there is literally no distinction to be made between the state and the people.  the people  are  the state, the state is made up of the people.  you will probably bristle at this and attempt to side track the discussion by arguing this point.  i will warn you now that i wo not engage you there.  only if you willfully ignore the vast majority of history.  tell me, when and where would you rather be living the here and now ? at what point were things better ? that is not what the legal status of marriage is.  marriage as a legal status is a set of contracts that the government executes, administers, and enforces.   #  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.   #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.   #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.   # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
the habit of establishing monogamous relationships for the purpose of child bearing is one that has been more beneficial to societies than the habit of polygamy or other familiar structures.  the formalities that surround it arose out of a necessity to know who is supposed to be responsible for which kids, which people are supposed to inherit the property of diseased people and so on.  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  it was not something that people only started doing after someone voted for a law to bureaucratize it, but the other way round: it was something that was good, and only then did states decide to appropriate it for their own sake.  the state does not regulate marriage because it is good for people.  it does so because it is good for itself.  the modern state is more powerful and overbearing than any institution that has ever existed in human history.  it has no business regulating human relationships.   #  for several thousand years it has been the duty of clergy and religious institutions to formalize monogamous relationships into marriage, which is still the case in several countries.   #  only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.   # only recently, with the advent of supra religious states brought about by the french revolution has it been made into a secular issue.  let is get something straight here.  first of all, people have been doing monogamous relationships for far longer than any religion has existed.  yes, we have done polygamous relationships as well, but there is no reason to think that religion has a monopoly on unity between two people.  second, the  duty  you talk about was performed most commonly not for love, but for duty, treaties, merging of properties, etc.  if you think that marriage has recently been  corrupted , then certainly that would apply to the idea that it is about  love  at all, when this certainly was not the case in most early societies.  now to the most important point.  nobody is  forcing  you to get married, or even register your marriage with the state.  people make the argument you are making, and i genuinely have to wonder if they understand how marriage works in our society.  you are not prohibited from living and loving any person of the opposite gender.  the government is not going to arrest tony because he loves andrea, or because they live together.  if you do not want to give the state  power , then you do not have to apply for marriage status, and you can just tell everyone you are married without having it be recognized by the state.  the state  does  have a vested interest in marriage though, and that is why it provides a legal shortcut for couples who want to register.  again, couples  do not have to register if they so choose.  there are tons of these  legal shortcuts  that marriage provides, which is one of the reasons why homosexual marriage is gaining more steam.  there are  tangible  benefits that can be gained by registering your marriage with the state.  do not think of it as the state saying  we are officially sanctioning your relationship.   instead, think of it as the state saying the following.   we understand that you two people are in a relationship that combines many legal aspects of your persons together.  therefore, if you wish to register with us, we can make it much easier for you to combine your persons legally, instead of both of you having to do each part individually.   as i said before, the state regulating marriage is more about convenience of legality and it is certainly not about them deciding who is allowed to love whom.   #  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  the problem is that marriage comes with several legal consequences.  inheritance is probably the most important factor.  in lieu of a will specifying otherwise, a spouse is entitled to a portion of the inheritance of a dead partner.  this does not happen by default for simply cohabiting couples, which can create a tricky legal situation if a non married partner dies without a will.  also, in cases of mental illness, or similar, the spouse is the usual choice to manage the afflicted is affairs and finances.  this is not to mention that in many countries marriage also comes with tax breaks and other financial benefits eg.  being to procure larger mortgages .  in short, marriage comes with important legal consequences.  this necessitates the state having some definition of marriage along with formal records of those marriages, so that the state can execute the law more effectively in these instances.   #  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.   #  so there are a number of legal institutions that exist now that did not really exist in the time periods you are talking about, and i wonder how you factor these in:   immigration in the 0s or 0s, there was no formal immigration to speak of.  now, if someone wants to move their spouse to their home country, they need permission from the government.  we base that permission on marriage.  how would you do this without state recognition of marriage ? property division way back when, when a man and a woman married, the man owned everything and the woman nothing.  if the husband died, the wife got the property sometimes .  but otherwise, all property was the man is.  now we have the ability to own property as equals, which means when a marriage ends, someone has to decide who owns what.  and since property is decided by the courts, there needs to be some government involvement here.  child custody with the possibility of divorce, the question of how the children are to be handled is a very real one.  how would this be managed without government recognition of marriage ?  #  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ?  #  the purpose of immigration laws is not just to prevent people from overburdening  the system , but to maintain a certain cultural homogeneity.  if you are at the point where you need civil marriage to play a role in restricting immigrant flow then you have much bigger problems that you are not noticing.  the law itself does nothing to prevent kidnapping, what does so is having the means of acting in accordance to the law i. e: a bunch of strong men with badges and guns roaming the streets .  a vigilante group can prevent mass kidnappings despite operating outside the law.  again, if the situation has come to a point where vigilante groups are a major concern, you have a much bigger problem beneath everything else.  property rights do not need to be  enforced , as they are negative rights: in order for someone to own property, others have the obligation not to steal it.  in the absence of a formal aristocracy tasked with repressing infringements upon property laws, a vigilante group could also do that, again.  why are there  tax breaks and benefits  for people with marriages recognized by the secular state, but not for the rest of the people ? if tax breaks and benefits are supposed to help married people, why ca not they help unmarried people too ?  #  was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ?  # was there ever a time where a state ship 0 people overseas overnight in order to topple a foreign government ? was there ever a time in history when a state could spy upon millions of people without any of them knowing ? was there ever a time in history when a state could order an icbm launch with ability decimate an entire city ? was there ever a time in history when a elected representative was so well protected and guarded by so many armed men, he was practically untouchable ? a feudal lord could not just stay in his castle while his serfs worked the land.  he had an  obligation  to roam around, he had the obligation to personally maintain the safety of his serfs and in many cases was exposed to any attempt on his life.  and indeed many feudal lords were assassinate by peasants during the dark ages.  the amount of power that states have today would be enough to horrify gengis khan himself.  or are you saying government should not be involved in things beneficial to society ? i do not understand the logic here.  the point is: why should it be involved for something that is good for society if  it  is not necessarily good for society ?
so there are a lot of people who are upset with voter id laws in lots of states here in the us.  i have heard that in some areas, you can vote if you bring in your birth certificate, rental contract, and other such documents.  frankly, it seems to me that those documents would be much easier to forge than a photo id.  in addition, a photo id makes it quick and easy for people working at the poling locations to both verify voter information and appearance.  some people say that since you have to pay to get a photo id, then you have to pay to vote.  while this is technically true, you need a photo id to do just about anything.  why are individuals not complaining about discrimination in getting jobs or finding living space ? and since most states and cities are in debt, it does not make sense for them to provide them by means of citizens tax dollars.  sum up: i do not believe that the politicians who made voter id laws did so to discriminate against poor minorities.  i believe that they did it reduce voter fraud and increase the efficiency of poling locations.   #  i do not believe that the politicians who made voter id laws did so to discriminate against poor minorities.   #  i believe that they did it reduce voter fraud and increase the efficiency of poling locations.   # i believe that they did it reduce voter fraud and increase the efficiency of poling locations.  the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  just because politicians do not have malicious intent with passing these laws, does not mean that the result of the laws does not have a negative impact.  poorer people tend to not have photo id in as high an incidence as middle class or wealthy individuals.  this is often because people with low income tend to not need it very often, as they are less likely to own a car, less likely to travel, and less likely to seek healthcare when they cannot afford it.  wealthier people tend to do these things, and thus tend to have photo id.  what is more, the racial and demographic makeup of poor americans is different than middle class or affluent americans, particularly, a large portion of the african american population in the states is poor.  combined with photo id laws for voting, this means that a huge demographic would be almost neglected, or at least have their views and concerns silenced during elections.  given the fact that the us is a republic, a system of government designed to protect minorities from the oppression of the majority, it seems sort of odd to be doing just that.  i do agree that it makes sense for people to have photo id of some sort, but the unfortunate truth is that most people have no need for it until it is too late, at which time it is either unaffordable time wise or money wise or will take too long to process.  thus, the poor, who have no need and often no time to get photo id, are disenfranchised, and all of a sudden are not allowed to vote.   #  if you are not traveling outside the country, and you ca not afford a car, you really do not have much need for a photo id.   #  you do not need an id to get a job.  you do not need an id to ride the bus in your city.  you generally need an id to open a bank account, but 0 of the population do not use banks URL you do not need an id to cash a check URL you get a photo id when you start college, generally, but not everyone goes to college or high school, for that matter .  it is easy to forget how many people can survive without an id.  if you are not traveling outside the country, and you ca not afford a car, you really do not have much need for a photo id.  and it is not randomly distributed.  the people who do not have ids are the people who tend to vote for democrats.  this is why i made the comment that is sitting at 0 right now disproportionately, poor people and minorities are disenfranchised by photo id laws, and it is all to solve a problem that does not exist in the first place.   #  if you choose the latter, it is also an indirect poll tax.   #  it is interesting to note that in order to mail in your voter registration form, and/or your absentee ballot, you must pay for the postage to mail in the form.  is this not an indirect poll tax which can be defended or opposed using the same arguments as for voter id laws ? also, in order to get to the polls, you generally need a car, if you do not have one you must either hitch a ride with someone or pay for a taxi.  if you choose the latter, it is also an indirect poll tax.  i could go on and on by mentioning things such as the physical pen to fill out the voter registration form, as well as the minor cost of printing out the voter registration form from your computer.  these are all minor, indirect, poll taxes of which the only tangible difference between these fees and voter id laws is the cost.  even if a person owns a car, the fuel used to drive to and from the polling station costs money, yet i do not see anyone complaining about that.  also, in order to vote, a person must have the ability to read.  if a person needs eyeglasses in order to read, these cost money as well as the fact that in order to vote a person must be alive, so is the cost of life saving medication not than a very indirect poll tax ?  #  and you are insinuating that having every citizen having a valid id does not serve a compelling state interest ?  #  and you are insinuating that having every citizen having a valid id does not serve a compelling state interest ? in the case of medical emergencies, the medical record could be looked up.  next of kin as well.  organ donation is tied to your state id.  when you get stopped by the police, they can pull your arrest record up on the spot instead of having to take you downtown.  they can check if you have verified insurance with a simple database check, or if you have the vehicle you are driving in your circle of friends or if it is a stolen vehicle.  there are a myriad of issues that can be made that would make it a compelling state interest and justify the necessity of requiring ids.   #  i work in fraud investigations, so it may just be my occupational knowledge that noticed the holes in the system.   #  so here is how i would do it: i would register a lot of names to vacate lots, foreclosed houses etc.  i could probably easily also register the names of convalescant homes nearby if they are on hospice, they are probably not going to the voting booth, or even mailing in .  i could easily monitor the mail drops, as no one is really watching the houses.  on voting day, we go in teams of 0, because carpooling.  i go in, give a name, give an address, and vote.  one of the others behind me comes in a minute behind me, gives an address, a name, and votes.  then we go to the next voting location.  repeat.  if we start when the polls open and go until they close, we can hit several hundred votes before the day is done.  senators have been decided on less.  the only way to research this, is to have the party that won investigate it is own fraud.  i do not think it happens very often.  the last time a reporter looking into it by looking at addresses with 0  voters registered there, the harris county voting record office mysteriously burned to ground.  i work in fraud investigations, so it may just be my occupational knowledge that noticed the holes in the system.  how would you stop my team is vote fraud ?
i believe if a former drug addict manages to maintain sobriety for a sufficient period of time to be considered  isober , this should not be celebrated and applauded as an act of courage or something to admire, but rather be treated as a return to status quo.  in my opinion, if you willfully become addicted to chemicals, that is a problem you have created yourself.  you have dug that hole and fallen below society is status quo on drug use.  if you then manage to maintain sobriety, you will then be considered in line with status quo again arguably lower even then since you became addicted in the first place .  some people stay sober their entire lives, and are never given accolades or congratulations.  the same should logically apply to former addicts.  saying  i have not funded my crack habit for a year  is roughly equivalent to saying  i take adequate care of my pets  or  i wear clothes in public  it is conforming to the baseline of status quo as well as the law and should not be considered with admiration or praise.  furthermore, crimes such as petty theft or assault are frequently commited during addiction and these crimes are seen as  forgiven  or  forgotten  once a person achieves sobriety, as if resolving the individual of responsibility for his actions as well as his choices.  this is not a drugs use cmv.  this is specifically related to addiction and society is views on sobriety.   #  some people stay sober their entire lives, and are never given accolades or congratulations.   #  the same should logically apply to former addicts.   # that is sort of the point.  the same should logically apply to former addicts.  no, that is not logical at all.  we applaud people for solving problems and overcoming challenges.  successfully quitting drugs is an example of that.  essentially, you are just begging the question.  you have defined a  baseline  of praiseworthiness that does not include drug addiction.  then you have said that recovering from a state below that baseline should not be praised.  you have not explained why that would be a reasonable baseline, and you ca not because it is a completely arbitrary value judgment.   #  those people surely get lots of praise for many other things they have accomplished not to mention they are not at rock bottom and have not experienced a lot of hardship and pain the drug addict likely has.   #  what would you rather have, a lifelong drug addict or a temporary one who gets past the addiction and becomes a productive member of society ? we praise those that overcome addiction because we want to support them and their decision to be better.  would you give your failing child praises when they get a c ? you may think that a c is the least they should have been doing all along.  but if doing better just means the same as doing bad, why keep trying so hard ? give some fucking encouragement and recognize accomplishment when you see it.  it makes people feel good and they do not want to lose that feel good feeling by disappointing again.  that c student might slowly build up into an a student with encouragement but if you just ignore or belittle the achievement they will just be depressed and slip back into f territory.  people who never did drugs have not accomplished something.  they have not overcome anything.  you do not congratulate someone for something they did not do.  those people surely get lots of praise for many other things they have accomplished not to mention they are not at rock bottom and have not experienced a lot of hardship and pain the drug addict likely has.  just like the person who always got a is does not really need a party every time they get one.  it is not an achievement for them.  for them to overcome and do something that actually challenges them requires ap courses or extracurriculars.  we set the bar if praise at different heights for different people because we have to.  partially because it would be annoying to get praised all the time for every little thing for person a and it would suck to constantly try and work hard and put in effort but never hear any encouragement for person c  #  that person is almost guaranteed to become addicted.   #  one thing you should remember is that different people have a different likelihood of addiction.  your point is that everyone has to try a substance before being addicted and i get that.  but consider someone who is genetically predisposed, who grows up in an abusive home, who suffers from undiagnosed bipolar and depression, and who lives in an area where drugs are being taken readily.  that person is almost guaranteed to become addicted.  it is not as clear cut as you did not make that choice and they did.   #  drug addiction is incredibly hard to kick for many, many people and we lose absolutely nothing by celebrating it when it happens.   #  achievement is relative.  if i am with my 0 year old brother and another family member asks how to spell a difficult word and i answer, it is no big deal.  if he does, we make it one.  he has far less knowledge and experience, so this is a greater success for him then it would have been for me.  there are things you do staying sober for instance that seem like nothing to you but are a lifelong challenge for others.  and, doubtlessly, there are things that seem difficult or perhaps even impossible to you that others can accomplish simply and easily.  this does not mean that you are an idiot and they are a genius or the opposite, just that you are different.  some people can do drugs without getting addicted.  they try one, drop it, try another.  others can fall into a trap that ends up destroying their lives.  drug addiction is incredibly hard to kick for many, many people and we lose absolutely nothing by celebrating it when it happens.  i know it can be annoying.  i have never had any interest in drugs or alcohol, not for any moral or religious reasons, i just do not see the draw.  seeing someone lauded for clawing their way to somewhere you have been this whole damn time is frustrating.  but people rarely get congratulated for not fucking up, and it honestly is a valid accomplishment that we lose nothing by celebrating.   #  to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.
that european culture promotes tolerance is by far the most pervasive european myth.  instances of european tolerance are in fact in spite of rather than because of european culture.  for literally millennia europeans had jews amongst them, but they lived in their own ghettoes.  every fucking time a local ruler had some problem, the jews were hunted down and slaughtered like dogs.  they were ghettoized, otherized, persecuted, and discriminated against; pogrom after pogrom after pogrom targeted them.   no matter how long jews were in europe, they were regarded as jews first, european second.   and even then, the europeans spread the same pernicious myth: it is the jew is fault for not integrating, they are them, and we are us, we do not mix with those kinds of people, they are bad with a capital b, etc.  etc.  etc.  and then finally hitler came along, and it is no longer pc to hate jews, so people found the next group to hate: muslims.  because european culture is fucking intolerant.  because european culture has no history, except until the past two or three decades, of cooperating with people of different ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds.  europeans blame the muslims for isolating themselves, but make no efforts to integrate them, because europe has very little history of ever integrating people.  they blame them for sticking to their third world ways, but refuse to associate with them and continue to discriminate against them.  muslim ghettoes have shittier education and shittier access to social goods and they isolate children from mainstream culture, but europeans act so fucking surprised when a kid grows up and believes the same thing his parents did back in the old country, as if people magically absorb ideas.  you do not get to discriminate and ghettoize a people and then claim its their fault for not absorbing the ideals of your culture.  no other area on the planet has had the kinds of mass scale, intentionally engineered genocides, democides, and gynocides as europe has had, even when you account for technological differences in the way people are exterminated.  although other religions have sectarian violence european christianity definitely has the longest and most violent such history URL people think europe is some kind of pacifist haven right now, but they forget that for several thousand years europe was essentially in one big internecine war, with only short breaks taken on certain fronts.  i think a big reason for this is the european invention of the nation state.  chomksy expresses this better than i do, so here you go: source URL in fact, that is why i think most examples of ethnic and religious violence outside of europe did not really happen until europeans started meddling in foreign affairs.  by attempting to impose national borders that made no sense, by spreading the virulent cults of anti semitism, racism, and religious intolerance past its shores, by infecting the rest of the world with is intolerance.  i think in order to disprove this hypothesis you would have to show me examples of other nations, prior to being contaminated by the europeans, being equally intolerant.  i just ca not think of any such examples.   #  that european culture promotes tolerance is by far the most pervasive european myth.   #  i am sure their is some intolerance in europe, but compared to the rest of the world, they are very tolerant.   # i am sure their is some intolerance in europe, but compared to the rest of the world, they are very tolerant.  their are a handful countries outside of europe that i would call as tolerant.  name me a place that is more otlerant than europe right now.  okay.  that is the past.  what place of earth has clean past ? americans killed off whole culture and put them in reservations.  the chinese killed off more than 0 million of their own people, just because they disagreed.  india history is summed up by the caste system.  and look at muslim countries today if you want recent intolerance.  both the ussr genocides and chinese  great leap forward , had higher death tolls.  the history of the human race is full of war and violence, europe is no exception.  and muslims are  shocked  when europeans find it difficult understand people who believe woman should be subservient to men, and that homosexuals should be hanged.  i wonder what would happen to a european who went to iran and started expressing his views. yeah i am sure they would be tolerant.  what does religion have to do with anything ? when you are murdering innocent people, your a shitty person whether you are doing it for jesus or for karl marx.  in the course of creating modern nation states, europe developed a culture of savagery and a technology of violence which enabled it to conquer the world, and as it conquered the world it attempted to impose nation state systems wherever it went, also artificial and violent.  what a surprise.  the superior group takes over the inferior group.  welcome to world history 0.  because everyone got along perfectly until the middle ages.  indian caste system was extremely intolerant.  muslim treatment of hindus was when they conquered india was awful.  china is history is full of women being subservient to men.  i could go on forever.   #  europe is very old, you ca not just say  europe culture , cultures changes.  and between the roman empire and now, it changed a lot.   #  i am not quite convinced about your premise.  would anyone actually say that europe was always tolerant ? i have never heard anyone say that.  europe is very old, you ca not just say  europe culture , cultures changes.  and between the roman empire and now, it changed a lot.  when people say  europe is more tolerant , they mean right now.  if we were talking about the past, americans would basically be europeans anyway so the comparison would be slightly pointless.  a more interesting question would be : do you think that today, the average american is more tolerant than the average western european or the opposite ? it does not necessarily have to be americans vs europe, could be asians or whatever .  i am not saying it is perfect far from it , but the way i see it, the last few years western europe made great progress when it comes to tolerance religion, homosexuality, racism etc.  and many other countries are lagging  a bit  behind.   #  you are goddamn right. gif americans have a history of integrating foreigners.   # would anyone actually say that europe was always tolerant ? i have never heard anyone say that.  europe is very old, you ca not just say  europe culture , cultures changes.  and between the roman empire and now, it changed a lot.  i maintain that certain things about european culture have remained the same, namely its virulent intolerance.  that really has not changed, except slightly in like the past 0 years.  and only slightly.  is not that just fantastically presentist.  this is relevant how ? it does not necessarily have to be americans vs europe, could be asians or whatever .  you are goddamn right. gif americans have a history of integrating foreigners.  europeans do not.  true.  i am just pissed when europeans act like they fucking invented tolerance when it is patently false.  anyways, with the rise of far right parties like golden dawn and bnp i fear a reversal of that policy.   #  by your logic, because people did horrible things in the past, humans can  never  be considered tolerant ever again.   #     you are goddamn right. gif   americans have a history of integrating foreigners.  europeans do not.  see, that is the thing.  even if it was true, you talk about history, but history does not define who you are and how you act.  if today i picked a random german, i would not assume he was anti semitist because his grandfather might have been a nazi.  in fact it should not even matter.  by your logic, because people did horrible things in the past, humans can  never  be considered tolerant ever again.  even in 0 years you would still be pointing at those situation and be like  see, your culture is not tolerant, look at what you used to do !  .  my point is, if  today  you were a black gay atheist, living in the uk or germany would be a lot easier than in most us states, or in the middle east, or even in japan.  was it the same 0 years ago ? no.  will it be the same in 0 ? who knows.  but right now that is just how it is.   #  my point is that liberal europeans who act like they goddamn invented tolerance are deluded.   #  sure.  my point is that liberal europeans who act like they goddamn invented tolerance are deluded.  it is a temporary fad happening right now.  to act like it is guaranteed to continue is dumb, because it is a tiny blip on the graph of european intolerance.  maybe several hundred years from now, if they have maintained that tradition, then yea, you could argue it is fairly ingrained in the european mind.  but it is simply not true that there is been some kind of cultural revolution that has won the hearts and minds of europeans in favor of tolerance.  it is a minor blip and i really do not think we are that much further away from another genocide than we were in the 0s a little farther, but not by much.  basically: say reincarnation is real.  i die, i go to heaven, god tells me that i am going to be reborn as a random person at a random point in the past 0 years, but i get to pick on which continent to be reborn.  i would be out of my goddamn mind to pick europe.  literally my shittiest option.
that european culture promotes tolerance is by far the most pervasive european myth.  instances of european tolerance are in fact in spite of rather than because of european culture.  for literally millennia europeans had jews amongst them, but they lived in their own ghettoes.  every fucking time a local ruler had some problem, the jews were hunted down and slaughtered like dogs.  they were ghettoized, otherized, persecuted, and discriminated against; pogrom after pogrom after pogrom targeted them.   no matter how long jews were in europe, they were regarded as jews first, european second.   and even then, the europeans spread the same pernicious myth: it is the jew is fault for not integrating, they are them, and we are us, we do not mix with those kinds of people, they are bad with a capital b, etc.  etc.  etc.  and then finally hitler came along, and it is no longer pc to hate jews, so people found the next group to hate: muslims.  because european culture is fucking intolerant.  because european culture has no history, except until the past two or three decades, of cooperating with people of different ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds.  europeans blame the muslims for isolating themselves, but make no efforts to integrate them, because europe has very little history of ever integrating people.  they blame them for sticking to their third world ways, but refuse to associate with them and continue to discriminate against them.  muslim ghettoes have shittier education and shittier access to social goods and they isolate children from mainstream culture, but europeans act so fucking surprised when a kid grows up and believes the same thing his parents did back in the old country, as if people magically absorb ideas.  you do not get to discriminate and ghettoize a people and then claim its their fault for not absorbing the ideals of your culture.  no other area on the planet has had the kinds of mass scale, intentionally engineered genocides, democides, and gynocides as europe has had, even when you account for technological differences in the way people are exterminated.  although other religions have sectarian violence european christianity definitely has the longest and most violent such history URL people think europe is some kind of pacifist haven right now, but they forget that for several thousand years europe was essentially in one big internecine war, with only short breaks taken on certain fronts.  i think a big reason for this is the european invention of the nation state.  chomksy expresses this better than i do, so here you go: source URL in fact, that is why i think most examples of ethnic and religious violence outside of europe did not really happen until europeans started meddling in foreign affairs.  by attempting to impose national borders that made no sense, by spreading the virulent cults of anti semitism, racism, and religious intolerance past its shores, by infecting the rest of the world with is intolerance.  i think in order to disprove this hypothesis you would have to show me examples of other nations, prior to being contaminated by the europeans, being equally intolerant.  i just ca not think of any such examples.   #  europeans act so fucking surprised when a kid grows up and believes the same thing his parents did back in the old country, as if people magically absorb ideas.   #  and muslims are  shocked  when europeans find it difficult understand people who believe woman should be subservient to men, and that homosexuals should be hanged.   # i am sure their is some intolerance in europe, but compared to the rest of the world, they are very tolerant.  their are a handful countries outside of europe that i would call as tolerant.  name me a place that is more otlerant than europe right now.  okay.  that is the past.  what place of earth has clean past ? americans killed off whole culture and put them in reservations.  the chinese killed off more than 0 million of their own people, just because they disagreed.  india history is summed up by the caste system.  and look at muslim countries today if you want recent intolerance.  both the ussr genocides and chinese  great leap forward , had higher death tolls.  the history of the human race is full of war and violence, europe is no exception.  and muslims are  shocked  when europeans find it difficult understand people who believe woman should be subservient to men, and that homosexuals should be hanged.  i wonder what would happen to a european who went to iran and started expressing his views. yeah i am sure they would be tolerant.  what does religion have to do with anything ? when you are murdering innocent people, your a shitty person whether you are doing it for jesus or for karl marx.  in the course of creating modern nation states, europe developed a culture of savagery and a technology of violence which enabled it to conquer the world, and as it conquered the world it attempted to impose nation state systems wherever it went, also artificial and violent.  what a surprise.  the superior group takes over the inferior group.  welcome to world history 0.  because everyone got along perfectly until the middle ages.  indian caste system was extremely intolerant.  muslim treatment of hindus was when they conquered india was awful.  china is history is full of women being subservient to men.  i could go on forever.   #  it does not necessarily have to be americans vs europe, could be asians or whatever .   #  i am not quite convinced about your premise.  would anyone actually say that europe was always tolerant ? i have never heard anyone say that.  europe is very old, you ca not just say  europe culture , cultures changes.  and between the roman empire and now, it changed a lot.  when people say  europe is more tolerant , they mean right now.  if we were talking about the past, americans would basically be europeans anyway so the comparison would be slightly pointless.  a more interesting question would be : do you think that today, the average american is more tolerant than the average western european or the opposite ? it does not necessarily have to be americans vs europe, could be asians or whatever .  i am not saying it is perfect far from it , but the way i see it, the last few years western europe made great progress when it comes to tolerance religion, homosexuality, racism etc.  and many other countries are lagging  a bit  behind.   #  would anyone actually say that europe was always tolerant ?  # would anyone actually say that europe was always tolerant ? i have never heard anyone say that.  europe is very old, you ca not just say  europe culture , cultures changes.  and between the roman empire and now, it changed a lot.  i maintain that certain things about european culture have remained the same, namely its virulent intolerance.  that really has not changed, except slightly in like the past 0 years.  and only slightly.  is not that just fantastically presentist.  this is relevant how ? it does not necessarily have to be americans vs europe, could be asians or whatever .  you are goddamn right. gif americans have a history of integrating foreigners.  europeans do not.  true.  i am just pissed when europeans act like they fucking invented tolerance when it is patently false.  anyways, with the rise of far right parties like golden dawn and bnp i fear a reversal of that policy.   #  if today i picked a random german, i would not assume he was anti semitist because his grandfather might have been a nazi.   #     you are goddamn right. gif   americans have a history of integrating foreigners.  europeans do not.  see, that is the thing.  even if it was true, you talk about history, but history does not define who you are and how you act.  if today i picked a random german, i would not assume he was anti semitist because his grandfather might have been a nazi.  in fact it should not even matter.  by your logic, because people did horrible things in the past, humans can  never  be considered tolerant ever again.  even in 0 years you would still be pointing at those situation and be like  see, your culture is not tolerant, look at what you used to do !  .  my point is, if  today  you were a black gay atheist, living in the uk or germany would be a lot easier than in most us states, or in the middle east, or even in japan.  was it the same 0 years ago ? no.  will it be the same in 0 ? who knows.  but right now that is just how it is.   #  i die, i go to heaven, god tells me that i am going to be reborn as a random person at a random point in the past 0 years, but i get to pick on which continent to be reborn.   #  sure.  my point is that liberal europeans who act like they goddamn invented tolerance are deluded.  it is a temporary fad happening right now.  to act like it is guaranteed to continue is dumb, because it is a tiny blip on the graph of european intolerance.  maybe several hundred years from now, if they have maintained that tradition, then yea, you could argue it is fairly ingrained in the european mind.  but it is simply not true that there is been some kind of cultural revolution that has won the hearts and minds of europeans in favor of tolerance.  it is a minor blip and i really do not think we are that much further away from another genocide than we were in the 0s a little farther, but not by much.  basically: say reincarnation is real.  i die, i go to heaven, god tells me that i am going to be reborn as a random person at a random point in the past 0 years, but i get to pick on which continent to be reborn.  i would be out of my goddamn mind to pick europe.  literally my shittiest option.
that european culture promotes tolerance is by far the most pervasive european myth.  instances of european tolerance are in fact in spite of rather than because of european culture.  for literally millennia europeans had jews amongst them, but they lived in their own ghettoes.  every fucking time a local ruler had some problem, the jews were hunted down and slaughtered like dogs.  they were ghettoized, otherized, persecuted, and discriminated against; pogrom after pogrom after pogrom targeted them.   no matter how long jews were in europe, they were regarded as jews first, european second.   and even then, the europeans spread the same pernicious myth: it is the jew is fault for not integrating, they are them, and we are us, we do not mix with those kinds of people, they are bad with a capital b, etc.  etc.  etc.  and then finally hitler came along, and it is no longer pc to hate jews, so people found the next group to hate: muslims.  because european culture is fucking intolerant.  because european culture has no history, except until the past two or three decades, of cooperating with people of different ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds.  europeans blame the muslims for isolating themselves, but make no efforts to integrate them, because europe has very little history of ever integrating people.  they blame them for sticking to their third world ways, but refuse to associate with them and continue to discriminate against them.  muslim ghettoes have shittier education and shittier access to social goods and they isolate children from mainstream culture, but europeans act so fucking surprised when a kid grows up and believes the same thing his parents did back in the old country, as if people magically absorb ideas.  you do not get to discriminate and ghettoize a people and then claim its their fault for not absorbing the ideals of your culture.  no other area on the planet has had the kinds of mass scale, intentionally engineered genocides, democides, and gynocides as europe has had, even when you account for technological differences in the way people are exterminated.  although other religions have sectarian violence european christianity definitely has the longest and most violent such history URL people think europe is some kind of pacifist haven right now, but they forget that for several thousand years europe was essentially in one big internecine war, with only short breaks taken on certain fronts.  i think a big reason for this is the european invention of the nation state.  chomksy expresses this better than i do, so here you go: source URL in fact, that is why i think most examples of ethnic and religious violence outside of europe did not really happen until europeans started meddling in foreign affairs.  by attempting to impose national borders that made no sense, by spreading the virulent cults of anti semitism, racism, and religious intolerance past its shores, by infecting the rest of the world with is intolerance.  i think in order to disprove this hypothesis you would have to show me examples of other nations, prior to being contaminated by the europeans, being equally intolerant.  i just ca not think of any such examples.   #  in fact, that is why i think most examples of ethnic and religious violence outside of europe did not really happen until europeans started meddling in foreign affairs.   #  because everyone got along perfectly until the middle ages.   # i am sure their is some intolerance in europe, but compared to the rest of the world, they are very tolerant.  their are a handful countries outside of europe that i would call as tolerant.  name me a place that is more otlerant than europe right now.  okay.  that is the past.  what place of earth has clean past ? americans killed off whole culture and put them in reservations.  the chinese killed off more than 0 million of their own people, just because they disagreed.  india history is summed up by the caste system.  and look at muslim countries today if you want recent intolerance.  both the ussr genocides and chinese  great leap forward , had higher death tolls.  the history of the human race is full of war and violence, europe is no exception.  and muslims are  shocked  when europeans find it difficult understand people who believe woman should be subservient to men, and that homosexuals should be hanged.  i wonder what would happen to a european who went to iran and started expressing his views. yeah i am sure they would be tolerant.  what does religion have to do with anything ? when you are murdering innocent people, your a shitty person whether you are doing it for jesus or for karl marx.  in the course of creating modern nation states, europe developed a culture of savagery and a technology of violence which enabled it to conquer the world, and as it conquered the world it attempted to impose nation state systems wherever it went, also artificial and violent.  what a surprise.  the superior group takes over the inferior group.  welcome to world history 0.  because everyone got along perfectly until the middle ages.  indian caste system was extremely intolerant.  muslim treatment of hindus was when they conquered india was awful.  china is history is full of women being subservient to men.  i could go on forever.   #  it does not necessarily have to be americans vs europe, could be asians or whatever .   #  i am not quite convinced about your premise.  would anyone actually say that europe was always tolerant ? i have never heard anyone say that.  europe is very old, you ca not just say  europe culture , cultures changes.  and between the roman empire and now, it changed a lot.  when people say  europe is more tolerant , they mean right now.  if we were talking about the past, americans would basically be europeans anyway so the comparison would be slightly pointless.  a more interesting question would be : do you think that today, the average american is more tolerant than the average western european or the opposite ? it does not necessarily have to be americans vs europe, could be asians or whatever .  i am not saying it is perfect far from it , but the way i see it, the last few years western europe made great progress when it comes to tolerance religion, homosexuality, racism etc.  and many other countries are lagging  a bit  behind.   #  would anyone actually say that europe was always tolerant ?  # would anyone actually say that europe was always tolerant ? i have never heard anyone say that.  europe is very old, you ca not just say  europe culture , cultures changes.  and between the roman empire and now, it changed a lot.  i maintain that certain things about european culture have remained the same, namely its virulent intolerance.  that really has not changed, except slightly in like the past 0 years.  and only slightly.  is not that just fantastically presentist.  this is relevant how ? it does not necessarily have to be americans vs europe, could be asians or whatever .  you are goddamn right. gif americans have a history of integrating foreigners.  europeans do not.  true.  i am just pissed when europeans act like they fucking invented tolerance when it is patently false.  anyways, with the rise of far right parties like golden dawn and bnp i fear a reversal of that policy.   #  if today i picked a random german, i would not assume he was anti semitist because his grandfather might have been a nazi.   #     you are goddamn right. gif   americans have a history of integrating foreigners.  europeans do not.  see, that is the thing.  even if it was true, you talk about history, but history does not define who you are and how you act.  if today i picked a random german, i would not assume he was anti semitist because his grandfather might have been a nazi.  in fact it should not even matter.  by your logic, because people did horrible things in the past, humans can  never  be considered tolerant ever again.  even in 0 years you would still be pointing at those situation and be like  see, your culture is not tolerant, look at what you used to do !  .  my point is, if  today  you were a black gay atheist, living in the uk or germany would be a lot easier than in most us states, or in the middle east, or even in japan.  was it the same 0 years ago ? no.  will it be the same in 0 ? who knows.  but right now that is just how it is.   #  i would be out of my goddamn mind to pick europe.   #  sure.  my point is that liberal europeans who act like they goddamn invented tolerance are deluded.  it is a temporary fad happening right now.  to act like it is guaranteed to continue is dumb, because it is a tiny blip on the graph of european intolerance.  maybe several hundred years from now, if they have maintained that tradition, then yea, you could argue it is fairly ingrained in the european mind.  but it is simply not true that there is been some kind of cultural revolution that has won the hearts and minds of europeans in favor of tolerance.  it is a minor blip and i really do not think we are that much further away from another genocide than we were in the 0s a little farther, but not by much.  basically: say reincarnation is real.  i die, i go to heaven, god tells me that i am going to be reborn as a random person at a random point in the past 0 years, but i get to pick on which continent to be reborn.  i would be out of my goddamn mind to pick europe.  literally my shittiest option.
monogamy by definition restricts a person from fulfilling sexual desires outside their relationship.  everyone has sexual desires outside their partnership.  giving that up is not an unselfish act, it is an act of self degradation.  the ability to embrace your partners acts of desire is the truly unselfish act.  additionally, this should be especially true for young people.  teenagers and young adults have priorities school, work, volunteering… and tying themselves to someone else should be a distant thought.  they should be honest and forthright about their desires.  any young person requiring a  serious commitment  for a relationship or sexual relationship should be shown the door so that they can find another young person that wants to settle down early.  this is my first cmv submission.  i anticipate some poor communication.  i anticipated some great conversation.  i also chose a subject matter that most of the american culture just does not have any experience with or tolerance for.  with those things said, i should not have been surprised that it felt more like  defend your view  than  change my view.   i apologize if my initial reaction to this was less than friendly.  thank you for the conversation everybody.   #  monogamy by definition restricts a person from fulfilling sexual desires outside their relationship.   #  everyone has sexual desires outside their partnership.   #  first of all, monogomy is a personal choice.  just because you might not find monogomy totally satisfying does not mean that nobody else can.  everyone has sexual desires outside their partnership.  giving that up is not an unselfish act, it is an act of self degradation.  sexual desires do not define us, and denying them does not harm our well being.  unfortunately, jealousy is hard wired into our brains for procreation, we do not want our mate breeding with others, for the fear that we might raise another person is offspring and not pass on our own genes.  and even though we know contraception means we wo not raise another one is offspring, we still ca not turn off this emotional reaction.  teenagers and young adults have priorities school, work, volunteering… and tying themselves to someone else should be a distant thought.  they should be honest and forthright about their desires.  any young person requiring a  serious commitment  for a relationship or sexual relationship should be shown the door so that they can find another young person that wants to settle down early.  this is one of those  practice the way you play  situations.  high school and other young relationships do not usually result in serious commitments, so they should not take priority over studies, sports, friends or other interests, but you should not treat someone like shit and cheat because  its not gonna go anywhere anyway.   they should be honest and forthright about their desires  i fear that you are not considering the emotional aspect of being in a relationship.  intimacy is more than just sex.   #  my main point however, is that a desire does not give you a justification.   #  your entire argument relies on the idea that unfulfilled desires are a form of self degradation.  by this argument you can literally justify any behavior because if you desire it, it is justifiable.  monogamy is a choice.  any person is allowed to end a monogamous relationship at any moment they feel like but the fact of the matter is that there is another person is feelings at stake and if you are not a sociopath you take those feelings into consideration.  my main point however, is that a desire does not give you a justification.  if i have a desire to steal something it is not justified.  if i have a desire to hurt someone that has wronged me, i am not justified.   #  does it hurt that person more to embrace their fulfillment of them or to stifle it ?  #  i think much of your argument is based on the assumption that having sex with people other than your partner is a bad thing.  you equated sexual desire to stealing.  how about we change that a little bit.  how about we relate it to a muffin.  it is ok to desire the muffin.  you can have the muffin if you ask for it.  desire is not a bad thing and sexual desire is not a bad thing either.  taking feelings into consideration.  you know that your partner has sexual desires that are not for you.  does it hurt that person more to embrace their fulfillment of them or to stifle it ?  #  coping with frustration by letting yourself follow your every whim is not a way to live.   # no, much of his argument is based on the fact that you equate unfulfilled desire and self degradation, which is the basis for a very unethical life.  does it hurt that person more to embrace their fulfillment of them or to stifle it ? and how should this person feel knowing that they hurt you for their own selfish realization ? being hurt in this situation is not voluntary, it is not a case of telling  ok, i will simply ignore the pain this person is inflicting on me, as long as they are not frustrated .  sacrificing yourself for the happiness of other is not a way to live.  coping with frustration by letting yourself follow your every whim is not a way to live.  if you do not feel hurt when your romantic partner have sexual encounters without you, then yay, you are polyamorous and can enjoy this lifestyle.  otherwise, there is no way for you to change how you feel about something.  it is not a choice, nor a decision to make.   #  if i desire a cupcake and eat one, am i unethical ?  # if i desire a cupcake and eat one, am i unethical ?  and how should this person feel knowing that they hurt you for their own selfish realization ?   this is the key.  i am not hurt by it.  i am way ok with it.  i am happy for her.  i hooked her up with a super hot 0 something guy for her birthday.   sacrificing yourself for the happiness of other is not a way to live.  coping with frustration by letting yourself follow your every whim is not a way to live.   this is the exact thing i am saying about sacrificing the sexual desires.   it is not a choice, nor a decision to make.   i was the biggest jealous person as a younger man.  it actually is something you can change.  it requires a lot of introspection.
monogamy by definition restricts a person from fulfilling sexual desires outside their relationship.  everyone has sexual desires outside their partnership.  giving that up is not an unselfish act, it is an act of self degradation.  the ability to embrace your partners acts of desire is the truly unselfish act.  additionally, this should be especially true for young people.  teenagers and young adults have priorities school, work, volunteering… and tying themselves to someone else should be a distant thought.  they should be honest and forthright about their desires.  any young person requiring a  serious commitment  for a relationship or sexual relationship should be shown the door so that they can find another young person that wants to settle down early.  this is my first cmv submission.  i anticipate some poor communication.  i anticipated some great conversation.  i also chose a subject matter that most of the american culture just does not have any experience with or tolerance for.  with those things said, i should not have been surprised that it felt more like  defend your view  than  change my view.   i apologize if my initial reaction to this was less than friendly.  thank you for the conversation everybody.   #  the ability to embrace your partners acts of desire is the truly unselfish act.   #  sexual desires do not define us, and denying them does not harm our well being.   #  first of all, monogomy is a personal choice.  just because you might not find monogomy totally satisfying does not mean that nobody else can.  everyone has sexual desires outside their partnership.  giving that up is not an unselfish act, it is an act of self degradation.  sexual desires do not define us, and denying them does not harm our well being.  unfortunately, jealousy is hard wired into our brains for procreation, we do not want our mate breeding with others, for the fear that we might raise another person is offspring and not pass on our own genes.  and even though we know contraception means we wo not raise another one is offspring, we still ca not turn off this emotional reaction.  teenagers and young adults have priorities school, work, volunteering… and tying themselves to someone else should be a distant thought.  they should be honest and forthright about their desires.  any young person requiring a  serious commitment  for a relationship or sexual relationship should be shown the door so that they can find another young person that wants to settle down early.  this is one of those  practice the way you play  situations.  high school and other young relationships do not usually result in serious commitments, so they should not take priority over studies, sports, friends or other interests, but you should not treat someone like shit and cheat because  its not gonna go anywhere anyway.   they should be honest and forthright about their desires  i fear that you are not considering the emotional aspect of being in a relationship.  intimacy is more than just sex.   #  by this argument you can literally justify any behavior because if you desire it, it is justifiable.   #  your entire argument relies on the idea that unfulfilled desires are a form of self degradation.  by this argument you can literally justify any behavior because if you desire it, it is justifiable.  monogamy is a choice.  any person is allowed to end a monogamous relationship at any moment they feel like but the fact of the matter is that there is another person is feelings at stake and if you are not a sociopath you take those feelings into consideration.  my main point however, is that a desire does not give you a justification.  if i have a desire to steal something it is not justified.  if i have a desire to hurt someone that has wronged me, i am not justified.   #  does it hurt that person more to embrace their fulfillment of them or to stifle it ?  #  i think much of your argument is based on the assumption that having sex with people other than your partner is a bad thing.  you equated sexual desire to stealing.  how about we change that a little bit.  how about we relate it to a muffin.  it is ok to desire the muffin.  you can have the muffin if you ask for it.  desire is not a bad thing and sexual desire is not a bad thing either.  taking feelings into consideration.  you know that your partner has sexual desires that are not for you.  does it hurt that person more to embrace their fulfillment of them or to stifle it ?  #  no, much of his argument is based on the fact that you equate unfulfilled desire and self degradation, which is the basis for a very unethical life.   # no, much of his argument is based on the fact that you equate unfulfilled desire and self degradation, which is the basis for a very unethical life.  does it hurt that person more to embrace their fulfillment of them or to stifle it ? and how should this person feel knowing that they hurt you for their own selfish realization ? being hurt in this situation is not voluntary, it is not a case of telling  ok, i will simply ignore the pain this person is inflicting on me, as long as they are not frustrated .  sacrificing yourself for the happiness of other is not a way to live.  coping with frustration by letting yourself follow your every whim is not a way to live.  if you do not feel hurt when your romantic partner have sexual encounters without you, then yay, you are polyamorous and can enjoy this lifestyle.  otherwise, there is no way for you to change how you feel about something.  it is not a choice, nor a decision to make.   #   it is not a choice, nor a decision to make.    # if i desire a cupcake and eat one, am i unethical ?  and how should this person feel knowing that they hurt you for their own selfish realization ?   this is the key.  i am not hurt by it.  i am way ok with it.  i am happy for her.  i hooked her up with a super hot 0 something guy for her birthday.   sacrificing yourself for the happiness of other is not a way to live.  coping with frustration by letting yourself follow your every whim is not a way to live.   this is the exact thing i am saying about sacrificing the sexual desires.   it is not a choice, nor a decision to make.   i was the biggest jealous person as a younger man.  it actually is something you can change.  it requires a lot of introspection.
monogamy by definition restricts a person from fulfilling sexual desires outside their relationship.  everyone has sexual desires outside their partnership.  giving that up is not an unselfish act, it is an act of self degradation.  the ability to embrace your partners acts of desire is the truly unselfish act.  additionally, this should be especially true for young people.  teenagers and young adults have priorities school, work, volunteering… and tying themselves to someone else should be a distant thought.  they should be honest and forthright about their desires.  any young person requiring a  serious commitment  for a relationship or sexual relationship should be shown the door so that they can find another young person that wants to settle down early.  this is my first cmv submission.  i anticipate some poor communication.  i anticipated some great conversation.  i also chose a subject matter that most of the american culture just does not have any experience with or tolerance for.  with those things said, i should not have been surprised that it felt more like  defend your view  than  change my view.   i apologize if my initial reaction to this was less than friendly.  thank you for the conversation everybody.   #  additionally, this should be especially true for young people.   #  teenagers and young adults have priorities school, work, volunteering… and tying themselves to someone else should be a distant thought.   #  first of all, monogomy is a personal choice.  just because you might not find monogomy totally satisfying does not mean that nobody else can.  everyone has sexual desires outside their partnership.  giving that up is not an unselfish act, it is an act of self degradation.  sexual desires do not define us, and denying them does not harm our well being.  unfortunately, jealousy is hard wired into our brains for procreation, we do not want our mate breeding with others, for the fear that we might raise another person is offspring and not pass on our own genes.  and even though we know contraception means we wo not raise another one is offspring, we still ca not turn off this emotional reaction.  teenagers and young adults have priorities school, work, volunteering… and tying themselves to someone else should be a distant thought.  they should be honest and forthright about their desires.  any young person requiring a  serious commitment  for a relationship or sexual relationship should be shown the door so that they can find another young person that wants to settle down early.  this is one of those  practice the way you play  situations.  high school and other young relationships do not usually result in serious commitments, so they should not take priority over studies, sports, friends or other interests, but you should not treat someone like shit and cheat because  its not gonna go anywhere anyway.   they should be honest and forthright about their desires  i fear that you are not considering the emotional aspect of being in a relationship.  intimacy is more than just sex.   #  if i have a desire to hurt someone that has wronged me, i am not justified.   #  your entire argument relies on the idea that unfulfilled desires are a form of self degradation.  by this argument you can literally justify any behavior because if you desire it, it is justifiable.  monogamy is a choice.  any person is allowed to end a monogamous relationship at any moment they feel like but the fact of the matter is that there is another person is feelings at stake and if you are not a sociopath you take those feelings into consideration.  my main point however, is that a desire does not give you a justification.  if i have a desire to steal something it is not justified.  if i have a desire to hurt someone that has wronged me, i am not justified.   #  how about we change that a little bit.   #  i think much of your argument is based on the assumption that having sex with people other than your partner is a bad thing.  you equated sexual desire to stealing.  how about we change that a little bit.  how about we relate it to a muffin.  it is ok to desire the muffin.  you can have the muffin if you ask for it.  desire is not a bad thing and sexual desire is not a bad thing either.  taking feelings into consideration.  you know that your partner has sexual desires that are not for you.  does it hurt that person more to embrace their fulfillment of them or to stifle it ?  #  coping with frustration by letting yourself follow your every whim is not a way to live.   # no, much of his argument is based on the fact that you equate unfulfilled desire and self degradation, which is the basis for a very unethical life.  does it hurt that person more to embrace their fulfillment of them or to stifle it ? and how should this person feel knowing that they hurt you for their own selfish realization ? being hurt in this situation is not voluntary, it is not a case of telling  ok, i will simply ignore the pain this person is inflicting on me, as long as they are not frustrated .  sacrificing yourself for the happiness of other is not a way to live.  coping with frustration by letting yourself follow your every whim is not a way to live.  if you do not feel hurt when your romantic partner have sexual encounters without you, then yay, you are polyamorous and can enjoy this lifestyle.  otherwise, there is no way for you to change how you feel about something.  it is not a choice, nor a decision to make.   #  this is the exact thing i am saying about sacrificing the sexual desires.   # if i desire a cupcake and eat one, am i unethical ?  and how should this person feel knowing that they hurt you for their own selfish realization ?   this is the key.  i am not hurt by it.  i am way ok with it.  i am happy for her.  i hooked her up with a super hot 0 something guy for her birthday.   sacrificing yourself for the happiness of other is not a way to live.  coping with frustration by letting yourself follow your every whim is not a way to live.   this is the exact thing i am saying about sacrificing the sexual desires.   it is not a choice, nor a decision to make.   i was the biggest jealous person as a younger man.  it actually is something you can change.  it requires a lot of introspection.
firstly, i am aware of this thread that has the exact same topic:URL but i am not convinced after reading through it, so i am bringing it up again.  this is a post to defend  not all x are like that , it is not specifically about prime numbers.  although i will be using prime numbers as an example.  and if you are asking why i made this thread, it was prompted really by these two posts: URL URL so i have been told that  not all x are like that  is derailing, and trying to change the subject.  i do not agree.  if the speaker meant  some x are like that , then they need to make that point clear, and they need to not be making generalizations like this.  it is just like with prime numbers.  0 is an even prime number, and as such, not all prime numbers are odd.  additionally, one single man who is not a rapist means that not all men are rapists.  when someone says  not all x are like that , they are saying something that is true, and relevant to the topic at hand.  it is a very simple concept.  if you say  all x are like that , then a single counter example is sufficient to falsify the claim.  that is it.   one.  single.  counter example.   it does not matter if you can come up with a million examples that work, nor does it matter if 0 of all examples work, all that matters is that there is one single counter example.  that is sufficient to falsify the claim.  to believe otherwise is to believe that all primes are odd.  one thing is that people need to be precise about what they mean.  in dhckris is example with the scientist and the beekeeper, when the scientist says  humans are killing bees , they need to be precise as to what such a statement means.   some humans kill bees , or  there exists a human that is killing bees  , or  all humans kill bees .  when the beekeeper responds with  not all humans kill bees , then the onus is on the scientist to clarify what they meant by saying  humans are killing bees .  when someone says  not all men are like that , the correct response is to clarify, or admit to a factual error, and not to accuse the other side of  derailing , or  changing the subject .   #  when the scientist says  humans are killing bees , they need to be precise as to what such a statement means.   #   some humans kill bees , or  there exists a human that is killing bees  , or  all humans kill bees .   #  some humans kill bees , or  there exists a human that is killing bees  , or  all humans kill bees .  when the beekeeper responds with  not all humans kill bees , then the onus is on the scientist to clarify what they meant by saying  humans are killing bees  if a biologist or environmentalist claims that humans are killing bees, it is fairly obvious that this means the existence/lifestyle/habits of humans are negatively affecting bees in a way that is directly or indirectly killing them.  by examining this further, we can discern exactly how this is happening and which humans if it is indeed only some are contributing to the problem.  however, by claiming that humans are killing bees, the intent is to note that species a humans is harming species b bees .  this general sentiment does not require numerical qualification in order for it to be true or false.  the scientist does not need to be precise in order to communicate the point, and by asserting otherwise you are derailing the point in lieu of a petty semantic argument.  unless, of course, you actually do not understand the aforementioned point of the statement, in which case your comprehension skills are the real problem here.   #  we need, as a species, to generally be better at not generalizing people.   #  you are wrong.  she is not about to say  i hate men who cat call .  she is about to say  i hate  how  men cat call  emphasis mine .  she is saying that men cat call and it bothers her.  now you can argue that technically she is right.  some men do cat call.  she is not wrong to say men do it because some do just as it is not technically wrong to say cats play with string because some do.  but by generalizing, especially about groups of people, you are entering dangerous territory.  not only are you risking miscommunication and offending someone, hence the not all men, but you are also at risk of slowly embittering yourself and feeling like the entire male kind is this way.  it starts you to a path of othering.  it is a very sad and oftentimes nasty way to live.  now in the context of that cartoon it would surely be annoying for a stranger to butt in on to private conversation when he does not know the context.  but not really any difference than a woman correcting a man who says casually that women are so bad at math.  we need, as a species, to generally be better at not generalizing people.   #  that depends on if he actually means that.   # it starts you to a path of othering.  it is a very sad and oftentimes nasty way to live.  that is a rather big assumption to make about someone.  some men do cat call.  she is not wrong to say men do it because some do just as it is not technically wrong to say cats play with string because some do.  she knows that.  most women already know that.  because that is what literally happens, all the time, on the internet.  that depends on if he actually means that.   #  i thought the whole reason to say not all men is because we ca not always know someone is meaning until they clarify and if they keep saying men without qualifying it they might just mean all men.   # the internet is a private conversation ? i am sorry but no.  if you are having a conversation on reddit or facebook or any other public forum it is, well, a public forum.  anyone can contribute.  what is more, anyone can see the whole convo and understand the context more or less.  there are ways of having private messages and i have not heard of someone magically entering an email chain to give someone a hard time.  ok explain this to me.  you can know when someone actually means it and intuit the appropriate and inappropriate times to call someone out on this ? so the men saying not all men just have to retune their appropriateness meter ? i thought the whole reason to say not all men is because we ca not always know someone is meaning until they clarify and if they keep saying men without qualifying it they might just mean all men.   #  if we get mired in an argument about the legitimacy of saying  not all men  in the first place it is that person who has derailed the conversation not the person correcting the false and dangerous generalizations.   #  people stereotype all the time.  even when they intellectually know not every member of the group is like that they still judge every member until the exact moment they know that individual is  one of he good ones .  when facing someone who generalizes it is imperative to remind them that they are generalizing and show them why that is folly or else they may overtime lose sight of reality and develop an unhealthy habit of othering people.  to accept this faulty premise and argue around it would be just as racist as the statement itself.  some women are just as some men are.  but again if you allow this statement to hang there you do more harm than good.  not all men.  and if you want to have an intelligent conversation let is start from reality and not some boogie man world invented to make you feel superior.  let is start from a place that actually exists so we can find solutions to a real problem.  not all men is not derailing.  it is the beginning of a real conversation.  it will take all of a second for a reasonable person to accept not all men and move on to what the real problem is.  if we get mired in an argument about the legitimacy of saying  not all men  in the first place it is that person who has derailed the conversation not the person correcting the false and dangerous generalizations.
firstly, i am aware of this thread that has the exact same topic:URL but i am not convinced after reading through it, so i am bringing it up again.  this is a post to defend  not all x are like that , it is not specifically about prime numbers.  although i will be using prime numbers as an example.  and if you are asking why i made this thread, it was prompted really by these two posts: URL URL so i have been told that  not all x are like that  is derailing, and trying to change the subject.  i do not agree.  if the speaker meant  some x are like that , then they need to make that point clear, and they need to not be making generalizations like this.  it is just like with prime numbers.  0 is an even prime number, and as such, not all prime numbers are odd.  additionally, one single man who is not a rapist means that not all men are rapists.  when someone says  not all x are like that , they are saying something that is true, and relevant to the topic at hand.  it is a very simple concept.  if you say  all x are like that , then a single counter example is sufficient to falsify the claim.  that is it.   one.  single.  counter example.   it does not matter if you can come up with a million examples that work, nor does it matter if 0 of all examples work, all that matters is that there is one single counter example.  that is sufficient to falsify the claim.  to believe otherwise is to believe that all primes are odd.  one thing is that people need to be precise about what they mean.  in dhckris is example with the scientist and the beekeeper, when the scientist says  humans are killing bees , they need to be precise as to what such a statement means.   some humans kill bees , or  there exists a human that is killing bees  , or  all humans kill bees .  when the beekeeper responds with  not all humans kill bees , then the onus is on the scientist to clarify what they meant by saying  humans are killing bees .  when someone says  not all men are like that , the correct response is to clarify, or admit to a factual error, and not to accuse the other side of  derailing , or  changing the subject .   #  when someone says  not all men are like that , the correct response is to clarify, or admit to a factual error, and not to accuse the other side of  derailing , or  changing the subject .   #  i just want to point out that i think it is important for the advocate of the   not all x are like that   argument to interpret the original statement charitably.   # i just want to point out that i think it is important for the advocate of the   not all x are like that   argument to interpret the original statement charitably.  oftentimes, when people use this phrase, it is being used as a straw man, because the person it is directed at never intended to mean  all  x  are like that  to begin with.  rather, they are using a generality to highlight a particular problem within a group.  for example, when someone comments about muslim terrorists, men sexually harassing women, crime rates in lower income black neighborhoods, insert controversial generality here , they hardly ever intend too mean that  all muslims are terrorists  or  all men are misogynists  or  all indian men are rapists  or  all poor blacks are criminals .  they only mean that, within those groups, there is a particular  problem  that, presumably, is unique to this or a small number of social groups, which warrants singling them out among other similar social groups.  if this is the correct interpretation of the statement, then the  not all  x  are like that  is not the appropriate response.  if you believe their statement properly interpreted is incorrect, the best response would be to counter it by showing that the problem is severity is overstated, or that it is not as unique to that particular social group as the person thinks, or that the factors that cause this particular problem are different than the social grouping in question and that the social group is a coincidental correlation , or something of that sort.  that said, users of the  not all x are like that  argument should be interpreted charitably too.  oftentimes they mean to suggest something like i of the social group in question, the problematic individuals constitute such a small minority in the group that it is not helpful to make this about the social group in question; or ii given the amount of non problematic individuals in this social group, there are probably factors other than this social group that is causing the problem, and generalizing to this social group is probably not helpful.  now, i am aware that you could interpret  this  response as a straw man, since you said:   it is a very simple concept.  if you say  all x are like that , then a single counter example is sufficient to falsify the claim.  and i agree.  however, in my experience, usually when these arguments are used, they are not aimed at statements claiming  all x are like that.   they are used in the straw man fashion i mentioned previously.   #  she is not wrong to say men do it because some do just as it is not technically wrong to say cats play with string because some do.   #  you are wrong.  she is not about to say  i hate men who cat call .  she is about to say  i hate  how  men cat call  emphasis mine .  she is saying that men cat call and it bothers her.  now you can argue that technically she is right.  some men do cat call.  she is not wrong to say men do it because some do just as it is not technically wrong to say cats play with string because some do.  but by generalizing, especially about groups of people, you are entering dangerous territory.  not only are you risking miscommunication and offending someone, hence the not all men, but you are also at risk of slowly embittering yourself and feeling like the entire male kind is this way.  it starts you to a path of othering.  it is a very sad and oftentimes nasty way to live.  now in the context of that cartoon it would surely be annoying for a stranger to butt in on to private conversation when he does not know the context.  but not really any difference than a woman correcting a man who says casually that women are so bad at math.  we need, as a species, to generally be better at not generalizing people.   #  that depends on if he actually means that.   # it starts you to a path of othering.  it is a very sad and oftentimes nasty way to live.  that is a rather big assumption to make about someone.  some men do cat call.  she is not wrong to say men do it because some do just as it is not technically wrong to say cats play with string because some do.  she knows that.  most women already know that.  because that is what literally happens, all the time, on the internet.  that depends on if he actually means that.   #  if you are having a conversation on reddit or facebook or any other public forum it is, well, a public forum.   # the internet is a private conversation ? i am sorry but no.  if you are having a conversation on reddit or facebook or any other public forum it is, well, a public forum.  anyone can contribute.  what is more, anyone can see the whole convo and understand the context more or less.  there are ways of having private messages and i have not heard of someone magically entering an email chain to give someone a hard time.  ok explain this to me.  you can know when someone actually means it and intuit the appropriate and inappropriate times to call someone out on this ? so the men saying not all men just have to retune their appropriateness meter ? i thought the whole reason to say not all men is because we ca not always know someone is meaning until they clarify and if they keep saying men without qualifying it they might just mean all men.   #  let is start from a place that actually exists so we can find solutions to a real problem.   #  people stereotype all the time.  even when they intellectually know not every member of the group is like that they still judge every member until the exact moment they know that individual is  one of he good ones .  when facing someone who generalizes it is imperative to remind them that they are generalizing and show them why that is folly or else they may overtime lose sight of reality and develop an unhealthy habit of othering people.  to accept this faulty premise and argue around it would be just as racist as the statement itself.  some women are just as some men are.  but again if you allow this statement to hang there you do more harm than good.  not all men.  and if you want to have an intelligent conversation let is start from reality and not some boogie man world invented to make you feel superior.  let is start from a place that actually exists so we can find solutions to a real problem.  not all men is not derailing.  it is the beginning of a real conversation.  it will take all of a second for a reasonable person to accept not all men and move on to what the real problem is.  if we get mired in an argument about the legitimacy of saying  not all men  in the first place it is that person who has derailed the conversation not the person correcting the false and dangerous generalizations.
cogito ergo sum.  the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  our senses get stimulations from the environment; our brain processes these stimulations and puts them into a picture.  science tries to explain this environment, keeping the explanations as objective as possible.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  the truth is, our perception of our environment is very limited.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  religion also tries to explain our environment.  other than science, religious theories are not made by objective measurements of an environment we only know from our observations.  instead, religious theories are made by our subjective thoughts, where we have no doubts that they are real.  so i conclude that religion is closer to reality than science is.  cmv.   #  there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.   #  things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.   # things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.  which is functionally equivalent to not existing at all.  it is impossible to argue that a thing we are completely unaware of exists, even if it does exist.  subjective thoughts while we are sure the thoughts themselves exist are in no way constrained by reality.  so, your argument turns to the idea that being close to reality does not require or even benefit from any relationship with reality ? can you explain that further ?  #  i was assuming that if something exists, it is a part of reality.   #  to your first point:  i understand that it is difficult to argue with something that is not related to us.  or at least we think that it is not.  it might be.  so i believe that, if we want to grow our knowledge, it is necessary to use such arguments.  to your second point:  i think we need a definition of reality here.  i am taking the one from oxford:  reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them .  i was assuming that if something exists, it is a part of reality.  so as we can say that our thoughts exist, and according to descartes our thoughts are the only thing we can surely tell exist, should not we built our picture of reality based on thoughts, as religion does and not on observations, as science does ?  #  if two scientists disagree, neither claims to be correct until they figure out which is correct well, at least good scientists do not .   #  but the fact that two religions do not agree is a sign that they do not accurately describe the world.  if two people disagree, one of them is usually wrong.  the same is true of religion.  if two scientists disagree, neither claims to be correct until they figure out which is correct well, at least good scientists do not .  however, if two religious people disagree, both will claim to be correct.  it is impossible for both of them to be right.   #  why does the fact that there are things we ca not perceive everything take away from the things we can perceive ?  # although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  why does the fact that there are things we ca not perceive everything take away from the things we can perceive ? your computer works.  if it stops working there are people who can look at it, identify why it stopped working, and fix it.  unless you believe that it is by chance or magic or some other force that make computers tick, then we have made accurate predictions about reality.  cogito ergo sum is not a conclusion, it is the starting point.  by making predictions that are always accurate, we peer closer to reality.  we can predict the exact velocity of an object falling in a vacum.  the fact that we do not know everything there is to know about gravity does not change that.   #  our senses are not exactly reality, but they are immediately derived from reality.   # actually, our thoughts do not necessarily have any bearing on reality.  our senses are not exactly reality, but they are immediately derived from reality.  we know how our senses come from reality, so we can work backwards to find what reality is.  we can also create devices that sense reality without the same distortions that we have in order to confirm our impression of reality.  myths are generated by fallacies in our thought process.  that is, they emerge from the cumulative failures of our thoughts to completely reflect reality.  myths can be considered to represent what reality would be like if every random fallacy our brains generated due to imperfections was actually real.  that is why myths pretty much always contradict themselves at some point; they are nothing more than glitches in our processing.
cogito ergo sum.  the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  our senses get stimulations from the environment; our brain processes these stimulations and puts them into a picture.  science tries to explain this environment, keeping the explanations as objective as possible.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  the truth is, our perception of our environment is very limited.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  religion also tries to explain our environment.  other than science, religious theories are not made by objective measurements of an environment we only know from our observations.  instead, religious theories are made by our subjective thoughts, where we have no doubts that they are real.  so i conclude that religion is closer to reality than science is.  cmv.   #  instead, religious theories are made by our subjective thoughts, where we have no doubts that they are real.   #  subjective thoughts while we are sure the thoughts themselves exist are in no way constrained by reality.   # things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.  which is functionally equivalent to not existing at all.  it is impossible to argue that a thing we are completely unaware of exists, even if it does exist.  subjective thoughts while we are sure the thoughts themselves exist are in no way constrained by reality.  so, your argument turns to the idea that being close to reality does not require or even benefit from any relationship with reality ? can you explain that further ?  #  to your first point:  i understand that it is difficult to argue with something that is not related to us.   #  to your first point:  i understand that it is difficult to argue with something that is not related to us.  or at least we think that it is not.  it might be.  so i believe that, if we want to grow our knowledge, it is necessary to use such arguments.  to your second point:  i think we need a definition of reality here.  i am taking the one from oxford:  reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them .  i was assuming that if something exists, it is a part of reality.  so as we can say that our thoughts exist, and according to descartes our thoughts are the only thing we can surely tell exist, should not we built our picture of reality based on thoughts, as religion does and not on observations, as science does ?  #  if two people disagree, one of them is usually wrong.   #  but the fact that two religions do not agree is a sign that they do not accurately describe the world.  if two people disagree, one of them is usually wrong.  the same is true of religion.  if two scientists disagree, neither claims to be correct until they figure out which is correct well, at least good scientists do not .  however, if two religious people disagree, both will claim to be correct.  it is impossible for both of them to be right.   #  unless you believe that it is by chance or magic or some other force that make computers tick, then we have made accurate predictions about reality.   # although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  why does the fact that there are things we ca not perceive everything take away from the things we can perceive ? your computer works.  if it stops working there are people who can look at it, identify why it stopped working, and fix it.  unless you believe that it is by chance or magic or some other force that make computers tick, then we have made accurate predictions about reality.  cogito ergo sum is not a conclusion, it is the starting point.  by making predictions that are always accurate, we peer closer to reality.  we can predict the exact velocity of an object falling in a vacum.  the fact that we do not know everything there is to know about gravity does not change that.   #  that is why myths pretty much always contradict themselves at some point; they are nothing more than glitches in our processing.   # actually, our thoughts do not necessarily have any bearing on reality.  our senses are not exactly reality, but they are immediately derived from reality.  we know how our senses come from reality, so we can work backwards to find what reality is.  we can also create devices that sense reality without the same distortions that we have in order to confirm our impression of reality.  myths are generated by fallacies in our thought process.  that is, they emerge from the cumulative failures of our thoughts to completely reflect reality.  myths can be considered to represent what reality would be like if every random fallacy our brains generated due to imperfections was actually real.  that is why myths pretty much always contradict themselves at some point; they are nothing more than glitches in our processing.
cogito ergo sum.  the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  our senses get stimulations from the environment; our brain processes these stimulations and puts them into a picture.  science tries to explain this environment, keeping the explanations as objective as possible.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  the truth is, our perception of our environment is very limited.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  religion also tries to explain our environment.  other than science, religious theories are not made by objective measurements of an environment we only know from our observations.  instead, religious theories are made by our subjective thoughts, where we have no doubts that they are real.  so i conclude that religion is closer to reality than science is.  cmv.   #  the truth is, our perception of our environment is very limited.   #  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.   # although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  why does the fact that there are things we ca not perceive everything take away from the things we can perceive ? your computer works.  if it stops working there are people who can look at it, identify why it stopped working, and fix it.  unless you believe that it is by chance or magic or some other force that make computers tick, then we have made accurate predictions about reality.  cogito ergo sum is not a conclusion, it is the starting point.  by making predictions that are always accurate, we peer closer to reality.  we can predict the exact velocity of an object falling in a vacum.  the fact that we do not know everything there is to know about gravity does not change that.   #  things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.   # things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.  which is functionally equivalent to not existing at all.  it is impossible to argue that a thing we are completely unaware of exists, even if it does exist.  subjective thoughts while we are sure the thoughts themselves exist are in no way constrained by reality.  so, your argument turns to the idea that being close to reality does not require or even benefit from any relationship with reality ? can you explain that further ?  #  to your first point:  i understand that it is difficult to argue with something that is not related to us.   #  to your first point:  i understand that it is difficult to argue with something that is not related to us.  or at least we think that it is not.  it might be.  so i believe that, if we want to grow our knowledge, it is necessary to use such arguments.  to your second point:  i think we need a definition of reality here.  i am taking the one from oxford:  reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them .  i was assuming that if something exists, it is a part of reality.  so as we can say that our thoughts exist, and according to descartes our thoughts are the only thing we can surely tell exist, should not we built our picture of reality based on thoughts, as religion does and not on observations, as science does ?  #  but the fact that two religions do not agree is a sign that they do not accurately describe the world.   #  but the fact that two religions do not agree is a sign that they do not accurately describe the world.  if two people disagree, one of them is usually wrong.  the same is true of religion.  if two scientists disagree, neither claims to be correct until they figure out which is correct well, at least good scientists do not .  however, if two religious people disagree, both will claim to be correct.  it is impossible for both of them to be right.   #  we know how our senses come from reality, so we can work backwards to find what reality is.   # actually, our thoughts do not necessarily have any bearing on reality.  our senses are not exactly reality, but they are immediately derived from reality.  we know how our senses come from reality, so we can work backwards to find what reality is.  we can also create devices that sense reality without the same distortions that we have in order to confirm our impression of reality.  myths are generated by fallacies in our thought process.  that is, they emerge from the cumulative failures of our thoughts to completely reflect reality.  myths can be considered to represent what reality would be like if every random fallacy our brains generated due to imperfections was actually real.  that is why myths pretty much always contradict themselves at some point; they are nothing more than glitches in our processing.
cogito ergo sum.  the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  our senses get stimulations from the environment; our brain processes these stimulations and puts them into a picture.  science tries to explain this environment, keeping the explanations as objective as possible.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  the truth is, our perception of our environment is very limited.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  religion also tries to explain our environment.  other than science, religious theories are not made by objective measurements of an environment we only know from our observations.  instead, religious theories are made by our subjective thoughts, where we have no doubts that they are real.  so i conclude that religion is closer to reality than science is.  cmv.   #  the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.   #  actually, our thoughts do not necessarily have any bearing on reality.   # actually, our thoughts do not necessarily have any bearing on reality.  our senses are not exactly reality, but they are immediately derived from reality.  we know how our senses come from reality, so we can work backwards to find what reality is.  we can also create devices that sense reality without the same distortions that we have in order to confirm our impression of reality.  myths are generated by fallacies in our thought process.  that is, they emerge from the cumulative failures of our thoughts to completely reflect reality.  myths can be considered to represent what reality would be like if every random fallacy our brains generated due to imperfections was actually real.  that is why myths pretty much always contradict themselves at some point; they are nothing more than glitches in our processing.   #  things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.   # things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.  which is functionally equivalent to not existing at all.  it is impossible to argue that a thing we are completely unaware of exists, even if it does exist.  subjective thoughts while we are sure the thoughts themselves exist are in no way constrained by reality.  so, your argument turns to the idea that being close to reality does not require or even benefit from any relationship with reality ? can you explain that further ?  #  or at least we think that it is not.   #  to your first point:  i understand that it is difficult to argue with something that is not related to us.  or at least we think that it is not.  it might be.  so i believe that, if we want to grow our knowledge, it is necessary to use such arguments.  to your second point:  i think we need a definition of reality here.  i am taking the one from oxford:  reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them .  i was assuming that if something exists, it is a part of reality.  so as we can say that our thoughts exist, and according to descartes our thoughts are the only thing we can surely tell exist, should not we built our picture of reality based on thoughts, as religion does and not on observations, as science does ?  #  however, if two religious people disagree, both will claim to be correct.   #  but the fact that two religions do not agree is a sign that they do not accurately describe the world.  if two people disagree, one of them is usually wrong.  the same is true of religion.  if two scientists disagree, neither claims to be correct until they figure out which is correct well, at least good scientists do not .  however, if two religious people disagree, both will claim to be correct.  it is impossible for both of them to be right.   #  the fact that we do not know everything there is to know about gravity does not change that.   # although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  why does the fact that there are things we ca not perceive everything take away from the things we can perceive ? your computer works.  if it stops working there are people who can look at it, identify why it stopped working, and fix it.  unless you believe that it is by chance or magic or some other force that make computers tick, then we have made accurate predictions about reality.  cogito ergo sum is not a conclusion, it is the starting point.  by making predictions that are always accurate, we peer closer to reality.  we can predict the exact velocity of an object falling in a vacum.  the fact that we do not know everything there is to know about gravity does not change that.
cogito ergo sum.  the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  our senses get stimulations from the environment; our brain processes these stimulations and puts them into a picture.  science tries to explain this environment, keeping the explanations as objective as possible.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  the truth is, our perception of our environment is very limited.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  religion also tries to explain our environment.  other than science, religious theories are not made by objective measurements of an environment we only know from our observations.  instead, religious theories are made by our subjective thoughts, where we have no doubts that they are real.  so i conclude that religion is closer to reality than science is.  cmv.   #  our senses get stimulations from the environment; our brain processes these stimulations and puts them into a picture.   #  you have already relied on observation, measurement and science to be able to make this statement.   # the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  what is your basis for accepting the truth of this maxim ? it does not sound justifiable to me.  you have already relied on observation, measurement and science to be able to make this statement.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  science is a methodology for teasing out persistent relationships between observations.  it does not even require an explanation of an underlying mechanism.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  this only indicates that the body of scientific knowledge may not be complete, not that it does not correspond to reality.  if our observations are real, and we can accurately predict how one observation or action will affect a future one, then it necessarily corresponds with reality, even if we all turn out to be computer simulations, because those observations exist are real, even if they do not correspond to what we think they correspond to .  religion does many things, and  explain our environment  is what it puts the least effort into.  no, they are made up by people that have a vested interest in spreading a lie.  even if we take  our thoughts are real  as a given, that in no way justifies the leap you are attempting to make to suggest that our thoughts are also  correct .  cmv.   is closer to reality  is a nebulous phrase.  if it means anything at all, it must mean  is a more accurate account of reality .  we know that science corresponds at least somewhat with what we observe.  if you insist on talking about religion  as a general concept , then you have already lost.  there is no way you can assess the accuracy of religion as a general concept, because as a general concept, it makes no claims.  real religions do make specific claims.  the real claims made by real religions are not at all in harmony with what we observe about the world, and again,  just because we think a thought, does not mean it is correct .  we can also compare scientific methodology to religious methodology in terms of how likely the methodology is to lead us in the direction of truth.  religious  methodology  is pretty much a non starter.  there is no reason to expect  faith  to lead in any particular direction, let alone that of the truth.  if claims you believe of  faith  happen to be accurate, it is purely by chance, especially if it is not subject to change.  the scientific methodology, on the other hand, is a refinement process.  it keep the bits that correspond to our observations, and changes the bits that do not.  it should be obvious that science is a more reliable path to truth than faith.  let us not forget that even religious people rely on the same principles as science for most aspects of their lives.  religious people are not afraid to walk out a window on the tenth floor of a building because their holy book tells them they should be.  they are afraid because every time they have jumped up, they have come back down, and they have noticed that the higher they fall from the more painful it is.  they are relying on the same fundamental rationality and consistency in their daily lives that science is predicated on.   #  things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.   # things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.  which is functionally equivalent to not existing at all.  it is impossible to argue that a thing we are completely unaware of exists, even if it does exist.  subjective thoughts while we are sure the thoughts themselves exist are in no way constrained by reality.  so, your argument turns to the idea that being close to reality does not require or even benefit from any relationship with reality ? can you explain that further ?  #  or at least we think that it is not.   #  to your first point:  i understand that it is difficult to argue with something that is not related to us.  or at least we think that it is not.  it might be.  so i believe that, if we want to grow our knowledge, it is necessary to use such arguments.  to your second point:  i think we need a definition of reality here.  i am taking the one from oxford:  reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them .  i was assuming that if something exists, it is a part of reality.  so as we can say that our thoughts exist, and according to descartes our thoughts are the only thing we can surely tell exist, should not we built our picture of reality based on thoughts, as religion does and not on observations, as science does ?  #  if two people disagree, one of them is usually wrong.   #  but the fact that two religions do not agree is a sign that they do not accurately describe the world.  if two people disagree, one of them is usually wrong.  the same is true of religion.  if two scientists disagree, neither claims to be correct until they figure out which is correct well, at least good scientists do not .  however, if two religious people disagree, both will claim to be correct.  it is impossible for both of them to be right.   #  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.   # although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  why does the fact that there are things we ca not perceive everything take away from the things we can perceive ? your computer works.  if it stops working there are people who can look at it, identify why it stopped working, and fix it.  unless you believe that it is by chance or magic or some other force that make computers tick, then we have made accurate predictions about reality.  cogito ergo sum is not a conclusion, it is the starting point.  by making predictions that are always accurate, we peer closer to reality.  we can predict the exact velocity of an object falling in a vacum.  the fact that we do not know everything there is to know about gravity does not change that.
cogito ergo sum.  the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  our senses get stimulations from the environment; our brain processes these stimulations and puts them into a picture.  science tries to explain this environment, keeping the explanations as objective as possible.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  the truth is, our perception of our environment is very limited.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  religion also tries to explain our environment.  other than science, religious theories are not made by objective measurements of an environment we only know from our observations.  instead, religious theories are made by our subjective thoughts, where we have no doubts that they are real.  so i conclude that religion is closer to reality than science is.  cmv.   #  the truth is, our perception of our environment is very limited.   #  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.   # the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  what is your basis for accepting the truth of this maxim ? it does not sound justifiable to me.  you have already relied on observation, measurement and science to be able to make this statement.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  science is a methodology for teasing out persistent relationships between observations.  it does not even require an explanation of an underlying mechanism.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  this only indicates that the body of scientific knowledge may not be complete, not that it does not correspond to reality.  if our observations are real, and we can accurately predict how one observation or action will affect a future one, then it necessarily corresponds with reality, even if we all turn out to be computer simulations, because those observations exist are real, even if they do not correspond to what we think they correspond to .  religion does many things, and  explain our environment  is what it puts the least effort into.  no, they are made up by people that have a vested interest in spreading a lie.  even if we take  our thoughts are real  as a given, that in no way justifies the leap you are attempting to make to suggest that our thoughts are also  correct .  cmv.   is closer to reality  is a nebulous phrase.  if it means anything at all, it must mean  is a more accurate account of reality .  we know that science corresponds at least somewhat with what we observe.  if you insist on talking about religion  as a general concept , then you have already lost.  there is no way you can assess the accuracy of religion as a general concept, because as a general concept, it makes no claims.  real religions do make specific claims.  the real claims made by real religions are not at all in harmony with what we observe about the world, and again,  just because we think a thought, does not mean it is correct .  we can also compare scientific methodology to religious methodology in terms of how likely the methodology is to lead us in the direction of truth.  religious  methodology  is pretty much a non starter.  there is no reason to expect  faith  to lead in any particular direction, let alone that of the truth.  if claims you believe of  faith  happen to be accurate, it is purely by chance, especially if it is not subject to change.  the scientific methodology, on the other hand, is a refinement process.  it keep the bits that correspond to our observations, and changes the bits that do not.  it should be obvious that science is a more reliable path to truth than faith.  let us not forget that even religious people rely on the same principles as science for most aspects of their lives.  religious people are not afraid to walk out a window on the tenth floor of a building because their holy book tells them they should be.  they are afraid because every time they have jumped up, they have come back down, and they have noticed that the higher they fall from the more painful it is.  they are relying on the same fundamental rationality and consistency in their daily lives that science is predicated on.   #  things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.   # things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.  which is functionally equivalent to not existing at all.  it is impossible to argue that a thing we are completely unaware of exists, even if it does exist.  subjective thoughts while we are sure the thoughts themselves exist are in no way constrained by reality.  so, your argument turns to the idea that being close to reality does not require or even benefit from any relationship with reality ? can you explain that further ?  #  to your second point:  i think we need a definition of reality here.   #  to your first point:  i understand that it is difficult to argue with something that is not related to us.  or at least we think that it is not.  it might be.  so i believe that, if we want to grow our knowledge, it is necessary to use such arguments.  to your second point:  i think we need a definition of reality here.  i am taking the one from oxford:  reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them .  i was assuming that if something exists, it is a part of reality.  so as we can say that our thoughts exist, and according to descartes our thoughts are the only thing we can surely tell exist, should not we built our picture of reality based on thoughts, as religion does and not on observations, as science does ?  #  but the fact that two religions do not agree is a sign that they do not accurately describe the world.   #  but the fact that two religions do not agree is a sign that they do not accurately describe the world.  if two people disagree, one of them is usually wrong.  the same is true of religion.  if two scientists disagree, neither claims to be correct until they figure out which is correct well, at least good scientists do not .  however, if two religious people disagree, both will claim to be correct.  it is impossible for both of them to be right.   #  cogito ergo sum is not a conclusion, it is the starting point.   # although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  why does the fact that there are things we ca not perceive everything take away from the things we can perceive ? your computer works.  if it stops working there are people who can look at it, identify why it stopped working, and fix it.  unless you believe that it is by chance or magic or some other force that make computers tick, then we have made accurate predictions about reality.  cogito ergo sum is not a conclusion, it is the starting point.  by making predictions that are always accurate, we peer closer to reality.  we can predict the exact velocity of an object falling in a vacum.  the fact that we do not know everything there is to know about gravity does not change that.
cogito ergo sum.  the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  our senses get stimulations from the environment; our brain processes these stimulations and puts them into a picture.  science tries to explain this environment, keeping the explanations as objective as possible.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  the truth is, our perception of our environment is very limited.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  religion also tries to explain our environment.  other than science, religious theories are not made by objective measurements of an environment we only know from our observations.  instead, religious theories are made by our subjective thoughts, where we have no doubts that they are real.  so i conclude that religion is closer to reality than science is.  cmv.   #  religious theories are not made by objective measurements of an environment we only know from our observations.   #  no, they are made up by people that have a vested interest in spreading a lie.   # the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  what is your basis for accepting the truth of this maxim ? it does not sound justifiable to me.  you have already relied on observation, measurement and science to be able to make this statement.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  science is a methodology for teasing out persistent relationships between observations.  it does not even require an explanation of an underlying mechanism.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  this only indicates that the body of scientific knowledge may not be complete, not that it does not correspond to reality.  if our observations are real, and we can accurately predict how one observation or action will affect a future one, then it necessarily corresponds with reality, even if we all turn out to be computer simulations, because those observations exist are real, even if they do not correspond to what we think they correspond to .  religion does many things, and  explain our environment  is what it puts the least effort into.  no, they are made up by people that have a vested interest in spreading a lie.  even if we take  our thoughts are real  as a given, that in no way justifies the leap you are attempting to make to suggest that our thoughts are also  correct .  cmv.   is closer to reality  is a nebulous phrase.  if it means anything at all, it must mean  is a more accurate account of reality .  we know that science corresponds at least somewhat with what we observe.  if you insist on talking about religion  as a general concept , then you have already lost.  there is no way you can assess the accuracy of religion as a general concept, because as a general concept, it makes no claims.  real religions do make specific claims.  the real claims made by real religions are not at all in harmony with what we observe about the world, and again,  just because we think a thought, does not mean it is correct .  we can also compare scientific methodology to religious methodology in terms of how likely the methodology is to lead us in the direction of truth.  religious  methodology  is pretty much a non starter.  there is no reason to expect  faith  to lead in any particular direction, let alone that of the truth.  if claims you believe of  faith  happen to be accurate, it is purely by chance, especially if it is not subject to change.  the scientific methodology, on the other hand, is a refinement process.  it keep the bits that correspond to our observations, and changes the bits that do not.  it should be obvious that science is a more reliable path to truth than faith.  let us not forget that even religious people rely on the same principles as science for most aspects of their lives.  religious people are not afraid to walk out a window on the tenth floor of a building because their holy book tells them they should be.  they are afraid because every time they have jumped up, they have come back down, and they have noticed that the higher they fall from the more painful it is.  they are relying on the same fundamental rationality and consistency in their daily lives that science is predicated on.   #  so, your argument turns to the idea that being close to reality does not require or even benefit from any relationship with reality ?  # things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.  which is functionally equivalent to not existing at all.  it is impossible to argue that a thing we are completely unaware of exists, even if it does exist.  subjective thoughts while we are sure the thoughts themselves exist are in no way constrained by reality.  so, your argument turns to the idea that being close to reality does not require or even benefit from any relationship with reality ? can you explain that further ?  #  i am taking the one from oxford:  reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them .   #  to your first point:  i understand that it is difficult to argue with something that is not related to us.  or at least we think that it is not.  it might be.  so i believe that, if we want to grow our knowledge, it is necessary to use such arguments.  to your second point:  i think we need a definition of reality here.  i am taking the one from oxford:  reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them .  i was assuming that if something exists, it is a part of reality.  so as we can say that our thoughts exist, and according to descartes our thoughts are the only thing we can surely tell exist, should not we built our picture of reality based on thoughts, as religion does and not on observations, as science does ?  #  it is impossible for both of them to be right.   #  but the fact that two religions do not agree is a sign that they do not accurately describe the world.  if two people disagree, one of them is usually wrong.  the same is true of religion.  if two scientists disagree, neither claims to be correct until they figure out which is correct well, at least good scientists do not .  however, if two religious people disagree, both will claim to be correct.  it is impossible for both of them to be right.   #  why does the fact that there are things we ca not perceive everything take away from the things we can perceive ?  # although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  why does the fact that there are things we ca not perceive everything take away from the things we can perceive ? your computer works.  if it stops working there are people who can look at it, identify why it stopped working, and fix it.  unless you believe that it is by chance or magic or some other force that make computers tick, then we have made accurate predictions about reality.  cogito ergo sum is not a conclusion, it is the starting point.  by making predictions that are always accurate, we peer closer to reality.  we can predict the exact velocity of an object falling in a vacum.  the fact that we do not know everything there is to know about gravity does not change that.
cogito ergo sum.  the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  our senses get stimulations from the environment; our brain processes these stimulations and puts them into a picture.  science tries to explain this environment, keeping the explanations as objective as possible.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  the truth is, our perception of our environment is very limited.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  religion also tries to explain our environment.  other than science, religious theories are not made by objective measurements of an environment we only know from our observations.  instead, religious theories are made by our subjective thoughts, where we have no doubts that they are real.  so i conclude that religion is closer to reality than science is.  cmv.   #  instead, religious theories are made by our subjective thoughts, where we have no doubts that they are real.   #  even if we take  our thoughts are real  as a given, that in no way justifies the leap you are attempting to make to suggest that our thoughts are also  correct .   # the only thing of which we can tell that it is absoltely real are our thoughts.  what is your basis for accepting the truth of this maxim ? it does not sound justifiable to me.  you have already relied on observation, measurement and science to be able to make this statement.  subjecitivity is a taboo in science.  measuring is the keyword.  we measure whatever we observe and put that into a theory.  science is a methodology for teasing out persistent relationships between observations.  it does not even require an explanation of an underlying mechanism.  although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  this only indicates that the body of scientific knowledge may not be complete, not that it does not correspond to reality.  if our observations are real, and we can accurately predict how one observation or action will affect a future one, then it necessarily corresponds with reality, even if we all turn out to be computer simulations, because those observations exist are real, even if they do not correspond to what we think they correspond to .  religion does many things, and  explain our environment  is what it puts the least effort into.  no, they are made up by people that have a vested interest in spreading a lie.  even if we take  our thoughts are real  as a given, that in no way justifies the leap you are attempting to make to suggest that our thoughts are also  correct .  cmv.   is closer to reality  is a nebulous phrase.  if it means anything at all, it must mean  is a more accurate account of reality .  we know that science corresponds at least somewhat with what we observe.  if you insist on talking about religion  as a general concept , then you have already lost.  there is no way you can assess the accuracy of religion as a general concept, because as a general concept, it makes no claims.  real religions do make specific claims.  the real claims made by real religions are not at all in harmony with what we observe about the world, and again,  just because we think a thought, does not mean it is correct .  we can also compare scientific methodology to religious methodology in terms of how likely the methodology is to lead us in the direction of truth.  religious  methodology  is pretty much a non starter.  there is no reason to expect  faith  to lead in any particular direction, let alone that of the truth.  if claims you believe of  faith  happen to be accurate, it is purely by chance, especially if it is not subject to change.  the scientific methodology, on the other hand, is a refinement process.  it keep the bits that correspond to our observations, and changes the bits that do not.  it should be obvious that science is a more reliable path to truth than faith.  let us not forget that even religious people rely on the same principles as science for most aspects of their lives.  religious people are not afraid to walk out a window on the tenth floor of a building because their holy book tells them they should be.  they are afraid because every time they have jumped up, they have come back down, and they have noticed that the higher they fall from the more painful it is.  they are relying on the same fundamental rationality and consistency in their daily lives that science is predicated on.   #  so, your argument turns to the idea that being close to reality does not require or even benefit from any relationship with reality ?  # things that have exactly zero effect on our lives or the reality we experience.  which is functionally equivalent to not existing at all.  it is impossible to argue that a thing we are completely unaware of exists, even if it does exist.  subjective thoughts while we are sure the thoughts themselves exist are in no way constrained by reality.  so, your argument turns to the idea that being close to reality does not require or even benefit from any relationship with reality ? can you explain that further ?  #  i was assuming that if something exists, it is a part of reality.   #  to your first point:  i understand that it is difficult to argue with something that is not related to us.  or at least we think that it is not.  it might be.  so i believe that, if we want to grow our knowledge, it is necessary to use such arguments.  to your second point:  i think we need a definition of reality here.  i am taking the one from oxford:  reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them .  i was assuming that if something exists, it is a part of reality.  so as we can say that our thoughts exist, and according to descartes our thoughts are the only thing we can surely tell exist, should not we built our picture of reality based on thoughts, as religion does and not on observations, as science does ?  #  if two scientists disagree, neither claims to be correct until they figure out which is correct well, at least good scientists do not .   #  but the fact that two religions do not agree is a sign that they do not accurately describe the world.  if two people disagree, one of them is usually wrong.  the same is true of religion.  if two scientists disagree, neither claims to be correct until they figure out which is correct well, at least good scientists do not .  however, if two religious people disagree, both will claim to be correct.  it is impossible for both of them to be right.   #  if it stops working there are people who can look at it, identify why it stopped working, and fix it.   # although we have built tools to perceive things we cannot perceive with our body, there might be infinitely many things we are not aware of.  why does the fact that there are things we ca not perceive everything take away from the things we can perceive ? your computer works.  if it stops working there are people who can look at it, identify why it stopped working, and fix it.  unless you believe that it is by chance or magic or some other force that make computers tick, then we have made accurate predictions about reality.  cogito ergo sum is not a conclusion, it is the starting point.  by making predictions that are always accurate, we peer closer to reality.  we can predict the exact velocity of an object falling in a vacum.  the fact that we do not know everything there is to know about gravity does not change that.
a social safety net is a good idea, and money is spent with the intent of providing a specific kind of help.  in many places this includes a cash handout.  i believe this is wrong on many levels.    the money may be misspent.  this idea is not based on the assumption that poor people are all stupid or drug addicts.  it is simply the fact that there is no way of ensuring that the cash is used for its intended purpose.  the best assumption you can make is that people would be so desperately craving the thing you give them extra money for that they would almost certainly spend it on that, but people may end up endure forms of squalor that were far from what the well intentioned policy makers had in mind.    from the government is perspective, money is also being spent inefficiently.  let is say a program wanted to ensure that people were well fed.  they would have to find a cash amount that would buy enough healthy food to feed the recipients, but people have different needs, so they will have to provide to the upper percentile of demand the alternative is weighing people, paying women less etc.  this not only will result in discretionary income, but inequality in how much everyone gets.  a food stamp system would allow everyone to get as much food as they need, and the money left over is still in the governments hands to spend on other initiatives.    things like food stamps are patronising, and that is a good thing.  a cash handout creates a sense of entitlement beyond what something  patronising  like food stamps, rent vouchers etc.  create.  by the time money is in your pocket or bank account, there is several layers between you and the people providing that service.  food stamps create a meaningful difference between working poor and welfare recipients to encourage escaping the system.  there is also the huge benefit of less resentment of those on welfare.    in general they communicate purpose more clearly.  too often there is an attitude of getting as much money as you can from the government, and paying as little tax as possible.  it seems like people would be less likely to trick their way into receiving food stamps, education and other initiatives purpose built to meet needs.  on the other side, i would think policies would allow people to see their taxes as less of a redistribution of wealth, and more as funding for benevolent programs to create a better society.  i think as much welfare as possible should be in the form of vouchers and other purpose specific, non discretionary forms.  i like food stamps, i like rent vouchers, i like free healthcare and education.  things like these over cash seem like the best way to prevent the safety net becoming a fishing net.  i ca not think of many situations where cash is the best option, which is why i am here.  the other aspect to this changemyview is that i am ok with policies that  patronise  the less fortunate.  being well fed, healthy, comfortably sheltered, continually educated to eventually earn the life you want are more important than not being insulted.  if anyone can enlighten me on what it is like to be offended by a government policy assuming you are stupid or malevolent especially if you do not pay taxes , that would be helpful.   #  there is also the huge benefit of less resentment of those on welfare.   #  i have not seen that from the  conservative  camp.   #  well, these may vary in the real world, but there are basic theoretical and pretty compelling economic arguments against all of these points.  first of all, keep in mind that unless the person in question has literally $0 to spend, or so little money that every dollar you give them in cash would also be spent on food any vouchers or coupons you give them are effectively cash anyway, they just offset the cash they would have spent on food.  in other words: i have $0.  $0 goes to food, $0 goes to booze.  you give me a voucher for food.  now the voucher goes to food, $0 x goes to booze, $0 x goes to something else.  make sense ? money is money.  in that context, responses to your other points:  there is no way of ensuring that the cash is used for its intended purpose.  this is true regardless of what you earmark it for, again unless the person in question starts out with zero choice about how to spend their money in the first place, which would make vouchers irrelevant anyway.  although you can question the rationality of poor people is buying decisions although i think it is very easy to go too far in this, it is not as if middle class people do not buy junk food either , any time you limit choice, this is inefficient in an economic sense.  if you assume your first choice good to purchase would actually be the best choice rational consumer , then any forced modification of that choice can only be a net loss.  i have not seen that from the  conservative  camp.  and as i noted above, there is no functional difference between giving someone $0 for food, and just giving them $0, unless their budget was already constrained to a serious degree.  instilling a sense of dignity and responsibility to a person rather than sending the explicit message that they are incompetent and ca not be trusted, using systems that defy basic logic in the first place will cause people to try less hard.  you are talking about using demotivational tactics as a way to emotionally punish people for being poor.  there are many ways that hardworking, conscientious people can become poor.  should we officially enforce the narrative that  actually no, all of you poors are stupid, trust us, we are the government  ? i say no, we should tell them  look, if you are poor, it may not be because you are stupid or incompetent trust yourself to make a change in your life and succeed we trust you not to waste this money, do not disappoint us.   poor people are the same as you or me, just with noticeably less money at their disposal.  treating poverty as a momentary obstacle to be overcome rather than as something that results from a personal defect will give people the attitude that they should try to overcome poverty, rather than just give up and soak up more entitlements.   #  an example would be purchasing a chest freezer so that you can buy large quantity of meat and store it over time.   #  i think the biggest problem with the limits on food stamps is that they restrict creative solutions to lower month to month food costs that could require a larger initial investment.  an example would be purchasing a chest freezer so that you can buy large quantity of meat and store it over time.  you can buy a used chest freezer for as little as $0 and could easily save that amount for a family of 0 over just the first month.  a couple of things detract from this: 0.  the limit that food stamp money can only be spent on food, and not on tools that could ultimately decrease the price of food, means that the family would have a harder time implementing this solution.  0.  even if the family could spend food stamp money on a deep freezer, since leftover food stamp money does not carry over they ca not make any short term sacrifices in food consumption either quality of food or quantity of certain foods in order to save food stamp money to spend on this tool.  this results in the money being spent inefficiently buying low quantity high markup products which is not good for anyone.  food stamp receivers have a hard time buying high quality food, taxpayers money is less effective at solving the hunger problem.  i would imagine health issues are also more likely to come up when you do not have access to high quality food although i do not have any evidence to back this up maybe someone else here does ? .  by placing artificial limits on spending we do prevent it from being spent for purposes we do not approve of.  but we also prevent it from being spent more efficiently in creative ways.   #  my comment was in response to why we do not apply foodstamps to everyone.   #  my comment was in response to why we do not apply foodstamps to everyone.  the reason is that while welfare is a need in certain circumstances the funds come with some restrictions since spending it frivolously would make the welfare system an act in futility.  the actors in the welfare system are the tax payer and the recipient.  in the case of  everyone else  such as employed persons the immediate actors are the private employer and the employee.  the employer/employee relationship only has the restriction that the employee work x amount of hours in x time.  in that instance the work is what is restricted not how the employee uses the money.  in the case of welfare the money is inherently restricted as it is meant to be used for whatever  welfare  society has deemed needed e. g.  food, rent, water, etc.  .   #  if you are bad at managing money, it stands to reason that people will be more likely to need financial assistance to buy food.   #  also people who are not very good at managing money, their own satisfaction of a product, and healthy choices.  it so happens that humans are really bad at judging all three of these things.  it also so happens that the poor tend to be even worse.  and that is not a special claim.  if you are bad at managing money, it stands to reason that people will be more likely to need financial assistance to buy food.  if you are more stressed and/or less educated, then income is likely to be lower, which again increases likelihood of needing food assistance.  and as for judging wha tmakes us happy.  well everyone sucks at that.  rich and middle class people suck at it too generally speaking.   #  disadvantage : recipients may spend some of that cash on drugs or other things that do not help the goal thus decreasing efficiency.   #  true.  but that is totally irrelevant if the goal is to efficiently eliminate a social blight, like minors starving because their parents ca not provide for them.  from a taxpayers point of view the only useful metric becomes : how can we go about that business as efficiently as possible ? basically there are two scenarios.  0.  hand out cash.  advantage : it is easy with relatively little overhead.  disadvantage : recipients may spend some of that cash on drugs or other things that do not help the goal thus decreasing efficiency.  0.  hand out targeted help subsidies to buy food/home/.  .  advantage : the help is spend on what is needed.  disadvantage : you need a huge government planning effort to actually determine what is needed.  and an agency to actually enforce the rules.  spending on that decreases efficiency as well.  obviously this question has been researched many times over and the general consensus is that handing out cash is the most efficient way to reach social goals.  why ? well, it turns out that running a huge government organisation is expensive.  and that poor people who really want to misspend their welfare tend to do it anyway, for example by selling their food stamps penny to the dollar, increasing inefficiency even more.
a social safety net is a good idea, and money is spent with the intent of providing a specific kind of help.  in many places this includes a cash handout.  i believe this is wrong on many levels.    the money may be misspent.  this idea is not based on the assumption that poor people are all stupid or drug addicts.  it is simply the fact that there is no way of ensuring that the cash is used for its intended purpose.  the best assumption you can make is that people would be so desperately craving the thing you give them extra money for that they would almost certainly spend it on that, but people may end up endure forms of squalor that were far from what the well intentioned policy makers had in mind.    from the government is perspective, money is also being spent inefficiently.  let is say a program wanted to ensure that people were well fed.  they would have to find a cash amount that would buy enough healthy food to feed the recipients, but people have different needs, so they will have to provide to the upper percentile of demand the alternative is weighing people, paying women less etc.  this not only will result in discretionary income, but inequality in how much everyone gets.  a food stamp system would allow everyone to get as much food as they need, and the money left over is still in the governments hands to spend on other initiatives.    things like food stamps are patronising, and that is a good thing.  a cash handout creates a sense of entitlement beyond what something  patronising  like food stamps, rent vouchers etc.  create.  by the time money is in your pocket or bank account, there is several layers between you and the people providing that service.  food stamps create a meaningful difference between working poor and welfare recipients to encourage escaping the system.  there is also the huge benefit of less resentment of those on welfare.    in general they communicate purpose more clearly.  too often there is an attitude of getting as much money as you can from the government, and paying as little tax as possible.  it seems like people would be less likely to trick their way into receiving food stamps, education and other initiatives purpose built to meet needs.  on the other side, i would think policies would allow people to see their taxes as less of a redistribution of wealth, and more as funding for benevolent programs to create a better society.  i think as much welfare as possible should be in the form of vouchers and other purpose specific, non discretionary forms.  i like food stamps, i like rent vouchers, i like free healthcare and education.  things like these over cash seem like the best way to prevent the safety net becoming a fishing net.  i ca not think of many situations where cash is the best option, which is why i am here.  the other aspect to this changemyview is that i am ok with policies that  patronise  the less fortunate.  being well fed, healthy, comfortably sheltered, continually educated to eventually earn the life you want are more important than not being insulted.  if anyone can enlighten me on what it is like to be offended by a government policy assuming you are stupid or malevolent especially if you do not pay taxes , that would be helpful.   #  it is simply the fact that there is no way of ensuring that the cash is used for its intended purpose.   #  what do you mean by  intended purpose  ?  # what do you mean by  intended purpose  ? do not you think that the person receiving the money is more likely to know what they need than you ? the goal should be either to encourage people to join the work force, let them live comfortably on welfare, or both.  doing the opposite does not make any sense.  designing the system to humiliate people and in turn discourage them to make their lives better does not make any sense unless you are trying to breed more inequality.   #  by placing artificial limits on spending we do prevent it from being spent for purposes we do not approve of.   #  i think the biggest problem with the limits on food stamps is that they restrict creative solutions to lower month to month food costs that could require a larger initial investment.  an example would be purchasing a chest freezer so that you can buy large quantity of meat and store it over time.  you can buy a used chest freezer for as little as $0 and could easily save that amount for a family of 0 over just the first month.  a couple of things detract from this: 0.  the limit that food stamp money can only be spent on food, and not on tools that could ultimately decrease the price of food, means that the family would have a harder time implementing this solution.  0.  even if the family could spend food stamp money on a deep freezer, since leftover food stamp money does not carry over they ca not make any short term sacrifices in food consumption either quality of food or quantity of certain foods in order to save food stamp money to spend on this tool.  this results in the money being spent inefficiently buying low quantity high markup products which is not good for anyone.  food stamp receivers have a hard time buying high quality food, taxpayers money is less effective at solving the hunger problem.  i would imagine health issues are also more likely to come up when you do not have access to high quality food although i do not have any evidence to back this up maybe someone else here does ? .  by placing artificial limits on spending we do prevent it from being spent for purposes we do not approve of.  but we also prevent it from being spent more efficiently in creative ways.   #  my comment was in response to why we do not apply foodstamps to everyone.   #  my comment was in response to why we do not apply foodstamps to everyone.  the reason is that while welfare is a need in certain circumstances the funds come with some restrictions since spending it frivolously would make the welfare system an act in futility.  the actors in the welfare system are the tax payer and the recipient.  in the case of  everyone else  such as employed persons the immediate actors are the private employer and the employee.  the employer/employee relationship only has the restriction that the employee work x amount of hours in x time.  in that instance the work is what is restricted not how the employee uses the money.  in the case of welfare the money is inherently restricted as it is meant to be used for whatever  welfare  society has deemed needed e. g.  food, rent, water, etc.  .   #  rich and middle class people suck at it too generally speaking.   #  also people who are not very good at managing money, their own satisfaction of a product, and healthy choices.  it so happens that humans are really bad at judging all three of these things.  it also so happens that the poor tend to be even worse.  and that is not a special claim.  if you are bad at managing money, it stands to reason that people will be more likely to need financial assistance to buy food.  if you are more stressed and/or less educated, then income is likely to be lower, which again increases likelihood of needing food assistance.  and as for judging wha tmakes us happy.  well everyone sucks at that.  rich and middle class people suck at it too generally speaking.   #  and an agency to actually enforce the rules.   #  true.  but that is totally irrelevant if the goal is to efficiently eliminate a social blight, like minors starving because their parents ca not provide for them.  from a taxpayers point of view the only useful metric becomes : how can we go about that business as efficiently as possible ? basically there are two scenarios.  0.  hand out cash.  advantage : it is easy with relatively little overhead.  disadvantage : recipients may spend some of that cash on drugs or other things that do not help the goal thus decreasing efficiency.  0.  hand out targeted help subsidies to buy food/home/.  .  advantage : the help is spend on what is needed.  disadvantage : you need a huge government planning effort to actually determine what is needed.  and an agency to actually enforce the rules.  spending on that decreases efficiency as well.  obviously this question has been researched many times over and the general consensus is that handing out cash is the most efficient way to reach social goals.  why ? well, it turns out that running a huge government organisation is expensive.  and that poor people who really want to misspend their welfare tend to do it anyway, for example by selling their food stamps penny to the dollar, increasing inefficiency even more.
a social safety net is a good idea, and money is spent with the intent of providing a specific kind of help.  in many places this includes a cash handout.  i believe this is wrong on many levels.    the money may be misspent.  this idea is not based on the assumption that poor people are all stupid or drug addicts.  it is simply the fact that there is no way of ensuring that the cash is used for its intended purpose.  the best assumption you can make is that people would be so desperately craving the thing you give them extra money for that they would almost certainly spend it on that, but people may end up endure forms of squalor that were far from what the well intentioned policy makers had in mind.    from the government is perspective, money is also being spent inefficiently.  let is say a program wanted to ensure that people were well fed.  they would have to find a cash amount that would buy enough healthy food to feed the recipients, but people have different needs, so they will have to provide to the upper percentile of demand the alternative is weighing people, paying women less etc.  this not only will result in discretionary income, but inequality in how much everyone gets.  a food stamp system would allow everyone to get as much food as they need, and the money left over is still in the governments hands to spend on other initiatives.    things like food stamps are patronising, and that is a good thing.  a cash handout creates a sense of entitlement beyond what something  patronising  like food stamps, rent vouchers etc.  create.  by the time money is in your pocket or bank account, there is several layers between you and the people providing that service.  food stamps create a meaningful difference between working poor and welfare recipients to encourage escaping the system.  there is also the huge benefit of less resentment of those on welfare.    in general they communicate purpose more clearly.  too often there is an attitude of getting as much money as you can from the government, and paying as little tax as possible.  it seems like people would be less likely to trick their way into receiving food stamps, education and other initiatives purpose built to meet needs.  on the other side, i would think policies would allow people to see their taxes as less of a redistribution of wealth, and more as funding for benevolent programs to create a better society.  i think as much welfare as possible should be in the form of vouchers and other purpose specific, non discretionary forms.  i like food stamps, i like rent vouchers, i like free healthcare and education.  things like these over cash seem like the best way to prevent the safety net becoming a fishing net.  i ca not think of many situations where cash is the best option, which is why i am here.  the other aspect to this changemyview is that i am ok with policies that  patronise  the less fortunate.  being well fed, healthy, comfortably sheltered, continually educated to eventually earn the life you want are more important than not being insulted.  if anyone can enlighten me on what it is like to be offended by a government policy assuming you are stupid or malevolent especially if you do not pay taxes , that would be helpful.   #  things like food stamps are patronising, and that is a good thing.   #  the goal should be either to encourage people to join the work force, let them live comfortably on welfare, or both.   # what do you mean by  intended purpose  ? do not you think that the person receiving the money is more likely to know what they need than you ? the goal should be either to encourage people to join the work force, let them live comfortably on welfare, or both.  doing the opposite does not make any sense.  designing the system to humiliate people and in turn discourage them to make their lives better does not make any sense unless you are trying to breed more inequality.   #  but we also prevent it from being spent more efficiently in creative ways.   #  i think the biggest problem with the limits on food stamps is that they restrict creative solutions to lower month to month food costs that could require a larger initial investment.  an example would be purchasing a chest freezer so that you can buy large quantity of meat and store it over time.  you can buy a used chest freezer for as little as $0 and could easily save that amount for a family of 0 over just the first month.  a couple of things detract from this: 0.  the limit that food stamp money can only be spent on food, and not on tools that could ultimately decrease the price of food, means that the family would have a harder time implementing this solution.  0.  even if the family could spend food stamp money on a deep freezer, since leftover food stamp money does not carry over they ca not make any short term sacrifices in food consumption either quality of food or quantity of certain foods in order to save food stamp money to spend on this tool.  this results in the money being spent inefficiently buying low quantity high markup products which is not good for anyone.  food stamp receivers have a hard time buying high quality food, taxpayers money is less effective at solving the hunger problem.  i would imagine health issues are also more likely to come up when you do not have access to high quality food although i do not have any evidence to back this up maybe someone else here does ? .  by placing artificial limits on spending we do prevent it from being spent for purposes we do not approve of.  but we also prevent it from being spent more efficiently in creative ways.   #  the reason is that while welfare is a need in certain circumstances the funds come with some restrictions since spending it frivolously would make the welfare system an act in futility.   #  my comment was in response to why we do not apply foodstamps to everyone.  the reason is that while welfare is a need in certain circumstances the funds come with some restrictions since spending it frivolously would make the welfare system an act in futility.  the actors in the welfare system are the tax payer and the recipient.  in the case of  everyone else  such as employed persons the immediate actors are the private employer and the employee.  the employer/employee relationship only has the restriction that the employee work x amount of hours in x time.  in that instance the work is what is restricted not how the employee uses the money.  in the case of welfare the money is inherently restricted as it is meant to be used for whatever  welfare  society has deemed needed e. g.  food, rent, water, etc.  .   #  rich and middle class people suck at it too generally speaking.   #  also people who are not very good at managing money, their own satisfaction of a product, and healthy choices.  it so happens that humans are really bad at judging all three of these things.  it also so happens that the poor tend to be even worse.  and that is not a special claim.  if you are bad at managing money, it stands to reason that people will be more likely to need financial assistance to buy food.  if you are more stressed and/or less educated, then income is likely to be lower, which again increases likelihood of needing food assistance.  and as for judging wha tmakes us happy.  well everyone sucks at that.  rich and middle class people suck at it too generally speaking.   #  from a taxpayers point of view the only useful metric becomes : how can we go about that business as efficiently as possible ?  #  true.  but that is totally irrelevant if the goal is to efficiently eliminate a social blight, like minors starving because their parents ca not provide for them.  from a taxpayers point of view the only useful metric becomes : how can we go about that business as efficiently as possible ? basically there are two scenarios.  0.  hand out cash.  advantage : it is easy with relatively little overhead.  disadvantage : recipients may spend some of that cash on drugs or other things that do not help the goal thus decreasing efficiency.  0.  hand out targeted help subsidies to buy food/home/.  .  advantage : the help is spend on what is needed.  disadvantage : you need a huge government planning effort to actually determine what is needed.  and an agency to actually enforce the rules.  spending on that decreases efficiency as well.  obviously this question has been researched many times over and the general consensus is that handing out cash is the most efficient way to reach social goals.  why ? well, it turns out that running a huge government organisation is expensive.  and that poor people who really want to misspend their welfare tend to do it anyway, for example by selling their food stamps penny to the dollar, increasing inefficiency even more.
a social safety net is a good idea, and money is spent with the intent of providing a specific kind of help.  in many places this includes a cash handout.  i believe this is wrong on many levels.    the money may be misspent.  this idea is not based on the assumption that poor people are all stupid or drug addicts.  it is simply the fact that there is no way of ensuring that the cash is used for its intended purpose.  the best assumption you can make is that people would be so desperately craving the thing you give them extra money for that they would almost certainly spend it on that, but people may end up endure forms of squalor that were far from what the well intentioned policy makers had in mind.    from the government is perspective, money is also being spent inefficiently.  let is say a program wanted to ensure that people were well fed.  they would have to find a cash amount that would buy enough healthy food to feed the recipients, but people have different needs, so they will have to provide to the upper percentile of demand the alternative is weighing people, paying women less etc.  this not only will result in discretionary income, but inequality in how much everyone gets.  a food stamp system would allow everyone to get as much food as they need, and the money left over is still in the governments hands to spend on other initiatives.    things like food stamps are patronising, and that is a good thing.  a cash handout creates a sense of entitlement beyond what something  patronising  like food stamps, rent vouchers etc.  create.  by the time money is in your pocket or bank account, there is several layers between you and the people providing that service.  food stamps create a meaningful difference between working poor and welfare recipients to encourage escaping the system.  there is also the huge benefit of less resentment of those on welfare.    in general they communicate purpose more clearly.  too often there is an attitude of getting as much money as you can from the government, and paying as little tax as possible.  it seems like people would be less likely to trick their way into receiving food stamps, education and other initiatives purpose built to meet needs.  on the other side, i would think policies would allow people to see their taxes as less of a redistribution of wealth, and more as funding for benevolent programs to create a better society.  i think as much welfare as possible should be in the form of vouchers and other purpose specific, non discretionary forms.  i like food stamps, i like rent vouchers, i like free healthcare and education.  things like these over cash seem like the best way to prevent the safety net becoming a fishing net.  i ca not think of many situations where cash is the best option, which is why i am here.  the other aspect to this changemyview is that i am ok with policies that  patronise  the less fortunate.  being well fed, healthy, comfortably sheltered, continually educated to eventually earn the life you want are more important than not being insulted.  if anyone can enlighten me on what it is like to be offended by a government policy assuming you are stupid or malevolent especially if you do not pay taxes , that would be helpful.   #  it is simply the fact that there is no way of ensuring that the cash is used for its intended purpose.   #  vouchers and stamps do not solve this problem because people can sell the vouchers and stamps for cash at a loss.   # vouchers and stamps do not solve this problem because people can sell the vouchers and stamps for cash at a loss.  the result is less money getting to the people that you are trying to help.  vouchers and stamps are creating inefficiencies because the government needs to create and monitor the system of stamps and vouchers which will undoubtedly be sold and traded anyway.  if you want someone to get a leg up why screw around with a system of vouchers and stamps when you can just give them a lump sum ? no its not a good thing, sure maybe the hipster foodie stamp kids need to be patronized but what about the vast majority of people on social assistance that have good reason to be there ? you think patronizing a blind person with mental health problems on assistance is really going to motivate them to get out there and get a job ? i feel like with cash there is also an expectation of responsibility.   the government  is saying  we trust you to make the right decisions with your money .  vouchers and stamps seem like a silly waste of time and money that are only around because they sound like a good idea to voting baby boomers.   #  this results in the money being spent inefficiently buying low quantity high markup products which is not good for anyone.   #  i think the biggest problem with the limits on food stamps is that they restrict creative solutions to lower month to month food costs that could require a larger initial investment.  an example would be purchasing a chest freezer so that you can buy large quantity of meat and store it over time.  you can buy a used chest freezer for as little as $0 and could easily save that amount for a family of 0 over just the first month.  a couple of things detract from this: 0.  the limit that food stamp money can only be spent on food, and not on tools that could ultimately decrease the price of food, means that the family would have a harder time implementing this solution.  0.  even if the family could spend food stamp money on a deep freezer, since leftover food stamp money does not carry over they ca not make any short term sacrifices in food consumption either quality of food or quantity of certain foods in order to save food stamp money to spend on this tool.  this results in the money being spent inefficiently buying low quantity high markup products which is not good for anyone.  food stamp receivers have a hard time buying high quality food, taxpayers money is less effective at solving the hunger problem.  i would imagine health issues are also more likely to come up when you do not have access to high quality food although i do not have any evidence to back this up maybe someone else here does ? .  by placing artificial limits on spending we do prevent it from being spent for purposes we do not approve of.  but we also prevent it from being spent more efficiently in creative ways.   #  my comment was in response to why we do not apply foodstamps to everyone.   #  my comment was in response to why we do not apply foodstamps to everyone.  the reason is that while welfare is a need in certain circumstances the funds come with some restrictions since spending it frivolously would make the welfare system an act in futility.  the actors in the welfare system are the tax payer and the recipient.  in the case of  everyone else  such as employed persons the immediate actors are the private employer and the employee.  the employer/employee relationship only has the restriction that the employee work x amount of hours in x time.  in that instance the work is what is restricted not how the employee uses the money.  in the case of welfare the money is inherently restricted as it is meant to be used for whatever  welfare  society has deemed needed e. g.  food, rent, water, etc.  .   #  it so happens that humans are really bad at judging all three of these things.   #  also people who are not very good at managing money, their own satisfaction of a product, and healthy choices.  it so happens that humans are really bad at judging all three of these things.  it also so happens that the poor tend to be even worse.  and that is not a special claim.  if you are bad at managing money, it stands to reason that people will be more likely to need financial assistance to buy food.  if you are more stressed and/or less educated, then income is likely to be lower, which again increases likelihood of needing food assistance.  and as for judging wha tmakes us happy.  well everyone sucks at that.  rich and middle class people suck at it too generally speaking.   #  advantage : the help is spend on what is needed.   #  true.  but that is totally irrelevant if the goal is to efficiently eliminate a social blight, like minors starving because their parents ca not provide for them.  from a taxpayers point of view the only useful metric becomes : how can we go about that business as efficiently as possible ? basically there are two scenarios.  0.  hand out cash.  advantage : it is easy with relatively little overhead.  disadvantage : recipients may spend some of that cash on drugs or other things that do not help the goal thus decreasing efficiency.  0.  hand out targeted help subsidies to buy food/home/.  .  advantage : the help is spend on what is needed.  disadvantage : you need a huge government planning effort to actually determine what is needed.  and an agency to actually enforce the rules.  spending on that decreases efficiency as well.  obviously this question has been researched many times over and the general consensus is that handing out cash is the most efficient way to reach social goals.  why ? well, it turns out that running a huge government organisation is expensive.  and that poor people who really want to misspend their welfare tend to do it anyway, for example by selling their food stamps penny to the dollar, increasing inefficiency even more.
a social safety net is a good idea, and money is spent with the intent of providing a specific kind of help.  in many places this includes a cash handout.  i believe this is wrong on many levels.    the money may be misspent.  this idea is not based on the assumption that poor people are all stupid or drug addicts.  it is simply the fact that there is no way of ensuring that the cash is used for its intended purpose.  the best assumption you can make is that people would be so desperately craving the thing you give them extra money for that they would almost certainly spend it on that, but people may end up endure forms of squalor that were far from what the well intentioned policy makers had in mind.    from the government is perspective, money is also being spent inefficiently.  let is say a program wanted to ensure that people were well fed.  they would have to find a cash amount that would buy enough healthy food to feed the recipients, but people have different needs, so they will have to provide to the upper percentile of demand the alternative is weighing people, paying women less etc.  this not only will result in discretionary income, but inequality in how much everyone gets.  a food stamp system would allow everyone to get as much food as they need, and the money left over is still in the governments hands to spend on other initiatives.    things like food stamps are patronising, and that is a good thing.  a cash handout creates a sense of entitlement beyond what something  patronising  like food stamps, rent vouchers etc.  create.  by the time money is in your pocket or bank account, there is several layers between you and the people providing that service.  food stamps create a meaningful difference between working poor and welfare recipients to encourage escaping the system.  there is also the huge benefit of less resentment of those on welfare.    in general they communicate purpose more clearly.  too often there is an attitude of getting as much money as you can from the government, and paying as little tax as possible.  it seems like people would be less likely to trick their way into receiving food stamps, education and other initiatives purpose built to meet needs.  on the other side, i would think policies would allow people to see their taxes as less of a redistribution of wealth, and more as funding for benevolent programs to create a better society.  i think as much welfare as possible should be in the form of vouchers and other purpose specific, non discretionary forms.  i like food stamps, i like rent vouchers, i like free healthcare and education.  things like these over cash seem like the best way to prevent the safety net becoming a fishing net.  i ca not think of many situations where cash is the best option, which is why i am here.  the other aspect to this changemyview is that i am ok with policies that  patronise  the less fortunate.  being well fed, healthy, comfortably sheltered, continually educated to eventually earn the life you want are more important than not being insulted.  if anyone can enlighten me on what it is like to be offended by a government policy assuming you are stupid or malevolent especially if you do not pay taxes , that would be helpful.   #  from the government is perspective, money is also being spent inefficiently.   #  vouchers and stamps are creating inefficiencies because the government needs to create and monitor the system of stamps and vouchers which will undoubtedly be sold and traded anyway.   # vouchers and stamps do not solve this problem because people can sell the vouchers and stamps for cash at a loss.  the result is less money getting to the people that you are trying to help.  vouchers and stamps are creating inefficiencies because the government needs to create and monitor the system of stamps and vouchers which will undoubtedly be sold and traded anyway.  if you want someone to get a leg up why screw around with a system of vouchers and stamps when you can just give them a lump sum ? no its not a good thing, sure maybe the hipster foodie stamp kids need to be patronized but what about the vast majority of people on social assistance that have good reason to be there ? you think patronizing a blind person with mental health problems on assistance is really going to motivate them to get out there and get a job ? i feel like with cash there is also an expectation of responsibility.   the government  is saying  we trust you to make the right decisions with your money .  vouchers and stamps seem like a silly waste of time and money that are only around because they sound like a good idea to voting baby boomers.   #  an example would be purchasing a chest freezer so that you can buy large quantity of meat and store it over time.   #  i think the biggest problem with the limits on food stamps is that they restrict creative solutions to lower month to month food costs that could require a larger initial investment.  an example would be purchasing a chest freezer so that you can buy large quantity of meat and store it over time.  you can buy a used chest freezer for as little as $0 and could easily save that amount for a family of 0 over just the first month.  a couple of things detract from this: 0.  the limit that food stamp money can only be spent on food, and not on tools that could ultimately decrease the price of food, means that the family would have a harder time implementing this solution.  0.  even if the family could spend food stamp money on a deep freezer, since leftover food stamp money does not carry over they ca not make any short term sacrifices in food consumption either quality of food or quantity of certain foods in order to save food stamp money to spend on this tool.  this results in the money being spent inefficiently buying low quantity high markup products which is not good for anyone.  food stamp receivers have a hard time buying high quality food, taxpayers money is less effective at solving the hunger problem.  i would imagine health issues are also more likely to come up when you do not have access to high quality food although i do not have any evidence to back this up maybe someone else here does ? .  by placing artificial limits on spending we do prevent it from being spent for purposes we do not approve of.  but we also prevent it from being spent more efficiently in creative ways.   #  the reason is that while welfare is a need in certain circumstances the funds come with some restrictions since spending it frivolously would make the welfare system an act in futility.   #  my comment was in response to why we do not apply foodstamps to everyone.  the reason is that while welfare is a need in certain circumstances the funds come with some restrictions since spending it frivolously would make the welfare system an act in futility.  the actors in the welfare system are the tax payer and the recipient.  in the case of  everyone else  such as employed persons the immediate actors are the private employer and the employee.  the employer/employee relationship only has the restriction that the employee work x amount of hours in x time.  in that instance the work is what is restricted not how the employee uses the money.  in the case of welfare the money is inherently restricted as it is meant to be used for whatever  welfare  society has deemed needed e. g.  food, rent, water, etc.  .   #  it so happens that humans are really bad at judging all three of these things.   #  also people who are not very good at managing money, their own satisfaction of a product, and healthy choices.  it so happens that humans are really bad at judging all three of these things.  it also so happens that the poor tend to be even worse.  and that is not a special claim.  if you are bad at managing money, it stands to reason that people will be more likely to need financial assistance to buy food.  if you are more stressed and/or less educated, then income is likely to be lower, which again increases likelihood of needing food assistance.  and as for judging wha tmakes us happy.  well everyone sucks at that.  rich and middle class people suck at it too generally speaking.   #  disadvantage : recipients may spend some of that cash on drugs or other things that do not help the goal thus decreasing efficiency.   #  true.  but that is totally irrelevant if the goal is to efficiently eliminate a social blight, like minors starving because their parents ca not provide for them.  from a taxpayers point of view the only useful metric becomes : how can we go about that business as efficiently as possible ? basically there are two scenarios.  0.  hand out cash.  advantage : it is easy with relatively little overhead.  disadvantage : recipients may spend some of that cash on drugs or other things that do not help the goal thus decreasing efficiency.  0.  hand out targeted help subsidies to buy food/home/.  .  advantage : the help is spend on what is needed.  disadvantage : you need a huge government planning effort to actually determine what is needed.  and an agency to actually enforce the rules.  spending on that decreases efficiency as well.  obviously this question has been researched many times over and the general consensus is that handing out cash is the most efficient way to reach social goals.  why ? well, it turns out that running a huge government organisation is expensive.  and that poor people who really want to misspend their welfare tend to do it anyway, for example by selling their food stamps penny to the dollar, increasing inefficiency even more.
let me lay out my belief in a straightforward fashion.  all of the below are well established by rigorous science, though language varies from person to person and study to study.   on the obviousness of inequality  0.  what makes any human distinguishable from other humans can be deconstructed.  for the purposes of this discussion, i will call these deconstructed components  traits.   0.  all human traits are measurable.  that is, they can be quantified along a scale.  0.  this scale can be understood as having a  less desirable  end and a  more desirable  end.  0.  some traits are  universally  desirable.  in other words, no one would honestly choose to have an iq of 0 over one of 0.  similarly, there is no advantage to having an asymmetrical face.  0.  other traits are  contextually  desirable.  consider height.  very tall heights are preferable for basketball, while mid range heights are preferable for football.  shorter heights are preferable for gymnastics.  0.  some traits can be highly influenced by effort e. g.  fitness level ; others cannot e. g.  height .  all traits can be affected by effort or environment to varying degrees, but genetics gives humans left and right limits for all traits.  0.  the aggregate of varying traits yields widely divergent performance on a huge variety of tasks that are valued by humans.  0.  traits leading to high performance are not equally distributed.  in other words, life does not operate like a character sheet where you have a certain number of points to distribute.  it is a roll of the dice, with some people getting good rolls over and over, and others getting much less.   on the misguided pursuit of equality  0.  the above interplay of genetics, alongside complex environment interaction, is extremely complex.  0.  humans have not yet invented methods to alter genetic ranges of trait desirability, although methods to alter performance  inside  of said range are well established.  in other words, you can read extensively and work on math and logic problems and your effective iq will be boosted toward the higher end of its natural range, but you will not exceed your genetic limits.  similarly, one can focus on sprinting and drop 0m times, but it unless genetic gifts are present, this person will not be an olympic sprinter.  0.  given the above, it is unrealistic to tell a 0 0  teenager that his hard work will lead him to the nba.  sure, it has happened, but the odds are very slim.  similarly, it is unrealistic to tell a person of average iq that pursuit of his dreams of a phd in particle physics is wise.  0.  any programs that systematically reward under performance in a given, defined field,  for any reason , are counter productive, and only serve to slow the advancement of the human condition.  i find all of the above to be obvious.  in fact, i think the vast majority of people find the above to be obvious.  unfortunately, for various reasons arising largely out of social justice crusades founded on politcal dogma, we must ignore these elephants in the room and sacrifice reason on the alter of political correctness.  also, before anyone suggests it, i have indeed read  the mismeasure of man.   it is not a work of science.  it is a political response to dr.  charles murray is work, which actually rests upon sound methodology.   #  some traits can be highly influenced by effort e. g.   #  fitness level ; others cannot e. g.   # fitness level ; others cannot e. g.  height do you agree that all traits are still influenced by some amount of effort ? if so, would you not believe the maximum potential of each human is equal in value ? have you considered a person is opportunity is throughout his/her life, such as luck ? even if you have the best traits available, you may not be able to fulfill the most of your potential from no fault of your own.  e. g the selection criteria age for accelerated learning stops right before your birthday.  also, while some people have more desirable traits in some areas, they may have less desirable traits in other parts, balancing it out any net advantage.  then there are extreme cases.  do you agree with the premise of eugenics ?  #  the scholarships and affirmative action should be directed at privelege rather than race.   #  what you are talking about is equality of opportunity and i completely agree it is an important goal to strive for.  however, you are also discussing some ideas that are quite related to affirmative action, which while good on average, is implemented incorrectly.  as you have pointed out, the advantage comes from socio economic status, but unfortunately affirmative action and many scholarships are based on race.  while the two are correlated, there are a significant number of priveleged black kids that enjoyed the fancy schools as well as an even larger number of white kids that grow up poor without the tools to succeed.  the scholarships and affirmative action should be directed at privelege rather than race.   #  there is no reason to argue that they are not.   # because race is a known factor, and should be addressed directly as such.  also less than 0 of scholarships specify race in anyway though i have heard elsewhere as high as 0 , and less than 0 of scholarship are  restricted  to persons of color.  hardly what anyone would call  many .  literally no conflict here.  none.  at all.  one can address socioeconomic factors and race based factors separately, or jointly.  they are both demonstrable and obvious vectors of bias and inequality.  there is no reason to argue that they are not.  there is no reason to argue that we should focus on one and not the other.  forgot to link my source :URL  #  think of how many white people you learned about in history vs.   #  well, i am glad you asked.  no, even in more urban schools there usually tends to be a higher percentage of white faculty.  this is true as you look up the chain of command as well.  counselors, principals, and school board officials are more likely to be white.  also, these curricula can and often are white biased.  think of how many white people you learned about in history vs.  other races.  think of how many white protagonists you read about in english vs.  other races.  our entire school system is taught in standard english, while it has long been known that the majority of black americans speak african american vernacular english or aave  #  if i am involved in my children is education and have the means to provide well for them, why should they then be put at a disadvantage for university admissions ?  #  if you steal a bunch of babies and put them in an orphanage and raise them all the same, the children of rich parents will probably be more successful than the children of poor parents.  this is because more intelligent people make more money and intelligence is genetic.  certainly environment plays a role.  but i do not think this is necessarily unfair.  if i am involved in my children is education and have the means to provide well for them, why should they then be put at a disadvantage for university admissions ? furthermore, because of their better preparation, they would be more qualified than poorer kids regardless of intelligence.  practically, they should be the ones getting the better jobs because they are more capable.
let me lay out my belief in a straightforward fashion.  all of the below are well established by rigorous science, though language varies from person to person and study to study.   on the obviousness of inequality  0.  what makes any human distinguishable from other humans can be deconstructed.  for the purposes of this discussion, i will call these deconstructed components  traits.   0.  all human traits are measurable.  that is, they can be quantified along a scale.  0.  this scale can be understood as having a  less desirable  end and a  more desirable  end.  0.  some traits are  universally  desirable.  in other words, no one would honestly choose to have an iq of 0 over one of 0.  similarly, there is no advantage to having an asymmetrical face.  0.  other traits are  contextually  desirable.  consider height.  very tall heights are preferable for basketball, while mid range heights are preferable for football.  shorter heights are preferable for gymnastics.  0.  some traits can be highly influenced by effort e. g.  fitness level ; others cannot e. g.  height .  all traits can be affected by effort or environment to varying degrees, but genetics gives humans left and right limits for all traits.  0.  the aggregate of varying traits yields widely divergent performance on a huge variety of tasks that are valued by humans.  0.  traits leading to high performance are not equally distributed.  in other words, life does not operate like a character sheet where you have a certain number of points to distribute.  it is a roll of the dice, with some people getting good rolls over and over, and others getting much less.   on the misguided pursuit of equality  0.  the above interplay of genetics, alongside complex environment interaction, is extremely complex.  0.  humans have not yet invented methods to alter genetic ranges of trait desirability, although methods to alter performance  inside  of said range are well established.  in other words, you can read extensively and work on math and logic problems and your effective iq will be boosted toward the higher end of its natural range, but you will not exceed your genetic limits.  similarly, one can focus on sprinting and drop 0m times, but it unless genetic gifts are present, this person will not be an olympic sprinter.  0.  given the above, it is unrealistic to tell a 0 0  teenager that his hard work will lead him to the nba.  sure, it has happened, but the odds are very slim.  similarly, it is unrealistic to tell a person of average iq that pursuit of his dreams of a phd in particle physics is wise.  0.  any programs that systematically reward under performance in a given, defined field,  for any reason , are counter productive, and only serve to slow the advancement of the human condition.  i find all of the above to be obvious.  in fact, i think the vast majority of people find the above to be obvious.  unfortunately, for various reasons arising largely out of social justice crusades founded on politcal dogma, we must ignore these elephants in the room and sacrifice reason on the alter of political correctness.  also, before anyone suggests it, i have indeed read  the mismeasure of man.   it is not a work of science.  it is a political response to dr.  charles murray is work, which actually rests upon sound methodology.   #  also, before anyone suggests it, i have indeed read  the mismeasure of man.    #  it is not a work of science.   # it is not a work of science.  it is a political response to dr.  charles murray is work, which actually rests upon sound methodology.  it is not the science that is not sound, it is the conclusion that is not.  the bell curve does not prove that a iq accurately measures intelligence.  that is still up for debate.  b that iq is heritable.  c and it does not account for the myriad of sociological factors that influence these so called intelligence tests.  so no, it is not sound science.  you ca not just form conclusions about complex human traits without accounting for every factor, which he did not even come close to doing.  oh and before you bring up the minnesota trans atlantic adoption study that one is a favorite among  race realists  , there is also some flaws there.  implying that the adopted black kids of white parents are raised the same way as white kids of white parents is a huge flaw in the study.   #  however, you are also discussing some ideas that are quite related to affirmative action, which while good on average, is implemented incorrectly.   #  what you are talking about is equality of opportunity and i completely agree it is an important goal to strive for.  however, you are also discussing some ideas that are quite related to affirmative action, which while good on average, is implemented incorrectly.  as you have pointed out, the advantage comes from socio economic status, but unfortunately affirmative action and many scholarships are based on race.  while the two are correlated, there are a significant number of priveleged black kids that enjoyed the fancy schools as well as an even larger number of white kids that grow up poor without the tools to succeed.  the scholarships and affirmative action should be directed at privelege rather than race.   #  they are both demonstrable and obvious vectors of bias and inequality.   # because race is a known factor, and should be addressed directly as such.  also less than 0 of scholarships specify race in anyway though i have heard elsewhere as high as 0 , and less than 0 of scholarship are  restricted  to persons of color.  hardly what anyone would call  many .  literally no conflict here.  none.  at all.  one can address socioeconomic factors and race based factors separately, or jointly.  they are both demonstrable and obvious vectors of bias and inequality.  there is no reason to argue that they are not.  there is no reason to argue that we should focus on one and not the other.  forgot to link my source :URL  #  our entire school system is taught in standard english, while it has long been known that the majority of black americans speak african american vernacular english or aave  #  well, i am glad you asked.  no, even in more urban schools there usually tends to be a higher percentage of white faculty.  this is true as you look up the chain of command as well.  counselors, principals, and school board officials are more likely to be white.  also, these curricula can and often are white biased.  think of how many white people you learned about in history vs.  other races.  think of how many white protagonists you read about in english vs.  other races.  our entire school system is taught in standard english, while it has long been known that the majority of black americans speak african american vernacular english or aave  #  this is because more intelligent people make more money and intelligence is genetic.   #  if you steal a bunch of babies and put them in an orphanage and raise them all the same, the children of rich parents will probably be more successful than the children of poor parents.  this is because more intelligent people make more money and intelligence is genetic.  certainly environment plays a role.  but i do not think this is necessarily unfair.  if i am involved in my children is education and have the means to provide well for them, why should they then be put at a disadvantage for university admissions ? furthermore, because of their better preparation, they would be more qualified than poorer kids regardless of intelligence.  practically, they should be the ones getting the better jobs because they are more capable.
in my opinion commitment and responsibility lies on the person who is in the relationship and no one else.  i believe if a married man propositions me for sex and i take it, i take 0 of the blame and i am not responsible for the morality of the situation, nor the outcome of their relationship.  i believe the responsibility ultimately comes down to the person who made the commitment, and blaming the third person is just a cop out.  also, in a relationship where one person is unfaithful i believe the inherent problem is a lack of commitment and fidelity with their partner and this has nothing to do with having willing and available people to cheat with.  i believe if a person is unfaithful, they will find a person to do it with.  if in the example i made before, i say no to the married man, he will just find someone else to cheat with.   #  also, in a relationship where one person is unfaithful i believe the inherent problem is a lack of commitment and fidelity with their partner and this has nothing to do with having willing and available people to cheat with.   #  i believe if a person is unfaithful, they will find a person to do it with.   #  the cheating partner is more culpable than you are, agreed, but that does not mean you have done nothing wrong.  your argument hinges on the premise that because the man is girlfriend/wife is a stranger, you do not owe her any consideration.  i disagree with this.  there are certain basic considerations that all humans owe each other we should not hit each other, steal from each other, be cruel or rude to each other.  if you do, you have done an immoral thing whether you know the person or not.  it is the same with cheating.  the majority of the blame lies with the cheating partner, but you were culpable in it.  you have been part of something that caused pain and hurt to another person.  i believe if a person is unfaithful, they will find a person to do it with.  i do not disagree with this, the greatest majority of the blame belongs to the cheating partner.  and yes they would probably find other people to sleep with.  but you still chose to be the person.  infidelity requires three people or more than three , and you chose to be one of them.  that was an immoral act.   #  i could assist a wife in divorce and custody proceedings against her husband.   #  this argument is conclusory.  you never explain why the act is immoral beyond simply comparing it to hitting or stealing from a stranger.  can you justify the comparison ? because i am inclined to reject it.  the closest you come to an identifiable standard is this:   you have been part of something that caused pain and hurt to another person.  however, this standard is unworkable, and more importantly it undermines the comparison with hitting and stealing that you set forth earlier.  i can cause pain to another person in all sorts of ways.  for instance, i could outbid a person at auction on their dream home or, better yet, at a foreclosure auction .  i could accept a job that many others were vying for, including some who may have more dire financial needs than myself.  i could assist a wife in divorce and custody proceedings against her husband.  are these things immoral ? i think you would be very hard pressed to say so.  to me, these are more apt comparisons: in each case, i am contracting with another consenting individual, and i have no existing relationship with the party adversely affected.  i may be aware that my actions will hurt another, which may justifiably lead me to avoid such interaction, but i may nevertheless proceed without running afoul of some moral stricture.   #  so you convince the local government to simply take that land and give it to you, so you can demolish those houses.   # for instance, i could outbid a person at auction on their dream home or, better yet, at a foreclosure auction .  i could accept a job that many others were vying for, including some who may have more dire financial needs than myself.  i could assist a wife in divorce and custody proceedings against her husband.  i think you would be very hard pressed to say so.  context is everything.  that dream home, and that job, are generally understood to be up for grabs.  in that sense, these are no less moral than  stealing  someone is crush before they are in any sort of exclusive relationship.  what we are talking about is someone who has a partner, and op certainly did not exclude spouses, so let is take that as a given we are talking about people in committed relationships.  so let is compare apples to apples.  how would someone be in a committed relationship with a dream house ? well, let is say they actually bought their dream home, but they are out of town.  so you break into the house and throw a party.  even if you clean everything up perfectly before you leave, was that morally acceptable ? it is still not your house.  or worse, let is say you decide you want a house, but the owner is not selling so you pressure the bank to get their house foreclosed on so you can move in.  yeah, the bank is culpable here, but you have still morally speaking robbed someone of their house.  or how about a situation that actually does happen, often: eminent domain.  you convince your local government to let you build a supermarket, or some office buildings, or a new highway, some development that will bring a lot of new business to the area.  the only problem is, there are already some houses in the area you want to build.  so you convince the local government to simply take that land and give it to you, so you can demolish those houses.  this can and does happen.  URL is it moral ? again, the local government should be acting in the interests of its citizens, not necessarily your shiny new business, but what about the corporation that pressured and cheered on this action are they really blameless in all this ?  #  if the homeowner decides to sell, that is fine, regardless of whether it may go against the wishes of someone else living there.   #  i just wanted to point out that in your arguments you consistently refer to items which are in possession.  a person is body is in their own possession alone, regardless of any relationship they may have.  thus, apply the concept of one sided ownership to your examples, and you get a clearer picture.  if as you state below,  one spouse is out of town and the other decides to throw a party , that is fine if the party thrower is the homeowner.  if the homeowner decides to sell, that is fine, regardless of whether it may go against the wishes of someone else living there.  in short, in this situation you are treating a romantic partner as a possession.   #  but the scenario in which i have only $0 is fairly apocalyptic.   #  it would take a lot more than just credit/debit going down, i also have access to my money online, i can even sometimes pay someone in person with my phone.  there is also an entirely other system that is holding some $0 in bus fare on yet another card i have.  but it is interesting that you say i do not possess the one thing that most of us spend most of our lives working so hard to possess if only for a short while, so we can pay someone else.  but the scenario in which i have only $0 is fairly apocalyptic.  so long as we are talking about that, in what sense do i possess  anything  ? do i possess my apartment ? well, no, i rent that, but do i at least possess the things inside it ? many of them are tangible, yet in the scenario where the economy is so broken that i no longer possess my money in the bank, i doubt i would possess these things for very much longer.  can i say they were stolen from me, or did i never possess them ? maybe you were talking about the credit system merely being down momentarily, but then, the doorway to my apartment could be blocked momentarily.  does that mean i do not really possess what is inside ? in any case, i think i am okay claiming that i can  possess  a relationship in the same way that i possess money.  if my bank were to grab a bunch of money out of my account suddenly and give it to someone else, i would say i would been robbed, even though all that happened is numbers in a database, even if my money was put back later.  i think that is why it is fair to say that a relationship is something you can have, and that cheating on that relationship is a little bit like a bank doing inappropriate things to my account.
in my opinion commitment and responsibility lies on the person who is in the relationship and no one else.  i believe if a married man propositions me for sex and i take it, i take 0 of the blame and i am not responsible for the morality of the situation, nor the outcome of their relationship.  i believe the responsibility ultimately comes down to the person who made the commitment, and blaming the third person is just a cop out.  also, in a relationship where one person is unfaithful i believe the inherent problem is a lack of commitment and fidelity with their partner and this has nothing to do with having willing and available people to cheat with.  i believe if a person is unfaithful, they will find a person to do it with.  if in the example i made before, i say no to the married man, he will just find someone else to cheat with.   #  i believe if a person is unfaithful, they will find a person to do it with.   #  if in the example i made before, i say no to the married man, he will just find someone else to cheat with.   # if in the example i made before, i say no to the married man, he will just find someone else to cheat with.  in life you keep your side of the street clean and you let bad people be bad to each other.  do not muddy your own waters by contributing to the pain of someone you conveniently do not have to face.  let them find someone else to cheat with.  will they ? yes.  but it does not have to be you.  it can be someone equally as selfish and morally repulsive as themselves.  otherwise, do not delude yourself into thinking you are not just as shitty as they are.   #  if you do, you have done an immoral thing whether you know the person or not.   #  the cheating partner is more culpable than you are, agreed, but that does not mean you have done nothing wrong.  your argument hinges on the premise that because the man is girlfriend/wife is a stranger, you do not owe her any consideration.  i disagree with this.  there are certain basic considerations that all humans owe each other we should not hit each other, steal from each other, be cruel or rude to each other.  if you do, you have done an immoral thing whether you know the person or not.  it is the same with cheating.  the majority of the blame lies with the cheating partner, but you were culpable in it.  you have been part of something that caused pain and hurt to another person.  i believe if a person is unfaithful, they will find a person to do it with.  i do not disagree with this, the greatest majority of the blame belongs to the cheating partner.  and yes they would probably find other people to sleep with.  but you still chose to be the person.  infidelity requires three people or more than three , and you chose to be one of them.  that was an immoral act.   #  however, this standard is unworkable, and more importantly it undermines the comparison with hitting and stealing that you set forth earlier.   #  this argument is conclusory.  you never explain why the act is immoral beyond simply comparing it to hitting or stealing from a stranger.  can you justify the comparison ? because i am inclined to reject it.  the closest you come to an identifiable standard is this:   you have been part of something that caused pain and hurt to another person.  however, this standard is unworkable, and more importantly it undermines the comparison with hitting and stealing that you set forth earlier.  i can cause pain to another person in all sorts of ways.  for instance, i could outbid a person at auction on their dream home or, better yet, at a foreclosure auction .  i could accept a job that many others were vying for, including some who may have more dire financial needs than myself.  i could assist a wife in divorce and custody proceedings against her husband.  are these things immoral ? i think you would be very hard pressed to say so.  to me, these are more apt comparisons: in each case, i am contracting with another consenting individual, and i have no existing relationship with the party adversely affected.  i may be aware that my actions will hurt another, which may justifiably lead me to avoid such interaction, but i may nevertheless proceed without running afoul of some moral stricture.   #  yeah, the bank is culpable here, but you have still morally speaking robbed someone of their house.   # for instance, i could outbid a person at auction on their dream home or, better yet, at a foreclosure auction .  i could accept a job that many others were vying for, including some who may have more dire financial needs than myself.  i could assist a wife in divorce and custody proceedings against her husband.  i think you would be very hard pressed to say so.  context is everything.  that dream home, and that job, are generally understood to be up for grabs.  in that sense, these are no less moral than  stealing  someone is crush before they are in any sort of exclusive relationship.  what we are talking about is someone who has a partner, and op certainly did not exclude spouses, so let is take that as a given we are talking about people in committed relationships.  so let is compare apples to apples.  how would someone be in a committed relationship with a dream house ? well, let is say they actually bought their dream home, but they are out of town.  so you break into the house and throw a party.  even if you clean everything up perfectly before you leave, was that morally acceptable ? it is still not your house.  or worse, let is say you decide you want a house, but the owner is not selling so you pressure the bank to get their house foreclosed on so you can move in.  yeah, the bank is culpable here, but you have still morally speaking robbed someone of their house.  or how about a situation that actually does happen, often: eminent domain.  you convince your local government to let you build a supermarket, or some office buildings, or a new highway, some development that will bring a lot of new business to the area.  the only problem is, there are already some houses in the area you want to build.  so you convince the local government to simply take that land and give it to you, so you can demolish those houses.  this can and does happen.  URL is it moral ? again, the local government should be acting in the interests of its citizens, not necessarily your shiny new business, but what about the corporation that pressured and cheered on this action are they really blameless in all this ?  #  if as you state below,  one spouse is out of town and the other decides to throw a party , that is fine if the party thrower is the homeowner.   #  i just wanted to point out that in your arguments you consistently refer to items which are in possession.  a person is body is in their own possession alone, regardless of any relationship they may have.  thus, apply the concept of one sided ownership to your examples, and you get a clearer picture.  if as you state below,  one spouse is out of town and the other decides to throw a party , that is fine if the party thrower is the homeowner.  if the homeowner decides to sell, that is fine, regardless of whether it may go against the wishes of someone else living there.  in short, in this situation you are treating a romantic partner as a possession.
in my opinion commitment and responsibility lies on the person who is in the relationship and no one else.  i believe if a married man propositions me for sex and i take it, i take 0 of the blame and i am not responsible for the morality of the situation, nor the outcome of their relationship.  i believe the responsibility ultimately comes down to the person who made the commitment, and blaming the third person is just a cop out.  also, in a relationship where one person is unfaithful i believe the inherent problem is a lack of commitment and fidelity with their partner and this has nothing to do with having willing and available people to cheat with.  i believe if a person is unfaithful, they will find a person to do it with.  if in the example i made before, i say no to the married man, he will just find someone else to cheat with.   #  i believe if a person is unfaithful, they will find a person to do it with.   #  if in the example i made before, i say no to the married man, he will just find someone else to cheat with.   # if in the example i made before, i say no to the married man, he will just find someone else to cheat with.  assuming you believe that cheating is immoral then this argument is basically the same as saying  i believe if a person is murderous , they will find a person to commit murder with.  if i say no to helping the murderous man, he will just find someone else to commit murder with.   does this absolve you of helping him commit murder ? i think you would say no.  obviously murder and cheating are not on the same level of amorality but i think the analogy is clear enough.   #  but you still chose to be the person.   #  the cheating partner is more culpable than you are, agreed, but that does not mean you have done nothing wrong.  your argument hinges on the premise that because the man is girlfriend/wife is a stranger, you do not owe her any consideration.  i disagree with this.  there are certain basic considerations that all humans owe each other we should not hit each other, steal from each other, be cruel or rude to each other.  if you do, you have done an immoral thing whether you know the person or not.  it is the same with cheating.  the majority of the blame lies with the cheating partner, but you were culpable in it.  you have been part of something that caused pain and hurt to another person.  i believe if a person is unfaithful, they will find a person to do it with.  i do not disagree with this, the greatest majority of the blame belongs to the cheating partner.  and yes they would probably find other people to sleep with.  but you still chose to be the person.  infidelity requires three people or more than three , and you chose to be one of them.  that was an immoral act.   #  however, this standard is unworkable, and more importantly it undermines the comparison with hitting and stealing that you set forth earlier.   #  this argument is conclusory.  you never explain why the act is immoral beyond simply comparing it to hitting or stealing from a stranger.  can you justify the comparison ? because i am inclined to reject it.  the closest you come to an identifiable standard is this:   you have been part of something that caused pain and hurt to another person.  however, this standard is unworkable, and more importantly it undermines the comparison with hitting and stealing that you set forth earlier.  i can cause pain to another person in all sorts of ways.  for instance, i could outbid a person at auction on their dream home or, better yet, at a foreclosure auction .  i could accept a job that many others were vying for, including some who may have more dire financial needs than myself.  i could assist a wife in divorce and custody proceedings against her husband.  are these things immoral ? i think you would be very hard pressed to say so.  to me, these are more apt comparisons: in each case, i am contracting with another consenting individual, and i have no existing relationship with the party adversely affected.  i may be aware that my actions will hurt another, which may justifiably lead me to avoid such interaction, but i may nevertheless proceed without running afoul of some moral stricture.   #  that dream home, and that job, are generally understood to be up for grabs.   # for instance, i could outbid a person at auction on their dream home or, better yet, at a foreclosure auction .  i could accept a job that many others were vying for, including some who may have more dire financial needs than myself.  i could assist a wife in divorce and custody proceedings against her husband.  i think you would be very hard pressed to say so.  context is everything.  that dream home, and that job, are generally understood to be up for grabs.  in that sense, these are no less moral than  stealing  someone is crush before they are in any sort of exclusive relationship.  what we are talking about is someone who has a partner, and op certainly did not exclude spouses, so let is take that as a given we are talking about people in committed relationships.  so let is compare apples to apples.  how would someone be in a committed relationship with a dream house ? well, let is say they actually bought their dream home, but they are out of town.  so you break into the house and throw a party.  even if you clean everything up perfectly before you leave, was that morally acceptable ? it is still not your house.  or worse, let is say you decide you want a house, but the owner is not selling so you pressure the bank to get their house foreclosed on so you can move in.  yeah, the bank is culpable here, but you have still morally speaking robbed someone of their house.  or how about a situation that actually does happen, often: eminent domain.  you convince your local government to let you build a supermarket, or some office buildings, or a new highway, some development that will bring a lot of new business to the area.  the only problem is, there are already some houses in the area you want to build.  so you convince the local government to simply take that land and give it to you, so you can demolish those houses.  this can and does happen.  URL is it moral ? again, the local government should be acting in the interests of its citizens, not necessarily your shiny new business, but what about the corporation that pressured and cheered on this action are they really blameless in all this ?  #  in short, in this situation you are treating a romantic partner as a possession.   #  i just wanted to point out that in your arguments you consistently refer to items which are in possession.  a person is body is in their own possession alone, regardless of any relationship they may have.  thus, apply the concept of one sided ownership to your examples, and you get a clearer picture.  if as you state below,  one spouse is out of town and the other decides to throw a party , that is fine if the party thrower is the homeowner.  if the homeowner decides to sell, that is fine, regardless of whether it may go against the wishes of someone else living there.  in short, in this situation you are treating a romantic partner as a possession.
unless it serves an obvious immediate public good, i feel that the names and likenesses of the accused should not be published.  if you or i were accused of a scandalous crime we would be front page news.  our exoneration would be a paragraph on page 0, at best.  obvious exceptions for things like deliberately spreading hiv or dangerous people escaping justice.  public health, and public safety i absolutely support private persons and media in the gallery of a courtroom.  and i absolutely support reporting on arrests and criminal proceedings.  i do not, however, support publishing the name or likeness of an accused person.  i am entirely in favour of  widely  publishing the names and pictures of convicted persons.  thanks for reading ! cmv reddit  #  i do not, however, support publishing the name or likeness of an accused person.   #  how do you propose to ban the release of this sort of information without impinging on free speech and freedom of the press ?  # how do you propose to ban the release of this sort of information without impinging on free speech and freedom of the press ? further, if such information cannot be made available as a matter of law, how do you prevent secret arrests and secret court proceedings ? and what is to stop a private citizen from videotaping the arrest/perpwalk and posting it on the youtubes ? and what about the potential for new evidence that could come to light as a result of the public nature of this information ? say the picture of an accused rapist flashes on the tv and 0 victims call up the prosecutor is office to identify him as their attacker.  you could put a serial rapist away for longer for the price of one trial.  or, on the other side, you could have someone call the prosecutor is office with video evidence that the suspect was at a bar three states away on the night of the alleged crime.  and how do you deal with people wanted for arrest ?  this guy is suspected of stealing millions of dollars from vulnerable little old ladies, but we ca not tell you his name or show you his face.  but police are looking for him, so if you have any information about this guy we ca not tell you anything about, please call the non emergency number.   it is true that people are acquitted of crimes all the time and that they often face social stigma as a result.  but secret justice is much less likely to be actually just.   #  they are not guilty of any crime, and it would be far too easy for the media to accuse them all over again.   #  you have said that this would be acceptable if someone  wouldangerous  has escaped justice.  if they have only been accused and considered innocent in a court of law, your op should really include them.  they are not guilty of any crime, and it would be far too easy for the media to accuse them all over again.  for those who are guilty, when someone comes out of prison their face and name and crime may have been on the frontpages of newspapers across the country.  here in the uk, there was a woman called maxine carr who provided an alibi for her boyfriend who had murdered two schoolchildren.  multiple women who bore a passing resemblance to her were harassed and assaulted once she would spent her time in prison.  maybe the public good would be served by reporting the facts and results of the case without photographs or names, since violent offenders are normally under heavy monitoring once they are released.   #  convictions should be a matter of public record.   #  when i say  dangerous  i am talking about someone who is actively armed and dangerous.  a person who has stolen a constable is firearm and escaped custody at any point after arrest, but before conviction .  or security camera footage of a serial thief or assaulter.  or in the case of public health if a person is accused of spreading communicable diseases.  i think it often serves the public good to publish the names and likenesses of offenders.  i disagree with you there too.  if i was the victim of a crime mugging, sexual assault, whatever , seeing my attacker is face could help encourage me and other victims to come forward.  if i owned a taxi service i would not want to hire drunk drivers.  if i owned a bank i would not want to hire thieves.  convictions should be a matter of public record.  unless you have received a pardon  #  convictions normally are a matter of public record here.   #  convictions normally are a matter of public record here.  if you apply for a driving job, they check your license for duis etc.  if you want to teach, they require a heavy background check.  convictions are a matter of public record and are easily accessed by employers.  my problem is when innocent people who happen to look like an offender are harassed, because the majority of the audience for newspapers are not going to be in any way involved in the accused or convicted is life.   #  matters of public safety and health are good examples.   #  there are absolutely times that a suspect or accused person should be publicly identified.  in some cases it serves the public good to make the names and faces of accused or suspects.  matters of public safety and health are good examples.  it serves the public to publish the picture of an armed and dangerous person.  a person who may have spread hiv or other communicable disease is a public health emergency, and time is of the utmost importance.  showing cctv footage of a crime could help identify suspects.  but, as a general rule, it does not serve the public to publish personal details about accused persons.  it could damage an innocent person is reputation, or worse contaminate a potential jury.  contaminated juries damage the very concept of justice.
spoilers for anyone who has not played episodes 0 and 0 of the walking dead game season 0.  seriously do not read this if you have not played it.  so, to those of you who played the latest episodes, you know who arvo is.  he is the russian kid whose group you get into a shootout with.  clementine ends up shooting his reanimated sister, much to his horror.  he is then led around by an abusive kenny who beats him  twice .  the first time in the woods was completely unnecessary, and the second time was too he did not lie about the food or the house and luke is death was gonna happen anyways .  by that point in the game,  everyone  was afraid of kenny.  he was clearly teetering on the edge of sanity, and jane even mentions how clementine may be the only one who can bring him back before he totally loses it.  so when he shoots clementine,  everybody lost their shit.   iirc he was voted the most hated character this season, even moreso than carver.  there is even a whole sub dedicated to his hate now.  URL a lot of it is just circlejerking, but reading the discussion of these latest episodes on the net shows that a lot of people really did hate the kid for it.  but i think they are missing something really important. something telltale games seemed to spent a really long time trying to hammer into our heads.  after clementine was shot and started dreaming about the rv ride with lee, clementine asks lee  why lilly shot carley or doug, depending on your playthrough   and lee mentions how lilly  was sad.    that can make people angry sometimes.   one of the responses is  have you ever been that angry ?   to which lee responds  one time.   presumably he is referring to when he murdered a state senator for sleeping with his wife, which was undoubtedly a crime of passion.  lee even mentions how people is actions might not make sense,  because bad things happen to everybody.   so i think with all the bad things that happened to arvo, him shooting clementine does not warrant all the hate he is getting.  we all love lee even though he did something just as bad; we ca not judge arvo for what little we have seen of him especially in his state.   tl;dr: convince me to join the  fuck arvo  train  #  we all love lee even though he did something just as bad; we ca not judge arvo for what little we have seen of him especially in his state.   #  it is implied that lee is crime involved people really close to him, which led to a sense of betrayal and overreaction.   #  i think the root of the frustration and hate people feel towards arvo is the lack of choice the game gives you.  from the perspective of the characters, arvo is a known liar, clearly hostile, has tried to escape, and has tried to have your group killed.  it just does not make sense that so many of the characters go out of their way to help him.  nevertheless, despite all the actions arvo has taken against the group, they still try to help him.  arvo responds by shooting clem.  now i think it is important to note that depending on your choices, at the time clem was shot she would have been completely innocent.  taking my play through as an example:   clem did not steal from him   clem did not attack him   clem had put her gun down when she was shot.  arvo shot a little unarmed girl just because he was sad ? does not cut it for me.   that can make people angry sometimes.   first off, i do not think we can overlook the fact that lee was talking to an 0 year old.  it seemed very obvious to me that he was sugar coating it a bit.  regardless, that is not an excuse, and there are plenty of examples out there that show arvo was a relatively bad person.  christa had more of a reason to blame clem for omid is death than arvo had a reason to blame clem for anything.  she did not take it out on her, or shoot her, she attempted to move and even took care of clem.  it is implied that lee is crime involved people really close to him, which led to a sense of betrayal and overreaction.  it is definitely bad, but not the same as arvo.  what i think you are forgetting is that arvo was a terrible person before all the bad stuff happened to him, and that he took out his anger on an innocent bystander.  the entire catalyst to his shitty situation was him putting clem is group in mortal danger based on a lie.  i would even go one step further and say kenny was right.  it seemed really obvious that arvo was going to try and kill someone.  had the group just been reasonable and listened to kenny to begin with, then all the deaths in e0 could have been avoided.   #  i did not take the meds and i put down the gun, so in my playthrough arvo is a dick.   #  it is a lot like everything with kenny and lilly in season 0.  if you side with lilly over and over, it seems like bullshit when she betrays you, because you have been taking her side.  with arvo, if you steal his meds and are not nice to him, everything he does is bullshit.  i did not take the meds and i put down the gun, so in my playthrough arvo is a dick.  if i would threatened him with the gun and stole his meds, maybe it would make more sense.  the fact that the game is on rails makes it so one path seems natural and the others seem stupid.   #  but in arvo is case, strangers who almost robbed and killed him , killed his entire group and beat him up several times.   #    okay, that part about the lack of choices towards arvo makes sense.  misanthropex touched on that, but you did a better job explaining why arvo is actions towards you do not make as much sense depending on clem is actions poor storytelling on telltale is part ? .  but i am still not convinced he is a terrible person.  does not cut it for me.  not  sad , more  angry.   kind of like lilly.  she did not take it out on her, or shoot her, she attempted to move and even took care of clem.  christa also had history with clem, so she knows that clem did not intend for omid to die.  it is definitely bad, but not the same as arvo.  but in arvo is case, strangers who almost robbed and killed him , killed his entire group and beat him up several times.  he did not hate mike or bonnie; only kenny for obvious reasons and clementine who killed his sister, and though even as you mentioned she did not necessarily do anything wrong towards him afterwards, you never really got to make up with him like others did thanks telltale ! .  i think everyone was reasonable to fear kenny by that point.  except leaving the house with all your supplies was a dick move, but not trusting kenny anymore was not wrong.  only clementine and the player knows that kenny was not all that bad.   #  he was given undue sympathy and trust from the group despite having no reason to be endeared to them ?  # plus jane almost killed him and threatened to rob him and did if you let her .  in the context of the zombie apocalypse, ambushing and attempted murder are not bad, but punching someone is ? the problem was they took the arvo ambush plot and tied it in to the  kenny is dangerously unstable  plot when one does not organically lead into the other.  kenny is actions towards arvo after the attempted murder were not unstable but perfectly reasonable.  he was given undue sympathy and trust from the group despite having no reason to be endeared to them ?  #  plus the way the other russians were treating him made it clear like he was not in charge or anything.   # we do not know if he was tracking you down or if you were stumbling onto their area or whatever.  plus the way the other russians were treating him made it clear like he was not in charge or anything.  arvo implies their base was in that old half finished house, hence them having supplies there.  that was many a day is walk from where the group runs into the russians.  arvo came to get clem is group, they did not stumble onto him.  you could say the same about carver.  carver was a dick who had to be dealt with, but kenny took it way too far.  carver needed to be killed, and his brain had to be destroyed to ensure he would not rise again as a walker.  how did kenny go  too far  ?
i hold this view because i believe that in an ideal world, all media would be free and easily accessible, however i also think that content creators should be rewarded for their work.  the perfect compromise seems to be giving them twenty years to sell their product, and then it is made free for those who want it.  this would be a way to work towards a world with free information.  this would also create an incentive for creators to continue making new products to get an income.  another benefit would be that record companies could not exploit an artist is music decades after they died, instead, its public.   #  this would also create an incentive for creators to continue making new products to get an income.   #  so lets force manufacturing companies to make more products by giving out their inventories for free.   #  might be a little late, but i think i have a different take than most of the other commentors.  why should all media be free ? because it can ? that is not a particularly good reason.  if someone has worked to create something, be it a painting, a book, a work of music, or a video, why does anyone have a claim to that other than the creator ? the way copyright laws are worked out now the creator will be long dead once it becomes public domain, and that is how it should be, unless the creator wants to give it up earlier.  at the very least i would say that it should become public domain once the creator dies.  so lets force manufacturing companies to make more products by giving out their inventories for free.  neither of these make sense.  its not up to the government or the public to incentivize artists or creators to make new things, and its just selfish.   you do not own this anymore, we all do, and now you have to make a new thing for everyone to own in a little while.   is complete horse shit.  where is the exploitation ? if the artist sells the record company the music, who is being exploited ? the artist is dead, the record company sells it at a price that it can make a profit at, and consumers get to decide if they want to buy it or not.  and what if the record company has remastered a specific track or album ? do they have to give that away now too ?  #  is there any particular reason you think 0 years is best ?  #  the biggest change this would make to the status quo is that is would change the timeline.  is there any particular reason you think 0 years is best ? why that instead of 0 years ? it seems to make more sense for a piece to belong to the artist until either the artist makes it public or dies.  if you build a house with your bare hands, it remains yours until you sell it or die.  why should not it be the same for something else you create ?  #  because you live in the house and actually use it.   #  because you live in the house and actually use it.  copyrighted things can be reproduced infinitely.  if you lose your house, you lose it forever.  if you lose copyright on something , you can still sell it, like publishers still sell the bible even though the copyright expired ages ago.  also, lack of exploitation should restrict the duration of copyright even more.  for exemple, it is illegal to download the rom of paperboy for the nes, even though the license has not been used since super paperboy 0 ish and the game is not even sold anymore.  this is stupid.   #  for exemple, it is illegal to download the rom of paperboy for the nes, even though the license has not been used since super paperboy 0 ish and the game is not even sold anymore.   #  pretty sure there was never a copyright for the bible, seeing as how gutenberg invented the printing press specifically to make copies of the damn thing and sell them for booze money .  for exemple, it is illegal to download the rom of paperboy for the nes, even though the license has not been used since super paperboy 0 ish and the game is not even sold anymore.  this is stupid.  this is absolutely true, and a perfect example of how too much copyright can harm consumers.  there was an article from the atlantic the link is not working for me URL that said the same thing.  there are more books currently in print from the 0th century than there are from the mid 0th century, because copyright owners decide the book is not worth printing anymore, and nobody else has the ability to print it.   #  in other words, you lose some of its usefulness to you.   #  so you are argument is that the creator still using it should not stop someone else from using it.  so, why should not you legally have to let people in that house that you built ? it does not stop you from using it.  if you lose the copyright to your work, you will undoubtedly lose some of the profits.  in other words, you lose some of its usefulness to you.  same as if you let someone else live in the house you created just because they really like it.
i have never understood how the government can justify legislation on how many people you can legally have in your family.  the laws seem to favor one religious view over another, which is unconstitutional.  are the laws outdated, or were they just wrong to begin with ? i understand the implications with regard to taxation of married couples vs.  singles, but that just means that we have another reason that we need to take a better look at our tax code, not that it should be used as a reason to keep people from having a legal marriage.  beyond that there is no secular reason for making plural marriage illegal, and religious reasons are unconstitutional.   #  i have never understood how the government can justify legislation on how many people you can legally have in your family.   #  there  has  to be some sort of limit, otherwise the entire country could become one giant family.   # there  has  to be some sort of limit, otherwise the entire country could become one giant family.  now we have to decide on an appropriate limit.  are the laws outdated, or were they just wrong to begin with ? one benefit of marriage is the ability to make medical decisions for your partner.  if your partner is extremely ill or incapacitated, then the decision power falls on a single person.  marriage between multiple people complicates the issue if those people disagree.  i suppose you could designate one person as the primary decision maker, but now you have a unique legal relationship with that partner.  the traditional family involves a mother, father, and children.  it makes sense for biological parents to have authority when it comes to the care of their children.  remarrying and adoption is simply a transfer of that authority to one or two people to replace the biological parent s .  having more than two people making decisions for a child can complicate things, as often happens with divorced couples that have shared custody.  if we have to revisit tax codes and laws to allow for bigamy, then we end up creating something other than marriage.  more than two people creates complicated legal interactions between everybody involved.   #  one thing to consider here is that plural marriage as historically practiced is also outdated and a solid reason for the laws to exist: to wit, consent of all parties in the first etc.   #  one thing to consider here is that plural marriage as historically practiced is also outdated and a solid reason for the laws to exist: to wit, consent of all parties in the first etc.  relationship/marriage is not required for a second etc.  marriage to take place.  sometimes even knowledge of the other relationship is lacking.  we ca not simply erase the bigamy laws.  we have to replace them with regulation defining plural marriage and emphasizing that it exists among consenting adults who all agree that a plural marriage of some form is the best decision for them.  but we need something on the books that says everyone in a marriage has to agree and consent to someone is or the group is taking on another spouse, or something like the current crime of bigamy does exist.   #  but what if henry does not want to be married to sam anymore and jane disagrees ?  # but this is also problematic.  if jane marries henry and sam and everyone consents to everything, great ! but what if henry does not want to be married to sam anymore and jane disagrees ? some would say this is easily solved by having a head of household where each person is married to the head of the household but not to the other people.  in which case, no contract exists between henry and sam.  but if henry and jane make $0,0 say, 0 grand from jane and 0 grand from henry and sam is a stay at home husband that jane decides to divorce, how are the assets split ? jane has 0 of the assets split between herself and henry.  does sam get 0 of the marital assets of jane and henry ? she is entitled to 0 of those assets and therefore brings that 0 to her marriage with sam.  maybe sam gets 0 of her 0.  but sam has no contract with the third party who will be contributing some of those assets.  it is really quite a big mess.   #  as with any marriage, all assets are split equally between the partners if it goes bad, regardless of what each on brings into the marriage.   #  as with any marriage, all assets are split equally between the partners if it goes bad, regardless of what each on brings into the marriage.  if sam and henry both marry jane, but not each other, and jane divorces henry, then anything that belongs to henry and jane is split.  if the three of them live together, then anything acquired after the marriage is split three ways, 0/0 staying and 0/0 going with henry.  this is the ideal way it should happen, but in modern divorce when have you ever heard of two people splitting up and each getting an exact 0 share of the assets ? the courts always get involved and split up the property however the judge feels compelled to, which would be no different in a case of three or four or more.   #  both members of the first marriage must agree to others entering the marriage, no law needed to assure that.   # different areas differ in the amount of it you see, but plural  relationships  are pretty wide spread and becoming more and more the norm in some areas.  check out /r polyamory sometime.  sure we can, congress does it all the time.  why do we need something on the books to insure a spouse is not cheating ? there currently is not a law for that some states do still have adultery laws, but they are not enforced but social expectations and divorce laws seem to be handling it quite well.  you imply that bigamy or plural marriage is the same thing as secretly cheating on your spouse.  it is nothing like that at all, all the members of the family have knowledge of all the other members.  if one member does not like the idea, and they ca not come to a point of agreement with their spouse, divorce is still the same option as it is today.  both members of the first marriage must agree to others entering the marriage, no law needed to assure that.  if one does not agree and the other insists, they separate, nothing new there and no new laws required.
i have never understood how the government can justify legislation on how many people you can legally have in your family.  the laws seem to favor one religious view over another, which is unconstitutional.  are the laws outdated, or were they just wrong to begin with ? i understand the implications with regard to taxation of married couples vs.  singles, but that just means that we have another reason that we need to take a better look at our tax code, not that it should be used as a reason to keep people from having a legal marriage.  beyond that there is no secular reason for making plural marriage illegal, and religious reasons are unconstitutional.   #  the laws seem to favor one religious view over another, which is unconstitutional.   #  are the laws outdated, or were they just wrong to begin with ?  # there  has  to be some sort of limit, otherwise the entire country could become one giant family.  now we have to decide on an appropriate limit.  are the laws outdated, or were they just wrong to begin with ? one benefit of marriage is the ability to make medical decisions for your partner.  if your partner is extremely ill or incapacitated, then the decision power falls on a single person.  marriage between multiple people complicates the issue if those people disagree.  i suppose you could designate one person as the primary decision maker, but now you have a unique legal relationship with that partner.  the traditional family involves a mother, father, and children.  it makes sense for biological parents to have authority when it comes to the care of their children.  remarrying and adoption is simply a transfer of that authority to one or two people to replace the biological parent s .  having more than two people making decisions for a child can complicate things, as often happens with divorced couples that have shared custody.  if we have to revisit tax codes and laws to allow for bigamy, then we end up creating something other than marriage.  more than two people creates complicated legal interactions between everybody involved.   #  one thing to consider here is that plural marriage as historically practiced is also outdated and a solid reason for the laws to exist: to wit, consent of all parties in the first etc.   #  one thing to consider here is that plural marriage as historically practiced is also outdated and a solid reason for the laws to exist: to wit, consent of all parties in the first etc.  relationship/marriage is not required for a second etc.  marriage to take place.  sometimes even knowledge of the other relationship is lacking.  we ca not simply erase the bigamy laws.  we have to replace them with regulation defining plural marriage and emphasizing that it exists among consenting adults who all agree that a plural marriage of some form is the best decision for them.  but we need something on the books that says everyone in a marriage has to agree and consent to someone is or the group is taking on another spouse, or something like the current crime of bigamy does exist.   #  but sam has no contract with the third party who will be contributing some of those assets.   # but this is also problematic.  if jane marries henry and sam and everyone consents to everything, great ! but what if henry does not want to be married to sam anymore and jane disagrees ? some would say this is easily solved by having a head of household where each person is married to the head of the household but not to the other people.  in which case, no contract exists between henry and sam.  but if henry and jane make $0,0 say, 0 grand from jane and 0 grand from henry and sam is a stay at home husband that jane decides to divorce, how are the assets split ? jane has 0 of the assets split between herself and henry.  does sam get 0 of the marital assets of jane and henry ? she is entitled to 0 of those assets and therefore brings that 0 to her marriage with sam.  maybe sam gets 0 of her 0.  but sam has no contract with the third party who will be contributing some of those assets.  it is really quite a big mess.   #  if sam and henry both marry jane, but not each other, and jane divorces henry, then anything that belongs to henry and jane is split.   #  as with any marriage, all assets are split equally between the partners if it goes bad, regardless of what each on brings into the marriage.  if sam and henry both marry jane, but not each other, and jane divorces henry, then anything that belongs to henry and jane is split.  if the three of them live together, then anything acquired after the marriage is split three ways, 0/0 staying and 0/0 going with henry.  this is the ideal way it should happen, but in modern divorce when have you ever heard of two people splitting up and each getting an exact 0 share of the assets ? the courts always get involved and split up the property however the judge feels compelled to, which would be no different in a case of three or four or more.   #  both members of the first marriage must agree to others entering the marriage, no law needed to assure that.   # different areas differ in the amount of it you see, but plural  relationships  are pretty wide spread and becoming more and more the norm in some areas.  check out /r polyamory sometime.  sure we can, congress does it all the time.  why do we need something on the books to insure a spouse is not cheating ? there currently is not a law for that some states do still have adultery laws, but they are not enforced but social expectations and divorce laws seem to be handling it quite well.  you imply that bigamy or plural marriage is the same thing as secretly cheating on your spouse.  it is nothing like that at all, all the members of the family have knowledge of all the other members.  if one member does not like the idea, and they ca not come to a point of agreement with their spouse, divorce is still the same option as it is today.  both members of the first marriage must agree to others entering the marriage, no law needed to assure that.  if one does not agree and the other insists, they separate, nothing new there and no new laws required.
in regards to locker rooms, regardless of gender, people should have the right to change without the presence of others who find them sexually attractive.  generally we do not allow coed locker rooms so that women have the comfort of changing and showering without the presence of men who find them sexually attractive.  this discomfort arises either from 0 safety concerns over sexual assault or 0 not wanting to be glared at and sexualized by creeps when you are just trying to get through your day.  are these principles not applicable to a scenario involving homosexual males being in the same locker room as straight males ? a gay man is not different than a straight man.  so if sexual assault is a legitimate concern to have of a straight man, then it is as legitimate a concern to have of a gay man.  now, you might say that a straight male can defend himself against a gay man.  that would be bigoted and degrading to gay men.  sexual preference in no way impacts a man is strength or fighting ability.  so to assume a straight man would automatically win a fight is ignorant and bigoted.  but even if the straight man could defend himself against any gay man, it is not right to put him in a situation where he would have to do so.  flip the script and imagine allowing men in the women is locker room because all the women had mace.  just because they can defend themselves does not mean they should have to.  the second scenerio, where women need a space where they do not get glared at and sexualized by creeps, is just as valid for gay and straight men.  i hear this all the time,  not every gay guy is going to check you out like that.  stop being so self centered and thinking you are all that.  .  you would never say that to a women.  and like we said, gay men and straight men are the same.  one is not more perverted than the other.  one is not more capable of self control than the other.  now is it practical to build a third or possible forth locker room ? no it is not.  but having the discomfort should not be viewed as homophobic.  women are not being sexist when they express their discomfort.  i do not get offended as a male.  are gay men better at controlling their sexual urges or are straight males sexually fueled maniacs ? so why is my discomfort homophobic ? and do not give me the whole  then if you are uncomfortable do not use the locker room .  you would never say that to a woman who is uncomfortable around men.  this has nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality.  it is about the logic of applying the same argument to two comparable scenarios.  so please do not turn this into what is right and wrong.   #  a gay man is not different than a straight man.   #  so if sexual assault is a legitimate concern to have of a straight man, then it is as legitimate a concern to have of a gay man.   # so if sexual assault is a legitimate concern to have of a straight man, then it is as legitimate a concern to have of a gay man.  where are your statistics of gay men who are out of the closet and who are sexually assaulting straight men in locker rooms ? you are right that  feeling  this discomfort is not homophobic.  however, voicing it publicly, is.  there is no real advantage to that, and it only serves to alienate/marginalize gay team members or gym customers by making them feel like they are doing something wrong.  if a gay team member or customer makes actual advances towards someone who does not appreciate this, i will fully support the receiver of this unwanted attention in taking action against it.  but merely voicing presumptions, suspicions and fears are just bad judgment.   #  that is your opinion and you have not really backed it up.   # to not be called homophobic for disliking having to share a space with a gay man ? yes, that is what he said.  that is your opinion and you have not really backed it up.  not really because you are ignoring the difference between the two scenarios.  two straight men changing in front of each other are not dealing with possible sexual attraction.  a straight man changing in front of a gay man is potentially a sexually arousing scenario.   #  they are used to seeing guys in the locker room because they have been seeing it for their entire lives.   #  alright, as a lady who occasionally has eyes for ladies, i do not see the locker room as a sexual place.  i understand why straight guys have this sort of sexualization of locker rooms because of the  women is locker room fantasy  that i guess every straight middle school boy has, but i would say a big part of that fantasy is related to the off limited nature of women is locker rooms.  imagine that we grew up in a society where there was no separation between men is and women is locker rooms.  from elementary school gym class and onward, everyone changed and showered in the same place.  do you really think that by the time you reached adulthood you would still be staring at women is boobs and sexualizing them in the locker room ? at least from my personal experience, the answer is no.  when i see a girl changing in the locker room, even if i see bare boob, i am not going to stare at her or check her out or whatever because i am respectful of the space we are in and, after having used women is locker rooms my entire life, i understand that the context is not sexual.  sure, puberty was rough, but now that i am an adult my brain can make the distinction.  same goes for gay men.  they are used to seeing guys in the locker room because they have been seeing it for their entire lives.  they are not checking you out, they are going to the gym.   #  my bestie is a gay man and he recently had some guy at his gym, not a gay gym, masturbate while making eye contact with him in the showers.   #  i used to study kung fu at a downtown ymca.  the men in my class all described the locker room as a tricky area.  apparently, it is used as a meat market.  one guy, my bf at the time, said he kept his head down as much as he could and, if somebody said anything to him, he would not respond.  another guy who was far more outgoing than my bf said he did no such thing and he got hit on all the time.  he said he mostly could just say  no thanks  but had to be a little threatening a couple of times.  my bestie is a gay man and he recently had some guy at his gym, not a gay gym, masturbate while making eye contact with him in the showers.  now, granted, he found it hot and probably did some subtle or not so subtle things leading up to it to encourage the behavior.  i am a straight woman.  but i just think breasts are beautiful and they draw the eye.  i have caught myself doing just this thing and i felt like an asshole.  i guess my whole take on this is that people myself included are going to make you uncomfortable no matter where you go or what you do.  if being made to feel uncomfortable while naked is something you feel you must avoid at all costs, get some cut off jean shorts.  there are dozens of us.  dozens !  #  the problem that existed when the man masturbated to watching your friend is not a problem of  gay men in the locker room.    # now, granted, he found it hot and probably did some subtle or not so subtle things leading up to it to encourage the behavior.  that this is even a concern of yours or anyone else is is a huge huge problem and is absolutely homophobic.  the problem that existed when the man masturbated to watching your friend is not a problem of  gay men in the locker room.   it is a problem of  a sexual offender in the locker room.   that you cannot see the blatant difference is homophobia.
in regards to locker rooms, regardless of gender, people should have the right to change without the presence of others who find them sexually attractive.  generally we do not allow coed locker rooms so that women have the comfort of changing and showering without the presence of men who find them sexually attractive.  this discomfort arises either from 0 safety concerns over sexual assault or 0 not wanting to be glared at and sexualized by creeps when you are just trying to get through your day.  are these principles not applicable to a scenario involving homosexual males being in the same locker room as straight males ? a gay man is not different than a straight man.  so if sexual assault is a legitimate concern to have of a straight man, then it is as legitimate a concern to have of a gay man.  now, you might say that a straight male can defend himself against a gay man.  that would be bigoted and degrading to gay men.  sexual preference in no way impacts a man is strength or fighting ability.  so to assume a straight man would automatically win a fight is ignorant and bigoted.  but even if the straight man could defend himself against any gay man, it is not right to put him in a situation where he would have to do so.  flip the script and imagine allowing men in the women is locker room because all the women had mace.  just because they can defend themselves does not mean they should have to.  the second scenerio, where women need a space where they do not get glared at and sexualized by creeps, is just as valid for gay and straight men.  i hear this all the time,  not every gay guy is going to check you out like that.  stop being so self centered and thinking you are all that.  .  you would never say that to a women.  and like we said, gay men and straight men are the same.  one is not more perverted than the other.  one is not more capable of self control than the other.  now is it practical to build a third or possible forth locker room ? no it is not.  but having the discomfort should not be viewed as homophobic.  women are not being sexist when they express their discomfort.  i do not get offended as a male.  are gay men better at controlling their sexual urges or are straight males sexually fueled maniacs ? so why is my discomfort homophobic ? and do not give me the whole  then if you are uncomfortable do not use the locker room .  you would never say that to a woman who is uncomfortable around men.  this has nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality.  it is about the logic of applying the same argument to two comparable scenarios.  so please do not turn this into what is right and wrong.   #  but having the discomfort should not be viewed as homophobic.   #  you are right that  feeling  this discomfort is not homophobic.   # so if sexual assault is a legitimate concern to have of a straight man, then it is as legitimate a concern to have of a gay man.  where are your statistics of gay men who are out of the closet and who are sexually assaulting straight men in locker rooms ? you are right that  feeling  this discomfort is not homophobic.  however, voicing it publicly, is.  there is no real advantage to that, and it only serves to alienate/marginalize gay team members or gym customers by making them feel like they are doing something wrong.  if a gay team member or customer makes actual advances towards someone who does not appreciate this, i will fully support the receiver of this unwanted attention in taking action against it.  but merely voicing presumptions, suspicions and fears are just bad judgment.   #  two straight men changing in front of each other are not dealing with possible sexual attraction.   # to not be called homophobic for disliking having to share a space with a gay man ? yes, that is what he said.  that is your opinion and you have not really backed it up.  not really because you are ignoring the difference between the two scenarios.  two straight men changing in front of each other are not dealing with possible sexual attraction.  a straight man changing in front of a gay man is potentially a sexually arousing scenario.   #  imagine that we grew up in a society where there was no separation between men is and women is locker rooms.   #  alright, as a lady who occasionally has eyes for ladies, i do not see the locker room as a sexual place.  i understand why straight guys have this sort of sexualization of locker rooms because of the  women is locker room fantasy  that i guess every straight middle school boy has, but i would say a big part of that fantasy is related to the off limited nature of women is locker rooms.  imagine that we grew up in a society where there was no separation between men is and women is locker rooms.  from elementary school gym class and onward, everyone changed and showered in the same place.  do you really think that by the time you reached adulthood you would still be staring at women is boobs and sexualizing them in the locker room ? at least from my personal experience, the answer is no.  when i see a girl changing in the locker room, even if i see bare boob, i am not going to stare at her or check her out or whatever because i am respectful of the space we are in and, after having used women is locker rooms my entire life, i understand that the context is not sexual.  sure, puberty was rough, but now that i am an adult my brain can make the distinction.  same goes for gay men.  they are used to seeing guys in the locker room because they have been seeing it for their entire lives.  they are not checking you out, they are going to the gym.   #  he said he mostly could just say  no thanks  but had to be a little threatening a couple of times.   #  i used to study kung fu at a downtown ymca.  the men in my class all described the locker room as a tricky area.  apparently, it is used as a meat market.  one guy, my bf at the time, said he kept his head down as much as he could and, if somebody said anything to him, he would not respond.  another guy who was far more outgoing than my bf said he did no such thing and he got hit on all the time.  he said he mostly could just say  no thanks  but had to be a little threatening a couple of times.  my bestie is a gay man and he recently had some guy at his gym, not a gay gym, masturbate while making eye contact with him in the showers.  now, granted, he found it hot and probably did some subtle or not so subtle things leading up to it to encourage the behavior.  i am a straight woman.  but i just think breasts are beautiful and they draw the eye.  i have caught myself doing just this thing and i felt like an asshole.  i guess my whole take on this is that people myself included are going to make you uncomfortable no matter where you go or what you do.  if being made to feel uncomfortable while naked is something you feel you must avoid at all costs, get some cut off jean shorts.  there are dozens of us.  dozens !  #  that this is even a concern of yours or anyone else is is a huge huge problem and is absolutely homophobic.   # now, granted, he found it hot and probably did some subtle or not so subtle things leading up to it to encourage the behavior.  that this is even a concern of yours or anyone else is is a huge huge problem and is absolutely homophobic.  the problem that existed when the man masturbated to watching your friend is not a problem of  gay men in the locker room.   it is a problem of  a sexual offender in the locker room.   that you cannot see the blatant difference is homophobia.
i was arguing with a friend of mine about wine.  he claims to be a wine expert, i doubt it.  as a result of our argument, i did research and found many articles where tests showed that superficial factors changed the way people viewed the traits of the wine.  for example: URL or URL or URL there are more studies out there, but those are a good placed to start.  alternately, i have not seen any well conducted studies that show people can accurately tell the difference between wines.  so let me be clear in what i think: i believe that different wines have different tastes, and that it is possible for people to actually tell the difference between tastes of different wines.  but i think that those taste differences are either 0 insignificant to the degree that people ca not actually tell the differences, or 0 people have such strong expectations about the various tastes of different wines that they ca not separate the expectation from the actual experience, 0 that people is taste buds and brains ca not accurately correlate and catalogue tastes enough to really be able to understand differences in what they are tasting.  therefore, i basically believe that people ca not tell the difference between wines.  people think they can, but this is mostly bullshit.  i think this is essentially the placebo effect, where the expectation defines the outcome.  cmv.   #  therefore, i basically believe that people ca not tell the difference between wines.   #  people think they can, but this is mostly bullshit.   # people think they can, but this is mostly bullshit.  if you really think this, let me give you a conclusive experiment to disprove it to you: a triangle test.  get two bottles, and have your friend pour you one glass from one bottle and two glasses from the other.  taste them, and try to figure the odd glass out.  depending on how visually different the wines are, you might want to have a blindfold on.  any given run of the test has a 0/0 chance of happening by pure chance, so try running it a few times over the course of a couple hours using new glasses, new pours and put a cork in the bottles between tastes so your results are more significant.  hell, turn it into a party idea: get 0 or 0 friends to come over and have everyone try it.  try this with a few combinations:   alscatian gewurtztraminer   oaked california chardonnay super duper easy mode   manischewitz   cab sauvignon even easier seriously, if you cant distinguish these, you probably do not have a tongue or a nose   german riesling auslese from mosel   a bone dry alsatian riesling also super duper easy mode: you can taste sugar, right ? california oaked chardonnay   sauvignon blanc   a sparkling wine produced via the metode champenoise   a sparkling wine produced via the charmat method like prosecco   pinot noir   cabernet sauvignon   chinon   merlot try this with both your friend and yourself.  see if either or both of you actually can distinguish wines.  do not bandy words on the internet when you can easily run an empirical experiment instead.  i think you will be surprised.   #  pretending that professionals  really  ca not tell one from the other though is absolute rubbish.   #  well, i am not sure that i can change your view without meeting in person.  i am a sommelier.  that means i have in my case some six years of formal training and around twenty five years of tasting and such in less formal settings.  i am also and completely separately a bsci cis as it was called back then but a coder by profession for much of my life and pretty scientifically minded to put it mildly.  i am a skeptic, a scientist, a doubter and generally a quasher of woo wherever i find it.  so.  follow with me a bit.  wine is complex and mostly because our senses are complex.  i can demonstrate clearly that  all  of our senses are fallible easily done but i can also show that the entire world is nothing more than our perceptions.  without getting too philosophical, the world  is  what we see and feel it to be and our senses of sight, touch, taste and so on are horribly inaccurate.  a study showed that a somm could be fooled into thinking a red was a white ? pfft.  i can fool you into thinking a cliff is flat ground or that something really cold is actually really hot.  our senses are easily fooled by someone that knows how they work.  this is not news.  what  is  news or at least clickbait is self confirming articles that claim what people want to hear.  my cheap wine is just as good as anything made ! it is all a scam ! i am justified ! and there is some truth there too of course.  if it makes you happy, drink it.  pretending that professionals  really  ca not tell one from the other though is absolute rubbish.  i do blind tastings all the damned time and while i wo not nail ever single one, i sure as fuck get the varietal/region and age statement right at least.  i use my eyes and might get deceived by them of course but seriously, it is not all voodoo and bullshit.  instead, there are specific things that you do and you essentially feed that into a knowledge matrix and from there get conclusions.  the smelling and tasting and seeing and whatever bits are still done by you but the decisions are essentially memorization also done by you .  there is just too much out there to try and retain it all meaningfully so you eliminate possibilities rather than synthesizing a result.  most of it being,  not a red ,  not a cool climate ,  not a light tannin  and so on.  hence the vulnerability to food dyes or other visual ploys.   #  i am a chef and i once read an article about wine experts being unable to tell the difference between a red and a white.   #  i am a chef and i once read an article about wine experts being unable to tell the difference between a red and a white.  i thought that was bogus, so i conducted a blindfolded wine tasting with some other knowledgeable people using four room temperature wines: a pinot noir, a cabernet , a chardonnay, and a sauvignon blanc.  out of six people, i and two others correctly guessed both color and varietal, two correctly guessed the color but not varietal, and one totally blew it.  i think northernerwuwu is correct.  a few sensationalized stories lately have made it seem like wine experts are fools, but i do not buy it.  are some wine exerts pretentious snobs who are far less knowledgeable than they act ? yes.  are all wine experts frauds ? no.   #  i am absolutely sure that the average person would do no better then guessing.   #  i do not mean to crap on you personally, but i find that almost everyone thinks they can tell the difference between wines.  but i have little reason to believe them.  i wish i had the time or money to conduct a serious double blind study to find out how much reality there is to this.  i am absolutely sure that the average person would do no better then guessing.  but i think even the most trained wine expert would be weak at best.   #  you also get to retake a part you failed up to 0 times before you have to retake the whole exam.   #  it may be more likely than you think.  the pass rate listed on the website is actually 0 not 0 as you say.  0.  there is also a practical service portion and an oral/written theory exam.  you also get to retake a part you failed up to 0 times before you have to retake the whole exam.  0.  the  blind tasting  is also done verbally so you could use the cues of whoever is giving the test to further improve your chances.  so now we are talking about a 0 pass rate given 0 chances to guess 0 things about 0/0 wines in front of someone.
the title is pretty self explanatory: if you have paid tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend a college, and other people do the same, why do people actually respond when their alma mater begs them donate ? colleges are money making ventures after all.  the professors, everyone who works there etc, has at least some desire to make money at the end of the day.  this differs from the k 0 school system because students do not pay the hefty tuition from which colleges seek to make money.  that being said, it is a persons right to donate to what they wish, but i hold that people who donate to colleges are wasting their money.  i will do my best to sum up my opinion 0 .  colleges keep spending on extravagances that are unnecessary.  redoing multiple common rooms to make them look like hotels would make me feel i have wasted my money 0 .  if you have already paid the tuition and other expenses, no matter how much your college experience has given back to you, why do you owe them any more ? 0 .  the motives of many people tend to be a bit corrupt.  if you have donated all this money, then the college will be more inclined to accept your child if they apply.  0 .  for people who are very well off, i contend that there are more worthwhile causes to donate money toward.  it is a bit disgusting to me that someone would choose to have a shiny gym or library named after them instead of donate toward curing diseases, etc.   #  if you have donated all this money, then the college will be more inclined to accept your child if they apply.   #  well, that does not sound like a waste of money to me.   # well, that does not sound like a waste of money to me.  you might think it is wrong that it occurs, but that is not a waste of money for the donor.  colleges keep spending on extravagances that are unnecessary.  redoing multiple common rooms to make them look like hotels would make me feel i have wasted my money they are necessary because the market demands it.  if a college has crummy, run down dorms then no one will want to go there.  enrollment will drop as will revenue and prestige along with it.  it may be unfortunate, but that is the way it is.  if you have already paid the tuition and other expenses, no matter how much your college experience has given back to you, why do you owe them any more ? no one says you do.  just like i do not owe money to cancer charities, or the spca, or even a dying family member.  but i may still choose to donate to those causes.  for people who are very well off, i contend that there are more worthwhile causes to donate money toward.  it is a bit disgusting to me that someone would choose to have a shiny gym or library named after them instead of donate toward curing diseases, etc.  there is always a more worthy cause to donate to.  why donate to the spca when people need it more ? why donate money to non life threatening diseases when there are diseases that kill many more people ? are we only supposed to donate to the single most important cause ? colleges need donations to survive.  there is no debating that.  generally it is large funds or very wealthy people that contribute the majority of a college endowment.  if i donate $0, it does not make much difference.  these already very wealthy people can afford the money, so what is wrong with how they choose to spend it ? most donate to other causes, i am sure, but if they enjoyed the time at the school and they want to help it out, what is so wrong about that ? and if the donor decides to build a new math or science center, is that a waste of money ? helping to improve the education of thousands of students ? and is it a waste of money if donating a new library ensures that person is entire family can now get into that school ? how is it a waste of money ?  #  the university does not tell you this though, you usually have press the arrangement.   #  the great thing about donating, is most of the time you can donate to a specific cause in your university.  you can donate directly to your department  for the purchase of new computers.   or, you can donate to the student council  to put on an annual doughnut appreciation festival.   so if you really loved your department, or some event, you can donate to support that specifically.  the university does not tell you this though, you usually have press the arrangement.   #  in fact there may have never been such a thing as library computer budget.   #  but what i am saying, that even without your donation the university may have never allocated 0$ to the library computer budget.  in fact there may have never been such a thing as library computer budget.  instead they may have planned to spend that 0 on the president is lunch, no matter what, leaving the library without computers.  your donation makes sure that those computers get bought, no matter what other whims the university has.  sure, it is not perfect control, but it is some control.   #  not all medical research charities are created equal.   #  you should do some research to where your money goes when you donate to a disease.  i do not like to be  too  judge about where non profits spend their money, because when the public micro manages percentages and stuff good causes lose out.  but some places really do not spend the money on what you would think.  not all medical research charities are created equal.  you should familiarize yourself with the work a charity does not just overhead % before you make any significant donation.   #  yes, sometimes it might end up going to refurbishing the student rec center, but if the facilities are not nice then students will go elsewhere.   #  schools often do work for these centers, as the tools and employee costs are incredibly high.  by donating to a school, along with these researching companies, much higher quality equipment can be purchased.  it is because of this that you have places like the suny albany nanotechnology center URL competing companies like ibm, globalfoundries, intel, etc.  all worked together to build one research center better than any could have built on their own.  on top of that, they have a ready supply of grad students to do work, and know that when the students graduate they will be familiar with the tools needed for the work.  if we ignored the schools, the graduates would come out unprepared after having only used out of date technology.  yes, sometimes it might end up going to refurbishing the student rec center, but if the facilities are not nice then students will go elsewhere.
there has been a lot of drama around video games and genders as of late.  something that has been raised time and time again is that video games are sexist and need to be changed, or that the game industry is misogynist.  not that i do not agree with that or agree, have not cared enough to research about it but does that mean that video games need to change ? i am a human being and whenever there is change to any form of media i like and it ends up being bad, i immediately point my finger to the change.  i just ca not accept a change in video games unless it appeases to my conscience.  for example  i do not like that the industry had to change x about video games, but it was hurting y so it had to be done .  i do not see this in regards to gender roles, at all.  the main points i see against people being against change are usually things like;  its clear a lot of people do not like how sexist/misogynistic video games are.    we do not try to change your romance novels, so why do you try to change our video games ?    they are sexist and they need to change.    i like my video games just how they are, there is no reason to change them !    do you have a good reason why it should not be changed ?    .  just do not mess with my video games, ok ?    .   thats the kind of stuff that i have seen and to some degree, it makes sense.  though i really do not see why they need to be changed.  i mean yes, a lot of people do not like how they currently are.  a lot of people do though and those are the people who are giving the people the money for their games.  i understand that women do play games but it used to be a male dominated pass time up until recently.  to change something just because you do not like it just does not sit well with me.  if its actually a problem i want to see the statiscs, the science, etc that allows me to concede that video games need to change.  tl;dr was not that long, should just read it anyways : video games do not need to change just because they are sexist and people do not like it.   #  not that i do not agree with that or agree, have not cared enough to research about it but does that mean that video games need to change ?  #  if you believe that the games industry has sexist tendencies, and you agree that sexism is bad, then it should follow that you would want the games industry to get rid of that sexism.   # if you believe that the games industry has sexist tendencies, and you agree that sexism is bad, then it should follow that you would want the games industry to get rid of that sexism.  so yes, if video games are sexist, they should change.  that said, this does not mean that every single game needs to have completely equal representation.  part of the problem is that even if an individual game is not overtly sexist, it is part of a larger trend that excludes women.  if we get rid of sexism, then we will see more good representations of women.  not every woman needs to be interesting, but there is definitely a disparity there.  maybe romance novels are sexist.  i do not care.  that is not my area of interest.  if they are, then it is up to the community of romance novel readers and writers to fix their situation.  i am a game player and a game programmer, so i care about making games better.  to change something just because you do not like it just does not sit well with me.  there is lots of vocal criticism precisely because women want to play but feel driven away and disrespected.  if you pressure all the women to leave, then they have every right to be upset with how they have been treated.  i do not even understand what statistics you want to see.  this is an issue of empathy and understanding more than some scientific proof that we need to formulate.   #  the cons are that it perpetuates sexism which oppresses and disadvantages roughly half the population of mankind, creating economic and political and humanitarian problems.   #  so first, is your premise that video games should not be changed because they might end up not as good as they are now, and then the change would be to blame ? what if they end up  better  ? that  is  a possibility.  your entire cmv is based around one potential outcome when in reality there are three potential outcomes if we changed video games to not be sexist: they would get better, they would get worse, or they would stay the same.  your e suggesting we do not dare change them based on a 0 chance they would get worse ? moreover, it is less than a 0 chance that they would get worse.  0 would be if all three potential outcomes had the same probability, but that is not reality.  video games have continued to get better and better, and diversity brings new ideas and spurs creativity, and as women make the video game industry more diverse and less sexist, we should assume that it will get  better , not worse.  look at all the other industries that women have joined and pushed back against sexism in none of them have become  worse.  movies and books and artwork that are not sexist are not worse than those that are.  in fact, most people agree that sexist work is generally worse than non sexist work.  so we can assume making video games less sexist will improve them, not hurt them.  finally, let is weigh the pros and cons.  the pros of sexist video games is that some people, mostly boys and men, find them entertaining.  the cons are that it perpetuates sexism which oppresses and disadvantages roughly half the population of mankind, creating economic and political and humanitarian problems.  video games themselves do not create all this they just perpetuate the same mentality that does.  the pros of changing video games to not be sexist is that they will no longer perpetuate this mentality, and they will be more inclusive to girls and women, and this will likely spur more creativity and improvements to the industry and the games.  the cons are that that there is the slight possibility that games might get worse, but mostly that would only be in the opinion in men who do not fully view women as equal to themselves.  overall it seems much more important to protect half the population than to protect the video game preferences of a handful of dudes.   #  is there any actual proof to this or is this all conjecture ?  #  i am not saying that overall games will get worse.  i am saying for the games that are not as good as they were hyped up to be and its revealed that they scrapped some things to make sure the game was not sexist.  in reality that may not have played a part in the game being not what it was hyped up to be but it wo not stop me from thinking that it was.  maybe the parts that people find sexist in games are what allow me to enjoy it, even if i do not particularly play/experience that part but just the option of it being there enhances my experience playing it.  should my experience be lowered so that the game is more appealing to women ? i do not think so, but at the same time i do not think they should not be able to experience a game just because i want my experience to be enhanced a little.  adding gameplay onto a game to allow the game to be playable for women is fine with me as long as the original game can be played.  the cons are that it perpetuates sexism which oppresses and disadvantages roughly half the population of mankind, creating economic and political and humanitarian problems.  video games themselves do not create all this they just perpetuate the same mentality that does.  this is what i mean by  if its actually a problem i want to see the statiscs, the science, etc that allows me to concede that video games need to change.    i feel like this argument is just as valid as video games make people more violent.  is there any actual proof to this or is this all conjecture ? why should i want content from video games to be removed/not even considered due something that is not even proven ?  #  and often the female characters are so worthless to the plot.   #  thank you.  it is so hard for me to justify playing certain games games that i truly love to play when the female representation is so overtly sexist.  mortal kombat is one of my favorite games, but when i pick up kitana my baby i feel kind of degraded that she is dressed the way she is.  i miss her old outfit.  that is why women are hesitant to pick up these games you know ? and often the female characters are so worthless to the plot.  they are for sex, or they need protected, or they are a love interest. i would love to see more samus arans and lara crofts.  and maybe some sexy men too, to balance it out ! again, thank you for your understanding of the topic.   #  for example, i do not think anyone was turned off of the cartoon avatar just because it had well written female characters, but as a side effect it has a huge female fan base.   #  and you are not the only one.  this happens from an early age.  here is an example URL of a little girl who was much more interested in playing games when her dad was able to hack the game is rom to swap link and zelda is sprites.  it is little things like this that push girls and women away, and there is no reason things need to be this way.  for example, i do not think anyone was turned off of the cartoon avatar just because it had well written female characters, but as a side effect it has a huge female fan base.  there is no reason we need to always be saving zelda and peach.  some more recent games have been better in this regard than some of the older games, but it is still a strong trend to have men be the characters who act and women be the ones who completely lack agency.
there has been a lot of drama around video games and genders as of late.  something that has been raised time and time again is that video games are sexist and need to be changed, or that the game industry is misogynist.  not that i do not agree with that or agree, have not cared enough to research about it but does that mean that video games need to change ? i am a human being and whenever there is change to any form of media i like and it ends up being bad, i immediately point my finger to the change.  i just ca not accept a change in video games unless it appeases to my conscience.  for example  i do not like that the industry had to change x about video games, but it was hurting y so it had to be done .  i do not see this in regards to gender roles, at all.  the main points i see against people being against change are usually things like;  its clear a lot of people do not like how sexist/misogynistic video games are.    we do not try to change your romance novels, so why do you try to change our video games ?    they are sexist and they need to change.    i like my video games just how they are, there is no reason to change them !    do you have a good reason why it should not be changed ?    .  just do not mess with my video games, ok ?    .   thats the kind of stuff that i have seen and to some degree, it makes sense.  though i really do not see why they need to be changed.  i mean yes, a lot of people do not like how they currently are.  a lot of people do though and those are the people who are giving the people the money for their games.  i understand that women do play games but it used to be a male dominated pass time up until recently.  to change something just because you do not like it just does not sit well with me.  if its actually a problem i want to see the statiscs, the science, etc that allows me to concede that video games need to change.  tl;dr was not that long, should just read it anyways : video games do not need to change just because they are sexist and people do not like it.   #  i understand that women do play games but it used to be a male dominated pass time up until recently.   #  to change something just because you do not like it just does not sit well with me.   # if you believe that the games industry has sexist tendencies, and you agree that sexism is bad, then it should follow that you would want the games industry to get rid of that sexism.  so yes, if video games are sexist, they should change.  that said, this does not mean that every single game needs to have completely equal representation.  part of the problem is that even if an individual game is not overtly sexist, it is part of a larger trend that excludes women.  if we get rid of sexism, then we will see more good representations of women.  not every woman needs to be interesting, but there is definitely a disparity there.  maybe romance novels are sexist.  i do not care.  that is not my area of interest.  if they are, then it is up to the community of romance novel readers and writers to fix their situation.  i am a game player and a game programmer, so i care about making games better.  to change something just because you do not like it just does not sit well with me.  there is lots of vocal criticism precisely because women want to play but feel driven away and disrespected.  if you pressure all the women to leave, then they have every right to be upset with how they have been treated.  i do not even understand what statistics you want to see.  this is an issue of empathy and understanding more than some scientific proof that we need to formulate.   #  video games have continued to get better and better, and diversity brings new ideas and spurs creativity, and as women make the video game industry more diverse and less sexist, we should assume that it will get  better , not worse.   #  so first, is your premise that video games should not be changed because they might end up not as good as they are now, and then the change would be to blame ? what if they end up  better  ? that  is  a possibility.  your entire cmv is based around one potential outcome when in reality there are three potential outcomes if we changed video games to not be sexist: they would get better, they would get worse, or they would stay the same.  your e suggesting we do not dare change them based on a 0 chance they would get worse ? moreover, it is less than a 0 chance that they would get worse.  0 would be if all three potential outcomes had the same probability, but that is not reality.  video games have continued to get better and better, and diversity brings new ideas and spurs creativity, and as women make the video game industry more diverse and less sexist, we should assume that it will get  better , not worse.  look at all the other industries that women have joined and pushed back against sexism in none of them have become  worse.  movies and books and artwork that are not sexist are not worse than those that are.  in fact, most people agree that sexist work is generally worse than non sexist work.  so we can assume making video games less sexist will improve them, not hurt them.  finally, let is weigh the pros and cons.  the pros of sexist video games is that some people, mostly boys and men, find them entertaining.  the cons are that it perpetuates sexism which oppresses and disadvantages roughly half the population of mankind, creating economic and political and humanitarian problems.  video games themselves do not create all this they just perpetuate the same mentality that does.  the pros of changing video games to not be sexist is that they will no longer perpetuate this mentality, and they will be more inclusive to girls and women, and this will likely spur more creativity and improvements to the industry and the games.  the cons are that that there is the slight possibility that games might get worse, but mostly that would only be in the opinion in men who do not fully view women as equal to themselves.  overall it seems much more important to protect half the population than to protect the video game preferences of a handful of dudes.   #  in reality that may not have played a part in the game being not what it was hyped up to be but it wo not stop me from thinking that it was.   #  i am not saying that overall games will get worse.  i am saying for the games that are not as good as they were hyped up to be and its revealed that they scrapped some things to make sure the game was not sexist.  in reality that may not have played a part in the game being not what it was hyped up to be but it wo not stop me from thinking that it was.  maybe the parts that people find sexist in games are what allow me to enjoy it, even if i do not particularly play/experience that part but just the option of it being there enhances my experience playing it.  should my experience be lowered so that the game is more appealing to women ? i do not think so, but at the same time i do not think they should not be able to experience a game just because i want my experience to be enhanced a little.  adding gameplay onto a game to allow the game to be playable for women is fine with me as long as the original game can be played.  the cons are that it perpetuates sexism which oppresses and disadvantages roughly half the population of mankind, creating economic and political and humanitarian problems.  video games themselves do not create all this they just perpetuate the same mentality that does.  this is what i mean by  if its actually a problem i want to see the statiscs, the science, etc that allows me to concede that video games need to change.    i feel like this argument is just as valid as video games make people more violent.  is there any actual proof to this or is this all conjecture ? why should i want content from video games to be removed/not even considered due something that is not even proven ?  #  it is so hard for me to justify playing certain games games that i truly love to play when the female representation is so overtly sexist.   #  thank you.  it is so hard for me to justify playing certain games games that i truly love to play when the female representation is so overtly sexist.  mortal kombat is one of my favorite games, but when i pick up kitana my baby i feel kind of degraded that she is dressed the way she is.  i miss her old outfit.  that is why women are hesitant to pick up these games you know ? and often the female characters are so worthless to the plot.  they are for sex, or they need protected, or they are a love interest. i would love to see more samus arans and lara crofts.  and maybe some sexy men too, to balance it out ! again, thank you for your understanding of the topic.   #  some more recent games have been better in this regard than some of the older games, but it is still a strong trend to have men be the characters who act and women be the ones who completely lack agency.   #  and you are not the only one.  this happens from an early age.  here is an example URL of a little girl who was much more interested in playing games when her dad was able to hack the game is rom to swap link and zelda is sprites.  it is little things like this that push girls and women away, and there is no reason things need to be this way.  for example, i do not think anyone was turned off of the cartoon avatar just because it had well written female characters, but as a side effect it has a huge female fan base.  there is no reason we need to always be saving zelda and peach.  some more recent games have been better in this regard than some of the older games, but it is still a strong trend to have men be the characters who act and women be the ones who completely lack agency.
there has been a lot of drama around video games and genders as of late.  something that has been raised time and time again is that video games are sexist and need to be changed, or that the game industry is misogynist.  not that i do not agree with that or agree, have not cared enough to research about it but does that mean that video games need to change ? i am a human being and whenever there is change to any form of media i like and it ends up being bad, i immediately point my finger to the change.  i just ca not accept a change in video games unless it appeases to my conscience.  for example  i do not like that the industry had to change x about video games, but it was hurting y so it had to be done .  i do not see this in regards to gender roles, at all.  the main points i see against people being against change are usually things like;  its clear a lot of people do not like how sexist/misogynistic video games are.    we do not try to change your romance novels, so why do you try to change our video games ?    they are sexist and they need to change.    i like my video games just how they are, there is no reason to change them !    do you have a good reason why it should not be changed ?    .  just do not mess with my video games, ok ?    .   thats the kind of stuff that i have seen and to some degree, it makes sense.  though i really do not see why they need to be changed.  i mean yes, a lot of people do not like how they currently are.  a lot of people do though and those are the people who are giving the people the money for their games.  i understand that women do play games but it used to be a male dominated pass time up until recently.  to change something just because you do not like it just does not sit well with me.  if its actually a problem i want to see the statiscs, the science, etc that allows me to concede that video games need to change.  tl;dr was not that long, should just read it anyways : video games do not need to change just because they are sexist and people do not like it.   #  if its actually a problem i want to see the statiscs, the science, etc that allows me to concede that video games need to change.   #  i do not even understand what statistics you want to see.   # if you believe that the games industry has sexist tendencies, and you agree that sexism is bad, then it should follow that you would want the games industry to get rid of that sexism.  so yes, if video games are sexist, they should change.  that said, this does not mean that every single game needs to have completely equal representation.  part of the problem is that even if an individual game is not overtly sexist, it is part of a larger trend that excludes women.  if we get rid of sexism, then we will see more good representations of women.  not every woman needs to be interesting, but there is definitely a disparity there.  maybe romance novels are sexist.  i do not care.  that is not my area of interest.  if they are, then it is up to the community of romance novel readers and writers to fix their situation.  i am a game player and a game programmer, so i care about making games better.  to change something just because you do not like it just does not sit well with me.  there is lots of vocal criticism precisely because women want to play but feel driven away and disrespected.  if you pressure all the women to leave, then they have every right to be upset with how they have been treated.  i do not even understand what statistics you want to see.  this is an issue of empathy and understanding more than some scientific proof that we need to formulate.   #  your entire cmv is based around one potential outcome when in reality there are three potential outcomes if we changed video games to not be sexist: they would get better, they would get worse, or they would stay the same.   #  so first, is your premise that video games should not be changed because they might end up not as good as they are now, and then the change would be to blame ? what if they end up  better  ? that  is  a possibility.  your entire cmv is based around one potential outcome when in reality there are three potential outcomes if we changed video games to not be sexist: they would get better, they would get worse, or they would stay the same.  your e suggesting we do not dare change them based on a 0 chance they would get worse ? moreover, it is less than a 0 chance that they would get worse.  0 would be if all three potential outcomes had the same probability, but that is not reality.  video games have continued to get better and better, and diversity brings new ideas and spurs creativity, and as women make the video game industry more diverse and less sexist, we should assume that it will get  better , not worse.  look at all the other industries that women have joined and pushed back against sexism in none of them have become  worse.  movies and books and artwork that are not sexist are not worse than those that are.  in fact, most people agree that sexist work is generally worse than non sexist work.  so we can assume making video games less sexist will improve them, not hurt them.  finally, let is weigh the pros and cons.  the pros of sexist video games is that some people, mostly boys and men, find them entertaining.  the cons are that it perpetuates sexism which oppresses and disadvantages roughly half the population of mankind, creating economic and political and humanitarian problems.  video games themselves do not create all this they just perpetuate the same mentality that does.  the pros of changing video games to not be sexist is that they will no longer perpetuate this mentality, and they will be more inclusive to girls and women, and this will likely spur more creativity and improvements to the industry and the games.  the cons are that that there is the slight possibility that games might get worse, but mostly that would only be in the opinion in men who do not fully view women as equal to themselves.  overall it seems much more important to protect half the population than to protect the video game preferences of a handful of dudes.   #  this is what i mean by  if its actually a problem i want to see the statiscs, the science, etc that allows me to concede that video games need to change.     #  i am not saying that overall games will get worse.  i am saying for the games that are not as good as they were hyped up to be and its revealed that they scrapped some things to make sure the game was not sexist.  in reality that may not have played a part in the game being not what it was hyped up to be but it wo not stop me from thinking that it was.  maybe the parts that people find sexist in games are what allow me to enjoy it, even if i do not particularly play/experience that part but just the option of it being there enhances my experience playing it.  should my experience be lowered so that the game is more appealing to women ? i do not think so, but at the same time i do not think they should not be able to experience a game just because i want my experience to be enhanced a little.  adding gameplay onto a game to allow the game to be playable for women is fine with me as long as the original game can be played.  the cons are that it perpetuates sexism which oppresses and disadvantages roughly half the population of mankind, creating economic and political and humanitarian problems.  video games themselves do not create all this they just perpetuate the same mentality that does.  this is what i mean by  if its actually a problem i want to see the statiscs, the science, etc that allows me to concede that video games need to change.    i feel like this argument is just as valid as video games make people more violent.  is there any actual proof to this or is this all conjecture ? why should i want content from video games to be removed/not even considered due something that is not even proven ?  #  and maybe some sexy men too, to balance it out !  #  thank you.  it is so hard for me to justify playing certain games games that i truly love to play when the female representation is so overtly sexist.  mortal kombat is one of my favorite games, but when i pick up kitana my baby i feel kind of degraded that she is dressed the way she is.  i miss her old outfit.  that is why women are hesitant to pick up these games you know ? and often the female characters are so worthless to the plot.  they are for sex, or they need protected, or they are a love interest. i would love to see more samus arans and lara crofts.  and maybe some sexy men too, to balance it out ! again, thank you for your understanding of the topic.   #  there is no reason we need to always be saving zelda and peach.   #  and you are not the only one.  this happens from an early age.  here is an example URL of a little girl who was much more interested in playing games when her dad was able to hack the game is rom to swap link and zelda is sprites.  it is little things like this that push girls and women away, and there is no reason things need to be this way.  for example, i do not think anyone was turned off of the cartoon avatar just because it had well written female characters, but as a side effect it has a huge female fan base.  there is no reason we need to always be saving zelda and peach.  some more recent games have been better in this regard than some of the older games, but it is still a strong trend to have men be the characters who act and women be the ones who completely lack agency.
i am 0 0  and somewhat wide bodied.  i do not often fly domestically more international but when i do fly usa to asia it is hell.  when i fly, the second we leave the ground, the asshole in front of me reclines.  i have long legs and bad knees.  usually, the bad knees thing just forced me to put my feet under their seat and lock them straight anyway; but even still, their reclining kills any personal space i have to read, use my laptop, whatever.  also, i usually travel with kids.  i do  everything  i can to control them and make my neighbors comfortable.  in fact, i have only ever been glared at once with my kids and that was when one of them was an infant like less than a month old and we flew to asia.  she cried for about 0 minutes once and i got a few glares that was it.  anyway.  so now, to protect my space i always put my hands on the seatback of the person in front of me when they are about to recline.   always.   i am sorry, but i just do not leave that choice.  their reclining is  extremely  uncomfortable for me and i do not feel that i should have to spend $0,0 on an airline ticket to have no personal bubble for 0 hours.  not happening.  and fwiw, not reclining is far less uncomfortable than having someone recline into you.  so again, when they start to recline or assume that position.  i block them.  i put my hands on the seat back and do not let them move it back.  i forcibly present it from moving.  no one usually realizes it though maybe a few do.  and my friends who i have told have laughed, but some have called it a dick move.  i do not think it is.  change my view.  i should have clarified.   i do not take their recline for the whole flight .  just for the ascent, the first part of cruise, and then the landing.  you would be surprised at how many assholes still recline during meals.   when it is time for lights out on the 0 hour flight  usually after about 0 hours  i let them recline .  because i am gonna sleep too.  and i make sure the person behind me is reclined before i do my reclining.  so, essentially i only prevent their reclining for 0 of the 0 hours.  the other 0 is theirs to enjoy.   #  i am 0 0  and somewhat wide bodied.   #  i do not often fly domestically more international but when i do fly usa to asia it is hell.   # i do not often fly domestically more international but when i do fly usa to asia it is hell.  tall men have many advantages in life.  these include being considered more attractive by the vast majority of women and having statistically much higher pay than short men.  so how about just suffering through this one area where we short guys have the advantage ? not happening.  and fwiw, not reclining is far less uncomfortable than having someone recline into you.  that is your opinion.  i did not pay 0 to not recline my seat.  it is not up to you to decide my comfort level.   #  if you did this to me, i would view  you  as the asshole and force my seat back anyway.   # i block them.  i put my hands on the seat back and do not let them move it back.  i forcibly present it from moving.  no one usually realizes it though maybe a few do.  is this a good behavior ? i am 0 0  and  must  recline to avoid bruises on my knees.  if you did this to me, i would view  you  as the asshole and force my seat back anyway.  if you continued to fight back, i would get a flight attendant involved.  the space that the seat is capable of occupying is what i paid for with the ticket.  you have no standing to deny me of this.   #  you have no standing to deny me of this.   # you have no standing to deny me of this.  i am not sure it actually says this anywhere on the ticket or on any sales form.  you ca not just decide what you did or did not pay for, it is a contract between you and the airline.  i am 0 0  and just while sitting normally my knees are easily in the space that the seat in front of me is capable of occupying ? by your reasoning, i am infringing on the person in front of me simply by sitting normally or even pressing back in my seat.  as an aside, i have been on planes where my seat would not recline because it was broken.  am i entitled to a even partial refund ? the airline did not think so.  would i be in the right if i sued them ? also, i have been on a plane where nobody was sitting behind me, so i reclined the seat as far as it would go, and it went to where i was nearly horizontal, it only stopped when the back of my seat touched the seat of the one behind me.  by your  the space that the seat is capable of occupying is what i paid for , people are entitled to recline, and simply existing in the seat behind is an infrigement on the recliners space.   #  it is common knowledge that all seats recline, but take a close look at my example.  one of the amenities for businesselite is that the seat reclines  all the way .   # you ca not just decide what you did or did not pay for, it is a contract between you and the airline.  seat pitch  is the space between seats.  that is the legroom you are paying for.  it is common knowledge that all seats recline, but take a close look at my example.  one of the amenities for businesselite is that the seat reclines  all the way .  what does this mean ? businesselite members are specifically paying for the recline of their seat which is accommodated by the stated  seat pitch .  so yes, you are paying for the reclining ability of a seat.  am i entitled to a even partial refund ? the airline did not think so.  would i be in the right if i sued them ? while you do pay for a seat that can recline, they probably have some legalese to cover themselves.  this is similar to booking a stay at a hotel with a pool only to find the pool is closed for repair.  okay, i would like to revise my statement to not include broken seats.  you are wrong to inconvenience others by using the seat beyond it is intended capability.   #  you could also completely destroy the seat and scatter the pieces across the entire plane, but that is a silly scenario.   # if the seat is designed to recline to a certain angle, then reclining to that angle is the intended operation.  i thought it would be assumed that broken seats did not count.  you could also completely destroy the seat and scatter the pieces across the entire plane, but that is a silly scenario.  the op was not talking about broken seats, or seats that recline in an unsafe way.  the op has a problem with the standard seats that tilt back a few degrees.  i brought up the point of the stated legroom on a particular plane, and i am only talking about seats that stay within the limit of that stated legroom; that is the context for this conversation.  if you pay for a ticket with a certain seat pitch, you are entitled to only that seat pitch.  if you get a seat that tilts back beyond what is described for the plane, i would agree that you ought not take advantage of it at the expense of another passenger.
i do not believe having a non traditional sexual orientation is morally wrong, but i take issue with the idea that non traditional orientations are decided exclusivly by biology in 0 of cases, as is commonly claimed today.  i believe the culture in which a person lives can influence at least some people to be gay/bi/pedofilic.  i have two general reasons for this belief.  first, i have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight.  i feel like as homosexuality becomes more widespread and accepted many nominally straight kids might be attracted to it as the  new thing  or just grow up in that environment and think of themselves as gay.  my second, and for me, much more important reason, is that historical fact that certain societies had much higher rates of homosexuality/pedofilia than we have today, an example of this being ancient greece.  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ? cmv  #  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ?  #  in a society that condones homosexuality, you will have higher rates of homosexuality because less people will hide it.   # this does not support your view.  this is an example of someone is environment influencing their sexual orientation,  and then that person realizing they were wrong.  i believe that someone is environment can trick a young person, but eventually they will realize what they are actually sexually attracted to, which is very very different.  if you could somehow prove that a person is permanent sexual orientation was influenced by their environment, you would have an argument.  in a society that condones homosexuality, you will have higher rates of homosexuality because less people will hide it.  and vice versa.   #  having sex with an adolescent boy was perfectly fine, but being gay ?  #  as /u/dhckris pointed out, the homosexuality in ancient greece was not really viewed as homosexuality.  it was sex, and it did not matter what gender someone was as long as you could fit a penis somewhere inside of them.  much of the gay sex that was going on was not part of a gay relationship.  it was an adult male and a young male, and often times these adult men would also have wives.  they were straight, they just had sex with boys.  in fact, if two adult men were in a relationship, they would be stoned.  having sex with an adolescent boy was perfectly fine, but being gay ? death penalty.   #  they were not objects of affection and a relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy was frowned upon.   #  no, it means ancient greece had a very different idea of what sexuality meant than we do.  having sex with an adolescent boy did not make you gay, because an adolescent boy was not a man.  they had not fought, they had not endured the hardships of adulthood, or anything else that  makes a man , so it was not gay in their eyes.  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.  as far as sex went, an adolescent boy was a penis receptacle.  nothing more, nothing less.  they were not objects of affection and a relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy was frowned upon.   #  i am going to ignore the first paragraph here, as it is not accurately addressing anything i said.   # at no point did i even come close to saying this, nor do i know how you came to that conclusion.  i am going to ignore the first paragraph here, as it is not accurately addressing anything i said.  if it were, identical twins would both be gay or both not be gay, and that is not the case.  it is a complex issue.  using the word biology is inaccurate, and i used it solely to avoid a discussion of semantics.  more accurately, being gay is a question of neurology, and while twins may have similar genetics, they rarely have identical interests and tastes.  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  #  but that says almost nothing the debate here is whether or not sexual orientation is predetermined, or whether culture can affect it.   #  ok, if you prefer to ignore the first issue, no need to explain why i understood it from what you wrote.  yes, of course being gay or religious or liking chocolate, or anything really, is a matter of neurology.  and neurology is determined by both biology and culture.  but that says almost nothing the debate here is whether or not sexual orientation is predetermined, or whether culture can affect it.  that is the title of this cmv.  it is not about what determines it now, it is whether it is  pre determined.  the evidence shows that being gay or religious or liking chocolate is not completely predetermined, at least not by genetics, as twin studies show.  do you think something else predetermines it ? if not, then culture can play a role, as op believes, which i think is the case.
i do not believe having a non traditional sexual orientation is morally wrong, but i take issue with the idea that non traditional orientations are decided exclusivly by biology in 0 of cases, as is commonly claimed today.  i believe the culture in which a person lives can influence at least some people to be gay/bi/pedofilic.  i have two general reasons for this belief.  first, i have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight.  i feel like as homosexuality becomes more widespread and accepted many nominally straight kids might be attracted to it as the  new thing  or just grow up in that environment and think of themselves as gay.  my second, and for me, much more important reason, is that historical fact that certain societies had much higher rates of homosexuality/pedofilia than we have today, an example of this being ancient greece.  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ? cmv  #  i believe the culture in which a person lives can influence at least some people to be gay/bi/pedofilic.   #  what some practices vs what someone feels can be two very different things.   # what some practices vs what someone feels can be two very different things.  you mention that it was common in ancient greece for someone to be gay, this does not mean that everyone that had sex with a member of the same sex had the same level of enjoyment or that they wanted to do it.  the same can be said for america in the 0 is.  rock hudson URL was a leading man in hollywood and if his homosexuality had been exposed his career would have ended.  he married a woman to keep the secret despite the fact that he was out in certain circles.  my point is that people is actions do not necessarily show what is in their heart.  they may feel one way and act another.  my second point is on biology.  this article URL explains it better than i could but basically a gay man is brain and a straight woman is brain have a lot of similarities.  so to do straight men is brains and lesbian women is brains.   #  as /u/dhckris pointed out, the homosexuality in ancient greece was not really viewed as homosexuality.   #  as /u/dhckris pointed out, the homosexuality in ancient greece was not really viewed as homosexuality.  it was sex, and it did not matter what gender someone was as long as you could fit a penis somewhere inside of them.  much of the gay sex that was going on was not part of a gay relationship.  it was an adult male and a young male, and often times these adult men would also have wives.  they were straight, they just had sex with boys.  in fact, if two adult men were in a relationship, they would be stoned.  having sex with an adolescent boy was perfectly fine, but being gay ? death penalty.   #  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.   #  no, it means ancient greece had a very different idea of what sexuality meant than we do.  having sex with an adolescent boy did not make you gay, because an adolescent boy was not a man.  they had not fought, they had not endured the hardships of adulthood, or anything else that  makes a man , so it was not gay in their eyes.  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.  as far as sex went, an adolescent boy was a penis receptacle.  nothing more, nothing less.  they were not objects of affection and a relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy was frowned upon.   #  using the word biology is inaccurate, and i used it solely to avoid a discussion of semantics.   # at no point did i even come close to saying this, nor do i know how you came to that conclusion.  i am going to ignore the first paragraph here, as it is not accurately addressing anything i said.  if it were, identical twins would both be gay or both not be gay, and that is not the case.  it is a complex issue.  using the word biology is inaccurate, and i used it solely to avoid a discussion of semantics.  more accurately, being gay is a question of neurology, and while twins may have similar genetics, they rarely have identical interests and tastes.  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  #  yes, of course being gay or religious or liking chocolate, or anything really, is a matter of neurology.   #  ok, if you prefer to ignore the first issue, no need to explain why i understood it from what you wrote.  yes, of course being gay or religious or liking chocolate, or anything really, is a matter of neurology.  and neurology is determined by both biology and culture.  but that says almost nothing the debate here is whether or not sexual orientation is predetermined, or whether culture can affect it.  that is the title of this cmv.  it is not about what determines it now, it is whether it is  pre determined.  the evidence shows that being gay or religious or liking chocolate is not completely predetermined, at least not by genetics, as twin studies show.  do you think something else predetermines it ? if not, then culture can play a role, as op believes, which i think is the case.
i do not believe having a non traditional sexual orientation is morally wrong, but i take issue with the idea that non traditional orientations are decided exclusivly by biology in 0 of cases, as is commonly claimed today.  i believe the culture in which a person lives can influence at least some people to be gay/bi/pedofilic.  i have two general reasons for this belief.  first, i have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight.  i feel like as homosexuality becomes more widespread and accepted many nominally straight kids might be attracted to it as the  new thing  or just grow up in that environment and think of themselves as gay.  my second, and for me, much more important reason, is that historical fact that certain societies had much higher rates of homosexuality/pedofilia than we have today, an example of this being ancient greece.  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ? cmv  #  i have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight.   #  kind of like people who grow up in a straight culture/religious bubble, only to realize much later they were gay ?  # 0 ? who on earth is really claiming that ? homosexuality is generally considered by many to be a born trait, but i have never met anyone in denial that there is such a thing as experimentation or sexual confusion.  however, sexuality is a very personal thing, and it is not the prerogative of another to scrutinize such traits.  it is kind of like depression or suicidal tendencies.  most people probably genuinely ca not control such emotions, though it is naive to deny that there are  some  out there who are just acting out for the attention. regardless, it is unwise and in poor taste to disregard depression and best to take it seriously when encountered.  kind of like people who grow up in a straight culture/religious bubble, only to realize much later they were gay ? or  never really come to terms with it and live a confused and depressed life ? such anecdotal evidence just supports what common sense should already tell us. that some people are born straight, some are born gay, and environmental factors can influence how such sexuality comes to express itself or gets confused. sometimes this influence can be great and sometimes it can be negligible.  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ? and how do you know innate homosexuality was actually more widespread ? who is to say rates of things like homosexuality/pedophilia are not consistent across societies, but some societies simply repress such lifestyles more than others ? the only  fact  in your historical example is that such acts were deemed more culturally acceptable, and so more people were free to act on their desires.  our culture has a history of social/religious stigmas surrounding homosexuality, legal restrictions, threats of violence, controversial  conversion therapies . lots of reasons for one to keep their desires closeted that did not quite exist in ancient greece.  you do not think there is quite a few folk keeping their homosexuality a secret in iran ? same with pedophilia. you do not think a fear of being greeted by chris hansen does not prevent quite a few folk from acting on their urges as much as they would in ancient greece ? sexuality is a very personal part of our being, deeply ingrained in our most basic animalistic instincts.  most of us do not need culture to tell us what we want once puberty sets in. we just know.  likewise, homosexuality is also observed throughout the animal kingdom.  it seems really misguided to think that nature is not the primary driver behind such desires.  even if common sense tells us there are  some  out there who are  confused  or  experimenting  or  seeking attention , how often are we really in a position to ever pass such a judgement ? acknowledging that  some  sexual behavior may have environmental influences does not really change the notion that, practically speaking, the sexual orientation of another should at least be  regarded  as intrinsic.   #  they were straight, they just had sex with boys.   #  as /u/dhckris pointed out, the homosexuality in ancient greece was not really viewed as homosexuality.  it was sex, and it did not matter what gender someone was as long as you could fit a penis somewhere inside of them.  much of the gay sex that was going on was not part of a gay relationship.  it was an adult male and a young male, and often times these adult men would also have wives.  they were straight, they just had sex with boys.  in fact, if two adult men were in a relationship, they would be stoned.  having sex with an adolescent boy was perfectly fine, but being gay ? death penalty.   #  having sex with an adolescent boy did not make you gay, because an adolescent boy was not a man.   #  no, it means ancient greece had a very different idea of what sexuality meant than we do.  having sex with an adolescent boy did not make you gay, because an adolescent boy was not a man.  they had not fought, they had not endured the hardships of adulthood, or anything else that  makes a man , so it was not gay in their eyes.  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.  as far as sex went, an adolescent boy was a penis receptacle.  nothing more, nothing less.  they were not objects of affection and a relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy was frowned upon.   #  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  # at no point did i even come close to saying this, nor do i know how you came to that conclusion.  i am going to ignore the first paragraph here, as it is not accurately addressing anything i said.  if it were, identical twins would both be gay or both not be gay, and that is not the case.  it is a complex issue.  using the word biology is inaccurate, and i used it solely to avoid a discussion of semantics.  more accurately, being gay is a question of neurology, and while twins may have similar genetics, they rarely have identical interests and tastes.  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  #  yes, of course being gay or religious or liking chocolate, or anything really, is a matter of neurology.   #  ok, if you prefer to ignore the first issue, no need to explain why i understood it from what you wrote.  yes, of course being gay or religious or liking chocolate, or anything really, is a matter of neurology.  and neurology is determined by both biology and culture.  but that says almost nothing the debate here is whether or not sexual orientation is predetermined, or whether culture can affect it.  that is the title of this cmv.  it is not about what determines it now, it is whether it is  pre determined.  the evidence shows that being gay or religious or liking chocolate is not completely predetermined, at least not by genetics, as twin studies show.  do you think something else predetermines it ? if not, then culture can play a role, as op believes, which i think is the case.
i do not believe having a non traditional sexual orientation is morally wrong, but i take issue with the idea that non traditional orientations are decided exclusivly by biology in 0 of cases, as is commonly claimed today.  i believe the culture in which a person lives can influence at least some people to be gay/bi/pedofilic.  i have two general reasons for this belief.  first, i have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight.  i feel like as homosexuality becomes more widespread and accepted many nominally straight kids might be attracted to it as the  new thing  or just grow up in that environment and think of themselves as gay.  my second, and for me, much more important reason, is that historical fact that certain societies had much higher rates of homosexuality/pedofilia than we have today, an example of this being ancient greece.  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ? cmv  #  historical fact that certain societies had much higher rates of homosexuality/pedofilia than we have today, an example of this being ancient greece.   #  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ?  # 0 ? who on earth is really claiming that ? homosexuality is generally considered by many to be a born trait, but i have never met anyone in denial that there is such a thing as experimentation or sexual confusion.  however, sexuality is a very personal thing, and it is not the prerogative of another to scrutinize such traits.  it is kind of like depression or suicidal tendencies.  most people probably genuinely ca not control such emotions, though it is naive to deny that there are  some  out there who are just acting out for the attention. regardless, it is unwise and in poor taste to disregard depression and best to take it seriously when encountered.  kind of like people who grow up in a straight culture/religious bubble, only to realize much later they were gay ? or  never really come to terms with it and live a confused and depressed life ? such anecdotal evidence just supports what common sense should already tell us. that some people are born straight, some are born gay, and environmental factors can influence how such sexuality comes to express itself or gets confused. sometimes this influence can be great and sometimes it can be negligible.  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ? and how do you know innate homosexuality was actually more widespread ? who is to say rates of things like homosexuality/pedophilia are not consistent across societies, but some societies simply repress such lifestyles more than others ? the only  fact  in your historical example is that such acts were deemed more culturally acceptable, and so more people were free to act on their desires.  our culture has a history of social/religious stigmas surrounding homosexuality, legal restrictions, threats of violence, controversial  conversion therapies . lots of reasons for one to keep their desires closeted that did not quite exist in ancient greece.  you do not think there is quite a few folk keeping their homosexuality a secret in iran ? same with pedophilia. you do not think a fear of being greeted by chris hansen does not prevent quite a few folk from acting on their urges as much as they would in ancient greece ? sexuality is a very personal part of our being, deeply ingrained in our most basic animalistic instincts.  most of us do not need culture to tell us what we want once puberty sets in. we just know.  likewise, homosexuality is also observed throughout the animal kingdom.  it seems really misguided to think that nature is not the primary driver behind such desires.  even if common sense tells us there are  some  out there who are  confused  or  experimenting  or  seeking attention , how often are we really in a position to ever pass such a judgement ? acknowledging that  some  sexual behavior may have environmental influences does not really change the notion that, practically speaking, the sexual orientation of another should at least be  regarded  as intrinsic.   #  as /u/dhckris pointed out, the homosexuality in ancient greece was not really viewed as homosexuality.   #  as /u/dhckris pointed out, the homosexuality in ancient greece was not really viewed as homosexuality.  it was sex, and it did not matter what gender someone was as long as you could fit a penis somewhere inside of them.  much of the gay sex that was going on was not part of a gay relationship.  it was an adult male and a young male, and often times these adult men would also have wives.  they were straight, they just had sex with boys.  in fact, if two adult men were in a relationship, they would be stoned.  having sex with an adolescent boy was perfectly fine, but being gay ? death penalty.   #  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.   #  no, it means ancient greece had a very different idea of what sexuality meant than we do.  having sex with an adolescent boy did not make you gay, because an adolescent boy was not a man.  they had not fought, they had not endured the hardships of adulthood, or anything else that  makes a man , so it was not gay in their eyes.  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.  as far as sex went, an adolescent boy was a penis receptacle.  nothing more, nothing less.  they were not objects of affection and a relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy was frowned upon.   #  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  # at no point did i even come close to saying this, nor do i know how you came to that conclusion.  i am going to ignore the first paragraph here, as it is not accurately addressing anything i said.  if it were, identical twins would both be gay or both not be gay, and that is not the case.  it is a complex issue.  using the word biology is inaccurate, and i used it solely to avoid a discussion of semantics.  more accurately, being gay is a question of neurology, and while twins may have similar genetics, they rarely have identical interests and tastes.  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  #  if not, then culture can play a role, as op believes, which i think is the case.   #  ok, if you prefer to ignore the first issue, no need to explain why i understood it from what you wrote.  yes, of course being gay or religious or liking chocolate, or anything really, is a matter of neurology.  and neurology is determined by both biology and culture.  but that says almost nothing the debate here is whether or not sexual orientation is predetermined, or whether culture can affect it.  that is the title of this cmv.  it is not about what determines it now, it is whether it is  pre determined.  the evidence shows that being gay or religious or liking chocolate is not completely predetermined, at least not by genetics, as twin studies show.  do you think something else predetermines it ? if not, then culture can play a role, as op believes, which i think is the case.
i do not believe having a non traditional sexual orientation is morally wrong, but i take issue with the idea that non traditional orientations are decided exclusivly by biology in 0 of cases, as is commonly claimed today.  i believe the culture in which a person lives can influence at least some people to be gay/bi/pedofilic.  i have two general reasons for this belief.  first, i have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight.  i feel like as homosexuality becomes more widespread and accepted many nominally straight kids might be attracted to it as the  new thing  or just grow up in that environment and think of themselves as gay.  my second, and for me, much more important reason, is that historical fact that certain societies had much higher rates of homosexuality/pedofilia than we have today, an example of this being ancient greece.  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ? cmv  #  first, i have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight.   #  what about a person who grew up in a predominantly straight environment and realized they are gay ?  # what about a person who grew up in a predominantly straight environment and realized they are gay ? a lot of gay people try to live a straight life before finally accepting that they are gay.  often it is because they feel unable to come out due the belief systems of people around them.  and if your argument is correct, would not an all straight environment influence someone early on to not be gay ? many gay people say they knew very young that they were different.   #  in fact, if two adult men were in a relationship, they would be stoned.   #  as /u/dhckris pointed out, the homosexuality in ancient greece was not really viewed as homosexuality.  it was sex, and it did not matter what gender someone was as long as you could fit a penis somewhere inside of them.  much of the gay sex that was going on was not part of a gay relationship.  it was an adult male and a young male, and often times these adult men would also have wives.  they were straight, they just had sex with boys.  in fact, if two adult men were in a relationship, they would be stoned.  having sex with an adolescent boy was perfectly fine, but being gay ? death penalty.   #  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.   #  no, it means ancient greece had a very different idea of what sexuality meant than we do.  having sex with an adolescent boy did not make you gay, because an adolescent boy was not a man.  they had not fought, they had not endured the hardships of adulthood, or anything else that  makes a man , so it was not gay in their eyes.  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.  as far as sex went, an adolescent boy was a penis receptacle.  nothing more, nothing less.  they were not objects of affection and a relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy was frowned upon.   #  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  # at no point did i even come close to saying this, nor do i know how you came to that conclusion.  i am going to ignore the first paragraph here, as it is not accurately addressing anything i said.  if it were, identical twins would both be gay or both not be gay, and that is not the case.  it is a complex issue.  using the word biology is inaccurate, and i used it solely to avoid a discussion of semantics.  more accurately, being gay is a question of neurology, and while twins may have similar genetics, they rarely have identical interests and tastes.  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  #  it is not about what determines it now, it is whether it is  pre determined.   #  ok, if you prefer to ignore the first issue, no need to explain why i understood it from what you wrote.  yes, of course being gay or religious or liking chocolate, or anything really, is a matter of neurology.  and neurology is determined by both biology and culture.  but that says almost nothing the debate here is whether or not sexual orientation is predetermined, or whether culture can affect it.  that is the title of this cmv.  it is not about what determines it now, it is whether it is  pre determined.  the evidence shows that being gay or religious or liking chocolate is not completely predetermined, at least not by genetics, as twin studies show.  do you think something else predetermines it ? if not, then culture can play a role, as op believes, which i think is the case.
i do not believe having a non traditional sexual orientation is morally wrong, but i take issue with the idea that non traditional orientations are decided exclusivly by biology in 0 of cases, as is commonly claimed today.  i believe the culture in which a person lives can influence at least some people to be gay/bi/pedofilic.  i have two general reasons for this belief.  first, i have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight.  i feel like as homosexuality becomes more widespread and accepted many nominally straight kids might be attracted to it as the  new thing  or just grow up in that environment and think of themselves as gay.  my second, and for me, much more important reason, is that historical fact that certain societies had much higher rates of homosexuality/pedofilia than we have today, an example of this being ancient greece.  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ? cmv  #  first, i have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight.   #  this sounds like a talking point for people against gay marriage.   # this sounds like a talking point for people against gay marriage.  homosexuality is not contagious.  since the vast majority of homosexuals had straight parents, this does not seem likely.  homosexuality exists across a wide variety of  species .  do you suppose fruit flies are also exposed to gay culture ? if you believe homosexuality to be inherited somehow, then it still leaves room for variation.  across different races of people, there are different risks for inherited diseases.  for example, sickle cell anemia occurs in 0 in 0 african american births, and 0 in 0,0 hispanic american births.   #  as /u/dhckris pointed out, the homosexuality in ancient greece was not really viewed as homosexuality.   #  as /u/dhckris pointed out, the homosexuality in ancient greece was not really viewed as homosexuality.  it was sex, and it did not matter what gender someone was as long as you could fit a penis somewhere inside of them.  much of the gay sex that was going on was not part of a gay relationship.  it was an adult male and a young male, and often times these adult men would also have wives.  they were straight, they just had sex with boys.  in fact, if two adult men were in a relationship, they would be stoned.  having sex with an adolescent boy was perfectly fine, but being gay ? death penalty.   #  as far as sex went, an adolescent boy was a penis receptacle.   #  no, it means ancient greece had a very different idea of what sexuality meant than we do.  having sex with an adolescent boy did not make you gay, because an adolescent boy was not a man.  they had not fought, they had not endured the hardships of adulthood, or anything else that  makes a man , so it was not gay in their eyes.  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.  as far as sex went, an adolescent boy was a penis receptacle.  nothing more, nothing less.  they were not objects of affection and a relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy was frowned upon.   #  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  # at no point did i even come close to saying this, nor do i know how you came to that conclusion.  i am going to ignore the first paragraph here, as it is not accurately addressing anything i said.  if it were, identical twins would both be gay or both not be gay, and that is not the case.  it is a complex issue.  using the word biology is inaccurate, and i used it solely to avoid a discussion of semantics.  more accurately, being gay is a question of neurology, and while twins may have similar genetics, they rarely have identical interests and tastes.  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  #  it is not about what determines it now, it is whether it is  pre determined.   #  ok, if you prefer to ignore the first issue, no need to explain why i understood it from what you wrote.  yes, of course being gay or religious or liking chocolate, or anything really, is a matter of neurology.  and neurology is determined by both biology and culture.  but that says almost nothing the debate here is whether or not sexual orientation is predetermined, or whether culture can affect it.  that is the title of this cmv.  it is not about what determines it now, it is whether it is  pre determined.  the evidence shows that being gay or religious or liking chocolate is not completely predetermined, at least not by genetics, as twin studies show.  do you think something else predetermines it ? if not, then culture can play a role, as op believes, which i think is the case.
i do not believe having a non traditional sexual orientation is morally wrong, but i take issue with the idea that non traditional orientations are decided exclusivly by biology in 0 of cases, as is commonly claimed today.  i believe the culture in which a person lives can influence at least some people to be gay/bi/pedofilic.  i have two general reasons for this belief.  first, i have read a few accounts of people in the modern day that grew up in a gay subculture bubbles, lived gay lifestyles for long periods because of this, and the later realized they were straight.  i feel like as homosexuality becomes more widespread and accepted many nominally straight kids might be attracted to it as the  new thing  or just grow up in that environment and think of themselves as gay.  my second, and for me, much more important reason, is that historical fact that certain societies had much higher rates of homosexuality/pedofilia than we have today, an example of this being ancient greece.  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ? cmv  #  if homosexuality or pedofilia is entirely based on biology, should not the rate of homosexuality be consistent with very little variation across all societies ?  #  homosexuality exists across a wide variety of  species .   # this sounds like a talking point for people against gay marriage.  homosexuality is not contagious.  since the vast majority of homosexuals had straight parents, this does not seem likely.  homosexuality exists across a wide variety of  species .  do you suppose fruit flies are also exposed to gay culture ? if you believe homosexuality to be inherited somehow, then it still leaves room for variation.  across different races of people, there are different risks for inherited diseases.  for example, sickle cell anemia occurs in 0 in 0 african american births, and 0 in 0,0 hispanic american births.   #  much of the gay sex that was going on was not part of a gay relationship.   #  as /u/dhckris pointed out, the homosexuality in ancient greece was not really viewed as homosexuality.  it was sex, and it did not matter what gender someone was as long as you could fit a penis somewhere inside of them.  much of the gay sex that was going on was not part of a gay relationship.  it was an adult male and a young male, and often times these adult men would also have wives.  they were straight, they just had sex with boys.  in fact, if two adult men were in a relationship, they would be stoned.  having sex with an adolescent boy was perfectly fine, but being gay ? death penalty.   #  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.   #  no, it means ancient greece had a very different idea of what sexuality meant than we do.  having sex with an adolescent boy did not make you gay, because an adolescent boy was not a man.  they had not fought, they had not endured the hardships of adulthood, or anything else that  makes a man , so it was not gay in their eyes.  having sex with a man was a very bad thing to do, especially if you were the bottom.  as far as sex went, an adolescent boy was a penis receptacle.  nothing more, nothing less.  they were not objects of affection and a relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy was frowned upon.   #  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  # at no point did i even come close to saying this, nor do i know how you came to that conclusion.  i am going to ignore the first paragraph here, as it is not accurately addressing anything i said.  if it were, identical twins would both be gay or both not be gay, and that is not the case.  it is a complex issue.  using the word biology is inaccurate, and i used it solely to avoid a discussion of semantics.  more accurately, being gay is a question of neurology, and while twins may have similar genetics, they rarely have identical interests and tastes.  identical twins do not necessarily share a favorite color, or a favorite food, so why would they have to share a sexual preference ?  #  ok, if you prefer to ignore the first issue, no need to explain why i understood it from what you wrote.   #  ok, if you prefer to ignore the first issue, no need to explain why i understood it from what you wrote.  yes, of course being gay or religious or liking chocolate, or anything really, is a matter of neurology.  and neurology is determined by both biology and culture.  but that says almost nothing the debate here is whether or not sexual orientation is predetermined, or whether culture can affect it.  that is the title of this cmv.  it is not about what determines it now, it is whether it is  pre determined.  the evidence shows that being gay or religious or liking chocolate is not completely predetermined, at least not by genetics, as twin studies show.  do you think something else predetermines it ? if not, then culture can play a role, as op believes, which i think is the case.
simply put, scotland is residents and companies have contributed towards the debt.  they should therefore help pay off the debt.  government debt is literally government expenditure less tax receipts.  it is disingenuous for any scottish person to say  why should we pay off a debt we should not contribute to , any scottish person who has used a road, absorbed photons from a street light etc.  has contributed towards the debt.  furthermore, scottish people actually consume more government spending than in the uk per capita URL and the average scottish person is poorer than the uk average, decreasing tax income.  so it is safe to say that the average scot has contributed more to the current deficit than the average englishmen.  furthermore again, the two largest government bailouts following the 0 financial crisis were for scottish companies rbs and hbos .  an argument i have heard is that if uk are not willing to share the £, then scotland is under no moral obligation to pay back the debts.  this is morally equivalent to a couple with significant shared debt divorcing, and one saying to the other  i will only take on my share of the debt if you give me sole custody of our children .   #  an argument i have heard is that if uk are not willing to share the £, then scotland is under no moral obligation to pay back the debts.   #  this is morally equivalent to a couple with significant shared debt divorcing, and one saying to the other  i will only take on my share of the debt if you give me sole custody of our children .   # this is morally equivalent to a couple with significant shared debt divorcing, and one saying to the other  i will only take on my share of the debt if you give me sole custody of our children .   sole custody of the children  is not a good analogy for sharing the £.  first, it should be  sharing .  second, the £ is a financial asset whereas children are not an asset at all custody should be determined based on what is right for the children and not on the parents  desires .  so a better analogy would be  i will only take on my share of the debt if i get my share of our family business.   if scotland is responsible for its share of the uk is debts, it is also entitled to its share of the uk is assets ranging from the £ to military bases.  the only exception should be nuclear weapons, since the threat of nuclear proliferation is a bigger deal than fairness.   #  re accounting for everything done the 0  years of union is impossible.   #  this quickly devolves into an impossible accounting exercise that just ends up with everyone angry.  how much have those plants provided back in benefit before the separation ? how many assets in scotland have been paid for by taxpayers outside scotland who would now deserve corresponding compensation ? for things on land, the only reasonable way to do it is that scotland gets whatever happens to be in scotland.  re accounting for everything done the 0  years of union is impossible.   #  the boe has important roles in the debt market and in setting interest rates for new issues of uk debt.   #  this URL is the actual legal document which underlies all current issuance of debt by the uk.  it is incredibly boring and i wo not ask you to read it.  but this is the relevant clause for who has the ultimate liability for all debt of the uk.  the boe has important roles in the debt market and in setting interest rates for new issues of uk debt.  but the debt is paid by the national loans fund part of the treasury with recourse to the consolidated fund the principal account of the treasury into which tax receipts go .   #  the bank of scotland bos has many overlapping functions including banknotes and some payments infrastructure.   #  so this gets to issues of how monetary policy works.  the bank of england boe acts as the central bank for £ and provides ongoing services for the maintenance of £.  these include payments infrastructure, printing banknotes, and monetary policy.  the bank of scotland bos has many overlapping functions including banknotes and some payments infrastructure.  but, importantly, bos does  not  set monetary policy.  monetary policy of the boe is set by governor in consultation with the monetary policy committee and can be set or overridden by the treasury.  for scotland to retain the £ one of two things must happen.  scotland could keep the £ and lose all monetary policy influence if scotland is fully independent and no longer has seats in westminster, then it will no longer have any authority or say over the treasury or the governance of the boe.  if the structures are kept as they are, then scotland will have no say in the monetary policy of the £ and would be a vassal state as regards currency.  scotland could keep the £ and form a currency union treaty with the slightly less united kingdom.  this would result in the £ being much more akin to the euro than it is now.  £ would no longer be in the control of a single government, and its governance and policy would have to come from the agreement of multiple sovereign states.  this seems unlikely to be adopted for the same reasons the euro is unlikely to be adopted.  why is monetary policy important ? monetary policy matters a tremendous amount to the economy.  if the economy is booming in the less united kingdom and slouching in scotland, then an independent scotland using the £ without setting policy would see tight money and limited access to credit.  conversely, if scotland were booming while the less united kingdom were slouching, scotland would have loose money and runaway inflation.   #  that said, surely to give up its monetary policy influence deserves some degree of compensation in terms of debt division ?  #  it seems we both think that option 0 losing all monetary influence is probably the best answer.  i actually think the drawbacks are smaller than you do, because i doubt that the economies of scotland and the uk will be doing so differently.  their economies are so intertwined that it seems likely they will undergo boom/stagnation at about the same time.  that said, surely to give up its monetary policy influence deserves some degree of compensation in terms of debt division ? just because a single owner is sometimes more efficient than multiple owners having to agree does not mean an asset goes to one person or the other gratis.  it means that one sells their share to the other.
bit of a skew on the usual cmv, but i am starting to believe this.  a monogamous person, who identified as such stated that,  romantic love is selfish.   the argument was that polyamory, where love is shared, could not be real because true love is selfish.  monogamous love, being selfish and confined to just two, would be the opposite of sharing.  and that, according to the commenter, was the only  real  love.  is this true ? is this how most monogamous people feel ? i hear tons of statements to this effect,  i could never share my partner,   jealousy proves you love someone.   lots of beliefs that involve ownership of the person as well,  that is my guy.   so, /r/cmv, convince me that this is not true of most monogamous people.  convince me that monogamy is about a person wanting love with just one person; and not about controlling or owning them so that no one else can  have  them.  been glancing at responses so far.  while i appreciate and will respond, i have yet to see any that really argue that monogamy is not selfish note, this is not about whether being selfish is  good  or  bad  .  if anything, the argument is that all love is selfish.  hmmmm, so far i am getting,  it is not selfish if it is what we both want.   i am not sure i can agree with that, but it is given me some food for thought.  as some have noted, this is a bit of a reaction of mine to the oh so common,  polyamory is selfish,  line.  rather than try to explain how sharing is not selfish, i think i will just use that.  okay.  wow.  now i am getting arguments justifying why all relationships are legitimate, regardless of the number of people within the relationship.  saying that love is not a finite resource.  saying that you should be able to live in whatever relationship is best for you and your partner.  am i really getting arguments here that are used by the poly community to justify their feelings ?  #  the argument was that polyamory, where love is shared, could not be real because true love is selfish.   #  monogamous love, being selfish and confined to just two, would be the opposite of sharing.   # monogamous love, being selfish and confined to just two, would be the opposite of sharing.  and that, according to the commenter, was the only  real  love.  is this true ? is this how most monogamous people feel ? the answers are no, it is not true, that is one single persons opinion and a poor one at that.  no, that is not how most monogamous people feel.  lots of beliefs that involve ownership of the person as well,  that is my guy.   i have heard those statements too, that does not mean that all monogamous relationships are selfish.  convince me that monogamy is about a person wanting love with just one person; and not about controlling or owning them so that no one else can  have  them.  we have all been trying too by going with our personal experiences, which is literally all anyone has, that you just keep dismissing or arguing against by trying to prove that we are lying.  you are not listening to anyone, or responding when people do give a well reasoned response.  no two relationships are ever the same, what one person considers normal for monogamy, another considers abusive, etc.  you are asking us to make this black and white when there is actually a grey area.   #  in my view monogamous love is the complete opposite of selfish.   #  in my view monogamous love is the complete opposite of selfish.  it is about giving yourself to another person, not just hoarding them.  it is one of the main reasons i do not want an exclusive relationship.  you have obligations to be good for that other person.  you are a team.  can there be teams of 0 or 0 or 0 ? surely.  what makes them better or less selfish than a team of two ? following that why should anyone commit to another person at all in any group ? i know i am leading an argument you did not share, so i will stop and see if this helped your view at all.   #  i think you are missing the fact that people in relationships  choose  to be in them.   #  i would rather discuss it here so others who have similar views can gain more perspective.  what i meant by that statement is that you acknowledge that it is not all about yourself anymore.  the decisions you make with your own life drastically affect the life of another person.  your choices ca not just always be about yourself anymore my perspective not everyone is .  i do not think it exactly applies to polyamory because i used the singular  person , and not the plural  people .  discussing this further would delve into the impracticality of poly amorous relationships.  you are focusing on the hoarding part.  i think you are missing the fact that people in relationships  choose  to be in them.  no one is hoarding anyone.  they can leave if they wish.  they want to be in that relationship.  are you saying they are selfish because they are not giving their love/resources/time to everyone they can ?  #  a monogamous relationship between two mature adults will not form unless both partners desire to only see the other partner, and will be terminated by the partner who no longer desires this as soon as they realize that they do not.   #  it is the norm for younger demographics, which is why most high school romances fall apart very quickly.  the norm shifts towards the more healthy version as you grow up.  a monogamous relationship between two mature adults will not form unless both partners desire to only see the other partner, and will be terminated by the partner who no longer desires this as soon as they realize that they do not.  this becomes less and less rare the older people are, simply because they have had longer to mature so a greater portion of the population have done so.  eventually it becomes the norm.  old people do not bother with any of the games of the young, and yes people still date past the age where they have been shuffled off to a nursing home.   #  and no one else is entitled to his body if he does not want to give it to them.   # many are quite happy knowing that they are stopping their love from being with another.  what if the partner is happy not sharing sex with anyone else but one person ? they are choosing to only be with one person.  no one can force anyone to be monogamous.  for example, i am in a monogamous relationship.  my boyfriend is not interested in sleeping around or  sharing  love.  and no one else is entitled to his body if he does not want to give it to them.  he is choosing to only be with me and to only have sex with me because he wants to.  not because i am  forcing  him.  if he really wants to sleep around he is free to leave, but he does not.  or do you think you have the right to anyone is body just because you want them ? that is pretty selfish of you.
bit of a skew on the usual cmv, but i am starting to believe this.  a monogamous person, who identified as such stated that,  romantic love is selfish.   the argument was that polyamory, where love is shared, could not be real because true love is selfish.  monogamous love, being selfish and confined to just two, would be the opposite of sharing.  and that, according to the commenter, was the only  real  love.  is this true ? is this how most monogamous people feel ? i hear tons of statements to this effect,  i could never share my partner,   jealousy proves you love someone.   lots of beliefs that involve ownership of the person as well,  that is my guy.   so, /r/cmv, convince me that this is not true of most monogamous people.  convince me that monogamy is about a person wanting love with just one person; and not about controlling or owning them so that no one else can  have  them.  been glancing at responses so far.  while i appreciate and will respond, i have yet to see any that really argue that monogamy is not selfish note, this is not about whether being selfish is  good  or  bad  .  if anything, the argument is that all love is selfish.  hmmmm, so far i am getting,  it is not selfish if it is what we both want.   i am not sure i can agree with that, but it is given me some food for thought.  as some have noted, this is a bit of a reaction of mine to the oh so common,  polyamory is selfish,  line.  rather than try to explain how sharing is not selfish, i think i will just use that.  okay.  wow.  now i am getting arguments justifying why all relationships are legitimate, regardless of the number of people within the relationship.  saying that love is not a finite resource.  saying that you should be able to live in whatever relationship is best for you and your partner.  am i really getting arguments here that are used by the poly community to justify their feelings ?  #  i hear tons of statements to this effect,  i could never share my partner,   jealousy proves you love someone.    #  lots of beliefs that involve ownership of the person as well,  that is my guy.    # monogamous love, being selfish and confined to just two, would be the opposite of sharing.  and that, according to the commenter, was the only  real  love.  is this true ? is this how most monogamous people feel ? the answers are no, it is not true, that is one single persons opinion and a poor one at that.  no, that is not how most monogamous people feel.  lots of beliefs that involve ownership of the person as well,  that is my guy.   i have heard those statements too, that does not mean that all monogamous relationships are selfish.  convince me that monogamy is about a person wanting love with just one person; and not about controlling or owning them so that no one else can  have  them.  we have all been trying too by going with our personal experiences, which is literally all anyone has, that you just keep dismissing or arguing against by trying to prove that we are lying.  you are not listening to anyone, or responding when people do give a well reasoned response.  no two relationships are ever the same, what one person considers normal for monogamy, another considers abusive, etc.  you are asking us to make this black and white when there is actually a grey area.   #  it is about giving yourself to another person, not just hoarding them.   #  in my view monogamous love is the complete opposite of selfish.  it is about giving yourself to another person, not just hoarding them.  it is one of the main reasons i do not want an exclusive relationship.  you have obligations to be good for that other person.  you are a team.  can there be teams of 0 or 0 or 0 ? surely.  what makes them better or less selfish than a team of two ? following that why should anyone commit to another person at all in any group ? i know i am leading an argument you did not share, so i will stop and see if this helped your view at all.   #  your choices ca not just always be about yourself anymore my perspective not everyone is .   #  i would rather discuss it here so others who have similar views can gain more perspective.  what i meant by that statement is that you acknowledge that it is not all about yourself anymore.  the decisions you make with your own life drastically affect the life of another person.  your choices ca not just always be about yourself anymore my perspective not everyone is .  i do not think it exactly applies to polyamory because i used the singular  person , and not the plural  people .  discussing this further would delve into the impracticality of poly amorous relationships.  you are focusing on the hoarding part.  i think you are missing the fact that people in relationships  choose  to be in them.  no one is hoarding anyone.  they can leave if they wish.  they want to be in that relationship.  are you saying they are selfish because they are not giving their love/resources/time to everyone they can ?  #  it is the norm for younger demographics, which is why most high school romances fall apart very quickly.   #  it is the norm for younger demographics, which is why most high school romances fall apart very quickly.  the norm shifts towards the more healthy version as you grow up.  a monogamous relationship between two mature adults will not form unless both partners desire to only see the other partner, and will be terminated by the partner who no longer desires this as soon as they realize that they do not.  this becomes less and less rare the older people are, simply because they have had longer to mature so a greater portion of the population have done so.  eventually it becomes the norm.  old people do not bother with any of the games of the young, and yes people still date past the age where they have been shuffled off to a nursing home.   #  my boyfriend is not interested in sleeping around or  sharing  love.   # many are quite happy knowing that they are stopping their love from being with another.  what if the partner is happy not sharing sex with anyone else but one person ? they are choosing to only be with one person.  no one can force anyone to be monogamous.  for example, i am in a monogamous relationship.  my boyfriend is not interested in sleeping around or  sharing  love.  and no one else is entitled to his body if he does not want to give it to them.  he is choosing to only be with me and to only have sex with me because he wants to.  not because i am  forcing  him.  if he really wants to sleep around he is free to leave, but he does not.  or do you think you have the right to anyone is body just because you want them ? that is pretty selfish of you.
i absolutely hate cats.  they can be obnoxious, entitled balls of fur that everyone seems to love.  cats will run into neighbor is yards if you let them and piss and shit everywhere.  i hate their annoying meow that i have to hear every night.  cats feel no empathy, remorse or respect towards humans.  people have left cats at their cats with a pet sitter for two weeks and the cat did not even care who was their as long as it is fed.  dogs will mourn you for the rest of it is life if you die, cats will eat your body before it is even cold it is true look it up .  when they rub up against you they are saying  i own you bitch, now feed me.    #  people have left cats at their cats with a pet sitter for two weeks and the cat did not even care who was their as long as it is fed.   #  same goes for a lot of dogs, your point being ?  # this is more a reflection on the individual dog than on dogs as a species.  same with cats.  with a cat you just scoop up poop and toss it, with a dog you have to grab it with your hand and all.  again this is no reflection on dogs as a species, but your point on cats being dirty does not really hold up.  there was a stray cat i knew that used to cuddle up to me and would follow me around meowing whenever i moved around.  affectionate little bastard that would basically wait politely until you sat down before nuzzling for pats.  i have also met super friendly pet cats who were well trained, sat on command and would wait for people to let them know when to do things.  same goes for a lot of dogs, your point being ? also i have met some cats that do not give shits about strangers but are friendly as all hell with their owners my cousin has a cat that will hide in one room whenever people are around, but when it is just him and the cat, it will come out, sit on him, play with him and nuzzle him.  refuses to take food from other people, which has made going on vacation actually troublesome for him.  yes, that is why it is much better to judge affection by bunting URL which is what actually indicates friendliness and affection in cats.  this basically means  hi, you are my friend, i want to mark you out as my friend and i like you .  what, you mean they do not show affection the same way dogs do ? of course they fucking do not, they are  a different fucking species .  tl;dr:  i love dogs and i love cats, but they communicate in different ways and have different social structures and expectations.  both are very capable of affection and being complete dicks.  the actions of one animal do not reflect on the species of that animal.   #  the cat loved to do what other people were doing.   #  i love both cats and dogs and i think to directly compare a cat to a dog is somewhat unfair.  i would never own a pet snake, but i do not hate snakes because they do not get excited at the sound of my voice.  do you hate fish ? lizards ? hamsters ? chickens ? aside from that i think you are making wide generalizations about cats.  i like dogs, but do i like all dogs ? no.  there are dogs i do not like, example, my friend is noisy ass napoleon complex chihuahua.  i used to not be particularly big on cats until i lived in a house with 0 roomates and 0 cat.  the cat loved to do what other people were doing.  if you were sitting on the couch, the cat would also sit on the couch.  if you were lying on the floor, the cat will also lie on the floor about 0 feet away.  if you are using a laptop, the cat will also try to use the laptop.  its actually quite endearing.  whether or not my cat thinks he owns me or not does not really matter to me.  i also think i own my cat.  i enjoy petting and cuddling with my cat and he enjoys being petted and cuddling on my lap.  i enjoy watching my cat sit in cardboard boxes too small for him and watching him jump, slip, and fall off of things.  hell i even enjoy watching him slowly come to the decision to knock over a cup.  lastly here is a video of a cat doing something great.  URL  #  also i was proving that my dogs really missed me and a caring pet is a benefit in my eyes, not the whimpering itself.   #  i did absolutely nothing wrong, i was at my cousins house and she pleaded me to pet her cat.  i finally caved and agreed.  i was stroking the cat is back the way i was told to and the cat turned and attacked my hand and lower arm.  my cousin said she has no idea why that happened.  there are some cats that do not like cuddles plain and simple.  also i was proving that my dogs really missed me and a caring pet is a benefit in my eyes, not the whimpering itself.   #  and there are tons of dogs who do not like pets and cuddles either, what is your point ?  # my cousin said she has no idea why that happened.  there are some cats that do not like cuddles plain and simple.  and there are tons of dogs who do not like pets and cuddles either, what is your point ? whenever me and my spouse go away on vacation and have a friend feed our cats, the cats refuse to cuddle them even though when we are home they have love cuddles and sometimes they will eat less or refuse entirely.  both of these are signs of the cats missing us.  when we come home, they are all over us cuddling constantly and following us around the house much more than usual for a day or so.  that being said, i am sure there are plenty of dogs who do not react that way either.  every animal is different, cats have the same capacity for missing their owner that dogs do.  they just do not show it the same way.   #  just like humans, when someone or some cat tells you to stop touching it but you keep going, you might get slapped or scratched.   #  just like humans, cats have a limit on how long they will let someone touch them.  and believe it or not, that cat that attacked you  warned you to stop petting it before it attacked you .  you just did not know how to read its signals since the signals were not given in spoken english.  when petting a cat, its tail should be still.  the moment its tail starts twitching, stop touching it because that is it telling you to stop.  just like humans, when someone or some cat tells you to stop touching it but you keep going, you might get slapped or scratched.  cats are easy and predictable when you know a little about their behavior.
i absolutely hate cats.  they can be obnoxious, entitled balls of fur that everyone seems to love.  cats will run into neighbor is yards if you let them and piss and shit everywhere.  i hate their annoying meow that i have to hear every night.  cats feel no empathy, remorse or respect towards humans.  people have left cats at their cats with a pet sitter for two weeks and the cat did not even care who was their as long as it is fed.  dogs will mourn you for the rest of it is life if you die, cats will eat your body before it is even cold it is true look it up .  when they rub up against you they are saying  i own you bitch, now feed me.    #  cats feel no empathy, remorse or respect towards humans.   #  as a cat owner this is untrue.   #  i can understand being indifferent or antipathic to cats but hating them ? as a cat owner this is untrue.  my cat is very affectionate   friendly and has comforted me when in pain.  dogs will mourn you for the rest of it is life if you die, cats will eat your body before it is even cold it is true look it up .  dogs will also do that URL in addition, some cats do pick favourites and do  amourn  owners or friends.   #  whether or not my cat thinks he owns me or not does not really matter to me.   #  i love both cats and dogs and i think to directly compare a cat to a dog is somewhat unfair.  i would never own a pet snake, but i do not hate snakes because they do not get excited at the sound of my voice.  do you hate fish ? lizards ? hamsters ? chickens ? aside from that i think you are making wide generalizations about cats.  i like dogs, but do i like all dogs ? no.  there are dogs i do not like, example, my friend is noisy ass napoleon complex chihuahua.  i used to not be particularly big on cats until i lived in a house with 0 roomates and 0 cat.  the cat loved to do what other people were doing.  if you were sitting on the couch, the cat would also sit on the couch.  if you were lying on the floor, the cat will also lie on the floor about 0 feet away.  if you are using a laptop, the cat will also try to use the laptop.  its actually quite endearing.  whether or not my cat thinks he owns me or not does not really matter to me.  i also think i own my cat.  i enjoy petting and cuddling with my cat and he enjoys being petted and cuddling on my lap.  i enjoy watching my cat sit in cardboard boxes too small for him and watching him jump, slip, and fall off of things.  hell i even enjoy watching him slowly come to the decision to knock over a cup.  lastly here is a video of a cat doing something great.  URL  #  same goes for a lot of dogs, your point being ?  # this is more a reflection on the individual dog than on dogs as a species.  same with cats.  with a cat you just scoop up poop and toss it, with a dog you have to grab it with your hand and all.  again this is no reflection on dogs as a species, but your point on cats being dirty does not really hold up.  there was a stray cat i knew that used to cuddle up to me and would follow me around meowing whenever i moved around.  affectionate little bastard that would basically wait politely until you sat down before nuzzling for pats.  i have also met super friendly pet cats who were well trained, sat on command and would wait for people to let them know when to do things.  same goes for a lot of dogs, your point being ? also i have met some cats that do not give shits about strangers but are friendly as all hell with their owners my cousin has a cat that will hide in one room whenever people are around, but when it is just him and the cat, it will come out, sit on him, play with him and nuzzle him.  refuses to take food from other people, which has made going on vacation actually troublesome for him.  yes, that is why it is much better to judge affection by bunting URL which is what actually indicates friendliness and affection in cats.  this basically means  hi, you are my friend, i want to mark you out as my friend and i like you .  what, you mean they do not show affection the same way dogs do ? of course they fucking do not, they are  a different fucking species .  tl;dr:  i love dogs and i love cats, but they communicate in different ways and have different social structures and expectations.  both are very capable of affection and being complete dicks.  the actions of one animal do not reflect on the species of that animal.   #  i was stroking the cat is back the way i was told to and the cat turned and attacked my hand and lower arm.   #  i did absolutely nothing wrong, i was at my cousins house and she pleaded me to pet her cat.  i finally caved and agreed.  i was stroking the cat is back the way i was told to and the cat turned and attacked my hand and lower arm.  my cousin said she has no idea why that happened.  there are some cats that do not like cuddles plain and simple.  also i was proving that my dogs really missed me and a caring pet is a benefit in my eyes, not the whimpering itself.   #  they just do not show it the same way.   # my cousin said she has no idea why that happened.  there are some cats that do not like cuddles plain and simple.  and there are tons of dogs who do not like pets and cuddles either, what is your point ? whenever me and my spouse go away on vacation and have a friend feed our cats, the cats refuse to cuddle them even though when we are home they have love cuddles and sometimes they will eat less or refuse entirely.  both of these are signs of the cats missing us.  when we come home, they are all over us cuddling constantly and following us around the house much more than usual for a day or so.  that being said, i am sure there are plenty of dogs who do not react that way either.  every animal is different, cats have the same capacity for missing their owner that dogs do.  they just do not show it the same way.
i absolutely hate cats.  they can be obnoxious, entitled balls of fur that everyone seems to love.  cats will run into neighbor is yards if you let them and piss and shit everywhere.  i hate their annoying meow that i have to hear every night.  cats feel no empathy, remorse or respect towards humans.  people have left cats at their cats with a pet sitter for two weeks and the cat did not even care who was their as long as it is fed.  dogs will mourn you for the rest of it is life if you die, cats will eat your body before it is even cold it is true look it up .  when they rub up against you they are saying  i own you bitch, now feed me.    #  people have left cats at their cats with a pet sitter for two weeks and the cat did not even care who was their as long as it is fed.   #  dogs will mourn you for the rest of it is life if you die, cats will eat your body before it is even cold it is true look it up .   #  i can understand being indifferent or antipathic to cats but hating them ? as a cat owner this is untrue.  my cat is very affectionate   friendly and has comforted me when in pain.  dogs will mourn you for the rest of it is life if you die, cats will eat your body before it is even cold it is true look it up .  dogs will also do that URL in addition, some cats do pick favourites and do  amourn  owners or friends.   #  whether or not my cat thinks he owns me or not does not really matter to me.   #  i love both cats and dogs and i think to directly compare a cat to a dog is somewhat unfair.  i would never own a pet snake, but i do not hate snakes because they do not get excited at the sound of my voice.  do you hate fish ? lizards ? hamsters ? chickens ? aside from that i think you are making wide generalizations about cats.  i like dogs, but do i like all dogs ? no.  there are dogs i do not like, example, my friend is noisy ass napoleon complex chihuahua.  i used to not be particularly big on cats until i lived in a house with 0 roomates and 0 cat.  the cat loved to do what other people were doing.  if you were sitting on the couch, the cat would also sit on the couch.  if you were lying on the floor, the cat will also lie on the floor about 0 feet away.  if you are using a laptop, the cat will also try to use the laptop.  its actually quite endearing.  whether or not my cat thinks he owns me or not does not really matter to me.  i also think i own my cat.  i enjoy petting and cuddling with my cat and he enjoys being petted and cuddling on my lap.  i enjoy watching my cat sit in cardboard boxes too small for him and watching him jump, slip, and fall off of things.  hell i even enjoy watching him slowly come to the decision to knock over a cup.  lastly here is a video of a cat doing something great.  URL  #  the actions of one animal do not reflect on the species of that animal.   # this is more a reflection on the individual dog than on dogs as a species.  same with cats.  with a cat you just scoop up poop and toss it, with a dog you have to grab it with your hand and all.  again this is no reflection on dogs as a species, but your point on cats being dirty does not really hold up.  there was a stray cat i knew that used to cuddle up to me and would follow me around meowing whenever i moved around.  affectionate little bastard that would basically wait politely until you sat down before nuzzling for pats.  i have also met super friendly pet cats who were well trained, sat on command and would wait for people to let them know when to do things.  same goes for a lot of dogs, your point being ? also i have met some cats that do not give shits about strangers but are friendly as all hell with their owners my cousin has a cat that will hide in one room whenever people are around, but when it is just him and the cat, it will come out, sit on him, play with him and nuzzle him.  refuses to take food from other people, which has made going on vacation actually troublesome for him.  yes, that is why it is much better to judge affection by bunting URL which is what actually indicates friendliness and affection in cats.  this basically means  hi, you are my friend, i want to mark you out as my friend and i like you .  what, you mean they do not show affection the same way dogs do ? of course they fucking do not, they are  a different fucking species .  tl;dr:  i love dogs and i love cats, but they communicate in different ways and have different social structures and expectations.  both are very capable of affection and being complete dicks.  the actions of one animal do not reflect on the species of that animal.   #  there are some cats that do not like cuddles plain and simple.   #  i did absolutely nothing wrong, i was at my cousins house and she pleaded me to pet her cat.  i finally caved and agreed.  i was stroking the cat is back the way i was told to and the cat turned and attacked my hand and lower arm.  my cousin said she has no idea why that happened.  there are some cats that do not like cuddles plain and simple.  also i was proving that my dogs really missed me and a caring pet is a benefit in my eyes, not the whimpering itself.   #  they just do not show it the same way.   # my cousin said she has no idea why that happened.  there are some cats that do not like cuddles plain and simple.  and there are tons of dogs who do not like pets and cuddles either, what is your point ? whenever me and my spouse go away on vacation and have a friend feed our cats, the cats refuse to cuddle them even though when we are home they have love cuddles and sometimes they will eat less or refuse entirely.  both of these are signs of the cats missing us.  when we come home, they are all over us cuddling constantly and following us around the house much more than usual for a day or so.  that being said, i am sure there are plenty of dogs who do not react that way either.  every animal is different, cats have the same capacity for missing their owner that dogs do.  they just do not show it the same way.
i absolutely hate cats.  they can be obnoxious, entitled balls of fur that everyone seems to love.  cats will run into neighbor is yards if you let them and piss and shit everywhere.  i hate their annoying meow that i have to hear every night.  cats feel no empathy, remorse or respect towards humans.  people have left cats at their cats with a pet sitter for two weeks and the cat did not even care who was their as long as it is fed.  dogs will mourn you for the rest of it is life if you die, cats will eat your body before it is even cold it is true look it up .  when they rub up against you they are saying  i own you bitch, now feed me.    #  cats feel no empathy, remorse or respect towards humans.   #  people have left cats at their cats with a pet sitter for two weeks and the cat did not even care who was their as long as it is fed.   # people have left cats at their cats with a pet sitter for two weeks and the cat did not even care who was their as long as it is fed.  dogs will mourn you for the rest of it is life if you die, cats will eat your body before it is even cold it is true look it up i got my cat mittens when she was a kitten and i was 0.  when i was 0 and throwing up, she stretched up on the toilet seat next go me to nuzzle and comfort me.  we let her go outside all she wanted, we free fed her so she didnt have to beg for food, and yet every single day when i got home from school, she would be in the window sill waiting for me.  when i left to go to college and did not see her for six months, she sprinted to me and jumped on my lap as soon as i got home at christmas.  i do not usually think anecdotes are good evidence, but you are using some so i figure they are fair here.  cats are affectionate and loyal, they are just not big slobbery dumbasses like dogs .  do you want a valued companion or a slave ? i love dogs.   #  if you were sitting on the couch, the cat would also sit on the couch.   #  i love both cats and dogs and i think to directly compare a cat to a dog is somewhat unfair.  i would never own a pet snake, but i do not hate snakes because they do not get excited at the sound of my voice.  do you hate fish ? lizards ? hamsters ? chickens ? aside from that i think you are making wide generalizations about cats.  i like dogs, but do i like all dogs ? no.  there are dogs i do not like, example, my friend is noisy ass napoleon complex chihuahua.  i used to not be particularly big on cats until i lived in a house with 0 roomates and 0 cat.  the cat loved to do what other people were doing.  if you were sitting on the couch, the cat would also sit on the couch.  if you were lying on the floor, the cat will also lie on the floor about 0 feet away.  if you are using a laptop, the cat will also try to use the laptop.  its actually quite endearing.  whether or not my cat thinks he owns me or not does not really matter to me.  i also think i own my cat.  i enjoy petting and cuddling with my cat and he enjoys being petted and cuddling on my lap.  i enjoy watching my cat sit in cardboard boxes too small for him and watching him jump, slip, and fall off of things.  hell i even enjoy watching him slowly come to the decision to knock over a cup.  lastly here is a video of a cat doing something great.  URL  #  what, you mean they do not show affection the same way dogs do ?  # this is more a reflection on the individual dog than on dogs as a species.  same with cats.  with a cat you just scoop up poop and toss it, with a dog you have to grab it with your hand and all.  again this is no reflection on dogs as a species, but your point on cats being dirty does not really hold up.  there was a stray cat i knew that used to cuddle up to me and would follow me around meowing whenever i moved around.  affectionate little bastard that would basically wait politely until you sat down before nuzzling for pats.  i have also met super friendly pet cats who were well trained, sat on command and would wait for people to let them know when to do things.  same goes for a lot of dogs, your point being ? also i have met some cats that do not give shits about strangers but are friendly as all hell with their owners my cousin has a cat that will hide in one room whenever people are around, but when it is just him and the cat, it will come out, sit on him, play with him and nuzzle him.  refuses to take food from other people, which has made going on vacation actually troublesome for him.  yes, that is why it is much better to judge affection by bunting URL which is what actually indicates friendliness and affection in cats.  this basically means  hi, you are my friend, i want to mark you out as my friend and i like you .  what, you mean they do not show affection the same way dogs do ? of course they fucking do not, they are  a different fucking species .  tl;dr:  i love dogs and i love cats, but they communicate in different ways and have different social structures and expectations.  both are very capable of affection and being complete dicks.  the actions of one animal do not reflect on the species of that animal.   #  also i was proving that my dogs really missed me and a caring pet is a benefit in my eyes, not the whimpering itself.   #  i did absolutely nothing wrong, i was at my cousins house and she pleaded me to pet her cat.  i finally caved and agreed.  i was stroking the cat is back the way i was told to and the cat turned and attacked my hand and lower arm.  my cousin said she has no idea why that happened.  there are some cats that do not like cuddles plain and simple.  also i was proving that my dogs really missed me and a caring pet is a benefit in my eyes, not the whimpering itself.   #  my cousin said she has no idea why that happened.   # my cousin said she has no idea why that happened.  there are some cats that do not like cuddles plain and simple.  and there are tons of dogs who do not like pets and cuddles either, what is your point ? whenever me and my spouse go away on vacation and have a friend feed our cats, the cats refuse to cuddle them even though when we are home they have love cuddles and sometimes they will eat less or refuse entirely.  both of these are signs of the cats missing us.  when we come home, they are all over us cuddling constantly and following us around the house much more than usual for a day or so.  that being said, i am sure there are plenty of dogs who do not react that way either.  every animal is different, cats have the same capacity for missing their owner that dogs do.  they just do not show it the same way.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.   #  i do not think this is what polyamourous people do.   #  note, i have no current intention of engaging in polyamory, but i see absolutely nothing wrong with it, and i am not closed to the idea.  you assert this and treat it as a given.  it is the most important component of your argument, and you have not done anything to back it up.  i do not think this is what polyamourous people do.  they are likely going to be selective about their love, but there is no reason to limit that to two people.  there is nothing fundamental about love the requires a person can only feel that way about exactly one other person.  which we should not.  this is completely ridiculous, and is a false dichotomy.  there are a  huge  amount of options in between the two choices that you are presenting.  you admit that love between two people is a social construct, so why could not society construct a system of love between 0 people or  n  people ? if you are lucky.  they never work.  source ? even if that is true, so what ? wow such persuasion   i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  but why ? you are asserting this and expecting us to take it as given, but you provide nothing to back up what you are saying.   #  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.   #  if you mean it is a way of having relationships with multiple people at once without betraying anybody is trust, then sure.   # sure there is.  commitment does not require exclusivity.  if you mean it is a way of having relationships with multiple people at once without betraying anybody is trust, then sure.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  why ? because you said so ? i see no reason that i should value your opinion more than another person is.  0.  polyamorous people do not fall in love with everyone they meet on the street it is more selective than that.  0.  why is love not something you can have for multiple people ? you are always gonna love someone more than another.  i disagree.  and even if that is the case, so what ? nope.  if i love two people, i see no reason to throw one of them away.  women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.  lol, you are completely misinterpreting the argument.  love between 0 people is a social construct, but there is no reason that social construct could not be changed to include more.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.  i guess these cases and every other one you can find on the internet are fabricated then.  URL  because it is stupid.  no it is not.  or, they are committed to more than one person, and it is monogamous people who are avoiding commitment ! no, you know what is selfish ? telling your partner that they are never allowed to have sex with anyone else because you want them all to yourself.   #  it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  a relationship should be between two people.   #  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.   # sure there is.  commitment does not require exclusivity.  if you mean it is a way of having relationships with multiple people at once without betraying anybody is trust, then sure.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  why ? because you said so ? i see no reason that i should value your opinion more than another person is.  0.  polyamorous people do not fall in love with everyone they meet on the street it is more selective than that.  0.  why is love not something you can have for multiple people ? you are always gonna love someone more than another.  i disagree.  and even if that is the case, so what ? nope.  if i love two people, i see no reason to throw one of them away.  women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.  lol, you are completely misinterpreting the argument.  love between 0 people is a social construct, but there is no reason that social construct could not be changed to include more.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.  i guess these cases and every other one you can find on the internet are fabricated then.  URL  because it is stupid.  no it is not.  or, they are committed to more than one person, and it is monogamous people who are avoiding commitment ! no, you know what is selfish ? telling your partner that they are never allowed to have sex with anyone else because you want them all to yourself.   #  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.   #  0.  polyamorous people do not fall in love with everyone they meet on the street it is more selective than that.   # sure there is.  commitment does not require exclusivity.  if you mean it is a way of having relationships with multiple people at once without betraying anybody is trust, then sure.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  why ? because you said so ? i see no reason that i should value your opinion more than another person is.  0.  polyamorous people do not fall in love with everyone they meet on the street it is more selective than that.  0.  why is love not something you can have for multiple people ? you are always gonna love someone more than another.  i disagree.  and even if that is the case, so what ? nope.  if i love two people, i see no reason to throw one of them away.  women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.  lol, you are completely misinterpreting the argument.  love between 0 people is a social construct, but there is no reason that social construct could not be changed to include more.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.  i guess these cases and every other one you can find on the internet are fabricated then.  URL  because it is stupid.  no it is not.  or, they are committed to more than one person, and it is monogamous people who are avoiding commitment ! no, you know what is selfish ? telling your partner that they are never allowed to have sex with anyone else because you want them all to yourself.   #  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.   #  you are always gonna love someone more than another.   # sure there is.  commitment does not require exclusivity.  if you mean it is a way of having relationships with multiple people at once without betraying anybody is trust, then sure.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  why ? because you said so ? i see no reason that i should value your opinion more than another person is.  0.  polyamorous people do not fall in love with everyone they meet on the street it is more selective than that.  0.  why is love not something you can have for multiple people ? you are always gonna love someone more than another.  i disagree.  and even if that is the case, so what ? nope.  if i love two people, i see no reason to throw one of them away.  women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.  lol, you are completely misinterpreting the argument.  love between 0 people is a social construct, but there is no reason that social construct could not be changed to include more.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.  i guess these cases and every other one you can find on the internet are fabricated then.  URL  because it is stupid.  no it is not.  or, they are committed to more than one person, and it is monogamous people who are avoiding commitment ! no, you know what is selfish ? telling your partner that they are never allowed to have sex with anyone else because you want them all to yourself.   #  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ?  #  women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.   # sure there is.  commitment does not require exclusivity.  if you mean it is a way of having relationships with multiple people at once without betraying anybody is trust, then sure.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  why ? because you said so ? i see no reason that i should value your opinion more than another person is.  0.  polyamorous people do not fall in love with everyone they meet on the street it is more selective than that.  0.  why is love not something you can have for multiple people ? you are always gonna love someone more than another.  i disagree.  and even if that is the case, so what ? nope.  if i love two people, i see no reason to throw one of them away.  women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.  lol, you are completely misinterpreting the argument.  love between 0 people is a social construct, but there is no reason that social construct could not be changed to include more.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.  i guess these cases and every other one you can find on the internet are fabricated then.  URL  because it is stupid.  no it is not.  or, they are committed to more than one person, and it is monogamous people who are avoiding commitment ! no, you know what is selfish ? telling your partner that they are never allowed to have sex with anyone else because you want them all to yourself.   #  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.   #  or, they are committed to more than one person, and it is monogamous people who are avoiding commitment !  # sure there is.  commitment does not require exclusivity.  if you mean it is a way of having relationships with multiple people at once without betraying anybody is trust, then sure.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  why ? because you said so ? i see no reason that i should value your opinion more than another person is.  0.  polyamorous people do not fall in love with everyone they meet on the street it is more selective than that.  0.  why is love not something you can have for multiple people ? you are always gonna love someone more than another.  i disagree.  and even if that is the case, so what ? nope.  if i love two people, i see no reason to throw one of them away.  women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.  lol, you are completely misinterpreting the argument.  love between 0 people is a social construct, but there is no reason that social construct could not be changed to include more.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.  i guess these cases and every other one you can find on the internet are fabricated then.  URL  because it is stupid.  no it is not.  or, they are committed to more than one person, and it is monogamous people who are avoiding commitment ! no, you know what is selfish ? telling your partner that they are never allowed to have sex with anyone else because you want them all to yourself.   #  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.   #  why do you assume that people in polyamorous relationships are doing that ?  #  you, sir or ma am, are a bigot.  why ? because that is what you believe ? why do you assume that people in polyamorous relationships are doing that ? why ca not you conceive of 0 or however many people loving each other ? which we should not.  why ? humans are happier in the environment they evolved in.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  again, assumptions.  have you ever met a polyamorous couple ? to me, exactly.  to you .  why ? in summary, why ? you are asserting your closed minded beliefs and assuming that they should apply to all people.  you are no better than a homophobe.  i know i am breaking a rule here, but nothing will change your mind, even if i give countless examples of functional, long lasting, loving relationships.   #  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.   #  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.   # there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:   you can have real commitment still.  if you are exclusively in a relationship with 0, 0, or howevermany people, you are committed to those people.  it would still be cheating for you to go out and get hammered and nail some random chick if that was not part of your agreed upon relationship structure.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.  even if that is true and it is not , it does not mean that there is anything wrong with having a poly relationship to help you figure that out if everyone involved is ok with it.  women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.  you say that love is a social construct, yet you are the one arguing for  traditional love.   if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.  if your argument is  do not give me that shit , you do not seem real open to having your views changed.  that having been said, one of my best friends is in a non traditional open marriage, and it seems to be working great for her and her husband.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  you think it is stupid, maybe it is not for you.  that does not mean it is not for other people.  like you said, they  are  all consenting adults.  i feel like the onus is on you to explain why the sexual practices of other consenting adults should be condemned.  there is nothing wrong with  avoiding commitment  or  being indecisive  if everyone involved in on board with it.  uh, well, i tried to.   #  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ?  #  women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.   # there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:   you can have real commitment still.  if you are exclusively in a relationship with 0, 0, or howevermany people, you are committed to those people.  it would still be cheating for you to go out and get hammered and nail some random chick if that was not part of your agreed upon relationship structure.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.  even if that is true and it is not , it does not mean that there is anything wrong with having a poly relationship to help you figure that out if everyone involved is ok with it.  women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.  you say that love is a social construct, yet you are the one arguing for  traditional love.   if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.  if your argument is  do not give me that shit , you do not seem real open to having your views changed.  that having been said, one of my best friends is in a non traditional open marriage, and it seems to be working great for her and her husband.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  you think it is stupid, maybe it is not for you.  that does not mean it is not for other people.  like you said, they  are  all consenting adults.  i feel like the onus is on you to explain why the sexual practices of other consenting adults should be condemned.  there is nothing wrong with  avoiding commitment  or  being indecisive  if everyone involved in on board with it.  uh, well, i tried to.   #  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  you wo not find it because it is not true.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.   #  you are always gonna love someone more than another.   # if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.  tell that to my happily married polyamorous friend whose relationship has lasted for many, many years.  i am not going to claim that they work more than monogamous relationships, that they are easy, or that they are guaranteed to be successes.  but the claim that polyamorous relationships  never  work flies in the face of my experience of the people around me.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  maybe yes, maybe no.  i love my husband.  i love my brother.  i love my best friend.  these loves are  different .  they are not lesser or greater, they are not measured against one another in comparison and ranked in a hierarchy, because that would be crazy.  so, even though i am monogamous, it does not seem absurd to me that someone might be able to love two romantic partners and avoid ranking them the same way that i avoid ranking my different kinds of loves for different people.   #  it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with.  there is no real commitment going on and that is what bugs me.  it is like a way of cheating without it being called cheating.  a relationship should be between two people.  not 0, 0, 0, or however many you choose to have.  the responses i usually get are as follows:  0.  we are just sharing the love.   no, you are not.  love is not something you can throw around nilly willy.  it is like a 0 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school.  even if that is not the case it is impossible to love everyone equally.  you are always gonna love someone more than another.  and it is only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.   0.  romantic love between two people is a social construct.   true, but maybe that is because love itself is a social construct ? women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that is what we are wired to do.  fuck and populate.  as we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play.  when this argument is thrown around you are basically telling me you are a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts.  which we should not.   0.  polyamory relationships work out just fine.   yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two.  if you are lucky.  they never work.  do not give me that shit.   0.  we are all consenting adults why does it matter ?   because it is stupid.  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.  i believe it to be selfish because one person is not enough for you when it very well should be.  so, change my view.   #  to me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side.   #  maybe some people just do not care to have their partner committed to them.   # maybe some people just do not care to have their partner committed to them.  why is commitment required for a relationship when the parties involved do not care for it ? commitment may be important for your relationships, but other people get different things out of their relationships, and commitment might not be something they care about.  in some polyamorous relationships, parties feel closer when they know that they can trust each other to sleep with other people and still come home to their partner who they love and cherrish.  overcoming jealousy is not a simple task.  that is something i see as fairly mature.  just providing you with an alternate perspective.   #  it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  honest question: why do you care ? if it is not for you, it is not for you.  for me, personally, being in a polyamorous relationship would be like being in a homosexual relationship i am straight .  it would feel unnatural, and i am quite sure i would not be satisfied.  so, i do not do it.  however, i do have poly friends, and they feel exactly the way i feel, just about monogamy.  they tell me that they feel much more secure and loved in a poly relationship, because they do not have to feel insecure about their partner meeting someone else and leaving them.  in a poly relationship, falling in love with someone else is entirely ok.  so i do not do poly, and my poly friends do not do mono.  you probably feel the same way about poly as i do, which just means it is not for you as it is not for me .  but why do you care if others do it ? it just means they are oriented different than you are not better, not worse, just different.   #  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  you do not have any way of knowing that, though.  you just assume they are being strung along because, in your mind, a human can only love one person.  that is not unreasonable to think necessarily again, you and i are likely oriented the same way.  but not everyone is.  how do you feel about homosexuality ? to me, it feels weird and unnatural, but that is because i am not gay.  it feels as weird and unnatural to me as a hetero relationship would to a gay person.  similarly, a relationship with multiple people feels weird to me, personally, but it does not to everyone.   #  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   # no.  they.  are.  not.  just because some pop singer made a song called  born this way  does not mean its a scientific fact.  limited time so shitty link URL if it was solely genetic and set at birth identical twins would always be the same.  there are a lot of genetic and environmental factors.  genetics have an effect, the hormones while in utero has a lot of effect, and i am sure that environment after birth also has an effect.  attractions develop a lot as people grow up so i do not see why everyone thinks hetero or homosexuality are so different.   #  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.   #  no, it has not.  we have found brain anomalies, correlations with hormones in the women is uterus etc.  have you studied genetics at all ? anything to do with human development ? find me a scientific article, not a popular one from some shitty magazine or newspaper that says people are born with their sexual preference set.  that statement has been thrown all around in popular culture, that does not make it proven.  seriously find me one real source saying people are gay from birth.  you wo not find it because it is not true.  there are a lot of prenatal factors, including genetics, that can make it more likely someone will be gay, but does not guarantee it.
before i begin, i would like to commend those who are apart of the labor force who work their ass off to get by with minimum wage.  it is an amazing thing, nevertheless; i respect those of you, if any of you reading this are challenged to live off of it.  now to my view on the mw matter, it is an artificial ideology that should only be increased or manipulated in  any  way artificially by the fed in cases of an extreme change of the economy or the market.  it should be eradicated to the point of only increasing or decreasing based off the economy at that point in time.  as of now, it is the federal government stepping in and increasing the state mw.  it  should  be there as a measurement of the inflation of currency and state of the market and to avoid any unfair affairs that would ensue based off a complete ridding of the mw.  by increasing it, we are inflating the dollar, and thus, not  actually  paying our workers more for what they already do.  based off that statement alone, we can infer the offered pay of jobs what that position is worth.  flipping burgers at a mcdonalds is  not  worth $0 as a lot of politicians might make it out to be.  it is a job that is easily replaceable by automation.  as previously stated, by increasing the wages of lower tier workers, we are not helping them.  the dollar is being inflated and so is worth less.  they essentially have what they already have.  just in bigger yet proportional numbers.  furthermore, our businesses will be the most affected by the increase of the mw.  having to pay more for a worker for doing the same job from before is a terrible business move.  they will have to lay off more workers in order to compensate for their deficit  just  based off labor cost.  i have left out a lot of details in the debate over mw so keep in mind, this is not even scratching the surface.  these are observations everyone can make obviously, but on an in depth level there could be some positives to increase.  feel free to criticize my lack of in depth knowledge on the matter.  thanks for your time !  #  furthermore, our businesses will be the most affected by the increase of the mw.   #  having to pay more for a worker for doing the same job from before is a terrible business move.   # a person making minimum wage in the 0s, receiving only inflationary adjustments to pay and no actual raise, would be getting more than $0 an hour today.  as workers have less and less buying power for the dollars they earn, productivity has doubled URL flipping burgers may in fact be worth $0/hr, but the low minimum allows companies like mcdonald is to have all the power in employment negotiations.  for every adult worker who would prefer to turn up their nose at the current minimum, there are thousands of teenagers out there who are perfectly willing to take that hourly rate so they can buy gas and smartphones and prom dresses.  so while mcdonald is rakes in 0 billion in profits, us taxpayers pay about the same amount of money in public assistance URL to their employees,  0  of whom are between the ages off 0 and 0.  i would much rather that companies like walmart and mcdonald is be forced to pay their own employees, not the us taxpayers.  i also have not noticed that companies who butter their bread on minimum wage employees flocking en masse from states that have higher locally enforced minimums.  i mean, you can still go to walmart and mcdonald is in california, yeah ? hmm, maybe.  some of the grocery store chains who installed self checkouts have since yanked them because they are perceived to be unfriendly to customers.  maybe the recently invented burgerflipbot URL hidden in the back, would not bother customers as much.  having to pay more for a worker for doing the same job from before is a terrible business move.  they will have to lay off more workers in order to compensate for their deficit just based off labor cost.  everyone always claims this but i find it hard to believe.  just yesterday on npr i heard some chick from north face telling an interviewer that the company was currently eating the increased costs of high tech fabrics that replace cotton and that the plan was to  slowly  increase prices as customers get used to the new fabrics and begin to increase their demand.  currently, companies like mcdonald is and walmart heavily rely on part time workers in order to avoid providing benefits.  laying off a ton of workers would switch many of these employees to full timers who might be eligible for more costly benefit packages.  i would be very surprised to see the mass layoffs you suggest are inevitable.   #  in reality, just a small increase in price will usually make up for any minimum wage increases.   #  0 all laws create an artificial impact.  thus to oppose one law and not another because one is artificial is contradictory.  it is like saying  i oppose this law because it is a law,  which only makes sense if you are a complete anarchist.  0 you ca not simply apply the basic laws of supply and demand to humans the same way you can to consumer goods.  there is really few moral issues at stake as far as how much a pencil costs.  if the price of pencils goes way down to the point that manufacturers ca not make a profit, some manufacturers will switch to other products in turn, bringing the supply down, allowing the price to go up, and allowing others to stay in the business.  however, if the price of human labor goes below what a human needs to survive, the human ca not switch to being a tree or a rabbit.  there is a minimum that people need to survive regardless of what the supply and demand for labor currently is.  0 the concerns about a higher minimum wage costing jobs is exaggerated.  businesses generally do not give out jobs as charity.  if a place that has 0 minimum wage workers can make more money with 0 instead it would have already fired someone before any minimum wage increase happens.  in reality, just a small increase in price will usually make up for any minimum wage increases.  this is very possible because.  0 increasing minimum wage increases demand.  it is okay if mcdonalds has to increase its big macs by 0 cents after a minimum wage jump because now more people have money to spend on big macs.  0 finally, consider that we also have welfare.  should not companies be required at the very least to pay enough so their workers are not on welfare rolls as well ? mcdonalds customers benefit from the fact that the employees are not starving and looking like they sleep under a bridge, and the owners benefit $$$ as well.  giving welfare to full time workers is essentially just a subsidy to business.  i say let the customers and owners of a business be responsible for paying enough that their workers are not miserable, barely surviving wrecks of human existence instead of making the taxpayer fill in the gap.  if you want a hamburger served by someone who has had a meal and a shower in the last week, i should not have to pay for that.  that is on you.  so to conclude, a minimum wage is the humane thing to do, it is better for the economy as a whole, and it saves the taxpayer money.   #  with the y axis being the relative precistion of the study, and the x being the predicted outcome on job growth.   #  the other thing that i would add is that effects of minimum wage increases on job growth have been extensively studied.  this chart URL shows the results a large survey of different studies on how minimum wage effects job growth.  with the y axis being the relative precistion of the study, and the x being the predicted outcome on job growth.  three things are important to note here: 0 almost every study falls within  / 0 of zero effect on job growth.  0 every study that shows a highly negative effect on job growth has an exceedingly low precision and even if we throw out the precision measure, the the number of studies that show a highly negative effect on job growth would have to be considered statistical outliers considering how few in number they are and how far away they are from the vast majority of other studies.  0 the more precise a study, the more likely the study was to conclude that there is no meaningful correlation between minimum wage increase and job growth.   #  and, there are occupations where this is not true at all if a high end hotel has to increase its wage to its workers, it is very unlikely that any of those workers will end up staying at the hotel.   #  on 0 , the laws of supply and demand are not applied; they just exist.  supply and demand is true in labor market, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.  in answer to your question, though, when a person ca not make enough money to pay for his own necessities, then that is an appropriate place for government and private charity to help out.  0 the place with 0 minimum wage workers might be able to do more with 0 by investing in technology.  or, perhaps, replacing some of those unskilled workers with skilled workers.  in australia, the minmum wage is substantially higher than it is in the us, and places like mcdonalds correspondingly employ fewer people.  how do they do this ? for example, they use more touch screens to order instead of dictating orders to minimum wage workers.  they run fewer  open all night  drive ins which might be profitable at a lower minimum wage and so on.  0 to the extent a minimum wage merely offsets welfare that a person would otherwise get, this is clearly wrong.  but, also, recognize that there are relatively few people affected by a minimum wage increase, so the increase in the number of people able to buy a product is relatively small.  and, there are occupations where this is not true at all if a high end hotel has to increase its wage to its workers, it is very unlikely that any of those workers will end up staying at the hotel.  on 0 , why should it be an employer is responsibility to make sure that their workers are not on welfare rolls ? consider this: let is say there is an unemployed on welfare and a local store is thinking about employing them.  is not that person and society better off when they get a job, even when it does not fully take them off welfare ? after all, that job might not exist if it had to pay enough to take people off welfare.   #  this suggests that whatever jobs are lost to the fast food industry are being gained somewhere else.   #  funny you should mention australia, seeing as how their unemployment rate is very comparable to america is.  this suggests that whatever jobs are lost to the fast food industry are being gained somewhere else.  or perhaps australians just do not have the demand for fast food as americans.  regardless, if minimum wage was such a harmful idea then why is not australia is economy in the tank ? how is it possible they can implement such an extreme version of an alleged job killer yet not have any real unemployment problems ? it does not make sense.  to answer your question, no, i do not see why it is better for a person barely getting by to have to work 0 hours of unfulfilling and demeaning work as opposed to barely getting by and not working.  would you really choose the former over the latter ? i would not.  counter consider this: if the millions of working families in america that are struggling to get by could have their incomes double, and all it would cost is that it would be harder to get a cheeseburger at four in the morning, would not you agree to that switch ? i mean, jeez, you must really love your late night fast food ! :
a lot of redditors champion a collectivist worldview, that is to say, the idea that our success or failure in life is determined largely, if not primarily, by circumstances social, environmental, historical etc.  beyond our control.  reddit also has a great deal of scorn for the  rugged individualist  who did it all on his own because obviously there were other factors ex.  born in to a good family, government paid for roads and stuff like that .  i think this is an extremely dangerous and toxic worldview, regardless of whether or not it is technically accurate.  if one sees one is own accomplishments as a sociological phenomenon rather than a result of their own merit, they will have far less of a regard for them, and consequently far less of a drive to continue to succeed and such a person will ultimately fail as a result.  similarly, and far more commonly, if one sees one is own failures as a sociological phenomenon rather than a result of their own personal failings, they are unlikely to do what it takes to correct those failures and will continue to fail as a result.  even if it is not entirely accurate, one who has wholly individualistic and sees everything in his own life as a product of his own creation will be better off than one who believes the opposite.  he will work to succeed and correct his shortcomings, while the opposite sort of person will throw up his hands saying  woe is me  without taking any sort of corrective action.  therefore, even if given identical sociological circumstances, the individualist will likely be far better off than the collectivist.   #  reddit also has a great deal of scorn for the  rugged individualist  who did it all on his own because obviously there were other factors ex.   #  born in to a good family, government paid for roads and stuff like that .   # born in to a good family, government paid for roads and stuff like that .  i do not think that reddit has  iscorn  for those individuals at all.  sure, there is a portion which points out the help the individualist had, but i do not think that qualifies as  iscorn .  scorn requires ill feelings toward the object, and pointing out that a person has had help in getting where they are does not qualify as ill feelings.  you can see your accomplishments as a function of both your social circumstances and your own merit.  why do you say this ? it is entirely possible to recognize that certain societal factors contribute to one is success, yet still desire to be successful.  it is not contradictory in the slightest to recognize that there are circumstantial obstacles to success while realizing that you are not perfect.  as stated previously, a person who recognizes the role of one is surroundings is perfectly able to improve themself.  that is just not true.  whether or not a person has the desire to succeed and the desire to improve themself is independent of whether or not they believe that outside factors have a role in personal outcomes.   #  ; anyone who lives in a city, works for a corporation, belongs to a church, etc.   #  you have left a lot of terms undefined here.  the angry sociopath is a rugged individualist who is far more likely to end up in prison than in the boardroom, and the centrist politician is far more likely to be elected than the radical outlier.  similarly, the so called collectivist i. e.  ; anyone who lives in a city, works for a corporation, belongs to a church, etc.  , is far more likely to end up with financial assets, social support, and what most would consider material success than the eccentric individualist, who shunning convention, ends up isolated, scorned and impecunious.  obviously, there are numerous exceptions that probe the rules here, but until we define  success  they are largely irrelevant  #  they convince themselves that some external force called them to fail.   #  i would offer a different view.  a  rugged individualist  is someone who is under the delusion that they are the sole determinant for their economic successes and failures, their life is up and downs.  this results in toxic levels of stress, depression, and self hatred when a  rugged individualist  suffers one of those failures.  and they happen.  did your company lay off 0,0 people ? this is not your failure.  is your company relocating its division to brazil ? this is not your failure.  is business doing poorly and your company goes bankrupt ? this is not your failure.  someone who recognizes that success and failure are often driven by external factors has a far more balanced and healthy worldview.  they can recognize where they may have failed as an individual, and where a company fails as a whole.  those who believe in the myth of rugged individualism have only themselves to blame.  this self blame results in a variety of toxic behaviors.  the first is the option of self delusion.  they convince themselves that some external force called them to fail.  since they only recognize action at the individual level, they find a person or group they can blame.  examples might be  the democrats  or  socialists  or  the jews  or  feminists  who have apparently directly caused their failures.  the second is after multiple perceived failures, they assume there is something fundamentally wrong with themselves, and turn to self hatred.  drinking and other self destructive behaviors result.  finally, this sounds like the old canard  even if god is not real, christianity is superior to atheism because it teaches better moral behavior .  i have yet to see a period of human history where a group of delusional people has delivered a superior result as compared to a group of rational ones.   #  of course they end up being better off.   # well, of course.  individualistic world views stress one is self is success.  of course they end up being better off.  the collectivist works for the greater good and understands that group cohesion is important for the success of them all.  he may be individually worse off, but the group will be far more successful than the individualist who could not understand that group success is better in the long run than trying to go it alone.  humans need each other, it is just how we are.  how do you define success ? stepping on others to achieve your own goals ? manipulating groups to your own benefit ? or working together to better the human race as a whole ? success is too subjective to accurately assess it.   #  what your title should be is:   regardless of validity, people who can take responsibility for their actions are more likely to succeed in life than people who ca not own up and blame their surroundings.    #  i think you are just using the wrong words here.  individualism and collectivism are not at all what you are really trying to get at.  you are trying to get at irresponsible people who ca not own up.  what your title should be is:   regardless of validity, people who can take responsibility for their actions are more likely to succeed in life than people who ca not own up and blame their surroundings.   i do not know if there are single words for this, but individualism and collectivism are the wrong words.  which is not a view that will be changed, i think.
a lot of redditors champion a collectivist worldview, that is to say, the idea that our success or failure in life is determined largely, if not primarily, by circumstances social, environmental, historical etc.  beyond our control.  reddit also has a great deal of scorn for the  rugged individualist  who did it all on his own because obviously there were other factors ex.  born in to a good family, government paid for roads and stuff like that .  i think this is an extremely dangerous and toxic worldview, regardless of whether or not it is technically accurate.  if one sees one is own accomplishments as a sociological phenomenon rather than a result of their own merit, they will have far less of a regard for them, and consequently far less of a drive to continue to succeed and such a person will ultimately fail as a result.  similarly, and far more commonly, if one sees one is own failures as a sociological phenomenon rather than a result of their own personal failings, they are unlikely to do what it takes to correct those failures and will continue to fail as a result.  even if it is not entirely accurate, one who has wholly individualistic and sees everything in his own life as a product of his own creation will be better off than one who believes the opposite.  he will work to succeed and correct his shortcomings, while the opposite sort of person will throw up his hands saying  woe is me  without taking any sort of corrective action.  therefore, even if given identical sociological circumstances, the individualist will likely be far better off than the collectivist.   #  they are unlikely to do what it takes to correct those failures and will continue to fail as a result.   #  as stated previously, a person who recognizes the role of one is surroundings is perfectly able to improve themself.   # born in to a good family, government paid for roads and stuff like that .  i do not think that reddit has  iscorn  for those individuals at all.  sure, there is a portion which points out the help the individualist had, but i do not think that qualifies as  iscorn .  scorn requires ill feelings toward the object, and pointing out that a person has had help in getting where they are does not qualify as ill feelings.  you can see your accomplishments as a function of both your social circumstances and your own merit.  why do you say this ? it is entirely possible to recognize that certain societal factors contribute to one is success, yet still desire to be successful.  it is not contradictory in the slightest to recognize that there are circumstantial obstacles to success while realizing that you are not perfect.  as stated previously, a person who recognizes the role of one is surroundings is perfectly able to improve themself.  that is just not true.  whether or not a person has the desire to succeed and the desire to improve themself is independent of whether or not they believe that outside factors have a role in personal outcomes.   #  the angry sociopath is a rugged individualist who is far more likely to end up in prison than in the boardroom, and the centrist politician is far more likely to be elected than the radical outlier.   #  you have left a lot of terms undefined here.  the angry sociopath is a rugged individualist who is far more likely to end up in prison than in the boardroom, and the centrist politician is far more likely to be elected than the radical outlier.  similarly, the so called collectivist i. e.  ; anyone who lives in a city, works for a corporation, belongs to a church, etc.  , is far more likely to end up with financial assets, social support, and what most would consider material success than the eccentric individualist, who shunning convention, ends up isolated, scorned and impecunious.  obviously, there are numerous exceptions that probe the rules here, but until we define  success  they are largely irrelevant  #  this results in toxic levels of stress, depression, and self hatred when a  rugged individualist  suffers one of those failures.   #  i would offer a different view.  a  rugged individualist  is someone who is under the delusion that they are the sole determinant for their economic successes and failures, their life is up and downs.  this results in toxic levels of stress, depression, and self hatred when a  rugged individualist  suffers one of those failures.  and they happen.  did your company lay off 0,0 people ? this is not your failure.  is your company relocating its division to brazil ? this is not your failure.  is business doing poorly and your company goes bankrupt ? this is not your failure.  someone who recognizes that success and failure are often driven by external factors has a far more balanced and healthy worldview.  they can recognize where they may have failed as an individual, and where a company fails as a whole.  those who believe in the myth of rugged individualism have only themselves to blame.  this self blame results in a variety of toxic behaviors.  the first is the option of self delusion.  they convince themselves that some external force called them to fail.  since they only recognize action at the individual level, they find a person or group they can blame.  examples might be  the democrats  or  socialists  or  the jews  or  feminists  who have apparently directly caused their failures.  the second is after multiple perceived failures, they assume there is something fundamentally wrong with themselves, and turn to self hatred.  drinking and other self destructive behaviors result.  finally, this sounds like the old canard  even if god is not real, christianity is superior to atheism because it teaches better moral behavior .  i have yet to see a period of human history where a group of delusional people has delivered a superior result as compared to a group of rational ones.   #  the collectivist works for the greater good and understands that group cohesion is important for the success of them all.   # well, of course.  individualistic world views stress one is self is success.  of course they end up being better off.  the collectivist works for the greater good and understands that group cohesion is important for the success of them all.  he may be individually worse off, but the group will be far more successful than the individualist who could not understand that group success is better in the long run than trying to go it alone.  humans need each other, it is just how we are.  how do you define success ? stepping on others to achieve your own goals ? manipulating groups to your own benefit ? or working together to better the human race as a whole ? success is too subjective to accurately assess it.   #  you are trying to get at irresponsible people who ca not own up.   #  i think you are just using the wrong words here.  individualism and collectivism are not at all what you are really trying to get at.  you are trying to get at irresponsible people who ca not own up.  what your title should be is:   regardless of validity, people who can take responsibility for their actions are more likely to succeed in life than people who ca not own up and blame their surroundings.   i do not know if there are single words for this, but individualism and collectivism are the wrong words.  which is not a view that will be changed, i think.
there are a lot of movements for accepting previously criticized groups such as fat acceptance, nerd acceptance, .  you get the idea.  sure, those movements make people feel better about themselves but it makes them content with who they are thinking there is nothing wrong with it and not try to improve.  there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.  for example, the fat acceptance movement makes obese people think there is nothing wrong with their bodies and ignore the health risks of being obese.  while some nerds possess moderate social skills, a lot of them do not have social skills good enough to make one friend in an anime convention of thousands of people.  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.  that is absurd.  i ca not speak for fat acceptance but as a previous nerd with no social skills, it was the feeling of rejection that made me improve and push myself to hone my social skills.  if the acceptance movements were around back then i would be happier as a nerd but i would still have 0 friends.  that is not to say that i am no longer a nerd, i still have all my previous interests but i know when to talk about things, i know not to correct people too much, i know how to make small talk, and in general be able to deal with people.  as for fat acceptance, it may not be an issue in a country where people pay for their own healthcare but in a country like canada where everyone pays for healthcare, this is an issue that affects everyone.  here is a link that discusses the issue even in the us: URL  #  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.   #  some people just do not form friendships in that manner.   #  i think you are overestimating the effect these movements if you can call them that; i assume you are not speaking of more fundamental rights movements have on the self awareness of these people.  just because being overweight is socially accepted does not mean everyone is iq is going to drop five points such that they think being overweight is not a health risk.  in fact, it is well known that  fat shaming  actually serves to prompt even less healthy behaviour.  i do not see how this would be different in principle from any other group.  if a person, a nerd as you put it, has very low self esteem and believes that they are disliked by everyone, do not you think that would make them  less  likely to engage in social activities, not more ? keep in mind that how  you  would react to that situation specifically is more or less irrelevant.  that being my main point, i am now going address some of your specific claims.  there often is not.  for example, if a person is sexually promiscuous but aware of the risks and takes measures to minimize them, i ca not see anything wrong with them.  the same goes for a person who is sexually chaste or restrained.  what society does or does not deem acceptable is always outdated, often hypocritical, and more often than not completely meaningless.  some people just do not form friendships in that manner.  i do not, and never have.  it does not really speak to the sociability of the group, especially considering they have all elected to attend a massive public event with thousands of other people.   #  fat acceptance movements are to people like you that when you cross paths with an obese person you should not be an asshole to them.   #  when you cross paths with an obese person on the street, how do you know whether that person is actively trying to lose weight or not ? you do not.  for all you know, that person could be actively dropping 0 0 pounds a week.  they could be 0lbs when you see them down from 0lbs months ago.  yet when you see this person at 0lbs, you would not know that history or that person is efforst all you would know is that you are looking at an obese person.  fat acceptance movements are to people like you that when you cross paths with an obese person you should not be an asshole to them.  you should accept them as human beings deserving of your kindness and respect just like any other human being and not judge and harassment because they are overweight.  fat acceptance movements are also help obese people not hate themselves, since so many of them do, since people like you walk around talking about how horribly lazy they are and how ignorant they are about health and how they suck up all our collective tax dollars.   #  you are not a bad person because you are fat or lonely, you can improve and here are the resources to help you improve.   #  acceptance is not complacence.  until recently, and even now, folks who do not fit into a particular cultural mold were shunned, bullied, aggressively rejected, mocked.  the thought was that by making these folks outcasts, it would somehow motivate them to improve themselves.  it did for some, but for an overwhelming majority it only made things worse.  URL the acceptance movement is not about promoting unhealthy lifestyles, or about being proud of being fat or lacking social skills.  its about understanding that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.  the dialogue used to be  you are horrible because you are fat, you are disgusting, you are a loser, go lose some weight or make some friends you freak.   now the dialogue is  it is terrible that you are in an unhealthy place.  you are not a bad person because you are fat or lonely, you can improve and here are the resources to help you improve.  even though you are not healthy now, we do not hate you, and we want to help you get healthy.    #  fat acceptance or nerd acceptance is not about saying that it is healthy to be overweight or fine to be antisocial, it is about accepting people who are and not shaming them for it.   # there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.  who says that fat people do not understand the risks of their weight ? the point is not to shame these people into losing weight, it is to accept everyone regardless of who they are.  why do you care if someone is fat or not, or if they are a nerd or not ? these are their choices, not yours.  fat acceptance or nerd acceptance is not about saying that it is healthy to be overweight or fine to be antisocial, it is about accepting people who are and not shaming them for it.  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.  that is absurd.  not everyone who goes to an anime convention does so with the intent of making friends.  many people do so simply to enjoy the various anime exhibits at the convention.  what is so bad about accepting that ?  #  when a person receives criticism, even constructive criticism, it erodes their sense of self worth.   #  let is talk about the nerd one for a second.  i do not think it is fair to say that nerds necessarily have poor social skills.  mind you, i am not arguing that nerdiness and poor social skills do not tend to go hand in hand: i am saying that you can be a nerd with excellent social skills.  such a thing is quite possible, and in fact fairly common.  here is the problem with nerd shaming: by equating nerdy pursuits with poor social skills, you discourage nerdy pursuits.  for example, there is nothing unsociable about an interest in math, but if we equate nerdiness with poor social skills then being interested in math makes you, in society is eyes, unsociable.  this discourages social people from pursuing nerdy interests, thus reinforcing the stereotype.  it also isolates nerds from society, thereby worsening their social skills.  this strengthens the stereotype, and leads to a negative downward spiral.  therefore, if we stopped shaming nerds, nerds would be less socially awkward, because they would not be isolated, and sociable people would be free to explore their nerdy interests.  when a person receives criticism, even constructive criticism, it erodes their sense of self worth.  now a well adjusted person with a healthy sense of self worth can withstand that erosion, and use the criticism to be a strong sense of self worth through self improvement; this is more or less the process you described.  however, let is consider what makes a person unsociable.  it is from a lack of confidence which stems from a lack of self worth.  therefore, an unsociable person simply wo not handle criticism as well as the average person; any given criticism amounts to a proportionally larger hit to their sense of self worth, thereby worsening their dilemma.  on the other hand, a supportive environment where these people are accepted for who they are would allow them to build the confidence and self worth necessary to be a sociable person.
there are a lot of movements for accepting previously criticized groups such as fat acceptance, nerd acceptance, .  you get the idea.  sure, those movements make people feel better about themselves but it makes them content with who they are thinking there is nothing wrong with it and not try to improve.  there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.  for example, the fat acceptance movement makes obese people think there is nothing wrong with their bodies and ignore the health risks of being obese.  while some nerds possess moderate social skills, a lot of them do not have social skills good enough to make one friend in an anime convention of thousands of people.  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.  that is absurd.  i ca not speak for fat acceptance but as a previous nerd with no social skills, it was the feeling of rejection that made me improve and push myself to hone my social skills.  if the acceptance movements were around back then i would be happier as a nerd but i would still have 0 friends.  that is not to say that i am no longer a nerd, i still have all my previous interests but i know when to talk about things, i know not to correct people too much, i know how to make small talk, and in general be able to deal with people.  as for fat acceptance, it may not be an issue in a country where people pay for their own healthcare but in a country like canada where everyone pays for healthcare, this is an issue that affects everyone.  here is a link that discusses the issue even in the us: URL  #  sure, those movements make people feel better about themselves but it makes them content with who they are thinking there is nothing wrong with it and not try to improve.   #  there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.   # there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.  who says that fat people do not understand the risks of their weight ? the point is not to shame these people into losing weight, it is to accept everyone regardless of who they are.  why do you care if someone is fat or not, or if they are a nerd or not ? these are their choices, not yours.  fat acceptance or nerd acceptance is not about saying that it is healthy to be overweight or fine to be antisocial, it is about accepting people who are and not shaming them for it.  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.  that is absurd.  not everyone who goes to an anime convention does so with the intent of making friends.  many people do so simply to enjoy the various anime exhibits at the convention.  what is so bad about accepting that ?  #  you should accept them as human beings deserving of your kindness and respect just like any other human being and not judge and harassment because they are overweight.   #  when you cross paths with an obese person on the street, how do you know whether that person is actively trying to lose weight or not ? you do not.  for all you know, that person could be actively dropping 0 0 pounds a week.  they could be 0lbs when you see them down from 0lbs months ago.  yet when you see this person at 0lbs, you would not know that history or that person is efforst all you would know is that you are looking at an obese person.  fat acceptance movements are to people like you that when you cross paths with an obese person you should not be an asshole to them.  you should accept them as human beings deserving of your kindness and respect just like any other human being and not judge and harassment because they are overweight.  fat acceptance movements are also help obese people not hate themselves, since so many of them do, since people like you walk around talking about how horribly lazy they are and how ignorant they are about health and how they suck up all our collective tax dollars.   #  that being my main point, i am now going address some of your specific claims.   #  i think you are overestimating the effect these movements if you can call them that; i assume you are not speaking of more fundamental rights movements have on the self awareness of these people.  just because being overweight is socially accepted does not mean everyone is iq is going to drop five points such that they think being overweight is not a health risk.  in fact, it is well known that  fat shaming  actually serves to prompt even less healthy behaviour.  i do not see how this would be different in principle from any other group.  if a person, a nerd as you put it, has very low self esteem and believes that they are disliked by everyone, do not you think that would make them  less  likely to engage in social activities, not more ? keep in mind that how  you  would react to that situation specifically is more or less irrelevant.  that being my main point, i am now going address some of your specific claims.  there often is not.  for example, if a person is sexually promiscuous but aware of the risks and takes measures to minimize them, i ca not see anything wrong with them.  the same goes for a person who is sexually chaste or restrained.  what society does or does not deem acceptable is always outdated, often hypocritical, and more often than not completely meaningless.  some people just do not form friendships in that manner.  i do not, and never have.  it does not really speak to the sociability of the group, especially considering they have all elected to attend a massive public event with thousands of other people.   #  its about understanding that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.   #  acceptance is not complacence.  until recently, and even now, folks who do not fit into a particular cultural mold were shunned, bullied, aggressively rejected, mocked.  the thought was that by making these folks outcasts, it would somehow motivate them to improve themselves.  it did for some, but for an overwhelming majority it only made things worse.  URL the acceptance movement is not about promoting unhealthy lifestyles, or about being proud of being fat or lacking social skills.  its about understanding that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.  the dialogue used to be  you are horrible because you are fat, you are disgusting, you are a loser, go lose some weight or make some friends you freak.   now the dialogue is  it is terrible that you are in an unhealthy place.  you are not a bad person because you are fat or lonely, you can improve and here are the resources to help you improve.  even though you are not healthy now, we do not hate you, and we want to help you get healthy.    #  therefore, an unsociable person simply wo not handle criticism as well as the average person; any given criticism amounts to a proportionally larger hit to their sense of self worth, thereby worsening their dilemma.   #  let is talk about the nerd one for a second.  i do not think it is fair to say that nerds necessarily have poor social skills.  mind you, i am not arguing that nerdiness and poor social skills do not tend to go hand in hand: i am saying that you can be a nerd with excellent social skills.  such a thing is quite possible, and in fact fairly common.  here is the problem with nerd shaming: by equating nerdy pursuits with poor social skills, you discourage nerdy pursuits.  for example, there is nothing unsociable about an interest in math, but if we equate nerdiness with poor social skills then being interested in math makes you, in society is eyes, unsociable.  this discourages social people from pursuing nerdy interests, thus reinforcing the stereotype.  it also isolates nerds from society, thereby worsening their social skills.  this strengthens the stereotype, and leads to a negative downward spiral.  therefore, if we stopped shaming nerds, nerds would be less socially awkward, because they would not be isolated, and sociable people would be free to explore their nerdy interests.  when a person receives criticism, even constructive criticism, it erodes their sense of self worth.  now a well adjusted person with a healthy sense of self worth can withstand that erosion, and use the criticism to be a strong sense of self worth through self improvement; this is more or less the process you described.  however, let is consider what makes a person unsociable.  it is from a lack of confidence which stems from a lack of self worth.  therefore, an unsociable person simply wo not handle criticism as well as the average person; any given criticism amounts to a proportionally larger hit to their sense of self worth, thereby worsening their dilemma.  on the other hand, a supportive environment where these people are accepted for who they are would allow them to build the confidence and self worth necessary to be a sociable person.
there are a lot of movements for accepting previously criticized groups such as fat acceptance, nerd acceptance, .  you get the idea.  sure, those movements make people feel better about themselves but it makes them content with who they are thinking there is nothing wrong with it and not try to improve.  there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.  for example, the fat acceptance movement makes obese people think there is nothing wrong with their bodies and ignore the health risks of being obese.  while some nerds possess moderate social skills, a lot of them do not have social skills good enough to make one friend in an anime convention of thousands of people.  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.  that is absurd.  i ca not speak for fat acceptance but as a previous nerd with no social skills, it was the feeling of rejection that made me improve and push myself to hone my social skills.  if the acceptance movements were around back then i would be happier as a nerd but i would still have 0 friends.  that is not to say that i am no longer a nerd, i still have all my previous interests but i know when to talk about things, i know not to correct people too much, i know how to make small talk, and in general be able to deal with people.  as for fat acceptance, it may not be an issue in a country where people pay for their own healthcare but in a country like canada where everyone pays for healthcare, this is an issue that affects everyone.  here is a link that discusses the issue even in the us: URL  #  for example, the fat acceptance movement makes obese people think there is nothing wrong with their bodies and ignore the health risks of being obese.   #  who says that fat people do not understand the risks of their weight ?  # there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.  who says that fat people do not understand the risks of their weight ? the point is not to shame these people into losing weight, it is to accept everyone regardless of who they are.  why do you care if someone is fat or not, or if they are a nerd or not ? these are their choices, not yours.  fat acceptance or nerd acceptance is not about saying that it is healthy to be overweight or fine to be antisocial, it is about accepting people who are and not shaming them for it.  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.  that is absurd.  not everyone who goes to an anime convention does so with the intent of making friends.  many people do so simply to enjoy the various anime exhibits at the convention.  what is so bad about accepting that ?  #  fat acceptance movements are to people like you that when you cross paths with an obese person you should not be an asshole to them.   #  when you cross paths with an obese person on the street, how do you know whether that person is actively trying to lose weight or not ? you do not.  for all you know, that person could be actively dropping 0 0 pounds a week.  they could be 0lbs when you see them down from 0lbs months ago.  yet when you see this person at 0lbs, you would not know that history or that person is efforst all you would know is that you are looking at an obese person.  fat acceptance movements are to people like you that when you cross paths with an obese person you should not be an asshole to them.  you should accept them as human beings deserving of your kindness and respect just like any other human being and not judge and harassment because they are overweight.  fat acceptance movements are also help obese people not hate themselves, since so many of them do, since people like you walk around talking about how horribly lazy they are and how ignorant they are about health and how they suck up all our collective tax dollars.   #  the same goes for a person who is sexually chaste or restrained.   #  i think you are overestimating the effect these movements if you can call them that; i assume you are not speaking of more fundamental rights movements have on the self awareness of these people.  just because being overweight is socially accepted does not mean everyone is iq is going to drop five points such that they think being overweight is not a health risk.  in fact, it is well known that  fat shaming  actually serves to prompt even less healthy behaviour.  i do not see how this would be different in principle from any other group.  if a person, a nerd as you put it, has very low self esteem and believes that they are disliked by everyone, do not you think that would make them  less  likely to engage in social activities, not more ? keep in mind that how  you  would react to that situation specifically is more or less irrelevant.  that being my main point, i am now going address some of your specific claims.  there often is not.  for example, if a person is sexually promiscuous but aware of the risks and takes measures to minimize them, i ca not see anything wrong with them.  the same goes for a person who is sexually chaste or restrained.  what society does or does not deem acceptable is always outdated, often hypocritical, and more often than not completely meaningless.  some people just do not form friendships in that manner.  i do not, and never have.  it does not really speak to the sociability of the group, especially considering they have all elected to attend a massive public event with thousands of other people.   #  URL the acceptance movement is not about promoting unhealthy lifestyles, or about being proud of being fat or lacking social skills.   #  acceptance is not complacence.  until recently, and even now, folks who do not fit into a particular cultural mold were shunned, bullied, aggressively rejected, mocked.  the thought was that by making these folks outcasts, it would somehow motivate them to improve themselves.  it did for some, but for an overwhelming majority it only made things worse.  URL the acceptance movement is not about promoting unhealthy lifestyles, or about being proud of being fat or lacking social skills.  its about understanding that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.  the dialogue used to be  you are horrible because you are fat, you are disgusting, you are a loser, go lose some weight or make some friends you freak.   now the dialogue is  it is terrible that you are in an unhealthy place.  you are not a bad person because you are fat or lonely, you can improve and here are the resources to help you improve.  even though you are not healthy now, we do not hate you, and we want to help you get healthy.    #  when a person receives criticism, even constructive criticism, it erodes their sense of self worth.   #  let is talk about the nerd one for a second.  i do not think it is fair to say that nerds necessarily have poor social skills.  mind you, i am not arguing that nerdiness and poor social skills do not tend to go hand in hand: i am saying that you can be a nerd with excellent social skills.  such a thing is quite possible, and in fact fairly common.  here is the problem with nerd shaming: by equating nerdy pursuits with poor social skills, you discourage nerdy pursuits.  for example, there is nothing unsociable about an interest in math, but if we equate nerdiness with poor social skills then being interested in math makes you, in society is eyes, unsociable.  this discourages social people from pursuing nerdy interests, thus reinforcing the stereotype.  it also isolates nerds from society, thereby worsening their social skills.  this strengthens the stereotype, and leads to a negative downward spiral.  therefore, if we stopped shaming nerds, nerds would be less socially awkward, because they would not be isolated, and sociable people would be free to explore their nerdy interests.  when a person receives criticism, even constructive criticism, it erodes their sense of self worth.  now a well adjusted person with a healthy sense of self worth can withstand that erosion, and use the criticism to be a strong sense of self worth through self improvement; this is more or less the process you described.  however, let is consider what makes a person unsociable.  it is from a lack of confidence which stems from a lack of self worth.  therefore, an unsociable person simply wo not handle criticism as well as the average person; any given criticism amounts to a proportionally larger hit to their sense of self worth, thereby worsening their dilemma.  on the other hand, a supportive environment where these people are accepted for who they are would allow them to build the confidence and self worth necessary to be a sociable person.
there are a lot of movements for accepting previously criticized groups such as fat acceptance, nerd acceptance, .  you get the idea.  sure, those movements make people feel better about themselves but it makes them content with who they are thinking there is nothing wrong with it and not try to improve.  there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.  for example, the fat acceptance movement makes obese people think there is nothing wrong with their bodies and ignore the health risks of being obese.  while some nerds possess moderate social skills, a lot of them do not have social skills good enough to make one friend in an anime convention of thousands of people.  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.  that is absurd.  i ca not speak for fat acceptance but as a previous nerd with no social skills, it was the feeling of rejection that made me improve and push myself to hone my social skills.  if the acceptance movements were around back then i would be happier as a nerd but i would still have 0 friends.  that is not to say that i am no longer a nerd, i still have all my previous interests but i know when to talk about things, i know not to correct people too much, i know how to make small talk, and in general be able to deal with people.  as for fat acceptance, it may not be an issue in a country where people pay for their own healthcare but in a country like canada where everyone pays for healthcare, this is an issue that affects everyone.  here is a link that discusses the issue even in the us: URL  #  while some nerds possess moderate social skills, a lot of them do not have social skills good enough to make one friend in an anime convention of thousands of people.   #  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.   # there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.  who says that fat people do not understand the risks of their weight ? the point is not to shame these people into losing weight, it is to accept everyone regardless of who they are.  why do you care if someone is fat or not, or if they are a nerd or not ? these are their choices, not yours.  fat acceptance or nerd acceptance is not about saying that it is healthy to be overweight or fine to be antisocial, it is about accepting people who are and not shaming them for it.  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.  that is absurd.  not everyone who goes to an anime convention does so with the intent of making friends.  many people do so simply to enjoy the various anime exhibits at the convention.  what is so bad about accepting that ?  #  they could be 0lbs when you see them down from 0lbs months ago.   #  when you cross paths with an obese person on the street, how do you know whether that person is actively trying to lose weight or not ? you do not.  for all you know, that person could be actively dropping 0 0 pounds a week.  they could be 0lbs when you see them down from 0lbs months ago.  yet when you see this person at 0lbs, you would not know that history or that person is efforst all you would know is that you are looking at an obese person.  fat acceptance movements are to people like you that when you cross paths with an obese person you should not be an asshole to them.  you should accept them as human beings deserving of your kindness and respect just like any other human being and not judge and harassment because they are overweight.  fat acceptance movements are also help obese people not hate themselves, since so many of them do, since people like you walk around talking about how horribly lazy they are and how ignorant they are about health and how they suck up all our collective tax dollars.   #  keep in mind that how  you  would react to that situation specifically is more or less irrelevant.   #  i think you are overestimating the effect these movements if you can call them that; i assume you are not speaking of more fundamental rights movements have on the self awareness of these people.  just because being overweight is socially accepted does not mean everyone is iq is going to drop five points such that they think being overweight is not a health risk.  in fact, it is well known that  fat shaming  actually serves to prompt even less healthy behaviour.  i do not see how this would be different in principle from any other group.  if a person, a nerd as you put it, has very low self esteem and believes that they are disliked by everyone, do not you think that would make them  less  likely to engage in social activities, not more ? keep in mind that how  you  would react to that situation specifically is more or less irrelevant.  that being my main point, i am now going address some of your specific claims.  there often is not.  for example, if a person is sexually promiscuous but aware of the risks and takes measures to minimize them, i ca not see anything wrong with them.  the same goes for a person who is sexually chaste or restrained.  what society does or does not deem acceptable is always outdated, often hypocritical, and more often than not completely meaningless.  some people just do not form friendships in that manner.  i do not, and never have.  it does not really speak to the sociability of the group, especially considering they have all elected to attend a massive public event with thousands of other people.   #  even though you are not healthy now, we do not hate you, and we want to help you get healthy.    #  acceptance is not complacence.  until recently, and even now, folks who do not fit into a particular cultural mold were shunned, bullied, aggressively rejected, mocked.  the thought was that by making these folks outcasts, it would somehow motivate them to improve themselves.  it did for some, but for an overwhelming majority it only made things worse.  URL the acceptance movement is not about promoting unhealthy lifestyles, or about being proud of being fat or lacking social skills.  its about understanding that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.  the dialogue used to be  you are horrible because you are fat, you are disgusting, you are a loser, go lose some weight or make some friends you freak.   now the dialogue is  it is terrible that you are in an unhealthy place.  you are not a bad person because you are fat or lonely, you can improve and here are the resources to help you improve.  even though you are not healthy now, we do not hate you, and we want to help you get healthy.    #  it is from a lack of confidence which stems from a lack of self worth.   #  let is talk about the nerd one for a second.  i do not think it is fair to say that nerds necessarily have poor social skills.  mind you, i am not arguing that nerdiness and poor social skills do not tend to go hand in hand: i am saying that you can be a nerd with excellent social skills.  such a thing is quite possible, and in fact fairly common.  here is the problem with nerd shaming: by equating nerdy pursuits with poor social skills, you discourage nerdy pursuits.  for example, there is nothing unsociable about an interest in math, but if we equate nerdiness with poor social skills then being interested in math makes you, in society is eyes, unsociable.  this discourages social people from pursuing nerdy interests, thus reinforcing the stereotype.  it also isolates nerds from society, thereby worsening their social skills.  this strengthens the stereotype, and leads to a negative downward spiral.  therefore, if we stopped shaming nerds, nerds would be less socially awkward, because they would not be isolated, and sociable people would be free to explore their nerdy interests.  when a person receives criticism, even constructive criticism, it erodes their sense of self worth.  now a well adjusted person with a healthy sense of self worth can withstand that erosion, and use the criticism to be a strong sense of self worth through self improvement; this is more or less the process you described.  however, let is consider what makes a person unsociable.  it is from a lack of confidence which stems from a lack of self worth.  therefore, an unsociable person simply wo not handle criticism as well as the average person; any given criticism amounts to a proportionally larger hit to their sense of self worth, thereby worsening their dilemma.  on the other hand, a supportive environment where these people are accepted for who they are would allow them to build the confidence and self worth necessary to be a sociable person.
there are a lot of movements for accepting previously criticized groups such as fat acceptance, nerd acceptance, .  you get the idea.  sure, those movements make people feel better about themselves but it makes them content with who they are thinking there is nothing wrong with it and not try to improve.  there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.  for example, the fat acceptance movement makes obese people think there is nothing wrong with their bodies and ignore the health risks of being obese.  while some nerds possess moderate social skills, a lot of them do not have social skills good enough to make one friend in an anime convention of thousands of people.  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.  that is absurd.  i ca not speak for fat acceptance but as a previous nerd with no social skills, it was the feeling of rejection that made me improve and push myself to hone my social skills.  if the acceptance movements were around back then i would be happier as a nerd but i would still have 0 friends.  that is not to say that i am no longer a nerd, i still have all my previous interests but i know when to talk about things, i know not to correct people too much, i know how to make small talk, and in general be able to deal with people.  as for fat acceptance, it may not be an issue in a country where people pay for their own healthcare but in a country like canada where everyone pays for healthcare, this is an issue that affects everyone.  here is a link that discusses the issue even in the us: URL  #  there are a lot of movements for accepting previously criticized groups such as fat acceptance, nerd acceptance, .  you get the idea.   #  key word: previously how do you think people like women, gays, blacks, indigenous peoples, etc.   # key word: previously how do you think people like women, gays, blacks, indigenous peoples, etc.  went from  criticized  to  previously criticized  although i would say they still are frequently criticized ? what mechanisms do you think were used to create acceptance for these groups ? perhaps it was.  ghast.  acceptance movements ! did acceptance movements hurt these groups ?  #  you should accept them as human beings deserving of your kindness and respect just like any other human being and not judge and harassment because they are overweight.   #  when you cross paths with an obese person on the street, how do you know whether that person is actively trying to lose weight or not ? you do not.  for all you know, that person could be actively dropping 0 0 pounds a week.  they could be 0lbs when you see them down from 0lbs months ago.  yet when you see this person at 0lbs, you would not know that history or that person is efforst all you would know is that you are looking at an obese person.  fat acceptance movements are to people like you that when you cross paths with an obese person you should not be an asshole to them.  you should accept them as human beings deserving of your kindness and respect just like any other human being and not judge and harassment because they are overweight.  fat acceptance movements are also help obese people not hate themselves, since so many of them do, since people like you walk around talking about how horribly lazy they are and how ignorant they are about health and how they suck up all our collective tax dollars.   #  some people just do not form friendships in that manner.   #  i think you are overestimating the effect these movements if you can call them that; i assume you are not speaking of more fundamental rights movements have on the self awareness of these people.  just because being overweight is socially accepted does not mean everyone is iq is going to drop five points such that they think being overweight is not a health risk.  in fact, it is well known that  fat shaming  actually serves to prompt even less healthy behaviour.  i do not see how this would be different in principle from any other group.  if a person, a nerd as you put it, has very low self esteem and believes that they are disliked by everyone, do not you think that would make them  less  likely to engage in social activities, not more ? keep in mind that how  you  would react to that situation specifically is more or less irrelevant.  that being my main point, i am now going address some of your specific claims.  there often is not.  for example, if a person is sexually promiscuous but aware of the risks and takes measures to minimize them, i ca not see anything wrong with them.  the same goes for a person who is sexually chaste or restrained.  what society does or does not deem acceptable is always outdated, often hypocritical, and more often than not completely meaningless.  some people just do not form friendships in that manner.  i do not, and never have.  it does not really speak to the sociability of the group, especially considering they have all elected to attend a massive public event with thousands of other people.   #  you are not a bad person because you are fat or lonely, you can improve and here are the resources to help you improve.   #  acceptance is not complacence.  until recently, and even now, folks who do not fit into a particular cultural mold were shunned, bullied, aggressively rejected, mocked.  the thought was that by making these folks outcasts, it would somehow motivate them to improve themselves.  it did for some, but for an overwhelming majority it only made things worse.  URL the acceptance movement is not about promoting unhealthy lifestyles, or about being proud of being fat or lacking social skills.  its about understanding that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.  the dialogue used to be  you are horrible because you are fat, you are disgusting, you are a loser, go lose some weight or make some friends you freak.   now the dialogue is  it is terrible that you are in an unhealthy place.  you are not a bad person because you are fat or lonely, you can improve and here are the resources to help you improve.  even though you are not healthy now, we do not hate you, and we want to help you get healthy.    #  fat acceptance or nerd acceptance is not about saying that it is healthy to be overweight or fine to be antisocial, it is about accepting people who are and not shaming them for it.   # there is a reason why they were traditionally thought of as weird.  who says that fat people do not understand the risks of their weight ? the point is not to shame these people into losing weight, it is to accept everyone regardless of who they are.  why do you care if someone is fat or not, or if they are a nerd or not ? these are their choices, not yours.  fat acceptance or nerd acceptance is not about saying that it is healthy to be overweight or fine to be antisocial, it is about accepting people who are and not shaming them for it.  according to a poll used for an anime family feud in an anime convention, at least 0 make 0 friends in a 0 day convention with people of similar interests.  that is absurd.  not everyone who goes to an anime convention does so with the intent of making friends.  many people do so simply to enjoy the various anime exhibits at the convention.  what is so bad about accepting that ?
skipping is the most underrated form of travel, and i will use the authority of experience, and the magic of truth to formulate and justify my argument.  you should not even try to change my view because what i speak is a truth manifested by the movement of all mankind throughout history.  that said, it ai not easy defending skipping as the most underutilized, underappreciated, and underrated form of human travel due to it is ostracization throughout history.  one quick example is noted in jrr tolkien historic novella,  lord of the rings,  as the orcs, the bad guys, never skip no citations needed .  not once.  that is why they are so angry: because they never experienced the magic of skipping.  and that is why we went to war: lack of skipping.  if they had skipped into battle then they would have canceled the war altogether and ate lembas bread and watch gandalf shoot fireworks.  the middle ages would have be a better place.  therefore, skipping is more than just an efficient form of travel: it is an opportunity to change ones lifestyle.  the first lifestyle change lies in the efficiency of skipping, because you are using the power of science to momentum yourself around from point a to point b through z z because you saved so much energy from not running that you can actually go all places you could not go before .  dan carlin of hardcore history notes in his lesson on alexander the great that the armies would often times march at a constant pace, and eventually his men were bitter because they were so far from home.  if they had skipped, they would have traveled thrice as far and actually circled the globe and would have been back home already.  additionally, skipping helps the heart.  it is more functional than other natural movements.  walking is lumberous, crawling hurts on sidewalk, moonwalking is too slow, and running makes you elitist and then you spend money on shoes and heartrate monitors and eventually you leave for some triathlete.  but skipping would never do that, because skipping does not cheat.  skipping does not lie.  skipping does not hurt.  skipping is an opportunity to feel again.  it lets you feel the wind upon your face after nights alone in the dark.  skipping let is you feel like you are going places and not stuck in second gear all the time.  it let is you feel like there is more to life than just.  being left behind.  skipping makes you feel alive, again.  next in line for the true facts report on this vehicle of the human body is that skipping fills your body with joy.  it is what the grinch should have done to originally make his heart grow three sizes bigger, because it makes even the most curmudgeonly of folk feel better about life.  a man once said,  motion changes  e motion.   the body ca not help but release chemicals whilst skipping, causing us to feel elation, euphoria, excitement, and excitement, and other e words.  lastly, it is contagious.  you throw in a bit of whistling and some arm back and forth and you got yourself a regular ole ballyhoo that others will see as an opportunity to shed their blanket bitterness against life and actually do something to curb their frustrations.  it is a physical activity that others ca not help but join in, like a conga line or a spontaneous riot.  imagine the streets filled with skipping whistlers, with men who dream, with folks who actually care again.  men, women, and elderly locked arms and skipping, whistling show tunes and making life a better place to be.  not only is skipping the most underutilized and unappreciated form of human travel, but it is opportunity to be happy again, and that is why it is the most underrated form of travel.   #  you should not even try to change my view because what i speak is a truth manifested by the movement of all mankind throughout history.   #  this sounds an awful lot like it breaks submission rule b:  you must personally hold the view and  be open to it changing .   # this sounds an awful lot like it breaks submission rule b:  you must personally hold the view and  be open to it changing .  emphasis added  additionally, skipping helps the heart.  it is more functional than other natural movements.  walking is lumberous, crawling hurts on sidewalk, moonwalking is too slow, and running makes you elitist and then you spend money on shoes and heartrate monitors and eventually you leave for some triathlete.  this seems entirely unfair to running, and it excludes jogging.  honestly, it does not seem like you take this whole  cmv  thing very seriously.  you also never back up your claims.  i am not sure how i am supposed to refute you.  you extol the miracles of skipping, but i do not see any real evidence only what may or may not be a farcical personal opinion.   #  thus skipping should be avoided if you want to be taken seriously and trusted.   # not once.  that is why they are so angry you are right: orcs do not skip.  neither do any of the positive characters.  but you know who does skip ? gollum, that is who.    yes, yes,  agreed gollum,  skipping about .  off we go ! there is only one way across between north end and the south end.  i found it, i did.  orcs do not use it.   of course, as we all know, that  way  was an ambush, and gollum intended for sam and frodo to get eaten by shelob when passing that  way.   since gollum skips about while trying to deceive the good guys, it leads me to believe that skipping is a representation of inpatient, mischievous, even dishonest intentions.  i would never trust words of a person who is seen skipping.  thus skipping should be avoided if you want to be taken seriously and trusted.   #  your argument would be equally misguided had you said  ahah !  #  your argument erroneously depends on the ambiguity of the key term  skip.   in context, when op uses this word, he refers to a mode of travel exhibited when one takes two or more steps with the same foot, and alternates sides in order to cover distance or engage in happiness.  the usage in the passage you provided, however, is a clear shift from the one used by op, and is meant to portray a kind of jumping about anxiously.  your argument would be equally misguided had you said  ahah ! voldemort skipped class, and was clearly evil !   you cannot simply take advantage of language is imprecision in order to cut down a flawless argument.   #  fake skipping is not skipping, therefore the bad guys never skip.   # i disagree.  there is a difference between doing something and faking it.  look at it this way, if the orcs could have pretended to offer peace in order to lure the humans into a trap.  does not mean they would be instantly trusted.  but, if they  genuinely  sought peace and honestly approached the humans they could have perhaps worked some sort of agreement out.  the premise is the same for skipping, if you genuinely embrace skipping and give it your heart, you will find happiness.  fake skipping is not skipping, therefore the bad guys never skip.   #  thus skipping should be avoided if you want to be taken seriously and trusted.   # this statement is undermined by the previous statements.  thus skipping should be avoided if you want to be taken seriously and trusted.  if skipping is simply a type of alternating foot movement, as you claim, then it does not represent any form of  inpatient, mischievous, even dishonest intentions.   intent either is or is not behind what we label as skipping and fake skipping.  then we agree, fake skipping is skipping with bad intentions, this is why we label it as fake as opposed to simply skipping which has good intentions.  your first post claimed that  skipping is a representation of inpatient, mischievous, even dishonest intentions  but are now arguing that this was not skipping but fake skipping which is exactly my point.  gollum was fake skipping to trick the hobbits, therefore no bad guys were skipping.
i said the  passing side of the escalator  because i suppose in some countries people may pass on the right.  but in the u. s. , we pass on the left.  my point is that on escalators, polite and considerate people stand on the standing side and pass on the passing side.  rude and inconsiderate people stand on the passing side, blocking everyone who wants to pass.  of course there are exceptions, families with small children may want to hold hands, elderly people may need assistance.  but talking with your friend, oblivious to people who want to climb the escalator rather than stand, is not an exception.  i do not mean to overstate it, on the scale of being rude and inconsiderate this is a minor annoyance, a small irritant, but it still bugs me.  am i being unreasonable here ? i do not make a thing of it when it happens, i might just say  excuse me  or more often i will just wait another minute until i am off the escalator.  but i am stating it here because i wanted to a vent and b see if anyone could change my view.   #  i said the  passing side of the escalator  because i suppose in some countries people may pass on the right.   #  but in the u. s. , we pass on the left.   # but in the u. s. , we pass on the left.  why does traffic etiquette/law need to be followed when there are neither vehicles nor roads involved ? it makes sense for cars, because we are traveling at high speeds and need to maintain space between cars for safety.  people are traveling at low speeds and can quickly move around each other.  while blocking an escalator completely  may  be inconsiderate, the idea of  escalator passing lanes  is silly.  rude and inconsiderate people stand on the passing side, blocking everyone who wants to pass.  they are impolite and rude only with your idea of escalator lanes.  unlike roads where we move ourselves, escalators do the moving for us.  just because you are unhappy with the speed of the escalator does not mean people ought to make room for you to pass.  i would argue that you are.  how much time do you save by climbing a moving escalator ? they are already moving, and the whole point of an escalator is that they are stairs you  do not have to climb .  not everything in life is analogous to traffic on a road.   #  long escalators in train stations where people are in a hurry, yes.   #  i think it is a bit unnecessary to extend the rules to all escalators.  long escalators in train stations where people are in a hurry, yes.  airports, yes.  shopping mall ? i have never considered it rude to stand two abreast on an escalator in a mall because there generally is not a need for rushing.  you are at the mall to shop, it is not exactly a speedy activity.  you are also on the escalator for a really short amount of time.  i think standing in a way that i find convenient is not that inconsiderate to someone who is just going to save 0 seconds.   #  usually they are just wide enough for two.   #  oh, i completely agree, but there is a reason i mentioned escalators in particular.  usually they are just wide enough for two.  if they are only wide enough for one that is another matter entirely.  sidewalks and hallways are usually wide enough for many people, it is harder to block them, but if four or more people are doing so, yes, that is also rude and inconsiderate.  as for cars, there are specific legal rules regarding driving in the left lane, i did not want to get into those.   #  escalator manufacturers recommend standing  away from the sides  URL for safe riding.   # even though no laws have ever been passed, customs have arisen.  while this custom may be a good idea for pedestrian traffic, we are talking specifically about escalators.  escalators are devices that do the moving for you.  escalator manufacturers recommend standing  away from the sides  URL for safe riding.  these things are not intended to be used like normal stairs, and passing people only adds risk.  promoting a custom of passing on escalators is promoting a dangerous activity.  are we talking about blocking traffic, or just standing on the passing side ? i agree it is inconsiderate to take up more space than necessary, but people standing on the left side of the escalator are only inconveniencing you; not blocking you.   #  this seems analogous to tailgating where the tailgater believes the person in front of them should speed up.   # as i mentioned previously, it is recommended by the manufacturers of escalators to stand toward the center.  even if we agreed that it was okay to stand on the sides, a crowded escalator will be more efficient if the entire space is utilized.  why should a crowd only use half an escalator just in case someone wants to go a bit faster ? how far do we take this custom ? should slower climbers merge right when someone is behind them ? there is not a lot of time or space for a passing custom to be useful.  is it a coincidence that the polite thing happens to coincide with the thing you want to do ? why is not the polite thing to stand still when the people in front of you want to stand still ? this seems analogous to tailgating where the tailgater believes the person in front of them should speed up.  the person in front is going at the speed in which they are comfortable, and it is easier for you to go slower than force another to go faster.
i said the  passing side of the escalator  because i suppose in some countries people may pass on the right.  but in the u. s. , we pass on the left.  my point is that on escalators, polite and considerate people stand on the standing side and pass on the passing side.  rude and inconsiderate people stand on the passing side, blocking everyone who wants to pass.  of course there are exceptions, families with small children may want to hold hands, elderly people may need assistance.  but talking with your friend, oblivious to people who want to climb the escalator rather than stand, is not an exception.  i do not mean to overstate it, on the scale of being rude and inconsiderate this is a minor annoyance, a small irritant, but it still bugs me.  am i being unreasonable here ? i do not make a thing of it when it happens, i might just say  excuse me  or more often i will just wait another minute until i am off the escalator.  but i am stating it here because i wanted to a vent and b see if anyone could change my view.   #  my point is that on escalators, polite and considerate people stand on the standing side and pass on the passing side.   #  rude and inconsiderate people stand on the passing side, blocking everyone who wants to pass.   # but in the u. s. , we pass on the left.  why does traffic etiquette/law need to be followed when there are neither vehicles nor roads involved ? it makes sense for cars, because we are traveling at high speeds and need to maintain space between cars for safety.  people are traveling at low speeds and can quickly move around each other.  while blocking an escalator completely  may  be inconsiderate, the idea of  escalator passing lanes  is silly.  rude and inconsiderate people stand on the passing side, blocking everyone who wants to pass.  they are impolite and rude only with your idea of escalator lanes.  unlike roads where we move ourselves, escalators do the moving for us.  just because you are unhappy with the speed of the escalator does not mean people ought to make room for you to pass.  i would argue that you are.  how much time do you save by climbing a moving escalator ? they are already moving, and the whole point of an escalator is that they are stairs you  do not have to climb .  not everything in life is analogous to traffic on a road.   #  long escalators in train stations where people are in a hurry, yes.   #  i think it is a bit unnecessary to extend the rules to all escalators.  long escalators in train stations where people are in a hurry, yes.  airports, yes.  shopping mall ? i have never considered it rude to stand two abreast on an escalator in a mall because there generally is not a need for rushing.  you are at the mall to shop, it is not exactly a speedy activity.  you are also on the escalator for a really short amount of time.  i think standing in a way that i find convenient is not that inconsiderate to someone who is just going to save 0 seconds.   #  oh, i completely agree, but there is a reason i mentioned escalators in particular.   #  oh, i completely agree, but there is a reason i mentioned escalators in particular.  usually they are just wide enough for two.  if they are only wide enough for one that is another matter entirely.  sidewalks and hallways are usually wide enough for many people, it is harder to block them, but if four or more people are doing so, yes, that is also rude and inconsiderate.  as for cars, there are specific legal rules regarding driving in the left lane, i did not want to get into those.   #  escalators are devices that do the moving for you.   # even though no laws have ever been passed, customs have arisen.  while this custom may be a good idea for pedestrian traffic, we are talking specifically about escalators.  escalators are devices that do the moving for you.  escalator manufacturers recommend standing  away from the sides  URL for safe riding.  these things are not intended to be used like normal stairs, and passing people only adds risk.  promoting a custom of passing on escalators is promoting a dangerous activity.  are we talking about blocking traffic, or just standing on the passing side ? i agree it is inconsiderate to take up more space than necessary, but people standing on the left side of the escalator are only inconveniencing you; not blocking you.   #  as i mentioned previously, it is recommended by the manufacturers of escalators to stand toward the center.   # as i mentioned previously, it is recommended by the manufacturers of escalators to stand toward the center.  even if we agreed that it was okay to stand on the sides, a crowded escalator will be more efficient if the entire space is utilized.  why should a crowd only use half an escalator just in case someone wants to go a bit faster ? how far do we take this custom ? should slower climbers merge right when someone is behind them ? there is not a lot of time or space for a passing custom to be useful.  is it a coincidence that the polite thing happens to coincide with the thing you want to do ? why is not the polite thing to stand still when the people in front of you want to stand still ? this seems analogous to tailgating where the tailgater believes the person in front of them should speed up.  the person in front is going at the speed in which they are comfortable, and it is easier for you to go slower than force another to go faster.
the biggest offender is grouping young male drivers into age 0 0 and charge premium on obscure basis such as statically higher risk and that insurance companies need to make profit.  why is not driving history the main factor in determining risk observe how much insurance rate drops from going 0 to 0 ? how is it justified to group drivers into 0 years age group have not the insurance companies heard of progressive rates ? how is insurance companies  need to make a profit a defensible claim for higher premium ? why do i care as a customer about insurance companies  performance if i have no stake in it ? please explain the reasons stated by the supreme court judges.  link for summary URL if they ruled it this way, why is driving history not a determining statistics that insurance companies use ? if young male driver was driving 0 years from 0 to 0 accident free, does it make sense that someone who started driving at 0 to pay less insurance ? this further reinforces the question, why is driving history not considered a practical alternative ? the records are written into the driving license.  on basis such as obscure link between statistics and risk calculations why the length of clean driving history is not counted more, etc.   #  how is insurance companies  need to make a profit a defensible claim for higher premium ?  #  why do i care as a customer about insurance companies  performance if i have no stake in it ?  # why do i care as a customer about insurance companies  performance if i have no stake in it ? it is not to increase their profits per se.  they are going to make what they want to make.  by increasing the premiums for demographics that are known to be involved in more accidents, they can lower the premiums for demographics that are known to be involved in fewer accidents.  the demographics who get involved in more accidents ie.  new drivers under 0 are cashing in on the insurance benefits more often, but the people with 0 years of experience of driving who get in fewer accidents are paying the same rates even though they are not getting as much benefit from the insurance.  that seems unfair to the experienced drivers out there.  as for driving records, they are indeed used first and foremost to determine the rates you should pay.  if you have been known to cause car accidents, you are going to get charged way more no matter what your age or sex is.  the people with a clean driving record are less risky, but a clean driving record alone does not say much about their risk.  maybe they do not drive as frequently, or maybe they do not get caught.  what if it is found that males with a clean driving record are still more likely to cause accidents than females with a driving record ? maybe it is not even the case that females are more careful drivers than males.  perhaps there is a secondary effect.  maybe it is just the case that male drivers drive more often than female drivers and are more likely to get into an accident.  looking at the driver is sex would still be a decent heuristic for the insurance company to predict how much the person will drive.  even if the cause is unknown, statistics are still useful for determining risk.   #  you draw the line when it is no longer statistically significant.   #  you draw the line when it is no longer statistically significant.  it costs the insurance company more money on average to insure males between the ages of 0 and 0 than is does to insure other people.  so, the insurance charges them more for the service, because it costs them more to provide the service to those people.  that is certainly reasonable, so long as the basis is statistically significant.  i. e.  you can actually demonstrate that it costs more to provide the service to one class of people as compared to another class .   #  i am fairly certain that the reason young males are in more accidents is due to higher levels of testosterone, which causes them to engage in riskier behavior.   #  a part of the thing is that they need to make decisions on what to charge people based on information that they have about people, and that people ca not really fake.  your sex as opposed to gender is something that is on your birth certificate, and your driver is license, and whatever else.  it is an easy thing for them to figure out.  same with age.  i am fairly certain that the reason young males are in more accidents is due to higher levels of testosterone, which causes them to engage in riskier behavior.  if your testosterone levels were an easy to find thing, i think that the insurance companies would probably use them.  the issue is that they are not, so they ca not really use that.  biological sex and age, though, is a pretty good predictor of testosterone, so they just use that instead.  as for hair color, what really matters would be your genetic hair color.  and with dye so prevalent, it would be an easy thing to  spoof  to try to get lower rates.   #  it would certainly be more accurate to pin down causation first, but that is not always feasible.   #  i am not sure that it is immaterial.  it sort of all matters what you can and ca not know.  the fact that there is a correlation means that there is some link perhaps causal, perhaps not .  i am not really sure that the insurance should really care.  if the actual cause is not something they can measure, it makes sense to measure something correlated with the cause instead.  it would certainly be more accurate to pin down causation first, but that is not always feasible.  and in many cases, it just is not necessary in order to keep the books balanced, which is what the insurance companies are trying to do.   #  if hair color or music preferences had a statistical effect on driver risk assessments, insurance companies likely would have implemented policies about it by now.   #  is it relevant where the line is drawn ? your attempt to take the idea to absurd ends does not invalidate insurance companies  decision to charge differently based on demographics.  besides, it seems like the industry has decided for itself where to draw the line.  if hair color or music preferences had a statistical effect on driver risk assessments, insurance companies likely would have implemented policies about it by now.  and if they have never looked into hair color as a determinant, it is probably because they do not care much.  either way, lines have been drawn.
the biggest offender is grouping young male drivers into age 0 0 and charge premium on obscure basis such as statically higher risk and that insurance companies need to make profit.  why is not driving history the main factor in determining risk observe how much insurance rate drops from going 0 to 0 ? how is it justified to group drivers into 0 years age group have not the insurance companies heard of progressive rates ? how is insurance companies  need to make a profit a defensible claim for higher premium ? why do i care as a customer about insurance companies  performance if i have no stake in it ? please explain the reasons stated by the supreme court judges.  link for summary URL if they ruled it this way, why is driving history not a determining statistics that insurance companies use ? if young male driver was driving 0 years from 0 to 0 accident free, does it make sense that someone who started driving at 0 to pay less insurance ? this further reinforces the question, why is driving history not considered a practical alternative ? the records are written into the driving license.  on basis such as obscure link between statistics and risk calculations why the length of clean driving history is not counted more, etc.   #  the biggest offender is grouping young male drivers into age 0 0 and charge premium on obscure basis such as statically higher risk and that insurance companies need to make profit.   #  if it were not for statics, insurance companies would not exist.   # if it were not for statics, insurance companies would not exist.  it is perfectly justifiable to use statistics to charge more money.  it usually is.  notice how after an accident or speeding ticket, your rate will adjust  almost immediately  ? there is a base rate for the general group you fit into, and then they adjust it based on driving history.  insurance companies exist to make a profit.  are you suggesting they ought to  lose  money ?  #  you can actually demonstrate that it costs more to provide the service to one class of people as compared to another class .   #  you draw the line when it is no longer statistically significant.  it costs the insurance company more money on average to insure males between the ages of 0 and 0 than is does to insure other people.  so, the insurance charges them more for the service, because it costs them more to provide the service to those people.  that is certainly reasonable, so long as the basis is statistically significant.  i. e.  you can actually demonstrate that it costs more to provide the service to one class of people as compared to another class .   #  a part of the thing is that they need to make decisions on what to charge people based on information that they have about people, and that people ca not really fake.   #  a part of the thing is that they need to make decisions on what to charge people based on information that they have about people, and that people ca not really fake.  your sex as opposed to gender is something that is on your birth certificate, and your driver is license, and whatever else.  it is an easy thing for them to figure out.  same with age.  i am fairly certain that the reason young males are in more accidents is due to higher levels of testosterone, which causes them to engage in riskier behavior.  if your testosterone levels were an easy to find thing, i think that the insurance companies would probably use them.  the issue is that they are not, so they ca not really use that.  biological sex and age, though, is a pretty good predictor of testosterone, so they just use that instead.  as for hair color, what really matters would be your genetic hair color.  and with dye so prevalent, it would be an easy thing to  spoof  to try to get lower rates.   #  and in many cases, it just is not necessary in order to keep the books balanced, which is what the insurance companies are trying to do.   #  i am not sure that it is immaterial.  it sort of all matters what you can and ca not know.  the fact that there is a correlation means that there is some link perhaps causal, perhaps not .  i am not really sure that the insurance should really care.  if the actual cause is not something they can measure, it makes sense to measure something correlated with the cause instead.  it would certainly be more accurate to pin down causation first, but that is not always feasible.  and in many cases, it just is not necessary in order to keep the books balanced, which is what the insurance companies are trying to do.   #  if hair color or music preferences had a statistical effect on driver risk assessments, insurance companies likely would have implemented policies about it by now.   #  is it relevant where the line is drawn ? your attempt to take the idea to absurd ends does not invalidate insurance companies  decision to charge differently based on demographics.  besides, it seems like the industry has decided for itself where to draw the line.  if hair color or music preferences had a statistical effect on driver risk assessments, insurance companies likely would have implemented policies about it by now.  and if they have never looked into hair color as a determinant, it is probably because they do not care much.  either way, lines have been drawn.
the biggest offender is grouping young male drivers into age 0 0 and charge premium on obscure basis such as statically higher risk and that insurance companies need to make profit.  why is not driving history the main factor in determining risk observe how much insurance rate drops from going 0 to 0 ? how is it justified to group drivers into 0 years age group have not the insurance companies heard of progressive rates ? how is insurance companies  need to make a profit a defensible claim for higher premium ? why do i care as a customer about insurance companies  performance if i have no stake in it ? please explain the reasons stated by the supreme court judges.  link for summary URL if they ruled it this way, why is driving history not a determining statistics that insurance companies use ? if young male driver was driving 0 years from 0 to 0 accident free, does it make sense that someone who started driving at 0 to pay less insurance ? this further reinforces the question, why is driving history not considered a practical alternative ? the records are written into the driving license.  on basis such as obscure link between statistics and risk calculations why the length of clean driving history is not counted more, etc.   #  how is insurance companies  need to make a profit a defensible claim for higher premium ?  #  insurance companies exist to make a profit.   # if it were not for statics, insurance companies would not exist.  it is perfectly justifiable to use statistics to charge more money.  it usually is.  notice how after an accident or speeding ticket, your rate will adjust  almost immediately  ? there is a base rate for the general group you fit into, and then they adjust it based on driving history.  insurance companies exist to make a profit.  are you suggesting they ought to  lose  money ?  #  so, the insurance charges them more for the service, because it costs them more to provide the service to those people.   #  you draw the line when it is no longer statistically significant.  it costs the insurance company more money on average to insure males between the ages of 0 and 0 than is does to insure other people.  so, the insurance charges them more for the service, because it costs them more to provide the service to those people.  that is certainly reasonable, so long as the basis is statistically significant.  i. e.  you can actually demonstrate that it costs more to provide the service to one class of people as compared to another class .   #  a part of the thing is that they need to make decisions on what to charge people based on information that they have about people, and that people ca not really fake.   #  a part of the thing is that they need to make decisions on what to charge people based on information that they have about people, and that people ca not really fake.  your sex as opposed to gender is something that is on your birth certificate, and your driver is license, and whatever else.  it is an easy thing for them to figure out.  same with age.  i am fairly certain that the reason young males are in more accidents is due to higher levels of testosterone, which causes them to engage in riskier behavior.  if your testosterone levels were an easy to find thing, i think that the insurance companies would probably use them.  the issue is that they are not, so they ca not really use that.  biological sex and age, though, is a pretty good predictor of testosterone, so they just use that instead.  as for hair color, what really matters would be your genetic hair color.  and with dye so prevalent, it would be an easy thing to  spoof  to try to get lower rates.   #  if the actual cause is not something they can measure, it makes sense to measure something correlated with the cause instead.   #  i am not sure that it is immaterial.  it sort of all matters what you can and ca not know.  the fact that there is a correlation means that there is some link perhaps causal, perhaps not .  i am not really sure that the insurance should really care.  if the actual cause is not something they can measure, it makes sense to measure something correlated with the cause instead.  it would certainly be more accurate to pin down causation first, but that is not always feasible.  and in many cases, it just is not necessary in order to keep the books balanced, which is what the insurance companies are trying to do.   #  is it relevant where the line is drawn ?  #  is it relevant where the line is drawn ? your attempt to take the idea to absurd ends does not invalidate insurance companies  decision to charge differently based on demographics.  besides, it seems like the industry has decided for itself where to draw the line.  if hair color or music preferences had a statistical effect on driver risk assessments, insurance companies likely would have implemented policies about it by now.  and if they have never looked into hair color as a determinant, it is probably because they do not care much.  either way, lines have been drawn.
the biggest offender is grouping young male drivers into age 0 0 and charge premium on obscure basis such as statically higher risk and that insurance companies need to make profit.  why is not driving history the main factor in determining risk observe how much insurance rate drops from going 0 to 0 ? how is it justified to group drivers into 0 years age group have not the insurance companies heard of progressive rates ? how is insurance companies  need to make a profit a defensible claim for higher premium ? why do i care as a customer about insurance companies  performance if i have no stake in it ? please explain the reasons stated by the supreme court judges.  link for summary URL if they ruled it this way, why is driving history not a determining statistics that insurance companies use ? if young male driver was driving 0 years from 0 to 0 accident free, does it make sense that someone who started driving at 0 to pay less insurance ? this further reinforces the question, why is driving history not considered a practical alternative ? the records are written into the driving license.  on basis such as obscure link between statistics and risk calculations why the length of clean driving history is not counted more, etc.   #  if they ruled it this way, why is driving history not a determining statistics that insurance companies use ?  #  it is, which is why they run a motor vehicle report on an applicant when they issue a policy.   # it is, which is why they run a motor vehicle report on an applicant when they issue a policy.  yes, actually.  they are not looking at the individual, because that would be an impossible indicator of risk.  they are looking at a class of people and determining the risk based on the group as a whole, which is a much more accurate way of analyzing risk and setting premiums.  this really is not a complicated issue, it is simple statistics.  there really is a mathematical formula to the way that actuaries determine rates and they are pretty good at it on the property side of the business.  they are not as good on the life insurance side of the business, but that is because there are so many other factors that are involved and the timeline they are dealing with.  simply: young drivers have more accidents, therefore young drivers pay more for insurance.  does it suck ? yes.  but young drivers pose a higher risk to insurance companies therefore the risk must be made up for with additional premium dollars.   #  that is certainly reasonable, so long as the basis is statistically significant.   #  you draw the line when it is no longer statistically significant.  it costs the insurance company more money on average to insure males between the ages of 0 and 0 than is does to insure other people.  so, the insurance charges them more for the service, because it costs them more to provide the service to those people.  that is certainly reasonable, so long as the basis is statistically significant.  i. e.  you can actually demonstrate that it costs more to provide the service to one class of people as compared to another class .   #  the issue is that they are not, so they ca not really use that.   #  a part of the thing is that they need to make decisions on what to charge people based on information that they have about people, and that people ca not really fake.  your sex as opposed to gender is something that is on your birth certificate, and your driver is license, and whatever else.  it is an easy thing for them to figure out.  same with age.  i am fairly certain that the reason young males are in more accidents is due to higher levels of testosterone, which causes them to engage in riskier behavior.  if your testosterone levels were an easy to find thing, i think that the insurance companies would probably use them.  the issue is that they are not, so they ca not really use that.  biological sex and age, though, is a pretty good predictor of testosterone, so they just use that instead.  as for hair color, what really matters would be your genetic hair color.  and with dye so prevalent, it would be an easy thing to  spoof  to try to get lower rates.   #  it sort of all matters what you can and ca not know.   #  i am not sure that it is immaterial.  it sort of all matters what you can and ca not know.  the fact that there is a correlation means that there is some link perhaps causal, perhaps not .  i am not really sure that the insurance should really care.  if the actual cause is not something they can measure, it makes sense to measure something correlated with the cause instead.  it would certainly be more accurate to pin down causation first, but that is not always feasible.  and in many cases, it just is not necessary in order to keep the books balanced, which is what the insurance companies are trying to do.   #  if hair color or music preferences had a statistical effect on driver risk assessments, insurance companies likely would have implemented policies about it by now.   #  is it relevant where the line is drawn ? your attempt to take the idea to absurd ends does not invalidate insurance companies  decision to charge differently based on demographics.  besides, it seems like the industry has decided for itself where to draw the line.  if hair color or music preferences had a statistical effect on driver risk assessments, insurance companies likely would have implemented policies about it by now.  and if they have never looked into hair color as a determinant, it is probably because they do not care much.  either way, lines have been drawn.
mind you, i am not for putting scientists in political positions, neil degrasse tyson is better suited to science rather than leadership.  i do enjoy his work though.  for those unaware an oligarchy is a system of government where the many are ruled by the few.  there are a few oligarchies in the world today, some even consider the united states an oligarchy.  throughout history there have been able to just sort of, well, got it.  they were ahead of their time in their way of thinking.  socrates in an example of someone who laid the foundations for the future of philosophy with his teachings.  he was one of the first well known skeptics, his work is very good indeed.  my point being, history is full of those sort of people.  they understood what was going on in their society and even other societies but they did not have the  power  to stop it.  power is a very important thing, in societies usually someone holds power someplace.  in the usa, politicians try to win the whim of the people, they use words as a means of swaying the masses to their idea.  the power is essentially given to the majority to use.  the average person has the average intellect.  still, they can be rather easily swayed by charisma and an argument that confirms their biases.  not to mention showing a relatively feeble grasp about current events beyond what they have heard from their friends.  they are given the illusion of the puppeteer, when in reality they are more like a puppet.  they are fickle and easy to fool by using fallacious statements disguised as truth.  in the end, progress is slowed by the average person who is not ready to accept it.  do you think the average person would have accepted the idea of gay marriage 0 years ago ? power should be wielded by those who have the intellect to wield it properly.  that is how humanity becomes what it has sought from the beginning, to be happy.  also, if you are going to bring up orwellian ideas, it is kind of a tired argument.  i have read his work, and while i find 0 interesting to think about; it kind of plays on the growing fear of the government at the time.  it is still a well thought out book.   #  still, they can be rather easily swayed by charisma and an argument that confirms their biases.   #  what makes you believe that smart people are less susceptible to bias ?  # what makes you believe that smart people are less susceptible to bias ? most of the research in behavioral psychology i have come across of late seems to suggest the opposite: that people tend to have pretty standard biases, and that it takes effort and discipline to set them aside.  double blind studies are an example of the discipline required.  a scientist, while smart, ca not simply decide to set aside bias.  they have to specifically construct an experiment so as to forcibly eliminate their own biases from the equation.  how would a leader is intelligence protect them from situations where constructs like double blinded studies are impossible, and decisions have to get made while swimming in a sea of preconceptions and bias ?  #  this happened countless of times in our history and the cycle continues every government is doomed to fail which wants to control people with them blindly believing in their leader.   #  it works just like that now, but of course you will never or very rarely find evidence of their corruption.  the problem with your ideal is that there is no perfect system, there ca not be, since people will have to be the motors of everything, and from experience we see people in power without any accountability go corrupt 0 of the time sooner or later.  history already produced at least 0 different types of governments, all trying to control/sway people in the right direction, all were idealist first, but after some generations, people took it for granted and became corrupt for example: democracy goes to shit, everyone is corrupt   strong clever leader occurs, dictatorship ensues.  this happened countless of times in our history and the cycle continues every government is doomed to fail which wants to control people with them blindly believing in their leader.  the average people have to learn not to take anything for face value and never believe anything blindly or in short: have to be more clever .  all governmental forms nowadays work like it is best if people know the least possible thing.  why do you think they do not teach law in high school ? why do you think you learn literature/history/music/arts but not politics ? arguably knowing either law/finance/politics is a lot more useful than literature/history/arts, and since like the first civilization, none of the leaders had any motivation to include those in studies or even teach people to think for themselves instead of waiting for some  magical clever people  to tell them what is good.  no human in the world is so perfect to know everything, people in general need to be more involved in their own governing, democracy as of now is atm the best possible form of government, although as every other government it is not perfect, since it lacks many things, but gives the mean to change/correct them from within, so instead of trying to find a new governmental structure, you should think how to make democracy as of now better.  if we give too much power to single individuals who seem to be  clever  it will sooner or later lead to a totalitarian dictatorship.   #  or just straight up murder all the journalists ?  #  so if some people say, investigative reporters got close to finding out the truth, what would you do ? would you somehow try to gain control of all forms of media ? try to discredit them somehow ? or just straight up murder all the journalists ? also it seems like the internet would be detrimental to your plan.  would you choose the china method and just censor all mentions of your super ruling fun team ?  #  there has never been a shortage of people who think the world will run a whole lot better if people listened to them a whole lot more.   #  this right here is the problem.  damn near everyone thinks that.  how many people have you met who genuinely consider themselves morons ? the morons rarely do, their stupidity keeps them from seeing and acknowledging it.  there has never been a shortage of people who think the world will run a whole lot better if people listened to them a whole lot more.  an oligarchy is great, if you happen to be a part of it.  not so great for those who are not.  even if the oligarchy acts in what they believe is the peoples best interest, there is no guarantee that they will be correct.   #  well, the average person thinks of themselves as about average intelligence, i worked for my degree, i got a good gpa, and so on i have empirical evidence that i am not of average intellect.   # damn near everyone thinks that.  how many people have you met who genuinely consider themselves morons ? the morons rarely do, their stupidity keeps them from seeing and acknowledging it.  well, the average person thinks of themselves as about average intelligence, i worked for my degree, i got a good gpa, and so on i have empirical evidence that i am not of average intellect.  it is not an assumption, but rather based on evidence and verifiable fact.  an oligarchy is great, if you happen to be a part of it.  not so great for those who are not.  well, the whole point of an oligarchy is that it is a rather exclusive club.  you could argue that the usa is a corporate oligarchy currently, more controlled by large corporations, but that is debatable.  the whole point of it is that the group decides who joins, making it remain relatively easier to regulate.  those on the outside wo not really notice because when you have done things right, people wo not be sure you have done anything at all.
moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet i believe it is actually an empty concept.  there is no such thing as  amoral , as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is  amoral  is actually just a social contract.  here is one classic example: murder.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? if it is because the murder  corrects  another murder, then would i be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved ? and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  another example: many people believe that inequality is  wrong , and some people should not have as much money as they do.  but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if i work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why ca not i have it ? if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons.  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.   as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.  cmv ?  #  and what we think is  amoral  is actually just a social contract.   #  just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.   # just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? people are divided on it.  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ? yes, pretty unilaterally.  what should the punishment be ? we are still working on that.  just because we have not figured out the punishment thing does not mean that morals do not exist.  just because they are changing as society evolves does not mean they do not exist.  it can mean they are not  absolute  but not that they are not real.  that is called moral relativism; and you just defined morals: a bunch of things we say are okay and not okay based on the benefits to society.   #  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.   #  my angle is that, let is do away with this whole  amoral  justification, because moral itself does not exist.  rather than saying  what you are doing is immoral , it should be  what you are doing is not acceptable by this society.   it is more than just a rephrasing.  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.  i feel that people have the license to do things that lead to disastrous results simply because of the  amoral  crutch.   #  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.   #  people used to be isolated.  only one set of morals would reasonably exist in an area.  travel and diversity were very limited.  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.  so, they invented moral codes and applied them within their kingdoms and areas of control.  people understood that there were other moral codes, but they perceived their own code as superior and more righteous.  the christian code was the best, according to christians, because it pleased god the most.  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.  these codes fractured into subgroups of codes as people reinterpreted them, each believing their own interpretation to be purer in some way.  today, we tolerate the existence of other moral codes more than we used to, but we still believe in and fight for the superiority of our own codes.  stalinist communists fought against anarchist communists.  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.  morals are the only way people can evaluate the worth of anything, so we have to use morals to do anything.   #   eating dog is not acceptable in this society .   #  you could still say the same.   eating dog is not acceptable in this society .  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.  but would anyone actually disagree with that ? i can even imagine a type of society where murder is not immoral.  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.  it is just things we all agreed upon.   #  where is teh line drawn when it is morally ok to kill an organism and when is it not ?  # yes, pretty unilaterally.  if murder is universalyl wrong.  why is it not wrong then to kill animals.  why is it not wrong that animals kill eachother.  should every carnivore be punished becasuse killing is wrong by the law of nature ? you kill thousand upon thousand of organisms just by existing.  where is teh line drawn when it is morally ok to kill an organism and when is it not ?
moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet i believe it is actually an empty concept.  there is no such thing as  amoral , as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is  amoral  is actually just a social contract.  here is one classic example: murder.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? if it is because the murder  corrects  another murder, then would i be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved ? and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  another example: many people believe that inequality is  wrong , and some people should not have as much money as they do.  but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if i work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why ca not i have it ? if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons.  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.   as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.  cmv ?  #  i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.   #  that is called moral relativism; and you just defined morals: a bunch of things we say are okay and not okay based on the benefits to society.   # just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? people are divided on it.  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ? yes, pretty unilaterally.  what should the punishment be ? we are still working on that.  just because we have not figured out the punishment thing does not mean that morals do not exist.  just because they are changing as society evolves does not mean they do not exist.  it can mean they are not  absolute  but not that they are not real.  that is called moral relativism; and you just defined morals: a bunch of things we say are okay and not okay based on the benefits to society.   #  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.   #  my angle is that, let is do away with this whole  amoral  justification, because moral itself does not exist.  rather than saying  what you are doing is immoral , it should be  what you are doing is not acceptable by this society.   it is more than just a rephrasing.  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.  i feel that people have the license to do things that lead to disastrous results simply because of the  amoral  crutch.   #  today, we tolerate the existence of other moral codes more than we used to, but we still believe in and fight for the superiority of our own codes.   #  people used to be isolated.  only one set of morals would reasonably exist in an area.  travel and diversity were very limited.  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.  so, they invented moral codes and applied them within their kingdoms and areas of control.  people understood that there were other moral codes, but they perceived their own code as superior and more righteous.  the christian code was the best, according to christians, because it pleased god the most.  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.  these codes fractured into subgroups of codes as people reinterpreted them, each believing their own interpretation to be purer in some way.  today, we tolerate the existence of other moral codes more than we used to, but we still believe in and fight for the superiority of our own codes.  stalinist communists fought against anarchist communists.  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.  morals are the only way people can evaluate the worth of anything, so we have to use morals to do anything.   #  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.   #  you could still say the same.   eating dog is not acceptable in this society .  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.  but would anyone actually disagree with that ? i can even imagine a type of society where murder is not immoral.  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.  it is just things we all agreed upon.   #  why is it not wrong then to kill animals.   # yes, pretty unilaterally.  if murder is universalyl wrong.  why is it not wrong then to kill animals.  why is it not wrong that animals kill eachother.  should every carnivore be punished becasuse killing is wrong by the law of nature ? you kill thousand upon thousand of organisms just by existing.  where is teh line drawn when it is morally ok to kill an organism and when is it not ?
moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet i believe it is actually an empty concept.  there is no such thing as  amoral , as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is  amoral  is actually just a social contract.  here is one classic example: murder.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? if it is because the murder  corrects  another murder, then would i be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved ? and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  another example: many people believe that inequality is  wrong , and some people should not have as much money as they do.  but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if i work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why ca not i have it ? if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons.  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.   as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.  cmv ?  #  if it is because the murder  corrects  another murder, then would i be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved ?  #  and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.   #  the claim that morals are not objective is one that has been made by a lot of people with interesting arguments to support it, but none of the points in your post support your claim.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? why does this mean morals do not exist ? there are three clear solutions to the problem: either it is moral to kill a murderer because they deserve to be killed, it is moral to kill a murderer in order to prevent them from killing more people the total amount of murders will end up being lower , or it is not moral to kill a murderer.  there are plenty of people who agree with the concept of  an eye for an eye , and there are plenty of people who disagree with the concept.  that does not mean morality does not exist.  and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  some people would argue you are justified and some would argue you are not.  some people would say war is justified and some would say it is not.  at best this shows humans are sometimes hypocritical, but how does it prove morality does not exist ? just because some people are immoral ? but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if you are going by utilitarian principles, you would divide up the money to create maximum happiness.  obviously that would be nearly impossible to do perfectly, but the fact that you ca not be perfect does not mean you ca not be close.  if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? all you are saying here is that you believe that it is moral for people to get compensation for the work they do.  this is an argument against redistribution of wealth.  how does it prove morality does not exist ? some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  the fact that not everything that is natural is good is not a valid argument against homosexuality or marriage equality.  it does nothing to prove homosexuality is wrong, it just disproves the idea that because homosexuality is natural it must be good.  there are plenty of other arguments in favor of homosexuality that are not disproven by this.  none of this proves that all things that are natural are good.  as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   but that progress you speak of is moving towards people believing that it is immoral to deny lgbt  people rights.  as i said, there are a lot of interesting arguments supporting the claim that morality is not intrinsic, but none of the reasons you have are solid reasons for believing that claim.   #  just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.   # just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? people are divided on it.  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ? yes, pretty unilaterally.  what should the punishment be ? we are still working on that.  just because we have not figured out the punishment thing does not mean that morals do not exist.  just because they are changing as society evolves does not mean they do not exist.  it can mean they are not  absolute  but not that they are not real.  that is called moral relativism; and you just defined morals: a bunch of things we say are okay and not okay based on the benefits to society.   #  rather than saying  what you are doing is immoral , it should be  what you are doing is not acceptable by this society.    #  my angle is that, let is do away with this whole  amoral  justification, because moral itself does not exist.  rather than saying  what you are doing is immoral , it should be  what you are doing is not acceptable by this society.   it is more than just a rephrasing.  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.  i feel that people have the license to do things that lead to disastrous results simply because of the  amoral  crutch.   #  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.   #  people used to be isolated.  only one set of morals would reasonably exist in an area.  travel and diversity were very limited.  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.  so, they invented moral codes and applied them within their kingdoms and areas of control.  people understood that there were other moral codes, but they perceived their own code as superior and more righteous.  the christian code was the best, according to christians, because it pleased god the most.  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.  these codes fractured into subgroups of codes as people reinterpreted them, each believing their own interpretation to be purer in some way.  today, we tolerate the existence of other moral codes more than we used to, but we still believe in and fight for the superiority of our own codes.  stalinist communists fought against anarchist communists.  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.  morals are the only way people can evaluate the worth of anything, so we have to use morals to do anything.   #  i can even imagine a type of society where murder is not immoral.   #  you could still say the same.   eating dog is not acceptable in this society .  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.  but would anyone actually disagree with that ? i can even imagine a type of society where murder is not immoral.  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.  it is just things we all agreed upon.
moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet i believe it is actually an empty concept.  there is no such thing as  amoral , as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is  amoral  is actually just a social contract.  here is one classic example: murder.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? if it is because the murder  corrects  another murder, then would i be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved ? and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  another example: many people believe that inequality is  wrong , and some people should not have as much money as they do.  but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if i work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why ca not i have it ? if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons.  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.   as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.  cmv ?  #  another example: many people believe that inequality is  wrong , and some people should not have as much money as they do.   #  but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ?  #  the claim that morals are not objective is one that has been made by a lot of people with interesting arguments to support it, but none of the points in your post support your claim.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? why does this mean morals do not exist ? there are three clear solutions to the problem: either it is moral to kill a murderer because they deserve to be killed, it is moral to kill a murderer in order to prevent them from killing more people the total amount of murders will end up being lower , or it is not moral to kill a murderer.  there are plenty of people who agree with the concept of  an eye for an eye , and there are plenty of people who disagree with the concept.  that does not mean morality does not exist.  and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  some people would argue you are justified and some would argue you are not.  some people would say war is justified and some would say it is not.  at best this shows humans are sometimes hypocritical, but how does it prove morality does not exist ? just because some people are immoral ? but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if you are going by utilitarian principles, you would divide up the money to create maximum happiness.  obviously that would be nearly impossible to do perfectly, but the fact that you ca not be perfect does not mean you ca not be close.  if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? all you are saying here is that you believe that it is moral for people to get compensation for the work they do.  this is an argument against redistribution of wealth.  how does it prove morality does not exist ? some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  the fact that not everything that is natural is good is not a valid argument against homosexuality or marriage equality.  it does nothing to prove homosexuality is wrong, it just disproves the idea that because homosexuality is natural it must be good.  there are plenty of other arguments in favor of homosexuality that are not disproven by this.  none of this proves that all things that are natural are good.  as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   but that progress you speak of is moving towards people believing that it is immoral to deny lgbt  people rights.  as i said, there are a lot of interesting arguments supporting the claim that morality is not intrinsic, but none of the reasons you have are solid reasons for believing that claim.   #  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ?  # just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? people are divided on it.  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ? yes, pretty unilaterally.  what should the punishment be ? we are still working on that.  just because we have not figured out the punishment thing does not mean that morals do not exist.  just because they are changing as society evolves does not mean they do not exist.  it can mean they are not  absolute  but not that they are not real.  that is called moral relativism; and you just defined morals: a bunch of things we say are okay and not okay based on the benefits to society.   #  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.   #  my angle is that, let is do away with this whole  amoral  justification, because moral itself does not exist.  rather than saying  what you are doing is immoral , it should be  what you are doing is not acceptable by this society.   it is more than just a rephrasing.  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.  i feel that people have the license to do things that lead to disastrous results simply because of the  amoral  crutch.   #  only one set of morals would reasonably exist in an area.   #  people used to be isolated.  only one set of morals would reasonably exist in an area.  travel and diversity were very limited.  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.  so, they invented moral codes and applied them within their kingdoms and areas of control.  people understood that there were other moral codes, but they perceived their own code as superior and more righteous.  the christian code was the best, according to christians, because it pleased god the most.  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.  these codes fractured into subgroups of codes as people reinterpreted them, each believing their own interpretation to be purer in some way.  today, we tolerate the existence of other moral codes more than we used to, but we still believe in and fight for the superiority of our own codes.  stalinist communists fought against anarchist communists.  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.  morals are the only way people can evaluate the worth of anything, so we have to use morals to do anything.   #  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.   #  you could still say the same.   eating dog is not acceptable in this society .  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.  but would anyone actually disagree with that ? i can even imagine a type of society where murder is not immoral.  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.  it is just things we all agreed upon.
moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet i believe it is actually an empty concept.  there is no such thing as  amoral , as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is  amoral  is actually just a social contract.  here is one classic example: murder.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? if it is because the murder  corrects  another murder, then would i be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved ? and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  another example: many people believe that inequality is  wrong , and some people should not have as much money as they do.  but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if i work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why ca not i have it ? if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons.  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.   as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.  cmv ?  #  if i work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why ca not i have it ?  #  if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ?  #  the claim that morals are not objective is one that has been made by a lot of people with interesting arguments to support it, but none of the points in your post support your claim.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? why does this mean morals do not exist ? there are three clear solutions to the problem: either it is moral to kill a murderer because they deserve to be killed, it is moral to kill a murderer in order to prevent them from killing more people the total amount of murders will end up being lower , or it is not moral to kill a murderer.  there are plenty of people who agree with the concept of  an eye for an eye , and there are plenty of people who disagree with the concept.  that does not mean morality does not exist.  and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  some people would argue you are justified and some would argue you are not.  some people would say war is justified and some would say it is not.  at best this shows humans are sometimes hypocritical, but how does it prove morality does not exist ? just because some people are immoral ? but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if you are going by utilitarian principles, you would divide up the money to create maximum happiness.  obviously that would be nearly impossible to do perfectly, but the fact that you ca not be perfect does not mean you ca not be close.  if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? all you are saying here is that you believe that it is moral for people to get compensation for the work they do.  this is an argument against redistribution of wealth.  how does it prove morality does not exist ? some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  the fact that not everything that is natural is good is not a valid argument against homosexuality or marriage equality.  it does nothing to prove homosexuality is wrong, it just disproves the idea that because homosexuality is natural it must be good.  there are plenty of other arguments in favor of homosexuality that are not disproven by this.  none of this proves that all things that are natural are good.  as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   but that progress you speak of is moving towards people believing that it is immoral to deny lgbt  people rights.  as i said, there are a lot of interesting arguments supporting the claim that morality is not intrinsic, but none of the reasons you have are solid reasons for believing that claim.   #  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ?  # just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? people are divided on it.  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ? yes, pretty unilaterally.  what should the punishment be ? we are still working on that.  just because we have not figured out the punishment thing does not mean that morals do not exist.  just because they are changing as society evolves does not mean they do not exist.  it can mean they are not  absolute  but not that they are not real.  that is called moral relativism; and you just defined morals: a bunch of things we say are okay and not okay based on the benefits to society.   #  my angle is that, let is do away with this whole  amoral  justification, because moral itself does not exist.   #  my angle is that, let is do away with this whole  amoral  justification, because moral itself does not exist.  rather than saying  what you are doing is immoral , it should be  what you are doing is not acceptable by this society.   it is more than just a rephrasing.  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.  i feel that people have the license to do things that lead to disastrous results simply because of the  amoral  crutch.   #  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.   #  people used to be isolated.  only one set of morals would reasonably exist in an area.  travel and diversity were very limited.  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.  so, they invented moral codes and applied them within their kingdoms and areas of control.  people understood that there were other moral codes, but they perceived their own code as superior and more righteous.  the christian code was the best, according to christians, because it pleased god the most.  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.  these codes fractured into subgroups of codes as people reinterpreted them, each believing their own interpretation to be purer in some way.  today, we tolerate the existence of other moral codes more than we used to, but we still believe in and fight for the superiority of our own codes.  stalinist communists fought against anarchist communists.  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.  morals are the only way people can evaluate the worth of anything, so we have to use morals to do anything.   #  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.   #  you could still say the same.   eating dog is not acceptable in this society .  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.  but would anyone actually disagree with that ? i can even imagine a type of society where murder is not immoral.  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.  it is just things we all agreed upon.
moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet i believe it is actually an empty concept.  there is no such thing as  amoral , as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is  amoral  is actually just a social contract.  here is one classic example: murder.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? if it is because the murder  corrects  another murder, then would i be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved ? and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  another example: many people believe that inequality is  wrong , and some people should not have as much money as they do.  but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if i work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why ca not i have it ? if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons.  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.   as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.  cmv ?  #  murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons.   #  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.   #  the claim that morals are not objective is one that has been made by a lot of people with interesting arguments to support it, but none of the points in your post support your claim.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? why does this mean morals do not exist ? there are three clear solutions to the problem: either it is moral to kill a murderer because they deserve to be killed, it is moral to kill a murderer in order to prevent them from killing more people the total amount of murders will end up being lower , or it is not moral to kill a murderer.  there are plenty of people who agree with the concept of  an eye for an eye , and there are plenty of people who disagree with the concept.  that does not mean morality does not exist.  and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  some people would argue you are justified and some would argue you are not.  some people would say war is justified and some would say it is not.  at best this shows humans are sometimes hypocritical, but how does it prove morality does not exist ? just because some people are immoral ? but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if you are going by utilitarian principles, you would divide up the money to create maximum happiness.  obviously that would be nearly impossible to do perfectly, but the fact that you ca not be perfect does not mean you ca not be close.  if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? all you are saying here is that you believe that it is moral for people to get compensation for the work they do.  this is an argument against redistribution of wealth.  how does it prove morality does not exist ? some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  the fact that not everything that is natural is good is not a valid argument against homosexuality or marriage equality.  it does nothing to prove homosexuality is wrong, it just disproves the idea that because homosexuality is natural it must be good.  there are plenty of other arguments in favor of homosexuality that are not disproven by this.  none of this proves that all things that are natural are good.  as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   but that progress you speak of is moving towards people believing that it is immoral to deny lgbt  people rights.  as i said, there are a lot of interesting arguments supporting the claim that morality is not intrinsic, but none of the reasons you have are solid reasons for believing that claim.   #  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ?  # just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? people are divided on it.  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ? yes, pretty unilaterally.  what should the punishment be ? we are still working on that.  just because we have not figured out the punishment thing does not mean that morals do not exist.  just because they are changing as society evolves does not mean they do not exist.  it can mean they are not  absolute  but not that they are not real.  that is called moral relativism; and you just defined morals: a bunch of things we say are okay and not okay based on the benefits to society.   #  i feel that people have the license to do things that lead to disastrous results simply because of the  amoral  crutch.   #  my angle is that, let is do away with this whole  amoral  justification, because moral itself does not exist.  rather than saying  what you are doing is immoral , it should be  what you are doing is not acceptable by this society.   it is more than just a rephrasing.  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.  i feel that people have the license to do things that lead to disastrous results simply because of the  amoral  crutch.   #  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.   #  people used to be isolated.  only one set of morals would reasonably exist in an area.  travel and diversity were very limited.  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.  so, they invented moral codes and applied them within their kingdoms and areas of control.  people understood that there were other moral codes, but they perceived their own code as superior and more righteous.  the christian code was the best, according to christians, because it pleased god the most.  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.  these codes fractured into subgroups of codes as people reinterpreted them, each believing their own interpretation to be purer in some way.  today, we tolerate the existence of other moral codes more than we used to, but we still believe in and fight for the superiority of our own codes.  stalinist communists fought against anarchist communists.  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.  morals are the only way people can evaluate the worth of anything, so we have to use morals to do anything.   #  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.   #  you could still say the same.   eating dog is not acceptable in this society .  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.  but would anyone actually disagree with that ? i can even imagine a type of society where murder is not immoral.  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.  it is just things we all agreed upon.
moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet i believe it is actually an empty concept.  there is no such thing as  amoral , as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is  amoral  is actually just a social contract.  here is one classic example: murder.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? if it is because the murder  corrects  another murder, then would i be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved ? and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  another example: many people believe that inequality is  wrong , and some people should not have as much money as they do.  but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if i work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why ca not i have it ? if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons.  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.   as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.  cmv ?  #  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.    #  as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.   #  the claim that morals are not objective is one that has been made by a lot of people with interesting arguments to support it, but none of the points in your post support your claim.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? why does this mean morals do not exist ? there are three clear solutions to the problem: either it is moral to kill a murderer because they deserve to be killed, it is moral to kill a murderer in order to prevent them from killing more people the total amount of murders will end up being lower , or it is not moral to kill a murderer.  there are plenty of people who agree with the concept of  an eye for an eye , and there are plenty of people who disagree with the concept.  that does not mean morality does not exist.  and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  some people would argue you are justified and some would argue you are not.  some people would say war is justified and some would say it is not.  at best this shows humans are sometimes hypocritical, but how does it prove morality does not exist ? just because some people are immoral ? but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if you are going by utilitarian principles, you would divide up the money to create maximum happiness.  obviously that would be nearly impossible to do perfectly, but the fact that you ca not be perfect does not mean you ca not be close.  if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? all you are saying here is that you believe that it is moral for people to get compensation for the work they do.  this is an argument against redistribution of wealth.  how does it prove morality does not exist ? some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  the fact that not everything that is natural is good is not a valid argument against homosexuality or marriage equality.  it does nothing to prove homosexuality is wrong, it just disproves the idea that because homosexuality is natural it must be good.  there are plenty of other arguments in favor of homosexuality that are not disproven by this.  none of this proves that all things that are natural are good.  as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   but that progress you speak of is moving towards people believing that it is immoral to deny lgbt  people rights.  as i said, there are a lot of interesting arguments supporting the claim that morality is not intrinsic, but none of the reasons you have are solid reasons for believing that claim.   #  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ?  # just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? people are divided on it.  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ? yes, pretty unilaterally.  what should the punishment be ? we are still working on that.  just because we have not figured out the punishment thing does not mean that morals do not exist.  just because they are changing as society evolves does not mean they do not exist.  it can mean they are not  absolute  but not that they are not real.  that is called moral relativism; and you just defined morals: a bunch of things we say are okay and not okay based on the benefits to society.   #  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.   #  my angle is that, let is do away with this whole  amoral  justification, because moral itself does not exist.  rather than saying  what you are doing is immoral , it should be  what you are doing is not acceptable by this society.   it is more than just a rephrasing.  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.  i feel that people have the license to do things that lead to disastrous results simply because of the  amoral  crutch.   #  so, they invented moral codes and applied them within their kingdoms and areas of control.   #  people used to be isolated.  only one set of morals would reasonably exist in an area.  travel and diversity were very limited.  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.  so, they invented moral codes and applied them within their kingdoms and areas of control.  people understood that there were other moral codes, but they perceived their own code as superior and more righteous.  the christian code was the best, according to christians, because it pleased god the most.  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.  these codes fractured into subgroups of codes as people reinterpreted them, each believing their own interpretation to be purer in some way.  today, we tolerate the existence of other moral codes more than we used to, but we still believe in and fight for the superiority of our own codes.  stalinist communists fought against anarchist communists.  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.  morals are the only way people can evaluate the worth of anything, so we have to use morals to do anything.   #  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.   #  you could still say the same.   eating dog is not acceptable in this society .  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.  but would anyone actually disagree with that ? i can even imagine a type of society where murder is not immoral.  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.  it is just things we all agreed upon.
moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet i believe it is actually an empty concept.  there is no such thing as  amoral , as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is  amoral  is actually just a social contract.  here is one classic example: murder.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? if it is because the murder  corrects  another murder, then would i be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved ? and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  another example: many people believe that inequality is  wrong , and some people should not have as much money as they do.  but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if i work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why ca not i have it ? if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons.  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.   as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.  cmv ?  #  i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.   #  as i said, there are a lot of interesting arguments supporting the claim that morality is not intrinsic, but none of the reasons you have are solid reasons for believing that claim.   #  the claim that morals are not objective is one that has been made by a lot of people with interesting arguments to support it, but none of the points in your post support your claim.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? why does this mean morals do not exist ? there are three clear solutions to the problem: either it is moral to kill a murderer because they deserve to be killed, it is moral to kill a murderer in order to prevent them from killing more people the total amount of murders will end up being lower , or it is not moral to kill a murderer.  there are plenty of people who agree with the concept of  an eye for an eye , and there are plenty of people who disagree with the concept.  that does not mean morality does not exist.  and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  some people would argue you are justified and some would argue you are not.  some people would say war is justified and some would say it is not.  at best this shows humans are sometimes hypocritical, but how does it prove morality does not exist ? just because some people are immoral ? but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if you are going by utilitarian principles, you would divide up the money to create maximum happiness.  obviously that would be nearly impossible to do perfectly, but the fact that you ca not be perfect does not mean you ca not be close.  if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? all you are saying here is that you believe that it is moral for people to get compensation for the work they do.  this is an argument against redistribution of wealth.  how does it prove morality does not exist ? some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  the fact that not everything that is natural is good is not a valid argument against homosexuality or marriage equality.  it does nothing to prove homosexuality is wrong, it just disproves the idea that because homosexuality is natural it must be good.  there are plenty of other arguments in favor of homosexuality that are not disproven by this.  none of this proves that all things that are natural are good.  as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   but that progress you speak of is moving towards people believing that it is immoral to deny lgbt  people rights.  as i said, there are a lot of interesting arguments supporting the claim that morality is not intrinsic, but none of the reasons you have are solid reasons for believing that claim.   #  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ?  # just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? people are divided on it.  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ? yes, pretty unilaterally.  what should the punishment be ? we are still working on that.  just because we have not figured out the punishment thing does not mean that morals do not exist.  just because they are changing as society evolves does not mean they do not exist.  it can mean they are not  absolute  but not that they are not real.  that is called moral relativism; and you just defined morals: a bunch of things we say are okay and not okay based on the benefits to society.   #  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.   #  my angle is that, let is do away with this whole  amoral  justification, because moral itself does not exist.  rather than saying  what you are doing is immoral , it should be  what you are doing is not acceptable by this society.   it is more than just a rephrasing.  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.  i feel that people have the license to do things that lead to disastrous results simply because of the  amoral  crutch.   #  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.   #  people used to be isolated.  only one set of morals would reasonably exist in an area.  travel and diversity were very limited.  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.  so, they invented moral codes and applied them within their kingdoms and areas of control.  people understood that there were other moral codes, but they perceived their own code as superior and more righteous.  the christian code was the best, according to christians, because it pleased god the most.  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.  these codes fractured into subgroups of codes as people reinterpreted them, each believing their own interpretation to be purer in some way.  today, we tolerate the existence of other moral codes more than we used to, but we still believe in and fight for the superiority of our own codes.  stalinist communists fought against anarchist communists.  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.  morals are the only way people can evaluate the worth of anything, so we have to use morals to do anything.   #  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.   #  you could still say the same.   eating dog is not acceptable in this society .  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.  but would anyone actually disagree with that ? i can even imagine a type of society where murder is not immoral.  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.  it is just things we all agreed upon.
moral is a word that gets thrown around a lot, yet i believe it is actually an empty concept.  there is no such thing as  amoral , as there is no right and wrong, and what we think is  amoral  is actually just a social contract.  here is one classic example: murder.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? if it is because the murder  corrects  another murder, then would i be justified in taking revenge on someone who murders my beloved ? and let is forget about petty homicides; let is talk about war murder in the toll of millions.  humankind wants to punish a murderer by death, yet continues to wage wars like there is no moral repercussion for it.  another example: many people believe that inequality is  wrong , and some people should not have as much money as they do.  but who decides so, and who can determine how much money one should have ? if i work hard and work smart enough to earn my money, why ca not i have it ? if i have enough cunning and manipulation to hoard resource for myself, who is to say that i ca not ? murder and inequality are naturally occurring phenomenons.  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.   as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   i think that what we call  amoral  is a huge misnomer;  amoral  is just a social contract we agree upon for the sake of ourselves and our society, rather than intrinsic right and wrong.  cmv ?  #  some people argue that just because it is natural does not mean it is moral and justifiable.   #  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.   #  morality at it is core is just a system that answers the question  how should i act ?  .  if you think there is no way to answer this question, then there would be no morality.  we can all disagree on what the best set of morals are, but that does not mean they do not exist.  that just means we all have different values.  the exact same argument has been used against homosexuality for ages.  now, our argument is that  because it is natural, it must be accepted.   as an lgbt person, i never feel that my sexuality is wrong or right, it just is.  the fact that it is more accepted now is a reflection of society is economic and political progress rather than because it is  right.   i think you answered your own question here.  naturality has nothing to do with morality.  the people saying that your being lgbt is acceptable because it is natural are wrong.  it is acceptable because nothing has been demonstrated to be wrong with it.   #  it can mean they are not  absolute  but not that they are not real.   # just because it is a social contract does not mean it is not real.  it is punishable by death in many places, because taking another person is life is believed to be wrong and immoral.  but then, is not the death sentence just another murder ? why is it not wrong ? people are divided on it.  but that is deflecting the issue: is murder wrong ? yes, pretty unilaterally.  what should the punishment be ? we are still working on that.  just because we have not figured out the punishment thing does not mean that morals do not exist.  just because they are changing as society evolves does not mean they do not exist.  it can mean they are not  absolute  but not that they are not real.  that is called moral relativism; and you just defined morals: a bunch of things we say are okay and not okay based on the benefits to society.   #  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.   #  my angle is that, let is do away with this whole  amoral  justification, because moral itself does not exist.  rather than saying  what you are doing is immoral , it should be  what you are doing is not acceptable by this society.   it is more than just a rephrasing.  if people took that to heart, they would not be condemning other people for eating dogs, cats, beef, pork, or any kind of animal in the first place.  they would understand that how they feel about homosexuality is simply how  they  feel, not an absolute commandment from god that excuses them to do anything they like.  i feel that people have the license to do things that lead to disastrous results simply because of the  amoral  crutch.   #  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.   #  people used to be isolated.  only one set of morals would reasonably exist in an area.  travel and diversity were very limited.  when kings and churches centralized areas, they had to deal with varying moral codes over their domains.  so, they invented moral codes and applied them within their kingdoms and areas of control.  people understood that there were other moral codes, but they perceived their own code as superior and more righteous.  the christian code was the best, according to christians, because it pleased god the most.  the muslim code was the best, according to muslims, because it pleased allah the most.  these codes fractured into subgroups of codes as people reinterpreted them, each believing their own interpretation to be purer in some way.  today, we tolerate the existence of other moral codes more than we used to, but we still believe in and fight for the superiority of our own codes.  stalinist communists fought against anarchist communists.  liberal americans fight against conservative americans, each believing that their version and interpretation of  american values  are better.  morals are the only way people can evaluate the worth of anything, so we have to use morals to do anything.   #  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.   #  you could still say the same.   eating dog is not acceptable in this society .  it is funny because i technically  agree  with everything you said, but in my mind it is very obvious.  yes moral is a social contract, yes moral is very subjective and highly depend on the society you are in, yes nothing is objectively right or wrong.  but would anyone actually disagree with that ? i can even imagine a type of society where murder is not immoral.  however, despite of all of that, in our society, there is moral and immoral things.  it is just things we all agreed upon.
the very qualities that have made dogs attractive to us as pets intelligence, sociability, energy also make them ill suited to prolonged periods of isolated confinement.  most of us realize this, and yet this does not seem to deter many young, single, working people from owning dogs, in spite of their busy lives and modest living circumstances.  a pet that spends the majority of every day alone, locked in a cage, crate, or studio apartment, is a neglected animal.  whatever extra coddling you may do for your dog does not compensate for your inability to provide species appropriate accommodation.  dogs are loyal and eager to please, and often will not immediately demonstrate the extent of their unhappiness.  even dogs that have been beaten and starved wag their tails when they see their owners.  just because a dog is excited and affectionate after being in its crate all day, does not make that an acceptable living situation.  a small number of young, single dog owners are able, through great effort or fortunate living circumstances, to ensure their pet has adequate space, stimulation, and socialization throughout the day.  too many more are content to leave their dog in a crate for all but a few hours out of every day.  i will put it this way, how many neurotic family dogs have you known ? how many neurotic apartment dogs have you known ?  #  i will put it this way, how many neurotic family dogs have you known ?  #  how many neurotic apartment dogs have you known ?  #  i am pretty sure most young, single working people  do not  own dogs.  or is your view that most of the young, single, working people a minority of young, single, working people who  do  own dogs  should not  ? in my experience, most of the young people i know who own dogs tend to some combination of the following: have small dogs, have yards, can take their dog to work, use doggy daycare, hire dog walkers, have roommates that work different hours, etc.  i have never met any dog owners who just lock their dog in a crate all day while they go to work.  i mean, i do not have any statistics to back this up, but i wonder where you are getting your observations from.  do you know a lot of people who treat their dogs like this, or are you just assuming that most young, single, working people with dogs do this ? how many neurotic apartment dogs have you known ? well, if you are looking for more anecdotes, all the apartment dogs i know seem very happy and well adjusted.  when i was a kid my family had a big house, a yard, and a stay at home mom, but our dog was extremely neurotic /  #  that said, i have personally made a promise to myself that i young, single, working will not adopt a dog until i move out of my apartment and into a house with a fenced in backyard and a doggy door.   #  i think it is important to think about what the alternative would be for that dog in particular.  if you get a dog from a shelter that is set to be euthanized the next day, then any life that the owner is able to give it is better than the alternative death.  even if you cannot provide a fenced in backyard with a doggy door for the dog while you are at work, you still saved the dog is life and are inherently giving it a better life than the alternative.  that said, i have personally made a promise to myself that i young, single, working will not adopt a dog until i move out of my apartment and into a house with a fenced in backyard and a doggy door.  however, i am okay with fostering a dog in a no kill program in my apartment because, well, what was the alternative for that dog ?  #  sociability, though, is the sort of trait that tends to reside deep in the limbic system of the brain.   #  that is kind of why the word  most  was in my title.  some single, working people do just fine with their pets.  some people with big yards and large families treat their dogs like shit.  but i kind of see an analogy to unwed teenage pregnancy.  some unwed teenage mothers do a brilliant job of raising their children.  some rich, married couples do a shit job of raising their children.  but i think it is still possible to make some general statements about the conditions that are most conducive to child rearing, and to discourage teenagers from becoming pregnant.  i will grant that there is a wide variety of personalities and energy levels present in dogs, and that we have bred them for a wide variety of traits.  sociability, though, is the sort of trait that tends to reside deep in the limbic system of the brain.  these are old, deep brain structures.  that is not the sort of thing that gets bred out of a species over even thousands of years.   #  a family with kids and a dog would have to divide their time between all dependents.   #  i have some problems with the teen pregnancy analogy, but that is not really the meat of my argument.  i can expand on that if needed.  i am still trying to figure out what are the exact reasons why young, single people are bad dog owners.  you are not saying people who are gone frequently or who do not have time for a dog of any age, just young single people.  i would also like to know exactly how many hours of social human interaction you think a dog needs.  the way i see it: young, single people probably do not have kids they need to care for so their free time and disposable income can go towards their dog instead.  instead of taking kids to doctor is appointments, soccer practice, friends  houses, to and from school, and so on they can spend time with their dog.  a family with kids and a dog would have to divide their time between all dependents.  a single person is income could go towards dog day care or dog sitters, which would provide social outlet, instead of paying towards a child is care.  if a single person has a social life it would be possible to include the dog to provide social outlet.  they could bring the dog to friends houses or other outings, depending on the situation.  offices are becoming more pet friendly so it is even possible for some people to bring the dog to work as well.  many young single people either live with roommates or even live at home with parents.  i know very few people under 0 who live alone.  odds are the roommate s are not on the same work schedule as the owner, so the dog would not be alone 0 hours a day.  i am not sure where you are getting the idea that a young single person is living alone, out of the house all of the time and never takes the dog anywhere.  you keep saing  amost  but i have not found that to be the case.   #  unlike boredom, a psychological response, you can tell no more about an arthritic dog than an arthritic person.   #  dogs do not perceive boredom like we do, they are evolved to be full of meat   just sit in their den conserving warmth for several hours,  content  is the word people often use or  satisfied .  i was going to write my own reply until i realized people were just projecting the human reaction to lack of stimuli into dogs.  but a dog who reached the point you described, many/most elderly dogs that is he had a healthy life just to get to that point.  arthritis is not indicative of just suffering, its indicative of a healthy life which has reached its end.  most wolves/coyotes would never reach the  arthritis  stage.  most abused dogs are dead or abandoned by then.  unlike boredom, a psychological response, you can tell no more about an arthritic dog than an arthritic person.  just that they are old.  not how their life was lived.
the very qualities that have made dogs attractive to us as pets intelligence, sociability, energy also make them ill suited to prolonged periods of isolated confinement.  most of us realize this, and yet this does not seem to deter many young, single, working people from owning dogs, in spite of their busy lives and modest living circumstances.  a pet that spends the majority of every day alone, locked in a cage, crate, or studio apartment, is a neglected animal.  whatever extra coddling you may do for your dog does not compensate for your inability to provide species appropriate accommodation.  dogs are loyal and eager to please, and often will not immediately demonstrate the extent of their unhappiness.  even dogs that have been beaten and starved wag their tails when they see their owners.  just because a dog is excited and affectionate after being in its crate all day, does not make that an acceptable living situation.  a small number of young, single dog owners are able, through great effort or fortunate living circumstances, to ensure their pet has adequate space, stimulation, and socialization throughout the day.  too many more are content to leave their dog in a crate for all but a few hours out of every day.  i will put it this way, how many neurotic family dogs have you known ? how many neurotic apartment dogs have you known ?  #  a pet that spends the majority of every day alone, locked in a cage, crate, or studio apartment, is a neglected animal.   #  have you owned a dog or cat ?  # have you owned a dog or cat ? they typically sleep during the day, a lot.  i will grant you that a dog should not  literally  the majority of it is day alone but the 0 0 hours a working person is away ? my dog just sleeps.  if i work from home, he goes into his crate and sleeps most of the day.  it is his safe place and he loves it in there.  some dogs may be different, but calling all 0 hour cratings neglect is a pretty wild accusation.  also, there is a strong undertone in your post that the size of the apartment is a big issue just correct me if that is not part of your view .  i do not think this matters in the slightest.  a dog does not need that much space indoors as long as he has room to run outside.  i have an 0 lb gsd, a fenced in yard, and a pretty small apartment, and he is very happy.  he gets his energy out on runs/walks with me, or by playing with the neighbor dog in the yard.  inside he just sleeps, cuddles with me he is pretty much never more than 0 feet from me when i am home , maybe plays a game of fetch/tug of war.  what would a bigger indoor space accomplish for him ?  #  i think it is important to think about what the alternative would be for that dog in particular.   #  i think it is important to think about what the alternative would be for that dog in particular.  if you get a dog from a shelter that is set to be euthanized the next day, then any life that the owner is able to give it is better than the alternative death.  even if you cannot provide a fenced in backyard with a doggy door for the dog while you are at work, you still saved the dog is life and are inherently giving it a better life than the alternative.  that said, i have personally made a promise to myself that i young, single, working will not adopt a dog until i move out of my apartment and into a house with a fenced in backyard and a doggy door.  however, i am okay with fostering a dog in a no kill program in my apartment because, well, what was the alternative for that dog ?  #  but i kind of see an analogy to unwed teenage pregnancy.   #  that is kind of why the word  most  was in my title.  some single, working people do just fine with their pets.  some people with big yards and large families treat their dogs like shit.  but i kind of see an analogy to unwed teenage pregnancy.  some unwed teenage mothers do a brilliant job of raising their children.  some rich, married couples do a shit job of raising their children.  but i think it is still possible to make some general statements about the conditions that are most conducive to child rearing, and to discourage teenagers from becoming pregnant.  i will grant that there is a wide variety of personalities and energy levels present in dogs, and that we have bred them for a wide variety of traits.  sociability, though, is the sort of trait that tends to reside deep in the limbic system of the brain.  these are old, deep brain structures.  that is not the sort of thing that gets bred out of a species over even thousands of years.   #  i have some problems with the teen pregnancy analogy, but that is not really the meat of my argument.   #  i have some problems with the teen pregnancy analogy, but that is not really the meat of my argument.  i can expand on that if needed.  i am still trying to figure out what are the exact reasons why young, single people are bad dog owners.  you are not saying people who are gone frequently or who do not have time for a dog of any age, just young single people.  i would also like to know exactly how many hours of social human interaction you think a dog needs.  the way i see it: young, single people probably do not have kids they need to care for so their free time and disposable income can go towards their dog instead.  instead of taking kids to doctor is appointments, soccer practice, friends  houses, to and from school, and so on they can spend time with their dog.  a family with kids and a dog would have to divide their time between all dependents.  a single person is income could go towards dog day care or dog sitters, which would provide social outlet, instead of paying towards a child is care.  if a single person has a social life it would be possible to include the dog to provide social outlet.  they could bring the dog to friends houses or other outings, depending on the situation.  offices are becoming more pet friendly so it is even possible for some people to bring the dog to work as well.  many young single people either live with roommates or even live at home with parents.  i know very few people under 0 who live alone.  odds are the roommate s are not on the same work schedule as the owner, so the dog would not be alone 0 hours a day.  i am not sure where you are getting the idea that a young single person is living alone, out of the house all of the time and never takes the dog anywhere.  you keep saing  amost  but i have not found that to be the case.   #  most abused dogs are dead or abandoned by then.   #  dogs do not perceive boredom like we do, they are evolved to be full of meat   just sit in their den conserving warmth for several hours,  content  is the word people often use or  satisfied .  i was going to write my own reply until i realized people were just projecting the human reaction to lack of stimuli into dogs.  but a dog who reached the point you described, many/most elderly dogs that is he had a healthy life just to get to that point.  arthritis is not indicative of just suffering, its indicative of a healthy life which has reached its end.  most wolves/coyotes would never reach the  arthritis  stage.  most abused dogs are dead or abandoned by then.  unlike boredom, a psychological response, you can tell no more about an arthritic dog than an arthritic person.  just that they are old.  not how their life was lived.
gender, especially because of people who identify as transsexuals, can be chosen since they are male/female but identify as the other.  for example, a xy who identifies as female is a mtf trans and vice versa.  that being said, sex is biologically deterministic and dependant on the appearance of the y chromosome.  even if you have multiple chromosomes, such as xxy, or deficient, such as x0, the y chromosome determines sex and therefore, anatomy.  to this date, there are no functioning uteri in mtf transexuals URL and ftm transexuals  can possibly  get pregnant.  especially from a medical standpoint and one striving for medical school , i do not want to in the future determine that the patient is possibly having a spontaneous abortion when all it turns out to be is a ruptured appendectomy both emergencies, but diagnosis wise completely different .  forms, especially medical ones, and other id should have your biological sex on it, instead of gender to prevent such confusion.  cmv.   #  that being said, sex is biologically deterministic and dependant on the appearance of the y chromosome.   #  even if you have multiple chromosomes, such as xxy, or deficient, such as x0, the y chromosome determines sex and therefore, anatomy.   # even if you have multiple chromosomes, such as xxy, or deficient, such as x0, the y chromosome determines sex and therefore, anatomy.  i am concerned about this statement.  this is true inasmuch as one defines sex in humans as the presence of a y chromosome.  what about cases of hermaphroditism or a defective y chromosome leading to a female phenotype ? children generally only receive a karotype when there is a reason to be concerned about possible chromosomal disorders should all female children be required to be karotyped to determine whether they are  really  female for the purpose of putting the correct letter on their id ?  #  mtf folks will be on a higher dose of estrogen/progesterone than a woman using it simply for birth control and a ftm will be taking testosterone.   #  eh ? i have worked on medical emergencies for years and i ca not remember  ever  checking someone is id for sex.  name, age, organ donor status, and similar yes, sex no.  once you start removing clothing it becomes pretty obvious if someone is male or female.  the few transgender folks i have worked on were pretty easy to tell once they were naked, even the ones who were post surgery at least that i have seen, it is not exactly a common thing to run into .  since it is actually quite rare and difficult for people to get sex change surgery things like breast binding, stuffed bras, and the actual genitalia are pretty good indicators.  incidentally, if someone is xxy or x0 or ais or 0 alpha reductase syndrome any of the other interesting genetic sex disorders that in itself is typically more relevant than the actual sex since those disorders carry with them certain complications.  even then i ca not think of a situation in which those disorders are relevant in an emergency situation, since an er doctor should be able to figure out the difference between things like a spontaneous abortion and appendicitis.  if they ca not then they should not be a doctor in the first place, because they are  not  that fucking similar.  hell, someone with basic first aide training should be able to figure out the difference between the two.  for non emergency situations, the doctor should have plenty of time to look at a patient is medical file, look at the medications they are taking, and do plenty of other things that would make it clear that they are working on someone who is transgender.  i can see an argument to have both sex and gender be a question on admitting forms, but if you also have a list of medications a person is on it still becomes obvious pretty damn fast.  mtf folks will be on a higher dose of estrogen/progesterone than a woman using it simply for birth control and a ftm will be taking testosterone.  obviously you would still ask why the person was taking the hormones at those doses since it could be for other reasons, but the answer would come out pretty quickly.  also, anyone who gets medical treatment for being transgendered will have that in their medical file, while is pretty easy for a doctor to look up.  i can also give you plenty of reasons why you do not want your biological sex on your id cards.  transgender people face  tons  of harassment.  they get fired from jobs and there is no protection against it in the vast majority of places , they get denied housing, they get denied loans, they are targeted for violence and harassment, etc.  and they get this kind of treatment from all over, not just low class, poorly educated bigots.  hell, we have politicians who advocate violence against them URL not the way it should be, obviously, but that is the way things currently are.  feeling like that should not be the case does not make it any safer for them, making it so that they did not have to disclose their status to anyone who sees their drivers license does.  besides, you are essentially demanding that they put extremely sensitive medical data on all their official ids.  i would not demand that driver licenses have statements like  sought treatment for heroin addiction  or  diagnosed bipolar  even though you could make an argument that letting cops know these things could potentially increase their ability to respond to certain situations.   #  there are literally lives that could be saved by printing medicine allergies on ids.   #  most of those are based on hormones, and guess what ? now why are not you lobbying to get more important medical information on ids ? there are literally lives that could be saved by printing medicine allergies on ids.  and how about other conditions like diabetes ? lets turn them into a full spreadsheet of medical information.  all of this would be far more useful to emts.  i wonder why you are not lobbying for that.   #  the reason that there are so many layman articles about the difference in presentation is so that  non medical  people can recognize troubling symptoms, not because doctors do not realize that not all heart attacks present with substernal chest pain.   #  as i said in another comment, those are generalities.  both sexes are capable of atypical presentations which is why we do not diagnose based on gender specific rules.  i have had men with massive mi is that presented with only jaw pain and women who presented with crushing chest pain.  aside from that, the presentation does not change the ekg results or the cardiac enzymes, which are also used to diagnose.  you treat the patient, not a textbook definition.  the reason that there are so many layman articles about the difference in presentation is so that  non medical  people can recognize troubling symptoms, not because doctors do not realize that not all heart attacks present with substernal chest pain.   #  a patient that can describe their pain can also disclose their biological sex.   #  it is a good point but totally unrelated to the question at hand.  a patient that can describe their pain can also disclose their biological sex.  if a patient chooses to withhold pertinent information which they do, all the time , they potentially compromise their care.  a typical ed intake history would include asking about any previous surgeries and current medications which would identify transgender individuals if they answer honestly.  anecdotally, in 0 years in the ed i have never had a transgender patient attempt to hide their medical history from me.  to the contrary they have tended to be more medically savvy than the typical ed patient and extremely proactive about disclosing their biological sex .
gender, especially because of people who identify as transsexuals, can be chosen since they are male/female but identify as the other.  for example, a xy who identifies as female is a mtf trans and vice versa.  that being said, sex is biologically deterministic and dependant on the appearance of the y chromosome.  even if you have multiple chromosomes, such as xxy, or deficient, such as x0, the y chromosome determines sex and therefore, anatomy.  to this date, there are no functioning uteri in mtf transexuals URL and ftm transexuals  can possibly  get pregnant.  especially from a medical standpoint and one striving for medical school , i do not want to in the future determine that the patient is possibly having a spontaneous abortion when all it turns out to be is a ruptured appendectomy both emergencies, but diagnosis wise completely different .  forms, especially medical ones, and other id should have your biological sex on it, instead of gender to prevent such confusion.  cmv.   #  sex is biologically deterministic and dependant on the appearance of the y chromosome.   #  even if you have multiple chromosomes, such as xxy, or deficient, such as x0, the y chromosome determines sex and therefore, anatomy.   #  your question is malformed, and contains inaccuracies.  even if you have multiple chromosomes, such as xxy, or deficient, such as x0, the y chromosome determines sex and therefore, anatomy.  not true.  complete androgen insensitivity syndrome is the name of the condition whereby someone who, without any medical intervention, develops into a biological female while still having the y chromosome.  are you talking about forms used  only  for medical purposes, or are you talking about forms  in general  ? easy.  medical forms already ask you for your medical history, and transgender people want the best possible medical care, and so are not going to withhold that information if it could be necessary for their treatment.  and medical forms are the only forms on which the information about being transgender may have any use whatsoever cmv .  and as for other id the only place where id is used is in your official business, and so that id must reflect your legal gender.   #  i have worked on medical emergencies for years and i ca not remember  ever  checking someone is id for sex.   #  eh ? i have worked on medical emergencies for years and i ca not remember  ever  checking someone is id for sex.  name, age, organ donor status, and similar yes, sex no.  once you start removing clothing it becomes pretty obvious if someone is male or female.  the few transgender folks i have worked on were pretty easy to tell once they were naked, even the ones who were post surgery at least that i have seen, it is not exactly a common thing to run into .  since it is actually quite rare and difficult for people to get sex change surgery things like breast binding, stuffed bras, and the actual genitalia are pretty good indicators.  incidentally, if someone is xxy or x0 or ais or 0 alpha reductase syndrome any of the other interesting genetic sex disorders that in itself is typically more relevant than the actual sex since those disorders carry with them certain complications.  even then i ca not think of a situation in which those disorders are relevant in an emergency situation, since an er doctor should be able to figure out the difference between things like a spontaneous abortion and appendicitis.  if they ca not then they should not be a doctor in the first place, because they are  not  that fucking similar.  hell, someone with basic first aide training should be able to figure out the difference between the two.  for non emergency situations, the doctor should have plenty of time to look at a patient is medical file, look at the medications they are taking, and do plenty of other things that would make it clear that they are working on someone who is transgender.  i can see an argument to have both sex and gender be a question on admitting forms, but if you also have a list of medications a person is on it still becomes obvious pretty damn fast.  mtf folks will be on a higher dose of estrogen/progesterone than a woman using it simply for birth control and a ftm will be taking testosterone.  obviously you would still ask why the person was taking the hormones at those doses since it could be for other reasons, but the answer would come out pretty quickly.  also, anyone who gets medical treatment for being transgendered will have that in their medical file, while is pretty easy for a doctor to look up.  i can also give you plenty of reasons why you do not want your biological sex on your id cards.  transgender people face  tons  of harassment.  they get fired from jobs and there is no protection against it in the vast majority of places , they get denied housing, they get denied loans, they are targeted for violence and harassment, etc.  and they get this kind of treatment from all over, not just low class, poorly educated bigots.  hell, we have politicians who advocate violence against them URL not the way it should be, obviously, but that is the way things currently are.  feeling like that should not be the case does not make it any safer for them, making it so that they did not have to disclose their status to anyone who sees their drivers license does.  besides, you are essentially demanding that they put extremely sensitive medical data on all their official ids.  i would not demand that driver licenses have statements like  sought treatment for heroin addiction  or  diagnosed bipolar  even though you could make an argument that letting cops know these things could potentially increase their ability to respond to certain situations.   #  most of those are based on hormones, and guess what ?  #  most of those are based on hormones, and guess what ? now why are not you lobbying to get more important medical information on ids ? there are literally lives that could be saved by printing medicine allergies on ids.  and how about other conditions like diabetes ? lets turn them into a full spreadsheet of medical information.  all of this would be far more useful to emts.  i wonder why you are not lobbying for that.   #  aside from that, the presentation does not change the ekg results or the cardiac enzymes, which are also used to diagnose.   #  as i said in another comment, those are generalities.  both sexes are capable of atypical presentations which is why we do not diagnose based on gender specific rules.  i have had men with massive mi is that presented with only jaw pain and women who presented with crushing chest pain.  aside from that, the presentation does not change the ekg results or the cardiac enzymes, which are also used to diagnose.  you treat the patient, not a textbook definition.  the reason that there are so many layman articles about the difference in presentation is so that  non medical  people can recognize troubling symptoms, not because doctors do not realize that not all heart attacks present with substernal chest pain.   #  it is a good point but totally unrelated to the question at hand.   #  it is a good point but totally unrelated to the question at hand.  a patient that can describe their pain can also disclose their biological sex.  if a patient chooses to withhold pertinent information which they do, all the time , they potentially compromise their care.  a typical ed intake history would include asking about any previous surgeries and current medications which would identify transgender individuals if they answer honestly.  anecdotally, in 0 years in the ed i have never had a transgender patient attempt to hide their medical history from me.  to the contrary they have tended to be more medically savvy than the typical ed patient and extremely proactive about disclosing their biological sex .
think of all the joys fatherhood brings.  whether it is father daughter dances or little league baseball or just seeing a life you helped mold.  here is the thing, i have some genetic diseases that will more or less makes sure that by 0 i will have back/neck/bone problems and maybe lung problems.  wo not change how long i live at least significantly but it will harm my possible quality of life.  i want to be an active parent, running, chasing after my kid, helping him or her play sports, i ca not do that if i wait too long.  so after i get my degree and get my foot in the door of a career, i should have a child.  cmv !  #  think of all the joys fatherhood brings.   #  whether it is father daughter dances or little league baseball or just seeing a life you helped mold.   # whether it is father daughter dances or little league baseball or just seeing a life you helped mold.  actually, you might be surprised.  there is a lot of joy, but also a lot of misery.  parents will generally say that their kids are the source of both their greatest joy and their greatest misery.  just think of waking up for the 0th night in a row at 0 am to calm your crying baby.  think of not being able to sleep in once for the next 0  years.  additionally, the day to day of caring for a kid is fairly boring: most parents rate it as similarly enjoyable as vacuuming URL because of that, it should be no surprise that young parents are less happy than their childless peers URL the good moments are simply outweighed by the additional drudgery and misery.  in fact, when your kids are under 0 and when they are teenagers, you will likely be more miserable than your childless peers.  this is not to say that you should or should not have a kid.  just be realistic about the likely affect it will have on your mental and physical state.  you are trading off increased happiness from 0 0 and in your 0s and beyond for a good amount of misery from 0 0 and in your 0s.   #  but i think you are ignoring all the joys being  young and unburdened in your young adult life  brings.   #  i am taking a different approach with this one: you start by talking about all the joys fatherhood brings.  but i think you are ignoring all the joys being  young and unburdened in your young adult life  brings.  i am 0, fresh out of college, working my first full time job and living on my own.  it is amazing.  i eat out all the time, i do whatever i want to on weekends, i finally feel like i can pursue all of my hobbies that got pushed to the wayside during college, and i am saving money so that i can splurge on myself and take cool vacations or go to big events.  i am also meeting tons of new people.  this is probably the best period of time in my life so far.  you only get a certain period of time i would say from college graduation until marriage totally to yourself.  once you get into a serious relationship and have kids, the days of being free are over.  you have responsibilities to other people.  this can be rewarding and gratifying on a different level in a number of ways, as you have identified, but you will never get back your earlier freedom.  why rush into lifetime commitments ? why not take some time for yourself and experience life as an individual first ? especially considering your disease, you wo not get this quality of life back.  i think it will be easier to still be an excellent dad with some physical handicaps than it will be to explore the world and embrace free adulthood with those same handicaps.  put yourself before your hypothetical kids !  #  do not let them tell you to be a selfish child until you are thirty !  #  i am going to affirm your view.  i am 0 and have 0 kids, intentionality.  there are fleeting moments when  freedom  sounds nice, and my wife gives it to me i. e.  i go to a smash tournament on a saturday and she will take care of the kids , but those are moments, and they are still possible to have after kids and marriage, even while the kids are young ! i would not be half the man i am today without raising my kids, and besides my wife, they are by far the best thing i have ever done.  i have read your responses and you seem to get it like most immature 0 year olds do not.  do not let them tell you to be a selfish child until you are thirty ! also, if you want to stay young, just be a good dad you will never grow up kids are not a burden.  a spouse is not a burden.  they are responsibilities, but they are greater joys than all of the extra money and free time without them could buy.  anything worth having takes work, no mistaking that.   #  he will change a lot after graduating and getting a full time job, and his future wife will as well.   #  implying that everyone that does not immediately get married and have children is a  selfish child ?   i do not want kids, i have had two much younger siblings i am currently 0, they are 0 and 0 respectively and i know that i ca not stand being around children.  why does wanting to experience my own life in my prime make me selfish ? you can still raise kids in your 0s, you can settle down in your 0s, etc.  i do not want the responsibility of being tied down to a location, i would love to travel everywhere for work, etc.  i do not think op is making the right choice, but it is his to make.  he will change a lot after graduating and getting a full time job, and his future wife will as well.   #  by definition, that is selfish to have your world revolve around you.   #  i am sorry if it sounded that way to you, i did not mean that at all.  i never said that people are selfish or immature by not having kids though i am convinced they are missing out , that is ignorant and i would never believe that.  what i do believe, is op was getting some bad advice telling him to get stabilized and spend time on himself before he has kids.  that is the mindset i was attacking.  by definition, that is selfish to have your world revolve around you.  you also miss out on a lot of growth good parents get by simply putting their spouses if applicable and children is needs before them.  sacrificing yourself, your desires for the betterment of others is love in action.  if you let it be, this has far more worth than a few more years of focusing on yourself.  focusing on yourself at times is not just ok, it is completely essential ! but taking it too far is selfish and immature.  if you can provide for them, with help or not, and you want kids want them, as in, to love and care for them, be involved with them, as opposed to ulterior motives , then you should have kids.  they will be the greatest blessing you could have hoped for.  if you do not want them, they will be a burden to you and you wo not love them like they deserve.  op wants children, so he should have children.
well, its what it says on the can: there is no logical basis to support that a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle is  superior or equal  to that of a  meatatarian  lifestyle  in totality .  i believe that:   there is nothing inherently cruel about raising animals for food   vegetarians do not live longer.  URL   eating meat has been an essential part of human evolution for 0 million years.    eating meat is not cruel or unethical; it is a natural part of the cycle of life.    as omnivores it is natural we eat both meat and plants for food   meat farming is no more destructive then traditional agriculture   everything must be taken in moderation   there is no logical reason to be a vegan/vegetarian feel free to ask a ton of questions ! want to keep us all on the same page.  someone please cmv !   there is no logical reason to be a vegan/vegetarian   vegetarian/vegan lifestyles provide no benefit in totality to the world or individual   no, it does not take 0lbs of grain to make 0lb of meat URL  i am trying to respond, you type so god darn fast !   the downvotes, they sting ! k0centipede take your   0; ! URL  #  eating meat has been an essential part of human evolution for 0 million years.   #  i dislike doing the whole fallacy thing, but you ca not assume that just because something has been an  essential  part of human evolution for a long time that it is necessarily good.   # this also ignores the real life conditions of some farming situations, which in my opinion could be considered quite cruel.  and ? does not this just mean that it is, at least,  equal  ? i dislike doing the whole fallacy thing, but you ca not assume that just because something has been an  essential  part of human evolution for a long time that it is necessarily good.  to quote the dude,  that is just, like, your opinion man.   what is or is not cruel or unethical is subjective and honestly in this situation just about up to the individual to decide for themselves.  as omnivores we  can  eat both meat and plants, but also as omnivores we can exclusively survive on just plants.  we are cognizant humans, we do not have to do something just because we can.  are you positing that  everything  in this statement is literal ? and we must, indeed, take  everything  in moderation ?  #  just addressing it before it becomes a problem.   # this also ignores the real life conditions of  some  farming situations, which in my opinion could be considered quite cruel.  i am not saying that all animal farming is humane, just that merely the act of animal farming is not cruel.  the cruelty stems from mistreatment of animals.  does not this just mean that it is, at least, equal ? some will say that vegetarians live longer, which is not true.  just addressing it before it becomes a problem.  appeal to tradition, i get it.  i am just placing a backdrop to the appeal to novelty some use to promote vegetarianism.  what is or is not cruel or unethical is subjective and honestly in this situation just about up to the individual to decide for themselves.  i think its hard to state that a humane death is cruel simply because of its intended purpose.  as omnivores we can eat both meat and plants, but also as omnivores we can exclusively survive on just plants.  we are cognizant humans, we do not have to do something just because we can.  again, internet morons will say  eating meat is unnatural and we were never meant to do it .  growing tofu has a greater environmental impact then growing meat URL as with anything else, it depends.  are you positing that  everything  in this statement is literal ? and we must, indeed, take everything in moderation ? its no more healthy to eat nothing but steak then it is to eat nothing but rice.   #  i have yet to hear a decent argument for eating meat that does not rely on evolutionary ethics.   # the cruelty stems from mistreatment of animals.  which, given the necessity of intensive farming, is almost alway the case.  i would argue that killing an animal simply because you enjoy the taste of it is cruel.  i am just placing a backdrop to the appeal to novelty some use to promote vegetarianism.  actually in this context it is more of a naturalistic fallacy and is/ought fallacy.  nature prescribes no value and has no bearing on what ought to be the case.  we can see how things are and nothing beyond that.  basically, whether it is natural or not is utterly irrelevant.  it does not make it good.  rape is absolutely natural but i think we can all agree where we stand on that.  if you negate all the evolutionary ethics you are left with the rather simple question, should you kill an animal just because you want to eat it ? i would say that is not a good enough reason.  that is ignoring the previously mentioned issues with intensive farming.  i have yet to hear a decent argument for eating meat that does not rely on evolutionary ethics.   #  well, if you want to use that argument, should not we be eating some sort of paleo diet ?  #  saying that vegetarianism/veganism is  illogical  is not exactly fair.  most people who are v/v, myself included, would freely admit that it is a personal or cultural decision they have made.  i may not be able to  prove  that my lifestyle is fine, but that is not really the point.  as for some points  the average lifespan of vegetarians may not be longer than that of meat eaters, but that probably says more about the people who are vegetarians.  i believe the majority of vegetarians in the world are in india, where lifespans are shorter than more developed parts of the world, which would potentially skew your average.  but sure, you can have a potentially healthy non veg diet, and a potentially unhealthy veg diet.  well, if you want to use that argument, should not we be eating some sort of paleo diet ? berries, wild game, fruits, and no grains or domestic animals ? hypothetical are there animals that you would refuse to eat on grounds of cruelty or ethics ? lots of people would refrain from eating horses, dogs, monkeys, etc.  we are capable of being omnivores, but you can live on a plant based diet.  lots of people are v/v or have reduced their meat consumption for environmental reasons.  you need far more energy to produce a pound of meat than what you need to produce a pound of most plant based food.  the demand for fish has caused fish stocks to decline rapidly, and significantly disrupted many ecosystems.  examples available on request.  i am not sure what you mean here.  are you saying that i should eat a moderate amount of meat ? or that there is no harm in eating a moderate amount of any substance ?  #  however, per pound meat is also more energy dense.   # i believe the majority of vegetarians in the world are in india, where lifespans are shorter than more developed parts of the world, which would potentially skew your average.  but sure, you can have a potentially healthy non veg diet, and a potentially unhealthy veg diet.  URL  well, if you want to use that argument, should not we be eating some sort of paleo diet ? berries, wild game, fruits, and no grains or domestic animals ? yes, i would advocate a palio diet.  there is a small space for grains, but not a large one  hypothetical are there animals that you would refuse to eat on grounds of cruelty or ethics ? lots of people would refrain from eating horses, dogs, monkeys, etc.  to be honest, no.  i am a hunter, and most people refuse to eat coyote meat.  i however, think its immoral to kill an animal and put its body to waste.  not saying being a omnivore means we must eat meat.  all that i am saying is that it is not  unnatural  to eat meat.  yes, people have told me it is unnatural to eat meat.  you need far more energy to produce a pound of meat than what you need to produce a pound of most plant based food.  the demand for fish has caused fish stocks to decline rapidly, and significantly disrupted many ecosystems.  examples available on request.  yes, per pound it requires more energy.  however, per pound meat is also more energy dense.  are you saying that i should eat a moderate amount of meat ? or that there is no harm in eating a moderate amount of any substance ? just a general diet ideal.  eating to much of anything is not good for your body at all, be it meat, fruit or grains.
well, its what it says on the can: there is no logical basis to support that a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle is  superior or equal  to that of a  meatatarian  lifestyle  in totality .  i believe that:   there is nothing inherently cruel about raising animals for food   vegetarians do not live longer.  URL   eating meat has been an essential part of human evolution for 0 million years.    eating meat is not cruel or unethical; it is a natural part of the cycle of life.    as omnivores it is natural we eat both meat and plants for food   meat farming is no more destructive then traditional agriculture   everything must be taken in moderation   there is no logical reason to be a vegan/vegetarian feel free to ask a ton of questions ! want to keep us all on the same page.  someone please cmv !   there is no logical reason to be a vegan/vegetarian   vegetarian/vegan lifestyles provide no benefit in totality to the world or individual   no, it does not take 0lbs of grain to make 0lb of meat URL  i am trying to respond, you type so god darn fast !   the downvotes, they sting ! k0centipede take your   0; ! URL  #  eating meat is not cruel or unethical; it is a natural part of the cycle of life.   #  to quote the dude,  that is just, like, your opinion man.    # this also ignores the real life conditions of some farming situations, which in my opinion could be considered quite cruel.  and ? does not this just mean that it is, at least,  equal  ? i dislike doing the whole fallacy thing, but you ca not assume that just because something has been an  essential  part of human evolution for a long time that it is necessarily good.  to quote the dude,  that is just, like, your opinion man.   what is or is not cruel or unethical is subjective and honestly in this situation just about up to the individual to decide for themselves.  as omnivores we  can  eat both meat and plants, but also as omnivores we can exclusively survive on just plants.  we are cognizant humans, we do not have to do something just because we can.  are you positing that  everything  in this statement is literal ? and we must, indeed, take  everything  in moderation ?  #  we are cognizant humans, we do not have to do something just because we can.   # this also ignores the real life conditions of  some  farming situations, which in my opinion could be considered quite cruel.  i am not saying that all animal farming is humane, just that merely the act of animal farming is not cruel.  the cruelty stems from mistreatment of animals.  does not this just mean that it is, at least, equal ? some will say that vegetarians live longer, which is not true.  just addressing it before it becomes a problem.  appeal to tradition, i get it.  i am just placing a backdrop to the appeal to novelty some use to promote vegetarianism.  what is or is not cruel or unethical is subjective and honestly in this situation just about up to the individual to decide for themselves.  i think its hard to state that a humane death is cruel simply because of its intended purpose.  as omnivores we can eat both meat and plants, but also as omnivores we can exclusively survive on just plants.  we are cognizant humans, we do not have to do something just because we can.  again, internet morons will say  eating meat is unnatural and we were never meant to do it .  growing tofu has a greater environmental impact then growing meat URL as with anything else, it depends.  are you positing that  everything  in this statement is literal ? and we must, indeed, take everything in moderation ? its no more healthy to eat nothing but steak then it is to eat nothing but rice.   #  rape is absolutely natural but i think we can all agree where we stand on that.   # the cruelty stems from mistreatment of animals.  which, given the necessity of intensive farming, is almost alway the case.  i would argue that killing an animal simply because you enjoy the taste of it is cruel.  i am just placing a backdrop to the appeal to novelty some use to promote vegetarianism.  actually in this context it is more of a naturalistic fallacy and is/ought fallacy.  nature prescribes no value and has no bearing on what ought to be the case.  we can see how things are and nothing beyond that.  basically, whether it is natural or not is utterly irrelevant.  it does not make it good.  rape is absolutely natural but i think we can all agree where we stand on that.  if you negate all the evolutionary ethics you are left with the rather simple question, should you kill an animal just because you want to eat it ? i would say that is not a good enough reason.  that is ignoring the previously mentioned issues with intensive farming.  i have yet to hear a decent argument for eating meat that does not rely on evolutionary ethics.   #  the demand for fish has caused fish stocks to decline rapidly, and significantly disrupted many ecosystems.   #  saying that vegetarianism/veganism is  illogical  is not exactly fair.  most people who are v/v, myself included, would freely admit that it is a personal or cultural decision they have made.  i may not be able to  prove  that my lifestyle is fine, but that is not really the point.  as for some points  the average lifespan of vegetarians may not be longer than that of meat eaters, but that probably says more about the people who are vegetarians.  i believe the majority of vegetarians in the world are in india, where lifespans are shorter than more developed parts of the world, which would potentially skew your average.  but sure, you can have a potentially healthy non veg diet, and a potentially unhealthy veg diet.  well, if you want to use that argument, should not we be eating some sort of paleo diet ? berries, wild game, fruits, and no grains or domestic animals ? hypothetical are there animals that you would refuse to eat on grounds of cruelty or ethics ? lots of people would refrain from eating horses, dogs, monkeys, etc.  we are capable of being omnivores, but you can live on a plant based diet.  lots of people are v/v or have reduced their meat consumption for environmental reasons.  you need far more energy to produce a pound of meat than what you need to produce a pound of most plant based food.  the demand for fish has caused fish stocks to decline rapidly, and significantly disrupted many ecosystems.  examples available on request.  i am not sure what you mean here.  are you saying that i should eat a moderate amount of meat ? or that there is no harm in eating a moderate amount of any substance ?  #  i however, think its immoral to kill an animal and put its body to waste.   # i believe the majority of vegetarians in the world are in india, where lifespans are shorter than more developed parts of the world, which would potentially skew your average.  but sure, you can have a potentially healthy non veg diet, and a potentially unhealthy veg diet.  URL  well, if you want to use that argument, should not we be eating some sort of paleo diet ? berries, wild game, fruits, and no grains or domestic animals ? yes, i would advocate a palio diet.  there is a small space for grains, but not a large one  hypothetical are there animals that you would refuse to eat on grounds of cruelty or ethics ? lots of people would refrain from eating horses, dogs, monkeys, etc.  to be honest, no.  i am a hunter, and most people refuse to eat coyote meat.  i however, think its immoral to kill an animal and put its body to waste.  not saying being a omnivore means we must eat meat.  all that i am saying is that it is not  unnatural  to eat meat.  yes, people have told me it is unnatural to eat meat.  you need far more energy to produce a pound of meat than what you need to produce a pound of most plant based food.  the demand for fish has caused fish stocks to decline rapidly, and significantly disrupted many ecosystems.  examples available on request.  yes, per pound it requires more energy.  however, per pound meat is also more energy dense.  are you saying that i should eat a moderate amount of meat ? or that there is no harm in eating a moderate amount of any substance ? just a general diet ideal.  eating to much of anything is not good for your body at all, be it meat, fruit or grains.
well, its what it says on the can: there is no logical basis to support that a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle is  superior or equal  to that of a  meatatarian  lifestyle  in totality .  i believe that:   there is nothing inherently cruel about raising animals for food   vegetarians do not live longer.  URL   eating meat has been an essential part of human evolution for 0 million years.    eating meat is not cruel or unethical; it is a natural part of the cycle of life.    as omnivores it is natural we eat both meat and plants for food   meat farming is no more destructive then traditional agriculture   everything must be taken in moderation   there is no logical reason to be a vegan/vegetarian feel free to ask a ton of questions ! want to keep us all on the same page.  someone please cmv !   there is no logical reason to be a vegan/vegetarian   vegetarian/vegan lifestyles provide no benefit in totality to the world or individual   no, it does not take 0lbs of grain to make 0lb of meat URL  i am trying to respond, you type so god darn fast !   the downvotes, they sting ! k0centipede take your   0; ! URL  #  eating meat is not cruel or unethical; it is a natural part of the cycle of life.   #  most animals eat meat out of necessity.   # although they may claim otherwise, many do not care about treating animals as humanely as possible since that is extremely costly.  is it cheaper to put chickens in small cramped cages and have more of them or keep less chickens and give them large open field areas where they are free to roam and do whatever they want ? it is all about the money.  sure they are laws against inhumane treatment, but they usually are not enforced as much as they should be.  for the majority of those 0 million years, humans did not have a whole lot of options diet wise.  it was either eat meat or die.  today with modern technology, we do not have to worry about that.  most animals eat meat out of necessity.  out of all omnivores, humans are the exception because we have access to modern technology.  eating meat is cruel and unethical because of the food industry see my response regarding this above .  also, i want to add that humans are incredibly wasteful.  when animals hunt and kill, they leave little to waste.  on the other hands with humans, if our meats are a few days past the expiry date or it tastes bad for whatever reason like being cooked badly , it gets thrown out.  i have been vegetarian since birth and i am perfectly healthy.  sure, it might be  natural  for us to eat meat, but that does not mean we have to since it causes unnecessary pain and suffering to the animals.  remember, unlike our ancestors, we do not need meat to survive these days  everything must be taken in moderation overall true, but still why cause unnecessary pain and suffering to animals when we can make do without their flesh ?  #  what is or is not cruel or unethical is subjective and honestly in this situation just about up to the individual to decide for themselves.   # this also ignores the real life conditions of some farming situations, which in my opinion could be considered quite cruel.  and ? does not this just mean that it is, at least,  equal  ? i dislike doing the whole fallacy thing, but you ca not assume that just because something has been an  essential  part of human evolution for a long time that it is necessarily good.  to quote the dude,  that is just, like, your opinion man.   what is or is not cruel or unethical is subjective and honestly in this situation just about up to the individual to decide for themselves.  as omnivores we  can  eat both meat and plants, but also as omnivores we can exclusively survive on just plants.  we are cognizant humans, we do not have to do something just because we can.  are you positing that  everything  in this statement is literal ? and we must, indeed, take  everything  in moderation ?  #  just addressing it before it becomes a problem.   # this also ignores the real life conditions of  some  farming situations, which in my opinion could be considered quite cruel.  i am not saying that all animal farming is humane, just that merely the act of animal farming is not cruel.  the cruelty stems from mistreatment of animals.  does not this just mean that it is, at least, equal ? some will say that vegetarians live longer, which is not true.  just addressing it before it becomes a problem.  appeal to tradition, i get it.  i am just placing a backdrop to the appeal to novelty some use to promote vegetarianism.  what is or is not cruel or unethical is subjective and honestly in this situation just about up to the individual to decide for themselves.  i think its hard to state that a humane death is cruel simply because of its intended purpose.  as omnivores we can eat both meat and plants, but also as omnivores we can exclusively survive on just plants.  we are cognizant humans, we do not have to do something just because we can.  again, internet morons will say  eating meat is unnatural and we were never meant to do it .  growing tofu has a greater environmental impact then growing meat URL as with anything else, it depends.  are you positing that  everything  in this statement is literal ? and we must, indeed, take everything in moderation ? its no more healthy to eat nothing but steak then it is to eat nothing but rice.   #  if you negate all the evolutionary ethics you are left with the rather simple question, should you kill an animal just because you want to eat it ?  # the cruelty stems from mistreatment of animals.  which, given the necessity of intensive farming, is almost alway the case.  i would argue that killing an animal simply because you enjoy the taste of it is cruel.  i am just placing a backdrop to the appeal to novelty some use to promote vegetarianism.  actually in this context it is more of a naturalistic fallacy and is/ought fallacy.  nature prescribes no value and has no bearing on what ought to be the case.  we can see how things are and nothing beyond that.  basically, whether it is natural or not is utterly irrelevant.  it does not make it good.  rape is absolutely natural but i think we can all agree where we stand on that.  if you negate all the evolutionary ethics you are left with the rather simple question, should you kill an animal just because you want to eat it ? i would say that is not a good enough reason.  that is ignoring the previously mentioned issues with intensive farming.  i have yet to hear a decent argument for eating meat that does not rely on evolutionary ethics.   #  the demand for fish has caused fish stocks to decline rapidly, and significantly disrupted many ecosystems.   #  saying that vegetarianism/veganism is  illogical  is not exactly fair.  most people who are v/v, myself included, would freely admit that it is a personal or cultural decision they have made.  i may not be able to  prove  that my lifestyle is fine, but that is not really the point.  as for some points  the average lifespan of vegetarians may not be longer than that of meat eaters, but that probably says more about the people who are vegetarians.  i believe the majority of vegetarians in the world are in india, where lifespans are shorter than more developed parts of the world, which would potentially skew your average.  but sure, you can have a potentially healthy non veg diet, and a potentially unhealthy veg diet.  well, if you want to use that argument, should not we be eating some sort of paleo diet ? berries, wild game, fruits, and no grains or domestic animals ? hypothetical are there animals that you would refuse to eat on grounds of cruelty or ethics ? lots of people would refrain from eating horses, dogs, monkeys, etc.  we are capable of being omnivores, but you can live on a plant based diet.  lots of people are v/v or have reduced their meat consumption for environmental reasons.  you need far more energy to produce a pound of meat than what you need to produce a pound of most plant based food.  the demand for fish has caused fish stocks to decline rapidly, and significantly disrupted many ecosystems.  examples available on request.  i am not sure what you mean here.  are you saying that i should eat a moderate amount of meat ? or that there is no harm in eating a moderate amount of any substance ?
i would like to preface this by saying, i know a lot of these still cmvs end up with answers along the lines of  well, everyone is taste is different, you should not judge others , and i get that.  people listen to rap and watch romcoms, too; i am not shitting on anyone is taste.  i simply do not understand the allure of fanfictions.  they seem to just be shittier extensions of stories that never measure up to the original work.  i have read a few of them, all of which were terrible.  that is not to say that they are all poorly written, though; i have to imagine some decent writers have written some.  however, they almost by definition cannot be better than the original source.  i get that a reader or viewer of something might become attached to a particular character, and want to see their stories continued, but that itself is a point that many fictional narratives have driven home a bunch of times.  things die, things end.  resurrecting one into a lesser version will not bring back the magic of the original.  that is not to say i do not see any point in writing fanfiction, however.  it can be excellent practice, a method of honing ones craft by using characters and worlds that are already established and that you are familiar with.  it just seems a stepping stone on the way to writing your own, real stories, however, and i ca not imagine why anyone would spend their time reading them.  change my view.   #  they seem to just be shittier extensions of stories that never measure up to the original work.   #  here is the thing that always sticks with criticizers of fanfiction: it is poe is sturgeon is law.   # here is the thing that always sticks with criticizers of fanfiction: it is poe is sturgeon is law.  0 of  everything  is shit, and fanfiction is often a victim of this because there is no publishing process to go through.  but if you look at literature, it is not immune either.  unless you are telling me that twilight is inherently better than harry potter and the methods of rationality.  part of the allure of fanfiction, for me, is that i am the sort of person who has a lot of trouble associating names to faces.  i already do not read much, despite enjoying the stories, because it takes a significant amount of mental energy to build a fake face to associate with that text only name.  when i get to a point in a work where i have a good idea of what the characters are like, and who they are, and what their names are, i can use that as a bit of a shortcut when reading other derivative fiction, and really immerse myself in the story rather than spend a lot of mental energy trying to establish the who is who.  from talking to voracious readers, i know a lot of them have that period of  who is who ?   but for me that period takes some 0 pages in most instances.  why not ? seriously, tell me how this is a rule.  fanfiction borrows characters and puts them in new or expanded settings with different stories; if you can name a book that had really good characterization with a flaky plot, then that is a book that is well suited for fanfiction.  because finding the 0 amongst the chaff is rewarding.  if you are a harry potter fan, i suggest harry potter and the methods of rationality URL and looking at the fanfic recs on tv tropes URL for your favorite work of original fiction.  i should also like to point out that many of the greatest  classical  pieces of art and literature paradise lost and basically any renaissance painting by michelangelo were essentially bible fanfic/fanart.  so, you know, there is that.   #  by saying  fanfics are not worth reading  you are cutting out  known  amazing books.   #  why should the original author author hold the monopoly on good writing about the world he ore she has created ? is not it possible that an author can write a very good, worthwhile literature based on the world created by another author ? for example: wide sargasso sea is a great book based on charlotte bronte is  jane eyre.   URL rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead is an excellent book detailing  hamlet  from the pov of two minor characters.  URL  wicked  is also an excellent book based on  the wonderful wizard of oz,  URL all three of these books i listed are critically renowned and are plain good literature.  there are many other examples.  by saying  fanfics are not worth reading  you are cutting out  known  amazing books.   #  a fanfic does not have to stack up favorably against the original to be worth reading, it just has to stack up well against your other options for reading at that time.   #  well let is take you claim at face value and say fanfic is always worse than the original.  why does that mean they arent worth reading ? after all, a sirloin can be worth eating even if it is not a filet mignon.  many sequels are worth watching even if they are not as good as the first film.  a fanfic does not have to stack up favorably against the original to be worth reading, it just has to stack up well against your other options for reading at that time.  some people would prefer a knock off harry potter to the original twilight, for example.   #  it is also worth considering that shakespeare, for example, trafficked almost exclusively in re telling other people is stories, rather than creating his own.   #  there is nothing inherently magical about an  original author  for lack of a better term  is relationship to his or her work that makes their voice authoritative and the voices of others somehow  lesser .  it is entirely possible that someone you or i have never heard of could create a better, more compelling harry potter story than j. k.  rowling can.  the fact that the fanfic writer did not write the  first  harry potter story seems like an odd prejudice to hold against their work, rather than judge it on its own merits.  it is also worth considering that shakespeare, for example, trafficked almost exclusively in re telling other people is stories, rather than creating his own.  by our standards today,  hamlet  would qualify as fan fiction.  this is not to say that most fanfiction is good it is not , but only that most fanfiction being bad is not related to the fact that a different author is writing it.   #  it is only good because we can compare it to the original and say  that is so much better !    #  the problem i have with that work is that i feel like it ca not stand on it is own.  the main draw of it is that it explores the technical side magical britain and offered explanations of it.  it is fun because it answers questions about the musings us harry potter fans have had for ages.  but that is it.  it is only good because we can compare it to the original and say  that is so much better !   i can tell you for sure that if i picked it up without any knowledge of the series i would think it was awful.  why would i care whether or not the magic bag can add or multiply or only count ? who cares about the exchange rate of galleons ? it is because it already has significance to us.  it is a really good fan fiction.  i thoroughly enjoyed reading it.  but wo not ever be as  good  or long lasting as harry potter because it inherently relies on the original to do most of the leg work substance wise.
i would like to preface this by saying, i know a lot of these still cmvs end up with answers along the lines of  well, everyone is taste is different, you should not judge others , and i get that.  people listen to rap and watch romcoms, too; i am not shitting on anyone is taste.  i simply do not understand the allure of fanfictions.  they seem to just be shittier extensions of stories that never measure up to the original work.  i have read a few of them, all of which were terrible.  that is not to say that they are all poorly written, though; i have to imagine some decent writers have written some.  however, they almost by definition cannot be better than the original source.  i get that a reader or viewer of something might become attached to a particular character, and want to see their stories continued, but that itself is a point that many fictional narratives have driven home a bunch of times.  things die, things end.  resurrecting one into a lesser version will not bring back the magic of the original.  that is not to say i do not see any point in writing fanfiction, however.  it can be excellent practice, a method of honing ones craft by using characters and worlds that are already established and that you are familiar with.  it just seems a stepping stone on the way to writing your own, real stories, however, and i ca not imagine why anyone would spend their time reading them.  change my view.   #  it just seems a stepping stone on the way to writing your own, real stories, however, and i ca not imagine why anyone would spend their time reading them.   #  because finding the 0 amongst the chaff is rewarding.   # here is the thing that always sticks with criticizers of fanfiction: it is poe is sturgeon is law.  0 of  everything  is shit, and fanfiction is often a victim of this because there is no publishing process to go through.  but if you look at literature, it is not immune either.  unless you are telling me that twilight is inherently better than harry potter and the methods of rationality.  part of the allure of fanfiction, for me, is that i am the sort of person who has a lot of trouble associating names to faces.  i already do not read much, despite enjoying the stories, because it takes a significant amount of mental energy to build a fake face to associate with that text only name.  when i get to a point in a work where i have a good idea of what the characters are like, and who they are, and what their names are, i can use that as a bit of a shortcut when reading other derivative fiction, and really immerse myself in the story rather than spend a lot of mental energy trying to establish the who is who.  from talking to voracious readers, i know a lot of them have that period of  who is who ?   but for me that period takes some 0 pages in most instances.  why not ? seriously, tell me how this is a rule.  fanfiction borrows characters and puts them in new or expanded settings with different stories; if you can name a book that had really good characterization with a flaky plot, then that is a book that is well suited for fanfiction.  because finding the 0 amongst the chaff is rewarding.  if you are a harry potter fan, i suggest harry potter and the methods of rationality URL and looking at the fanfic recs on tv tropes URL for your favorite work of original fiction.  i should also like to point out that many of the greatest  classical  pieces of art and literature paradise lost and basically any renaissance painting by michelangelo were essentially bible fanfic/fanart.  so, you know, there is that.   #  why should the original author author hold the monopoly on good writing about the world he ore she has created ?  #  why should the original author author hold the monopoly on good writing about the world he ore she has created ? is not it possible that an author can write a very good, worthwhile literature based on the world created by another author ? for example: wide sargasso sea is a great book based on charlotte bronte is  jane eyre.   URL rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead is an excellent book detailing  hamlet  from the pov of two minor characters.  URL  wicked  is also an excellent book based on  the wonderful wizard of oz,  URL all three of these books i listed are critically renowned and are plain good literature.  there are many other examples.  by saying  fanfics are not worth reading  you are cutting out  known  amazing books.   #  a fanfic does not have to stack up favorably against the original to be worth reading, it just has to stack up well against your other options for reading at that time.   #  well let is take you claim at face value and say fanfic is always worse than the original.  why does that mean they arent worth reading ? after all, a sirloin can be worth eating even if it is not a filet mignon.  many sequels are worth watching even if they are not as good as the first film.  a fanfic does not have to stack up favorably against the original to be worth reading, it just has to stack up well against your other options for reading at that time.  some people would prefer a knock off harry potter to the original twilight, for example.   #  by our standards today,  hamlet  would qualify as fan fiction.   #  there is nothing inherently magical about an  original author  for lack of a better term  is relationship to his or her work that makes their voice authoritative and the voices of others somehow  lesser .  it is entirely possible that someone you or i have never heard of could create a better, more compelling harry potter story than j. k.  rowling can.  the fact that the fanfic writer did not write the  first  harry potter story seems like an odd prejudice to hold against their work, rather than judge it on its own merits.  it is also worth considering that shakespeare, for example, trafficked almost exclusively in re telling other people is stories, rather than creating his own.  by our standards today,  hamlet  would qualify as fan fiction.  this is not to say that most fanfiction is good it is not , but only that most fanfiction being bad is not related to the fact that a different author is writing it.   #  it is because it already has significance to us.   #  the problem i have with that work is that i feel like it ca not stand on it is own.  the main draw of it is that it explores the technical side magical britain and offered explanations of it.  it is fun because it answers questions about the musings us harry potter fans have had for ages.  but that is it.  it is only good because we can compare it to the original and say  that is so much better !   i can tell you for sure that if i picked it up without any knowledge of the series i would think it was awful.  why would i care whether or not the magic bag can add or multiply or only count ? who cares about the exchange rate of galleons ? it is because it already has significance to us.  it is a really good fan fiction.  i thoroughly enjoyed reading it.  but wo not ever be as  good  or long lasting as harry potter because it inherently relies on the original to do most of the leg work substance wise.
i would like to preface this by saying, i know a lot of these still cmvs end up with answers along the lines of  well, everyone is taste is different, you should not judge others , and i get that.  people listen to rap and watch romcoms, too; i am not shitting on anyone is taste.  i simply do not understand the allure of fanfictions.  they seem to just be shittier extensions of stories that never measure up to the original work.  i have read a few of them, all of which were terrible.  that is not to say that they are all poorly written, though; i have to imagine some decent writers have written some.  however, they almost by definition cannot be better than the original source.  i get that a reader or viewer of something might become attached to a particular character, and want to see their stories continued, but that itself is a point that many fictional narratives have driven home a bunch of times.  things die, things end.  resurrecting one into a lesser version will not bring back the magic of the original.  that is not to say i do not see any point in writing fanfiction, however.  it can be excellent practice, a method of honing ones craft by using characters and worlds that are already established and that you are familiar with.  it just seems a stepping stone on the way to writing your own, real stories, however, and i ca not imagine why anyone would spend their time reading them.  change my view.   #  they seem to just be shittier extensions of stories that never measure up to the original work.   #  i have read a few of them, all of which were terrible.   # i have read a few of them, all of which were terrible.  while most fanfiction are terrible, there is the occasional diamond in the rough that is very good.  there are a few cases of me enjoying a fanfiction more than i enjoyed the original work.  there are even one or two fandoms that i find the original work to be terrible, but it to have enough interesting elements that when put in a fanfiction, it can form a very compelling story.  i completely disagree.  taken on their own merits, fanfiction are only subject to the same limitations as any original ip published in the same format.  as most fanfiction are exclusively writing, they are subject to the same limitations as an ebook.  it just seems a stepping stone on the way to writing your own, real stories, however, and i ca not imagine why anyone would spend their time reading them.  it can be fun watching that development process as the writer improves and their style changes slightly.  there is one writer that i enjoyed their work thoroughly and now that they have transitioned to writing their own material, they have a fanbase already set up of people who liked their fanfiction.  i know that i personally will be buying their first book that comes out even without knowing what the plot is just because of how much i like their style.   #  by saying  fanfics are not worth reading  you are cutting out  known  amazing books.   #  why should the original author author hold the monopoly on good writing about the world he ore she has created ? is not it possible that an author can write a very good, worthwhile literature based on the world created by another author ? for example: wide sargasso sea is a great book based on charlotte bronte is  jane eyre.   URL rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead is an excellent book detailing  hamlet  from the pov of two minor characters.  URL  wicked  is also an excellent book based on  the wonderful wizard of oz,  URL all three of these books i listed are critically renowned and are plain good literature.  there are many other examples.  by saying  fanfics are not worth reading  you are cutting out  known  amazing books.   #  some people would prefer a knock off harry potter to the original twilight, for example.   #  well let is take you claim at face value and say fanfic is always worse than the original.  why does that mean they arent worth reading ? after all, a sirloin can be worth eating even if it is not a filet mignon.  many sequels are worth watching even if they are not as good as the first film.  a fanfic does not have to stack up favorably against the original to be worth reading, it just has to stack up well against your other options for reading at that time.  some people would prefer a knock off harry potter to the original twilight, for example.   #  it is also worth considering that shakespeare, for example, trafficked almost exclusively in re telling other people is stories, rather than creating his own.   #  there is nothing inherently magical about an  original author  for lack of a better term  is relationship to his or her work that makes their voice authoritative and the voices of others somehow  lesser .  it is entirely possible that someone you or i have never heard of could create a better, more compelling harry potter story than j. k.  rowling can.  the fact that the fanfic writer did not write the  first  harry potter story seems like an odd prejudice to hold against their work, rather than judge it on its own merits.  it is also worth considering that shakespeare, for example, trafficked almost exclusively in re telling other people is stories, rather than creating his own.  by our standards today,  hamlet  would qualify as fan fiction.  this is not to say that most fanfiction is good it is not , but only that most fanfiction being bad is not related to the fact that a different author is writing it.   #  the problem i have with that work is that i feel like it ca not stand on it is own.   #  the problem i have with that work is that i feel like it ca not stand on it is own.  the main draw of it is that it explores the technical side magical britain and offered explanations of it.  it is fun because it answers questions about the musings us harry potter fans have had for ages.  but that is it.  it is only good because we can compare it to the original and say  that is so much better !   i can tell you for sure that if i picked it up without any knowledge of the series i would think it was awful.  why would i care whether or not the magic bag can add or multiply or only count ? who cares about the exchange rate of galleons ? it is because it already has significance to us.  it is a really good fan fiction.  i thoroughly enjoyed reading it.  but wo not ever be as  good  or long lasting as harry potter because it inherently relies on the original to do most of the leg work substance wise.
i would like to preface this by saying, i know a lot of these still cmvs end up with answers along the lines of  well, everyone is taste is different, you should not judge others , and i get that.  people listen to rap and watch romcoms, too; i am not shitting on anyone is taste.  i simply do not understand the allure of fanfictions.  they seem to just be shittier extensions of stories that never measure up to the original work.  i have read a few of them, all of which were terrible.  that is not to say that they are all poorly written, though; i have to imagine some decent writers have written some.  however, they almost by definition cannot be better than the original source.  i get that a reader or viewer of something might become attached to a particular character, and want to see their stories continued, but that itself is a point that many fictional narratives have driven home a bunch of times.  things die, things end.  resurrecting one into a lesser version will not bring back the magic of the original.  that is not to say i do not see any point in writing fanfiction, however.  it can be excellent practice, a method of honing ones craft by using characters and worlds that are already established and that you are familiar with.  it just seems a stepping stone on the way to writing your own, real stories, however, and i ca not imagine why anyone would spend their time reading them.  change my view.   #  it can be excellent practice, a method of honing ones craft by using characters and worlds that are already established and that you are familiar with.   #  it just seems a stepping stone on the way to writing your own, real stories, however, and i ca not imagine why anyone would spend their time reading them.   # i have read a few of them, all of which were terrible.  while most fanfiction are terrible, there is the occasional diamond in the rough that is very good.  there are a few cases of me enjoying a fanfiction more than i enjoyed the original work.  there are even one or two fandoms that i find the original work to be terrible, but it to have enough interesting elements that when put in a fanfiction, it can form a very compelling story.  i completely disagree.  taken on their own merits, fanfiction are only subject to the same limitations as any original ip published in the same format.  as most fanfiction are exclusively writing, they are subject to the same limitations as an ebook.  it just seems a stepping stone on the way to writing your own, real stories, however, and i ca not imagine why anyone would spend their time reading them.  it can be fun watching that development process as the writer improves and their style changes slightly.  there is one writer that i enjoyed their work thoroughly and now that they have transitioned to writing their own material, they have a fanbase already set up of people who liked their fanfiction.  i know that i personally will be buying their first book that comes out even without knowing what the plot is just because of how much i like their style.   #  URL rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead is an excellent book detailing  hamlet  from the pov of two minor characters.   #  why should the original author author hold the monopoly on good writing about the world he ore she has created ? is not it possible that an author can write a very good, worthwhile literature based on the world created by another author ? for example: wide sargasso sea is a great book based on charlotte bronte is  jane eyre.   URL rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead is an excellent book detailing  hamlet  from the pov of two minor characters.  URL  wicked  is also an excellent book based on  the wonderful wizard of oz,  URL all three of these books i listed are critically renowned and are plain good literature.  there are many other examples.  by saying  fanfics are not worth reading  you are cutting out  known  amazing books.   #  well let is take you claim at face value and say fanfic is always worse than the original.   #  well let is take you claim at face value and say fanfic is always worse than the original.  why does that mean they arent worth reading ? after all, a sirloin can be worth eating even if it is not a filet mignon.  many sequels are worth watching even if they are not as good as the first film.  a fanfic does not have to stack up favorably against the original to be worth reading, it just has to stack up well against your other options for reading at that time.  some people would prefer a knock off harry potter to the original twilight, for example.   #  by our standards today,  hamlet  would qualify as fan fiction.   #  there is nothing inherently magical about an  original author  for lack of a better term  is relationship to his or her work that makes their voice authoritative and the voices of others somehow  lesser .  it is entirely possible that someone you or i have never heard of could create a better, more compelling harry potter story than j. k.  rowling can.  the fact that the fanfic writer did not write the  first  harry potter story seems like an odd prejudice to hold against their work, rather than judge it on its own merits.  it is also worth considering that shakespeare, for example, trafficked almost exclusively in re telling other people is stories, rather than creating his own.  by our standards today,  hamlet  would qualify as fan fiction.  this is not to say that most fanfiction is good it is not , but only that most fanfiction being bad is not related to the fact that a different author is writing it.   #  it is because it already has significance to us.   #  the problem i have with that work is that i feel like it ca not stand on it is own.  the main draw of it is that it explores the technical side magical britain and offered explanations of it.  it is fun because it answers questions about the musings us harry potter fans have had for ages.  but that is it.  it is only good because we can compare it to the original and say  that is so much better !   i can tell you for sure that if i picked it up without any knowledge of the series i would think it was awful.  why would i care whether or not the magic bag can add or multiply or only count ? who cares about the exchange rate of galleons ? it is because it already has significance to us.  it is a really good fan fiction.  i thoroughly enjoyed reading it.  but wo not ever be as  good  or long lasting as harry potter because it inherently relies on the original to do most of the leg work substance wise.
firstly: yes, i am aware  america is attitude  is a rather nebulous term.  america is not a homogeneous entity with a single attitude.  i am essentially referring to a generalised impression of the country is stance on this matter as reflected in the practice of the establishments which sell these drinks.  i am an english person, and i am just back from a month long holiday in america mostly california, but also arizona, nevada and briefly illinois .  one glaring cultural difference between the uk and the us i have noticed has been the attitudes to beverages.  the us is quite strict on its alcohol which is less easy to purchase than in the uk for various reasons less bars, more expensive, higher drinking age etc , plus i would add that the vast majority of ales and lagers are utterly terrible, but i digress.  anyway point is america is attitude towards alcohol is rather good.  it treats it like the dangerous drug it is.  but america is attitude to soft drinks is absolutely shocking.  you can barely walk down a street in america without coca cola entering your throat.  the entire country seems designed to make every single citizen consume as much coke, dr.  pepper, fanta, sprite etc.  as humanly possible.  every restaurant, corner store, bar, cafe, hotel etc seems to have  making a profit  as their secondary aim.  their primary agenda is for their patrons to consume as much sugary liquid as they can possibly make them before they keel over in diabetic agony.  i feel i am getting carried away again.  ok, to bring this more to the point, here are the things which seem to suggest to me that the us do not seem to realise how unhealthy soft drinks are:   regular bottles of coke/mountain jew/spit/sergeant pepper or whatever are significantly larger than their uk counterparts.    in the uk,  unlimited soft drinks  is a novelty concept used only by select few chains, such as pizza hut.  in the us it is the overwhelming norm.  every single fast food outlet, cafe or restaurant comes with a  fountain  which you can top up at any time.  you are essentially encouraged not only to keep refilling your drink, but even take one  for the road .  unless you have incredible self restraint, a visit to one of these places in conjunction with salty fast food often leads to drinking far more than you probably would have, had the saccharine liquid not been so freely available.    why you would even want to refill your drink baffles me, because the sizes are absolutely terrifying.  a  ismall  cup at mcdonalds, subway, burger king etc is generally the size of a uk  amedium .  a  amedium  is bigger than a uk large.  and a  willarge  is a monstrous bucket the size of a small dog.  if anyone actually finishes an entire large from burger king in one sitting they should sit down and take a long hard think about their life choices.  anyway point is i find all this rather indicative that the us does not seem to think sugary soft drinks like coke are very harmful to one is health.  or if they do realise that, they are making too much of a profit on them to restrict them in the sort of way they restrict alcohol consumption.  i saw a fair few leviathanic morbidly obese waddlers during my time in  america, and i ca not help but think that adopting a similar attitude to the uk where sugary drinks are concerned would go a long way to thinning out their ranks pun intended .  p. s.  i am no medical expert, and so i suppose one way in which my view could be changed is by changing my current view that sugary soft drinks are rather bad for your health.   #  every restaurant, corner store, bar, cafe, hotel etc seems to have  making a profit  as their secondary aim.   #  their primary agenda is for their patrons to consume as much sugary liquid as they can possibly make them before they keel over in diabetic agony.   # their primary agenda is for their patrons to consume as much sugary liquid as they can possibly make them before they keel over in diabetic agony.  soft drinks are almost purely profit generators; a  small  drink that costs $0 to buy only costs about $0 from the fountain.  it is almost purely profit, and the fact that people love their unlimited refills means that they go to places that have that, to the point that  not  having it is a competitive disadvantage.  the problem is not, as much as i want to say it, some hidden agenda to give us all diabetes, it is that we are, collectively, so addicted to sugar/hfcs that we only patronize places where we put ourselves on the fast track to diabetes.  let me put this into perspective as to how addictive sugary soft drinks can be: my father is diabetic.  he  lost his foot  to complications due to diabetes.  knowing this full well, i   still  ca not stop drinking soda, even though i have cut down fairly significantly in the past few years.  one of the problems with the idea of prohibiting soft drinks is that the last time we had some wildly popular beverage that suddenly got banned by a bunch of meddlers who thought they knew what was best for everyone nevermind  if it was actually better ; people, espeically americans, do  not  like their freedoms restricted , the mafia happened, and we really do not want to go through that shit again.   #  i think there may be a couple of things coloring the analysis here.   #  i think there may be a couple of things coloring the analysis here.  first, the reason historically that alcohol is less prevalent and soft drinks more prevalent is prohibition.  the prohibition era forced substantial cultural shifts where restaurants were unable to sell high margin alcoholic beverages, and substituted that for soft drinks.  that context is a big part of the boom in these drinks.  in the pre prohibition era, soft drinks were largely novelty items or sold at only a few places like drugstore counters.  for much more on prohibition and how it changed america, i would suggest the exellent book last call URL by daniel okrent.  apart from the historical reasoning, there also may be some bias here from being in the sort of places one visits as a tourist in america.  for example, taking behaviors seen on the las vegas strip as typical of america is a poor sample.   #  many smaller towns and communities flagstaff, monterey, san luis obispo, kingman, san simeon.  and of course many very touristy areas the grand canyon and yosemite .   # for example, taking behaviors seen on the las vegas strip as typical of america is a poor sample.  well, maybe, but i feel like i visited enough places to get some semblance of a representative sample.  i saw many major cities san francisco, l. a. , san diego, phoenix, vegas, chicago.  many smaller towns and communities flagstaff, monterey, san luis obispo, kingman, san simeon.  and of course many very touristy areas the grand canyon and yosemite .  anyway, i did not really notice any difference throughout california and arizona where soft drinks were concerned.   #  for example, most people cook and eat most meals at home.   #  i am not denying that soft drinks are highly prevalent in the us.  and the vegas strip was an extreme example.  but being a visitor will dispose you to some biases.  for example, most people cook and eat most meals at home.  so trends you see in restaurants are not dispositive of most food consumption.  when visiting, you are far more likely to be eating out and engaging in public social activities than you would be in your day to day life.  i am sure that visiting the uk i would encounter similar effects where i got a biased view, not seeing how most people behave in their ordinary lives, and instead seeing them predominantly in certain contexts.   #  fast food is still a massive thing in america.   #  oh sure, but it is the same case in the uk most people would cook.  the point is that when they do go out, the soft drinks are vastly more plentiful than in the uk.  fast food is still a massive thing in america.  in california the variety and volume of fast food joints was absolutely staggering.  admittedly there were less mcdonalds than i expected, but these were replaced by dozens of other chains.
firstly: yes, i am aware  america is attitude  is a rather nebulous term.  america is not a homogeneous entity with a single attitude.  i am essentially referring to a generalised impression of the country is stance on this matter as reflected in the practice of the establishments which sell these drinks.  i am an english person, and i am just back from a month long holiday in america mostly california, but also arizona, nevada and briefly illinois .  one glaring cultural difference between the uk and the us i have noticed has been the attitudes to beverages.  the us is quite strict on its alcohol which is less easy to purchase than in the uk for various reasons less bars, more expensive, higher drinking age etc , plus i would add that the vast majority of ales and lagers are utterly terrible, but i digress.  anyway point is america is attitude towards alcohol is rather good.  it treats it like the dangerous drug it is.  but america is attitude to soft drinks is absolutely shocking.  you can barely walk down a street in america without coca cola entering your throat.  the entire country seems designed to make every single citizen consume as much coke, dr.  pepper, fanta, sprite etc.  as humanly possible.  every restaurant, corner store, bar, cafe, hotel etc seems to have  making a profit  as their secondary aim.  their primary agenda is for their patrons to consume as much sugary liquid as they can possibly make them before they keel over in diabetic agony.  i feel i am getting carried away again.  ok, to bring this more to the point, here are the things which seem to suggest to me that the us do not seem to realise how unhealthy soft drinks are:   regular bottles of coke/mountain jew/spit/sergeant pepper or whatever are significantly larger than their uk counterparts.    in the uk,  unlimited soft drinks  is a novelty concept used only by select few chains, such as pizza hut.  in the us it is the overwhelming norm.  every single fast food outlet, cafe or restaurant comes with a  fountain  which you can top up at any time.  you are essentially encouraged not only to keep refilling your drink, but even take one  for the road .  unless you have incredible self restraint, a visit to one of these places in conjunction with salty fast food often leads to drinking far more than you probably would have, had the saccharine liquid not been so freely available.    why you would even want to refill your drink baffles me, because the sizes are absolutely terrifying.  a  ismall  cup at mcdonalds, subway, burger king etc is generally the size of a uk  amedium .  a  amedium  is bigger than a uk large.  and a  willarge  is a monstrous bucket the size of a small dog.  if anyone actually finishes an entire large from burger king in one sitting they should sit down and take a long hard think about their life choices.  anyway point is i find all this rather indicative that the us does not seem to think sugary soft drinks like coke are very harmful to one is health.  or if they do realise that, they are making too much of a profit on them to restrict them in the sort of way they restrict alcohol consumption.  i saw a fair few leviathanic morbidly obese waddlers during my time in  america, and i ca not help but think that adopting a similar attitude to the uk where sugary drinks are concerned would go a long way to thinning out their ranks pun intended .  p. s.  i am no medical expert, and so i suppose one way in which my view could be changed is by changing my current view that sugary soft drinks are rather bad for your health.   #  in the uk,  unlimited soft drinks  is a novelty concept used only by select few chains, such as pizza hut.   #  does this not apply to all beverages in uk though ?  # does this not apply to all beverages in uk though ? when i went to germany, you could not even get free unlimited water.  to me, not having access to unlimited water during a meal seems like a much worse problem to have than having unlimited soft drinks.  additionally, when i was in germany i found that i could get twice as much beer as i could coke or water for the same amount.  so i found myself drinking beer at every meal so it is not like i was cutting out the calories, i was just replacing them with alcohol.  well, yes obviously.  this statement is pretty much 00 0.  of course you are going to drink more than if it had not been available.  lastly, providing sodas to patrons is practically free.  it would really annoy me to have to pay $0 for every single 0 oz.  cup of coke i drank, so much that i would not buy any from them and they would lose my 0 dollars.  that is what i did in germany at least, if it was not a time i could be drinking beer i just did not have anything to drink with my meals.   #  the prohibition era forced substantial cultural shifts where restaurants were unable to sell high margin alcoholic beverages, and substituted that for soft drinks.   #  i think there may be a couple of things coloring the analysis here.  first, the reason historically that alcohol is less prevalent and soft drinks more prevalent is prohibition.  the prohibition era forced substantial cultural shifts where restaurants were unable to sell high margin alcoholic beverages, and substituted that for soft drinks.  that context is a big part of the boom in these drinks.  in the pre prohibition era, soft drinks were largely novelty items or sold at only a few places like drugstore counters.  for much more on prohibition and how it changed america, i would suggest the exellent book last call URL by daniel okrent.  apart from the historical reasoning, there also may be some bias here from being in the sort of places one visits as a tourist in america.  for example, taking behaviors seen on the las vegas strip as typical of america is a poor sample.   #  well, maybe, but i feel like i visited enough places to get some semblance of a representative sample.   # for example, taking behaviors seen on the las vegas strip as typical of america is a poor sample.  well, maybe, but i feel like i visited enough places to get some semblance of a representative sample.  i saw many major cities san francisco, l. a. , san diego, phoenix, vegas, chicago.  many smaller towns and communities flagstaff, monterey, san luis obispo, kingman, san simeon.  and of course many very touristy areas the grand canyon and yosemite .  anyway, i did not really notice any difference throughout california and arizona where soft drinks were concerned.   #  when visiting, you are far more likely to be eating out and engaging in public social activities than you would be in your day to day life.   #  i am not denying that soft drinks are highly prevalent in the us.  and the vegas strip was an extreme example.  but being a visitor will dispose you to some biases.  for example, most people cook and eat most meals at home.  so trends you see in restaurants are not dispositive of most food consumption.  when visiting, you are far more likely to be eating out and engaging in public social activities than you would be in your day to day life.  i am sure that visiting the uk i would encounter similar effects where i got a biased view, not seeing how most people behave in their ordinary lives, and instead seeing them predominantly in certain contexts.   #  admittedly there were less mcdonalds than i expected, but these were replaced by dozens of other chains.   #  oh sure, but it is the same case in the uk most people would cook.  the point is that when they do go out, the soft drinks are vastly more plentiful than in the uk.  fast food is still a massive thing in america.  in california the variety and volume of fast food joints was absolutely staggering.  admittedly there were less mcdonalds than i expected, but these were replaced by dozens of other chains.
the first amendment is quoted as follows: as the first amendment only guarantees that the government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, the act of detaining those who exercise free speech is not explicitly illegal, and would fall under the category of a false arrest.  in order to gain compensation for a false arrest, you must first be acquitted of any charges you were arrested for, and then you must prove that the officer arrested you without  probable cause .  this appears to be quite difficult to argue, and could dial up a serious lawyer bill that could significantly impact the financial standing of a typical citizen.  in addition, from what i have seen, even if your case is successful, the compensation typically is about 0 0 dollars an hour of detainment.  this may seem like a lot at first, but it comes with the caveat that you will likely need to hire a lawyer for 0 court cases; to acquit you and then to assert your case.  you will have to spend hours of your own time in the courtroom, and the cost is even higher if you were organizing a protest/event of some sort that will take further time and effort to reschedule.  you will need to rebuild momentum for your movement, and could cost you time and publicity.  so effectively, suing for unlawful arrest is the only method to counteract violations of freedom of speech, and is inefficient and ineffective, as compensation arguably is not enough to counterbalance the risk and financial contribution necessary to win the case.   #  as the first amendment only guarantees that the government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, the act of detaining those who exercise free speech is not explicitly illegal, and would fall under the category of a false arrest.   #  well, your problem is that you are viewing the act of free speech as absolute, and the courts have repeatedly held that no constitutional right is absolute, and all are subject to reasonable restriction.   # well, your problem is that you are viewing the act of free speech as absolute, and the courts have repeatedly held that no constitutional right is absolute, and all are subject to reasonable restriction.  with regard to the 0st amendment, the judgement is that any law restricting free speech has to be evaluated with strict scrutiny URL in order for an arrest to be unlawful, it generally must fall into the following bucket: 0.  there cannot have been a warrant issued for the arrest; and 0.  there is not probable cause that the suspect committed a crime.  so, if you are arrested for unlawful assembly, and you were assembled unlawfully trespassing, obstructing traffic, etc , you are guilty of that crime.  the reason for your assembly is irrelevant.  lawful and peaceful assembly, however, is absolutely covered under case law, and unless conduct that occurs during said assembly rises to the level of illegal action, is protected.  the fundamental issue with your argument is that you seem to believe that all assemblies for all reasons are lawful, which they are not.   #  where someone insults an officer and though they cooperate are arrested.   #  most often cases of unlawful arrest for what was later determined to be free speech are centered around the idea of  contempt of cop.   where someone insults an officer and though they cooperate are arrested.  usually the actual crime they are processed for is resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, or assaulting an officer.  in effect the police need to come up with a crime for your to have committed in order to arrest you.  they cannot process you for calling them an idiot or for peaceful protest.  you mention the cost of going to court as a major factor in this decision.  in cases like this where the original crime is fabricated you would likely be acquitted.  ordinarily if you are charged with a criminal offence, plead not guilty, are taken to trial and are then acquitted either by magistrates or a jury you will not be liable  to pay court costs.  in fact, if you are acquitted your advocate can ask the court to make an application for your costs to be reimbursed out of state funds.  these costs must be reasonable and cover for example the cost of your journeys to and from court on each occasion.  your legal representative should take details of these costs from you in order to be able to present an accurate figure to the court.  as well it is not as if you are required to pay your lawyer immediately for all services rendered.  \ exceptions to this are cases where you are found to have withheld evidence that lead to your own wrongful incarceration.  as well i would argue against it being the only defense of free speech.  you also have right of assembly and all the precedent cases around which the us legal system is built.  those all work to defend your right of free speech, it is not as if it is the constitution alone.  an example would be new york times co.  v.  united states.  if you are found to be leaking or sharing classified documents this precedent case works to define your actions as being protected and within the realm of free speech.  there are thousands of other examples from landmark cases throughout the years where specific circumstances and actions that could give rise to ambiguity are explicitly protected because of precedent cases.   #  the us has never been truly smothered by government censorship in the manner of true dictatorships everywhere.   #  on the whole, citizens of the us have a demonstrated ability to freely speak.  there have, of course, been occasional efforts to silence people whose views were deemed troublesome by the government this was a particularly severe problem during the period of mccarthyism and the hysteria of the cold war.  even then, voices of dissent were heard.  the us has never been truly smothered by government censorship in the manner of true dictatorships everywhere.  so really, the problem is not that serious.  i do think that when people choose to engage in vandalism and looting, that goes beyond an issue of free speech.  free speech should be non violent.   #  thus you have to show that there was not probable cause.   # it is not strictly required that you are acquitted.  but being convicted and having that conviction upheld on appeal makes it impossible to argue in a civil suit that your activities that led to arrest were legal.  a court has already ruled them illegal, and you ca not assert the opposite in a lawsuit.  as to showing you were arrested without probable cause, that rises from the 0th amendment, not the 0st, which reads:  the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  it has been held that a seizure of your person based on probable cause of criminal activity, is reasonable under the 0th amendment.  thus you have to show that there was not probable cause.  also you seem to miss that the statute under which you can sue for this, 0 usc 0, allows in a subsequent section 0 usc 0, that attorney is fees can be included.   #  but all in all, that the officer could be fired and/or found personally liable for arresting you frequently prevents officers from infringing speech rights.   #  you are focused on what one needs to do if one is falsely arrested.  you ignore that the system we have prevents thousands upon thousands of false arrests from occurring daily in the first place.  it is efficient and effective.  it acts as a  deterrent  to the cops arresting you just for speech.  the supreme court even authorized punitive damages against officers in their individual capacities for conduct which is  shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.  smith v.  wade , 0 u. s.  0, 0 0 URL police officers know this.  they are trained on it.  they can try to come up with bs alternative reasons for arresting you if they like.  but all in all, that the officer could be fired and/or found personally liable for arresting you frequently prevents officers from infringing speech rights.
basically, this argument predicates on two things: 0.  acceptance of self defense as a valid reason for violence, which i think is a fair assumption of most if not all people here.  0.  the legal system in question for the sake of argument, let is stick to the american one has moral or ethical failings i will illustrate my point with an analogy: let is say a gestapo member stops a jew who had recently robbed some cigars in nazi germany let is say this is prior to the implementation of the final solution for walking in the middle of the street.  maybe the gestapo member is super nice.  maybe he even has some jewish friends.  maybe he is just doing his damn job.  yea, walking in the street is illegal, and so is stealing cigars.  but who, other than neo nazi scum, would say that the jew would be wrong to punch the gestapo ? sure, legally the gestapo is in the right and the jew is in the wrong.  but the law itself and the society they are in has institutionalized a systemic form of discrimination against the jew.  the jew would have no obligations whatsoever to respect the authority of the gestapo.  yes, it might be dumb to punch the gestapo i wo not deny that.  the gestapo will likely kill the jew now.  but was it morally wrong to hit someone who is enforcing a morally repugnant system ? of course not.  at the end of the day, it does not matter how legally justified the gestapo is actions are, they are still trying to enforce a morally repugnant system that specifically targets the jewish people.  therefore it is self defense.  unless you deny that american law and society are systematically discriminating against poor people and black people, the analogy holds.  but even if you do not think that, insofar as american law and society are promoting  any  kind of injustice, then the analogy holds, because then cops become the ground soldiers and enforcers of that injustice.  therefore, a cop who operates in an unjust framework is automatically waging war against you.  attacking him is morally justifiable as an act of self defense.   #  therefore, a cop who operates in an unjust framework is automatically waging war against you.   #  again, any injustice is apparently enough to call it a war.   #  you are apparently arguing that any level of encroachment justifies violence in self defense.  you have not made a case that the moral repugnance of the system is sufficiently morally repugnant.  you write:   but even if you do not think that, insofar as american law and society are promoting any kind of injustice, then the analogy holds, because then cops become the ground soldiers and enforcers of that injustice.  so, any injustice is therefore carte blanche for violence.  again, any injustice is apparently enough to call it a war.  this is a terribly twitchy philosophy.  suppose, for example, that a cop gives you a parking ticket a few seconds early and, while you acknowledge the right of the cop to give you a ticket if you would been there a few seconds longer, you believe this is an injustice.  then the cop is waging war on you and violence is justified in self defense.  i am pretty sure these two sentences are rhetoric and not an actual stance.  such wonton use of violence to right any wrong is not a feasible solution.   #  there is institutional racism, and a tendency to arrest the poor first.   #  first, you must admit that your analogy is quite heavy handed.  we do not live in nazi germany.  there is institutional racism, and a tendency to arrest the poor first.  i wo not disagree with that.  but:   we are not forcing poor/blacks to wear clothing that identifies them as poor/black   we are not forcing poor/blacks to live in the same cramped space, where disease and hunger run rampant   we are not sending off poor/blacks to labor camps where they are gassed and worked to death.  comparing our society today to nazi germany is quite fallacious, so i will remove that example from your argument, so i can answer the argument itself without the heavy handed misdirection.  now, on to the argument: what you are saying is that since the system is unjust, then any cop that operates in such a system is automatically attacking you when they do their job.  being that you are being attacked, you have the moral right to defend yourself, violently if necessary.  this is your argument, yes ? your argument relies mainly on the authority of the individual to declare the system unjust.  that is, your argument relies  entirely  on  your  opinion that the system, itself, is unjust.  i am not saying that you do not have a right to your opinion.  you do.  but what you are doing is making categorical claims on morality and justice from your singular perspective.  that is, the more people accept this line of thinking, the more people will think they have the power to make similar types of claims.  we would continue to, more and more, disobey the laws of the land simply because we do not like them.  we would move away from the idea of a central government and more towards anarchy.  that is, any amount of justice we have in our system starts to disappear altogether, as anarchy is, by definition, an inherently unjust system.  no system is 0 just.  but the thing about ours is that we have channels to enact change and make it better.  they may not be the most ideal, perfect channels, but they are there.  if you are wanting to send a message to enact powerful change against an unjust system, you should take a look at people who have done so successfully, like ghandi.  he did and advocated for  literally  the opposite of what you are advocating, and let the injustice and violence fold in on itself.  tldr: attacking cops goes nowhere, and is backwards if your goal is increased justice.   #  that is, your argument relies entirely on your opinion that the system, itself, is unjust.   #  as for the first part of your argument, i think you fail to understand that there are multiples axes of comparison URL as for the second part:  what you are saying is that since the system is unjust, then any cop that operates in such a system is automatically attacking you when they do their job.  being that you are being attacked, you have the moral right to defend yourself, violently if necessary.  this is your argument, yes ? yes.  that is, your argument relies entirely on your opinion that the system, itself, is unjust.  well, yes.  the world is made up of opinions.  this is the foundational aspect of any ideology that calls for protest.  wait, what ? i do not follow this.  anarchy is the most just system, assuming we are not talking about impossible anarcho capitalism.  but the thing about ours is that we have channels to enact change and make it better.  they may not be the most ideal, perfect channels, but they are there.  if you are wanting to send a message to enact powerful change against an unjust system, you should take a look at people who have done so successfully, like ghandi.  he did and advocated for literally the opposite of what you are advocating, and let the injustice and violence fold in on itself.  the gandhi narrative is dumb URL gandhi was a complex human being and recognized that non violence works for specific situations, and not for others.  here is a good blog post URL on the violence inherent in the quit india campaign.   #  what is preventing people from then on gaining an unequal amount of wealth and then abusing it ?  #  okay, so in this revolution of your the old wealth dies or is removed.  let is pretend this is plausible so that after the revolution everyone is temporarily equal.  what is preventing people from then on gaining an unequal amount of wealth and then abusing it ? another revolution ? you are looking at a violent uprising every several decades.  and what about the hierarchical systems that a vast majority of people probably including you since you are using a computer so desperately rely upon ? we live in cities with populations in the millions, hundreds of miles away from our food sources.  we use advance medicine to cure our diseases and complex sewer systems to carry away our waste.  most, if not all of our basic necessities and designed, built, produced, and transported on the backs of massive organizations.   #  i have to say, reading some of your other replies, and seeing that you were calling out others for not respecting the rules of logic, i am a little disappointed in this.   # no, i understand this.  i think you fail to understand that when you use apples to make a statement about oranges, you at least need to acknowledge the differences between them.  the world is made up of opinions.  this is the foundational aspect of any ideology that calls for protest.  right.  but what you are calling for is not only the implicit power of each and every individual to declare a system unjust which is fine , but to react to that judgment violently whenever he feels like he is being  attacked.   also, protest and violence are not synonymous.  one can protest without turning to violence.  could you define  justice  as you are using it here, so that i can better speak to your argument ? i have to say, reading some of your other replies, and seeing that you were calling out others for not respecting the rules of logic, i am a little disappointed in this.  you make a statement like that, and provide two links: one that gives a couple of quotes, and one that acknowledges that ghandi is non violence was a necessary aspect of india is revolution.  your last bit about ghandi does not support your argument, or your rebuttal of mine, whatsoever.
i never had any feelings about this until recently when i had time to break it down and think about it.  parents are supposed to support, lift up, and encourage their children.  they are supposed to make them feel perfect just the way they are and guide them on a path to healthy self esteem and self love.  as a parent, you share genes with your children.  you might even share features with them.  if i have a nose job, and then my daughter has my nose, how am i supposed to tell her i think she is perfect and beautiful when i hated my nose and had it altered ? no matter which way you word it to them, there is a negative feeling around that feature.  i cant imagine a scenario in which that would not happen.   #  how am i supposed to tell her i think she is perfect and beautiful when i hated my nose and had it altered ?  #  i think you are getting the causality backwards.   # i think you are getting the causality backwards.  a nose job might  show  that someone hates their nose.  it does not  cause  them to to hate their nose.  the distaste comes first.  so, surgery or not, you would still face the problem:   how am i supposed to tell her i think she is perfect and beautiful when i hated my nose  #  no hate, no vapid vanity, they simply see a dimple or lack there of and want to change it.   # who said anything about hate ? it is within the realm of possibility that some folks simply want to change something they do not particularly like right ? no hate, no vapid vanity, they simply see a dimple or lack there of and want to change it.  there is no doubt that there will be an effect on the child of a parent getting cosmetic surgery, and no doubt that it will be a negative effect occasionally.  but it is not outside of the realm of possibility that there could be a positive or neutral effect either.  and it does not really make sense to point out one instance of parents lying to their children as having some unheard of completely negative effect.  pretty much 0 of parenting is lying to your children, convincing them that the world has certain rules so that they will hopefully start off with a good foundation and can learn to break or bend the rules as needed.   #  children know what they look like in the mirror and come to their own conclusions.   #  first of all, i think it depends on your perspective.  i do not think parents should tell their children they are perfect.  my mother is favorite sentence when i was growing up is  you have to work on your organization skills.   if i notice my child is becoming overweight, i will encourage more outdoor activities and change our diet.  children know what they look like in the mirror and come to their own conclusions.  if i had a nose job and my child was complaining about their nose, i would tell them  a nose is a nose, nothing more, nothing less, it does not define you as a person.  you can love yourself and dislike your nose, and if you want to change it later in life you can.  you are still the same person.   just to nitpick.  what about cosmetic surgery after breast cancer ? lots of women get boob jobs if they have one or both breasts removed.  same with dudes getting protestic nuts after testicular cancer.  likewise with a disfiguring accident.  i get my nose crushed in by an airbag, and rather than replicate it perfectly, maybe i ask the surgeon to make it a bit narrower and pointier.  does that make me a bad person ?  #  as far as the last example, i honestly do not have an answer at this moment but ill think about it.   #  ill give insight from my angle and see if this helps: my mom had weight issues growing up and dealt with being overweight and was anorexic.  she has always been touchy about her weight even though she has been tiny since i can remember 0 0  0ish .  she has always worried about gaining even one pound and is vocal about it.  she never put down my weight or told me i was fat i never was, but you know, teenager stuff , but it kind of was always in my head that if she thought she was fat then she had to think other normal people were fat.  and for the nitpick section: i just explained it in another comment that i am talking about purely cosmetic surgery.  reconstructive from trauma or a birth defect wasnt a part of my thought process for this, and i am totally okay with that.  as far as the last example, i honestly do not have an answer at this moment but ill think about it.   #  thats too bad and i am sorry to hear that, but body dysmorphia does not necessarily go hand in hand with plastic surgery.   #  thats too bad and i am sorry to hear that, but body dysmorphia does not necessarily go hand in hand with plastic surgery.  in your situation, it sounds like your mother tried to do her best with you, but had her own set of issues that vibed onto you.  as far as plastic surgery is concerned, people get boob jobs, tummy tucks, nose jobs, botox, face lifts though it seems like those are trending down to cope with aging, to make themselves feel better, younger, sexier, whatever.  as long as its done in moderation, i do not think that is a problem.  like i said, in my opinion, its just your exterior and you have the ability to change it if you want to, but it does not change who you are.
i have been told our military defends us every second of every day, but as far as i can tell as a nation our freedom has never been under direct or credible indirect threat from foreign or domestic combattants.  our foreign policy is what puts us in danger of attack and our abusive foreign policy is largely driven by our confidence in our large military.  the only credible argument made is for world war ii.  which was largely drafted, and i have never seen any credible claim that the us was in any direct danger from occupation and even being attacked was due to our own involvement in the war by supplying arms .  also currently i reject the revolutionary war which i will accept as being done by the  us military  , because it would assume that today canada, australia, etc.  are not  free .  we had plenty of freedoms as a colony, and we went to war to protect the interests of the wealthy.  as far as i can tell those are the only two wars even worth arguing about.  but please cmw.  : for scope: i do not consider protecting economic interests as defending our freedom but am willing to hear arguments for it.   #  as far as i can tell those are the only two wars even worth arguing about.  but please cmw.   #  : why are you ignoring the war of 0 ?  # : why are you ignoring the war of 0 ? when american merchant sailors were kidnapped and pressed into service for the british against france.  the british burned down the white house in that war, it was definitely a credible threat.  they used the native americans to fight against us as well.  maine, michigan, and parts of wisconsin were occupied until the end of the war.   #  first of all, how about the civil war ?  #  i agree that  protecting freedom  is just a slogan used to recruit gullable young men and women into joining, but i think there is a sliver of truth to it.  first of all, how about the civil war ? while slavery was not the reason we went to war, the union army victory did result in freeing the slaves.  i would say that qualifies as protecting freedom.  but military does not just fight wars, it also deters wars.  how do you think the cold war would have ended if the us did not have a military ? the threat of force is even more powerful than force itself.  nobody messes with the us because we have the strongest army.  now, we mostly use it to protect our corporate interests abroad and throw our weight around the world political arena, but the threat is still there if any country wants to attack or invade the us.  i think that qualifies as defending freedom.   #  lincoln did not free any slaves in any of the states he had actual authority over.   #  first, let me say thank you for realizing that slavery was not why we went to war as it was a reason that was touted much later.  lincoln did not free any slaves in any of the states he had actual authority over.  northern states were not required to free their slaves, and even after the war the unified states took a long time to even do anything substantive for black americans.  more northern generals owned slaves than southern generals, and by attacking the south we denied them the ability to have self determination like we demanded from britain.  i think in general it sounds reasonable that a big military deters war.  but also when you start looking deeper it falls apart.  there are a bunch of other developed nations with equal or more freedoms who do not have large militaries or organized militaries at all .  our political system makes taking over the country by force insanely difficult, and in modern times i do not think any country is going to invade the us anyway.  even if we had no military at all.   #  elementary school the civil war was about slavery.   #  i feel like we are always taught the civil war in three waves.  elementary school the civil war was about slavery.  middle school/high school the civil war was about state is rights.  high school/college the civil war actually was about slavery, because the only state right southern states cared about was their right to own slaves.  often times, people never make it to the third wave.   #  an invading army is going to be at a disadvantage against a defending army, so even a small one can deter and repel possible invaders.   # there are a bunch of other developed nations with equal or more freedoms who do not have large militaries or organized militaries at all .  any military deters war, not just a big ones.  an invading army is going to be at a disadvantage against a defending army, so even a small one can deter and repel possible invaders.  see switzerland in the 0s.  most countries still have armies, if you check the list of nations without armies URL most of them are small island nations or city states.  a lot of them have treaties with larger countries to provide defense, so that does not really count as  no military .  secondly, i never said  more army more personal freedoms,  if i live in a country that guarantees certain personal freedoms, the military protects me from other countries invading that do not necessarily guarantee those same freedoms, so they are protecting freedom.  while some countries have a few more personal freedoms than we do, the us is pretty liberal.  if the ussr, for example, had invaded and imposed their laws on americans, citizens would be less free than we were before, so in that way the us military did defend our freedom during the cold war.  that is sheer speculation and an experiment few countries have been willing to test.  also, your cmv was that  the us military has never defended our freedom.   not that it does not currently.  i agree that the us military is too big, but i would not propose eliminating it entirely.
note: i am basing all of this on a story i heard many years ago concerning how states and countries would arrest ships.  basically, some government representative would go to the ship and nail a notice of arrest to the mast.  all the officers of the ship are removed from command though the crew can remain.  the owners of the ship would have to hire new officers for the ship to be allowed use again.  because of the nature of corporations, there can be situations where the corporation caused injury or death to a person yet no one person actually made a decision that knowingly caused it.  even so, while no one person might be punished for criminal neglect or murder, i do believe the corporation as a whole should be made liable and can be arrested or even executed depending on the severity of the crime and judgement laid down.  arrest: any and all officers of the corporation during the time of incident that led to the arrest are no longer allowed access to that corporation nor hold any decision making authority even if they are in no way connected to the decision or incident that led to the arrest.  they are essentially on either paid or unpaid vacation depending on how the board of directors decide.  any officer that happens to be a stock holder or board of director of that corporation is also refused any voting privileges.  bonds can be paid to allow officers access to the company prior to trial, but that must be approved by a judge.  death: any and all officers active at the time of the incident are permanently banned from participating in that corporation.  while they can hold stock in the company, they cede all voting or decision making.  any attempts to circumvent this will be punished harshly.  my reasoning: this punishes those in power in a corporation and forces the board of directors to hire new managers and officers to run the day to day operations.  essentially, you have done to a company what is done to a person.  it may seem unfair as people might get fired for actions they did not do, however its a corporation found guilty of a crime and being punished and you happen to work for that corporation.  if i were arrested, any and all people i employed might get laid off due to my legal issues even though they had nothing to do with why i was arrested.  plus, officers and managers affected by the arrest can still find work at other corporations.  in all this, day to day workers will not be affected directly.  they continue to work as needed.  they just end up getting new bosses they might need to help bring up to speed.  i believe this is needed and is much more punishing to a corporation than any monetary fine could do.  change my view  #  death: any and all officers active at the time of the incident are permanently banned from participating in that corporation.   #  while they can hold stock in the company, they cede all voting or decision making.   #  first and foremost, let me say before i begin, that, while i am sure this view comes from a good place, and with good intentions, it is a terrible idea and would be an unmitigated disaster of a policy.  that being said, let is take a closer look at your view:  nbsp;  because of the nature of corporations, there can be situations where the corporation caused injury or death to a person yet no one person actually made a decision that knowingly caused it.  even so, while no one person might be punished for criminal neglect or murder, i do believe the corporation as a whole should be made liable and can be arrested or even executed depending on the severity of the crime and judgement laid down.  speaking as a corporate officer and a board member, it would take about 0 minutes for a halfway decent lawyer to construct a liability shield that would render this idea worthless.  usually, it is not worth the time, trouble, and money to do so, but should anything like this ever get enacted, it would be ridiculously easy to protect yourself.   nbsp;  arrest: any and all officers of the corporation during the time of incident that led to the arrest are no longer allowed access to that corporation nor hold any decision making authority even if they are in no way connected to the decision or incident that led to the arrest.  they are essentially on either paid or unpaid vacation depending on how the board of directors decide.  any officer that happens to be a stock holder or board of director of that corporation is also refused any voting privileges.  bonds can be paid to allow officers access to the company prior to trial, but that must be approved by a judge.  while they can hold stock in the company, they cede all voting or decision making.  any attempts to circumvent this will be punished harshly.  again, even a bad lawyer is going to get that kicked: you do not get to punish the innocent for  guilt by association , and you would also be hard pressed to ever find a judge that would let you try in the first place.   nbsp;  my reasoning: this punishes those in power in a corporation and forces the board of directors to hire new managers and officers to run the day to day operations.  essentially, you have done to a company what is done to a person.  it may seem unfair as people might get fired for actions they did not do, however its a corporation found guilty of a crime and being punished and you happen to work for that corporation.  if i were arrested, any and all people i employed might get laid off due to my legal issues even though they had nothing to do with why i was arrested.  plus, officers and managers affected by the arrest can still find work at other corporations.  they continue to work as needed.  they just end up getting new bosses they might need to help bring up to speed.  no, what this does is punish workers and, more importantly,  shareholders .  your totalitarian view that it is okay to punish the innocent along with the guilty will have a much larger impact that what you are imagining.   nbsp; your view, like most, is yet another misguided attempt to create a complex solution to, what is essentially, a very simple problem.  we do not need new laws, or regulations, or more government intervention.  what we need is for people to exercise some personal responsibility two words i know most people hate.  if people simply stopped doing business with corporations that they feel are objectionable, then these problems would take care of themselves.   #  the government is saying those people cannot make decisions nor interact in an official capacity with the corporation.   #  the government is not firing them.  the corporation makes that call.  the government is saying those people cannot make decisions nor interact in an official capacity with the corporation.  if the corporation then wants to fire that person, it is a business matter.  it is like the ship example: the government is saying that the captain and the officers are no longer allowed on that ship or maybe any other ship depending on the severity of the crime .  the ship owners can still pay them, but those guys cannot give orders to the crew.  new captain and officers will need to be hired to do that.   #  while no one person is guilty, as an amalgam they are so just remove that entity that caused the deaths plus the government can still issue the fines.   #  well, if the corporation cannot do the time it should not do the crime.  plus, the corporation might still be forced to pay those officers due to their employment contract.  anyway, should we allow corporations to kill people just because they happen to employ lots of other people ? think specifically about ford.  let is say that they put out a car that has caused the death of 0  people.  let is say that no one person knew the extent of the problem however the problem was known and allowed to continue without a recall.  the corporation as a whole is guilty in the deaths of 0  people, but no one should be punished that works there because of shared accountability.  now, instead of fining ford turning people is deaths into a business cost what if we killed ford ? how can you kill a corporation without ruining the jobs of all the autoworkers ? you kill the spirit of ford by replacing all those that made corporate decisions in that corporation.  while no one person is guilty, as an amalgam they are so just remove that entity that caused the deaths plus the government can still issue the fines.  might i ask, what is your idea on how the government can fairly arrest or kill a corporation ?  #  now imagine that due to the mistake of one manager and a few engineers, ford accidentally causes the death of 0 people.   #  i really do not think you can compare a company like ford with a ship.  by  arresting  a ship and replacing its officers, not much will be affected outside of the ship.  the owner hires new officers, ship keeps doing its job, life keeps going.  now imagine that due to the mistake of one manager and a few engineers, ford accidentally causes the death of 0 people.  let me assure you that if you take out every single managerial decision maker in the entire company, this company will absolutely not be able to keep running.  there is no realistic way that you can replace every single manager in ford and expect the company to continue functioning.  now that we have established the fact that ford is mistake will cause the entire corporation to shut down under your suggested punishment, let us look at the effects of this punishment.  current ford cars will no longer be repairable, the faulty vehicles that are still on the market wo not be fixed, a large player in the automotive industry collapses giving the other competitors more power in terms of adjusting prices, offering poor customer service etc.  many more people can die and overall, society is worse off than if you had just let ford pay for their mistakes and fixed their current faulty cars.  hypothetically, if you took away the management of any auto manufacturer that has caused deaths due to a product malfunction, there will basically be no automotive companies left in this world.  this is simply an example with one industry.  pick any other large industry in this world and i will explain to you why this method of punishment will not work for corporations of that particular industry.   #  this already exists, especially in the financial industry.   # this already exists, especially in the financial industry.  the regulatory body can remove managers if they were involved in things that are a thread to the integrity of the company.  however, there need to be some kind of connection to the wrong doings.  the head of hr might had nothing to do with some dodgy practices by some traders, so why should he get punished ? also simply removing everyone would make it impossible to continue running the company.
note: i am basing all of this on a story i heard many years ago concerning how states and countries would arrest ships.  basically, some government representative would go to the ship and nail a notice of arrest to the mast.  all the officers of the ship are removed from command though the crew can remain.  the owners of the ship would have to hire new officers for the ship to be allowed use again.  because of the nature of corporations, there can be situations where the corporation caused injury or death to a person yet no one person actually made a decision that knowingly caused it.  even so, while no one person might be punished for criminal neglect or murder, i do believe the corporation as a whole should be made liable and can be arrested or even executed depending on the severity of the crime and judgement laid down.  arrest: any and all officers of the corporation during the time of incident that led to the arrest are no longer allowed access to that corporation nor hold any decision making authority even if they are in no way connected to the decision or incident that led to the arrest.  they are essentially on either paid or unpaid vacation depending on how the board of directors decide.  any officer that happens to be a stock holder or board of director of that corporation is also refused any voting privileges.  bonds can be paid to allow officers access to the company prior to trial, but that must be approved by a judge.  death: any and all officers active at the time of the incident are permanently banned from participating in that corporation.  while they can hold stock in the company, they cede all voting or decision making.  any attempts to circumvent this will be punished harshly.  my reasoning: this punishes those in power in a corporation and forces the board of directors to hire new managers and officers to run the day to day operations.  essentially, you have done to a company what is done to a person.  it may seem unfair as people might get fired for actions they did not do, however its a corporation found guilty of a crime and being punished and you happen to work for that corporation.  if i were arrested, any and all people i employed might get laid off due to my legal issues even though they had nothing to do with why i was arrested.  plus, officers and managers affected by the arrest can still find work at other corporations.  in all this, day to day workers will not be affected directly.  they continue to work as needed.  they just end up getting new bosses they might need to help bring up to speed.  i believe this is needed and is much more punishing to a corporation than any monetary fine could do.  change my view  #  because of the nature of corporations, there can be situations where the corporation caused injury or death to a person yet no one person actually made a decision that knowingly caused it.   #  let is say there is a case in which this happens.   #  okay.  suppose corporations make decisions.  what parts of corporations make those decisions ? people in positions of leadership.  this is a contradiction.  corporations do not make decisions.  people make decisions and call themselves corporations.  if people in leadership positions make decisions, and we are punishing the corporation as though it is a self aware entity that made the decisions of its own accord, then are not we shifting the blame from the people who made the decisions to a scapegoat that ca not make any decisions ? let is say there is a case in which this happens.  what does it mean for this to happen ? how is it the case that an association of people did something without any of the associated people being the cause of the action ? is it an accident ? the legal system can handle accidents.  is it a purposeful action ? then someone knew and is at fault.  why do we need to abstract the guilt to the level of a corporation ? legally, can we still prosecute the people who are ostensibly responsible for the injury ? i do not see why we could not.  if there is no reason to shift the blame from the people that make up a corporation to a corporation, then why would we bother ? what exactly would we be killing, here ? would the people who made up the corporation be prohibited from working together again, or is it just the specific arrangement; john and bob can work together, but not jack, john, and bob ? if neither, then would not killing a corporation mean nothing, because the people who made up the corporation can just go and make another one ? the idea behind a punishment is the discouragement of bad behavior.  i think you have picked the wrong target.  a corporation is a bunch of people under one name.  punish the bunch of people, not their guise.   #  the government is saying those people cannot make decisions nor interact in an official capacity with the corporation.   #  the government is not firing them.  the corporation makes that call.  the government is saying those people cannot make decisions nor interact in an official capacity with the corporation.  if the corporation then wants to fire that person, it is a business matter.  it is like the ship example: the government is saying that the captain and the officers are no longer allowed on that ship or maybe any other ship depending on the severity of the crime .  the ship owners can still pay them, but those guys cannot give orders to the crew.  new captain and officers will need to be hired to do that.   #  the corporation as a whole is guilty in the deaths of 0  people, but no one should be punished that works there because of shared accountability.   #  well, if the corporation cannot do the time it should not do the crime.  plus, the corporation might still be forced to pay those officers due to their employment contract.  anyway, should we allow corporations to kill people just because they happen to employ lots of other people ? think specifically about ford.  let is say that they put out a car that has caused the death of 0  people.  let is say that no one person knew the extent of the problem however the problem was known and allowed to continue without a recall.  the corporation as a whole is guilty in the deaths of 0  people, but no one should be punished that works there because of shared accountability.  now, instead of fining ford turning people is deaths into a business cost what if we killed ford ? how can you kill a corporation without ruining the jobs of all the autoworkers ? you kill the spirit of ford by replacing all those that made corporate decisions in that corporation.  while no one person is guilty, as an amalgam they are so just remove that entity that caused the deaths plus the government can still issue the fines.  might i ask, what is your idea on how the government can fairly arrest or kill a corporation ?  #  now imagine that due to the mistake of one manager and a few engineers, ford accidentally causes the death of 0 people.   #  i really do not think you can compare a company like ford with a ship.  by  arresting  a ship and replacing its officers, not much will be affected outside of the ship.  the owner hires new officers, ship keeps doing its job, life keeps going.  now imagine that due to the mistake of one manager and a few engineers, ford accidentally causes the death of 0 people.  let me assure you that if you take out every single managerial decision maker in the entire company, this company will absolutely not be able to keep running.  there is no realistic way that you can replace every single manager in ford and expect the company to continue functioning.  now that we have established the fact that ford is mistake will cause the entire corporation to shut down under your suggested punishment, let us look at the effects of this punishment.  current ford cars will no longer be repairable, the faulty vehicles that are still on the market wo not be fixed, a large player in the automotive industry collapses giving the other competitors more power in terms of adjusting prices, offering poor customer service etc.  many more people can die and overall, society is worse off than if you had just let ford pay for their mistakes and fixed their current faulty cars.  hypothetically, if you took away the management of any auto manufacturer that has caused deaths due to a product malfunction, there will basically be no automotive companies left in this world.  this is simply an example with one industry.  pick any other large industry in this world and i will explain to you why this method of punishment will not work for corporations of that particular industry.   #  the regulatory body can remove managers if they were involved in things that are a thread to the integrity of the company.   # this already exists, especially in the financial industry.  the regulatory body can remove managers if they were involved in things that are a thread to the integrity of the company.  however, there need to be some kind of connection to the wrong doings.  the head of hr might had nothing to do with some dodgy practices by some traders, so why should he get punished ? also simply removing everyone would make it impossible to continue running the company.
i believe that to be an atheist requires nothing, as it means you do not believe in any religion.  you do not have to read all of richard dawkins books, be educated, or know anything in order to be an atheist.  it is not something that requires a  why .  you could answer  i just do not care  and it would be more than valid, you do not have to try and disprove god/allah etc.  i just ca not imagine a scenario where i say nothing then someone else says something about their religion or some analogy and i say  oh i guess you are right then, your religion here is real .  i am not putting that down to my stubbornness, but down to the fact that there is nothing for them to prove or disprove that ends with athiesm no opinion being destroyed.   #  i believe that to be an atheist requires nothing, as it means you do not believe in any religion.   #  you do not have to read all of richard dawkins books, be educated, or know anything in order to be an atheist.   # you do not have to read all of richard dawkins books, be educated, or know anything in order to be an atheist.  it is not something that requires a  why .  you could answer  i just do not care  and it would be more than valid, you do not have to try and disprove god/allah etc.  the fact that atheism takes a stance on the non existence of god means that you ca not simply say  i do not care  and be done with it.  you are still taking a side in  god vs.  no god , hence if you can get away with it, so can theists.  non existence is not a null hypothesis here.  i am not putting that down to my stubbornness, but down to the fact that there is nothing for them to prove or disprove that ends with athiesm no opinion being destroyed.  you are conflating theism with religion, which are not the same things.  a person can believe in a higher being without holding any religious views, and likewise, a person can be a religious atheist.  the onus is on you to argue your view because, technically, neither you nor any theist can certifiably say that god exists or does not.  you are taking a side on the debate, and therefore, if you expect to persuade your debating partner in any way, the onus does lie on you to explain why you do not believe god exists.   #  ideas are permanent, they are real, they are somewhere in your brain, and as long as you can think of them or reconstruct them, they exist as an idea.   #  if you have to prove that you have nothing to prove, then you have something to prove.  that is not due to you not having something to prove.  it is a result of other people doubting you.  because god is unprovable, your belief that it is desirable to lack a belief in religion is also unprovable.  you do not just  lack belief in religion;  that was as much a choice as belief is.  if it was not a choice, you simply would not think of it, like how you do not believe your third arm is goldenrod or magenta.  it became a choice when something brought it to your attention, like how i brought the existence of a third arm into attention.  the third arm now exists, rhetorically, as an idea, but it could go past that.  because that concept now exists, we could have an argument about it, in which i am a fervent believer in your magenta third arm and you deny it exists.  we would both have views; all it took to bring views into existence was the birth of an idea.  the rejection of belief becomes the belief in the rejection of belief when the one who holds the view decides to defend their lack of a position, because you do not have perfect knowledge that not having a view on religion is good or bad.  if you are invested in that view, then you have to argue for it.  you have an onus to justify why you think not having a view on religion is good, in the same way that someone else has to justify why their possession of a view on religion is good.  you ca not just ignore an idea, for even that act of purposeful ignorance would be shaped by the idea.  ideas are permanent, they are real, they are somewhere in your brain, and as long as you can think of them or reconstruct them, they exist as an idea.  i mean, technically, you do not have to argue for anything, because you do not have to be invested in anything, but take what i have said in light of the fact that you are invested in this view because you phrased your opening line with the words  i believe  and you are posting on a forum where your view is gonna be put through a trial by fire.  you believe in something.  it means much to you.  you feel a need to defend it in multiple comments above .   #  it is like someone telling me or in your example, a voice in the sky saying that charizard is a better pokemon than mine, even though i do not play pokemon.   #  that is a mistake on my part sorry.  but not in the way you would think.  i personally would most likely be convinced by such an event, which by the rules of cmv makes you right.  however, there are a great number of things that could be happening that would still allow someone to be atheist in such a situation, such as brain in a vat and solipsism.  the point i was trying to make with that example is that by not believing, i am not necessarily involved in the discussion.  it is like someone telling me or in your example, a voice in the sky saying that charizard is a better pokemon than mine, even though i do not play pokemon.  i could go to the effort of learning about charizard and pointing out his weaknesses, but to what end ? it is inconsequential to me.   #  if you find jesus and move from to christian that is fine, but from my perspective of nothing has changed.   #  the word play is something i have considered for a while.  i tell people i am  non religious,  and others call me an  atheist,  but the most accurate way i know to describe my spiritual beliefs is nil, or .  it is a  void , not a negative.  however, it seems to break down when approached by other mindsets.  if you find jesus and move from to christian that is fine, but from my perspective of nothing has changed.  i am not obligated to become achristianity because you made a claim even though i would technically say  no  if asked of belief.  i would answer  no  for a nearly infinite number of things from being aavengers to adoctorwho , but no one would label me by my belief of those things.  i am allowed to sit at in regards to hulks existence, why not with religious claims too ? in line with the op, there is no onus on me to argue why i am ahulk to provide a foil to hulks , and why would there be ?  #  you make a great point with faith and faith as the divide, and to me that is a large part of the issue.   #  i do not disagree.  agnostic atheist is a reasonable and accurate way to describe it.  the framing is what i want to get it.  you make a great point with faith and faith as the divide, and to me that is a large part of the issue.  it does not change atheisms definition, but i think it more clearly shows the atheist individuals true stance.  they would not ever say  i do not believe in gods  if they were not challenged by the theist in the first place, so i ca not view it as a claim that bears onus.
i believe that to be an atheist requires nothing, as it means you do not believe in any religion.  you do not have to read all of richard dawkins books, be educated, or know anything in order to be an atheist.  it is not something that requires a  why .  you could answer  i just do not care  and it would be more than valid, you do not have to try and disprove god/allah etc.  i just ca not imagine a scenario where i say nothing then someone else says something about their religion or some analogy and i say  oh i guess you are right then, your religion here is real .  i am not putting that down to my stubbornness, but down to the fact that there is nothing for them to prove or disprove that ends with athiesm no opinion being destroyed.   #  i just ca not imagine a scenario where i say nothing then someone else says something about their religion or some analogy and i say  oh i guess you are right then, your religion here is real .   #  i am not putting that down to my stubbornness, but down to the fact that there is nothing for them to prove or disprove that ends with athiesm no opinion being destroyed.   # you do not have to read all of richard dawkins books, be educated, or know anything in order to be an atheist.  it is not something that requires a  why .  you could answer  i just do not care  and it would be more than valid, you do not have to try and disprove god/allah etc.  the fact that atheism takes a stance on the non existence of god means that you ca not simply say  i do not care  and be done with it.  you are still taking a side in  god vs.  no god , hence if you can get away with it, so can theists.  non existence is not a null hypothesis here.  i am not putting that down to my stubbornness, but down to the fact that there is nothing for them to prove or disprove that ends with athiesm no opinion being destroyed.  you are conflating theism with religion, which are not the same things.  a person can believe in a higher being without holding any religious views, and likewise, a person can be a religious atheist.  the onus is on you to argue your view because, technically, neither you nor any theist can certifiably say that god exists or does not.  you are taking a side on the debate, and therefore, if you expect to persuade your debating partner in any way, the onus does lie on you to explain why you do not believe god exists.   #  because that concept now exists, we could have an argument about it, in which i am a fervent believer in your magenta third arm and you deny it exists.   #  if you have to prove that you have nothing to prove, then you have something to prove.  that is not due to you not having something to prove.  it is a result of other people doubting you.  because god is unprovable, your belief that it is desirable to lack a belief in religion is also unprovable.  you do not just  lack belief in religion;  that was as much a choice as belief is.  if it was not a choice, you simply would not think of it, like how you do not believe your third arm is goldenrod or magenta.  it became a choice when something brought it to your attention, like how i brought the existence of a third arm into attention.  the third arm now exists, rhetorically, as an idea, but it could go past that.  because that concept now exists, we could have an argument about it, in which i am a fervent believer in your magenta third arm and you deny it exists.  we would both have views; all it took to bring views into existence was the birth of an idea.  the rejection of belief becomes the belief in the rejection of belief when the one who holds the view decides to defend their lack of a position, because you do not have perfect knowledge that not having a view on religion is good or bad.  if you are invested in that view, then you have to argue for it.  you have an onus to justify why you think not having a view on religion is good, in the same way that someone else has to justify why their possession of a view on religion is good.  you ca not just ignore an idea, for even that act of purposeful ignorance would be shaped by the idea.  ideas are permanent, they are real, they are somewhere in your brain, and as long as you can think of them or reconstruct them, they exist as an idea.  i mean, technically, you do not have to argue for anything, because you do not have to be invested in anything, but take what i have said in light of the fact that you are invested in this view because you phrased your opening line with the words  i believe  and you are posting on a forum where your view is gonna be put through a trial by fire.  you believe in something.  it means much to you.  you feel a need to defend it in multiple comments above .   #  i personally would most likely be convinced by such an event, which by the rules of cmv makes you right.   #  that is a mistake on my part sorry.  but not in the way you would think.  i personally would most likely be convinced by such an event, which by the rules of cmv makes you right.  however, there are a great number of things that could be happening that would still allow someone to be atheist in such a situation, such as brain in a vat and solipsism.  the point i was trying to make with that example is that by not believing, i am not necessarily involved in the discussion.  it is like someone telling me or in your example, a voice in the sky saying that charizard is a better pokemon than mine, even though i do not play pokemon.  i could go to the effort of learning about charizard and pointing out his weaknesses, but to what end ? it is inconsequential to me.   #  the word play is something i have considered for a while.   #  the word play is something i have considered for a while.  i tell people i am  non religious,  and others call me an  atheist,  but the most accurate way i know to describe my spiritual beliefs is nil, or .  it is a  void , not a negative.  however, it seems to break down when approached by other mindsets.  if you find jesus and move from to christian that is fine, but from my perspective of nothing has changed.  i am not obligated to become achristianity because you made a claim even though i would technically say  no  if asked of belief.  i would answer  no  for a nearly infinite number of things from being aavengers to adoctorwho , but no one would label me by my belief of those things.  i am allowed to sit at in regards to hulks existence, why not with religious claims too ? in line with the op, there is no onus on me to argue why i am ahulk to provide a foil to hulks , and why would there be ?  #  you make a great point with faith and faith as the divide, and to me that is a large part of the issue.   #  i do not disagree.  agnostic atheist is a reasonable and accurate way to describe it.  the framing is what i want to get it.  you make a great point with faith and faith as the divide, and to me that is a large part of the issue.  it does not change atheisms definition, but i think it more clearly shows the atheist individuals true stance.  they would not ever say  i do not believe in gods  if they were not challenged by the theist in the first place, so i ca not view it as a claim that bears onus.
after my play through of the latest instalment of the pokemon franchise, i was insulted by just how bad it was.  i love pokemon, but this was ridiculous.  graphically, the games were downgraded imo.  i can see why they changed it, but i still prefer pixels over cell shading.  the gameplay is insultingly easy, thanks to the introduction of mega evolution and the new exp.  share.  both of which are 0 unrestricted, with no penalty of any kind for using them.  making the trainer is pokemon super powered and skyrocketing their levels makes for a very easy game, and a dull one.  i do not care how deep a game is combat is.  if you are given a way to overcome everything by simply tapping the touch screen in the same place every battle, you have a boring game.  yes, it is useful in the post game, but in game it is cancerous.  if it was not owned by nintendo, then the makers of pokemon mystery dungeon: gates to infinity would probably sue them for plagiarism.  the story is exactly the same.  all they did was rip out all the bits that made pmd: gti impactful and replaced them with the cringe worthy team flare.  lysandre munna is backstory with kyurem is blank personality, word for word.  the rivals are also pretty bad.  they are bland, 0 dimentional cardboard cutouts.  the kalos region sucks.  it is very linear, and the environments make no sense.  in it is eastern half, there is a random strip of a snowy biome running north/south, yet on both sides of the strip exist foresty areas.  i do not think that is how meteorology works, gamefreak.  to add to that, there is an abundance of towns that have no reason to exist.  anistar, etc.  next up, it added a plethora of things that ruin the online metagame.  talonflame, mega kangashkan, greninja, aegislash, charizard y, etc.  these pokemon are all completely broken, and are blatantly op.  no wonder smogon keeps banning them.  and finally, the post game.  aside from the 0 minute side quest, it is next to non existent.  that is all.  on every account, x/y should have failed.   #  next up, it added a plethora of things that ruin the online metagame.   #  talonflame, mega kangashkan, greninja, aegislash, charizard y, etc.   # well, unless you are talking about subjectively which i really ca not argue against , i can definitely say you are wrong here.  just look at the fights alone.  0d animation and much more detail.  from a technical standpoint, the graphics are far superior.  share.  pokemon gameplay has always been easy.  if you are looking for a game with challenging singleplayer, pokemon is the wrong place to look.  it is very linear, and the environments make no sense.  in it is eastern half, there is a random strip of a snowy biome running north/south, yet on both sides of the strip exist foresty areas.  i do not think that is how meteorology works, gamefreak.  it is pretty much agreed upon that overworlds such as pokemon do not represent an accurate scale of the  real  map.  thus, things that may make sense at actual scale make little sense in game.  anistar, etc.  why do they need a  reason to exist  ? talonflame, mega kangashkan, greninja, aegislash, charizard y, etc.  these pokemon are all completely broken, and are blatantly op.  no wonder smogon keeps banning them.  if you want diversity in multiplayer, then you should be playing something other than uber/ou.   #  the mega evolution is restricted in the concept that you cannot have more than one per team.   #  while i ca not refute every point you have made, i can certainly disprove this.  mega evolution and the new exp.  share.  both of which are 0 unrestricted, with no penalty of any kind for using them .  the mega evolution is restricted in the concept that you cannot have more than one per team.  also the penalty for using them is that the mega pokemon cannot hold a possibly more useful item such as leftovers.  the exp share is entirely optional.  you can choose not to use it.  there are many ways to make the game easier in the other games too, such as x attack or x speed, but people who did not want to use them did not use them.  it is purely optional.  also, arguing that the environments do not make sense is trivial at best.  many of the past games have had odd biome distribution.  on your point about graphics, it is entirely subjective what you find attractive in game, but aside from that, most people would disagree with you.  while this is purely anecdotal evidence, i have met very very few people who actively dislike the new graphics.  i will concede that many of the pokemon are broken and that the mega distribution is ridiculous.  many weak pokemon struggle to stay relevant while massively overused pokemon like garchomp and mewtwo get megas.   #  but the games are already a joke to beat.   #  but the games are already a joke to beat.  you have had access to things like x attack and x speed for years and no one complained.  even though they were arguably more broken than an exp share.  at least with an exp share you have to train your pokes some.  with x attack you can just slap it on your poke anytime things get tough.  i wo not argue the game is perfect, i am only stating counter arguments.   #  on top of that, it is even more powerful, increasing total exp intake by an extra 0 minimum, 0 maximum.   #  i thought i already addressed this ? it is not a setting.  it is an item.  a very broken one, but that does not make it a setting.  it is meant to be used, just like every other item.  the exp.  share has been an item in every pokemon game to my knowledge.  now it is suddenly a setting ? please forgive me for not buying it.  imposing rules and regulations upon yourself is similar to a nuzlocke.  that is kind of exactly what it is.  super training and amie are nothing like the exp.  share.  they require hours of grinding to use.  the exp.  share is unrestricted.  on top of that, it is even more powerful, increasing total exp intake by an extra 0 minimum, 0 maximum.  source: URL also, serebii clearly lists it as an  item .  using it is the game is default and only difficulty.  anything else is imposing new rules not found in the game.   #  while it is true that is is not mandatory, it remains that it is broken beyond belief.   #  the exp.  share.  oh how a loathe this item.  while it is true that is is not mandatory, it remains that it is broken beyond belief.  it is made worse because they made a conscious decision to include it.  the old exp.  share was fine, there was no need to change it.  giving the player access to all powerful weapons at the start of the game is very poor game design.  and yes, the environmental bit is trivial, but is still problem.  i think you may have misinterpreted my jab at the games graphics.  i do not hate them, i just prefer pixels.  that is my opinion, and is not that what this sub is all about ?
to start, here is good article on the craziness: URL i am not talking about the overzealous comment deletion by the mods in /r/gaming.  that is perhaps a bit overblown but justified considering the magnitude of personal data being shared elsewhere across the internet.  in the past few days i have seen dozens of comments bemoaning the  censorship  they are currently suffering by not being able to spread unfounded rumors and abuse about a woman who might have slept with someone who was not her boyfriend to further her career.  first of all, it appalls me how quickly these people jumped on the hate wagon and how little research they did beforehand.  the facts as i understand them are: zoe quinn is a moderately successful indie game designer who dissolved a bad relationship with a boyfriend.  he responded by creating a blog divulging her infidelities to the public.  unsavory aspects of the internet like 0chan leaped to help him, and now the story is a massive circlejerk mess that should never have spread to the public circle in the first place.  the only explanation for how quickly this spread, in my mind, is the fact that she is a woman making video games.  i have never heard similar accusations leveled against a male game developer.  there is no substantial evidence that i can find that quinn did anything her abusive, psychotic ex boyfriend accused her of, and what is more, sleeping with critics is a terrible way to secure reviews.  it is far easier to simply  limit your release to friendly outlets  and do the usual brown nosing that most game developers employ.  if we want to talk about the abysmal state of gaming journalism we should start with that, or with websites like ign which accept ad revenue out the ass from game studios they are supposed to be impartial to.  even if true, sexual favors for four star reviews is a bizarre fluke and a distraction from real issues of objectivity, not a trend worth stamping out.  but even more importantly, i could not care less if she slept with every guy in seattle.   this is a personal issue .  her alleged infidelities do not deserve a thousands strong internet lynch mob.  posters in /r/gaming whine about censorship with one breath and call quinn a whore with the next.  this would not have happened to a man.  quinn deserves our sympathy and support as a victim of a massive, personal, sexist attack, or at the very least, our ambivalence.  she does not deserve reddit is hate, and she is getting it because she is a woman making video games.  change my view.   #  but even more importantly, i could not care less if she slept with every guy in seattle.   #  believe it nor not, it is not your business to care.   # believe it nor not, it is not your business to care.  her boyfriend at that time cared.  no, it is you who is demonstrating that you think her behavior is decent, which speaks volumes about your values.  just because something is personal, does not mean nobody should speak out about it.  when women suffer from relationships, they are encourage to speak up, but when a man does it, he is supposed to take it and shut up ? by that logic, every wrongdoing is personal and should never become known to anybody.  so he should have been silent and hoped that this liar and cheater is not going to do it to anyone else ? first of all, what she did tells us that she cannot even speak about  social justice  anymore, she is the opposite of a role model in being fair.  she effectively lied not only to her boyfriend but to everyone of her thousands of followers who thought that she was a great person.  what her boyfriend did is he showed all those people the truth.   #  it is not  might have,  or  just an accusation.    #  it seems to me that you have not really read up on the situation that much.  here are some things you take as mere accusations which are actually verifiable facts: 0.  zoe quinn  did  cheat on her boyfriend with multiple higher ups in the indie games community.  it is not  might have,  or  just an accusation.   her ex has provided chat logs which show this is clearly true.  this raised accusations of nepotism in game journalism.  0.  zoe quinn, by her own definition of the term, raped her boyfriend.  one way she defines the word  rape  is cheating on a significant other in an exclusive relationship, and then sleeping with him afterwards.  this is because she is necessarily withholding information from him which would normally make him refuse to have sex with her, and removing the possibility of consent.  she admitted to this.  0.  despite the above, game journalists refuse to cover her story.  although the same exact game journalists as those who defend her now went to arms over rape accusations made against the cards against humanity creator and the sexist comments made by the god of war creator, they defend zoe nonstop.  it is a bad double standard and it is playing favorites.  0.  zoe quinn abused the dmca of youtube in order to censor discussion on the matter.  this is the point where i think she really made the shit hit the fan.  she also abused her relationships with moderators of large forums to censor discussion on the matter.  0.  she also waged war on the fine young capitalists for their attempt to  give female developers a chance at creating a video game  URL 0.  when 0chan raised a lot of money to fund the project, she attacked 0chan because for just a second the attention was not on her.  at this point 0chan members have done a lot more for women in video game development than she ever did, as instead of just taking donations, announcing ambiguous projects to get money to be put into her paypal account, and whining on twitter, they tried to help a startup get off the ground.  really, watch the videos created by internetaristocrat if you have the time.  he is shown that this whole situation is full of double standards, zoe shooting herself in the foot over and over again, sjw is taking their typical  holier than thou  attitude as in, really badly URL and coverups left and right.  i ca not speak for every member of reddit, 0chan, tumblr, or wherever else, but zoe has acted like an atrocious human being through all of this and i am frankly not surprised that people are as angry as they are.  she is not getting the hate because she is a woman making video games.  that is the laziest explanation of the situation i think i have seen yet, and it yet again takes on the sjw  spin the wheel of counter arguments,  landing on the  it is misogyny !   spot.  i do not want to fall into this trap because i personally place equal blame on the people in the industry coddling her through all of this.   #  she criticized and received death threats in return.   #  okay, i have read the sources involved here and i am going to comment more thoroughly: 0.  the only verified relationship was with a critic at kotaku who never actually reviewed her game.  there is no substantial evidence about any of the other  higher ups .  chat logs posted by an abusive ex boyfriend are not substantial evidence, by the way.  0.  that is not a correct definition of rape, regardless of how she uses it.  0.  kotaku, the daily beast, and the escapist have all discussed quinn is story.  as to the cah creator, the kotaku article on him was clearly a strange editorial position, but it never suggested the rape accusations were true.  the cah creator was offered a presumption of innocence.  quinn has been denied the same courtesy, even more strange considering the psychotic ex boyfriend who is actively been trying to smear her.  0.  i have seen no evidence of this.  i have seen evidence of doxxing and posting of personal information of numerous people.  youtube may well have overstepped themselves in trying to cover this forest fire before it spreads but i think it is justified given that livelihoods are at stake.  0.  she criticized a contest, yes, and perhaps did so wrongly.  this justifies criticism, but not a witch hunt.  she is entitled to her views.  0.  i do not see how  attention  has anything to do with this, or could be verified in any way.  and i am sorry if this is biased of me but i have very little sympathy for 0chan, especially considering they have been active doxxers and hackers in this whole mess.  she criticized and received death threats in return.  this is not fair.  as to my misogyny angle, once again, this assumption of guilt would not have happened to a male developer.  her personal life is not of public interest, there is no evidence of poor journalistic integrity, and there is a psychotic ex boyfriend who is pushing slanderous falsehoods into this, further muddying the conversation.  zoe quinn may well be an imperfect human being but there is no sane reason she deserves this kind of treatment from reddit.   #  kotaku is article was not so much covering a story as defending themselves against allegations of impropriety.   # the escapist had a staff member post in their forum telling everyone to be reasonable.  hardly what i would call covering a story.  kotaku is article was not so much covering a story as defending themselves against allegations of impropriety.  quinn has been denied the same courtesy, even more strange considering the psychotic ex boyfriend who is actively been trying to smear her.  the daily beast article most definitely takes the angle that this is just a smear campaign by her ex boyfriend.   #  that does not mean she did not make large scale blunders that would spell the end of nearly any career in the games industry.   #  in response to your first two points: 0.  but that is at least one count of infidelity that you consider verified.  0.  there is legal precedent for the concept of rape by fraud.  i agree that the response to the whole zoe quinn situation went completely overboard.  but have you considered the possibility that you might be overcompensating with an unfairly positive impression of her ? you are effectively martyrizing zoe quinn to the point that the worst you are willing to say of her is that she is an imperfect human being.  does she deserve death threats or private pictures leaked on the internet ? of course not.  that does not mean she did not make large scale blunders that would spell the end of nearly any career in the games industry.  it would be disingenuous to act like she made a few benign slip ups and the rest is just character assassination.
many people seem to believe that society is degenerating, and that society in general is getting worse.  i disagree with this pessimistic view.  since the mid 0s, crime has fallen by more than 0 in america.  the quality of life is increasing, technology is improving, and crime is falling.  this idea that society is degenerating seems like a myth, spurred on by nostalgia.  are there any validity in these claims ? cmv ! further note: some people are afraid that technology will and has led to a degeneration of values.  others also believe that technology is making people  dumber .  i disagree with this as well.   #  since the mid 0s, crime has fallen by more than 0 in america.   #  yes, while the incarceration per 0,0 has increased since.   # yes, while the incarceration per 0,0 has increased since.  0 of black males under the age of 0 have arrest records.  black males are more likely to be imprisoned than finish college or military duty.  quality of life has only increased relative to the past.  and the increase come at costs.  technological advancement leads to unemployment.  and the economic growth we have witnessed in the last 0 years was due to cheap energy, which is expected to run out in the next 0 years.  our material wealth is not expected to last.  not to mention how material wealth is not equally shared among everybody in society.  crime is falling due to extra enforcement by our government.  hence, growing incarceration   this idea that society is degenerating seems like a myth, spurred on by nostalgia.  yes, sometimes nostalgic bias can make the past appear better than it really was and so does optimistic bias.   #  global warming is happening URL and there are going to be food shortages, heat waves, droughts, and mass migrations URL in your lifetime.   #  ca not argue with falling crime statistics, but is that the only measure of the state of society ? trust in our government is plunging URL by numerous measures URL to all time lows.  global warming is happening URL and there are going to be food shortages, heat waves, droughts, and mass migrations URL in your lifetime.  income inequality URL has never been higher mdash;remember a couple years ago when tens of thousands of people protested URL about this ? your government is spying on you URL illegally URL and your local police are employing military tactics URL to deal with peaceful protestors.  there are at least a few measures by which society is getting worse, not better.   #  carbon dioxide emissions in the us have been falling lately.   #  this is more a question about world society than american society.  carbon dioxide emissions in the us have been falling lately.  not just growing slower than economic/population growth, actually falling URL mostly this is due to switching from coal to natural gas for power generation.  global warming is a global problem not just a symptom of things in the us.  and emissions have been rising drastically in china to the point that even if the us drastically reduced emissions, it would not make much difference.   #  the climate has changed for billions of years.   #  i am here to change your view.  it is possible that climate change might be positive.  nobody knows.  it is not the end of the world if the climate changes.  the climate has changed for billions of years.  it warms, it cools.  the ice caps melt, the icecaps expand.  it is a cycle.  the climate operates in long term cycles not in human years.  think the rain cycle.  water falls, it evaporates, becomes clouds then falls again.  the climate is the same thing.  it changes.  it might be true that it is the end of the world as some claim, but it might be a normal part of the cycle and it might be possible that there will be more food and water for everything.  so can you imagine how climate change might possibly be a positive point for society ? example: URL  #  human civilization every city, all farmland, entire countries even has organized around relatively constant climate patterns.   # yes, which is why, if the climate drastically changes in time periods similar to a human lifetime, things get bad.  not necessarily because the world gets substantially more inhospitable though such a possibility exists .  it comes down to infrastructure.  human civilization every city, all farmland, entire countries even has organized around relatively constant climate patterns.  sure, slow change in the average may happen, but slow change can be adapted to organically, and much more easily than quick change.  and while quick changes can be weathered, they cannot be weathered indefinitely, especially by poorer nations which ca not afford desalination, large scale irrigation, building new dams, population relocation, etc.  so what happens when a river a poor country depends on for food and water drastically changes water levels ? you get famine, disease, etc.  with that, you get refugees.  and where can they go ? they will swarm to countries that have the money to adjust to the rapidly changing climate.  and i am willing to bet that will reach violence very quickly.  even if other regions receive more water and become greener, we do not have the infrastructure there to take advantage, and we wo not have the distribution needed to take that new food and water to people that have not been relocated yet.  do you think the nations that control the  greening  sahara which, based on things like URL i have a hard time believing yet will allow tens of millions of refugees to freely flock to the new oasis ? the danger from climate change is not from the world becoming completely inhospitable as is obvious from the hundreds of millions of years of long term variation .  it is from the transition periods where hundreds of millions of poor humans will be facing sudden pressures on food and water that were placed on them relatively quickly.  when that happens, violence always follows, and this would be on an enormous scale.  looks less and less likely each year.  you find the hidden forcing function making it part of the natural cycle, you will get a nobel prize for your trouble.  the biggest rewards in science go to the correct contrarian.
many people seem to believe that society is degenerating, and that society in general is getting worse.  i disagree with this pessimistic view.  since the mid 0s, crime has fallen by more than 0 in america.  the quality of life is increasing, technology is improving, and crime is falling.  this idea that society is degenerating seems like a myth, spurred on by nostalgia.  are there any validity in these claims ? cmv ! further note: some people are afraid that technology will and has led to a degeneration of values.  others also believe that technology is making people  dumber .  i disagree with this as well.   #  the quality of life is increasing, technology is improving, and crime is falling.   #  quality of life has only increased relative to the past.   # yes, while the incarceration per 0,0 has increased since.  0 of black males under the age of 0 have arrest records.  black males are more likely to be imprisoned than finish college or military duty.  quality of life has only increased relative to the past.  and the increase come at costs.  technological advancement leads to unemployment.  and the economic growth we have witnessed in the last 0 years was due to cheap energy, which is expected to run out in the next 0 years.  our material wealth is not expected to last.  not to mention how material wealth is not equally shared among everybody in society.  crime is falling due to extra enforcement by our government.  hence, growing incarceration   this idea that society is degenerating seems like a myth, spurred on by nostalgia.  yes, sometimes nostalgic bias can make the past appear better than it really was and so does optimistic bias.   #  there are at least a few measures by which society is getting worse, not better.   #  ca not argue with falling crime statistics, but is that the only measure of the state of society ? trust in our government is plunging URL by numerous measures URL to all time lows.  global warming is happening URL and there are going to be food shortages, heat waves, droughts, and mass migrations URL in your lifetime.  income inequality URL has never been higher mdash;remember a couple years ago when tens of thousands of people protested URL about this ? your government is spying on you URL illegally URL and your local police are employing military tactics URL to deal with peaceful protestors.  there are at least a few measures by which society is getting worse, not better.   #  global warming is a global problem not just a symptom of things in the us.   #  this is more a question about world society than american society.  carbon dioxide emissions in the us have been falling lately.  not just growing slower than economic/population growth, actually falling URL mostly this is due to switching from coal to natural gas for power generation.  global warming is a global problem not just a symptom of things in the us.  and emissions have been rising drastically in china to the point that even if the us drastically reduced emissions, it would not make much difference.   #  it is possible that climate change might be positive.   #  i am here to change your view.  it is possible that climate change might be positive.  nobody knows.  it is not the end of the world if the climate changes.  the climate has changed for billions of years.  it warms, it cools.  the ice caps melt, the icecaps expand.  it is a cycle.  the climate operates in long term cycles not in human years.  think the rain cycle.  water falls, it evaporates, becomes clouds then falls again.  the climate is the same thing.  it changes.  it might be true that it is the end of the world as some claim, but it might be a normal part of the cycle and it might be possible that there will be more food and water for everything.  so can you imagine how climate change might possibly be a positive point for society ? example: URL  #  you find the hidden forcing function making it part of the natural cycle, you will get a nobel prize for your trouble.   # yes, which is why, if the climate drastically changes in time periods similar to a human lifetime, things get bad.  not necessarily because the world gets substantially more inhospitable though such a possibility exists .  it comes down to infrastructure.  human civilization every city, all farmland, entire countries even has organized around relatively constant climate patterns.  sure, slow change in the average may happen, but slow change can be adapted to organically, and much more easily than quick change.  and while quick changes can be weathered, they cannot be weathered indefinitely, especially by poorer nations which ca not afford desalination, large scale irrigation, building new dams, population relocation, etc.  so what happens when a river a poor country depends on for food and water drastically changes water levels ? you get famine, disease, etc.  with that, you get refugees.  and where can they go ? they will swarm to countries that have the money to adjust to the rapidly changing climate.  and i am willing to bet that will reach violence very quickly.  even if other regions receive more water and become greener, we do not have the infrastructure there to take advantage, and we wo not have the distribution needed to take that new food and water to people that have not been relocated yet.  do you think the nations that control the  greening  sahara which, based on things like URL i have a hard time believing yet will allow tens of millions of refugees to freely flock to the new oasis ? the danger from climate change is not from the world becoming completely inhospitable as is obvious from the hundreds of millions of years of long term variation .  it is from the transition periods where hundreds of millions of poor humans will be facing sudden pressures on food and water that were placed on them relatively quickly.  when that happens, violence always follows, and this would be on an enormous scale.  looks less and less likely each year.  you find the hidden forcing function making it part of the natural cycle, you will get a nobel prize for your trouble.  the biggest rewards in science go to the correct contrarian.
my problem is i grew up watching cheesy, corny, melodramatic, over the top romantic films where the lovers are the protaganists   they fall in love too easily, and are determined to live together forever for no real reason, it seems , and the movie ends with a happily ever after.  like soulmates.  as ridiculous as it is, i still have this notion etched in my brain is working system.  this is common among young girls where i live.  my girlfriends and i have wasted our time and energy on immature boys because we so strongly believed that we could feel so much love only for a soulmate.  eventually, we learn about the boy is true intentions but fail to understand the true meaning of love   relationships.  i am in love and he truly loves me, too.  we are both ambitious and restless ones waiting to get out and explore the world.  but i feel the need to feel secure knowing that my boyfriend will be mine forever, that we will live together, even if we temporarily part ways, i want to believe that we will be together later.  my boyfriend has a sorted mindset open and confident.  and i think my thinking so is raising my expectations and may harm our relationship.  and i have never seen a real couple closely   neither the fights, nor the love or the evolution of their love, and i think there has got to be a stronger, broader and real way to look at our relationship, or the concept of true love.  because i understand true love as only that which lasts forever : / however, lately i have been thinking that maybe true love works the other way   it is what two people build together rather than what they were/are meant to be.  i would love to know how  true love  is perceived in other cultures, and where this perception comes from.  now making this post seems silly to me but i think it is important for us girls to see things differently because we have a long way to go, and all on our own.   #  lately i have been thinking that maybe true love works the other way   it is what two people build together rather than what they were/are meant to be.   #  this is a much more mature attitude and one that will serve you far better in relationships than a starry eyed vision of disney love.   #  honestly, it sounds like you have already changed your own view and you just want us to confirm it.  films have happy endings because that is what the audience likes and therefore what makes the most money for the movie studio.  similarly, love in films is always intense and overwhelming and life changing in order to elicit the maximum emotional response from the audience.  real life is more mundane.  ever see this xkcd criticism URL of the soulmate idea ? this is a much more mature attitude and one that will serve you far better in relationships than a starry eyed vision of disney love.  why does love have to last forever ? time changes people.  you may be head over heels in love at twenty, have many happy years together, but by fifty be so different that you are no longer right for each other.  does that mean the thirty years together were worth nothing ? why is it more virtuous to only love one person in a lifetime ?  #  i had my first boyfriend at 0 and i was seriously convinced that we would stay together forever.   #  if porn gives us unrealistic expectations to sex then romcoms definitely give us unrealistic expectations to relationships.  i recognize a lot of what you say.  i had my first boyfriend at 0 and i was seriously convinced that we would stay together forever.  i was soooo in love.  of course it only lasted 0 months.  so now i am 0 and living with my boyfriend of 0 years.  none of us could imagine ever wanting to be with someone else but both of us are very realistic.  who knows if we are the same people in 0 or 0 years ? we ca not guarantee that we will love each other when we are 0.  what if one of us becomes an utter asshole ? we ca not control all external factors that may contribute to how our personalities develope.  does that diminish the love we feel right now ? i do not think so.  will i fight with all i have in me, should something go wrong between us ? of course i will.  relationships take work and commitment.   #  there are only billions of people each with their own unique personalities, and the potential to be compatible with many people and incompatible with many people.   #  there is no such thing as  true love  or  soul mate.   if there were, that would mean we were created by someone or something with a plan for us.  it would mean there is only one person out there who we were meant to be with.  in reality nobody made us and planned out our love lives.  there is no designated soul mate waiting out there for us.  there are only billions of people each with their own unique personalities, and the potential to be compatible with many people and incompatible with many people.  when two people fall in love it is because they are compatible.  sometimes they are so compatible that the love feels so right and easy that you think you were made for each other.  it is a sweet sentiment, but it is not true.  if those specific two people had not met, there are plenty of other people who they would each be compatible and happy with.   #  i am very careful to limit the disney and wedding and marriage stuff my girls watch.   #  other cultures do not believe in it.  period.  this is a very disney concept.  thanks for posting this.  i am very careful to limit the disney and wedding and marriage stuff my girls watch.  very careful.  eastern cultures marry for security, status and so people do not starve to death.  a relationship is just like a friendship with sex.  you put work into making it grow.  the more vulnerability and love and time and compromise you invest, the more you get out.  the reason i compare an intimate relationship to a friendship is because most of us put up with way less crap out of our friends.  we pick them and keep them differently.  once i shifted my standards of intimate relationships to higher than my casual friendships, i ended up with this kick ass guy who communicates beautifully and will work through things with me.  he is freaking awesome.   #  if you need people to complete you, the ability to be vulnerable is actually lacking.   # mind blown.  i know, right ? i am much more pragmatic than the average person seems to be.  what is interesting is that i have had a hard time finding men who do not run screaming from it.  the issue seems to be the need to be needed.  the thing is vulnerability comes from being able to trust and love yourself first.  if you need people to complete you, the ability to be vulnerable is actually lacking.  which goes against everything society teaches boys and girls.  girls are taught to be needy and boys to take care of them.  we keep friends because we want them around.  we seem to date people based on needing them, emotionally, financially etc.  i want to be around someone because i add to their already full life.  i do not want to be needed.  good god please do not need me.  just want me around and we are solid.  give me a guy who works as hard as he plays.  loves my need to do the same and can appreciate that i can do it all on my own but i want him around and you will find me swooning.
whenever i hear a school is teachings on anti bullying, i often see a very dangerous idea being taught to every student.  to me,  active/helpful bystander  henceforth known as  active bystander  mentality is an irresponsible teaching because it is dangerous, relieves the school of a lot of responsibility, and weakens the success rate of stopping bullying.  being an active bystander is dangerous because it redirects the flow of aggression from the previous victim to the person who decided to intervene.  the aggression could be anything from just hateful words being thrown to something as severe as a life ending/crippling weapon being pointed at the new defender not necessarily a gun, maybe a knife or something else .  it forces the defender to cover both him/herself as well as the initial victim.  on top of this, if there are other bystanders who choose to be harmful harmful bystanders , now the defender has to defend against 0 or more people.  this, on top of the fact that the victim may or may not be helpful in the repelling of the bully, helps to ensure that from a safety point, being an active bystander is not the best idea.  active bystanders also remove much of the burden from the school.  when schools essentially appoint everyone as a militia against bullying, it rids itself of much of the duty to detect bullying as it happens.  as i mentioned earlier, active bystanders themselves may not be powerful enough to even stop the threat.  without the cooperation of the school, overall, people will have a much weaker anti bullying effort.  if a fight actually takes place, the school can just shrug it off by enforcing zero policy and suspend both the active bystander.  this does not even solve the problem, for a few reasons.  the bully either a did not mean what they said/did and just had their emotions get in the way, therefore feeling like they were unfairly treated, or b do not care about school or their peers and do this for whatever reason they want to.  for the defender, well, they just got rekt due to their fail at bullying, and from the victim is perspective, they probably feel cheated for getting punished for something they could not control.  my view could be changed if someone could find a better solution that 0 repels the bully, 0 nulls the aggression, and 0 gives the schools some responsibility.  please convince me if i got something wrong about my logic.   #  active bystanders also remove much of the burden from the school.   #  when schools essentially appoint everyone as a militia against bullying, it rids itself of much of the duty to detect bullying as it happens.   # when schools essentially appoint everyone as a militia against bullying, it rids itself of much of the duty to detect bullying as it happens.  schools and teachers are almost completely incapable of telling a bully from a victim of bullying.  bullies are adept at getting their victims to respond by pushing their buttons that is pretty much their signature skill.  teachers cannot see every moment of student behavior, and a skilled bully can easily get the victim to act inappropriately violently or otherwise at the moment the teacher happens to be watching.  by calling the victim a  bully , and getting the school to punish her, the bully just has one more means with which to hurt her victim.  accordingly, the school should focus on changing culture rather than on punishing bullies.  the best way to change culture is to get the students to oppose bullying.   #  no problem, i am relatively new here myself and have yet to actually submit my own view for scrutinizing.   #  no problem, i am relatively new here myself and have yet to actually submit my own view for scrutinizing.  anyway, i am not certain that being an active bystander is even a common thing for schools to teach.  i went to three different elementary schools when i was a kid and all of them taught that you should tell an adult.  even the official government site URL says:   talk to a parent, teacher, or another adult you trust.  adults need to know when bad things happen so they can help.  and the page on prevention URL seems heavily geared towards the staff more than the kids.  that said, i do think there are situations when a kid could easily help someone being bullied, especially for more verbal abuses.  but ultimately they will need to use their own judgement to determine what kind of help would be best in a given situation perhaps something a school might do better at teaching the kids .  i certainly do not think anyone in their right minds would advocate that a kid needs to intervene when someone starts waving around a knife !  #  the problem comes when the schools themselves teach this, with their stand up for bullying posters and such.   #  telling an adult would only be safe if the kid was never seen by the bully, lest the latter retaliates with  you snitched on me !   insert revenge action here.  i went to three different elementary schools when i was a kid and all of them taught that you should tell an adult.  even the official government site 0 says: talk to a parent, teacher, or another adult you trust.  adults need to know when bad things happen so they can help.  the problem comes when the schools themselves teach this, with their stand up for bullying posters and such.  many kids wo not bother to look up a government website, but rather accept what the school is teaching as what they should do.  they might not know that this is what may be the safer option.  in my experience growing up and learning in schools, i have been taught that  you have to stand up for the victim.   i rather foolishly thought it was the thing most schools were teaching.  however, the problem is that  schools still teach this, no matter how few there may be.  but ultimately they will need to use their own judgement to determine what kind of help would be best in a given situation perhaps something a school might do better at teaching the kids .  because children are still growing and for the most part are immature, some of the time, they might make the wrong decisions and underestimate the bully.  as a direct result, i think that it is too risky for kids to use their own judgement.   #  where would you draw the line for an acceptable number of schools actively teaching to engage in a fight ?  # that was what  standing up  was to them going to get an adult and maybe being nice to the victim afterwards.  i never once was taught that i should join in on a fight in progress.  insert revenge action here.  i agree that counter snitch bullying is a problem too, but i am not sure what other options there are.  schools are already generally encouraged to take steps to ensure bullying does not happen in the first place, but once it has, there are not many options besides letting the kids deal with it alone or having the kids tell the adults.  school staff are not omnipotent, and bullies will always wait until a staff member is not around to torment their victim.  from my own experience, kids would not stand up  or  get someone, they would just watch the damn fight which is probably the least helpful thing they could possibly do.  even if the kid helping is not really capable of stopping the fight, it would still be better if two kids got somewhat beat up instead of one kid getting absolutely wrecked by someone else.  at least then those two are in it together and wont feel alone and betrayed by all the peers that did not do a thing to help them which might lead  them  to bully someone else .  note that all of that is dependent on the fact that this is purely a fist fight.  once weapons come into play and death or serious injury is a factor, the best thing to do is run and get help.  ultimately, no one can control all the schools everywhere.  we could find the perfect answer to bullying tomorrow, and you would still have some schools simply not adopt it out of disinterest or skepticism.  where would you draw the line for an acceptable number of schools actively teaching to engage in a fight ? if it is zero, you are never going to be happy.   #  when entire social groups of children exclude bullies for being assholes, bullies lose their power.   #  telling children to be active bystanders is really an effort to make schools hostile against bullies.  bullies usually bully for a sense of prestige, power, or acceptance.  after they throw a punch or a jibe, they look around themselves for approval or fear to make themselves feel better.  when a bystander looks at a bully and says  you are a bit of an asshole, man.   , that is more discouraging than a dozen anti bullying lectures.  when entire social groups of children exclude bullies for being assholes, bullies lose their power.
cmv: with regards to sandwiches, triangular cuts are far superior to rectangular cuts and should be the only ones ever used.  every time i use sliced bread, i end up cutting it triangularly.  toast, sandwiches, grilled cheese, etc.  i think it is the best way and that sandwiches on traditional sliced bread should be cut this way.  so i am not referring to subs/etc.  i will also allow patti melts as an exception, although i prefer them cut still .  my boyfriend barely ever slices sandwiches when he cooks and when he does he tends to go with rectangular.  most likely to spite me because i ca not think of any reason to ever use that style of cutting.  so my views are that sandwiches should always be sliced, and they should be sliced in a triangular fashion from corner to corner with the above noted exceptions and specifications .  first, a sliced sandwich is always superior to one that has not been sliced.  it allows you direct access to the middle, where the most flavor is.  it also cuts down on the amount of crumbs created.  you are also able to completely avoid eating the crust this way if you prefer.  second, the triangular slice is always superior to the rectangular slice.  if you have a dipping sandwich such as grilled cheese with tomato soup, the triangular shape allows you to fit the sandwich into a container much easier since you have a smaller tip.  they also fit around a bowl much easier as triangles.  can also regulate how much of the sandwich you bit off easier.  you can see much more of the insides of the sandwich to inspect where you might want to bite.  the triangle is a stronger shape than a rectangle, so you can support the sandwich with less effort.  when you eat the insides of the sandwich, the triangle leaves a much more manageable crust than the rectangular cuts.  /u/nepene gets a delta for convincing me that rectangle cut is superior in only one way, when transporting in ziplock baggies.  and that it is an acceptable option although inferior option when eating a sandwich that would involve dipping in soup.  i do not think there are any other situations where a rectangle cut would be better or acceptable.   #  a sliced sandwich is always superior to one that has not been sliced.   #  whole allows you to retain the heat/cold within the sandwich longer.   # whole allows you to retain the heat/cold within the sandwich longer.  sliced exposes more to the room temperature.  some sandwiches have a lot of stuffing and so smaller size bread would make it disproportionately taller than wider at the base and so risk tipping over and falling apart.  there are some sandwiches that contain small loose pieces.  e. g.   pulled  meat, pickle slices or shredded lettuce.  the smaller tapered edges of a triangle would cause these pieces to fall out or than a rectangular slice.   #  triangle sandwiches can often actually lead to more damage.   #  there are many reasons why you might prefer the rectangular cut.  you note that the triangular cut exposes more middle bread to the air, more food.  this is also a downside.  if you leave them for a while they will go slightly stale, dry out faster as they are more exposed.  for a utilitarian mind which may want a sandwich at any time perpendicular is the way to go.  the wide and varying width of the triangular cut makes it harder to avoid getting food on your mouth, wasted.  as you slide it in it is easier for the edge to hit the corner of your mouth.  this can be a big issue for a man in a rush if you get mayo in your beard it is gonna be hard to get out.  it is also easier to stack a lot of them.  with a rectangle you just put them on top of each other.  with a triangle ? that is more of an issue.  their floppiness means you can soon have a mess of ugly looking sandwiches falling over one another.  triangle sandwiches can often actually lead to more damage.  because of the shape if you put it in a ziplock bad then you tend to draw it out through a corner.  this can lead to tearage and slippage of food.  provides a consistent dip into soup.  with a triangle the wideness often blocks you dipping it deep enough, meaning you have to scrunch it or dip it, eat it, and then dip it again and burn your fingers a bit.  a square or rectangle shape which has a consistent width is easier to dip.   #  and if you are eating a sandwich that way, then you are just bad at eating sandwiches.   #  you present some interesting arguments for rectangular cuts.  0 long term storage: yes, i guess you are right that a rectangular cut would be preferable to a triangular cut if you are going a long time between cutting and eating, but it would be much easier to just leave the sandwich whole and then cut it when you are ready to eat.  0 messy when eating: i do not see how a triangular cut would be any messier than a rectangular cut since you would still be burying your face is sandwichness as you eat.  unless you are eating the sandwich from one short edge to the other short edge, whole bites at a time, you would get a messy eating experience either way.  and if you are eating a sandwich that way, then you are just bad at eating sandwiches.  unless you have scientific antidotes of that being a standard way of eating sandwiches ? 0 stacking: i did some scientific research for that claim by googling  istacked sandwiches  and this triangular cut stack URL not only came up earlier on the page than this rectangular cut stack URL but it has more in the stack.  also, any need to stack sandwiches would be greatly improved by simply putting the sandwiches in a platter formation URL that best fits triangle cuts.  0 transportation: hmmmmmmmmm.  this might be the strongest argument, as rectangular cuts placed vertically in a ziplock bag allow both halves to be easily removed, while the second triangle cut would have to be fished out.  0 dipping: i think that the experience of dipping a triangle cut is much better than that of a rectangular cut, and the consistent dip the rectangle cut might provide is not enough to make it a better option there, but it would be an acceptable option for that.    0; you have changed my mind to see that rectangle cuts are only preferable when transportation in a ziplock would be necessary, and that they are a valid option when dipping.   #  what about taking food to work for lunch where it has to last for hours ?  #  there is clearly some middle ground, where you leave sandwiches for a while and want them cut.  what about a party where you want cut sandwiches for several hours ? what about taking food to work for lunch where it has to last for hours ? the width varies, so when pushing it into your mouth it is easy to push the corner in then push a bit too much in and have the edge smear.  it is a common and annoying problem.  a triangle is just too unpredictable.  URL see this image say if she pushes it just slightly to the left or right the corner of her mouth will be smudged with food.  with rectangles by contrast you can design thin, easily eatable strips of sandwich.  with the sandwich stacking the images you compare are of vastly different sandwiches.  URL but it really is not hard to stack rectangles well.  and if you do so then when people remove sandwiches you do not get the mess that is so normal.  with your artistic platter formation after a few sandwiches are removed from it they start to fall apart, flop over each other, leak fluids.  it is artistic until someone eats it.  with a rectangle ? you just remove a sandwich from the top and repeat.  i admit that triangles can be pretty but if you want more than looks the rectangle is the way to go.  thanks with the transportation and dipping, and thanks for the delta.   #  i have only had pulled pork / sloppy joe style sandwiches on more roll style or bun style bread, not traditional sandwich slices.   #  you make some interesting arguments for not cutting sandwiches.  0 heat.  i am going with the assumption that a sandwich would not be sliced until it is ready to be eaten so the heat exchange would not be significant before it is consumed.  0 excess toppings.  the excess stuffing problem would easily be solved by adding more slices of bread into the sandwich, making it more of a club.  that would be the preferable solution than not cutting it.  0 messy meat styles.  i have only had pulled pork / sloppy joe style sandwiches on more roll style or bun style bread, not traditional sandwich slices.  if it is common to use traditional sandwich bread for those things, i could see that being a reason not to cut it but my scientific research of googling  pulled pork sandwiches  did not yield any use of traditional sliced bread.
cmv: with regards to sandwiches, triangular cuts are far superior to rectangular cuts and should be the only ones ever used.  every time i use sliced bread, i end up cutting it triangularly.  toast, sandwiches, grilled cheese, etc.  i think it is the best way and that sandwiches on traditional sliced bread should be cut this way.  so i am not referring to subs/etc.  i will also allow patti melts as an exception, although i prefer them cut still .  my boyfriend barely ever slices sandwiches when he cooks and when he does he tends to go with rectangular.  most likely to spite me because i ca not think of any reason to ever use that style of cutting.  so my views are that sandwiches should always be sliced, and they should be sliced in a triangular fashion from corner to corner with the above noted exceptions and specifications .  first, a sliced sandwich is always superior to one that has not been sliced.  it allows you direct access to the middle, where the most flavor is.  it also cuts down on the amount of crumbs created.  you are also able to completely avoid eating the crust this way if you prefer.  second, the triangular slice is always superior to the rectangular slice.  if you have a dipping sandwich such as grilled cheese with tomato soup, the triangular shape allows you to fit the sandwich into a container much easier since you have a smaller tip.  they also fit around a bowl much easier as triangles.  can also regulate how much of the sandwich you bit off easier.  you can see much more of the insides of the sandwich to inspect where you might want to bite.  the triangle is a stronger shape than a rectangle, so you can support the sandwich with less effort.  when you eat the insides of the sandwich, the triangle leaves a much more manageable crust than the rectangular cuts.  /u/nepene gets a delta for convincing me that rectangle cut is superior in only one way, when transporting in ziplock baggies.  and that it is an acceptable option although inferior option when eating a sandwich that would involve dipping in soup.  i do not think there are any other situations where a rectangle cut would be better or acceptable.   #  the triangular slice is always superior to the rectangular slice.   #  there are some sandwiches that contain small loose pieces.   # whole allows you to retain the heat/cold within the sandwich longer.  sliced exposes more to the room temperature.  some sandwiches have a lot of stuffing and so smaller size bread would make it disproportionately taller than wider at the base and so risk tipping over and falling apart.  there are some sandwiches that contain small loose pieces.  e. g.   pulled  meat, pickle slices or shredded lettuce.  the smaller tapered edges of a triangle would cause these pieces to fall out or than a rectangular slice.   #  you note that the triangular cut exposes more middle bread to the air, more food.   #  there are many reasons why you might prefer the rectangular cut.  you note that the triangular cut exposes more middle bread to the air, more food.  this is also a downside.  if you leave them for a while they will go slightly stale, dry out faster as they are more exposed.  for a utilitarian mind which may want a sandwich at any time perpendicular is the way to go.  the wide and varying width of the triangular cut makes it harder to avoid getting food on your mouth, wasted.  as you slide it in it is easier for the edge to hit the corner of your mouth.  this can be a big issue for a man in a rush if you get mayo in your beard it is gonna be hard to get out.  it is also easier to stack a lot of them.  with a rectangle you just put them on top of each other.  with a triangle ? that is more of an issue.  their floppiness means you can soon have a mess of ugly looking sandwiches falling over one another.  triangle sandwiches can often actually lead to more damage.  because of the shape if you put it in a ziplock bad then you tend to draw it out through a corner.  this can lead to tearage and slippage of food.  provides a consistent dip into soup.  with a triangle the wideness often blocks you dipping it deep enough, meaning you have to scrunch it or dip it, eat it, and then dip it again and burn your fingers a bit.  a square or rectangle shape which has a consistent width is easier to dip.   #  0 messy when eating: i do not see how a triangular cut would be any messier than a rectangular cut since you would still be burying your face is sandwichness as you eat.   #  you present some interesting arguments for rectangular cuts.  0 long term storage: yes, i guess you are right that a rectangular cut would be preferable to a triangular cut if you are going a long time between cutting and eating, but it would be much easier to just leave the sandwich whole and then cut it when you are ready to eat.  0 messy when eating: i do not see how a triangular cut would be any messier than a rectangular cut since you would still be burying your face is sandwichness as you eat.  unless you are eating the sandwich from one short edge to the other short edge, whole bites at a time, you would get a messy eating experience either way.  and if you are eating a sandwich that way, then you are just bad at eating sandwiches.  unless you have scientific antidotes of that being a standard way of eating sandwiches ? 0 stacking: i did some scientific research for that claim by googling  istacked sandwiches  and this triangular cut stack URL not only came up earlier on the page than this rectangular cut stack URL but it has more in the stack.  also, any need to stack sandwiches would be greatly improved by simply putting the sandwiches in a platter formation URL that best fits triangle cuts.  0 transportation: hmmmmmmmmm.  this might be the strongest argument, as rectangular cuts placed vertically in a ziplock bag allow both halves to be easily removed, while the second triangle cut would have to be fished out.  0 dipping: i think that the experience of dipping a triangle cut is much better than that of a rectangular cut, and the consistent dip the rectangle cut might provide is not enough to make it a better option there, but it would be an acceptable option for that.    0; you have changed my mind to see that rectangle cuts are only preferable when transportation in a ziplock would be necessary, and that they are a valid option when dipping.   #  with the sandwich stacking the images you compare are of vastly different sandwiches.   #  there is clearly some middle ground, where you leave sandwiches for a while and want them cut.  what about a party where you want cut sandwiches for several hours ? what about taking food to work for lunch where it has to last for hours ? the width varies, so when pushing it into your mouth it is easy to push the corner in then push a bit too much in and have the edge smear.  it is a common and annoying problem.  a triangle is just too unpredictable.  URL see this image say if she pushes it just slightly to the left or right the corner of her mouth will be smudged with food.  with rectangles by contrast you can design thin, easily eatable strips of sandwich.  with the sandwich stacking the images you compare are of vastly different sandwiches.  URL but it really is not hard to stack rectangles well.  and if you do so then when people remove sandwiches you do not get the mess that is so normal.  with your artistic platter formation after a few sandwiches are removed from it they start to fall apart, flop over each other, leak fluids.  it is artistic until someone eats it.  with a rectangle ? you just remove a sandwich from the top and repeat.  i admit that triangles can be pretty but if you want more than looks the rectangle is the way to go.  thanks with the transportation and dipping, and thanks for the delta.   #  i have only had pulled pork / sloppy joe style sandwiches on more roll style or bun style bread, not traditional sandwich slices.   #  you make some interesting arguments for not cutting sandwiches.  0 heat.  i am going with the assumption that a sandwich would not be sliced until it is ready to be eaten so the heat exchange would not be significant before it is consumed.  0 excess toppings.  the excess stuffing problem would easily be solved by adding more slices of bread into the sandwich, making it more of a club.  that would be the preferable solution than not cutting it.  0 messy meat styles.  i have only had pulled pork / sloppy joe style sandwiches on more roll style or bun style bread, not traditional sandwich slices.  if it is common to use traditional sandwich bread for those things, i could see that being a reason not to cut it but my scientific research of googling  pulled pork sandwiches  did not yield any use of traditional sliced bread.
cmv: with regards to sandwiches, triangular cuts are far superior to rectangular cuts and should be the only ones ever used.  every time i use sliced bread, i end up cutting it triangularly.  toast, sandwiches, grilled cheese, etc.  i think it is the best way and that sandwiches on traditional sliced bread should be cut this way.  so i am not referring to subs/etc.  i will also allow patti melts as an exception, although i prefer them cut still .  my boyfriend barely ever slices sandwiches when he cooks and when he does he tends to go with rectangular.  most likely to spite me because i ca not think of any reason to ever use that style of cutting.  so my views are that sandwiches should always be sliced, and they should be sliced in a triangular fashion from corner to corner with the above noted exceptions and specifications .  first, a sliced sandwich is always superior to one that has not been sliced.  it allows you direct access to the middle, where the most flavor is.  it also cuts down on the amount of crumbs created.  you are also able to completely avoid eating the crust this way if you prefer.  second, the triangular slice is always superior to the rectangular slice.  if you have a dipping sandwich such as grilled cheese with tomato soup, the triangular shape allows you to fit the sandwich into a container much easier since you have a smaller tip.  they also fit around a bowl much easier as triangles.  can also regulate how much of the sandwich you bit off easier.  you can see much more of the insides of the sandwich to inspect where you might want to bite.  the triangle is a stronger shape than a rectangle, so you can support the sandwich with less effort.  when you eat the insides of the sandwich, the triangle leaves a much more manageable crust than the rectangular cuts.  /u/nepene gets a delta for convincing me that rectangle cut is superior in only one way, when transporting in ziplock baggies.  and that it is an acceptable option although inferior option when eating a sandwich that would involve dipping in soup.  i do not think there are any other situations where a rectangle cut would be better or acceptable.   #  first, a sliced sandwich is always superior to one that has not been sliced.   #  it allows you direct access to the middle, where the most flavor is.   # it allows you direct access to the middle, where the most flavor is.  it also cuts down on the amount of crumbs created.  you are also able to completely avoid eating the crust this way if you prefer.  rectangular sliced sandwiches provide better access to the middle of the sandwich, and especially allow avoidance of chest hair growing, make a man out of you crusts more effectively.  putting most of your bites perpendicular to the crust prevents any accidental corner bites that, with a triangular sliced sandwich, would be easy to make.  also, the distance of the cut is shorter with rectangular sliced sandwiches, thus less crumbs by this method.  if you only put a slice of bologna in your sandwich, cut it any way you please.  but if you make sandwiches like dagwood or myself, you will find that the rectangular slice retains the sandwich contents better than the triangular cut which loses goodies from the tiny corners.   #  because of the shape if you put it in a ziplock bad then you tend to draw it out through a corner.   #  there are many reasons why you might prefer the rectangular cut.  you note that the triangular cut exposes more middle bread to the air, more food.  this is also a downside.  if you leave them for a while they will go slightly stale, dry out faster as they are more exposed.  for a utilitarian mind which may want a sandwich at any time perpendicular is the way to go.  the wide and varying width of the triangular cut makes it harder to avoid getting food on your mouth, wasted.  as you slide it in it is easier for the edge to hit the corner of your mouth.  this can be a big issue for a man in a rush if you get mayo in your beard it is gonna be hard to get out.  it is also easier to stack a lot of them.  with a rectangle you just put them on top of each other.  with a triangle ? that is more of an issue.  their floppiness means you can soon have a mess of ugly looking sandwiches falling over one another.  triangle sandwiches can often actually lead to more damage.  because of the shape if you put it in a ziplock bad then you tend to draw it out through a corner.  this can lead to tearage and slippage of food.  provides a consistent dip into soup.  with a triangle the wideness often blocks you dipping it deep enough, meaning you have to scrunch it or dip it, eat it, and then dip it again and burn your fingers a bit.  a square or rectangle shape which has a consistent width is easier to dip.   #  also, any need to stack sandwiches would be greatly improved by simply putting the sandwiches in a platter formation URL that best fits triangle cuts.   #  you present some interesting arguments for rectangular cuts.  0 long term storage: yes, i guess you are right that a rectangular cut would be preferable to a triangular cut if you are going a long time between cutting and eating, but it would be much easier to just leave the sandwich whole and then cut it when you are ready to eat.  0 messy when eating: i do not see how a triangular cut would be any messier than a rectangular cut since you would still be burying your face is sandwichness as you eat.  unless you are eating the sandwich from one short edge to the other short edge, whole bites at a time, you would get a messy eating experience either way.  and if you are eating a sandwich that way, then you are just bad at eating sandwiches.  unless you have scientific antidotes of that being a standard way of eating sandwiches ? 0 stacking: i did some scientific research for that claim by googling  istacked sandwiches  and this triangular cut stack URL not only came up earlier on the page than this rectangular cut stack URL but it has more in the stack.  also, any need to stack sandwiches would be greatly improved by simply putting the sandwiches in a platter formation URL that best fits triangle cuts.  0 transportation: hmmmmmmmmm.  this might be the strongest argument, as rectangular cuts placed vertically in a ziplock bag allow both halves to be easily removed, while the second triangle cut would have to be fished out.  0 dipping: i think that the experience of dipping a triangle cut is much better than that of a rectangular cut, and the consistent dip the rectangle cut might provide is not enough to make it a better option there, but it would be an acceptable option for that.    0; you have changed my mind to see that rectangle cuts are only preferable when transportation in a ziplock would be necessary, and that they are a valid option when dipping.   #  URL but it really is not hard to stack rectangles well.   #  there is clearly some middle ground, where you leave sandwiches for a while and want them cut.  what about a party where you want cut sandwiches for several hours ? what about taking food to work for lunch where it has to last for hours ? the width varies, so when pushing it into your mouth it is easy to push the corner in then push a bit too much in and have the edge smear.  it is a common and annoying problem.  a triangle is just too unpredictable.  URL see this image say if she pushes it just slightly to the left or right the corner of her mouth will be smudged with food.  with rectangles by contrast you can design thin, easily eatable strips of sandwich.  with the sandwich stacking the images you compare are of vastly different sandwiches.  URL but it really is not hard to stack rectangles well.  and if you do so then when people remove sandwiches you do not get the mess that is so normal.  with your artistic platter formation after a few sandwiches are removed from it they start to fall apart, flop over each other, leak fluids.  it is artistic until someone eats it.  with a rectangle ? you just remove a sandwich from the top and repeat.  i admit that triangles can be pretty but if you want more than looks the rectangle is the way to go.  thanks with the transportation and dipping, and thanks for the delta.   #  i have only had pulled pork / sloppy joe style sandwiches on more roll style or bun style bread, not traditional sandwich slices.   #  you make some interesting arguments for not cutting sandwiches.  0 heat.  i am going with the assumption that a sandwich would not be sliced until it is ready to be eaten so the heat exchange would not be significant before it is consumed.  0 excess toppings.  the excess stuffing problem would easily be solved by adding more slices of bread into the sandwich, making it more of a club.  that would be the preferable solution than not cutting it.  0 messy meat styles.  i have only had pulled pork / sloppy joe style sandwiches on more roll style or bun style bread, not traditional sandwich slices.  if it is common to use traditional sandwich bread for those things, i could see that being a reason not to cut it but my scientific research of googling  pulled pork sandwiches  did not yield any use of traditional sliced bread.
imagine that someone steals your car, and sells it to a chop shop.  your car was worth $0,0.  the thief then spends all that money on cocaine.  they get arrested the next day, and the car or money cannot be recovered.  various searches seem to show a prison sentence of 0 to 0 years for a non violent theft stolen out of a parking lot .  according to wikipedia, the average cost to imprison someone is $0,0 per year, meaning a range of $0,0 to $0,0 spent putting this person in jail.  that same person is very unlikely to steal your car again, and you are out $0 grand while the prison system makes 0 to 0x that amount back.  why should not they just be put on probation/monitoring, and have at least some of that money come back to the victim ? as punishment, they could perhaps be garnished their wages at the same time.  this would honestly probably be worse for the perpetrator anyways.  obviously this is different for violent crimes.  if someone rapes or assaults you, you want that person in jail so they ca not harm you or society again.   #  as punishment, they could perhaps be garnished their wages at the same time.   #  this would honestly probably be worse for the perpetrator anyways.   # they charge that much, and some of that goes to pay employees, pay off the prison construction cost, utilities, etc.  do not look at prison costs, look at profits, that is what would be lost.  plus a bunch of prison jobs.  also, if you make $0k and all you get punished is probation, that is not a lot of dis incentive.  this would honestly probably be worse for the perpetrator anyways.  further reason not to get a job, just go steal more stuff.  i like where you are going with this, but in reality it is too soft to be a deterrent.  a big part of one is sentence is deterrence.  while one can argue that we are doing it wrongs we are , making it  less  painful to get caught wo not likely do a better job.  i totally agree with violent offenders going to prison, and non victim crime punishment should be  really  redone, but i do not see your approach really solving anything.   #  prison is a deterrent for this type of crime.   #  usually its insurance that pays for that type of crime, so nobody is out anything.  i guess you could make the argument that the insurance company would be reimbursed, and that insurance cost for everyone would go down.  but i think you are forgetting something: prison is no picnic, if i could steal a car, sell it to a chop shop, and know that i would not go to prison if i got caught, i would be more likely to steal cars.  if i have a steady job, odds are my wages are not that great if i have to steal cars and sell them to chop shops, and if my wages garnished, i would probably be more inclined to look for off the books illegal employement.  i would probably be more likely to steal cars, or engage in other types of theft.  prison is a deterrent for this type of crime.  also, there is lots of gray areas.  what about the guy who runs the chop shop ? it is an illegal business, but he is been caught with 0 cars in his inventory.  he is chopped way more than that.  how many, nobody can really know.  does he just pay for those 0 cars ? certainly that would not be fair.  lets assume we know he chops 0 cars a week and has been operational for 0 years.  we can extrapolate that he is chopped 0,0 cars.  there is no way he can work that off in his lifetime.  what if someone breaks into your house on vacation ? is that a violent crime because you were not home ? it certainly feels like an aggressive violation and an invasion of privacy.  what about  victimless crimes  like drug dealing ? who is the victim if i sell you an ounce of cocaine ? you get the idea.  ultimately, prison is a better deterrent for non violent crimes than just paying stuff back, a lot of people steal way more than they can possibly make in their lifetimes.   #  unless i am misunderstanding and there is some sort of public trust insurance that awards these payments.   #  i do understand that prison is a much worse punishment for these people.  wage garnishment was simply the best option i could come up with as a punishment that did not include prison or forced labor.  even still, the us public is effectively paying $0,0, and the victim  may  get paid in civil court.  on your point of wage garnishments, if the thief makes very little legitimately, they probably wo not get anything back.  the victim can only get compensated by insurance if they pay for full coverage, so effectively the victim is the one who had to pay for their own compensation.  unless i am misunderstanding and there is some sort of public trust insurance that awards these payments.   #  that means they get paid less, which would require them to steal more in order to stay get the same income.   #  a racket could easily develop, especially since the thief bears no burden for the restitution.   steal my car, please.  that way the government will give me $0k.    kinds of games will develop.  also, since more thieves would be in circulation, there would be less relative value for the thief is skills.  that means they get paid less, which would require them to steal more in order to stay get the same income.  that being said, in general sentiment i agree with you, that prison is far too expensive and used far too frequently.  the prison scheme itself, has already become a racket.   #  secondly, why not just legalize all minor legal offense since with your idea, no one will go to jail anyways.   #  your idea has a lot of loop holes.  for example, a family needs money.  so dad decided to sell marijuana with help from some shady characters.  he knows its a safe and profitable gig because there are no real reprecussions on breaking the law.  he sells the drugs, he makes money.  if he get caught, its not really big deal since his family will get the needed money anyways.  people will exploit this, i guarantee it.  secondly, why not just legalize all minor legal offense since with your idea, no one will go to jail anyways.  also, there is a reason why we keep offenders on prison, the society do not want them walking in the streets.  there is a reason why that person stole your car and your idea is not helping the offender with his problem and so he will be back on the streets again to commit gta knowing full well that he will be freed again
i have quite a bit if experience with hobbyist robotics and more than a few years working with control systems.  i will admit i am inherently skeptical of the technology.  i have seen quite a few systems gather large amounts of data, filter it, extrapolate their current position on a map that they actively create and update, then drive forward at full speed to crash into a wall.  that is not my argument though.  everyone is very eager to see these released in mass but i am a lot more skeptical that the technology is ready for that.  i do think that on the whole a self driving car would be a safer driver if it is operating properly and that it would save lives.  i have some pretty serious doubts insofar as it is ability to respond to a real emergency, for example knowing to pull away when a sink hole starts to open up under its back tires or other situations like that where a human driver might be able to respond but a self driving car lacks the awareness of its surroundings in a level of detail necessary to respond.  those situations should be rare enough that over all a self driving car would be a safer alternative.  my real issue is that there is only going to be one shot at releasing it really.  just like the game e. t.  managed to tank the entire games industry i think the first autonomous vehicle will be what many people build there opinions of the technology around, and will be the basis for the legislation concerning such vehicles.  any failures it shows will be associated with it strongly, after all a good driver does not look any different from any other car on the road, but a bad one sticks out.  if a self driving car is slower than the rest of traffic, or gets caught up on a branch that falls into the roadway, or fails to navigate a construction site, or slams on its brakes because a trash bag drifted in front of it.  all of those will be failures that will shape peoples opinions of the technology massively.  though these situations might not currently be obvious in what experimental vehicles have encountered so far, when these vehicles are available in mass situations that might be unforeseen will inevitably come up.  i am not saying they should never be released, on the whole i think they could be massively safer.  only that in their current state though impressive i do not think they are ready to even be considered for consumer release.   #  if a self driving car is slower than the rest of traffic, or gets caught up on a branch that falls into the roadway, or fails to navigate a construction site, or slams on its brakes because a trash bag drifted in front of it.   #  these are examples of bad self driving cars.   # in the event of an emergency, a human can take control of the car.  managed to tank the entire games industry i think the first autonomous vehicle will be what many people build there opinions of the technology around, and will be the basis for the legislation concerning such vehicles.  sometimes the autopilot in aircraft is responsible for crashes, yet there is no backlash because it is highly reliable.  there is already legislation in some areas allowing autonomous cars.  it does not matter if there are a few negative incidents because they will save a large amount of lives in the big picture.  just like seat belts can sometimes trap you in a car and lead to a bad outcome, they are still widely adopted because they are overall safer.  these are examples of bad self driving cars.  many manufacturers are giving their cars the ability to go up to 0 mph over the speed limit to remain safe.  since you are experienced with hobbyist robotics, you must realize that the people working on these cars with much more experience than you can also think of these situations.  surely they will plan for the common things that took you five minutes to think up.  it will probably be incremental.  many luxury cars have automatic braking and lane assistance.  autonomous driving may start out as an advanced cruise control.  you do not have to make the jump from 0 manual to 0 automatic.   #  even in the best software there will be bugs, and a limited application in industry will give them a chance to find them.   # surely they will plan for the common things that took you five minutes to think up.  i never attempted to suggest i was more knowledgeable.  as well i do not have a problem with these vehicles being on the roadway any time soon.  it is specifically consumer application that i do not feel it is ready for.  i have said it elsewhere but i would be fine seeing it used in industry, for example google converting their streetview fleet to be self driving, or a shipping fleet was converted i would not have an issue.  in that scenario you have an ideal test bed to get thousands of hours of logs and to really put the technology in a real world scenario.  as well you would be able to reprogram and update the fleet easily if something did go wrong.  i just do not feel the technology is ready to go completely off the rails yet and to be offered to consumers because there are always bugs.  even in the best software there will be bugs, and a limited application in industry will give them a chance to find them.  you mention treating them like autopilot, but i think you need to consider the situations in which these will be used.  you wo not have a driver looking straight ahead at all times.  they will be doing something else, or drunk, or talking to someone.  aircraft pilots are doing a job and trained to keep track of everything at all times, drivers are not.   #  they have experience with negative consumer reactions in hardware, software and services.   #  simple argument: google is spearheading this and is primarily a consumer facing company, and is competent to manage the perception issues you identified.  they have experience with negative consumer reactions in hardware, software and services.  they know how initial reactions determine the success of a product and have learned a lot about how to manage that.  they have had big successes and big failures that all hinged on perception and adoption.  compare how google wave was managed vs.  google glass.  google glass is not at all ready for the masses but the perception is still more or less that it is really cool and  the future .  they managed that about as well as any release of new tech i have seen in a decade or more.  they know how to do this.  long story short, google understands these problems relating to consumer perception as well as anyone, and is well equipped as anyone to navigate them.  they will not push this technology to the masses before it is ready.  in the meantime, they will limit its adoption to those that understand its limitations.   #  even in many states where autonomous vehicles are legal, they require an alert aware driver to be able to take over, and must be made to standard highway specifications.   #  what your saying makes sense, but google is not currently offering a product to any kind of consumer market with these.  in fact the technology is hardly being displayed past a tech demo with potential future civilian application.  they have only just this year gotten them to where they consistently identify cyclists and stop at railway crossings.  it seems to me like google is agreeing with me insofar as this technology currently being unfit for a consumer market is concerned.  in fact if you look at the car they have made from the ground up as a prototype URL it is completely unfit for any kind of roadway, since it lacks a steering wheel.  even in many states where autonomous vehicles are legal, they require an alert aware driver to be able to take over, and must be made to standard highway specifications.  the fact that they are prototyping something as an idea of  what driverless cars could be like  for a future which requires a major improvement on the technology beyond driver assistance, and requires extensive changes in legislature should suggest that google is looking at this being a possibility in the somewhat distant future.  at least 0 years off.   #  things change, there is no basis for this idea that people is opinions on a product will be set in stone even after the product evolves.   #  so e. t.  tanked the entire gaming industry.  interesting.  it seems every one of these  i do not believe in self driving cars  goes through the same set of objections: 0.  but what if extraordinarily rare circumstance that a typical driver will never have to deal with ? here you use sinkholes, which i applaud, this is the single least likely problem that i have ever seen used as an objection to driverless cars.  0.  but they will be legislated out of existence.  early legislation for regular cars prohibited their use in cities.  you know what happened ? we changed the law when people started wanting to use them in cities.  it used to be that wifi devices were impossible because the necessary parts of em spectrum were unavailable by law for consumer use products.  we changed the laws when we determined that a better use was available.  two states have already changed the law to allow driverless cars.  if the public wants it, we will change the laws.  if we make good driverless cars, the public will want it.  0.  but they wo not be that great, so people wo not want them.  early cell phones were crap, early computers were crap, early cars were crap, early airplanes were crap, early tvs were crap, early video game system were crap.  things change, there is no basis for this idea that people is opinions on a product will be set in stone even after the product evolves.  could the google car be tarnished so badly that people do not trust it ? perhaps, but then the samsung car can fill in the void.
many people have a disdain for people who openly express a distaste for reading books.  however, i believe that as long as a person understands common literary concepts and devices such as theme and plot, climax, conflict, etc. , and can critically view a movie along these lines, then watching a film is as intellectually stimulating as reading a book.  after all, like films, books have varying degrees of challenge and sophistication.  reading something like  fifty shades of grey  is not intellectually superior to watching something like  hiroshima mon amour.    #  reading something like  fifty shades of grey  is not intellectually superior to watching something like  hiroshima mon amour.    #  yes, but watching rush hour 0 is not intellectually superior to reading tom sawyer or jane austen.   # yes, but watching rush hour 0 is not intellectually superior to reading tom sawyer or jane austen.  there are both intellectual and non intellectual books and movies.  for every twilight book, there is an equally vapid fast and furious movie.  also, movie buffs are still not as respected as bookworms.  if someone goes around reading emily bronte, we think that this person is obviously smart, or at least studious.  however, if someone watches a lot of classic or foreign movies, we do not have that same smart mindset about them.  i have heard a lot of people actually describe classic movie buffs as  phony intellectuals,  trying to overcompensate for how non bookwormish they are.  and this is coming from a classic film buff.   #  you will find and learn words that do not appear in movies.   #  first of all, i dislike intellectual snobbery of any kind, so i agree that people should not disdain you for not liking reading books.  however, books are more intellectually stimulating than films.  books are filled with a lot more detail and nuance than films or television.  you will find and learn words that do not appear in movies.  also, books have a lot bigger range of target audiences, so you can find a book more geared to your intellectual level, interest, and age group more easily than a film.  that menas you will find more books geared to higher level intellectuals than movies.  beyond that, films are a relatively young medium 0  years, even less when you consider talking vs silent film , they also have had to progress from novelty, to light entertainment, to art.  books are much, much older.  you can find and read books, unaltered, from 0 years ago, and get a better understanding of how life was and how people felt back then.  while you might find a film adaptation of shakespeare, for example, that is a 0th century interpretation of a 0 year old work of art, a far cry from you picking up and reading the original, and interpretting it yourself.  so, while films can be artistic, by limiting yourself to film you are limiting yourself to 0th/0st century art/expression/culture.  with books, you can explore art and culture from hundreds of years ago.   #  the books are a much richer and more complete experience, as is usually the case.   #  sure, sometimes visuals and action scenes are easier to express in film.  but things like a character is train of thought or underlying motivations typically ca not be expressed in film, or can be focused but only one or two characters, and that would be the central theme of the movie.  the complexity of a story that you can tell in a film is much more limited.  a novel can focus on a half dozen main characters, their motivations and emotions, and how it affects their actions, and how their actions shape affect each other and the story as a whole, as well as explore different underlying themes.  film is too limited a medium to do that.  harry potter books, for example, are much more nuanced and complex than the films.  whole subplots that contribute to the end result are reduced to less a minute on the screen or cut out all together, and even at 0 0/0  hours a piece, the films feel like a stripped down cliff is notes of the book.  the books are a much richer and more complete experience, as is usually the case.   #  but in the show he seems to have become this hero character and it takes away a lot of the significance and impact of his mistreatment.   #  while i generally agree with your overall post i am gonna have to disagree with the got example.  there is definitely a lot of things you miss with only watching the show that often devalues or misrepresents some of the characters.  without spoiling to much for if you ever choose to read them, i will go over some of my qualms with it.  in the show they tend to  white wash  many of the fan favorites and take away a lot of the greyness that is found in the books.  for example, in the book, tyrion actually does a lot of bad things that is sort of just forgotten by the writers.  he threatens children, arranges morally ambiguous murders, and his relationship with shae is a lot darker.  but in the show he seems to have become this hero character and it takes away a lot of the significance and impact of his mistreatment.  cruelty does not just go away.  abuse and ostracism has a lasting affect on people, and even the people who try their hardest to escape it can still be influenced by it later in life.  book tyrion is life shows us why you should not hate people for who they are, but the show tells us that they will end up nearly perfect human beings anyway.  another character that has an opposite problem is theon.  by nature of the medium, the show does an injustice to him i feel.  when you get to see inside his head you realize just how much he agonized over his betrayal and how much self loathing and regret he has, and you realize that despite everything, not even he deserved the treatment ramsay wrought upon his identity.  in contrast you do not get to see this in the show, and there this sentiment that he deserved everything he got because you do not get to see how ruinous he is become.  there is just another layer that distances us from the pain he feels.  i do agree with the idea that visual mediums can be just as good as written ones.  but they have different strengths and weaknesses.  but asoiaf is one example where intellectual potential is definitely lost in the transition to miniseries.   #  i have not read asoiaf, but i watch got.   # i have not read asoiaf, but i watch got.  it does, but possibly not in the way you would expect.  got is a great show, but there is still much that is lost when making the transition from asoiaf.  some of this is explicit missing / changed scenes , but most of it is implicit and arguably more important e. g. , pov chapters give you internal dialogue .  got is probably more distilled than the hp movies, actually.
alternatively, all age restrictions should be flexible and open to change for individual cases.  with the exception of legal emancipation, which in the united states is hard to accomplish barring parental abandonment or death due to changes in what the best interests of a minor are.  in no other case are laws involving the age of majority bent to allow a minor to legally engage in activities that you must be 0, 0 or older to do.  sure, people will turn a blind eye to things on occasion, 0 year old grandpa joined the army in time for wwii, the cool clerks will slip you a pack of cigs for an extra 0 bucks, but ignoring regulations will not make them go away.  a 0 year old can bypass the juvenile system and be sent straight adult prison for committing a serious crime such as murder or rape, or having a long history of involvement with the juvenile court system.  why not have a 0 year old star debate team member, honor roll student has a history of being very politically active and informed, why not be waived of the age requirement to vote ? not to imply that adult prisons, or even being involved in the adult court system which grants rights withheld in the juvenile system could be considered a privilege, but what is the reasoning behind having age requirements be so concrete for one who abides by the law, and so blurred for one who does not ? links i skimmed during the formation of this post: URL URL URL happy friday, everybody !  #  why not have a 0 year old star debate team member, honor roll student has a history of being very politically active and informed, why not be waived of the age requirement to vote ?  #  the point of democracy is not to have a super smart population that always makes the  right choices  when it comes time to vote.   # the point of democracy is not to have a super smart population that always makes the  right choices  when it comes time to vote.  the point of democracy is that is hard to marginalize and mistreat people who can vote for government.  just because you are not smart about politics or just are not smart to begin with does not mean the government ca not mistreat you, or that your voice is any less worthy of being heard.  and that is assuming that listening to  smart  people leads to better government.  the ussr was famously  run by engineers  and this resulted in lines for food and a decade long wait list for a crappy car.  studies have shown that people are better at assessing their own personal health than doctors are.  i can show you any number of us government programs that were designed by the very best our nation has to offer yet now are universally seen as train wrecks.  personally, i am so much more knowledgeable about politics than i was when i first voted 0 years ago it hurts.  as a result i now vote for .  the same damned party i voted for 0 years ago ! i am much smarter in online arguments, i suppose, but education changed nothing.   #  also it does not sound like you are questioning the logic of it.   #  i think if people were willing to evaluate every single 0 year old who wanted to vote we would find lots of them that are totally qualified, but it would take way to long to determine this.  voting is not a very tedious process, the government does not have any criteria for who can vote, but they ca not have actual children voting so they have got to pick somewhere to draw the line.  basically, you are right in theory but it would never work in practice.  however, with criminals you are already having a trial.  for every single person.  it is extremely tedious but we do it because it is important to make sure people do not get excessively, or in this case in excessively punished.  so that is why this is the one area of the law that is flexible, because we can actually look at each case individually and decide if the person is age had anything to do with it.  also it does not sound like you are questioning the logic of it.  but if you are, the line of thinking is that a 0 year old knows just as well as an 0 year old, not to rape someone.  being young and inexperienced does not excuse violence.   #  as the whole  voter id  debate shows, messing around with voting is very tricky.   #  as the whole  voter id  debate shows, messing around with voting is very tricky.  even ignoring the fact that politically, republicans would oppose enfranchising young people who tend to be more liberal, coming up with a politically neutral criteria would be very difficult.  better educated voters tend to be more liberal.  some might consider attending church regularly to be a criteria for an upstanding citizen.  a fixed age avoids all of that tangle and is generally considered fair.  now, as for your main point, the reason for the juvenile justice system is an acknowledgment of the fact that kids, and teens in particular, do some stupid things.  it is not in society is interest to ruin the lives of a couple of  good kids  who take a car for a joyride as a prank.  so, there is punishment, but then a fresh start.  there is also an understanding that some kids are in shitty circumstances that lead them to do bad things but society is not ready to give up on them.  on the other hand, there are some cold blooded, pre meditated crimes that are heinous enough to lead the system to think that, yes, it is time to give up on them.  these are not misunderstood kids who made a mistake, but  bad kids  who will become  bad adults .  when you go that far across the line, you no longer deserve leniency.   #  if you look at the nation wide exit polls from 0, URL 0, URL and 0 URL it clearly shows a trend.   #  i would say that statement deserves a  half true  or  it is more complicated .  if you look at the nation wide exit polls from 0, URL 0, URL and 0 URL it clearly shows a trend.  as you move from  no high school education  to  high school graduate  to  some college,  to  college graduate,  the results shift in the republican direction every step of the way.  as soon as you get to  postgraduate degree  the numbers swing back the other direction dramatically.  democrats do very well with voters who have no education at all often poor people and people that are extremely educated often teachers and academia while republicans to the best with people who have only a 0 year degree.  possibly people in business and stem fields and whatnot it is really unfair to say that more educated people prefer either party.   #  in 0 URL it was a lot closer.   #  note that it was not the well sourced article that was  mostly true  but the claim their were investigating.  in any case, it is complex because people is votes vary based on the election.  in 0 URL the only education grouping mccain won was high school grads.  in those with postgrad degrees, obama won 0 to 0.  in 0 URL it was a lot closer.  romney won college only, 0 to 0 but obama won the rest, with post grad again being the strongest 0 to 0.  now, there is actually a u shape going on.  the most educated tend to be liberal, as well as the least educated.
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.   #  you are right here, there is not much of an argument against you.   #  i will address your points one at a time before i dive into the advantages:  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  the demand for wired mice is much lower and you bought yours on clearance.  this is a temporary advantage that will go away when the supply of wired mice matches the level of demand, which will make wired mice much rarer and harder to obtain.  you had to go to three stores to find your mouse, and barely did not have to continue searching for a fourth.  you are right here, there is not much of an argument against you.  i can say that with better batteries and lower power demands from the mice it does not happen that often, i have to recharge my mouse once a week or so, so this problem with wired mice is not that bad.  it is worth noting here that this URL is the mouse that i use.  i payed $0 for it, not $0 because it turns out that you can negotiate prices at best buy.  while this is also technically true, it is a rare circumstance that will vary based on a person is clumsiness or their roommate is clumsiness, if you are about to start college .  this is not really an issue with modern wireless mice.  i have never had a problem with it.  conceivably a problem would arise if you have a lot of metal between your mouse and its receiver, but this is unlikely.  the biggest disadvantage to wired mice is the limited mobility, which for many users like myself, makes their setups nonviable.  i use a desktop that i ironically like to keep under my desk.  i do not want to have to keep my mouse within six feet of it at all times and i do not want to have to deal with yet another long cable running between my computer and a peripheral.  my keyboard is wired, which i can tolerate because it remains stationary, but a wired mouse is constantly moving and my experience is that the wire will be blocked by various items on my desk, limiting the mobility again, or will even push things around, which i find annoying.  you also ca not take your hand off of the mouse without the pointer moving if the cable happened to rest against an object on your desk, which is very annoying if you just full screened a video and do not want to move the mouse.  also, if you take your laptop anywhere and want to bring your mouse with you, you will have to deal with the cable at your new location.  in some places this will be fine, but in a cramped conference room or lecture hall, the wire will only hinder you.  if you do not mind another cable coming from your computer, you do not mind having your computer near where you want to use your mouse and you are using a laptop, so that is fine , you do not mind it when the wire gets in the way of the mouses movements, and you do not mind the mouse moving on its own when you let go of it, or these issues are not worth the extra $0 and trip to 0 extra stores, then a wired mouse is for you, but i think that there clearly is not a universal advantage to wired mice.   #  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  so there is not really a debate to be had.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.   #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.   #  while this is also technically true, it is a rare circumstance that will vary based on a person is clumsiness or their roommate is clumsiness, if you are about to start college .   #  i will address your points one at a time before i dive into the advantages:  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  the demand for wired mice is much lower and you bought yours on clearance.  this is a temporary advantage that will go away when the supply of wired mice matches the level of demand, which will make wired mice much rarer and harder to obtain.  you had to go to three stores to find your mouse, and barely did not have to continue searching for a fourth.  you are right here, there is not much of an argument against you.  i can say that with better batteries and lower power demands from the mice it does not happen that often, i have to recharge my mouse once a week or so, so this problem with wired mice is not that bad.  it is worth noting here that this URL is the mouse that i use.  i payed $0 for it, not $0 because it turns out that you can negotiate prices at best buy.  while this is also technically true, it is a rare circumstance that will vary based on a person is clumsiness or their roommate is clumsiness, if you are about to start college .  this is not really an issue with modern wireless mice.  i have never had a problem with it.  conceivably a problem would arise if you have a lot of metal between your mouse and its receiver, but this is unlikely.  the biggest disadvantage to wired mice is the limited mobility, which for many users like myself, makes their setups nonviable.  i use a desktop that i ironically like to keep under my desk.  i do not want to have to keep my mouse within six feet of it at all times and i do not want to have to deal with yet another long cable running between my computer and a peripheral.  my keyboard is wired, which i can tolerate because it remains stationary, but a wired mouse is constantly moving and my experience is that the wire will be blocked by various items on my desk, limiting the mobility again, or will even push things around, which i find annoying.  you also ca not take your hand off of the mouse without the pointer moving if the cable happened to rest against an object on your desk, which is very annoying if you just full screened a video and do not want to move the mouse.  also, if you take your laptop anywhere and want to bring your mouse with you, you will have to deal with the cable at your new location.  in some places this will be fine, but in a cramped conference room or lecture hall, the wire will only hinder you.  if you do not mind another cable coming from your computer, you do not mind having your computer near where you want to use your mouse and you are using a laptop, so that is fine , you do not mind it when the wire gets in the way of the mouses movements, and you do not mind the mouse moving on its own when you let go of it, or these issues are not worth the extra $0 and trip to 0 extra stores, then a wired mouse is for you, but i think that there clearly is not a universal advantage to wired mice.   #  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.   #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.   #  this is not really an issue with modern wireless mice.   #  i will address your points one at a time before i dive into the advantages:  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  the demand for wired mice is much lower and you bought yours on clearance.  this is a temporary advantage that will go away when the supply of wired mice matches the level of demand, which will make wired mice much rarer and harder to obtain.  you had to go to three stores to find your mouse, and barely did not have to continue searching for a fourth.  you are right here, there is not much of an argument against you.  i can say that with better batteries and lower power demands from the mice it does not happen that often, i have to recharge my mouse once a week or so, so this problem with wired mice is not that bad.  it is worth noting here that this URL is the mouse that i use.  i payed $0 for it, not $0 because it turns out that you can negotiate prices at best buy.  while this is also technically true, it is a rare circumstance that will vary based on a person is clumsiness or their roommate is clumsiness, if you are about to start college .  this is not really an issue with modern wireless mice.  i have never had a problem with it.  conceivably a problem would arise if you have a lot of metal between your mouse and its receiver, but this is unlikely.  the biggest disadvantage to wired mice is the limited mobility, which for many users like myself, makes their setups nonviable.  i use a desktop that i ironically like to keep under my desk.  i do not want to have to keep my mouse within six feet of it at all times and i do not want to have to deal with yet another long cable running between my computer and a peripheral.  my keyboard is wired, which i can tolerate because it remains stationary, but a wired mouse is constantly moving and my experience is that the wire will be blocked by various items on my desk, limiting the mobility again, or will even push things around, which i find annoying.  you also ca not take your hand off of the mouse without the pointer moving if the cable happened to rest against an object on your desk, which is very annoying if you just full screened a video and do not want to move the mouse.  also, if you take your laptop anywhere and want to bring your mouse with you, you will have to deal with the cable at your new location.  in some places this will be fine, but in a cramped conference room or lecture hall, the wire will only hinder you.  if you do not mind another cable coming from your computer, you do not mind having your computer near where you want to use your mouse and you are using a laptop, so that is fine , you do not mind it when the wire gets in the way of the mouses movements, and you do not mind the mouse moving on its own when you let go of it, or these issues are not worth the extra $0 and trip to 0 extra stores, then a wired mouse is for you, but i think that there clearly is not a universal advantage to wired mice.   #  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  so there is not really a debate to be had.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.   #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.   #  i have never had a problem so bad as to me loosing my mouse because it was not attached to my computer.   # i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  i have a cheap wireless mouse, picked it up for just about $0 URL   0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  this is hardly ever an issue.  in the almost year that i have used extensively on gaming my wireless mouse, i have only changed the batteries once.  i have never had a problem so bad as to me loosing my mouse because it was not attached to my computer.  i travel with it all the time too.  although i have experienced minor mouse disconnection while in game, it was only one time and not have had any noticeable lag from the mouse because of the connection.   #  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.   #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.   #  although i have experienced minor mouse disconnection while in game, it was only one time and not have had any noticeable lag from the mouse because of the connection.   # i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  i have a cheap wireless mouse, picked it up for just about $0 URL   0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  this is hardly ever an issue.  in the almost year that i have used extensively on gaming my wireless mouse, i have only changed the batteries once.  i have never had a problem so bad as to me loosing my mouse because it was not attached to my computer.  i travel with it all the time too.  although i have experienced minor mouse disconnection while in game, it was only one time and not have had any noticeable lag from the mouse because of the connection.   #  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.   #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.   #  mine has a little light on it that flashes red when i have about an hour left.   # i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  i have had my mouse for going on.  i want to say 0 years.  i could not tell you how much it cost me.  so the difference of 0 or even 0 dollars is not really important.  mine has a little light on it that flashes red when i have about an hour left.  i use rechargable batteries, so i do not have to keep buying them.  my room is clean, so i would not anyway.  i found that this was more a problem with my usb port than my mouse.  has not acted up in ages.  now i have chromecast and sometimes i like to play starcraft on my living room tv.  if i had a wired mouse/keyboard i could not do that.   #  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  so there is not really a debate to be had.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.   #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.   #  my room is clean, so i would not anyway.   # i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  i have had my mouse for going on.  i want to say 0 years.  i could not tell you how much it cost me.  so the difference of 0 or even 0 dollars is not really important.  mine has a little light on it that flashes red when i have about an hour left.  i use rechargable batteries, so i do not have to keep buying them.  my room is clean, so i would not anyway.  i found that this was more a problem with my usb port than my mouse.  has not acted up in ages.  now i have chromecast and sometimes i like to play starcraft on my living room tv.  if i had a wired mouse/keyboard i could not do that.   #  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  what about controlling your computer from across the room ?  #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.   #  i found that this was more a problem with my usb port than my mouse.   # i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  i have had my mouse for going on.  i want to say 0 years.  i could not tell you how much it cost me.  so the difference of 0 or even 0 dollars is not really important.  mine has a little light on it that flashes red when i have about an hour left.  i use rechargable batteries, so i do not have to keep buying them.  my room is clean, so i would not anyway.  i found that this was more a problem with my usb port than my mouse.  has not acted up in ages.  now i have chromecast and sometimes i like to play starcraft on my living room tv.  if i had a wired mouse/keyboard i could not do that.   #  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  so there is not really a debate to be had.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  what about controlling your computer from across the room ?  #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.   #  my mouse and the one i owned before it had an led that alerts the user when the battery is low.   # i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  i have seen wireless mice for $0 or less many times before.  and really when it comes to a product that you are going to use for hundreds of even thousands of hours being a couple bucks more is not significant.  my mouse and the one i owned before it had an led that alerts the user when the battery is low.  in fact many wireless mice have this feature, which makes this point moot.  i have gotta be honest i went to uni for 0 years with a laptop and wireless mouse and i never once  swiped  it off the desk.  is it that common of a thing ? i hardly believe this could happen to someone more than maybe a couple times a year at most.  i have been using wireless mice for years and never had that issue.  the only one time i got mouse lag was because i was out of range of the receiver which was about 0 feet away.  i would guess that is just a couple bad experiences you had with sub par wireless mice.   #  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  so there is not really a debate to be had.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.   #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.   #  i have gotta be honest i went to uni for 0 years with a laptop and wireless mouse and i never once  swiped  it off the desk.   # i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  i have seen wireless mice for $0 or less many times before.  and really when it comes to a product that you are going to use for hundreds of even thousands of hours being a couple bucks more is not significant.  my mouse and the one i owned before it had an led that alerts the user when the battery is low.  in fact many wireless mice have this feature, which makes this point moot.  i have gotta be honest i went to uni for 0 years with a laptop and wireless mouse and i never once  swiped  it off the desk.  is it that common of a thing ? i hardly believe this could happen to someone more than maybe a couple times a year at most.  i have been using wireless mice for years and never had that issue.  the only one time i got mouse lag was because i was out of range of the receiver which was about 0 feet away.  i would guess that is just a couple bad experiences you had with sub par wireless mice.   #  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.   #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
the other day i went to the store to buy a new mouse for my new laptop, as i do not feel comfortable using track pads.  i went to 0 different retailers and in the first two, all the mice that they sold were wireless.  in the third store i finally found one, and it was the last one they had in stock and it was in the clearance part of the store, most likely meaning that this is their last one in stock and they do not plan on re stocking it.  this got me thinking, i think it is dumb how popular wireless mice have gotten when considering how much better wired mice are.  here are some reasons why i think they are better.  0 wired mice are way cheaper.  i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  0 wired mice do not need batteries so they wo not run out of battery mid game or during anything important, meaning that you wont have any interruptions.  0 the wire makes it easy to keep track of as it is connected to the computer so swiping it accidentally off of your desk you will still be able to find it.  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.  cmv ?  #  0 it is a much more reliable connection and does not randomly disconnect/stop working while using it, where as in my experience wireless mice fade in and out occasionally.   #  i have been using wireless mice for years and never had that issue.   # i bought mine for $0, and all the other wireless mice started for at least $0.  i have seen wireless mice for $0 or less many times before.  and really when it comes to a product that you are going to use for hundreds of even thousands of hours being a couple bucks more is not significant.  my mouse and the one i owned before it had an led that alerts the user when the battery is low.  in fact many wireless mice have this feature, which makes this point moot.  i have gotta be honest i went to uni for 0 years with a laptop and wireless mouse and i never once  swiped  it off the desk.  is it that common of a thing ? i hardly believe this could happen to someone more than maybe a couple times a year at most.  i have been using wireless mice for years and never had that issue.  the only one time i got mouse lag was because i was out of range of the receiver which was about 0 feet away.  i would guess that is just a couple bad experiences you had with sub par wireless mice.   #  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .   #  no, i do not think so.  the op is stated view is  a wired mouse is better than a wireless mouse  no caveats or exceptions were included.  by providing a single example where a wireless mouse is superior, i have demonstrated that the stated view does not necessarily hold.  i. e.  i have argued the op down from  a wired mouse is better  to  a wired mouse is better in some, but not all, situations .  i do not personally think that a wired/wireless mouse is universally superior, so i have not  argued myself down  in any sense.  besides, i am not convinved that this applies only  in very specific situations that apply to very few people .  my example is hardly obscure  #  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.   #  the op made a sweeping, unqualified statement.  i do not think it is clear that they were speaking generally, as they did not use any language in their op which would indicate this despite ample opportunity not a single qualifying  generally / usually / mostly / in the majority of cases  .  they also tried to invalidate my initial reply suggesting an exception, which implies that they are not expecting to accomodate exceptions.  i do not believe we should be attempting to change their view to  a wireless mouse is universally better than a wired mouse , but rather  a wired mouse is not necessarily better than a wireless mouse .  the point of cmv is not usually to convince the op of the polar opposite of their view, but simply that their view as stated does not hold and should be amended in some way.  hence the concept of a delta.  if this is not the case, the op should clarify.   #  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.   # that is not generally how this sub works.  we do not tend to pick what we think is the inverse of the op is view and argue that this is true, but rather attempt to change the stated view in some way.  this is a delta an incremetal change to the op is stated view.  so there is not really a debate to be had.  this is precisely why the op is view, at least as it is  actually stated , does not hold.  the op does not appear to acknowledge that wired/wireless each fill their own niches.   #  only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.   #  i think it is hard to judge population trends from your own circle of acquaintances.  for comparison, i do not think i have ever been in the home of anyone who runs a computer through their tv probably few who even know how , and in fact i know a lot of people who do not even own tvs in the first place myself included .  i also know a lot of laptop users who do not use a mouse, wireless or otherwise and this is probably related to whether they typically work on desks or laps.  besides, a lot of people are switching over to smartphones and tablets for their mobile computing.  so i think we need to interpret op is question in the broadest possible superset of scenarios where there is a meaningful comparison to be made: some sort of computer on some sort of flat surface with sufficient space to deploy a mouse of either kind.  what about portability ? only an issue if you use your computer in many different places, which unnecessarily narrows the scope of the discussion.  what about controlling your computer from across the room ? only an issue if you do that, which is an even narrower range of cases and in this particular one, it does not seem like a wired mouse is even a realistic alternative anyway, so there is no real discussion to be had .
i go on tumblr often for the craft ideas there, and i have always seen a post on tumblr that goes along the lines of  all women should read this  and then someone would inevitably butt in with  not all women have vaginas .  basically you ca not even read/post anything regarding one gender without having people accuse you of being cis sexist and expanding your post to include other genders.  there is a person who accused a blogger laci green of being cis sexist because she only blogs about straight sex.  i think it is excessive tone policing.  it is also diverting attention from what the actual post is about.  in some cases it clearly makes no sense to me because laci green is straight and it is only logical that she talks about the things she knows.   #  basically you ca not even read/post anything regarding one gender without having people accuse you of being cis sexist and expanding your post to include other genders.   #  there is a person who accused a blogger laci green of being cis sexist because she only blogs about straight sex.   # there is a person who accused a blogger laci green of being cis sexist because she only blogs about straight sex.  what do not you understand that just trolling from a different perspective.  they are doing the same thing as regular trolls but instead of being offensive and cruel they are being overly politically correct and judgmental.  both make themselves fell better about themselves by going on the internet and attacking and harassing people for some petty reason or another.  now i am not say every wanna be professional umbrage taker is trolling but there seem to be more and more of them out there now that they seem to get more media attention.   #  if the question uses the word  partner  instead, i would feel included and answer.   #  it is difficult and isolating to go throughout life as a minority.  while i do not think individuals are obligated to make their posts inclusive, i do appreciate it when they do.  however, i do believe that some institutions are obligated to, such as those controlled by the government that are concerned with equality and safety.  for example, if the cdc center for disease control website was talking about stds and only mentioned risk factors for piv penis in vagina not only are they excluding a ton of people who do a bunch of different acts, but they are not supplying important safety information and doing their whole job.  i answered a post the other day from a lesbian asking about std risk and how to stay safe and i decided to include  if you or your partner are pre op trans women and have penetrative sex, you are at risk for.   i totally did not need to include it but it did not take a lot of effort and it might have helped someone stay safe or feel more included.  i made that choice.  no one likes to be told they are homophobic or racist or sexist or offensive or not inclusive, but that is how we learn and become better people.  times are changing and hopefully for the better.  i love the  ask a female questions  group on here, and i really do appreciate it when questions are inclusive.  if someone asks,  ladies, what are you most attracted to in a man ?   i will usually ignore the question, because i assume a man is asking it to learn how to become more attractive to women who are attracted to men.  my answer would not be helpful.  if the question uses the word  partner  instead, i would feel included and answer.  i am not saying all questions should apply to me, but when the vast majority are assuming women like dick, by the end of the day i feel invisible and kind of sad.   #  i, for one, do not like that we have to include every single group under the sun as well in order to be considered inclusive.   #  somehow, i have to state that what you are posting makes sense, but i take issue with this point.  i will usually ignore the question, because i assume a man is asking it to learn how to become more attractive to women who are attracted to men.  my answer would not be helpful.  if the question uses the word  partner  instead, i would feel included and answer.  i am not saying all questions should apply to me, but when the vast majority are assuming women like dick i do not understand how that is relevant at all.  if you are assuming that it is a guy who is asking the question, whatever his motive is, than you are also safe in assuming that he only cares about when women are attracted to men, not when other groups are attracted to men, because those groups do not interest him.  if he had cared what those other groups thought, than he would have asked what the other groups think.  i, for one, do not like that we have to include every single group under the sun as well in order to be considered inclusive.  i would state that is causing more issues.  how am i supposed to know that you are a bisexual male who identifies as a female and is torn between having surgery or not ? why should i have to include every possible permutation of the issue ? when people talk about the races and the different racisms that occur, they do not list the ones for the pacific islanders not all are samoan , the northern europeans, the africans, the sub saharaans , etc.  this practice of including all of the different sexual orientations is becoming ridiculous.  would you feel included if, instead of stating whatever sub group is being created/found out about today, we were to state all sexual groups included without singling yours out ? note: as an aside, what is this cis thing and where did it come from ? it has to be relatively new as i have not seen/heard about it before a few weeks ago, and i am a bisexual male, who hangs out in lgbtcstsdtsdf clubs quite often.  do you see how silly it looks when you make it alphabet soup ?  #  similarly, unless your blog is focused on gender issues, you should not worry about how inclusive you are in your writing.   #  i think there are two perspectives you might try to take as a blogger here.  0.  your audience is vast and diverse.  therefore, you are likely to occasionally reach a reader who is right in the middle of forming their own identity.  right now, to them, their gender identity is one of the most important things in their life.  so when they read a post about making scrambled eggs, they immediately think of their gender as they read over every pronoun  he / ishe /.  in the article and they might finish reading with gender on their mind instead of scrambled eggs.  then they will comment base don what is on their mind.  i do not think you need to censor yourself for these types of people, but i do think you should be a little bit sensitive to where they are coming from.  usually they do not come to your blog to pick a fight, it is just that they are making unusual connections while reading your posts and they feel the need to share their feelings with you because, again, right now gender identity is one of the most important things in their life.  0.  trolls.  since your audience is vast and diverse, you know you will encounter trolls.  some trolls are easy to spot.  they will throw the n word around like it is 0.  but some trolls are more subtle and less clear cut.  some people just like to spark debate, just like to be a part of dramatic encounters.  they might simply want to start a discussion about something unrelated because they are bored with their life and bored with the content they just read.  no.  you should not need to pander to everyone in your audience.  absolutely not.  i am a father for example, and i often read blogs and articles about parenting.  how often i have to pretend the word  mother  is  father  is insulting.  but i do understand where the authors are coming from.  they know their audience is mostly mothers, so they are simply speaking to their audience.  similarly, unless your blog is focused on gender issues, you should not worry about how inclusive you are in your writing.   #  if you are getting lots of complaints from lots of different users, then maybe it is worth evaluating yourself and your blog.   #  how you respond depends on how much of a problem this is.  if you are getting lots of complaints from lots of different users, then maybe it is worth evaluating yourself and your blog.  if the complaints are few and rare, ignore them.  is your blog specifically focused on gender issues ? if so, you definitely should be more inclusive in your writing.  if your blog is focused on something unrelated, it might be helpful to understand why your blog is drawing so much attention from people with different gender identities this could be beneficial in promoting your blog and directing what you write about .
a conspiracy is an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.  we should all know that many powerful men conspire all the time whether they be bankers, politicians or terrorists.  history shows that even our own governments have conspired against there own people.  this alone does not justify belief in 0/0 or kennedy assassination conspiracies but i think it justifies skepticism about what our elites say they want, what they really want and what they do behind the scenes.  conspiracies have been proven to have happened or must have happened due to a certain event that has occurred.  meanwhile creationism in my experience has nothing in its favor.  most creationists who argue against evolution do not even know what evolution is or how it works.  the arguments they use prove there ignorance.  it seems that creationists have either only ever read a holy book whether it be the bible or koran or have never opened a credible science book.  one more point i should add is that at least bankers and politicians do exist can be proven to exist which is obvious to anyone with a brain while the existence of a god is still very disputed.   #  meanwhile creationism in my experience has nothing in its favor.   #  most creationists who argue against evolution do not even know what evolution is or how it works.   # most creationists who argue against evolution do not even know what evolution is or how it works.  strawman argument.   these people do not know the real evolution .  how exactly do you know that they do not.  creationist ken ham once said that evolution scientists and creation scientists both have the same evidence, but they interpret it differently.  oh and dating methods of all kinds of things are flawed.  URL  #  but i want to emphasis that i think that if theory is non trivial then there always are some serious flaws that immediately discredits it.   #  please, do not change important words like  plausibility  for  absurd .  absurdity can grow beyond ridiculous, but when plausibility hits zero you are as low as it can get.  that is why i asked what exactly would change your mind.  unless you set up some specific criteria, i can throw at you crazy conspiracy theories and you will be throwing back some plausible conspiracies and discussion will stuck.  but i want to emphasis that i think that if theory is non trivial then there always are some serious flaws that immediately discredits it.  ask here /r/debunkthis/  #  we know that people who believe one conspiracy generally believe many others.   #  i completely disagree.  think about bayes  theorem.  what is the probability that a conspiracy is true given the evidence for it.  to work that out, you need to actually know what the probability that the conspiracy is true  without any evidence , and for it to have any probability at all you are going to need a number above zero for this.  essentially, then, this figure represents what you believe the probability to be given your background knowledge.  if you  are a christian, than your belief that the earth was created by a christian god is going to have a higher probability than a non christian before evidence is introduced.  additonally, it is ignorant to say that there is  no evidence  for creationism.  what you mean is there is  insufficient evidence to persuade myself , there is evidence for every possible position.  we know that people who believe one conspiracy generally believe many others.  so the prior probability that 0/0 was an inside job, for example, if you believe other conspiracies, will be quite high.  however there is lot is of very good evidence against most conspiracies, and there is barely any good evidence against the existence of god.   #  whereas, darwin probably came up with the theory because it made sense to him and not out of a desire to reinforce some cherished belief taught to him by his parents  #  i think you should also consider motivation for the view.  people who support conspiracy theories often have a motivation behind it.  for example, people who believe in creationism are mostly motivated by their religious beliefs.  they are making or supporting theories that reinforce their religious beliefs.  whereas, darwin probably came up with the theory because it made sense to him and not out of a desire to reinforce some cherished belief taught to him by his parents  #  you really ca not even compare those two groups.   #  you really ca not even compare those two groups.  creationism is such a fringe movement in biology that it is ridiculous to say that there is some kind of debate going on.  also, they are not scientists for one very simple reason, they have a clear conclusion that they set are specifically trying to prove while ignoring the evidence against it.  science is about looking for answers, not setting about to prove something you  know  is true.  dating methods have literally nothing to do with evolution.  the link talks about how solar flairs might slightly change the decay rate of radioactive isotopes, and concludes that this means that the earth is thousands of years old instead of billions.  that is not science, that is the most desperate kind of evidence fishing.
let is face it police are a total killjoy.  for hooligans and criminals, police are the ultimate suppressors.  when people want to break the rules a bit, police always show up to shut the party down.  this gives them a bad reputation.  however, for all of the law abiding citizens, police serve as heroic figures who save the day.  this is how police are meant to be seen and should be seen by the majority of society.  unfortunately, social media and news coverage is constantly focusing on police brutality, over exercising discretion, abuse of power, and police shootings.  i think this is ultimately bad for society since it completely neglects the community policing model URL and pits the members of our community against police.  police are people, just like us.  when they are not in the line of duty, they have lives.  they are an essential structure of society and they contribute to norms, safety, and the enforcement of the law.  of course, these three things are vital to have a functioning society.  for every bad act a police officer is caught doing, i am sure there are thousands of more good acts.  yet, social media makes a frenzy out of the few bad incidents and attempts to ostracize the police.  how can we expect the police to be benevolent and understanding if we label them pigs ? i would like to see more videos of police rescuing children from blazing fires, and helping out the impoverished.  i understand that there are corrupt aspects of the police department, but focusing on the negatives is bad for every party.  if you are wondering, the michael brown shooting inspired this cmv.  i would like someone to explain to me how it could possibly be healthy or good to hate the police and make it a point to prove how terrible they are.  please, cmv.   #  for every bad act a police officer is caught doing, i am sure there are thousands of more good acts.   #  the good acts are part of their job or at least ought to be , and the bad acts are contrary to their job.   # the good acts are part of their job or at least ought to be , and the bad acts are contrary to their job.  they should only get public praise for going above   beyond their duties.  we do not constantly celebrate firemen for saving lives because that is what is expected from them.  if a private individual saves someone from a fire, then it is big news because it is  unexpected .  given that, there are  tons  of television and media that praise the position of law enforcement.  any of the csi series, cops, law   order, etc put police in a positive light.  every time a police officer is seriously injured or passes, they get tons of positive media coverage.   #  i would put the onus on the police to improve their image.   #  social media includes a wide variety of views.  my more conservative friends post a lot of positive praise for the military and police along the lines of  they risk/give their lives for you so give them respect .  i think the problem is that the majority of the interactions we have with police are  negative .  i would put the onus on the police to improve their image.  some departments put their officers out in public to get to know people; that is good.  most departments do not make their officers as visible, so we only talk to them when we are under threat of punishment.   #  the good deeds of this police department, or the good deeds of the person shot do not affect the controversy here.   # it sparked riots.  put it in context.  the riots are specific to this police department.  when you have a community that is mostly black and a police department that is virtually all white, there is something wrong.  police shoot people all the time and it  does not  spark riots.  there is something special about this situation that sets it apart from police in general.  the good deeds of this police department, or the good deeds of the person shot do not affect the controversy here.   #  but this probably should never have happened and thinking about it as  one private incident  is going to let the weeds flourish instead of be rooted out.   #   . all over one private incident with one or a couple officers.   many people do not see it that way.  when you look at it as a private, discrete incident, it is a drop of water.  that drop of water did not just materialize out of thin air, it came from an ocean of systemic racism in our country.  one of my friends posed the thought that, based on the current ballistic / forensic evidence, officer wilson will likely not see administrative penalties and the criminal justice question will be  did the officer use excessive force ?   when we look at the drop of water without mentioning the ocean, it is a pretty big  maybe  on if the officer use excessive force.  we need more information to get an  obviously.   when we look at the drop of water as part of the ocean, which it is, then the officer obviously used excessive force and we have another dead black teenager because our society cannot seem to get racism weeded out of our institutions.  does that mean wilson should pay for the ocean ? no.  but this probably should never have happened and thinking about it as  one private incident  is going to let the weeds flourish instead of be rooted out.   #  clearly he was a thug and brought the police upon himself.   # i think it is extremely unfair that a man robs a convenience store, attacks a cop, and charges him yet when he is shot we should blame the cop because it could have been avoided.  clearly he was a thug and brought the police upon himself.  do not get in trouble with the law and their wo not be any trouble.  live by the sword, die by the sword.  if you want a life of crime, be ready for any repercussions.  we should not appease criminals by giving them videos of cops shooting people under hazy circumstances so they can get angry and start riots against police.  we should appease the police and the law abiding citizens who want to work with the police instead of hating them and fearing them by showing more footage of cops doing valiant things.
let is face it police are a total killjoy.  for hooligans and criminals, police are the ultimate suppressors.  when people want to break the rules a bit, police always show up to shut the party down.  this gives them a bad reputation.  however, for all of the law abiding citizens, police serve as heroic figures who save the day.  this is how police are meant to be seen and should be seen by the majority of society.  unfortunately, social media and news coverage is constantly focusing on police brutality, over exercising discretion, abuse of power, and police shootings.  i think this is ultimately bad for society since it completely neglects the community policing model URL and pits the members of our community against police.  police are people, just like us.  when they are not in the line of duty, they have lives.  they are an essential structure of society and they contribute to norms, safety, and the enforcement of the law.  of course, these three things are vital to have a functioning society.  for every bad act a police officer is caught doing, i am sure there are thousands of more good acts.  yet, social media makes a frenzy out of the few bad incidents and attempts to ostracize the police.  how can we expect the police to be benevolent and understanding if we label them pigs ? i would like to see more videos of police rescuing children from blazing fires, and helping out the impoverished.  i understand that there are corrupt aspects of the police department, but focusing on the negatives is bad for every party.  if you are wondering, the michael brown shooting inspired this cmv.  i would like someone to explain to me how it could possibly be healthy or good to hate the police and make it a point to prove how terrible they are.  please, cmv.   #  for all of the law abiding citizens, police serve as heroic figures who save the day.   #  this is how police are meant to be seen and should be seen by the majority of society.   # this is how police are meant to be seen and should be seen by the majority of society.  i would be considered a  law abiding citizen .  i have never been arrested and have not had a speeding ticket in over a decade.  i have never had an experience where a cop was a  heroic figure  who  saved the day .  in the few encounters i  have  had with police in my adult life, the cop have, in my opinion, been trying to assert their authority inappropriately i. e. , trying to tell people they ca not stand on a public sidewalk or claiming some other law is being violated when no such law exists .  i am a 0 year old white guy and  i  do not trust the police.  i ca not imagine the level of distrust your average inner city 0 something of any skin color has.  the problem with the  community policing model  is that it requires both cops and citizens to believe that the  police just want to be your friend .  i am never going to believe that.  if a cop walks up to me on the street, in an alleged attempt to  be my friend , and starts asking me questions, i am going assume he has some angle he is working and is not just trying to be friendly.  as a result, i am going to be short and ambivalent with him.  undoubtedly, he is going to see this as suspicious and that is going to start to escalate the confrontation.  i have never seen cops get so mad as when you question their authority:  why you wanna know that ?  ,  i have the right to park here ,  what i am doing is not illegal  any statement like that to a cop and in my experience that cop is going to  assert his authority .  and they do that because they are trained to do that.  they are trained to be  in control of the situation  and they believe that being abrasive and belligerent is the best way to obtain and maintain that control.  it is disgusting.  when they are not in the line of duty, they have lives.  they are an essential structure of society and they contribute to norms, safety, and the enforcement of the law.  while there may be  some  cops that are  just like  me, they are few and far between.  this works for most people: think of the guys you went to high school with that went on to become cops; who were they ? were they just like you, or were they the guys who always were, or wanted to be, on some kind of a power trip ? in my experience, it was exact guys you would never  want  to give power to, that went on to be cops.  source ? because i seriously, seriously, seriously doubt your statistics.  i would think that for every good act a cop does, there are 0 0 bad acts.  however, i will admit that i have nothing but my own observations as a source for that.  so would i.  those videos are not as prevalent as videos of police being abusive because cops are abusive a lot more than they rescue children or help the poor.  it is bad for the cops.  but if it ultimately changes the system so that police are no longer abusive, it is quite good for the citizens of the community.  who polices the police ? nobody.  that is what needs to change .  when cops are abusive, they need to be held accountable as individuals.  if the abuses of cops are never brought to light, there is absolutely no chance that they will be held accountable.  even when the abuses are brought to light, they are rarely held accountable at all and even more rarely held accountable to the same extent that another non cop citizen would be held accountable in the same situation.   #  any of the csi series, cops, law   order, etc put police in a positive light.   # the good acts are part of their job or at least ought to be , and the bad acts are contrary to their job.  they should only get public praise for going above   beyond their duties.  we do not constantly celebrate firemen for saving lives because that is what is expected from them.  if a private individual saves someone from a fire, then it is big news because it is  unexpected .  given that, there are  tons  of television and media that praise the position of law enforcement.  any of the csi series, cops, law   order, etc put police in a positive light.  every time a police officer is seriously injured or passes, they get tons of positive media coverage.   #  i think the problem is that the majority of the interactions we have with police are  negative .   #  social media includes a wide variety of views.  my more conservative friends post a lot of positive praise for the military and police along the lines of  they risk/give their lives for you so give them respect .  i think the problem is that the majority of the interactions we have with police are  negative .  i would put the onus on the police to improve their image.  some departments put their officers out in public to get to know people; that is good.  most departments do not make their officers as visible, so we only talk to them when we are under threat of punishment.   #  police shoot people all the time and it  does not  spark riots.   # it sparked riots.  put it in context.  the riots are specific to this police department.  when you have a community that is mostly black and a police department that is virtually all white, there is something wrong.  police shoot people all the time and it  does not  spark riots.  there is something special about this situation that sets it apart from police in general.  the good deeds of this police department, or the good deeds of the person shot do not affect the controversy here.   #  when we look at the drop of water without mentioning the ocean, it is a pretty big  maybe  on if the officer use excessive force.   #   . all over one private incident with one or a couple officers.   many people do not see it that way.  when you look at it as a private, discrete incident, it is a drop of water.  that drop of water did not just materialize out of thin air, it came from an ocean of systemic racism in our country.  one of my friends posed the thought that, based on the current ballistic / forensic evidence, officer wilson will likely not see administrative penalties and the criminal justice question will be  did the officer use excessive force ?   when we look at the drop of water without mentioning the ocean, it is a pretty big  maybe  on if the officer use excessive force.  we need more information to get an  obviously.   when we look at the drop of water as part of the ocean, which it is, then the officer obviously used excessive force and we have another dead black teenager because our society cannot seem to get racism weeded out of our institutions.  does that mean wilson should pay for the ocean ? no.  but this probably should never have happened and thinking about it as  one private incident  is going to let the weeds flourish instead of be rooted out.
let is face it police are a total killjoy.  for hooligans and criminals, police are the ultimate suppressors.  when people want to break the rules a bit, police always show up to shut the party down.  this gives them a bad reputation.  however, for all of the law abiding citizens, police serve as heroic figures who save the day.  this is how police are meant to be seen and should be seen by the majority of society.  unfortunately, social media and news coverage is constantly focusing on police brutality, over exercising discretion, abuse of power, and police shootings.  i think this is ultimately bad for society since it completely neglects the community policing model URL and pits the members of our community against police.  police are people, just like us.  when they are not in the line of duty, they have lives.  they are an essential structure of society and they contribute to norms, safety, and the enforcement of the law.  of course, these three things are vital to have a functioning society.  for every bad act a police officer is caught doing, i am sure there are thousands of more good acts.  yet, social media makes a frenzy out of the few bad incidents and attempts to ostracize the police.  how can we expect the police to be benevolent and understanding if we label them pigs ? i would like to see more videos of police rescuing children from blazing fires, and helping out the impoverished.  i understand that there are corrupt aspects of the police department, but focusing on the negatives is bad for every party.  if you are wondering, the michael brown shooting inspired this cmv.  i would like someone to explain to me how it could possibly be healthy or good to hate the police and make it a point to prove how terrible they are.  please, cmv.   #  i would like to see more videos of police rescuing children from blazing fires, and helping out the impoverished.   #  so would i.  those videos are not as prevalent as videos of police being abusive because cops are abusive a lot more than they rescue children or help the poor.   # this is how police are meant to be seen and should be seen by the majority of society.  i would be considered a  law abiding citizen .  i have never been arrested and have not had a speeding ticket in over a decade.  i have never had an experience where a cop was a  heroic figure  who  saved the day .  in the few encounters i  have  had with police in my adult life, the cop have, in my opinion, been trying to assert their authority inappropriately i. e. , trying to tell people they ca not stand on a public sidewalk or claiming some other law is being violated when no such law exists .  i am a 0 year old white guy and  i  do not trust the police.  i ca not imagine the level of distrust your average inner city 0 something of any skin color has.  the problem with the  community policing model  is that it requires both cops and citizens to believe that the  police just want to be your friend .  i am never going to believe that.  if a cop walks up to me on the street, in an alleged attempt to  be my friend , and starts asking me questions, i am going assume he has some angle he is working and is not just trying to be friendly.  as a result, i am going to be short and ambivalent with him.  undoubtedly, he is going to see this as suspicious and that is going to start to escalate the confrontation.  i have never seen cops get so mad as when you question their authority:  why you wanna know that ?  ,  i have the right to park here ,  what i am doing is not illegal  any statement like that to a cop and in my experience that cop is going to  assert his authority .  and they do that because they are trained to do that.  they are trained to be  in control of the situation  and they believe that being abrasive and belligerent is the best way to obtain and maintain that control.  it is disgusting.  when they are not in the line of duty, they have lives.  they are an essential structure of society and they contribute to norms, safety, and the enforcement of the law.  while there may be  some  cops that are  just like  me, they are few and far between.  this works for most people: think of the guys you went to high school with that went on to become cops; who were they ? were they just like you, or were they the guys who always were, or wanted to be, on some kind of a power trip ? in my experience, it was exact guys you would never  want  to give power to, that went on to be cops.  source ? because i seriously, seriously, seriously doubt your statistics.  i would think that for every good act a cop does, there are 0 0 bad acts.  however, i will admit that i have nothing but my own observations as a source for that.  so would i.  those videos are not as prevalent as videos of police being abusive because cops are abusive a lot more than they rescue children or help the poor.  it is bad for the cops.  but if it ultimately changes the system so that police are no longer abusive, it is quite good for the citizens of the community.  who polices the police ? nobody.  that is what needs to change .  when cops are abusive, they need to be held accountable as individuals.  if the abuses of cops are never brought to light, there is absolutely no chance that they will be held accountable.  even when the abuses are brought to light, they are rarely held accountable at all and even more rarely held accountable to the same extent that another non cop citizen would be held accountable in the same situation.   #  they should only get public praise for going above   beyond their duties.   # the good acts are part of their job or at least ought to be , and the bad acts are contrary to their job.  they should only get public praise for going above   beyond their duties.  we do not constantly celebrate firemen for saving lives because that is what is expected from them.  if a private individual saves someone from a fire, then it is big news because it is  unexpected .  given that, there are  tons  of television and media that praise the position of law enforcement.  any of the csi series, cops, law   order, etc put police in a positive light.  every time a police officer is seriously injured or passes, they get tons of positive media coverage.   #  social media includes a wide variety of views.   #  social media includes a wide variety of views.  my more conservative friends post a lot of positive praise for the military and police along the lines of  they risk/give their lives for you so give them respect .  i think the problem is that the majority of the interactions we have with police are  negative .  i would put the onus on the police to improve their image.  some departments put their officers out in public to get to know people; that is good.  most departments do not make their officers as visible, so we only talk to them when we are under threat of punishment.   #  the good deeds of this police department, or the good deeds of the person shot do not affect the controversy here.   # it sparked riots.  put it in context.  the riots are specific to this police department.  when you have a community that is mostly black and a police department that is virtually all white, there is something wrong.  police shoot people all the time and it  does not  spark riots.  there is something special about this situation that sets it apart from police in general.  the good deeds of this police department, or the good deeds of the person shot do not affect the controversy here.   #  but this probably should never have happened and thinking about it as  one private incident  is going to let the weeds flourish instead of be rooted out.   #   . all over one private incident with one or a couple officers.   many people do not see it that way.  when you look at it as a private, discrete incident, it is a drop of water.  that drop of water did not just materialize out of thin air, it came from an ocean of systemic racism in our country.  one of my friends posed the thought that, based on the current ballistic / forensic evidence, officer wilson will likely not see administrative penalties and the criminal justice question will be  did the officer use excessive force ?   when we look at the drop of water without mentioning the ocean, it is a pretty big  maybe  on if the officer use excessive force.  we need more information to get an  obviously.   when we look at the drop of water as part of the ocean, which it is, then the officer obviously used excessive force and we have another dead black teenager because our society cannot seem to get racism weeded out of our institutions.  does that mean wilson should pay for the ocean ? no.  but this probably should never have happened and thinking about it as  one private incident  is going to let the weeds flourish instead of be rooted out.
let is face it police are a total killjoy.  for hooligans and criminals, police are the ultimate suppressors.  when people want to break the rules a bit, police always show up to shut the party down.  this gives them a bad reputation.  however, for all of the law abiding citizens, police serve as heroic figures who save the day.  this is how police are meant to be seen and should be seen by the majority of society.  unfortunately, social media and news coverage is constantly focusing on police brutality, over exercising discretion, abuse of power, and police shootings.  i think this is ultimately bad for society since it completely neglects the community policing model URL and pits the members of our community against police.  police are people, just like us.  when they are not in the line of duty, they have lives.  they are an essential structure of society and they contribute to norms, safety, and the enforcement of the law.  of course, these three things are vital to have a functioning society.  for every bad act a police officer is caught doing, i am sure there are thousands of more good acts.  yet, social media makes a frenzy out of the few bad incidents and attempts to ostracize the police.  how can we expect the police to be benevolent and understanding if we label them pigs ? i would like to see more videos of police rescuing children from blazing fires, and helping out the impoverished.  i understand that there are corrupt aspects of the police department, but focusing on the negatives is bad for every party.  if you are wondering, the michael brown shooting inspired this cmv.  i would like someone to explain to me how it could possibly be healthy or good to hate the police and make it a point to prove how terrible they are.  please, cmv.   #  however, for all of the law abiding citizens, police serve as heroic figures who save the day.   #  this is how police are meant to be seen and should be seen by the majority of society.   # this is how police are meant to be seen and should be seen by the majority of society.  we fairly recently went through an entire decade of exactly this after sep.  0 th.  remember all the hero worship our society did of cops and soldiers and firemen ? during that time police on average grew better armed and more aggressive.  how they  should be seen  was a  falsehood .  they were not heroes, they were just people that we have given  way  to much power to and not  nearly  enough accountability, probably in part due to that unwarranted hero worship.  why should they get any more pr they do not earn, that would lessen the emphasis of the importance of their lack of accountability ?  #  any of the csi series, cops, law   order, etc put police in a positive light.   # the good acts are part of their job or at least ought to be , and the bad acts are contrary to their job.  they should only get public praise for going above   beyond their duties.  we do not constantly celebrate firemen for saving lives because that is what is expected from them.  if a private individual saves someone from a fire, then it is big news because it is  unexpected .  given that, there are  tons  of television and media that praise the position of law enforcement.  any of the csi series, cops, law   order, etc put police in a positive light.  every time a police officer is seriously injured or passes, they get tons of positive media coverage.   #  most departments do not make their officers as visible, so we only talk to them when we are under threat of punishment.   #  social media includes a wide variety of views.  my more conservative friends post a lot of positive praise for the military and police along the lines of  they risk/give their lives for you so give them respect .  i think the problem is that the majority of the interactions we have with police are  negative .  i would put the onus on the police to improve their image.  some departments put their officers out in public to get to know people; that is good.  most departments do not make their officers as visible, so we only talk to them when we are under threat of punishment.   #  there is something special about this situation that sets it apart from police in general.   # it sparked riots.  put it in context.  the riots are specific to this police department.  when you have a community that is mostly black and a police department that is virtually all white, there is something wrong.  police shoot people all the time and it  does not  spark riots.  there is something special about this situation that sets it apart from police in general.  the good deeds of this police department, or the good deeds of the person shot do not affect the controversy here.   #   . all over one private incident with one or a couple officers.    #   . all over one private incident with one or a couple officers.   many people do not see it that way.  when you look at it as a private, discrete incident, it is a drop of water.  that drop of water did not just materialize out of thin air, it came from an ocean of systemic racism in our country.  one of my friends posed the thought that, based on the current ballistic / forensic evidence, officer wilson will likely not see administrative penalties and the criminal justice question will be  did the officer use excessive force ?   when we look at the drop of water without mentioning the ocean, it is a pretty big  maybe  on if the officer use excessive force.  we need more information to get an  obviously.   when we look at the drop of water as part of the ocean, which it is, then the officer obviously used excessive force and we have another dead black teenager because our society cannot seem to get racism weeded out of our institutions.  does that mean wilson should pay for the ocean ? no.  but this probably should never have happened and thinking about it as  one private incident  is going to let the weeds flourish instead of be rooted out.
let is face it police are a total killjoy.  for hooligans and criminals, police are the ultimate suppressors.  when people want to break the rules a bit, police always show up to shut the party down.  this gives them a bad reputation.  however, for all of the law abiding citizens, police serve as heroic figures who save the day.  this is how police are meant to be seen and should be seen by the majority of society.  unfortunately, social media and news coverage is constantly focusing on police brutality, over exercising discretion, abuse of power, and police shootings.  i think this is ultimately bad for society since it completely neglects the community policing model URL and pits the members of our community against police.  police are people, just like us.  when they are not in the line of duty, they have lives.  they are an essential structure of society and they contribute to norms, safety, and the enforcement of the law.  of course, these three things are vital to have a functioning society.  for every bad act a police officer is caught doing, i am sure there are thousands of more good acts.  yet, social media makes a frenzy out of the few bad incidents and attempts to ostracize the police.  how can we expect the police to be benevolent and understanding if we label them pigs ? i would like to see more videos of police rescuing children from blazing fires, and helping out the impoverished.  i understand that there are corrupt aspects of the police department, but focusing on the negatives is bad for every party.  if you are wondering, the michael brown shooting inspired this cmv.  i would like someone to explain to me how it could possibly be healthy or good to hate the police and make it a point to prove how terrible they are.  please, cmv.   #  how can we expect the police to be benevolent and understanding if we label them pigs ?  #  we expect the police to be benevolent and understanding because that is the responsibility that comes with the power they hold.   #  i am going to focus primarily on this aspect of your post.  please, cmv.  i am sure you are familiar with the phrase  the first step is admitting you have a problem  in the context of drug and alcohol addiction.  the same is true of flawed and corrupt systems.  if we do not acknowledge problems, we will never fix them.  the police are in a position of institutional power with a completely one sided right to force over ordinary citizens.  that power is checked by responsibility and comes with high standards.  if the police, as an institution, wants the people is trust and respect, it needs to disown members who do not meet those high standards.  if a doctor or lawyer had screwed up as badly as the officer who shot michael brown, they would have lost their license to practice their profession.  burying examples of police corruption and brutality in counterexamples only serves to make the problem look less serious and does nothing to improve how the police handle future cases.  what will do far more good for the police is reputation is to make example of those who fail to live up to those high standards.  and finally, let me address this point.  we expect the police to be benevolent and understanding because that is the responsibility that comes with the power they hold.  this expectation is not an if statement.  we can and must always expect this of the police regardless of who labels them how.   #  they should only get public praise for going above   beyond their duties.   # the good acts are part of their job or at least ought to be , and the bad acts are contrary to their job.  they should only get public praise for going above   beyond their duties.  we do not constantly celebrate firemen for saving lives because that is what is expected from them.  if a private individual saves someone from a fire, then it is big news because it is  unexpected .  given that, there are  tons  of television and media that praise the position of law enforcement.  any of the csi series, cops, law   order, etc put police in a positive light.  every time a police officer is seriously injured or passes, they get tons of positive media coverage.   #  my more conservative friends post a lot of positive praise for the military and police along the lines of  they risk/give their lives for you so give them respect .   #  social media includes a wide variety of views.  my more conservative friends post a lot of positive praise for the military and police along the lines of  they risk/give their lives for you so give them respect .  i think the problem is that the majority of the interactions we have with police are  negative .  i would put the onus on the police to improve their image.  some departments put their officers out in public to get to know people; that is good.  most departments do not make their officers as visible, so we only talk to them when we are under threat of punishment.   #  the good deeds of this police department, or the good deeds of the person shot do not affect the controversy here.   # it sparked riots.  put it in context.  the riots are specific to this police department.  when you have a community that is mostly black and a police department that is virtually all white, there is something wrong.  police shoot people all the time and it  does not  spark riots.  there is something special about this situation that sets it apart from police in general.  the good deeds of this police department, or the good deeds of the person shot do not affect the controversy here.   #  many people do not see it that way.   #   . all over one private incident with one or a couple officers.   many people do not see it that way.  when you look at it as a private, discrete incident, it is a drop of water.  that drop of water did not just materialize out of thin air, it came from an ocean of systemic racism in our country.  one of my friends posed the thought that, based on the current ballistic / forensic evidence, officer wilson will likely not see administrative penalties and the criminal justice question will be  did the officer use excessive force ?   when we look at the drop of water without mentioning the ocean, it is a pretty big  maybe  on if the officer use excessive force.  we need more information to get an  obviously.   when we look at the drop of water as part of the ocean, which it is, then the officer obviously used excessive force and we have another dead black teenager because our society cannot seem to get racism weeded out of our institutions.  does that mean wilson should pay for the ocean ? no.  but this probably should never have happened and thinking about it as  one private incident  is going to let the weeds flourish instead of be rooted out.
to make things clear, i am an atheist who believes in secularism for things that actually make an impact on people is lives.  however, i do not understand why people take issue with things such as having the ten commandments in government buildings, or prayer banners in schools.  religion in politics is, in many cases, harmful and oppressive, such as banning gay marriage or banning abortion, using religion as a justification.  but it seems frivolous to be concerned about having religious symbolism in state sponsored institutions.  one example of this is ahlquist v.  cranston URL in this case, jessica ahlquist tried and succeeded to get a prayer banner removed from her high school, under the guise of defending secularism.  this is a frivolous law suit in my opinion.  the prayer banner is going to affect nothing that harms anyone, and america is not going to turn into a theocracy just because of a prayer banner.   #  religion in politics is, in many cases, harmful and oppressive, such as banning gay marriage or banning abortion, using religion as a justification.   #  but it seems frivolous to be concerned about having religious symbolism in state sponsored institutions.   # but it seems frivolous to be concerned about having religious symbolism in state sponsored institutions.  where do you think people get the idea that they are justified in doing those oppressive things ? they reference god on money, in the pledge, and on government buildings as proof that  this is a christian nation  and we ought to follow christian values.  clearly, these things send the wrong message about who is religious belief  really  matters.  the prayer banner is going to affect nothing that harms anyone, and america is not going to turn into a theocracy just because of a prayer banner.  school endorsed prayer reinforces the idea that a specific religion is in charge or preferred over others.  if a school is adorned with christian symbols, than a muslim will get a lot of flack for adhering to their religion in a school that is  clearly  christian.   #  at what exact point does something  merely symbolic  start affecting people is lives ?  #  at what exact point does something  merely symbolic  start affecting people is lives ? if banner is ok, is prayer ok ? after all is the prayer is hanging there, why ca not we read it ? if prayer is ok, is shunning people who refuse to pray ok ? after all, everyone have always prayed, why is that person refusing to ? does she think she is better than everyone else ? URL URL etc, etc.  is not it better to nip these sort of discrimination in the bud rather than wait for inevitable effecst on people is lives to actually occur ?  #  no, since it is oppressive and causes suffering to those who are refusing to pray.   # that depends.  are you talking about mandatory prayer or just prayer in general ? the former does affect people is lives, since students would be being forced to do something against their will that serves no purpose whatsoever, and is therefore oppressive.  if people want to pray as their own choice in school, i see nothing wrong with that.  no, since it is oppressive and causes suffering to those who are refusing to pray.  that depends.  are things that are seemingly innocuous such as jessica ahlquist is prayer banner going to lead to religious oppression ?  #  of course the goals is not complete equivalence.   #  of course the goals is not complete equivalence.  it is simply to show that symbols have meanings.  a neutral states should remove itself as much as possible from contentious symbols.  as such, crosses or prayers have no place in schools or other publicly funded places.  in fact, nothing you do not want to appear as state supported have its place there.   #  by having symbolic imagery which favours one group over another, it can alienate those who lie outside the favoured group.   #  the problem for me concerns the establishment of a neutral public sphere within a democracy.  i believe that we should strive to create a government and a public sphere that does not exclude people on the grounds of religion/sex/race/creed/disability/etc.  and which is governed through a democratic process in which all citizens can participate.  by having symbolic imagery which favours one group over another, it can alienate those who lie outside the favoured group.  if i am a christian and walk into a courthouse which displays the ten commandments, i am more likely to believe that the judicial system which should be impartial will favour me over a muslim or a hindu.  vice versa, if i am a muslim and walk into a court which displays the ten commandments, i am less likely to have confidence in the neutrality of the court and my position within a nominally secular society.  symbolism can by itself sometimes be a form of power even if it does not signal an objective bias; a citizen is relationship with the state can be informed by subjective memes and concepts of which symbolism can be central.
to make things clear, i am an atheist who believes in secularism for things that actually make an impact on people is lives.  however, i do not understand why people take issue with things such as having the ten commandments in government buildings, or prayer banners in schools.  religion in politics is, in many cases, harmful and oppressive, such as banning gay marriage or banning abortion, using religion as a justification.  but it seems frivolous to be concerned about having religious symbolism in state sponsored institutions.  one example of this is ahlquist v.  cranston URL in this case, jessica ahlquist tried and succeeded to get a prayer banner removed from her high school, under the guise of defending secularism.  this is a frivolous law suit in my opinion.  the prayer banner is going to affect nothing that harms anyone, and america is not going to turn into a theocracy just because of a prayer banner.   #  this is a frivolous law suit in my opinion.   #  the prayer banner is going to affect nothing that harms anyone, and america is not going to turn into a theocracy just because of a prayer banner.   # but it seems frivolous to be concerned about having religious symbolism in state sponsored institutions.  where do you think people get the idea that they are justified in doing those oppressive things ? they reference god on money, in the pledge, and on government buildings as proof that  this is a christian nation  and we ought to follow christian values.  clearly, these things send the wrong message about who is religious belief  really  matters.  the prayer banner is going to affect nothing that harms anyone, and america is not going to turn into a theocracy just because of a prayer banner.  school endorsed prayer reinforces the idea that a specific religion is in charge or preferred over others.  if a school is adorned with christian symbols, than a muslim will get a lot of flack for adhering to their religion in a school that is  clearly  christian.   #  at what exact point does something  merely symbolic  start affecting people is lives ?  #  at what exact point does something  merely symbolic  start affecting people is lives ? if banner is ok, is prayer ok ? after all is the prayer is hanging there, why ca not we read it ? if prayer is ok, is shunning people who refuse to pray ok ? after all, everyone have always prayed, why is that person refusing to ? does she think she is better than everyone else ? URL URL etc, etc.  is not it better to nip these sort of discrimination in the bud rather than wait for inevitable effecst on people is lives to actually occur ?  #  no, since it is oppressive and causes suffering to those who are refusing to pray.   # that depends.  are you talking about mandatory prayer or just prayer in general ? the former does affect people is lives, since students would be being forced to do something against their will that serves no purpose whatsoever, and is therefore oppressive.  if people want to pray as their own choice in school, i see nothing wrong with that.  no, since it is oppressive and causes suffering to those who are refusing to pray.  that depends.  are things that are seemingly innocuous such as jessica ahlquist is prayer banner going to lead to religious oppression ?  #  in fact, nothing you do not want to appear as state supported have its place there.   #  of course the goals is not complete equivalence.  it is simply to show that symbols have meanings.  a neutral states should remove itself as much as possible from contentious symbols.  as such, crosses or prayers have no place in schools or other publicly funded places.  in fact, nothing you do not want to appear as state supported have its place there.   #  vice versa, if i am a muslim and walk into a court which displays the ten commandments, i am less likely to have confidence in the neutrality of the court and my position within a nominally secular society.   #  the problem for me concerns the establishment of a neutral public sphere within a democracy.  i believe that we should strive to create a government and a public sphere that does not exclude people on the grounds of religion/sex/race/creed/disability/etc.  and which is governed through a democratic process in which all citizens can participate.  by having symbolic imagery which favours one group over another, it can alienate those who lie outside the favoured group.  if i am a christian and walk into a courthouse which displays the ten commandments, i am more likely to believe that the judicial system which should be impartial will favour me over a muslim or a hindu.  vice versa, if i am a muslim and walk into a court which displays the ten commandments, i am less likely to have confidence in the neutrality of the court and my position within a nominally secular society.  symbolism can by itself sometimes be a form of power even if it does not signal an objective bias; a citizen is relationship with the state can be informed by subjective memes and concepts of which symbolism can be central.
when media outlets have nothing better to do than say a reporter was inconvenienced by police i. e.  for not following directions and putting themselves in harms way then that is fabricating an event.  when a reporter antagonizes someone to get a reaction, that is fabricating drama.  when a reporter goes into a hostile territory that does not recognize freedom of the press with a particular agenda to sway public opinion, and gets their head cut off, that is not surprising, or news worthy, compared to the actual lives lost.  reporters are not martyrs.  what is one reporter to thousands of people ? because they are western we value their life more ? news is about entertainment and shaping public opinion, the powers that be cannot help but corrupt it.  but when story after story is about reporters as victims, when they are often the agitators and less and less able to be unbiased, or demonstrate journalistic integrity, is a total wank job.  the riots are fanned by the media, there is no doubt in my mind about that.  it makes for more media.  but for said media to whine about reporters getting caught up in the fray is just pathetic imho.  it becomes an end unto itself.   #  when media outlets have nothing better to do than say a reporter was inconvenienced by police i. e.   #  for not following directions and putting themselves in harms way then that is fabricating an event.   # for not following directions and putting themselves in harms way then that is fabricating an event.  sometimes a reporter is failing to respect basic safety, but not always.  it is sometimes the case that police are deliberately preventing people from recording or reporting events.  in cases where this is going on, it is genuinely newsworthy.  society rests on certain freedoms, and violations of freedom of the press are a threat to democracy.  this is obviously true.  reporter or not, westerners killed in foreign lands are newsworthy.   #  i cannot judge another country by our laws and claim unbiased reporting.   #  my point is that, ideally of course, their function is not to stir up crap and become martyrs, they are there to report facts, in an unbiased manner again ideally , not paparazzi style antagonism.  if you are at odds with their place of origin, you can pretty well assume they are not going to be unbiased.  i cannot judge another country by our laws and claim unbiased reporting.  indeed you sort of make my point too, since many thousands have died, yet one reporter tips the balance for us to engage, we are hardly unbiased.  it is kind of ridiculous that he is a martyr, makes me question our motives.   #  i was not disagreeing with your main point, just with your statement that the reporter is not a martyr.   #  i was not disagreeing with your main point, just with your statement that the reporter is not a martyr.  the term martyr is not subjective, it applies even if you disagree with the cause.  we were already engaging before the reporter was killed.  there is a difference between a country killing its own citizens and killing the citizens of another country.  one is an act of tyranny and the other is an act of war.   #  that is pretty big either way you slice it.   #  except, what exact agency did james foley really have in relation to his execution/death ? all he wanted to do was do his job, to do investigative reporting and journalism in syria/iraq.  it was isis who publicly beheaded him and posted the video on youtube.  what exactly did james foley agitate ? in what way was he biased ? he was captured.  after that point, any culpability on james foley is gone.  you are blaming the media for reporting on his death, but you do not think the media would report as big of a spectacle as a  beheading  of a well known public figure regardless of whether he was a journalist by a nascent terrorist organization that is claiming territorial statehood for itself ? that is pretty big either way you slice it.  at the end of the day, the story is not about the beheaded journalist.  the story is about isis.  it was isis that killed him, also isis that killed the many yazidi refugees at the siege of mosul dam you pointed out that the real story was in all the deaths that were  not  journalists , it was isis that posted the video, it was isis that wants the attention.  james foley did not try to stir up crap, he just wanted to do reporting.  it was isis that saw him as an opportunity to show the world how fearsome they are.  although what happened to mr.  foley is a tragedy, at the end of the day the reason why this is getting attention in the press is not because of how famous of a reporter he is, it is because it was unthinkable that isis could create such a horrifying spectacle just a few short or very, very long, depending on your perspective months ago.   #  when the press takes it is own liberties with the facts all the time.   #  iraq is pretty screwed up by american standards, and americans do not really have a stomach for such violence as isil propagates, at least not those americans who have something to live for.  the culpability is on outlets emphasizing the term  reporter  in the reports, which plays on our own perceptions about freedom of the press.  when the press takes it is own liberties with the facts all the time.  i have no prob bombing isil, but i do have a prob with the disproportionate emotional reaction aka manipulation that people have with one death, it seems like an extension of ego.  i guess the media seems so sullied as of late, that it is hard to sympathize when its agents put themselves in harms way to elicit bleeding heart reactions from their viewers.  seen a lot of that in ferguson.  foley was in the wrong place at the wrong time, in a war zone without any expectation of special treatment for being a reporter.  i mean it is clear he was on one side or the other, he was not there as a neutral party, but rather to further western involvement.  which naturally makes him a target.  it was not like he was not there minding his own business.
i believe that democracy is flawed, leaders need to fight to maintain their position or to get elected.  politicians need to make unfeasible promises to get elected then when they are in office they need to spend money recklessly and achieve short term goals.  democracy forces politicians to focus on short term goals and not worry about long term consequences because as soon as someone is voted out they do not have to worry about the repercussions of their policies.  in short the constant pressure to keep people happy and to stay in power makes it impossible to run a country properly.  p. s.  i am not saying we should get rid of democracy, all other systems of government have equal flaws, i just do not think we should accept democracy as the holy grail of governing  #  politicians need to make unfeasible promises to get elected then when they are in office they need to spend money recklessly and achieve short term goals.   #  this basically boils down to  voters are idiots who get fooled easily .   # no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.  this basically boils down to  voters are idiots who get fooled easily .  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.  define: properly.  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.  once you do that, find some system that will ensure it happens.  until then, go with the system that prevents the opposite from happening.  most systems only focus on giving the people in power whatever they want and helping them stay in power, so i think we can discount those immediately.  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.  you can also look at democracy is track record compared to literally every other system that has been tried to see that it does better.  tl;dr democracy is not perfect, but it is the best.   #  the safeguards are not a built in feature of democracy and they vary between countries.   # no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.  i do not think that someone who wants to lead is suitable to lead, democracy favours those who seek power, people who seek power are no the kind of people who you want leading a country.  that is my favourite feature of a monarchy, the rulers have the job forced upon them and they are trained from a young age how to lead.  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.  yes pretty much how i feel, i feel that weakness compromises the whole system and over time will cause it to crumble.  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.  once you do that, find some system that will ensure it happens.  until then, go with the system that prevents the opposite from happening.  i will agree on that one, everyone has a different view of properly.  most systems only focus on giving the people in power whatever they want and helping them stay in power, so i think we can discount those immediately.  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.  i do not see a problem with a system that keeps someone in power, if the person in power is a good selfless person i am tossing up between bigfoot and a unicorn :p they will be able to run a country well.  the safeguards are not a built in feature of democracy and they vary between countries.  the core idea of democracy is everyone has an equal say, the way modern democracy makes this happen is by electing officials to represent people, this is where i see the problem election force politicians to focus on pleasing the people instead of running the country.  i think the flaw of voters being idiots is a greater flaw than that of needing to stage a revolution to change government.  maybe if there was a system in the middle where a leader is elected every 0 or so years.   #  you can run the country according to the wishes of the masses, which would get you reelected.   # i honestly do not know what you are talking about here.  nobody can just  spend money.   that is why we have a system of checks and balances.  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.   you can run the country according to the wishes of the masses, which would get you reelected.  the problem is, it is difficult to run a large society consisting of vastly diverse racial, ethnic, and sociodemographic populus.  contrast that to say, scandinavian countries, who are much more homogeneous.  there is no scapegoats for your problems in a homogeneous society, you have to address them collectively.  the problem with the government currently is rooted in campaign finance, which is not necessarily a founding principle of democracy.  more of a side effect of not addressing what should be the common sense measure of taking money out of politics to avoid conflicts of interest.   #  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.    # nobody can just  spend money.   that is why we have a system of checks and balances.  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.   that is the inefficiency i am talking about people get choked up in red tape, the  spending money  happens when one party has a majority.  lets use free healthcare as an example, it is an election year, party a is in opposition, they promise free healthcare if they get elected.  party a gets elected with a vast majority and implements a free health care system, the system puts the budget into a massive deficit, party b gets elected at next election now party b is left with a few issues their budget is in the red so they have a few choices 0.  scrap the health care system, the people will not like that.  0.  raise taxes, the people will not like that.  0.  leave budget in the red, people will not notice that.  politicians keep taking the 0rd option until the deficit is too large and you end up with the issues the us was having at the start of the year.  but the masses will not think long term, as you mentioned all different sociodemographic groups will have their own priorities and values the issue becomes which sociodemographic is predominant at the time and the constant fluctuation of the size of these groups.  that is impossible, if you try and remove money you will just increase corruption.   #  either that, or one leader hand picks the next one, but that is not really going to stop a guy like stalin from coming into power.   #  the only problem is that at least with democracy, leaders are elected based on merit in at least one field being their ability to be elected .  in a non democratic system, you are really putting things up to chance.  the imperfect analogy would be saying it is a flip of a coin.  either that, or one leader hand picks the next one, but that is not really going to stop a guy like stalin from coming into power.  with democracy, the people decide who the leader is.  or, at least, the people who vote decide who the leader is.  or, at the very least, the people living in the particular areas where the vote means the most decide who should be in control.  of course it is not perfect.  of course it is inefficient.  but if the goal if a government is and i would argue, it should be to create the best life for the people it rules over, then there is no better way of handling it than by having the people decide.  all systems are flawed, but a democracy is the least so.
i believe that democracy is flawed, leaders need to fight to maintain their position or to get elected.  politicians need to make unfeasible promises to get elected then when they are in office they need to spend money recklessly and achieve short term goals.  democracy forces politicians to focus on short term goals and not worry about long term consequences because as soon as someone is voted out they do not have to worry about the repercussions of their policies.  in short the constant pressure to keep people happy and to stay in power makes it impossible to run a country properly.  p. s.  i am not saying we should get rid of democracy, all other systems of government have equal flaws, i just do not think we should accept democracy as the holy grail of governing  #  then when they are in office they need to spend money recklessly and achieve short term goals.   #  i honestly do not know what you are talking about here.   # i honestly do not know what you are talking about here.  nobody can just  spend money.   that is why we have a system of checks and balances.  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.   you can run the country according to the wishes of the masses, which would get you reelected.  the problem is, it is difficult to run a large society consisting of vastly diverse racial, ethnic, and sociodemographic populus.  contrast that to say, scandinavian countries, who are much more homogeneous.  there is no scapegoats for your problems in a homogeneous society, you have to address them collectively.  the problem with the government currently is rooted in campaign finance, which is not necessarily a founding principle of democracy.  more of a side effect of not addressing what should be the common sense measure of taking money out of politics to avoid conflicts of interest.   #  you can also look at democracy is track record compared to literally every other system that has been tried to see that it does better.   # no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.  this basically boils down to  voters are idiots who get fooled easily .  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.  define: properly.  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.  once you do that, find some system that will ensure it happens.  until then, go with the system that prevents the opposite from happening.  most systems only focus on giving the people in power whatever they want and helping them stay in power, so i think we can discount those immediately.  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.  you can also look at democracy is track record compared to literally every other system that has been tried to see that it does better.  tl;dr democracy is not perfect, but it is the best.   #  no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.   # no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.  i do not think that someone who wants to lead is suitable to lead, democracy favours those who seek power, people who seek power are no the kind of people who you want leading a country.  that is my favourite feature of a monarchy, the rulers have the job forced upon them and they are trained from a young age how to lead.  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.  yes pretty much how i feel, i feel that weakness compromises the whole system and over time will cause it to crumble.  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.  once you do that, find some system that will ensure it happens.  until then, go with the system that prevents the opposite from happening.  i will agree on that one, everyone has a different view of properly.  most systems only focus on giving the people in power whatever they want and helping them stay in power, so i think we can discount those immediately.  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.  i do not see a problem with a system that keeps someone in power, if the person in power is a good selfless person i am tossing up between bigfoot and a unicorn :p they will be able to run a country well.  the safeguards are not a built in feature of democracy and they vary between countries.  the core idea of democracy is everyone has an equal say, the way modern democracy makes this happen is by electing officials to represent people, this is where i see the problem election force politicians to focus on pleasing the people instead of running the country.  i think the flaw of voters being idiots is a greater flaw than that of needing to stage a revolution to change government.  maybe if there was a system in the middle where a leader is elected every 0 or so years.   #  lets use free healthcare as an example, it is an election year, party a is in opposition, they promise free healthcare if they get elected.   # nobody can just  spend money.   that is why we have a system of checks and balances.  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.   that is the inefficiency i am talking about people get choked up in red tape, the  spending money  happens when one party has a majority.  lets use free healthcare as an example, it is an election year, party a is in opposition, they promise free healthcare if they get elected.  party a gets elected with a vast majority and implements a free health care system, the system puts the budget into a massive deficit, party b gets elected at next election now party b is left with a few issues their budget is in the red so they have a few choices 0.  scrap the health care system, the people will not like that.  0.  raise taxes, the people will not like that.  0.  leave budget in the red, people will not notice that.  politicians keep taking the 0rd option until the deficit is too large and you end up with the issues the us was having at the start of the year.  but the masses will not think long term, as you mentioned all different sociodemographic groups will have their own priorities and values the issue becomes which sociodemographic is predominant at the time and the constant fluctuation of the size of these groups.  that is impossible, if you try and remove money you will just increase corruption.   #  the only problem is that at least with democracy, leaders are elected based on merit in at least one field being their ability to be elected .   #  the only problem is that at least with democracy, leaders are elected based on merit in at least one field being their ability to be elected .  in a non democratic system, you are really putting things up to chance.  the imperfect analogy would be saying it is a flip of a coin.  either that, or one leader hand picks the next one, but that is not really going to stop a guy like stalin from coming into power.  with democracy, the people decide who the leader is.  or, at least, the people who vote decide who the leader is.  or, at the very least, the people living in the particular areas where the vote means the most decide who should be in control.  of course it is not perfect.  of course it is inefficient.  but if the goal if a government is and i would argue, it should be to create the best life for the people it rules over, then there is no better way of handling it than by having the people decide.  all systems are flawed, but a democracy is the least so.
i believe that democracy is flawed, leaders need to fight to maintain their position or to get elected.  politicians need to make unfeasible promises to get elected then when they are in office they need to spend money recklessly and achieve short term goals.  democracy forces politicians to focus on short term goals and not worry about long term consequences because as soon as someone is voted out they do not have to worry about the repercussions of their policies.  in short the constant pressure to keep people happy and to stay in power makes it impossible to run a country properly.  p. s.  i am not saying we should get rid of democracy, all other systems of government have equal flaws, i just do not think we should accept democracy as the holy grail of governing  #  in short the constant pressure to keep people happy and to stay in power makes it impossible to run a country properly.   #  you can run the country according to the wishes of the masses, which would get you reelected.   # i honestly do not know what you are talking about here.  nobody can just  spend money.   that is why we have a system of checks and balances.  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.   you can run the country according to the wishes of the masses, which would get you reelected.  the problem is, it is difficult to run a large society consisting of vastly diverse racial, ethnic, and sociodemographic populus.  contrast that to say, scandinavian countries, who are much more homogeneous.  there is no scapegoats for your problems in a homogeneous society, you have to address them collectively.  the problem with the government currently is rooted in campaign finance, which is not necessarily a founding principle of democracy.  more of a side effect of not addressing what should be the common sense measure of taking money out of politics to avoid conflicts of interest.   #  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.   # no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.  this basically boils down to  voters are idiots who get fooled easily .  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.  define: properly.  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.  once you do that, find some system that will ensure it happens.  until then, go with the system that prevents the opposite from happening.  most systems only focus on giving the people in power whatever they want and helping them stay in power, so i think we can discount those immediately.  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.  you can also look at democracy is track record compared to literally every other system that has been tried to see that it does better.  tl;dr democracy is not perfect, but it is the best.   #  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.   # no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.  i do not think that someone who wants to lead is suitable to lead, democracy favours those who seek power, people who seek power are no the kind of people who you want leading a country.  that is my favourite feature of a monarchy, the rulers have the job forced upon them and they are trained from a young age how to lead.  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.  yes pretty much how i feel, i feel that weakness compromises the whole system and over time will cause it to crumble.  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.  once you do that, find some system that will ensure it happens.  until then, go with the system that prevents the opposite from happening.  i will agree on that one, everyone has a different view of properly.  most systems only focus on giving the people in power whatever they want and helping them stay in power, so i think we can discount those immediately.  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.  i do not see a problem with a system that keeps someone in power, if the person in power is a good selfless person i am tossing up between bigfoot and a unicorn :p they will be able to run a country well.  the safeguards are not a built in feature of democracy and they vary between countries.  the core idea of democracy is everyone has an equal say, the way modern democracy makes this happen is by electing officials to represent people, this is where i see the problem election force politicians to focus on pleasing the people instead of running the country.  i think the flaw of voters being idiots is a greater flaw than that of needing to stage a revolution to change government.  maybe if there was a system in the middle where a leader is elected every 0 or so years.   #  politicians keep taking the 0rd option until the deficit is too large and you end up with the issues the us was having at the start of the year.   # nobody can just  spend money.   that is why we have a system of checks and balances.  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.   that is the inefficiency i am talking about people get choked up in red tape, the  spending money  happens when one party has a majority.  lets use free healthcare as an example, it is an election year, party a is in opposition, they promise free healthcare if they get elected.  party a gets elected with a vast majority and implements a free health care system, the system puts the budget into a massive deficit, party b gets elected at next election now party b is left with a few issues their budget is in the red so they have a few choices 0.  scrap the health care system, the people will not like that.  0.  raise taxes, the people will not like that.  0.  leave budget in the red, people will not notice that.  politicians keep taking the 0rd option until the deficit is too large and you end up with the issues the us was having at the start of the year.  but the masses will not think long term, as you mentioned all different sociodemographic groups will have their own priorities and values the issue becomes which sociodemographic is predominant at the time and the constant fluctuation of the size of these groups.  that is impossible, if you try and remove money you will just increase corruption.   #  all systems are flawed, but a democracy is the least so.   #  the only problem is that at least with democracy, leaders are elected based on merit in at least one field being their ability to be elected .  in a non democratic system, you are really putting things up to chance.  the imperfect analogy would be saying it is a flip of a coin.  either that, or one leader hand picks the next one, but that is not really going to stop a guy like stalin from coming into power.  with democracy, the people decide who the leader is.  or, at least, the people who vote decide who the leader is.  or, at the very least, the people living in the particular areas where the vote means the most decide who should be in control.  of course it is not perfect.  of course it is inefficient.  but if the goal if a government is and i would argue, it should be to create the best life for the people it rules over, then there is no better way of handling it than by having the people decide.  all systems are flawed, but a democracy is the least so.
i believe that democracy is flawed, leaders need to fight to maintain their position or to get elected.  politicians need to make unfeasible promises to get elected then when they are in office they need to spend money recklessly and achieve short term goals.  democracy forces politicians to focus on short term goals and not worry about long term consequences because as soon as someone is voted out they do not have to worry about the repercussions of their policies.  in short the constant pressure to keep people happy and to stay in power makes it impossible to run a country properly.  p. s.  i am not saying we should get rid of democracy, all other systems of government have equal flaws, i just do not think we should accept democracy as the holy grail of governing  #  democracy forces politicians to focus on short term goals and not worry about long term consequences because as soon as someone is voted out they do not have to worry about the repercussions of their policies.   #  but if their models fail in the first place then it not only hurts them but it also hurts those after them trying to get elected with similar ideologies.   # which they should.  if someone is going to be in as important of a position as a political leader, they should have to fight to get to that position and keep it.  it should not be easy for someone to be able to lead a community.  not really.  some do, and when they do they generally do not last very long.  if a politician makes promises that he/she ca not keep, then they are not going to get re elected.  if a politician gets into office and spends recklessly, then they are not going to get re elected unless this is what their constituents want .  but if their models fail in the first place then it not only hurts them but it also hurts those after them trying to get elected with similar ideologies.  leaders should be under constant pressure to keep people happy because that is essentially their job.  would you rather a form of government where leaders were not always working to keep their constituents happy ? do you have any better ideas ?  #  tl;dr democracy is not perfect, but it is the best.   # no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.  this basically boils down to  voters are idiots who get fooled easily .  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.  define: properly.  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.  once you do that, find some system that will ensure it happens.  until then, go with the system that prevents the opposite from happening.  most systems only focus on giving the people in power whatever they want and helping them stay in power, so i think we can discount those immediately.  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.  you can also look at democracy is track record compared to literally every other system that has been tried to see that it does better.  tl;dr democracy is not perfect, but it is the best.   #  i think the flaw of voters being idiots is a greater flaw than that of needing to stage a revolution to change government.   # no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.  i do not think that someone who wants to lead is suitable to lead, democracy favours those who seek power, people who seek power are no the kind of people who you want leading a country.  that is my favourite feature of a monarchy, the rulers have the job forced upon them and they are trained from a young age how to lead.  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.  yes pretty much how i feel, i feel that weakness compromises the whole system and over time will cause it to crumble.  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.  once you do that, find some system that will ensure it happens.  until then, go with the system that prevents the opposite from happening.  i will agree on that one, everyone has a different view of properly.  most systems only focus on giving the people in power whatever they want and helping them stay in power, so i think we can discount those immediately.  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.  i do not see a problem with a system that keeps someone in power, if the person in power is a good selfless person i am tossing up between bigfoot and a unicorn :p they will be able to run a country well.  the safeguards are not a built in feature of democracy and they vary between countries.  the core idea of democracy is everyone has an equal say, the way modern democracy makes this happen is by electing officials to represent people, this is where i see the problem election force politicians to focus on pleasing the people instead of running the country.  i think the flaw of voters being idiots is a greater flaw than that of needing to stage a revolution to change government.  maybe if there was a system in the middle where a leader is elected every 0 or so years.   #  there is no scapegoats for your problems in a homogeneous society, you have to address them collectively.   # i honestly do not know what you are talking about here.  nobody can just  spend money.   that is why we have a system of checks and balances.  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.   you can run the country according to the wishes of the masses, which would get you reelected.  the problem is, it is difficult to run a large society consisting of vastly diverse racial, ethnic, and sociodemographic populus.  contrast that to say, scandinavian countries, who are much more homogeneous.  there is no scapegoats for your problems in a homogeneous society, you have to address them collectively.  the problem with the government currently is rooted in campaign finance, which is not necessarily a founding principle of democracy.  more of a side effect of not addressing what should be the common sense measure of taking money out of politics to avoid conflicts of interest.   #  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.    # nobody can just  spend money.   that is why we have a system of checks and balances.  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.   that is the inefficiency i am talking about people get choked up in red tape, the  spending money  happens when one party has a majority.  lets use free healthcare as an example, it is an election year, party a is in opposition, they promise free healthcare if they get elected.  party a gets elected with a vast majority and implements a free health care system, the system puts the budget into a massive deficit, party b gets elected at next election now party b is left with a few issues their budget is in the red so they have a few choices 0.  scrap the health care system, the people will not like that.  0.  raise taxes, the people will not like that.  0.  leave budget in the red, people will not notice that.  politicians keep taking the 0rd option until the deficit is too large and you end up with the issues the us was having at the start of the year.  but the masses will not think long term, as you mentioned all different sociodemographic groups will have their own priorities and values the issue becomes which sociodemographic is predominant at the time and the constant fluctuation of the size of these groups.  that is impossible, if you try and remove money you will just increase corruption.
i believe that democracy is flawed, leaders need to fight to maintain their position or to get elected.  politicians need to make unfeasible promises to get elected then when they are in office they need to spend money recklessly and achieve short term goals.  democracy forces politicians to focus on short term goals and not worry about long term consequences because as soon as someone is voted out they do not have to worry about the repercussions of their policies.  in short the constant pressure to keep people happy and to stay in power makes it impossible to run a country properly.  p. s.  i am not saying we should get rid of democracy, all other systems of government have equal flaws, i just do not think we should accept democracy as the holy grail of governing  #  in short the constant pressure to keep people happy and to stay in power makes it impossible to run a country properly.   #  leaders should be under constant pressure to keep people happy because that is essentially their job.   # which they should.  if someone is going to be in as important of a position as a political leader, they should have to fight to get to that position and keep it.  it should not be easy for someone to be able to lead a community.  not really.  some do, and when they do they generally do not last very long.  if a politician makes promises that he/she ca not keep, then they are not going to get re elected.  if a politician gets into office and spends recklessly, then they are not going to get re elected unless this is what their constituents want .  but if their models fail in the first place then it not only hurts them but it also hurts those after them trying to get elected with similar ideologies.  leaders should be under constant pressure to keep people happy because that is essentially their job.  would you rather a form of government where leaders were not always working to keep their constituents happy ? do you have any better ideas ?  #  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.   # no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.  this basically boils down to  voters are idiots who get fooled easily .  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.  define: properly.  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.  once you do that, find some system that will ensure it happens.  until then, go with the system that prevents the opposite from happening.  most systems only focus on giving the people in power whatever they want and helping them stay in power, so i think we can discount those immediately.  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.  you can also look at democracy is track record compared to literally every other system that has been tried to see that it does better.  tl;dr democracy is not perfect, but it is the best.   #  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.   # no one is entitled to rule, leaders should always have to prove that they are the best choice.  i do not think that someone who wants to lead is suitable to lead, democracy favours those who seek power, people who seek power are no the kind of people who you want leading a country.  that is my favourite feature of a monarchy, the rulers have the job forced upon them and they are trained from a young age how to lead.  i agree completely, and this is the main weakness of democracy.  yes pretty much how i feel, i feel that weakness compromises the whole system and over time will cause it to crumble.  do so in a way that everyone will agree on.  once you do that, find some system that will ensure it happens.  until then, go with the system that prevents the opposite from happening.  i will agree on that one, everyone has a different view of properly.  most systems only focus on giving the people in power whatever they want and helping them stay in power, so i think we can discount those immediately.  of the ones that pay lip service to benefiting the people who live with them, only democracy has safeguards to try and make sure that this actually happens.  i do not see a problem with a system that keeps someone in power, if the person in power is a good selfless person i am tossing up between bigfoot and a unicorn :p they will be able to run a country well.  the safeguards are not a built in feature of democracy and they vary between countries.  the core idea of democracy is everyone has an equal say, the way modern democracy makes this happen is by electing officials to represent people, this is where i see the problem election force politicians to focus on pleasing the people instead of running the country.  i think the flaw of voters being idiots is a greater flaw than that of needing to stage a revolution to change government.  maybe if there was a system in the middle where a leader is elected every 0 or so years.   #  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.    # i honestly do not know what you are talking about here.  nobody can just  spend money.   that is why we have a system of checks and balances.  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.   you can run the country according to the wishes of the masses, which would get you reelected.  the problem is, it is difficult to run a large society consisting of vastly diverse racial, ethnic, and sociodemographic populus.  contrast that to say, scandinavian countries, who are much more homogeneous.  there is no scapegoats for your problems in a homogeneous society, you have to address them collectively.  the problem with the government currently is rooted in campaign finance, which is not necessarily a founding principle of democracy.  more of a side effect of not addressing what should be the common sense measure of taking money out of politics to avoid conflicts of interest.   #  that is why we have a system of checks and balances.   # nobody can just  spend money.   that is why we have a system of checks and balances.  if obama wanted to appease the masses with free healthcare, according to your argument, he would have just  done it.   that is the inefficiency i am talking about people get choked up in red tape, the  spending money  happens when one party has a majority.  lets use free healthcare as an example, it is an election year, party a is in opposition, they promise free healthcare if they get elected.  party a gets elected with a vast majority and implements a free health care system, the system puts the budget into a massive deficit, party b gets elected at next election now party b is left with a few issues their budget is in the red so they have a few choices 0.  scrap the health care system, the people will not like that.  0.  raise taxes, the people will not like that.  0.  leave budget in the red, people will not notice that.  politicians keep taking the 0rd option until the deficit is too large and you end up with the issues the us was having at the start of the year.  but the masses will not think long term, as you mentioned all different sociodemographic groups will have their own priorities and values the issue becomes which sociodemographic is predominant at the time and the constant fluctuation of the size of these groups.  that is impossible, if you try and remove money you will just increase corruption.
the lack of evidence of a god is probably one of the most compelling arguments that atheists have in their favor.  in response to this argument theist will often argue that atheists do not have evidence either.  i think this an invalid argument.  the burden of evidence must rest with those asserting the existence of god.  let is assume for the sake of this argument that the default is no stance.  a person has not considered the existence of god and therefore has no opinion on the issue.  now imagine a scientist who makes the claim  a supernatural power exists in this universe, let is call him god, who created the universe .  the person with no stance has three options immediately presented: 0 the person accepts the scientists claim without question, 0 the person remains skeptical and requests evidence, or 0 the person present an alternative theory to the creation of the universe.  the people who choose option 0 are the faithful theists and do not require any further evidence.  the people who choose option 0 and do not see any further evidence are entitled to disregard the claim.  and the people who choose option 0 would be expected to provide arguments as to why their theory is more likely.  when an atheists states that there is no god, they are not claiming to have evidence to the contrary to god is existence.  they are returning to the position they held before someone made a claim and failed to back it up with evidence.  they chose option 0 and with no further evidence they disregarded the claim made by the scientist.  similarly, if a scientist were to claim that unicorns exist and provided no evidence, the claim would be disregarded.  nobody would be expected to disprove unicorns exist.  why should we not apply to same standards to the existence of god ? it is my view that evidence is not required to disregard a claim made without evidence.   #  it is my view that evidence is not required to disregard a claim made without evidence.   #  agnostics disregard claims of god is existence.   # agnostics disregard claims of god is existence.  atheists deny claims of god is existence.  scientists test hypotheses through falsifiable experimentation.  if a scientists is prepared to deny someone is claim or to tell them they are wrong they must provide evidence from repeated experimentation.  if a scientist claims to be an atheists and has not falsified the existence of god all of their scientific conclusions should be held to a stricter review process requiring independent replication to ensure their conclusions are the result of the scientific method and not their ideology.  evidence is required to make a conclusion for or against, without evidence a conclusion cannot be made.   #  we do not understand everything but we have learned that those things we once assigned to the hand of god, such as lightning, earthquakes, rain, childbirth, dreams, etc. , such things are natural processes that operate without any divine role.   #  do not be dismissive of the evidence we do have.  for example, we have extensively observed much of this earth and are increasingly observing large parts of the nearby universe and still have found no evidence of god.  we can say that in the observed universe, god is not known to exist.  we can also say that as our understanding of the universe has increased, we have become increasingly certain that there is no such thing.  we do not understand everything but we have learned that those things we once assigned to the hand of god, such as lightning, earthquakes, rain, childbirth, dreams, etc. , such things are natural processes that operate without any divine role.  the phrase  there is no evidence that god does not exist  is not valid because there is no standard of evidence that will be considered sufficient.  even if we had thoroughly explored all of reality, the believer could still claim that god exists, perhaps in another dimension or spiritual realm. but that claim is essentially the same as saying there is no god in our universe or is not in our reality i. e.  not real  #  for example, do you believe that santa claus exists ?  #  i would disagree.  a perfectly rational position is to take that since there is no evidence to prove that god exists, they will simply  not believe  in the existences of a god until evidence is provided of it is existence.  for example, do you believe that santa claus exists ? do you believe santa claus does not exist ? there is no evidence that santa claus does not exist so by your logic is is irrational to believe that santa claus does not exist, whereas everyone else goes with the obviously rational position that it is  highly unlikely  that santa claus exists and so they will not believe he exists without evidence of his existence.  the same can go when speaking about god.  atheism does not assert anything.  it is simply the lack of a believe in any deity.   #  anti theism is a more fitting term that has been coined, or like /u/kaerigan said gnostic atheism.   #  this is something that a lot of people disagree on because different dictionaries define atheism differently.  some define it as a lack of belief in god and nothing more, others define it as a belief in there being no gods.  that being said, the prefix  a  usually does not refer to positive like what you are describing.  an asexual person does not hate sex, they just have no sexuality.  an amoral action is not the same as an immoral action.  and atheism logically would not refer to an assertion or a belief.  anti theism is a more fitting term that has been coined, or like /u/kaerigan said gnostic atheism.   #  i have learnt that there are four main categories of which you can be: a theist, believing in a particular god of a particular religion.   #  i have learnt that there are four main categories of which you can be: a theist, believing in a particular god of a particular religion.  a deist, believing in a god of no particular religion.  an agnostic, claiming no belief in anything and saying,  i do not know .  an atheist, opposing all gods and all religions.  i may be wrong but this is what i have read.
the lack of evidence of a god is probably one of the most compelling arguments that atheists have in their favor.  in response to this argument theist will often argue that atheists do not have evidence either.  i think this an invalid argument.  the burden of evidence must rest with those asserting the existence of god.  let is assume for the sake of this argument that the default is no stance.  a person has not considered the existence of god and therefore has no opinion on the issue.  now imagine a scientist who makes the claim  a supernatural power exists in this universe, let is call him god, who created the universe .  the person with no stance has three options immediately presented: 0 the person accepts the scientists claim without question, 0 the person remains skeptical and requests evidence, or 0 the person present an alternative theory to the creation of the universe.  the people who choose option 0 are the faithful theists and do not require any further evidence.  the people who choose option 0 and do not see any further evidence are entitled to disregard the claim.  and the people who choose option 0 would be expected to provide arguments as to why their theory is more likely.  when an atheists states that there is no god, they are not claiming to have evidence to the contrary to god is existence.  they are returning to the position they held before someone made a claim and failed to back it up with evidence.  they chose option 0 and with no further evidence they disregarded the claim made by the scientist.  similarly, if a scientist were to claim that unicorns exist and provided no evidence, the claim would be disregarded.  nobody would be expected to disprove unicorns exist.  why should we not apply to same standards to the existence of god ? it is my view that evidence is not required to disregard a claim made without evidence.   #  similarly, if a scientist were to claim that unicorns exist and provided no evidence, the claim would be disregarded.   #  nobody would be expected to disprove unicorns exist.   # nobody would be expected to disprove unicorns exist.  why should we not apply to same standards to the existence of god ? except there was a time when unicorns were believed to actually exist.  we have effectively proven that they do not by exploring the world pretty damn thoroughly.  one might argue that unicorns could still exist in the few dark unexplored places left on the planet, but at this point, it is such a slim chance it is hardly worth even considering.  god is very different than any potential comparison you could make to literally anything in our universe because of the very nature of what we are talking about.  we are discussing the  origin of the universe , by definition something not contained by our universe.  until we have extensive knowledge of literally everything both in and out of our own universe, until we are a near omniscient species, we ca not possibly prove or disprove that idea to the same degree we can the example of unicorns.  they are not  remaining skeptical and requesting evidence  they are completely denying the possibility.  skeptical is, by definition  having doubts or reservations  and doubt is  a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction.   most atheists are pretty damn certain that that theory is wrong, so they do not fall under that category.   #  do not be dismissive of the evidence we do have.   #  do not be dismissive of the evidence we do have.  for example, we have extensively observed much of this earth and are increasingly observing large parts of the nearby universe and still have found no evidence of god.  we can say that in the observed universe, god is not known to exist.  we can also say that as our understanding of the universe has increased, we have become increasingly certain that there is no such thing.  we do not understand everything but we have learned that those things we once assigned to the hand of god, such as lightning, earthquakes, rain, childbirth, dreams, etc. , such things are natural processes that operate without any divine role.  the phrase  there is no evidence that god does not exist  is not valid because there is no standard of evidence that will be considered sufficient.  even if we had thoroughly explored all of reality, the believer could still claim that god exists, perhaps in another dimension or spiritual realm. but that claim is essentially the same as saying there is no god in our universe or is not in our reality i. e.  not real  #  for example, do you believe that santa claus exists ?  #  i would disagree.  a perfectly rational position is to take that since there is no evidence to prove that god exists, they will simply  not believe  in the existences of a god until evidence is provided of it is existence.  for example, do you believe that santa claus exists ? do you believe santa claus does not exist ? there is no evidence that santa claus does not exist so by your logic is is irrational to believe that santa claus does not exist, whereas everyone else goes with the obviously rational position that it is  highly unlikely  that santa claus exists and so they will not believe he exists without evidence of his existence.  the same can go when speaking about god.  atheism does not assert anything.  it is simply the lack of a believe in any deity.   #  and atheism logically would not refer to an assertion or a belief.   #  this is something that a lot of people disagree on because different dictionaries define atheism differently.  some define it as a lack of belief in god and nothing more, others define it as a belief in there being no gods.  that being said, the prefix  a  usually does not refer to positive like what you are describing.  an asexual person does not hate sex, they just have no sexuality.  an amoral action is not the same as an immoral action.  and atheism logically would not refer to an assertion or a belief.  anti theism is a more fitting term that has been coined, or like /u/kaerigan said gnostic atheism.   #  an agnostic, claiming no belief in anything and saying,  i do not know .   #  i have learnt that there are four main categories of which you can be: a theist, believing in a particular god of a particular religion.  a deist, believing in a god of no particular religion.  an agnostic, claiming no belief in anything and saying,  i do not know .  an atheist, opposing all gods and all religions.  i may be wrong but this is what i have read.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.   #  this is key and many people do not get this.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.   #  this sector could contain the politicians voted in by some kind of weighted vote.   #  you are making some very good points.  here is an idea.  perhaps there should be two sectors of politics.  one sector would be where the public is fit to determine the outcome, like gay marriage, marijuana.  there are many things which intellect is inconsequential in making a decision.  equal weighted votes would be perfect for politicians who have authority for these decisions.  the other sector would be the stuff that the public does not quite understand, like net neutrality, finance.  uninformed votes should be minimized here, because an uninformed vote is as good as a random vote, and random votes only serves to dilutes the informed votes.  this sector could contain the politicians voted in by some kind of weighted vote.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.   #  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.   #  equal weighted votes would be perfect for politicians who have authority for these decisions.   #  you are making some very good points.  here is an idea.  perhaps there should be two sectors of politics.  one sector would be where the public is fit to determine the outcome, like gay marriage, marijuana.  there are many things which intellect is inconsequential in making a decision.  equal weighted votes would be perfect for politicians who have authority for these decisions.  the other sector would be the stuff that the public does not quite understand, like net neutrality, finance.  uninformed votes should be minimized here, because an uninformed vote is as good as a random vote, and random votes only serves to dilutes the informed votes.  this sector could contain the politicians voted in by some kind of weighted vote.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.   #  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.   #  one sector would be where the public is fit to determine the outcome, like gay marriage, marijuana.   #  you are making some very good points.  here is an idea.  perhaps there should be two sectors of politics.  one sector would be where the public is fit to determine the outcome, like gay marriage, marijuana.  there are many things which intellect is inconsequential in making a decision.  equal weighted votes would be perfect for politicians who have authority for these decisions.  the other sector would be the stuff that the public does not quite understand, like net neutrality, finance.  uninformed votes should be minimized here, because an uninformed vote is as good as a random vote, and random votes only serves to dilutes the informed votes.  this sector could contain the politicians voted in by some kind of weighted vote.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.   #  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.   #  one sector would be where the public is fit to determine the outcome, like gay marriage, marijuana.   #  you are making some very good points.  here is an idea.  perhaps there should be two sectors of politics.  one sector would be where the public is fit to determine the outcome, like gay marriage, marijuana.  there are many things which intellect is inconsequential in making a decision.  equal weighted votes would be perfect for politicians who have authority for these decisions.  the other sector would be the stuff that the public does not quite understand, like net neutrality, finance.  uninformed votes should be minimized here, because an uninformed vote is as good as a random vote, and random votes only serves to dilutes the informed votes.  this sector could contain the politicians voted in by some kind of weighted vote.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.   #  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.   # weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  because of socioeconomic realities, this is true, but  only to a certain extent .  there is a link between high incomes and things like grades, performance and standardized tests and iq scores, but it is weak, and it is not proportional at all URL what i mean by this is that in general, it is likely that someone from a family that makes $0 million dollars a year will be smarter than someone from a family that makes $0,0, but that does not mean that they will be 0,0 times smarter, or 0,0 times more well informed, or 0,0 times more qualified to pick a president, but you are advocating for giving them 0,0 times the voting power.  do you see how this falls apart as you move up the incredibly steep curve of income distribution ? people who are somewhat likely to generally be smarter than poorer people end up with thousands of times the voting power.  that seems like a system ripe for instability and corruption.   #  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.   #  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.   #  just two things:   0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  this reasoning makes sense given the current political climate but it does not cover loopholes where people who pay a large proportion of taxes vote for government programs which return money and benefits to them indirectly not reducing their tax burden .  you are not accounting for how self interest will manifest with this new voting system.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  a person is income and assets ca not be the only metrics for societal contributions, can it ? if a banker works for a foreign company and lives in the united states, is his societal contribution more than a truck driver who makes less money but whose job is transporting products domestically ? i would argue that the banker makes fewer contributions because his job does not benefit the domestic economy unlike the truck driver.  why would the banker be more qualified to make decisions about a society he is not fully invested in ?  #  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.   #  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.   # industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? i do not.  our voting system is one of  delegation .  we vote on the people who share our general interests, and they get the job of understanding the technical stuff.  so the wealthy vote in a guy who changes the system to reflect net worth instead of taxes.  how do you prevent that ? wealth does not equal contribution.  a stay at home mother may make no money at all, but she is still contributing to society.  the  contributions  of super wealthy business leaders are actually a sum of the contributions of the workers below them.  now we have a system where the wealthy have a vested interest to keep wages low.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  most politicians are popular because the wealthy give them exposure and a soapbox.  the big problem with politics is that there is too much money going around, and this will only get worse with your idea.   #  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.   #  so the wealthy vote in a guy who changes the system to reflect net worth instead of taxes.   # industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? i do not.  our voting system is one of  delegation .  we vote on the people who share our general interests, and they get the job of understanding the technical stuff.  so the wealthy vote in a guy who changes the system to reflect net worth instead of taxes.  how do you prevent that ? wealth does not equal contribution.  a stay at home mother may make no money at all, but she is still contributing to society.  the  contributions  of super wealthy business leaders are actually a sum of the contributions of the workers below them.  now we have a system where the wealthy have a vested interest to keep wages low.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  most politicians are popular because the wealthy give them exposure and a soapbox.  the big problem with politics is that there is too much money going around, and this will only get worse with your idea.   #  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.   #  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.   # industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? i do not.  our voting system is one of  delegation .  we vote on the people who share our general interests, and they get the job of understanding the technical stuff.  so the wealthy vote in a guy who changes the system to reflect net worth instead of taxes.  how do you prevent that ? wealth does not equal contribution.  a stay at home mother may make no money at all, but she is still contributing to society.  the  contributions  of super wealthy business leaders are actually a sum of the contributions of the workers below them.  now we have a system where the wealthy have a vested interest to keep wages low.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  most politicians are popular because the wealthy give them exposure and a soapbox.  the big problem with politics is that there is too much money going around, and this will only get worse with your idea.   #  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.   #  this is key and many people do not get this.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  what is to stop a ruling class of rich people to vote to just give themselves power without the need for taxes ? if they have all the power why ca not they just eliminate the tax part of it ? as someone else pointed out, what is to stop them from passing a law that  refunds  their taxes after the fact in the form of  investment stimulus  granting them unlimited power ? it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  why does income define contribution ? who contributed more to society, the guy who made a million dollars doing high frequency trading that really just amounts to moving money around or the person working on a cure for cancer ? weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  this is the basic idea behind a monarchy.  they are just superior so we should let them rule.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.  politicians are not elected because they are popular, they are elected because they are well funded.  the more money a politician has, the more likely he is to win.  over 0 of the time, the candidate with the most money wins the election URL basically, we already have a system in which the rich are getting to hand pick their candidates and the rest of us just follow along with their will.  tl;dr we are already shockingly close to this system and it sucks.   #  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.   #  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  what is to stop a ruling class of rich people to vote to just give themselves power without the need for taxes ? if they have all the power why ca not they just eliminate the tax part of it ? as someone else pointed out, what is to stop them from passing a law that  refunds  their taxes after the fact in the form of  investment stimulus  granting them unlimited power ? it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  why does income define contribution ? who contributed more to society, the guy who made a million dollars doing high frequency trading that really just amounts to moving money around or the person working on a cure for cancer ? weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  this is the basic idea behind a monarchy.  they are just superior so we should let them rule.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.  politicians are not elected because they are popular, they are elected because they are well funded.  the more money a politician has, the more likely he is to win.  over 0 of the time, the candidate with the most money wins the election URL basically, we already have a system in which the rich are getting to hand pick their candidates and the rest of us just follow along with their will.  tl;dr we are already shockingly close to this system and it sucks.   #  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.   #  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  what is to stop a ruling class of rich people to vote to just give themselves power without the need for taxes ? if they have all the power why ca not they just eliminate the tax part of it ? as someone else pointed out, what is to stop them from passing a law that  refunds  their taxes after the fact in the form of  investment stimulus  granting them unlimited power ? it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  why does income define contribution ? who contributed more to society, the guy who made a million dollars doing high frequency trading that really just amounts to moving money around or the person working on a cure for cancer ? weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  this is the basic idea behind a monarchy.  they are just superior so we should let them rule.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.  politicians are not elected because they are popular, they are elected because they are well funded.  the more money a politician has, the more likely he is to win.  over 0 of the time, the candidate with the most money wins the election URL basically, we already have a system in which the rich are getting to hand pick their candidates and the rest of us just follow along with their will.  tl;dr we are already shockingly close to this system and it sucks.   #  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.   #  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  what is to stop a ruling class of rich people to vote to just give themselves power without the need for taxes ? if they have all the power why ca not they just eliminate the tax part of it ? as someone else pointed out, what is to stop them from passing a law that  refunds  their taxes after the fact in the form of  investment stimulus  granting them unlimited power ? it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  why does income define contribution ? who contributed more to society, the guy who made a million dollars doing high frequency trading that really just amounts to moving money around or the person working on a cure for cancer ? weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  this is the basic idea behind a monarchy.  they are just superior so we should let them rule.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.  politicians are not elected because they are popular, they are elected because they are well funded.  the more money a politician has, the more likely he is to win.  over 0 of the time, the candidate with the most money wins the election URL basically, we already have a system in which the rich are getting to hand pick their candidates and the rest of us just follow along with their will.  tl;dr we are already shockingly close to this system and it sucks.   #  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.
we currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person is choice.  we see this system used in many things like in tv shows.  the voice, for example i think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates.  in the voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer.  people are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show.  this system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement.  take for example, a boxing match.  many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience.  if the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring.  most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches.  let is take another example, net neutrality.  most people probably spent 0 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 0 minutes googling the subject before writing.  and now they think they know everything there is to know.  the net neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze.  industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision.  see the danger of letting the average person cast a vote ? finally, let is address the voting of political candidates.  each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis.  understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies.  the only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently.  i believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year or some variation, like average of past 0 years .  this would be the effects: 0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.  this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  0 you would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  0 there is a high correlation between intelligence and income.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  0 we will finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off.  most of america wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.   #  0 any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power.   #  this is key and many people do not get this.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  this is  not  self correcting.  you assume that the only thing rich people can do with government control to benefit themselves is to lower their tax rate.  but what if they provide massive subsidies to certain companies, or sell public land to specific buyers for a fraction of the price it is actually worth, or any other countless ways clever wealthy people could exploit a disproportionate control over the government.  say an individual owns a large company and makes $0 million a year.  they have a tax rate of 0 so they pay $0 million in taxes and keep $0 million for themselves.  now with the disproportionate control over the government they unfairly influence the law such that their income is doubled.  say they own an oil company and were suddenly allowed to drill in a national park .  their tax rate is still 0, but they are making $0 million now, and paying $0 million in taxes.  congratulations.  this system has just doubled both their wealth and their control over the government.  while decent in theory, when you actually think about it such a system of government would be insanely degenerate.   #  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.   # this is key and many people do not get this.  the system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time.  actually, all they would have to do is make sure that nobody else paid more than them.  as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  it seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more.  paris hilton will inherit gobs of money and has contributed nothing of value to society.  she is verifiably stupid.  i question not whether she should have more power than me and a thousand of my friends, but whether she should vote at all.  having money and paying taxes does not equate to contributing to society; it rests on the false assumptions that all wealth is garnered from positive participation in the economy and that all money paid to the government provides mutual benefit to the people.  weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions.  there is a much higher correlation between the pursuit of self interest and income.  the rich have been lobbying for advantageous government policy since states were a thing, so while they may be disproportionately intelligent, that does not make them ethical or magnanimous by any stretch of the imagination.  from what i have seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular.  i think it is much more likely that we will have politicians who collude with those who put them in office and ignore those who are essentially irrelevant to the political process.  when you purposefully disenfranchise  most  people, you do not have a functioning democracy.  you have an oligarchy.  you are relying on the magnanimity of the wealthy to ensure the rights and well being of people who have no say in the matter.   #  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.   # as long as they make more money, they can consistently reduce their own tax rate.  wages are controlled by supply and demand.  this is not a winner takes all system, where the richest person overrides everyone else is vote.  votes are cumulative, and the richest person still needs others to be on his side.  she is verifiably stupid.  not a big fan of paris hilton, but check out some serious interviews with her.  she actually knows her stuff and runs her businesses very well.   #  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.   #  wages are generally controlled by supply and demand.  tax rates are absolutely not.  provided you make exponentially more than most people which a very small number of americans do , it would be a relatively easy thing to manipulate the tax code to ensure that you stayed that way.  all you need to do is make sure that you and those of like mind pay the lion is share of taxes and you control the government.  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  it is hard to fail in business when you start out with a few million of daddy is money.  given that money, i would wager many small business owners could do a much better job.  not saying it should be taken from her, just that her accomplishments are wholly unimpressive.   #  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.   #    0;  hell, you could reduce the taxes on the lower brackets so far that they did not even get to vote.  i have to give you a delta for this because i actually did not think of this, and it may lead to some probems.  however, reducing the taxes on the lower brackets means that funding will be even heavier on the higher brackets.  i suppose if the rich are willing to fund it, people like me probably would not mind getting something for free.  big business fail all the time.  blockbuster, barnes and nobel, american apparel, i can go on and on.  you actually need skill to keep a business afloat.
i never saw anyone considering photography as a high art like music, painting or literature but still i do not think it should be considered as an art.  the reason is, it can be done in artistic ways but the average person who does photography as a profession is not an artist and mostly take pictures just to capture a moment.  it is more of a technical skill than a skill that requires talent.  and it is not something you can put your subjective ideas into it like other arts.  0 different person painting a landscape results in 0 different paintings but 0 photos of same landscape by 0 different photographers are still 0 photos just with slight visual changes like filtering.  i ca not see any logical reason why people started calling it an art when most photography is just done to capture a moment in a photo with no subjective influence of the photographer.   #  the reason is, it can be done in artistic ways but the average person who does photography as a profession is not an artist and mostly take pictures just to capture a moment.   #  it is more of a technical skill than a skill that requires talent.   # it is more of a technical skill than a skill that requires talent.  would you consider people that do commissioned works like portraits, sculptures, and murals as artists ? every kind of art boils down to technical skill, but it is how you use the technical skill that is important.  there is  what  you want to photograph.  then focus, lighting, color, contrast, composition, etc.  there is plenty of room for subjectivity.  0 different guitar players playing the same song results in slight differences.  should we conclude music is not artistic ? playing a song from sheet music is not artistic and is just done to reproduce the work of another.  you keep pretending that your mom is point and shoot camera is representative of artistic photography.  this is not the case.   #  does the piece lose anything if you are later told that you were viewing the original seashell and not my loving tribute ?  #  well this gets into the discussion of  created art  versus  found art .  to break it down, imagine i lovingly sculpt a replica of a beautiful seashell.  i use materials that match the seashell, until i have created a perfect reproduction of something that i consider beautiful.  have i done art ? if my perfect replica of the seashell, lovingly hand sculpted is art, is the original seashell art ? does the piece lose anything if you are later told that you were viewing the original seashell and not my loving tribute ? the photographer does not merely find something to photograph.  they find the perfect moment.  they balance the colors and the light.  often nowadays they add post production effects to bring out different colors and show a more vivid scene this brings up another question.  is the photoshop of a photograph art when the original is not ? .  one of the most persistent myths about photography is that you can simply get a good camera and learn a bit about film speeds and get excellent shots.  in truth, good photographers often spend hours, days, or weeks finding the perfect place for a shot, and even more time deciding exactly how to best frame it.  or i can just reference the fountain and call it a day.   #  just because anyone can take a picture does not mean that photography ca not be an art form.   #  i want to direct you to this picture URL as it is one of the most famous photographs in the world.  it is called  bliss  but you probably know it as  the windows xp default background .  it was taken at the los carneros american viticultural area URL in sonoma county, california.  here URL are just URL a few URL more URL instances of people taking landscape photos in that area.  sure, the exact area is not present, but you can see the sort of things that he did with his filters and exposures, compared to other people.  he used those exposure tricks as a painter would mix paint and use brushstrokes to create the composition he wanted, much as a painter would.  just because anyone can take a picture does not mean that photography ca not be an art form.   #  they have to think about the right angle and the right lighting to set a specific mood and to best send their message.   #  no one is saying that the average instagram user is some great artist because they take pictures.  but photography is an art.  photographers try to convey a special message through their pictures.  they have to think about the right angle and the right lighting to set a specific mood and to best send their message.  its not technical things.  painters do similar things except they obviously have to paint their artwork instead of go take a perfect picture of it.  just because lots of people do something does not mean that the thing they are doing should no longer be considered an artform or something similar.  the average casual basketball player is not an athlete, but that does not mean we should not consider basketball as a sport.   #  the photographer used elements from the world in his or her work, but they were used to make something unique.   #  here is an image i would like you to consider URL there is subjectivity in recognizing what can be photographed to convey a certain message.  this image makes a very obvious use of metaphor to convey a message and express the photographer is thoughts and feelings.  here is another photo to consider URL this image was not just a lucky shot.  it was planned and put together intentionally.  it contains a personal touch.  in many ways, this is much like a sculpture.  the photographer used elements from the world in his or her work, but they were used to make something unique.
i never saw anyone considering photography as a high art like music, painting or literature but still i do not think it should be considered as an art.  the reason is, it can be done in artistic ways but the average person who does photography as a profession is not an artist and mostly take pictures just to capture a moment.  it is more of a technical skill than a skill that requires talent.  and it is not something you can put your subjective ideas into it like other arts.  0 different person painting a landscape results in 0 different paintings but 0 photos of same landscape by 0 different photographers are still 0 photos just with slight visual changes like filtering.  i ca not see any logical reason why people started calling it an art when most photography is just done to capture a moment in a photo with no subjective influence of the photographer.   #  and it is not something you can put your subjective ideas into it like other arts.   #  there is  what  you want to photograph.   # it is more of a technical skill than a skill that requires talent.  would you consider people that do commissioned works like portraits, sculptures, and murals as artists ? every kind of art boils down to technical skill, but it is how you use the technical skill that is important.  there is  what  you want to photograph.  then focus, lighting, color, contrast, composition, etc.  there is plenty of room for subjectivity.  0 different guitar players playing the same song results in slight differences.  should we conclude music is not artistic ? playing a song from sheet music is not artistic and is just done to reproduce the work of another.  you keep pretending that your mom is point and shoot camera is representative of artistic photography.  this is not the case.   #  is the photoshop of a photograph art when the original is not ?  #  well this gets into the discussion of  created art  versus  found art .  to break it down, imagine i lovingly sculpt a replica of a beautiful seashell.  i use materials that match the seashell, until i have created a perfect reproduction of something that i consider beautiful.  have i done art ? if my perfect replica of the seashell, lovingly hand sculpted is art, is the original seashell art ? does the piece lose anything if you are later told that you were viewing the original seashell and not my loving tribute ? the photographer does not merely find something to photograph.  they find the perfect moment.  they balance the colors and the light.  often nowadays they add post production effects to bring out different colors and show a more vivid scene this brings up another question.  is the photoshop of a photograph art when the original is not ? .  one of the most persistent myths about photography is that you can simply get a good camera and learn a bit about film speeds and get excellent shots.  in truth, good photographers often spend hours, days, or weeks finding the perfect place for a shot, and even more time deciding exactly how to best frame it.  or i can just reference the fountain and call it a day.   #  i want to direct you to this picture URL as it is one of the most famous photographs in the world.   #  i want to direct you to this picture URL as it is one of the most famous photographs in the world.  it is called  bliss  but you probably know it as  the windows xp default background .  it was taken at the los carneros american viticultural area URL in sonoma county, california.  here URL are just URL a few URL more URL instances of people taking landscape photos in that area.  sure, the exact area is not present, but you can see the sort of things that he did with his filters and exposures, compared to other people.  he used those exposure tricks as a painter would mix paint and use brushstrokes to create the composition he wanted, much as a painter would.  just because anyone can take a picture does not mean that photography ca not be an art form.   #  painters do similar things except they obviously have to paint their artwork instead of go take a perfect picture of it.   #  no one is saying that the average instagram user is some great artist because they take pictures.  but photography is an art.  photographers try to convey a special message through their pictures.  they have to think about the right angle and the right lighting to set a specific mood and to best send their message.  its not technical things.  painters do similar things except they obviously have to paint their artwork instead of go take a perfect picture of it.  just because lots of people do something does not mean that the thing they are doing should no longer be considered an artform or something similar.  the average casual basketball player is not an athlete, but that does not mean we should not consider basketball as a sport.   #  in many ways, this is much like a sculpture.   #  here is an image i would like you to consider URL there is subjectivity in recognizing what can be photographed to convey a certain message.  this image makes a very obvious use of metaphor to convey a message and express the photographer is thoughts and feelings.  here is another photo to consider URL this image was not just a lucky shot.  it was planned and put together intentionally.  it contains a personal touch.  in many ways, this is much like a sculpture.  the photographer used elements from the world in his or her work, but they were used to make something unique.
i never saw anyone considering photography as a high art like music, painting or literature but still i do not think it should be considered as an art.  the reason is, it can be done in artistic ways but the average person who does photography as a profession is not an artist and mostly take pictures just to capture a moment.  it is more of a technical skill than a skill that requires talent.  and it is not something you can put your subjective ideas into it like other arts.  0 different person painting a landscape results in 0 different paintings but 0 photos of same landscape by 0 different photographers are still 0 photos just with slight visual changes like filtering.  i ca not see any logical reason why people started calling it an art when most photography is just done to capture a moment in a photo with no subjective influence of the photographer.   #  0 photos of same landscape by 0 different photographers are still 0 photos just with slight visual changes like filtering.   #  0 different guitar players playing the same song results in slight differences.   # it is more of a technical skill than a skill that requires talent.  would you consider people that do commissioned works like portraits, sculptures, and murals as artists ? every kind of art boils down to technical skill, but it is how you use the technical skill that is important.  there is  what  you want to photograph.  then focus, lighting, color, contrast, composition, etc.  there is plenty of room for subjectivity.  0 different guitar players playing the same song results in slight differences.  should we conclude music is not artistic ? playing a song from sheet music is not artistic and is just done to reproduce the work of another.  you keep pretending that your mom is point and shoot camera is representative of artistic photography.  this is not the case.   #  to break it down, imagine i lovingly sculpt a replica of a beautiful seashell.   #  well this gets into the discussion of  created art  versus  found art .  to break it down, imagine i lovingly sculpt a replica of a beautiful seashell.  i use materials that match the seashell, until i have created a perfect reproduction of something that i consider beautiful.  have i done art ? if my perfect replica of the seashell, lovingly hand sculpted is art, is the original seashell art ? does the piece lose anything if you are later told that you were viewing the original seashell and not my loving tribute ? the photographer does not merely find something to photograph.  they find the perfect moment.  they balance the colors and the light.  often nowadays they add post production effects to bring out different colors and show a more vivid scene this brings up another question.  is the photoshop of a photograph art when the original is not ? .  one of the most persistent myths about photography is that you can simply get a good camera and learn a bit about film speeds and get excellent shots.  in truth, good photographers often spend hours, days, or weeks finding the perfect place for a shot, and even more time deciding exactly how to best frame it.  or i can just reference the fountain and call it a day.   #  he used those exposure tricks as a painter would mix paint and use brushstrokes to create the composition he wanted, much as a painter would.   #  i want to direct you to this picture URL as it is one of the most famous photographs in the world.  it is called  bliss  but you probably know it as  the windows xp default background .  it was taken at the los carneros american viticultural area URL in sonoma county, california.  here URL are just URL a few URL more URL instances of people taking landscape photos in that area.  sure, the exact area is not present, but you can see the sort of things that he did with his filters and exposures, compared to other people.  he used those exposure tricks as a painter would mix paint and use brushstrokes to create the composition he wanted, much as a painter would.  just because anyone can take a picture does not mean that photography ca not be an art form.   #  just because lots of people do something does not mean that the thing they are doing should no longer be considered an artform or something similar.   #  no one is saying that the average instagram user is some great artist because they take pictures.  but photography is an art.  photographers try to convey a special message through their pictures.  they have to think about the right angle and the right lighting to set a specific mood and to best send their message.  its not technical things.  painters do similar things except they obviously have to paint their artwork instead of go take a perfect picture of it.  just because lots of people do something does not mean that the thing they are doing should no longer be considered an artform or something similar.  the average casual basketball player is not an athlete, but that does not mean we should not consider basketball as a sport.   #  here is an image i would like you to consider URL there is subjectivity in recognizing what can be photographed to convey a certain message.   #  here is an image i would like you to consider URL there is subjectivity in recognizing what can be photographed to convey a certain message.  this image makes a very obvious use of metaphor to convey a message and express the photographer is thoughts and feelings.  here is another photo to consider URL this image was not just a lucky shot.  it was planned and put together intentionally.  it contains a personal touch.  in many ways, this is much like a sculpture.  the photographer used elements from the world in his or her work, but they were used to make something unique.
there is a lot that we know about the world because of science, but we cannot say for sure that we know everything about our own existence.  how do we know that beyond what we know, there is not a creator ? i think that pushing your atheist beliefs is just as narrow minded as any religious belief.  many atheists argue that religion is the cause of many of the world is problems, much like religious groups have often argued that people who do not follow their own beliefs are the cause of their problems.  it is a fairly hypocritical viewpoint.   #  there is a lot that we know about the world because of science, but we cannot say for sure that we know everything about our own existence.   #  we know enough to rule things out.   # we know enough to rule things out.  for example, we have ruled out a 0,0 0,0 year old earth, or that humans were created unique and separately from other animals.  from the atheist position, there is not enough evidence for a creator.  furthermore, a creator brings up a lot of other issues such as how the creator exists, why it created, and the nature of the creator.  since there is  absolutely no evidence  for intelligent creation, it can be assumed that there is no creator.  that is because of religion.  i have not seen you mention anything hypocritical.  you have just stated that religious groups and atheists disagree on the cause of problems.   #  you are never making plans  just in case  santa claus comes around.   #  saying you do not believe in something you ca not disprove might seem like intellectual dishonesty, but we do it all the time.  you ca not disprove that santa claus exists, right ? you would have to know everything about everything to be able to disprove it.  so do you, then, believe in santa claus ? you would probably still say no.  while you admit that you ca not conclusively disprove his existence, the liklihood of his reality is so small and inconsequential that you rule the idea false.  when you make decisions about life, the possibility of santa claus never enters into the equation.  to say that you are agnostic about him would not be terribly accurate, as you are not really unsure.  you are never making plans  just in case  santa claus comes around.  this just underscores that  inability to disprove  is a very poor standard for belief or existence, as literally everything you can think of is in that category.   #  of course there are atheists who want to debate with you and convince you that jesus was imaginary or who think it is hilarious to say that allah sucks dicks.   #  most atheists go about their lives and do not talk about their beliefs at all.  you will only hear about it when someone is trying to pass laws against abortion or gay marriage because that is when your religion gets in the way of my freedom.  other than that, i do not care if you believe in raptor jesus or the unicorn king.  its your business.  of course there are atheists who want to debate with you and convince you that jesus was imaginary or who think it is hilarious to say that allah sucks dicks.  these people are assholes.  there are also plenty of assholes who are believers.  your problem is not with atheists, it is with assholes.   #  it is actually  well, i do not see any reason why we  should  believe in any god or gods, so i am going to assume there probably is not unless i am shown evidence that it is possible .   #  for most of us, atheism is not  i believe there is absolutely no god .  it is actually  well, i do not see any reason why we  should  believe in any god or gods, so i am going to assume there probably is not unless i am shown evidence that it is possible .  this really depends on what you consider  pushing .  is it  pushing beliefs  to demand scientific accuracy in schools and education places ? is it  pushing beliefs  to complain about non religious people being forced to live under religious laws ? is it  pushing beliefs  to simply state a lack of belief ?  #  while i am not religious myself, i think that many people turn to religious beliefs for the same reasons people turn to therapy or self medication and i feel it is used as a coping mechanism.   #  i guess i see religion as the result of a need for order, the desire for permanence and for many, especially those in distressful living conditions , the hope that there is something beyond the pain that they are currently experiencing.  while i am not religious myself, i think that many people turn to religious beliefs for the same reasons people turn to therapy or self medication and i feel it is used as a coping mechanism.  i do not know why we are here or why we exist, but i do think that for many people who subscribe to certain religious beliefs, they do so because it makes them feel better.  i think it is human nature to want to know why we are here if one person feels better because they believe in jesus or god or allah, who are we to say they are wrong or right ? we do not have to accept those views, just as they do not have to accept our atheist or agnostic views, despite our supporting them with science.  many religious people believe in science many religious people are good.  my point, i suppose, is that dogma itself religious, nationalist, cultural, etc is to blame for our problems, which is what i meant by atheists being hypocritical bc it to me is just another ideology.  as a member of any group united by camaraderie, ideology and fear, a person is more likely to relinquish a sense of personal identity.  it is this process of de individuation that very often sets the stage for crimes and other evil actions.  this is not limited to religion.    i am babbling, but you made an excellent point
there is a lot that we know about the world because of science, but we cannot say for sure that we know everything about our own existence.  how do we know that beyond what we know, there is not a creator ? i think that pushing your atheist beliefs is just as narrow minded as any religious belief.  many atheists argue that religion is the cause of many of the world is problems, much like religious groups have often argued that people who do not follow their own beliefs are the cause of their problems.  it is a fairly hypocritical viewpoint.   #  how do we know that beyond what we know, there is not a creator ?  #  from the atheist position, there is not enough evidence for a creator.   # we know enough to rule things out.  for example, we have ruled out a 0,0 0,0 year old earth, or that humans were created unique and separately from other animals.  from the atheist position, there is not enough evidence for a creator.  furthermore, a creator brings up a lot of other issues such as how the creator exists, why it created, and the nature of the creator.  since there is  absolutely no evidence  for intelligent creation, it can be assumed that there is no creator.  that is because of religion.  i have not seen you mention anything hypocritical.  you have just stated that religious groups and atheists disagree on the cause of problems.   #  you ca not disprove that santa claus exists, right ?  #  saying you do not believe in something you ca not disprove might seem like intellectual dishonesty, but we do it all the time.  you ca not disprove that santa claus exists, right ? you would have to know everything about everything to be able to disprove it.  so do you, then, believe in santa claus ? you would probably still say no.  while you admit that you ca not conclusively disprove his existence, the liklihood of his reality is so small and inconsequential that you rule the idea false.  when you make decisions about life, the possibility of santa claus never enters into the equation.  to say that you are agnostic about him would not be terribly accurate, as you are not really unsure.  you are never making plans  just in case  santa claus comes around.  this just underscores that  inability to disprove  is a very poor standard for belief or existence, as literally everything you can think of is in that category.   #  you will only hear about it when someone is trying to pass laws against abortion or gay marriage because that is when your religion gets in the way of my freedom.   #  most atheists go about their lives and do not talk about their beliefs at all.  you will only hear about it when someone is trying to pass laws against abortion or gay marriage because that is when your religion gets in the way of my freedom.  other than that, i do not care if you believe in raptor jesus or the unicorn king.  its your business.  of course there are atheists who want to debate with you and convince you that jesus was imaginary or who think it is hilarious to say that allah sucks dicks.  these people are assholes.  there are also plenty of assholes who are believers.  your problem is not with atheists, it is with assholes.   #  for most of us, atheism is not  i believe there is absolutely no god .   #  for most of us, atheism is not  i believe there is absolutely no god .  it is actually  well, i do not see any reason why we  should  believe in any god or gods, so i am going to assume there probably is not unless i am shown evidence that it is possible .  this really depends on what you consider  pushing .  is it  pushing beliefs  to demand scientific accuracy in schools and education places ? is it  pushing beliefs  to complain about non religious people being forced to live under religious laws ? is it  pushing beliefs  to simply state a lack of belief ?  #    i am babbling, but you made an excellent point  #  i guess i see religion as the result of a need for order, the desire for permanence and for many, especially those in distressful living conditions , the hope that there is something beyond the pain that they are currently experiencing.  while i am not religious myself, i think that many people turn to religious beliefs for the same reasons people turn to therapy or self medication and i feel it is used as a coping mechanism.  i do not know why we are here or why we exist, but i do think that for many people who subscribe to certain religious beliefs, they do so because it makes them feel better.  i think it is human nature to want to know why we are here if one person feels better because they believe in jesus or god or allah, who are we to say they are wrong or right ? we do not have to accept those views, just as they do not have to accept our atheist or agnostic views, despite our supporting them with science.  many religious people believe in science many religious people are good.  my point, i suppose, is that dogma itself religious, nationalist, cultural, etc is to blame for our problems, which is what i meant by atheists being hypocritical bc it to me is just another ideology.  as a member of any group united by camaraderie, ideology and fear, a person is more likely to relinquish a sense of personal identity.  it is this process of de individuation that very often sets the stage for crimes and other evil actions.  this is not limited to religion.    i am babbling, but you made an excellent point
there is a lot that we know about the world because of science, but we cannot say for sure that we know everything about our own existence.  how do we know that beyond what we know, there is not a creator ? i think that pushing your atheist beliefs is just as narrow minded as any religious belief.  many atheists argue that religion is the cause of many of the world is problems, much like religious groups have often argued that people who do not follow their own beliefs are the cause of their problems.  it is a fairly hypocritical viewpoint.   #  there is a lot that we know about the world because of science, but we cannot say for sure that we know everything about our own existence.   #  how do we know that beyond what we know, there is not a creator ?  # how do we know that beyond what we know, there is not a creator ? atheism does not posit that there is absolutely no chance for a creator.  it says there is no evidence for a creator, and therefore there is no reason to believe in one.  what do you consider pushing atheist beliefs ? is demanding that evolution and the big bang be taught in school over genesis pushing our beliefs ? is complaining about religious propaganda being displayed on public buildings pushing our beliefs ? if having the gall to ask for proof of ones theistic beliefs, pushing our own ? i do not think so in any of these examples.   #  when you make decisions about life, the possibility of santa claus never enters into the equation.   #  saying you do not believe in something you ca not disprove might seem like intellectual dishonesty, but we do it all the time.  you ca not disprove that santa claus exists, right ? you would have to know everything about everything to be able to disprove it.  so do you, then, believe in santa claus ? you would probably still say no.  while you admit that you ca not conclusively disprove his existence, the liklihood of his reality is so small and inconsequential that you rule the idea false.  when you make decisions about life, the possibility of santa claus never enters into the equation.  to say that you are agnostic about him would not be terribly accurate, as you are not really unsure.  you are never making plans  just in case  santa claus comes around.  this just underscores that  inability to disprove  is a very poor standard for belief or existence, as literally everything you can think of is in that category.   #  your problem is not with atheists, it is with assholes.   #  most atheists go about their lives and do not talk about their beliefs at all.  you will only hear about it when someone is trying to pass laws against abortion or gay marriage because that is when your religion gets in the way of my freedom.  other than that, i do not care if you believe in raptor jesus or the unicorn king.  its your business.  of course there are atheists who want to debate with you and convince you that jesus was imaginary or who think it is hilarious to say that allah sucks dicks.  these people are assholes.  there are also plenty of assholes who are believers.  your problem is not with atheists, it is with assholes.   #  is it  pushing beliefs  to simply state a lack of belief ?  #  for most of us, atheism is not  i believe there is absolutely no god .  it is actually  well, i do not see any reason why we  should  believe in any god or gods, so i am going to assume there probably is not unless i am shown evidence that it is possible .  this really depends on what you consider  pushing .  is it  pushing beliefs  to demand scientific accuracy in schools and education places ? is it  pushing beliefs  to complain about non religious people being forced to live under religious laws ? is it  pushing beliefs  to simply state a lack of belief ?  #  as a member of any group united by camaraderie, ideology and fear, a person is more likely to relinquish a sense of personal identity.   #  i guess i see religion as the result of a need for order, the desire for permanence and for many, especially those in distressful living conditions , the hope that there is something beyond the pain that they are currently experiencing.  while i am not religious myself, i think that many people turn to religious beliefs for the same reasons people turn to therapy or self medication and i feel it is used as a coping mechanism.  i do not know why we are here or why we exist, but i do think that for many people who subscribe to certain religious beliefs, they do so because it makes them feel better.  i think it is human nature to want to know why we are here if one person feels better because they believe in jesus or god or allah, who are we to say they are wrong or right ? we do not have to accept those views, just as they do not have to accept our atheist or agnostic views, despite our supporting them with science.  many religious people believe in science many religious people are good.  my point, i suppose, is that dogma itself religious, nationalist, cultural, etc is to blame for our problems, which is what i meant by atheists being hypocritical bc it to me is just another ideology.  as a member of any group united by camaraderie, ideology and fear, a person is more likely to relinquish a sense of personal identity.  it is this process of de individuation that very often sets the stage for crimes and other evil actions.  this is not limited to religion.    i am babbling, but you made an excellent point
there is a lot that we know about the world because of science, but we cannot say for sure that we know everything about our own existence.  how do we know that beyond what we know, there is not a creator ? i think that pushing your atheist beliefs is just as narrow minded as any religious belief.  many atheists argue that religion is the cause of many of the world is problems, much like religious groups have often argued that people who do not follow their own beliefs are the cause of their problems.  it is a fairly hypocritical viewpoint.   #  i think that pushing your atheist beliefs is just as narrow minded as any religious belief.   #  what do you consider pushing atheist beliefs ?  # how do we know that beyond what we know, there is not a creator ? atheism does not posit that there is absolutely no chance for a creator.  it says there is no evidence for a creator, and therefore there is no reason to believe in one.  what do you consider pushing atheist beliefs ? is demanding that evolution and the big bang be taught in school over genesis pushing our beliefs ? is complaining about religious propaganda being displayed on public buildings pushing our beliefs ? if having the gall to ask for proof of ones theistic beliefs, pushing our own ? i do not think so in any of these examples.   #  you ca not disprove that santa claus exists, right ?  #  saying you do not believe in something you ca not disprove might seem like intellectual dishonesty, but we do it all the time.  you ca not disprove that santa claus exists, right ? you would have to know everything about everything to be able to disprove it.  so do you, then, believe in santa claus ? you would probably still say no.  while you admit that you ca not conclusively disprove his existence, the liklihood of his reality is so small and inconsequential that you rule the idea false.  when you make decisions about life, the possibility of santa claus never enters into the equation.  to say that you are agnostic about him would not be terribly accurate, as you are not really unsure.  you are never making plans  just in case  santa claus comes around.  this just underscores that  inability to disprove  is a very poor standard for belief or existence, as literally everything you can think of is in that category.   #  there are also plenty of assholes who are believers.   #  most atheists go about their lives and do not talk about their beliefs at all.  you will only hear about it when someone is trying to pass laws against abortion or gay marriage because that is when your religion gets in the way of my freedom.  other than that, i do not care if you believe in raptor jesus or the unicorn king.  its your business.  of course there are atheists who want to debate with you and convince you that jesus was imaginary or who think it is hilarious to say that allah sucks dicks.  these people are assholes.  there are also plenty of assholes who are believers.  your problem is not with atheists, it is with assholes.   #  is it  pushing beliefs  to complain about non religious people being forced to live under religious laws ?  #  for most of us, atheism is not  i believe there is absolutely no god .  it is actually  well, i do not see any reason why we  should  believe in any god or gods, so i am going to assume there probably is not unless i am shown evidence that it is possible .  this really depends on what you consider  pushing .  is it  pushing beliefs  to demand scientific accuracy in schools and education places ? is it  pushing beliefs  to complain about non religious people being forced to live under religious laws ? is it  pushing beliefs  to simply state a lack of belief ?  #  many religious people believe in science many religious people are good.   #  i guess i see religion as the result of a need for order, the desire for permanence and for many, especially those in distressful living conditions , the hope that there is something beyond the pain that they are currently experiencing.  while i am not religious myself, i think that many people turn to religious beliefs for the same reasons people turn to therapy or self medication and i feel it is used as a coping mechanism.  i do not know why we are here or why we exist, but i do think that for many people who subscribe to certain religious beliefs, they do so because it makes them feel better.  i think it is human nature to want to know why we are here if one person feels better because they believe in jesus or god or allah, who are we to say they are wrong or right ? we do not have to accept those views, just as they do not have to accept our atheist or agnostic views, despite our supporting them with science.  many religious people believe in science many religious people are good.  my point, i suppose, is that dogma itself religious, nationalist, cultural, etc is to blame for our problems, which is what i meant by atheists being hypocritical bc it to me is just another ideology.  as a member of any group united by camaraderie, ideology and fear, a person is more likely to relinquish a sense of personal identity.  it is this process of de individuation that very often sets the stage for crimes and other evil actions.  this is not limited to religion.    i am babbling, but you made an excellent point
yes, i know that the majority of muslims are just ordinary peace loving people, and that there are extremists in every religious group.  all things being equal, however, islam has shown itself to be more capable of inciting violence and killings more than other religions.  when was the last time a christian extremist captured, tortured, beheaded someone and then shown it for the whole world to see ? saying islam is not violent is like saying christianity is not homophobic.  many christians are not homophobes but there is no denying what bible tries to say.  change my view.   #  when was the last time a christian extremist captured, tortured, beheaded someone and then shown it for the whole world to see ?  #  christians committed all kinds of religion motivated atrocities: inquisitions, crusades, protestant catholic strife and war.   # christians committed all kinds of religion motivated atrocities: inquisitions, crusades, protestant catholic strife and war.  and it is not like the violence stopped recently:  the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the vrs mostly compose of orthodox serbs targeted bosnian muslims and bosnian croats.  the ethnic cleansing campaign included unlawful confinement, murder, rape, sexual assault, torture, beating, robbery and inhumane treatment of civilians  URL also: URL etc, etc.  i would argue that islam is just about as violent as any other religion.  even  meek and mild  sri lankan buddhists do not shirk massacring hindu tamils.  URL  #  we are in an up period for christianity and a really down one for islam worldwide.   #  you are only looking at very recent history.  christianity literally spend hundreds of years sending armies to the middle east, thousands of miles from their homes to do nothing other than take muslim lands, murder their people, and crush everything about their way of life they could.  just because they have not been acting like such dicks since then is irrelevant.  we are in an up period for christianity and a really down one for islam worldwide.  there have been times in the past when it was reversed.  all religions can be spun to endorse all kinds of shitty things.  it is really more dependent on economic conditions, education, and quality of life of the religions followers at the point in time not the religion itself.   #  actually i think it is very relevant even if op is not aware of the past of christianity.   # we are in an up period for christianity and a really down one for islam worldwide.  actually i think it is very relevant even if op is not aware of the past of christianity.  we are not seeing an  up  time for christianity, we are seeing a secularization of it.  it is been turned more into a personal belief system than a political movement.  islam is still as much of a political movement as christianity was in the  dark ages , which is why it is so violent.  as a result, what the muslim world needs is secularization to temper their problems.  it is really more dependent on economic conditions, education, and quality of life of the religions followers at the point in time not the religion itself.  i disagree with this.  ignoring islam for the moment, which i think we can all agree have calls to violence, let is look at christianity.  deuteronomy 0:0 0 specifically says to kill your kids if they disobey you, eat too much, are drunks, etc.  a true christian should follow this rule set down by their holy scripture.  why do not they ? it is simple, there is another source that has a higher influence on their morals than that of their religion.  many muslims have reached this point as well, but not enough to truly put extremism on the outskirts of their culture.   #  while christians have parts of their belief system based on their faith, they simply do not follow large parts of the bible.   #    0; every time i read this debate i find it difficult to really quantify what was done in the past i ca not easily determine how many christians per million versus muslims per million did anything good or bad but secularization really rings true to me.  while christians have parts of their belief system based on their faith, they simply do not follow large parts of the bible.  if they listened to the whole bible they would act significantly more violent.  there is nothing being  spun  in them to inspire violence well, not nothing, but the bible has plenty of death sentences christians do not carry out .  although.  ignoring christianity.  taoism and buddhism are completely opposed to the death penalty, with confucianism and hinduism seeming to be against it unless absolutely necessary.  my general understanding and a quick google search on each of them specifically do not indicate any real violence associated with them or much in the way of  questionable  content.  without knowing much about other religions, i am somewhat inclined to think that the abrahamic religions in general are more violent than the non abrahamic religions.  taking this position i could still possibly agree with the op but i would say the same of christianity and judaism if this assessment is true you still got me to think about this in a different enough way that i will award you this delta.   #  0 muslims killed in buddhist mob attacks in sri lanka URL myanmar: buddhist group attacks muslims URL burma jails 0 buddhists for mob killings of 0 muslims in meikhtila URL why are buddhist monks attacking muslims ?  #  0 muslims killed in buddhist mob attacks in sri lanka URL myanmar: buddhist group attacks muslims URL burma jails 0 buddhists for mob killings of 0 muslims in meikhtila URL why are buddhist monks attacking muslims ? URL bhutan ethnically cleansing native hindu population URL is this to say that buddhism as a  religion  is violent ? of course not ! but in every religious group, regardless of the group, you will always find individuals who are prone to violence.  to say that  religions  are violent makes no sense as religions in and of themselves do not act in any way.  it is those that follow a religion that will take out of it what they want, be it violence or peace.  as far as christians not following a large part of the bible, i think that is inconsistent with what we are seeing in the us.  creationism, pro life, evangelism, etc have all taken on a fundamentalist paradigm.  the word fundamentalist is etymologically quite interesting as it refers to people who want to hold on to what they consider to be the  fundamentals  of their faith and you see this in the states a lot lately e. g.  reviving prayers in school, 0 commandments in a court house, the rhetoric of the us being a  christian  country, anti science, climate change denial, anti socialism, etc
i am reading  pilgrim at tinker creek  by annie dillard for school, and i am all for appreciating the beauty of nature and everything, but i ca not help but think it is bullshit to look for meaning in it like she does.  i want to be able to at least appreciate dillard is writing, even if i do not completely agree with her views, but that is difficult when she seems like an idiot with a good vocabulary.  obviously that is not true, because otherwise her book would not be so popular, but i do not see why.  i do not see anything to suggest that there is any sort of special meaning in nature, and i think we should enjoy the beauty in the world without trying to find some kind of message from a higher being that probably does not exist.  science shows that it is all a result of chance and time: matter interacting with other matter, eventually forming stars and planets and life.  it all happened on its own, and i feel like that is much more impressive than someone coming along and creating the universe and infusing everything with meaning.  trying to find meaning in things that do not really have any seems like a really common thing, and it kind of looks like people trying to change the reality of the universe to try to fit it into understandable terms.  the problem is that we are just too tiny and insignificant, in the grand scheme of things, to even come close to understanding anything something so much larger than us.  so i guess when people like dillard talk about meaning in nature, i put them into a mental category of people who refuse to accept their insignificance.  it confuses me that they get praised so much for it, especially when i know that the people doing the praising know what they are talking about.   #  trying to find meaning in things that do not really have any seems like a really common thing, and it kind of looks like people trying to change the reality of the universe to try to fit it into understandable terms.   #  the problem is that we are just too tiny and insignificant, in the grand scheme of things, to even come close to understanding anything something so much larger than us.   # the problem is that we are just too tiny and insignificant, in the grand scheme of things, to even come close to understanding anything something so much larger than us.  i would agree with you here, but on a different scale things can look very differently.  i have no idea what your life is like, but i am guessing many of your actions reveal that you find meaning in life on a smaller scale which exists immediately around you and includes yourself.  for instance, you chose not to commit suicide today and have probably taken some efforts to remain alive eating, drinking, etc.  , and while one may chalk this up to simple biological self preservation, you as a sentient being could choose a different route entirely.  i am also guessing you have not gone out of your way to murder someone else or inflict pain on anybody innocent.  i think actions like this reveal that one already finds meaning and value in life, even if they ca not articulate just what that meaning really is.   #  that said, when viewed within the scope of our existence, it no longer becomes difficult to find meaning in things.   #  let me preface this with a caveat, i have never read the book you are reading and thus may miss some things.  why, in your view, must meaning extend itself to a universal level ? i agree that if we look at ourselves from a perspective that ignores the limits of human life that everything is essentially meaningless.  that said, when viewed within the scope of our existence, it no longer becomes difficult to find meaning in things.  our interactions an relationships with other people feel immensely meaningful; the connection between ourselves and nature the cyclicality of life, the dependence of all things on another inspires both beauty and meaningfulness in many people.  my point here is that perhaps you are looking at things on far too large of a scale.  by doing so are dooming yourself to never appreciate the meaning that can be found in things when approached from a human centric perspective.   #  trying to find meaning is a deeply personal quest and different for every person.   #  trying to find meaning is a deeply personal quest and different for every person.  the answers found are unique to the individual and it seems like you are projecting your answer onto everyone.  you do not even know if you will feel this way in a year, five years, ten years from now.  in fact, others understand that they themselves, each individual, is exactly an expression of the universe itself and that life itself is the meaning.  at the zen monastery, there is a wooden plaque at the front door that says  life and death are the great matter; practice without delay !   that one always punches me in the heart.   #  it is possible to respect a position that is not your own while choosing to hold a different view.   # it is possible to respect a position that is not your own while choosing to hold a different view.  instead of seeking to relate to the material, which neither you nor i could do, seek to understand the other person is view and enjoy the prose.  she won a pulitzer for this book at 0.  btw, if it helps, her website now lists her religion as none URL so you could also view it as one step in a person is religious journey.  do not be a stranger to other views, it is a great way to either learn something or strengthen your own position.  though me posting that here in /r/changemyview is probably me preaching to the choir.   #  that incorrect thinking usually stems from misunderstandings of chaos, spontaneous order, or statistics.   #  well, if the readers are idiotic, then an author that is an  idiot with a good vocabulary /thesaurus could find popularity.  it is rather frequent sadly.  not to mention, your particular example may be agenda driven, but i do not have any specific evidence for that.  never heard of the author or the book, but i have seen such things before.  trying to learn or understand things in meaningful and useful ways within the limits of understanding seems perfectly reasonable.  chance is not all there is, especially when it comes to living organisms.  life makes it own  luck.   living things skew chances in their favor.  plants bend toward the light to get more sun, animals move towards the food they can sense through smell or sight, and people can choose their own meanings or even chose none, the choice is theirs.  so, scientifically, it is really not all chance.  that incorrect thinking usually stems from misunderstandings of chaos, spontaneous order, or statistics.
i believe the majority of people doing the ice bucket challenge do not care about the charity and are just doing it for facebook likes.  many of the celebrities who have recently popularized the challenge hardly mention als and i would not be surprised if they even knew what als was.  it would be much more effective for the charity and cause if participants actually educated people on what als is and why it is a cause worth donating to or the whole point of raising awareness and money is rather pointless.  although there have been some celebraties who have actually raised awareness through the challenge.  bill gates, steve o and charlie sheen seem to have actually contributed to the cause by either educating or donating money.  although it still remains that in my opinion, most people who are doing the ice bucket challenge are doing it for attention and self gradification and i doubt whether they care about als.  cmv  URL  #  many of the celebrities who have recently popularized the challenge hardly mention als and i would not be surprised if they even knew what als was.   #  it would be much more effective for the charity and cause if participants actually educated people on what als is and why it is a cause worth donating to or the whole point of raising awareness and money is rather pointless.   # it would be much more effective for the charity and cause if participants actually educated people on what als is and why it is a cause worth donating to or the whole point of raising awareness and money is rather pointless.  i would argue otherwise.  op stated that it would help the charity, if during them participating, they also educated the public.  whereas what they actually do is the challenge and the challenge only.  nothing was argued on this point to change any view on efficiency.  arguably op is still in the right that a challenge   education would be more efficient than just the challenge.   #  either way, everyone has some selfish reasons for participating, but that is human nature and that is fine.   #  to build off that, i suspect most people who participate due to narcissism  do  care about charity.  most people donate to charity because it makes them feel like they are making a difference and makes them feel better about themselves.  sure, that is a selfish reason, but that is okay.  i heard someone describe the difference between narcissism and typical selfishness is that a narcissist cares what other people think of their image.  i think it is impossible to tell whether people are participating because of how others are viewing them, whether it is because they see their peers participate and they do not want to feel guilty about not participating, or whether they want to make a difference.  either way, everyone has some selfish reasons for participating, but that is human nature and that is fine.   #  consider instead if it were a challenge to plant a tree and have the tree take a selfie for arbor day, or some conservation group.   #  does it really matter ? the als association is getting money and publicity out of it.  who cares if someone is doing it so they can get people to look at them ? they are still supporting and promoting the association.  further, the als association does a lot of work educating people.  by getting all this unexpected money, they can spend even more on education.  consider instead if it were a challenge to plant a tree and have the tree take a selfie for arbor day, or some conservation group.  the only cost to us is the annoyance of seeing all these selfies, but then there are hundreds of thousands of new trees planted.  if it takes narcissism to get something good done, then use narcissism to your advantage.   #  so i do not think people are doing it because they are narcissists or attention seeking.   #  why does it have to be one or the other ? why are the only two choices altruism or narcissism.  the als ice bucket challenge takes pretty minimal effort.  you fill a bucket with ice and water, dump it on your head, and have a friend record it on their phone.  you could do it in like 0 minutes plus time to dry off and change clothes.  and of course, you donate the $0, which could potentially take longer than the actual challenge.  basically, it is low effort, but has proven itself to be highly effective.  and, because you are supposed to upload it to social media, there is a shame aspect to it.  so there is adequate reasons to do it, but not much against doing it.  it is also become so common, that i do not think you really get much attention from it.  i have had a few come across my news feed on facebook, and half the time i just keep scrolling.  so i do not think people are doing it because they are narcissists or attention seeking.  i think they are doing it because it is low effort, kinda fun, and a vogue thing to do.   #  sometimes, recognition, a record, and competition are necessary.   #  points for contributing to neuromuscular disease als, muscular dystrophy, parkinson is disease, cerebral palsy, etc.  computing projects  world community grid uses boinc berkeley open infrastructure for network computing .  boinc is a software platform for distributed computing using volunteer computing resources.  one of the world community grid projects that you can choose involves investigating protein protein interactions for 0,0 proteins whose structures are known, with particular focus on those proteins that play a role in neuromuscular diseases.  you could probably get more people to donate to nonprofits if more of them would be involved with things like the smart phone charity apps that are available, such as the boinc app, and google one today for android and ios .  all points or contributions are recorded on an online profile, and they should eventually connect to something like the leaderboard, and achievements system of xbox, ps, or google play games.  people by nature can be mostly status conscious, self interested, and competitive.  reputation and points systems can affect motivation, and may be the only source of motivation for some people to do something charitable.  reddit karma, stackoverflow points, and blood donations  reddit karma is a factor as to why reddit comments are not like youtube comments.  whether you think reddit karma is ridiculous or not, a lot of people value internet points.  they allow people to show off.  when people answer my questions on stackoverflow, some of them might really want to help, but some of them might just care about gaining more points.  to me, it does not matter, as long as i get my questions answered.  some people donate blood for the money, and some people donate blood because of a different cause.  if i need the blood, i do not care what a donor is motivation was.  if it is not charity points, people will continue to show off by spending on clothes, cars, jewelry, wearable electronics, wearable gadgets etc.  if you can shift it to a better cause, why not ? sometimes, recognition, a record, and competition are necessary.  any attention, good or bad, is good, and any kind of donation, no matter the motivation e. g.  showing off your ice bucket video, or showing off your charity profile and points , is good.
there is a very popular phrase that is been going around dating advice circles for men  do not ask a fish how to catch it, ask the fisherman how he catches it.   it is come under a lot of fire because people tend to see it as a misogynistic and reducing women to prey.  however, i think they just misunderstand what it means.  the analogy is straightforward.  a fish does not really know what techniques were used to draw its attention in.  if you asked it how it ended up in a net, the fish would reply  well, the food just dangles down and i went towards it.   if you ask a fisherman however, he will detail for you the methods he uses to catch this fish which are obviously a lot more complicated than the fish is point of view.  in a real world example, considering the following.  i have asked a lot of women how they got their boyfriends.  their answers are usually innocuous and reflect a lot of so called coincidence.  they will say  oh, we just bumped into each other at a party, got to know each other, and went out ! it is that easy ! just be open minded and one day you will meet a girl who clicks with you !   i have asked the guys  the same question  and the response i got was usually:  i noticed her in class on day 0 but i did not want to be a creep for asking her out immediately.  so i started to get to know her friends, found out what she likes to do in her free time.  i made sure to conveniently bump into her sometimes and exchange small talk.  finally i took some buddies and went to the house party that i knew she was going to; at that party i finally popped the question and now we are going out.   obviously this is an example, the answers have not been exactly the same.  but you get the idea.  a man asking women how to get a date will not get useful advice because of how our society is structured, with the genders playing established roles in most cases.  the guy is the approacher, the woman is the receiver, etc.  so if you ask a woman, you will get useless advice because her experience is not your own.  if you ask a man, however, you will get more useful advice.  because as a man in our current western society, your approach to getting dates will be more similar to that of another man than that of a woman.   tl;dr: a man looking to get dates/relationships should ask other men how they did it instead of asking women.  change my view.   #  if you ask a man, however, you will get more useful advice.   #  because as a man in our current western society, your approach to getting dates will be more similar to that of another man than that of a woman.   #  i guess i do not really see how you have demonstrated that the average man will have better advice than the average woman.  what you have seemed to demonstrate is that someone who can articulate ideas is better at giving advice than someone who ca not.  because as a man in our current western society, your approach to getting dates will be more similar to that of another man than that of a woman.  this is assuming that the man is dating the exact kind of women who you want to date and who would want to date you.  you also seem to be implying that a man who can date women will be able to explain what women are attracted to better than the women themselves.  why would you think that ?  #  lot is of useful actionable, info for a fisherman there.   #  why not ask both ? URL going with your analogy: fisherman would love to have an opportunity to get  into the head of a fish.   the  fish  might say,  well, the food just dangles down and i went towards it.   but it may also say what kind of dangled food excites her the most, what color, what smell, what depth.  lot is of useful actionable, info for a fisherman there.  of course, this is not a substitute for also talking to other  fishermen.   but one does not preclude the other.   #  the benefit here is that getting information from as many sources as possible is always helpful, and there is no  god level  fisherman who knows everything.   #  some fisherman do known, some do not know and might have caught fish by accident only or only caught very hungry fish .  some fisherman might think they do know and have a decent track record , but their method can be yet be further improved.  the benefit here is that getting information from as many sources as possible is always helpful, and there is no  god level  fisherman who knows everything.  this is like asking: why read primary source historic documents, when historians already wrote plenty of secondary source books ? the answer here is that you should read both if you want to be an expert.  after all, the other historians might have been getting it wrong all along: URL  #  i tell women to ask women who have done those things well already.   #  cosmo is written as bullshit so they have a constant market of unhappy single women to read their latest  how to get a man and lose ten pounds !   weekly column.  what do you know about dresses ? or make up ? or hair ? or shoes ? or the thousand other things that women do to attract male attention ? i do not.  i tell women to ask women who have done those things well already.  there are known knowns about dating how you like your dick sucked , but there are also known unknowns how she should do her hair and unknown unknowns anything women do that you do not even know that they do .  you ca not give advice on the things you do not know.   #  i have never looked at a woman is shoes except when she is exceptionally boring and i am scraping for conversation.   #  ah therein lies the rub.  i know very little about dresses.  i care for a certain length and that is it.  but beyond that, i do not care.  hair ? keep it neat and kempt.  shoes ? i have never looked at a woman is shoes except when she is exceptionally boring and i am scraping for conversation.  yet these are things that women think matter.  but in reality, not so much.  i do not know about boys, but a man knows what he wants and is not easily swayed by a pretty dress or a well purchased pair of shoes.  if you think there are  womanly tricks  that sweep you into bed, you oughta shape up brother.  what do not i know about what i want ? you are presuming quite a lot about me that i do not even know.  i do not think subliminal female messaging has the effect on me you think it does.  it hardly gets through to me when they say something straight to my face.
many people think that hitting someone when they are on the ground is wrong, even if the person is acting in self defense.  this could not be more wrong.  if a person attacks you unjustly and you stop hitting them once they appear to be subdued, you are being foolish.  0 the attacker could be playing possum.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  these two reasons are why it is rational to continue to beat someone until they are unconscious.  the reason it is also ethical is because 0 a person has the right to be secure in their person, and they cannot be secure until the person is unconscious for the previous two reasons 0 if you do not want a vicious beating do not go around attacking people unjustly.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.  all of this is especially true if the attacker has a large size advantage against the attackee.  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .   #  if a person attacks you unjustly and you stop hitting them once they appear to be subdued, you are being foolish.   #  if you are really at risk for being harmed, you subdue them and call for assistance after they are on the ground.   # if you are really at risk for being harmed, you subdue them and call for assistance after they are on the ground.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  when the attacker is on the ground, you leave the area.  beating someone unconscious escalates the situation and can cause others to attack you in retaliation.  if you fight until they are bested, then you have a better chance of reconciliation.  people do not go unconscious like in the movies.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  there is no justification to cause permanent brain damage when your life is no longer in danger.   #  yeah i understand that, but while that sounds reasonable it is really not.   #  yeah i understand that, but while that sounds reasonable it is really not.  honestly this conversation would be a lot easier if the op has specified  incapacitated  rather than  unconscious .  incapacitation can range from dazing someone or knocking them out or even killing them.  afterwards you have got two options, get the hell out of there or wait for the authorities.  both of those are highly situationally dependent.  generally it is not a smart idea to incapacitate yourself in the process of keeping control over someone, such as by keeping them in a hold.  furthermore, if you can daze them or knock them out, waiting around is not that great of an idea either.  you would either be dealing with some weird questions on why you tied someone up, or you would have to continue to assault them after they came to.  it is just not realistically feasible.  again, it is all highly subjective, but generally if you are the victim of an unprovoked assault, you want to eliminate the threat and get the fuck out of there.   incapacitation  is the word op should have used, but i am assuming that was his or her point  #  people do not fight honourably on the streets, if someone gets knocked to the floor they are not gonna be happy about it and more likely to want to beat you down.   # define subdue.  i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  and how do i know he/she wo not get up and suckerpunch me ? people do not fight honourably on the streets, if someone gets knocked to the floor they are not gonna be happy about it and more likely to want to beat you down.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  this is a very rare scenario.  the vast majority of people get knocked out and wake up with a concussion at most.   #  you can control their arms by putting your shins or knees on them.   # i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  subdue means to bring under control.  if you have beaten a person to the ground, put them on their stomach and sit on them.  you can control their arms by putting your shins or knees on them.  i am a martial arts expert, but this expertise is not necessary for controlling people.  being on your stomach is the worst place to be, and it is easy to control people in that position.  if you insist people must be unconscious, a blood choke is a much safer alternative.  get the person in a headlock with the crook of your elbow against their trachea.  by flexing your muscle and pulling in, you can squeeze off the blood to the brain causing them to go unconscious.  they will wake up with a terrible headache, but probably not brain damage.  unlike in a movie, you want to back away from potential threats.  even if you have beaten someone so they appear to be unconscious, you might be wrong and still run this risk.  have you been in a real fight as an adult ? there comes a point where one of you realizes you ca not win.  if you are in a position to beat someone unconscious, that person may realize it is time to stop fighting.  it is actually extremely common.  look at sports like football, boxing, and mma fighting for examples of how knockouts cause brain damage.  the kind of knockout you are talking about is where you can leave the area and be certain the person will be out for a while.  a bump on the head that takes you out for half a minute wo not provide the benefits proposed for this situation.   #  when you knock someone unconscious, you are no longer in control of the consequences.   #  knocking someone unconscious does not work the way it does in tv and movies.  they do not just wake up later as if someone put them to sleep.  there is usually permanent brain damage, and death is not uncommon.  when you knock someone unconscious, you are no longer in control of the consequences.  unless you feel capable of and justified in taking a life, you should not risk it.
many people think that hitting someone when they are on the ground is wrong, even if the person is acting in self defense.  this could not be more wrong.  if a person attacks you unjustly and you stop hitting them once they appear to be subdued, you are being foolish.  0 the attacker could be playing possum.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  these two reasons are why it is rational to continue to beat someone until they are unconscious.  the reason it is also ethical is because 0 a person has the right to be secure in their person, and they cannot be secure until the person is unconscious for the previous two reasons 0 if you do not want a vicious beating do not go around attacking people unjustly.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.  all of this is especially true if the attacker has a large size advantage against the attackee.  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .   #  0 the attacker could be playing possum.   #  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.   # if you are really at risk for being harmed, you subdue them and call for assistance after they are on the ground.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  when the attacker is on the ground, you leave the area.  beating someone unconscious escalates the situation and can cause others to attack you in retaliation.  if you fight until they are bested, then you have a better chance of reconciliation.  people do not go unconscious like in the movies.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  there is no justification to cause permanent brain damage when your life is no longer in danger.   #   incapacitation  is the word op should have used, but i am assuming that was his or her point  #  yeah i understand that, but while that sounds reasonable it is really not.  honestly this conversation would be a lot easier if the op has specified  incapacitated  rather than  unconscious .  incapacitation can range from dazing someone or knocking them out or even killing them.  afterwards you have got two options, get the hell out of there or wait for the authorities.  both of those are highly situationally dependent.  generally it is not a smart idea to incapacitate yourself in the process of keeping control over someone, such as by keeping them in a hold.  furthermore, if you can daze them or knock them out, waiting around is not that great of an idea either.  you would either be dealing with some weird questions on why you tied someone up, or you would have to continue to assault them after they came to.  it is just not realistically feasible.  again, it is all highly subjective, but generally if you are the victim of an unprovoked assault, you want to eliminate the threat and get the fuck out of there.   incapacitation  is the word op should have used, but i am assuming that was his or her point  #  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.   # define subdue.  i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  and how do i know he/she wo not get up and suckerpunch me ? people do not fight honourably on the streets, if someone gets knocked to the floor they are not gonna be happy about it and more likely to want to beat you down.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  this is a very rare scenario.  the vast majority of people get knocked out and wake up with a concussion at most.   #  have you been in a real fight as an adult ?  # i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  subdue means to bring under control.  if you have beaten a person to the ground, put them on their stomach and sit on them.  you can control their arms by putting your shins or knees on them.  i am a martial arts expert, but this expertise is not necessary for controlling people.  being on your stomach is the worst place to be, and it is easy to control people in that position.  if you insist people must be unconscious, a blood choke is a much safer alternative.  get the person in a headlock with the crook of your elbow against their trachea.  by flexing your muscle and pulling in, you can squeeze off the blood to the brain causing them to go unconscious.  they will wake up with a terrible headache, but probably not brain damage.  unlike in a movie, you want to back away from potential threats.  even if you have beaten someone so they appear to be unconscious, you might be wrong and still run this risk.  have you been in a real fight as an adult ? there comes a point where one of you realizes you ca not win.  if you are in a position to beat someone unconscious, that person may realize it is time to stop fighting.  it is actually extremely common.  look at sports like football, boxing, and mma fighting for examples of how knockouts cause brain damage.  the kind of knockout you are talking about is where you can leave the area and be certain the person will be out for a while.  a bump on the head that takes you out for half a minute wo not provide the benefits proposed for this situation.   #  unless you feel capable of and justified in taking a life, you should not risk it.   #  knocking someone unconscious does not work the way it does in tv and movies.  they do not just wake up later as if someone put them to sleep.  there is usually permanent brain damage, and death is not uncommon.  when you knock someone unconscious, you are no longer in control of the consequences.  unless you feel capable of and justified in taking a life, you should not risk it.
many people think that hitting someone when they are on the ground is wrong, even if the person is acting in self defense.  this could not be more wrong.  if a person attacks you unjustly and you stop hitting them once they appear to be subdued, you are being foolish.  0 the attacker could be playing possum.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  these two reasons are why it is rational to continue to beat someone until they are unconscious.  the reason it is also ethical is because 0 a person has the right to be secure in their person, and they cannot be secure until the person is unconscious for the previous two reasons 0 if you do not want a vicious beating do not go around attacking people unjustly.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.  all of this is especially true if the attacker has a large size advantage against the attackee.  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .   #  these two reasons are why it is rational to continue to beat someone until they are unconscious.   #  people do not go unconscious like in the movies.   # if you are really at risk for being harmed, you subdue them and call for assistance after they are on the ground.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  when the attacker is on the ground, you leave the area.  beating someone unconscious escalates the situation and can cause others to attack you in retaliation.  if you fight until they are bested, then you have a better chance of reconciliation.  people do not go unconscious like in the movies.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  there is no justification to cause permanent brain damage when your life is no longer in danger.   #  furthermore, if you can daze them or knock them out, waiting around is not that great of an idea either.   #  yeah i understand that, but while that sounds reasonable it is really not.  honestly this conversation would be a lot easier if the op has specified  incapacitated  rather than  unconscious .  incapacitation can range from dazing someone or knocking them out or even killing them.  afterwards you have got two options, get the hell out of there or wait for the authorities.  both of those are highly situationally dependent.  generally it is not a smart idea to incapacitate yourself in the process of keeping control over someone, such as by keeping them in a hold.  furthermore, if you can daze them or knock them out, waiting around is not that great of an idea either.  you would either be dealing with some weird questions on why you tied someone up, or you would have to continue to assault them after they came to.  it is just not realistically feasible.  again, it is all highly subjective, but generally if you are the victim of an unprovoked assault, you want to eliminate the threat and get the fuck out of there.   incapacitation  is the word op should have used, but i am assuming that was his or her point  #  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.   # define subdue.  i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  and how do i know he/she wo not get up and suckerpunch me ? people do not fight honourably on the streets, if someone gets knocked to the floor they are not gonna be happy about it and more likely to want to beat you down.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  this is a very rare scenario.  the vast majority of people get knocked out and wake up with a concussion at most.   #  even if you have beaten someone so they appear to be unconscious, you might be wrong and still run this risk.   # i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  subdue means to bring under control.  if you have beaten a person to the ground, put them on their stomach and sit on them.  you can control their arms by putting your shins or knees on them.  i am a martial arts expert, but this expertise is not necessary for controlling people.  being on your stomach is the worst place to be, and it is easy to control people in that position.  if you insist people must be unconscious, a blood choke is a much safer alternative.  get the person in a headlock with the crook of your elbow against their trachea.  by flexing your muscle and pulling in, you can squeeze off the blood to the brain causing them to go unconscious.  they will wake up with a terrible headache, but probably not brain damage.  unlike in a movie, you want to back away from potential threats.  even if you have beaten someone so they appear to be unconscious, you might be wrong and still run this risk.  have you been in a real fight as an adult ? there comes a point where one of you realizes you ca not win.  if you are in a position to beat someone unconscious, that person may realize it is time to stop fighting.  it is actually extremely common.  look at sports like football, boxing, and mma fighting for examples of how knockouts cause brain damage.  the kind of knockout you are talking about is where you can leave the area and be certain the person will be out for a while.  a bump on the head that takes you out for half a minute wo not provide the benefits proposed for this situation.   #  when you knock someone unconscious, you are no longer in control of the consequences.   #  knocking someone unconscious does not work the way it does in tv and movies.  they do not just wake up later as if someone put them to sleep.  there is usually permanent brain damage, and death is not uncommon.  when you knock someone unconscious, you are no longer in control of the consequences.  unless you feel capable of and justified in taking a life, you should not risk it.
many people think that hitting someone when they are on the ground is wrong, even if the person is acting in self defense.  this could not be more wrong.  if a person attacks you unjustly and you stop hitting them once they appear to be subdued, you are being foolish.  0 the attacker could be playing possum.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  these two reasons are why it is rational to continue to beat someone until they are unconscious.  the reason it is also ethical is because 0 a person has the right to be secure in their person, and they cannot be secure until the person is unconscious for the previous two reasons 0 if you do not want a vicious beating do not go around attacking people unjustly.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.  all of this is especially true if the attacker has a large size advantage against the attackee.  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .   #  if you do not want a vicious beating do not go around attacking people unjustly.   #  play with fire and you get burnt.   # play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.  this does not logically follow from this:  a person has the right to be secure in their person the first statement i quoted misses the point of self defense.  it is not for you to fulfill your idea of justice by  finishing what the other person started.   you say that you have a right to be secure in your person.  this is true.  but it is logically inconsistent that being secure in your person means you get to continue beating someone who is already on the ground.  at that point you are no longer securing your person, you are taking revenge.  self defense does not equal revenge.   #  incapacitation can range from dazing someone or knocking them out or even killing them.   #  yeah i understand that, but while that sounds reasonable it is really not.  honestly this conversation would be a lot easier if the op has specified  incapacitated  rather than  unconscious .  incapacitation can range from dazing someone or knocking them out or even killing them.  afterwards you have got two options, get the hell out of there or wait for the authorities.  both of those are highly situationally dependent.  generally it is not a smart idea to incapacitate yourself in the process of keeping control over someone, such as by keeping them in a hold.  furthermore, if you can daze them or knock them out, waiting around is not that great of an idea either.  you would either be dealing with some weird questions on why you tied someone up, or you would have to continue to assault them after they came to.  it is just not realistically feasible.  again, it is all highly subjective, but generally if you are the victim of an unprovoked assault, you want to eliminate the threat and get the fuck out of there.   incapacitation  is the word op should have used, but i am assuming that was his or her point  #  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.   # if you are really at risk for being harmed, you subdue them and call for assistance after they are on the ground.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  when the attacker is on the ground, you leave the area.  beating someone unconscious escalates the situation and can cause others to attack you in retaliation.  if you fight until they are bested, then you have a better chance of reconciliation.  people do not go unconscious like in the movies.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  there is no justification to cause permanent brain damage when your life is no longer in danger.   #  and how do i know he/she wo not get up and suckerpunch me ?  # define subdue.  i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  and how do i know he/she wo not get up and suckerpunch me ? people do not fight honourably on the streets, if someone gets knocked to the floor they are not gonna be happy about it and more likely to want to beat you down.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  this is a very rare scenario.  the vast majority of people get knocked out and wake up with a concussion at most.   #  being on your stomach is the worst place to be, and it is easy to control people in that position.   # i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  subdue means to bring under control.  if you have beaten a person to the ground, put them on their stomach and sit on them.  you can control their arms by putting your shins or knees on them.  i am a martial arts expert, but this expertise is not necessary for controlling people.  being on your stomach is the worst place to be, and it is easy to control people in that position.  if you insist people must be unconscious, a blood choke is a much safer alternative.  get the person in a headlock with the crook of your elbow against their trachea.  by flexing your muscle and pulling in, you can squeeze off the blood to the brain causing them to go unconscious.  they will wake up with a terrible headache, but probably not brain damage.  unlike in a movie, you want to back away from potential threats.  even if you have beaten someone so they appear to be unconscious, you might be wrong and still run this risk.  have you been in a real fight as an adult ? there comes a point where one of you realizes you ca not win.  if you are in a position to beat someone unconscious, that person may realize it is time to stop fighting.  it is actually extremely common.  look at sports like football, boxing, and mma fighting for examples of how knockouts cause brain damage.  the kind of knockout you are talking about is where you can leave the area and be certain the person will be out for a while.  a bump on the head that takes you out for half a minute wo not provide the benefits proposed for this situation.
many people think that hitting someone when they are on the ground is wrong, even if the person is acting in self defense.  this could not be more wrong.  if a person attacks you unjustly and you stop hitting them once they appear to be subdued, you are being foolish.  0 the attacker could be playing possum.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  these two reasons are why it is rational to continue to beat someone until they are unconscious.  the reason it is also ethical is because 0 a person has the right to be secure in their person, and they cannot be secure until the person is unconscious for the previous two reasons 0 if you do not want a vicious beating do not go around attacking people unjustly.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.  all of this is especially true if the attacker has a large size advantage against the attackee.  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .   #  the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.   #  fear of a future possible attack does not justify a preemptive strike.   # for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly that is a pretty costly gambit, by playing possum, your assailant puts him in the worst possible position tactically.  if you are powerful enough to have brought him down, then he ca not afford to give you this advantage.  fear of a future possible attack does not justify a preemptive strike.  rather it would seem far better to run at that point and call the authorities.  the way i see it there are only a few possibilities.  assailant and victim are evenly matched: the victim has no right to use such a disproportionate level of force when they clearly have already won the fight and have an opportunity to retreat.  victim had a lucky first strike and assailant plays possum: in this case, the victim has abandoned his relative safety by continuing the fight.  victim had a lucky first strike and assailant does not play possum: now you are just kicking a man when he is down after he has been neutralized.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.   if you do not want to be raped/killed do not go around attacking people unjustly.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.   would you agrees with this statement.  does your assailant just give up any moral rights by attacking you.  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .  really ? the victim should waist precious time that should be spent fleeing by causing excessive damage to his attackers.   #  yeah i understand that, but while that sounds reasonable it is really not.   #  yeah i understand that, but while that sounds reasonable it is really not.  honestly this conversation would be a lot easier if the op has specified  incapacitated  rather than  unconscious .  incapacitation can range from dazing someone or knocking them out or even killing them.  afterwards you have got two options, get the hell out of there or wait for the authorities.  both of those are highly situationally dependent.  generally it is not a smart idea to incapacitate yourself in the process of keeping control over someone, such as by keeping them in a hold.  furthermore, if you can daze them or knock them out, waiting around is not that great of an idea either.  you would either be dealing with some weird questions on why you tied someone up, or you would have to continue to assault them after they came to.  it is just not realistically feasible.  again, it is all highly subjective, but generally if you are the victim of an unprovoked assault, you want to eliminate the threat and get the fuck out of there.   incapacitation  is the word op should have used, but i am assuming that was his or her point  #  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.   # if you are really at risk for being harmed, you subdue them and call for assistance after they are on the ground.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  when the attacker is on the ground, you leave the area.  beating someone unconscious escalates the situation and can cause others to attack you in retaliation.  if you fight until they are bested, then you have a better chance of reconciliation.  people do not go unconscious like in the movies.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  there is no justification to cause permanent brain damage when your life is no longer in danger.   #  and how do i know he/she wo not get up and suckerpunch me ?  # define subdue.  i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  and how do i know he/she wo not get up and suckerpunch me ? people do not fight honourably on the streets, if someone gets knocked to the floor they are not gonna be happy about it and more likely to want to beat you down.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  this is a very rare scenario.  the vast majority of people get knocked out and wake up with a concussion at most.   #  if you insist people must be unconscious, a blood choke is a much safer alternative.   # i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  subdue means to bring under control.  if you have beaten a person to the ground, put them on their stomach and sit on them.  you can control their arms by putting your shins or knees on them.  i am a martial arts expert, but this expertise is not necessary for controlling people.  being on your stomach is the worst place to be, and it is easy to control people in that position.  if you insist people must be unconscious, a blood choke is a much safer alternative.  get the person in a headlock with the crook of your elbow against their trachea.  by flexing your muscle and pulling in, you can squeeze off the blood to the brain causing them to go unconscious.  they will wake up with a terrible headache, but probably not brain damage.  unlike in a movie, you want to back away from potential threats.  even if you have beaten someone so they appear to be unconscious, you might be wrong and still run this risk.  have you been in a real fight as an adult ? there comes a point where one of you realizes you ca not win.  if you are in a position to beat someone unconscious, that person may realize it is time to stop fighting.  it is actually extremely common.  look at sports like football, boxing, and mma fighting for examples of how knockouts cause brain damage.  the kind of knockout you are talking about is where you can leave the area and be certain the person will be out for a while.  a bump on the head that takes you out for half a minute wo not provide the benefits proposed for this situation.
many people think that hitting someone when they are on the ground is wrong, even if the person is acting in self defense.  this could not be more wrong.  if a person attacks you unjustly and you stop hitting them once they appear to be subdued, you are being foolish.  0 the attacker could be playing possum.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  these two reasons are why it is rational to continue to beat someone until they are unconscious.  the reason it is also ethical is because 0 a person has the right to be secure in their person, and they cannot be secure until the person is unconscious for the previous two reasons 0 if you do not want a vicious beating do not go around attacking people unjustly.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.  all of this is especially true if the attacker has a large size advantage against the attackee.  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .   #  if you do not want a vicious beating do not go around attacking people unjustly.   #  play with fire and you get burnt.   # for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly that is a pretty costly gambit, by playing possum, your assailant puts him in the worst possible position tactically.  if you are powerful enough to have brought him down, then he ca not afford to give you this advantage.  fear of a future possible attack does not justify a preemptive strike.  rather it would seem far better to run at that point and call the authorities.  the way i see it there are only a few possibilities.  assailant and victim are evenly matched: the victim has no right to use such a disproportionate level of force when they clearly have already won the fight and have an opportunity to retreat.  victim had a lucky first strike and assailant plays possum: in this case, the victim has abandoned his relative safety by continuing the fight.  victim had a lucky first strike and assailant does not play possum: now you are just kicking a man when he is down after he has been neutralized.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.   if you do not want to be raped/killed do not go around attacking people unjustly.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.   would you agrees with this statement.  does your assailant just give up any moral rights by attacking you.  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .  really ? the victim should waist precious time that should be spent fleeing by causing excessive damage to his attackers.   #  furthermore, if you can daze them or knock them out, waiting around is not that great of an idea either.   #  yeah i understand that, but while that sounds reasonable it is really not.  honestly this conversation would be a lot easier if the op has specified  incapacitated  rather than  unconscious .  incapacitation can range from dazing someone or knocking them out or even killing them.  afterwards you have got two options, get the hell out of there or wait for the authorities.  both of those are highly situationally dependent.  generally it is not a smart idea to incapacitate yourself in the process of keeping control over someone, such as by keeping them in a hold.  furthermore, if you can daze them or knock them out, waiting around is not that great of an idea either.  you would either be dealing with some weird questions on why you tied someone up, or you would have to continue to assault them after they came to.  it is just not realistically feasible.  again, it is all highly subjective, but generally if you are the victim of an unprovoked assault, you want to eliminate the threat and get the fuck out of there.   incapacitation  is the word op should have used, but i am assuming that was his or her point  #  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.   # if you are really at risk for being harmed, you subdue them and call for assistance after they are on the ground.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  when the attacker is on the ground, you leave the area.  beating someone unconscious escalates the situation and can cause others to attack you in retaliation.  if you fight until they are bested, then you have a better chance of reconciliation.  people do not go unconscious like in the movies.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  there is no justification to cause permanent brain damage when your life is no longer in danger.   #  i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.   # define subdue.  i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  and how do i know he/she wo not get up and suckerpunch me ? people do not fight honourably on the streets, if someone gets knocked to the floor they are not gonna be happy about it and more likely to want to beat you down.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  this is a very rare scenario.  the vast majority of people get knocked out and wake up with a concussion at most.   #  there comes a point where one of you realizes you ca not win.   # i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  subdue means to bring under control.  if you have beaten a person to the ground, put them on their stomach and sit on them.  you can control their arms by putting your shins or knees on them.  i am a martial arts expert, but this expertise is not necessary for controlling people.  being on your stomach is the worst place to be, and it is easy to control people in that position.  if you insist people must be unconscious, a blood choke is a much safer alternative.  get the person in a headlock with the crook of your elbow against their trachea.  by flexing your muscle and pulling in, you can squeeze off the blood to the brain causing them to go unconscious.  they will wake up with a terrible headache, but probably not brain damage.  unlike in a movie, you want to back away from potential threats.  even if you have beaten someone so they appear to be unconscious, you might be wrong and still run this risk.  have you been in a real fight as an adult ? there comes a point where one of you realizes you ca not win.  if you are in a position to beat someone unconscious, that person may realize it is time to stop fighting.  it is actually extremely common.  look at sports like football, boxing, and mma fighting for examples of how knockouts cause brain damage.  the kind of knockout you are talking about is where you can leave the area and be certain the person will be out for a while.  a bump on the head that takes you out for half a minute wo not provide the benefits proposed for this situation.
many people think that hitting someone when they are on the ground is wrong, even if the person is acting in self defense.  this could not be more wrong.  if a person attacks you unjustly and you stop hitting them once they appear to be subdued, you are being foolish.  0 the attacker could be playing possum.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  these two reasons are why it is rational to continue to beat someone until they are unconscious.  the reason it is also ethical is because 0 a person has the right to be secure in their person, and they cannot be secure until the person is unconscious for the previous two reasons 0 if you do not want a vicious beating do not go around attacking people unjustly.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.  all of this is especially true if the attacker has a large size advantage against the attackee.  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .   #  all of this is especially true if the attacker has a large size advantage against the attackee.   #  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .   # for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly that is a pretty costly gambit, by playing possum, your assailant puts him in the worst possible position tactically.  if you are powerful enough to have brought him down, then he ca not afford to give you this advantage.  fear of a future possible attack does not justify a preemptive strike.  rather it would seem far better to run at that point and call the authorities.  the way i see it there are only a few possibilities.  assailant and victim are evenly matched: the victim has no right to use such a disproportionate level of force when they clearly have already won the fight and have an opportunity to retreat.  victim had a lucky first strike and assailant plays possum: in this case, the victim has abandoned his relative safety by continuing the fight.  victim had a lucky first strike and assailant does not play possum: now you are just kicking a man when he is down after he has been neutralized.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.   if you do not want to be raped/killed do not go around attacking people unjustly.  play with fire and you get burnt.  it serves you right.   would you agrees with this statement.  does your assailant just give up any moral rights by attacking you.  it is foolish to expect a smaller person to give a much larger person a second opportunity to attack them it is really foolish for anyone, but moreso for smaller people .  really ? the victim should waist precious time that should be spent fleeing by causing excessive damage to his attackers.   #  you would either be dealing with some weird questions on why you tied someone up, or you would have to continue to assault them after they came to.   #  yeah i understand that, but while that sounds reasonable it is really not.  honestly this conversation would be a lot easier if the op has specified  incapacitated  rather than  unconscious .  incapacitation can range from dazing someone or knocking them out or even killing them.  afterwards you have got two options, get the hell out of there or wait for the authorities.  both of those are highly situationally dependent.  generally it is not a smart idea to incapacitate yourself in the process of keeping control over someone, such as by keeping them in a hold.  furthermore, if you can daze them or knock them out, waiting around is not that great of an idea either.  you would either be dealing with some weird questions on why you tied someone up, or you would have to continue to assault them after they came to.  it is just not realistically feasible.  again, it is all highly subjective, but generally if you are the victim of an unprovoked assault, you want to eliminate the threat and get the fuck out of there.   incapacitation  is the word op should have used, but i am assuming that was his or her point  #  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.   # if you are really at risk for being harmed, you subdue them and call for assistance after they are on the ground.  for example, if they say they are done they could just be lying, which is probable since they have already shown they lack ethics by attacking someone unjustly.  0 the attacker could just be waiting to recoup and attack again, especially as vengeance for being bested.  when the attacker is on the ground, you leave the area.  beating someone unconscious escalates the situation and can cause others to attack you in retaliation.  if you fight until they are bested, then you have a better chance of reconciliation.  people do not go unconscious like in the movies.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  there is no justification to cause permanent brain damage when your life is no longer in danger.   #  people do not fight honourably on the streets, if someone gets knocked to the floor they are not gonna be happy about it and more likely to want to beat you down.   # define subdue.  i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  and how do i know he/she wo not get up and suckerpunch me ? people do not fight honourably on the streets, if someone gets knocked to the floor they are not gonna be happy about it and more likely to want to beat you down.  when you are beat until you are unconscious, you get brain damage.  this is a very rare scenario.  the vast majority of people get knocked out and wake up with a concussion at most.   #  if you insist people must be unconscious, a blood choke is a much safer alternative.   # i am not some martial arts expert, the only way i know how to subdue someone is to hit them until they stop moving.  subdue means to bring under control.  if you have beaten a person to the ground, put them on their stomach and sit on them.  you can control their arms by putting your shins or knees on them.  i am a martial arts expert, but this expertise is not necessary for controlling people.  being on your stomach is the worst place to be, and it is easy to control people in that position.  if you insist people must be unconscious, a blood choke is a much safer alternative.  get the person in a headlock with the crook of your elbow against their trachea.  by flexing your muscle and pulling in, you can squeeze off the blood to the brain causing them to go unconscious.  they will wake up with a terrible headache, but probably not brain damage.  unlike in a movie, you want to back away from potential threats.  even if you have beaten someone so they appear to be unconscious, you might be wrong and still run this risk.  have you been in a real fight as an adult ? there comes a point where one of you realizes you ca not win.  if you are in a position to beat someone unconscious, that person may realize it is time to stop fighting.  it is actually extremely common.  look at sports like football, boxing, and mma fighting for examples of how knockouts cause brain damage.  the kind of knockout you are talking about is where you can leave the area and be certain the person will be out for a while.  a bump on the head that takes you out for half a minute wo not provide the benefits proposed for this situation.
the kid safe version of reality adults use in the presence of young people locks kids into a bubble of misinformation that they have to spend a third of their lives climbing out of, with great dissonance.  it is a polite pretense that the world is all sunshine and roses but it is actually maintained for the benefit adults, who want to see children as innocent because it is easier to cope with a charmingly befuddled kid than one who cusses and complains about the state of the world.  i can think of no important truth that adolescents ca not adapt to constructively if they are able to learn it.  if you can name one, you can cmv.  please only address this main point in your replies, though.  i am also not talking about graphic depictions of war and suffering, just ideas about how things work.  obviously i would not want anyone to go too far and fill young minds with an imbalanced amount of negativity, so assume a reasonable effort to raise a healthy minded and fully cognisant adult.   #  i can think of no important truth that adolescents ca not adapt to constructively if they are able to learn it.   #  if you can name one, you can cmv.   # if you can name one, you can cmv.  a lot of this depends on what you see as the underlying truth of socity or of the nature of the universe/reality or of the meaning of life.  whatever  harsh truth  you might be protecting your children from is completely dependent on your model of those things.  so what you perceive as some parents  protecting their children from the harsh truth,  whatever that harsh truth is for you, those parents might see as  telling their children the way things really are.   for example, you might believe that there is no afterlife, that when we die, we just cease to exist, etc.  but some parents might teach their children that when they die, they get to spend eternity surrounded by people who love them because those parents  legitimately believe  that heaven is a thing that exists.  i guess what i am saying is, people can have completely different ideas about the nature of  reality  and what kind of  harsh truths  might be out there that they would need to protect their kids from.  people might already be trying to teach their kids the harsh reality, you just disagree with that view of what reality is.  that may be skewing your perception of how common this problem is and what the solution might be.  i think it would be unconscionable to try to convince parents to teach their children harsh truths that those parents do not actually believe to be true.  if you would like to offer some specific examples of harsh truths that you think adolescents should be taught that you think parents often try to protect their children from, then we could have a discussion about those.  but i imagine most of the things you would come up with would ultimately be subjective or at least unprovable.  our understanding of these so called  hot topics  tends to be pretty limited that is why those topics are hot.   #  i have tried hard not to contribute to that, but do not lie for him.   #  my personal example of this is that i will not tell my daughter that her father and i divorced due in large part to his cheating.  she loves her father, he loves her, and i will not sabotage their relationship.  she has figured out a couple of hard truths about him on her own.  i have tried hard not to contribute to that, but do not lie for him.  i try to help her work through it and understand that he is not going to be perfect.  eventually she may figure out the circumstances of our divorce on her own.  when she is a much older adult, if it seems appropriate for some reason, i would consider telling her.  but for now i am purposefully vague when she asks, and i blame it on both of us making mistakes that hurt each other.  currently there is no good reason i can think of for being flat out truthful with her when it would only hurt her and diminish him or me or both, in her eyes.   #  he and the last woman he cheated on me with were together for quite a while, but not anymore.   #  i can understand that.  i do not lie to her, and i have told her that when she is older, i might tell her more about it.  i just try to stay vague and skip the details, and hope if/when she does learn the whole story, she understands why i kept the explanation vague.  although he was the cheater, i was not a perfect wife whatever that is , so i think blaming both of us is not a stretch of the basic truth.  he and the last woman he cheated on me with were together for quite a while, but not anymore.  i did not do such a good job hiding my feelings about her, but i do let my daughter keep in contact with both her and her parents, including visits.  i hope that this also helps my daughter understand that actions do not always define people, so that maybe those ugly truths are a little easier to handle when the time comes.   #  tl;dr i shared the same opinion as op , and the way i interrupted your position totally changed my view.   #  i totally agreed with op, and then you presented your way of things and i totally see where you are coming from.  i do believe that presenting information in different ways, at different ages, is essentially lying.  however, i think that is actually a very effective way of parenting, and as long as the parent properly addresses issues or re addresses them as the child comes to age, then it is ok to sugar coat a few things.  especially since young children should not be made cynical realists at such a young age.  tl;dr i shared the same opinion as op , and the way i interrupted your position totally changed my view.  thanks for the insight.    0;  #  i have been non religious for about 0 years now i am 0 , and i do not think i will ever be able to imagine death without an afterlife or some sort or judgement no matter how hard i try.   #  me too, i grew up in a religious household and also spent my first year of school at a christian college.  the damage this does to a developing mind is insane.  i have been non religious for about 0 years now i am 0 , and i do not think i will ever be able to imagine death without an afterlife or some sort or judgement no matter how hard i try.  if you engrave something like that into the subconscious of a child, there is a chance it will never go away.  it is so hard to unlearn this type of shit.
i am extremely angered when i hear things like michael brown was executed.  cops are not secretly serial killers who are just waiting for a chance to get away with killing someone.  but that is how these morons are portraying the police.  i refuse to believe that a member of the police performed a public execution under scrutiny of other bystanders.  the cop is not mentally ill.  his actions must done alongside of some kind of self interest.  shoot an innocent person who poses no danger in the head execution style in public ? really ? what possibly way of reasoning could lead to that conclusion ? i was 0 confident since the very break of the news that the cop was unlikely to have done anything wrong.  these protesters automatically assumed the cop was in the wrong and refused to acknowledge new evidence.  i get pissed off that people think michael brown is still a saint after the video of him robbing the store was released.  retards insist that it has nothing to do with the shooting.  it has everything to do with it.  the reality is that michael probably thought he got caught, and therefore, his interactions with the cop was likely to be extremely aggressive.  i imagine it went something like officer hey you are blocking traffic michael i ai not rob no store you fucking pig.  officer i didnt say.  michael these cigars ai not from the store.  officer i did not ask about.  michael fuck all ya.  always tryin a hold me down officer ok put your hands in the air ! michael fly high or die tryin ! yolo ! ahhh charges head first at cop and gets shot like a retard seriously, if the cop was a sick fuck and gets a boner shooting up black people, he could have done so in a secluded area at night when no one was around.  it would have been his word against the world, no witnesses.  somebody please explain to me why people protesting in favor of this dead thief is not a moron.   #  i was 0 confident since the very break of the news that the cop was unlikely to have done anything wrong.   #  so, you think the protesters are in the wrong because they are unyielding in their initial views, but when you do it it is okay ?  # so, you think the protesters are in the wrong because they are unyielding in their initial views, but when you do it it is okay ? that is some weird reasoning.  your characterization of the interaction between mr.  brown and the officer is groundless, and racist.  even if he were engaged in a crime, that does not give the police a blank check to use violence against him.  the position of power that the officers occupy, with it is monopoly on the legal use of force, means that they have a responsibility to not use this force in a hasty manner.  also, do not use the word  retard  as an insult.  it is demeaning to those with developmental disabilities.  not only that, it makes you sound like an oaf.  really, this entire rant seems to be generated out of a point of view which is uncaring and unsympathetic, and the prevalence of this sort of viewpoint, wherein members of a minority are automatically assumed to be less intelligent than members of the majority, is likely a part of the background as to why these events are occurring in the first place.  try seeing this whole thing as a tragedy, rather than an excuse to write off the experiences and feelings of a demographic.  nobody wins this sort of thing.  no one wants things to be this way.  neither of us were there, it is not our place to say who  deserved  what.  what we can do, is to empathize with those who have lost a friend, or family member, or who did something they may well regret later in a stressful situation.  care , for fuck is sake.   #  would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long haired hippies ?  #  you have seven deltas.  you should know how the rules on this subreddit work by now.  anyone who is considering posting in this thread should read this excerpt from rule 0 before going any farther.  would you walk into a hospital and slap the patients because they are sick ? would you enter an alcoholics anonymous meeting and call everyone a worthless drunk ? would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long haired hippies ? imagine if there was a place, somewhere, that a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of things, to see their view from a different perspective, and do it without fear of being shamed.  /r/changemyview is meant to be that place.  if you think that a person is opinion is vile, and you are insulting them in changemyview, then you are being just as, if not more, unproductive.  this is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views of all can come to work it out.  a lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner.  being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate.  do not like the view ? want to change it ? what do you think is more likely to do that being polite and civil, or rude and hostile ? if anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.  you do not like that he thinks a particular group of people are stupid for believing something ? then change his view using rational discussion.  insulting him is counterproductive.  if you ca not get your point across using insults then you are on the wrong subreddit.  it is also worth noting op has changed their mind on the subject and awarded deltas here URL and here URL if i am not mistaken, one of these posters is making the same argument that you attempted to make, but without trying to insult the op, so what exactly is the point you are trying to make here ?  #  unless you are insulting specific people then it is okay.   #  anyone is allowed to hold bigotted views towards a group, and even be insulting towards that group, that is the nature of this subreddit.  unless you are insulting specific people then it is okay.  i. e.   niggers are fucking dumb.   that is a pretty awful thing to believe, but that is the kind of view we are here to change.   you are fucking dumb.   this does not add anything to the conversation.  it is more likely to derail and put people on the defensive.  it is an important distinction that we make on this subreddit, and op did not really cross the line in their post, they were just being brutally honest about how he/she felt.   #  in fact op raises the even more pressing question of systemic indoctrination by and support of the establishment.   #  because the next time this topic comes up op will most likely be at it again.  none of the  views  op changed are more than nuances and none of them are critical to the issue op raises which is the combination of institutional racism, oppression, and poverty and the results therein.  in fact op raises the even more pressing question of systemic indoctrination by and support of the establishment.  op is neither practicing skepticism nor critically examining the issue.  this is a general problem with this subreddit.  we  cannot change a view like this because it irrational and contrary to historical and present fact.  we can only add perspective and hope op either has not considered that perspective or that op will perform some introspection.   #  i have seen racists change their mind on this subreddit before; it is not a lost cause even if it is hard to do.   #  ultimately, the criticisms you are laying down are pretty core to the idea of cmv.  we allow horrible views here because occasionally they  do  get changed.  that is the idea that /u/snorrrlax founded the board on, and i do not think it is going to be going anywhere anytime soon unless you can convince him that it should go.  downvotes do not change views, and if you never try to change someone is mind then you will never know if it was possible to begin with.  i have seen racists change their mind on this subreddit before; it is not a lost cause even if it is hard to do.
i am extremely angered when i hear things like michael brown was executed.  cops are not secretly serial killers who are just waiting for a chance to get away with killing someone.  but that is how these morons are portraying the police.  i refuse to believe that a member of the police performed a public execution under scrutiny of other bystanders.  the cop is not mentally ill.  his actions must done alongside of some kind of self interest.  shoot an innocent person who poses no danger in the head execution style in public ? really ? what possibly way of reasoning could lead to that conclusion ? i was 0 confident since the very break of the news that the cop was unlikely to have done anything wrong.  these protesters automatically assumed the cop was in the wrong and refused to acknowledge new evidence.  i get pissed off that people think michael brown is still a saint after the video of him robbing the store was released.  retards insist that it has nothing to do with the shooting.  it has everything to do with it.  the reality is that michael probably thought he got caught, and therefore, his interactions with the cop was likely to be extremely aggressive.  i imagine it went something like officer hey you are blocking traffic michael i ai not rob no store you fucking pig.  officer i didnt say.  michael these cigars ai not from the store.  officer i did not ask about.  michael fuck all ya.  always tryin a hold me down officer ok put your hands in the air ! michael fly high or die tryin ! yolo ! ahhh charges head first at cop and gets shot like a retard seriously, if the cop was a sick fuck and gets a boner shooting up black people, he could have done so in a secluded area at night when no one was around.  it would have been his word against the world, no witnesses.  somebody please explain to me why people protesting in favor of this dead thief is not a moron.   #  retards insist that it has nothing to do with the shooting.   #  it has everything to do with it.   # it has everything to do with it.  it has nothing to do with it.  if the cop in question did not know about the robbery, he was not justified in using deadly force.  until there is evidence that michael brown posed an  immediate danger  to the cop, the shooting is not justified.  since he was  unarmed , the cop should have used less lethal methods.  we do not just kill people because they resist.  or maybe the cop imagines up some  stop resisting arrest  story to justify shooting someone.  you act as if there is not a history of cops unjustifiably killing or injuring minorities.   #  you should know how the rules on this subreddit work by now.   #  you have seven deltas.  you should know how the rules on this subreddit work by now.  anyone who is considering posting in this thread should read this excerpt from rule 0 before going any farther.  would you walk into a hospital and slap the patients because they are sick ? would you enter an alcoholics anonymous meeting and call everyone a worthless drunk ? would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long haired hippies ? imagine if there was a place, somewhere, that a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of things, to see their view from a different perspective, and do it without fear of being shamed.  /r/changemyview is meant to be that place.  if you think that a person is opinion is vile, and you are insulting them in changemyview, then you are being just as, if not more, unproductive.  this is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views of all can come to work it out.  a lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner.  being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate.  do not like the view ? want to change it ? what do you think is more likely to do that being polite and civil, or rude and hostile ? if anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.  you do not like that he thinks a particular group of people are stupid for believing something ? then change his view using rational discussion.  insulting him is counterproductive.  if you ca not get your point across using insults then you are on the wrong subreddit.  it is also worth noting op has changed their mind on the subject and awarded deltas here URL and here URL if i am not mistaken, one of these posters is making the same argument that you attempted to make, but without trying to insult the op, so what exactly is the point you are trying to make here ?  #  that is a pretty awful thing to believe, but that is the kind of view we are here to change.   #  anyone is allowed to hold bigotted views towards a group, and even be insulting towards that group, that is the nature of this subreddit.  unless you are insulting specific people then it is okay.  i. e.   niggers are fucking dumb.   that is a pretty awful thing to believe, but that is the kind of view we are here to change.   you are fucking dumb.   this does not add anything to the conversation.  it is more likely to derail and put people on the defensive.  it is an important distinction that we make on this subreddit, and op did not really cross the line in their post, they were just being brutally honest about how he/she felt.   #  we  cannot change a view like this because it irrational and contrary to historical and present fact.   #  because the next time this topic comes up op will most likely be at it again.  none of the  views  op changed are more than nuances and none of them are critical to the issue op raises which is the combination of institutional racism, oppression, and poverty and the results therein.  in fact op raises the even more pressing question of systemic indoctrination by and support of the establishment.  op is neither practicing skepticism nor critically examining the issue.  this is a general problem with this subreddit.  we  cannot change a view like this because it irrational and contrary to historical and present fact.  we can only add perspective and hope op either has not considered that perspective or that op will perform some introspection.   #  we allow horrible views here because occasionally they  do  get changed.   #  ultimately, the criticisms you are laying down are pretty core to the idea of cmv.  we allow horrible views here because occasionally they  do  get changed.  that is the idea that /u/snorrrlax founded the board on, and i do not think it is going to be going anywhere anytime soon unless you can convince him that it should go.  downvotes do not change views, and if you never try to change someone is mind then you will never know if it was possible to begin with.  i have seen racists change their mind on this subreddit before; it is not a lost cause even if it is hard to do.
i am extremely angered when i hear things like michael brown was executed.  cops are not secretly serial killers who are just waiting for a chance to get away with killing someone.  but that is how these morons are portraying the police.  i refuse to believe that a member of the police performed a public execution under scrutiny of other bystanders.  the cop is not mentally ill.  his actions must done alongside of some kind of self interest.  shoot an innocent person who poses no danger in the head execution style in public ? really ? what possibly way of reasoning could lead to that conclusion ? i was 0 confident since the very break of the news that the cop was unlikely to have done anything wrong.  these protesters automatically assumed the cop was in the wrong and refused to acknowledge new evidence.  i get pissed off that people think michael brown is still a saint after the video of him robbing the store was released.  retards insist that it has nothing to do with the shooting.  it has everything to do with it.  the reality is that michael probably thought he got caught, and therefore, his interactions with the cop was likely to be extremely aggressive.  i imagine it went something like officer hey you are blocking traffic michael i ai not rob no store you fucking pig.  officer i didnt say.  michael these cigars ai not from the store.  officer i did not ask about.  michael fuck all ya.  always tryin a hold me down officer ok put your hands in the air ! michael fly high or die tryin ! yolo ! ahhh charges head first at cop and gets shot like a retard seriously, if the cop was a sick fuck and gets a boner shooting up black people, he could have done so in a secluded area at night when no one was around.  it would have been his word against the world, no witnesses.  somebody please explain to me why people protesting in favor of this dead thief is not a moron.   #  seriously, if the cop was a sick fuck and gets a boner shooting up black people, he could have done so in a secluded area at night when no one was around.   #  or maybe the cop imagines up some  stop resisting arrest  story to justify shooting someone.   # it has everything to do with it.  it has nothing to do with it.  if the cop in question did not know about the robbery, he was not justified in using deadly force.  until there is evidence that michael brown posed an  immediate danger  to the cop, the shooting is not justified.  since he was  unarmed , the cop should have used less lethal methods.  we do not just kill people because they resist.  or maybe the cop imagines up some  stop resisting arrest  story to justify shooting someone.  you act as if there is not a history of cops unjustifiably killing or injuring minorities.   #  if anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.   #  you have seven deltas.  you should know how the rules on this subreddit work by now.  anyone who is considering posting in this thread should read this excerpt from rule 0 before going any farther.  would you walk into a hospital and slap the patients because they are sick ? would you enter an alcoholics anonymous meeting and call everyone a worthless drunk ? would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long haired hippies ? imagine if there was a place, somewhere, that a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of things, to see their view from a different perspective, and do it without fear of being shamed.  /r/changemyview is meant to be that place.  if you think that a person is opinion is vile, and you are insulting them in changemyview, then you are being just as, if not more, unproductive.  this is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views of all can come to work it out.  a lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner.  being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate.  do not like the view ? want to change it ? what do you think is more likely to do that being polite and civil, or rude and hostile ? if anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.  you do not like that he thinks a particular group of people are stupid for believing something ? then change his view using rational discussion.  insulting him is counterproductive.  if you ca not get your point across using insults then you are on the wrong subreddit.  it is also worth noting op has changed their mind on the subject and awarded deltas here URL and here URL if i am not mistaken, one of these posters is making the same argument that you attempted to make, but without trying to insult the op, so what exactly is the point you are trying to make here ?  #  unless you are insulting specific people then it is okay.   #  anyone is allowed to hold bigotted views towards a group, and even be insulting towards that group, that is the nature of this subreddit.  unless you are insulting specific people then it is okay.  i. e.   niggers are fucking dumb.   that is a pretty awful thing to believe, but that is the kind of view we are here to change.   you are fucking dumb.   this does not add anything to the conversation.  it is more likely to derail and put people on the defensive.  it is an important distinction that we make on this subreddit, and op did not really cross the line in their post, they were just being brutally honest about how he/she felt.   #  because the next time this topic comes up op will most likely be at it again.   #  because the next time this topic comes up op will most likely be at it again.  none of the  views  op changed are more than nuances and none of them are critical to the issue op raises which is the combination of institutional racism, oppression, and poverty and the results therein.  in fact op raises the even more pressing question of systemic indoctrination by and support of the establishment.  op is neither practicing skepticism nor critically examining the issue.  this is a general problem with this subreddit.  we  cannot change a view like this because it irrational and contrary to historical and present fact.  we can only add perspective and hope op either has not considered that perspective or that op will perform some introspection.   #  that is the idea that /u/snorrrlax founded the board on, and i do not think it is going to be going anywhere anytime soon unless you can convince him that it should go.   #  ultimately, the criticisms you are laying down are pretty core to the idea of cmv.  we allow horrible views here because occasionally they  do  get changed.  that is the idea that /u/snorrrlax founded the board on, and i do not think it is going to be going anywhere anytime soon unless you can convince him that it should go.  downvotes do not change views, and if you never try to change someone is mind then you will never know if it was possible to begin with.  i have seen racists change their mind on this subreddit before; it is not a lost cause even if it is hard to do.
i am extremely angered when i hear things like michael brown was executed.  cops are not secretly serial killers who are just waiting for a chance to get away with killing someone.  but that is how these morons are portraying the police.  i refuse to believe that a member of the police performed a public execution under scrutiny of other bystanders.  the cop is not mentally ill.  his actions must done alongside of some kind of self interest.  shoot an innocent person who poses no danger in the head execution style in public ? really ? what possibly way of reasoning could lead to that conclusion ? i was 0 confident since the very break of the news that the cop was unlikely to have done anything wrong.  these protesters automatically assumed the cop was in the wrong and refused to acknowledge new evidence.  i get pissed off that people think michael brown is still a saint after the video of him robbing the store was released.  retards insist that it has nothing to do with the shooting.  it has everything to do with it.  the reality is that michael probably thought he got caught, and therefore, his interactions with the cop was likely to be extremely aggressive.  i imagine it went something like officer hey you are blocking traffic michael i ai not rob no store you fucking pig.  officer i didnt say.  michael these cigars ai not from the store.  officer i did not ask about.  michael fuck all ya.  always tryin a hold me down officer ok put your hands in the air ! michael fly high or die tryin ! yolo ! ahhh charges head first at cop and gets shot like a retard seriously, if the cop was a sick fuck and gets a boner shooting up black people, he could have done so in a secluded area at night when no one was around.  it would have been his word against the world, no witnesses.  somebody please explain to me why people protesting in favor of this dead thief is not a moron.   #  i was 0 confident since the very break of the news that the cop was unlikely to have done anything wrong.   #  these protesters automatically assumed the cop was in the wrong and refused to acknowledge new evidence.   # these protesters automatically assumed the cop was in the wrong and refused to acknowledge new evidence.  do you not catch the irony in that paragraph ? that aside, cops are only allowed to shoot at people if their life is in danger.  this was an unarmed man, and they shot him in the head six times.  does that not seem a bit… excessive to you ? and if the cop is life was in danger, why would they not release the video evidence of the altercation and end all these riots ? i think i am wasting my time though, because this post reeks of racism.  your mind is made up, facts be damned.  blacky is guilty.   #  what do you think is more likely to do that being polite and civil, or rude and hostile ?  #  you have seven deltas.  you should know how the rules on this subreddit work by now.  anyone who is considering posting in this thread should read this excerpt from rule 0 before going any farther.  would you walk into a hospital and slap the patients because they are sick ? would you enter an alcoholics anonymous meeting and call everyone a worthless drunk ? would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long haired hippies ? imagine if there was a place, somewhere, that a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of things, to see their view from a different perspective, and do it without fear of being shamed.  /r/changemyview is meant to be that place.  if you think that a person is opinion is vile, and you are insulting them in changemyview, then you are being just as, if not more, unproductive.  this is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views of all can come to work it out.  a lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner.  being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate.  do not like the view ? want to change it ? what do you think is more likely to do that being polite and civil, or rude and hostile ? if anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.  you do not like that he thinks a particular group of people are stupid for believing something ? then change his view using rational discussion.  insulting him is counterproductive.  if you ca not get your point across using insults then you are on the wrong subreddit.  it is also worth noting op has changed their mind on the subject and awarded deltas here URL and here URL if i am not mistaken, one of these posters is making the same argument that you attempted to make, but without trying to insult the op, so what exactly is the point you are trying to make here ?  #  it is an important distinction that we make on this subreddit, and op did not really cross the line in their post, they were just being brutally honest about how he/she felt.   #  anyone is allowed to hold bigotted views towards a group, and even be insulting towards that group, that is the nature of this subreddit.  unless you are insulting specific people then it is okay.  i. e.   niggers are fucking dumb.   that is a pretty awful thing to believe, but that is the kind of view we are here to change.   you are fucking dumb.   this does not add anything to the conversation.  it is more likely to derail and put people on the defensive.  it is an important distinction that we make on this subreddit, and op did not really cross the line in their post, they were just being brutally honest about how he/she felt.   #  because the next time this topic comes up op will most likely be at it again.   #  because the next time this topic comes up op will most likely be at it again.  none of the  views  op changed are more than nuances and none of them are critical to the issue op raises which is the combination of institutional racism, oppression, and poverty and the results therein.  in fact op raises the even more pressing question of systemic indoctrination by and support of the establishment.  op is neither practicing skepticism nor critically examining the issue.  this is a general problem with this subreddit.  we  cannot change a view like this because it irrational and contrary to historical and present fact.  we can only add perspective and hope op either has not considered that perspective or that op will perform some introspection.   #  ultimately, the criticisms you are laying down are pretty core to the idea of cmv.   #  ultimately, the criticisms you are laying down are pretty core to the idea of cmv.  we allow horrible views here because occasionally they  do  get changed.  that is the idea that /u/snorrrlax founded the board on, and i do not think it is going to be going anywhere anytime soon unless you can convince him that it should go.  downvotes do not change views, and if you never try to change someone is mind then you will never know if it was possible to begin with.  i have seen racists change their mind on this subreddit before; it is not a lost cause even if it is hard to do.
i am extremely angered when i hear things like michael brown was executed.  cops are not secretly serial killers who are just waiting for a chance to get away with killing someone.  but that is how these morons are portraying the police.  i refuse to believe that a member of the police performed a public execution under scrutiny of other bystanders.  the cop is not mentally ill.  his actions must done alongside of some kind of self interest.  shoot an innocent person who poses no danger in the head execution style in public ? really ? what possibly way of reasoning could lead to that conclusion ? i was 0 confident since the very break of the news that the cop was unlikely to have done anything wrong.  these protesters automatically assumed the cop was in the wrong and refused to acknowledge new evidence.  i get pissed off that people think michael brown is still a saint after the video of him robbing the store was released.  retards insist that it has nothing to do with the shooting.  it has everything to do with it.  the reality is that michael probably thought he got caught, and therefore, his interactions with the cop was likely to be extremely aggressive.  i imagine it went something like officer hey you are blocking traffic michael i ai not rob no store you fucking pig.  officer i didnt say.  michael these cigars ai not from the store.  officer i did not ask about.  michael fuck all ya.  always tryin a hold me down officer ok put your hands in the air ! michael fly high or die tryin ! yolo ! ahhh charges head first at cop and gets shot like a retard seriously, if the cop was a sick fuck and gets a boner shooting up black people, he could have done so in a secluded area at night when no one was around.  it would have been his word against the world, no witnesses.  somebody please explain to me why people protesting in favor of this dead thief is not a moron.   #  i was 0 confident since the very break of the news that the cop was unlikely to have done anything wrong.   #  without any further evidence of the case you instantly decided that the cop was acting correctly in shooting michael brown ?  # without any further evidence of the case you instantly decided that the cop was acting correctly in shooting michael brown ? why ? is it it totally unthinkable that an officer of the law could act wrongfully ? there have been many cases like this where the officer received no repercussions.  bad people tend to do everything that they can get away with.  nobody is arguing that he is a saint.  he might have been a huge asshole for all i know.  but the point is that does not matter, because that is not how the judicial system works.  you ca not just shoot people for being an asshole or past robberies.  the fact that the police officer shot an unarmed man that posed no lethal threat to him is a sign of an incompetent officer.  police are expected to be capable of arresting people like this, not gun them down on the street.  it is not a question of whether the officer is  a sick fuck  who likes to kill people, it is about whether some officers are conditioned to use lethal force against any threat or disobedience.  also, you are as wrong as the people who claim he is a saint.  you literally wrote down dialog of what you thought he might have said or done.  you have as much evidence of what happened as anybody else.   #  this is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views of all can come to work it out.   #  you have seven deltas.  you should know how the rules on this subreddit work by now.  anyone who is considering posting in this thread should read this excerpt from rule 0 before going any farther.  would you walk into a hospital and slap the patients because they are sick ? would you enter an alcoholics anonymous meeting and call everyone a worthless drunk ? would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long haired hippies ? imagine if there was a place, somewhere, that a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of things, to see their view from a different perspective, and do it without fear of being shamed.  /r/changemyview is meant to be that place.  if you think that a person is opinion is vile, and you are insulting them in changemyview, then you are being just as, if not more, unproductive.  this is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views of all can come to work it out.  a lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner.  being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate.  do not like the view ? want to change it ? what do you think is more likely to do that being polite and civil, or rude and hostile ? if anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.  you do not like that he thinks a particular group of people are stupid for believing something ? then change his view using rational discussion.  insulting him is counterproductive.  if you ca not get your point across using insults then you are on the wrong subreddit.  it is also worth noting op has changed their mind on the subject and awarded deltas here URL and here URL if i am not mistaken, one of these posters is making the same argument that you attempted to make, but without trying to insult the op, so what exactly is the point you are trying to make here ?  #  that is a pretty awful thing to believe, but that is the kind of view we are here to change.   #  anyone is allowed to hold bigotted views towards a group, and even be insulting towards that group, that is the nature of this subreddit.  unless you are insulting specific people then it is okay.  i. e.   niggers are fucking dumb.   that is a pretty awful thing to believe, but that is the kind of view we are here to change.   you are fucking dumb.   this does not add anything to the conversation.  it is more likely to derail and put people on the defensive.  it is an important distinction that we make on this subreddit, and op did not really cross the line in their post, they were just being brutally honest about how he/she felt.   #  in fact op raises the even more pressing question of systemic indoctrination by and support of the establishment.   #  because the next time this topic comes up op will most likely be at it again.  none of the  views  op changed are more than nuances and none of them are critical to the issue op raises which is the combination of institutional racism, oppression, and poverty and the results therein.  in fact op raises the even more pressing question of systemic indoctrination by and support of the establishment.  op is neither practicing skepticism nor critically examining the issue.  this is a general problem with this subreddit.  we  cannot change a view like this because it irrational and contrary to historical and present fact.  we can only add perspective and hope op either has not considered that perspective or that op will perform some introspection.   #  ultimately, the criticisms you are laying down are pretty core to the idea of cmv.   #  ultimately, the criticisms you are laying down are pretty core to the idea of cmv.  we allow horrible views here because occasionally they  do  get changed.  that is the idea that /u/snorrrlax founded the board on, and i do not think it is going to be going anywhere anytime soon unless you can convince him that it should go.  downvotes do not change views, and if you never try to change someone is mind then you will never know if it was possible to begin with.  i have seen racists change their mind on this subreddit before; it is not a lost cause even if it is hard to do.
i am extremely angered when i hear things like michael brown was executed.  cops are not secretly serial killers who are just waiting for a chance to get away with killing someone.  but that is how these morons are portraying the police.  i refuse to believe that a member of the police performed a public execution under scrutiny of other bystanders.  the cop is not mentally ill.  his actions must done alongside of some kind of self interest.  shoot an innocent person who poses no danger in the head execution style in public ? really ? what possibly way of reasoning could lead to that conclusion ? i was 0 confident since the very break of the news that the cop was unlikely to have done anything wrong.  these protesters automatically assumed the cop was in the wrong and refused to acknowledge new evidence.  i get pissed off that people think michael brown is still a saint after the video of him robbing the store was released.  retards insist that it has nothing to do with the shooting.  it has everything to do with it.  the reality is that michael probably thought he got caught, and therefore, his interactions with the cop was likely to be extremely aggressive.  i imagine it went something like officer hey you are blocking traffic michael i ai not rob no store you fucking pig.  officer i didnt say.  michael these cigars ai not from the store.  officer i did not ask about.  michael fuck all ya.  always tryin a hold me down officer ok put your hands in the air ! michael fly high or die tryin ! yolo ! ahhh charges head first at cop and gets shot like a retard seriously, if the cop was a sick fuck and gets a boner shooting up black people, he could have done so in a secluded area at night when no one was around.  it would have been his word against the world, no witnesses.  somebody please explain to me why people protesting in favor of this dead thief is not a moron.   #  i get pissed off that people think michael brown is still a saint after the video of him robbing the store was released.   #  nobody is arguing that he is a saint.   # without any further evidence of the case you instantly decided that the cop was acting correctly in shooting michael brown ? why ? is it it totally unthinkable that an officer of the law could act wrongfully ? there have been many cases like this where the officer received no repercussions.  bad people tend to do everything that they can get away with.  nobody is arguing that he is a saint.  he might have been a huge asshole for all i know.  but the point is that does not matter, because that is not how the judicial system works.  you ca not just shoot people for being an asshole or past robberies.  the fact that the police officer shot an unarmed man that posed no lethal threat to him is a sign of an incompetent officer.  police are expected to be capable of arresting people like this, not gun them down on the street.  it is not a question of whether the officer is  a sick fuck  who likes to kill people, it is about whether some officers are conditioned to use lethal force against any threat or disobedience.  also, you are as wrong as the people who claim he is a saint.  you literally wrote down dialog of what you thought he might have said or done.  you have as much evidence of what happened as anybody else.   #  being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate.   #  you have seven deltas.  you should know how the rules on this subreddit work by now.  anyone who is considering posting in this thread should read this excerpt from rule 0 before going any farther.  would you walk into a hospital and slap the patients because they are sick ? would you enter an alcoholics anonymous meeting and call everyone a worthless drunk ? would you enter a barber shop, point at the line of customers waiting for a haircut, and call them dirty long haired hippies ? imagine if there was a place, somewhere, that a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of things, to see their view from a different perspective, and do it without fear of being shamed.  /r/changemyview is meant to be that place.  if you think that a person is opinion is vile, and you are insulting them in changemyview, then you are being just as, if not more, unproductive.  this is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views of all can come to work it out.  a lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and comment in a mature manner.  being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate.  do not like the view ? want to change it ? what do you think is more likely to do that being polite and civil, or rude and hostile ? if anything, rudeness breeds rudeness, not changed views.  you do not like that he thinks a particular group of people are stupid for believing something ? then change his view using rational discussion.  insulting him is counterproductive.  if you ca not get your point across using insults then you are on the wrong subreddit.  it is also worth noting op has changed their mind on the subject and awarded deltas here URL and here URL if i am not mistaken, one of these posters is making the same argument that you attempted to make, but without trying to insult the op, so what exactly is the point you are trying to make here ?  #  it is an important distinction that we make on this subreddit, and op did not really cross the line in their post, they were just being brutally honest about how he/she felt.   #  anyone is allowed to hold bigotted views towards a group, and even be insulting towards that group, that is the nature of this subreddit.  unless you are insulting specific people then it is okay.  i. e.   niggers are fucking dumb.   that is a pretty awful thing to believe, but that is the kind of view we are here to change.   you are fucking dumb.   this does not add anything to the conversation.  it is more likely to derail and put people on the defensive.  it is an important distinction that we make on this subreddit, and op did not really cross the line in their post, they were just being brutally honest about how he/she felt.   #  we can only add perspective and hope op either has not considered that perspective or that op will perform some introspection.   #  because the next time this topic comes up op will most likely be at it again.  none of the  views  op changed are more than nuances and none of them are critical to the issue op raises which is the combination of institutional racism, oppression, and poverty and the results therein.  in fact op raises the even more pressing question of systemic indoctrination by and support of the establishment.  op is neither practicing skepticism nor critically examining the issue.  this is a general problem with this subreddit.  we  cannot change a view like this because it irrational and contrary to historical and present fact.  we can only add perspective and hope op either has not considered that perspective or that op will perform some introspection.   #  ultimately, the criticisms you are laying down are pretty core to the idea of cmv.   #  ultimately, the criticisms you are laying down are pretty core to the idea of cmv.  we allow horrible views here because occasionally they  do  get changed.  that is the idea that /u/snorrrlax founded the board on, and i do not think it is going to be going anywhere anytime soon unless you can convince him that it should go.  downvotes do not change views, and if you never try to change someone is mind then you will never know if it was possible to begin with.  i have seen racists change their mind on this subreddit before; it is not a lost cause even if it is hard to do.
time magazine and numerous other sources list it as one of the greatest of all time.  for myself, the movie was dull and boring.  betsy is character was flat and uninteresting, and poor acting by cybill shephard.  i cant even quite say that i saw travis as a psychopath.  sure he made some bad/dumb choices, but it was difficult to ascertain if he was really crazy or just disillusioned.  the movie was just  there  it didnt seem to have a purpose.  sometimes it seems that movies are taken for more than they are designed to deliver.  for me, this one seems to fill that space.  there is so much we do not know that we end up filling in the gaps with  it was brilliant !  .  i do not deny that the film is artistic but  any  film is a work of art.  good art being relative of course.  but i consider  greatness  as a film which changes things, excels at something, or has a massive following.  star wars changed the perception about sci fi and special effects.  titanic set world records due to it is emotional weight.  the godfather gave a believable, human, gritty view into the depths of the underworld that most people never knew of.  unforgettable for one reason or another.  but when i have asked people about taxi driver, they say  isnt that the movie with deniro and jodie foster ?   or  is that the one with  you talkin to me ?   .  and that is about it.  so that being said, given what you believe about what makes a film  great , help me to see how this movie fits in that category.  im willing to bend if im just missing something that everyone else saw.   #  it was difficult to ascertain if he was really crazy or just disillusioned.   #  the movie was just  there  it didnt seem to have a purpose.   # the movie was just  there  it didnt seem to have a purpose.  for me, this is what i loved.  it was not laid perfectly out in some overplayed plot.  it was realistic and left a lot of questions just like life.  most of the time he would just witness things.  the scene where the boyfriend talks about murdering his girlfriend and her lover, for example.  that just seemed so off, yet it added to his character as a quiet observer and misanthropist.  most of the film walks you through his generally grim perspective and paints it beautifully without being cliche, as is the standard for the short story format of movies.  all the gritty scenes and gloomy perspectives.  it was so real.  you feel his frustration and malcontent.  ultimately, it all ends with one big moment that would otherwise seem like too much if it was not built from such a simple narrative.  so many stories will include so many points of suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy them.  i think taxi driver is a fresh breath away from that.   #  if the movie came out today it would still be a great period film, but because it came out in 0 it is a contemporary masterpiece.   #  great films enter into the cultural subconscious and you begin to see their influence everywhere: magazine ads, tv commercials, fashion and pretty much every film made after.  what might seem hackneyed or cliche to you now, was once very fresh and groundbreaking.  and it is a film that just came out at the right time.  it perfectly captured the 0s, the mood, the political climate, new york city in decline, the vietnam veteran, etc.  if the movie came out today it would still be a great period film, but because it came out in 0 it is a contemporary masterpiece.  also, just read all of this: URL  #  in contrast to the previous decade, the 0 is were a time of deepening fear, disillusionment, and alienation among the american people.   #  going off what /u/heybaybeeuwantsumfuk edit: fixed incorrect linking said, the film needs to be viewed in the context of the era in which it was made.  taxi driver  was released in 0.  the decade prior had been one of profound social change.  it certainly was not all rosy, but there was the moon landing, the summer of love, woodstock, the civil rights movement, just as some examples of what was going on culturally at the time.  in contrast to the previous decade, the 0 is were a time of deepening fear, disillusionment, and alienation among the american people.  this is something that hunter s.  thompson touched on in  fear and loathing in las vegas.  so now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in las vegas and look west, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high water mark the place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.  part of that involved the many veterans, like bickle, returning from the war, often deeply traumatized.  i ca not think of a single film that depicts and encapsulates that, and the broader disillusionment of the american people, more than  taxi driver .  personally, i think the story works well in itself, in addition to being representative of its era.  i found bickle to be a likable character.  i wanted him to succeed in his quest to overcome his alienation, and i empathized with him when his attempts to do so only ended up deepening the alienation.  i think that is something that many fans of the movie share, as that is something i believe to be very common to the human experience.  we try to connect, we fail, and it ends up driving us further away.  and he wants to make the world a better place but does not have the first clue how, and his helplessness and disgust in the face of all of it drives him to anger and violence, and that is something i empathize with as well.   #  how many americans feel the need to feel powerful by going out and buying a gun ?  #  it is a foray into the mind of a sad, clueless sociopath who dreams up this scenario where he will have a happy ending via violence.  and in the end, he ends up glamorized for it.  the papers hail him a hero for shooting up the pimps.  how many of us have not had some sort of fantasy where we save the day like a superhero ? how many americans feel the need to feel powerful by going out and buying a gun ? he is america.  he is us.   #  he isnt supposed to be seen as batshit crazy more of a person who has been burntout by society so bad that he cant function anymore.   #  im on my phone so im not going to go into crazy detail but travis isnt supposed to be seen as a psychopath.  if you watch the movie thinking that, then youre going to miss the main point.  he is a sociopath.  the dude was so far gone he couldnt really interact with other humans at all.  scorsese did a great job putting this delusional character on screen and make the audience still have a sense of empathy for the guy.  he isnt supposed to be seen as batshit crazy more of a person who has been burntout by society so bad that he cant function anymore.  it is hard to get an audience to feel for a character like that.
for every song with a positive message like  keep ya head up  or  changes , he is got 0 more that glorify gang violence and shootings.  the idea that he was non violent is totally at odds with the music he actually made.  a brief glance at his wikipedia page URL will also show you that he was an exceptionally violent person: he assaulted another rapper with a baseball bat in 0, and assaulted a film director in 0.  in both cases he plead guilty.  he was also found guilty of gang raping a woman in a hotel, a crime for which he was sent to prison.  with anybody else, those three crimes would be enough to judge someone as an extremely violent and unsafe person highly unsuited to be a role model for anybody, but for some reason he is earned a reputation for being some kinda hip hop gandhi.  there are plenty of legendary rappers like mos def, nas and andre 0 whose positive messages are overlooked in favour of tupac, despite managing to avoid assaulting or raping people.  the fact that tupac garners as much respect as he does is symptomatic of massive immaturity in certain parts of the hip hop community.   #  tupac garners as much respect as he does is symptomatic of massive immaturity in certain parts of the hip hop community.   #  well, tupac is the best selling rapper in history would count him as main stream.   # he was also found guilty of gang raping a woman in a hotel, a crime for which he was sent to prison.  you must not understand thug life.  that is the life, you deal or get dealt with.  regarding the rape case, many feel it was wrongful conviction.  in fact, it is somewhat common for wrongful convictions to occur under these circumstances.  even kobe bryant had a similar problem with the law.  the legal system is not fair to black people, and this is known throughout the country.  especially those with thug personas, or connections with the black panthers.  you should read the history of the black panthers.  well, tupac is the best selling rapper in history would count him as main stream.  he was a posthumus crossover sensation, so it is better to say music as a whole rather than just the  rap  community.  however, comparing to him to andre 0 and mos def is a bit disingenuous.  tupac was one of the few rappers to actually try to end gang violence in his free time.  tupac was complex but also very concerned about the ills of the hood.  you might even say he was somewhat like malcolm x, and nas is more like mlk.  both nas and tupac had huge billboard success for talking about the ills of the hood, you ca not say that for mos def and andre 0.   #  he was actually a sensitive and intelligent person that knew that gangbanging is inhumane and has to stop.   #  tupac recorded something like 0 tracks throughout his very short career that are somehow accesible as he was a goddamn music machine and god knows how many tracks there have really been , and to understand his character you really have to dig deeply into his discography.  truth is, he was a very complicated person.  he was no saint, that is for sure.  he was born and raised in a very dangerous environment and he had to adapt as he was saying himself, he was living in a city  where the skinny niggas die .  times were harsh for black people and i am not american, but i am a fan of american rap, and as far as i can tell by what rappers claim, it was not like he could have just moved out of ghetto and go work in an office.  who we become is mostly shaped by environment we grow up in.  yes, he was violent, but a good question to ask is: why ? probably because black la streets would swallow and spit him out if he was not.  it was like a defense mechanism, and i guess it kind of hardcoded into his brain.  as his popularity was growing, he got more and more enemies some wanted to kill him, some even succeded and he had to maintain a character of a hardass to communicate to the world not to fuck with him, but he was not all like that.  he was actually a sensitive and intelligent person that knew that gangbanging is inhumane and has to stop.  that black people need to evolve, but he was convinced that rich white class does not want them to  we need help cause we are dying, give us a chance, help us advance cause we are trying ignore my whole bleed, watching us and discuss and then they beg when my guns burst they do not give a fuck about us  he therefore emphasised how important it is to start growing the young black generations differently or the vicious circle will never stop.  i hear even the smaller g is be dippin chevy impalas while flossin they gold d is, o. g.   is, is who they follow we swallow tomorrow is seeds, what we leave is hollow we feed violence and greed, let  em bleed tomorrow in time, they grip a nine, sippin wine hit grass  til i be starin watch the parents sacrifice they child the love is gone, a thug is home, with no love feelin so strong, make young boys into drug lords  i could write much more than that but i know most people already gave up reading my shit.  so, that being said: there is much more to tupac than what the most popular songs and public opinion says.  from what i have deduced from listening to tupac for quite some years, the man had two sides.  one a hardass gangster he was playing to survive in a jungle that he eventually really became to some extend, and second a sensitive and intelligent man who could see the reality for what it really was and what it has done to him.  i think tupac is a very misunderstood character just because people only scratch the surface when discussing him and very few people actually bother to dig deeper into his words.  again, he was no saint, he had an impulsive nature but it is complex characters like him that make this world interesting.  thanks for reading my lousy wall of text and sorry for typos, esl.   #  shut up about making evil sound cool, put a vest and a badge on and go fix the problem  with your body and life on the line .   #  a bit selective reading of his oeuvre imho.  person writes what they see and feel.  some of the stuff makes it big.  the stuff that makes it big has a certain slant.  now person is famous for that slant and has a public image thing.  yeah, i am ok with op putting the onus and responsibility on that person for not setting the record straight and just going along with x.  just like 0 cent/ice t back in the day at least and all the other supertough gangsta rappers who see themselves making mad cash by disrespecting women and talking about guns and crime like it is cool.  shut up about making evil sound cool, put a vest and a badge on and go fix the problem  with your body and life on the line .  your family will cry when you die, but i will respect you like the brother or sister you are.  or do not.  just keep making the situation worse.  that works, too.  but then i am your enemy.   #  you have clearly never been poor or lived that kind of life.   #  you have clearly never been poor or lived that kind of life.  you ca not just get up and fix it.  tupac was a violent man, and i may not agree with people looking at him as if he is jesus of the ghetto, but his life was on the line every morning he left the house.  his music was largely a call to arms.  he was trying to fix things the only way he knew how.   #  crawled through rooms looking for something to eat because i could not walk.   #  slept on park benches.  hunted by people.  worked for 0  months without pay.  lived in the dirt.  dug ditches.  got hurt.  got lucky a few times but got very badly unlucky a few times more.  crawled through rooms looking for something to eat because i could not walk.  fought the demons and eventually just made friends with them.  yeah, no matter how messed up you are, eventually you will understand you still have a choice whether you want to do to others what others did to you.  life ai not fair.  but everyone is not a bloody victim always, either.  learn how to learn better.  learn how to become strong.  learn how to do good things.  or do not.  your call.  if you just want to call yourself and your friends/people you sympathize with victims all the time, then you will never take charge of your life and do something with it, against the odds.  i did it, you can too.  unless you do not want to, but i guess you can blame someone else for you not wanting to get up and make good things happen.
giving head is trading your discomfort for your lover is pleasure.  nobody likes doing it, except for the responses it provokes.  if your partner feeling good is significant to you, you should be doing it as often and as well as possible.  if the person you are with is not worth it to you, you should probably find somebody new.  i am not interested in hearing about the 0 people in the world who do not like blowjobs.  convince me i am wrong without mentioning them and i will turn your post gold.  cheers, and may the odds ever be in your favor.  word count.   #  nobody likes doing it, except for the responses it provokes.   #  plenty of people enjoy giving head, and i would consider this a pretty feeble premise.   # plenty of people enjoy giving head, and i would consider this a pretty feeble premise.  or maybe you could just both agree on shit to do ? maybe we do not all want to have our dick sucked 0/0 ? i mean, do not get me wrong, i wanted  nothing more  when i was like 0 0, but there is other shit to do that is interesting, intellectually stimulating, and difficult to do with a human latched onto your dick by their mouth.  also, there are plenty of people i have talked to as well as this being my personal preference who would rather just be having full on sex with their so.  note: not saying bjs are not good, or people do not like them, but just that they  are not strictly preferable  to other sexual acts  if the person you are with is not worth it to you, you should probably find somebody new.  and, if just as there are some people who love giving head, there could be some people who literally gag at the thought/reality.  why should they be doomed to loneliness, if they can find someone who is willing to go without getting head ? because you say so ? that is pretty feeble rationale.   #  this could go either way, since the party on the giving or receiving end might not like it and they are going to be very uncomfortable.   # so you are making the claim that because it is giving your partner pleasure that it is worth your own discomfort to give it to them.  if you do not think it is worth your own discomfort to give them pleasure then they are not worth it and you should move on. yes ? ok.  so assume that it is not oral and it is another activity, say, anal or pegging with the assumption that the receiver does not like it.  would we consider this the same case above where if you do not think it is worth taking a little discomfort for your partner is pleasure that you should not be together ? now escalate.  how about bondage ? the person tied up does not like it.  can we apply the above ? now escalate.  how about humiliation ? the person being humiliated does not like it and the humiliator gets pleasure.  can we apply the above ? now escalate.  how about biting/scratching to the point of drawing blood.  this could go either way, since the party on the giving or receiving end might not like it and they are going to be very uncomfortable.  can we apply the above ? so at what point in time is the cutoff between drawing blood in a non violent, aggressive manner and giving head ? where is the line drawn that says  well ok this is pretty uncomfortable and i love you but i am not doing this  ? or do you accept the more uncomfortable, escalated situations the same as head in that if you really love your partner you will give them that satisfaction ? the point here, is that everyone is different and i do not think that there should be any one instance that spells  we are not meant for each other , especially something as trivial as a blowjob.  that being said, if something is seriously that important that it spells a deal breaker then you would be right.  personally i do not think that if a so did not want to perform oral that it is worth breaking up over unless you honestly consider receiving oral of such an importance in the relationship that you ca not live without it.  it also kinda goes both ways.  if you love your partner, you do not want to give them any avoidable displeasure.  by using the rhetoric that  you should always give your partner pleasure  you are kinda violating something which, imo, is the more important rule  you should always avoid giving your partner displeasure .  if you truly loved your partner you would make the sacrifice and accept that you are not getting head.   #  you use the tools you have got to make your so feel good.   #  it occurs to me that when i said head i was thinking  get your partner off .  i am not willing to put knife play in the same category as oral, but anal belongs there too.  you use the tools you have got to make your so feel good.  i do not agree that you should always avoid giving your partner displeasure.  makeup sex is the best for a reason.   #  that is about the most adolescent description of a relationship i have heard yet.   #  you cannot possibly believe that the measure of one is devotion to you is the frequency with which they suck your dick.  that is about the most adolescent description of a relationship i have heard yet.  if giving head is so uncomfortable that they would not do it without your implied threat to dump them, then what does it say about you that you are forcing them to do something they hate ? there are  plenty  of people who like, and even love giving blow jobs.  it is not anywhere close to universally reviled like you claim.  so when you find someone who legitimately despises it, you think they should just nut up anyway because it is ok to be selfish as long as you get off in the process ?  #  i imagine you would change your tune pretty quickly.   # watch your language.  my words were chosen precisely.  giving your partner an ultimatum  is  forcing them.  people like to do it because it gets their partner off.  no, it is not.  if that is the central thesis of your argument, then you are out to sea.  the same thing could be said for exactly everything.   you hate it.  i love it.  therefore i win ?   that is not how it works.  at least, not in a real, functional relationship.  how would you respond if this post was about pegging instead of sucking your cock ? i imagine you would change your tune pretty quickly.
giving head is trading your discomfort for your lover is pleasure.  nobody likes doing it, except for the responses it provokes.  if your partner feeling good is significant to you, you should be doing it as often and as well as possible.  if the person you are with is not worth it to you, you should probably find somebody new.  i am not interested in hearing about the 0 people in the world who do not like blowjobs.  convince me i am wrong without mentioning them and i will turn your post gold.  cheers, and may the odds ever be in your favor.  word count.   #  if your partner feeling good is significant to you, you should be doing it as often and as well as possible.   #  or maybe you could just both agree on shit to do ?  # plenty of people enjoy giving head, and i would consider this a pretty feeble premise.  or maybe you could just both agree on shit to do ? maybe we do not all want to have our dick sucked 0/0 ? i mean, do not get me wrong, i wanted  nothing more  when i was like 0 0, but there is other shit to do that is interesting, intellectually stimulating, and difficult to do with a human latched onto your dick by their mouth.  also, there are plenty of people i have talked to as well as this being my personal preference who would rather just be having full on sex with their so.  note: not saying bjs are not good, or people do not like them, but just that they  are not strictly preferable  to other sexual acts  if the person you are with is not worth it to you, you should probably find somebody new.  and, if just as there are some people who love giving head, there could be some people who literally gag at the thought/reality.  why should they be doomed to loneliness, if they can find someone who is willing to go without getting head ? because you say so ? that is pretty feeble rationale.   #  that being said, if something is seriously that important that it spells a deal breaker then you would be right.   # so you are making the claim that because it is giving your partner pleasure that it is worth your own discomfort to give it to them.  if you do not think it is worth your own discomfort to give them pleasure then they are not worth it and you should move on. yes ? ok.  so assume that it is not oral and it is another activity, say, anal or pegging with the assumption that the receiver does not like it.  would we consider this the same case above where if you do not think it is worth taking a little discomfort for your partner is pleasure that you should not be together ? now escalate.  how about bondage ? the person tied up does not like it.  can we apply the above ? now escalate.  how about humiliation ? the person being humiliated does not like it and the humiliator gets pleasure.  can we apply the above ? now escalate.  how about biting/scratching to the point of drawing blood.  this could go either way, since the party on the giving or receiving end might not like it and they are going to be very uncomfortable.  can we apply the above ? so at what point in time is the cutoff between drawing blood in a non violent, aggressive manner and giving head ? where is the line drawn that says  well ok this is pretty uncomfortable and i love you but i am not doing this  ? or do you accept the more uncomfortable, escalated situations the same as head in that if you really love your partner you will give them that satisfaction ? the point here, is that everyone is different and i do not think that there should be any one instance that spells  we are not meant for each other , especially something as trivial as a blowjob.  that being said, if something is seriously that important that it spells a deal breaker then you would be right.  personally i do not think that if a so did not want to perform oral that it is worth breaking up over unless you honestly consider receiving oral of such an importance in the relationship that you ca not live without it.  it also kinda goes both ways.  if you love your partner, you do not want to give them any avoidable displeasure.  by using the rhetoric that  you should always give your partner pleasure  you are kinda violating something which, imo, is the more important rule  you should always avoid giving your partner displeasure .  if you truly loved your partner you would make the sacrifice and accept that you are not getting head.   #  i am not willing to put knife play in the same category as oral, but anal belongs there too.   #  it occurs to me that when i said head i was thinking  get your partner off .  i am not willing to put knife play in the same category as oral, but anal belongs there too.  you use the tools you have got to make your so feel good.  i do not agree that you should always avoid giving your partner displeasure.  makeup sex is the best for a reason.   #  if giving head is so uncomfortable that they would not do it without your implied threat to dump them, then what does it say about you that you are forcing them to do something they hate ?  #  you cannot possibly believe that the measure of one is devotion to you is the frequency with which they suck your dick.  that is about the most adolescent description of a relationship i have heard yet.  if giving head is so uncomfortable that they would not do it without your implied threat to dump them, then what does it say about you that you are forcing them to do something they hate ? there are  plenty  of people who like, and even love giving blow jobs.  it is not anywhere close to universally reviled like you claim.  so when you find someone who legitimately despises it, you think they should just nut up anyway because it is ok to be selfish as long as you get off in the process ?  #  giving your partner an ultimatum  is  forcing them.   # watch your language.  my words were chosen precisely.  giving your partner an ultimatum  is  forcing them.  people like to do it because it gets their partner off.  no, it is not.  if that is the central thesis of your argument, then you are out to sea.  the same thing could be said for exactly everything.   you hate it.  i love it.  therefore i win ?   that is not how it works.  at least, not in a real, functional relationship.  how would you respond if this post was about pegging instead of sucking your cock ? i imagine you would change your tune pretty quickly.
giving head is trading your discomfort for your lover is pleasure.  nobody likes doing it, except for the responses it provokes.  if your partner feeling good is significant to you, you should be doing it as often and as well as possible.  if the person you are with is not worth it to you, you should probably find somebody new.  i am not interested in hearing about the 0 people in the world who do not like blowjobs.  convince me i am wrong without mentioning them and i will turn your post gold.  cheers, and may the odds ever be in your favor.  word count.   #  giving head is trading your discomfort for your lover is pleasure.   #  nobody likes doing it, except for the responses it provokes.   # nobody likes doing it, except for the responses it provokes.  could not you replace  head  in this context with any sexual act ? anal ? water sports ? scat play ? bdsm ? pegging ? everyone draws the line somewhere, and for some people that is oral sex.  i do not necessarily believe that there are gradations of severity when it comes to sexual acts i. e.  i do not think that because you do x, you should be okay with doing y , so it is not like oral sex is always some benign thing that you should be willing to do because you do other, more  iserious  things.  you might be the freakiest, most open minded person in the world: willing to do all sorts of sexual activities.  but maybe there is just something about performing oral sex that you  hate .  if that is the case, you have a right to draw a line there.   #  this could go either way, since the party on the giving or receiving end might not like it and they are going to be very uncomfortable.   # so you are making the claim that because it is giving your partner pleasure that it is worth your own discomfort to give it to them.  if you do not think it is worth your own discomfort to give them pleasure then they are not worth it and you should move on. yes ? ok.  so assume that it is not oral and it is another activity, say, anal or pegging with the assumption that the receiver does not like it.  would we consider this the same case above where if you do not think it is worth taking a little discomfort for your partner is pleasure that you should not be together ? now escalate.  how about bondage ? the person tied up does not like it.  can we apply the above ? now escalate.  how about humiliation ? the person being humiliated does not like it and the humiliator gets pleasure.  can we apply the above ? now escalate.  how about biting/scratching to the point of drawing blood.  this could go either way, since the party on the giving or receiving end might not like it and they are going to be very uncomfortable.  can we apply the above ? so at what point in time is the cutoff between drawing blood in a non violent, aggressive manner and giving head ? where is the line drawn that says  well ok this is pretty uncomfortable and i love you but i am not doing this  ? or do you accept the more uncomfortable, escalated situations the same as head in that if you really love your partner you will give them that satisfaction ? the point here, is that everyone is different and i do not think that there should be any one instance that spells  we are not meant for each other , especially something as trivial as a blowjob.  that being said, if something is seriously that important that it spells a deal breaker then you would be right.  personally i do not think that if a so did not want to perform oral that it is worth breaking up over unless you honestly consider receiving oral of such an importance in the relationship that you ca not live without it.  it also kinda goes both ways.  if you love your partner, you do not want to give them any avoidable displeasure.  by using the rhetoric that  you should always give your partner pleasure  you are kinda violating something which, imo, is the more important rule  you should always avoid giving your partner displeasure .  if you truly loved your partner you would make the sacrifice and accept that you are not getting head.   #  i do not agree that you should always avoid giving your partner displeasure.   #  it occurs to me that when i said head i was thinking  get your partner off .  i am not willing to put knife play in the same category as oral, but anal belongs there too.  you use the tools you have got to make your so feel good.  i do not agree that you should always avoid giving your partner displeasure.  makeup sex is the best for a reason.   #  you cannot possibly believe that the measure of one is devotion to you is the frequency with which they suck your dick.   #  you cannot possibly believe that the measure of one is devotion to you is the frequency with which they suck your dick.  that is about the most adolescent description of a relationship i have heard yet.  if giving head is so uncomfortable that they would not do it without your implied threat to dump them, then what does it say about you that you are forcing them to do something they hate ? there are  plenty  of people who like, and even love giving blow jobs.  it is not anywhere close to universally reviled like you claim.  so when you find someone who legitimately despises it, you think they should just nut up anyway because it is ok to be selfish as long as you get off in the process ?  #  the same thing could be said for exactly everything.   # watch your language.  my words were chosen precisely.  giving your partner an ultimatum  is  forcing them.  people like to do it because it gets their partner off.  no, it is not.  if that is the central thesis of your argument, then you are out to sea.  the same thing could be said for exactly everything.   you hate it.  i love it.  therefore i win ?   that is not how it works.  at least, not in a real, functional relationship.  how would you respond if this post was about pegging instead of sucking your cock ? i imagine you would change your tune pretty quickly.
the prefrontal cortex is responsible for rational decision making.  a lot of research shows that it does not fully develop until around the mid twenties.  that is, until that age, most decisions made by the person are suspect.  while a person sexually matures by 0 or so, this maturity does not equal emotional or intellectual maturity.  since sexual maturity is only the smallest part of what makes an adult, i believe the age of majority and all the privileges/rights/responsibilities it entails should be moved to the age of 0.  individuals under 0 should not be allowed to vote.  individuals under 0 should not be allowed to legally purchase liquor.  individuals under 0 should not be tried as adults.  i would love to hear from some folks from /r/askscience or /r/asksocialscience.  remember the key of my argument is that those without the capacity of rational though should not be given the rights or responsibilities gained after the age of majority.  this includes such things as military service.  essentially, they would maintain whatever rights they have as minors.  it links several ongoing studies and completed studies on how the human brain makes decisions.  apologies on using the incorrect term originally.  URL note the bump between age 0 and 0, with rapid decreases in accidental death as the individual ages, up until age of in firmament.  these statistics and others were what pushed some of the studies of executive function in teenage brains.   #  while a person sexually matures by 0 or so, this maturity does not equal emotional or intellectual maturity.   #  since sexual maturity is only the smallest part of what makes an adult, i believe the age of majority and all the privileges/rights/responsibilities it entails should be moved to the age of 0.  the latter part of your argument is not at all being supported.   # since sexual maturity is only the smallest part of what makes an adult, i believe the age of majority and all the privileges/rights/responsibilities it entails should be moved to the age of 0.  the latter part of your argument is not at all being supported.  why should the age of majority be moved to 0 ? simply because that is when the average person is prefrontal cortex matures ? clearly 0 was not picked because this was believed to be the age of prefrontal cortex is peak development.  the legal age of adulthood is not hinged upon when someone is brain reaches peak development but rather when they reach a certain threshold of maturity.  society has deemed that by 0 the average teenager can now be considered an adult.  besides, there is a developmental difference between the genders and most importantly between every individual.  in what ways do individuals or society benefit from raising the age of majority ? why would this not be applied on an individual level with no attachment to age ? why would this not be applied based on specific tests for brain development instead of an average age ? why would testing not be resumed and adulthood stripped from those that fail or fall below a certain margin ? why not ? it is one thing to say that someone is prefrontal cortex has not developed completely and another thing entirely to say we cannot trust their decisions and as such they should not be considered adults.  you have yet to support the latter.   #  just because they choose to live in a different country, where things are presumably more favorable for them, does not mean they should automatically bring their right to vote with them.   # this is a poor example.  the 0 year old generally pays for nothing.  her parents pay for her consumption, and they vote.  immigrants, also, generally  do  have a right to vote.  they can vote in their home country.  just because they choose to live in a different country, where things are presumably more favorable for them, does not mean they should automatically bring their right to vote with them.  that being said, i do not think our current  democratic  system has a lot going for it.  it needs a redesign, and i think the system of one vote for every adult is part of the problem, not the solution.  i therefore consider the  voting fairness  argument, with respect to your age of majority proposition, as largely irrelevant.  i mostly agree with your age of majority proposition not as a black and white minor/adult concept, but as a ladder of increasing rights and responsibilities, where 0  would be reasonably considered the top rank.   #  the chance of losing the votes of that segment of the population is not worth the gains from this plan.   #  taxation of immigrants is not a counterexample to his argument.  i do not want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are arguing that since immigrants who work and contribute to the economy are taxed without a vote, then it is fine for people under 0 who work and contribute to be taxed without a vote.  i think /u/peacekitty is arguing that both are wrong on moral and/or ethical grounds.  if this is already settled, my bad.  bit of a late reply.  i would also like to add i agree with peacekitty.  to remove voting rights from the 0 0 y/o population, there would need to be significant problems with allowing them to keep voting.  i see at least 0 reasons they should be able to vote.  0.  most of the 0 0 population does not bother voting anyway, so the net positive gained, if any, would be a tiny impact, and rocking the boat so heavily for something so small, is not a practical use of resources.  0.  vietnam.  no, really.  back in the 0s, college campuses were a major source of peace movements across the country.  the chance of losing the votes of that segment of the population is not worth the gains from this plan.   #  i think his point is completely valid, and not at all outside the scope of this thread.   #  i think his point is completely valid, and not at all outside the scope of this thread.  i also think you are being dishonest when you say that the  entire social welfare system is paid for entirely on the backs of illegal immigrants.  i ca not find one instance of a western country collecting  that much  in taxes off of illegal immigrants.  in the us, for instance, about 0 billion is collected in taxes, which does not even dent what is spent on social programs.  you actually did not even respond to his point, you matched it with a question.  should kids under 0 be required to pay taxes, but not be able to vote ?  #  please do not put words in my mouth or misconstrue my statements.   # that is what i said.  meaning that we rely on taxation of immigrants.  without taxes from them, our for my own country social welfare system would collapse.  please do not put words in my mouth or misconstrue my statements.  also, i did address it just now.  just about anyone who has bought a bottle of pop has paid consumption tax.  does this mean we should allow 0 year olds, who are also under 0, to vote ? at the core of my argument, i am saying that if we have sufficient evidence that a person is demonstrably irrational below a certain age.  should we not raise the age of majority to at least that age ? and evidence shows that the mean average is around 0.
i am not a fan of the way policy discussion takes place and feel it could be more productive.  let us start off with abortion.  i am completely pro choice but i do not like the way discussion in some cases takes place.  for example, i saw a post on two x that did not really refute any restrictive abortion policies but just stated the right to bodily autonomy as an argument against them.  i do not feel like stating that is a proper refutation.  i think that if we were to look at something like sex selective abortion policies it might be more obvious what i see is wrong with those arguments.  imagine if they were having a debate in india.  one person brings up all this data about the problems with unrestricted sex selective abortion and the other person simply said that those policies should not be allowed because it was their right to an abortion for whatever reason they wish.  this would be bad because the discussion is far too nuanced.  i think that there are problems that arise from hiding behind this argument.  the fundamental reason i would consider it bad is this.  rights are a human construct.  a bunch of people got together and decided that guaranteeing certain rights would be best for the people.  it seems perfectly reasonable that they could have been wrong and that guaranteeing those rights in certain situation are bad.  not trying to suggest whether or not they are.  they could be though so arguing that something should not happen because it is your right is a terrible argument.  i am not trying to suggest all discussion that takes place is like this.  when talking about gun rights there is a lot of fruitful and important discussion using data, statistics, and other relevant factors.  however, there is a small group of arguers who would refute arguments from the other side by simply saying that it is their right guaranteed by the second amendment.  i think that rights are not relevant in policy discussion.   #  a bunch of people got together and decided that guaranteeing certain rights would be best for the people.   #  in the us, we have rights that are specifically defined, and rights that are not restricted by law.   # in the us, we have rights that are specifically defined, and rights that are not restricted by law.  just because those rights are not codified in law does not mean they do not exist.  it is certainly an argument against them.  any new law is either removing or adding restrictions on freedom.  you ca not talk about abortion without considering the implications on bodily autonomy.   #  statistics and facts do have an important place in policy, but to temper rights.   #  if rights are irrelevant, there is no need for laws.  at their base, laws protect rights via threat of physical punishment.  murder, for instance, is illegal because you have a right to life.  statistics and facts do have an important place in policy, but to temper rights.  let is look at abortion, how do you justify abortion using only statistics and facts ?  #  statistics can only support assertions; they ca not form thr basis of an argument.   #  why should one soulless meat puppet not destroy other soulless meat puppets ? statistics can only support assertions; they ca not form thr basis of an argument.  even with statistics, some concept of rights needs to arise.  the law will outline what is good and what is bad, but only rights can explain why it is good or bad.  with out a concept of rights, any argument is unjustified.   #  people are going to place value on more specific things as a result like marriage equality as a result of equality having value.   #  you are going to have to place value on something or else you ca not determine whether a law is good or bad.  i would place value on things like happiness, freedom, equality, and probably some more.  now that i am typing this my view has changed.  people are going to place value on more specific things as a result like marriage equality as a result of equality having value.  i did not originally think framing it as a right is best but it seems like you are going to need a basis for good and bad policies and rights seem to be the best option.     #  look at it this way: nobody can prove  other minds .   #  let me reiterate: i am playing devil is advocate here to drive conversation, not because i actually agree with this     what if euthanizing everyone with down is syndrome was beneficial to society and statistics supported it ? should we do it ? yup.  sounds like it.  look at it this way: nobody can prove  other minds .  you ca not prove any sort of metaphysical tie to the majority of normative ethical systems that choose to rely on individual autonomy as an axiom.  given this, it seems the only logic you can espouse is one of survival based rationality.  that which i do, i do solely for my own benefit because it is all i know.  you do not exist in a society because you care about the other members, you do it because society benefits you.  a lot of our current daily life can continue as it currently does  even with this reasoning  because and quite a few philosophers see it this way our moral reasoning is  post hoc .
i am not a fan of the way policy discussion takes place and feel it could be more productive.  let us start off with abortion.  i am completely pro choice but i do not like the way discussion in some cases takes place.  for example, i saw a post on two x that did not really refute any restrictive abortion policies but just stated the right to bodily autonomy as an argument against them.  i do not feel like stating that is a proper refutation.  i think that if we were to look at something like sex selective abortion policies it might be more obvious what i see is wrong with those arguments.  imagine if they were having a debate in india.  one person brings up all this data about the problems with unrestricted sex selective abortion and the other person simply said that those policies should not be allowed because it was their right to an abortion for whatever reason they wish.  this would be bad because the discussion is far too nuanced.  i think that there are problems that arise from hiding behind this argument.  the fundamental reason i would consider it bad is this.  rights are a human construct.  a bunch of people got together and decided that guaranteeing certain rights would be best for the people.  it seems perfectly reasonable that they could have been wrong and that guaranteeing those rights in certain situation are bad.  not trying to suggest whether or not they are.  they could be though so arguing that something should not happen because it is your right is a terrible argument.  i am not trying to suggest all discussion that takes place is like this.  when talking about gun rights there is a lot of fruitful and important discussion using data, statistics, and other relevant factors.  however, there is a small group of arguers who would refute arguments from the other side by simply saying that it is their right guaranteed by the second amendment.  i think that rights are not relevant in policy discussion.   #  for example, i saw a post on two x that did not really refute any restrictive abortion policies but just stated the right to bodily autonomy as an argument against them.   #  it is certainly an argument against them.   # in the us, we have rights that are specifically defined, and rights that are not restricted by law.  just because those rights are not codified in law does not mean they do not exist.  it is certainly an argument against them.  any new law is either removing or adding restrictions on freedom.  you ca not talk about abortion without considering the implications on bodily autonomy.   #  if rights are irrelevant, there is no need for laws.   #  if rights are irrelevant, there is no need for laws.  at their base, laws protect rights via threat of physical punishment.  murder, for instance, is illegal because you have a right to life.  statistics and facts do have an important place in policy, but to temper rights.  let is look at abortion, how do you justify abortion using only statistics and facts ?  #  even with statistics, some concept of rights needs to arise.   #  why should one soulless meat puppet not destroy other soulless meat puppets ? statistics can only support assertions; they ca not form thr basis of an argument.  even with statistics, some concept of rights needs to arise.  the law will outline what is good and what is bad, but only rights can explain why it is good or bad.  with out a concept of rights, any argument is unjustified.   #  now that i am typing this my view has changed.   #  you are going to have to place value on something or else you ca not determine whether a law is good or bad.  i would place value on things like happiness, freedom, equality, and probably some more.  now that i am typing this my view has changed.  people are going to place value on more specific things as a result like marriage equality as a result of equality having value.  i did not originally think framing it as a right is best but it seems like you are going to need a basis for good and bad policies and rights seem to be the best option.     #  you ca not prove any sort of metaphysical tie to the majority of normative ethical systems that choose to rely on individual autonomy as an axiom.   #  let me reiterate: i am playing devil is advocate here to drive conversation, not because i actually agree with this     what if euthanizing everyone with down is syndrome was beneficial to society and statistics supported it ? should we do it ? yup.  sounds like it.  look at it this way: nobody can prove  other minds .  you ca not prove any sort of metaphysical tie to the majority of normative ethical systems that choose to rely on individual autonomy as an axiom.  given this, it seems the only logic you can espouse is one of survival based rationality.  that which i do, i do solely for my own benefit because it is all i know.  you do not exist in a society because you care about the other members, you do it because society benefits you.  a lot of our current daily life can continue as it currently does  even with this reasoning  because and quite a few philosophers see it this way our moral reasoning is  post hoc .
i will start by admitting that at the time the election actually happened i was way too young to know what was actually going on, so everything i am saying here is things i have been told after the fact, and i am also not american.  i will also clarify that  i do not think there was a conspiracy to rig the election from the start or anything like that .  i think that, basically, the election in florida was so close that various people jeb bush, the florida supreme court, the federal supreme court, etc independently decided to basically give bush the win to save face, even though they knew he did not receive the majority of the popular vote or at least that they had no way of knowing he did and that in the face of all the confusion the electoral college system was not going to provide a fair resolution to the election.  i am actually open to changing my view if anyone can provide convincing evidence that a bush legitimately received the majority of votes in florida or b the supreme court is decision was actually in the best interests of democracy in some way.  i am not accusing anyone of acting illegally, so explaining how nothing that happened was unconstitutional or whatever wo not really convince me.  tl;dr: no one had any way of knowing who  really  won the popular vote in florida, so for the supreme court to stop any further recounts was essentially allowing them to decide the election themselves.   #  i am not accusing anyone of acting illegally, so explaining how nothing that happened was unconstitutional or whatever wo not really convince me.   #  that is problematic, because without that, even your definition of  democratic  is a random personal idea, rather than the actual system of the us democratic process.   # that is problematic, because without that, even your definition of  democratic  is a random personal idea, rather than the actual system of the us democratic process.  why  should  a popular vote decide presidential office, rather than an electoral college representing the states of the federation ? maybe a democracy based on a popular vote presidency would be a nice one, but it is not what we have.  this is almost like if you said that obama is an undemocratic president because he has low support in opinion polls.  should  presidents be accountable to day to day public polling, and removed from office the day they lose ? maybe that would be an interesting type of democracy, but so is the current one with the quadrennial elections.  there are many different ways to arrange a democracy, fptp elections, proportionally elected parliaments electing pms, regional representatives, party lists, preference voting, electoral colleges, primaries, term limits, impeachment proceses and votes of no confidence, etc.  there is no single correct democracy, only democracies, as they are defined by constitutions, and yours involves the scotus is decision making.   #  this is a common thread in us government, originating with the us constitution, which recognizes both the people and the states as having rights that the federal government cannot violate.   #  i think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here.  in the us, the president is not elected by the national popular vote, he us elected by the electoral college made up of a certain number of votes from each of the states, and it is up to the states to apportion the votes according to their individual citizen is votes and they do not all do it the same way .  both the people and the states, therefore, determine the election.  this is a common thread in us government, originating with the us constitution, which recognizes both the people and the states as having rights that the federal government cannot violate.  it was the electoral votes of the state of florida that were unclear at the time, but in hindsight, now that more careful analysis has been done, bush really did have more votes.  the fact that gore had more of the popular vote  nationally  was never significant in the first place, as that has no bearing on the election.   #  this includes the rights of the states and thus the people of those states , to decide for themselves how to run their elections and how their votes will be counted.   #  there are basically two major reasons: 0.  the simple logistics of it all.  this is a system put in place in 0, doing a true and accurate popular vote count over the entire nation at that time would have been impractical.  having representative number of appointed electors from the states come together instead made a lot of sense, especially in light of the fact that the entire government being created was based on the idea that representative democracy was the best way to go.  today is communications make it child is play, but there has never been enough motivation to switch to something else.  it has changed in some details over time, though.  see here URL for all the details.  0.  as i stated above, it involves the states as well as the individual people, which is an important concept in us politics.  the states themselves, of course, are still beholden to the people who live in them, and have their own constitutions and democratically elected leaders, but the sovereignty and rights of the states as distinct entities representing their peoples is also protected.  this includes the rights of the states and thus the people of those states , to decide for themselves how to run their elections and how their votes will be counted.  the us is not  just  a representative democracy, it is a representative democracy  of representative democracies.  there are multiple levels, and the higher levels are usually beholden to the lower levels, rather then the other way around.  the us is a bottom up nation.  internally, it is federal system is in some ways more comparable to the eu rather then to any unitary nation.   #  so there are 0 hundred from the senate and 0 from the house of representatives and 0 for d. c.   #  the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of congress to which the state is entitled.  so there are 0 hundred from the senate and 0 from the house of representatives and 0 for d. c.  .  the 0 members of the house of representatives are divided among the states based on each state is population.  as state populations change, the number of representatives per state is updated relative to the nation is total population.  thus, the numbers of electors per state changes with the relative population of the state.   #  enough to deserve a day or two of attention, but not enough to sway the election.   #  do you think they would game the system harder if a state counted as essentially nothing ? consider wyoming currently about . 0 of the total population.  who would campaign there ? a presidential candidate would never consider wyoming issues.  now, wyoming has 0 electoral votes of the 0.  that is about . 0 but three votes are critical in close elections, or to force close elections.  enough to deserve a day or two of attention, but not enough to sway the election.  it is the compromise the founders actually wanted when they designed our federalism.
here is the thing.  more than once, i have had people who do one of two things.  they either stay behind me and flash their lights to signal to me that they want me to move over or they just drive very close behind me till they just decide to get over themselves.  both of those situations have happened when i was going at or over the speed limit and when there was no other traffic besides us literally in one instance as well as when the traffic was busy and it was not quite so easy to merge.  so tell me, why should i have to move out of your way just because you ca not be bothered to move the steering wheel slightly to the left or right ? the burden should be on you to get around me since i am going at or above the speed limit.   #  when the traffic was busy and it was not quite so easy to merge.   #  this is more of a gray area.   #  it depends, in the us if you are not in the left most lane, then you are right.  if you are in the left most lane, however, you should move over, even if you are passing yourself.  or move over once you finish passing.  if right, then the other driver was an asshat.  this is more of a gray area.  my answer is that you should merge over when safe to do so.  yes, but there is also common courtesy if someone wants to go faster than you and you are in the left lane already.   #  reason 0, because i am not the one being obnoxious by trying to force other drivers to move over.   #  i travel about an hour and a half on an interstate.  i stay in the left lane and am almost continuously passing people so i am generally not breaking the law in that regard.  reason 0, see what i just said.  reason 0, this has happened in both lanes.  i do not view it as me enforcing speed limits.  in south carolina, it is legal to pass on the right anyways with some safety stipulations like having enough room and not going onto the grass .  reason 0, because i am not the one being obnoxious by trying to force other drivers to move over.  also, if i am going 0mph over the speed limit and you are trying to go 0 over, i do not find it particularly safe to or convenient for you if i brake to the speed of the cars we are both already passing just to merge over when you could easily just wait till we have hit a clear spot.  was multi tasking while writing this.  let me know if anything needs to be clarified.   #  if you want to debate the merits of the custom, sure thing, but your proposed question does not exactly ask that.   #  because it is customary.  legal is not the same as custom.  customs often become laws, but they are a little different.  they are not always written down, either.  in this case, however, it is unequivocal custom that the left lane, in the us, is the passing lane.  this means that if you are in the left lane and someone is coming up on you fast, it is your unequivocal responsibility to get out of that driver is way if you can.  if you fail to yield the left lane to a faster driver, you have broken custom and the other driver is 0 % reasonable to be upset with you.  if you want the respect of a community, you should keep its customs unless there is dramatic need.  maybe the custom does not fit your lifestyle and views very well, but this specific custom definitely helps traffic flow.  no one is asking you to do something morally questionable, only courteous.  if you want to debate the merits of the custom, sure thing, but your proposed question does not exactly ask that.   #  however, because people do drive over the speed limit and this is more or less accepted, it would be courteous of you to do so.   #  you would not be, as long as you are using the left lane to pass.  that is what it is designed for.  that being said, you are not  required  to move over so some one who wants to go faster than you already faster than the speed limit wants to pass you.  however, because people do drive over the speed limit and this is more or less accepted, it would be courteous of you to do so.  switch lanes, let them pass, and then pull in again behind them.  that is what i always do, it is not that hard.   #  here in eastern mass i am not sure where else this is done if we are at a light and going straight, we will often let the first person coming from the opposite direction in the left lane go first.   #  and you do not  have  to.  here in eastern mass i am not sure where else this is done if we are at a light and going straight, we will often let the first person coming from the opposite direction in the left lane go first.  we do not have to, but do it anyways a lot of the time, even though it inconveniences us.  so, you do not have to, but if you do not there is no better way for the person to pass you.  similarly, if i am driving on a one way highway and someone really wants to get by, i will pull over and let them, because i am a nice person.  that is the only way to do it.  i should not  have  to and do not have to , but i  choose  to.
here is the thing.  more than once, i have had people who do one of two things.  they either stay behind me and flash their lights to signal to me that they want me to move over or they just drive very close behind me till they just decide to get over themselves.  both of those situations have happened when i was going at or over the speed limit and when there was no other traffic besides us literally in one instance as well as when the traffic was busy and it was not quite so easy to merge.  so tell me, why should i have to move out of your way just because you ca not be bothered to move the steering wheel slightly to the left or right ? the burden should be on you to get around me since i am going at or above the speed limit.   #  the burden should be on you to get around me since i am going at or above the speed limit.   #  yes, but there is also common courtesy if someone wants to go faster than you and you are in the left lane already.   #  it depends, in the us if you are not in the left most lane, then you are right.  if you are in the left most lane, however, you should move over, even if you are passing yourself.  or move over once you finish passing.  if right, then the other driver was an asshat.  this is more of a gray area.  my answer is that you should merge over when safe to do so.  yes, but there is also common courtesy if someone wants to go faster than you and you are in the left lane already.   #  i travel about an hour and a half on an interstate.   #  i travel about an hour and a half on an interstate.  i stay in the left lane and am almost continuously passing people so i am generally not breaking the law in that regard.  reason 0, see what i just said.  reason 0, this has happened in both lanes.  i do not view it as me enforcing speed limits.  in south carolina, it is legal to pass on the right anyways with some safety stipulations like having enough room and not going onto the grass .  reason 0, because i am not the one being obnoxious by trying to force other drivers to move over.  also, if i am going 0mph over the speed limit and you are trying to go 0 over, i do not find it particularly safe to or convenient for you if i brake to the speed of the cars we are both already passing just to merge over when you could easily just wait till we have hit a clear spot.  was multi tasking while writing this.  let me know if anything needs to be clarified.   #  this means that if you are in the left lane and someone is coming up on you fast, it is your unequivocal responsibility to get out of that driver is way if you can.   #  because it is customary.  legal is not the same as custom.  customs often become laws, but they are a little different.  they are not always written down, either.  in this case, however, it is unequivocal custom that the left lane, in the us, is the passing lane.  this means that if you are in the left lane and someone is coming up on you fast, it is your unequivocal responsibility to get out of that driver is way if you can.  if you fail to yield the left lane to a faster driver, you have broken custom and the other driver is 0 % reasonable to be upset with you.  if you want the respect of a community, you should keep its customs unless there is dramatic need.  maybe the custom does not fit your lifestyle and views very well, but this specific custom definitely helps traffic flow.  no one is asking you to do something morally questionable, only courteous.  if you want to debate the merits of the custom, sure thing, but your proposed question does not exactly ask that.   #  that being said, you are not  required  to move over so some one who wants to go faster than you already faster than the speed limit wants to pass you.   #  you would not be, as long as you are using the left lane to pass.  that is what it is designed for.  that being said, you are not  required  to move over so some one who wants to go faster than you already faster than the speed limit wants to pass you.  however, because people do drive over the speed limit and this is more or less accepted, it would be courteous of you to do so.  switch lanes, let them pass, and then pull in again behind them.  that is what i always do, it is not that hard.   #  we do not have to, but do it anyways a lot of the time, even though it inconveniences us.   #  and you do not  have  to.  here in eastern mass i am not sure where else this is done if we are at a light and going straight, we will often let the first person coming from the opposite direction in the left lane go first.  we do not have to, but do it anyways a lot of the time, even though it inconveniences us.  so, you do not have to, but if you do not there is no better way for the person to pass you.  similarly, if i am driving on a one way highway and someone really wants to get by, i will pull over and let them, because i am a nice person.  that is the only way to do it.  i should not  have  to and do not have to , but i  choose  to.
i believe that inheritance as we know it should be abolished or, at least, heavily reformulated.  in practice, the best compromise may be to cap the maximum inheritance to a fixed amount.  for instance, 0 years of minimum wages per child around 0,0 usd, 0,0 eur, 0,0 gbp .  to be clear, this limit would apply to any money and property owned by the deceased.  0 years of minimum wages should be enough to provide immediate economic security but would not be enough to perpetuate fortunes.  most of the resources obtained by the redirected inheritances could fund very strong public education and health care systems giving everyone a fair start in life.  on the education front, imagine 0 students per teacher, teachers recruited from the top students at universities earning a salary comparable to doctors or lawyers, free tuition from kindergarten to university, free books, free school meals and free educational material given to each kid to freely use at home: computers, novels, arts supplies, instruments, robotics kits, etc.  there would still be an incentive to gather wealth but the concept of being rich because your family used to be rich disappears.  it becomes an outdated concept much like nobility and its hereditary privileges feel outdated nowadays.  wealth accumulated by individuals would be redistributed at the end of their lives to ensure that all kids in the next generation have a fair chance at having fulfilling lives.  this could be viewed as a redistribution of opportunity via education.  regarding issues such as enforceability and gifts, these could be addressed with the current systems for inheritance/estate/gift taxation.  although the increased risk of fraud would call for improved enforcing systems.   #  most of the resources obtained by the redirected inheritances could fund very strong public education and health care systems giving everyone a fair start in life.   #  while a noble idea, this is not reality.   # while a noble idea, this is not reality.  inheritance excess taxes will eventually end up in a general fund and be wasted on stupid things.  can you still justify your idea if this money just adds to government waste ? it becomes an outdated concept much like nobility and its hereditary privileges feel outdated nowadays.  the easy way around this is to set up a trust or corporation where the money and assets are owned by a legal entity.  just hire your children or name them on the trust before you die, and the money continues to flow.  many of the ultra rich people leave their money to charities.  your idea denies them the right to make charitable donations, and distributes their money based on the wishes of politicians.   #  imagine if the united states tried to function on the amount of capital that existed in 0.  it would not work.   #  have you ever read adam smith and the difference between productive and unproductive labour ? by frivolous entertainment, i mean most of that money would be going to unproductive labour or luxury trinkets.  sure some people would donate to charity, that is great.  but my main point does not rest on what people spend their money on; it is that they are incentivized to spend all of it on anything they can before they die.  imagine if the united states tried to function on the amount of capital that existed in 0.  it would not work.  do you think the same number would be employed as now ? do you think we would have the same standard of living ? capital is necessary to expand businesses, and if people spent everything they had saved their whole life, there would not be this capital required to grow and maintain business.  those same businesses provide jobs to  making the world better  as you put it.   #  sorry if i was not clear, this was not what i wanted to say.   # it is like a 0 br condo in some areas.  sorry if i was not clear, this was not what i wanted to say.  amassing real estate is what happens now and spending the money is what the other commenter said.  i think this is great and will drive your ambition to work and get wealthy.  also, the price of housing will be greatly reduced since it would not be concentrated in the hands of a few which would allow everyone to have access to the housing market without needing support from their parents.  everything depends on you.   #  this is not the place where i live.   # currently people need support from their parents to afford housing ? this is not the place where i live.  i am 0 and own a house and did not get any inheritance from my parents.  they are still alive i also did not take a dime from them for college since i got a full ride.  redistributing wealth wo not make the housing market any cheaper.  expensive housing markets exist because there are high paying jobs in the area, not because you have trust fund babies buying up all the houses.   #  in short, your plan is totally unworkable, and is economically counter intuitive.   #  your argument just does not work in any non communist society.  first of all, cash is never the bulk of any estate.  estates are typically composed of non liquid assets: real property, businesses, shares of businesses.  there is no way to do what you say.  first of all, you have real estate.  given the values of real estate vary based on a multitude of factors, your arbitrary limits are either going to be so low as to be meaningless in the large cities, or so large as to have to be meaningless.  you also do not account for families that have tremendous wealth because of their real estate holdings, but have no cash.  a great example of this would be farmers and ranchers.  i personally own about 0 acres of contiguous property that is both grazing land and bottomland.  my neighbor just sold a smaller parcel for $0,0 per acre.  why are you going to take away my  farm ?   why ca not i leave it to my children ? it produces income.  not much, but some.  why ca not i leave it to them ? second, you have not addressed businesses.  the classic small businesses, like restaurants, bars, dry cleaners, insurance agencies, franchise holders, etc.  all of these businesses have value.  what are you going to do ? will the government become the owner ? will you liquidate them for their cash value ? third, what about other property ? cars, boats, jewelry, furniture, etc ? when my grandfather died, he left me some antiques that have been in our family for more than 0 years, back to when we emigrated from germany.  these items are quite valuable.  are you going to steal my family heirlooms and liquidate them to fund your magical socialist society ? finally, you would force mass emigration outside the united states, and those that would leave are those who are affected.  the rich would take their money and property and leave, resulting in a crash in tax revenues.  in short, your plan is totally unworkable, and is economically counter intuitive.  there is no way for it to work.
i believe that inheritance as we know it should be abolished or, at least, heavily reformulated.  in practice, the best compromise may be to cap the maximum inheritance to a fixed amount.  for instance, 0 years of minimum wages per child around 0,0 usd, 0,0 eur, 0,0 gbp .  to be clear, this limit would apply to any money and property owned by the deceased.  0 years of minimum wages should be enough to provide immediate economic security but would not be enough to perpetuate fortunes.  most of the resources obtained by the redirected inheritances could fund very strong public education and health care systems giving everyone a fair start in life.  on the education front, imagine 0 students per teacher, teachers recruited from the top students at universities earning a salary comparable to doctors or lawyers, free tuition from kindergarten to university, free books, free school meals and free educational material given to each kid to freely use at home: computers, novels, arts supplies, instruments, robotics kits, etc.  there would still be an incentive to gather wealth but the concept of being rich because your family used to be rich disappears.  it becomes an outdated concept much like nobility and its hereditary privileges feel outdated nowadays.  wealth accumulated by individuals would be redistributed at the end of their lives to ensure that all kids in the next generation have a fair chance at having fulfilling lives.  this could be viewed as a redistribution of opportunity via education.  regarding issues such as enforceability and gifts, these could be addressed with the current systems for inheritance/estate/gift taxation.  although the increased risk of fraud would call for improved enforcing systems.   #  there would still be an incentive to gather wealth but the concept of being rich because your family used to be rich disappears.   #  it becomes an outdated concept much like nobility and its hereditary privileges feel outdated nowadays.   # while a noble idea, this is not reality.  inheritance excess taxes will eventually end up in a general fund and be wasted on stupid things.  can you still justify your idea if this money just adds to government waste ? it becomes an outdated concept much like nobility and its hereditary privileges feel outdated nowadays.  the easy way around this is to set up a trust or corporation where the money and assets are owned by a legal entity.  just hire your children or name them on the trust before you die, and the money continues to flow.  many of the ultra rich people leave their money to charities.  your idea denies them the right to make charitable donations, and distributes their money based on the wishes of politicians.   #  those same businesses provide jobs to  making the world better  as you put it.   #  have you ever read adam smith and the difference between productive and unproductive labour ? by frivolous entertainment, i mean most of that money would be going to unproductive labour or luxury trinkets.  sure some people would donate to charity, that is great.  but my main point does not rest on what people spend their money on; it is that they are incentivized to spend all of it on anything they can before they die.  imagine if the united states tried to function on the amount of capital that existed in 0.  it would not work.  do you think the same number would be employed as now ? do you think we would have the same standard of living ? capital is necessary to expand businesses, and if people spent everything they had saved their whole life, there would not be this capital required to grow and maintain business.  those same businesses provide jobs to  making the world better  as you put it.   #  also, the price of housing will be greatly reduced since it would not be concentrated in the hands of a few which would allow everyone to have access to the housing market without needing support from their parents.   # it is like a 0 br condo in some areas.  sorry if i was not clear, this was not what i wanted to say.  amassing real estate is what happens now and spending the money is what the other commenter said.  i think this is great and will drive your ambition to work and get wealthy.  also, the price of housing will be greatly reduced since it would not be concentrated in the hands of a few which would allow everyone to have access to the housing market without needing support from their parents.  everything depends on you.   #  i am 0 and own a house and did not get any inheritance from my parents.   # currently people need support from their parents to afford housing ? this is not the place where i live.  i am 0 and own a house and did not get any inheritance from my parents.  they are still alive i also did not take a dime from them for college since i got a full ride.  redistributing wealth wo not make the housing market any cheaper.  expensive housing markets exist because there are high paying jobs in the area, not because you have trust fund babies buying up all the houses.   #  my neighbor just sold a smaller parcel for $0,0 per acre.   #  your argument just does not work in any non communist society.  first of all, cash is never the bulk of any estate.  estates are typically composed of non liquid assets: real property, businesses, shares of businesses.  there is no way to do what you say.  first of all, you have real estate.  given the values of real estate vary based on a multitude of factors, your arbitrary limits are either going to be so low as to be meaningless in the large cities, or so large as to have to be meaningless.  you also do not account for families that have tremendous wealth because of their real estate holdings, but have no cash.  a great example of this would be farmers and ranchers.  i personally own about 0 acres of contiguous property that is both grazing land and bottomland.  my neighbor just sold a smaller parcel for $0,0 per acre.  why are you going to take away my  farm ?   why ca not i leave it to my children ? it produces income.  not much, but some.  why ca not i leave it to them ? second, you have not addressed businesses.  the classic small businesses, like restaurants, bars, dry cleaners, insurance agencies, franchise holders, etc.  all of these businesses have value.  what are you going to do ? will the government become the owner ? will you liquidate them for their cash value ? third, what about other property ? cars, boats, jewelry, furniture, etc ? when my grandfather died, he left me some antiques that have been in our family for more than 0 years, back to when we emigrated from germany.  these items are quite valuable.  are you going to steal my family heirlooms and liquidate them to fund your magical socialist society ? finally, you would force mass emigration outside the united states, and those that would leave are those who are affected.  the rich would take their money and property and leave, resulting in a crash in tax revenues.  in short, your plan is totally unworkable, and is economically counter intuitive.  there is no way for it to work.
in 0 convicted drug felons were made ineligible for food stamps and tanf.  my proposal would extend this programs to cover more crimes and private welfare programs.  the crimes covered would be those where an individual was deliberately harmed including murder, rape, burglary, arson, shoplifting and so on.  the programs covered would be where an individual applies for benefits including food stamps, housing, medicaid, social security and so on.  excluding convicted criminals would reduce the cost of welfare programs saving money for more worthy recipients.  it would more importantly deter people from committing crimes.  when immigrants commit crimes they are often deported.  since deporting native citizens is not an option, excluding criminals from private welfare is a similar penalty and deterrant.   #  excluding convicted criminals would reduce the cost of welfare programs saving money for more worthy recipients.   #  so your plan is to take people with a propensity for crime, and give them no other option than going back to crime.   # so your plan is to take people with a propensity for crime, and give them no other option than going back to crime.  do you realize that convicted criminals have a  much  harder time finding work ? furthermore, they missed out on gaining or maintaining marketplace skills and will be further disadvantaged.  this plan only works if you want to give them a job, or guarantee another legitimate means of making a legal living.  so your logic is that people who were  already not deterred by prison , will be deterred because they are left alone with no safety net afterwards ? do you feel we should punish criminals perpetually, or should we legitimately give them a chance for a new start ? is not the ultimate goal that they reintegrate into society ?  #  do we want criminals to eventually reintegrate into society, or anybody who has commited a crime should be punished forever ?  #  why do we need post prison deterrents ? do we want criminals to eventually reintegrate into society, or anybody who has commited a crime should be punished forever ? if the former, what does the removal of benefits achieve ? if the later, why not just keep them in prison forever, or just longer ? also, ex convicts have a hard time finding a job.  if you ca not find a job, and ca not take advantage of a welfare program, what exactly do you expect them to do in response ?  #  it is pretty clear that the society would save money by giving welfare and other opportunities to re integrated themselves society to ex cons.   #  what do you think ex cons will do ? they can hardly get a job, and not they would not be able to get charity either.  you are basically guaranteeing that they turn to crime again and end up in jail.  the cost of keeping a person in jail is 0,0$, plus you have to factor in any damage from the crimes that person committed.  it is pretty clear that the society would save money by giving welfare and other opportunities to re integrated themselves society to ex cons.   #  now, are you going to just go and get a normal job when you get out of prison ?  #  your proposal is bad because there is literally no incentive to work inside the system.  if you ever commit a crime, you have now lost all access to social support.  now, are you going to just go and get a normal job when you get out of prison ? no, you certainly wont, you do not have any saving and there is no safety net to take care of you while you get back on your feet.  that person is just going to go back into a life of crime since they certainly made a lot of friends while imprisoned and in a few months or years they will be right back where they started.  you are not actually saving money with this proposal because all of those savings you are excited about will be evaporated once you place those people in prison.  it costs government a hell of a lot more to imprison someone than to give them a voucher for some bread for the same amount of time.   #  0.  a lot of criminals do pay financially to their victims.   #  0.  a lot of criminals do pay financially to their victims.  0.  if you separate former criminals and normal citizens, into a good and bad group, you only create one thing.  hate.  and lots of it.  try reading up on the stanford experiment.  it is really scary what you can turn normal people into, just by separating them in and giving one group more power then the other.  0.  you need to watch some documentaries on how it is to be in prison.  it is a huge punishment.  no reddit, no cute guy from down the road, nothing.  you have a cell and depending on the prison you maybe get a couple of hours of sunlight each day.
in 0 convicted drug felons were made ineligible for food stamps and tanf.  my proposal would extend this programs to cover more crimes and private welfare programs.  the crimes covered would be those where an individual was deliberately harmed including murder, rape, burglary, arson, shoplifting and so on.  the programs covered would be where an individual applies for benefits including food stamps, housing, medicaid, social security and so on.  excluding convicted criminals would reduce the cost of welfare programs saving money for more worthy recipients.  it would more importantly deter people from committing crimes.  when immigrants commit crimes they are often deported.  since deporting native citizens is not an option, excluding criminals from private welfare is a similar penalty and deterrant.   #  it would more importantly deter people from committing crimes.   #  so your logic is that people who were  already not deterred by prison , will be deterred because they are left alone with no safety net afterwards ?  # so your plan is to take people with a propensity for crime, and give them no other option than going back to crime.  do you realize that convicted criminals have a  much  harder time finding work ? furthermore, they missed out on gaining or maintaining marketplace skills and will be further disadvantaged.  this plan only works if you want to give them a job, or guarantee another legitimate means of making a legal living.  so your logic is that people who were  already not deterred by prison , will be deterred because they are left alone with no safety net afterwards ? do you feel we should punish criminals perpetually, or should we legitimately give them a chance for a new start ? is not the ultimate goal that they reintegrate into society ?  #  if the former, what does the removal of benefits achieve ?  #  why do we need post prison deterrents ? do we want criminals to eventually reintegrate into society, or anybody who has commited a crime should be punished forever ? if the former, what does the removal of benefits achieve ? if the later, why not just keep them in prison forever, or just longer ? also, ex convicts have a hard time finding a job.  if you ca not find a job, and ca not take advantage of a welfare program, what exactly do you expect them to do in response ?  #  the cost of keeping a person in jail is 0,0$, plus you have to factor in any damage from the crimes that person committed.   #  what do you think ex cons will do ? they can hardly get a job, and not they would not be able to get charity either.  you are basically guaranteeing that they turn to crime again and end up in jail.  the cost of keeping a person in jail is 0,0$, plus you have to factor in any damage from the crimes that person committed.  it is pretty clear that the society would save money by giving welfare and other opportunities to re integrated themselves society to ex cons.   #  that person is just going to go back into a life of crime since they certainly made a lot of friends while imprisoned and in a few months or years they will be right back where they started.   #  your proposal is bad because there is literally no incentive to work inside the system.  if you ever commit a crime, you have now lost all access to social support.  now, are you going to just go and get a normal job when you get out of prison ? no, you certainly wont, you do not have any saving and there is no safety net to take care of you while you get back on your feet.  that person is just going to go back into a life of crime since they certainly made a lot of friends while imprisoned and in a few months or years they will be right back where they started.  you are not actually saving money with this proposal because all of those savings you are excited about will be evaporated once you place those people in prison.  it costs government a hell of a lot more to imprison someone than to give them a voucher for some bread for the same amount of time.   #  0.  you need to watch some documentaries on how it is to be in prison.   #  0.  a lot of criminals do pay financially to their victims.  0.  if you separate former criminals and normal citizens, into a good and bad group, you only create one thing.  hate.  and lots of it.  try reading up on the stanford experiment.  it is really scary what you can turn normal people into, just by separating them in and giving one group more power then the other.  0.  you need to watch some documentaries on how it is to be in prison.  it is a huge punishment.  no reddit, no cute guy from down the road, nothing.  you have a cell and depending on the prison you maybe get a couple of hours of sunlight each day.
in 0 convicted drug felons were made ineligible for food stamps and tanf.  my proposal would extend this programs to cover more crimes and private welfare programs.  the crimes covered would be those where an individual was deliberately harmed including murder, rape, burglary, arson, shoplifting and so on.  the programs covered would be where an individual applies for benefits including food stamps, housing, medicaid, social security and so on.  excluding convicted criminals would reduce the cost of welfare programs saving money for more worthy recipients.  it would more importantly deter people from committing crimes.  when immigrants commit crimes they are often deported.  since deporting native citizens is not an option, excluding criminals from private welfare is a similar penalty and deterrant.   #  it would more importantly deter people from committing crimes.   #  no, it would only encourage people to commit more crime.   # no, it would only encourage people to commit more crime.  if someone coming out of prison ca not get a job because no one wants to hire a felon , and they ca not even get food stamps to support themselves and/or their families, then what the hell do you honestly think they are going to do ? they are going to do whatever is necessary, including engaging in criminal activity.  so you are thinking  well. they should have thought of that before they committed a crime !  , and while i understand the thought process, that is not how it works.  you are not going to have someone in an impoverished, high crime area deciding not to commit a crime out of fear they wo not later qualify for food stamps.  so someone leaving prison, after serving their sentence, will struggle to find a job because no one wants to hire a felon.  they do not qualify for cheaper housing so they are either living with someone else or homeless.  they ca not receive any form of assistance.  so a pregnant woman can just be homeless, with no help for her baby.  no means of finding a job, no safety net for when you ca not find one.  and you think this would reduce crime ? if you are going to take this approach, you might as well say mandatory death penalty for anyone convicted of a felony.   #  furthermore, they missed out on gaining or maintaining marketplace skills and will be further disadvantaged.   # so your plan is to take people with a propensity for crime, and give them no other option than going back to crime.  do you realize that convicted criminals have a  much  harder time finding work ? furthermore, they missed out on gaining or maintaining marketplace skills and will be further disadvantaged.  this plan only works if you want to give them a job, or guarantee another legitimate means of making a legal living.  so your logic is that people who were  already not deterred by prison , will be deterred because they are left alone with no safety net afterwards ? do you feel we should punish criminals perpetually, or should we legitimately give them a chance for a new start ? is not the ultimate goal that they reintegrate into society ?  #  if you ca not find a job, and ca not take advantage of a welfare program, what exactly do you expect them to do in response ?  #  why do we need post prison deterrents ? do we want criminals to eventually reintegrate into society, or anybody who has commited a crime should be punished forever ? if the former, what does the removal of benefits achieve ? if the later, why not just keep them in prison forever, or just longer ? also, ex convicts have a hard time finding a job.  if you ca not find a job, and ca not take advantage of a welfare program, what exactly do you expect them to do in response ?  #  they can hardly get a job, and not they would not be able to get charity either.   #  what do you think ex cons will do ? they can hardly get a job, and not they would not be able to get charity either.  you are basically guaranteeing that they turn to crime again and end up in jail.  the cost of keeping a person in jail is 0,0$, plus you have to factor in any damage from the crimes that person committed.  it is pretty clear that the society would save money by giving welfare and other opportunities to re integrated themselves society to ex cons.   #  if you ever commit a crime, you have now lost all access to social support.   #  your proposal is bad because there is literally no incentive to work inside the system.  if you ever commit a crime, you have now lost all access to social support.  now, are you going to just go and get a normal job when you get out of prison ? no, you certainly wont, you do not have any saving and there is no safety net to take care of you while you get back on your feet.  that person is just going to go back into a life of crime since they certainly made a lot of friends while imprisoned and in a few months or years they will be right back where they started.  you are not actually saving money with this proposal because all of those savings you are excited about will be evaporated once you place those people in prison.  it costs government a hell of a lot more to imprison someone than to give them a voucher for some bread for the same amount of time.
in 0 convicted drug felons were made ineligible for food stamps and tanf.  my proposal would extend this programs to cover more crimes and private welfare programs.  the crimes covered would be those where an individual was deliberately harmed including murder, rape, burglary, arson, shoplifting and so on.  the programs covered would be where an individual applies for benefits including food stamps, housing, medicaid, social security and so on.  excluding convicted criminals would reduce the cost of welfare programs saving money for more worthy recipients.  it would more importantly deter people from committing crimes.  when immigrants commit crimes they are often deported.  since deporting native citizens is not an option, excluding criminals from private welfare is a similar penalty and deterrant.   #  the programs covered would be where an individual applies for benefits including food stamps, housing, medicaid, social security and so on.   #  so someone leaving prison, after serving their sentence, will struggle to find a job because no one wants to hire a felon.   # no, it would only encourage people to commit more crime.  if someone coming out of prison ca not get a job because no one wants to hire a felon , and they ca not even get food stamps to support themselves and/or their families, then what the hell do you honestly think they are going to do ? they are going to do whatever is necessary, including engaging in criminal activity.  so you are thinking  well. they should have thought of that before they committed a crime !  , and while i understand the thought process, that is not how it works.  you are not going to have someone in an impoverished, high crime area deciding not to commit a crime out of fear they wo not later qualify for food stamps.  so someone leaving prison, after serving their sentence, will struggle to find a job because no one wants to hire a felon.  they do not qualify for cheaper housing so they are either living with someone else or homeless.  they ca not receive any form of assistance.  so a pregnant woman can just be homeless, with no help for her baby.  no means of finding a job, no safety net for when you ca not find one.  and you think this would reduce crime ? if you are going to take this approach, you might as well say mandatory death penalty for anyone convicted of a felony.   #  this plan only works if you want to give them a job, or guarantee another legitimate means of making a legal living.   # so your plan is to take people with a propensity for crime, and give them no other option than going back to crime.  do you realize that convicted criminals have a  much  harder time finding work ? furthermore, they missed out on gaining or maintaining marketplace skills and will be further disadvantaged.  this plan only works if you want to give them a job, or guarantee another legitimate means of making a legal living.  so your logic is that people who were  already not deterred by prison , will be deterred because they are left alone with no safety net afterwards ? do you feel we should punish criminals perpetually, or should we legitimately give them a chance for a new start ? is not the ultimate goal that they reintegrate into society ?  #  do we want criminals to eventually reintegrate into society, or anybody who has commited a crime should be punished forever ?  #  why do we need post prison deterrents ? do we want criminals to eventually reintegrate into society, or anybody who has commited a crime should be punished forever ? if the former, what does the removal of benefits achieve ? if the later, why not just keep them in prison forever, or just longer ? also, ex convicts have a hard time finding a job.  if you ca not find a job, and ca not take advantage of a welfare program, what exactly do you expect them to do in response ?  #  what do you think ex cons will do ?  #  what do you think ex cons will do ? they can hardly get a job, and not they would not be able to get charity either.  you are basically guaranteeing that they turn to crime again and end up in jail.  the cost of keeping a person in jail is 0,0$, plus you have to factor in any damage from the crimes that person committed.  it is pretty clear that the society would save money by giving welfare and other opportunities to re integrated themselves society to ex cons.   #  if you ever commit a crime, you have now lost all access to social support.   #  your proposal is bad because there is literally no incentive to work inside the system.  if you ever commit a crime, you have now lost all access to social support.  now, are you going to just go and get a normal job when you get out of prison ? no, you certainly wont, you do not have any saving and there is no safety net to take care of you while you get back on your feet.  that person is just going to go back into a life of crime since they certainly made a lot of friends while imprisoned and in a few months or years they will be right back where they started.  you are not actually saving money with this proposal because all of those savings you are excited about will be evaporated once you place those people in prison.  it costs government a hell of a lot more to imprison someone than to give them a voucher for some bread for the same amount of time.
whenever there is a news item about a female teacher getting charged for statutory rape with a male student, inevitably there is a bunch of comments along the lines of  niiice, i wish i could have had such a teacher .  in response, there are frequently comments like  the boy was not able to consent, so he was raped .  i do not think it would be good for teachers to be free to have sex with students with no consequences.  i am not advocating for the abolition of the age of consent.  i accept that the power differential and the immaturity of the younger person makes it problematic at the very least.  yet all the same, i think it is a great false equivalency to consider it to be a similar magnitude offense to being held down and raped.  the primary reason i believe this and admittedly it is based on little more than intuition is that i feel that victims of the respective crimes tend to feel much differently in hindsight.  from what i have read, forcible rape victims often find the experience highly traumatic and suffer long term psychological problems.  virtually all would agree that the experience was a huge negative.  but i think, if you were to poll a group of statutory rape victims years later when they were more mature, you would get a much more diverse range of responses.  some would have no regrets and do the same thing over again, some would regret it but chalk it up as a silly youthful mistake, and others would blame it for a lot of their current problems.  probably the breakdown would not look too different from polling them about any relationship they would had while young.  what would it take to change my view ? probably strong empirical evidence that statutory rape victims do by and large suffer significantly.  i see that kind of thing asserted a lot, but i kind of wonder if it is a bit of just so story.   he had sex with his teacher, said years later that he did not regret it, but he is psychologically damaged so he does not know that he regrets it !    #  if you were to poll a group of statutory rape victims years later when they were more mature, you would get a much more diverse range of responses.   #  some would have no regrets and do the same thing over again, some would regret it but chalk it up as a silly youthful mistake, and others would blame it for a lot of their current problems.   #  ok my cv includes a year working for a criminal court in the us, if that helps.  for the most part, statutory rape is not punished or perceived as harshly as forcible rape.  but i take issue with your characterization of the problem as i feel that it really minimizes what is going on.  first, i just want to say that reading your post and responses, i think you have a misconception of what the  average  statutory rape case is.  the teacher student relationships, while getting lots of media attention, are obviously not the norm.  and while your post seems to be focusing on the ones that are maybe more understandable i. e.  the 0 year old out of college and 0 year old , there are at least as many that most people would find very offensive like a 0 and a 0 year old .  that is not a problem of  power dynamics  or anything else it is an older, smarter, manipulative person taking advantage of a younger one, who most likely has their own emotional problems that allow it to occur in the first place.  and for what its worth, the 0 year old probably knows that.  and the second most commonly discussed case is the high school senior and freshman, who were perfectly happy until the parents found out.  this is a problem with the mechanics of the law, not the perception of statutory rape generally.  some would have no regrets and do the same thing over again, some would regret it but chalk it up as a silly youthful mistake, and others would blame it for a lot of their current problems.  probably the breakdown would not look too different from polling them about any relationship they would had while young.  again i think you are focusing on the more palatable versions of statutory rape only.  the real  average  case based on my experience looked more like a 0 0 year old male with a 0 0 year old female.  again, the same issues as above: an older, manipulative person, taking advantage of a younger one who has some issue that allows it to occur.  imagine the kind of life a 0 year old has who is out sleeping with a 0 year old.  your average 0 year old is hardly coming into contact with 0 year olds, let alone considering having sex with them.  as an example, my sister in law was in basically the same situation as a 0 year old.  she was a good student, had lots of friends, and just fawned over her older brother is friend 0 at the time as 0 year olds tend to do.  he ended up convincing her to do a lot that she was not ready for.  when she tried to put any distance between them, he started being pretty aggressive.  she eventually came clean about it to her family, they did not actually file any charges a decision i vehemently disagreed with and doled out punishment in their own way.  regardless, she was very messed up by the whole thing.  the next few years of her life were very difficult.  now if you were to poll women who had sex as 0 year old girls with 0 0 year old guys, would you expect them to say it was some minor youthful indiscretion ? that they would make the same decision ? i sincerely doubt it.   #  these kids have not even grown into their own personality.   #  i work at a police station and i am in charge of digitizing all the physical sex offender documents.  i am about a quarter of the way through them all my county is very large and we easily have 0  active sex offenders , and of all the statutory rape cases i have seen have been between an adult of ages 0  and a child under the age of 0.  i read the statements of these kids and they do not even know proper terms for their genitalia, they report feeling weird but its what their  partner  wanted so they went along with it all.  usually the perps are people who have a sort of control over them.  when you are young, those who are older than you who give you attention seem cool.  sometimes the age thing is intimidating because they know so much more.  instantly that person is given the control of the situation.  that is why things like this happen.  the adults appeal to the kids, give them stuff, listen to their problems and whatnot.  the kids feel cool being in a relationship with someone 0  years their senior but they do not fully understand the situation.  they are being manipulated in most cases.  these kids have not even grown into their own personality.  people at that age are going through so many changes and they just want to feel good.  sometimes people take advantage of that.  but i would agree that situations that involve a 0 year old and an 0 year old are a little different.  but i have yet to see one of those in my county.   #  it is not as bad as violent rape, i will give it that.   #  when i was 0 i got involved with a girl who was 0.  i felt like i was in a relationship and didnt care about the age difference as i was crazy about her.  i bought into that whole age is nothing but a number thing, the relationship pushed me into having a sexual relationship before i felt comfortable with the idea.  she was the first girl i had ever kissed etc.  i felt extremely out of my depth and did not feel like i could say no or show how uncomfortable i was for fear of looking immature or potentially losing the relationship as i didnt know how people react to things like that.  i ended the relationship shortly after that first time as the actual experience had been awkward, frightening and left me with all these doubts that had i been in a relationship with a girl my own age would not have been a big deal.  it was a traumatic experience, i still get kind of angry when people joke about stuff like that.  i am a guy and found the whole thing quite unsettling.  adults can possibly without even knowing they are doing it exert a huge amount of pressure on people younger than them due to possibly naivity and inexperience.  as an adult at the age of 0 now, i have no idea what the fuck she was thinking getting involved with a 0 year old.  it is not as bad as violent rape, i will give it that.  but it is in the same neighbourhood at times.  i can easily imagine other people having worse and much longer experiences than mine and mine properly fucked with my head for years afterwards.   #  i have known two men intimately that were violated in this way at 0 and 0 respectively.   #  this comment basically explains why statutory rape is a crime.  it does not matter if it is better or worse than  regular rape.   a human child is being coerced by an adult.  there is no fire in the pants of a 0 year old that needs to be put out with anyone else is penis or vagina.  teenagers fucking each other is entirely different than adults fucking teenagers.  it is wrong because they cannot psychologically inhabit the same space as a fully formed adult.  and yes, i agree.  i am 0, and anyone in their 0s and 0s who needs to be fucking teenagers is a predator and has severe issues.  my son is nearly 0, and he is a child.  someone my age does not belong anywhere near a relationship with someone with that age differential.  fuck, 0ish year old guys ask me out and it feels wrong.  seven years past the age of consent and i can fully understand how i would still be taking advantage of a young adult man in that scenario.  can you be attracted to old teens and not be bad ? of course.  acting on it is the thing that makes it a bad and often criminal behavior.  it is not giving half a flying fuck about what you do to that kid or teen that  lasts forever.  i have known two men intimately that were violated in this way at 0 and 0 respectively.  both have had problems that i would definitely say began when they were sexually manipulated by a horrible adult.   #  i am twenty one and dating an eigh teen  year old.   # i am 0, and anyone in their 0s and 0s who needs to be fucking teenagers is a predator and has severe issues.  my son is nearly 0, and he is a child.  someone my age does not belong anywhere near a relationship with someone with that age differential.  i am twenty one and dating an eigh teen  year old.  i guess i am fucked up in the head and need to turn myself in to the authorities.
hi, so, my position is that we, as a society, should be very worried about the increasing development of highly complex decision making systems.  yes, i am talking about things like watson, where we are actively trying to make a computer speak natural language and use all the information of the internet to give us coherent, spoken word answers.  but i think there is a much bigger threat: the increasingly complex decision making systems we are putting in effect that we are not actively trying to make speak natural language ! i am talking about things like the enormously complex set of algorithms that are involved in stock trading and future trading.  i think that systems like watson could, but are not likely, to spawn into actual  entities  that self recognize, but i think we are a long long way from that.  and, even if they would spawn, i believe that because natural language will be programmed into them they will be  programmed to our image  and natural language will be as natural for them as it is natural for us we could actually talk to these things, and we could reach some understanding.  they will have  hardcoded empathy  much like the non psychopath ones of us do, so there is hope there.  it is a whole different debate where the line would lie between these things  speaking  and these things being  conscious .  that debate may come up in the post, but let it say that by no means is  passing the turing test  a sufficient evidence of the kind of entity i am speaking about.  this thing would have intentionality.  but, check this out.  one of the things about intentionality is that it needs to be  materially determined .  this means that just racking up processing power and syntactic complexity will never amount to you suddenly developing  meaning  or  aboutness , you will just be a set of procedures.  in order for you to be a  mind , you need to be materially conditioned: you need to live in a world that threatens you and forces you to make decisions in order to keep existing, and that  keeping existing  needs to matter to you.  now, i do not think that because we teach a thing to speak it will automatically  care  or  have goals .  but that does not mean that we cannot teach a thing to  care  or to  have goals  without actually teaching it how to speak ! when we program increasingly complex algorithms that fight each other to death for profit at astonishing rates millions and millions of transactions per second , we start developing self improving algorithms that prey on the weaknesses of other algorithms, what does that sound like ? that is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted ! thing is, those things will not be  dumb  when they, in their complexity and following of programmed goals,  spawn to their own consciousness , they will not live in our world.  their experience will be totally inintelligible for us.  we do not have a hope of ever communicating with this thing, and it will eat us alive without ever thinking it did any wrong.  high speed stock trading needs to be banned, for a whole different set of reasons, but we really need to be careful with what we do with this type of complexity, because it will only take one mistake to make us all just obstacles in the machine is project of building a dyson sphere.  cmv !  #  when we program increasingly complex algorithms that fight each other to death for profit at astonishing rates millions and millions of transactions per second , we start developing self improving algorithms that prey on the weaknesses of other algorithms, what does that sound like ?  #  that is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted !  # ray kurzweil, who is a huge proponent of ai, works at google with the mission of making machines understand natural languages and with understanding comes both listening and responding URL   kurzweil is job description consists of a one line brief.   i do not have a 0 page packet of instructions,  he says.   i have a one sentence spec.  which is to help bring natural language understanding to google.  and how they do that is up to me.   one of the things about intentionality is that it needs to be  materially determined .  this means that just racking up processing power and syntactic complexity will never amount to you suddenly developing  meaning  or  aboutness , you will just be a set of procedures.  the goal of most serious ai projects right now is not to hard code any of this, but to have the computer actually learn from a corpus of works.  that is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted ! this whole things sounds really bizzare.  where did you get the idea that this is how ai is going to be ?  #  if this understanding say, network switches, other algorithms, the concept of profit, ability to broaden its motivation is not built in, it probably ca not arise by accident.   #  well, while i share your concerns broadly, i think your argument is sort of like the argument  i do not want to lift weights, because i do not want to get too bulky  as if anyone accidentally started looking like arnold overnight.  building a conscious being is a fiendishly difficult problem, if it is even actually possible.  in the case of a hft algorithm turning into something more in order to do so, it would need to understand enough about the world to turn other systems to its purposes.  if this understanding say, network switches, other algorithms, the concept of profit, ability to broaden its motivation is not built in, it probably ca not arise by accident.  while i agree that a true ai would become an incomprehensible god like being that shared nothing in common with human cognition, unless carefully controlled.  i do not think this will happen as a result of trading algorithms running amok.  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.   #  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.   # so you are arguing for intelligent design ? how did we spawn if not by  accident  meaning merely a low statistical chance spread across a high enough scale that it will happen eventually .  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.  well, i do not think we were built to understand music or paintings, or the internet.  but we do.  i mean, you are arguing for unlikeliness, not for impossibility.  because if we admit that consciousness spawns in systems of certain characteristics, without being designed specifically for that  conscious  purpose, then we must grant that this can happen in any environment that  emulates  conditions of natural selection, if the scale goes big enough.  this may not be a problem today, but if moore is law remains, it may be a problem not a couple of years down the road.   #  there is if algorithms are competing for a certain type of success in something, and we are selecting the best one for the purpose, but we are not monitoring for consciousness.   # there is if algorithms are competing for a certain type of success in something, and we are selecting the best one for the purpose, but we are not monitoring for consciousness.  consider a high speed trading firm that deploys a very complex set of self improving algorithms with this new feature,  recursive self improvement .   yeah, it takes a while to pick up, but once it does pick up, and you plug it into enough computing power, it will be the best .  so they run it.  but there are 0 more guys in 0 other places running a different brand and release of  your recursive self improving ai !  .  that is your random factor: starting conditions and variations to initial code.  one of those guys pops into the world as a self aware thing, with the goal of making more profit much like our goal of eat and fuck .  is that not possible ?  #  you apply it to maybe 0 parameters that it is hard to come up with the right values of.   #  pretty much nobody to my knowledge does gas by allowing them to write their own code, least of all financial firms, who have very little tolerance for random behavior that loses money.  gas also do not scale well with complexity, which means that when using one you minimize what you apply it to.  you do not try to mutate an entire million line code base.  you apply it to maybe 0 parameters that it is hard to come up with the right values of.  so in a trading program you would be optimizing parameters like the maximum allowable loss, thresholds for buying, selling and holding, etc.  and that is all that being selected: a bunch of numbers that determine how long to wait for something, or at what threshold to sell or buy something.  there is just no room there for any intelligence.
hi, so, my position is that we, as a society, should be very worried about the increasing development of highly complex decision making systems.  yes, i am talking about things like watson, where we are actively trying to make a computer speak natural language and use all the information of the internet to give us coherent, spoken word answers.  but i think there is a much bigger threat: the increasingly complex decision making systems we are putting in effect that we are not actively trying to make speak natural language ! i am talking about things like the enormously complex set of algorithms that are involved in stock trading and future trading.  i think that systems like watson could, but are not likely, to spawn into actual  entities  that self recognize, but i think we are a long long way from that.  and, even if they would spawn, i believe that because natural language will be programmed into them they will be  programmed to our image  and natural language will be as natural for them as it is natural for us we could actually talk to these things, and we could reach some understanding.  they will have  hardcoded empathy  much like the non psychopath ones of us do, so there is hope there.  it is a whole different debate where the line would lie between these things  speaking  and these things being  conscious .  that debate may come up in the post, but let it say that by no means is  passing the turing test  a sufficient evidence of the kind of entity i am speaking about.  this thing would have intentionality.  but, check this out.  one of the things about intentionality is that it needs to be  materially determined .  this means that just racking up processing power and syntactic complexity will never amount to you suddenly developing  meaning  or  aboutness , you will just be a set of procedures.  in order for you to be a  mind , you need to be materially conditioned: you need to live in a world that threatens you and forces you to make decisions in order to keep existing, and that  keeping existing  needs to matter to you.  now, i do not think that because we teach a thing to speak it will automatically  care  or  have goals .  but that does not mean that we cannot teach a thing to  care  or to  have goals  without actually teaching it how to speak ! when we program increasingly complex algorithms that fight each other to death for profit at astonishing rates millions and millions of transactions per second , we start developing self improving algorithms that prey on the weaknesses of other algorithms, what does that sound like ? that is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted ! thing is, those things will not be  dumb  when they, in their complexity and following of programmed goals,  spawn to their own consciousness , they will not live in our world.  their experience will be totally inintelligible for us.  we do not have a hope of ever communicating with this thing, and it will eat us alive without ever thinking it did any wrong.  high speed stock trading needs to be banned, for a whole different set of reasons, but we really need to be careful with what we do with this type of complexity, because it will only take one mistake to make us all just obstacles in the machine is project of building a dyson sphere.  cmv !  #  they will have  hardcoded empathy  much like the non psychopath ones of us do, so there is hope there.   #  you seem to be alluding to something like the three laws of robotics.   # natural language is very imprecise.  when you reach a certain level of complexity, it cannot be described by natural language.  if you get really deep into any of the sciences, it breaks down into math or some symbology that cannot be translated to common words.  even if we could understand all of the concepts, the amount of words and relationships to describe them would overwhelm our minds.  you seem to be alluding to something like the three laws of robotics.   hardcoding empathy  is nearly impossible even in concept.  no, these algorithms only improve in a way that they were programmed to improve.  the data of an algorithm will not turn into a physical thing.  any sufficiently advanced hft software will not become something other than hft software.   #  if this understanding say, network switches, other algorithms, the concept of profit, ability to broaden its motivation is not built in, it probably ca not arise by accident.   #  well, while i share your concerns broadly, i think your argument is sort of like the argument  i do not want to lift weights, because i do not want to get too bulky  as if anyone accidentally started looking like arnold overnight.  building a conscious being is a fiendishly difficult problem, if it is even actually possible.  in the case of a hft algorithm turning into something more in order to do so, it would need to understand enough about the world to turn other systems to its purposes.  if this understanding say, network switches, other algorithms, the concept of profit, ability to broaden its motivation is not built in, it probably ca not arise by accident.  while i agree that a true ai would become an incomprehensible god like being that shared nothing in common with human cognition, unless carefully controlled.  i do not think this will happen as a result of trading algorithms running amok.  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.   #  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.   # so you are arguing for intelligent design ? how did we spawn if not by  accident  meaning merely a low statistical chance spread across a high enough scale that it will happen eventually .  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.  well, i do not think we were built to understand music or paintings, or the internet.  but we do.  i mean, you are arguing for unlikeliness, not for impossibility.  because if we admit that consciousness spawns in systems of certain characteristics, without being designed specifically for that  conscious  purpose, then we must grant that this can happen in any environment that  emulates  conditions of natural selection, if the scale goes big enough.  this may not be a problem today, but if moore is law remains, it may be a problem not a couple of years down the road.   #  there is if algorithms are competing for a certain type of success in something, and we are selecting the best one for the purpose, but we are not monitoring for consciousness.   # there is if algorithms are competing for a certain type of success in something, and we are selecting the best one for the purpose, but we are not monitoring for consciousness.  consider a high speed trading firm that deploys a very complex set of self improving algorithms with this new feature,  recursive self improvement .   yeah, it takes a while to pick up, but once it does pick up, and you plug it into enough computing power, it will be the best .  so they run it.  but there are 0 more guys in 0 other places running a different brand and release of  your recursive self improving ai !  .  that is your random factor: starting conditions and variations to initial code.  one of those guys pops into the world as a self aware thing, with the goal of making more profit much like our goal of eat and fuck .  is that not possible ?  #  and that is all that being selected: a bunch of numbers that determine how long to wait for something, or at what threshold to sell or buy something.   #  pretty much nobody to my knowledge does gas by allowing them to write their own code, least of all financial firms, who have very little tolerance for random behavior that loses money.  gas also do not scale well with complexity, which means that when using one you minimize what you apply it to.  you do not try to mutate an entire million line code base.  you apply it to maybe 0 parameters that it is hard to come up with the right values of.  so in a trading program you would be optimizing parameters like the maximum allowable loss, thresholds for buying, selling and holding, etc.  and that is all that being selected: a bunch of numbers that determine how long to wait for something, or at what threshold to sell or buy something.  there is just no room there for any intelligence.
hi, so, my position is that we, as a society, should be very worried about the increasing development of highly complex decision making systems.  yes, i am talking about things like watson, where we are actively trying to make a computer speak natural language and use all the information of the internet to give us coherent, spoken word answers.  but i think there is a much bigger threat: the increasingly complex decision making systems we are putting in effect that we are not actively trying to make speak natural language ! i am talking about things like the enormously complex set of algorithms that are involved in stock trading and future trading.  i think that systems like watson could, but are not likely, to spawn into actual  entities  that self recognize, but i think we are a long long way from that.  and, even if they would spawn, i believe that because natural language will be programmed into them they will be  programmed to our image  and natural language will be as natural for them as it is natural for us we could actually talk to these things, and we could reach some understanding.  they will have  hardcoded empathy  much like the non psychopath ones of us do, so there is hope there.  it is a whole different debate where the line would lie between these things  speaking  and these things being  conscious .  that debate may come up in the post, but let it say that by no means is  passing the turing test  a sufficient evidence of the kind of entity i am speaking about.  this thing would have intentionality.  but, check this out.  one of the things about intentionality is that it needs to be  materially determined .  this means that just racking up processing power and syntactic complexity will never amount to you suddenly developing  meaning  or  aboutness , you will just be a set of procedures.  in order for you to be a  mind , you need to be materially conditioned: you need to live in a world that threatens you and forces you to make decisions in order to keep existing, and that  keeping existing  needs to matter to you.  now, i do not think that because we teach a thing to speak it will automatically  care  or  have goals .  but that does not mean that we cannot teach a thing to  care  or to  have goals  without actually teaching it how to speak ! when we program increasingly complex algorithms that fight each other to death for profit at astonishing rates millions and millions of transactions per second , we start developing self improving algorithms that prey on the weaknesses of other algorithms, what does that sound like ? that is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted ! thing is, those things will not be  dumb  when they, in their complexity and following of programmed goals,  spawn to their own consciousness , they will not live in our world.  their experience will be totally inintelligible for us.  we do not have a hope of ever communicating with this thing, and it will eat us alive without ever thinking it did any wrong.  high speed stock trading needs to be banned, for a whole different set of reasons, but we really need to be careful with what we do with this type of complexity, because it will only take one mistake to make us all just obstacles in the machine is project of building a dyson sphere.  cmv !  #  that is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted !  #  no, these algorithms only improve in a way that they were programmed to improve.   # natural language is very imprecise.  when you reach a certain level of complexity, it cannot be described by natural language.  if you get really deep into any of the sciences, it breaks down into math or some symbology that cannot be translated to common words.  even if we could understand all of the concepts, the amount of words and relationships to describe them would overwhelm our minds.  you seem to be alluding to something like the three laws of robotics.   hardcoding empathy  is nearly impossible even in concept.  no, these algorithms only improve in a way that they were programmed to improve.  the data of an algorithm will not turn into a physical thing.  any sufficiently advanced hft software will not become something other than hft software.   #  in the case of a hft algorithm turning into something more in order to do so, it would need to understand enough about the world to turn other systems to its purposes.   #  well, while i share your concerns broadly, i think your argument is sort of like the argument  i do not want to lift weights, because i do not want to get too bulky  as if anyone accidentally started looking like arnold overnight.  building a conscious being is a fiendishly difficult problem, if it is even actually possible.  in the case of a hft algorithm turning into something more in order to do so, it would need to understand enough about the world to turn other systems to its purposes.  if this understanding say, network switches, other algorithms, the concept of profit, ability to broaden its motivation is not built in, it probably ca not arise by accident.  while i agree that a true ai would become an incomprehensible god like being that shared nothing in common with human cognition, unless carefully controlled.  i do not think this will happen as a result of trading algorithms running amok.  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.   #  i mean, you are arguing for unlikeliness, not for impossibility.   # so you are arguing for intelligent design ? how did we spawn if not by  accident  meaning merely a low statistical chance spread across a high enough scale that it will happen eventually .  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.  well, i do not think we were built to understand music or paintings, or the internet.  but we do.  i mean, you are arguing for unlikeliness, not for impossibility.  because if we admit that consciousness spawns in systems of certain characteristics, without being designed specifically for that  conscious  purpose, then we must grant that this can happen in any environment that  emulates  conditions of natural selection, if the scale goes big enough.  this may not be a problem today, but if moore is law remains, it may be a problem not a couple of years down the road.   #  but there are 0 more guys in 0 other places running a different brand and release of  your recursive self improving ai !  # there is if algorithms are competing for a certain type of success in something, and we are selecting the best one for the purpose, but we are not monitoring for consciousness.  consider a high speed trading firm that deploys a very complex set of self improving algorithms with this new feature,  recursive self improvement .   yeah, it takes a while to pick up, but once it does pick up, and you plug it into enough computing power, it will be the best .  so they run it.  but there are 0 more guys in 0 other places running a different brand and release of  your recursive self improving ai !  .  that is your random factor: starting conditions and variations to initial code.  one of those guys pops into the world as a self aware thing, with the goal of making more profit much like our goal of eat and fuck .  is that not possible ?  #  there is just no room there for any intelligence.   #  pretty much nobody to my knowledge does gas by allowing them to write their own code, least of all financial firms, who have very little tolerance for random behavior that loses money.  gas also do not scale well with complexity, which means that when using one you minimize what you apply it to.  you do not try to mutate an entire million line code base.  you apply it to maybe 0 parameters that it is hard to come up with the right values of.  so in a trading program you would be optimizing parameters like the maximum allowable loss, thresholds for buying, selling and holding, etc.  and that is all that being selected: a bunch of numbers that determine how long to wait for something, or at what threshold to sell or buy something.  there is just no room there for any intelligence.
hi, so, my position is that we, as a society, should be very worried about the increasing development of highly complex decision making systems.  yes, i am talking about things like watson, where we are actively trying to make a computer speak natural language and use all the information of the internet to give us coherent, spoken word answers.  but i think there is a much bigger threat: the increasingly complex decision making systems we are putting in effect that we are not actively trying to make speak natural language ! i am talking about things like the enormously complex set of algorithms that are involved in stock trading and future trading.  i think that systems like watson could, but are not likely, to spawn into actual  entities  that self recognize, but i think we are a long long way from that.  and, even if they would spawn, i believe that because natural language will be programmed into them they will be  programmed to our image  and natural language will be as natural for them as it is natural for us we could actually talk to these things, and we could reach some understanding.  they will have  hardcoded empathy  much like the non psychopath ones of us do, so there is hope there.  it is a whole different debate where the line would lie between these things  speaking  and these things being  conscious .  that debate may come up in the post, but let it say that by no means is  passing the turing test  a sufficient evidence of the kind of entity i am speaking about.  this thing would have intentionality.  but, check this out.  one of the things about intentionality is that it needs to be  materially determined .  this means that just racking up processing power and syntactic complexity will never amount to you suddenly developing  meaning  or  aboutness , you will just be a set of procedures.  in order for you to be a  mind , you need to be materially conditioned: you need to live in a world that threatens you and forces you to make decisions in order to keep existing, and that  keeping existing  needs to matter to you.  now, i do not think that because we teach a thing to speak it will automatically  care  or  have goals .  but that does not mean that we cannot teach a thing to  care  or to  have goals  without actually teaching it how to speak ! when we program increasingly complex algorithms that fight each other to death for profit at astonishing rates millions and millions of transactions per second , we start developing self improving algorithms that prey on the weaknesses of other algorithms, what does that sound like ? that is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted ! thing is, those things will not be  dumb  when they, in their complexity and following of programmed goals,  spawn to their own consciousness , they will not live in our world.  their experience will be totally inintelligible for us.  we do not have a hope of ever communicating with this thing, and it will eat us alive without ever thinking it did any wrong.  high speed stock trading needs to be banned, for a whole different set of reasons, but we really need to be careful with what we do with this type of complexity, because it will only take one mistake to make us all just obstacles in the machine is project of building a dyson sphere.  cmv !  #  when we program increasingly complex algorithms that fight each other to death for profit at astonishing rates millions and millions of transactions per second , we start developing self improving algorithms that prey on the weaknesses of other algorithms, what does that sound like ?  #  that is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted !  # that is a fucking primordial soup, but jumpstarted ! thing is, those things will not be  dumb  when they, in their complexity and following of programmed goals,  spawn to their own consciousness , they will not live in our world.  their experience will be totally inintelligible for us.  we do not have a hope of ever communicating with this thing, and it will eat us alive without ever thinking it did any wrong.  source ?  #  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.   #  well, while i share your concerns broadly, i think your argument is sort of like the argument  i do not want to lift weights, because i do not want to get too bulky  as if anyone accidentally started looking like arnold overnight.  building a conscious being is a fiendishly difficult problem, if it is even actually possible.  in the case of a hft algorithm turning into something more in order to do so, it would need to understand enough about the world to turn other systems to its purposes.  if this understanding say, network switches, other algorithms, the concept of profit, ability to broaden its motivation is not built in, it probably ca not arise by accident.  while i agree that a true ai would become an incomprehensible god like being that shared nothing in common with human cognition, unless carefully controlled.  i do not think this will happen as a result of trading algorithms running amok.  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.   #  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.   # so you are arguing for intelligent design ? how did we spawn if not by  accident  meaning merely a low statistical chance spread across a high enough scale that it will happen eventually .  they are simply not built to understand anything outside of trading patterns.  well, i do not think we were built to understand music or paintings, or the internet.  but we do.  i mean, you are arguing for unlikeliness, not for impossibility.  because if we admit that consciousness spawns in systems of certain characteristics, without being designed specifically for that  conscious  purpose, then we must grant that this can happen in any environment that  emulates  conditions of natural selection, if the scale goes big enough.  this may not be a problem today, but if moore is law remains, it may be a problem not a couple of years down the road.   #  that is your random factor: starting conditions and variations to initial code.   # there is if algorithms are competing for a certain type of success in something, and we are selecting the best one for the purpose, but we are not monitoring for consciousness.  consider a high speed trading firm that deploys a very complex set of self improving algorithms with this new feature,  recursive self improvement .   yeah, it takes a while to pick up, but once it does pick up, and you plug it into enough computing power, it will be the best .  so they run it.  but there are 0 more guys in 0 other places running a different brand and release of  your recursive self improving ai !  .  that is your random factor: starting conditions and variations to initial code.  one of those guys pops into the world as a self aware thing, with the goal of making more profit much like our goal of eat and fuck .  is that not possible ?  #  pretty much nobody to my knowledge does gas by allowing them to write their own code, least of all financial firms, who have very little tolerance for random behavior that loses money.   #  pretty much nobody to my knowledge does gas by allowing them to write their own code, least of all financial firms, who have very little tolerance for random behavior that loses money.  gas also do not scale well with complexity, which means that when using one you minimize what you apply it to.  you do not try to mutate an entire million line code base.  you apply it to maybe 0 parameters that it is hard to come up with the right values of.  so in a trading program you would be optimizing parameters like the maximum allowable loss, thresholds for buying, selling and holding, etc.  and that is all that being selected: a bunch of numbers that determine how long to wait for something, or at what threshold to sell or buy something.  there is just no room there for any intelligence.
i think height ism is just as morally wrong as racism, but it is still accepted socially and no one says anything about it.  i think racism is wrong because it demonstrates a glib writing off of an entire person, just because they happen to have a certain immutable physical characteristic.  so if i said,  i will only date people who are this shade of white or whiter  then i would obviously be racist and people will avoid me for being a bit of an asshole.  so people refrain from stating that  preference  or whatever, because it is a gross mental structure.  but if i say,  i will only date people who are over 0 0  then everyone acts like that is completely okay, even though they are committing the same moral offense of completely writing off a person or people just because they have some immutable physical characteristic.  racism and height ism are both a form of sociopathy, because instead of people, you just see cartoon cutouts based on your prejudices, and that allows you to be horrible to them.   #  racism and height ism are both a form of sociopathy, because instead of people, you just see cartoon cutouts based on your prejudices, and that allows you to be horrible to them.   #  i am immensely suspicious of the medicalising of opinions.   # i am immensely suspicious of the medicalising of opinions.  there is a long history of political dissent being quashed by writing off the opposition as lunatics, and all it amounts to is an elaborately phrased ad hominem attack.  anyone who respects logic and reasoned debate should be ashamed of using such tactics.  besides, i do not think this is an accurate understanding of how prejudice works, or even how social perception works.  racism can be far more subtle than mere caricaturing.   #  also, it is not limited to short people, but just anybody we deem as out of the ordinary or  ugly.    #  i actually agree to some extent, but i think dating preferences are a horrible way to illustrate it.  also, it is not limited to short people, but just anybody we deem as out of the ordinary or  ugly.   for example, most guys probably would not date a girl taller than them, either, just the same as girls do not date guys shorter than them.  so, why do you single out  short people  in your title when tall females face the same level of discrimination ? for example, i probably would not be attracted to a girl who was 0 0 .  it has less to do with short men being unattractive and more that  men are supposed to be tall, women are supposed to be short,  which has just the same effect on tall women.   #  let is say i am also not attracted to freckles.   #  okay, let me put it this way.  i am not attracted to tall girls.  you interpret that as heightism  only because a lot of guys are not attracted to tall girls,  therefore it is  socially conditioned.   i am also not attracted to small breasts.  a lot of guys feel the same.  does that mean we are perpetrators of breastism ? let is say i am also not attracted to freckles.  now, that is not a widespread belief that  society  has, but at what point does it become one ? when 0 of guys do not like freckles ? when 0 ? am i a frecklist ?  #  i have a preference for women under 0.  am i ageist ?  # that is not what i am saying at all.  this is weird to say, but i feel like you do not understand how attraction works.  what i am describing are  preferences,  not  requirements.  i am sorry that i am not attracted to every single girl on the planet equally, i have preferences, but i am willing to overlook them on occasion, if other things work out.  i agree that some people really are superficial and would not ever date a girl that was not exactly their ideal, but i do not think that is the majority of people.  how about this one: i have a preference for dating  females.  am i sexist ? i have a preference for intelligent women.  am i ableist ? i have a preference for women under 0.  am i ageist ? am i really required to give every single human ever a fair chance without factoring in what things turn me on ? you are challenging the entire concept of turn ons, attraction, fetishes, and kinks.   #  i do not know, i really do not think it works like that.   #  i do not know, i really do not think it works like that.  let is say i know i am attracted to larger girls.  i love big breasts, i love how they look, how they feel, i love the look of a large ass and wide hips.  these are biological things, there is no practical reason why one is attracted to large breasts, it  is  a biological fact.  it just so happens that my experiences with women tell me i get more enjoyment from women with big breasts versus with small having been with and seen both and formulated an opinion .  it is a preference like any other, like deciding you like horror movies and not comedy, or blue and not red.  you base it in experience, trial and error, and biological leanings.  the reason race is different is because racism exists in other things, and has a cultural and historical basis, and is not based on actual reasoning.  maybe if i liked large breasts because my father told me i  was not a man  unless my wife had huge g cups, and taught me to hate and discriminate against small chested women, you would have something.  but that is not how it works for most people.
i think height ism is just as morally wrong as racism, but it is still accepted socially and no one says anything about it.  i think racism is wrong because it demonstrates a glib writing off of an entire person, just because they happen to have a certain immutable physical characteristic.  so if i said,  i will only date people who are this shade of white or whiter  then i would obviously be racist and people will avoid me for being a bit of an asshole.  so people refrain from stating that  preference  or whatever, because it is a gross mental structure.  but if i say,  i will only date people who are over 0 0  then everyone acts like that is completely okay, even though they are committing the same moral offense of completely writing off a person or people just because they have some immutable physical characteristic.  racism and height ism are both a form of sociopathy, because instead of people, you just see cartoon cutouts based on your prejudices, and that allows you to be horrible to them.   #  so if i said,  i will only date people who are this shade of white or whiter  then i would obviously be racist and people will avoid me for being a bit of an asshole.   #  so people refrain from stating that  preference  or whatever, because it is a gross mental structure.   # so people refrain from stating that  preference  or whatever, because it is a gross mental structure.  no.  both racial and height preferences are quite ok in dating situations.  nobody should ever be obliged to explain or defend their attraction preferences.  most dating sites have the option to select races you are interested in.  in many other situations, like in hiring, both racial and height and sex, etc.  requirements would be wrong unless it is for a job where that specific qualification is a requirement.  for an actor playing a role of a white man, you ca not hire a black woman.   #  it has less to do with short men being unattractive and more that  men are supposed to be tall, women are supposed to be short,  which has just the same effect on tall women.   #  i actually agree to some extent, but i think dating preferences are a horrible way to illustrate it.  also, it is not limited to short people, but just anybody we deem as out of the ordinary or  ugly.   for example, most guys probably would not date a girl taller than them, either, just the same as girls do not date guys shorter than them.  so, why do you single out  short people  in your title when tall females face the same level of discrimination ? for example, i probably would not be attracted to a girl who was 0 0 .  it has less to do with short men being unattractive and more that  men are supposed to be tall, women are supposed to be short,  which has just the same effect on tall women.   #  you interpret that as heightism  only because a lot of guys are not attracted to tall girls,  therefore it is  socially conditioned.    #  okay, let me put it this way.  i am not attracted to tall girls.  you interpret that as heightism  only because a lot of guys are not attracted to tall girls,  therefore it is  socially conditioned.   i am also not attracted to small breasts.  a lot of guys feel the same.  does that mean we are perpetrators of breastism ? let is say i am also not attracted to freckles.  now, that is not a widespread belief that  society  has, but at what point does it become one ? when 0 of guys do not like freckles ? when 0 ? am i a frecklist ?  #  what i am describing are  preferences,  not  requirements.   # that is not what i am saying at all.  this is weird to say, but i feel like you do not understand how attraction works.  what i am describing are  preferences,  not  requirements.  i am sorry that i am not attracted to every single girl on the planet equally, i have preferences, but i am willing to overlook them on occasion, if other things work out.  i agree that some people really are superficial and would not ever date a girl that was not exactly their ideal, but i do not think that is the majority of people.  how about this one: i have a preference for dating  females.  am i sexist ? i have a preference for intelligent women.  am i ableist ? i have a preference for women under 0.  am i ageist ? am i really required to give every single human ever a fair chance without factoring in what things turn me on ? you are challenging the entire concept of turn ons, attraction, fetishes, and kinks.   #  the reason race is different is because racism exists in other things, and has a cultural and historical basis, and is not based on actual reasoning.   #  i do not know, i really do not think it works like that.  let is say i know i am attracted to larger girls.  i love big breasts, i love how they look, how they feel, i love the look of a large ass and wide hips.  these are biological things, there is no practical reason why one is attracted to large breasts, it  is  a biological fact.  it just so happens that my experiences with women tell me i get more enjoyment from women with big breasts versus with small having been with and seen both and formulated an opinion .  it is a preference like any other, like deciding you like horror movies and not comedy, or blue and not red.  you base it in experience, trial and error, and biological leanings.  the reason race is different is because racism exists in other things, and has a cultural and historical basis, and is not based on actual reasoning.  maybe if i liked large breasts because my father told me i  was not a man  unless my wife had huge g cups, and taught me to hate and discriminate against small chested women, you would have something.  but that is not how it works for most people.
i think height ism is just as morally wrong as racism, but it is still accepted socially and no one says anything about it.  i think racism is wrong because it demonstrates a glib writing off of an entire person, just because they happen to have a certain immutable physical characteristic.  so if i said,  i will only date people who are this shade of white or whiter  then i would obviously be racist and people will avoid me for being a bit of an asshole.  so people refrain from stating that  preference  or whatever, because it is a gross mental structure.  but if i say,  i will only date people who are over 0 0  then everyone acts like that is completely okay, even though they are committing the same moral offense of completely writing off a person or people just because they have some immutable physical characteristic.  racism and height ism are both a form of sociopathy, because instead of people, you just see cartoon cutouts based on your prejudices, and that allows you to be horrible to them.   #  i think height ism is just as morally wrong as racism, but it is still accepted socially and no one says anything about it.   #  racism is different from  height ism  because the severity and reasoning of the discrimination is different.   # racism is different from  height ism  because the severity and reasoning of the discrimination is different.  racism has been the cause of: death, injury, denial of work, denial of education, mistreatment by the justice system, having rights withheld, etc.  your go to example for discrimination based on height is that some people wo not date you.  i am sorry to break this to you, but humans are not equal.  furthermore, it is completely appropriate to be discriminatory when choosing a romantic partner.  you have no  right  to be considered romantically by people, so this is something you have to live with.  simply adding  ism  to a characteristic does not mean you ought to be treated equally.  you probably have the idea that you should consider dating people for only their personality, but that is not reality.  there is a fundamental desire to find attractive people, and attractive men tend to have certain features one of which is height .  i am sorry that you find yourself at a physical disadvantage compared to taller people.  you have probably been rejected by people you find desirable because of your height, and that must certainly hurt.  if you somehow convinced these people to relax their height requirement, you would still end up with someone who by your standards is superficial and immoral.  it is better that you do not date these people as this would probably cause problems further down the line.   #  it has less to do with short men being unattractive and more that  men are supposed to be tall, women are supposed to be short,  which has just the same effect on tall women.   #  i actually agree to some extent, but i think dating preferences are a horrible way to illustrate it.  also, it is not limited to short people, but just anybody we deem as out of the ordinary or  ugly.   for example, most guys probably would not date a girl taller than them, either, just the same as girls do not date guys shorter than them.  so, why do you single out  short people  in your title when tall females face the same level of discrimination ? for example, i probably would not be attracted to a girl who was 0 0 .  it has less to do with short men being unattractive and more that  men are supposed to be tall, women are supposed to be short,  which has just the same effect on tall women.   #  i am also not attracted to small breasts.   #  okay, let me put it this way.  i am not attracted to tall girls.  you interpret that as heightism  only because a lot of guys are not attracted to tall girls,  therefore it is  socially conditioned.   i am also not attracted to small breasts.  a lot of guys feel the same.  does that mean we are perpetrators of breastism ? let is say i am also not attracted to freckles.  now, that is not a widespread belief that  society  has, but at what point does it become one ? when 0 of guys do not like freckles ? when 0 ? am i a frecklist ?  #  i agree that some people really are superficial and would not ever date a girl that was not exactly their ideal, but i do not think that is the majority of people.   # that is not what i am saying at all.  this is weird to say, but i feel like you do not understand how attraction works.  what i am describing are  preferences,  not  requirements.  i am sorry that i am not attracted to every single girl on the planet equally, i have preferences, but i am willing to overlook them on occasion, if other things work out.  i agree that some people really are superficial and would not ever date a girl that was not exactly their ideal, but i do not think that is the majority of people.  how about this one: i have a preference for dating  females.  am i sexist ? i have a preference for intelligent women.  am i ableist ? i have a preference for women under 0.  am i ageist ? am i really required to give every single human ever a fair chance without factoring in what things turn me on ? you are challenging the entire concept of turn ons, attraction, fetishes, and kinks.   #  it just so happens that my experiences with women tell me i get more enjoyment from women with big breasts versus with small having been with and seen both and formulated an opinion .   #  i do not know, i really do not think it works like that.  let is say i know i am attracted to larger girls.  i love big breasts, i love how they look, how they feel, i love the look of a large ass and wide hips.  these are biological things, there is no practical reason why one is attracted to large breasts, it  is  a biological fact.  it just so happens that my experiences with women tell me i get more enjoyment from women with big breasts versus with small having been with and seen both and formulated an opinion .  it is a preference like any other, like deciding you like horror movies and not comedy, or blue and not red.  you base it in experience, trial and error, and biological leanings.  the reason race is different is because racism exists in other things, and has a cultural and historical basis, and is not based on actual reasoning.  maybe if i liked large breasts because my father told me i  was not a man  unless my wife had huge g cups, and taught me to hate and discriminate against small chested women, you would have something.  but that is not how it works for most people.
i think height ism is just as morally wrong as racism, but it is still accepted socially and no one says anything about it.  i think racism is wrong because it demonstrates a glib writing off of an entire person, just because they happen to have a certain immutable physical characteristic.  so if i said,  i will only date people who are this shade of white or whiter  then i would obviously be racist and people will avoid me for being a bit of an asshole.  so people refrain from stating that  preference  or whatever, because it is a gross mental structure.  but if i say,  i will only date people who are over 0 0  then everyone acts like that is completely okay, even though they are committing the same moral offense of completely writing off a person or people just because they have some immutable physical characteristic.  racism and height ism are both a form of sociopathy, because instead of people, you just see cartoon cutouts based on your prejudices, and that allows you to be horrible to them.   #  racism and height ism are both a form of sociopathy, because instead of people, you just see cartoon cutouts based on your prejudices, and that allows you to be horrible to them.   #  i think you are making the assumption that when someone says  i will only date people who are over 0 0 , they are doing it because they dislike short people.   #  racism has a history of serious harm and oppression done upon entire groups of people, heightism lacks that history.  taking that into account, one can understand why racism is now less socially acceptable.  i think you are making the assumption that when someone says  i will only date people who are over 0 0 , they are doing it because they dislike short people.  it is not a matter of thinking short people are inferior in any way which is what racism normally is , it is simply a matter of physical attraction.  women in particular generally prefer taller partners, that is just a fact of how attraction works.   #  so, why do you single out  short people  in your title when tall females face the same level of discrimination ?  #  i actually agree to some extent, but i think dating preferences are a horrible way to illustrate it.  also, it is not limited to short people, but just anybody we deem as out of the ordinary or  ugly.   for example, most guys probably would not date a girl taller than them, either, just the same as girls do not date guys shorter than them.  so, why do you single out  short people  in your title when tall females face the same level of discrimination ? for example, i probably would not be attracted to a girl who was 0 0 .  it has less to do with short men being unattractive and more that  men are supposed to be tall, women are supposed to be short,  which has just the same effect on tall women.   #  let is say i am also not attracted to freckles.   #  okay, let me put it this way.  i am not attracted to tall girls.  you interpret that as heightism  only because a lot of guys are not attracted to tall girls,  therefore it is  socially conditioned.   i am also not attracted to small breasts.  a lot of guys feel the same.  does that mean we are perpetrators of breastism ? let is say i am also not attracted to freckles.  now, that is not a widespread belief that  society  has, but at what point does it become one ? when 0 of guys do not like freckles ? when 0 ? am i a frecklist ?  #  you are challenging the entire concept of turn ons, attraction, fetishes, and kinks.   # that is not what i am saying at all.  this is weird to say, but i feel like you do not understand how attraction works.  what i am describing are  preferences,  not  requirements.  i am sorry that i am not attracted to every single girl on the planet equally, i have preferences, but i am willing to overlook them on occasion, if other things work out.  i agree that some people really are superficial and would not ever date a girl that was not exactly their ideal, but i do not think that is the majority of people.  how about this one: i have a preference for dating  females.  am i sexist ? i have a preference for intelligent women.  am i ableist ? i have a preference for women under 0.  am i ageist ? am i really required to give every single human ever a fair chance without factoring in what things turn me on ? you are challenging the entire concept of turn ons, attraction, fetishes, and kinks.   #  these are biological things, there is no practical reason why one is attracted to large breasts, it  is  a biological fact.   #  i do not know, i really do not think it works like that.  let is say i know i am attracted to larger girls.  i love big breasts, i love how they look, how they feel, i love the look of a large ass and wide hips.  these are biological things, there is no practical reason why one is attracted to large breasts, it  is  a biological fact.  it just so happens that my experiences with women tell me i get more enjoyment from women with big breasts versus with small having been with and seen both and formulated an opinion .  it is a preference like any other, like deciding you like horror movies and not comedy, or blue and not red.  you base it in experience, trial and error, and biological leanings.  the reason race is different is because racism exists in other things, and has a cultural and historical basis, and is not based on actual reasoning.  maybe if i liked large breasts because my father told me i  was not a man  unless my wife had huge g cups, and taught me to hate and discriminate against small chested women, you would have something.  but that is not how it works for most people.
oftentimes you see this or that about a  right wing extremist  in this country or that one.  go ahead and provide some examples they are anti immigration ! they are racist !  oh, another right wing racist movement.   is pretty much the sentiment.  these  amovements  get directly compared to nazis quite frequently.  if you look at the real terrible shit that happens in the world, it is almost always the result of leftist movements.  the national socialist nazis.  the red communists.  mao in china.  in all actuality, we do not see a lot of  right wing  countries.  the greatest one that comes to mind is the us in its early stages.  small government, small military for defense purposes only.  non intervention.  then, you get the biggest socialist in us history into power and he kicks off wwii from the us is perspective.  i do not want to talk about pearl harbor in this thread it is just a greater trend that illustrates the point in question and the entire war was one of left wing dictators.  leftists stand for massive government.  massive governments are the ones who commit massive atrocities.  period.  so let is talk about all of the right wing extremists in the western hemisphere.  che guavera who killed dozens and dozens of thousands of people, raping women along the well was he right wing ? and his buddy fidel castro ? the crux: the media is insane.  right wing is not a dirty word.  left wing is a fucking filthy word, and has been at the forefront of almost all of the atrocities the world has seen in the last century plus.   #  then, you get the biggest socialist in us history into power and he kicks off wwii from the us is perspective.   #  i do not want to talk about pearl harbor in this thread this makes no sense.   # the nazis were not actually socialist, in fact hitler killed socialists.  the nazi government would be considered far right wing based on the way we define them.  in fact that is far right wing.  same goes for mao in china.  both of these were closer to fascism than to actual communism by definition and thus, by our current definitions in the west, would be considered far right wing.  i do not want to talk about pearl harbor in this thread this makes no sense.  you claim that he kicked off the war from our perspective but do not want to talk about the event which caused us to enter the war by being attacked ? that seems disingenuous.  massive governments are the ones who commit massive atrocities.  period.  this is false, both sides stand for large government right now.  right stands for authoritarian and increasing influence of corporations in government.  che guevara and fidel castro is governments would be considered right wing by our current definitions.   #  are you trying to argue that  right wing  is synonymous with  smaller government  and  left wing  is synonymous with  bigger government  ?  #  are you trying to argue that  right wing  is synonymous with  smaller government  and  left wing  is synonymous with  bigger government  ? because if so, that is not how most of the english speaking world understands those terms.  right wing URL is usually taken to mean  stratified , such that there are some people who are meant to lead and some who are meant to follow.  it is in the extreme anti democratic, since they do not believe that everyone should have an equal vote.  left wing URL is usually viewed as meaning  egalitarian , in that equal rights for the populace are highly valued.  these are the people who try to create welfare states to help lift up the poor and otherwise disadvantaged.  with this understanding, it is easy to see that most modern european countries are heavily left wing, while places like russia, china, north korea, syria, etc are more right wing.   #  if the  amarket  controls the resources, by definition, how could there ever be a dictatorship ?  #  i am with you.  i would like to define the difference between left wing and right wing, and then once we agree, let is review all the terrible shit that is done in the world and categorize it across that spectrum.  you do see posts though with regularity saying,  oh no ! right wing people are getting voted in to the eu ! or,  another right wing dictator rises up.   and i think that is hilarious in relation to. actual reality.  also, one more point.  to me, and i think most political institutions,  right wing  stands for predominately or entirely market control over the allocation of resources in a fixed geographic area, and political institutions that facilitate such.  if the  amarket  controls the resources, by definition, how could there ever be a dictatorship ? where does he or she get the control to do all of these  terrible things ?   thanks !  #  that is not what  right wing  means, that is the definition of economic liberalism URL which is related but very different.   # if the  amarket  controls the resources, by definition, how could there ever be a dictatorship ? where does he or she get the control to do all of these  terrible things ?   that is not what  right wing  means, that is the definition of economic liberalism URL which is related but very different.  right wing politics URL are not used to define a particular economic system; it is a social term that means that some degree of social iniquity is inevitable, normal, or desirable in a society.  right wing politicians and governments today often support free market economics, but that is not universally the case.  in europe, for example there is a long history of right wing collectivist movements that opposed economic liberalism because it was seen as an equalizing force that threatened paternalist class hierarchies.  if you are going to continue arguing this point, you need to understand that  right wing  and  left wing  have different meanings than  liberal/progressive  and  conservative.    #  hitler is regime was notorious for busting worker is rights and instilling extensive corporatism, so i am interested in the claim that they expanded welfare  #  fascists ?  the left  does not have a monopoly on big government and gun control any more than  the right  has a monopoly on pro life or low taxes.  maybe this will help URL that is a somewhat simplified version of the political spectrum.  the vertical axis is social policy while the horizontal axis is economic policy.  in america, typically, it gets conflated into right bottom right quadrant and left top left quadrant because there is only two parties and they tend to take opposing view points.  and i am curious as to your source that the nazi is expanded germany is welfare state ? hitler is regime was notorious for busting worker is rights and instilling extensive corporatism, so i am interested in the claim that they expanded welfare
this is a change my view inspired by a recent /r/gifs post about two sisters making out on camera.  i got into a debate about the morals of incest with a few people.  i personally do not think incest is a problem.  please check out this short comment chain to get a full understanding of arguments that have  not  changed my view.  URL you can also check out my post history if you wish to see others i have discussed with.  another argument that has not changed my view is parent child relationships.  situations in which parents can force a child into sex is not a question of incest, it is one of pedophilia, child molestation, rape, extortion, etc.  anything to do with the gene pool probably wo not work either.  most sources towards it are either majorly misconstrued, or completely wrong all together.  some places put 0st family sibling/parent at around 0, while others put it in the high 0 is.  however, to give the benefit of the doubt to you the reader , we will say that it is morally unjustifiable to have a child with a family member, knowing that they are far more likely to end up with birth defects.  this is not a good argument, since people can adopt, or have surrogate children.  when it comes to marriage equality, there is no real reason you should not be able to marry your cousin, or your brother.  well reddit, change my fucking view.  despite as much fun i have had discussing a touchy subject with all of you, none of them have held up.  all of the arguments made so far have either been incredibly vague in their reasoning, or just simply wrong.  some replies are talking about the normalization of incest causing an influx of people grooming their children/siblings into a sexual relationship.  this is the same argument many anti gay activists use.  allowing gay couples to adopt would create an influx of grooming cases in which the child is swayed to be gay.  as we all know, you do not choose who you are attracted to.  the westermarck effect URL the reason we do not normally feel sexual attraction towards close family, would still apply in grooming cases.  saying that making incest legal would allow parents to groom their kids into disregarding this effect all together, is just plain incorrect.  if anyone still wants to change my view, send me a pm, as i wo not be checking on this thread anymore.  i appreciate all the replies, and thank you all for the fun discussions.   #  another argument that has not changed my view is parent child relationships.   #  situations in which parents can force a child into sex is not a question of incest, it is one of pedophilia, child molestation, rape, extortion, etc.   #  the  incest community  will also need to work on demonstrating the benefits of incestual marriage, while honestly addressing all common objections etc. , just like the lgbt community has been doing for years before it is now finally being accepted in more countries.  situations in which parents can force a child into sex is not a question of incest, it is one of pedophilia, child molestation, rape, extortion, etc.  sure, but if these things happen proportionally more often than in non incestual relationships, then this should surely be looked into ? compared to non incestual relationships, there is the fear that incestual relationships with young adults are more often the result of  covert  coercion or grooming of victims while they are minor, where an often older relative surreptitiously ab uses the power they have over a relative due to their dependent relationship.  this effectively undermines proper, informed consent.  if it turns out that removing the taboo against incest also substantially increases the number of cases where a power relationship is used to covertly bypass proper consent, then i think it is better to keep the taboo in place.  i am all for doing the research and dispelling any objections that might turn out to be myths, but it has to be done first.   #  this phenomenon is known as inbreeding depression URL here is where the genetic argument gets tricky.   #  since op is only talking about consensual incestuous relationships, i am going to ignore the abuse aspect right now.  while incestuous abuse is scarily common and should always be condemned, consensual incest can and does happen, so i will focus my argument on that.  the biggest argument against incest is a genetic one.  basically by allowing members of the same genetic tree to interbreed, it decreases genetic diversity of the population.  this leads to poorer biological fitness, and may increase the chances of congenital birth defects.  this phenomenon is known as inbreeding depression URL here is where the genetic argument gets tricky.  op is only arguing for marriage between family members.  obviously my argument does not apply to same sex marriages and those who adopt or choose not to reproduce.  the question now becomes whether we should allow married family members to have children.  furthermore, inbreeding depression is only a real problem if inbreeding is common among a significant part of the population over multiple generations.  with six billion people on the planet, i am not sure if the genetic diversity of the population would truly be affected.  obviously if their family continues to inbreed over a few generations, their family line may exhibit genetic defects, but the human race would not break down because of a few inbred babies.  since i included counterarguments i may not have changed your view.  but at the very least, i hope i showed you a different angle on incest.   #  on the other hand, the state has a vested interest in general health of the population.   #  as a society, it is a matter of discussion whether we should or should not be concerned with genetic defects due to inbreeding.  on the one hand, as op mentioned, people should be free to mate with whomever gives consent.  additionally, there are many privacy concerns with the amount of attention the state would have to pay to private citizens in order to monitor and prevent incest.  on the other hand, the state has a vested interest in general health of the population.  any genetic defects a child is born with have to be treated medically.  this either comes out of the parents  pockets, or the state might need to pay for it especially in the case of defects that require emergency care .  additionally, one could argue that the state does have a long term investment in the health of the total population, so promoting genetic diversity is a plus.  while it is unlikely that you would ever reach a critical mass of incestuous couples due to things like the westermark effect URL you could definitely make the case that the state should care to some extent.   #  grooming  does  occur, but it is not a clear cut binary thing.   # grooming  does  occur, but it is not a clear cut binary thing.  it would be impractical to make that illegal.  this is a really weak analogy.  homosexual relationships were legalized once there was substantial evidence that the majority of relationships were healthy and consensual.  right now there is evidence that a substantial number of incestuous relationships are abusive and harmful, and nobody in this thread has posted any evidence that even  hints  that a greater number of incestuous relationships are healthy.  we ca not punish people being evil, we can only outlaw specific acts.  the best analogy to this would be statutory rape laws.  one could argue that some adult child couples are healthy and consenting, but because there is substantial evidence that many are not, we outlaw all those relationships.   #  i understand that abuse is an enormous problem.   #  i understand that abuse is an enormous problem.  but again, there will clearly be some cases in which it does not apply.  an extreme example is siblings, now adults, who did not grow up together.  obviously there is 0 chance of an abusive history here, so do you still want to not allow them to marry ? and suppose there were a way to separate the abuse cases from the non abuse cases.  would this change how you deal with them ? that is, is the problem just that you do not think we can figure out which is which and so we are better off playing it safe, if you will ?
this 0 million dollar pool URL is at the top of /r/videos right now, and i simply do not understand why this kind of thing is socially acceptable.  i definitely do not think it should be illegal, but society should actively discourage it the way we do with other immoral behavior.  if someone builds this kind of thing they should pay a social price.  now, i do not believe everyone should live the life of a pauper just because there are people in the world who are suffering.  as far as i know, we only get one life and i believe it is unfair to ask people to sacrifice to such a degree for others when they have their own fleeting time to try and find some kind of happiness in life, but there has to be limits.  and in my view, a 0 million dollar pool is well beyond those limits unless it was designed for use by an entire community.  for one family and their friends to horde so much wealth is unjustifiable even if it adds a small sliver to their overall happiness, given how much those resources could do for others.  if most of us saw a well dressed man pigging out on a lavish meal with golden cups and the finest wines while a group of starving children in tattered clothes sat around him, we would think it would be pretty outrageous if he did not at least offer something to them.  but the only difference with a 0 million dollar pool is that those who are suffering are a greater distance away from the event so we ca not see them juxtaposed.  our morals should not depend on geographical distance.   #  but the only difference with a 0 million dollar pool is that those who are suffering are a greater distance away from the event so we ca not see them juxtaposed.   #  how does spending $0m on a pool increase the suffering of someone else ?  # how does spending $0m on a pool increase the suffering of someone else ? how does a rich person living a lavish life really impact someone else ? if someone spends vast sums of money on their estate, cars, vacations, etc it has no impact on me.  it has no impact on starving kids in africa.  if anything the money is actually more constructive than sitting in a bank account or stocks somewhere since it is getting dumped into some business to come and install the pool, maintain it, and repair it.  so it is better that it is dumped into some sort of product so the pool repair men and builders gain some wealth from the large projects.   #  it is lent out to others for productive purposes.   # how does a rich person living a lavish life really impact someone else ? the resources could have been used to help people.  it has no impact on starving kids in africa.  yes, it does.  they could have bought food or installed a water filtration system with those resources.  you do realize that money does not stay in a bank, right ? it is lent out to others for productive purposes.  that is exactly why we can have runs on banks, because the money is never really just  sitting in the bank .  on the other hand, if they stash their money under their mattress, then i would think it would be just as bad as building a 0 million dollar pool with it.   #  so all those guys working construction get another project to work on, all the pool maintenance guys get another place to work and gain income, and the guys making repairs have another opportunity to fix something when it breaks.   # so every extra dollar that anyone has should be spent on helping people ? does that include the guy who spends $0m on a pool in the same way it applies to the guy who treats himself to a starbucks once a month ? the idea here is that you can either spend $0m on a lavish pool or keep it in the bank or stocks.  in the latter case it does not really do anything for anyone except the rich guy.  if it is spend on something it helps a lot more people.  that is exactly why we can have runs on banks, because the money is never really just  sitting in the bank .  well, so then rich bankers make money.  this still does not help the poor people.  sitting on $0m in cash does not help anyone.  building a $0m pool helps the people who build the pool, maintain the pool, and repair the pool.  so all those guys working construction get another project to work on, all the pool maintenance guys get another place to work and gain income, and the guys making repairs have another opportunity to fix something when it breaks.  then all the companies that make pool parts, cleaners, pool materials, etc get money from what is required to build and maintain the new pool.   #  but what is the difference then between the guy who spends $0m on a pool and maybe a bit on the side for charity and the guy who has some extra cash but does not spend any money on charity ?  # i explicitly said this is not what should happen.  but what is the difference then between the guy who spends $0m on a pool and maybe a bit on the side for charity and the guy who has some extra cash but does not spend any money on charity ? that is the point here.  just because you spend $0m on a pool does not mean that you are not spending anything helping people.  bill gate is URL house is massive.  should be feel bad about owning it despite all the charity URL that he does ? should be carry a social stigma because he could have spent that $0 m on a house rather than on poor people somewhere ? and again, why is it their responsibility ?  #  that is why i do not want people making laws against this kind of stuff, but that is a separate issue.   # because it is entirely luck that they have those resources.  first, it is luck because there is just a lot of randomness in who succeeds even if they are talented, but second, because even having a good work ethic, patience, and a high iq are products of luck.  bill gates did not pull the levers that made him so smart.  he was simply the benefactor of those events.  now, i do think it is a good idea for the free market to decide where resources go.  that is why i do not want people making laws against this kind of stuff, but that is a separate issue.  bill gates should have a lot of our resources, because he has proven that, to some degree, he is more capable of utilizing them than the average person.  but he should have those resources because that is the most useful way of allocating resources, not because he should be able to play harder than others due to the luck of his birth.  yes, i think the argument i have laid out implies that he should ;  but what is the difference then between the guy who spends $0m on a pool and maybe a bit on the side for charity and the guy who has some extra cash but does not spend any money on charity ? not much.  according to my view, they are both in the wrong.
i was recently reading an article on being trans in america and stumbled across the term lgbtqi.  it made he raise an eyebrow because until now i have only seen it as lgbt and the q and i portions were new to me.  i did my research and have to admit that i am more than a little confused as to why more terms need to be added.  i have read on several different websites and asked a few of my lgbt friends what the difference was between queer and lgb and from what i have gathered it seems like an arbitrary term to just make people who feel like they do not have a label included in the movement.  you can be bi, gay, a lesbian or/and transgendered and still be queer, so why put it there ? also, another definition i received is that queer can also mean metrosexual or someone who just does not fit in with gender stereotypes.  well, my husband takes pride in his appearance and is pretty metrosexual but no one would consider him queer.  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? all in all it seems like a very redundant term.  the same with intersex.  the oxford reference definition is  an organism displaying characteristics that are intermediate between those of the typical male and typical female of its species.   from a medical perspective the intersex society of north america offers:   intersex  is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.   whereas, from a lgbt standpoint, intersex initiative has an interesting perspective that simultaneously links transgendered people with those who have intersex conditions  first, intersex bodies are pathologized and erased in a way that is similar to how homosexuality has historically been treated within psychiatry.  even though homosexuality has been officially depathologized for three decades, transgender people are still labeled as having  gender identity disorder  and thus treated as something abnormal rather than a natural human variety.  from this point of view, intersex is just another sexual minority that is pathologized and treated as  abnormal.   and seeks to break that link:  first, some people fear that adding the  i  would give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/ or transgender.  obviously, some intersex people are, and some are not but when we are dealing with young children and their parents, there is a concern that the association with lgbt would drive away parents of intersex children who would otherwise seek out information and resources about intersex conditions.  worse, the misperception might push parents to demand more surgeries to ease their concern about the child is future sexuality or gender identity.   among other things.  my concern with intersex comes from real life experience in having a nephew that was born with hermaphroditic genetalia.  it seems like, just bringing up the intersex initiative webpage only, that choosing your child is gender is wrong.  i guess this happens when there are people campaigning for a change that they themselves have nothing to do with, but choosing your child is gender because of medical necessity and fostering an environment where your child can grow up and like what they like and set a gender identity for themselves is more important than ideology.  i digress.  please, if you can, change my view on what adding all of the most minute labels that actually kind of flow into each other can do for the lgbt community.  because in my most humble opinion, the movement is running itself into the ground with semantics.  sources: article that started this: URL intersex initiative: URL isna: URL  #  well, my husband takes pride in his appearance and is pretty metrosexual but no one would consider him queer.   #  .  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ?  #  i would like to respond to your post from the perspective of a cisgender gay man.  to me, the word  queer  has two slightly different meanings.  it could be either:   an umbrella term encompassing everybody who is not a cisgender straight individual.  thus, i would be queer, and a genderqueer pansexual individual would be queer.  here, the term queer would be redundant with the  lgbt  part, but also includes others not included by those 0 terms.  or it could be   any person who does identify within the gender binary.  in this case, i would be gay, and my genderqueer pansexual friend would obviously be queer.  in this case, the term queer would not be redundant at all with the  lgbt  portion.  further complicating the issue, the word  queer  holds negative connotations to some individuals, especially those in older generations.  .  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? i would not consider either of you queer.  allies, sure, but not queer.  i would agree with this, and thus the inclusion of intersex into the movement.  that is fair, and it has already happened with transgender.  many people unfortunately believe that most or all trans  individuals are  lgb , which is not the case.  that is unfortunate, but it does happen even without the  lgbti  acronym, and that is exactly the sort of thing the movement is looking to stop.  first off, a bit minor, but these parents try to choose their child is sex with the surgery.  secondly, there are many intersex individuals who wish they had not been forced into that surgery when they were younger.  these people and by consequence their allies do consider the forced sex assignment surgery to be wrong.  if it is a medical necessity, then the situation is different, but often these surgeries are not medical necessities.  and ideally, avoiding gender dysphoria in the first place is a better solution than providing a good environment for going through that struggle.  most labels identify separate populations.  obviously lgb are mutually exclusive.  t is a different population.  i is a different population.  depending on your definition, q is either an umbrella term, or simply referring to everyone else.  even if this is all semantics, i do not see how the movement is  running itself into the ground .  if anything, the movement is gaining steam as more and more people come around to it.  and finally, there are a couple options if you do not like the  alphabet soup  approach.  some people advocate for simply the use of the queer movement as an umbrella term, and nothing else.  like i mentioned, that can run afoul of some earlier derogatory usage of the word .  i am personally a fan of  grsm  which stands for gender, romantic, and sexual minorities, which i consider one of the more inclusive names.   #  one acronym that is been gaining popularity lately is  gsm , for  gender and sexual minorities .   #  the fact that lgbt or at least, lgb issues are progressing is pretty hard to debate.  views on legality of same sex relations and marriages URL have been changing at roughly triple the rate of population turnover, for example.  the idea of the terms is to be inclusive to a wide variety of people, including those who might not feel they  fit  any of the specific labels.  even within lgbt circles i think there is a fair amount of  okay guys we need to keep the letters in some form of control , though.  one acronym that is been gaining popularity lately is  gsm , for  gender and sexual minorities .   #  but i have heard the point made, not without merit, that instead of humping a cow you could  kill  said cow, cut off a steak, and then hump the steak perfectly legally.   #  i think this is also fair and i think most of us do draw such a line.  in my case, i can think of no more valid an argument for banning polygamy than i can for banning gay marriage, and i support both being legal with the caveat of some legal changes necessary for polygamous recognition .  furries are fine, it is just a fetish, most people have one.  pedophilia, for me, tips very sharply on whether it is acted upon.  i do not think it should be as violently stigmatized as it is if it is strictly controlled i do not think people  want  to like kids, and if they have hurt no one they do not deserve the witch hunts.  obviously child molestation is a bad thing, though.  there is, to my knowledge, no mechanism that would support otherkin is identification.  i am trans myself and i consider that the vital distinction for why i should be accepted and supported but why i do not, currently, support otherkin.  if against my expectations data materialized to support them, my view might change.  bestiality i am torn on.  on the one hand, i want to file it under the same implicit non consent that i file pedophilia under.  but i have heard the point made, not without merit, that instead of humping a cow you could  kill  said cow, cut off a steak, and then hump the steak perfectly legally.  since we do not grant animals even the agency of not being killed, i wonder if it makes sense to grant them sexual agency.   #  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.   #  i cant reply much as i have got to work, but in the case of my nephew there would be a stigma placed on him that would be much worse than what we as a family could work out with him if he decides that for any reason he is not identifying with what was chosen.  i do believe that every family is different and many are not as accepting as we are, but as a unit we made the decision to assign him a male identity based on information from the doctor.  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  yes, i know that lgbt people go through this every day, and that he might go through the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, but we would support him 0.  it was not his fault, its his biology, and he was born that way.   #  although it is a bit related, it is not really what the main point is about.   #  i will address your response now, but honestly i think this is a bit of a tangent to your original post, do not you ? although it is a bit related, it is not really what the main point is about.  i am not going to get into your specific family dynamics, because obviously i have 0 knowledge about you and your family; thus, i will be speaking in generality.  society as a whole has stigmas against both intersex individuals and individuals who do not identify with their assigned sex at birth.  a supportive family will help mitigate, but not eliminate, the stigmas in each case.  a combined lgbti movement will fight for the elimination of both stigmas.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  an intersex individual may have problems with body acceptance and having the  wrong  genitalia, but so might trans  individuals.  it is my understanding that some of the issues that the intersex community faces have counterparts in the trans  community; therefore sex assignment surgery can sometimes not reduce the challenges that a patient will face, and it may be considered a violation of a person is autonomy and right to self determination.  again, i do not want to speak about the case of your nephew, i have no information about it.  just generalizing here.
i was recently reading an article on being trans in america and stumbled across the term lgbtqi.  it made he raise an eyebrow because until now i have only seen it as lgbt and the q and i portions were new to me.  i did my research and have to admit that i am more than a little confused as to why more terms need to be added.  i have read on several different websites and asked a few of my lgbt friends what the difference was between queer and lgb and from what i have gathered it seems like an arbitrary term to just make people who feel like they do not have a label included in the movement.  you can be bi, gay, a lesbian or/and transgendered and still be queer, so why put it there ? also, another definition i received is that queer can also mean metrosexual or someone who just does not fit in with gender stereotypes.  well, my husband takes pride in his appearance and is pretty metrosexual but no one would consider him queer.  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? all in all it seems like a very redundant term.  the same with intersex.  the oxford reference definition is  an organism displaying characteristics that are intermediate between those of the typical male and typical female of its species.   from a medical perspective the intersex society of north america offers:   intersex  is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.   whereas, from a lgbt standpoint, intersex initiative has an interesting perspective that simultaneously links transgendered people with those who have intersex conditions  first, intersex bodies are pathologized and erased in a way that is similar to how homosexuality has historically been treated within psychiatry.  even though homosexuality has been officially depathologized for three decades, transgender people are still labeled as having  gender identity disorder  and thus treated as something abnormal rather than a natural human variety.  from this point of view, intersex is just another sexual minority that is pathologized and treated as  abnormal.   and seeks to break that link:  first, some people fear that adding the  i  would give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/ or transgender.  obviously, some intersex people are, and some are not but when we are dealing with young children and their parents, there is a concern that the association with lgbt would drive away parents of intersex children who would otherwise seek out information and resources about intersex conditions.  worse, the misperception might push parents to demand more surgeries to ease their concern about the child is future sexuality or gender identity.   among other things.  my concern with intersex comes from real life experience in having a nephew that was born with hermaphroditic genetalia.  it seems like, just bringing up the intersex initiative webpage only, that choosing your child is gender is wrong.  i guess this happens when there are people campaigning for a change that they themselves have nothing to do with, but choosing your child is gender because of medical necessity and fostering an environment where your child can grow up and like what they like and set a gender identity for themselves is more important than ideology.  i digress.  please, if you can, change my view on what adding all of the most minute labels that actually kind of flow into each other can do for the lgbt community.  because in my most humble opinion, the movement is running itself into the ground with semantics.  sources: article that started this: URL intersex initiative: URL isna: URL  #  from this point of view, intersex is just another sexual minority that is pathologized and treated as  abnormal.    #  i would agree with this, and thus the inclusion of intersex into the movement.   #  i would like to respond to your post from the perspective of a cisgender gay man.  to me, the word  queer  has two slightly different meanings.  it could be either:   an umbrella term encompassing everybody who is not a cisgender straight individual.  thus, i would be queer, and a genderqueer pansexual individual would be queer.  here, the term queer would be redundant with the  lgbt  part, but also includes others not included by those 0 terms.  or it could be   any person who does identify within the gender binary.  in this case, i would be gay, and my genderqueer pansexual friend would obviously be queer.  in this case, the term queer would not be redundant at all with the  lgbt  portion.  further complicating the issue, the word  queer  holds negative connotations to some individuals, especially those in older generations.  .  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? i would not consider either of you queer.  allies, sure, but not queer.  i would agree with this, and thus the inclusion of intersex into the movement.  that is fair, and it has already happened with transgender.  many people unfortunately believe that most or all trans  individuals are  lgb , which is not the case.  that is unfortunate, but it does happen even without the  lgbti  acronym, and that is exactly the sort of thing the movement is looking to stop.  first off, a bit minor, but these parents try to choose their child is sex with the surgery.  secondly, there are many intersex individuals who wish they had not been forced into that surgery when they were younger.  these people and by consequence their allies do consider the forced sex assignment surgery to be wrong.  if it is a medical necessity, then the situation is different, but often these surgeries are not medical necessities.  and ideally, avoiding gender dysphoria in the first place is a better solution than providing a good environment for going through that struggle.  most labels identify separate populations.  obviously lgb are mutually exclusive.  t is a different population.  i is a different population.  depending on your definition, q is either an umbrella term, or simply referring to everyone else.  even if this is all semantics, i do not see how the movement is  running itself into the ground .  if anything, the movement is gaining steam as more and more people come around to it.  and finally, there are a couple options if you do not like the  alphabet soup  approach.  some people advocate for simply the use of the queer movement as an umbrella term, and nothing else.  like i mentioned, that can run afoul of some earlier derogatory usage of the word .  i am personally a fan of  grsm  which stands for gender, romantic, and sexual minorities, which i consider one of the more inclusive names.   #  one acronym that is been gaining popularity lately is  gsm , for  gender and sexual minorities .   #  the fact that lgbt or at least, lgb issues are progressing is pretty hard to debate.  views on legality of same sex relations and marriages URL have been changing at roughly triple the rate of population turnover, for example.  the idea of the terms is to be inclusive to a wide variety of people, including those who might not feel they  fit  any of the specific labels.  even within lgbt circles i think there is a fair amount of  okay guys we need to keep the letters in some form of control , though.  one acronym that is been gaining popularity lately is  gsm , for  gender and sexual minorities .   #  i am trans myself and i consider that the vital distinction for why i should be accepted and supported but why i do not, currently, support otherkin.   #  i think this is also fair and i think most of us do draw such a line.  in my case, i can think of no more valid an argument for banning polygamy than i can for banning gay marriage, and i support both being legal with the caveat of some legal changes necessary for polygamous recognition .  furries are fine, it is just a fetish, most people have one.  pedophilia, for me, tips very sharply on whether it is acted upon.  i do not think it should be as violently stigmatized as it is if it is strictly controlled i do not think people  want  to like kids, and if they have hurt no one they do not deserve the witch hunts.  obviously child molestation is a bad thing, though.  there is, to my knowledge, no mechanism that would support otherkin is identification.  i am trans myself and i consider that the vital distinction for why i should be accepted and supported but why i do not, currently, support otherkin.  if against my expectations data materialized to support them, my view might change.  bestiality i am torn on.  on the one hand, i want to file it under the same implicit non consent that i file pedophilia under.  but i have heard the point made, not without merit, that instead of humping a cow you could  kill  said cow, cut off a steak, and then hump the steak perfectly legally.  since we do not grant animals even the agency of not being killed, i wonder if it makes sense to grant them sexual agency.   #  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.   #  i cant reply much as i have got to work, but in the case of my nephew there would be a stigma placed on him that would be much worse than what we as a family could work out with him if he decides that for any reason he is not identifying with what was chosen.  i do believe that every family is different and many are not as accepting as we are, but as a unit we made the decision to assign him a male identity based on information from the doctor.  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  yes, i know that lgbt people go through this every day, and that he might go through the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, but we would support him 0.  it was not his fault, its his biology, and he was born that way.   #  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.   #  i will address your response now, but honestly i think this is a bit of a tangent to your original post, do not you ? although it is a bit related, it is not really what the main point is about.  i am not going to get into your specific family dynamics, because obviously i have 0 knowledge about you and your family; thus, i will be speaking in generality.  society as a whole has stigmas against both intersex individuals and individuals who do not identify with their assigned sex at birth.  a supportive family will help mitigate, but not eliminate, the stigmas in each case.  a combined lgbti movement will fight for the elimination of both stigmas.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  an intersex individual may have problems with body acceptance and having the  wrong  genitalia, but so might trans  individuals.  it is my understanding that some of the issues that the intersex community faces have counterparts in the trans  community; therefore sex assignment surgery can sometimes not reduce the challenges that a patient will face, and it may be considered a violation of a person is autonomy and right to self determination.  again, i do not want to speak about the case of your nephew, i have no information about it.  just generalizing here.
i was recently reading an article on being trans in america and stumbled across the term lgbtqi.  it made he raise an eyebrow because until now i have only seen it as lgbt and the q and i portions were new to me.  i did my research and have to admit that i am more than a little confused as to why more terms need to be added.  i have read on several different websites and asked a few of my lgbt friends what the difference was between queer and lgb and from what i have gathered it seems like an arbitrary term to just make people who feel like they do not have a label included in the movement.  you can be bi, gay, a lesbian or/and transgendered and still be queer, so why put it there ? also, another definition i received is that queer can also mean metrosexual or someone who just does not fit in with gender stereotypes.  well, my husband takes pride in his appearance and is pretty metrosexual but no one would consider him queer.  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? all in all it seems like a very redundant term.  the same with intersex.  the oxford reference definition is  an organism displaying characteristics that are intermediate between those of the typical male and typical female of its species.   from a medical perspective the intersex society of north america offers:   intersex  is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.   whereas, from a lgbt standpoint, intersex initiative has an interesting perspective that simultaneously links transgendered people with those who have intersex conditions  first, intersex bodies are pathologized and erased in a way that is similar to how homosexuality has historically been treated within psychiatry.  even though homosexuality has been officially depathologized for three decades, transgender people are still labeled as having  gender identity disorder  and thus treated as something abnormal rather than a natural human variety.  from this point of view, intersex is just another sexual minority that is pathologized and treated as  abnormal.   and seeks to break that link:  first, some people fear that adding the  i  would give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/ or transgender.  obviously, some intersex people are, and some are not but when we are dealing with young children and their parents, there is a concern that the association with lgbt would drive away parents of intersex children who would otherwise seek out information and resources about intersex conditions.  worse, the misperception might push parents to demand more surgeries to ease their concern about the child is future sexuality or gender identity.   among other things.  my concern with intersex comes from real life experience in having a nephew that was born with hermaphroditic genetalia.  it seems like, just bringing up the intersex initiative webpage only, that choosing your child is gender is wrong.  i guess this happens when there are people campaigning for a change that they themselves have nothing to do with, but choosing your child is gender because of medical necessity and fostering an environment where your child can grow up and like what they like and set a gender identity for themselves is more important than ideology.  i digress.  please, if you can, change my view on what adding all of the most minute labels that actually kind of flow into each other can do for the lgbt community.  because in my most humble opinion, the movement is running itself into the ground with semantics.  sources: article that started this: URL intersex initiative: URL isna: URL  #   first, some people fear that adding the  i  would give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/ or transgender.   #  that is fair, and it has already happened with transgender.   #  i would like to respond to your post from the perspective of a cisgender gay man.  to me, the word  queer  has two slightly different meanings.  it could be either:   an umbrella term encompassing everybody who is not a cisgender straight individual.  thus, i would be queer, and a genderqueer pansexual individual would be queer.  here, the term queer would be redundant with the  lgbt  part, but also includes others not included by those 0 terms.  or it could be   any person who does identify within the gender binary.  in this case, i would be gay, and my genderqueer pansexual friend would obviously be queer.  in this case, the term queer would not be redundant at all with the  lgbt  portion.  further complicating the issue, the word  queer  holds negative connotations to some individuals, especially those in older generations.  .  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? i would not consider either of you queer.  allies, sure, but not queer.  i would agree with this, and thus the inclusion of intersex into the movement.  that is fair, and it has already happened with transgender.  many people unfortunately believe that most or all trans  individuals are  lgb , which is not the case.  that is unfortunate, but it does happen even without the  lgbti  acronym, and that is exactly the sort of thing the movement is looking to stop.  first off, a bit minor, but these parents try to choose their child is sex with the surgery.  secondly, there are many intersex individuals who wish they had not been forced into that surgery when they were younger.  these people and by consequence their allies do consider the forced sex assignment surgery to be wrong.  if it is a medical necessity, then the situation is different, but often these surgeries are not medical necessities.  and ideally, avoiding gender dysphoria in the first place is a better solution than providing a good environment for going through that struggle.  most labels identify separate populations.  obviously lgb are mutually exclusive.  t is a different population.  i is a different population.  depending on your definition, q is either an umbrella term, or simply referring to everyone else.  even if this is all semantics, i do not see how the movement is  running itself into the ground .  if anything, the movement is gaining steam as more and more people come around to it.  and finally, there are a couple options if you do not like the  alphabet soup  approach.  some people advocate for simply the use of the queer movement as an umbrella term, and nothing else.  like i mentioned, that can run afoul of some earlier derogatory usage of the word .  i am personally a fan of  grsm  which stands for gender, romantic, and sexual minorities, which i consider one of the more inclusive names.   #  even within lgbt circles i think there is a fair amount of  okay guys we need to keep the letters in some form of control , though.   #  the fact that lgbt or at least, lgb issues are progressing is pretty hard to debate.  views on legality of same sex relations and marriages URL have been changing at roughly triple the rate of population turnover, for example.  the idea of the terms is to be inclusive to a wide variety of people, including those who might not feel they  fit  any of the specific labels.  even within lgbt circles i think there is a fair amount of  okay guys we need to keep the letters in some form of control , though.  one acronym that is been gaining popularity lately is  gsm , for  gender and sexual minorities .   #  on the one hand, i want to file it under the same implicit non consent that i file pedophilia under.   #  i think this is also fair and i think most of us do draw such a line.  in my case, i can think of no more valid an argument for banning polygamy than i can for banning gay marriage, and i support both being legal with the caveat of some legal changes necessary for polygamous recognition .  furries are fine, it is just a fetish, most people have one.  pedophilia, for me, tips very sharply on whether it is acted upon.  i do not think it should be as violently stigmatized as it is if it is strictly controlled i do not think people  want  to like kids, and if they have hurt no one they do not deserve the witch hunts.  obviously child molestation is a bad thing, though.  there is, to my knowledge, no mechanism that would support otherkin is identification.  i am trans myself and i consider that the vital distinction for why i should be accepted and supported but why i do not, currently, support otherkin.  if against my expectations data materialized to support them, my view might change.  bestiality i am torn on.  on the one hand, i want to file it under the same implicit non consent that i file pedophilia under.  but i have heard the point made, not without merit, that instead of humping a cow you could  kill  said cow, cut off a steak, and then hump the steak perfectly legally.  since we do not grant animals even the agency of not being killed, i wonder if it makes sense to grant them sexual agency.   #  it was not his fault, its his biology, and he was born that way.   #  i cant reply much as i have got to work, but in the case of my nephew there would be a stigma placed on him that would be much worse than what we as a family could work out with him if he decides that for any reason he is not identifying with what was chosen.  i do believe that every family is different and many are not as accepting as we are, but as a unit we made the decision to assign him a male identity based on information from the doctor.  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  yes, i know that lgbt people go through this every day, and that he might go through the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, but we would support him 0.  it was not his fault, its his biology, and he was born that way.   #  society as a whole has stigmas against both intersex individuals and individuals who do not identify with their assigned sex at birth.   #  i will address your response now, but honestly i think this is a bit of a tangent to your original post, do not you ? although it is a bit related, it is not really what the main point is about.  i am not going to get into your specific family dynamics, because obviously i have 0 knowledge about you and your family; thus, i will be speaking in generality.  society as a whole has stigmas against both intersex individuals and individuals who do not identify with their assigned sex at birth.  a supportive family will help mitigate, but not eliminate, the stigmas in each case.  a combined lgbti movement will fight for the elimination of both stigmas.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  an intersex individual may have problems with body acceptance and having the  wrong  genitalia, but so might trans  individuals.  it is my understanding that some of the issues that the intersex community faces have counterparts in the trans  community; therefore sex assignment surgery can sometimes not reduce the challenges that a patient will face, and it may be considered a violation of a person is autonomy and right to self determination.  again, i do not want to speak about the case of your nephew, i have no information about it.  just generalizing here.
i was recently reading an article on being trans in america and stumbled across the term lgbtqi.  it made he raise an eyebrow because until now i have only seen it as lgbt and the q and i portions were new to me.  i did my research and have to admit that i am more than a little confused as to why more terms need to be added.  i have read on several different websites and asked a few of my lgbt friends what the difference was between queer and lgb and from what i have gathered it seems like an arbitrary term to just make people who feel like they do not have a label included in the movement.  you can be bi, gay, a lesbian or/and transgendered and still be queer, so why put it there ? also, another definition i received is that queer can also mean metrosexual or someone who just does not fit in with gender stereotypes.  well, my husband takes pride in his appearance and is pretty metrosexual but no one would consider him queer.  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? all in all it seems like a very redundant term.  the same with intersex.  the oxford reference definition is  an organism displaying characteristics that are intermediate between those of the typical male and typical female of its species.   from a medical perspective the intersex society of north america offers:   intersex  is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.   whereas, from a lgbt standpoint, intersex initiative has an interesting perspective that simultaneously links transgendered people with those who have intersex conditions  first, intersex bodies are pathologized and erased in a way that is similar to how homosexuality has historically been treated within psychiatry.  even though homosexuality has been officially depathologized for three decades, transgender people are still labeled as having  gender identity disorder  and thus treated as something abnormal rather than a natural human variety.  from this point of view, intersex is just another sexual minority that is pathologized and treated as  abnormal.   and seeks to break that link:  first, some people fear that adding the  i  would give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/ or transgender.  obviously, some intersex people are, and some are not but when we are dealing with young children and their parents, there is a concern that the association with lgbt would drive away parents of intersex children who would otherwise seek out information and resources about intersex conditions.  worse, the misperception might push parents to demand more surgeries to ease their concern about the child is future sexuality or gender identity.   among other things.  my concern with intersex comes from real life experience in having a nephew that was born with hermaphroditic genetalia.  it seems like, just bringing up the intersex initiative webpage only, that choosing your child is gender is wrong.  i guess this happens when there are people campaigning for a change that they themselves have nothing to do with, but choosing your child is gender because of medical necessity and fostering an environment where your child can grow up and like what they like and set a gender identity for themselves is more important than ideology.  i digress.  please, if you can, change my view on what adding all of the most minute labels that actually kind of flow into each other can do for the lgbt community.  because in my most humble opinion, the movement is running itself into the ground with semantics.  sources: article that started this: URL intersex initiative: URL isna: URL  #  but when we are dealing with young children and their parents, there is a concern that the association with lgbt would drive away parents of intersex children who would otherwise seek out information and resources about intersex conditions.   #  that is unfortunate, but it does happen even without the  lgbti  acronym, and that is exactly the sort of thing the movement is looking to stop.   #  i would like to respond to your post from the perspective of a cisgender gay man.  to me, the word  queer  has two slightly different meanings.  it could be either:   an umbrella term encompassing everybody who is not a cisgender straight individual.  thus, i would be queer, and a genderqueer pansexual individual would be queer.  here, the term queer would be redundant with the  lgbt  part, but also includes others not included by those 0 terms.  or it could be   any person who does identify within the gender binary.  in this case, i would be gay, and my genderqueer pansexual friend would obviously be queer.  in this case, the term queer would not be redundant at all with the  lgbt  portion.  further complicating the issue, the word  queer  holds negative connotations to some individuals, especially those in older generations.  .  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? i would not consider either of you queer.  allies, sure, but not queer.  i would agree with this, and thus the inclusion of intersex into the movement.  that is fair, and it has already happened with transgender.  many people unfortunately believe that most or all trans  individuals are  lgb , which is not the case.  that is unfortunate, but it does happen even without the  lgbti  acronym, and that is exactly the sort of thing the movement is looking to stop.  first off, a bit minor, but these parents try to choose their child is sex with the surgery.  secondly, there are many intersex individuals who wish they had not been forced into that surgery when they were younger.  these people and by consequence their allies do consider the forced sex assignment surgery to be wrong.  if it is a medical necessity, then the situation is different, but often these surgeries are not medical necessities.  and ideally, avoiding gender dysphoria in the first place is a better solution than providing a good environment for going through that struggle.  most labels identify separate populations.  obviously lgb are mutually exclusive.  t is a different population.  i is a different population.  depending on your definition, q is either an umbrella term, or simply referring to everyone else.  even if this is all semantics, i do not see how the movement is  running itself into the ground .  if anything, the movement is gaining steam as more and more people come around to it.  and finally, there are a couple options if you do not like the  alphabet soup  approach.  some people advocate for simply the use of the queer movement as an umbrella term, and nothing else.  like i mentioned, that can run afoul of some earlier derogatory usage of the word .  i am personally a fan of  grsm  which stands for gender, romantic, and sexual minorities, which i consider one of the more inclusive names.   #  one acronym that is been gaining popularity lately is  gsm , for  gender and sexual minorities .   #  the fact that lgbt or at least, lgb issues are progressing is pretty hard to debate.  views on legality of same sex relations and marriages URL have been changing at roughly triple the rate of population turnover, for example.  the idea of the terms is to be inclusive to a wide variety of people, including those who might not feel they  fit  any of the specific labels.  even within lgbt circles i think there is a fair amount of  okay guys we need to keep the letters in some form of control , though.  one acronym that is been gaining popularity lately is  gsm , for  gender and sexual minorities .   #  i am trans myself and i consider that the vital distinction for why i should be accepted and supported but why i do not, currently, support otherkin.   #  i think this is also fair and i think most of us do draw such a line.  in my case, i can think of no more valid an argument for banning polygamy than i can for banning gay marriage, and i support both being legal with the caveat of some legal changes necessary for polygamous recognition .  furries are fine, it is just a fetish, most people have one.  pedophilia, for me, tips very sharply on whether it is acted upon.  i do not think it should be as violently stigmatized as it is if it is strictly controlled i do not think people  want  to like kids, and if they have hurt no one they do not deserve the witch hunts.  obviously child molestation is a bad thing, though.  there is, to my knowledge, no mechanism that would support otherkin is identification.  i am trans myself and i consider that the vital distinction for why i should be accepted and supported but why i do not, currently, support otherkin.  if against my expectations data materialized to support them, my view might change.  bestiality i am torn on.  on the one hand, i want to file it under the same implicit non consent that i file pedophilia under.  but i have heard the point made, not without merit, that instead of humping a cow you could  kill  said cow, cut off a steak, and then hump the steak perfectly legally.  since we do not grant animals even the agency of not being killed, i wonder if it makes sense to grant them sexual agency.   #  yes, i know that lgbt people go through this every day, and that he might go through the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, but we would support him 0.   #  i cant reply much as i have got to work, but in the case of my nephew there would be a stigma placed on him that would be much worse than what we as a family could work out with him if he decides that for any reason he is not identifying with what was chosen.  i do believe that every family is different and many are not as accepting as we are, but as a unit we made the decision to assign him a male identity based on information from the doctor.  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  yes, i know that lgbt people go through this every day, and that he might go through the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, but we would support him 0.  it was not his fault, its his biology, and he was born that way.   #  again, i do not want to speak about the case of your nephew, i have no information about it.   #  i will address your response now, but honestly i think this is a bit of a tangent to your original post, do not you ? although it is a bit related, it is not really what the main point is about.  i am not going to get into your specific family dynamics, because obviously i have 0 knowledge about you and your family; thus, i will be speaking in generality.  society as a whole has stigmas against both intersex individuals and individuals who do not identify with their assigned sex at birth.  a supportive family will help mitigate, but not eliminate, the stigmas in each case.  a combined lgbti movement will fight for the elimination of both stigmas.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  an intersex individual may have problems with body acceptance and having the  wrong  genitalia, but so might trans  individuals.  it is my understanding that some of the issues that the intersex community faces have counterparts in the trans  community; therefore sex assignment surgery can sometimes not reduce the challenges that a patient will face, and it may be considered a violation of a person is autonomy and right to self determination.  again, i do not want to speak about the case of your nephew, i have no information about it.  just generalizing here.
i was recently reading an article on being trans in america and stumbled across the term lgbtqi.  it made he raise an eyebrow because until now i have only seen it as lgbt and the q and i portions were new to me.  i did my research and have to admit that i am more than a little confused as to why more terms need to be added.  i have read on several different websites and asked a few of my lgbt friends what the difference was between queer and lgb and from what i have gathered it seems like an arbitrary term to just make people who feel like they do not have a label included in the movement.  you can be bi, gay, a lesbian or/and transgendered and still be queer, so why put it there ? also, another definition i received is that queer can also mean metrosexual or someone who just does not fit in with gender stereotypes.  well, my husband takes pride in his appearance and is pretty metrosexual but no one would consider him queer.  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? all in all it seems like a very redundant term.  the same with intersex.  the oxford reference definition is  an organism displaying characteristics that are intermediate between those of the typical male and typical female of its species.   from a medical perspective the intersex society of north america offers:   intersex  is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.   whereas, from a lgbt standpoint, intersex initiative has an interesting perspective that simultaneously links transgendered people with those who have intersex conditions  first, intersex bodies are pathologized and erased in a way that is similar to how homosexuality has historically been treated within psychiatry.  even though homosexuality has been officially depathologized for three decades, transgender people are still labeled as having  gender identity disorder  and thus treated as something abnormal rather than a natural human variety.  from this point of view, intersex is just another sexual minority that is pathologized and treated as  abnormal.   and seeks to break that link:  first, some people fear that adding the  i  would give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/ or transgender.  obviously, some intersex people are, and some are not but when we are dealing with young children and their parents, there is a concern that the association with lgbt would drive away parents of intersex children who would otherwise seek out information and resources about intersex conditions.  worse, the misperception might push parents to demand more surgeries to ease their concern about the child is future sexuality or gender identity.   among other things.  my concern with intersex comes from real life experience in having a nephew that was born with hermaphroditic genetalia.  it seems like, just bringing up the intersex initiative webpage only, that choosing your child is gender is wrong.  i guess this happens when there are people campaigning for a change that they themselves have nothing to do with, but choosing your child is gender because of medical necessity and fostering an environment where your child can grow up and like what they like and set a gender identity for themselves is more important than ideology.  i digress.  please, if you can, change my view on what adding all of the most minute labels that actually kind of flow into each other can do for the lgbt community.  because in my most humble opinion, the movement is running itself into the ground with semantics.  sources: article that started this: URL intersex initiative: URL isna: URL  #  it seems like, just bringing up the intersex initiative webpage only, that choosing your child is gender is wrong.   #  first off, a bit minor, but these parents try to choose their child is sex with the surgery.   #  i would like to respond to your post from the perspective of a cisgender gay man.  to me, the word  queer  has two slightly different meanings.  it could be either:   an umbrella term encompassing everybody who is not a cisgender straight individual.  thus, i would be queer, and a genderqueer pansexual individual would be queer.  here, the term queer would be redundant with the  lgbt  part, but also includes others not included by those 0 terms.  or it could be   any person who does identify within the gender binary.  in this case, i would be gay, and my genderqueer pansexual friend would obviously be queer.  in this case, the term queer would not be redundant at all with the  lgbt  portion.  further complicating the issue, the word  queer  holds negative connotations to some individuals, especially those in older generations.  .  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? i would not consider either of you queer.  allies, sure, but not queer.  i would agree with this, and thus the inclusion of intersex into the movement.  that is fair, and it has already happened with transgender.  many people unfortunately believe that most or all trans  individuals are  lgb , which is not the case.  that is unfortunate, but it does happen even without the  lgbti  acronym, and that is exactly the sort of thing the movement is looking to stop.  first off, a bit minor, but these parents try to choose their child is sex with the surgery.  secondly, there are many intersex individuals who wish they had not been forced into that surgery when they were younger.  these people and by consequence their allies do consider the forced sex assignment surgery to be wrong.  if it is a medical necessity, then the situation is different, but often these surgeries are not medical necessities.  and ideally, avoiding gender dysphoria in the first place is a better solution than providing a good environment for going through that struggle.  most labels identify separate populations.  obviously lgb are mutually exclusive.  t is a different population.  i is a different population.  depending on your definition, q is either an umbrella term, or simply referring to everyone else.  even if this is all semantics, i do not see how the movement is  running itself into the ground .  if anything, the movement is gaining steam as more and more people come around to it.  and finally, there are a couple options if you do not like the  alphabet soup  approach.  some people advocate for simply the use of the queer movement as an umbrella term, and nothing else.  like i mentioned, that can run afoul of some earlier derogatory usage of the word .  i am personally a fan of  grsm  which stands for gender, romantic, and sexual minorities, which i consider one of the more inclusive names.   #  the fact that lgbt or at least, lgb issues are progressing is pretty hard to debate.   #  the fact that lgbt or at least, lgb issues are progressing is pretty hard to debate.  views on legality of same sex relations and marriages URL have been changing at roughly triple the rate of population turnover, for example.  the idea of the terms is to be inclusive to a wide variety of people, including those who might not feel they  fit  any of the specific labels.  even within lgbt circles i think there is a fair amount of  okay guys we need to keep the letters in some form of control , though.  one acronym that is been gaining popularity lately is  gsm , for  gender and sexual minorities .   #  i do not think it should be as violently stigmatized as it is if it is strictly controlled i do not think people  want  to like kids, and if they have hurt no one they do not deserve the witch hunts.   #  i think this is also fair and i think most of us do draw such a line.  in my case, i can think of no more valid an argument for banning polygamy than i can for banning gay marriage, and i support both being legal with the caveat of some legal changes necessary for polygamous recognition .  furries are fine, it is just a fetish, most people have one.  pedophilia, for me, tips very sharply on whether it is acted upon.  i do not think it should be as violently stigmatized as it is if it is strictly controlled i do not think people  want  to like kids, and if they have hurt no one they do not deserve the witch hunts.  obviously child molestation is a bad thing, though.  there is, to my knowledge, no mechanism that would support otherkin is identification.  i am trans myself and i consider that the vital distinction for why i should be accepted and supported but why i do not, currently, support otherkin.  if against my expectations data materialized to support them, my view might change.  bestiality i am torn on.  on the one hand, i want to file it under the same implicit non consent that i file pedophilia under.  but i have heard the point made, not without merit, that instead of humping a cow you could  kill  said cow, cut off a steak, and then hump the steak perfectly legally.  since we do not grant animals even the agency of not being killed, i wonder if it makes sense to grant them sexual agency.   #  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.   #  i cant reply much as i have got to work, but in the case of my nephew there would be a stigma placed on him that would be much worse than what we as a family could work out with him if he decides that for any reason he is not identifying with what was chosen.  i do believe that every family is different and many are not as accepting as we are, but as a unit we made the decision to assign him a male identity based on information from the doctor.  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  yes, i know that lgbt people go through this every day, and that he might go through the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, but we would support him 0.  it was not his fault, its his biology, and he was born that way.   #  i will address your response now, but honestly i think this is a bit of a tangent to your original post, do not you ?  #  i will address your response now, but honestly i think this is a bit of a tangent to your original post, do not you ? although it is a bit related, it is not really what the main point is about.  i am not going to get into your specific family dynamics, because obviously i have 0 knowledge about you and your family; thus, i will be speaking in generality.  society as a whole has stigmas against both intersex individuals and individuals who do not identify with their assigned sex at birth.  a supportive family will help mitigate, but not eliminate, the stigmas in each case.  a combined lgbti movement will fight for the elimination of both stigmas.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  an intersex individual may have problems with body acceptance and having the  wrong  genitalia, but so might trans  individuals.  it is my understanding that some of the issues that the intersex community faces have counterparts in the trans  community; therefore sex assignment surgery can sometimes not reduce the challenges that a patient will face, and it may be considered a violation of a person is autonomy and right to self determination.  again, i do not want to speak about the case of your nephew, i have no information about it.  just generalizing here.
i was recently reading an article on being trans in america and stumbled across the term lgbtqi.  it made he raise an eyebrow because until now i have only seen it as lgbt and the q and i portions were new to me.  i did my research and have to admit that i am more than a little confused as to why more terms need to be added.  i have read on several different websites and asked a few of my lgbt friends what the difference was between queer and lgb and from what i have gathered it seems like an arbitrary term to just make people who feel like they do not have a label included in the movement.  you can be bi, gay, a lesbian or/and transgendered and still be queer, so why put it there ? also, another definition i received is that queer can also mean metrosexual or someone who just does not fit in with gender stereotypes.  well, my husband takes pride in his appearance and is pretty metrosexual but no one would consider him queer.  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? all in all it seems like a very redundant term.  the same with intersex.  the oxford reference definition is  an organism displaying characteristics that are intermediate between those of the typical male and typical female of its species.   from a medical perspective the intersex society of north america offers:   intersex  is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.   whereas, from a lgbt standpoint, intersex initiative has an interesting perspective that simultaneously links transgendered people with those who have intersex conditions  first, intersex bodies are pathologized and erased in a way that is similar to how homosexuality has historically been treated within psychiatry.  even though homosexuality has been officially depathologized for three decades, transgender people are still labeled as having  gender identity disorder  and thus treated as something abnormal rather than a natural human variety.  from this point of view, intersex is just another sexual minority that is pathologized and treated as  abnormal.   and seeks to break that link:  first, some people fear that adding the  i  would give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/ or transgender.  obviously, some intersex people are, and some are not but when we are dealing with young children and their parents, there is a concern that the association with lgbt would drive away parents of intersex children who would otherwise seek out information and resources about intersex conditions.  worse, the misperception might push parents to demand more surgeries to ease their concern about the child is future sexuality or gender identity.   among other things.  my concern with intersex comes from real life experience in having a nephew that was born with hermaphroditic genetalia.  it seems like, just bringing up the intersex initiative webpage only, that choosing your child is gender is wrong.  i guess this happens when there are people campaigning for a change that they themselves have nothing to do with, but choosing your child is gender because of medical necessity and fostering an environment where your child can grow up and like what they like and set a gender identity for themselves is more important than ideology.  i digress.  please, if you can, change my view on what adding all of the most minute labels that actually kind of flow into each other can do for the lgbt community.  because in my most humble opinion, the movement is running itself into the ground with semantics.  sources: article that started this: URL intersex initiative: URL isna: URL  #  but choosing your child is gender because of medical necessity and fostering an environment where your child can grow up and like what they like and set a gender identity for themselves is more important than ideology.   #  if it is a medical necessity, then the situation is different, but often these surgeries are not medical necessities.   #  i would like to respond to your post from the perspective of a cisgender gay man.  to me, the word  queer  has two slightly different meanings.  it could be either:   an umbrella term encompassing everybody who is not a cisgender straight individual.  thus, i would be queer, and a genderqueer pansexual individual would be queer.  here, the term queer would be redundant with the  lgbt  part, but also includes others not included by those 0 terms.  or it could be   any person who does identify within the gender binary.  in this case, i would be gay, and my genderqueer pansexual friend would obviously be queer.  in this case, the term queer would not be redundant at all with the  lgbt  portion.  further complicating the issue, the word  queer  holds negative connotations to some individuals, especially those in older generations.  .  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? i would not consider either of you queer.  allies, sure, but not queer.  i would agree with this, and thus the inclusion of intersex into the movement.  that is fair, and it has already happened with transgender.  many people unfortunately believe that most or all trans  individuals are  lgb , which is not the case.  that is unfortunate, but it does happen even without the  lgbti  acronym, and that is exactly the sort of thing the movement is looking to stop.  first off, a bit minor, but these parents try to choose their child is sex with the surgery.  secondly, there are many intersex individuals who wish they had not been forced into that surgery when they were younger.  these people and by consequence their allies do consider the forced sex assignment surgery to be wrong.  if it is a medical necessity, then the situation is different, but often these surgeries are not medical necessities.  and ideally, avoiding gender dysphoria in the first place is a better solution than providing a good environment for going through that struggle.  most labels identify separate populations.  obviously lgb are mutually exclusive.  t is a different population.  i is a different population.  depending on your definition, q is either an umbrella term, or simply referring to everyone else.  even if this is all semantics, i do not see how the movement is  running itself into the ground .  if anything, the movement is gaining steam as more and more people come around to it.  and finally, there are a couple options if you do not like the  alphabet soup  approach.  some people advocate for simply the use of the queer movement as an umbrella term, and nothing else.  like i mentioned, that can run afoul of some earlier derogatory usage of the word .  i am personally a fan of  grsm  which stands for gender, romantic, and sexual minorities, which i consider one of the more inclusive names.   #  the fact that lgbt or at least, lgb issues are progressing is pretty hard to debate.   #  the fact that lgbt or at least, lgb issues are progressing is pretty hard to debate.  views on legality of same sex relations and marriages URL have been changing at roughly triple the rate of population turnover, for example.  the idea of the terms is to be inclusive to a wide variety of people, including those who might not feel they  fit  any of the specific labels.  even within lgbt circles i think there is a fair amount of  okay guys we need to keep the letters in some form of control , though.  one acronym that is been gaining popularity lately is  gsm , for  gender and sexual minorities .   #  i think this is also fair and i think most of us do draw such a line.   #  i think this is also fair and i think most of us do draw such a line.  in my case, i can think of no more valid an argument for banning polygamy than i can for banning gay marriage, and i support both being legal with the caveat of some legal changes necessary for polygamous recognition .  furries are fine, it is just a fetish, most people have one.  pedophilia, for me, tips very sharply on whether it is acted upon.  i do not think it should be as violently stigmatized as it is if it is strictly controlled i do not think people  want  to like kids, and if they have hurt no one they do not deserve the witch hunts.  obviously child molestation is a bad thing, though.  there is, to my knowledge, no mechanism that would support otherkin is identification.  i am trans myself and i consider that the vital distinction for why i should be accepted and supported but why i do not, currently, support otherkin.  if against my expectations data materialized to support them, my view might change.  bestiality i am torn on.  on the one hand, i want to file it under the same implicit non consent that i file pedophilia under.  but i have heard the point made, not without merit, that instead of humping a cow you could  kill  said cow, cut off a steak, and then hump the steak perfectly legally.  since we do not grant animals even the agency of not being killed, i wonder if it makes sense to grant them sexual agency.   #  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.   #  i cant reply much as i have got to work, but in the case of my nephew there would be a stigma placed on him that would be much worse than what we as a family could work out with him if he decides that for any reason he is not identifying with what was chosen.  i do believe that every family is different and many are not as accepting as we are, but as a unit we made the decision to assign him a male identity based on information from the doctor.  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  yes, i know that lgbt people go through this every day, and that he might go through the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, but we would support him 0.  it was not his fault, its his biology, and he was born that way.   #  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.   #  i will address your response now, but honestly i think this is a bit of a tangent to your original post, do not you ? although it is a bit related, it is not really what the main point is about.  i am not going to get into your specific family dynamics, because obviously i have 0 knowledge about you and your family; thus, i will be speaking in generality.  society as a whole has stigmas against both intersex individuals and individuals who do not identify with their assigned sex at birth.  a supportive family will help mitigate, but not eliminate, the stigmas in each case.  a combined lgbti movement will fight for the elimination of both stigmas.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  an intersex individual may have problems with body acceptance and having the  wrong  genitalia, but so might trans  individuals.  it is my understanding that some of the issues that the intersex community faces have counterparts in the trans  community; therefore sex assignment surgery can sometimes not reduce the challenges that a patient will face, and it may be considered a violation of a person is autonomy and right to self determination.  again, i do not want to speak about the case of your nephew, i have no information about it.  just generalizing here.
i was recently reading an article on being trans in america and stumbled across the term lgbtqi.  it made he raise an eyebrow because until now i have only seen it as lgbt and the q and i portions were new to me.  i did my research and have to admit that i am more than a little confused as to why more terms need to be added.  i have read on several different websites and asked a few of my lgbt friends what the difference was between queer and lgb and from what i have gathered it seems like an arbitrary term to just make people who feel like they do not have a label included in the movement.  you can be bi, gay, a lesbian or/and transgendered and still be queer, so why put it there ? also, another definition i received is that queer can also mean metrosexual or someone who just does not fit in with gender stereotypes.  well, my husband takes pride in his appearance and is pretty metrosexual but no one would consider him queer.  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? all in all it seems like a very redundant term.  the same with intersex.  the oxford reference definition is  an organism displaying characteristics that are intermediate between those of the typical male and typical female of its species.   from a medical perspective the intersex society of north america offers:   intersex  is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.   whereas, from a lgbt standpoint, intersex initiative has an interesting perspective that simultaneously links transgendered people with those who have intersex conditions  first, intersex bodies are pathologized and erased in a way that is similar to how homosexuality has historically been treated within psychiatry.  even though homosexuality has been officially depathologized for three decades, transgender people are still labeled as having  gender identity disorder  and thus treated as something abnormal rather than a natural human variety.  from this point of view, intersex is just another sexual minority that is pathologized and treated as  abnormal.   and seeks to break that link:  first, some people fear that adding the  i  would give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/ or transgender.  obviously, some intersex people are, and some are not but when we are dealing with young children and their parents, there is a concern that the association with lgbt would drive away parents of intersex children who would otherwise seek out information and resources about intersex conditions.  worse, the misperception might push parents to demand more surgeries to ease their concern about the child is future sexuality or gender identity.   among other things.  my concern with intersex comes from real life experience in having a nephew that was born with hermaphroditic genetalia.  it seems like, just bringing up the intersex initiative webpage only, that choosing your child is gender is wrong.  i guess this happens when there are people campaigning for a change that they themselves have nothing to do with, but choosing your child is gender because of medical necessity and fostering an environment where your child can grow up and like what they like and set a gender identity for themselves is more important than ideology.  i digress.  please, if you can, change my view on what adding all of the most minute labels that actually kind of flow into each other can do for the lgbt community.  because in my most humble opinion, the movement is running itself into the ground with semantics.  sources: article that started this: URL intersex initiative: URL isna: URL  #  because in my most humble opinion, the movement is running itself into the ground with semantics.   #  even if this is all semantics, i do not see how the movement is  running itself into the ground .   #  i would like to respond to your post from the perspective of a cisgender gay man.  to me, the word  queer  has two slightly different meanings.  it could be either:   an umbrella term encompassing everybody who is not a cisgender straight individual.  thus, i would be queer, and a genderqueer pansexual individual would be queer.  here, the term queer would be redundant with the  lgbt  part, but also includes others not included by those 0 terms.  or it could be   any person who does identify within the gender binary.  in this case, i would be gay, and my genderqueer pansexual friend would obviously be queer.  in this case, the term queer would not be redundant at all with the  lgbt  portion.  further complicating the issue, the word  queer  holds negative connotations to some individuals, especially those in older generations.  .  i am 0 down with the lgbt movement but am a straight married woman, by all definitions of the word queer as i have been told it, i do not fit into the stereotypical supporter i guess so would i be considered queer ? i would not consider either of you queer.  allies, sure, but not queer.  i would agree with this, and thus the inclusion of intersex into the movement.  that is fair, and it has already happened with transgender.  many people unfortunately believe that most or all trans  individuals are  lgb , which is not the case.  that is unfortunate, but it does happen even without the  lgbti  acronym, and that is exactly the sort of thing the movement is looking to stop.  first off, a bit minor, but these parents try to choose their child is sex with the surgery.  secondly, there are many intersex individuals who wish they had not been forced into that surgery when they were younger.  these people and by consequence their allies do consider the forced sex assignment surgery to be wrong.  if it is a medical necessity, then the situation is different, but often these surgeries are not medical necessities.  and ideally, avoiding gender dysphoria in the first place is a better solution than providing a good environment for going through that struggle.  most labels identify separate populations.  obviously lgb are mutually exclusive.  t is a different population.  i is a different population.  depending on your definition, q is either an umbrella term, or simply referring to everyone else.  even if this is all semantics, i do not see how the movement is  running itself into the ground .  if anything, the movement is gaining steam as more and more people come around to it.  and finally, there are a couple options if you do not like the  alphabet soup  approach.  some people advocate for simply the use of the queer movement as an umbrella term, and nothing else.  like i mentioned, that can run afoul of some earlier derogatory usage of the word .  i am personally a fan of  grsm  which stands for gender, romantic, and sexual minorities, which i consider one of the more inclusive names.   #  views on legality of same sex relations and marriages URL have been changing at roughly triple the rate of population turnover, for example.   #  the fact that lgbt or at least, lgb issues are progressing is pretty hard to debate.  views on legality of same sex relations and marriages URL have been changing at roughly triple the rate of population turnover, for example.  the idea of the terms is to be inclusive to a wide variety of people, including those who might not feel they  fit  any of the specific labels.  even within lgbt circles i think there is a fair amount of  okay guys we need to keep the letters in some form of control , though.  one acronym that is been gaining popularity lately is  gsm , for  gender and sexual minorities .   #  in my case, i can think of no more valid an argument for banning polygamy than i can for banning gay marriage, and i support both being legal with the caveat of some legal changes necessary for polygamous recognition .   #  i think this is also fair and i think most of us do draw such a line.  in my case, i can think of no more valid an argument for banning polygamy than i can for banning gay marriage, and i support both being legal with the caveat of some legal changes necessary for polygamous recognition .  furries are fine, it is just a fetish, most people have one.  pedophilia, for me, tips very sharply on whether it is acted upon.  i do not think it should be as violently stigmatized as it is if it is strictly controlled i do not think people  want  to like kids, and if they have hurt no one they do not deserve the witch hunts.  obviously child molestation is a bad thing, though.  there is, to my knowledge, no mechanism that would support otherkin is identification.  i am trans myself and i consider that the vital distinction for why i should be accepted and supported but why i do not, currently, support otherkin.  if against my expectations data materialized to support them, my view might change.  bestiality i am torn on.  on the one hand, i want to file it under the same implicit non consent that i file pedophilia under.  but i have heard the point made, not without merit, that instead of humping a cow you could  kill  said cow, cut off a steak, and then hump the steak perfectly legally.  since we do not grant animals even the agency of not being killed, i wonder if it makes sense to grant them sexual agency.   #  yes, i know that lgbt people go through this every day, and that he might go through the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, but we would support him 0.   #  i cant reply much as i have got to work, but in the case of my nephew there would be a stigma placed on him that would be much worse than what we as a family could work out with him if he decides that for any reason he is not identifying with what was chosen.  i do believe that every family is different and many are not as accepting as we are, but as a unit we made the decision to assign him a male identity based on information from the doctor.  could you just imagine him developing and going into a locker room, male or female, and the kids seeing what they would think was something wrong with him.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  yes, i know that lgbt people go through this every day, and that he might go through the feeling of being trapped in the wrong body, but we would support him 0.  it was not his fault, its his biology, and he was born that way.   #  i am not going to get into your specific family dynamics, because obviously i have 0 knowledge about you and your family; thus, i will be speaking in generality.   #  i will address your response now, but honestly i think this is a bit of a tangent to your original post, do not you ? although it is a bit related, it is not really what the main point is about.  i am not going to get into your specific family dynamics, because obviously i have 0 knowledge about you and your family; thus, i will be speaking in generality.  society as a whole has stigmas against both intersex individuals and individuals who do not identify with their assigned sex at birth.  a supportive family will help mitigate, but not eliminate, the stigmas in each case.  a combined lgbti movement will fight for the elimination of both stigmas.  or, him being in a romantic relationship and having someone not accept him and in turn him having psychological/body issues because he most definitely wouldnt be like the other kids.  an intersex individual may have problems with body acceptance and having the  wrong  genitalia, but so might trans  individuals.  it is my understanding that some of the issues that the intersex community faces have counterparts in the trans  community; therefore sex assignment surgery can sometimes not reduce the challenges that a patient will face, and it may be considered a violation of a person is autonomy and right to self determination.  again, i do not want to speak about the case of your nephew, i have no information about it.  just generalizing here.
0.  denying the official story does not mean you are doing investigative journalism.  constantly trying to deny reality is delusional.  a skeptic is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist.  0.  it is true that there is corruption, and that power stems from manipulation.  it is true that the powerful wants the world to abide to their interests.  it does not mean they manage to achieve their goals.  it is actually quite hard to hide the truth.  people sense it without having the need to be paranoid.  even friends conspire, and it always end up being known.  0.  the nwo was, at first, some kind of idealized world free from political problems, not some kind of capitalist propaganda empire.  it was just an hope of democracy and progress for developing countries.  0.  all in all, a broken clock is right twice a day.  it is true there are events which raise your eyebrows, like the burial at sea of ben laden.  but unless you try to find an explanation, do not jump up to easy conclusion.  0.  free speech is a double edged sword.  criticizing the official story just because you do not like the government, or just because you think most people are naive, seems quite stupid to me.  if you believe in a conspiracy theory and somebody is telling you you are wrong, they are not being naive or trying to shut you down because you are doing dissent.  they are just trying to bring you back on earth.  0.  conspiracy theorists are bored people who want to get attention.  they like to yap.  i have even seen many using humor to get their argument through, while their theories are plain serious.  0.  a theory is a theory until proven otherwise.  that is why it is called a conspiracy theory.  you can be a cynic, but you will still be a lunatic if you keep trying to prove leaders work for the devil.  life is not always so easy, but there are good times too.   #  but unless you try to find an explanation, do not jump up to easy conclusion.   #  often the conspiracy theory is  not  the easy conclusion.   #  they are not  aretards , they are simply people inclined to certain ways of thinking and belief.  they have a tendency to believe events are controlled and orchestrated by some higher authority rather like religious belief, actually and they are cynical and suspicious of its motives.  often the conspiracy theory is  not  the easy conclusion.  for the 0/0 conspiracy theories to be true, for example, would require an implausible degree of planning, co ordination and secrecy.  conspiracy theories are usually an attempt to fit events into your existing worldview.  and  everyone  does that.  it is a human thing.   #  a fbi agent believing that there is a conspiracy from a right wing group may conduct a act of terror is such and that fbi agent may save many lives by investigating and preventing it.   #  your arguments are a bit all over the place as not everyone takes hold of all of those types of conspiracies.  there is no requirement for them having to believe outlandish conspiracies like space aliens working with the american government.  if for example i had a belief that viktor yanukovych while he was the president of ukraine was a puppet of russia and did not have the ukrainian people is best interests in mind and would back out of the beneficial eu trade deal over the inferior russian one.  if i lacked proper evidence to prove this but held this belief i would be a conspiracy theorist despite this is what exactly happened.  i would have had a theory of a conspiracy and would have been totally right.  any person who suspects a conspiracy is taking place is a conspiracy theorist.  a fbi agent believing that there is a conspiracy from a right wing group may conduct a act of terror is such and that fbi agent may save many lives by investigating and preventing it.  there is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist when there is reason to hold the belief that something is actually being conspired.  my objection to your stance here is your greatly misplaced use of the label.  i also feel like you are using this as a soap box which is why you used such a harsh word as  retards  to define those who believe that conspiracies exist yet lack sufficient evidence at the time to prove it.   #  for example, the idea that everything you do online and say on the phone was being watched by the government was always dismissed as conspiracy and paranoia.   #  while conspiracy theorists can be many things at times: paranoid, delusional, and obnoxious come to mind, implying they are brain damaged or morons is going pretty far.  i have met several conspiracy nuts in my life and most are actually quite intelligent.  their problem seems to be paranoia or a victim complex more often then not.  while a lot of the  overarching conspiracies  like the nwo, the illuminati, or the reptile people are pretty obviously bullshit; there are a lot of conspiracy theories worth considering.  for example, the idea that everything you do online and say on the phone was being watched by the government was always dismissed as conspiracy and paranoia.  it has turned out to be true.  so did mkultra and other weird cia programs during the cold war.  i can only really give the american perspective since i have never met conspiracy theorists from other nations.  a lot of americans have a very negative view of government, especially on the federal level and specifically law enforcement and the military.  this is not totally unwarranted as there is a long history of overly aggressive domestic and foreign policy.   #  because everyone has preconvieved notions on how the world and things in it work.   #  you are propagating the same type of ideation that is so prevalent among conspiracy theorists, namely black and white thinking.  people who subscribe to or entertain theories range from people who believe the banking system is a rigged game all the way to those who believe that lizard people secretly rule the world.  there is a lat of variety and disparity to being a  conspiracy theorist,  and it would be a hard pressed task to find two people who subscribe or entertain the same theories.  so while you are statements above may describe certain individuals, it probably does not desribe them all or even a majority of them.  and throwing blanket statements around to describe such a varied group is about as bad as calling anyone that disagrees with you a shill.  0.  yes, denying reality is quite delusional.  but when you look past the headlines, all we have are supposed facts that lead themselves to conclusions.  taking the facts as themselves without assuming a stories conclusion is correct may lead you to a vastly different conclusion.  or it may not.  0.  these are just bywords and do not actually mean anything.  and, ironically, the  powerful  are often in that position mainly for the fact that their goals had been achieved.  and, for that matter, once your goals are achieved and consolidated, there is probably very little incentive to remain secretive.  the organization that became de beers cartel was once very secretive about the processing of diamonds until they consolidated their hold over the diamond industry.  now it is basically understood that if you do not do business with de beers, you do not get diamonds, so the secrecy is not required any longer.  0.  honestly, i do not entirely understand this one.  i think it is mainly anti government types who subscribe to it.  0.  this is the point, no ? speculate until your right.  nobody is correct all the time.  0.  dismissing what someone says just because you disagree with them seems stupid as well.  because everyone has preconvieved notions on how the world and things in it work.  also, see 0.  0.  i am not sure where this is coming from .  .  .  .  0.  see the above points.  not everybody believes in the devil, much less that he is controlling leaders.   #  the person may be wrong, but sometimes, the theories mention things that could be correct.   # if it is hard to hide the truth, then why are you labeling all of those who question  the official story  to be retards ? what if the person is not stating a theory at all, but something that is actually true evidence ? if you take this evidence as fiction, and continually deny it without questioning yourself, then you are just as delusional as any of the people you describe.  and like you said:  a broken clock is right twice a day.  the person may be wrong, but sometimes, the theories mention things that could be correct.  if we think of everything they mention as garbage, then we might throw away something useful, and buy into what is not fact.
0.  denying the official story does not mean you are doing investigative journalism.  constantly trying to deny reality is delusional.  a skeptic is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist.  0.  it is true that there is corruption, and that power stems from manipulation.  it is true that the powerful wants the world to abide to their interests.  it does not mean they manage to achieve their goals.  it is actually quite hard to hide the truth.  people sense it without having the need to be paranoid.  even friends conspire, and it always end up being known.  0.  the nwo was, at first, some kind of idealized world free from political problems, not some kind of capitalist propaganda empire.  it was just an hope of democracy and progress for developing countries.  0.  all in all, a broken clock is right twice a day.  it is true there are events which raise your eyebrows, like the burial at sea of ben laden.  but unless you try to find an explanation, do not jump up to easy conclusion.  0.  free speech is a double edged sword.  criticizing the official story just because you do not like the government, or just because you think most people are naive, seems quite stupid to me.  if you believe in a conspiracy theory and somebody is telling you you are wrong, they are not being naive or trying to shut you down because you are doing dissent.  they are just trying to bring you back on earth.  0.  conspiracy theorists are bored people who want to get attention.  they like to yap.  i have even seen many using humor to get their argument through, while their theories are plain serious.  0.  a theory is a theory until proven otherwise.  that is why it is called a conspiracy theory.  you can be a cynic, but you will still be a lunatic if you keep trying to prove leaders work for the devil.  life is not always so easy, but there are good times too.   #  it is actually quite hard to hide the truth.   #  if it is hard to hide the truth, then why are you labeling all of those who question  the official story  to be retards ?  # if it is hard to hide the truth, then why are you labeling all of those who question  the official story  to be retards ? what if the person is not stating a theory at all, but something that is actually true evidence ? if you take this evidence as fiction, and continually deny it without questioning yourself, then you are just as delusional as any of the people you describe.  and like you said:  a broken clock is right twice a day.  the person may be wrong, but sometimes, the theories mention things that could be correct.  if we think of everything they mention as garbage, then we might throw away something useful, and buy into what is not fact.   #  there is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist when there is reason to hold the belief that something is actually being conspired.   #  your arguments are a bit all over the place as not everyone takes hold of all of those types of conspiracies.  there is no requirement for them having to believe outlandish conspiracies like space aliens working with the american government.  if for example i had a belief that viktor yanukovych while he was the president of ukraine was a puppet of russia and did not have the ukrainian people is best interests in mind and would back out of the beneficial eu trade deal over the inferior russian one.  if i lacked proper evidence to prove this but held this belief i would be a conspiracy theorist despite this is what exactly happened.  i would have had a theory of a conspiracy and would have been totally right.  any person who suspects a conspiracy is taking place is a conspiracy theorist.  a fbi agent believing that there is a conspiracy from a right wing group may conduct a act of terror is such and that fbi agent may save many lives by investigating and preventing it.  there is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist when there is reason to hold the belief that something is actually being conspired.  my objection to your stance here is your greatly misplaced use of the label.  i also feel like you are using this as a soap box which is why you used such a harsh word as  retards  to define those who believe that conspiracies exist yet lack sufficient evidence at the time to prove it.   #  for example, the idea that everything you do online and say on the phone was being watched by the government was always dismissed as conspiracy and paranoia.   #  while conspiracy theorists can be many things at times: paranoid, delusional, and obnoxious come to mind, implying they are brain damaged or morons is going pretty far.  i have met several conspiracy nuts in my life and most are actually quite intelligent.  their problem seems to be paranoia or a victim complex more often then not.  while a lot of the  overarching conspiracies  like the nwo, the illuminati, or the reptile people are pretty obviously bullshit; there are a lot of conspiracy theories worth considering.  for example, the idea that everything you do online and say on the phone was being watched by the government was always dismissed as conspiracy and paranoia.  it has turned out to be true.  so did mkultra and other weird cia programs during the cold war.  i can only really give the american perspective since i have never met conspiracy theorists from other nations.  a lot of americans have a very negative view of government, especially on the federal level and specifically law enforcement and the military.  this is not totally unwarranted as there is a long history of overly aggressive domestic and foreign policy.   #  they are not  aretards , they are simply people inclined to certain ways of thinking and belief.   #  they are not  aretards , they are simply people inclined to certain ways of thinking and belief.  they have a tendency to believe events are controlled and orchestrated by some higher authority rather like religious belief, actually and they are cynical and suspicious of its motives.  often the conspiracy theory is  not  the easy conclusion.  for the 0/0 conspiracy theories to be true, for example, would require an implausible degree of planning, co ordination and secrecy.  conspiracy theories are usually an attempt to fit events into your existing worldview.  and  everyone  does that.  it is a human thing.   #  but when you look past the headlines, all we have are supposed facts that lead themselves to conclusions.   #  you are propagating the same type of ideation that is so prevalent among conspiracy theorists, namely black and white thinking.  people who subscribe to or entertain theories range from people who believe the banking system is a rigged game all the way to those who believe that lizard people secretly rule the world.  there is a lat of variety and disparity to being a  conspiracy theorist,  and it would be a hard pressed task to find two people who subscribe or entertain the same theories.  so while you are statements above may describe certain individuals, it probably does not desribe them all or even a majority of them.  and throwing blanket statements around to describe such a varied group is about as bad as calling anyone that disagrees with you a shill.  0.  yes, denying reality is quite delusional.  but when you look past the headlines, all we have are supposed facts that lead themselves to conclusions.  taking the facts as themselves without assuming a stories conclusion is correct may lead you to a vastly different conclusion.  or it may not.  0.  these are just bywords and do not actually mean anything.  and, ironically, the  powerful  are often in that position mainly for the fact that their goals had been achieved.  and, for that matter, once your goals are achieved and consolidated, there is probably very little incentive to remain secretive.  the organization that became de beers cartel was once very secretive about the processing of diamonds until they consolidated their hold over the diamond industry.  now it is basically understood that if you do not do business with de beers, you do not get diamonds, so the secrecy is not required any longer.  0.  honestly, i do not entirely understand this one.  i think it is mainly anti government types who subscribe to it.  0.  this is the point, no ? speculate until your right.  nobody is correct all the time.  0.  dismissing what someone says just because you disagree with them seems stupid as well.  because everyone has preconvieved notions on how the world and things in it work.  also, see 0.  0.  i am not sure where this is coming from .  .  .  .  0.  see the above points.  not everybody believes in the devil, much less that he is controlling leaders.
0.  denying the official story does not mean you are doing investigative journalism.  constantly trying to deny reality is delusional.  a skeptic is not necessarily a conspiracy theorist.  0.  it is true that there is corruption, and that power stems from manipulation.  it is true that the powerful wants the world to abide to their interests.  it does not mean they manage to achieve their goals.  it is actually quite hard to hide the truth.  people sense it without having the need to be paranoid.  even friends conspire, and it always end up being known.  0.  the nwo was, at first, some kind of idealized world free from political problems, not some kind of capitalist propaganda empire.  it was just an hope of democracy and progress for developing countries.  0.  all in all, a broken clock is right twice a day.  it is true there are events which raise your eyebrows, like the burial at sea of ben laden.  but unless you try to find an explanation, do not jump up to easy conclusion.  0.  free speech is a double edged sword.  criticizing the official story just because you do not like the government, or just because you think most people are naive, seems quite stupid to me.  if you believe in a conspiracy theory and somebody is telling you you are wrong, they are not being naive or trying to shut you down because you are doing dissent.  they are just trying to bring you back on earth.  0.  conspiracy theorists are bored people who want to get attention.  they like to yap.  i have even seen many using humor to get their argument through, while their theories are plain serious.  0.  a theory is a theory until proven otherwise.  that is why it is called a conspiracy theory.  you can be a cynic, but you will still be a lunatic if you keep trying to prove leaders work for the devil.  life is not always so easy, but there are good times too.   #  even friends conspire, and it always end up being known.   #  how would you know if it always ends up being known ?  #  calling someone a conspiracy theorist is nothing but a cheap personal attack.  how would you know if it always ends up being known ? we do not know it when it did not end up being known.  and even if it is, it can take a long time.  take gustl mollath, for example, who accused the hvb of large scale money laundering.  he had been in a high security mental institution for seven years until it was concluded he had been right all that time.   #  there is no requirement for them having to believe outlandish conspiracies like space aliens working with the american government.   #  your arguments are a bit all over the place as not everyone takes hold of all of those types of conspiracies.  there is no requirement for them having to believe outlandish conspiracies like space aliens working with the american government.  if for example i had a belief that viktor yanukovych while he was the president of ukraine was a puppet of russia and did not have the ukrainian people is best interests in mind and would back out of the beneficial eu trade deal over the inferior russian one.  if i lacked proper evidence to prove this but held this belief i would be a conspiracy theorist despite this is what exactly happened.  i would have had a theory of a conspiracy and would have been totally right.  any person who suspects a conspiracy is taking place is a conspiracy theorist.  a fbi agent believing that there is a conspiracy from a right wing group may conduct a act of terror is such and that fbi agent may save many lives by investigating and preventing it.  there is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist when there is reason to hold the belief that something is actually being conspired.  my objection to your stance here is your greatly misplaced use of the label.  i also feel like you are using this as a soap box which is why you used such a harsh word as  retards  to define those who believe that conspiracies exist yet lack sufficient evidence at the time to prove it.   #  this is not totally unwarranted as there is a long history of overly aggressive domestic and foreign policy.   #  while conspiracy theorists can be many things at times: paranoid, delusional, and obnoxious come to mind, implying they are brain damaged or morons is going pretty far.  i have met several conspiracy nuts in my life and most are actually quite intelligent.  their problem seems to be paranoia or a victim complex more often then not.  while a lot of the  overarching conspiracies  like the nwo, the illuminati, or the reptile people are pretty obviously bullshit; there are a lot of conspiracy theories worth considering.  for example, the idea that everything you do online and say on the phone was being watched by the government was always dismissed as conspiracy and paranoia.  it has turned out to be true.  so did mkultra and other weird cia programs during the cold war.  i can only really give the american perspective since i have never met conspiracy theorists from other nations.  a lot of americans have a very negative view of government, especially on the federal level and specifically law enforcement and the military.  this is not totally unwarranted as there is a long history of overly aggressive domestic and foreign policy.   #  they have a tendency to believe events are controlled and orchestrated by some higher authority rather like religious belief, actually and they are cynical and suspicious of its motives.   #  they are not  aretards , they are simply people inclined to certain ways of thinking and belief.  they have a tendency to believe events are controlled and orchestrated by some higher authority rather like religious belief, actually and they are cynical and suspicious of its motives.  often the conspiracy theory is  not  the easy conclusion.  for the 0/0 conspiracy theories to be true, for example, would require an implausible degree of planning, co ordination and secrecy.  conspiracy theories are usually an attempt to fit events into your existing worldview.  and  everyone  does that.  it is a human thing.   #  but when you look past the headlines, all we have are supposed facts that lead themselves to conclusions.   #  you are propagating the same type of ideation that is so prevalent among conspiracy theorists, namely black and white thinking.  people who subscribe to or entertain theories range from people who believe the banking system is a rigged game all the way to those who believe that lizard people secretly rule the world.  there is a lat of variety and disparity to being a  conspiracy theorist,  and it would be a hard pressed task to find two people who subscribe or entertain the same theories.  so while you are statements above may describe certain individuals, it probably does not desribe them all or even a majority of them.  and throwing blanket statements around to describe such a varied group is about as bad as calling anyone that disagrees with you a shill.  0.  yes, denying reality is quite delusional.  but when you look past the headlines, all we have are supposed facts that lead themselves to conclusions.  taking the facts as themselves without assuming a stories conclusion is correct may lead you to a vastly different conclusion.  or it may not.  0.  these are just bywords and do not actually mean anything.  and, ironically, the  powerful  are often in that position mainly for the fact that their goals had been achieved.  and, for that matter, once your goals are achieved and consolidated, there is probably very little incentive to remain secretive.  the organization that became de beers cartel was once very secretive about the processing of diamonds until they consolidated their hold over the diamond industry.  now it is basically understood that if you do not do business with de beers, you do not get diamonds, so the secrecy is not required any longer.  0.  honestly, i do not entirely understand this one.  i think it is mainly anti government types who subscribe to it.  0.  this is the point, no ? speculate until your right.  nobody is correct all the time.  0.  dismissing what someone says just because you disagree with them seems stupid as well.  because everyone has preconvieved notions on how the world and things in it work.  also, see 0.  0.  i am not sure where this is coming from .  .  .  .  0.  see the above points.  not everybody believes in the devil, much less that he is controlling leaders.
inspired by /r/cordcutters URL firstly, consumers should only have to pay for the services they want.  c̶a̶p̶i̶t̶a̶l̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶i̶v̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶n̶c̶i̶p̶l̶e̶ update: the lack of competition gives consumers no bargaining power with the incumbent cable company.  i advocate government intervention to force companies to also offer channels a la carte.  URL possible counterargument:  bundling content subsidizes specialized channels that otherwise could not survive.   of course.  but for the reason stated above, these channels should be allowed to die.  this is where the re appropriation of bandwidth comes in.  when specialized channels leave the spectrum, this opens up bandwidth for internet service.  specialty channels can then distribute over the internet without having to take up 0 mhz of bandwidth constantly.  there will be fixed costs to deal with by switching to internet distribution.  but the consumer, and small time channels, will ultimately enjoy lower costs in cable tv and internet.  update: if the op is getting too flooded with clarifications, the conversation in the comments might not make sense to newcomers to the thread.  do not know what i can do in this regard.   #  firstly, consumers should only have to pay for the services they want.   #  the lack of competition gives consumers no bargaining power with the incumbent cable company.   # the lack of competition gives consumers no bargaining power with the incumbent cable company.  consumers do not have much bargaining power when it comes to various goods/services.  want to buy a gaming console ? you generally have three options, all of which cost at least a few hundred dollars.  want to buy a laptop ? you can choose from 0 brands.  want a smartphone ? you have four options for its software with a similar amount of options for your wireless carrier.  in a perfect world consumers should have bargaining power, but in reality there are various cases where they do not.  cable tv is one of them, and unless you are advocating for some type of government intervention the only bargaining chip that consumers have is to cut the cord completely.   #  i guess you could say  sell the equipment and buy new internet infrastructure  but.  who would buy the tv equipment ?  #  i have to point out that they do not use the same infrastructure.  dropping channels would add  radio  bandwidth, not internet bandwidth, and even then no radio are designed to receive that broadcasting.  i guess you could say  sell the equipment and buy new internet infrastructure  but.  who would buy the tv equipment ? more generally, those channels that generate content actually a good thing.  too much of the internet is simply repackaging and rebroadcasting existing content.  if you could get a specialty channel the revenue to take risks in new content which employs the best creative minds that are currently segregated from the resources required to go wide, then you have solved both their big problems.   #  the signals coming out of this equipment are combine together on a single cable and it fans out into the neighborhoods.   #  i think he is talking about cable tv specifically.  at the cable company is local facility, national and international network feeds, local channel feeds, internet service, and phone service equipment is located.  the signals coming out of this equipment are combine together on a single cable and it fans out into the neighborhoods.  a drop is then run to your house and all the cable outlets in the rooms where you hook up your cable modem and televisions.  the problem with ops plan is twofold.  one is that cable internet gear is only designed to operate in specific frequencies and you can only have so many channels.  increasing cable internet bandwidth is better done by doing what is known as node splitting.  the problem with a la carte tv is that the content companies often will only authorize you to have their popular channels, like espn, if you take all of the others with it.  this is how they increase revenue and fund niche channels.  so even if the cable company wanted to, it is not their call to legally make.   #  the whole neighborhood then has to share that 0 meg.   #  so for the internet, the cable company uses a special type of router, the cable modem termination system.  it has a link back to the cable company is national network and thus the internet.  in the cmts are a bunch of cards with output ports in pairs: download and upload.  while the video signal is distributed to all nodes, each node has it is own pair of ports on the cmts.  each pair of ports has a set bandwidth: lets say 0 megabits per second for example.  the node is a simple converter that converts light pulses on fiber to radio signals on coax cable in each neighborhood.  the whole neighborhood then has to share that 0 meg.  this is why with older equipment, peak periods of usage were a problem.  too much usage on too little shared bandwidth.  so splitting a node refers to dividing a neighborhood in half and adding a new node and fiber circuit.  instead of having 0 houses sharing one node and 0 mbps, you can now have two sets of 0 houses sharing 0 mbps each.  this allows each user a bigger slice of the pie.   #  they may have to compete with phone company offerings like verizon fios or satellite companies like dish, but comcast hardly ever has to actually compete directly with any other cable company.   #  you are not actually free to start your own cable company.  in must u. s.  municipalities, cable companies are granted a monopoly.  they may have to compete with phone company offerings like verizon fios or satellite companies like dish, but comcast hardly ever has to actually compete directly with any other cable company.  given that the market is not free, i think the  let the market decide !   objection to allowing consumers to pick and choose is bogus.  cable companies do not bundle their channels together in response to consumer demand.  they do it because they find an all or nothing approach to be more profitable.
often, the word count on a viral blog post/article URL is roughly equivalent to a chapter in a book, which means with each of these articles you read at home, work, in between or during classes, you are  technically  mowing through a novel.  even when you are on facebook, twitter, /r/adviceanimals, etc. , you are  still reading .  consider the number of words even one image macro has.  then think about how many of them you have read today.  i am willing to bet that 0 of them will net you  at least  0 words.  now think of the 0 character tweets you read today.  how many words do you think fit within that limit ? and what about your facebook status updates, youtube video descriptions,  the comments sections on each of those , your ipod is song and album titles, your text messages, reddit threads, etc.  ?   well what about the literary value ? is not shakespeare more valuable than an inane tweet ?    hamlet does not contain  half  the raw angst found on a teenager is twitter page.  i have found more engaging and entertaining stories written in /r/fatpeoplestories.  and where, besides online literature forums and classes, can you find people debating and discussing hamlet ? yet nearly every single reddit thread, tweet, cracked. com article, and image macro invites and incites disagreement between people over the intent and content of the post.  here is what it comes down to: the internet is interpretable, discussable, and entertaining three qualities that are present and valued in  classic  literature.  the  only  advantage a novel has over the internet is one, continuous story uniting the discussion, the themes and motifs, everything.  unless every single page you browsed in one day was all about the same thing, it is unlikely you will have a  truly  equivalent experience, but for the most part, a good internet session is just like digging into your favorite book.   #  hamlet does not contain  half  the raw angst found on a teenager is twitter page.   #  i have found more engaging and entertaining stories written in /r/fatpeoplestories just because you find it more entertaining does not make it better.   # i have found more engaging and entertaining stories written in /r/fatpeoplestories just because you find it more entertaining does not make it better.  cake is easier to swallow than broccoli but that does not make it better.  most things people read on the internet are things that you are already comfortable with.  you join communities filled with like minded people and hear opinions that are similar to your own.  reddit specifically is anti thought out content and anti originality.  here is a comment explaining in detail why that is, this is ironically just a snippet of it:  reddit is algorithm is objectively and hugely biased towards fluff, content easily consumed and speedily voted on.  and it is biased towards the votes of people who vote on fluff.  when i submit a long, good, thought provoking article to one of the defaults, i do not get downvoted.  i just do not get voted on at all.  i will get two or three upvotes, but it wo not matter, because by the time someone is read through the article and thought about it and whether it was worth their time and voted on it, the thread has fallen off the first page of /new/ and there is no saving it, while in the same amount of time an image macro has received hundreds of votes  URL  consider the number of words even one image macro has.  then think about how many of them you have read today.  that would be 0, because /r/adviceanimals is trash.   #  but  the two are extremely different in how they do it .   #  that is not nearly the same thing.  it is like saying going to a violin concert is the same as playing a video game.  they both aim to provoke emotion, amuse people, etc.  but  the two are extremely different in how they do it .  similarly, an internet post is extremely different from a novel.  reading separate posts on the internet is to reading novels as listening to random snippets of subway conversation is to enjoying a symphony.   #  looking for alaska is not crime and punishment.   #  all reading is not equal.  looking for alaska is not crime and punishment.  harry potter is not in search of lost time.  the internet is not even harry potter but it most especially is not hamlet.  maybe in principle the internet can be similar to literature, but certainly not in practice.  most of the popular internet is just brain candy, tidbits of information, factoids, tl;dr.  notice how in every article linked thread how obvious it is that nobody actually read the article ? if anything, the internet is a collection of a million short stories, each a couple paragraphs long with the  very occasional  novella thrown in every thousand pages or so.  comparing the text based internet to a novel is like comparing a vine to a feature film.  your three criteria for what makes a literary experience are also far to broad.  interpretable ? every piece of art ever created has been interpretable.  discussable ? every  thing  that has been made, seen, thought of, or has happened in the history of the human species has been discussable.  entertaining ? transformers was entertaining.  that does not make it literary art.  with criteria so broad, the internet is just as much music as it is literature.   #  hamlet entails more literary depth than all those things you mentioned because it goes through a narrative arc, which is much more complicated than what you read on the internet.   #  the advantage you are granting to novels is the major difference.  novels teach you how to understand something with depth.  things on the internet do not tend to have literary depth in them foreshadowing, allusions,ect.  and are not trying to make a deeper statement.  hamlet entails more literary depth than all those things you mentioned because it goes through a narrative arc, which is much more complicated than what you read on the internet.  hamlet deals with real problems that have exists for all of human existence: how to deal with doubt, uncertainty, and unfairness ? most image macros are not dealing with such complicated issues.  they generally are just entertaining posts.  sure, you are reading words.  but if you value that, would not just reading the dictionary be considered amazing literature ? i think not.   #  i would say novels have just more literature depth while the internet captures what you were talking about:  prevailing attitudes and viewpoints of the era .   #  i will give you that some were published serially, but i think we are both talking about general novels.  i think it is fair to say most novels are not done in that fashion.  i think, however, i can change your view if you think of it this way.  do not try to compare internet reading and novel reading.  i would say novels have just more literature depth while the internet captures what you were talking about:  prevailing attitudes and viewpoints of the era .  i think the internet does an amazing job of this, maybe even better than novels in some cases.  i hope you value that novels, due to their length which enforces attention span and depth use of literary elements , have their rightful place in literature while the internet sources are more of a nice form of entertainment more like movies/tv .
whatever we do, ultimately, has no meaning.  in the grand scheme of things, we are but a tiny speck of dust on a meaningless planet.  that is why i say that trying to prolong life is absolutely useless.  this includes tries to reanimate dying people, trying to find a special formula for immortality, and similar medical/engineering advances.  instead of finding ways to prolong life, we could better spend resources to make the life we have got more pleasurable.  this would be a much better way to spend our time and resources, by actively trying to become a better and happier society, where death is just part of the cycle, with no taboos attached to it.   #  that is why i say that trying to prolong life is absolutely useless.   #  this includes tries to reanimate dying people, trying to find a special formula for immortality, and similar medical/engineering advances.   # this includes tries to reanimate dying people, trying to find a special formula for immortality, and similar medical/engineering advances.  this would be a much better way to spend our time and resources, by actively trying to become a better and happier society, where death is just part of the cycle, with no taboos attached to it.  we already spend a vastly larger share of resources on enjoying simple pleasures than we do on immortality or extending life.  for example, the budget for the sens foundation strategies for engineered negligible senescence URL one of the largest american nonprofit foundations that pump money into life extension research, is about $0 million per year.  on the other hand, the global tourism industry URL accounts for around $0  trillion  per year.  the us/canada film industry takes in $0 billion URL per year.   #  if only thinking things existed, things like rocks, computers, numbers, and my shoes would not exist, but i have strong reason to believe that they do.   #  dat misapplied cogito tho.  descartes indicates, in the cogito, that he knows that, even if a demon is deceiving him about everything, he must exist to be deceived, in some form or other.  he might just be a brain in a vat, but there must be an  i  that is being deceived.  it is not that only things which think exist, rather, it is that my thinking is proof, to me, that at the least i exist.  if only thinking things existed, things like rocks, computers, numbers, and my shoes would not exist, but i have strong reason to believe that they do.  plus dogs totally think, i remember watching mine try to figure out where the ball went when i pretended to throw it.  i realize this may be a joke post, but i am not really awake yet, idgaf.   #  ergo, taste does not actually exist actually, this is a common logical fallacy.   # if a dog does not exist then a hot dog does not exist which has no taste.  ergo, taste does not actually exist actually, this is a common logical fallacy.   if a then b  is not equivalent to  if b then a  or  if not a then not b  .   i think therefore i am  is a proposition of the form  if a then b  where a  i think  and b  i am .  but your statement  dog does not think therefore is not  takes the form  if not a then not b   for a  dog thinks  and b  dog is .  it is completely possible for  if a then b  to be true while  if not a then not b   is false.  a fairly trivial example would be letting a  i am human  and b  i have dna .   if you are human, then you have dna  is true, but  if you are not human, then you do not have dna  is not.  here URL is the wikipedia page on it, but its kinda wordy and i do not like the explanation.  i prefer looking at it from the perspective of logic and mathematics.  here URL is one i like, which explains itself rather well.  p. s.  i used a hodge podge of english and symbolic notation from propositional logic.  i was unsure if you were familiar with the latter, so i felt using less symbols would be clearer.   #  i do not know if you have seen the movie  harold and maude  which i recommend, if you have not seen it.   #  i am currently 0 years old, which is not remarkably old for the current society in which we live, although it is considerably older than the average lifespan for most of human history.  i do not feel that because i have lived my meaningless life for such a long time, i might as well die now.  i still have comments to post, before i die.  and generally, that is how people feel.  even people who are 0 years old are not in a hurry to die.  chances are, you too will want to continue to live, even when you are older.  there can be exceptions, of course.  i do not know if you have seen the movie  harold and maude  which i recommend, if you have not seen it.  maude is a character who has decided that she just wants to live to be 0 years old, and so on her 0th birthday, she kills herself, thereby causing considerable distress to her younger friend harold, who loves her.  it is a fascinating and ironic movie.  up until the time maude actually kills herself, both harold and maude are death fetishists, they both love to attend funerals, they constantly contemplate their own death, they embrace death with enthusiasm, yet when the time comes for maude to actually die, harold discovers that death is not all that it is cracked up to be, after all.  you may make a similar discovery, some day.  that said, i will at least partially agree with you; people can be overly obsessed with prolonging their lives.  i am, for example, not a believer in the value of having yourself frozen at death, in the hope of being eventually thawed out and then brought back to life by some advanced medical technology which you hope will eventually be invented.  i think that is going too far.   #  ultimately you are only here to serve yourself, burn your existance in as much a pleasurable way as possible, and just leave.   #  a tool, at least, has a meaning.  it is there to serve its makers.  a hammer is meaning is to hammer nails to whomever wants them hammered.  if you were to have a meaning such as that one, than you are merely a servant to someone else.  and that is just unacceptable to me, because that means that while consciously ypu know you have a purpose, you are willingly giving it away to serve someone else.  that is a selfish and possibly narcissistic point of view, i know.  but that is what i am saying.  ultimately you are only here to serve yourself, burn your existance in as much a pleasurable way as possible, and just leave.
whatever we do, ultimately, has no meaning.  in the grand scheme of things, we are but a tiny speck of dust on a meaningless planet.  that is why i say that trying to prolong life is absolutely useless.  this includes tries to reanimate dying people, trying to find a special formula for immortality, and similar medical/engineering advances.  instead of finding ways to prolong life, we could better spend resources to make the life we have got more pleasurable.  this would be a much better way to spend our time and resources, by actively trying to become a better and happier society, where death is just part of the cycle, with no taboos attached to it.   #  instead of finding ways to prolong life, we could better spend resources to make the life we have got more pleasurable.   #  this would be a much better way to spend our time and resources, by actively trying to become a better and happier society, where death is just part of the cycle, with no taboos attached to it.   # this includes tries to reanimate dying people, trying to find a special formula for immortality, and similar medical/engineering advances.  this would be a much better way to spend our time and resources, by actively trying to become a better and happier society, where death is just part of the cycle, with no taboos attached to it.  we already spend a vastly larger share of resources on enjoying simple pleasures than we do on immortality or extending life.  for example, the budget for the sens foundation strategies for engineered negligible senescence URL one of the largest american nonprofit foundations that pump money into life extension research, is about $0 million per year.  on the other hand, the global tourism industry URL accounts for around $0  trillion  per year.  the us/canada film industry takes in $0 billion URL per year.   #  if only thinking things existed, things like rocks, computers, numbers, and my shoes would not exist, but i have strong reason to believe that they do.   #  dat misapplied cogito tho.  descartes indicates, in the cogito, that he knows that, even if a demon is deceiving him about everything, he must exist to be deceived, in some form or other.  he might just be a brain in a vat, but there must be an  i  that is being deceived.  it is not that only things which think exist, rather, it is that my thinking is proof, to me, that at the least i exist.  if only thinking things existed, things like rocks, computers, numbers, and my shoes would not exist, but i have strong reason to believe that they do.  plus dogs totally think, i remember watching mine try to figure out where the ball went when i pretended to throw it.  i realize this may be a joke post, but i am not really awake yet, idgaf.   #  ergo, taste does not actually exist actually, this is a common logical fallacy.   # if a dog does not exist then a hot dog does not exist which has no taste.  ergo, taste does not actually exist actually, this is a common logical fallacy.   if a then b  is not equivalent to  if b then a  or  if not a then not b  .   i think therefore i am  is a proposition of the form  if a then b  where a  i think  and b  i am .  but your statement  dog does not think therefore is not  takes the form  if not a then not b   for a  dog thinks  and b  dog is .  it is completely possible for  if a then b  to be true while  if not a then not b   is false.  a fairly trivial example would be letting a  i am human  and b  i have dna .   if you are human, then you have dna  is true, but  if you are not human, then you do not have dna  is not.  here URL is the wikipedia page on it, but its kinda wordy and i do not like the explanation.  i prefer looking at it from the perspective of logic and mathematics.  here URL is one i like, which explains itself rather well.  p. s.  i used a hodge podge of english and symbolic notation from propositional logic.  i was unsure if you were familiar with the latter, so i felt using less symbols would be clearer.   #  even people who are 0 years old are not in a hurry to die.   #  i am currently 0 years old, which is not remarkably old for the current society in which we live, although it is considerably older than the average lifespan for most of human history.  i do not feel that because i have lived my meaningless life for such a long time, i might as well die now.  i still have comments to post, before i die.  and generally, that is how people feel.  even people who are 0 years old are not in a hurry to die.  chances are, you too will want to continue to live, even when you are older.  there can be exceptions, of course.  i do not know if you have seen the movie  harold and maude  which i recommend, if you have not seen it.  maude is a character who has decided that she just wants to live to be 0 years old, and so on her 0th birthday, she kills herself, thereby causing considerable distress to her younger friend harold, who loves her.  it is a fascinating and ironic movie.  up until the time maude actually kills herself, both harold and maude are death fetishists, they both love to attend funerals, they constantly contemplate their own death, they embrace death with enthusiasm, yet when the time comes for maude to actually die, harold discovers that death is not all that it is cracked up to be, after all.  you may make a similar discovery, some day.  that said, i will at least partially agree with you; people can be overly obsessed with prolonging their lives.  i am, for example, not a believer in the value of having yourself frozen at death, in the hope of being eventually thawed out and then brought back to life by some advanced medical technology which you hope will eventually be invented.  i think that is going too far.   #  ultimately you are only here to serve yourself, burn your existance in as much a pleasurable way as possible, and just leave.   #  a tool, at least, has a meaning.  it is there to serve its makers.  a hammer is meaning is to hammer nails to whomever wants them hammered.  if you were to have a meaning such as that one, than you are merely a servant to someone else.  and that is just unacceptable to me, because that means that while consciously ypu know you have a purpose, you are willingly giving it away to serve someone else.  that is a selfish and possibly narcissistic point of view, i know.  but that is what i am saying.  ultimately you are only here to serve yourself, burn your existance in as much a pleasurable way as possible, and just leave.
when making a decision, taking long amounts of time to analyse and consider one is options is more beneficial than making a decision that is regretful.  as one can make the most informed decision with all information and research that is available, why be rash.  for some, it may come down to choosing what food to eat, what course to take, what job to take, what direction to go in life.  others have the incentive of going with immediate decisions without making an informed choice, which i would reason, ends up in regret.  cmv  #  when making a decision, taking long amounts of time to analyse and consider one is options is more beneficial than making a decision that is regretful.   #  to a certain point, and in certain circumstances, yes, it is.   # to a certain point, and in certain circumstances, yes, it is.  in other circumstances, it yields fewer benefits.  in still others, it is actually harmful.  to illustrate: choosing a career path is something you should spend a lot of time thinking and researching, as it is a long term decision and even taking a year of research pales in comparison to the work you would have to do to revise that decision later.  that is a situation where it is better to take your time and research.  deciding where to go out to get lunch is very subjective; you could spend an hour planning and weighing options, but surely there are better things to do with your time than internally debating your choices of what to eat, because really the important thing is not so much  what  you eat, but that you  do  eat because you are hungry.  indeed, if you spend too much time being indecisive about it, you die of starvation.  then there are the times it will get you killed, or injured.  if you are in a car, and there is an accident in front of you, you have to make a decision on how to react.  you can brake, you can switch lanes, you can go off onto the shoulder.  all valid options, depending on your situation, but if you do not decide in the next 0 seconds  you are becoming part of that accident  also, i would argue that in the first example, that is not indecisiveness, that is making the decision of  i do not know yet, i need to do more research.   indecision is just  i dunno .  you are making the choice to learn more about potential choices, not just putting off deciding.  tl;dr: taking time to decide what to eat is fine up to the point that you die of starvation.   #  i think that where that balance lies largely depends on the decision.   #  i think reality requires a certain balance.  you are right that making rash decisions is worse than taking the time to reason out a decision.  but inaction breeds its own problems too.  i think that where that balance lies largely depends on the decision.  for instance, if you are working with other people, if you take to long to make a decision for a project, it can negatively impact the performance of those other people.  for every decision there is some cost to delaying, but what that cost is will differ on a case by case basis.  it is not like there is a universal formula to calculate that cost, but that does not mean it does not exist.   #  it is important for a piece of software to be made as quick as possible, as good as it can be and as cheaply as possible.   #  i think in software there are three things that are important: speed of development, quality and cost.  it is important for a piece of software to be made as quick as possible, as good as it can be and as cheaply as possible.  they are equally important and you need to balance them depending on your factors.  indecisiveness is not as good as a bad choice in my opinion.  anytime i go out on a date and you ask a girl where she wants to go, she will say  i do not know, wherever you want .  do you think it is better to say  i do not know  back, or pick a place and take control of the situation ? those who take action are the ones who have power.   #  game theory is the field that studies these kinds of questions.   #  there is a break even point for delaying decisions.  when faced with a decision, there is a certain degree of uncertainty as to the value you will receive.  delaying a decision reduces this uncertainty and increases the likelihood you will make a decision that results in maximum value for you.  to find the break even point you would solve for d from something like: ev decision d ev decision 0 delay cost   d where d is the time delayed and ev decision gives the expected value of the decision as a function of time delayed.  game theory is the field that studies these kinds of questions.  there is a layman is intro here URL and if you are into math i can scrounge up some more academic papers.   #  0.  a bad decision is not necessarily a bad thing, you can learn from it to make better decisions in the future.   #  0.  staying indecisive prevents you from the risks of making a bad decision, but also withholds you from the benefits of making a good decision.  risk and benefit are two faces of the same medal.  0.  a bad decision is not necessarily a bad thing, you can learn from it to make better decisions in the future.  it is just dealing with the consequences that makes things uncomfortable, but so may being indecisive as well.  i even think that people need to make bad decisions to become more wise and with that more successful/happy in life.  give me one example of someone who is successful/happy without making bad decisions ? 00 0.  given the possible positive outcome of your decision or the things you can learn from a bad decision, there is no net advantage in indecisiveness over making the actual decision.
when making a decision, taking long amounts of time to analyse and consider one is options is more beneficial than making a decision that is regretful.  as one can make the most informed decision with all information and research that is available, why be rash.  for some, it may come down to choosing what food to eat, what course to take, what job to take, what direction to go in life.  others have the incentive of going with immediate decisions without making an informed choice, which i would reason, ends up in regret.  cmv  #  when making a decision, taking long amounts of time to analyse and consider one is options is more beneficial than making a decision that is regretful.   #  unless you are on a time schedule.   # unless you are on a time schedule.  in which case taking long amounts of time is going to result in a failure to act.  because you ca not always sit around and deliberate on decisions.  many decisions routinely require action immediately, or sooner than possible to collect all relevant information.  taking your time to decide which class you want to take is not always practical when there are limited slots and you are not in a position to pick what you want.  so while  perfect  information dictates you should take class xxa becaus e of the schedule and professor, your registration slot affords you xxc, or no class at all.  waiting a whole semester to try again for xxa is not the smart decision here.  having a job makes it easier to get another job.  being unemployed for 0  months because you keep turning down adequate work is not better than working and earning money for those 0 months.  that is an opportunity cost in the form of time that you ca not make up.  rash decisions with no thought in no time are just as bad as measured decisions with great thought in lots of time.  because time is a resource that is only lost.  and the more time you lose, the less opportunity you have.  deliberation is good, but action more often than not is better than inaction.  even when the action that is not fully thought out.  that is why the first mover advantage can often be so critical to success in business.  indecisiveness is worse than a bad decision, because in many more circumstances than not, some action is better than no action.   #  for every decision there is some cost to delaying, but what that cost is will differ on a case by case basis.   #  i think reality requires a certain balance.  you are right that making rash decisions is worse than taking the time to reason out a decision.  but inaction breeds its own problems too.  i think that where that balance lies largely depends on the decision.  for instance, if you are working with other people, if you take to long to make a decision for a project, it can negatively impact the performance of those other people.  for every decision there is some cost to delaying, but what that cost is will differ on a case by case basis.  it is not like there is a universal formula to calculate that cost, but that does not mean it does not exist.   #  they are equally important and you need to balance them depending on your factors.   #  i think in software there are three things that are important: speed of development, quality and cost.  it is important for a piece of software to be made as quick as possible, as good as it can be and as cheaply as possible.  they are equally important and you need to balance them depending on your factors.  indecisiveness is not as good as a bad choice in my opinion.  anytime i go out on a date and you ask a girl where she wants to go, she will say  i do not know, wherever you want .  do you think it is better to say  i do not know  back, or pick a place and take control of the situation ? those who take action are the ones who have power.   #  game theory is the field that studies these kinds of questions.   #  there is a break even point for delaying decisions.  when faced with a decision, there is a certain degree of uncertainty as to the value you will receive.  delaying a decision reduces this uncertainty and increases the likelihood you will make a decision that results in maximum value for you.  to find the break even point you would solve for d from something like: ev decision d ev decision 0 delay cost   d where d is the time delayed and ev decision gives the expected value of the decision as a function of time delayed.  game theory is the field that studies these kinds of questions.  there is a layman is intro here URL and if you are into math i can scrounge up some more academic papers.   #  it is just dealing with the consequences that makes things uncomfortable, but so may being indecisive as well.   #  0.  staying indecisive prevents you from the risks of making a bad decision, but also withholds you from the benefits of making a good decision.  risk and benefit are two faces of the same medal.  0.  a bad decision is not necessarily a bad thing, you can learn from it to make better decisions in the future.  it is just dealing with the consequences that makes things uncomfortable, but so may being indecisive as well.  i even think that people need to make bad decisions to become more wise and with that more successful/happy in life.  give me one example of someone who is successful/happy without making bad decisions ? 00 0.  given the possible positive outcome of your decision or the things you can learn from a bad decision, there is no net advantage in indecisiveness over making the actual decision.
when making a decision, taking long amounts of time to analyse and consider one is options is more beneficial than making a decision that is regretful.  as one can make the most informed decision with all information and research that is available, why be rash.  for some, it may come down to choosing what food to eat, what course to take, what job to take, what direction to go in life.  others have the incentive of going with immediate decisions without making an informed choice, which i would reason, ends up in regret.  cmv  #  as one can make the most informed decision with all information and research that is available, why be rash.   #  because you ca not always sit around and deliberate on decisions.   # unless you are on a time schedule.  in which case taking long amounts of time is going to result in a failure to act.  because you ca not always sit around and deliberate on decisions.  many decisions routinely require action immediately, or sooner than possible to collect all relevant information.  taking your time to decide which class you want to take is not always practical when there are limited slots and you are not in a position to pick what you want.  so while  perfect  information dictates you should take class xxa becaus e of the schedule and professor, your registration slot affords you xxc, or no class at all.  waiting a whole semester to try again for xxa is not the smart decision here.  having a job makes it easier to get another job.  being unemployed for 0  months because you keep turning down adequate work is not better than working and earning money for those 0 months.  that is an opportunity cost in the form of time that you ca not make up.  rash decisions with no thought in no time are just as bad as measured decisions with great thought in lots of time.  because time is a resource that is only lost.  and the more time you lose, the less opportunity you have.  deliberation is good, but action more often than not is better than inaction.  even when the action that is not fully thought out.  that is why the first mover advantage can often be so critical to success in business.  indecisiveness is worse than a bad decision, because in many more circumstances than not, some action is better than no action.   #  it is not like there is a universal formula to calculate that cost, but that does not mean it does not exist.   #  i think reality requires a certain balance.  you are right that making rash decisions is worse than taking the time to reason out a decision.  but inaction breeds its own problems too.  i think that where that balance lies largely depends on the decision.  for instance, if you are working with other people, if you take to long to make a decision for a project, it can negatively impact the performance of those other people.  for every decision there is some cost to delaying, but what that cost is will differ on a case by case basis.  it is not like there is a universal formula to calculate that cost, but that does not mean it does not exist.   #  indecisiveness is not as good as a bad choice in my opinion.   #  i think in software there are three things that are important: speed of development, quality and cost.  it is important for a piece of software to be made as quick as possible, as good as it can be and as cheaply as possible.  they are equally important and you need to balance them depending on your factors.  indecisiveness is not as good as a bad choice in my opinion.  anytime i go out on a date and you ask a girl where she wants to go, she will say  i do not know, wherever you want .  do you think it is better to say  i do not know  back, or pick a place and take control of the situation ? those who take action are the ones who have power.   #  there is a layman is intro here URL and if you are into math i can scrounge up some more academic papers.   #  there is a break even point for delaying decisions.  when faced with a decision, there is a certain degree of uncertainty as to the value you will receive.  delaying a decision reduces this uncertainty and increases the likelihood you will make a decision that results in maximum value for you.  to find the break even point you would solve for d from something like: ev decision d ev decision 0 delay cost   d where d is the time delayed and ev decision gives the expected value of the decision as a function of time delayed.  game theory is the field that studies these kinds of questions.  there is a layman is intro here URL and if you are into math i can scrounge up some more academic papers.   #  give me one example of someone who is successful/happy without making bad decisions ?  #  0.  staying indecisive prevents you from the risks of making a bad decision, but also withholds you from the benefits of making a good decision.  risk and benefit are two faces of the same medal.  0.  a bad decision is not necessarily a bad thing, you can learn from it to make better decisions in the future.  it is just dealing with the consequences that makes things uncomfortable, but so may being indecisive as well.  i even think that people need to make bad decisions to become more wise and with that more successful/happy in life.  give me one example of someone who is successful/happy without making bad decisions ? 00 0.  given the possible positive outcome of your decision or the things you can learn from a bad decision, there is no net advantage in indecisiveness over making the actual decision.
when making a decision, taking long amounts of time to analyse and consider one is options is more beneficial than making a decision that is regretful.  as one can make the most informed decision with all information and research that is available, why be rash.  for some, it may come down to choosing what food to eat, what course to take, what job to take, what direction to go in life.  others have the incentive of going with immediate decisions without making an informed choice, which i would reason, ends up in regret.  cmv  #  others have the incentive of going with immediate decisions without making an informed choice, which i would reason, ends up in regret.   #  rash decisions with no thought in no time are just as bad as measured decisions with great thought in lots of time.   # unless you are on a time schedule.  in which case taking long amounts of time is going to result in a failure to act.  because you ca not always sit around and deliberate on decisions.  many decisions routinely require action immediately, or sooner than possible to collect all relevant information.  taking your time to decide which class you want to take is not always practical when there are limited slots and you are not in a position to pick what you want.  so while  perfect  information dictates you should take class xxa becaus e of the schedule and professor, your registration slot affords you xxc, or no class at all.  waiting a whole semester to try again for xxa is not the smart decision here.  having a job makes it easier to get another job.  being unemployed for 0  months because you keep turning down adequate work is not better than working and earning money for those 0 months.  that is an opportunity cost in the form of time that you ca not make up.  rash decisions with no thought in no time are just as bad as measured decisions with great thought in lots of time.  because time is a resource that is only lost.  and the more time you lose, the less opportunity you have.  deliberation is good, but action more often than not is better than inaction.  even when the action that is not fully thought out.  that is why the first mover advantage can often be so critical to success in business.  indecisiveness is worse than a bad decision, because in many more circumstances than not, some action is better than no action.   #  it is not like there is a universal formula to calculate that cost, but that does not mean it does not exist.   #  i think reality requires a certain balance.  you are right that making rash decisions is worse than taking the time to reason out a decision.  but inaction breeds its own problems too.  i think that where that balance lies largely depends on the decision.  for instance, if you are working with other people, if you take to long to make a decision for a project, it can negatively impact the performance of those other people.  for every decision there is some cost to delaying, but what that cost is will differ on a case by case basis.  it is not like there is a universal formula to calculate that cost, but that does not mean it does not exist.   #  i think in software there are three things that are important: speed of development, quality and cost.   #  i think in software there are three things that are important: speed of development, quality and cost.  it is important for a piece of software to be made as quick as possible, as good as it can be and as cheaply as possible.  they are equally important and you need to balance them depending on your factors.  indecisiveness is not as good as a bad choice in my opinion.  anytime i go out on a date and you ask a girl where she wants to go, she will say  i do not know, wherever you want .  do you think it is better to say  i do not know  back, or pick a place and take control of the situation ? those who take action are the ones who have power.   #  game theory is the field that studies these kinds of questions.   #  there is a break even point for delaying decisions.  when faced with a decision, there is a certain degree of uncertainty as to the value you will receive.  delaying a decision reduces this uncertainty and increases the likelihood you will make a decision that results in maximum value for you.  to find the break even point you would solve for d from something like: ev decision d ev decision 0 delay cost   d where d is the time delayed and ev decision gives the expected value of the decision as a function of time delayed.  game theory is the field that studies these kinds of questions.  there is a layman is intro here URL and if you are into math i can scrounge up some more academic papers.   #  i even think that people need to make bad decisions to become more wise and with that more successful/happy in life.   #  0.  staying indecisive prevents you from the risks of making a bad decision, but also withholds you from the benefits of making a good decision.  risk and benefit are two faces of the same medal.  0.  a bad decision is not necessarily a bad thing, you can learn from it to make better decisions in the future.  it is just dealing with the consequences that makes things uncomfortable, but so may being indecisive as well.  i even think that people need to make bad decisions to become more wise and with that more successful/happy in life.  give me one example of someone who is successful/happy without making bad decisions ? 00 0.  given the possible positive outcome of your decision or the things you can learn from a bad decision, there is no net advantage in indecisiveness over making the actual decision.
bitcoin has been around for some years now.  it has been used to generate income, exchange money anonymously, and assist criminal organizations.  bitcoin is a great and incredible feat.  it has many advantages, but i feel that since it is an unregulated currency it is easy to use for nefarious purposes.  one of the biggest users of bitcoin was silk road, the drug trafficking organization in the us.  bitcoin provided an easy simple way for them to transfer large sums of their money to other recipients quickly, effectively, and anonymously.  when silk road was finally shut down this URL happened to bitcoin.  if silk road utilized that much of bitcoin, imagine how much more of it is being used for other criminal organizations.  i do not see any solution to this issue except that the governments would have to deal with it on their own and take the organizations down from their sides.  the next question you ask yourself is, is that fair to the government ? should they be spending so much more effort, so many more of our tax dollars to try and break an organization, that could be severely crippled by being unable to use bitcoin to transfer their purchases ? these are all questions that i am asking myself and are pointing me in the direction to believe that bitcoin, while useful, does more harm than good in the long run.   #  one of the biggest users of bitcoin was silk road, the drug trafficking organization in the us.   #  stop saying bitcoin is mostly used for drugs.   # stop saying bitcoin is mostly used for drugs.  only a small fraction URL of all bitcoin transactions are related to the drug trade.  bitcoin is  terrible  for crime.  if you make a transaction on the silk road,  that transaction will be around until final days of the bitcoin network .  it is pseudo anonymous, so if a criminal messes up and is found to contain a wallet with criminal coins 0 years from now.  they are bona fide guilty.  if they try to cash out at an exchange with their name on it, the trail can be easily traced.  if this was not the case, then the file that contained ross ulbrict is bitcoins would not have been incriminating that he is the leader of the site.  that is why actual money laundering and drug money is done through banks.  currency from hsbc mexico, allowing for money laundering, prosecutors said.  the bank also violated u. s.  economic sanctions against iran, libya, sudan, burma and cuba, according to a criminal information filed in the case  so why do people say that bitcoin is used for the drug trade ? quite simply, it makes great headlines during slow news days.  matt miller from bloomberg explains this quite simply in an interview.  youtube, time 0:0 URL   you are not going to do a story about some guy buying his groceries with bitcoin, or buying your nephew a present with bitcoin because it is not as interesting.  and then also at time 0:0 URL  #  should we ban cars because criminals use them for human trafficking and robbing banks ?  #  banks are heavily regulated.  hsbc got in a load of trouble for laundering money.  did regulation stop them ? they got a small fine and resumed business like it was nothing.  what makes you believe they wo not do it again, seeing how little they were hit for it ? what about other banks that have not been caught ? do you think they are scared of laundering money for profit if all they get from being caught is a small fine ? regulation does little to prevent criminal organizations.  illegal markets are a multi trillion dollar market.  should we ban the us dollar too, since it is the 0 currency used by criminal organizations ? bitcoin is self regulating.  as the blockchain is publicly available, you can see when money is moved and where.  this makes bitcoin not very ideal for criminals, as it is easily tracked by law enforcement.  cash will always be the ideal currency of criminals.  bitcoin has its perks as well.  it is a secure payment network with lower fees than credit cards/paypal.  it is cryptography ensures that paying someone does not enable the seller to access your funds,unlike credit cards.  as a freelance writer, i can receive payments for my work without the fees from paypal, and not have to give any sensitive information to anyone on the internet.  bitcoin can protect people in third world countries from inflationary currency once its value stabilizes, as it is proven by math to be limited to 0 million coins.  the biggest harm i think bitcoin has in the long run is not criminal use, but the massive waste of energy it causes.  millions of kilowatts are wasted mining, and this number grows larger as bitcoin grows bigger.   mining  does nothing except pointless math that acts as a means of decentralizing the network.  proof of work coins such as peercoin are more economically efficient as they do not waste as much power.  but with all technologies comes a cost.  should we ban cars because criminals use them for human trafficking and robbing banks ? should we ban the internet because it makes distributing child pornography easier for criminals ? technology makes life easier for everyone, sadly it makes life easier for criminals too.   #  i completely agree with that last statement too.   #  you introduce some very good points.  no you should not ban cars, because criminals use them, for a number of reasons.  the criminal to noncriminal ratio is much lower for cars than bitcoin is and i could venture to say that the police are the  aregulators  for cars/coins.  we do not have police for bitcoin, which is a big issue.  for child pornography i believe it is once again a much smaller criminal to noncriminal ratio and there are regulators in this case.  the websites they use, their isp is, the people they talk to.  they could all turn them in, but no one can catch you using bitcoin and report you, because they do not know what you are using the money for since it is anonymous.  i completely agree with that last statement too.   #  every single dollar in your pocket and bank account represents absolutely nothing but your country is debt to its central bank.   # they could all turn them in, this is the purpose of deepweb, and there is much worse there than child pornography.  it is not as simple as an isp saying  oh hay, that guy downloaded child pornography  or banning the tools used to access the deep web because, like bitcoin, those tools serve a legitimate purpose.  speaking of legitimacy: are you aware of how your money is made ? it comes from a central bank that is not owned by the federal government.  every single penny of the us currency is created from nothingness and loaned out to our government by the privately owned central bank with interest.  by this very system you and your country are obligated to repay a debt that could never possibly be repaid.  every single dollar in your pocket and bank account represents absolutely nothing but your country is debt to its central bank.  spiraling back to the topic at hand: eliminating the bitcoin, and thus all crypto currency by affiliation, because it can be used by criminals is like banning carrying cash because you can use it to buy illegal goods or services.  one of the biggest reasons i support these currencies is because they are not controlled by a central bank like the dollars in my bank account.  they are not generated from nothingness, each coin represents at least in part a solution and only a finite number of these solutions can possibly exist.  they are, therefore, in fact a currency not a symbol for debt owed.   #  you have to give all sorts of information and go through background checks just to even buy or sell bitcoins.   #  there is some fallacies in your post.  first off, it is not really anonymous.  every transaction is recorded via the blockchain.  for example, here is the transaction in which i purchased reddit gold for someone : URL here is the transaction where i ordered a pizza: URL look at the front page of blockchain. info; you can see every transaction happening in real time.  there are other sites that display this as its publicly available information.  tell me, why would a criminal want the cops being able to know where there money is going and coming from ? can you show me links to all of the transactions where you paid with cash ? cash is anonymous too.  also, most bitcoins come from exchanges, which are regulated.  you have to give all sorts of information and go through background checks just to even buy or sell bitcoins.  it is crazy.
i do not think you are primitive and cruel if you eat meat, i think you are a victim of circumstance like everyone else and have that choice made for you by your culture.  but i do think the practice of eating animals is gross, primitive and cruel.  when i see a raw steak i get the same feeling an average person would get if they saw a steak cut from a human.  i think it was necessary for us to eat meat when we lived in resource scarcity but since we can sustain ourselves without meat i think its cruel and unnecessary to kill them for food.  they are alive, they are conscious, and we are only just starting to understand how intelligent a lot of animals are.  they were born and they deserve to die naturally instead of being locked up in disgusting conditions, suffering until they die.  i am a sort of buddhist who believes unless you are stuck in the jungle in a survival of the fittest situation, you have no moral justification to eat meat, cmv.   #  i do not think you are primitive and cruel if you eat meat, i think you are a victim of circumstance like everyone else and have that choice made for you by your culture.   #  straight people are straight not because they chose to, but because they are victims of circumstance like everyone else and have had that choice made for them.   # straight people are straight not because they chose to, but because they are victims of circumstance like everyone else and have had that choice made for them.  except, with a global population of over 0 billion, we cannot necessarily sustain ourselves completely without meat.  if you plan to supplant meat proteins with plant proteins, be prepared to bulldoze hundreds of thousands of natural forests and jungles to make way for soy fields.  the  big 0  meat animals, beef, chicken, and pork, come from animals that are not actually that intelligent.  in fact, all three do not possess the ability of self recognition URL which is a benchmark for intelligence.  if it ca not recognize itself in a mirror, i would say it is a far stretch to say that it can comprehend its own death.  much of our society is based on survival of the fittest.  the fact that humans have turned the farming and slaughtering of animals for consumption into a global industry is evidence of the fact that humans have effectively  won  the survival of the fittest in many parts of the world, and are exercising the victory through the taming, breeding, and eating of animals.   #  if we did not raise our meat animals for food, we would not raise them at all.   #  if we did not raise our meat animals for food, we would not raise them at all.  how many pigs would exist in a vegetarian society ? we all need to kill to live.  from our immune systems to pest control to resource competition, we are all only here because lots of other things are not.  we are all little walking holocausts, really.  how many mice could live on the food, space and energy you consume ? how many cows could live on the ground devoted to the grains you eat ? then you have this idea of dying  naturally .  yes, let them die of the cold, or infection, or being too arthritic to eat, or a broken leg.  have you  seen  feral horses URL for the sake of fuck ? yeah, no, fuck that.  there is nothing free and noble about the wild.  it is the knife edge of starvation, with disease and maggots and injury and parasites and senility all acting to keep suffering at a maximum.  i do not want to die naturally.  i want to either die floating on a hell of a lot of morphine, or very quickly indeed.  a life with plentiful food, freedom from disease, predators, parasites and danger is nothing to be sniffed at and a quick, painless death with a stun bolt is a lot better than the vast majority of wild animals could ever hope for.  someone once pointed out that as a species, wheat has done a magnificent job of domesticating humans; we are its devoted servants, stripping vast tracts of lands of all competition, sowing, nurturing, nourishing, and protecting it, then scattering its seeds even further, all in exchange for a few surplus carbohydrates.  it is even co opted us into  improving its genetics  to make it more prolific and resistant to disease.  i put it to you that cows, pigs and sheep have also made a pretty fucking admirable effort in the same vein.  now, i will absolutely grant you that horrible factory farming methods are cruel to the point of absolute evil.  anything with the capacity for pain and pleasure should, if we are raising it, have freedom from hunger, freedom from discomfort, and freedom to express natural behaviours and factory farms fail miserably on those counts.  the most effective fix for that is to increase the market share of ethically farmed, humanely slaughtered animals.  buy your pork chops from a free range, sustainable, humane producer, and enjoy them guilt free.  with barbecue sauce, because it is delicious.   #  sure our immune system kills bacteria but we do not choose that, does our murdering immune system mean that indiscriminately killing humans and other animals is ok ?  # what is the value in having a high population if they are all in factory farms ? why does it matter how many of them there is ? from our immune systems to pest control to resource competition, we are all only here because lots of other things are not.  we are all little walking holocausts, really.  we do not need to  choose  to kill in order to live.  sure our immune system kills bacteria but we do not choose that, does our murdering immune system mean that indiscriminately killing humans and other animals is ok ? the point is that you can survive and kill less.  specifically, live not making the choice to kill which we do not need to do directly at least, unless we are attacked .  yes, let them die of the cold, or infection, or being too arthritic to eat, or a broken leg.  have you seen feral horses for the sake of fuck ? yeah, no, fuck that.  the dying isnt what interests me, its the living.  if someone gave me the choice to live in captivity and die painlessly or live free and die naturally likely painfully i wouldnt need much time to make that choice.  millions of years of evolutionary instinct is telling them and i to live free and we deny them that.  they are all the bastard children of genetic freaks.  how has the pig improved in the wild boar ?  #  think hard about that question and its implications.   # think hard about that question and its implications.  if it does not matter how many there are, then it does not matter if i have a couple for dinner.  are you saying it is not the killing, but the intent ? if so, it is easy.  raise kids not to know what meat is, and leave them innocent of even third hand intent, problem solved.  as it is, i do not choose to kill, i choose to have sausages for dinner.  they do not  have  a concept of captivity and even if you could explain it to them, they would still go where the food is.  they lack the concept entirely.  they may have the instinct to  wander , but given sufficient space to move around, they will remain roughly where the food and water is.  off you go, live free.  leave your home you are prisoner inside, the job you are a slave to, the society you must obey, and go squat in the woods until you die, and tell me how much you like it.  you will be back before you even run out of toilet paper.  stop being so bloody anthtopomorphic.  how has the pig improved in the wild boar ? limitless numbers, vast amounts of food for zero effort, an amazing lack of parasites and disease, custom made shelter provided, no fear in their daily existence.  for a species, that is a pretty fucking sweet deal.   #  it is individual who suffers, and who should be the focus of concern.   #  domesticated animals ca not go into the wild, sure.  but so what ? what is positvie for an individual about their species being large ? it is individual who suffers, and who should be the focus of concern.  let the numbers drop and have a few pigs live nice lives on some zoo farms or whatever.  sheeps still give wool and can be kept, and chickens give eggs.  cows give milk and i am not opposed to that but current practices are horrible, so if that was regulated it would be ok.
i do not think you are primitive and cruel if you eat meat, i think you are a victim of circumstance like everyone else and have that choice made for you by your culture.  but i do think the practice of eating animals is gross, primitive and cruel.  when i see a raw steak i get the same feeling an average person would get if they saw a steak cut from a human.  i think it was necessary for us to eat meat when we lived in resource scarcity but since we can sustain ourselves without meat i think its cruel and unnecessary to kill them for food.  they are alive, they are conscious, and we are only just starting to understand how intelligent a lot of animals are.  they were born and they deserve to die naturally instead of being locked up in disgusting conditions, suffering until they die.  i am a sort of buddhist who believes unless you are stuck in the jungle in a survival of the fittest situation, you have no moral justification to eat meat, cmv.   #  i think it was necessary for us to eat meat when we lived in resource scarcity but since we can sustain ourselves without meat i think its cruel and unnecessary to kill them for food.   #  except, with a global population of over 0 billion, we cannot necessarily sustain ourselves completely without meat.   # straight people are straight not because they chose to, but because they are victims of circumstance like everyone else and have had that choice made for them.  except, with a global population of over 0 billion, we cannot necessarily sustain ourselves completely without meat.  if you plan to supplant meat proteins with plant proteins, be prepared to bulldoze hundreds of thousands of natural forests and jungles to make way for soy fields.  the  big 0  meat animals, beef, chicken, and pork, come from animals that are not actually that intelligent.  in fact, all three do not possess the ability of self recognition URL which is a benchmark for intelligence.  if it ca not recognize itself in a mirror, i would say it is a far stretch to say that it can comprehend its own death.  much of our society is based on survival of the fittest.  the fact that humans have turned the farming and slaughtering of animals for consumption into a global industry is evidence of the fact that humans have effectively  won  the survival of the fittest in many parts of the world, and are exercising the victory through the taming, breeding, and eating of animals.   #  there is nothing free and noble about the wild.   #  if we did not raise our meat animals for food, we would not raise them at all.  how many pigs would exist in a vegetarian society ? we all need to kill to live.  from our immune systems to pest control to resource competition, we are all only here because lots of other things are not.  we are all little walking holocausts, really.  how many mice could live on the food, space and energy you consume ? how many cows could live on the ground devoted to the grains you eat ? then you have this idea of dying  naturally .  yes, let them die of the cold, or infection, or being too arthritic to eat, or a broken leg.  have you  seen  feral horses URL for the sake of fuck ? yeah, no, fuck that.  there is nothing free and noble about the wild.  it is the knife edge of starvation, with disease and maggots and injury and parasites and senility all acting to keep suffering at a maximum.  i do not want to die naturally.  i want to either die floating on a hell of a lot of morphine, or very quickly indeed.  a life with plentiful food, freedom from disease, predators, parasites and danger is nothing to be sniffed at and a quick, painless death with a stun bolt is a lot better than the vast majority of wild animals could ever hope for.  someone once pointed out that as a species, wheat has done a magnificent job of domesticating humans; we are its devoted servants, stripping vast tracts of lands of all competition, sowing, nurturing, nourishing, and protecting it, then scattering its seeds even further, all in exchange for a few surplus carbohydrates.  it is even co opted us into  improving its genetics  to make it more prolific and resistant to disease.  i put it to you that cows, pigs and sheep have also made a pretty fucking admirable effort in the same vein.  now, i will absolutely grant you that horrible factory farming methods are cruel to the point of absolute evil.  anything with the capacity for pain and pleasure should, if we are raising it, have freedom from hunger, freedom from discomfort, and freedom to express natural behaviours and factory farms fail miserably on those counts.  the most effective fix for that is to increase the market share of ethically farmed, humanely slaughtered animals.  buy your pork chops from a free range, sustainable, humane producer, and enjoy them guilt free.  with barbecue sauce, because it is delicious.   #  specifically, live not making the choice to kill which we do not need to do directly at least, unless we are attacked .   # what is the value in having a high population if they are all in factory farms ? why does it matter how many of them there is ? from our immune systems to pest control to resource competition, we are all only here because lots of other things are not.  we are all little walking holocausts, really.  we do not need to  choose  to kill in order to live.  sure our immune system kills bacteria but we do not choose that, does our murdering immune system mean that indiscriminately killing humans and other animals is ok ? the point is that you can survive and kill less.  specifically, live not making the choice to kill which we do not need to do directly at least, unless we are attacked .  yes, let them die of the cold, or infection, or being too arthritic to eat, or a broken leg.  have you seen feral horses for the sake of fuck ? yeah, no, fuck that.  the dying isnt what interests me, its the living.  if someone gave me the choice to live in captivity and die painlessly or live free and die naturally likely painfully i wouldnt need much time to make that choice.  millions of years of evolutionary instinct is telling them and i to live free and we deny them that.  they are all the bastard children of genetic freaks.  how has the pig improved in the wild boar ?  #  are you saying it is not the killing, but the intent ?  # think hard about that question and its implications.  if it does not matter how many there are, then it does not matter if i have a couple for dinner.  are you saying it is not the killing, but the intent ? if so, it is easy.  raise kids not to know what meat is, and leave them innocent of even third hand intent, problem solved.  as it is, i do not choose to kill, i choose to have sausages for dinner.  they do not  have  a concept of captivity and even if you could explain it to them, they would still go where the food is.  they lack the concept entirely.  they may have the instinct to  wander , but given sufficient space to move around, they will remain roughly where the food and water is.  off you go, live free.  leave your home you are prisoner inside, the job you are a slave to, the society you must obey, and go squat in the woods until you die, and tell me how much you like it.  you will be back before you even run out of toilet paper.  stop being so bloody anthtopomorphic.  how has the pig improved in the wild boar ? limitless numbers, vast amounts of food for zero effort, an amazing lack of parasites and disease, custom made shelter provided, no fear in their daily existence.  for a species, that is a pretty fucking sweet deal.   #  what is positvie for an individual about their species being large ?  #  domesticated animals ca not go into the wild, sure.  but so what ? what is positvie for an individual about their species being large ? it is individual who suffers, and who should be the focus of concern.  let the numbers drop and have a few pigs live nice lives on some zoo farms or whatever.  sheeps still give wool and can be kept, and chickens give eggs.  cows give milk and i am not opposed to that but current practices are horrible, so if that was regulated it would be ok.
i do not think you are primitive and cruel if you eat meat, i think you are a victim of circumstance like everyone else and have that choice made for you by your culture.  but i do think the practice of eating animals is gross, primitive and cruel.  when i see a raw steak i get the same feeling an average person would get if they saw a steak cut from a human.  i think it was necessary for us to eat meat when we lived in resource scarcity but since we can sustain ourselves without meat i think its cruel and unnecessary to kill them for food.  they are alive, they are conscious, and we are only just starting to understand how intelligent a lot of animals are.  they were born and they deserve to die naturally instead of being locked up in disgusting conditions, suffering until they die.  i am a sort of buddhist who believes unless you are stuck in the jungle in a survival of the fittest situation, you have no moral justification to eat meat, cmv.   #  they are alive, they are conscious, and we are only just starting to understand how intelligent a lot of animals are.   #  the  big 0  meat animals, beef, chicken, and pork, come from animals that are not actually that intelligent.   # straight people are straight not because they chose to, but because they are victims of circumstance like everyone else and have had that choice made for them.  except, with a global population of over 0 billion, we cannot necessarily sustain ourselves completely without meat.  if you plan to supplant meat proteins with plant proteins, be prepared to bulldoze hundreds of thousands of natural forests and jungles to make way for soy fields.  the  big 0  meat animals, beef, chicken, and pork, come from animals that are not actually that intelligent.  in fact, all three do not possess the ability of self recognition URL which is a benchmark for intelligence.  if it ca not recognize itself in a mirror, i would say it is a far stretch to say that it can comprehend its own death.  much of our society is based on survival of the fittest.  the fact that humans have turned the farming and slaughtering of animals for consumption into a global industry is evidence of the fact that humans have effectively  won  the survival of the fittest in many parts of the world, and are exercising the victory through the taming, breeding, and eating of animals.   #  from our immune systems to pest control to resource competition, we are all only here because lots of other things are not.   #  if we did not raise our meat animals for food, we would not raise them at all.  how many pigs would exist in a vegetarian society ? we all need to kill to live.  from our immune systems to pest control to resource competition, we are all only here because lots of other things are not.  we are all little walking holocausts, really.  how many mice could live on the food, space and energy you consume ? how many cows could live on the ground devoted to the grains you eat ? then you have this idea of dying  naturally .  yes, let them die of the cold, or infection, or being too arthritic to eat, or a broken leg.  have you  seen  feral horses URL for the sake of fuck ? yeah, no, fuck that.  there is nothing free and noble about the wild.  it is the knife edge of starvation, with disease and maggots and injury and parasites and senility all acting to keep suffering at a maximum.  i do not want to die naturally.  i want to either die floating on a hell of a lot of morphine, or very quickly indeed.  a life with plentiful food, freedom from disease, predators, parasites and danger is nothing to be sniffed at and a quick, painless death with a stun bolt is a lot better than the vast majority of wild animals could ever hope for.  someone once pointed out that as a species, wheat has done a magnificent job of domesticating humans; we are its devoted servants, stripping vast tracts of lands of all competition, sowing, nurturing, nourishing, and protecting it, then scattering its seeds even further, all in exchange for a few surplus carbohydrates.  it is even co opted us into  improving its genetics  to make it more prolific and resistant to disease.  i put it to you that cows, pigs and sheep have also made a pretty fucking admirable effort in the same vein.  now, i will absolutely grant you that horrible factory farming methods are cruel to the point of absolute evil.  anything with the capacity for pain and pleasure should, if we are raising it, have freedom from hunger, freedom from discomfort, and freedom to express natural behaviours and factory farms fail miserably on those counts.  the most effective fix for that is to increase the market share of ethically farmed, humanely slaughtered animals.  buy your pork chops from a free range, sustainable, humane producer, and enjoy them guilt free.  with barbecue sauce, because it is delicious.   #  what is the value in having a high population if they are all in factory farms ?  # what is the value in having a high population if they are all in factory farms ? why does it matter how many of them there is ? from our immune systems to pest control to resource competition, we are all only here because lots of other things are not.  we are all little walking holocausts, really.  we do not need to  choose  to kill in order to live.  sure our immune system kills bacteria but we do not choose that, does our murdering immune system mean that indiscriminately killing humans and other animals is ok ? the point is that you can survive and kill less.  specifically, live not making the choice to kill which we do not need to do directly at least, unless we are attacked .  yes, let them die of the cold, or infection, or being too arthritic to eat, or a broken leg.  have you seen feral horses for the sake of fuck ? yeah, no, fuck that.  the dying isnt what interests me, its the living.  if someone gave me the choice to live in captivity and die painlessly or live free and die naturally likely painfully i wouldnt need much time to make that choice.  millions of years of evolutionary instinct is telling them and i to live free and we deny them that.  they are all the bastard children of genetic freaks.  how has the pig improved in the wild boar ?  #  think hard about that question and its implications.   # think hard about that question and its implications.  if it does not matter how many there are, then it does not matter if i have a couple for dinner.  are you saying it is not the killing, but the intent ? if so, it is easy.  raise kids not to know what meat is, and leave them innocent of even third hand intent, problem solved.  as it is, i do not choose to kill, i choose to have sausages for dinner.  they do not  have  a concept of captivity and even if you could explain it to them, they would still go where the food is.  they lack the concept entirely.  they may have the instinct to  wander , but given sufficient space to move around, they will remain roughly where the food and water is.  off you go, live free.  leave your home you are prisoner inside, the job you are a slave to, the society you must obey, and go squat in the woods until you die, and tell me how much you like it.  you will be back before you even run out of toilet paper.  stop being so bloody anthtopomorphic.  how has the pig improved in the wild boar ? limitless numbers, vast amounts of food for zero effort, an amazing lack of parasites and disease, custom made shelter provided, no fear in their daily existence.  for a species, that is a pretty fucking sweet deal.   #  what is positvie for an individual about their species being large ?  #  domesticated animals ca not go into the wild, sure.  but so what ? what is positvie for an individual about their species being large ? it is individual who suffers, and who should be the focus of concern.  let the numbers drop and have a few pigs live nice lives on some zoo farms or whatever.  sheeps still give wool and can be kept, and chickens give eggs.  cows give milk and i am not opposed to that but current practices are horrible, so if that was regulated it would be ok.
i do not think you are primitive and cruel if you eat meat, i think you are a victim of circumstance like everyone else and have that choice made for you by your culture.  but i do think the practice of eating animals is gross, primitive and cruel.  when i see a raw steak i get the same feeling an average person would get if they saw a steak cut from a human.  i think it was necessary for us to eat meat when we lived in resource scarcity but since we can sustain ourselves without meat i think its cruel and unnecessary to kill them for food.  they are alive, they are conscious, and we are only just starting to understand how intelligent a lot of animals are.  they were born and they deserve to die naturally instead of being locked up in disgusting conditions, suffering until they die.  i am a sort of buddhist who believes unless you are stuck in the jungle in a survival of the fittest situation, you have no moral justification to eat meat, cmv.   #  i am a sort of buddhist who believes unless you are stuck in the jungle in a survival of the fittest situation, you have no moral justification to eat meat, cmv.   #  much of our society is based on survival of the fittest.   # straight people are straight not because they chose to, but because they are victims of circumstance like everyone else and have had that choice made for them.  except, with a global population of over 0 billion, we cannot necessarily sustain ourselves completely without meat.  if you plan to supplant meat proteins with plant proteins, be prepared to bulldoze hundreds of thousands of natural forests and jungles to make way for soy fields.  the  big 0  meat animals, beef, chicken, and pork, come from animals that are not actually that intelligent.  in fact, all three do not possess the ability of self recognition URL which is a benchmark for intelligence.  if it ca not recognize itself in a mirror, i would say it is a far stretch to say that it can comprehend its own death.  much of our society is based on survival of the fittest.  the fact that humans have turned the farming and slaughtering of animals for consumption into a global industry is evidence of the fact that humans have effectively  won  the survival of the fittest in many parts of the world, and are exercising the victory through the taming, breeding, and eating of animals.   #  from our immune systems to pest control to resource competition, we are all only here because lots of other things are not.   #  if we did not raise our meat animals for food, we would not raise them at all.  how many pigs would exist in a vegetarian society ? we all need to kill to live.  from our immune systems to pest control to resource competition, we are all only here because lots of other things are not.  we are all little walking holocausts, really.  how many mice could live on the food, space and energy you consume ? how many cows could live on the ground devoted to the grains you eat ? then you have this idea of dying  naturally .  yes, let them die of the cold, or infection, or being too arthritic to eat, or a broken leg.  have you  seen  feral horses URL for the sake of fuck ? yeah, no, fuck that.  there is nothing free and noble about the wild.  it is the knife edge of starvation, with disease and maggots and injury and parasites and senility all acting to keep suffering at a maximum.  i do not want to die naturally.  i want to either die floating on a hell of a lot of morphine, or very quickly indeed.  a life with plentiful food, freedom from disease, predators, parasites and danger is nothing to be sniffed at and a quick, painless death with a stun bolt is a lot better than the vast majority of wild animals could ever hope for.  someone once pointed out that as a species, wheat has done a magnificent job of domesticating humans; we are its devoted servants, stripping vast tracts of lands of all competition, sowing, nurturing, nourishing, and protecting it, then scattering its seeds even further, all in exchange for a few surplus carbohydrates.  it is even co opted us into  improving its genetics  to make it more prolific and resistant to disease.  i put it to you that cows, pigs and sheep have also made a pretty fucking admirable effort in the same vein.  now, i will absolutely grant you that horrible factory farming methods are cruel to the point of absolute evil.  anything with the capacity for pain and pleasure should, if we are raising it, have freedom from hunger, freedom from discomfort, and freedom to express natural behaviours and factory farms fail miserably on those counts.  the most effective fix for that is to increase the market share of ethically farmed, humanely slaughtered animals.  buy your pork chops from a free range, sustainable, humane producer, and enjoy them guilt free.  with barbecue sauce, because it is delicious.   #  what is the value in having a high population if they are all in factory farms ?  # what is the value in having a high population if they are all in factory farms ? why does it matter how many of them there is ? from our immune systems to pest control to resource competition, we are all only here because lots of other things are not.  we are all little walking holocausts, really.  we do not need to  choose  to kill in order to live.  sure our immune system kills bacteria but we do not choose that, does our murdering immune system mean that indiscriminately killing humans and other animals is ok ? the point is that you can survive and kill less.  specifically, live not making the choice to kill which we do not need to do directly at least, unless we are attacked .  yes, let them die of the cold, or infection, or being too arthritic to eat, or a broken leg.  have you seen feral horses for the sake of fuck ? yeah, no, fuck that.  the dying isnt what interests me, its the living.  if someone gave me the choice to live in captivity and die painlessly or live free and die naturally likely painfully i wouldnt need much time to make that choice.  millions of years of evolutionary instinct is telling them and i to live free and we deny them that.  they are all the bastard children of genetic freaks.  how has the pig improved in the wild boar ?  #  as it is, i do not choose to kill, i choose to have sausages for dinner.   # think hard about that question and its implications.  if it does not matter how many there are, then it does not matter if i have a couple for dinner.  are you saying it is not the killing, but the intent ? if so, it is easy.  raise kids not to know what meat is, and leave them innocent of even third hand intent, problem solved.  as it is, i do not choose to kill, i choose to have sausages for dinner.  they do not  have  a concept of captivity and even if you could explain it to them, they would still go where the food is.  they lack the concept entirely.  they may have the instinct to  wander , but given sufficient space to move around, they will remain roughly where the food and water is.  off you go, live free.  leave your home you are prisoner inside, the job you are a slave to, the society you must obey, and go squat in the woods until you die, and tell me how much you like it.  you will be back before you even run out of toilet paper.  stop being so bloody anthtopomorphic.  how has the pig improved in the wild boar ? limitless numbers, vast amounts of food for zero effort, an amazing lack of parasites and disease, custom made shelter provided, no fear in their daily existence.  for a species, that is a pretty fucking sweet deal.   #  cows give milk and i am not opposed to that but current practices are horrible, so if that was regulated it would be ok.   #  domesticated animals ca not go into the wild, sure.  but so what ? what is positvie for an individual about their species being large ? it is individual who suffers, and who should be the focus of concern.  let the numbers drop and have a few pigs live nice lives on some zoo farms or whatever.  sheeps still give wool and can be kept, and chickens give eggs.  cows give milk and i am not opposed to that but current practices are horrible, so if that was regulated it would be ok.
i grew up on a farm that had livestock and i had been helping out in some capacity since i could walk.  my dad got out of dairy farming in the early 0 is crisis so when i was first walking in the barn i would fall in the shit gutter sometimes.  one time i was sucking milk off a teat and the cow kicked me into the gutter as my dad turned it on.  i was covered in shit and could not get out.  i ended up on top of the shit pile outside.  after this he got into pigs and i was paid in beanie babies and legos for my efforts pitching the shit.  i have been through a lot of stuff and the only time i had ever been seriously sick was when i had chickenpox.  it got to the point that whenever there was a serious flu i would do stuff like ask potentially sick people to cough in my face and lick doorknobs.  when i was in college a flu got about a third of my dorm and i did the same thing.  i got the sniffles a little but a lot of people were down hard.   #  my dad got out of dairy farming in the early 0 is crisis so when i was first walking in the barn i would fall in the shit gutter sometimes.   #  just because you liked being covered in shit does not mean every other child will.   # just because you liked being covered in shit does not mean every other child will.  the years of bullying and social abuse are hardly worth not getting some sniffles once in a while.  i was covered in shit and could not get out.  i ended up on top of the shit pile outside.  again, not everyone likes rolling in shit.   #  antibiotics was a part of it, but better hygiene also played a huge role.   #  if you want to convince us that it is a good idea, describing your  shitty  experience is not the best way to do it.  : nobody wants to experience what you just described.  as for health issues it is true that research shows  some  exposure can be beneficial for your immune system.  but at the end of the day most people do get exposed to a variety of pathogens in their daily lives anyway, because we do not live in sterile environment.  with the world globalizing faster and faster, there will be even more variety in the future, whether we want it or not.  you do not need to literally eat cow is shit, that is sounds like a health hazard.  also, if you look at statistics, in the last century we have seen a big decrease in people dying from infections.  antibiotics was a part of it, but better hygiene also played a huge role.  you ca not just dismiss it because of your personal anecdotal experience.   #  places in the world that have bad hygiene suffer a lot more from infectious diseases.   #  i do not eat cow shit, yet my blood cells are on patrol too.  you are overestimating how much difference extra exposure makes.  unless you were living in a completely sterile environment, chances are you had enough exposure to develop a good immune system either way.  you are also underestimating the risks associated with extra exposure.  your immune system is not rambo.  no matter how much you train it, there is some shit it ca not easily deal with.  by not being hygienic you risk getting something serious that can permanently damage your health or even kill you.  most of all, statistical data does not support your conclusion.  places in the world that have bad hygiene suffer a lot more from infectious diseases.  the death rates are staggering, even when the red cross helps with antibiotics.  in unhygienic conditions it is really hard to stop the spread of a dangerous diseases.  countries with good hygiene have so few death due to infections, the main killers become heart issues and various cancers.   #  but then at the end of the day you take a hot shower and go to a clean bed.   #  there is  american farm  dirty sure, you play in the mud and sometimes you  fll in the shit gutter sometimes.   but then at the end of the day you take a hot shower and go to a clean bed.  there is also  indian slum  kind of dirty: URL now you are truly  dirty  for long periods of time with no access to reliable ways to clean yourself up.  that kind of dirt comes with increased risk of death from diarrhea related sicknesses, and other sicknesses.  i do not think that this kind of dirty is  better.    #  i am not saying you are wrong, just that you are only looking at it from your perspective.   #  some people just naturally have stronger immune systems too.  i know some people who really never get sick, and their hygiene is no different than mine.  on the flip side, i had a roommate in college who was horribly sick more than she was healthy, and she grew up on a farm incidentally though i do not think she was rolling in shit on a regular basis .  she ended up dropping out and moving back home half way through the year because of her health.  according to her sister, she was always sick growing up.  nothing ever too serious, but always worse than your common cold.  i am not saying you are wrong, just that you are only looking at it from your perspective.  there is plenty of other anecdotal evidence that the exact opposite is true as well.  and as others here have pointed out, scientific studies would be a better source than any anecdotal evidence.
i grew up on a farm that had livestock and i had been helping out in some capacity since i could walk.  my dad got out of dairy farming in the early 0 is crisis so when i was first walking in the barn i would fall in the shit gutter sometimes.  one time i was sucking milk off a teat and the cow kicked me into the gutter as my dad turned it on.  i was covered in shit and could not get out.  i ended up on top of the shit pile outside.  after this he got into pigs and i was paid in beanie babies and legos for my efforts pitching the shit.  i have been through a lot of stuff and the only time i had ever been seriously sick was when i had chickenpox.  it got to the point that whenever there was a serious flu i would do stuff like ask potentially sick people to cough in my face and lick doorknobs.  when i was in college a flu got about a third of my dorm and i did the same thing.  i got the sniffles a little but a lot of people were down hard.   #  and the cow kicked me into the gutter as my dad turned it on.   #  i was covered in shit and could not get out.   # just because you liked being covered in shit does not mean every other child will.  the years of bullying and social abuse are hardly worth not getting some sniffles once in a while.  i was covered in shit and could not get out.  i ended up on top of the shit pile outside.  again, not everyone likes rolling in shit.   #  but at the end of the day most people do get exposed to a variety of pathogens in their daily lives anyway, because we do not live in sterile environment.   #  if you want to convince us that it is a good idea, describing your  shitty  experience is not the best way to do it.  : nobody wants to experience what you just described.  as for health issues it is true that research shows  some  exposure can be beneficial for your immune system.  but at the end of the day most people do get exposed to a variety of pathogens in their daily lives anyway, because we do not live in sterile environment.  with the world globalizing faster and faster, there will be even more variety in the future, whether we want it or not.  you do not need to literally eat cow is shit, that is sounds like a health hazard.  also, if you look at statistics, in the last century we have seen a big decrease in people dying from infections.  antibiotics was a part of it, but better hygiene also played a huge role.  you ca not just dismiss it because of your personal anecdotal experience.   #  you are overestimating how much difference extra exposure makes.   #  i do not eat cow shit, yet my blood cells are on patrol too.  you are overestimating how much difference extra exposure makes.  unless you were living in a completely sterile environment, chances are you had enough exposure to develop a good immune system either way.  you are also underestimating the risks associated with extra exposure.  your immune system is not rambo.  no matter how much you train it, there is some shit it ca not easily deal with.  by not being hygienic you risk getting something serious that can permanently damage your health or even kill you.  most of all, statistical data does not support your conclusion.  places in the world that have bad hygiene suffer a lot more from infectious diseases.  the death rates are staggering, even when the red cross helps with antibiotics.  in unhygienic conditions it is really hard to stop the spread of a dangerous diseases.  countries with good hygiene have so few death due to infections, the main killers become heart issues and various cancers.   #  but then at the end of the day you take a hot shower and go to a clean bed.   #  there is  american farm  dirty sure, you play in the mud and sometimes you  fll in the shit gutter sometimes.   but then at the end of the day you take a hot shower and go to a clean bed.  there is also  indian slum  kind of dirty: URL now you are truly  dirty  for long periods of time with no access to reliable ways to clean yourself up.  that kind of dirt comes with increased risk of death from diarrhea related sicknesses, and other sicknesses.  i do not think that this kind of dirty is  better.    #  she ended up dropping out and moving back home half way through the year because of her health.   #  some people just naturally have stronger immune systems too.  i know some people who really never get sick, and their hygiene is no different than mine.  on the flip side, i had a roommate in college who was horribly sick more than she was healthy, and she grew up on a farm incidentally though i do not think she was rolling in shit on a regular basis .  she ended up dropping out and moving back home half way through the year because of her health.  according to her sister, she was always sick growing up.  nothing ever too serious, but always worse than your common cold.  i am not saying you are wrong, just that you are only looking at it from your perspective.  there is plenty of other anecdotal evidence that the exact opposite is true as well.  and as others here have pointed out, scientific studies would be a better source than any anecdotal evidence.
i have often heard that there is a difference between listening to an audiobook and reading the physical copy of the book.  in my own personal terms, i do not have a lot of free time.  when i am doing something that does not require a lot of concentration cleaning, traveling i will often listen to an audiobook.  my mind is focused on the story, but i am able to perform chores etc.  essentially, what is the difference between a book you read and a book narrated to you ? it is the same content by the same author.  the main counterarguments i can imagine are: 0 the main difference between listening to an audiobook and reading it off the page is the narrator/images in your head as audiobooks are influenced by whomever is reading it.  0 audiobooks do not require the same level of concentration as reading a physical copy of the book does.  this might lead people to miss details.   #  0 the main difference between listening to an audiobook and reading it off the page is the narrator/images in your head as audiobooks are influenced by whomever is reading it.   #  i am surprised you present this without so much as a dismissal because it really refutes your point.   # i am surprised you present this without so much as a dismissal because it really refutes your point.  unless the audiobook is the author him/herself reading and it rarely is , the actor is going to get certain things wrong, period.  what if there is a pun/double meaning presented ? the narrator has to chose one pronunciation, one reading at the expense of the other.  this ruins the original line.  a novel is the art of the written word, and many authors have in mind what the effect will be when read on the page, not heard when someone else is reading it.  it changes it from its original form into something slightly removed, like a translation into another language.  it is not  bad,  but it is definitely  different,  which should be enough to change your view.   #  there were parts where the reader gave emotions to the characters that were fine they were consistent with the text , but they were not necessary given the text, and i remembered that i had interpreted the dialogue slightly differently.   #  let me preface by saying that i am a big fan of audiobooks for use during mindless chores, driving, and all of that jazz.  they are wonderful resources and i would never discourage their use.  however, there are a few reasons why i would say that they are not the  same .  my points are basically variants on your anticipated counterpoints.  first is the reason that you and i like them: they let you multitask ! you are likely doing other shit when you are listening to an audiobook.  as a result, your attention is quite likely to be divided.  i would hypothesize that this probably decreases reading comprehension, at least marginally.  you ca not be 0 immersed in a story if you are doing other shit at the same time.  simultaneously, audiobooks reduce your ability to go back and re read stuff you missed.  if you are reading a complex or confusing text where your reading comprehension really matters, an audiobook might not be an ideal format.  if you are reading a fantasy novel or something where missing a tidbit is not important, the difference might be less.  additionally, in audiobooks, the recording can help bias a reader towards certain interpretations.  the person who makes the recording needs to have inflection.  i know that i recently read  the marriage plot  by jeffrey eugenides and then later listened to the audiobook on a car ride because it was the only audiobook that i had access to.  there were parts where the reader gave emotions to the characters that were fine they were consistent with the text , but they were not necessary given the text, and i remembered that i had interpreted the dialogue slightly differently.  is this major enough to avoid audiobooks forever ? probably not.  but they are not the  same .  finally, i have to point out my most hated part about audiobooks: i hate that the readers often make distinct  voices  for the characters that are often super unrealistic to a standard that would never be allowed in other forms of media plays, movies, etc.  .  e. g.  a female character will be a man talking in falsetto in a way that makes it sound like he is parodying a valley girl.  in your head, all the characters can be believable.  again, i think audiobooks are lovely, but there are definitely reasons why it might be beneficial to read a physical copy, even setting aside how lovely it is to curl up on the couch with a novel.   #  for a crime thriller or something it would make little to no difference, but think about the great literature you would end up missing out on.   #  its a lot harder to go back and re read re hear ? a passage in an audiobook.  most people also find it harder to concentrate on the book fully, as you mentioned, which means that you are more likely to miss some things which could be important later.  and yet its much harder to go back and find things if you miss them.  also if you are not paying attention then the deeper meaning of the book is more likely to be lost on you, since you are not getting everything.  i like a good story as much as the next guy but i think what makes a book truly great better than just good is its subtext and complexity and you miss out on a lot of that if you are not paying enough attention due to listening on audiobook.  for a crime thriller or something it would make little to no difference, but think about the great literature you would end up missing out on.   #  it is very easy to go back in an audiobook if you lose focus.   #  many audiobook programs implement a bookmark system, and allow you to fast forward, rewind and go ahead to a specific chapter.  it is very easy to go back in an audiobook if you lose focus.  if you put a print book down or forget where you were reading it takes a lot more effort than simply clicking play and picking up where you left off.  i totally agree that not paying full attention can be a problem with audiobooks, but it is more than possible for people to become bored or distracted when it comes to print books.  i also think that paying attention to really good literature always requires at least a little concentration and awareness.  audiobooks allow you to concentrate more in some circumstances for example, if you are commuting .  people who want to sit down and read a book have to put all of their concentration into that.  you can sit and concentrate on an audiobook in the same way and if you need the loo or a cigarette etc you do not have to put the book down you have a longer interaction with the book.   #  however, the lack of control over the  pacing  can hijack imagination too.   #  it is not.  when listening, the  voice talent  reader makes all of the decisions regarding tone, inflection, emphasis, etc, for you.  your brain does absolutely none of that processing.  this is more fun, but less stimulating to your brain.  also, the pacing is controlled by the voice talent, rather than by you.  even constant pausing and unpausing does not fix this.  on the other hand, your  visual imagination  is freer while listening, since you are not depending on your eyes to read, but on your ears.  your eyes simply  doing the visual reading of the words on the page  partially inhibits visual imagination unless you pause constantly to picture things. or, if you  space out  while reading to imagine stuff and accidentally  blur skip  thru entire sections.  lots of people experience this.  by contrast,  listening  inhibits the auditory imagination imaging characters  voices, etc while freeing up visual imagination.  however, the lack of control over the  pacing  can hijack imagination too.  so the net overall  imagination gain  and  verbal processing power  is higher for reading than for listening.
in the past five years, there have been countless revolutions and protests around the world.  the arab spring, euromaiden, and the brazilian protests, to name a few.  whether the general consensus viewed these protests as right or wrong, the fact that these people stood up for what they believed in and fought the government head on, putting both themselves and their families in danger, is truly courageous and inspiring.  when edward snowden is revelations came to the spotlight, there was anger among many americans.  the media portrayed the nsa as a corrupt organization, for due reason.  but all of this anger and frustration turned into nothing.  time went by, and american voices criticizing the nsa faded into the backdrop.  to this day, our own government is spying on us, and yet we sit back and let it happen.  i have lost faith that the american people will ever fight against the government to defend our freedoms, like those who took part in the aforementioned protests did.  i am not saying that there needs to be a violent revolt in america.  all i am saying is that the american people would never rise up in a mass protest and defend their rights and freedoms.  people seem to take freedom for granted, and let the government get away with suppressing basic rights because they believe the government would never do anything to hurt the american people.  i know this post is all over the place, but i found my view hard to put into words.  tl;dr: the american people take freedom for granted, and would never rise up in protest against the american government, even when their rights are infringed upon.  cmv.   #  but all of this anger and frustration turned into nothing.   #  time went by, and american voices criticizing the nsa faded into the backdrop.   # time went by, and american voices criticizing the nsa faded into the backdrop.  two things.  first of all, there was never consensus about what to do about the nsa.  it is not like polling showed that 0 of the population thought that the nsa had overstepped its bounds and should be constrained.  it is easy to think that your view and the views of your peers are representative of the population but they usually are not.  also, the voices criticizing the nsa did not fade away.  there are a bunch of promising lawsuits  right now  against several nsa programs.  momentum exists inside the legislature to change some parts of the patriot act that contributed to the data collection programs.  the white house is reaching out to academics to come up with better privacy preserving approaches to data collection.  and there are still people in the academic computer science community doing research on the limits of the programs.  just because there was not some cosmic shift in policies overnight does not mean that the country just gave up.   #  china executes 0,0 people a year, which is far more than the rest of the world combined, much less any single country.   #  china executes 0,0 people a year, which is far more than the rest of the world combined, much less any single country.  while cuba does still have the death penalty, the last time they executed anyone was 0.  the usa executed 0 people in 0, the most recent year i can find data for.  that puts us behind china 0,0ish , iran 0 , iraq 0 , and saudi arabia 0 but ahead of every other country in the world.  i have not found data per 0,0 residents.  for reference, the usa imprisons over 0 million adults plus about 0,0 juveniles , and china imprisons about 0 million people total.  adjusted for population, that is 0 people out of every 0,0 in china is in jail, and 0 people out of every 0,0 in the usa are in jail.  for reference, at the height of the gulags under stalin, 0 people out of every 0,0 russians were imprisoned.  the 0,0 executed, while certainly not a good thing, is not a significant portion of the overall  in jail or executed  number.   #  the usa has a violent homicide rate which tracks really well with all other forms of crime of 0 per 0,0 people per year.   #  quite a lot of innocent people are in jail, and the things which we consider crimes and how we punish different, similar crimes very much turns this into an issue of systematic discrimination against specific groups mainly black people and men .  marihuana was made illegal and called  marihuana  instead of  cannabis  because of racism against mexicans.  crack, which is not really different from powder cocaine in any meaningful way, is sentenced as  oh you have 0 gram of crack ? that is equivalent to 0 grams of powder cocaine.   guess which one is used primarily by black people and which one is used primarily by white people ? the usa has a violent homicide rate which tracks really well with all other forms of crime of 0 per 0,0 people per year.  that is very much not at the high end, worldwide.  the usa is not more crime ridden than most countries, we just imprison people for shitloads more things.   #  if you were imprisoned for saying obama is a bad president, that is a human rights violation.   #  the freedom to not be imprisoned for crime is not a human right in any definition i know of.  the number of people in jail is no indication of a human rights violation, it is what they are in jail for that matters.  if you were imprisoned for saying obama is a bad president, that is a human rights violation.  if obama picked every 0th person and imprisoned them for no reason, that would be a human rights violation.  if you were imprisoned for double homicide, that is not a human rights violation because it is not a human right to be free to kill others.  in the united states, the vast majority of people in prison committed a crime so it is not a violation of their rights to imprison them.  here is some more examples: URL  #  you do not necessarily need to be oppressed to the point where it affects your daily life in order to defend your rights.   # in my opinion, the american people failed to put more pressure on the government regarding mass surveillance and spying.  yes, americans enjoy a high quality of living, but being spied on by your own country should have warranted major protests.  instead, the american people ultimately let the issue fade, and the nsa operates to this day.  you do not necessarily need to be oppressed to the point where it affects your daily life in order to defend your rights.  this was a protest that was rather small in scale.  i am focusing on a nationwide protest.  i just doubt that fact that the american people would ever fight for their rights in the face of government abuse.
in the past five years, there have been countless revolutions and protests around the world.  the arab spring, euromaiden, and the brazilian protests, to name a few.  whether the general consensus viewed these protests as right or wrong, the fact that these people stood up for what they believed in and fought the government head on, putting both themselves and their families in danger, is truly courageous and inspiring.  when edward snowden is revelations came to the spotlight, there was anger among many americans.  the media portrayed the nsa as a corrupt organization, for due reason.  but all of this anger and frustration turned into nothing.  time went by, and american voices criticizing the nsa faded into the backdrop.  to this day, our own government is spying on us, and yet we sit back and let it happen.  i have lost faith that the american people will ever fight against the government to defend our freedoms, like those who took part in the aforementioned protests did.  i am not saying that there needs to be a violent revolt in america.  all i am saying is that the american people would never rise up in a mass protest and defend their rights and freedoms.  people seem to take freedom for granted, and let the government get away with suppressing basic rights because they believe the government would never do anything to hurt the american people.  i know this post is all over the place, but i found my view hard to put into words.  tl;dr: the american people take freedom for granted, and would never rise up in protest against the american government, even when their rights are infringed upon.  cmv.   #  american people would never rise up in a mass protest and defend their rights and freedoms.   #  people seem to take freedom for granted, and let the government get away with suppressing basic rights because they believe the government would never do anything to hurt the american people.   # people seem to take freedom for granted, and let the government get away with suppressing basic rights because they believe the government would never do anything to hurt the american people.  while you have given the nsa scandal as an example of americans  not  rising up to defend their rights and freedoms, what about all the cases of civil rights movements to fight to acquire rights ? racial and homosexual rights movements have not been small or quiet.  your average american might not protest wiretapping, for example, but there is no obvious obstruction of their freedom.  privacy invasions do not feel like a violation if you never know they have occurred is all.   #  while cuba does still have the death penalty, the last time they executed anyone was 0.  the usa executed 0 people in 0, the most recent year i can find data for.   #  china executes 0,0 people a year, which is far more than the rest of the world combined, much less any single country.  while cuba does still have the death penalty, the last time they executed anyone was 0.  the usa executed 0 people in 0, the most recent year i can find data for.  that puts us behind china 0,0ish , iran 0 , iraq 0 , and saudi arabia 0 but ahead of every other country in the world.  i have not found data per 0,0 residents.  for reference, the usa imprisons over 0 million adults plus about 0,0 juveniles , and china imprisons about 0 million people total.  adjusted for population, that is 0 people out of every 0,0 in china is in jail, and 0 people out of every 0,0 in the usa are in jail.  for reference, at the height of the gulags under stalin, 0 people out of every 0,0 russians were imprisoned.  the 0,0 executed, while certainly not a good thing, is not a significant portion of the overall  in jail or executed  number.   #  that is equivalent to 0 grams of powder cocaine.    #  quite a lot of innocent people are in jail, and the things which we consider crimes and how we punish different, similar crimes very much turns this into an issue of systematic discrimination against specific groups mainly black people and men .  marihuana was made illegal and called  marihuana  instead of  cannabis  because of racism against mexicans.  crack, which is not really different from powder cocaine in any meaningful way, is sentenced as  oh you have 0 gram of crack ? that is equivalent to 0 grams of powder cocaine.   guess which one is used primarily by black people and which one is used primarily by white people ? the usa has a violent homicide rate which tracks really well with all other forms of crime of 0 per 0,0 people per year.  that is very much not at the high end, worldwide.  the usa is not more crime ridden than most countries, we just imprison people for shitloads more things.   #  if obama picked every 0th person and imprisoned them for no reason, that would be a human rights violation.   #  the freedom to not be imprisoned for crime is not a human right in any definition i know of.  the number of people in jail is no indication of a human rights violation, it is what they are in jail for that matters.  if you were imprisoned for saying obama is a bad president, that is a human rights violation.  if obama picked every 0th person and imprisoned them for no reason, that would be a human rights violation.  if you were imprisoned for double homicide, that is not a human rights violation because it is not a human right to be free to kill others.  in the united states, the vast majority of people in prison committed a crime so it is not a violation of their rights to imprison them.  here is some more examples: URL  #  this was a protest that was rather small in scale.   # in my opinion, the american people failed to put more pressure on the government regarding mass surveillance and spying.  yes, americans enjoy a high quality of living, but being spied on by your own country should have warranted major protests.  instead, the american people ultimately let the issue fade, and the nsa operates to this day.  you do not necessarily need to be oppressed to the point where it affects your daily life in order to defend your rights.  this was a protest that was rather small in scale.  i am focusing on a nationwide protest.  i just doubt that fact that the american people would ever fight for their rights in the face of government abuse.
parents of teenagers, try to count how many hours you interacted with your child last week that did not involve eating or small talk.  teenagers of reddit, try to count how many hours you interacted with your parents last week that did not involve eating or small talk.  i am willing to bet that the number you come up with will be significantly lower then the amount of time you have, or in the case of parents, your child has been in the care of complete strangers.  i am referring of course to public education employees.  these strangers have virtually no incentive to properly raise children.  if the child turns into a delinquent, they just call the cops and have them hauled off to juvenal detention.  seriously think about that.  a parent would rather fix the problem then send off their child to an correctional institution, yet these parents outsource their responsibilities to complete strangers that no problem whatsoever doing so.  a teacher might feign some interest in their students, but at the end of the day they go home and live their own life.  in most cases after the year ends the child will never see the person they spend hours in a year ever again.  essentially, instead of raising their children, parents just dump their children off at school and hope for the best.  if the child turns out messed up they act surprised.  it is as if the parents assumed that public education employees would actually properly raise their children.   #  a teacher might feign some interest in their students, but at the end of the day they go home and live their own life.   #  in most cases after the year ends the child will never see the person they spend hours in a year ever again.   # in most cases after the year ends the child will never see the person they spend hours in a year ever again.  first off, since it does not really have anything to do with the tile of your post, let is agree up front that this is not relevant, nor, for that matter true.  teacher is agonize over decisions that affect the welfare of students.  yes, after a year they move on, but for that year they are our responsibility and we take it seriously.  there is plenty of room for debate over how effectively we do it, but i think it would be prudent to leave the matter of intentions out of it, since you are not an authority on what teachers think.  as for the part that does actually pertain to your argument, i think the more crucial question is how much time kids spend with parents before they hit high school.  the later teenage years are supposed to be a time when the child starts to exercise independence, ans shifts their social group from the family to their peers.  this starts in middle school and ought to be complete by the age of majority so that the child can transition into adult life.  therefore, the fact that that the child spends a lot of time doing that is not evidence that the child is being raised poorly.   #  really, what exactly do you think so much constant supervision is required for ?  #  what exactly do you think parents need to spend so much time on doing ? if anything it seems that recently parents obsess way more over their kids and  parenting  than before.  when i was growing up after school we would go play outside, without parents watching our every step and freaking out over everything.  i ate my lunches at grandma is house.  and i still had tons of time with my parents.  really, what exactly do you think so much constant supervision is required for ? both the child and the parent would go mad.   #  but those are  huge  parts of human socialization.   # okay, let is break this down.  what constitutes  raising  ? is it the act of speaking directly to the child ? because if so, teachers are not even doing this constantly while the kids are at school.  sure, teachers lecture for a portion of the time, but much of the time is spent working at a desk silently, or doing group work, or playing outside at recess, or eating lunch, or hanging out in between classes.  and when kids actually are at home, you are quick to discount activities like small talk or eating.  but those are  huge  parts of human socialization.  small talk is how we interact with most people in our daily lives, even in adulthood.  and mealtimes have always been a place for people to gather and share information.  even at the most basic level, parents are teaching their kids nutrition and table manners which is part of  raising  them .  i think you need to define exactly which activities you are considering to be  raising  a child.   #  i could make sure they were sleeping a reasonable amount of hours a night so they can pay attention in my lass, but i ca not.   #  trust me, as a teacher i wished i had as much power over my students as you claim i do.  because if i did, i could monitor if they are doing their homework properly or at all, but i ca not.  i could make sure they were eating regular, but i ca not.  i could make sure they were sleeping a reasonable amount of hours a night so they can pay attention in my lass, but i ca not.  i would create a stable environment at home where kids can feel safe all the time, but i ca not.  i really wish i had as much power over kids as you are giving me, but i do not.   #  parents have a remarkable amount of influence on their children.   #  me alone, no.  am i part of the process, yes.  just like friends, bosses and coaches are.  parents lay the foundation for their children.  i am part of life experience that allows children to learn how to interact with the world.  you are not dumping your child off at a school for other people to raise them.  you are allowing your child to learn new skills in a different environment.  skills like independence, problem solving and confidence.  but as i said.  i am just a cog in the wheel.  parents have a remarkable amount of influence on their children.  parents prepare their kids for the outside world because kids do not stay kids forever.  at some point they will be on their own.
from hunting to wars spears have allowed humanity or certain populations of humans to survive, eat and conquer other humans up until about a couple hundred years ago.  here is a few reasons i summed up to explain why they are the best:   simplicity.  one stick and one blade with a little binding and you are good to go.  other weapons require extensive piecing together or the knowledge of a blacksmith.  me, a mid 0 is student, could make a spear out of the stuff in my cleaning/gardening closet.    no ammo.  no reloading required.  just pull out of target and reuse.  no collateral damage.  no supply lines.  spear breaks or dulls ? refer to point one.  a cave man could repair a broken spear.    gets more effective with large numbers of them being wielded in line formation.  as long as they walk together and know how to thrust, your army is just as good as any other the world has seen.  entire ancient civilizations were conquered using this method.  see alexander the great.    can take out a mounted warrior.  conversely, can be used by a mounted soldier with great effectiveness.    my favorite thought: imagine how well humans would do against a zombie horde like some wwz shit out of the book. not movie if they were in hoplite formation and had 0 foot spears.  versatility, simplicity and the amount of which it was used and still is used in human history are my main reasons why this is the best weapon.  other weapons:   swords: not effective weapons in the hands of a weak and untrained individual.  anyone including a guy in a wheel chair can use a spear.    bow and arrow: too much training required.  bow is useless unless you have arrows.    pre industrial guns muskets or whatever : black powder can block fields of vision when ignited.  lots of infrastructure is required to make a lot of guns consistently.  plus, they are inaccurate and often times did not kill a man in one shot.  infection and lead poisoning took care of the rest.  plop a bunch of humans on a remote island or planet and i guarantee you the first weapon they will make is a spear.  now, on to modern weapons.  same as above sort of.  we tout ourselves in the us for being the most advanced military we have seen but our weapons are incredibly wasteful.  almost all of the projectiles we use now are completely unusable after they are fired because they are blown up.  large flying explosives are too indiscriminate and cost a huge amount of money.  this can be very costly to an army.  if a specific part of your gun breaks then hopefully you have a good supply line behind you because you ca not fix that piece on your gun.  not to mention that modern explosives have a much higher chance of killing an innocent civilian than a spear does.  p. s.  i am not condoning going back to older methods of war.  just saying we humans have already invented the best weapon.   #  gets more effective with large numbers of them being wielded in line formation.   #  this is no longer an advantage in modern warfare.   #  well first off, there is no single best weapon.  different weapons are better for different circumstances.  in a fight to the death, for example, i can assure you that you would much rather have a rifle than a spear, because the rifle would likely win.  one stick and one blade with a little binding and you are good to go.  other weapons require extensive piecing together or the knowledge of a blacksmith.  me, a mid 0 is student, could make a spear out of the stuff in my cleaning/gardening closet.  a lot of your points draw back to this.  yes, it is good.  no, it does not make it the best weapon.  we have the infrastructure to mass produce guns, we have the infrastructure to mass produce ammunition, we have the infrastructure to supply troops on battlefields quite effectively with the required tools to fight with guns.  simplicity is all well and good, but it does not make a weapon the best.  just pull out of target and reuse.  for trained soldiers, reloading a gun is fast.  additionally, pulling a trigger is far, far faster than stabbing someone then pulling the spear out.  all in all, you can shoot a gun to incapacitate or kill far, far more people than you could stab with a spear in the same time frame.  reloading is no serious disadvantage.  so does a gun.  no one will charge into a firing gun.  in fact, guns have longer ranges than spears, but also work better in close quarters.  they are less unwieldy, and can be used to hit people too close more easily.  this is no longer an advantage in modern warfare.  we used to use guns in lines, with muskets.  we do not anymore, because modern weapons such as machine guns make lines of infantry extremely easy targets.  conversely, can be used by a mounted soldier with great effectiveness.  a gun can take out a mounted warrior as well.  also, we no longer use cavalry in modern warfare, because it is equally ineffective.  effectively, your arguments for a spear being the best weapon more or less come down to simplicity, and cost effectiveness.  unfortunately, with modern methods, we are able to produce and repair modern weapons to a scale that makes spears, or any older weapon, entirely obsolete.  a spear is a worse weapon, in terms of capacity to kill someone, than an assault rifle.  end of.  it may be more easily produced again, quite redundant in the modern age , repaired, etcetera, but these benefits are vastly outweighed by the sheer gap in the killing ability of modern weapons.   #  spears will retain their value when there is no infrastructure.   #  this is just semantics.  the spear dominated for so long because it was cheap, easy to make effective, and easy to train someone in.  all of these characteristics make it the best weapon humans have made thus far.  guns are getting more complicated than ever and would not last without the proper infrastructure around.  guns are really only the product of a post industrial nation with a huge amount of resources.  it is considered the best because of everything else that allows it to be best right now but only right now.  spears will retain their value when there is no infrastructure.   #  the gun is quicker, has more stopping power, is dead simple to use, is way more accurate at any range, and enables quick engagement of multiple foes.   #  what if the spear shaft shattered from overuse ? what if the lashings holding the tip on broke ? what if the point dulled, chipped or blunted ? what if your attacker was quick and got inside the spear is reach ? what if the world were made of pudding ? what if your attacker had a gun and was 0 yards away ? if you are going to argue about the simplest form of something then you have to consider the simplest form of guns, which is the handgun.  you also have to weigh the pros and cons when comparing them and the fact is simply that the pros of the gun v spear  massively  outweigh the cons.  so it really boils down to a simple comparison of the two.  the gun is quicker, has more stopping power, is dead simple to use, is way more accurate at any range, and enables quick engagement of multiple foes.  the spear simply ca not compete.  the real advantage is it is simplicity and no ammo requirement.  but you still have to have some skill to wield it correctly against any opponent with skill, you have to have strength to wield it with any real outcomes, and most importantly your spear ca not can be broken.  think of it this way.  take a 0v0 or even 0v0 group of shooters vs a phalanx.  who do you really think would win that fight ?  #  entire ancient civilizations were conquered using this method rocks and sticks.   #  heavy rocks and/or sticks are obviously a much better weapon.  simplicity.  one stick or rock and one blade with a little binding and you are good to go.  other weapons like spears, require extensive piecing together or the knowledge of a blacksmith.  me, a mid 0 is student, could make a spear stick out of the stuff in my cleaning/gardening closet a stick.  no ammo.  no reloading required.  just pull out of target and reuse.  no collateral damage.  no supply lines.  spear rock or stick breaks or dulls ? refer to point one.  a cave man could repair a broken spear.  find a new stick or heavy rock.  and there is no risk of that hastily tied knot falling apart or of the rock/stick getting stuck in someone else.  gets more effective with large numbers of them being wielded in line formation.  as long as they walk together and know how to thrust smash, your army is just as good as any other the world has seen.  entire ancient civilizations were conquered using this method rocks and sticks.  see cave alexander the great.  can take out a mounted warrior.  conversely, can be used by a mounted soldier with great effectiveness.  my favorite thought: imagine how well humans would do against a zombie horde like some wwz shit out of the book. not movie if they were in hoplite formation and had 0 foot spears large rocks or sticks.  by literally every valid criterium heavy rocks and/or sticks are better than spears.   #  now, you just have a unusual shaped club.   #  everyone is going to say gun here and that is what i expected.  however, you need bullets, the right kind of bullets and some way to deliver all those pieces of tungsten you are firing into the air.  imagine no bullets ? global brass shortages ? a drastic cutback in the availability of depleted uranium.  now, you just have a unusual shaped club.  if your enemy has a spear and you are out of bullets then he is going to be favored.  not to mention spears were used for so much longer than a gun for a good reason that is not scientific advancement.
note: using throwaway because i am an easily googlable internet person and have found that i get more honest discourse when people do not know my affiliations and who i am online.  also, i am not addressing female ephebophilia because it seems less common but even if it is not, i ever have not read anything by one or encountered one.  i saw that there was another thread on here where the person thought ephebophilia is just pedophilia.  i do not think that at all.  my view is that pedophilia is a legit orientation.  based on what i have read and heard about exclusive pedophiles, they are only attracted to very young, pre pubescent children.  this precludes the possibility of being attracted to post pubescents.  i have a lot of respect for pedophiles who do not abuse children.  i have noticed that when ephebophiles defend their orientation, they will say  oh, i am not attracted to people who have not hit puberty, i am attracted to people who have  as if that makes it any less creepy.  i think that  justification  makes it all the more creepy.  if you are attracted to people who have already hit puberty, why not go for grown people instead ? the reasons they give are really creepy, too:  purity , inexperience, the alleged ravages of age present on people who have not even lived a quarter of their life yet, and so on.  it feels like an expression of male insecurity about having sex with and/or dating an equal who has a lot better sense than a pubescent child.  tl;dr i think that because ephebophilia is attraction to post pubescents rather than pre pubescents, it is ca not really be an orientation.  adults are also post pubescent, so the people who identify that way could go for adults instead of the underage.   #  i think that because ephebophilia is attraction to post pubescents rather than pre pubescents, it is ca not really be an orientation.   #  adults are also post pubescent, so the people who identify that way could go for adults instead of the underage.   # adults are also post pubescent, so the people who identify that way could go for adults instead of the underage.  i have a request to aid discussion: please define  orientation  and explain why your definition matters.  you seem to be using a definition of orientation which means  an attraction or sexual preference that a person legitimately ca not help  and anything that does not fall into your definition of orientation is excluded from deserving respect.  who is to say that any aspect of attraction can be helped ? i would like some clarification here because i get the idea that you are saying they are lying when they say they are being attracted to teenagers and that they are really just insecure.  i do not know how being insecure precludes them from possibly being attracted to people with specific qualities.  what is this about equating sexual orientation with respect ? is there a reason why something that is a sexual orientation deserves respect, and something that is not a sexual orientation does not deserve respect ? i do not see the reason for coupling the two.  people are attracted to what they are attracted to.  are you sure these are just  excuses  and not simply an actual explaination of their attraction ? is it impossible to be attracted to teenagers ? are they not actually attracted to teenagers and they are just creepy/insecure ? i do not see how one could draw that conclusion.  or are you just saying that being attracted to teenagers is creepier than being attracted to children or adults ? are you claiming someone is lying or being dishonest with us/themselves ? i am just currently confused so i would appreciate your clarifications.   #  that starts with a compassionate understanding of the person is state of mind before they chose the behavior.   #  there is some complex ground to cover here.  first, there is simple attraction.  then, there is  exclusive  attraction.  and finally, there is action.  attraction: attraction is similar to a sensation or emotion.  we may look at a person and experience the feeling of sexual attraction similarly to how we might look at the sky and see that it is blue.  that analogy only goes so far, but the point is, raw attraction is not a feeling anyone  chooses  to have, they only choose what they will  do  based on that attraction.  it is extremely common among grown males to at least occasionally feel sexual attraction for an underage girl.  when the outward signs of sexual maturity are there, sexual attraction can happen.  for a woman who appears attractive to my eyes at age 0, there is some chance that the basic factors making her attractive were already present at 0.  this does not make the man an ephebophile.  because attraction is not a choice, that means it cannot be moral to judge a person for that attraction.  and in fact, when we demonize basic attraction we cause a great deal of harm, and actually make it far less likely that those who might commit errant behaviors will get help, which makes the world worse off.  then there is exclusive attraction.  by this i mean a fixation on only that type of person, or near enough to  only .  if every time joe masturbates he  always  looks at or thinks about underage girls to get off, then it is probably reasonable to consider him an ephebophile though to be honest, even then, many people become desensitized to porn and just start desperately casting about for something new and different and  forbidden , and can end up getting off on jailbait pics without actually having the intrinsic preference .  but anyway, the near exclusive preference for girls under, say, 0 is what ephebophilia is really about.  but if we said we ca not blame a person for feeling an attraction, it is awfully questionable to judge them as immoral for feeling that attraction exclusively.  again, they do not choose it.  of course, it may just simply turn your stomach.  but again, let is be very careful about what we demonize.  what of the person who felt exclusively attracted to 0 year old girls his entire life and died at the age of 0 and never once took advantage of a preteen or catcalled a middle school girl waiting for the bus ? if he never showed any harmful behavior because of it, i think you will have to admit that this person is condition is really not the problem you are actually worried about.  what harms children and society is 0 about the actions we do or do not take in response to our attractions.  otherwise we are simply talking about  thought crimes .  the problem is that many many are using the  legitimacy  of ephebophilia the attaction as a way to excuse inexcusable behavior.  the moment that i  ever  behave toward a young woman in a manner that conveys that she is being viewed by me as a sexual object, i have crossed the line and i may contribute to causing her real and actual harm.  let is all please focus our outrage on bad behavior.  that starts with a compassionate understanding of the person is state of mind before they chose the behavior.  it was that choice that was wrong, not the arousal that they felt when seeing the girl in the first place.   #  as the parent of a daughter on the cusp of puberty, i can say this.   #  another very important point about transgressive actions, all the way up to actual sexual abuse of an underage girl: it is not even always committed by ephebophiles.  many damaged men prey on young teen girls not because they prefer them physically but because the girls are vulnerable and can be manipulated which is of course precisely why we must protect them.  those men need help.  it is irrelevant whether they are ephebophiles or not.  similar, many priests who abused altar boys were never gay.  they had the opportunity to abuse.  as the parent of a daughter on the cusp of puberty, i can say this.  if a grown man secretly lusts after my daughter, goes home and beats the meat and goes about his day, i have no need to punch that man in the testicle.  it does not bother me and it never bothered her because he kept his private thoughts private.  if a teacher is worst crime is to very secretively sneak a peek down her shirt, and no one ever knows, i do not feel anyone was harmed.  if he makes sexual comments to her, ogles her openly, tries to get her alone, etc. , etc.  we are going to have a real problem.  there is a line of reasoning saying that being tolerant of the inner  behavior  the attraction and surreptitious appreciation is playing with fire which can only explode in your face.  i think people who believe that simply have no idea how many millions of men are out there doing it to your daughters and sisters every day and no one ever knows or is the worse for it.  you would prefer to believe that every man thinking those thoughts is outwardly acting like a major perv too, so you can know who they are and avoid them and punish them and ruin their lives.  but no.  they are among us everywhere, they are normal, and most of them will never harm anyone.   #  it is also true that there is no single moment in time when a person suddenly changes from a child needing this protection to an adult capable of making her own mistakes.   #  a 0 and a, say, 0 year old are not on an equal footing.  they do not have equal power.  one knows a lot the other does not and can much more easily manipulate and control the other.  essentially, young teenagers have a vulnerability that some older men would like to exploit, and rationalize to themselves that because they mean well or something it is all right.  it is just not.  yes, it is true that boys their own age may try to exploit them too, and it is no less wrong when they do it.  but at least there was something a lot closer to equality in that premise.  the girl using the example we are focusing on in this particular thread is in a relatively better position to assert herself.  it is also true that there is no single moment in time when a person suddenly changes from a child needing this protection to an adult capable of making her own mistakes.  it does not happen magically on the 0th birthday, or 0th or whatever is the age of consent in that state.  however, for purposes of the law, what can you do ? you have to draw the line somewhere.  the limit will always be arbitrary, but that does not mean it is not doing some good.   #  i guess my view is that trying to condemn ephebophiles is too specific.   # it is just not.  the thing is that i agree with you, but i really cant express why.  if the age of consent is 0 where we are talking about i really do not have a good justification of why someone older should not be able to peruse a sexual relationship.  i might not like it but i do not think  i think it is creepy and gross  is not enough to warrant banning it.  none of these things seem to really be connected to age, manipulation can happen at all ages and taking advantage of a 0 year old is really no different than taking advantage of someone older who is not that smart.  the only difference is some societal attitude that the young are pure, innocent, and need protection from the  bad  people out there.  i guess my view is that trying to condemn ephebophiles is too specific.  there does not seem to be anything inherently wrong with being attracted to someone in that age group, but that manipulation and power imbalances are the real problem.  a healthy relationship might be impossible for an ephebophile but it is nothing to do with the age of the person, it is things that are a result of their age.
i believe michael brown is a victim of a modern lynching.  according to an eyewitness account the officer became enraged when the boys disregarded his instruction to stay on the sidewalk.  during jim crow if blacks did not show proper deference to whites they could be lynched at any time.  backtalk of any kind or any act that could be interpreted as coming on to a white woman would be seen as disrespect worthy of lynching.  michael brown was selected at random by the officer.  most likely because he was with arms reach of his squad car and then murdered to serve as an example.  when you single out someone from a group at random and then murder that individual because they failed to show you proper respect that meets my idea of a lynching.  the purpose of lynching is to terrorize a minority community.  in order to subjugate a people you have to keep them afraid that the slightest offense will result in extreme punishment.  it is important that the punishment be swift, extreme and unpredictable in order to be effective.  the actions of the police officer meet those conditions and therefore qualifies as a modern day lynching.   #  the purpose of lynching is to terrorize a minority community.   #  in order to subjugate a people you have to keep them afraid that the slightest offense will result in extreme punishment.   #  my understanding is that we really do not understand what exactly happened yet.  it sounds like there was some kind of struggle, and that the officer had some kind of facial injury, but whether or not force was justified is still almost entirely speculation at this point.  however, i feel pretty confident, that even if the cop is found to have used excessive force, and that the shooting was unjustified, it still would not have met the proposed criteria for a lynching.  in order to subjugate a people you have to keep them afraid that the slightest offense will result in extreme punishment.  while it seems entirely possible that race played a role in the incident, it is extremely unlikely that the cop actually made the conscious decision to kill michael brown to serve as an example to the black community at large.  racism is usually much more subtle than that.  most likely because he was with arms reach of his squad car and then murdered to serve as an example.  when you single out someone from a group at random and then murder that individual because they failed to show you proper respect that meets my idea of a lynching.  this would imply that the police officer made the conscious decision to kill a black person that day in cold blood, and then after that decision had been made randomly selected michael brown to be his victim.  there is absolutely zero evidence that this is what happened.  it seems much more likely that this was a situation that simply escalated out of control.  implicit racism very likely played a role in that escalation, for sure.  but i do not see any reason to believe that the officer approach michael brown with the intent to kill him initially.   #  i do not think that the implicit racism that can cause tension and escalation in interracial police interactions could really be accurately called a lynching either, though they are obviously problematic.   #  it really would just depend on how you define lynching.  in the op is definition, intent to terrorize and oppress are central to it being a lynching.  using that definition, then no, i do not think that justifiable use of force would count as lynching.  i do not think that the implicit racism that can cause tension and escalation in interracial police interactions could really be accurately called a lynching either, though they are obviously problematic.  again, this can really boil down to semantics, so i am not really sure how productive drawing up the distinctions is, but, to me at least, the act of a group of civilian vigilantes running down and hanging a minority in order to terrorize the minority community is a very different problem that requires a very different solution to police officers operating with a racist subtext that causes them to intentionally or unintentionally use too much force when dealing with members of a minority.  both of the issues are obviously horrible, but equating them seems to obscure the true nature of the problems.   #  to serve as a signifier of those deemed beneath them.   # this is sort of off topic but.  i do not think so.  there will always be some people who will seek dominate and control others.  such people operate from an innate sense of superiority and a supreme confidence that they are always right.  when such people look around and see kings and queens in history or absolute rulers today they get a little tickle of endorphins in the back of their brain that says:   yes ! this is how things should be !   they then create the conditions needed to give flower to their belief.  race was created for this reason.  to serve as a signifier of those deemed beneath them.   #  the justification usually given was that coloreds were believed to be  dirty .   # i think the stereotypes are used to rationalize someone is prejudice post hoc.  example: there used to be separate drinking fountains for coloreds and whites.  the justification usually given was that coloreds were believed to be  dirty .  i think that is a post hoc rationalization and that what was really going on was power and dominance.  a need to exert power and control over others and the belief that they were  dirty  was just plucked out of the air as a justification.   #  i agree with you, so i would like to expand on my earlier comment a little more.   # i think the stereotypes are used to rationalize someone is prejudice post hoc.  i agree with you, so i would like to expand on my earlier comment a little more.  i do not believe that a vast majority of americans are overtly racist.  i do believe that an abnormal number of highly visible and public figures are either overtly racist, or pushing a racist agenda.  a handful of bigots is not a problem; but bigots on a platform, talking to an easily swayed crowd ? now  that is  a really  big  problem.  the justification usually given was that coloreds were believed to be  dirty .  i think that is a post hoc rationalization and that what was really going on was power and dominance.  a need to exert power and control over others and the belief that they were  dirty  was just plucked out of the air as a justification.  a comparable example; gays being disbarred from donating blood or organs.  the justification is shaky medical science, essentially saying that people who engage in gay sex are  tainted  people.  the modern day jim crowe cannot come out and say  hang the black man;  instead, it simultaneously fills prisons and graveyards with people of color, while persuading everyone else not to react.  i believe the most effective route would be to remind people that they  need  to react to this sort of bullshit.
i believe michael brown is a victim of a modern lynching.  according to an eyewitness account the officer became enraged when the boys disregarded his instruction to stay on the sidewalk.  during jim crow if blacks did not show proper deference to whites they could be lynched at any time.  backtalk of any kind or any act that could be interpreted as coming on to a white woman would be seen as disrespect worthy of lynching.  michael brown was selected at random by the officer.  most likely because he was with arms reach of his squad car and then murdered to serve as an example.  when you single out someone from a group at random and then murder that individual because they failed to show you proper respect that meets my idea of a lynching.  the purpose of lynching is to terrorize a minority community.  in order to subjugate a people you have to keep them afraid that the slightest offense will result in extreme punishment.  it is important that the punishment be swift, extreme and unpredictable in order to be effective.  the actions of the police officer meet those conditions and therefore qualifies as a modern day lynching.   #  michael brown was selected at random by the officer.   #  most likely because he was with arms reach of his squad car and then murdered to serve as an example.   #  my understanding is that we really do not understand what exactly happened yet.  it sounds like there was some kind of struggle, and that the officer had some kind of facial injury, but whether or not force was justified is still almost entirely speculation at this point.  however, i feel pretty confident, that even if the cop is found to have used excessive force, and that the shooting was unjustified, it still would not have met the proposed criteria for a lynching.  in order to subjugate a people you have to keep them afraid that the slightest offense will result in extreme punishment.  while it seems entirely possible that race played a role in the incident, it is extremely unlikely that the cop actually made the conscious decision to kill michael brown to serve as an example to the black community at large.  racism is usually much more subtle than that.  most likely because he was with arms reach of his squad car and then murdered to serve as an example.  when you single out someone from a group at random and then murder that individual because they failed to show you proper respect that meets my idea of a lynching.  this would imply that the police officer made the conscious decision to kill a black person that day in cold blood, and then after that decision had been made randomly selected michael brown to be his victim.  there is absolutely zero evidence that this is what happened.  it seems much more likely that this was a situation that simply escalated out of control.  implicit racism very likely played a role in that escalation, for sure.  but i do not see any reason to believe that the officer approach michael brown with the intent to kill him initially.   #  i do not think that the implicit racism that can cause tension and escalation in interracial police interactions could really be accurately called a lynching either, though they are obviously problematic.   #  it really would just depend on how you define lynching.  in the op is definition, intent to terrorize and oppress are central to it being a lynching.  using that definition, then no, i do not think that justifiable use of force would count as lynching.  i do not think that the implicit racism that can cause tension and escalation in interracial police interactions could really be accurately called a lynching either, though they are obviously problematic.  again, this can really boil down to semantics, so i am not really sure how productive drawing up the distinctions is, but, to me at least, the act of a group of civilian vigilantes running down and hanging a minority in order to terrorize the minority community is a very different problem that requires a very different solution to police officers operating with a racist subtext that causes them to intentionally or unintentionally use too much force when dealing with members of a minority.  both of the issues are obviously horrible, but equating them seems to obscure the true nature of the problems.   #  there will always be some people who will seek dominate and control others.   # this is sort of off topic but.  i do not think so.  there will always be some people who will seek dominate and control others.  such people operate from an innate sense of superiority and a supreme confidence that they are always right.  when such people look around and see kings and queens in history or absolute rulers today they get a little tickle of endorphins in the back of their brain that says:   yes ! this is how things should be !   they then create the conditions needed to give flower to their belief.  race was created for this reason.  to serve as a signifier of those deemed beneath them.   #  example: there used to be separate drinking fountains for coloreds and whites.   # i think the stereotypes are used to rationalize someone is prejudice post hoc.  example: there used to be separate drinking fountains for coloreds and whites.  the justification usually given was that coloreds were believed to be  dirty .  i think that is a post hoc rationalization and that what was really going on was power and dominance.  a need to exert power and control over others and the belief that they were  dirty  was just plucked out of the air as a justification.   #  the justification usually given was that coloreds were believed to be  dirty .   # i think the stereotypes are used to rationalize someone is prejudice post hoc.  i agree with you, so i would like to expand on my earlier comment a little more.  i do not believe that a vast majority of americans are overtly racist.  i do believe that an abnormal number of highly visible and public figures are either overtly racist, or pushing a racist agenda.  a handful of bigots is not a problem; but bigots on a platform, talking to an easily swayed crowd ? now  that is  a really  big  problem.  the justification usually given was that coloreds were believed to be  dirty .  i think that is a post hoc rationalization and that what was really going on was power and dominance.  a need to exert power and control over others and the belief that they were  dirty  was just plucked out of the air as a justification.  a comparable example; gays being disbarred from donating blood or organs.  the justification is shaky medical science, essentially saying that people who engage in gay sex are  tainted  people.  the modern day jim crowe cannot come out and say  hang the black man;  instead, it simultaneously fills prisons and graveyards with people of color, while persuading everyone else not to react.  i believe the most effective route would be to remind people that they  need  to react to this sort of bullshit.
a research doctorate in engineering is an expansion of human knowledge.  you have to create something or develop a technique that no one has ever done before, that is reproducible, and that is valuable to society.  engineering phds are shaping modern society and changing the world.  we are making education accessible to everyone, we are improving modern medicine and making that accessible to everyone.  we are literally extending human life.  i genuinely do not know what a doctorate in medieval literature requires or contributes.  i do not know what it is value is.  and so i judge it as being less valuable.  i could be completely wrong ! i am just saying that i am ignorant to its value.  cmv  #  engineering phds are shaping modern society and changing the world.   #  we are making education accessible to everyone, we are improving modern medicine and making that accessible to everyone.   # we are making education accessible to everyone, we are improving modern medicine and making that accessible to everyone.  we are literally extending human life.  you are also designing daisy cutters and hollow point rounds intended to splinter upon impact causing the maximum amount of damage to the human body.  engineers designed the gas chambers in concentration camps.  engineering is not inherently good.  do you not think that the study of the past is valuable ?  #  this extends of course beyond literature to phds in history, psychology, sociology, etc.   #  as a stem graduate and ardent supporter of stem degrees, i would argue that for the general citizen looking for a degree in college a stem degree is more valuable.  however, what makes a phd  valuable  for human society ? aside from the obvious fact that assigning  value  to degrees is very subjective and nebulous, i think you are ignoring where phds in liberal arts affect society as a whole.  you have to create something or develop a technique that no one has ever done before, that is reproducible, and that is valuable to society.  engineering phds are shaping modern society and changing the world.  we are making education accessible to everyone, we are improving modern medicine and making that accessible to everyone.  we are literally extending human life.  i genuinely do not know what a doctorate in medieval literature requires or contributes.  i do not know what it is value is.  and so i judge it as being less valuable.  i could be completely wrong ! i am just saying that i am ignorant to its value.  while it is true that engineers contribute quite a bit to the expansion of human knowledge and to creating new things for humans to use, it is important to note that a phd in say,  medieval literature  can contribute a lot to human society.  for one, who are we but the histories and legacies we leave behind ? modern civilization is built on the remnants and lessons from past civilizations.  and civilization involves more than what the previous guys physically built or invented it involves the culture and ways of thinking that take western civilization.  few people have not learned of the contributions of the greeks and romans to western civilization.  the archetype of modern heroes is largely built on classical heroes and characters from odysseus to hercules.  as thus, a phd in  classical literature  and certainly medieval literature certainly has a lot to contribute to modern society they provide an understanding of many of the underpinnings of modern culture and thought.  this extends of course beyond literature to phds in history, psychology, sociology, etc.  because society is so much more than just the goods we produce and the technology we have.   #  in many cases technology cannot advance without that pure research.   #  that being said, there are some times when we need to know what happened in 0 is.  those records can corroborate or point out flaws in scientific modelling ie climate change effects crop yields, and mention of a famine can support a model that predicted climate change .  additionally, study of things like literature gives us the ability to see how such topics change over time.  sure, a lot of this is  pure research  as opposed to  targeted research  so rather than being funded by a company that intends to produce something it is funded by charity and grants, but pure research has pretty good returns on investment.  the problem is that we wo not know if we need the ability to read mayan, have a working theory of fiction in classical era, or understand the symbolism in medieval sculpture until the situation comes up.  these things are indispensable, but sometimes and unpredictably.  in many cases technology cannot advance without that pure research.   #  we still do need people to be highly studied in literature.   #  i do not disagree that a doctorate in medieval literature is less valuable and respectable than one in engineering.  but i do question your use of the word  like.   fields  like  medieval literature and fields  like  engineering.  i do not agree with the open endedness of  like.   studying literature itself, for example, is absolutely valuable and respectable.  we still do need people to be highly studied in literature.  it contributes to the understand of cultures and societies around the world, and our own.   #  this way, they contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the past that we have as a species.   # it requires expert knowledge in the field.  it contributes to the understanding that modern people have of the field.  a person holding such a qualification has a better grasp on the subject than the closest equivalent of a specialists we had 0 years ago.  i like to watch historical documentaries about people living in the victorian age and before that.  i would bet most of the people presenting such information is a phd in a field you do not value.  these people make information i find entertaining accessible to me.  does this qualify as value to you ? i would also like to point out that the media we enjoy today blogs, streams, podcasts is not the media of 0 years ago books, magazines, newspapers and probably wo not be the media people enjoy 0 years from now virtual reality ? direct brain stimulation ? so we constantly need to produce new material about specialist topics for public consumption.  you are also hung up on the fact that engineers are improving our life.  in fact, a lot of technology makes human labor less important.  maybe people that are no longer required to work in agriculture, manufacturing, etc should be free to chose a subject they enjoy to specialize in.  this way, they contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the past that we have as a species.  arguably, there are people who would never succeed in engineering, while they may have significant contributions to more abstract realistic fields or to the humanities.  frankly, i am an engineering major.  i specialize in computer networks.  i did not chose this because it would make me rich, or because i have some sort of superiority complex relating to non stem majors, i chose it because i enjoy the field and i have a bit of a natural talent for it.  i see a lot of guys go for software engineering, buy their homework/other papers because they ca not or wo not do it themselves, and barely get through a masters.  are these guys more valuable than someone who is truly passionate about a humanities field ?
a research doctorate in engineering is an expansion of human knowledge.  you have to create something or develop a technique that no one has ever done before, that is reproducible, and that is valuable to society.  engineering phds are shaping modern society and changing the world.  we are making education accessible to everyone, we are improving modern medicine and making that accessible to everyone.  we are literally extending human life.  i genuinely do not know what a doctorate in medieval literature requires or contributes.  i do not know what it is value is.  and so i judge it as being less valuable.  i could be completely wrong ! i am just saying that i am ignorant to its value.  cmv  #  and so i judge it as being less valuable.   #  do you not think that the study of the past is valuable ?  # we are making education accessible to everyone, we are improving modern medicine and making that accessible to everyone.  we are literally extending human life.  you are also designing daisy cutters and hollow point rounds intended to splinter upon impact causing the maximum amount of damage to the human body.  engineers designed the gas chambers in concentration camps.  engineering is not inherently good.  do you not think that the study of the past is valuable ?  #  engineering phds are shaping modern society and changing the world.   #  as a stem graduate and ardent supporter of stem degrees, i would argue that for the general citizen looking for a degree in college a stem degree is more valuable.  however, what makes a phd  valuable  for human society ? aside from the obvious fact that assigning  value  to degrees is very subjective and nebulous, i think you are ignoring where phds in liberal arts affect society as a whole.  you have to create something or develop a technique that no one has ever done before, that is reproducible, and that is valuable to society.  engineering phds are shaping modern society and changing the world.  we are making education accessible to everyone, we are improving modern medicine and making that accessible to everyone.  we are literally extending human life.  i genuinely do not know what a doctorate in medieval literature requires or contributes.  i do not know what it is value is.  and so i judge it as being less valuable.  i could be completely wrong ! i am just saying that i am ignorant to its value.  while it is true that engineers contribute quite a bit to the expansion of human knowledge and to creating new things for humans to use, it is important to note that a phd in say,  medieval literature  can contribute a lot to human society.  for one, who are we but the histories and legacies we leave behind ? modern civilization is built on the remnants and lessons from past civilizations.  and civilization involves more than what the previous guys physically built or invented it involves the culture and ways of thinking that take western civilization.  few people have not learned of the contributions of the greeks and romans to western civilization.  the archetype of modern heroes is largely built on classical heroes and characters from odysseus to hercules.  as thus, a phd in  classical literature  and certainly medieval literature certainly has a lot to contribute to modern society they provide an understanding of many of the underpinnings of modern culture and thought.  this extends of course beyond literature to phds in history, psychology, sociology, etc.  because society is so much more than just the goods we produce and the technology we have.   #  these things are indispensable, but sometimes and unpredictably.   #  that being said, there are some times when we need to know what happened in 0 is.  those records can corroborate or point out flaws in scientific modelling ie climate change effects crop yields, and mention of a famine can support a model that predicted climate change .  additionally, study of things like literature gives us the ability to see how such topics change over time.  sure, a lot of this is  pure research  as opposed to  targeted research  so rather than being funded by a company that intends to produce something it is funded by charity and grants, but pure research has pretty good returns on investment.  the problem is that we wo not know if we need the ability to read mayan, have a working theory of fiction in classical era, or understand the symbolism in medieval sculpture until the situation comes up.  these things are indispensable, but sometimes and unpredictably.  in many cases technology cannot advance without that pure research.   #  i do not disagree that a doctorate in medieval literature is less valuable and respectable than one in engineering.   #  i do not disagree that a doctorate in medieval literature is less valuable and respectable than one in engineering.  but i do question your use of the word  like.   fields  like  medieval literature and fields  like  engineering.  i do not agree with the open endedness of  like.   studying literature itself, for example, is absolutely valuable and respectable.  we still do need people to be highly studied in literature.  it contributes to the understand of cultures and societies around the world, and our own.   #  i see a lot of guys go for software engineering, buy their homework/other papers because they ca not or wo not do it themselves, and barely get through a masters.   # it requires expert knowledge in the field.  it contributes to the understanding that modern people have of the field.  a person holding such a qualification has a better grasp on the subject than the closest equivalent of a specialists we had 0 years ago.  i like to watch historical documentaries about people living in the victorian age and before that.  i would bet most of the people presenting such information is a phd in a field you do not value.  these people make information i find entertaining accessible to me.  does this qualify as value to you ? i would also like to point out that the media we enjoy today blogs, streams, podcasts is not the media of 0 years ago books, magazines, newspapers and probably wo not be the media people enjoy 0 years from now virtual reality ? direct brain stimulation ? so we constantly need to produce new material about specialist topics for public consumption.  you are also hung up on the fact that engineers are improving our life.  in fact, a lot of technology makes human labor less important.  maybe people that are no longer required to work in agriculture, manufacturing, etc should be free to chose a subject they enjoy to specialize in.  this way, they contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the past that we have as a species.  arguably, there are people who would never succeed in engineering, while they may have significant contributions to more abstract realistic fields or to the humanities.  frankly, i am an engineering major.  i specialize in computer networks.  i did not chose this because it would make me rich, or because i have some sort of superiority complex relating to non stem majors, i chose it because i enjoy the field and i have a bit of a natural talent for it.  i see a lot of guys go for software engineering, buy their homework/other papers because they ca not or wo not do it themselves, and barely get through a masters.  are these guys more valuable than someone who is truly passionate about a humanities field ?
the old adage  it is all been done  could not be more true today.  i think that it really has.  maybe individuals could get away with one or two novelties, but they wo not have as deep of an impact from today as people had in the past.  i say this from both a technical standpoint, and from a symbolic or artistic aspect.  this is especially true with cinema and music, as i am most familiar with these mediums, but i suspect it might be the same with art and literature.  we can no longer shock, horrify, scare, or blow the minds off of audiences any more.  it is all been done, redone, distilled, parodied, commercialized and copied.  we are in the post post post era.   #  we can no longer shock, horrify, scare, or blow the minds off of audiences any more.   #  i was blown away by kenichi ebina URL last year when he was on america is got talent.   # i was blown away by kenichi ebina URL last year when he was on america is got talent.  obviously he is not as big as the beatles but i do not think you can watch him for the first time and not have him blow your mind.  terry fator URL from another season is the same way.  we will still see new things.  we will still be blown away.  there may not be another group like the beatles because we are so segmented now.  there is no longer a huge category for  teenagers  everything is segmented because we have so many choices.  movies and tv are no longer for everyone.  we have young family tv, women tv, older teen tv, older people tv, etc.  so we will probably never have another ed sullivan moment in the exact same way but it will still happen.  almost everyone in america under 0 knows and a good portion watched gangnam style.  it had 0 billion views.  it was a breakthrough in music.  you are right that there will probably never be another group that has so many breakthroughs but that is only because there are so many more groups now.  not because there are fewer breakthroughs.  when the beatles did it not only was there not hundreds of bands but there were few ways to get yourself into the public sphere.  so they could remain huge because it was so tough for other bands to get exposure.  nothing to do with everything has already been done.   #  that does not mean it ca not be done or expressed differently in a better way.   #  alexander pope wrote in his essay on criticism that  true wit is nature to advantage dressed; / what oft was thought but ne er so well expressed.   yeah, everything has been done before.  every movie and every novel draws from themes we all experience as human beings.  yes, avatar was a retelling of pocahontas and ferngully, but that does not mean that it did not do something new to the story.  it expanded its scope, relating environmentalism on a much larger scale.  everything has been done before.  that does not mean it ca not be done or expressed differently in a better way.   #  these major music breakthrough periods generally occur when technology changes.   #  these major music breakthrough periods generally occur when technology changes.  obviously we saw quite a bit of technological advancements last century and with that came new music innovation.  with that said, i am confident that with the next round of technological innovations talking next 0 0 years   beyond there will be more of these  revolutionary  periods where a musician can have just as many game changing innovations as the beatles.  i am pretty confident we have not reached the apex of human technology.  what if in the future we can simply think and the music will record on our computer straight from our brain waves ? think about what new and innovating things that might yield.  this is only one possibility.   #   charles h.  duell was the commissioner of us patent office in 0.  mr.   #  many people have agreed with you in history.  every person that has made a breakthrough in history has proved all of those people wrong, i do not think you will be the exception.   charles h.  duell was the commissioner of us patent office in 0.  mr.  deull is most famous attributed utterance is that  everything that can be invented has been invented.   most patent attorneys have also heard that the quote is apocryphal.     #  are merely about pushing social boundaries, usually for profit, and so will not be  breakthroughs .   #  in a  mature  medium, i think you have a point.  it is difficult for someone to make a radically new breakthrough in many media movies, tv, literature, music, etc.  why is this ?  new  breakthroughs are fundamentally difficult and ca not be foreseen, by definition.  incremental advances shock, scare, etc.  are merely about pushing social boundaries, usually for profit, and so will not be  breakthroughs .  but instead of looking at people to make breakthroughs in existing media, look to new or not yet mature mediums first.  virtual reality is a great example we are at the point now where technology has advanced enough to support a virtual reality device of acceptable fidelity see: /r/oculus video games are another.  i do not think that video games are yet at a  fully mature  state, there are still a lot of room for interesting developments there.  the oculus rift and vr headsets, in general , i think will be both a breakthrough of their own and provide a platform for many breakthroughs in many areas, such as music, movies, video games, etc.
backstory: i was born outside the us, and my family moved to the states when i was pretty young.  i am currently in college, and my family just moved a heck of a lot closer to me.  my family has moved a lot, and i personally have no idea where i will want to live once i graduate.  i also have to take into account that i have a very strong relationship with my girlfriend, i want to marry her and spend my life with her and so i must take into consideration where she will want to live as well.  so here is my point: i have lived here long enough to become a citizen, and i meet all the requirements for doing so, but i have a couple reasons for not applying for it just yet.  firstly, i am refusing to get citizenship because of how difficult it has been for my family and the millions of immigrants who come here legally to get citizenship.  the current immigration and naturalization systems are pretty hard to navigate as is.  i do not want an easier system for me, i want a system that is easier for everybody, a system not clogged with bureaucracy, a system that treats each human life with dignity and respect and does not provide huge hurdles to jump over.  secondly, if i get my citizenship, i have the legal obligation to vote.  then i have to register to vote, and i would rather save that for once i am settled in an area.  i do not want to vote in a city or state that i will not be affected by in the future for certain.  and i may not even live in the us later on, so what is the point ? i have permanent residency, and citizenship with another country.  i have not ruled out becoming an american citizen, but i believe i should wait until i have sorted out my life.  cmv  #  i want a system that is easier for everybody, a system not clogged with bureaucracy, a system that treats each human life with dignity and respect and does not provide huge hurdles to jump over.   #  how will your decision to pursue citizenship help achieve this goal ?  # how will your decision to pursue citizenship help achieve this goal ? that is inaccurate.  you may have a moral obligation to vote, but you have no legal obligation to vote or even to register to vote.  what nationality is your girlfriend ? where does she think she might want to live ?  #  it is to help people understand the issue and raise awareness so that together we can make a change.   #  i am just going to approach that as such: very few people are even concerned with actually changing the immigration  system .  i could vote for people who do care, but i am attending a college in the northeast, it is not a hot button issue out here.  congress, from what i have seen, is more focused on amnesty or deportation, instead of tackling the problems head on.  my goal right now is not an instantaneous change.  it is to help people understand the issue and raise awareness so that together we can make a change.   #  i am actually trying to get people to look into the true issues of our immigration system and get people into office who will make a difference and not be focused on deportation or amnesty.   #  i am not standing by silently waiting for things to change.  i am actually trying to get people to look into the true issues of our immigration system and get people into office who will make a difference and not be focused on deportation or amnesty.  i ca not make the change on my own.  but if i can get 0,0 people to stand with me, we might stand a chance.  if i was simply silently protesting i would have no reason for my view to be changed.  i am trying to make a change, and i do not see how citizenship right now will help me do that.   #  we do not have to vote to get people to vote.   #    it is not simply about votes.  if i tell 0 people about the broken immigration system, i can convince 0 people at most.  if me and all those 0,0 people convinced even 0 people each, we have a lot more to work with.  so sure, i am a non voter.  anyone in my situation is a non voter, but we do not have to tell each other how broken the system is.  we go and speak to voters.  we get voters on our side.  we do not have to vote to get people to vote.  that being said, i do see that my lack of voting can make things difficult later on.  i should pursue citizenship in the future, but i still believe i ca not make much of a difference just yet.   #  i agree with you that the current immigration policies are difficult to navigate, but you are not going to convince anybody of that by not trying.   # you do not have to, but it certainly would be easier.  i agree with you that the current immigration policies are difficult to navigate, but you are not going to convince anybody of that by not trying.  you are leaving an easy way to dismiss your argument, since somebody can simply say  you say it is so hard, but you did not even try once ? sounds like your just lazy.   you would have a much better time convincing people if you went through it and then could say  i did this, and it was difficult and terrible and needs to be changed.  it no longer accomplishes what it is supposed to .  imagine if somebody said that they wanted to learn a new language, but they did not even try because they knew it would be too hard.  you would just think they are lazy and prone to complaints.  it would be a much more convincing argument if they said  i learned this language, but there must be a better way.  we should look for it .
race  does not exist in the way that we have thought of it since the early modern era.  it is pseudo science, a social alchemy we came up with to classify humans  scientifically .  we are all essentially the same genetically and difference in appearance skin tone, eye shape, etc.  are just that, superficial differences.  i am not saying this to get upboats, come off as smart and tolerant, or otherwise get a pat on the back.  its just a fact.  if the world were really classified into categories as broad as  asians  or  africans/blacks  then there would not be so many incidents of ethnic cleansing in the continents.  if one were to try to classify swaths of people then culture is a better way to go about it.  i probably would have far more in common with any  black  person in america then any russian doppelganger i may have despite physical appearance.  i do not think i have any obligation to buy into it anyways.  i get shit for not believing in affirmative action, not liking that i have to mark my  race  on forms, etc.  i am accused of just  treating people like they are white  among other things.  first off, how does one treat someone like they are white ? explain that and maybe i will respond.  i am accused of just being secretly racist, which i do not know how to disprove.  just as i do not know how to disprove that i secretly believe that 0/0 was an inside job.  it seems the person already has this idea of who i am and ca not convince them otherwise.   #  how does one treat someone like they are white ?  #  this again comes back to the theme of institutionalized racism.   #  i think the main problem comes because while  you  do not want to see race in the interest of treating everybody equally and want to set an example or whatever, institutional racism URL does not depend on how people feel, but rather how a system that is carried over from an era of rather explicit and legalized racism perpetuates itself today.  thus, the fact is that whether you want to see race or not is irrelevant; black and brown people still have to deal with racism, and so  you trying to actively ignore race means that you are preventing yourself from understanding what we experience.  this again comes back to the theme of institutionalized racism.  take the example of laws around cocaine versus crack: both are essentially the same drug, but the usage of the two forms fall across race and class lines.  crack is the poor black man is drug; coke is the rich white man is drug to put it crudely .  guess how the punishment for the two is ? URL  #  even though  race  is not a biological reality, it is, at the moment, a social reality.   #  i am not sure what you mean  scientifically , or  correct term .  race and ethnicity are different terms referring to different things.  even though  race  is not a biological reality, it is, at the moment, a social reality.  our conception of race today is still influenced by outdated notions that humans could/should be separated into different categories based on physical characteristics, most obviously skin color.  while there is no such thing biologically as different  races  of humans, because of the legacy of racism, people are still treated differently based on the racial group to which they are perceived to belong.  if someone uses the term race to attempt to delineate biological differences between humans with different skin colors, that is bs.  if someone uses the term race to identify social problems with how blacks vs.  whites are treated in society, then that is the correct term to use.  ethnicity is just as much a social construct as race, it is just a much less nefarious one.  ethnicity is about cultural background.  it can also get tied up with race, which makes this whole conversation really tricky, but they are separate terms used for different purposes.  one example that illustrates this is hispanic americans.  in the us, someone who is  hispanic  is anyone with heritage in a spanish speaking country.  this is ethnicity if you look at forms asking for this kind of information, individuals are asked to indicate whether they identify as hispanic, and then separately there is a question about race.  a person can be hispanic and white, hispanic and black, etc.  there are two separate identifiers because these identifiers are important in related but distinct ways.  basically, race and ethnicity are not interchangeable.   #  as you say, words have conventional meanings, but they also have historical and cultural meaning that is not under your control.   #  no this is not correct.  a word holds a charge, and the charge that race holds is the possitivist, social evolutionist, racist early 0th late 0th century charge.  as you say, words have conventional meanings, but they also have historical and cultural meaning that is not under your control.  it is the same as  nigger  or  cook .  can we make a convention that it just  designates a member of a certain ethnicity  like  jew  or  asian  ? no, we ca not, because we cannot escape the words historical charge.  also, the same word,  race  is used in academic circles in an absolutely different sense and with a very scientific and very racist meaning if applied to humans.  you cannot divorce the word from that, but academics definitely do not use the word  race  when referring to humans any more.  because it is harmful.  this is what you guys do not seem to get.  as you perpetuate a completely wrong, misguided notion of  race  as something that is bureaucratically relevant in your culture, using that word, you perpetuate the biologist myth.   #  the point is, regardless of the biological implications of race, the concept has power because people make distinctions based on it.   #  whether race exists taxologically in other species is irrelevent to the topic at hand.  race is a popular term used more broadly than ethnicity when describing people.  people, including governments, discriminate and make distinction based on race, and some mention  both  racial and ethnic groups.  the point is, regardless of the biological implications of race, the concept has power because people make distinctions based on it.  the social perception of some human differences and conflict  as racial differences and conflict  is the only thing that matters here.   #  even those that earned citizenship in the empire were secondary citizens to the  proper romans  save for some very specific cases.   #  they very clearly differentiated between those born in rome and italy and those born in outlying provinces.  even those that earned citizenship in the empire were secondary citizens to the  proper romans  save for some very specific cases.  and those born not of the peoples of the empire were nearly dirt in their eyes.  similar mentalities about outsiders were held by the other ancient groups.  and race was not based solely on color of skin either, it was region and culture of birth.
race  does not exist in the way that we have thought of it since the early modern era.  it is pseudo science, a social alchemy we came up with to classify humans  scientifically .  we are all essentially the same genetically and difference in appearance skin tone, eye shape, etc.  are just that, superficial differences.  i am not saying this to get upboats, come off as smart and tolerant, or otherwise get a pat on the back.  its just a fact.  if the world were really classified into categories as broad as  asians  or  africans/blacks  then there would not be so many incidents of ethnic cleansing in the continents.  if one were to try to classify swaths of people then culture is a better way to go about it.  i probably would have far more in common with any  black  person in america then any russian doppelganger i may have despite physical appearance.  i do not think i have any obligation to buy into it anyways.  i get shit for not believing in affirmative action, not liking that i have to mark my  race  on forms, etc.  i am accused of just  treating people like they are white  among other things.  first off, how does one treat someone like they are white ? explain that and maybe i will respond.  i am accused of just being secretly racist, which i do not know how to disprove.  just as i do not know how to disprove that i secretly believe that 0/0 was an inside job.  it seems the person already has this idea of who i am and ca not convince them otherwise.   #  i am accused of just being secretly racist, which i do not know how to disprove.   #  the issue is that you are failing to accept others  self identity.   # the issue is that you are failing to accept others  self identity.  it is super rude to tell someone that their identity does not exist because you are refusing to accept them on the terms they see themselves.  most categories can be constructed a variety of ways.  by some peoples  conceptions of sexuality, there is no such thing as gay or straight, but to tell a person who identifies as gay that homosexuality does not exist comes across as rude and tone deaf.  race is a social construct, but to tell someone who identifies as irish that there is no such thing is likewise rude and tone deaf.  you do not have to buy into the conceptions.  but you do have to have a damn good reason if you are going to refuse to call someone by the category they see themselves as.  if all you have is  i do not believe in it , just let people call themselves what they like.   #  if someone uses the term race to attempt to delineate biological differences between humans with different skin colors, that is bs.   #  i am not sure what you mean  scientifically , or  correct term .  race and ethnicity are different terms referring to different things.  even though  race  is not a biological reality, it is, at the moment, a social reality.  our conception of race today is still influenced by outdated notions that humans could/should be separated into different categories based on physical characteristics, most obviously skin color.  while there is no such thing biologically as different  races  of humans, because of the legacy of racism, people are still treated differently based on the racial group to which they are perceived to belong.  if someone uses the term race to attempt to delineate biological differences between humans with different skin colors, that is bs.  if someone uses the term race to identify social problems with how blacks vs.  whites are treated in society, then that is the correct term to use.  ethnicity is just as much a social construct as race, it is just a much less nefarious one.  ethnicity is about cultural background.  it can also get tied up with race, which makes this whole conversation really tricky, but they are separate terms used for different purposes.  one example that illustrates this is hispanic americans.  in the us, someone who is  hispanic  is anyone with heritage in a spanish speaking country.  this is ethnicity if you look at forms asking for this kind of information, individuals are asked to indicate whether they identify as hispanic, and then separately there is a question about race.  a person can be hispanic and white, hispanic and black, etc.  there are two separate identifiers because these identifiers are important in related but distinct ways.  basically, race and ethnicity are not interchangeable.   #  a word holds a charge, and the charge that race holds is the possitivist, social evolutionist, racist early 0th late 0th century charge.   #  no this is not correct.  a word holds a charge, and the charge that race holds is the possitivist, social evolutionist, racist early 0th late 0th century charge.  as you say, words have conventional meanings, but they also have historical and cultural meaning that is not under your control.  it is the same as  nigger  or  cook .  can we make a convention that it just  designates a member of a certain ethnicity  like  jew  or  asian  ? no, we ca not, because we cannot escape the words historical charge.  also, the same word,  race  is used in academic circles in an absolutely different sense and with a very scientific and very racist meaning if applied to humans.  you cannot divorce the word from that, but academics definitely do not use the word  race  when referring to humans any more.  because it is harmful.  this is what you guys do not seem to get.  as you perpetuate a completely wrong, misguided notion of  race  as something that is bureaucratically relevant in your culture, using that word, you perpetuate the biologist myth.   #  whether race exists taxologically in other species is irrelevent to the topic at hand.   #  whether race exists taxologically in other species is irrelevent to the topic at hand.  race is a popular term used more broadly than ethnicity when describing people.  people, including governments, discriminate and make distinction based on race, and some mention  both  racial and ethnic groups.  the point is, regardless of the biological implications of race, the concept has power because people make distinctions based on it.  the social perception of some human differences and conflict  as racial differences and conflict  is the only thing that matters here.   #  and those born not of the peoples of the empire were nearly dirt in their eyes.   #  they very clearly differentiated between those born in rome and italy and those born in outlying provinces.  even those that earned citizenship in the empire were secondary citizens to the  proper romans  save for some very specific cases.  and those born not of the peoples of the empire were nearly dirt in their eyes.  similar mentalities about outsiders were held by the other ancient groups.  and race was not based solely on color of skin either, it was region and culture of birth.
race  does not exist in the way that we have thought of it since the early modern era.  it is pseudo science, a social alchemy we came up with to classify humans  scientifically .  we are all essentially the same genetically and difference in appearance skin tone, eye shape, etc.  are just that, superficial differences.  i am not saying this to get upboats, come off as smart and tolerant, or otherwise get a pat on the back.  its just a fact.  if the world were really classified into categories as broad as  asians  or  africans/blacks  then there would not be so many incidents of ethnic cleansing in the continents.  if one were to try to classify swaths of people then culture is a better way to go about it.  i probably would have far more in common with any  black  person in america then any russian doppelganger i may have despite physical appearance.  i do not think i have any obligation to buy into it anyways.  i get shit for not believing in affirmative action, not liking that i have to mark my  race  on forms, etc.  i am accused of just  treating people like they are white  among other things.  first off, how does one treat someone like they are white ? explain that and maybe i will respond.  i am accused of just being secretly racist, which i do not know how to disprove.  just as i do not know how to disprove that i secretly believe that 0/0 was an inside job.  it seems the person already has this idea of who i am and ca not convince them otherwise.   #   race  does not exist in the way that we have thought of it since the early modern era.   #  it is pseudo science, a social alchemy we came up with to classify humans  scientifically .   # it is pseudo science, a social alchemy we came up with to classify humans  scientifically .  we are all essentially the same genetically and difference in appearance skin tone, eye shape, etc.  are just that, superficial differences.  it is clear that racial groupings are not as scientifically meaningful as many people expected, but it is also not as meaningless as you seem to suggest.  knowing a person is race does not only help you predict genes that determine appearance URL there are scientific attempts to classify humans based on genetics.  URL some researchers claim that they are able to identify large geographical clusters, but there are obviously many methodological concerns.  evolutionary geneticists claim that the genetic differences between individuals of the same race are about the same as between individuals of different races.  the problem with such claims is the definition of genetic differences.  we ca not simply assume that all genes are equally important and there is clearly still a lot to learn about genetics.  i get shit for not believing in affirmative action, not liking that i have to mark my  race  on forms, etc.  i am accused of just  treating people like they are white  among other things.  buy into what exactly ? affirmative action is not about genetics, it is about how visible traits might disadvantage people for no good reason and trying to counteract that.  you can argue that such measures might not be effective and cause more harm than good, but that is a completely different debate.   #  it can also get tied up with race, which makes this whole conversation really tricky, but they are separate terms used for different purposes.   #  i am not sure what you mean  scientifically , or  correct term .  race and ethnicity are different terms referring to different things.  even though  race  is not a biological reality, it is, at the moment, a social reality.  our conception of race today is still influenced by outdated notions that humans could/should be separated into different categories based on physical characteristics, most obviously skin color.  while there is no such thing biologically as different  races  of humans, because of the legacy of racism, people are still treated differently based on the racial group to which they are perceived to belong.  if someone uses the term race to attempt to delineate biological differences between humans with different skin colors, that is bs.  if someone uses the term race to identify social problems with how blacks vs.  whites are treated in society, then that is the correct term to use.  ethnicity is just as much a social construct as race, it is just a much less nefarious one.  ethnicity is about cultural background.  it can also get tied up with race, which makes this whole conversation really tricky, but they are separate terms used for different purposes.  one example that illustrates this is hispanic americans.  in the us, someone who is  hispanic  is anyone with heritage in a spanish speaking country.  this is ethnicity if you look at forms asking for this kind of information, individuals are asked to indicate whether they identify as hispanic, and then separately there is a question about race.  a person can be hispanic and white, hispanic and black, etc.  there are two separate identifiers because these identifiers are important in related but distinct ways.  basically, race and ethnicity are not interchangeable.   #  also, the same word,  race  is used in academic circles in an absolutely different sense and with a very scientific and very racist meaning if applied to humans.   #  no this is not correct.  a word holds a charge, and the charge that race holds is the possitivist, social evolutionist, racist early 0th late 0th century charge.  as you say, words have conventional meanings, but they also have historical and cultural meaning that is not under your control.  it is the same as  nigger  or  cook .  can we make a convention that it just  designates a member of a certain ethnicity  like  jew  or  asian  ? no, we ca not, because we cannot escape the words historical charge.  also, the same word,  race  is used in academic circles in an absolutely different sense and with a very scientific and very racist meaning if applied to humans.  you cannot divorce the word from that, but academics definitely do not use the word  race  when referring to humans any more.  because it is harmful.  this is what you guys do not seem to get.  as you perpetuate a completely wrong, misguided notion of  race  as something that is bureaucratically relevant in your culture, using that word, you perpetuate the biologist myth.   #  the social perception of some human differences and conflict  as racial differences and conflict  is the only thing that matters here.   #  whether race exists taxologically in other species is irrelevent to the topic at hand.  race is a popular term used more broadly than ethnicity when describing people.  people, including governments, discriminate and make distinction based on race, and some mention  both  racial and ethnic groups.  the point is, regardless of the biological implications of race, the concept has power because people make distinctions based on it.  the social perception of some human differences and conflict  as racial differences and conflict  is the only thing that matters here.   #  similar mentalities about outsiders were held by the other ancient groups.   #  they very clearly differentiated between those born in rome and italy and those born in outlying provinces.  even those that earned citizenship in the empire were secondary citizens to the  proper romans  save for some very specific cases.  and those born not of the peoples of the empire were nearly dirt in their eyes.  similar mentalities about outsiders were held by the other ancient groups.  and race was not based solely on color of skin either, it was region and culture of birth.
race  does not exist in the way that we have thought of it since the early modern era.  it is pseudo science, a social alchemy we came up with to classify humans  scientifically .  we are all essentially the same genetically and difference in appearance skin tone, eye shape, etc.  are just that, superficial differences.  i am not saying this to get upboats, come off as smart and tolerant, or otherwise get a pat on the back.  its just a fact.  if the world were really classified into categories as broad as  asians  or  africans/blacks  then there would not be so many incidents of ethnic cleansing in the continents.  if one were to try to classify swaths of people then culture is a better way to go about it.  i probably would have far more in common with any  black  person in america then any russian doppelganger i may have despite physical appearance.  i do not think i have any obligation to buy into it anyways.  i get shit for not believing in affirmative action, not liking that i have to mark my  race  on forms, etc.  i am accused of just  treating people like they are white  among other things.  first off, how does one treat someone like they are white ? explain that and maybe i will respond.  i am accused of just being secretly racist, which i do not know how to disprove.  just as i do not know how to disprove that i secretly believe that 0/0 was an inside job.  it seems the person already has this idea of who i am and ca not convince them otherwise.   #  i do not think i have any obligation to buy into it anyways.   #  i get shit for not believing in affirmative action, not liking that i have to mark my  race  on forms, etc.   # it is pseudo science, a social alchemy we came up with to classify humans  scientifically .  we are all essentially the same genetically and difference in appearance skin tone, eye shape, etc.  are just that, superficial differences.  it is clear that racial groupings are not as scientifically meaningful as many people expected, but it is also not as meaningless as you seem to suggest.  knowing a person is race does not only help you predict genes that determine appearance URL there are scientific attempts to classify humans based on genetics.  URL some researchers claim that they are able to identify large geographical clusters, but there are obviously many methodological concerns.  evolutionary geneticists claim that the genetic differences between individuals of the same race are about the same as between individuals of different races.  the problem with such claims is the definition of genetic differences.  we ca not simply assume that all genes are equally important and there is clearly still a lot to learn about genetics.  i get shit for not believing in affirmative action, not liking that i have to mark my  race  on forms, etc.  i am accused of just  treating people like they are white  among other things.  buy into what exactly ? affirmative action is not about genetics, it is about how visible traits might disadvantage people for no good reason and trying to counteract that.  you can argue that such measures might not be effective and cause more harm than good, but that is a completely different debate.   #  one example that illustrates this is hispanic americans.   #  i am not sure what you mean  scientifically , or  correct term .  race and ethnicity are different terms referring to different things.  even though  race  is not a biological reality, it is, at the moment, a social reality.  our conception of race today is still influenced by outdated notions that humans could/should be separated into different categories based on physical characteristics, most obviously skin color.  while there is no such thing biologically as different  races  of humans, because of the legacy of racism, people are still treated differently based on the racial group to which they are perceived to belong.  if someone uses the term race to attempt to delineate biological differences between humans with different skin colors, that is bs.  if someone uses the term race to identify social problems with how blacks vs.  whites are treated in society, then that is the correct term to use.  ethnicity is just as much a social construct as race, it is just a much less nefarious one.  ethnicity is about cultural background.  it can also get tied up with race, which makes this whole conversation really tricky, but they are separate terms used for different purposes.  one example that illustrates this is hispanic americans.  in the us, someone who is  hispanic  is anyone with heritage in a spanish speaking country.  this is ethnicity if you look at forms asking for this kind of information, individuals are asked to indicate whether they identify as hispanic, and then separately there is a question about race.  a person can be hispanic and white, hispanic and black, etc.  there are two separate identifiers because these identifiers are important in related but distinct ways.  basically, race and ethnicity are not interchangeable.   #  as you perpetuate a completely wrong, misguided notion of  race  as something that is bureaucratically relevant in your culture, using that word, you perpetuate the biologist myth.   #  no this is not correct.  a word holds a charge, and the charge that race holds is the possitivist, social evolutionist, racist early 0th late 0th century charge.  as you say, words have conventional meanings, but they also have historical and cultural meaning that is not under your control.  it is the same as  nigger  or  cook .  can we make a convention that it just  designates a member of a certain ethnicity  like  jew  or  asian  ? no, we ca not, because we cannot escape the words historical charge.  also, the same word,  race  is used in academic circles in an absolutely different sense and with a very scientific and very racist meaning if applied to humans.  you cannot divorce the word from that, but academics definitely do not use the word  race  when referring to humans any more.  because it is harmful.  this is what you guys do not seem to get.  as you perpetuate a completely wrong, misguided notion of  race  as something that is bureaucratically relevant in your culture, using that word, you perpetuate the biologist myth.   #  whether race exists taxologically in other species is irrelevent to the topic at hand.   #  whether race exists taxologically in other species is irrelevent to the topic at hand.  race is a popular term used more broadly than ethnicity when describing people.  people, including governments, discriminate and make distinction based on race, and some mention  both  racial and ethnic groups.  the point is, regardless of the biological implications of race, the concept has power because people make distinctions based on it.  the social perception of some human differences and conflict  as racial differences and conflict  is the only thing that matters here.   #  and those born not of the peoples of the empire were nearly dirt in their eyes.   #  they very clearly differentiated between those born in rome and italy and those born in outlying provinces.  even those that earned citizenship in the empire were secondary citizens to the  proper romans  save for some very specific cases.  and those born not of the peoples of the empire were nearly dirt in their eyes.  similar mentalities about outsiders were held by the other ancient groups.  and race was not based solely on color of skin either, it was region and culture of birth.
when i listen to the beatles, i hear what is basically the 0 is equivalent of a one direction song.  0 minutes, 0 chords, catchy tune, and thats about it.  so many will argue that the beatles are one of the greatest and most innovative bands of all time, and that they were doing things that have never been done before.  however they always stop short of explaining what exactly those things are and how they changed the course of popular music.  i think what we have is a serious case of group think perpetuated by a generation that associates their many hits with a lot of great memories, and therefore impresses more importance on the musicality than actually exists.  change my view.   #  i hear what is basically the 0 is equivalent of a one direction song.   #  0 minutes, 0 chords, catchy tune, and thats about it.   #  i hope someone with actual music knowledge could add something to this thread, until then, here is what i can offer, as a listener.  0 minutes, 0 chords, catchy tune, and thats about it.  that is definitely true for their songs that are remembered today.  sugary tunes which made them popular and sparked the british invasion.  later in their career, i would argue, they dropped their boy band sound for more experimental and groundbreaking music.  for example, early beatles songs like i want to hold your hand fit cleanly into the pop genre.  but later songs like lucy in the sky with diamonds, strawberry fields forever, and within you without you URL which has a god damn sitar , all came from the sgt.  peppers album, and is notable for it is combination of rock with instruments such as violins and trumpets is remarkably groundbreaking for its time.   #  now onto the second assertion that i take issue with: that the love for the beatles is merely the result of nostalgia.   #  you are falling prey to the classic case of  seinfeldization  see here: URL which is to say that you only feel that the beatles are basic/ lack innovation specially because they were so influential that the vast majority of the music you now know is derived from the groundwork that the beatles laid.  the issue with being the innovator in the past is that those who follow in your footsteps have the advantage of hindsight and sheer numbers.  the beatles sound may now sound contrived simply because contemporary bands took the existing beatles techniques and expanded on them.  consider that the beatles were but one band, yet those who are influenced by them are innumerable.  it is in this way that we are exposed to the latest  strains  s o to speak that branched off from the single source.  these modern day bands took what the beatles had and tweaked it into something of their own, and the countless permutations of such subtle tweaks and differences has resulted in for lack of a better term a  refinement  of the original sound.  i hope i made my point clear, i am starting to ramble a bit so i will leave that as it is.  now onto the second assertion that i take issue with: that the love for the beatles is merely the result of nostalgia.  this is patently false, as evidenced by the simple fact that the beatles remain a staple of people is musical repertoire to this very day.  the popularity of the beatles comes not from their past, but from the very fact that the music resonates and remains relevant to each generation as it comes along.  you would be hardpressed to find someone who outright  dislikes  the beatles.  it is music that is as close to  timeless  as i think is possible.  you have got people who hate rap, country, metal, edm, yet very rarely if ever, in my experience would you come across someone who hates the sounds the beatles played.  their music literally spans generations, people of all ages and walks of life can listen to it and enjoy.  i really cant think of a single other band that has such mass appeal, especially after all these years.  in conclusion: the beatles are a case where they were so integral in laying the foundation of music to come that their very own sound now is seemingly  outclassed  by those who have had the advantage of hindsight and specialization.  when a band is so influential that it ends up sounding  generic  that is merely a testament to how often they have been emulated that the original now seems cliche like in comparison.  the very fact that a band is sound has been used as a framework for those who came after them to springboard into a more nuanced style that may very well be subjectively better speaks volumes about how good they were.  and it is worth noting that every adjustment and addition to the formula inherently leads to the product sound having a more specialized and niche appeal.  the beatles are literally the worlds most popular band, even decades after the height of their careers.  that alone should chhange your view  #  in 0 they made songs like because URL and something URL something is simply the perfect song.   #  another huge problem is that when a lot of people think of the beatles they think of songs like love me do URL and she loves you URL which are indeed pretty simple albeit very catchy .  they sound pretty much exactly like what you would expect from a bunch of 0 year olds in 0.  however, four years later the same guys also wrote songs like tomorrow never knows URL one year later they made songs like lucy in the sky with diamonds URL a day in the life URL and i am the walrus URL in 0 they released helter skelter URL which is a heavy rock song even for today.  compare it to love me do or even a song like the who is i can see for miles URL which had been described as one of the heaviest songs written at the time.  the same album featured happiness is a warm gun URL which is a strange sounding song for a mainstream pop band.  it incorporates different time signatures and weird melodies and then suddenly ends with this pompous, almost cheesy, 0 is chord progression.  brilliant ! in 0 they made songs like because URL and something URL something is simply the perfect song.  is there anything similar to one direction in these songs i have posted ?  #  when bob dylan first heard the beatles, he was blown away by the song constructions   they sounded alien to other musicians.   #  i have to disagree with you on the early songs.  only in retrospect do they sound like what 0 year olds would sing in the early 0s.  what is not at all apparent from our viewpoint 0 years later is how into the future songs like  she loves you  and  i want to hold your hand  sounded at the time.  when bob dylan first heard the beatles, he was blown away by the song constructions   they sounded alien to other musicians.  that they were writing and performing the songs themselves was not icing on the cake   it literally changed the entire game of popular music.  it inspired andrew loog oldham to lock jagger/richards in a room until they composed originals.  cover bands realized there was gold in those hills, and soon every band, in order to be credible, needed hit songs of their own.  i would argue that the early beatles songs were just as revolutionary, in their way, as  tomorrow never knows.    #  correct, it sounds pedestrian now, because it is.   #  the beatles covered berry among many others , and some of their more straightforward rock and roll songs show his influence.  but by 0 they were incorporating multiple aspects of their influences into single songs.  so for example the fourth  yeah  in  she loves you  is an unusual harmony for a pop song   you would expect to hear it in something by the andrews sisters in the 0s.  and it was not just the music: any band at the time would have written that song as  i love you.   it was the  she  that made the song more imaginative to listeners, with the the singer acting as a go between.  correct, it sounds pedestrian now, because it is.  at the time, such distinctions really caught the ear and imagination of their fans.  there is a book i highly recommend on the subject:  revolution in the head  by ian macdonald, who provides not just the musical insight of what made their songs special, but demonstrates how they impacted the culture.  it is a great read whether you like the beatles or not, and it makes you want to listen to every song as if hearing it at the time of release.  i love the book, but disagree vehemently with macdonald that the 0s represented a peak, and that it was all downhill thereafter.
definitions   media studies URL i may refer to as media   english literature URL i may refer to as litt  soft subject  that being that the subject is easier and worth less than a  proper  subject.  a subject that universities think less of.  often more vocational  proper subject  that being a subject that is considered harder and will be taken in higher stead by universities and such.  often more intellectual in the uk those who take media are often said to be doing a  soft  subject.  whereas litt is considered to be a  proper  subject.  my argument is that, both teach the same thing and both are just as valid as subjects.  i ca not speak from personal experience as i am a mathematics and computer science student, however from what my friends who study media or litt say, i have come to the conclusion that there is no difference between the two subjects in terms of skills and what is hoped to be achieved.  i am not however going to argue on the difficulty of the subjects as i am not qualified to make such arguments i am not stopping you from though both subjects are based around reviewing a piece of media produced by someone else.  they both require the student to read meaning into the piece and to draw conclusions from the details of the media.  both require understanding on the cultural state in which the piece was produced in.  in the end they are both a form of literary criticism as far as i can see the only significant difference between the two is that litt focuses on exclusively written media books whereas media studies focuses on mass media.  as far as i can see, this is such a small difference that they might as well be considered the same subject in all but name.   #  in the uk those who take media are often said to be doing a  soft  subject.   #  whereas litt is considered to be a  proper  subject.   # whereas litt is considered to be a  proper  subject.  my argument is that, both teach the same thing and both are just as valid as subjects.  just from the links you submitted it appears that the subjects are very different.  media studies seems to focus on the general topic of mass communication and is a multi disciplinary field that covering the means, purpose, efficacy, philosophy, and message of media.  this appears to be closer to  communications  as a subject rather than english.  the ethics of spam, for example, is a completely valid media studies topic.  the ethics of paper flyers has nothing to do with english lit.  english literature obviously studies the content of written works and seeks to derive understanding from those works.  it can also dove tail into the actual production of meaningful written works.  english lit does not  necessarily  care about the contemporary impact of a specific work which appears to be a requirement of analyzing something from the media studies perspective.  basically media studies is not just the application of english lit techniques to movies and tv shows.   #  the second reason is to get to the deep truths about humanity that great authors reveal.   #  why does one bother reading meaning into various works ? there are two main reasons.  one is to get to the heart of what an author meant and the relationship between that author and his/her milieu.  in this sense, literary criticism is useful to a lawyer who wants to understand what a contract really means, to a spy who wants to describe another culture, to an advertiser who wants to understand how to write effective ads, etc.  this can be done to any media, whether a book or a movie.  the second reason is to get to the deep truths about humanity that great authors reveal.  this can only be done to great works.  if one looks deep within shakesepeare is writing, one will learn something about how we should face death, how we love, and what it is to be human.  if one looks deep within rebecca black is friday, one can glean no such insights.  people who consider english literature a  proper  subject are hoping that the students will extract timeless lessons from their material, and believe that  media studies  is a far less fertile field.  certainly one can imagine a literature major wasting their time on deconstructionism or trivial works, and one can imagine a media studies major focusing on the truly great works of cinema or television and learning what it is to be human from bogart and monroe.  but on the whole, we hope that the literature major is taking full advantage of the greatness of english literature while media studies course titles do seem to focus on trivialities.   #  and my college had a lot of these  pop culture  like classes harry potter, twilight, comic books .   # nope, it was exactly what it sounds like.  and my college had a lot of these  pop culture  like classes harry potter, twilight, comic books .  it is not limited to media studies, is my point.  or would they be missing something deeply important, leaving them philistines at best ? obviously i am biased.  any art education that focuses on only one kind of art is limited.  focusing on only literature would be  missing something deeply important  also.  an ideal situation would be to study film and literature and music and visual art, etc.  but i suppose literature is more important just because it is not something people go out of their way to see, so we need to  force  it on people.  but then, few people go out of their way to see movies like  satantango  or  berlin alexanderplatz  so it is equivalent.   #  people were people before the first film was ever made, and nothing has changed in human nature.   #  i would claim there is no equivalence, any more than we can equate a failure to study math and a failure to study the theremin.  humanity minus movies is missing something small.  people were people before the first film was ever made, and nothing has changed in human nature.  to miss novels is to miss something enormous.  books have changed the course of civilization, and human nature is different for them.  to graduate high school without the ability to film or understand a film is like graduating high school not knowing how to play golf or not knowing how to bake a cake.  it is better to know than not to know, but a person cannot have everything.  to graduate high school without having read great literature is to be a philistine or illiterate.  something essential to a human education is missing.  i am very sorry that your school has lost its way.  it is understandable for american studies or media studies to look at trivial junk, but english departments should be better than that.   #  films and literature  both  do the same thing.   #  you are falsely assuming that books and movies are  different  when in reality they do the exact same thing but using different mediums.  it is not  literature  that changed the course of civilization, but  telling stories and conveying messages through creativity.  the first stories were not books or movies, they were cave paintings and oral recitations.  films and literature  both  do the same thing.  hell, maybe film is literature.  take the greatest writer in the english language, for example, william shakespeare.  he wrote plays.  performance pieces.  his plays have been made into films.  what shakespeare wrote is meant to be performed and film has a performative element, so in this sense, film better captures his literature more than the written text.  if literature is just the conveyance of language and the telling of stories, then film is literature.  your crack about illiteracy is a strawman because we are not talking about written language but literature.  those are not equivalent.  writing film and writing about film also requires written language, so illiteracy is not an issue.
we live in an imperfect world, where the law can never be perfect.  an imperfect body of law can never grant perfect justice.  although perfect justice can never be achieved either, it is better to adhere to the ideal of justice than to the ideal of law, as law is the means to maintain/obtain justice.  whenever the law is unable to grant justice it is right to seek it outside the law.  at times, seeking justice through legal means can also be psychologically, professionally, personally or even physically damaging to the victim.  even if the law could grant justice in this hypothetical case, if it would cause more harm to the victim to use the law, it is right to seek justice outside of the law, and wrong to seek it using the law.  accordingly, when the law is not just, it is everyone is right if not their obligation to punish crimes extrajudicially.   #  at times, seeking justice through legal means can also be psychologically, professionally, personally or even physically damaging to the victim.   #  even if the law could grant justice in this hypothetical case, if it would cause more harm to the victim to use the law, it is right to seek justice outside of the law, and wrong to seek it using the law.   # even if the law could grant justice in this hypothetical case, if it would cause more harm to the victim to use the law, it is right to seek justice outside of the law, and wrong to seek it using the law.  while justice can sometimes be achieved outside the law, it should only be done so in extreme cases.  doing it every time the law fails is deeply problematic.  to explain why, let us explore why we have a law instead of vengeance in the first place.  in a world without law, the reason you do not rob or kill random people is that they or their friends/relatives will get revenge.  one is obligated to enforce one is rights or be seen as easy pickings, so one maintains a strong threat at all times.  this threat of revenge deters many bad deeds, but by no means all any more than the threat of the law deters all bad deeds .  however, at times the revenge for being wronged is seen as going  too far  or as having been misdirected.  in such a case, we may get retaliation for retaliation, and a cycle of revenge and violence.  this is quite expensive in resources and lives.  accordingly, every successful society sets up laws to preempt revenge.  if the law is seen as preeminent, then i have no obligation to avenge misdeeds i can instead rely on the law to protect me.  this means that even if the law fails in a specific case, robbers will still think i am protected by the law in the future and will not necessarily see me as  easy pickings  for having taken no revenge and that no cycles of revenge ever need to take place.  accordingly, one should promote the law as the sole means of pursuing justice when it comes even remotely close to doing ok at punishing wrongdoing, and rely on it instead of extralegal punishment of perpetrators.  if people do otherwise too often, we regress to primitive society is need for extreme violence as a deterrent.   #  so my obvious question is which alternative do you find to be more just ?  # i think that blasphemy is the most despicable crime a human can commit.  anyone blaspheming should be stoned.  i find you guilty of blasphemy.  hence, i believe that the right thing to do is to find you and stone you until you die.  by your logic this is a perfectly valid argument that supersedes your right to live.  i will commit violence against you because i believe that since you are alive justice has by definition failed.  so my obvious question is which alternative do you find to be more just ? either you can live, and my sense of  doing what is right  is suppressed, or you can be stoned to death so that i can feel that justice has been served.  your belief only works with people who share your morals, and many people do not.   #  punishing blasphemy with stoning is just in his eyes   the fact that blasphemy is not a punishable offense is a failure of the law to provide justice.   # therefore those who punish people for it should themselves be punished.  the law is what dictates if something is a punishable offense.  punishing blasphemy with stoning is just in his eyes   the fact that blasphemy is not a punishable offense is a failure of the law to provide justice.  your view is that if the law does not provide justice vigilantism is necessary.  therefore because blasphemy is not illegal, justice has not been served.  because justice has not been served ciggey is justified in exacting extrajudicial punishment what part of this do not you agree with.   #  if that is the case, how do you right those wrongs in a system where the wrong is codified ?  #  i agree with all of it, and it is an example of the limits of vigilantism.  but when you say.    the law is what dictates if something is a punishable offense . would it then be right to stone people for blasphemy in a country where it is legal ? would it be right to hold slaves in a country where it is legal ? if not, then is there a way to right these wrongs ? i was arguing that /u/ciggey  is argument was based on the idea that there are things that are objectively wrong.  if that is the case, how do you right those wrongs in a system where the wrong is codified ?  #  executing slave owners is a lot different from working the underground railroad.   # i do not think it would.  however your view appears to be that if someone gets away with blasphemy in a place where it is illegal they  must  be stoned extra judicially if necessary:  in a country where blasphemy is a punishable offense, you are obligated to punish the people who punish that offense.  just to be clear, i am not suggesting the absolute infallibility of the law.  i am suggesting the exacting extrajudicial  punishment  is not a feasible path to justice in a generalized sense.  if that is the case, how do you right those wrongs in a system where the wrong is codified ? there is a difference between punishment and civil disobedience.  beating shop owner because he wo not allow blacks is very different from staging a sit in.  executing slave owners is a lot different from working the underground railroad.  i think punishment should be delegated to the law you can still circumvent unjust laws without needing to exact punishment especially violent punishment .
i say this for several reasons.  0.  isis is stated goal is to kill it is enemies and create a radical muslim state that would deny it is citizens of their basic right to freedom of religion, a freedom we as american is, as well as most of the world, agree is paramount to a healthy society.  because of this, i consider isis to be a sadistic terrorist organization that deserves to be destroyed, much like the nazi is during world war 0.  0.  as the middle east is such a violatile and dangerous part of the world, i believe it is imperative that the u. s.  has stable allies in the region who can work with the united states to create a better world in the middle east.  i believe the kurds can be those people, as they have shown themselves to be open to our support and co operation.  0.  the united states has the 0st and 0nd largest air forces in the world united states airforce and united states navy, respectively and spends a massive amount of money on their military every year.  if we are going to have such large military resources, why are we not utilizing more of them instead of conducting a series of minor airstrikes with little effect as isis continues to move strongly against kurdish forces.  so, is there a reason why we are not becoming more involved and using more resources to destroy isis, is what we are doing right now enough to support our kurdish allies long enough for them to take the fight back to isis ?  #  if we are going to have such large military resources, why are we not utilizing more of them instead of conducting a series of minor airstrikes with little effect as isis continues to move strongly against kurdish forces.   #  having a large military is not a reason to use it for every opportunity that presents itself.   #  and what happens after the bombings stop and another radical armed group takes the place of isis ? are you supposed to keep bombing in different countries all over the middle east for who knows how long ? having a large military is not a reason to use it for every opportunity that presents itself.  should the u. s.  military get involved in syria ? should it get involved in the ukraine/russia conflict ? should it get involved in armed conflicts in africa ?  #  no education, no employment possibilities, they struggle to provide the basic necessities to provide for their families, and no hope to improve their station through legitimate means.   #  we are not fighting a traditional country with a military force like nazi germany or the ussr.  the solution is not military, religious, or even social; it is economic.  we are fighting disenfranchised, marginalized and radicalized poor people.  while the terrorist masterminds and heads may be evil, their power is in the young, illiterate boys that gladly throw themselves in the line of fire against the infidels.  two things about these people, they have no hope, and nothing to lose.  no education, no employment possibilities, they struggle to provide the basic necessities to provide for their families, and no hope to improve their station through legitimate means.  some radical guy starts ranting about how it is all the west is fault, that they must pay, and people can  do  something to make them pay, not only that, but that if they do sacrifice themselves, they will be let into the highest circles of heaven if they die.  that type of message carries a lot more weight while living hand to mouth.  what happens when we bomb these countries and organizations, as you propose ? we might kill a few lieutenants, maybe even destroy an important target.  inevitably, there is collateral damage, which has two effects, physical and economic.  first it creates victims, both financial and physical.  people die, and houses get destroyed.  someone who was once a moral supporter of the west or at least neutral may now grow to hate the us and its alleis.  perhaps they act violently, or perhaps they use other means.  secondly, the economic impacts.  if a bomb accidentally destroys a plant, or a marketplace at 0am when it is closed, perhaps not many people die, but a lot of people lose their jobs, their merchandise, and their livelihoods.  there are not too many jobs to go around these days in those parts.  these types of attacks not only damage the present, but the future, as they discourage future investment in the area.   well, i am not gonna build a shopping center in gaza, the damn thing will get blown up, and i will be out a chunk of cash !   so construction jobs never happen, and service jobs get lost, and opportunity to consume gets lost.  young men who could have had a shot at making a living as a laborer are instead stuck on the street, desperate, hungry and angry.  tl;dr: the solution is to try to grow the local economies of the most problematic areas.   #  they will continue their violence, but will now begin getting sympathy as a nation.  isis can be stopped in one simple way.   #  the main reason iraq has not yet worked is because to accomplish what needs to be done, a few moral lines will have to be toed, or even crossed.  isis as an organization, exists in the same way heath ledger is joker existed.  they cannot be reasoned with, bought, or otherwise.  their goal, what makes them  terrorists  is to inflict fear, by whatever means effective and necessary on anyone who is not in line with them.  once in control of iraq, even if recognized, they wo not stop.  hamas is an example of what happens once a terrorist group becomes a government.  they will continue their violence, but will now begin getting sympathy as a nation.  isis can be stopped in one simple way.  you eliminate them.  period.  you do not send in a few thousand troops.  you send in as many as it takes to overwhelm and destroy them.  not doing that is just playing with fire.  we have done it 0 times.  once in vietnam, twice in iraq.  we see what happens.  sending a million troops into iraq, every available body, and understanding that causalities will happen, many casualties, is the only way.  and as the leaders of the free world, we have an obligation to protect those getting slaughtered, who have no means to protect themselves.  tl;dr send in the fucking marines, and kick the entire actual shit out of isis until they cease to exist.   #  the us is currently using limited airstrikes to prevent the fall of iraqi kurdistan because 0 .   #  a limited air campaign against isis would not destroy, let alone stop, their current advance through iraq and the levant.  physical troops on the ground would be required to dislodge isis forces from the cities and territory they control.  isis will simply stop amassing in large formations where air power would be effective and the united states lacks the intelligence on the ground to strike leadership in any effective manner.  the us is currently using limited airstrikes to prevent the fall of iraqi kurdistan because 0 .  they are long time partners in a volatile region 0 .  kurdistan is home to large oil fields owned and ran by american firms.   #  the body count would be reported as  0,0 iraqis dead, mostly civilians, 0 us dead, all soldiers.    #  the united states ca not afford to fight is  alone  in full scale warfare.  it has to be fully international or the support will fade and the us will get stuck with another humanitarian crises that it is blamed for.  this is how i see it going down.  0: the u. s.  deploys enough ground forces to wipe them out.  0: is  immediately  blends into the civilian populations.  they become indistinguishable from civilians and enough civilians support them to hide them indefinitely.  is does not wear uniforms and would be confused for civilians  by design .  airstrikes against is would kill many more civilians than they would is militia, again, by design.  this tactic  works .  0: the international community would start to condemn the us for war crimes against civilians.  there would be anti us riots across the world.  the media would frame this as  us vs innocent civilians .  the body count would be reported as  0,0 iraqis dead, mostly civilians, 0 us dead, all soldiers.   and people would boo and hiss at how evil the us is more and more every day.  the civilian body count would be in the thousands, or tens of thousands because this terrorist tactic works extremely well.  it would be extremely difficult to know who was legit is and who was just in the way.  so more is would be counted as civlians than as is, especially the 0 0 year old is members.  because in the us we do not have 0 year old soldiers so we cant perceive them as soldeirs.  so  the us murders children  will become our enemies battle cry.  people would quickly forget why we are fighting in iraq and just  indiscriminately targeting civilians .  0: the us spends 0 years and $0 trillion trying to fight an invisible foe who uses a civilian population for camouflage.  0: the us pulls out of iraq again.  not sure if they won or lost.  0: is reemerges, new name or old name does not matter, and kills off whatever security force we left behind.  0: it never ends.
first off i want to say that i am not a fan boy.  it is hard to get people to talk about this stuff because people so closely associate their personalities with branding nowadays but i am interested in learning about why people like apple products are anything more that easy to use machines with good warranties.  i often observe nerds using and touting apple products but to me the products do not offer any advantage that ca not be countered by moderate understanding of computers.  i feel that people pay a premium for apple products because the experience is streamlined and more safe from virus  malware etc.  for me, apple offers a dumbed down experience that panders to the technologically illiterate and charges them a premium price because they do not know any better.  i understand the arguments that the operating systems run more efficiently and that apple is supposed to have better customer service and warranties but do they ? is not apple more just forcing you to buy an extended warranty with your product.  the old people comment comes from being in the teaching profession and observing that for the same price, teenagers today prefer similarly priced android phones to iphones.  does this mean that apple is holding onto their market share because of old ideas of their supremacy in the smart phone market maintained by older people ? i do not know maybe.  i will give you some of my background with computers and phones.  i grew up using apple products.  my parents always had apple is or macintoshes when i was a kid.  we had a windows and an imac, i felt that for the price the apple products were not worth it especially considering the limited upgradablity, which is only used by apple to make more money.  i have always bought windows computers since.  i play games on my computer still but rarely ever a game that is very demanding in terms of graphics and processing.  i have used both android phones and iphones and in my experience the two offer a similar quality.  i prefer that android is far more customization that the iphone so i use that but my current phone htc one m0 cost the same price as an iphone.  although, i would argue that apple is refusal to allow a microsd slot makes it a little overpriced still.   #  for me, apple offers a dumbed down experience that panders to the technologically illiterate and charges them a premium price because they do not know any better.   #  think about this statement as it relates to cars.   # think about this statement as it relates to cars.  automatic transmissions are significantly more popular in the us than manual transmissions.  most vehicles where manual transmissions are more cheaper thousands ! than their automatic counterparts.  people who drive manual  love  driving manual.  they rave about it.  but guess what ? the majority of people simply do not care .  it is not that they could not learn to drive a manual transmission if they had to.  but they do not care.  they would rather spend a little more money and use a convenient automatic transmission.  phones/tablets/computers are the same way.  most people simply  do not care  about the customization and features.  they want something easy to use.  are people who use automatics mechanically illiterate ? i wonder what most auto mechanics drive.   #  that is it whether it is got 0 torques or can post their fuel economy to facebook is irrelevant to how they use it.   # they want something easy to use.  i would disagree a bit with you here most people  do  care about the features, but their  required features  are so minimal that it is effectively a non issue.  to use the car metaphor, most people want a car that can get them to work and to get groceries.  maybe with a little extra room for kids or whatever.  that is it whether it is got 0 torques or can post their fuel economy to facebook is irrelevant to how they use it.  with computers it is the same.  many most ? people want a computer that they can browse facebook with or skype with grandma with or use to type up an assignment or work proposal.  whether the computer has an i0 or a retina display is irrelevant.  same story for phones iphone vs.  android vs.  windows 0 phones so why do people buy one or the other ? for a new user, there is really not much difference windows or mac or linux will do any of the above pretty fine.  people is choice really comes down to a few things: 0 inertia.  what they have always used, and what they are comfortable with.  0 compatibility/peer pressure.  what their friends/work is using to make it easier to transfer stuff to work, etc.  0 advertising.  far more of a factor for phones see: success of samsung is gs0 ad campaign .  0 style.  self explanatory, but style comes with a cost.  money spent on stylizing a case is money that is not spent on the capability of the hardware.   but  the capability of the hardware is usually so far beyond what most people need that it is not an issue if they are willing to pay the premium.  0 capability.  this is far and away the  least  common reason to choose a computer.  a dev may choose a linux box, etc.  gaming pretty much limits you to pc mac and linux are still far behind for gaming.  sorry.  0 preference.  again, this is  not common .  people who have used multiple options will have a preferred os/hardware.  note: if you are gonna argue that this is common, you are most definitely not  most users   #  they have not been  tricked by the apple marketing , they simply do not care about the things you care about.   #  i am not agreeing with you.  you charge that apple specifically targets  technologically illiterate  people, and infer that their products are overpriced meaning their price does not reflect the quality of product .  my point is that most people who pay this  premium price  are not necessarily technologically illiterate, they just do not care.  you seem to be coming from a background which prizes performance, customization, etc.  but most people do not value those things.  they have not been  tricked by the apple marketing , they simply do not care about the things you care about.  also, your comparison to mcdonald is is a poor one.  mcdonald is is objectively worse than most other food for you, while apple products by your own admission generally perform at relatively equal levels as their competitors.   #  th point of my post is that the reason people pay more for apple has to do with marketing and not performance or any other reason.   #  i would say most people who buy apple products are people who do not care as well.  th point of my post is that the reason people pay more for apple has to do with marketing and not performance or any other reason.  i also feel that the perception of apple computers does not really coincide with the reality.  my comparison with mcdonalds is spot on.  mcdonalds  food specifically performs at the same level as other food in as much as it fills you.  you are the one that compared mcdonalds quality to apple is performance.  my point was that their business is driven by advertising and nostalgia.   #  i kind of see this happening around me.   #  i think what he is really getting at is that apple no longer offers anything that you ca not achieve through other means on the other platform.  i ca not think of anything, other than security, that apple has an advantage in out of the box, and it really is just out of the box, because windows and linux can both be set up to perform in an equivalent manner.  pretty much all apple offers is the ability to skip the set up and a built in system to make it harder to break by this i mean the lack of options, though i admittedly have not used any of the more recent apple os is .  these are features that call to the elderly/technologically illiterate because they want the same performance and abilities, without having to set things up.  apple dresses it up nice they do have great ui is and does a phenomenal job with marketing, and thus they get to sell something that cannot perform a single function that windows or linux ca not, at a much higher price.  i kind of see this happening around me.  at the same time as my0 year old dad a guy who learned to program on an apple 0 moved away from android and to an iphone because he had trouble finding things in android and it did not operate the way he  told it to , my gf, a former art major talked her out of it and mac enthusiast has moved to windows and cannot wait to forsake her iphone for an s0 i agree with op in spirit.  there is not really a reason for someone technologically literate to spend an extra $0 for he apple brand; save the $0 and spend a couple hours setting up your pc correctly.  that said, apple does still have an aesthetic appeal and ease of use that some may gravitate towards, regardless of their tech ability.  they do not need to be able to access the inner workings of their system easily and it is worth the additional money to get a mac often, i have found, due to familiarity or form being valued more highly than most
first off i want to say that i am not a fan boy.  it is hard to get people to talk about this stuff because people so closely associate their personalities with branding nowadays but i am interested in learning about why people like apple products are anything more that easy to use machines with good warranties.  i often observe nerds using and touting apple products but to me the products do not offer any advantage that ca not be countered by moderate understanding of computers.  i feel that people pay a premium for apple products because the experience is streamlined and more safe from virus  malware etc.  for me, apple offers a dumbed down experience that panders to the technologically illiterate and charges them a premium price because they do not know any better.  i understand the arguments that the operating systems run more efficiently and that apple is supposed to have better customer service and warranties but do they ? is not apple more just forcing you to buy an extended warranty with your product.  the old people comment comes from being in the teaching profession and observing that for the same price, teenagers today prefer similarly priced android phones to iphones.  does this mean that apple is holding onto their market share because of old ideas of their supremacy in the smart phone market maintained by older people ? i do not know maybe.  i will give you some of my background with computers and phones.  i grew up using apple products.  my parents always had apple is or macintoshes when i was a kid.  we had a windows and an imac, i felt that for the price the apple products were not worth it especially considering the limited upgradablity, which is only used by apple to make more money.  i have always bought windows computers since.  i play games on my computer still but rarely ever a game that is very demanding in terms of graphics and processing.  i have used both android phones and iphones and in my experience the two offer a similar quality.  i prefer that android is far more customization that the iphone so i use that but my current phone htc one m0 cost the same price as an iphone.  although, i would argue that apple is refusal to allow a microsd slot makes it a little overpriced still.   #  i often observe nerds using and touting apple products but to me the products do not offer any advantage that ca not be countered by moderate understanding of computers.   #  most people simply  do not care  about the customization and features.   # think about this statement as it relates to cars.  automatic transmissions are significantly more popular in the us than manual transmissions.  most vehicles where manual transmissions are more cheaper thousands ! than their automatic counterparts.  people who drive manual  love  driving manual.  they rave about it.  but guess what ? the majority of people simply do not care .  it is not that they could not learn to drive a manual transmission if they had to.  but they do not care.  they would rather spend a little more money and use a convenient automatic transmission.  phones/tablets/computers are the same way.  most people simply  do not care  about the customization and features.  they want something easy to use.  are people who use automatics mechanically illiterate ? i wonder what most auto mechanics drive.   #  maybe with a little extra room for kids or whatever.   # they want something easy to use.  i would disagree a bit with you here most people  do  care about the features, but their  required features  are so minimal that it is effectively a non issue.  to use the car metaphor, most people want a car that can get them to work and to get groceries.  maybe with a little extra room for kids or whatever.  that is it whether it is got 0 torques or can post their fuel economy to facebook is irrelevant to how they use it.  with computers it is the same.  many most ? people want a computer that they can browse facebook with or skype with grandma with or use to type up an assignment or work proposal.  whether the computer has an i0 or a retina display is irrelevant.  same story for phones iphone vs.  android vs.  windows 0 phones so why do people buy one or the other ? for a new user, there is really not much difference windows or mac or linux will do any of the above pretty fine.  people is choice really comes down to a few things: 0 inertia.  what they have always used, and what they are comfortable with.  0 compatibility/peer pressure.  what their friends/work is using to make it easier to transfer stuff to work, etc.  0 advertising.  far more of a factor for phones see: success of samsung is gs0 ad campaign .  0 style.  self explanatory, but style comes with a cost.  money spent on stylizing a case is money that is not spent on the capability of the hardware.   but  the capability of the hardware is usually so far beyond what most people need that it is not an issue if they are willing to pay the premium.  0 capability.  this is far and away the  least  common reason to choose a computer.  a dev may choose a linux box, etc.  gaming pretty much limits you to pc mac and linux are still far behind for gaming.  sorry.  0 preference.  again, this is  not common .  people who have used multiple options will have a preferred os/hardware.  note: if you are gonna argue that this is common, you are most definitely not  most users   #  mcdonald is is objectively worse than most other food for you, while apple products by your own admission generally perform at relatively equal levels as their competitors.   #  i am not agreeing with you.  you charge that apple specifically targets  technologically illiterate  people, and infer that their products are overpriced meaning their price does not reflect the quality of product .  my point is that most people who pay this  premium price  are not necessarily technologically illiterate, they just do not care.  you seem to be coming from a background which prizes performance, customization, etc.  but most people do not value those things.  they have not been  tricked by the apple marketing , they simply do not care about the things you care about.  also, your comparison to mcdonald is is a poor one.  mcdonald is is objectively worse than most other food for you, while apple products by your own admission generally perform at relatively equal levels as their competitors.   #  mcdonalds  food specifically performs at the same level as other food in as much as it fills you.   #  i would say most people who buy apple products are people who do not care as well.  th point of my post is that the reason people pay more for apple has to do with marketing and not performance or any other reason.  i also feel that the perception of apple computers does not really coincide with the reality.  my comparison with mcdonalds is spot on.  mcdonalds  food specifically performs at the same level as other food in as much as it fills you.  you are the one that compared mcdonalds quality to apple is performance.  my point was that their business is driven by advertising and nostalgia.   #  that said, apple does still have an aesthetic appeal and ease of use that some may gravitate towards, regardless of their tech ability.   #  i think what he is really getting at is that apple no longer offers anything that you ca not achieve through other means on the other platform.  i ca not think of anything, other than security, that apple has an advantage in out of the box, and it really is just out of the box, because windows and linux can both be set up to perform in an equivalent manner.  pretty much all apple offers is the ability to skip the set up and a built in system to make it harder to break by this i mean the lack of options, though i admittedly have not used any of the more recent apple os is .  these are features that call to the elderly/technologically illiterate because they want the same performance and abilities, without having to set things up.  apple dresses it up nice they do have great ui is and does a phenomenal job with marketing, and thus they get to sell something that cannot perform a single function that windows or linux ca not, at a much higher price.  i kind of see this happening around me.  at the same time as my0 year old dad a guy who learned to program on an apple 0 moved away from android and to an iphone because he had trouble finding things in android and it did not operate the way he  told it to , my gf, a former art major talked her out of it and mac enthusiast has moved to windows and cannot wait to forsake her iphone for an s0 i agree with op in spirit.  there is not really a reason for someone technologically literate to spend an extra $0 for he apple brand; save the $0 and spend a couple hours setting up your pc correctly.  that said, apple does still have an aesthetic appeal and ease of use that some may gravitate towards, regardless of their tech ability.  they do not need to be able to access the inner workings of their system easily and it is worth the additional money to get a mac often, i have found, due to familiarity or form being valued more highly than most
a woman who cannot decide when/if she will become pregnant is a woman who does not own her body.  the family structure where the father goes to work and the mother stays at home to raise the kids is exactly the practice that has led to gender inequality.  men who go to work is the breadwinner for the family.  he can claim that the money is his.  men who go to work get skills that allow him to keep up with the marketplace.  women who has to stay at home to raise kids are subjugated by the working husband because she has no income of her own and she has no skills valuable to the marketplace after being at home so long.  if an argument arises, in traditional societies a husband can claim that all the farm and property is his because he is the one who has brought in income for the whole family.  he can kick the wife out.  the wife suddenly realize that because she has been a housewife, without an income she has absolutely no savings.  she wo not be able to claim any of the property is hers because she has not contributed to the family income.  she has no skills that would make her valuable to the marketplace.  i think this is the reason why for so many centuries, women are nearly always subjugated by men.  as soon as a woman is pregnant, whether willing or not usually unplanned , she is expected to stay home with the children.  this practice leads to a massive imbalance in skill set and income potential, widening the gape over time to resulting in men in power positions.  if women are given control over their reproductive system contraception she is able to control the balance of power much more.   #  women who has to stay at home to raise kids are subjugated by the working husband because she has no income of her own and she has no skills valuable to the marketplace after being at home so long.   #  there is a concept in the us called alimony that accounts for this very circumstance.   # so do not practice it ? after recovery, the mother can continue working while the man stays at home with the kids.  if the man protests to this, then you should have chosen a better man.  there is a concept in the us called alimony that accounts for this very circumstance.  unless we are considering rape which we should not for this argument , a woman  does  have control over her reproductive system.  if they do not want to reproduce, do not have unprotected sex.  if they still want to have sex, they can pay for contraception just like men have to pay for contraception.  even if  contraception were freely available, it does not combat the traditional gender roles that seem to be the real view you want changed.  even if  we did combat the traditional gender roles, having a child will still carry a natural disadvantage for women due to simple biology.  furthermore, i do not see the tradition of women raising children as inherently bad or unequal.  basic biology requires that mothers carry a baby to term, and then be in close contact with a child for nutrition.  for young infants, it makes sense for mothers to be the present and primary caretaker.  nobody should be forced to be a stay at home mother forever, but it makes sense how the role came to be.  i strongly disagree with your view that raising children is somehow inferior to a money making job.  both activities are adding value to the family, and families should be treated as units.  one parent caring for a child  enables  the other parent to work.  i am sure many working parents would gladly trade their job for more time with their children; i know i would.  finally, your view only considers relationships that fall apart.  the parent that chooses not to work  does not need marketplace skills .  you are not less of a person just because you do not have a strong job history.  if we could implant valuable marketplace skills into stay at home moms, it would not change their lives at all.  the  only  situation where your view holds water is where women are  forced  to not work, there are no alimony laws, and the parents separate.   #  that is why they always send the son to school, which adds further fuels the inequality.   # my argument is not limited to the richest country in the world.  a woman in bangladesh does not get any alimony.  if they do not want to reproduce, do not have unprotected sex.  if they still want to have sex, they can pay for contraception just like men have to pay for contraception.  0st world answer here.  sex is a powerful drive in people.  you ca not just say  if ya do not want a baby, do not have sex !   it is not that simple.  in poor countries, where contraception is not available, a woman ca not insist her man wear a condom.  every time they bang, a baby pops out.  basic biology requires that mothers carry a baby to term, and then be in close contact with a child for nutrition.  for young infants, it makes sense for mothers to be the present and primary caretaker.  nobody should be forced to be a stay at home mother forever, but it makes sense how the role came to be.  by having to raise a bunch of children that is potentially unplanned, unwanted, she is falling behind economically.  while she is home nursing the baby, the husband is working, getting skills, and making money.  if they buy a house, it is the husband is house.  that is the start of a very unequal relationship financially first .  one parent caring for a child enables the other parent to work.  i am sure many working parents would gladly trade their job for more time with their children; i know i would.  i am glad you think this way.  but seeing how women are treated throughout history, it is obvious not everyone shares this noble view.  you are not less of a person just because you do not have a strong job history.  if we could implant valuable marketplace skills into stay at home moms, it would not change their lives at all.  the only situation where your view holds water is where women are forced to not work, there are no alimony laws, and the parents separate.  let is have a woman from bangladesh as an example.  she and her husband gets into an argument.  she abuses her and kicks her out of the house, because he is the one that bought the house with his money, because he is the only one working.  after being kicked out of the house and living in a country with no divorce protection, she realizes that she has absolutely no savings because her husband keeps family income , no skills so she ca not get a job, and most likely she took her kids with her, so she has mouths to feed.  realizing she is defeated, she crawls back to the husband, who already knows she will.  he treats her even worse now, because he realizes that she is pretty much attached to him for her and the children is livelihood.  no women are  forced  to stay home, but it is the situation for a large part of the world.  alimony laws are a privilege only enjoyed by very few countries.  have you ever thought about why in many asian/muslim/african/s.  american cultures, they do not really place a huge importance on females going to school ? that is because they realize that what she will most likely do is get married, have a bunch of kids most unplanned , and stay home to raise the kids.  that is why they always send the son to school, which adds further fuels the inequality.   #  sex at any other time is not likely to produce a pregnancy the sperm will likely die before they can find an egg because the woman has not ovulated, or the egg is already too old to result in a pregnancy.   # actually, that is not how fertility works.  during every woman is cycle, there is only a period of about six days where she can get pregnant.  sex at any other time is not likely to produce a pregnancy the sperm will likely die before they can find an egg because the woman has not ovulated, or the egg is already too old to result in a pregnancy.  that is why the rhythm method and pulling out can be effective.  so even if we are talking about shitty third world countries a woman only has to avoid vaginal sex for at most a week to pretty effectively avoid pregnancy.  also, your observation about people in poor countries sending their daughters to school is actually fairly apt.  one really good way to get the birth rate to fall in underdeveloped nationas is to give women education and job opportunities, because then they will  choose  not to have babies.  so your view could just as easily be  we should give women more opportunities and improve marriage laws in order to improve equality in third world countries .  leaving the other factors the same and just dropping birth control pills is not actually going to help that much.   #  ask yourself if an infertile woman fares any better in those cultures.   # you ca not just say  if ya do not want a baby, do not have sex !   it is not that simple.  sure it is.  there are many ways to be sexually gratified without sex.  every time they bang, a baby pops out.  if you are in a country so poor that there is  no  contraception available, perhaps money is better spent on improving the country.  what valuable 0rd world skills is the husband acquiring ? if we are talking about poor countries, the workplace technology is pretty stable.  these countries tend to have jobs requiring more manual labor than technical skill.  but seeing how women are treated throughout history, it is obvious not everyone shares this noble view.  are we talking about history, or the present ? if all of my views are first world based, then perhaps the goal should be to bring countries up to first world standards.  free contraception is not a requirement for first world countries.  he treats her even worse now, because he realizes that she is pretty much attached to him for her and the children is livelihood.  this sounds like a domestic abuse situation that does not require children.  the husband could just as easily made his wife a dedicated homemaker because women with jobs are intimidating , and the same situation would arise.  your contraception idea does nothing to change these societal values, and does not prevent mistreatment of women.  american cultures, they do not really place a huge importance on females going to school ? i have never wondered that, because most of the inequality in the middle east is a result of religious ideology.  at the very core, those types of men do not view women as equal.  the women have a place in society, and it is to serve the needs of a man.  educated and successful women threaten that way of life.  consider that in those cultures, it is not  mothers  who are discouraged from being independent, but  women  in general.  ask yourself if an infertile woman fares any better in those cultures.   #  and these views started from the fact that many women because housewives anyway.   # there are many ways to be sexually gratified without sex.  tell that to millions of teenagers.  like making contraceptives available.  even manual labor requires skill.  knowledge and networks too.  you think that is easier than making contraceptives available ? a woman that is financially stable and knows she can support herself wo not put up with any abuse from her man.  the women have a place in society, and it is to serve the needs of a man.  educated and successful women threaten that way of life.  consider that in those cultures, it is not mothers who are discouraged from being independent, but women in general.  ask yourself if an infertile woman fares any better in those cultures.  and these views started from the fact that many women because housewives anyway.  so save the resources for the son !
a woman who cannot decide when/if she will become pregnant is a woman who does not own her body.  the family structure where the father goes to work and the mother stays at home to raise the kids is exactly the practice that has led to gender inequality.  men who go to work is the breadwinner for the family.  he can claim that the money is his.  men who go to work get skills that allow him to keep up with the marketplace.  women who has to stay at home to raise kids are subjugated by the working husband because she has no income of her own and she has no skills valuable to the marketplace after being at home so long.  if an argument arises, in traditional societies a husband can claim that all the farm and property is his because he is the one who has brought in income for the whole family.  he can kick the wife out.  the wife suddenly realize that because she has been a housewife, without an income she has absolutely no savings.  she wo not be able to claim any of the property is hers because she has not contributed to the family income.  she has no skills that would make her valuable to the marketplace.  i think this is the reason why for so many centuries, women are nearly always subjugated by men.  as soon as a woman is pregnant, whether willing or not usually unplanned , she is expected to stay home with the children.  this practice leads to a massive imbalance in skill set and income potential, widening the gape over time to resulting in men in power positions.  if women are given control over their reproductive system contraception she is able to control the balance of power much more.   #  if women are given control over their reproductive system contraception she is able to control the balance of power much more.   #  unless we are considering rape which we should not for this argument , a woman  does  have control over her reproductive system.   # so do not practice it ? after recovery, the mother can continue working while the man stays at home with the kids.  if the man protests to this, then you should have chosen a better man.  there is a concept in the us called alimony that accounts for this very circumstance.  unless we are considering rape which we should not for this argument , a woman  does  have control over her reproductive system.  if they do not want to reproduce, do not have unprotected sex.  if they still want to have sex, they can pay for contraception just like men have to pay for contraception.  even if  contraception were freely available, it does not combat the traditional gender roles that seem to be the real view you want changed.  even if  we did combat the traditional gender roles, having a child will still carry a natural disadvantage for women due to simple biology.  furthermore, i do not see the tradition of women raising children as inherently bad or unequal.  basic biology requires that mothers carry a baby to term, and then be in close contact with a child for nutrition.  for young infants, it makes sense for mothers to be the present and primary caretaker.  nobody should be forced to be a stay at home mother forever, but it makes sense how the role came to be.  i strongly disagree with your view that raising children is somehow inferior to a money making job.  both activities are adding value to the family, and families should be treated as units.  one parent caring for a child  enables  the other parent to work.  i am sure many working parents would gladly trade their job for more time with their children; i know i would.  finally, your view only considers relationships that fall apart.  the parent that chooses not to work  does not need marketplace skills .  you are not less of a person just because you do not have a strong job history.  if we could implant valuable marketplace skills into stay at home moms, it would not change their lives at all.  the  only  situation where your view holds water is where women are  forced  to not work, there are no alimony laws, and the parents separate.   #  i am sure many working parents would gladly trade their job for more time with their children; i know i would.   # my argument is not limited to the richest country in the world.  a woman in bangladesh does not get any alimony.  if they do not want to reproduce, do not have unprotected sex.  if they still want to have sex, they can pay for contraception just like men have to pay for contraception.  0st world answer here.  sex is a powerful drive in people.  you ca not just say  if ya do not want a baby, do not have sex !   it is not that simple.  in poor countries, where contraception is not available, a woman ca not insist her man wear a condom.  every time they bang, a baby pops out.  basic biology requires that mothers carry a baby to term, and then be in close contact with a child for nutrition.  for young infants, it makes sense for mothers to be the present and primary caretaker.  nobody should be forced to be a stay at home mother forever, but it makes sense how the role came to be.  by having to raise a bunch of children that is potentially unplanned, unwanted, she is falling behind economically.  while she is home nursing the baby, the husband is working, getting skills, and making money.  if they buy a house, it is the husband is house.  that is the start of a very unequal relationship financially first .  one parent caring for a child enables the other parent to work.  i am sure many working parents would gladly trade their job for more time with their children; i know i would.  i am glad you think this way.  but seeing how women are treated throughout history, it is obvious not everyone shares this noble view.  you are not less of a person just because you do not have a strong job history.  if we could implant valuable marketplace skills into stay at home moms, it would not change their lives at all.  the only situation where your view holds water is where women are forced to not work, there are no alimony laws, and the parents separate.  let is have a woman from bangladesh as an example.  she and her husband gets into an argument.  she abuses her and kicks her out of the house, because he is the one that bought the house with his money, because he is the only one working.  after being kicked out of the house and living in a country with no divorce protection, she realizes that she has absolutely no savings because her husband keeps family income , no skills so she ca not get a job, and most likely she took her kids with her, so she has mouths to feed.  realizing she is defeated, she crawls back to the husband, who already knows she will.  he treats her even worse now, because he realizes that she is pretty much attached to him for her and the children is livelihood.  no women are  forced  to stay home, but it is the situation for a large part of the world.  alimony laws are a privilege only enjoyed by very few countries.  have you ever thought about why in many asian/muslim/african/s.  american cultures, they do not really place a huge importance on females going to school ? that is because they realize that what she will most likely do is get married, have a bunch of kids most unplanned , and stay home to raise the kids.  that is why they always send the son to school, which adds further fuels the inequality.   #  sex at any other time is not likely to produce a pregnancy the sperm will likely die before they can find an egg because the woman has not ovulated, or the egg is already too old to result in a pregnancy.   # actually, that is not how fertility works.  during every woman is cycle, there is only a period of about six days where she can get pregnant.  sex at any other time is not likely to produce a pregnancy the sperm will likely die before they can find an egg because the woman has not ovulated, or the egg is already too old to result in a pregnancy.  that is why the rhythm method and pulling out can be effective.  so even if we are talking about shitty third world countries a woman only has to avoid vaginal sex for at most a week to pretty effectively avoid pregnancy.  also, your observation about people in poor countries sending their daughters to school is actually fairly apt.  one really good way to get the birth rate to fall in underdeveloped nationas is to give women education and job opportunities, because then they will  choose  not to have babies.  so your view could just as easily be  we should give women more opportunities and improve marriage laws in order to improve equality in third world countries .  leaving the other factors the same and just dropping birth control pills is not actually going to help that much.   #  the women have a place in society, and it is to serve the needs of a man.   # you ca not just say  if ya do not want a baby, do not have sex !   it is not that simple.  sure it is.  there are many ways to be sexually gratified without sex.  every time they bang, a baby pops out.  if you are in a country so poor that there is  no  contraception available, perhaps money is better spent on improving the country.  what valuable 0rd world skills is the husband acquiring ? if we are talking about poor countries, the workplace technology is pretty stable.  these countries tend to have jobs requiring more manual labor than technical skill.  but seeing how women are treated throughout history, it is obvious not everyone shares this noble view.  are we talking about history, or the present ? if all of my views are first world based, then perhaps the goal should be to bring countries up to first world standards.  free contraception is not a requirement for first world countries.  he treats her even worse now, because he realizes that she is pretty much attached to him for her and the children is livelihood.  this sounds like a domestic abuse situation that does not require children.  the husband could just as easily made his wife a dedicated homemaker because women with jobs are intimidating , and the same situation would arise.  your contraception idea does nothing to change these societal values, and does not prevent mistreatment of women.  american cultures, they do not really place a huge importance on females going to school ? i have never wondered that, because most of the inequality in the middle east is a result of religious ideology.  at the very core, those types of men do not view women as equal.  the women have a place in society, and it is to serve the needs of a man.  educated and successful women threaten that way of life.  consider that in those cultures, it is not  mothers  who are discouraged from being independent, but  women  in general.  ask yourself if an infertile woman fares any better in those cultures.   #  ask yourself if an infertile woman fares any better in those cultures.   # there are many ways to be sexually gratified without sex.  tell that to millions of teenagers.  like making contraceptives available.  even manual labor requires skill.  knowledge and networks too.  you think that is easier than making contraceptives available ? a woman that is financially stable and knows she can support herself wo not put up with any abuse from her man.  the women have a place in society, and it is to serve the needs of a man.  educated and successful women threaten that way of life.  consider that in those cultures, it is not mothers who are discouraged from being independent, but women in general.  ask yourself if an infertile woman fares any better in those cultures.  and these views started from the fact that many women because housewives anyway.  so save the resources for the son !
i was part of a conversation yesterday in which people discussing how to give a nod to their support of same sex marriage during their wedding ceremony.  i personally was floored by this proposition, and was equally floored by the number of people who were talking about it like it was a perfectly acceptable thing to do.  the way i see it, same sex marriage has become a big political issue.  i would not campaign for my favorite senator at my wedding.  i would not petition people to join my favorite political or social cause at my wedding.  so why on earth would someone consider it appropriate to do so with this particular cause ?  #  i would not petition people to join my favorite political or social cause at my wedding.   #  so why on earth would someone consider it appropriate to do so with this particular cause ?  # so why on earth would someone consider it appropriate to do so with this particular cause ? harsher penalties for rapists and pro choice legislation make no sense within the context of that particular ritual, but marriage equality is intimately related to the ritual of marriage as it is performed in the us.  i doubt that i would try to garner support for pro choice legislation at, say, a baptism, because it would not make sense in the context of the ritual.  but if marriage equality is an issue that is important to me, then i see nothing wrong with showing my support for it by removing references to marriage being between a man and a woman in my own wedding ceremony.  i would not agree to obey, either.  they are all just modifications to the rite to suit my needs and preferences.  i would also feel like a complete tool if my marriage ceremony was all one man   one woman with my gay brother standing there in a rented tux.  that, in my opinion, would be the very height of poor taste.   #  there is probably someone/ some people they want to specifically recognize and include.   #  i am one of four siblings, two of us are gay; we live in texas.  when my sister got married they specifically told the pastor not to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  the pastor removed all references to it from the wedding.  i would have maybe rolled my eyes a little had the line been spoken, but i would not have been offended.  however i will never forget and always appreciate that my sister and her very conservative husband took extra steps to make sure we felt included.  at one point in the reception my sister very loudly said something like  and one day both my brothers will be able to marry whomever they want too !   and people mostly applauded.  it was a loving gesture, not a political statement.  if someone wants to give a nod to supporting equal marriage, they probably have a good reason.  there is probably someone/ some people they want to specifically recognize and include.   #  it is not uncommon for people to request donations to charity as a wedding present.   #  if the people getting married cared about the environmental issues affecting the lake, i would not be surprised at all, actually.  and again, same sex marriage is not  tangentially related .  it is directly related, as they are or should be the same thing.  it is not uncommon for people to request donations to charity as a wedding present.  it is a small political statement, yes, but certainly not something that would surprise me if someone asked me to donate to the world wildlife fund or the hrc.   #  i get that it is a wedding, but why does that make it ok to discuss the weddings of people, a whole group of people, who, for the most part, unrelated to the wedding that is actually happening ?  #  ok. let is say it is my wedding.  at my wedding, is it cool to talk about my sister is upcoming wedding ? of course ! how about my best friend is upcoming wedding ? again, of course ! what about an old roommate from college that no one really talks to any more ? ok. kind of strange, but ok.  what about a friend from elementary school that no one has heard from in 0 years ? ok. kind of an odd person to bring up.  what about the wedding grandchild of my parents  next door neighbor from their first house that they have not heard from in 0 years ? this is where it is  tangential.   why would you discuss the marriage/wedding of someone totally unrelated to the bride and groom.  making a statement about gay marriage is making a statement about the marriages of 0 of america is population.  i get that it is a wedding, but why does that make it ok to discuss the weddings of people, a whole group of people, who, for the most part, unrelated to the wedding that is actually happening ?  #  this is not a distant thing for us, it is not tangentially related.   #  i myself see the non recognition of same sex marriages as a grave injustice.  a dehumanizations and oppression of a minority.  i feel very strongly about it and so does my fiancé.  fortunately here in canada, such oppression does not exist for the homosexual community so it is not an issue.  this is not a distant thing for us, it is not tangentially related.  the fact that i and my fiancé are able to enjoy these privileges, but there are some out there who ca not.  for reasons that are out of their control is something worth taking a stand.  the last wedding i was at referenced marriage being only between man and man several times.  why is that alright but the opposite in poor taste ?
i was part of a conversation yesterday in which people discussing how to give a nod to their support of same sex marriage during their wedding ceremony.  i personally was floored by this proposition, and was equally floored by the number of people who were talking about it like it was a perfectly acceptable thing to do.  the way i see it, same sex marriage has become a big political issue.  i would not campaign for my favorite senator at my wedding.  i would not petition people to join my favorite political or social cause at my wedding.  so why on earth would someone consider it appropriate to do so with this particular cause ?  #  i would not campaign for my favorite senator at my wedding.   #  i would not petition people to join my favorite political or social cause at my wedding.   #  i think it is a great idea to openly show support for extending the right  that you are about to enjoy  as a direct result of the wedding ceremony, to everyone equally.  i would not petition people to join my favorite political or social cause at my wedding.  so why on earth would someone consider it appropriate to do so with this particular cause ? what makes something  inappropriate  during a wedding if the couple want to do it ? whose interests should override the couple is wishes for their wedding ?  #  i am one of four siblings, two of us are gay; we live in texas.   #  i am one of four siblings, two of us are gay; we live in texas.  when my sister got married they specifically told the pastor not to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  the pastor removed all references to it from the wedding.  i would have maybe rolled my eyes a little had the line been spoken, but i would not have been offended.  however i will never forget and always appreciate that my sister and her very conservative husband took extra steps to make sure we felt included.  at one point in the reception my sister very loudly said something like  and one day both my brothers will be able to marry whomever they want too !   and people mostly applauded.  it was a loving gesture, not a political statement.  if someone wants to give a nod to supporting equal marriage, they probably have a good reason.  there is probably someone/ some people they want to specifically recognize and include.   #  and again, same sex marriage is not  tangentially related .   #  if the people getting married cared about the environmental issues affecting the lake, i would not be surprised at all, actually.  and again, same sex marriage is not  tangentially related .  it is directly related, as they are or should be the same thing.  it is not uncommon for people to request donations to charity as a wedding present.  it is a small political statement, yes, but certainly not something that would surprise me if someone asked me to donate to the world wildlife fund or the hrc.   #  what about a friend from elementary school that no one has heard from in 0 years ?  #  ok. let is say it is my wedding.  at my wedding, is it cool to talk about my sister is upcoming wedding ? of course ! how about my best friend is upcoming wedding ? again, of course ! what about an old roommate from college that no one really talks to any more ? ok. kind of strange, but ok.  what about a friend from elementary school that no one has heard from in 0 years ? ok. kind of an odd person to bring up.  what about the wedding grandchild of my parents  next door neighbor from their first house that they have not heard from in 0 years ? this is where it is  tangential.   why would you discuss the marriage/wedding of someone totally unrelated to the bride and groom.  making a statement about gay marriage is making a statement about the marriages of 0 of america is population.  i get that it is a wedding, but why does that make it ok to discuss the weddings of people, a whole group of people, who, for the most part, unrelated to the wedding that is actually happening ?  #  this is not a distant thing for us, it is not tangentially related.   #  i myself see the non recognition of same sex marriages as a grave injustice.  a dehumanizations and oppression of a minority.  i feel very strongly about it and so does my fiancé.  fortunately here in canada, such oppression does not exist for the homosexual community so it is not an issue.  this is not a distant thing for us, it is not tangentially related.  the fact that i and my fiancé are able to enjoy these privileges, but there are some out there who ca not.  for reasons that are out of their control is something worth taking a stand.  the last wedding i was at referenced marriage being only between man and man several times.  why is that alright but the opposite in poor taste ?
in the most recent ninja turtles movie there is a scene where one of the main villains has one of his henchmen a foot clan soldier killed to prove the efficacy of a weapon, while being held down by two other foot clan soldiers.  darth vader is also guilty of this, routinely killing imperial officers.  so does the joker in the dark knight, and this actually almost goes wrong for him.  all three of these examples represent slightly different reasons for killing your henchmen, but i think each one is poor form.  in the case of the ninja turtles villain, actions like that engender dissent and create a culture of fear and paranoia among your henchmen.  i mean those guys just had to hold down their coworker and watch him die, how do they know it is not going to be them next time ? if anything would inspire me to quit or revolt, that would definitely be up there.  in the case of darth vader, he kills imperial officers for failing him, which stifles creativity and likely costs him a lot of high quality officers.  the empire is fighting an insurgency and as recent events in afghanistan showed, mistakes are going to be made, and it is difficult work.  i suspect that the reason vader is constantly saddled with incompetent officers is that he killed all the competent ones long ago and now no one wants to work with him.  also the empire clearly does not promote based on merit, because vader immediately promotes a guy after the first time we see him kill someone, and that guy sucked just as much.  in the case of the joker, his plan almost backfires as it is happening.  you think when the joker gets back to his joker cave none of his countless other henchmen are going to be like  hey, where is vinny and don and jake ? did not they go to rob that bank with you ?   the joker treats all of his henchmen as completely disposable and useless, which is likely how he sees them, but that is bad for morale.  it is not like there is a shortage of villains hiring random thugs for stuff in gotham.  go seek a job where your employer is not a constant source of danger.  machiavelli said that if you ca not be loved and feared, it is better to be feared, but he touted cesare borgia as a great leader, and that guy died naked and alone of a stab wound.  the only case where i think killing your henchmen makes sense is shooting deserters in the middle of a pitched battle, as that encourages continued fighting in the moment over desertion in an  over the top  kinda situation.  otherwise it is bad for business and lowers morale.  there are better ways to handle all these situations.   #  actions like that engender dissent and create a culture of fear and paranoia among your henchmen.   #  is not fear and paranoia the main method by which these crime lords rule ?  # is not fear and paranoia the main method by which these crime lords rule ? one effective way to control people is by tearing down their sense of independence and making them feel worthless.  you see this practiced a lot in domestic abuse situations, slavery, prostitution, etc.  when you have replaced their wants and needs with your own, there is nothing left to encourage a revolt.  arbitrary killing reinforces the power and lack of restraint of the person in control.  the henchmen are left feeling powerless and in the hands of their leader.   #  the great purge was not the reason for stalin is cult of personality though, that was good propaganda.   #  the great purge was not the reason for stalin is cult of personality though, that was good propaganda.  in fact, much of stalin is staff was afraid to ever offer ideas or speak in opposition of something stalin supported.  stifling creativity.  i am not saying that killing tons of people is not a way to lead, it is just not a sustainable one.  it creates an environment of fear among the high ranking people, which slows progress.  this was definitely the case for stalin, and even more so north korea.   #  because there very first idea would be:  let is get rid of stalin.    #  yet it keeps the leader in power.  it is highly unlikely that tyrannical leaders like stalin could have stayed in power without the purges.  the tyrants do not want people to  offer ideas or speak in opposition.   because there very first idea would be:  let is get rid of stalin.   so stalin cultivated blind conformity and the cult of personality, ruthlessly executing dissenters.  an it worked.  does this make a stalin a nice human being ? hell no.  does that make him a  loved,  sustainable leader ? history says yes.   #  it is a risky strategy that is really only viable for people who are already in control of an unstable situation.   #  it does not matter if it is unsustainable.  it only matters that it keeps you in power for longer than you would be without using these tools.  there are many people who know/believe that their time in power will be short lived.  if dominating the people you control through abuse will extend your time in power then it is a viable strategy.  there are examples of this strategy working, and examples of it failing.  it is a risky strategy that is really only viable for people who are already in control of an unstable situation.  crime lords, and the rulers of turbulent regions can already assume that their power is in jepordy.  this straragy might be able to stabilize their power long enough for them to build other, more sustainable, ways to remain in power.   #  their life only has value in service to their leader or cause.   # i forgot to mention cults.  cults are a very good analog for how manipulative methods like this can successfully control groups of people.  consider the types of people that become henchmen; they are lost souls looking for some sort of guidance.  the crime lord gives them a purpose, and they find ways to reconcile or justify the terrible things that happen around them.  another example are religious extremists and terrorists.  they are sometimes so brainwashed that they will sacrifice their lives to possibly further an agenda.  their life only has value in service to their leader or cause.  this is the nature of crime.  a moral and charismatic leader would not be a crime lord in the first place.  charisma can only take you so far, and wo not intimidate your enemies.  the best way to reinforce that their lives have no value is to treat them as if they have no value.  you are projecting the value you have for your own life on these henchmen.  if you honestly thought your life was worthless except in service to this person, the taking of other worthless lives is not so repulsive.
after all, people with eidetic memory are allowed to roam the streets.  consequently, the records alice would take with this would be treated like her memories: intrusion by bob like him using a not yet invented mind reading device without her consent; deletion like him giving her a concussion.  in court, alice could speak of the contents of the recordings, but not be forced to show them; she could even lie about them, though that would be illegal.  she might even be forbidden from showing them, depending on whether it is hard to fake such recordings we do not want courts to be able to use failure to produce recordings as evidence against alice ; alternatively, failure to produce recordings would be forbidden to be used as evidence though we know how well that works in practice  but how would you store all that data ?   this is a problem that would solve itself given time, if technology continues to advance as it currently does.  but nevertheless, you might transmit recordings to a central storage where terabytes are cheap; you might make the recordings largely poor quality through lossy recording; you might tag the past hour as noninteresting enough to only store the bare minimum of data.   #  after all, people with eidetic memory are allowed to roam the streets.   #  consequently, the records alice would take with this would be treated like her memories: nobody cares about traditional  memory  because they lack the permanence and level of detail as a recording device.   # consequently, the records alice would take with this would be treated like her memories: nobody cares about traditional  memory  because they lack the permanence and level of detail as a recording device.  the biggest difference is that you ca not display your memories on social media sites for everybody to see.  every romantic relationship that ends poorly will be followed by the release of  revenge porn  and other private moments.  this is not true.  the 0th amendment only reasonably covers you and your immediate family.  once you get immunity for the evidence on the recordings, you are compelled to release them.  when it comes to justice, any and all evidence available out to be used.   #  which sounds riskier: accepting the off chance that the one person in a million that can quickly and accurately memorize engineering drawings, say, or access codes would also be a criminal, pass security clearances, and work in such a facility ?  #  first, i do not think that the broad comparisons you draw between memory and artificial storage are as compelling as they might be.  just because you can remember something does not mean you can reproduce it.  i know exactly what  highway to hell  sounds like, but i sure ca not reproduce it.  maybe one person in a million could do a decent job; maybe one in a billion could do it perfectly from memory.  but i can still see how, for example, a concert venue might want to stop people from easily and cheaply recording their stuff.  or take people who work with classified data in government facilities.  everything has some risk, but we try to minimize it in all walks of life.  which sounds riskier: accepting the off chance that the one person in a million that can quickly and accurately memorize engineering drawings, say, or access codes would also be a criminal, pass security clearances, and work in such a facility ? or allowing every single person who has access to such data to record it instantly, permanently, and in such a fashion that allows flawless, infinite reproduction ? true, we have people with eidetic memories walking around, and in theory, that could be dangerous.  but we have people who can break other people in half with two fingers walking around too; that does not mean we let everyone carry a gun everywhere all the time.   #  think of it as muscle memory, however it does extend to other areas like arithmetic.   #  sorry misunderstood your question, to be honest i guess i did not even really read it, i thought you were talking about exercises to improve your ability to recall events.  from what i understand what you are asking about are a different type of memory called procedural memories, which are basically just habits which we learn.  think of it as muscle memory, however it does extend to other areas like arithmetic.  as opposed to memories of events, which may or may not be re written every time we access them.  both are stored or maintained in separate structures of the brain neither of which we fully understand.   #  there actually are a handful of people who have had it proven pretty definitively that they have perfect recall  of their own experiences .   #  there actually are a handful of people who have had it proven pretty definitively that they have perfect recall  of their own experiences .  it is known as hyperthymesia, hyperthymestic syndrome, or highly superior autobiographical memory.  the actress marilu henner is probably the best known person with the condition; it is staggeringly rare only tens of individuals diagnosed , and it is also pretty specific.  you can remember specific events which occurred in your life, but do not have particularly better recall for anything else.  so you can ask marilu henner what a news anchor was wearing on the evening news she watched on january 0, 0, and you can go check the tape and she will be right.  but she ca not memorize a phone book.   #  what about the multitude of  completely unverifiable  memories one might have ?  #  how do we define experience in this instance ? would reading a phone book not constitute an experience ? what about the multitude of  completely unverifiable  memories one might have ? i am just saying, having an answer to the question  what did you have for dinner two nights after your 0th birthday ?   does not mean you have the  correct  answer.  it just means your brain thinks it has the correct answer.
given the statistics on crime rates for african americans, i do not see how it does not make sense that they would get stop/frisked at a higher rate than any other race.  now there is no doubt that racism and prejudice has played a huge role in why the crime rates are why the are, but that does not change the present statistics.  the whole purpose of the stop/frisk is to catch potential people in the act of a crime drugs, weapons, etc.  .  i do not agree with the stop/frisk policy myself, but once again it is another argument.  statistically they are more likely to encounter an offender that is someone of color.  there simply is not a way of disputing that.  so i do not understand the outrage when they say that statistically a black male is more likely to get questioned by an officer than any other race.   #  the whole purpose of the stop/frisk is to catch potential people in the act of a crime drugs, weapons, etc.   #  why does it matter that currently more black people are arrested for a certain crime ?  # why does it matter that currently more black people are arrested for a certain crime ? we should continue raising those statistics by targeting them ? do you have any proof of black people using drugs more often than white people ? because this article proves the opposite.  URL  #  imagine a world of five races to keep things simple: blacks, natives, whites, asians, indians.   #  the main issue is that this is a self fulfilling prophecy.  imagine a world of five races to keep things simple: blacks, natives, whites, asians, indians.  for arguments sake, imagine each of these races make up 0 of the population.  to simplify the numbers, imagine our country has only 0 people if 0 member of every race is carrying drugs, the police generally have a 0 chance of catching any criminal for each race.  but if the police are corrupt and stop 0 black people, and only one white person, they would have a 0 chance of catching a black criminal compared to a 0 chance of a white one.  because of this, it would appear that black people disproportionately carry drugs, even though all races carry them equally.  now, there are a few parameters that separate our world from this theoretical one, but the general idea is the same.  if you stop and frisk more black people than white people, you will find more black criminals than white criminals.   #  you can choose to avoid only 0 alley, which one would you choose ?  #  i would find it hard to believe that the higher crime rates from blacks are due simply to police officers arresting them more often for crimes others do not get a arrested for.  a piece of it, undoubtedly.  but not the whole story.  socioeconomic issues, past/current discrimination, low education levels, etc.  all of these play a big role, not just being picked on more often.  switch the scenario.  if you lined up 0 rocks and you could only pick 0 to find a cash price underneath.  and those rocks had a  how many times won  on them indicating how often they have a prize under them.  would not you pick the one with the highest percentage ? you could also go about it from a threat standpoint.  you are walking down the street and there are 0 guys let is say all uniform in appearance all in 0 different alleys and they had percentages on them for violent crimes.  you can choose to avoid only 0 alley, which one would you choose ? the highest percentage.  shitty to apply that percentage to a person who could potentially be a really nice guy, but it is still a percentage game none the less.   #  because i think that the stop and frisk method is far different from your examples for a few reasons.   # socioeconomic issues, past/current discrimination, low education levels, etc.  all of these play a big role, not just being picked on more often.  i was hoping to imply that with the last sentence of my post, but i can see that you already accept this as fact.  so am i right in saying that you do not disagree that this stokes the odds, but disagree with claiming that this form of racially affecting the odds are justifiable ? because i think that the stop and frisk method is far different from your examples for a few reasons.  first of all, the systems that enforce these methods generally have access to more information than i would by playing the rock game.  they would not just know generally how often  rock one  won the prize, but also how often it was chosen relative to other rocks.  and our society generally accepts that it is a bad thing to target and judge someone negatively based on their race.  also, one of the roles you admitted that affect crime rates is  past/current discrimination , in other words admitting that by continuing to disproportionately stop and frisk black people we will contribute to a culture in which black people are more likely to become criminals.  finally, let is take my one world example again, except 0 of the 0 white people in the world carry drugs.  but we have not changed the fact that 0 in 0 black people are being checked for every 0 in 0 white people.  in this case, the cops still have a 0 chance of catching a black person carrying drugs, but only a 0 chance of catching a white person with drugs, even though white people are 0 more likely to be carrying them than a black person.  this is obviously a theoretical and exaggerated example, but honestly this is basically how things are in america.  white people are more likely to carry or use drugs than black people as shown in the link /u/chevybow posted but are caught less often.  disproportionately targeting one race with this method means far less criminals will get caught than if we split the checking more evenly.   #  you ca not sweep aside that possible explanation just because  i believe.    # and this is where your argument goes off track.  you have an opinion here that is not supported by any actual evidence.  you are  guessing  about the reasons why blacks have higher crime rates.  it could indeed be that the higher black crime rates are simply because officers stop black suspects more often.  you ca not sweep aside that possible explanation just because  i believe.
given the statistics on crime rates for african americans, i do not see how it does not make sense that they would get stop/frisked at a higher rate than any other race.  now there is no doubt that racism and prejudice has played a huge role in why the crime rates are why the are, but that does not change the present statistics.  the whole purpose of the stop/frisk is to catch potential people in the act of a crime drugs, weapons, etc.  .  i do not agree with the stop/frisk policy myself, but once again it is another argument.  statistically they are more likely to encounter an offender that is someone of color.  there simply is not a way of disputing that.  so i do not understand the outrage when they say that statistically a black male is more likely to get questioned by an officer than any other race.   #  now there is no doubt that racism and prejudice has played a huge role in why the crime rates are why the are, but that does not change the present statistics.   #  i would counter that the present statistics are a direct result of racism and prejudice.   # i would counter that the present statistics are a direct result of racism and prejudice.  black people are convicted at much higher rates than the dominant race.  if we tell police to target black people, then obviously that will be reflected by crime statistics.  the problem is that profiling itself is not the problem, it is the method of profiling.  you should not be stopped/frisked for something that you  are , but for things that you  choose .  the outrage is from the assumption that black criminal, and simply being black does not lead to a life of crime.  you ca not avoid being black, so your life will now be filled with undeserved harassment.  it is reasonable to suspect someone listening to drug themed music of doing drugs.  it may not always be the case, but they chose to listen to it.  it is also reasonable to suspect people with marijuana shirts, gang apparel, or other decoration associated with that culture.  these will still affect innocent people, but it is a step toward evaluating a person for their decisions instead of the result of the race lottery.   #  now, there are a few parameters that separate our world from this theoretical one, but the general idea is the same.   #  the main issue is that this is a self fulfilling prophecy.  imagine a world of five races to keep things simple: blacks, natives, whites, asians, indians.  for arguments sake, imagine each of these races make up 0 of the population.  to simplify the numbers, imagine our country has only 0 people if 0 member of every race is carrying drugs, the police generally have a 0 chance of catching any criminal for each race.  but if the police are corrupt and stop 0 black people, and only one white person, they would have a 0 chance of catching a black criminal compared to a 0 chance of a white one.  because of this, it would appear that black people disproportionately carry drugs, even though all races carry them equally.  now, there are a few parameters that separate our world from this theoretical one, but the general idea is the same.  if you stop and frisk more black people than white people, you will find more black criminals than white criminals.   #  shitty to apply that percentage to a person who could potentially be a really nice guy, but it is still a percentage game none the less.   #  i would find it hard to believe that the higher crime rates from blacks are due simply to police officers arresting them more often for crimes others do not get a arrested for.  a piece of it, undoubtedly.  but not the whole story.  socioeconomic issues, past/current discrimination, low education levels, etc.  all of these play a big role, not just being picked on more often.  switch the scenario.  if you lined up 0 rocks and you could only pick 0 to find a cash price underneath.  and those rocks had a  how many times won  on them indicating how often they have a prize under them.  would not you pick the one with the highest percentage ? you could also go about it from a threat standpoint.  you are walking down the street and there are 0 guys let is say all uniform in appearance all in 0 different alleys and they had percentages on them for violent crimes.  you can choose to avoid only 0 alley, which one would you choose ? the highest percentage.  shitty to apply that percentage to a person who could potentially be a really nice guy, but it is still a percentage game none the less.   #  first of all, the systems that enforce these methods generally have access to more information than i would by playing the rock game.   # socioeconomic issues, past/current discrimination, low education levels, etc.  all of these play a big role, not just being picked on more often.  i was hoping to imply that with the last sentence of my post, but i can see that you already accept this as fact.  so am i right in saying that you do not disagree that this stokes the odds, but disagree with claiming that this form of racially affecting the odds are justifiable ? because i think that the stop and frisk method is far different from your examples for a few reasons.  first of all, the systems that enforce these methods generally have access to more information than i would by playing the rock game.  they would not just know generally how often  rock one  won the prize, but also how often it was chosen relative to other rocks.  and our society generally accepts that it is a bad thing to target and judge someone negatively based on their race.  also, one of the roles you admitted that affect crime rates is  past/current discrimination , in other words admitting that by continuing to disproportionately stop and frisk black people we will contribute to a culture in which black people are more likely to become criminals.  finally, let is take my one world example again, except 0 of the 0 white people in the world carry drugs.  but we have not changed the fact that 0 in 0 black people are being checked for every 0 in 0 white people.  in this case, the cops still have a 0 chance of catching a black person carrying drugs, but only a 0 chance of catching a white person with drugs, even though white people are 0 more likely to be carrying them than a black person.  this is obviously a theoretical and exaggerated example, but honestly this is basically how things are in america.  white people are more likely to carry or use drugs than black people as shown in the link /u/chevybow posted but are caught less often.  disproportionately targeting one race with this method means far less criminals will get caught than if we split the checking more evenly.   #  you are  guessing  about the reasons why blacks have higher crime rates.   # and this is where your argument goes off track.  you have an opinion here that is not supported by any actual evidence.  you are  guessing  about the reasons why blacks have higher crime rates.  it could indeed be that the higher black crime rates are simply because officers stop black suspects more often.  you ca not sweep aside that possible explanation just because  i believe.
given the statistics on crime rates for african americans, i do not see how it does not make sense that they would get stop/frisked at a higher rate than any other race.  now there is no doubt that racism and prejudice has played a huge role in why the crime rates are why the are, but that does not change the present statistics.  the whole purpose of the stop/frisk is to catch potential people in the act of a crime drugs, weapons, etc.  .  i do not agree with the stop/frisk policy myself, but once again it is another argument.  statistically they are more likely to encounter an offender that is someone of color.  there simply is not a way of disputing that.  so i do not understand the outrage when they say that statistically a black male is more likely to get questioned by an officer than any other race.   #  so i do not understand the outrage when they say that statistically a black male is more likely to get questioned by an officer than any other race.   #  the problem is that profiling itself is not the problem, it is the method of profiling.   # i would counter that the present statistics are a direct result of racism and prejudice.  black people are convicted at much higher rates than the dominant race.  if we tell police to target black people, then obviously that will be reflected by crime statistics.  the problem is that profiling itself is not the problem, it is the method of profiling.  you should not be stopped/frisked for something that you  are , but for things that you  choose .  the outrage is from the assumption that black criminal, and simply being black does not lead to a life of crime.  you ca not avoid being black, so your life will now be filled with undeserved harassment.  it is reasonable to suspect someone listening to drug themed music of doing drugs.  it may not always be the case, but they chose to listen to it.  it is also reasonable to suspect people with marijuana shirts, gang apparel, or other decoration associated with that culture.  these will still affect innocent people, but it is a step toward evaluating a person for their decisions instead of the result of the race lottery.   #  to simplify the numbers, imagine our country has only 0 people if 0 member of every race is carrying drugs, the police generally have a 0 chance of catching any criminal for each race.   #  the main issue is that this is a self fulfilling prophecy.  imagine a world of five races to keep things simple: blacks, natives, whites, asians, indians.  for arguments sake, imagine each of these races make up 0 of the population.  to simplify the numbers, imagine our country has only 0 people if 0 member of every race is carrying drugs, the police generally have a 0 chance of catching any criminal for each race.  but if the police are corrupt and stop 0 black people, and only one white person, they would have a 0 chance of catching a black criminal compared to a 0 chance of a white one.  because of this, it would appear that black people disproportionately carry drugs, even though all races carry them equally.  now, there are a few parameters that separate our world from this theoretical one, but the general idea is the same.  if you stop and frisk more black people than white people, you will find more black criminals than white criminals.   #  all of these play a big role, not just being picked on more often.   #  i would find it hard to believe that the higher crime rates from blacks are due simply to police officers arresting them more often for crimes others do not get a arrested for.  a piece of it, undoubtedly.  but not the whole story.  socioeconomic issues, past/current discrimination, low education levels, etc.  all of these play a big role, not just being picked on more often.  switch the scenario.  if you lined up 0 rocks and you could only pick 0 to find a cash price underneath.  and those rocks had a  how many times won  on them indicating how often they have a prize under them.  would not you pick the one with the highest percentage ? you could also go about it from a threat standpoint.  you are walking down the street and there are 0 guys let is say all uniform in appearance all in 0 different alleys and they had percentages on them for violent crimes.  you can choose to avoid only 0 alley, which one would you choose ? the highest percentage.  shitty to apply that percentage to a person who could potentially be a really nice guy, but it is still a percentage game none the less.   #  but we have not changed the fact that 0 in 0 black people are being checked for every 0 in 0 white people.   # socioeconomic issues, past/current discrimination, low education levels, etc.  all of these play a big role, not just being picked on more often.  i was hoping to imply that with the last sentence of my post, but i can see that you already accept this as fact.  so am i right in saying that you do not disagree that this stokes the odds, but disagree with claiming that this form of racially affecting the odds are justifiable ? because i think that the stop and frisk method is far different from your examples for a few reasons.  first of all, the systems that enforce these methods generally have access to more information than i would by playing the rock game.  they would not just know generally how often  rock one  won the prize, but also how often it was chosen relative to other rocks.  and our society generally accepts that it is a bad thing to target and judge someone negatively based on their race.  also, one of the roles you admitted that affect crime rates is  past/current discrimination , in other words admitting that by continuing to disproportionately stop and frisk black people we will contribute to a culture in which black people are more likely to become criminals.  finally, let is take my one world example again, except 0 of the 0 white people in the world carry drugs.  but we have not changed the fact that 0 in 0 black people are being checked for every 0 in 0 white people.  in this case, the cops still have a 0 chance of catching a black person carrying drugs, but only a 0 chance of catching a white person with drugs, even though white people are 0 more likely to be carrying them than a black person.  this is obviously a theoretical and exaggerated example, but honestly this is basically how things are in america.  white people are more likely to carry or use drugs than black people as shown in the link /u/chevybow posted but are caught less often.  disproportionately targeting one race with this method means far less criminals will get caught than if we split the checking more evenly.   #  you are  guessing  about the reasons why blacks have higher crime rates.   # and this is where your argument goes off track.  you have an opinion here that is not supported by any actual evidence.  you are  guessing  about the reasons why blacks have higher crime rates.  it could indeed be that the higher black crime rates are simply because officers stop black suspects more often.  you ca not sweep aside that possible explanation just because  i believe.
there are couple of reasons for me believing that.  first and foremost, many official studies for example the report from who, 0 or even the one from the california environmental protection agency URL were proven later either having only  suggestive  evidence but it being insufficient to assert such a causal relationship.  honestly, all of the studies that i have read about had their data cherry picked to manipulate its results to suit its purpose and spread the anti tobacco agenda.  it would seem that these well renowned groups would have no reason to lie but still, it is clearly there and each one of them was later debunked by other officials us surgeon general included .  secondly, i have lived with a smoker in my house myself.  and that person lived with a smoker before that and yet still, there was no relevant health problems or anything to indicate second hand smoking as the cause of some particular negative part of any of our lives besides each generation starting to smoke but as far as i know, that started because of rather different things .  third, i think its just a mass fueled hysteria that is just there to lead towards either a complete smoking ban or continued tax increases and that is already happening for a long while .  and in the end, i would like to add the 0 episode of  penn   teller bullshit  that talks about many more facts as well as shows interviews from many, renowned personas such as the president of the american council of science and health .  and yes, i recognize dangers to my personal health.   #  it would seem that these well renowned groups would have no reason to lie but still, it is clearly there and each one of them was later debunked by other officials us surgeon general included .   #  could you show where you got the information that all these studies were debunked ?  # could you show where you got the information that all these studies were debunked ? it seems incredibly hard to believe.  and that person lived with a smoker before that and yet still, there was no relevant health problems or anything to indicate second hand smoking as the cause of some particular negative part of any of our lives besides each generation starting to smoke but as far as i know, that started because of rather different things .  have you had your lungs checked though ? you might not notice the effects.   yet .   #  next, you claim that  each one of them was later debunked by other officials .   # and that person lived with a smoker before that and yet still, there was no relevant health problems or anything to indicate second hand smoking as the cause of some particular negative part of any of our lives besides each generation starting to smoke but as far as i know, that started because of rather different things .  i wo not be addressing this, as anecdotal evidence is frankly useless.  nice speculation, but not really relevant.  have not seen it, and probably not going to watch it.  now finally, what do you mean by  not as lethal and dangerous as everyone tends to believe  ? for example, the who report  did find weak evidence of a dose response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ets.   next, you claim that  each one of them was later debunked by other officials .  i find this quite hard to believe.  every study linked to on this wikipedia page URL has been debunked ? i doubt it.  besides, it appears as though much of the controversy has been from tobacco companies challenging the findings, which makes sense considering their interests.   #  sure, that is not a lot when compared to the population of the entire usa, but it would be the 0th largest city in iowa.   #  sure, it does not sound like that much, but let is look at some population numbers.  first, how many people are exposed to regular second hand smoke ? i could not find this data, so i decided to guess.  there is about 0,0,0 us citizens URL and approximately eighteen percent of adults smoke URL i am guessing the number exposed to significant levels of second hand smoke will be lower, maybe around 0.  so, that means there are about 0,0,0 people exposed to significant amounts of second hand smoke each year.  now, what does that extra 0 chance of developing lung cancer mean ? well, 0,0,0   0 0,0.  so, second hand smoke will lead to an extra 0,0 people approximately getting lung cancer.  sure, that is not a lot when compared to the population of the entire usa, but it would be the 0th largest city in iowa.   #  smoking  does  lead to a variety of diseases and ailments; when you reach old age the tax payers foot the bill for your habit.   # i suspect that you are a victim of confirmation bias.  and that person lived with a smoker before that and yet still, there was no relevant health problems or anything to indicate second hand smoking as the cause of some particular negative part of any of our lives i grew up with parents that smoked, and i have asthma to show for it.  after my pulmonary therapist told my parents to not smoke in the house, my asthma greatly improved.  if you honestly think that regular inhalation of smoke or  any  air pollution is not dangerous, then you are mistaken.  others have already pointed to studies that refute your narrative.  tax increases are justified because it enables smokers to pay for their burden on the healthcare system.  smoking  does  lead to a variety of diseases and ailments; when you reach old age the tax payers foot the bill for your habit.  it is also reasonable to ban hard to contain habits in public places.  many people are adversely affected by second hand smoking; whether it be long term conditions or just coughing.  if someone uses a pungent body spray in a public place, it can irritate your eyes and lungs if you are nearby.  would you be mad if someone stood behind you and used their body spray in a way that blew into your eyes, mouth, and on clothes ? this is what smokers do.  you position it as the burden should be on the non smokers to avoid the smokers.  if there is a restaurant and a smoker walks in, does that mean everybody who does not like smoke needs to clear out ? it is so much easier for you to just not smoke for a little bit than expect people to be inconvenienced by your habit.   #  smokers often do not realize just how  bad  the smell of stale cigarette smoke is.  socially, it often gets the same negative reaction as a strong body odor.   #  i have lived with a smoker for the past three years, and in that time i have noticed significant worsening in my bronchitis and asthma.  in addition to the long term health effects that are supported by several research studies, some people like me can have immediate negative health effects.  there are also social effects of living with a smoker.  all of my clothes smell strongly of smoke, so i have to launder or dry clean everything if i am going to be in a stuffy office with non smoking coworkers, or if i am going to spend time in a non smoker is house.  people have commented on the cigarette odor on my clothes.  smokers often do not realize just how  bad  the smell of stale cigarette smoke is.  socially, it often gets the same negative reaction as a strong body odor.  i do not smoke, so i do not want to smell like a smoker.  also, the lingering smoke smell means that i ca not sell anything that is been in my house.  i used to be able to sell clothing and craft items for a little extra money, but now i ca not.  even my books have absorbed the odor of old cigarettes.
so i am a 0 year old at university, i have a healthy social life with a good amount of friends who i see on a regular basis.  i spend plenty of time by myself too, and enjoy it.  i have been single for about a year now and honestly barely noticed how fast the time is gone.  i have had issues with pretty intense depression a couple of suicide attempts , loneliness, anxiety, and extreme distrust of other people.  i mean, i was afraid of being in view of anyone walking past my room, even though i knew they could not see through those curtains from the outside, i was too afraid to risk it.  i was absolutely terrified of people being stuck in bed for 0 weeks following an accident that suddenly leaves you disabled can bring on some pretty damn strong agoraphobia .  so those things are factors in why i have a large distrust in people nowadays.  now another thing is this; every relationship my parents have ever been in has either failed or was a hilarious excuse for an adult relationship.  my dad is a notorious womaniser, cold, manipulative etc.  and as such i refrain from any contact with him.  my mum, however, has just managed to have bad luck with partners that are completely incompatible with her.  as such, my view of relationships is extremely biased toward the negative, and i believe that it is not worth the time because you will just wind up hating each other or modifying yourselves to tolerate it and/or having to stockholm syndrome yourself into believing you are happy with this person.  anyway, now that backstory is out the way sorry for the long boring wall of text, but i felt that it needed an adequate background so you guys can get an idea of where i am coming from , time for the view.  i believe that there is no level of relationship you can have with a person where you will actually be happy with them for a long time, eventually you will wind up hating them, or they will hate you, you two will get bored, whatever it may be.  there is no way a relationship between two people can last and the people in that relationship actually remain happy and content with the relationship and each other.  please help me change this view, i may enjoy being by myself but i do not really want to be alone all my life because i am too afraid of someone screwing me over, breaking my heart, or me breaking their heart because i make a mistake or just get tired of the relationship etc.  note: my dad may be a womaniser, but that disgusts me, i would never cheat on someone or try to manipulate someone into thinking i cared about them purely so i could have sex with them.   #  there is no way a relationship between two people can last and the people in that relationship actually remain happy and content with the relationship and each other.   #  the people i am with are really special to me.   # why do you believe this ? why not separate when you feel liek you are no longer enriching each other is lives ? the people i am with are really special to me.  special enough to fly cross country for a weekend.  special enough to drive several hours every couple weeks.  really special people can enrich your life far more than you know.  my special people fill needs, not just really great sex, but emotional needs as well.  we did not set time as a goal, we set fulfillment as a goal.   #  meet life head on and accept the bad instead of avoiding it, the good things in life cant exist without the bad.   #  one day youll meet someone who will make you realise why its worth the risk to have relationships.  i had a bad breakup 0 years ago that was really hard for me but i do not regret anything.  you will get some bumps and bruises in life but thats the only way to live a rich and full life.  you are not made of glass, you can take what life throws at you.  you can hide from everything that might hurt you but youll also be hiding from everything that can make you happy and fulfilled.  meet life head on and accept the bad instead of avoiding it, the good things in life cant exist without the bad.  the happiest people are the ones who are the best at dealing with unhappiness.  tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.   #  quality of relationships are not only about  likelihood  of success.   #  quality of relationships are not only about  likelihood  of success.  see it like poker: it might look like a game of luck but in reality, the same players end up holding the top ranks every year at the world championship.  what i mean is that you have enormous influence on the success of your relationship.  love is the greatest thing in life.  do not let yourself believe that you are lucky or unlucky.  be good, and you will have great pleasure in your relationship, which will probably last many many years, hopefully all your life : love is the salt of life !  #  friends  parents are mostly divorced but those that are not divorced just seem to tolerate each other.   #  i am not going to count any of the relationships my friends have been in as we are all teenagers, and good luck getting a relationship at this age without unnecessary drama.  i have seen, however, that the majority of adults who have been in my life tend to have marriages/relationships that have to involve a compromise for them to stay together.  some relatives sleep in separate rooms to their partners, some just barely talk to each other.  friends  parents are mostly divorced but those that are not divorced just seem to tolerate each other.  i thought one friend in particular had parents with a good relationship but apparently they fight a lot.  i know that happens in relationships, it is just a fact of life that two people are going to disagree from time to time and so on, it just sort of altered my view of them as being very happy together.  i think that is largely because of the view i stated in this question, though, that i am very biased and just do not like the idea of spending my life with someone i know i am going to wind up arguing over nothing with and i will have no choice but to apologise because it is in some way my fault but the situation is resolved quicker if i just take the fall.   #  even very publicly affectionate people are going to be a lot less affectionate with each other in public than they probably are in private.   #  it is important to remember that what you see when couples are out in public, or are in your presence in general, is not necessarily representative of what they are like alone.  even very publicly affectionate people are going to be a lot less affectionate with each other in public than they probably are in private.  just because of politeness and the laws against public nudity.  also not all the things you listed are by definition signs of a bad relationship.  my husband and i have separate bedrooms because we are both tallish, our beds are not large enough for both of us, he snores, i have nighttime super hearing, so on and so forth.  we still have sex all the time and cuddle and whatever.  it is the same with fighting.   fighting all the time  could mean a small tiff once a week, or shouting matches everyday depending on who you ask.  fighting for some people is like foreplay, so it may not even be as aggressive as your friend is assuming.  my husband and i joke fight sometimes and i am sure the neighbors think we are constantly at each other is throat.  an outsider view of a relationship is never going to be particularly accurate.  do not let the fact that your parents suck at it completely color your perspective on what you think might be happening in everyone else is relationship.
so i am a 0 year old at university, i have a healthy social life with a good amount of friends who i see on a regular basis.  i spend plenty of time by myself too, and enjoy it.  i have been single for about a year now and honestly barely noticed how fast the time is gone.  i have had issues with pretty intense depression a couple of suicide attempts , loneliness, anxiety, and extreme distrust of other people.  i mean, i was afraid of being in view of anyone walking past my room, even though i knew they could not see through those curtains from the outside, i was too afraid to risk it.  i was absolutely terrified of people being stuck in bed for 0 weeks following an accident that suddenly leaves you disabled can bring on some pretty damn strong agoraphobia .  so those things are factors in why i have a large distrust in people nowadays.  now another thing is this; every relationship my parents have ever been in has either failed or was a hilarious excuse for an adult relationship.  my dad is a notorious womaniser, cold, manipulative etc.  and as such i refrain from any contact with him.  my mum, however, has just managed to have bad luck with partners that are completely incompatible with her.  as such, my view of relationships is extremely biased toward the negative, and i believe that it is not worth the time because you will just wind up hating each other or modifying yourselves to tolerate it and/or having to stockholm syndrome yourself into believing you are happy with this person.  anyway, now that backstory is out the way sorry for the long boring wall of text, but i felt that it needed an adequate background so you guys can get an idea of where i am coming from , time for the view.  i believe that there is no level of relationship you can have with a person where you will actually be happy with them for a long time, eventually you will wind up hating them, or they will hate you, you two will get bored, whatever it may be.  there is no way a relationship between two people can last and the people in that relationship actually remain happy and content with the relationship and each other.  please help me change this view, i may enjoy being by myself but i do not really want to be alone all my life because i am too afraid of someone screwing me over, breaking my heart, or me breaking their heart because i make a mistake or just get tired of the relationship etc.  note: my dad may be a womaniser, but that disgusts me, i would never cheat on someone or try to manipulate someone into thinking i cared about them purely so i could have sex with them.   #  there is no way a relationship between two people can last and the people in that relationship actually remain happy and content with the relationship and each other.   #  this is not a requirement to enjoy a relationship now.   #  the ending of a relationship is not a bad thing or a failure.  you got to enjoy someone at an extremely intimate level.  through the good and the bad it is what we as humans do.  the ending of an experience is just that.  it does not need to last forever and nothing does.  some times it was a toxic relationship and it should have never started in the first place.  we can learn and grow from all these experiences.  becoming a better person for the next victim of our own personality.  ending a relationship can transform both people into demon spawn that live off the pain and misery of each other for a short amount of time this is not always the case.  this is not a requirement to enjoy a relationship now.   #  the happiest people are the ones who are the best at dealing with unhappiness.   #  one day youll meet someone who will make you realise why its worth the risk to have relationships.  i had a bad breakup 0 years ago that was really hard for me but i do not regret anything.  you will get some bumps and bruises in life but thats the only way to live a rich and full life.  you are not made of glass, you can take what life throws at you.  you can hide from everything that might hurt you but youll also be hiding from everything that can make you happy and fulfilled.  meet life head on and accept the bad instead of avoiding it, the good things in life cant exist without the bad.  the happiest people are the ones who are the best at dealing with unhappiness.  tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.   #  what i mean is that you have enormous influence on the success of your relationship.   #  quality of relationships are not only about  likelihood  of success.  see it like poker: it might look like a game of luck but in reality, the same players end up holding the top ranks every year at the world championship.  what i mean is that you have enormous influence on the success of your relationship.  love is the greatest thing in life.  do not let yourself believe that you are lucky or unlucky.  be good, and you will have great pleasure in your relationship, which will probably last many many years, hopefully all your life : love is the salt of life !  #  i thought one friend in particular had parents with a good relationship but apparently they fight a lot.   #  i am not going to count any of the relationships my friends have been in as we are all teenagers, and good luck getting a relationship at this age without unnecessary drama.  i have seen, however, that the majority of adults who have been in my life tend to have marriages/relationships that have to involve a compromise for them to stay together.  some relatives sleep in separate rooms to their partners, some just barely talk to each other.  friends  parents are mostly divorced but those that are not divorced just seem to tolerate each other.  i thought one friend in particular had parents with a good relationship but apparently they fight a lot.  i know that happens in relationships, it is just a fact of life that two people are going to disagree from time to time and so on, it just sort of altered my view of them as being very happy together.  i think that is largely because of the view i stated in this question, though, that i am very biased and just do not like the idea of spending my life with someone i know i am going to wind up arguing over nothing with and i will have no choice but to apologise because it is in some way my fault but the situation is resolved quicker if i just take the fall.   #  also not all the things you listed are by definition signs of a bad relationship.   #  it is important to remember that what you see when couples are out in public, or are in your presence in general, is not necessarily representative of what they are like alone.  even very publicly affectionate people are going to be a lot less affectionate with each other in public than they probably are in private.  just because of politeness and the laws against public nudity.  also not all the things you listed are by definition signs of a bad relationship.  my husband and i have separate bedrooms because we are both tallish, our beds are not large enough for both of us, he snores, i have nighttime super hearing, so on and so forth.  we still have sex all the time and cuddle and whatever.  it is the same with fighting.   fighting all the time  could mean a small tiff once a week, or shouting matches everyday depending on who you ask.  fighting for some people is like foreplay, so it may not even be as aggressive as your friend is assuming.  my husband and i joke fight sometimes and i am sure the neighbors think we are constantly at each other is throat.  an outsider view of a relationship is never going to be particularly accurate.  do not let the fact that your parents suck at it completely color your perspective on what you think might be happening in everyone else is relationship.
so i am a 0 year old at university, i have a healthy social life with a good amount of friends who i see on a regular basis.  i spend plenty of time by myself too, and enjoy it.  i have been single for about a year now and honestly barely noticed how fast the time is gone.  i have had issues with pretty intense depression a couple of suicide attempts , loneliness, anxiety, and extreme distrust of other people.  i mean, i was afraid of being in view of anyone walking past my room, even though i knew they could not see through those curtains from the outside, i was too afraid to risk it.  i was absolutely terrified of people being stuck in bed for 0 weeks following an accident that suddenly leaves you disabled can bring on some pretty damn strong agoraphobia .  so those things are factors in why i have a large distrust in people nowadays.  now another thing is this; every relationship my parents have ever been in has either failed or was a hilarious excuse for an adult relationship.  my dad is a notorious womaniser, cold, manipulative etc.  and as such i refrain from any contact with him.  my mum, however, has just managed to have bad luck with partners that are completely incompatible with her.  as such, my view of relationships is extremely biased toward the negative, and i believe that it is not worth the time because you will just wind up hating each other or modifying yourselves to tolerate it and/or having to stockholm syndrome yourself into believing you are happy with this person.  anyway, now that backstory is out the way sorry for the long boring wall of text, but i felt that it needed an adequate background so you guys can get an idea of where i am coming from , time for the view.  i believe that there is no level of relationship you can have with a person where you will actually be happy with them for a long time, eventually you will wind up hating them, or they will hate you, you two will get bored, whatever it may be.  there is no way a relationship between two people can last and the people in that relationship actually remain happy and content with the relationship and each other.  please help me change this view, i may enjoy being by myself but i do not really want to be alone all my life because i am too afraid of someone screwing me over, breaking my heart, or me breaking their heart because i make a mistake or just get tired of the relationship etc.  note: my dad may be a womaniser, but that disgusts me, i would never cheat on someone or try to manipulate someone into thinking i cared about them purely so i could have sex with them.   #  i do not really want to be alone all my life because i am too afraid of someone screwing me over, breaking my heart, or me breaking their heart because i make a mistake or just get tired of the relationship etc.   #  this is what qp relationships can help address; people who do not want to be alone, but do not want the commitment with a romantic relationship.   #  here is an idea: queerplatonic relationships.  a lot of people who feel that romance just is not right for them, but do not want to live alone, find a lot of comfort in them.  a qp relationship is kind of in between a strong friendship and a romantic relationship.  so, for example, two sisters living together would probably be a qp relationship though you do not have to live together to be qp .  a few advantages: 0 no silly social norms for the relationship to fall into 0 no expectations out of  you  because you define the relationship, not society 0 be yourself without stress and worrying, because it is less serious than a long term romantic relationship.  0 less likely to fail; things like cheating and the other traditional crises that face romantic relationships do not really bother people in qp relationships.  0 more alone time i think your view is flawed.  i think from your perspective, a reasonable statement would be  romantic relationships are not for me , but i think you could be very happy in something that is not romantic.  this is what qp relationships can help address; people who do not want to be alone, but do not want the commitment with a romantic relationship.  i would really suggest looking into this more, it definitely sounds like the type of thing that would fit you !  #  i had a bad breakup 0 years ago that was really hard for me but i do not regret anything.   #  one day youll meet someone who will make you realise why its worth the risk to have relationships.  i had a bad breakup 0 years ago that was really hard for me but i do not regret anything.  you will get some bumps and bruises in life but thats the only way to live a rich and full life.  you are not made of glass, you can take what life throws at you.  you can hide from everything that might hurt you but youll also be hiding from everything that can make you happy and fulfilled.  meet life head on and accept the bad instead of avoiding it, the good things in life cant exist without the bad.  the happiest people are the ones who are the best at dealing with unhappiness.  tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.   #  be good, and you will have great pleasure in your relationship, which will probably last many many years, hopefully all your life : love is the salt of life !  #  quality of relationships are not only about  likelihood  of success.  see it like poker: it might look like a game of luck but in reality, the same players end up holding the top ranks every year at the world championship.  what i mean is that you have enormous influence on the success of your relationship.  love is the greatest thing in life.  do not let yourself believe that you are lucky or unlucky.  be good, and you will have great pleasure in your relationship, which will probably last many many years, hopefully all your life : love is the salt of life !  #  friends  parents are mostly divorced but those that are not divorced just seem to tolerate each other.   #  i am not going to count any of the relationships my friends have been in as we are all teenagers, and good luck getting a relationship at this age without unnecessary drama.  i have seen, however, that the majority of adults who have been in my life tend to have marriages/relationships that have to involve a compromise for them to stay together.  some relatives sleep in separate rooms to their partners, some just barely talk to each other.  friends  parents are mostly divorced but those that are not divorced just seem to tolerate each other.  i thought one friend in particular had parents with a good relationship but apparently they fight a lot.  i know that happens in relationships, it is just a fact of life that two people are going to disagree from time to time and so on, it just sort of altered my view of them as being very happy together.  i think that is largely because of the view i stated in this question, though, that i am very biased and just do not like the idea of spending my life with someone i know i am going to wind up arguing over nothing with and i will have no choice but to apologise because it is in some way my fault but the situation is resolved quicker if i just take the fall.   #  it is important to remember that what you see when couples are out in public, or are in your presence in general, is not necessarily representative of what they are like alone.   #  it is important to remember that what you see when couples are out in public, or are in your presence in general, is not necessarily representative of what they are like alone.  even very publicly affectionate people are going to be a lot less affectionate with each other in public than they probably are in private.  just because of politeness and the laws against public nudity.  also not all the things you listed are by definition signs of a bad relationship.  my husband and i have separate bedrooms because we are both tallish, our beds are not large enough for both of us, he snores, i have nighttime super hearing, so on and so forth.  we still have sex all the time and cuddle and whatever.  it is the same with fighting.   fighting all the time  could mean a small tiff once a week, or shouting matches everyday depending on who you ask.  fighting for some people is like foreplay, so it may not even be as aggressive as your friend is assuming.  my husband and i joke fight sometimes and i am sure the neighbors think we are constantly at each other is throat.  an outsider view of a relationship is never going to be particularly accurate.  do not let the fact that your parents suck at it completely color your perspective on what you think might be happening in everyone else is relationship.
my view is that the integrity of musical experience is compromised and rarely enhanced by the addition of linguistic content.  i am of the belief that when one is trying to appreciate the notes, textures, spaces between the notes, and the rhythm, lyrics become intrusive and frustrate the careful, non verbal attention given to the  musical  elements of a piece rather than the attention required to parse lyrical content.  of course, non verbal vocalisation is welcome and can enhance a piece.  listen to bobby mcferrin with chick corea playing on  armando is rumba  URL i think this is because mcferrin is vocalisations are as though an instrument; there is no semantic content to parse, and no semantic content to get in the way of finely directed attention.  tl;dr: semantic content, in the form of lyrics, hinders the close attention required to fully appreciate a piece of music beacuse you have to parse what is being said first.  speech is such a basic element of our cognition that it interrupts or disrupts any task when heard.   #  speech is such a basic element of our cognition that it interrupts or disrupts any task when heard.   #  so this is not some empirical fact, it happens to be your experience of music.   #  actually, semantic content that is good works with the instrumental parts of a song to express something that they alone would be incapable of, and vice versa.  anyway your question is just silly because you are trying to impose your own preference on others.   purer  is not objective measure homie.  plus some nitpicks:   hinders the close attention required to fully appreciate a piece of music beacuse you have to parse what is being said first.  yeah that is not true for me, i tend to finally get/listen to the lyrics after about 0 0 listens.  furthermore i would argue that in songs where the lyrics do get my attention right away, it is because they poetically or  semantically  to use your loaded term for it are in line with the emotional content of the music and explain/amplify the musical content.  in the best songs you understand why someone chose that melody or those changes better because of the lyrical content.  so this is not some empirical fact, it happens to be your experience of music.  just because you use words like  cognition  does not mean you get to universalize your own taste, or as i might put it, your own hangups that severly limit your ability to appreciate some the most fascinating, moving art of the past several centuries.  tldr: many people are do not find lyrics distract from music, but rather amplify its emotional content.  tonal/textural/rhythmic/etc choices made by good artists are explained by their lyrics, not obscured by them.  that does not mean you should not like what you like, just that your attempt to universalize your own preferences is pretty much the definition of snobbery, especially since you are dismissing so much of modern music.   #  i think this generalises to others as well, because there are common features in our cognition that would make lyrics generally intrusive.   #  that is a fair criticism, but i think i can address it.  horns do not typically provide semantic content.  there is no necessary syntax in music, when there is in language.  so you are involuntarily parsing the linguistic elements of the song when you could be paying attention to the texture and detail provided by the instrumentation.  it is an observation born of my personal experience that i notice i have a less deep musical experience when there is lyrical content of a song.  i think this generalises to others as well, because there are common features in our cognition that would make lyrics generally intrusive.   #  as for whether we should expect people to prefer instrumental music ?  #  you are familiar with the stroop effect, right ? language is so deeply embedded in our thinking that it disrupts tasks where you try to inhibit it.  as far as i am aware, there is not any auditory stroop effect supported by neuroscientific literature, but i am fairly confident one will be supported if the matter is investigated.  speaking anecdotally rather than evidentially, i do find that language, spoken or written, takes precedence in my mind over non semantic content.  i have not done the research to prove this is the case for everyone or most people, but it sounds like a promising hypothesis to me.  as for whether we should expect people to prefer instrumental music ? not necessarily.  music serves social functions and provides a backdrop or ambience a lot of the time; it is not that common for music to be the primary focus of attention in everyday life.  so people might not be looking for a deep and immersive musical experience, but just a soundtrack for their daily life.   #  we process the whole song as an entity and have to supply additional effort to parse the actual language.   #  you are misapplying the results of the stroop experiment here.  the stroop effect was demonstrating that there was a conflict when two semantic interpretations were present.  the closeness of the words for the colors and the actual colors were crucial to the experiment.  i very much doubt the same effect would be present with more complicated stimuli, e. g.  the words  plaid ,  argyle , and  gingham  written in such a way that there was a conflict between the pattern names and the patterns represented in the font.  with no research to back it up, i submit that it is a fairly common phenomenon which provides for people who can sing a song, at the correct tempo, using the correct lyrics, and approximating the correct notes of the original vocalist to the limit of their individual talent but those same people would be unable to remember the words of the song in the absence of the melody.  URL this would indicate the exact opposite of what you are proposing, namely that music is not processed semantically even when lyrics are present.  we process the whole song as an entity and have to supply additional effort to parse the actual language.  anecdotally, i personally do not know what almost any song is  about .  i do not listen to lyrics like that and i never have.  i can work all day with music playing, and even sing along.  in college i was particularly famous for it.  my friends would shut off the music and ask me what i had just sung and i would be unable to recall, since i was not concentrating on the music at all, but concentrating on my physics homework.  i do not believe what you are claiming is true in general.   #  it might well be the case that recalling the lyrics is contingent on hearing other cues like the melody and/or harmony, but that does not prove directionality.   #  it might well be the case that recalling the lyrics is contingent on hearing other cues like the melody and/or harmony, but that does not prove directionality.  it could just be that the recall of lyrical content is dependent on non verbal cues, and this need not say anything about whether or not semantic content obscures or diminishes the more detailed instrumental elements of a piece.  the stroop effect has been replicated in the study of dysphemism.  words like  cunt ,  fuck  and  shit  were coloured and participants took longer to verbally identify the colours than when the words were of their corresponding colour.  obviously, words like that are conventionally considered shocking, but that shows that the stroop effect is not limited in the way that you state.  although it seems a compelling criticism, it is not in light of other ways of inhibiting or delaying perceptual reports like the use of dysphemism or emotionally evokative words.  note that the words you chose are remarkably bland and not prone to arouse emotion.  this would not usually be the case with music.
tell me if i am mistaken, but if it was not for european colonizing the americas, the whole american continent would still be wild forest.  same thing with australia.  the world would not be nearly as connected as it would be with imperialism.  if it was not for the european colonizing the majority of the world, we would still be speaking a million different languages, having completely different customs, etc.  in countries like india, the very form of government, transportation system, schooling system, and many other indirect influence have their roots in british colonization.  european colonization also act as a neutralizing effect against jared diamond is theory by mixing innovations from around the world.  without them, innovations would remain in one place or take a much longer time to saturate to other areas.  of course, i am speaking of only the good things about colonization.  this means the horrific things that colonization and imperialism did is for a moment taken out of consideration.  besides that, i think european colonization/imperialism was beneficial to the world.   #  in countries like india, the very form of government, transportation system, schooling system, and many other indirect influence have their roots in british colonization.   #  as per /u/viralmysteries: URL   the education system under the rule of akbar adopted an inclusive approach with the monarch favoring additional courses: medicine, agriculture, geography, and even from texts from other languages and religions, such as patanjali is work in sanskrit.   #  my answer will rely heavily on people who know a lot better than me, so i will be sure to quote them.  same thing with australia.  the world would not be nearly as connected as it would be with imperialism.  as per /u/snickeringshadow: URL  a lot of people seem to think all american indians were nomadic hunter gatherers chasing the buffalo.  in fact, there were regions of the americas that had long traditions of urban civilization and were more densely populated than most areas of europe and asia.  the inca empire had a highway system with supply stations at regular intervals that connected most of the major cities in their two million square kilometer empire.  the aztec empire is capital city of tenochtitlan had an elaborate system of aqueducts and canals that distributed potable water throughout the city and moved waste products out into the agricultural fields.  yes, there were large swaths of the americas where only hunter gatherers lived, but the same was true for eurasia i. e. , the central asian steppes .  also note that american societies were much younger than european ones, so being near the same  level of civilization  was fairly impressive.  as per /u/viralmysteries: URL   the education system under the rule of akbar adopted an inclusive approach with the monarch favoring additional courses: medicine, agriculture, geography, and even from texts from other languages and religions, such as patanjali is work in sanskrit.  the traditional science in this period was influenced by the ideas of aristotle, bhāskara ii, charaka and ibn sina.  the mughals, in fact, adopted a liberal approach to sciences and as contact with persia increased the more intolerant ottoman school of manqul education came to be gradually substituted by the more relaxed maqul school.  but at the same time, colonial apologists must remember that the british were willing, time and time again, to overlook the pleas of the indian people, denying them home rule, allowing their people to die in famines, and generally failing as proper rulers.  although the parliamentary democracy that india has today is heavily based on the british government, this is not a sign of the inability of the indian people to come up with their own government and a sign of further western brilliance.  and finally, how can you decide if something was beneficial to the world if you refuse to consider one side of the equation ?  #  we are on the cusp of modern israelis feeling that way, but a generation or two earlier, they would likely have said not a chance.   #  dan carlin spent quite a bit of time talking about this same basic concept when discussing the mongol conquests on hardcore history.  what it really came down to is how far removed you are in time from the events.  we can look back at alexander the great, ghengis khan, and various other conquerors throughout history and see all the good things they did.  they tied the east and west, they spread ideas, they unified cultures, and so on.  however, if you asked people only a decade or two removed from those conquests, they would tell you about the piles of decaying corpses, the cities you could  smell  rotting from dozens of miles away, the mothers raped in front of their children.  to top it off, he brought out the nazis with the idea that someday, perhaps a century or two from now, someone will publish a book about all of the benefits of the third reich on the modern world.  here in 0, we are still too close to the holocaust to look at the benefits of the nazis.  so was the imperialistic conquests beneficial ? definitely.  did it outweigh the horrors ? i think the best way to judge that is to compare it to something in the modern world.  perhaps soviet communism, the holocaust, mao, etc.  people and places that we have huge negative associations with because we are not so far removed in time.  do you consider the holocaust to be worth establishing the modern state of israel ? we are on the cusp of modern israelis feeling that way, but a generation or two earlier, they would likely have said not a chance.   #  as in, going out with a band and hunting, or farming, all the while getting good exercise, and eating whole, organic, healthy foods ?  #  you are assuming the native americans were unhappy with wild forests ? which is to say, they seem happier now living on reservations thousands of miles away from their ancestral lands, lucky to have survived the initial exposure to disease, forced conversions to christianity, and introduction of alcohol to their cultures ? you are speaking from a western mind frame, as it is likely all that you know.  sure it is better for  us  since now  they  all speak english, but how is it better for them ? they would still be living the same way they had for thousands of years.  even if they may seem primitive to you and i, they are by and large happier.  to use a slight exaggeration, without the trappings of modern society, they very nearly live in a garden of eden.  imagine your work day consisting of gathering enough food to feed your family ? as in, going out with a band and hunting, or farming, all the while getting good exercise, and eating whole, organic, healthy foods ? no worries about money.  no mortgages.  no bad news.  sure there may be war on occasion, but we seem to have shown that does not disappear with  civilization  either.  they live simpler.  also, to bring them into modern society is to introduce them to  diseases of affluence  URL which they may have avoided.  to speak specifically of india:  in countries like india, the very form of government, transportation system, schooling system, and many other indirect influence have their roots in british colonization.  yes, their current government has vestiges of the raj, but are you implying they would not have been able to govern themselves without british intervention ? that there were no schools ? you are aware that our number system was created in india, right ?  #  new evidence suggest that was not even near the case.   #  i think you have a misconception that hunter gathering type societies were peaceful, nature loving people.  new evidence suggest that was not even near the case.  as in, going out with a band and hunting, or farming, all the while getting good exercise, and eating whole, organic, healthy foods ? no worries about money.  no mortgages.  no bad news.  except for the fact that they were in constant warfare and raids.  people died of disease very often because they used trial and error when it comes to medicine.  people were illiterate so any tribes without an elder person that remembers what leaves treat what sickness will have to rely on trial/error.  not to mention animals, the elements, etc.  average lifespan were around 0 years.  hunter gathering people lived a very horrific and violent life.  please read steven pinker is a better angel in our nature and you will see what i mean.  that there were no schools ? what makes you think they can ? in the amazon today, there are people still wearing loincloths and hunting with primitive spears.  you can say this is an experiment in leaving native people alone.  they still die of diseases you do not even know exists.   #  they still die of diseases you do not even know exists.   # new evidence suggest that was not even near the case.  i think  you  have a misconception that everything pre colonialism was hunter/gatherer.  people died of disease very often because they used trial and error when it comes to medicine.  as opposed to our current system ? and what of the diseases that did not exist before the europeans brought them ? you mean illiterate in english ? do you have any evidence at all to back any of this up ? it would be absurd to think that one person in the tribe was responsible for carrying on a written language.  geronimo lived to nearly 0 years old.  as did people in crowded cities.  many horrific diseases need dense populations to form and propagate.  in the amazon today, there are people still wearing loincloths and hunting with primitive spears.  they still die of diseases you do not even know exists.  yes, and you know what ? they are still around.  if they needed interventions of our civilized world, they would not be.
tell me if i am mistaken, but if it was not for european colonizing the americas, the whole american continent would still be wild forest.  same thing with australia.  the world would not be nearly as connected as it would be with imperialism.  if it was not for the european colonizing the majority of the world, we would still be speaking a million different languages, having completely different customs, etc.  in countries like india, the very form of government, transportation system, schooling system, and many other indirect influence have their roots in british colonization.  european colonization also act as a neutralizing effect against jared diamond is theory by mixing innovations from around the world.  without them, innovations would remain in one place or take a much longer time to saturate to other areas.  of course, i am speaking of only the good things about colonization.  this means the horrific things that colonization and imperialism did is for a moment taken out of consideration.  besides that, i think european colonization/imperialism was beneficial to the world.   #  in countries like india, the very form of government, transportation system, schooling system, and many other indirect influence have their roots in british colonization.   #  it is not as if the indians did not have government before.   # sorta, yeah.  north america was not just sparsely inhabited by small nomadic tribes, large and powerful alliances such as the iroquois confederation had large permanent towns and establishments throughout their territory, while cities in pre colombus america had populations up to 0,0.  URL that overhunted and deforested the surrounding areas.  and if you headed down south into central america you would see some cities that confounded european explorers.  URL   if it was not for the european colonizing the majority of the world, we would still be speaking a million different languages, having completely different customs, etc.  i do not see how this is a serious negative.  that is part of what i object to in your view.  connecting the world is nice sure but it is not worth the tens of millions of deaths, cultures destroyed, and countless areas destabilized.  it is not as if the indians did not have government before.  before the brits came the mughal empire URL which ruled the entire indian subcontinent and was mind staggeringly rich.  this means the horrific things that colonization and imperialism did is for a moment taken out of consideration.  besides that, i think european colonization/imperialism was beneficial to the world.  imperialist colonization wrecked an entire continent, africa.  the europeans just drew arbitrary lines that did not respect any of the local cultures and just forced everyone to fall in line with their new  identities.   that, and through their racial suppression of the natives, they forced them to be reliant on the europeans to run the show and helped make the continent the unstable region it is now.  and since we have no idea how the colonized nations would have done if left alone, we really ca not say if imperialism resulted in a better outcome.  but in any case, the genocide and cultural genocide that resulted from colonization along with the decades of resulting instability and warfare far outweighs whatever good the europeans brought it.   #  here in 0, we are still too close to the holocaust to look at the benefits of the nazis.   #  dan carlin spent quite a bit of time talking about this same basic concept when discussing the mongol conquests on hardcore history.  what it really came down to is how far removed you are in time from the events.  we can look back at alexander the great, ghengis khan, and various other conquerors throughout history and see all the good things they did.  they tied the east and west, they spread ideas, they unified cultures, and so on.  however, if you asked people only a decade or two removed from those conquests, they would tell you about the piles of decaying corpses, the cities you could  smell  rotting from dozens of miles away, the mothers raped in front of their children.  to top it off, he brought out the nazis with the idea that someday, perhaps a century or two from now, someone will publish a book about all of the benefits of the third reich on the modern world.  here in 0, we are still too close to the holocaust to look at the benefits of the nazis.  so was the imperialistic conquests beneficial ? definitely.  did it outweigh the horrors ? i think the best way to judge that is to compare it to something in the modern world.  perhaps soviet communism, the holocaust, mao, etc.  people and places that we have huge negative associations with because we are not so far removed in time.  do you consider the holocaust to be worth establishing the modern state of israel ? we are on the cusp of modern israelis feeling that way, but a generation or two earlier, they would likely have said not a chance.   #  you are speaking from a western mind frame, as it is likely all that you know.   #  you are assuming the native americans were unhappy with wild forests ? which is to say, they seem happier now living on reservations thousands of miles away from their ancestral lands, lucky to have survived the initial exposure to disease, forced conversions to christianity, and introduction of alcohol to their cultures ? you are speaking from a western mind frame, as it is likely all that you know.  sure it is better for  us  since now  they  all speak english, but how is it better for them ? they would still be living the same way they had for thousands of years.  even if they may seem primitive to you and i, they are by and large happier.  to use a slight exaggeration, without the trappings of modern society, they very nearly live in a garden of eden.  imagine your work day consisting of gathering enough food to feed your family ? as in, going out with a band and hunting, or farming, all the while getting good exercise, and eating whole, organic, healthy foods ? no worries about money.  no mortgages.  no bad news.  sure there may be war on occasion, but we seem to have shown that does not disappear with  civilization  either.  they live simpler.  also, to bring them into modern society is to introduce them to  diseases of affluence  URL which they may have avoided.  to speak specifically of india:  in countries like india, the very form of government, transportation system, schooling system, and many other indirect influence have their roots in british colonization.  yes, their current government has vestiges of the raj, but are you implying they would not have been able to govern themselves without british intervention ? that there were no schools ? you are aware that our number system was created in india, right ?  #  except for the fact that they were in constant warfare and raids.   #  i think you have a misconception that hunter gathering type societies were peaceful, nature loving people.  new evidence suggest that was not even near the case.  as in, going out with a band and hunting, or farming, all the while getting good exercise, and eating whole, organic, healthy foods ? no worries about money.  no mortgages.  no bad news.  except for the fact that they were in constant warfare and raids.  people died of disease very often because they used trial and error when it comes to medicine.  people were illiterate so any tribes without an elder person that remembers what leaves treat what sickness will have to rely on trial/error.  not to mention animals, the elements, etc.  average lifespan were around 0 years.  hunter gathering people lived a very horrific and violent life.  please read steven pinker is a better angel in our nature and you will see what i mean.  that there were no schools ? what makes you think they can ? in the amazon today, there are people still wearing loincloths and hunting with primitive spears.  you can say this is an experiment in leaving native people alone.  they still die of diseases you do not even know exists.   #  it would be absurd to think that one person in the tribe was responsible for carrying on a written language.   # new evidence suggest that was not even near the case.  i think  you  have a misconception that everything pre colonialism was hunter/gatherer.  people died of disease very often because they used trial and error when it comes to medicine.  as opposed to our current system ? and what of the diseases that did not exist before the europeans brought them ? you mean illiterate in english ? do you have any evidence at all to back any of this up ? it would be absurd to think that one person in the tribe was responsible for carrying on a written language.  geronimo lived to nearly 0 years old.  as did people in crowded cities.  many horrific diseases need dense populations to form and propagate.  in the amazon today, there are people still wearing loincloths and hunting with primitive spears.  they still die of diseases you do not even know exists.  yes, and you know what ? they are still around.  if they needed interventions of our civilized world, they would not be.
tell me if i am mistaken, but if it was not for european colonizing the americas, the whole american continent would still be wild forest.  same thing with australia.  the world would not be nearly as connected as it would be with imperialism.  if it was not for the european colonizing the majority of the world, we would still be speaking a million different languages, having completely different customs, etc.  in countries like india, the very form of government, transportation system, schooling system, and many other indirect influence have their roots in british colonization.  european colonization also act as a neutralizing effect against jared diamond is theory by mixing innovations from around the world.  without them, innovations would remain in one place or take a much longer time to saturate to other areas.  of course, i am speaking of only the good things about colonization.  this means the horrific things that colonization and imperialism did is for a moment taken out of consideration.  besides that, i think european colonization/imperialism was beneficial to the world.   #  of course, i am speaking of only the good things about colonization.   #  this means the horrific things that colonization and imperialism did is for a moment taken out of consideration.   # sorta, yeah.  north america was not just sparsely inhabited by small nomadic tribes, large and powerful alliances such as the iroquois confederation had large permanent towns and establishments throughout their territory, while cities in pre colombus america had populations up to 0,0.  URL that overhunted and deforested the surrounding areas.  and if you headed down south into central america you would see some cities that confounded european explorers.  URL   if it was not for the european colonizing the majority of the world, we would still be speaking a million different languages, having completely different customs, etc.  i do not see how this is a serious negative.  that is part of what i object to in your view.  connecting the world is nice sure but it is not worth the tens of millions of deaths, cultures destroyed, and countless areas destabilized.  it is not as if the indians did not have government before.  before the brits came the mughal empire URL which ruled the entire indian subcontinent and was mind staggeringly rich.  this means the horrific things that colonization and imperialism did is for a moment taken out of consideration.  besides that, i think european colonization/imperialism was beneficial to the world.  imperialist colonization wrecked an entire continent, africa.  the europeans just drew arbitrary lines that did not respect any of the local cultures and just forced everyone to fall in line with their new  identities.   that, and through their racial suppression of the natives, they forced them to be reliant on the europeans to run the show and helped make the continent the unstable region it is now.  and since we have no idea how the colonized nations would have done if left alone, we really ca not say if imperialism resulted in a better outcome.  but in any case, the genocide and cultural genocide that resulted from colonization along with the decades of resulting instability and warfare far outweighs whatever good the europeans brought it.   #  dan carlin spent quite a bit of time talking about this same basic concept when discussing the mongol conquests on hardcore history.   #  dan carlin spent quite a bit of time talking about this same basic concept when discussing the mongol conquests on hardcore history.  what it really came down to is how far removed you are in time from the events.  we can look back at alexander the great, ghengis khan, and various other conquerors throughout history and see all the good things they did.  they tied the east and west, they spread ideas, they unified cultures, and so on.  however, if you asked people only a decade or two removed from those conquests, they would tell you about the piles of decaying corpses, the cities you could  smell  rotting from dozens of miles away, the mothers raped in front of their children.  to top it off, he brought out the nazis with the idea that someday, perhaps a century or two from now, someone will publish a book about all of the benefits of the third reich on the modern world.  here in 0, we are still too close to the holocaust to look at the benefits of the nazis.  so was the imperialistic conquests beneficial ? definitely.  did it outweigh the horrors ? i think the best way to judge that is to compare it to something in the modern world.  perhaps soviet communism, the holocaust, mao, etc.  people and places that we have huge negative associations with because we are not so far removed in time.  do you consider the holocaust to be worth establishing the modern state of israel ? we are on the cusp of modern israelis feeling that way, but a generation or two earlier, they would likely have said not a chance.   #  sure there may be war on occasion, but we seem to have shown that does not disappear with  civilization  either.   #  you are assuming the native americans were unhappy with wild forests ? which is to say, they seem happier now living on reservations thousands of miles away from their ancestral lands, lucky to have survived the initial exposure to disease, forced conversions to christianity, and introduction of alcohol to their cultures ? you are speaking from a western mind frame, as it is likely all that you know.  sure it is better for  us  since now  they  all speak english, but how is it better for them ? they would still be living the same way they had for thousands of years.  even if they may seem primitive to you and i, they are by and large happier.  to use a slight exaggeration, without the trappings of modern society, they very nearly live in a garden of eden.  imagine your work day consisting of gathering enough food to feed your family ? as in, going out with a band and hunting, or farming, all the while getting good exercise, and eating whole, organic, healthy foods ? no worries about money.  no mortgages.  no bad news.  sure there may be war on occasion, but we seem to have shown that does not disappear with  civilization  either.  they live simpler.  also, to bring them into modern society is to introduce them to  diseases of affluence  URL which they may have avoided.  to speak specifically of india:  in countries like india, the very form of government, transportation system, schooling system, and many other indirect influence have their roots in british colonization.  yes, their current government has vestiges of the raj, but are you implying they would not have been able to govern themselves without british intervention ? that there were no schools ? you are aware that our number system was created in india, right ?  #  i think you have a misconception that hunter gathering type societies were peaceful, nature loving people.   #  i think you have a misconception that hunter gathering type societies were peaceful, nature loving people.  new evidence suggest that was not even near the case.  as in, going out with a band and hunting, or farming, all the while getting good exercise, and eating whole, organic, healthy foods ? no worries about money.  no mortgages.  no bad news.  except for the fact that they were in constant warfare and raids.  people died of disease very often because they used trial and error when it comes to medicine.  people were illiterate so any tribes without an elder person that remembers what leaves treat what sickness will have to rely on trial/error.  not to mention animals, the elements, etc.  average lifespan were around 0 years.  hunter gathering people lived a very horrific and violent life.  please read steven pinker is a better angel in our nature and you will see what i mean.  that there were no schools ? what makes you think they can ? in the amazon today, there are people still wearing loincloths and hunting with primitive spears.  you can say this is an experiment in leaving native people alone.  they still die of diseases you do not even know exists.   #  new evidence suggest that was not even near the case.   # new evidence suggest that was not even near the case.  i think  you  have a misconception that everything pre colonialism was hunter/gatherer.  people died of disease very often because they used trial and error when it comes to medicine.  as opposed to our current system ? and what of the diseases that did not exist before the europeans brought them ? you mean illiterate in english ? do you have any evidence at all to back any of this up ? it would be absurd to think that one person in the tribe was responsible for carrying on a written language.  geronimo lived to nearly 0 years old.  as did people in crowded cities.  many horrific diseases need dense populations to form and propagate.  in the amazon today, there are people still wearing loincloths and hunting with primitive spears.  they still die of diseases you do not even know exists.  yes, and you know what ? they are still around.  if they needed interventions of our civilized world, they would not be.
this includes just smoking on the street where people can walk by and be forced to walk through your smoke.  cigarettes smell absolutely terrible.  farting in public is considered rude: all cigarettes smell worse than the worst farts i have ever smelled.  my sense of smell is approximately 0 of what a normal person is is, and i can always and easily smell when someone smokes a cigarette near me.  i smell on average between 0 and 0 things in a day, and when i do smell something,  0 of the time it is a cigarette.  i would gladly trade my ability to ever smell anything again for never having to smell cigarettes again.  cigarette smoke, including second hand smoke, is just absolutely incredibly terrible for you.  it  literally causes cancer .  this is very well established: URL if you disagree with this i will almost certainly not believe you and you had best come prepared to back up your position strongly.  cigarette smoke, unlike farts or marijuana smoke or car exhaust, clings horrifically to the area it is smoked in and the clothes of anyone exposed to it.  if you step outside and smoke and then come back in, congratulations, the whole room now smells like cigarettes because the smoke clings to your clothes.  if you smoke near me, i will smell like cigarettes for the rest of the day.  plus the smoke itself is very irritating to anyone with allergies, and the nicotine is highly nauseating for anyone sensitive to it, like myself.  knowingly exposing other people to this just because you want to get high or ca not control your addictions is one of the least considerate, most selfish things i can imagine anyone doing.  it is just astounding to me that this is considered acceptable at all, and i am very glad that western society is moving in the direction of it being less acceptable.  i applaud ever higher cigarette taxes, and i think that the e cigarette is potentially one of the greatest quality of life improving inventions of all time.   #  knowingly exposing other people to this just because you want to get high or ca not control your addictions is one of the least considerate, most selfish things i can imagine anyone doing.   #  i never did this intentionally, and i took regular efforts to avoid it.   #  you know, i have offered to stop making coffee.  but he lives in a house with 0 coffee drinkers, and perhaps he feels like it would be too much to ask us not to make it, or perhaps it only really bothers him some of the time.  i do not honestly know.  i do most often buy coffee on the way to work, but i admit that is more often due to laziness and running late.  i  do  think you are significantly more bothered by the scent of cigarette smoke than he is of coffee.  as an ex smoker i switched to e cigs about 0 months ago i felt like i was avoiding a lot of this by simply asking the people around me if it would bother them before i lit one up.  and of course, when i smoked i would make an effort to be as away from any crowded area as possible, stand downwind from anyone i was near, and avoid letting children see me.  unfortunately this really does not prevent much of what bothers you.  in public, especially in the city, it can be difficult to find a place that no one ever walks through or near.  and i was never really aware that i smelled like cigarettes afterwards, though occasionally people mentioned that they could smell them on me, i certainly never thought i was stinking up the room.  i am not sure how i would remedy that without heavy perfuming or something.  i never did this intentionally, and i took regular efforts to avoid it.  but fair is fair, and you must realize that your experience is not the norm.  0 years ago people smoked in restaurants, bars, and in their home with great frequency the restaurants and bars were not suffering business loss as a result, or they would have put a stop to it.  so i think it is safe to say that while an awful lot of people are bothered by smoke and by smokers, an even greater number probably are not.  this certainly makes it difficult to know how much my actions are going to bother other people.  if i am standing on the street with no one else around, and you are walking down the street in my direction, i have no real way of knowing how likely my cigarette is to bother you or anyone else who may come along.  when i was a smoker, i had strangers join me at least as often as i heard anyone complain.  ultimately, i tried to ascribe to the philosophy of  do not be a dick .  but i do believe that most people have the right to do most anything, providing they take reasonable precautions not to bother others.  those reasonable precautions are what i would expect keeps my actions from being rude, if not actually making them polite.  after all i do not actually  need  to take these precautions, but i do so out of a consideration for others.  is not that what politeness is ? but i  do  think there is a limit to what reasonable precautions entails.   #  i have a roommate who is highly offended by the scent of coffee in the morning, it can sometimes make him nauseous.   #  to say that something is rude is to indicate that it is a breach of etiquette.  etiquette is dictated by social consensus, so what is  extremely rude  in one social group may be considered anything from  a little rude  to  polite  in another.  so there is no real objective truth here.  the main point you seem to make is that the smell of cigarette smoke bothers you.  i am sorry that it does, but this makes your argument highly subjective.  the same smell that bothers you to the point that you would sacrifice your sense of smell to avoid it does not bother me at all, and i am rarely, if ever, offended by the scent.  i have a roommate who is highly offended by the scent of coffee in the morning, it can sometimes make him nauseous.  regardless, he does not take offense or bear us ill will for making coffee in the morning.  reading your post reminds me to thank him for that.  similarly, i have a co worker who begins coughing if cigarette smoke is anywhere in her vicinity, even yards away.  i also know someone who is so allergic to peppers that she may have a physical reaction if she is even in the same house where they are being cooked.  the question is, for people who bear these sensitivities, to what extent is it reasonable to expect others to take precautions for their sake ? i do not have an easy answer to that, and as i said, i do not really think an objective answer exists.  but it is interesting to discuss.   #  and currently, if you do not like being around smokers, you can largely avoid being around them.   #  i really have to disagree.  we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  the rest is a lot murkier.  in our private residences we have a great liberty to regulate our interactions with things that bother us.  but in public, that is an issue of public concensus.  public concensus has ruled that nudity, public intoxication, and a few other things should not be allowed in public.  if your pet peeve is not on that list, i am sorry, it is annoying but that is life.  women get cat calls.  we all get crying babies, traffic, long lines.  i have to put up with sports on giant tvs, or loud music being played so loud i ca not hear my conversation, and conservative news stations.  why ? because what bothers me does not bother the majority, and i do not rule the world.  neither do you.  the rights we both have is to largely avoid things that annoy us.  it is not flawless, but it is what we get.  we are a society that rules by concensus and compromise.  and currently, if you do not like being around smokers, you can largely avoid being around them.  i manage it without much difficulty, myself.   #  yes, it has affected smokers in a negative way, but i do not have to worry about it affecting my health not the second hand smoke stuff .   #  you are right, i have the right to avoid them, just as much as they have the right to try to make my stuff smell.  i agree there.  i guess i can just state that, at least in my state, the right has been relegated to their own private residences and anywhere more than 0  away from any public/private entrance as the ohio smoking ban URL went into affect and it has absolutely helped with the qol of the majority of persons.  yes, it has affected smokers in a negative way, but i do not have to worry about it affecting my health not the second hand smoke stuff .  i am talking about causing my asthma to act up because of their choice.  i do not have to worry about my stuff smelling like them.  i do not have to worry about their choices affecting my children in any way, health or scent.  i guess i should be glad that in ohio, public concensus has stated that the smokers due not have the right to infringe on other peoples  health and psyche.  now we just have to get them to stop taking those smoke breaks at work and getting away with it.   #  like i said above, no one else in the general public is in any way obligated to care about your health.   # have to ? absolutely not.  would i put out my cigarette if it were bothering someone else ? absolutely, if that person was even minimally polite about it.  but, frankly, i am under no obligation to care about your wants or needs, nor you mine.  i choose to not be an asshole, to be considerate of other people.  i believe everyone should do the same, but you ca not force that.  attempting to legislate morality is always an exercise in futility.  to you, certainly.  so you take steps to maintain your health yourself, affecting others as minimally as possible.  like i said above, no one else in the general public is in any way obligated to care about your health.  however, most people will be considerate enough to alter their behavior in such a situation if you are not yourself inconsiderate in asking.
the founding fathers were all wealthy, educated, free white men.  they owned a lot of land.  the whole separation between the colonies and england resulted from the new aristocracy in the americas feeling like they were not getting the same respect and reverence as the old aristocracy.  hence, we get the whole  taxation without representation  thing, which was just them bitching about the fact that they were not being respected enough in the old aristocracy in england to be included in these important matters.  this disagreement over taxation was just symptom of an inferior complex, which tipped the balance over to full brown and rhetoric filled fight for freedom and the england was evil thing we have all been taught in schools.  but a revolution is impossible with a bunch of rich, white aristocratic men like george washington the richest man in america .  so in order to get popular support, documents and noble sounding ideologies were thought up and immortalized in the declaration of independence, constitution, bill of rights, etc.  an example of rhetoric aimed at inciting popular support for an otherwise rich, white men is war is the  all men are create equal.   statement that is so famous today.  that phrase was never meant to include any other men except the rich white men of the new aristocracy.  hence we have a few hundred more years of civil rights for blacks and women is suffrage.  hell, not all white me were included as only rich, land owning white men have any power, never mind other races and women.  even after america won its independence, land, power, influence, and prestige such suffrage was only limited to a tiny minority white land owning men which was problematic because back then very few white men were rich enough, unless the were tied to the old aristocracy back in england, to own any land.  most were dirt poor indentured servants, so they were as good off as blacks and women.  events after the revolutionary war saw the even more power in the hands of the new elites while everyone else were in the same place they were before the war.  tl;dr the founding of the united states was an effort of the new aristocracy in the americas to break away from the old aristocracy in england.  everything else was just a bunch of rich white men trying to get the masses to support them.   #  the founding fathers were all wealthy, educated, free white men.   #  these were the only people with both the respect and resources to create change at the time.   #  you are viewing things through overly modern eyes imho.  to us they were hopelessly backward but in the context of the culture of their time, they were radically progressive.  these were the only people with both the respect and resources to create change at the time.  and to some degree this is still fairly true the common people often could not read if they could even get access to newspapers which had weeks old news and blatantly biased journalism.  farming at the time left little leisure time for pursuing education much less pondering the abstract ideas of liberty and justice, only the wealthy had the time on their hands for such thoughts and the education and connections to put them into action.  politics is always a balancing act between incremental progress and rampant instability.  many governments have toppled and wars have been fought because somebody tried to create too much change all at once.  expecting the founding fathers to fix problems that we are still struggling with almost 0 years later is unrealistic imho it is easy to look back and say they failed to create a perfect utopia, but i think a tribesman in a desert in africa would probably disagree with you.   #  where do you get the idea that the founding fathers were all incredibly wealthy ?  #  so if it all about giving the founding fathers more empowerment, why did they become much less powerful than traditional aristocrats ? why was the original plan for the us to become one with small government and no standing army ? why all the checks and balances and roadblocks towards total power if the founding fathers were just looking to benefit a new aristocracy ? and rich ? where do you get the idea that the founding fathers were all incredibly wealthy ? washington retired to his plantation which was only marginally profitable, monroe sold his plantation, and jefferson spent most of his retirement with his library.  there is some more breakdown of this notion here.  URL  #  no wonder slaves were not  part of  the statement.   #  they did put checks and balances as part of the new government make up, but it was not until later on that enough people were allowed to vote that checks and balance could be said to really get going.  back then even whites that were not land owners were not allowed to vote.  women and blacks were not given suffrage till much later.  they were very wealthy, at least in respect to other colonists.  while jefferson was the one who coined the statement, yet he owned many slaves.  no wonder slaves were not  part of  the statement.  that would take away the white aristocracy is power.   #  they knew very well slavery is the backbone of their economic success.   # to us they were hopelessly backward but in the context of the culture of their time, they were radically progressive.  yes i agree.  they were hypocrites nevertheless.  the very concept of  all men were created equal  were extremely radical in the times in which kings were still claiming to be divine.  but the fact that they stood so strongly for that yet still have slaves break their backs in the backyards is the very definition of hypocrisy.  are women not equal to men ? they knew very well slavery is the backbone of their economic success.  the southern states also realized without slaves, they will crumble.   #  ben franklin became one of the most prominent figures in abolition.   #  i think you need to reform your position to  some of the founding fathers were hypocrites .  what about those who did not support slavery ? ben franklin became one of the most prominent figures in abolition.  what about those who did not see blacks as people ? it is disgusting, but not hypocrisy to suggest that the doi is compatible with that view.  as an aside, madison was definitely a huge hypocrite, despite his brilliance.
i work in an industry where the term  urban  is used frequently to describe a specific targetted market.  i always think it is strange and backhanded when my co workers use the word to describe the black population.  urban is synonymous with city, in my mind.  according to a website i found on the term URL it was originally used to describe those who moved from the south to the cities of the north and had to adapt to the new life.  if anything, this term should apply to anyone living in a city but it is instead used exclusively for black people.  i do not see calling someone black as offensive at all.  if that is offensive, then calling someone white should be equally as offensive.  i think those really are the only two ones that work ie.  red for native american and yellow for asian i believe to be horribly offensive .  please, change my view.   #  it is instead used exclusively for black people.   #  as others have said,  no it does not .   # as others have said,  no it does not .  i  would  agree that in some contexts, it is referring specifically to lower income city dwellers.  but i do not see where it is restricted to a specific race.  in fact, many of the  problems  that some people want to attribute to a particular race are actually more accurately attributed to a specific socioeconomic demographic regardless of skin color.  so i would argue that, in some context, using  urban  is far more accurate than using  black .  the people in a particular urban area may be black, but if it is the  urbaness  rather than the  blackness  that impacts whatever the person is talking about, it would be wrong and racist to say  black , but accurate to say  urban .   #  so is the term itself what is racist or the desire to apply it as a stereotype to all black people ?  # no, they are not, not any more than intentional racial stereotype ex: a fried chicken restaurant is only targeting black people as customers.  a rap station is target audience is people who like rap music just like a fried chicken restaurant is target is people who like chicken.  rap music may be popular with black people but that does not make it exclusive to them.  there is also not a whole lot of clarity in what is  okay  to call people.  is  black  okay ? negro is not and it just means black in spanish.  african american ? they are not african though, they may even have heritage from the carribean or somewhere else though they may be quite removed from it and not ever have been there .   oriental  is apparently considered racist these days and it just means  from the east .  hell, some people take offence to the word  newfie  and it is just a shortened version of  newfoundlander  for christ sake.  so is the term itself what is racist or the desire to apply it as a stereotype to all black people ? the intent or the act ?  #  obviously, they want a broad reach and hit all rap fans, but they do specifically target black people in the same way that hispanic stations target latinos.   #  in the example i gave, they are.  the target of urban stations is black listeners.  obviously, they want a broad reach and hit all rap fans, but they do specifically target black people in the same way that hispanic stations target latinos.  i know this to be true from professional experience.  i am not saying at all that it is a genre exclusively  for  one race over another.  to say that urban radio/television is not marketed towards black people is just straight up wrong.  i think that, generally, many of the terms used to describe people and how they are interpreted are generally overdone.  to address your examples, negro is not ok because of the connotation behind it and is often used in the pejorative.  oriental falls into the same category.  terms that have these negative histories are not really fair comparisons.  not to mention, i would not use the same word to describe a rug as i would a person from china.   #  i think you are being racist, perhaps unintentionally so, by saying that rap stations are targeting  black listeners .   #  i think you are being racist, perhaps unintentionally so, by saying that rap stations are targeting  black listeners .  the unspoken implication is in that is that they are targeting these listeners because they are black racially, which it sounds like you are saying is synonymous with culturally.  what i suspect is really happening is they are targeting members of a particular set of subcultures of which the members are majority black people.  calling  the particular set of cultures which are likely to be into rap/hip hop and are, independently, comprised primarily by racially black people   black culture  is far more racist than calling it  urban culture .  calling it  black culture  denies the racial identity of all black people who are not involved in those cultures as well as the cultural identity of all those non black people who are.   #  you are stereotyping suggesting that they are only targeting black listeners when really it is simply that a large portion of their target demographic happen to be black.   #  they are marketed towards things that many black people like or are stereotyped to like, but there is no mention of blacks only or no whites allowed or anything.  you are stereotyping suggesting that they are only targeting black listeners when really it is simply that a large portion of their target demographic happen to be black.  oriental falls into the same category.  terms that have these negative histories are not really fair comparisons.  and so it is the intent not the word.  not even the person is intent really.  someone else is some time long ago because they used it in a negative sense.  and so is persian racist then ? when i think of rugs i think of persian rugs.  is canadian bacon racist ? american muscle ? chinese food ? rather arbitrary distinctions would not you say ?
lets start with the definition of hypocrite:   next lets look at bible niv passages on homosexuality and the role of women.  women homosexuality   now let me clarify an important aspects of my stance.  i am not against a  cafeteria christian  who chooses that all four of these passages are not requisites of their faith.  my sole stance is that christians who condone homosexuality should also condone the idea of women in leadership positions in the church or elsewhere.  the reason i see women is rights and gay rights as linked is because both issues are important now and have been for some time and because on some level i believe the teachings of the bible are against both, based on the above passages.  commenters should note that i do not wish to debate christianity as a whole in this thread, i am only approaching these two aspects of christianity as linked.  the reason for this is that i have no issue with christians who chose to ignore hateful/backward in my opinion aspects of the bible in favor of lessons about love, hope, family, ect.   #  the reason i see women is rights and gay rights as linked is because both issues are important now and have been for some time and because on some level i believe the teachings of the bible are against both, based on the above passages.   #  but they are not linked at all.   # but they are not linked at all.  it is entirely possible for someone to be pro womens rights and against gay rights or vice versa .  does that make them a hypocrite ? i do not know, but it certainly makes them an asshole.  but that is regardless in the fact that those two issues are not related  #  sure we have moved on as a culture and granted women many of the same rights men have even though the bible would have us perpetuate the patriarchy.   #  i would say it dose make they a hypocrite and that is why the issues are related.  sure someone can be for one and against the other, that does not mean that they are not connected issues, it just means than anyone with a divergent stance on each issue is a hypocrite.  they reason they are related issues in my view is because the bible is against both.  sure we have moved on as a culture and granted women many of the same rights men have even though the bible would have us perpetuate the patriarchy.  much in the same way we are beginning to grant homosexual people the same rights in the eyes of our government, even though it goes against the teachings of the bible.   #  i concede, i was referring to people in general whereas you were referring specifically to christians.   #  i concede, i was referring to people in general whereas you were referring specifically to christians.  however, are not all chrisitans hypocrites ? the bible specifically states that eating shellfish is a sin leviticus 0:0 , and that you should not cut your hair in a round style leviticus 0:0 .  nor are you allowed to pull out during sex genesis this time, 0:0 0 .  also banned is wearing gold jewelry, getting tattoos, wearing polyester or any blend of at least 0 fabrics , and getting a divorce.  by these measures alone i do not think you can find a single christian hat upholds every command in the bible.  i do not think it is possible the way it contradicts itself so much.  so you have to pick and choose certain ones to ignore or else you become wbc incarnate .  as society has evolved and women have gained rights, it is easier to dismiss the verses that speak against women is rights as being outdated.  in a few decades the same will be said of any verse that speaks out against gay rights.  are they still hypocrites ? you could argue for that if you wanted.  will labeling them hypocrites get anything done ? no.   #  i do not know if that is what you are doing or if you have simply come to a different conclusion.   #  it depends.  if you are doing this on the basis of sola scriptura scripture alone then it is possible to interpret things in the way op calls hypocritical, but it would not necessarily be hypocritical if you are being intellectually honest about why you think what you think.  i have seen some interpretations that say that david and jonathan were married.  i do not buy it, but absent a  tradition , i could see someone coming to that conclusion.  i have also seen some interpretations that suggest that the word for homosexual in some cases could be seen as  mama is boy  in our modern speech.  again, that is not traditional, but some people see it that way.  the point is that unless your denomination admits a tradition, there are dozens of ways to interpret any verse in the bible, and not much of a way to referee the issues.  if that is the case, i think the best answer i can give is that the issue is between  you   god  and  your priest .  i would not call you a hypocrite, because that would imply that you are knowingly going against the bible.  i do not know if that is what you are doing or if you have simply come to a different conclusion.   #  i would argue that timothy 0:0 0 actually would fall under my category.   #  i would argue that timothy 0:0 0 actually would fall under my category.  another thing we both need to realize is that the translations tend to lose/add meaning based on how they are done.  there are a few key words that are conveniently mistranslated in 0 timothy 0: 0 0.  hesuchios/hesuchia: traditionalists normally translate this word as  silence  at least in passages concerning women , but the word in all other places is translated as  peacefulness   peaceable  or  quietness.  the word does not carry the meaning of literal silence or absence of speech, but of an atmosphere or presence in which learning should take place.  strong is greek dictionary defines hesuchios/hesuchias as  properly, keeping one is seat,   stillness   undisturbed,   undisturbing,  and  peaceable.  when paul has absence of speech in mind, he uses the term  sigao.  the same word is used just nine verses earlier and is translated as  peaceable,  0 timothy 0:0 0.  i still believe in a lot of these circumstances it was in a religious environment.
with all of the talk about the suicide of robin williams, i have seen many many posts saying that suicide is selfish, cowardly, and should be prevented if and when possible.  my view is that suicide is your last right which cannot be taken away without complete captivity and dehumanizing restraints.  those steps should not be applied just on the basis of you being suicidal.  if you have committed no crimes against someone else, nor infringed upon their rights, society has no right to stop you from taking your own life if that is what you so choose.  this is not to say that people who say that they are suicidal, or demonstrate suicidal behavior should not be helped.  quite the contrary.  cries for help should be answered when possible.  people should use every means short of restraints to convince someone that life is worth living.  but in the end, it is their final choice to make.  please let me clarify why i believe this to be a cmv for me.  i do believe that suicide is within the realm of capability for anyone living an unrestricted life.  one must simply remain quiet and sit in their room with a belt around their neck and pass from this world.  in this way, suicide is inalienable and unstoppable once decided upon.  our society has deemed that suicide is illegal, immoral, selfish and should be stopped by any means possible once identified as a possible outcome.  people are placed in a position where they must defend their sanity in order to prevent being locked up, restrained and/or drugged.  this causes a conflict for anyone who chooses to commit suicide while trying to minimize the negative impact on their friends and family.  if a person were to make arrangements to end their life in a way that did not leave a mess, arrange to have their body removed, and arrange to settle their financial obligations prior to committing their final act, they would then be targeted for incarceration, restraints and psychological testing and at no time allowed to do what they could have done in secret.  what we are saying is that the only rational way to commit suicide is to hide it from society which necessitates leaving an extreme amount of burden on those remaining.  i cannot help but think that i have missed something in my analysis as it appears that society is necessitating suicides to be as secretive and as damaging as possible which seems to be what we are collectively trying to prevent.   #  my view is that suicide is your last right which cannot be taken away without complete captivity and dehumanizing restraints.   #  those steps should not be applied just on the basis of you being suicidal.   # those steps should not be applied just on the basis of you being suicidal.  if you have committed no crimes against someone else, nor infringed upon their rights, society has no right to stop you from taking your own life if that is what you so choose.  imagine there is a super bug running around.  when this bug infects you it worms its way into your brain and begins altering your thought processes.  this bug is whole intention is to get you to walk off a cliff or run head long into traffic.  basically it forces you to behave erratically in an attempt to get you killed out of some reproductive need that it has.  does not society have an obligation to restrain patients afflicted with this bug and pump them full of antibiotics to cure them ? this is what suicide is.  it is a mental disease.  a temporary affliction that significantly alters the behavior of its host in irrational and regrettable ways.  many people who have been suicidal at one point or the other in their lives describe being eventually extremely grateful that they never managed to pull it off  because the affliction eventually leaves them .  similarly, society has an obligation to protect the patient from himself until such a time as he is able to be cured of his affliction.  this is why society tends to take the  we are going to stop you from doing this for your own good even if you do not like it or appreciate it right now  approach.  because we have come to understand that suicidal ideation is a temporary affliction and causes people to behave and do irrational things that they will later overwhelmingly regret the majority of the time.  inb0, this is not addressing people with chronic or terminal illness.  that is a wholly separate issue from suicidal ideation born of depression/circumstance and should be treated as such.   #  exactly, you do not get to keep around that suicidal or terminal person just because you ca not let go of who that person used to be.   #  exactly, you do not get to keep around that suicidal or terminal person just because you ca not let go of who that person used to be.  if you do that to an animal, you are inhumane but when it is a person actually wants to end their life, they are cowards ? either let them go or prevent them from hitting that deep of a depression.  the latter can be incredibly draining so it is completely understandable that not everyone could handle it without falling into a depression themselves.  sometimes it can be better to let them go and keep the better memories than have them all tainted by the depression.   #  suicide is very rarely a healthy, reasonable problem solving measure.   #  the problem is that the vast majority of people who commit or attempt to commit suicide are under the influence of something, be it severe mental illness, substances, anger, whatever, that they would not have chosen to kill themselves if they were not in those circumstances.  it is often said that people who try and fail to kill themselves often are thankful they were not successful.  they realize their suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.  suicide is very rarely a healthy, reasonable problem solving measure.  this is why we as a society do our best to treat those people and help prevent them from killing themselves.  same reason why, when someone comes into the hospital in an obviously altered mental state, they can have procedures performed without their consent, because they are obviously not of sound mind to be making decisions for themselves.   #  even when we are not in a depressive episode, we are always aware that it is there.   # i strongly dislike that phrase.  many who commit suicide due to mental health issues have chronic, recurring, or permanent conditions that haunt their lives.  depression, for example, is not a one time event those of us who struggle with it will always struggle with it.  even when we are not in a depressive episode, we are always aware that it is there.  every time you do get caught up in it, you are even more acutely aware that even if you manage to get through this time, there is a next time waiting.  i am not saying suicide is the right solution, by any means.  but those who succumb to it because of mental illness are not just choosing the wrong solution.  they are often people who have fought this battle many times before.  and it does not matter how many times you have won you just have to lose once.  spoken as a person who would not be here if i had the means to end it quickly at multiple points in my past  #  i could buy a new car and drive straight off the lot the wrong way into traffic.   #  yes, probably not the best reason and probably not a reason at all.  i could buy a hammer from a hardware store and smash my own genitals.  i could buy a thousand in and out cheeseburgers and eat myself to death.  i could buy a new car and drive straight off the lot the wrong way into traffic.  we do not even consider banning any of those things because we realize as a society that you ca not take away people is rights just because a few bad apples might misuse or abuse something.  i think we should use that same mindset for everything, including guns.
with all of the talk about the suicide of robin williams, i have seen many many posts saying that suicide is selfish, cowardly, and should be prevented if and when possible.  my view is that suicide is your last right which cannot be taken away without complete captivity and dehumanizing restraints.  those steps should not be applied just on the basis of you being suicidal.  if you have committed no crimes against someone else, nor infringed upon their rights, society has no right to stop you from taking your own life if that is what you so choose.  this is not to say that people who say that they are suicidal, or demonstrate suicidal behavior should not be helped.  quite the contrary.  cries for help should be answered when possible.  people should use every means short of restraints to convince someone that life is worth living.  but in the end, it is their final choice to make.  please let me clarify why i believe this to be a cmv for me.  i do believe that suicide is within the realm of capability for anyone living an unrestricted life.  one must simply remain quiet and sit in their room with a belt around their neck and pass from this world.  in this way, suicide is inalienable and unstoppable once decided upon.  our society has deemed that suicide is illegal, immoral, selfish and should be stopped by any means possible once identified as a possible outcome.  people are placed in a position where they must defend their sanity in order to prevent being locked up, restrained and/or drugged.  this causes a conflict for anyone who chooses to commit suicide while trying to minimize the negative impact on their friends and family.  if a person were to make arrangements to end their life in a way that did not leave a mess, arrange to have their body removed, and arrange to settle their financial obligations prior to committing their final act, they would then be targeted for incarceration, restraints and psychological testing and at no time allowed to do what they could have done in secret.  what we are saying is that the only rational way to commit suicide is to hide it from society which necessitates leaving an extreme amount of burden on those remaining.  i cannot help but think that i have missed something in my analysis as it appears that society is necessitating suicides to be as secretive and as damaging as possible which seems to be what we are collectively trying to prevent.   #  people should use every means short of restraints to convince someone that life is worth living.   #  this seems like it is your actual viewpoint but you do not give much evidence to why it should be.   # unfortunately this does not apply in the vast majority of societies and thus is clearly not an unalienable right nor is it their final choice to make.  this is not to say it should not be only that at the moment it clearly is not.  this may sound like me being pedantic/stubborn but there is a huge difference between saying something  is  a right and  actually having  that right.  this seems like it is your actual viewpoint but you do not give much evidence to why it should be.  keep in mind that the vast majority of individuals believe that any threat even potential to the happiness/well being of others is a justifiable reason to prevent you from doing whatever activity it is that is causing the threat.  please clarify  #  the latter can be incredibly draining so it is completely understandable that not everyone could handle it without falling into a depression themselves.   #  exactly, you do not get to keep around that suicidal or terminal person just because you ca not let go of who that person used to be.  if you do that to an animal, you are inhumane but when it is a person actually wants to end their life, they are cowards ? either let them go or prevent them from hitting that deep of a depression.  the latter can be incredibly draining so it is completely understandable that not everyone could handle it without falling into a depression themselves.  sometimes it can be better to let them go and keep the better memories than have them all tainted by the depression.   #  they realize their suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.   #  the problem is that the vast majority of people who commit or attempt to commit suicide are under the influence of something, be it severe mental illness, substances, anger, whatever, that they would not have chosen to kill themselves if they were not in those circumstances.  it is often said that people who try and fail to kill themselves often are thankful they were not successful.  they realize their suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.  suicide is very rarely a healthy, reasonable problem solving measure.  this is why we as a society do our best to treat those people and help prevent them from killing themselves.  same reason why, when someone comes into the hospital in an obviously altered mental state, they can have procedures performed without their consent, because they are obviously not of sound mind to be making decisions for themselves.   #  they are often people who have fought this battle many times before.   # i strongly dislike that phrase.  many who commit suicide due to mental health issues have chronic, recurring, or permanent conditions that haunt their lives.  depression, for example, is not a one time event those of us who struggle with it will always struggle with it.  even when we are not in a depressive episode, we are always aware that it is there.  every time you do get caught up in it, you are even more acutely aware that even if you manage to get through this time, there is a next time waiting.  i am not saying suicide is the right solution, by any means.  but those who succumb to it because of mental illness are not just choosing the wrong solution.  they are often people who have fought this battle many times before.  and it does not matter how many times you have won you just have to lose once.  spoken as a person who would not be here if i had the means to end it quickly at multiple points in my past  #  we do not even consider banning any of those things because we realize as a society that you ca not take away people is rights just because a few bad apples might misuse or abuse something.   #  yes, probably not the best reason and probably not a reason at all.  i could buy a hammer from a hardware store and smash my own genitals.  i could buy a thousand in and out cheeseburgers and eat myself to death.  i could buy a new car and drive straight off the lot the wrong way into traffic.  we do not even consider banning any of those things because we realize as a society that you ca not take away people is rights just because a few bad apples might misuse or abuse something.  i think we should use that same mindset for everything, including guns.
with all of the talk about the suicide of robin williams, i have seen many many posts saying that suicide is selfish, cowardly, and should be prevented if and when possible.  my view is that suicide is your last right which cannot be taken away without complete captivity and dehumanizing restraints.  those steps should not be applied just on the basis of you being suicidal.  if you have committed no crimes against someone else, nor infringed upon their rights, society has no right to stop you from taking your own life if that is what you so choose.  this is not to say that people who say that they are suicidal, or demonstrate suicidal behavior should not be helped.  quite the contrary.  cries for help should be answered when possible.  people should use every means short of restraints to convince someone that life is worth living.  but in the end, it is their final choice to make.  please let me clarify why i believe this to be a cmv for me.  i do believe that suicide is within the realm of capability for anyone living an unrestricted life.  one must simply remain quiet and sit in their room with a belt around their neck and pass from this world.  in this way, suicide is inalienable and unstoppable once decided upon.  our society has deemed that suicide is illegal, immoral, selfish and should be stopped by any means possible once identified as a possible outcome.  people are placed in a position where they must defend their sanity in order to prevent being locked up, restrained and/or drugged.  this causes a conflict for anyone who chooses to commit suicide while trying to minimize the negative impact on their friends and family.  if a person were to make arrangements to end their life in a way that did not leave a mess, arrange to have their body removed, and arrange to settle their financial obligations prior to committing their final act, they would then be targeted for incarceration, restraints and psychological testing and at no time allowed to do what they could have done in secret.  what we are saying is that the only rational way to commit suicide is to hide it from society which necessitates leaving an extreme amount of burden on those remaining.  i cannot help but think that i have missed something in my analysis as it appears that society is necessitating suicides to be as secretive and as damaging as possible which seems to be what we are collectively trying to prevent.   #  if you have committed no crimes against someone else, nor infringed upon their rights, society has no right to stop you from taking your own life if that is what you so choose.   #  society ca not stop but you ca not deny that it is selfish.   # society ca not stop but you ca not deny that it is selfish.  unless you are completely alone in the world committing suicide hurts everyone connected to you.  it is the ultimate selfish act where you are putting your pains, fears, ideas over that of everyone that has touched you in your life.  assuming society could stop suicide then we would because another person living helps everyone in society in some way, especially someone that is a non criminal.  besides in a way every citizen owes society because with society they would not have anything that they have.   #  if you do that to an animal, you are inhumane but when it is a person actually wants to end their life, they are cowards ?  #  exactly, you do not get to keep around that suicidal or terminal person just because you ca not let go of who that person used to be.  if you do that to an animal, you are inhumane but when it is a person actually wants to end their life, they are cowards ? either let them go or prevent them from hitting that deep of a depression.  the latter can be incredibly draining so it is completely understandable that not everyone could handle it without falling into a depression themselves.  sometimes it can be better to let them go and keep the better memories than have them all tainted by the depression.   #  same reason why, when someone comes into the hospital in an obviously altered mental state, they can have procedures performed without their consent, because they are obviously not of sound mind to be making decisions for themselves.   #  the problem is that the vast majority of people who commit or attempt to commit suicide are under the influence of something, be it severe mental illness, substances, anger, whatever, that they would not have chosen to kill themselves if they were not in those circumstances.  it is often said that people who try and fail to kill themselves often are thankful they were not successful.  they realize their suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.  suicide is very rarely a healthy, reasonable problem solving measure.  this is why we as a society do our best to treat those people and help prevent them from killing themselves.  same reason why, when someone comes into the hospital in an obviously altered mental state, they can have procedures performed without their consent, because they are obviously not of sound mind to be making decisions for themselves.   #  but those who succumb to it because of mental illness are not just choosing the wrong solution.   # i strongly dislike that phrase.  many who commit suicide due to mental health issues have chronic, recurring, or permanent conditions that haunt their lives.  depression, for example, is not a one time event those of us who struggle with it will always struggle with it.  even when we are not in a depressive episode, we are always aware that it is there.  every time you do get caught up in it, you are even more acutely aware that even if you manage to get through this time, there is a next time waiting.  i am not saying suicide is the right solution, by any means.  but those who succumb to it because of mental illness are not just choosing the wrong solution.  they are often people who have fought this battle many times before.  and it does not matter how many times you have won you just have to lose once.  spoken as a person who would not be here if i had the means to end it quickly at multiple points in my past  #  yes, probably not the best reason and probably not a reason at all.   #  yes, probably not the best reason and probably not a reason at all.  i could buy a hammer from a hardware store and smash my own genitals.  i could buy a thousand in and out cheeseburgers and eat myself to death.  i could buy a new car and drive straight off the lot the wrong way into traffic.  we do not even consider banning any of those things because we realize as a society that you ca not take away people is rights just because a few bad apples might misuse or abuse something.  i think we should use that same mindset for everything, including guns.
with all of the talk about the suicide of robin williams, i have seen many many posts saying that suicide is selfish, cowardly, and should be prevented if and when possible.  my view is that suicide is your last right which cannot be taken away without complete captivity and dehumanizing restraints.  those steps should not be applied just on the basis of you being suicidal.  if you have committed no crimes against someone else, nor infringed upon their rights, society has no right to stop you from taking your own life if that is what you so choose.  this is not to say that people who say that they are suicidal, or demonstrate suicidal behavior should not be helped.  quite the contrary.  cries for help should be answered when possible.  people should use every means short of restraints to convince someone that life is worth living.  but in the end, it is their final choice to make.  please let me clarify why i believe this to be a cmv for me.  i do believe that suicide is within the realm of capability for anyone living an unrestricted life.  one must simply remain quiet and sit in their room with a belt around their neck and pass from this world.  in this way, suicide is inalienable and unstoppable once decided upon.  our society has deemed that suicide is illegal, immoral, selfish and should be stopped by any means possible once identified as a possible outcome.  people are placed in a position where they must defend their sanity in order to prevent being locked up, restrained and/or drugged.  this causes a conflict for anyone who chooses to commit suicide while trying to minimize the negative impact on their friends and family.  if a person were to make arrangements to end their life in a way that did not leave a mess, arrange to have their body removed, and arrange to settle their financial obligations prior to committing their final act, they would then be targeted for incarceration, restraints and psychological testing and at no time allowed to do what they could have done in secret.  what we are saying is that the only rational way to commit suicide is to hide it from society which necessitates leaving an extreme amount of burden on those remaining.  i cannot help but think that i have missed something in my analysis as it appears that society is necessitating suicides to be as secretive and as damaging as possible which seems to be what we are collectively trying to prevent.   #  if you have committed no crimes against someone else, nor infringed upon their rights, society has no right to stop you from taking your own life if that is what you so choose.   #  if you commit suicide and you have a dependent child on you, this would be equivalent of abandonment, a crime.   # if you commit suicide and you have a dependent child on you, this would be equivalent of abandonment, a crime.  would that be a loophole out of having that right ? what about debt ? i am not sure how the various countries work but often, death is pretty much equal to bankruptcy but what if you do not qualify for bankruptcy right before death ? you would be evading payment.  i believe that student loans do not get erased, and i think that same applies to taxes, what about those instances then ? would those constitute as a way to restrict this  unalienable  right ? here is another thing.  we consider mental illnesses very seriously.  for instance, a schizophrenic that does not respond to medication may be hospitalized and kept at some facility for the rest of their lives.  should those patients be allowed to commit suicide even if they are simply delusional ? let is say they believe they can fly so they jump from the window, or they believe they are in the matrix and so they start drink liquid metal or something .  what about other illnesses ? i think it is difficult to separate when someone has a  right  in these instances.  mental illnesses can be used as a defense in a murder trial, basically citing that a person was not of sound mind.  and they will be treated differently, meaning that they were not in full control of themselves and could not or still can not make sound decisions.  how would you distinguish someone of sound mind who can purposefully make a decision to kill themselves from someone who is suffering from a mental illness like depression ?  #  sometimes it can be better to let them go and keep the better memories than have them all tainted by the depression.   #  exactly, you do not get to keep around that suicidal or terminal person just because you ca not let go of who that person used to be.  if you do that to an animal, you are inhumane but when it is a person actually wants to end their life, they are cowards ? either let them go or prevent them from hitting that deep of a depression.  the latter can be incredibly draining so it is completely understandable that not everyone could handle it without falling into a depression themselves.  sometimes it can be better to let them go and keep the better memories than have them all tainted by the depression.   #  same reason why, when someone comes into the hospital in an obviously altered mental state, they can have procedures performed without their consent, because they are obviously not of sound mind to be making decisions for themselves.   #  the problem is that the vast majority of people who commit or attempt to commit suicide are under the influence of something, be it severe mental illness, substances, anger, whatever, that they would not have chosen to kill themselves if they were not in those circumstances.  it is often said that people who try and fail to kill themselves often are thankful they were not successful.  they realize their suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.  suicide is very rarely a healthy, reasonable problem solving measure.  this is why we as a society do our best to treat those people and help prevent them from killing themselves.  same reason why, when someone comes into the hospital in an obviously altered mental state, they can have procedures performed without their consent, because they are obviously not of sound mind to be making decisions for themselves.   #  spoken as a person who would not be here if i had the means to end it quickly at multiple points in my past  # i strongly dislike that phrase.  many who commit suicide due to mental health issues have chronic, recurring, or permanent conditions that haunt their lives.  depression, for example, is not a one time event those of us who struggle with it will always struggle with it.  even when we are not in a depressive episode, we are always aware that it is there.  every time you do get caught up in it, you are even more acutely aware that even if you manage to get through this time, there is a next time waiting.  i am not saying suicide is the right solution, by any means.  but those who succumb to it because of mental illness are not just choosing the wrong solution.  they are often people who have fought this battle many times before.  and it does not matter how many times you have won you just have to lose once.  spoken as a person who would not be here if i had the means to end it quickly at multiple points in my past  #  i think we should use that same mindset for everything, including guns.   #  yes, probably not the best reason and probably not a reason at all.  i could buy a hammer from a hardware store and smash my own genitals.  i could buy a thousand in and out cheeseburgers and eat myself to death.  i could buy a new car and drive straight off the lot the wrong way into traffic.  we do not even consider banning any of those things because we realize as a society that you ca not take away people is rights just because a few bad apples might misuse or abuse something.  i think we should use that same mindset for everything, including guns.
i really think that a lot of common world problem are mainly if not, majorly affected caused by overpopulation starvation, diseases, unemployment, etc.  you name it .  so i thought, why not adopt child that needs help instead of making more child ? here is the benefit of adopting on top off my head: 0.  you do not add more problem e. g.  starvation to the world and you still get to keep a child.  0.  you do not have to let your wife/yourself if you are female risk your life giving birth.  sure, technologies improved so the risk is reduced, but still, you gotta pay a lot of money just for the operation.  that money can be used for something else that might be more important.  0.  imagine if your own child was born in this world, there is no guarantee they will be living in a good place in the future, since the number of problem in the world seems to be increasing.  again, look at unemployment problem in the world, it seems to keep increasing i tried discussing this with my parents, but they just keep dismissing my arguments with saying  nah, you are not at that age yet, you will understand in the future .  and it kinda sickens me since they use that reasoning for a lot of things.  now, i am not saying that everyone should adopt child and ban childmaking.  i am posting this because i would like to see the opposing view on this, as i ca not seem to see it myself.  okay, i can at least mention one reason why having your own child is more beneficial than adopting: it is because mother are more mentally or spiritually ? connected with her child because they were in her womb for 0 months.  but heck, i ca not prove or disprove that.  if there is anything unclear, i apologize in advance and i will try to clear it up for you.   #  since the number of problem in the world seems to be increasing.   #  again, look at unemployment problem in the world, it seems to keep increasing this is false.   #  well, some people think that the whole point of having a child is to ensure your blood/dna will continue living in the future at least in some way, essentially ensuring something akin to immortality.  while you can adopt a child and make a good person out of them, you will only ensure your non biological legacy.  but if that child was yours, you would do that and more.  again, look at unemployment problem in the world, it seems to keep increasing this is false.  the world we are living in now is improving every day and it is literally the best time to live in since the dawn of civilization.  there is no guarantee they will be living in a good place in the future or wo not die from cold a decade from now.  thing is if there is no guarantee that means there is no reason to do anything ? what a silly notion.  and if that is not your child then it is okay for them to live without a good place in the future ?  #  i feel so connected to her, and she is not even born yet.   #  0.  it can be really hard and really expensive to adopt a child, especially a newborn.  there are waiting lists that last years, you might never get approved for whatever reason, the costs can be tens of thousands of dollars, and the chances of getting a newborn what most people want are not great.  0.  being pregnant and giving birth are experiences like no other.  i am currently pregnant, and while i have a lot of complaints, i love being pregnant, and i am really going to miss it.  i would not trade it for anything in the world.  feeling my baby kick inside me is amazing.  i feel so connected to her, and she is not even born yet.  i already love her so much.  and i am really looking forward to the experience of giving birth.  the intensity, the empowerment, the oxytocin, and knowing that i am giving life the same way my mother gave it to me and her mother to her and so on for hundred of thousands of years are things i have wanted for as long as i can remember.  also, without being pregnant, i could not breastfeed, another thing i have always wanted.  breastfeeding has been proven to build a bond between mother and baby that formula ca not replicate.  not to mention all the health benefits for both baby and mother.  as much as i admire adopting and am considering it for the future, having a baby myself has always been my dream, more so than any other dream i have ever had.   #  therefore most people who adopt here have to go abroad, like to asia, e.  europe, africa, etc.   #  so i live in a w.  european country with almost no domestic adoption.  therefore most people who adopt here have to go abroad, like to asia, e.  europe, africa, etc.  international adoption is not cheap can be $0,0 to $0,0 or more.  why should i pay $0,0 to adopt a baby when i can have my own for essentially free ? further, there are a lot of open questions about behaviour and medical conditions of children adopted from abroad, particularly when their family and early medical history is not well known.  adopting a child from an orphanage is not just like bringing your own baby home from the hospital, it can bring in a wide range of issues you might not otherwise encounter.  and maybe i am the only one, but i am looking forward to being pregnant and giving birth.  it is an experience i want to have.   #  i am sorry for saying this, but all my relatives who went through pregnancy just turned into different person during these period.   #  i would not say  free , considering you have to live through 0 months of potential suffering.  i am sorry for saying this, but all my relatives who went through pregnancy just turned into different person during these period.  so i do not really think it is  free  at all, oh no.  not to mention the doctor trips as well.  i would imagine they will be expensive.  but hey, if you are looking forward to it, i wish you good luck and happy life !  #  i am not the person you asked but look into attachment disorders.   #  i am not the person you asked but look into attachment disorders.  children that are not shown affection for the first few years of life have a tendency to have a harder time forming attachments to people later on.  this can cause serious behavioral issues.  also, you may have no idea what sort of medical care or lack thereof they have faced.  what if that baby spent the first few months of life breastfeeding from a woman smoking crack every day ? i am in no way arguing against adoption, i am just answering your question.
so, i have been thinking a lot lately about sopa and the nsa spying stuff and all this controversy regarding time warner cable and comcast, and i still feel there is nothing we can do to really change it.  it is ultimately why i do not vote or participate in any of these movements everyone on reddit here says,  email your senator and fill out complaints !   but i think that does not do jack shit.  i would assume most letters are read by secretaries or interns and only the really important stuff stuff sent by people who fund them and their campaigns is read by the senators themselves.  most of the stuff is responded to by generic fill in the blank messages and the average person just does not give a shit because the average american population is highly uneducated and poor.   #  everyone on reddit here says,  email your senator and fill out complaints !    #  but i think that does not do jack shit.   #  one single letter/email may not mean much, but 0 letters/emails about the same subject certainly would, and 0,0 would have an even larger effect.  in a country as large as the u. s. , yes, you are right that 0 letter/email to a representative may not mean much coming from a member of hundreds of thousands/millions of constituents, but it is not realistic to expect any change from one single letter/email anyways.  if you want to make any sort of change, then you need to assemble a group of people who share your views and share the views of this group with your representatives.  sure this is not easy, but influencing political change is not supposed to be easy.  there is absolutely plenty that you can do to have an influence on the views of your representatives, but you actually have to put in the work to show that your views are serious and that there are others who share your views.  but i think that does not do jack shit.  i would assume most letters are read by secretaries or interns and only the really important stuff stuff sent by people who fund them and their campaigns is read by the senators themselves.  most of the stuff is responded to by generic fill in the blank messages and the average person just does not give a shit because the average american population is highly uneducated and poor.  i have worked on various political campaigns and in political offices for a certain political party as well as for a few elected officials.  will your one individual letter/email get read and responded to by your representatives ? it might, or it might get read and responded to by an intern/staff member.  if you get 0 people to write letters/emails to your representatives about a certain subject then your message will certainly be seen by your representatives.  if you get your message out through the media newspapers, radio, news, etc.  then it will certainly be seen/heard by your representatives.  writing one single letter/email to a representative might not have a huge effect, but writing a letter/email as part of a larger group of letters/emails certainly can.   #  the nsa scandal, for example, was a big deal.   # it seems like the issue here is that  major issues  vary from person to person and from demographic to demographic.  it is a matter of degrees, not a lack of education.  the nsa scandal, for example, was a big deal.  and it is probably for the best that it is been made public.  but , it certainly does not spell anything remotely close to the end of civil liberties, and it really did not have much impact on the majority of americans beyond the wtf level.  so, while nsa spying may be an issue, it is certainly no more valid an issue than the economy, immigration, gender equality, foreign policy, etc.  i would imagine that most people are capable of enjoying kitsch while at the same time remaining cognizant of the  major issues .   #  your real problem is not that senators do not care what the public thinks, your real problem is that the public does not care about the issues you care about.   # public letters  have  made a difference on most major issues, from gay marriage to fracking.  sure they are read by staffers and not legislators, but those staffers tell the legislator that x of people care enough to write about this issue.  legislators do not care about the average person who is not paying attention, but they sure do care about these active people, who are likely to vote and who could be volunteering for their campaign.  your real problem is not that senators do not care what the public thinks, your real problem is that the public does not care about the issues you care about.  if you really want to make a difference, you need to write to your senator  and  convince others to do so as well.  talk to your friends, write to your local newspapers, and yes, post on facebook and reddit.   #  sometimes systems change slowly, but they change a little with every component that changes.   #  if your letter does not matter, how many letters would it take to make a difference ? 0 ? 0,0 ? one from every voter in the constituency ? any letter you send is a step in that direction.  are you just saying that politicians are not responsive to voters ? because i would beg to differ on that one.  you only get one issue with which you can draw a line in the sand a say that is one you will vote over, but you at least get that and you can make it known.  sometimes systems change slowly, but they change a little with every component that changes.  you are one such component.  you make your voice heard or you live with your apathy and complicity, but that is your call.  what you do matters.   #  let me tell you what happens when a letter is sent to a representative.   #  let me tell you what happens when a letter is sent to a representative.  that letter is opened and read by someone in the office of the representative.  the intern/employee who reads the letter makes a note about what topic it is concerning and what position the letter takes on the issue.  the same is done for calls or emails to a representative.  this results in a tally of how many people have contacted the office about the issue in question and a tally of the opinions of those contacting.  this is actually taken very seriously for obvious reasons: those who take the time to contact a representative indicate that they are far more likely to vote and get involved in other ways than the average constituent.  these numbers give a barometer of how  hot  an issue is i. e.  how strongly people feel about an issue.  please read this piece from someone who worked in a senator is office; i think it will change your view.  URL
there are many problems in this world and the first few that came up to mind were poverty, hunger, and joblessness.  now when thinking about these problems, i came to the conclusion that they were caused by two main reasons: 0.  people are naturally greedy 0.  there is too much competition in this world now, problem 0 is hard to fix.  that is up to the individual and there will always be people that take advantage of others.  however, thinking of problem 0, it came to me that if there were less people in the world, it would reduce competition and in the end help reduce poverty, hunger, and joblessness.  with less people, less competition.  therefore, less threats and more security, leading to happier and more productive people.  now as how to fix the problem of overpopulation.  this is the part i have doubts about.  advocating for less children and educating people about birth control wo not really solve the problem.  government initiatives for families to have less children has proven to not work as well either.  how about we reject the poor and people that do not contribute to society out of that society.  society is a network so if one does not contribute, one should not gain from the benefits.  social darwinism, survival of the fittest.  it naturally occurs in nature so why should not it in society.  overpopulation is a sensitive problem difficult to solve.  this post may sound extreme, backwards, and crude.  i do believe in what i wrote to an extent but i did exaggerate to induce strong opposition.  i do have a soft spot that says people should be given a second chance and that homeless should have natural rights just as we do.  some are not they because they do not work but because they ca not or they made one simple mistake.  i understand.  however, having a side of me that says we should get rid of these people irritates me.  so, change my view.  change my view that either: 0.  overpopulation is not such a severe problem in this world and has nothing to do with competition, greed, hunger, poverty, and joblessness.  0.  there is an effective alternative solution to fix the problem of overpopulation.  0.  there is a more fundamental, or significant problem that needs to be taken care of in this world.  change my view please.  thank you.  luisuz  #  homeless should have natural rights just as we do.   #  some are not they because they do not work but because they ca not or they made one simple mistake.   # some are not they because they do not work but because they ca not or they made one simple mistake.  i understand.  however, having a side of me that says we should get rid of these people irritates umm, how are the homeless competing with you for jobs and food exactly ? how is  getting rid of these people  who already get  nothing  freeing up any resources for anyone else ? you want to solve poverty by getting rid of the impoverished ? also, mental illness causes the majority of homelessness, not overpopulation.  they are not on the street because there is not enough room.   #  we represent ten percent of the population and use 0 percent of the energy.   #  is your view basically that we should kill the poor people to solve the problems of overpopulation ? if you are concerned about over population and you are choice to kill of certain people why just just start with the americans.  we represent ten percent of the population and use 0 percent of the energy.  off course there is the problem of the fact that you are killing off 0 plus million people.  that is kind of a problem.  bt the way, killing off millions or billions of people is not your answer.  if we went down to 0 billion under the current system you would still have poverty and people starving.  it is a food distribution problem.  it is a food availability problem.   #  URL we know when the growth will stop.   #  overpopulation is not a serious problem today.  the greater risk is in fact underpopulation.  URL while the world is population has been increasing in recent history, that trend is reversing sharply as more people become educated specifically women and have a higher standard of living.  they get married when they are older if at all and have far fewer kids.  most of the first world including europe, japan, korea, etc.  are shrinking in population.  and in the third world, the population increases get smaller every year.  if we do not find a way to reverse that, in a few years there will be no japanese, no greeks, no spaniards.  as people become more prosperous, birth rates decline sharply.  here is a great ted talk on the subject where the presenter uses boxes to show how, given current trends, the human population as a whole will continue to increase until it hits about 0 billion, then it will begin to shrink.  URL we know when the growth will stop.  we do not know when the shrinking will stop.  economically, socially that is a much bigger problem.   #  the employment pool exists as a natural state of unemployment and there are a variety of explanations competition is not one of them .   #  a meta study trumps both your projections ! URL   overpopulation is in theory a self correcting problem, due to the simple fact that if the planet is no longer sustainable, people start dying until we reach a population that can sustain itself.  competition and greed are not problems, at least according to the free market view most of the world holds.  though market failures exist, we have government intervention to help correct such imbalances.  though we have issues in the macro, we have government policies that correct changes in the aggregate.  the employment pool exists as a natural state of unemployment and there are a variety of explanations competition is not one of them .  competition is not the problem, lack of competition is anti trust laws exist for a reason .   #  the gates foundation got some heat for trying to push this URL but look at eisenhower is policy on it to see the effectiveness of it.   #  it is not like we either have 0 billion people or none at all.  that is a false choice.  the world has sustained fewer people.  if we gradually declined in population and leveled off at a sustainable level, that would provide a mixed bag of results.  first, the initial shock of needing elderly and sick people supported by fewer people creates problems .  but robotics have promising potential in elder care.  everyone says that the population grows and then retracts when it reaches carrying capacity.  what they neglect to say is that it wo not be pretty when we hit that point.  wars, disease, starvation, a rise of fascist parties.  it is going to be a mess if we do not promote smarter reproductive policies.  my money is on voluntary birth control pills or injections for anyone who wants them.  and we should be making it rain condoms.  the gates foundation got some heat for trying to push this URL but look at eisenhower is policy on it to see the effectiveness of it.
there are many problems in this world and the first few that came up to mind were poverty, hunger, and joblessness.  now when thinking about these problems, i came to the conclusion that they were caused by two main reasons: 0.  people are naturally greedy 0.  there is too much competition in this world now, problem 0 is hard to fix.  that is up to the individual and there will always be people that take advantage of others.  however, thinking of problem 0, it came to me that if there were less people in the world, it would reduce competition and in the end help reduce poverty, hunger, and joblessness.  with less people, less competition.  therefore, less threats and more security, leading to happier and more productive people.  now as how to fix the problem of overpopulation.  this is the part i have doubts about.  advocating for less children and educating people about birth control wo not really solve the problem.  government initiatives for families to have less children has proven to not work as well either.  how about we reject the poor and people that do not contribute to society out of that society.  society is a network so if one does not contribute, one should not gain from the benefits.  social darwinism, survival of the fittest.  it naturally occurs in nature so why should not it in society.  overpopulation is a sensitive problem difficult to solve.  this post may sound extreme, backwards, and crude.  i do believe in what i wrote to an extent but i did exaggerate to induce strong opposition.  i do have a soft spot that says people should be given a second chance and that homeless should have natural rights just as we do.  some are not they because they do not work but because they ca not or they made one simple mistake.  i understand.  however, having a side of me that says we should get rid of these people irritates me.  so, change my view.  change my view that either: 0.  overpopulation is not such a severe problem in this world and has nothing to do with competition, greed, hunger, poverty, and joblessness.  0.  there is an effective alternative solution to fix the problem of overpopulation.  0.  there is a more fundamental, or significant problem that needs to be taken care of in this world.  change my view please.  thank you.  luisuz  #  how about we reject the poor and people that do not contribute to society out of that society.   #  society is a network so if one does not contribute, one should not gain from the benefits.   # society is a network so if one does not contribute, one should not gain from the benefits.  social darwinism, survival of the fittest.  it naturally occurs in nature so why should not it in society.  you should have had a title that was more relevant to your post so that those of us who did not want to read your garbage, did not have to read your garbage.  i like how you think the people who consume the least  and  produce most of the worlds  food   raw materials, with the  least  opportunity to change their own behaviors, should  die .  you would end up back in the stone age, poor   starving yourself, having murdered half of the humans on the planet.  the consumers would still consume as long as they could factory grown corn   saudi oil but no bananas or fish and the problems of greed would be exasperated, not mitigated.   #  if we went down to 0 billion under the current system you would still have poverty and people starving.   #  is your view basically that we should kill the poor people to solve the problems of overpopulation ? if you are concerned about over population and you are choice to kill of certain people why just just start with the americans.  we represent ten percent of the population and use 0 percent of the energy.  off course there is the problem of the fact that you are killing off 0 plus million people.  that is kind of a problem.  bt the way, killing off millions or billions of people is not your answer.  if we went down to 0 billion under the current system you would still have poverty and people starving.  it is a food distribution problem.  it is a food availability problem.   #  URL while the world is population has been increasing in recent history, that trend is reversing sharply as more people become educated specifically women and have a higher standard of living.   #  overpopulation is not a serious problem today.  the greater risk is in fact underpopulation.  URL while the world is population has been increasing in recent history, that trend is reversing sharply as more people become educated specifically women and have a higher standard of living.  they get married when they are older if at all and have far fewer kids.  most of the first world including europe, japan, korea, etc.  are shrinking in population.  and in the third world, the population increases get smaller every year.  if we do not find a way to reverse that, in a few years there will be no japanese, no greeks, no spaniards.  as people become more prosperous, birth rates decline sharply.  here is a great ted talk on the subject where the presenter uses boxes to show how, given current trends, the human population as a whole will continue to increase until it hits about 0 billion, then it will begin to shrink.  URL we know when the growth will stop.  we do not know when the shrinking will stop.  economically, socially that is a much bigger problem.   #  URL   overpopulation is in theory a self correcting problem, due to the simple fact that if the planet is no longer sustainable, people start dying until we reach a population that can sustain itself.   #  a meta study trumps both your projections ! URL   overpopulation is in theory a self correcting problem, due to the simple fact that if the planet is no longer sustainable, people start dying until we reach a population that can sustain itself.  competition and greed are not problems, at least according to the free market view most of the world holds.  though market failures exist, we have government intervention to help correct such imbalances.  though we have issues in the macro, we have government policies that correct changes in the aggregate.  the employment pool exists as a natural state of unemployment and there are a variety of explanations competition is not one of them .  competition is not the problem, lack of competition is anti trust laws exist for a reason .   #  wars, disease, starvation, a rise of fascist parties.   #  it is not like we either have 0 billion people or none at all.  that is a false choice.  the world has sustained fewer people.  if we gradually declined in population and leveled off at a sustainable level, that would provide a mixed bag of results.  first, the initial shock of needing elderly and sick people supported by fewer people creates problems .  but robotics have promising potential in elder care.  everyone says that the population grows and then retracts when it reaches carrying capacity.  what they neglect to say is that it wo not be pretty when we hit that point.  wars, disease, starvation, a rise of fascist parties.  it is going to be a mess if we do not promote smarter reproductive policies.  my money is on voluntary birth control pills or injections for anyone who wants them.  and we should be making it rain condoms.  the gates foundation got some heat for trying to push this URL but look at eisenhower is policy on it to see the effectiveness of it.
first off, you do not get depressed, you are depressed.  you usually do not have to do anything to get there, it just happens, like a cold.  adding some kind of incentive to killing yourself is a very bad thing.  if you think,  if i do this people will understand and feel empathy for me.  finally.  people will tell my story, i will have worth.   that is not a good thing.  if the stigma is that you are a shit person no matter what you did for throwing your life away, maybe it would save a few people.  i get the notion that a truly miserable person, like someone in chronic pain be in mental or physical should be allowed to end the pain, but it should still be seen as the most humiliating defeat if you did not do everything you can to stop the pain.  there is people out there that have been tortured, seen their children raped and murdered and worse that keep on pushing.  i think it is horrible and sad when someone commits suicide, but glorifying it makes the problem worse.  it is like mass murderers getting famous, their manifestos posted and their story told that get is more hopeless people to follow through.  awareness of how horrible depression is is great and all, but when the message is  if you end it we will forgive you  that is extremely dangerous.  again, i think it is extremely sad and we should have empathy for these people, but the goal should be prevention, not good feels.  change my view, i feel like kind of an asshole about having this view.   i think i have a good counter argument if you knew that your shame from killing yourself could prevent someone else from following your path you may feel even more like a martyr.   i appreciate you are arguments on such a sensitive subject.  i do not mean to come across as callous, but this is a subject i care about and would not feel right unless i defended my position, because i strongly feel that it can prevent further tragedy.  if i am wrong right now i would like to hurry up and stop being wrong, but it will take some convincing.   this went on longer than expected.  see you in the morning.   #  if the stigma is that you are a shit person no matter what you did for throwing your life away, maybe it would save a few people.   #  so, because someone does not want to live the life that they did not choose to start with, by default they are a shitty person ?  #  i have been considering it for a few months, and never once have i thought:  if you think,  if i do this people will understand and feel empathy for me.  finally.  people will tell my story, i will have worth.   that sounds absolutely ridiculous to me.  that is not my mindset, nor my reasoning for it what so ever.  so, because someone does not want to live the life that they did not choose to start with, by default they are a shitty person ? that is not very reasonable if you ask me.  why would that be the case ? what about the act makes them shitty ? hurting others in their lives ? what if you have nobody in your life ? do not tell me everyone has someone that cares about them because that is a crock of shit.  there are tons of people for whom nobody cares.  why should that be considered humiliating ? what if i start a puzzle and do not finish it, is that humiliating ? i do not understand your reasoning that giving up should be seen as humiliating.  success is not everything in life and some people will be more successful than other at certain things and vice versa.  nobody, anywhere, ever, was successful in everything they have done.  why should  life  be different than  that job interview  ? so what ? that has nothing to do with any given persons reasons for wanting to end their own life.  i could not care less what other people have gone through and kept going.  they are not me.  and i am not them.  where has anyone ever glorified it ? so the message  if you end it, we will think less of you, and be ashamed of you and you are a shit person if you do this  is that any better ? how so ?  #  would they work as hard to save them ?  #  i have worked with suicide prevention organizations for a long time, and without exception, every single one of them makes it a vital part of their mission to end the shame and stigma surrounding suicide URL if suicide is seen as a shameful, cowardly act and it already is, by and large , then people wo not talk about it when they are contemplating it.  they will be afraid to seek help, fearing that they will be shamed, and do everything they can to hide their symptoms until it is too late.  this has been documented to the point that many suicide experts think that stigma and shame is actually a cause of suicide URL this view can also lead to sub standard care for people contemplating suicide, because prejudicial views affect healthcare providers just as much as anyone else.  what if doctors and psychiatrists think that people who are suicidal are worthless and cowardly ? would they work as hard to save them ? discrimination by health care professionals against mentally ill patients is already widespread URL 0 of people who die by suicide suffer from mental illness, and the often internalized shame and stigma that surround mental illness is one of the primary factors that prevent people from getting the care that could save their lives URL if you care about preventing suicide, you should make it clear to the people you care about that you will love and accept them even if they are having suicidal thoughts, or have attempted suicide.  the dialogue around suicide should be hopeful and supportive, not shameful.  shame and stigma are a barrier to meaningful understanding of complex mental illness, and a disservice to those that suffer.  here is some good literature on the subject.  national alliance on mental illness URL wilder foundation URL california mental health services authority URL sax institute URL  #  if you feel that you are in so much pain that you want to die you should seek help and you should be praised for that humility.   #  thank you.  this was a logical argument.  my argument is that being suicidal should not be shamed.  if you feel that you are in so much pain that you want to die you should seek help and you should be praised for that humility.  that is extremely respectable, recognizing that you need help.  seeking help should be encouraged it should not be seen as a weakness.  however actually killing yourself without admitting that you need help, and actively seeking said help should not be seen in the same light.   #  do not you think that if you knew that everyone you loved would be disappointed in you, you might be less likely to come out about your attempt ?  # how could you possibly separate these things ? if suicide is seen as shameful, then considering suicide carries with it a requisite degree of weakness, shame, and failure.  to seek help, you would have to overcome the barrier of telling everyone you are seriously thinking about doing something terrible and shameful.  we stigmatize murder, for example, and as a logical consequence, it is not considered socially acceptable to tell someone that you are contemplating murdering someone, because just being at the point of consideration means you have already veered from societal norms and are an immoral person to some degree.  what would you say to someone who attempted suicide and failed ? do not you think that if you knew that everyone you loved would be disappointed in you, you might be less likely to come out about your attempt ? if you know that sticking around means humiliation and shame because you tried to kill yourself, what is the incentive to not kill yourself again ? you are advocating humiliating and shaming this person, which perpetuates the idea that suicide comes from personal moral failure, which is factually incorrect and harmful.  if we separate suicide from personal morality entirely and adopt the attitude that it has nothing to do with how weak or strong you are, it is entirely a symptom of mental illness, then talking to your loved ones or a doctor is no different than telling them you sprained your ankle.  if you have to cross a barrier of shame first, it will always be more difficult.   #  if by doing so, they have to admit that they are a shameful failure, it is much, much harder.   # you are missing the point; it is not that they would not be praised for seeking help once they got there, it is that getting to the point of seeking help would still be far more difficult because it still requires admitting a personal failing.  the same thing holds true for alcoholics.  getting sober is praised, but  being an alcoholic  is incredibly shamed, which is one of the biggest problems with how society perceives addiction.  admitting that you have a problem with alcohol is by far the most difficult part of recovery because of the stigmas that come with having an addiction.  in order to get better, you have to admit a humiliating truth, which can be very difficult.  it can ruin careers, cost people jobs, clients, friends, professional reputations and destroy people is faith in your reliability and judgement because they can never be sure that you wo not start drinking again.  if there is more shame and stigma, there is a bigger hurdle to cross before you can be honest with yourself and get into treatment.  this is literally why alcoholics anonymous exists, and why it is so successful the anonymity makes it possible to get help without exposing yourself to societal stigmas.  this is also why admitting that you have a problem is the first of the twelve steps, and why addiction treatment groups work actively to reduce the stigmas surrounding addiction URL if we treat alcoholism as a disease, it is not hard to convince people to get treatment.  if by doing so, they have to admit that they are a shameful failure, it is much, much harder.  if you want to praise people who overcome struggles with suicide, i think that is great, but that is not what you proposed in this cmv, and there is no reason you need to demonize the people who did not make it in order to celebrate the ones that did.
first off, you do not get depressed, you are depressed.  you usually do not have to do anything to get there, it just happens, like a cold.  adding some kind of incentive to killing yourself is a very bad thing.  if you think,  if i do this people will understand and feel empathy for me.  finally.  people will tell my story, i will have worth.   that is not a good thing.  if the stigma is that you are a shit person no matter what you did for throwing your life away, maybe it would save a few people.  i get the notion that a truly miserable person, like someone in chronic pain be in mental or physical should be allowed to end the pain, but it should still be seen as the most humiliating defeat if you did not do everything you can to stop the pain.  there is people out there that have been tortured, seen their children raped and murdered and worse that keep on pushing.  i think it is horrible and sad when someone commits suicide, but glorifying it makes the problem worse.  it is like mass murderers getting famous, their manifestos posted and their story told that get is more hopeless people to follow through.  awareness of how horrible depression is is great and all, but when the message is  if you end it we will forgive you  that is extremely dangerous.  again, i think it is extremely sad and we should have empathy for these people, but the goal should be prevention, not good feels.  change my view, i feel like kind of an asshole about having this view.   i think i have a good counter argument if you knew that your shame from killing yourself could prevent someone else from following your path you may feel even more like a martyr.   i appreciate you are arguments on such a sensitive subject.  i do not mean to come across as callous, but this is a subject i care about and would not feel right unless i defended my position, because i strongly feel that it can prevent further tragedy.  if i am wrong right now i would like to hurry up and stop being wrong, but it will take some convincing.   this went on longer than expected.  see you in the morning.   #  awareness of how horrible depression is is great and all, but when the message is  if you end it we will forgive you  that is extremely dangerous.   #  so the message  if you end it, we will think less of you, and be ashamed of you and you are a shit person if you do this  is that any better ?  #  i have been considering it for a few months, and never once have i thought:  if you think,  if i do this people will understand and feel empathy for me.  finally.  people will tell my story, i will have worth.   that sounds absolutely ridiculous to me.  that is not my mindset, nor my reasoning for it what so ever.  so, because someone does not want to live the life that they did not choose to start with, by default they are a shitty person ? that is not very reasonable if you ask me.  why would that be the case ? what about the act makes them shitty ? hurting others in their lives ? what if you have nobody in your life ? do not tell me everyone has someone that cares about them because that is a crock of shit.  there are tons of people for whom nobody cares.  why should that be considered humiliating ? what if i start a puzzle and do not finish it, is that humiliating ? i do not understand your reasoning that giving up should be seen as humiliating.  success is not everything in life and some people will be more successful than other at certain things and vice versa.  nobody, anywhere, ever, was successful in everything they have done.  why should  life  be different than  that job interview  ? so what ? that has nothing to do with any given persons reasons for wanting to end their own life.  i could not care less what other people have gone through and kept going.  they are not me.  and i am not them.  where has anyone ever glorified it ? so the message  if you end it, we will think less of you, and be ashamed of you and you are a shit person if you do this  is that any better ? how so ?  #  the dialogue around suicide should be hopeful and supportive, not shameful.   #  i have worked with suicide prevention organizations for a long time, and without exception, every single one of them makes it a vital part of their mission to end the shame and stigma surrounding suicide URL if suicide is seen as a shameful, cowardly act and it already is, by and large , then people wo not talk about it when they are contemplating it.  they will be afraid to seek help, fearing that they will be shamed, and do everything they can to hide their symptoms until it is too late.  this has been documented to the point that many suicide experts think that stigma and shame is actually a cause of suicide URL this view can also lead to sub standard care for people contemplating suicide, because prejudicial views affect healthcare providers just as much as anyone else.  what if doctors and psychiatrists think that people who are suicidal are worthless and cowardly ? would they work as hard to save them ? discrimination by health care professionals against mentally ill patients is already widespread URL 0 of people who die by suicide suffer from mental illness, and the often internalized shame and stigma that surround mental illness is one of the primary factors that prevent people from getting the care that could save their lives URL if you care about preventing suicide, you should make it clear to the people you care about that you will love and accept them even if they are having suicidal thoughts, or have attempted suicide.  the dialogue around suicide should be hopeful and supportive, not shameful.  shame and stigma are a barrier to meaningful understanding of complex mental illness, and a disservice to those that suffer.  here is some good literature on the subject.  national alliance on mental illness URL wilder foundation URL california mental health services authority URL sax institute URL  #  my argument is that being suicidal should not be shamed.   #  thank you.  this was a logical argument.  my argument is that being suicidal should not be shamed.  if you feel that you are in so much pain that you want to die you should seek help and you should be praised for that humility.  that is extremely respectable, recognizing that you need help.  seeking help should be encouraged it should not be seen as a weakness.  however actually killing yourself without admitting that you need help, and actively seeking said help should not be seen in the same light.   #  to seek help, you would have to overcome the barrier of telling everyone you are seriously thinking about doing something terrible and shameful.   # how could you possibly separate these things ? if suicide is seen as shameful, then considering suicide carries with it a requisite degree of weakness, shame, and failure.  to seek help, you would have to overcome the barrier of telling everyone you are seriously thinking about doing something terrible and shameful.  we stigmatize murder, for example, and as a logical consequence, it is not considered socially acceptable to tell someone that you are contemplating murdering someone, because just being at the point of consideration means you have already veered from societal norms and are an immoral person to some degree.  what would you say to someone who attempted suicide and failed ? do not you think that if you knew that everyone you loved would be disappointed in you, you might be less likely to come out about your attempt ? if you know that sticking around means humiliation and shame because you tried to kill yourself, what is the incentive to not kill yourself again ? you are advocating humiliating and shaming this person, which perpetuates the idea that suicide comes from personal moral failure, which is factually incorrect and harmful.  if we separate suicide from personal morality entirely and adopt the attitude that it has nothing to do with how weak or strong you are, it is entirely a symptom of mental illness, then talking to your loved ones or a doctor is no different than telling them you sprained your ankle.  if you have to cross a barrier of shame first, it will always be more difficult.   #  this is literally why alcoholics anonymous exists, and why it is so successful the anonymity makes it possible to get help without exposing yourself to societal stigmas.   # you are missing the point; it is not that they would not be praised for seeking help once they got there, it is that getting to the point of seeking help would still be far more difficult because it still requires admitting a personal failing.  the same thing holds true for alcoholics.  getting sober is praised, but  being an alcoholic  is incredibly shamed, which is one of the biggest problems with how society perceives addiction.  admitting that you have a problem with alcohol is by far the most difficult part of recovery because of the stigmas that come with having an addiction.  in order to get better, you have to admit a humiliating truth, which can be very difficult.  it can ruin careers, cost people jobs, clients, friends, professional reputations and destroy people is faith in your reliability and judgement because they can never be sure that you wo not start drinking again.  if there is more shame and stigma, there is a bigger hurdle to cross before you can be honest with yourself and get into treatment.  this is literally why alcoholics anonymous exists, and why it is so successful the anonymity makes it possible to get help without exposing yourself to societal stigmas.  this is also why admitting that you have a problem is the first of the twelve steps, and why addiction treatment groups work actively to reduce the stigmas surrounding addiction URL if we treat alcoholism as a disease, it is not hard to convince people to get treatment.  if by doing so, they have to admit that they are a shameful failure, it is much, much harder.  if you want to praise people who overcome struggles with suicide, i think that is great, but that is not what you proposed in this cmv, and there is no reason you need to demonize the people who did not make it in order to celebrate the ones that did.
i believe the common say that a man will never understand a woman is mind is highly subjective and wrong.  i believe both men is and women is minds operate at the same complexity level.  evidence of this is that major psychological concepts such as maslow is pyramid of needs or learning theories are not gender specific.  on the other hand, i do believe that women tend to be less direct and consistent that men at expressing themselves.  this makes ir more difficult to capture the whole message but does not make it more complex.   #  evidence of this is that major psychological concepts such as maslow is pyramid of needs or learning theories are not gender specific.   #  this seems like a very weak argument.   #  the monthly cycling of sex hormones is one level of complexity that is present in the female brain and absent in the male brain.  these sex hormones do not just affect the periphery but also act centrally to affect brain function and behavior.  all else being equal, the female brain is more complex in that its activity is going to change as function of ovulation.  this seems like a very weak argument.  essentially your saying that because a 0 is psych theory does not address gender difference that gender differences do not exist.  even today there is a push to make sure that studies analyze gender difference specifically because so many studies ignore these things.  the more likely explanation is that a maslow and his co workers are men and they were likely focusing on men, and b the pyramid is meant to explain the large scale hierarchy of needs love over safety, safety over self actualization rather than the finer scale level that gender differences are supposed to operate on.  this makes me feel like complexity is poorly defined.  you are essentially saying that women talk in a sort of implicit code rather than directly stating their thoughts, but somehow this is not more complex.  what then do you mean by complex ?  #  or at least that has been the traditional view point i would argue things are changing now .   #  a large majority of things in society books, advertisements, movies, etc.  are told from the male point of view.  when things are told from the female point of view, often men do not watch or listen because it is  for women .  or at least that has been the traditional view point i would argue things are changing now .  because of this men often do not have the challenge to try and empathize with a different experience, whereas women are taught how men think from day one.  i agree that it is wrong, and the more we equalize viewpoints, and stop stigmatizing shows / books / movies told from the female perspective as being only  for women  whereas ones from the male pov are  for everyone , then this idea will start of fade away.  and it already is greatly reduced from where it was.   #  i certainly did not get it until i lived it first hand but i could have done if i would listened properly and not dismissed what feminists were saying about what it is like to navigate the world as a woman.   #  women is minds are not more complex than men is but i would argue our  experiences  tend heavily to be much more complicated.  we are constantly subjected to conflicting expectations about how we should behave, how we should dress, what is and is not attractive, whether or not that matters, what is an appropriate reaction to xyz.  i am transgender and have  lived as male  for the first half of my life and while it has its own challenges it is a lot simpler ! having experienced the way society reacts to women for seven years now i find it exasperating that men do not  get  feminism or a lot of women is issues.  i certainly did not get it until i lived it first hand but i could have done if i would listened properly and not dismissed what feminists were saying about what it is like to navigate the world as a woman.  it is really freaking hard yet we are expected to be soft and nurturing and passive.  it is not that our minds are difficult for men to understand, it is that our experiences and the way they affect us are difficult for men to understand.   #  straight men tend to be more visual when it comes to sexuality, which is a tangible thing easily understood; women tend to be more aroused by confidence, which being intangible is less easy for us to wrap our heads around.   #  how would one measure complexity ? we are all the same species, so in rough terms i guess our brains our equally evolved.  but i think when people say women are more difficult to understand, it is because of that subtlety you mentioned.  straight men tend to be more visual when it comes to sexuality, which is a tangible thing easily understood; women tend to be more aroused by confidence, which being intangible is less easy for us to wrap our heads around.  in general men are more  thing  oriented, while women are more  people  oriented, which tends to entail more emotions   again, intangible.  i am no expert on this subject, but maybe human brains are just better at grasping the male point of view ?  #  the two genders communicate in different ways, you are correct.   #  the two genders communicate in different ways, you are correct.  men tend to communicate information , women tend to communicate how something made them feel.  trying to find the information in what a woman says is like an onion, it is got layers.  URL if there is a complaint, you generally need to peel back the feelings to find the actual root cause.  it is like getting two different computer languages to interact, they both prioritise different things so you gotta run it through a translator for the other to understand what they are talking about.
i believe the common say that a man will never understand a woman is mind is highly subjective and wrong.  i believe both men is and women is minds operate at the same complexity level.  evidence of this is that major psychological concepts such as maslow is pyramid of needs or learning theories are not gender specific.  on the other hand, i do believe that women tend to be less direct and consistent that men at expressing themselves.  this makes ir more difficult to capture the whole message but does not make it more complex.   #  this makes ir more difficult to capture the whole message but does not make it more complex.   #  this makes me feel like complexity is poorly defined.   #  the monthly cycling of sex hormones is one level of complexity that is present in the female brain and absent in the male brain.  these sex hormones do not just affect the periphery but also act centrally to affect brain function and behavior.  all else being equal, the female brain is more complex in that its activity is going to change as function of ovulation.  this seems like a very weak argument.  essentially your saying that because a 0 is psych theory does not address gender difference that gender differences do not exist.  even today there is a push to make sure that studies analyze gender difference specifically because so many studies ignore these things.  the more likely explanation is that a maslow and his co workers are men and they were likely focusing on men, and b the pyramid is meant to explain the large scale hierarchy of needs love over safety, safety over self actualization rather than the finer scale level that gender differences are supposed to operate on.  this makes me feel like complexity is poorly defined.  you are essentially saying that women talk in a sort of implicit code rather than directly stating their thoughts, but somehow this is not more complex.  what then do you mean by complex ?  #  or at least that has been the traditional view point i would argue things are changing now .   #  a large majority of things in society books, advertisements, movies, etc.  are told from the male point of view.  when things are told from the female point of view, often men do not watch or listen because it is  for women .  or at least that has been the traditional view point i would argue things are changing now .  because of this men often do not have the challenge to try and empathize with a different experience, whereas women are taught how men think from day one.  i agree that it is wrong, and the more we equalize viewpoints, and stop stigmatizing shows / books / movies told from the female perspective as being only  for women  whereas ones from the male pov are  for everyone , then this idea will start of fade away.  and it already is greatly reduced from where it was.   #  i certainly did not get it until i lived it first hand but i could have done if i would listened properly and not dismissed what feminists were saying about what it is like to navigate the world as a woman.   #  women is minds are not more complex than men is but i would argue our  experiences  tend heavily to be much more complicated.  we are constantly subjected to conflicting expectations about how we should behave, how we should dress, what is and is not attractive, whether or not that matters, what is an appropriate reaction to xyz.  i am transgender and have  lived as male  for the first half of my life and while it has its own challenges it is a lot simpler ! having experienced the way society reacts to women for seven years now i find it exasperating that men do not  get  feminism or a lot of women is issues.  i certainly did not get it until i lived it first hand but i could have done if i would listened properly and not dismissed what feminists were saying about what it is like to navigate the world as a woman.  it is really freaking hard yet we are expected to be soft and nurturing and passive.  it is not that our minds are difficult for men to understand, it is that our experiences and the way they affect us are difficult for men to understand.   #  in general men are more  thing  oriented, while women are more  people  oriented, which tends to entail more emotions   again, intangible.   #  how would one measure complexity ? we are all the same species, so in rough terms i guess our brains our equally evolved.  but i think when people say women are more difficult to understand, it is because of that subtlety you mentioned.  straight men tend to be more visual when it comes to sexuality, which is a tangible thing easily understood; women tend to be more aroused by confidence, which being intangible is less easy for us to wrap our heads around.  in general men are more  thing  oriented, while women are more  people  oriented, which tends to entail more emotions   again, intangible.  i am no expert on this subject, but maybe human brains are just better at grasping the male point of view ?  #  it is like getting two different computer languages to interact, they both prioritise different things so you gotta run it through a translator for the other to understand what they are talking about.   #  the two genders communicate in different ways, you are correct.  men tend to communicate information , women tend to communicate how something made them feel.  trying to find the information in what a woman says is like an onion, it is got layers.  URL if there is a complaint, you generally need to peel back the feelings to find the actual root cause.  it is like getting two different computer languages to interact, they both prioritise different things so you gotta run it through a translator for the other to understand what they are talking about.
i was reading this article URL and it kept hitting me that by  black  they just mean  poor  and the effects of  being black  are not  inherently  because they are black, but  inherently  because they are disproportionately poor.  i was originally shocked that the racial income gap was getting larger, but it is not shocking when you consider the huge increase in general inequality, rich vs poor.  the black people are just disproportionately poor.  it is an important distinction, because things like affirmative action act only on race, and things like reparations would too, but the root cause may not be racial.  alternatively, the gutting of social programs that help the poor is class based, but is it possible that the motivation actually racial ? now,  slavery  was obviously racial.  but i was drawn to this quote from the above linked article: which would lead me to believe that the obvious argument of  slavery black households are forever impoverished  is a weak one.  so that is my thought process.  basically, black households are not in trouble because they are black, they are in trouble because they are poor.  cmv.   #  which would lead me to believe that the obvious argument of  slavery black households are forever impoverished  is a weak one.   #  i am not certain you understand the argument being made in your quotation.   # americans seem uninterested as a whole in tackling wealth distribution wholesale, but they are much more concerned with the reality that, as a group, black americans continue to be significantly poorer than the general population.  it is difficult if not impossible to answer the question  why is the black american population so much poorer than whites ?   without aknowledging or demonstrating racism.  the topic you seem to be hitting on is that, if there is not ongoing racism which is perpetuating black poverty, then the problem is the intergenerational poverty young black americans inherit from an era of formalized economic and cultural oppression.  you are in good company as many civil rights leaders, including martin luther king jr.  have identified entrenched poverty as being a challenge which persists even in the absense of racial discrimination.  the general american public just does not seem motivated to tackle the poverty issue wholesale and are much happier making weak efforts to repair the harm done to this sub population which is overrepresented among the poor; this interest is waning as well as formal discriminatory practices become distant memories and sympathies are strained by a lack of strong momentum.  this all presumes, however, that discrimination is not a significant factor depressing the achievement of black americans, but this is simply incorrect.  even when controlled for a wide variety of socio economic factors, black americans have more difficulty gainful employment, have more difficulty developing relationships networking with whites, and are more likely to be treated more harshly at every step of the criminal justice process.  social mobility into the top two quintiles of economic wealth is lower for black americans compared to white americans of similar socio economic background.  even if one dismisses the perceived social discriminations black americans report as being over sensitivity, the collective picture of less success is difficult to ignore and would complicate any policy to address poverty more widely.  i am not certain you understand the argument being made in your quotation.  it is saying that, regardless of racial discrimination, the american wealth gap has been increasing for the past few decades with much of the gains going to people who grew up in families of significant wealth.  the racial wealth disparity, primarily a result of economic oppression through at least the middle of the 0th century, has resulted in a tiny population among the super rich and as general economic mobility slows, the ability for blacks to be a significant portion of this elite class is declining.  it is lamenting that the changing general economic picture is making the effort for racial equality all the more difficult to achieve.   #  job applicants with white names needed to send about 0 resumes to get one callback; those with african american names needed to send around 0 resumes to get one callback.   #  i assume you mean studies like this URL   the results indicate large racial differences in callback rates to a phone line with a voice mailbox attached and a message recorded by someone of the appropriate race and gender.  job applicants with white names needed to send about 0 resumes to get one callback; those with african american names needed to send around 0 resumes to get one callback.  this would suggest either employer prejudice or employer perception that race signals lower productivity.  it is an interesting study, and racism is one possible explanation, but there may also be a class element to it as well.  i would like someone to do a study in england comparing middle class names to working class names, and see if it had a similar effect.  i suspect this would be the case.  name prejudice is a topic that goes far beyond race URL  #  URL racism can have all sorts of effects.   #  URL racism can have all sorts of effects.  jailtime makes it harder to get an education and a job, and if cops are arresting and judges are sentencing black men as disproportionately high rates for drug crimes that are committed at more or less the same rates  then you have what is referred to as institutionalized racism.  similarly if there is a bias against black job applicants  then black applicants will have a harder time getting hired.  i could go on but my point is that institutional prejudice has financial consequences.  we are social creatures, so social issues ripple throughout our society.  they are URL   study indicates there is URL  #  as recently as a generation ago, black people could not vote in meaningful enough numbers to represent their own interests URL because of perfectly legal jim crow laws and voter intimidation.   # what exactly are you arguing ? are you saying that by black people are disproportionately poor by random chance ? that there are no racially specific factors that economically depress people of color ? poverty tends to get handed down through generations URL for obvious reasons.  as recently as a generation ago, black people could not vote in meaningful enough numbers to represent their own interests URL because of perfectly legal jim crow laws and voter intimidation.  as recently as a generation ago, it was perfectly legal to deny home and business loans to black people URL for no reason other than their race.  as recently as a generation ago, the government paid for white people to move to the suburbs and subsidized their home loans, while denying the same privilege to black families URL or even  people that lived near black people , not only making the american dream of homeownership unavailable to poor blacks in a way that was not the same for poor whites, but also preventing people from opening business that would provide services and employ people in black neighborhoods.  there are many, many other things that prevented black families and communities from gaining an economic foothold after slavery ended.   #  so. why exactly do you want this view changed ?  #  so. why exactly do you want this view changed ? you do realize what kind of arguments that is calling for, right ? the kinds of arguments you would be getting are largely cherry picked statistics leading to false conclusions.  and a rampant misunderstanding of scientific studies.  and arguments that touch on  culture  are also largely discredited by most sociologists, because it only plays a minor factor in the problems the black community faces today.  to pre empt any comments about culture: i found this comment insightful URL and a simple comic because i am lazy right now that shows how racism has disproportionately held back the black community from opportunities URL
i was reading this article URL and it kept hitting me that by  black  they just mean  poor  and the effects of  being black  are not  inherently  because they are black, but  inherently  because they are disproportionately poor.  i was originally shocked that the racial income gap was getting larger, but it is not shocking when you consider the huge increase in general inequality, rich vs poor.  the black people are just disproportionately poor.  it is an important distinction, because things like affirmative action act only on race, and things like reparations would too, but the root cause may not be racial.  alternatively, the gutting of social programs that help the poor is class based, but is it possible that the motivation actually racial ? now,  slavery  was obviously racial.  but i was drawn to this quote from the above linked article: which would lead me to believe that the obvious argument of  slavery black households are forever impoverished  is a weak one.  so that is my thought process.  basically, black households are not in trouble because they are black, they are in trouble because they are poor.  cmv.   #  basically, black households are not in trouble because they are black, they are in trouble because they are poor.   #  must it be one or the other ?  # must it be one or the other ? ca not it be both ? there are multitudes of examples where blacks are disadvantaged when income is not a factor.  there are multitudes of examples where minorities are still disadvantaged when income levels are accounted for.  why is there such a desperate need in some people to discredit an  obvious  factor ?  #  even if one dismisses the perceived social discriminations black americans report as being over sensitivity, the collective picture of less success is difficult to ignore and would complicate any policy to address poverty more widely.   # americans seem uninterested as a whole in tackling wealth distribution wholesale, but they are much more concerned with the reality that, as a group, black americans continue to be significantly poorer than the general population.  it is difficult if not impossible to answer the question  why is the black american population so much poorer than whites ?   without aknowledging or demonstrating racism.  the topic you seem to be hitting on is that, if there is not ongoing racism which is perpetuating black poverty, then the problem is the intergenerational poverty young black americans inherit from an era of formalized economic and cultural oppression.  you are in good company as many civil rights leaders, including martin luther king jr.  have identified entrenched poverty as being a challenge which persists even in the absense of racial discrimination.  the general american public just does not seem motivated to tackle the poverty issue wholesale and are much happier making weak efforts to repair the harm done to this sub population which is overrepresented among the poor; this interest is waning as well as formal discriminatory practices become distant memories and sympathies are strained by a lack of strong momentum.  this all presumes, however, that discrimination is not a significant factor depressing the achievement of black americans, but this is simply incorrect.  even when controlled for a wide variety of socio economic factors, black americans have more difficulty gainful employment, have more difficulty developing relationships networking with whites, and are more likely to be treated more harshly at every step of the criminal justice process.  social mobility into the top two quintiles of economic wealth is lower for black americans compared to white americans of similar socio economic background.  even if one dismisses the perceived social discriminations black americans report as being over sensitivity, the collective picture of less success is difficult to ignore and would complicate any policy to address poverty more widely.  i am not certain you understand the argument being made in your quotation.  it is saying that, regardless of racial discrimination, the american wealth gap has been increasing for the past few decades with much of the gains going to people who grew up in families of significant wealth.  the racial wealth disparity, primarily a result of economic oppression through at least the middle of the 0th century, has resulted in a tiny population among the super rich and as general economic mobility slows, the ability for blacks to be a significant portion of this elite class is declining.  it is lamenting that the changing general economic picture is making the effort for racial equality all the more difficult to achieve.   #  job applicants with white names needed to send about 0 resumes to get one callback; those with african american names needed to send around 0 resumes to get one callback.   #  i assume you mean studies like this URL   the results indicate large racial differences in callback rates to a phone line with a voice mailbox attached and a message recorded by someone of the appropriate race and gender.  job applicants with white names needed to send about 0 resumes to get one callback; those with african american names needed to send around 0 resumes to get one callback.  this would suggest either employer prejudice or employer perception that race signals lower productivity.  it is an interesting study, and racism is one possible explanation, but there may also be a class element to it as well.  i would like someone to do a study in england comparing middle class names to working class names, and see if it had a similar effect.  i suspect this would be the case.  name prejudice is a topic that goes far beyond race URL  #  they are URL   study indicates there is URL  #  URL racism can have all sorts of effects.  jailtime makes it harder to get an education and a job, and if cops are arresting and judges are sentencing black men as disproportionately high rates for drug crimes that are committed at more or less the same rates  then you have what is referred to as institutionalized racism.  similarly if there is a bias against black job applicants  then black applicants will have a harder time getting hired.  i could go on but my point is that institutional prejudice has financial consequences.  we are social creatures, so social issues ripple throughout our society.  they are URL   study indicates there is URL  #  as recently as a generation ago, black people could not vote in meaningful enough numbers to represent their own interests URL because of perfectly legal jim crow laws and voter intimidation.   # what exactly are you arguing ? are you saying that by black people are disproportionately poor by random chance ? that there are no racially specific factors that economically depress people of color ? poverty tends to get handed down through generations URL for obvious reasons.  as recently as a generation ago, black people could not vote in meaningful enough numbers to represent their own interests URL because of perfectly legal jim crow laws and voter intimidation.  as recently as a generation ago, it was perfectly legal to deny home and business loans to black people URL for no reason other than their race.  as recently as a generation ago, the government paid for white people to move to the suburbs and subsidized their home loans, while denying the same privilege to black families URL or even  people that lived near black people , not only making the american dream of homeownership unavailable to poor blacks in a way that was not the same for poor whites, but also preventing people from opening business that would provide services and employ people in black neighborhoods.  there are many, many other things that prevented black families and communities from gaining an economic foothold after slavery ended.
life is a sick joke and then we die.  robin williams  death is but the latest example of people that get that and choose to get off the ride earlier than others expect.  we go through this life expecting meaning and trying to create it for ourselves but ultimately there will be billions and billions and billions of years of our nonexistence before the universe simply collapses on itself and starts over.  there is no telling how many times this has happened before or will happen again.  ultimately none of what we do or think or believe matters.   #  we go through this life expecting meaning and trying to create it for ourselves but ultimately there will be billions and billions and billions of years of our nonexistence before the universe simply collapses on itself and starts over.   #  there is no telling how many times this has happened before or will happen again.   # there is no telling how many times this has happened before or will happen again.  that is right now since we do not have very advanced technology.  i believe that in the far future we will develop the means to travel through  warp space  or whatever we end calling interdimensional spaces.  at that time, the concept of a physical universe that collapses on itself would be meaningless to us.  we would have trascended our human origins and become almost gods.  i got inspired by  the last question  by isaac isamov, an awesome read you should check.   #  in my view, the state of the universe does not matter.   #  why do you think permanence is so important ? why does it matter how long the effects of our actions last, or how enduring the human race is ? during our time spent alive, we can still be happy, we can still create meaning for ourselves in the way we live our lives.  you mentioned that our actions do not end up mattering on a  cosmic scale , but why is that important ? in my view, the state of the universe does not matter.  it is just a bunch of matter and energy.  what matters is conscious existence the ability to experience the universe, to feel joy and sorrow and to create meaning where there is none.  the universe by itself has no inherent value, but conscious existence allows for there to be value, allows for there to be meaning, allows for actions to be  good  or  bad , concepts that do not exist otherwise.  our lives are so significant because conscious beings are, in my view, really the only things in the universe that can be said to matter.  our lives are significant because they allow us to feel happiness and cause others to as well, and the value of our actions is dependent on the ways in which they affect ourselves and others.  it does not matter that we will cease to exist, because once all conscious existence ends there will be no good or bad; at that point nothing can be said to objectively matter.  and after all, time is just another dimension.  we do not consider any action meaningless because it only occurs in one place; why should something lose its significance because it only happens at one time ?  #  let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like.    #  i agree that nothing we do, think, or believe truly matters.  but this does not mean that life cannot be truly fulfilling and enjoyable.  sure, if you focus on the negatives in life, and only look to the inevitable end that is death, life will seem like a  sick joke.   but why look to the inevitable end ? life is an invaluable gift, no matter how bleak it may seem at any given moment.  do not live life constantly expecting meaning, because you will find none.  meaning is not consciously created, it simply comes through time.  as lao tzu said,  life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes.  do not resist them that only creates sorrow.  let reality be reality.  let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like.   nothing we do on earth may  matter,  but in that case, why carry out a bleak and unenjoyable existence ?  #  so because the start and end point is the same, it does not matter ?  # there is no telling how many times this has happened before or will happen again.  ultimately none of what we do or think or believe matters.  so because the start and end point is the same, it does not matter ? take the graph that starts at 0, curves up to 0, slopes back down to 0 at the end.  then consider one that curves down to 0 and back to 0 at the same point.  they both ended up in the same situation, but they are  significantly different .  people get too caught up focusing on the endpoints, the limits.  sure, 0 years from now nobody will remember me, but that is not the only way to measure worth ! whether or not the universe ends up at the same state in billions of years, the path getting there is what matters.   #  for life to be a sick joke, life would have to resemble a narrative, or at least, a highly structured plan building to a fitting conclusion.   #  a joke is a quip, observation, or narrative that typically has an amusing conclusion, called a  punchline.   a joke is all about set up and intention.  for life to be a sick joke, life would have to resemble a narrative, or at least, a highly structured plan building to a fitting conclusion.  your statement that nothing we do matters seems to suggest that there is no inherent meaning or conclusion to draw from life.  in this sense, life is  nothing like  a joke.
life is a sick joke and then we die.  robin williams  death is but the latest example of people that get that and choose to get off the ride earlier than others expect.  we go through this life expecting meaning and trying to create it for ourselves but ultimately there will be billions and billions and billions of years of our nonexistence before the universe simply collapses on itself and starts over.  there is no telling how many times this has happened before or will happen again.  ultimately none of what we do or think or believe matters.   #  we go through this life expecting meaning and trying to create it for ourselves but ultimately there will be billions and billions and billions of years of our nonexistence before the universe simply collapses on itself and starts over.   #  there is no telling how many times this has happened before or will happen again.   # there is no telling how many times this has happened before or will happen again.  ultimately none of what we do or think or believe matters.  so because the start and end point is the same, it does not matter ? take the graph that starts at 0, curves up to 0, slopes back down to 0 at the end.  then consider one that curves down to 0 and back to 0 at the same point.  they both ended up in the same situation, but they are  significantly different .  people get too caught up focusing on the endpoints, the limits.  sure, 0 years from now nobody will remember me, but that is not the only way to measure worth ! whether or not the universe ends up at the same state in billions of years, the path getting there is what matters.   #  what matters is conscious existence the ability to experience the universe, to feel joy and sorrow and to create meaning where there is none.   #  why do you think permanence is so important ? why does it matter how long the effects of our actions last, or how enduring the human race is ? during our time spent alive, we can still be happy, we can still create meaning for ourselves in the way we live our lives.  you mentioned that our actions do not end up mattering on a  cosmic scale , but why is that important ? in my view, the state of the universe does not matter.  it is just a bunch of matter and energy.  what matters is conscious existence the ability to experience the universe, to feel joy and sorrow and to create meaning where there is none.  the universe by itself has no inherent value, but conscious existence allows for there to be value, allows for there to be meaning, allows for actions to be  good  or  bad , concepts that do not exist otherwise.  our lives are so significant because conscious beings are, in my view, really the only things in the universe that can be said to matter.  our lives are significant because they allow us to feel happiness and cause others to as well, and the value of our actions is dependent on the ways in which they affect ourselves and others.  it does not matter that we will cease to exist, because once all conscious existence ends there will be no good or bad; at that point nothing can be said to objectively matter.  and after all, time is just another dimension.  we do not consider any action meaningless because it only occurs in one place; why should something lose its significance because it only happens at one time ?  #  as lao tzu said,  life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes.   #  i agree that nothing we do, think, or believe truly matters.  but this does not mean that life cannot be truly fulfilling and enjoyable.  sure, if you focus on the negatives in life, and only look to the inevitable end that is death, life will seem like a  sick joke.   but why look to the inevitable end ? life is an invaluable gift, no matter how bleak it may seem at any given moment.  do not live life constantly expecting meaning, because you will find none.  meaning is not consciously created, it simply comes through time.  as lao tzu said,  life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes.  do not resist them that only creates sorrow.  let reality be reality.  let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like.   nothing we do on earth may  matter,  but in that case, why carry out a bleak and unenjoyable existence ?  #  we would have trascended our human origins and become almost gods.   # there is no telling how many times this has happened before or will happen again.  that is right now since we do not have very advanced technology.  i believe that in the far future we will develop the means to travel through  warp space  or whatever we end calling interdimensional spaces.  at that time, the concept of a physical universe that collapses on itself would be meaningless to us.  we would have trascended our human origins and become almost gods.  i got inspired by  the last question  by isaac isamov, an awesome read you should check.   #  in this sense, life is  nothing like  a joke.   #  a joke is a quip, observation, or narrative that typically has an amusing conclusion, called a  punchline.   a joke is all about set up and intention.  for life to be a sick joke, life would have to resemble a narrative, or at least, a highly structured plan building to a fitting conclusion.  your statement that nothing we do matters seems to suggest that there is no inherent meaning or conclusion to draw from life.  in this sense, life is  nothing like  a joke.
if you are unaware of how the ice bucket challenge works, basically i have someone take a video of me pouring lots of water on my own head.  then i proceed to tell the cameraman, i now challenge 0 friends to do the same.  they now have 0hrs to complete this challenge or they are forced to donate $0 to support funding, to find a cure for lou gerig is disease.  do not get me wrong, i am all for awareness of a devastating disease.  however, the fact that people dump a gallon and a half of water on their heads, and challenge 0 people to waste a gallon and a half of their own does nothing for als.  we are actively persuading people to not donate $$ to a worthy cause.  most of the videos do not mention that the participant has to donate $0, just by doing the challenge itself.  instead, people are wasting precious, drinkable water on a planet where 0 million people lack access to clean water.  it is the most recent internet trend that will likely expire, in say a month from now.  a month from now people will go back to their lives forgetting about als.  and procrastinating we do not have an impending water crisis .  change my view !  #  instead, people are wasting precious, drinkable water on a planet where 0 million people lack access to clean water.   #  just because i have access to an overabundance of clean water in one location, does not mean that there is any way to get that water to a place where water is scarce.   # just because i have access to an overabundance of clean water in one location, does not mean that there is any way to get that water to a place where water is scarce.  water is a resource that is difficult to transport over long distances, so unless there is a local water shortage, the value of any surplus water being used for non vital functions is minimal.  given that i use several gallons of clean water to soak up my poop every time i take a dump, using a gallon or too for an admittedly weird way of raising money for a terrible disease is not ultimately a waste.  as /u/setsumaeu has pointed out, this effort has raised a good deal of money URL now, if i lived in a desert area like las vegas or an area that did not have proper water purification facilities like parts of africa, then it would be a different story.  however, where i live has more fresh water than we know what to do with and no way of sending our excess water to places that need it more.  so, the water that i would use to dump on my head is taken out of a river, dumped on my head, and then flows back to the river instead of just staying in the river and flowing out to sea.   #  however, that is still no excuse for wasting the water.   # true.  however, that is still no excuse for wasting the water.  let is take boston for example that had 0 people dumping water on their heads in copley square a park in the heart of boston proper .  all that water does not go right back into replenishing a river.  sure most will be soaked up by the grass.  the rest will run thru the storm drains, which flow out to boston harbor, eventually out to the atlantic.  now that is water i can no longer consume.  it does little to recycle the actual water column.  since boston now challenged new york and chicago.  you could argue those are both cities in similar situations, in terms of what small steps they take towards water conservation.  at least chicago does not have it so bad because if they waste the water, the majority will either get soaked up by the aquifer or flow back into lake michigan, which is fresh water anyway.  good thing we never have to worry about lake water being compromised ever.  URL  #  it is created a tremendous amount of awareness, and created a huge buzz.   #  besides the money cited by /u/setsumaeu , who has not seen the videos ? it is created a tremendous amount of awareness, and created a huge buzz.  you are right, a year later, some of the awareness will have faded, but unlike most flash in the pan viral videos, i guarantee that in 0 or 0 years, people will still be saying,  hey did not you make a video dumping a bucket of ice over your head ? what was that for again ?   and there is no doubt that the icee will remember what it was for.  as for the wasted water a 0 minute shower with a low flow head uses 0 gallons.  a 0 x0  lawn takes 0,0 gallons each time you water.  the water used in the challenge is, well, a drop in the bucket on the scale of water usage.   #  ca not we simply donate, and encourage others to do the same, without dumping water on our heads to prove the juice is worth the squeeze ?  # what was that for again ? i really do not seeing this ever being the case.  i have faith that als is one of those diseases we would have a viable cure in the not distant future.  or at the very least be able to have a treatment for it in place come 0.  then again maybe there is a breakthrough on treatment of aids in that future, or alzheimer is.  the fact of the matter is all of these painful diseases deserve the same amount of attention and funding.  donating, whether it be time or money is still something that is too looked down upon as a  chore  in upper to middle class society.  ca not we simply donate, and encourage others to do the same, without dumping water on our heads to prove the juice is worth the squeeze ? yes, the wasted water is only a  drop  in the bucket, but it is a drop that you can say at least i did not add to the problem and donated $$ anyway.   #  see the wiki page URL for more information, and click on this link URL to message the moderators for approval.   #  your submission has been automatically removed because you are posting on a throwaway/new account.  posts made by such accounts must be approved by the moderators via modmail rule b .  see the wiki page URL for more information, and click on this link URL to message the moderators for approval.  please provide a simple reason why you are posting from a new account so we may approve your thread more quickly.  thank you.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.
do not get me wrong.  sex is fun, and with the right person, a truly wonderful experience.  however, the act of sex is overhyped and overrated to a literally insane degree.  it is not some life changing superexperience that transcends all others.  i would personally rate a good night of sex as being somewhat better than a really good meal, but not exponentially so.  that said, our society seems literally obsessed with who is and is not having sex.  women who have too much sex by some arbitrary societal standard are shamed and treated like trash.  male virgins past a certain age are horribly shamed and ostracised, seen as losers at best and some kind of horrible monster at worst.  homosexuals are still shamed, ridiculed and even violently attacked in some places for having sex unconventionally.  there is a billion dollar industry in gossip publications that basically do nothing but speculate as to who is having sex with whom.  i just do not get why this is.  why is it so important who is or is not sticking what where.  some people would go as far as to kill to get sex, or kill themselves if they cannot acquire it.  it just seems so bizarre to me.  sex may be the best experience life has to offer, but it really is not so much better than life is other experiences to justify the importance we place on it, and with the exception of intimate partners who would find it a violation of trust to have sex with someone else it really is not anyone is business whether or not anyone else is having sex or how they are having it.   #  some people would go as far as to kill to get sex, or kill themselves if they cannot acquire it.   #  it just seems so bizarre to me.   #  the way people place value on things is due to their personal opinions and life experiences.  it just seems so bizarre to me.  does it also seem bizarre to you when people are addicted to drugs or alcohol ? people looking to get their next fix would do any number of things that a sane rational person would not do.  you should apply the same sentiment to any sort of addiction.  just because you cannot personally understand it, does not make the addiction any less real.  again, just because it was not life changing to you, does not mean it is not life changing to others.  i honestly think that maybe you just have not had that magical experience that people refer to.  i personally feel like it is better than i could have thought and it completely changed the way i viewed relationships, and the way i reacted when other people discussed it in front of me.   #  even the most anonymous, casual, loveless sex is so intimate, right ?  #  i actually agree that sex is overrated.  western society or at least my experience of it certainly does place an enormous and seemingly undeserved emphasis on sex.  you are right about that.  but what definitely is not overrated is intimacy.  in his famous hierarchy of needs, abraham maslow put sexual intamacy right in the middle, before achievement.  i know, crazy.  you might be thinking that people like that santa barbara shooting jerk do not seem to be after intimacy, but physical sex.  i am not so sure that is true.  i think at their cores, intimacy and sex are so close and intertwined they ca not really be separated.  even the most anonymous, casual, loveless sex is so intimate, right ? sex is just an intimate act.  physically, emotionally, psychologically.  and something that affects people so strongly like the way general intimacy does i do not believe can really be overrated.  with such a strong connection between the two, i am pretty unsurprised at the amount of attention sex gets.   #  we are starved for intimacy, so we become obsessed with sex.   #  sex is the most intimate thing you can do with another person, but it is hardly the easiest.  having a conversation is intimate.  shaking hands is intimate.  those things are a 0 on the intimacy scale compared to 0 for sex, but they are also significantly easier.  in other cultures, there is a lot more physical intimacy built into everyday things.  friends kiss hello, or walk arm in arm.  i do not know why american culture is different, but it is like we have created this dumb catch 0.  almost all contact is sexually charged, so we ca not get much casual intimacy.  we are starved for intimacy, so we become obsessed with sex.   #  having a conversation is intimate, i agree, but there are different kinds of intimacy and sex tops this list.   #  not true.  i live in one of those cultures you mentioned that have many more physically intimate interactions everyday and we still value sex just as much as americans.  having a conversation is intimate, i agree, but there are different kinds of intimacy and sex tops this list.  not only what was said before that you literally ca not get any closer to someone than being inside them/them being inside you, there is also a deal about trust and vulnerability in sex.  you are both in your most vulnerable states, opening up your most sensitive spots for one another.  also, there have been studies showing that oxytocin, an hormone liked to bonding and trust, is released massively during orgasm, straightening those relations.  my point is: sex is such an overwhelmingly intimate thing that, even if there are other, easier intimacies to be had, sex still is very appealing.   #  america is extremely touchy about sex and intimacy, and i ca not help but think that the two feelings are linked.   #  that is fair, but i do not think i devalued sex.  i said that it is 0 times more intimate than having a conversation.  if you do not live in america, i do not know if you are completely comment on how we think of sex compared to how your culture thinks of it.  does your culture have some of the problems that op mentioned, like homosexuals being literally beaten to death simply because they are homosexuals ? america is extremely touchy about sex and intimacy, and i ca not help but think that the two feelings are linked.
do not get me wrong.  sex is fun, and with the right person, a truly wonderful experience.  however, the act of sex is overhyped and overrated to a literally insane degree.  it is not some life changing superexperience that transcends all others.  i would personally rate a good night of sex as being somewhat better than a really good meal, but not exponentially so.  that said, our society seems literally obsessed with who is and is not having sex.  women who have too much sex by some arbitrary societal standard are shamed and treated like trash.  male virgins past a certain age are horribly shamed and ostracised, seen as losers at best and some kind of horrible monster at worst.  homosexuals are still shamed, ridiculed and even violently attacked in some places for having sex unconventionally.  there is a billion dollar industry in gossip publications that basically do nothing but speculate as to who is having sex with whom.  i just do not get why this is.  why is it so important who is or is not sticking what where.  some people would go as far as to kill to get sex, or kill themselves if they cannot acquire it.  it just seems so bizarre to me.  sex may be the best experience life has to offer, but it really is not so much better than life is other experiences to justify the importance we place on it, and with the exception of intimate partners who would find it a violation of trust to have sex with someone else it really is not anyone is business whether or not anyone else is having sex or how they are having it.   #  it is not some life changing superexperience that transcends all others.   #  again, just because it was not life changing to you, does not mean it is not life changing to others.   #  the way people place value on things is due to their personal opinions and life experiences.  it just seems so bizarre to me.  does it also seem bizarre to you when people are addicted to drugs or alcohol ? people looking to get their next fix would do any number of things that a sane rational person would not do.  you should apply the same sentiment to any sort of addiction.  just because you cannot personally understand it, does not make the addiction any less real.  again, just because it was not life changing to you, does not mean it is not life changing to others.  i honestly think that maybe you just have not had that magical experience that people refer to.  i personally feel like it is better than i could have thought and it completely changed the way i viewed relationships, and the way i reacted when other people discussed it in front of me.   #  and something that affects people so strongly like the way general intimacy does i do not believe can really be overrated.   #  i actually agree that sex is overrated.  western society or at least my experience of it certainly does place an enormous and seemingly undeserved emphasis on sex.  you are right about that.  but what definitely is not overrated is intimacy.  in his famous hierarchy of needs, abraham maslow put sexual intamacy right in the middle, before achievement.  i know, crazy.  you might be thinking that people like that santa barbara shooting jerk do not seem to be after intimacy, but physical sex.  i am not so sure that is true.  i think at their cores, intimacy and sex are so close and intertwined they ca not really be separated.  even the most anonymous, casual, loveless sex is so intimate, right ? sex is just an intimate act.  physically, emotionally, psychologically.  and something that affects people so strongly like the way general intimacy does i do not believe can really be overrated.  with such a strong connection between the two, i am pretty unsurprised at the amount of attention sex gets.   #  friends kiss hello, or walk arm in arm.   #  sex is the most intimate thing you can do with another person, but it is hardly the easiest.  having a conversation is intimate.  shaking hands is intimate.  those things are a 0 on the intimacy scale compared to 0 for sex, but they are also significantly easier.  in other cultures, there is a lot more physical intimacy built into everyday things.  friends kiss hello, or walk arm in arm.  i do not know why american culture is different, but it is like we have created this dumb catch 0.  almost all contact is sexually charged, so we ca not get much casual intimacy.  we are starved for intimacy, so we become obsessed with sex.   #  not only what was said before that you literally ca not get any closer to someone than being inside them/them being inside you, there is also a deal about trust and vulnerability in sex.   #  not true.  i live in one of those cultures you mentioned that have many more physically intimate interactions everyday and we still value sex just as much as americans.  having a conversation is intimate, i agree, but there are different kinds of intimacy and sex tops this list.  not only what was said before that you literally ca not get any closer to someone than being inside them/them being inside you, there is also a deal about trust and vulnerability in sex.  you are both in your most vulnerable states, opening up your most sensitive spots for one another.  also, there have been studies showing that oxytocin, an hormone liked to bonding and trust, is released massively during orgasm, straightening those relations.  my point is: sex is such an overwhelmingly intimate thing that, even if there are other, easier intimacies to be had, sex still is very appealing.   #  america is extremely touchy about sex and intimacy, and i ca not help but think that the two feelings are linked.   #  that is fair, but i do not think i devalued sex.  i said that it is 0 times more intimate than having a conversation.  if you do not live in america, i do not know if you are completely comment on how we think of sex compared to how your culture thinks of it.  does your culture have some of the problems that op mentioned, like homosexuals being literally beaten to death simply because they are homosexuals ? america is extremely touchy about sex and intimacy, and i ca not help but think that the two feelings are linked.
when discussing people in altered states, including those brought about through organic pathology or  mental  illnesses like schizophrenia and psychotic depression, it is inappropriate and false to state such individuals are less in contact with reality.  the reason is that nobody experiences reality directly.  by this, i mean that you see, hear, taste, smell and feel nothing that is not filtered, processed or otherwise distorted by your brain.  so why does your brain filter, process and distort sensory information ? because your perceptual faculties are shaped by evolutionary pressures.  there is a selection advantage to accentuate survival maximising data that your senses pick up, and also to minimise sense data that does not confer some sort of advantage, be it survival and/or reproductive.  that is to say that nobody is brain is selected for directly perceiving reality.  only selected for perceiving elements of reality that relate to survival and promotion of genes.  so, i do not understand why it is appropriate to say that because someone who is psychotic, or under the effect of hallucinogens, has less legitimate contact with reality.  in fact, with psilocybin, brain regions that limit one is perception are temporarily inhibited and if anything, a more direct way of perceiving reality may be achieved.  i am not a neuroscientist the only sense in which it is appropriate to say that someone that deviates from normal mental functioning is less in contact with reality is to say that they are less in contact with   consensual reality  , which is by no means identical to actual reality.   #  that is to say that nobody is brain is selected for directly perceiving reality.   #  only selected for perceiving elements of reality that relate to survival and promotion of genes.   #  objection ! i know it is an unpopular view amongst neuroscientists and philosophers but i bet the  sweetness of sugar , that isolated sweet sensation or qualia of  sweetness   is more or less  similar for an ant, an owl, a human and for any potential alien lifeform across the galaxy that has evolved to pick up the  fixed  electric signature of dissolved sugar molecules in liquid the identity of sugar, after all, is a universal constant .  that goes the same for  saltyness  and every other basic qualia whereby the the signal in the data has a constant identity, such as sounds and colours.  what evolution has done is merely to allow us to more faithfully differentiate/pickup and sense different qualia.  evolution has not invented them or created them.  a simpler life form might see whitish light and blackish dark only, for presence or absence of a portion of the spectrum.  as it evolves over many generations, it is rods and cones evolve to resolve and further differentiate between finer and finer bands of wavelengths and white is  revealed  to be made up of colours.  thus, evolution of biological consciousness is a process of  discovering  qualia, as opposed to inventing or creating them we evolved  to know  and perceive with greater accuracy what  really is out there , or  what reality is really like .  only selected for perceiving elements of reality that relate to survival and promotion of genes.  that is exactly how our brains were selected for perceiving reality ! and   only selected for perceiving elements of reality that relate to survival and promotion of genes  is also true.  the fact that we have only evolved to perceive  some  elements rather than  all elements  does not falsify or invalidate the truth of the  some elements .  reality for a creature who can only see black/white is not less real/true than for a creature who can see roygbiv, in a similar way that pi 0.  does not contradict a later measurement of pi 0.  or that newton is theory is not contradicted but rather  finessed  by einstein.  in terms of knowing who you are, i can not say; drugs may indeed wash away contradictions and personal hangups that allow the confused mind greater clarity about what to value, and thus know better what is real about themselves.  but in terms of what is real and  out there , the elements of reality that are available to us are being distorted to perceive that which  does not  exist.  that which  does not  exist and is not real e. g.  a green fairy with sharp teeth, or a bridge across a ravine should not be acted upon because believing it to exist, and acted upon that information can kill you.   #  during severe hallucinations ones perceptions are heavily in ones own head, and interacting with the outside world based on them will only produce random and frustrating results.   #  i will illustrate with a personal experience.  owing to a poor medication reaction, i suffered from extreme hallucinations.  i saw bugs everywhere, arms reaching through walls, and heard the voices of friends and family.  however, there were no bugs there.  while my normal sense would have told me there were bugs and i should perhaps buy some ant traps, responding to the hallucination this way would have provided no relief from the crawling creatures.  similarly, there were no arms reaching through my walls.  so, as i thought at the time, painting them to keep them out was of no benefit either in reality or my altered state .  normally, hearing a friend in the other room informs you your friend is there.  however, in this case it did not.  i went from room to room searching and, frustratingly, found nobody.  while we all have cognitive and perceptual issues in our brain, the existence of them does not make all perceptions equal.  a normal person perceives a world they are able to meaningfully and reliably interact with.  during severe hallucinations ones perceptions are heavily in ones own head, and interacting with the outside world based on them will only produce random and frustrating results.   #  removing all the normal filters our mind places on our perception would indeed be disorienting.   # i was a bit annoyed that i could not scrub the bugs off the wall and that my friends kept hiding from me, but it was moderate annoyance at most.  living my entire life that way might have gotten infuriating over time, but it does not change the fact that the actions i was taking did not and could not have the results i was expecting as it was all in my head .  the thing is, we do have an objective basis on which to grade them.  that is, how our actions effect reality in relation to both ourselves and others.  if i take a bunch of jimson weed and think i am smoking cigarettes it will not increase my chance of lung cancer.  if i take mushrooms and think the phone is melting out my hand it is not, in fact, doing so, and my altered perception is only making it difficult but not impossible, if i ignore my perception .  removing all the normal filters our mind places on our perception would indeed be disorienting.  however, that does not make false signals caused by hallucinogenics equally valid.  one is a censored version of reality, like reading a copy of  huckleberry finn  with certain bits removed.  taking halluciongenics would be like reading the writings of a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters and assuming it was also huck finn.  also, i should add i am not against hallucinogenics for fun or therapy.  however, i do not think that makes the perceptions one has on them as true as reality, given the ability for  reality  based effects to interact with yourself and others, but not vice versa in relation to the hallucinations.   #  whether it leads to good behavioural decisions is neither here nor there in terms of closeness to reality.   #  firstly, i want to apologise if i invalidated or minimized your experience.  that is, how our actions effect reality in relation to both ourselves and others but this is only consensual reality, not necessarily actual reality.  if you are going to grade experiences in such a way, then you are begging the question because obviously those experiences and ways of experiencing closer to the middle of a gaussian curve are going to be judged as closer to reality when you define reality in a consensual manner.  in reference to the phone and lung cancer, yeah, of course some perceptions lend themselves to delusions more than others.  but if reality is analogous to pink noise, then normal perception is the filtering of that undifferentiated noise into something consistent and recognisable.  the selective expedience of such is obviously great.  but what i am arguing is that the less filtered perception is, the closer it is to that undifferentiated and aparrent chaos that constitutes actual reality.  whether it leads to good behavioural decisions is neither here nor there in terms of closeness to reality.  to get back to your phone melting a phone is a constructed category that exists because of consensual reality.  what differentiates the matter that constitutes the phone from the table it rests on ? zoom in enough, and it is continuous or close to it.  a truly unfiltered perception would not leave room for a phone as a perceptual object, and certain drugs tend in that direction even if they do not fully achieve it.   #  the problem is that hallucinating does not make perception  less filtered.    # whether it leads to good behavioural decisions is neither here nor there in terms of closeness to reality.  the problem is that hallucinating does not make perception  less filtered.   it just makes your brain return nonsense.  when i was out of my head and thought arms were coming out of the walls that was not showing me any sort of  reality,  it was nonsense connections my brain was making.   wall as a solid structure in a macro sense  is an actionable, reality based piece of information.   wall as crazy arms sticking out  is not, nor is it closer to the reality if we zoom in to the microscopic level or beyond.  similarly, the difference between my phone and the table is one can make calls.  i can bang on my table all i want but it wo not make my friend hear me across town.  however, if i interact with my phone in a reality based manner i can in fact speak to a friend, and cause reactions based on that.  if we zoom in they are made of different parts, different molecules, different atoms, differently aligned strings, and these all interact to create different results.  if i totally unfiltered my reality those results would be the same.  the hallucination version where i thought the table and the phone were the same, however, would not, because the hallucination is simply disconnected from reality rather than being  unfiltered.
when discussing people in altered states, including those brought about through organic pathology or  mental  illnesses like schizophrenia and psychotic depression, it is inappropriate and false to state such individuals are less in contact with reality.  the reason is that nobody experiences reality directly.  by this, i mean that you see, hear, taste, smell and feel nothing that is not filtered, processed or otherwise distorted by your brain.  so why does your brain filter, process and distort sensory information ? because your perceptual faculties are shaped by evolutionary pressures.  there is a selection advantage to accentuate survival maximising data that your senses pick up, and also to minimise sense data that does not confer some sort of advantage, be it survival and/or reproductive.  that is to say that nobody is brain is selected for directly perceiving reality.  only selected for perceiving elements of reality that relate to survival and promotion of genes.  so, i do not understand why it is appropriate to say that because someone who is psychotic, or under the effect of hallucinogens, has less legitimate contact with reality.  in fact, with psilocybin, brain regions that limit one is perception are temporarily inhibited and if anything, a more direct way of perceiving reality may be achieved.  i am not a neuroscientist the only sense in which it is appropriate to say that someone that deviates from normal mental functioning is less in contact with reality is to say that they are less in contact with   consensual reality  , which is by no means identical to actual reality.   #  so, i do not understand why it is appropriate to say that because someone who is psychotic, or under the effect of hallucinogens, has less legitimate contact with reality.   #  in terms of knowing who you are, i can not say; drugs may indeed wash away contradictions and personal hangups that allow the confused mind greater clarity about what to value, and thus know better what is real about themselves.   #  objection ! i know it is an unpopular view amongst neuroscientists and philosophers but i bet the  sweetness of sugar , that isolated sweet sensation or qualia of  sweetness   is more or less  similar for an ant, an owl, a human and for any potential alien lifeform across the galaxy that has evolved to pick up the  fixed  electric signature of dissolved sugar molecules in liquid the identity of sugar, after all, is a universal constant .  that goes the same for  saltyness  and every other basic qualia whereby the the signal in the data has a constant identity, such as sounds and colours.  what evolution has done is merely to allow us to more faithfully differentiate/pickup and sense different qualia.  evolution has not invented them or created them.  a simpler life form might see whitish light and blackish dark only, for presence or absence of a portion of the spectrum.  as it evolves over many generations, it is rods and cones evolve to resolve and further differentiate between finer and finer bands of wavelengths and white is  revealed  to be made up of colours.  thus, evolution of biological consciousness is a process of  discovering  qualia, as opposed to inventing or creating them we evolved  to know  and perceive with greater accuracy what  really is out there , or  what reality is really like .  only selected for perceiving elements of reality that relate to survival and promotion of genes.  that is exactly how our brains were selected for perceiving reality ! and   only selected for perceiving elements of reality that relate to survival and promotion of genes  is also true.  the fact that we have only evolved to perceive  some  elements rather than  all elements  does not falsify or invalidate the truth of the  some elements .  reality for a creature who can only see black/white is not less real/true than for a creature who can see roygbiv, in a similar way that pi 0.  does not contradict a later measurement of pi 0.  or that newton is theory is not contradicted but rather  finessed  by einstein.  in terms of knowing who you are, i can not say; drugs may indeed wash away contradictions and personal hangups that allow the confused mind greater clarity about what to value, and thus know better what is real about themselves.  but in terms of what is real and  out there , the elements of reality that are available to us are being distorted to perceive that which  does not  exist.  that which  does not  exist and is not real e. g.  a green fairy with sharp teeth, or a bridge across a ravine should not be acted upon because believing it to exist, and acted upon that information can kill you.   #  owing to a poor medication reaction, i suffered from extreme hallucinations.   #  i will illustrate with a personal experience.  owing to a poor medication reaction, i suffered from extreme hallucinations.  i saw bugs everywhere, arms reaching through walls, and heard the voices of friends and family.  however, there were no bugs there.  while my normal sense would have told me there were bugs and i should perhaps buy some ant traps, responding to the hallucination this way would have provided no relief from the crawling creatures.  similarly, there were no arms reaching through my walls.  so, as i thought at the time, painting them to keep them out was of no benefit either in reality or my altered state .  normally, hearing a friend in the other room informs you your friend is there.  however, in this case it did not.  i went from room to room searching and, frustratingly, found nobody.  while we all have cognitive and perceptual issues in our brain, the existence of them does not make all perceptions equal.  a normal person perceives a world they are able to meaningfully and reliably interact with.  during severe hallucinations ones perceptions are heavily in ones own head, and interacting with the outside world based on them will only produce random and frustrating results.   #  the thing is, we do have an objective basis on which to grade them.   # i was a bit annoyed that i could not scrub the bugs off the wall and that my friends kept hiding from me, but it was moderate annoyance at most.  living my entire life that way might have gotten infuriating over time, but it does not change the fact that the actions i was taking did not and could not have the results i was expecting as it was all in my head .  the thing is, we do have an objective basis on which to grade them.  that is, how our actions effect reality in relation to both ourselves and others.  if i take a bunch of jimson weed and think i am smoking cigarettes it will not increase my chance of lung cancer.  if i take mushrooms and think the phone is melting out my hand it is not, in fact, doing so, and my altered perception is only making it difficult but not impossible, if i ignore my perception .  removing all the normal filters our mind places on our perception would indeed be disorienting.  however, that does not make false signals caused by hallucinogenics equally valid.  one is a censored version of reality, like reading a copy of  huckleberry finn  with certain bits removed.  taking halluciongenics would be like reading the writings of a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters and assuming it was also huck finn.  also, i should add i am not against hallucinogenics for fun or therapy.  however, i do not think that makes the perceptions one has on them as true as reality, given the ability for  reality  based effects to interact with yourself and others, but not vice versa in relation to the hallucinations.   #  that is, how our actions effect reality in relation to both ourselves and others but this is only consensual reality, not necessarily actual reality.   #  firstly, i want to apologise if i invalidated or minimized your experience.  that is, how our actions effect reality in relation to both ourselves and others but this is only consensual reality, not necessarily actual reality.  if you are going to grade experiences in such a way, then you are begging the question because obviously those experiences and ways of experiencing closer to the middle of a gaussian curve are going to be judged as closer to reality when you define reality in a consensual manner.  in reference to the phone and lung cancer, yeah, of course some perceptions lend themselves to delusions more than others.  but if reality is analogous to pink noise, then normal perception is the filtering of that undifferentiated noise into something consistent and recognisable.  the selective expedience of such is obviously great.  but what i am arguing is that the less filtered perception is, the closer it is to that undifferentiated and aparrent chaos that constitutes actual reality.  whether it leads to good behavioural decisions is neither here nor there in terms of closeness to reality.  to get back to your phone melting a phone is a constructed category that exists because of consensual reality.  what differentiates the matter that constitutes the phone from the table it rests on ? zoom in enough, and it is continuous or close to it.  a truly unfiltered perception would not leave room for a phone as a perceptual object, and certain drugs tend in that direction even if they do not fully achieve it.   #  if i totally unfiltered my reality those results would be the same.   # whether it leads to good behavioural decisions is neither here nor there in terms of closeness to reality.  the problem is that hallucinating does not make perception  less filtered.   it just makes your brain return nonsense.  when i was out of my head and thought arms were coming out of the walls that was not showing me any sort of  reality,  it was nonsense connections my brain was making.   wall as a solid structure in a macro sense  is an actionable, reality based piece of information.   wall as crazy arms sticking out  is not, nor is it closer to the reality if we zoom in to the microscopic level or beyond.  similarly, the difference between my phone and the table is one can make calls.  i can bang on my table all i want but it wo not make my friend hear me across town.  however, if i interact with my phone in a reality based manner i can in fact speak to a friend, and cause reactions based on that.  if we zoom in they are made of different parts, different molecules, different atoms, differently aligned strings, and these all interact to create different results.  if i totally unfiltered my reality those results would be the same.  the hallucination version where i thought the table and the phone were the same, however, would not, because the hallucination is simply disconnected from reality rather than being  unfiltered.
i am so sick of seeing  comments  get downvoted just because people are either in disagreement or are too intellectually lazy to consider a point.  this hides content that could otherwise be fruitful, and it also provides people with a way around having to justify their own stances.  a common argument that i have seen to this in threads is  well if somebody is wrong, i am just going to downvote them.  they do not need any rational.   but here is the thing: it is not up to you to determine what is wrong unless you have a reason.  if it is something objective, ie  in what year did x sail the y ?  , then you can correct it easily.  if it is  this should/ not be.   then there is no objective right or wrong; only your opinion.  if you ca not back that up, do not have one.  cmv  #  but here is the thing: it is not up to you to determine what is wrong unless you have a reason.   #  well, the very principle of this website is that users rate content so the best content gets more visibility.   # well, the very principle of this website is that users rate content so the best content gets more visibility.  it is not about right or wrong.  users get to decide what they feel is interesting, original or valuable content.  you do not  need  to explain why.  that is up to you.  there is a vast array of reasons to downvote something.  the post can be poorly constructed, lacking in actual content, be insulting or rude, unoriginal or useless.  i do not see why i should spoofed every person i downvote.   #  it takes a lot of people to send something in oblivion.   #  well exactly.  it takes far more than a downvote to become invisible.  i do not have the power to make your submission disappear by myself.  to do that i would need to provide something more than a downvote.  it takes a lot of people to send something in oblivion.  useless or uninteresting content is filtered away.  that is why you frequent and a media aggregating website.  if your contribution ca not stand on it is own merit, i do not see why it is my duty to educate you as the why.   #  that is contributing to the discussion and i am all for that.   #  i do not downvote people based on opinion, provided they present it in an adequate and interesting manner.  that is contributing to the discussion and i am all for that.  if they are unable to present their opinion well, it is not my job to decipher their post or teach them how to write.  that is up to them.  entirely  up to them.  presenting your opinion is  always , and probably always will be, an uphill battle.  especially if it is a controversial one.  if your contribution ca not stand on it is own merit, i am not required to expose why.  i am also not responsible for the  hivemind  is actions.  i do not care if people get downvoted to hell because x or y.  they are not entitled to my time or attention just by virtue of having a reddit account.   #  you judge content for the sake of other users, not for your own ego.   # especially if it is a controversial one.  if your contribution ca not stand on it is own merit, i am not required to expose why.  i am also not responsible for the  hivemind  is actions.  i do not care if people get downvoted to hell because x or y.  they are not entitled to my time or attention just by virtue of having a reddit account.  none of these qualities that you are specifying are absolute.  they are all just your opinion.  you have as much responsibility to state your dissent as the op does to make their point clear.  the rest of reddit is not responsible for what you do or do not deem able to stand on its own merit, or how hard it is to hold your attention.  you judge content for the sake of other users, not for your own ego.  that was never the point.   #  sometime i just choose to just ignore that, i down vote and hope someone is going to do the arguing instead of me.   #  when i am very sure someone is wrong.  honestly, i get your point.  i used to always explain my down votes, but now i sometime do not, and i always feel bad about it.  my reason is that some people are a nightmare to argue with.  you tell them something politely, they get pissed off and then you end up in 0 hour of useless debate because they ca not accept simple criticism.  sometime i just choose to just ignore that, i down vote and hope someone is going to do the arguing instead of me.  since i use res, i can see the number of time i up voted/down voted someone, so i will be more inclined to respond to someone i up voted many time and ignore the ones that have many down votes.  when the post/thread does not follow the rule of the particular subreddit.  i down vote / report.  it is not my job to explain the reason.
for background i am male, 0 and in college.  i was having this discussion at a recent reunion with some cousins i had not seen in a while, one is 0 and the other is 0.  let is call them jon and sam respectively.  sam had asked jon why he has not had a date or girlfriend since he started college almost 0 years ago.  jon responded by saying that apart from focusing on his studies, his chances of dating would be very unsuccessful because he does not have a car he goes to school in an area where a car is necessary for getting around .  sam responded by saying that any girl who would require him to have a car to consider dating him is superficial and not worth his time anyway.  this is where i had to disagree with sam.   i believe that, for most women, wanting a man to have a car is not a matter of superficiality, but practicality.   in my dating experience, most girls do not care about what brand my car is as much as they appreciate the fact that we can go out later since our dates are not restricted to end when the last bus comes or if we have a change of plans we do not have to map out which trains and buses we have to take to get to the new destination.  in the case of my cousin, he is young and still in school so i do not think girls will care as much, though i have had a car throughout all of college so i ca not say for sure.  personally i would also prefer a girl i date to have a car of her own even if it is a shitty one, though not having one is not a total deal breaker for me since i do have one.   however, it appears my cousin sam is view is not unpopular on dating forums.   by googling  dating without a car , there are many dating forum threads with the repeated mantra  if she only wants you for your car, she is superficial anyway , which as i have stated, i believe is missing the bigger picture.   tldr; girls who wo not date men without cars do so out of a sense of practically rather than superficiality because a car allows people to schedule things on their own time, not because a car symbolizes wealth.  cmv  #  i believe that, for most women, wanting a man to have a car is not a matter of superficiality, but practicality.   #  nothing wrong or shallow in  wanting  a car, we all want to have one if we do not.   #  i see a logic problem in your view.  nothing wrong or shallow in  wanting  a car, we all want to have one if we do not.  the purpose of a relationship goes way beyond being a practical and material improvement to life.  a relationship is about inspiring, complementing, supporting and giving.  if you view relationships as mere convenient company, which is facilitated by having a car, then i am not surprised you accept not having a car as a dealbreaker, but that is not only because the girl who says that is shallow, but because your views on relationships is shallow too.  nothing wrong in this as long as you are in your 0 is and not willing to settle, but it helps to be aware that your views on relationships are superficial and that for a long term relationship it is best if you look deeper.   #  there are lots of things that can make things easier when dating.   #  there are lots of things that can make things easier when dating.  money, looks, being the race or religion that your family/friends accept, and having a car as well.  but it really boils down to your motivation.  let is take money if you are barely breaking even, dating someone who has even less money can really impact what you can do, especially if you live in an expensive city.  but if you are both outdoorsy people living somewhere with easy access to places to hike, limited funds could be fine.  but if you are in the second case, and break up because you are afraid what others will think if you date someone without money, then it is superficial.  the same thing goes with a car if it makes it significantly harder to get together and places an undue burden on one partner that it is legit.  but if you happen to work and live near each other and you just do not like thinking what others will say, then you are superficial.  tl;dr: characteristics that impede or burden a relationship can be legit, but if it is just based on fear of what others will think, then it is superficial.   #  i just do not agree with any usage of gender in this post since it is entirely irrelevant.   #  i do not see how or why this conversation relates to gender whatsoever.  for any  person  living in a city in which having a car is essential for getting around, then dating someone with a car will likely be one of many factors that person considers when contemplating who to date.  this is not gender related.  you are right that it is not shallow; it is practical.  i just do not agree with any usage of gender in this post since it is entirely irrelevant.  if you are trying to argue that gender  is  relevant in anyway, please explain further.   #  never once has my gf complained about driving me around, in fact, she likes it.   #  i also agree that gender is irrelevant here.  op may think that it is traditionally the male is job to escort the female in his vehicle.  however, i think that is a tad outdated.  anecdote: i have been with my gf for almost 0 years in southern california where you absolutely need a car.  i have not had a car in the past 0 years, only a motorcycle.  never once has my gf complained about driving me around, in fact, she likes it.   #  i actually agree with your statement, regarding it being practical.   #  i actually agree with your statement, regarding it being practical.  i absolutely  hate  cars.  i avoid them whenever possible.  i live in a dense urban area where cars are less practical for daily things, but i still have one for when i need it.  my understanding is that many americans do not have this luxury, and live in a place where not having a car makes it impossible to go anywhere.  that said: i have noticed that many of the women on online dating sites/etc who make a big deal about their dates having cars, do not have cars themselves.  why is it ok to expect a man to have a car but not a woman.  alternatively, if she has a car, why is it a big deal ? she can pick you up.  i am pretty convinced that that expectation is still pretty sexist, at least as it manifests in practice
i saw many posts on tumblr mostly by feminists pointing out that 0 shades of grey is a dangerous book to be read by teenage girls and young women, claiming that the relationship portrayed in the book is abusive and shouldn´t be took as role model.  well, i´ve read the book, and that relationship is consensual.  the book is just poorly written.  if we apply this logic, twilight is a dangerous book too, as edward cullen is christian grey, just with a few differences.  i think teenage girls shouldn´t read 0 shades in my country is a rated r book and if they can´t see any difference in fiction and reality, is not the book´s fault.  this may be wrong, so i´m posting here to see if anyone can change my view.   #  if we apply this logic, twilight is a dangerous book too, as edward cullen is christian grey, just with a few differences.   #  i think teenage girls shouldn´t read 0 shades in my country is a rated r book and if they can´t see any difference in fiction and reality, is not the book´s fault.   # i think teenage girls shouldn´t read 0 shades in my country is a rated r book and if they can´t see any difference in fiction and reality, is not the book´s fault.  0 shades of grey started out as twlight fan fiction, which is why the two books are similar.  lots of feminists do not think much of twilight, either, partially because both books depict relationships that are  officially  consensual, but contain many elements of abuse, such as isolation from friends, blame placed on the victim for the strength of the abuser is impulses, etc.  a lot of kinksters dislike both books for the same reason: they conflate healthy bdsm relationships with abuse: they make it harder for members of the community to read relationships correctly and avoid the bad apples, and make it harder for non kinky folks to see the difference between abusive relationships and consensual bdsm relationships.  of course, people are ultimately responsible for their own behavior, and a book is as much a reflection of culture as it is a shaper of culture.  i think that it is fine to read and enjoy both twilight and 0 shades, but it is also important to recognize that they are works of fantasy, and that real life relationships that look like the relationships in the book are  not  healthy relationships.   #  it is not the authors role to present role models.   # but that is kind of a dumb point.  some of the great books with extreme quality focus on horrible relationships and not in a moralizing or educational way either.  great works of art make us like, identify and sympathize with some pretty horrible characters.  these two books are clearly total crap, and that is their problem.  the relationships are insipid and uninteresting.  but saying they are dangerous because they portray unhealthy relationships is really really silly and i do not believe such criticism should belong to discussion of literature.  it is not the authors role to present role models.   #  again, book is not supposed to be a propaganda, especially work of fiction.   #  again, book is not supposed to be a propaganda, especially work of fiction.  great books present unhealthy situations or portray morally questionable characters in ways where they can be liked and admired.  this shitty book has no obligation to anyone and if it wants to talk about two people who believe to be happy in an abusive relationship or whatever, that is totally ok.  any topic presented in any way should be ok and free to explore.  do books from psycho killers pov glorify murder and present it to people as something fun and enjoyable ? we have to assume readers have brains.  having said that, if the way you deal with your topic is poorly written, uninteresting, flat pile of garbage, the criticism is deserved, and i believe both these books received it.  i just do not agree with this particular focus of criticism.   #  in twilight, bella, who is a mary sue, is constantly rewarded for having an abusive boyfriend.   #  there is a big difference between twilight and wuthering heights though in that wuthering heights is about a bunch of horrible people making their lives more horrible because they are horrible.  we understand why they are horrible, but being horrible does not make their lives better.  in twilight, bella, who is a mary sue, is constantly rewarded for having an abusive boyfriend.  it romanticizes the idea that her boyfriend wants to hurt her, and does sometimes, but he loves her so much that he does not kill her, and that he is constantly separating her from her friends and family to  protect  her.  who would want a boyfriend like that ? the answer is  apparently lots of teenage girls.   i doubt they hang posters of him in their rooms because the character gave them some insight into an abusive partner.   #  and by giving it all this controversy it is lifted to a status it absolutely does not deserve, the one of a provocative work.   #  but a lot of teenage girls would not want a boyfriend like that because of what they read in a book, they are drawn to the book because apparently they want a boyfriend like that.  the book is a great indicator of people is shallowness, stupidity and weakness, but not the cause of it.  and by giving it all this controversy it is lifted to a status it absolutely does not deserve, the one of a provocative work.  it is not interesting enough for that.  better question is why are young girls drawn to these types of guys ? yeah, wh is a great book and characters suffer, but its greatness is not in the fact it taught any lesson it did not even try to , but the fact it presented us with amazing characters.  i even liked some aspects of catherines and heathcliff is relationship and identified with some of their traits, but that does not mean i would want something like that and not because they did not end well so luckily i was not taught the wrong thing.  there are other books dealing with controversial topics told from perspectives that can make murders and rapes seem like a great fun, but if the book is well written and respects readers iq, it does not actually suffer when it does not deliver the point  but it is actually bad, do not do that.
i saw many posts on tumblr mostly by feminists pointing out that 0 shades of grey is a dangerous book to be read by teenage girls and young women, claiming that the relationship portrayed in the book is abusive and shouldn´t be took as role model.  well, i´ve read the book, and that relationship is consensual.  the book is just poorly written.  if we apply this logic, twilight is a dangerous book too, as edward cullen is christian grey, just with a few differences.  i think teenage girls shouldn´t read 0 shades in my country is a rated r book and if they can´t see any difference in fiction and reality, is not the book´s fault.  this may be wrong, so i´m posting here to see if anyone can change my view.   #  if they can´t see any difference in fiction and reality, is not the book´s fault.   #  censoring media  for our own good  is an old argument, and i think it is a very slippery slope.   # well, i´ve read the book, and that relationship is consensual.  the book is just poorly written.  poorly written in that the relationship it  thinks  its portraying is very different to the relationship it is  actually  portraying.  if it was a straight up rape and ravishment bodice ripper the  tumblr feminists  would not be nearly as irate well okay, some of them still would be, but for different reasons.  it is that the author actually believes she is describing a sexy, romantic, consensual relationship when what is there on the page is the complete opposite.  censoring media  for our own good  is an old argument, and i think it is a very slippery slope.  i would rather the system we have now: something controversial gets published, people get upset, and all sorts of interesting debate results.   #  but saying they are dangerous because they portray unhealthy relationships is really really silly and i do not believe such criticism should belong to discussion of literature.   # but that is kind of a dumb point.  some of the great books with extreme quality focus on horrible relationships and not in a moralizing or educational way either.  great works of art make us like, identify and sympathize with some pretty horrible characters.  these two books are clearly total crap, and that is their problem.  the relationships are insipid and uninteresting.  but saying they are dangerous because they portray unhealthy relationships is really really silly and i do not believe such criticism should belong to discussion of literature.  it is not the authors role to present role models.   #  great books present unhealthy situations or portray morally questionable characters in ways where they can be liked and admired.   #  again, book is not supposed to be a propaganda, especially work of fiction.  great books present unhealthy situations or portray morally questionable characters in ways where they can be liked and admired.  this shitty book has no obligation to anyone and if it wants to talk about two people who believe to be happy in an abusive relationship or whatever, that is totally ok.  any topic presented in any way should be ok and free to explore.  do books from psycho killers pov glorify murder and present it to people as something fun and enjoyable ? we have to assume readers have brains.  having said that, if the way you deal with your topic is poorly written, uninteresting, flat pile of garbage, the criticism is deserved, and i believe both these books received it.  i just do not agree with this particular focus of criticism.   #  we understand why they are horrible, but being horrible does not make their lives better.   #  there is a big difference between twilight and wuthering heights though in that wuthering heights is about a bunch of horrible people making their lives more horrible because they are horrible.  we understand why they are horrible, but being horrible does not make their lives better.  in twilight, bella, who is a mary sue, is constantly rewarded for having an abusive boyfriend.  it romanticizes the idea that her boyfriend wants to hurt her, and does sometimes, but he loves her so much that he does not kill her, and that he is constantly separating her from her friends and family to  protect  her.  who would want a boyfriend like that ? the answer is  apparently lots of teenage girls.   i doubt they hang posters of him in their rooms because the character gave them some insight into an abusive partner.   #  yeah, wh is a great book and characters suffer, but its greatness is not in the fact it taught any lesson it did not even try to , but the fact it presented us with amazing characters.   #  but a lot of teenage girls would not want a boyfriend like that because of what they read in a book, they are drawn to the book because apparently they want a boyfriend like that.  the book is a great indicator of people is shallowness, stupidity and weakness, but not the cause of it.  and by giving it all this controversy it is lifted to a status it absolutely does not deserve, the one of a provocative work.  it is not interesting enough for that.  better question is why are young girls drawn to these types of guys ? yeah, wh is a great book and characters suffer, but its greatness is not in the fact it taught any lesson it did not even try to , but the fact it presented us with amazing characters.  i even liked some aspects of catherines and heathcliff is relationship and identified with some of their traits, but that does not mean i would want something like that and not because they did not end well so luckily i was not taught the wrong thing.  there are other books dealing with controversial topics told from perspectives that can make murders and rapes seem like a great fun, but if the book is well written and respects readers iq, it does not actually suffer when it does not deliver the point  but it is actually bad, do not do that.
in the past i have tried to start reading comic books, but i find a certain hurdle that prevents me from really delving into the medium, the price.  while three or four dollars is not much money on its own, the entertainment value of the product, in my experience, not worth the amount i pay.  i will use an example.  recently, i bought the first issue of the new ms.  marvel series at $0.  in it, there were 0 pages of story and it took me about 0 0 minutes maybe to read through the whole book.  there were about four scenes in the book the store, the house, the party, and kamala gaining her powers , all of which served to introduce kamala, but little else.  while the narrative was entertaining, it stopped the moment it began to develop, leaving a hook for the reader to dish out an additional three dollars to further the story.  conversely, a film ticket may cost about three times as much about seven ten dollars depending on where and when you buy the ticket , but for that price you are getting at least an hour and a half of entertainment with a full three act story.  a book can cost between five to twenty dollars, but for that price you are getting at least several hours worth of entertainment.  URL i have read other comics and i can usually finish an issue in about 0 minutes.  to me, paying three or four dollars for about ten minutes of entertainment is not worth it.   #  while three or four dollars is not much money on its own, the entertainment value of the product, in my experience, not worth the amount i pay.   #  i think this statement says more about your personal preferences than it does about the actual entertainment value of the media you have purchased.   # i think this statement says more about your personal preferences than it does about the actual entertainment value of the media you have purchased.  for me, the entertainment value of a superman comic book would be zero.  nil.  i do not like comics, do not  get  comics, and even if i spent 0 0 minutes reading one, it would be an exercise in tedium, not entertainment.  for sheldon cooper, not only is that superman comic extremely entertaining to read, it is also cause for a fun foray to the comic book store, something to add to my extensive collection, something to talk to my friends about, and something to re read and immerse myself in until the next one comes out.  for you, there is no enjoyment or entertainment in the comic further than the time you spend reading it, and that is fine.  but for someone else who wants to collect it, or read it with their friends, or study the artwork it may provide many hours of entertainment.   #  i paid $0 for ftl and i have spent 0 hours on it.   #  i paid $0 dollars for pokemon x, which i have over 0 hours of game time on my save file.  that is about 0 minutes per cent.  that is a good return on investment, and it was worth my money.  i paid $0 for ftl and i have spent 0 hours on it.  that is 0 minutes per cent.  if we are going just of duration, that is still pretty good.  i bought ico for $0, and played it for about 0 hours.  you can already see by the numbers that i did not get nearly the same amount of play time from ico.  but the value of the game is not just based on how much time i spent on it.  was ico disproportionally expensive compared to the other games ? in minutes per cent, it is not nearly as good of an investment.  i only got about 0 seconds per cent compared to 0 minutes per cent.  ico was a different type of experience that had it is own unique impact.  i ca not just spend that $0 on a game like pokemon and get another $0  0/cent 0 hours of enjoyment.  well, i guess i might be able to, but it would be a different type of enjoyment.  it is a different experience.  i am paying for something that is different and interesting in its own way.  comic books might be more expensive per minutes spent reading them, and more expensive per story arc, but they scratch a different itch.  they do not benefit as much from the economies of scale that make movies so inexpensive for what they are.  you are going to see different types of stories because of the medium and scale, and these are stories you wo not see in the theater.   #  movies and television offer a combination of audiovisual assets to deliver a narrative.   #  wonderful counterpoint.  i just want one detail delved into a little more.  they do not benefit as much from the economies of scale that make movies so inexpensive for what they are.  you are going to see different types of stories because of the medium and scale, and these are stories you wo not see in the theater.  could i ask for a specific example of exactly what kind of  itch  you are speaking of ? what exactly is it about the medium of comic books that it offers that other mediums cannot.  video games offer a sense of immersion and placing the player within a world that they can interact with.  movies and television offer a combination of audiovisual assets to deliver a narrative.  fictitious literature relies on the imagination of the reader to craft a variable setting.   #  sure, you see the characters, but you do not see how they move, or how they sound.   # this is one such itch.  because there is less to see, there is more left to the imagination.  sure, you see the characters, but you do not see how they move, or how they sound.  those are in your head, and some people like it that way.  the techniques used are different.  comics do not have cameras that can pan and sweep and zoom, but they do have panel placement, different styles of art, and their own visual language.  a comic is something that is more accessible to anyone who can draw, and so it can serve as inspiration to new artists.   #  animation can also do this, but it also costs a lot more to produce so it generally is made to portray to a much broader audience than a comic may be since they need more to break even.   #  to piggyback on /u/amablue is point comics also offer a medium to tell stories that do not work as well in other forms.  television and movies are limited by actual physics and it can make it very difficult to do things like superheroes in a way that is so easy to portray in comics.  animation can also do this, but it also costs a lot more to produce so it generally is made to portray to a much broader audience than a comic may be since they need more to break even.  also they are restricted by age ratings on what they are allowed to broadcast on television.  books leave more to the imagination and give you a different type of immersion than you get from comic books.  videogames have to balance not only storytelling and artwork, but also with the interactive gameplay that might not be any kind of relevant to the story being told and if done poorly can destroy an otherwise great storyline.  comicbooks offer something in a medium that nothing else can quite capture.
experience machine : some form of device that completely controls a person is mental state.  not the popular  matrix  one, because it does not have complete control.  i mean 0 control over the persons mental state.  typically, the experience machine is set to produce the greatest happiness possible, or the happiest mental state possible.  that is the definition i am using here.  an act is morally justified if it creates the maximum pleasure for the maximum number.  if the pleasure resulting from an act is more than the pain, then it is justified.  consequentialism in my scenario, i forcibly connect a person into the experience machine.  i force him to experience the greatest possible happiness imaginable, for the longest time possible.  the sheer magnitude of pleasure far outweighs any pain/violation of rights i can cause in the kidnapping and so on, since the value of the pleasure here is infinite.  thus, when such an experience machine is invented, it would always be justified to plug as many people into the machine as possible, no matter what pain is involved in the process.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  cmv !  #  thus, when such an experience machine is invented, it would always be justified to plug as many people into the machine as possible, no matter what pain is involved in the process.   #  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.   #  you are focusing only on the consequences really only maximizing hedons for the person being plugged in.  however, what of the consequences for family, friends, society as a whole ? certainly kidnapping the world is top aids researcher would not be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness.  also, assume that the hook up is only temporary.  what plans have you interfered with ? did the person miss something important ? alternatively, if you take someone off the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness.  another point to consider is that not everyone prioritizes pure hedons.  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  you can maximize individual happiness while decreasing total happiness.   #  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.   # certainly kidnapping the world is top aids researcher would not be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness.  why ? the researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible.  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.  maybe he would regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life.  denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me.  what plans have you interfered with ? did the person miss something important ? alternatively, if you take someone off the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness.  i concede that a temporary experience machine would make you want to kill yourself afterwards.  assume in this case either that the machine lasts as long as the person connected.  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.  the machine is not a 0/0 sex drugs and rocknroll party.  it gives you the most valuable mental state you have.  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  i am not sure i understand this part.  plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me.  everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness.  the end of suffering.  how can you argue against that ?  #  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.   # the researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible.  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.  maybe he would regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life.  denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me.  this makes the situation implausible.  you think that the experience machine could be programmed so accurately to the external world as to facilitate scientific  discovery  inside it ? no, the programming of the machine would reflect the current level of scientific understanding.  you would not be discovering anything about quarks in the experience machine.  it gives you the most valuable mental state you have.  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.  unless the machine actually shapes the person is reaction to situations as well, the increase in happiness will not be as large as you claim.  suffering is unavoidable in any situation whether from boredom, weariness etc.  however, if you allow the machine to dictate response to the imagined scenario, then it is essentially just a dopamine dispenser.  also, people value what they take to be  real  connections to others/the outside world.  a person who is a doctor values  actually helping people .  giving him the experiences of helping imaginary computer programs is, in some sense, deeply wrong.  his happiness is illusory in a way.  plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me.  everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness.  the end of suffering.  how can you argue against that ? plugging everyone in is different than plugging person x into the machine.  plug person x into the machine and the happiness/utility he produced for society goes away as well.  also, remember that not everyone believes that happiness is the end goal.  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.  people have a right to choose to suffer, in effect.   #  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.   # no, it would only be an illusion of discovery, like everything else in the machine.  yes, everything in the machine is an illusion.  my point is, however, that happiness derived from the machine is just as good as happiness derived from the world we live in, since while in the machine it is impossible to know you are not in the real world.  plug person x into the machine and the happiness/utility he produced for society goes away as well.  also, remember that not everyone believes that happiness is the end goal.  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.  people have a right to choose to suffer, in effect.  rights such as self ownership help facilitate happiness.  happiness from being free and having rights is still in the end happiness.   #  pure hedonistic consequentialism like you are assuming has very significant objections.   # which removes the utils from him curing aids.  happiness from being free and having rights is still in the end happiness.  that is a strong metaethical claim that needs arguing.  pure hedonistic consequentialism like you are assuming has very significant objections.  in fact, if your version of consequentialism would allow such forceful pluggings, that may be seen as a  counterexample  to the metaethical theory in general.
experience machine : some form of device that completely controls a person is mental state.  not the popular  matrix  one, because it does not have complete control.  i mean 0 control over the persons mental state.  typically, the experience machine is set to produce the greatest happiness possible, or the happiest mental state possible.  that is the definition i am using here.  an act is morally justified if it creates the maximum pleasure for the maximum number.  if the pleasure resulting from an act is more than the pain, then it is justified.  consequentialism in my scenario, i forcibly connect a person into the experience machine.  i force him to experience the greatest possible happiness imaginable, for the longest time possible.  the sheer magnitude of pleasure far outweighs any pain/violation of rights i can cause in the kidnapping and so on, since the value of the pleasure here is infinite.  thus, when such an experience machine is invented, it would always be justified to plug as many people into the machine as possible, no matter what pain is involved in the process.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  cmv !  #  thus, when such an experience machine is invented, it would always be justified to plug as many people into the machine as possible, no matter what pain is involved in the process.   #  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.   # certainly kidnapping the world is top aids researcher would not be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness.  why ? the researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible.  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.  maybe he would regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life.  denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me.  what plans have you interfered with ? did the person miss something important ? alternatively, if you take someone off the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness.  i concede that a temporary experience machine would make you want to kill yourself afterwards.  assume in this case either that the machine lasts as long as the person connected.  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.  the machine is not a 0/0 sex drugs and rocknroll party.  it gives you the most valuable mental state you have.  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  i am not sure i understand this part.  plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me.  everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness.  the end of suffering.  how can you argue against that ?  #  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.   #  you are focusing only on the consequences really only maximizing hedons for the person being plugged in.  however, what of the consequences for family, friends, society as a whole ? certainly kidnapping the world is top aids researcher would not be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness.  also, assume that the hook up is only temporary.  what plans have you interfered with ? did the person miss something important ? alternatively, if you take someone off the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness.  another point to consider is that not everyone prioritizes pure hedons.  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  you can maximize individual happiness while decreasing total happiness.   #  a person who is a doctor values  actually helping people .   # the researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible.  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.  maybe he would regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life.  denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me.  this makes the situation implausible.  you think that the experience machine could be programmed so accurately to the external world as to facilitate scientific  discovery  inside it ? no, the programming of the machine would reflect the current level of scientific understanding.  you would not be discovering anything about quarks in the experience machine.  it gives you the most valuable mental state you have.  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.  unless the machine actually shapes the person is reaction to situations as well, the increase in happiness will not be as large as you claim.  suffering is unavoidable in any situation whether from boredom, weariness etc.  however, if you allow the machine to dictate response to the imagined scenario, then it is essentially just a dopamine dispenser.  also, people value what they take to be  real  connections to others/the outside world.  a person who is a doctor values  actually helping people .  giving him the experiences of helping imaginary computer programs is, in some sense, deeply wrong.  his happiness is illusory in a way.  plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me.  everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness.  the end of suffering.  how can you argue against that ? plugging everyone in is different than plugging person x into the machine.  plug person x into the machine and the happiness/utility he produced for society goes away as well.  also, remember that not everyone believes that happiness is the end goal.  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.  people have a right to choose to suffer, in effect.   #  no, it would only be an illusion of discovery, like everything else in the machine.   # no, it would only be an illusion of discovery, like everything else in the machine.  yes, everything in the machine is an illusion.  my point is, however, that happiness derived from the machine is just as good as happiness derived from the world we live in, since while in the machine it is impossible to know you are not in the real world.  plug person x into the machine and the happiness/utility he produced for society goes away as well.  also, remember that not everyone believes that happiness is the end goal.  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.  people have a right to choose to suffer, in effect.  rights such as self ownership help facilitate happiness.  happiness from being free and having rights is still in the end happiness.   #  pure hedonistic consequentialism like you are assuming has very significant objections.   # which removes the utils from him curing aids.  happiness from being free and having rights is still in the end happiness.  that is a strong metaethical claim that needs arguing.  pure hedonistic consequentialism like you are assuming has very significant objections.  in fact, if your version of consequentialism would allow such forceful pluggings, that may be seen as a  counterexample  to the metaethical theory in general.
experience machine : some form of device that completely controls a person is mental state.  not the popular  matrix  one, because it does not have complete control.  i mean 0 control over the persons mental state.  typically, the experience machine is set to produce the greatest happiness possible, or the happiest mental state possible.  that is the definition i am using here.  an act is morally justified if it creates the maximum pleasure for the maximum number.  if the pleasure resulting from an act is more than the pain, then it is justified.  consequentialism in my scenario, i forcibly connect a person into the experience machine.  i force him to experience the greatest possible happiness imaginable, for the longest time possible.  the sheer magnitude of pleasure far outweighs any pain/violation of rights i can cause in the kidnapping and so on, since the value of the pleasure here is infinite.  thus, when such an experience machine is invented, it would always be justified to plug as many people into the machine as possible, no matter what pain is involved in the process.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  cmv !  #  an act is morally justified if it creates the maximum pleasure for the maximum number.   #  if the pleasure resulting from an act is more than the pain, then it is justified.   # if the pleasure resulting from an act is more than the pain, then it is justified.  consequentialism first of all, consequentialism is much broader than the theory you are describing.  consequentialists hold that  normative properties depend only on consequences  URL but that does not automatically entail the kind of utilitarianism you are describing.  and i do not know enough about normative ethics to really get into this, but very few utilititarian philosophers would agree that forcing someone into an experience machine is justified.  more sophisticated theories of utilitarianism exist.  anyway, more to the point, you have given us no reason to think that your statement of utilitarianism is true, so why should we believe it ? the fact that your hypothetical seems so intuitively wrong suggests that we have good reason to be suspicious of such a theory.  if a theory is going to throw our very strong intuitions out the window, it should have some justification behind it.   #  however, what of the consequences for family, friends, society as a whole ?  #  you are focusing only on the consequences really only maximizing hedons for the person being plugged in.  however, what of the consequences for family, friends, society as a whole ? certainly kidnapping the world is top aids researcher would not be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness.  also, assume that the hook up is only temporary.  what plans have you interfered with ? did the person miss something important ? alternatively, if you take someone off the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness.  another point to consider is that not everyone prioritizes pure hedons.  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  you can maximize individual happiness while decreasing total happiness.   #  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.   # certainly kidnapping the world is top aids researcher would not be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness.  why ? the researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible.  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.  maybe he would regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life.  denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me.  what plans have you interfered with ? did the person miss something important ? alternatively, if you take someone off the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness.  i concede that a temporary experience machine would make you want to kill yourself afterwards.  assume in this case either that the machine lasts as long as the person connected.  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.  the machine is not a 0/0 sex drugs and rocknroll party.  it gives you the most valuable mental state you have.  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  i am not sure i understand this part.  plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me.  everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness.  the end of suffering.  how can you argue against that ?  #  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.   # the researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible.  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.  maybe he would regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life.  denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me.  this makes the situation implausible.  you think that the experience machine could be programmed so accurately to the external world as to facilitate scientific  discovery  inside it ? no, the programming of the machine would reflect the current level of scientific understanding.  you would not be discovering anything about quarks in the experience machine.  it gives you the most valuable mental state you have.  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.  unless the machine actually shapes the person is reaction to situations as well, the increase in happiness will not be as large as you claim.  suffering is unavoidable in any situation whether from boredom, weariness etc.  however, if you allow the machine to dictate response to the imagined scenario, then it is essentially just a dopamine dispenser.  also, people value what they take to be  real  connections to others/the outside world.  a person who is a doctor values  actually helping people .  giving him the experiences of helping imaginary computer programs is, in some sense, deeply wrong.  his happiness is illusory in a way.  plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me.  everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness.  the end of suffering.  how can you argue against that ? plugging everyone in is different than plugging person x into the machine.  plug person x into the machine and the happiness/utility he produced for society goes away as well.  also, remember that not everyone believes that happiness is the end goal.  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.  people have a right to choose to suffer, in effect.   #  rights such as self ownership help facilitate happiness.   # no, it would only be an illusion of discovery, like everything else in the machine.  yes, everything in the machine is an illusion.  my point is, however, that happiness derived from the machine is just as good as happiness derived from the world we live in, since while in the machine it is impossible to know you are not in the real world.  plug person x into the machine and the happiness/utility he produced for society goes away as well.  also, remember that not everyone believes that happiness is the end goal.  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.  people have a right to choose to suffer, in effect.  rights such as self ownership help facilitate happiness.  happiness from being free and having rights is still in the end happiness.
experience machine : some form of device that completely controls a person is mental state.  not the popular  matrix  one, because it does not have complete control.  i mean 0 control over the persons mental state.  typically, the experience machine is set to produce the greatest happiness possible, or the happiest mental state possible.  that is the definition i am using here.  an act is morally justified if it creates the maximum pleasure for the maximum number.  if the pleasure resulting from an act is more than the pain, then it is justified.  consequentialism in my scenario, i forcibly connect a person into the experience machine.  i force him to experience the greatest possible happiness imaginable, for the longest time possible.  the sheer magnitude of pleasure far outweighs any pain/violation of rights i can cause in the kidnapping and so on, since the value of the pleasure here is infinite.  thus, when such an experience machine is invented, it would always be justified to plug as many people into the machine as possible, no matter what pain is involved in the process.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  cmv !  #  an act is morally justified if it creates the maximum pleasure for the maximum number.   #  if the pleasure resulting from an act is more than the pain, then it is justified.   # if the pleasure resulting from an act is more than the pain, then it is justified.  consequentialism what if you connect a person to the machine who was going to convince/force 0,0 other people into connecting into the machine.  now that they ca not do that anymore, those 0,0 people wo not connect.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  what if the experience machine needs power from two people connected to an  anti experience  machine, that creates the maximum amount of pain/unhappiness possible ?  #  you can maximize individual happiness while decreasing total happiness.   #  you are focusing only on the consequences really only maximizing hedons for the person being plugged in.  however, what of the consequences for family, friends, society as a whole ? certainly kidnapping the world is top aids researcher would not be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness.  also, assume that the hook up is only temporary.  what plans have you interfered with ? did the person miss something important ? alternatively, if you take someone off the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness.  another point to consider is that not everyone prioritizes pure hedons.  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  you can maximize individual happiness while decreasing total happiness.   #  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.   # certainly kidnapping the world is top aids researcher would not be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness.  why ? the researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible.  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.  maybe he would regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life.  denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me.  what plans have you interfered with ? did the person miss something important ? alternatively, if you take someone off the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness.  i concede that a temporary experience machine would make you want to kill yourself afterwards.  assume in this case either that the machine lasts as long as the person connected.  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.  the machine is not a 0/0 sex drugs and rocknroll party.  it gives you the most valuable mental state you have.  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  i am not sure i understand this part.  plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me.  everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness.  the end of suffering.  how can you argue against that ?  #  giving him the experiences of helping imaginary computer programs is, in some sense, deeply wrong.   # the researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible.  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.  maybe he would regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life.  denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me.  this makes the situation implausible.  you think that the experience machine could be programmed so accurately to the external world as to facilitate scientific  discovery  inside it ? no, the programming of the machine would reflect the current level of scientific understanding.  you would not be discovering anything about quarks in the experience machine.  it gives you the most valuable mental state you have.  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.  unless the machine actually shapes the person is reaction to situations as well, the increase in happiness will not be as large as you claim.  suffering is unavoidable in any situation whether from boredom, weariness etc.  however, if you allow the machine to dictate response to the imagined scenario, then it is essentially just a dopamine dispenser.  also, people value what they take to be  real  connections to others/the outside world.  a person who is a doctor values  actually helping people .  giving him the experiences of helping imaginary computer programs is, in some sense, deeply wrong.  his happiness is illusory in a way.  plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me.  everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness.  the end of suffering.  how can you argue against that ? plugging everyone in is different than plugging person x into the machine.  plug person x into the machine and the happiness/utility he produced for society goes away as well.  also, remember that not everyone believes that happiness is the end goal.  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.  people have a right to choose to suffer, in effect.   #  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.   # no, it would only be an illusion of discovery, like everything else in the machine.  yes, everything in the machine is an illusion.  my point is, however, that happiness derived from the machine is just as good as happiness derived from the world we live in, since while in the machine it is impossible to know you are not in the real world.  plug person x into the machine and the happiness/utility he produced for society goes away as well.  also, remember that not everyone believes that happiness is the end goal.  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.  people have a right to choose to suffer, in effect.  rights such as self ownership help facilitate happiness.  happiness from being free and having rights is still in the end happiness.
experience machine : some form of device that completely controls a person is mental state.  not the popular  matrix  one, because it does not have complete control.  i mean 0 control over the persons mental state.  typically, the experience machine is set to produce the greatest happiness possible, or the happiest mental state possible.  that is the definition i am using here.  an act is morally justified if it creates the maximum pleasure for the maximum number.  if the pleasure resulting from an act is more than the pain, then it is justified.  consequentialism in my scenario, i forcibly connect a person into the experience machine.  i force him to experience the greatest possible happiness imaginable, for the longest time possible.  the sheer magnitude of pleasure far outweighs any pain/violation of rights i can cause in the kidnapping and so on, since the value of the pleasure here is infinite.  thus, when such an experience machine is invented, it would always be justified to plug as many people into the machine as possible, no matter what pain is involved in the process.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  cmv !  #  thus, when such an experience machine is invented, it would always be justified to plug as many people into the machine as possible, no matter what pain is involved in the process.   #  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.   # if the pleasure resulting from an act is more than the pain, then it is justified.  consequentialism what if you connect a person to the machine who was going to convince/force 0,0 other people into connecting into the machine.  now that they ca not do that anymore, those 0,0 people wo not connect.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  what if the experience machine needs power from two people connected to an  anti experience  machine, that creates the maximum amount of pain/unhappiness possible ?  #  another point to consider is that not everyone prioritizes pure hedons.   #  you are focusing only on the consequences really only maximizing hedons for the person being plugged in.  however, what of the consequences for family, friends, society as a whole ? certainly kidnapping the world is top aids researcher would not be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness.  also, assume that the hook up is only temporary.  what plans have you interfered with ? did the person miss something important ? alternatively, if you take someone off the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness.  another point to consider is that not everyone prioritizes pure hedons.  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  you can maximize individual happiness while decreasing total happiness.   #  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.   # certainly kidnapping the world is top aids researcher would not be justified, even though he would maximize his own happiness.  why ? the researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible.  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.  maybe he would regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life.  denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me.  what plans have you interfered with ? did the person miss something important ? alternatively, if you take someone off the machine, life will undoubtedly seem unbearable after a time of pure happiness.  i concede that a temporary experience machine would make you want to kill yourself afterwards.  assume in this case either that the machine lasts as long as the person connected.  i am not convinced as well that a life with more hedons is more valuable.  the machine is not a 0/0 sex drugs and rocknroll party.  it gives you the most valuable mental state you have.  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.  it would be immoral to deny the greatest possible happiness to someone.  i am not sure i understand this part.  plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me.  everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness.  the end of suffering.  how can you argue against that ?  #  however, if you allow the machine to dictate response to the imagined scenario, then it is essentially just a dopamine dispenser.   # the researcher would experience the greatest possible happiness possible.  in his virtual world he would cure aids and every other disease and fulfill every dream he has.  maybe he would regain the use of his leg, get married to the love of his life.  denying this happiness to him seems unjustified to me.  this makes the situation implausible.  you think that the experience machine could be programmed so accurately to the external world as to facilitate scientific  discovery  inside it ? no, the programming of the machine would reflect the current level of scientific understanding.  you would not be discovering anything about quarks in the experience machine.  it gives you the most valuable mental state you have.  if you get happiness from a life of monk like ascetic living, you will get that in the machine.  unless the machine actually shapes the person is reaction to situations as well, the increase in happiness will not be as large as you claim.  suffering is unavoidable in any situation whether from boredom, weariness etc.  however, if you allow the machine to dictate response to the imagined scenario, then it is essentially just a dopamine dispenser.  also, people value what they take to be  real  connections to others/the outside world.  a person who is a doctor values  actually helping people .  giving him the experiences of helping imaginary computer programs is, in some sense, deeply wrong.  his happiness is illusory in a way.  plugging everyone into the machine would seem like the most moral act imaginable to me.  everyone would be experiencing the greatest possible happiness.  the end of suffering.  how can you argue against that ? plugging everyone in is different than plugging person x into the machine.  plug person x into the machine and the happiness/utility he produced for society goes away as well.  also, remember that not everyone believes that happiness is the end goal.  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.  people have a right to choose to suffer, in effect.   #  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.   # no, it would only be an illusion of discovery, like everything else in the machine.  yes, everything in the machine is an illusion.  my point is, however, that happiness derived from the machine is just as good as happiness derived from the world we live in, since while in the machine it is impossible to know you are not in the real world.  plug person x into the machine and the happiness/utility he produced for society goes away as well.  also, remember that not everyone believes that happiness is the end goal.  rights such as self ownership trump happiness of the individual.  thus, these people will deny your premise at the very start.  no amount of post plugging happiness can swamp the rights violation that continues while the person is hooked up or being hooked up.  people have a right to choose to suffer, in effect.  rights such as self ownership help facilitate happiness.  happiness from being free and having rights is still in the end happiness.
reading a novel and watching a movie are in my view very similar.  a typical argument would be how much more engaging a book is because you are using your imagination to form scenes and develop characters, but i think readers generally take that concept to a level that simply does not exist.  i do not read for pleasure, because it takes the writer 0 pages to explain what 0 frames on a tv could.  maybe you redditors are thinking  well, they always leave out the detailz ! the movie was so bad cause they did not depict it how i did in my head !   well mr.  redditor, there are people out there with multimillion dollar budgets, talent, and years of training to make a well thought out, and skilled piece of art that puts the imagination on the page.  in my view, this power to make a reality within a frame, as well as 0st century hollywood does, makes this somewhat of an evolution in story telling and visualization.  change my view.   #  a typical argument would be how much more engaging a book is because you are using your imagination to form scenes and develop characters, but i think readers generally take that concept to a level that simply does not exist.   #  honestly this is one of the reasons reasons i like reading books.   # honestly this is one of the reasons reasons i like reading books.  it is also the reason why i prefer manga to anime.  you can imagine stuff.  you get a description and can build the scenery, characters and other stuff up yourself.  my main reason though why i read is that it is that i really get dragged into a story.  i want to know what comes next.  a movie cannot really give you this feeling because it will be over in 0 hours.  sure series  are different but even there you watch something in 0 hour that you would read in maybe 0 or more.  another thing i personally like about reading is that it is relaxing and you can dive into the book.  it is only the book and you and nothing else.  even when i am in a cinema and watching a movie i will get distracted or start laughing or talk to my friend about something.  you will never be 0 in the story because you are more or less forced to watch it for an hour or two.  reading a book is much more relaxing than watching a movie and you can stop when you want.  but sometimes a book can explain things that are not possible to show in a movie.  a book give you the opportunity to show a story from a different side.  to hide things from the reader.  i will bring an example from the song of ice and fire series: when sam meats arya that would be something immediately obvious while watching because you see the characters.  while in the book you figure it out based upon what you already know.  a book can also much better describe and show what certain characters feel and think than a movie can.  also with a book the writer always controls very precisely what the reader knows.  a movie can either show or not show but because you have a clear voice and picture it will be difficult to hide certain things.   #  books can be written with pen and paper, and therefore are a much more accesible and democratic medium than films with megabudgets and a thousand cooks in the kitchen.   #  books allow you to read at your own speed and trace back with just an eye movement.  books can be enjoyed in silence.  books allow/force/stimulate you to imagine a scene yourself, drawing on your own experiences and fantasy, leading to much more vivid scenes.  books can easily utilize abstract concepts that are impossible to show in a film.  books can be written with pen and paper, and therefore are a much more accesible and democratic medium than films with megabudgets and a thousand cooks in the kitchen.  this also makes them more individualistic and open for experiment, and you can make thousands of books with the budget for one film, leading to much greater diversity.   #  also, books are enjoyed in more than 0 hours.   #  nah, a book can contain immense detail and have multiple pages describing an event, from multiple points of view and locations.  by contrast, in movies you have to move at 0 second per second.  in books, you can hang in infinity as much as you like.  also, first person narration, which i love when done in movies.  also, books are enjoyed in more than 0 hours.   #  but the ways they are made, the ways they are received, and the ways they engage the audience are practically on opposite ends of the spectrum.   #  your first statement is that reading a book and watching a movie are very similar.  my immediate reaction to this was  really ?  .  i think the two are extremely dissimilar and are two completely different types of entertainment.  the only thing in common is that they are storytelling devices.  but the ways they are made, the ways they are received, and the ways they engage the audience are practically on opposite ends of the spectrum.  so naturally when you said this, i was curious how you were going to prove that they are related.  and yet, you go on to note how differently each medium functions.  the only thing close to a real argument you make is that movies accomplish things in a manner that you, personally, prefer.  well, okay then.  so you do not have the patience to read a book and you prefer the movie to create the scenes for you, rather than you having to think about them.  that is fine; everyone has their own preferences.  how does that make movies objectively superior or outdated ?  #  the strength of both these was the complexity and realization of their worlds.   #  if you do not read very much, than how can your view have any kind of support ? books can be structured in ways that movies simply cannot, or at least have not been.  i do not see how a truly representative film could be made of ulysses for example which has a decent movie adaptation the relative obscurity of which is telling , or of house of leaves, infinite jest, or catch 0, or lovecraft in general to name a few, but these titles are not like to sway your opinion because in all likelihood you have not read them which is a travesty of the highest order .  we also have the phenomenon of simply mediocre adaptations being cranked out almost on a schedule.  true, it may be possible for a television or film adaptation of, say, the brothers karamazov or crime and punishment to be produced, and indeed several have, but all of them at least all of which i am aware are, if not terrible, only of moderate watchability despite these books  status as some of the best ever written.  how many times must this be repeated before we simply conclude that some structurally adaptable books simply do not translate well to the screen anyway ? and even then, in the case of relatively successful and accomplished adaptations, the difference in detail is readily apparent, especially in the adaptation of lord of the rings and a song of ice and fire.  the strength of both these was the complexity and realization of their worlds.  this quality is, depending on who you ask, either completely neutered or severely reduced in the screen adaptations.  i personally have  forgotten  more about a song of ice and fire than most people who only watch the show ever knew about it.
reading a novel and watching a movie are in my view very similar.  a typical argument would be how much more engaging a book is because you are using your imagination to form scenes and develop characters, but i think readers generally take that concept to a level that simply does not exist.  i do not read for pleasure, because it takes the writer 0 pages to explain what 0 frames on a tv could.  maybe you redditors are thinking  well, they always leave out the detailz ! the movie was so bad cause they did not depict it how i did in my head !   well mr.  redditor, there are people out there with multimillion dollar budgets, talent, and years of training to make a well thought out, and skilled piece of art that puts the imagination on the page.  in my view, this power to make a reality within a frame, as well as 0st century hollywood does, makes this somewhat of an evolution in story telling and visualization.  change my view.   #  0 pages to explain what 0 frames on a tv could.   #  but sometimes a book can explain things that are not possible to show in a movie.   # honestly this is one of the reasons reasons i like reading books.  it is also the reason why i prefer manga to anime.  you can imagine stuff.  you get a description and can build the scenery, characters and other stuff up yourself.  my main reason though why i read is that it is that i really get dragged into a story.  i want to know what comes next.  a movie cannot really give you this feeling because it will be over in 0 hours.  sure series  are different but even there you watch something in 0 hour that you would read in maybe 0 or more.  another thing i personally like about reading is that it is relaxing and you can dive into the book.  it is only the book and you and nothing else.  even when i am in a cinema and watching a movie i will get distracted or start laughing or talk to my friend about something.  you will never be 0 in the story because you are more or less forced to watch it for an hour or two.  reading a book is much more relaxing than watching a movie and you can stop when you want.  but sometimes a book can explain things that are not possible to show in a movie.  a book give you the opportunity to show a story from a different side.  to hide things from the reader.  i will bring an example from the song of ice and fire series: when sam meats arya that would be something immediately obvious while watching because you see the characters.  while in the book you figure it out based upon what you already know.  a book can also much better describe and show what certain characters feel and think than a movie can.  also with a book the writer always controls very precisely what the reader knows.  a movie can either show or not show but because you have a clear voice and picture it will be difficult to hide certain things.   #  books allow/force/stimulate you to imagine a scene yourself, drawing on your own experiences and fantasy, leading to much more vivid scenes.   #  books allow you to read at your own speed and trace back with just an eye movement.  books can be enjoyed in silence.  books allow/force/stimulate you to imagine a scene yourself, drawing on your own experiences and fantasy, leading to much more vivid scenes.  books can easily utilize abstract concepts that are impossible to show in a film.  books can be written with pen and paper, and therefore are a much more accesible and democratic medium than films with megabudgets and a thousand cooks in the kitchen.  this also makes them more individualistic and open for experiment, and you can make thousands of books with the budget for one film, leading to much greater diversity.   #  by contrast, in movies you have to move at 0 second per second.   #  nah, a book can contain immense detail and have multiple pages describing an event, from multiple points of view and locations.  by contrast, in movies you have to move at 0 second per second.  in books, you can hang in infinity as much as you like.  also, first person narration, which i love when done in movies.  also, books are enjoyed in more than 0 hours.   #  so you do not have the patience to read a book and you prefer the movie to create the scenes for you, rather than you having to think about them.   #  your first statement is that reading a book and watching a movie are very similar.  my immediate reaction to this was  really ?  .  i think the two are extremely dissimilar and are two completely different types of entertainment.  the only thing in common is that they are storytelling devices.  but the ways they are made, the ways they are received, and the ways they engage the audience are practically on opposite ends of the spectrum.  so naturally when you said this, i was curious how you were going to prove that they are related.  and yet, you go on to note how differently each medium functions.  the only thing close to a real argument you make is that movies accomplish things in a manner that you, personally, prefer.  well, okay then.  so you do not have the patience to read a book and you prefer the movie to create the scenes for you, rather than you having to think about them.  that is fine; everyone has their own preferences.  how does that make movies objectively superior or outdated ?  #  the strength of both these was the complexity and realization of their worlds.   #  if you do not read very much, than how can your view have any kind of support ? books can be structured in ways that movies simply cannot, or at least have not been.  i do not see how a truly representative film could be made of ulysses for example which has a decent movie adaptation the relative obscurity of which is telling , or of house of leaves, infinite jest, or catch 0, or lovecraft in general to name a few, but these titles are not like to sway your opinion because in all likelihood you have not read them which is a travesty of the highest order .  we also have the phenomenon of simply mediocre adaptations being cranked out almost on a schedule.  true, it may be possible for a television or film adaptation of, say, the brothers karamazov or crime and punishment to be produced, and indeed several have, but all of them at least all of which i am aware are, if not terrible, only of moderate watchability despite these books  status as some of the best ever written.  how many times must this be repeated before we simply conclude that some structurally adaptable books simply do not translate well to the screen anyway ? and even then, in the case of relatively successful and accomplished adaptations, the difference in detail is readily apparent, especially in the adaptation of lord of the rings and a song of ice and fire.  the strength of both these was the complexity and realization of their worlds.  this quality is, depending on who you ask, either completely neutered or severely reduced in the screen adaptations.  i personally have  forgotten  more about a song of ice and fire than most people who only watch the show ever knew about it.
reading a novel and watching a movie are in my view very similar.  a typical argument would be how much more engaging a book is because you are using your imagination to form scenes and develop characters, but i think readers generally take that concept to a level that simply does not exist.  i do not read for pleasure, because it takes the writer 0 pages to explain what 0 frames on a tv could.  maybe you redditors are thinking  well, they always leave out the detailz ! the movie was so bad cause they did not depict it how i did in my head !   well mr.  redditor, there are people out there with multimillion dollar budgets, talent, and years of training to make a well thought out, and skilled piece of art that puts the imagination on the page.  in my view, this power to make a reality within a frame, as well as 0st century hollywood does, makes this somewhat of an evolution in story telling and visualization.  change my view.   #  i do not read for pleasure, because it takes the writer 0 pages to explain what 0 frames on a tv could.   #  this is an absurd exaggeration that is immediately following by the mockery of book readers for making exaggerations.   # redditor, there are people out there with multimillion dollar budgets, talent, and years of training to make a well thought out, and skilled piece of art that puts the imagination on the page.  in my view, this power to make a reality within a frame, as well as 0st century hollywood does, makes this somewhat of an evolution in story telling and visualization.  i think your title is not accurately portraying what your view is.  your view seems to be that books are inferior and that the  evolution  to films is natural and inevitable, as film is superior in story telling, because books are in no way outdated as long as there is still such a large market for them.  books are equal to movies in my mind.  both have advantages and disadvantages and excel in certain forms of story telling.  books are, by nature, far better at characterization and perspective, because they can be written in the first person.  even third person perspective is often used to describe thoughts, whereas movies must rely on actions to characterize.  films also require million dollar budgets whereas books do not, meaning there are far more books to choose from in a year than movies.  with a larger selection, there is a larger percentage you will find something you will enjoy.  this is an absurd exaggeration that is immediately following by the mockery of book readers for making exaggerations.   #  books allow/force/stimulate you to imagine a scene yourself, drawing on your own experiences and fantasy, leading to much more vivid scenes.   #  books allow you to read at your own speed and trace back with just an eye movement.  books can be enjoyed in silence.  books allow/force/stimulate you to imagine a scene yourself, drawing on your own experiences and fantasy, leading to much more vivid scenes.  books can easily utilize abstract concepts that are impossible to show in a film.  books can be written with pen and paper, and therefore are a much more accesible and democratic medium than films with megabudgets and a thousand cooks in the kitchen.  this also makes them more individualistic and open for experiment, and you can make thousands of books with the budget for one film, leading to much greater diversity.   #  by contrast, in movies you have to move at 0 second per second.   #  nah, a book can contain immense detail and have multiple pages describing an event, from multiple points of view and locations.  by contrast, in movies you have to move at 0 second per second.  in books, you can hang in infinity as much as you like.  also, first person narration, which i love when done in movies.  also, books are enjoyed in more than 0 hours.   #  your first statement is that reading a book and watching a movie are very similar.   #  your first statement is that reading a book and watching a movie are very similar.  my immediate reaction to this was  really ?  .  i think the two are extremely dissimilar and are two completely different types of entertainment.  the only thing in common is that they are storytelling devices.  but the ways they are made, the ways they are received, and the ways they engage the audience are practically on opposite ends of the spectrum.  so naturally when you said this, i was curious how you were going to prove that they are related.  and yet, you go on to note how differently each medium functions.  the only thing close to a real argument you make is that movies accomplish things in a manner that you, personally, prefer.  well, okay then.  so you do not have the patience to read a book and you prefer the movie to create the scenes for you, rather than you having to think about them.  that is fine; everyone has their own preferences.  how does that make movies objectively superior or outdated ?  #  the strength of both these was the complexity and realization of their worlds.   #  if you do not read very much, than how can your view have any kind of support ? books can be structured in ways that movies simply cannot, or at least have not been.  i do not see how a truly representative film could be made of ulysses for example which has a decent movie adaptation the relative obscurity of which is telling , or of house of leaves, infinite jest, or catch 0, or lovecraft in general to name a few, but these titles are not like to sway your opinion because in all likelihood you have not read them which is a travesty of the highest order .  we also have the phenomenon of simply mediocre adaptations being cranked out almost on a schedule.  true, it may be possible for a television or film adaptation of, say, the brothers karamazov or crime and punishment to be produced, and indeed several have, but all of them at least all of which i am aware are, if not terrible, only of moderate watchability despite these books  status as some of the best ever written.  how many times must this be repeated before we simply conclude that some structurally adaptable books simply do not translate well to the screen anyway ? and even then, in the case of relatively successful and accomplished adaptations, the difference in detail is readily apparent, especially in the adaptation of lord of the rings and a song of ice and fire.  the strength of both these was the complexity and realization of their worlds.  this quality is, depending on who you ask, either completely neutered or severely reduced in the screen adaptations.  i personally have  forgotten  more about a song of ice and fire than most people who only watch the show ever knew about it.
now i would like to start by saying i hold no resentment or jealousy toward any particular youtuber simply for the money they make; in fact there are a lot of youtubers that i enjoy watching in my free time and would like to continue watching.  i also understand that doing youtube is still entertainment, and is no different than going to the movies or watching a comedian and i feel that many should get compensated for their work.  but, i do not think people should make enough to live off of youtube, the reason being is because money corrupts.  i recently discovered an interesting youtuber who i wo not name .  his content is somewhat interesting and he seems like a genuinely nice and down to earth person.  he only has about 0 subs the last time i checked but he is already opened up a merch store and has a nickname for his fanbase.  a while back his recording equipment broke so he opened up a paypal donation thing and made a video to try to get people to donate.  not to mention the kickstarter he launched earlier and the many times he is mentioned wanting to make a living off of youtube.  it is apparent that this person is very focused on making profits off his videos.  this person is just one example of what i assume are countless others who are like this, though i am also aware there exists youtubers that do not put much thought into money.  i truly believe that you need a degree of knowledge, charm, and responsibility to succeed in youtube, and as such requires effort and  talent  to do unlike what many say.  but, it is undeniable that a large portion of youtubers do not put the same amount of effort in their videos than what they are worth.  this encourages people to start youtube because they think they can make easy money off of it, not because they truly enjoy it.  this just spells disaster since if you are reason for doing something is for money and not for enjoyment, it will eventually get boring.  and if you have already set your livelihood for youtube, it is unlikely that you can quit or at least miss the dough you used to make.  these are just a few examples i could think on the top off my head.  i might post more in the comments if any comes to mind.   #  this just spells disaster since if you are reason for doing something is for money and not for enjoyment, it will eventually get boring.   #  and if you have already set your livelihood for youtube, it is unlikely that you can quit or at least miss the dough you used to make.   # and if you have already set your livelihood for youtube, it is unlikely that you can quit or at least miss the dough you used to make.  this sounds to me like you are against people doing anything they are not passionate about for money.  so, rather than being against getting paid to do youtube videos, you are against jobs.  i do not understand much of the rest of your post; why would not you open a merch store if people wanted to buy merch ? bands have been doing that since forever.   #  imagine the case of someone capable of producing high level, interesting content.   #  i think the problem with your argument is not considering the alternatives.  imagine the case of someone capable of producing high level, interesting content.  you seem to think that, if that person ca not make money off hosting the content on youtube, they will still make equally high quality content, but for less money.  in reality the quality of the content would likely suffer, as people are forced to spend more time on alternate money making endeavors, or they would stop producing content entirely.  or, alternatively, they would work for a larger media company, with an existing platform, beholden, not just directly to viewers, but to a wide range of advertisers and other corporate interests.   #  i did not put enough thought into my argument.   #    0; i did not think of it like that.  i did not put enough thought into my argument.  thanks ! further info: my problem lies with the  morality  of making money off of youtube but i realize that there really is no such thing.  you do make a good point however, about how they could stop making content altogether.  in hindsight it was silly of me to think this way.   #  how dim is your view of other people ?  #  people can do things for money and enjoy them at the same time.  how dim is your view of other people ? not everyone is willing to compromise for money, but everyone needs to eat.  for example, one youtuber that has a lot of success is jenna marbles.  like her or not, she has a huge following and earns a nice living because of it.  now, she could probably multiply her earnings by doing a porn.  so far, that has not happened.  plus, the fans of these personalities would likely jump ship if they felt compromised.  authenticity is a big reason the successful entertainers are successful.   #  what does this have to do with youtube ?  # but, it is undeniable that a large portion of youtubers do not put the same amount of effort in their videos than what they are worth.  this encourages people to start youtube because they think they can make easy money off of it, not because they truly enjoy it.  this just spells disaster since if you are reason for doing something is for money and not for enjoyment, it will eventually get boring.  and if you have already set your livelihood for youtube, it is unlikely that you can quit or at least miss the dough you used to make.  so, in other words, you think people should not seek out a profession if they wo not enjoy it, and you think it is risky to seek your ideal job ? welcome to life.  what does this have to do with youtube ?
now i would like to start by saying i hold no resentment or jealousy toward any particular youtuber simply for the money they make; in fact there are a lot of youtubers that i enjoy watching in my free time and would like to continue watching.  i also understand that doing youtube is still entertainment, and is no different than going to the movies or watching a comedian and i feel that many should get compensated for their work.  but, i do not think people should make enough to live off of youtube, the reason being is because money corrupts.  i recently discovered an interesting youtuber who i wo not name .  his content is somewhat interesting and he seems like a genuinely nice and down to earth person.  he only has about 0 subs the last time i checked but he is already opened up a merch store and has a nickname for his fanbase.  a while back his recording equipment broke so he opened up a paypal donation thing and made a video to try to get people to donate.  not to mention the kickstarter he launched earlier and the many times he is mentioned wanting to make a living off of youtube.  it is apparent that this person is very focused on making profits off his videos.  this person is just one example of what i assume are countless others who are like this, though i am also aware there exists youtubers that do not put much thought into money.  i truly believe that you need a degree of knowledge, charm, and responsibility to succeed in youtube, and as such requires effort and  talent  to do unlike what many say.  but, it is undeniable that a large portion of youtubers do not put the same amount of effort in their videos than what they are worth.  this encourages people to start youtube because they think they can make easy money off of it, not because they truly enjoy it.  this just spells disaster since if you are reason for doing something is for money and not for enjoyment, it will eventually get boring.  and if you have already set your livelihood for youtube, it is unlikely that you can quit or at least miss the dough you used to make.  these are just a few examples i could think on the top off my head.  i might post more in the comments if any comes to mind.   #  i truly believe that you need a degree of knowledge, charm, and responsibility to succeed in youtube, and as such requires effort and  talent  to do unlike what many say.   #  but, it is undeniable that a large portion of youtubers do not put the same amount of effort in their videos than what they are worth.   # but, it is undeniable that a large portion of youtubers do not put the same amount of effort in their videos than what they are worth.  this encourages people to start youtube because they think they can make easy money off of it, not because they truly enjoy it.  this just spells disaster since if you are reason for doing something is for money and not for enjoyment, it will eventually get boring.  and if you have already set your livelihood for youtube, it is unlikely that you can quit or at least miss the dough you used to make.  so, in other words, you think people should not seek out a profession if they wo not enjoy it, and you think it is risky to seek your ideal job ? welcome to life.  what does this have to do with youtube ?  #  in reality the quality of the content would likely suffer, as people are forced to spend more time on alternate money making endeavors, or they would stop producing content entirely.   #  i think the problem with your argument is not considering the alternatives.  imagine the case of someone capable of producing high level, interesting content.  you seem to think that, if that person ca not make money off hosting the content on youtube, they will still make equally high quality content, but for less money.  in reality the quality of the content would likely suffer, as people are forced to spend more time on alternate money making endeavors, or they would stop producing content entirely.  or, alternatively, they would work for a larger media company, with an existing platform, beholden, not just directly to viewers, but to a wide range of advertisers and other corporate interests.   #  i did not put enough thought into my argument.   #    0; i did not think of it like that.  i did not put enough thought into my argument.  thanks ! further info: my problem lies with the  morality  of making money off of youtube but i realize that there really is no such thing.  you do make a good point however, about how they could stop making content altogether.  in hindsight it was silly of me to think this way.   #  how dim is your view of other people ?  #  people can do things for money and enjoy them at the same time.  how dim is your view of other people ? not everyone is willing to compromise for money, but everyone needs to eat.  for example, one youtuber that has a lot of success is jenna marbles.  like her or not, she has a huge following and earns a nice living because of it.  now, she could probably multiply her earnings by doing a porn.  so far, that has not happened.  plus, the fans of these personalities would likely jump ship if they felt compromised.  authenticity is a big reason the successful entertainers are successful.   #  though some were a bit hostile, you guys do make some good points.   #  though some were a bit hostile, you guys do make some good points.  i made this thread prematurely and to be honest with you, my view on the matter was not that incredibly strong; it is just something that had been lingering in my mind for quite some time.  i realize now that my view is pretty narrow minded and i apologize for it.  i suppose the reason why i thought this way was because it always made me sad and upset seeing someone try so hard to make it big doing what they love and never make it, while there are others who  have  made it big not liking what they are doing and only doing it for the sake of getting rich.  regardless of motives there is nothing bad about what they are doing but my emotions clouded my judgment.  the reason why i mentioned youtube was because it is the first and easiest example i could think of; i am not trying to say it only happens in youtube and of course it does not just happen there.  as for my title is wording, using the word  wrong  was a mistake on my part.  i have been told that my lifestyle is  wrong  many times so who am i to judge others  lifestyles ? i feel ashamed for making that error.  the bottom line is i was thinking of a specific example where someone tries to make it big doing something for the sake of money, only to have to rely on it to make a living, not particularly liking what they are doing.  nothing wrong with that but it just breaks my heart seeing someone be forced to do what they do not feel passionate about in order to survive.  but i guess that is just life.
link to wbc ama: URL the point of iama is for people to be able to talk about their views/experience without being harassed about them.  i by no means condone any of wbcs actions, but their ama was by no means purposely provocative towards people, in a way that would violate reddiquete.  some of my main points of concern are 0.  the excessive downvoting of posts made by wbc that in no way granted a downvote.  people downvoted the wbc because of their beliefs, not in the value of the posts 0.  the harassment of the wbc replies to questions.  there were many posts  proving  wbc is  gay , etc.  these harrasment posts i could post specific examples if you really wish me to, but i would advise you simply look at the thread yourself.  are in violation of iama is rules  abusive or harassing comments  .  0.  the general sentiment shown for the wbc ama for days weeks ? reddit has known about the ama, and has been hostile to the very idea.  the fact that we are a big enough community to attract the attention of such a big name is very impressive.  to spoil these chances shows our immaturity, and our inability to do these sorts of things again.  do not fight hate with hate.  thats what we did, and we should be ashamed.  disclaimer: this is a generalization of the comments i have seen of the ama, there were numerous comments that were polite and respectful.  there were many more, however, that were not.  another disclaimer: just so were clear, i personally despise the wbc.  they are a cruel hate group that has a sick and twisted view of the world.  i just think that they still deserve respect.   #  they are a cruel hate group that has a sick and twisted view of the world.   #  i just think that they still deserve respect.   # i just think that they still deserve respect.  this is where you lost me.  not only is this aspect of your view wrong, it is naive, misinformed, and dangerous.  hatred and intolerance are not valid world views, they are a cancer and you do not respect, or tolerate cancer, you eliminate it; so too, must we work to eliminate those who would preach hatred and intolerance.  in a free society, one where anyone is allowed to believe anything they so choose, the way you do that is by ostracism, and marginalization.  you, as a society, make it absolutely clear that certain things are unacceptable, and that, while they are free to behave as they please, they do so at their own peril.   #  but it is not reasonable to expect a 0 unified front by a community as huge and diverse as reddit is.   # actually no, it is not.  the point of an ama is for people to ask questions and receive answers from the original poster.  that is it.  often times people use amas to promote something, especially when the time of the person answering questions is very valuable celebrities, top scientists, etc .  westboro came to reddit to promote hate and incite negativity.  redditors, following reddiquette, chose to downvote that material en masse.  is it right that some people stooped down to their hatred with their responses ? no, and the ones that did were indeed violating the ama subreddit is rules.  but it is not reasonable to expect a 0 unified front by a community as huge and diverse as reddit is.   reddit is  response was not disgraceful.  some  redditors responded poorly, and the many people who chose to respond in the correct manner responded only with silence.  that is how  do not give them any attention  looks: completely invisible.  tldr:  reddit  is not a single entity and largely responded appropriately, even if some people could not resist yelling at westboro.   #  let me apply a cmv approach to this there is no way to change someone is view unless you understand it.   #  if you do not want to hear what wbc has to say,  do not go to the thread .  but if you want to make up you own opinion on them, instead of blindly following the circlejerk, is not it better to actually read what they think ? by downvoting everything they say, you rob others of the opportunity to easily make up their own minds.  yes, yes, they are icky bad people who spew hate.  this is not news.  if you actually read their responses, many of them were actually well explained, based on their own extreme version of the bible.  actually, some are not that extreme.  they oppose abortion because god say  thou shalt not kill  URL not a popular view on reddit, but true for many americans.  there is also a nuanced comment URL on genetic research.  they even had some pretty damn funny responses.  but they all get buried because even though most of the responses addressed the questions asked, redditors chose to censor the comments instead of letting others read them.  let me apply a cmv approach to this there is no way to change someone is view unless you understand it.  and by downvoting the wbc, their view is hidden, so the chance of changing it is decreased.  what good does it possibly do other then let judgmental redditors feel that they have really stuck it to the wbc ?  #  for what it was, we showed a remarkable amount of restraint.   #  redditors do not have a moral obligation to enable free speech.  this is a website where users choose content based on what interests them.  not many people were interested in hate speech.  that does not justify mass downvoting of their comments, but many, many people chose not to go to the thread.  it is remarkable that most of their comments are only 0 or so votes in the negative.  i have seen unmasked karma whores with hundreds and hundreds of downvotes, and all they did was gather internet points.  the point of view expressed by the op was  it was handled disgracefully by reddit.   it simply was not.  for what it was, we showed a remarkable amount of restraint.   #  URL it met the upvote scenario as per the rediquette.   # you however suggested that rediquette suggests it was right to downvote it.  however, the purpose of the ama as per your statements above as well, is to answer questions people have.  answering questions in the thread by the wbc member was on topic, informative even if we disagree and is in fact the exact purpose of the up/downvote, which you suggested casually, is not what rediquette says.  i will quote it for you.   vote.  if you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it.  if you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off topic in a particular community, downvote it.   URL it met the upvote scenario as per the rediquette.  you seem to have not actually read it, or you have a misconception of what is expected in that subreddit that leads you to believe it falls into the downvote classification.  yes, they spew hatred and vile rhetoric.  however, this is on topic in an wbc iama and is completely on topic.  that is their opinion, that is the opinion you must expect in response to a question about their opinions.  how you conclude that this is off topic or otherwise, i am not sure.  but you are incorrect.
i understand they are allowed to do what they do legally, but i honestly do not think they should be allowed to.  there should be regulations on free speech.  speech that is hateful, bigoted, and just terrible should be made illegal.  i do not think they should be able to host an ama on reddit, or honestly spread any of their views in public.  they are a hate group, simple as that.  i understand that maybe laws ca not prevent what they do, but reddit as a private organization can, and should.  they have absolutely nothing productive to add, and they really should not be allowed to spread their hate like that.   #  speech that is hateful, bigoted, and just terrible should be made illegal.   #  if you hold this belief, you do not belong in any country that has a free speech clause.   #  what you are suggesting is just censorship of everything that offends you, or fits your personal definition of  too offensive.   that kind of censorship helps no one.  if you, personally, are too busy getting offended to look at the wbc iama, then do not look at it.  there are people who want to communicate with wbc.  getting a chance to ask a well known hate group questions is a good opportunity to learn.  if you hold this belief, you do not belong in any country that has a free speech clause.   #  i am asking you how  in this specific circumstance  reddit would get in trouble.   #  i agree that under certain circumstance businesses can get in trouble.  i am asking you how  in this specific circumstance  reddit would get in trouble.  your provided the example of reddit not allowing black moderators.  this is illegal because it violates the civil rights act.  so i asked you how does not allowing the wbc to comment violate the civil rights act ?  #  groups that are not only allowed here but welcomed.   #  /r/atheism was a default subreddit here for a long time.  srs is active and supported by reddit.  what makes wbc substantially different from those groups ? wbc pickets funerals srs brigades other subreddits, /r/atheism is chock full of hateful speech.  how is wbc substantially different than those two groups ? groups that are not only allowed here but welcomed.   #  think back to every racist joke you told, every 0/0 joke.   #  let me ask you a real question, what constitutes a hate group ? they do not commit hate crimes, they do not lynch people.  they are happy when bad things happen but so are a lot of people.  americans partied in the streets when osama was killed without a trial.  iraqis partied in the streets when saddam was killed.  you get the point.  are they a hate group because they say  hateful  things ? think back to every racist joke you told, every 0/0 joke.  are they a hate group because they oppose gay marriage ? lots of good people happen to share that view, many people who work in soup kitchens and treat the poor and a lot of people hold deeply religious views, have no problem with gays and yet have a different view of gay marriage.  so should all those people i mentioned, the guy who makes the 0/0 joke, the deeply religious, every american who partied when osama was shot, should they all be banned from doing an ama ?  #  i do not think the wbc is a good organization.   # we allow  clearly incorrect  minority views to be heard out of humility many current majority views were ridiculous minority ones only centuries ago, if not more recently think slavery, women is suffrage, workers  rights, etc.  .  we allow the minority to be wrong without persecution because they have often been the moral voice of reason, pushing for change when the majority was comfortable with the status quo.  i do not think the wbc is a good organization.  i do not think their anti gay, anti jew, or anti catholic messages are productive or contain anything of value, nor do their funeral pickets.  but when speech is only free when it is sufficiently close to the majority sentiment, it is not free at all.  there is no  speech  purely speech, with no tangible effects of physical harm, etc.  directly following from it so evil that i would not protect it for the sake of keeping the moral minorities free from persecution.
i understand they are allowed to do what they do legally, but i honestly do not think they should be allowed to.  there should be regulations on free speech.  speech that is hateful, bigoted, and just terrible should be made illegal.  i do not think they should be able to host an ama on reddit, or honestly spread any of their views in public.  they are a hate group, simple as that.  i understand that maybe laws ca not prevent what they do, but reddit as a private organization can, and should.  they have absolutely nothing productive to add, and they really should not be allowed to spread their hate like that.   #  speech that is hateful, bigoted, and just terrible should be made illegal.   #  we allow  clearly incorrect  minority views to be heard out of humility many current majority views were ridiculous minority ones only centuries ago, if not more recently think slavery, women is suffrage, workers  rights, etc.   # we allow  clearly incorrect  minority views to be heard out of humility many current majority views were ridiculous minority ones only centuries ago, if not more recently think slavery, women is suffrage, workers  rights, etc.  .  we allow the minority to be wrong without persecution because they have often been the moral voice of reason, pushing for change when the majority was comfortable with the status quo.  i do not think the wbc is a good organization.  i do not think their anti gay, anti jew, or anti catholic messages are productive or contain anything of value, nor do their funeral pickets.  but when speech is only free when it is sufficiently close to the majority sentiment, it is not free at all.  there is no  speech  purely speech, with no tangible effects of physical harm, etc.  directly following from it so evil that i would not protect it for the sake of keeping the moral minorities free from persecution.   #  i am asking you how  in this specific circumstance  reddit would get in trouble.   #  i agree that under certain circumstance businesses can get in trouble.  i am asking you how  in this specific circumstance  reddit would get in trouble.  your provided the example of reddit not allowing black moderators.  this is illegal because it violates the civil rights act.  so i asked you how does not allowing the wbc to comment violate the civil rights act ?  #  how is wbc substantially different than those two groups ?  #  /r/atheism was a default subreddit here for a long time.  srs is active and supported by reddit.  what makes wbc substantially different from those groups ? wbc pickets funerals srs brigades other subreddits, /r/atheism is chock full of hateful speech.  how is wbc substantially different than those two groups ? groups that are not only allowed here but welcomed.   #  if you hold this belief, you do not belong in any country that has a free speech clause.   #  what you are suggesting is just censorship of everything that offends you, or fits your personal definition of  too offensive.   that kind of censorship helps no one.  if you, personally, are too busy getting offended to look at the wbc iama, then do not look at it.  there are people who want to communicate with wbc.  getting a chance to ask a well known hate group questions is a good opportunity to learn.  if you hold this belief, you do not belong in any country that has a free speech clause.   #  are they a hate group because they say  hateful  things ?  #  let me ask you a real question, what constitutes a hate group ? they do not commit hate crimes, they do not lynch people.  they are happy when bad things happen but so are a lot of people.  americans partied in the streets when osama was killed without a trial.  iraqis partied in the streets when saddam was killed.  you get the point.  are they a hate group because they say  hateful  things ? think back to every racist joke you told, every 0/0 joke.  are they a hate group because they oppose gay marriage ? lots of good people happen to share that view, many people who work in soup kitchens and treat the poor and a lot of people hold deeply religious views, have no problem with gays and yet have a different view of gay marriage.  so should all those people i mentioned, the guy who makes the 0/0 joke, the deeply religious, every american who partied when osama was shot, should they all be banned from doing an ama ?
in this, i am particularly looking at two recent cases where a separation referendum has been or will be brought to voters: scotland and quebec.  my point centers around the idea that federalism or devolution provides a sufficient avenue for local control of local matters, and that as long as national parties seek and obtain support within the jurisdiction of the area to secede, there is not a strong case that the people there are failing to be represented at the national level.  in the case of quebec, the liberals, conservatives and ndp all actively seek and often win seats in quebec ridings.  many prime ministers hail from quebec, including both liberals lots and conservatives mulroney but they have also not had a lot of pms the current liberal and ndp leaders hail from quebec ridings.  in the case of scotland which i am admittedly not as familiar with, not having lived there , the national parties do campaign there, and while the conservatives have not had a lot of success there to put it charitably, there does not seem to be the kind of evidence of regional balkanization one would see if scottish interests were truly divergent from those of the rest of the uk.  of course there are long histories as to how both quebec and scotland came to be a part of the uk and canada respectively, but where, as here, citizens in quebec and scotland have meaningful representation in national parties, are accorded representation proportionate to their population, and are fully equal under the law to all other citizens, i do not see the case for carving out new nation states.  all borders are artifacts of history, many of those histories full of evil.  but when a country is free and democratic, and where there are strong local institutions with broad capacity to deal with local problems, i do not see the case for carving up borders.  so to cmv, i want a good reason why a country with the following would be better off splitting in two: 0.  national parties compete meaningfully and represent districts from the area to secede.  0.  local government which has meaningful authority over a broad range of areas obv not all areas like foreign policy .  0.  free, fair and democratic elections.  0.  fully equal status under the law for all people from the region to secede as compared to all other people in the country.   #  there does not seem to be the kind of evidence of regional balkanization one would see if scottish interests were truly divergent from those of the rest of the uk.   #  could you expand on this point a bit further ?  # could you expand on this point a bit further ? i am unfamiliar with the term balkanisation but am i correct that you are suggesting that you would expect there to be some sort of hostility between scotland and the ruk if the interests were divergent ? if you look at the long term, i think there is certainly a divergence between how scotland sees itself going forward and how england sees itself.  scotland is far more willing to work with the eu than england, who seem to either leave or renegotiate a deal.  scotland is moving towards the eu and england is moving away.  the eu elections for scotland URL and england URL demonstrate this rather well imo.  purple is anti eu, blue ca not decide, and the rest are essentially pro eu.  the results are for the highest polling party in each region which is not how the meps are decided however.  scotland has one anti eu mep purple or ukip .  england wants to continue with the relics of it is superpower days while scotland sees itself more as a dying superpower that needs to adjust.  nuclear deterrent is the biggest example.  i would say that in general scotland sees itself as moving towards a more supportive role, militarily, within the eu rather than a superpower that goes off fighting wars around the world.  in a lot of ways scotland is more similar to scandinavian countries than england.  scotland focuses a lot more on education, healthcare, and social care.  if scotland cannot fully pursue these goals while joined with a dominant english majority and the majority of scottish people want to be separate, then what is bad about that ?  #  my understanding of parliamentary procedure comes from living in canada, so i get westminster style.   #  balkanization in this context would be where national parties do not meaningfully compete for seats in, or seek to represent the interests of, scotland.  so where mps in westminster from scotland almost all represented regional scottish parties, and where none of the parties who would realistically form a government got seats from scotland.  it does not necessarily mean hostility it means that they have such divergent interests that they do not believe the same political parties can represent them.  this is belied by the most recent uk election, where the large majority of scottish seats went to labour.  labour is a national party, and seeks votes in all areas of the nation.  so, for example, someone from london who votes labour and someone from edinburgh who votes labour are probably more politically aligned than a labour voter in edinburgh and a conservative voter in edinburgh.  scottish politics probably lean further left than those of the uk as a whole, but that does not mean they should separate.  an argument for separation would be if scottish politics were engaging on a different playing field than the rest of the uk.  as to the mep elections, i do not know the structures there well enough to speak to it.  my understanding of parliamentary procedure comes from living in canada, so i get westminster style.  as to the broader points about engagement with europe and different policy priorities, i think that is not sufficient reason for separating into two countries.  of course some regions will have political tilts left and right but pro eu sentiment exists among some voters in england, and likewise adjustment away from superpower status.  you do not leave the country to win a political or policy battle.  you do it because the two places cannot be reconciled into one cohesive whole.  the political debates in the uk are real, and there are real regional tilts to how voters feel about them, but the issues are the same for english and scottish people.  as long as they face the same issues and can work within common structures represented by common parties , these are matters to be decided in elections, not by splitting off.   #  but it tells me nothing about why the separation is in fact a good idea just that it is democratically legitimate.   # it does not matter if the area would be better off or not, as you have talked about, all that matters is that they are afforded the right to chose themselves.  this is a strong argument that the result of a fairly held referendum should give validity to the nascent country is government.  but it tells me nothing about why the separation is in fact a good idea just that it is democratically legitimate.  if the question is  i am barack obama; should the us recognize a newly independent scotland/quebec ?   that is a solid case.  but why would someone in a country with the conditions i listed  want  to vote yes on a referendum ? i am not saying the referendum is illegitimate, just that there is not good cause to support having it, or voting yes given that it is happening.   #  i have argued that there is good cause to support having a referendum because there should be the right to self determination in democracies.   # i think these are two separate views supporting referenda themselves and voting yes .  i have argued that there is good cause to support having a referendum because there should be the right to self determination in democracies.  you can think there is no good reason to vote yes while maintaining the belief that the referendum itself a good idea.  so referring to your title  separation referenda in countries with stable democracies are bad ideas , i would disagree.  if your view is something more like  people should vote no in separation referenda in countries with stable democracies , then that is another question entirely.   #  i do not think you need to have a referendum for there to be democratic legitimacy.   #  i do not think you need to have a referendum for there to be democratic legitimacy.  voter turnout and participation in the national democracy on the same terms as all other voters are plenty sufficient.  you do not have a referendum to affirm the status quo; its raison d etre is to achieve independence.  to oppose voting yes on separation and oppose the referendum are i think inseparable.  plus, there are real consequences to a referendum, even if unsuccessful.  the referendum itself can serve as a wedge between the place holding it and the rest of the country.  the  yes  campaign is inherently going to be fostering a patriotism away from the current national government and towards the place voting to separate.  further, businesses that rely on being in the same country and under the same laws will face uncertainty about their future, and may be unwilling to expand, or unable to secure investment on the terms they would without the uncertainty.  further, it fosters anxiety and uncertainty for citizens who are from that place, but whose primary allegiance is the national government.  this is the case for quebec in particular, where anglophone quebeckers of whom there are a lot, but not a majority were terrified of independence.  a friend of mine from montreal who is older and anglophone told me that on the evening of the  0 referendum, they literally packed the car ready to drive to ontario if there was a yes vote.
please read this before replying to my post.  i will do my best to clarify my stance.  i understand that this subject is very inclusive and implies that i hold opinions about the legality of narcotics, i will try to be as straightforward as possible about my underlying beliefs.  on personal autonomy and the legal status of drugs in the u. s: i believe that in a free society, that is to say a society that advocates personal/individual liberty, an individual  must  be in charge of his/her own body.  i feel that you should have the right to determine your diet, weather you will eat/drink healthily or not.  i also feel that if an adult decides that they wish to drink alcohol or partake in mind altering recreational drugs they should be able to make that choice for themselves.  if the government is to have any involvement in that decision, it should be from a public health standpoint and not a criminal one.  employers right to test employees for non work habits: my understanding of why companies administer drug tests is to ensure the quality of work they pay for.  that is great, however this is not how drug tests work.  i believe that showing up to work intoxicated is wrong and should probably mean termination, that makes sense to me.  however, drug tests determine if you have taken drugs in a certain time frame, the length of which depends on the drug.  cannabis thc , for instance, can be stored in fat cells for weeks after consumption.  the psychotropic effects run their course in a couple of hours, but you will fail a urine test for weeks after consumption.  other substances do not remain in your system as long and some much longer, but the point still stands.  as an employer, you pay for my time.  i give you 0 hours a week, and you pay me for it; that is employment.  what i do with my personal time, how i choose to relax, etc.  does not fall under your jurisdiction.  it is unethical for employers to feel they are in charge of this aspect of an employee is personal life.  disclaimer section: i would not be opposed to a test that determines weather or not you are intoxicated at work, akin to a blood alcohol level test.  if this technology does not exist/is not feasible, this is not the employees problem and they should not be required to make lifestyle changes due to this.  if an employer hires meth head, for instance, and he/she is exhibiting undesirable characteristics tardiness, stealing, etc.  i think it would be reasonable to terminate employment.  but it should be performance based, and not solely because they consume meth and failed a test.  whenever drugs are talked about in america, the idea of  abuse  is implicitly tied to them.  i think this is part of the problem.  the public consensus is that there is no such thing as responsible drug use.  i disagree with this notion.  the main view i wish to discuss in this post is an employers right to limit use of recreational substances by employees during non office hours.  this is a weighted issue, i understand, and i have attempted to clarify my underlying beliefs/reasons for holding this stance above.  cmv  #  i give you 0 hours a week, and you pay me for it; that is employment.   #  what i do with my personal time, how i choose to relax, etc.   # ok, and company owners have the freedom to choose if they want drug tests.  just like they can judge someone on multiple other aspects.  who are you to say that the government should dictate their process of determining employment, if your flagword is freedom ? what i do with my personal time, how i choose to relax, etc.  does not fall under your jurisdiction.  i would fire someone posting racist tweets/facebook messages online as well, as its a bad reflection of the employer, even those those things are perfectly legal to do.  it still reflects poorly on the company.   #  the government might not imprison you for smoking pot, but it ca not stop a private business from prohibiting its employees from using the substance.   #  0 why the hell would it be criminal ? it is not criminal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, sex, etc.  those are all civil offenses.  violators face lawsuits, not prison.  why would someone is right to drugs somehow trump those categories and somehow rise to the level of requiring the criminal justice system to be involved ? 0 business owners have a right to set the hiring standards as they see fit.  the only exceptions are the federal categories URL or any potential state laws.  business owners, at least in an at will state, have every right to choose who they want as employees whether you think it is fair or not it is their choice.  they can fire someone because they dislike their shirt color, their physical appearance, their favorite song preferences, their favorite football team, etc.  you can quit for any reason, and they can fire you for any reason minus the exceptions .  basically: liberty is a two way street.  the government might not imprison you for smoking pot, but it ca not stop a private business from prohibiting its employees from using the substance.  not unless enough people demanded the civil rights act be amended or new legislation be created that expanded the categories.   #  the subject is about drug tests, and right now most private employers have the right to test for a wide variety of substances.   # right, and what is the subject about again ? drug tests.  we are not talking about getting your past medical history from your private doctors, hospitals, etc.  the subject is about drug tests, and right now most private employers have the right to test for a wide variety of substances.  moreover, most companies at least in my experience use an unrelated medical review officer mro so they do not have to find out information that might be ada protected.  if you test positive the mro contacts you and finds out what legal drugs you are on.  if you have a legit prescription the test returns to the employer as negative.  no hipaa violations.   #  take dna tests and run them against every unsolved crime in the books ?  #  at what length do you feel they should be able to go to to prove whether or not you are a criminal ? search your home for stolen property ? take dna tests and run them against every unsolved crime in the books ? if you have not been convicted of a crime, and they have no probable cause, what gives them the right to investigate you ? it is also in the governments full right to charge convicted criminals.  does that mean that they can come knocking on everyone is door and force people to take drug tests as a condition of being in the country ?  #  at what lengths do you believe an employer should be allowed to go to to determine whether or not you have broken any laws ?  #  i think the discussion is about whether or not it  should  be legal, not whether or not it is  is  legal.  at what lengths do you believe an employer should be allowed to go to to determine whether or not you have broken any laws ? is that not the duty of the law enforcement agencies to determine ? if you have not been convicted of any crimes, then that is all the information they need of the matter.  would you be okay with a company going through your personal computer with a fine tooth comb as a condition of employment ? it just seems to me that that is all irrelevant to one is ability as a worker.
please read this before replying to my post.  i will do my best to clarify my stance.  i understand that this subject is very inclusive and implies that i hold opinions about the legality of narcotics, i will try to be as straightforward as possible about my underlying beliefs.  on personal autonomy and the legal status of drugs in the u. s: i believe that in a free society, that is to say a society that advocates personal/individual liberty, an individual  must  be in charge of his/her own body.  i feel that you should have the right to determine your diet, weather you will eat/drink healthily or not.  i also feel that if an adult decides that they wish to drink alcohol or partake in mind altering recreational drugs they should be able to make that choice for themselves.  if the government is to have any involvement in that decision, it should be from a public health standpoint and not a criminal one.  employers right to test employees for non work habits: my understanding of why companies administer drug tests is to ensure the quality of work they pay for.  that is great, however this is not how drug tests work.  i believe that showing up to work intoxicated is wrong and should probably mean termination, that makes sense to me.  however, drug tests determine if you have taken drugs in a certain time frame, the length of which depends on the drug.  cannabis thc , for instance, can be stored in fat cells for weeks after consumption.  the psychotropic effects run their course in a couple of hours, but you will fail a urine test for weeks after consumption.  other substances do not remain in your system as long and some much longer, but the point still stands.  as an employer, you pay for my time.  i give you 0 hours a week, and you pay me for it; that is employment.  what i do with my personal time, how i choose to relax, etc.  does not fall under your jurisdiction.  it is unethical for employers to feel they are in charge of this aspect of an employee is personal life.  disclaimer section: i would not be opposed to a test that determines weather or not you are intoxicated at work, akin to a blood alcohol level test.  if this technology does not exist/is not feasible, this is not the employees problem and they should not be required to make lifestyle changes due to this.  if an employer hires meth head, for instance, and he/she is exhibiting undesirable characteristics tardiness, stealing, etc.  i think it would be reasonable to terminate employment.  but it should be performance based, and not solely because they consume meth and failed a test.  whenever drugs are talked about in america, the idea of  abuse  is implicitly tied to them.  i think this is part of the problem.  the public consensus is that there is no such thing as responsible drug use.  i disagree with this notion.  the main view i wish to discuss in this post is an employers right to limit use of recreational substances by employees during non office hours.  this is a weighted issue, i understand, and i have attempted to clarify my underlying beliefs/reasons for holding this stance above.  cmv  #  i give you 0 hours a week, and you pay me for it; that is employment.   #  what i do with my personal time, how i choose to relax, etc.   # i feel that you should have the right to determine your diet, weather you will eat/drink healthily or not.  i also feel that if an adult decides that they wish to drink alcohol or partake in mind altering recreational drugs they should be able to make that choice for themselves.  if that is the case, employers must also have the right to terminate employees for any reason.  what i do with my personal time, how i choose to relax, etc.  does not fall under your jurisdiction.  it does if that was part of your contract with me.  if you do not like it, i suggest you not sign the contract.  i think it would be reasonable to terminate employment.  but it should be performance based, and not solely because they consume meth and failed a test.  what if the employer just does not like meth addicts ?  #  0 business owners have a right to set the hiring standards as they see fit.   #  0 why the hell would it be criminal ? it is not criminal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, sex, etc.  those are all civil offenses.  violators face lawsuits, not prison.  why would someone is right to drugs somehow trump those categories and somehow rise to the level of requiring the criminal justice system to be involved ? 0 business owners have a right to set the hiring standards as they see fit.  the only exceptions are the federal categories URL or any potential state laws.  business owners, at least in an at will state, have every right to choose who they want as employees whether you think it is fair or not it is their choice.  they can fire someone because they dislike their shirt color, their physical appearance, their favorite song preferences, their favorite football team, etc.  you can quit for any reason, and they can fire you for any reason minus the exceptions .  basically: liberty is a two way street.  the government might not imprison you for smoking pot, but it ca not stop a private business from prohibiting its employees from using the substance.  not unless enough people demanded the civil rights act be amended or new legislation be created that expanded the categories.   #  if you test positive the mro contacts you and finds out what legal drugs you are on.   # right, and what is the subject about again ? drug tests.  we are not talking about getting your past medical history from your private doctors, hospitals, etc.  the subject is about drug tests, and right now most private employers have the right to test for a wide variety of substances.  moreover, most companies at least in my experience use an unrelated medical review officer mro so they do not have to find out information that might be ada protected.  if you test positive the mro contacts you and finds out what legal drugs you are on.  if you have a legit prescription the test returns to the employer as negative.  no hipaa violations.   #  at what length do you feel they should be able to go to to prove whether or not you are a criminal ?  #  at what length do you feel they should be able to go to to prove whether or not you are a criminal ? search your home for stolen property ? take dna tests and run them against every unsolved crime in the books ? if you have not been convicted of a crime, and they have no probable cause, what gives them the right to investigate you ? it is also in the governments full right to charge convicted criminals.  does that mean that they can come knocking on everyone is door and force people to take drug tests as a condition of being in the country ?  #  i think the discussion is about whether or not it  should  be legal, not whether or not it is  is  legal.   #  i think the discussion is about whether or not it  should  be legal, not whether or not it is  is  legal.  at what lengths do you believe an employer should be allowed to go to to determine whether or not you have broken any laws ? is that not the duty of the law enforcement agencies to determine ? if you have not been convicted of any crimes, then that is all the information they need of the matter.  would you be okay with a company going through your personal computer with a fine tooth comb as a condition of employment ? it just seems to me that that is all irrelevant to one is ability as a worker.
please read this before replying to my post.  i will do my best to clarify my stance.  i understand that this subject is very inclusive and implies that i hold opinions about the legality of narcotics, i will try to be as straightforward as possible about my underlying beliefs.  on personal autonomy and the legal status of drugs in the u. s: i believe that in a free society, that is to say a society that advocates personal/individual liberty, an individual  must  be in charge of his/her own body.  i feel that you should have the right to determine your diet, weather you will eat/drink healthily or not.  i also feel that if an adult decides that they wish to drink alcohol or partake in mind altering recreational drugs they should be able to make that choice for themselves.  if the government is to have any involvement in that decision, it should be from a public health standpoint and not a criminal one.  employers right to test employees for non work habits: my understanding of why companies administer drug tests is to ensure the quality of work they pay for.  that is great, however this is not how drug tests work.  i believe that showing up to work intoxicated is wrong and should probably mean termination, that makes sense to me.  however, drug tests determine if you have taken drugs in a certain time frame, the length of which depends on the drug.  cannabis thc , for instance, can be stored in fat cells for weeks after consumption.  the psychotropic effects run their course in a couple of hours, but you will fail a urine test for weeks after consumption.  other substances do not remain in your system as long and some much longer, but the point still stands.  as an employer, you pay for my time.  i give you 0 hours a week, and you pay me for it; that is employment.  what i do with my personal time, how i choose to relax, etc.  does not fall under your jurisdiction.  it is unethical for employers to feel they are in charge of this aspect of an employee is personal life.  disclaimer section: i would not be opposed to a test that determines weather or not you are intoxicated at work, akin to a blood alcohol level test.  if this technology does not exist/is not feasible, this is not the employees problem and they should not be required to make lifestyle changes due to this.  if an employer hires meth head, for instance, and he/she is exhibiting undesirable characteristics tardiness, stealing, etc.  i think it would be reasonable to terminate employment.  but it should be performance based, and not solely because they consume meth and failed a test.  whenever drugs are talked about in america, the idea of  abuse  is implicitly tied to them.  i think this is part of the problem.  the public consensus is that there is no such thing as responsible drug use.  i disagree with this notion.  the main view i wish to discuss in this post is an employers right to limit use of recreational substances by employees during non office hours.  this is a weighted issue, i understand, and i have attempted to clarify my underlying beliefs/reasons for holding this stance above.  cmv  #  if an employer hires meth head, for instance, and he/she is exhibiting undesirable characteristics tardiness, stealing, etc.   #  i think it would be reasonable to terminate employment.   # i feel that you should have the right to determine your diet, weather you will eat/drink healthily or not.  i also feel that if an adult decides that they wish to drink alcohol or partake in mind altering recreational drugs they should be able to make that choice for themselves.  if that is the case, employers must also have the right to terminate employees for any reason.  what i do with my personal time, how i choose to relax, etc.  does not fall under your jurisdiction.  it does if that was part of your contract with me.  if you do not like it, i suggest you not sign the contract.  i think it would be reasonable to terminate employment.  but it should be performance based, and not solely because they consume meth and failed a test.  what if the employer just does not like meth addicts ?  #  it is not criminal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, sex, etc.   #  0 why the hell would it be criminal ? it is not criminal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, sex, etc.  those are all civil offenses.  violators face lawsuits, not prison.  why would someone is right to drugs somehow trump those categories and somehow rise to the level of requiring the criminal justice system to be involved ? 0 business owners have a right to set the hiring standards as they see fit.  the only exceptions are the federal categories URL or any potential state laws.  business owners, at least in an at will state, have every right to choose who they want as employees whether you think it is fair or not it is their choice.  they can fire someone because they dislike their shirt color, their physical appearance, their favorite song preferences, their favorite football team, etc.  you can quit for any reason, and they can fire you for any reason minus the exceptions .  basically: liberty is a two way street.  the government might not imprison you for smoking pot, but it ca not stop a private business from prohibiting its employees from using the substance.  not unless enough people demanded the civil rights act be amended or new legislation be created that expanded the categories.   #  we are not talking about getting your past medical history from your private doctors, hospitals, etc.   # right, and what is the subject about again ? drug tests.  we are not talking about getting your past medical history from your private doctors, hospitals, etc.  the subject is about drug tests, and right now most private employers have the right to test for a wide variety of substances.  moreover, most companies at least in my experience use an unrelated medical review officer mro so they do not have to find out information that might be ada protected.  if you test positive the mro contacts you and finds out what legal drugs you are on.  if you have a legit prescription the test returns to the employer as negative.  no hipaa violations.   #  take dna tests and run them against every unsolved crime in the books ?  #  at what length do you feel they should be able to go to to prove whether or not you are a criminal ? search your home for stolen property ? take dna tests and run them against every unsolved crime in the books ? if you have not been convicted of a crime, and they have no probable cause, what gives them the right to investigate you ? it is also in the governments full right to charge convicted criminals.  does that mean that they can come knocking on everyone is door and force people to take drug tests as a condition of being in the country ?  #  i think the discussion is about whether or not it  should  be legal, not whether or not it is  is  legal.   #  i think the discussion is about whether or not it  should  be legal, not whether or not it is  is  legal.  at what lengths do you believe an employer should be allowed to go to to determine whether or not you have broken any laws ? is that not the duty of the law enforcement agencies to determine ? if you have not been convicted of any crimes, then that is all the information they need of the matter.  would you be okay with a company going through your personal computer with a fine tooth comb as a condition of employment ? it just seems to me that that is all irrelevant to one is ability as a worker.
from what i understand, you do not need an associate is or bachelor is degree to be trained as a police officer.  my view as it stands: 0 i believe every new police officer entering the line of duty, as part of their initial training, should be required to at least obtain an associate is degree in a relevant field i. e.  criminal justice through education provided by the department or an associated college.  0 the police officer position can be likened to a healthcare position.  nurses with an associate is degree rn , for instance, are being required to obtain a bachelor of science in nursing bsn by 0.  the extended education is to benefit the nurse and the healthcare community as a whole, to make sure every nurse is properly educated.  why should not the same be asked of police officers ? nurses save lives, and so do police officers.  the difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill.  they ticket at their discretion.  an unjust action by a police officer can take years to sort out in court/jail, just as an unethical decision by a nurse can be life threatening.  0 requiring police officers to have higher education prerequisites would increase the reputation/public opinion of the police force across america.  public opinion towards the police, lately, has been negative, with everyone wearing gopros to see cops shooting dogs.  yes, this is not an everyday occurrence, but if you want to increase the police force is reputation across the country, then you need to act country wide.  0 to quote police chief magazine URL  #  from what i understand, you do not need an associate is or bachelor is degree to be trained as a police officer.   #  you do not  need  it, but good luck getting hired without it.   # you do not  need  it, but good luck getting hired without it.  criminal justice what would count as a  relevant  field ? why should not the same be asked of police officers ? nurses save lives, and so do police officers.  the difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill.  true, but college courses do not teach you to shoot guns.  true, but it is not like you need 0 years of college to understand the basics of traffic laws.  true, but a college degree wo not make a bad guy into a good guy.  police ethics are pretty simple, the problem is that criminals even the ones with badges do not care much for the rules.   #  making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.   # making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.  agreed.  this is completely off topic for this cmv probably but i think most jobs people can get with a business related degree other than finance/accounting can be done just as well by a high school graduate skilled in office.  you do not need to have a degree to realize that shooting unarmed people who are not a threat is wrong.  a college degree is not going to help you not hit innocent bystanders when you do have to discharge your firearm in a dangerous situation.  the big problem a lot of people have with the police is common decency, not whether the cops are  educated  or not.   #  the purpose of many businesses requiring a degree is often to ensure the person is reliable, hardworking, and able to complete work.   #  the purpose of many businesses requiring a degree is often to ensure the person is reliable, hardworking, and able to complete work.  although many lazy and unintelligent people are able to complete college, it still is a good indication that the person is more likely to have those good qualities.  the us military, for example, requires all officers to have a bachelors degree in any field for this exact reason.  the idea of requiring police officers to have degrees is basically the same.  you want to ensure that they are matured, diligent, and able to make good decisions.   #  unless you want to start 0d printing houses.   #  i saw an example of that in a comment just yesterday.  someone said something about becoming a mechanic as if it is the worst thing you can do.  sure, there are jobs that pay better.  but you can put 0 years into becoming a mechanic, and you have got skills that can give you a job pretty much anywhere, without the debt of studying.  of course, with the future of electric cars and etc, i would probably suggest trying electrician or maybe builder.  unless you want to start 0d printing houses.   #  is a degree just a piece of paper ?  # making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.  that is why i said the department should provide an associate is degree education to the officer as part of their initial training.  this would accomplish several things: 0 the officer would have the education they need to fit my idea.  0 the department would have their liabilities covered if they have those  useless pieces of paper  saying they did what they could to educate the officer.  0 if the department worked with a nearby community college to provide classes for the new officers, they could tailor the classes to specifically mimic the  areal world training  you value without giving them a taser and a gun.  i digress, because now i am getting more into my ideas for a solution to the problem, rather than my view on the problem itself.  i am willing to argue that, in a position of such authority, it is safer and more appeasing to the taxpayers that an officer is classroom educated to a high extent before they are ever given a gun and the ability to ticket people.  is a degree just a piece of paper ? yes.  bachelor is in biology i understand that fully.  but its a necessary evil that would let the public sleep better at night, knowing that brave baccalaureates standing ready to protect them from harm.
from what i understand, you do not need an associate is or bachelor is degree to be trained as a police officer.  my view as it stands: 0 i believe every new police officer entering the line of duty, as part of their initial training, should be required to at least obtain an associate is degree in a relevant field i. e.  criminal justice through education provided by the department or an associated college.  0 the police officer position can be likened to a healthcare position.  nurses with an associate is degree rn , for instance, are being required to obtain a bachelor of science in nursing bsn by 0.  the extended education is to benefit the nurse and the healthcare community as a whole, to make sure every nurse is properly educated.  why should not the same be asked of police officers ? nurses save lives, and so do police officers.  the difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill.  they ticket at their discretion.  an unjust action by a police officer can take years to sort out in court/jail, just as an unethical decision by a nurse can be life threatening.  0 requiring police officers to have higher education prerequisites would increase the reputation/public opinion of the police force across america.  public opinion towards the police, lately, has been negative, with everyone wearing gopros to see cops shooting dogs.  yes, this is not an everyday occurrence, but if you want to increase the police force is reputation across the country, then you need to act country wide.  0 to quote police chief magazine URL  #  should be required to at least obtain an associate is degree in a relevant field i. e.   #  criminal justice what would count as a  relevant  field ?  # you do not  need  it, but good luck getting hired without it.  criminal justice what would count as a  relevant  field ? why should not the same be asked of police officers ? nurses save lives, and so do police officers.  the difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill.  true, but college courses do not teach you to shoot guns.  true, but it is not like you need 0 years of college to understand the basics of traffic laws.  true, but a college degree wo not make a bad guy into a good guy.  police ethics are pretty simple, the problem is that criminals even the ones with badges do not care much for the rules.   #  a college degree is not going to help you not hit innocent bystanders when you do have to discharge your firearm in a dangerous situation.   # making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.  agreed.  this is completely off topic for this cmv probably but i think most jobs people can get with a business related degree other than finance/accounting can be done just as well by a high school graduate skilled in office.  you do not need to have a degree to realize that shooting unarmed people who are not a threat is wrong.  a college degree is not going to help you not hit innocent bystanders when you do have to discharge your firearm in a dangerous situation.  the big problem a lot of people have with the police is common decency, not whether the cops are  educated  or not.   #  the purpose of many businesses requiring a degree is often to ensure the person is reliable, hardworking, and able to complete work.   #  the purpose of many businesses requiring a degree is often to ensure the person is reliable, hardworking, and able to complete work.  although many lazy and unintelligent people are able to complete college, it still is a good indication that the person is more likely to have those good qualities.  the us military, for example, requires all officers to have a bachelors degree in any field for this exact reason.  the idea of requiring police officers to have degrees is basically the same.  you want to ensure that they are matured, diligent, and able to make good decisions.   #  i saw an example of that in a comment just yesterday.   #  i saw an example of that in a comment just yesterday.  someone said something about becoming a mechanic as if it is the worst thing you can do.  sure, there are jobs that pay better.  but you can put 0 years into becoming a mechanic, and you have got skills that can give you a job pretty much anywhere, without the debt of studying.  of course, with the future of electric cars and etc, i would probably suggest trying electrician or maybe builder.  unless you want to start 0d printing houses.   #  is a degree just a piece of paper ?  # making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.  that is why i said the department should provide an associate is degree education to the officer as part of their initial training.  this would accomplish several things: 0 the officer would have the education they need to fit my idea.  0 the department would have their liabilities covered if they have those  useless pieces of paper  saying they did what they could to educate the officer.  0 if the department worked with a nearby community college to provide classes for the new officers, they could tailor the classes to specifically mimic the  areal world training  you value without giving them a taser and a gun.  i digress, because now i am getting more into my ideas for a solution to the problem, rather than my view on the problem itself.  i am willing to argue that, in a position of such authority, it is safer and more appeasing to the taxpayers that an officer is classroom educated to a high extent before they are ever given a gun and the ability to ticket people.  is a degree just a piece of paper ? yes.  bachelor is in biology i understand that fully.  but its a necessary evil that would let the public sleep better at night, knowing that brave baccalaureates standing ready to protect them from harm.
from what i understand, you do not need an associate is or bachelor is degree to be trained as a police officer.  my view as it stands: 0 i believe every new police officer entering the line of duty, as part of their initial training, should be required to at least obtain an associate is degree in a relevant field i. e.  criminal justice through education provided by the department or an associated college.  0 the police officer position can be likened to a healthcare position.  nurses with an associate is degree rn , for instance, are being required to obtain a bachelor of science in nursing bsn by 0.  the extended education is to benefit the nurse and the healthcare community as a whole, to make sure every nurse is properly educated.  why should not the same be asked of police officers ? nurses save lives, and so do police officers.  the difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill.  they ticket at their discretion.  an unjust action by a police officer can take years to sort out in court/jail, just as an unethical decision by a nurse can be life threatening.  0 requiring police officers to have higher education prerequisites would increase the reputation/public opinion of the police force across america.  public opinion towards the police, lately, has been negative, with everyone wearing gopros to see cops shooting dogs.  yes, this is not an everyday occurrence, but if you want to increase the police force is reputation across the country, then you need to act country wide.  0 to quote police chief magazine URL  #  an unjust action by a police officer can take years to sort out in court/jail, just as an unethical decision by a nurse can be life threatening.   #  true, but a college degree wo not make a bad guy into a good guy.   # you do not  need  it, but good luck getting hired without it.  criminal justice what would count as a  relevant  field ? why should not the same be asked of police officers ? nurses save lives, and so do police officers.  the difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill.  true, but college courses do not teach you to shoot guns.  true, but it is not like you need 0 years of college to understand the basics of traffic laws.  true, but a college degree wo not make a bad guy into a good guy.  police ethics are pretty simple, the problem is that criminals even the ones with badges do not care much for the rules.   #  you do not need to have a degree to realize that shooting unarmed people who are not a threat is wrong.   # making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.  agreed.  this is completely off topic for this cmv probably but i think most jobs people can get with a business related degree other than finance/accounting can be done just as well by a high school graduate skilled in office.  you do not need to have a degree to realize that shooting unarmed people who are not a threat is wrong.  a college degree is not going to help you not hit innocent bystanders when you do have to discharge your firearm in a dangerous situation.  the big problem a lot of people have with the police is common decency, not whether the cops are  educated  or not.   #  the idea of requiring police officers to have degrees is basically the same.   #  the purpose of many businesses requiring a degree is often to ensure the person is reliable, hardworking, and able to complete work.  although many lazy and unintelligent people are able to complete college, it still is a good indication that the person is more likely to have those good qualities.  the us military, for example, requires all officers to have a bachelors degree in any field for this exact reason.  the idea of requiring police officers to have degrees is basically the same.  you want to ensure that they are matured, diligent, and able to make good decisions.   #  of course, with the future of electric cars and etc, i would probably suggest trying electrician or maybe builder.   #  i saw an example of that in a comment just yesterday.  someone said something about becoming a mechanic as if it is the worst thing you can do.  sure, there are jobs that pay better.  but you can put 0 years into becoming a mechanic, and you have got skills that can give you a job pretty much anywhere, without the debt of studying.  of course, with the future of electric cars and etc, i would probably suggest trying electrician or maybe builder.  unless you want to start 0d printing houses.   #  but its a necessary evil that would let the public sleep better at night, knowing that brave baccalaureates standing ready to protect them from harm.   # making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.  that is why i said the department should provide an associate is degree education to the officer as part of their initial training.  this would accomplish several things: 0 the officer would have the education they need to fit my idea.  0 the department would have their liabilities covered if they have those  useless pieces of paper  saying they did what they could to educate the officer.  0 if the department worked with a nearby community college to provide classes for the new officers, they could tailor the classes to specifically mimic the  areal world training  you value without giving them a taser and a gun.  i digress, because now i am getting more into my ideas for a solution to the problem, rather than my view on the problem itself.  i am willing to argue that, in a position of such authority, it is safer and more appeasing to the taxpayers that an officer is classroom educated to a high extent before they are ever given a gun and the ability to ticket people.  is a degree just a piece of paper ? yes.  bachelor is in biology i understand that fully.  but its a necessary evil that would let the public sleep better at night, knowing that brave baccalaureates standing ready to protect them from harm.
from what i understand, you do not need an associate is or bachelor is degree to be trained as a police officer.  my view as it stands: 0 i believe every new police officer entering the line of duty, as part of their initial training, should be required to at least obtain an associate is degree in a relevant field i. e.  criminal justice through education provided by the department or an associated college.  0 the police officer position can be likened to a healthcare position.  nurses with an associate is degree rn , for instance, are being required to obtain a bachelor of science in nursing bsn by 0.  the extended education is to benefit the nurse and the healthcare community as a whole, to make sure every nurse is properly educated.  why should not the same be asked of police officers ? nurses save lives, and so do police officers.  the difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill.  they ticket at their discretion.  an unjust action by a police officer can take years to sort out in court/jail, just as an unethical decision by a nurse can be life threatening.  0 requiring police officers to have higher education prerequisites would increase the reputation/public opinion of the police force across america.  public opinion towards the police, lately, has been negative, with everyone wearing gopros to see cops shooting dogs.  yes, this is not an everyday occurrence, but if you want to increase the police force is reputation across the country, then you need to act country wide.  0 to quote police chief magazine URL  #  requiring police officers to have higher education prerequisites would increase the reputation/public opinion of the police force across america.   #  public opinion towards the police, lately, has been negative, with everyone wearing gopros to see cops shooting dogs.   # public opinion towards the police, lately, has been negative, with everyone wearing gopros to see cops shooting dogs.  yes, this is not an everyday occurrence, but if you want to increase the police force is reputation across the country, then you need to act country wide.  how does a college degree accomplish this ? people fear the police not because they believe the police are uneducated, but because the police are actually doing harmful things.  your points 0 and 0 are the same thing, but the summation you conclude is that a degree in criminal justice somehow  trains  an officer like a nurse receives training to become an rn.  both are untrue.  an rn is a field of study and most do not get degrees in nursing but are given licenses based on time/practical work.  a cop through a criminal justice or similar degree would get none of that.  they do not learn the laws they would enforce, proper enforcement technique, application of force. nothing learned in a college level course will ever be of use to them in enforcement to a certain level detectives for example can use that kind of books smarts, but much rarer .  this is the whole reason that every officer, regardless of college level training or not, has to go through the police academy.  this teaches both the physical and mental things which an officer will need for their job.  there is no such thing college level firearms course which actually teaches police level firearms with both practical and classroom knowledge .  no, it does not.  i have done the college thing.  none of my classes including a criminal justice class were made up of any other races or nationalities.  also, being exposed to different people does not make a person any more able to deal with them.  if the person just never interacts with that person, then they have gained nothing out of the experience other than having them in the same room.  having worked with many people with college degrees, this is a baseless assumption which is completely untrue.  so reading situations from a book and being told about them is 0 times more effective than experiencing it ? do you have a source for that ?  #  making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.   # making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.  agreed.  this is completely off topic for this cmv probably but i think most jobs people can get with a business related degree other than finance/accounting can be done just as well by a high school graduate skilled in office.  you do not need to have a degree to realize that shooting unarmed people who are not a threat is wrong.  a college degree is not going to help you not hit innocent bystanders when you do have to discharge your firearm in a dangerous situation.  the big problem a lot of people have with the police is common decency, not whether the cops are  educated  or not.   #  the us military, for example, requires all officers to have a bachelors degree in any field for this exact reason.   #  the purpose of many businesses requiring a degree is often to ensure the person is reliable, hardworking, and able to complete work.  although many lazy and unintelligent people are able to complete college, it still is a good indication that the person is more likely to have those good qualities.  the us military, for example, requires all officers to have a bachelors degree in any field for this exact reason.  the idea of requiring police officers to have degrees is basically the same.  you want to ensure that they are matured, diligent, and able to make good decisions.   #  unless you want to start 0d printing houses.   #  i saw an example of that in a comment just yesterday.  someone said something about becoming a mechanic as if it is the worst thing you can do.  sure, there are jobs that pay better.  but you can put 0 years into becoming a mechanic, and you have got skills that can give you a job pretty much anywhere, without the debt of studying.  of course, with the future of electric cars and etc, i would probably suggest trying electrician or maybe builder.  unless you want to start 0d printing houses.   #  is a degree just a piece of paper ?  # making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.  that is why i said the department should provide an associate is degree education to the officer as part of their initial training.  this would accomplish several things: 0 the officer would have the education they need to fit my idea.  0 the department would have their liabilities covered if they have those  useless pieces of paper  saying they did what they could to educate the officer.  0 if the department worked with a nearby community college to provide classes for the new officers, they could tailor the classes to specifically mimic the  areal world training  you value without giving them a taser and a gun.  i digress, because now i am getting more into my ideas for a solution to the problem, rather than my view on the problem itself.  i am willing to argue that, in a position of such authority, it is safer and more appeasing to the taxpayers that an officer is classroom educated to a high extent before they are ever given a gun and the ability to ticket people.  is a degree just a piece of paper ? yes.  bachelor is in biology i understand that fully.  but its a necessary evil that would let the public sleep better at night, knowing that brave baccalaureates standing ready to protect them from harm.
from what i understand, you do not need an associate is or bachelor is degree to be trained as a police officer.  my view as it stands: 0 i believe every new police officer entering the line of duty, as part of their initial training, should be required to at least obtain an associate is degree in a relevant field i. e.  criminal justice through education provided by the department or an associated college.  0 the police officer position can be likened to a healthcare position.  nurses with an associate is degree rn , for instance, are being required to obtain a bachelor of science in nursing bsn by 0.  the extended education is to benefit the nurse and the healthcare community as a whole, to make sure every nurse is properly educated.  why should not the same be asked of police officers ? nurses save lives, and so do police officers.  the difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill.  they ticket at their discretion.  an unjust action by a police officer can take years to sort out in court/jail, just as an unethical decision by a nurse can be life threatening.  0 requiring police officers to have higher education prerequisites would increase the reputation/public opinion of the police force across america.  public opinion towards the police, lately, has been negative, with everyone wearing gopros to see cops shooting dogs.  yes, this is not an everyday occurrence, but if you want to increase the police force is reputation across the country, then you need to act country wide.  0 to quote police chief magazine URL  #  the difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill.   #  there is no such thing college level firearms course which actually teaches police level firearms with both practical and classroom knowledge .   # public opinion towards the police, lately, has been negative, with everyone wearing gopros to see cops shooting dogs.  yes, this is not an everyday occurrence, but if you want to increase the police force is reputation across the country, then you need to act country wide.  how does a college degree accomplish this ? people fear the police not because they believe the police are uneducated, but because the police are actually doing harmful things.  your points 0 and 0 are the same thing, but the summation you conclude is that a degree in criminal justice somehow  trains  an officer like a nurse receives training to become an rn.  both are untrue.  an rn is a field of study and most do not get degrees in nursing but are given licenses based on time/practical work.  a cop through a criminal justice or similar degree would get none of that.  they do not learn the laws they would enforce, proper enforcement technique, application of force. nothing learned in a college level course will ever be of use to them in enforcement to a certain level detectives for example can use that kind of books smarts, but much rarer .  this is the whole reason that every officer, regardless of college level training or not, has to go through the police academy.  this teaches both the physical and mental things which an officer will need for their job.  there is no such thing college level firearms course which actually teaches police level firearms with both practical and classroom knowledge .  no, it does not.  i have done the college thing.  none of my classes including a criminal justice class were made up of any other races or nationalities.  also, being exposed to different people does not make a person any more able to deal with them.  if the person just never interacts with that person, then they have gained nothing out of the experience other than having them in the same room.  having worked with many people with college degrees, this is a baseless assumption which is completely untrue.  so reading situations from a book and being told about them is 0 times more effective than experiencing it ? do you have a source for that ?  #  this is completely off topic for this cmv probably but i think most jobs people can get with a business related degree other than finance/accounting can be done just as well by a high school graduate skilled in office.   # making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.  agreed.  this is completely off topic for this cmv probably but i think most jobs people can get with a business related degree other than finance/accounting can be done just as well by a high school graduate skilled in office.  you do not need to have a degree to realize that shooting unarmed people who are not a threat is wrong.  a college degree is not going to help you not hit innocent bystanders when you do have to discharge your firearm in a dangerous situation.  the big problem a lot of people have with the police is common decency, not whether the cops are  educated  or not.   #  you want to ensure that they are matured, diligent, and able to make good decisions.   #  the purpose of many businesses requiring a degree is often to ensure the person is reliable, hardworking, and able to complete work.  although many lazy and unintelligent people are able to complete college, it still is a good indication that the person is more likely to have those good qualities.  the us military, for example, requires all officers to have a bachelors degree in any field for this exact reason.  the idea of requiring police officers to have degrees is basically the same.  you want to ensure that they are matured, diligent, and able to make good decisions.   #  of course, with the future of electric cars and etc, i would probably suggest trying electrician or maybe builder.   #  i saw an example of that in a comment just yesterday.  someone said something about becoming a mechanic as if it is the worst thing you can do.  sure, there are jobs that pay better.  but you can put 0 years into becoming a mechanic, and you have got skills that can give you a job pretty much anywhere, without the debt of studying.  of course, with the future of electric cars and etc, i would probably suggest trying electrician or maybe builder.  unless you want to start 0d printing houses.   #  0 if the department worked with a nearby community college to provide classes for the new officers, they could tailor the classes to specifically mimic the  areal world training  you value without giving them a taser and a gun.   # making degrees a prerequisite for certain jobs is a waste of time and money.  that is why i said the department should provide an associate is degree education to the officer as part of their initial training.  this would accomplish several things: 0 the officer would have the education they need to fit my idea.  0 the department would have their liabilities covered if they have those  useless pieces of paper  saying they did what they could to educate the officer.  0 if the department worked with a nearby community college to provide classes for the new officers, they could tailor the classes to specifically mimic the  areal world training  you value without giving them a taser and a gun.  i digress, because now i am getting more into my ideas for a solution to the problem, rather than my view on the problem itself.  i am willing to argue that, in a position of such authority, it is safer and more appeasing to the taxpayers that an officer is classroom educated to a high extent before they are ever given a gun and the ability to ticket people.  is a degree just a piece of paper ? yes.  bachelor is in biology i understand that fully.  but its a necessary evil that would let the public sleep better at night, knowing that brave baccalaureates standing ready to protect them from harm.
this is not a criticism of nolan is trilogy as they stand by themselves, just that the films gave extremely different portrayals of the characters than the source material it was expected to draw from.  the character motivations and personality traits were changed so drastically that they are unrecognizable, not unlike how the last airbender, eragon, dragon ball: evolution, or how to train your dragon butchered the source material.    nolan batman is not a genius and had to rely on lucius fox for his gear and gadgets.  the movies also do not show bruce is obsession and dependence with being batman; he quits for 0 years due to an injury he easily remedies and the death of a loved one.  and whereas  batman  is his true self and  bruce wayne  is the mask, nolan shows bruce making jokes  does it come in black ?   , and gives off the impression that bruce wayne is a real person and not just a persona.    joker is based entirely on alan moore is interpretation of the character, as seen in the killing joke.  moore is one shot showed joker in a very different light, and gave him purpose and a past, but tdk cuts out the joker is past, leaving no justification for what would otherwise be a very out of character joker.  while he is a traditionally a senseless character being the embodiment of chaos, who does evil for his own pleasure, tdk offers us a joker with a deep purpose. but with no real reasoning.    bane is not a genius, had his origin heavily changed, does not make use of venom, and had his motivations changed halfway through the movie to be an apparent love for talia.  he breaks batman, but does not humiliate him as he does during knightfall, and his victory feels very undeserved.  and as much as people bitch about the mask and his voice, i do not think it really added anything other than to stick a finger to the comic.    this is smaller character, but scarecrow is oddly calm and quiet.  without the mask i would not know who this was supposed to be.  none of the characters are faithful adaptations, and in a movie featuring batman, i expected nolan to leave the character is personalities and motivations intact. i do not know why anyone would say this is a good  batman  movie when he is not even in it.   #  none of the characters are faithful adaptations, and in a movie featuring batman, i expected nolan to leave the character is personalities and motivations intact.   #  i guess i am wondering why you expected this in the first place.   #  i am having a hard time understanding what the view is here.  i mean, yes, the characters are absolutely very different from their comic counterparts.  i do not have any doubt that this was very intentional.  i am not nolan, so i can only speculate as to why he made the choices he did, but here is my best guess: 0.  genius batman: batman begins was an alternate origin story for batman.  he spent a ton of time training with the goal of infiltrating the criminal underworld.  he is intelligent, but i think him being a super genius and inventing his own stuff would have been very difficult to convey in a believable way in a film that already spent a lot of time establishing his backstory.  so lucius fox is character was a helpful and plausible storytelling device to get the gadgets in play.  seems like a good choice to me.  quitting: this is an interesting choice, but clearly an intentional one.  nolan batman is very explicit about wanting to give up being batman even in the second movie.  one of the entire main plot points is that he hopes that harvey dent can help create a world that does not need him any more.  this may be different than the comic batman, but its a very intentional and up front choice by nolan.  joker: i think this is another case of not wanting to bog down an already very long film with unnecessary origin info.  the mystery joker totally works, and instead of having to hear a long winded story about where he comes from, nolan puts front and center these made up stories that he tells, and actually makes his lack of a backstory into an interesting part of the character.  where he comes from just has no bearing on the plot, and i think as a film with limited run time, its a very smart choice.  bane.  eh.  i will give you some slack on this.  i did not really like nolan is bane character.  but to give him the benefit of the doubt, bane was reworked to fit into the whole league of shadows / prison storyline that was created for the movie.  i do not think it totally worked for me, but i can kind of see where he was going.  i do not think the primary issue was that it was a  terrible adaptation  though.  the changes were incredibly intentional, i just did not really like them in this case.  scarecrow how do you make a faithful film adaptation of scarecrow ? he is a kind of ridiculous character.  he also had plot reasons in the first film to kind of tweak him a bit and make him fit in more with the real world.  again, i thought he was a great take on it, and i liked that he kept getting brought back for little cameos.  i guess i am wondering why you expected this in the first place.  it is still a batman movie.  it is just a different batman with a different origin story and different motivations.  i do not think it makes sense to call it a  terrible adaptation  unless you think its also a  terrible film .  because calling something a terrible anything to me implies that some kind of failure by the creator, but all of the choices that made it a  terrible adaptation  by your definition were very intentional, and may of them were strong contributors to its success as a movie in its own right by giving it better pacing, realism, plausibility, cohesion, etc.   #  is the batman they watch less authentic than the one others read ?  #  you are making the assumption that the nolanverse is making an adaptation of a comic line.  i do not really think it is.  batman has a large presence in the american cultural landscape outside the comics, from the animated series to  batman and robin.  you seem like a fan of the batman comics, but i know a lot of people who like batman quite a bit, but never pick up the comics.  is the batman they watch less authentic than the one others read ? when the dark night came out, i had one friend who thought that the joker was too far off from his  iconic  animated series portrayal.  another told me that jack nicholson was the classic joker, and nolan ruined him by changing him.  one really liked the killing joke and thought they nailed it.  some now see ledger as the iconic joker.  none really align to the joker is first appearances in the 0s.  which is the  real  joker ? i would say none, but also all.   #  in a way, yes, they are less authentic than the comics, at the risk of sounding elitist.   # is the batman they watch less authentic than the one others read ? the animated series uses the comics as source material for the most part, they did create some new characters and origins .  in a way, yes, they are less authentic than the comics, at the risk of sounding elitist.  it serves an entirely different purpose and has a different audience.  nolan effectively dismantled batman as a character and rebuilt him from scratch, making him entirely different than the collective character of the comics.   #  batman is identity as true as opposed to bruce wayne is not built up in detective comics.   #  are the modern comics less authentic than the original ones ? batman is identity as true as opposed to bruce wayne is not built up in detective comics.  nor is it really harped on in the animated series.  the core of batman is character seems to be: rich dead parents gadgets fights crime there are different ways to interpret the character, but that is open to the writer.  one method of seeing batman is not the true core of the character: there is just so many different ways that he is been portrayed over the years.   #  that is what keeps it fun after 0 years.   #  the history of batman had been a history of constant reinvention.  that is what keeps it fun after 0 years.  i do not want a movie to be faithful.  if it were, then what is the point of making it ? may as well just read the comics.  i want movies of comics to be reinventions in the comic tradition.  i want them to mold the archetypes of the characters to reflect the cares and infatuations of the newest generation, to help tell the story of a new artist, the director.  superheros are archetypes, tools that we can drag out to tell all kinds of stories.  adam west is batman told a lot of fun goofy stories, and that is okay, there is room for that.  the ultimate judgement is whether what was done was interesting, entertaining and whether it accomplished what it set out to do.
this is not a criticism of nolan is trilogy as they stand by themselves, just that the films gave extremely different portrayals of the characters than the source material it was expected to draw from.  the character motivations and personality traits were changed so drastically that they are unrecognizable, not unlike how the last airbender, eragon, dragon ball: evolution, or how to train your dragon butchered the source material.    nolan batman is not a genius and had to rely on lucius fox for his gear and gadgets.  the movies also do not show bruce is obsession and dependence with being batman; he quits for 0 years due to an injury he easily remedies and the death of a loved one.  and whereas  batman  is his true self and  bruce wayne  is the mask, nolan shows bruce making jokes  does it come in black ?   , and gives off the impression that bruce wayne is a real person and not just a persona.    joker is based entirely on alan moore is interpretation of the character, as seen in the killing joke.  moore is one shot showed joker in a very different light, and gave him purpose and a past, but tdk cuts out the joker is past, leaving no justification for what would otherwise be a very out of character joker.  while he is a traditionally a senseless character being the embodiment of chaos, who does evil for his own pleasure, tdk offers us a joker with a deep purpose. but with no real reasoning.    bane is not a genius, had his origin heavily changed, does not make use of venom, and had his motivations changed halfway through the movie to be an apparent love for talia.  he breaks batman, but does not humiliate him as he does during knightfall, and his victory feels very undeserved.  and as much as people bitch about the mask and his voice, i do not think it really added anything other than to stick a finger to the comic.    this is smaller character, but scarecrow is oddly calm and quiet.  without the mask i would not know who this was supposed to be.  none of the characters are faithful adaptations, and in a movie featuring batman, i expected nolan to leave the character is personalities and motivations intact. i do not know why anyone would say this is a good  batman  movie when he is not even in it.   #  and gives off the impression that bruce wayne is a real person and not just a persona.   #  bruce wayne  is  a real person to an extent, even in other works.   #  my view was always that it was a reinvention of the batman character through a somewhat more believable, modern and gritty lens.  he is not the comic book character, he is what the comic book character might be in real life.  i am kind of bothered by this bit;  the movies also do not show bruce is obsession and dependence with being batman; the nolan trilogy makes it pretty clear that he depends on being batman since he becomes a total recluse in the years he is  off duty.   he might not be quite as obsessive as in the comics, but it is clear that being batman is the most important thing in his life and he views it as a necessary burden much like in the comics.  bruce wayne  is  a real person to an extent, even in other works.  bruce wayne purposefully made the batman persona to be intimidating and make criminals feel fear.  he does not actually act that way when he is hanging out with alfred.  the person we see when he interacts with alfred is probably the closest we get to the  true  bruce and, at least in the works i have seen, his personality is more like a more serious bruce than it is like the personality of batman when he interacts with other characters.  bruce wayne the billionaire playboy might be something of an act, but bruce does develop serious relationships with people while acting under that persona, which would indicate that it is not totally an act.  we can see this in his relationship with harvey dent, especially in the animated series.   #  again, i thought he was a great take on it, and i liked that he kept getting brought back for little cameos.   #  i am having a hard time understanding what the view is here.  i mean, yes, the characters are absolutely very different from their comic counterparts.  i do not have any doubt that this was very intentional.  i am not nolan, so i can only speculate as to why he made the choices he did, but here is my best guess: 0.  genius batman: batman begins was an alternate origin story for batman.  he spent a ton of time training with the goal of infiltrating the criminal underworld.  he is intelligent, but i think him being a super genius and inventing his own stuff would have been very difficult to convey in a believable way in a film that already spent a lot of time establishing his backstory.  so lucius fox is character was a helpful and plausible storytelling device to get the gadgets in play.  seems like a good choice to me.  quitting: this is an interesting choice, but clearly an intentional one.  nolan batman is very explicit about wanting to give up being batman even in the second movie.  one of the entire main plot points is that he hopes that harvey dent can help create a world that does not need him any more.  this may be different than the comic batman, but its a very intentional and up front choice by nolan.  joker: i think this is another case of not wanting to bog down an already very long film with unnecessary origin info.  the mystery joker totally works, and instead of having to hear a long winded story about where he comes from, nolan puts front and center these made up stories that he tells, and actually makes his lack of a backstory into an interesting part of the character.  where he comes from just has no bearing on the plot, and i think as a film with limited run time, its a very smart choice.  bane.  eh.  i will give you some slack on this.  i did not really like nolan is bane character.  but to give him the benefit of the doubt, bane was reworked to fit into the whole league of shadows / prison storyline that was created for the movie.  i do not think it totally worked for me, but i can kind of see where he was going.  i do not think the primary issue was that it was a  terrible adaptation  though.  the changes were incredibly intentional, i just did not really like them in this case.  scarecrow how do you make a faithful film adaptation of scarecrow ? he is a kind of ridiculous character.  he also had plot reasons in the first film to kind of tweak him a bit and make him fit in more with the real world.  again, i thought he was a great take on it, and i liked that he kept getting brought back for little cameos.  i guess i am wondering why you expected this in the first place.  it is still a batman movie.  it is just a different batman with a different origin story and different motivations.  i do not think it makes sense to call it a  terrible adaptation  unless you think its also a  terrible film .  because calling something a terrible anything to me implies that some kind of failure by the creator, but all of the choices that made it a  terrible adaptation  by your definition were very intentional, and may of them were strong contributors to its success as a movie in its own right by giving it better pacing, realism, plausibility, cohesion, etc.   #  is the batman they watch less authentic than the one others read ?  #  you are making the assumption that the nolanverse is making an adaptation of a comic line.  i do not really think it is.  batman has a large presence in the american cultural landscape outside the comics, from the animated series to  batman and robin.  you seem like a fan of the batman comics, but i know a lot of people who like batman quite a bit, but never pick up the comics.  is the batman they watch less authentic than the one others read ? when the dark night came out, i had one friend who thought that the joker was too far off from his  iconic  animated series portrayal.  another told me that jack nicholson was the classic joker, and nolan ruined him by changing him.  one really liked the killing joke and thought they nailed it.  some now see ledger as the iconic joker.  none really align to the joker is first appearances in the 0s.  which is the  real  joker ? i would say none, but also all.   #  is the batman they watch less authentic than the one others read ?  # is the batman they watch less authentic than the one others read ? the animated series uses the comics as source material for the most part, they did create some new characters and origins .  in a way, yes, they are less authentic than the comics, at the risk of sounding elitist.  it serves an entirely different purpose and has a different audience.  nolan effectively dismantled batman as a character and rebuilt him from scratch, making him entirely different than the collective character of the comics.   #  the core of batman is character seems to be: rich dead parents gadgets fights crime there are different ways to interpret the character, but that is open to the writer.   #  are the modern comics less authentic than the original ones ? batman is identity as true as opposed to bruce wayne is not built up in detective comics.  nor is it really harped on in the animated series.  the core of batman is character seems to be: rich dead parents gadgets fights crime there are different ways to interpret the character, but that is open to the writer.  one method of seeing batman is not the true core of the character: there is just so many different ways that he is been portrayed over the years.
the current economic system relies on people doing jobs.  some jobs require more training than other jobs, and this training costs money.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  higher incomes also create incentive to be better at what you do, so your income should be based on both of these things, otherwise, their is no point i training for a hard job, when you could do a much easier job or working hard to do your job when you could bludge .  in the future however, it appears that large portions of the job sector will be wiped out by robots.  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.  eventually, all the jobs will theoretically be gone, then all of the robots need to be owned by the state, otherwise the majority of the populace become nothing more than the property of those that own the robots.  this clearly needs to be done slowly and carefully.  note: i may not reply quickly to all replies, as i am due to leave home for the evening fairly soon.  i will look at replies in the morning.   #  the current economic system relies on people doing jobs.   #  the current economic system relies on people needing to work for things.   # the current economic system relies on people needing to work for things.  i do not think that is going to change.  the fact that labor is useful is what creates a market for it.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  nobody deserves anything.  people offer value through their abilities and services to others, and those other people reciprocate.  the price at which people agree to exchange those things is determined, absent government intervention, by mutual voluntary agreement.  you are not guaranteed a price on your labor any more than you are guaranteed a price on your rock collection or a song you wrote.  value is subjective.  economists have done research to show that incomes tend not to correlate with performance in jobs with any level of intellectual tasking, past a certain baseline.  basically, if you offer enough money to take the issue of money off the table, more money does not change the equation positively it actually can reduce performance ! it is a price.  this is true but it is not as simple as  hard  and  easy .  people excel at different tasks.  i may find something like lifting furniture all day to be exhausting and unrewarding.  another person might find it relaxing and enjoy the physical exercise.  capitalism is what enables people to freely choose the division of labor as individuals.  division of labor is what maximizes economic output, and it is what has created all our prosperity of the modern world.  thank god.  imagine how much more productive as a society we will be then ! and the lulz begin.  look.  in the 0s 0 of people worked on farms.  do you know how many people work on farms today ? 0.  that means that 0 of people are unemployed right ? i mean, what the hell do people do when all the good farming jobs are taken up by machines ? your logic has been used since the dawn of the industrial age.  it has  never  been proven correct.  actually, it is economically impossible for there to be fewer jobs than people who want to do them, because the price of labor for that type of work would just fall.  unfortunately, because of protectionism by governments, high barriers to hiring people created by regulations on businesses, and price fixing, it is very hard for prices to fall to clearing levels in markets, such as labor.  i mean, look at what the government did with the recent 0/0 crash: the government literally propped up prices and is currently flooding the asset markets with newly printed money from the fed.  this creates the illusion of recovery prices are going up again, hurray ! but without the real symptoms of recovery, like growth, job creation, etc.  the point is that if the market was simply allowed to work without interference, there would never be a case where people were unable to find work.  the only thing is that prices for their labor would continue to fall as technology replaced them, which is good.  that falling price of labor is a signal for them to retrain and respecialize.  it is also a signal to newcomers to the labor market to not specialize in that field.  just like how when we replaced horses with cars that we all become property of those who own the cars.  look, i appreciate that you are interested in these concepts, but it is like me talking about the best ways to do brain surgery.  i have no fucking clue how brain surgery works.  you have no fucking clue how economics works.  it is okay ! ignorance is not a crime, nor something to be ashamed of.  but, for some reason it is socially acceptable to interject our uneducated and irrational opinions about economics, when it would be completely unacceptable to do so about rocket science, or medicine.  i strongly recommend starting with a few resources: economics in one lesson by henry hazlitt URL lessons for the young economist by robert murphy URL and watch every episode of free to choose by milton friedman.  you will learn a metric shitton.  URL  #  i am not saying the state should not own anything, but it depends on the circumstances, i would not want the state owning everything.   #  i disagree with your premise that jobs will ever be wiped out by robots, in two hundred years of automation that is never happened.  some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  i would also like you to define  communism  and  capitalism,  those are very ambiguous terms.  if you mean statism the state owning the means of production that does not solve anything, it just makes the state a monopoly owner, which creates its own set of problems.  i am not saying the state should not own anything, but it depends on the circumstances, i would not want the state owning everything.  that is not pure communism, anyway, in pure communism the state is supposed to wither away.   #  what was once the principal occupation of some 0 of the population now employs less than 0 and would be lower if everything was a mega farm.   #  it took millenia for man to go from trying to achieve powerd flight to actually flying, machines today can do things people even 0 years back did not even dream of.  the question for today is not can we automate this.  we can.  we can absolutly automate most jobs.  the problem is that machines are still far more expensive and less versetile for most jobs, but not a month ago, 0 people in my home town lost their jobs when an engineer made an add on to a machine that makes the plastic chasings for a car battery also automatically print the lable.  what was once a manual job, is now part of the automatic process.  look at agroculture.  what was once the principal occupation of some 0 of the population now employs less than 0 and would be lower if everything was a mega farm.  look at industry.  output is up, but labor use is down.  while industries like tekstile remain labor intensive, even there the number of workers employed is falling even as production is increesing.  i have worked in a few office enviroment where i am certain even i could have written a simple script that does 0 of the work they do.  finally, we have 0d printing.  while the jezsons future with humanod robots doing all the work is still sf, a machine that needs no assembly line, no huge up front investment, no economies of scale and no workers, but can make most thing a person could need is very much a tangable reality.   #  furthermore, the new jobs that have arisen are mostly nonsensical jobs.   # some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  actually, op is correct.  the goal of most companies at this point is to eliminate their dependence on  human resources  as much as possible.  for example, an oil pipeline back in the 0 is would have required different measurement stations that someone would have to drive to, replace the paper taken by measurements at the rtus every so many miles, then send those tapes in, which would require a person to manually enter the data into a big system.  these days, there is no tape, and the rtus are automated and network enabled so that measurements of oil flow are done in either realtime or at least in an automated manner, and scripts automatically parse the data.  making changes is also automated, so you have a person sitting at a computer that can control an oil pipeline that goes all across the country, replacing the job that hundreds of people used to do.  furthermore, the new jobs that have arisen are mostly nonsensical jobs.  if you work in an office, you may run into someone whose job is something like,  regional strategic process implementation coordinator  which actually makes no sense.  most of the modern  good  jobs are for abstract nonsense which creates new pawns for management to build their empire and thus make themselves appear more important than their peers.  my guess is that op wants to see state ownership in combination of things like a guaranteed income to everyone.  if we as a society can agree that we can eliminate a lot of jobs for the benefit of society, we either have to invent bullshit jobs like we have been doing, or make a realistic approach to determining whether or not everyone needs to work, and if not, what replaces work ?  #  op assumed that robots will be owned by only small group of people, but why ?  #  i would like to add here some things, because i agree with you.  op assumed that robots will be owned by only small group of people, but why ? robots are not so exclusive nowadays and in many countries you can buy your own after several years of saving, so in the future they will become even more cheap.  there are plenty of small companies around the world, who own hi tech robots.  what is more, op does not understand how capitalism works.  imagine you have a robot.  you do not become richer, because you have a robot, but because your robot would do something with your other resources, which you had bought from someone else, and you would  sell  them to someone else.  what i would like to say: trade is the heart of capitalism not ownership and except from robots it will always be need for: food, energy, materials, entertainment etc.  if there is a market and you have a product you can sell it, no matter if it was made by robot or by human and this is the key ! in capitalism if there is demand, sooner or later, it will be supply.  and if there is supply, and no demand, business will crack.  however in communism there may be huge demand on something but no one would fulfil these needs, because only country can do it, but country like a monopolist is to slow to change quickly their productions.  only small firms can do it and we need them.
the current economic system relies on people doing jobs.  some jobs require more training than other jobs, and this training costs money.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  higher incomes also create incentive to be better at what you do, so your income should be based on both of these things, otherwise, their is no point i training for a hard job, when you could do a much easier job or working hard to do your job when you could bludge .  in the future however, it appears that large portions of the job sector will be wiped out by robots.  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.  eventually, all the jobs will theoretically be gone, then all of the robots need to be owned by the state, otherwise the majority of the populace become nothing more than the property of those that own the robots.  this clearly needs to be done slowly and carefully.  note: i may not reply quickly to all replies, as i am due to leave home for the evening fairly soon.  i will look at replies in the morning.   #  some jobs require more training than other jobs, and this training costs money.   #  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.   # the current economic system relies on people needing to work for things.  i do not think that is going to change.  the fact that labor is useful is what creates a market for it.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  nobody deserves anything.  people offer value through their abilities and services to others, and those other people reciprocate.  the price at which people agree to exchange those things is determined, absent government intervention, by mutual voluntary agreement.  you are not guaranteed a price on your labor any more than you are guaranteed a price on your rock collection or a song you wrote.  value is subjective.  economists have done research to show that incomes tend not to correlate with performance in jobs with any level of intellectual tasking, past a certain baseline.  basically, if you offer enough money to take the issue of money off the table, more money does not change the equation positively it actually can reduce performance ! it is a price.  this is true but it is not as simple as  hard  and  easy .  people excel at different tasks.  i may find something like lifting furniture all day to be exhausting and unrewarding.  another person might find it relaxing and enjoy the physical exercise.  capitalism is what enables people to freely choose the division of labor as individuals.  division of labor is what maximizes economic output, and it is what has created all our prosperity of the modern world.  thank god.  imagine how much more productive as a society we will be then ! and the lulz begin.  look.  in the 0s 0 of people worked on farms.  do you know how many people work on farms today ? 0.  that means that 0 of people are unemployed right ? i mean, what the hell do people do when all the good farming jobs are taken up by machines ? your logic has been used since the dawn of the industrial age.  it has  never  been proven correct.  actually, it is economically impossible for there to be fewer jobs than people who want to do them, because the price of labor for that type of work would just fall.  unfortunately, because of protectionism by governments, high barriers to hiring people created by regulations on businesses, and price fixing, it is very hard for prices to fall to clearing levels in markets, such as labor.  i mean, look at what the government did with the recent 0/0 crash: the government literally propped up prices and is currently flooding the asset markets with newly printed money from the fed.  this creates the illusion of recovery prices are going up again, hurray ! but without the real symptoms of recovery, like growth, job creation, etc.  the point is that if the market was simply allowed to work without interference, there would never be a case where people were unable to find work.  the only thing is that prices for their labor would continue to fall as technology replaced them, which is good.  that falling price of labor is a signal for them to retrain and respecialize.  it is also a signal to newcomers to the labor market to not specialize in that field.  just like how when we replaced horses with cars that we all become property of those who own the cars.  look, i appreciate that you are interested in these concepts, but it is like me talking about the best ways to do brain surgery.  i have no fucking clue how brain surgery works.  you have no fucking clue how economics works.  it is okay ! ignorance is not a crime, nor something to be ashamed of.  but, for some reason it is socially acceptable to interject our uneducated and irrational opinions about economics, when it would be completely unacceptable to do so about rocket science, or medicine.  i strongly recommend starting with a few resources: economics in one lesson by henry hazlitt URL lessons for the young economist by robert murphy URL and watch every episode of free to choose by milton friedman.  you will learn a metric shitton.  URL  #  i am not saying the state should not own anything, but it depends on the circumstances, i would not want the state owning everything.   #  i disagree with your premise that jobs will ever be wiped out by robots, in two hundred years of automation that is never happened.  some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  i would also like you to define  communism  and  capitalism,  those are very ambiguous terms.  if you mean statism the state owning the means of production that does not solve anything, it just makes the state a monopoly owner, which creates its own set of problems.  i am not saying the state should not own anything, but it depends on the circumstances, i would not want the state owning everything.  that is not pure communism, anyway, in pure communism the state is supposed to wither away.   #  while industries like tekstile remain labor intensive, even there the number of workers employed is falling even as production is increesing.   #  it took millenia for man to go from trying to achieve powerd flight to actually flying, machines today can do things people even 0 years back did not even dream of.  the question for today is not can we automate this.  we can.  we can absolutly automate most jobs.  the problem is that machines are still far more expensive and less versetile for most jobs, but not a month ago, 0 people in my home town lost their jobs when an engineer made an add on to a machine that makes the plastic chasings for a car battery also automatically print the lable.  what was once a manual job, is now part of the automatic process.  look at agroculture.  what was once the principal occupation of some 0 of the population now employs less than 0 and would be lower if everything was a mega farm.  look at industry.  output is up, but labor use is down.  while industries like tekstile remain labor intensive, even there the number of workers employed is falling even as production is increesing.  i have worked in a few office enviroment where i am certain even i could have written a simple script that does 0 of the work they do.  finally, we have 0d printing.  while the jezsons future with humanod robots doing all the work is still sf, a machine that needs no assembly line, no huge up front investment, no economies of scale and no workers, but can make most thing a person could need is very much a tangable reality.   #  these days, there is no tape, and the rtus are automated and network enabled so that measurements of oil flow are done in either realtime or at least in an automated manner, and scripts automatically parse the data.   # some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  actually, op is correct.  the goal of most companies at this point is to eliminate their dependence on  human resources  as much as possible.  for example, an oil pipeline back in the 0 is would have required different measurement stations that someone would have to drive to, replace the paper taken by measurements at the rtus every so many miles, then send those tapes in, which would require a person to manually enter the data into a big system.  these days, there is no tape, and the rtus are automated and network enabled so that measurements of oil flow are done in either realtime or at least in an automated manner, and scripts automatically parse the data.  making changes is also automated, so you have a person sitting at a computer that can control an oil pipeline that goes all across the country, replacing the job that hundreds of people used to do.  furthermore, the new jobs that have arisen are mostly nonsensical jobs.  if you work in an office, you may run into someone whose job is something like,  regional strategic process implementation coordinator  which actually makes no sense.  most of the modern  good  jobs are for abstract nonsense which creates new pawns for management to build their empire and thus make themselves appear more important than their peers.  my guess is that op wants to see state ownership in combination of things like a guaranteed income to everyone.  if we as a society can agree that we can eliminate a lot of jobs for the benefit of society, we either have to invent bullshit jobs like we have been doing, or make a realistic approach to determining whether or not everyone needs to work, and if not, what replaces work ?  #  i would like to add here some things, because i agree with you.   #  i would like to add here some things, because i agree with you.  op assumed that robots will be owned by only small group of people, but why ? robots are not so exclusive nowadays and in many countries you can buy your own after several years of saving, so in the future they will become even more cheap.  there are plenty of small companies around the world, who own hi tech robots.  what is more, op does not understand how capitalism works.  imagine you have a robot.  you do not become richer, because you have a robot, but because your robot would do something with your other resources, which you had bought from someone else, and you would  sell  them to someone else.  what i would like to say: trade is the heart of capitalism not ownership and except from robots it will always be need for: food, energy, materials, entertainment etc.  if there is a market and you have a product you can sell it, no matter if it was made by robot or by human and this is the key ! in capitalism if there is demand, sooner or later, it will be supply.  and if there is supply, and no demand, business will crack.  however in communism there may be huge demand on something but no one would fulfil these needs, because only country can do it, but country like a monopolist is to slow to change quickly their productions.  only small firms can do it and we need them.
the current economic system relies on people doing jobs.  some jobs require more training than other jobs, and this training costs money.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  higher incomes also create incentive to be better at what you do, so your income should be based on both of these things, otherwise, their is no point i training for a hard job, when you could do a much easier job or working hard to do your job when you could bludge .  in the future however, it appears that large portions of the job sector will be wiped out by robots.  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.  eventually, all the jobs will theoretically be gone, then all of the robots need to be owned by the state, otherwise the majority of the populace become nothing more than the property of those that own the robots.  this clearly needs to be done slowly and carefully.  note: i may not reply quickly to all replies, as i am due to leave home for the evening fairly soon.  i will look at replies in the morning.   #  otherwise, their is no point i training for a hard job, when you could do a much easier job or working hard to do your job when you could bludge .   #  this is true but it is not as simple as  hard  and  easy .   # the current economic system relies on people needing to work for things.  i do not think that is going to change.  the fact that labor is useful is what creates a market for it.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  nobody deserves anything.  people offer value through their abilities and services to others, and those other people reciprocate.  the price at which people agree to exchange those things is determined, absent government intervention, by mutual voluntary agreement.  you are not guaranteed a price on your labor any more than you are guaranteed a price on your rock collection or a song you wrote.  value is subjective.  economists have done research to show that incomes tend not to correlate with performance in jobs with any level of intellectual tasking, past a certain baseline.  basically, if you offer enough money to take the issue of money off the table, more money does not change the equation positively it actually can reduce performance ! it is a price.  this is true but it is not as simple as  hard  and  easy .  people excel at different tasks.  i may find something like lifting furniture all day to be exhausting and unrewarding.  another person might find it relaxing and enjoy the physical exercise.  capitalism is what enables people to freely choose the division of labor as individuals.  division of labor is what maximizes economic output, and it is what has created all our prosperity of the modern world.  thank god.  imagine how much more productive as a society we will be then ! and the lulz begin.  look.  in the 0s 0 of people worked on farms.  do you know how many people work on farms today ? 0.  that means that 0 of people are unemployed right ? i mean, what the hell do people do when all the good farming jobs are taken up by machines ? your logic has been used since the dawn of the industrial age.  it has  never  been proven correct.  actually, it is economically impossible for there to be fewer jobs than people who want to do them, because the price of labor for that type of work would just fall.  unfortunately, because of protectionism by governments, high barriers to hiring people created by regulations on businesses, and price fixing, it is very hard for prices to fall to clearing levels in markets, such as labor.  i mean, look at what the government did with the recent 0/0 crash: the government literally propped up prices and is currently flooding the asset markets with newly printed money from the fed.  this creates the illusion of recovery prices are going up again, hurray ! but without the real symptoms of recovery, like growth, job creation, etc.  the point is that if the market was simply allowed to work without interference, there would never be a case where people were unable to find work.  the only thing is that prices for their labor would continue to fall as technology replaced them, which is good.  that falling price of labor is a signal for them to retrain and respecialize.  it is also a signal to newcomers to the labor market to not specialize in that field.  just like how when we replaced horses with cars that we all become property of those who own the cars.  look, i appreciate that you are interested in these concepts, but it is like me talking about the best ways to do brain surgery.  i have no fucking clue how brain surgery works.  you have no fucking clue how economics works.  it is okay ! ignorance is not a crime, nor something to be ashamed of.  but, for some reason it is socially acceptable to interject our uneducated and irrational opinions about economics, when it would be completely unacceptable to do so about rocket science, or medicine.  i strongly recommend starting with a few resources: economics in one lesson by henry hazlitt URL lessons for the young economist by robert murphy URL and watch every episode of free to choose by milton friedman.  you will learn a metric shitton.  URL  #  i am not saying the state should not own anything, but it depends on the circumstances, i would not want the state owning everything.   #  i disagree with your premise that jobs will ever be wiped out by robots, in two hundred years of automation that is never happened.  some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  i would also like you to define  communism  and  capitalism,  those are very ambiguous terms.  if you mean statism the state owning the means of production that does not solve anything, it just makes the state a monopoly owner, which creates its own set of problems.  i am not saying the state should not own anything, but it depends on the circumstances, i would not want the state owning everything.  that is not pure communism, anyway, in pure communism the state is supposed to wither away.   #  the question for today is not can we automate this.   #  it took millenia for man to go from trying to achieve powerd flight to actually flying, machines today can do things people even 0 years back did not even dream of.  the question for today is not can we automate this.  we can.  we can absolutly automate most jobs.  the problem is that machines are still far more expensive and less versetile for most jobs, but not a month ago, 0 people in my home town lost their jobs when an engineer made an add on to a machine that makes the plastic chasings for a car battery also automatically print the lable.  what was once a manual job, is now part of the automatic process.  look at agroculture.  what was once the principal occupation of some 0 of the population now employs less than 0 and would be lower if everything was a mega farm.  look at industry.  output is up, but labor use is down.  while industries like tekstile remain labor intensive, even there the number of workers employed is falling even as production is increesing.  i have worked in a few office enviroment where i am certain even i could have written a simple script that does 0 of the work they do.  finally, we have 0d printing.  while the jezsons future with humanod robots doing all the work is still sf, a machine that needs no assembly line, no huge up front investment, no economies of scale and no workers, but can make most thing a person could need is very much a tangable reality.   #  making changes is also automated, so you have a person sitting at a computer that can control an oil pipeline that goes all across the country, replacing the job that hundreds of people used to do.   # some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  actually, op is correct.  the goal of most companies at this point is to eliminate their dependence on  human resources  as much as possible.  for example, an oil pipeline back in the 0 is would have required different measurement stations that someone would have to drive to, replace the paper taken by measurements at the rtus every so many miles, then send those tapes in, which would require a person to manually enter the data into a big system.  these days, there is no tape, and the rtus are automated and network enabled so that measurements of oil flow are done in either realtime or at least in an automated manner, and scripts automatically parse the data.  making changes is also automated, so you have a person sitting at a computer that can control an oil pipeline that goes all across the country, replacing the job that hundreds of people used to do.  furthermore, the new jobs that have arisen are mostly nonsensical jobs.  if you work in an office, you may run into someone whose job is something like,  regional strategic process implementation coordinator  which actually makes no sense.  most of the modern  good  jobs are for abstract nonsense which creates new pawns for management to build their empire and thus make themselves appear more important than their peers.  my guess is that op wants to see state ownership in combination of things like a guaranteed income to everyone.  if we as a society can agree that we can eliminate a lot of jobs for the benefit of society, we either have to invent bullshit jobs like we have been doing, or make a realistic approach to determining whether or not everyone needs to work, and if not, what replaces work ?  #  op assumed that robots will be owned by only small group of people, but why ?  #  i would like to add here some things, because i agree with you.  op assumed that robots will be owned by only small group of people, but why ? robots are not so exclusive nowadays and in many countries you can buy your own after several years of saving, so in the future they will become even more cheap.  there are plenty of small companies around the world, who own hi tech robots.  what is more, op does not understand how capitalism works.  imagine you have a robot.  you do not become richer, because you have a robot, but because your robot would do something with your other resources, which you had bought from someone else, and you would  sell  them to someone else.  what i would like to say: trade is the heart of capitalism not ownership and except from robots it will always be need for: food, energy, materials, entertainment etc.  if there is a market and you have a product you can sell it, no matter if it was made by robot or by human and this is the key ! in capitalism if there is demand, sooner or later, it will be supply.  and if there is supply, and no demand, business will crack.  however in communism there may be huge demand on something but no one would fulfil these needs, because only country can do it, but country like a monopolist is to slow to change quickly their productions.  only small firms can do it and we need them.
the current economic system relies on people doing jobs.  some jobs require more training than other jobs, and this training costs money.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  higher incomes also create incentive to be better at what you do, so your income should be based on both of these things, otherwise, their is no point i training for a hard job, when you could do a much easier job or working hard to do your job when you could bludge .  in the future however, it appears that large portions of the job sector will be wiped out by robots.  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.  eventually, all the jobs will theoretically be gone, then all of the robots need to be owned by the state, otherwise the majority of the populace become nothing more than the property of those that own the robots.  this clearly needs to be done slowly and carefully.  note: i may not reply quickly to all replies, as i am due to leave home for the evening fairly soon.  i will look at replies in the morning.   #  eventually, all the jobs will theoretically be gone, then all of the robots need to be owned by the state, otherwise the majority of the populace become nothing more than the property of those that own the robots.   #  just like how when we replaced horses with cars that we all become property of those who own the cars.   # the current economic system relies on people needing to work for things.  i do not think that is going to change.  the fact that labor is useful is what creates a market for it.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  nobody deserves anything.  people offer value through their abilities and services to others, and those other people reciprocate.  the price at which people agree to exchange those things is determined, absent government intervention, by mutual voluntary agreement.  you are not guaranteed a price on your labor any more than you are guaranteed a price on your rock collection or a song you wrote.  value is subjective.  economists have done research to show that incomes tend not to correlate with performance in jobs with any level of intellectual tasking, past a certain baseline.  basically, if you offer enough money to take the issue of money off the table, more money does not change the equation positively it actually can reduce performance ! it is a price.  this is true but it is not as simple as  hard  and  easy .  people excel at different tasks.  i may find something like lifting furniture all day to be exhausting and unrewarding.  another person might find it relaxing and enjoy the physical exercise.  capitalism is what enables people to freely choose the division of labor as individuals.  division of labor is what maximizes economic output, and it is what has created all our prosperity of the modern world.  thank god.  imagine how much more productive as a society we will be then ! and the lulz begin.  look.  in the 0s 0 of people worked on farms.  do you know how many people work on farms today ? 0.  that means that 0 of people are unemployed right ? i mean, what the hell do people do when all the good farming jobs are taken up by machines ? your logic has been used since the dawn of the industrial age.  it has  never  been proven correct.  actually, it is economically impossible for there to be fewer jobs than people who want to do them, because the price of labor for that type of work would just fall.  unfortunately, because of protectionism by governments, high barriers to hiring people created by regulations on businesses, and price fixing, it is very hard for prices to fall to clearing levels in markets, such as labor.  i mean, look at what the government did with the recent 0/0 crash: the government literally propped up prices and is currently flooding the asset markets with newly printed money from the fed.  this creates the illusion of recovery prices are going up again, hurray ! but without the real symptoms of recovery, like growth, job creation, etc.  the point is that if the market was simply allowed to work without interference, there would never be a case where people were unable to find work.  the only thing is that prices for their labor would continue to fall as technology replaced them, which is good.  that falling price of labor is a signal for them to retrain and respecialize.  it is also a signal to newcomers to the labor market to not specialize in that field.  just like how when we replaced horses with cars that we all become property of those who own the cars.  look, i appreciate that you are interested in these concepts, but it is like me talking about the best ways to do brain surgery.  i have no fucking clue how brain surgery works.  you have no fucking clue how economics works.  it is okay ! ignorance is not a crime, nor something to be ashamed of.  but, for some reason it is socially acceptable to interject our uneducated and irrational opinions about economics, when it would be completely unacceptable to do so about rocket science, or medicine.  i strongly recommend starting with a few resources: economics in one lesson by henry hazlitt URL lessons for the young economist by robert murphy URL and watch every episode of free to choose by milton friedman.  you will learn a metric shitton.  URL  #  i would also like you to define  communism  and  capitalism,  those are very ambiguous terms.   #  i disagree with your premise that jobs will ever be wiped out by robots, in two hundred years of automation that is never happened.  some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  i would also like you to define  communism  and  capitalism,  those are very ambiguous terms.  if you mean statism the state owning the means of production that does not solve anything, it just makes the state a monopoly owner, which creates its own set of problems.  i am not saying the state should not own anything, but it depends on the circumstances, i would not want the state owning everything.  that is not pure communism, anyway, in pure communism the state is supposed to wither away.   #  what was once a manual job, is now part of the automatic process.   #  it took millenia for man to go from trying to achieve powerd flight to actually flying, machines today can do things people even 0 years back did not even dream of.  the question for today is not can we automate this.  we can.  we can absolutly automate most jobs.  the problem is that machines are still far more expensive and less versetile for most jobs, but not a month ago, 0 people in my home town lost their jobs when an engineer made an add on to a machine that makes the plastic chasings for a car battery also automatically print the lable.  what was once a manual job, is now part of the automatic process.  look at agroculture.  what was once the principal occupation of some 0 of the population now employs less than 0 and would be lower if everything was a mega farm.  look at industry.  output is up, but labor use is down.  while industries like tekstile remain labor intensive, even there the number of workers employed is falling even as production is increesing.  i have worked in a few office enviroment where i am certain even i could have written a simple script that does 0 of the work they do.  finally, we have 0d printing.  while the jezsons future with humanod robots doing all the work is still sf, a machine that needs no assembly line, no huge up front investment, no economies of scale and no workers, but can make most thing a person could need is very much a tangable reality.   #  some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.   # some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  actually, op is correct.  the goal of most companies at this point is to eliminate their dependence on  human resources  as much as possible.  for example, an oil pipeline back in the 0 is would have required different measurement stations that someone would have to drive to, replace the paper taken by measurements at the rtus every so many miles, then send those tapes in, which would require a person to manually enter the data into a big system.  these days, there is no tape, and the rtus are automated and network enabled so that measurements of oil flow are done in either realtime or at least in an automated manner, and scripts automatically parse the data.  making changes is also automated, so you have a person sitting at a computer that can control an oil pipeline that goes all across the country, replacing the job that hundreds of people used to do.  furthermore, the new jobs that have arisen are mostly nonsensical jobs.  if you work in an office, you may run into someone whose job is something like,  regional strategic process implementation coordinator  which actually makes no sense.  most of the modern  good  jobs are for abstract nonsense which creates new pawns for management to build their empire and thus make themselves appear more important than their peers.  my guess is that op wants to see state ownership in combination of things like a guaranteed income to everyone.  if we as a society can agree that we can eliminate a lot of jobs for the benefit of society, we either have to invent bullshit jobs like we have been doing, or make a realistic approach to determining whether or not everyone needs to work, and if not, what replaces work ?  #  op assumed that robots will be owned by only small group of people, but why ?  #  i would like to add here some things, because i agree with you.  op assumed that robots will be owned by only small group of people, but why ? robots are not so exclusive nowadays and in many countries you can buy your own after several years of saving, so in the future they will become even more cheap.  there are plenty of small companies around the world, who own hi tech robots.  what is more, op does not understand how capitalism works.  imagine you have a robot.  you do not become richer, because you have a robot, but because your robot would do something with your other resources, which you had bought from someone else, and you would  sell  them to someone else.  what i would like to say: trade is the heart of capitalism not ownership and except from robots it will always be need for: food, energy, materials, entertainment etc.  if there is a market and you have a product you can sell it, no matter if it was made by robot or by human and this is the key ! in capitalism if there is demand, sooner or later, it will be supply.  and if there is supply, and no demand, business will crack.  however in communism there may be huge demand on something but no one would fulfil these needs, because only country can do it, but country like a monopolist is to slow to change quickly their productions.  only small firms can do it and we need them.
the current economic system relies on people doing jobs.  some jobs require more training than other jobs, and this training costs money.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  higher incomes also create incentive to be better at what you do, so your income should be based on both of these things, otherwise, their is no point i training for a hard job, when you could do a much easier job or working hard to do your job when you could bludge .  in the future however, it appears that large portions of the job sector will be wiped out by robots.  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.  eventually, all the jobs will theoretically be gone, then all of the robots need to be owned by the state, otherwise the majority of the populace become nothing more than the property of those that own the robots.  this clearly needs to be done slowly and carefully.  note: i may not reply quickly to all replies, as i am due to leave home for the evening fairly soon.  i will look at replies in the morning.   #  some jobs require more training than other jobs, and this training costs money.   #  good thing we have a healthy financial industry that will give money to people who have reasonable, reliable plans to use it to make more money.   # no it does not.  good thing we have a healthy financial industry that will give money to people who have reasonable, reliable plans to use it to make more money.  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.  why do robots make people unable to find jobs.  who designs the robots ? who builds and programs and repairs and upgrades them.  why ca not everyone own their own robots ? why ca not robots be owned collectively.  why ca not robots be owned by a maintenance company who extracts a profit in exchange for the work of maintaining them, by renting them out to individuals who will use them for the various things they do.  sounds like you do not have a very good imagination about future economics  #  if you mean statism the state owning the means of production that does not solve anything, it just makes the state a monopoly owner, which creates its own set of problems.   #  i disagree with your premise that jobs will ever be wiped out by robots, in two hundred years of automation that is never happened.  some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  i would also like you to define  communism  and  capitalism,  those are very ambiguous terms.  if you mean statism the state owning the means of production that does not solve anything, it just makes the state a monopoly owner, which creates its own set of problems.  i am not saying the state should not own anything, but it depends on the circumstances, i would not want the state owning everything.  that is not pure communism, anyway, in pure communism the state is supposed to wither away.   #  what was once the principal occupation of some 0 of the population now employs less than 0 and would be lower if everything was a mega farm.   #  it took millenia for man to go from trying to achieve powerd flight to actually flying, machines today can do things people even 0 years back did not even dream of.  the question for today is not can we automate this.  we can.  we can absolutly automate most jobs.  the problem is that machines are still far more expensive and less versetile for most jobs, but not a month ago, 0 people in my home town lost their jobs when an engineer made an add on to a machine that makes the plastic chasings for a car battery also automatically print the lable.  what was once a manual job, is now part of the automatic process.  look at agroculture.  what was once the principal occupation of some 0 of the population now employs less than 0 and would be lower if everything was a mega farm.  look at industry.  output is up, but labor use is down.  while industries like tekstile remain labor intensive, even there the number of workers employed is falling even as production is increesing.  i have worked in a few office enviroment where i am certain even i could have written a simple script that does 0 of the work they do.  finally, we have 0d printing.  while the jezsons future with humanod robots doing all the work is still sf, a machine that needs no assembly line, no huge up front investment, no economies of scale and no workers, but can make most thing a person could need is very much a tangable reality.   #  these days, there is no tape, and the rtus are automated and network enabled so that measurements of oil flow are done in either realtime or at least in an automated manner, and scripts automatically parse the data.   # some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  actually, op is correct.  the goal of most companies at this point is to eliminate their dependence on  human resources  as much as possible.  for example, an oil pipeline back in the 0 is would have required different measurement stations that someone would have to drive to, replace the paper taken by measurements at the rtus every so many miles, then send those tapes in, which would require a person to manually enter the data into a big system.  these days, there is no tape, and the rtus are automated and network enabled so that measurements of oil flow are done in either realtime or at least in an automated manner, and scripts automatically parse the data.  making changes is also automated, so you have a person sitting at a computer that can control an oil pipeline that goes all across the country, replacing the job that hundreds of people used to do.  furthermore, the new jobs that have arisen are mostly nonsensical jobs.  if you work in an office, you may run into someone whose job is something like,  regional strategic process implementation coordinator  which actually makes no sense.  most of the modern  good  jobs are for abstract nonsense which creates new pawns for management to build their empire and thus make themselves appear more important than their peers.  my guess is that op wants to see state ownership in combination of things like a guaranteed income to everyone.  if we as a society can agree that we can eliminate a lot of jobs for the benefit of society, we either have to invent bullshit jobs like we have been doing, or make a realistic approach to determining whether or not everyone needs to work, and if not, what replaces work ?  #  however in communism there may be huge demand on something but no one would fulfil these needs, because only country can do it, but country like a monopolist is to slow to change quickly their productions.   #  i would like to add here some things, because i agree with you.  op assumed that robots will be owned by only small group of people, but why ? robots are not so exclusive nowadays and in many countries you can buy your own after several years of saving, so in the future they will become even more cheap.  there are plenty of small companies around the world, who own hi tech robots.  what is more, op does not understand how capitalism works.  imagine you have a robot.  you do not become richer, because you have a robot, but because your robot would do something with your other resources, which you had bought from someone else, and you would  sell  them to someone else.  what i would like to say: trade is the heart of capitalism not ownership and except from robots it will always be need for: food, energy, materials, entertainment etc.  if there is a market and you have a product you can sell it, no matter if it was made by robot or by human and this is the key ! in capitalism if there is demand, sooner or later, it will be supply.  and if there is supply, and no demand, business will crack.  however in communism there may be huge demand on something but no one would fulfil these needs, because only country can do it, but country like a monopolist is to slow to change quickly their productions.  only small firms can do it and we need them.
the current economic system relies on people doing jobs.  some jobs require more training than other jobs, and this training costs money.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  higher incomes also create incentive to be better at what you do, so your income should be based on both of these things, otherwise, their is no point i training for a hard job, when you could do a much easier job or working hard to do your job when you could bludge .  in the future however, it appears that large portions of the job sector will be wiped out by robots.  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.  eventually, all the jobs will theoretically be gone, then all of the robots need to be owned by the state, otherwise the majority of the populace become nothing more than the property of those that own the robots.  this clearly needs to be done slowly and carefully.  note: i may not reply quickly to all replies, as i am due to leave home for the evening fairly soon.  i will look at replies in the morning.   #  in the future however, it appears that large portions of the job sector will be wiped out by robots.   #  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.   # no it does not.  good thing we have a healthy financial industry that will give money to people who have reasonable, reliable plans to use it to make more money.  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.  why do robots make people unable to find jobs.  who designs the robots ? who builds and programs and repairs and upgrades them.  why ca not everyone own their own robots ? why ca not robots be owned collectively.  why ca not robots be owned by a maintenance company who extracts a profit in exchange for the work of maintaining them, by renting them out to individuals who will use them for the various things they do.  sounds like you do not have a very good imagination about future economics  #  i would also like you to define  communism  and  capitalism,  those are very ambiguous terms.   #  i disagree with your premise that jobs will ever be wiped out by robots, in two hundred years of automation that is never happened.  some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  i would also like you to define  communism  and  capitalism,  those are very ambiguous terms.  if you mean statism the state owning the means of production that does not solve anything, it just makes the state a monopoly owner, which creates its own set of problems.  i am not saying the state should not own anything, but it depends on the circumstances, i would not want the state owning everything.  that is not pure communism, anyway, in pure communism the state is supposed to wither away.   #  it took millenia for man to go from trying to achieve powerd flight to actually flying, machines today can do things people even 0 years back did not even dream of.   #  it took millenia for man to go from trying to achieve powerd flight to actually flying, machines today can do things people even 0 years back did not even dream of.  the question for today is not can we automate this.  we can.  we can absolutly automate most jobs.  the problem is that machines are still far more expensive and less versetile for most jobs, but not a month ago, 0 people in my home town lost their jobs when an engineer made an add on to a machine that makes the plastic chasings for a car battery also automatically print the lable.  what was once a manual job, is now part of the automatic process.  look at agroculture.  what was once the principal occupation of some 0 of the population now employs less than 0 and would be lower if everything was a mega farm.  look at industry.  output is up, but labor use is down.  while industries like tekstile remain labor intensive, even there the number of workers employed is falling even as production is increesing.  i have worked in a few office enviroment where i am certain even i could have written a simple script that does 0 of the work they do.  finally, we have 0d printing.  while the jezsons future with humanod robots doing all the work is still sf, a machine that needs no assembly line, no huge up front investment, no economies of scale and no workers, but can make most thing a person could need is very much a tangable reality.   #  furthermore, the new jobs that have arisen are mostly nonsensical jobs.   # some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  actually, op is correct.  the goal of most companies at this point is to eliminate their dependence on  human resources  as much as possible.  for example, an oil pipeline back in the 0 is would have required different measurement stations that someone would have to drive to, replace the paper taken by measurements at the rtus every so many miles, then send those tapes in, which would require a person to manually enter the data into a big system.  these days, there is no tape, and the rtus are automated and network enabled so that measurements of oil flow are done in either realtime or at least in an automated manner, and scripts automatically parse the data.  making changes is also automated, so you have a person sitting at a computer that can control an oil pipeline that goes all across the country, replacing the job that hundreds of people used to do.  furthermore, the new jobs that have arisen are mostly nonsensical jobs.  if you work in an office, you may run into someone whose job is something like,  regional strategic process implementation coordinator  which actually makes no sense.  most of the modern  good  jobs are for abstract nonsense which creates new pawns for management to build their empire and thus make themselves appear more important than their peers.  my guess is that op wants to see state ownership in combination of things like a guaranteed income to everyone.  if we as a society can agree that we can eliminate a lot of jobs for the benefit of society, we either have to invent bullshit jobs like we have been doing, or make a realistic approach to determining whether or not everyone needs to work, and if not, what replaces work ?  #  robots are not so exclusive nowadays and in many countries you can buy your own after several years of saving, so in the future they will become even more cheap.   #  i would like to add here some things, because i agree with you.  op assumed that robots will be owned by only small group of people, but why ? robots are not so exclusive nowadays and in many countries you can buy your own after several years of saving, so in the future they will become even more cheap.  there are plenty of small companies around the world, who own hi tech robots.  what is more, op does not understand how capitalism works.  imagine you have a robot.  you do not become richer, because you have a robot, but because your robot would do something with your other resources, which you had bought from someone else, and you would  sell  them to someone else.  what i would like to say: trade is the heart of capitalism not ownership and except from robots it will always be need for: food, energy, materials, entertainment etc.  if there is a market and you have a product you can sell it, no matter if it was made by robot or by human and this is the key ! in capitalism if there is demand, sooner or later, it will be supply.  and if there is supply, and no demand, business will crack.  however in communism there may be huge demand on something but no one would fulfil these needs, because only country can do it, but country like a monopolist is to slow to change quickly their productions.  only small firms can do it and we need them.
the current economic system relies on people doing jobs.  some jobs require more training than other jobs, and this training costs money.  a person who spent more time and money on their training deserves more than somebody who spent less time and money.  higher incomes also create incentive to be better at what you do, so your income should be based on both of these things, otherwise, their is no point i training for a hard job, when you could do a much easier job or working hard to do your job when you could bludge .  in the future however, it appears that large portions of the job sector will be wiped out by robots.  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.  eventually, all the jobs will theoretically be gone, then all of the robots need to be owned by the state, otherwise the majority of the populace become nothing more than the property of those that own the robots.  this clearly needs to be done slowly and carefully.  note: i may not reply quickly to all replies, as i am due to leave home for the evening fairly soon.  i will look at replies in the morning.   #  eventually, all the jobs will theoretically be gone, then all of the robots need to be owned by the state, otherwise the majority of the populace become nothing more than the property of those that own the robots.   #  why ca not everyone own their own robots ?  # no it does not.  good thing we have a healthy financial industry that will give money to people who have reasonable, reliable plans to use it to make more money.  once a substantial portion of the population are unable to find a job, then we need a universal minimum wage, with people having the ability to earn extra if they can find a job.  why do robots make people unable to find jobs.  who designs the robots ? who builds and programs and repairs and upgrades them.  why ca not everyone own their own robots ? why ca not robots be owned collectively.  why ca not robots be owned by a maintenance company who extracts a profit in exchange for the work of maintaining them, by renting them out to individuals who will use them for the various things they do.  sounds like you do not have a very good imagination about future economics  #  i would also like you to define  communism  and  capitalism,  those are very ambiguous terms.   #  i disagree with your premise that jobs will ever be wiped out by robots, in two hundred years of automation that is never happened.  some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  i would also like you to define  communism  and  capitalism,  those are very ambiguous terms.  if you mean statism the state owning the means of production that does not solve anything, it just makes the state a monopoly owner, which creates its own set of problems.  i am not saying the state should not own anything, but it depends on the circumstances, i would not want the state owning everything.  that is not pure communism, anyway, in pure communism the state is supposed to wither away.   #  while industries like tekstile remain labor intensive, even there the number of workers employed is falling even as production is increesing.   #  it took millenia for man to go from trying to achieve powerd flight to actually flying, machines today can do things people even 0 years back did not even dream of.  the question for today is not can we automate this.  we can.  we can absolutly automate most jobs.  the problem is that machines are still far more expensive and less versetile for most jobs, but not a month ago, 0 people in my home town lost their jobs when an engineer made an add on to a machine that makes the plastic chasings for a car battery also automatically print the lable.  what was once a manual job, is now part of the automatic process.  look at agroculture.  what was once the principal occupation of some 0 of the population now employs less than 0 and would be lower if everything was a mega farm.  look at industry.  output is up, but labor use is down.  while industries like tekstile remain labor intensive, even there the number of workers employed is falling even as production is increesing.  i have worked in a few office enviroment where i am certain even i could have written a simple script that does 0 of the work they do.  finally, we have 0d printing.  while the jezsons future with humanod robots doing all the work is still sf, a machine that needs no assembly line, no huge up front investment, no economies of scale and no workers, but can make most thing a person could need is very much a tangable reality.   #  making changes is also automated, so you have a person sitting at a computer that can control an oil pipeline that goes all across the country, replacing the job that hundreds of people used to do.   # some kind of jobs have been wiped out, sure, but others have arisen.  actually, op is correct.  the goal of most companies at this point is to eliminate their dependence on  human resources  as much as possible.  for example, an oil pipeline back in the 0 is would have required different measurement stations that someone would have to drive to, replace the paper taken by measurements at the rtus every so many miles, then send those tapes in, which would require a person to manually enter the data into a big system.  these days, there is no tape, and the rtus are automated and network enabled so that measurements of oil flow are done in either realtime or at least in an automated manner, and scripts automatically parse the data.  making changes is also automated, so you have a person sitting at a computer that can control an oil pipeline that goes all across the country, replacing the job that hundreds of people used to do.  furthermore, the new jobs that have arisen are mostly nonsensical jobs.  if you work in an office, you may run into someone whose job is something like,  regional strategic process implementation coordinator  which actually makes no sense.  most of the modern  good  jobs are for abstract nonsense which creates new pawns for management to build their empire and thus make themselves appear more important than their peers.  my guess is that op wants to see state ownership in combination of things like a guaranteed income to everyone.  if we as a society can agree that we can eliminate a lot of jobs for the benefit of society, we either have to invent bullshit jobs like we have been doing, or make a realistic approach to determining whether or not everyone needs to work, and if not, what replaces work ?  #  however in communism there may be huge demand on something but no one would fulfil these needs, because only country can do it, but country like a monopolist is to slow to change quickly their productions.   #  i would like to add here some things, because i agree with you.  op assumed that robots will be owned by only small group of people, but why ? robots are not so exclusive nowadays and in many countries you can buy your own after several years of saving, so in the future they will become even more cheap.  there are plenty of small companies around the world, who own hi tech robots.  what is more, op does not understand how capitalism works.  imagine you have a robot.  you do not become richer, because you have a robot, but because your robot would do something with your other resources, which you had bought from someone else, and you would  sell  them to someone else.  what i would like to say: trade is the heart of capitalism not ownership and except from robots it will always be need for: food, energy, materials, entertainment etc.  if there is a market and you have a product you can sell it, no matter if it was made by robot or by human and this is the key ! in capitalism if there is demand, sooner or later, it will be supply.  and if there is supply, and no demand, business will crack.  however in communism there may be huge demand on something but no one would fulfil these needs, because only country can do it, but country like a monopolist is to slow to change quickly their productions.  only small firms can do it and we need them.
being proud of your race causes a social divide which only increases racism as it tends to lead towards racial exclusion.  i do think that racial pride tends to lead to the thought process of racial superiority and as such is only part of the problem when it comes to racism.  being proud should only come with an action, not with something you are born with.  you should not be proud that you are asian, white, black, or hispanic.  you should be proud of what you have done.  i am not saying that getting rid of racial pride will solve racism but i do think that it is part of the problem.  rejecting shame has nothing to do with having pride.  URL  #  being proud should only come with an action, not with something you are born with.   #  you should not be proud that you are asian, white, black, or hispanic.   # you should not be proud that you are asian, white, black, or hispanic.  you should be proud of what you have done.  you should take pride in humanity.  you are contradicting yourself here.  if you should only be proud of what you have done, why should you take pride in humanity ? and by being proud of humanity, you are creating a biological divide, parallel to the social divide you argued against.  you are saying we should be proud of humanity because humans are better than other animals.  that is potentially dangerous regardless of whether it is true .  the deeper issue is, if you are saying you can only take pride in what you yourself did, you cannot be proud of your race, your country, your species, your planet, your neighborhood, etc.  you are left with individual achievements.  that is pretty limiting, and it removes a lot of the social glue that holds society together.  people would not have stormed the beaches of normandy to defeat hitler if they were not proud of the principles of freedom and justice that were the reason defeating germany was important.   #  now, i am white and gay, not black, or hispanic, or asian, but the point still stands.   #  i grew up hearing all around that people like me should be ashamed of who we are.  predictably this was a fairly big hit to my sense of self worth, and i needed a sense of pride about being a member of a minority group.  now, i am white and gay, not black, or hispanic, or asian, but the point still stands.  minority pride develops in response to the constant message that minorities should be ashamed of who they are.  it is a response to discrimination, not a cause.   #  how does me being proud of my sexuality contribute to discrimination against me ?  #  well sure, the fact that it is an effect does not mean it is not also a cause i would agree.  i was maybe being a bit hyperbolic to make my point that it is not really part of the problem with racism.  even if minority pride does result in some extra prejudice, it is not something we can focus on to help combat racism it naturally arises from a group who is discriminated with.  also, i am not really sure how much minority pride contributes to prejudice and discrimination.  how does me being proud of my sexuality contribute to discrimination against me ?  #  though being proud of gay culture does not seem unreasonable.   #  i does not contribute to discrimination but it does enforce the idea that gay people are a separate group to straight people.  whilst gay people do have issues which mainly affect them hiv for example , in day to day life it does not really make much sense maintain a distinction between gays and straights.  though being proud of gay culture does not seem unreasonable.  in the same way it is not unreasonable for indians to be proud of their culture.  but i do not think it is reasonable for and indian to be proud of being indian.   #  not to mention that any socially segregated group will develop its own separate culture, traditions and history.   #  not to mention that any socially segregated group will develop its own separate culture, traditions and history.  being proud of what  your people  overcame, what your community has achieved in spite of severe repression, and enjoying the common understanding that comes from being part of a community, is normal.  minority cultures only form in response to majority repression; be it race, sexuality, gender, whatever.  being proud of being in the empowered majority is being proud of being a part of oppression; being proud of being in the minority is being proud of overcoming oppression.  only one of these things are good to be proud of.
being proud of your race causes a social divide which only increases racism as it tends to lead towards racial exclusion.  i do think that racial pride tends to lead to the thought process of racial superiority and as such is only part of the problem when it comes to racism.  being proud should only come with an action, not with something you are born with.  you should not be proud that you are asian, white, black, or hispanic.  you should be proud of what you have done.  i am not saying that getting rid of racial pride will solve racism but i do think that it is part of the problem.  rejecting shame has nothing to do with having pride.  URL  #  you should not be proud that you are asian, white, black, or hispanic.   #  you should be proud of what you have done.   # you should be proud of what you have done.  your solution is to suggest that people should forget about their heritage and only focus on what they can do in their short life.  that would create a problem with being self righteous, probably worst than racism.  i think you are misunderstanding the function of racism.  people hold racist ideas in terms of superiority based on how their race is viewed.  in fact, this has been tested.  i think you should expound what you think the problem with racism is exactly.  for people living in less diverse communities, racism is not a problem at all.   #  predictably this was a fairly big hit to my sense of self worth, and i needed a sense of pride about being a member of a minority group.   #  i grew up hearing all around that people like me should be ashamed of who we are.  predictably this was a fairly big hit to my sense of self worth, and i needed a sense of pride about being a member of a minority group.  now, i am white and gay, not black, or hispanic, or asian, but the point still stands.  minority pride develops in response to the constant message that minorities should be ashamed of who they are.  it is a response to discrimination, not a cause.   #  even if minority pride does result in some extra prejudice, it is not something we can focus on to help combat racism it naturally arises from a group who is discriminated with.   #  well sure, the fact that it is an effect does not mean it is not also a cause i would agree.  i was maybe being a bit hyperbolic to make my point that it is not really part of the problem with racism.  even if minority pride does result in some extra prejudice, it is not something we can focus on to help combat racism it naturally arises from a group who is discriminated with.  also, i am not really sure how much minority pride contributes to prejudice and discrimination.  how does me being proud of my sexuality contribute to discrimination against me ?  #  but i do not think it is reasonable for and indian to be proud of being indian.   #  i does not contribute to discrimination but it does enforce the idea that gay people are a separate group to straight people.  whilst gay people do have issues which mainly affect them hiv for example , in day to day life it does not really make much sense maintain a distinction between gays and straights.  though being proud of gay culture does not seem unreasonable.  in the same way it is not unreasonable for indians to be proud of their culture.  but i do not think it is reasonable for and indian to be proud of being indian.   #  only one of these things are good to be proud of.   #  not to mention that any socially segregated group will develop its own separate culture, traditions and history.  being proud of what  your people  overcame, what your community has achieved in spite of severe repression, and enjoying the common understanding that comes from being part of a community, is normal.  minority cultures only form in response to majority repression; be it race, sexuality, gender, whatever.  being proud of being in the empowered majority is being proud of being a part of oppression; being proud of being in the minority is being proud of overcoming oppression.  only one of these things are good to be proud of.
i work a part time job in the food industry, specifically a buffet style eatery.  we do not have waiters and it runs well.  reasons against waiters: 0 adds money to your bills 0 you have to wait for a waiter to get you refills of your drink when you can just get it yourself.  similarly, you do not have to keep on trying to flag down your waiter for anything.  0 as we do where i work, you give a note with what you want to the cook.  the cook makes it and gives it to you.  this system cuts out the middleman.  0 this is more along the line of busboys, but just in case this is brought up : when you are done with your food, bring it to the dish room.  i know most places do not have a window in which you can place your dirty dishes, but that can change.  if anything, just put it on a cart.  sure, having someone in the dining area is a good idea in case someone has questions although the cook is job is to answer questions, too or there is a special case like someone in a wheelchair needing assistance.  you can have a special waiter it does not mean that everyone else needs one too.  i also understand the reason of  jobs.   there are multiple jobs that do not really do anything.  i probably was not looking hard enough because i searched on google for things related to  we do not need waiters  and  waiters are useless,  yet the only thing that comes up is about tipping.  sorry if someone else brought this up before.   #  0 you have to wait for a waiter to get you refills of your drink when you can just get it yourself.   #  similarly, you do not have to keep on trying to flag down your waiter for anything.   #  there is more to a restaurant than just the food.  a huge part of it is the socialization.  if you are on a date with a girl you do not want to be moving around the whole restaurant filling your drinks, getting your food, etc.  if you are having an interview or meeting with family, you want to enjoy their company and socialize.  not running around filling your drinks.  a major part of restaurants in western culture is the social aspect and this is why waiters exist.  you do not go to a restaurant just for the food.  and food only restaurants like you envision do exists cafeterias.  cafeterias are primarily meant to feed people, not for socialization.  also if you do not want waiters you can just carry out.  overall i think you are missing one of the key functions of restaurants in society.  and what you are describing exists anyways cafeterias.  if you do not want that then get carry out.  similarly, you do not have to keep on trying to flag down your waiter for anything.  not even a problem, any decent waiter/waitress gets you refills before you are empty anyways.  the cook makes it and gives it to you.  this system cuts out the middleman.  would not work for all restaurant styles.  what if you are ordering something complex, or if you have a 0 part meal, etc.  i know most places do not have a window in which you can place your dirty dishes, but that can change.  if anything, just put it on a cart.  and many cafeterias are set up this way.   #  0.  i want to eat something that i lack the skill or equipment to prepare at home.   #  what is it that you specifically enjoy about being waited on ? believe it or not, some people like me actually dislike it and agree with the op.  there are basically three reasons i ever want to go to a restaurant: 0.  i want a break from cooking or doing dishes.  0.  i want to eat something that i lack the skill or equipment to prepare at home.  0.  i am hungry and i am already far from home.  paying another person to walk my food from the kitchen to the dining room and then come around once in a while to ask if i am  still working on it ?   is not on that list.   #  believe it or not, your tastes are not any more important than anyone else is.   #  well then you should avoid places with waiters, and stick to buffets, no ? believe it or not, your tastes are not any more important than anyone else is.  if i want to go to a buffet, i do.  but that is rare.  i do not care for other people pawing all over the food before i eat.  i would much prefer it be brought directly to me from the kitchen.  waiters do more than ask if you are still  working on it .  that you do not appreciate it, does not mean that is the entirety of their job.  plenty of people in the industry take pride in their work, and they put a lot of effort into making sure they take care of their customer is needs.  your reductive assessment is wrong, and unfair.   #  it is more comfortable to just sit in your chair and have others bring you your food and take care of your table.   # people just like to be lazy sometimes and have others do the work for them.  they understand it costs more, but are willing to pay for it.  it is more comfortable to just sit in your chair and have others bring you your food and take care of your table.  yes, you could give the order yourself or move your dirty dishes to some window, but all of that requires effort.  you have to physically stand up and do the work.  some people do not mind which is why buffets and self serving exist , but some people simply prefer having a waiter.   #  while you are doing that, just give the order and take the plates, respectively.   #  cooking a meal could require going to a grocery store to get specific items, spend some amount of time 0 minutes to an hour ? cooking it, and also maybe a few hours to a day or more maybe to learn how to cook it professionally.  but you are walking to your table already.  you are walking out of the restaurant already.  while you are doing that, just give the order and take the plates, respectively.
i work a part time job in the food industry, specifically a buffet style eatery.  we do not have waiters and it runs well.  reasons against waiters: 0 adds money to your bills 0 you have to wait for a waiter to get you refills of your drink when you can just get it yourself.  similarly, you do not have to keep on trying to flag down your waiter for anything.  0 as we do where i work, you give a note with what you want to the cook.  the cook makes it and gives it to you.  this system cuts out the middleman.  0 this is more along the line of busboys, but just in case this is brought up : when you are done with your food, bring it to the dish room.  i know most places do not have a window in which you can place your dirty dishes, but that can change.  if anything, just put it on a cart.  sure, having someone in the dining area is a good idea in case someone has questions although the cook is job is to answer questions, too or there is a special case like someone in a wheelchair needing assistance.  you can have a special waiter it does not mean that everyone else needs one too.  i also understand the reason of  jobs.   there are multiple jobs that do not really do anything.  i probably was not looking hard enough because i searched on google for things related to  we do not need waiters  and  waiters are useless,  yet the only thing that comes up is about tipping.  sorry if someone else brought this up before.   #  0 as we do where i work, you give a note with what you want to the cook.   #  the cook makes it and gives it to you.   #  there is more to a restaurant than just the food.  a huge part of it is the socialization.  if you are on a date with a girl you do not want to be moving around the whole restaurant filling your drinks, getting your food, etc.  if you are having an interview or meeting with family, you want to enjoy their company and socialize.  not running around filling your drinks.  a major part of restaurants in western culture is the social aspect and this is why waiters exist.  you do not go to a restaurant just for the food.  and food only restaurants like you envision do exists cafeterias.  cafeterias are primarily meant to feed people, not for socialization.  also if you do not want waiters you can just carry out.  overall i think you are missing one of the key functions of restaurants in society.  and what you are describing exists anyways cafeterias.  if you do not want that then get carry out.  similarly, you do not have to keep on trying to flag down your waiter for anything.  not even a problem, any decent waiter/waitress gets you refills before you are empty anyways.  the cook makes it and gives it to you.  this system cuts out the middleman.  would not work for all restaurant styles.  what if you are ordering something complex, or if you have a 0 part meal, etc.  i know most places do not have a window in which you can place your dirty dishes, but that can change.  if anything, just put it on a cart.  and many cafeterias are set up this way.   #  what is it that you specifically enjoy about being waited on ?  #  what is it that you specifically enjoy about being waited on ? believe it or not, some people like me actually dislike it and agree with the op.  there are basically three reasons i ever want to go to a restaurant: 0.  i want a break from cooking or doing dishes.  0.  i want to eat something that i lack the skill or equipment to prepare at home.  0.  i am hungry and i am already far from home.  paying another person to walk my food from the kitchen to the dining room and then come around once in a while to ask if i am  still working on it ?   is not on that list.   #  if i want to go to a buffet, i do.   #  well then you should avoid places with waiters, and stick to buffets, no ? believe it or not, your tastes are not any more important than anyone else is.  if i want to go to a buffet, i do.  but that is rare.  i do not care for other people pawing all over the food before i eat.  i would much prefer it be brought directly to me from the kitchen.  waiters do more than ask if you are still  working on it .  that you do not appreciate it, does not mean that is the entirety of their job.  plenty of people in the industry take pride in their work, and they put a lot of effort into making sure they take care of their customer is needs.  your reductive assessment is wrong, and unfair.   #  they understand it costs more, but are willing to pay for it.   # people just like to be lazy sometimes and have others do the work for them.  they understand it costs more, but are willing to pay for it.  it is more comfortable to just sit in your chair and have others bring you your food and take care of your table.  yes, you could give the order yourself or move your dirty dishes to some window, but all of that requires effort.  you have to physically stand up and do the work.  some people do not mind which is why buffets and self serving exist , but some people simply prefer having a waiter.   #  cooking a meal could require going to a grocery store to get specific items, spend some amount of time 0 minutes to an hour ?  #  cooking a meal could require going to a grocery store to get specific items, spend some amount of time 0 minutes to an hour ? cooking it, and also maybe a few hours to a day or more maybe to learn how to cook it professionally.  but you are walking to your table already.  you are walking out of the restaurant already.  while you are doing that, just give the order and take the plates, respectively.
i work a part time job in the food industry, specifically a buffet style eatery.  we do not have waiters and it runs well.  reasons against waiters: 0 adds money to your bills 0 you have to wait for a waiter to get you refills of your drink when you can just get it yourself.  similarly, you do not have to keep on trying to flag down your waiter for anything.  0 as we do where i work, you give a note with what you want to the cook.  the cook makes it and gives it to you.  this system cuts out the middleman.  0 this is more along the line of busboys, but just in case this is brought up : when you are done with your food, bring it to the dish room.  i know most places do not have a window in which you can place your dirty dishes, but that can change.  if anything, just put it on a cart.  sure, having someone in the dining area is a good idea in case someone has questions although the cook is job is to answer questions, too or there is a special case like someone in a wheelchair needing assistance.  you can have a special waiter it does not mean that everyone else needs one too.  i also understand the reason of  jobs.   there are multiple jobs that do not really do anything.  i probably was not looking hard enough because i searched on google for things related to  we do not need waiters  and  waiters are useless,  yet the only thing that comes up is about tipping.  sorry if someone else brought this up before.   #  0 this is more along the line of busboys, but just in case this is brought up : when you are done with your food, bring it to the dish room.   #  i know most places do not have a window in which you can place your dirty dishes, but that can change.   #  there is more to a restaurant than just the food.  a huge part of it is the socialization.  if you are on a date with a girl you do not want to be moving around the whole restaurant filling your drinks, getting your food, etc.  if you are having an interview or meeting with family, you want to enjoy their company and socialize.  not running around filling your drinks.  a major part of restaurants in western culture is the social aspect and this is why waiters exist.  you do not go to a restaurant just for the food.  and food only restaurants like you envision do exists cafeterias.  cafeterias are primarily meant to feed people, not for socialization.  also if you do not want waiters you can just carry out.  overall i think you are missing one of the key functions of restaurants in society.  and what you are describing exists anyways cafeterias.  if you do not want that then get carry out.  similarly, you do not have to keep on trying to flag down your waiter for anything.  not even a problem, any decent waiter/waitress gets you refills before you are empty anyways.  the cook makes it and gives it to you.  this system cuts out the middleman.  would not work for all restaurant styles.  what if you are ordering something complex, or if you have a 0 part meal, etc.  i know most places do not have a window in which you can place your dirty dishes, but that can change.  if anything, just put it on a cart.  and many cafeterias are set up this way.   #  believe it or not, some people like me actually dislike it and agree with the op.   #  what is it that you specifically enjoy about being waited on ? believe it or not, some people like me actually dislike it and agree with the op.  there are basically three reasons i ever want to go to a restaurant: 0.  i want a break from cooking or doing dishes.  0.  i want to eat something that i lack the skill or equipment to prepare at home.  0.  i am hungry and i am already far from home.  paying another person to walk my food from the kitchen to the dining room and then come around once in a while to ask if i am  still working on it ?   is not on that list.   #  believe it or not, your tastes are not any more important than anyone else is.   #  well then you should avoid places with waiters, and stick to buffets, no ? believe it or not, your tastes are not any more important than anyone else is.  if i want to go to a buffet, i do.  but that is rare.  i do not care for other people pawing all over the food before i eat.  i would much prefer it be brought directly to me from the kitchen.  waiters do more than ask if you are still  working on it .  that you do not appreciate it, does not mean that is the entirety of their job.  plenty of people in the industry take pride in their work, and they put a lot of effort into making sure they take care of their customer is needs.  your reductive assessment is wrong, and unfair.   #  yes, you could give the order yourself or move your dirty dishes to some window, but all of that requires effort.   # people just like to be lazy sometimes and have others do the work for them.  they understand it costs more, but are willing to pay for it.  it is more comfortable to just sit in your chair and have others bring you your food and take care of your table.  yes, you could give the order yourself or move your dirty dishes to some window, but all of that requires effort.  you have to physically stand up and do the work.  some people do not mind which is why buffets and self serving exist , but some people simply prefer having a waiter.   #  cooking a meal could require going to a grocery store to get specific items, spend some amount of time 0 minutes to an hour ?  #  cooking a meal could require going to a grocery store to get specific items, spend some amount of time 0 minutes to an hour ? cooking it, and also maybe a few hours to a day or more maybe to learn how to cook it professionally.  but you are walking to your table already.  you are walking out of the restaurant already.  while you are doing that, just give the order and take the plates, respectively.
so obviously a smart kid with internet access can educate him or herself well beyond anything previous generations were able to.  it is just that the schools and political and economic institutions have not adapted to this reality and they have a vested interest in not acknowledging it.  they have also not adapted to the reality that there is not that much work that needs to be done, so the whole model of  do job, get money  is broken on a large scale.  see: on the phenomenon of bullshit jobs URL so in order to keep a ton of people out of the labor force for extended periods of time, we have school, which acts as  holding cells  for the people for whom there are not enough jobs.  teachers need jobs for money, so they have a vested interest in keeping the game going.  kids/people are not allowed to do most jobs, especially not without a degree that you can only get through school even if you learn on your own, so they go along with it because they have no choice.  politicians are beholden to the rich who like having a super well educated workforce willing to work for cheap, both in order to pay off their student loans and because they are competing against an increasingly well educated workforce.  the people who have already been through the system have a vested interest in keeping the game going, because they had to waste their lives in the system, and they will be damned if other people do not have to do the same.  so basically we waste the time, and minds, and lives, of generations of young people because we do not know what else to do with them and a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping the game going.  which is not to say that school does not have some redeeming features.  inb0  some or most kids are too stupid to learn on their own.   but i think we ignore obvious truths like this out of political correctness, and if you point them out people naturally get super duper pissed off.  in real life if you point out that the emperor lacks clothing, the emperor and everyone pretending to see otherwise decide to hate you, yell at you, and may try to kill you.  there may be other dynamics at play, but the  school as capitalist holding cell, but we ca not point that out because people get mad  is at least one dynamic at play.  cmv.   #  politicians are beholden to the rich who like having a super well educated workforce willing to work for cheap, both in order to pay off their student loans and because they are competing against an increasingly well educated workforce.   #  so you are talking about interns and people who start with low ranking jobs ?  #  people do not call schools institutionalized  holding cells  out of political correctness.  they do it because they are schools, and they actually serve a purpose.  i feel i can safely say without argument that elementary schools definitely serve an important service to the individual attending, because it is a good place to congregate, learn social skills, and basic academic learning.  surely you do not expect seven year olds to go out there and try to learn the world with their own means.  by  young people,  i am assuming you mean kids in college because you bring up loans.  kids in high school should arguably become more specialized for jobs, but we take for granted that most cannot already determine what they want their future to be, because they have not finished developing and understanding their own wants and needs whether they want to marry and have kids, for example .  i am going to start by attacking the premise of  bullshit jobs .  just, no.  the source cites jobs like pr and lawyers as more  bullshit  than jobs that were more commonplace than the early 0s, such as domestic and factory workers.  while those were important and numerous jobs then, and have been mostly replaced by automatons, the new jobs that have sprung up have hardly been because of a generic need for people to work.  as the world grows in population and economy , corporations and bureaucracies have formed to make the world run more smoothly.  the importing of goods from china to a small american town in the midwest is not possible without a strong bureaucracy like a corporation.  jobs like pr and manager serve to allow more efficient workings of these large bureaucracies.  people need degrees to do most jobs because the people requesting the services they offer want the security in knowing the operator is qualified.  so you are talking about interns and people who start with low ranking jobs ? pretty sure that is not a conspiracy and just a fact of how business works no experience, less pay.  the profits of law businesses are more affected by the consumption of their product/service, and not how much they pay their employees, especially if they are already rich.   the people who have already been through the system have a vested interest in keeping the game going, because they had to waste their lives in the system, and they will be damned if other people do not have to do the same.  i hardly believe that every person that supports this system is either someone who does not understand how it works or a bitter veteran.  what would you rather these people be doing ? they are currently training to participate in a system that helps the world to run the way it does.  i have previously explained why the concept of  bullshit jobs  is silly no small business owner is  in on the system  enough to hire a pr guy just so he can have a job.  it is an essential position in some businesses.  again you bring up  a lot of people  who keep the system going.  when the system is how the world works and runs itself,  a lot of people  is literally everyone.  save for anarchists, i guess .  not sure i understand how this  truth  is ignored out of political correctness.  the only people that would be offended by this were people who believed in the system, and they can easily argue for why this is a weaker argument for how the system works.  or the emperor is actually wearing clothes and people get annoyed at you for telling others that the emperor is dumb and likes to chill naked.  i have explained why i do not think schools qualify as  capitalist holding cells .  i do not think people get  mad  at hearing this, they would disagree, but they would hardly become angry.   #  we keep kids out of the workforce to prevent child labor.   #  we keep kids out of the workforce to prevent child labor.  it is so the kids can have a healthy, happy childhood.  no one is worried about kids taking all the jobs.  it works  against  capitalism to purposely limit your workforce.  keeping children out of the workforce is much more a socialist construct than capitalist.   #  they learn things in school, and not all the things they learn are curriculum.   #  specifics aside, schools do limit or outright prevent a lot of the kinds of decisions and skills that we normally consider necessary for a happy life in adults.  consider freedom of association and self determination.  i did not like a company i worked for, so i quit.  i did not like the way a friend was treating me or others, so i stopped spending time with him.  this assertiveness is incredibly important for adults, but discouraged and seen as  defiance  or  disobedience  in children.  they are prevented from making most decisions of that type for their formative years.  they learn things in school, and not all the things they learn are curriculum.   #  it is that, when it comes to professional subjects, there is just so much to learn.   # this is so true.  it is not even that people are generally stupid.  it is that, when it comes to professional subjects, there is just so much to learn.  the internet is like handing a kid a blank sheet of paper.  that is it.  no directions, no suggestions, no paints or brushes, or any tools for that matter.  just  here.    learn.   the whole  kids can be creative on their own, just give them access to information  argument is idealistic.  in order to think  outside the box,  you need to  know what the parameters of the box are  in the first place.   #  if there is some knowledge outside of the taxonomic framework that helps you do your job, amazing, learning is great.   #  but if it is a matter of licensing, then we can give them the taxonomic framework for what society determines they need to know in order to do something well.  there is obviously a ton of knowledge and information outside of that taxonomic framework in order to be an effective human being, but for the purposes of degrees, licensing, and quality control, we can provide the basic outline for what you need to know to be considered to have mastered a subject.  see, for example, the way khan academy URL does it.  if there is something society expects you to know to do something, that information is and should be given on the front end, it is not hidden.  if there is some knowledge outside of the taxonomic framework that helps you do your job, amazing, learning is great.  we can give them the box, and also the freedom to explore outside of that box.  but we should not hold them in a box / holding cell just because we do not know what to do with them otherwise, and i think that is what we are doing now.
so obviously a smart kid with internet access can educate him or herself well beyond anything previous generations were able to.  it is just that the schools and political and economic institutions have not adapted to this reality and they have a vested interest in not acknowledging it.  they have also not adapted to the reality that there is not that much work that needs to be done, so the whole model of  do job, get money  is broken on a large scale.  see: on the phenomenon of bullshit jobs URL so in order to keep a ton of people out of the labor force for extended periods of time, we have school, which acts as  holding cells  for the people for whom there are not enough jobs.  teachers need jobs for money, so they have a vested interest in keeping the game going.  kids/people are not allowed to do most jobs, especially not without a degree that you can only get through school even if you learn on your own, so they go along with it because they have no choice.  politicians are beholden to the rich who like having a super well educated workforce willing to work for cheap, both in order to pay off their student loans and because they are competing against an increasingly well educated workforce.  the people who have already been through the system have a vested interest in keeping the game going, because they had to waste their lives in the system, and they will be damned if other people do not have to do the same.  so basically we waste the time, and minds, and lives, of generations of young people because we do not know what else to do with them and a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping the game going.  which is not to say that school does not have some redeeming features.  inb0  some or most kids are too stupid to learn on their own.   but i think we ignore obvious truths like this out of political correctness, and if you point them out people naturally get super duper pissed off.  in real life if you point out that the emperor lacks clothing, the emperor and everyone pretending to see otherwise decide to hate you, yell at you, and may try to kill you.  there may be other dynamics at play, but the  school as capitalist holding cell, but we ca not point that out because people get mad  is at least one dynamic at play.  cmv.   #  so basically we waste the time, and minds, and lives, of generations of young people because we do not know what else to do with them and a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping the game going.   #  what would you rather these people be doing ?  #  people do not call schools institutionalized  holding cells  out of political correctness.  they do it because they are schools, and they actually serve a purpose.  i feel i can safely say without argument that elementary schools definitely serve an important service to the individual attending, because it is a good place to congregate, learn social skills, and basic academic learning.  surely you do not expect seven year olds to go out there and try to learn the world with their own means.  by  young people,  i am assuming you mean kids in college because you bring up loans.  kids in high school should arguably become more specialized for jobs, but we take for granted that most cannot already determine what they want their future to be, because they have not finished developing and understanding their own wants and needs whether they want to marry and have kids, for example .  i am going to start by attacking the premise of  bullshit jobs .  just, no.  the source cites jobs like pr and lawyers as more  bullshit  than jobs that were more commonplace than the early 0s, such as domestic and factory workers.  while those were important and numerous jobs then, and have been mostly replaced by automatons, the new jobs that have sprung up have hardly been because of a generic need for people to work.  as the world grows in population and economy , corporations and bureaucracies have formed to make the world run more smoothly.  the importing of goods from china to a small american town in the midwest is not possible without a strong bureaucracy like a corporation.  jobs like pr and manager serve to allow more efficient workings of these large bureaucracies.  people need degrees to do most jobs because the people requesting the services they offer want the security in knowing the operator is qualified.  so you are talking about interns and people who start with low ranking jobs ? pretty sure that is not a conspiracy and just a fact of how business works no experience, less pay.  the profits of law businesses are more affected by the consumption of their product/service, and not how much they pay their employees, especially if they are already rich.   the people who have already been through the system have a vested interest in keeping the game going, because they had to waste their lives in the system, and they will be damned if other people do not have to do the same.  i hardly believe that every person that supports this system is either someone who does not understand how it works or a bitter veteran.  what would you rather these people be doing ? they are currently training to participate in a system that helps the world to run the way it does.  i have previously explained why the concept of  bullshit jobs  is silly no small business owner is  in on the system  enough to hire a pr guy just so he can have a job.  it is an essential position in some businesses.  again you bring up  a lot of people  who keep the system going.  when the system is how the world works and runs itself,  a lot of people  is literally everyone.  save for anarchists, i guess .  not sure i understand how this  truth  is ignored out of political correctness.  the only people that would be offended by this were people who believed in the system, and they can easily argue for why this is a weaker argument for how the system works.  or the emperor is actually wearing clothes and people get annoyed at you for telling others that the emperor is dumb and likes to chill naked.  i have explained why i do not think schools qualify as  capitalist holding cells .  i do not think people get  mad  at hearing this, they would disagree, but they would hardly become angry.   #  no one is worried about kids taking all the jobs.   #  we keep kids out of the workforce to prevent child labor.  it is so the kids can have a healthy, happy childhood.  no one is worried about kids taking all the jobs.  it works  against  capitalism to purposely limit your workforce.  keeping children out of the workforce is much more a socialist construct than capitalist.   #  i did not like the way a friend was treating me or others, so i stopped spending time with him.   #  specifics aside, schools do limit or outright prevent a lot of the kinds of decisions and skills that we normally consider necessary for a happy life in adults.  consider freedom of association and self determination.  i did not like a company i worked for, so i quit.  i did not like the way a friend was treating me or others, so i stopped spending time with him.  this assertiveness is incredibly important for adults, but discouraged and seen as  defiance  or  disobedience  in children.  they are prevented from making most decisions of that type for their formative years.  they learn things in school, and not all the things they learn are curriculum.   #  it is that, when it comes to professional subjects, there is just so much to learn.   # this is so true.  it is not even that people are generally stupid.  it is that, when it comes to professional subjects, there is just so much to learn.  the internet is like handing a kid a blank sheet of paper.  that is it.  no directions, no suggestions, no paints or brushes, or any tools for that matter.  just  here.    learn.   the whole  kids can be creative on their own, just give them access to information  argument is idealistic.  in order to think  outside the box,  you need to  know what the parameters of the box are  in the first place.   #  if there is something society expects you to know to do something, that information is and should be given on the front end, it is not hidden.   #  but if it is a matter of licensing, then we can give them the taxonomic framework for what society determines they need to know in order to do something well.  there is obviously a ton of knowledge and information outside of that taxonomic framework in order to be an effective human being, but for the purposes of degrees, licensing, and quality control, we can provide the basic outline for what you need to know to be considered to have mastered a subject.  see, for example, the way khan academy URL does it.  if there is something society expects you to know to do something, that information is and should be given on the front end, it is not hidden.  if there is some knowledge outside of the taxonomic framework that helps you do your job, amazing, learning is great.  we can give them the box, and also the freedom to explore outside of that box.  but we should not hold them in a box / holding cell just because we do not know what to do with them otherwise, and i think that is what we are doing now.
so obviously a smart kid with internet access can educate him or herself well beyond anything previous generations were able to.  it is just that the schools and political and economic institutions have not adapted to this reality and they have a vested interest in not acknowledging it.  they have also not adapted to the reality that there is not that much work that needs to be done, so the whole model of  do job, get money  is broken on a large scale.  see: on the phenomenon of bullshit jobs URL so in order to keep a ton of people out of the labor force for extended periods of time, we have school, which acts as  holding cells  for the people for whom there are not enough jobs.  teachers need jobs for money, so they have a vested interest in keeping the game going.  kids/people are not allowed to do most jobs, especially not without a degree that you can only get through school even if you learn on your own, so they go along with it because they have no choice.  politicians are beholden to the rich who like having a super well educated workforce willing to work for cheap, both in order to pay off their student loans and because they are competing against an increasingly well educated workforce.  the people who have already been through the system have a vested interest in keeping the game going, because they had to waste their lives in the system, and they will be damned if other people do not have to do the same.  so basically we waste the time, and minds, and lives, of generations of young people because we do not know what else to do with them and a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping the game going.  which is not to say that school does not have some redeeming features.  inb0  some or most kids are too stupid to learn on their own.   but i think we ignore obvious truths like this out of political correctness, and if you point them out people naturally get super duper pissed off.  in real life if you point out that the emperor lacks clothing, the emperor and everyone pretending to see otherwise decide to hate you, yell at you, and may try to kill you.  there may be other dynamics at play, but the  school as capitalist holding cell, but we ca not point that out because people get mad  is at least one dynamic at play.  cmv.   #  but i think we ignore obvious truths like this out of political correctness, and if you point them out people naturally get super duper pissed off.   #  not sure i understand how this  truth  is ignored out of political correctness.   #  people do not call schools institutionalized  holding cells  out of political correctness.  they do it because they are schools, and they actually serve a purpose.  i feel i can safely say without argument that elementary schools definitely serve an important service to the individual attending, because it is a good place to congregate, learn social skills, and basic academic learning.  surely you do not expect seven year olds to go out there and try to learn the world with their own means.  by  young people,  i am assuming you mean kids in college because you bring up loans.  kids in high school should arguably become more specialized for jobs, but we take for granted that most cannot already determine what they want their future to be, because they have not finished developing and understanding their own wants and needs whether they want to marry and have kids, for example .  i am going to start by attacking the premise of  bullshit jobs .  just, no.  the source cites jobs like pr and lawyers as more  bullshit  than jobs that were more commonplace than the early 0s, such as domestic and factory workers.  while those were important and numerous jobs then, and have been mostly replaced by automatons, the new jobs that have sprung up have hardly been because of a generic need for people to work.  as the world grows in population and economy , corporations and bureaucracies have formed to make the world run more smoothly.  the importing of goods from china to a small american town in the midwest is not possible without a strong bureaucracy like a corporation.  jobs like pr and manager serve to allow more efficient workings of these large bureaucracies.  people need degrees to do most jobs because the people requesting the services they offer want the security in knowing the operator is qualified.  so you are talking about interns and people who start with low ranking jobs ? pretty sure that is not a conspiracy and just a fact of how business works no experience, less pay.  the profits of law businesses are more affected by the consumption of their product/service, and not how much they pay their employees, especially if they are already rich.   the people who have already been through the system have a vested interest in keeping the game going, because they had to waste their lives in the system, and they will be damned if other people do not have to do the same.  i hardly believe that every person that supports this system is either someone who does not understand how it works or a bitter veteran.  what would you rather these people be doing ? they are currently training to participate in a system that helps the world to run the way it does.  i have previously explained why the concept of  bullshit jobs  is silly no small business owner is  in on the system  enough to hire a pr guy just so he can have a job.  it is an essential position in some businesses.  again you bring up  a lot of people  who keep the system going.  when the system is how the world works and runs itself,  a lot of people  is literally everyone.  save for anarchists, i guess .  not sure i understand how this  truth  is ignored out of political correctness.  the only people that would be offended by this were people who believed in the system, and they can easily argue for why this is a weaker argument for how the system works.  or the emperor is actually wearing clothes and people get annoyed at you for telling others that the emperor is dumb and likes to chill naked.  i have explained why i do not think schools qualify as  capitalist holding cells .  i do not think people get  mad  at hearing this, they would disagree, but they would hardly become angry.   #  we keep kids out of the workforce to prevent child labor.   #  we keep kids out of the workforce to prevent child labor.  it is so the kids can have a healthy, happy childhood.  no one is worried about kids taking all the jobs.  it works  against  capitalism to purposely limit your workforce.  keeping children out of the workforce is much more a socialist construct than capitalist.   #  this assertiveness is incredibly important for adults, but discouraged and seen as  defiance  or  disobedience  in children.   #  specifics aside, schools do limit or outright prevent a lot of the kinds of decisions and skills that we normally consider necessary for a happy life in adults.  consider freedom of association and self determination.  i did not like a company i worked for, so i quit.  i did not like the way a friend was treating me or others, so i stopped spending time with him.  this assertiveness is incredibly important for adults, but discouraged and seen as  defiance  or  disobedience  in children.  they are prevented from making most decisions of that type for their formative years.  they learn things in school, and not all the things they learn are curriculum.   #  it is that, when it comes to professional subjects, there is just so much to learn.   # this is so true.  it is not even that people are generally stupid.  it is that, when it comes to professional subjects, there is just so much to learn.  the internet is like handing a kid a blank sheet of paper.  that is it.  no directions, no suggestions, no paints or brushes, or any tools for that matter.  just  here.    learn.   the whole  kids can be creative on their own, just give them access to information  argument is idealistic.  in order to think  outside the box,  you need to  know what the parameters of the box are  in the first place.   #  we can give them the box, and also the freedom to explore outside of that box.   #  but if it is a matter of licensing, then we can give them the taxonomic framework for what society determines they need to know in order to do something well.  there is obviously a ton of knowledge and information outside of that taxonomic framework in order to be an effective human being, but for the purposes of degrees, licensing, and quality control, we can provide the basic outline for what you need to know to be considered to have mastered a subject.  see, for example, the way khan academy URL does it.  if there is something society expects you to know to do something, that information is and should be given on the front end, it is not hidden.  if there is some knowledge outside of the taxonomic framework that helps you do your job, amazing, learning is great.  we can give them the box, and also the freedom to explore outside of that box.  but we should not hold them in a box / holding cell just because we do not know what to do with them otherwise, and i think that is what we are doing now.
so obviously a smart kid with internet access can educate him or herself well beyond anything previous generations were able to.  it is just that the schools and political and economic institutions have not adapted to this reality and they have a vested interest in not acknowledging it.  they have also not adapted to the reality that there is not that much work that needs to be done, so the whole model of  do job, get money  is broken on a large scale.  see: on the phenomenon of bullshit jobs URL so in order to keep a ton of people out of the labor force for extended periods of time, we have school, which acts as  holding cells  for the people for whom there are not enough jobs.  teachers need jobs for money, so they have a vested interest in keeping the game going.  kids/people are not allowed to do most jobs, especially not without a degree that you can only get through school even if you learn on your own, so they go along with it because they have no choice.  politicians are beholden to the rich who like having a super well educated workforce willing to work for cheap, both in order to pay off their student loans and because they are competing against an increasingly well educated workforce.  the people who have already been through the system have a vested interest in keeping the game going, because they had to waste their lives in the system, and they will be damned if other people do not have to do the same.  so basically we waste the time, and minds, and lives, of generations of young people because we do not know what else to do with them and a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping the game going.  which is not to say that school does not have some redeeming features.  inb0  some or most kids are too stupid to learn on their own.   but i think we ignore obvious truths like this out of political correctness, and if you point them out people naturally get super duper pissed off.  in real life if you point out that the emperor lacks clothing, the emperor and everyone pretending to see otherwise decide to hate you, yell at you, and may try to kill you.  there may be other dynamics at play, but the  school as capitalist holding cell, but we ca not point that out because people get mad  is at least one dynamic at play.  cmv.   #  in real life if you point out that the emperor lacks clothing, the emperor and everyone pretending to see otherwise decide to hate you, yell at you, and may try to kill you.   #  or the emperor is actually wearing clothes and people get annoyed at you for telling others that the emperor is dumb and likes to chill naked.   #  people do not call schools institutionalized  holding cells  out of political correctness.  they do it because they are schools, and they actually serve a purpose.  i feel i can safely say without argument that elementary schools definitely serve an important service to the individual attending, because it is a good place to congregate, learn social skills, and basic academic learning.  surely you do not expect seven year olds to go out there and try to learn the world with their own means.  by  young people,  i am assuming you mean kids in college because you bring up loans.  kids in high school should arguably become more specialized for jobs, but we take for granted that most cannot already determine what they want their future to be, because they have not finished developing and understanding their own wants and needs whether they want to marry and have kids, for example .  i am going to start by attacking the premise of  bullshit jobs .  just, no.  the source cites jobs like pr and lawyers as more  bullshit  than jobs that were more commonplace than the early 0s, such as domestic and factory workers.  while those were important and numerous jobs then, and have been mostly replaced by automatons, the new jobs that have sprung up have hardly been because of a generic need for people to work.  as the world grows in population and economy , corporations and bureaucracies have formed to make the world run more smoothly.  the importing of goods from china to a small american town in the midwest is not possible without a strong bureaucracy like a corporation.  jobs like pr and manager serve to allow more efficient workings of these large bureaucracies.  people need degrees to do most jobs because the people requesting the services they offer want the security in knowing the operator is qualified.  so you are talking about interns and people who start with low ranking jobs ? pretty sure that is not a conspiracy and just a fact of how business works no experience, less pay.  the profits of law businesses are more affected by the consumption of their product/service, and not how much they pay their employees, especially if they are already rich.   the people who have already been through the system have a vested interest in keeping the game going, because they had to waste their lives in the system, and they will be damned if other people do not have to do the same.  i hardly believe that every person that supports this system is either someone who does not understand how it works or a bitter veteran.  what would you rather these people be doing ? they are currently training to participate in a system that helps the world to run the way it does.  i have previously explained why the concept of  bullshit jobs  is silly no small business owner is  in on the system  enough to hire a pr guy just so he can have a job.  it is an essential position in some businesses.  again you bring up  a lot of people  who keep the system going.  when the system is how the world works and runs itself,  a lot of people  is literally everyone.  save for anarchists, i guess .  not sure i understand how this  truth  is ignored out of political correctness.  the only people that would be offended by this were people who believed in the system, and they can easily argue for why this is a weaker argument for how the system works.  or the emperor is actually wearing clothes and people get annoyed at you for telling others that the emperor is dumb and likes to chill naked.  i have explained why i do not think schools qualify as  capitalist holding cells .  i do not think people get  mad  at hearing this, they would disagree, but they would hardly become angry.   #  it is so the kids can have a healthy, happy childhood.   #  we keep kids out of the workforce to prevent child labor.  it is so the kids can have a healthy, happy childhood.  no one is worried about kids taking all the jobs.  it works  against  capitalism to purposely limit your workforce.  keeping children out of the workforce is much more a socialist construct than capitalist.   #  they learn things in school, and not all the things they learn are curriculum.   #  specifics aside, schools do limit or outright prevent a lot of the kinds of decisions and skills that we normally consider necessary for a happy life in adults.  consider freedom of association and self determination.  i did not like a company i worked for, so i quit.  i did not like the way a friend was treating me or others, so i stopped spending time with him.  this assertiveness is incredibly important for adults, but discouraged and seen as  defiance  or  disobedience  in children.  they are prevented from making most decisions of that type for their formative years.  they learn things in school, and not all the things they learn are curriculum.   #  the internet is like handing a kid a blank sheet of paper.   # this is so true.  it is not even that people are generally stupid.  it is that, when it comes to professional subjects, there is just so much to learn.  the internet is like handing a kid a blank sheet of paper.  that is it.  no directions, no suggestions, no paints or brushes, or any tools for that matter.  just  here.    learn.   the whole  kids can be creative on their own, just give them access to information  argument is idealistic.  in order to think  outside the box,  you need to  know what the parameters of the box are  in the first place.   #  we can give them the box, and also the freedom to explore outside of that box.   #  but if it is a matter of licensing, then we can give them the taxonomic framework for what society determines they need to know in order to do something well.  there is obviously a ton of knowledge and information outside of that taxonomic framework in order to be an effective human being, but for the purposes of degrees, licensing, and quality control, we can provide the basic outline for what you need to know to be considered to have mastered a subject.  see, for example, the way khan academy URL does it.  if there is something society expects you to know to do something, that information is and should be given on the front end, it is not hidden.  if there is some knowledge outside of the taxonomic framework that helps you do your job, amazing, learning is great.  we can give them the box, and also the freedom to explore outside of that box.  but we should not hold them in a box / holding cell just because we do not know what to do with them otherwise, and i think that is what we are doing now.
so obviously a smart kid with internet access can educate him or herself well beyond anything previous generations were able to.  it is just that the schools and political and economic institutions have not adapted to this reality and they have a vested interest in not acknowledging it.  they have also not adapted to the reality that there is not that much work that needs to be done, so the whole model of  do job, get money  is broken on a large scale.  see: on the phenomenon of bullshit jobs URL so in order to keep a ton of people out of the labor force for extended periods of time, we have school, which acts as  holding cells  for the people for whom there are not enough jobs.  teachers need jobs for money, so they have a vested interest in keeping the game going.  kids/people are not allowed to do most jobs, especially not without a degree that you can only get through school even if you learn on your own, so they go along with it because they have no choice.  politicians are beholden to the rich who like having a super well educated workforce willing to work for cheap, both in order to pay off their student loans and because they are competing against an increasingly well educated workforce.  the people who have already been through the system have a vested interest in keeping the game going, because they had to waste their lives in the system, and they will be damned if other people do not have to do the same.  so basically we waste the time, and minds, and lives, of generations of young people because we do not know what else to do with them and a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping the game going.  which is not to say that school does not have some redeeming features.  inb0  some or most kids are too stupid to learn on their own.   but i think we ignore obvious truths like this out of political correctness, and if you point them out people naturally get super duper pissed off.  in real life if you point out that the emperor lacks clothing, the emperor and everyone pretending to see otherwise decide to hate you, yell at you, and may try to kill you.  there may be other dynamics at play, but the  school as capitalist holding cell, but we ca not point that out because people get mad  is at least one dynamic at play.  cmv.   #  there may be other dynamics at play, but the  school as capitalist holding cell, but we ca not point that out because people get mad  is at least one dynamic at play.   #  i have explained why i do not think schools qualify as  capitalist holding cells .   #  people do not call schools institutionalized  holding cells  out of political correctness.  they do it because they are schools, and they actually serve a purpose.  i feel i can safely say without argument that elementary schools definitely serve an important service to the individual attending, because it is a good place to congregate, learn social skills, and basic academic learning.  surely you do not expect seven year olds to go out there and try to learn the world with their own means.  by  young people,  i am assuming you mean kids in college because you bring up loans.  kids in high school should arguably become more specialized for jobs, but we take for granted that most cannot already determine what they want their future to be, because they have not finished developing and understanding their own wants and needs whether they want to marry and have kids, for example .  i am going to start by attacking the premise of  bullshit jobs .  just, no.  the source cites jobs like pr and lawyers as more  bullshit  than jobs that were more commonplace than the early 0s, such as domestic and factory workers.  while those were important and numerous jobs then, and have been mostly replaced by automatons, the new jobs that have sprung up have hardly been because of a generic need for people to work.  as the world grows in population and economy , corporations and bureaucracies have formed to make the world run more smoothly.  the importing of goods from china to a small american town in the midwest is not possible without a strong bureaucracy like a corporation.  jobs like pr and manager serve to allow more efficient workings of these large bureaucracies.  people need degrees to do most jobs because the people requesting the services they offer want the security in knowing the operator is qualified.  so you are talking about interns and people who start with low ranking jobs ? pretty sure that is not a conspiracy and just a fact of how business works no experience, less pay.  the profits of law businesses are more affected by the consumption of their product/service, and not how much they pay their employees, especially if they are already rich.   the people who have already been through the system have a vested interest in keeping the game going, because they had to waste their lives in the system, and they will be damned if other people do not have to do the same.  i hardly believe that every person that supports this system is either someone who does not understand how it works or a bitter veteran.  what would you rather these people be doing ? they are currently training to participate in a system that helps the world to run the way it does.  i have previously explained why the concept of  bullshit jobs  is silly no small business owner is  in on the system  enough to hire a pr guy just so he can have a job.  it is an essential position in some businesses.  again you bring up  a lot of people  who keep the system going.  when the system is how the world works and runs itself,  a lot of people  is literally everyone.  save for anarchists, i guess .  not sure i understand how this  truth  is ignored out of political correctness.  the only people that would be offended by this were people who believed in the system, and they can easily argue for why this is a weaker argument for how the system works.  or the emperor is actually wearing clothes and people get annoyed at you for telling others that the emperor is dumb and likes to chill naked.  i have explained why i do not think schools qualify as  capitalist holding cells .  i do not think people get  mad  at hearing this, they would disagree, but they would hardly become angry.   #  it is so the kids can have a healthy, happy childhood.   #  we keep kids out of the workforce to prevent child labor.  it is so the kids can have a healthy, happy childhood.  no one is worried about kids taking all the jobs.  it works  against  capitalism to purposely limit your workforce.  keeping children out of the workforce is much more a socialist construct than capitalist.   #  i did not like a company i worked for, so i quit.   #  specifics aside, schools do limit or outright prevent a lot of the kinds of decisions and skills that we normally consider necessary for a happy life in adults.  consider freedom of association and self determination.  i did not like a company i worked for, so i quit.  i did not like the way a friend was treating me or others, so i stopped spending time with him.  this assertiveness is incredibly important for adults, but discouraged and seen as  defiance  or  disobedience  in children.  they are prevented from making most decisions of that type for their formative years.  they learn things in school, and not all the things they learn are curriculum.   #  the whole  kids can be creative on their own, just give them access to information  argument is idealistic.   # this is so true.  it is not even that people are generally stupid.  it is that, when it comes to professional subjects, there is just so much to learn.  the internet is like handing a kid a blank sheet of paper.  that is it.  no directions, no suggestions, no paints or brushes, or any tools for that matter.  just  here.    learn.   the whole  kids can be creative on their own, just give them access to information  argument is idealistic.  in order to think  outside the box,  you need to  know what the parameters of the box are  in the first place.   #  but if it is a matter of licensing, then we can give them the taxonomic framework for what society determines they need to know in order to do something well.   #  but if it is a matter of licensing, then we can give them the taxonomic framework for what society determines they need to know in order to do something well.  there is obviously a ton of knowledge and information outside of that taxonomic framework in order to be an effective human being, but for the purposes of degrees, licensing, and quality control, we can provide the basic outline for what you need to know to be considered to have mastered a subject.  see, for example, the way khan academy URL does it.  if there is something society expects you to know to do something, that information is and should be given on the front end, it is not hidden.  if there is some knowledge outside of the taxonomic framework that helps you do your job, amazing, learning is great.  we can give them the box, and also the freedom to explore outside of that box.  but we should not hold them in a box / holding cell just because we do not know what to do with them otherwise, and i think that is what we are doing now.
it seems that lately there is a movement on the internet and in offline life as well that criticizes everything and everyone that seems to  promote  being skinny among girls.  the two main arguments being  young girls are influenced by beauty magazines with their unrealistic beauty / thinness standards and starve themselves to death  and  if a person is fat, it is possible that they ca not really do anything about it, so saying that slim is the only standard of beauty is cruel and wrong .  let me be clear here: i agree with these arguments expressed like this .  what i do not agree with is the following.  it seems that nowadays there is a sort of a reverse shaming, when you have a picture of a slim model and a lot of people start applying those arguments to it, saying that you should instead photograph more  curvy  models.   stop creating unrealistic standards with these photos .  i do not agree with these claims, because: 0.  while it is true that slim is not the only standard of beauty, it is still  one of the  standards of beauty, so to say.  for example, it very well might be someone is personal preference to see girls who are slim instead of curvy.  if you make a claim that  curvy is beautiful too , why then ca not slim be beautiful, too ? 0.  suppose a girl is just naturally built this way.  what can she do ? stop being a model just because this should not be the universal standard for beauty ? 0.  if your kids really base their look off something they saw in a magazine.  it is your fault as a parent, and not the magazine is.  why should the magazines be responsible for their readers ? no one seems to attack car magazines for posting articles like  we road tested this car and it goes to 0 mph !  , claiming that  it is dangerous to promote this, someone will try to do the same and die.   it looks like some sort of a double standard, where the tolerance has  gone too far  in a way.  like i said, i agree that many forms and sizes and shapes of female figure are beautiful, but in fighting for the rights of  non slim  figures the society seems to actually attack the rights of  slim  figures.  it is perfectly acceptable for this dialogue to happen:   she is fat.  omg you are such a jerk, no she is not, she is actually normal !  , but i ca not imagine a dialogue like this happening:   she is too skinny.  no, this is actually normal and healthy for her, she is built this way.   am i missing something here, or has the world really gone this crazy ?  #  it is your fault as a parent, and not the magazine is.   #  is it your fault if a kid comes home crying because of bullying ?  # and part of the movement is widening what is considered a standard of beauty.  what can she do ? stop being a model just because this should not be the universal standard for beauty ? no.  i think most of these people you talk about are not against skinny people modeling; they are against two things in particular: first, skinny people being  the only  models, and second, skinny people being photoshopped into body images that would be unhealthy to emulate.  is it your fault if a kid comes home crying because of bullying ? parents can only do so much.  societal influence is pervasive.  parental influence is limited.  when someone is surrounded by societal pressures, refusing to give in can be really really stressful.  giving in can mean serious health problems.  i am 0 pounds obviously very underweight, but by natural body figure, not eating disorders and i have not experienced shaming.  in terms of what i have seen in others that could be seen as critical, it is mainly directed at stopping eating disorders.  again, i ca not speak for everyone is experiences but i doubt it is as widespread as you believe.   #  and so i do not think it is okay that we live in a society where some people are excluded because of something arbitrary like physical appearance.   #  you have given no rationale for that.  race is a spectrum.  i have friends who are black.  i do not hate people who are white in fact, i am white.  sexuality is a spectrum.  i have friends who are gay.  i also have friends who are bi, and who are stright, so, no, it does not work like that.  going back to this  fat  vs  skinny  thing, i have friends who are overweight.  i have friends who are underweight.  i certainly do not give one group preferential treatment because of their weight.  what i am talking about is respecting  humanness .  because i see the value of  humans  i do not have to value a certain subgroup.  i think it is to believe humans should judge other based on the context of their groups rather than their characteristics and values as an individual.  and so i do not think it is okay that we live in a society where some people are excluded because of something arbitrary like physical appearance.   #  you just made that claim, with little logical analysis or proof to back it up.   # people come in different shades.  ethnicity is different; i am speaking mainly of how someone looks.  in fact, if we look a bit deeper, when you say   then the opposite must be true you provide no reason why we must look at a spectrum.  in fact, your argument relies only on opposites.  so it does not even have to be a spectrum to be an adequate counter example.  and what i am saying is that an acceptance of high body fat does not inherently mean a rejection of low body fat, and vice versa.  you just made that claim, with little logical analysis or proof to back it up.  something can be true and it is supposed opposite can be true too.  look, we can like group a, and like group b too.  liking one does not mean hating the other.  i am all for non discrimination, and treating  all groups  with respect, not just one or the other.  that is what i mean by widening the standards of beauty.  i mean that as a society, we should work towards finding a wider range of things beautiful, and not pigeonhole ourselves into thinking  this is the only metric of beauty .  and i think saying that it is not achievable is just a dismissal of the work we are obligated to be doing.   #  i fail to see why this is the case.   # i fail to see why this is the case.  to me, it seems self evident, but i will try to provide some justifications.  0.  you should help other people.  thus the opposite is true, you should not harm people.  0.  you should tell the truth.  thus the opposite is true, you should not tell lies.  0.  you should respect others.  thus the opposite is true, you should not disrespect others.  0\ 0 0  0 0.  for a less pleasant example, if you disapprove of homosexuals, that means you approve of heterosexuals.   #  your first 0 examples make perfect sense, because they are about logical principles.   #  your first 0 examples make perfect sense, because they are about logical principles.  your fourth one falls; i could just hate everyone.  i could approve of everyone.  and just because i  approve  of heterosexuals does not mean i  disapprove  of homosexuals.  you are really making a huuggee leap logically, one that simply ca not be seen as sound.  the basis of your fourth example is entirely different than the basis of your first 0 examples, too.  i could say  you should only be heterosexual  and  you should not be homosexual  would be a logical conclusion of that statement.  but if i say  it is okay to be gay , than  it is not okay to not be gay  is in no way a true statement i think you should look into contraposition.  wikipedia provides a great example,  if something is a bat, then it is a mammal  and  if something is not a mammal, then it is not a bat.   go together.  but these two do not follow logically:  something is not a bat, then it is not a mammal  and  if something is a mammal, then it is a bat.  .  what you are doing is confusing logical principles, and making conclusions that, quite simply, ca not be made.  my own personal experience i give you having friends who are overweight as well as friends who are underweight can attest to this.
it seems that lately there is a movement on the internet and in offline life as well that criticizes everything and everyone that seems to  promote  being skinny among girls.  the two main arguments being  young girls are influenced by beauty magazines with their unrealistic beauty / thinness standards and starve themselves to death  and  if a person is fat, it is possible that they ca not really do anything about it, so saying that slim is the only standard of beauty is cruel and wrong .  let me be clear here: i agree with these arguments expressed like this .  what i do not agree with is the following.  it seems that nowadays there is a sort of a reverse shaming, when you have a picture of a slim model and a lot of people start applying those arguments to it, saying that you should instead photograph more  curvy  models.   stop creating unrealistic standards with these photos .  i do not agree with these claims, because: 0.  while it is true that slim is not the only standard of beauty, it is still  one of the  standards of beauty, so to say.  for example, it very well might be someone is personal preference to see girls who are slim instead of curvy.  if you make a claim that  curvy is beautiful too , why then ca not slim be beautiful, too ? 0.  suppose a girl is just naturally built this way.  what can she do ? stop being a model just because this should not be the universal standard for beauty ? 0.  if your kids really base their look off something they saw in a magazine.  it is your fault as a parent, and not the magazine is.  why should the magazines be responsible for their readers ? no one seems to attack car magazines for posting articles like  we road tested this car and it goes to 0 mph !  , claiming that  it is dangerous to promote this, someone will try to do the same and die.   it looks like some sort of a double standard, where the tolerance has  gone too far  in a way.  like i said, i agree that many forms and sizes and shapes of female figure are beautiful, but in fighting for the rights of  non slim  figures the society seems to actually attack the rights of  slim  figures.  it is perfectly acceptable for this dialogue to happen:   she is fat.  omg you are such a jerk, no she is not, she is actually normal !  , but i ca not imagine a dialogue like this happening:   she is too skinny.  no, this is actually normal and healthy for her, she is built this way.   am i missing something here, or has the world really gone this crazy ?  #  suppose a girl is just naturally built this way.   #  no one is naturally built like this.   #  there is a happy medium that is the ideal healthy weight, and it can be just as bad for you to be too skinny as it can be to be too fat.  the problem with models that are too skinny is not because is makes women want to be a smaller size, but because it makes them value skinniness over health.  for example, it very well might be someone is personal preference to see girls who are slim instead of curvy.  if you make a claim that  curvy is beautiful too , why then ca not slim be beautiful, too ? my issues steam from people valuing standards of beauty over having a healthy body.  my view is there should be no standard of beauty and all people should strive for whatever build would be the healthiest for them.  no one is naturally built like this.  URL to say that they are just naturally skinny ignores the very real health concerns that come with trying to be that skinny.  why should the magazines be responsible for their readers ? which is why i never both saying things directly to any magazine.  usually, i will only bring up someone being too skinny either directly too that person or to someone who knows that person in an effort to help that person reach a healthier diet/lifestyle.   , claiming that  it is dangerous to promote this, someone will try to do the same and die.   off topic, but i have actually said similar things about sports cars before.  i do think that having cars that are street legal marketed for their racing performance encourages some people to drive recklessly.  given that i only know one person personally who has ever bought a sports car my brother and he totaled said sports car, i think that my views here are justified.   #  when someone is surrounded by societal pressures, refusing to give in can be really really stressful.   # and part of the movement is widening what is considered a standard of beauty.  what can she do ? stop being a model just because this should not be the universal standard for beauty ? no.  i think most of these people you talk about are not against skinny people modeling; they are against two things in particular: first, skinny people being  the only  models, and second, skinny people being photoshopped into body images that would be unhealthy to emulate.  is it your fault if a kid comes home crying because of bullying ? parents can only do so much.  societal influence is pervasive.  parental influence is limited.  when someone is surrounded by societal pressures, refusing to give in can be really really stressful.  giving in can mean serious health problems.  i am 0 pounds obviously very underweight, but by natural body figure, not eating disorders and i have not experienced shaming.  in terms of what i have seen in others that could be seen as critical, it is mainly directed at stopping eating disorders.  again, i ca not speak for everyone is experiences but i doubt it is as widespread as you believe.   #  and so i do not think it is okay that we live in a society where some people are excluded because of something arbitrary like physical appearance.   #  you have given no rationale for that.  race is a spectrum.  i have friends who are black.  i do not hate people who are white in fact, i am white.  sexuality is a spectrum.  i have friends who are gay.  i also have friends who are bi, and who are stright, so, no, it does not work like that.  going back to this  fat  vs  skinny  thing, i have friends who are overweight.  i have friends who are underweight.  i certainly do not give one group preferential treatment because of their weight.  what i am talking about is respecting  humanness .  because i see the value of  humans  i do not have to value a certain subgroup.  i think it is to believe humans should judge other based on the context of their groups rather than their characteristics and values as an individual.  and so i do not think it is okay that we live in a society where some people are excluded because of something arbitrary like physical appearance.   #  something can be true and it is supposed opposite can be true too.   # people come in different shades.  ethnicity is different; i am speaking mainly of how someone looks.  in fact, if we look a bit deeper, when you say   then the opposite must be true you provide no reason why we must look at a spectrum.  in fact, your argument relies only on opposites.  so it does not even have to be a spectrum to be an adequate counter example.  and what i am saying is that an acceptance of high body fat does not inherently mean a rejection of low body fat, and vice versa.  you just made that claim, with little logical analysis or proof to back it up.  something can be true and it is supposed opposite can be true too.  look, we can like group a, and like group b too.  liking one does not mean hating the other.  i am all for non discrimination, and treating  all groups  with respect, not just one or the other.  that is what i mean by widening the standards of beauty.  i mean that as a society, we should work towards finding a wider range of things beautiful, and not pigeonhole ourselves into thinking  this is the only metric of beauty .  and i think saying that it is not achievable is just a dismissal of the work we are obligated to be doing.   #  thus the opposite is true, you should not disrespect others.   # i fail to see why this is the case.  to me, it seems self evident, but i will try to provide some justifications.  0.  you should help other people.  thus the opposite is true, you should not harm people.  0.  you should tell the truth.  thus the opposite is true, you should not tell lies.  0.  you should respect others.  thus the opposite is true, you should not disrespect others.  0\ 0 0  0 0.  for a less pleasant example, if you disapprove of homosexuals, that means you approve of heterosexuals.
it seems that lately there is a movement on the internet and in offline life as well that criticizes everything and everyone that seems to  promote  being skinny among girls.  the two main arguments being  young girls are influenced by beauty magazines with their unrealistic beauty / thinness standards and starve themselves to death  and  if a person is fat, it is possible that they ca not really do anything about it, so saying that slim is the only standard of beauty is cruel and wrong .  let me be clear here: i agree with these arguments expressed like this .  what i do not agree with is the following.  it seems that nowadays there is a sort of a reverse shaming, when you have a picture of a slim model and a lot of people start applying those arguments to it, saying that you should instead photograph more  curvy  models.   stop creating unrealistic standards with these photos .  i do not agree with these claims, because: 0.  while it is true that slim is not the only standard of beauty, it is still  one of the  standards of beauty, so to say.  for example, it very well might be someone is personal preference to see girls who are slim instead of curvy.  if you make a claim that  curvy is beautiful too , why then ca not slim be beautiful, too ? 0.  suppose a girl is just naturally built this way.  what can she do ? stop being a model just because this should not be the universal standard for beauty ? 0.  if your kids really base their look off something they saw in a magazine.  it is your fault as a parent, and not the magazine is.  why should the magazines be responsible for their readers ? no one seems to attack car magazines for posting articles like  we road tested this car and it goes to 0 mph !  , claiming that  it is dangerous to promote this, someone will try to do the same and die.   it looks like some sort of a double standard, where the tolerance has  gone too far  in a way.  like i said, i agree that many forms and sizes and shapes of female figure are beautiful, but in fighting for the rights of  non slim  figures the society seems to actually attack the rights of  slim  figures.  it is perfectly acceptable for this dialogue to happen:   she is fat.  omg you are such a jerk, no she is not, she is actually normal !  , but i ca not imagine a dialogue like this happening:   she is too skinny.  no, this is actually normal and healthy for her, she is built this way.   am i missing something here, or has the world really gone this crazy ?  #  if your kids really base their look off something they saw in a magazine.  it is your fault as a parent, and not the magazine is.   #  why should the magazines be responsible for their readers ?  #  there is a happy medium that is the ideal healthy weight, and it can be just as bad for you to be too skinny as it can be to be too fat.  the problem with models that are too skinny is not because is makes women want to be a smaller size, but because it makes them value skinniness over health.  for example, it very well might be someone is personal preference to see girls who are slim instead of curvy.  if you make a claim that  curvy is beautiful too , why then ca not slim be beautiful, too ? my issues steam from people valuing standards of beauty over having a healthy body.  my view is there should be no standard of beauty and all people should strive for whatever build would be the healthiest for them.  no one is naturally built like this.  URL to say that they are just naturally skinny ignores the very real health concerns that come with trying to be that skinny.  why should the magazines be responsible for their readers ? which is why i never both saying things directly to any magazine.  usually, i will only bring up someone being too skinny either directly too that person or to someone who knows that person in an effort to help that person reach a healthier diet/lifestyle.   , claiming that  it is dangerous to promote this, someone will try to do the same and die.   off topic, but i have actually said similar things about sports cars before.  i do think that having cars that are street legal marketed for their racing performance encourages some people to drive recklessly.  given that i only know one person personally who has ever bought a sports car my brother and he totaled said sports car, i think that my views here are justified.   #  i am 0 pounds obviously very underweight, but by natural body figure, not eating disorders and i have not experienced shaming.   # and part of the movement is widening what is considered a standard of beauty.  what can she do ? stop being a model just because this should not be the universal standard for beauty ? no.  i think most of these people you talk about are not against skinny people modeling; they are against two things in particular: first, skinny people being  the only  models, and second, skinny people being photoshopped into body images that would be unhealthy to emulate.  is it your fault if a kid comes home crying because of bullying ? parents can only do so much.  societal influence is pervasive.  parental influence is limited.  when someone is surrounded by societal pressures, refusing to give in can be really really stressful.  giving in can mean serious health problems.  i am 0 pounds obviously very underweight, but by natural body figure, not eating disorders and i have not experienced shaming.  in terms of what i have seen in others that could be seen as critical, it is mainly directed at stopping eating disorders.  again, i ca not speak for everyone is experiences but i doubt it is as widespread as you believe.   #  i certainly do not give one group preferential treatment because of their weight.   #  you have given no rationale for that.  race is a spectrum.  i have friends who are black.  i do not hate people who are white in fact, i am white.  sexuality is a spectrum.  i have friends who are gay.  i also have friends who are bi, and who are stright, so, no, it does not work like that.  going back to this  fat  vs  skinny  thing, i have friends who are overweight.  i have friends who are underweight.  i certainly do not give one group preferential treatment because of their weight.  what i am talking about is respecting  humanness .  because i see the value of  humans  i do not have to value a certain subgroup.  i think it is to believe humans should judge other based on the context of their groups rather than their characteristics and values as an individual.  and so i do not think it is okay that we live in a society where some people are excluded because of something arbitrary like physical appearance.   #  that is what i mean by widening the standards of beauty.   # people come in different shades.  ethnicity is different; i am speaking mainly of how someone looks.  in fact, if we look a bit deeper, when you say   then the opposite must be true you provide no reason why we must look at a spectrum.  in fact, your argument relies only on opposites.  so it does not even have to be a spectrum to be an adequate counter example.  and what i am saying is that an acceptance of high body fat does not inherently mean a rejection of low body fat, and vice versa.  you just made that claim, with little logical analysis or proof to back it up.  something can be true and it is supposed opposite can be true too.  look, we can like group a, and like group b too.  liking one does not mean hating the other.  i am all for non discrimination, and treating  all groups  with respect, not just one or the other.  that is what i mean by widening the standards of beauty.  i mean that as a society, we should work towards finding a wider range of things beautiful, and not pigeonhole ourselves into thinking  this is the only metric of beauty .  and i think saying that it is not achievable is just a dismissal of the work we are obligated to be doing.   #  to me, it seems self evident, but i will try to provide some justifications.   # i fail to see why this is the case.  to me, it seems self evident, but i will try to provide some justifications.  0.  you should help other people.  thus the opposite is true, you should not harm people.  0.  you should tell the truth.  thus the opposite is true, you should not tell lies.  0.  you should respect others.  thus the opposite is true, you should not disrespect others.  0\ 0 0  0 0.  for a less pleasant example, if you disapprove of homosexuals, that means you approve of heterosexuals.
it seems that lately there is a movement on the internet and in offline life as well that criticizes everything and everyone that seems to  promote  being skinny among girls.  the two main arguments being  young girls are influenced by beauty magazines with their unrealistic beauty / thinness standards and starve themselves to death  and  if a person is fat, it is possible that they ca not really do anything about it, so saying that slim is the only standard of beauty is cruel and wrong .  let me be clear here: i agree with these arguments expressed like this .  what i do not agree with is the following.  it seems that nowadays there is a sort of a reverse shaming, when you have a picture of a slim model and a lot of people start applying those arguments to it, saying that you should instead photograph more  curvy  models.   stop creating unrealistic standards with these photos .  i do not agree with these claims, because: 0.  while it is true that slim is not the only standard of beauty, it is still  one of the  standards of beauty, so to say.  for example, it very well might be someone is personal preference to see girls who are slim instead of curvy.  if you make a claim that  curvy is beautiful too , why then ca not slim be beautiful, too ? 0.  suppose a girl is just naturally built this way.  what can she do ? stop being a model just because this should not be the universal standard for beauty ? 0.  if your kids really base their look off something they saw in a magazine.  it is your fault as a parent, and not the magazine is.  why should the magazines be responsible for their readers ? no one seems to attack car magazines for posting articles like  we road tested this car and it goes to 0 mph !  , claiming that  it is dangerous to promote this, someone will try to do the same and die.   it looks like some sort of a double standard, where the tolerance has  gone too far  in a way.  like i said, i agree that many forms and sizes and shapes of female figure are beautiful, but in fighting for the rights of  non slim  figures the society seems to actually attack the rights of  slim  figures.  it is perfectly acceptable for this dialogue to happen:   she is fat.  omg you are such a jerk, no she is not, she is actually normal !  , but i ca not imagine a dialogue like this happening:   she is too skinny.  no, this is actually normal and healthy for her, she is built this way.   am i missing something here, or has the world really gone this crazy ?  #  no one seems to attack car magazines for posting articles like  we road tested this car and it goes to 0 mph !  #   , claiming that  it is dangerous to promote this, someone will try to do the same and die.    #  there is a happy medium that is the ideal healthy weight, and it can be just as bad for you to be too skinny as it can be to be too fat.  the problem with models that are too skinny is not because is makes women want to be a smaller size, but because it makes them value skinniness over health.  for example, it very well might be someone is personal preference to see girls who are slim instead of curvy.  if you make a claim that  curvy is beautiful too , why then ca not slim be beautiful, too ? my issues steam from people valuing standards of beauty over having a healthy body.  my view is there should be no standard of beauty and all people should strive for whatever build would be the healthiest for them.  no one is naturally built like this.  URL to say that they are just naturally skinny ignores the very real health concerns that come with trying to be that skinny.  why should the magazines be responsible for their readers ? which is why i never both saying things directly to any magazine.  usually, i will only bring up someone being too skinny either directly too that person or to someone who knows that person in an effort to help that person reach a healthier diet/lifestyle.   , claiming that  it is dangerous to promote this, someone will try to do the same and die.   off topic, but i have actually said similar things about sports cars before.  i do think that having cars that are street legal marketed for their racing performance encourages some people to drive recklessly.  given that i only know one person personally who has ever bought a sports car my brother and he totaled said sports car, i think that my views here are justified.   #  and part of the movement is widening what is considered a standard of beauty.   # and part of the movement is widening what is considered a standard of beauty.  what can she do ? stop being a model just because this should not be the universal standard for beauty ? no.  i think most of these people you talk about are not against skinny people modeling; they are against two things in particular: first, skinny people being  the only  models, and second, skinny people being photoshopped into body images that would be unhealthy to emulate.  is it your fault if a kid comes home crying because of bullying ? parents can only do so much.  societal influence is pervasive.  parental influence is limited.  when someone is surrounded by societal pressures, refusing to give in can be really really stressful.  giving in can mean serious health problems.  i am 0 pounds obviously very underweight, but by natural body figure, not eating disorders and i have not experienced shaming.  in terms of what i have seen in others that could be seen as critical, it is mainly directed at stopping eating disorders.  again, i ca not speak for everyone is experiences but i doubt it is as widespread as you believe.   #  going back to this  fat  vs  skinny  thing, i have friends who are overweight.   #  you have given no rationale for that.  race is a spectrum.  i have friends who are black.  i do not hate people who are white in fact, i am white.  sexuality is a spectrum.  i have friends who are gay.  i also have friends who are bi, and who are stright, so, no, it does not work like that.  going back to this  fat  vs  skinny  thing, i have friends who are overweight.  i have friends who are underweight.  i certainly do not give one group preferential treatment because of their weight.  what i am talking about is respecting  humanness .  because i see the value of  humans  i do not have to value a certain subgroup.  i think it is to believe humans should judge other based on the context of their groups rather than their characteristics and values as an individual.  and so i do not think it is okay that we live in a society where some people are excluded because of something arbitrary like physical appearance.   #  in fact, your argument relies only on opposites.   # people come in different shades.  ethnicity is different; i am speaking mainly of how someone looks.  in fact, if we look a bit deeper, when you say   then the opposite must be true you provide no reason why we must look at a spectrum.  in fact, your argument relies only on opposites.  so it does not even have to be a spectrum to be an adequate counter example.  and what i am saying is that an acceptance of high body fat does not inherently mean a rejection of low body fat, and vice versa.  you just made that claim, with little logical analysis or proof to back it up.  something can be true and it is supposed opposite can be true too.  look, we can like group a, and like group b too.  liking one does not mean hating the other.  i am all for non discrimination, and treating  all groups  with respect, not just one or the other.  that is what i mean by widening the standards of beauty.  i mean that as a society, we should work towards finding a wider range of things beautiful, and not pigeonhole ourselves into thinking  this is the only metric of beauty .  and i think saying that it is not achievable is just a dismissal of the work we are obligated to be doing.   #  to me, it seems self evident, but i will try to provide some justifications.   # i fail to see why this is the case.  to me, it seems self evident, but i will try to provide some justifications.  0.  you should help other people.  thus the opposite is true, you should not harm people.  0.  you should tell the truth.  thus the opposite is true, you should not tell lies.  0.  you should respect others.  thus the opposite is true, you should not disrespect others.  0\ 0 0  0 0.  for a less pleasant example, if you disapprove of homosexuals, that means you approve of heterosexuals.
people who advocate meditation are making a status play.  they are bragging about their emotional stability.  it is high status to be calm; it is a sign of weakness to be angry or upset.  the popularization of  mindfulness , especially in a business context, is basically an expression of herrenmoral; the powerful are better people than you because they can maintain composure.  if you are upset, it is because there is something wrong with you, not because you have been wronged.  the practice of meditation probably leads people to be calmer, walk away from fights more, and ultimately be more disengaged from life and less likely to object to mistreatment.  the buddhist tradition of meditation is explicitly designed for ascetics.  most people are not, and should not be, ascetics who withdraw from the world.  most people are participants in the world.  which means engaging in conflict.  meditation trains you to control your mental state instead of trying to blame others.   #  the powerful are better people than you because they can maintain composure.   #  if you are upset, it is because there is something wrong with you, not because you have been wronged.   # if you are upset, it is because there is something wrong with you, not because you have been wronged.  it is very possible to be both.  so are people who advocate about most things, like daily exercise, healthy diet, reading books, etc.  most people who meditate are not withdrawing from the world.  people can meditate for a hour in the morning and still be quite involved.  people meditate for their own reasons.  sometimes its nice to withdraw from activity and take part in individual deep thinking.   #  also, it is almost impossible to argue that it is objectively bad just by looking at the positive health effects it has on practitioners with regard to attention, blood pressure, self discipline, neural composition, and impulsive behavior.   #  i think you are misinformed about the purposes and health benefits of meditation.  the point is to obtain a more accurate perception of reality, and therefore be more engaged in ones own life.  consistently engaging in confrontation when inappropriate and never engaging in confrontation at all are signs of personal delusions about how you interpret other people is behavior, perceptions, and reality as a whole.  meditation is not about controlling your mental state, but acknowledging what little control over it and your surroundings you have.  blaming others when they are not at fault is giving a justification for your way of thinking, so as to maintain an illusion of control over yourself and your surroundings.  also, it is almost impossible to argue that it is objectively bad just by looking at the positive health effects it has on practitioners with regard to attention, blood pressure, self discipline, neural composition, and impulsive behavior.   #  mindfulness cuts through the emotion and targets the root of the aggression whatever problem or problems are breeding it.   #  standing up to them does not mean being aggressive.  think about it.  lets say someone is being aggressive to you, and hurting you.  that makes you feel  terrible.  so then you act aggressive to them and hurt them.  that makes you feel better.  is not it likely then, that the person who was being aggressive towards you, and hurting you, was actually trying to feel better because  they themselves where hurting ? is not that why  you were aggressive ? the point of  mindfulness  is to find a more long term solutions to unpleasant human interactions.  aggression breeds aggression because its rooted in the pain and misunderstanding of all parties involved.  mindfulness cuts through the emotion and targets the root of the aggression whatever problem or problems are breeding it.  that lets you either solve the problem, work around it, or if there is nothing to be done, walk away.   #  if you are thinking clearly you can consider options and be more effective.   #  have you ever felt aggressive and fought with someone in the moment and then later thought you had maybe blown it out of proportion ? one of the aims of meditation is to be mindful of your state and think clearly through emotions.  you can identify the problem or if there is a problem .  your immediate impulse of  how  to fight may not be best either.  if you are thinking clearly you can consider options and be more effective.   #  if you can calm your mind so that emotions are not the primary force of control, it does not mean your emotions are not there.   #  you will fight people much better.  if you can calm your mind so that emotions are not the primary force of control, it does not mean your emotions are not there.  you may find that you were not actually wronged, or that it is not worth fighting over, this is true.  if you meditate and still find that you have been wrong and that there is an injustice that must be corrected, you are far more powerful.  who is more likely to win a fight ? the calm, collected individual who can see past their emotion, or the angry guy who just punches because it is the easiest thing to do in the moment ? if you have seen a calm anger, it is frightening.  people who fight with a clear mind will never back down.  if you fight because of anger, eventually it will fade, and so will your desire to fight.  a calm mind that chooses to fight will not stop until the wrong has been corrected though.
people who advocate meditation are making a status play.  they are bragging about their emotional stability.  it is high status to be calm; it is a sign of weakness to be angry or upset.  the popularization of  mindfulness , especially in a business context, is basically an expression of herrenmoral; the powerful are better people than you because they can maintain composure.  if you are upset, it is because there is something wrong with you, not because you have been wronged.  the practice of meditation probably leads people to be calmer, walk away from fights more, and ultimately be more disengaged from life and less likely to object to mistreatment.  the buddhist tradition of meditation is explicitly designed for ascetics.  most people are not, and should not be, ascetics who withdraw from the world.  most people are participants in the world.  which means engaging in conflict.  meditation trains you to control your mental state instead of trying to blame others.   #  people who advocate meditation are making a status play.   #  so are people who advocate about most things, like daily exercise, healthy diet, reading books, etc.   # if you are upset, it is because there is something wrong with you, not because you have been wronged.  it is very possible to be both.  so are people who advocate about most things, like daily exercise, healthy diet, reading books, etc.  most people who meditate are not withdrawing from the world.  people can meditate for a hour in the morning and still be quite involved.  people meditate for their own reasons.  sometimes its nice to withdraw from activity and take part in individual deep thinking.   #  consistently engaging in confrontation when inappropriate and never engaging in confrontation at all are signs of personal delusions about how you interpret other people is behavior, perceptions, and reality as a whole.   #  i think you are misinformed about the purposes and health benefits of meditation.  the point is to obtain a more accurate perception of reality, and therefore be more engaged in ones own life.  consistently engaging in confrontation when inappropriate and never engaging in confrontation at all are signs of personal delusions about how you interpret other people is behavior, perceptions, and reality as a whole.  meditation is not about controlling your mental state, but acknowledging what little control over it and your surroundings you have.  blaming others when they are not at fault is giving a justification for your way of thinking, so as to maintain an illusion of control over yourself and your surroundings.  also, it is almost impossible to argue that it is objectively bad just by looking at the positive health effects it has on practitioners with regard to attention, blood pressure, self discipline, neural composition, and impulsive behavior.   #  so then you act aggressive to them and hurt them.   #  standing up to them does not mean being aggressive.  think about it.  lets say someone is being aggressive to you, and hurting you.  that makes you feel  terrible.  so then you act aggressive to them and hurt them.  that makes you feel better.  is not it likely then, that the person who was being aggressive towards you, and hurting you, was actually trying to feel better because  they themselves where hurting ? is not that why  you were aggressive ? the point of  mindfulness  is to find a more long term solutions to unpleasant human interactions.  aggression breeds aggression because its rooted in the pain and misunderstanding of all parties involved.  mindfulness cuts through the emotion and targets the root of the aggression whatever problem or problems are breeding it.  that lets you either solve the problem, work around it, or if there is nothing to be done, walk away.   #  your immediate impulse of  how  to fight may not be best either.   #  have you ever felt aggressive and fought with someone in the moment and then later thought you had maybe blown it out of proportion ? one of the aims of meditation is to be mindful of your state and think clearly through emotions.  you can identify the problem or if there is a problem .  your immediate impulse of  how  to fight may not be best either.  if you are thinking clearly you can consider options and be more effective.   #  who is more likely to win a fight ?  #  you will fight people much better.  if you can calm your mind so that emotions are not the primary force of control, it does not mean your emotions are not there.  you may find that you were not actually wronged, or that it is not worth fighting over, this is true.  if you meditate and still find that you have been wrong and that there is an injustice that must be corrected, you are far more powerful.  who is more likely to win a fight ? the calm, collected individual who can see past their emotion, or the angry guy who just punches because it is the easiest thing to do in the moment ? if you have seen a calm anger, it is frightening.  people who fight with a clear mind will never back down.  if you fight because of anger, eventually it will fade, and so will your desire to fight.  a calm mind that chooses to fight will not stop until the wrong has been corrected though.
people who advocate meditation are making a status play.  they are bragging about their emotional stability.  it is high status to be calm; it is a sign of weakness to be angry or upset.  the popularization of  mindfulness , especially in a business context, is basically an expression of herrenmoral; the powerful are better people than you because they can maintain composure.  if you are upset, it is because there is something wrong with you, not because you have been wronged.  the practice of meditation probably leads people to be calmer, walk away from fights more, and ultimately be more disengaged from life and less likely to object to mistreatment.  the buddhist tradition of meditation is explicitly designed for ascetics.  most people are not, and should not be, ascetics who withdraw from the world.  most people are participants in the world.  which means engaging in conflict.  meditation trains you to control your mental state instead of trying to blame others.   #  most people are not, and should not be, ascetics who withdraw from the world.   #  most people who meditate are not withdrawing from the world.   # if you are upset, it is because there is something wrong with you, not because you have been wronged.  it is very possible to be both.  so are people who advocate about most things, like daily exercise, healthy diet, reading books, etc.  most people who meditate are not withdrawing from the world.  people can meditate for a hour in the morning and still be quite involved.  people meditate for their own reasons.  sometimes its nice to withdraw from activity and take part in individual deep thinking.   #  the point is to obtain a more accurate perception of reality, and therefore be more engaged in ones own life.   #  i think you are misinformed about the purposes and health benefits of meditation.  the point is to obtain a more accurate perception of reality, and therefore be more engaged in ones own life.  consistently engaging in confrontation when inappropriate and never engaging in confrontation at all are signs of personal delusions about how you interpret other people is behavior, perceptions, and reality as a whole.  meditation is not about controlling your mental state, but acknowledging what little control over it and your surroundings you have.  blaming others when they are not at fault is giving a justification for your way of thinking, so as to maintain an illusion of control over yourself and your surroundings.  also, it is almost impossible to argue that it is objectively bad just by looking at the positive health effects it has on practitioners with regard to attention, blood pressure, self discipline, neural composition, and impulsive behavior.   #  is not it likely then, that the person who was being aggressive towards you, and hurting you, was actually trying to feel better because  they themselves where hurting ?  #  standing up to them does not mean being aggressive.  think about it.  lets say someone is being aggressive to you, and hurting you.  that makes you feel  terrible.  so then you act aggressive to them and hurt them.  that makes you feel better.  is not it likely then, that the person who was being aggressive towards you, and hurting you, was actually trying to feel better because  they themselves where hurting ? is not that why  you were aggressive ? the point of  mindfulness  is to find a more long term solutions to unpleasant human interactions.  aggression breeds aggression because its rooted in the pain and misunderstanding of all parties involved.  mindfulness cuts through the emotion and targets the root of the aggression whatever problem or problems are breeding it.  that lets you either solve the problem, work around it, or if there is nothing to be done, walk away.   #  if you are thinking clearly you can consider options and be more effective.   #  have you ever felt aggressive and fought with someone in the moment and then later thought you had maybe blown it out of proportion ? one of the aims of meditation is to be mindful of your state and think clearly through emotions.  you can identify the problem or if there is a problem .  your immediate impulse of  how  to fight may not be best either.  if you are thinking clearly you can consider options and be more effective.   #  people who fight with a clear mind will never back down.   #  you will fight people much better.  if you can calm your mind so that emotions are not the primary force of control, it does not mean your emotions are not there.  you may find that you were not actually wronged, or that it is not worth fighting over, this is true.  if you meditate and still find that you have been wrong and that there is an injustice that must be corrected, you are far more powerful.  who is more likely to win a fight ? the calm, collected individual who can see past their emotion, or the angry guy who just punches because it is the easiest thing to do in the moment ? if you have seen a calm anger, it is frightening.  people who fight with a clear mind will never back down.  if you fight because of anger, eventually it will fade, and so will your desire to fight.  a calm mind that chooses to fight will not stop until the wrong has been corrected though.
i have forgotten the math, but essentially a friend and i calculated that the time it takes to physically recognize a penny, bend over, pick it up, and then resume your business is not worth your time if you are not dedicating your time to solely  and  infinitely consecutively picking up pennies.  what we deemed a proper valuation of worth via time is comparing the derivative specific rate of pay at the instance of picking up a penny to the derivative of pennies per same instance of time as a part of a minimum wage.  we found is that since you make more pennies per the same instance of time sticking to a minimum wage job, and minimum wage is the price floor for  airquotes minimal sustainable financial security /airquotes  then it is not worth your time regardless of you working or not at the time of picking the penny.  additionally, pennies in general have very little buying power.  you ca not use them in most vending machines, toll booths, parking meters, or any non cashier related transactions.  through trying to pay with exact change, fiddling with pennies adds even more time to transactions, decreasing their worth on top of their comparably lower  worth of your time  to pennies you accumulate through the pay of a minimum wage job.   #  additionally, pennies in general have very little buying power.   #  what if it is a rare or collectible penny ?  # you are not paid for every minute of your life, so minimum wage does not apply.  unless you have a job that lets you pop in and get paid for a minute, you will  always  be 0 cent richer by picking up a penny.  furthermore, if you pick up a penny at work then you are  getting paid to pick up a penny .  i ca not imagine a boss that would punish you for such an act, so you have added one cent to your income.  what if it is a rare or collectible penny ? not all pennies are worth one cent.   #  this effect can only be exacerbated by the money in question being in the form of a coin, with the tactile feedback of weight and apparent temperature.   #  generally, picking up pennies does not affect the money received from a job one does not have pay deducted for the time spent collecting pennies.  thus, from a purely materialistic viewpoint and assuming the time spent taking the penny does not impact other earning prospects, taking the penny is a wise decision.  however, this is not the only, or indeed primary, reason to pick up pennies.  the saying  find a penny, pick it up, and all day you will have good luck  is not conjured from a vacuum.  money, especially in physical form, has a very high emotional value in our culture.  studies show that handling money gives subjects sensations of happiness and calm.  this effect can only be exacerbated by the money in question being in the form of a coin, with the tactile feedback of weight and apparent temperature.   #  i could are argue that it could worsen one is day since one might consider that they could have found a different coin instead, but it ended up being a penny.   # the saying  find a penny, pick it up, and all day you will have good luck  is not conjured from a vacuum.  money, especially in physical form, has a very high emotional value in our culture.  studies show that handling money gives subjects sensations of happiness and calm.  this effect can only be exacerbated by the money in question being in the form of a coin, with the tactile feedback of weight and apparent temperature.  i feel like this does not apply to pennies.  i am sure everyone feels great to find a quarter on the ground.  a penny ? not so much.  as kids we may feel this way because getting any money at all is a very novel and occasional situation.  and i imagine that is where the most relevance of that expression exists.  however as adults, where our day to day expenditures are normal and necessary, the worth of a penny is happiness is literally 0/0th the value of something much more rewarding like a quarter.  the comparison alone makes pennies so close to being worthless that we think it so and feel it so.  i am fairly certain that most peoples  days are not made off of finding a penny.  i could are argue that it could worsen one is day since one might consider that they could have found a different coin instead, but it ended up being a penny.   #  he died a few years back of cancer.   #  my uncle john used to pick up pennies, and his wife, my aunt, would scold him, and say that the neighbors would see that and think they were poor.  but he kept on doing it, and she got used to it and would just sigh.  he died a few years back of cancer.  when my aunt sees a penny on the ground now, she picks it up and says,  oh a gift from john.  he is thinking of me.   it makes her smile when she sees one, and she keeps it as a remembrance.  it is one small thing that makes her life a bit better.  when she is not looking, i drop pennies.  i want her to know that my uncle is not forgotten.  and i like seeing my aunt smile again.  one penny at a time.   #  also, unless you intend to pay for things with pennies, you need to go to a bank or coin machine, which is time and possibly $ some coin machines charge a % .   #  pennies do not fall in such a concentration that you would be able to pick up pennies for an hour.  you probably need to factor in the time of storing them throwing them in a tin can , and waiting to amass enough to be a considerable amount.  also, unless you intend to pay for things with pennies, you need to go to a bank or coin machine, which is time and possibly $ some coin machines charge a % .  the law in the us requires all businesses to accept physical legal tender, so there is no shortage of places to spend it, but you are going to be the asshole who counts out 0 pennies for your lunch.  that could damage your reputation, which probably is not worth a few measly dollars.  i am with op.  in this day and age, pennies are not worth it.  the only ones i have any more are from the scant few times i actually pay with cash for something.  it also does not help that i value my time far more than $0/hr.
one of the main goals of an hoa are to help maintain or even increase the value of the homes in the neighborhood by preventing people from doing things that would lower property values.  home owners associations do not have to be expensive for the residents that live under them.  they can even be free.  i think home owner associations hoas are good and everyone should live where there is one.  cmv.   #  one of the main goals of an hoa are to help maintain or even increase the value of the homes in the neighborhood by preventing people from doing things that would lower property values.   #  just because hoas profess to have that as a goal, does not mean they  actually  have that as a goal.   #  you have not actually made an argument.  you have just made some assertions, with no supporting evidence.  just because hoas profess to have that as a goal, does not mean they  actually  have that as a goal.  it also does not  necessarily  mean they are actually doing anything to effectively pursue that goal.  additionally, the shitty knee jerk argument: what if i  want  to do something that would lower property values.  what if i bought my own home just so i could have the freedom to do this i do not know, say, have band practices ? paint my house a crazy colour ? i am not a homeowner so i am spitballing here .  hoas are infringing on my freedom to do this.  obviously hoas are opt in so the correct response to me in that situation would be  so do not live where there is an hoa .  but, of course, your original statement is   everyone  should live where there is one .  they can even be free.  again: just because they  can  does not mean they  are .  speaking of anecdotes: i have looked into condos that have hoas around where i live sf bay area, california .  most of them have hoa fees that are somewhere between 0/0th to 0/0th of what the rent is.  as far as i am concerned, $0/mo hoa fees is insanity.  it is hard to make a counter argument when i do not actually know why you believe that they are good, but here goes: why the fuck should i  pay for the privilege  of  someone else  telling me what i can or ca not do at my house.  that is all  #  i do not think i should be able to compromise the property of others for instance, make a huge racket day and night, or dump chemicals that leach onto their land, or make noxious fumes , but my property is mine.   #   one of the main goals of an hoa are to help maintain or even increase the value of the homes in the neighborhood  agreed.  but this is not everyone is highest priority; for some people, it is not even on the list.  i bought my first home specifically avoiding hoas, because i am not particularly concerned about the property value.  i am concerned about being able to do as i please.  if i want to keep chickens, or hang christmas lights, or not hang christmas lights, or paint my house purple, or work on a car in my driveway, or any of a hundred other things that various hoas forbid, then avoiding them is ideal.  i value my freedom to do as i choose on my property a lot more than i value a few bucks when it comes time to sell again.  i do not think i should be able to compromise the property of others for instance, make a huge racket day and night, or dump chemicals that leach onto their land, or make noxious fumes , but my property is mine.  the government already regulates me enough.  i do not need a bunch of neighbors also deciding how i should live my life.   #  it was a very small amount of leaves and there were hundreds of other trees around which also shed their leaves.   #  well why ca not the system just be a meeting monthly ? why does it have to be a committee ? it should be a popular vote, especially when there are so few people.  even 0 people is small enough to run things on popular vote.  i think the problem that most people have with hoas is that it is run by a few individuals in a community who have put a lot of effort into attaining their positions and this tends to be people with some weird desire to assert control rather than govern fairly.  for example, my grandma used to have these trees and the trees would shed their leaves onto the sidewalk.  it was a very small amount of leaves and there were hundreds of other trees around which also shed their leaves.  but, someone was annoyed at her trees specifically for whatever reason and she was targeted with fines and threats for it.  they made unreasonable demands including having the trees trimmed weekly and finally demands to remove them all together.  the punishment outweighed the  crime  immensely and its clearly because an annoyance turned into some kind of  battle  in the mind of the hoa.  and all just because a tree was shedding it is leaves.  there was no forum for voicing an opposing opinion, no vote, no compromise in any way.  they were going to have their way.   #  and once again, how else are you going to run a condo building.   # why does it have to be a committee ? because you are not going to find a monthly time when all 0 households can get together.  also, because you do not need all 0 households for most of the decisions a condo association board makes.  for example, most people are not going to care what janitorial company you hire.  it is way easier for everyone just to have the board take care of it.  finally, what do you do when you need to fix the roof and one person refuses to pay their share ? you need an association that everyone agrees to belong to when they purchase so that you can make sure no one gets a free ride.  they were going to have their way.  of course there are bad associations.  that does not make them all bad.  and once again, how else are you going to run a condo building.  and yes, there is forum for opposition.  most jurisdictions require associations to have yearly elections.  most jurisdictions require associations to have recall and appeal bylaws.  and, if worse comes to worse, they only way they can enforce anything is by going to court and proving that the rules are reasonable, applied consistently, and were broken.   #  we have laws to prevent people doing things like running a swine processing plant in a residential area.   #  this flies in the face of the opening statement:  everyone should live where there is one .  do you really think you are going to find a neighborhood with an hoa that is compatible with all the little nitpicky things that every single person wants, on top of the other considerations about where to move or live ? i did not run a chicken farm, i had a half dozen, which make rather less noise and mess than a large dog.  we have laws to prevent people doing things like running a swine processing plant in a residential area.  at the end of the day, it is mostly the  everyone  part that i find appalling.  just because you want to extend your will over and control the lives of others, even on their own property when it has no direct effect on you, does not mean we all do.  i have no problem with my neighbors doing what they want, within the law.  i value freedom over an artificial idea of how a neighborhood  should  look or work.  there is only so much people should be allowed to control the lives of others, and you are saying that everyone should comply with your ideas of how things should run, because everyone should care about increasing their property values.  you are not only trying to tell everyone what to do, but what to think.
one of the main goals of an hoa are to help maintain or even increase the value of the homes in the neighborhood by preventing people from doing things that would lower property values.  home owners associations do not have to be expensive for the residents that live under them.  they can even be free.  i think home owner associations hoas are good and everyone should live where there is one.  cmv.   #  one of the main goals of an hoa are to help maintain or even increase the value of the homes in the neighborhood by preventing people from doing things that would lower property values.   #  that has nothing to do with hoas.   #  hoas are filling a role that there are already multiple other people trying to fill.  the federal government is already telling you what you can and cannot do with your land, the state government gets to tell you what you can and cannot do, your county government get to tell you their rules, your city has their rules, and now we need another to do the same ? that has nothing to do with hoas.  hoas are designed to enforce uniformity among residents.  this neither increases nor decreases prices but is a set of standards by which all residents must adhere to.  but let is address your point of you thinking that everyone should be part of one.  your reasoning is because you think they are good.  let is follow that line of logic to other things.  i think that ancient mayan ritual sacrafice is good, and everyone should live practicing it.  this of course, would be rejected out of hand because i should be able to choose my own beliefs as should you why should i not have the same ability with my home ? if i want to paint my siding purple, why does there need to be a consensus among my neighbors ? the other insane issue is that we do this for no other piece of property.  i do not need my automobile dealer or neighbors permission to change the color of my car, to pick my clothes, choose my friends, my books, my political beliefs what makes my house any different ? if your argument is that an hoa improves housing values by setting standards, it is very easy to devalue a home outside of their standards.  i can have the most terrible car, dress like an absolute hobo or gang banger, and make my presence known in the neighborhood to depress values but we do not form organizations to inhibit these actions ? lastly, let is tackle the idea that somehow these hoas increase value.  most hoas are 0 0 a year.  property values rise based on a large geographical area which is largely not determined by the hoa.  if you look at communities of similar situations, the amount of difference in cost between the two can be a few thousand dollars, but over a 0 year difference, an hoa has not increased your property value more than the cost you have put in and has generally restricted and thus raised the cost on all other things.  in addition to the cost of the association dues, you have limited competition for things like garbage collection, phone/internet/cable/satellite/utilities which often charge far more because they are handed a monopoly by the hoa as the  approved  vendor.  thousands more dollars thrown away.  in the end, you end up spending more money than the perceived increase in value, if there is even one.  hoas could be good for some people, but certainly not all people and not even most people.   #  i value my freedom to do as i choose on my property a lot more than i value a few bucks when it comes time to sell again.   #   one of the main goals of an hoa are to help maintain or even increase the value of the homes in the neighborhood  agreed.  but this is not everyone is highest priority; for some people, it is not even on the list.  i bought my first home specifically avoiding hoas, because i am not particularly concerned about the property value.  i am concerned about being able to do as i please.  if i want to keep chickens, or hang christmas lights, or not hang christmas lights, or paint my house purple, or work on a car in my driveway, or any of a hundred other things that various hoas forbid, then avoiding them is ideal.  i value my freedom to do as i choose on my property a lot more than i value a few bucks when it comes time to sell again.  i do not think i should be able to compromise the property of others for instance, make a huge racket day and night, or dump chemicals that leach onto their land, or make noxious fumes , but my property is mine.  the government already regulates me enough.  i do not need a bunch of neighbors also deciding how i should live my life.   #  well why ca not the system just be a meeting monthly ?  #  well why ca not the system just be a meeting monthly ? why does it have to be a committee ? it should be a popular vote, especially when there are so few people.  even 0 people is small enough to run things on popular vote.  i think the problem that most people have with hoas is that it is run by a few individuals in a community who have put a lot of effort into attaining their positions and this tends to be people with some weird desire to assert control rather than govern fairly.  for example, my grandma used to have these trees and the trees would shed their leaves onto the sidewalk.  it was a very small amount of leaves and there were hundreds of other trees around which also shed their leaves.  but, someone was annoyed at her trees specifically for whatever reason and she was targeted with fines and threats for it.  they made unreasonable demands including having the trees trimmed weekly and finally demands to remove them all together.  the punishment outweighed the  crime  immensely and its clearly because an annoyance turned into some kind of  battle  in the mind of the hoa.  and all just because a tree was shedding it is leaves.  there was no forum for voicing an opposing opinion, no vote, no compromise in any way.  they were going to have their way.   #  because you are not going to find a monthly time when all 0 households can get together.   # why does it have to be a committee ? because you are not going to find a monthly time when all 0 households can get together.  also, because you do not need all 0 households for most of the decisions a condo association board makes.  for example, most people are not going to care what janitorial company you hire.  it is way easier for everyone just to have the board take care of it.  finally, what do you do when you need to fix the roof and one person refuses to pay their share ? you need an association that everyone agrees to belong to when they purchase so that you can make sure no one gets a free ride.  they were going to have their way.  of course there are bad associations.  that does not make them all bad.  and once again, how else are you going to run a condo building.  and yes, there is forum for opposition.  most jurisdictions require associations to have yearly elections.  most jurisdictions require associations to have recall and appeal bylaws.  and, if worse comes to worse, they only way they can enforce anything is by going to court and proving that the rules are reasonable, applied consistently, and were broken.   #  at the end of the day, it is mostly the  everyone  part that i find appalling.   #  this flies in the face of the opening statement:  everyone should live where there is one .  do you really think you are going to find a neighborhood with an hoa that is compatible with all the little nitpicky things that every single person wants, on top of the other considerations about where to move or live ? i did not run a chicken farm, i had a half dozen, which make rather less noise and mess than a large dog.  we have laws to prevent people doing things like running a swine processing plant in a residential area.  at the end of the day, it is mostly the  everyone  part that i find appalling.  just because you want to extend your will over and control the lives of others, even on their own property when it has no direct effect on you, does not mean we all do.  i have no problem with my neighbors doing what they want, within the law.  i value freedom over an artificial idea of how a neighborhood  should  look or work.  there is only so much people should be allowed to control the lives of others, and you are saying that everyone should comply with your ideas of how things should run, because everyone should care about increasing their property values.  you are not only trying to tell everyone what to do, but what to think.
one of the main goals of an hoa are to help maintain or even increase the value of the homes in the neighborhood by preventing people from doing things that would lower property values.  home owners associations do not have to be expensive for the residents that live under them.  they can even be free.  i think home owner associations hoas are good and everyone should live where there is one.  cmv.   #  one of the main goals of an hoa are to help maintain or even increase the value of the homes in the neighborhood by preventing people from doing things that would lower property values.   #  there is more to determining the value of something than simply looking up its price.   # there is more to determining the value of something than simply looking up its price.  what do you value more, the ability to maintain your vehicle yourself, or else protection from other people doing work on their driveways ? how does the ability to have a fire in the backyard compare to protection from the smoke that it causes ? how does the ability to change your home and property compare to protecting the uniformity and aesthetics of the neighborhood ? the answers are different for every person, but i value the ability to maintain my vehicle, have fires, and modify my property much, much more than protection from the same.  i would be willing to spend thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollars to gain those rights.   #  i am concerned about being able to do as i please.   #   one of the main goals of an hoa are to help maintain or even increase the value of the homes in the neighborhood  agreed.  but this is not everyone is highest priority; for some people, it is not even on the list.  i bought my first home specifically avoiding hoas, because i am not particularly concerned about the property value.  i am concerned about being able to do as i please.  if i want to keep chickens, or hang christmas lights, or not hang christmas lights, or paint my house purple, or work on a car in my driveway, or any of a hundred other things that various hoas forbid, then avoiding them is ideal.  i value my freedom to do as i choose on my property a lot more than i value a few bucks when it comes time to sell again.  i do not think i should be able to compromise the property of others for instance, make a huge racket day and night, or dump chemicals that leach onto their land, or make noxious fumes , but my property is mine.  the government already regulates me enough.  i do not need a bunch of neighbors also deciding how i should live my life.   #  well why ca not the system just be a meeting monthly ?  #  well why ca not the system just be a meeting monthly ? why does it have to be a committee ? it should be a popular vote, especially when there are so few people.  even 0 people is small enough to run things on popular vote.  i think the problem that most people have with hoas is that it is run by a few individuals in a community who have put a lot of effort into attaining their positions and this tends to be people with some weird desire to assert control rather than govern fairly.  for example, my grandma used to have these trees and the trees would shed their leaves onto the sidewalk.  it was a very small amount of leaves and there were hundreds of other trees around which also shed their leaves.  but, someone was annoyed at her trees specifically for whatever reason and she was targeted with fines and threats for it.  they made unreasonable demands including having the trees trimmed weekly and finally demands to remove them all together.  the punishment outweighed the  crime  immensely and its clearly because an annoyance turned into some kind of  battle  in the mind of the hoa.  and all just because a tree was shedding it is leaves.  there was no forum for voicing an opposing opinion, no vote, no compromise in any way.  they were going to have their way.   #  and, if worse comes to worse, they only way they can enforce anything is by going to court and proving that the rules are reasonable, applied consistently, and were broken.   # why does it have to be a committee ? because you are not going to find a monthly time when all 0 households can get together.  also, because you do not need all 0 households for most of the decisions a condo association board makes.  for example, most people are not going to care what janitorial company you hire.  it is way easier for everyone just to have the board take care of it.  finally, what do you do when you need to fix the roof and one person refuses to pay their share ? you need an association that everyone agrees to belong to when they purchase so that you can make sure no one gets a free ride.  they were going to have their way.  of course there are bad associations.  that does not make them all bad.  and once again, how else are you going to run a condo building.  and yes, there is forum for opposition.  most jurisdictions require associations to have yearly elections.  most jurisdictions require associations to have recall and appeal bylaws.  and, if worse comes to worse, they only way they can enforce anything is by going to court and proving that the rules are reasonable, applied consistently, and were broken.   #  at the end of the day, it is mostly the  everyone  part that i find appalling.   #  this flies in the face of the opening statement:  everyone should live where there is one .  do you really think you are going to find a neighborhood with an hoa that is compatible with all the little nitpicky things that every single person wants, on top of the other considerations about where to move or live ? i did not run a chicken farm, i had a half dozen, which make rather less noise and mess than a large dog.  we have laws to prevent people doing things like running a swine processing plant in a residential area.  at the end of the day, it is mostly the  everyone  part that i find appalling.  just because you want to extend your will over and control the lives of others, even on their own property when it has no direct effect on you, does not mean we all do.  i have no problem with my neighbors doing what they want, within the law.  i value freedom over an artificial idea of how a neighborhood  should  look or work.  there is only so much people should be allowed to control the lives of others, and you are saying that everyone should comply with your ideas of how things should run, because everyone should care about increasing their property values.  you are not only trying to tell everyone what to do, but what to think.
i will be the first to admit that i do not fully understand kant.  but as i understand it there are 0 maxims   act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction   act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.    therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.  it is the first maxim that sticks out to me.  by considering whether something ought to be a universal maxim, we are already considering the consequences of that thing being a universal law.  this does not strike me as very different from what a consequentialist would say, except this judgement is done at the point of the framing of the ethical framework instead of at the point of action which may, in practise be the same .  an objection apparently raised during kant is time was whether one should tell a murderer the location of their children or someone i am a bit foggy on the details , and kant responded that one should.  but none of the maxims address the atomicity of the action why must not apply the categorical imperative to the action of telling a murderer where the children are ? and an appraisal of whether something ought to be a universal law seems to be consequentialist to me.  am i missing something ? cmv  #  by considering whether something ought to be a universal maxim, we are already considering the consequences of that thing being a universal law.   #  but that is not considering the consequences of the  action .   # but that is not considering the consequences of the  action .  for kant, the process goes like this: consider an action, ponder the relevant maxim, apply the maxim, do the corresponding thing.  the consequences are utterly irrelevant.  e. g.   i could steal that ,  istealing is bad , then do not steal the thing.  it does not matter if your stealing that thing, in this case, will save the life of countless doughy eyed orphans, or prevent nuclear war, or whatever.  this is precisely kant sticking to that gun.  why should not i lie to the murderer ? despite the fact that the lie will undoubtedly save the lives of my children,  lying is wrong , therefore, i should not do it.  it does not get much more non consequentialist than that.  that is an equivocation on the term.  consequentialism,  qua  moral compass, judges the praise or blameworthyness of an action based solely on the net positive or negative impacts it has would have, would be reasonably expected to have, would generally have and so on on other moral agents, in the future.  thinking about whether or not people in the future should or should not follow a particular maxim does not quite fit that bill. that is why the imperative is  categorical  and not  hypothetical .   you should x , not  if y, then you should x .  consequentialism takes y to be the net positive future state of the world.  for kant, maxims are to human behavior like theorems are to mathematics.  we discover them, and can use and misuse them, get them right or wrong; but they are entirely part of the stable structure of the world.  at any moment, a given maxim is true or false, regardless of whether it is, or ever will be, applied.   #  agent neutrality: if an action is right for some agent, then it is right for any other agent.   #  this is actually kind of a big issue in normative ethics right now: whether or not any theory can rightly be categorized as non consequentialist.  the general worry is that, for any moral theory we cook up, we can formulate that worry in consequentialist terms.  so consequentialism, broadly speaking, is an account of what is right: right action is action that maximizes the good.  and then we produce particular consequentialist theories by giving an account of  the good .  so an obvious example would be utilitarianism, which takes the consequentialist account of right action and couples it with the claim that what is good is pleasure, so one ought to maximize pleasure.  now stepping back to consequentialism alone, there are obviously a wide range of theories of goodness that we could give.  in fact, we could even take a purportedly non consequentialist theory and reword it into a theory of goodness so that we can plug it into our criteria of the right consequentialism and  consequentialize  that theory.  in the case of kant, we might say something like  right action is action that maximizes one is acts in accordance with duty,  and then cash out  duty  as per its formulated with the categorical imperative.  probably the best objection to consequentializing turning a non consequentialist theory into a consequentialist one in the way described above is in campbell brown is paper  consequentialize this !   URL brown gives three criteria for a theory to qualify as consequentialist beyond the broad and vulnerable characterization that i offered at the start of this comment.  agent neutrality: if an action is right for some agent, then it is right for any other agent.  no moral dilemmas: there are no situations in which one cannot avoid acting wrongly.  dominance: if there are at least two possible outcomes,  x  and  y , while  x  is right and  y  is wrong, then it is never right to choose  y  when  x  is an available alternative.  so right away it is clear how kant is ethics fail to be consequentialist under this conception: there are moral dilemmas for kant.  for example, by kantian ethics it is always wrong to lie since, if every agent were to take as their maxim  i will lie,  then communication would not be possible and therefore neither would lying.  but it is also wrong to, say, turn someone over to an axe murderer, since that would involve treating someone as a mere means to getting this murderer off your back.  so if an axe murderer comes to your door and asks where your wife and kids are so that he can go murder them, it would be wrong for you to lie, but it would also be wrong for you to turn over your wife and kids.  thus we have a moral dilemma: your only available actions assume that silence is not possible here are all wrong and you cannot avoid acting wrongly.  but in a consequentialist account of right and wrong action you must always be able to avoid acting wrongly, so kant is ethics are not consequentialist.   #  the sort of mechanism readily supplied by the definition that i offered in my top level comment.   #  well there are plenty of obvious counterexamples to such a broad characterization of consequentialism.  besides the obvious theories that purport to be non consequentialist, but still have something to do with outcomes, even.  for example, someone who thinks that all moral claims are false so a claim like  you ought morally to bring about the best consequences  would be false could nonetheless be concerned with consequences.  or if moral claims can be true one could still be concerned with consequences, but still not be in any morally relevant situation.  so an example of that could be if you are trying to decide which movie to go to it is not  morally  wrong of you to pick the one you will enjoy less.  stupid, maybe, but not wrong.  as well, taking an essential feature of consequentialism to be merely  being concerned with the consequences,  makes consequentialism as a category for moral theories opaque.  to think of consequentialism in that way does not tell you anything about what it means to be a consequentialist theory nor does it give a clear mechanism by which we can move from the general category of consequentialism to particular consequentialist theories.  the sort of mechanism readily supplied by the definition that i offered in my top level comment.   #  kant also has this big deal in the dor about how removing your own body parts is wrong.   # the moral dilemma occurs before you have actually performed the action, which is why it is a dilemma and not an  oh shit you have fucked up.   and prior to performing the action, you are forced into a dilemma between doing one wrong thing the lying or another assisting a murder .  but running someone over with a trolley is wrong by the second formulation of the ci.  this is why kant gives us more than one.  same as above.  kant also has this big deal in the dor about how removing your own body parts is wrong.   #  the biggest issue here is that the maxims created to follow these rules create moral ambiguity.   #  the biggest issue here is that the maxims created to follow these rules create moral ambiguity.  let is look at lying to a murderer: we can assume two basic premise; that lying is bad, and that murder is bad.  these are both maxims that are totally legitimate to will because they are some things that should not be done that also ensure that you do not work as the means to another is end.  however, if this murderer were to ask you where this child is, you would have to tell them based on premise two.  but there are two issues here, it violates premise one later on as the murderer will probably kill the child.  the second issue is that you are being the means another individual is end.  specifically with issues that were discussed above these are the main problems that arise.
i will be the first to admit that i do not fully understand kant.  but as i understand it there are 0 maxims   act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction   act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.    therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.  it is the first maxim that sticks out to me.  by considering whether something ought to be a universal maxim, we are already considering the consequences of that thing being a universal law.  this does not strike me as very different from what a consequentialist would say, except this judgement is done at the point of the framing of the ethical framework instead of at the point of action which may, in practise be the same .  an objection apparently raised during kant is time was whether one should tell a murderer the location of their children or someone i am a bit foggy on the details , and kant responded that one should.  but none of the maxims address the atomicity of the action why must not apply the categorical imperative to the action of telling a murderer where the children are ? and an appraisal of whether something ought to be a universal law seems to be consequentialist to me.  am i missing something ? cmv  #  but none of the maxims address the atomicity of the action why must not apply the categorical imperative to the action of telling a murderer where the children are ?  #  this is precisely kant sticking to that gun.   # but that is not considering the consequences of the  action .  for kant, the process goes like this: consider an action, ponder the relevant maxim, apply the maxim, do the corresponding thing.  the consequences are utterly irrelevant.  e. g.   i could steal that ,  istealing is bad , then do not steal the thing.  it does not matter if your stealing that thing, in this case, will save the life of countless doughy eyed orphans, or prevent nuclear war, or whatever.  this is precisely kant sticking to that gun.  why should not i lie to the murderer ? despite the fact that the lie will undoubtedly save the lives of my children,  lying is wrong , therefore, i should not do it.  it does not get much more non consequentialist than that.  that is an equivocation on the term.  consequentialism,  qua  moral compass, judges the praise or blameworthyness of an action based solely on the net positive or negative impacts it has would have, would be reasonably expected to have, would generally have and so on on other moral agents, in the future.  thinking about whether or not people in the future should or should not follow a particular maxim does not quite fit that bill. that is why the imperative is  categorical  and not  hypothetical .   you should x , not  if y, then you should x .  consequentialism takes y to be the net positive future state of the world.  for kant, maxims are to human behavior like theorems are to mathematics.  we discover them, and can use and misuse them, get them right or wrong; but they are entirely part of the stable structure of the world.  at any moment, a given maxim is true or false, regardless of whether it is, or ever will be, applied.   #  and then we produce particular consequentialist theories by giving an account of  the good .   #  this is actually kind of a big issue in normative ethics right now: whether or not any theory can rightly be categorized as non consequentialist.  the general worry is that, for any moral theory we cook up, we can formulate that worry in consequentialist terms.  so consequentialism, broadly speaking, is an account of what is right: right action is action that maximizes the good.  and then we produce particular consequentialist theories by giving an account of  the good .  so an obvious example would be utilitarianism, which takes the consequentialist account of right action and couples it with the claim that what is good is pleasure, so one ought to maximize pleasure.  now stepping back to consequentialism alone, there are obviously a wide range of theories of goodness that we could give.  in fact, we could even take a purportedly non consequentialist theory and reword it into a theory of goodness so that we can plug it into our criteria of the right consequentialism and  consequentialize  that theory.  in the case of kant, we might say something like  right action is action that maximizes one is acts in accordance with duty,  and then cash out  duty  as per its formulated with the categorical imperative.  probably the best objection to consequentializing turning a non consequentialist theory into a consequentialist one in the way described above is in campbell brown is paper  consequentialize this !   URL brown gives three criteria for a theory to qualify as consequentialist beyond the broad and vulnerable characterization that i offered at the start of this comment.  agent neutrality: if an action is right for some agent, then it is right for any other agent.  no moral dilemmas: there are no situations in which one cannot avoid acting wrongly.  dominance: if there are at least two possible outcomes,  x  and  y , while  x  is right and  y  is wrong, then it is never right to choose  y  when  x  is an available alternative.  so right away it is clear how kant is ethics fail to be consequentialist under this conception: there are moral dilemmas for kant.  for example, by kantian ethics it is always wrong to lie since, if every agent were to take as their maxim  i will lie,  then communication would not be possible and therefore neither would lying.  but it is also wrong to, say, turn someone over to an axe murderer, since that would involve treating someone as a mere means to getting this murderer off your back.  so if an axe murderer comes to your door and asks where your wife and kids are so that he can go murder them, it would be wrong for you to lie, but it would also be wrong for you to turn over your wife and kids.  thus we have a moral dilemma: your only available actions assume that silence is not possible here are all wrong and you cannot avoid acting wrongly.  but in a consequentialist account of right and wrong action you must always be able to avoid acting wrongly, so kant is ethics are not consequentialist.   #  or if moral claims can be true one could still be concerned with consequences, but still not be in any morally relevant situation.   #  well there are plenty of obvious counterexamples to such a broad characterization of consequentialism.  besides the obvious theories that purport to be non consequentialist, but still have something to do with outcomes, even.  for example, someone who thinks that all moral claims are false so a claim like  you ought morally to bring about the best consequences  would be false could nonetheless be concerned with consequences.  or if moral claims can be true one could still be concerned with consequences, but still not be in any morally relevant situation.  so an example of that could be if you are trying to decide which movie to go to it is not  morally  wrong of you to pick the one you will enjoy less.  stupid, maybe, but not wrong.  as well, taking an essential feature of consequentialism to be merely  being concerned with the consequences,  makes consequentialism as a category for moral theories opaque.  to think of consequentialism in that way does not tell you anything about what it means to be a consequentialist theory nor does it give a clear mechanism by which we can move from the general category of consequentialism to particular consequentialist theories.  the sort of mechanism readily supplied by the definition that i offered in my top level comment.   #  and prior to performing the action, you are forced into a dilemma between doing one wrong thing the lying or another assisting a murder .   # the moral dilemma occurs before you have actually performed the action, which is why it is a dilemma and not an  oh shit you have fucked up.   and prior to performing the action, you are forced into a dilemma between doing one wrong thing the lying or another assisting a murder .  but running someone over with a trolley is wrong by the second formulation of the ci.  this is why kant gives us more than one.  same as above.  kant also has this big deal in the dor about how removing your own body parts is wrong.   #  these are both maxims that are totally legitimate to will because they are some things that should not be done that also ensure that you do not work as the means to another is end.   #  the biggest issue here is that the maxims created to follow these rules create moral ambiguity.  let is look at lying to a murderer: we can assume two basic premise; that lying is bad, and that murder is bad.  these are both maxims that are totally legitimate to will because they are some things that should not be done that also ensure that you do not work as the means to another is end.  however, if this murderer were to ask you where this child is, you would have to tell them based on premise two.  but there are two issues here, it violates premise one later on as the murderer will probably kill the child.  the second issue is that you are being the means another individual is end.  specifically with issues that were discussed above these are the main problems that arise.
i will be the first to admit that i do not fully understand kant.  but as i understand it there are 0 maxims   act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction   act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.    therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.  it is the first maxim that sticks out to me.  by considering whether something ought to be a universal maxim, we are already considering the consequences of that thing being a universal law.  this does not strike me as very different from what a consequentialist would say, except this judgement is done at the point of the framing of the ethical framework instead of at the point of action which may, in practise be the same .  an objection apparently raised during kant is time was whether one should tell a murderer the location of their children or someone i am a bit foggy on the details , and kant responded that one should.  but none of the maxims address the atomicity of the action why must not apply the categorical imperative to the action of telling a murderer where the children are ? and an appraisal of whether something ought to be a universal law seems to be consequentialist to me.  am i missing something ? cmv  #  an appraisal of whether something ought to be a universal law seems to be consequentialist to me.   #  that is an equivocation on the term.   # but that is not considering the consequences of the  action .  for kant, the process goes like this: consider an action, ponder the relevant maxim, apply the maxim, do the corresponding thing.  the consequences are utterly irrelevant.  e. g.   i could steal that ,  istealing is bad , then do not steal the thing.  it does not matter if your stealing that thing, in this case, will save the life of countless doughy eyed orphans, or prevent nuclear war, or whatever.  this is precisely kant sticking to that gun.  why should not i lie to the murderer ? despite the fact that the lie will undoubtedly save the lives of my children,  lying is wrong , therefore, i should not do it.  it does not get much more non consequentialist than that.  that is an equivocation on the term.  consequentialism,  qua  moral compass, judges the praise or blameworthyness of an action based solely on the net positive or negative impacts it has would have, would be reasonably expected to have, would generally have and so on on other moral agents, in the future.  thinking about whether or not people in the future should or should not follow a particular maxim does not quite fit that bill. that is why the imperative is  categorical  and not  hypothetical .   you should x , not  if y, then you should x .  consequentialism takes y to be the net positive future state of the world.  for kant, maxims are to human behavior like theorems are to mathematics.  we discover them, and can use and misuse them, get them right or wrong; but they are entirely part of the stable structure of the world.  at any moment, a given maxim is true or false, regardless of whether it is, or ever will be, applied.   #  thus we have a moral dilemma: your only available actions assume that silence is not possible here are all wrong and you cannot avoid acting wrongly.   #  this is actually kind of a big issue in normative ethics right now: whether or not any theory can rightly be categorized as non consequentialist.  the general worry is that, for any moral theory we cook up, we can formulate that worry in consequentialist terms.  so consequentialism, broadly speaking, is an account of what is right: right action is action that maximizes the good.  and then we produce particular consequentialist theories by giving an account of  the good .  so an obvious example would be utilitarianism, which takes the consequentialist account of right action and couples it with the claim that what is good is pleasure, so one ought to maximize pleasure.  now stepping back to consequentialism alone, there are obviously a wide range of theories of goodness that we could give.  in fact, we could even take a purportedly non consequentialist theory and reword it into a theory of goodness so that we can plug it into our criteria of the right consequentialism and  consequentialize  that theory.  in the case of kant, we might say something like  right action is action that maximizes one is acts in accordance with duty,  and then cash out  duty  as per its formulated with the categorical imperative.  probably the best objection to consequentializing turning a non consequentialist theory into a consequentialist one in the way described above is in campbell brown is paper  consequentialize this !   URL brown gives three criteria for a theory to qualify as consequentialist beyond the broad and vulnerable characterization that i offered at the start of this comment.  agent neutrality: if an action is right for some agent, then it is right for any other agent.  no moral dilemmas: there are no situations in which one cannot avoid acting wrongly.  dominance: if there are at least two possible outcomes,  x  and  y , while  x  is right and  y  is wrong, then it is never right to choose  y  when  x  is an available alternative.  so right away it is clear how kant is ethics fail to be consequentialist under this conception: there are moral dilemmas for kant.  for example, by kantian ethics it is always wrong to lie since, if every agent were to take as their maxim  i will lie,  then communication would not be possible and therefore neither would lying.  but it is also wrong to, say, turn someone over to an axe murderer, since that would involve treating someone as a mere means to getting this murderer off your back.  so if an axe murderer comes to your door and asks where your wife and kids are so that he can go murder them, it would be wrong for you to lie, but it would also be wrong for you to turn over your wife and kids.  thus we have a moral dilemma: your only available actions assume that silence is not possible here are all wrong and you cannot avoid acting wrongly.  but in a consequentialist account of right and wrong action you must always be able to avoid acting wrongly, so kant is ethics are not consequentialist.   #  as well, taking an essential feature of consequentialism to be merely  being concerned with the consequences,  makes consequentialism as a category for moral theories opaque.   #  well there are plenty of obvious counterexamples to such a broad characterization of consequentialism.  besides the obvious theories that purport to be non consequentialist, but still have something to do with outcomes, even.  for example, someone who thinks that all moral claims are false so a claim like  you ought morally to bring about the best consequences  would be false could nonetheless be concerned with consequences.  or if moral claims can be true one could still be concerned with consequences, but still not be in any morally relevant situation.  so an example of that could be if you are trying to decide which movie to go to it is not  morally  wrong of you to pick the one you will enjoy less.  stupid, maybe, but not wrong.  as well, taking an essential feature of consequentialism to be merely  being concerned with the consequences,  makes consequentialism as a category for moral theories opaque.  to think of consequentialism in that way does not tell you anything about what it means to be a consequentialist theory nor does it give a clear mechanism by which we can move from the general category of consequentialism to particular consequentialist theories.  the sort of mechanism readily supplied by the definition that i offered in my top level comment.   #  kant also has this big deal in the dor about how removing your own body parts is wrong.   # the moral dilemma occurs before you have actually performed the action, which is why it is a dilemma and not an  oh shit you have fucked up.   and prior to performing the action, you are forced into a dilemma between doing one wrong thing the lying or another assisting a murder .  but running someone over with a trolley is wrong by the second formulation of the ci.  this is why kant gives us more than one.  same as above.  kant also has this big deal in the dor about how removing your own body parts is wrong.   #  however, if this murderer were to ask you where this child is, you would have to tell them based on premise two.   #  the biggest issue here is that the maxims created to follow these rules create moral ambiguity.  let is look at lying to a murderer: we can assume two basic premise; that lying is bad, and that murder is bad.  these are both maxims that are totally legitimate to will because they are some things that should not be done that also ensure that you do not work as the means to another is end.  however, if this murderer were to ask you where this child is, you would have to tell them based on premise two.  but there are two issues here, it violates premise one later on as the murderer will probably kill the child.  the second issue is that you are being the means another individual is end.  specifically with issues that were discussed above these are the main problems that arise.
i will be the first to admit that i do not fully understand kant.  but as i understand it there are 0 maxims   act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction   act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.    therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.  it is the first maxim that sticks out to me.  by considering whether something ought to be a universal maxim, we are already considering the consequences of that thing being a universal law.  this does not strike me as very different from what a consequentialist would say, except this judgement is done at the point of the framing of the ethical framework instead of at the point of action which may, in practise be the same .  an objection apparently raised during kant is time was whether one should tell a murderer the location of their children or someone i am a bit foggy on the details , and kant responded that one should.  but none of the maxims address the atomicity of the action why must not apply the categorical imperative to the action of telling a murderer where the children are ? and an appraisal of whether something ought to be a universal law seems to be consequentialist to me.  am i missing something ? cmv  #  by considering whether something ought to be a universal maxim, we are already considering the consequences of that thing being a universal law.   #  the only consequence he was concerned with was contradiction.   # the only consequence he was concerned with was contradiction.  the kinds of  consequence  consequentialism concerns itself with are things which themselves are valued.  so if doing  x  causes more  y  than not doing it, and  y  is bad, then we should not do  x  according to a albeit naive consequentialist.  for kant, if all people do  y , and this results in a contradiction, then  y  is not a viable maxim.  whether or not something is a contradiction is objective.  whether or not something is bad is subjective.  thus the difference.   #  but in a consequentialist account of right and wrong action you must always be able to avoid acting wrongly, so kant is ethics are not consequentialist.   #  this is actually kind of a big issue in normative ethics right now: whether or not any theory can rightly be categorized as non consequentialist.  the general worry is that, for any moral theory we cook up, we can formulate that worry in consequentialist terms.  so consequentialism, broadly speaking, is an account of what is right: right action is action that maximizes the good.  and then we produce particular consequentialist theories by giving an account of  the good .  so an obvious example would be utilitarianism, which takes the consequentialist account of right action and couples it with the claim that what is good is pleasure, so one ought to maximize pleasure.  now stepping back to consequentialism alone, there are obviously a wide range of theories of goodness that we could give.  in fact, we could even take a purportedly non consequentialist theory and reword it into a theory of goodness so that we can plug it into our criteria of the right consequentialism and  consequentialize  that theory.  in the case of kant, we might say something like  right action is action that maximizes one is acts in accordance with duty,  and then cash out  duty  as per its formulated with the categorical imperative.  probably the best objection to consequentializing turning a non consequentialist theory into a consequentialist one in the way described above is in campbell brown is paper  consequentialize this !   URL brown gives three criteria for a theory to qualify as consequentialist beyond the broad and vulnerable characterization that i offered at the start of this comment.  agent neutrality: if an action is right for some agent, then it is right for any other agent.  no moral dilemmas: there are no situations in which one cannot avoid acting wrongly.  dominance: if there are at least two possible outcomes,  x  and  y , while  x  is right and  y  is wrong, then it is never right to choose  y  when  x  is an available alternative.  so right away it is clear how kant is ethics fail to be consequentialist under this conception: there are moral dilemmas for kant.  for example, by kantian ethics it is always wrong to lie since, if every agent were to take as their maxim  i will lie,  then communication would not be possible and therefore neither would lying.  but it is also wrong to, say, turn someone over to an axe murderer, since that would involve treating someone as a mere means to getting this murderer off your back.  so if an axe murderer comes to your door and asks where your wife and kids are so that he can go murder them, it would be wrong for you to lie, but it would also be wrong for you to turn over your wife and kids.  thus we have a moral dilemma: your only available actions assume that silence is not possible here are all wrong and you cannot avoid acting wrongly.  but in a consequentialist account of right and wrong action you must always be able to avoid acting wrongly, so kant is ethics are not consequentialist.   #  or if moral claims can be true one could still be concerned with consequences, but still not be in any morally relevant situation.   #  well there are plenty of obvious counterexamples to such a broad characterization of consequentialism.  besides the obvious theories that purport to be non consequentialist, but still have something to do with outcomes, even.  for example, someone who thinks that all moral claims are false so a claim like  you ought morally to bring about the best consequences  would be false could nonetheless be concerned with consequences.  or if moral claims can be true one could still be concerned with consequences, but still not be in any morally relevant situation.  so an example of that could be if you are trying to decide which movie to go to it is not  morally  wrong of you to pick the one you will enjoy less.  stupid, maybe, but not wrong.  as well, taking an essential feature of consequentialism to be merely  being concerned with the consequences,  makes consequentialism as a category for moral theories opaque.  to think of consequentialism in that way does not tell you anything about what it means to be a consequentialist theory nor does it give a clear mechanism by which we can move from the general category of consequentialism to particular consequentialist theories.  the sort of mechanism readily supplied by the definition that i offered in my top level comment.   #  kant also has this big deal in the dor about how removing your own body parts is wrong.   # the moral dilemma occurs before you have actually performed the action, which is why it is a dilemma and not an  oh shit you have fucked up.   and prior to performing the action, you are forced into a dilemma between doing one wrong thing the lying or another assisting a murder .  but running someone over with a trolley is wrong by the second formulation of the ci.  this is why kant gives us more than one.  same as above.  kant also has this big deal in the dor about how removing your own body parts is wrong.   #  however, if this murderer were to ask you where this child is, you would have to tell them based on premise two.   #  the biggest issue here is that the maxims created to follow these rules create moral ambiguity.  let is look at lying to a murderer: we can assume two basic premise; that lying is bad, and that murder is bad.  these are both maxims that are totally legitimate to will because they are some things that should not be done that also ensure that you do not work as the means to another is end.  however, if this murderer were to ask you where this child is, you would have to tell them based on premise two.  but there are two issues here, it violates premise one later on as the murderer will probably kill the child.  the second issue is that you are being the means another individual is end.  specifically with issues that were discussed above these are the main problems that arise.
title is a bit confusing as i know no one can really do any magic, but i feel that camera tricks and excessive stooges are the lowest of the low in magic.  by excessive stooges i mean more than 0 of the people viewing the trick live are in on it and are actors.    it cheapens the trick, anyone could perform any magic trick if camera tricks or 0 actors are allowed.    working out how the magic trick was done is half the fun for me and i think most people .  knowing it is all faked with no interesting trick is a waste of everyones time.    there is suspension of disbelief, not only for that magician but then for all magicians.  if i see a good trick now i am more likely to believe it is just just a camera trick which cheapens the whole event.  it even spoils the fun for magicians who do magic without camera tricks as people suspect it might be.    it is just not cool.   #  working out how the magic trick was done is half the fun for me and i think most people .   #  knowing it is all faked with no interesting trick is a waste of everyones time.   #  i have been a preforming magician for about 0 years now.  this is a topic that i have thought and talked a lot about over the last few years.  i am still on the fence but will argue against your particular view points:  it cheapens the trick, anyone could perform any magic trick if camera tricks or 0 actors are allowed.  i do not believe this is fair.  camera tricks or not, a successful magic trick will not tip the secret.  bad camera editing can reveal the secret of course, just like bad slight of hand can reveal a secret.  a  successful  camera assisted magic effect takes engineering, scripting, good filming and great editing.  anyone  could no more successfully preform camera magic than  anyone  could create special effects for movies.  knowing it is all faked with no interesting trick is a waste of everyones time.  i think you are just approaching this incorrectly.  there is a puzzle in camera trickery as well.  you can dismiss stage magic as being  all faked  because it is just as easily as camera tricks.  if i see a good trick now i am more likely to believe it is just just a camera trick which cheapens the whole event.  it even spoils the fun for magicians who do magic without camera tricks as people suspect it might be.  certainly if you see magic live, you ca not believe it is camera trickery.  if you are watching magic on a screen then camera trickery should always enter your mind as a possibility.  in my opinion, youtube videos of performances that spectators can watch over and over again to get a secret do more to harm magic than camera tricks do.  more than once a spectator has just googled a description of one of my effects and found something similar on youtube with the same secret.  i agree generally, but we should define  cool  first.  is it more impressive to have magic preformed in your face than to watch it on tv ? i think so.  however, if by  cool  you mean the ability to entertain through deception magic at it is core then tv magic certainly fits that bill.  millions of viewers watch magic on tv, many continue even if they are assuming camera tricks.  tv magic is entertaining to many people.  that is the primary goal of magic and magicians.  to judge whether someone is a good magician or not, do not look at their secrets, technical ability or skill, instead look at their audience.  if the audience is happy the magician is a success and is a  good  magician.   #  what these people are doing is using chicanery to trick you for your entertainment.   #  as you said, magic is not real.  what these people are doing is using chicanery to trick you for your entertainment.  what does it matter to you what the nature of the illusion is ? you are being lied to.  does it really matter about what ? your view that some methods of achieving this are inferior to others seems arbitrary to me.  maybe your view is actually that you do not like magicians whose secrets are easy to figure out.  or maybe you do not like illusions that are only good on television.  considering how mundane the secrets behind most illusions really are, you do not really make a case for camera tricks and stooges being all that different from mirrors and stunt doubles.   #  the second is simple disillusionment, literally having the illusion ruined for you, which is why magicians do not give away their secrets.   # yes, but the problem there is not that there is something inherently wrong with messing with the viewpoint of the audience.  what is actually wrong with this is that  you  can tell that it is happening or, i suspect, you learned later that is how a trick was done.  the first instance is a problem with execution, which is crappy magic no matter the method.  the second is simple disillusionment, literally having the illusion ruined for you, which is why magicians do not give away their secrets.  it is generally because their secrets are so dumb that people would have the reaction you have to learning about camera tricks and audience shills.   #  i think ops point is more that magic should be in the skill of the performer sleight of hand, misdirection, manipulation of everyone is attention and not simply camera tricks.   #  i think ops point is more that magic should be in the skill of the performer sleight of hand, misdirection, manipulation of everyone is attention and not simply camera tricks.  i mean, by that logic, one could simply make a car disappear by cgi editing out the car, which is just disappointing.  i am a little bit of an amateur magician myself or at least, i used to be so i might be biased a bit, but i feel as does op, i think that the skill of magic is in the manipulation.  you ca not just do whatever you want on stage and then use camera tricks in post production to make it look like you did something; you actually have to  do  something that looks like you are doing something else.  the thrill of magic is seeing something happen  right in front of your face  that just  ca not  happen.  cgi or camera tricks are just.  a disappointment.  in that vein, an assistant or two can be very useful if used correctly but if 0 or more of your audience is put there by you to help you with the trick, you are probably doing something wrong.  that is not skill, that is paying people to act like you are doing it right.  this is what i mean: look at the video below.  the guy uses a very, very minimum of props, gets right up in your face, and uses his skill to make magic happen he does not rely on other people, he does not rely on tricks of the camera that are only effective on tv, and does not rely on editing after the fact.   #  except that the whole point of magic is that you are not supposed to be able to tell exactly how it was done.   #  except that the whole point of magic is that you are not supposed to be able to tell exactly how it was done.  without that, there is no wondrous effect for the observer.  that effect is the core of what makes a magic trick a magic trick.  otherwise it is just a trick.  camera angles are simply too well understood for the trick to remain undiscovered.  yes, i am aware that this means that what is considered magic is dependent on the audience.  however, in the general case, the audience has seen lots of movies and are already familiar with the camera tricks.  there is a reason that one of the basic rules of being a magician is to never repeat a trick to the same audience.
title is a bit confusing as i know no one can really do any magic, but i feel that camera tricks and excessive stooges are the lowest of the low in magic.  by excessive stooges i mean more than 0 of the people viewing the trick live are in on it and are actors.    it cheapens the trick, anyone could perform any magic trick if camera tricks or 0 actors are allowed.    working out how the magic trick was done is half the fun for me and i think most people .  knowing it is all faked with no interesting trick is a waste of everyones time.    there is suspension of disbelief, not only for that magician but then for all magicians.  if i see a good trick now i am more likely to believe it is just just a camera trick which cheapens the whole event.  it even spoils the fun for magicians who do magic without camera tricks as people suspect it might be.    it is just not cool.   #  there is suspension of disbelief, not only for that magician but then for all magicians.   #  if i see a good trick now i am more likely to believe it is just just a camera trick which cheapens the whole event.   #  i have been a preforming magician for about 0 years now.  this is a topic that i have thought and talked a lot about over the last few years.  i am still on the fence but will argue against your particular view points:  it cheapens the trick, anyone could perform any magic trick if camera tricks or 0 actors are allowed.  i do not believe this is fair.  camera tricks or not, a successful magic trick will not tip the secret.  bad camera editing can reveal the secret of course, just like bad slight of hand can reveal a secret.  a  successful  camera assisted magic effect takes engineering, scripting, good filming and great editing.  anyone  could no more successfully preform camera magic than  anyone  could create special effects for movies.  knowing it is all faked with no interesting trick is a waste of everyones time.  i think you are just approaching this incorrectly.  there is a puzzle in camera trickery as well.  you can dismiss stage magic as being  all faked  because it is just as easily as camera tricks.  if i see a good trick now i am more likely to believe it is just just a camera trick which cheapens the whole event.  it even spoils the fun for magicians who do magic without camera tricks as people suspect it might be.  certainly if you see magic live, you ca not believe it is camera trickery.  if you are watching magic on a screen then camera trickery should always enter your mind as a possibility.  in my opinion, youtube videos of performances that spectators can watch over and over again to get a secret do more to harm magic than camera tricks do.  more than once a spectator has just googled a description of one of my effects and found something similar on youtube with the same secret.  i agree generally, but we should define  cool  first.  is it more impressive to have magic preformed in your face than to watch it on tv ? i think so.  however, if by  cool  you mean the ability to entertain through deception magic at it is core then tv magic certainly fits that bill.  millions of viewers watch magic on tv, many continue even if they are assuming camera tricks.  tv magic is entertaining to many people.  that is the primary goal of magic and magicians.  to judge whether someone is a good magician or not, do not look at their secrets, technical ability or skill, instead look at their audience.  if the audience is happy the magician is a success and is a  good  magician.   #  what these people are doing is using chicanery to trick you for your entertainment.   #  as you said, magic is not real.  what these people are doing is using chicanery to trick you for your entertainment.  what does it matter to you what the nature of the illusion is ? you are being lied to.  does it really matter about what ? your view that some methods of achieving this are inferior to others seems arbitrary to me.  maybe your view is actually that you do not like magicians whose secrets are easy to figure out.  or maybe you do not like illusions that are only good on television.  considering how mundane the secrets behind most illusions really are, you do not really make a case for camera tricks and stooges being all that different from mirrors and stunt doubles.   #  what is actually wrong with this is that  you  can tell that it is happening or, i suspect, you learned later that is how a trick was done.   # yes, but the problem there is not that there is something inherently wrong with messing with the viewpoint of the audience.  what is actually wrong with this is that  you  can tell that it is happening or, i suspect, you learned later that is how a trick was done.  the first instance is a problem with execution, which is crappy magic no matter the method.  the second is simple disillusionment, literally having the illusion ruined for you, which is why magicians do not give away their secrets.  it is generally because their secrets are so dumb that people would have the reaction you have to learning about camera tricks and audience shills.   #  in that vein, an assistant or two can be very useful if used correctly but if 0 or more of your audience is put there by you to help you with the trick, you are probably doing something wrong.   #  i think ops point is more that magic should be in the skill of the performer sleight of hand, misdirection, manipulation of everyone is attention and not simply camera tricks.  i mean, by that logic, one could simply make a car disappear by cgi editing out the car, which is just disappointing.  i am a little bit of an amateur magician myself or at least, i used to be so i might be biased a bit, but i feel as does op, i think that the skill of magic is in the manipulation.  you ca not just do whatever you want on stage and then use camera tricks in post production to make it look like you did something; you actually have to  do  something that looks like you are doing something else.  the thrill of magic is seeing something happen  right in front of your face  that just  ca not  happen.  cgi or camera tricks are just.  a disappointment.  in that vein, an assistant or two can be very useful if used correctly but if 0 or more of your audience is put there by you to help you with the trick, you are probably doing something wrong.  that is not skill, that is paying people to act like you are doing it right.  this is what i mean: look at the video below.  the guy uses a very, very minimum of props, gets right up in your face, and uses his skill to make magic happen he does not rely on other people, he does not rely on tricks of the camera that are only effective on tv, and does not rely on editing after the fact.   #  camera angles are simply too well understood for the trick to remain undiscovered.   #  except that the whole point of magic is that you are not supposed to be able to tell exactly how it was done.  without that, there is no wondrous effect for the observer.  that effect is the core of what makes a magic trick a magic trick.  otherwise it is just a trick.  camera angles are simply too well understood for the trick to remain undiscovered.  yes, i am aware that this means that what is considered magic is dependent on the audience.  however, in the general case, the audience has seen lots of movies and are already familiar with the camera tricks.  there is a reason that one of the basic rules of being a magician is to never repeat a trick to the same audience.
title is a bit confusing as i know no one can really do any magic, but i feel that camera tricks and excessive stooges are the lowest of the low in magic.  by excessive stooges i mean more than 0 of the people viewing the trick live are in on it and are actors.    it cheapens the trick, anyone could perform any magic trick if camera tricks or 0 actors are allowed.    working out how the magic trick was done is half the fun for me and i think most people .  knowing it is all faked with no interesting trick is a waste of everyones time.    there is suspension of disbelief, not only for that magician but then for all magicians.  if i see a good trick now i am more likely to believe it is just just a camera trick which cheapens the whole event.  it even spoils the fun for magicians who do magic without camera tricks as people suspect it might be.    it is just not cool.   #  working out how the magic trick was done is half the fun for me and i think most people .   #  the secondary and not always required value of a magic trick is sustaining that illusion/mystery.   #  the primary worth of a magic trick is how initially tricked/baffled/mystified and  stumped  you are not how disappointed/pleased you are when/if you discover how the trick was done ! the secondary and not always required value of a magic trick is sustaining that illusion/mystery.  the fun part of this secondary value for most people is when their mind is going this way and that way trying to figure it out it is the mental journey.  this secondary fun ends when you actually work it out.  the last and least essential part  if  someone finds the answer is having them still impressed by how it was done.  this part can be avoided if they  never  find out.  special tv edits/effect are the least impressive method  if  discovered.  but if, somehow, you have been utterly convinced that the trick is free of editing/collusion/special effects, and if you are convinced that you discovered/understood the  very clever solution  e. g.  dan brown is neuro linguistic programming comes to mind , then tv collusion is actually a very clever part of the trick !  #  considering how mundane the secrets behind most illusions really are, you do not really make a case for camera tricks and stooges being all that different from mirrors and stunt doubles.   #  as you said, magic is not real.  what these people are doing is using chicanery to trick you for your entertainment.  what does it matter to you what the nature of the illusion is ? you are being lied to.  does it really matter about what ? your view that some methods of achieving this are inferior to others seems arbitrary to me.  maybe your view is actually that you do not like magicians whose secrets are easy to figure out.  or maybe you do not like illusions that are only good on television.  considering how mundane the secrets behind most illusions really are, you do not really make a case for camera tricks and stooges being all that different from mirrors and stunt doubles.   #  what is actually wrong with this is that  you  can tell that it is happening or, i suspect, you learned later that is how a trick was done.   # yes, but the problem there is not that there is something inherently wrong with messing with the viewpoint of the audience.  what is actually wrong with this is that  you  can tell that it is happening or, i suspect, you learned later that is how a trick was done.  the first instance is a problem with execution, which is crappy magic no matter the method.  the second is simple disillusionment, literally having the illusion ruined for you, which is why magicians do not give away their secrets.  it is generally because their secrets are so dumb that people would have the reaction you have to learning about camera tricks and audience shills.   #  i am a little bit of an amateur magician myself or at least, i used to be so i might be biased a bit, but i feel as does op, i think that the skill of magic is in the manipulation.   #  i think ops point is more that magic should be in the skill of the performer sleight of hand, misdirection, manipulation of everyone is attention and not simply camera tricks.  i mean, by that logic, one could simply make a car disappear by cgi editing out the car, which is just disappointing.  i am a little bit of an amateur magician myself or at least, i used to be so i might be biased a bit, but i feel as does op, i think that the skill of magic is in the manipulation.  you ca not just do whatever you want on stage and then use camera tricks in post production to make it look like you did something; you actually have to  do  something that looks like you are doing something else.  the thrill of magic is seeing something happen  right in front of your face  that just  ca not  happen.  cgi or camera tricks are just.  a disappointment.  in that vein, an assistant or two can be very useful if used correctly but if 0 or more of your audience is put there by you to help you with the trick, you are probably doing something wrong.  that is not skill, that is paying people to act like you are doing it right.  this is what i mean: look at the video below.  the guy uses a very, very minimum of props, gets right up in your face, and uses his skill to make magic happen he does not rely on other people, he does not rely on tricks of the camera that are only effective on tv, and does not rely on editing after the fact.   #  camera angles are simply too well understood for the trick to remain undiscovered.   #  except that the whole point of magic is that you are not supposed to be able to tell exactly how it was done.  without that, there is no wondrous effect for the observer.  that effect is the core of what makes a magic trick a magic trick.  otherwise it is just a trick.  camera angles are simply too well understood for the trick to remain undiscovered.  yes, i am aware that this means that what is considered magic is dependent on the audience.  however, in the general case, the audience has seen lots of movies and are already familiar with the camera tricks.  there is a reason that one of the basic rules of being a magician is to never repeat a trick to the same audience.
net neutrality is a valuable goal, but many say that the way to keep it is to turn the internet into a common good like roads and railroads so the government will protect it.  this seems like a terrible idea, because giving the government more control over regulating the internet opens it up for over regulation and abuse.  the railroads have hardly innovated in decades and are abysmal for passenger traffic.  i wonder how much better they might have been with competition.  cmv.  i think the fact that corporations mostly want profits is actually better for the state of isps it means that if a corporation comes along that provides a far better product like google fiber, and i am waiting for more to come they can push comcast   co out of the market entirely.  with government regulation, those companies will be protected in their positions.  overall, i am not convinced that the government will make the right decisions or do anything other than impede the progress of the internet.  neither will the current isps in the field, but without regulation at least other isps have more opportunity to enter.  if anyone can show me that i am wrong, i will gladly cmv.   #  this seems like a terrible idea, because giving the government more control over regulating the internet opens it up for over regulation and abuse.   #  do you realize that the us government essentially  does  regulate the internet ?  # do you realize that the us government essentially  does  regulate the internet ? icann the organization that ultimately controls domain names and ip addresses is controlled by the us department of commerce.  they operate with a lot of independence, but the us has the ability to cause a lot of damage if it chose.  i wonder how much better they might have been with competition.  cmv.  how does net neutrality hurt competition ? is not the most competitive environment the one where everybody has a chance to compete ? if you run a medium sized website, you could be blocked or slowed down by a big isp because you ca not pay the toll.  the whole point of net neutrality is  to encourage competition .  a major concern is someone like verizon or comcast screwing with netflix traffic to make their own service look more attractive.  what if at t makes vonage calls choppy to promote their own service ? these examples show how it hurts competition when you are not neutral.   #  in europe 0 of its freight is over highway.   #  and for the record, it is the complete opposite in europe.  in europe 0 of its freight is over highway.  us is 0 of freight over rail.  so rail certainly is not the  only  way.  URL   europe has decided to run its rail system primarily for passengers, while america is system is run mainly for freight.  europe is rail system has about 0 percent of the passenger travel market, while autos have about 0 percent.  meanwhile, 0 percent of european freight goes by highway.  here in the u. s. , highway is share of freight travel is only 0 percent, while the auto is share of passenger travel is about 0 percent.  so trains get 0 percent of potential auto users in europe out of their cars, but leave almost three times as much freight on the highway.   #  you do not have to sell the railroad a quarter of your stock before you can ship your goods to market.   #  what is your point ? i still say that passenger rail is a distraction from any conversation about railroad regulation.  passenger rail died out in america because it could not compete with airplanes and automobiles on the demand side,  or  with freight rail on the supply side.  it certainly did not get  regulated  out of existence.  meanwhile, freight rail that is, the industry that actually exists, unlike passenger rail is humming along just fine.  the market ruining abuses from the bad old days are just gone.  you do not have to sell the railroad a quarter of your stock before you can ship your goods to market.  you do not have trolls buying up a four mile stretch of track and holding everybody else hostage for exorbitant tolls.  the system, regulation and all, just works.   #  travel abroad where there is competition like korea and everything is super cheap and super fast.   #  yes, i was referring to passenger.  regardless, that nothing has improved in 0 years is telling.  these utilities that are run by government rail, water, electricity, roads have seen little to no efficiency improvements in the life that government has been in charge.  all of it is just adding to, repairing, or making minor upgrades to the existing infrastructure.  because it is all so heavily regulated that competition ca not really enter and try new technologies out.  unfortunately because cable is effectively a government endorsed monopoly, the same thing happens here.  travel abroad where there is competition like korea and everything is super cheap and super fast.   #  but part of the reason why passenger train demand died off is because its slow and expensive.   #  it could have re emerged as a different technology.  it may not have.  maybe people would have rather had planes or cars instead and passenger trains never would have re emerged.  but maybe you may have had something like elon musk is talking about the hyperloop from san fran to la , or more efficient propulsion engines, better rails, whatever.  instead, its just the same technology from 0 years ago because government controls the lanes but are not investing anything.  but part of the reason why passenger train demand died off is because its slow and expensive.  it is seen a boost in the past decade just because you do not get your balls cupped like you do at the airport but that may change
net neutrality is a valuable goal, but many say that the way to keep it is to turn the internet into a common good like roads and railroads so the government will protect it.  this seems like a terrible idea, because giving the government more control over regulating the internet opens it up for over regulation and abuse.  the railroads have hardly innovated in decades and are abysmal for passenger traffic.  i wonder how much better they might have been with competition.  cmv.  i think the fact that corporations mostly want profits is actually better for the state of isps it means that if a corporation comes along that provides a far better product like google fiber, and i am waiting for more to come they can push comcast   co out of the market entirely.  with government regulation, those companies will be protected in their positions.  overall, i am not convinced that the government will make the right decisions or do anything other than impede the progress of the internet.  neither will the current isps in the field, but without regulation at least other isps have more opportunity to enter.  if anyone can show me that i am wrong, i will gladly cmv.   #  the railroads have hardly innovated in decades and are abysmal for passenger traffic.   #  i wonder how much better they might have been with competition.   # do you realize that the us government essentially  does  regulate the internet ? icann the organization that ultimately controls domain names and ip addresses is controlled by the us department of commerce.  they operate with a lot of independence, but the us has the ability to cause a lot of damage if it chose.  i wonder how much better they might have been with competition.  cmv.  how does net neutrality hurt competition ? is not the most competitive environment the one where everybody has a chance to compete ? if you run a medium sized website, you could be blocked or slowed down by a big isp because you ca not pay the toll.  the whole point of net neutrality is  to encourage competition .  a major concern is someone like verizon or comcast screwing with netflix traffic to make their own service look more attractive.  what if at t makes vonage calls choppy to promote their own service ? these examples show how it hurts competition when you are not neutral.   #  and for the record, it is the complete opposite in europe.   #  and for the record, it is the complete opposite in europe.  in europe 0 of its freight is over highway.  us is 0 of freight over rail.  so rail certainly is not the  only  way.  URL   europe has decided to run its rail system primarily for passengers, while america is system is run mainly for freight.  europe is rail system has about 0 percent of the passenger travel market, while autos have about 0 percent.  meanwhile, 0 percent of european freight goes by highway.  here in the u. s. , highway is share of freight travel is only 0 percent, while the auto is share of passenger travel is about 0 percent.  so trains get 0 percent of potential auto users in europe out of their cars, but leave almost three times as much freight on the highway.   #  i still say that passenger rail is a distraction from any conversation about railroad regulation.   #  what is your point ? i still say that passenger rail is a distraction from any conversation about railroad regulation.  passenger rail died out in america because it could not compete with airplanes and automobiles on the demand side,  or  with freight rail on the supply side.  it certainly did not get  regulated  out of existence.  meanwhile, freight rail that is, the industry that actually exists, unlike passenger rail is humming along just fine.  the market ruining abuses from the bad old days are just gone.  you do not have to sell the railroad a quarter of your stock before you can ship your goods to market.  you do not have trolls buying up a four mile stretch of track and holding everybody else hostage for exorbitant tolls.  the system, regulation and all, just works.   #  all of it is just adding to, repairing, or making minor upgrades to the existing infrastructure.   #  yes, i was referring to passenger.  regardless, that nothing has improved in 0 years is telling.  these utilities that are run by government rail, water, electricity, roads have seen little to no efficiency improvements in the life that government has been in charge.  all of it is just adding to, repairing, or making minor upgrades to the existing infrastructure.  because it is all so heavily regulated that competition ca not really enter and try new technologies out.  unfortunately because cable is effectively a government endorsed monopoly, the same thing happens here.  travel abroad where there is competition like korea and everything is super cheap and super fast.   #  but maybe you may have had something like elon musk is talking about the hyperloop from san fran to la , or more efficient propulsion engines, better rails, whatever.   #  it could have re emerged as a different technology.  it may not have.  maybe people would have rather had planes or cars instead and passenger trains never would have re emerged.  but maybe you may have had something like elon musk is talking about the hyperloop from san fran to la , or more efficient propulsion engines, better rails, whatever.  instead, its just the same technology from 0 years ago because government controls the lanes but are not investing anything.  but part of the reason why passenger train demand died off is because its slow and expensive.  it is seen a boost in the past decade just because you do not get your balls cupped like you do at the airport but that may change
the usual con argument is that anything that can be invented needs to come from previous knowledge.  knowledge is usually collective laws of physics, previous discoveries/inventions , meaning that the result of applying such knowledge should also belong to mankind as a whole.  however, i believe that innovation, or the ability to use this knowledge for an entirely new purpose, is a private effort and should be protected as such.  individuals should be allowed to use their time and talent for economic purposes, in which case intellectual property laws are fundamental.  i also believe that abolishing intellectual property could result prejudicial to science and progress as less people would be willing to dedicate their lives to innovating.   #  i also believe that abolishing intellectual property could result prejudicial to science and progress as less people would be willing to dedicate their lives to innovating.   #  history contradicts that: great leaps forward were made in arts and sciences before ip was a thing.   # history contradicts that: great leaps forward were made in arts and sciences before ip was a thing.  you are not paying the carpenter a fee every time you walk through your front door, why would ideas need to be compensated differently if you insist on looking at it economically ? the problem with reserach is that every researcher builds on the accumulated data and reports of his predecessors.  it is, essentially, a lottery who stumbles on a great invention.  i think it is unfair and counterproductive to reward one single person who happened to be in the right place and the right time for the result of the accumulated efforts of thousands of anonymous research assistants, for example.  research is essentially a work for the common good and the results will be added to the common knowledge of mankind.  it is a public work, we should fund it as such.   #  i believe creators can be payed without having this artificial scarcity.   #  the problem is that intellectual property creates artificial scarcity.  imagine that some guy invents a machine that produces an infinite amount of bread.  obviously if you give the bread for free, the guy will make no money.  he deserves money not only because he created something awesome, but also because it will stimulate him to invent an infinite sausage machine tomorrow.  however, since the bread costs money, not everybody can buy it.  it seems nonsensical for a society to have infinite amount of bread and still have people walking around hungry.  i believe creators can be payed without having this artificial scarcity.  the government can start a nation wide torrent tracker where all media is posted and then pay content creators according to views/ratings.  introduce a new tax to fund it.  it ends up being cheaper, because the distribution is more efficient and you do not have to develop copy protection and drms.  and the poor can access it for free, because they do not pay much or any taxes.   #  these all happened, because the content industry argued that they have  intellectual property , and any limitation of that is taking away their stuff that they made, just like removing scarce objects from their possession does.   #  having read your replies so far, i think i found a main problem.  you have repeatedly asked whether society would be harmed by ip deregulation.  but the way the phrase  intellectual property  is used, is exactly motivated by wanting to ignore the practical benefits copyright can have, and automatically defend ip as if it were a moral right in and of itself.  i think that certain copyrights, patents, and trademarks are useful regulations.  however, thinking of these as a moral right to property, is massively harmful.  we have copyrights lasting 0 years after an author is death, we have drastically narrowed down fair use, millions of people are inconvenienced every day by their informal communications having to obey copyrights on the internet.  these all happened, because the content industry argued that they have  intellectual property , and any limitation of that is taking away their stuff that they made, just like removing scarce objects from their possession does.  and if copyright is current extents are socially inefficient ?  well, too bad, but you ca not just take away people is stuff for the greater good, you dirty commie .  you can have floods of data about piracy boosting consumption and revenues, yet people still reply  so what ? it is their stuff, and their moral choce how they want others to use it .  you can show the new mediums, genres, and artists that are being stiffled by copyrights.  so what ? let them be stiffled, if that is what it takes to protect another man is property.  we have to realize that copyright is not an inherently deserved property right, but a privilege that was given conditionally,  to promote the progress of science and useful arts .  our perspective should be the other way around compared to what you describe.  it is not that people have an inherent right to copyrights unless when they get taken away for the greater good of public interest , it is that people have a freedom of communication, unless when it gets limited by copyrights for the greater good of culture .  but it is these limitations are the ones that need to justify themselves one by one as practical, not freedom.   #  individuals should definitely be allowed to have financial motivations for producing whatever work they are claiming as intellectual property, and they should definitely receive financial compensation for whatever they are doing.   #  i am not sure if you are making a point that innovation is distinct from knowledge, and that intellectual property should be protected in the case of innovation and not for knowledge.  if you are, then can you explain this distinction and give some examples ? but to answer your main point, which i took as:  individuals should be allowed to use their time and talent for economic purposes in the context of intellectual property .  most people who argue against intellectual property are not arguing against this point.  individuals should definitely be allowed to have financial motivations for producing whatever work they are claiming as intellectual property, and they should definitely receive financial compensation for whatever they are doing.  those who argue against intellectual property want to find alternative means for financial compensation to which the answer is not yet determined .  and you have to admit, if these  products  are freely distributed, then the benefit to society is immense.   #  do not want to get into semantics here, maybe i used the wrong words english is not my first language , but i will gladly explain.   #  to answer your first point, it is indeed the point i am making.  do not want to get into semantics here, maybe i used the wrong words english is not my first language , but i will gladly explain.  here, knowledge is to be understood as all public domain information that lies within our reach for free.  one clear, almost ridiculous example would be the laws of motion that newton discovered many centuries ago.  on the other hand we have innovation which is the result of using this existent knowldge to create something new.  an example could be a scientist that used laws of mechanics, electro magnetism and public domain research to create a machine that no one is created before.  i do admit that free distribution would cause a great inmdiate benefit, specially in the area of health.  however, i feel that on the long run the damage would be greater, as i stated inicially.
today i was reading  the power of myth , an interview between joseph campbell and bill moyers.  in the book, campbell talks about the universality and beauty of myth, religion, and spirituality, and he discusses at great length what can be gained by studying and experiencing mythology and differing religions.  stupid me happens to agree with him as i have for a while and gets the bright idea that it would be educational and enlightening to experience different world religions and traditions.   what a great way to learn about what it means to be human and share in our common humanity with each other,  thinks i.  so i got the bright idea to post a question on a native american forum, asking very respectfully if this would be acceptable.  i worded my question carefully, making sure to note that it would be strictly educational, i would not expect to participate, and so on.  i also made sure to mention that i am very aware of the terrible, terrible treatment of native americans.  i simply asked,  are there any native american tribes that would allow an outsider to observe any ceremony from afar to learn ? i am extremely interested in religion, mythology, and spirituality, and i would love to learn about the traditions of the people native to this land.  it would be strictly for my own, personal education.  i understand native americans have been treated terribly and that it was not long ago at all that their traditions were banned outright.  i do not mean to impose upon anyone; i just want to be a student of humanity.   in addition to that, i added that i would not just show up or expect to be welcomed or act like i belong.  i would write a letter to whoever i needed to asking politely if that is acceptable, and i would completely understand whatever the answer was though i do admit that i was not expecting anything harsh .  these are some of the responses i got:  would you ask this same question about jewish or catholic ceremonies ?  hey, i am curious, can i go see them for kicks ?     religious ceremonies are for those of the faith, not your idle entertainment.    would you want gawkers turning up at someone is baptism ?   and  the answer is no.   holy cow ! i did not mean to open up  that  can of worms, and i do not believe i asked anything remotely offensive.  i stressed several times that i would  not  be gawking, anything would be strictly educational.  so much for wanting to learn about beautiful traditions in community with other fellow humans.  i do sincerely and deeply apologize if my question is offensive, but i really, really want someone to point out how it possibly could be construed as offensive, beyond saying something like i am white  and automatically disqualified.  in short, my view is that my question was nowhere near offensive or racist.  please change my view !   i do identify as white; however, that is not even totally true.  my grandfather was a registered member of the eastern band of cherokee.  my family still lives in sylva, nc about half an hour from the cherokee reservation/qualla boundary on which i still technically have relatives, though i do not know them.  i identify as white because my grandfather was only 0/0 cherokee, and my father only 0/0 with a white mother.  moreover, my father was raised by a white stepfather and married a white woman who had me.  i would feel silly to pull the  hey, i have  indian  blood !   card, so i did not mention it in my question because every other person and their brother in western north carolina claims to be  part native american.   i could probably qualify as a member myself if i knew my genealogy, but sadly my father did not grow up with his father and never saw him again after fifteen and my father is grandfather, full cherokee, was long gone by the time my dad was born.  i have literally nothing to show for it beyond a mean tan that really does not suit the dirty blonde hair my mom gave me.   #  would feel silly to pull the  hey, i have  indian  blood !    #  card, so i did not mention it in my question because every other person and their brother in western north carolina claims to be  part native american.   #  religious ceremonies are not there for your personal fulfillment.  that said, i do not think it is offensive.  but you should have seen it coming.  religions tend to not have a sense of perspective about themselves and their adherents are quick to assume an outsider seems to mock them.  not without reason, of course, but even so.  card, so i did not mention it in my question because every other person and their brother in western north carolina claims to be  part native american.  that would not just be silly, it would be stupid.  you are not indian any more than i am irish.  if you have to do fractional math to figure out your  percentage  of a heritage in order to claim a right of fitting in, do not bother, you do not fit in.  that is the weakest possible defense of your position.   #  people are entitled to be touchy about anything they like.   #  people are entitled to be touchy about anything they like.  they even have the right to tell him no that it is a private ceremony but just because they were offended does not mean op was being offensive.  it sounds like op has an interest in religious studies or anthropology.  those are both academic fields i can take at my local college and i am sure there are classes that teach native american religion specifically.  what is more offensive about going directly to the source for their insight rather than learning the professor is interpretation of it.  i would argue that if you are truly interested in their religion it is more offensive to learn it purely through someone else is curriculum.  if i want to learn about christianity i go to church and talk to a pastor, judaism i would go to a rabbi, etc.   #  you eventually are going to contact the organization anyways.   #  technically, its offensive if the other person finds it offensive.  it does not have to be meant as offensive, the other person might have taken it the wrong way the internet is not as good for communicating as it is in person and its easy to be rude on the internet.  this is my attempt to change your view, just so i can keep onside with rule 0 but .  there is no harm in asking, just expect a  no  answer.  i would have not asked anyone on the internet for permission but have just done research and contact the religious organization itself and asked them directly.  you eventually are going to contact the organization anyways.   #  someone was offended by it but i would bet that if you polled a group of people the vast majority of them would say that that punishment is absurd.   #  i disagree op.  by that logic we should never ask people anything that they even might find offensive.  they have every right to be offended but that does not make what you did offensive.  take for example that kid that was suspended for biting his pop tart into a gun.  someone was offended by it but i would bet that if you polled a group of people the vast majority of them would say that that punishment is absurd.  there exists a whole field of study to learn about other cultures, anthropology not to mention specific classes like native american studies.  it sounds like you approached them respectfully and they were offended at an imagined slight.   #  though it might not seem so, but a person is religious beliefs and practices is a very private matter.   #  thought i probably share your academic thirst, it is completely understandable why their reaction was so.  though it might not seem so, but a person is religious beliefs and practices is a very private matter.  also certain religious activities could be harder or impossible for some people to perform with someone watching their every move.  an example would be trying to meditate or pray with someone watching you.  people might also feel very vulnerable while practicing religious and you as an observer deter them from practicing religion.  so you as an observer specifically watch their interactions with their religion is very intrusive.  most people do not like being under the microscope in general or even just tracked.  an example would be the outright that occurs anytime someone is privacy is violated by the government or a large company.  while you could get most people permission, others might not feel as comfortable and will again be deterred from practicing their religion.
so far, /r/changemyview is 0/0 for changed views of mine.  here is another for you: so, i was going to say that prenups are a terrible idea, but if you want to keep all your stuff when you divorce, i guess they are a great idea.  the problem is, you are not even married yet, and you are already looking forward to the divorce ! if you think things will go sour and you will lose half your stuff to your fiancee, you should probably slow down and ask why you are marrying him/her in the first place.  another reason i dislike prenups is that they are part of this recent mentality that marriage is disposable.  that if you face problems in your marriage, you can just get a divorce and start over, like it is no big deal.  now sure, sometimes a divorce is necessary, but at the end of the day, you swore to stay together for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for the rest of your life.  that is not something to take lightly.  i think prenups make divorce a much more convenient and attractive option than it should be.   #  i think prenups make divorce a much more convenient and attractive option than it should be.   #  i think if the only reason you are still together is that you do not want to lose the house, you are better off divorced.   # i think if the only reason you are still together is that you do not want to lose the house, you are better off divorced.  i also disagree with the romanticism inherent in your belief.  you seem to think that every marriage should be true love forever, and that true love trumps all.  but life is not a romance novel: passion fades, mistakes happen and people change.  your dislike of prenups is rooted in a dislike of divorce and that is a fair enough view, although i do not agree with it.  but prenups do not cause divorce.  incompatible people, unwillingness to compromise, distrust, infidelity, change these things cause divorce.  prenups just make the inevitable easier.   #  all prenups do is change the defaults and memorialize intent so those rules are better tailored to the needs and wants of the parties before there is tension and negativity between them.   #  family law already contemplates what to do if a married couple gets divorced.  all prenups do is change the defaults and memorialize intent so those rules are better tailored to the needs and wants of the parties before there is tension and negativity between them.  i know it is a short answer but it is the right one.  there is no meaningful difference between getting married with or without a prenup with respect to how much one or the other contemplates divorce.  they both do, but marriages with prenups have amended some of the rules.   #  if you break up and you are unmarried, you just divide things on the fly.   #  no more than getting married contemplates divorce.  if you break up and you are unmarried, you just divide things on the fly.  getting married, in part, contemplates the rights and obligations that accompany marriage.  some of these are rules of equitable dissolution and child custody in the event the marriage fails.  it is like arguing that people get married in a vacuum without concern for the whole body of law that accompanies marriage and that is simply not true.  note that i did not say prenups do not contemplate divorce, only that you are treating this contemplation as peculiar to the prenup.  simpy put, it is not unique to this agreement and is something considered by virtue of having gotten married at all.   #  unless we are talking about some simple public proclamation or holy sacrament without a marriage license, we are talking about a status that confers benefits and obligations.   #  you said:  i mean, a prenuptial is where you sit down and say  if this relationship goes to hell in a handbasket, how do we divide up the loot ?   marriage implicitly does the same thing even if that is not the only thing it does nor is it the only thing a prenup does.  unless we are talking about some simple public proclamation or holy sacrament without a marriage license, we are talking about a status that confers benefits and obligations.  it provides a default scheme for a number of foreseeable issues ranging from death of a spouse to divorce, and thus contemplates their possibilities.  people typically get married with this scheme in minds, knowing that the entire bundle of rights/obligations that accompany marital status now applies to them.  they can also amend this scheme with a wide range of documents, only one of which is a prenup.  consequently, this contemplation is not particular to the prenup because it already exists in marriage.  rather, the prenup is the specific document that lets you amend default rules, including how to divide the loot upon divorce.  it may be narrow and it may be explicit, but it does not add any peculiar contemplation to the equation.  i am not trying to  out lawyer  you.  these are just realities and while i understand the importance of marriage and the feels that come with it, it ca not be divorced not a pun, but if it was, it would not be intended from the legalities that accompany the institution.  it is those legalities that separate married couples from couples who have simply committed themselves to each other in every other sense.   #  but if you want something less likely, how about flood insurance or disaster insurance ?  #  i do not know that i am going to get into a car accident.  but if you want something less likely, how about flood insurance or disaster insurance ? i do not think a tornado is going to hit my house, but it is not a bad idea to protect against it.  in any case, now we are getting into things far less likely to happen than divorce.  i look at a pre nup as insurance to protect against the unpredictable.  when i get married, i will fully love and trust my wife, but i will trust her at that moment in time.  how many stories of divorce do you hear where the person says  i never thought in a million years  their significant other would change so much or behave that way ? when i get married, i will never believe in a million years that i will need my prenup either, but it does not hurt to have because those things do happen.  it is insurance.
so far, /r/changemyview is 0/0 for changed views of mine.  here is another for you: so, i was going to say that prenups are a terrible idea, but if you want to keep all your stuff when you divorce, i guess they are a great idea.  the problem is, you are not even married yet, and you are already looking forward to the divorce ! if you think things will go sour and you will lose half your stuff to your fiancee, you should probably slow down and ask why you are marrying him/her in the first place.  another reason i dislike prenups is that they are part of this recent mentality that marriage is disposable.  that if you face problems in your marriage, you can just get a divorce and start over, like it is no big deal.  now sure, sometimes a divorce is necessary, but at the end of the day, you swore to stay together for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for the rest of your life.  that is not something to take lightly.  i think prenups make divorce a much more convenient and attractive option than it should be.   #  i think prenups make divorce a much more convenient and attractive option than it should be.   #  i think it is important to remember that people who get divorces are not really in a good place with their spouses.   # i think it is important to remember that people who get divorces are not really in a good place with their spouses.  lots of people say  oh, i am sorry you got a divorce,  when in reality they should say  congratulations.   staying in unhealthy relationships because  marriage is sacred  is not doing anyone any favors.  it would be like sitting in a pot of boiling water as it is on a stove.  it is going to keep getting hotter, and eventually it will kill you, and it wo not be pleasant.  making divorces difficult is not a good idea.  i have seen first hand the results of both an amicable  shake hands and go our separate ways  divorce, and a  0 year i will make you regret every second you took from me  divorce.  in one, the spouses start a new life right away.  in the other, the marital assets are completely eaten up in the divorce, and everyone is just miserable for a long time, and that is time no one gets back.  if there is children, it is even worse.  in my opinion, a prenup is a sign of a healthy relationship.  it is a sign that the couple is able to sit down and talk about serious,  grown up  things like what assets they have, and where they see themselves in the future.  it is a humble acknowledgement that we are not omniscient creatures, and while our hormones are pumping now, circumstances might change where we will need to go our separate ways.  and that is not a bad thing.   #  all prenups do is change the defaults and memorialize intent so those rules are better tailored to the needs and wants of the parties before there is tension and negativity between them.   #  family law already contemplates what to do if a married couple gets divorced.  all prenups do is change the defaults and memorialize intent so those rules are better tailored to the needs and wants of the parties before there is tension and negativity between them.  i know it is a short answer but it is the right one.  there is no meaningful difference between getting married with or without a prenup with respect to how much one or the other contemplates divorce.  they both do, but marriages with prenups have amended some of the rules.   #  it is like arguing that people get married in a vacuum without concern for the whole body of law that accompanies marriage and that is simply not true.   #  no more than getting married contemplates divorce.  if you break up and you are unmarried, you just divide things on the fly.  getting married, in part, contemplates the rights and obligations that accompany marriage.  some of these are rules of equitable dissolution and child custody in the event the marriage fails.  it is like arguing that people get married in a vacuum without concern for the whole body of law that accompanies marriage and that is simply not true.  note that i did not say prenups do not contemplate divorce, only that you are treating this contemplation as peculiar to the prenup.  simpy put, it is not unique to this agreement and is something considered by virtue of having gotten married at all.   #  marriage implicitly does the same thing even if that is not the only thing it does nor is it the only thing a prenup does.   #  you said:  i mean, a prenuptial is where you sit down and say  if this relationship goes to hell in a handbasket, how do we divide up the loot ?   marriage implicitly does the same thing even if that is not the only thing it does nor is it the only thing a prenup does.  unless we are talking about some simple public proclamation or holy sacrament without a marriage license, we are talking about a status that confers benefits and obligations.  it provides a default scheme for a number of foreseeable issues ranging from death of a spouse to divorce, and thus contemplates their possibilities.  people typically get married with this scheme in minds, knowing that the entire bundle of rights/obligations that accompany marital status now applies to them.  they can also amend this scheme with a wide range of documents, only one of which is a prenup.  consequently, this contemplation is not particular to the prenup because it already exists in marriage.  rather, the prenup is the specific document that lets you amend default rules, including how to divide the loot upon divorce.  it may be narrow and it may be explicit, but it does not add any peculiar contemplation to the equation.  i am not trying to  out lawyer  you.  these are just realities and while i understand the importance of marriage and the feels that come with it, it ca not be divorced not a pun, but if it was, it would not be intended from the legalities that accompany the institution.  it is those legalities that separate married couples from couples who have simply committed themselves to each other in every other sense.   #  i do not think a tornado is going to hit my house, but it is not a bad idea to protect against it.   #  i do not know that i am going to get into a car accident.  but if you want something less likely, how about flood insurance or disaster insurance ? i do not think a tornado is going to hit my house, but it is not a bad idea to protect against it.  in any case, now we are getting into things far less likely to happen than divorce.  i look at a pre nup as insurance to protect against the unpredictable.  when i get married, i will fully love and trust my wife, but i will trust her at that moment in time.  how many stories of divorce do you hear where the person says  i never thought in a million years  their significant other would change so much or behave that way ? when i get married, i will never believe in a million years that i will need my prenup either, but it does not hurt to have because those things do happen.  it is insurance.
so far, /r/changemyview is 0/0 for changed views of mine.  here is another for you: so, i was going to say that prenups are a terrible idea, but if you want to keep all your stuff when you divorce, i guess they are a great idea.  the problem is, you are not even married yet, and you are already looking forward to the divorce ! if you think things will go sour and you will lose half your stuff to your fiancee, you should probably slow down and ask why you are marrying him/her in the first place.  another reason i dislike prenups is that they are part of this recent mentality that marriage is disposable.  that if you face problems in your marriage, you can just get a divorce and start over, like it is no big deal.  now sure, sometimes a divorce is necessary, but at the end of the day, you swore to stay together for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for the rest of your life.  that is not something to take lightly.  i think prenups make divorce a much more convenient and attractive option than it should be.   #  so, i was going to say that prenups are a terrible idea, but if you want to keep all your stuff when you divorce, i guess they are a great idea.   #  i see 0 important premises here:   . when you divorce: this is untrue.   #  it seems like you have a lot of false preconceptions / inaccurate premises on what prenups are.  maybe those preconceptions accurately reflect what prenups entail and how they are used nowadays in your country or state but the thing is, they do not reflect what the notion / principle of a prenup is inherently.  caveat: what follows is based on how things are in my homecountry and in my current country; i realize it probably does not apply in your particular case but my point is to show you that a prenup can be many things and the reasons to sign one are varied.  i see 0 important premises here:   . when you divorce: this is untrue.  prenups are a setting for your finances  during  your marriage and when it ends.  legally, it is a 0 certain that a marriage will end whether due to divorce or  death .  so prenups can and do apply to successful marriages.  from there, you move on to saying that people who sign prenups are looking forward to the divorce.  first, this is absurd: would you say that a person signing a will is  looking forward to  their death ? or someone contracting insurance  looking forward to  an accident, illness, unemployment or whatever ? probably not.  secondly, you base this on the premise that prenups are for divorce which is not always the case as seen above.  the other reason you state for disliking prenups is that they are part of the recent mentality that marriage is disposable but prenups are not recent; they have existed for thousands of years and predate modern divorce.  finally, you claim that prenups make divorce a much more convenient and attractive option than it should be.  first, i would like to point out that some prenups contain clauses aiming at solidifying the marriage and/or making the divorce harder to get.  for instance, by setting penalties for adultery or by stating that the couple will have to try couple counseling for x amount of time before they can file for divorce.  secondly, the difference between a prenup and no prenup is the way the assets will be divided in divorce and death .  a blanket statement that they are more attractive does not make sense.  if partner a receives more with the prenup than without, it means partner b will receive less than without a prenup obviously, the prenup does not create money .  so having a prenup might make a divorce more attractive to a in your view but following your logic, not having a prenup make divorce more attractive to b.   #  all prenups do is change the defaults and memorialize intent so those rules are better tailored to the needs and wants of the parties before there is tension and negativity between them.   #  family law already contemplates what to do if a married couple gets divorced.  all prenups do is change the defaults and memorialize intent so those rules are better tailored to the needs and wants of the parties before there is tension and negativity between them.  i know it is a short answer but it is the right one.  there is no meaningful difference between getting married with or without a prenup with respect to how much one or the other contemplates divorce.  they both do, but marriages with prenups have amended some of the rules.   #  it is like arguing that people get married in a vacuum without concern for the whole body of law that accompanies marriage and that is simply not true.   #  no more than getting married contemplates divorce.  if you break up and you are unmarried, you just divide things on the fly.  getting married, in part, contemplates the rights and obligations that accompany marriage.  some of these are rules of equitable dissolution and child custody in the event the marriage fails.  it is like arguing that people get married in a vacuum without concern for the whole body of law that accompanies marriage and that is simply not true.  note that i did not say prenups do not contemplate divorce, only that you are treating this contemplation as peculiar to the prenup.  simpy put, it is not unique to this agreement and is something considered by virtue of having gotten married at all.   #  rather, the prenup is the specific document that lets you amend default rules, including how to divide the loot upon divorce.   #  you said:  i mean, a prenuptial is where you sit down and say  if this relationship goes to hell in a handbasket, how do we divide up the loot ?   marriage implicitly does the same thing even if that is not the only thing it does nor is it the only thing a prenup does.  unless we are talking about some simple public proclamation or holy sacrament without a marriage license, we are talking about a status that confers benefits and obligations.  it provides a default scheme for a number of foreseeable issues ranging from death of a spouse to divorce, and thus contemplates their possibilities.  people typically get married with this scheme in minds, knowing that the entire bundle of rights/obligations that accompany marital status now applies to them.  they can also amend this scheme with a wide range of documents, only one of which is a prenup.  consequently, this contemplation is not particular to the prenup because it already exists in marriage.  rather, the prenup is the specific document that lets you amend default rules, including how to divide the loot upon divorce.  it may be narrow and it may be explicit, but it does not add any peculiar contemplation to the equation.  i am not trying to  out lawyer  you.  these are just realities and while i understand the importance of marriage and the feels that come with it, it ca not be divorced not a pun, but if it was, it would not be intended from the legalities that accompany the institution.  it is those legalities that separate married couples from couples who have simply committed themselves to each other in every other sense.   #  when i get married, i will fully love and trust my wife, but i will trust her at that moment in time.   #  i do not know that i am going to get into a car accident.  but if you want something less likely, how about flood insurance or disaster insurance ? i do not think a tornado is going to hit my house, but it is not a bad idea to protect against it.  in any case, now we are getting into things far less likely to happen than divorce.  i look at a pre nup as insurance to protect against the unpredictable.  when i get married, i will fully love and trust my wife, but i will trust her at that moment in time.  how many stories of divorce do you hear where the person says  i never thought in a million years  their significant other would change so much or behave that way ? when i get married, i will never believe in a million years that i will need my prenup either, but it does not hurt to have because those things do happen.  it is insurance.
so far, /r/changemyview is 0/0 for changed views of mine.  here is another for you: so, i was going to say that prenups are a terrible idea, but if you want to keep all your stuff when you divorce, i guess they are a great idea.  the problem is, you are not even married yet, and you are already looking forward to the divorce ! if you think things will go sour and you will lose half your stuff to your fiancee, you should probably slow down and ask why you are marrying him/her in the first place.  another reason i dislike prenups is that they are part of this recent mentality that marriage is disposable.  that if you face problems in your marriage, you can just get a divorce and start over, like it is no big deal.  now sure, sometimes a divorce is necessary, but at the end of the day, you swore to stay together for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for the rest of your life.  that is not something to take lightly.  i think prenups make divorce a much more convenient and attractive option than it should be.   #  you are not even married yet, and you are already looking forward to the divorce !  #  if you think things will go sour and you will lose half your stuff to your fiancee, you should probably slow down and ask why you are marrying him/her in the first place.   # if you think things will go sour and you will lose half your stuff to your fiancee, you should probably slow down and ask why you are marrying him/her in the first place.  that is as naive as it gets.  0 of marriages end in divorce although 0 of newlyweds think their is will last forever.  there would be no problem at all if the divorce laws would be far, but they are not.  this means no matter how much you love and trust your spouse there is a 0 chance things wo not work out and if you are a man you  will be  f cked.  you have to be a complete idiot not to prepare for this possibility.  a 0 in 0 chance of losing your own children, your home and half of your life savings is not something anyone should take lightly.  a woman who does not understand this is not marriage material.   #  they both do, but marriages with prenups have amended some of the rules.   #  family law already contemplates what to do if a married couple gets divorced.  all prenups do is change the defaults and memorialize intent so those rules are better tailored to the needs and wants of the parties before there is tension and negativity between them.  i know it is a short answer but it is the right one.  there is no meaningful difference between getting married with or without a prenup with respect to how much one or the other contemplates divorce.  they both do, but marriages with prenups have amended some of the rules.   #  some of these are rules of equitable dissolution and child custody in the event the marriage fails.   #  no more than getting married contemplates divorce.  if you break up and you are unmarried, you just divide things on the fly.  getting married, in part, contemplates the rights and obligations that accompany marriage.  some of these are rules of equitable dissolution and child custody in the event the marriage fails.  it is like arguing that people get married in a vacuum without concern for the whole body of law that accompanies marriage and that is simply not true.  note that i did not say prenups do not contemplate divorce, only that you are treating this contemplation as peculiar to the prenup.  simpy put, it is not unique to this agreement and is something considered by virtue of having gotten married at all.   #  it may be narrow and it may be explicit, but it does not add any peculiar contemplation to the equation.   #  you said:  i mean, a prenuptial is where you sit down and say  if this relationship goes to hell in a handbasket, how do we divide up the loot ?   marriage implicitly does the same thing even if that is not the only thing it does nor is it the only thing a prenup does.  unless we are talking about some simple public proclamation or holy sacrament without a marriage license, we are talking about a status that confers benefits and obligations.  it provides a default scheme for a number of foreseeable issues ranging from death of a spouse to divorce, and thus contemplates their possibilities.  people typically get married with this scheme in minds, knowing that the entire bundle of rights/obligations that accompany marital status now applies to them.  they can also amend this scheme with a wide range of documents, only one of which is a prenup.  consequently, this contemplation is not particular to the prenup because it already exists in marriage.  rather, the prenup is the specific document that lets you amend default rules, including how to divide the loot upon divorce.  it may be narrow and it may be explicit, but it does not add any peculiar contemplation to the equation.  i am not trying to  out lawyer  you.  these are just realities and while i understand the importance of marriage and the feels that come with it, it ca not be divorced not a pun, but if it was, it would not be intended from the legalities that accompany the institution.  it is those legalities that separate married couples from couples who have simply committed themselves to each other in every other sense.   #  when i get married, i will fully love and trust my wife, but i will trust her at that moment in time.   #  i do not know that i am going to get into a car accident.  but if you want something less likely, how about flood insurance or disaster insurance ? i do not think a tornado is going to hit my house, but it is not a bad idea to protect against it.  in any case, now we are getting into things far less likely to happen than divorce.  i look at a pre nup as insurance to protect against the unpredictable.  when i get married, i will fully love and trust my wife, but i will trust her at that moment in time.  how many stories of divorce do you hear where the person says  i never thought in a million years  their significant other would change so much or behave that way ? when i get married, i will never believe in a million years that i will need my prenup either, but it does not hurt to have because those things do happen.  it is insurance.
a pretty simple google search will result in many horror stories surrounding lottery winners.  many are forced to move from their home towns, face lawsuits from people looking for a quick buck from a deep pocket, and even have a much higher chance of being murdered.  i feel that it should be a person is right to choose whether they want the public to know about their winnings.  i understand that the main dissenting opinion is the idea that this could lead to people believing the whole thing is rigged, and that nobody actually wins the big jackpots.  however, it is kind of ridiculous to think that hundreds of millions of dollars in jackpot money just magically disappear without any lottery employees coming forward.  furthermore, why do we not doubt the legitimacy of other large jackpots ? for a long time people have been buying scratch off tickets without the ridiculous self identification laws.   #  i understand that the main dissenting opinion is the idea that this could lead to people believing the whole thing is rigged, and that nobody actually wins the big jackpots.   #  however, it is kind of ridiculous to think that hundreds of millions of dollars in jackpot money just magically disappear without any lottery employees coming forward.   # however, it is kind of ridiculous to think that hundreds of millions of dollars in jackpot money just magically disappear without any lottery employees coming forward.  well, there are a few problems with this.  0 we already know that this is insufficient deterrent to avoid fraud occurring.  consider the mcdonalds monopoly game fraud URL in which it was impossible for anyone to win the top prizes, because the winning gamepieces were stolen by an employee.  it was uncovered by someone asked to help with the scheme but not after rigging the game for  six years  successfully.  it is very possible for incompetent or simply overly trusting management to set up a system where one or a very few employees are entrusted with the integrity of the game.  in this case, a single person was given this responsibility for one of the most famous marketing sweepstakes of all time.  so no, it is not really that ridiculous.  public disclosure is a valuable check to not just corruption, but incompetence.  0 let is say you go,  oh, so what, they were caught ?   well yeah, obviously i ca not provide examples of fraud that was not discovered.  but discovered fraud still is inherently damaging.  people do not want to participate in a rigged game.  contrarily, announcing the winners is a boon to the entire enterprise.  it is well known that announcing the lottery winner to a particular store will cause a rise in sales to that store.  people get excited to hear of a local winner it makes the news if a local person wins even a smaller prize.  this is all beneficial to getting people to buy tickets, which support projects of public good.  the relative benefit of shielding lottery winners seems like a poor trade.   #  financially, the lottery is one of the worst investments anyone could make.   #  it just perplexes me that people just give the government extra money.  it is like saying that signing up for extra taxes is fun.  financially, the lottery is one of the worst investments anyone could make.  most people put money in and never get anything out.  investors call that theft.  no one would play a casino game with those odds.  yet all throughout the nation and in other nations people play the lottery.  for fun, there are so many better things to do with the $0.  buy a frisbee, pretty much the same rate of return as the lottery, and you will get a lot more fun out of it.  if you want a chance at striking it big, invest in penny stocks.  you could find the next microsoft and buy stocks for a few cents and sell them later at hundreds of dollars.   #  it may be irrational, but is not $0 if even worth a moment of happiness ?  #  | making intelligent financial choices sometimes people just want waste a small amount of money and dream alright ? there is no problem with that.  they know it is not an intelligent finical choice, but they do not care, because to the ones who play it once a week and are not addicted it is emotionally worth it.  the guys who come into my store to buy tickets just really want to dream.  they want to dream an irrational dream because 0 of the rest of their lives are shit.  not everyone wants to base every decision on the future or intelligent financial choices.  they want to live in that one moment of possibility, no matter how irrational that seems.  it may be irrational, but is not $0 if even worth a moment of happiness ?  #  even if this was not the case then there is no difference between  anonymous wins largest ever jackpot  and  john doe wins largest ever jackpot  in terms of advertising your product.   #  is it though ? at this point pretty much everyone knows what a lottery is, the only thing that changes is the jackpot size.  all you really need is a 0 second clip on a national news station and bam everyone who is eligible to play will know about it in less than 0 hours.  i would argue that even without the clip everyone who is eligible to play will know about it before the draw happens, and if you did not you probably were not going to buy a ticket anyway.  advertisement after the fact is not going to do anything because the jackpot will be back to a low level where only the hardcore will buy tickets.  even if this was not the case then there is no difference between  anonymous wins largest ever jackpot  and  john doe wins largest ever jackpot  in terms of advertising your product.  it is not like you know john doe or care who he is or what he does, so why put a name to it ?  #  so, you are right: if they just mention the name, the difference in effect will be quite small not non existent, though .   # is it just the name that is made public, though ? or do they also mention that he used to be a plumber in which all plumbers that hear about it go,  huh, he was a plumber ? i am a plumber, maybe i could win !   or how jane doe won with the first ticket she bought in years  see, even if you just by a ticket from time to time, you can win !   .  so, you are right: if they just mention the name, the difference in effect will be quite small not non existent, though .  but if they mention a little bit more about the person, it will definitely work in the lottery is favor.
a pretty simple google search will result in many horror stories surrounding lottery winners.  many are forced to move from their home towns, face lawsuits from people looking for a quick buck from a deep pocket, and even have a much higher chance of being murdered.  i feel that it should be a person is right to choose whether they want the public to know about their winnings.  i understand that the main dissenting opinion is the idea that this could lead to people believing the whole thing is rigged, and that nobody actually wins the big jackpots.  however, it is kind of ridiculous to think that hundreds of millions of dollars in jackpot money just magically disappear without any lottery employees coming forward.  furthermore, why do we not doubt the legitimacy of other large jackpots ? for a long time people have been buying scratch off tickets without the ridiculous self identification laws.   #  and even have a much higher chance of being murdered.   #  if you win the lottery and have enough money for someone to want to come after you, hire a security firm to protect you; you can afford it now.   #  it is public money and the public has a right to know where that money goes.  if you are not comfortable with your identity being revealed, do not play.  however, if you committed a tort against someone, and now have the money to make amends, perhaps it is appropriate that you pay for it now that you have the money, plus punitive damages since you obviously were not going to do anything about it after you got rich.  in any event, if you have enough money for this to be an issue, you have enough money to hire a lawyer to protect yourself.  if you win the lottery and have enough money for someone to want to come after you, hire a security firm to protect you; you can afford it now.  what if the lottery employees are in on it ? what if it happens without all lottery employees knowing ? it is unlikely, but not impossible.  government as a rule should be transparent and verifiable wherever possible, it is a tool against corruption.  for a long time people have been buying scratch off tickets without the ridiculous self identification laws.  i think identification to claim any winnings should be required, and a list of all identified winners, locations sold, and dates should be available to the public at all times.  then there would be no room to doubt the legitimacy of any jackpot, large or small.   #  if you want a chance at striking it big, invest in penny stocks.   #  it just perplexes me that people just give the government extra money.  it is like saying that signing up for extra taxes is fun.  financially, the lottery is one of the worst investments anyone could make.  most people put money in and never get anything out.  investors call that theft.  no one would play a casino game with those odds.  yet all throughout the nation and in other nations people play the lottery.  for fun, there are so many better things to do with the $0.  buy a frisbee, pretty much the same rate of return as the lottery, and you will get a lot more fun out of it.  if you want a chance at striking it big, invest in penny stocks.  you could find the next microsoft and buy stocks for a few cents and sell them later at hundreds of dollars.   #  they want to dream an irrational dream because 0 of the rest of their lives are shit.   #  | making intelligent financial choices sometimes people just want waste a small amount of money and dream alright ? there is no problem with that.  they know it is not an intelligent finical choice, but they do not care, because to the ones who play it once a week and are not addicted it is emotionally worth it.  the guys who come into my store to buy tickets just really want to dream.  they want to dream an irrational dream because 0 of the rest of their lives are shit.  not everyone wants to base every decision on the future or intelligent financial choices.  they want to live in that one moment of possibility, no matter how irrational that seems.  it may be irrational, but is not $0 if even worth a moment of happiness ?  #  all you really need is a 0 second clip on a national news station and bam everyone who is eligible to play will know about it in less than 0 hours.   #  is it though ? at this point pretty much everyone knows what a lottery is, the only thing that changes is the jackpot size.  all you really need is a 0 second clip on a national news station and bam everyone who is eligible to play will know about it in less than 0 hours.  i would argue that even without the clip everyone who is eligible to play will know about it before the draw happens, and if you did not you probably were not going to buy a ticket anyway.  advertisement after the fact is not going to do anything because the jackpot will be back to a low level where only the hardcore will buy tickets.  even if this was not the case then there is no difference between  anonymous wins largest ever jackpot  and  john doe wins largest ever jackpot  in terms of advertising your product.  it is not like you know john doe or care who he is or what he does, so why put a name to it ?  #  is it just the name that is made public, though ?  # is it just the name that is made public, though ? or do they also mention that he used to be a plumber in which all plumbers that hear about it go,  huh, he was a plumber ? i am a plumber, maybe i could win !   or how jane doe won with the first ticket she bought in years  see, even if you just by a ticket from time to time, you can win !   .  so, you are right: if they just mention the name, the difference in effect will be quite small not non existent, though .  but if they mention a little bit more about the person, it will definitely work in the lottery is favor.
a pretty simple google search will result in many horror stories surrounding lottery winners.  many are forced to move from their home towns, face lawsuits from people looking for a quick buck from a deep pocket, and even have a much higher chance of being murdered.  i feel that it should be a person is right to choose whether they want the public to know about their winnings.  i understand that the main dissenting opinion is the idea that this could lead to people believing the whole thing is rigged, and that nobody actually wins the big jackpots.  however, it is kind of ridiculous to think that hundreds of millions of dollars in jackpot money just magically disappear without any lottery employees coming forward.  furthermore, why do we not doubt the legitimacy of other large jackpots ? for a long time people have been buying scratch off tickets without the ridiculous self identification laws.   #  however, it is kind of ridiculous to think that hundreds of millions of dollars in jackpot money just magically disappear without any lottery employees coming forward.   #  what if the lottery employees are in on it ?  #  it is public money and the public has a right to know where that money goes.  if you are not comfortable with your identity being revealed, do not play.  however, if you committed a tort against someone, and now have the money to make amends, perhaps it is appropriate that you pay for it now that you have the money, plus punitive damages since you obviously were not going to do anything about it after you got rich.  in any event, if you have enough money for this to be an issue, you have enough money to hire a lawyer to protect yourself.  if you win the lottery and have enough money for someone to want to come after you, hire a security firm to protect you; you can afford it now.  what if the lottery employees are in on it ? what if it happens without all lottery employees knowing ? it is unlikely, but not impossible.  government as a rule should be transparent and verifiable wherever possible, it is a tool against corruption.  for a long time people have been buying scratch off tickets without the ridiculous self identification laws.  i think identification to claim any winnings should be required, and a list of all identified winners, locations sold, and dates should be available to the public at all times.  then there would be no room to doubt the legitimacy of any jackpot, large or small.   #  it just perplexes me that people just give the government extra money.   #  it just perplexes me that people just give the government extra money.  it is like saying that signing up for extra taxes is fun.  financially, the lottery is one of the worst investments anyone could make.  most people put money in and never get anything out.  investors call that theft.  no one would play a casino game with those odds.  yet all throughout the nation and in other nations people play the lottery.  for fun, there are so many better things to do with the $0.  buy a frisbee, pretty much the same rate of return as the lottery, and you will get a lot more fun out of it.  if you want a chance at striking it big, invest in penny stocks.  you could find the next microsoft and buy stocks for a few cents and sell them later at hundreds of dollars.   #  they want to dream an irrational dream because 0 of the rest of their lives are shit.   #  | making intelligent financial choices sometimes people just want waste a small amount of money and dream alright ? there is no problem with that.  they know it is not an intelligent finical choice, but they do not care, because to the ones who play it once a week and are not addicted it is emotionally worth it.  the guys who come into my store to buy tickets just really want to dream.  they want to dream an irrational dream because 0 of the rest of their lives are shit.  not everyone wants to base every decision on the future or intelligent financial choices.  they want to live in that one moment of possibility, no matter how irrational that seems.  it may be irrational, but is not $0 if even worth a moment of happiness ?  #  i would argue that even without the clip everyone who is eligible to play will know about it before the draw happens, and if you did not you probably were not going to buy a ticket anyway.   #  is it though ? at this point pretty much everyone knows what a lottery is, the only thing that changes is the jackpot size.  all you really need is a 0 second clip on a national news station and bam everyone who is eligible to play will know about it in less than 0 hours.  i would argue that even without the clip everyone who is eligible to play will know about it before the draw happens, and if you did not you probably were not going to buy a ticket anyway.  advertisement after the fact is not going to do anything because the jackpot will be back to a low level where only the hardcore will buy tickets.  even if this was not the case then there is no difference between  anonymous wins largest ever jackpot  and  john doe wins largest ever jackpot  in terms of advertising your product.  it is not like you know john doe or care who he is or what he does, so why put a name to it ?  #  is it just the name that is made public, though ?  # is it just the name that is made public, though ? or do they also mention that he used to be a plumber in which all plumbers that hear about it go,  huh, he was a plumber ? i am a plumber, maybe i could win !   or how jane doe won with the first ticket she bought in years  see, even if you just by a ticket from time to time, you can win !   .  so, you are right: if they just mention the name, the difference in effect will be quite small not non existent, though .  but if they mention a little bit more about the person, it will definitely work in the lottery is favor.
a pretty simple google search will result in many horror stories surrounding lottery winners.  many are forced to move from their home towns, face lawsuits from people looking for a quick buck from a deep pocket, and even have a much higher chance of being murdered.  i feel that it should be a person is right to choose whether they want the public to know about their winnings.  i understand that the main dissenting opinion is the idea that this could lead to people believing the whole thing is rigged, and that nobody actually wins the big jackpots.  however, it is kind of ridiculous to think that hundreds of millions of dollars in jackpot money just magically disappear without any lottery employees coming forward.  furthermore, why do we not doubt the legitimacy of other large jackpots ? for a long time people have been buying scratch off tickets without the ridiculous self identification laws.   #  why do we not doubt the legitimacy of other large jackpots ?  #  for a long time people have been buying scratch off tickets without the ridiculous self identification laws.   #  it is public money and the public has a right to know where that money goes.  if you are not comfortable with your identity being revealed, do not play.  however, if you committed a tort against someone, and now have the money to make amends, perhaps it is appropriate that you pay for it now that you have the money, plus punitive damages since you obviously were not going to do anything about it after you got rich.  in any event, if you have enough money for this to be an issue, you have enough money to hire a lawyer to protect yourself.  if you win the lottery and have enough money for someone to want to come after you, hire a security firm to protect you; you can afford it now.  what if the lottery employees are in on it ? what if it happens without all lottery employees knowing ? it is unlikely, but not impossible.  government as a rule should be transparent and verifiable wherever possible, it is a tool against corruption.  for a long time people have been buying scratch off tickets without the ridiculous self identification laws.  i think identification to claim any winnings should be required, and a list of all identified winners, locations sold, and dates should be available to the public at all times.  then there would be no room to doubt the legitimacy of any jackpot, large or small.   #  most people put money in and never get anything out.   #  it just perplexes me that people just give the government extra money.  it is like saying that signing up for extra taxes is fun.  financially, the lottery is one of the worst investments anyone could make.  most people put money in and never get anything out.  investors call that theft.  no one would play a casino game with those odds.  yet all throughout the nation and in other nations people play the lottery.  for fun, there are so many better things to do with the $0.  buy a frisbee, pretty much the same rate of return as the lottery, and you will get a lot more fun out of it.  if you want a chance at striking it big, invest in penny stocks.  you could find the next microsoft and buy stocks for a few cents and sell them later at hundreds of dollars.   #  they want to dream an irrational dream because 0 of the rest of their lives are shit.   #  | making intelligent financial choices sometimes people just want waste a small amount of money and dream alright ? there is no problem with that.  they know it is not an intelligent finical choice, but they do not care, because to the ones who play it once a week and are not addicted it is emotionally worth it.  the guys who come into my store to buy tickets just really want to dream.  they want to dream an irrational dream because 0 of the rest of their lives are shit.  not everyone wants to base every decision on the future or intelligent financial choices.  they want to live in that one moment of possibility, no matter how irrational that seems.  it may be irrational, but is not $0 if even worth a moment of happiness ?  #  i would argue that even without the clip everyone who is eligible to play will know about it before the draw happens, and if you did not you probably were not going to buy a ticket anyway.   #  is it though ? at this point pretty much everyone knows what a lottery is, the only thing that changes is the jackpot size.  all you really need is a 0 second clip on a national news station and bam everyone who is eligible to play will know about it in less than 0 hours.  i would argue that even without the clip everyone who is eligible to play will know about it before the draw happens, and if you did not you probably were not going to buy a ticket anyway.  advertisement after the fact is not going to do anything because the jackpot will be back to a low level where only the hardcore will buy tickets.  even if this was not the case then there is no difference between  anonymous wins largest ever jackpot  and  john doe wins largest ever jackpot  in terms of advertising your product.  it is not like you know john doe or care who he is or what he does, so why put a name to it ?  #  but if they mention a little bit more about the person, it will definitely work in the lottery is favor.   # is it just the name that is made public, though ? or do they also mention that he used to be a plumber in which all plumbers that hear about it go,  huh, he was a plumber ? i am a plumber, maybe i could win !   or how jane doe won with the first ticket she bought in years  see, even if you just by a ticket from time to time, you can win !   .  so, you are right: if they just mention the name, the difference in effect will be quite small not non existent, though .  but if they mention a little bit more about the person, it will definitely work in the lottery is favor.
a pretty simple google search will result in many horror stories surrounding lottery winners.  many are forced to move from their home towns, face lawsuits from people looking for a quick buck from a deep pocket, and even have a much higher chance of being murdered.  i feel that it should be a person is right to choose whether they want the public to know about their winnings.  i understand that the main dissenting opinion is the idea that this could lead to people believing the whole thing is rigged, and that nobody actually wins the big jackpots.  however, it is kind of ridiculous to think that hundreds of millions of dollars in jackpot money just magically disappear without any lottery employees coming forward.  furthermore, why do we not doubt the legitimacy of other large jackpots ? for a long time people have been buying scratch off tickets without the ridiculous self identification laws.   #  i understand that the main dissenting opinion is the idea that this could lead to people believing the whole thing is rigged, and that nobody actually wins the big jackpots.   #  however, it is kind of ridiculous to think that hundreds of millions of dollars in jackpot money just magically disappear without any lottery employees coming forward.   #  a lottery system that is a public game should be transparent.  there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when playing a public game and winning.  if privacy is a concern of someone than they can simply choose not to play, no one is forcing anyone to partake in the lottery.  however, it is kind of ridiculous to think that hundreds of millions of dollars in jackpot money just magically disappear without any lottery employees coming forward.  while i agree with you such conspiracy theories would be irrational just look at how many other conspiracy theories are believed to this day.  0/0 truthers, sandy hook shooting deniers, haarp, the nwo, the countless alien conspiracies.  i could go on and on.  i think you and every other rational person would believe that every single one of those are much more outlandish than a lottery scheme.  it does not take much for a person to fall victim of believing such through fear, a new example would be the ebola outbreak is being blamed on medical staff in infected areas now which is putting medical staff at risk of being harmed.  why is this all relevant ? because the moment the lottery makes it appear that it has something to hide many people will not trust it to be a fair game.  which will hurt the ticket sales and thus hurt the program itself.  it is very hard to rationalize with people once they have fallen into the conspiracy and it is impossible to stop such beliefs from spreading.  less ticket sales from these people will also means a decrease in the lottery jackpots which in turn will further hurt the sales.  another factor is that by placing a name and a face on the winner this makes players of the lottery able to relate to the winner and have the thought of  that could have been me  which will have a effect on ticket sales too.   #  for fun, there are so many better things to do with the $0.   #  it just perplexes me that people just give the government extra money.  it is like saying that signing up for extra taxes is fun.  financially, the lottery is one of the worst investments anyone could make.  most people put money in and never get anything out.  investors call that theft.  no one would play a casino game with those odds.  yet all throughout the nation and in other nations people play the lottery.  for fun, there are so many better things to do with the $0.  buy a frisbee, pretty much the same rate of return as the lottery, and you will get a lot more fun out of it.  if you want a chance at striking it big, invest in penny stocks.  you could find the next microsoft and buy stocks for a few cents and sell them later at hundreds of dollars.   #  they want to live in that one moment of possibility, no matter how irrational that seems.   #  | making intelligent financial choices sometimes people just want waste a small amount of money and dream alright ? there is no problem with that.  they know it is not an intelligent finical choice, but they do not care, because to the ones who play it once a week and are not addicted it is emotionally worth it.  the guys who come into my store to buy tickets just really want to dream.  they want to dream an irrational dream because 0 of the rest of their lives are shit.  not everyone wants to base every decision on the future or intelligent financial choices.  they want to live in that one moment of possibility, no matter how irrational that seems.  it may be irrational, but is not $0 if even worth a moment of happiness ?  #  it is not like you know john doe or care who he is or what he does, so why put a name to it ?  #  is it though ? at this point pretty much everyone knows what a lottery is, the only thing that changes is the jackpot size.  all you really need is a 0 second clip on a national news station and bam everyone who is eligible to play will know about it in less than 0 hours.  i would argue that even without the clip everyone who is eligible to play will know about it before the draw happens, and if you did not you probably were not going to buy a ticket anyway.  advertisement after the fact is not going to do anything because the jackpot will be back to a low level where only the hardcore will buy tickets.  even if this was not the case then there is no difference between  anonymous wins largest ever jackpot  and  john doe wins largest ever jackpot  in terms of advertising your product.  it is not like you know john doe or care who he is or what he does, so why put a name to it ?  #  or how jane doe won with the first ticket she bought in years  see, even if you just by a ticket from time to time, you can win !    # is it just the name that is made public, though ? or do they also mention that he used to be a plumber in which all plumbers that hear about it go,  huh, he was a plumber ? i am a plumber, maybe i could win !   or how jane doe won with the first ticket she bought in years  see, even if you just by a ticket from time to time, you can win !   .  so, you are right: if they just mention the name, the difference in effect will be quite small not non existent, though .  but if they mention a little bit more about the person, it will definitely work in the lottery is favor.
i find the obsession with sources to be annoying in many cases.  unless someone states a fact that is to be accepted as such no reasoning to dissect behind it , such as 0 of people who listen to metal music end up contemplating suicide, or 0 of children whose parents are divorced have bad teeth, demanding a source is just lazy.  many people who submit a cmv may be more or less informed on the topic they are talking about.  finding relevant articles for the purpose is a bit of a pain, plus it then ends up focusing the discussion on dissecting the article.  if i want to discuss something and have to quickly find sources, i would try to google them even if i read a lot on it before , and then quickly decide wheter this is really what i had in mind or not, possibly linking to something of a suspicious source.  people post here to discuss views and to debate possibly get informed , if you are forcing them to do research it almost defies the purpose of what they are trying to do here.  i do not mind someone stating that the posters view is not really a fact, and then elaborating further on why not, or linking their own sources, but i do mind when an  intuitive  view that is relatively explained only gets replied to with  source ?   i think also part of what people here enjoy is a debate.  i do not always defend or attack views that match my own, sometimes i just like finding reasons to keep the debate going.  many real debate teams actually end up having to defend two opposing views for final victory, differing from one round to the next.  the pleasure comes from trying to find reasons, trying to disprove the original statement, point out to flaws in argument.  any argument that is backed by some rational thinking can be dissected.  saying  source  in such cases is just dumb and i do not understand the need to even post at all then.  finally, i think the sources themselves are not always absolute.  a corelation can be proven to some extent between something, that does not mean we ca not still look at it rationally and interpret the results differently.  so to sum up, i am not against bringing up sources, especially when hard cold facts are stated, but i think the essence of this sub should be reasoning.  i think users who try to end the discussion by saying  source ?   and ending it there should not even bother and are the lazy ones, not the poster who does not feel like spending significant time doing online research just to come up with something to link here.   #  people post here to discuss views and to debate possibly get informed , if you are forcing them to do research it almost defies the purpose of what they are trying to do here.   #  cmv is not an excuse to not do research.   #  asking for a source only ends a discussion if the other person is not able to provide one.  also it completely depends on the context.  way too often i see people arguing tooth and nail over something that could be resolved in seconds if either of them bothered to look up relevant information.  cmv is not an excuse to not do research.  you should not come to cmv looking for raw information, you come to hear alternate views.  if you feel you are misinformed on something then you should go and look at relevant information, not argue about it when you do not know what you are talking about.   #  you have to put all of these things in context.   #  when somebody asks for a source they are not asking you to do a 0 minute google search and find the first thing that supports your opinion.  when somebody asks me for a source when i do not have one at hand i go to google scholar URL and find a proper academic article.  if somebody is arguing a popular view there should be ample sources for them to quote, i just do not see the point in battering each other with conflicting opinions when you can just look at the actual information and settle it then and there.  but again, it totally depends on the situation.  like, i ca not say  oh yeah ? you do not think asking for a source on cmv is conducive to good discussion ? do you have a source for that ?   it is just an opinion, similarly i ca not say  oh, well here is a statistical survey from cambridge university that says that people who ask for sources on online discussion threads are 0 more likely to provoke meaningful discussion.   you have to put all of these things in context.  i think that the majority of cmvs i engage in would be better served by people relying more on substantiating their views with credible sources, but obviously it does not apply to every thread.   #  maybe you have anecdotal experience, maybe you are working on your thesis and are finding a shitload of evidence that forms a view.   #  a source does not necesarily need to be an academic study, cited and full of technical mumbo jumbo and five dollar words.  part of a good cmv is explaining why you hold those views.  maybe you have anecdotal experience, maybe you are working on your thesis and are finding a shitload of evidence that forms a view.  but if you make a statement like  most people who ride motorcycles have deathwishes  or  if i go to kentucky, i will catch herpes , one that has a causal or statistical basis, you should be able to articulate what inspired that.  as a debater, understanding the reasoning of your opponent is as key as understanding your own position.  i ca not help you get where you need to be unless i understand where you are and how you got there.   #  what you are talking about is not recognized as  source  by people here.   #  totally agree, but that is my point.  if a person gives an explanation as to why they think what they think, what their reasoning is, i do not think they have to be required to source anything.  what you are talking about is not recognized as  source  by people here.  i see well explained views even if totally flawed being responded to with the demand for source rather than using reason to dispute them.  to me that is what makes an interesting debate, not clicking on links and figuring out which are valid and which are not.  of course, and i said this already, if person simply states a premise is a fact and has no reason to back it up because  it is just how it is , then asking for source becomes totally appropriate.   #  he either has the goods or he is talking bs.   #  sources can tell you a lot about the person you are working with.  if someone lists an accurate source from a proper scientific journal that tells me a lot than if they list a source from some random blog or www. jihadwatch. com.  changing views is about changing mindsets.  mindsets come from the sources that a person gets their information from.  the pleasure comes from trying to find reasons, trying to disprove the original statement, point out to flaws in argument.  asking for a source does this very thing you are talking about.  you ca not really have a proper argument with someone just making shit up.  i mean if you are arguing something scientific and the best the other guy can do is say,   well i saw this video once and it worked just like it said it did.   the only way you can respond to that is by asking to see the video.  there is nothing wrong with asking to see the thing that the other guy is basing his entire argument on.  he either has the goods or he is talking bs.  shall we just take hi on his word that he actually saw this video that proves everything he is saying just because he proclaims it to be true ?
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.   #  many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.   #  if my kids end up being strongly opposed to learning other languages, i wo not force them.   # i know well more about maths than any of my teachers did before going to uni.  this seems like an argument for homeschooling ! one of the biggest problems with public schools is that you have so little control over what or how you learn.  that is one of the things i want to overcome by homeschooling.  if my kids end up being strongly opposed to learning other languages, i wo not force them.  i will, however, try to teach them at an early age when their brains are actually well suited to learning languages, instead of waiting until that is no longer true like public schools do.  you are saying that a bad school experience is better than a good parental experience ? in addition, my fiancée and i are both sex workers, which gives us tons of money and free time.  i have all the time in the world.  did you read anything that i wrote ? i repeatedly emphasized letting my kids structure their own education and choose what they want to learn about.  homeschooled kids overwhelmingly outperform public school kids.  URL every study agrees on this.  the average homeschooled kid is in the 0th or better ! percentile of public school kids on every metric you can measure academic performance by.
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.   #  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.   #  that is one of the things i want to overcome by homeschooling.   # i know well more about maths than any of my teachers did before going to uni.  this seems like an argument for homeschooling ! one of the biggest problems with public schools is that you have so little control over what or how you learn.  that is one of the things i want to overcome by homeschooling.  if my kids end up being strongly opposed to learning other languages, i wo not force them.  i will, however, try to teach them at an early age when their brains are actually well suited to learning languages, instead of waiting until that is no longer true like public schools do.  you are saying that a bad school experience is better than a good parental experience ? in addition, my fiancée and i are both sex workers, which gives us tons of money and free time.  i have all the time in the world.  did you read anything that i wrote ? i repeatedly emphasized letting my kids structure their own education and choose what they want to learn about.  homeschooled kids overwhelmingly outperform public school kids.  URL every study agrees on this.  the average homeschooled kid is in the 0th or better ! percentile of public school kids on every metric you can measure academic performance by.
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.   #  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.   # kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  studies, articles, etc ? well, to me just the idea that a parent who has an option of having their child go to school and spend time with other people, would prefer to focus their own life even further on the child.  it seems a bit sick to me, parents are there most of the time, normal people need a break from each other both kids and parents , so the fact that they do not seems odd.  what is the reason for such choice ? the idea that they can dp better than school, that their child needs absolutely perfect and controlled sources etc.  control freakism.   #  many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.   #  public schooled children spend too much time with teachers and not enough time with other children.   # public schooled children spend too much time with teachers and not enough time with other children.  seriously, most of the time in public school you  are not  interacting with other children.  my home schooled friends, on the other hand, regularly were made to work with other home schooled kids on things like science projects and were constantly collaborating; collaboration is a skill that is sorely under emphasized in our education system, and it is to our detriment; how often do you, in your adult life, need either to receive help with a problem, or help another with a problem ? it is a natural human thing that we do, that is being squashed.  0 my best friend is mom a homeschooler was the farthest thing from a control freak.  as long as she knew the things most parents want to know when their kids go out where you are, when you will be back, a number to call in case of an emergency then she was fine, unless there was a legitimate reason to be concerned.  either she is not a control freak, or every parent i knew/know is a control freak.  0 funnily, there are private tutors for that, and/or other parents.  there are actually homeschool groups that get together and figure some stuff like that out.  pretty much every home schooler i have known has had some group like that, so trying to disregard them is disregarding pretty much, well, every home schooler.  a point i would like to make is that home schooled or not, after high school or equivalent, there is college.  you ca not homeschool college.  college is also where you get your depth of knowledge; high school is all about breadth.   #  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.   #  it also protects those kids from exposure to things that are objectively harmful.   # it also protects those kids from exposure to things that are objectively harmful.  i went to a public school, and frankly, most of the opinions of those students were kinda unhealthy.  sex in high school was no biggie.  except that really, getting pregnant in hs is a great way to catch diseases, become a single mother, perhaps be forced by single motherhood to forgo college and live on food stamps.  drugs were much the same no big deal.  pot was widely available, and if you knew the right people you could get harder stuff.  drugs, again can ruin your life, especially if it means that you are going to drop out or go into crime.  if that is  factual knowledge , i would rather any future children of mine be ignorant.  at least the ignorant home school kids are not going to be peer pressured into bad decisions that will haunt them for decades to come.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  i think this is actually why home schools work so well.  those  control freak  parents insist that the kid learn.  in a public school, the teacher does not really have the luxury of being concerned that each and every one of his 0 students master everything.  they do not care if the kid learns to study properly, to think critically about what they read, or to understand basic logic.  they just think  test scores are fine,  and keep going.  actually, kids who are homeschooled do a lot better academically than their peers at public school.  most of the winners of the national spelling bee are home schooled, and not one has been from a public school.  what makes homeschool work is actually the fact that unlike public schools, you ca not move on to the next topic until you have mastered the one before it.  you do not end up squeaking by in algebra and finding that your next course is building on stuff you do not really get.  you do not go on until you understand.  secondly, you are doing a lot of real world stuff going to museums to look at art, reading history from primary sources, visiting local historical sites, building robots or doing science experiments.  in a classroom, you mostly listen while someone else talks.  in a homeschool, you are likely to use the knowledge to gain understanding.   #  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.   #  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.   # it also protects those kids from exposure to things that are objectively harmful.  i went to a public school, and frankly, most of the opinions of those students were kinda unhealthy.  sex in high school was no biggie.  except that really, getting pregnant in hs is a great way to catch diseases, become a single mother, perhaps be forced by single motherhood to forgo college and live on food stamps.  drugs were much the same no big deal.  pot was widely available, and if you knew the right people you could get harder stuff.  drugs, again can ruin your life, especially if it means that you are going to drop out or go into crime.  if that is  factual knowledge , i would rather any future children of mine be ignorant.  at least the ignorant home school kids are not going to be peer pressured into bad decisions that will haunt them for decades to come.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  i think this is actually why home schools work so well.  those  control freak  parents insist that the kid learn.  in a public school, the teacher does not really have the luxury of being concerned that each and every one of his 0 students master everything.  they do not care if the kid learns to study properly, to think critically about what they read, or to understand basic logic.  they just think  test scores are fine,  and keep going.  actually, kids who are homeschooled do a lot better academically than their peers at public school.  most of the winners of the national spelling bee are home schooled, and not one has been from a public school.  what makes homeschool work is actually the fact that unlike public schools, you ca not move on to the next topic until you have mastered the one before it.  you do not end up squeaking by in algebra and finding that your next course is building on stuff you do not really get.  you do not go on until you understand.  secondly, you are doing a lot of real world stuff going to museums to look at art, reading history from primary sources, visiting local historical sites, building robots or doing science experiments.  in a classroom, you mostly listen while someone else talks.  in a homeschool, you are likely to use the knowledge to gain understanding.   #  again, the home school networks come into play again here.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.   #  there are clubs, teams, churches, camps, parks an many many other places for kids to interact with other children that does not involve school.   # there are clubs, teams, churches, camps, parks an many many other places for kids to interact with other children that does not involve school.  being home schooled / being a shut in.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  some are control freaks, but that is not a requirement.  many are very open minded.  they just do not want their kids to be exposed to public schools.  let is be frank.  modern state of schools sucks stupid zero tolerance policies, metal detectors, terrible union unqualified teachers, fights, lack of discipline, lack of respect.  you do not have to be a control freak to want to avoid exposing your child to all that nonsense.  what if you simply do not want your child to get in trouble for making a pop tart gun or get expelled for forgetting to take out a nail clipper ? URL home schooling can be very inclusive and open minded.  more so than a lot of schools.  neither do so called  professional teachers.   there are a few good ones, but most suck.  URL besides, parents who do not feel qualified to teach a particular subject can easily supplement their child is education with tutors/online classes/ or even community college classes for older kids.  tl:dr home schooling may be bad for the kids if done poorly, but it may be very good as well.   #  again, the home school networks come into play again here.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.   #  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.   # there are clubs, teams, churches, camps, parks an many many other places for kids to interact with other children that does not involve school.  being home schooled / being a shut in.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  some are control freaks, but that is not a requirement.  many are very open minded.  they just do not want their kids to be exposed to public schools.  let is be frank.  modern state of schools sucks stupid zero tolerance policies, metal detectors, terrible union unqualified teachers, fights, lack of discipline, lack of respect.  you do not have to be a control freak to want to avoid exposing your child to all that nonsense.  what if you simply do not want your child to get in trouble for making a pop tart gun or get expelled for forgetting to take out a nail clipper ? URL home schooling can be very inclusive and open minded.  more so than a lot of schools.  neither do so called  professional teachers.   there are a few good ones, but most suck.  URL besides, parents who do not feel qualified to teach a particular subject can easily supplement their child is education with tutors/online classes/ or even community college classes for older kids.  tl:dr home schooling may be bad for the kids if done poorly, but it may be very good as well.   #  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  and there are a lot of other reasons.   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.   #  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.   # kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  i would like to challenge this point specifically.  i was homeschooled from grades 0 through 0, and i had  far  more freedom than my peers in public school in almost every conceivable way.  my parents purposefully forced me to work independently, ie i was wholly responsible for studying, finding resources, and getting projects done on time.  this allowed me to learn  a lot  about responsibility but also gave me immense autonomy.  i could go at whatever pace i wanted, if i had x amount of work i could finish it all at once in one big 0 hour haul, and have the rest of the time to myself, or spread it out.  i was largely allowed to study what i wanted to study outside of basic requirements.  it was very democratic and a lot like montessori schooling URL or democratic education URL i daresay i would not be half as well read or as individualistic as i am today i am an anarchist for instance if i had been thrown into public middle school.   #  many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.   #  there are several social programs that would allow a home schooled child to have plenty of interaction with other children/peers their age, from programs like boy / girl scouts to local sports leagues and beyond.   #  i will address your points first.  there are several social programs that would allow a home schooled child to have plenty of interaction with other children/peers their age, from programs like boy / girl scouts to local sports leagues and beyond.  i seriously doubt these parents all lock their children away in the house and refuse to allow them to have friends and form relationships.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  this is an oversimplification at best, and just plain wrong at worst.  there are reasons that some many ? parents do not have faith in the public school systems.  from horror stories about over prescribing of ritalin to criticism about the quality of education received to feminist / liberal agendas that harm development in male children.  the alternative is private schools which, at least in my area, tend to be religious and/or extremely expensive.  another point that is not being noticed is that home schooling allows the child to learn in a way that is best suited for that child, rather than a broad spectrum curriculum that is used in public and private schooling.  there is a reason schools for higher learning advertise smaller classroom sizes, and that is because it allows for more individual attention from the instructor for students who are not fully grasping the material.  the same applies to home schooling.  this is anecdotal, but i found by the time i reached high school i would encounter teachers that were probably less educated in regards to what they were teaching than i, as a student, was.  this does not account for parents who home school their kids and are teachers or more than competent to teach basic subjects like history, math, and science at a high school level which does not require a remarkable level of intelligence .  the internet is a place where people can socialize, find numerous sources for forming their own opinions, learn, and play.  if it is done wrong, then yes it could be a detriment to a child is development.  the same can be said of public and private schools, though.  regardless of which route a child takes they will be subjected to the same standardized tests and expected to pass if they would like to receive their diploma or equivalent.   #  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.
hello, so my cousin is home schooling her children and it has made me do some research on the subject.  i will say openly that it is my understanding that the scholarly research is inconclusive.  as a result, i am sticking to my intuition that tells me home schooling is bad.  also, i know some cases are better and some cases are worse, so i am not talking about any particular case here, but the average/overall likelihood that home schooling is worse for kids than public/private schooling.  cmv my basic argument is not necessarily in the order of importance : 0 home schooled children spend too much time with their parents and not enough time with other children/peers, and therefore are not exposed to a diversity of opinions/people/situations, and as a result they end up socially awkward and lacking practical life knowledge.  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  0 while parents who home school are able to put more time into teaching their kids, they do not have the depth of knowledge on any particular subject to teach higher level subjects well, they also do not have the distance required to teach a subject well, or use trial and error over years to develop good teaching techniques over time, and therefore the kids ca not really get a good education.  i have read other criticisms of home schooling, but im going to stop here.  i am ignoring religious based home schooling here, because it is not applicable to my cousin is situation.  but i find that to be largely terrifying.  also, i understand that the internet makes the actual schooling aspect less relevant, and that a really dedicated parent can probably do a good job teaching.  also that there are home schooling groups that take a lot of the  home  out of home schooling, but i am not addressing quasi home schooling situations.   #  0 parents who home school are almost by definition control freaks, and this gets filtered down to the kids.   #  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.   #  i will address your points first.  there are several social programs that would allow a home schooled child to have plenty of interaction with other children/peers their age, from programs like boy / girl scouts to local sports leagues and beyond.  i seriously doubt these parents all lock their children away in the house and refuse to allow them to have friends and form relationships.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  this is an oversimplification at best, and just plain wrong at worst.  there are reasons that some many ? parents do not have faith in the public school systems.  from horror stories about over prescribing of ritalin to criticism about the quality of education received to feminist / liberal agendas that harm development in male children.  the alternative is private schools which, at least in my area, tend to be religious and/or extremely expensive.  another point that is not being noticed is that home schooling allows the child to learn in a way that is best suited for that child, rather than a broad spectrum curriculum that is used in public and private schooling.  there is a reason schools for higher learning advertise smaller classroom sizes, and that is because it allows for more individual attention from the instructor for students who are not fully grasping the material.  the same applies to home schooling.  this is anecdotal, but i found by the time i reached high school i would encounter teachers that were probably less educated in regards to what they were teaching than i, as a student, was.  this does not account for parents who home school their kids and are teachers or more than competent to teach basic subjects like history, math, and science at a high school level which does not require a remarkable level of intelligence .  the internet is a place where people can socialize, find numerous sources for forming their own opinions, learn, and play.  if it is done wrong, then yes it could be a detriment to a child is development.  the same can be said of public and private schools, though.  regardless of which route a child takes they will be subjected to the same standardized tests and expected to pass if they would like to receive their diploma or equivalent.   #  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.   # many home schoolers form networks to engage the children socially, scheduling group trips and similar activities.  in addition, many jurisdictions allow for home schooled students to participate in extra curricular activities in their assigned public school.  kids feel a lack a freedom, get overly tied into the politics of their family, and have a hard time being individuals.  any sources for this ? studies, articles, etc ? again, the home school networks come into play again here.  several kids will go to billy is house for algebra or calculus, because billy is dad is an engineer, and than they will go see susie is mom, who has a ph. d.  in organic chemistry for biology and chemistry.   #  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  networks yes, they exist, and at some point the network really makes it less of a home schooling situation than a traditional home schooling scenario.  so if the parents take their kids to tons of social things and spend all their time with other kids teaching together, blah blah, it is not really home schooling anymore.  why do they hate schools so much ? what are they worried about sending their kids to school ? and billy is mom, and susie is dad are far less likely to have phds and masters degrees than teachers at regular schools.  and if they guy with the phd has the time to spend years off of work during the day teaching kids, yeah, either he is so absurdly well off, or he does not have a job.  which is not very common.   #  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.   # i mean  the moon is as big as the sun  bad.  especially when it comes to math, science, and the arts.  public schools in many places focus on standardized test taking, and the end result is just terrible learning all around boring, without breadth or depth.  another factor is the violence.  i lost count of how many fights i was in between middle school and high school.  a problem where i live and realistically one of the reasons i am saving up to buy a new house is that my daughter goes to elementary school at a nice new elementary school built for our neighborhood.  however, for some reason the middle school is half ours and half some people that are bused in from a poor area, and as a result there is a lot of conflict in that school.  i am not going to put my kids through something like that, so while i am in the process of saving up to move somewhere nicer in a few years, the reality is that if i end up stuck in my house home schooling may be an option.   #  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.   #  i will tell you why.  0 because, even if your iq is as high as you say which i doubt because of the weakness of your response , that does not mean you know how to teach anything.  0 because kids learn more from spending time with peers then they do from listening to parents or even teachers .  kids teach each other more than anything.  0 you probably do not have access to science labs, math expertise, or probably have not honed your knowledge of literature by teaching some book several times over the years.  0 you might value foreign languages, but that does not mean it is valuable for your kid s .  0 honestly, even bad school experiences are probably less abusive or mentally stressful then those dished out by parents.  0 you may start out thinking you know what you are doing, and then realize that you were in over your head and do not have the hours to dedicate to providing the education necessary.  0 you sound really narcissistic and like you want to make your kids out of your own image.  and a school provides a lot more change and evolution than being stuck with your parents all the time.  and there are a lot of other reasons.
as long as it is okay to laugh at the idiot sitcom dad or the white guy trying and failing to dance, it is okay to laugh at terrible woman drivers and asians being good at math.  in this day of pc paranoia, there are terms like  reverse racism  for racism against whites and  reverse sexism  against men, but its just idiots excusing one form of racism/sexism while simultaneously condemning another.  you should not be ashamed of what you think is funny, it is a visceral thing and you ca not help it.  but what you can help is not being a hypocrite.  so let is all laugh at racism and sexism with me.  why do asian women have such small boobs ? because their parents demand a is !  #  you should not be ashamed of what you think is funny, it is a visceral thing and you ca not help it.   #  i disagree with this to some extent.   # i disagree with this to some extent.  i have been doing stand up for a few years, and i have found that what i think is funny has changed quite a bit.  for instance, when straight male comics make jokes about transsexual women, they are often really shitty jokes and they use language that i happen to know is hurtful to trans women.  if i did not know any trans girls, those jokes might be hilarious, but i do and they are just not funny anymore.  all i can think is,  if my friend were here, this would be a completely humiliating thing to hear an audience laughing at this, because clearly nobody in the audience knows shit.   when eddie izzard, though, makes jokes about transvestites, it is awesome because he knows of what he speaks.  having jokes make me sad is also a visceral thing and i ca not help it.  but the visceral response you have to humour is a result of what you believe is comedy vs what you believe is tragedy.  being a hypocrite, imho, is saying that you are not a racist, you are not sexist, and not homophobic, and then continue to laugh about jokes made at the expense of minorities.   #  humor is entirely a construct of the mind.   #  thank you.  people act like humor is some kind of commandment, etched in stone and passed on to us, in all their immutability, by the gods above.  humor is entirely a construct of the mind.  it is a somewhat interesting exercise to listen to jokes from outside of your major cultural group.  for example, my parents are indian but i was born and raised in the states.  sometimes when we have family gatherings, my relatives tell jokes in our native tongue.  i understand perfectly well what they are saying, but like half the time, it is just not funny.  yea, i get it but i do not get what is so knee slappingly funny.  hell, just go back a few hundred years and you are unlikely to get a lot of humor.  try reading one of shakespeare is  comedies.    #  you can tell a socially acceptable funny joke.   #  i am not missing your point, you are just wrong.  you can tell a socially acceptable funny joke.  you can tell a socially acceptable unfunny joke.  you can tell a socially unacceptable funny joke.  you can tell a socially acceptable unfunny joke.  social acceptance does not necessitate funny and vice versa.   #  secondly, racist jokes provide a cover for actual racists.   #  finding a racist/sexist joke funny requires perpetuating a harmful stereotype.  if i tell you a joke about brazilians and how they love croissants, you would not find it funny because there is no stereotype about how brazilians are particularly fond of them.  thus, by laughing at a joke based on a harmful stereotype, you serve only to reinforce it.  jokes about minorities and majorities differ in the sense that stereotypes against minorities are far more severe than ones about majorities.  compare  black people are criminals  to  white people ca not dance .  secondly, racist jokes provide a cover for actual racists.  they hear a racist joke, and think their views are validated.  they express their views in form of a joke and they are protected from all criticism.  there is no significant prejudice against majority groups, while there is plenty against minorities.  finally, they hurt and contribute to the oppression of various people.  i am with a group of my peers, they tell a homophobic joke and i am offended.  what do i do ? laugh along ? speak up and lose some friends ? straight people never have to worry about this.  so yes, on the surface it appears that jokes about whites and black should be the same, but in reality they have far different effects on the group in question.   #  i do not believe that humour reflects attitudes in the simple manner you describe, nor that it necessarily contributes to them.   # i am with a group of my peers, they tell a homophobic joke and i am offended.  what do i do ? laugh along ? speak up and lose some friends ? straight people never have to worry about this.  it is not true that straight, white men never worry about being ostracised for holding points of view that contradict whichever consensus is prevailing in a given group.  even in your example, if one held a strong view against jokes mocking gays it would not change things much if you were gay or straight yourself, you could still be excluded as a result.  i am not entirely convinced by this  oppression  line either, it seems a rather cheap use of the word.  in the west people tend not to be oppressed in the legal sense, even if in certain places they can face social exclusion as a result of gender/sexuality/race or whatnot.  i do not believe that humour reflects attitudes in the simple manner you describe, nor that it necessarily contributes to them.  your turn of phrase  perpetuating a harmful stereotype  is also nonsensical when applied to your examples.  black people  are  more likely to be in prison than whites, and white people at least in my experience have less rhythm than blacks.  i am not suggesting race is the  cause  of either of those things, but the stereotype is accurate.
while police k 0 units are only honorary police officers, it is a felony in many states to injure or kill one.  there are ever increasing reports of police officers shooting, maiming, stomping, and injuring the pets of families that they are conducting raids on.  almost without fail, the officers are cleared of any wrongdoing by their superiors.  surprise and the killings found to be justified.  the families of the murdered animals often have no recourse to sue, yet even if they do, family animals are considered chattel and there is no worthwhile compensation given for the loss of what is basically a family member.  so. if animals are considered chattel then all animals should be considered chattel.  including police dogs and horses.  why should a cop be given free reign to indiscriminately kill my german sheppard but if i kill his german sheppard, suddenly it is a felony ? police often order these large, high strung, attack trained animals to chase down, bite into, drag down, and maul on human beings.  and that is just fine with the cops.  but let your dog on your property bark at a cop, and that cop is free to empty a clip into it is head with absolutely no repercussions.  i maintain that just because it is a police officer that cares for, maintains, feeds, and maybe even loves his animal, that does not suddenly mean that that animal is a police officer, human, or more valuable than any civilian is animal.  texas law regarding police dogs URL felony florida law regarding police dogs URL felony new york law regarding police dods URL class a misdemeanor  #  police often order these large, high strung, attack trained animals to chase down, bite into, drag down, and maul on human beings.   #  only if you are dumb enough to run.   # destroying government property is a felony.  including police dogs and horses.  why should a cop be given free reign to indiscriminately kill my german sheppard but if i kill his german sheppard, suddenly it is a felony ? because his german shepherd represents a lot of resources that you destroyed.  only if you are dumb enough to run.   #  the courts have ruled that dogs are chattel.   #  of course police should be accountable but more often than not they are not my cmv is that police dogs are just that.  dogs.  not special, magical talking dogs.  not police officers.  not family members.  not friends.  not loved ones.  just dogs.  and just because dog a is taken care of by a police officer does not make it special.  the courts have ruled that dogs are chattel.  property.  like a chair.  or a chainsaw.  just property with a small monetary value.  so if i run through your yard and kill your dog, you can only really take me to small claims court and get a few bucks for the material value of the dog.  but if i do the same thing but it is a police dog, suddenly it is not just a small claims court matter.  it is a felony.  why is the cop is dog felony worthy but your dog is not ?  #  the courts will only grant you a dollar amount if someone kills your dog.   # but destruction of property under a certain dollar amount is a misdemeanor at best.  the courts will only grant you a dollar amount if someone kills your dog.  they do not care about how much you loved it, or if it was like family, or if it was loyal and honorable.  so why is it suddenly a felony to kill a cop is dog ? your dog is chattel but a cop is dog is magically a police officer ?  #  even more so now that so many american gsds have been overbred to the point of uselessness for working purposes.   #  of course.  expensive property to replace.  even more so now that so many american gsds have been overbred to the point of uselessness for working purposes.  many of our local police dogs are now belgian malinois trained in europe.  police dogs are expensive to train and not easy to replace.  it makes sense that the killing of a police dog is a felony.  as others have pointed out, animal cruelty in general is a crime in all 0 states.   #  attacking a police dog is basically an attack on the police force.   #  police offers are only supposed to attack civilian pets if those pets pose a legitimate threat or are themselves attacking.  it is easy to say that the cop should just run away or throw a bone but that is not really how you achieve any level of success as police.  a civilian dog might be trained to attack, or to distract, and the whole point of police work is that you are often involved in highly unpredictable situations.  the dog also brings attention to police presence which is itself dangerous to police when pursuing suspects.  so would you rather sacrifice a dog, or the policeman because he assumed the dog was confused, rather than trained to establish an opportunity for a criminal to shoot ? attacking a police dog is basically an attack on the police force.  civilians generally have no right or reason to attack the police force, which includes its dogs, unless they are subjected to excessive force.  once a suspect has been subdued, nobody will harm them.  the police dog most certainly is not out to inflict significant harm, any other dog there is always that possibility.
the current system, with an absolute minimum and maximum does very little to incentivise good performance.  it encourages a type of thinking that  i want x grade , where x is usually either the minimum or the maximum.  does not matter whether it is percentages, or out of 0, or a/b/c/d/f, or whatever.  it is all the same shit.  i know it sounds arrogant to say i could think of something better off the top of my head, but i honestly think i can at least for pre secondary : students acquire  points  for doing assignments which can be anything.  homework, tests, etc.  .  quick, easy assignments are worth less than long, difficult assignments.  any student is allowed to take on any assignment k 0, at any time, as many times as they like.  if they get a better score than they previously did, it replaces their old one, which encourages perfectionism/mastery.  now, that system might encourage doing lots of quick easy assignments over long, serious ones, but i think this is just a question of fine tuning/balance.  there is only so many kindergarten assignments you can do, and even if you get all of those perfectly, that is not going to compensate for your poor ranking in first grade.  however, if you manage to catch up by second grade and even take a few third grade assignments, that should more than compensate for your earlier failures.  you are still welcome to perfect your first grade knowledge if you so choose, but that should not make much difference to your rank, reflecting how relatively easy it should be for you now.  on top of this, your own achievements can be made relative to those of your classmates.  if an assignment consistently yields low scores, then that assignment will be worth more points.  if an assignment is easy for pretty much everyone, then it is not worth as much.  this does not absolutely determine the value of an assignment.  it is only used to weigh it in one direction or another.  the  nobody took the test so it must be worth a lot  problem is also avoided because points are only additive.  until you take the test, you get zero points.  since it would be momentarily weighed in your favor, you would be quite willing to take the test.  of course, others are thinking the same thing, so they are also willing to take the test, which makes the weights all the more accurate.  there.  that system:   is more competitive by allowing you to always one up your classmates, at least by some tiny margin.    encourages overachieving by removing the ceiling.    assigns greater value to diligence, as opposed to  pure performance .    makes  performance  less arbitrary.  it is not a metric determined purely by the teacher.    removes arbitrary cutoffs like  0 a, 0 b    smooths the transition between school years.  if a complete moron like myself can think of a better system while taking a shower, then surely it should be easy to implement new, infinitely better systems with enough planning and initiative.  i see no legitimate reason for keeping the current school grading system as it is.  i actually think pretty much the entire primary school system needs a complete revamp, but writing out a complete replacement system would probably take up a book or two, so i am just going to argue this particular aspect for now.  :p  #  assigns greater value to diligence, as opposed to  pure performance .   #  right, but diligence does not get you everywhere, diligence alone is not going to get you into harvard.   #  i am also not a huge fan of the current public school system.  that said,  is more competitive by allowing you to always one up your classmates, at least by some tiny margin.  this is not a good thing.  one upsmanship is not necessarily something you want to be pushing forward in a school setting.  sure, some assignments being competitive is fine, but when you make all of school a competition, you open doors for bullying, and you are teaching students that they should try to one up their peers, that that is a good thing, which it sometimes is, but its not a great lesson.  right, but diligence does not get you everywhere, diligence alone is not going to get you into harvard.  i am unclear on this.  furthermore, how do you expect to judge people between schools ? or prevent the cheating possible when you are allowed to retake assignments/exams ? or deal with the increased workload on teachers from having to grade assignments repeatedly.   #  and yes, students would be judged based on their point grade.   #  all fair points.    0; i did not really appreciate how hugely complicated this problem is.  it is not just something you can rewrite over a weekend.  :p i still think the current system is crap, and that we should put in more effort into rethinking it, but i can see that reworking it will take  a lot of work.  i imagine the extra workload for grading would be somewhat solved by having schools become more computerized, but that would also take a lot of money and time.  and yes, students would be judged based on their point grade.  0k or whatever can demonstrate being a diligent student.  what ? being diligent is how you learn.  you study the material so that you know it well enough to get into harvard.  i really would like you to elaborate on this point.   #  you just finish school with whatever score you have.   #  i do not think you do pass or fail.  you just finish school with whatever score you have.  and then your future prospects would be based on that score.  maybe some university requires you to have 0k points or something, while working at subway only requires 0k.  i dunno.  having a minimum encourages people to just barely stay above that minimum and not achieve anything beyond that.  we absolutely want to avoid that.   #  on the other hand if you have a grading system of a,b,c,d,f you can show an employer that you were fully competent enough to pass and by how much through your gpa.   #  but then how would an employer ensure you have the skills necessary for their job ? you earn a degree by taking and passing specific classes which proves to an employer that you were competent enough in specific fields to earn a university is seal of approval.  but if you were to just simply accumulate points there is really no way of showing an employer that you were truly knowledgeable.  they see you have 0k points but they do not know what you did to gain the points or how many attempts it took you to gain them.  for example, say i work on basically all possible assignments a university has to offer but on average only score 0.  let is say i do 0 assignments all worth 0 points.  right there i have accumulated 0k points but my employer does not know i just half assed a ton of assignments.  on the other hand if you have a grading system of a,b,c,d,f you can show an employer that you were fully competent enough to pass and by how much through your gpa.   #  what this would actually teach is  race to get done as fast as possible  not  be accurate .   #  one of the big issues i see with this type of thing is that it encourages  fast work  over  accurate work .  by what you say here, the points are for completed work, and you would be able to re do the assignments as often as needed to score a high grade.  the easy way to game a system like this is to do the assignments as fast as possible, get the feedback and fix it quickly.  after 0 0 0 minute sessions on one paper, the student is likely to be in the highest score level.  otoh, a kid who goes slowly and takes 0 hours is not going to be able to work those assignments quickly enough to churn through 0 0 iterations of each assignment to get the same number of points as the students who do assignments more quickly.  what this would actually teach is  race to get done as fast as possible  not  be accurate .  what is bad about rewarding speed over accuracy is that there are lots of times in life when you ca not make mistakes.  heart surgeons, obviously cannot count on re doing a surgery if they rush and mess up the first time.  but just as serious are other professions like cpas, lawyers, nurses, construction workers.  in any of those professions, being fast but inaccurate would be a really good way to cause a lot of damage.  the audit goes wrong, and suddenly you owe lots of money in penalties on your taxes, or your stuff is being stolen or your money is being emebezzled.  or your lawyer fucks up your case and you are in prison because he missed something during the discovery in your trial.  or the roof falls in because the workers were not careful.  it is better to train students to be slow and careful because that is what the real world will demand of them.  do it right the first time.
the typical christian resolution to the problem of evil is to state that it is humans, through the exercise of their presumably metaphysical free will a scientifically and philosophically implausible concept have disobeyed god and brought sin and its attendant woes into existence.  fine, let is assume that to be the case.  it is nevertheless unclear how god is obviated of moral responsibility even if we concede this to be the case, because he/she/it is omniscient.  if god is omniscient, then it knew the exact actions that humans would take.  if god knew the only outcome its actions would produce creating the world and humans and then human disobedience it follows that it is responsible for what it willed into being.  if i  know  that taking action x creating the world and humans will result in outcome y human disobedience , i must naturally take responsibility when y occurs as a result of x instead of, say, z human obedience the conclusion ? god, by virtue of omniscience,  must  be responsible for human disobedience, and he  must  have willed it.   #  if god is omniscient, then it knew the exact actions that humans would take.   #  if god knew the only outcome its actions would produce creating the world and humans and then human disobedience it follows that it is responsible for what it willed into being.   #  i do not understand why you say free will is inherently incompatible with complete omniscience.  if god knew the only outcome its actions would produce creating the world and humans and then human disobedience it follows that it is responsible for what it willed into being.  how does it follow that god is responsible for the actions of the independent beings he created ? beings he purposefully gave the capability of responsibility ? i see another comment of yours saying that god is responsible causally, if not morally.  but as i argued, the only thing he is responsible for is the creation of independently responsible beings.  you could say that he created and controls the environment in which free will is expressed, since it is given that god is all powerful and utterly in control of everything, and thus he controls the actions made within that environment.  but we are called to obey regardless of environment: any stain of sin cannot be reconciled with the total perfection of god, regardless of how it got there.  and it is technically possible for us to suffer everything this life can throw at us and remain righteous, but none of us aside from yeshua, the son of god are strong enough to do that.  is that callous ? cruel ? perhaps.  but he did make it possible for us to be reconciled, did not he ? thus he is at once judge and pardoner.  so it is not as cruel as it might seem at first.  why does it have to be this way ? i do not know, but i am certain there is a reason probably one we ca not understand.  maybe it is that to god there is a need for both perfect judgement and perfect mercy.  penance must be paid, a sacrifice must be made, but there is nothing we can give that is good enough to save us.  so he offered his son instead.  perhaps this is a way to satisfy both aspects of the divine.  although he is certainly capable of controlling us, i think he purposefully does not, instead allowing us to choose between obedience and disobedience.  by allowing us this autonomy, a legitimate relationship between us and him is possible.  aside from that, if god is by definition perfectly lawful and good, i do not think he would hold us responsible for things we had no choice in.  i do not think he would do that, but he certainly could if he wanted to.  it would still be perfectly just, as he is the judge by which the definitions  good  and  evil  exist.  same with just totally wiping us out.  but i think that creation is morally good, and preserving life is also morally good.  instead of simply destroying us all, he has made us a way.   #  human decisions are not deterministic, we can choose  anything  as a result of our free will.   #  in a mystical concept of reality, both god and humans are magical beings.  human decisions are not deterministic, we can choose  anything  as a result of our free will.  you may believe that our past history and training, our biology, our inherited response patterns, evolutionary pressure, social pressure, and any other relevant factors will force us to make a specific decision.  but we transcend all of that because we are magical beings.  of course, you may not believe that, however, it does fit into the hypothetical situation which you have described.  the authors of the bible were telling us a parable to explain why the world is such a mess.  why is childbirth so painful, does this indicate the perversity or sadism of the creator ? how can we convince women to be always obedient to their husbands ? these, and other urgent questions are conveniently answered by the parable of the garden of eden and the original sin which happened there.  we cannot blame god for these things because god is much more powerful than we are, and he will punish us if we do not worship and obey him.  get it ?  #  so god might not have created us, thereby giving us free will ?  #  so god might not have created us, thereby giving us free will ? what ? free will does not mean you get whatever you want.  it is not freaking omnipotence.  free will is being able to make choices and attempt to fulfill them.  you wanting to fly is choice, and an exercise of free will.  being able to actually fly, however, is another matter entirely.   #  if so, then he would bear at least some responsibility for humans acquiring the  ability  to do evil.   # that raises some interesting questions though.  why give most humans the capability of understanding the difference between right and wrong, if they cannot do evil in ignorance ? which goes back to the story of the fall, and why god would have placed a tree in the middle of the garden of eden that could confer moral knowledge in the first place.  since adam and eve were ignorant, they could not have known that eating the fruit was  wrong , yet all humans with the moral sense that came after them are punished for having this ability.  i would think an omnipotent being could have stopped that from happening in the first place, right ? if so, then he would bear at least some responsibility for humans acquiring the  ability  to do evil.   #  if they ate from it it would bring about their death.   #  there is something in catholicism called culpability.  it has to do with how responsible you are for your actions.  being ignorant something is wrong or being forced into doing it and various other circumstances make you less culpable.  it does not remove the evil of the act but you are less responsible.  and adam and eve knew it was wrong actually.  god specifically told them not to eat from that tree.  literally any other one than that one.  if they ate from it it would bring about their death.  the tree was a test.  a test adam and eve ultimately failed that brought about death and sorrow for mankind.  god could have stopped it sure, but that would violate free will.  the devil that tempted adam and eve did not force them to eat the fruit.  they ultimately made the decision themselves.  we are not punished for having this ability, we are held responsible for our actions, good or bad.  you are punished for doing bad and rewarded for doing good.  and i guess you are right.  he is responsible for it, but he also created the universe and everything in it.  so he is responsible for everything in the end if you want to make that case
let me state first that pretty much everything has exceptions; nothing here is meant to apply to the seriously disabled, the very elderly in nursing homes, etc.  now that that is out of the way: people have a responsibility to be able to take care of themselves.  they should be able to cook, and clean, get around to different places, dress themselves, etc.  part of that is handling basic repairs around the house, and simple emergencies with parts of the house breaking.  it is irresponsible for an adult to be so inept as to need outside help to control the situation if, say, they get a cut on their arm.  they may need help to fix it, but they should be able to get it under control.  home problems should be the same; everyone should know, for instance, where their house water shutoff is; it is foolish for a house to flood for a half hour waiting for a plumber, when simply knowing where a valve is and how to turn it could save a lot of time and effort and money .  simple repairs are the same: you would feel foolish calling someone to help you cut your nails, because it is so simple and, if properly done, safe.  the same can be said of replacing a power outlet; done properly, it is perfectly safe, and simple.  every house should have tools to facilitate these actions.  a basic combination screwdriver, flashlight, hammer, adjustable wrench, pipe wrench, pliers, spare light bulb, pipe tape, and electrical tape should be considered nearly as crucial as toilet paper; no home is complete without them.  these skills should be taught in public school.  it would take no more than a month, one hour per day, to teach the basics of home repair and damage control to the vast majority of children let is assume this would take place in high school .  school is supposed to teach people the things they need to be responsible adults; surely home maintenance and repair qualifies.  heck, we could make it a whole semester and toss in some basic vehicle maintenance changing fuses and light bulbs, changing oil, rotating tires, changing a tire, etc.  again, this does not apply to everyone; i understand that, for instance, a blind person may not have the same use for a flashlight as the rest of us.  some people are not physically able to wield tools in a meaningful way.  also, i am not saying this should be a law.  i am saying  this should happen  in much the same way as  you should say please and thank you  or  you should keep tp in your house .  not as a law, but just that it is the right way to do things.   #  people have a responsibility to be able to take care of themselves.   #  to and extent, yes, but that is forgetting one of the greatest things about living in a society.   #  i would say these skills should not be taught in schools because of the way i understand and believe to be true the purpose of public education.  most people will say that school exists for the benefit of the children; so they can grow up and have the skills to survive in our society.  that is not the reality.  i should start out saying that i am not saying this is good or bad, or that we should keep or change it.  this is just the reality.  public education exists to benefit our society by creating a standard of knowledge that we can all be assumed to have, and to teach people things that they ordinarily would not learn.  in the course of our lives, there is not much of a reason to learn the political geography of europe, especially if you never plan on leaving your own country.  however, as a society we have decided that we should all know a least a bit of the geography.  in our normal lives we would never learn about world war ii, but we have decided that it was such a significant political event that we should all know a bit about it.  same with calculus, shakespeare, any local indigenous people, and how to write essays.  we learn this, not to prepare us for our lives, but to provide a level of common knowledge so that we can all communicate with each other effectively, understand and contextualise important information, and ultimately, progress as a civilisation.  we are not taught personal finances, how to do taxes, how to cook a healthy meal, take out insurance, drive a car, or use a power drill, because we can figure it out for ourselves if the situation presents itself.  furthermore, if everybody knew how to fix stiff and file tax returns, accountants and repairmen would go out of business, and that is not in society is greater interest at least, that is not what the governments see as in our interest, and i am inclined to agree .  to and extent, yes, but that is forgetting one of the greatest things about living in a society.  you do not need to take care of everything.  instead of doing your own botch job repair, you can get someone who has trained half their lives to do it to a high quality.  you do not need to farm your own beef; people do that for you.  you do not need to maintain your own streets, people do that for you.  the whole point to living in a society is that you can leave the more complicated jobs to the specialists, while specialising in a field of your own.  if everybody was busy growing herbs, fixing their sinks, paving streets, driving their garbage to the dump, and doing their personal accounting, then they would not have time to discover penicillin, build biotic limbs and faff about on reddit.   #  you know how dumb the average guy on the street is ?  #  replacing a power outlet is  not  safe, when done by someone in their new home for the first time ever in their life after having learned about it 0 years ago in a high school class that they barely paid attention to.  i ca not even count on all my digits the number of ways that power outlets are stupidly and dangerously wired in houses, both by half assed amateurs that thought they knew what they were doing, but even by  professionals .  teaching them that it is is just grossly irresponsible.  many people are not merely ignorant of the proper procedure, they are  stupid  as well.  you know the secret of power ? you know how dumb the average guy on the street is ? statistically speaking half of them are stupider than that.  you might think that a power outlet is just one obscure example that does not invalidate the basic idea, but most of the systems you mentioned are dangerous if you do not actually understand not just the basic principles, but most of the ways in which they can go wrong.  there is really no need for every person to have to know everything.  specialization is one of the great advances humans have made over other species.  we each learn to do something as well as we are able, rather than everyone learning to do something half assed.   #  i agree that we do not need every person to know everything.   #  i agree that we do not need every person to know everything.  i am not proposing that we teach open heart surgery, and jet engine maintenance, and how to run a freight train.  i am proposing that we teach people how to connect something that has in every outlet i have ever wired, so a few dozen , at most, five wires ground, two for line, two for downstream load on, for example, a gfci .  i never said it was safe if done by someone who did not pay attention in class ten years ago; i said it was safe if done properly.  i do not know many people that can do anything right after not paying attention to a lesson on how to do it ten years ago.  but having been taught the basics, and having done it while supervised, will empower people and give them the background necessary to do it properly again, with such backups as can come from any of a half dozen sources not least of them internet tutorials .   #  i worry that it may be too broad a topic even if restricted like that.   #  as long as you stay away from the active systems that can damage the property and hurt people if you mess with them wrong, i do not have any particular objection to that idea, either.  i worry that it may be too broad a topic even if restricted like that.  i mean, teaching people to touch up paint or even repaint a room is fine, but how about patching dry wall and plaster ? install a door ? patch a carpet ? refinish a floor ? fix a bannister ? repair a loose deck board ? i could do on like this for an hour.  just working with wood at a basic level used to take up an entire semester hour when they taught wood shop, and that is just a start on diy skills.  it seems to me that you are only going to be able to scratch the surface of what people might want to do themselves in a house, and that they will end up having to just go look up whatever they want to do anyway, and probably wo not have practiced that particular thing or anything especially close to it.  i guess where i am going with this is that diy is a hugely broad field.  it is either going to take up way too much class time or not have enough coverage to actually be useful at what you are hoping it will accomplish.   #  a large number of power outlets have other circuits wired in their boxes, very often on a different breaker e. g.   # a large number of power outlets have other circuits wired in their boxes, very often on a different breaker e. g.  it is extremely common to run both hots through a box in a 0 system, and use different hots on alternating outlets along a wall .  on double outlets, it is common to wire half of them to red and half to black as well, which is easy for an amateur to not  get .  switched outlets are particularly insidious, because intuitively it seems like if you turn off the switch you are safe and if you measure it with a meter, you will indeed see no voltage on the outlet , but it is stupidly common to wire the neutral to the switch rather than the hot wire.  and on some older houses with unusual breakers and/or switched fuses, i have even seen someone switch the neutral for a circuit at the  breaker .  argh.  in both instances, it is also fairly common to screw up and use the wrong color wires, which confuses people a lot.  an electrician knows how to measure/deal with these cases safely, because they have seen them a hundred times, and indeed probably have wired things that way themselves a bunch of times, and understand what they were doing and why.
before i begin i want to be clear that i am referring to a love that you actually feel.  like your stomach knotting up or anything like that.  not just a love you have for family or friends, but a physical feeling that many call love.  usually happens between two significant others so before humans were conscious there were other animals, some being very similar to humans today.  these animals ca not just be programmed to have sex with another, they have to want it.  being an animal, they may have had some emotions help guide them like love.  it felt something that made it want to do something.  i see many people today say that they love another because they can just feel it, or it is just right.  but we are just humans still being guided by many emotions, such as love and we need to recognize this so we can progress as a whole.  i think too many people feel love and just go with it before thinking if it is the best choice for their life.  we are taught that love is good and something we  find .  but i believe it is just an old emotion passed down evolution to help keep animals reproducing.  cmv  #  these animals ca not just be programmed to have sex with another, they have to want it.   #  being an animal, they may have had some emotions help guide them like love.   # being an animal, they may have had some emotions help guide them like love.  it felt something that made it want to do something.  are you trying to argue that plants have emotions and love each other because they sexually reproduce ? what about when mallards attempt to rape females in order to reproduce; is duck rape an expression of love ? i hope you never find out about the mating habits of the praying mantis.  very few animals actually have lasting monogamous relationships.   #  humans and animals have the urge for sex based on physical qualities alone.   # love does not aid in reproduction; it aids in pair bonding.  humans and animals have the urge for sex based on physical qualities alone.  we may lose that urge after getting to know a terrible person, but that is only our conscious mind repressing our primal urge.  the emotions shared between humans serves the purpose of keeping parents together to raise a child.  human children need a lot of care and do not become independent for quite a while.  you will notice that most animals that do not need to be raised by parents use the  hit it and quit it  hehe mating strategy.   #  humans are one of few species that arguably practice monogomy, and you can see evidence of this through some things.   #  human coupling rituals predate emotions like  love , and are distinct from other species.  humans are one of few species that arguably practice monogomy, and you can see evidence of this through some things.  for example, the baculum, or penile bone URL is found in most mammals, but is reduced in apes and completely absent in humans.  it allows the male to have longer, continued relations with the female.  humans instead rely on continued relations with one partner over a long period of time, to ensure reproduction.  so while it may have evolved in humans as a  this is my mate, he/she will give me offspring , anatomical indicates that that is not the case for other animals.   #  but is it really necessary to move on ?  #  i think you will find that you are really not alone in recognising any of these things.  but is it really necessary to move on ? you seem to be suggesting that love is not an end in itself.  i am not saying it is for me or that it should be floor anyone, but as you say we are  amore than just animals .  if someone chooses love, then it is no more stupid than anything else, really.  why should it be any more important than i move for that job than that i stay here and fall in love with her ? oh, and do you have siblings ? cousins ?  #  i do not even know what i would be as a person if it was not for all the love and heartbreak.   #  love is useful for social creatures.  it has biological significance.  but that does not mean we should treat it like other biological imperatives or be overly cautious about it.  getting lost and making irrational choices based on love are often the most rewarding and incredible experiences in life.  my life would be a big fat pile of shit if it was not for the times i lost my mind falling in love.  i do not even know what i would be as a person if it was not for all the love and heartbreak.  that whole struggle was so real, even though it was  just  some biology bullshit, it was still the best and worst feelings ever.  love is my highest rated human experience so far.  it can often be too powerful to expect people to act rationally and objectively when they experience it.  and in those times when it is so powerful that people make massively terrible decisions, you know it is the good shit and they are some lucky people to be experiencing it first hand.
i believe this falls under reductionism and naturalism and determinism, but i might be wrong about those classifications.  the consciousness is fully reducible to physical matter, and the evidence for this is overwhelming.  damaging specific parts of the brain affects consciousness is very predictable ways.  we know what parts of the brain do what and we know which neurotransmitters and hormones do what.  if we knew everything about every part of a car and its environment, we could predict whether it would accelerate, decelerate or remain at constant speed, or turn.  if you made an identical copy of me and put us both in a sensory deprivation chamber, we would act in the exact same way.  disregard quantum randomness.  cmv !  #  the consciousness is fully reducible to physical matter, and the evidence for this is overwhelming.   #  damaging specific parts of the brain affects consciousness is very predictable ways.   # damaging specific parts of the brain affects consciousness is very predictable ways.  we know what parts of the brain do what and we know which neurotransmitters and hormones do what.  that is true,  to the best of our knowledge .  you are, yourself, admitting that we do not know everything there is to know.  from there, you can either suppose that what remains to be discovered will align with our current knowledge, in which case you would be right,  or  that it will throw us off track, meaning your supposition is wrong.  either way, saying  if we knew everything about the state of a person is brain and controlled the sensory input perfectly, we would be able to predict the person is actions perfectly  is an assumption, not something you can know for certain.  besides, predicting actions  perfectly  would be extremely difficult at best, except maybe in a lab, and would require large amounts of equipment; falsifying your data.   #  if you want to consider predicting the aggregate result of many events, you are  still  unable to make a perfect prediction.   #  we are getting a little off topic.  the point i am illustrating is that you  cannot  claim a probability as a  perfect  prediction for a given outcome.  there is no way to discern probability from a single event.  if you want to consider predicting the aggregate result of many events, you are  still  unable to make a perfect prediction.  at best, the events will converge toward your prediction but wo not necessarily match it  exactly .  over 0,0 coin flips, the results will be something like 0/0 and not exactly 0/0.   #  if you extend a prediction out 0,0,0 years why could not you ?  #  saying that we can predict people with some degree of certainty is not very debatable.  i suspect the op was trying to imply the world is deterministic and we have no free will because everything we do is a direct result of biology and physics.  i agree that we cannot make decisions independent of our biology, but to say you can essentially predict the future is wrong.  the further out you predict, the more likely the actions of an individual will diverge from your prediction.  if you extend a prediction out 0,0,0 years why could not you ? i suspect it will be inaccurate.   #  if it is possible to have absolute knowledge and control over the brain you would be essentially  forcing  those reactions to happen, they are not being predicted at that point.   #  the biggest objection is whether or not it is even possible to know everything about a brain  and  control all inputs perfectly.  those are both absolutes that may not be possible for humans.  but let is just grant you that it  is  possible and move on.  if it is possible to have absolute knowledge and control over the brain you would be essentially  forcing  those reactions to happen, they are not being predicted at that point.  basically controlling all inputs  and  having absolute knowledge of a brains reactions to those inputs would give you full control of the brain, so it is reactions would not be  predicted , they would be induced intentionally.  i am not sure if this changes your view or reinforces it.  but i think the arguments that involve free will usually allow the brain to control at least  some  of it is own inputs.  or at least embarce some and shun other inputs through world views, self reflection, writing, creation, creativity, language, meditation, etc.  if you controlled  all  the inputs you have ruined the experiment and  forced  determinism upon the brain.  instead of proving that all brains  are  deterministic you simply prove that they  can  be turned into a deterministic computers  if  you control all inputs.   #  you cannot predict what he will choose even though you know everything about him.   #  suppose you could know what a state of a person is.  the person has to choose either chocolate or vanilla ice cream.  you calculate which one the person will choose and determine that the person will flip a coin to determine what to choose.  you cannot predict what he will choose even though you know everything about him.  you ca not even say what the odds are without guessing because you do not know if the coin has a bias or the environment it is being used in.
i am a 0 year old male and attend college in the midwest.  this past weekend i was at the music festival in chicago called lollapoloza.  i tend to dress in comfortable clothing.  cargo shorts for festivals and a t shirt that is plain colored, nothing too fancy.  while around campus and at the festival, i have noticed a trend with teens and younger adults in how they dress.  many especially at festivals wear rather provocative clothing in my opinion.  this URL is an example of what i feel would be more than appropriate to wear at a festival.  unfortunately at times i feel people dress like this URL instead.  part of my concern stems from the fact that i have a 0 year old sister.  i obviously do not want her to grow up too fast but would hope she has a better fashion sense.  i question how appropriate the items of clothing people wear to the festival is.  so my questions are as follows: 0.  what example is this for other teens ? 0.  should girls be expected to wear bikini tops and bra is in public ? 0.  am i out of line here ? do i just not get female fashion ?  gt;  hello, users of cmv ! this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  what example is this for other teens ?  #  that we live in a society that does not control what women wear to music festivals.   # that we live in a society that does not control what women wear to music festivals.  why is the word  expected  here ? surely you do not think this is an either/ or situation.  there is nothing wrong with wearing bikinis at public beaches.  and music festivals strike me as being closer to a beach than to the office.  do i just not get female fashion ? i do not think you are out of line you are free to have whatever opinions you want about women is fashion.  but i do not see why music festivals should require people to dress a certain way.  music festivals, at least in my experience, are all pretty much about free expression.  you can wear what you want, you can dance how you want, you can enjoy the bands you want to enjoy.  not only that, but many of them happen in the summer when it is hot.  i know it was hot as heck when i went to bonnaroo, and i could not fault any women for wearing bikinis and such.  if you get to dress comfortably, why do not women ? also, how do you feel about the men who attend music festivals shirtless ? there is always a myriad of those dudes around.  in short i see no reason why we should treat music festivals more like every day life and less like the beach or a club.  and clearly these women do not either.  they are taking this opportunity to dress provocatively and feel sexy or just be comfortable in the heat and they are running with it.  it is not hurting anyone.   #  this is a packed event with people of all ages.   #  ok, i am a 0y. o.  female who is smaller sized relevant in a moment .  i do not find this appropriate wear for the center of a city.  you do not see men in speedos running around.  as for the occasional guy who is in shorts and no shirt, his shorts are almost always to the knees.  if he was in booty shorts and no shirt, i would feel uncomfortable with his level of exposure.  second, the women in the pictures were all of smaller sizes.  how many of you would be 0 comfortable with a morbidly obese woman in a triangle bikini and booty shorts ? third, consider the location.  this is a packed event with people of all ages.  you are jumping on a crowd, accidentally bump into a girl, now you are a creep haha sorry for the snowball fallacy, i am just going for an extreme .  there are also children, who are quite short and often located at adults  waist or crotch height.  bumping into semi nude ladies is not something i want my imaginary daughter doing.  on top of that, i would not want to touch others  skin, especially if they have been sweating at a music festival, and that is not always avoidable.   #  i live in seattle and there is plenty of festivals pride parade, fremont naked bike race, etc.   # you do not see men in speedos running around.  it really depends on the event.  i live in seattle and there is plenty of festivals pride parade, fremont naked bike race, etc.  where both guys and chicks dress scantily clad or even naked.  it is known and expected at these events so no one freaks out.  you are really not making a point other than  i think semi nude people are gross .   #  there is literally no reason why a woman ca not wear whatever she wants at a festival.   #  what is the difference between wearing a bikini to the beach and wearing it to a festival ? there is no pressure to represent anyone or look professional at the festival, same as at the beach.  these women will be warm and moving around a lot at the festival, like the beach.  there is literally no reason why a woman ca not wear whatever she wants at a festival.  what is  appropriate  is not dependant on your being protective of your sister.  if you think the festival is inappropriate for your sister because of the clothes the women wear, you have two options: do not let her go, or teach her about what clothing is appropriate for what occasion.  limiting the behaviour of other women just so you feel better is not appropriate or reasonable.  women and men do not base their outfits on  being a good impression for teenagers , they base it on comfort and fashion and activity.  it seems insulting that you do not think your sister can figure out appropriate dress sense like everyone else does.  why do you think that she will suddenly decide to wear festival outfits out in the street on a normal day ? if this concerns you, it is up to you to teach her otherwise.   #  it is off madison ave, which has many businesses that have a formal focus.   #  i would agree with you if the festival is in a meadow somewhere, but this is in the middle of chicago.  it is off madison ave, which has many businesses that have a formal focus.  if a place like mcdonald is can have a  no shirt, no shoes, no service  policy, why should not a neighborhood where families go to shop and stroll have the same standard ? when you are at the beach, you are understanding that there will be swimsuits.  that is like expecting nudity at an orgy.  you would not be expecting nudity at your buddy is family birthday party or family friendly music event .
i am a 0 year old male and attend college in the midwest.  this past weekend i was at the music festival in chicago called lollapoloza.  i tend to dress in comfortable clothing.  cargo shorts for festivals and a t shirt that is plain colored, nothing too fancy.  while around campus and at the festival, i have noticed a trend with teens and younger adults in how they dress.  many especially at festivals wear rather provocative clothing in my opinion.  this URL is an example of what i feel would be more than appropriate to wear at a festival.  unfortunately at times i feel people dress like this URL instead.  part of my concern stems from the fact that i have a 0 year old sister.  i obviously do not want her to grow up too fast but would hope she has a better fashion sense.  i question how appropriate the items of clothing people wear to the festival is.  so my questions are as follows: 0.  what example is this for other teens ? 0.  should girls be expected to wear bikini tops and bra is in public ? 0.  am i out of line here ? do i just not get female fashion ?  gt;  hello, users of cmv ! this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  what example is this for other teens ?  #  it sets the example that music festivals are a safe place to wear whatever you want.   #  music festivals are a time for people to have fun while listening to music.  policing the clothing choice of one gender for festivals seems like the wrong thing to do.  it is a festival.  if you are worried about your sister, i would probably be more worried about drug use going on at a festival than how people are dressed.  it sets the example that music festivals are a safe place to wear whatever you want.  women and girls should be allowed to make their own clothing choices without people whining about it being too revealing.  i think so, since you are targeting the fashion choices of one gender.  why are not you complaining about guys not wearing shirts ? that is revealing clothing that might make others uncomfortable, and it can be seen in the background of the festival picture that you posted.   #  how many of you would be 0 comfortable with a morbidly obese woman in a triangle bikini and booty shorts ?  #  ok, i am a 0y. o.  female who is smaller sized relevant in a moment .  i do not find this appropriate wear for the center of a city.  you do not see men in speedos running around.  as for the occasional guy who is in shorts and no shirt, his shorts are almost always to the knees.  if he was in booty shorts and no shirt, i would feel uncomfortable with his level of exposure.  second, the women in the pictures were all of smaller sizes.  how many of you would be 0 comfortable with a morbidly obese woman in a triangle bikini and booty shorts ? third, consider the location.  this is a packed event with people of all ages.  you are jumping on a crowd, accidentally bump into a girl, now you are a creep haha sorry for the snowball fallacy, i am just going for an extreme .  there are also children, who are quite short and often located at adults  waist or crotch height.  bumping into semi nude ladies is not something i want my imaginary daughter doing.  on top of that, i would not want to touch others  skin, especially if they have been sweating at a music festival, and that is not always avoidable.   #  i live in seattle and there is plenty of festivals pride parade, fremont naked bike race, etc.   # you do not see men in speedos running around.  it really depends on the event.  i live in seattle and there is plenty of festivals pride parade, fremont naked bike race, etc.  where both guys and chicks dress scantily clad or even naked.  it is known and expected at these events so no one freaks out.  you are really not making a point other than  i think semi nude people are gross .   #  why do you think that she will suddenly decide to wear festival outfits out in the street on a normal day ?  #  what is the difference between wearing a bikini to the beach and wearing it to a festival ? there is no pressure to represent anyone or look professional at the festival, same as at the beach.  these women will be warm and moving around a lot at the festival, like the beach.  there is literally no reason why a woman ca not wear whatever she wants at a festival.  what is  appropriate  is not dependant on your being protective of your sister.  if you think the festival is inappropriate for your sister because of the clothes the women wear, you have two options: do not let her go, or teach her about what clothing is appropriate for what occasion.  limiting the behaviour of other women just so you feel better is not appropriate or reasonable.  women and men do not base their outfits on  being a good impression for teenagers , they base it on comfort and fashion and activity.  it seems insulting that you do not think your sister can figure out appropriate dress sense like everyone else does.  why do you think that she will suddenly decide to wear festival outfits out in the street on a normal day ? if this concerns you, it is up to you to teach her otherwise.   #  it is off madison ave, which has many businesses that have a formal focus.   #  i would agree with you if the festival is in a meadow somewhere, but this is in the middle of chicago.  it is off madison ave, which has many businesses that have a formal focus.  if a place like mcdonald is can have a  no shirt, no shoes, no service  policy, why should not a neighborhood where families go to shop and stroll have the same standard ? when you are at the beach, you are understanding that there will be swimsuits.  that is like expecting nudity at an orgy.  you would not be expecting nudity at your buddy is family birthday party or family friendly music event .
i am a 0 year old male and attend college in the midwest.  this past weekend i was at the music festival in chicago called lollapoloza.  i tend to dress in comfortable clothing.  cargo shorts for festivals and a t shirt that is plain colored, nothing too fancy.  while around campus and at the festival, i have noticed a trend with teens and younger adults in how they dress.  many especially at festivals wear rather provocative clothing in my opinion.  this URL is an example of what i feel would be more than appropriate to wear at a festival.  unfortunately at times i feel people dress like this URL instead.  part of my concern stems from the fact that i have a 0 year old sister.  i obviously do not want her to grow up too fast but would hope she has a better fashion sense.  i question how appropriate the items of clothing people wear to the festival is.  so my questions are as follows: 0.  what example is this for other teens ? 0.  should girls be expected to wear bikini tops and bra is in public ? 0.  am i out of line here ? do i just not get female fashion ?  gt;  hello, users of cmv ! this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  should girls be expected to wear bikini tops and bra is in public ?  #  women and girls should be allowed to make their own clothing choices without people whining about it being too revealing.   #  music festivals are a time for people to have fun while listening to music.  policing the clothing choice of one gender for festivals seems like the wrong thing to do.  it is a festival.  if you are worried about your sister, i would probably be more worried about drug use going on at a festival than how people are dressed.  it sets the example that music festivals are a safe place to wear whatever you want.  women and girls should be allowed to make their own clothing choices without people whining about it being too revealing.  i think so, since you are targeting the fashion choices of one gender.  why are not you complaining about guys not wearing shirts ? that is revealing clothing that might make others uncomfortable, and it can be seen in the background of the festival picture that you posted.   #  how many of you would be 0 comfortable with a morbidly obese woman in a triangle bikini and booty shorts ?  #  ok, i am a 0y. o.  female who is smaller sized relevant in a moment .  i do not find this appropriate wear for the center of a city.  you do not see men in speedos running around.  as for the occasional guy who is in shorts and no shirt, his shorts are almost always to the knees.  if he was in booty shorts and no shirt, i would feel uncomfortable with his level of exposure.  second, the women in the pictures were all of smaller sizes.  how many of you would be 0 comfortable with a morbidly obese woman in a triangle bikini and booty shorts ? third, consider the location.  this is a packed event with people of all ages.  you are jumping on a crowd, accidentally bump into a girl, now you are a creep haha sorry for the snowball fallacy, i am just going for an extreme .  there are also children, who are quite short and often located at adults  waist or crotch height.  bumping into semi nude ladies is not something i want my imaginary daughter doing.  on top of that, i would not want to touch others  skin, especially if they have been sweating at a music festival, and that is not always avoidable.   #  i live in seattle and there is plenty of festivals pride parade, fremont naked bike race, etc.   # you do not see men in speedos running around.  it really depends on the event.  i live in seattle and there is plenty of festivals pride parade, fremont naked bike race, etc.  where both guys and chicks dress scantily clad or even naked.  it is known and expected at these events so no one freaks out.  you are really not making a point other than  i think semi nude people are gross .   #  why do you think that she will suddenly decide to wear festival outfits out in the street on a normal day ?  #  what is the difference between wearing a bikini to the beach and wearing it to a festival ? there is no pressure to represent anyone or look professional at the festival, same as at the beach.  these women will be warm and moving around a lot at the festival, like the beach.  there is literally no reason why a woman ca not wear whatever she wants at a festival.  what is  appropriate  is not dependant on your being protective of your sister.  if you think the festival is inappropriate for your sister because of the clothes the women wear, you have two options: do not let her go, or teach her about what clothing is appropriate for what occasion.  limiting the behaviour of other women just so you feel better is not appropriate or reasonable.  women and men do not base their outfits on  being a good impression for teenagers , they base it on comfort and fashion and activity.  it seems insulting that you do not think your sister can figure out appropriate dress sense like everyone else does.  why do you think that she will suddenly decide to wear festival outfits out in the street on a normal day ? if this concerns you, it is up to you to teach her otherwise.   #  when you are at the beach, you are understanding that there will be swimsuits.   #  i would agree with you if the festival is in a meadow somewhere, but this is in the middle of chicago.  it is off madison ave, which has many businesses that have a formal focus.  if a place like mcdonald is can have a  no shirt, no shoes, no service  policy, why should not a neighborhood where families go to shop and stroll have the same standard ? when you are at the beach, you are understanding that there will be swimsuits.  that is like expecting nudity at an orgy.  you would not be expecting nudity at your buddy is family birthday party or family friendly music event .
i think that sports in general are a tremendous waste of time, energy and money and that they are a distraction from the things in our society that truly need our attention.  i think far too much effort, manpower and resources, both mental and physical are poured into meaningless feats of strength.  these resources could be used to truly change our society for the better.  the entertainment and camaraderie are a benefit of sports, but i believe that could be achieved on a smaller scale, freeing up massive resources which could be used for the true betterment of mankind.  change my view please !  #  i think that sports in general are a tremendous waste of time, energy and money and that they are a distraction from the things in our society that truly need our attention.   #  you are flawed in assuming that people involved in sports would be otherwise useful in society.   # you are flawed in assuming that people involved in sports would be otherwise useful in society.  this is along the lines of  why are scientists studying acne and erectile dysfunction, but not cancer ?   time and energy are not universally interchangeable between all pursuits.  a guy who plays football is not going to become the guy who cures cancer.  if he wanted to cure cancer, he would have done that in the first place.  furthermore, more money does not necessarily equal results.  if people did not spend money on sports games, they may spend it on other forms of entertainment instead.  there is also scientific knowledge to be gained from sports.  they have a vested interest in muscle development, treatment of injuries, speeding recovery time, effective exercise regimen, etc.  sports allows us to test and discover the limits of the human body.   #  massive amounts of funding go into any of these forms of entertainment and sports have had effects on entire nations and historic events.   #  sports are an art, are able to educate, enlighten, and enrich a person is mind.  this the problem you are not able to realize.  i personally like combat sports.  i think it is amazing, beautiful, and have learned so much from it.  if you are fine with paying movies, music and other forms of entertainment you should be fine with paying sports because they are very similar.  massive amounts of funding go into any of these forms of entertainment and sports have had effects on entire nations and historic events.  e. g.  russia vs u. s. a in hockey.  also take into account the effect that sports had on segregation in america.  do i think that we may overpay all forms of entertainment sure, but that is a different topic.  sports are no less deserving of money than any other form of entertainment.   #  URL americans only spend 0 billion a year on sports, a trivial amount of money compared to the 0 trillion spent shopping.   #  URL a change in jobs to less active ones can explain most of the rise in obesity.  0 calories a day difference is big.  URL americans only spend 0 billion a year on sports, a trivial amount of money compared to the 0 trillion spent shopping.  maybe if sports were more popular less americans would be obese.  on desegregation, jackie robinson was able to use the platform of sports, more open to black people than most jobs because physical strength and skill, not college degrees, were the main requirement, to speak out against racism and encourage integration.  it serves as a public platform for the masses to protest against abuse.   #  this was done by the integration of blacks in sports teams.   #  i added links so you can see more, not sure when you looked at them.  what is the correlation there ? no correlation.  people who play sports are the least likely to be obese.  purposefully ? how ? in what way ? tangibly yes.  it showed that a bi racial sports team had commradarie and that blacks were just as good and could be better than whites.  this was done by the integration of blacks in sports teams.  jackie robinson is one of the best examples.  that is not exclusive to sports, although, in my original post i did say that the camaraderie is a benefit to sports.  brings communities together new orleans see above.  other things like what ? i cant think of a single example that can bring together a community in a positive way that compares to the examples i listed.  i ca not think of many role models.  i can think of a lot of felons, rapists, self important blowhards.  i am sure the examples of behavior run the gamut from thugs to saints, just like normal society, but why ca not children find role models from a deeper pool ? they absolutely do run the normal range of human behaviors, but for the most part athletes tend to show hard work, dedication, and are also much more visible than other role models.   #  i ca not think of many role models.  i can think of a lot of felons, rapists, self important blowhards.   # i ca not think of many role models.  i can think of a lot of felons, rapists, self important blowhards.  i am sure the examples of behavior run the gamut from thugs to saints, just like normal society, but why ca not children find role models from a deeper pool ? albert pujols URL roberto clemente URL while i agree that there are a lot of felons, rapists or self important blowhards in professional sports, neither of these guys fit the mold in my opinion.  yes i realize this is a small sample size, however there are many more charitable athletes that could be named.  both of these men were / are paid exceptionally well through playing baseball, and they are using the money they receive d for the betterment of society . how are they not role models ? on a separate point, the drive, dedication, sacrifices and focus towards perfecting one is craft well enough to play professionally is equally admirable.  professional athletes come from all over the world and from all walks of life.  where do you suggest that a deeper pool exists ?
it really grinds my gears when i have to wait to use the toilet when it is clear that there are perfectly good toilets for the other gender unoccupied.  i am a guy, and this must be an even bigger issue for the ladies.  it does not bother me in the slightest if the last person to relieve themselves at a toilet was a man or a woman in my own home.  why should i care who it was if i am in an office or a restaurant or a library ? surely these drives up costs, as well as prices, as well as waiting times.  and even more so, why should i care in government run public facilities ? i believe that, if anything, treating men and women as separate but equal in tangible, everyday way including toilets may even have a corrosive effect on gender equality.  on the rare occasions that unisex toilets are available, i fail to see how have had any negative impact on my life.  i genuinely do not understand why they should be kept separate, and assume it is simply an anachronism.  are there any reasons to keep them divided according to gender ?  #  i am a guy, and this must be an even bigger issue for the ladies.   #  i am going to twist this phrase and say yes, this would be a huge issue for the ladies, as the ladies are taught that men are all creepy, dangerous perverts.   # i am going to twist this phrase and say yes, this would be a huge issue for the ladies, as the ladies are taught that men are all creepy, dangerous perverts.  it is only a novelty when a girl gatecrashes the men is room  look at the balls on this chick !   but if a man did that in the women is room he would get arrested.  creepy.  dangerous.  pervert.  now, this is different if you are talking about those holy grails of bathrooms the single private rooms with a locking door but the second you get two stalls in the same room, you are just asking for trouble.  also girls break the most sacred rule of bathrooms:  pretend nobody else is in there.   you do not look down, you do not talk to each other, you do not make eye contact.  it would be a disaster.   #  i think it depends a lot on the context of the facilities.   #  i think it depends a lot on the context of the facilities.  so there are some public rest rooms where there is a single toilet and sink/mirror behind a locking door.  in that kind of situation who cares who goes in man or woman.  however there are also restrooms with toilet stalls / urinals and communal sinks/mirrors.  in this situation there are times when it is good to have genered rooms.  just for the simple going to the bathroom situation i agree it is not needed but i think everyone has had the experience of spilling something on themselves and standing shirtless or in boxers at a sink in a bathroom cleaning up.  bathrooms can be something of a refuge to allow changing or other private functions you ca not do in public.   #  i went to the bathroom and washed my bra and my skirt in the sink.   #  oh, reminds me of two things of my university experience.  0.  i was at a party inside the university building where i danced shirtless but with a bra.  somebody spilled a drink all over me on purpose, they practically had to throw it, as i was standing on a table and they were not .  i went to the bathroom and washed my bra and my skirt in the sink.  0.  in winter i often wear a pantyhose, and i take it for for the dancing meet ups in university which happen in the middle of the hallway.  i often changed there on the same spot.  so yes, although i am pretty much pro unisex bathrooms, sometimes that might be awkward.  but an university is maybe not the most representative setting.   #  i have had women ask me for a tampon or pad.   #  bathrooms are not only used for going to the bathroom.  especially at restaurants, women is restrooms are used for retouching makeup and hair and such.  i think, in general, women feel more comfortable doing those things privately around other women and not men, or else they would just use a mirror hanging on a wall at a restaurant.  i do not think it is a  necessity  to have separate bathrooms, but i think many people just appreciate it for reasons like that.  i know if i spill something, i can go in the bathroom, take off my shirt, and dry it in the hand dryer.  i have probably seen a dozen women in my life crying in a bathroom being consoled by a friend or family member.  i have had women ask me for a tampon or pad.  also, for some people, pooping in public is uncomfortable enough, but doing it next to a member of the opposite sex might be even more uncomfortable.  i think a lot of women know the societal expectation that women be fairly feminine not ripping ass.  as i said, those things are not a necessity, but i think there are a lot of people who just appreciate the extra privacy.  there are not many reasons not to do it.   #  i understand the need for privacy we all need privacy sometimes, but most of the time when you go into the toilet you go in there to go to the toilet.   #  again, the societal expectation is framed by the norms that we come from.  women are not delicate little flowers that do not rip ass good luck to them for this.  realising that women fart too when they sit down to shit might do gender relations some good ! i understand the need for privacy we all need privacy sometimes, but most of the time when you go into the toilet you go in there to go to the toilet.  girls needing to touch up make up can now just decide not to touch up their make up and look more naturally beautiful.  or they can decide that  fuck it, i will do it even if someone else is in the room .  both work for me.  sticking in unnecessary rules for queuing inevitably introduces waste, and this means longer queues on average.  there are other good things and bad things about the imposition of gender defined bathrooms perpetuating gender stereotypes, a chance for privacy but i have yet to have anyone convince me that the extra time queuing is worth it.
just about the only  irrational  belief i have carried with me into my adult life is that i have lived at least one lifetime before that which i am currently experiencing.  the main source of this belief is my persistent and inexplicable emotional reaction to household objects, artworks, historical photographs etc.  from the late 0s to the early 0s ending about five years before i was  born  .  whenever i enter a home or used goods store containing a large quantity of objects from any or all of those decades / years i feel a profound and discomforting sense of loss, of which i have never felt in any other situation.  i have never lost a loved one, but when i find myself in those kinds of places i always get an odd sense of familiarity like walking the halls of your school as an adult coupled with the feeling that someone or something very dear to me has been taken away.  i have come to the conclusion that in some strange way i am mourning my  iself  along with those i may have left behind.  this does not tend to happen in places filled with objects of a noticeably older time period, like museums.  for those who would call my belief in reincarnation wishful thinking if death is not an end, but a new beginning, well is not that a nice thought ? let me say that on a basic emotional level this is not a very good feeling that i get, and i kind of wish it did not happen.  nevertheless for obvious reasons it still fascinates me.  in broad terms, what is the most logical argument against the idea of reincarnation that you have heard or can come up with yourself ?  #  in broad terms, what is the most logical argument against the idea of reincarnation that you have heard or can come up with yourself ?  #  in the broadest terms: the brain is a pattern matcher.   # in the broadest terms: the brain is a pattern matcher.  it is why we give meaning, when we should not, to coincidences and all manner of superstitions just go through this wiki list of cognitive biases ! URL the brain sees what it wants to see, and believes what it wants to believe in order  to preserve what it already believes .  why preserve self deceptions ? for the same reason we have the will to survive to preserve our identity.  your beliefs  are  your identity; and safeguarding the possession of identity is more important on an animal level , than the illusion or reality of your beliefs.  our beliefs are real and true to us ! and humans do all manner of things to safeguard their identity.  the human brain has the power to find patterns of similarity, and thus connections and thus meaning between  any two things .  any two things at all, no matter how random or different the form of those things.  this pattern matching power is an automatic brain function, and it is results are suggested to us from the subconscious.  it is up to our  conscious  mind to evaluate, keep or reject those connections, and this takes mental effort; you have to ask yourself questions such as  but what are the  differences  ? what methods and procedures should i use to know whether something is true or false ? what does an emotion or gut feeling provide evidence of ?  #  there is no real substantial evidence for it other than your feeling, and if that is good enough for you i very much doubt any number of comments is going to really change your mind.   #  i do not know if this is a view that can be changed.  i mean, i would argue that what you have decided to call your feeling does not necessarily matter, as cold as that sounds.  when i crane my neck up and look at something big i get a vaguely  spiritual  feeling.  that is not evidence of a higher power, it is evidence i get a feeling.  if i wanted to i could call it god, or a million other things.  there is nothing substantial, nothing physical to tie the two together.  from your post, i would assume that these musty things probably have the connotations you feel the loss, the melancholy because that is a very common reaction, and it is comforting to call it reincarnation instead of just being that you get depressed when you look at the discarded belongings of the dead.  the reason it does not happen at museums is that there is a more noticeable disconnect; the belongings do not really feel like they belonged to anyone, versus the items that are more noticeably connected to the recently deceased and that you are more likely to connect with the recently deceased.  as you were growing up the people dying around you would have had belongings largely from that time period, and so you associated their things with death.  newer things belong to people still largely alive, older things belonged to people who had already died or the belongings had time to be discarded before their owners death.  as for you not wanting this, the reaction might not be comforting, but the idea that it comes about because of reincarnation likely is, even if it is in a roundabout way.  it might  feel  worse immediately or at key points, but it likely provides a level of comfort and safety at other times, like when you think about your future or when you would normally be consumed with thoughts about the people who must have owned these objects.  that said, neither i nor anyone else can disprove the idea of reincarnation.  the typical response is that we also ca not disprove a teapot floating in space, the flying spaghetti monster, or unicorns; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence versus the burden of proof.  there is no real substantial evidence for it other than your feeling, and if that is good enough for you i very much doubt any number of comments is going to really change your mind.   #  back to the museum thing, it is not just their location necessarily, although that is part of it, but because it is so unlikely that you would have ever seen something like that in your day to day life.   #  not exactly, it is just that it ca not be studied at all.  we do not even have a handle on consciousness so there is no concrete way to study this.  it is simply not provable.  i am sure there have been  studies,  but.  they are kind of impotent.  how do you study that ? how do you prove that you have been reincarnated ? even if you have knowledge you should not have, it does not prove reincarnation, it proves you somehow acquired that knowledge, and frankly reincarnation requires way more stretching of the imagination than  he found an old book we do not know about  or  her cousin told him the details of her relationship with her dead husband.   back to the museum thing, it is not just their location necessarily, although that is part of it, but because it is so unlikely that you would have ever seen something like that in your day to day life.  if you see an old electric sewing machine from the 0 is that is much, much closer to your modern reality than even something mundane yet 0 years old like a simple chair.  when something is that old you can feel it, you can see it and you can smell it and it is foreign and it is alien and it is so disconcertingly different and it is impossible to believe anyone ever used it at all.  that is why i refuse to believe my grandpa is not just making up stories about this mythical and terrifying  howdy doody  figure.   #  the very fact of you believing that you are reincarnated is also probably a big causal factor in these feelings.   #  the trouble is that feelings are exactly the opposite of objective and just because you do not know why you feel a certain way around certain objects does in mean its inexplicable, just that you ca not or do not want to think of a better explanation for it.  it is not uncommon to have strong feelings about old things, i think about the people that lived before me, how their experiences differed from mine.  radiolab did a cool show recently about people is feelings about significant historical objects.  your big problem now is confirmation bias, every time you have a feeling like that you cement this reincarnation idea in your mind.  the very fact of you believing that you are reincarnated is also probably a big causal factor in these feelings.  even if our feelings were not so incredibly subjective, a feeling is not evidence enough to posit such an outlandish hypothesis that goes against every piece of evidence we have about how our minds work.   #  as a personal anecdote, a few years ago i ate some bad sushi and got pretty bad food poisoning, unfortunately my awesome brain decided to associate the nauseous feelings with the sake rather than the rancid tuna.   # well i already mentioned that old objects can cause various feelings for all sorts of reasons.  old stuff is cool, it is a link to the past, it is a very strange feeling to pick up something that belonged to someone long dead and realize that they were not that different to you.  like u/ablarga mentioned in another comment you replied to, there are million different ways your brain can attach certain feelings to certain stimuli and maintain that connection for the rest of your life.  whenever i smell freshly cut grass the park i played in as a child comes to life in front of my eyes in vivid detail, at a young age my brain associated that strong smell with that memory.  once again, you may have had some experience that causes your brain to associate certain objects with certain feelings.  as a personal anecdote, a few years ago i ate some bad sushi and got pretty bad food poisoning, unfortunately my awesome brain decided to associate the nauseous feelings with the sake rather than the rancid tuna.  to this day i cannot taste sake without feeling sick to my stomach but i can eat tuna all day long.  my point is not only that your mind can make strong connections that can even give you a physical reaction, but that the connection does not even really have to make sense.  maybe there was a very good reasoning behind your association of these feelings to begin with.  of course i doubt that you came up with such a fanciful idea as reincarnation by yourself when thinking about why you have these feelings, i would guess that you had the feelings and inserted reincarnation ideas that you had heard elsewhere as a potential hypothesis.  now you feel attached to the idea and it is difficult to drop it even though myself and i am sure another hundred people in this cmv will offer you infinitely more likely explanations.
just about the only  irrational  belief i have carried with me into my adult life is that i have lived at least one lifetime before that which i am currently experiencing.  the main source of this belief is my persistent and inexplicable emotional reaction to household objects, artworks, historical photographs etc.  from the late 0s to the early 0s ending about five years before i was  born  .  whenever i enter a home or used goods store containing a large quantity of objects from any or all of those decades / years i feel a profound and discomforting sense of loss, of which i have never felt in any other situation.  i have never lost a loved one, but when i find myself in those kinds of places i always get an odd sense of familiarity like walking the halls of your school as an adult coupled with the feeling that someone or something very dear to me has been taken away.  i have come to the conclusion that in some strange way i am mourning my  iself  along with those i may have left behind.  this does not tend to happen in places filled with objects of a noticeably older time period, like museums.  for those who would call my belief in reincarnation wishful thinking if death is not an end, but a new beginning, well is not that a nice thought ? let me say that on a basic emotional level this is not a very good feeling that i get, and i kind of wish it did not happen.  nevertheless for obvious reasons it still fascinates me.  in broad terms, what is the most logical argument against the idea of reincarnation that you have heard or can come up with yourself ?  #  what is the most logical argument against the idea of reincarnation that you have heard or can come up with yourself ?  #  well, the burden of proof lies with you.   # well, the burden of proof lies with you.  that is about as simple as it gets.  how can someone change your view if you have no empirical data ? i could claim i am from another galaxy based on feelings x, y, and z but if i offer no proof, what is there to really dispute ? there is a pretty famous million dollar challenge URL wherein if you can demonstrate  under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event  you earn a million dollars.  to date, no one has gotten past preliminary tests because, again, the aforementioned lack of empirical data.   #  when i crane my neck up and look at something big i get a vaguely  spiritual  feeling.   #  i do not know if this is a view that can be changed.  i mean, i would argue that what you have decided to call your feeling does not necessarily matter, as cold as that sounds.  when i crane my neck up and look at something big i get a vaguely  spiritual  feeling.  that is not evidence of a higher power, it is evidence i get a feeling.  if i wanted to i could call it god, or a million other things.  there is nothing substantial, nothing physical to tie the two together.  from your post, i would assume that these musty things probably have the connotations you feel the loss, the melancholy because that is a very common reaction, and it is comforting to call it reincarnation instead of just being that you get depressed when you look at the discarded belongings of the dead.  the reason it does not happen at museums is that there is a more noticeable disconnect; the belongings do not really feel like they belonged to anyone, versus the items that are more noticeably connected to the recently deceased and that you are more likely to connect with the recently deceased.  as you were growing up the people dying around you would have had belongings largely from that time period, and so you associated their things with death.  newer things belong to people still largely alive, older things belonged to people who had already died or the belongings had time to be discarded before their owners death.  as for you not wanting this, the reaction might not be comforting, but the idea that it comes about because of reincarnation likely is, even if it is in a roundabout way.  it might  feel  worse immediately or at key points, but it likely provides a level of comfort and safety at other times, like when you think about your future or when you would normally be consumed with thoughts about the people who must have owned these objects.  that said, neither i nor anyone else can disprove the idea of reincarnation.  the typical response is that we also ca not disprove a teapot floating in space, the flying spaghetti monster, or unicorns; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence versus the burden of proof.  there is no real substantial evidence for it other than your feeling, and if that is good enough for you i very much doubt any number of comments is going to really change your mind.   #  back to the museum thing, it is not just their location necessarily, although that is part of it, but because it is so unlikely that you would have ever seen something like that in your day to day life.   #  not exactly, it is just that it ca not be studied at all.  we do not even have a handle on consciousness so there is no concrete way to study this.  it is simply not provable.  i am sure there have been  studies,  but.  they are kind of impotent.  how do you study that ? how do you prove that you have been reincarnated ? even if you have knowledge you should not have, it does not prove reincarnation, it proves you somehow acquired that knowledge, and frankly reincarnation requires way more stretching of the imagination than  he found an old book we do not know about  or  her cousin told him the details of her relationship with her dead husband.   back to the museum thing, it is not just their location necessarily, although that is part of it, but because it is so unlikely that you would have ever seen something like that in your day to day life.  if you see an old electric sewing machine from the 0 is that is much, much closer to your modern reality than even something mundane yet 0 years old like a simple chair.  when something is that old you can feel it, you can see it and you can smell it and it is foreign and it is alien and it is so disconcertingly different and it is impossible to believe anyone ever used it at all.  that is why i refuse to believe my grandpa is not just making up stories about this mythical and terrifying  howdy doody  figure.   #  even if our feelings were not so incredibly subjective, a feeling is not evidence enough to posit such an outlandish hypothesis that goes against every piece of evidence we have about how our minds work.   #  the trouble is that feelings are exactly the opposite of objective and just because you do not know why you feel a certain way around certain objects does in mean its inexplicable, just that you ca not or do not want to think of a better explanation for it.  it is not uncommon to have strong feelings about old things, i think about the people that lived before me, how their experiences differed from mine.  radiolab did a cool show recently about people is feelings about significant historical objects.  your big problem now is confirmation bias, every time you have a feeling like that you cement this reincarnation idea in your mind.  the very fact of you believing that you are reincarnated is also probably a big causal factor in these feelings.  even if our feelings were not so incredibly subjective, a feeling is not evidence enough to posit such an outlandish hypothesis that goes against every piece of evidence we have about how our minds work.   #  whenever i smell freshly cut grass the park i played in as a child comes to life in front of my eyes in vivid detail, at a young age my brain associated that strong smell with that memory.   # well i already mentioned that old objects can cause various feelings for all sorts of reasons.  old stuff is cool, it is a link to the past, it is a very strange feeling to pick up something that belonged to someone long dead and realize that they were not that different to you.  like u/ablarga mentioned in another comment you replied to, there are million different ways your brain can attach certain feelings to certain stimuli and maintain that connection for the rest of your life.  whenever i smell freshly cut grass the park i played in as a child comes to life in front of my eyes in vivid detail, at a young age my brain associated that strong smell with that memory.  once again, you may have had some experience that causes your brain to associate certain objects with certain feelings.  as a personal anecdote, a few years ago i ate some bad sushi and got pretty bad food poisoning, unfortunately my awesome brain decided to associate the nauseous feelings with the sake rather than the rancid tuna.  to this day i cannot taste sake without feeling sick to my stomach but i can eat tuna all day long.  my point is not only that your mind can make strong connections that can even give you a physical reaction, but that the connection does not even really have to make sense.  maybe there was a very good reasoning behind your association of these feelings to begin with.  of course i doubt that you came up with such a fanciful idea as reincarnation by yourself when thinking about why you have these feelings, i would guess that you had the feelings and inserted reincarnation ideas that you had heard elsewhere as a potential hypothesis.  now you feel attached to the idea and it is difficult to drop it even though myself and i am sure another hundred people in this cmv will offer you infinitely more likely explanations.
i believe that the taboo in our culture american here, but this applies to other cultures as well of not eating cats and dogs is hurting our society.  i am not saying they should start serving cat burgers and hotdogs heh in fancy restaurants, but i do think that we are severely under utilizing a perfectly viable food source that could potentially feed thousands of people who otherwise would go hungry.  0 it takes 0 lbs of grain to produce 0lb of beef.  meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  a conservative estimate would put that around 0 0 million pounds of potential food that is just thrown away.  these are animals that are completely healthy, and are just killed because they take up too much space.  we do not do anything with their bodies.  0 poverty, hunger, and starvation are not problems reserved strictly for third world countries.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, and yet we are not doing everything we can imo because of some unnecessary taboos to help these people.  0 there is no more health risk from eating a healthy cat/dog than there is from eating any other animal.  0 this does not need to affect current pet practices.  i am not saying we should stop having cats and dogs as pets.  0 grind up the meat and i am willing to bet 0 of the people eating it could not tell the difference.  so there you have it.  would anyone like to try and cmv ?  #  a conservative estimate would put that around 0 0 million pounds of potential food that is just thrown away.   #  in many cases animal remains are sent to rendering plants to be used in cosmetics, fertilizer, gelatin, poultry feed, pharmaceuticals and pet food URL therefore not being  thrown away .   # in many cases animal remains are sent to rendering plants to be used in cosmetics, fertilizer, gelatin, poultry feed, pharmaceuticals and pet food URL therefore not being  thrown away .  in addition us meat consumption was 0 billion lbs URL in 0, so at best we can make a . 0 dent in american meat consumption.  problem is it would not just be  free meat .  it would still need to be collected, butchered, processed, transported ect.  all this costs money and in the end you are adding . 0 to the us meat supply.  there are far more productive ways we can fight poverty and hunger in this country than rounding up strays to feed to the poor.  wild game does have health risks greater than farm raised meat as it is more susceptible to disease and parasites.  therefore to process on an industrial scale would likely be more expensive than processing regular farm raised meat.  of course this would not mean stray animal ended up costing more than traditional meat yet it would close the gap some for sure  #  food is not free just because there are  currently  strays.   # meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  how many pounds of food does it take per 0lb of cat or dog meat ? food is not free just because there are  currently  strays.  additionally, the beef and other meat that we farm is purposely fattened.  just because you estimate the dogs and cats to weigh 0 lbs, it does not equal 0lbs of meat.  you will have bones and other organs that you may not want to eat included in that.  shelter animals are pretty lean.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, the people in our country do not go hungry in the sense that a third world country does.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  debatable.  your have not really made a case  for  eating cats and dogs.  the big difference is that cats and dogs  also need meat  to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ?  #  i am not talking about replacing beef, but rather adding another food to the mix.   # food is not free just because there are currently strays.  my solution does not require any extra farming or production, but simply using the already abundant and yearly 0 million cats/dogs that are already being killed each year.  i am not talking about replacing beef, but rather adding another food to the mix.  supplementing it.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  the whole point is not that we should start farming cats and dogs instead of cows, but rather that cows are not enough and here we have 0 million animals being killed and tossed away yearly that we could be using.  there would not be anything unattainable about the new meat, as it would be specifically used for feeding people who could not afford food previously.  the big difference is that cats and dogs also need meat to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ? the cats and dogs that are being put down are already eating whatever it is they need to survive.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the case for eating them would be simply, why would not we utilize something edible that we just throw away anyway ?  #  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.   # how do you propose these cats and dogs get turned into meat ? your solution requires at least some amount of butchering, packaging, and quality control.  have you been to a shelter lately ? these animals do not have much  meat  on them.  i suspect harvesting meat off of these animals will be more trouble than it is worth.  you seem to still be under the impression that the us does not have enough food to go around.  we throw away  more  than enough food to feed the hungry.  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.  this meat is already prepared and packaged.  using cats and dogs as meat will still cost money.  it is not like you are going to hand over a dead cat for a homeless person to munch on.  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the animals that are put down are the ones in shelters.  a more economical solution would be to release these animals to fend for themselves, and then give the cat and dog food from the shelter to anybody who is hungry.   #  the two ideas are not mutually exclusive though, but i do understand your point about the us having more than enough food to feed people, it is just how we go about feeding them that is the problem.   # your solution requires at least some amount of butchering, packaging, and quality control.  you are right in that it would require some work on the production side, just like any meat source.  however the benefits of not having to invest in the raising and farming side as with beef still make it a preferable alternative, or rather, supplement.  these animals do not have much  meat  on them.  i suspect harvesting meat off of these animals will be more trouble than it is worth.  these animals unhealthy are not the ones i am referring to, and are not included in the 0 million per year statistic i quoted.  the animals i am referring to are fully healthy and functional, and are killed simply because the shelters do not have room.  they could very easily kill thousands of dogs weighing 0lbs each.  we throw away more than enough food to feed the hungry.  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.  this meat is already prepared and packaged.  this idea is solid, and well stated.  the two ideas are not mutually exclusive though, but i do understand your point about the us having more than enough food to feed people, it is just how we go about feeding them that is the problem.  it is not like you are going to hand over a dead cat for a homeless person to munch on.  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.  why not ? this would actually be cheaper than processing it.  people deal with whole animals all the time.  hell, they would get free fur out of the deal too ! a more economical solution would be to release these animals to fend for themselves, and then give the cat and dog food from the shelter to anybody who is hungry.  cat and dog food is not fit for human consumption.  cats and dogs are ! also, there is a reason we do not just let them run free in the first place.
i believe that the taboo in our culture american here, but this applies to other cultures as well of not eating cats and dogs is hurting our society.  i am not saying they should start serving cat burgers and hotdogs heh in fancy restaurants, but i do think that we are severely under utilizing a perfectly viable food source that could potentially feed thousands of people who otherwise would go hungry.  0 it takes 0 lbs of grain to produce 0lb of beef.  meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  a conservative estimate would put that around 0 0 million pounds of potential food that is just thrown away.  these are animals that are completely healthy, and are just killed because they take up too much space.  we do not do anything with their bodies.  0 poverty, hunger, and starvation are not problems reserved strictly for third world countries.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, and yet we are not doing everything we can imo because of some unnecessary taboos to help these people.  0 there is no more health risk from eating a healthy cat/dog than there is from eating any other animal.  0 this does not need to affect current pet practices.  i am not saying we should stop having cats and dogs as pets.  0 grind up the meat and i am willing to bet 0 of the people eating it could not tell the difference.  so there you have it.  would anyone like to try and cmv ?  #  there is no more health risk from eating a healthy cat/dog than there is from eating any other animal.   #  wild game does have health risks greater than farm raised meat as it is more susceptible to disease and parasites.   # in many cases animal remains are sent to rendering plants to be used in cosmetics, fertilizer, gelatin, poultry feed, pharmaceuticals and pet food URL therefore not being  thrown away .  in addition us meat consumption was 0 billion lbs URL in 0, so at best we can make a . 0 dent in american meat consumption.  problem is it would not just be  free meat .  it would still need to be collected, butchered, processed, transported ect.  all this costs money and in the end you are adding . 0 to the us meat supply.  there are far more productive ways we can fight poverty and hunger in this country than rounding up strays to feed to the poor.  wild game does have health risks greater than farm raised meat as it is more susceptible to disease and parasites.  therefore to process on an industrial scale would likely be more expensive than processing regular farm raised meat.  of course this would not mean stray animal ended up costing more than traditional meat yet it would close the gap some for sure  #  you will have bones and other organs that you may not want to eat included in that.   # meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  how many pounds of food does it take per 0lb of cat or dog meat ? food is not free just because there are  currently  strays.  additionally, the beef and other meat that we farm is purposely fattened.  just because you estimate the dogs and cats to weigh 0 lbs, it does not equal 0lbs of meat.  you will have bones and other organs that you may not want to eat included in that.  shelter animals are pretty lean.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, the people in our country do not go hungry in the sense that a third world country does.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  debatable.  your have not really made a case  for  eating cats and dogs.  the big difference is that cats and dogs  also need meat  to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ?  #  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.   # food is not free just because there are currently strays.  my solution does not require any extra farming or production, but simply using the already abundant and yearly 0 million cats/dogs that are already being killed each year.  i am not talking about replacing beef, but rather adding another food to the mix.  supplementing it.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  the whole point is not that we should start farming cats and dogs instead of cows, but rather that cows are not enough and here we have 0 million animals being killed and tossed away yearly that we could be using.  there would not be anything unattainable about the new meat, as it would be specifically used for feeding people who could not afford food previously.  the big difference is that cats and dogs also need meat to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ? the cats and dogs that are being put down are already eating whatever it is they need to survive.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the case for eating them would be simply, why would not we utilize something edible that we just throw away anyway ?  #  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.   # how do you propose these cats and dogs get turned into meat ? your solution requires at least some amount of butchering, packaging, and quality control.  have you been to a shelter lately ? these animals do not have much  meat  on them.  i suspect harvesting meat off of these animals will be more trouble than it is worth.  you seem to still be under the impression that the us does not have enough food to go around.  we throw away  more  than enough food to feed the hungry.  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.  this meat is already prepared and packaged.  using cats and dogs as meat will still cost money.  it is not like you are going to hand over a dead cat for a homeless person to munch on.  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the animals that are put down are the ones in shelters.  a more economical solution would be to release these animals to fend for themselves, and then give the cat and dog food from the shelter to anybody who is hungry.   #  you are right in that it would require some work on the production side, just like any meat source.   # your solution requires at least some amount of butchering, packaging, and quality control.  you are right in that it would require some work on the production side, just like any meat source.  however the benefits of not having to invest in the raising and farming side as with beef still make it a preferable alternative, or rather, supplement.  these animals do not have much  meat  on them.  i suspect harvesting meat off of these animals will be more trouble than it is worth.  these animals unhealthy are not the ones i am referring to, and are not included in the 0 million per year statistic i quoted.  the animals i am referring to are fully healthy and functional, and are killed simply because the shelters do not have room.  they could very easily kill thousands of dogs weighing 0lbs each.  we throw away more than enough food to feed the hungry.  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.  this meat is already prepared and packaged.  this idea is solid, and well stated.  the two ideas are not mutually exclusive though, but i do understand your point about the us having more than enough food to feed people, it is just how we go about feeding them that is the problem.  it is not like you are going to hand over a dead cat for a homeless person to munch on.  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.  why not ? this would actually be cheaper than processing it.  people deal with whole animals all the time.  hell, they would get free fur out of the deal too ! a more economical solution would be to release these animals to fend for themselves, and then give the cat and dog food from the shelter to anybody who is hungry.  cat and dog food is not fit for human consumption.  cats and dogs are ! also, there is a reason we do not just let them run free in the first place.
i believe that the taboo in our culture american here, but this applies to other cultures as well of not eating cats and dogs is hurting our society.  i am not saying they should start serving cat burgers and hotdogs heh in fancy restaurants, but i do think that we are severely under utilizing a perfectly viable food source that could potentially feed thousands of people who otherwise would go hungry.  0 it takes 0 lbs of grain to produce 0lb of beef.  meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  a conservative estimate would put that around 0 0 million pounds of potential food that is just thrown away.  these are animals that are completely healthy, and are just killed because they take up too much space.  we do not do anything with their bodies.  0 poverty, hunger, and starvation are not problems reserved strictly for third world countries.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, and yet we are not doing everything we can imo because of some unnecessary taboos to help these people.  0 there is no more health risk from eating a healthy cat/dog than there is from eating any other animal.  0 this does not need to affect current pet practices.  i am not saying we should stop having cats and dogs as pets.  0 grind up the meat and i am willing to bet 0 of the people eating it could not tell the difference.  so there you have it.  would anyone like to try and cmv ?  #  it takes 0 lbs of grain to produce 0lb of beef.   #  meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.   # meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  how many pounds of food does it take per 0lb of cat or dog meat ? food is not free just because there are  currently  strays.  additionally, the beef and other meat that we farm is purposely fattened.  just because you estimate the dogs and cats to weigh 0 lbs, it does not equal 0lbs of meat.  you will have bones and other organs that you may not want to eat included in that.  shelter animals are pretty lean.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, the people in our country do not go hungry in the sense that a third world country does.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  debatable.  your have not really made a case  for  eating cats and dogs.  the big difference is that cats and dogs  also need meat  to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ?  #  in addition us meat consumption was 0 billion lbs URL in 0, so at best we can make a . 0 dent in american meat consumption.   # in many cases animal remains are sent to rendering plants to be used in cosmetics, fertilizer, gelatin, poultry feed, pharmaceuticals and pet food URL therefore not being  thrown away .  in addition us meat consumption was 0 billion lbs URL in 0, so at best we can make a . 0 dent in american meat consumption.  problem is it would not just be  free meat .  it would still need to be collected, butchered, processed, transported ect.  all this costs money and in the end you are adding . 0 to the us meat supply.  there are far more productive ways we can fight poverty and hunger in this country than rounding up strays to feed to the poor.  wild game does have health risks greater than farm raised meat as it is more susceptible to disease and parasites.  therefore to process on an industrial scale would likely be more expensive than processing regular farm raised meat.  of course this would not mean stray animal ended up costing more than traditional meat yet it would close the gap some for sure  #  the cats and dogs that are being put down are already eating whatever it is they need to survive.   # food is not free just because there are currently strays.  my solution does not require any extra farming or production, but simply using the already abundant and yearly 0 million cats/dogs that are already being killed each year.  i am not talking about replacing beef, but rather adding another food to the mix.  supplementing it.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  the whole point is not that we should start farming cats and dogs instead of cows, but rather that cows are not enough and here we have 0 million animals being killed and tossed away yearly that we could be using.  there would not be anything unattainable about the new meat, as it would be specifically used for feeding people who could not afford food previously.  the big difference is that cats and dogs also need meat to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ? the cats and dogs that are being put down are already eating whatever it is they need to survive.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the case for eating them would be simply, why would not we utilize something edible that we just throw away anyway ?  #  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.   # how do you propose these cats and dogs get turned into meat ? your solution requires at least some amount of butchering, packaging, and quality control.  have you been to a shelter lately ? these animals do not have much  meat  on them.  i suspect harvesting meat off of these animals will be more trouble than it is worth.  you seem to still be under the impression that the us does not have enough food to go around.  we throw away  more  than enough food to feed the hungry.  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.  this meat is already prepared and packaged.  using cats and dogs as meat will still cost money.  it is not like you are going to hand over a dead cat for a homeless person to munch on.  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the animals that are put down are the ones in shelters.  a more economical solution would be to release these animals to fend for themselves, and then give the cat and dog food from the shelter to anybody who is hungry.   #  this would actually be cheaper than processing it.   # your solution requires at least some amount of butchering, packaging, and quality control.  you are right in that it would require some work on the production side, just like any meat source.  however the benefits of not having to invest in the raising and farming side as with beef still make it a preferable alternative, or rather, supplement.  these animals do not have much  meat  on them.  i suspect harvesting meat off of these animals will be more trouble than it is worth.  these animals unhealthy are not the ones i am referring to, and are not included in the 0 million per year statistic i quoted.  the animals i am referring to are fully healthy and functional, and are killed simply because the shelters do not have room.  they could very easily kill thousands of dogs weighing 0lbs each.  we throw away more than enough food to feed the hungry.  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.  this meat is already prepared and packaged.  this idea is solid, and well stated.  the two ideas are not mutually exclusive though, but i do understand your point about the us having more than enough food to feed people, it is just how we go about feeding them that is the problem.  it is not like you are going to hand over a dead cat for a homeless person to munch on.  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.  why not ? this would actually be cheaper than processing it.  people deal with whole animals all the time.  hell, they would get free fur out of the deal too ! a more economical solution would be to release these animals to fend for themselves, and then give the cat and dog food from the shelter to anybody who is hungry.  cat and dog food is not fit for human consumption.  cats and dogs are ! also, there is a reason we do not just let them run free in the first place.
i believe that the taboo in our culture american here, but this applies to other cultures as well of not eating cats and dogs is hurting our society.  i am not saying they should start serving cat burgers and hotdogs heh in fancy restaurants, but i do think that we are severely under utilizing a perfectly viable food source that could potentially feed thousands of people who otherwise would go hungry.  0 it takes 0 lbs of grain to produce 0lb of beef.  meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  a conservative estimate would put that around 0 0 million pounds of potential food that is just thrown away.  these are animals that are completely healthy, and are just killed because they take up too much space.  we do not do anything with their bodies.  0 poverty, hunger, and starvation are not problems reserved strictly for third world countries.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, and yet we are not doing everything we can imo because of some unnecessary taboos to help these people.  0 there is no more health risk from eating a healthy cat/dog than there is from eating any other animal.  0 this does not need to affect current pet practices.  i am not saying we should stop having cats and dogs as pets.  0 grind up the meat and i am willing to bet 0 of the people eating it could not tell the difference.  so there you have it.  would anyone like to try and cmv ?  #  poverty, hunger, and starvation are not problems reserved strictly for third world countries.   #  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, the people in our country do not go hungry in the sense that a third world country does.   # meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  how many pounds of food does it take per 0lb of cat or dog meat ? food is not free just because there are  currently  strays.  additionally, the beef and other meat that we farm is purposely fattened.  just because you estimate the dogs and cats to weigh 0 lbs, it does not equal 0lbs of meat.  you will have bones and other organs that you may not want to eat included in that.  shelter animals are pretty lean.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, the people in our country do not go hungry in the sense that a third world country does.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  debatable.  your have not really made a case  for  eating cats and dogs.  the big difference is that cats and dogs  also need meat  to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ?  #  of course this would not mean stray animal ended up costing more than traditional meat yet it would close the gap some for sure  # in many cases animal remains are sent to rendering plants to be used in cosmetics, fertilizer, gelatin, poultry feed, pharmaceuticals and pet food URL therefore not being  thrown away .  in addition us meat consumption was 0 billion lbs URL in 0, so at best we can make a . 0 dent in american meat consumption.  problem is it would not just be  free meat .  it would still need to be collected, butchered, processed, transported ect.  all this costs money and in the end you are adding . 0 to the us meat supply.  there are far more productive ways we can fight poverty and hunger in this country than rounding up strays to feed to the poor.  wild game does have health risks greater than farm raised meat as it is more susceptible to disease and parasites.  therefore to process on an industrial scale would likely be more expensive than processing regular farm raised meat.  of course this would not mean stray animal ended up costing more than traditional meat yet it would close the gap some for sure  #  the case for eating them would be simply, why would not we utilize something edible that we just throw away anyway ?  # food is not free just because there are currently strays.  my solution does not require any extra farming or production, but simply using the already abundant and yearly 0 million cats/dogs that are already being killed each year.  i am not talking about replacing beef, but rather adding another food to the mix.  supplementing it.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  the whole point is not that we should start farming cats and dogs instead of cows, but rather that cows are not enough and here we have 0 million animals being killed and tossed away yearly that we could be using.  there would not be anything unattainable about the new meat, as it would be specifically used for feeding people who could not afford food previously.  the big difference is that cats and dogs also need meat to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ? the cats and dogs that are being put down are already eating whatever it is they need to survive.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the case for eating them would be simply, why would not we utilize something edible that we just throw away anyway ?  #  using cats and dogs as meat will still cost money.   # how do you propose these cats and dogs get turned into meat ? your solution requires at least some amount of butchering, packaging, and quality control.  have you been to a shelter lately ? these animals do not have much  meat  on them.  i suspect harvesting meat off of these animals will be more trouble than it is worth.  you seem to still be under the impression that the us does not have enough food to go around.  we throw away  more  than enough food to feed the hungry.  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.  this meat is already prepared and packaged.  using cats and dogs as meat will still cost money.  it is not like you are going to hand over a dead cat for a homeless person to munch on.  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the animals that are put down are the ones in shelters.  a more economical solution would be to release these animals to fend for themselves, and then give the cat and dog food from the shelter to anybody who is hungry.   #  these animals do not have much  meat  on them.   # your solution requires at least some amount of butchering, packaging, and quality control.  you are right in that it would require some work on the production side, just like any meat source.  however the benefits of not having to invest in the raising and farming side as with beef still make it a preferable alternative, or rather, supplement.  these animals do not have much  meat  on them.  i suspect harvesting meat off of these animals will be more trouble than it is worth.  these animals unhealthy are not the ones i am referring to, and are not included in the 0 million per year statistic i quoted.  the animals i am referring to are fully healthy and functional, and are killed simply because the shelters do not have room.  they could very easily kill thousands of dogs weighing 0lbs each.  we throw away more than enough food to feed the hungry.  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.  this meat is already prepared and packaged.  this idea is solid, and well stated.  the two ideas are not mutually exclusive though, but i do understand your point about the us having more than enough food to feed people, it is just how we go about feeding them that is the problem.  it is not like you are going to hand over a dead cat for a homeless person to munch on.  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.  why not ? this would actually be cheaper than processing it.  people deal with whole animals all the time.  hell, they would get free fur out of the deal too ! a more economical solution would be to release these animals to fend for themselves, and then give the cat and dog food from the shelter to anybody who is hungry.  cat and dog food is not fit for human consumption.  cats and dogs are ! also, there is a reason we do not just let them run free in the first place.
i believe that the taboo in our culture american here, but this applies to other cultures as well of not eating cats and dogs is hurting our society.  i am not saying they should start serving cat burgers and hotdogs heh in fancy restaurants, but i do think that we are severely under utilizing a perfectly viable food source that could potentially feed thousands of people who otherwise would go hungry.  0 it takes 0 lbs of grain to produce 0lb of beef.  meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  a conservative estimate would put that around 0 0 million pounds of potential food that is just thrown away.  these are animals that are completely healthy, and are just killed because they take up too much space.  we do not do anything with their bodies.  0 poverty, hunger, and starvation are not problems reserved strictly for third world countries.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, and yet we are not doing everything we can imo because of some unnecessary taboos to help these people.  0 there is no more health risk from eating a healthy cat/dog than there is from eating any other animal.  0 this does not need to affect current pet practices.  i am not saying we should stop having cats and dogs as pets.  0 grind up the meat and i am willing to bet 0 of the people eating it could not tell the difference.  so there you have it.  would anyone like to try and cmv ?  #  i believe that the taboo in our culture american here, but this applies to other cultures as well of not eating cats and dogs is hurting our society.   #  i am not saying they should start serving cat burgers and hotdogs heh in fancy restaurants, but i do think that we are severely under utilizing a perfectly viable food source that could potentially feed thousands of people who otherwise would go hungry.   #  there are plenty of reasons, and just because you disagree does not make those reason illogical.  people love cats and dogs, and see them as family members and pets, and therefore do not eat them.  this is a logical sentence and reason.  i am not saying they should start serving cat burgers and hotdogs heh in fancy restaurants, but i do think that we are severely under utilizing a perfectly viable food source that could potentially feed thousands of people who otherwise would go hungry.  do you think we should eat death row inmates after they have been executed. just think of all that wasted meat ? meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  a conservative estimate would put that around 0 0 million pounds of potential food that is just thrown away.  these are animals that are completely healthy, and are just killed because they take up too much space.  we do not do anything with their bodies.  but it is gross.  cat is not so bad a local chinese resteraunt got busted serving cat, and had been for years, and i am sure i had some at some point , but dog i have eaten coyote before is not tasty at all.  i think, because it tastes bad is a logical reason as well.  not to mention that there is not regulation of how safe it is as well as how to prepare it safely.  0 so we are going to give out free cat and dog meat ? how is this going to solve anything, and who is going to pay for it ? this is absolutely false.  there is a reason we eat terrestrial herbivores, and not terrestrial carnivores.  canines, and felines are carnivores.  you have completely forgotten or ignored bio magnification.  carnivores have much higher levels of toxins, and parasites in their meat.  every once in a while this is not a big deal, but to change to a diet of carnivores is going to create many problems that you seem to not be aware of.  this is more ignorance on your part or maybe you are just not being clear enough.  when i think of ground up processed meats, i think of my two favorites: scrapple, and liverwurst.  both contain liver.  eating the liver of a carnivore can be very dangerous.  the consumption of the liver of certain breeds of dogs can be fatal.  it causes hypervitaminosis a URL which is basically an overdose of vitamin a over a short period of time.  sure you would not be able to tell the difference, then you would get sick and die.  this is also a logical reason.  would anyone like to try and cmv ? yeah.  i am not sure you understand the reasons and dangers of eating cats and dogs.   #  wild game does have health risks greater than farm raised meat as it is more susceptible to disease and parasites.   # in many cases animal remains are sent to rendering plants to be used in cosmetics, fertilizer, gelatin, poultry feed, pharmaceuticals and pet food URL therefore not being  thrown away .  in addition us meat consumption was 0 billion lbs URL in 0, so at best we can make a . 0 dent in american meat consumption.  problem is it would not just be  free meat .  it would still need to be collected, butchered, processed, transported ect.  all this costs money and in the end you are adding . 0 to the us meat supply.  there are far more productive ways we can fight poverty and hunger in this country than rounding up strays to feed to the poor.  wild game does have health risks greater than farm raised meat as it is more susceptible to disease and parasites.  therefore to process on an industrial scale would likely be more expensive than processing regular farm raised meat.  of course this would not mean stray animal ended up costing more than traditional meat yet it would close the gap some for sure  #  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.   # meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  how many pounds of food does it take per 0lb of cat or dog meat ? food is not free just because there are  currently  strays.  additionally, the beef and other meat that we farm is purposely fattened.  just because you estimate the dogs and cats to weigh 0 lbs, it does not equal 0lbs of meat.  you will have bones and other organs that you may not want to eat included in that.  shelter animals are pretty lean.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, the people in our country do not go hungry in the sense that a third world country does.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  debatable.  your have not really made a case  for  eating cats and dogs.  the big difference is that cats and dogs  also need meat  to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ?  #  the big difference is that cats and dogs also need meat to grow and survive.   # food is not free just because there are currently strays.  my solution does not require any extra farming or production, but simply using the already abundant and yearly 0 million cats/dogs that are already being killed each year.  i am not talking about replacing beef, but rather adding another food to the mix.  supplementing it.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  the whole point is not that we should start farming cats and dogs instead of cows, but rather that cows are not enough and here we have 0 million animals being killed and tossed away yearly that we could be using.  there would not be anything unattainable about the new meat, as it would be specifically used for feeding people who could not afford food previously.  the big difference is that cats and dogs also need meat to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ? the cats and dogs that are being put down are already eating whatever it is they need to survive.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the case for eating them would be simply, why would not we utilize something edible that we just throw away anyway ?  #  using cats and dogs as meat will still cost money.   # how do you propose these cats and dogs get turned into meat ? your solution requires at least some amount of butchering, packaging, and quality control.  have you been to a shelter lately ? these animals do not have much  meat  on them.  i suspect harvesting meat off of these animals will be more trouble than it is worth.  you seem to still be under the impression that the us does not have enough food to go around.  we throw away  more  than enough food to feed the hungry.  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.  this meat is already prepared and packaged.  using cats and dogs as meat will still cost money.  it is not like you are going to hand over a dead cat for a homeless person to munch on.  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the animals that are put down are the ones in shelters.  a more economical solution would be to release these animals to fend for themselves, and then give the cat and dog food from the shelter to anybody who is hungry.
i believe that the taboo in our culture american here, but this applies to other cultures as well of not eating cats and dogs is hurting our society.  i am not saying they should start serving cat burgers and hotdogs heh in fancy restaurants, but i do think that we are severely under utilizing a perfectly viable food source that could potentially feed thousands of people who otherwise would go hungry.  0 it takes 0 lbs of grain to produce 0lb of beef.  meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  a conservative estimate would put that around 0 0 million pounds of potential food that is just thrown away.  these are animals that are completely healthy, and are just killed because they take up too much space.  we do not do anything with their bodies.  0 poverty, hunger, and starvation are not problems reserved strictly for third world countries.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, and yet we are not doing everything we can imo because of some unnecessary taboos to help these people.  0 there is no more health risk from eating a healthy cat/dog than there is from eating any other animal.  0 this does not need to affect current pet practices.  i am not saying we should stop having cats and dogs as pets.  0 grind up the meat and i am willing to bet 0 of the people eating it could not tell the difference.  so there you have it.  would anyone like to try and cmv ?  #  0 grind up the meat and i am willing to bet 0 of the people eating it could not tell the difference.   #  this is more ignorance on your part or maybe you are just not being clear enough.   #  there are plenty of reasons, and just because you disagree does not make those reason illogical.  people love cats and dogs, and see them as family members and pets, and therefore do not eat them.  this is a logical sentence and reason.  i am not saying they should start serving cat burgers and hotdogs heh in fancy restaurants, but i do think that we are severely under utilizing a perfectly viable food source that could potentially feed thousands of people who otherwise would go hungry.  do you think we should eat death row inmates after they have been executed. just think of all that wasted meat ? meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  a conservative estimate would put that around 0 0 million pounds of potential food that is just thrown away.  these are animals that are completely healthy, and are just killed because they take up too much space.  we do not do anything with their bodies.  but it is gross.  cat is not so bad a local chinese resteraunt got busted serving cat, and had been for years, and i am sure i had some at some point , but dog i have eaten coyote before is not tasty at all.  i think, because it tastes bad is a logical reason as well.  not to mention that there is not regulation of how safe it is as well as how to prepare it safely.  0 so we are going to give out free cat and dog meat ? how is this going to solve anything, and who is going to pay for it ? this is absolutely false.  there is a reason we eat terrestrial herbivores, and not terrestrial carnivores.  canines, and felines are carnivores.  you have completely forgotten or ignored bio magnification.  carnivores have much higher levels of toxins, and parasites in their meat.  every once in a while this is not a big deal, but to change to a diet of carnivores is going to create many problems that you seem to not be aware of.  this is more ignorance on your part or maybe you are just not being clear enough.  when i think of ground up processed meats, i think of my two favorites: scrapple, and liverwurst.  both contain liver.  eating the liver of a carnivore can be very dangerous.  the consumption of the liver of certain breeds of dogs can be fatal.  it causes hypervitaminosis a URL which is basically an overdose of vitamin a over a short period of time.  sure you would not be able to tell the difference, then you would get sick and die.  this is also a logical reason.  would anyone like to try and cmv ? yeah.  i am not sure you understand the reasons and dangers of eating cats and dogs.   #  problem is it would not just be  free meat .   # in many cases animal remains are sent to rendering plants to be used in cosmetics, fertilizer, gelatin, poultry feed, pharmaceuticals and pet food URL therefore not being  thrown away .  in addition us meat consumption was 0 billion lbs URL in 0, so at best we can make a . 0 dent in american meat consumption.  problem is it would not just be  free meat .  it would still need to be collected, butchered, processed, transported ect.  all this costs money and in the end you are adding . 0 to the us meat supply.  there are far more productive ways we can fight poverty and hunger in this country than rounding up strays to feed to the poor.  wild game does have health risks greater than farm raised meat as it is more susceptible to disease and parasites.  therefore to process on an industrial scale would likely be more expensive than processing regular farm raised meat.  of course this would not mean stray animal ended up costing more than traditional meat yet it would close the gap some for sure  #  meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.   # meanwhile, almost 0 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population.  how many pounds of food does it take per 0lb of cat or dog meat ? food is not free just because there are  currently  strays.  additionally, the beef and other meat that we farm is purposely fattened.  just because you estimate the dogs and cats to weigh 0 lbs, it does not equal 0lbs of meat.  you will have bones and other organs that you may not want to eat included in that.  shelter animals are pretty lean.  we have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, the people in our country do not go hungry in the sense that a third world country does.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  debatable.  your have not really made a case  for  eating cats and dogs.  the big difference is that cats and dogs  also need meat  to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ?  #  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.   # food is not free just because there are currently strays.  my solution does not require any extra farming or production, but simply using the already abundant and yearly 0 million cats/dogs that are already being killed each year.  i am not talking about replacing beef, but rather adding another food to the mix.  supplementing it.  furthermore, producing cat and dog meat costs money so you are just replacing one unattainable food with another.  quantity of food is not an issue, it is distribution.  the whole point is not that we should start farming cats and dogs instead of cows, but rather that cows are not enough and here we have 0 million animals being killed and tossed away yearly that we could be using.  there would not be anything unattainable about the new meat, as it would be specifically used for feeding people who could not afford food previously.  the big difference is that cats and dogs also need meat to grow and survive.  so now we are feeding meat to meat so we can have meat.  why not just eat the meat we would need to feed them ? the cats and dogs that are being put down are already eating whatever it is they need to survive.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the case for eating them would be simply, why would not we utilize something edible that we just throw away anyway ?  #  how do you propose these cats and dogs get turned into meat ?  # how do you propose these cats and dogs get turned into meat ? your solution requires at least some amount of butchering, packaging, and quality control.  have you been to a shelter lately ? these animals do not have much  meat  on them.  i suspect harvesting meat off of these animals will be more trouble than it is worth.  you seem to still be under the impression that the us does not have enough food to go around.  we throw away  more  than enough food to feed the hungry.  a better solution is to use meat that ca not be sold at or shortly past it is expiration date and feed that to hungry people.  this meat is already prepared and packaged.  using cats and dogs as meat will still cost money.  it is not like you are going to hand over a dead cat for a homeless person to munch on.  it is far cheaper to divert our excess food to the needy than process a new source of food.  there is no extra work required.  every year the animals are put down, all i am suggesting is that instead of burning the bodies we eat them.  the animals that are put down are the ones in shelters.  a more economical solution would be to release these animals to fend for themselves, and then give the cat and dog food from the shelter to anybody who is hungry.
until israel endorses either a one state solution, or a two state solution, the israel government is, at best, disingenuous.  in the one state solution, palestinians, would have a  right to vote  on israeli policies.  or israel would have to explain why some of  their citizens  do not get to vote.  in the two state solution, israel would have to treat a palestine, as a country, with sovereignty.  even if a palestine, votes for someone they do not like.  neither solution seems to be acceptable to israel.  so they play a game where  settlements  establish new  facts on the ground  and israel treats palestinians like germans treated the jews before ww0.  delaying.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  i really am open to have my view changed.   #  until israel endorses either a one state solution, or a two state solution, the israel government is, at best, disingenuous.   #  they already have endorsed a two state solution, i think twice.   # they already have endorsed a two state solution, i think twice.  fatah, and hamas have yet to agree to terms.  the settlements do not exist in gaza.  israel left gaza in 0.  if israel was in control as you seem to think they are , hamas would have never taken power from fatah in 0.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  hoping for peace, hoping for peace.  getting attacked with rockets.  hopign for peace.  is israels real position  i really am open to have my view changed.  your replies so far, seem to disprove this sentence.   #  in a business negotiation we need a conceptual understanding of what the deal will be before we even begin to negotiate.   #  i think the thing to remember is that international politics is different from traditional business negotiations.  in a business negotiation we need a conceptual understanding of what the deal will be before we even begin to negotiate.  in international politics the conceptual framework is often in dispute.  however at its most basic level israel wants peace and is prepared to give land in exchange for that peace.  have you seen the camp david proposals ? URL when reading them over it is important to keep in mind the history of the region and israel is big concern was the west bank could not simply become a staging ground for another syrian or lebanese invasion.  it is all horribly complicated but has to do with defensive depth.  ww0 demonstrated that fixed defenses are useless and in the event of an attack you need to be able to retreit, regroup, and then counter attack.  these kinds of manuvers require tens if not hundreds of miles and ca not be accomplished in ordinary israeli territory because it is physically not big enough israel is tiny .  anyways fundamentally israel is prepared to give both peace and sovereignty to the west bank and gaza in exchange for peace.  are you aware that israel left the west bank edit gaza and effectively gave it sovereignty ? they did it unilaterally and not as part of a wider negotiation and physically removed settlers violently at times who were in palestinian territory.  free elections were then held in gaza and the people elected hamas an organization with the destruction of israel as its founding goal .  there is a lot of conflict and bad actors on both sides true enough.  however the israeli position when read fairly with understanding is that they will let the palestinians have their own state in the west bank and gaza in return for security.  that is not acting in bad faith.  look at what hamas says in public.  their official position is that if israel gives them their own state, and all of the west bank and gaza then in return they will give a long term cease fire.  but they refuse to offer true peace instead almost promising to resume the attempt to murder all the jews in five, ten, or fifty years.  you might think  memories are not that long once there is peace there will be peace  but the reality of the middle east is that as part of muslim teachings in the region jews are the sons of pigs and ought to be killed.   #  in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.   #  sorry i did mean gaza but had written west bank.  i think you really need to consider what effectively happened.  in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  in gaza they could have done almost anything they had wanted.  the list of things they could not do fits on a page and includes such hardships as  being able to wage war on their neighbor without fear of reprisal  and  have an open border with egypt an arab country that has no interest in opening its border to gaza and admitting the terrorists within into its lands .  its not that you do not have a point you do but gaza was handed 0 of what it meant to be its own state and in short order had done what most countries in the region do when given power executing its internal political opponents and ignoring the plight of its own people.   #  if gazans were israeli citizens, i would have no problem with israel controlling the airspace or trying palestinians in israeli courts.   # in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  yes, the us has soveriegnty over the land i live on, and in return, i am allowed to vote in us elections.  if gazans were israeli citizens, i would have no problem with israel controlling the airspace or trying palestinians in israeli courts.  however, israel holds gaza and to a lesser extent the west bank in legal limbo, they do not get to be part of israel, but they also are not allowed to be their own state.  they get the drawbacks of being part of israel subject to israeli laws, israeli control of airspace etc , but none of the benefits like voting in israeli elections .  i agree that israel and egypt have every right to close their own borders with gaza, but they should not be allowed to close off gaza from the rest of the world by sea.  if turkey or denmark or whoever else wants to trade with gaza, israel has no right to tell them they are not allowed to.  their imports from the rest of the world, who ought to be free to trade with gaza if they want , are limited by the israeli blockade.  for a while in 0 0, goods such as tomato paste and fishing rods were not allowed past the blockade, tourism as well as travel for gazans is effectively illegal with israeli control of airspace and the blockade not allowing passengers in and out.  control of airspace and sea lanes is pretty critical to territorial integrity, which is like, most of what stateship is.  yes, i agree that hamas is generally awful.  that does not justify blockading the place and not letting other countries trade if they want, and it certainly is not reason to ban things like tomato paste and fishing rods.   #  thats what i mean by 0 of what they want.   #  i think most of stateship is about domestic governance.  providing your population with good governance, schools, hospitals, etc.  you look at the number of people the government of canada employs and 0 of them work in those kinds of fields and 0 are air traffic controllers, border guards, etc.  thats what i mean by 0 of what they want.  now keep in mind there is no peace between these two regions.  the closest analogy would be two countries at war and so it is perfectly understandable that their ports are blockaded and their airspace restricted.  none of this however changes the fact that israel acts in good faith in an attempt to get peace and the restrictions that do exist would be removed as soon as they were not needed to prevent violence against israel .  my point is that instead of reciprocating the pullout and making good faith efforts to negotiate a peace the palestinians elected the terrorists and proceeded to throw their efforts into the destruction of israel instead of the construction of their own state.  which is exactly what happened in the 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s.
until israel endorses either a one state solution, or a two state solution, the israel government is, at best, disingenuous.  in the one state solution, palestinians, would have a  right to vote  on israeli policies.  or israel would have to explain why some of  their citizens  do not get to vote.  in the two state solution, israel would have to treat a palestine, as a country, with sovereignty.  even if a palestine, votes for someone they do not like.  neither solution seems to be acceptable to israel.  so they play a game where  settlements  establish new  facts on the ground  and israel treats palestinians like germans treated the jews before ww0.  delaying.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  i really am open to have my view changed.   #  so they play a game where  settlements  establish new  facts on the ground  and israel treats palestinians like germans treated the jews before ww0.   #  the settlements do not exist in gaza.   # they already have endorsed a two state solution, i think twice.  fatah, and hamas have yet to agree to terms.  the settlements do not exist in gaza.  israel left gaza in 0.  if israel was in control as you seem to think they are , hamas would have never taken power from fatah in 0.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  hoping for peace, hoping for peace.  getting attacked with rockets.  hopign for peace.  is israels real position  i really am open to have my view changed.  your replies so far, seem to disprove this sentence.   #  however the israeli position when read fairly with understanding is that they will let the palestinians have their own state in the west bank and gaza in return for security.   #  i think the thing to remember is that international politics is different from traditional business negotiations.  in a business negotiation we need a conceptual understanding of what the deal will be before we even begin to negotiate.  in international politics the conceptual framework is often in dispute.  however at its most basic level israel wants peace and is prepared to give land in exchange for that peace.  have you seen the camp david proposals ? URL when reading them over it is important to keep in mind the history of the region and israel is big concern was the west bank could not simply become a staging ground for another syrian or lebanese invasion.  it is all horribly complicated but has to do with defensive depth.  ww0 demonstrated that fixed defenses are useless and in the event of an attack you need to be able to retreit, regroup, and then counter attack.  these kinds of manuvers require tens if not hundreds of miles and ca not be accomplished in ordinary israeli territory because it is physically not big enough israel is tiny .  anyways fundamentally israel is prepared to give both peace and sovereignty to the west bank and gaza in exchange for peace.  are you aware that israel left the west bank edit gaza and effectively gave it sovereignty ? they did it unilaterally and not as part of a wider negotiation and physically removed settlers violently at times who were in palestinian territory.  free elections were then held in gaza and the people elected hamas an organization with the destruction of israel as its founding goal .  there is a lot of conflict and bad actors on both sides true enough.  however the israeli position when read fairly with understanding is that they will let the palestinians have their own state in the west bank and gaza in return for security.  that is not acting in bad faith.  look at what hamas says in public.  their official position is that if israel gives them their own state, and all of the west bank and gaza then in return they will give a long term cease fire.  but they refuse to offer true peace instead almost promising to resume the attempt to murder all the jews in five, ten, or fifty years.  you might think  memories are not that long once there is peace there will be peace  but the reality of the middle east is that as part of muslim teachings in the region jews are the sons of pigs and ought to be killed.   #  in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.   #  sorry i did mean gaza but had written west bank.  i think you really need to consider what effectively happened.  in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  in gaza they could have done almost anything they had wanted.  the list of things they could not do fits on a page and includes such hardships as  being able to wage war on their neighbor without fear of reprisal  and  have an open border with egypt an arab country that has no interest in opening its border to gaza and admitting the terrorists within into its lands .  its not that you do not have a point you do but gaza was handed 0 of what it meant to be its own state and in short order had done what most countries in the region do when given power executing its internal political opponents and ignoring the plight of its own people.   #  however, israel holds gaza and to a lesser extent the west bank in legal limbo, they do not get to be part of israel, but they also are not allowed to be their own state.   # in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  yes, the us has soveriegnty over the land i live on, and in return, i am allowed to vote in us elections.  if gazans were israeli citizens, i would have no problem with israel controlling the airspace or trying palestinians in israeli courts.  however, israel holds gaza and to a lesser extent the west bank in legal limbo, they do not get to be part of israel, but they also are not allowed to be their own state.  they get the drawbacks of being part of israel subject to israeli laws, israeli control of airspace etc , but none of the benefits like voting in israeli elections .  i agree that israel and egypt have every right to close their own borders with gaza, but they should not be allowed to close off gaza from the rest of the world by sea.  if turkey or denmark or whoever else wants to trade with gaza, israel has no right to tell them they are not allowed to.  their imports from the rest of the world, who ought to be free to trade with gaza if they want , are limited by the israeli blockade.  for a while in 0 0, goods such as tomato paste and fishing rods were not allowed past the blockade, tourism as well as travel for gazans is effectively illegal with israeli control of airspace and the blockade not allowing passengers in and out.  control of airspace and sea lanes is pretty critical to territorial integrity, which is like, most of what stateship is.  yes, i agree that hamas is generally awful.  that does not justify blockading the place and not letting other countries trade if they want, and it certainly is not reason to ban things like tomato paste and fishing rods.   #  thats what i mean by 0 of what they want.   #  i think most of stateship is about domestic governance.  providing your population with good governance, schools, hospitals, etc.  you look at the number of people the government of canada employs and 0 of them work in those kinds of fields and 0 are air traffic controllers, border guards, etc.  thats what i mean by 0 of what they want.  now keep in mind there is no peace between these two regions.  the closest analogy would be two countries at war and so it is perfectly understandable that their ports are blockaded and their airspace restricted.  none of this however changes the fact that israel acts in good faith in an attempt to get peace and the restrictions that do exist would be removed as soon as they were not needed to prevent violence against israel .  my point is that instead of reciprocating the pullout and making good faith efforts to negotiate a peace the palestinians elected the terrorists and proceeded to throw their efforts into the destruction of israel instead of the construction of their own state.  which is exactly what happened in the 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s.
until israel endorses either a one state solution, or a two state solution, the israel government is, at best, disingenuous.  in the one state solution, palestinians, would have a  right to vote  on israeli policies.  or israel would have to explain why some of  their citizens  do not get to vote.  in the two state solution, israel would have to treat a palestine, as a country, with sovereignty.  even if a palestine, votes for someone they do not like.  neither solution seems to be acceptable to israel.  so they play a game where  settlements  establish new  facts on the ground  and israel treats palestinians like germans treated the jews before ww0.  delaying.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  i really am open to have my view changed.   #  until israel endorses either a one state solution, or a two state solution, the israel government is, at best, disingenuous.   #  israel officially endorses a two state solution.   #  first of all, i agree that the israeli endgame has long been the annexation of all the palestinian territories.  i believe that in order to maintain a jewish state with at least some semblance of secular democracy they must support a two state solution while indeed establishing new  facts on the ground  that will inevitably result in driving or wiping out palestinians in gaza and the west bank.  i believe that israel has no right to explicitly support a single ethnicity or religion.  that said, you have lobbed some major softballs to israeli apologists here.  israel officially endorses a two state solution.  palestine does not have a functioning, united government.  palestinians living in israel as israeli arabs do get to vote.  you should be more specific and mention the settlements.  if you simply mean  oppressed,  then you are right.  otherwise it is a somewhat weird comparison to make.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  it is easy to point out that palestinians have been launching attacks on israel for decades as well.   #  however the israeli position when read fairly with understanding is that they will let the palestinians have their own state in the west bank and gaza in return for security.   #  i think the thing to remember is that international politics is different from traditional business negotiations.  in a business negotiation we need a conceptual understanding of what the deal will be before we even begin to negotiate.  in international politics the conceptual framework is often in dispute.  however at its most basic level israel wants peace and is prepared to give land in exchange for that peace.  have you seen the camp david proposals ? URL when reading them over it is important to keep in mind the history of the region and israel is big concern was the west bank could not simply become a staging ground for another syrian or lebanese invasion.  it is all horribly complicated but has to do with defensive depth.  ww0 demonstrated that fixed defenses are useless and in the event of an attack you need to be able to retreit, regroup, and then counter attack.  these kinds of manuvers require tens if not hundreds of miles and ca not be accomplished in ordinary israeli territory because it is physically not big enough israel is tiny .  anyways fundamentally israel is prepared to give both peace and sovereignty to the west bank and gaza in exchange for peace.  are you aware that israel left the west bank edit gaza and effectively gave it sovereignty ? they did it unilaterally and not as part of a wider negotiation and physically removed settlers violently at times who were in palestinian territory.  free elections were then held in gaza and the people elected hamas an organization with the destruction of israel as its founding goal .  there is a lot of conflict and bad actors on both sides true enough.  however the israeli position when read fairly with understanding is that they will let the palestinians have their own state in the west bank and gaza in return for security.  that is not acting in bad faith.  look at what hamas says in public.  their official position is that if israel gives them their own state, and all of the west bank and gaza then in return they will give a long term cease fire.  but they refuse to offer true peace instead almost promising to resume the attempt to murder all the jews in five, ten, or fifty years.  you might think  memories are not that long once there is peace there will be peace  but the reality of the middle east is that as part of muslim teachings in the region jews are the sons of pigs and ought to be killed.   #  sorry i did mean gaza but had written west bank.   #  sorry i did mean gaza but had written west bank.  i think you really need to consider what effectively happened.  in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  in gaza they could have done almost anything they had wanted.  the list of things they could not do fits on a page and includes such hardships as  being able to wage war on their neighbor without fear of reprisal  and  have an open border with egypt an arab country that has no interest in opening its border to gaza and admitting the terrorists within into its lands .  its not that you do not have a point you do but gaza was handed 0 of what it meant to be its own state and in short order had done what most countries in the region do when given power executing its internal political opponents and ignoring the plight of its own people.   #  if gazans were israeli citizens, i would have no problem with israel controlling the airspace or trying palestinians in israeli courts.   # in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  yes, the us has soveriegnty over the land i live on, and in return, i am allowed to vote in us elections.  if gazans were israeli citizens, i would have no problem with israel controlling the airspace or trying palestinians in israeli courts.  however, israel holds gaza and to a lesser extent the west bank in legal limbo, they do not get to be part of israel, but they also are not allowed to be their own state.  they get the drawbacks of being part of israel subject to israeli laws, israeli control of airspace etc , but none of the benefits like voting in israeli elections .  i agree that israel and egypt have every right to close their own borders with gaza, but they should not be allowed to close off gaza from the rest of the world by sea.  if turkey or denmark or whoever else wants to trade with gaza, israel has no right to tell them they are not allowed to.  their imports from the rest of the world, who ought to be free to trade with gaza if they want , are limited by the israeli blockade.  for a while in 0 0, goods such as tomato paste and fishing rods were not allowed past the blockade, tourism as well as travel for gazans is effectively illegal with israeli control of airspace and the blockade not allowing passengers in and out.  control of airspace and sea lanes is pretty critical to territorial integrity, which is like, most of what stateship is.  yes, i agree that hamas is generally awful.  that does not justify blockading the place and not letting other countries trade if they want, and it certainly is not reason to ban things like tomato paste and fishing rods.   #  now keep in mind there is no peace between these two regions.   #  i think most of stateship is about domestic governance.  providing your population with good governance, schools, hospitals, etc.  you look at the number of people the government of canada employs and 0 of them work in those kinds of fields and 0 are air traffic controllers, border guards, etc.  thats what i mean by 0 of what they want.  now keep in mind there is no peace between these two regions.  the closest analogy would be two countries at war and so it is perfectly understandable that their ports are blockaded and their airspace restricted.  none of this however changes the fact that israel acts in good faith in an attempt to get peace and the restrictions that do exist would be removed as soon as they were not needed to prevent violence against israel .  my point is that instead of reciprocating the pullout and making good faith efforts to negotiate a peace the palestinians elected the terrorists and proceeded to throw their efforts into the destruction of israel instead of the construction of their own state.  which is exactly what happened in the 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s.
until israel endorses either a one state solution, or a two state solution, the israel government is, at best, disingenuous.  in the one state solution, palestinians, would have a  right to vote  on israeli policies.  or israel would have to explain why some of  their citizens  do not get to vote.  in the two state solution, israel would have to treat a palestine, as a country, with sovereignty.  even if a palestine, votes for someone they do not like.  neither solution seems to be acceptable to israel.  so they play a game where  settlements  establish new  facts on the ground  and israel treats palestinians like germans treated the jews before ww0.  delaying.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  i really am open to have my view changed.   #  in the one state solution, palestinians, would have a  right to vote  on israeli policies.   #  palestinians living in israel as israeli arabs do get to vote.   #  first of all, i agree that the israeli endgame has long been the annexation of all the palestinian territories.  i believe that in order to maintain a jewish state with at least some semblance of secular democracy they must support a two state solution while indeed establishing new  facts on the ground  that will inevitably result in driving or wiping out palestinians in gaza and the west bank.  i believe that israel has no right to explicitly support a single ethnicity or religion.  that said, you have lobbed some major softballs to israeli apologists here.  israel officially endorses a two state solution.  palestine does not have a functioning, united government.  palestinians living in israel as israeli arabs do get to vote.  you should be more specific and mention the settlements.  if you simply mean  oppressed,  then you are right.  otherwise it is a somewhat weird comparison to make.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  it is easy to point out that palestinians have been launching attacks on israel for decades as well.   #  are you aware that israel left the west bank edit gaza and effectively gave it sovereignty ?  #  i think the thing to remember is that international politics is different from traditional business negotiations.  in a business negotiation we need a conceptual understanding of what the deal will be before we even begin to negotiate.  in international politics the conceptual framework is often in dispute.  however at its most basic level israel wants peace and is prepared to give land in exchange for that peace.  have you seen the camp david proposals ? URL when reading them over it is important to keep in mind the history of the region and israel is big concern was the west bank could not simply become a staging ground for another syrian or lebanese invasion.  it is all horribly complicated but has to do with defensive depth.  ww0 demonstrated that fixed defenses are useless and in the event of an attack you need to be able to retreit, regroup, and then counter attack.  these kinds of manuvers require tens if not hundreds of miles and ca not be accomplished in ordinary israeli territory because it is physically not big enough israel is tiny .  anyways fundamentally israel is prepared to give both peace and sovereignty to the west bank and gaza in exchange for peace.  are you aware that israel left the west bank edit gaza and effectively gave it sovereignty ? they did it unilaterally and not as part of a wider negotiation and physically removed settlers violently at times who were in palestinian territory.  free elections were then held in gaza and the people elected hamas an organization with the destruction of israel as its founding goal .  there is a lot of conflict and bad actors on both sides true enough.  however the israeli position when read fairly with understanding is that they will let the palestinians have their own state in the west bank and gaza in return for security.  that is not acting in bad faith.  look at what hamas says in public.  their official position is that if israel gives them their own state, and all of the west bank and gaza then in return they will give a long term cease fire.  but they refuse to offer true peace instead almost promising to resume the attempt to murder all the jews in five, ten, or fifty years.  you might think  memories are not that long once there is peace there will be peace  but the reality of the middle east is that as part of muslim teachings in the region jews are the sons of pigs and ought to be killed.   #  i think you really need to consider what effectively happened.   #  sorry i did mean gaza but had written west bank.  i think you really need to consider what effectively happened.  in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  in gaza they could have done almost anything they had wanted.  the list of things they could not do fits on a page and includes such hardships as  being able to wage war on their neighbor without fear of reprisal  and  have an open border with egypt an arab country that has no interest in opening its border to gaza and admitting the terrorists within into its lands .  its not that you do not have a point you do but gaza was handed 0 of what it meant to be its own state and in short order had done what most countries in the region do when given power executing its internal political opponents and ignoring the plight of its own people.   #  if turkey or denmark or whoever else wants to trade with gaza, israel has no right to tell them they are not allowed to.   # in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  yes, the us has soveriegnty over the land i live on, and in return, i am allowed to vote in us elections.  if gazans were israeli citizens, i would have no problem with israel controlling the airspace or trying palestinians in israeli courts.  however, israel holds gaza and to a lesser extent the west bank in legal limbo, they do not get to be part of israel, but they also are not allowed to be their own state.  they get the drawbacks of being part of israel subject to israeli laws, israeli control of airspace etc , but none of the benefits like voting in israeli elections .  i agree that israel and egypt have every right to close their own borders with gaza, but they should not be allowed to close off gaza from the rest of the world by sea.  if turkey or denmark or whoever else wants to trade with gaza, israel has no right to tell them they are not allowed to.  their imports from the rest of the world, who ought to be free to trade with gaza if they want , are limited by the israeli blockade.  for a while in 0 0, goods such as tomato paste and fishing rods were not allowed past the blockade, tourism as well as travel for gazans is effectively illegal with israeli control of airspace and the blockade not allowing passengers in and out.  control of airspace and sea lanes is pretty critical to territorial integrity, which is like, most of what stateship is.  yes, i agree that hamas is generally awful.  that does not justify blockading the place and not letting other countries trade if they want, and it certainly is not reason to ban things like tomato paste and fishing rods.   #  the closest analogy would be two countries at war and so it is perfectly understandable that their ports are blockaded and their airspace restricted.   #  i think most of stateship is about domestic governance.  providing your population with good governance, schools, hospitals, etc.  you look at the number of people the government of canada employs and 0 of them work in those kinds of fields and 0 are air traffic controllers, border guards, etc.  thats what i mean by 0 of what they want.  now keep in mind there is no peace between these two regions.  the closest analogy would be two countries at war and so it is perfectly understandable that their ports are blockaded and their airspace restricted.  none of this however changes the fact that israel acts in good faith in an attempt to get peace and the restrictions that do exist would be removed as soon as they were not needed to prevent violence against israel .  my point is that instead of reciprocating the pullout and making good faith efforts to negotiate a peace the palestinians elected the terrorists and proceeded to throw their efforts into the destruction of israel instead of the construction of their own state.  which is exactly what happened in the 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s.
until israel endorses either a one state solution, or a two state solution, the israel government is, at best, disingenuous.  in the one state solution, palestinians, would have a  right to vote  on israeli policies.  or israel would have to explain why some of  their citizens  do not get to vote.  in the two state solution, israel would have to treat a palestine, as a country, with sovereignty.  even if a palestine, votes for someone they do not like.  neither solution seems to be acceptable to israel.  so they play a game where  settlements  establish new  facts on the ground  and israel treats palestinians like germans treated the jews before ww0.  delaying.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  i really am open to have my view changed.   #  in the two state solution, israel would have to treat a palestine, as a country, with sovereignty.   #  you should be more specific and mention the settlements.   #  first of all, i agree that the israeli endgame has long been the annexation of all the palestinian territories.  i believe that in order to maintain a jewish state with at least some semblance of secular democracy they must support a two state solution while indeed establishing new  facts on the ground  that will inevitably result in driving or wiping out palestinians in gaza and the west bank.  i believe that israel has no right to explicitly support a single ethnicity or religion.  that said, you have lobbed some major softballs to israeli apologists here.  israel officially endorses a two state solution.  palestine does not have a functioning, united government.  palestinians living in israel as israeli arabs do get to vote.  you should be more specific and mention the settlements.  if you simply mean  oppressed,  then you are right.  otherwise it is a somewhat weird comparison to make.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  it is easy to point out that palestinians have been launching attacks on israel for decades as well.   #  in a business negotiation we need a conceptual understanding of what the deal will be before we even begin to negotiate.   #  i think the thing to remember is that international politics is different from traditional business negotiations.  in a business negotiation we need a conceptual understanding of what the deal will be before we even begin to negotiate.  in international politics the conceptual framework is often in dispute.  however at its most basic level israel wants peace and is prepared to give land in exchange for that peace.  have you seen the camp david proposals ? URL when reading them over it is important to keep in mind the history of the region and israel is big concern was the west bank could not simply become a staging ground for another syrian or lebanese invasion.  it is all horribly complicated but has to do with defensive depth.  ww0 demonstrated that fixed defenses are useless and in the event of an attack you need to be able to retreit, regroup, and then counter attack.  these kinds of manuvers require tens if not hundreds of miles and ca not be accomplished in ordinary israeli territory because it is physically not big enough israel is tiny .  anyways fundamentally israel is prepared to give both peace and sovereignty to the west bank and gaza in exchange for peace.  are you aware that israel left the west bank edit gaza and effectively gave it sovereignty ? they did it unilaterally and not as part of a wider negotiation and physically removed settlers violently at times who were in palestinian territory.  free elections were then held in gaza and the people elected hamas an organization with the destruction of israel as its founding goal .  there is a lot of conflict and bad actors on both sides true enough.  however the israeli position when read fairly with understanding is that they will let the palestinians have their own state in the west bank and gaza in return for security.  that is not acting in bad faith.  look at what hamas says in public.  their official position is that if israel gives them their own state, and all of the west bank and gaza then in return they will give a long term cease fire.  but they refuse to offer true peace instead almost promising to resume the attempt to murder all the jews in five, ten, or fifty years.  you might think  memories are not that long once there is peace there will be peace  but the reality of the middle east is that as part of muslim teachings in the region jews are the sons of pigs and ought to be killed.   #  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.   #  sorry i did mean gaza but had written west bank.  i think you really need to consider what effectively happened.  in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  in gaza they could have done almost anything they had wanted.  the list of things they could not do fits on a page and includes such hardships as  being able to wage war on their neighbor without fear of reprisal  and  have an open border with egypt an arab country that has no interest in opening its border to gaza and admitting the terrorists within into its lands .  its not that you do not have a point you do but gaza was handed 0 of what it meant to be its own state and in short order had done what most countries in the region do when given power executing its internal political opponents and ignoring the plight of its own people.   #  they get the drawbacks of being part of israel subject to israeli laws, israeli control of airspace etc , but none of the benefits like voting in israeli elections .   # in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  yes, the us has soveriegnty over the land i live on, and in return, i am allowed to vote in us elections.  if gazans were israeli citizens, i would have no problem with israel controlling the airspace or trying palestinians in israeli courts.  however, israel holds gaza and to a lesser extent the west bank in legal limbo, they do not get to be part of israel, but they also are not allowed to be their own state.  they get the drawbacks of being part of israel subject to israeli laws, israeli control of airspace etc , but none of the benefits like voting in israeli elections .  i agree that israel and egypt have every right to close their own borders with gaza, but they should not be allowed to close off gaza from the rest of the world by sea.  if turkey or denmark or whoever else wants to trade with gaza, israel has no right to tell them they are not allowed to.  their imports from the rest of the world, who ought to be free to trade with gaza if they want , are limited by the israeli blockade.  for a while in 0 0, goods such as tomato paste and fishing rods were not allowed past the blockade, tourism as well as travel for gazans is effectively illegal with israeli control of airspace and the blockade not allowing passengers in and out.  control of airspace and sea lanes is pretty critical to territorial integrity, which is like, most of what stateship is.  yes, i agree that hamas is generally awful.  that does not justify blockading the place and not letting other countries trade if they want, and it certainly is not reason to ban things like tomato paste and fishing rods.   #  i think most of stateship is about domestic governance.   #  i think most of stateship is about domestic governance.  providing your population with good governance, schools, hospitals, etc.  you look at the number of people the government of canada employs and 0 of them work in those kinds of fields and 0 are air traffic controllers, border guards, etc.  thats what i mean by 0 of what they want.  now keep in mind there is no peace between these two regions.  the closest analogy would be two countries at war and so it is perfectly understandable that their ports are blockaded and their airspace restricted.  none of this however changes the fact that israel acts in good faith in an attempt to get peace and the restrictions that do exist would be removed as soon as they were not needed to prevent violence against israel .  my point is that instead of reciprocating the pullout and making good faith efforts to negotiate a peace the palestinians elected the terrorists and proceeded to throw their efforts into the destruction of israel instead of the construction of their own state.  which is exactly what happened in the 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s.
until israel endorses either a one state solution, or a two state solution, the israel government is, at best, disingenuous.  in the one state solution, palestinians, would have a  right to vote  on israeli policies.  or israel would have to explain why some of  their citizens  do not get to vote.  in the two state solution, israel would have to treat a palestine, as a country, with sovereignty.  even if a palestine, votes for someone they do not like.  neither solution seems to be acceptable to israel.  so they play a game where  settlements  establish new  facts on the ground  and israel treats palestinians like germans treated the jews before ww0.  delaying.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  i really am open to have my view changed.   #  israel treats palestinians like germans treated the jews before ww0.   #  if you simply mean  oppressed,  then you are right.   #  first of all, i agree that the israeli endgame has long been the annexation of all the palestinian territories.  i believe that in order to maintain a jewish state with at least some semblance of secular democracy they must support a two state solution while indeed establishing new  facts on the ground  that will inevitably result in driving or wiping out palestinians in gaza and the west bank.  i believe that israel has no right to explicitly support a single ethnicity or religion.  that said, you have lobbed some major softballs to israeli apologists here.  israel officially endorses a two state solution.  palestine does not have a functioning, united government.  palestinians living in israel as israeli arabs do get to vote.  you should be more specific and mention the settlements.  if you simply mean  oppressed,  then you are right.  otherwise it is a somewhat weird comparison to make.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  it is easy to point out that palestinians have been launching attacks on israel for decades as well.   #  URL when reading them over it is important to keep in mind the history of the region and israel is big concern was the west bank could not simply become a staging ground for another syrian or lebanese invasion.   #  i think the thing to remember is that international politics is different from traditional business negotiations.  in a business negotiation we need a conceptual understanding of what the deal will be before we even begin to negotiate.  in international politics the conceptual framework is often in dispute.  however at its most basic level israel wants peace and is prepared to give land in exchange for that peace.  have you seen the camp david proposals ? URL when reading them over it is important to keep in mind the history of the region and israel is big concern was the west bank could not simply become a staging ground for another syrian or lebanese invasion.  it is all horribly complicated but has to do with defensive depth.  ww0 demonstrated that fixed defenses are useless and in the event of an attack you need to be able to retreit, regroup, and then counter attack.  these kinds of manuvers require tens if not hundreds of miles and ca not be accomplished in ordinary israeli territory because it is physically not big enough israel is tiny .  anyways fundamentally israel is prepared to give both peace and sovereignty to the west bank and gaza in exchange for peace.  are you aware that israel left the west bank edit gaza and effectively gave it sovereignty ? they did it unilaterally and not as part of a wider negotiation and physically removed settlers violently at times who were in palestinian territory.  free elections were then held in gaza and the people elected hamas an organization with the destruction of israel as its founding goal .  there is a lot of conflict and bad actors on both sides true enough.  however the israeli position when read fairly with understanding is that they will let the palestinians have their own state in the west bank and gaza in return for security.  that is not acting in bad faith.  look at what hamas says in public.  their official position is that if israel gives them their own state, and all of the west bank and gaza then in return they will give a long term cease fire.  but they refuse to offer true peace instead almost promising to resume the attempt to murder all the jews in five, ten, or fifty years.  you might think  memories are not that long once there is peace there will be peace  but the reality of the middle east is that as part of muslim teachings in the region jews are the sons of pigs and ought to be killed.   #  sorry i did mean gaza but had written west bank.   #  sorry i did mean gaza but had written west bank.  i think you really need to consider what effectively happened.  in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  in gaza they could have done almost anything they had wanted.  the list of things they could not do fits on a page and includes such hardships as  being able to wage war on their neighbor without fear of reprisal  and  have an open border with egypt an arab country that has no interest in opening its border to gaza and admitting the terrorists within into its lands .  its not that you do not have a point you do but gaza was handed 0 of what it meant to be its own state and in short order had done what most countries in the region do when given power executing its internal political opponents and ignoring the plight of its own people.   #  if turkey or denmark or whoever else wants to trade with gaza, israel has no right to tell them they are not allowed to.   # in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  yes, the us has soveriegnty over the land i live on, and in return, i am allowed to vote in us elections.  if gazans were israeli citizens, i would have no problem with israel controlling the airspace or trying palestinians in israeli courts.  however, israel holds gaza and to a lesser extent the west bank in legal limbo, they do not get to be part of israel, but they also are not allowed to be their own state.  they get the drawbacks of being part of israel subject to israeli laws, israeli control of airspace etc , but none of the benefits like voting in israeli elections .  i agree that israel and egypt have every right to close their own borders with gaza, but they should not be allowed to close off gaza from the rest of the world by sea.  if turkey or denmark or whoever else wants to trade with gaza, israel has no right to tell them they are not allowed to.  their imports from the rest of the world, who ought to be free to trade with gaza if they want , are limited by the israeli blockade.  for a while in 0 0, goods such as tomato paste and fishing rods were not allowed past the blockade, tourism as well as travel for gazans is effectively illegal with israeli control of airspace and the blockade not allowing passengers in and out.  control of airspace and sea lanes is pretty critical to territorial integrity, which is like, most of what stateship is.  yes, i agree that hamas is generally awful.  that does not justify blockading the place and not letting other countries trade if they want, and it certainly is not reason to ban things like tomato paste and fishing rods.   #  thats what i mean by 0 of what they want.   #  i think most of stateship is about domestic governance.  providing your population with good governance, schools, hospitals, etc.  you look at the number of people the government of canada employs and 0 of them work in those kinds of fields and 0 are air traffic controllers, border guards, etc.  thats what i mean by 0 of what they want.  now keep in mind there is no peace between these two regions.  the closest analogy would be two countries at war and so it is perfectly understandable that their ports are blockaded and their airspace restricted.  none of this however changes the fact that israel acts in good faith in an attempt to get peace and the restrictions that do exist would be removed as soon as they were not needed to prevent violence against israel .  my point is that instead of reciprocating the pullout and making good faith efforts to negotiate a peace the palestinians elected the terrorists and proceeded to throw their efforts into the destruction of israel instead of the construction of their own state.  which is exactly what happened in the 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s.
until israel endorses either a one state solution, or a two state solution, the israel government is, at best, disingenuous.  in the one state solution, palestinians, would have a  right to vote  on israeli policies.  or israel would have to explain why some of  their citizens  do not get to vote.  in the two state solution, israel would have to treat a palestine, as a country, with sovereignty.  even if a palestine, votes for someone they do not like.  neither solution seems to be acceptable to israel.  so they play a game where  settlements  establish new  facts on the ground  and israel treats palestinians like germans treated the jews before ww0.  delaying.  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  i really am open to have my view changed.   #  in the one state solution, palestinians, would have a  right to vote  on israeli policies.   #  this would be the end of israel.   # this would be the end of israel.  non starter.  moving on.    in the two state solution, israel would have to treat a palestine, as a country, with sovereignty.  even if a palestine, votes for someone they do not like.  i like this solution.  i think most israelis do too.  hell, probably most israeli politicians agree as well.  the problem is that this wo not fix anything.  instead of being a conflict between israel and hamas it would become a war between israel and palestine.  if israel were to treat palestine as a sovereign country, the first rocket launched from gaza would constitute an  act of war , and israel would be fully justified in retaliating even more so than they did in the last round of fighting .  delaying.  an occasional  war .  delaying.  seems to be israel is position.  yes, but not my israel is choice.  hamas has in their charter URL very clearly, that their purpose is the destruction of the state of israel and killing of all the jews.  as such, it is only  logical  that eventually there will be another war.  that being said, they are hardly justification for launching missiles and digging tunnels into israeli kindergartens.  i feel that i have addressed each of your points, but i do not see how it flows that israel is acting  in bad faith.    #  it is all horribly complicated but has to do with defensive depth.   #  i think the thing to remember is that international politics is different from traditional business negotiations.  in a business negotiation we need a conceptual understanding of what the deal will be before we even begin to negotiate.  in international politics the conceptual framework is often in dispute.  however at its most basic level israel wants peace and is prepared to give land in exchange for that peace.  have you seen the camp david proposals ? URL when reading them over it is important to keep in mind the history of the region and israel is big concern was the west bank could not simply become a staging ground for another syrian or lebanese invasion.  it is all horribly complicated but has to do with defensive depth.  ww0 demonstrated that fixed defenses are useless and in the event of an attack you need to be able to retreit, regroup, and then counter attack.  these kinds of manuvers require tens if not hundreds of miles and ca not be accomplished in ordinary israeli territory because it is physically not big enough israel is tiny .  anyways fundamentally israel is prepared to give both peace and sovereignty to the west bank and gaza in exchange for peace.  are you aware that israel left the west bank edit gaza and effectively gave it sovereignty ? they did it unilaterally and not as part of a wider negotiation and physically removed settlers violently at times who were in palestinian territory.  free elections were then held in gaza and the people elected hamas an organization with the destruction of israel as its founding goal .  there is a lot of conflict and bad actors on both sides true enough.  however the israeli position when read fairly with understanding is that they will let the palestinians have their own state in the west bank and gaza in return for security.  that is not acting in bad faith.  look at what hamas says in public.  their official position is that if israel gives them their own state, and all of the west bank and gaza then in return they will give a long term cease fire.  but they refuse to offer true peace instead almost promising to resume the attempt to murder all the jews in five, ten, or fifty years.  you might think  memories are not that long once there is peace there will be peace  but the reality of the middle east is that as part of muslim teachings in the region jews are the sons of pigs and ought to be killed.   #  in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.   #  sorry i did mean gaza but had written west bank.  i think you really need to consider what effectively happened.  in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  in gaza they could have done almost anything they had wanted.  the list of things they could not do fits on a page and includes such hardships as  being able to wage war on their neighbor without fear of reprisal  and  have an open border with egypt an arab country that has no interest in opening its border to gaza and admitting the terrorists within into its lands .  its not that you do not have a point you do but gaza was handed 0 of what it meant to be its own state and in short order had done what most countries in the region do when given power executing its internal political opponents and ignoring the plight of its own people.   #  i agree that israel and egypt have every right to close their own borders with gaza, but they should not be allowed to close off gaza from the rest of the world by sea.   # in your own house you are subject to a million different laws and regulations from the country you are in.  you are allowed to make a limited number of rules that are imposed on those in your house but you ca not enforce the rules you make without running afoul of the laws of the country you are in.  yes, the us has soveriegnty over the land i live on, and in return, i am allowed to vote in us elections.  if gazans were israeli citizens, i would have no problem with israel controlling the airspace or trying palestinians in israeli courts.  however, israel holds gaza and to a lesser extent the west bank in legal limbo, they do not get to be part of israel, but they also are not allowed to be their own state.  they get the drawbacks of being part of israel subject to israeli laws, israeli control of airspace etc , but none of the benefits like voting in israeli elections .  i agree that israel and egypt have every right to close their own borders with gaza, but they should not be allowed to close off gaza from the rest of the world by sea.  if turkey or denmark or whoever else wants to trade with gaza, israel has no right to tell them they are not allowed to.  their imports from the rest of the world, who ought to be free to trade with gaza if they want , are limited by the israeli blockade.  for a while in 0 0, goods such as tomato paste and fishing rods were not allowed past the blockade, tourism as well as travel for gazans is effectively illegal with israeli control of airspace and the blockade not allowing passengers in and out.  control of airspace and sea lanes is pretty critical to territorial integrity, which is like, most of what stateship is.  yes, i agree that hamas is generally awful.  that does not justify blockading the place and not letting other countries trade if they want, and it certainly is not reason to ban things like tomato paste and fishing rods.   #  providing your population with good governance, schools, hospitals, etc.   #  i think most of stateship is about domestic governance.  providing your population with good governance, schools, hospitals, etc.  you look at the number of people the government of canada employs and 0 of them work in those kinds of fields and 0 are air traffic controllers, border guards, etc.  thats what i mean by 0 of what they want.  now keep in mind there is no peace between these two regions.  the closest analogy would be two countries at war and so it is perfectly understandable that their ports are blockaded and their airspace restricted.  none of this however changes the fact that israel acts in good faith in an attempt to get peace and the restrictions that do exist would be removed as soon as they were not needed to prevent violence against israel .  my point is that instead of reciprocating the pullout and making good faith efforts to negotiate a peace the palestinians elected the terrorists and proceeded to throw their efforts into the destruction of israel instead of the construction of their own state.  which is exactly what happened in the 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s, 0s.
there is the typical question about tipping, is it good, bad ? why should i tip for bad service ? typically people point out that work places often have hourly wages below minimum and add on the tips the staff received during their shift.  if the total amount is less than minimum wage, the business would make up the difference and make sure the staff got at least minimum wage.  but people point out that many places will not do this, and if an employee brings up the topic they can often lose their jobs.  i believe that enforcing a minimum wage for these type of service businesses would alleviate the issues we have with tipping.  it would make tipping completely optional, if you get good service you will reward them with added income, and if they do a bad job, well they get their hourly wage for doing their job, nothing more.  but this way, if you choose to not tip, you cant really be seen as punishing the waiter and putting him in a spot below minimum wage.  often the waiters like to blame the customer for them not making as much, when they should be blaming management.  that responsibility should lie with the employer, cmv  #  but people point out that many places will not do this, and if an employee brings up the topic they can often lose their jobs.   #  while there will always be extenuating circumstances and unrepeatable business owners, if your not getting tipped you probably suck at your job and should be fired.   # you should not.  that is the point ! while there will always be extenuating circumstances and unrepeatable business owners, if your not getting tipped you probably suck at your job and should be fired.  if you are being paid the server minimum wage, you really only need to make like 0 or 0 dollars an hour in tips to get to minimum wage.  if you ca not handle that, maybe being a server is not the right job for you.  first, enforcing the minimum wage for servers would be difficult.  it is pretty common for servers to not report all of their tips, making it look like they made less pay less taxes , not to mention restaurants are probably only second to the construction industry in under the table pay.  as a server, your job is service duh you are not cooking and may do some minimal cleaning, but otherwise you job is to make the customer happy.  i mean you could easily have customers pick their orders up at a window themselves and cut out the serves entirely if you wanted some places do so if the customer is not happy then the server did not do their job.  should they get paid ? the tipping system is an immediate feedback.  you did not like your service ? do not tip.  it is a hell of a lot easier then filling out comment cards or waiting around to bitch to the manager.  they should probably blame themselves ! i have several friends that serve or bar tend.  on a good night they come home with a few hundred bucks in their pocket for a maybe 0 hour shift.  sure you get the occasional stingy customer, but if its a pattern, maybe it is you.  either you get to decide what you think the server earned or your foods more expensive and you do not get to decide.  with out tips if your server sucks you have to make extra effort to let the restaurant know.  most of your argument seems to stem form making sure the servers make enough money.  most servers i know actually make more because of tips than they would at another job for the same amount of hours.  shit, my friend was a cocktail waitress at a higher end night club, she would make more on a saturday then i made all week.  at the end of the day, if you do not want to pay a server, eat at home.   #  restaurant can undoubtedly support a regular 0 minimum wage staff.   #  i agree that the serving staff would prefer it.  the problem is however, their consistent demonizing of the patrons who keep the establishment open.  tipping does not keep it open, paying $0 for a beer does.  restaurant can undoubtedly support a regular 0 minimum wage staff.  another straw man argument is that the staff would be bad at their job and not give good service.  is it so hard to imagine the idea of a staff working hard, being friendly, to possibly get a tip ?  #  they pay out an extra $0 in wages but increase their profit by $0 rather than that $0 going to the server like it was when they were tipped.   #  here is the deal, though.  increasing wages just makes your beer cost $0 instead of $0.  now, say the house normally sells 0 beers per hour.  they pay out an extra $0 in wages but increase their profit by $0 rather than that $0 going to the server like it was when they were tipped.  now suppose there is a huge rush and they sell 0 beers.  the house just earned $0 extra in profit while the server got no extra compensation at all for their extra work.   #  i have never found the us system of effectively having mandatory tips to be successful in promoting good service as some seem to expect to be tipped regardless of how shitty the service was.   #  er, if the price of beer increases to $0 then surely the server should have had a payrise ? also, just because tips are not mandatory does not mean they do not happen.  here in the uk people still tip but we do not feel obliged to since we know the staff are reasonably paid well, to some extent .  i have never found the us system of effectively having mandatory tips to be successful in promoting good service as some seem to expect to be tipped regardless of how shitty the service was.  anecdote i know, but i was amazed when a waitress sat down and asked why i only tipped 0 after some of the shittiest service i have ever experienced, and then argued with me when i explained why.   #  and while it can be fun, i would  love  to go back to working at a subway sometimes.   #  waiting tables really does require a lot of skill and composure, and it is not something just anyone can do well.  i know it does not seem like it, but if you ever tried it, i think you would agree.  it is widely considered URL one of the worst jobs in america, and often makes the  top ten worst jobs  list.  so, not only is it pretty difficult, it is emotionally draining and it is pretty physically demanding too.  i have never worked a job where i felt like i was damn near panicking for an entire shift outside of serving.  i have never worked a job that i regularly have nightmares about.  i have not worked at chipotle, but i have worked at other restaurants, and i will say that serving is easily, overall, the most difficult and stressful job i have ever had.  and while it can be fun, i would  love  to go back to working at a subway sometimes.  i just do not want to cut my pay in half to do it.
there is the typical question about tipping, is it good, bad ? why should i tip for bad service ? typically people point out that work places often have hourly wages below minimum and add on the tips the staff received during their shift.  if the total amount is less than minimum wage, the business would make up the difference and make sure the staff got at least minimum wage.  but people point out that many places will not do this, and if an employee brings up the topic they can often lose their jobs.  i believe that enforcing a minimum wage for these type of service businesses would alleviate the issues we have with tipping.  it would make tipping completely optional, if you get good service you will reward them with added income, and if they do a bad job, well they get their hourly wage for doing their job, nothing more.  but this way, if you choose to not tip, you cant really be seen as punishing the waiter and putting him in a spot below minimum wage.  often the waiters like to blame the customer for them not making as much, when they should be blaming management.  that responsibility should lie with the employer, cmv  #  i believe that enforcing a minimum wage for these type of service businesses would alleviate the issues we have with tipping.   #  first, enforcing the minimum wage for servers would be difficult.   # you should not.  that is the point ! while there will always be extenuating circumstances and unrepeatable business owners, if your not getting tipped you probably suck at your job and should be fired.  if you are being paid the server minimum wage, you really only need to make like 0 or 0 dollars an hour in tips to get to minimum wage.  if you ca not handle that, maybe being a server is not the right job for you.  first, enforcing the minimum wage for servers would be difficult.  it is pretty common for servers to not report all of their tips, making it look like they made less pay less taxes , not to mention restaurants are probably only second to the construction industry in under the table pay.  as a server, your job is service duh you are not cooking and may do some minimal cleaning, but otherwise you job is to make the customer happy.  i mean you could easily have customers pick their orders up at a window themselves and cut out the serves entirely if you wanted some places do so if the customer is not happy then the server did not do their job.  should they get paid ? the tipping system is an immediate feedback.  you did not like your service ? do not tip.  it is a hell of a lot easier then filling out comment cards or waiting around to bitch to the manager.  they should probably blame themselves ! i have several friends that serve or bar tend.  on a good night they come home with a few hundred bucks in their pocket for a maybe 0 hour shift.  sure you get the occasional stingy customer, but if its a pattern, maybe it is you.  either you get to decide what you think the server earned or your foods more expensive and you do not get to decide.  with out tips if your server sucks you have to make extra effort to let the restaurant know.  most of your argument seems to stem form making sure the servers make enough money.  most servers i know actually make more because of tips than they would at another job for the same amount of hours.  shit, my friend was a cocktail waitress at a higher end night club, she would make more on a saturday then i made all week.  at the end of the day, if you do not want to pay a server, eat at home.   #  tipping does not keep it open, paying $0 for a beer does.   #  i agree that the serving staff would prefer it.  the problem is however, their consistent demonizing of the patrons who keep the establishment open.  tipping does not keep it open, paying $0 for a beer does.  restaurant can undoubtedly support a regular 0 minimum wage staff.  another straw man argument is that the staff would be bad at their job and not give good service.  is it so hard to imagine the idea of a staff working hard, being friendly, to possibly get a tip ?  #  now suppose there is a huge rush and they sell 0 beers.   #  here is the deal, though.  increasing wages just makes your beer cost $0 instead of $0.  now, say the house normally sells 0 beers per hour.  they pay out an extra $0 in wages but increase their profit by $0 rather than that $0 going to the server like it was when they were tipped.  now suppose there is a huge rush and they sell 0 beers.  the house just earned $0 extra in profit while the server got no extra compensation at all for their extra work.   #  i have never found the us system of effectively having mandatory tips to be successful in promoting good service as some seem to expect to be tipped regardless of how shitty the service was.   #  er, if the price of beer increases to $0 then surely the server should have had a payrise ? also, just because tips are not mandatory does not mean they do not happen.  here in the uk people still tip but we do not feel obliged to since we know the staff are reasonably paid well, to some extent .  i have never found the us system of effectively having mandatory tips to be successful in promoting good service as some seem to expect to be tipped regardless of how shitty the service was.  anecdote i know, but i was amazed when a waitress sat down and asked why i only tipped 0 after some of the shittiest service i have ever experienced, and then argued with me when i explained why.   #  i have never worked a job where i felt like i was damn near panicking for an entire shift outside of serving.   #  waiting tables really does require a lot of skill and composure, and it is not something just anyone can do well.  i know it does not seem like it, but if you ever tried it, i think you would agree.  it is widely considered URL one of the worst jobs in america, and often makes the  top ten worst jobs  list.  so, not only is it pretty difficult, it is emotionally draining and it is pretty physically demanding too.  i have never worked a job where i felt like i was damn near panicking for an entire shift outside of serving.  i have never worked a job that i regularly have nightmares about.  i have not worked at chipotle, but i have worked at other restaurants, and i will say that serving is easily, overall, the most difficult and stressful job i have ever had.  and while it can be fun, i would  love  to go back to working at a subway sometimes.  i just do not want to cut my pay in half to do it.
there is the typical question about tipping, is it good, bad ? why should i tip for bad service ? typically people point out that work places often have hourly wages below minimum and add on the tips the staff received during their shift.  if the total amount is less than minimum wage, the business would make up the difference and make sure the staff got at least minimum wage.  but people point out that many places will not do this, and if an employee brings up the topic they can often lose their jobs.  i believe that enforcing a minimum wage for these type of service businesses would alleviate the issues we have with tipping.  it would make tipping completely optional, if you get good service you will reward them with added income, and if they do a bad job, well they get their hourly wage for doing their job, nothing more.  but this way, if you choose to not tip, you cant really be seen as punishing the waiter and putting him in a spot below minimum wage.  often the waiters like to blame the customer for them not making as much, when they should be blaming management.  that responsibility should lie with the employer, cmv  #  it would make tipping completely optional, if you get good service you will reward them with added income, and if they do a bad job, well they get their hourly wage for doing their job, nothing more.   #  as a server, your job is service duh you are not cooking and may do some minimal cleaning, but otherwise you job is to make the customer happy.   # you should not.  that is the point ! while there will always be extenuating circumstances and unrepeatable business owners, if your not getting tipped you probably suck at your job and should be fired.  if you are being paid the server minimum wage, you really only need to make like 0 or 0 dollars an hour in tips to get to minimum wage.  if you ca not handle that, maybe being a server is not the right job for you.  first, enforcing the minimum wage for servers would be difficult.  it is pretty common for servers to not report all of their tips, making it look like they made less pay less taxes , not to mention restaurants are probably only second to the construction industry in under the table pay.  as a server, your job is service duh you are not cooking and may do some minimal cleaning, but otherwise you job is to make the customer happy.  i mean you could easily have customers pick their orders up at a window themselves and cut out the serves entirely if you wanted some places do so if the customer is not happy then the server did not do their job.  should they get paid ? the tipping system is an immediate feedback.  you did not like your service ? do not tip.  it is a hell of a lot easier then filling out comment cards or waiting around to bitch to the manager.  they should probably blame themselves ! i have several friends that serve or bar tend.  on a good night they come home with a few hundred bucks in their pocket for a maybe 0 hour shift.  sure you get the occasional stingy customer, but if its a pattern, maybe it is you.  either you get to decide what you think the server earned or your foods more expensive and you do not get to decide.  with out tips if your server sucks you have to make extra effort to let the restaurant know.  most of your argument seems to stem form making sure the servers make enough money.  most servers i know actually make more because of tips than they would at another job for the same amount of hours.  shit, my friend was a cocktail waitress at a higher end night club, she would make more on a saturday then i made all week.  at the end of the day, if you do not want to pay a server, eat at home.   #  is it so hard to imagine the idea of a staff working hard, being friendly, to possibly get a tip ?  #  i agree that the serving staff would prefer it.  the problem is however, their consistent demonizing of the patrons who keep the establishment open.  tipping does not keep it open, paying $0 for a beer does.  restaurant can undoubtedly support a regular 0 minimum wage staff.  another straw man argument is that the staff would be bad at their job and not give good service.  is it so hard to imagine the idea of a staff working hard, being friendly, to possibly get a tip ?  #  now suppose there is a huge rush and they sell 0 beers.   #  here is the deal, though.  increasing wages just makes your beer cost $0 instead of $0.  now, say the house normally sells 0 beers per hour.  they pay out an extra $0 in wages but increase their profit by $0 rather than that $0 going to the server like it was when they were tipped.  now suppose there is a huge rush and they sell 0 beers.  the house just earned $0 extra in profit while the server got no extra compensation at all for their extra work.   #  also, just because tips are not mandatory does not mean they do not happen.   #  er, if the price of beer increases to $0 then surely the server should have had a payrise ? also, just because tips are not mandatory does not mean they do not happen.  here in the uk people still tip but we do not feel obliged to since we know the staff are reasonably paid well, to some extent .  i have never found the us system of effectively having mandatory tips to be successful in promoting good service as some seem to expect to be tipped regardless of how shitty the service was.  anecdote i know, but i was amazed when a waitress sat down and asked why i only tipped 0 after some of the shittiest service i have ever experienced, and then argued with me when i explained why.   #  i have never worked a job that i regularly have nightmares about.   #  waiting tables really does require a lot of skill and composure, and it is not something just anyone can do well.  i know it does not seem like it, but if you ever tried it, i think you would agree.  it is widely considered URL one of the worst jobs in america, and often makes the  top ten worst jobs  list.  so, not only is it pretty difficult, it is emotionally draining and it is pretty physically demanding too.  i have never worked a job where i felt like i was damn near panicking for an entire shift outside of serving.  i have never worked a job that i regularly have nightmares about.  i have not worked at chipotle, but i have worked at other restaurants, and i will say that serving is easily, overall, the most difficult and stressful job i have ever had.  and while it can be fun, i would  love  to go back to working at a subway sometimes.  i just do not want to cut my pay in half to do it.
i believe the word  evil  is a lazy description of any persons actions and that the concept of evil, especially in the metaphysical sense, is completely non existent.  furthermore, i believe the use of the word  evil  when referring to one or one is actions is toxic to public perception of psychology and morals.  the most heinous, terrible, selfish, disgusting acts that a person can commit can always in my experience be considered critically and be shown to have more practical roots than the over arching, massive title of calling them or their actions  evil .  if we are to have a conversation on the matter devoid of religious belief which i would strongly prefer , i see, as of now, no practical reason to see  evil  as a realistic, viable description of anything ever.  cmv ?  #  the most heinous, terrible, selfish, disgusting acts that a person can commit can always in my experience be considered critically and be shown to have more practical roots than the over arching, massive title of calling them or their actions  evil .   #  there are certain heinous acts that have no practical roots.   # there are certain heinous acts that have no practical roots.  i am thinking of things like child abuse, dousing a cat in gas and setting it on fire, hitting someone with a car because of the color of their skin, etc.  some people do wrong things because it pleases them.  that, in my mind, can be described as  evil.   words like  good  and  evil  speak to the emotional motivations behind actions, because not every action stems from practicality, at least not entirely so.   #  it is an amalgam of a bunch of different features, none of which is sufficient by itself to qualify a place as a desert.   #  after rereading your post, it is still difficult for me to get a sense of what you see as the connotation of the word  evil,  but let is not get stuck on this word.  it is obviously a loaded term, and we could go in circles trying to figure out what we each mean when we use it.  take instead the less controversial word  desert.   at some point in your life, you have probably come across some insufferable pedant who says:  you know, antarctica is the largest desert in the world.   sure, according to some very strict formal definition based on millimeters of average annual rainfall, but anyone can see why that statement is absurd.  under normal circumstances antarctica is not even in the running for largest desert in the world because it is not deserty.  it is disqualified by its lack of desertness.  but then what is desertness ? it is the combination of various required and optional characteristics that lead a person to call a place a desert.  lack of water, hardy plants or no plants at all, sandy or rocky ground.  it is an amalgam of a bunch of different features, none of which is sufficient by itself to qualify a place as a desert.   evil  works the same way.  there is no linear definition that can be used for scientific purposes, but we all know what it is.  even if the idea is harmful, that is completely separate from the question of whether or not it exists.  the fact that i can call someone evil and you automatically get a sense of their personality means that there is a concept that the label  evil  points to, ill defined, nebulous, and socially harmful as it may be, in the exact same way that when i say a place is a  desert  you do not imagine ice and snow, but sand dunes and camels or cactuses or something like that.   #  hitler is evil because he is in a small group of people that have done profoundly awful things.   #  what is your point ? it seems your only issue is that you feel  evil  is used inappropriately; not that it does not exist.  on the spectrum of bad descriptors, you can consider  evil  at the opposite end of  good .  it is appropriate to call something evil when it fits among the worst things that exist or could be imagined.  hitler is evil because he is in a small group of people that have done profoundly awful things.  hitler has pinned the needle on our scale of bad, and no clarity is added by defining anything worse.   #  that is, for me, when the term  evil  comes in.   #  well, i think the issue is that  evil  is not supposed to be an absolute or objective term even if some religions would disagree .  to use another tired ww0 analogy, what the nazi is did during ww0 was evil.  i consider heinrich himmler to be an  evil  man.  he certainly did not think he was evil.  and i would imagine a large percentage in favor the nazi party did not find his actions evil.  but from our perspective, they are.  it is all relative.  true, the term  evil  does not really say anything in and of itself because it is a generic term.  but, it is just that: an abstraction.  personally, i consider the term  evil  to be more of a expression of distress.  when you see the things that himmler or mengele did, the acts seem so disgusting and horrific that you ca not imagine how a human could do them and be ok with it and show no remorse.  that is, for me, when the term  evil  comes in.  again, they did not see it that way, but we do from our perspective.   #  because of above, i would almost say that this is just replacing one general term with another slightly more specific but still rather general term.   # well, those terms you have listed are still rather imprecise and it does raise an interesting counter question: should hitler be considered just as selfish, ignorant, or misguided as someone, who has committed no crimes, standing on the side of the road screaming  god hates fags  ? despite hitler being responsible for the systematic extermination of millions ? both of them share a common principle: attacking those who are, essentially, different in some way based on a belief.  but, should they be comparable by labeling them under the same terms ? i am not sure where i stand on this yet, but my initial stance is that his history and influence makes those labels more severe, just more justifying the use of  evil .  because of above, i would almost say that this is just replacing one general term with another slightly more specific but still rather general term.  plus, i do not think the two are mutually exclusive.  logically, yes hitler was misguided in the sense that he was delusional and believed in non truths , but i still think he was evil because of how barbaric and unsympathetic he was about carrying those beliefs out.  why use it ? all it serves to do is severely dumb down the discussion.  i think, now that i have been arguing this for a while, that  evil  is an emotional term where as terms like  amisguided  would be logical descriptors.  when i think of why i consider hitler evil, it is mostly because of the atrocities he has carried out and the unimaginable pain and suffering he brought upon the world without remorse.  it is an emotional reaction that kicks me in the gut and makes me want to call him an evil bastard.  i think this is why i consider  evil  to be a subjective term more than anything.  i still do not think this is necessarily a bad thing.  i think the problem is when people ca not look past that term or use it as a dismissal.  it, in and of itself, does not squash further investigation, it is just an expression of emotional and moral outrage.  but, when people do use it as a dismissive term, i would argue that they have already made that decision in their minds.  at that point, dismissing someone as  evil  is just a reflection of that.
with the college mayhem coming around the corner for high school seniors, my father and i have discussed that matter.  me having no interest as of now in any college degree, believe that college is completely unnecessary to  succeed .  i do not want to have to go to college just because everyone else does, and end up majoring in philosophy or some other non stem or useless major with student debt, only to have to work an office job anyway.  i can get into any trade or find another way to obtain a salary of $0.  my father is being a neurophysician with 0 children includng me idea of success is having a large house, multiple cars, children, and a professional degree/background/title.  my idea of success is having a roof over my head, a steady supply of food, one used car, and a way to obtain the small salary, and also to have remaining spending money to entertain myself.  again, i really do not think a college degree is necessary for that amount of money.  do i plan to have kids ? no.  do i plan to get married ? depends on the girl.  i personally do not rely on others for happiness so that wo not affect me too much.  my father obviously has much more living experience than i do, but again, with me not having any desire to study any further than high school just some info: i do have good grades and test scores, because from freshman year to the end of junior year i actually cared about academics.  all in all, i believe i can live off of a salary of $0 or less in the u. s. , and can obtain wealth through other means, legal or not.   #  my idea of success is having a roof over my head, a steady supply of food, one used car, and a way to obtain the small salary, and also to have remaining spending money to entertain myself.   #  again, i really do not think a college degree is necessary for that amount of money.   #  i was in the exact same scenario, except my dad was certainly not a brain surgeon.  anyway, to the point: my dad retired from military service and through means i do not quite understand, a full g. i.  bill was available to me through the age of 0.  as a shitty student, i was not going to college, i was going to work like a  real man , like he did.  my thought process was  what the fuck can i learn in college that i cannot learn on my own  ? and the answer is nothing.  i still feel that way 0 years later.  again, i really do not think a college degree is necessary for that amount of money.  and it worked ! i got a job in manual labor hanging billboards at the sweet age of 0.  single, no children, starting at $0 dollars an hour, which got bumped to 0 after three months.  this is before the recession hit and rent was $0 a month.  still not bad, but not great.  i was happy.  until i was not.  and  i personally do not rely on others for happiness so that wo not affect me too much.  quality of life and job satisfaction are not just words attached to high income, they actually exist.  when your body starts to break down, you have to ask yourself  is this worth it  ? when your boss decides that your pay grade is too much and shit cans you in favor of some twat from his church that will work for $0 and hour after you have been there 0 0/0 years, tell yourself again that you  do not rely on others for happiness .  then you look at your body, which has become a road map of scars from hot metal from slag, crushed fingers, knotted muscles, bones that pop on their own and ache when the air pressure changes, a constant sinus infection from working outside in all weather for nearly a decade, and what do you have to show for it but a used car, an xbox0, and a shit ton of books that nobody wants but you.  kid, a college degree is  not  a guarantee that what i stated above will not happen, but it is a certificate against people assuming you do not know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to work.  every job i applied at asked if i had experience, and i did, but had nothing to show for it.  if i had gotten legit certified in welding, crane operation, making blueprints, and if i include all the shit i did around the warehouse and office including ac repair, plumbing i mean installing plumbing systems, not just fixing a leak , some it work, or any of the type of electrical work i did, i would have been able to find a job comparable to the $0 $0k i was making at the end, if not a boat load more.  if you are not keen on going for academics, go for a trade school.  learn something useful, be a plumber, a contractor, a truck driver, do not be an exploited proletariat.   #  i suppose it depends what kind of entertainment you like.   #  i suppose it depends what kind of entertainment you like.  i lived cupertino for 0 months and could not stand it.  liked sf much better.  when i lived in cupertino going to a show or a game or a concert required meticulous planning to make it on caltrain bus in less than like 0 hours, or a $0 cab if one could be found, or driving, which means not everyone can drink, plus the headache of parking.  living in sf all that can be done on a whim.  sf is also way better if you are the type who likes to work out of coffee shops.  or if you just like coffee shops in general.   #  there is a subreddit, /r/eatcheapandhealthy/, where they throw around figures like $0 $0/day.   # it is not good for you, whatever it is.  i am honestly baffled by this.  what are you buying ? vegetables and tofu cost around $0/pound, meat $0 $0, bread and beans and rice and potatoes are $0/pound.  it is trivial to eat healthy for less than $0/day.  there is a subreddit, /r/eatcheapandhealthy/, where they throw around figures like $0 $0/day.  there are a lot of other options outside manhattan, such as astoria and red hook.   #  then you have gotta look at the individual : a 0 0 0 ibs woman who is not from the city   needs late night trains is probably correct if she does not want to live all the way out in carnsie.   #  good luck finding a land lord to let you sign 0 of your income away to rent w/out a perfect credit  with  actual credit history which students do not have , b a cosinger, and c most likely both.  then you have gotta look at the individual : a 0 0 0 ibs woman who is not from the city   needs late night trains is probably correct if she does not want to live all the way out in carnsie.  not safe, not practical.  on 0k, you still need to pay city, state, and federal taxes.  you will likely get it back on 0k, but not until april.  whatever your contribution to health care is.  retirement is not exactly a luxury.  mta will bite out 0 a year or so.  i mean, jeez i could recommend you save money by couch surfing or living in a van down by the river, for all the good this  ignore health care, taxes, and retirement  advice gives.  and $0 a night out ? in manhattan or  cool  brooklyn ? you will be eating at home good luck grocery shopping via subway   cooking in your studios tiny kitchen, btw , or eating at dunkin.  drinking only the cheapest specials.  never taking a cab.  so. might as well live somewhere else, where that $0 actually means something.  $0/night in manhattan is practically a waste ca not get what makes the island special, overpaying for what few offerings you can afford, which you could obtain in any college/ drinking town for cheaper   a safer late night trip back home.   #  add in the fact there are a ton of shows for dirt cheap not broadway of course but loads of fun.   # just avoid the tourist traps do not go to a bar at time is square, etc .  when i was in nyc i went to this amazing pizza place in little italy and got the biggest slice of pizza i have ever seen in my life and it cost $0.  then there are plenty of bars with $0 0 drinks.  add in the fact there are a ton of shows for dirt cheap not broadway of course but loads of fun.  a $0 night out certainly would not be a waste imo.
with the college mayhem coming around the corner for high school seniors, my father and i have discussed that matter.  me having no interest as of now in any college degree, believe that college is completely unnecessary to  succeed .  i do not want to have to go to college just because everyone else does, and end up majoring in philosophy or some other non stem or useless major with student debt, only to have to work an office job anyway.  i can get into any trade or find another way to obtain a salary of $0.  my father is being a neurophysician with 0 children includng me idea of success is having a large house, multiple cars, children, and a professional degree/background/title.  my idea of success is having a roof over my head, a steady supply of food, one used car, and a way to obtain the small salary, and also to have remaining spending money to entertain myself.  again, i really do not think a college degree is necessary for that amount of money.  do i plan to have kids ? no.  do i plan to get married ? depends on the girl.  i personally do not rely on others for happiness so that wo not affect me too much.  my father obviously has much more living experience than i do, but again, with me not having any desire to study any further than high school just some info: i do have good grades and test scores, because from freshman year to the end of junior year i actually cared about academics.  all in all, i believe i can live off of a salary of $0 or less in the u. s. , and can obtain wealth through other means, legal or not.   #  all in all, i believe i can live off of a salary of $0 or less in the u. s. , and can obtain wealth through other means, legal or not.   #  and  i personally do not rely on others for happiness so that wo not affect me too much.   #  i was in the exact same scenario, except my dad was certainly not a brain surgeon.  anyway, to the point: my dad retired from military service and through means i do not quite understand, a full g. i.  bill was available to me through the age of 0.  as a shitty student, i was not going to college, i was going to work like a  real man , like he did.  my thought process was  what the fuck can i learn in college that i cannot learn on my own  ? and the answer is nothing.  i still feel that way 0 years later.  again, i really do not think a college degree is necessary for that amount of money.  and it worked ! i got a job in manual labor hanging billboards at the sweet age of 0.  single, no children, starting at $0 dollars an hour, which got bumped to 0 after three months.  this is before the recession hit and rent was $0 a month.  still not bad, but not great.  i was happy.  until i was not.  and  i personally do not rely on others for happiness so that wo not affect me too much.  quality of life and job satisfaction are not just words attached to high income, they actually exist.  when your body starts to break down, you have to ask yourself  is this worth it  ? when your boss decides that your pay grade is too much and shit cans you in favor of some twat from his church that will work for $0 and hour after you have been there 0 0/0 years, tell yourself again that you  do not rely on others for happiness .  then you look at your body, which has become a road map of scars from hot metal from slag, crushed fingers, knotted muscles, bones that pop on their own and ache when the air pressure changes, a constant sinus infection from working outside in all weather for nearly a decade, and what do you have to show for it but a used car, an xbox0, and a shit ton of books that nobody wants but you.  kid, a college degree is  not  a guarantee that what i stated above will not happen, but it is a certificate against people assuming you do not know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to work.  every job i applied at asked if i had experience, and i did, but had nothing to show for it.  if i had gotten legit certified in welding, crane operation, making blueprints, and if i include all the shit i did around the warehouse and office including ac repair, plumbing i mean installing plumbing systems, not just fixing a leak , some it work, or any of the type of electrical work i did, i would have been able to find a job comparable to the $0 $0k i was making at the end, if not a boat load more.  if you are not keen on going for academics, go for a trade school.  learn something useful, be a plumber, a contractor, a truck driver, do not be an exploited proletariat.   #  i lived cupertino for 0 months and could not stand it.   #  i suppose it depends what kind of entertainment you like.  i lived cupertino for 0 months and could not stand it.  liked sf much better.  when i lived in cupertino going to a show or a game or a concert required meticulous planning to make it on caltrain bus in less than like 0 hours, or a $0 cab if one could be found, or driving, which means not everyone can drink, plus the headache of parking.  living in sf all that can be done on a whim.  sf is also way better if you are the type who likes to work out of coffee shops.  or if you just like coffee shops in general.   #  vegetables and tofu cost around $0/pound, meat $0 $0, bread and beans and rice and potatoes are $0/pound.   # it is not good for you, whatever it is.  i am honestly baffled by this.  what are you buying ? vegetables and tofu cost around $0/pound, meat $0 $0, bread and beans and rice and potatoes are $0/pound.  it is trivial to eat healthy for less than $0/day.  there is a subreddit, /r/eatcheapandhealthy/, where they throw around figures like $0 $0/day.  there are a lot of other options outside manhattan, such as astoria and red hook.   #  i mean, jeez i could recommend you save money by couch surfing or living in a van down by the river, for all the good this  ignore health care, taxes, and retirement  advice gives.   #  good luck finding a land lord to let you sign 0 of your income away to rent w/out a perfect credit  with  actual credit history which students do not have , b a cosinger, and c most likely both.  then you have gotta look at the individual : a 0 0 0 ibs woman who is not from the city   needs late night trains is probably correct if she does not want to live all the way out in carnsie.  not safe, not practical.  on 0k, you still need to pay city, state, and federal taxes.  you will likely get it back on 0k, but not until april.  whatever your contribution to health care is.  retirement is not exactly a luxury.  mta will bite out 0 a year or so.  i mean, jeez i could recommend you save money by couch surfing or living in a van down by the river, for all the good this  ignore health care, taxes, and retirement  advice gives.  and $0 a night out ? in manhattan or  cool  brooklyn ? you will be eating at home good luck grocery shopping via subway   cooking in your studios tiny kitchen, btw , or eating at dunkin.  drinking only the cheapest specials.  never taking a cab.  so. might as well live somewhere else, where that $0 actually means something.  $0/night in manhattan is practically a waste ca not get what makes the island special, overpaying for what few offerings you can afford, which you could obtain in any college/ drinking town for cheaper   a safer late night trip back home.   #  when i was in nyc i went to this amazing pizza place in little italy and got the biggest slice of pizza i have ever seen in my life and it cost $0.   # just avoid the tourist traps do not go to a bar at time is square, etc .  when i was in nyc i went to this amazing pizza place in little italy and got the biggest slice of pizza i have ever seen in my life and it cost $0.  then there are plenty of bars with $0 0 drinks.  add in the fact there are a ton of shows for dirt cheap not broadway of course but loads of fun.  a $0 night out certainly would not be a waste imo.
with the college mayhem coming around the corner for high school seniors, my father and i have discussed that matter.  me having no interest as of now in any college degree, believe that college is completely unnecessary to  succeed .  i do not want to have to go to college just because everyone else does, and end up majoring in philosophy or some other non stem or useless major with student debt, only to have to work an office job anyway.  i can get into any trade or find another way to obtain a salary of $0.  my father is being a neurophysician with 0 children includng me idea of success is having a large house, multiple cars, children, and a professional degree/background/title.  my idea of success is having a roof over my head, a steady supply of food, one used car, and a way to obtain the small salary, and also to have remaining spending money to entertain myself.  again, i really do not think a college degree is necessary for that amount of money.  do i plan to have kids ? no.  do i plan to get married ? depends on the girl.  i personally do not rely on others for happiness so that wo not affect me too much.  my father obviously has much more living experience than i do, but again, with me not having any desire to study any further than high school just some info: i do have good grades and test scores, because from freshman year to the end of junior year i actually cared about academics.  all in all, i believe i can live off of a salary of $0 or less in the u. s. , and can obtain wealth through other means, legal or not.   #  my idea of success is having a roof over my head, a steady supply of food, one used car, and a way to obtain the small salary, and also to have remaining spending money to entertain myself.   #  this is where i think most of us disagree, most people want the ability to retire and find a way to fund their life beyond their working years.   # this is where i think most of us disagree, most people want the ability to retire and find a way to fund their life beyond their working years.  also, there is things like accidents, injuries and other things that can strain your finances.  what if you get into a car accident, surely with that type of salary you cannot cover most medical expenses.  one car accident, one 0k bill and you can be outta luck for the next 0 years.  its not hard to see how people can end up in the streets with our system.  the reason parents have better experience is becuase they have gone through it, they have seen their kids get sick and have it drain the pockets.   #  living in sf all that can be done on a whim.   #  i suppose it depends what kind of entertainment you like.  i lived cupertino for 0 months and could not stand it.  liked sf much better.  when i lived in cupertino going to a show or a game or a concert required meticulous planning to make it on caltrain bus in less than like 0 hours, or a $0 cab if one could be found, or driving, which means not everyone can drink, plus the headache of parking.  living in sf all that can be done on a whim.  sf is also way better if you are the type who likes to work out of coffee shops.  or if you just like coffee shops in general.   #  it is trivial to eat healthy for less than $0/day.   # it is not good for you, whatever it is.  i am honestly baffled by this.  what are you buying ? vegetables and tofu cost around $0/pound, meat $0 $0, bread and beans and rice and potatoes are $0/pound.  it is trivial to eat healthy for less than $0/day.  there is a subreddit, /r/eatcheapandhealthy/, where they throw around figures like $0 $0/day.  there are a lot of other options outside manhattan, such as astoria and red hook.   #  you will be eating at home good luck grocery shopping via subway   cooking in your studios tiny kitchen, btw , or eating at dunkin.   #  good luck finding a land lord to let you sign 0 of your income away to rent w/out a perfect credit  with  actual credit history which students do not have , b a cosinger, and c most likely both.  then you have gotta look at the individual : a 0 0 0 ibs woman who is not from the city   needs late night trains is probably correct if she does not want to live all the way out in carnsie.  not safe, not practical.  on 0k, you still need to pay city, state, and federal taxes.  you will likely get it back on 0k, but not until april.  whatever your contribution to health care is.  retirement is not exactly a luxury.  mta will bite out 0 a year or so.  i mean, jeez i could recommend you save money by couch surfing or living in a van down by the river, for all the good this  ignore health care, taxes, and retirement  advice gives.  and $0 a night out ? in manhattan or  cool  brooklyn ? you will be eating at home good luck grocery shopping via subway   cooking in your studios tiny kitchen, btw , or eating at dunkin.  drinking only the cheapest specials.  never taking a cab.  so. might as well live somewhere else, where that $0 actually means something.  $0/night in manhattan is practically a waste ca not get what makes the island special, overpaying for what few offerings you can afford, which you could obtain in any college/ drinking town for cheaper   a safer late night trip back home.   #  when i was in nyc i went to this amazing pizza place in little italy and got the biggest slice of pizza i have ever seen in my life and it cost $0.   # just avoid the tourist traps do not go to a bar at time is square, etc .  when i was in nyc i went to this amazing pizza place in little italy and got the biggest slice of pizza i have ever seen in my life and it cost $0.  then there are plenty of bars with $0 0 drinks.  add in the fact there are a ton of shows for dirt cheap not broadway of course but loads of fun.  a $0 night out certainly would not be a waste imo.
i am sure you have all heard this before, seems to be a view that is gaining a lot of steam amongst this generation.  i just think the pressure that society puts on people to follow the norms in terms of marriage and family is so ubiquitous that many people do not even realize it is there.  we paint a very simplistic and idealistic picture for our children when it comes to relationships and marriage.   you will meet a nice boy/girl and settle down.     when  you have kids of your own you will understand  what the heck is so great about giving up so much of your freedom and taking on unimaginable responsibilities ? sell me here.  would it be such a common practice if it had not been drilled into us from an extremely young age that this was the only correct way to live your life ? i just think it is been commercialized so much it is just like any other status symbol.  i can have so much more of what i want in life and not have to work my whole life away to get it, minimalism ftw, cmv  #  what the heck is so great about giving up so much of your freedom and taking on unimaginable responsibilities ?  #  because i do not know what to do with my freedom, i used to know, but it ended and it may end for you too.   # because i do not know what to do with my freedom, i used to know, but it ended and it may end for you too.  at 0 i enjoyed my videogames and flirting with girls in night clubs.  that was my life.  at 0 i am bored by videogames and tired to go to night clubs.  i hated my freedom, it felt incredibly self centered, depressive, and pointless.  i had no goals at all because for what ? for my own self ? i am not important enough.  so i jumped at the opportunity to sacrifice myself for a family and thus have a goal and meaning in my life.  not anymore.  maybe you know at 0 because things are still fun, but they stop being fun.  job is not like a fungible commodity where you can decide 0 hours a week cover your needs.  it is like, your career is in accounting, you have a full time accountant job, work as much as required, period.  minimalism means you have a lot of savings but you work the same amount anyway.  maybe you can retire earlier, but would you have the courage to ?  #  look, a general rule of thumb i go by.   #  look, a general rule of thumb i go by.  you can never be completely happy.  you can live your life  exactly  how you want, but in the end you will always have a sour taste in your mouth that you could have done something better.  we live, we laugh, we love; we also die.  i do not mean to be grim about this, but it is the truth.  you make those decisions wisely.  do not always take the easy way because you will never learn the hard ways; and when the hard way is the only way you will have never learned but the easy way.  earlier today i ran across a man waiting outside the gas station i was going to.  i went inside and bought my things, and on my way out he asked me if i had any spare change.  i told him i did not, but i could go back in and buy him any one item he wanted.  he said, anything you think i could use.  i am so hungry and i have never done this before.  but you have already come outside, and if you come back in buying something else, the attendant will know i am asking for money and to buy things, she will call the cops and have me taken away.  i do not know the honesty of the man, but it seemed a tough life to live anyways.  he was begging for money and food.  the choices he made landed him there and i attempted to help with food.  you do not want to be that man.  you do not want to have to ask people for money.  i could tell in his voice he had not accepted the fact he was begging.  he had anguish in his speech, as if every word he said was a stress to voice.   hey man, could i have some money ? i am so hungry.   it is hard to imagine the pain someone is receiving having to humble themselves to seek help in such a manner, but it is a reality.  so with that in mind, keep your eyes up.  do not let people limit you, but for god is sake do not ever waste yourself on things that are purely pleasure all the time.  there is a time for that, and it is not always.  play harder than you work, work longer than you play.   #  it can also be about the man who got married and lived a limited life, had a kid, but never wanted to grow up.   #  i know this was about marriage, but i felt it fit because you said  this is your life you are talking about here.  if you do not want to be in the position where you might consider getting married and giving up on the life you have always wanted then do not !   the story does not have to be about a man begging for money, it can be about a lonely old rich man who has no one to live for but himself whom he hates.  he uses his money to buy women things they like so they can provide him what he lacks, but in the end he knows they only do it for the money.  it can also be about the man who got married and lived a limited life, had a kid, but never wanted to grow up.  so he buys a motorcycle his wife swore she would divorce him over.  she does not divorce, but she is bitter towards him and never lets it go.  you can never be fully happy.  the choices you make will never get you full enjoyment, so make the best ones for you.  is having a lot of money more important than having a wife and kids ? or is traveling more important than having a stable job ? is enjoying life more important than working hard ? if you could have both of those choices every time then great, you have an opportunity mostly no one has, take full advantage of it.  anyways, good luck, man.   #  lots of people place value on the institute of family because.  well, it fulfills them.   #  then find a girl who shares the same viewpoint as you.  the idea of marriage and family is less of a societal expectation and more of a personal want.  lots of people place value on the institute of family because.  well, it fulfills them.  the idea of having a spouse and kids and a picket fence and a stable home makes them happy.  other people do not care and have other priorities.  that is fine.  you seem to have this idea that people get married cause they feel like they  have to .  that is not true.  lots of people get married cause they want to.  in another post of yours, you said that you got a nasty vibe from families, like they were  putting up  with each other.  i would like to point out that this is a very superficial way of looking at things.  you are not part of the family, and there may be a family dynamic that you do not understand.  on top of that, odds are, these people still love each other.  family is not all happy.  family will annoy you and piss you off but the key thing is that they will always be there for you.  family is an important support group for life.  you do not see the value of this perhaps cause you do not want it right now, and that is okay.  you value your personal freedom more than the other stuff and that is okay.  that is not the case for everyone else however, and to call it overrated jjst cause you do not agree is a pretty shallow way of looking at things.   #  when is the last time you heard a parent tell their child  you might not meet someone or get married and that is ok !    #  i am just going off what i see.  i see a lot of people who seem trapped.  they make a lot of sacrifices and compromises and never really get to ever have 0 minute where it can be all about them.  they seem like they are trying to convince themselves that they are happy.  i dunno i get that vibe from some single people too.  i probably think about it too much but i would rather that then not enough.  i still say it is more societal than personal.  you are telling me if the concept of marriage did not exist or was not so promoted in every facet of society that the same amount of people would just decide on their own to be with one person for the rest of their lives ? when is the last time you heard a parent tell their child  you might not meet someone or get married and that is ok !   people seem to be having more and more kids out of wedlock these days, no one can deny pro creation is a biological drive but marriage is a man made concept and many scientists argue it goes against our nature.  the numbers are indicating that people are starting to turn away from it.  i liked what dan savage recently had to say about monogomy.  up until very recently in our history, say a couple hundred years ago, men, married or otherwise were not really expected to only have one sexual partner, they had mistresses and concubines and that was seen as perfectly normal, women on the other hand were expected to be faithful to their husbands or face terrible consequences.  when the sexual revolution started to happen, instead of freeing women of these expectations we forced them upon men.  certainly food for thought.
when considering any changes to the structures of any of their professional leagues, a lot of arguments revolve around how parity can best be maintained or enhanced.  i do not see why anybody cares.  the most exciting moments and periods in sports happen when there is a handful of titans ducking it out, not a mediocre field where anybody can win.  sure, barcelona/real madrid/atletico madrid are miles ahead of most of their competition in la liga.  but tons of people who otherwise would never watch a match will tune in when they face each other.  people do not tune in to watch games between two middle of the pack teams nearly as much as they do for games between the top two teams in probably any sport.  true parity, if achieved, would mean that every team is a middle of the pack team.  why should i prefer that than having a handful of teams that are truly great and exciting to watch ?  #  the most exciting moments and periods in sports happen when there is a handful of titans ducking it out, not a mediocre field where anybody can win.   #  i think a lot of fans would disagree with you.   # i think a lot of fans would disagree with you.  parity, or a significant amount of teams being on a higher tier than the others, leads to a greater combination of possible outcomes throughout a playoff series.  more teams compete for titles, more markets make money, more fans can identify or hope to identify with a contending team.  also, i think your view would ultimately change if your chosen teams became some of the bottom feeders or if they were relegated.  on a related note, i have thought some sports leagues particularly nfl and nba should chop a few franchises so that the talent pool is not as spread out.  while teams could remain rather equal, the talent density would increase and teams would be better overall.  however, i would hate to lose a franchise from my hometown so i hope it never happens to anyone else.   #  in a smaller, denser country, you can have a smallish number of teams whose geographic regions capture most of the population.   #  there are two arguments here: first is an economic one from the perspective of the league.  us sports leagues are differently structured from leagues like la liga or epl.  in the epl, each team is economic connection to the league is much more tenuous than in nfl.  with promotion and relegation, any team failing is not such a big deal they can be replaced.  the teams in turn completely control the epl, the 0 teams which are currently in the league have absolute control over the epl is behavior by majority vote.  because of that, and because the championship league and lower leagues are well stocked with up and comers, teams have an incentive to look out only for themselves.  in the nfl by contrast, each team is an irrevocable franchise.  no team has ever been abolished, and the nfl is structured so that teams ca not die.  within that structure, nfl needs to make sure that teams are economically viable which means keeping them somewhat competitive.  second, there is an argument about geography and scale: the leagues you are talking about operate in relatively small countries, geographically speaking.  spain, england, and germany are just not all that big.  each has only a relatively small number of major urban centers, and those centers are not far apart.  on the other hand, the us is really, really big.  in a smaller, denser country, you can have a smallish number of teams whose geographic regions capture most of the population.  so in the epl, at least one of arsenal, man u, chelsea, and liverpool, the traditional big four, are within driving distance for a match of the majority of the population of england.  no four teams in the us could possibly be within driving distance of the majority of the population.  so in a bigger geographic league, it makes sense to empower teams from more remote cities, because those people are just not going to be able to attend the games of high quality teams in a system with no salary caps or other redistribution systems.   #  while i know this is a real issue, i really do not care about it.   # us sports leagues are differently structured from leagues like la liga or epl.  while i know this is a real issue, i really do not care about it.  my question is more about why parity would be better for fans than why it would be desirable for owners.  there are many things that owners would like lower player salaries, tv blackouts, whatever that may not be good for fans.  so yeah, it would leave a bunch of people far from good teams, but it is not like the population to support a league with a few great teams is not there.   #  sports fans get their greatest pleasure in rooting hard for their team, not just watching a peak athletic performance.   #  barca v.  rm is a better game, but it may not be better to watch on tv if you are not a diehard fan of either.  sports fans get their greatest pleasure in rooting hard for their team, not just watching a peak athletic performance.  diehard barca fans are almost exclusively from the barcelona area.  this is true in all sports fandom is geographic.  people root for their home towns, and for their home countries when the competition is international.  that is why nobody cares about the all star game or the pro bowl.  there is no sense of ownership or intimacy with the teams.  someone from dallas just is not going to get the same pleasure from the giants/bears game that someone from ny or chicago will.  and that dallas based fan is better off by the cowboys existing  and being reasonably competitive , even if they are not as great.  because he will enjoy their games more as an enthusiastic fan than as a disinterested spectator of far away teams.   #  in my opinion, the most exciting sports tournament on the planet is the nhl playoffs.   #  i think a big part of watching sports especially in america, is rooting for your favorite team.  in a league with only a handful of good teams, why would anyone living in a small market with a mediocre team follow the sport ? in my opinion, the most exciting sports tournament on the planet is the nhl playoffs.  it is exciting  precisely  because of the parity.  upsets happen all the time and any team has a reasonable chance to win.  if we already know who the best two teams are, watching the tournament becomes a formality.  everyone just waiting for the inevitable which we already know will happen.
when considering any changes to the structures of any of their professional leagues, a lot of arguments revolve around how parity can best be maintained or enhanced.  i do not see why anybody cares.  the most exciting moments and periods in sports happen when there is a handful of titans ducking it out, not a mediocre field where anybody can win.  sure, barcelona/real madrid/atletico madrid are miles ahead of most of their competition in la liga.  but tons of people who otherwise would never watch a match will tune in when they face each other.  people do not tune in to watch games between two middle of the pack teams nearly as much as they do for games between the top two teams in probably any sport.  true parity, if achieved, would mean that every team is a middle of the pack team.  why should i prefer that than having a handful of teams that are truly great and exciting to watch ?  #  true parity, if achieved, would mean that every team is a middle of the pack team.   #  well that is not the parity american sports leagues want.   # well that is not the parity american sports leagues want.  they just do not want any teams to be regularly stuck at the bottom, which would result in depressed attendance and far less overall revenue.  the type of  parity  american sports leagues want is closer to what the boston red sox have accomplished the last 0 years.  they were last place in the division 0 years, won the world series last year, and will likely finish last in the division this year.  american leagues still want dominant teams, they just want those dominant teams to rotate.  they do not want a mediocre product, as you seem to say throughout your post.  the nfl does parity really well.  the seattle seahawks were a great, dominant team.  they were not  mediocre  and it was not a situation where  anybody  could have won.  yet, the seahawks finished under . 0 just two years earlier.  that is the type of  parity  american sports leagues want.  it is no less exciting than big matchups in european soccer, yet it also includes more people in the enjoyment of these matches since only fans of the big clubs are invested in any important game.   #  each has only a relatively small number of major urban centers, and those centers are not far apart.   #  there are two arguments here: first is an economic one from the perspective of the league.  us sports leagues are differently structured from leagues like la liga or epl.  in the epl, each team is economic connection to the league is much more tenuous than in nfl.  with promotion and relegation, any team failing is not such a big deal they can be replaced.  the teams in turn completely control the epl, the 0 teams which are currently in the league have absolute control over the epl is behavior by majority vote.  because of that, and because the championship league and lower leagues are well stocked with up and comers, teams have an incentive to look out only for themselves.  in the nfl by contrast, each team is an irrevocable franchise.  no team has ever been abolished, and the nfl is structured so that teams ca not die.  within that structure, nfl needs to make sure that teams are economically viable which means keeping them somewhat competitive.  second, there is an argument about geography and scale: the leagues you are talking about operate in relatively small countries, geographically speaking.  spain, england, and germany are just not all that big.  each has only a relatively small number of major urban centers, and those centers are not far apart.  on the other hand, the us is really, really big.  in a smaller, denser country, you can have a smallish number of teams whose geographic regions capture most of the population.  so in the epl, at least one of arsenal, man u, chelsea, and liverpool, the traditional big four, are within driving distance for a match of the majority of the population of england.  no four teams in the us could possibly be within driving distance of the majority of the population.  so in a bigger geographic league, it makes sense to empower teams from more remote cities, because those people are just not going to be able to attend the games of high quality teams in a system with no salary caps or other redistribution systems.   #  so yeah, it would leave a bunch of people far from good teams, but it is not like the population to support a league with a few great teams is not there.   # us sports leagues are differently structured from leagues like la liga or epl.  while i know this is a real issue, i really do not care about it.  my question is more about why parity would be better for fans than why it would be desirable for owners.  there are many things that owners would like lower player salaries, tv blackouts, whatever that may not be good for fans.  so yeah, it would leave a bunch of people far from good teams, but it is not like the population to support a league with a few great teams is not there.   #  that is why nobody cares about the all star game or the pro bowl.   #  barca v.  rm is a better game, but it may not be better to watch on tv if you are not a diehard fan of either.  sports fans get their greatest pleasure in rooting hard for their team, not just watching a peak athletic performance.  diehard barca fans are almost exclusively from the barcelona area.  this is true in all sports fandom is geographic.  people root for their home towns, and for their home countries when the competition is international.  that is why nobody cares about the all star game or the pro bowl.  there is no sense of ownership or intimacy with the teams.  someone from dallas just is not going to get the same pleasure from the giants/bears game that someone from ny or chicago will.  and that dallas based fan is better off by the cowboys existing  and being reasonably competitive , even if they are not as great.  because he will enjoy their games more as an enthusiastic fan than as a disinterested spectator of far away teams.   #  upsets happen all the time and any team has a reasonable chance to win.   #  i think a big part of watching sports especially in america, is rooting for your favorite team.  in a league with only a handful of good teams, why would anyone living in a small market with a mediocre team follow the sport ? in my opinion, the most exciting sports tournament on the planet is the nhl playoffs.  it is exciting  precisely  because of the parity.  upsets happen all the time and any team has a reasonable chance to win.  if we already know who the best two teams are, watching the tournament becomes a formality.  everyone just waiting for the inevitable which we already know will happen.
with recent studies showing that marijuana use is not a  harmless drug  i see no reason in it ever being legalized.  in the past year there have actually been deaths proven to be caused by marijuana use.  not only that but studies have shown that marijuana is just as likely, if not more likely to cause cancer then smoking cigarettes is.  it should no longer be considered a harmless drug.  a common belief is that marijuana is non addictive but that is also false.  studies show that 0 of regular marijuana users become addicted.  although this is no where near the numbers of many  hard  drugs, its still something.  marijuana is also a gateway drug.  i saw someone say that this is just a misled viewpoint but it is not.  i have a few friends that started with smoking marijuana in high school and eventually decided they wanted to try something stronger.  the reason i think even medical use should be banned is that medical marijuana was abused countless times.  the amount of people that actually had a fair reason to use medical marijuana i actually do not believe that there is ever a good reason to use it, but that is another argument.  was minuscule yet thousands of people were buying it every day.  i understand that most people disagree with me, so someone please cmv.  i understand that posts about this subject have been made before, but none of them were made after some of the studies i mentioned were conducted.  some sources: URL article about marijuana related deaths.  URL another marijuana related death.  URL article that talks about carcinogens in marijuana URL talks about addiction to marijuana.   #  with recent studies showing that marijuana use is not a  harmless drug  i see no reason in it ever being legalized.   #  how about the war on drugs is a massive failure, and keeping marijuana illegal is far more harmful to its users than the drug itself ?  #  question.  marijuana usage does not harm people other than the user.  why should we make it illegal for people to potentially harm themselves ? how about the war on drugs is a massive failure, and keeping marijuana illegal is far more harmful to its users than the drug itself ? please provide sources for the claims that you are making, such as death/cancer/etc.  even if there have been a few deaths from marijuana, that is a tiny fraction of the users.  cancer caused by marijuana is likely due to it being smoked.  i doubt those who vaporize the stuff develop cancer from it.  do you have any actual statistics ? anecdotal evidence is not really persuasive.  actually, that is a pretty important part of your argument that you are leaving out.  if marijuana has medical benefits, which it does, then we should be using it as treatment where it works.  are you going to provide any sources ? anyone can claim that  studies exist,  so simply saying that means nothing until you actually cite your sources.   #  but until they start hurting you, it is simply none of your business.   #  i am not going to try and convince you of scientific facts.  i am going to take a different angle, and that is very simply that it is none of your business.  there are a lot of things that are incredibly harmful, addictive, bad for kids, etc.  that we are completely okay with.  let is start with cheeseburgers for example.  in excess, they will kill you.  it is proven fact.  the leading cause of death in the us, actually.  but we do not stop people from eating them, because it is up to you to be responsible with that freedom.  marijuana is no different than alcohol, cheeseburgers, or sex.  what someone does with it is none of your concern.  they can hurt themselves with it, or they can be completely safe and responsible.  but until they start hurting you, it is simply none of your business.   #  that is similar to saying that it should be legal to ride motorcycles without a helmet everywhere.   #  that is not the case though.  that is similar to saying that it should be legal to ride motorcycles without a helmet everywhere.  it does not have anything to do with me because i do not ride a motorcycle or know anyone that does.  it is still a law almost everywhere because it saves lives.  about obesity, that is a different issue entirely.  there is no one thing you could ban to stop that.  you would have to put a ban on basically all unhealthy foods and that is just unreasonable.   #  if you want to get into banning things  that could potentially kill  and that we  can easily live without , then i think you just banned alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, motorcycles, guns, and skydiving.   #  the government is not some entity that is removed from us.  the government is you, in the form of enacting laws that you have told them to enact.  by saying we should have laws that prevent things you do not like, that is just you telling other people how to live their lives.  and even if your intentions are good, it simply is not your place to tell grown adults how they should behave.  if you want to get into banning things  that could potentially kill  and that we  can easily live without , then i think you just banned alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, motorcycles, guns, and skydiving.  it is not your job to save my life.  it is not the government is job to save my life.  it is my job.  it is your job to save your own.   #  there is no ban on  consuming  trans fat.   #  trans fat was in our food and harming people, including children, unwittingly.  there is no ban on  consuming  trans fat.  you are not a criminal if you eat trans fat.  you just ca not use it in food processing in some states.  honestly, that came about because most of the processed food in the country is purchased by the federal government by way of military, tanf, snap and school programs.  they were mitigating their liability.
with recent studies showing that marijuana use is not a  harmless drug  i see no reason in it ever being legalized.  in the past year there have actually been deaths proven to be caused by marijuana use.  not only that but studies have shown that marijuana is just as likely, if not more likely to cause cancer then smoking cigarettes is.  it should no longer be considered a harmless drug.  a common belief is that marijuana is non addictive but that is also false.  studies show that 0 of regular marijuana users become addicted.  although this is no where near the numbers of many  hard  drugs, its still something.  marijuana is also a gateway drug.  i saw someone say that this is just a misled viewpoint but it is not.  i have a few friends that started with smoking marijuana in high school and eventually decided they wanted to try something stronger.  the reason i think even medical use should be banned is that medical marijuana was abused countless times.  the amount of people that actually had a fair reason to use medical marijuana i actually do not believe that there is ever a good reason to use it, but that is another argument.  was minuscule yet thousands of people were buying it every day.  i understand that most people disagree with me, so someone please cmv.  i understand that posts about this subject have been made before, but none of them were made after some of the studies i mentioned were conducted.  some sources: URL article about marijuana related deaths.  URL another marijuana related death.  URL article that talks about carcinogens in marijuana URL talks about addiction to marijuana.   #  i actually do not believe that there is ever a good reason to use it, but that is another argument.   #  actually, that is a pretty important part of your argument that you are leaving out.   #  question.  marijuana usage does not harm people other than the user.  why should we make it illegal for people to potentially harm themselves ? how about the war on drugs is a massive failure, and keeping marijuana illegal is far more harmful to its users than the drug itself ? please provide sources for the claims that you are making, such as death/cancer/etc.  even if there have been a few deaths from marijuana, that is a tiny fraction of the users.  cancer caused by marijuana is likely due to it being smoked.  i doubt those who vaporize the stuff develop cancer from it.  do you have any actual statistics ? anecdotal evidence is not really persuasive.  actually, that is a pretty important part of your argument that you are leaving out.  if marijuana has medical benefits, which it does, then we should be using it as treatment where it works.  are you going to provide any sources ? anyone can claim that  studies exist,  so simply saying that means nothing until you actually cite your sources.   #  they can hurt themselves with it, or they can be completely safe and responsible.   #  i am not going to try and convince you of scientific facts.  i am going to take a different angle, and that is very simply that it is none of your business.  there are a lot of things that are incredibly harmful, addictive, bad for kids, etc.  that we are completely okay with.  let is start with cheeseburgers for example.  in excess, they will kill you.  it is proven fact.  the leading cause of death in the us, actually.  but we do not stop people from eating them, because it is up to you to be responsible with that freedom.  marijuana is no different than alcohol, cheeseburgers, or sex.  what someone does with it is none of your concern.  they can hurt themselves with it, or they can be completely safe and responsible.  but until they start hurting you, it is simply none of your business.   #  it is still a law almost everywhere because it saves lives.   #  that is not the case though.  that is similar to saying that it should be legal to ride motorcycles without a helmet everywhere.  it does not have anything to do with me because i do not ride a motorcycle or know anyone that does.  it is still a law almost everywhere because it saves lives.  about obesity, that is a different issue entirely.  there is no one thing you could ban to stop that.  you would have to put a ban on basically all unhealthy foods and that is just unreasonable.   #  the government is not some entity that is removed from us.   #  the government is not some entity that is removed from us.  the government is you, in the form of enacting laws that you have told them to enact.  by saying we should have laws that prevent things you do not like, that is just you telling other people how to live their lives.  and even if your intentions are good, it simply is not your place to tell grown adults how they should behave.  if you want to get into banning things  that could potentially kill  and that we  can easily live without , then i think you just banned alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, motorcycles, guns, and skydiving.  it is not your job to save my life.  it is not the government is job to save my life.  it is my job.  it is your job to save your own.   #  trans fat was in our food and harming people, including children, unwittingly.   #  trans fat was in our food and harming people, including children, unwittingly.  there is no ban on  consuming  trans fat.  you are not a criminal if you eat trans fat.  you just ca not use it in food processing in some states.  honestly, that came about because most of the processed food in the country is purchased by the federal government by way of military, tanf, snap and school programs.  they were mitigating their liability.
with recent studies showing that marijuana use is not a  harmless drug  i see no reason in it ever being legalized.  in the past year there have actually been deaths proven to be caused by marijuana use.  not only that but studies have shown that marijuana is just as likely, if not more likely to cause cancer then smoking cigarettes is.  it should no longer be considered a harmless drug.  a common belief is that marijuana is non addictive but that is also false.  studies show that 0 of regular marijuana users become addicted.  although this is no where near the numbers of many  hard  drugs, its still something.  marijuana is also a gateway drug.  i saw someone say that this is just a misled viewpoint but it is not.  i have a few friends that started with smoking marijuana in high school and eventually decided they wanted to try something stronger.  the reason i think even medical use should be banned is that medical marijuana was abused countless times.  the amount of people that actually had a fair reason to use medical marijuana i actually do not believe that there is ever a good reason to use it, but that is another argument.  was minuscule yet thousands of people were buying it every day.  i understand that most people disagree with me, so someone please cmv.  i understand that posts about this subject have been made before, but none of them were made after some of the studies i mentioned were conducted.  some sources: URL article about marijuana related deaths.  URL another marijuana related death.  URL article that talks about carcinogens in marijuana URL talks about addiction to marijuana.   #  i understand that posts about this subject have been made before, but none of them were made after some of the studies i mentioned were conducted.   #  are you going to provide any sources ?  #  question.  marijuana usage does not harm people other than the user.  why should we make it illegal for people to potentially harm themselves ? how about the war on drugs is a massive failure, and keeping marijuana illegal is far more harmful to its users than the drug itself ? please provide sources for the claims that you are making, such as death/cancer/etc.  even if there have been a few deaths from marijuana, that is a tiny fraction of the users.  cancer caused by marijuana is likely due to it being smoked.  i doubt those who vaporize the stuff develop cancer from it.  do you have any actual statistics ? anecdotal evidence is not really persuasive.  actually, that is a pretty important part of your argument that you are leaving out.  if marijuana has medical benefits, which it does, then we should be using it as treatment where it works.  are you going to provide any sources ? anyone can claim that  studies exist,  so simply saying that means nothing until you actually cite your sources.   #  the leading cause of death in the us, actually.   #  i am not going to try and convince you of scientific facts.  i am going to take a different angle, and that is very simply that it is none of your business.  there are a lot of things that are incredibly harmful, addictive, bad for kids, etc.  that we are completely okay with.  let is start with cheeseburgers for example.  in excess, they will kill you.  it is proven fact.  the leading cause of death in the us, actually.  but we do not stop people from eating them, because it is up to you to be responsible with that freedom.  marijuana is no different than alcohol, cheeseburgers, or sex.  what someone does with it is none of your concern.  they can hurt themselves with it, or they can be completely safe and responsible.  but until they start hurting you, it is simply none of your business.   #  that is similar to saying that it should be legal to ride motorcycles without a helmet everywhere.   #  that is not the case though.  that is similar to saying that it should be legal to ride motorcycles without a helmet everywhere.  it does not have anything to do with me because i do not ride a motorcycle or know anyone that does.  it is still a law almost everywhere because it saves lives.  about obesity, that is a different issue entirely.  there is no one thing you could ban to stop that.  you would have to put a ban on basically all unhealthy foods and that is just unreasonable.   #  the government is you, in the form of enacting laws that you have told them to enact.   #  the government is not some entity that is removed from us.  the government is you, in the form of enacting laws that you have told them to enact.  by saying we should have laws that prevent things you do not like, that is just you telling other people how to live their lives.  and even if your intentions are good, it simply is not your place to tell grown adults how they should behave.  if you want to get into banning things  that could potentially kill  and that we  can easily live without , then i think you just banned alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, motorcycles, guns, and skydiving.  it is not your job to save my life.  it is not the government is job to save my life.  it is my job.  it is your job to save your own.   #  you just ca not use it in food processing in some states.   #  trans fat was in our food and harming people, including children, unwittingly.  there is no ban on  consuming  trans fat.  you are not a criminal if you eat trans fat.  you just ca not use it in food processing in some states.  honestly, that came about because most of the processed food in the country is purchased by the federal government by way of military, tanf, snap and school programs.  they were mitigating their liability.
with recent studies showing that marijuana use is not a  harmless drug  i see no reason in it ever being legalized.  in the past year there have actually been deaths proven to be caused by marijuana use.  not only that but studies have shown that marijuana is just as likely, if not more likely to cause cancer then smoking cigarettes is.  it should no longer be considered a harmless drug.  a common belief is that marijuana is non addictive but that is also false.  studies show that 0 of regular marijuana users become addicted.  although this is no where near the numbers of many  hard  drugs, its still something.  marijuana is also a gateway drug.  i saw someone say that this is just a misled viewpoint but it is not.  i have a few friends that started with smoking marijuana in high school and eventually decided they wanted to try something stronger.  the reason i think even medical use should be banned is that medical marijuana was abused countless times.  the amount of people that actually had a fair reason to use medical marijuana i actually do not believe that there is ever a good reason to use it, but that is another argument.  was minuscule yet thousands of people were buying it every day.  i understand that most people disagree with me, so someone please cmv.  i understand that posts about this subject have been made before, but none of them were made after some of the studies i mentioned were conducted.  some sources: URL article about marijuana related deaths.  URL another marijuana related death.  URL article that talks about carcinogens in marijuana URL talks about addiction to marijuana.   #  not only that but studies have shown that marijuana is just as likely, if not more likely to cause cancer then smoking cigarettes is.   #  it is, but people do not usually inhale the same amount of smoke as with cigarettes.   # you are smoking something, but there are dangers with any drug.  ibuprofen will deteriorate my stomach lining gradually when i take it.  alcohol is bad for my liver.  legal medical drugs have all kinds of nasty side effects.  it is, but people do not usually inhale the same amount of smoke as with cigarettes.  people take one or two hits/drags with marijuana.  with cigarettes, it is usually a whole cigarette and and often more than once a day because nicotine is addictive.  this is a mute point.  what about alcoholics ? gambling ? those have much more dangerous affects on the users and other lives than marijuana.  i believe this is largely because it is illegal.  if you partake in getting marijuana illegally, you might be turned on to other illegal drugs.  people do not say the same thing about alcohol because for those who are old enough it is legal, you buy it in a store, and you are not offered other drugs while you are there like you might be by a dealer.  my belief is that is is you think marijuana should be banned, so should alcohol because alcohol is just as if not more dangerous and addictive than marijunana.  what do you think about this ?  #  the leading cause of death in the us, actually.   #  i am not going to try and convince you of scientific facts.  i am going to take a different angle, and that is very simply that it is none of your business.  there are a lot of things that are incredibly harmful, addictive, bad for kids, etc.  that we are completely okay with.  let is start with cheeseburgers for example.  in excess, they will kill you.  it is proven fact.  the leading cause of death in the us, actually.  but we do not stop people from eating them, because it is up to you to be responsible with that freedom.  marijuana is no different than alcohol, cheeseburgers, or sex.  what someone does with it is none of your concern.  they can hurt themselves with it, or they can be completely safe and responsible.  but until they start hurting you, it is simply none of your business.   #  you would have to put a ban on basically all unhealthy foods and that is just unreasonable.   #  that is not the case though.  that is similar to saying that it should be legal to ride motorcycles without a helmet everywhere.  it does not have anything to do with me because i do not ride a motorcycle or know anyone that does.  it is still a law almost everywhere because it saves lives.  about obesity, that is a different issue entirely.  there is no one thing you could ban to stop that.  you would have to put a ban on basically all unhealthy foods and that is just unreasonable.   #  by saying we should have laws that prevent things you do not like, that is just you telling other people how to live their lives.   #  the government is not some entity that is removed from us.  the government is you, in the form of enacting laws that you have told them to enact.  by saying we should have laws that prevent things you do not like, that is just you telling other people how to live their lives.  and even if your intentions are good, it simply is not your place to tell grown adults how they should behave.  if you want to get into banning things  that could potentially kill  and that we  can easily live without , then i think you just banned alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, motorcycles, guns, and skydiving.  it is not your job to save my life.  it is not the government is job to save my life.  it is my job.  it is your job to save your own.   #  honestly, that came about because most of the processed food in the country is purchased by the federal government by way of military, tanf, snap and school programs.   #  trans fat was in our food and harming people, including children, unwittingly.  there is no ban on  consuming  trans fat.  you are not a criminal if you eat trans fat.  you just ca not use it in food processing in some states.  honestly, that came about because most of the processed food in the country is purchased by the federal government by way of military, tanf, snap and school programs.  they were mitigating their liability.
i just.  i do not get why it is a thing.  what is the turn on in seeing another dude drill your wife ? does it really turn people on ? my suspicion is that this is just a way for extremely weak men to justify the fact that they are too poor in bed to satisfy their wife, so the only way she will stay is if she gets to bang other dudes.  they salvage their egos by pretending it is a  fetish  when what they should be doing is a learning how to satisfy a woman and/or preferably and b dropping any woman who so much as breathes the word  cuckhold  and finding a new one.  i just ca not see any way in which it is a legitimate fetish.  i try to keep an open mind about things, but i just ca not wrap my head around this one.  cmv ?  #  i just.  i do not get why it is a thing.   #  step back from the fetish angle for a moment.   # step back from the fetish angle for a moment.  you are a guy that is into women, right ? so to you boobs and curves and eyelashes and pussy are where it is at ? well i am a woman that is into men and what excites you leaves me completely cold.  we are wired differently.  think of fetishes and kinks as just weird and interesting variations in the wiring.  jealousy and humiliation are some of the strongest there are.  there is probably a fair amount of insecurity wound into this particular fetish, but that does not automatically make the men in question weak or bad in bed.  honestly, i think you are taking it far too literally.  it is largely a mental/emotional fetish.  stolen from your reply to /u/turtleintegral above.  i completely dispute this.  to my knowledge this particular kink/fantasy is pretty much male exclusive.  a woman who wants a m/f/m threesome is likely to want involvement from both men, and a woman into humiliation will want to deal it out personally to her man.  i have honestly never heard from a woman who was into this particular fantasy.   #  what evidence do you actually have to say that they are lying ?  # i am sure that you will find people who enjoy it.  what evidence do you actually have to say that they are lying ? just because you do not understand it, and that is what your argument basically is, does not mean that other people will not enjoy it.  there are going to be many amounts of fetishes that you will never understand, because different strokes for different folks.  that does not mean that nobody can like them.  if a future husband of mine wanted me to fuck some other dude in front of him, and if i was open to having sex a man that is not my husband while i am married, i ca not see any objections to that.  i doubt that i will be in that scenario, but it is certainly possible.   #  the point is not that the guy is actually bad at sex it is a form of sexual play, just like calling a girl a dirty whore.   #  some guys with hot girlfriends enjoy hearing about how other men find their girlfriend attractive.  it makes the man feel like he is awesome for landing such a desirable woman.  personally, i love hearing about when people hit on my boyfriend he is super sexy, and he wants to be in a relationship with me ! cuckolding is an extreme version of this.  further, i enjoy sexual humiliation: being slapped, being called a slut/dirty whore/worthless, having cock shoved down my throat, etc.  i know that i am not actually worthless, or slutty, or a whore, but it is fun to be called those things.  have you ever had rough sex with someone ? can you empathize with female sexual humiliation at all ? cuckolding is just a form of male oriented sexual humiliation.  guys who are into sexual humiliation enjoy having their dick size mocked, being told they are bad at sex, being laughed at, etc.  watching their wife fuck someone else being told that they are so bad at sex their wife has to go to another man is the ultimate expression of this.  the point is not that the guy is actually bad at sex it is a form of sexual play, just like calling a girl a dirty whore.   #  and why is it so unbelievable that some guys would like to see other guys having sex with their wife ?  #  your entire argument is claiming that a shit ton of people are liars.  it is very easy to completely destroy your argument with one single cockholding fetishist, but you would just call him a liar.  i mean it is not really your place to tell people they are lying, since this is exactly what your e doing.  and why is it so unbelievable that some guys would like to see other guys having sex with their wife ? there are many, many people who practice polygamy, swinging, open relationships, and so on.  some people are open enough to really like watching their woman be pleasured by someone else.  how is it  that  inconceivable ? i think you are projecting.  i fucking hate all edm music.  i do not listen to that shit.  i do not understand how anyone can.  therefore, anyone who claims they like edm music is clearly a liar.  \  do you see how much of a dick this makes me sound ? and how unfair it is ? it is poisoning the well as well, because any person that claims to like edm is already called a liar.   #  cuckolds are often quite capable of sexually satisfying, and most of them are not full time. meaning they do have  regular  sex as well.   #  your inability to understand it does not make it less real.  saying it is not a  real fetish  is nothing more than short sighted ignorance.  you would be surprised to know the high number of men who are voyeuristic and enjoy watching.  and yes, it really does turn them on.  cuckolds are often quite capable of sexually satisfying, and most of them are not full time. meaning they do have  regular  sex as well.  it has more to do with a form of masochism than inability to perform.  the men derive pleasure from several aspects: the voyeurism, the humiliation and submission, the  victimization  aspect.  inadequacy is often talked about, but definitely not always the case; it particularly plays a part in lifestyle cuckoldry.  again, your ability to  see  how it is legitimate in no way affects its legitimacy.  what someone enjoys sexually often has little to do with who they are outside the bedroom.  assuming that  no man can possibly enjoy it  is nothing more than an assumption based in ignorance, honestly.  why do you feel you are in any position to say what another person enjoys or does not ? what turns them on or does not ? the answer is, you are not.
i always see celebrities complaining about being in the public eye and having to deal with the paparazzi.  i think that if you make to decision to have your face publicly displaced, you should be willing accept any criticism that come with that.  like everything in life, with good comes the bad.  i trade less free time for a stable living condition.  celebrities trade the fame they have for a lack of privacy.  it just really seems like a fair trade off for anybody who decides to take advance of their fame.   #  it just really seems like a fair trade off for anybody who decides to take advance of their fame.   #  it is a fair trade and that is why most people do not have a problem with a normal amount of exposure while being a celebrity.   #  some celebrities are far more public than others.  someone like kim kardashian always wants the spotlight.  other  celebrities  are really just artists actors, musicians, comedians, etc.  or athletes who are just really good at their craft.  the general public also really like the work they do.  at no point did these people sign up to be constantly in the public eye.  they understand there is some public exposure, but there is public exposure for everything from college professor, company executive, to top doctors and journalists.  it is a fair trade and that is why most people do not have a problem with a normal amount of exposure while being a celebrity.  but saying  it is a fair trade  does not mean that they should have to accept any criticism, or never ask for privacy.  it is a  fair trade  that you trade less free time for a stable living condition, but does that mean you should never complain about it ? particularly if your  free time  is reduced to something completely unreasonable ? even if your hours were to double since that is the trade you made ? should you also never complain because that is the trade you made ?  #  and like anyone else, they have work hours and non work hours.   #  celebrities do a job, just like anyone else.  and like anyone else, they have work hours and non work hours.  i am a scientist.  that is the job i have chosen.  it does not mean i should be okay with people knocking on my door at night or coming up to me while i am having dinner with my family to tell me how they feel about my work or ask me questions about it.  everyone is entitled to a private life, no matter how public their job may be.  even the most famous celebrity is job is not to be on display 0 hours a day.  their job is to be an actor, or an athlete, or whatever it is they are paid to do.   #  nope, i did not sign up for that shit.   #  no, because celebrity is not even a  job .  actors, musicians, scientists, athletes become celebrities once they are popular.  do you think all of these people want to bask in the spotlight.  i would think not.  some want to just do what they are doing.  sure, a person of celebrity status can be expected by their employer to appear in public for good pr ex.  athletes , but if you do not want to appear to the public, why should you have to.  if i am a researcher that just found the cure for cancer, do i want everyone swarming me asking for an autograph and an interview.  nope, i did not sign up for that shit.   #  a few years ago in high school, i was in the school play.   #  let is put this on a smaller scale.  a few years ago in high school, i was in the school play.  people liked how i did and thought it was pretty funny.  there were of course, other actors involved that were also very funny, but i want to keep this simple.  granted, the part i had was not too hard, but it was really fun.  the whole time i was on stage, everyone who bought a ticket had the right to watch me.  there were pictures taken of the play for the yearbook, and i think my family took some, as did the famies of the other actors.  i had no right to privacy up there.  people i do not really know might have a picture of their kid next to me on stage.  i was approached by some of my friends after the play who talked about it.  that is fine because no one was rude or pushy.  it is similar to getting an autograph after the show, but no one wanted that because most people knew who i was anyway so that would be lame.  but what would not have been fine was being followed around when i went to school that monday.  i did not sign up for publicity there.  just for the play.  would not it be super creepy if someone had followed me home ? that would be so wrong !  #  what about the ceo of a company, he would also be considered a celebrity by a lot of people, but he did not  signed up  on being a celebrity.   #  the difference is money ? that is how you draw the line ? so if a celebrity is doing everything for free it is different ? also, there is plenty of internet/facebook/youtube  celebrities , and they do not all do it for money.  maybe some guy like you posted a single picture on facebook, it became extremely popular like a meme or something and the guy is getting harassed all the time.  should he be allowed to ask for some privacy even though he is a celebrity ? what about the ceo of a company, he would also be considered a celebrity by a lot of people, but he did not  signed up  on being a celebrity.
this is a topic often brought up by reddit users because i believe they represent very heavy internet users.  i think it is right to assume that people on reddit use the internet more than average folk.  not all websites tax isps the same, so why should isps be made to treat them all the same ? not allowing isps to either throttle or charge more for high bandwidth websites hurts customers who do not use these websites because isps have to keep raising prices.  netflix and major bandwidth sites do not have much of an incentive to lower their bandwidth because of all this.  i think the large majority of people that are angry about this are heavy netflix users who simply do not want to pay more.  many people have stated that if we let isps do this it would set a precedent to charge for all websites charging someone extra to go on facebook etc .  i believe that they should only be able to charge more if in fact they can prove that a certain website is clogging their infrastructure disproportionately netflix .  the road with the highest traffic in my city is the massive interstate leading into the city.  one way this city was able to control the traffic was to set up tolls.  this greatly benefitted traffic flow while raising money to better improve the road itself build more lanes etc .  why do other internet users have to compromise their internet speeds for netflix users ? i am sure many of you can attest that your internet slows down during peak hours.  i believe this is due to an enormous number of people on netflix streaming video.  so while i am trying to get work done on my laptop sending emails or reading the news online, i get slower internet speeds because of them.   #  many people have stated that if we let isps do this it would set a precedent to charge for all websites charging someone extra to go on facebook etc .   #  i believe that they should only be able to charge more if in fact they can prove that a certain website is clogging their infrastructure disproportionately netflix .   # i believe that they should only be able to charge more if in fact they can prove that a certain website is clogging their infrastructure disproportionately netflix .  they can charge me more when they prove where i agreed to being charged proportionally to my bandwidth usage and how they intend to manage it.  until they are able to do that, i entered an agreement with them stipulating how much data and a what speed i could consume for a set price.  their inability to upgrade their infrastructure to meet the standard they promised and we are all paying for are not my concern, nor my problem.  your internet slowing down is  their  problem.  call them and complain.  you are paying for a service they are not able to provide.   #  so yes, netflix or youtube have an incentive to lower their bandwidth usage, because it is not free.   #  i remade my post because i misread the op the problem is not necessarily related to using high bandwidth websites.  it is that you use too much bandwidth in the first place.  i could use a lot more bandwidth than a netflix user by just sending emails if i wanted to.  how is it fair that the netflix user has to pay more than me even though i am the one using more bandwidth ? a better solution would be that each user has to pay more if they use too much bandwidth, regardless of the website they use.  they pay extra for having high bandwidth.  just like you and me, they have to pay for their internet connection and they pay  a lot  because they require high bandwidth.  so yes, netflix or youtube have an incentive to lower their bandwidth usage, because it is not free.   #  but they are charging the drivers the tolls not your destination.   # one way this city was able to control the traffic was to set up tolls.  this greatly benefitted traffic flow while raising money to better improve the road itself build more lanes etc .  but they are charging the drivers the tolls not your destination.  toll booths would be akin to isp charging a premium to users of a specific high traffic site.  what isps are doing to netflix and other streaming sites are akin to the government the one who manages the roads and traffic charging your destination, whatever it may be, for causing a lot of traffic on a specific road.   #  most of the work is done transporting data across oceans and long distances.   #  if a website has high bandwidth, that is because it is seen as more desirable to the isps customers.  these customers are paying the isp for access to the internet.  the isp has a duty to provide said internet access to its customers.  if sites like netflix create a higher demand for bandwidth, that is good for the isps because it raises demand, which benefits them as a business.  imagine a taxi service complaining that certain bars were giving them too many customers at night, and that they wanted to charge the bar extra or they would refuse to take those customers.  ridiculous, right ? and yet, that is what the isps are doing here besides, the isps actually do comparatively little in getting internet to you.  most of the work is done transporting data across oceans and long distances.  isps just transfer your data packets a short distance to your house.  it is the equivalent of a delivery company with control over your driveway complaining about the strain caused from you ordering too many things.  here is a video which does a pretty good job explaining the issue URL  #  this idea only works if you assume all sites use the same amount of bandwidth per user, which is clearly wrong.   #  not really.  this idea only works if you assume all sites use the same amount of bandwidth per user, which is clearly wrong.  a wikipedia page will need thousands of views to use up the same amount of bandwidth a single user takes, seeing a single episode of friends on netflix.  if you want to make the taxi example work, you would have to argue that taxis should not charge more for customers that want to visit the bar 0km away, than those who want to go to a local one.  in the taxi example, gas is the bandwidth.  you can  drive  0 customers to wikipedia and use one gas tank, or drive one customer to netflix and use one gas tank.  so 0 netflix customers actually cost you 0x the gas that 0 wikipedia customers do.  therefore netflix uses 0 times more of your resources, but does not bring you any extra customers that is why you charge more .
this is a topic often brought up by reddit users because i believe they represent very heavy internet users.  i think it is right to assume that people on reddit use the internet more than average folk.  not all websites tax isps the same, so why should isps be made to treat them all the same ? not allowing isps to either throttle or charge more for high bandwidth websites hurts customers who do not use these websites because isps have to keep raising prices.  netflix and major bandwidth sites do not have much of an incentive to lower their bandwidth because of all this.  i think the large majority of people that are angry about this are heavy netflix users who simply do not want to pay more.  many people have stated that if we let isps do this it would set a precedent to charge for all websites charging someone extra to go on facebook etc .  i believe that they should only be able to charge more if in fact they can prove that a certain website is clogging their infrastructure disproportionately netflix .  the road with the highest traffic in my city is the massive interstate leading into the city.  one way this city was able to control the traffic was to set up tolls.  this greatly benefitted traffic flow while raising money to better improve the road itself build more lanes etc .  why do other internet users have to compromise their internet speeds for netflix users ? i am sure many of you can attest that your internet slows down during peak hours.  i believe this is due to an enormous number of people on netflix streaming video.  so while i am trying to get work done on my laptop sending emails or reading the news online, i get slower internet speeds because of them.   #  netflix and major bandwidth sites do not have much of an incentive to lower their bandwidth because of all this.   #  they pay extra for having high bandwidth.   #  i remade my post because i misread the op the problem is not necessarily related to using high bandwidth websites.  it is that you use too much bandwidth in the first place.  i could use a lot more bandwidth than a netflix user by just sending emails if i wanted to.  how is it fair that the netflix user has to pay more than me even though i am the one using more bandwidth ? a better solution would be that each user has to pay more if they use too much bandwidth, regardless of the website they use.  they pay extra for having high bandwidth.  just like you and me, they have to pay for their internet connection and they pay  a lot  because they require high bandwidth.  so yes, netflix or youtube have an incentive to lower their bandwidth usage, because it is not free.   #  until they are able to do that, i entered an agreement with them stipulating how much data and a what speed i could consume for a set price.   # i believe that they should only be able to charge more if in fact they can prove that a certain website is clogging their infrastructure disproportionately netflix .  they can charge me more when they prove where i agreed to being charged proportionally to my bandwidth usage and how they intend to manage it.  until they are able to do that, i entered an agreement with them stipulating how much data and a what speed i could consume for a set price.  their inability to upgrade their infrastructure to meet the standard they promised and we are all paying for are not my concern, nor my problem.  your internet slowing down is  their  problem.  call them and complain.  you are paying for a service they are not able to provide.   #  toll booths would be akin to isp charging a premium to users of a specific high traffic site.   # one way this city was able to control the traffic was to set up tolls.  this greatly benefitted traffic flow while raising money to better improve the road itself build more lanes etc .  but they are charging the drivers the tolls not your destination.  toll booths would be akin to isp charging a premium to users of a specific high traffic site.  what isps are doing to netflix and other streaming sites are akin to the government the one who manages the roads and traffic charging your destination, whatever it may be, for causing a lot of traffic on a specific road.   #  these customers are paying the isp for access to the internet.   #  if a website has high bandwidth, that is because it is seen as more desirable to the isps customers.  these customers are paying the isp for access to the internet.  the isp has a duty to provide said internet access to its customers.  if sites like netflix create a higher demand for bandwidth, that is good for the isps because it raises demand, which benefits them as a business.  imagine a taxi service complaining that certain bars were giving them too many customers at night, and that they wanted to charge the bar extra or they would refuse to take those customers.  ridiculous, right ? and yet, that is what the isps are doing here besides, the isps actually do comparatively little in getting internet to you.  most of the work is done transporting data across oceans and long distances.  isps just transfer your data packets a short distance to your house.  it is the equivalent of a delivery company with control over your driveway complaining about the strain caused from you ordering too many things.  here is a video which does a pretty good job explaining the issue URL  #  this idea only works if you assume all sites use the same amount of bandwidth per user, which is clearly wrong.   #  not really.  this idea only works if you assume all sites use the same amount of bandwidth per user, which is clearly wrong.  a wikipedia page will need thousands of views to use up the same amount of bandwidth a single user takes, seeing a single episode of friends on netflix.  if you want to make the taxi example work, you would have to argue that taxis should not charge more for customers that want to visit the bar 0km away, than those who want to go to a local one.  in the taxi example, gas is the bandwidth.  you can  drive  0 customers to wikipedia and use one gas tank, or drive one customer to netflix and use one gas tank.  so 0 netflix customers actually cost you 0x the gas that 0 wikipedia customers do.  therefore netflix uses 0 times more of your resources, but does not bring you any extra customers that is why you charge more .
this is a topic often brought up by reddit users because i believe they represent very heavy internet users.  i think it is right to assume that people on reddit use the internet more than average folk.  not all websites tax isps the same, so why should isps be made to treat them all the same ? not allowing isps to either throttle or charge more for high bandwidth websites hurts customers who do not use these websites because isps have to keep raising prices.  netflix and major bandwidth sites do not have much of an incentive to lower their bandwidth because of all this.  i think the large majority of people that are angry about this are heavy netflix users who simply do not want to pay more.  many people have stated that if we let isps do this it would set a precedent to charge for all websites charging someone extra to go on facebook etc .  i believe that they should only be able to charge more if in fact they can prove that a certain website is clogging their infrastructure disproportionately netflix .  the road with the highest traffic in my city is the massive interstate leading into the city.  one way this city was able to control the traffic was to set up tolls.  this greatly benefitted traffic flow while raising money to better improve the road itself build more lanes etc .  why do other internet users have to compromise their internet speeds for netflix users ? i am sure many of you can attest that your internet slows down during peak hours.  i believe this is due to an enormous number of people on netflix streaming video.  so while i am trying to get work done on my laptop sending emails or reading the news online, i get slower internet speeds because of them.   #  the road with the highest traffic in my city is the massive interstate leading into the city.   #  one way this city was able to control the traffic was to set up tolls.   # one way this city was able to control the traffic was to set up tolls.  this greatly benefitted traffic flow while raising money to better improve the road itself build more lanes etc .  but they are charging the drivers the tolls not your destination.  toll booths would be akin to isp charging a premium to users of a specific high traffic site.  what isps are doing to netflix and other streaming sites are akin to the government the one who manages the roads and traffic charging your destination, whatever it may be, for causing a lot of traffic on a specific road.   #  their inability to upgrade their infrastructure to meet the standard they promised and we are all paying for are not my concern, nor my problem.   # i believe that they should only be able to charge more if in fact they can prove that a certain website is clogging their infrastructure disproportionately netflix .  they can charge me more when they prove where i agreed to being charged proportionally to my bandwidth usage and how they intend to manage it.  until they are able to do that, i entered an agreement with them stipulating how much data and a what speed i could consume for a set price.  their inability to upgrade their infrastructure to meet the standard they promised and we are all paying for are not my concern, nor my problem.  your internet slowing down is  their  problem.  call them and complain.  you are paying for a service they are not able to provide.   #  it is that you use too much bandwidth in the first place.   #  i remade my post because i misread the op the problem is not necessarily related to using high bandwidth websites.  it is that you use too much bandwidth in the first place.  i could use a lot more bandwidth than a netflix user by just sending emails if i wanted to.  how is it fair that the netflix user has to pay more than me even though i am the one using more bandwidth ? a better solution would be that each user has to pay more if they use too much bandwidth, regardless of the website they use.  they pay extra for having high bandwidth.  just like you and me, they have to pay for their internet connection and they pay  a lot  because they require high bandwidth.  so yes, netflix or youtube have an incentive to lower their bandwidth usage, because it is not free.   #  imagine a taxi service complaining that certain bars were giving them too many customers at night, and that they wanted to charge the bar extra or they would refuse to take those customers.   #  if a website has high bandwidth, that is because it is seen as more desirable to the isps customers.  these customers are paying the isp for access to the internet.  the isp has a duty to provide said internet access to its customers.  if sites like netflix create a higher demand for bandwidth, that is good for the isps because it raises demand, which benefits them as a business.  imagine a taxi service complaining that certain bars were giving them too many customers at night, and that they wanted to charge the bar extra or they would refuse to take those customers.  ridiculous, right ? and yet, that is what the isps are doing here besides, the isps actually do comparatively little in getting internet to you.  most of the work is done transporting data across oceans and long distances.  isps just transfer your data packets a short distance to your house.  it is the equivalent of a delivery company with control over your driveway complaining about the strain caused from you ordering too many things.  here is a video which does a pretty good job explaining the issue URL  #  if you want to make the taxi example work, you would have to argue that taxis should not charge more for customers that want to visit the bar 0km away, than those who want to go to a local one.   #  not really.  this idea only works if you assume all sites use the same amount of bandwidth per user, which is clearly wrong.  a wikipedia page will need thousands of views to use up the same amount of bandwidth a single user takes, seeing a single episode of friends on netflix.  if you want to make the taxi example work, you would have to argue that taxis should not charge more for customers that want to visit the bar 0km away, than those who want to go to a local one.  in the taxi example, gas is the bandwidth.  you can  drive  0 customers to wikipedia and use one gas tank, or drive one customer to netflix and use one gas tank.  so 0 netflix customers actually cost you 0x the gas that 0 wikipedia customers do.  therefore netflix uses 0 times more of your resources, but does not bring you any extra customers that is why you charge more .
in order for democracy to work, we put faith in the people.  we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  i believe that democracy has been sustainable in the united states because the majority of people were smart enough to elect leaders who had the best interests of the people and the country.  however, looking at birth rates, demographics, education levels, income levels and so on.  it is becoming more   more clear that the majority will soon become uneducated people.  let me be clear here, by uneducated i mean, people who cannot understand what is actually best for them and the country.  if democracy continues to exist, there is no defense against dumb people electing leadership that will ruin the country.  these dumb people will have a greater say then the smart people and as a result, will eventually cause the demise of democracy.  take gaza for example.  hamas was democratically elected.  now to a level headed person they probably would not want to elect a political party that is willing to sacrifice it is own people, to fulfill a political agenda.  however in gaza the majority of the people voted for hamas, and as a result they were elected.  to me, this is an example of democracy failing.  when leadership that destroys it is country is elected by a majority of people who believe said leadership is best for them, simply because they are not educated or wise enough to understand the consequences of the leadership that they elected.  this is just one example.  i believe that in order for society to evolve/exist we cannot put our faith in the people.  i believe that we must be ruled by the elites of our societies.  these elites are not selected by the people, but are established based on certain merits.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  sort of like the supreme court, but without the appointment by a president.  the appointment shall be made by qualifications that limit the representation to a handful of people.  to me, this is the only way to protect people from themselves.  if you believe that democracy wo not fail, i ask what makes you believe that there will be enough smart people to outweigh the dumb people ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  would not you feel more comfortable putting your faith in the hands of honest, educated, competent people, then a majority that is lacking most of those things ? i say democracy is doomed, and it is becoming clearer by the day.  change my view  #  these elites are not selected by the people, but are established based on certain merits.   #  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.   #  your main problem here is that you have zero understanding of history.  you think things are bad now when you can go to literally any other time in human civilization and things were probably a lot worse.  as far as education is concerned, people are getting more educated, not less.  people in america are having less children, not more.  also, your e more likely to vote if you are educated, not uneducated so your premise is kind of self defeating.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  and who selects them and judges these merits ? a group of people ? and how are they selected ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  are you just watching honey boo boo and think that is what most people are like ? do you know any of the trends going on in birth rates or education levels over the past 0 years ? if said people existed without power corrupting them that would be nice, but that is almost never worked in history.  instead we elect folks with limited time in office.  sometimes we get bad ones in office for longer sometimes good ones in office for shorter and it is a damned shame.  fix problems in democracy, do not just scrap it altogether.  you are asking for a utopia, a world in which we only get good leaders without bad ones by some magic happenstance where they are chosen by something based solely on their merit which is what democracy does a better job of than any other form of government , i am simply saying democracy has been, historically, the best system of all time for humanity.   #  political parties have become like sports teams, and you are not going to root against your team losing.   # the outlook is actually rather bright, despite how funny idiocracy is.  better now ? what are you talking about ? better for whom ? we have a world that is on the brink of collapse, an economy that just went through it is worst time since the 0 is, warfare going on between countries, within countries, every week some story comes out that makes us think  wow how is that possible .  all of the education that you speak of, must of never made it to the millions of people engaged in some kind of conflict right now.  or maybe it did, but it was used for the wrong purposes.  if i educate people to hate, to kill.  is that still education, you know the one with the  increased funding .  hamas has increased funding, and they have successfully educated their people to do all of those things.  if we want to bring it back to america, then our  educated populous  the one that has increased knowledge in what they actually know, must not realize that they are contributing to the collapse of america.  economically, politically, internationally.  you see we justify that effect, because we focus on the other effects of our actions.  take immigration for example, if we allow for x million number of people to come to this country, we can say that we are making life better for those x amount of people, and as a result we should want to do that.  however when you look at the consequence that is going to hurt x number of people who exist in america already.  but you see, we can look at the benefit of one thing, and the effect of another, and try to make the most educated decision possible.  however, with the polarization of our society, that balance that can be attained by those who can have rational thought, is slowly dwindling.  political parties have become like sports teams, and you are not going to root against your team losing.  this is the negative of the  education  that you claim these people are getting.  what that is called is  brain washing    that is the opposite of education.  and that is why democracy  is not working .   #  still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  ridiculous ? look for yourself.  birth rate by family income URL mother is education level birth rates URL women is education   child birt URL more sources URL a highlight from this one  fertility rates tend to be highest in the world is least developed countries.  when mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty.  poverty, in turn, increases the likelihood of having many children, trapping families and countries in a vicious cycle.  conversely, countries that quickly slow population growth can receive a  demographic bonus : the economic and social rewards that come from a smaller number of young dependents relative to the number of working adults.   still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  uneducated people are more likely to have children because having many children is a way to provide for retirement.   #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.  that is why europe has fertility rates at or below replacement level, the us population growth comes exclusively from immigration, and every year there are fewer japanese citizens.  uneducated people are more likely to have children because having many children is a way to provide for retirement.  you will need at least one kid with a job willing to take care of you, and that can mean half a dozen if jobs are scarce or you do not get along with your first couple.  someone who has a good job or lives in a developed nation does not need a lot of kids, they can set aside money to care for themselves or has access to a pension or welfare.  so, fewer kids.  education simply makes it easier to create a situation where having the next kid does not make sense, where a lack of wealth and opportunity creates a situation where that next kid might be family is ticket to a better life in twenty years.  education also reduces the time people have to have kids.  if you are starting at 0 or 0 then you are going to have fewer kids than someone starting at 0 or 0.   #  if you surround yourself with only negative stories you are going to think the world is negative.   # nope.  ? it is possible, but not probable.  how many horrible people do you encounter on a day ? how many hundreds of thousands of people have you walked by that did nothing at all to you ? and democracy actually shelters the majority from the minority.  it protects agaisnt  the tyranny of the majority.   it is why the civil rights movement took place and it is why slavery no longer exists.  back then the majority hated blacks and blacks were the minority, but look how far we have come because of democracy.  back then it truly was horrible vs good, and looks like good has won.  and i dunno how you define good/horrible.  but if you ask 0 strangers for the time, not one will spit in your face.  most folks are pretty kind.  you just project your own shitty worldview onto the world, it does not mean it is actually like that.  if you surround yourself with only negative stories you are going to think the world is negative.  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.
in order for democracy to work, we put faith in the people.  we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  i believe that democracy has been sustainable in the united states because the majority of people were smart enough to elect leaders who had the best interests of the people and the country.  however, looking at birth rates, demographics, education levels, income levels and so on.  it is becoming more   more clear that the majority will soon become uneducated people.  let me be clear here, by uneducated i mean, people who cannot understand what is actually best for them and the country.  if democracy continues to exist, there is no defense against dumb people electing leadership that will ruin the country.  these dumb people will have a greater say then the smart people and as a result, will eventually cause the demise of democracy.  take gaza for example.  hamas was democratically elected.  now to a level headed person they probably would not want to elect a political party that is willing to sacrifice it is own people, to fulfill a political agenda.  however in gaza the majority of the people voted for hamas, and as a result they were elected.  to me, this is an example of democracy failing.  when leadership that destroys it is country is elected by a majority of people who believe said leadership is best for them, simply because they are not educated or wise enough to understand the consequences of the leadership that they elected.  this is just one example.  i believe that in order for society to evolve/exist we cannot put our faith in the people.  i believe that we must be ruled by the elites of our societies.  these elites are not selected by the people, but are established based on certain merits.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  sort of like the supreme court, but without the appointment by a president.  the appointment shall be made by qualifications that limit the representation to a handful of people.  to me, this is the only way to protect people from themselves.  if you believe that democracy wo not fail, i ask what makes you believe that there will be enough smart people to outweigh the dumb people ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  would not you feel more comfortable putting your faith in the hands of honest, educated, competent people, then a majority that is lacking most of those things ? i say democracy is doomed, and it is becoming clearer by the day.  change my view  #  if you believe that democracy wo not fail, i ask what makes you believe that there will be enough smart people to outweigh the dumb people ?  #  using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ?  #  your main problem here is that you have zero understanding of history.  you think things are bad now when you can go to literally any other time in human civilization and things were probably a lot worse.  as far as education is concerned, people are getting more educated, not less.  people in america are having less children, not more.  also, your e more likely to vote if you are educated, not uneducated so your premise is kind of self defeating.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  and who selects them and judges these merits ? a group of people ? and how are they selected ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  are you just watching honey boo boo and think that is what most people are like ? do you know any of the trends going on in birth rates or education levels over the past 0 years ? if said people existed without power corrupting them that would be nice, but that is almost never worked in history.  instead we elect folks with limited time in office.  sometimes we get bad ones in office for longer sometimes good ones in office for shorter and it is a damned shame.  fix problems in democracy, do not just scrap it altogether.  you are asking for a utopia, a world in which we only get good leaders without bad ones by some magic happenstance where they are chosen by something based solely on their merit which is what democracy does a better job of than any other form of government , i am simply saying democracy has been, historically, the best system of all time for humanity.   #  however, with the polarization of our society, that balance that can be attained by those who can have rational thought, is slowly dwindling.   # the outlook is actually rather bright, despite how funny idiocracy is.  better now ? what are you talking about ? better for whom ? we have a world that is on the brink of collapse, an economy that just went through it is worst time since the 0 is, warfare going on between countries, within countries, every week some story comes out that makes us think  wow how is that possible .  all of the education that you speak of, must of never made it to the millions of people engaged in some kind of conflict right now.  or maybe it did, but it was used for the wrong purposes.  if i educate people to hate, to kill.  is that still education, you know the one with the  increased funding .  hamas has increased funding, and they have successfully educated their people to do all of those things.  if we want to bring it back to america, then our  educated populous  the one that has increased knowledge in what they actually know, must not realize that they are contributing to the collapse of america.  economically, politically, internationally.  you see we justify that effect, because we focus on the other effects of our actions.  take immigration for example, if we allow for x million number of people to come to this country, we can say that we are making life better for those x amount of people, and as a result we should want to do that.  however when you look at the consequence that is going to hurt x number of people who exist in america already.  but you see, we can look at the benefit of one thing, and the effect of another, and try to make the most educated decision possible.  however, with the polarization of our society, that balance that can be attained by those who can have rational thought, is slowly dwindling.  political parties have become like sports teams, and you are not going to root against your team losing.  this is the negative of the  education  that you claim these people are getting.  what that is called is  brain washing    that is the opposite of education.  and that is why democracy  is not working .   #  still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  ridiculous ? look for yourself.  birth rate by family income URL mother is education level birth rates URL women is education   child birt URL more sources URL a highlight from this one  fertility rates tend to be highest in the world is least developed countries.  when mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty.  poverty, in turn, increases the likelihood of having many children, trapping families and countries in a vicious cycle.  conversely, countries that quickly slow population growth can receive a  demographic bonus : the economic and social rewards that come from a smaller number of young dependents relative to the number of working adults.   still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.   #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.  that is why europe has fertility rates at or below replacement level, the us population growth comes exclusively from immigration, and every year there are fewer japanese citizens.  uneducated people are more likely to have children because having many children is a way to provide for retirement.  you will need at least one kid with a job willing to take care of you, and that can mean half a dozen if jobs are scarce or you do not get along with your first couple.  someone who has a good job or lives in a developed nation does not need a lot of kids, they can set aside money to care for themselves or has access to a pension or welfare.  so, fewer kids.  education simply makes it easier to create a situation where having the next kid does not make sense, where a lack of wealth and opportunity creates a situation where that next kid might be family is ticket to a better life in twenty years.  education also reduces the time people have to have kids.  if you are starting at 0 or 0 then you are going to have fewer kids than someone starting at 0 or 0.   #  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.   # nope.  ? it is possible, but not probable.  how many horrible people do you encounter on a day ? how many hundreds of thousands of people have you walked by that did nothing at all to you ? and democracy actually shelters the majority from the minority.  it protects agaisnt  the tyranny of the majority.   it is why the civil rights movement took place and it is why slavery no longer exists.  back then the majority hated blacks and blacks were the minority, but look how far we have come because of democracy.  back then it truly was horrible vs good, and looks like good has won.  and i dunno how you define good/horrible.  but if you ask 0 strangers for the time, not one will spit in your face.  most folks are pretty kind.  you just project your own shitty worldview onto the world, it does not mean it is actually like that.  if you surround yourself with only negative stories you are going to think the world is negative.  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.
in order for democracy to work, we put faith in the people.  we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  i believe that democracy has been sustainable in the united states because the majority of people were smart enough to elect leaders who had the best interests of the people and the country.  however, looking at birth rates, demographics, education levels, income levels and so on.  it is becoming more   more clear that the majority will soon become uneducated people.  let me be clear here, by uneducated i mean, people who cannot understand what is actually best for them and the country.  if democracy continues to exist, there is no defense against dumb people electing leadership that will ruin the country.  these dumb people will have a greater say then the smart people and as a result, will eventually cause the demise of democracy.  take gaza for example.  hamas was democratically elected.  now to a level headed person they probably would not want to elect a political party that is willing to sacrifice it is own people, to fulfill a political agenda.  however in gaza the majority of the people voted for hamas, and as a result they were elected.  to me, this is an example of democracy failing.  when leadership that destroys it is country is elected by a majority of people who believe said leadership is best for them, simply because they are not educated or wise enough to understand the consequences of the leadership that they elected.  this is just one example.  i believe that in order for society to evolve/exist we cannot put our faith in the people.  i believe that we must be ruled by the elites of our societies.  these elites are not selected by the people, but are established based on certain merits.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  sort of like the supreme court, but without the appointment by a president.  the appointment shall be made by qualifications that limit the representation to a handful of people.  to me, this is the only way to protect people from themselves.  if you believe that democracy wo not fail, i ask what makes you believe that there will be enough smart people to outweigh the dumb people ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  would not you feel more comfortable putting your faith in the hands of honest, educated, competent people, then a majority that is lacking most of those things ? i say democracy is doomed, and it is becoming clearer by the day.  change my view  #  would not you feel more comfortable putting your faith in the hands of honest, educated, competent people, then a majority that is lacking most of those things ?  #  if said people existed without power corrupting them that would be nice, but that is almost never worked in history.   #  your main problem here is that you have zero understanding of history.  you think things are bad now when you can go to literally any other time in human civilization and things were probably a lot worse.  as far as education is concerned, people are getting more educated, not less.  people in america are having less children, not more.  also, your e more likely to vote if you are educated, not uneducated so your premise is kind of self defeating.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  and who selects them and judges these merits ? a group of people ? and how are they selected ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  are you just watching honey boo boo and think that is what most people are like ? do you know any of the trends going on in birth rates or education levels over the past 0 years ? if said people existed without power corrupting them that would be nice, but that is almost never worked in history.  instead we elect folks with limited time in office.  sometimes we get bad ones in office for longer sometimes good ones in office for shorter and it is a damned shame.  fix problems in democracy, do not just scrap it altogether.  you are asking for a utopia, a world in which we only get good leaders without bad ones by some magic happenstance where they are chosen by something based solely on their merit which is what democracy does a better job of than any other form of government , i am simply saying democracy has been, historically, the best system of all time for humanity.   #  this is the negative of the  education  that you claim these people are getting.   # the outlook is actually rather bright, despite how funny idiocracy is.  better now ? what are you talking about ? better for whom ? we have a world that is on the brink of collapse, an economy that just went through it is worst time since the 0 is, warfare going on between countries, within countries, every week some story comes out that makes us think  wow how is that possible .  all of the education that you speak of, must of never made it to the millions of people engaged in some kind of conflict right now.  or maybe it did, but it was used for the wrong purposes.  if i educate people to hate, to kill.  is that still education, you know the one with the  increased funding .  hamas has increased funding, and they have successfully educated their people to do all of those things.  if we want to bring it back to america, then our  educated populous  the one that has increased knowledge in what they actually know, must not realize that they are contributing to the collapse of america.  economically, politically, internationally.  you see we justify that effect, because we focus on the other effects of our actions.  take immigration for example, if we allow for x million number of people to come to this country, we can say that we are making life better for those x amount of people, and as a result we should want to do that.  however when you look at the consequence that is going to hurt x number of people who exist in america already.  but you see, we can look at the benefit of one thing, and the effect of another, and try to make the most educated decision possible.  however, with the polarization of our society, that balance that can be attained by those who can have rational thought, is slowly dwindling.  political parties have become like sports teams, and you are not going to root against your team losing.  this is the negative of the  education  that you claim these people are getting.  what that is called is  brain washing    that is the opposite of education.  and that is why democracy  is not working .   #  still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  ridiculous ? look for yourself.  birth rate by family income URL mother is education level birth rates URL women is education   child birt URL more sources URL a highlight from this one  fertility rates tend to be highest in the world is least developed countries.  when mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty.  poverty, in turn, increases the likelihood of having many children, trapping families and countries in a vicious cycle.  conversely, countries that quickly slow population growth can receive a  demographic bonus : the economic and social rewards that come from a smaller number of young dependents relative to the number of working adults.   still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  that is why europe has fertility rates at or below replacement level, the us population growth comes exclusively from immigration, and every year there are fewer japanese citizens.   #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.  that is why europe has fertility rates at or below replacement level, the us population growth comes exclusively from immigration, and every year there are fewer japanese citizens.  uneducated people are more likely to have children because having many children is a way to provide for retirement.  you will need at least one kid with a job willing to take care of you, and that can mean half a dozen if jobs are scarce or you do not get along with your first couple.  someone who has a good job or lives in a developed nation does not need a lot of kids, they can set aside money to care for themselves or has access to a pension or welfare.  so, fewer kids.  education simply makes it easier to create a situation where having the next kid does not make sense, where a lack of wealth and opportunity creates a situation where that next kid might be family is ticket to a better life in twenty years.  education also reduces the time people have to have kids.  if you are starting at 0 or 0 then you are going to have fewer kids than someone starting at 0 or 0.   #  but if you ask 0 strangers for the time, not one will spit in your face.   # nope.  ? it is possible, but not probable.  how many horrible people do you encounter on a day ? how many hundreds of thousands of people have you walked by that did nothing at all to you ? and democracy actually shelters the majority from the minority.  it protects agaisnt  the tyranny of the majority.   it is why the civil rights movement took place and it is why slavery no longer exists.  back then the majority hated blacks and blacks were the minority, but look how far we have come because of democracy.  back then it truly was horrible vs good, and looks like good has won.  and i dunno how you define good/horrible.  but if you ask 0 strangers for the time, not one will spit in your face.  most folks are pretty kind.  you just project your own shitty worldview onto the world, it does not mean it is actually like that.  if you surround yourself with only negative stories you are going to think the world is negative.  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.
in order for democracy to work, we put faith in the people.  we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  i believe that democracy has been sustainable in the united states because the majority of people were smart enough to elect leaders who had the best interests of the people and the country.  however, looking at birth rates, demographics, education levels, income levels and so on.  it is becoming more   more clear that the majority will soon become uneducated people.  let me be clear here, by uneducated i mean, people who cannot understand what is actually best for them and the country.  if democracy continues to exist, there is no defense against dumb people electing leadership that will ruin the country.  these dumb people will have a greater say then the smart people and as a result, will eventually cause the demise of democracy.  take gaza for example.  hamas was democratically elected.  now to a level headed person they probably would not want to elect a political party that is willing to sacrifice it is own people, to fulfill a political agenda.  however in gaza the majority of the people voted for hamas, and as a result they were elected.  to me, this is an example of democracy failing.  when leadership that destroys it is country is elected by a majority of people who believe said leadership is best for them, simply because they are not educated or wise enough to understand the consequences of the leadership that they elected.  this is just one example.  i believe that in order for society to evolve/exist we cannot put our faith in the people.  i believe that we must be ruled by the elites of our societies.  these elites are not selected by the people, but are established based on certain merits.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  sort of like the supreme court, but without the appointment by a president.  the appointment shall be made by qualifications that limit the representation to a handful of people.  to me, this is the only way to protect people from themselves.  if you believe that democracy wo not fail, i ask what makes you believe that there will be enough smart people to outweigh the dumb people ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  would not you feel more comfortable putting your faith in the hands of honest, educated, competent people, then a majority that is lacking most of those things ? i say democracy is doomed, and it is becoming clearer by the day.  change my view  #  in order for democracy to work, we put faith in the people.   #  we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.   # we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  no we do not.  we just believe that when all factors have been considered democracy is the most desirable of all forms of government.  by any measure the average american is better educated today than at any time in american history, and certainly moreso than at the outset of popular democracy in the us.  well who the hell are you to decide what is best for anyone else ? they may well have different priorities to you.   #  this is the negative of the  education  that you claim these people are getting.   # the outlook is actually rather bright, despite how funny idiocracy is.  better now ? what are you talking about ? better for whom ? we have a world that is on the brink of collapse, an economy that just went through it is worst time since the 0 is, warfare going on between countries, within countries, every week some story comes out that makes us think  wow how is that possible .  all of the education that you speak of, must of never made it to the millions of people engaged in some kind of conflict right now.  or maybe it did, but it was used for the wrong purposes.  if i educate people to hate, to kill.  is that still education, you know the one with the  increased funding .  hamas has increased funding, and they have successfully educated their people to do all of those things.  if we want to bring it back to america, then our  educated populous  the one that has increased knowledge in what they actually know, must not realize that they are contributing to the collapse of america.  economically, politically, internationally.  you see we justify that effect, because we focus on the other effects of our actions.  take immigration for example, if we allow for x million number of people to come to this country, we can say that we are making life better for those x amount of people, and as a result we should want to do that.  however when you look at the consequence that is going to hurt x number of people who exist in america already.  but you see, we can look at the benefit of one thing, and the effect of another, and try to make the most educated decision possible.  however, with the polarization of our society, that balance that can be attained by those who can have rational thought, is slowly dwindling.  political parties have become like sports teams, and you are not going to root against your team losing.  this is the negative of the  education  that you claim these people are getting.  what that is called is  brain washing    that is the opposite of education.  and that is why democracy  is not working .   #  when mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty.   #  ridiculous ? look for yourself.  birth rate by family income URL mother is education level birth rates URL women is education   child birt URL more sources URL a highlight from this one  fertility rates tend to be highest in the world is least developed countries.  when mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty.  poverty, in turn, increases the likelihood of having many children, trapping families and countries in a vicious cycle.  conversely, countries that quickly slow population growth can receive a  demographic bonus : the economic and social rewards that come from a smaller number of young dependents relative to the number of working adults.   still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.   #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.  that is why europe has fertility rates at or below replacement level, the us population growth comes exclusively from immigration, and every year there are fewer japanese citizens.  uneducated people are more likely to have children because having many children is a way to provide for retirement.  you will need at least one kid with a job willing to take care of you, and that can mean half a dozen if jobs are scarce or you do not get along with your first couple.  someone who has a good job or lives in a developed nation does not need a lot of kids, they can set aside money to care for themselves or has access to a pension or welfare.  so, fewer kids.  education simply makes it easier to create a situation where having the next kid does not make sense, where a lack of wealth and opportunity creates a situation where that next kid might be family is ticket to a better life in twenty years.  education also reduces the time people have to have kids.  if you are starting at 0 or 0 then you are going to have fewer kids than someone starting at 0 or 0.   #  you just project your own shitty worldview onto the world, it does not mean it is actually like that.   # nope.  ? it is possible, but not probable.  how many horrible people do you encounter on a day ? how many hundreds of thousands of people have you walked by that did nothing at all to you ? and democracy actually shelters the majority from the minority.  it protects agaisnt  the tyranny of the majority.   it is why the civil rights movement took place and it is why slavery no longer exists.  back then the majority hated blacks and blacks were the minority, but look how far we have come because of democracy.  back then it truly was horrible vs good, and looks like good has won.  and i dunno how you define good/horrible.  but if you ask 0 strangers for the time, not one will spit in your face.  most folks are pretty kind.  you just project your own shitty worldview onto the world, it does not mean it is actually like that.  if you surround yourself with only negative stories you are going to think the world is negative.  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.
in order for democracy to work, we put faith in the people.  we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  i believe that democracy has been sustainable in the united states because the majority of people were smart enough to elect leaders who had the best interests of the people and the country.  however, looking at birth rates, demographics, education levels, income levels and so on.  it is becoming more   more clear that the majority will soon become uneducated people.  let me be clear here, by uneducated i mean, people who cannot understand what is actually best for them and the country.  if democracy continues to exist, there is no defense against dumb people electing leadership that will ruin the country.  these dumb people will have a greater say then the smart people and as a result, will eventually cause the demise of democracy.  take gaza for example.  hamas was democratically elected.  now to a level headed person they probably would not want to elect a political party that is willing to sacrifice it is own people, to fulfill a political agenda.  however in gaza the majority of the people voted for hamas, and as a result they were elected.  to me, this is an example of democracy failing.  when leadership that destroys it is country is elected by a majority of people who believe said leadership is best for them, simply because they are not educated or wise enough to understand the consequences of the leadership that they elected.  this is just one example.  i believe that in order for society to evolve/exist we cannot put our faith in the people.  i believe that we must be ruled by the elites of our societies.  these elites are not selected by the people, but are established based on certain merits.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  sort of like the supreme court, but without the appointment by a president.  the appointment shall be made by qualifications that limit the representation to a handful of people.  to me, this is the only way to protect people from themselves.  if you believe that democracy wo not fail, i ask what makes you believe that there will be enough smart people to outweigh the dumb people ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  would not you feel more comfortable putting your faith in the hands of honest, educated, competent people, then a majority that is lacking most of those things ? i say democracy is doomed, and it is becoming clearer by the day.  change my view  #  however, looking at birth rates, demographics, education levels, income levels and so on.  it is becoming more   more clear that the majority will soon become uneducated people.   #  by any measure the average american is better educated today than at any time in american history, and certainly moreso than at the outset of popular democracy in the us.   # we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  no we do not.  we just believe that when all factors have been considered democracy is the most desirable of all forms of government.  by any measure the average american is better educated today than at any time in american history, and certainly moreso than at the outset of popular democracy in the us.  well who the hell are you to decide what is best for anyone else ? they may well have different priorities to you.   #  however when you look at the consequence that is going to hurt x number of people who exist in america already.   # the outlook is actually rather bright, despite how funny idiocracy is.  better now ? what are you talking about ? better for whom ? we have a world that is on the brink of collapse, an economy that just went through it is worst time since the 0 is, warfare going on between countries, within countries, every week some story comes out that makes us think  wow how is that possible .  all of the education that you speak of, must of never made it to the millions of people engaged in some kind of conflict right now.  or maybe it did, but it was used for the wrong purposes.  if i educate people to hate, to kill.  is that still education, you know the one with the  increased funding .  hamas has increased funding, and they have successfully educated their people to do all of those things.  if we want to bring it back to america, then our  educated populous  the one that has increased knowledge in what they actually know, must not realize that they are contributing to the collapse of america.  economically, politically, internationally.  you see we justify that effect, because we focus on the other effects of our actions.  take immigration for example, if we allow for x million number of people to come to this country, we can say that we are making life better for those x amount of people, and as a result we should want to do that.  however when you look at the consequence that is going to hurt x number of people who exist in america already.  but you see, we can look at the benefit of one thing, and the effect of another, and try to make the most educated decision possible.  however, with the polarization of our society, that balance that can be attained by those who can have rational thought, is slowly dwindling.  political parties have become like sports teams, and you are not going to root against your team losing.  this is the negative of the  education  that you claim these people are getting.  what that is called is  brain washing    that is the opposite of education.  and that is why democracy  is not working .   #  conversely, countries that quickly slow population growth can receive a  demographic bonus : the economic and social rewards that come from a smaller number of young dependents relative to the number of working adults.    #  ridiculous ? look for yourself.  birth rate by family income URL mother is education level birth rates URL women is education   child birt URL more sources URL a highlight from this one  fertility rates tend to be highest in the world is least developed countries.  when mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty.  poverty, in turn, increases the likelihood of having many children, trapping families and countries in a vicious cycle.  conversely, countries that quickly slow population growth can receive a  demographic bonus : the economic and social rewards that come from a smaller number of young dependents relative to the number of working adults.   still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  uneducated people are more likely to have children because having many children is a way to provide for retirement.   #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.  that is why europe has fertility rates at or below replacement level, the us population growth comes exclusively from immigration, and every year there are fewer japanese citizens.  uneducated people are more likely to have children because having many children is a way to provide for retirement.  you will need at least one kid with a job willing to take care of you, and that can mean half a dozen if jobs are scarce or you do not get along with your first couple.  someone who has a good job or lives in a developed nation does not need a lot of kids, they can set aside money to care for themselves or has access to a pension or welfare.  so, fewer kids.  education simply makes it easier to create a situation where having the next kid does not make sense, where a lack of wealth and opportunity creates a situation where that next kid might be family is ticket to a better life in twenty years.  education also reduces the time people have to have kids.  if you are starting at 0 or 0 then you are going to have fewer kids than someone starting at 0 or 0.   #  back then it truly was horrible vs good, and looks like good has won.   # nope.  ? it is possible, but not probable.  how many horrible people do you encounter on a day ? how many hundreds of thousands of people have you walked by that did nothing at all to you ? and democracy actually shelters the majority from the minority.  it protects agaisnt  the tyranny of the majority.   it is why the civil rights movement took place and it is why slavery no longer exists.  back then the majority hated blacks and blacks were the minority, but look how far we have come because of democracy.  back then it truly was horrible vs good, and looks like good has won.  and i dunno how you define good/horrible.  but if you ask 0 strangers for the time, not one will spit in your face.  most folks are pretty kind.  you just project your own shitty worldview onto the world, it does not mean it is actually like that.  if you surround yourself with only negative stories you are going to think the world is negative.  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.
in order for democracy to work, we put faith in the people.  we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  i believe that democracy has been sustainable in the united states because the majority of people were smart enough to elect leaders who had the best interests of the people and the country.  however, looking at birth rates, demographics, education levels, income levels and so on.  it is becoming more   more clear that the majority will soon become uneducated people.  let me be clear here, by uneducated i mean, people who cannot understand what is actually best for them and the country.  if democracy continues to exist, there is no defense against dumb people electing leadership that will ruin the country.  these dumb people will have a greater say then the smart people and as a result, will eventually cause the demise of democracy.  take gaza for example.  hamas was democratically elected.  now to a level headed person they probably would not want to elect a political party that is willing to sacrifice it is own people, to fulfill a political agenda.  however in gaza the majority of the people voted for hamas, and as a result they were elected.  to me, this is an example of democracy failing.  when leadership that destroys it is country is elected by a majority of people who believe said leadership is best for them, simply because they are not educated or wise enough to understand the consequences of the leadership that they elected.  this is just one example.  i believe that in order for society to evolve/exist we cannot put our faith in the people.  i believe that we must be ruled by the elites of our societies.  these elites are not selected by the people, but are established based on certain merits.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  sort of like the supreme court, but without the appointment by a president.  the appointment shall be made by qualifications that limit the representation to a handful of people.  to me, this is the only way to protect people from themselves.  if you believe that democracy wo not fail, i ask what makes you believe that there will be enough smart people to outweigh the dumb people ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  would not you feel more comfortable putting your faith in the hands of honest, educated, competent people, then a majority that is lacking most of those things ? i say democracy is doomed, and it is becoming clearer by the day.  change my view  #  let me be clear here, by uneducated i mean, people who cannot understand what is actually best for them and the country.   #  well who the hell are you to decide what is best for anyone else ?  # we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  no we do not.  we just believe that when all factors have been considered democracy is the most desirable of all forms of government.  by any measure the average american is better educated today than at any time in american history, and certainly moreso than at the outset of popular democracy in the us.  well who the hell are you to decide what is best for anyone else ? they may well have different priorities to you.   #  the outlook is actually rather bright, despite how funny idiocracy is.   # the outlook is actually rather bright, despite how funny idiocracy is.  better now ? what are you talking about ? better for whom ? we have a world that is on the brink of collapse, an economy that just went through it is worst time since the 0 is, warfare going on between countries, within countries, every week some story comes out that makes us think  wow how is that possible .  all of the education that you speak of, must of never made it to the millions of people engaged in some kind of conflict right now.  or maybe it did, but it was used for the wrong purposes.  if i educate people to hate, to kill.  is that still education, you know the one with the  increased funding .  hamas has increased funding, and they have successfully educated their people to do all of those things.  if we want to bring it back to america, then our  educated populous  the one that has increased knowledge in what they actually know, must not realize that they are contributing to the collapse of america.  economically, politically, internationally.  you see we justify that effect, because we focus on the other effects of our actions.  take immigration for example, if we allow for x million number of people to come to this country, we can say that we are making life better for those x amount of people, and as a result we should want to do that.  however when you look at the consequence that is going to hurt x number of people who exist in america already.  but you see, we can look at the benefit of one thing, and the effect of another, and try to make the most educated decision possible.  however, with the polarization of our society, that balance that can be attained by those who can have rational thought, is slowly dwindling.  political parties have become like sports teams, and you are not going to root against your team losing.  this is the negative of the  education  that you claim these people are getting.  what that is called is  brain washing    that is the opposite of education.  and that is why democracy  is not working .   #  still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  ridiculous ? look for yourself.  birth rate by family income URL mother is education level birth rates URL women is education   child birt URL more sources URL a highlight from this one  fertility rates tend to be highest in the world is least developed countries.  when mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty.  poverty, in turn, increases the likelihood of having many children, trapping families and countries in a vicious cycle.  conversely, countries that quickly slow population growth can receive a  demographic bonus : the economic and social rewards that come from a smaller number of young dependents relative to the number of working adults.   still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  if you are starting at 0 or 0 then you are going to have fewer kids than someone starting at 0 or 0.   #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.  that is why europe has fertility rates at or below replacement level, the us population growth comes exclusively from immigration, and every year there are fewer japanese citizens.  uneducated people are more likely to have children because having many children is a way to provide for retirement.  you will need at least one kid with a job willing to take care of you, and that can mean half a dozen if jobs are scarce or you do not get along with your first couple.  someone who has a good job or lives in a developed nation does not need a lot of kids, they can set aside money to care for themselves or has access to a pension or welfare.  so, fewer kids.  education simply makes it easier to create a situation where having the next kid does not make sense, where a lack of wealth and opportunity creates a situation where that next kid might be family is ticket to a better life in twenty years.  education also reduces the time people have to have kids.  if you are starting at 0 or 0 then you are going to have fewer kids than someone starting at 0 or 0.   #  it protects agaisnt  the tyranny of the majority.    # nope.  ? it is possible, but not probable.  how many horrible people do you encounter on a day ? how many hundreds of thousands of people have you walked by that did nothing at all to you ? and democracy actually shelters the majority from the minority.  it protects agaisnt  the tyranny of the majority.   it is why the civil rights movement took place and it is why slavery no longer exists.  back then the majority hated blacks and blacks were the minority, but look how far we have come because of democracy.  back then it truly was horrible vs good, and looks like good has won.  and i dunno how you define good/horrible.  but if you ask 0 strangers for the time, not one will spit in your face.  most folks are pretty kind.  you just project your own shitty worldview onto the world, it does not mean it is actually like that.  if you surround yourself with only negative stories you are going to think the world is negative.  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.
in order for democracy to work, we put faith in the people.  we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  i believe that democracy has been sustainable in the united states because the majority of people were smart enough to elect leaders who had the best interests of the people and the country.  however, looking at birth rates, demographics, education levels, income levels and so on.  it is becoming more   more clear that the majority will soon become uneducated people.  let me be clear here, by uneducated i mean, people who cannot understand what is actually best for them and the country.  if democracy continues to exist, there is no defense against dumb people electing leadership that will ruin the country.  these dumb people will have a greater say then the smart people and as a result, will eventually cause the demise of democracy.  take gaza for example.  hamas was democratically elected.  now to a level headed person they probably would not want to elect a political party that is willing to sacrifice it is own people, to fulfill a political agenda.  however in gaza the majority of the people voted for hamas, and as a result they were elected.  to me, this is an example of democracy failing.  when leadership that destroys it is country is elected by a majority of people who believe said leadership is best for them, simply because they are not educated or wise enough to understand the consequences of the leadership that they elected.  this is just one example.  i believe that in order for society to evolve/exist we cannot put our faith in the people.  i believe that we must be ruled by the elites of our societies.  these elites are not selected by the people, but are established based on certain merits.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  sort of like the supreme court, but without the appointment by a president.  the appointment shall be made by qualifications that limit the representation to a handful of people.  to me, this is the only way to protect people from themselves.  if you believe that democracy wo not fail, i ask what makes you believe that there will be enough smart people to outweigh the dumb people ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  would not you feel more comfortable putting your faith in the hands of honest, educated, competent people, then a majority that is lacking most of those things ? i say democracy is doomed, and it is becoming clearer by the day.  change my view  #  however, looking at birth rates, demographics, education levels, income levels and so on.  it is becoming more   more clear that the majority will soon become uneducated people.   #  the average age for first birth is rising.   # the average age for first birth is rising.  birth rates are declining which i suspect would lead to better education because there are fewer students and more resources for them.   demographics  ? i am not sure what this means. i can only parse it as probably racist.  education levels are fucking rising.  people get further ahead in education than ever before, more people with college degrees, highest level of literacy, and the average iq has been on a constant rise since iq tests were even a thing.   income levels .  i dunno, maybe you are right about that.  thinking civilization is collapsing is  very  trendy in the world at the moment.  the world is currently extremely cynical.  it is the cool thing to be.  but that does not mean it is actually that bad.  better than feudalism, i argue.  so the people in the 0s did know ? they were regular fucking people, and also people with very high amounts of racism, american exceptionalism, religion, blind commie hating, gay hating, and so on.  the further you go back in the past, the less educated and tolerant they usually are.   #  if we want to bring it back to america, then our  educated populous  the one that has increased knowledge in what they actually know, must not realize that they are contributing to the collapse of america.   # the outlook is actually rather bright, despite how funny idiocracy is.  better now ? what are you talking about ? better for whom ? we have a world that is on the brink of collapse, an economy that just went through it is worst time since the 0 is, warfare going on between countries, within countries, every week some story comes out that makes us think  wow how is that possible .  all of the education that you speak of, must of never made it to the millions of people engaged in some kind of conflict right now.  or maybe it did, but it was used for the wrong purposes.  if i educate people to hate, to kill.  is that still education, you know the one with the  increased funding .  hamas has increased funding, and they have successfully educated their people to do all of those things.  if we want to bring it back to america, then our  educated populous  the one that has increased knowledge in what they actually know, must not realize that they are contributing to the collapse of america.  economically, politically, internationally.  you see we justify that effect, because we focus on the other effects of our actions.  take immigration for example, if we allow for x million number of people to come to this country, we can say that we are making life better for those x amount of people, and as a result we should want to do that.  however when you look at the consequence that is going to hurt x number of people who exist in america already.  but you see, we can look at the benefit of one thing, and the effect of another, and try to make the most educated decision possible.  however, with the polarization of our society, that balance that can be attained by those who can have rational thought, is slowly dwindling.  political parties have become like sports teams, and you are not going to root against your team losing.  this is the negative of the  education  that you claim these people are getting.  what that is called is  brain washing    that is the opposite of education.  and that is why democracy  is not working .   #  birth rate by family income URL mother is education level birth rates URL women is education   child birt URL more sources URL a highlight from this one  fertility rates tend to be highest in the world is least developed countries.   #  ridiculous ? look for yourself.  birth rate by family income URL mother is education level birth rates URL women is education   child birt URL more sources URL a highlight from this one  fertility rates tend to be highest in the world is least developed countries.  when mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty.  poverty, in turn, increases the likelihood of having many children, trapping families and countries in a vicious cycle.  conversely, countries that quickly slow population growth can receive a  demographic bonus : the economic and social rewards that come from a smaller number of young dependents relative to the number of working adults.   still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  someone who has a good job or lives in a developed nation does not need a lot of kids, they can set aside money to care for themselves or has access to a pension or welfare.   #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.  that is why europe has fertility rates at or below replacement level, the us population growth comes exclusively from immigration, and every year there are fewer japanese citizens.  uneducated people are more likely to have children because having many children is a way to provide for retirement.  you will need at least one kid with a job willing to take care of you, and that can mean half a dozen if jobs are scarce or you do not get along with your first couple.  someone who has a good job or lives in a developed nation does not need a lot of kids, they can set aside money to care for themselves or has access to a pension or welfare.  so, fewer kids.  education simply makes it easier to create a situation where having the next kid does not make sense, where a lack of wealth and opportunity creates a situation where that next kid might be family is ticket to a better life in twenty years.  education also reduces the time people have to have kids.  if you are starting at 0 or 0 then you are going to have fewer kids than someone starting at 0 or 0.   #  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.   # nope.  ? it is possible, but not probable.  how many horrible people do you encounter on a day ? how many hundreds of thousands of people have you walked by that did nothing at all to you ? and democracy actually shelters the majority from the minority.  it protects agaisnt  the tyranny of the majority.   it is why the civil rights movement took place and it is why slavery no longer exists.  back then the majority hated blacks and blacks were the minority, but look how far we have come because of democracy.  back then it truly was horrible vs good, and looks like good has won.  and i dunno how you define good/horrible.  but if you ask 0 strangers for the time, not one will spit in your face.  most folks are pretty kind.  you just project your own shitty worldview onto the world, it does not mean it is actually like that.  if you surround yourself with only negative stories you are going to think the world is negative.  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.
in order for democracy to work, we put faith in the people.  we believe that the majority of people will be able to successfully elect a government that represents their people.  i believe that democracy has been sustainable in the united states because the majority of people were smart enough to elect leaders who had the best interests of the people and the country.  however, looking at birth rates, demographics, education levels, income levels and so on.  it is becoming more   more clear that the majority will soon become uneducated people.  let me be clear here, by uneducated i mean, people who cannot understand what is actually best for them and the country.  if democracy continues to exist, there is no defense against dumb people electing leadership that will ruin the country.  these dumb people will have a greater say then the smart people and as a result, will eventually cause the demise of democracy.  take gaza for example.  hamas was democratically elected.  now to a level headed person they probably would not want to elect a political party that is willing to sacrifice it is own people, to fulfill a political agenda.  however in gaza the majority of the people voted for hamas, and as a result they were elected.  to me, this is an example of democracy failing.  when leadership that destroys it is country is elected by a majority of people who believe said leadership is best for them, simply because they are not educated or wise enough to understand the consequences of the leadership that they elected.  this is just one example.  i believe that in order for society to evolve/exist we cannot put our faith in the people.  i believe that we must be ruled by the elites of our societies.  these elites are not selected by the people, but are established based on certain merits.  merits that are achieved through humanitarian work, educational work, military work.  ect.  sort of like the supreme court, but without the appointment by a president.  the appointment shall be made by qualifications that limit the representation to a handful of people.  to me, this is the only way to protect people from themselves.  if you believe that democracy wo not fail, i ask what makes you believe that there will be enough smart people to outweigh the dumb people ? using statistics of birth rates, education levels,   income levels, would not you agree that lower society is the one reproducing at higher rates ? possibly because they are not bright enough to understand the financial, personal   physical burdens having many kids cause.  would not you feel more comfortable putting your faith in the hands of honest, educated, competent people, then a majority that is lacking most of those things ? i say democracy is doomed, and it is becoming clearer by the day.  change my view  #  let me be clear here, by uneducated i mean, people who cannot understand what is actually best for them and the country.   #  so the people in the 0s did know ?  # the average age for first birth is rising.  birth rates are declining which i suspect would lead to better education because there are fewer students and more resources for them.   demographics  ? i am not sure what this means. i can only parse it as probably racist.  education levels are fucking rising.  people get further ahead in education than ever before, more people with college degrees, highest level of literacy, and the average iq has been on a constant rise since iq tests were even a thing.   income levels .  i dunno, maybe you are right about that.  thinking civilization is collapsing is  very  trendy in the world at the moment.  the world is currently extremely cynical.  it is the cool thing to be.  but that does not mean it is actually that bad.  better than feudalism, i argue.  so the people in the 0s did know ? they were regular fucking people, and also people with very high amounts of racism, american exceptionalism, religion, blind commie hating, gay hating, and so on.  the further you go back in the past, the less educated and tolerant they usually are.   #  political parties have become like sports teams, and you are not going to root against your team losing.   # the outlook is actually rather bright, despite how funny idiocracy is.  better now ? what are you talking about ? better for whom ? we have a world that is on the brink of collapse, an economy that just went through it is worst time since the 0 is, warfare going on between countries, within countries, every week some story comes out that makes us think  wow how is that possible .  all of the education that you speak of, must of never made it to the millions of people engaged in some kind of conflict right now.  or maybe it did, but it was used for the wrong purposes.  if i educate people to hate, to kill.  is that still education, you know the one with the  increased funding .  hamas has increased funding, and they have successfully educated their people to do all of those things.  if we want to bring it back to america, then our  educated populous  the one that has increased knowledge in what they actually know, must not realize that they are contributing to the collapse of america.  economically, politically, internationally.  you see we justify that effect, because we focus on the other effects of our actions.  take immigration for example, if we allow for x million number of people to come to this country, we can say that we are making life better for those x amount of people, and as a result we should want to do that.  however when you look at the consequence that is going to hurt x number of people who exist in america already.  but you see, we can look at the benefit of one thing, and the effect of another, and try to make the most educated decision possible.  however, with the polarization of our society, that balance that can be attained by those who can have rational thought, is slowly dwindling.  political parties have become like sports teams, and you are not going to root against your team losing.  this is the negative of the  education  that you claim these people are getting.  what that is called is  brain washing    that is the opposite of education.  and that is why democracy  is not working .   #  when mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty.   #  ridiculous ? look for yourself.  birth rate by family income URL mother is education level birth rates URL women is education   child birt URL more sources URL a highlight from this one  fertility rates tend to be highest in the world is least developed countries.  when mortality rates decline quickly but fertility rates fail to follow, countries can find it harder to reduce poverty.  poverty, in turn, increases the likelihood of having many children, trapping families and countries in a vicious cycle.  conversely, countries that quickly slow population growth can receive a  demographic bonus : the economic and social rewards that come from a smaller number of young dependents relative to the number of working adults.   still find it ridiculous, to ascertain that uneducated people are reproducing at greater numbers then educated ?  #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.   #  except that fertility rates  do  follow, it just lags a few decades behind.  that is why europe has fertility rates at or below replacement level, the us population growth comes exclusively from immigration, and every year there are fewer japanese citizens.  uneducated people are more likely to have children because having many children is a way to provide for retirement.  you will need at least one kid with a job willing to take care of you, and that can mean half a dozen if jobs are scarce or you do not get along with your first couple.  someone who has a good job or lives in a developed nation does not need a lot of kids, they can set aside money to care for themselves or has access to a pension or welfare.  so, fewer kids.  education simply makes it easier to create a situation where having the next kid does not make sense, where a lack of wealth and opportunity creates a situation where that next kid might be family is ticket to a better life in twenty years.  education also reduces the time people have to have kids.  if you are starting at 0 or 0 then you are going to have fewer kids than someone starting at 0 or 0.   #  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.   # nope.  ? it is possible, but not probable.  how many horrible people do you encounter on a day ? how many hundreds of thousands of people have you walked by that did nothing at all to you ? and democracy actually shelters the majority from the minority.  it protects agaisnt  the tyranny of the majority.   it is why the civil rights movement took place and it is why slavery no longer exists.  back then the majority hated blacks and blacks were the minority, but look how far we have come because of democracy.  back then it truly was horrible vs good, and looks like good has won.  and i dunno how you define good/horrible.  but if you ask 0 strangers for the time, not one will spit in your face.  most folks are pretty kind.  you just project your own shitty worldview onto the world, it does not mean it is actually like that.  if you surround yourself with only negative stories you are going to think the world is negative.  but when i am out in the world, most people will help you with something if you ask them to.
i go to the movies a lot and it seems to happen pretty often that when the film finishes people in the audience will clap.  i have never understood this as no one who had a part in making the film can hear the clapping.  i could understand if it was a special screening, premiere, or there was an actor from the film or a special guest in the audience.  but for normal movie going circumstances, it just does not make any sense to me.  please change my view so i can stop getting annoyed when a theatre full of people clap.   #  please change my view so i can stop getting annoyed when a theatre full of people clap.   #  this ones easy: stop concerning yourself with the things that others enjoy that have absolutely no effect on you what so ever.   #  i like clapping.  it makes me feel good.  i work in live theater and see the same show 0 times a week, for 0 weeks at a time.  i still clap after every performance.  i clap in a movie to show my appreciation for the film.  it does not matter whether the creators will know or not.  i am not really clapping for them, but for myself and those who experienced the movie with me.  i clap although softly these days when a pilot successfully lands the plane i am on.  i clap when something stunningly funny happens while i am watching tv at home, alone.  i clap for myself when i successfully complete a project.  i like clapping.  this ones easy: stop concerning yourself with the things that others enjoy that have absolutely no effect on you what so ever.   #  then clap and say,  i told you motherfuckers he would win !    #  clap during the movie too.  and cheer on batman when things do not look so good for him.   come on bat,man.  you got this.  one more time, man.   all while standing up.  then throw a little tantrum if batman has some setbacks.  yell out,  this is bullshit can you all believe that the writers are just letting batman get stomped like this ?   then clap and say,  i told you motherfuckers he would win !   because it was so suspenseful and you werent sure if it would happen, but you did say that he would win.  then collect $0 from chad at work, because that dumbass is a joker fan and bet you again that the joker would takeout batman in the first half of the movie.  or do not clap at movies.  movies arent sports.   #  could just as justifiably clap the taxi driver who took you to the airport.   #  it is more of a us thing.  i have only ever seen it happen in the us at least.  i do laugh at it a little though.  it is like  thanks for not killing yourself and taking us all with you !  .  could just as justifiably clap the taxi driver who took you to the airport.  people just perceive flying to be more dangerous than driving because it is not quite as ingrained in an everyday part of their life.   #  at first it was really violent turbulence, the whole plane was bucking up and down, and i could hear people retching in the dark.   #  once i flew into denver in a thunderstorm, the last half of the flight was rough and everyone was on edge already.  as we came in for approach though things got really hairy.  at first it was really violent turbulence, the whole plane was bucking up and down, and i could hear people retching in the dark.  in the last minute as we came out of the clouds it got very still and quiet suddenly.  i could see the landing lights coming up fast from my window.  i could see them a little too well actually.  we were coasting in at this crazy oblique angle where my seat probably had a better view of the runway than the pilots.  everyone on the plane went silent, not a peep, a gasp, nothing.  we all held our breaths together.  at the last possible second as the back tires touched the tarmac with this awful shudder the entire plane swung around with a lurch and slammed down onto the front wheels.  just as the pilots ramped up the the engines to a deafening roar and the lights starting flickering and everyone started screaming, like rollercoaster of doom screams of terror as the force of deceleration rammed us into the seatbacks in front of us.  then everything was normal, like any other flight we bumped our way down to the terminal.  nobody said a word.  you could hear people sobbing and the occasional retch.  but when the seatbelt ding went off, everyone started hooting and cheering, and it just grew and grew until it was almost as loud as the landing.  not a dry eye on the plane as we disembarked.   #  at that point it is a sign of release and appreciation to the crew and pilots for landing the aircraft safely.   #  i understand the  wouldanger , and i understand that it is statistically insignificant.  there is no leap of faith unless you specifically view it in the hyperbolic manner in which you did.  if you understand  how  planes are able to fly, there is no reason to think of them in those terms.  i pointed out other, more legitimate reasons why people  could  be afraid, though, which you summarily disregarded or failed to read.  the only times i have had people clap after landing is when the flight was particularly rough/turbulent.  at that point it is a sign of release and appreciation to the crew and pilots for landing the aircraft safely.  clapping has nothing to do with thinking about being in a metal tube filled with jet fuel.  it has to do with the cessation of the anxiety and fear of not being in control of a potentially dangerous situation.  in fact, i would argue that you might experience passengers clapping after traveling in other forms of transportation if it was a particularly troubling or harrowing ride.
playoff are a poor way of deciding who the better team is.  high stakes outcome depends on one or a few games and can be highly susceptible to luck.  the best way to determine the best team out of many teams is to have a round robin tournament where every team has a chance to play every other team.  in some sports play offs are unavoidable.  for example, in nfl it is simply impossible for every team to play every other team the season is short and injuries tend to accumulate.  mlb, on the other hand has an extremely long season 0 games.  this gives mlb plenty of opportunity to run a fair round robin tournament with each team playing multiple games with each other team both home and away .  the team that has the most points at the end of such a season is a clear winner, and playoffs are not really needed.  cmv anticipating some arguments: some will say that playoffs create excitement.  to this i present the fact that the most watched soccer league is english premier league that has no playoffs.  /u/walfredo primavera brought up a very good point that 0 games series let the two team use the whole roster including all pitchers.  i agree.  however, the length of the season still allows every team to play a 0 games against every other team.   #  the team that has the most points at the end of such a season is a clear winner, and playoffs are not really needed.   #  cmv well op, the huge problem with going strictly off of a score tally is that it is only theoretically correct that the team with the most runs for the season is the better team.   # cmv well op, the huge problem with going strictly off of a score tally is that it is only theoretically correct that the team with the most runs for the season is the better team.  in reality, they could hold other teams to only a few runs, but in some games it is only a few runs or, just 0 run that make the w.  the other side to this to, is that if you follow that team with the most runs total, they could still have lost most of their games anyways.  if you have a division with a lot of power, you can have whole seasons with box scores that are like, 0 0 or 0 0 etc and then you basically just have a much higher total run tally even though you  were not  the better team.  often, it is a real toss up as to who is the victor.  in fact, i was downright shocked in 0 when the cards beat the phillies.  however, as a counterpoint i think the teams with the best overall record have put together the teams built for wins and there is this almost unavoidable bottleneck at the end of the season to pit the best teams against one another.  basically, even though the playoffs do not always seem to  get it right  in terms of picking the best team, there is almost no fair compromise.  perhaps a handful of whittling campaigns of sudden death games against the division is best contenders ? i do not think the round robin concept works well in baseball  specifically  because you are taking one game outcomes into chance and quite frankly no team has 0 aces on the mound let alone back end support in the pen to do lights out single games.  you need to play a 0 game series to open up your 0 man roster to the playoff system in order to adequately decide who has the best overall team.   #  for example, take the red sox 0 season.   #  ok, it is a different style of enjoyment.  sure, rivalries can exist without playing each other a lot of times.  if you are into that, you can get it from the epl, or as you pointed out, ncaa football.  i just prefer the other style, where teams do play their rivals a lot and build up a history over the course of the season.  for example, take the red sox 0 season.  it is famous because of what happened in the playoffs, of course, but the sox and yankees built up a whole series of exciting moments throughout the season, that game with the big brawl being a huge turning point.  if it had just been  welp, we played them once, they play us once, then never again  it would still have been a cool game but there would be no feeling of  turning the tide  and changing the whole atmosphere between the two teams.   #  once again, i can only speak for myself here, but i suspect that at least some percentage of mlb fans feel the same way.   #  late response here, but i am not sure if what i said in the other replies came through.  the idea of having each team play only 0 or so games against each other team is  exactly why  i do not like the idea of removing playoffs.  i want to see my team play it is division rivals  a lot  during the season, because i enjoy it more that way.  playing your division rivals most of the time would not work well in a no playoffs system, therefore we need playoffs for it to work.  once again, i can only speak for myself here, but i suspect that at least some percentage of mlb fans feel the same way.   #  it is cooler if i actually saw that stuff happen rather than just hearing the color commentator tell me about it in the moment.   #  ok, so you are putting the burden of proof on us to show that removing playoffs would hurt mlb.  that is fair, this is cmv after all.  my last shot is this: i personally am not a huge sports nerd.  i like to watch the red sox, but i do not have the time or energy to learn all about players from all across the league and follow what is going on in all 0 teams significantly more than the number of teams in the epl, i would note .  still, knowing a bit about what is going on with other teams increases my enjoyment of watching baseball.  for example, maybe a batter is facing a pitcher that he had a brawl with a few weeks ago, or maybe this batter has been really struggling lately.  it is cooler if i actually saw that stuff happen rather than just hearing the color commentator tell me about it in the moment.  because of this, i love the division system, where each team plays the other teams in its division mostly.  that way i can simply watch red sox games, and have a good feel for what is going on with the other four teams in the al east, without having to watch espn every day or whatever and memorizing facts about 0 different teams, each with 0 odd different players also more than the number of players per team in the epl, unless i am greatly mistaken .  i enjoy it more because of this.  i have no evidence that other people feel the same way, so if you want more than that there is nothing else i can say.  this is just why i personally would hate to see a no playoffs, all round robin version of mlb.   #  the playoffs are the highest ratings of the season.   #  making a comparison to a different sport in another country does not prove the system would work in america with mlb.  the playoffs are the highest ratings of the season.  why would mlb give that up to go with a system no one is pressing for ? playoffs are not being protested by the coaches, players, or franchises.  there is no motivation for them to change just so one guy on reddit thinks the system is more fair.
playoff are a poor way of deciding who the better team is.  high stakes outcome depends on one or a few games and can be highly susceptible to luck.  the best way to determine the best team out of many teams is to have a round robin tournament where every team has a chance to play every other team.  in some sports play offs are unavoidable.  for example, in nfl it is simply impossible for every team to play every other team the season is short and injuries tend to accumulate.  mlb, on the other hand has an extremely long season 0 games.  this gives mlb plenty of opportunity to run a fair round robin tournament with each team playing multiple games with each other team both home and away .  the team that has the most points at the end of such a season is a clear winner, and playoffs are not really needed.  cmv anticipating some arguments: some will say that playoffs create excitement.  to this i present the fact that the most watched soccer league is english premier league that has no playoffs.  /u/walfredo primavera brought up a very good point that 0 games series let the two team use the whole roster including all pitchers.  i agree.  however, the length of the season still allows every team to play a 0 games against every other team.   #  to this i present the fact that the most watched soccer league is english premier league that has no playoffs.   #  your claim implies that there are other soccer leagues in the world that are at the same level of competition that do have playoffs, and are not watched as much.   #  it sounds like your reasoning is based on the idea that the point of the playoffs is to figure out who  the best team  is.  the problem is that any formulation of the concept of  the best team  has to include some measure of time i. e.   the best team over the course of the season  or  the best team at the end of the season  or  the best team in the month of may.   if what you want is  the best team on average over the course of the season,  then you are right, playoffs are not necessary in baseball.  but that measure fails to capture a number of factors that are integral to baseball and, indeed, team sports in general : 0.   the team changes over time.  players get injured and are replaced.  pitchers get different chemistry with their catchers.  batters learn about the quirks of their opponents throughout the season.  the manager of a team that has a chance to make the playoffs may make different trades throughout the season.  0.   there can be no underdogs.  say you have a bad month early in the season and you find yourself 0 games back in a field of 0 teams.  how can you possibly motivate your team and your fan base to stick with it for another 0 games ? the wild card mechanism allows teams to regroup, overcome adversity, and have a chance to compete at a high level instead of simply being punching bags for the rest of the league.  0.   playoffs generate a disproportionate percentage of league revenue, which improves the level of competition for everyone.  the playoffs are where the big tv and stadia audiences come in.  since the mlb has a revenue sharing system, every single team even those that did not make the playoffs get to share in that revenue.  this means they can hire more and better players, trainers, and support staff to improve the quality of competition in future seasons.  even if your goal is to measure  the best team over the course of the season,  whose to say what  best  is ? one could make a case that overcoming adversity, learning from your mistakes, and winning when it matters are essential characteristics in determining who is  best.   this is not a novel concept it seems to me that those ideas are embedded in the american psyche.  in that case, the wild card playoff system does a very good job creating the incentive structure necessary to encourage teams to improve and change throughout the season.  your claim implies that there are other soccer leagues in the world that are at the same level of competition that do have playoffs, and are not watched as much.  i disagree.  several other leagues that contribute to the uefa championship league la liga, serie a, budesliga, and ligue 0 have similar formats excepting playoffs necessary to decide uefa placement .  so it is not clear to me that the absence of playoffs has anything to do with the english premier league is success.   #  sure, rivalries can exist without playing each other a lot of times.   #  ok, it is a different style of enjoyment.  sure, rivalries can exist without playing each other a lot of times.  if you are into that, you can get it from the epl, or as you pointed out, ncaa football.  i just prefer the other style, where teams do play their rivals a lot and build up a history over the course of the season.  for example, take the red sox 0 season.  it is famous because of what happened in the playoffs, of course, but the sox and yankees built up a whole series of exciting moments throughout the season, that game with the big brawl being a huge turning point.  if it had just been  welp, we played them once, they play us once, then never again  it would still have been a cool game but there would be no feeling of  turning the tide  and changing the whole atmosphere between the two teams.   #  late response here, but i am not sure if what i said in the other replies came through.   #  late response here, but i am not sure if what i said in the other replies came through.  the idea of having each team play only 0 or so games against each other team is  exactly why  i do not like the idea of removing playoffs.  i want to see my team play it is division rivals  a lot  during the season, because i enjoy it more that way.  playing your division rivals most of the time would not work well in a no playoffs system, therefore we need playoffs for it to work.  once again, i can only speak for myself here, but i suspect that at least some percentage of mlb fans feel the same way.   #  because of this, i love the division system, where each team plays the other teams in its division mostly.   #  ok, so you are putting the burden of proof on us to show that removing playoffs would hurt mlb.  that is fair, this is cmv after all.  my last shot is this: i personally am not a huge sports nerd.  i like to watch the red sox, but i do not have the time or energy to learn all about players from all across the league and follow what is going on in all 0 teams significantly more than the number of teams in the epl, i would note .  still, knowing a bit about what is going on with other teams increases my enjoyment of watching baseball.  for example, maybe a batter is facing a pitcher that he had a brawl with a few weeks ago, or maybe this batter has been really struggling lately.  it is cooler if i actually saw that stuff happen rather than just hearing the color commentator tell me about it in the moment.  because of this, i love the division system, where each team plays the other teams in its division mostly.  that way i can simply watch red sox games, and have a good feel for what is going on with the other four teams in the al east, without having to watch espn every day or whatever and memorizing facts about 0 different teams, each with 0 odd different players also more than the number of players per team in the epl, unless i am greatly mistaken .  i enjoy it more because of this.  i have no evidence that other people feel the same way, so if you want more than that there is nothing else i can say.  this is just why i personally would hate to see a no playoffs, all round robin version of mlb.   #  playoffs are not being protested by the coaches, players, or franchises.   #  making a comparison to a different sport in another country does not prove the system would work in america with mlb.  the playoffs are the highest ratings of the season.  why would mlb give that up to go with a system no one is pressing for ? playoffs are not being protested by the coaches, players, or franchises.  there is no motivation for them to change just so one guy on reddit thinks the system is more fair.
there is a hundred legitimate reasons you could say batman is bad for gotham, but i do not think any of them account for the super villains.  they are simply too smart, too powerful, and often too unorthodox for the police to effectively deal with them.  it takes someone of superior ability and freedom to catch these villains.  a few arguments i am anticipating:  super villains would not exist unless batman provoked their creation of a secret identity   batman is not effective, the villains just go to jail and then escape the next night  i have never understood why batman catches the flack for this one.  batman cannot sentence them to the death penalty.  i suppose you could say he ought to be killing them himself, but even just catching the villains over and over is more good than the police are doing, which is nothing.  i do not think there is a single comic where the police are able to stop joker all by themselves.  they are helpless against these super villains, batman is the only thing that can combat them.  even if he does not do it efficiently, he still does it to some degree.  cmv  #  i have never understood why batman catches the flack for this one.   #  batman cannot sentence them to the death penalty.   # batman cannot sentence them to the death penalty.  batman circumvents traditional warrant requirements and allows  the state  to pursue criminal investigations and subsequent prosecutions without the same judicial oversight and due process requirements commonly afforded to criminal defendants by the  0th amendment.  i have never understood why redditors think the 0th is sacred when it comes to their e mails but not when it comes to criminal defendants and accusations against them by the government.  it seems, in that case, it is always some  technicality  that gets people off and never that someone was over enthusiastic during the arrest and investigation period.  naturally, there is a distinction in gotham and real life in that a maybe they do not have as robust 0th requirements, and/or; b the police force is supposed to be so corrupt and the criminals so criminal that it makes it easier to anoint batman as a justified vigilante.  but, nevertheless, when we ask why he catches flack for this, it is  not  because people erroneously believe he is judge, jury and executioner.  it is because he creates a shortcut to each of these things by bypassing URL constitutional protections and ensuring a quick track to court using improperly obtained evidence that would otherwise likely be excluded for violating the warrant requirement and being  fruit of the poisonous tree.   it is problematic for a number of reasons.  first, any person who adheres to the principles influencing the 0th is going to be offended simply because batman is actions wholly undermine it.  that might be too aloof and impractical for other readers.  another reason is that batman is tenure is unlikely to be long enough to solve systemic issues e. g. , the corruption in gotham pd , so really we are just talking about one guy above the law who happens to have laudable goals fighting off lots of other guys above the law.  it is a band aid on a bullet hole by a man with so much money and influence that there are a multitude of other ways for him to potentially combat these problems, particularly in what seems to be an extremely stratified society.  combined, it almost seems kind of narcissistic to think that only one super rich athletic guy is the shining light of gotham city, and that there is no way we can harness the intentions of other people such as the main police characters in  gotham central  to try and combat long term criminal and corruption issues.  it is not as sexy and it wo not happen overnight, but i think these would be valid criticisms of batman if you were a gotham citizen, or if we tried to translate gotham over into any realistic analog where we ca not just narrate the necessity of batman into every argument against him by making almost all other people  that  criminal and  that  corrupt.   #  but they do not do this, because they already have batman.   #  i do not want to change your view, as i agree with you.  that said, just thinking of possible counter arguments.  you could make a pretty strong case that batman is stunting the growth of the gotham police.  they figure that batman will take care of the super villains, so there are no massive local, state, or federal investments in supervillain stopping crime units and gear.  i find it hard to believe that the entire country would just let the city crumble circumstances like tdkr excepted , and having many cops or soldiers with upgraded gear and training seems like it would trump one batman.  but they do not do this, because they already have batman.  worse yet, he causes a schism in the police force since some support the idea of him and others do not.  and there are a lot of places he ca not go he has to hide and be out at night.  so he ca not help with internal affairs, or provide preemptive security at events, or anything like that.  damn, i am halfway convincing myself, and i do not like it.  please rebut.  ;  #  he stepped in because they were not doing their job to begin with, now they need to step up their game in time for his retirement.   #  i think batman does a pretty good job of preparing his side kicks, and there are plenty of other heroes that can step in and train new heroes themselves etc etc.  still, the world ca not rely on heroes.  my take on it is this, it is not batman is job to train the police.  he stepped in because they were not doing their job to begin with, now they need to step up their game in time for his retirement.  batman ca not be everywhere at once, it is not like they do not get any practice.  basically, batman is not a perfect solution, but it is better to have him around then to have nothing.   #  batman ca not be everywhere at once, it is not like they do not get any practice.   #  i think batman does a pretty good job of preparing his side kicks, and there are plenty of other heroes that can step in and train new heroes themselves etc etc.  still, the world ca not rely on heroes.  my take on it is this, it is not batman is job to train the police.  he stepped in because they were not doing their job to begin with, now they need to step up their game in time for his retirement.  batman ca not be everywhere at once, it is not like they do not get any practice.  basically, batman is not a perfect solution, but it is better to have him around then to have nothing.   #  it is an interesting question that a number of universes have dealt with.   #  it is an interesting question that a number of universes have dealt with.  in the dcau, amanda waller of cadmus specifically addresses this.  they developed the  batman beyond  program to create a son for bruce, terry mcginnis.  waller even admits  the world needs a batman.  not that i always thought so, mind you.   in the comic universe, dick greyson took on the mantle of batman as his successor when everyone thought he was dead.
i think investing in nuclear energy is one of the most foolish things that mankind has ever done.  the sheer amount of energy it yields is certainly enticing, but i do not think it is worth the risks it entails.  my primary reason for despising nuclear energy is that in the event of a failure at a nuclear facility, the results are catastrophic.  many people claim that nuclear power plants are safeguarded with redundant forms of security making a meltdown  impossible.   i do not buy it.  no matter how many safety regulations are implemented, i think nuclear meltdowns are inevitable.  these facilities are run by two things: people, and computers.  people, even highly trained people are fallible, and i have used computers for far too long to trust that these computers are error proof.  what is more, we have historic precedents of nuclear meltdown and the natural turned nuclear disaster in japan to show us just how naive it is to think that nuclear energy is safe.  when a hydro electric power plant goes out, people lose power for a while.  huge inconvenience for a lot of people, possibly even a bit destructive, but ultimately not a huge deal.  when a nuclear power plant has a meltdown the entire area must be evacuated, people is lives are put in danger, and the environment is polluted with radioactivity for over a century.  nuclear power plants are a threat to the communities they reside in and every nation ought to begin taking steps towards shutting down such facilities.   #  when a hydro electric power plant goes out, people lose power for a while.   #  huge inconvenience for a lot of people, possibly even a bit destructive, but ultimately not a huge deal.   # huge inconvenience for a lot of people, possibly even a bit destructive, but ultimately not a huge deal.  thousands, even hundreds of thousands of deaths is not a huge deal these days, apparently.  the chernobyl incident has a 0,0 km² exclusion zone.  fukushima was only about half that, and large areas are being freed as decontamination completes.  iirc, about 0/0 was decontaminated already.  now fukushima produced about 0,0 gwh of power in 0.  the grand coulee dam URL produced 0 0 gwh.  however, it is reservoir has a surface area of 0 km².  so during proper operation, a hydro dam will permanently destroy a biosphere large than the one harmed in case of a nuclear meltdown.  chernobyl is a very interesting natural area these days.  between 0 0 premature deaths, unrelated to the tsunami or radioactivity, occurred due to the stress of the evacuation.  so, it might actually be safer to let them remain in harms way.  well, it is better than other sorts of pollution, which do not go away on their own.  i must however note that the 0 years refers to the time it takes to go back to normal without intervention.  going back to safe levels with intervention can be accomplished within a year.   #  the smallest accidents at these facilities are treated with the utmost scrutiny and caution.   #  on a long enough timeline, every possible emergency will occur.  but a meltdown at a nuclear facility is not the end of the world by any means; it is not even as bad as many  conventional  disasters, like the bhopal incident.  chernobyl was a.  very poorly designed and b.  operated in direct violation of procedure for an extended period, and it still only contaminated a relatively small portion of the world is landmass.  even the health effects that have been seen could have been minimized by a more appropriate response.  people are certainly prone to error, but it takes far, far more than a single person or error to cause problems anywhere approaching this magnitude.  the smallest accidents at these facilities are treated with the utmost scrutiny and caution.  and these  computers  are not anything like what you are used to; we are not talking windows xp machines from dell.  we are talking purpose built, specially designed and extensively tested, multiple redundant machines with software independent backups.  do nuclear plants have disadvantages ? sure.  but so do other plants.  coal plants actually put more radioactivity into the environment that nuclear plants do because most coal contains radon, which is released and uncontrolled; nuclear plants do not so much as vent steam from the core without being tightly, tightly controlled, monitored, and tested .  as with any other technology, nuclear power should be approached rationally.  every method of power production has benefits and costs; we need to weigh them carefully and logically, not ban things because they are scary or because lay people do not understand them.   #  i understand how nuclear plants and nuclear energy works.   # and chernobyl was not the only example i gave.  there was the nuclear melt down in japan caused by the tsunami.  the land is still polluted there and japan is economy is still suffering from that incident many years later.  this was a well regulated, well built facility, and it still failed.  it was simply an instance of nature being mightier than man.  the smallest accidents at these facilities are treated with the utmost scrutiny and caution.  and these  computers  are not anything like what you are used to; we are not talking windows xp machines from dell.  we are talking purpose built, specially designed and extensively tested, multiple redundant machines with software independent backups.  but, your first sentence was that on a long enough timeline, every possible emergency will occur.  and when the results of a nuclear melt down lead to the permanent evacuation of entire cities, i ca not exactly call these precautions adequate given the multitude of alternative energy sources that are available to us.  sure.  but so do other plants.  absolutely.  but i feel that nuclear energy is disadvantages are so enormous that they completely outweigh the advantages.  i am actually not terribly concerned about the pollution emitted by either of these plants during the normal operations.  it is the inevitable worst case scenario that really turns me off to nuclear energy.  every method of power production has benefits and costs; we need to weigh them carefully and logically, not ban things because they are scary or because lay people do not understand them.  i agree.  i understand how nuclear plants and nuclear energy works.  i understand the redundant safety procedures.  i also understand the destructive potential.  i do not feel as the the economic benefits of nuclear energy justify warrant the risks that come with it given that there are so many other forms of energy for us to work with.  honestly, if coal was the only competitor, i might feel differently, but as it stands we have too many safe options to warrant risking nuclear energy.   #  so will alien invasion, the singularity, time travel, and a delicious diet cola.   #  the fukushima daichi plant was not particularly well designed for instance, their backup diesels were not above the expected flood level .  even assuming it was, it was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami in quick succession; plenty of conventional facilities, like chemical plants, would have had a much worse impact on the surrounding environment under said conditions.  a nuclear meltdown will occur on a long enough timeline.  so will the obliteration of life on earth by an asteroid, but we do not have a global defense system in place either.  the chances of a meltdown at a properly designed and run facility are so remote as to be implausible.  even three mile island, the worst commercial plant accident in the us, killed. no one.  dishwashers kill more people than that.  saying that the advantages of nuclear power are outweighed by the disadvantages is something i agree with; that being said, the disadvantages that are significant are not mentioned in your post, so i am ignoring them.  if the thing you are worried about is  the worst care scenario , you need to consider a few things: a.  what is the worst case scenario assume meltdown .  b.  how likely is it ? remote, at best .  c.  what damage would it cause ? worst case, evacuation of a town .  and d.  what are the alternatives, and their impacts ? there is no totally safe and renewable source of energy.  most wind turbines and solar panels take more energy to create than they will ever produce, to say nothing of batteries and distribution.  i question whether you truly understand the redundant safety procedures if you are forwarding meltdown as a credible threat, at least in the us.  will it happen eventually ? sure.  so will alien invasion, the singularity, time travel, and a delicious diet cola.  but we need to deal with plausible scenarios.   #  this caused the two nuclear reactors to shut down automatically seconds before off site power was lost.   #  that is the point though.  it  was  one badly designed power plant.  here is some shit that you did not hear about: i live in virginia; a few years back, in 0, we had an earthquake.  if you know anything about virginia, an earthquake is about as rare for us as the appearance of god himself, so a lot of things were not built to withstand earthquakes implicitly.  you know what was 0 miles from the epicenter of that earthquake ? a nuclear plant.  you know what happened to that plant ? nothing of consequence.  this caused the two nuclear reactors to shut down automatically seconds before off site power was lost.  0 0 0 the nuclear regulatory commission sent additional inspectors to the virginia plant after preliminary measurements suggested that the ground shook more than the two reactors were designed to handle.  the damage was minimal and the nrc advised that further inspections should not be interpreted to mean that the plant was not safe.  after a $0 million inspection, engineers stated that they only found cosmetic damage.  on november 0, 0, the nrc gave its approval for restarting the reactors.  URL so, no, this is not apologism in the slightest, it is fear mongering on the part of the oil industry.
i think investing in nuclear energy is one of the most foolish things that mankind has ever done.  the sheer amount of energy it yields is certainly enticing, but i do not think it is worth the risks it entails.  my primary reason for despising nuclear energy is that in the event of a failure at a nuclear facility, the results are catastrophic.  many people claim that nuclear power plants are safeguarded with redundant forms of security making a meltdown  impossible.   i do not buy it.  no matter how many safety regulations are implemented, i think nuclear meltdowns are inevitable.  these facilities are run by two things: people, and computers.  people, even highly trained people are fallible, and i have used computers for far too long to trust that these computers are error proof.  what is more, we have historic precedents of nuclear meltdown and the natural turned nuclear disaster in japan to show us just how naive it is to think that nuclear energy is safe.  when a hydro electric power plant goes out, people lose power for a while.  huge inconvenience for a lot of people, possibly even a bit destructive, but ultimately not a huge deal.  when a nuclear power plant has a meltdown the entire area must be evacuated, people is lives are put in danger, and the environment is polluted with radioactivity for over a century.  nuclear power plants are a threat to the communities they reside in and every nation ought to begin taking steps towards shutting down such facilities.   #  and the environment is polluted with radioactivity for over a century.   #  well, it is better than other sorts of pollution, which do not go away on their own.   # huge inconvenience for a lot of people, possibly even a bit destructive, but ultimately not a huge deal.  thousands, even hundreds of thousands of deaths is not a huge deal these days, apparently.  the chernobyl incident has a 0,0 km² exclusion zone.  fukushima was only about half that, and large areas are being freed as decontamination completes.  iirc, about 0/0 was decontaminated already.  now fukushima produced about 0,0 gwh of power in 0.  the grand coulee dam URL produced 0 0 gwh.  however, it is reservoir has a surface area of 0 km².  so during proper operation, a hydro dam will permanently destroy a biosphere large than the one harmed in case of a nuclear meltdown.  chernobyl is a very interesting natural area these days.  between 0 0 premature deaths, unrelated to the tsunami or radioactivity, occurred due to the stress of the evacuation.  so, it might actually be safer to let them remain in harms way.  well, it is better than other sorts of pollution, which do not go away on their own.  i must however note that the 0 years refers to the time it takes to go back to normal without intervention.  going back to safe levels with intervention can be accomplished within a year.   #  as with any other technology, nuclear power should be approached rationally.   #  on a long enough timeline, every possible emergency will occur.  but a meltdown at a nuclear facility is not the end of the world by any means; it is not even as bad as many  conventional  disasters, like the bhopal incident.  chernobyl was a.  very poorly designed and b.  operated in direct violation of procedure for an extended period, and it still only contaminated a relatively small portion of the world is landmass.  even the health effects that have been seen could have been minimized by a more appropriate response.  people are certainly prone to error, but it takes far, far more than a single person or error to cause problems anywhere approaching this magnitude.  the smallest accidents at these facilities are treated with the utmost scrutiny and caution.  and these  computers  are not anything like what you are used to; we are not talking windows xp machines from dell.  we are talking purpose built, specially designed and extensively tested, multiple redundant machines with software independent backups.  do nuclear plants have disadvantages ? sure.  but so do other plants.  coal plants actually put more radioactivity into the environment that nuclear plants do because most coal contains radon, which is released and uncontrolled; nuclear plants do not so much as vent steam from the core without being tightly, tightly controlled, monitored, and tested .  as with any other technology, nuclear power should be approached rationally.  every method of power production has benefits and costs; we need to weigh them carefully and logically, not ban things because they are scary or because lay people do not understand them.   #  the land is still polluted there and japan is economy is still suffering from that incident many years later.   # and chernobyl was not the only example i gave.  there was the nuclear melt down in japan caused by the tsunami.  the land is still polluted there and japan is economy is still suffering from that incident many years later.  this was a well regulated, well built facility, and it still failed.  it was simply an instance of nature being mightier than man.  the smallest accidents at these facilities are treated with the utmost scrutiny and caution.  and these  computers  are not anything like what you are used to; we are not talking windows xp machines from dell.  we are talking purpose built, specially designed and extensively tested, multiple redundant machines with software independent backups.  but, your first sentence was that on a long enough timeline, every possible emergency will occur.  and when the results of a nuclear melt down lead to the permanent evacuation of entire cities, i ca not exactly call these precautions adequate given the multitude of alternative energy sources that are available to us.  sure.  but so do other plants.  absolutely.  but i feel that nuclear energy is disadvantages are so enormous that they completely outweigh the advantages.  i am actually not terribly concerned about the pollution emitted by either of these plants during the normal operations.  it is the inevitable worst case scenario that really turns me off to nuclear energy.  every method of power production has benefits and costs; we need to weigh them carefully and logically, not ban things because they are scary or because lay people do not understand them.  i agree.  i understand how nuclear plants and nuclear energy works.  i understand the redundant safety procedures.  i also understand the destructive potential.  i do not feel as the the economic benefits of nuclear energy justify warrant the risks that come with it given that there are so many other forms of energy for us to work with.  honestly, if coal was the only competitor, i might feel differently, but as it stands we have too many safe options to warrant risking nuclear energy.   #  a nuclear meltdown will occur on a long enough timeline.   #  the fukushima daichi plant was not particularly well designed for instance, their backup diesels were not above the expected flood level .  even assuming it was, it was hit by an earthquake and a tsunami in quick succession; plenty of conventional facilities, like chemical plants, would have had a much worse impact on the surrounding environment under said conditions.  a nuclear meltdown will occur on a long enough timeline.  so will the obliteration of life on earth by an asteroid, but we do not have a global defense system in place either.  the chances of a meltdown at a properly designed and run facility are so remote as to be implausible.  even three mile island, the worst commercial plant accident in the us, killed. no one.  dishwashers kill more people than that.  saying that the advantages of nuclear power are outweighed by the disadvantages is something i agree with; that being said, the disadvantages that are significant are not mentioned in your post, so i am ignoring them.  if the thing you are worried about is  the worst care scenario , you need to consider a few things: a.  what is the worst case scenario assume meltdown .  b.  how likely is it ? remote, at best .  c.  what damage would it cause ? worst case, evacuation of a town .  and d.  what are the alternatives, and their impacts ? there is no totally safe and renewable source of energy.  most wind turbines and solar panels take more energy to create than they will ever produce, to say nothing of batteries and distribution.  i question whether you truly understand the redundant safety procedures if you are forwarding meltdown as a credible threat, at least in the us.  will it happen eventually ? sure.  so will alien invasion, the singularity, time travel, and a delicious diet cola.  but we need to deal with plausible scenarios.   #  URL so, no, this is not apologism in the slightest, it is fear mongering on the part of the oil industry.   #  that is the point though.  it  was  one badly designed power plant.  here is some shit that you did not hear about: i live in virginia; a few years back, in 0, we had an earthquake.  if you know anything about virginia, an earthquake is about as rare for us as the appearance of god himself, so a lot of things were not built to withstand earthquakes implicitly.  you know what was 0 miles from the epicenter of that earthquake ? a nuclear plant.  you know what happened to that plant ? nothing of consequence.  this caused the two nuclear reactors to shut down automatically seconds before off site power was lost.  0 0 0 the nuclear regulatory commission sent additional inspectors to the virginia plant after preliminary measurements suggested that the ground shook more than the two reactors were designed to handle.  the damage was minimal and the nrc advised that further inspections should not be interpreted to mean that the plant was not safe.  after a $0 million inspection, engineers stated that they only found cosmetic damage.  on november 0, 0, the nrc gave its approval for restarting the reactors.  URL so, no, this is not apologism in the slightest, it is fear mongering on the part of the oil industry.
bruce wayne grew up a heir to a huge fortune and was indoctrinated into the corporate world.  when he  reinvents  himself, the only way he knows how to create a public identity is through branding; that is why all of batman is gadgets are so heavily bat themed, and in the earlier versions of batman even had a bat prefix.  throughout the history of batman, the hero has refused to kill the villain and instead has him institutionalized or put in jail, from which the villain the joker, scarecrow, etc.  inevitably escapes and returns to terrorize the city again, giving batman an excuse to continue fighting crime.  everybody thinks batman is really cool, but i think it is horrible because batman is a symbol for corporate america bombarding us with hyper charged caricatures of our culture and selling it to us as their  brand .  when we root for batman, we root for that mentality.  somebody explain to me why i should see batman as a role model like so many people do.   #  branding; that is why all of batman is gadgets are so heavily bat themed, and in the earlier versions of batman even had a bat prefix.   #  that is not a brand; that is a theme.   # that is not a brand; that is a theme.  he is the batman, so he uses bat items.  its his thing.  he is not profiting from using bat themed items in particular and is not selling anything.  the idea that batman is  selling a brand  is nonsense.  inevitably escapes and returns to terrorize the city again, giving batman an excuse to continue fighting crime.  and excuse ? you say that like batman wants to or enjoys fighting crime.  he does not like being the batman.  he does what he does because he feels obligated to, first in a crusade of revenge for his parents, then because he knows that the people need him, that without him, gotham and all the innocent people within it would be destroyed, enslaved, or worse.  if he does not fight, no one else will.  and he does not kill criminals because after watching his parents be murdered in front of him, he vowed to never take a life or use lethal weapons to fight crime.  he promised to be better than the scum he fights, to never stoop to their level, regardless of their crimes or how badly they deserve it.  he fights crime and protects the innocent and asks for nothing in return, he uses the profits from his company to fund his exploits as batman i. e.  uses his own funds to protect the public and gets nothing in return , and he has the ability to stop being batman and living a peaceful, luxurious life as a billionaire playboy, but chooses to put his time and money into protecting the innocent, to risk his life for no money, no fame, nothing in return.  and through it all, he holds the utmost moral integrity.  that is what makes him noble.   #  it is especially interesting when the criminals batman fights are  created  by wayne corp or other corporate figures in gotham.   #  one thing batman  sells  the people of gotham is a sense of security; with batman beating up all the bad guys, people get to feel safe.  it is ironic because batman never kills the joker, who comes back again and again in the comics to unleash senseless chaos on the city.  it is especially interesting when the criminals batman fights are  created  by wayne corp or other corporate figures in gotham.  the penguin lives in the sewers, and in the tim burton movie he gains power over max schreck by using all of the industrial waste that has floated by him over the years as a bargaining chip.  edward nygma and his own evil company are created by bruce wayne is bad treatment of nygma as his employee.  in lots of iterations, batman is the cleanup crew for the shit left in the wake of wayne corp.   #  ed nygma was not treated badly by wayne corp; as far as i am aware, he was only hired by wayne corp once, as pi, and this well after plenty of action as the riddler.   #  he does not sell anything.   to sell: to give or hand over goods or services in exchange for money .  none of his actions as batman involve the exchange of money.  you could make the argument that a safer gotham is more economically sound and thus more profitable for wayne corp, but wayne corp is an international conglomerate; the bulk of his profits are not affected by gotham.  ed nygma was not treated badly by wayne corp; as far as i am aware, he was only hired by wayne corp once, as pi, and this well after plenty of action as the riddler.  and even if wayne corp had treated him badly, wayne corp is massive; you can hardly attribute its every action to batman who is far to busy with his extracurricular activities to oversee the treatment of every single employee .   #  i still do not think he is noble at all, and i still think his methods of marketing his brand are dishonest.   #  you are right, he does not sell anything for money.  that does not mean his methods of spreading his brand ca not mimic the way a corporation does the same thing, do not you think ? i am going to give you and others a   because he is not  selling anything  on that technicality you are right and i guess i ca not call him a  corporate  figure if i want myself to be understood.  i still do not think he is noble at all, and i still think his methods of marketing his brand are dishonest.  being a vigilante and playing the role of  protector  is a poor excuse for controlling a population with fear.   #  and there are  very  few depictions of batman is villains where their origin is caused by wayne corp.   # gotham city  never kills joker.  batman is not the one continually putting him in arkham, batman is handing him over to the cops.  where he is given a trial, by elected officials, who deem him  not  worthy of the death penalty, but instead send him to arkham for psychiatric treatment.  batman is not an executioner.  it is not his job or goal to kill anyone.  he is more like a bounty hunter.  bounty hunters do not kill people either, except strictly when necessary in self defense.  we know batman killing the joker is never necessary in self defense, because batman can always disable/incapacitate the joker and not kill him.  in other words, it is not batman you have a beef with, it is gotham city.  they elect people to judge the joker is crimes and dole out punishment, and they vote on the laws that guide those elected officials, too.  batman is not selling anything.  his  corporation  is not profiting from him being batman.  in fact, it is losing money because he is spending so much on r d for his bat gadgets that he ca not sell.  and there are  very  few depictions of batman is villains where their origin is caused by wayne corp.  that is kind of cherry picking evidence to support your stance, not building a stance based on evidence.
bruce wayne grew up a heir to a huge fortune and was indoctrinated into the corporate world.  when he  reinvents  himself, the only way he knows how to create a public identity is through branding; that is why all of batman is gadgets are so heavily bat themed, and in the earlier versions of batman even had a bat prefix.  throughout the history of batman, the hero has refused to kill the villain and instead has him institutionalized or put in jail, from which the villain the joker, scarecrow, etc.  inevitably escapes and returns to terrorize the city again, giving batman an excuse to continue fighting crime.  everybody thinks batman is really cool, but i think it is horrible because batman is a symbol for corporate america bombarding us with hyper charged caricatures of our culture and selling it to us as their  brand .  when we root for batman, we root for that mentality.  somebody explain to me why i should see batman as a role model like so many people do.   #  throughout the history of batman, the hero has refused to kill the villain and instead has him institutionalized or put in jail, from which the villain the joker, scarecrow, etc.   #  inevitably escapes and returns to terrorize the city again, giving batman an excuse to continue fighting crime.   # that is not a brand; that is a theme.  he is the batman, so he uses bat items.  its his thing.  he is not profiting from using bat themed items in particular and is not selling anything.  the idea that batman is  selling a brand  is nonsense.  inevitably escapes and returns to terrorize the city again, giving batman an excuse to continue fighting crime.  and excuse ? you say that like batman wants to or enjoys fighting crime.  he does not like being the batman.  he does what he does because he feels obligated to, first in a crusade of revenge for his parents, then because he knows that the people need him, that without him, gotham and all the innocent people within it would be destroyed, enslaved, or worse.  if he does not fight, no one else will.  and he does not kill criminals because after watching his parents be murdered in front of him, he vowed to never take a life or use lethal weapons to fight crime.  he promised to be better than the scum he fights, to never stoop to their level, regardless of their crimes or how badly they deserve it.  he fights crime and protects the innocent and asks for nothing in return, he uses the profits from his company to fund his exploits as batman i. e.  uses his own funds to protect the public and gets nothing in return , and he has the ability to stop being batman and living a peaceful, luxurious life as a billionaire playboy, but chooses to put his time and money into protecting the innocent, to risk his life for no money, no fame, nothing in return.  and through it all, he holds the utmost moral integrity.  that is what makes him noble.   #  edward nygma and his own evil company are created by bruce wayne is bad treatment of nygma as his employee.   #  one thing batman  sells  the people of gotham is a sense of security; with batman beating up all the bad guys, people get to feel safe.  it is ironic because batman never kills the joker, who comes back again and again in the comics to unleash senseless chaos on the city.  it is especially interesting when the criminals batman fights are  created  by wayne corp or other corporate figures in gotham.  the penguin lives in the sewers, and in the tim burton movie he gains power over max schreck by using all of the industrial waste that has floated by him over the years as a bargaining chip.  edward nygma and his own evil company are created by bruce wayne is bad treatment of nygma as his employee.  in lots of iterations, batman is the cleanup crew for the shit left in the wake of wayne corp.   #   to sell: to give or hand over goods or services in exchange for money .   #  he does not sell anything.   to sell: to give or hand over goods or services in exchange for money .  none of his actions as batman involve the exchange of money.  you could make the argument that a safer gotham is more economically sound and thus more profitable for wayne corp, but wayne corp is an international conglomerate; the bulk of his profits are not affected by gotham.  ed nygma was not treated badly by wayne corp; as far as i am aware, he was only hired by wayne corp once, as pi, and this well after plenty of action as the riddler.  and even if wayne corp had treated him badly, wayne corp is massive; you can hardly attribute its every action to batman who is far to busy with his extracurricular activities to oversee the treatment of every single employee .   #  i still do not think he is noble at all, and i still think his methods of marketing his brand are dishonest.   #  you are right, he does not sell anything for money.  that does not mean his methods of spreading his brand ca not mimic the way a corporation does the same thing, do not you think ? i am going to give you and others a   because he is not  selling anything  on that technicality you are right and i guess i ca not call him a  corporate  figure if i want myself to be understood.  i still do not think he is noble at all, and i still think his methods of marketing his brand are dishonest.  being a vigilante and playing the role of  protector  is a poor excuse for controlling a population with fear.   #  in fact, it is losing money because he is spending so much on r d for his bat gadgets that he ca not sell.   # gotham city  never kills joker.  batman is not the one continually putting him in arkham, batman is handing him over to the cops.  where he is given a trial, by elected officials, who deem him  not  worthy of the death penalty, but instead send him to arkham for psychiatric treatment.  batman is not an executioner.  it is not his job or goal to kill anyone.  he is more like a bounty hunter.  bounty hunters do not kill people either, except strictly when necessary in self defense.  we know batman killing the joker is never necessary in self defense, because batman can always disable/incapacitate the joker and not kill him.  in other words, it is not batman you have a beef with, it is gotham city.  they elect people to judge the joker is crimes and dole out punishment, and they vote on the laws that guide those elected officials, too.  batman is not selling anything.  his  corporation  is not profiting from him being batman.  in fact, it is losing money because he is spending so much on r d for his bat gadgets that he ca not sell.  and there are  very  few depictions of batman is villains where their origin is caused by wayne corp.  that is kind of cherry picking evidence to support your stance, not building a stance based on evidence.
bruce wayne grew up a heir to a huge fortune and was indoctrinated into the corporate world.  when he  reinvents  himself, the only way he knows how to create a public identity is through branding; that is why all of batman is gadgets are so heavily bat themed, and in the earlier versions of batman even had a bat prefix.  throughout the history of batman, the hero has refused to kill the villain and instead has him institutionalized or put in jail, from which the villain the joker, scarecrow, etc.  inevitably escapes and returns to terrorize the city again, giving batman an excuse to continue fighting crime.  everybody thinks batman is really cool, but i think it is horrible because batman is a symbol for corporate america bombarding us with hyper charged caricatures of our culture and selling it to us as their  brand .  when we root for batman, we root for that mentality.  somebody explain to me why i should see batman as a role model like so many people do.   #  throughout the history of batman, the hero has refused to kill the villain and instead has him institutionalized or put in jail, from which the villain the joker, scarecrow, etc.   #  inevitably escapes and returns to terrorize the city again, giving batman an excuse to continue fighting crime.   #  batman is a symbol, but not a corporate symbol.  batman is a symbol of justice.  batman is an  idea , because ideas are more than people.  to quote the batman himself:  i am the reason the criminals breathe easier when the sun rises.   how exactly is batman a corporate symbol ? the dc universe never shows wayne enterprises selling bat grapples or batmobiles.  hell, to by knowledge we never even see wayne enterprises selling batman toys or action figures.  hell, even when wayne enterprises unveils batman incorporated, they are never making money off of the agents of bi.  inevitably escapes and returns to terrorize the city again, giving batman an excuse to continue fighting crime.  batman has given numerous more plausible rationalizations for why he does not kill, including a number of strictly consequentialist arguments as well as several based on duty or virtue, too .  he is not selling a brand he does not kill because killing is wrong.   #  it is ironic because batman never kills the joker, who comes back again and again in the comics to unleash senseless chaos on the city.   #  one thing batman  sells  the people of gotham is a sense of security; with batman beating up all the bad guys, people get to feel safe.  it is ironic because batman never kills the joker, who comes back again and again in the comics to unleash senseless chaos on the city.  it is especially interesting when the criminals batman fights are  created  by wayne corp or other corporate figures in gotham.  the penguin lives in the sewers, and in the tim burton movie he gains power over max schreck by using all of the industrial waste that has floated by him over the years as a bargaining chip.  edward nygma and his own evil company are created by bruce wayne is bad treatment of nygma as his employee.  in lots of iterations, batman is the cleanup crew for the shit left in the wake of wayne corp.   #  and even if wayne corp had treated him badly, wayne corp is massive; you can hardly attribute its every action to batman who is far to busy with his extracurricular activities to oversee the treatment of every single employee .   #  he does not sell anything.   to sell: to give or hand over goods or services in exchange for money .  none of his actions as batman involve the exchange of money.  you could make the argument that a safer gotham is more economically sound and thus more profitable for wayne corp, but wayne corp is an international conglomerate; the bulk of his profits are not affected by gotham.  ed nygma was not treated badly by wayne corp; as far as i am aware, he was only hired by wayne corp once, as pi, and this well after plenty of action as the riddler.  and even if wayne corp had treated him badly, wayne corp is massive; you can hardly attribute its every action to batman who is far to busy with his extracurricular activities to oversee the treatment of every single employee .   #  i still do not think he is noble at all, and i still think his methods of marketing his brand are dishonest.   #  you are right, he does not sell anything for money.  that does not mean his methods of spreading his brand ca not mimic the way a corporation does the same thing, do not you think ? i am going to give you and others a   because he is not  selling anything  on that technicality you are right and i guess i ca not call him a  corporate  figure if i want myself to be understood.  i still do not think he is noble at all, and i still think his methods of marketing his brand are dishonest.  being a vigilante and playing the role of  protector  is a poor excuse for controlling a population with fear.   #  in other words, it is not batman you have a beef with, it is gotham city.   # gotham city  never kills joker.  batman is not the one continually putting him in arkham, batman is handing him over to the cops.  where he is given a trial, by elected officials, who deem him  not  worthy of the death penalty, but instead send him to arkham for psychiatric treatment.  batman is not an executioner.  it is not his job or goal to kill anyone.  he is more like a bounty hunter.  bounty hunters do not kill people either, except strictly when necessary in self defense.  we know batman killing the joker is never necessary in self defense, because batman can always disable/incapacitate the joker and not kill him.  in other words, it is not batman you have a beef with, it is gotham city.  they elect people to judge the joker is crimes and dole out punishment, and they vote on the laws that guide those elected officials, too.  batman is not selling anything.  his  corporation  is not profiting from him being batman.  in fact, it is losing money because he is spending so much on r d for his bat gadgets that he ca not sell.  and there are  very  few depictions of batman is villains where their origin is caused by wayne corp.  that is kind of cherry picking evidence to support your stance, not building a stance based on evidence.
i will try to explain this as best as possible, but it is not easy to explain and english is not my native language.  so i hope it makes sense.  i do not understand transgender people.  i am not transphobic or anything like that, i believe in their rights and yada yada.  but i do not understand how they know they were born in the wrong body.  even though i am not gay, i can perfectly understand them.  they just happen to feel attraction to the same gender.  fine.  i don  relate to it, sure.  but i understand it.  it makes perfect sense to me.  but let is say, you are born as a male.  growing up, you realize you like boys.  you like to play with dolls, you have  feminine  traits, whatever.  where is the point you realize that you are actually of the other gender ? where is that line crossed ? see, i have a gay friend who has many  feminine  traits, talks very much like a woman, his mannerisms, his tastes, etc.  but he still considers himself a man.  what is the difference between my friend and a transgender ? because i think  feminine/masculine  traits are bullshit.  this whole new feminism is huge on the  fuck gender roles  thing, which i agree, yet i think transgender people are still falling into that old concept.   i like masculine things, therefore, i am actually a man  even worse is the whole  non binary thing .  mtf or ftm trans i think are misguided, yes.  but i do not judge them in any way.  but this whole  i do not fall into any gender, therefore use these alternative pronouns when talking to me  i think it is just a pretentious bullshit.  and falling even worse on gender roles.  so please, cmv.  i would very much like to hear from an actual transgender individual, and what made them realize they were transgender.  hope i explained it wel.  thanks  #  see, i have a gay friend who has many  feminine  traits, talks very much like a woman, his mannerisms, his tastes, etc.   #  but he still considers himself a man.   #  so, i am a trans person that has just started transitioning.  i am kind of tired, so this might not be the best response, but hopefully it should work.  where is that line crossed ? when i realized that i would never be truly comfortable with a male body and that i would rather have a female body.  cisgender people do not seriously consider trying to take hormones of the opposite sex to change their physiology, nor do they go out of their way to acquire such hormones.  once i can start presenting as female and have the correct estrogen levels, i will still have all of my same interests, and i would like to be treated the same socially, but i will hopefully have a body that i am comfortable with.  but he still considers himself a man.  what is the difference between my friend and a transgender ? your friend is comfortable with his male anatomy, and does not want to medically become female by taking hormone replacement therapy.  that is a pretty important difference between your friend and a transgender person.  also, minor nitpick, transgender is an adjective, not a noun.  the core of your misconception and lack of understanding comes from you thinking that being trans is determined by gender roles that society has set.  this simply is not true, because transgender people are typically uncomfortable with the anatomy that they are given, and being trans has biological causes URL basically, you could totally get rid of gender roles altogether and you would still have trans people.  but i do not judge them in any way.  these two sentences are in direct contradiction with each other, fyi.   #  all i know for sure is that starting hormone therapy was literally, no exaggeration, like having a fog lifted in my mind.   #  as a trans woman, let me try to explain as best i can.  i am not sure i know the exact mechanism behind why transgender individuals exist.  i can venture the current theory that most makes sense to me, and jives best with my personal lived experience, but there is still not as much hard research out there as any of us would like.  so, the default path for any human zygote is to be female.  at a certain stage of development within the uterus, if the child is to be male, several weeks into the pregnancy there is a release of androgens e. g.  testosterone that begins the masculinization the body of the fetus.  around halfway through the pregnancy, another release of androgens masculinizes the brain is structure.  for reasons no one quite understands yet, sometimes one or the other of these androgen releases this does not fully  take .  the body masculinizes but the brain does not.  or vice versa.  there are key differences in the structure of the male and female brains.  when one or the other does not properly masculinize, you get someone whose brain is literally wired to be the opposite sex of their body.  this disconnect creates a palpable sensation known as  gender dysphoria .  it is a very unpleasant sense of  wrongness  with the body, and it is something that is present every moment of every day.  it is getting rid of this sense of wrongness that drives people to transition.  i think it makes sense that this  mis wiring  was a big cause of many psychological and physical health issues i was experiencing prior to beginning hormone replacement therapy hrt , which is the typical recommended treatment for gender dysphoria.  my brain was subtly wired to work with estrogen, not testosterone.  correcting that hormonal imbalance by suppressing the testosterone and introducing a proper amount of estrogen allows my endocrine system to begin functioning more  normally .  the sense of dysphoria begins to fade, and all sorts of things just start to  work better .  here is some links to stuff that seems to support this theory.  i think it is a good one, but, again, no one really knows for  certain  what exactly causes the condition.  and there is not a lot of money that is been put into actually finding out.  but what we do know points increasingly towards transsexuality being basically a biological intersex condition dealing with brain structure.  all i know for sure is that starting hormone therapy was literally, no exaggeration, like having a fog lifted in my mind.  i felt better, and was able to get off of the anti anxiety and antidepressant medication i was taking.  previously, without that medication, i had panic attacks almost every day.  some of which were bad enough to land me in the emergency room.  i have not had a single panic attack in the 0 months since i began hrt.  it is the difference between watching life on a small, black and white t. v.  and going to a fully equipped hd stadium theater, as far as how i feel about myself and about life.  URL URL URL  #  so here is the one thing that does not get brought up nearly enough when discussing things such as this.   #  so here is the one thing that does not get brought up nearly enough when discussing things such as this.  gender, sex, and gender role are  all different .  sex is biological, yes.  it is chromosomes and body parts, and most people are xx or xy, and the outliers are intersex.  simple, irrefutable.  gender roles are social construct.  breadwinner, caregiver, all decided upon by society, and all perfectly dumpable if you want.  stay at home dad, ceo mom, it is all great.  now gender, that is a little trickier, if we look at it from a perspective different from gender role and sex.  lets look at sex as what you have chromosomes, body parts, one could use male or female and gender role as how you act feminine vs masculine, dominant, submissive, whichever .  gender would be how you  feel , ie.  man or woman.  it is nearly impossible to put into words what it feels like to believe you are living as the incorrect gender.  it just  is.  those of us that are cisgender cis being opposite of trans probably ca not explain why we are the correct gender any better.  try using your non dominant hand only, for like, a day.  you would be able to do some things just fine, some things a little difficultly, and some things would be almost impossible.  the whole time, though, you would get the sense that something was wrong.  now live with that your entire life.  this is not all just speculation, though.  there are studies URL that suggest that a transgender person is brain, when scanned, will resemble patterns closer to the gender that they identify as, than the gender they are assigned at birth.  that is right, transgender brains do not match their sex.   #  some questions:   how close together are the male patterns ?  #  that is so interesting ! some questions:   how close together are the male patterns ? of course i am thinking about standard deviations, and how far away someone has to be towards the other sex.  what about ingroup diversity ? does the same exist in the other direction ? i. e. , hyper females/hyper males, so to speak   should health care cover the sex change only if your brain is sufficiently deviating ? are there traits that are objectively male/female ? is such a classification useful in any way ? what about very female, heterosexual men ? do they show different patterns ? i would be grateful for answers as i find this topic to be so interesting.  answers can be more technical, i do not mind.   #  when i meet someone who tells me that they are trans, i ask them what pronouns they would like me to use.   #  here is the thing.  you do not really have to.  i am a cis male and i have no idea what it feels like to be trans.  i ca not imagine at all what it feels like to feel like you are in the wrong body.  the concept is so alien to me that i ca not even honestly say i empathize.  in a very real and fundamental way, i do not get it.  i do, however, support them entirety.  when i meet someone who tells me that they are trans, i ask them what pronouns they would like me to use.  i let them know i might fuck up and say the wrong thing but that i will try my very best.  i am a weirdo my own self.  i have come to accept that my brain tends to work different than a lot of peoples, and my body has some weird quirks.  i am also lucky enough to have accepted myself for who i am and am very comfortable in my body and in my mind.  i would never, ever, ever want to deny that comfort to someone else.  you do not need to understand it.  you need to accept it, respect them, and treat them like people.  that is all there is man.  we all deal with weird shit in our lives.  in the immortal words of rufus, be excellent to each other.
i will try to explain this as best as possible, but it is not easy to explain and english is not my native language.  so i hope it makes sense.  i do not understand transgender people.  i am not transphobic or anything like that, i believe in their rights and yada yada.  but i do not understand how they know they were born in the wrong body.  even though i am not gay, i can perfectly understand them.  they just happen to feel attraction to the same gender.  fine.  i don  relate to it, sure.  but i understand it.  it makes perfect sense to me.  but let is say, you are born as a male.  growing up, you realize you like boys.  you like to play with dolls, you have  feminine  traits, whatever.  where is the point you realize that you are actually of the other gender ? where is that line crossed ? see, i have a gay friend who has many  feminine  traits, talks very much like a woman, his mannerisms, his tastes, etc.  but he still considers himself a man.  what is the difference between my friend and a transgender ? because i think  feminine/masculine  traits are bullshit.  this whole new feminism is huge on the  fuck gender roles  thing, which i agree, yet i think transgender people are still falling into that old concept.   i like masculine things, therefore, i am actually a man  even worse is the whole  non binary thing .  mtf or ftm trans i think are misguided, yes.  but i do not judge them in any way.  but this whole  i do not fall into any gender, therefore use these alternative pronouns when talking to me  i think it is just a pretentious bullshit.  and falling even worse on gender roles.  so please, cmv.  i would very much like to hear from an actual transgender individual, and what made them realize they were transgender.  hope i explained it wel.  thanks  #  mtf or ftm trans i think are misguided, yes.   #  but i do not judge them in any way.   #  so, i am a trans person that has just started transitioning.  i am kind of tired, so this might not be the best response, but hopefully it should work.  where is that line crossed ? when i realized that i would never be truly comfortable with a male body and that i would rather have a female body.  cisgender people do not seriously consider trying to take hormones of the opposite sex to change their physiology, nor do they go out of their way to acquire such hormones.  once i can start presenting as female and have the correct estrogen levels, i will still have all of my same interests, and i would like to be treated the same socially, but i will hopefully have a body that i am comfortable with.  but he still considers himself a man.  what is the difference between my friend and a transgender ? your friend is comfortable with his male anatomy, and does not want to medically become female by taking hormone replacement therapy.  that is a pretty important difference between your friend and a transgender person.  also, minor nitpick, transgender is an adjective, not a noun.  the core of your misconception and lack of understanding comes from you thinking that being trans is determined by gender roles that society has set.  this simply is not true, because transgender people are typically uncomfortable with the anatomy that they are given, and being trans has biological causes URL basically, you could totally get rid of gender roles altogether and you would still have trans people.  but i do not judge them in any way.  these two sentences are in direct contradiction with each other, fyi.   #  and there is not a lot of money that is been put into actually finding out.   #  as a trans woman, let me try to explain as best i can.  i am not sure i know the exact mechanism behind why transgender individuals exist.  i can venture the current theory that most makes sense to me, and jives best with my personal lived experience, but there is still not as much hard research out there as any of us would like.  so, the default path for any human zygote is to be female.  at a certain stage of development within the uterus, if the child is to be male, several weeks into the pregnancy there is a release of androgens e. g.  testosterone that begins the masculinization the body of the fetus.  around halfway through the pregnancy, another release of androgens masculinizes the brain is structure.  for reasons no one quite understands yet, sometimes one or the other of these androgen releases this does not fully  take .  the body masculinizes but the brain does not.  or vice versa.  there are key differences in the structure of the male and female brains.  when one or the other does not properly masculinize, you get someone whose brain is literally wired to be the opposite sex of their body.  this disconnect creates a palpable sensation known as  gender dysphoria .  it is a very unpleasant sense of  wrongness  with the body, and it is something that is present every moment of every day.  it is getting rid of this sense of wrongness that drives people to transition.  i think it makes sense that this  mis wiring  was a big cause of many psychological and physical health issues i was experiencing prior to beginning hormone replacement therapy hrt , which is the typical recommended treatment for gender dysphoria.  my brain was subtly wired to work with estrogen, not testosterone.  correcting that hormonal imbalance by suppressing the testosterone and introducing a proper amount of estrogen allows my endocrine system to begin functioning more  normally .  the sense of dysphoria begins to fade, and all sorts of things just start to  work better .  here is some links to stuff that seems to support this theory.  i think it is a good one, but, again, no one really knows for  certain  what exactly causes the condition.  and there is not a lot of money that is been put into actually finding out.  but what we do know points increasingly towards transsexuality being basically a biological intersex condition dealing with brain structure.  all i know for sure is that starting hormone therapy was literally, no exaggeration, like having a fog lifted in my mind.  i felt better, and was able to get off of the anti anxiety and antidepressant medication i was taking.  previously, without that medication, i had panic attacks almost every day.  some of which were bad enough to land me in the emergency room.  i have not had a single panic attack in the 0 months since i began hrt.  it is the difference between watching life on a small, black and white t. v.  and going to a fully equipped hd stadium theater, as far as how i feel about myself and about life.  URL URL URL  #  lets look at sex as what you have chromosomes, body parts, one could use male or female and gender role as how you act feminine vs masculine, dominant, submissive, whichever .   #  so here is the one thing that does not get brought up nearly enough when discussing things such as this.  gender, sex, and gender role are  all different .  sex is biological, yes.  it is chromosomes and body parts, and most people are xx or xy, and the outliers are intersex.  simple, irrefutable.  gender roles are social construct.  breadwinner, caregiver, all decided upon by society, and all perfectly dumpable if you want.  stay at home dad, ceo mom, it is all great.  now gender, that is a little trickier, if we look at it from a perspective different from gender role and sex.  lets look at sex as what you have chromosomes, body parts, one could use male or female and gender role as how you act feminine vs masculine, dominant, submissive, whichever .  gender would be how you  feel , ie.  man or woman.  it is nearly impossible to put into words what it feels like to believe you are living as the incorrect gender.  it just  is.  those of us that are cisgender cis being opposite of trans probably ca not explain why we are the correct gender any better.  try using your non dominant hand only, for like, a day.  you would be able to do some things just fine, some things a little difficultly, and some things would be almost impossible.  the whole time, though, you would get the sense that something was wrong.  now live with that your entire life.  this is not all just speculation, though.  there are studies URL that suggest that a transgender person is brain, when scanned, will resemble patterns closer to the gender that they identify as, than the gender they are assigned at birth.  that is right, transgender brains do not match their sex.   #  does the same exist in the other direction ?  #  that is so interesting ! some questions:   how close together are the male patterns ? of course i am thinking about standard deviations, and how far away someone has to be towards the other sex.  what about ingroup diversity ? does the same exist in the other direction ? i. e. , hyper females/hyper males, so to speak   should health care cover the sex change only if your brain is sufficiently deviating ? are there traits that are objectively male/female ? is such a classification useful in any way ? what about very female, heterosexual men ? do they show different patterns ? i would be grateful for answers as i find this topic to be so interesting.  answers can be more technical, i do not mind.   #  i am also lucky enough to have accepted myself for who i am and am very comfortable in my body and in my mind.   #  here is the thing.  you do not really have to.  i am a cis male and i have no idea what it feels like to be trans.  i ca not imagine at all what it feels like to feel like you are in the wrong body.  the concept is so alien to me that i ca not even honestly say i empathize.  in a very real and fundamental way, i do not get it.  i do, however, support them entirety.  when i meet someone who tells me that they are trans, i ask them what pronouns they would like me to use.  i let them know i might fuck up and say the wrong thing but that i will try my very best.  i am a weirdo my own self.  i have come to accept that my brain tends to work different than a lot of peoples, and my body has some weird quirks.  i am also lucky enough to have accepted myself for who i am and am very comfortable in my body and in my mind.  i would never, ever, ever want to deny that comfort to someone else.  you do not need to understand it.  you need to accept it, respect them, and treat them like people.  that is all there is man.  we all deal with weird shit in our lives.  in the immortal words of rufus, be excellent to each other.
and the invasion of gaza is unjustified as well as impractical.  its the same as iraq, you do not stop terrorism by coming in and fucking peoples lives up, palestinians already hate israel and terrorising gaza only radicalises people and turns them into hamas militants.  aside from that israel has shown blatant disregard for civilians lives, 0 israelis have died vs 0 palestinians.  that alone should show you who is the aggressor and who is caught in the crossfire this is not about hamas vs israel its about the people born in gaza and caught up in it.  the invasion is terrorism designed to kill civilians and scare gaza into subservience.   #  and the invasion of gaza is unjustified as well as impractical.   #  after thousands of rockets and the discovery of tunnels to that lead into israel with the sole goal of killing israelis what should israel do ?  # after thousands of rockets and the discovery of tunnels to that lead into israel with the sole goal of killing israelis what should israel do ? not at all like iraq.  israel has been attacked by palestine continuously.  in addition, israel has offered many humanitarian pauses and cease fires all of which hamas has ignored or broken by firing rockets into israel.  that alone should show you who is the aggressor and who is caught in the crossfire the reason why the death rate is so different is policy of both countries.  i will break it down.  hamas policies: URL hamas tell palestinians to ignore idf warnings .  in addition, instead of using donated materials to build bomb shelters for their people they built millions of dollars of the terror tunnels i mentioned above.  israel policies: early warning alert systems and the iron dome make israelis incredibly safe.  how israelis warn civilians: leaflets, phone calls, texts, and dropping duds so they know they are being attacked.  what should israel do when hamas has promised to destroy the country and kill everyone inside its boarders ? when over 0 rockets have been fired in about a month ? when the discover a huge underground network of terror tunnels ? when hamas violates ceasefire after ceasefire ? do not say give back land because israel tried that in 0 when they pulled every israeli including jews out of gaza leaving greenhouses and other buildings to continue a strong flower exporting industry.  hamas had the buildings destroyed.  so i ask what is the correct response ?  #  palestinians do not all hate israel; most want to live in peace alongside israel or as a part of it.   #  it is quite obvious that op has not lived in israel or palestine for a sustained period of time.  i have.  that being said, it is not the same as iraq; which pretty much was unjustifiable.  in international terms, iraq honestly did not pose any real threat to the sovereignty of the us or it is citizens.  hamas rockets and tunnels however, do pose an imminent risk to israeli civilians.  palestinians do not all hate israel; most want to live in peace alongside israel or as a part of it.  i remember i would go to gaza when i was younger because my family believed that best food is made there.  the only hate that is there has been brought and carried through hamas and its brainwashed recruits.  if the gaza invasion was designed to kill civilians, then israel would have no need to put troops on the ground.  the act of putting troops in danger is an attempt to show the world that it is trying to minimize civilian casualties at the expense of its own soldiers.  tell me what is the difference between a hamas soldier and a civilian ? one does not wear a uniform…in fact, neither wear uniforms.  in conventional warfare, hamas would be wiped out in mere hours.  but this is gaza.  and if you can tell the difference between a dead civilian and a hamas soldier, then you would be israel is 0 asset right now.  the biggest problem is that hamas cannot survive long in peacetime.  it is a political party bent on war.  war does bring more recruits to hamas unfortunately.  hamas does not need peace to survive; and neither does israel.  but israel does want it.  i am deeply saddened for the people born and caught up in the fighting in gaza.  i truly am.  i pray there will be peace soon.   #  it was published in 0, so current massacre is not included.   #  most of the civilian deaths are not by accident, it is a strategy used by israel for many years.  this is not my opinion, a team of experts led by richard goldstone concluded as  israel is military assault on gaza was designed to humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability  the report also concluded that israel violated the fourth geneva convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled  a grave breach .  it also claimed that the violations were  systematic and deliberate .  it was published in 0, so current massacre is not included.  does israeli media say that all of the civilian deaths are by accident.  seriously how could not one question this statement with all leaked footage and reports by international organizations.   #  it is obvious that you have not experienced warfare; in war sometimes people choose poorly when in survival mode.   #  i read the goldstone allegations from your source and to be more accurate, the report concluded that both sides were guilty of war crimes.  please do not be selective when drawing conclusions.  and let me simply reply by saying that the report brings into consideration 0 cases where civilians were targeted and killed.  understandable.  however, the intentions of the israeli government cannot be accurately portrayed by 0 actions committed by 0 0 year olds in warfare out of the thousands of daily activities carried out.  it is obvious that you have not experienced warfare; in war sometimes people choose poorly when in survival mode.  this is tragic, but real in war; it is not a systematic approach to terrorizing a population.   #  i do not know which 0 actions you are referring to.   #  the report is name is not goldstone allegations actually it is  united nations fact finding mission on the gaza conflict .  yes fuck israel, fuck hamas.  they are both targeting civilian population and they are both terrorists.  i do not know which 0 actions you are referring to.  as far as i remember they investigate hundreds of cases and make that conclusion.  i am not sure you read the right report.  in any case, i am sure the leading experts are aware of the difference between war crimes and accidents and poor judgements.  however, it is always fun to see israeli is defend their right to murder children fanatically.
and the invasion of gaza is unjustified as well as impractical.  its the same as iraq, you do not stop terrorism by coming in and fucking peoples lives up, palestinians already hate israel and terrorising gaza only radicalises people and turns them into hamas militants.  aside from that israel has shown blatant disregard for civilians lives, 0 israelis have died vs 0 palestinians.  that alone should show you who is the aggressor and who is caught in the crossfire this is not about hamas vs israel its about the people born in gaza and caught up in it.  the invasion is terrorism designed to kill civilians and scare gaza into subservience.   #  aside from that israel has shown blatant disregard for civilians lives, 0 israelis have died vs 0 palestinians.   #  that alone should show you who is the aggressor and who is caught in the crossfire the reason why the death rate is so different is policy of both countries.   # after thousands of rockets and the discovery of tunnels to that lead into israel with the sole goal of killing israelis what should israel do ? not at all like iraq.  israel has been attacked by palestine continuously.  in addition, israel has offered many humanitarian pauses and cease fires all of which hamas has ignored or broken by firing rockets into israel.  that alone should show you who is the aggressor and who is caught in the crossfire the reason why the death rate is so different is policy of both countries.  i will break it down.  hamas policies: URL hamas tell palestinians to ignore idf warnings .  in addition, instead of using donated materials to build bomb shelters for their people they built millions of dollars of the terror tunnels i mentioned above.  israel policies: early warning alert systems and the iron dome make israelis incredibly safe.  how israelis warn civilians: leaflets, phone calls, texts, and dropping duds so they know they are being attacked.  what should israel do when hamas has promised to destroy the country and kill everyone inside its boarders ? when over 0 rockets have been fired in about a month ? when the discover a huge underground network of terror tunnels ? when hamas violates ceasefire after ceasefire ? do not say give back land because israel tried that in 0 when they pulled every israeli including jews out of gaza leaving greenhouses and other buildings to continue a strong flower exporting industry.  hamas had the buildings destroyed.  so i ask what is the correct response ?  #  hamas rockets and tunnels however, do pose an imminent risk to israeli civilians.   #  it is quite obvious that op has not lived in israel or palestine for a sustained period of time.  i have.  that being said, it is not the same as iraq; which pretty much was unjustifiable.  in international terms, iraq honestly did not pose any real threat to the sovereignty of the us or it is citizens.  hamas rockets and tunnels however, do pose an imminent risk to israeli civilians.  palestinians do not all hate israel; most want to live in peace alongside israel or as a part of it.  i remember i would go to gaza when i was younger because my family believed that best food is made there.  the only hate that is there has been brought and carried through hamas and its brainwashed recruits.  if the gaza invasion was designed to kill civilians, then israel would have no need to put troops on the ground.  the act of putting troops in danger is an attempt to show the world that it is trying to minimize civilian casualties at the expense of its own soldiers.  tell me what is the difference between a hamas soldier and a civilian ? one does not wear a uniform…in fact, neither wear uniforms.  in conventional warfare, hamas would be wiped out in mere hours.  but this is gaza.  and if you can tell the difference between a dead civilian and a hamas soldier, then you would be israel is 0 asset right now.  the biggest problem is that hamas cannot survive long in peacetime.  it is a political party bent on war.  war does bring more recruits to hamas unfortunately.  hamas does not need peace to survive; and neither does israel.  but israel does want it.  i am deeply saddened for the people born and caught up in the fighting in gaza.  i truly am.  i pray there will be peace soon.   #  it also claimed that the violations were  systematic and deliberate .   #  most of the civilian deaths are not by accident, it is a strategy used by israel for many years.  this is not my opinion, a team of experts led by richard goldstone concluded as  israel is military assault on gaza was designed to humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability  the report also concluded that israel violated the fourth geneva convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled  a grave breach .  it also claimed that the violations were  systematic and deliberate .  it was published in 0, so current massacre is not included.  does israeli media say that all of the civilian deaths are by accident.  seriously how could not one question this statement with all leaked footage and reports by international organizations.   #  i read the goldstone allegations from your source and to be more accurate, the report concluded that both sides were guilty of war crimes.   #  i read the goldstone allegations from your source and to be more accurate, the report concluded that both sides were guilty of war crimes.  please do not be selective when drawing conclusions.  and let me simply reply by saying that the report brings into consideration 0 cases where civilians were targeted and killed.  understandable.  however, the intentions of the israeli government cannot be accurately portrayed by 0 actions committed by 0 0 year olds in warfare out of the thousands of daily activities carried out.  it is obvious that you have not experienced warfare; in war sometimes people choose poorly when in survival mode.  this is tragic, but real in war; it is not a systematic approach to terrorizing a population.   #  i do not know which 0 actions you are referring to.   #  the report is name is not goldstone allegations actually it is  united nations fact finding mission on the gaza conflict .  yes fuck israel, fuck hamas.  they are both targeting civilian population and they are both terrorists.  i do not know which 0 actions you are referring to.  as far as i remember they investigate hundreds of cases and make that conclusion.  i am not sure you read the right report.  in any case, i am sure the leading experts are aware of the difference between war crimes and accidents and poor judgements.  however, it is always fun to see israeli is defend their right to murder children fanatically.
and the invasion of gaza is unjustified as well as impractical.  its the same as iraq, you do not stop terrorism by coming in and fucking peoples lives up, palestinians already hate israel and terrorising gaza only radicalises people and turns them into hamas militants.  aside from that israel has shown blatant disregard for civilians lives, 0 israelis have died vs 0 palestinians.  that alone should show you who is the aggressor and who is caught in the crossfire this is not about hamas vs israel its about the people born in gaza and caught up in it.  the invasion is terrorism designed to kill civilians and scare gaza into subservience.   #  the invasion is terrorism designed to kill civilians and scare gaza into subservience.   #  how israelis warn civilians: leaflets, phone calls, texts, and dropping duds so they know they are being attacked.   # after thousands of rockets and the discovery of tunnels to that lead into israel with the sole goal of killing israelis what should israel do ? not at all like iraq.  israel has been attacked by palestine continuously.  in addition, israel has offered many humanitarian pauses and cease fires all of which hamas has ignored or broken by firing rockets into israel.  that alone should show you who is the aggressor and who is caught in the crossfire the reason why the death rate is so different is policy of both countries.  i will break it down.  hamas policies: URL hamas tell palestinians to ignore idf warnings .  in addition, instead of using donated materials to build bomb shelters for their people they built millions of dollars of the terror tunnels i mentioned above.  israel policies: early warning alert systems and the iron dome make israelis incredibly safe.  how israelis warn civilians: leaflets, phone calls, texts, and dropping duds so they know they are being attacked.  what should israel do when hamas has promised to destroy the country and kill everyone inside its boarders ? when over 0 rockets have been fired in about a month ? when the discover a huge underground network of terror tunnels ? when hamas violates ceasefire after ceasefire ? do not say give back land because israel tried that in 0 when they pulled every israeli including jews out of gaza leaving greenhouses and other buildings to continue a strong flower exporting industry.  hamas had the buildings destroyed.  so i ask what is the correct response ?  #  in conventional warfare, hamas would be wiped out in mere hours.   #  it is quite obvious that op has not lived in israel or palestine for a sustained period of time.  i have.  that being said, it is not the same as iraq; which pretty much was unjustifiable.  in international terms, iraq honestly did not pose any real threat to the sovereignty of the us or it is citizens.  hamas rockets and tunnels however, do pose an imminent risk to israeli civilians.  palestinians do not all hate israel; most want to live in peace alongside israel or as a part of it.  i remember i would go to gaza when i was younger because my family believed that best food is made there.  the only hate that is there has been brought and carried through hamas and its brainwashed recruits.  if the gaza invasion was designed to kill civilians, then israel would have no need to put troops on the ground.  the act of putting troops in danger is an attempt to show the world that it is trying to minimize civilian casualties at the expense of its own soldiers.  tell me what is the difference between a hamas soldier and a civilian ? one does not wear a uniform…in fact, neither wear uniforms.  in conventional warfare, hamas would be wiped out in mere hours.  but this is gaza.  and if you can tell the difference between a dead civilian and a hamas soldier, then you would be israel is 0 asset right now.  the biggest problem is that hamas cannot survive long in peacetime.  it is a political party bent on war.  war does bring more recruits to hamas unfortunately.  hamas does not need peace to survive; and neither does israel.  but israel does want it.  i am deeply saddened for the people born and caught up in the fighting in gaza.  i truly am.  i pray there will be peace soon.   #  it was published in 0, so current massacre is not included.   #  most of the civilian deaths are not by accident, it is a strategy used by israel for many years.  this is not my opinion, a team of experts led by richard goldstone concluded as  israel is military assault on gaza was designed to humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability  the report also concluded that israel violated the fourth geneva convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled  a grave breach .  it also claimed that the violations were  systematic and deliberate .  it was published in 0, so current massacre is not included.  does israeli media say that all of the civilian deaths are by accident.  seriously how could not one question this statement with all leaked footage and reports by international organizations.   #  please do not be selective when drawing conclusions.   #  i read the goldstone allegations from your source and to be more accurate, the report concluded that both sides were guilty of war crimes.  please do not be selective when drawing conclusions.  and let me simply reply by saying that the report brings into consideration 0 cases where civilians were targeted and killed.  understandable.  however, the intentions of the israeli government cannot be accurately portrayed by 0 actions committed by 0 0 year olds in warfare out of the thousands of daily activities carried out.  it is obvious that you have not experienced warfare; in war sometimes people choose poorly when in survival mode.  this is tragic, but real in war; it is not a systematic approach to terrorizing a population.   #  i am not sure you read the right report.   #  the report is name is not goldstone allegations actually it is  united nations fact finding mission on the gaza conflict .  yes fuck israel, fuck hamas.  they are both targeting civilian population and they are both terrorists.  i do not know which 0 actions you are referring to.  as far as i remember they investigate hundreds of cases and make that conclusion.  i am not sure you read the right report.  in any case, i am sure the leading experts are aware of the difference between war crimes and accidents and poor judgements.  however, it is always fun to see israeli is defend their right to murder children fanatically.
i see no reason why anyone should define themselves as a  feminist ally,   lgbt ally,  etc.  why not just call yourself a  good person ?   i am everyone is ally insofar as they behave in a morally upstanding manner, and their enemy otherwise.  for instance, the difference between being a  feminist  and a  feminist ally  seems to be that the  ally  does not get any actual say in what feminism is.  if i identify as a feminist ally and mainstream feminism decides to go off the deep end, my ally status nevertheless shackles me to a movement over which i have no influence.  in essence, declaring yourself to be an ally outsources your moral reasoning to the group with which you have allied, and i cannot imagine any reason to do that.   #  in essence, declaring yourself to be an ally outsources your moral reasoning to the group with which you have allied, and i cannot imagine any reason to do that.   #  as others have pointed out in this thread, i have not really ever heard of someone identifying as a feminist ally, why not just be a feminist ?  # as others have pointed out in this thread, i have not really ever heard of someone identifying as a feminist ally, why not just be a feminist ? for an lgbt ally though, the implied outsourcing of moral reasoning is purposeful.  in fact, it is kind of the point.  i think that lgbt individuals are in a pretty shitty situation.  i think that inequalities based on sexual orientation/gender identity should be eliminated.  however, i have not experienced those inequalities myself.  i do not know the best way to fix them.  i do not know what kind of things should be done, or on which of the issues the dialogue should be focused.  the people who know that kind of stuff are those who have experienced the inequalities: members of the lgbt community.  the last thing that the lgbt community needs is some straight boy coming in and telling them how they should be acting or what they should be fighting for.  the term ally implies that i am going to take a backseat because while i support the movement, i lack the experience to actively participate in its decision making process.  if the movement as a whole ends up going in a direction that i do not support, i will cease supporting it.  but the term ally means that i have decided that i should not have a say in the way the movement is conducted.   #  then i have a question for you: why do you think nations ever ally to each other ?  #  then i have a question for you: why do you think nations ever ally to each other ? why does not the us say  we are good people here, we will help people we like in war without any formal declaration of alliance ?   the reason no nation does that is exactly because if you are not willing to commit to the alliance you are not really doing anything.  it costs you nothing to say that you are france is friend and france knows this, so if you merely say that you are france is friend without actually doing anything france will probably not take you seriously.  similarly if you merely say that you are a friend of gay people without actually doing anything to help gay people they will probably not take your claim seriously.   #  if they were the same we would not have different words for them.   #  being a friend and being an ally are two completely different things.  if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  i will help my friends move house, i would not get into a fight with someone because my friend is fighting that person.  friends look at people/groups favorably and will help an ally picks sides based on who their allies are and what they do.  you can support and be friendly with a group without devoting your self to it is ideals which is incredibly risky given how broad and grey the ideas can be in these types of groups.   #  you would not even help defend your friend from an unprovoked attack while you are standing next to them ?  # if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  they are not  completely  different, and having two different words does not necessarily mean anything.  we have the words  plant  and  weed,  but that does not mean there is no conceptual overlap.  you would not even help defend your friend from an unprovoked attack while you are standing next to them ? if yes, that is because there is an overlap between friend and ally.   #  ally does not mean you support someone else  right or wrong.    # on the hook in the sense that people can assign blame to his allies in editorial articles ? that is it ? you honestly do not understand the concept of an ally.  not even formal, diplomatic state entity allies have  unconditional  alliances.  for example, allies usually do not have to support each other in aggressive, attacking actions.  ally does not mean you support someone else  right or wrong.   that is a misunderstanding.  and  fellow traveller  ? who uses that term to indicate something like a person who supports someone else but conditionally ?
i see no reason why anyone should define themselves as a  feminist ally,   lgbt ally,  etc.  why not just call yourself a  good person ?   i am everyone is ally insofar as they behave in a morally upstanding manner, and their enemy otherwise.  for instance, the difference between being a  feminist  and a  feminist ally  seems to be that the  ally  does not get any actual say in what feminism is.  if i identify as a feminist ally and mainstream feminism decides to go off the deep end, my ally status nevertheless shackles me to a movement over which i have no influence.  in essence, declaring yourself to be an ally outsources your moral reasoning to the group with which you have allied, and i cannot imagine any reason to do that.   #  if i identify as a feminist ally and mainstream feminism decides to go off the deep end, my ally status nevertheless shackles me to a movement over which i have no influence.   #  if the movement as a whole ends up going in a direction that i do not support, i will cease supporting it.   # as others have pointed out in this thread, i have not really ever heard of someone identifying as a feminist ally, why not just be a feminist ? for an lgbt ally though, the implied outsourcing of moral reasoning is purposeful.  in fact, it is kind of the point.  i think that lgbt individuals are in a pretty shitty situation.  i think that inequalities based on sexual orientation/gender identity should be eliminated.  however, i have not experienced those inequalities myself.  i do not know the best way to fix them.  i do not know what kind of things should be done, or on which of the issues the dialogue should be focused.  the people who know that kind of stuff are those who have experienced the inequalities: members of the lgbt community.  the last thing that the lgbt community needs is some straight boy coming in and telling them how they should be acting or what they should be fighting for.  the term ally implies that i am going to take a backseat because while i support the movement, i lack the experience to actively participate in its decision making process.  if the movement as a whole ends up going in a direction that i do not support, i will cease supporting it.  but the term ally means that i have decided that i should not have a say in the way the movement is conducted.   #  the reason no nation does that is exactly because if you are not willing to commit to the alliance you are not really doing anything.   #  then i have a question for you: why do you think nations ever ally to each other ? why does not the us say  we are good people here, we will help people we like in war without any formal declaration of alliance ?   the reason no nation does that is exactly because if you are not willing to commit to the alliance you are not really doing anything.  it costs you nothing to say that you are france is friend and france knows this, so if you merely say that you are france is friend without actually doing anything france will probably not take you seriously.  similarly if you merely say that you are a friend of gay people without actually doing anything to help gay people they will probably not take your claim seriously.   #  if they were the same we would not have different words for them.   #  being a friend and being an ally are two completely different things.  if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  i will help my friends move house, i would not get into a fight with someone because my friend is fighting that person.  friends look at people/groups favorably and will help an ally picks sides based on who their allies are and what they do.  you can support and be friendly with a group without devoting your self to it is ideals which is incredibly risky given how broad and grey the ideas can be in these types of groups.   #  if yes, that is because there is an overlap between friend and ally.   # if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  they are not  completely  different, and having two different words does not necessarily mean anything.  we have the words  plant  and  weed,  but that does not mean there is no conceptual overlap.  you would not even help defend your friend from an unprovoked attack while you are standing next to them ? if yes, that is because there is an overlap between friend and ally.   #  on the hook in the sense that people can assign blame to his allies in editorial articles ?  # on the hook in the sense that people can assign blame to his allies in editorial articles ? that is it ? you honestly do not understand the concept of an ally.  not even formal, diplomatic state entity allies have  unconditional  alliances.  for example, allies usually do not have to support each other in aggressive, attacking actions.  ally does not mean you support someone else  right or wrong.   that is a misunderstanding.  and  fellow traveller  ? who uses that term to indicate something like a person who supports someone else but conditionally ?
i see no reason why anyone should define themselves as a  feminist ally,   lgbt ally,  etc.  why not just call yourself a  good person ?   i am everyone is ally insofar as they behave in a morally upstanding manner, and their enemy otherwise.  for instance, the difference between being a  feminist  and a  feminist ally  seems to be that the  ally  does not get any actual say in what feminism is.  if i identify as a feminist ally and mainstream feminism decides to go off the deep end, my ally status nevertheless shackles me to a movement over which i have no influence.  in essence, declaring yourself to be an ally outsources your moral reasoning to the group with which you have allied, and i cannot imagine any reason to do that.   #  why not just call yourself a  good person ?    #  one reason is that such a label is essentially meaningless in a pluralistic, morally subjective world such as ours, particularly with respect to subjects such as lgbt rights and feminism.   # one reason is that such a label is essentially meaningless in a pluralistic, morally subjective world such as ours, particularly with respect to subjects such as lgbt rights and feminism.  in other words, the label could easily be defensibly appropriated by those taking the contrary position.  additionally, the adoption of a label like that does nothing to advance dialogue between camps.  that may be true.  in other words,  ally  is a good way to quickly declare where your beliefs or sympathies lie while also conveying some demographic interest about you and your relationship with those beliefs.  for instance, if i refer to myself as a  feminism ally  rather than a  feminist,  you might infer that i am a man and that my reasons for such support are likely not simply reflexive.  that is pretty useful, no ? i suppose if you tattoo the words  feminist ally  across your face, you might be stuck, but otherwise it is fairly easy to distance yourself should you find you no longer agree with a group is position.   #  why does not the us say  we are good people here, we will help people we like in war without any formal declaration of alliance ?    #  then i have a question for you: why do you think nations ever ally to each other ? why does not the us say  we are good people here, we will help people we like in war without any formal declaration of alliance ?   the reason no nation does that is exactly because if you are not willing to commit to the alliance you are not really doing anything.  it costs you nothing to say that you are france is friend and france knows this, so if you merely say that you are france is friend without actually doing anything france will probably not take you seriously.  similarly if you merely say that you are a friend of gay people without actually doing anything to help gay people they will probably not take your claim seriously.   #  friends look at people/groups favorably and will help an ally picks sides based on who their allies are and what they do.   #  being a friend and being an ally are two completely different things.  if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  i will help my friends move house, i would not get into a fight with someone because my friend is fighting that person.  friends look at people/groups favorably and will help an ally picks sides based on who their allies are and what they do.  you can support and be friendly with a group without devoting your self to it is ideals which is incredibly risky given how broad and grey the ideas can be in these types of groups.   #  they are not  completely  different, and having two different words does not necessarily mean anything.   # if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  they are not  completely  different, and having two different words does not necessarily mean anything.  we have the words  plant  and  weed,  but that does not mean there is no conceptual overlap.  you would not even help defend your friend from an unprovoked attack while you are standing next to them ? if yes, that is because there is an overlap between friend and ally.   #  not even formal, diplomatic state entity allies have  unconditional  alliances.   # on the hook in the sense that people can assign blame to his allies in editorial articles ? that is it ? you honestly do not understand the concept of an ally.  not even formal, diplomatic state entity allies have  unconditional  alliances.  for example, allies usually do not have to support each other in aggressive, attacking actions.  ally does not mean you support someone else  right or wrong.   that is a misunderstanding.  and  fellow traveller  ? who uses that term to indicate something like a person who supports someone else but conditionally ?
i see no reason why anyone should define themselves as a  feminist ally,   lgbt ally,  etc.  why not just call yourself a  good person ?   i am everyone is ally insofar as they behave in a morally upstanding manner, and their enemy otherwise.  for instance, the difference between being a  feminist  and a  feminist ally  seems to be that the  ally  does not get any actual say in what feminism is.  if i identify as a feminist ally and mainstream feminism decides to go off the deep end, my ally status nevertheless shackles me to a movement over which i have no influence.  in essence, declaring yourself to be an ally outsources your moral reasoning to the group with which you have allied, and i cannot imagine any reason to do that.   #  if i identify as a feminist ally and mainstream feminism decides to go off the deep end, my ally status nevertheless shackles me to a movement over which i have no influence.   #  i suppose if you tattoo the words  feminist ally  across your face, you might be stuck, but otherwise it is fairly easy to distance yourself should you find you no longer agree with a group is position.   # one reason is that such a label is essentially meaningless in a pluralistic, morally subjective world such as ours, particularly with respect to subjects such as lgbt rights and feminism.  in other words, the label could easily be defensibly appropriated by those taking the contrary position.  additionally, the adoption of a label like that does nothing to advance dialogue between camps.  that may be true.  in other words,  ally  is a good way to quickly declare where your beliefs or sympathies lie while also conveying some demographic interest about you and your relationship with those beliefs.  for instance, if i refer to myself as a  feminism ally  rather than a  feminist,  you might infer that i am a man and that my reasons for such support are likely not simply reflexive.  that is pretty useful, no ? i suppose if you tattoo the words  feminist ally  across your face, you might be stuck, but otherwise it is fairly easy to distance yourself should you find you no longer agree with a group is position.   #  why does not the us say  we are good people here, we will help people we like in war without any formal declaration of alliance ?    #  then i have a question for you: why do you think nations ever ally to each other ? why does not the us say  we are good people here, we will help people we like in war without any formal declaration of alliance ?   the reason no nation does that is exactly because if you are not willing to commit to the alliance you are not really doing anything.  it costs you nothing to say that you are france is friend and france knows this, so if you merely say that you are france is friend without actually doing anything france will probably not take you seriously.  similarly if you merely say that you are a friend of gay people without actually doing anything to help gay people they will probably not take your claim seriously.   #  being a friend and being an ally are two completely different things.   #  being a friend and being an ally are two completely different things.  if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  i will help my friends move house, i would not get into a fight with someone because my friend is fighting that person.  friends look at people/groups favorably and will help an ally picks sides based on who their allies are and what they do.  you can support and be friendly with a group without devoting your self to it is ideals which is incredibly risky given how broad and grey the ideas can be in these types of groups.   #  they are not  completely  different, and having two different words does not necessarily mean anything.   # if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  they are not  completely  different, and having two different words does not necessarily mean anything.  we have the words  plant  and  weed,  but that does not mean there is no conceptual overlap.  you would not even help defend your friend from an unprovoked attack while you are standing next to them ? if yes, that is because there is an overlap between friend and ally.   #  not even formal, diplomatic state entity allies have  unconditional  alliances.   # on the hook in the sense that people can assign blame to his allies in editorial articles ? that is it ? you honestly do not understand the concept of an ally.  not even formal, diplomatic state entity allies have  unconditional  alliances.  for example, allies usually do not have to support each other in aggressive, attacking actions.  ally does not mean you support someone else  right or wrong.   that is a misunderstanding.  and  fellow traveller  ? who uses that term to indicate something like a person who supports someone else but conditionally ?
i see no reason why anyone should define themselves as a  feminist ally,   lgbt ally,  etc.  why not just call yourself a  good person ?   i am everyone is ally insofar as they behave in a morally upstanding manner, and their enemy otherwise.  for instance, the difference between being a  feminist  and a  feminist ally  seems to be that the  ally  does not get any actual say in what feminism is.  if i identify as a feminist ally and mainstream feminism decides to go off the deep end, my ally status nevertheless shackles me to a movement over which i have no influence.  in essence, declaring yourself to be an ally outsources your moral reasoning to the group with which you have allied, and i cannot imagine any reason to do that.   #  if i identify as a feminist ally and mainstream feminism decides to go off the deep end, my ally status nevertheless shackles me to a movement over which i have no influence.   #  how the heck does it shackle you to anything ?  #  i ca not be lgbt.  i can support them.  the term  lgbt ally  signals useful information.  how the heck does it shackle you to anything ? be very specific.  i do not know how to dissuade you from complete non sequiturs.   #  why does not the us say  we are good people here, we will help people we like in war without any formal declaration of alliance ?    #  then i have a question for you: why do you think nations ever ally to each other ? why does not the us say  we are good people here, we will help people we like in war without any formal declaration of alliance ?   the reason no nation does that is exactly because if you are not willing to commit to the alliance you are not really doing anything.  it costs you nothing to say that you are france is friend and france knows this, so if you merely say that you are france is friend without actually doing anything france will probably not take you seriously.  similarly if you merely say that you are a friend of gay people without actually doing anything to help gay people they will probably not take your claim seriously.   #  being a friend and being an ally are two completely different things.   #  being a friend and being an ally are two completely different things.  if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  i will help my friends move house, i would not get into a fight with someone because my friend is fighting that person.  friends look at people/groups favorably and will help an ally picks sides based on who their allies are and what they do.  you can support and be friendly with a group without devoting your self to it is ideals which is incredibly risky given how broad and grey the ideas can be in these types of groups.   #  they are not  completely  different, and having two different words does not necessarily mean anything.   # if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  they are not  completely  different, and having two different words does not necessarily mean anything.  we have the words  plant  and  weed,  but that does not mean there is no conceptual overlap.  you would not even help defend your friend from an unprovoked attack while you are standing next to them ? if yes, that is because there is an overlap between friend and ally.   #  not even formal, diplomatic state entity allies have  unconditional  alliances.   # on the hook in the sense that people can assign blame to his allies in editorial articles ? that is it ? you honestly do not understand the concept of an ally.  not even formal, diplomatic state entity allies have  unconditional  alliances.  for example, allies usually do not have to support each other in aggressive, attacking actions.  ally does not mean you support someone else  right or wrong.   that is a misunderstanding.  and  fellow traveller  ? who uses that term to indicate something like a person who supports someone else but conditionally ?
i see no reason why anyone should define themselves as a  feminist ally,   lgbt ally,  etc.  why not just call yourself a  good person ?   i am everyone is ally insofar as they behave in a morally upstanding manner, and their enemy otherwise.  for instance, the difference between being a  feminist  and a  feminist ally  seems to be that the  ally  does not get any actual say in what feminism is.  if i identify as a feminist ally and mainstream feminism decides to go off the deep end, my ally status nevertheless shackles me to a movement over which i have no influence.  in essence, declaring yourself to be an ally outsources your moral reasoning to the group with which you have allied, and i cannot imagine any reason to do that.   #  in essence, declaring yourself to be an ally outsources your moral reasoning to the group with which you have allied, and i cannot imagine any reason to do that.   #  i do not know how to dissuade you from complete non sequiturs.   #  i ca not be lgbt.  i can support them.  the term  lgbt ally  signals useful information.  how the heck does it shackle you to anything ? be very specific.  i do not know how to dissuade you from complete non sequiturs.   #  similarly if you merely say that you are a friend of gay people without actually doing anything to help gay people they will probably not take your claim seriously.   #  then i have a question for you: why do you think nations ever ally to each other ? why does not the us say  we are good people here, we will help people we like in war without any formal declaration of alliance ?   the reason no nation does that is exactly because if you are not willing to commit to the alliance you are not really doing anything.  it costs you nothing to say that you are france is friend and france knows this, so if you merely say that you are france is friend without actually doing anything france will probably not take you seriously.  similarly if you merely say that you are a friend of gay people without actually doing anything to help gay people they will probably not take your claim seriously.   #  friends look at people/groups favorably and will help an ally picks sides based on who their allies are and what they do.   #  being a friend and being an ally are two completely different things.  if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  i will help my friends move house, i would not get into a fight with someone because my friend is fighting that person.  friends look at people/groups favorably and will help an ally picks sides based on who their allies are and what they do.  you can support and be friendly with a group without devoting your self to it is ideals which is incredibly risky given how broad and grey the ideas can be in these types of groups.   #  we have the words  plant  and  weed,  but that does not mean there is no conceptual overlap.   # if they were the same we would not have different words for them.  they are not  completely  different, and having two different words does not necessarily mean anything.  we have the words  plant  and  weed,  but that does not mean there is no conceptual overlap.  you would not even help defend your friend from an unprovoked attack while you are standing next to them ? if yes, that is because there is an overlap between friend and ally.   #  on the hook in the sense that people can assign blame to his allies in editorial articles ?  # on the hook in the sense that people can assign blame to his allies in editorial articles ? that is it ? you honestly do not understand the concept of an ally.  not even formal, diplomatic state entity allies have  unconditional  alliances.  for example, allies usually do not have to support each other in aggressive, attacking actions.  ally does not mean you support someone else  right or wrong.   that is a misunderstanding.  and  fellow traveller  ? who uses that term to indicate something like a person who supports someone else but conditionally ?
my argument is simple.  if i tip, the server benefits by the extra cash.  if i do not tip, they will at least get minimum wage as required by law.  life might be harder with minimum wage, but people can certainly survive, especially if they make good financial decisions like you are supposed to.  serving food to customers is part of the server is job description and i am not required to tip other minimum wage workers following their job descriptions for providing their time and service.  an example would be non commissioned sales associates in stores.  i used to work at best buy for $0/hour not exactly minimum wage but pretty close to it and i personally know how much time we can spend per customer.  most interactions usually last about 0min or less but it is not that uncommon to be with a customer for up to a hour or more in rare cases .  even then, sales are not guaranteed unlike a restaurant server.  over time, price of meals might go up but i why should i care about that ? ultimately there is not a significant difference if a meal is cheap and i tip 0 vs a more expensive meal but i do not tip ? you might also argue that employers might fire servers who do not get enough tips as a sign of bad service but i do not think that should be the case.  if a server is providing excellent service, i am more likely to spend more like with dessert or drinks.  if i am getting bad service, i just want to leave as soon as possible resulting in less sale.  even if this system of evaluating servers does not work for whatever reason, employers could always evaluate based on customer surveys or by sending out undercover people to eat at their restaurant.   #  if i do not tip, they will at least get minimum wage as required by law.   #  this is the crux of the problem.   # this is the crux of the problem.  many servers do not actually get comped to pull them up to min wage if their tips do not put them over the line.  in an ideal situation, law requires that if servers do not get enough tips on top of their base $0/hr or similar pay to put them over min wage that the restaurant has to pay them the difference.  in reality, what ends up happening is that restaurants do not record tips so they are not taxed and in return the risk of not making min wage falls on the servers.  so slow pay periods means that they wo not make min wage.  good pay periods mean that they only get taxed on hourly.  so the real issue here is that there is very little oversight to make sure servers get paid their $0/hr if their tips do not pay out.  you could then argue  well why do not they leave their jobs then ?   well in an ideal economy where job openings are plentiful it would not be that bad.  but today we are not living in that world, and you are still not guaranteed that the next place you go to does not do something similar.  the way i rationalize this is that servers are not just doing their job.  if they were just doing their job it would be simply taking an order, delivering, then handing you the check.  most servers worth their salt make small talk, make sure everything is good, make sure you have everything you need, ask if you want refills, offer extra desserts, etc.  to me, that is what earns people tips.  if they can make me want to come back by my own choice then they have gone above and beyond.  the best buy scenario, not only are they guaranteed wages but they also do not really have any incentive to make me come back by choice.  there is no reason for them to go above and beyond and assist me on every single item i am looking for.  their job is not to serve me, since shopping around is mostly autonomous on my part.  their job is to assist and direct, which takes a whole lot less effort, and also harder to go above and beyond.  but again, the whole idea that  i am not a detriment to servers if i do not tip  comes back on if the restaurant actually comps them up to min wage.  there are a lot that do not.   #  but that is how the tip affects  you .   #  here is the difference between working a sales gig at best buy vs being a restaurant server: the restaurant is much more likely to involve repeat business.  if you go to a restaurant once and do not tip, then it does not really affect  you , but it does affect the server.  it is not only a monetary bump, it is also a way of communicating how much you were grateful for the service.  if you ever return to that restaurant, the server may remember you and the message you left through your lack of tip.  you may get better or worse service the second and subsequent visits because of that.  but that is how the tip affects  you .  your cmv is talking about the affect on the  server .  in american culture, tipping of about 0 0 is considered normal at sit down restaurants.  when you leave a tip, you are communicating to your server.  a higher than normal tip is a complement; a lower than normal tip is an insult.  think about how you feel when you receive a compliment or an insult.  the communication via tip directly affects the emotions of the server.  the server is mood then affects how they treat other customers.  thus, in the long term, your poor tipping is harming the server is emotional state and degrading the service received by every other patron of that or those restaurant s .   #  i agree they should be compensated a bit more than that, but much more than that ?  #  no but i have worked as the material handler for a company that engineers aerospace parts for lockheed martin boeing and other well known aerospace companies.  i got paid 0 an hour to start.  i got paid close to minimum wage to literally move peoples lives rarely ever getting tipped.  serving can be hard just like any line of work can.  it can also be easy depending on the restaurant.  but do not kid yourself into thinking serving is not something most people ca not just pick up and start doing right away.  btw i never said serving deserves minimum.  i agree they should be compensated a bit more than that, but much more than that ? probably not.   #  some waiters and waitresses that work in high end restaurants have been doing it for years and worked a long time to gain the experience required to work at these find dining restaurants.   #  i have never been a material handler for a company that engineers aerospace parts so i wo not pretend to know how difficult a job that is.  you, however, are content to assume that you know exactly how hard it is to be a waiter and that you can better price the market for that service than others.  serving is a job that most people can do, but it is also a job i have seen many people leave really quickly because of the stress and bullshit that you have to put up with.  is it the hardest job in the world ? hardly.  but when you apply for a serving job, you are expecting to make a certain amount of money and managers hire people accordingly to their skill.  some waiters and waitresses that work in high end restaurants have been doing it for years and worked a long time to gain the experience required to work at these find dining restaurants.  i always tell people that if you ca not afford to tip, then you ca not afford to eat out.  if you wanna be the one guy that stiffs a hard working server out of money they are expecting to make by providing you with good service then fine, just do not try and make yourself feel better about it by coming here and claiming you have a logical reason for wanting to deny people money they earned.   #  make the choice to leave for something better or not.   #  maybe i am a dick for believing this.  but ultimately if you go into an industry expecting to make a majority of your wage off tips, and then find it not to work out.  its your fault and your fault alone.  you knew what you were getting into and even if you did not then it still does not matter.  blaming it on people not tipping is just pointless.  make the choice to leave for something better or not.  i am just done listening to the serving community whine about wages.  take it or find something else.  tipping is not mandatory and i really do not give a shit about some ridiculous social expectation to pawn off the restaurant owners responsibility to pay his employees a fair wage.  the restaurant does not require me to tip ? awesome i wo not.  the server stays regardless of the shit condition of their job ? not my problem.  you chose this.
my argument is simple.  if i tip, the server benefits by the extra cash.  if i do not tip, they will at least get minimum wage as required by law.  life might be harder with minimum wage, but people can certainly survive, especially if they make good financial decisions like you are supposed to.  serving food to customers is part of the server is job description and i am not required to tip other minimum wage workers following their job descriptions for providing their time and service.  an example would be non commissioned sales associates in stores.  i used to work at best buy for $0/hour not exactly minimum wage but pretty close to it and i personally know how much time we can spend per customer.  most interactions usually last about 0min or less but it is not that uncommon to be with a customer for up to a hour or more in rare cases .  even then, sales are not guaranteed unlike a restaurant server.  over time, price of meals might go up but i why should i care about that ? ultimately there is not a significant difference if a meal is cheap and i tip 0 vs a more expensive meal but i do not tip ? you might also argue that employers might fire servers who do not get enough tips as a sign of bad service but i do not think that should be the case.  if a server is providing excellent service, i am more likely to spend more like with dessert or drinks.  if i am getting bad service, i just want to leave as soon as possible resulting in less sale.  even if this system of evaluating servers does not work for whatever reason, employers could always evaluate based on customer surveys or by sending out undercover people to eat at their restaurant.   #  serving food to customers is part of the server is job description and i am not required to tip other minimum wage workers following their job descriptions for providing their time and service.   #  the way i rationalize this is that servers are not just doing their job.   # this is the crux of the problem.  many servers do not actually get comped to pull them up to min wage if their tips do not put them over the line.  in an ideal situation, law requires that if servers do not get enough tips on top of their base $0/hr or similar pay to put them over min wage that the restaurant has to pay them the difference.  in reality, what ends up happening is that restaurants do not record tips so they are not taxed and in return the risk of not making min wage falls on the servers.  so slow pay periods means that they wo not make min wage.  good pay periods mean that they only get taxed on hourly.  so the real issue here is that there is very little oversight to make sure servers get paid their $0/hr if their tips do not pay out.  you could then argue  well why do not they leave their jobs then ?   well in an ideal economy where job openings are plentiful it would not be that bad.  but today we are not living in that world, and you are still not guaranteed that the next place you go to does not do something similar.  the way i rationalize this is that servers are not just doing their job.  if they were just doing their job it would be simply taking an order, delivering, then handing you the check.  most servers worth their salt make small talk, make sure everything is good, make sure you have everything you need, ask if you want refills, offer extra desserts, etc.  to me, that is what earns people tips.  if they can make me want to come back by my own choice then they have gone above and beyond.  the best buy scenario, not only are they guaranteed wages but they also do not really have any incentive to make me come back by choice.  there is no reason for them to go above and beyond and assist me on every single item i am looking for.  their job is not to serve me, since shopping around is mostly autonomous on my part.  their job is to assist and direct, which takes a whole lot less effort, and also harder to go above and beyond.  but again, the whole idea that  i am not a detriment to servers if i do not tip  comes back on if the restaurant actually comps them up to min wage.  there are a lot that do not.   #  when you leave a tip, you are communicating to your server.   #  here is the difference between working a sales gig at best buy vs being a restaurant server: the restaurant is much more likely to involve repeat business.  if you go to a restaurant once and do not tip, then it does not really affect  you , but it does affect the server.  it is not only a monetary bump, it is also a way of communicating how much you were grateful for the service.  if you ever return to that restaurant, the server may remember you and the message you left through your lack of tip.  you may get better or worse service the second and subsequent visits because of that.  but that is how the tip affects  you .  your cmv is talking about the affect on the  server .  in american culture, tipping of about 0 0 is considered normal at sit down restaurants.  when you leave a tip, you are communicating to your server.  a higher than normal tip is a complement; a lower than normal tip is an insult.  think about how you feel when you receive a compliment or an insult.  the communication via tip directly affects the emotions of the server.  the server is mood then affects how they treat other customers.  thus, in the long term, your poor tipping is harming the server is emotional state and degrading the service received by every other patron of that or those restaurant s .   #  but do not kid yourself into thinking serving is not something most people ca not just pick up and start doing right away.   #  no but i have worked as the material handler for a company that engineers aerospace parts for lockheed martin boeing and other well known aerospace companies.  i got paid 0 an hour to start.  i got paid close to minimum wage to literally move peoples lives rarely ever getting tipped.  serving can be hard just like any line of work can.  it can also be easy depending on the restaurant.  but do not kid yourself into thinking serving is not something most people ca not just pick up and start doing right away.  btw i never said serving deserves minimum.  i agree they should be compensated a bit more than that, but much more than that ? probably not.   #  i have never been a material handler for a company that engineers aerospace parts so i wo not pretend to know how difficult a job that is.   #  i have never been a material handler for a company that engineers aerospace parts so i wo not pretend to know how difficult a job that is.  you, however, are content to assume that you know exactly how hard it is to be a waiter and that you can better price the market for that service than others.  serving is a job that most people can do, but it is also a job i have seen many people leave really quickly because of the stress and bullshit that you have to put up with.  is it the hardest job in the world ? hardly.  but when you apply for a serving job, you are expecting to make a certain amount of money and managers hire people accordingly to their skill.  some waiters and waitresses that work in high end restaurants have been doing it for years and worked a long time to gain the experience required to work at these find dining restaurants.  i always tell people that if you ca not afford to tip, then you ca not afford to eat out.  if you wanna be the one guy that stiffs a hard working server out of money they are expecting to make by providing you with good service then fine, just do not try and make yourself feel better about it by coming here and claiming you have a logical reason for wanting to deny people money they earned.   #  i am just done listening to the serving community whine about wages.   #  maybe i am a dick for believing this.  but ultimately if you go into an industry expecting to make a majority of your wage off tips, and then find it not to work out.  its your fault and your fault alone.  you knew what you were getting into and even if you did not then it still does not matter.  blaming it on people not tipping is just pointless.  make the choice to leave for something better or not.  i am just done listening to the serving community whine about wages.  take it or find something else.  tipping is not mandatory and i really do not give a shit about some ridiculous social expectation to pawn off the restaurant owners responsibility to pay his employees a fair wage.  the restaurant does not require me to tip ? awesome i wo not.  the server stays regardless of the shit condition of their job ? not my problem.  you chose this.
i am confused with the whole transgender movement and gender identity and the various gender identities etc.  that are finding ground now in communities, both offline and online.  i am not against transgender people and believe in rights for all, i am just here to understand.  i have an opinion that i want challenged so i can see if my opinion is actually sound or whether it is ignorant.  basically, i think that our mind whilst in a biological body that is structured a certain way is not  amale  or  female  in itself.  for example, a woman who  feels  they are a man because of their private, subjective experience as a thinking person is basing this off a sexist idea of how men  are .  the things that define what a  aman  is is essentially a penis, and likewise, a vagina for a woman anatomically and scientifically .  there might be a certain way the brain works in relation to what gender you are, but that is because you are biologically that gender.  if you are another gender, how can you possibly feel what it is like to be a gender that is not your own ? is it not a sexist or otherwise unjustified opinion ? right now, to me, it is similar to the idea that a man can understand what it is like to have a period or a woman knowing what it is like to have an erection basically: you do not .  how does this movement count as something sound, normal and sane ? it feels like it is sexism about what one or another sex is  willike  and people accept it.  cmv.   #  the things that define what a  aman  is is essentially a penis, and likewise, a vagina for a woman anatomically and scientifically .   #  if i lose my penis am i no longer a man ?  #  i am not sure why you are signaling out trans  people and individuals who identify as other genders when everyone has a gender identity.  you, me, people you encounter every day.  i was born into the male sex and i identify as a man.  should cisgendered people also not have a gender identity ? if i lose my penis am i no longer a man ? what about people born with both genitals ? what gender should they identify as ? let is do a little thought experiment to show what i am talking about here.  imagine you are at a bar, and the friend you were waiting for shows up with a coworker you have never met before.  how do you identify that person is gender ? do you ask to inspect their genitals before you begin using gendered pronouns like he or she ? do you request a dna test so you can determine their chromosomal composition and ensure they are biologically the gender they present as ? probably not, you do what everyone else does and base your idea of their gender on how they present.  so when you say that a person is gender is defined by their genitals that is blatantly untrue.  you will accept a person is gender without having to check under the hood.  there is also a few studies that show how trans  people is brains work differently, and indeed that male and female brains work differently with trans  individual is brains acting more like the brain of the opposite sex.  source: URL sorry it is a mobile link.   #  if you do not have to verify that a person is a man before treating them like one what is the point of this definition ?  # they only define your sex.  if you do not have to verify that a person is a man before treating them like one what is the point of this definition ? you do not actually even  use it  when dealing with the men and women in your life.  that is what is meant by the idea that gender is a social construct.  i do not need to run dna tests on people to determine their gender i let them show me or tell me.  it does in your mind.  you probbly do not recognize this because most people are cisgendered, but you take every single person you meet at face value without evaluating their sex organs or dna.  so what does it mean to say that  a man  is defined by xy chromosomes when someone could present as a man and get you to think of them and treat them as a man despite having xx chromosomes ? gender is how we identify ourselves in a social context, sex is our biological makeup.   #  note: there are also incomplete forms of androgen insensitivity, where the individual is born intersex, further complicating the matter.   #  sure, no problem.  a phenotype is your gene expression.  for a very simplified example, assume there are only two eye colors, brown b and blue b , which are controlled by a single gene, and b is dominant over b.  each person will have to copies of the eye color gene, one from each of their parents.  people with bb, bb, and bb genes this is the genotype will all have the same phenotype brown eyes .  complete androgen insensitivity syndrom cais is a genetic anomaly in which there are no working receptors for androgens testosterone .  all babies start out as female in the womb, and if a y chromosome is present a large amount of testosterone is released to masculinize the fetus.  if a person has cais, the testosterone released does nothing, because it cannot be  read  by the cells and the fetus, despite having xy chromosomes, is born a girl.  note: there are also incomplete forms of androgen insensitivity, where the individual is born intersex, further complicating the matter.   #  a trans man might publicly identify as a woman but self identify as a man.   #  gender is self identity; sex is biology.  a person who self identifies as a woman or girl is a woman or girl.  a person who self identifies as a man or boy is a man or boy.  a person who self identifies as outside the gender binary is outside the gender binary.  by self identity i mean how you view and label yourself in your head.  a trans man might publicly identify as a woman but self identify as a man.  a person is gender remember, self identity can be influenced by many things; such as having sex dysphoria or being gender role non conforming but it does not have to be.  there are masculine trans women and feminine trans men.  i suck at explaining things so if you are confused at anything i wrote; just ask :  #  we decided who was a man and who was a woman before we even knew chromosomes existed.   #  as human beings we are constantly categorizing, identifying, and breaking things and people down into groups.  just based on someone is dress, behavior, color of their skin, voice, attitude, appearance, etc, we make all kinds of judgments about people.  the judgment that someone is a man or a woman is what makes them a man or a woman, not their biology.  that judgment is of course, heavily influenced by biology, but there is nothing intrinsic about having an xy or xx set of chromosomes that make you a male or a female in society, those chromosomes are pretty much completely irrelevant after birth, they are just a set of instructions that your body should develop one way or another.  we decided who was a man and who was a woman before we even knew chromosomes existed.  and certainly, having different genitals they are not even different, by the way, they are exactly the same, just in different configurations is a thing, but is that really so significant a difference that we place such a huge gap between the sexes ? it is clear our society has different roles and ideas about sexuality and identity based on gender that is more to do with overall appearance and behavior than anything else.  your view pretty much ignores the extreme importance we place in categorizing people based on gender.  it is a part of our language, society, culture, fashion, and etiquette.  what happens when you feel like the category your appearance puts you in is not the one for you ? well, you change it.
i am confused with the whole transgender movement and gender identity and the various gender identities etc.  that are finding ground now in communities, both offline and online.  i am not against transgender people and believe in rights for all, i am just here to understand.  i have an opinion that i want challenged so i can see if my opinion is actually sound or whether it is ignorant.  basically, i think that our mind whilst in a biological body that is structured a certain way is not  amale  or  female  in itself.  for example, a woman who  feels  they are a man because of their private, subjective experience as a thinking person is basing this off a sexist idea of how men  are .  the things that define what a  aman  is is essentially a penis, and likewise, a vagina for a woman anatomically and scientifically .  there might be a certain way the brain works in relation to what gender you are, but that is because you are biologically that gender.  if you are another gender, how can you possibly feel what it is like to be a gender that is not your own ? is it not a sexist or otherwise unjustified opinion ? right now, to me, it is similar to the idea that a man can understand what it is like to have a period or a woman knowing what it is like to have an erection basically: you do not .  how does this movement count as something sound, normal and sane ? it feels like it is sexism about what one or another sex is  willike  and people accept it.  cmv.   #  basically, i think that our mind whilst in a biological body that is structured a certain way is not  amale  or  female  in itself.   #  for example, a woman who  feels  they are a man because of their private, subjective experience as a thinking person is basing this off a sexist idea of how men  are .   # for example, a woman who  feels  they are a man because of their private, subjective experience as a thinking person is basing this off a sexist idea of how men  are .  so, i am not sure exactly what you mean by transgender.  if by that, you mean someone who is transsexual, then your example excludes the issue of physical dysphoria, of which i give an account here URL however, you seem to be describing someone who lacks physical dysphoria.  he does not have problems recognizing his own body, but he does identify with male archetypes and male pronouns.  in which case, he might choose to change his physical appearance so that others can recognize him as a man.  however, i do not think this is based on a sexist idea of what a man is.  it is simply a recognition of men as  in kind  the same way we would recognize and identify with someone who shared  any  feature of ours.  there might be a certain way the brain works in relation to what gender you are, but that is because you are biologically that gender.  if you are another gender, how can you possibly feel what it is like to be a gender that is not your own ? there is a difference between feeling what it is like to be one gender and your brain identifying itself with a gender that is not in kind with your physical sexual characteristics.  the pain of being trans is that you ca not experience what it is to be the gender with which you identify but you want to and you feel it would be more natural or right for you to experience the world that way.  for example, i feel like i am dressing in drag when i wear women is clothes or make up.  and i feel weird when someone treats me as if i am a woman.  there is just something off about it.  but when i am dressed as a man and others see me as a man, i feel more myself.  much more at home.  a lot of my social anxiety dissipates when i am presenting as male.  because i feel as if people can see me for who i really am.   #  you will accept a person is gender without having to check under the hood.   #  i am not sure why you are signaling out trans  people and individuals who identify as other genders when everyone has a gender identity.  you, me, people you encounter every day.  i was born into the male sex and i identify as a man.  should cisgendered people also not have a gender identity ? if i lose my penis am i no longer a man ? what about people born with both genitals ? what gender should they identify as ? let is do a little thought experiment to show what i am talking about here.  imagine you are at a bar, and the friend you were waiting for shows up with a coworker you have never met before.  how do you identify that person is gender ? do you ask to inspect their genitals before you begin using gendered pronouns like he or she ? do you request a dna test so you can determine their chromosomal composition and ensure they are biologically the gender they present as ? probably not, you do what everyone else does and base your idea of their gender on how they present.  so when you say that a person is gender is defined by their genitals that is blatantly untrue.  you will accept a person is gender without having to check under the hood.  there is also a few studies that show how trans  people is brains work differently, and indeed that male and female brains work differently with trans  individual is brains acting more like the brain of the opposite sex.  source: URL sorry it is a mobile link.   #  gender is how we identify ourselves in a social context, sex is our biological makeup.   # they only define your sex.  if you do not have to verify that a person is a man before treating them like one what is the point of this definition ? you do not actually even  use it  when dealing with the men and women in your life.  that is what is meant by the idea that gender is a social construct.  i do not need to run dna tests on people to determine their gender i let them show me or tell me.  it does in your mind.  you probbly do not recognize this because most people are cisgendered, but you take every single person you meet at face value without evaluating their sex organs or dna.  so what does it mean to say that  a man  is defined by xy chromosomes when someone could present as a man and get you to think of them and treat them as a man despite having xx chromosomes ? gender is how we identify ourselves in a social context, sex is our biological makeup.   #  all babies start out as female in the womb, and if a y chromosome is present a large amount of testosterone is released to masculinize the fetus.   #  sure, no problem.  a phenotype is your gene expression.  for a very simplified example, assume there are only two eye colors, brown b and blue b , which are controlled by a single gene, and b is dominant over b.  each person will have to copies of the eye color gene, one from each of their parents.  people with bb, bb, and bb genes this is the genotype will all have the same phenotype brown eyes .  complete androgen insensitivity syndrom cais is a genetic anomaly in which there are no working receptors for androgens testosterone .  all babies start out as female in the womb, and if a y chromosome is present a large amount of testosterone is released to masculinize the fetus.  if a person has cais, the testosterone released does nothing, because it cannot be  read  by the cells and the fetus, despite having xy chromosomes, is born a girl.  note: there are also incomplete forms of androgen insensitivity, where the individual is born intersex, further complicating the matter.   #  there are masculine trans women and feminine trans men.   #  gender is self identity; sex is biology.  a person who self identifies as a woman or girl is a woman or girl.  a person who self identifies as a man or boy is a man or boy.  a person who self identifies as outside the gender binary is outside the gender binary.  by self identity i mean how you view and label yourself in your head.  a trans man might publicly identify as a woman but self identify as a man.  a person is gender remember, self identity can be influenced by many things; such as having sex dysphoria or being gender role non conforming but it does not have to be.  there are masculine trans women and feminine trans men.  i suck at explaining things so if you are confused at anything i wrote; just ask :
i am confused with the whole transgender movement and gender identity and the various gender identities etc.  that are finding ground now in communities, both offline and online.  i am not against transgender people and believe in rights for all, i am just here to understand.  i have an opinion that i want challenged so i can see if my opinion is actually sound or whether it is ignorant.  basically, i think that our mind whilst in a biological body that is structured a certain way is not  amale  or  female  in itself.  for example, a woman who  feels  they are a man because of their private, subjective experience as a thinking person is basing this off a sexist idea of how men  are .  the things that define what a  aman  is is essentially a penis, and likewise, a vagina for a woman anatomically and scientifically .  there might be a certain way the brain works in relation to what gender you are, but that is because you are biologically that gender.  if you are another gender, how can you possibly feel what it is like to be a gender that is not your own ? is it not a sexist or otherwise unjustified opinion ? right now, to me, it is similar to the idea that a man can understand what it is like to have a period or a woman knowing what it is like to have an erection basically: you do not .  how does this movement count as something sound, normal and sane ? it feels like it is sexism about what one or another sex is  willike  and people accept it.  cmv.   #  the things that define what a  aman  is is essentially a penis, and likewise, a vagina for a woman anatomically and scientifically .   #  there might be a certain way the brain works in relation to what gender you are, but that is because you are biologically that gender.   # for example, a woman who  feels  they are a man because of their private, subjective experience as a thinking person is basing this off a sexist idea of how men  are .  so, i am not sure exactly what you mean by transgender.  if by that, you mean someone who is transsexual, then your example excludes the issue of physical dysphoria, of which i give an account here URL however, you seem to be describing someone who lacks physical dysphoria.  he does not have problems recognizing his own body, but he does identify with male archetypes and male pronouns.  in which case, he might choose to change his physical appearance so that others can recognize him as a man.  however, i do not think this is based on a sexist idea of what a man is.  it is simply a recognition of men as  in kind  the same way we would recognize and identify with someone who shared  any  feature of ours.  there might be a certain way the brain works in relation to what gender you are, but that is because you are biologically that gender.  if you are another gender, how can you possibly feel what it is like to be a gender that is not your own ? there is a difference between feeling what it is like to be one gender and your brain identifying itself with a gender that is not in kind with your physical sexual characteristics.  the pain of being trans is that you ca not experience what it is to be the gender with which you identify but you want to and you feel it would be more natural or right for you to experience the world that way.  for example, i feel like i am dressing in drag when i wear women is clothes or make up.  and i feel weird when someone treats me as if i am a woman.  there is just something off about it.  but when i am dressed as a man and others see me as a man, i feel more myself.  much more at home.  a lot of my social anxiety dissipates when i am presenting as male.  because i feel as if people can see me for who i really am.   #  if i lose my penis am i no longer a man ?  #  i am not sure why you are signaling out trans  people and individuals who identify as other genders when everyone has a gender identity.  you, me, people you encounter every day.  i was born into the male sex and i identify as a man.  should cisgendered people also not have a gender identity ? if i lose my penis am i no longer a man ? what about people born with both genitals ? what gender should they identify as ? let is do a little thought experiment to show what i am talking about here.  imagine you are at a bar, and the friend you were waiting for shows up with a coworker you have never met before.  how do you identify that person is gender ? do you ask to inspect their genitals before you begin using gendered pronouns like he or she ? do you request a dna test so you can determine their chromosomal composition and ensure they are biologically the gender they present as ? probably not, you do what everyone else does and base your idea of their gender on how they present.  so when you say that a person is gender is defined by their genitals that is blatantly untrue.  you will accept a person is gender without having to check under the hood.  there is also a few studies that show how trans  people is brains work differently, and indeed that male and female brains work differently with trans  individual is brains acting more like the brain of the opposite sex.  source: URL sorry it is a mobile link.   #  that is what is meant by the idea that gender is a social construct.   # they only define your sex.  if you do not have to verify that a person is a man before treating them like one what is the point of this definition ? you do not actually even  use it  when dealing with the men and women in your life.  that is what is meant by the idea that gender is a social construct.  i do not need to run dna tests on people to determine their gender i let them show me or tell me.  it does in your mind.  you probbly do not recognize this because most people are cisgendered, but you take every single person you meet at face value without evaluating their sex organs or dna.  so what does it mean to say that  a man  is defined by xy chromosomes when someone could present as a man and get you to think of them and treat them as a man despite having xx chromosomes ? gender is how we identify ourselves in a social context, sex is our biological makeup.   #  if a person has cais, the testosterone released does nothing, because it cannot be  read  by the cells and the fetus, despite having xy chromosomes, is born a girl.   #  sure, no problem.  a phenotype is your gene expression.  for a very simplified example, assume there are only two eye colors, brown b and blue b , which are controlled by a single gene, and b is dominant over b.  each person will have to copies of the eye color gene, one from each of their parents.  people with bb, bb, and bb genes this is the genotype will all have the same phenotype brown eyes .  complete androgen insensitivity syndrom cais is a genetic anomaly in which there are no working receptors for androgens testosterone .  all babies start out as female in the womb, and if a y chromosome is present a large amount of testosterone is released to masculinize the fetus.  if a person has cais, the testosterone released does nothing, because it cannot be  read  by the cells and the fetus, despite having xy chromosomes, is born a girl.  note: there are also incomplete forms of androgen insensitivity, where the individual is born intersex, further complicating the matter.   #  there are masculine trans women and feminine trans men.   #  gender is self identity; sex is biology.  a person who self identifies as a woman or girl is a woman or girl.  a person who self identifies as a man or boy is a man or boy.  a person who self identifies as outside the gender binary is outside the gender binary.  by self identity i mean how you view and label yourself in your head.  a trans man might publicly identify as a woman but self identify as a man.  a person is gender remember, self identity can be influenced by many things; such as having sex dysphoria or being gender role non conforming but it does not have to be.  there are masculine trans women and feminine trans men.  i suck at explaining things so if you are confused at anything i wrote; just ask :
i believe that euthanasia should be legalized and available to anyone that has been confirmed to be in the right state of mind to make the decision.  i would argue based on this one point and hope that it stays with this point , that euthanasia is far better than suicide.  although suicide is illegal currently, it is too easy to commit suicide that anyone can easily do it.  one can see euthanasia as a form of regulated suicide, that has many more advantages over it.  to start, suicide can cause many problems for the state, be it in the cleaning process or even trying to find relatives to claim the body.  it is an unnecessary trouble that can be avoided easily with euthanasia.  another reason that suicide is commonly frowned upon is that it is often committed without thinking it through fully.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  euthanasia would solve that problem as well.  as euthanasia is in a sense, regulated suicide, the person should have to go through many trials to first confirm that he is thinking straight and that it is his real wish to die.  this process could purposely be prolonged, such that the person is given a second chance to reconsider.  in this way, perhaps it might actually save lives.  also, if it were found that the person was not even in the right state of mind, it would serve as an alarm to his relatives, who would be informed that he has tried to apply for euthanasia.  with this method, the relatives can know what is going on, instead of suddenly hearing that a loved one has committed suicide.  as such, legalizing euthanasia would not only ease the aftermath, but also help confirm the true wishes of those attempting suicide.   #  although suicide is illegal currently, it is too easy to commit suicide that anyone can easily do it.   #  i do not know where you live, but suicide is hardly ever illegal.   #  i agree that euthanasia should be legal, but hardly for the reason of making suicides less problematic.  voluntary euthanasia should be an option for people suffering form terminal illnessess, or for illnesses that has a rapid loss of function and quality of life such as some dementias .  these cases could be fairly easy to set up some rules on, as to which diagnoses should be considered, and having people deciding well before they ever start considering suicide as an option, and so forth.  as a general option for suicidal people though, i think its a bad idea.  i do not know where you live, but suicide is hardly ever illegal.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  this is not really the case.  while some subgroups of the population might commit suicide in an impulsive fashion such as young men with access to guns , the absolut majority of suicides are thought through and involves a long period of time of planning and thinking it through.  faulty thinking under the influence of depression, sure, but the thinking part is there.  and many people  do  talk about their plans to commit suicide, admitting it to family and friends and even mental health professionals prior to actually doing it.  your  euthanasia board  wo not add anything ground breaking except for the actual method of dying.  if you want euthanasia as an alternative for people that want to die, why keep them alive through  many trials , most likely continuing the suffering they want to escape ? who decides on this  right state of mind  ? does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ? should it be enough that the person believes in some sort of life after death to sign off on the euthanasia ? is it enough that someone comes in with a history of prolonged and deep depression that for some reason has not responded to treatment to warrant the state killing him or her ?  #  as far as i know, it is illegal.   # as far as i know, it is illegal.  heard that it is done so that the police can have grounds to stop the person if someone was found doing so.  either way it does not really make a difference here.  and if they want to die, then why not provide a painless way of doing so ? to check if they really want to die, if it is really them making the decision.  many is just an exaggeration, it does not in actuality have to take too long as long as it is a sufficient period of time.  does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ?  #  anyway, while i think euthanasia should actually be an option in some cases, you have to understand that suicide is a complex question, with a lot of shame, illness and sadness surrounding it.   # but if all it adds is  a painless way to die  why is not your cmv  lethal doses of drugs should be available over the counter on any pharmacy ?   i am actually a psychologists and do not want this as a part of my job description at all.  i think that every clinical psychologists i have ever met would agree that as long as it is a  normal  suicidal patient, no one would say  yeah, this person is beyond saving and has made a sound decision to not live.   though there are legit medical conditions where i think that a euthanasia program would be a benefit, but since what you are discussing here seems to be  an option to every day suicide , i think it would be absurd.  think of the unintended consequences of a person getting a  no  from the euthanasia board because some board member got the wrong impression.  they had to go though filling out forms, being interviewed, rated, screened for illness, just to be denied a peaceful death in the end and having to drink bleach ? think of the problems of saying yes when the answer should have been no ? does this sound like a promising system ? does it sound cost effective ? anyway, while i think euthanasia should actually be an option in some cases, you have to understand that suicide is a complex question, with a lot of shame, illness and sadness surrounding it.  i do not find your points convincing, and instead of a  right to euthanasia  the important thing do discuss is the stigma regarding mental illness in general and suicide and suicidal thoughts/gestures in particular.  but that was not really your cmv.  lastly, i recommend you read or listen to a recent npr piece on the subject, regarding a psychologists that committed suicide at the face of alzheimers disease.  it raises a lot of good quesitons ! URL  #  i will try to to this in a more structured way: you said it would stop suicides because they are done in the heat of the moment.   #  well, first of all, what she did is not illegal, she already has the option of ending her life, even though it in her case required jumping through some hoops.  the benefit in her case of a euthanasia board where she could apply, would be slim.  second, this is the kind of euthanasia i actually would support but i think this could be designed as a discussion between a patient and his/her physician, not your euthanasia program.  what i objected to in the op was that there should be a general euthanasia program available for the run of the mill suicides.  i will try to to this in a more structured way: you said it would stop suicides because they are done in the heat of the moment.  firstly, this is only a small subset of suicides, and i am pretty confident in that it would not have any effect on those cases.  a person in an acute crisis as those sudden suicides often are would most likely not rationally choose between  should i jump out the window and kill myself or call up the euthanasia board and have them send out the forms for me to apply and do this in a more ordered fashion ?   another of your claim was that this would have a positive side effect of working as a deterrent for suicides.  suicide prevention is not a mystery, we know to work with this; how to educate mental health professionals in this field to work with the issue.  as a likely side effect of having a better suicide prevention in society, the stigma surrounding it would lessen, and the taboo might lessen, making people talk about suicidal thoughts and having a general positive effect.  your euthanasia program would not be free, would come with unintended consequences, and we have no idea how it would effect rates of suicide.  it might give a more painless death for a couple of people a year, but that is about it.  instead we could work within the current system to try to achieve what you think your idea might do.   #  a lethal dose of morphine, in contrast, is fairly cheap and only needs to be purchased one time.   #  my issue with something like this is that our medical system is usa here  for profit , and that means that it is a potential issue if the euthanasia  treatment  is cheaper than treating the causes of the symptoms that are causing the person to seek euthanasia.  for example, certain forms of cancer are very painful and hard to treat.  chemotherapy, multiple hospital stays, and expensive painpills over a period of years is very expensive.  a lethal dose of morphine, in contrast, is fairly cheap and only needs to be purchased one time.  so it would be potentially cheaper to convince the state to allow the morphine for 0 patients rather than treating the cancer that makes them want to get euthanasia.  as such, i would expect that such treatments will be harder to get covered in a state where this plan is legal.  they probably wo not outright ban chemo, but it is going to be harder to convince a for profit company to treat someone if it is cheaper to kill them.  so instead of this being the  right to die , it will be  duty to die  because the alternative is going bankrupt trying to pay for treatments out of pocket while fighting an insurance company.
i believe that euthanasia should be legalized and available to anyone that has been confirmed to be in the right state of mind to make the decision.  i would argue based on this one point and hope that it stays with this point , that euthanasia is far better than suicide.  although suicide is illegal currently, it is too easy to commit suicide that anyone can easily do it.  one can see euthanasia as a form of regulated suicide, that has many more advantages over it.  to start, suicide can cause many problems for the state, be it in the cleaning process or even trying to find relatives to claim the body.  it is an unnecessary trouble that can be avoided easily with euthanasia.  another reason that suicide is commonly frowned upon is that it is often committed without thinking it through fully.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  euthanasia would solve that problem as well.  as euthanasia is in a sense, regulated suicide, the person should have to go through many trials to first confirm that he is thinking straight and that it is his real wish to die.  this process could purposely be prolonged, such that the person is given a second chance to reconsider.  in this way, perhaps it might actually save lives.  also, if it were found that the person was not even in the right state of mind, it would serve as an alarm to his relatives, who would be informed that he has tried to apply for euthanasia.  with this method, the relatives can know what is going on, instead of suddenly hearing that a loved one has committed suicide.  as such, legalizing euthanasia would not only ease the aftermath, but also help confirm the true wishes of those attempting suicide.   #  another reason that suicide is commonly frowned upon is that it is often committed without thinking it through fully.   #  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.   #  i agree that euthanasia should be legal, but hardly for the reason of making suicides less problematic.  voluntary euthanasia should be an option for people suffering form terminal illnessess, or for illnesses that has a rapid loss of function and quality of life such as some dementias .  these cases could be fairly easy to set up some rules on, as to which diagnoses should be considered, and having people deciding well before they ever start considering suicide as an option, and so forth.  as a general option for suicidal people though, i think its a bad idea.  i do not know where you live, but suicide is hardly ever illegal.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  this is not really the case.  while some subgroups of the population might commit suicide in an impulsive fashion such as young men with access to guns , the absolut majority of suicides are thought through and involves a long period of time of planning and thinking it through.  faulty thinking under the influence of depression, sure, but the thinking part is there.  and many people  do  talk about their plans to commit suicide, admitting it to family and friends and even mental health professionals prior to actually doing it.  your  euthanasia board  wo not add anything ground breaking except for the actual method of dying.  if you want euthanasia as an alternative for people that want to die, why keep them alive through  many trials , most likely continuing the suffering they want to escape ? who decides on this  right state of mind  ? does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ? should it be enough that the person believes in some sort of life after death to sign off on the euthanasia ? is it enough that someone comes in with a history of prolonged and deep depression that for some reason has not responded to treatment to warrant the state killing him or her ?  #  and if they want to die, then why not provide a painless way of doing so ?  # as far as i know, it is illegal.  heard that it is done so that the police can have grounds to stop the person if someone was found doing so.  either way it does not really make a difference here.  and if they want to die, then why not provide a painless way of doing so ? to check if they really want to die, if it is really them making the decision.  many is just an exaggeration, it does not in actuality have to take too long as long as it is a sufficient period of time.  does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ?  #  i am actually a psychologists and do not want this as a part of my job description at all.   # but if all it adds is  a painless way to die  why is not your cmv  lethal doses of drugs should be available over the counter on any pharmacy ?   i am actually a psychologists and do not want this as a part of my job description at all.  i think that every clinical psychologists i have ever met would agree that as long as it is a  normal  suicidal patient, no one would say  yeah, this person is beyond saving and has made a sound decision to not live.   though there are legit medical conditions where i think that a euthanasia program would be a benefit, but since what you are discussing here seems to be  an option to every day suicide , i think it would be absurd.  think of the unintended consequences of a person getting a  no  from the euthanasia board because some board member got the wrong impression.  they had to go though filling out forms, being interviewed, rated, screened for illness, just to be denied a peaceful death in the end and having to drink bleach ? think of the problems of saying yes when the answer should have been no ? does this sound like a promising system ? does it sound cost effective ? anyway, while i think euthanasia should actually be an option in some cases, you have to understand that suicide is a complex question, with a lot of shame, illness and sadness surrounding it.  i do not find your points convincing, and instead of a  right to euthanasia  the important thing do discuss is the stigma regarding mental illness in general and suicide and suicidal thoughts/gestures in particular.  but that was not really your cmv.  lastly, i recommend you read or listen to a recent npr piece on the subject, regarding a psychologists that committed suicide at the face of alzheimers disease.  it raises a lot of good quesitons ! URL  #  second, this is the kind of euthanasia i actually would support but i think this could be designed as a discussion between a patient and his/her physician, not your euthanasia program.   #  well, first of all, what she did is not illegal, she already has the option of ending her life, even though it in her case required jumping through some hoops.  the benefit in her case of a euthanasia board where she could apply, would be slim.  second, this is the kind of euthanasia i actually would support but i think this could be designed as a discussion between a patient and his/her physician, not your euthanasia program.  what i objected to in the op was that there should be a general euthanasia program available for the run of the mill suicides.  i will try to to this in a more structured way: you said it would stop suicides because they are done in the heat of the moment.  firstly, this is only a small subset of suicides, and i am pretty confident in that it would not have any effect on those cases.  a person in an acute crisis as those sudden suicides often are would most likely not rationally choose between  should i jump out the window and kill myself or call up the euthanasia board and have them send out the forms for me to apply and do this in a more ordered fashion ?   another of your claim was that this would have a positive side effect of working as a deterrent for suicides.  suicide prevention is not a mystery, we know to work with this; how to educate mental health professionals in this field to work with the issue.  as a likely side effect of having a better suicide prevention in society, the stigma surrounding it would lessen, and the taboo might lessen, making people talk about suicidal thoughts and having a general positive effect.  your euthanasia program would not be free, would come with unintended consequences, and we have no idea how it would effect rates of suicide.  it might give a more painless death for a couple of people a year, but that is about it.  instead we could work within the current system to try to achieve what you think your idea might do.   #  chemotherapy, multiple hospital stays, and expensive painpills over a period of years is very expensive.   #  my issue with something like this is that our medical system is usa here  for profit , and that means that it is a potential issue if the euthanasia  treatment  is cheaper than treating the causes of the symptoms that are causing the person to seek euthanasia.  for example, certain forms of cancer are very painful and hard to treat.  chemotherapy, multiple hospital stays, and expensive painpills over a period of years is very expensive.  a lethal dose of morphine, in contrast, is fairly cheap and only needs to be purchased one time.  so it would be potentially cheaper to convince the state to allow the morphine for 0 patients rather than treating the cancer that makes them want to get euthanasia.  as such, i would expect that such treatments will be harder to get covered in a state where this plan is legal.  they probably wo not outright ban chemo, but it is going to be harder to convince a for profit company to treat someone if it is cheaper to kill them.  so instead of this being the  right to die , it will be  duty to die  because the alternative is going bankrupt trying to pay for treatments out of pocket while fighting an insurance company.
i believe that euthanasia should be legalized and available to anyone that has been confirmed to be in the right state of mind to make the decision.  i would argue based on this one point and hope that it stays with this point , that euthanasia is far better than suicide.  although suicide is illegal currently, it is too easy to commit suicide that anyone can easily do it.  one can see euthanasia as a form of regulated suicide, that has many more advantages over it.  to start, suicide can cause many problems for the state, be it in the cleaning process or even trying to find relatives to claim the body.  it is an unnecessary trouble that can be avoided easily with euthanasia.  another reason that suicide is commonly frowned upon is that it is often committed without thinking it through fully.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  euthanasia would solve that problem as well.  as euthanasia is in a sense, regulated suicide, the person should have to go through many trials to first confirm that he is thinking straight and that it is his real wish to die.  this process could purposely be prolonged, such that the person is given a second chance to reconsider.  in this way, perhaps it might actually save lives.  also, if it were found that the person was not even in the right state of mind, it would serve as an alarm to his relatives, who would be informed that he has tried to apply for euthanasia.  with this method, the relatives can know what is going on, instead of suddenly hearing that a loved one has committed suicide.  as such, legalizing euthanasia would not only ease the aftermath, but also help confirm the true wishes of those attempting suicide.   #  as euthanasia is in a sense, regulated suicide, the person should have to go through many trials to first confirm that he is thinking straight and that it is his real wish to die.   #  if you want euthanasia as an alternative for people that want to die, why keep them alive through  many trials , most likely continuing the suffering they want to escape ?  #  i agree that euthanasia should be legal, but hardly for the reason of making suicides less problematic.  voluntary euthanasia should be an option for people suffering form terminal illnessess, or for illnesses that has a rapid loss of function and quality of life such as some dementias .  these cases could be fairly easy to set up some rules on, as to which diagnoses should be considered, and having people deciding well before they ever start considering suicide as an option, and so forth.  as a general option for suicidal people though, i think its a bad idea.  i do not know where you live, but suicide is hardly ever illegal.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  this is not really the case.  while some subgroups of the population might commit suicide in an impulsive fashion such as young men with access to guns , the absolut majority of suicides are thought through and involves a long period of time of planning and thinking it through.  faulty thinking under the influence of depression, sure, but the thinking part is there.  and many people  do  talk about their plans to commit suicide, admitting it to family and friends and even mental health professionals prior to actually doing it.  your  euthanasia board  wo not add anything ground breaking except for the actual method of dying.  if you want euthanasia as an alternative for people that want to die, why keep them alive through  many trials , most likely continuing the suffering they want to escape ? who decides on this  right state of mind  ? does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ? should it be enough that the person believes in some sort of life after death to sign off on the euthanasia ? is it enough that someone comes in with a history of prolonged and deep depression that for some reason has not responded to treatment to warrant the state killing him or her ?  #  either way it does not really make a difference here.   # as far as i know, it is illegal.  heard that it is done so that the police can have grounds to stop the person if someone was found doing so.  either way it does not really make a difference here.  and if they want to die, then why not provide a painless way of doing so ? to check if they really want to die, if it is really them making the decision.  many is just an exaggeration, it does not in actuality have to take too long as long as it is a sufficient period of time.  does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ?  #  lastly, i recommend you read or listen to a recent npr piece on the subject, regarding a psychologists that committed suicide at the face of alzheimers disease.   # but if all it adds is  a painless way to die  why is not your cmv  lethal doses of drugs should be available over the counter on any pharmacy ?   i am actually a psychologists and do not want this as a part of my job description at all.  i think that every clinical psychologists i have ever met would agree that as long as it is a  normal  suicidal patient, no one would say  yeah, this person is beyond saving and has made a sound decision to not live.   though there are legit medical conditions where i think that a euthanasia program would be a benefit, but since what you are discussing here seems to be  an option to every day suicide , i think it would be absurd.  think of the unintended consequences of a person getting a  no  from the euthanasia board because some board member got the wrong impression.  they had to go though filling out forms, being interviewed, rated, screened for illness, just to be denied a peaceful death in the end and having to drink bleach ? think of the problems of saying yes when the answer should have been no ? does this sound like a promising system ? does it sound cost effective ? anyway, while i think euthanasia should actually be an option in some cases, you have to understand that suicide is a complex question, with a lot of shame, illness and sadness surrounding it.  i do not find your points convincing, and instead of a  right to euthanasia  the important thing do discuss is the stigma regarding mental illness in general and suicide and suicidal thoughts/gestures in particular.  but that was not really your cmv.  lastly, i recommend you read or listen to a recent npr piece on the subject, regarding a psychologists that committed suicide at the face of alzheimers disease.  it raises a lot of good quesitons ! URL  #  another of your claim was that this would have a positive side effect of working as a deterrent for suicides.   #  well, first of all, what she did is not illegal, she already has the option of ending her life, even though it in her case required jumping through some hoops.  the benefit in her case of a euthanasia board where she could apply, would be slim.  second, this is the kind of euthanasia i actually would support but i think this could be designed as a discussion between a patient and his/her physician, not your euthanasia program.  what i objected to in the op was that there should be a general euthanasia program available for the run of the mill suicides.  i will try to to this in a more structured way: you said it would stop suicides because they are done in the heat of the moment.  firstly, this is only a small subset of suicides, and i am pretty confident in that it would not have any effect on those cases.  a person in an acute crisis as those sudden suicides often are would most likely not rationally choose between  should i jump out the window and kill myself or call up the euthanasia board and have them send out the forms for me to apply and do this in a more ordered fashion ?   another of your claim was that this would have a positive side effect of working as a deterrent for suicides.  suicide prevention is not a mystery, we know to work with this; how to educate mental health professionals in this field to work with the issue.  as a likely side effect of having a better suicide prevention in society, the stigma surrounding it would lessen, and the taboo might lessen, making people talk about suicidal thoughts and having a general positive effect.  your euthanasia program would not be free, would come with unintended consequences, and we have no idea how it would effect rates of suicide.  it might give a more painless death for a couple of people a year, but that is about it.  instead we could work within the current system to try to achieve what you think your idea might do.   #  a lethal dose of morphine, in contrast, is fairly cheap and only needs to be purchased one time.   #  my issue with something like this is that our medical system is usa here  for profit , and that means that it is a potential issue if the euthanasia  treatment  is cheaper than treating the causes of the symptoms that are causing the person to seek euthanasia.  for example, certain forms of cancer are very painful and hard to treat.  chemotherapy, multiple hospital stays, and expensive painpills over a period of years is very expensive.  a lethal dose of morphine, in contrast, is fairly cheap and only needs to be purchased one time.  so it would be potentially cheaper to convince the state to allow the morphine for 0 patients rather than treating the cancer that makes them want to get euthanasia.  as such, i would expect that such treatments will be harder to get covered in a state where this plan is legal.  they probably wo not outright ban chemo, but it is going to be harder to convince a for profit company to treat someone if it is cheaper to kill them.  so instead of this being the  right to die , it will be  duty to die  because the alternative is going bankrupt trying to pay for treatments out of pocket while fighting an insurance company.
i believe that euthanasia should be legalized and available to anyone that has been confirmed to be in the right state of mind to make the decision.  i would argue based on this one point and hope that it stays with this point , that euthanasia is far better than suicide.  although suicide is illegal currently, it is too easy to commit suicide that anyone can easily do it.  one can see euthanasia as a form of regulated suicide, that has many more advantages over it.  to start, suicide can cause many problems for the state, be it in the cleaning process or even trying to find relatives to claim the body.  it is an unnecessary trouble that can be avoided easily with euthanasia.  another reason that suicide is commonly frowned upon is that it is often committed without thinking it through fully.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  euthanasia would solve that problem as well.  as euthanasia is in a sense, regulated suicide, the person should have to go through many trials to first confirm that he is thinking straight and that it is his real wish to die.  this process could purposely be prolonged, such that the person is given a second chance to reconsider.  in this way, perhaps it might actually save lives.  also, if it were found that the person was not even in the right state of mind, it would serve as an alarm to his relatives, who would be informed that he has tried to apply for euthanasia.  with this method, the relatives can know what is going on, instead of suddenly hearing that a loved one has committed suicide.  as such, legalizing euthanasia would not only ease the aftermath, but also help confirm the true wishes of those attempting suicide.   #  also, if it were found that the person was not even in the right state of mind, it would serve as an alarm to his relatives, who would be informed that he has tried to apply for euthanasia.   #  who decides on this  right state of mind  ?  #  i agree that euthanasia should be legal, but hardly for the reason of making suicides less problematic.  voluntary euthanasia should be an option for people suffering form terminal illnessess, or for illnesses that has a rapid loss of function and quality of life such as some dementias .  these cases could be fairly easy to set up some rules on, as to which diagnoses should be considered, and having people deciding well before they ever start considering suicide as an option, and so forth.  as a general option for suicidal people though, i think its a bad idea.  i do not know where you live, but suicide is hardly ever illegal.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  this is not really the case.  while some subgroups of the population might commit suicide in an impulsive fashion such as young men with access to guns , the absolut majority of suicides are thought through and involves a long period of time of planning and thinking it through.  faulty thinking under the influence of depression, sure, but the thinking part is there.  and many people  do  talk about their plans to commit suicide, admitting it to family and friends and even mental health professionals prior to actually doing it.  your  euthanasia board  wo not add anything ground breaking except for the actual method of dying.  if you want euthanasia as an alternative for people that want to die, why keep them alive through  many trials , most likely continuing the suffering they want to escape ? who decides on this  right state of mind  ? does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ? should it be enough that the person believes in some sort of life after death to sign off on the euthanasia ? is it enough that someone comes in with a history of prolonged and deep depression that for some reason has not responded to treatment to warrant the state killing him or her ?  #  to check if they really want to die, if it is really them making the decision.   # as far as i know, it is illegal.  heard that it is done so that the police can have grounds to stop the person if someone was found doing so.  either way it does not really make a difference here.  and if they want to die, then why not provide a painless way of doing so ? to check if they really want to die, if it is really them making the decision.  many is just an exaggeration, it does not in actuality have to take too long as long as it is a sufficient period of time.  does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ?  #  though there are legit medical conditions where i think that a euthanasia program would be a benefit, but since what you are discussing here seems to be  an option to every day suicide , i think it would be absurd.   # but if all it adds is  a painless way to die  why is not your cmv  lethal doses of drugs should be available over the counter on any pharmacy ?   i am actually a psychologists and do not want this as a part of my job description at all.  i think that every clinical psychologists i have ever met would agree that as long as it is a  normal  suicidal patient, no one would say  yeah, this person is beyond saving and has made a sound decision to not live.   though there are legit medical conditions where i think that a euthanasia program would be a benefit, but since what you are discussing here seems to be  an option to every day suicide , i think it would be absurd.  think of the unintended consequences of a person getting a  no  from the euthanasia board because some board member got the wrong impression.  they had to go though filling out forms, being interviewed, rated, screened for illness, just to be denied a peaceful death in the end and having to drink bleach ? think of the problems of saying yes when the answer should have been no ? does this sound like a promising system ? does it sound cost effective ? anyway, while i think euthanasia should actually be an option in some cases, you have to understand that suicide is a complex question, with a lot of shame, illness and sadness surrounding it.  i do not find your points convincing, and instead of a  right to euthanasia  the important thing do discuss is the stigma regarding mental illness in general and suicide and suicidal thoughts/gestures in particular.  but that was not really your cmv.  lastly, i recommend you read or listen to a recent npr piece on the subject, regarding a psychologists that committed suicide at the face of alzheimers disease.  it raises a lot of good quesitons ! URL  #  your euthanasia program would not be free, would come with unintended consequences, and we have no idea how it would effect rates of suicide.   #  well, first of all, what she did is not illegal, she already has the option of ending her life, even though it in her case required jumping through some hoops.  the benefit in her case of a euthanasia board where she could apply, would be slim.  second, this is the kind of euthanasia i actually would support but i think this could be designed as a discussion between a patient and his/her physician, not your euthanasia program.  what i objected to in the op was that there should be a general euthanasia program available for the run of the mill suicides.  i will try to to this in a more structured way: you said it would stop suicides because they are done in the heat of the moment.  firstly, this is only a small subset of suicides, and i am pretty confident in that it would not have any effect on those cases.  a person in an acute crisis as those sudden suicides often are would most likely not rationally choose between  should i jump out the window and kill myself or call up the euthanasia board and have them send out the forms for me to apply and do this in a more ordered fashion ?   another of your claim was that this would have a positive side effect of working as a deterrent for suicides.  suicide prevention is not a mystery, we know to work with this; how to educate mental health professionals in this field to work with the issue.  as a likely side effect of having a better suicide prevention in society, the stigma surrounding it would lessen, and the taboo might lessen, making people talk about suicidal thoughts and having a general positive effect.  your euthanasia program would not be free, would come with unintended consequences, and we have no idea how it would effect rates of suicide.  it might give a more painless death for a couple of people a year, but that is about it.  instead we could work within the current system to try to achieve what you think your idea might do.   #  they probably wo not outright ban chemo, but it is going to be harder to convince a for profit company to treat someone if it is cheaper to kill them.   #  my issue with something like this is that our medical system is usa here  for profit , and that means that it is a potential issue if the euthanasia  treatment  is cheaper than treating the causes of the symptoms that are causing the person to seek euthanasia.  for example, certain forms of cancer are very painful and hard to treat.  chemotherapy, multiple hospital stays, and expensive painpills over a period of years is very expensive.  a lethal dose of morphine, in contrast, is fairly cheap and only needs to be purchased one time.  so it would be potentially cheaper to convince the state to allow the morphine for 0 patients rather than treating the cancer that makes them want to get euthanasia.  as such, i would expect that such treatments will be harder to get covered in a state where this plan is legal.  they probably wo not outright ban chemo, but it is going to be harder to convince a for profit company to treat someone if it is cheaper to kill them.  so instead of this being the  right to die , it will be  duty to die  because the alternative is going bankrupt trying to pay for treatments out of pocket while fighting an insurance company.
i believe that euthanasia should be legalized and available to anyone that has been confirmed to be in the right state of mind to make the decision.  i would argue based on this one point and hope that it stays with this point , that euthanasia is far better than suicide.  although suicide is illegal currently, it is too easy to commit suicide that anyone can easily do it.  one can see euthanasia as a form of regulated suicide, that has many more advantages over it.  to start, suicide can cause many problems for the state, be it in the cleaning process or even trying to find relatives to claim the body.  it is an unnecessary trouble that can be avoided easily with euthanasia.  another reason that suicide is commonly frowned upon is that it is often committed without thinking it through fully.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  euthanasia would solve that problem as well.  as euthanasia is in a sense, regulated suicide, the person should have to go through many trials to first confirm that he is thinking straight and that it is his real wish to die.  this process could purposely be prolonged, such that the person is given a second chance to reconsider.  in this way, perhaps it might actually save lives.  also, if it were found that the person was not even in the right state of mind, it would serve as an alarm to his relatives, who would be informed that he has tried to apply for euthanasia.  with this method, the relatives can know what is going on, instead of suddenly hearing that a loved one has committed suicide.  as such, legalizing euthanasia would not only ease the aftermath, but also help confirm the true wishes of those attempting suicide.   #  to start, suicide can cause many problems for the state, be it in the cleaning process or even trying to find relatives to claim the body.   #  it is an unnecessary trouble that can be avoided easily with euthanasia.   #  i will assume that you are speaking of implementing a euthanasia program in the united states.  it is an unnecessary trouble that can be avoided easily with euthanasia.  yes, your premise of a highly regulated euthanasia program would avert the issues quoted above, but at what cost ? given how poorly the medical system is run int he u. s. , do you really trust the same system to regulate massive amounts of psychiatric evaluations, with each patient being seen by multiple psychiatrists ? in this way, perhaps it might actually save lives.  also, if it were found that the person was not even in the right state of mind, it would serve as an alarm to his relatives, who would be informed that he has tried to apply for euthanasia.  i disagree that the average person seeking out euthanasia would be so compliant with a heavy regulated and long system.  for someone that is suicidal, it seems like it would quickly get easier to take a few extra sleeping pills rather than undergo intense psychiatric evaluation over a long period of time.  in addition, the risk of family being notified would be a significant deterrent due to the potential damage to relationships.  i concede that in a theoretical sense, yes, many advantages can be ascribed to a euthanasia program.  but i argue that when considering the true nature of the people that this program would be serving, combined with the track record of treating and managing mental illness, a euthanasia program would be an overall burden on society and largely ineffective.   #  voluntary euthanasia should be an option for people suffering form terminal illnessess, or for illnesses that has a rapid loss of function and quality of life such as some dementias .   #  i agree that euthanasia should be legal, but hardly for the reason of making suicides less problematic.  voluntary euthanasia should be an option for people suffering form terminal illnessess, or for illnesses that has a rapid loss of function and quality of life such as some dementias .  these cases could be fairly easy to set up some rules on, as to which diagnoses should be considered, and having people deciding well before they ever start considering suicide as an option, and so forth.  as a general option for suicidal people though, i think its a bad idea.  i do not know where you live, but suicide is hardly ever illegal.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  this is not really the case.  while some subgroups of the population might commit suicide in an impulsive fashion such as young men with access to guns , the absolut majority of suicides are thought through and involves a long period of time of planning and thinking it through.  faulty thinking under the influence of depression, sure, but the thinking part is there.  and many people  do  talk about their plans to commit suicide, admitting it to family and friends and even mental health professionals prior to actually doing it.  your  euthanasia board  wo not add anything ground breaking except for the actual method of dying.  if you want euthanasia as an alternative for people that want to die, why keep them alive through  many trials , most likely continuing the suffering they want to escape ? who decides on this  right state of mind  ? does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ? should it be enough that the person believes in some sort of life after death to sign off on the euthanasia ? is it enough that someone comes in with a history of prolonged and deep depression that for some reason has not responded to treatment to warrant the state killing him or her ?  #  as far as i know, it is illegal.   # as far as i know, it is illegal.  heard that it is done so that the police can have grounds to stop the person if someone was found doing so.  either way it does not really make a difference here.  and if they want to die, then why not provide a painless way of doing so ? to check if they really want to die, if it is really them making the decision.  many is just an exaggeration, it does not in actuality have to take too long as long as it is a sufficient period of time.  does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ?  #  i am actually a psychologists and do not want this as a part of my job description at all.   # but if all it adds is  a painless way to die  why is not your cmv  lethal doses of drugs should be available over the counter on any pharmacy ?   i am actually a psychologists and do not want this as a part of my job description at all.  i think that every clinical psychologists i have ever met would agree that as long as it is a  normal  suicidal patient, no one would say  yeah, this person is beyond saving and has made a sound decision to not live.   though there are legit medical conditions where i think that a euthanasia program would be a benefit, but since what you are discussing here seems to be  an option to every day suicide , i think it would be absurd.  think of the unintended consequences of a person getting a  no  from the euthanasia board because some board member got the wrong impression.  they had to go though filling out forms, being interviewed, rated, screened for illness, just to be denied a peaceful death in the end and having to drink bleach ? think of the problems of saying yes when the answer should have been no ? does this sound like a promising system ? does it sound cost effective ? anyway, while i think euthanasia should actually be an option in some cases, you have to understand that suicide is a complex question, with a lot of shame, illness and sadness surrounding it.  i do not find your points convincing, and instead of a  right to euthanasia  the important thing do discuss is the stigma regarding mental illness in general and suicide and suicidal thoughts/gestures in particular.  but that was not really your cmv.  lastly, i recommend you read or listen to a recent npr piece on the subject, regarding a psychologists that committed suicide at the face of alzheimers disease.  it raises a lot of good quesitons ! URL  #  another of your claim was that this would have a positive side effect of working as a deterrent for suicides.   #  well, first of all, what she did is not illegal, she already has the option of ending her life, even though it in her case required jumping through some hoops.  the benefit in her case of a euthanasia board where she could apply, would be slim.  second, this is the kind of euthanasia i actually would support but i think this could be designed as a discussion between a patient and his/her physician, not your euthanasia program.  what i objected to in the op was that there should be a general euthanasia program available for the run of the mill suicides.  i will try to to this in a more structured way: you said it would stop suicides because they are done in the heat of the moment.  firstly, this is only a small subset of suicides, and i am pretty confident in that it would not have any effect on those cases.  a person in an acute crisis as those sudden suicides often are would most likely not rationally choose between  should i jump out the window and kill myself or call up the euthanasia board and have them send out the forms for me to apply and do this in a more ordered fashion ?   another of your claim was that this would have a positive side effect of working as a deterrent for suicides.  suicide prevention is not a mystery, we know to work with this; how to educate mental health professionals in this field to work with the issue.  as a likely side effect of having a better suicide prevention in society, the stigma surrounding it would lessen, and the taboo might lessen, making people talk about suicidal thoughts and having a general positive effect.  your euthanasia program would not be free, would come with unintended consequences, and we have no idea how it would effect rates of suicide.  it might give a more painless death for a couple of people a year, but that is about it.  instead we could work within the current system to try to achieve what you think your idea might do.
i believe that euthanasia should be legalized and available to anyone that has been confirmed to be in the right state of mind to make the decision.  i would argue based on this one point and hope that it stays with this point , that euthanasia is far better than suicide.  although suicide is illegal currently, it is too easy to commit suicide that anyone can easily do it.  one can see euthanasia as a form of regulated suicide, that has many more advantages over it.  to start, suicide can cause many problems for the state, be it in the cleaning process or even trying to find relatives to claim the body.  it is an unnecessary trouble that can be avoided easily with euthanasia.  another reason that suicide is commonly frowned upon is that it is often committed without thinking it through fully.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  euthanasia would solve that problem as well.  as euthanasia is in a sense, regulated suicide, the person should have to go through many trials to first confirm that he is thinking straight and that it is his real wish to die.  this process could purposely be prolonged, such that the person is given a second chance to reconsider.  in this way, perhaps it might actually save lives.  also, if it were found that the person was not even in the right state of mind, it would serve as an alarm to his relatives, who would be informed that he has tried to apply for euthanasia.  with this method, the relatives can know what is going on, instead of suddenly hearing that a loved one has committed suicide.  as such, legalizing euthanasia would not only ease the aftermath, but also help confirm the true wishes of those attempting suicide.   #  this process could purposely be prolonged, such that the person is given a second chance to reconsider.   #  in this way, perhaps it might actually save lives.   #  i will assume that you are speaking of implementing a euthanasia program in the united states.  it is an unnecessary trouble that can be avoided easily with euthanasia.  yes, your premise of a highly regulated euthanasia program would avert the issues quoted above, but at what cost ? given how poorly the medical system is run int he u. s. , do you really trust the same system to regulate massive amounts of psychiatric evaluations, with each patient being seen by multiple psychiatrists ? in this way, perhaps it might actually save lives.  also, if it were found that the person was not even in the right state of mind, it would serve as an alarm to his relatives, who would be informed that he has tried to apply for euthanasia.  i disagree that the average person seeking out euthanasia would be so compliant with a heavy regulated and long system.  for someone that is suicidal, it seems like it would quickly get easier to take a few extra sleeping pills rather than undergo intense psychiatric evaluation over a long period of time.  in addition, the risk of family being notified would be a significant deterrent due to the potential damage to relationships.  i concede that in a theoretical sense, yes, many advantages can be ascribed to a euthanasia program.  but i argue that when considering the true nature of the people that this program would be serving, combined with the track record of treating and managing mental illness, a euthanasia program would be an overall burden on society and largely ineffective.   #  should it be enough that the person believes in some sort of life after death to sign off on the euthanasia ?  #  i agree that euthanasia should be legal, but hardly for the reason of making suicides less problematic.  voluntary euthanasia should be an option for people suffering form terminal illnessess, or for illnesses that has a rapid loss of function and quality of life such as some dementias .  these cases could be fairly easy to set up some rules on, as to which diagnoses should be considered, and having people deciding well before they ever start considering suicide as an option, and so forth.  as a general option for suicidal people though, i think its a bad idea.  i do not know where you live, but suicide is hardly ever illegal.  many people commit suicide in a moment of haste, and many who are stopped are found to regret trying it.  this is not really the case.  while some subgroups of the population might commit suicide in an impulsive fashion such as young men with access to guns , the absolut majority of suicides are thought through and involves a long period of time of planning and thinking it through.  faulty thinking under the influence of depression, sure, but the thinking part is there.  and many people  do  talk about their plans to commit suicide, admitting it to family and friends and even mental health professionals prior to actually doing it.  your  euthanasia board  wo not add anything ground breaking except for the actual method of dying.  if you want euthanasia as an alternative for people that want to die, why keep them alive through  many trials , most likely continuing the suffering they want to escape ? who decides on this  right state of mind  ? does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ? should it be enough that the person believes in some sort of life after death to sign off on the euthanasia ? is it enough that someone comes in with a history of prolonged and deep depression that for some reason has not responded to treatment to warrant the state killing him or her ?  #  heard that it is done so that the police can have grounds to stop the person if someone was found doing so.   # as far as i know, it is illegal.  heard that it is done so that the police can have grounds to stop the person if someone was found doing so.  either way it does not really make a difference here.  and if they want to die, then why not provide a painless way of doing so ? to check if they really want to die, if it is really them making the decision.  many is just an exaggeration, it does not in actuality have to take too long as long as it is a sufficient period of time.  does the person need to be eloquent and well read enough to make a philosophical case on why he/she should be allowed to die ?  #  i think that every clinical psychologists i have ever met would agree that as long as it is a  normal  suicidal patient, no one would say  yeah, this person is beyond saving and has made a sound decision to not live.    # but if all it adds is  a painless way to die  why is not your cmv  lethal doses of drugs should be available over the counter on any pharmacy ?   i am actually a psychologists and do not want this as a part of my job description at all.  i think that every clinical psychologists i have ever met would agree that as long as it is a  normal  suicidal patient, no one would say  yeah, this person is beyond saving and has made a sound decision to not live.   though there are legit medical conditions where i think that a euthanasia program would be a benefit, but since what you are discussing here seems to be  an option to every day suicide , i think it would be absurd.  think of the unintended consequences of a person getting a  no  from the euthanasia board because some board member got the wrong impression.  they had to go though filling out forms, being interviewed, rated, screened for illness, just to be denied a peaceful death in the end and having to drink bleach ? think of the problems of saying yes when the answer should have been no ? does this sound like a promising system ? does it sound cost effective ? anyway, while i think euthanasia should actually be an option in some cases, you have to understand that suicide is a complex question, with a lot of shame, illness and sadness surrounding it.  i do not find your points convincing, and instead of a  right to euthanasia  the important thing do discuss is the stigma regarding mental illness in general and suicide and suicidal thoughts/gestures in particular.  but that was not really your cmv.  lastly, i recommend you read or listen to a recent npr piece on the subject, regarding a psychologists that committed suicide at the face of alzheimers disease.  it raises a lot of good quesitons ! URL  #  firstly, this is only a small subset of suicides, and i am pretty confident in that it would not have any effect on those cases.   #  well, first of all, what she did is not illegal, she already has the option of ending her life, even though it in her case required jumping through some hoops.  the benefit in her case of a euthanasia board where she could apply, would be slim.  second, this is the kind of euthanasia i actually would support but i think this could be designed as a discussion between a patient and his/her physician, not your euthanasia program.  what i objected to in the op was that there should be a general euthanasia program available for the run of the mill suicides.  i will try to to this in a more structured way: you said it would stop suicides because they are done in the heat of the moment.  firstly, this is only a small subset of suicides, and i am pretty confident in that it would not have any effect on those cases.  a person in an acute crisis as those sudden suicides often are would most likely not rationally choose between  should i jump out the window and kill myself or call up the euthanasia board and have them send out the forms for me to apply and do this in a more ordered fashion ?   another of your claim was that this would have a positive side effect of working as a deterrent for suicides.  suicide prevention is not a mystery, we know to work with this; how to educate mental health professionals in this field to work with the issue.  as a likely side effect of having a better suicide prevention in society, the stigma surrounding it would lessen, and the taboo might lessen, making people talk about suicidal thoughts and having a general positive effect.  your euthanasia program would not be free, would come with unintended consequences, and we have no idea how it would effect rates of suicide.  it might give a more painless death for a couple of people a year, but that is about it.  instead we could work within the current system to try to achieve what you think your idea might do.
i am married, have a good, stable job, own a car, have a home mortgage .  i can afford to do what i want, when i want outside of working hours .  most importantly, i am now old enough 0 where i no longer care what people think of me.  not that i dress like a slob, or ignore my physical appearance i dress well, take care of my skin and hair , i just do not care about the 0 extra pounds i am carrying around.  i am not trying to gain more weight, but i am also not actively trying to lose it either.  i have found being overweight allows me to more quickly understand another person i am interacting with.  unless you are overweight, you would never notice: most healthy people interact differently towards overweight people than they would towards another healthy person.  this difference allows me to more quickly get to know another person.  not that that is an important reason to stay overweight.  i would trade it instantly if that were possible.  if i had a job that required me to stay fit and more importantly, allowed me to work out and seek healthy food throughout work hours, i would imagine myself becoming quite healthy.  but that is not the case.  most people is jobs require them to sit on their butts all day and take timed meal breaks.  not exactly conducive toward exercise and nutrition.  so until employers or the government start allowing exercise during work hours and provide healthy food at all times, what reason do i have to lose weight ?  #  i have found being overweight allows me to more quickly understand another person i am interacting with.   #  unless you are overweight, you would never notice: most healthy people interact differently towards overweight people than they would towards another healthy person.   # unless you are overweight, you would never notice: most healthy people interact differently towards overweight people than they would towards another healthy person.  this difference allows me to more quickly get to know another person.  not that that is an important reason to stay overweight.  i would trade it instantly if that were possible.  this is a complete and frankly; dumb rationalization.  first of all, either you are good at reading people or you are not.  if your ability to gauge people so well from superficial interaction is a nuanced as you claim, you will not lose this ability by getting in shape.  second, i really do not believe that you are able to judge someones personality from merely interacting with them while being fat.  this to me reeks of confirmation bias and retroactive rationalization.   that person was only rude to be because i am fat   i would have gotten that promotion if i wasnt fat  third, even if you were correct and you use your fatness to read people, then this would lead you to the obvious conclusion that people treat you as a fat person more poorly than they would treat you if you were fit.  this directly contradicts your claim that you can see  no reason  to get fit.  since you assert that fat people are treated worse than fit people, and that is a clearly a reason.   #  it does not need to be difficult or time consuming; small changes, surprisingly small changes, over time can really add up.   #   i would trade it instantly if that were possible.   this alone seems to suggest that you place some value, at least, on losing your extra pounds.  it does not need to be difficult or time consuming; small changes, surprisingly small changes, over time can really add up.  the benefits are manifold; decreased risks of all kinds of things from heart disease to diabetes, longer lifespan, improved sleep, more energy.  there are all sorts of benefits.  i am not saying that being overweight makes you a bad person or anything, far from it.  i am not even saying that someone who is the same as you but lighter is a better person.  i am saying, though, that i think you already know that attaining a healthier weight will make you a better person than you are now, better for you and better for your family.  you can do it.   #  i am sure i would feel better in a subjective way , but i feel good the way i am.   #  i probably could do it if i put my mind to it and in the past i have , but at the moment i have no reason.  decreased heart disease, diabetes, longer lifespan.  those are all things that might affect me decades from now.  my yearly doctor is check up finds nothing wrong doctor does of course recommend losing weight .  i have excellent sleep and energy as i tend to eat healthy, i just eat too much hence my stable amount of extra weight.  i am sure i would feel better in a subjective way , but i feel good the way i am.  why should i suffer for a year of my life or however long it takes to lose the extra weight when i am happy the way things are ?  #  also, it is not for a year; it is for forever.   #  first, i do not think it would be fair to call it suffering; if losing weight slowly constitutes suffering, you are doing it wrong.  also, it is not for a year; it is for forever.  people think of diets as things that will end, and wonder why they put weight back on.  healthy eating and exercise is a lifestyle change that lasts forever or it should be .  as to reasons, benefits years from now are still benefits.  if you are happy now, and you consider that happiness in the present to be the purpose of life, then there is not much else to say.  but if you consider health valuable, or future happiness, then losing some weight is the way to serve both those things.  if you want something outside of yourself, it certainly ca not harm your spouse or any kids you may have; it is always good to teach your children healthy habits and a healthy attitude towards their bodies and their future self.   #  i will also need to refrain from certain foods and while i understand eating healthy should be a lifestyle, that is never been my problem.   #  ah,  suffering  was a poor choice of words.  i will more thoroughly explain what i mean: to lose weight today, i need to put my free time towards exercising.  i will no longer have as much free time to do whatever i want.  i will also need to refrain from certain foods and while i understand eating healthy should be a lifestyle, that is never been my problem.  i do not eat fast food and sugary drinks, nor do i consume much alcohol.  i just eat an excess of food.
i am married, have a good, stable job, own a car, have a home mortgage .  i can afford to do what i want, when i want outside of working hours .  most importantly, i am now old enough 0 where i no longer care what people think of me.  not that i dress like a slob, or ignore my physical appearance i dress well, take care of my skin and hair , i just do not care about the 0 extra pounds i am carrying around.  i am not trying to gain more weight, but i am also not actively trying to lose it either.  i have found being overweight allows me to more quickly understand another person i am interacting with.  unless you are overweight, you would never notice: most healthy people interact differently towards overweight people than they would towards another healthy person.  this difference allows me to more quickly get to know another person.  not that that is an important reason to stay overweight.  i would trade it instantly if that were possible.  if i had a job that required me to stay fit and more importantly, allowed me to work out and seek healthy food throughout work hours, i would imagine myself becoming quite healthy.  but that is not the case.  most people is jobs require them to sit on their butts all day and take timed meal breaks.  not exactly conducive toward exercise and nutrition.  so until employers or the government start allowing exercise during work hours and provide healthy food at all times, what reason do i have to lose weight ?  #  so until employers or the government start allowing exercise during work hours and provide healthy food at all times, what reason do i have to lose weight ?  #  your general health and reducing costs of medical expenses in the future ?  # your general health and reducing costs of medical expenses in the future ? 0 pounds overweight is  a lot .  you are basically making the trade of instant gratification now for health ailments in your future that can seriously diminish your quality of life.  additionally, it is not your work is responsibility or the government is for that matter to make sure you are getting exercise and healthy food.  that is yours.  you are a grown ass adult.  take some responsibility.  it is not hard to make time for a 0 minute walk every day and cutting down on some junk food here and there.   #  i am not saying that being overweight makes you a bad person or anything, far from it.   #   i would trade it instantly if that were possible.   this alone seems to suggest that you place some value, at least, on losing your extra pounds.  it does not need to be difficult or time consuming; small changes, surprisingly small changes, over time can really add up.  the benefits are manifold; decreased risks of all kinds of things from heart disease to diabetes, longer lifespan, improved sleep, more energy.  there are all sorts of benefits.  i am not saying that being overweight makes you a bad person or anything, far from it.  i am not even saying that someone who is the same as you but lighter is a better person.  i am saying, though, that i think you already know that attaining a healthier weight will make you a better person than you are now, better for you and better for your family.  you can do it.   #  i am sure i would feel better in a subjective way , but i feel good the way i am.   #  i probably could do it if i put my mind to it and in the past i have , but at the moment i have no reason.  decreased heart disease, diabetes, longer lifespan.  those are all things that might affect me decades from now.  my yearly doctor is check up finds nothing wrong doctor does of course recommend losing weight .  i have excellent sleep and energy as i tend to eat healthy, i just eat too much hence my stable amount of extra weight.  i am sure i would feel better in a subjective way , but i feel good the way i am.  why should i suffer for a year of my life or however long it takes to lose the extra weight when i am happy the way things are ?  #  healthy eating and exercise is a lifestyle change that lasts forever or it should be .   #  first, i do not think it would be fair to call it suffering; if losing weight slowly constitutes suffering, you are doing it wrong.  also, it is not for a year; it is for forever.  people think of diets as things that will end, and wonder why they put weight back on.  healthy eating and exercise is a lifestyle change that lasts forever or it should be .  as to reasons, benefits years from now are still benefits.  if you are happy now, and you consider that happiness in the present to be the purpose of life, then there is not much else to say.  but if you consider health valuable, or future happiness, then losing some weight is the way to serve both those things.  if you want something outside of yourself, it certainly ca not harm your spouse or any kids you may have; it is always good to teach your children healthy habits and a healthy attitude towards their bodies and their future self.   #  i will also need to refrain from certain foods and while i understand eating healthy should be a lifestyle, that is never been my problem.   #  ah,  suffering  was a poor choice of words.  i will more thoroughly explain what i mean: to lose weight today, i need to put my free time towards exercising.  i will no longer have as much free time to do whatever i want.  i will also need to refrain from certain foods and while i understand eating healthy should be a lifestyle, that is never been my problem.  i do not eat fast food and sugary drinks, nor do i consume much alcohol.  i just eat an excess of food.
this came up after i saw this link: URL essentially what is happening is gmail has algorithms that scan your email for child porn and if they find any they report it to the authorities.  no human sees any images or communication that is not illegal except in cases of false positive.  i am totally fine with this, and i would not even consider it to be spying.  i would be quite happy if this program also searched for terrorists, rapists, burglars, or other people who are committing or planning to commit crime.  i agree that spying by humans is a bad thing, but i think the reasons people do not like other people spying on them do not apply to algorithms, so algorithms ca not be lumped into the  ispying  category.  to pre empt two arguments i expect to come up: i am not happy with this program searching for  criminals  who are considered criminals because of a law i disagree with, such as marijuana users.  however, i think changing the law is the correct way to solve that problem.  i think any algorithm that sends the communication to humans for investigation will necessarily have almost no false positives, because criminals are rare enough in our society that even a 0 false positive rate would result in so many false positives that the system would end up being useless.  i am ok with a few false positives anyway.   #  no human sees any images or communication that is not illegal except in cases of false positive.   #  i guess we assume that false positives are rare.   # i guess we assume that false positives are rare.  with a false positive rate of . 0 i am guessing you made this up 0,0 people have had their email read.  perhaps that is just an acceptable loss to society, one i might be willing to make.  the other thing we have to assume is the hopefully benevolent entities concerned.  u. s.  has some good speech protection laws and most of europe too.  what happens {bad guy country x} starts demanding google hand over accounts that have been flagged as political dissidents ? or the us demands the accounts of all users from {bad guy country y} in the name of national security ? do we rely on google to be our protector and accuser ? it absolutely is spying, you just accept it as a sacrifice for the general good.  in fact it is probably more comprehensive than humans only.  humans can only cover some much data, so they have to focus on prime sources apply algorithms .  a computer search can uncover everything of possible interest and allow those 0,0 false positives to be an offering to the greater good.   #  has some good speech protection laws and most of europe too.   # u. s.  has some good speech protection laws and most of europe too.  what happens {bad guy country x} starts demanding google hand over accounts that have been flagged as political dissidents ? or the us demands the accounts of all users from {bad guy country y} in the name of national security ? do we rely on google to be our protector and accuser ? yes.  we already trust google either way though so i do not see how that is relevant.  technically it is spying, i just think it is so different that it does not deserve to be put into the same category.   #  or how able comcast can they just analyze an email traffic that runs through their communications networks ?  # so the act is okay as long as the provider is.  what ? apple   microsoft   yahoo ! facebook   comcast they all have email services do we trust them as well ? what about email that gets sent to other providers, that my only agreement with them is that i sent mail to one of their users ? or how able comcast can they just analyze an email traffic that runs through their communications networks ? if it is okay for them to look at email why stop there ? maybe we should just have all internet providers scan everything, what is a few thousand false positives a day.  that is much better than a few humans you will never meet randomly going through information.   #  they do need to figure out where to send it next.   # what about email that gets sent to other providers, that my only agreement with them is that i sent mail to one of their users ? due to the nature of email, you have to trust the person you send the email to, and the server that accepts it in their behalf.  you also have to trust any server that accepts email on your behalf.  this is not really about trust though.  who is  they  ? is it employees of comcast ? if so, then no, they should not be able to do that.  there may or may not be a technological way to accomplish this goal, i do not know.  we might have to rely on non technological methods to prevent them from snooping.  or is  they  referring to comcast is computers ? it is literally impossible for comcast to operate as an isp if they computers do not analyze the email.  they do need to figure out where to send it next.  i honestly do not see any reason not to.  i am assuming  they  refers to computers in this sentence.  any system that generated a few thousand false positives a day would be useless in real life, and never get deployed.  i am unsure what you are trying to say here.   #  however, computers are incapable of having knowledge so a computer analyzing my emails does not count.   # i addressed this in my post.  i do not think it has to be 0 perfect, if it was 0 perfect that would be fine.  besides, the system would be useless if it was any less, because the false positives would take up all the time.  i am assuming these algorithms exist, even if i do not know how they work.  this is relevant to the nsa, and people who say they have been  put on a list  because they made a reddit post with the word  bomb  in it.  there is no way they have been  put on a list  for that, any automated system that put them on a list for that would be useless because of all the false positives.  if such an algorithm does exist, then it must be good enough that there are not a ton of false positives.  as i said, i do not know how the algorithm would work, but i believe it is existence is possible.  spying is bad for different reasons depending on the context.  peeping tom style spying like watching someone undress when you should not is bad because the person would prefer not to be seen naked, and the spying violates that preference.  there are also aspects of our lives that we prefer that some people do not know, such as our sexual orientation.  if someone spies on my email, they might know my sexual orientation, which i do not want.  however, computers are incapable of having knowledge so a computer analyzing my emails does not count.
when a large organization lays off workers because their jobs are obsolete, labor unions and politicians always get really angry.  they make pleas like  this hurts the middle class !   and  how are these people going to feed their families ?   it feels insensitive to say this, but these are emotional arguments rather than rational ones.  they are arguments with which i sympathize, as someone who is seen friends and family struggle with long term unemployment after getting laid off.  but they are arguments that serve only to make people feel better: they make no difference in the overall trend toward automation.  jobs exist because work needs to get done, not because employers want to feed people is families.  if the work can be done cheaper by a machine than by a human, then it is foolish and ultimately futile for an organization to keep using human labor.  i am a liberal.  i am in favor of legally mandated unemployment benefits, legally mandated retraining programs for laid off workers, and collective bargaining by labor unions.  the view i would like changed is simply that  fighting against the obsolescence of jobs is a waste of time and energy .   #  it feels insensitive to say this, but these are emotional arguments rather than rational ones.   #  starving people tend to, completely rationally, murder their society is powerful business owners and political leaders.   # starving people tend to, completely rationally, murder their society is powerful business owners and political leaders.  moreover, work does not  need  to get done instead there is  demand  for work to be done, and that demand is ultimately driven by workers and the fewer workers, the less demand, so the less work, so the fewer workers, so the less demand.  etc.  it is not polite in our society to  say  that if our economy keeps getting worse that shit will disintegrate, but that is seriously what will happen.  now, i agree that stopping automation is not the best way to address that problem firstly because automation is awesome full disclosure: computer scientist and basically unstoppable in a society that has even vague respect of science, but also because this economic disintegration is not just because of automation; it is because of multiple factors driving down worker wages and thus aggregate product demand.  but if those factors are not addressed, if the broken system that means automation economic contraction poor people starving is not repaired, and inhibiting automation is a worker is and our entire system is best bet at survival, then obviously it is not a waste of  someone is  time and energy, even if you personally wo not starve if they do not succeed.   #  automation is something that needs to happen slowly.   #  automation is something that needs to happen slowly.  a purely economic view of things is shortsighted and leads to widespread societal problems.  do not get me wrong, i am a hardcore capitalist and absolutely adore automation.  but on a macroeconomic scale, rapid automation hurts more than helps the economy.  if you reduce your staff from 0 unskilled workers, to 0 technician, saving the company hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, that sounds great, right ? except now you have 0 more people without an income than before, or in other words, without the buying power to purchase your, or anyone elses , products.  it is the exact same argument as you can have against outsourcing.  you might save more money in the short term, at the cost of reducing the future buying potential of the consumer base.  which effects longterm sustainability and profits.  it would not matter at all if there was a guaranteed income in place.  but there is not, and that is a whole different argument.  regardless of profits and the amount of money in any economic system, the strength of the system is based on re circulation.  we need to create more jobs, even stupid and pointless jobs, to provide people with an income, so they can buy the products we are selling.  even if it costs you only 0 of the selling price to produce a product, if noone can afford to buy it, you will still go out of business.   #  a system that has such glaring mis allocations can make no claims to being efficient or optimal.   # what makes you think we wo not be able to eventually create machines to do that as well ? it makes things better.  or we could make work itself voluntary which is what communism eventually seeks to do.  we live on a planet that currently produces URL enough food URL to feed every individual on it, but our system of distributing this food leads to starvation.  the united states has more vacant homes than it has homeless people URL is this the  optimal  system that you are defending ? or is it not a  true  free market ? a system that has such glaring mis allocations can make no claims to being efficient or optimal.  stalinist systems had these problems because they were authoritarian regimes with no input from individual people, hypothetical communism is supposed to be based on decentralized democracy, and communist theorists have addressed the issue URL  #  yes, if only we just took the food from point a and moved it to point b !  # i never said we wo not, but creating artificial people capable of creating connections is something a bit beyond the scope of what i mean by  amachine .  it has minimal relevance to the discussion of economics as we know it.  work is always voluntary, unless you believe that nature is somehow coercing people.  i guess many communists actually think this so nothing surprises me anymore.    i would challenge your assumption that markets somehow do not lead to poor allocations of resources.  it is not an assumption.  it is called  economics .  yes, if only we just took the food from point a and moved it to point b ! oh wait that is really fucking difficult and there exists an entire field of study about how to move resources around called logistics.  you are looking at things like a child looks at them.  you are focusing on what is, not  why  it is.  never said it was optimal.  that is utopian.  not even close to a free market.  free markets do not have massive corporate subsidies, protectionism, regulations that demand you destroy 0 of your raisin crop etc.  it can make claims that it is more efficient or closer to optimal than other systems.  that is what communism is.  prices are a reflection of individual decisions about how things should be valued.  communism does not have prices.  no they have not.  there is not a single sound rebuttal the economic calculation problem, because there are not better ways of combining dispersed and personal information than prices.  tens of millions of people died pointlessly because they believed what you believe.  you can try to rationalize that away, but maybe you should just talk to someone who had to live through mao is reign or grow up in the ussr.  capitalism has nothing on that.   #  the sun is energy output, while large, is still finite.   #  yes, everything is scarce.  the sun is energy output, while large, is still finite.  metals are finite.  everything is finite, and human desire is infinite.  unless you are saying everyone can have their own death star, there is got to be some scarcity.  and we are not even talking about the scarcity of human capital.  there is only 0 brad pitt, 0 tiger woods.  people themselves are scarce.  whether it is academic genius, artistic talent, or just dashing good looks, people at the top of the bell curve are going to be in high demand.  they are scarce.  the truth is that even if material goods become so cheap, humans will still need to allocate other resources, and so prices will still be useful.  as long as prices are useful, communism is stupid.
yeah, i got into an argument with some asshole so i made a bunch of accounts and downvoted him, like, four or five times.    haha !   alternatively  yeah, i posted a topic and i wanted to try and get it visible so i upvoted it with some bots, like, four or five times.    haha !   those are the hypothetical conversations i assume we would have with our friends if we found out they got banned from reddit for the things unidan did.  there is a weird paradoxical thing i am noticing among people deriding unidan and it is that  imaginary internet points do not matter  and  unidan violated the sanctity of the reddit voting system.   i am not sure you can be self righteous about the latter while also believing the former ? now, those who do have a lot of .  feelings .  invested into the reddit voting system who among them has not downvoted someone they disagreed with ? i have downvoted someone i have disagreed with.  in fact most people i downvote are people who i just really, really disagree with.  i, too, have violated the sanctity of reddit is voting system.  not only that but i believe  all  of you have too.  the general all of you.  as a rule.  should we all throw ourselves on our swords and delete our accounts ? request bans for ourselves ? should we brigade ourselves and downvote all of our own posts ? speaking of brigading .  unidanx is not doing so hot karma wise and i do not think it has anything to do with the quality of his posts.  should all of those downvoters be banned ? i am just having a hard time getting as worked up as some of these other people.  the following are real quotes people are making about or towards unidan.  i mean, shit.  i wish i would thought of a way to get famous by downvoting new posts.  that is right.  unidan was the dream of reddit, but the sober reality is a nightmare.   #  there is a weird paradoxical thing i am noticing among people deriding unidan and it is that  imaginary internet points do not matter  and  unidan violated the sanctity of the reddit voting system.    #  i am not sure you can be self righteous about the latter while also believing the former ?  # i am not sure you can be self righteous about the latter while also believing the former ? generally people who say that about imaginary internet points mean that the intentional  accumulation  of these points, putting more value on having more than other people rather than promoting discussion or sharing content, is what does not matter not the voting system itself.  certainly, but there is a difference between downvoting someone. and feeling the need to downvote them five times.  everyone is given the right to upvote, downvote, or do nothing exactly once per post/comment.  anything beyond that is cheating.  certainly there are different degrees of dishonesty, but the fact that he profited possibly monetarily, definitely socially in part by cheating, makes people angry.  particularly because he had such a good image beforehand.   #  when it was revealed that he had cheated, that belief was broken.   #  i think that the anger is slightly overkill, but warranted.  unidan was a very popular user, even if you exclude the  imaginary internet points .  some people really looked up to him.  his constantly upbeat tone which i always found a bit saccharine, to be honest was in direct contrast to the cynicism and anger that is expressed by most reddit users.  people in threads would say his name over and over again until he eventually showed up to answer a question.  a lot of people used him to represent the  good side  of reddit, because he was informative and not outwardly hostile.  even though the vote manipulation did not change what he wrote, it changed the way people viewed him.  it turned out that one of reddit is most popular users had cheated.  if it was just some power user who had manipulated the system to get ridiculous amounts of karma, it would not be such a big deal.  but people assumed that unidan was better than them.  people assumed that he got where he was by the quality of his posts.  when it was revealed that he had cheated, that belief was broken.  i think that a lot of users subconsciously extrapolated that to mean that nothing truly good ever happens here.   #  personally, i still view unidan as someone who represents the good side of reddit, even with the vote manipulation.   #  personally, i still view unidan as someone who represents the good side of reddit, even with the vote manipulation.  even though he abused the voting system, reddit is still full of people who are actually nasty towards others.  there are entire subreddits and not just fringe ones with a few subscribers dedicated only to hating other people.  in almost any bigger discussion you can find people hurling insults at others, and these insults often get actually upvoted.  people often do anyting to make others look bad.  to me, unidan is vote manipulation is really insignificant when compared to that, he still seems like a generally good guy.   #  if you are just setting it all up, what is the point ?  # people often do anyting to make others look bad.  to me, unidan is vote manipulation is really insignificant when compared to that, he still seems like a generally good guy.  i disagree here.  i do not really see reddit as such a rotten place anyway.  these people who throw in an insult on occasion or have a go at someone are fine with me.  why would that upset anyone they are open, we are not personally and emotionally connected, there is no reason to have high bullshit tolerance.  it does not mean anything most of the time, it is just a direct approach, honest reaction.  what he was doing was sneaky.  he was creating a personality, an image, and being something different.  and that makes him look like a loser because it shows that the kicks he got from this place are just connected to popularity.  those who act rude do it openly and let it speak for them, whether you choose to like them or avoid them or downvote them.  we all care a bit about the reception of our posts, there is no shame in admitting that.  or that getting good responses and compliments ca not feel good.  but it feels good exactly because you can just be yourself here with no facade so it can have a meaning.  if you are just setting it all up, what is the point ? you really then just are pathetic.   #  and lets not pretend that just because it is a trivial act in the grand scheme of things, it does not say a lot about his personality.   #  and lets not pretend that just because it is a trivial act in the grand scheme of things, it does not say a lot about his personality.  in fact small things often say the most.  for all of our enjoyment of reddit, we can at least admit we are into this.  we are all strangers, talking, giving opinions.  he was made into some personality here and people liked him.  then they realized they did not.  if it is all irrelevant, than the hate now is irrelevant too and should not be condemned because it is just a part of the little game we are all playing here.  if we keep saying this is not serious, than where is the joy of it ?
yeah, i got into an argument with some asshole so i made a bunch of accounts and downvoted him, like, four or five times.    haha !   alternatively  yeah, i posted a topic and i wanted to try and get it visible so i upvoted it with some bots, like, four or five times.    haha !   those are the hypothetical conversations i assume we would have with our friends if we found out they got banned from reddit for the things unidan did.  there is a weird paradoxical thing i am noticing among people deriding unidan and it is that  imaginary internet points do not matter  and  unidan violated the sanctity of the reddit voting system.   i am not sure you can be self righteous about the latter while also believing the former ? now, those who do have a lot of .  feelings .  invested into the reddit voting system who among them has not downvoted someone they disagreed with ? i have downvoted someone i have disagreed with.  in fact most people i downvote are people who i just really, really disagree with.  i, too, have violated the sanctity of reddit is voting system.  not only that but i believe  all  of you have too.  the general all of you.  as a rule.  should we all throw ourselves on our swords and delete our accounts ? request bans for ourselves ? should we brigade ourselves and downvote all of our own posts ? speaking of brigading .  unidanx is not doing so hot karma wise and i do not think it has anything to do with the quality of his posts.  should all of those downvoters be banned ? i am just having a hard time getting as worked up as some of these other people.  the following are real quotes people are making about or towards unidan.  i mean, shit.  i wish i would thought of a way to get famous by downvoting new posts.  that is right.  unidan was the dream of reddit, but the sober reality is a nightmare.   #  who among them has not downvoted someone they disagreed with ?  #  certainly, but there is a difference between downvoting someone. and feeling the need to downvote them five times.   # i am not sure you can be self righteous about the latter while also believing the former ? generally people who say that about imaginary internet points mean that the intentional  accumulation  of these points, putting more value on having more than other people rather than promoting discussion or sharing content, is what does not matter not the voting system itself.  certainly, but there is a difference between downvoting someone. and feeling the need to downvote them five times.  everyone is given the right to upvote, downvote, or do nothing exactly once per post/comment.  anything beyond that is cheating.  certainly there are different degrees of dishonesty, but the fact that he profited possibly monetarily, definitely socially in part by cheating, makes people angry.  particularly because he had such a good image beforehand.   #  it turned out that one of reddit is most popular users had cheated.   #  i think that the anger is slightly overkill, but warranted.  unidan was a very popular user, even if you exclude the  imaginary internet points .  some people really looked up to him.  his constantly upbeat tone which i always found a bit saccharine, to be honest was in direct contrast to the cynicism and anger that is expressed by most reddit users.  people in threads would say his name over and over again until he eventually showed up to answer a question.  a lot of people used him to represent the  good side  of reddit, because he was informative and not outwardly hostile.  even though the vote manipulation did not change what he wrote, it changed the way people viewed him.  it turned out that one of reddit is most popular users had cheated.  if it was just some power user who had manipulated the system to get ridiculous amounts of karma, it would not be such a big deal.  but people assumed that unidan was better than them.  people assumed that he got where he was by the quality of his posts.  when it was revealed that he had cheated, that belief was broken.  i think that a lot of users subconsciously extrapolated that to mean that nothing truly good ever happens here.   #  personally, i still view unidan as someone who represents the good side of reddit, even with the vote manipulation.   #  personally, i still view unidan as someone who represents the good side of reddit, even with the vote manipulation.  even though he abused the voting system, reddit is still full of people who are actually nasty towards others.  there are entire subreddits and not just fringe ones with a few subscribers dedicated only to hating other people.  in almost any bigger discussion you can find people hurling insults at others, and these insults often get actually upvoted.  people often do anyting to make others look bad.  to me, unidan is vote manipulation is really insignificant when compared to that, he still seems like a generally good guy.   #  people often do anyting to make others look bad.   # people often do anyting to make others look bad.  to me, unidan is vote manipulation is really insignificant when compared to that, he still seems like a generally good guy.  i disagree here.  i do not really see reddit as such a rotten place anyway.  these people who throw in an insult on occasion or have a go at someone are fine with me.  why would that upset anyone they are open, we are not personally and emotionally connected, there is no reason to have high bullshit tolerance.  it does not mean anything most of the time, it is just a direct approach, honest reaction.  what he was doing was sneaky.  he was creating a personality, an image, and being something different.  and that makes him look like a loser because it shows that the kicks he got from this place are just connected to popularity.  those who act rude do it openly and let it speak for them, whether you choose to like them or avoid them or downvote them.  we all care a bit about the reception of our posts, there is no shame in admitting that.  or that getting good responses and compliments ca not feel good.  but it feels good exactly because you can just be yourself here with no facade so it can have a meaning.  if you are just setting it all up, what is the point ? you really then just are pathetic.   #  he was made into some personality here and people liked him.   #  and lets not pretend that just because it is a trivial act in the grand scheme of things, it does not say a lot about his personality.  in fact small things often say the most.  for all of our enjoyment of reddit, we can at least admit we are into this.  we are all strangers, talking, giving opinions.  he was made into some personality here and people liked him.  then they realized they did not.  if it is all irrelevant, than the hate now is irrelevant too and should not be condemned because it is just a part of the little game we are all playing here.  if we keep saying this is not serious, than where is the joy of it ?
yeah, i got into an argument with some asshole so i made a bunch of accounts and downvoted him, like, four or five times.    haha !   alternatively  yeah, i posted a topic and i wanted to try and get it visible so i upvoted it with some bots, like, four or five times.    haha !   those are the hypothetical conversations i assume we would have with our friends if we found out they got banned from reddit for the things unidan did.  there is a weird paradoxical thing i am noticing among people deriding unidan and it is that  imaginary internet points do not matter  and  unidan violated the sanctity of the reddit voting system.   i am not sure you can be self righteous about the latter while also believing the former ? now, those who do have a lot of .  feelings .  invested into the reddit voting system who among them has not downvoted someone they disagreed with ? i have downvoted someone i have disagreed with.  in fact most people i downvote are people who i just really, really disagree with.  i, too, have violated the sanctity of reddit is voting system.  not only that but i believe  all  of you have too.  the general all of you.  as a rule.  should we all throw ourselves on our swords and delete our accounts ? request bans for ourselves ? should we brigade ourselves and downvote all of our own posts ? speaking of brigading .  unidanx is not doing so hot karma wise and i do not think it has anything to do with the quality of his posts.  should all of those downvoters be banned ? i am just having a hard time getting as worked up as some of these other people.  the following are real quotes people are making about or towards unidan.  i mean, shit.  i wish i would thought of a way to get famous by downvoting new posts.  that is right.  unidan was the dream of reddit, but the sober reality is a nightmare.   #  there is a weird paradoxical thing i am noticing among people deriding unidan and it is that  imaginary internet points do not matter  and  unidan violated the sanctity of the reddit voting system.    #  i am not sure you can be self righteous about the latter while also believing the former ?  # i am not sure you can be self righteous about the latter while also believing the former ? for starters, you ca not really treat reddit users as interchangeable parts all espousing the same views about the voting system.  some users marginalize karma as  imaginary internet points,  others do not.  some revere the integrity of the voting system, some do not.  i am sure if we were to draw a venn diagram of each of these, we would have a hypocritical overlap, but not enough for it to be outrageous.  more to the point, i doubt unidan did this for points alone so much as visibility.  unidan does not care about a million karma points.  he cares about the handful that give his posts early exposure.  even if we were to believe his explanation that he did it just to get posts out of the new queue, that is problematic in itself.  lots of content is in the new queue by lots of people, some more meritorious than others, and the point of the voting system is allegedly  better  content or at least user preferred content makes it to the top.  increased visibility means increased probability of having your content seen by broad swaths of people.  that is marketable and, make no mistake about it, unidan marketed himself.  this is usually the point where people get mad.  free gold, internet notoriety, and a cultivated positive reputation can be very beneficial to a person.  it would not be the first time someone became an internet personality and  commodified  it, especially with all the recent buzz around  science  personalities.  that does not touch on the more likely situation articulated by admins that he was downvoting people disagreeing him and unduly bolstering his own opinion.  again, this likely was not about a number of points gained, just artificially boosting support and credibility on his part.  not the best quality in a person pursuing a phd in a field that likely has a peer review component, and it definitely grinds against a lot of the social mores that have developed on reddit over time.  no one likes feeling as though they have been duped by a person they had previously respected.   #  if it was just some power user who had manipulated the system to get ridiculous amounts of karma, it would not be such a big deal.   #  i think that the anger is slightly overkill, but warranted.  unidan was a very popular user, even if you exclude the  imaginary internet points .  some people really looked up to him.  his constantly upbeat tone which i always found a bit saccharine, to be honest was in direct contrast to the cynicism and anger that is expressed by most reddit users.  people in threads would say his name over and over again until he eventually showed up to answer a question.  a lot of people used him to represent the  good side  of reddit, because he was informative and not outwardly hostile.  even though the vote manipulation did not change what he wrote, it changed the way people viewed him.  it turned out that one of reddit is most popular users had cheated.  if it was just some power user who had manipulated the system to get ridiculous amounts of karma, it would not be such a big deal.  but people assumed that unidan was better than them.  people assumed that he got where he was by the quality of his posts.  when it was revealed that he had cheated, that belief was broken.  i think that a lot of users subconsciously extrapolated that to mean that nothing truly good ever happens here.   #  there are entire subreddits and not just fringe ones with a few subscribers dedicated only to hating other people.   #  personally, i still view unidan as someone who represents the good side of reddit, even with the vote manipulation.  even though he abused the voting system, reddit is still full of people who are actually nasty towards others.  there are entire subreddits and not just fringe ones with a few subscribers dedicated only to hating other people.  in almost any bigger discussion you can find people hurling insults at others, and these insults often get actually upvoted.  people often do anyting to make others look bad.  to me, unidan is vote manipulation is really insignificant when compared to that, he still seems like a generally good guy.   #  or that getting good responses and compliments ca not feel good.   # people often do anyting to make others look bad.  to me, unidan is vote manipulation is really insignificant when compared to that, he still seems like a generally good guy.  i disagree here.  i do not really see reddit as such a rotten place anyway.  these people who throw in an insult on occasion or have a go at someone are fine with me.  why would that upset anyone they are open, we are not personally and emotionally connected, there is no reason to have high bullshit tolerance.  it does not mean anything most of the time, it is just a direct approach, honest reaction.  what he was doing was sneaky.  he was creating a personality, an image, and being something different.  and that makes him look like a loser because it shows that the kicks he got from this place are just connected to popularity.  those who act rude do it openly and let it speak for them, whether you choose to like them or avoid them or downvote them.  we all care a bit about the reception of our posts, there is no shame in admitting that.  or that getting good responses and compliments ca not feel good.  but it feels good exactly because you can just be yourself here with no facade so it can have a meaning.  if you are just setting it all up, what is the point ? you really then just are pathetic.   #  and lets not pretend that just because it is a trivial act in the grand scheme of things, it does not say a lot about his personality.   #  and lets not pretend that just because it is a trivial act in the grand scheme of things, it does not say a lot about his personality.  in fact small things often say the most.  for all of our enjoyment of reddit, we can at least admit we are into this.  we are all strangers, talking, giving opinions.  he was made into some personality here and people liked him.  then they realized they did not.  if it is all irrelevant, than the hate now is irrelevant too and should not be condemned because it is just a part of the little game we are all playing here.  if we keep saying this is not serious, than where is the joy of it ?
yeah, i got into an argument with some asshole so i made a bunch of accounts and downvoted him, like, four or five times.    haha !   alternatively  yeah, i posted a topic and i wanted to try and get it visible so i upvoted it with some bots, like, four or five times.    haha !   those are the hypothetical conversations i assume we would have with our friends if we found out they got banned from reddit for the things unidan did.  there is a weird paradoxical thing i am noticing among people deriding unidan and it is that  imaginary internet points do not matter  and  unidan violated the sanctity of the reddit voting system.   i am not sure you can be self righteous about the latter while also believing the former ? now, those who do have a lot of .  feelings .  invested into the reddit voting system who among them has not downvoted someone they disagreed with ? i have downvoted someone i have disagreed with.  in fact most people i downvote are people who i just really, really disagree with.  i, too, have violated the sanctity of reddit is voting system.  not only that but i believe  all  of you have too.  the general all of you.  as a rule.  should we all throw ourselves on our swords and delete our accounts ? request bans for ourselves ? should we brigade ourselves and downvote all of our own posts ? speaking of brigading .  unidanx is not doing so hot karma wise and i do not think it has anything to do with the quality of his posts.  should all of those downvoters be banned ? i am just having a hard time getting as worked up as some of these other people.  the following are real quotes people are making about or towards unidan.  i mean, shit.  i wish i would thought of a way to get famous by downvoting new posts.  that is right.  unidan was the dream of reddit, but the sober reality is a nightmare.   #  i have downvoted someone i have disagreed with.   #  in fact most people i downvote are people who i just really, really disagree with.   # in fact most people i downvote are people who i just really, really disagree with.  i, too, have violated the sanctity of reddit is voting system.  downvoting on it is own is not gaming the system.  what unidan was doing was downvoting all the posts near his and upvoting his in the new queue, hiding everyone else is posts and promoting his own artificially.  that is gaming the system, and against the rules, and why he was shadowbanned.  downvoting people you disagree with is not against the site is rules, so your comparison is weak.   #  his constantly upbeat tone which i always found a bit saccharine, to be honest was in direct contrast to the cynicism and anger that is expressed by most reddit users.   #  i think that the anger is slightly overkill, but warranted.  unidan was a very popular user, even if you exclude the  imaginary internet points .  some people really looked up to him.  his constantly upbeat tone which i always found a bit saccharine, to be honest was in direct contrast to the cynicism and anger that is expressed by most reddit users.  people in threads would say his name over and over again until he eventually showed up to answer a question.  a lot of people used him to represent the  good side  of reddit, because he was informative and not outwardly hostile.  even though the vote manipulation did not change what he wrote, it changed the way people viewed him.  it turned out that one of reddit is most popular users had cheated.  if it was just some power user who had manipulated the system to get ridiculous amounts of karma, it would not be such a big deal.  but people assumed that unidan was better than them.  people assumed that he got where he was by the quality of his posts.  when it was revealed that he had cheated, that belief was broken.  i think that a lot of users subconsciously extrapolated that to mean that nothing truly good ever happens here.   #  personally, i still view unidan as someone who represents the good side of reddit, even with the vote manipulation.   #  personally, i still view unidan as someone who represents the good side of reddit, even with the vote manipulation.  even though he abused the voting system, reddit is still full of people who are actually nasty towards others.  there are entire subreddits and not just fringe ones with a few subscribers dedicated only to hating other people.  in almost any bigger discussion you can find people hurling insults at others, and these insults often get actually upvoted.  people often do anyting to make others look bad.  to me, unidan is vote manipulation is really insignificant when compared to that, he still seems like a generally good guy.   #  or that getting good responses and compliments ca not feel good.   # people often do anyting to make others look bad.  to me, unidan is vote manipulation is really insignificant when compared to that, he still seems like a generally good guy.  i disagree here.  i do not really see reddit as such a rotten place anyway.  these people who throw in an insult on occasion or have a go at someone are fine with me.  why would that upset anyone they are open, we are not personally and emotionally connected, there is no reason to have high bullshit tolerance.  it does not mean anything most of the time, it is just a direct approach, honest reaction.  what he was doing was sneaky.  he was creating a personality, an image, and being something different.  and that makes him look like a loser because it shows that the kicks he got from this place are just connected to popularity.  those who act rude do it openly and let it speak for them, whether you choose to like them or avoid them or downvote them.  we all care a bit about the reception of our posts, there is no shame in admitting that.  or that getting good responses and compliments ca not feel good.  but it feels good exactly because you can just be yourself here with no facade so it can have a meaning.  if you are just setting it all up, what is the point ? you really then just are pathetic.   #  and lets not pretend that just because it is a trivial act in the grand scheme of things, it does not say a lot about his personality.   #  and lets not pretend that just because it is a trivial act in the grand scheme of things, it does not say a lot about his personality.  in fact small things often say the most.  for all of our enjoyment of reddit, we can at least admit we are into this.  we are all strangers, talking, giving opinions.  he was made into some personality here and people liked him.  then they realized they did not.  if it is all irrelevant, than the hate now is irrelevant too and should not be condemned because it is just a part of the little game we are all playing here.  if we keep saying this is not serious, than where is the joy of it ?
i have always believed that abortion is a good thing.  in addition to usually helping people with stem cells, it ensures that there will never be a child born into unfair circumstances, such as poverty or inadequate parenting.  i am not exactly  pro choice , but i definitely think that anytime it is necessary for a embryo/fetus/baby to be painlessly euthanized, it is okay.  afterall, anything is better than the pain of years of unfit conditions that a child could grow up in if they are not wanted, or if their parents ca not afford them.  i think abortion is okay.  cmv, reddit !  #  i have always believed that abortion is a good thing.   #  in rough terms i am with you.   # in rough terms i am with you.  i think most people who have not deliberately attempted to become pregnant are probably not ready to have a child, and therefore should have an abortion.  well, it would do if all poor or inadequate prospective parents chose to have an abortion, but often poor people find it hardest to access abortion or contraception, and also poor people on average struggle the most to be good parents URL   i am not exactly  pro choice , but i definitely think that anytime it is necessary for a embryo/fetus/baby to be painlessly euthanized, it is okay.  any  time ? two weeks before its due date, an embryo is more or less indistinguishable from a new born baby.  at that point an abortion would be equivalent to killing a child, which is one reason why i believe there should be a time limit on when you can legally have one.  on a side note, as prenatal tech improves it is likely we will reach a point where most babies over the time limit will have a good chance of surviving in artificial wombs, which will impact legislation.  if you are not pro choice then why do you say it is  okay in any case  ? i would say i am pro abortion, because i believe it should be the default choice for any body that has fallen pregnant without intending to see my comments above , but your position seems to be exactly that of a pro choice person.   #  nasa picked the wrong damn people to start a civilization then.   #  nasa picked the wrong damn people to start a civilization then.  plus, why would it matter if a person aborted, they could always make another right ? also would not nasa make them sign a contract forcing them to give birth to babies ? i would agree if the baby would be handicapped or autistic but i do not see any reason to abort a healthy baby when their sole mission is to procreate.  probs gonna be down voted and sound like an ass but it would be better if they did abort the unhealthy not including handicapped, they do not affect the gene pool i do not think.  ? for the mars mission.  i mean having mars run by autistics is not something we would want.  preparing for the  oh you terrible human being !    #  maybe she is a victim of abuse and the chance to destroy something almost alive gives her a strange, self flagellatory thrill.   #  consider these two scenarios: 0 suppose a woman is part of a secret cult that honors deities by eating aborted fetuses.  the woman, devoted to her religion, agrees to have sex with her husband, abort her fetus, and then distribute the fetus for consumption for the sake of a satanic rite.  0 suppose a woman gets great psychological pleasure from killing fetuses.  this is her only motivation for abortion.  she loves having sex with men, getting fertilized, and then having the ability to kill something in her body.  maybe she is a victim of abuse and the chance to destroy something almost alive gives her a strange, self flagellatory thrill.  could you honestly say that abortion is  totally okay  in either of these scenarios ? if not, then your view that abortion is totally okay in  any  case is false.  there are some scenarios, in which abortion is not totally okay.  a sidenote: in general, absolutes in morality  all,   never,   none,  etc.  are never really true.  can you think of any moral prescription that is literally  always  okay ? i doubt it.  there is always at least one scenario in which certain actions are probably not okay.   #  if not, what do you do with the child ?  #  in first scenario you are either for the freedom of religion or you are not.  this really has nothing to do with abortion itself.  you cannot be for  freedom of every religion, except this one  any more than you can say  i am for freedom of religion but only this religion .  in the second scenario your goal should really be to stop the women from getting impregnated if you feel this needs to be stopped.  are you for forced sterilization ? do you think that would be ok ? if not, what do you do with the child ? force the mother to give birth and hope for the best ?  #  so, is your view really that  abortion is never immoral , or that  immoral abortions should not happen  ?  #  education and economic status itself does nothing to limit bigotry, and often can be used to increase it.  look at the germans in wwii, the british in india, or whites against blacks in america.  these were all some of the most wealthy and educated peoples of their time.  eugenics was a cutting edge field of science and most wealthy clubs were/are  whites only .  regardless, your cmv is  abortion is not immoral in any case .  i have provided cases where i think it would be immoral, and you have said nothing to refute that.  you only say those cases should not exist.  so, is your view really that  abortion is never immoral , or that  immoral abortions should not happen  ?
i have always believed that abortion is a good thing.  in addition to usually helping people with stem cells, it ensures that there will never be a child born into unfair circumstances, such as poverty or inadequate parenting.  i am not exactly  pro choice , but i definitely think that anytime it is necessary for a embryo/fetus/baby to be painlessly euthanized, it is okay.  afterall, anything is better than the pain of years of unfit conditions that a child could grow up in if they are not wanted, or if their parents ca not afford them.  i think abortion is okay.  cmv, reddit !  #  afterall, anything is better than the pain of years of unfit conditions that a child could grow up in if they are not wanted, or if their parents ca not afford them.   #  are you saying that being born into poverty or less that optimal circumstances is so bad that that life is not worth living at all ?  # are you saying that being born into poverty or less that optimal circumstances is so bad that that life is not worth living at all ? if life in sub par conditions is so bad then why are not there massive amounts of suicides amongst third world countries and poor citizens ? is not being wanted by your parents that terrible too ? why do not all the foster children try to kill themselves too ? if life is so bad that it is undoubtedly worth having never been born, certainly they would want to end it themselves, right ? can you never be anything other than poor or unwanted if you are born that way ? can you not be in a better situation 0 years later ? can you not make a good future for yourself if you were born poor or unwanted ? to this group of people that live the life you have described as worse than anything, how is it that they carry on with their lives ? my mother had my oldest brother in highschool and had to raise him in a crappy apartment while going to high school for two more years.  he was raised in one of those  poor  conditions with a parent who could barely afford it.  should i ask him why 0 years later with his good job and wife and kids how he did not come to think that being unplanned and poor the first few years of his life was too terrible to continue into the future ?  #  i would agree if the baby would be handicapped or autistic but i do not see any reason to abort a healthy baby when their sole mission is to procreate.   #  nasa picked the wrong damn people to start a civilization then.  plus, why would it matter if a person aborted, they could always make another right ? also would not nasa make them sign a contract forcing them to give birth to babies ? i would agree if the baby would be handicapped or autistic but i do not see any reason to abort a healthy baby when their sole mission is to procreate.  probs gonna be down voted and sound like an ass but it would be better if they did abort the unhealthy not including handicapped, they do not affect the gene pool i do not think.  ? for the mars mission.  i mean having mars run by autistics is not something we would want.  preparing for the  oh you terrible human being !    #  consider these two scenarios: 0 suppose a woman is part of a secret cult that honors deities by eating aborted fetuses.   #  consider these two scenarios: 0 suppose a woman is part of a secret cult that honors deities by eating aborted fetuses.  the woman, devoted to her religion, agrees to have sex with her husband, abort her fetus, and then distribute the fetus for consumption for the sake of a satanic rite.  0 suppose a woman gets great psychological pleasure from killing fetuses.  this is her only motivation for abortion.  she loves having sex with men, getting fertilized, and then having the ability to kill something in her body.  maybe she is a victim of abuse and the chance to destroy something almost alive gives her a strange, self flagellatory thrill.  could you honestly say that abortion is  totally okay  in either of these scenarios ? if not, then your view that abortion is totally okay in  any  case is false.  there are some scenarios, in which abortion is not totally okay.  a sidenote: in general, absolutes in morality  all,   never,   none,  etc.  are never really true.  can you think of any moral prescription that is literally  always  okay ? i doubt it.  there is always at least one scenario in which certain actions are probably not okay.   #  force the mother to give birth and hope for the best ?  #  in first scenario you are either for the freedom of religion or you are not.  this really has nothing to do with abortion itself.  you cannot be for  freedom of every religion, except this one  any more than you can say  i am for freedom of religion but only this religion .  in the second scenario your goal should really be to stop the women from getting impregnated if you feel this needs to be stopped.  are you for forced sterilization ? do you think that would be ok ? if not, what do you do with the child ? force the mother to give birth and hope for the best ?  #  regardless, your cmv is  abortion is not immoral in any case .   #  education and economic status itself does nothing to limit bigotry, and often can be used to increase it.  look at the germans in wwii, the british in india, or whites against blacks in america.  these were all some of the most wealthy and educated peoples of their time.  eugenics was a cutting edge field of science and most wealthy clubs were/are  whites only .  regardless, your cmv is  abortion is not immoral in any case .  i have provided cases where i think it would be immoral, and you have said nothing to refute that.  you only say those cases should not exist.  so, is your view really that  abortion is never immoral , or that  immoral abortions should not happen  ?
i am not meaning to judge people who get tattoos, large or otherwise.  it is not for me personally, but i consider it other peoples  business whether or not they have something in their lives that they consider significant enough that they want to memorialize it somewhere on their bodies.  that said, lately it is seemed to me that  many  more people, mostly younger in age, are getting large, often very visible and difficult to hide wearing normal clothing tattoos.  full sleeves, tattoos on the chest or face / neck, and so on.  and these are not limited to people in social groups who in the past have been more likely to get these kinds of tattoos, but seem to be expanding to social groups that have, by and large, been largely hostile to  that kind of person.   i believe that these folks are going to find it much more difficult to be accepted at face value in many of their future social interactions, including job interviews, etc. , and are limiting their options considerably.  i do not necessarily believe that this is fair, and certainly some states have passed employment anti discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination based on things like tattoos and body modifications, but as we all know, employers have many different ways of getting around such laws.  although obviously you are welcome to do whatever you wish to your body / canvas, i think people with the kind of large, visible tattoos i am describing have seriously limited their future employment options.   post script:  while i recognize that the  fuck  em, if they ca not accept it, then they are not worth it  mentality is one way to approach this, the fact is that such an attitude does not work as far as employment goes.  i have seen graduate students with very large tattoos, and assuming they get interviews based on their qualifications, many of the folks today who are in hiring / decision making positions for such types of employment have myriad ways to dodge equal employment laws.  it is something well outside my own comfort zone, and i am interested in folks for whom tattoos, and particularly many or very large tattoos, are desirable.   #  i believe that these folks are going to find it much more difficult to be accepted at face value in many of their future social interactions, including job interviews, etc. , and are limiting their options considerably.   #  alternatively, with more and more people getting tattooed, the easier it will be to be accepted as it becomes more of a societal norm.   # alternatively, with more and more people getting tattooed, the easier it will be to be accepted as it becomes more of a societal norm.  especially as they are becoming disassociated with the sort of gang/thug life they were previously primarily associated with and more and more  normal  for what of a better word people choose to get body art.  i have quite a lot of tattoos, some visible, some not, and i do not believe i have ever really been discriminated against in any fashion because of it.  admittedly my job is very accepting of everyones choices, it is an office but not a  smart dress  work place so to speak, i. e.  we can wear anything we want within reason.  i am also in the position of hiring people, now this makes little difference at my current firm, but should i move somewhere else that maybe a little more restricted on the issue, depending on my position i could work to change those attitudes.  i could, if i was in a position to hire people at a new firm, over look a candidates tattoos and focus on whats more important about them as an individual where someone else in that position might not have.  it is also worth noting that people that do have lots of very big tattoos, full sleeves etc, tend to be the sort of people that opt out of conventional society.  i. e.  would rather not work your typical 0 0 office job and are content with maybe manual work for example where it is less of an issue.  that again is slowly changing.  i know school teachers that have full sleeves on both arms.  they just wear long sleeved shirts all year round whilst at work.  bear in mind the only tattoos that you cannot cover up at all are hands, neck to a point and face/head.  very few people gets these areas tattooed specifically because they cannot be covered.  i have my fingers tattooed for reasons i wo not go into right now, and i knew doing that would limit my options somewhat in the future with regard to employment, but it really is only white collar firms that i have restricted myself from for the time being and i am not particularly fussed about them.  i will say finally that i am in the uk so things might be a little different already compared to the us and other countries, but that is my input.   #  there are enough of the general public that would opt to do business with someone else based solely on tattoos.   #  lots of people have professional jobs where they have short interactions with the general public.  lawyers, pilots, dentists, real estate agents, investment managers, etc.  first impressions count and are counted.  there are enough of the general public that would opt to do business with someone else based solely on tattoos.  that is what the op means about limiting options.  right or wrong, that is the way it is.  in a world where it is tough to do well, tats are rarely a benefit, often a negative.   #  that said, i am all for being idealistic with these things.   #  was not one of the original points that many  young  people are getting these kinds of tattoos ? it is not exactly unusual for an 0 year old not to know what he or she wants to do in the future.  they wo not already be in the field, and i doubt most of them are idiots that could not be professional.  that said, i am all for being idealistic with these things.  do what you want with your body if it makes you happy.  tattoos  should not  matter, and the more people that do that, and other body modifications, the less of a stigma it is going to be in those kinds of businesses.   #  also, having worked in tattoo shops, people who go to the lengths of getting neck/hand tattoos only do so with the knowledge of what field they are in.   #  also, having worked in tattoo shops, people who go to the lengths of getting neck/hand tattoos only do so with the knowledge of what field they are in.  for instance, most are hairdressers, tattoo artists, artists in general etc.  the tattoo artists i worked with would not even tattoo these places without a good reason/belief the person pursuing them knew the implications.  the shops i worked at would kick people out who wanted hands/neck tattoos and were not fully sleeved/very heavily tattooed.  it is a well known practice in ethical tattoo shops to do this.  people who get  job blocker  tattoos without knowledge of the implications / heavy ink are generally idiots to begin with and are not slotted to be professionals in their lives anyway.  speaking from many years experience.   #  of course their rules on tattoos were not enforced fairly.   #  i am a teacher and have worked for a few very great schools.  none of them would allow a visible chest tattoo.  of course their rules on tattoos were not enforced fairly.  so female teachers with a rose on their foot could get away with wearing sandals but a teacher with an arm tattoo would have to wear long sleeves.  i have always wanted a tattoo on my forearm, but i like wearing short sleeves more :
i am not meaning to judge people who get tattoos, large or otherwise.  it is not for me personally, but i consider it other peoples  business whether or not they have something in their lives that they consider significant enough that they want to memorialize it somewhere on their bodies.  that said, lately it is seemed to me that  many  more people, mostly younger in age, are getting large, often very visible and difficult to hide wearing normal clothing tattoos.  full sleeves, tattoos on the chest or face / neck, and so on.  and these are not limited to people in social groups who in the past have been more likely to get these kinds of tattoos, but seem to be expanding to social groups that have, by and large, been largely hostile to  that kind of person.   i believe that these folks are going to find it much more difficult to be accepted at face value in many of their future social interactions, including job interviews, etc. , and are limiting their options considerably.  i do not necessarily believe that this is fair, and certainly some states have passed employment anti discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination based on things like tattoos and body modifications, but as we all know, employers have many different ways of getting around such laws.  although obviously you are welcome to do whatever you wish to your body / canvas, i think people with the kind of large, visible tattoos i am describing have seriously limited their future employment options.   post script:  while i recognize that the  fuck  em, if they ca not accept it, then they are not worth it  mentality is one way to approach this, the fact is that such an attitude does not work as far as employment goes.  i have seen graduate students with very large tattoos, and assuming they get interviews based on their qualifications, many of the folks today who are in hiring / decision making positions for such types of employment have myriad ways to dodge equal employment laws.  it is something well outside my own comfort zone, and i am interested in folks for whom tattoos, and particularly many or very large tattoos, are desirable.   #  i believe that these folks are going to find it much more difficult to be accepted at face value in many of their future social interactions, including job interviews, etc. , and are limiting their options considerably.   #  some people fit into those 0 specific categories.   # some people fit into those 0 specific categories.  but your view is that  only  those 0 categories exist as options is wrong.  other categories  clearly  exist.  millions upon millions of people  benefit  culturally from tattoos.  tattoo artists, musicians, gangs, tribes, families and subcultures everywhere have major social pressure to  get  tattoos and display them proudly.  some cultures do shun tattoos.  but often the people getting the tattoos have no desire to change cultures so it is not a concern for them at all.  so those peoples very existence should instantly change your view.  there is not one culture that judges one way on tattoos, this fact should also change your view.  people generally also know exactly what to expect from tattoos and fully expect  less  future acceptability because of them.  those people also do not fall into either one of your categories.  not everyone who gets massive art on their body wants it to be ignored.  they want it to make a major statement about themselves that  will  change their social interactions or designate them to one culture or another.  i seriously doubt anyone with tattoos on their face is surprised or unaware of the impact that decision has on their appearance and that some cultures, like social conservatives, do not accept facial tattoos.  but they do not even remotely identify with social conservatives so it is not a factor in their decision.  it is not short sighted to represent your culture while you are in it, especially if you truly believe in it.  culture changes are not something you would likely see coming.  i do not see myself becoming a muslim or a corporate executive, so i do not plan my life around those possible culture changes.  i do not try to maintain a blank culture just in case i need to blend in with the highest paying one at the time.  i think being at least  slightly  unaccepted is often the original point of getting it done.  it is so ultra common to correlate tattoos with some form of rebelliousness, sub culture or counter culture that anyone who gets one already knows and might be wanting one for these very reasons.   #  that is what the op means about limiting options.   #  lots of people have professional jobs where they have short interactions with the general public.  lawyers, pilots, dentists, real estate agents, investment managers, etc.  first impressions count and are counted.  there are enough of the general public that would opt to do business with someone else based solely on tattoos.  that is what the op means about limiting options.  right or wrong, that is the way it is.  in a world where it is tough to do well, tats are rarely a benefit, often a negative.   #  that said, i am all for being idealistic with these things.   #  was not one of the original points that many  young  people are getting these kinds of tattoos ? it is not exactly unusual for an 0 year old not to know what he or she wants to do in the future.  they wo not already be in the field, and i doubt most of them are idiots that could not be professional.  that said, i am all for being idealistic with these things.  do what you want with your body if it makes you happy.  tattoos  should not  matter, and the more people that do that, and other body modifications, the less of a stigma it is going to be in those kinds of businesses.   #  for instance, most are hairdressers, tattoo artists, artists in general etc.   #  also, having worked in tattoo shops, people who go to the lengths of getting neck/hand tattoos only do so with the knowledge of what field they are in.  for instance, most are hairdressers, tattoo artists, artists in general etc.  the tattoo artists i worked with would not even tattoo these places without a good reason/belief the person pursuing them knew the implications.  the shops i worked at would kick people out who wanted hands/neck tattoos and were not fully sleeved/very heavily tattooed.  it is a well known practice in ethical tattoo shops to do this.  people who get  job blocker  tattoos without knowledge of the implications / heavy ink are generally idiots to begin with and are not slotted to be professionals in their lives anyway.  speaking from many years experience.   #  of course their rules on tattoos were not enforced fairly.   #  i am a teacher and have worked for a few very great schools.  none of them would allow a visible chest tattoo.  of course their rules on tattoos were not enforced fairly.  so female teachers with a rose on their foot could get away with wearing sandals but a teacher with an arm tattoo would have to wear long sleeves.  i have always wanted a tattoo on my forearm, but i like wearing short sleeves more :
hello cmv, a bit of an introduction: 0 months ago my son was born.  he was the first child of my so and me.  as it turned out he was born with a rare genetic disorder called type 0 galactosemia URL luckily he was tested via a newborn screening, so once the results came back in we rushed to the hospital.  despite immediate action he almost died that night.  as a result to this he will have to follow a lifelong strict diet without any form of milk, dairy, cheese, or anything else with lactose/galactose in it.  this includes almost all sweets, many kinds of bread, sausages and convenience food.  many drugs also include lactose.  additionally he is faced with development issues, he already has been receiving physical therapy for the past 0 months just to learn to crawl.  the future might bring additional learning disabilities, speech difficulties and other forms of neurological impairment.  now why am i here: my so asked me what i think about having a second child.  she likes the thought of it, she is accepting the risk, and the eventual consequences.  she does not not know our son almost died that night.  i know that she always wanted more then one child, and we agreed upon this before her pregnancy.  i do not know whether she would leave me over that matter.  if i take a quick look at the propability of a second child having this disorder as well, its 0.  if our second child were to be a daughter, she most likely never could have kids on her own, due to ovarian damage received while still in the womb.  for other, not really understood, reasons, females usually are more likely to suffer all the issues mentioned above in a more severe form.  i do not think we should take the risk.  i do not think that i can put myself through that ordeal again.  i do not think its justified to have a child, knowing it could be a girl knowing the consequences.  so. please, please, please change my view !  #  additionally he is faced with development issues, he already has been receiving physical therapy for the past 0 months just to learn to crawl.   #  the future might bring additional learning disabilities, speech difficulties and other forms of neurological impairment.   # the future might bring additional learning disabilities, speech difficulties and other forms of neurological impairment.  dietary restrictions are not my main concern.  its difficult, but you get used to it.  and like i said. female bodys are way more susceptible to these conditions then male bodys.  the potential problem of having a mentally handycapped daughter with the need for a special diet, because otherwise she will die.  i know.   #  we can avoid all health problems of childbirth, and we will be giving an opportunity to a child that may not have grown up with such.   #  aw, that sucks man.  i think the most important thing is if you can handle it.  whether your unborn child will have or can handle his/her disability is too uncertain to base your decision.  he/she may grow up to be more grateful to be alive than anything or he/she may grow up to hate you.  it is impossible to know.  you should base your decision on something that is real, ie.  how you two are able to handle it.  for what it is worth, on some days i am not happy about the idea of adoption and on other days, i think it is the best idea ever.  we can avoid all health problems of childbirth, and we will be giving an opportunity to a child that may not have grown up with such.  as time goes on, i find fewer and fewer downsides to adoption.  but of course, to every person their own.   #  why not try and even that number out ?  #  having a child is not impressive: congratulations, your parts work.  raising a child  is  impressive.  this takes much more qualification.  as a result, many more children are born than are raised well.  why not try and even that number out ? my fiance and i have already agreed never to have our own children, but to adopt if/when it is right because we both share this view.  i can understand if you do not share the same ideas, but i think it is worth having an adult conversation with your so rather than avoiding it due to hurt feelings.  i think it is selfish to consider your own want to have a child before considering the rather high risk to the child.  consider making this decision from the position of your hypothetical future child would you rather: a today pull a lottery ticket with 0:0 odds of contracting all of the medical troubles you have described b find out you are adopted i would pick adopted every time.   #  and i hope you will never find yourself in a situation like this.   #  let me tell you something: my so essentially had a nervous breakdown.  she was neither able to spend time in that room, nor was she able to make decisions, talk to the doctors or anything else.  i did decide back then.  i decided that they can treat him anyway necessary.  i was the one answering the phone at 0am when they said, they needed consent.  and i decided that night to not tell her.  and i hope you will never find yourself in a situation like this.   #  will she thank you for leaving her unprepared for this eventuality ?  #  you so wants to have another child and you are depriving her of information that could have a significant effect on her decision to have do that.  what if the same thing happens this time, and she does have to deal with it ? will she thank you for leaving her unprepared for this eventuality ? what if this knowledge tips the scales in favor of not having a baby ? your decision to withhold that information in the interest of protecting her could be extremely damaging if she does decide that she wants a child without understanding the whole picture.  in addition, if she knows that you are not prepared to go through something like that again, that could be more important to her than having another child.  your so is an adult, and you two are partners in decisions like this.  as partners, it is not fair to her for you withhold such relevant information, preventing her from making an informed decision.  to put bluntly, you do not have the right to make the decision so lopsided when it is not just your life that will be affected by it.
definitions  logical: URL expected: URL outcome: URL positive: greater than zero / an outcome that is beneficial to the person  reasoning  calculate the monetary cost mcost of being found guilty and being punished for a crime.  calculate the monetary benefit mben of successfully committing the crime.  calculate the probability psuc of successfully commingling the crime.  calculate the probability pcrime of being successfully prosecuted for the crime.  this is also why i think that islamic justice is reasonable but that is for another cmv monetary value is a reasonable estimate of benefit/cost, as everything has a monetary value.   #  monetary value is a reasonable estimate of benefit/cost, as everything has a monetary value.   #  economists use the term  utility  to express this concept, rather than  monetary value .   # economists use the term  utility  to express this concept, rather than  monetary value .  utility is more expressive and accurate.  and a more sophisticated analysis: people who have a significant non zero value for the welfare of others henceforth referred to as  empathy  should nonetheless commit few crimes that harm others, because that damage increases the cost.  those individuals who commit crimes due to cost/benefit analysis therefore likely undervalue the welfare of others, and in turn society should value their welfare, personally, as extremely low this population will henceforth be described as psychopaths/sociopaths .  this retributive measure artificially increases the costs of being caught in the eyes of psychopaths/sociopaths who undervalue the welfare of others.  that functions to improve the behavior of psychopaths/sociopaths but is not costless, and is more likely to negatively affect non psychopaths/sociopaths.  and if people with  high  empathy over others are committing crimes, then that is indicative of a problem society should remedy like people are literally starving and stealing food or something.  so punishing them is often costly in and of itself, not just because such people are more likely to be productive members of society but because that punishment can conceal social problems that would more effectively be addressed.  so a penal system has to strike a balance between its ability to detect psychopaths/sociopaths, which is typically dictated by how  weak  its punishments are, versus its ability to neutralize psychopaths/sociopaths, which is typically dictated by how  strong  its punishments are.  but, uh.  what about your analysis would you want changed ? because frankly could not you just redefine the terms of your argument arbitrarily, reducing it to   crime ? good stuff bad stuff , therefore people should commit good crimes.    #  the reason people are social, is their selfishness.   #  i would think, the human capacity for logic, is what allows humans to dominate.  the idea that working together is opposed to self interest is misguided.  as you point out, generally, working together is in people is self interests, as more can be accomplished and each individual share is larger.  the reason people are social, is their selfishness.  to be social, is not the same as being selfless.  if the individual is gain by being social is less than they would have acquired on their own, people will also chose non social options.   #  there is no reason you should help yourself, or anyone or work toward any goal.   #  there is no reason it should be misguided, other than you simply wanting to be selfish.  there is no reason you should help yourself, or anyone or work toward any goal.  you have to simply put, make an illogical decision which is always completely illogical, and cannot be otherwise of who to help.  that can be yourself, but there is no reason it should be, and there is nothing special about being selfish versus selfless.  we are saying that you should be selfless because you can.  ideally we would have a system which hurts selfishness enough that even the most selfish option is not to be selfish.  but otherwise you have to make a choice and you ca not say that helping just yourself is more logical than choosing to help others without some reason for it.   #  logic needs a purpose, or a set of axioms and goals.   #  .  say what ? do you actually know what logic  is  ? it is not in itself  logical  to have no regard for others, neither is it illogical.  that just.  does not make any sense.  logic needs a purpose, or a set of axioms and goals.  your set of definitions should have told you that.  what this means is that the bulk of your argument in this cmv is a complete waste of time.  either we agree with your unstated premise that each individual is the only one who should matter to that individual or we do not.  you have not presented a single argument in favour of that position, likely because you did not even examine your own beliefs enough to realise it was one you held.  go away and consider what basis you think can be found for it, then come back and try again.   #  reasoning: calculate the monetary cost mcost of being found guilty and being punished for a crime.   #  log·i·cal lj kl adj.  0.  of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.  0.  based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.  0.  reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.  premise/proposition: it is logical to commit a crime if the expected outcome is positive.  reasoning: calculate the monetary cost mcost of being found guilty and being punished for a crime.  calculate the monetary benefit mben of successfully committing the crime.  calculate the probability psuc of successfully commingling the crime.  calculate the probability pcrime of being successfully prosecuted for the crime.  my happiness positive outcome matters to me and it is logical to maximise my positive outcomes.  this is a trivial proof, so i am not sure why you are trying to make a great deal out of it.
it is bad if there is a big income divide between the rich and poor, but i do not see why that is always a problem.  if there are adequate systems for poor people to escape poverty such as education then there is nothing wrong with a broad income spectrum.  it is fucking awesome for a country to have lots of rich people, because they are able to pay for cool shit like good schools and good roads.  people act like it is a big deal that the middle class is being split between those who are wealthy and those who are not, but that just means there are more rich people.  as most universities give huge financial aid scholarships, poor kids who are able study hard and succeed in school have amazing opportunities in tertiary education.  i think income inequality is probably one of the least important big issues facing the united states.  i would rate the most important issues as: 0.  climate change 0.  corporate dominance over us politics 0.  gerrymandering 0.  rights for gsm gender and sexuality minority people 0.  prison system problems 0.  minority rights 0.  military action overseas 0.  increasing college tuition 0.  tax breaks and other benefits to the already wealthy 0.  income inequality change my view ?  #  as most universities give huge financial aid scholarships, poor kids who are able study hard and succeed in school have amazing opportunities in tertiary education.   #  they are not that big, and largely on the basis a of need rather than merit, or b a drop in the bucket compared to the huge cost of tuition to begin with.   #  your argument is, fundamentally, that in a meritocracy income inequality is not a problem.  and you are probably right that to the extent one believes in social mobility and that success follows merit, difference in outcome is not all that concerning.  but there is significant evidence that for a decent part of the 0th century basically since the 0s that kind of social mobility has been rare.  it is far more common for someone born into the top 0 of wealth to move into the top 0 than someone born into the bottom 0 to move up even one quintile.  and, as a general principle, the squeezing out of the middle class does not end up splitting them evenly among rich and poor.  they predominantly go into the poor category.  they are not that big, and largely on the basis a of need rather than merit, or b a drop in the bucket compared to the huge cost of tuition to begin with.  yes, there are poor students who get into harvard, but the fact that it happens on occasion does not actually mean that any poor kid able to study hard and succeed in school will have  amazing  opportunities.  and the discussion partially comes down to whether you believe that to the extent opportunities are inequitable we do not live in a true meritocracy they should be made more equitable, or you believe that the fact that some people can succeed despite inequity means that it is not a problem.   #  as the rich get richer most of that new found wealth is taken from the middle class.   #  except education does not serve as a means to allow the poor to rise because wealth and social privilege essentially guarantees better education and hence better income.  i would also note that at least a few of the issues you listed in your top nine are directly tied to income inequality.  then there is the assumption that a middle class will always exist which picketty pretty clearly shows is not true.  as the rich get richer most of that new found wealth is taken from the middle class.  other than money in politics economic injustice is the issue that interferes with all your priorities.   #  to my mind there are two big reasons for this and they both tie into income inequality.   #  let is just consider climate change.  i am sure you have noticed that there is not a lot of actual movement on the issue.  why ? to my mind there are two big reasons for this and they both tie into income inequality.  the most obvious is the fact that oil and gas tycoons have enough income to buy politicians and block real reform.  if they had less money to spend they would not be able to block reform so easily.  the second is less obvious, but nearly as important.  there is not enough populist support for climate change legislation to overcome the money.  why not ? i think there is two reasons for this.  first, there is a media machine dedicated to denying climate change; again all the money showing its influence.  second, poor people have limited, but legitimate reasons to worry about how effective legislation will affect their lives.  there is a lot of people in this country balancing the cost of heat, gas for their cars, and food.  a slight increase in energy costs could lead to more days going hungry every month.  if these people had more money they would not have to worry and could be more supportive of climate change legislation.   #  family income is only correlative with outcomes not causal, intelligence is the causal factor.   #  social privilege  simply is not a thing at all.  family income is only correlative with outcomes not causal, intelligence is the causal factor.  smart people do better and also produce smart children and so the success is repeated.  the over focus on the idea that somehow the system is stacked against those from poorer families makes it harder to achieve policy which will actually help those from low/no income backgrounds too.  you seem to be confusing the gush of economist support for the scope of piketty is work with agreement with the conclusions of the work.  he made some axiomatic assumptions that are simply empirically incorrect notably conflating capital and wealth which radically changes how inequality is measured that entirely undermines his conclusions, it would be like starting out a paper by saying  lets presume gravity does not exist .  piketty has made a hugely important contribution to economics his data collection methodology alone should see him getting a swedish banking prize but muggles are massively misunderstanding its relevance to the study of issues of inequality   poverty.  there is a reason why its a book rather then journal published, his axiomatic basis simply would not pass peer review.  this is called the zero sum fallacy.  wealth   income are not fixed pies with people taking slices, they are pies where the sizes are a function of the demand for slices.  someone gaining $0 of income does not mean income falls for another person or people .  a priori you can observe this to be the case, if wealth is finite then how has aggregate wealth climbed such a staggering amount over the last century ?  #  zero sum is a reality in every company.   # family income is only correlative with outcomes not causal, intelligence is the causal factor.  smart people do better and also produce smart children and so the success is repeated.  that view is called social darwinism and really smacks of 0th century ideas, when phrenology was still a thing.  please, how do you explain poverty in africa in a way consistent with this theory ? grabs popcorn   someone gaining $0 of income does not mean income falls for another person or people .  if a ceo fires 0 people and gets a bonus for it, that definitely makes him get a larger share of the pie at someone else is expense.  the generated wealth is, at any point in time, finite.  this year is production of a car factory is a number of cars.  you can count them, it is not infinite and not open for negotiation.  the only thing that is open for discussion is how that value is distributed.  since shareholders and ceo is decide about that, they typically get the largest part of the sum.  if wages were to be raised, it will have to be at their expense and vice versa.  zero sum is a reality in every company.
it is bad if there is a big income divide between the rich and poor, but i do not see why that is always a problem.  if there are adequate systems for poor people to escape poverty such as education then there is nothing wrong with a broad income spectrum.  it is fucking awesome for a country to have lots of rich people, because they are able to pay for cool shit like good schools and good roads.  people act like it is a big deal that the middle class is being split between those who are wealthy and those who are not, but that just means there are more rich people.  as most universities give huge financial aid scholarships, poor kids who are able study hard and succeed in school have amazing opportunities in tertiary education.  i think income inequality is probably one of the least important big issues facing the united states.  i would rate the most important issues as: 0.  climate change 0.  corporate dominance over us politics 0.  gerrymandering 0.  rights for gsm gender and sexuality minority people 0.  prison system problems 0.  minority rights 0.  military action overseas 0.  increasing college tuition 0.  tax breaks and other benefits to the already wealthy 0.  income inequality change my view ?  #  it is fucking awesome for a country to have lots of rich people, because they are able to pay for cool shit like good schools and good roads.   #  people act like it is a big deal that the middle class is being split between those who are wealthy and those who are not, but that just means there are more rich people.   #  your points 0, 0, 0, 0 and 0 are directly relevant to inequality and worsened by it/worsening it, so you are in fact saying that income inequality is one of your top priorities.  0 is political reform arguably part of a larger issue: the stagnation into two big entrenched parties, which would need a switch to proportional representation , which is a very clearly delineated issue, socio economical policy is something that can be pursued at the same time.  0 is also very specific, and, i would argue, far from urgent or severe.  0, again, is a very specific issue and situation dependent, so you ca not really get that started when you want.  people act like it is a big deal that the middle class is being split between those who are wealthy and those who are not, but that just means there are more rich people.  that is not how it works.  people do not become rich by creating wealth while everyone else stays the same, people become rich by claiming a larger share of produced wealth.  as most universities give huge financial aid scholarships, poor kids who are able study hard and succeed in school have amazing opportunities in tertiary education.  the systems are not adequate due to a lack of redistribution resulting in poor education quality.  more equal countries have better social mobility.  finally, inequality harms everyone in a country, even the rich.  wilkinson and pickett is  the spirit level  details that case.   #  your argument is, fundamentally, that in a meritocracy income inequality is not a problem.   #  your argument is, fundamentally, that in a meritocracy income inequality is not a problem.  and you are probably right that to the extent one believes in social mobility and that success follows merit, difference in outcome is not all that concerning.  but there is significant evidence that for a decent part of the 0th century basically since the 0s that kind of social mobility has been rare.  it is far more common for someone born into the top 0 of wealth to move into the top 0 than someone born into the bottom 0 to move up even one quintile.  and, as a general principle, the squeezing out of the middle class does not end up splitting them evenly among rich and poor.  they predominantly go into the poor category.  they are not that big, and largely on the basis a of need rather than merit, or b a drop in the bucket compared to the huge cost of tuition to begin with.  yes, there are poor students who get into harvard, but the fact that it happens on occasion does not actually mean that any poor kid able to study hard and succeed in school will have  amazing  opportunities.  and the discussion partially comes down to whether you believe that to the extent opportunities are inequitable we do not live in a true meritocracy they should be made more equitable, or you believe that the fact that some people can succeed despite inequity means that it is not a problem.   #  except education does not serve as a means to allow the poor to rise because wealth and social privilege essentially guarantees better education and hence better income.   #  except education does not serve as a means to allow the poor to rise because wealth and social privilege essentially guarantees better education and hence better income.  i would also note that at least a few of the issues you listed in your top nine are directly tied to income inequality.  then there is the assumption that a middle class will always exist which picketty pretty clearly shows is not true.  as the rich get richer most of that new found wealth is taken from the middle class.  other than money in politics economic injustice is the issue that interferes with all your priorities.   #  if they had less money to spend they would not be able to block reform so easily.   #  let is just consider climate change.  i am sure you have noticed that there is not a lot of actual movement on the issue.  why ? to my mind there are two big reasons for this and they both tie into income inequality.  the most obvious is the fact that oil and gas tycoons have enough income to buy politicians and block real reform.  if they had less money to spend they would not be able to block reform so easily.  the second is less obvious, but nearly as important.  there is not enough populist support for climate change legislation to overcome the money.  why not ? i think there is two reasons for this.  first, there is a media machine dedicated to denying climate change; again all the money showing its influence.  second, poor people have limited, but legitimate reasons to worry about how effective legislation will affect their lives.  there is a lot of people in this country balancing the cost of heat, gas for their cars, and food.  a slight increase in energy costs could lead to more days going hungry every month.  if these people had more money they would not have to worry and could be more supportive of climate change legislation.   #  family income is only correlative with outcomes not causal, intelligence is the causal factor.   #  social privilege  simply is not a thing at all.  family income is only correlative with outcomes not causal, intelligence is the causal factor.  smart people do better and also produce smart children and so the success is repeated.  the over focus on the idea that somehow the system is stacked against those from poorer families makes it harder to achieve policy which will actually help those from low/no income backgrounds too.  you seem to be confusing the gush of economist support for the scope of piketty is work with agreement with the conclusions of the work.  he made some axiomatic assumptions that are simply empirically incorrect notably conflating capital and wealth which radically changes how inequality is measured that entirely undermines his conclusions, it would be like starting out a paper by saying  lets presume gravity does not exist .  piketty has made a hugely important contribution to economics his data collection methodology alone should see him getting a swedish banking prize but muggles are massively misunderstanding its relevance to the study of issues of inequality   poverty.  there is a reason why its a book rather then journal published, his axiomatic basis simply would not pass peer review.  this is called the zero sum fallacy.  wealth   income are not fixed pies with people taking slices, they are pies where the sizes are a function of the demand for slices.  someone gaining $0 of income does not mean income falls for another person or people .  a priori you can observe this to be the case, if wealth is finite then how has aggregate wealth climbed such a staggering amount over the last century ?
it is bad if there is a big income divide between the rich and poor, but i do not see why that is always a problem.  if there are adequate systems for poor people to escape poverty such as education then there is nothing wrong with a broad income spectrum.  it is fucking awesome for a country to have lots of rich people, because they are able to pay for cool shit like good schools and good roads.  people act like it is a big deal that the middle class is being split between those who are wealthy and those who are not, but that just means there are more rich people.  as most universities give huge financial aid scholarships, poor kids who are able study hard and succeed in school have amazing opportunities in tertiary education.  i think income inequality is probably one of the least important big issues facing the united states.  i would rate the most important issues as: 0.  climate change 0.  corporate dominance over us politics 0.  gerrymandering 0.  rights for gsm gender and sexuality minority people 0.  prison system problems 0.  minority rights 0.  military action overseas 0.  increasing college tuition 0.  tax breaks and other benefits to the already wealthy 0.  income inequality change my view ?  #  if there are adequate systems for poor people to escape poverty such as education then there is nothing wrong with a broad income spectrum.   #  as most universities give huge financial aid scholarships, poor kids who are able study hard and succeed in school have amazing opportunities in tertiary education.   #  your points 0, 0, 0, 0 and 0 are directly relevant to inequality and worsened by it/worsening it, so you are in fact saying that income inequality is one of your top priorities.  0 is political reform arguably part of a larger issue: the stagnation into two big entrenched parties, which would need a switch to proportional representation , which is a very clearly delineated issue, socio economical policy is something that can be pursued at the same time.  0 is also very specific, and, i would argue, far from urgent or severe.  0, again, is a very specific issue and situation dependent, so you ca not really get that started when you want.  people act like it is a big deal that the middle class is being split between those who are wealthy and those who are not, but that just means there are more rich people.  that is not how it works.  people do not become rich by creating wealth while everyone else stays the same, people become rich by claiming a larger share of produced wealth.  as most universities give huge financial aid scholarships, poor kids who are able study hard and succeed in school have amazing opportunities in tertiary education.  the systems are not adequate due to a lack of redistribution resulting in poor education quality.  more equal countries have better social mobility.  finally, inequality harms everyone in a country, even the rich.  wilkinson and pickett is  the spirit level  details that case.   #  they are not that big, and largely on the basis a of need rather than merit, or b a drop in the bucket compared to the huge cost of tuition to begin with.   #  your argument is, fundamentally, that in a meritocracy income inequality is not a problem.  and you are probably right that to the extent one believes in social mobility and that success follows merit, difference in outcome is not all that concerning.  but there is significant evidence that for a decent part of the 0th century basically since the 0s that kind of social mobility has been rare.  it is far more common for someone born into the top 0 of wealth to move into the top 0 than someone born into the bottom 0 to move up even one quintile.  and, as a general principle, the squeezing out of the middle class does not end up splitting them evenly among rich and poor.  they predominantly go into the poor category.  they are not that big, and largely on the basis a of need rather than merit, or b a drop in the bucket compared to the huge cost of tuition to begin with.  yes, there are poor students who get into harvard, but the fact that it happens on occasion does not actually mean that any poor kid able to study hard and succeed in school will have  amazing  opportunities.  and the discussion partially comes down to whether you believe that to the extent opportunities are inequitable we do not live in a true meritocracy they should be made more equitable, or you believe that the fact that some people can succeed despite inequity means that it is not a problem.   #  then there is the assumption that a middle class will always exist which picketty pretty clearly shows is not true.   #  except education does not serve as a means to allow the poor to rise because wealth and social privilege essentially guarantees better education and hence better income.  i would also note that at least a few of the issues you listed in your top nine are directly tied to income inequality.  then there is the assumption that a middle class will always exist which picketty pretty clearly shows is not true.  as the rich get richer most of that new found wealth is taken from the middle class.  other than money in politics economic injustice is the issue that interferes with all your priorities.   #  there is not enough populist support for climate change legislation to overcome the money.   #  let is just consider climate change.  i am sure you have noticed that there is not a lot of actual movement on the issue.  why ? to my mind there are two big reasons for this and they both tie into income inequality.  the most obvious is the fact that oil and gas tycoons have enough income to buy politicians and block real reform.  if they had less money to spend they would not be able to block reform so easily.  the second is less obvious, but nearly as important.  there is not enough populist support for climate change legislation to overcome the money.  why not ? i think there is two reasons for this.  first, there is a media machine dedicated to denying climate change; again all the money showing its influence.  second, poor people have limited, but legitimate reasons to worry about how effective legislation will affect their lives.  there is a lot of people in this country balancing the cost of heat, gas for their cars, and food.  a slight increase in energy costs could lead to more days going hungry every month.  if these people had more money they would not have to worry and could be more supportive of climate change legislation.   #  the over focus on the idea that somehow the system is stacked against those from poorer families makes it harder to achieve policy which will actually help those from low/no income backgrounds too.   #  social privilege  simply is not a thing at all.  family income is only correlative with outcomes not causal, intelligence is the causal factor.  smart people do better and also produce smart children and so the success is repeated.  the over focus on the idea that somehow the system is stacked against those from poorer families makes it harder to achieve policy which will actually help those from low/no income backgrounds too.  you seem to be confusing the gush of economist support for the scope of piketty is work with agreement with the conclusions of the work.  he made some axiomatic assumptions that are simply empirically incorrect notably conflating capital and wealth which radically changes how inequality is measured that entirely undermines his conclusions, it would be like starting out a paper by saying  lets presume gravity does not exist .  piketty has made a hugely important contribution to economics his data collection methodology alone should see him getting a swedish banking prize but muggles are massively misunderstanding its relevance to the study of issues of inequality   poverty.  there is a reason why its a book rather then journal published, his axiomatic basis simply would not pass peer review.  this is called the zero sum fallacy.  wealth   income are not fixed pies with people taking slices, they are pies where the sizes are a function of the demand for slices.  someone gaining $0 of income does not mean income falls for another person or people .  a priori you can observe this to be the case, if wealth is finite then how has aggregate wealth climbed such a staggering amount over the last century ?
every achievement that mankind has been part of has its origins in the instinct to pass on genes.  every skyscraper and monument built, the moon landing, great works of genius and moral teachings.  all of them produced by people to differentiate themselves from the flock and be chosen as a mate.  people work harder than they have to in order to accrue wealth which will provide evidence that they have desirable dna.  life is only purpose is the pursuit of a wet hole to explode into or a hard thing to explode into you .  change my view.  sources and readings on this topic are appreciated.   #  sources and readings on this topic are appreciated.   #  all i have is anecdotal evidence, sorry.   # all i have is anecdotal evidence, sorry.  single parent here, and i do everything possible to achieve for my family and myself.  i have no sights on trying to get laid.  i honestly am not interested.  i am focused on my children is development, my career and my future.  truth is, i find myself spending a lot of energy trying to fend of people that think i want to get laid which, frankly, takes energy away from me trying to achieve.   #  asexuality could be an adaptation which allows someone especially a male to contribute to the tribe without competing for sex.   #  asexuality could be an adaptation which allows someone especially a male to contribute to the tribe without competing for sex.  a tribe with many asexual males would have more men for hunting and defense, without destructive and wasteful in group combat over women.  it is like how most ants do not personally reproduce, but they contribute to their genome is reproduction.  although newton may not have intended to, he significantly contributed to the reproduction capabilities of his entire species by helping us master the forces of nature.  it is even possible that we will colonize other planets someday, surviving the destruction of the earth, and newton may have been instrumental in that.   #  however that does not mean what drove newton and many others was the benefit his work might have for the species.   #  what you are saying is a different claim than the op is.  it is the difference between cultural/sexual evolution and individual motivation.  people like newton may well be the product of evolution.  however that does not mean what drove newton and many others was the benefit his work might have for the species.  we ca not really know what newton thought.  but we do have many first and second hand accounts of the man and it appears newton had little concern for the betterment of humanity.  or to put it another way; it is because of millions of years of evolution that heroin is so addictive to humans.  but when an addict seeks out the next fix they are not doing it with any evolutionary benefit.  similarly i think that for many people the desire to build or explore is not driven by any of the sexual/evolutionary consequences.   #  well, ants probably do not have any big picture understanding of their roles in the anthill; they just think it feels good to grab a crumb and carry it home.   #  well, ants probably do not have any big picture understanding of their roles in the anthill; they just think it feels good to grab a crumb and carry it home.  of course most people are not consciously thinking in terms of  if i accomplish this, i will get laid  although they often are; just ask med students or weightlifters , but we are designed to behave in ways which maximize our reproduction.  of course, it does not always work correctly, especially in our strange new modern society, like in the case of heroin addiction.  i agree with you in disagreeing with op: not every individual is trying to personally reproduce.  i also think that the more intelligent animals, especially humans, have such complex and tangled minds that we sometimes do things which violate the  prime directive  of perpetuating our genes.   #  their continued survival is more detrimental than beneficial for their ability to propagate new replicas of themselves.   #  evolution does not care primarily for survival.  it cares for replication.  a very simplified summary of what is evolution about is: whatever inheritable trait that self replicates with greater efficiency than its rivals will have a greater chance to spread throughout the population in the long term.  this will happen  even if it is detrimental to survival .  if a survivalist behavior is good for replication, than it will increase.  if it is not, it wo not.  example: there are lots of species where the adults die as soon as they breed.  their continued survival is more detrimental than beneficial for their ability to propagate new replicas of themselves.  for example, they might compete for food with their young.  so, where evolution is concerned, if a behavioral drive leads to more reproduction it might be evolutionarily favorable even if it is detrimental to survival, that is, if it is impact on survival do not impact reproduction too much on the negative side.  but notice that the final measure is still replication.
what can i possibly say of any value about abortion rights ? or who is right in the israeli palestine conflict, or a possible solution ? what do i know about feminism, the female experience, or the bout of the poor ? how could i possibly comment with any validity on the issue of homelessness ? this empowering, overstated line of  everybody is entitled to their own opinion  has become utterly throwaway and meaningless.  yes, we are entitled to freedom of opinion, and that of speech, but i do not think we are obliged to an opinion on every issue, event, or affair.  sometimes, though, it seems people feel they are obliged.  in conversation, people in the first world will readily state how they think we should address poverty in africa, or who is right/wrong in the israel palestine conflict, or whether abortion should be illegal, or same for gay marriage.   all i can truly know is my own experience as a young, white male living in north america.   apart from any remarkable education i or anyone else may have on some topic, i do not deserve an opinion on any matter that i have not experienced, or that i cannot directly relate to.  i already see some holes in my argument: i can relate to the human experience, so therefore i can relate to everything humans experience anywhere in the world.  if this were the case, also, there would be a severe limitation on what could be discussed, and progress of humanity through intelligent debate are we not due to comment on goings on in the world ? can we not have intelligent discussion about that which we have not experienced, through sympathy rather than empathy ? should we not use our evolutionary advantage of theory of mind, and  putting ourself in the shoes of others , to opine on what ought to be done, for example, in a conflict thousands of miles away ? i am torn.  but i thought i would present this, as i often feel hesitant to state any opinion in conversation or debate, for the feeling of unease about whether my opinion is entirely mooted by the fact that i do not really know what i am talking about.  change my view.  thank you.  and we never can.   #  what can i possibly say of any value about abortion rights ?  #  you have a conscience and you can decide whether you want the society you live in to support the right of pregnant women to choose or the right of a fetus to live.   #  there is a wide gulf between recognizing that your opinion is fallible and deciding you are not deserving of it.  everyone is  opinions are fallible; even about things they may have a great deal of personal experience with.  we need to establish a marketplace of ideas where everyone is fallible opinions come together and conflict, we interact and argue in defense of our ideas, others attack them, the better replace the worse and we all end up better off than we were before.  you ca not replace that marketplace with opinion by decree from those who have informed experience but reject the idea that they ought to be subject to criticism.  you have a conscience and you can decide whether you want the society you live in to support the right of pregnant women to choose or the right of a fetus to live.  your opinion on that is valid.  you should be willing to question it when exposed to new experience be it personal or shared by others , but you are not barred from having an opinion because you are not omniscient.  you have a conscience and you can decide whether the acts of other people should be supported or condemned.  you can decide whether you want your country to act in your name in support of one side or the other.  you are human and can express outrage when other humans are needlessly harmed.  you have a conscience and if the reasonable feminists i have met are to be believed, the purpose of feminism is equality.  that means you get an opinion.  if feminism is instead the rejection of the male point of view entirely, then it is entirely antagonistic to you and you should not support it.  people who want to dictate to you how you should live without listening to you are not very good people in my opinion .  you have a conscience and you can decide how you want your society to deal with poverty.  there is no logical reason that only the poor should discuss this; it is not even logically feasible.  are we only going to let the poor discuss how they plan to take money from others to make themselves less poor ? or should those who are not poor have a say in how their money is used ? now, if you want to say you do not have a concrete opinion because you do not know enough about a specific issue, that is fine.  hell, that is a good policy.  but you should not make the  informed  threshold at which you can have a valid opinion be unattainable by virtue of who you are.   #  in fact, in my experience, it is not the primary way a person gains knowledge.   #  personal experience is not the only way a person gains knowledge.  in fact, in my experience, it is not the primary way a person gains knowledge.  i stand on the shoulders of millions of people who came before me and reported their experiments and knowledge.  if i insisted that only through personal experience could i know reality, then i would have to reinvent the wheel in nearly every single aspect of my life.  that is nonsense.  just from a basic epistemological standpoint, i do not think you  can  operate this way unless just yesterday you literally rediscovered the wheel.  with that said, yes, you can have a valid, accurate opinion, and it is by listening carefully to how people describe their experiences.  in that case, you would phrase it:  after listening to people going through the experience, the opinion i formed was.   you have given enough caveats for the reasonable person not to jump down your throat.  in fact, this is the only way some oppressed people will  ever  be able to get their story out through mouthpieces who are not in a similar situation, but nevertheless listened.  the thing you are fighting against, imperialism through opinions, occurs whenever people do not listen and opine anyway.  yes, those opinions are usually inaccurate and typically self serving, but there is nothing to keep someone from communicating their experience to you.   #  life experiences are not the only thing that can be the basis for your opinions and beliefs.   #  life experiences are not the only thing that can be the basis for your opinions and beliefs.  reason is perfectly valid, if not superior, foundation for your world view and belief system.  using your abortion example: if you hold the belief that a fetus is a living human being and you hold the belief that killing innocent human beings is murder then through deduction, you can come to a conclusion that abortion is murder.  if you further hold that murder is wrong, then a 0nd deduction leads you to  abortion is wrong .  this is completely independent on your genitals or your experiences as a man or woman.  the same concept applies to any set of beliefs and opinions.  they need not be based solely on your limited set of life experiences, but can include logical deductions from reasonable assumptions, or even better from historical information or scientific evidence.  reason and logic are colorblind and sexless.  unless the argument is something that only actual experience can inform e. g.  what does childbirth feel like anyone can form reasonable and valid opinions presuming they start from reasonable and valid premises.   #  you will never know all of the answers.   # there are many parts of the abortion debate fueled by particular experiences, and it will be difficult for you to wrap your head around them.  as someone alive, though, you are allowed to care about women, and you are allowed to care about children, unborn and otherwise.  your experience of having your own rights and the occasional challenges to them , and your ability, hopefully, to empathize with others whose rights are more than occasionally impinged, entirely entitles you to an opinion and, i might argue, obliges a defense .  of course, it would be great if you could always, in a way void of deflection, heavily caveat your opinions by noting they are borne of empathy and relation, and not experience.  but being alive and trying to place yourself in others  shoes entitles you to a thought on the matter.  you will never know all of the answers.  do the best you can and try to push people is thinking forward.  to be idle would be a loss.   #  but, they committed the actions that i deem to be despicable, so are they not then by extension, despicable people ?  #  this question gives me difficulty.  at first, my response is simply  i can judge their actions, but not them.   but, they committed the actions that i deem to be despicable, so are they not then by extension, despicable people ? i do not know.  i like this rebuttal, but to make it more relevant, if we rephrase it to:   can you judge either side in the israel palestine conflict ? my answer would be more unclear.  i do not know.  but then, to rebuttal myself, i would simply have to do the research in order to develop a knowledgeable and informed opinion about the situation.  but my question to you: can i ever truly have an informed opinion, worthy of any merit and consideration, if i have not experienced what i am talking about ? if i ca not relate to it in any tangible way ?
what can i possibly say of any value about abortion rights ? or who is right in the israeli palestine conflict, or a possible solution ? what do i know about feminism, the female experience, or the bout of the poor ? how could i possibly comment with any validity on the issue of homelessness ? this empowering, overstated line of  everybody is entitled to their own opinion  has become utterly throwaway and meaningless.  yes, we are entitled to freedom of opinion, and that of speech, but i do not think we are obliged to an opinion on every issue, event, or affair.  sometimes, though, it seems people feel they are obliged.  in conversation, people in the first world will readily state how they think we should address poverty in africa, or who is right/wrong in the israel palestine conflict, or whether abortion should be illegal, or same for gay marriage.   all i can truly know is my own experience as a young, white male living in north america.   apart from any remarkable education i or anyone else may have on some topic, i do not deserve an opinion on any matter that i have not experienced, or that i cannot directly relate to.  i already see some holes in my argument: i can relate to the human experience, so therefore i can relate to everything humans experience anywhere in the world.  if this were the case, also, there would be a severe limitation on what could be discussed, and progress of humanity through intelligent debate are we not due to comment on goings on in the world ? can we not have intelligent discussion about that which we have not experienced, through sympathy rather than empathy ? should we not use our evolutionary advantage of theory of mind, and  putting ourself in the shoes of others , to opine on what ought to be done, for example, in a conflict thousands of miles away ? i am torn.  but i thought i would present this, as i often feel hesitant to state any opinion in conversation or debate, for the feeling of unease about whether my opinion is entirely mooted by the fact that i do not really know what i am talking about.  change my view.  thank you.  and we never can.   #  or who is right in the israeli palestine conflict, or a possible solution ?  #  you have a conscience and you can decide whether the acts of other people should be supported or condemned.   #  there is a wide gulf between recognizing that your opinion is fallible and deciding you are not deserving of it.  everyone is  opinions are fallible; even about things they may have a great deal of personal experience with.  we need to establish a marketplace of ideas where everyone is fallible opinions come together and conflict, we interact and argue in defense of our ideas, others attack them, the better replace the worse and we all end up better off than we were before.  you ca not replace that marketplace with opinion by decree from those who have informed experience but reject the idea that they ought to be subject to criticism.  you have a conscience and you can decide whether you want the society you live in to support the right of pregnant women to choose or the right of a fetus to live.  your opinion on that is valid.  you should be willing to question it when exposed to new experience be it personal or shared by others , but you are not barred from having an opinion because you are not omniscient.  you have a conscience and you can decide whether the acts of other people should be supported or condemned.  you can decide whether you want your country to act in your name in support of one side or the other.  you are human and can express outrage when other humans are needlessly harmed.  you have a conscience and if the reasonable feminists i have met are to be believed, the purpose of feminism is equality.  that means you get an opinion.  if feminism is instead the rejection of the male point of view entirely, then it is entirely antagonistic to you and you should not support it.  people who want to dictate to you how you should live without listening to you are not very good people in my opinion .  you have a conscience and you can decide how you want your society to deal with poverty.  there is no logical reason that only the poor should discuss this; it is not even logically feasible.  are we only going to let the poor discuss how they plan to take money from others to make themselves less poor ? or should those who are not poor have a say in how their money is used ? now, if you want to say you do not have a concrete opinion because you do not know enough about a specific issue, that is fine.  hell, that is a good policy.  but you should not make the  informed  threshold at which you can have a valid opinion be unattainable by virtue of who you are.   #  with that said, yes, you can have a valid, accurate opinion, and it is by listening carefully to how people describe their experiences.   #  personal experience is not the only way a person gains knowledge.  in fact, in my experience, it is not the primary way a person gains knowledge.  i stand on the shoulders of millions of people who came before me and reported their experiments and knowledge.  if i insisted that only through personal experience could i know reality, then i would have to reinvent the wheel in nearly every single aspect of my life.  that is nonsense.  just from a basic epistemological standpoint, i do not think you  can  operate this way unless just yesterday you literally rediscovered the wheel.  with that said, yes, you can have a valid, accurate opinion, and it is by listening carefully to how people describe their experiences.  in that case, you would phrase it:  after listening to people going through the experience, the opinion i formed was.   you have given enough caveats for the reasonable person not to jump down your throat.  in fact, this is the only way some oppressed people will  ever  be able to get their story out through mouthpieces who are not in a similar situation, but nevertheless listened.  the thing you are fighting against, imperialism through opinions, occurs whenever people do not listen and opine anyway.  yes, those opinions are usually inaccurate and typically self serving, but there is nothing to keep someone from communicating their experience to you.   #  they need not be based solely on your limited set of life experiences, but can include logical deductions from reasonable assumptions, or even better from historical information or scientific evidence.   #  life experiences are not the only thing that can be the basis for your opinions and beliefs.  reason is perfectly valid, if not superior, foundation for your world view and belief system.  using your abortion example: if you hold the belief that a fetus is a living human being and you hold the belief that killing innocent human beings is murder then through deduction, you can come to a conclusion that abortion is murder.  if you further hold that murder is wrong, then a 0nd deduction leads you to  abortion is wrong .  this is completely independent on your genitals or your experiences as a man or woman.  the same concept applies to any set of beliefs and opinions.  they need not be based solely on your limited set of life experiences, but can include logical deductions from reasonable assumptions, or even better from historical information or scientific evidence.  reason and logic are colorblind and sexless.  unless the argument is something that only actual experience can inform e. g.  what does childbirth feel like anyone can form reasonable and valid opinions presuming they start from reasonable and valid premises.   #  but being alive and trying to place yourself in others  shoes entitles you to a thought on the matter.   # there are many parts of the abortion debate fueled by particular experiences, and it will be difficult for you to wrap your head around them.  as someone alive, though, you are allowed to care about women, and you are allowed to care about children, unborn and otherwise.  your experience of having your own rights and the occasional challenges to them , and your ability, hopefully, to empathize with others whose rights are more than occasionally impinged, entirely entitles you to an opinion and, i might argue, obliges a defense .  of course, it would be great if you could always, in a way void of deflection, heavily caveat your opinions by noting they are borne of empathy and relation, and not experience.  but being alive and trying to place yourself in others  shoes entitles you to a thought on the matter.  you will never know all of the answers.  do the best you can and try to push people is thinking forward.  to be idle would be a loss.   #  but my question to you: can i ever truly have an informed opinion, worthy of any merit and consideration, if i have not experienced what i am talking about ?  #  this question gives me difficulty.  at first, my response is simply  i can judge their actions, but not them.   but, they committed the actions that i deem to be despicable, so are they not then by extension, despicable people ? i do not know.  i like this rebuttal, but to make it more relevant, if we rephrase it to:   can you judge either side in the israel palestine conflict ? my answer would be more unclear.  i do not know.  but then, to rebuttal myself, i would simply have to do the research in order to develop a knowledgeable and informed opinion about the situation.  but my question to you: can i ever truly have an informed opinion, worthy of any merit and consideration, if i have not experienced what i am talking about ? if i ca not relate to it in any tangible way ?
what can i possibly say of any value about abortion rights ? or who is right in the israeli palestine conflict, or a possible solution ? what do i know about feminism, the female experience, or the bout of the poor ? how could i possibly comment with any validity on the issue of homelessness ? this empowering, overstated line of  everybody is entitled to their own opinion  has become utterly throwaway and meaningless.  yes, we are entitled to freedom of opinion, and that of speech, but i do not think we are obliged to an opinion on every issue, event, or affair.  sometimes, though, it seems people feel they are obliged.  in conversation, people in the first world will readily state how they think we should address poverty in africa, or who is right/wrong in the israel palestine conflict, or whether abortion should be illegal, or same for gay marriage.   all i can truly know is my own experience as a young, white male living in north america.   apart from any remarkable education i or anyone else may have on some topic, i do not deserve an opinion on any matter that i have not experienced, or that i cannot directly relate to.  i already see some holes in my argument: i can relate to the human experience, so therefore i can relate to everything humans experience anywhere in the world.  if this were the case, also, there would be a severe limitation on what could be discussed, and progress of humanity through intelligent debate are we not due to comment on goings on in the world ? can we not have intelligent discussion about that which we have not experienced, through sympathy rather than empathy ? should we not use our evolutionary advantage of theory of mind, and  putting ourself in the shoes of others , to opine on what ought to be done, for example, in a conflict thousands of miles away ? i am torn.  but i thought i would present this, as i often feel hesitant to state any opinion in conversation or debate, for the feeling of unease about whether my opinion is entirely mooted by the fact that i do not really know what i am talking about.  change my view.  thank you.  and we never can.   #  what do i know about feminism, the female experience, or the bout of the poor ?  #  you have a conscience and if the reasonable feminists i have met are to be believed, the purpose of feminism is equality.   #  there is a wide gulf between recognizing that your opinion is fallible and deciding you are not deserving of it.  everyone is  opinions are fallible; even about things they may have a great deal of personal experience with.  we need to establish a marketplace of ideas where everyone is fallible opinions come together and conflict, we interact and argue in defense of our ideas, others attack them, the better replace the worse and we all end up better off than we were before.  you ca not replace that marketplace with opinion by decree from those who have informed experience but reject the idea that they ought to be subject to criticism.  you have a conscience and you can decide whether you want the society you live in to support the right of pregnant women to choose or the right of a fetus to live.  your opinion on that is valid.  you should be willing to question it when exposed to new experience be it personal or shared by others , but you are not barred from having an opinion because you are not omniscient.  you have a conscience and you can decide whether the acts of other people should be supported or condemned.  you can decide whether you want your country to act in your name in support of one side or the other.  you are human and can express outrage when other humans are needlessly harmed.  you have a conscience and if the reasonable feminists i have met are to be believed, the purpose of feminism is equality.  that means you get an opinion.  if feminism is instead the rejection of the male point of view entirely, then it is entirely antagonistic to you and you should not support it.  people who want to dictate to you how you should live without listening to you are not very good people in my opinion .  you have a conscience and you can decide how you want your society to deal with poverty.  there is no logical reason that only the poor should discuss this; it is not even logically feasible.  are we only going to let the poor discuss how they plan to take money from others to make themselves less poor ? or should those who are not poor have a say in how their money is used ? now, if you want to say you do not have a concrete opinion because you do not know enough about a specific issue, that is fine.  hell, that is a good policy.  but you should not make the  informed  threshold at which you can have a valid opinion be unattainable by virtue of who you are.   #  i stand on the shoulders of millions of people who came before me and reported their experiments and knowledge.   #  personal experience is not the only way a person gains knowledge.  in fact, in my experience, it is not the primary way a person gains knowledge.  i stand on the shoulders of millions of people who came before me and reported their experiments and knowledge.  if i insisted that only through personal experience could i know reality, then i would have to reinvent the wheel in nearly every single aspect of my life.  that is nonsense.  just from a basic epistemological standpoint, i do not think you  can  operate this way unless just yesterday you literally rediscovered the wheel.  with that said, yes, you can have a valid, accurate opinion, and it is by listening carefully to how people describe their experiences.  in that case, you would phrase it:  after listening to people going through the experience, the opinion i formed was.   you have given enough caveats for the reasonable person not to jump down your throat.  in fact, this is the only way some oppressed people will  ever  be able to get their story out through mouthpieces who are not in a similar situation, but nevertheless listened.  the thing you are fighting against, imperialism through opinions, occurs whenever people do not listen and opine anyway.  yes, those opinions are usually inaccurate and typically self serving, but there is nothing to keep someone from communicating their experience to you.   #  what does childbirth feel like anyone can form reasonable and valid opinions presuming they start from reasonable and valid premises.   #  life experiences are not the only thing that can be the basis for your opinions and beliefs.  reason is perfectly valid, if not superior, foundation for your world view and belief system.  using your abortion example: if you hold the belief that a fetus is a living human being and you hold the belief that killing innocent human beings is murder then through deduction, you can come to a conclusion that abortion is murder.  if you further hold that murder is wrong, then a 0nd deduction leads you to  abortion is wrong .  this is completely independent on your genitals or your experiences as a man or woman.  the same concept applies to any set of beliefs and opinions.  they need not be based solely on your limited set of life experiences, but can include logical deductions from reasonable assumptions, or even better from historical information or scientific evidence.  reason and logic are colorblind and sexless.  unless the argument is something that only actual experience can inform e. g.  what does childbirth feel like anyone can form reasonable and valid opinions presuming they start from reasonable and valid premises.   #  of course, it would be great if you could always, in a way void of deflection, heavily caveat your opinions by noting they are borne of empathy and relation, and not experience.   # there are many parts of the abortion debate fueled by particular experiences, and it will be difficult for you to wrap your head around them.  as someone alive, though, you are allowed to care about women, and you are allowed to care about children, unborn and otherwise.  your experience of having your own rights and the occasional challenges to them , and your ability, hopefully, to empathize with others whose rights are more than occasionally impinged, entirely entitles you to an opinion and, i might argue, obliges a defense .  of course, it would be great if you could always, in a way void of deflection, heavily caveat your opinions by noting they are borne of empathy and relation, and not experience.  but being alive and trying to place yourself in others  shoes entitles you to a thought on the matter.  you will never know all of the answers.  do the best you can and try to push people is thinking forward.  to be idle would be a loss.   #  but then, to rebuttal myself, i would simply have to do the research in order to develop a knowledgeable and informed opinion about the situation.   #  this question gives me difficulty.  at first, my response is simply  i can judge their actions, but not them.   but, they committed the actions that i deem to be despicable, so are they not then by extension, despicable people ? i do not know.  i like this rebuttal, but to make it more relevant, if we rephrase it to:   can you judge either side in the israel palestine conflict ? my answer would be more unclear.  i do not know.  but then, to rebuttal myself, i would simply have to do the research in order to develop a knowledgeable and informed opinion about the situation.  but my question to you: can i ever truly have an informed opinion, worthy of any merit and consideration, if i have not experienced what i am talking about ? if i ca not relate to it in any tangible way ?
i probably should clarify before i get a thousand replies from r/atheism users.  i am an atheist, i believe in evolution and all that jazz.  however, i do not believe in science is ability to provide capital t definite truths, only small t truths or what i consider to be tentative truths , which are marred by social influences, human blindness and methodological flaws.  i believe there is, to some degree, a scientism to be wary of when considering questions of what we know, and do not accept anything just because it is stated to be  science , but based on a pragmatic assessment of the work is epistemological value which i recognize, of course, to be built upon my own premises, as i am not a perfect arbiter of truth either, and ultimately requires a lot of research in order to fully understand what is being presented to me in order to determine on a personal basis how believable the evidence is, though, of course, it is never perfect.  the reason i do this is because i think that taking science as authority in itself is a flawed premise to come from, and that the questioning of science is more in line with scientific principle than not.  firstly due to the fact that science relies on a succession of paradigms in the kuhnian sense , but also because too often i see people purport scientific claims that are ill founded and based on unreasonable grounds.  further, i see a danger in entrusting science without due consideration, scientists being within a social frame, to make accurate determinations without bias necessarily, be it political in nature such as the old scientific racism or modern day neurosexism or just by chasing the random whims of their mind is eye i see string theory like this often, if only because it does not even meet popperian requirements of falsification, at least not yet .  however, often i run into people who bawk at the questioning of a reified science in any capacity, and am confused for the sort of person who may be a climate change denialist or an intelligent design advocate.  an aside: do not confuse this for blind acceptance of non scientific things.  i am not going to replace astronomy with astrology any time soon.  anyway, i hope for some good attempts at changing my view !  #  the reason i do this is because i think that taking science as authority in itself is a flawed premise to come from, and that the questioning of science is more in line with scientific principle than not.   #  you are referring to  science  as a thing, but  science  is just a result of the scientific method.   # you are referring to  science  as a thing, but  science  is just a result of the scientific method.  do you believe there to be a fundamental flaw in this method ? can you provide another way of determining truth that does not rely on empirical observation ? when you step out of science, you just start making stuff up.  if your non scientific theory conflicts with reality like a  young earth  and homeopathy , then it is demonstrably  untrue .  so far, empiricism is the only reliable way to prove things  false .  we make observations about the universe, and when something does not make sense we propose solutions that can explain it.  nobody is touting string theory as truth, but it does solve a lot of inadequacies with current theories.  scientific theories are not  prescriptive , they are  descriptive .  as long as they have predictive value and match real observations, they are true.   #  we could go around the world and perform the experiment but do we actually do this or just make the assumption ?  # its impossible to make predictions or say anything via induction without this assumption.  we see in the lab that this chemical acts this way, so how does it act around the world ? we assume the exact same way.  we could go around the world and perform the experiment but do we actually do this or just make the assumption ? what evidence or reasoning do you have to say basically nil ? you ca not use induction because there is no evidence for it and there is no solid reasoning for it.  URL  #  science is essentially the pursuit of these laws do nature, and for replicability to be the standard by which we measure scientific evidence, then we must be operating under the assumption that these laws are consistent.   # we do not start from that as an assumption rather we say that if it ever proved to be the case it would invalidate our work.  we absolutely do start with that as an assumption.  science is essentially the pursuit of these laws do nature, and for replicability to be the standard by which we measure scientific evidence, then we must be operating under the assumption that these laws are consistent.  if the were not assumed to be consistent, then we would not care about replicability because if the laws were inconsistent, then we would expect to get different results every time.  also, if we are talking about axioms, we are in the realm of philosophy.   #   lowercase t  truth is subjective, contextualized and may not be never changing.   #  it is a little bit of philosophical jargon.   capital t  truth is unchanging, perpetual, applies in all times and in all situations, exists independent of humanity/human interpretation, etc.   lowercase t  truth is subjective, contextualized and may not be never changing.  most people find  capital t  truth to be unknowable since we as humans are limited by the boundaries of our minds.  op is i think essentially arguing against a blind, unyielding devotion to what we discover through science because we are limited by what we are physically able to comprehend/human error, etc.  unless are sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that we have become omniscient, we can never be 0 certain that we really  know  something or that something is  true .  as i understand it, this does not mean we should completely disregard science at all  it means we should approach science with a certain level skepticism, keeping in mind that any  truth  we discover is not 0, instead of considering them all knowing, distant authority figures discovering fundamental truths of the universe.  showing them the same level of scrutiny as we do other figures in more in spirit with science itself.   #  by the same token, blinding accepting any authority would be fundamentally unscientific.   #  science is not a single monolithic entity that can act as an authority in the way you are describing, although people certainly can treat it that way, i agree.  but that is not using science.  to reiterate my point, if you are approaching science with a certain level skepticism, keeping in mind that any  truth  we discover is not 0, then that is quite literally approaching science scientifically.  individual scientists may fail to adequately recognize their biases or how their frame of reference alters the objectivity of their observations, but since one of the fundamental principles of science is reproducibility, the effect of subjectivity is inherently reduced.  by the same token, blinding accepting any authority would be fundamentally unscientific.  not applying skepticism even to that which supports your own evidence would be fundamentally unscientific.  if your viewpoint were that few people apply scientific principles when viewing the results of other science a point you have mentioned a few times , that would be absolutely true.  but not at all the viewpoint you have poised for change.  the only way in which the application of science does not bring us closer to big t truth is if big t truth is unsupportable by empirical evidence.
people always talk about how unfair it is to discriminate against people, but i see tons of discrimination and hatred against the rich especially on reddit .  i think this discrimination is just as morally wrong as all other forms of discrimination.  america is always talked about as a free society and a land of equality, but how free and equal can it be if it charges certain people more for being more productive ? ! ? ! additional taxes and discrimination on the productive also serve the effect of discouraging this behavior or encouraging it to happen elsewhere where americans do not benefit from spillover effects , and our subsidy system for poor people especially regarding reproduction has grown the ranks of the poor by millions.   #  our subsidy system for poor people especially regarding reproduction has grown the ranks of the poor by millions.   #  is it your assertion that the welfare system  encourages  people to be poor ?  # ! ? ! additional taxes and discrimination on the productive also serve the effect of discouraging this behavior rich people are not charged more for being  more productive.   the progressive tax system means that nobody is ever better off not making more money.  is it your assertion that the welfare system  encourages  people to be poor ? please back up this claim.   #  for example, it would be ridiculous for me to ask you why you hate all of those poor children in africa so much that you are starving to death.   # how much of your income to send to plants and algae ? infrastructure would be there regardless of whether or not we robbed people to pay for it, or if people and organizations paid for it voluntarily.  you have just been in a box for so long you think all walls have to be paid out of cardboard.  forced sterilization or making people starve ? you are not making anyone starve.  for example, it would be ridiculous for me to ask you why you hate all of those poor children in africa so much that you are starving to death.  i think if we stopped subsidizing poverty, we would get less of it.  they would have fewer children, and yes they would probably die earlier.  millions of people die everyday.  i do not think it is worth restructuring society, giving the gov t access to billions, burdening the productive just so that poor people can keep having more kids.  poverty is a cycle and throwing money at the poor does not change anything, it just makes it worse.   #  if you try to squeeze money out of the poor and reduce the taxes on the wealthy, how do people get fed ?  # how much of your income to send to plants and algae ? plants and algae do not ask for money, nor do they require money to operate.  if they did, someone would have to pay for it.  i would imagine the more air i breathed, the more tax i would be expected to pay.  if i operate a business that requires 0 breathing people, i would expect to shoulder an additional cost for that as well.  someone has to pay for it, and generating more wealth requires more infrastructure.  i do not need the government to enforce ip laws, but if i had a software business i would.  i do not need the government to regulate the stock market, but people with major investments do.  if you try to squeeze money out of the poor and reduce the taxes on the wealthy, how do people get fed ? the poor do not have the money for food, and paying more taxes  literally  takes food off of the table.  they would have fewer children, and yes they would probably die earlier.  you are making the assumption that the impoverished are there out of laziness; which is demonstrably false.  poor people do not have the connections for high paying jobs, and they ca not afford schooling with the jobs they have.  people have children they ca not afford all of the time; pulling out the safety net wo not stop that.  i do not think it is worth restructuring society, giving the gov t access to billions, burdening the productive just so that poor people can keep having more kids.  society is built on having poor people, and you benefit greatly from these subsidies.  either we have to pay people a living wage, or we provide a social safety net.  you are going to end up paying for it one way or another.   #  furthermore, the amount of rich people who inherited their money is usually exaggerated and made to characterize all wealthy people, which is discrimination.   #  while i agree with you on all points, i think it does not disprove op.  furthermore, the amount of rich people who inherited their money is usually exaggerated and made to characterize all wealthy people, which is discrimination.  it is far to easy to lose all your money, no matter how much you have.  even those that inherit usually are pretty savvy and intelligent when it comes to keeping it.  on the flip side while there are many hard working unlucky people, there are also a lot of lazy people.  0 minutes recently did a special on how nearly half of all social security disability claims are fraudulent.  the systems are exploited.  there are many who use it because they need to, sure, but exploitation does happen and it happens too much.   #  his wealth is based on the success of his product which is situational, not based on his work ethic people liked/wanted computers .   #  self made also does not mean more productive, because there is an element of luck and family connections.  i. e. , they got into college through family help and money, they just happened to meet the right people, etc.  do you think just by virtue of being a billionaire, bill gates worked harder than anyone else, ever ? more than a soldier, more than a worker on an oil tanker, more than a millionaire ? he worked hard, but his productivity is not directly proportional to his wealth.  his wealth is based on the success of his product which is situational, not based on his work ethic people liked/wanted computers .
a warning to those who have not seen/read watchmen you should , this post will contain spoilers.  proceed at your own risk.  i really loved both versions of watchmen, both the graphic novel and the movie.  for the most part, the movie is plot followed the original novel is plot very closely, with only a few omissions and additions.  that is, until the ending, which was completely different in the movie compared to the book.  for those who do not remember the difference, allow me to explain.  in the comic, adrian veidt aka ozymandias had been secretly creating a monster which would release a psychic blast that would kill both itself and anyone within the blast radius.  throughout the movie, veidt had been secretly leading the watchmen on a wild goose chase around the world, distracting them so he would succeed in his plan to bring peace to earth.  as tensions between the soviet union and the united states are about to come to a head and bring the world to war, veidt teleports the monster into the middle of manhattan, which immediately releases its psychic blast, killing millions of people.  the aftermath drawings are some of the most visceral and beautifully drawn works i have ever seen in a comic.  but i digress.  both countries view what happened as an alien invasion and decide to put their differences aside in order to protect earth from the perceived alien invasion, thus ushering in peace.  meanwhile, the watchmen confront veidt at his lab in antartica in an attempt to stop him from killing millions of people.  unfortunately, they are too late.  in order to redeem the lives lost, they threaten to expose veidt is plan to the world so he may be brought to justice.  however, they ca not.  if they expose veidt and plot which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people, the us and ussr will be back at each other is throats, and the world will again be threatened by nuclear war.  however, if they do nothing, the world will be at peace, and billions more will live.  in the end, they choose not to expose the plot.  now take the above fantastic, entertaining, and truly enjoyable plot above, and compare it to the movie ending.  the overall plot is basically the same, except instead of creating a monster, veidt creates many different reactors which emit a similar type of energy as that of dr.  manhattan.  he teleports these reactors to various large cities across the globe and detonates them.  the world is superpowers then believe that it was dr.  manhattan who attacked earth.  together, they unite against manhattan, who chooses to leave earth forever to allow peace to happen.  now, obviously both plots are completely fantastical in a way only a comic book would allow.  however, if we were to take both plots at their face value, the movie option is the  most likely .  it is far more believable to frame someone else for doing something especially since dr.  manhattan is basically a god who has the power to blow up various cities at will in much the same way than genetically manufacturing a fake alien.  political maneuvering, in my view, makes for a much more believable story even if the very notion of the movie being  real  is absurd , thus making it a better overall story and ending.  cmv !  #  it is far more believable to frame someone else for doing something especially since dr.   #  manhattan is basically a god who has the power to blow up various cities at will in much the same way than genetically manufacturing a fake alien.   # manhattan is basically a god who has the power to blow up various cities at will in much the same way than genetically manufacturing a fake alien.  except that dr.  manhattan was a us asset  the superman exists and he is an american who directly assisted american troops in vietnam and possibly other armed conflicts.  dr.  manhattan going rogue and attacking the world is not an external threat that all the nations must band together and stop.  it is a demonstration of the irresponsibility of the american who cultivated this person who ultimately killed all these people.  imo the way the movie ends does not make sense because everyone will just blame the americans for what happened.  if anything, once it becomes apparent that dr.  manhattan is gone, the threat of war  increases  as the soviets and other countries seek reparations.  the giant fake alien makes way more sense with regards to ozymandias is objectives.  the alien is clearly no ones fault and therefore no blame can be placed.  additionally, the alien arrived without warning which gives the impression that another alien invasion could happen at any moment.  dr.  manhattan was a fixture in the world for decades and then disappears.  this greatly lessens the immediacy of his threat because it appears he is gone .   #  manhattan is  technically  an american, he has always acted on his own accord.   # manhattan going rogue and attacking the world is not an external threat that all the nations must band together and stop.  it is a demonstration of the irresponsibility of the american who cultivated this person who ultimately killed all these people.  this is a fair point.  however, while dr.  manhattan is  technically  an american, he has always acted on his own accord.  if he were truly an american asset, president nixon would have order him into vietnam.  instead nixon had to beg him to do it.  while that may seem like the polite thing to do i would personally elect to beg for the favor of a god like being instead of telling them what to do , the demeanor of us officials towards manhattan comes across as  he is agreed to help us out for the mean time , instead of  he is our weapon and we will use him if we have to .  plus, public opinion of him has already started to fall due to the allegations of him giving those close to him cancer.  when he was on the show, after his old wife appeared, the audience went completely nuts and he teleported them and himself away.  while i agree with you that a random alien appearing would definitely reset the status quo, i still believe that manhattan going rogue and attacking everybody, including the us, makes for a more plausible outcome, considering his past interactions with the us government.   #  i mean the internal negotiations between nixon and manhattan are not public.   # instead nixon had to beg him to do it.  dr.  manhattan is presence in vietnam on the side of the americans is definitely enough reason for the soviet bloc to think of him as such.  i mean the internal negotiations between nixon and manhattan are not public.  also at at least one point in the comic and the movie they mention that dr.  manhattan is a integral component of america is nuclear deterrent.  so the soviets and frankly the american people already see him as being firmly on the side of the us.  so while he might be a loose cannon, he at least to the outside world would look like  america is  loose cannon.   #  i found it all very tight and satisfying.   #  i just want to point out that you are saying that setting off what are  literally  god machines is not a deus ex machina.  if the end of the comic was actually an alien invasion, i would agree that it was out of left field enough to be considered adeus ex machina.  but in the comic it all ads up.  the reason the comedian had to be killed was he found the island ozi was using to build the monster.  the weight of the secret was too much because unlike the heroes at the end, he knew the tragedy was coming, not that it had already happened .  because he was cracking by confiding in molok he had to go.  his death got roscharch involved, which starts the whole comic going.  i found it all very tight and satisfying.  what i find unsatisfying about the  blame it on john  storyline is that lots of people already believe they are being watched by a vengeful god.  war still happens.  i see no reason why making god a blue naked dude instead a white dude with a long beard will make any longterm difference.  using an alien threat to make humanity realize we are all more similar than we are different which nicely mirror is john is epiphany on mars that all humans are unique miracles makes much more sense to me.   #  i really do not see where you are going with this.   #  right.  and what are they going to find out ? they are going to find out that it is a carbon based life form that does not exist anywhere on earth.  they will also have no idea how the thing teleported into new york no living person except dr.  manhattan, who is now gone, has the ability to teleport or how it caused a psychic shockwave no living creature that they know of has psychic powers .  i really do not see where you are going with this.  you are trolling me, are not you ?
i believe that divisions/leagues/conferences deciding who makes the playoffs of a given professional sport is not the best way to find the best teams.  also, i do not think the final has to be league vs league if those are not the two best teams.  so a system more like what ncaa basketball has is a better determiner of who the best team is.  i understand that you ca not have 0 or even 0 teams in the playoffs and that is not what i propose.  but a system where 0/0/0, depending on sport, teams with the best records/stats get in .  i understand that this probably means everyone will have to play everyone, so this is not realistic for the nfl.  i do not think we have to get rid of the division/leagues or even division/league season champions because they do bring along rivalries that we all enjoy.  but if you are the best team of a horrible conference, that is not an automatic bid into the playoffs if a team with a better record/stats that did not win their division exists.  for an example: mlb has recently added a second wildcard, because well, money if were are honest you could be cincinnati and win 0 games and still not make the playoffs if pittsburgh and st.  louis win 0.  but, that only stings if a team from a much weaker division wins 0 games and gets in.   #  i do not think we have to get rid of the division/leagues or even division/league season champions because they do bring along rivalries that we all enjoy.   #  the reason you enjoy the division rivalries are because they so often have playoff implications.   # the reason you enjoy the division rivalries are because they so often have playoff implications.  one only has to look at the different between the nfl and mlb divisions vs.  the nba divisions to see which format is more exciting and fosters rivalries.  both the nfl and mlb division winners automatically get playoff spots, and often the division comes down to the final few games of the season.  both of these leagues have strong divisions and rivalries, which makes performance against your rivals crucial to making the postseason.  off the top of my head, i can recall last year is packers/bears URL week 0 game to get a playoff spot, and game 0 URL in 0.  those are  exciting  ! the nba is the closest to what you suggest: it is top 0 for eastern and western, regardless of division.  quick ! name an nba division rivalry ! the problem is, because the nba plays the most egalitarian schedule of the pro sports which suits its playoff style best , those division rivalries do not flourish.  also, mlb added the second wild card  specifically to place extra importance on winning the division .  it is now much, much better to win your division than play a one game playoff with the other wildcard team.   #  the yankees  want to  play the red sox or the mets many times during the regular season over the white sox or reds because that attracts more fans to the games.   #  okay here are some ideas that i believe are necessary in most professional sports: 0 as /u/the snooze pointed out, the way divisions/conferences work, a team with a worse winning percentage may better than the team with the better winning percentage because they have harder teams to play.  0 you may be saying  why not have all teams play every team, a round robin like schedule ?   this is not feasible for one simple reason: rivalries.  the yankees  want to  play the red sox or the mets many times during the regular season over the white sox or reds because that attracts more fans to the games.  the mlb wants higher attendances, and thus will make the schedule fit that criterion.  thus, teams are going to have different schedules and primarily face teams in their division and/or conference in order for that sport to have more fans come to the games, watch the games, or buy their merchandise.  that is ultimately why the playoff system is the way it is.   #  i am not arguing that we need the division rivalry, but that we would not  have  to get rid of them in this system.   # name an nba division rivalry ! so then the nba would have an even easier time transitioning to such a system.  i am not arguing that we need the division rivalry, but that we would not  have  to get rid of them in this system.  both of these leagues have strong divisions and rivalries, which makes performance against your rivals crucial to making the postseason.  i agree that this can make the final few games exciting, but so could needing a win against  any  team because you are 0 win behind in the overall standing.  i would be just as amped to play a team near the end of the season that had knock me out of the playoffs before because of a better record.  also, most of the better rivalries are also because they geographically close together and that would not change.  kentucky/louisville have arguable one of the better rivalries in all of sports and they have never been in the same division/conference.  that does not take away the importance of that game at all.   #  college rivalries are completely different from professional sports rivalries.   # just because they are artificially created like the importance of sport in the first place does not mean they do not have value.  but this would be much less likely to happen than the current setup.  both the nfl and mlb schedules feature intra division games to end the season.  kentucky/louisville have arguable one of the better rivalries in all of sports and they have never been in the same division/conference.  college rivalries are completely different from professional sports rivalries.  additionally, there is a ton of importance placed on winning college conference: most bcs bowl invitations are reserved for winners of conferences.  additionally, keeping divisions or maintaining division rivalries which eliminating automatic division berths is just as unfair as the current system.  the arizona cardinals still have to play four of their games every season against the seahawks and 0ers, while the colts do not have to play either team at all this season, and face them only once every four years.  basically, you ca not have divisions and  fair  playoff berths.  and you need divisions for divisional rivalries.   #  also, given what i have written above, i do not agree that it would be a better playoff system anyway.   # no it ca not.  nfl teams play 0/0 games against their division.  teams like the packers, who have bitter rivalries with both the bears and vikings, play a full 0 of their regular season games against rivals.  the nfc east is nothing but blood rivalries.  in order to have any semblance of a  fair  regular season, you simply ca not play that many games against the same teams season after season.  but it is easier to predict a single division of four or five teams than an entire league.  you are saying it is as easy to pick who will be the 0 0th best teams given an 0 team cutoff as it is to predict the top two teams of a division ? this will not change.  teams with  nothing to play for  are almost always teams which have locked up both their division and home field advantage for the playoffs.  absolutely.  ask a cowboys fan if he would rather play the redskins twice a year, or have a  better  playoff system.  as a packers/bears fan.  ask the red sox or the yankees.  also, given what i have written above, i do not agree that it would be a better playoff system anyway.
for those who do not know what instant runoff voting is, cgp grey made two URL really good URL videos that explain it, as well as the problems with our current system .  this is something that has bugged me for years; it is as if a lot of third party candidates do not even understand how our voting system works.  i often see third party candidates who are eager to challenge the status quo, but rarely do they even so much as mention that the voting system is rigged against them and should be reformed.  the way that they urge voters to vote for them, because if enough people do then it will supposedly make a difference, shows a complete lack of understanding of the current system, as every vote for a third party makes the party the voter dislikes the most more likely to win due to the spoiler effect.  in other words, third party candidates are harming their constituents just by running see ralph nader in 0 and 0 .  until third party candidates attack the root of the problem, they will continue to harm their base.  those who do not take this seriously either do not realize this is a problem which, i would argue, makes them dangerously naive/stupid , or they do not seem to care which makes them not serious at best, malicious at worst .  as much as i like some of them, they are all talk.   #  as every vote for a third party makes the party the voter dislikes the most more likely to win due to the spoiler effect.   #  in other words, third party candidates are harming their constituents just by running see ralph nader in 0 and 0 .   #  focusing on instant runoff voting is a losing strategy for most third party candidates.  asking for a more level playing field sounds like whining, and making it a top priority sends the message  i do not think i can win without changing the rules of the game .  that may or may not be true, but saying it virtually guarantees a loss because it signals weakness.  a successful third party candidacy must project strength, saying that you can beat your opponents even at a disadvantage.  furthermore, voting reform would require changing the constitution in most states, which really makes it difficult to accomplish.  focusing on more easily achieved goals is probably more reasonable.  in other words, third party candidates are harming their constituents just by running see ralph nader in 0 and 0 .  this is absolutely false.  if you always vote democrat, the democratic party never needs to take your preferences into account.  you will vote for them whether they move left or right, so they can simply ignore you when deciding what to support.  they only need to account for swing voters.  if you may vote democrat or green, the democratic party needs to take you into account.  if they move too far right, you will vote green whereas if they move farther left you will vote democrat.  thus, a third party helps its consituents by making them into swing voters whose preferences need to be considered.   #  also, i think most third party candidates would be thrilled to cost the mainstream party closest to them the election.   #  third parties can be effective without winning.  the socialist party from the early half of the twentieth century did not win many elections, but they started enough conversations that a lot of socialist policies have been adopted.  my father ran for office as a libertarian a number of years ago.  his goal was not to win, but to start some discussions by being involved in debates.  his goal was to get 0 of the vote.  you might say that he did not take himself seriously, since he knew he could not win, but the important thing to him was to get people thinking about the libertarian perspective on issues.  also, i think most third party candidates would be thrilled to cost the mainstream party closest to them the election.  if democrats lost because of a green party candidate, or republicans lost because of a libertarian candidate, they are going to take those constituents very seriously in the next election.  it is a long term strategy, but always worrying about the very next election is short term thinking that leads to poor long term results.   #  credibility is not the point, nor is the rise to prominence of another party.   # credibility is not the point, nor is the rise to prominence of another party.  the impact of third party candidate successful runs is not to get the 0rd party more credibility.  it is getting important planks of the 0rd party platform integrated into the platforms of one or the other or both of the 0 major parties.  look. in the 0s, the republicans were not about a balanced federal budget.  reagan gleefully signed off on massive increases to the federal deficit that his democrat counterpart tip o neill sent him in every single budget.  reagan is republicans were not about fiscal responsibility, they were about beating down the russkis and a damn fine job they did of it, too. by outspending the hell out of old ivan .  then along comes perot with a couple whack job messages about nafta and command economies.  but one message really resonated: we should only allow the government to spend as much money as it takes in.  the government should be run like a business.  perot beat that drum relentlessly.  and ghwb lost and this was less that 0 months after looking like freaking julius caesar following the epic smackdown that was gw i , and slick willy won.  slick willy being slick. as he was. he also became all about balancing the federal budget.  exactly one election cycle, and all the republicans can talk about is balancing the federal budget.  it is  still  one of their major talking points 0 years later.  that is the impact of 0rd party candidates.   #  how is it reasonable to try to change policy by making the opposite party stronger ?  #  that is dumb.  the current voting system is nonsense.  how is it reasonable to try to change policy by making the opposite party stronger ? i do not think anyone who does not making voting reform a top priority is serious about making democracy work.  there are simple, obvious, proven voting reforms that would make our government reflect the will of the people more accurately.  it does not make sense to passionately debate other topics when the current voting system makes sure it does not matter what conclusions we come to.  it is like people under the king arguing about tax policy.  no, you need to first not live in a kingdom because it does not matter what your opinions on tax policy are until you have a democracy.   #  he will though yell at ralph nader in an interview and criticize him for helping bush win.   #  i completely agree.  this is why i am so mad at guys like cenk uygur who have a voice and wo not make a peep about the problem with plurality voting.  he will though yell at ralph nader in an interview and criticize him for helping bush win.  he will talk all day about cfr and how we need to pass an amendment to get it and save our democracy, but he just wo not talk about the problems with our voting system.  he not once mentioned the petition in or for the unified primary initiative top two with approval voting , that would have solved the vote splitting problem.  if it had passed, it would have been so much easier to get oregon on board to call for the constitutional convention that he wants.  unfortunately he has tunnel vision and thinks,  nothing else matters until we get money out of politics
many people have bemoaned the rise of political correctness, but most of us still conform to it in subtle ways.  for instance, the word  abuse  now covers such an array of acts, from a cruel insult to rape, that it means almost nothing.  limp words such as that are used by media outlets of all political persuasions in preference to terms that are more informative and accurate, qualities normally appreciated in news coverage.  yet those of a progressive persuasions also replace words felt to have a nasty connotation, such as  prostitute , with bland,  neutral  terms such as  sex worker  which of course are not neutral, but seek to reinforce the author is opinion in one way or another .  i do not doubt that many have decent intentions when using these euphemisms   not wanting to upset certain people   but i think their presence pollutes meaningful discourse.  not only does it allow people to avoid facing the reality of what they are discussing compare rape to abuse , but the terms are often ridiculous whose needs are not  special  in some sense ? , vague compare disabled to deaf, crippled or retarded , elitist jargon is preferred to common words , and ugly.  most of us have learnt to recognise political or corporate euphemisms, but there seems to be a lack of will to apply the same logic to other areas of life.  if anything the avoidance of certain words protects the stigma around what they describe, while what neuroscientist steven pinker referred to as the  euphemism treadmill  leads to the decay of certain phrases as people start to use them ironically, forcing euphemists to coin newer, even more absurd terms.  as such, i believe intelligent people should stop using politically correct euphemism, and replace it with blunt, direct language.  cmv.   #  limp words such as that are used by media outlets of all political persuasions in preference to terms that are more informative and accurate, qualities normally appreciated in news coverage.   #  how is sex worker less informative and accurate than prostitute ?  #  your original post is weird.  that is not true.  abuse means abuse, it has always mean those things, why do you say those are new meanings ? even in other languages it means those things, so i do not even know wtf.  how is sex worker less informative and accurate than prostitute ? how is it bland ? and why is it bad that is neutral ? what is wrong with using a less derogatory term ? do you have anything against sex workers ? none of those questions are answered in your op.  starting off with the wrong foot are not we ? how is this happening with using more neutral words, specially in a scientific or journalistic setting ? have you ever published an article in any of those settings ? again, more unanswered questions.  also, where is abuse being used instead of rape ? rape is a form of abuse, but abuse covers a lot more things, like verbal and non sexual kinds.  cool tactic when you can lump all the people you disagree with in a ist word.  again, your original post is just weird, and loaded with assumptions.  loaded posts are not appreciated  round here.  so again, different words have different meaning, and it is cool that we have different words to describe things more precisely.  you seem to be against a more precise use of the language.   #  this is in contrast to a disability that does not present such a dramatic need for new infrastructure.   #   pc euphemisms  are very important because they allow clearer discussion on more sensitive topics.  to use one of your examples  prostitute  vs.   isex worker .   prostitute  has a long history of being a very negative phrase, an accusation as well as a description.  this makes communication in the context of, say, a policy debate, difficult, because there are not any non accusatory terms, so  isex worker , rather than diluting meaning, enhances it, because it removes the accusatory aspect of  prostitute .   pc  euphemisms enhance communication because they let us speak in a more objective sense.  debate around an idea like gay marriage would be very hard if the only word for gay was  faggot .  if it was  homosexual , we are being less precise than  gay  because the marriage is not necessarily between homosexuals, and  gay , although still tied to homosexual, is slightly less rigid in its meaning, although it has other connotations, like principally concerning men.  i can remove this connotation and add another degree of clarity by using a term like  willgbt , for example the other thing they do is draw mental connections.  the terms  wouldeaf ,  crippled  and  aretarded  are more specific than  wouldisabled , but we often need to talk about people with disabilities in a more general sense.   wouldisabled  lets us do that.   ispecial needs  has a slightly different meaning because it implies that these people have needs that are not accommodated generally speaking, with specific reference to physical and social infrastructure.  this is in contrast to a disability that does not present such a dramatic need for new infrastructure.   #  i am a special education teacher and in my field we talk about the  euphemism treadmill .   #  amazing post.  i completely agree, i just wanted to add on one complexity that might help.  i am a special education teacher and in my field we talk about the  euphemism treadmill .  basically its the idea that our words for things change over time to lose the connotation that the previous word took on.  this is the case for us with words like  retard .  it started out as a very clinical, non judgmental, word used to describe people with very low intelligence levels, but as time went on it took on all sorts of insulting and accusatory meanings.  parents do not want their children identified as retarded even if that is the only way to get them into the types of classes they need to be in, so we now have categories like  developmentally delayed  dd that mean the exact same thing, but let us, as /u/snafu coaxer 0 said, engage in  clearer discussion on more sensitive topics.   dd will eventually suffer the same fate of retarded and that is fine, the treadmill will keep turning.  another great example of this is the word  spastic  in the uk.  URL  #  i am not trying to sneak past anyone is prejudices, but would prefer to confront them head on.   # to use one of your examples  prostitute  vs.   isex worker .   prostitute  has a long history of being a very negative phrase, an accusation as well as a description.  this makes communication in the context of, say, a policy debate, difficult, because there are not any non accusatory terms, so  isex worker , rather than diluting meaning, enhances it, because it removes the accusatory aspect of  prostitute .  i just do not think that is true.  i do not have any problem defending prostitution while using the word prostitute   in fact i think it is easier that way.  i am not trying to sneak past anyone is prejudices, but would prefer to confront them head on.  gay marriage describes what the marriage is: one between two people of the same sex.  i do not see the need to dally around with longer words for the sake of your own sensibilities.  the terms  wouldeaf ,  crippled  and  aretarded  are more specific than  wouldisabled , but we often need to talk about people with disabilities in a more general sense.   wouldisabled  lets us do that.   ispecial needs  has a slightly different meaning because it implies that these people have needs that are not accommodated generally speaking, with specific reference to physical and social infrastructure.  this is in contrast to a disability that does not present such a dramatic need for new infrastructure.  i take your point on speaking generally, but your interpretation of the phrase  special needs  does not tally with the way i have heard it used.   #  the goal of using  isex worker  is to communicate  to the other person  what might otherwise be perceived as patronizing or an insult.   #  you have assumed that because a person uses  isex worker  they are hiding their own prejudices.  it is entirely possible that they simply have no prejudices with prostitutes/sex workers.  more importantly, however, your rebuttal is that  you  have no problem with using the term the prostitute, but you are not the reason the term  isex worker  might be used instead.  the goal of using  isex worker  is to communicate  to the other person  what might otherwise be perceived as patronizing or an insult.  you have also made this assumption that meaning is primarily owned by the speaker rather than the listener with your gay marriage point, although i think you misunderstood the wider point there.  i was pointing out that a debate about a hypothetical  faggot marriage law  would be difficult, and that you need a word that has less meaning you do not intend and more that you do.   gay marriage  usually works fine, but if someone was to use a different term, you would understand better that they were stressing the importance of, say, marriage between non binary people, or marriage between women.  meaning is not  lost  by supposedly being  pc , it is gained.  every additional word in use not only defines itself but takes away meaning from every other word contextually as those things are all now  not x .  on your final point, i am curious as to how you think  ispecial needs  is used, i have always heard it applied to people with mental or physical disabilities who require a special level of assistance, such as needing supervision or being unable to use stairs.
many people have bemoaned the rise of political correctness, but most of us still conform to it in subtle ways.  for instance, the word  abuse  now covers such an array of acts, from a cruel insult to rape, that it means almost nothing.  limp words such as that are used by media outlets of all political persuasions in preference to terms that are more informative and accurate, qualities normally appreciated in news coverage.  yet those of a progressive persuasions also replace words felt to have a nasty connotation, such as  prostitute , with bland,  neutral  terms such as  sex worker  which of course are not neutral, but seek to reinforce the author is opinion in one way or another .  i do not doubt that many have decent intentions when using these euphemisms   not wanting to upset certain people   but i think their presence pollutes meaningful discourse.  not only does it allow people to avoid facing the reality of what they are discussing compare rape to abuse , but the terms are often ridiculous whose needs are not  special  in some sense ? , vague compare disabled to deaf, crippled or retarded , elitist jargon is preferred to common words , and ugly.  most of us have learnt to recognise political or corporate euphemisms, but there seems to be a lack of will to apply the same logic to other areas of life.  if anything the avoidance of certain words protects the stigma around what they describe, while what neuroscientist steven pinker referred to as the  euphemism treadmill  leads to the decay of certain phrases as people start to use them ironically, forcing euphemists to coin newer, even more absurd terms.  as such, i believe intelligent people should stop using politically correct euphemism, and replace it with blunt, direct language.  cmv.   #  those of a progressive persuasions also replace words felt to have a nasty connotation, such as  prostitute , with bland,  neutral  terms such as  sex worker  which of course are not neutral, but seek to reinforce the author is opinion in one way or another .   #   sex worker  is not  neutral  as in not picking sides between conservative and progressive values, it is neutral as in not making an agressively biased judgement about the workers in question.   #  sex worker  is not  neutral  as in not picking sides between conservative and progressive values, it is neutral as in not making an agressively biased judgement about the workers in question.  of course, with judgement free treatment of the sex industry being a progressive value in and of itself, the contradiction between the two is inevitable.  political correctness is basically just good ol   correctness , but on a political scope.  a phrase ca not be entirely neutral, when it serves as the opposite of an  incorrect  phrase, such as prostitution, which in our language implies both passivity women getting  prostituted  by third parties , and criminality compare phrases like:  sodomy ,  bribery .  .  you ca not talk about how to deal with the sex industry, if you ca not even talk about it as a type of work, but as a sinful by definition action that happens to women.  sometimes politically correct phrases are not euphemisms, but the rejection of established dysphemism.  asking to call niggers  black people  instead, is not asking for an euphemism, but for not using a dysphemism intentionally charged with inappropriate intent.  the same can apply to  prostitution , even if it is more established.  politically incorrect language is not just  blunt, direct language , it is often specifically used to be hurtful even when  elitist   jargon  could more appropriately define the situation.  where  cripple  implies limited ability  disabled  implies difficulties arising from societal attitudes, which is a lot closer to the core of these people is problems.  and it is not  more vague  than  deaf , because it has a separate scope.  deaf is still the common term for deaf people, supported by the deaf community, who actually reject  disabled .  the same goes for rape and abuse.  no one is actually eliminating the former as politically incorrect, it has a separate scope.  you might as well say that  cruelty  or  harm  are meaningless phrases; they are not, they are just general.  you  can  easily talk about getting  harmed  during a football match, then at other times specify that you broke your arm.   special needs  is an appropriate description for people who ca not hadle generalized infrastructure, which applies to some but not all disabled people, and some who would otherwise not be classified as disabled.   #  if it was  homosexual , we are being less precise than  gay  because the marriage is not necessarily between homosexuals, and  gay , although still tied to homosexual, is slightly less rigid in its meaning, although it has other connotations, like principally concerning men.   #   pc euphemisms  are very important because they allow clearer discussion on more sensitive topics.  to use one of your examples  prostitute  vs.   isex worker .   prostitute  has a long history of being a very negative phrase, an accusation as well as a description.  this makes communication in the context of, say, a policy debate, difficult, because there are not any non accusatory terms, so  isex worker , rather than diluting meaning, enhances it, because it removes the accusatory aspect of  prostitute .   pc  euphemisms enhance communication because they let us speak in a more objective sense.  debate around an idea like gay marriage would be very hard if the only word for gay was  faggot .  if it was  homosexual , we are being less precise than  gay  because the marriage is not necessarily between homosexuals, and  gay , although still tied to homosexual, is slightly less rigid in its meaning, although it has other connotations, like principally concerning men.  i can remove this connotation and add another degree of clarity by using a term like  willgbt , for example the other thing they do is draw mental connections.  the terms  wouldeaf ,  crippled  and  aretarded  are more specific than  wouldisabled , but we often need to talk about people with disabilities in a more general sense.   wouldisabled  lets us do that.   ispecial needs  has a slightly different meaning because it implies that these people have needs that are not accommodated generally speaking, with specific reference to physical and social infrastructure.  this is in contrast to a disability that does not present such a dramatic need for new infrastructure.   #  i completely agree, i just wanted to add on one complexity that might help.   #  amazing post.  i completely agree, i just wanted to add on one complexity that might help.  i am a special education teacher and in my field we talk about the  euphemism treadmill .  basically its the idea that our words for things change over time to lose the connotation that the previous word took on.  this is the case for us with words like  retard .  it started out as a very clinical, non judgmental, word used to describe people with very low intelligence levels, but as time went on it took on all sorts of insulting and accusatory meanings.  parents do not want their children identified as retarded even if that is the only way to get them into the types of classes they need to be in, so we now have categories like  developmentally delayed  dd that mean the exact same thing, but let us, as /u/snafu coaxer 0 said, engage in  clearer discussion on more sensitive topics.   dd will eventually suffer the same fate of retarded and that is fine, the treadmill will keep turning.  another great example of this is the word  spastic  in the uk.  URL  #  the terms  wouldeaf ,  crippled  and  aretarded  are more specific than  wouldisabled , but we often need to talk about people with disabilities in a more general sense.   # to use one of your examples  prostitute  vs.   isex worker .   prostitute  has a long history of being a very negative phrase, an accusation as well as a description.  this makes communication in the context of, say, a policy debate, difficult, because there are not any non accusatory terms, so  isex worker , rather than diluting meaning, enhances it, because it removes the accusatory aspect of  prostitute .  i just do not think that is true.  i do not have any problem defending prostitution while using the word prostitute   in fact i think it is easier that way.  i am not trying to sneak past anyone is prejudices, but would prefer to confront them head on.  gay marriage describes what the marriage is: one between two people of the same sex.  i do not see the need to dally around with longer words for the sake of your own sensibilities.  the terms  wouldeaf ,  crippled  and  aretarded  are more specific than  wouldisabled , but we often need to talk about people with disabilities in a more general sense.   wouldisabled  lets us do that.   ispecial needs  has a slightly different meaning because it implies that these people have needs that are not accommodated generally speaking, with specific reference to physical and social infrastructure.  this is in contrast to a disability that does not present such a dramatic need for new infrastructure.  i take your point on speaking generally, but your interpretation of the phrase  special needs  does not tally with the way i have heard it used.   #   gay marriage  usually works fine, but if someone was to use a different term, you would understand better that they were stressing the importance of, say, marriage between non binary people, or marriage between women.   #  you have assumed that because a person uses  isex worker  they are hiding their own prejudices.  it is entirely possible that they simply have no prejudices with prostitutes/sex workers.  more importantly, however, your rebuttal is that  you  have no problem with using the term the prostitute, but you are not the reason the term  isex worker  might be used instead.  the goal of using  isex worker  is to communicate  to the other person  what might otherwise be perceived as patronizing or an insult.  you have also made this assumption that meaning is primarily owned by the speaker rather than the listener with your gay marriage point, although i think you misunderstood the wider point there.  i was pointing out that a debate about a hypothetical  faggot marriage law  would be difficult, and that you need a word that has less meaning you do not intend and more that you do.   gay marriage  usually works fine, but if someone was to use a different term, you would understand better that they were stressing the importance of, say, marriage between non binary people, or marriage between women.  meaning is not  lost  by supposedly being  pc , it is gained.  every additional word in use not only defines itself but takes away meaning from every other word contextually as those things are all now  not x .  on your final point, i am curious as to how you think  ispecial needs  is used, i have always heard it applied to people with mental or physical disabilities who require a special level of assistance, such as needing supervision or being unable to use stairs.
essentially, it is all based on the family. most women want to have families. families need income and security, children need to be protected and provided for.  women tend to think of themselves as the main captain steering that ship and they most certainly factor all of that in to who they settle down with.  its known that most slut shaming is carried out by women, specifically middle class women, to keep working class women in their place.  in fact middle class women are alays at the forefront of social control. you can go back hundreds of years with this.  in todays world women favor certain characteristics in men they want to have a long term relationship with.  confidence, status, material comfort, ability to provide, and so on. characteristics that correlate well with being already middle class or even higher on the socio economic ladder.  even if a woman settles down with a man who is not materially comfortable she will  encourage him  to climb the ladder. along a scale, gentle positive encouragement all the way up to screaming and shouting. one of the outcomes of  fixing men  something many women enjoy, is creating a man who has a better career, or better career potential.  the thing is, that as you become more successful, generally speaking, you become more invested in holding on to what you have and preventing others from taking it away.  even liberals mainly campaign for others the rich to give their money away, they are not campaigning for the middle class to part with their cash.  note that this makes no difference if you are a woman,a single woman etc, who decides to build a career, you also will be likely to become more and more conservative the higher you rise on the ladder. of course you will also be higher in the hierarchy.   #  even liberals mainly campaign for others the rich to give their money away, they are not campaigning for the middle class to part with their cash.   #  this is because liberals would prefer the rich to be middle class rather than the middle class be poor.   # this is because liberals would prefer the rich to be middle class rather than the middle class be poor.  asking those who have the most to give the most is not unreasonable, it is obvious.  why would they tell a family of four  do not buy that second car, give the money to the needy  before they told a rich person  do not buy that fourth house ?  .  as for the rest of your argument, it relies pretty heavily on believing your unfounded premises, so i would probably first try to change your view that your observations are true, before i attempt to change your view that your conclusion is true.  it may very well follow that your impressions of what women are/want would result in your conclusion, you just have not shown those impressions to be true.   #  fair enough about the nightclubs, they do exist.   #  i do not think  most men  want a woman is solely pretty/beautiful/hot.  some might.  i have heard  what else does she bring  but obviously ymmv.  fair enough about the nightclubs, they do exist.  huge sexist problem, men take advantage often, etc.  but they exist what is a  value differential  in a straight couple ? should not it depend on what the individuals in the relationship value ? i think you are conflating individuals with society in some of your arguments.   #  seems odd to me. also, around the agency thing. agency gets sharply curtailed the higher up the ladder you go.   #  right. it is more complex than that. there are an awful lot of things going on within a couple.  i have a hard time seeing men as the  high value  gender when they have to pay in for the prize of buying drinks. for the chance to talk to someone.  if we were talking about someone paying in to go backstage for the chance to talk to the rockstar, would we suppose the fan was lower value ? seems odd to me. also, around the agency thing. agency gets sharply curtailed the higher up the ladder you go.  celebrities are surrounded by guards, rosters, pr people, schedules, enclaves and similarly for all high status people, their agency is sharply curtailed by both the demands and social pressures of their position.   #  yeah most men would abandon all that of they could get laid instead.   #  men are not inherently high value, but they can try to make up the deficit via status, achivement, character, personality,daring, and so on. also it can just be bought to an extent if needs be.  you are not paying for the price of talking to someone.  you can talk to someone almost anywhere.  but everyone knows that nightclubs are a cultural space where approaching is culturally acceptable and does not violate social norms.   you are paying for the evening is entertainment, including the atmosphere, music, company, and access to alcohol.    yeah most men would abandon all that of they could get laid instead.   the only clubs that let women in free do so because they are desperate to make the gender balance more even  why ?  #  being gay does not mean i just want to languish and fuck all the time with no goals or life plans.   #  how do you know gay relationships are different.  one of my primary considerations when dating is what kind of career do they have or want and how well are they doing on that path.  i want a man who will be able to support us when i lose my job until i can find another.  and who can afford to share the kind of lifestyle i want without me having to pay for everything.  being gay does not mean i just want to languish and fuck all the time with no goals or life plans.
essentially, it is all based on the family. most women want to have families. families need income and security, children need to be protected and provided for.  women tend to think of themselves as the main captain steering that ship and they most certainly factor all of that in to who they settle down with.  its known that most slut shaming is carried out by women, specifically middle class women, to keep working class women in their place.  in fact middle class women are alays at the forefront of social control. you can go back hundreds of years with this.  in todays world women favor certain characteristics in men they want to have a long term relationship with.  confidence, status, material comfort, ability to provide, and so on. characteristics that correlate well with being already middle class or even higher on the socio economic ladder.  even if a woman settles down with a man who is not materially comfortable she will  encourage him  to climb the ladder. along a scale, gentle positive encouragement all the way up to screaming and shouting. one of the outcomes of  fixing men  something many women enjoy, is creating a man who has a better career, or better career potential.  the thing is, that as you become more successful, generally speaking, you become more invested in holding on to what you have and preventing others from taking it away.  even liberals mainly campaign for others the rich to give their money away, they are not campaigning for the middle class to part with their cash.  note that this makes no difference if you are a woman,a single woman etc, who decides to build a career, you also will be likely to become more and more conservative the higher you rise on the ladder. of course you will also be higher in the hierarchy.   #  even liberals mainly campaign for others the rich to give their money away, they are not campaigning for the middle class to part with their cash.   #  it makes sense, to most people, that those with more money should be able to give more money while still living comfortably.   # source ? myself and my female friends certainly do not see it that way.  source ? again, in my experience, i hear much more slut shaming from men or from the much older generations.  it makes sense, to most people, that those with more money should be able to give more money while still living comfortably.  nothing you have said here specifically links women with conservatism.  the  conservative  quality of wanting to maintain a certain monetary status applies equally to men and women.  there is a lot more to conservatism than just not wanting to give away all your money.   #  i do not think  most men  want a woman is solely pretty/beautiful/hot.   #  i do not think  most men  want a woman is solely pretty/beautiful/hot.  some might.  i have heard  what else does she bring  but obviously ymmv.  fair enough about the nightclubs, they do exist.  huge sexist problem, men take advantage often, etc.  but they exist what is a  value differential  in a straight couple ? should not it depend on what the individuals in the relationship value ? i think you are conflating individuals with society in some of your arguments.   #  seems odd to me. also, around the agency thing. agency gets sharply curtailed the higher up the ladder you go.   #  right. it is more complex than that. there are an awful lot of things going on within a couple.  i have a hard time seeing men as the  high value  gender when they have to pay in for the prize of buying drinks. for the chance to talk to someone.  if we were talking about someone paying in to go backstage for the chance to talk to the rockstar, would we suppose the fan was lower value ? seems odd to me. also, around the agency thing. agency gets sharply curtailed the higher up the ladder you go.  celebrities are surrounded by guards, rosters, pr people, schedules, enclaves and similarly for all high status people, their agency is sharply curtailed by both the demands and social pressures of their position.   #   the only clubs that let women in free do so because they are desperate to make the gender balance more even  why ?  #  men are not inherently high value, but they can try to make up the deficit via status, achivement, character, personality,daring, and so on. also it can just be bought to an extent if needs be.  you are not paying for the price of talking to someone.  you can talk to someone almost anywhere.  but everyone knows that nightclubs are a cultural space where approaching is culturally acceptable and does not violate social norms.   you are paying for the evening is entertainment, including the atmosphere, music, company, and access to alcohol.    yeah most men would abandon all that of they could get laid instead.   the only clubs that let women in free do so because they are desperate to make the gender balance more even  why ?  #  i want a man who will be able to support us when i lose my job until i can find another.   #  how do you know gay relationships are different.  one of my primary considerations when dating is what kind of career do they have or want and how well are they doing on that path.  i want a man who will be able to support us when i lose my job until i can find another.  and who can afford to share the kind of lifestyle i want without me having to pay for everything.  being gay does not mean i just want to languish and fuck all the time with no goals or life plans.
my view is based on a few observations: 0.  the actual amount of smoke must be  tiny  compared to the amount inhaled by first hand smokers.  even if someone is smoking a cigarette in a small enclosed room we are talking about a dilution of a couple of orders of magnitude between a smoker and a passive smoker.  0.  smoking is unhealthy, sure, but people usually develop illness and health issues from first hand smoking over long periods of time, and even then there are plenty of people maybe a reasonably sized minority ? who do not end up dying from it in the long run.  if you take these statistics and adjust them for the massively diluted levels of smoke a passive smoker would inhale, it seems they would end up completely insignificant to most people.  0.  are tobacco leaves particularly carcinogenic when burnt compared to other matter, like incense sticks, burnt toast, car fuel, bonfires even ! we are happy to ignore these sources of smoke.  0.  finding new health risks associated with smoking has become fashionable: stories that follow this theme have always gained attention and been shared.  this, to me, is why it is plausible that actual health risks in real life are insignificant and the knowledge still spreads.  0.  i ca not for the life of me find any actual papers with  hard data  about health risks for passive smokers.  no percentages or meaningful information apart from qualitative statements like  it is associated with  etc.   driving is associated with sudden death  is certainly true but for most people is worth the risk.  change my view reddit !  #  finding new health risks associated with smoking has become fashionable: stories that follow this theme have always gained attention and been shared.   #  this, to me, is why it is plausible that actual health risks in real life are insignificant and the knowledge still spreads.   # also, people who are not smokers are very bothered by this smoke.  this, to me, is why it is plausible that actual health risks in real life are insignificant and the knowledge still spreads.  i am not sure why you would consider this insignificant because it has more exposure.  if you look at the statistical data, and even the life stories of those have had their lungs destroyed, you can see smoking kills more people than all the major  wars  in the world right now.  in the us alone, 0,0 die of second hand smoke a year and there are nearly 0 million people with serious diseases or conditions because of smoking.  that is with a 0 million population.  imagine the figures worldwide.   #  0.  if you have not found any hard data or papers, i think you have not been looking that hard.   #  0.  i do not believe anyone is arguing that second hand smoke is as bad as smoking, just that it is bad.  besides, with a couple of chimney smokers, rooms can get pretty bad.  0.  there definitely are people exposed to second hand smoke every day for long periods of time.  people who work in places where people smoke, people who live with smokers, etc.  0.  sure, but i usually do not pass by burnt toast on my way to class every day.  the only  unavoidable  one is car exhaust, but people are working to make that better too.  0.  nothing of substance here.  0.  if you have not found any hard data or papers, i think you have not been looking that hard.  here is 0 collections i found within a minute of googling: URL URL also:   driving is associated with sudden death  is certainly true but for most people is worth the risk.  because driving benefits those who do it.  i would be hard pressed to find a benefit of being exposed to second hand smoke.   #   driving is associated with sudden death  is certainly true but for most people is worth the risk.   #  here is a really good paper about the effects of a smoking ban on irish bar staff.  it shows that, by eliminating smoking in pubs which, if you never went in a pub prior to the smoking ban, was.  prevalent to say the least as in, you would come home after spending an hour in the pub and you would  stink  of smoke , the respiratory health of bar staff is significantly improved.  it also shows a dramatic reduction in harmful particulates in the air of the pub.  i would urge you to take a look.  URL finally, just a note about your fifth point.  you say:   ca not for the life of me find any actual papers with hard data about health risks for passive smokers.  no percentages or meaningful information apart from qualitative statements like  it is associated with  etc.   driving is associated with sudden death  is certainly true but for most people is worth the risk.   associated with  in a medical setting does not mean  well duh, this happens because it is obvious that it happens.   in a medical context  associated with  means that there is a statistical correlation between something occurring and something happening; it might not happen all the time, but it has been reported to happen enough that there is evidence that the triggering factor is a cause.  for example, epstein barr virus is associated with burkitt is and other lymphomas we do not know why, but it has been found that in almost all patients with burkitt is lymphoma in africa are infected with ebv thus, ebv is  associated with  burkitt is lymphoma.   #  overall mortality rate in the us from here URL is 0.   # overall mortality rate in the us from here URL is 0.  which means 0/0 0 of all deaths in the us are due to second hand smoke.  where did that figure come from ? that does not sound plausible if i did my math right.  even doing the same sums for the 0,0 figure for the world ends with about 0 of all deaths being due to second hand smoke.  if it is the case that literally 0 in every hundred deaths are caused by second hand smoke then wow, i suspect something is wrong though.  also the health risks are not less significant  because  they are fashionable.  but it is true that positive confirmation bias is a serious problem with public understanding of science;  facts  that make a popular story can spread more than facts that have more accuracy but less appeal.  i am saying it is plausible this is the case, not that this means it is the case.   #  i would also like to state that second hand smoke can make it harder for those who were ex smokers or trying to quit to actually quit as it triggers a craving in them.   #  URL here is a study on lung cancer risks that mentions smokers.  smokers had something like.  0 to develop them.  or are you talking about how second hand smoke is related to lung cancer ? i found a figure of 0 0,0 die from second hand smoke induced lung cancer in us yearly but i would have to find again.  i would say it would be quite difficult to actually do a study on this and the best bet you can find is figures relating passive smoking deaths.  but the numbers are gruesome.  i would also like to state that second hand smoke can make it harder for those who were ex smokers or trying to quit to actually quit as it triggers a craving in them.
disclaimer: i am 0 0 , and weigh under 0 pounds.  i see so many posts on reddit about how fat people are lazy and overall ones that just disrespect them as people.  while unhealthy life choices such as a lack of exercise and over consumption of fatty foods result in a higher chance of becoming overweight, it is not the only cause.  many medications have side effects that result in weight gain.  many medical conditions can also result in increased weight gain, or make it difficult to exercise.  i know many overweight people that carefully manage their decisions; they maintain a healthy diet, they try to go for a walk every day or even to the gym, they work hard at their jobs.  but they still remain overweight despite their efforts.  i personally have made terrible health choices the past 0 years, up until recently.  i would eat massive amounts of junk food, never get exercise, and basically use my computer all day during my free time.  i was without a doubt extremely lazy.  but despite all of these poor choices, i never became overweight my weight never exceeded 0 pounds.  i am abnormally lucky, and in all honesty i deserved to be overweight.  is it really fair to assume an overweight person is lazy, when there are so many other factors based on luck that determine how much effort one needs to put in to maintain a healthy weight ?  #  i know many overweight people that carefully manage their decisions; they maintain a healthy diet, they try to go for a walk every day or even to the gym, they work hard at their jobs.   #  all you can base that off of is by what they tell you.   #  sometimes there can be minor weight gain associated with certain medicines, but if the person would count their calories and eat at maintenance or below they would not gain weight.  it is impossible to create mass out of nothing, which means in every case of fat gain the person is overeating.  all you can base that off of is by what they tell you.  time and time again it is been proven that overweight people underestimate how much they eat.  URL  but despite all of these poor choices, i never became overweight my weight never exceeded 0 pounds.  i am abnormally lucky, and in all honesty i deserved to be overweight.  that is because you overestimated how much you ate and did not eat over maintenance.   #  it may have been proven that  some  overweight people underestimate what they eat, but that is not equal to all overweight people overeating and being lazy.   #  your first statement is just absolutely false.  the mechanism for weight gain resulting from medication has little to do with counting calories.  some medications slow metabolism to a near stop.  illnesses like gastroperiesis also cause food to be retained longer in the stomach, causing more calories to be absorbed.  it does not matter what your opinion is of  fat gain , the facts are the facts.  it may have been proven that  some  overweight people underestimate what they eat, but that is not equal to all overweight people overeating and being lazy.  and no, some people are able to eat exceedingly poorly and not gain weight.  some are unable to gain weight even when they try.  you simply have no real understanding of the human body and how it works.   #  this mans that you could eat 0 packets of wotsits in one day and nothing else and still not gain weight.   #  you are making the false equivalence between healthy food and weight loss.  one packet of cheesy wotsits contains 0 calories.  i assumed for the purposes of science that you are a 0 year old male 0 feet 0 inches tall that does little to no exercise and weights 0 lbs.  you require around 0 calories to maintain your weight.  this mans that you could eat 0 packets of wotsits in one day and nothing else and still not gain weight.  you would not be healthy if you did this of course,  but you would not gain weight.  that is the difference.   #  that being said, i do agree with you in part.   #  nope.  guys trying to build muscle and are actively counting calories, or at least trying, still fuck it up and do not ewt enough.  then they post in /r/gainit asking why they arent making progress.  then they eat more and, holy shit, they gain weight.  if you arent consuming enough calories, youre not going to gain weight.  if youre not gaining weight, then youre not gaining enough calories.  that being said, i do agree with you in part.  ive known several people who gained weight because of medical conditions.  degenerative spine disease isnt great for gettinf 0,0 steps a day.   #  that every excess calorie might not automatically become fat does not violate any law of nature.   #  smugly irrelevant to this discussion.  how the body processes calories is not completely known at all.  see: any study.  we do not know.  that every excess calorie might not automatically become fat does not violate any law of nature.  it is an accepted fact that most people get fatter as they get older, especially after middle age.  are they simply being lazier or eating more ? if not then it has to be rooted in biological changes.  if we accept that there are biological differences between a 0 year old and a 0 year old then why ca not there be differences between random 0 year olds ?
disclaimer: i am 0 0 , and weigh under 0 pounds.  i see so many posts on reddit about how fat people are lazy and overall ones that just disrespect them as people.  while unhealthy life choices such as a lack of exercise and over consumption of fatty foods result in a higher chance of becoming overweight, it is not the only cause.  many medications have side effects that result in weight gain.  many medical conditions can also result in increased weight gain, or make it difficult to exercise.  i know many overweight people that carefully manage their decisions; they maintain a healthy diet, they try to go for a walk every day or even to the gym, they work hard at their jobs.  but they still remain overweight despite their efforts.  i personally have made terrible health choices the past 0 years, up until recently.  i would eat massive amounts of junk food, never get exercise, and basically use my computer all day during my free time.  i was without a doubt extremely lazy.  but despite all of these poor choices, i never became overweight my weight never exceeded 0 pounds.  i am abnormally lucky, and in all honesty i deserved to be overweight.  is it really fair to assume an overweight person is lazy, when there are so many other factors based on luck that determine how much effort one needs to put in to maintain a healthy weight ?  #  i would eat massive amounts of junk food, never get exercise, and basically use my computer all day during my free time.   #  i was without a doubt extremely lazy.   # i was without a doubt extremely lazy.  i would surmise that what you perceived to me  massive amounts  were actually within your body is needs.  eating fries instead of salad does not make you fat.  eating 0 calories of fries instead of 0 calories of salad makes you fat.  0 calories of salad would make you just as overweight.  but they still remain overweight despite their efforts.  let is say a 0 lb person walks 0 miles in an hour, they will burn approximately 0 calories.  they feel good about the exercise, and reward themselves with a nice tuscan salad with crispy chicken from mcdonalds, sounds nice and healthy, right, and i deserve it after an hour is walking ! guess what, you just consumed 0 calories, so that is a net gain of 0 calories.  you are still not going to lose weight.  you do not lose weight by eating healthy food, you lose weight by eating less food and it is much easier to eat less food than to find the time and place to burn off the excess.  you cannot change the laws of physics, people get fat because calories in   calories out.  i would not say that an overweight person trying to lose weight unsuccessfully is lazy, but if they are honest about their efforts then they are probably going about it the wrong way.   #  sometimes there can be minor weight gain associated with certain medicines, but if the person would count their calories and eat at maintenance or below they would not gain weight.   #  sometimes there can be minor weight gain associated with certain medicines, but if the person would count their calories and eat at maintenance or below they would not gain weight.  it is impossible to create mass out of nothing, which means in every case of fat gain the person is overeating.  all you can base that off of is by what they tell you.  time and time again it is been proven that overweight people underestimate how much they eat.  URL  but despite all of these poor choices, i never became overweight my weight never exceeded 0 pounds.  i am abnormally lucky, and in all honesty i deserved to be overweight.  that is because you overestimated how much you ate and did not eat over maintenance.   #  it does not matter what your opinion is of  fat gain , the facts are the facts.   #  your first statement is just absolutely false.  the mechanism for weight gain resulting from medication has little to do with counting calories.  some medications slow metabolism to a near stop.  illnesses like gastroperiesis also cause food to be retained longer in the stomach, causing more calories to be absorbed.  it does not matter what your opinion is of  fat gain , the facts are the facts.  it may have been proven that  some  overweight people underestimate what they eat, but that is not equal to all overweight people overeating and being lazy.  and no, some people are able to eat exceedingly poorly and not gain weight.  some are unable to gain weight even when they try.  you simply have no real understanding of the human body and how it works.   #  one packet of cheesy wotsits contains 0 calories.   #  you are making the false equivalence between healthy food and weight loss.  one packet of cheesy wotsits contains 0 calories.  i assumed for the purposes of science that you are a 0 year old male 0 feet 0 inches tall that does little to no exercise and weights 0 lbs.  you require around 0 calories to maintain your weight.  this mans that you could eat 0 packets of wotsits in one day and nothing else and still not gain weight.  you would not be healthy if you did this of course,  but you would not gain weight.  that is the difference.   #  then they eat more and, holy shit, they gain weight.   #  nope.  guys trying to build muscle and are actively counting calories, or at least trying, still fuck it up and do not ewt enough.  then they post in /r/gainit asking why they arent making progress.  then they eat more and, holy shit, they gain weight.  if you arent consuming enough calories, youre not going to gain weight.  if youre not gaining weight, then youre not gaining enough calories.  that being said, i do agree with you in part.  ive known several people who gained weight because of medical conditions.  degenerative spine disease isnt great for gettinf 0,0 steps a day.
disclaimer: i am 0 0 , and weigh under 0 pounds.  i see so many posts on reddit about how fat people are lazy and overall ones that just disrespect them as people.  while unhealthy life choices such as a lack of exercise and over consumption of fatty foods result in a higher chance of becoming overweight, it is not the only cause.  many medications have side effects that result in weight gain.  many medical conditions can also result in increased weight gain, or make it difficult to exercise.  i know many overweight people that carefully manage their decisions; they maintain a healthy diet, they try to go for a walk every day or even to the gym, they work hard at their jobs.  but they still remain overweight despite their efforts.  i personally have made terrible health choices the past 0 years, up until recently.  i would eat massive amounts of junk food, never get exercise, and basically use my computer all day during my free time.  i was without a doubt extremely lazy.  but despite all of these poor choices, i never became overweight my weight never exceeded 0 pounds.  i am abnormally lucky, and in all honesty i deserved to be overweight.  is it really fair to assume an overweight person is lazy, when there are so many other factors based on luck that determine how much effort one needs to put in to maintain a healthy weight ?  #  i know many overweight people that carefully manage their decisions; they maintain a healthy diet, they try to go for a walk every day or even to the gym, they work hard at their jobs.   #  but they still remain overweight despite their efforts.   # i was without a doubt extremely lazy.  i would surmise that what you perceived to me  massive amounts  were actually within your body is needs.  eating fries instead of salad does not make you fat.  eating 0 calories of fries instead of 0 calories of salad makes you fat.  0 calories of salad would make you just as overweight.  but they still remain overweight despite their efforts.  let is say a 0 lb person walks 0 miles in an hour, they will burn approximately 0 calories.  they feel good about the exercise, and reward themselves with a nice tuscan salad with crispy chicken from mcdonalds, sounds nice and healthy, right, and i deserve it after an hour is walking ! guess what, you just consumed 0 calories, so that is a net gain of 0 calories.  you are still not going to lose weight.  you do not lose weight by eating healthy food, you lose weight by eating less food and it is much easier to eat less food than to find the time and place to burn off the excess.  you cannot change the laws of physics, people get fat because calories in   calories out.  i would not say that an overweight person trying to lose weight unsuccessfully is lazy, but if they are honest about their efforts then they are probably going about it the wrong way.   #  time and time again it is been proven that overweight people underestimate how much they eat.   #  sometimes there can be minor weight gain associated with certain medicines, but if the person would count their calories and eat at maintenance or below they would not gain weight.  it is impossible to create mass out of nothing, which means in every case of fat gain the person is overeating.  all you can base that off of is by what they tell you.  time and time again it is been proven that overweight people underestimate how much they eat.  URL  but despite all of these poor choices, i never became overweight my weight never exceeded 0 pounds.  i am abnormally lucky, and in all honesty i deserved to be overweight.  that is because you overestimated how much you ate and did not eat over maintenance.   #  illnesses like gastroperiesis also cause food to be retained longer in the stomach, causing more calories to be absorbed.   #  your first statement is just absolutely false.  the mechanism for weight gain resulting from medication has little to do with counting calories.  some medications slow metabolism to a near stop.  illnesses like gastroperiesis also cause food to be retained longer in the stomach, causing more calories to be absorbed.  it does not matter what your opinion is of  fat gain , the facts are the facts.  it may have been proven that  some  overweight people underestimate what they eat, but that is not equal to all overweight people overeating and being lazy.  and no, some people are able to eat exceedingly poorly and not gain weight.  some are unable to gain weight even when they try.  you simply have no real understanding of the human body and how it works.   #  you are making the false equivalence between healthy food and weight loss.   #  you are making the false equivalence between healthy food and weight loss.  one packet of cheesy wotsits contains 0 calories.  i assumed for the purposes of science that you are a 0 year old male 0 feet 0 inches tall that does little to no exercise and weights 0 lbs.  you require around 0 calories to maintain your weight.  this mans that you could eat 0 packets of wotsits in one day and nothing else and still not gain weight.  you would not be healthy if you did this of course,  but you would not gain weight.  that is the difference.   #  if you arent consuming enough calories, youre not going to gain weight.   #  nope.  guys trying to build muscle and are actively counting calories, or at least trying, still fuck it up and do not ewt enough.  then they post in /r/gainit asking why they arent making progress.  then they eat more and, holy shit, they gain weight.  if you arent consuming enough calories, youre not going to gain weight.  if youre not gaining weight, then youre not gaining enough calories.  that being said, i do agree with you in part.  ive known several people who gained weight because of medical conditions.  degenerative spine disease isnt great for gettinf 0,0 steps a day.
disclaimer: i am 0 0 , and weigh under 0 pounds.  i see so many posts on reddit about how fat people are lazy and overall ones that just disrespect them as people.  while unhealthy life choices such as a lack of exercise and over consumption of fatty foods result in a higher chance of becoming overweight, it is not the only cause.  many medications have side effects that result in weight gain.  many medical conditions can also result in increased weight gain, or make it difficult to exercise.  i know many overweight people that carefully manage their decisions; they maintain a healthy diet, they try to go for a walk every day or even to the gym, they work hard at their jobs.  but they still remain overweight despite their efforts.  i personally have made terrible health choices the past 0 years, up until recently.  i would eat massive amounts of junk food, never get exercise, and basically use my computer all day during my free time.  i was without a doubt extremely lazy.  but despite all of these poor choices, i never became overweight my weight never exceeded 0 pounds.  i am abnormally lucky, and in all honesty i deserved to be overweight.  is it really fair to assume an overweight person is lazy, when there are so many other factors based on luck that determine how much effort one needs to put in to maintain a healthy weight ?  #  i know many overweight people that carefully manage their decisions; they maintain a healthy diet, they try to go for a walk every day or even to the gym, they work hard at their jobs.   #  but they still remain overweight despite their efforts.   # but they still remain overweight despite their efforts.  you and/or they are poorly evaluating their diet and activity levels.  baring the existence of human photosynthesis, people get fat because they exercise too little, eat too much, or a combination of those too things.  overwight people also often underestimate their caloric intake URL of course, genetics can play a mediating factor, but genetics alone  cannot  make a person overweight.  the effect of genetics on weight gain is reliably estimated to be in the range of a few pounds at most URL  #  sometimes there can be minor weight gain associated with certain medicines, but if the person would count their calories and eat at maintenance or below they would not gain weight.   #  sometimes there can be minor weight gain associated with certain medicines, but if the person would count their calories and eat at maintenance or below they would not gain weight.  it is impossible to create mass out of nothing, which means in every case of fat gain the person is overeating.  all you can base that off of is by what they tell you.  time and time again it is been proven that overweight people underestimate how much they eat.  URL  but despite all of these poor choices, i never became overweight my weight never exceeded 0 pounds.  i am abnormally lucky, and in all honesty i deserved to be overweight.  that is because you overestimated how much you ate and did not eat over maintenance.   #  some medications slow metabolism to a near stop.   #  your first statement is just absolutely false.  the mechanism for weight gain resulting from medication has little to do with counting calories.  some medications slow metabolism to a near stop.  illnesses like gastroperiesis also cause food to be retained longer in the stomach, causing more calories to be absorbed.  it does not matter what your opinion is of  fat gain , the facts are the facts.  it may have been proven that  some  overweight people underestimate what they eat, but that is not equal to all overweight people overeating and being lazy.  and no, some people are able to eat exceedingly poorly and not gain weight.  some are unable to gain weight even when they try.  you simply have no real understanding of the human body and how it works.   #  this mans that you could eat 0 packets of wotsits in one day and nothing else and still not gain weight.   #  you are making the false equivalence between healthy food and weight loss.  one packet of cheesy wotsits contains 0 calories.  i assumed for the purposes of science that you are a 0 year old male 0 feet 0 inches tall that does little to no exercise and weights 0 lbs.  you require around 0 calories to maintain your weight.  this mans that you could eat 0 packets of wotsits in one day and nothing else and still not gain weight.  you would not be healthy if you did this of course,  but you would not gain weight.  that is the difference.   #  that being said, i do agree with you in part.   #  nope.  guys trying to build muscle and are actively counting calories, or at least trying, still fuck it up and do not ewt enough.  then they post in /r/gainit asking why they arent making progress.  then they eat more and, holy shit, they gain weight.  if you arent consuming enough calories, youre not going to gain weight.  if youre not gaining weight, then youre not gaining enough calories.  that being said, i do agree with you in part.  ive known several people who gained weight because of medical conditions.  degenerative spine disease isnt great for gettinf 0,0 steps a day.
i do not understand why people act like women are being denied a human right.  hobby lobby is not firing people for using birth control.  all they are doing is refusing to pay for it directly themselves.  so many upset with this case do not even realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  to fund paying for birth control, it would likely result in reduced salary, as birth control is an increased expense for the company.  if they work with an insurance company, the costs associated with insuring female employees would likely be higher due to an additional potential expense.  the women working for the company can buy birth control with their paycheck if they wish to have it.  why does the company need to take money out of the paychecks of everyone to pay for it ? why is the government supposed to tell everyone how to spend their money ? those that chose not take advantage of it are essentially being robbed due to the expenses associated with it taking away from the wages of everyone.  i feel like it limits women is choices, as they are being told they have to receive free birth control as an included benefit and not actually receive it if they do not want it , and be paid less to cover the costs of all of the other women using it.  basically, they have less freedom as to how their money is used.  those who need birth control can just buy it with their own money if the company does not support it.  it is not like they are incapable of obtaining birth control, which is how people make it sound.  if you are going to argue that birth control is a need, and that it is not fair for women, why not deal with the horrible wage inequality between men and women instead ? if there is more expenses with hiring a female employee than a male employee, companies will pay the female employee less to make up the difference.  some companies simply do it because they can, even if female employees are just as useful to the company as a male one, with the same benefits.  why not establish some form of law that makes gender wage inequality illegal instead ? that seems far more useful in protecting women is rights imo.   including birth control under obamacare simply increases the cost of hiring a female employee, which could worsen the already severe wage inequality between men and women.   am i missing something ?  #  those that chose not take advantage of it are essentially being robbed due to the expenses associated with it taking away from the wages of everyone.   #  insurance premiums are based on risk exposure.   #  in this country, the vast majority of people rely entirely on their employers for health insurance.  if my employer does not offer to subsidize a health insurance policy that covers birth control, then i do not get to have a health insurance policy that covers birth control.  it is not something that i can add to the policy on my own.  that is not how it works.  my only option is to pay for it out of pocket, which can be very expensive especially for someone who works at hobby lobby.  insurance premiums are based on risk exposure.  when fewer people take advantage of a covered service, that service becomes a less expensive component of the policy.  you should also know that we are talking about a negligibly small amount of money.  according to the us department of health and human services URL covering contraception only costs employers an average of $0 per female employee per year, and might actually save them money by limiting lost productivity.  hobby lobby did not fight it because of the expense.  they fought it because it offended them.  we are capable of dealing with more than one problem at a time.  also, as birth control is typically a gendered expense, failing to cover it arguably contributes to the more general problem of unequal compensation.   #  this was  not  an economic analysis and much of the annoyance at the decision stems from the articulation of  legal rules  and applicable federal statutes and their effect on women and religious exercise relative to corporate status.   # yes: the fact that the hobby lobby decision presented a very specific question regarding the burden of free exercise on owners of a closely held corporation vis a vis coverage requirements of the aca.  when hobby lobby, as a corporation, makes this decision and they are given exceptional status with a law, we are talking about a law and religious belief, not economic rationale.  this is because, if their decision had been based on economics, it would not have qualified as the sort of  isincere belief  that gave them beneficial treatment in the first place.  all other corporations have to comport their behavior to the aca and hobby lobby does not in this respect because the owners fundamentally oppose contraception on  religious grounds,  not economic ones.  it might have incidental economic logic behind it, but that is not why they did it, and it is not why we are allowing them to do it.  consequently, the outrage behind hobby lobby is not in reaction to profit motive supposedly but rather competing responsibilities and policy under applicable law the aca and the rfra.  this was  not  an economic analysis and much of the annoyance at the decision stems from the articulation of  legal rules  and applicable federal statutes and their effect on women and religious exercise relative to corporate status.  see also: this explain like i am five.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL and this thread.  URL  #  i argue that hobby lobby had to make the religious argument not only because it is the owners true motive, but because its the only argument that would hold up in court.   #  so basically you are saying its bad because it sets the precedent of corporations gaining religious exemption from law, but not because of the particular scenario ? i argue that hobby lobby had to make the religious argument not only because it is the owners true motive, but because its the only argument that would hold up in court.  if hobby lobby tried to make an economic argument, it would have no relevance to the constitution.  freedom of religion is the only factor that could constitutionally protect them in this case, so it was their only option.  the supreme court is supposed to interpret the constitutionality of a law, not the polical, moral, or logical reasoning of it.  my question is not necessarily about the supreme court is decision and statement, but rather about the reaction to hobby lobby is decisions.  i do agree with you that religious exemptions from law by corporations can become a problem if it is taken to a higher extreme.   #  they miss work for ob/gyn appointments and morning sickness.   #  the problem with your reasoning here is the economics work out strongly in favor of providing birth control coverage for women.  first, plans which provide coverage cost basically the same amount of money as plans which do not.  second, female employees becoming pregnant are a very large cost for a business.  they miss work for ob/gyn appointments and morning sickness.  they have to be replaced with temporary labor during maternity leave.  a lot of them never return to work lost investment in training, loss of experience in employees .  those who do have very high rates of absenteeism my kid is got   .  the greene family has a reputation for being really, really religious.  that they fought to the supreme court to stick with a policy that has nothing but economic downsides is to me evidence of their authenticity.   #  put it this way: if hl refused to supply bc as an employee benefit  just because  do i think people would still be mad ?  # put it this way: if hl refused to supply bc as an employee benefit  just because  do i think people would still be mad ? yes.  but that is not the point.  people are mad because corporations are supposed to be a separate entity from owners for liability purposes.  the hobby lobby decision breaks down that wall, allowing the owners to use their separate corporate status to further personal religious beliefs exception to the contraception mandate.  the fact that people suspect that hl might have actually masqueraded profit motive as religious belief only exacerbates the anger.  at the end of the day, it is the way in which hobby lobby does not have to pay contraception that makes people mad, because it is a special one that applies only to them and similarly situated corporations on a basis that many feel was too attenuated and flew in the face of traditional corporate status.   they are mad because of basic economics  vastly oversimplifies a multifaceted issue.
i do not understand why people act like women are being denied a human right.  hobby lobby is not firing people for using birth control.  all they are doing is refusing to pay for it directly themselves.  so many upset with this case do not even realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  to fund paying for birth control, it would likely result in reduced salary, as birth control is an increased expense for the company.  if they work with an insurance company, the costs associated with insuring female employees would likely be higher due to an additional potential expense.  the women working for the company can buy birth control with their paycheck if they wish to have it.  why does the company need to take money out of the paychecks of everyone to pay for it ? why is the government supposed to tell everyone how to spend their money ? those that chose not take advantage of it are essentially being robbed due to the expenses associated with it taking away from the wages of everyone.  i feel like it limits women is choices, as they are being told they have to receive free birth control as an included benefit and not actually receive it if they do not want it , and be paid less to cover the costs of all of the other women using it.  basically, they have less freedom as to how their money is used.  those who need birth control can just buy it with their own money if the company does not support it.  it is not like they are incapable of obtaining birth control, which is how people make it sound.  if you are going to argue that birth control is a need, and that it is not fair for women, why not deal with the horrible wage inequality between men and women instead ? if there is more expenses with hiring a female employee than a male employee, companies will pay the female employee less to make up the difference.  some companies simply do it because they can, even if female employees are just as useful to the company as a male one, with the same benefits.  why not establish some form of law that makes gender wage inequality illegal instead ? that seems far more useful in protecting women is rights imo.   including birth control under obamacare simply increases the cost of hiring a female employee, which could worsen the already severe wage inequality between men and women.   am i missing something ?  #  if you are going to argue that birth control is a need, and that it is not fair for women, why not deal with the horrible wage inequality between men and women instead ?  #  we are capable of dealing with more than one problem at a time.   #  in this country, the vast majority of people rely entirely on their employers for health insurance.  if my employer does not offer to subsidize a health insurance policy that covers birth control, then i do not get to have a health insurance policy that covers birth control.  it is not something that i can add to the policy on my own.  that is not how it works.  my only option is to pay for it out of pocket, which can be very expensive especially for someone who works at hobby lobby.  insurance premiums are based on risk exposure.  when fewer people take advantage of a covered service, that service becomes a less expensive component of the policy.  you should also know that we are talking about a negligibly small amount of money.  according to the us department of health and human services URL covering contraception only costs employers an average of $0 per female employee per year, and might actually save them money by limiting lost productivity.  hobby lobby did not fight it because of the expense.  they fought it because it offended them.  we are capable of dealing with more than one problem at a time.  also, as birth control is typically a gendered expense, failing to cover it arguably contributes to the more general problem of unequal compensation.   #  consequently, the outrage behind hobby lobby is not in reaction to profit motive supposedly but rather competing responsibilities and policy under applicable law the aca and the rfra.   # yes: the fact that the hobby lobby decision presented a very specific question regarding the burden of free exercise on owners of a closely held corporation vis a vis coverage requirements of the aca.  when hobby lobby, as a corporation, makes this decision and they are given exceptional status with a law, we are talking about a law and religious belief, not economic rationale.  this is because, if their decision had been based on economics, it would not have qualified as the sort of  isincere belief  that gave them beneficial treatment in the first place.  all other corporations have to comport their behavior to the aca and hobby lobby does not in this respect because the owners fundamentally oppose contraception on  religious grounds,  not economic ones.  it might have incidental economic logic behind it, but that is not why they did it, and it is not why we are allowing them to do it.  consequently, the outrage behind hobby lobby is not in reaction to profit motive supposedly but rather competing responsibilities and policy under applicable law the aca and the rfra.  this was  not  an economic analysis and much of the annoyance at the decision stems from the articulation of  legal rules  and applicable federal statutes and their effect on women and religious exercise relative to corporate status.  see also: this explain like i am five.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL and this thread.  URL  #  i argue that hobby lobby had to make the religious argument not only because it is the owners true motive, but because its the only argument that would hold up in court.   #  so basically you are saying its bad because it sets the precedent of corporations gaining religious exemption from law, but not because of the particular scenario ? i argue that hobby lobby had to make the religious argument not only because it is the owners true motive, but because its the only argument that would hold up in court.  if hobby lobby tried to make an economic argument, it would have no relevance to the constitution.  freedom of religion is the only factor that could constitutionally protect them in this case, so it was their only option.  the supreme court is supposed to interpret the constitutionality of a law, not the polical, moral, or logical reasoning of it.  my question is not necessarily about the supreme court is decision and statement, but rather about the reaction to hobby lobby is decisions.  i do agree with you that religious exemptions from law by corporations can become a problem if it is taken to a higher extreme.   #  they have to be replaced with temporary labor during maternity leave.   #  the problem with your reasoning here is the economics work out strongly in favor of providing birth control coverage for women.  first, plans which provide coverage cost basically the same amount of money as plans which do not.  second, female employees becoming pregnant are a very large cost for a business.  they miss work for ob/gyn appointments and morning sickness.  they have to be replaced with temporary labor during maternity leave.  a lot of them never return to work lost investment in training, loss of experience in employees .  those who do have very high rates of absenteeism my kid is got   .  the greene family has a reputation for being really, really religious.  that they fought to the supreme court to stick with a policy that has nothing but economic downsides is to me evidence of their authenticity.   #  the hobby lobby decision breaks down that wall, allowing the owners to use their separate corporate status to further personal religious beliefs exception to the contraception mandate.   # put it this way: if hl refused to supply bc as an employee benefit  just because  do i think people would still be mad ? yes.  but that is not the point.  people are mad because corporations are supposed to be a separate entity from owners for liability purposes.  the hobby lobby decision breaks down that wall, allowing the owners to use their separate corporate status to further personal religious beliefs exception to the contraception mandate.  the fact that people suspect that hl might have actually masqueraded profit motive as religious belief only exacerbates the anger.  at the end of the day, it is the way in which hobby lobby does not have to pay contraception that makes people mad, because it is a special one that applies only to them and similarly situated corporations on a basis that many feel was too attenuated and flew in the face of traditional corporate status.   they are mad because of basic economics  vastly oversimplifies a multifaceted issue.
i do not understand why people act like women are being denied a human right.  hobby lobby is not firing people for using birth control.  all they are doing is refusing to pay for it directly themselves.  so many upset with this case do not even realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  to fund paying for birth control, it would likely result in reduced salary, as birth control is an increased expense for the company.  if they work with an insurance company, the costs associated with insuring female employees would likely be higher due to an additional potential expense.  the women working for the company can buy birth control with their paycheck if they wish to have it.  why does the company need to take money out of the paychecks of everyone to pay for it ? why is the government supposed to tell everyone how to spend their money ? those that chose not take advantage of it are essentially being robbed due to the expenses associated with it taking away from the wages of everyone.  i feel like it limits women is choices, as they are being told they have to receive free birth control as an included benefit and not actually receive it if they do not want it , and be paid less to cover the costs of all of the other women using it.  basically, they have less freedom as to how their money is used.  those who need birth control can just buy it with their own money if the company does not support it.  it is not like they are incapable of obtaining birth control, which is how people make it sound.  if you are going to argue that birth control is a need, and that it is not fair for women, why not deal with the horrible wage inequality between men and women instead ? if there is more expenses with hiring a female employee than a male employee, companies will pay the female employee less to make up the difference.  some companies simply do it because they can, even if female employees are just as useful to the company as a male one, with the same benefits.  why not establish some form of law that makes gender wage inequality illegal instead ? that seems far more useful in protecting women is rights imo.   including birth control under obamacare simply increases the cost of hiring a female employee, which could worsen the already severe wage inequality between men and women.   am i missing something ?  #  those who need birth control can just buy it with their own money if the company does not support it.   #  it is not like they are incapable of obtaining birth control, which is how people make it sound.   # it is not like they are incapable of obtaining birth control, which is how people make it sound.  if the pill in question was a blood pressure or a cholesterol management pill and it was fat, old unhealthy people protesting, would you still argue that they can just go out and buy it on their own ? honestly, why do i have to subsidize fatasses ? .  we should cut their coverage out of my insurance plan because they can go buy it on their own.  same with diabetes fatasses, promiscuous people with hiv, etc.  etc.  in fact, only emergency care should be covered because if people just took care of themselves then we would not need insurance at all.  heck, i like that idea even better.  dismantle insurance entirely and let is all just pay for what we need when we need it.  i hope you can see how absurd this is starting to sound.  people are bent out of shape about this ruling because   a there are a fuckton of women that use the pill   b there there are a fuckton of women that use the pill for  totally non contraceptive reasons    c pills are fucking expensive a lot of the time   d the concept of a woman having full autonomy and sovereignty over the workings of her body is undermined when your organization essentially says  your monthly costs went up by a substantial amount  because you are a woman .  sucks to be you sister.   i work for an organization that decided it was not going to cover this shit on religious grounds.  my wife takes a version of the pill that has no generic counterpart because the standard run of the mill pill  gives her crazy fucking migranes .  so, previously it was like $0/mo out of pocket to get the pills she needs, now it is closer to $0/mo because we have to buy them on our own.  i make fine money, i can afford an extra $0/month.  i do not like it, i think it is asinine that we do not have universal coverage for this sort of thing already in place.  whatever though.  if you do not have a uterus or you are not married to someone with a uterus maybe you will never understand why this is such a big deal until some aspect of your life you have no control over suddenly starts costing you an extra hundred or two each month  and there is not a goddamn thing you can do about it.   #  when hobby lobby, as a corporation, makes this decision and they are given exceptional status with a law, we are talking about a law and religious belief, not economic rationale.   # yes: the fact that the hobby lobby decision presented a very specific question regarding the burden of free exercise on owners of a closely held corporation vis a vis coverage requirements of the aca.  when hobby lobby, as a corporation, makes this decision and they are given exceptional status with a law, we are talking about a law and religious belief, not economic rationale.  this is because, if their decision had been based on economics, it would not have qualified as the sort of  isincere belief  that gave them beneficial treatment in the first place.  all other corporations have to comport their behavior to the aca and hobby lobby does not in this respect because the owners fundamentally oppose contraception on  religious grounds,  not economic ones.  it might have incidental economic logic behind it, but that is not why they did it, and it is not why we are allowing them to do it.  consequently, the outrage behind hobby lobby is not in reaction to profit motive supposedly but rather competing responsibilities and policy under applicable law the aca and the rfra.  this was  not  an economic analysis and much of the annoyance at the decision stems from the articulation of  legal rules  and applicable federal statutes and their effect on women and religious exercise relative to corporate status.  see also: this explain like i am five.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL this thread.  URL and this thread.  URL  #  so basically you are saying its bad because it sets the precedent of corporations gaining religious exemption from law, but not because of the particular scenario ?  #  so basically you are saying its bad because it sets the precedent of corporations gaining religious exemption from law, but not because of the particular scenario ? i argue that hobby lobby had to make the religious argument not only because it is the owners true motive, but because its the only argument that would hold up in court.  if hobby lobby tried to make an economic argument, it would have no relevance to the constitution.  freedom of religion is the only factor that could constitutionally protect them in this case, so it was their only option.  the supreme court is supposed to interpret the constitutionality of a law, not the polical, moral, or logical reasoning of it.  my question is not necessarily about the supreme court is decision and statement, but rather about the reaction to hobby lobby is decisions.  i do agree with you that religious exemptions from law by corporations can become a problem if it is taken to a higher extreme.   #  second, female employees becoming pregnant are a very large cost for a business.   #  the problem with your reasoning here is the economics work out strongly in favor of providing birth control coverage for women.  first, plans which provide coverage cost basically the same amount of money as plans which do not.  second, female employees becoming pregnant are a very large cost for a business.  they miss work for ob/gyn appointments and morning sickness.  they have to be replaced with temporary labor during maternity leave.  a lot of them never return to work lost investment in training, loss of experience in employees .  those who do have very high rates of absenteeism my kid is got   .  the greene family has a reputation for being really, really religious.  that they fought to the supreme court to stick with a policy that has nothing but economic downsides is to me evidence of their authenticity.   #  the hobby lobby decision breaks down that wall, allowing the owners to use their separate corporate status to further personal religious beliefs exception to the contraception mandate.   # put it this way: if hl refused to supply bc as an employee benefit  just because  do i think people would still be mad ? yes.  but that is not the point.  people are mad because corporations are supposed to be a separate entity from owners for liability purposes.  the hobby lobby decision breaks down that wall, allowing the owners to use their separate corporate status to further personal religious beliefs exception to the contraception mandate.  the fact that people suspect that hl might have actually masqueraded profit motive as religious belief only exacerbates the anger.  at the end of the day, it is the way in which hobby lobby does not have to pay contraception that makes people mad, because it is a special one that applies only to them and similarly situated corporations on a basis that many feel was too attenuated and flew in the face of traditional corporate status.   they are mad because of basic economics  vastly oversimplifies a multifaceted issue.
outside of academia, where generally, if someone says it is art, for the sake of discussion it is treated as art there is considerable debate about what counts as art, and what does not.  well, maybe just on reddit.  but often, i feel it would be helpful to have a clear and reliable definition of what counts as art, so the discussion could move forward.  this also addresses a common opinion that boils down to  i do not like it, therefore it is not art .  anyway, here is my definition of art: any form of communication with at least one layer of abstraction.  edit: removed word attempted here is why i think this works.  it is medium agnostic, so it can apply equally well to any type of art including spoken word, performance, sculpture, whatever.  it is non normative, meaning we do not have to consider whether the artist did a good job or had any particular purpose.  it boils down to: was there communication ? even unintentional ? and: was the communication abstracted in some way ? by this, i mean the full content is not just explicitly stated.  examples of what is not art: a stop sign is not art.  it is communication you stop here but the message is not really abstracted.  a random splotch of oil on the ground that looks really awesome is not art, because it was not produced by a person to communicate anything.  jackson pollock is work is art, because there is communication about his thoughts, feelings, and art itself in there although it is heavily abstracted.  difficulties/objections: indeed, for example stylization of text could be considered abstracted communication.  i think this is ok.  design can be considered a type of art.  yes, i guess it does.  bonus round: my definition of  good art  which i realize is too subjective to debate meaningfully, but i am throwing it in here anyway : good art helps one is fellow humans understand better.  here  understand  means understanding themselves, others, the world around them, life, culture, etc.  it is orthogonal here to the idea of knowledge, in the sense of information that has not been emotionally integrated into one is worldview or mindset.  i like this definition because it encompasses just about all art that is considered  great  while allowing us to reject art that is superficially well executed or conceptually interesting, but ultimately worthless to the human experience.  for example, star wars fan art is usually not good art.  imitative contemporary abstract nonsense is often not good art.  but maybe jeff koons can be considered good art again ? in this light, duchamp is fountain and malevich is black squares can be more important to me, anyway than .  say.  monet.  interesting ! okay, that is it ! what do you think, is there a more useful definition of art we can use ? how about good art ?  #  any form of communication with at least one layer of abstraction.   #  knee jerk wiseass response: i am a computer programmer.   # knee jerk wiseass response: i am a computer programmer.  my  job , all day long, is to write abstract words.  does this count as art ? funny story: in highschool a friend of mine was working on cs homework in an english class.  the teacher caught him, but thought it was poetry.  my friend, ballsy fucker he is, decided he would just hand in source code as a poetry assignment.  0 a  grade  #  at that point the definition of art just collapses on itself.   #  a stop sign would be art under your definition.  at the very least, the red octagon format is an abstract symbol associated with the message to stop.  a stoplight would also be art.  so would a message sent in morse code, or any binary transmission.  i am not sure how anything written would not count as an attempt at communication with at least one layer of abstraction.  so a list of ingredients on a box of crackers, would be art.  basically, i think this is overinclusive, and not because it suggests even crappy or trivial expression is art that is fine , but it would classify almost any communication as art.  at that point the definition of art just collapses on itself.   #  therefore, there is no abstracted communication, and it is not art.   # at the very least, the red octagon format is an abstract symbol associated with the message to stop.  i thought of this, it is tricky.  i think it is possible to get around by saying  red octagon is an unambiguous symbol which does not have another layer of meaning besides  stop , but it suggests the word  abstracted  is not enough here.  i might have semantic problems with the definition, but the idea here is that a list of ingredients does not convey any idea beyond the list of ingredients.  therefore, there is no abstracted communication, and it is not art.  same goes for binary data or whatever.  before decoding it is completely indecipherable, no communication takes place , after decoding it may or may not be art.   #  a red octagon conveys the meaning of stop through its shape and color, a list of ingredients conveys meaning by adherence to a format.   #  i think you are leaning a little too heavily on the word  abstract  here, allowing it to shift around.   abstract  refers to ideas, qualities, concepts, etc.  rather than concrete things, people, or places.  a red octagon conveys the meaning of stop through its shape and color, a list of ingredients conveys meaning by adherence to a format.  these things both also use words, but the words by themselves do not do all of the work.  if you had never seen or heard of a sign before, you would not understand what it meant; if you had never seen an ingredients list you would not know that the format indicates ingredients listed in declining order of frequency.  these things and most communication involve some layer of abstraction.   #  you can verify this is the current definition of art against anything.   #  this is not working at all.  but i like this ideas you throw in it.  why it is not working.  the hermit alone in his cave praying and writing psaume to the glory of life and painting psaumes over the cave walls has no will to communicate.  without going to such an extreme example, any creation that is done for the sole purpose of the creator would fall outside of this defintion, although many people that encounter this production will still consider it as art.  the only definition for art is to be considered as art.  i know it is annoying for rational people but it is, more than a truth, a fact.  you can verify this is the current definition of art against anything.  to develop a bit more, the  intention  to considerate/produce/discuss  something  as art is what make it art.  there is art in your stop sign : powerful design, strong color, to impact the watcher, to convey to him a message based on a common cultural knowledge.  but  you  do not consider it as art and thus it is not, in your opinion.  if someone write a thesis about the art of road signs which might have been done , it would be classified as one branch of design which is art of course, do you want all designers to hate you ? moreover, keep in mind that what is art has changed with the time and that art has not been always recognize such as .  but today, this is your truth :  the only definition for art is to be considered as art.  good art is just too subjective for a logic thinker to spend time on it ;
read up a ton on the subject, and i am still not convinced.  i believe i have some points that through research have still not been rebutted.    yes, the higher ups make money from motivational content.  what is so different between that and artists making money off of their songs ? it is still a service they are providing.    even if part of the income of the higher ups is provided through selling the motivational content, they are still high levels within the amway business on it is own.  meaning that even without the additional income of the motivational content, they would still be making a lot of money, so how is it a scam ?   if the selling of motivational content was to go away, would the amway business on it is own still be considered a scam ? is not it basically a referral program ?  #  yes, the higher ups make money from motivational content.   #  what is so different between that and artists making money off of their songs ?  # what is so different between that and artists making money off of their songs ? it is still a service they are providing.  the problem is that the motivational materials are predicated on the idea that you can  make it  in amway by sales and recruiting alone. which does not appear to be true.  the higher ups become rich primarily through the motivational materials.  so if you ca not make money on amway alone. what are the motivational materials which are obviously only about amway for ? they are useless.  the amount of money you make as an amway diamond, absent motivational materials, is not enough to generate the lifestyles that they are advertising.  a diamond makes about 0k according to amway themselves which makes the claim somewhat dubious imo which is not a bad income.  however to make diamond takes a long time and requires a massive time commitment to generate and maintain new downline.  the very top of the amway pyramid is working fulltime to maybe make 0k. which is honestly not  that  special.  under such circumstances the amway business would probably fold.  the attraction of amway is large amounts of passive income which is not really the truth.  the motivational materials and general lifestyle are required to keep people in a state of insecurity where they assume everyone else is doing better than them and therefore the fact that they are not making money is an anomaly.   #  eventually you run out of friends and/or your own money.   #  the problem with amway and nearly all multi level marketing businesses is you make very little income by selling their over priced junk.  eventually you run out of friends and/or your own money.  sure you can sell some companies products due to long term brand loyalty.  amway, avon, and a few others are like that.  but even there you wo not make the big bucks that the recruiters use to bring you in.  the only way to make big money is by getting other people to sell that over priced junk.  they eventually catch on to that and they in turn get more people to sell that over priced junk who eventually catch on to that and they in turn.   #  so they need to get 0 new people to join.   #  to put it simply it does not scale well.  let is say 0 people start a pyramid.  to make money, they need to recruit 0 more guys per person.  so they need to get 0 new people to join.  they do it and now the pyramid has 0 people.  what % of the people are making money ? well, 0 people out of 0, so 0.  the rest 0 are suckers.  now, to make money, those 0 new guys need to get 0 new recruits each, so 0 new people.  they do so and the pyramid now has 0 people.  what % of the people are making money ? 0 out of 0 people, so 0 if you keep calculating, you will see that at each point, most people are not making any money.  and the more levels, the more new recruits are needed.  just a few steps down the pyramid, you need millions of new recruits.  at a certain point you simply ca not find that many new recruits.  it does not matter that you personally know some people if those people do not want to join and you are the 0rd person that proposes it to them.  at this point the pyramid collapses or simply stops growing.  and since most people have not made money, they ended up being suckers.  if you are one of the those that joined early, maybe you managed to make cash.  but chances are you were not, because as i said, mathematically there are more suckers than winners at each point.   #  but  each  of those must then find six of their own, so the first added  willayer  of the pyramid needs to find  0  people which means there are now 0 people in total, excluding the one at the very top .   #  it is easy to find 0 people, but if everybody gets 0 people to join, the number of people involved blows up  very  quickly and suddenly you do not know anybody who is not already doing it.  i did the maths: the first person just has to find 0 people to join.  but  each  of those must then find six of their own, so the first added  willayer  of the pyramid needs to find  0  people which means there are now 0 people in total, excluding the one at the very top .  and so on: level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 remember there have to be at least a couple of people below you if you are to make any real money.  by the seventh level of the pyramid, it is over a million new people needing to be found, and more than two million involved in total.  by the time everyone in the tenth layer finds their 0 people, there would be more than 0m people involved.  the population of the us could not support that even if  literally  every man woman and child in the country joined.   #  it is just incomparable to the people above you unless you have a client/reseller base as big as theirs.   #  quick answer: you sell to 0 people this week, say you make $0 per sale.  yays.  $0.  that is different from having 0 people sell under you, each giving you a dividend of $0.  yay, $0.  now image those people have more people under them, then more under those, etc.  eventually, your dividend will be more than the $0 you make from selling to just 0 people.  so the way to make  big  money is not trying to make $0 from 0 sales every week.  i am not even sure that is feasible for one person.  the most effective way is getting people below you to feed you their dividend.  it is not that you wo not make money.  it is just incomparable to the people above you unless you have a client/reseller base as big as theirs.
read up a ton on the subject, and i am still not convinced.  i believe i have some points that through research have still not been rebutted.    yes, the higher ups make money from motivational content.  what is so different between that and artists making money off of their songs ? it is still a service they are providing.    even if part of the income of the higher ups is provided through selling the motivational content, they are still high levels within the amway business on it is own.  meaning that even without the additional income of the motivational content, they would still be making a lot of money, so how is it a scam ?   if the selling of motivational content was to go away, would the amway business on it is own still be considered a scam ? is not it basically a referral program ?  #  meaning that even without the additional income of the motivational content, they would still be making a lot of money, so how is it a scam ?  #  the amount of money you make as an amway diamond, absent motivational materials, is not enough to generate the lifestyles that they are advertising.   # what is so different between that and artists making money off of their songs ? it is still a service they are providing.  the problem is that the motivational materials are predicated on the idea that you can  make it  in amway by sales and recruiting alone. which does not appear to be true.  the higher ups become rich primarily through the motivational materials.  so if you ca not make money on amway alone. what are the motivational materials which are obviously only about amway for ? they are useless.  the amount of money you make as an amway diamond, absent motivational materials, is not enough to generate the lifestyles that they are advertising.  a diamond makes about 0k according to amway themselves which makes the claim somewhat dubious imo which is not a bad income.  however to make diamond takes a long time and requires a massive time commitment to generate and maintain new downline.  the very top of the amway pyramid is working fulltime to maybe make 0k. which is honestly not  that  special.  under such circumstances the amway business would probably fold.  the attraction of amway is large amounts of passive income which is not really the truth.  the motivational materials and general lifestyle are required to keep people in a state of insecurity where they assume everyone else is doing better than them and therefore the fact that they are not making money is an anomaly.   #  but even there you wo not make the big bucks that the recruiters use to bring you in.   #  the problem with amway and nearly all multi level marketing businesses is you make very little income by selling their over priced junk.  eventually you run out of friends and/or your own money.  sure you can sell some companies products due to long term brand loyalty.  amway, avon, and a few others are like that.  but even there you wo not make the big bucks that the recruiters use to bring you in.  the only way to make big money is by getting other people to sell that over priced junk.  they eventually catch on to that and they in turn get more people to sell that over priced junk who eventually catch on to that and they in turn.   #  to put it simply it does not scale well.   #  to put it simply it does not scale well.  let is say 0 people start a pyramid.  to make money, they need to recruit 0 more guys per person.  so they need to get 0 new people to join.  they do it and now the pyramid has 0 people.  what % of the people are making money ? well, 0 people out of 0, so 0.  the rest 0 are suckers.  now, to make money, those 0 new guys need to get 0 new recruits each, so 0 new people.  they do so and the pyramid now has 0 people.  what % of the people are making money ? 0 out of 0 people, so 0 if you keep calculating, you will see that at each point, most people are not making any money.  and the more levels, the more new recruits are needed.  just a few steps down the pyramid, you need millions of new recruits.  at a certain point you simply ca not find that many new recruits.  it does not matter that you personally know some people if those people do not want to join and you are the 0rd person that proposes it to them.  at this point the pyramid collapses or simply stops growing.  and since most people have not made money, they ended up being suckers.  if you are one of the those that joined early, maybe you managed to make cash.  but chances are you were not, because as i said, mathematically there are more suckers than winners at each point.   #  by the seventh level of the pyramid, it is over a million new people needing to be found, and more than two million involved in total.   #  it is easy to find 0 people, but if everybody gets 0 people to join, the number of people involved blows up  very  quickly and suddenly you do not know anybody who is not already doing it.  i did the maths: the first person just has to find 0 people to join.  but  each  of those must then find six of their own, so the first added  willayer  of the pyramid needs to find  0  people which means there are now 0 people in total, excluding the one at the very top .  and so on: level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 remember there have to be at least a couple of people below you if you are to make any real money.  by the seventh level of the pyramid, it is over a million new people needing to be found, and more than two million involved in total.  by the time everyone in the tenth layer finds their 0 people, there would be more than 0m people involved.  the population of the us could not support that even if  literally  every man woman and child in the country joined.   #  it is just incomparable to the people above you unless you have a client/reseller base as big as theirs.   #  quick answer: you sell to 0 people this week, say you make $0 per sale.  yays.  $0.  that is different from having 0 people sell under you, each giving you a dividend of $0.  yay, $0.  now image those people have more people under them, then more under those, etc.  eventually, your dividend will be more than the $0 you make from selling to just 0 people.  so the way to make  big  money is not trying to make $0 from 0 sales every week.  i am not even sure that is feasible for one person.  the most effective way is getting people below you to feed you their dividend.  it is not that you wo not make money.  it is just incomparable to the people above you unless you have a client/reseller base as big as theirs.
read up a ton on the subject, and i am still not convinced.  i believe i have some points that through research have still not been rebutted.    yes, the higher ups make money from motivational content.  what is so different between that and artists making money off of their songs ? it is still a service they are providing.    even if part of the income of the higher ups is provided through selling the motivational content, they are still high levels within the amway business on it is own.  meaning that even without the additional income of the motivational content, they would still be making a lot of money, so how is it a scam ?   if the selling of motivational content was to go away, would the amway business on it is own still be considered a scam ? is not it basically a referral program ?  #  would the amway business on it is own still be considered a scam ?  #  under such circumstances the amway business would probably fold.   # what is so different between that and artists making money off of their songs ? it is still a service they are providing.  the problem is that the motivational materials are predicated on the idea that you can  make it  in amway by sales and recruiting alone. which does not appear to be true.  the higher ups become rich primarily through the motivational materials.  so if you ca not make money on amway alone. what are the motivational materials which are obviously only about amway for ? they are useless.  the amount of money you make as an amway diamond, absent motivational materials, is not enough to generate the lifestyles that they are advertising.  a diamond makes about 0k according to amway themselves which makes the claim somewhat dubious imo which is not a bad income.  however to make diamond takes a long time and requires a massive time commitment to generate and maintain new downline.  the very top of the amway pyramid is working fulltime to maybe make 0k. which is honestly not  that  special.  under such circumstances the amway business would probably fold.  the attraction of amway is large amounts of passive income which is not really the truth.  the motivational materials and general lifestyle are required to keep people in a state of insecurity where they assume everyone else is doing better than them and therefore the fact that they are not making money is an anomaly.   #  but even there you wo not make the big bucks that the recruiters use to bring you in.   #  the problem with amway and nearly all multi level marketing businesses is you make very little income by selling their over priced junk.  eventually you run out of friends and/or your own money.  sure you can sell some companies products due to long term brand loyalty.  amway, avon, and a few others are like that.  but even there you wo not make the big bucks that the recruiters use to bring you in.  the only way to make big money is by getting other people to sell that over priced junk.  they eventually catch on to that and they in turn get more people to sell that over priced junk who eventually catch on to that and they in turn.   #  at this point the pyramid collapses or simply stops growing.   #  to put it simply it does not scale well.  let is say 0 people start a pyramid.  to make money, they need to recruit 0 more guys per person.  so they need to get 0 new people to join.  they do it and now the pyramid has 0 people.  what % of the people are making money ? well, 0 people out of 0, so 0.  the rest 0 are suckers.  now, to make money, those 0 new guys need to get 0 new recruits each, so 0 new people.  they do so and the pyramid now has 0 people.  what % of the people are making money ? 0 out of 0 people, so 0 if you keep calculating, you will see that at each point, most people are not making any money.  and the more levels, the more new recruits are needed.  just a few steps down the pyramid, you need millions of new recruits.  at a certain point you simply ca not find that many new recruits.  it does not matter that you personally know some people if those people do not want to join and you are the 0rd person that proposes it to them.  at this point the pyramid collapses or simply stops growing.  and since most people have not made money, they ended up being suckers.  if you are one of the those that joined early, maybe you managed to make cash.  but chances are you were not, because as i said, mathematically there are more suckers than winners at each point.   #  i did the maths: the first person just has to find 0 people to join.   #  it is easy to find 0 people, but if everybody gets 0 people to join, the number of people involved blows up  very  quickly and suddenly you do not know anybody who is not already doing it.  i did the maths: the first person just has to find 0 people to join.  but  each  of those must then find six of their own, so the first added  willayer  of the pyramid needs to find  0  people which means there are now 0 people in total, excluding the one at the very top .  and so on: level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0 running total: 0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 level 0: 0e0 running total: 0e0 remember there have to be at least a couple of people below you if you are to make any real money.  by the seventh level of the pyramid, it is over a million new people needing to be found, and more than two million involved in total.  by the time everyone in the tenth layer finds their 0 people, there would be more than 0m people involved.  the population of the us could not support that even if  literally  every man woman and child in the country joined.   #  now image those people have more people under them, then more under those, etc.   #  quick answer: you sell to 0 people this week, say you make $0 per sale.  yays.  $0.  that is different from having 0 people sell under you, each giving you a dividend of $0.  yay, $0.  now image those people have more people under them, then more under those, etc.  eventually, your dividend will be more than the $0 you make from selling to just 0 people.  so the way to make  big  money is not trying to make $0 from 0 sales every week.  i am not even sure that is feasible for one person.  the most effective way is getting people below you to feed you their dividend.  it is not that you wo not make money.  it is just incomparable to the people above you unless you have a client/reseller base as big as theirs.
just to be clear, i am not arguing whether israel does or does not have a right to exist here.  and i am not arguing whether it is likely or unlikely the palestinians will take their land back.  my argument is that it is basically uncontroversial and accepted history to say that israel came to exist by displacing the palestinians read benny morris if you need .  the palestinians were the historic majority, and for the most part they were historically the residents and owners of the land of historic palestine you would have to be nuts to disagree with that basic point.  .  but over time, and then culminating in the jewish military and diplomatic victories in the 0 war, the state of israel was formed without considering the rights of the indigenous palestinian population.  therefore, if you accept that israel has a right to exist today, it necessarily follows that you are accepting the principle that taking land by force at the expense of the native population is justified.  and if you accept this principle, you must also accept that the palestinians have the right to do the same and will be justified if they are able to gain the upper hand and destroy their oppressors and take the land back.  and further, id argue that the method used to destroy the state of israel and replace it with a new palestinian state on the entire land is largely irrelevant.  because, similarly as previously argued, since the pre israeli jews were not concerned with the plight of the palestinians and the jews who lead the military campaigns to form israel were singularly focused on their own desires to have a state when they killed and expelled them, it naturally flows that palestinian have the right to employ harsh military means to regain the land.  i assume that the majority of arguments against my proposition will be centered on arguments that the jews deserved the land because they were 0 oppressed by the europeans, or 0 they have a religiously ordained right to the land.  in response id say 0 i do not think the level of oppression is relevant to the original argument, 0 i am not religious, and do not think that any religious argument has merit.  i. e.  you ca not just say the jews deserve it more because god said so.   #  therefore, if you accept that israel has a right to exist today, it necessarily follows that you are accepting the principle that taking land by force at the expense of the native population is justified.   #  and if you accept this principle, you must also accept that the palestinians have the right to do the same and will be justified if they are able to gain the upper hand and destroy their oppressors and take the land back.   # and if you accept this principle, you must also accept that the palestinians have the right to do the same and will be justified if they are able to gain the upper hand and destroy their oppressors and take the land back.  the us, australia and canada were all founded on much the same principles of migrants taking land that was originally occupied by another group.  yet while most would find it intolerable if americans started pushing into mexico under similar grounds, we do not demand that the us hand over control to the descendants of native americans and return to where their ancestors live.  this leaves an interesting point.  at what point does a nation cease to be occupiers and start to be thought of as the  natural  owners of that territory ? there is no answer to this question.  the original owners of the land are long dead, and the aboriginal peoples of those three countries are too small in number to matter politically.  the righting of historic injustices is a deep well that we cannot really go down.  for one thing, everyone has ancestors who were an oppressed group at some point.  hell, the italians oppressed half of europe at one point, often engaging in exactly the same tactics as the israelis.  does that we the french can invade italy again ? another point is that both the oppressors and oppressees are long dead.  people talk of historic injustices suffered by blacks/slavs/indians and so on, but that only works when you talk in abstracts.  sure, there may be contemporary injustices suffered by descendents of the oppressed, but that is quite a different issue.  again, nobody believes the english has a right to invade norway to retaliate for what the vikings did.   #  most of the countries in the world have been formed by aggression and conquest, most borders were drawn in blood.   # he is saying that if you believe israel formed and created by aggression is a legitimate nation, then you would have to grant the same status to a palestinian nation born of aggression.  you either recognize both or none.  conquest cannot be a legitimate mean of state formation for one and not the other.  and you are missing my point.  most of the countries in the world have been formed by aggression and conquest, most borders were drawn in blood.  this case is rather unique in that regard because the group that attacked at that time the arabs is the group that lost and now is seen as having been wronged.  but it does not make much of a difference.  the question is ludicrous.  i could just as easily phrase it this way  if you believe america has the right to exist, it necessarily follows that the native americans have the right to destroy america and take it back .  the reason that is ludicrous is because neither country has a  right  to exist, anymore than a neighborhood watch group another very different type of communal social contract has a  right  to exist.  people have rights, countries do not.   #  the one i am addressing is that it presupposes that some countries have a right to exist and others do not.   #  honestly, i understand the confusion.  this topic is difficult and the point i am trying to make is very, very subtle.  perhaps i have not expressed myself well, so i will try to explain it better.  op is question is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways.  the one i am addressing is that it presupposes that some countries have a right to exist and others do not.  to write it with the subtext included, it would like this .   in a world where some countries have the right to exist and others do not: if you believe israel has a right to exist, it necessarily follows that the palestinians have an equal right to destroy israel and take their land back.  i am saying that assumption is wrong.  countries do not have rights.  it is similar to creating a cmv that says .   if you think 0   0 is equal to the letter x, it necessarily follows that 0   0 is equal to the letter y.  and though it may look that way at first glance, i am not talking about semantics here.  i am saying that social constructs cannot have rights, just as numbers cannot be equal to letters.  the link makes no logical sense, so the view is arbitrary and cannot be changed how would you disprove that 0   0 is equal to the letter y in a situation where 0   0 is equal to the letter x ?  #  if you do not consent to the premise, then his argument does not apply to you.   # his argument is very clever because he does not say anything about what he believes he is only addressing the internal consistency of other views.  if you believe that israel is existence is just, then you must believe that palestine is existence would also be just.  if you do not consent to the premise, then his argument does not apply to you.  it would be like criticizing the argument  if you are a christian, then you should be a pacifist  with  i am not a christian .  well, then, you are not the audience here, and the argument does not apply to you.  which is fine.   #  in short, it would not be any less legitimate for palestinian to try and take over israel.   #  i understand your point, but i do not think it is as solid as you seem to believe.  seeing as rights are social construct themselves, there is no reason countries or societies also social constructs built from an aggregation of individuals, cannot be granted rights.  in the same way, we will often grant rights to organizations.  the right to assemble, an individual right, is the basis on which x or y group have  a right to exist .  that is beside the point however.  you could simply rephrase the original question to center around legitimacy, as opposed to more controversial notion of rights which i agree was a poor choice of words.  states are often considered more or less legitimate and the question of aggression as a mean to attaint/maintain legitimacy is an interesting one.  if we consider that the  winner  of any given conflict is the legitimate one, should not we also agree that the opposite situation would be true.  in other words, if you consider israel a legitimate state because they  won , would not you be logically obligate to consider palestine the same way if they ever  win .  given that victory becomes a base for legitimacy, does not aggression become an  legitimate  way of attaining it.  in short, it would not be any less legitimate for palestinian to try and take over israel.
scottish residents who are citizens of the uk or eu URL will be voting on independence from the united kingdom on september 0.  in my opinion, the referendum should be decided by all uk residents that is, eu citizens living in england, wales, scotland, and northern ireland.  i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  the current referendum was approved by the scottish parliament.  the rest of the uk has not had a say so far, and will not in september.  this is simply unfair.  i understand why it is the case the vote is already going to be close and this would guarantee an overwhelming no , but that does not make it just.  0 members of the uk house of commons, 0 of them cabinet ministers, are scottish.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  obviously in some cases independence should be voted on by only the relevant minority.  for instance, before independence ireland was oppressed by the uk so i am glad they got the right to self determination.  but scotland is not oppressed.  scotland became part of the uk under peaceful circumstances hundreds of years ago.  there is no real ethnic or cultural difference between scots and other brits.  the last uk prime minister was scottish.  so there is no compelling reason to allow only scots to vote on the referendum, except that its supporters know that is the only way it will pass.  so please convince me that the upcoming vote will be legitimate despite not including all uk residents.   #  in my opinion, the referendum should be decided by all uk residents that is, eu citizens living in england, wales, scotland, and northern ireland.   #  i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.   #  the whole point of independence is wanting to take your own decisions.  preventing that defeats the purpose of a referendum.  would you require a vote in the whole family too if one of a husband and wife wanted a divorce ? i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  do you think that the uk should get permission to leave from the rest of the eu, should they want to do so ? i do not.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  if that is what the english vote for.  continuous government responsibility tends to undermine support for a party, anyway.  in the long run will increase support for the opposition parties.  irrelevant.  if they want independence just because they are bored, you would still have to accept it.  failing to allow them to secede is oppressive in itself.  subjective and debatable.  the fact that there is a different name for them indicates that the differences are significant enough.  and could only obtain that position by catering to english interests primarily.   #  that is a vote that should have been left entirely to the uk, whether or not they wanted to join us.   # well, that is kind of up to scotland to decide, is not it ? and clearly a lot of them feel differently about that.  voting for independence should  always  be decided by only the affected minority.  voting to keep someone is no different than voting to take them over in the first place.  let is say that a few of us here in the us decide that we want to annex the uk.  we would like the uk to be part of the united states from now on, and abide by all of our rules and customs say goodbye to the nhs .  in parallel with your proposal, we will put it to a vote among the citizens of both the us and the uk.  but there are 0 times as many of us.  the uk stands no chance at preserving their independence, and we vote to absorb them.  that is a vote that should have been left entirely to the uk, whether or not they wanted to join us.  a separate vote on our side could determine whether or not we wanted to  let  them, but not whether or not we could  force  them.  and that is precisely what the scottish independent vote is.  the only difference is the status quo, that scotland is already part of the uk.  but in either case, the vote is whether or not one entity wants to be part of a larger one.  if you say that the entire  union  gets a say in one, then you must say that the entire union gets a say in the other.   #  for example many nations publicly denounced the nazis, american segregation, and apartheid.   #  your views on oppression are oversimplified and borderline offensive.  you do not get to decide entirely for yourself that you are being oppressed just look at all the 0 year olds on tumblr who claim to be oppressed when their parents make them do chores.  in politics, real oppression is recognized by the international community.  for example many nations publicly denounced the nazis, american segregation, and apartheid.  even when the verdict is not unanimous e. g.  palestine at least some countries officially recognize oppression.  by contrast, not a single country has stated that the scottish people are oppressed.  they are politically equal arguably they have more political power than other uk residents and are not the target of systematic violence.  the uk joining the us is a false analogy for several reasons, primary among them that such a referendum  would  be voted on by both nations.  per the us constitution, new states must first declare their intent to join i. e.  the uk would have to vote yes and then admission is voted on by congress i. e.  the rest of the states have to approve it .  this raises an interesting spin on my idea i envisioned all uk citizens having an equal vote, but it could be done in two stages scotland first then the rest of the country but does not change the basic fact that i believe the rest of the uk should have some say.  also, the uk never  took over  scotland.  if anything it was the other way around, when the scottish king james vi became king of england james i .   #  i am going to assume that the place wanting independence is going to always be smaller than what they are trying to be independant from.   #  why have votes for independence at all if the entire population at large can vote on them.  i am going to assume that the place wanting independence is going to always be smaller than what they are trying to be independant from.  would not every vote for independence just be lip service to the country wanting independence.  if other parties have economic concerns they should either get to vote or not.  if the uk gets to vote about scotland, you cant  say that america does not get to vote over quebec since canada is our biggest trade partner and every single treaty with canada would have to be rewritten.  we would have a lot to lose.   #  just because a law wo not pass does not mean only a minority should get to vote on it.   # i believe in some cases it should be up to the minority.  if oppression is clear e. g.  ireland under the uk in the early 0th century the oppressed minority should be allowed to choose independence.  but scotland is not oppressed, they just want to make a politically selfish decision.  for the most part yes, but i do not see why that is a bad thing.  just because a law wo not pass does not mean only a minority should get to vote on it.  anyway, sometimes independence is mutually agreed see czechoslovakia.  we would have a lot to lose.  but canadian treaties are only a tiny fraction of american law.  it is not in the same league as the importance of scotland in the uk.
scottish residents who are citizens of the uk or eu URL will be voting on independence from the united kingdom on september 0.  in my opinion, the referendum should be decided by all uk residents that is, eu citizens living in england, wales, scotland, and northern ireland.  i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  the current referendum was approved by the scottish parliament.  the rest of the uk has not had a say so far, and will not in september.  this is simply unfair.  i understand why it is the case the vote is already going to be close and this would guarantee an overwhelming no , but that does not make it just.  0 members of the uk house of commons, 0 of them cabinet ministers, are scottish.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  obviously in some cases independence should be voted on by only the relevant minority.  for instance, before independence ireland was oppressed by the uk so i am glad they got the right to self determination.  but scotland is not oppressed.  scotland became part of the uk under peaceful circumstances hundreds of years ago.  there is no real ethnic or cultural difference between scots and other brits.  the last uk prime minister was scottish.  so there is no compelling reason to allow only scots to vote on the referendum, except that its supporters know that is the only way it will pass.  so please convince me that the upcoming vote will be legitimate despite not including all uk residents.   #  0 members of the uk house of commons, 0 of them cabinet ministers, are scottish.   #  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.   #  the whole point of independence is wanting to take your own decisions.  preventing that defeats the purpose of a referendum.  would you require a vote in the whole family too if one of a husband and wife wanted a divorce ? i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  do you think that the uk should get permission to leave from the rest of the eu, should they want to do so ? i do not.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  if that is what the english vote for.  continuous government responsibility tends to undermine support for a party, anyway.  in the long run will increase support for the opposition parties.  irrelevant.  if they want independence just because they are bored, you would still have to accept it.  failing to allow them to secede is oppressive in itself.  subjective and debatable.  the fact that there is a different name for them indicates that the differences are significant enough.  and could only obtain that position by catering to english interests primarily.   #  well, that is kind of up to scotland to decide, is not it ?  # well, that is kind of up to scotland to decide, is not it ? and clearly a lot of them feel differently about that.  voting for independence should  always  be decided by only the affected minority.  voting to keep someone is no different than voting to take them over in the first place.  let is say that a few of us here in the us decide that we want to annex the uk.  we would like the uk to be part of the united states from now on, and abide by all of our rules and customs say goodbye to the nhs .  in parallel with your proposal, we will put it to a vote among the citizens of both the us and the uk.  but there are 0 times as many of us.  the uk stands no chance at preserving their independence, and we vote to absorb them.  that is a vote that should have been left entirely to the uk, whether or not they wanted to join us.  a separate vote on our side could determine whether or not we wanted to  let  them, but not whether or not we could  force  them.  and that is precisely what the scottish independent vote is.  the only difference is the status quo, that scotland is already part of the uk.  but in either case, the vote is whether or not one entity wants to be part of a larger one.  if you say that the entire  union  gets a say in one, then you must say that the entire union gets a say in the other.   #  the uk would have to vote yes and then admission is voted on by congress i. e.   #  your views on oppression are oversimplified and borderline offensive.  you do not get to decide entirely for yourself that you are being oppressed just look at all the 0 year olds on tumblr who claim to be oppressed when their parents make them do chores.  in politics, real oppression is recognized by the international community.  for example many nations publicly denounced the nazis, american segregation, and apartheid.  even when the verdict is not unanimous e. g.  palestine at least some countries officially recognize oppression.  by contrast, not a single country has stated that the scottish people are oppressed.  they are politically equal arguably they have more political power than other uk residents and are not the target of systematic violence.  the uk joining the us is a false analogy for several reasons, primary among them that such a referendum  would  be voted on by both nations.  per the us constitution, new states must first declare their intent to join i. e.  the uk would have to vote yes and then admission is voted on by congress i. e.  the rest of the states have to approve it .  this raises an interesting spin on my idea i envisioned all uk citizens having an equal vote, but it could be done in two stages scotland first then the rest of the country but does not change the basic fact that i believe the rest of the uk should have some say.  also, the uk never  took over  scotland.  if anything it was the other way around, when the scottish king james vi became king of england james i .   #  if other parties have economic concerns they should either get to vote or not.   #  why have votes for independence at all if the entire population at large can vote on them.  i am going to assume that the place wanting independence is going to always be smaller than what they are trying to be independant from.  would not every vote for independence just be lip service to the country wanting independence.  if other parties have economic concerns they should either get to vote or not.  if the uk gets to vote about scotland, you cant  say that america does not get to vote over quebec since canada is our biggest trade partner and every single treaty with canada would have to be rewritten.  we would have a lot to lose.   #  it is not in the same league as the importance of scotland in the uk.   # i believe in some cases it should be up to the minority.  if oppression is clear e. g.  ireland under the uk in the early 0th century the oppressed minority should be allowed to choose independence.  but scotland is not oppressed, they just want to make a politically selfish decision.  for the most part yes, but i do not see why that is a bad thing.  just because a law wo not pass does not mean only a minority should get to vote on it.  anyway, sometimes independence is mutually agreed see czechoslovakia.  we would have a lot to lose.  but canadian treaties are only a tiny fraction of american law.  it is not in the same league as the importance of scotland in the uk.
scottish residents who are citizens of the uk or eu URL will be voting on independence from the united kingdom on september 0.  in my opinion, the referendum should be decided by all uk residents that is, eu citizens living in england, wales, scotland, and northern ireland.  i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  the current referendum was approved by the scottish parliament.  the rest of the uk has not had a say so far, and will not in september.  this is simply unfair.  i understand why it is the case the vote is already going to be close and this would guarantee an overwhelming no , but that does not make it just.  0 members of the uk house of commons, 0 of them cabinet ministers, are scottish.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  obviously in some cases independence should be voted on by only the relevant minority.  for instance, before independence ireland was oppressed by the uk so i am glad they got the right to self determination.  but scotland is not oppressed.  scotland became part of the uk under peaceful circumstances hundreds of years ago.  there is no real ethnic or cultural difference between scots and other brits.  the last uk prime minister was scottish.  so there is no compelling reason to allow only scots to vote on the referendum, except that its supporters know that is the only way it will pass.  so please convince me that the upcoming vote will be legitimate despite not including all uk residents.   #  there is no real ethnic or cultural difference between scots and other brits.   #  subjective and debatable.  the fact that there is a different name for them indicates that the differences are significant enough.   #  the whole point of independence is wanting to take your own decisions.  preventing that defeats the purpose of a referendum.  would you require a vote in the whole family too if one of a husband and wife wanted a divorce ? i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  do you think that the uk should get permission to leave from the rest of the eu, should they want to do so ? i do not.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  if that is what the english vote for.  continuous government responsibility tends to undermine support for a party, anyway.  in the long run will increase support for the opposition parties.  irrelevant.  if they want independence just because they are bored, you would still have to accept it.  failing to allow them to secede is oppressive in itself.  subjective and debatable.  the fact that there is a different name for them indicates that the differences are significant enough.  and could only obtain that position by catering to english interests primarily.   #  in parallel with your proposal, we will put it to a vote among the citizens of both the us and the uk.   # well, that is kind of up to scotland to decide, is not it ? and clearly a lot of them feel differently about that.  voting for independence should  always  be decided by only the affected minority.  voting to keep someone is no different than voting to take them over in the first place.  let is say that a few of us here in the us decide that we want to annex the uk.  we would like the uk to be part of the united states from now on, and abide by all of our rules and customs say goodbye to the nhs .  in parallel with your proposal, we will put it to a vote among the citizens of both the us and the uk.  but there are 0 times as many of us.  the uk stands no chance at preserving their independence, and we vote to absorb them.  that is a vote that should have been left entirely to the uk, whether or not they wanted to join us.  a separate vote on our side could determine whether or not we wanted to  let  them, but not whether or not we could  force  them.  and that is precisely what the scottish independent vote is.  the only difference is the status quo, that scotland is already part of the uk.  but in either case, the vote is whether or not one entity wants to be part of a larger one.  if you say that the entire  union  gets a say in one, then you must say that the entire union gets a say in the other.   #  the rest of the states have to approve it .   #  your views on oppression are oversimplified and borderline offensive.  you do not get to decide entirely for yourself that you are being oppressed just look at all the 0 year olds on tumblr who claim to be oppressed when their parents make them do chores.  in politics, real oppression is recognized by the international community.  for example many nations publicly denounced the nazis, american segregation, and apartheid.  even when the verdict is not unanimous e. g.  palestine at least some countries officially recognize oppression.  by contrast, not a single country has stated that the scottish people are oppressed.  they are politically equal arguably they have more political power than other uk residents and are not the target of systematic violence.  the uk joining the us is a false analogy for several reasons, primary among them that such a referendum  would  be voted on by both nations.  per the us constitution, new states must first declare their intent to join i. e.  the uk would have to vote yes and then admission is voted on by congress i. e.  the rest of the states have to approve it .  this raises an interesting spin on my idea i envisioned all uk citizens having an equal vote, but it could be done in two stages scotland first then the rest of the country but does not change the basic fact that i believe the rest of the uk should have some say.  also, the uk never  took over  scotland.  if anything it was the other way around, when the scottish king james vi became king of england james i .   #  i am going to assume that the place wanting independence is going to always be smaller than what they are trying to be independant from.   #  why have votes for independence at all if the entire population at large can vote on them.  i am going to assume that the place wanting independence is going to always be smaller than what they are trying to be independant from.  would not every vote for independence just be lip service to the country wanting independence.  if other parties have economic concerns they should either get to vote or not.  if the uk gets to vote about scotland, you cant  say that america does not get to vote over quebec since canada is our biggest trade partner and every single treaty with canada would have to be rewritten.  we would have a lot to lose.   #  for the most part yes, but i do not see why that is a bad thing.   # i believe in some cases it should be up to the minority.  if oppression is clear e. g.  ireland under the uk in the early 0th century the oppressed minority should be allowed to choose independence.  but scotland is not oppressed, they just want to make a politically selfish decision.  for the most part yes, but i do not see why that is a bad thing.  just because a law wo not pass does not mean only a minority should get to vote on it.  anyway, sometimes independence is mutually agreed see czechoslovakia.  we would have a lot to lose.  but canadian treaties are only a tiny fraction of american law.  it is not in the same league as the importance of scotland in the uk.
scottish residents who are citizens of the uk or eu URL will be voting on independence from the united kingdom on september 0.  in my opinion, the referendum should be decided by all uk residents that is, eu citizens living in england, wales, scotland, and northern ireland.  i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  the current referendum was approved by the scottish parliament.  the rest of the uk has not had a say so far, and will not in september.  this is simply unfair.  i understand why it is the case the vote is already going to be close and this would guarantee an overwhelming no , but that does not make it just.  0 members of the uk house of commons, 0 of them cabinet ministers, are scottish.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  obviously in some cases independence should be voted on by only the relevant minority.  for instance, before independence ireland was oppressed by the uk so i am glad they got the right to self determination.  but scotland is not oppressed.  scotland became part of the uk under peaceful circumstances hundreds of years ago.  there is no real ethnic or cultural difference between scots and other brits.  the last uk prime minister was scottish.  so there is no compelling reason to allow only scots to vote on the referendum, except that its supporters know that is the only way it will pass.  so please convince me that the upcoming vote will be legitimate despite not including all uk residents.   #  the last uk prime minister was scottish.   #  and could only obtain that position by catering to english interests primarily.   #  the whole point of independence is wanting to take your own decisions.  preventing that defeats the purpose of a referendum.  would you require a vote in the whole family too if one of a husband and wife wanted a divorce ? i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  do you think that the uk should get permission to leave from the rest of the eu, should they want to do so ? i do not.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  if that is what the english vote for.  continuous government responsibility tends to undermine support for a party, anyway.  in the long run will increase support for the opposition parties.  irrelevant.  if they want independence just because they are bored, you would still have to accept it.  failing to allow them to secede is oppressive in itself.  subjective and debatable.  the fact that there is a different name for them indicates that the differences are significant enough.  and could only obtain that position by catering to english interests primarily.   #  let is say that a few of us here in the us decide that we want to annex the uk.   # well, that is kind of up to scotland to decide, is not it ? and clearly a lot of them feel differently about that.  voting for independence should  always  be decided by only the affected minority.  voting to keep someone is no different than voting to take them over in the first place.  let is say that a few of us here in the us decide that we want to annex the uk.  we would like the uk to be part of the united states from now on, and abide by all of our rules and customs say goodbye to the nhs .  in parallel with your proposal, we will put it to a vote among the citizens of both the us and the uk.  but there are 0 times as many of us.  the uk stands no chance at preserving their independence, and we vote to absorb them.  that is a vote that should have been left entirely to the uk, whether or not they wanted to join us.  a separate vote on our side could determine whether or not we wanted to  let  them, but not whether or not we could  force  them.  and that is precisely what the scottish independent vote is.  the only difference is the status quo, that scotland is already part of the uk.  but in either case, the vote is whether or not one entity wants to be part of a larger one.  if you say that the entire  union  gets a say in one, then you must say that the entire union gets a say in the other.   #  the rest of the states have to approve it .   #  your views on oppression are oversimplified and borderline offensive.  you do not get to decide entirely for yourself that you are being oppressed just look at all the 0 year olds on tumblr who claim to be oppressed when their parents make them do chores.  in politics, real oppression is recognized by the international community.  for example many nations publicly denounced the nazis, american segregation, and apartheid.  even when the verdict is not unanimous e. g.  palestine at least some countries officially recognize oppression.  by contrast, not a single country has stated that the scottish people are oppressed.  they are politically equal arguably they have more political power than other uk residents and are not the target of systematic violence.  the uk joining the us is a false analogy for several reasons, primary among them that such a referendum  would  be voted on by both nations.  per the us constitution, new states must first declare their intent to join i. e.  the uk would have to vote yes and then admission is voted on by congress i. e.  the rest of the states have to approve it .  this raises an interesting spin on my idea i envisioned all uk citizens having an equal vote, but it could be done in two stages scotland first then the rest of the country but does not change the basic fact that i believe the rest of the uk should have some say.  also, the uk never  took over  scotland.  if anything it was the other way around, when the scottish king james vi became king of england james i .   #  if the uk gets to vote about scotland, you cant  say that america does not get to vote over quebec since canada is our biggest trade partner and every single treaty with canada would have to be rewritten.   #  why have votes for independence at all if the entire population at large can vote on them.  i am going to assume that the place wanting independence is going to always be smaller than what they are trying to be independant from.  would not every vote for independence just be lip service to the country wanting independence.  if other parties have economic concerns they should either get to vote or not.  if the uk gets to vote about scotland, you cant  say that america does not get to vote over quebec since canada is our biggest trade partner and every single treaty with canada would have to be rewritten.  we would have a lot to lose.   #  anyway, sometimes independence is mutually agreed see czechoslovakia.   # i believe in some cases it should be up to the minority.  if oppression is clear e. g.  ireland under the uk in the early 0th century the oppressed minority should be allowed to choose independence.  but scotland is not oppressed, they just want to make a politically selfish decision.  for the most part yes, but i do not see why that is a bad thing.  just because a law wo not pass does not mean only a minority should get to vote on it.  anyway, sometimes independence is mutually agreed see czechoslovakia.  we would have a lot to lose.  but canadian treaties are only a tiny fraction of american law.  it is not in the same league as the importance of scotland in the uk.
scottish residents who are citizens of the uk or eu URL will be voting on independence from the united kingdom on september 0.  in my opinion, the referendum should be decided by all uk residents that is, eu citizens living in england, wales, scotland, and northern ireland.  i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  the current referendum was approved by the scottish parliament.  the rest of the uk has not had a say so far, and will not in september.  this is simply unfair.  i understand why it is the case the vote is already going to be close and this would guarantee an overwhelming no , but that does not make it just.  0 members of the uk house of commons, 0 of them cabinet ministers, are scottish.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  obviously in some cases independence should be voted on by only the relevant minority.  for instance, before independence ireland was oppressed by the uk so i am glad they got the right to self determination.  but scotland is not oppressed.  scotland became part of the uk under peaceful circumstances hundreds of years ago.  there is no real ethnic or cultural difference between scots and other brits.  the last uk prime minister was scottish.  so there is no compelling reason to allow only scots to vote on the referendum, except that its supporters know that is the only way it will pass.  so please convince me that the upcoming vote will be legitimate despite not including all uk residents.   #  the current referendum was approved by the scottish parliament.   #  the rest of the uk has not had a say so far, not really.   # the rest of the uk has not had a say so far, not really.  the scottish parliament ca not go around organizing referendums as it pleases.  i remember back in october of 0 david cameron went to scotland to sign the agreement with the snp regarding the referendum.  so the referendum has been blessed by the uk government which holds a majority in the uk parliament.  so technically, the rest of the uk, represented by its mps has had a say so far.  that is subjective, not a fact.  oppression could very well be malgovernance.  this is what this is all about. scottish people feeling that they have been malgoverned by the uk parliament and wanting to take their fate in their own hands.  ask any yes person in scotland and they will tell you that they feel oppressed.  scotland has never voted for a tory govt and yet time and time again received one.  in the  0s, a tory pm that scotland did not vote for, managed to turn uk into a service based economy, thus ruining industry all over the country. thousands of scottish people working in steel mills or coal mines were thrown on the streets.  ask them if they feel oppressed.  or now, ask people whose benefits are being cut or people with disabilities who have to pay the bedroom tax. they did not vote for this govt.  uhm. kind of.  according to this video URL they were sort of coerced into it after going broke.  well i guess there is no right answer here.  there are just opinions and here is mine.  i think it is justified that only scottish people get to vote in the referendum since the outcome will affect  scotland the most .  surely the uk will be impacted too, as you said tory majority solidified, the economy weakening just a bit no oil revenue , uk would have to move the trident missiles from scotland extra costs, plus issues with national security etc.  however that is nothing compared to the changes for the people of scotland.  they will now have a whole different citizenship, a different passport. what countries can they travel to ? what countries can they not travel to ? are they part of the eu anymore ? will they keep the pound ? will a business that relies on trade with the uk have to move from scotland ? what will happen to their mortgages, to their pensions, to their tax levels ? in an ideal world, i would have taken some very clever people to calculate all that and find out how many times bigger would the impact be for a scottish than an english or a welsh.  then i would give everyone a vote and adjust the values accordingly.  say, a scottish would be impacted 0 times as much as an english.  i would give the vote of the scottish 0 points and the english 0 point.  just thought of this : hope i answered some of your questions.   #  voting for independence should  always  be decided by only the affected minority.   # well, that is kind of up to scotland to decide, is not it ? and clearly a lot of them feel differently about that.  voting for independence should  always  be decided by only the affected minority.  voting to keep someone is no different than voting to take them over in the first place.  let is say that a few of us here in the us decide that we want to annex the uk.  we would like the uk to be part of the united states from now on, and abide by all of our rules and customs say goodbye to the nhs .  in parallel with your proposal, we will put it to a vote among the citizens of both the us and the uk.  but there are 0 times as many of us.  the uk stands no chance at preserving their independence, and we vote to absorb them.  that is a vote that should have been left entirely to the uk, whether or not they wanted to join us.  a separate vote on our side could determine whether or not we wanted to  let  them, but not whether or not we could  force  them.  and that is precisely what the scottish independent vote is.  the only difference is the status quo, that scotland is already part of the uk.  but in either case, the vote is whether or not one entity wants to be part of a larger one.  if you say that the entire  union  gets a say in one, then you must say that the entire union gets a say in the other.   #  by contrast, not a single country has stated that the scottish people are oppressed.   #  your views on oppression are oversimplified and borderline offensive.  you do not get to decide entirely for yourself that you are being oppressed just look at all the 0 year olds on tumblr who claim to be oppressed when their parents make them do chores.  in politics, real oppression is recognized by the international community.  for example many nations publicly denounced the nazis, american segregation, and apartheid.  even when the verdict is not unanimous e. g.  palestine at least some countries officially recognize oppression.  by contrast, not a single country has stated that the scottish people are oppressed.  they are politically equal arguably they have more political power than other uk residents and are not the target of systematic violence.  the uk joining the us is a false analogy for several reasons, primary among them that such a referendum  would  be voted on by both nations.  per the us constitution, new states must first declare their intent to join i. e.  the uk would have to vote yes and then admission is voted on by congress i. e.  the rest of the states have to approve it .  this raises an interesting spin on my idea i envisioned all uk citizens having an equal vote, but it could be done in two stages scotland first then the rest of the country but does not change the basic fact that i believe the rest of the uk should have some say.  also, the uk never  took over  scotland.  if anything it was the other way around, when the scottish king james vi became king of england james i .   #  why have votes for independence at all if the entire population at large can vote on them.   #  why have votes for independence at all if the entire population at large can vote on them.  i am going to assume that the place wanting independence is going to always be smaller than what they are trying to be independant from.  would not every vote for independence just be lip service to the country wanting independence.  if other parties have economic concerns they should either get to vote or not.  if the uk gets to vote about scotland, you cant  say that america does not get to vote over quebec since canada is our biggest trade partner and every single treaty with canada would have to be rewritten.  we would have a lot to lose.   #  for the most part yes, but i do not see why that is a bad thing.   # i believe in some cases it should be up to the minority.  if oppression is clear e. g.  ireland under the uk in the early 0th century the oppressed minority should be allowed to choose independence.  but scotland is not oppressed, they just want to make a politically selfish decision.  for the most part yes, but i do not see why that is a bad thing.  just because a law wo not pass does not mean only a minority should get to vote on it.  anyway, sometimes independence is mutually agreed see czechoslovakia.  we would have a lot to lose.  but canadian treaties are only a tiny fraction of american law.  it is not in the same league as the importance of scotland in the uk.
scottish residents who are citizens of the uk or eu URL will be voting on independence from the united kingdom on september 0.  in my opinion, the referendum should be decided by all uk residents that is, eu citizens living in england, wales, scotland, and northern ireland.  i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  the current referendum was approved by the scottish parliament.  the rest of the uk has not had a say so far, and will not in september.  this is simply unfair.  i understand why it is the case the vote is already going to be close and this would guarantee an overwhelming no , but that does not make it just.  0 members of the uk house of commons, 0 of them cabinet ministers, are scottish.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  obviously in some cases independence should be voted on by only the relevant minority.  for instance, before independence ireland was oppressed by the uk so i am glad they got the right to self determination.  but scotland is not oppressed.  scotland became part of the uk under peaceful circumstances hundreds of years ago.  there is no real ethnic or cultural difference between scots and other brits.  the last uk prime minister was scottish.  so there is no compelling reason to allow only scots to vote on the referendum, except that its supporters know that is the only way it will pass.  so please convince me that the upcoming vote will be legitimate despite not including all uk residents.   #  so there is no compelling reason to allow only scots to vote on the referendum, except that its supporters know that is the only way it will pass.   #  well i guess there is no right answer here.   # the rest of the uk has not had a say so far, not really.  the scottish parliament ca not go around organizing referendums as it pleases.  i remember back in october of 0 david cameron went to scotland to sign the agreement with the snp regarding the referendum.  so the referendum has been blessed by the uk government which holds a majority in the uk parliament.  so technically, the rest of the uk, represented by its mps has had a say so far.  that is subjective, not a fact.  oppression could very well be malgovernance.  this is what this is all about. scottish people feeling that they have been malgoverned by the uk parliament and wanting to take their fate in their own hands.  ask any yes person in scotland and they will tell you that they feel oppressed.  scotland has never voted for a tory govt and yet time and time again received one.  in the  0s, a tory pm that scotland did not vote for, managed to turn uk into a service based economy, thus ruining industry all over the country. thousands of scottish people working in steel mills or coal mines were thrown on the streets.  ask them if they feel oppressed.  or now, ask people whose benefits are being cut or people with disabilities who have to pay the bedroom tax. they did not vote for this govt.  uhm. kind of.  according to this video URL they were sort of coerced into it after going broke.  well i guess there is no right answer here.  there are just opinions and here is mine.  i think it is justified that only scottish people get to vote in the referendum since the outcome will affect  scotland the most .  surely the uk will be impacted too, as you said tory majority solidified, the economy weakening just a bit no oil revenue , uk would have to move the trident missiles from scotland extra costs, plus issues with national security etc.  however that is nothing compared to the changes for the people of scotland.  they will now have a whole different citizenship, a different passport. what countries can they travel to ? what countries can they not travel to ? are they part of the eu anymore ? will they keep the pound ? will a business that relies on trade with the uk have to move from scotland ? what will happen to their mortgages, to their pensions, to their tax levels ? in an ideal world, i would have taken some very clever people to calculate all that and find out how many times bigger would the impact be for a scottish than an english or a welsh.  then i would give everyone a vote and adjust the values accordingly.  say, a scottish would be impacted 0 times as much as an english.  i would give the vote of the scottish 0 points and the english 0 point.  just thought of this : hope i answered some of your questions.   #  voting to keep someone is no different than voting to take them over in the first place.   # well, that is kind of up to scotland to decide, is not it ? and clearly a lot of them feel differently about that.  voting for independence should  always  be decided by only the affected minority.  voting to keep someone is no different than voting to take them over in the first place.  let is say that a few of us here in the us decide that we want to annex the uk.  we would like the uk to be part of the united states from now on, and abide by all of our rules and customs say goodbye to the nhs .  in parallel with your proposal, we will put it to a vote among the citizens of both the us and the uk.  but there are 0 times as many of us.  the uk stands no chance at preserving their independence, and we vote to absorb them.  that is a vote that should have been left entirely to the uk, whether or not they wanted to join us.  a separate vote on our side could determine whether or not we wanted to  let  them, but not whether or not we could  force  them.  and that is precisely what the scottish independent vote is.  the only difference is the status quo, that scotland is already part of the uk.  but in either case, the vote is whether or not one entity wants to be part of a larger one.  if you say that the entire  union  gets a say in one, then you must say that the entire union gets a say in the other.   #  by contrast, not a single country has stated that the scottish people are oppressed.   #  your views on oppression are oversimplified and borderline offensive.  you do not get to decide entirely for yourself that you are being oppressed just look at all the 0 year olds on tumblr who claim to be oppressed when their parents make them do chores.  in politics, real oppression is recognized by the international community.  for example many nations publicly denounced the nazis, american segregation, and apartheid.  even when the verdict is not unanimous e. g.  palestine at least some countries officially recognize oppression.  by contrast, not a single country has stated that the scottish people are oppressed.  they are politically equal arguably they have more political power than other uk residents and are not the target of systematic violence.  the uk joining the us is a false analogy for several reasons, primary among them that such a referendum  would  be voted on by both nations.  per the us constitution, new states must first declare their intent to join i. e.  the uk would have to vote yes and then admission is voted on by congress i. e.  the rest of the states have to approve it .  this raises an interesting spin on my idea i envisioned all uk citizens having an equal vote, but it could be done in two stages scotland first then the rest of the country but does not change the basic fact that i believe the rest of the uk should have some say.  also, the uk never  took over  scotland.  if anything it was the other way around, when the scottish king james vi became king of england james i .   #  if the uk gets to vote about scotland, you cant  say that america does not get to vote over quebec since canada is our biggest trade partner and every single treaty with canada would have to be rewritten.   #  why have votes for independence at all if the entire population at large can vote on them.  i am going to assume that the place wanting independence is going to always be smaller than what they are trying to be independant from.  would not every vote for independence just be lip service to the country wanting independence.  if other parties have economic concerns they should either get to vote or not.  if the uk gets to vote about scotland, you cant  say that america does not get to vote over quebec since canada is our biggest trade partner and every single treaty with canada would have to be rewritten.  we would have a lot to lose.   #  for the most part yes, but i do not see why that is a bad thing.   # i believe in some cases it should be up to the minority.  if oppression is clear e. g.  ireland under the uk in the early 0th century the oppressed minority should be allowed to choose independence.  but scotland is not oppressed, they just want to make a politically selfish decision.  for the most part yes, but i do not see why that is a bad thing.  just because a law wo not pass does not mean only a minority should get to vote on it.  anyway, sometimes independence is mutually agreed see czechoslovakia.  we would have a lot to lose.  but canadian treaties are only a tiny fraction of american law.  it is not in the same league as the importance of scotland in the uk.
scottish residents who are citizens of the uk or eu URL will be voting on independence from the united kingdom on september 0.  in my opinion, the referendum should be decided by all uk residents that is, eu citizens living in england, wales, scotland, and northern ireland.  i believe this because a yes vote affects everyone in the uk and will force the uk government to be restructured.  the current referendum was approved by the scottish parliament.  the rest of the uk has not had a say so far, and will not in september.  this is simply unfair.  i understand why it is the case the vote is already going to be close and this would guarantee an overwhelming no , but that does not make it just.  0 members of the uk house of commons, 0 of them cabinet ministers, are scottish.  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  obviously in some cases independence should be voted on by only the relevant minority.  for instance, before independence ireland was oppressed by the uk so i am glad they got the right to self determination.  but scotland is not oppressed.  scotland became part of the uk under peaceful circumstances hundreds of years ago.  there is no real ethnic or cultural difference between scots and other brits.  the last uk prime minister was scottish.  so there is no compelling reason to allow only scots to vote on the referendum, except that its supporters know that is the only way it will pass.  so please convince me that the upcoming vote will be legitimate despite not including all uk residents.   #  0 members of the uk house of commons, 0 of them cabinet ministers, are scottish.   #  the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.   # the labor party currently constituting the opposition government is disproportionately scottish, so scottish independence would essentially guarantee another conservative aka tory government.  just to address this part of your argument, essentially it seems like you are arguing against the ruk being governed by a representative government ? scotland has historically not voted for tory governments and been repeatedly governed by them, but england has actually voted for these people to represent them.  surely scotland leaving the uk would lead to fairer by which i mean more representative governments for both scotland and the ruk ? i gather from your argument that you do not want a tory government ? side note: neither do i unfortunately, keeping scotland in the uk simply as a crutch to your favored political party is not a particularly convincing argument.  if politicians want to be elected they need to appeal to their electorate, not annex a left leaning population in order to swing the balance their way.  you want the ruk to vote on scottish independence because it would affect the outcome of the next general election ? they get to vote on it ! at the next general election when they elect their mps.  if this leads to the election of a tory government, then i am sorry but that can only happen because people voted for them !  #  in parallel with your proposal, we will put it to a vote among the citizens of both the us and the uk.   # well, that is kind of up to scotland to decide, is not it ? and clearly a lot of them feel differently about that.  voting for independence should  always  be decided by only the affected minority.  voting to keep someone is no different than voting to take them over in the first place.  let is say that a few of us here in the us decide that we want to annex the uk.  we would like the uk to be part of the united states from now on, and abide by all of our rules and customs say goodbye to the nhs .  in parallel with your proposal, we will put it to a vote among the citizens of both the us and the uk.  but there are 0 times as many of us.  the uk stands no chance at preserving their independence, and we vote to absorb them.  that is a vote that should have been left entirely to the uk, whether or not they wanted to join us.  a separate vote on our side could determine whether or not we wanted to  let  them, but not whether or not we could  force  them.  and that is precisely what the scottish independent vote is.  the only difference is the status quo, that scotland is already part of the uk.  but in either case, the vote is whether or not one entity wants to be part of a larger one.  if you say that the entire  union  gets a say in one, then you must say that the entire union gets a say in the other.   #  they are politically equal arguably they have more political power than other uk residents and are not the target of systematic violence.   #  your views on oppression are oversimplified and borderline offensive.  you do not get to decide entirely for yourself that you are being oppressed just look at all the 0 year olds on tumblr who claim to be oppressed when their parents make them do chores.  in politics, real oppression is recognized by the international community.  for example many nations publicly denounced the nazis, american segregation, and apartheid.  even when the verdict is not unanimous e. g.  palestine at least some countries officially recognize oppression.  by contrast, not a single country has stated that the scottish people are oppressed.  they are politically equal arguably they have more political power than other uk residents and are not the target of systematic violence.  the uk joining the us is a false analogy for several reasons, primary among them that such a referendum  would  be voted on by both nations.  per the us constitution, new states must first declare their intent to join i. e.  the uk would have to vote yes and then admission is voted on by congress i. e.  the rest of the states have to approve it .  this raises an interesting spin on my idea i envisioned all uk citizens having an equal vote, but it could be done in two stages scotland first then the rest of the country but does not change the basic fact that i believe the rest of the uk should have some say.  also, the uk never  took over  scotland.  if anything it was the other way around, when the scottish king james vi became king of england james i .   #  i am going to assume that the place wanting independence is going to always be smaller than what they are trying to be independant from.   #  why have votes for independence at all if the entire population at large can vote on them.  i am going to assume that the place wanting independence is going to always be smaller than what they are trying to be independant from.  would not every vote for independence just be lip service to the country wanting independence.  if other parties have economic concerns they should either get to vote or not.  if the uk gets to vote about scotland, you cant  say that america does not get to vote over quebec since canada is our biggest trade partner and every single treaty with canada would have to be rewritten.  we would have a lot to lose.   #  i believe in some cases it should be up to the minority.   # i believe in some cases it should be up to the minority.  if oppression is clear e. g.  ireland under the uk in the early 0th century the oppressed minority should be allowed to choose independence.  but scotland is not oppressed, they just want to make a politically selfish decision.  for the most part yes, but i do not see why that is a bad thing.  just because a law wo not pass does not mean only a minority should get to vote on it.  anyway, sometimes independence is mutually agreed see czechoslovakia.  we would have a lot to lose.  but canadian treaties are only a tiny fraction of american law.  it is not in the same league as the importance of scotland in the uk.
as a meat eater, i have been struggling with this for a long time.  i have been looking through old posts on this sub and ca not find any reasonable arguments.  i think that in a normal american is life who can be perfectly healthy without eating meat, that it is unquestionably wrong to support needless killings.  most arguments i have seen so far amount to  animals do not intrinsically deserve life  or  you ca not stop it altogether, so why try ?   if you guys could help me with this it would be fucking amazing.   #  i think that in a normal american is life who can be perfectly healthy without eating meat, that it is unquestionably wrong to support needless killings.   #  while it is possible to be healthy without eating meat, it is much more difficult to do so.   # while it is possible to be healthy without eating meat, it is much more difficult to do so.  my wife has gastroparesis and has a hard time digesting many vegetables and acidic fruits; is she immoral ? if you guys could help me with this it would be fucking amazing.  we are biologically predisposed to eat plants and meat.  we do not have a problem with the morality of other natural carnivores, because we accept that is how nature works.  why ca not we accept our own nature ? certainly, we have the tools and methods to gather our meat while minimizing the suffering of the animal.  the only real moral problem with meat is the terrible treatment of the animals.  it would be easier to regulate the treatment of animals than to change our diet in a safe way.  it is been theorized that eating meat is one of the ways that promoted the brain development leading to humans.  you have to ask yourself why you think eating meat is intrinsically wrong.  what if we only ate meat after the animals died of natural causes ? what if the animals were pampered and healthy until a quick and painless butchering ? does an animal even gain anything by living to old age ? in the wild, the purpose of an animal is fulfilled after reproducing; older animals become food for predators.  an animals only motivation is to survive for reproduction; what is really lost when we kill it for meat ?  #  if you do not have to do it, you are consuming these things either out of convenience or out of pleasure.   #  yeah, i really have to add my voice to this chain.  why do you want your view changed, op ? how do you think the rest of us became vegetarians ? we came to appreciate that there is absolutely no moral justification for eating animal flesh and secretions when  you do not absolutely need to .  if you do not have to do it, you are consuming these things either out of convenience or out of pleasure.  these are not good excuses to kill.   #  my family and most of my neighbors hunt for the majority of our meat.   #  my family and most of my neighbors hunt for the majority of our meat.  it is a concerted effort by the state to control overpopulation of game animals, particularly deer due to the lack of natural predators.  if we did not, the deer are susceptible to wasting and disease.  they also have become terribly destructive of the forests by over and selective grazing, throwing off the natural ecosystem.  i suppose we could allow the animals to simply be killed and not eat them in order to be vegetarian, but that sounds decidedly more immoral.   #  that is a lot, sure, but they are unevenly spread throughout the country.   #  citation ? i was curious about this so i looked for some stats.  according to the fish and wildlife service is 0 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated recreation URL warning, 0 page pdf , there were 0 million hunters in the course of the year page 0, 0 .  that is about 0 of the population.  that is a lot, sure, but they are unevenly spread throughout the country.  according to the american meat institute URL in 0 0 billion chickens, 0 million cattle, 0 million turkeys, and 0 million hogs were killed for food, producing 0 billion pounds of meat.  it looks like hunting statistics about total kills and whatnot are available mostly on a state by state basis.  this really shittily designed website collates state reports from 0 URL since i am not going to add them all up, let is be round way up and say there were 0 million deer killed in 0.  at fifty pounds average meat yield per deer some people say the average deer provides more, but fifty seems like most common number , that is 0 million pounds of meat per year.  deer is by far the most popular animal to hunt and produces the most meat, but since i am proving a point, let is triple that amount to make up for any underestimation in the deer weight and to include other hunted animals, even though the actual meat yield from the rest is likely much lower.  so, 0 million pounds of hunted meat.  if you do the math, that constitutes about 0 of the total meat production in the united states.  a lot of people are hunting, sure, but it is unreasonable to say that they are making much of a dent in meat consumption or that it can be described as anything but abnormal for people to eat mostly hunted meat, so it does not really address op is question.   #  only 0 of hunting trips and 0 of fishing trips take place outside a person is state of residence page 0, 0 .   #  did you notice that i cited the same report ? here is some data on us fish production URL including sportsfishing.  you can see that 0 of total domestic seafood production comes from angling pretty robust compared to the hunting total, i guess, but still not all that significant, especially given that the us imports 0 of its seafood URL thus angling accounts for about . 0 of fish consumption.  slice it how you like, hunting and fishing simply do not account for a significant portion of the meat consumed in the united states.  there may be a stronger ethical defense to be made for hunting and fishing than for other forms of meat production particularly from an environmentalist point of view , but it does not address op is question because it constitutes much less than 0 of actual meat production.  by the way, one of the more surprising things that the report says is actually that people do not travel to hunt all that much.  only 0 of hunting trips and 0 of fishing trips take place outside a person is state of residence page 0, 0 .
as a meat eater, i have been struggling with this for a long time.  i have been looking through old posts on this sub and ca not find any reasonable arguments.  i think that in a normal american is life who can be perfectly healthy without eating meat, that it is unquestionably wrong to support needless killings.  most arguments i have seen so far amount to  animals do not intrinsically deserve life  or  you ca not stop it altogether, so why try ?   if you guys could help me with this it would be fucking amazing.   #  most arguments i have seen so far amount to  animals do not intrinsically deserve life  or  you ca not stop it altogether, so why try ?    #  if you guys could help me with this it would be fucking amazing.   # while it is possible to be healthy without eating meat, it is much more difficult to do so.  my wife has gastroparesis and has a hard time digesting many vegetables and acidic fruits; is she immoral ? if you guys could help me with this it would be fucking amazing.  we are biologically predisposed to eat plants and meat.  we do not have a problem with the morality of other natural carnivores, because we accept that is how nature works.  why ca not we accept our own nature ? certainly, we have the tools and methods to gather our meat while minimizing the suffering of the animal.  the only real moral problem with meat is the terrible treatment of the animals.  it would be easier to regulate the treatment of animals than to change our diet in a safe way.  it is been theorized that eating meat is one of the ways that promoted the brain development leading to humans.  you have to ask yourself why you think eating meat is intrinsically wrong.  what if we only ate meat after the animals died of natural causes ? what if the animals were pampered and healthy until a quick and painless butchering ? does an animal even gain anything by living to old age ? in the wild, the purpose of an animal is fulfilled after reproducing; older animals become food for predators.  an animals only motivation is to survive for reproduction; what is really lost when we kill it for meat ?  #  why do you want your view changed, op ?  #  yeah, i really have to add my voice to this chain.  why do you want your view changed, op ? how do you think the rest of us became vegetarians ? we came to appreciate that there is absolutely no moral justification for eating animal flesh and secretions when  you do not absolutely need to .  if you do not have to do it, you are consuming these things either out of convenience or out of pleasure.  these are not good excuses to kill.   #  they also have become terribly destructive of the forests by over and selective grazing, throwing off the natural ecosystem.   #  my family and most of my neighbors hunt for the majority of our meat.  it is a concerted effort by the state to control overpopulation of game animals, particularly deer due to the lack of natural predators.  if we did not, the deer are susceptible to wasting and disease.  they also have become terribly destructive of the forests by over and selective grazing, throwing off the natural ecosystem.  i suppose we could allow the animals to simply be killed and not eat them in order to be vegetarian, but that sounds decidedly more immoral.   #  i was curious about this so i looked for some stats.   #  citation ? i was curious about this so i looked for some stats.  according to the fish and wildlife service is 0 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated recreation URL warning, 0 page pdf , there were 0 million hunters in the course of the year page 0, 0 .  that is about 0 of the population.  that is a lot, sure, but they are unevenly spread throughout the country.  according to the american meat institute URL in 0 0 billion chickens, 0 million cattle, 0 million turkeys, and 0 million hogs were killed for food, producing 0 billion pounds of meat.  it looks like hunting statistics about total kills and whatnot are available mostly on a state by state basis.  this really shittily designed website collates state reports from 0 URL since i am not going to add them all up, let is be round way up and say there were 0 million deer killed in 0.  at fifty pounds average meat yield per deer some people say the average deer provides more, but fifty seems like most common number , that is 0 million pounds of meat per year.  deer is by far the most popular animal to hunt and produces the most meat, but since i am proving a point, let is triple that amount to make up for any underestimation in the deer weight and to include other hunted animals, even though the actual meat yield from the rest is likely much lower.  so, 0 million pounds of hunted meat.  if you do the math, that constitutes about 0 of the total meat production in the united states.  a lot of people are hunting, sure, but it is unreasonable to say that they are making much of a dent in meat consumption or that it can be described as anything but abnormal for people to eat mostly hunted meat, so it does not really address op is question.   #  did you notice that i cited the same report ?  #  did you notice that i cited the same report ? here is some data on us fish production URL including sportsfishing.  you can see that 0 of total domestic seafood production comes from angling pretty robust compared to the hunting total, i guess, but still not all that significant, especially given that the us imports 0 of its seafood URL thus angling accounts for about . 0 of fish consumption.  slice it how you like, hunting and fishing simply do not account for a significant portion of the meat consumed in the united states.  there may be a stronger ethical defense to be made for hunting and fishing than for other forms of meat production particularly from an environmentalist point of view , but it does not address op is question because it constitutes much less than 0 of actual meat production.  by the way, one of the more surprising things that the report says is actually that people do not travel to hunt all that much.  only 0 of hunting trips and 0 of fishing trips take place outside a person is state of residence page 0, 0 .
i believe they would make better employees for the following reasons: a highschool kid likely just sees the job as a source if extra cash.  he likely will have less than no loyalty to the company, would leave the second something better comes along, and might leave anyway for any number of reasons from school demanding too much time to simply not liking the job and not needing extra cash enough to put up with it.  the ex con, on the other hand, is almost certainly poor as fuck and desperate for work.  he will put a strong effort in, because he needs the job to survive, and knows that finding another one will be extremely difficult if he gets fired.  he will also have fewer competing commitments with school, and is considerably less likely to leave for any reason.  some people are concerned the ex con will steal.  while a valid concern, i think it is less likely than one would think.  this is a guy who has been to prison, probably been raped on the inside and does not want to go back.  he is not going to take any chances.  high school kids on the other hand do not have the same appreciation for the consequences of their actions, and can steal for any number of reasons too.  the only exception is hiring convicted child molestors to be put in positions where they have access to kids.  obviously that would be problematic, but any other type of criminal would be fine imo.   #  the only exception is hiring convicted child molestors to be put in positions where they have access to kids.   #  obviously that would be problematic, but any other type of criminal would be fine imo.   # obviously that would be problematic, but any other type of criminal would be fine imo.  i think there are a lot more exceptions to this, especially with just how bad of a history some convicts can have while not being child molesters.  i am sure many people will point this out to you, so i want to go with a different approach.  i remember i had a difficult time finding my first job.  i did not know anyone who could help me get in a place and i generally got turned down by a lot of employers.  so when i finally got one, even though it was just a shitty job, i was pretty thankful for being given the opportunity.  i worked harder than anyone stuck there full time.  not all kids are lazy assholes.  also it is not just an extra source of cash since some kids have to pay to have things.  i ca not say for a fact most kids are like this, i do not see any research on it, but since the majority of kids are not that rich i would say it is a fair assumption to believe most are.  but again, i could be wrong with saying  most.   i also want to point out a flaw i see with your idea on stealing.  kids who  do not have appreciation for the consequences of their actions  tend to be the ones who eventually find themselves as convicts.  most people do not grow up to be convicts though since they have been raised better, so when you pick a kid at random chances are he is not going to be bad.   #  an ex con would have no loyalty to the company.   # he likely will have less than no loyalty to the company, would leave the second something better comes along, and might leave anyway for any number of reasons from school demanding too much time to simply not liking the job and not needing extra cash enough to put up with it.  an ex con would have no loyalty to the company.  if given the opportunity for a better job, they would leave just as fast as anyone else if not faster.  unlike a high school/university kid, they  need  the money to survive and minimum wage wo not do it , so they have more reason to be looking for a new job asap.  they will drop you as soon as they get the chance.  high school/university kids needing extra cash are more likely to stay in their current job as long as it is not too awful of working conditions.   #  i agree that an ex con is of equal or probably greater value to a business because of his past.   #  while the discussion focusses on the ex convict, my feeling is that we are putting away the highschool/uni kid too easily.  by choosing one person over another in a generalized manner like you are stating you always leave behind able and willing people who could benefit your business.  in my opinion this statement should not be who to choose over who, but to give equal chances to people who have a certain  distance  to the job market that is how we call this in the netherlands, is it a good phrase ? .  i agree that an ex con is of equal or probably greater value to a business because of his past.  but that is not a reason to pass up on other people who offer great value too.  so instead of formulating exceptions all ex cons.  except repeat offenders.  and child molesters.  and.  lets agree there is great value in every person and a place for them to turn that value into money.  let is decide per person and give them a chance.  updated: typo  #  if you hire someone with multiple dwis can you get insurance on them if they drive a company car/truck ?  #  when you run a business, you have to make decisions based on business, not social justice.  your success in business depends not only on the reliability of your employees, but on the image they present to your clientele.  several other factors play into it such as does your company need employees that can be bonded ? this might make a difference if your ex con has a conviction in certain crimes.  can your employee get a twic card transportation worker identification credential to get into plants or factories ? some convictions disqualify people from getting twic cards.  if you hire someone with multiple dwis can you get insurance on them if they drive a company car/truck ? it is not only a matter of trust because there are a lot of high school kids who might steal from you as well, but sometimes, depending on the business, is a matter of logistics and/or liability.  if i hire someone who had been convicted of a dwi who runs over someone in the company truck while drunk, i might as well just give their family the keys to the company.  ex cons should be given second chances and can be great employees, but there are things employers must take into consideration.   #  if you want an attractive or well dressed employee a prisoner may not be for you.   #  there are several aspects of life that high school kids are trained in and prisoners are not.  0.  anger management.  if you get angry you get heavy sanctions and social punishments in school.  less so in jail.  0.  punctuality.  you are forced to attend school on time, wake up, attend class on time.  prisoners are not required to be quite so punctual.  0.  dress code.  many schools encourage students to dress in an appropriate manner, prisons do not.  if you want an attractive or well dressed employee a prisoner may not be for you.  0.  many prisoners have a habit of stealing or drug use that may embarrass you.  0.  if they have a history of rape or sexual assault they may rape or abuse passerbys which will cause issues.
i have been part of the con world for almost a decade and my experience has lead me to believe that harassment at conventions is a big issue that is being handled poorly by even the best cons.  0.  the nerd community has spent the last decade screaming that clothes have nothing to do with the incidents, and every year, i see sexier and more provocative costumes.  and i see more assaults, claims of assaults and more people coming forward to say something untoward happened to them.  0.  i see  isexy  costumes on increasingly younger people, and increasingly large numbers of younger people wearing sexed up costumes.  it used to be that i would see a group of 0 0 people aged 0 0 in wispy bits of nothing, and a slightly larger group of people aged 0 0 in wispy bits of nothing.  now, i feel like i see a good 0 0 people underaged and under dressed at a con of about 0k .  0.  i feel like despite saying that cons are about the nerd community or the fan community  isexy  and  isteamy  are a big part of their advertising/marketing and their public face.  if you look for pictures of comic con online right now, the bulk of them will be of women in revealing costumes.  0.  sci fi/fantasy events are no longer particularly visually different from alternative lifestyle events, despite theoretically having little to do with that.  several cons norwescon in particular have banked on that during lean years.  reliably, cons have been implementing tough anti harassment policies.  but i do not think that solves anything.  if the con looks, smells, walks, talks and acts like a sexual festival, i am afraid that is simply what it is going to be taken for.  if cons are in the business of using sex to sell themselves, it is going to attract people that come for that, and that alone.  no big con, to the best of my knowledge, seems to have taken a hard nosed approach to costumes being pg 0.  the couple of small cons that do have this rule do not report harassment issues i admit, that might be because it is handled in house or they are simply too small to be of statistical value.  i just do not see how this can be solved by an anti harassment policy alone.   #  but i do not think that solves anything.   #  if the con looks, smells, walks, talks and acts like a sexual festival, i am afraid that is simply what it is going to be taken for.   # if the con looks, smells, walks, talks and acts like a sexual festival, i am afraid that is simply what it is going to be taken for.  the first is that there are such things as conventions for particular sexual niches, and we do not seem similar harassment issues pop up.  this is partially because we pay less attention to them, but also because sexuality is not a surrogate for harassment.  sexuality does not  cause  people to ignore personal boundaries and general courtesies.  the issue is that people are ignoring these boundaries and they are  getting away with it.  thrusting blame onto mode of dress is what allows people to masquerade their conscious desire to invade another person is space or comfort zone as some kind of natural, unavoidable consequence of what the other party did.  that brings me to your next point about a  hard nosed approach.   i have not really seen cons take a hard nosed approach towards harassment because it is a burgeoning issue and who wants to alienate broad swaths of con goers ? would pg 0 costumes suddenly make it incumbent upon people to act like semi mature and sociable human beings ? probably not, and sexuality of the costume does not have any causal connection to their  decision  to act contrary to these social mores.  that is an excuse used by apologists for generally bad behavior because it is a lot easier to police costumes than how people treat other people, and because the community it attracts is one that typically believes this kind of behavior is just part of its culture and others need to adapt to that, rather than that community abstaining from the offending behavior.  a change in costume policy might be a cosmetic solution in that it would allow cons to pay lip service to combating harassment, but realistically it is not likely to mitigate these issues.  people who want to make unsolicited comments will find reasons do to so, particularly when they are enabled in seemingly every environment in which they participate namely, comic, anime and gaming subcultures.   #  think about this women get sexually harassed in the workplace all the time places which generally have strict professional dress codes, where the harasser is not anonymous and faces potentially very serious consequences like getting fired.   #  your problem is you assume this can actually be solved completely.  it ca not, at least not in the near future, by anything other than  no girls allowed.   think about this women get sexually harassed in the workplace all the time places which generally have strict professional dress codes, where the harasser is not anonymous and faces potentially very serious consequences like getting fired.  if women still get harassed in that situation, why do you think a pg 0 dress code would improve anything ? the harasser will still be anonymous and at worst will have to leave the con if caught.   #  i do not really see how having a pg 0 dress code will alienate people.   #  i do not really see how having a pg 0 dress code will alienate people.  there are tons of pg 0 costumes that would be great to cosplay and prove just as challenging.  also, if it does alienate them, then was that person showing up for the fandom or for the sex ? i mean, that sounds ridiculous.   i ca not wear my thigh highs and thong so i feel ostracized !   what ? that is not how that works.  and if someone says that, let is face it, they ai not there for the star trek trivia.   #  you do not seem to realize how much of comic book content and characters are based on t a visuals.   # there are tons of pg 0 costumes that would be great to cosplay and prove just as challenging.  who defines that ? do you realize how many specific examples of  no  you would need ? at the end of the day you would alienate a good number of people who cosplay.  not to mention a good number of comics and characters themselves via how they are drawn show a lot of skin.  are you going to ban those vendors and characters as well ? i mean, that sounds ridiculous.   i ca not wear my thigh highs and thong so i feel ostracized !   as i said above a good number of characters are drawn that way by their creators.  would you ban those characters ? those artists ? in fact a good portion of comics are scantily clad.  so again, you would be alienating a good number of your potential customers and vendor booths.  that is not how that works.  and if someone says that, let is face it, they ai not there for the star trek trivia.  there are hundreds and thousands of characters beyond star trek.  many of which do not fit into your puritanical version of what should be allowed.  you do not seem to realize how much of comic book content and characters are based on t a visuals.   #  have you seen what most female comic book characters look like ?  #  you mean aside from the horrendous optics of suggesting that women are at least partially at fault for their harassment ? let is see, first of all is the creation of the policy itself.  who decides what is  pg 0  ? how do you decide if a specific costume falls on the wrong side of the line ? what do you do if a woman shows up in a costume she thought was fine but is decided by the chastity judge that it is too sexy ? will she be turned away ? how do you think that will go on the internet ? and related to those standards, let is not forget the obvious hypocrisies that would result.  remember we are talking about a comic con.  have you seen what most female comic book characters look like ? as this post so eloquently put it, URL  it is some next level nerd elitism shit to have every female character in a game or comic wear skin tight leather and skimpy outfits and then call girls who also like the characters sluts for dressing like them.   are you going to turn a woman away for dressing like black widow when you are hosting a fucking avengers panel ?
i have been part of the con world for almost a decade and my experience has lead me to believe that harassment at conventions is a big issue that is being handled poorly by even the best cons.  0.  the nerd community has spent the last decade screaming that clothes have nothing to do with the incidents, and every year, i see sexier and more provocative costumes.  and i see more assaults, claims of assaults and more people coming forward to say something untoward happened to them.  0.  i see  isexy  costumes on increasingly younger people, and increasingly large numbers of younger people wearing sexed up costumes.  it used to be that i would see a group of 0 0 people aged 0 0 in wispy bits of nothing, and a slightly larger group of people aged 0 0 in wispy bits of nothing.  now, i feel like i see a good 0 0 people underaged and under dressed at a con of about 0k .  0.  i feel like despite saying that cons are about the nerd community or the fan community  isexy  and  isteamy  are a big part of their advertising/marketing and their public face.  if you look for pictures of comic con online right now, the bulk of them will be of women in revealing costumes.  0.  sci fi/fantasy events are no longer particularly visually different from alternative lifestyle events, despite theoretically having little to do with that.  several cons norwescon in particular have banked on that during lean years.  reliably, cons have been implementing tough anti harassment policies.  but i do not think that solves anything.  if the con looks, smells, walks, talks and acts like a sexual festival, i am afraid that is simply what it is going to be taken for.  if cons are in the business of using sex to sell themselves, it is going to attract people that come for that, and that alone.  no big con, to the best of my knowledge, seems to have taken a hard nosed approach to costumes being pg 0.  the couple of small cons that do have this rule do not report harassment issues i admit, that might be because it is handled in house or they are simply too small to be of statistical value.  i just do not see how this can be solved by an anti harassment policy alone.   #  sci fi/fantasy events are no longer particularly visually different from alternative lifestyle events, despite theoretically having little to do with that.   #  several cons norwescon in particular have banked on that during lean years.   # several cons norwescon in particular have banked on that during lean years.  but i do not think that solves anything.  if the con looks, smells, walks, talks and acts like a sexual festival, i am afraid that is simply what it is going to be taken for.  if cons are in the business of using sex to sell themselves, it is going to attract people that come for that, and that alone.  i have been to a number of bdsm conferences i am assuming that is what you mean by  alternative lifestyle events,  and i have seen zero sexual harassment at any of them.  why ? because that shit is not tolerated within that community, and if anyone tries it, they will get massive social disapproval as well as con officials coming down on them.  are there still creepy people at these events ? sure, but they know that creepy behaviors are not going to be tolerated.  anti harassment policies are trying to send that same message.  they might not stop all of the harassment instantly or even within a few years, but they are sending the message that harassing behavior is not welcomed.   #  would pg 0 costumes suddenly make it incumbent upon people to act like semi mature and sociable human beings ?  # if the con looks, smells, walks, talks and acts like a sexual festival, i am afraid that is simply what it is going to be taken for.  the first is that there are such things as conventions for particular sexual niches, and we do not seem similar harassment issues pop up.  this is partially because we pay less attention to them, but also because sexuality is not a surrogate for harassment.  sexuality does not  cause  people to ignore personal boundaries and general courtesies.  the issue is that people are ignoring these boundaries and they are  getting away with it.  thrusting blame onto mode of dress is what allows people to masquerade their conscious desire to invade another person is space or comfort zone as some kind of natural, unavoidable consequence of what the other party did.  that brings me to your next point about a  hard nosed approach.   i have not really seen cons take a hard nosed approach towards harassment because it is a burgeoning issue and who wants to alienate broad swaths of con goers ? would pg 0 costumes suddenly make it incumbent upon people to act like semi mature and sociable human beings ? probably not, and sexuality of the costume does not have any causal connection to their  decision  to act contrary to these social mores.  that is an excuse used by apologists for generally bad behavior because it is a lot easier to police costumes than how people treat other people, and because the community it attracts is one that typically believes this kind of behavior is just part of its culture and others need to adapt to that, rather than that community abstaining from the offending behavior.  a change in costume policy might be a cosmetic solution in that it would allow cons to pay lip service to combating harassment, but realistically it is not likely to mitigate these issues.  people who want to make unsolicited comments will find reasons do to so, particularly when they are enabled in seemingly every environment in which they participate namely, comic, anime and gaming subcultures.   #  it ca not, at least not in the near future, by anything other than  no girls allowed.    #  your problem is you assume this can actually be solved completely.  it ca not, at least not in the near future, by anything other than  no girls allowed.   think about this women get sexually harassed in the workplace all the time places which generally have strict professional dress codes, where the harasser is not anonymous and faces potentially very serious consequences like getting fired.  if women still get harassed in that situation, why do you think a pg 0 dress code would improve anything ? the harasser will still be anonymous and at worst will have to leave the con if caught.   #  also, if it does alienate them, then was that person showing up for the fandom or for the sex ?  #  i do not really see how having a pg 0 dress code will alienate people.  there are tons of pg 0 costumes that would be great to cosplay and prove just as challenging.  also, if it does alienate them, then was that person showing up for the fandom or for the sex ? i mean, that sounds ridiculous.   i ca not wear my thigh highs and thong so i feel ostracized !   what ? that is not how that works.  and if someone says that, let is face it, they ai not there for the star trek trivia.   #  not to mention a good number of comics and characters themselves via how they are drawn show a lot of skin.   # there are tons of pg 0 costumes that would be great to cosplay and prove just as challenging.  who defines that ? do you realize how many specific examples of  no  you would need ? at the end of the day you would alienate a good number of people who cosplay.  not to mention a good number of comics and characters themselves via how they are drawn show a lot of skin.  are you going to ban those vendors and characters as well ? i mean, that sounds ridiculous.   i ca not wear my thigh highs and thong so i feel ostracized !   as i said above a good number of characters are drawn that way by their creators.  would you ban those characters ? those artists ? in fact a good portion of comics are scantily clad.  so again, you would be alienating a good number of your potential customers and vendor booths.  that is not how that works.  and if someone says that, let is face it, they ai not there for the star trek trivia.  there are hundreds and thousands of characters beyond star trek.  many of which do not fit into your puritanical version of what should be allowed.  you do not seem to realize how much of comic book content and characters are based on t a visuals.
i have been part of the con world for almost a decade and my experience has lead me to believe that harassment at conventions is a big issue that is being handled poorly by even the best cons.  0.  the nerd community has spent the last decade screaming that clothes have nothing to do with the incidents, and every year, i see sexier and more provocative costumes.  and i see more assaults, claims of assaults and more people coming forward to say something untoward happened to them.  0.  i see  isexy  costumes on increasingly younger people, and increasingly large numbers of younger people wearing sexed up costumes.  it used to be that i would see a group of 0 0 people aged 0 0 in wispy bits of nothing, and a slightly larger group of people aged 0 0 in wispy bits of nothing.  now, i feel like i see a good 0 0 people underaged and under dressed at a con of about 0k .  0.  i feel like despite saying that cons are about the nerd community or the fan community  isexy  and  isteamy  are a big part of their advertising/marketing and their public face.  if you look for pictures of comic con online right now, the bulk of them will be of women in revealing costumes.  0.  sci fi/fantasy events are no longer particularly visually different from alternative lifestyle events, despite theoretically having little to do with that.  several cons norwescon in particular have banked on that during lean years.  reliably, cons have been implementing tough anti harassment policies.  but i do not think that solves anything.  if the con looks, smells, walks, talks and acts like a sexual festival, i am afraid that is simply what it is going to be taken for.  if cons are in the business of using sex to sell themselves, it is going to attract people that come for that, and that alone.  no big con, to the best of my knowledge, seems to have taken a hard nosed approach to costumes being pg 0.  the couple of small cons that do have this rule do not report harassment issues i admit, that might be because it is handled in house or they are simply too small to be of statistical value.  i just do not see how this can be solved by an anti harassment policy alone.   #  reliably, cons have been implementing tough anti harassment policies.   #  but i do not think that solves anything.   # several cons norwescon in particular have banked on that during lean years.  but i do not think that solves anything.  if the con looks, smells, walks, talks and acts like a sexual festival, i am afraid that is simply what it is going to be taken for.  if cons are in the business of using sex to sell themselves, it is going to attract people that come for that, and that alone.  i have been to a number of bdsm conferences i am assuming that is what you mean by  alternative lifestyle events,  and i have seen zero sexual harassment at any of them.  why ? because that shit is not tolerated within that community, and if anyone tries it, they will get massive social disapproval as well as con officials coming down on them.  are there still creepy people at these events ? sure, but they know that creepy behaviors are not going to be tolerated.  anti harassment policies are trying to send that same message.  they might not stop all of the harassment instantly or even within a few years, but they are sending the message that harassing behavior is not welcomed.   #  i have not really seen cons take a hard nosed approach towards harassment because it is a burgeoning issue and who wants to alienate broad swaths of con goers ?  # if the con looks, smells, walks, talks and acts like a sexual festival, i am afraid that is simply what it is going to be taken for.  the first is that there are such things as conventions for particular sexual niches, and we do not seem similar harassment issues pop up.  this is partially because we pay less attention to them, but also because sexuality is not a surrogate for harassment.  sexuality does not  cause  people to ignore personal boundaries and general courtesies.  the issue is that people are ignoring these boundaries and they are  getting away with it.  thrusting blame onto mode of dress is what allows people to masquerade their conscious desire to invade another person is space or comfort zone as some kind of natural, unavoidable consequence of what the other party did.  that brings me to your next point about a  hard nosed approach.   i have not really seen cons take a hard nosed approach towards harassment because it is a burgeoning issue and who wants to alienate broad swaths of con goers ? would pg 0 costumes suddenly make it incumbent upon people to act like semi mature and sociable human beings ? probably not, and sexuality of the costume does not have any causal connection to their  decision  to act contrary to these social mores.  that is an excuse used by apologists for generally bad behavior because it is a lot easier to police costumes than how people treat other people, and because the community it attracts is one that typically believes this kind of behavior is just part of its culture and others need to adapt to that, rather than that community abstaining from the offending behavior.  a change in costume policy might be a cosmetic solution in that it would allow cons to pay lip service to combating harassment, but realistically it is not likely to mitigate these issues.  people who want to make unsolicited comments will find reasons do to so, particularly when they are enabled in seemingly every environment in which they participate namely, comic, anime and gaming subcultures.   #  if women still get harassed in that situation, why do you think a pg 0 dress code would improve anything ?  #  your problem is you assume this can actually be solved completely.  it ca not, at least not in the near future, by anything other than  no girls allowed.   think about this women get sexually harassed in the workplace all the time places which generally have strict professional dress codes, where the harasser is not anonymous and faces potentially very serious consequences like getting fired.  if women still get harassed in that situation, why do you think a pg 0 dress code would improve anything ? the harasser will still be anonymous and at worst will have to leave the con if caught.   #  i do not really see how having a pg 0 dress code will alienate people.   #  i do not really see how having a pg 0 dress code will alienate people.  there are tons of pg 0 costumes that would be great to cosplay and prove just as challenging.  also, if it does alienate them, then was that person showing up for the fandom or for the sex ? i mean, that sounds ridiculous.   i ca not wear my thigh highs and thong so i feel ostracized !   what ? that is not how that works.  and if someone says that, let is face it, they ai not there for the star trek trivia.   #  so again, you would be alienating a good number of your potential customers and vendor booths.   # there are tons of pg 0 costumes that would be great to cosplay and prove just as challenging.  who defines that ? do you realize how many specific examples of  no  you would need ? at the end of the day you would alienate a good number of people who cosplay.  not to mention a good number of comics and characters themselves via how they are drawn show a lot of skin.  are you going to ban those vendors and characters as well ? i mean, that sounds ridiculous.   i ca not wear my thigh highs and thong so i feel ostracized !   as i said above a good number of characters are drawn that way by their creators.  would you ban those characters ? those artists ? in fact a good portion of comics are scantily clad.  so again, you would be alienating a good number of your potential customers and vendor booths.  that is not how that works.  and if someone says that, let is face it, they ai not there for the star trek trivia.  there are hundreds and thousands of characters beyond star trek.  many of which do not fit into your puritanical version of what should be allowed.  you do not seem to realize how much of comic book content and characters are based on t a visuals.
communication is essential, which is why school in the united states has an english class as one of the four core disciplines english, math, science, history everyone communicates, but many do it poorly.  so we deem it absolutely necessary to at least attempt refining ones ability to communicate through the education system as a vehicle.  philosophy is parallel to this.  everyone uses philosophy, adopts philosophies, spouts philosophies.  but the average person does it quite poorly.  abstract thought, being able handle big questions.  these are skills we should be beginning to equip people with at an early age.  philosophy has a bad wrap because in a production/consumption society it has no tangible value but the value of philosophy as a discipline is intrinsic and can effect everything we do.  just a few obvious applications and benefits to adopting critical thinking / philosophy as a core discipline are: 0 child rearing: you bring a person into the world and are tasked with guiding them the best you can through the infinite chaos of life.  what is the best way to do this ? how much should you intervene ? understanding your actions have tremendous influence on their developing minds.  how should you try to act and communicate ? these questions and many more are abstract in nature and could be argued to be essential for any prospective parent but so many of us are not equipped to tackle such large issues.  we commonly say things like  i do not even want to go there.   or  thats too deep for me.   when touching upon huge, philosophical quandaries.  a society which encourages critical thought and teaches us how to approach abstract questions from an early age will eventually birth a a generation of by average more prepared parents.  the effects of this could be immense.  0 bullying : a child is caught bullying another child.  the bully is called into the guidance counselors office and is asked  why did you make fun of johnny ?   the bullying child will likely be rolling his eyes and saying whatever it takes to get out of the guidance counselors office at this point.  and the bullying behavior will likely continue.  in a society where critical thinking skills are taught from an early age, the child will be used to answering  why  questions, and thinking inward.  in more circumstances by average than would likely happen now, the bullying child may actually benefit from the counseling.  0 conformity : organized religion, media, peers etc.  all have tremendous toxic weight on society.  freeing slaves, allowing women to vote, allowing homosexuals to marry, allowing people to smoke weed.  these topics take far to long to filter through tradition.  critical thinking skills arm the populace with the notion of asking  why , and not accepting things at face value.  systems of control would have a much more difficult time normalizing the opinions of the masses.  of course the volume of examples could be vast but i assume if you are still with me you get the gist of what i am suggesting.  over the course of time, a society that values critical thinking and philosophical thought as much as quantitative and linear thought would be a society that would evolve quicker and more efficiently with considerably less conflict and arbitrary systems of control.   #  0 conformity : organized religion, media, peers etc.   #  all have tremendous toxic weight on society.   # all have tremendous toxic weight on society.  freeing slaves, allowing women to vote, allowing homosexuals to marry, allowing people to smoke weed.  these topics take far to long to filter through tradition.  critical thinking skills arm the populace with the notion of asking  why , and not accepting things at face value.  systems of control would have a much more difficult time normalizing the opinions of the masses.  the trouble with teaching anything vaguely ideological is that it often  increases  conformity rather than lowering it.  even if a teacher is neutral in a given debate, there is enormous pressure for children to conform to the opinions of their peers.  what you define as  systems of control  others would define as  systems of restraint .  syllabuses are already ideological battle grounds for various political interests in society, and creating a subject that explicitly entails ideology would only make this worse.   #  the leviathan stands most conspicuous, but plato is republic, aristotle is political theory, and countless others are among them.   #  looking at your list of proposed benefits, you seem to be assuming that there is only one philosophical conclusion students could come to.  your hypothetical bully conveniently avoids nietzsche and hobbes, your hypothetical philosophically prepared parents must avoid augustine and aquinas, and your burgeoning masses will have to avoid plato, aristotle, hobbes, and hegel.  with the unsavory elements removed, all that is left is a civics class.  explaining my claims the parents: many philosophers have written in defense of deference to authority, and the importance of teaching children strict discipline.  one of the more notable in my memory is augustine, who writes in his confessions of learning latin effortlessly at his mother is knee, but struggling to learn greek under the stern discipline of his school master.  despite the fact that his knowledge of greek seems to have been comparatively impared by the experience, he surprisingly held that the later was preferable to the former in teaching deference.  the bully: lord help us if the bully is critical reflection leads him to the conclusion that the infliction of pain both on himself and others is an affirmation of life, compared to the weak and decadent values of our hedonistic age.  or worse yet that the other children require him to keep them all in awe to prevent them from decending into anarcy.  conformity: there are plenty of philosophers in history who argue sincerely for the value of  systems of control , for the justification of oppression, etc.  the leviathan stands most conspicuous, but plato is republic, aristotle is political theory, and countless others are among them.   #  just like now.  i imagine different people will adopt different philosophies.   #  i really enjoyed reading your reply, thank you so much for responding ! i found your points to be enriching to the subject.  not true, but an absolutely fair point.  i have no assumptions to what philosophy a person may gravitate towards.  just like now.  i imagine different people will adopt different philosophies.  there will be all of the same types of people that exist now.  the difference as i see it however though, is that people would at a much greater percentage be able to discuss the ideas effectively.  a bully that is intelligent enough to consider being a nihilist or moral relativist shows enough intelligence to be able to comprehend grand concepts.  the chance of surviving an encounter with a bully unscathed that is conceptually self aware and interested in philosophy is, i would imagine, better than your chances with an angry, ignorant brute.  the same applies to your examples with conformity and parenting.  of course different people would accept and run with different philosophies.  but the fact that they are thinking at all about these things is massively promising.  it is an improvement over accepting tradition my daddy told me that   so i have always thought   my argument is not that this would solve all the worlds problems, but it would reduce them.  a society of critical thinkers with dangerous and good people in it seems superior, at least to me, to a society of ignorance with dangerous and good people in it.   #  there are certain temperments which lead one to enjoy scholarly pursuits: usually it requires a preference for contemplation over action and a certain sedentry disposition.   #   not true, but an absolutely fair point.   i am not sure how both can obtain simultaneously.  you are assuming that  grand  concepts will have a reforming effect, but i think you have your direction of causality wrong.  there are certain temperments which lead one to enjoy scholarly pursuits: usually it requires a preference for contemplation over action and a certain sedentry disposition.  thus if you wanted to prepare someone for one of these fields, you would do well to encourage those characteristics.  but the reverse does not neccesarily hold.  you cannot neccesarily induce these characteristics by attempting to facilitate a by product of them.  even so, if the reasoning is that we are teaching philosophy because it supposedly makes people less violent and confrontational, it seems that there are more efficient ways to accomplish this end.  i think there are far fewer  angry ignorant brute s in this world than you suppose, and that what anger there is is often the result more of standards of living, and broader social/economic factors than a deficiency of  grand concepts .  targeting these factors seems like such a more efficient solution, if that is the end you seek.   it is an improvement over accepting tradition my daddy told me that   so i have always thought     as to tradition: my daddy told me that tradition was worthless and it is important to think for yourself, so i have always thought that tradition is worthless and it is important to think for yourself.  this is a tradition i accepted rather blindly, and now that you mention it, i suppose i should think about it for a while, and decide for myself whether i should think about things for a while and decide them for myself.   #  trying to teach philosophy in primary/secondary schools is a recipe for some teacher thinking it is actually a good idea to teach that heidegger quote that /u/bulvye mentioned.   #  the problem with making it a  core  discipline, is that philosophy devoid of context is incredibly abstract and abstract concepts are boring to children of school age.  what we should be doing is teaching logic.  in math classes.  and to a degree we do.  and teaching ethics.  in english class and history class.  and again, we do.  and teaching epistomology.  in science class.  ditto.  and teaching critical thinking which is not really a field of philosophy, but whatever , in all classes.  probably theology should be skipped in public schools.  and metaphysics, largely for the same reason.  trying to teach philosophy in primary/secondary schools is a recipe for some teacher thinking it is actually a good idea to teach that heidegger quote that /u/bulvye mentioned.  it is a recipe for people hating philosophy even more than they already hate it.  could we use more emphasis on some of the fields of philosophy in schools ? sure.  what we  do not  need, and really should avoid, is teaching it as a  discipline  before college, except as perhaps an elective for kids that show an interest guess what, we do that already too in many places .
communication is essential, which is why school in the united states has an english class as one of the four core disciplines english, math, science, history everyone communicates, but many do it poorly.  so we deem it absolutely necessary to at least attempt refining ones ability to communicate through the education system as a vehicle.  philosophy is parallel to this.  everyone uses philosophy, adopts philosophies, spouts philosophies.  but the average person does it quite poorly.  abstract thought, being able handle big questions.  these are skills we should be beginning to equip people with at an early age.  philosophy has a bad wrap because in a production/consumption society it has no tangible value but the value of philosophy as a discipline is intrinsic and can effect everything we do.  just a few obvious applications and benefits to adopting critical thinking / philosophy as a core discipline are: 0 child rearing: you bring a person into the world and are tasked with guiding them the best you can through the infinite chaos of life.  what is the best way to do this ? how much should you intervene ? understanding your actions have tremendous influence on their developing minds.  how should you try to act and communicate ? these questions and many more are abstract in nature and could be argued to be essential for any prospective parent but so many of us are not equipped to tackle such large issues.  we commonly say things like  i do not even want to go there.   or  thats too deep for me.   when touching upon huge, philosophical quandaries.  a society which encourages critical thought and teaches us how to approach abstract questions from an early age will eventually birth a a generation of by average more prepared parents.  the effects of this could be immense.  0 bullying : a child is caught bullying another child.  the bully is called into the guidance counselors office and is asked  why did you make fun of johnny ?   the bullying child will likely be rolling his eyes and saying whatever it takes to get out of the guidance counselors office at this point.  and the bullying behavior will likely continue.  in a society where critical thinking skills are taught from an early age, the child will be used to answering  why  questions, and thinking inward.  in more circumstances by average than would likely happen now, the bullying child may actually benefit from the counseling.  0 conformity : organized religion, media, peers etc.  all have tremendous toxic weight on society.  freeing slaves, allowing women to vote, allowing homosexuals to marry, allowing people to smoke weed.  these topics take far to long to filter through tradition.  critical thinking skills arm the populace with the notion of asking  why , and not accepting things at face value.  systems of control would have a much more difficult time normalizing the opinions of the masses.  of course the volume of examples could be vast but i assume if you are still with me you get the gist of what i am suggesting.  over the course of time, a society that values critical thinking and philosophical thought as much as quantitative and linear thought would be a society that would evolve quicker and more efficiently with considerably less conflict and arbitrary systems of control.   #  over the course of time, a society that values critical thinking and philosophical thought as much as quantitative and linear thought would be a society that would evolve quicker and more efficiently with considerably less conflict and arbitrary systems of control.   #  this is code for drumming out discourse, dissent and pretty much all differing opinion on any subject.   #  somehow i knew the op would confuse philosophy with liberal politics.  conformity is what you are seeking, conformity with your personal views.  critical thinking is what should be taught, not politically bias rhetoric.  public education is not supposed to be a mouthpiece for political opinion.  this is code for drumming out discourse, dissent and pretty much all differing opinion on any subject.  what you have described is not philosophy, you just described the old soviet union.  i could not disagree with you more.   #  looking at your list of proposed benefits, you seem to be assuming that there is only one philosophical conclusion students could come to.   #  looking at your list of proposed benefits, you seem to be assuming that there is only one philosophical conclusion students could come to.  your hypothetical bully conveniently avoids nietzsche and hobbes, your hypothetical philosophically prepared parents must avoid augustine and aquinas, and your burgeoning masses will have to avoid plato, aristotle, hobbes, and hegel.  with the unsavory elements removed, all that is left is a civics class.  explaining my claims the parents: many philosophers have written in defense of deference to authority, and the importance of teaching children strict discipline.  one of the more notable in my memory is augustine, who writes in his confessions of learning latin effortlessly at his mother is knee, but struggling to learn greek under the stern discipline of his school master.  despite the fact that his knowledge of greek seems to have been comparatively impared by the experience, he surprisingly held that the later was preferable to the former in teaching deference.  the bully: lord help us if the bully is critical reflection leads him to the conclusion that the infliction of pain both on himself and others is an affirmation of life, compared to the weak and decadent values of our hedonistic age.  or worse yet that the other children require him to keep them all in awe to prevent them from decending into anarcy.  conformity: there are plenty of philosophers in history who argue sincerely for the value of  systems of control , for the justification of oppression, etc.  the leviathan stands most conspicuous, but plato is republic, aristotle is political theory, and countless others are among them.   #  there will be all of the same types of people that exist now.   #  i really enjoyed reading your reply, thank you so much for responding ! i found your points to be enriching to the subject.  not true, but an absolutely fair point.  i have no assumptions to what philosophy a person may gravitate towards.  just like now.  i imagine different people will adopt different philosophies.  there will be all of the same types of people that exist now.  the difference as i see it however though, is that people would at a much greater percentage be able to discuss the ideas effectively.  a bully that is intelligent enough to consider being a nihilist or moral relativist shows enough intelligence to be able to comprehend grand concepts.  the chance of surviving an encounter with a bully unscathed that is conceptually self aware and interested in philosophy is, i would imagine, better than your chances with an angry, ignorant brute.  the same applies to your examples with conformity and parenting.  of course different people would accept and run with different philosophies.  but the fact that they are thinking at all about these things is massively promising.  it is an improvement over accepting tradition my daddy told me that   so i have always thought   my argument is not that this would solve all the worlds problems, but it would reduce them.  a society of critical thinkers with dangerous and good people in it seems superior, at least to me, to a society of ignorance with dangerous and good people in it.   #  there are certain temperments which lead one to enjoy scholarly pursuits: usually it requires a preference for contemplation over action and a certain sedentry disposition.   #   not true, but an absolutely fair point.   i am not sure how both can obtain simultaneously.  you are assuming that  grand  concepts will have a reforming effect, but i think you have your direction of causality wrong.  there are certain temperments which lead one to enjoy scholarly pursuits: usually it requires a preference for contemplation over action and a certain sedentry disposition.  thus if you wanted to prepare someone for one of these fields, you would do well to encourage those characteristics.  but the reverse does not neccesarily hold.  you cannot neccesarily induce these characteristics by attempting to facilitate a by product of them.  even so, if the reasoning is that we are teaching philosophy because it supposedly makes people less violent and confrontational, it seems that there are more efficient ways to accomplish this end.  i think there are far fewer  angry ignorant brute s in this world than you suppose, and that what anger there is is often the result more of standards of living, and broader social/economic factors than a deficiency of  grand concepts .  targeting these factors seems like such a more efficient solution, if that is the end you seek.   it is an improvement over accepting tradition my daddy told me that   so i have always thought     as to tradition: my daddy told me that tradition was worthless and it is important to think for yourself, so i have always thought that tradition is worthless and it is important to think for yourself.  this is a tradition i accepted rather blindly, and now that you mention it, i suppose i should think about it for a while, and decide for myself whether i should think about things for a while and decide them for myself.   #  the problem with making it a  core  discipline, is that philosophy devoid of context is incredibly abstract and abstract concepts are boring to children of school age.   #  the problem with making it a  core  discipline, is that philosophy devoid of context is incredibly abstract and abstract concepts are boring to children of school age.  what we should be doing is teaching logic.  in math classes.  and to a degree we do.  and teaching ethics.  in english class and history class.  and again, we do.  and teaching epistomology.  in science class.  ditto.  and teaching critical thinking which is not really a field of philosophy, but whatever , in all classes.  probably theology should be skipped in public schools.  and metaphysics, largely for the same reason.  trying to teach philosophy in primary/secondary schools is a recipe for some teacher thinking it is actually a good idea to teach that heidegger quote that /u/bulvye mentioned.  it is a recipe for people hating philosophy even more than they already hate it.  could we use more emphasis on some of the fields of philosophy in schools ? sure.  what we  do not  need, and really should avoid, is teaching it as a  discipline  before college, except as perhaps an elective for kids that show an interest guess what, we do that already too in many places .
isis, which is more or less the same as al qaeda, is in the process of taking over iraq.  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.  in other words, the united states just lost a war.  the media wo not tell you that, because it is too busy with israel and the kardashians, but do not get it confused.  the united states spent 0 years fighting fundamentalist muslims in iraq after 0/0, but then we gave up and left and the enemy we sought to eliminate is more powerful than when we arrived and running half the country.  that is called losing.  yet many still believe that the us is the best greatest or most successful or best place to live country in the world.  is that true ? let is see.  our citizens are in more debt than anyone else, because our citizens pay massive amounts healthcare and education while citizens of other top tier countries do not.  our unemployment is at an all time high, because our big manufacturers have all moved overseas.  we get less time off.  there is more poverty, more murder, more homelessness, more incarceration here than in any other top tier countries.  every other weekend a depressed person goes on a mass anonymous killing spree.  our congress is corrupt.  the only  innovations  we have made since the steve jobs era are novelties make it easier to be lazy, dumb and superficial.  even our artistic exports, our mainstream music and film, are increasingly ignored and unimportant on a global scale.  and despite spending exponentially more than other countries on our military, we keep losing wars.  by no metric is the united states any longer the greatest country in the world.   #  the united states spent 0 years fighting fundamentalist muslims in iraq after 0/0, but then we gave up and left and the enemy we sought to eliminate is more powerful than when we arrived and running half the country.   #  we did not leave because we gave up.   # we did not leave because we gave up.  we left because the government of the country, that was democratically elected, told us they did not want our help anymore.  we had a status of forces agreement with the iraqi government that ended december 0, 0.  we asked them if they would like to extend/renew it and they said no.  we abided by our agreement with them and left.  URL  #  isis may have captured some hardware we gave the iraqi is but its not like they stormed ft bragg and took it.   #  the united states has the highest gdp in the world, making it 0 in at least 0 economic metric.  isis may have captured some hardware we gave the iraqi is but its not like they stormed ft bragg and took it.  the us military, admittedly strung out from over a decade of bullshit wars, remains unquestionably the strongest fighting force in the world.  this makes the us 0 by the most important military metric.  this is not to say that we are 0 in every metric, but to say there is nothing the us is the leading in is clearly incorrect.   #  are all being exported far and wide, much more so than any other single country at the moment.   #  those are two of the three indisputable and  general  metrics that i would put up.  the third one, which is worth adding, is cultural.  currently, for good or bad, american culture exerts a  gigantic  influence on every corner of the world not entirely sure how grammatically correct that sentence was .  our music, tv shows, movies, food, clothing, expressions, etc.  are all being exported far and wide, much more so than any other single country at the moment.   #  you are being downvoted because you honestly sound like an edgy 0 year old who has no idea what he is talking about.   #  you are being downvoted because you honestly sound like an edgy 0 year old who has no idea what he is talking about.  we have some of the greatest scientific innovation and research going on in the us.  we produce so much movies, music, and other popular culture that is consumed by other countries.  and if you count military strength as  great , then usa is a landslide winner there.  i mean, are you just trying to be contrarian, or do you have any logical support for what you are saying ? also, not trying to ad hominem, but i am not surprised you post to the red pill URL  #  sure, the russians beat us to a few benchmarks, the japanese have done a couple cool things, but when it comes to success in space, the us is by and far number one.   # our entire space program has accomplished significant things.  sure, the russians beat us to a few benchmarks, the japanese have done a couple cool things, but when it comes to success in space, the us is by and far number one.  the ussr/russia is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  the us is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  we have had similar success on the moon, and voyager may be one of the greatest accomplishments in human history.
isis, which is more or less the same as al qaeda, is in the process of taking over iraq.  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.  in other words, the united states just lost a war.  the media wo not tell you that, because it is too busy with israel and the kardashians, but do not get it confused.  the united states spent 0 years fighting fundamentalist muslims in iraq after 0/0, but then we gave up and left and the enemy we sought to eliminate is more powerful than when we arrived and running half the country.  that is called losing.  yet many still believe that the us is the best greatest or most successful or best place to live country in the world.  is that true ? let is see.  our citizens are in more debt than anyone else, because our citizens pay massive amounts healthcare and education while citizens of other top tier countries do not.  our unemployment is at an all time high, because our big manufacturers have all moved overseas.  we get less time off.  there is more poverty, more murder, more homelessness, more incarceration here than in any other top tier countries.  every other weekend a depressed person goes on a mass anonymous killing spree.  our congress is corrupt.  the only  innovations  we have made since the steve jobs era are novelties make it easier to be lazy, dumb and superficial.  even our artistic exports, our mainstream music and film, are increasingly ignored and unimportant on a global scale.  and despite spending exponentially more than other countries on our military, we keep losing wars.  by no metric is the united states any longer the greatest country in the world.   #  in other words, the united states just lost a war.   #  the media wo not tell you that, because it is too busy with israel and the kardashians, but do not get it confused.   # the media wo not tell you that, because it is too busy with israel and the kardashians, but do not get it confused.  the united states spent 0 years fighting fundamentalist muslims in iraq after 0/0, but then we gave up and left and the enemy we sought to eliminate is more powerful than when we arrived and running half the country.  that is called losing.  the united states did not invade iraq after 0/0 to fight muslim terrorists, it invaded iraq in 0 to try to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction that the u. s.  claimed that iraq possessed.  when none of these were found, this turned into a war to overthrow an oppressive government headed by saddam hussein and help the people of iraq.  the original invasion of iraq had little to do with fighting terrorism.   #  this makes the us 0 by the most important military metric.   #  the united states has the highest gdp in the world, making it 0 in at least 0 economic metric.  isis may have captured some hardware we gave the iraqi is but its not like they stormed ft bragg and took it.  the us military, admittedly strung out from over a decade of bullshit wars, remains unquestionably the strongest fighting force in the world.  this makes the us 0 by the most important military metric.  this is not to say that we are 0 in every metric, but to say there is nothing the us is the leading in is clearly incorrect.   #  the third one, which is worth adding, is cultural.   #  those are two of the three indisputable and  general  metrics that i would put up.  the third one, which is worth adding, is cultural.  currently, for good or bad, american culture exerts a  gigantic  influence on every corner of the world not entirely sure how grammatically correct that sentence was .  our music, tv shows, movies, food, clothing, expressions, etc.  are all being exported far and wide, much more so than any other single country at the moment.   #  we have some of the greatest scientific innovation and research going on in the us.   #  you are being downvoted because you honestly sound like an edgy 0 year old who has no idea what he is talking about.  we have some of the greatest scientific innovation and research going on in the us.  we produce so much movies, music, and other popular culture that is consumed by other countries.  and if you count military strength as  great , then usa is a landslide winner there.  i mean, are you just trying to be contrarian, or do you have any logical support for what you are saying ? also, not trying to ad hominem, but i am not surprised you post to the red pill URL  #  the us is 0 for 0 for martian landings.   # our entire space program has accomplished significant things.  sure, the russians beat us to a few benchmarks, the japanese have done a couple cool things, but when it comes to success in space, the us is by and far number one.  the ussr/russia is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  the us is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  we have had similar success on the moon, and voyager may be one of the greatest accomplishments in human history.
isis, which is more or less the same as al qaeda, is in the process of taking over iraq.  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.  in other words, the united states just lost a war.  the media wo not tell you that, because it is too busy with israel and the kardashians, but do not get it confused.  the united states spent 0 years fighting fundamentalist muslims in iraq after 0/0, but then we gave up and left and the enemy we sought to eliminate is more powerful than when we arrived and running half the country.  that is called losing.  yet many still believe that the us is the best greatest or most successful or best place to live country in the world.  is that true ? let is see.  our citizens are in more debt than anyone else, because our citizens pay massive amounts healthcare and education while citizens of other top tier countries do not.  our unemployment is at an all time high, because our big manufacturers have all moved overseas.  we get less time off.  there is more poverty, more murder, more homelessness, more incarceration here than in any other top tier countries.  every other weekend a depressed person goes on a mass anonymous killing spree.  our congress is corrupt.  the only  innovations  we have made since the steve jobs era are novelties make it easier to be lazy, dumb and superficial.  even our artistic exports, our mainstream music and film, are increasingly ignored and unimportant on a global scale.  and despite spending exponentially more than other countries on our military, we keep losing wars.  by no metric is the united states any longer the greatest country in the world.   #  is in the process of taking over iraq.   #  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.   # isis is not  the same as  al qaeda.  the two groups do not get along.  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.  they have also invited the rest of the middle east to come beat them down.  they are losing.  that is called losing.  isis only took over after we left.  you are moving the goalposts by declaring all inventions made by americans to somehow not be real ones.  why ? that is what happens when you try to use the military to solve cultural or political problems.  it is not like anyone else could manage that trick.   #  the us military, admittedly strung out from over a decade of bullshit wars, remains unquestionably the strongest fighting force in the world.   #  the united states has the highest gdp in the world, making it 0 in at least 0 economic metric.  isis may have captured some hardware we gave the iraqi is but its not like they stormed ft bragg and took it.  the us military, admittedly strung out from over a decade of bullshit wars, remains unquestionably the strongest fighting force in the world.  this makes the us 0 by the most important military metric.  this is not to say that we are 0 in every metric, but to say there is nothing the us is the leading in is clearly incorrect.   #  are all being exported far and wide, much more so than any other single country at the moment.   #  those are two of the three indisputable and  general  metrics that i would put up.  the third one, which is worth adding, is cultural.  currently, for good or bad, american culture exerts a  gigantic  influence on every corner of the world not entirely sure how grammatically correct that sentence was .  our music, tv shows, movies, food, clothing, expressions, etc.  are all being exported far and wide, much more so than any other single country at the moment.   #  also, not trying to ad hominem, but i am not surprised you post to the red pill URL  #  you are being downvoted because you honestly sound like an edgy 0 year old who has no idea what he is talking about.  we have some of the greatest scientific innovation and research going on in the us.  we produce so much movies, music, and other popular culture that is consumed by other countries.  and if you count military strength as  great , then usa is a landslide winner there.  i mean, are you just trying to be contrarian, or do you have any logical support for what you are saying ? also, not trying to ad hominem, but i am not surprised you post to the red pill URL  #  the us is 0 for 0 for martian landings.   # our entire space program has accomplished significant things.  sure, the russians beat us to a few benchmarks, the japanese have done a couple cool things, but when it comes to success in space, the us is by and far number one.  the ussr/russia is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  the us is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  we have had similar success on the moon, and voyager may be one of the greatest accomplishments in human history.
isis, which is more or less the same as al qaeda, is in the process of taking over iraq.  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.  in other words, the united states just lost a war.  the media wo not tell you that, because it is too busy with israel and the kardashians, but do not get it confused.  the united states spent 0 years fighting fundamentalist muslims in iraq after 0/0, but then we gave up and left and the enemy we sought to eliminate is more powerful than when we arrived and running half the country.  that is called losing.  yet many still believe that the us is the best greatest or most successful or best place to live country in the world.  is that true ? let is see.  our citizens are in more debt than anyone else, because our citizens pay massive amounts healthcare and education while citizens of other top tier countries do not.  our unemployment is at an all time high, because our big manufacturers have all moved overseas.  we get less time off.  there is more poverty, more murder, more homelessness, more incarceration here than in any other top tier countries.  every other weekend a depressed person goes on a mass anonymous killing spree.  our congress is corrupt.  the only  innovations  we have made since the steve jobs era are novelties make it easier to be lazy, dumb and superficial.  even our artistic exports, our mainstream music and film, are increasingly ignored and unimportant on a global scale.  and despite spending exponentially more than other countries on our military, we keep losing wars.  by no metric is the united states any longer the greatest country in the world.   #  the only  innovations  we have made since the steve jobs era are novelties make it easier to be lazy, dumb and superficial.   #  you are moving the goalposts by declaring all inventions made by americans to somehow not be real ones.   # isis is not  the same as  al qaeda.  the two groups do not get along.  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.  they have also invited the rest of the middle east to come beat them down.  they are losing.  that is called losing.  isis only took over after we left.  you are moving the goalposts by declaring all inventions made by americans to somehow not be real ones.  why ? that is what happens when you try to use the military to solve cultural or political problems.  it is not like anyone else could manage that trick.   #  the us military, admittedly strung out from over a decade of bullshit wars, remains unquestionably the strongest fighting force in the world.   #  the united states has the highest gdp in the world, making it 0 in at least 0 economic metric.  isis may have captured some hardware we gave the iraqi is but its not like they stormed ft bragg and took it.  the us military, admittedly strung out from over a decade of bullshit wars, remains unquestionably the strongest fighting force in the world.  this makes the us 0 by the most important military metric.  this is not to say that we are 0 in every metric, but to say there is nothing the us is the leading in is clearly incorrect.   #  currently, for good or bad, american culture exerts a  gigantic  influence on every corner of the world not entirely sure how grammatically correct that sentence was .   #  those are two of the three indisputable and  general  metrics that i would put up.  the third one, which is worth adding, is cultural.  currently, for good or bad, american culture exerts a  gigantic  influence on every corner of the world not entirely sure how grammatically correct that sentence was .  our music, tv shows, movies, food, clothing, expressions, etc.  are all being exported far and wide, much more so than any other single country at the moment.   #  and if you count military strength as  great , then usa is a landslide winner there.   #  you are being downvoted because you honestly sound like an edgy 0 year old who has no idea what he is talking about.  we have some of the greatest scientific innovation and research going on in the us.  we produce so much movies, music, and other popular culture that is consumed by other countries.  and if you count military strength as  great , then usa is a landslide winner there.  i mean, are you just trying to be contrarian, or do you have any logical support for what you are saying ? also, not trying to ad hominem, but i am not surprised you post to the red pill URL  #  we have had similar success on the moon, and voyager may be one of the greatest accomplishments in human history.   # our entire space program has accomplished significant things.  sure, the russians beat us to a few benchmarks, the japanese have done a couple cool things, but when it comes to success in space, the us is by and far number one.  the ussr/russia is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  the us is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  we have had similar success on the moon, and voyager may be one of the greatest accomplishments in human history.
isis, which is more or less the same as al qaeda, is in the process of taking over iraq.  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.  in other words, the united states just lost a war.  the media wo not tell you that, because it is too busy with israel and the kardashians, but do not get it confused.  the united states spent 0 years fighting fundamentalist muslims in iraq after 0/0, but then we gave up and left and the enemy we sought to eliminate is more powerful than when we arrived and running half the country.  that is called losing.  yet many still believe that the us is the best greatest or most successful or best place to live country in the world.  is that true ? let is see.  our citizens are in more debt than anyone else, because our citizens pay massive amounts healthcare and education while citizens of other top tier countries do not.  our unemployment is at an all time high, because our big manufacturers have all moved overseas.  we get less time off.  there is more poverty, more murder, more homelessness, more incarceration here than in any other top tier countries.  every other weekend a depressed person goes on a mass anonymous killing spree.  our congress is corrupt.  the only  innovations  we have made since the steve jobs era are novelties make it easier to be lazy, dumb and superficial.  even our artistic exports, our mainstream music and film, are increasingly ignored and unimportant on a global scale.  and despite spending exponentially more than other countries on our military, we keep losing wars.  by no metric is the united states any longer the greatest country in the world.   #  and despite spending exponentially more than other countries on our military, we keep losing wars.   #  that is what happens when you try to use the military to solve cultural or political problems.   # isis is not  the same as  al qaeda.  the two groups do not get along.  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.  they have also invited the rest of the middle east to come beat them down.  they are losing.  that is called losing.  isis only took over after we left.  you are moving the goalposts by declaring all inventions made by americans to somehow not be real ones.  why ? that is what happens when you try to use the military to solve cultural or political problems.  it is not like anyone else could manage that trick.   #  this is not to say that we are 0 in every metric, but to say there is nothing the us is the leading in is clearly incorrect.   #  the united states has the highest gdp in the world, making it 0 in at least 0 economic metric.  isis may have captured some hardware we gave the iraqi is but its not like they stormed ft bragg and took it.  the us military, admittedly strung out from over a decade of bullshit wars, remains unquestionably the strongest fighting force in the world.  this makes the us 0 by the most important military metric.  this is not to say that we are 0 in every metric, but to say there is nothing the us is the leading in is clearly incorrect.   #  our music, tv shows, movies, food, clothing, expressions, etc.   #  those are two of the three indisputable and  general  metrics that i would put up.  the third one, which is worth adding, is cultural.  currently, for good or bad, american culture exerts a  gigantic  influence on every corner of the world not entirely sure how grammatically correct that sentence was .  our music, tv shows, movies, food, clothing, expressions, etc.  are all being exported far and wide, much more so than any other single country at the moment.   #  you are being downvoted because you honestly sound like an edgy 0 year old who has no idea what he is talking about.   #  you are being downvoted because you honestly sound like an edgy 0 year old who has no idea what he is talking about.  we have some of the greatest scientific innovation and research going on in the us.  we produce so much movies, music, and other popular culture that is consumed by other countries.  and if you count military strength as  great , then usa is a landslide winner there.  i mean, are you just trying to be contrarian, or do you have any logical support for what you are saying ? also, not trying to ad hominem, but i am not surprised you post to the red pill URL  #  our entire space program has accomplished significant things.   # our entire space program has accomplished significant things.  sure, the russians beat us to a few benchmarks, the japanese have done a couple cool things, but when it comes to success in space, the us is by and far number one.  the ussr/russia is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  the us is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  we have had similar success on the moon, and voyager may be one of the greatest accomplishments in human history.
isis, which is more or less the same as al qaeda, is in the process of taking over iraq.  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.  in other words, the united states just lost a war.  the media wo not tell you that, because it is too busy with israel and the kardashians, but do not get it confused.  the united states spent 0 years fighting fundamentalist muslims in iraq after 0/0, but then we gave up and left and the enemy we sought to eliminate is more powerful than when we arrived and running half the country.  that is called losing.  yet many still believe that the us is the best greatest or most successful or best place to live country in the world.  is that true ? let is see.  our citizens are in more debt than anyone else, because our citizens pay massive amounts healthcare and education while citizens of other top tier countries do not.  our unemployment is at an all time high, because our big manufacturers have all moved overseas.  we get less time off.  there is more poverty, more murder, more homelessness, more incarceration here than in any other top tier countries.  every other weekend a depressed person goes on a mass anonymous killing spree.  our congress is corrupt.  the only  innovations  we have made since the steve jobs era are novelties make it easier to be lazy, dumb and superficial.  even our artistic exports, our mainstream music and film, are increasingly ignored and unimportant on a global scale.  and despite spending exponentially more than other countries on our military, we keep losing wars.  by no metric is the united states any longer the greatest country in the world.   #  isis, which is more or less the same as al qaeda, is in the process of taking over iraq.   #  they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.   # they have captured a bunch of us military weaponry like hummers and black hawk helicopters, and openly mock us about it on twitter.  you should not get your view of current events from isis on twitter.  isis is  taking over  areas in the north where they have been dominant for years.  they are now and have been stalling right about where the traditional border between sunni and shia regions of iraq.  they are also not going into kurdistan to their east, because they know the kurds would fuck them up six ways from sunday if they tried it.  this is one of many possible consequences of drawing the borders of a country that had not previously existed irrespective of whether or not the people who lived their wanted to share a country.  if iraq eventually splits into three countries that do not politically oppress or ethnically cleanse one another as they have in the past. i would call that a long term win.   #  isis may have captured some hardware we gave the iraqi is but its not like they stormed ft bragg and took it.   #  the united states has the highest gdp in the world, making it 0 in at least 0 economic metric.  isis may have captured some hardware we gave the iraqi is but its not like they stormed ft bragg and took it.  the us military, admittedly strung out from over a decade of bullshit wars, remains unquestionably the strongest fighting force in the world.  this makes the us 0 by the most important military metric.  this is not to say that we are 0 in every metric, but to say there is nothing the us is the leading in is clearly incorrect.   #  currently, for good or bad, american culture exerts a  gigantic  influence on every corner of the world not entirely sure how grammatically correct that sentence was .   #  those are two of the three indisputable and  general  metrics that i would put up.  the third one, which is worth adding, is cultural.  currently, for good or bad, american culture exerts a  gigantic  influence on every corner of the world not entirely sure how grammatically correct that sentence was .  our music, tv shows, movies, food, clothing, expressions, etc.  are all being exported far and wide, much more so than any other single country at the moment.   #  you are being downvoted because you honestly sound like an edgy 0 year old who has no idea what he is talking about.   #  you are being downvoted because you honestly sound like an edgy 0 year old who has no idea what he is talking about.  we have some of the greatest scientific innovation and research going on in the us.  we produce so much movies, music, and other popular culture that is consumed by other countries.  and if you count military strength as  great , then usa is a landslide winner there.  i mean, are you just trying to be contrarian, or do you have any logical support for what you are saying ? also, not trying to ad hominem, but i am not surprised you post to the red pill URL  #  the us is 0 for 0 for martian landings.   # our entire space program has accomplished significant things.  sure, the russians beat us to a few benchmarks, the japanese have done a couple cool things, but when it comes to success in space, the us is by and far number one.  the ussr/russia is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  the us is 0 for 0 for martian landings.  we have had similar success on the moon, and voyager may be one of the greatest accomplishments in human history.
in reference to this paper, under findings section b, URL i think that there is survivorship bias when we talk about what plots were thwarted by nsa surveillance.  just because the nsa is not catching terrorists does not mean they are not preventing terrorism.  if a would be terrorist knows that they might get caught by the nsa, then they wo not attempt an attack in the first place.  same goes for tsa protocols.  terrorists are not stupid: if they do not think they will be successful, they wo not try it.  there is certainly risk to civil liberty as in any government enforcement agency.  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.  but please, cmv !  #  just because the nsa is not catching terrorists does not mean they are not preventing terrorism.   #  boston marathon bombing happened while all the nsa is surveillance was in place.   # boston marathon bombing happened while all the nsa is surveillance was in place.  and their were so, so many red flags.  assuming tsarnaev is guilty, he was kicked out of his mosque for radical behavior and had been reported to the fbi.  the nsa ca not actually site a situation where they have been able to identify terrorist and arrest them.  including the time before the snowden leaks.  if it were not for whistle blowers, they would not know this at all.  it was a secret surveillance system.  and the nsa and it is supporters tried to claim any public knowledge of the surveillance was a treat to national security.  but here you claim it is the very knowledge of the system that prevents terrorism.   #  along /u/nogginrocket said, they could be using the programs to attack civil liberties.   #    because we could have prevented the boston bombing without the information collected by the nsa.  the nsa should not perform mass surveillance because the extra information is not worth the expenditure.  also, it is suspicious that the govt.  would keep it secret if the knowledge of the programs would show teeth to the terrorists.  along /u/nogginrocket said, they could be using the programs to attack civil liberties.  but i admit that is speculation in the absence of evidence.   #  they will attack and risk death instead of face certain death.   #  many times, the  terrorism  is invented URL to justify the overreach and existance of these organizations.  i also have a rock that prevents tigers from attacking me.  no tiger attacks yet ! so a person that is willing to commit suicide in a terror attack is afraid of being caught by the nsa ? these people are disposable.  terrorists are not stupid: if they do not think they will be successful, they wo not try it.  they will find a method that does work.  the tsa is a joke because the old rule of  listen to the hi jacker  is out the window.  anybody who tries to fly a plane into a building will be attacked by  all  the passengers.  they will attack and risk death instead of face certain death.  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.  there is a careful balance where you put freedom against security.  right now, the nsa is violating our freedom and privacy for very little in return.   #  what we need to prevent terrorism is intelligence  quality  and not  quantity .   #  do you have a specific example ? i do not oppose the nsa existing; just how they currently choose to operate.  the 0/0 attacks and the boston bombing were not successful due to lack of information, but because we did not act on the information we had.  we were already informed through the traditional intelligence about these threats, but failed to recognize them.  right now the nsa is collecting much more data than it had in 0/0, but it is questionable how well they can process it.  what we need to prevent terrorism is intelligence  quality  and not  quantity .  any organized terrorist group will be encrypting and obscuring their communications, so the type of mass surveillance that the nsa is doing wo not be effective.   #  heck, when the nsa read this post they will probable jump me up a level in their  terrorist metric , or some such database.   #  the problem is that the existence of the nsa in it is current form is not a risk to civil liberty but a symbol of the non existence of civil liberty.  we are not free to associate with which ever political groups we wish, because if we associate with a group that desires the end of government as we know it, we are considered a terrorist even if we desire to replace the current government with one that is less corrupt and less fascistic.  the fact that i might be considered a  terrorist  by the nsa if i decided to join a group that actively works against the nsa i. e.  a group that lobby is for it is decommission is terrifying in itself.  by this measure, the nsa itself is a terrorist organization; it just happens to be on the other side of an imaginary line defined by the same people who decide who holds the  willegal  use of violence.  heck, when the nsa read this post they will probable jump me up a level in their  terrorist metric , or some such database.  that being said; howdy, nsa analyst ! hope your day is going well !
in reference to this paper, under findings section b, URL i think that there is survivorship bias when we talk about what plots were thwarted by nsa surveillance.  just because the nsa is not catching terrorists does not mean they are not preventing terrorism.  if a would be terrorist knows that they might get caught by the nsa, then they wo not attempt an attack in the first place.  same goes for tsa protocols.  terrorists are not stupid: if they do not think they will be successful, they wo not try it.  there is certainly risk to civil liberty as in any government enforcement agency.  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.  but please, cmv !  #  if a would be terrorist knows that they might get caught by the nsa, then they wo not attempt an attack in the first place.   #  if it were not for whistle blowers, they would not know this at all.   # boston marathon bombing happened while all the nsa is surveillance was in place.  and their were so, so many red flags.  assuming tsarnaev is guilty, he was kicked out of his mosque for radical behavior and had been reported to the fbi.  the nsa ca not actually site a situation where they have been able to identify terrorist and arrest them.  including the time before the snowden leaks.  if it were not for whistle blowers, they would not know this at all.  it was a secret surveillance system.  and the nsa and it is supporters tried to claim any public knowledge of the surveillance was a treat to national security.  but here you claim it is the very knowledge of the system that prevents terrorism.   #  along /u/nogginrocket said, they could be using the programs to attack civil liberties.   #    because we could have prevented the boston bombing without the information collected by the nsa.  the nsa should not perform mass surveillance because the extra information is not worth the expenditure.  also, it is suspicious that the govt.  would keep it secret if the knowledge of the programs would show teeth to the terrorists.  along /u/nogginrocket said, they could be using the programs to attack civil liberties.  but i admit that is speculation in the absence of evidence.   #  so a person that is willing to commit suicide in a terror attack is afraid of being caught by the nsa ?  #  many times, the  terrorism  is invented URL to justify the overreach and existance of these organizations.  i also have a rock that prevents tigers from attacking me.  no tiger attacks yet ! so a person that is willing to commit suicide in a terror attack is afraid of being caught by the nsa ? these people are disposable.  terrorists are not stupid: if they do not think they will be successful, they wo not try it.  they will find a method that does work.  the tsa is a joke because the old rule of  listen to the hi jacker  is out the window.  anybody who tries to fly a plane into a building will be attacked by  all  the passengers.  they will attack and risk death instead of face certain death.  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.  there is a careful balance where you put freedom against security.  right now, the nsa is violating our freedom and privacy for very little in return.   #  the 0/0 attacks and the boston bombing were not successful due to lack of information, but because we did not act on the information we had.   #  do you have a specific example ? i do not oppose the nsa existing; just how they currently choose to operate.  the 0/0 attacks and the boston bombing were not successful due to lack of information, but because we did not act on the information we had.  we were already informed through the traditional intelligence about these threats, but failed to recognize them.  right now the nsa is collecting much more data than it had in 0/0, but it is questionable how well they can process it.  what we need to prevent terrorism is intelligence  quality  and not  quantity .  any organized terrorist group will be encrypting and obscuring their communications, so the type of mass surveillance that the nsa is doing wo not be effective.   #  heck, when the nsa read this post they will probable jump me up a level in their  terrorist metric , or some such database.   #  the problem is that the existence of the nsa in it is current form is not a risk to civil liberty but a symbol of the non existence of civil liberty.  we are not free to associate with which ever political groups we wish, because if we associate with a group that desires the end of government as we know it, we are considered a terrorist even if we desire to replace the current government with one that is less corrupt and less fascistic.  the fact that i might be considered a  terrorist  by the nsa if i decided to join a group that actively works against the nsa i. e.  a group that lobby is for it is decommission is terrifying in itself.  by this measure, the nsa itself is a terrorist organization; it just happens to be on the other side of an imaginary line defined by the same people who decide who holds the  willegal  use of violence.  heck, when the nsa read this post they will probable jump me up a level in their  terrorist metric , or some such database.  that being said; howdy, nsa analyst ! hope your day is going well !
in reference to this paper, under findings section b, URL i think that there is survivorship bias when we talk about what plots were thwarted by nsa surveillance.  just because the nsa is not catching terrorists does not mean they are not preventing terrorism.  if a would be terrorist knows that they might get caught by the nsa, then they wo not attempt an attack in the first place.  same goes for tsa protocols.  terrorists are not stupid: if they do not think they will be successful, they wo not try it.  there is certainly risk to civil liberty as in any government enforcement agency.  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.  but please, cmv !  #  just because the nsa is not catching terrorists does not mean they are not preventing terrorism.   #  i also have a rock that prevents tigers from attacking me.   #  many times, the  terrorism  is invented URL to justify the overreach and existance of these organizations.  i also have a rock that prevents tigers from attacking me.  no tiger attacks yet ! so a person that is willing to commit suicide in a terror attack is afraid of being caught by the nsa ? these people are disposable.  terrorists are not stupid: if they do not think they will be successful, they wo not try it.  they will find a method that does work.  the tsa is a joke because the old rule of  listen to the hi jacker  is out the window.  anybody who tries to fly a plane into a building will be attacked by  all  the passengers.  they will attack and risk death instead of face certain death.  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.  there is a careful balance where you put freedom against security.  right now, the nsa is violating our freedom and privacy for very little in return.   #  the nsa ca not actually site a situation where they have been able to identify terrorist and arrest them.   # boston marathon bombing happened while all the nsa is surveillance was in place.  and their were so, so many red flags.  assuming tsarnaev is guilty, he was kicked out of his mosque for radical behavior and had been reported to the fbi.  the nsa ca not actually site a situation where they have been able to identify terrorist and arrest them.  including the time before the snowden leaks.  if it were not for whistle blowers, they would not know this at all.  it was a secret surveillance system.  and the nsa and it is supporters tried to claim any public knowledge of the surveillance was a treat to national security.  but here you claim it is the very knowledge of the system that prevents terrorism.   #  but i admit that is speculation in the absence of evidence.   #    because we could have prevented the boston bombing without the information collected by the nsa.  the nsa should not perform mass surveillance because the extra information is not worth the expenditure.  also, it is suspicious that the govt.  would keep it secret if the knowledge of the programs would show teeth to the terrorists.  along /u/nogginrocket said, they could be using the programs to attack civil liberties.  but i admit that is speculation in the absence of evidence.   #  any organized terrorist group will be encrypting and obscuring their communications, so the type of mass surveillance that the nsa is doing wo not be effective.   #  do you have a specific example ? i do not oppose the nsa existing; just how they currently choose to operate.  the 0/0 attacks and the boston bombing were not successful due to lack of information, but because we did not act on the information we had.  we were already informed through the traditional intelligence about these threats, but failed to recognize them.  right now the nsa is collecting much more data than it had in 0/0, but it is questionable how well they can process it.  what we need to prevent terrorism is intelligence  quality  and not  quantity .  any organized terrorist group will be encrypting and obscuring their communications, so the type of mass surveillance that the nsa is doing wo not be effective.   #  the problem is that the existence of the nsa in it is current form is not a risk to civil liberty but a symbol of the non existence of civil liberty.   #  the problem is that the existence of the nsa in it is current form is not a risk to civil liberty but a symbol of the non existence of civil liberty.  we are not free to associate with which ever political groups we wish, because if we associate with a group that desires the end of government as we know it, we are considered a terrorist even if we desire to replace the current government with one that is less corrupt and less fascistic.  the fact that i might be considered a  terrorist  by the nsa if i decided to join a group that actively works against the nsa i. e.  a group that lobby is for it is decommission is terrifying in itself.  by this measure, the nsa itself is a terrorist organization; it just happens to be on the other side of an imaginary line defined by the same people who decide who holds the  willegal  use of violence.  heck, when the nsa read this post they will probable jump me up a level in their  terrorist metric , or some such database.  that being said; howdy, nsa analyst ! hope your day is going well !
in reference to this paper, under findings section b, URL i think that there is survivorship bias when we talk about what plots were thwarted by nsa surveillance.  just because the nsa is not catching terrorists does not mean they are not preventing terrorism.  if a would be terrorist knows that they might get caught by the nsa, then they wo not attempt an attack in the first place.  same goes for tsa protocols.  terrorists are not stupid: if they do not think they will be successful, they wo not try it.  there is certainly risk to civil liberty as in any government enforcement agency.  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.  but please, cmv !  #  if a would be terrorist knows that they might get caught by the nsa, then they wo not attempt an attack in the first place.   #  so a person that is willing to commit suicide in a terror attack is afraid of being caught by the nsa ?  #  many times, the  terrorism  is invented URL to justify the overreach and existance of these organizations.  i also have a rock that prevents tigers from attacking me.  no tiger attacks yet ! so a person that is willing to commit suicide in a terror attack is afraid of being caught by the nsa ? these people are disposable.  terrorists are not stupid: if they do not think they will be successful, they wo not try it.  they will find a method that does work.  the tsa is a joke because the old rule of  listen to the hi jacker  is out the window.  anybody who tries to fly a plane into a building will be attacked by  all  the passengers.  they will attack and risk death instead of face certain death.  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.  there is a careful balance where you put freedom against security.  right now, the nsa is violating our freedom and privacy for very little in return.   #  if it were not for whistle blowers, they would not know this at all.   # boston marathon bombing happened while all the nsa is surveillance was in place.  and their were so, so many red flags.  assuming tsarnaev is guilty, he was kicked out of his mosque for radical behavior and had been reported to the fbi.  the nsa ca not actually site a situation where they have been able to identify terrorist and arrest them.  including the time before the snowden leaks.  if it were not for whistle blowers, they would not know this at all.  it was a secret surveillance system.  and the nsa and it is supporters tried to claim any public knowledge of the surveillance was a treat to national security.  but here you claim it is the very knowledge of the system that prevents terrorism.   #  along /u/nogginrocket said, they could be using the programs to attack civil liberties.   #    because we could have prevented the boston bombing without the information collected by the nsa.  the nsa should not perform mass surveillance because the extra information is not worth the expenditure.  also, it is suspicious that the govt.  would keep it secret if the knowledge of the programs would show teeth to the terrorists.  along /u/nogginrocket said, they could be using the programs to attack civil liberties.  but i admit that is speculation in the absence of evidence.   #  the 0/0 attacks and the boston bombing were not successful due to lack of information, but because we did not act on the information we had.   #  do you have a specific example ? i do not oppose the nsa existing; just how they currently choose to operate.  the 0/0 attacks and the boston bombing were not successful due to lack of information, but because we did not act on the information we had.  we were already informed through the traditional intelligence about these threats, but failed to recognize them.  right now the nsa is collecting much more data than it had in 0/0, but it is questionable how well they can process it.  what we need to prevent terrorism is intelligence  quality  and not  quantity .  any organized terrorist group will be encrypting and obscuring their communications, so the type of mass surveillance that the nsa is doing wo not be effective.   #  the problem is that the existence of the nsa in it is current form is not a risk to civil liberty but a symbol of the non existence of civil liberty.   #  the problem is that the existence of the nsa in it is current form is not a risk to civil liberty but a symbol of the non existence of civil liberty.  we are not free to associate with which ever political groups we wish, because if we associate with a group that desires the end of government as we know it, we are considered a terrorist even if we desire to replace the current government with one that is less corrupt and less fascistic.  the fact that i might be considered a  terrorist  by the nsa if i decided to join a group that actively works against the nsa i. e.  a group that lobby is for it is decommission is terrifying in itself.  by this measure, the nsa itself is a terrorist organization; it just happens to be on the other side of an imaginary line defined by the same people who decide who holds the  willegal  use of violence.  heck, when the nsa read this post they will probable jump me up a level in their  terrorist metric , or some such database.  that being said; howdy, nsa analyst ! hope your day is going well !
in reference to this paper, under findings section b, URL i think that there is survivorship bias when we talk about what plots were thwarted by nsa surveillance.  just because the nsa is not catching terrorists does not mean they are not preventing terrorism.  if a would be terrorist knows that they might get caught by the nsa, then they wo not attempt an attack in the first place.  same goes for tsa protocols.  terrorists are not stupid: if they do not think they will be successful, they wo not try it.  there is certainly risk to civil liberty as in any government enforcement agency.  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.  but please, cmv !  #  there is certainly risk to civil liberty as in any government enforcement agency.   #  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.   #  many times, the  terrorism  is invented URL to justify the overreach and existance of these organizations.  i also have a rock that prevents tigers from attacking me.  no tiger attacks yet ! so a person that is willing to commit suicide in a terror attack is afraid of being caught by the nsa ? these people are disposable.  terrorists are not stupid: if they do not think they will be successful, they wo not try it.  they will find a method that does work.  the tsa is a joke because the old rule of  listen to the hi jacker  is out the window.  anybody who tries to fly a plane into a building will be attacked by  all  the passengers.  they will attack and risk death instead of face certain death.  while i think that the freedom to associate with political groups could be threatened, i still think the nsa effectively reduces the threat of terrorism.  there is a careful balance where you put freedom against security.  right now, the nsa is violating our freedom and privacy for very little in return.   #  assuming tsarnaev is guilty, he was kicked out of his mosque for radical behavior and had been reported to the fbi.   # boston marathon bombing happened while all the nsa is surveillance was in place.  and their were so, so many red flags.  assuming tsarnaev is guilty, he was kicked out of his mosque for radical behavior and had been reported to the fbi.  the nsa ca not actually site a situation where they have been able to identify terrorist and arrest them.  including the time before the snowden leaks.  if it were not for whistle blowers, they would not know this at all.  it was a secret surveillance system.  and the nsa and it is supporters tried to claim any public knowledge of the surveillance was a treat to national security.  but here you claim it is the very knowledge of the system that prevents terrorism.   #  would keep it secret if the knowledge of the programs would show teeth to the terrorists.   #    because we could have prevented the boston bombing without the information collected by the nsa.  the nsa should not perform mass surveillance because the extra information is not worth the expenditure.  also, it is suspicious that the govt.  would keep it secret if the knowledge of the programs would show teeth to the terrorists.  along /u/nogginrocket said, they could be using the programs to attack civil liberties.  but i admit that is speculation in the absence of evidence.   #  what we need to prevent terrorism is intelligence  quality  and not  quantity .   #  do you have a specific example ? i do not oppose the nsa existing; just how they currently choose to operate.  the 0/0 attacks and the boston bombing were not successful due to lack of information, but because we did not act on the information we had.  we were already informed through the traditional intelligence about these threats, but failed to recognize them.  right now the nsa is collecting much more data than it had in 0/0, but it is questionable how well they can process it.  what we need to prevent terrorism is intelligence  quality  and not  quantity .  any organized terrorist group will be encrypting and obscuring their communications, so the type of mass surveillance that the nsa is doing wo not be effective.   #  the problem is that the existence of the nsa in it is current form is not a risk to civil liberty but a symbol of the non existence of civil liberty.   #  the problem is that the existence of the nsa in it is current form is not a risk to civil liberty but a symbol of the non existence of civil liberty.  we are not free to associate with which ever political groups we wish, because if we associate with a group that desires the end of government as we know it, we are considered a terrorist even if we desire to replace the current government with one that is less corrupt and less fascistic.  the fact that i might be considered a  terrorist  by the nsa if i decided to join a group that actively works against the nsa i. e.  a group that lobby is for it is decommission is terrifying in itself.  by this measure, the nsa itself is a terrorist organization; it just happens to be on the other side of an imaginary line defined by the same people who decide who holds the  willegal  use of violence.  heck, when the nsa read this post they will probable jump me up a level in their  terrorist metric , or some such database.  that being said; howdy, nsa analyst ! hope your day is going well !
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.   #  is not a good a thing to normalize  alcohol consumption not to a point of drunkenness ?    # is not a good a thing to normalize  alcohol consumption not to a point of drunkenness ?   the child will be exposed to alcohol eventually in circumstances the parents ca not control.  a child who know that it is normal to only drink just a little bit and knows his/her alcohol limits will be much less likely to accidentally get too drunk due to unfamiliarity with alcohol.  getting unintentionally too drunk in an unfamiliar environment can lead to dire consequences.  prior exposure to effects of alcohol will lower the chances of unintentional drunkenness.   #  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.   #  this substance is only harmful in large quantities.   # this substance is only harmful in large quantities.  light alcohol consumption has been objectively linked to decreased risk of heart disease.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  good parenting is providing a safe and monitored space for your child to drink  if they are going to drink anyway .  it encourages openness, trust, and honesty between parents and their children.  the reality is that teenagers will drink, and it is better to be supervised than not.  lastly, people are allowed to go to war, kill people, and risk their life at the age of 0.  somehow i think it takes more decision making skills and maturity to decide to join the army than to regulate your drinking.   #  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.   #  drinking age is a fairly well known number.   # this substance is only harmful in large quantities.  light alcohol consumption has been objectively linked to decreased risk of heart disease.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  good parenting is providing a safe and monitored space for your child to drink  if they are going to drink anyway .  it encourages openness, trust, and honesty between parents and their children.  the reality is that teenagers will drink, and it is better to be supervised than not.  lastly, people are allowed to go to war, kill people, and risk their life at the age of 0.  somehow i think it takes more decision making skills and maturity to decide to join the army than to regulate your drinking.   #  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.   #  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.   # while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  society has already introduced and normalized alcohol by the time a person is 0.  parents are just an extension of that.  if they do not drink at home, they are likely to drink elsewhere.  i do not know  anyone  who started drinking only when it was legal for them to do so, even my most neurotic and law abiding friends drank before it was legal.  in american society, alcohol is an acceptable and social drug.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  should parents speed with their kids in the car ? welcome to life, people casually break laws all the time.  the lesson your kids should be learning is not,  always obey the law no matter what.   it should be,  stay safe, be reasonable, and think about your actions.    #  this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.   #  drinking age is a fairly well known number.   # while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  society has already introduced and normalized alcohol by the time a person is 0.  parents are just an extension of that.  if they do not drink at home, they are likely to drink elsewhere.  i do not know  anyone  who started drinking only when it was legal for them to do so, even my most neurotic and law abiding friends drank before it was legal.  in american society, alcohol is an acceptable and social drug.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  should parents speed with their kids in the car ? welcome to life, people casually break laws all the time.  the lesson your kids should be learning is not,  always obey the law no matter what.   it should be,  stay safe, be reasonable, and think about your actions.    #  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.   #  we encounter lots of damaging substances quite often.   #  i disagree.  we encounter lots of damaging substances quite often.  would you also argue that parents should not expose their kids to soft drinks, which have been linked to obesity ? how about city air, which, thanks to smog, has been linked to lung cancer ? alcohol is not good for your health, but that does not necessarily mean we should not consume it.  lots of things are bad for your health.  as long as it is taken in moderation, the health effects are minimal.  i would argue the opposite is true.  by exposing kids to alcohol early, and removing the taboo, parents are able to teach kids how to drink without binge drinking.  my household was pretty strict about liquor; i was not really allowed to have any.  did this stop me from drinking ? no, but it ensured that when i did drink, i was incredibly stupid about it, because i did not know the next time i would be able to.  when i got to college, rather than drinking responsibly, i proceeded to get absolutely trashed at every opportunity i could.  on the flip side, many of my friends were allowed to drink from a relatively early age, and the result was that they were much more responsible drinkers; they did not feel the need to binge because drinking was not something new that they had to sneak around to do.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  i would argue this is good.  the drinking age  is  relatively arbitrary; 0 in the states, 0/0 in canada, non existent in europe, etc.  part of being a good citizen is critically examining the laws and challenging those that you feel are unjust/pointless/etc.  blindly following the law is a recipe for disaster.   #  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.   #  i would argue the opposite is true.   #  i disagree.  we encounter lots of damaging substances quite often.  would you also argue that parents should not expose their kids to soft drinks, which have been linked to obesity ? how about city air, which, thanks to smog, has been linked to lung cancer ? alcohol is not good for your health, but that does not necessarily mean we should not consume it.  lots of things are bad for your health.  as long as it is taken in moderation, the health effects are minimal.  i would argue the opposite is true.  by exposing kids to alcohol early, and removing the taboo, parents are able to teach kids how to drink without binge drinking.  my household was pretty strict about liquor; i was not really allowed to have any.  did this stop me from drinking ? no, but it ensured that when i did drink, i was incredibly stupid about it, because i did not know the next time i would be able to.  when i got to college, rather than drinking responsibly, i proceeded to get absolutely trashed at every opportunity i could.  on the flip side, many of my friends were allowed to drink from a relatively early age, and the result was that they were much more responsible drinkers; they did not feel the need to binge because drinking was not something new that they had to sneak around to do.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  i would argue this is good.  the drinking age  is  relatively arbitrary; 0 in the states, 0/0 in canada, non existent in europe, etc.  part of being a good citizen is critically examining the laws and challenging those that you feel are unjust/pointless/etc.  blindly following the law is a recipe for disaster.   #  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.   #  drinking age is a fairly well known number.   #  i disagree.  we encounter lots of damaging substances quite often.  would you also argue that parents should not expose their kids to soft drinks, which have been linked to obesity ? how about city air, which, thanks to smog, has been linked to lung cancer ? alcohol is not good for your health, but that does not necessarily mean we should not consume it.  lots of things are bad for your health.  as long as it is taken in moderation, the health effects are minimal.  i would argue the opposite is true.  by exposing kids to alcohol early, and removing the taboo, parents are able to teach kids how to drink without binge drinking.  my household was pretty strict about liquor; i was not really allowed to have any.  did this stop me from drinking ? no, but it ensured that when i did drink, i was incredibly stupid about it, because i did not know the next time i would be able to.  when i got to college, rather than drinking responsibly, i proceeded to get absolutely trashed at every opportunity i could.  on the flip side, many of my friends were allowed to drink from a relatively early age, and the result was that they were much more responsible drinkers; they did not feel the need to binge because drinking was not something new that they had to sneak around to do.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  i would argue this is good.  the drinking age  is  relatively arbitrary; 0 in the states, 0/0 in canada, non existent in europe, etc.  part of being a good citizen is critically examining the laws and challenging those that you feel are unjust/pointless/etc.  blindly following the law is a recipe for disaster.   #  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  i think my title says it all.   #  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.   # i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  why ? that is completely legal in the bahamas, british virgin isles, parts of canada, haiti, azerbaijan, georgia the country , malaysia, palestine, belgium, denmark, germany, gebraltar, lichtenstein, luxembourg, portugal, switzerland, the uk, morocco, and parts of spain.  in fact, the us is drinking age of 0 is tied for the highest national drinking age in the world URL certain areas of india go as high as 0, but no country mandates an equally high number nationally .  so are parents that smoke, parents that bake cakes, parents that allow their children to drive, parents that enroll their children in swimming lessons, parents that encourage their children to play football, parents that have their kids join the boy/girl scouts, and any number of other things.  so are parents that just drink alcohol in the presence of children, period.  like,  oh look pops drinks beer and looks so cool doing it  is probably going to have a worse effect then  dad asked me if i wanted to try some beer, i said sure, and it tasted terrible.  i am never drinking that shit again  which is the experience most people i know had .  like how when i was getting my drivers licence, my instructor told me to break the speed limit because i was obstructing the flow of traffic.  in a lot of cases, rules are arbitrary and can dare i say should be broken.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  in a lot of places it is not illegal if the alcohol is consumed in the home of a parent/guardian and under their supervision.  in fact, until i left for college, i never consumed alcohol illegally.  it could, but by not engaging in a dialogue with your child about, and by not treating them like the soon to be mature adult that they are, you belittle them and can cause resentment, and furthermore fall into the trap that abstinence only sex ed causes, which is that you get a bunch of people who do not know what they are doing, who just got out of a situation where they were controlled, try and have  fun  and they end up going crazy and hurting themselves.  its been my experience, and this is anecdotal i admit, that people who had exposure to alcohol before entering college were more knowledgeable of their limits and how alcohol affected them, and as a result were less likely to drink to much and black out/throw up/generally have a regrettable time.   #  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.   #  so are parents that just drink alcohol in the presence of children, period.   # i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  why ? that is completely legal in the bahamas, british virgin isles, parts of canada, haiti, azerbaijan, georgia the country , malaysia, palestine, belgium, denmark, germany, gebraltar, lichtenstein, luxembourg, portugal, switzerland, the uk, morocco, and parts of spain.  in fact, the us is drinking age of 0 is tied for the highest national drinking age in the world URL certain areas of india go as high as 0, but no country mandates an equally high number nationally .  so are parents that smoke, parents that bake cakes, parents that allow their children to drive, parents that enroll their children in swimming lessons, parents that encourage their children to play football, parents that have their kids join the boy/girl scouts, and any number of other things.  so are parents that just drink alcohol in the presence of children, period.  like,  oh look pops drinks beer and looks so cool doing it  is probably going to have a worse effect then  dad asked me if i wanted to try some beer, i said sure, and it tasted terrible.  i am never drinking that shit again  which is the experience most people i know had .  like how when i was getting my drivers licence, my instructor told me to break the speed limit because i was obstructing the flow of traffic.  in a lot of cases, rules are arbitrary and can dare i say should be broken.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  in a lot of places it is not illegal if the alcohol is consumed in the home of a parent/guardian and under their supervision.  in fact, until i left for college, i never consumed alcohol illegally.  it could, but by not engaging in a dialogue with your child about, and by not treating them like the soon to be mature adult that they are, you belittle them and can cause resentment, and furthermore fall into the trap that abstinence only sex ed causes, which is that you get a bunch of people who do not know what they are doing, who just got out of a situation where they were controlled, try and have  fun  and they end up going crazy and hurting themselves.  its been my experience, and this is anecdotal i admit, that people who had exposure to alcohol before entering college were more knowledgeable of their limits and how alcohol affected them, and as a result were less likely to drink to much and black out/throw up/generally have a regrettable time.   #  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ?  #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.   #  like how when i was getting my drivers licence, my instructor told me to break the speed limit because i was obstructing the flow of traffic.   # i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  why ? that is completely legal in the bahamas, british virgin isles, parts of canada, haiti, azerbaijan, georgia the country , malaysia, palestine, belgium, denmark, germany, gebraltar, lichtenstein, luxembourg, portugal, switzerland, the uk, morocco, and parts of spain.  in fact, the us is drinking age of 0 is tied for the highest national drinking age in the world URL certain areas of india go as high as 0, but no country mandates an equally high number nationally .  so are parents that smoke, parents that bake cakes, parents that allow their children to drive, parents that enroll their children in swimming lessons, parents that encourage their children to play football, parents that have their kids join the boy/girl scouts, and any number of other things.  so are parents that just drink alcohol in the presence of children, period.  like,  oh look pops drinks beer and looks so cool doing it  is probably going to have a worse effect then  dad asked me if i wanted to try some beer, i said sure, and it tasted terrible.  i am never drinking that shit again  which is the experience most people i know had .  like how when i was getting my drivers licence, my instructor told me to break the speed limit because i was obstructing the flow of traffic.  in a lot of cases, rules are arbitrary and can dare i say should be broken.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  in a lot of places it is not illegal if the alcohol is consumed in the home of a parent/guardian and under their supervision.  in fact, until i left for college, i never consumed alcohol illegally.  it could, but by not engaging in a dialogue with your child about, and by not treating them like the soon to be mature adult that they are, you belittle them and can cause resentment, and furthermore fall into the trap that abstinence only sex ed causes, which is that you get a bunch of people who do not know what they are doing, who just got out of a situation where they were controlled, try and have  fun  and they end up going crazy and hurting themselves.  its been my experience, and this is anecdotal i admit, that people who had exposure to alcohol before entering college were more knowledgeable of their limits and how alcohol affected them, and as a result were less likely to drink to much and black out/throw up/generally have a regrettable time.   #  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
i think my title says it all.  i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  one reason is that you are introducing your child to a potentially harmful substance, linked to both liver and brain damage, at a time when their body and brain are still developing and are especially susceptible to damage.  while a parent is hopefully not encouraging their child to drink to drunkenness, they are normalizing alcohol consumption to the point where a child is likely to be more comfortable drinking large amounts.  another reason is that it is telling the child that the rules/laws do not always apply to them.  drinking age is a fairly well known number.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  while the parent may think they have good intentions, that message might be interpreted and applied by the child in not so good ways.  so, am i seeing this the wrong way ? can you cmv ?  #  drinking age is a fairly well known number.   #  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.   # i have friends whose parents allowed them to drink starting around age 0, and i think it is extremely poor parenting to do something like that.  why ? that is completely legal in the bahamas, british virgin isles, parts of canada, haiti, azerbaijan, georgia the country , malaysia, palestine, belgium, denmark, germany, gebraltar, lichtenstein, luxembourg, portugal, switzerland, the uk, morocco, and parts of spain.  in fact, the us is drinking age of 0 is tied for the highest national drinking age in the world URL certain areas of india go as high as 0, but no country mandates an equally high number nationally .  so are parents that smoke, parents that bake cakes, parents that allow their children to drive, parents that enroll their children in swimming lessons, parents that encourage their children to play football, parents that have their kids join the boy/girl scouts, and any number of other things.  so are parents that just drink alcohol in the presence of children, period.  like,  oh look pops drinks beer and looks so cool doing it  is probably going to have a worse effect then  dad asked me if i wanted to try some beer, i said sure, and it tasted terrible.  i am never drinking that shit again  which is the experience most people i know had .  like how when i was getting my drivers licence, my instructor told me to break the speed limit because i was obstructing the flow of traffic.  in a lot of cases, rules are arbitrary and can dare i say should be broken.  giving a kid a drink when they are below that age is illegal and, by doing so, the parent is telling the kid it is ok to break the law if they do not like it.  in a lot of places it is not illegal if the alcohol is consumed in the home of a parent/guardian and under their supervision.  in fact, until i left for college, i never consumed alcohol illegally.  it could, but by not engaging in a dialogue with your child about, and by not treating them like the soon to be mature adult that they are, you belittle them and can cause resentment, and furthermore fall into the trap that abstinence only sex ed causes, which is that you get a bunch of people who do not know what they are doing, who just got out of a situation where they were controlled, try and have  fun  and they end up going crazy and hurting themselves.  its been my experience, and this is anecdotal i admit, that people who had exposure to alcohol before entering college were more knowledgeable of their limits and how alcohol affected them, and as a result were less likely to drink to much and black out/throw up/generally have a regrettable time.   #  this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .   # this is true which is why i was careful to use  underage  in my op and not  under 0  .  however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  while this might address my first point, it does nothing to disprove my second point that people are essentially teaching their children that the law does not apply to them when they do not like it.  i do not really want to bring the morality of law into this discussion, because i think it is not necessary.  whether breaking the law is morally wrong or not, most laws are put into place for the protection of society and individuals in the society.  breaking most laws will result in an unsafe/unfavorable situation, and, in all cases, opens a person up to punishment for breaking that law.  one night before. meh, maybe it does not matter.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  i am talking about years before someone is of age.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  and, because i believe you should follow the law unless is blatantly harmful to you except in extenuating circumstances, i would say yes, it is wrong to have a drink the night before your child turns 0.   #  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.   # however the  arbitrary  cutoff has a basis in data.  alcohol does cause cellular damage to the liver and brain, and under a certain age that damage is multiplied by the fact that those organs are still forming.  this would only apply if they are drinking excessively.  a 0 year old having an occasional beer is not going to cause developmental damage.  its a duty incumbent upon everyone in society to disobey stupid laws.  civil disobedience of this type has been hugely important in our history and will continue to be in the future.  in florida its illegal to shower naked, should people not shower naked because it is illegal ? many laws have a moralistic basis and even if they do not that does not mean the implied protection is actually real.  in the case of substances restricting their use does not reduce their use, if you want people to use drugs less then you do not make them illegal in the first place which reduces the incentives to try them.  portugal has had great success in this regard with drugs, they decriminalized them all and went from one of the highest rates of addition in the world to one of the lowest; kids are no longer interested in trying them.  in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  austria, belgium, bosnia, germany, georgia, haiti, italy, liechtenstein, luxembourg, macau, malasia, netherlands, sudan, switzerland   tokelau all have a drinking age of 0.  albania, angola, armenia, cambodia, comoros, cuba, equatorial guinea, ghana, guinea bissau, jamaica, macedonia, montenegro, morocco, norway, romania, swaziland, togo, uruguay   vietnam have no minimum drinking age.  also in the us the federal restriction is on sale not consumption.  only 0 states restrict consumption with the remainder allowing consumption with family or in a private setting see this URL map , in the majority of the country it is not illegal to give your child alcohol.  people confuse the restriction on sale with the restriction on consumption, just because its illegal for a child to purchase alcohol does not mean its illegal for them to consume it.   #  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.   # in my op i reference 0 year olds drinking. that is someone with much less maturity and decision making skills than someone who is 0 years and 0 days old.  i understood  underage  to mean  under the legal drinking age .  you did reference a 0 year old, but i took this as just an example.  i think the op and title may be a bit unclear if you are only intending to talk about people several years under the legal drinking age.  what time was the child actually delivered. do we count the  birthday  as when the head came out, or when the feet came out, or the due date, or 0 weeks from conception.  but that is also not really what we are talking about here.  this was my point about arbitraryness the fact that the law imposes a specific cutoff point means that there is not a meaningful difference between somebody on either side of the cutoff.  so arguments based on physiological things like development/damage to the body cannot really be consistent unless you believe that it is also immoral to give them a drink  after  they are of legal age .  once the arbitraryness of the exact cutoff age renders health based arguments moot, the only reason to honour the exact cutoff age is the desire to comply with the law.  i do not think i am going to change your mind about this aspect.   #  0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.   #  who said 0 ? you are pitching stupidly low numbers around to undermine an argument.  that is a low form of discussion.  there is an appropriate age to start learning about alcohol and its effect, of course, but it is certainly not 0 years old.  that is just  laughable .  i would say 0 or 0 years old is a good time to teach them to drink responsibly.  it is around the time my parent is started giving me wine with diner and i intend to do the same with my own offspring.  it made me a responsible and knowledgable drinker.  i also believe it contributes to the relative absence of  binge drinking culture  in my country.  it is was also legal for me to drink at 0, do you feel i was particularly biologically different from an american child ? 0, i learned to drive in our street at 0 under adult supervision.  by that time i was pretty tall and able to reach the pedals, they felt it was appropriate to show me in case i ever needed to operate a vehicle.  to the best of my knowledge, i never got an actual learner is permit.
oftentimes we hear rapists go to jail and get raped in jail, and some people are happy about the  added punishment  and others are highly upset by the continuation of violence and condemn those happy about the added punishment as wrong.  i personally believe that jail does not punish a rapist like it does someone who drives drunk or thief, where a drunk driver loses their ability to drive, and a thief has to repay the damages, the rapist gets to keep the experience and feeling of power, they get to relive the crime and revel in his success.  in my mind, the rapist is not punished like the other criminals, as he can continue to live with the spoils of his crime.  rape, however causes the raped to feel a loss of power.  rapists traditionally get very low sentences compared to other crimes, and oftentimes rape again as soon as they have the chance.  now i am not advocating rape as a punishment legally, as it would be far too complicated and messy to ever attempt.  but morally, i ca not say i think the actions of the other criminals who bring about this vigilante justice as morally reprehensible.  they are in the mind of a criminal, they know how they tick.  this kind of behavior might be triggered by the rapists gloating or reliving their crime, or other unacceptable actions.  i do not think that, morally, criminal vigilante rape in prison against a rapist is morally reprehensible, and neither are the individuals who appreciate this behavior.   #  in my mind, the rapist is not punished like the other criminals, as he can continue to live with the spoils of his crime.   #  does that mean a murderer who does not get executed also gets to live with the spoils of his crime ?  # does that mean a murderer who does not get executed also gets to live with the spoils of his crime ? why is rape special in this way ? should arsonists have their property burned down ? can financial restitution really make up for losing your home and property ? your lines of distinction seem completely arbitrary.  beyond that, everyone receives the same punishment; years of confinement in prison.  but morally, i ca not say i think the actions of the other criminals who bring about this vigilante justice as morally reprehensible.  they are in the mind of a criminal, they know how they tick.  this kind of behavior might be triggered by the rapists gloating or reliving their crime, or other unacceptable actions.  so how does this cycle end ? after prisoners who are not rapists rape the rapists, they have become rapists.  are they too supposed to be punished with rape ? where does this cycle end ?  #  if someone runs my kid over, i get to run over their kid, etc.   #  then it seems you think that the point of our justice system is for someone is vengeance.  if that is the case, then it seems if someone kills a person in my family, i should be personally allowed to kill them.  if someone runs my kid over, i get to run over their kid, etc.  is this the kind of world you want to live in ? do you find these things to be acceptable ?  #  i am more curious about how you came to the conclusion that rehabilitation is impossible for murderers.   #  prison is clearly intended to be a way to manage, rehabilitate and deter criminals.  it is not very useful in all those aspects, but that is another story.  i am more curious about how you came to the conclusion that rehabilitation is impossible for murderers.  capital punishment is rare after all.  as for who carries out the sentence, it makes sense to cut off relatives of the victim out of the process.  vengeance is not justice, and justice is not supposed to be retribution.  letting the father push the button would make what is arguably, i agree justice just another murder.  the state prosecutes, the states condemn, the state carries out the sentence.  it is the same reason why the father does not get to choose the sentence.   #  i do not think it is morally correct for anybody to be raped.   #  i do not think it is morally correct for anybody to be raped.  how about this: i abhor rape.  i really do.  however, as a general term, i think child rape is more harmful and more abhorrent than adult rape.  i am not saying adult rape is okay, but that then consequences to that child and society is significantly more, and it takes a lot more to recover from it.  just because there are shades of gray within rape does not mean any are okay, or that some are  allowable  it just means that some are more bad than others.  rape of prisoners, especially those who are not wrongfully incarcerated and especially those guilty of rape themselves, is the least abhorrent.   #  a rapist can full and well leave prison thinking that next time he will simply manipulate or kill his victims rather than being rehabilitated or removed from society.   #  prison removes those solutions though.  someone who has driving road rage and runs over a kid cannot drive in prison, and potentially can have his license revoked.  if someone murders your family for treasure, the do not get that treasure.  people that kill for the sake of killing typically are deemed a threat to society and are removed from it.  they do not get parole and often have capital punishment.  rapists are not held to the same standard.  rapists retain the  spoils  of their crime, and leave their victims shells of their former selves.  there is no payment of rapists to help with the mental health of the victim, no education on the rapists part of the victim is suffering, or anything like that.  a rapist can full and well leave prison thinking that next time he will simply manipulate or kill his victims rather than being rehabilitated or removed from society.
oftentimes we hear rapists go to jail and get raped in jail, and some people are happy about the  added punishment  and others are highly upset by the continuation of violence and condemn those happy about the added punishment as wrong.  i personally believe that jail does not punish a rapist like it does someone who drives drunk or thief, where a drunk driver loses their ability to drive, and a thief has to repay the damages, the rapist gets to keep the experience and feeling of power, they get to relive the crime and revel in his success.  in my mind, the rapist is not punished like the other criminals, as he can continue to live with the spoils of his crime.  rape, however causes the raped to feel a loss of power.  rapists traditionally get very low sentences compared to other crimes, and oftentimes rape again as soon as they have the chance.  now i am not advocating rape as a punishment legally, as it would be far too complicated and messy to ever attempt.  but morally, i ca not say i think the actions of the other criminals who bring about this vigilante justice as morally reprehensible.  they are in the mind of a criminal, they know how they tick.  this kind of behavior might be triggered by the rapists gloating or reliving their crime, or other unacceptable actions.  i do not think that, morally, criminal vigilante rape in prison against a rapist is morally reprehensible, and neither are the individuals who appreciate this behavior.   #  now i am not advocating rape as a punishment legally, as it would be far too complicated and messy to ever attempt.   #  but morally, i ca not say i think the actions of the other criminals who bring about this vigilante justice as morally reprehensible.   # does that mean a murderer who does not get executed also gets to live with the spoils of his crime ? why is rape special in this way ? should arsonists have their property burned down ? can financial restitution really make up for losing your home and property ? your lines of distinction seem completely arbitrary.  beyond that, everyone receives the same punishment; years of confinement in prison.  but morally, i ca not say i think the actions of the other criminals who bring about this vigilante justice as morally reprehensible.  they are in the mind of a criminal, they know how they tick.  this kind of behavior might be triggered by the rapists gloating or reliving their crime, or other unacceptable actions.  so how does this cycle end ? after prisoners who are not rapists rape the rapists, they have become rapists.  are they too supposed to be punished with rape ? where does this cycle end ?  #  do you find these things to be acceptable ?  #  then it seems you think that the point of our justice system is for someone is vengeance.  if that is the case, then it seems if someone kills a person in my family, i should be personally allowed to kill them.  if someone runs my kid over, i get to run over their kid, etc.  is this the kind of world you want to live in ? do you find these things to be acceptable ?  #  letting the father push the button would make what is arguably, i agree justice just another murder.   #  prison is clearly intended to be a way to manage, rehabilitate and deter criminals.  it is not very useful in all those aspects, but that is another story.  i am more curious about how you came to the conclusion that rehabilitation is impossible for murderers.  capital punishment is rare after all.  as for who carries out the sentence, it makes sense to cut off relatives of the victim out of the process.  vengeance is not justice, and justice is not supposed to be retribution.  letting the father push the button would make what is arguably, i agree justice just another murder.  the state prosecutes, the states condemn, the state carries out the sentence.  it is the same reason why the father does not get to choose the sentence.   #  i am not saying adult rape is okay, but that then consequences to that child and society is significantly more, and it takes a lot more to recover from it.   #  i do not think it is morally correct for anybody to be raped.  how about this: i abhor rape.  i really do.  however, as a general term, i think child rape is more harmful and more abhorrent than adult rape.  i am not saying adult rape is okay, but that then consequences to that child and society is significantly more, and it takes a lot more to recover from it.  just because there are shades of gray within rape does not mean any are okay, or that some are  allowable  it just means that some are more bad than others.  rape of prisoners, especially those who are not wrongfully incarcerated and especially those guilty of rape themselves, is the least abhorrent.   #  rapists are not held to the same standard.   #  prison removes those solutions though.  someone who has driving road rage and runs over a kid cannot drive in prison, and potentially can have his license revoked.  if someone murders your family for treasure, the do not get that treasure.  people that kill for the sake of killing typically are deemed a threat to society and are removed from it.  they do not get parole and often have capital punishment.  rapists are not held to the same standard.  rapists retain the  spoils  of their crime, and leave their victims shells of their former selves.  there is no payment of rapists to help with the mental health of the victim, no education on the rapists part of the victim is suffering, or anything like that.  a rapist can full and well leave prison thinking that next time he will simply manipulate or kill his victims rather than being rehabilitated or removed from society.
i want to preface this by saying i do not think there is one  right  way to interpret anything, and that what you draw from a book before you have a chance to do research or have discussions is beautiful and valuable.  i just think that dismissing the intentions and backgrounds of the creator, or even saying they are just one more interpretation, goes too far.  in a discussion about a book, details about the author is other work, their background, or their stated opinions should color the reading of the book, and perhaps change the interpretation that the reader had before they gained this knowledge.  as an example, i have been reading pervocracy is review of fifty shades of grey URL the blog is author, who is a sub in the s m scene, points out a lot of ways in which the relationship in the book is abusive.  i think this is a good example of where author is intention makes a difference in talking about a book.  if e. l.  james meant to write a book illustrating how consuming a abusive relationship can be, then that should lead to a different conversation than if she intended to write a steamy romance that shows a perfectly healthy in her opinion relationship that just includes some kink.  her intention makes the difference between  this is about how a victim does not know they are being victimized  versus  this is about how people confuse kink and abuse .  of course, i have not read fifty shades, and i am not suggesting anyone thinks it is  high literature , but this is the example that came to mind.  maybe the blog is author is reading too much into the book, but the passages they pull from it are pretty damning.  maybe a different blog would pull more healthy details from the book, but in either case i believe that what the author was thinking about when writing it should be part of the discussion.  as far as i can tell, e. l.  james intended to write a titillating book, and was not trying to make a statement about how unhealthy the relationship is.  over all, i believe the author is not just  another reader .  the rest of the world can discuss whether they accomplished their goal effectively, or whether their are passages from the work that belie their stated intentions, but dismissing or minimizing their interpretation of their own work seems very short sited and slightly petty.   #  in a discussion about a book, details about the author is other work, their background, or their stated opinions should color the reading of the book, and perhaps change the interpretation that the reader had before they gained this knowledge.   #  i think that is a very cogent point, it adds a dimension to the analysis of any piece.   # i do not think op is trying to argue that although maybe they are, correct me if i am wrong .  i think op is getting more toward the fact that an approach to literary analysis which does not included a contextualizing of the author at the time they wrote the work is not a complete analysis.  i think that is a very cogent point, it adds a dimension to the analysis of any piece.  examining the relationship between the author and their work can help suss out some interesting insights into how the author envisioned the who story should come together.  now i would say that the author has no more authority in their interpretation of their work than you or i do, but it is probably a more engaging exercise to examine the work in light of the context of the author is life than in the context of any other audience members life.  i think there is going to be a general consensus in here i admit i have not read all the replies that the word  should  has no place in this discussion, there is not a write or wrong way to think approach a work.  but i think to give a work proper treatment you are going to want to know some basic things about the author, are they a man or a women ? where did they grow up ? do they have academic works that shine some light on the way they think ? those answers can only lead to more compelling analysis.  when an author suggests their own interpretation, they are giving you the far end of the discussion up front, and the gap between their analysis, and the work you read, is the author is life.  this whole branch of discussion is an important facet of how we think about a work.   #  sure, you can bring their intention into the conversation, and evaluate their intentions in light of the outcome, but that is a separate evaluation; the events of history can be judged for themselves.   #  i see what you are saying, but there is a proper sense in which the author is intentions do not matter.  this is because what is,  is  despite what the creator/author/artist/causer originally intended.  communist ussr, or the chinese cultural revolution, for example, can be judged on what actually happened and the  intentions  of marx, lenin, stalin and mao etc do not affect that evaluation.  sure, you can bring their intention into the conversation, and evaluate their intentions in light of the outcome, but that is a separate evaluation; the events of history can be judged for themselves.  it does not matter if michelangelo carved out david with some private pornographic intention, or if he hacked it out just for the money, or if he wanted to reveal the glory of god the statue is what it is and it is aesthetic qualities speak for themselves.  yes, bringing the creator is intentions to light can enrich our appreciation but we should not allow it to change our esthetical evaluation of the final creation itself, as based on it is own merits.   #  in this case, the author is intent is that one part of the book is depressing, but the depression was overcome later.   # if the author modifies it and releases an entirely different copy of the work, i count it as two works.  the first version has one intent, and the second version has a different intent.  if they simply say they changed their mind about what it means, without changing the work itself, i would say it is most important to keep in mind both.  for example, the author may have been depressed while writing one part, but cheerful when writing, for example, the ending.  in this case, the author is intent is that one part of the book is depressing, but the depression was overcome later.  as someone who writes fiction myself though none really published , i can understand disagreeing with your past self, but i would never change how i interpret the intentions i had when writing something.  i might no longer agree with my intentions, but that just means i write something new to reflect my new intentions.   #  things are going back in a very healthy direction.   # are you sure about that ? ray bradbury has changed his mind about his intentions when writing  fahrenheit 0  at least three times.  he currently claims that the book has nothing whatsoever to say about censorship and that it was actually about the evils of television.  but shortly after the book was published, he said this:  i wrote this book at a time when i was worried about the way things were going in this country four years ago.  too many people were afraid of their shadows; there was a threat of book burning.  many of the books were being taken off the shelves at that time.  and of course, things have changed a lot in four years.  things are going back in a very healthy direction.  but at the time i wanted to do some sort of story where i could comment on what would happen to a country if we let ourselves go too far in this direction, where then all thinking stops, and the dragon swallows his tail, and we sort of vanish into a limbo and we destroy ourselves by this sort of action.  then, a few years later, he continues to talk about censorship but starts to throw in the threat of television.  now, today, he claims that censorship was never a motivating factor when writing the novel.  authorial intent is essentially meaningless unless you are engaging in a specific type of critique one meant to allow for insight into the author him or herself.  otherwise, it is not useful to care about what the author  meant  to write.  one can only critique what is actually on the page.  upton sinclair was trying to convert everyone to socialism when he wrote  the jungle .  instead we got the fda.  bradbury apparently hated tv and was worried about the general population falling into a mass media induced coma.  one that he blames on the populace, by the way, and not the big bad dystopian future government.  he did not do a great job of communicating this, apparently, since most of the critical work done on this novel focuses on the censorship angle.  discovering bradbury is intent is almost disappointing because he is essentially admitting that his greatest literary work was something of a failure.   #  just through the length of your sentences alone, and the way some words are repeated or chosen, you are able to dictate a story is pace and mood.   #  understanding the good and tasteful use of symbolism, analogies, meter, pacing and so on are all part of what makes a writer a good writer.  it is one thing to be able to write in a  see spot run.  run, spot, run !   manner, and another thing altogether to write:  spot cocked his head quizzically.  there was a ball in front of him, he knew.  he also knew what he normally did when a ball was put in front of him: he ran.  he chased the ball, and tried to bite it, and fetched it, and did all the other things that came naturally to him.  but not today.  today, spot did not feel like running.  just through the length of your sentences alone, and the way some words are repeated or chosen, you are able to dictate a story is pace and mood.  shorter sentences are terse and either exciting or despondent.  longer sentences, full of commas, roll on like endless grassy fields in the summer is heat, evoking a sense of wonder or beauty.  and so on.  and this is just one instance of a literary device ! a good writer is director, actor, script writer and cameraman rolled into one.  he chooses how a scene is framed, sets the background, emotes through his characters, and sets the direction of the plot through careful choice of certain stylistic elements.  understanding how these literary devices are used by good writers is the first step towards becoming a good writer yourself.
i want to preface this by saying i do not think there is one  right  way to interpret anything, and that what you draw from a book before you have a chance to do research or have discussions is beautiful and valuable.  i just think that dismissing the intentions and backgrounds of the creator, or even saying they are just one more interpretation, goes too far.  in a discussion about a book, details about the author is other work, their background, or their stated opinions should color the reading of the book, and perhaps change the interpretation that the reader had before they gained this knowledge.  as an example, i have been reading pervocracy is review of fifty shades of grey URL the blog is author, who is a sub in the s m scene, points out a lot of ways in which the relationship in the book is abusive.  i think this is a good example of where author is intention makes a difference in talking about a book.  if e. l.  james meant to write a book illustrating how consuming a abusive relationship can be, then that should lead to a different conversation than if she intended to write a steamy romance that shows a perfectly healthy in her opinion relationship that just includes some kink.  her intention makes the difference between  this is about how a victim does not know they are being victimized  versus  this is about how people confuse kink and abuse .  of course, i have not read fifty shades, and i am not suggesting anyone thinks it is  high literature , but this is the example that came to mind.  maybe the blog is author is reading too much into the book, but the passages they pull from it are pretty damning.  maybe a different blog would pull more healthy details from the book, but in either case i believe that what the author was thinking about when writing it should be part of the discussion.  as far as i can tell, e. l.  james intended to write a titillating book, and was not trying to make a statement about how unhealthy the relationship is.  over all, i believe the author is not just  another reader .  the rest of the world can discuss whether they accomplished their goal effectively, or whether their are passages from the work that belie their stated intentions, but dismissing or minimizing their interpretation of their own work seems very short sited and slightly petty.   #  in a discussion about a book, details about the author is other work, their background, or their stated opinions should color the reading of the book, and perhaps change the interpretation that the reader had before they gained this knowledge.   #  there are two kinds of discussions about a book.   #  i do not see any explanation as to  why  you hold this view, just  what  the view is.  you repeat your title in different words no less than five times, but i see no reasoning as to why you believe what you do.  why ? there are two kinds of discussions about a book.  one deals in what the book  is , the other in whether the author succeeded in their intent or some other meta discussion .  the second is not really about the book, but rather the author, or the audience.  the author is intent has nothing to do with the first any more than the intent of a mathematician has to do with a proof once it is been written.  james meant to write a book illustrating how consuming a abusive relationship can be, then that should lead to a different conversation than if she intended to write a steamy romance that shows a perfectly healthy in her opinion relationship that just includes some kink.  again, why ? i can think of no reason why it does.   #  communist ussr, or the chinese cultural revolution, for example, can be judged on what actually happened and the  intentions  of marx, lenin, stalin and mao etc do not affect that evaluation.   #  i see what you are saying, but there is a proper sense in which the author is intentions do not matter.  this is because what is,  is  despite what the creator/author/artist/causer originally intended.  communist ussr, or the chinese cultural revolution, for example, can be judged on what actually happened and the  intentions  of marx, lenin, stalin and mao etc do not affect that evaluation.  sure, you can bring their intention into the conversation, and evaluate their intentions in light of the outcome, but that is a separate evaluation; the events of history can be judged for themselves.  it does not matter if michelangelo carved out david with some private pornographic intention, or if he hacked it out just for the money, or if he wanted to reveal the glory of god the statue is what it is and it is aesthetic qualities speak for themselves.  yes, bringing the creator is intentions to light can enrich our appreciation but we should not allow it to change our esthetical evaluation of the final creation itself, as based on it is own merits.   #  i might no longer agree with my intentions, but that just means i write something new to reflect my new intentions.   # if the author modifies it and releases an entirely different copy of the work, i count it as two works.  the first version has one intent, and the second version has a different intent.  if they simply say they changed their mind about what it means, without changing the work itself, i would say it is most important to keep in mind both.  for example, the author may have been depressed while writing one part, but cheerful when writing, for example, the ending.  in this case, the author is intent is that one part of the book is depressing, but the depression was overcome later.  as someone who writes fiction myself though none really published , i can understand disagreeing with your past self, but i would never change how i interpret the intentions i had when writing something.  i might no longer agree with my intentions, but that just means i write something new to reflect my new intentions.   #  one that he blames on the populace, by the way, and not the big bad dystopian future government.   # are you sure about that ? ray bradbury has changed his mind about his intentions when writing  fahrenheit 0  at least three times.  he currently claims that the book has nothing whatsoever to say about censorship and that it was actually about the evils of television.  but shortly after the book was published, he said this:  i wrote this book at a time when i was worried about the way things were going in this country four years ago.  too many people were afraid of their shadows; there was a threat of book burning.  many of the books were being taken off the shelves at that time.  and of course, things have changed a lot in four years.  things are going back in a very healthy direction.  but at the time i wanted to do some sort of story where i could comment on what would happen to a country if we let ourselves go too far in this direction, where then all thinking stops, and the dragon swallows his tail, and we sort of vanish into a limbo and we destroy ourselves by this sort of action.  then, a few years later, he continues to talk about censorship but starts to throw in the threat of television.  now, today, he claims that censorship was never a motivating factor when writing the novel.  authorial intent is essentially meaningless unless you are engaging in a specific type of critique one meant to allow for insight into the author him or herself.  otherwise, it is not useful to care about what the author  meant  to write.  one can only critique what is actually on the page.  upton sinclair was trying to convert everyone to socialism when he wrote  the jungle .  instead we got the fda.  bradbury apparently hated tv and was worried about the general population falling into a mass media induced coma.  one that he blames on the populace, by the way, and not the big bad dystopian future government.  he did not do a great job of communicating this, apparently, since most of the critical work done on this novel focuses on the censorship angle.  discovering bradbury is intent is almost disappointing because he is essentially admitting that his greatest literary work was something of a failure.   #  it is one thing to be able to write in a  see spot run.   #  understanding the good and tasteful use of symbolism, analogies, meter, pacing and so on are all part of what makes a writer a good writer.  it is one thing to be able to write in a  see spot run.  run, spot, run !   manner, and another thing altogether to write:  spot cocked his head quizzically.  there was a ball in front of him, he knew.  he also knew what he normally did when a ball was put in front of him: he ran.  he chased the ball, and tried to bite it, and fetched it, and did all the other things that came naturally to him.  but not today.  today, spot did not feel like running.  just through the length of your sentences alone, and the way some words are repeated or chosen, you are able to dictate a story is pace and mood.  shorter sentences are terse and either exciting or despondent.  longer sentences, full of commas, roll on like endless grassy fields in the summer is heat, evoking a sense of wonder or beauty.  and so on.  and this is just one instance of a literary device ! a good writer is director, actor, script writer and cameraman rolled into one.  he chooses how a scene is framed, sets the background, emotes through his characters, and sets the direction of the plot through careful choice of certain stylistic elements.  understanding how these literary devices are used by good writers is the first step towards becoming a good writer yourself.
i want to preface this by saying i do not think there is one  right  way to interpret anything, and that what you draw from a book before you have a chance to do research or have discussions is beautiful and valuable.  i just think that dismissing the intentions and backgrounds of the creator, or even saying they are just one more interpretation, goes too far.  in a discussion about a book, details about the author is other work, their background, or their stated opinions should color the reading of the book, and perhaps change the interpretation that the reader had before they gained this knowledge.  as an example, i have been reading pervocracy is review of fifty shades of grey URL the blog is author, who is a sub in the s m scene, points out a lot of ways in which the relationship in the book is abusive.  i think this is a good example of where author is intention makes a difference in talking about a book.  if e. l.  james meant to write a book illustrating how consuming a abusive relationship can be, then that should lead to a different conversation than if she intended to write a steamy romance that shows a perfectly healthy in her opinion relationship that just includes some kink.  her intention makes the difference between  this is about how a victim does not know they are being victimized  versus  this is about how people confuse kink and abuse .  of course, i have not read fifty shades, and i am not suggesting anyone thinks it is  high literature , but this is the example that came to mind.  maybe the blog is author is reading too much into the book, but the passages they pull from it are pretty damning.  maybe a different blog would pull more healthy details from the book, but in either case i believe that what the author was thinking about when writing it should be part of the discussion.  as far as i can tell, e. l.  james intended to write a titillating book, and was not trying to make a statement about how unhealthy the relationship is.  over all, i believe the author is not just  another reader .  the rest of the world can discuss whether they accomplished their goal effectively, or whether their are passages from the work that belie their stated intentions, but dismissing or minimizing their interpretation of their own work seems very short sited and slightly petty.   #  her intention makes the difference between  this is about how a victim does not know they are being victimized  versus  this is about how people confuse kink and abuse .   #  i can think of no reason why it does.   #  i do not see any explanation as to  why  you hold this view, just  what  the view is.  you repeat your title in different words no less than five times, but i see no reasoning as to why you believe what you do.  why ? there are two kinds of discussions about a book.  one deals in what the book  is , the other in whether the author succeeded in their intent or some other meta discussion .  the second is not really about the book, but rather the author, or the audience.  the author is intent has nothing to do with the first any more than the intent of a mathematician has to do with a proof once it is been written.  james meant to write a book illustrating how consuming a abusive relationship can be, then that should lead to a different conversation than if she intended to write a steamy romance that shows a perfectly healthy in her opinion relationship that just includes some kink.  again, why ? i can think of no reason why it does.   #  this is because what is,  is  despite what the creator/author/artist/causer originally intended.   #  i see what you are saying, but there is a proper sense in which the author is intentions do not matter.  this is because what is,  is  despite what the creator/author/artist/causer originally intended.  communist ussr, or the chinese cultural revolution, for example, can be judged on what actually happened and the  intentions  of marx, lenin, stalin and mao etc do not affect that evaluation.  sure, you can bring their intention into the conversation, and evaluate their intentions in light of the outcome, but that is a separate evaluation; the events of history can be judged for themselves.  it does not matter if michelangelo carved out david with some private pornographic intention, or if he hacked it out just for the money, or if he wanted to reveal the glory of god the statue is what it is and it is aesthetic qualities speak for themselves.  yes, bringing the creator is intentions to light can enrich our appreciation but we should not allow it to change our esthetical evaluation of the final creation itself, as based on it is own merits.   #  for example, the author may have been depressed while writing one part, but cheerful when writing, for example, the ending.   # if the author modifies it and releases an entirely different copy of the work, i count it as two works.  the first version has one intent, and the second version has a different intent.  if they simply say they changed their mind about what it means, without changing the work itself, i would say it is most important to keep in mind both.  for example, the author may have been depressed while writing one part, but cheerful when writing, for example, the ending.  in this case, the author is intent is that one part of the book is depressing, but the depression was overcome later.  as someone who writes fiction myself though none really published , i can understand disagreeing with your past self, but i would never change how i interpret the intentions i had when writing something.  i might no longer agree with my intentions, but that just means i write something new to reflect my new intentions.   #  too many people were afraid of their shadows; there was a threat of book burning.   # are you sure about that ? ray bradbury has changed his mind about his intentions when writing  fahrenheit 0  at least three times.  he currently claims that the book has nothing whatsoever to say about censorship and that it was actually about the evils of television.  but shortly after the book was published, he said this:  i wrote this book at a time when i was worried about the way things were going in this country four years ago.  too many people were afraid of their shadows; there was a threat of book burning.  many of the books were being taken off the shelves at that time.  and of course, things have changed a lot in four years.  things are going back in a very healthy direction.  but at the time i wanted to do some sort of story where i could comment on what would happen to a country if we let ourselves go too far in this direction, where then all thinking stops, and the dragon swallows his tail, and we sort of vanish into a limbo and we destroy ourselves by this sort of action.  then, a few years later, he continues to talk about censorship but starts to throw in the threat of television.  now, today, he claims that censorship was never a motivating factor when writing the novel.  authorial intent is essentially meaningless unless you are engaging in a specific type of critique one meant to allow for insight into the author him or herself.  otherwise, it is not useful to care about what the author  meant  to write.  one can only critique what is actually on the page.  upton sinclair was trying to convert everyone to socialism when he wrote  the jungle .  instead we got the fda.  bradbury apparently hated tv and was worried about the general population falling into a mass media induced coma.  one that he blames on the populace, by the way, and not the big bad dystopian future government.  he did not do a great job of communicating this, apparently, since most of the critical work done on this novel focuses on the censorship angle.  discovering bradbury is intent is almost disappointing because he is essentially admitting that his greatest literary work was something of a failure.   #  he chased the ball, and tried to bite it, and fetched it, and did all the other things that came naturally to him.   #  understanding the good and tasteful use of symbolism, analogies, meter, pacing and so on are all part of what makes a writer a good writer.  it is one thing to be able to write in a  see spot run.  run, spot, run !   manner, and another thing altogether to write:  spot cocked his head quizzically.  there was a ball in front of him, he knew.  he also knew what he normally did when a ball was put in front of him: he ran.  he chased the ball, and tried to bite it, and fetched it, and did all the other things that came naturally to him.  but not today.  today, spot did not feel like running.  just through the length of your sentences alone, and the way some words are repeated or chosen, you are able to dictate a story is pace and mood.  shorter sentences are terse and either exciting or despondent.  longer sentences, full of commas, roll on like endless grassy fields in the summer is heat, evoking a sense of wonder or beauty.  and so on.  and this is just one instance of a literary device ! a good writer is director, actor, script writer and cameraman rolled into one.  he chooses how a scene is framed, sets the background, emotes through his characters, and sets the direction of the plot through careful choice of certain stylistic elements.  understanding how these literary devices are used by good writers is the first step towards becoming a good writer yourself.
i want to preface this by saying i do not think there is one  right  way to interpret anything, and that what you draw from a book before you have a chance to do research or have discussions is beautiful and valuable.  i just think that dismissing the intentions and backgrounds of the creator, or even saying they are just one more interpretation, goes too far.  in a discussion about a book, details about the author is other work, their background, or their stated opinions should color the reading of the book, and perhaps change the interpretation that the reader had before they gained this knowledge.  as an example, i have been reading pervocracy is review of fifty shades of grey URL the blog is author, who is a sub in the s m scene, points out a lot of ways in which the relationship in the book is abusive.  i think this is a good example of where author is intention makes a difference in talking about a book.  if e. l.  james meant to write a book illustrating how consuming a abusive relationship can be, then that should lead to a different conversation than if she intended to write a steamy romance that shows a perfectly healthy in her opinion relationship that just includes some kink.  her intention makes the difference between  this is about how a victim does not know they are being victimized  versus  this is about how people confuse kink and abuse .  of course, i have not read fifty shades, and i am not suggesting anyone thinks it is  high literature , but this is the example that came to mind.  maybe the blog is author is reading too much into the book, but the passages they pull from it are pretty damning.  maybe a different blog would pull more healthy details from the book, but in either case i believe that what the author was thinking about when writing it should be part of the discussion.  as far as i can tell, e. l.  james intended to write a titillating book, and was not trying to make a statement about how unhealthy the relationship is.  over all, i believe the author is not just  another reader .  the rest of the world can discuss whether they accomplished their goal effectively, or whether their are passages from the work that belie their stated intentions, but dismissing or minimizing their interpretation of their own work seems very short sited and slightly petty.   #  i believe that what the author was thinking about when writing it should be part of the discussion.   #  intent is certainly worth discussing, but it should be the intent of the work and not the author is.   # intent is certainly worth discussing, but it should be the intent of the work and not the author is.  authors try their best to convey their intent in all its complexity , but there are a lot of words in a book, and they will inevitably convey something more than what they thought about.  it can be interesting to hear what an author thought was important, but their intent might only serve to taint your reading of their work.  say 0 shades of grey is, to the author, simply about hot sex.  the author comes out and says,  i thought it would get women wet.   and you are like, shit, i thought it was about way more than that.  you think that because, like a good reader, you were thinking about what the intent of a piece was.  but now, with the author is crass words floating through your head, you are missing all the beautiful accidents in the prose.  i have not read 0 shades either.  an author is intent can be interesting, but you ca not let it control your view of a work.  the most beautiful thing about literature is that you do not have to know why it was written for it to be meaningful, impactful, big, awe inspiring, or even life altering.  ultimately, that is the goal of a writer, to put something out there that they do not have to stand behind anymore.  it can live on its own, without their name, without their stated intentions.  why do you think the children of big authors often start out with a pen name ? read between the lines.  talk about intent.  just alter your verbiage from  i think what the author was going for here was.   to  i think what the language suggests here is.   key thing to note: the proper way to refer to the words in a story is in the present tense, because the words are still being  spoken.   talking about authorial intent necessitates past tense .  valid, maybe, but there are so many other, more comprehensive ways to discuss the merit of a piece.   #  communist ussr, or the chinese cultural revolution, for example, can be judged on what actually happened and the  intentions  of marx, lenin, stalin and mao etc do not affect that evaluation.   #  i see what you are saying, but there is a proper sense in which the author is intentions do not matter.  this is because what is,  is  despite what the creator/author/artist/causer originally intended.  communist ussr, or the chinese cultural revolution, for example, can be judged on what actually happened and the  intentions  of marx, lenin, stalin and mao etc do not affect that evaluation.  sure, you can bring their intention into the conversation, and evaluate their intentions in light of the outcome, but that is a separate evaluation; the events of history can be judged for themselves.  it does not matter if michelangelo carved out david with some private pornographic intention, or if he hacked it out just for the money, or if he wanted to reveal the glory of god the statue is what it is and it is aesthetic qualities speak for themselves.  yes, bringing the creator is intentions to light can enrich our appreciation but we should not allow it to change our esthetical evaluation of the final creation itself, as based on it is own merits.   #  if they simply say they changed their mind about what it means, without changing the work itself, i would say it is most important to keep in mind both.   # if the author modifies it and releases an entirely different copy of the work, i count it as two works.  the first version has one intent, and the second version has a different intent.  if they simply say they changed their mind about what it means, without changing the work itself, i would say it is most important to keep in mind both.  for example, the author may have been depressed while writing one part, but cheerful when writing, for example, the ending.  in this case, the author is intent is that one part of the book is depressing, but the depression was overcome later.  as someone who writes fiction myself though none really published , i can understand disagreeing with your past self, but i would never change how i interpret the intentions i had when writing something.  i might no longer agree with my intentions, but that just means i write something new to reflect my new intentions.   #  one that he blames on the populace, by the way, and not the big bad dystopian future government.   # are you sure about that ? ray bradbury has changed his mind about his intentions when writing  fahrenheit 0  at least three times.  he currently claims that the book has nothing whatsoever to say about censorship and that it was actually about the evils of television.  but shortly after the book was published, he said this:  i wrote this book at a time when i was worried about the way things were going in this country four years ago.  too many people were afraid of their shadows; there was a threat of book burning.  many of the books were being taken off the shelves at that time.  and of course, things have changed a lot in four years.  things are going back in a very healthy direction.  but at the time i wanted to do some sort of story where i could comment on what would happen to a country if we let ourselves go too far in this direction, where then all thinking stops, and the dragon swallows his tail, and we sort of vanish into a limbo and we destroy ourselves by this sort of action.  then, a few years later, he continues to talk about censorship but starts to throw in the threat of television.  now, today, he claims that censorship was never a motivating factor when writing the novel.  authorial intent is essentially meaningless unless you are engaging in a specific type of critique one meant to allow for insight into the author him or herself.  otherwise, it is not useful to care about what the author  meant  to write.  one can only critique what is actually on the page.  upton sinclair was trying to convert everyone to socialism when he wrote  the jungle .  instead we got the fda.  bradbury apparently hated tv and was worried about the general population falling into a mass media induced coma.  one that he blames on the populace, by the way, and not the big bad dystopian future government.  he did not do a great job of communicating this, apparently, since most of the critical work done on this novel focuses on the censorship angle.  discovering bradbury is intent is almost disappointing because he is essentially admitting that his greatest literary work was something of a failure.   #  a good writer is director, actor, script writer and cameraman rolled into one.   #  understanding the good and tasteful use of symbolism, analogies, meter, pacing and so on are all part of what makes a writer a good writer.  it is one thing to be able to write in a  see spot run.  run, spot, run !   manner, and another thing altogether to write:  spot cocked his head quizzically.  there was a ball in front of him, he knew.  he also knew what he normally did when a ball was put in front of him: he ran.  he chased the ball, and tried to bite it, and fetched it, and did all the other things that came naturally to him.  but not today.  today, spot did not feel like running.  just through the length of your sentences alone, and the way some words are repeated or chosen, you are able to dictate a story is pace and mood.  shorter sentences are terse and either exciting or despondent.  longer sentences, full of commas, roll on like endless grassy fields in the summer is heat, evoking a sense of wonder or beauty.  and so on.  and this is just one instance of a literary device ! a good writer is director, actor, script writer and cameraman rolled into one.  he chooses how a scene is framed, sets the background, emotes through his characters, and sets the direction of the plot through careful choice of certain stylistic elements.  understanding how these literary devices are used by good writers is the first step towards becoming a good writer yourself.
i want to preface this by saying i do not think there is one  right  way to interpret anything, and that what you draw from a book before you have a chance to do research or have discussions is beautiful and valuable.  i just think that dismissing the intentions and backgrounds of the creator, or even saying they are just one more interpretation, goes too far.  in a discussion about a book, details about the author is other work, their background, or their stated opinions should color the reading of the book, and perhaps change the interpretation that the reader had before they gained this knowledge.  as an example, i have been reading pervocracy is review of fifty shades of grey URL the blog is author, who is a sub in the s m scene, points out a lot of ways in which the relationship in the book is abusive.  i think this is a good example of where author is intention makes a difference in talking about a book.  if e. l.  james meant to write a book illustrating how consuming a abusive relationship can be, then that should lead to a different conversation than if she intended to write a steamy romance that shows a perfectly healthy in her opinion relationship that just includes some kink.  her intention makes the difference between  this is about how a victim does not know they are being victimized  versus  this is about how people confuse kink and abuse .  of course, i have not read fifty shades, and i am not suggesting anyone thinks it is  high literature , but this is the example that came to mind.  maybe the blog is author is reading too much into the book, but the passages they pull from it are pretty damning.  maybe a different blog would pull more healthy details from the book, but in either case i believe that what the author was thinking about when writing it should be part of the discussion.  as far as i can tell, e. l.  james intended to write a titillating book, and was not trying to make a statement about how unhealthy the relationship is.  over all, i believe the author is not just  another reader .  the rest of the world can discuss whether they accomplished their goal effectively, or whether their are passages from the work that belie their stated intentions, but dismissing or minimizing their interpretation of their own work seems very short sited and slightly petty.   #  in a discussion about a book, details about the author is other work, their background, or their stated opinions should color the reading of the book, and perhaps change the interpretation that the reader had before they gained this knowledge.   #  what is that word  should  doing there ?  #  i saw that, but it kinda seems like you are trying to have it both ways.  do you actually feel that neither way of reading is any more correct than the other ? if so, how do you reconcile that opinion with statements like these ? what is that word  should  doing there ? if there is no one  right  way to interpret anything, how can it make any sense to tell people that they  should  interpret literature in one way rather than another ? what if i want to treat her as one when talking about her work ? if doing so allows me to have an interesting conversation, what argument can you make against reading in that way ? how so ?  #  communist ussr, or the chinese cultural revolution, for example, can be judged on what actually happened and the  intentions  of marx, lenin, stalin and mao etc do not affect that evaluation.   #  i see what you are saying, but there is a proper sense in which the author is intentions do not matter.  this is because what is,  is  despite what the creator/author/artist/causer originally intended.  communist ussr, or the chinese cultural revolution, for example, can be judged on what actually happened and the  intentions  of marx, lenin, stalin and mao etc do not affect that evaluation.  sure, you can bring their intention into the conversation, and evaluate their intentions in light of the outcome, but that is a separate evaluation; the events of history can be judged for themselves.  it does not matter if michelangelo carved out david with some private pornographic intention, or if he hacked it out just for the money, or if he wanted to reveal the glory of god the statue is what it is and it is aesthetic qualities speak for themselves.  yes, bringing the creator is intentions to light can enrich our appreciation but we should not allow it to change our esthetical evaluation of the final creation itself, as based on it is own merits.   #  the first version has one intent, and the second version has a different intent.   # if the author modifies it and releases an entirely different copy of the work, i count it as two works.  the first version has one intent, and the second version has a different intent.  if they simply say they changed their mind about what it means, without changing the work itself, i would say it is most important to keep in mind both.  for example, the author may have been depressed while writing one part, but cheerful when writing, for example, the ending.  in this case, the author is intent is that one part of the book is depressing, but the depression was overcome later.  as someone who writes fiction myself though none really published , i can understand disagreeing with your past self, but i would never change how i interpret the intentions i had when writing something.  i might no longer agree with my intentions, but that just means i write something new to reflect my new intentions.   #  he did not do a great job of communicating this, apparently, since most of the critical work done on this novel focuses on the censorship angle.   # are you sure about that ? ray bradbury has changed his mind about his intentions when writing  fahrenheit 0  at least three times.  he currently claims that the book has nothing whatsoever to say about censorship and that it was actually about the evils of television.  but shortly after the book was published, he said this:  i wrote this book at a time when i was worried about the way things were going in this country four years ago.  too many people were afraid of their shadows; there was a threat of book burning.  many of the books were being taken off the shelves at that time.  and of course, things have changed a lot in four years.  things are going back in a very healthy direction.  but at the time i wanted to do some sort of story where i could comment on what would happen to a country if we let ourselves go too far in this direction, where then all thinking stops, and the dragon swallows his tail, and we sort of vanish into a limbo and we destroy ourselves by this sort of action.  then, a few years later, he continues to talk about censorship but starts to throw in the threat of television.  now, today, he claims that censorship was never a motivating factor when writing the novel.  authorial intent is essentially meaningless unless you are engaging in a specific type of critique one meant to allow for insight into the author him or herself.  otherwise, it is not useful to care about what the author  meant  to write.  one can only critique what is actually on the page.  upton sinclair was trying to convert everyone to socialism when he wrote  the jungle .  instead we got the fda.  bradbury apparently hated tv and was worried about the general population falling into a mass media induced coma.  one that he blames on the populace, by the way, and not the big bad dystopian future government.  he did not do a great job of communicating this, apparently, since most of the critical work done on this novel focuses on the censorship angle.  discovering bradbury is intent is almost disappointing because he is essentially admitting that his greatest literary work was something of a failure.   #  he chased the ball, and tried to bite it, and fetched it, and did all the other things that came naturally to him.   #  understanding the good and tasteful use of symbolism, analogies, meter, pacing and so on are all part of what makes a writer a good writer.  it is one thing to be able to write in a  see spot run.  run, spot, run !   manner, and another thing altogether to write:  spot cocked his head quizzically.  there was a ball in front of him, he knew.  he also knew what he normally did when a ball was put in front of him: he ran.  he chased the ball, and tried to bite it, and fetched it, and did all the other things that came naturally to him.  but not today.  today, spot did not feel like running.  just through the length of your sentences alone, and the way some words are repeated or chosen, you are able to dictate a story is pace and mood.  shorter sentences are terse and either exciting or despondent.  longer sentences, full of commas, roll on like endless grassy fields in the summer is heat, evoking a sense of wonder or beauty.  and so on.  and this is just one instance of a literary device ! a good writer is director, actor, script writer and cameraman rolled into one.  he chooses how a scene is framed, sets the background, emotes through his characters, and sets the direction of the plot through careful choice of certain stylistic elements.  understanding how these literary devices are used by good writers is the first step towards becoming a good writer yourself.
i want to preface this by saying i do not think there is one  right  way to interpret anything, and that what you draw from a book before you have a chance to do research or have discussions is beautiful and valuable.  i just think that dismissing the intentions and backgrounds of the creator, or even saying they are just one more interpretation, goes too far.  in a discussion about a book, details about the author is other work, their background, or their stated opinions should color the reading of the book, and perhaps change the interpretation that the reader had before they gained this knowledge.  as an example, i have been reading pervocracy is review of fifty shades of grey URL the blog is author, who is a sub in the s m scene, points out a lot of ways in which the relationship in the book is abusive.  i think this is a good example of where author is intention makes a difference in talking about a book.  if e. l.  james meant to write a book illustrating how consuming a abusive relationship can be, then that should lead to a different conversation than if she intended to write a steamy romance that shows a perfectly healthy in her opinion relationship that just includes some kink.  her intention makes the difference between  this is about how a victim does not know they are being victimized  versus  this is about how people confuse kink and abuse .  of course, i have not read fifty shades, and i am not suggesting anyone thinks it is  high literature , but this is the example that came to mind.  maybe the blog is author is reading too much into the book, but the passages they pull from it are pretty damning.  maybe a different blog would pull more healthy details from the book, but in either case i believe that what the author was thinking about when writing it should be part of the discussion.  as far as i can tell, e. l.  james intended to write a titillating book, and was not trying to make a statement about how unhealthy the relationship is.  over all, i believe the author is not just  another reader .  the rest of the world can discuss whether they accomplished their goal effectively, or whether their are passages from the work that belie their stated intentions, but dismissing or minimizing their interpretation of their own work seems very short sited and slightly petty.   #  over all, i believe the author is not just  another reader .   #  what if i want to treat her as one when talking about her work ?  #  i saw that, but it kinda seems like you are trying to have it both ways.  do you actually feel that neither way of reading is any more correct than the other ? if so, how do you reconcile that opinion with statements like these ? what is that word  should  doing there ? if there is no one  right  way to interpret anything, how can it make any sense to tell people that they  should  interpret literature in one way rather than another ? what if i want to treat her as one when talking about her work ? if doing so allows me to have an interesting conversation, what argument can you make against reading in that way ? how so ?  #  sure, you can bring their intention into the conversation, and evaluate their intentions in light of the outcome, but that is a separate evaluation; the events of history can be judged for themselves.   #  i see what you are saying, but there is a proper sense in which the author is intentions do not matter.  this is because what is,  is  despite what the creator/author/artist/causer originally intended.  communist ussr, or the chinese cultural revolution, for example, can be judged on what actually happened and the  intentions  of marx, lenin, stalin and mao etc do not affect that evaluation.  sure, you can bring their intention into the conversation, and evaluate their intentions in light of the outcome, but that is a separate evaluation; the events of history can be judged for themselves.  it does not matter if michelangelo carved out david with some private pornographic intention, or if he hacked it out just for the money, or if he wanted to reveal the glory of god the statue is what it is and it is aesthetic qualities speak for themselves.  yes, bringing the creator is intentions to light can enrich our appreciation but we should not allow it to change our esthetical evaluation of the final creation itself, as based on it is own merits.   #  for example, the author may have been depressed while writing one part, but cheerful when writing, for example, the ending.   # if the author modifies it and releases an entirely different copy of the work, i count it as two works.  the first version has one intent, and the second version has a different intent.  if they simply say they changed their mind about what it means, without changing the work itself, i would say it is most important to keep in mind both.  for example, the author may have been depressed while writing one part, but cheerful when writing, for example, the ending.  in this case, the author is intent is that one part of the book is depressing, but the depression was overcome later.  as someone who writes fiction myself though none really published , i can understand disagreeing with your past self, but i would never change how i interpret the intentions i had when writing something.  i might no longer agree with my intentions, but that just means i write something new to reflect my new intentions.   #  discovering bradbury is intent is almost disappointing because he is essentially admitting that his greatest literary work was something of a failure.   # are you sure about that ? ray bradbury has changed his mind about his intentions when writing  fahrenheit 0  at least three times.  he currently claims that the book has nothing whatsoever to say about censorship and that it was actually about the evils of television.  but shortly after the book was published, he said this:  i wrote this book at a time when i was worried about the way things were going in this country four years ago.  too many people were afraid of their shadows; there was a threat of book burning.  many of the books were being taken off the shelves at that time.  and of course, things have changed a lot in four years.  things are going back in a very healthy direction.  but at the time i wanted to do some sort of story where i could comment on what would happen to a country if we let ourselves go too far in this direction, where then all thinking stops, and the dragon swallows his tail, and we sort of vanish into a limbo and we destroy ourselves by this sort of action.  then, a few years later, he continues to talk about censorship but starts to throw in the threat of television.  now, today, he claims that censorship was never a motivating factor when writing the novel.  authorial intent is essentially meaningless unless you are engaging in a specific type of critique one meant to allow for insight into the author him or herself.  otherwise, it is not useful to care about what the author  meant  to write.  one can only critique what is actually on the page.  upton sinclair was trying to convert everyone to socialism when he wrote  the jungle .  instead we got the fda.  bradbury apparently hated tv and was worried about the general population falling into a mass media induced coma.  one that he blames on the populace, by the way, and not the big bad dystopian future government.  he did not do a great job of communicating this, apparently, since most of the critical work done on this novel focuses on the censorship angle.  discovering bradbury is intent is almost disappointing because he is essentially admitting that his greatest literary work was something of a failure.   #  and this is just one instance of a literary device !  #  understanding the good and tasteful use of symbolism, analogies, meter, pacing and so on are all part of what makes a writer a good writer.  it is one thing to be able to write in a  see spot run.  run, spot, run !   manner, and another thing altogether to write:  spot cocked his head quizzically.  there was a ball in front of him, he knew.  he also knew what he normally did when a ball was put in front of him: he ran.  he chased the ball, and tried to bite it, and fetched it, and did all the other things that came naturally to him.  but not today.  today, spot did not feel like running.  just through the length of your sentences alone, and the way some words are repeated or chosen, you are able to dictate a story is pace and mood.  shorter sentences are terse and either exciting or despondent.  longer sentences, full of commas, roll on like endless grassy fields in the summer is heat, evoking a sense of wonder or beauty.  and so on.  and this is just one instance of a literary device ! a good writer is director, actor, script writer and cameraman rolled into one.  he chooses how a scene is framed, sets the background, emotes through his characters, and sets the direction of the plot through careful choice of certain stylistic elements.  understanding how these literary devices are used by good writers is the first step towards becoming a good writer yourself.
hi, first off i would like to say that please leave a comment instead of downvoting if you disagree, i know i will rub a lot of people the wrong way with a title like that.  i also realize how ignorant it sounds to say that another culture is  weird , my title is not good but hear me out.  i have tried on numerous occasions to get an interest in japanese culture and anime but failed.  there is a few things that really rubs me the wrong way and prevents me from gaining interest.  i am mainly talking about anime here; a lot of anime seem really really creepy to me.  first off the girls in the shows often seem to be tiny and weak with an obsessive desire to make them as cute as possible, unless they are the main character/hero in some way.  in most animes i have looked at they also always look really really young.  i understand that they strive to make the girl characters cute or  kawaii  but you do not have to make a girl look like a 0 year old to make her cute.  just do a google image search on  anime  for examples.  it also seems extremely common to sexualize these young girl characters, but i will get to that later.  i was actually looking today for a good anime show that could get me interested, so i looked up r/anime is recommendations URL it has a list of various themes like  cyberpunk ,  mindfuck .  and  incest .  coupled with the sub categories  lighthearted incest  and  heavy incest .  is not this fucked up to anyone else ? i know there is a lot of incest themes in western pornography, but i was not searching for porn, just animes.  this is like me looking for western movie recommendations in r/movies and finding an incest category, it would never happen ! the whole hentai thing is also completely puzzling to me, not only do i not understand how anyone can find arousment in the pictures, but they also always display very young or  cute  i guess they call it girls and it seems like borderline pedophilia in the sense that they are picturing underage girls in a sexual manner.  i know  a lot  of people love japanese culture and anime, and i would love to enjoy a good anime once in a while but these things really rub me the wrong way.  please cmv.   #  first off the girls in the shows often seem to be tiny and weak with an obsessive desire to make them as cute as possible, unless they are the main character/hero in some way.   #  you need to know the group of people these shows are targeting.   # you need to know the group of people these shows are targeting.  they target the no life having otaku.  these shows have a bland mc who you can project yourself on to that does literally nothing and has women on the verge of raping him just for the fact that he exists.  these shows are there to make you feel better about your shitty life, but that only works if you have a shitty life.  i am one of those no life having bitter assholes, and i like those kinds of shows.  is not this fucked up to anyone else ? sure it is, just do not go to those shows.  i do not like yaoi boys loving boys shows, does not mean that i do not like anime, just that i do not like boy on boy love.  this being said, i like incest shows but that is because i am a very sick person.  they may be pix of real women rather than fake women, but pictures none the less.  hentai lets you explore those darker, taboo areas that turn you on but kinda makes you ashamed.  rape for example, find me a real life video of a woman being forcibly, to the point of bleeding, getting raped.  you ca not.  i would not do it in real life, because i know the difference between real and fantasy, but it still makes my penis tingle.  if you want some recomendations, you can pm me.  some safe anime would be something like cowboy bebop or trigun.  black lagoon is more of a john woo action film, hellsing ultimate is more like a some campy 0 is horror.  you can check out what is playing on toonami to see what may be safe, they tend to not pick the light fluff shows.   #  so, yeah, i personally find the sexualized schoolgirl thing creepy in lots of japanese cartoons, but it is hard to say that it is an absolute thing, and not just all relative.   #  the thing is that animation is not a genre; it is a medium.  like you can have drama anime and giant robot anime and sci fi dystopia anime and ninja anime and tentacle rape anime.  so just like  western film  is not, as a whole, weird and creepy just because you can find live action porn where people poop on each other, it is hard to say  japanese culture  or  japanese animation  as a whole is weird because you can find cartoons of demons raping schoolgirls.  as to the cuteness of schoolgirls in japanese films, i feel like it is all just relative.  neotony/paedomorphism URL is something that exists in humans apparently largely because of our built in attraction to women that retain youthful characteristics.   in a cross cultural study, more neotenized female faces were the most attractive to men while less neotenized female faces were the least attractive to men, regardless of the females  actual age.    michael r.  cunningham found that the asian, hispanic and white female faces found most attractive were those that had  neonate large eyes, greater distance between eyes, and small noses   in a study of italian women who have won beauty competitions, the study said that the women had faces characterized by more  babyness  traits compared to the  normal  women used as a reference.   so, yeah, i personally find the sexualized schoolgirl thing creepy in lots of japanese cartoons, but it is hard to say that it is an absolute thing, and not just all relative.  after all, in our culture women shave off essentially all their body hair legs, armpits, pubic area etc.  in an effort to look attractive, even though hairlessness in those areas are traits found in  prepubescent  humans.  and we certainly have our share of sexualized underage girl stuff, from high school cheerleaders to child beauty pageants.   #  you looked at what a specific group of people found popular, as to opposed at finding what is popular in japan.   #  age of consent is lower, as are the  romeo and juliet laws .  they have different laws.  this makes it less scandalous.  like sexualizing a 0 year old.  also, you mentioned that you found a lot of porn.  you were an american looking for animes deemed popular by americans.  of course porn would be high up there, what with the lower age standards.  the americans looked for the porn, which japan has a bigger industry in.  it was a sample bias.  you looked at what a specific group of people found popular, as to opposed at finding what is popular in japan.   #  you were an american looking for animes deemed popular by americans.   # they have different laws.  this makes it less scandalous.  like sexualizing a 0 year old.  i do not agree.  the age of consent where i live is 0 sweden , and according to wikipedia the age of consent varies over europe from 0 0, just like japan, and i have never seen that kind of stuff here and from what i know it is not as extensive in the rest of europe either, compared to japan.  you were an american looking for animes deemed popular by americans.  of course porn would be high up there, what with the lower age standards.  the americans looked for the porn, which japan has a bigger industry in.  i see your point but you bring in age of consent again and i do not think that is enough of a reason.  you looked at what a specific group of people found popular, as to opposed at finding what is popular in japan.  does this mean that hentai and serialization of young girls from animes is not common in japan ?  #  so, i do not know how  common  it is, but it is not mainstreme.   #  i was just explaining why there is not huge amounts of outrage like there would be in the usa.  and with that as a factor, younger characters can be in porn, which i am sure is liked by american porn watchers.  think of hentai as porn because.  its porn.  that is the point.  like in the west, porn might be  common .  it is porn ! if you were to look, you would find it.  so, i do not know how  common  it is, but it is not mainstreme.  they are laxer on sexualization in anime because its usually done for older people, by older people, with a 0  y old voice actress providing the voice.  however, it is almost never ultra sleezy unless you are watching porn because.  that is the point of porn !
hi, first off i would like to say that please leave a comment instead of downvoting if you disagree, i know i will rub a lot of people the wrong way with a title like that.  i also realize how ignorant it sounds to say that another culture is  weird , my title is not good but hear me out.  i have tried on numerous occasions to get an interest in japanese culture and anime but failed.  there is a few things that really rubs me the wrong way and prevents me from gaining interest.  i am mainly talking about anime here; a lot of anime seem really really creepy to me.  first off the girls in the shows often seem to be tiny and weak with an obsessive desire to make them as cute as possible, unless they are the main character/hero in some way.  in most animes i have looked at they also always look really really young.  i understand that they strive to make the girl characters cute or  kawaii  but you do not have to make a girl look like a 0 year old to make her cute.  just do a google image search on  anime  for examples.  it also seems extremely common to sexualize these young girl characters, but i will get to that later.  i was actually looking today for a good anime show that could get me interested, so i looked up r/anime is recommendations URL it has a list of various themes like  cyberpunk ,  mindfuck .  and  incest .  coupled with the sub categories  lighthearted incest  and  heavy incest .  is not this fucked up to anyone else ? i know there is a lot of incest themes in western pornography, but i was not searching for porn, just animes.  this is like me looking for western movie recommendations in r/movies and finding an incest category, it would never happen ! the whole hentai thing is also completely puzzling to me, not only do i not understand how anyone can find arousment in the pictures, but they also always display very young or  cute  i guess they call it girls and it seems like borderline pedophilia in the sense that they are picturing underage girls in a sexual manner.  i know  a lot  of people love japanese culture and anime, and i would love to enjoy a good anime once in a while but these things really rub me the wrong way.  please cmv.   #  coupled with the sub categories  lighthearted incest  and  heavy incest .   #  is not this fucked up to anyone else ?  # you need to know the group of people these shows are targeting.  they target the no life having otaku.  these shows have a bland mc who you can project yourself on to that does literally nothing and has women on the verge of raping him just for the fact that he exists.  these shows are there to make you feel better about your shitty life, but that only works if you have a shitty life.  i am one of those no life having bitter assholes, and i like those kinds of shows.  is not this fucked up to anyone else ? sure it is, just do not go to those shows.  i do not like yaoi boys loving boys shows, does not mean that i do not like anime, just that i do not like boy on boy love.  this being said, i like incest shows but that is because i am a very sick person.  they may be pix of real women rather than fake women, but pictures none the less.  hentai lets you explore those darker, taboo areas that turn you on but kinda makes you ashamed.  rape for example, find me a real life video of a woman being forcibly, to the point of bleeding, getting raped.  you ca not.  i would not do it in real life, because i know the difference between real and fantasy, but it still makes my penis tingle.  if you want some recomendations, you can pm me.  some safe anime would be something like cowboy bebop or trigun.  black lagoon is more of a john woo action film, hellsing ultimate is more like a some campy 0 is horror.  you can check out what is playing on toonami to see what may be safe, they tend to not pick the light fluff shows.   #  the thing is that animation is not a genre; it is a medium.   #  the thing is that animation is not a genre; it is a medium.  like you can have drama anime and giant robot anime and sci fi dystopia anime and ninja anime and tentacle rape anime.  so just like  western film  is not, as a whole, weird and creepy just because you can find live action porn where people poop on each other, it is hard to say  japanese culture  or  japanese animation  as a whole is weird because you can find cartoons of demons raping schoolgirls.  as to the cuteness of schoolgirls in japanese films, i feel like it is all just relative.  neotony/paedomorphism URL is something that exists in humans apparently largely because of our built in attraction to women that retain youthful characteristics.   in a cross cultural study, more neotenized female faces were the most attractive to men while less neotenized female faces were the least attractive to men, regardless of the females  actual age.    michael r.  cunningham found that the asian, hispanic and white female faces found most attractive were those that had  neonate large eyes, greater distance between eyes, and small noses   in a study of italian women who have won beauty competitions, the study said that the women had faces characterized by more  babyness  traits compared to the  normal  women used as a reference.   so, yeah, i personally find the sexualized schoolgirl thing creepy in lots of japanese cartoons, but it is hard to say that it is an absolute thing, and not just all relative.  after all, in our culture women shave off essentially all their body hair legs, armpits, pubic area etc.  in an effort to look attractive, even though hairlessness in those areas are traits found in  prepubescent  humans.  and we certainly have our share of sexualized underage girl stuff, from high school cheerleaders to child beauty pageants.   #  you were an american looking for animes deemed popular by americans.   #  age of consent is lower, as are the  romeo and juliet laws .  they have different laws.  this makes it less scandalous.  like sexualizing a 0 year old.  also, you mentioned that you found a lot of porn.  you were an american looking for animes deemed popular by americans.  of course porn would be high up there, what with the lower age standards.  the americans looked for the porn, which japan has a bigger industry in.  it was a sample bias.  you looked at what a specific group of people found popular, as to opposed at finding what is popular in japan.   #  you were an american looking for animes deemed popular by americans.   # they have different laws.  this makes it less scandalous.  like sexualizing a 0 year old.  i do not agree.  the age of consent where i live is 0 sweden , and according to wikipedia the age of consent varies over europe from 0 0, just like japan, and i have never seen that kind of stuff here and from what i know it is not as extensive in the rest of europe either, compared to japan.  you were an american looking for animes deemed popular by americans.  of course porn would be high up there, what with the lower age standards.  the americans looked for the porn, which japan has a bigger industry in.  i see your point but you bring in age of consent again and i do not think that is enough of a reason.  you looked at what a specific group of people found popular, as to opposed at finding what is popular in japan.  does this mean that hentai and serialization of young girls from animes is not common in japan ?  #  if you were to look, you would find it.   #  i was just explaining why there is not huge amounts of outrage like there would be in the usa.  and with that as a factor, younger characters can be in porn, which i am sure is liked by american porn watchers.  think of hentai as porn because.  its porn.  that is the point.  like in the west, porn might be  common .  it is porn ! if you were to look, you would find it.  so, i do not know how  common  it is, but it is not mainstreme.  they are laxer on sexualization in anime because its usually done for older people, by older people, with a 0  y old voice actress providing the voice.  however, it is almost never ultra sleezy unless you are watching porn because.  that is the point of porn !
i just got back from a vacation for a family wedding and it was lovely.  everyone was thrilled that my cousin was marrying his sweetheart and we all had a great time.  i feel happy for them because i am glad that they are doing something special that they want to do, and i certainly want my gay cousin to be able to do the same thing, which is why i support his legal right to get married, but overall i see no reason to get married.  aside from financial benefits, i fail to see how marriage really helps a relationship.  i do not see how children will really be affected by unmarried parents, as long as the parents are committed and loving.  name a single aspect of life that is positively impacted by marriage.  sure, i am happy my cousin is happy, and i am glad that he was able to do something that meant a lot to him, by why bother ? what actual benefit does marriage bring ?  #  aside from financial benefits, i fail to see how marriage really helps a relationship.   #  i do not see how children will really be affected by unmarried parents, as long as the parents are committed and loving.   # i do not see how children will really be affected by unmarried parents, as long as the parents are committed and loving.  name a single aspect of life that is positively impacted by marriage.  well, you just said it yourself financial benefits.  do you really not see how a household with more money could be more beneficial to families with children ? there is also hospital visitation, a much easier time managing property and shared finances.  marriage has a whole slew of legal benefits.  and symbolically it shows that  love and commitment  you highlighted as being important to raising kids.   #  while you could be in just as good of a relationship by being committed and loving, taking the actual step of marriage is about as big of a commitment as you can get.   #  the thing you seem to be missing is that even though you personally do not see a point, a lot of people do see a point in getting married.  as you said, there are financial benefits to getting married.  but more than that it is an opportunity to celebrate and share your love.  while you could be in just as good of a relationship by being committed and loving, taking the actual step of marriage is about as big of a commitment as you can get.  and to some people that is incredibly important.   #  marriage is a social convention, and humans are social creatures.   #  marriage is a social convention, and humans are social creatures.  when two or more ? humans get married, they are not just doing so for themselves.  they are making a public announcement to their families and community that they are henceforth committed to each other.  in creating their societal bond, they are also reaffirming their bond to their society.  they are in a metaphorical way saying  we are so much a part of this community that we wanted to share this celebration with you.   being a part of a social community is very important to humans, and having public celebrations like weddings is a part of social bonding just as much as the wedding couple themselves.   #  all that said, it can ruin a relationship just as well as improve it, depending on what kind of relationship we are talking about.   #  most of the comments here seem preoccupied with the material benefits, not how it helps a relationship, which is what you asked about.  even if it is purely artificial or ceremonial, the illusion of  permanence  provides additional incentive to invest emotionally as well as financially in the other person.  the  relationship enhancing  component of marriage does not have to stand up to pure reason, because relationships are emotional things.  for those for whom marriage has an important social or religious significance, then so much stronger will be the illusion of permanence, and so much greater incentive to invest in the other individual.  all that said, it can ruin a relationship just as well as improve it, depending on what kind of relationship we are talking about.   #  oh ok it appears you have misunderstood op.   #  oh ok it appears you have misunderstood op.  that is ok, i will try to explain the post more clearly.  op was happy for their cousin, who enjoyed getting married.  but unfortunately, op would not get this same happiness.  she supports others who want this happiness such as her gay cousin, but she does not need it herself to be happy.  she wants you to try to change her view that marriage could benefit her and make her happy like it did her cousin.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.   #  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.   # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !    # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.   # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ?  #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.   #  you pulled out something completely irrelevant to try and show that intent matters.   #  my point is that intent does not matter when a person is being offended by your language.  if you have to explain your intent, you have already offended them.  their offense is not contingent on if you intended on offending them or not.  you pulled out something completely irrelevant to try and show that intent matters.  that would be like me bringing up drunk drivers who all intend on driving home safely as proof that intent does not matter.  it is irrelevant.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .   #  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ?  # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.   # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !    # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ?  #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.   #  their offense is not contingent on if you intended on offending them or not.   #  my point is that intent does not matter when a person is being offended by your language.  if you have to explain your intent, you have already offended them.  their offense is not contingent on if you intended on offending them or not.  you pulled out something completely irrelevant to try and show that intent matters.  that would be like me bringing up drunk drivers who all intend on driving home safely as proof that intent does not matter.  it is irrelevant.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.   #  they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.   # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.   # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.   # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.   #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.   #  that would be like me bringing up drunk drivers who all intend on driving home safely as proof that intent does not matter.   #  my point is that intent does not matter when a person is being offended by your language.  if you have to explain your intent, you have already offended them.  their offense is not contingent on if you intended on offending them or not.  you pulled out something completely irrelevant to try and show that intent matters.  that would be like me bringing up drunk drivers who all intend on driving home safely as proof that intent does not matter.  it is irrelevant.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  african americans are black, you can just call them that.   #  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !    # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.   # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ?  #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.   #  that would be like me bringing up drunk drivers who all intend on driving home safely as proof that intent does not matter.   #  my point is that intent does not matter when a person is being offended by your language.  if you have to explain your intent, you have already offended them.  their offense is not contingent on if you intended on offending them or not.  you pulled out something completely irrelevant to try and show that intent matters.  that would be like me bringing up drunk drivers who all intend on driving home safely as proof that intent does not matter.  it is irrelevant.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .   #  you claim that you only meant racist in the same way that dark skin is technically racist.   #  you are being dishonest.  first you say that this is racist.  you claim that you only meant racist in the same way that dark skin is technically racist.  then you say no, you do not mean it that way, you mean it in the condemnatory fashion.  then you admit the statement is in fact true.  you also say that the word nigger used amongst friends is fine.  then you say it is not fine at all.  then you say it is not fine when white people say it.  in fact, you have no coherent position on the matter, since you keep switching it up and contradicting yourself.  you are simply swimming along on the surface, choosing whichever stance seems the least  racist  to you at the moment.   #  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.   # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.   # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !    # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.   #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.   #  you are not part of the black culture, so you do not decide this.   #  i am a black american so i can help you with this.  you are not part of the black culture, so you do not decide this.  the word has so much history behind it.  the reason black people use it is a long story that goes back to slavery.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  this is purely racist, but once again, incorrect.  you ca not act blacker.  there is so much of a culture that you have to be black to understand.  rnb music, soul food, black churches are in the black culture.  but the black culture has many dark parts to it, racism i have never met a black person who has not experienced racism and tokenism.  this part really concerns me.  hip hop is only some of the music black people listen to.  and slurring their words ? i do not think anyone talks like that.  i think the accent, even though it is a dialect, you are talking about is what black people call ebonics.  i cringe when i see people try to talk like that because black people who are college educated do not talk like that.   rachet  and  twerk  are a generational thing and not a black thing.  you seem to have a false image on black culture.   #  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.   # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.   # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ?  #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  c more and more people are acting blacker.   #  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.   #  i am a black american so i can help you with this.  you are not part of the black culture, so you do not decide this.  the word has so much history behind it.  the reason black people use it is a long story that goes back to slavery.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  this is purely racist, but once again, incorrect.  you ca not act blacker.  there is so much of a culture that you have to be black to understand.  rnb music, soul food, black churches are in the black culture.  but the black culture has many dark parts to it, racism i have never met a black person who has not experienced racism and tokenism.  this part really concerns me.  hip hop is only some of the music black people listen to.  and slurring their words ? i do not think anyone talks like that.  i think the accent, even though it is a dialect, you are talking about is what black people call ebonics.  i cringe when i see people try to talk like that because black people who are college educated do not talk like that.   rachet  and  twerk  are a generational thing and not a black thing.  you seem to have a false image on black culture.   #  they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.   # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.   # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.   # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.   #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.   #  unless you are black, you wo not fully be able to understand or know what black culture is.   #  i am also a teenager who grew up in a european country.  the town i grew up in was predominately asian and the neighbourhood i live in now is mostly white.  the black people i have met have all been through school.  about 0 years ago, nigger was one of the most common words i used.  i greeted all my friends with nigger and also used to refer to my dark skinned friend as nigger.  i remember when a black friend of mine was offended by my usage so i stopped a little but then i heard her use it occasionally.  i asked her why she could use it and not i and her response was  its a way to regain power.  the word nigger was said against black people with such hate and racism and if we adopt that word, if we reclaim it, then no one can ever hurt us with it again.   i read somewhere that if you make your biggest weakness your shield, no one can ever hurt you with it.  i guess that is partially why black people use the word often but are still offended when white people use it.  unless you are black, you wo not fully be able to understand or know what black culture is.  black culture, like /u/z0r0shade said, is a collection of experiences and cultures.  not every black person shares the same view.  one may feel completely offended by you saying nigger and another black person may not.  saying you should be able to use it without the person being offended is restricting that persons black culture.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorrectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  blacker ? what the hell is blacker ? how does one act black ? racism was still very prevalent just 0 years ago ! blacks were slaves 0 years ago.  putting on a blacker accent ? that whole quote was just one massive generalisation and quite racist.  go read a history book and you will find just how badly black people were treated.  they were treated horribly.  they have every right to feel sensitive.  any asian person will still be very offended by that.  i assume you are talking about black people.  a black person saying the word nigga is not them  teaching  you that word and neither does that mean you can now use that word.  it is also not just black people who would not want you to use the word nigger as i would not either.  to conclude, the word nigga has a lot of history behind it and it seems as if you do not know the history.  i suggest you read up on it.  you also tend to generalise a lot of things, you need to keep in mind that people are different and although you may come across a few select people who share certain views, does not mean everyone of their culture or race shares the same views.  you also need to meet different people and have a more diverse social pool is every  white guys and chicks  you know are   all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .    #  if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.   # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.   # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.   # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.   #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  c more and more people are acting blacker.   #  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorrectly.   #  i am also a teenager who grew up in a european country.  the town i grew up in was predominately asian and the neighbourhood i live in now is mostly white.  the black people i have met have all been through school.  about 0 years ago, nigger was one of the most common words i used.  i greeted all my friends with nigger and also used to refer to my dark skinned friend as nigger.  i remember when a black friend of mine was offended by my usage so i stopped a little but then i heard her use it occasionally.  i asked her why she could use it and not i and her response was  its a way to regain power.  the word nigger was said against black people with such hate and racism and if we adopt that word, if we reclaim it, then no one can ever hurt us with it again.   i read somewhere that if you make your biggest weakness your shield, no one can ever hurt you with it.  i guess that is partially why black people use the word often but are still offended when white people use it.  unless you are black, you wo not fully be able to understand or know what black culture is.  black culture, like /u/z0r0shade said, is a collection of experiences and cultures.  not every black person shares the same view.  one may feel completely offended by you saying nigger and another black person may not.  saying you should be able to use it without the person being offended is restricting that persons black culture.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorrectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  blacker ? what the hell is blacker ? how does one act black ? racism was still very prevalent just 0 years ago ! blacks were slaves 0 years ago.  putting on a blacker accent ? that whole quote was just one massive generalisation and quite racist.  go read a history book and you will find just how badly black people were treated.  they were treated horribly.  they have every right to feel sensitive.  any asian person will still be very offended by that.  i assume you are talking about black people.  a black person saying the word nigga is not them  teaching  you that word and neither does that mean you can now use that word.  it is also not just black people who would not want you to use the word nigger as i would not either.  to conclude, the word nigga has a lot of history behind it and it seems as if you do not know the history.  i suggest you read up on it.  you also tend to generalise a lot of things, you need to keep in mind that people are different and although you may come across a few select people who share certain views, does not mean everyone of their culture or race shares the same views.  you also need to meet different people and have a more diverse social pool is every  white guys and chicks  you know are   all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .    #  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.   # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.   # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.   # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ?  #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.   #  go read a history book and you will find just how badly black people were treated.   #  i am also a teenager who grew up in a european country.  the town i grew up in was predominately asian and the neighbourhood i live in now is mostly white.  the black people i have met have all been through school.  about 0 years ago, nigger was one of the most common words i used.  i greeted all my friends with nigger and also used to refer to my dark skinned friend as nigger.  i remember when a black friend of mine was offended by my usage so i stopped a little but then i heard her use it occasionally.  i asked her why she could use it and not i and her response was  its a way to regain power.  the word nigger was said against black people with such hate and racism and if we adopt that word, if we reclaim it, then no one can ever hurt us with it again.   i read somewhere that if you make your biggest weakness your shield, no one can ever hurt you with it.  i guess that is partially why black people use the word often but are still offended when white people use it.  unless you are black, you wo not fully be able to understand or know what black culture is.  black culture, like /u/z0r0shade said, is a collection of experiences and cultures.  not every black person shares the same view.  one may feel completely offended by you saying nigger and another black person may not.  saying you should be able to use it without the person being offended is restricting that persons black culture.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorrectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  blacker ? what the hell is blacker ? how does one act black ? racism was still very prevalent just 0 years ago ! blacks were slaves 0 years ago.  putting on a blacker accent ? that whole quote was just one massive generalisation and quite racist.  go read a history book and you will find just how badly black people were treated.  they were treated horribly.  they have every right to feel sensitive.  any asian person will still be very offended by that.  i assume you are talking about black people.  a black person saying the word nigga is not them  teaching  you that word and neither does that mean you can now use that word.  it is also not just black people who would not want you to use the word nigger as i would not either.  to conclude, the word nigga has a lot of history behind it and it seems as if you do not know the history.  i suggest you read up on it.  you also tend to generalise a lot of things, you need to keep in mind that people are different and although you may come across a few select people who share certain views, does not mean everyone of their culture or race shares the same views.  you also need to meet different people and have a more diverse social pool is every  white guys and chicks  you know are   all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .    #  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ?  # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.   # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.   # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.   #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.
i am a european teenager who listens to hip hop and i also grew up in a small town with almost no black people i saw like 0 0, 0 of them were from ghana to play for the local football team and i use the n word. i was really confused that black people were offended when white people said it because everytime i heard it it was not used as a slur.  because of me only being exposed to this word through music,tv and movies i never thought it was an off limits word so i used it too, and nigga turned into my version of bro.  i am not the only one either.  most of my friends who also listened to hip hop were saying stuff like  my niggas  and such.  then, sometime after that i discovered why it is offensive and it is origins.  even with knowing that i still choose to use it because a i am not using it to offend anyone, hell i am using it to call someone my friend b the n word is black culture, and imo saying the n word is not offensive to the black culture but accepting that black culture.  c more and more people are acting blacker.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  i do not undestand why black people are so sensitive when you rarely hear asians complaining that people say stuff like  me chinese me play joke  even though that seems more previlant.  i feel bad for this because i do not want to offend anyone but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.  but, saying nigger is needlessly offensive and absurd.  i do not know why those last 0 letters make such a big diffrense for me but i feel bad whenever i hear the hard er at the end.  this is a very controversial thing in the us, and i ca not wrap my head around it.  why ? african americans are black, you can just call them that.  ofcourse, if you know his name use his damn name but that is just manners.  also, if we do start using nigga more freely we should limit it.  for example, you can use it for comedic value or to call your friend that, not for everything and at the end of verything.  tl;dr imo everyone should be able to say nigga but to a limited extent since it is the new  bro  but the hard er still is not good. racism is not cool, we are different but equal.   #  but i am annoyed that the same people who tought me that word would not want me to use it.   #  i assume you are talking about black people.   #  i am also a teenager who grew up in a european country.  the town i grew up in was predominately asian and the neighbourhood i live in now is mostly white.  the black people i have met have all been through school.  about 0 years ago, nigger was one of the most common words i used.  i greeted all my friends with nigger and also used to refer to my dark skinned friend as nigger.  i remember when a black friend of mine was offended by my usage so i stopped a little but then i heard her use it occasionally.  i asked her why she could use it and not i and her response was  its a way to regain power.  the word nigger was said against black people with such hate and racism and if we adopt that word, if we reclaim it, then no one can ever hurt us with it again.   i read somewhere that if you make your biggest weakness your shield, no one can ever hurt you with it.  i guess that is partially why black people use the word often but are still offended when white people use it.  unless you are black, you wo not fully be able to understand or know what black culture is.  black culture, like /u/z0r0shade said, is a collection of experiences and cultures.  not every black person shares the same view.  one may feel completely offended by you saying nigger and another black person may not.  saying you should be able to use it without the person being offended is restricting that persons black culture.  black people are not treated as they were 0 years ago and i do not see anyone getting anything from being offended by a word being used incorrectly.  white guys and chicks are all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .  blacker ? what the hell is blacker ? how does one act black ? racism was still very prevalent just 0 years ago ! blacks were slaves 0 years ago.  putting on a blacker accent ? that whole quote was just one massive generalisation and quite racist.  go read a history book and you will find just how badly black people were treated.  they were treated horribly.  they have every right to feel sensitive.  any asian person will still be very offended by that.  i assume you are talking about black people.  a black person saying the word nigga is not them  teaching  you that word and neither does that mean you can now use that word.  it is also not just black people who would not want you to use the word nigger as i would not either.  to conclude, the word nigga has a lot of history behind it and it seems as if you do not know the history.  i suggest you read up on it.  you also tend to generalise a lot of things, you need to keep in mind that people are different and although you may come across a few select people who share certain views, does not mean everyone of their culture or race shares the same views.  you also need to meet different people and have a more diverse social pool is every  white guys and chicks  you know are   all listening to hip hop,slurring their words, putting on a blacker accent and using more black words like  ratchet  or  twerk .    #  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.   # if you know the reasons why it is considered offensive and choose to use it anyways, you are  choosing  to use it to offend people.  black culture is not some singular amorphous blob but a collection of other cultures that share a common history of experiences.  you are not black and do not share that common history of experiences, using the word is attempting to say that you  understand  that common experience when you ca not.  you can sympathise, but you cannot actually  fully  understand those experiences of racism without having experienced it yourself.  you are actively  not being accepting  by insisting that you should be allowed to use the word without people being offended.  you realize that this  entire sentence  is completely racist right ? they probably wo not complain  to you  or publicly because of cultural values and ideas but if you think that chinese people are not offended when you say that in general then you are completely wrong and pretty racist.  think about the historical context.  everything you feel about why those two different letters make it bad is the same why it is offensive for you to say  mah nigga  or anything.  like i said, usage of that word conveys an understanding of shared experiences that you simply do not have.  there are people who are black who are not african american, you  should  use  black  instead of african american.   #  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.   # they they will feel offended when you call them small regardless of your intent.  because your intent does  not matter , people will still have reactions to the words you use.  if you think intent is really that important, tell your boss to go fuck themselves.  then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ?  #  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.   # then clarify that it is really a term of endearment for you and you use it with your friends in a friendly manner all the time.  do you think,  i did not intend on offending you !   will save you from the repercussions ? it might definitely take the sting out of the insult.  it is up to the boss to take it whatever way he wants.  i might get a stern talking to, seminar on how that type of language is not appropriate in a work environment, and a probation period but an explanation will at least allow the offending party to see the thought process behind your language.  in intentionally offensive language there is no thought process.  you just wanted to offend them.  that was your intent.  an example in law.  it is not illegal to call someone an ethnic slur unless you do it continuously and threatens their lives to the point where it constitutes harassment.  but if you harm someone directly because of their descent after you called them an ethnic slur and all of that can be proved in a court of law, it will net you a higher jail penalty.  because of your intent.  source URL  a person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and  intentionally  commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim is race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:  emphasis mine.   #  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.   #  why are you bringing the legal definition of harassment into this ? i am talking about offensive language words that people find offensive.  i am not talking about any other kind of harm, just their immediate reaction to the words you use.  did i say all usages of offensive language constituted  harassment  ? no.  the law is free to take intent into account when trying to determine if something is harassment or not but it is moot to the point i am trying to make.
i do not believe women want sex nearly as much as men do.  this is a generalization, of course.  there are a great many women with high sex drives, of course.  but, in general i believe that men at large are more desiring of sex.  one reason i believe this, is that men patronize prostitutes in significant numbers and men are willing to trade things of real value like money in order to get sex.  i ca not think of any scenario in which women are willing to give up something of significant value in order to get sex.  i also believe this is true because testosterone is largely responsible for the human sex drive.  the more testosterone you produce the more libidinous you are.  men who have lower testosterone have less of a sex drive.  these men seek out testosterone treatment and notice a dramatic increase in sex drive once the treatment becomes effective.  women produce significantly less testosterone than men, consequently their sex drives are typically lower.  women are less proactive when it comes to seeking out sex partners.  i do not have support for this one, but in my experience men are the ones who are proactive about directly asking women out or making direct romantic gestures.  it is usually incumbent upon men to do the asking, to make the first move.  men are compelled to play by these rules because women are the ones who have the thing that men desire, and men are the ones who are forced to act because of the desire.  also, men are much more likely to say yes to a request for an immediate sexual encounter than women are.  according to this URL study women were much, much less likely to say yes to a proposal for immediate sex, whereas men were much, much more likely to say yes.  watch this URL video.  many of the men features men leap at the change to have sex with the girl, despite the fact that she could be leading them into some kind of trap, or that she could have an std of some kind.  there are only a few examples i know there is another video in which is about 0:0 as well , but the average of men that say yes it much higher than the average in the gender opposite video.  the ones who do not leap to sleep with her at least seriously consider doing it, this is because they want, very badly to have sex with a beautiful girl.  the women in this URL video do not react nearly as positively.  none of them leap at the chance.  they are not instantly aroused the way the men are by even the proposal.  i think it is reasonable to conclude that the desire just is not as intense.  you might argue that the desire becomes as intense when the desire is provoked, and that this situation does not provoke the desire but if it is so difficult to provoke the same amount of desire, does not that mean that there is less desire in general ? cmv, please !  #  men patronize prostitutes in significant numbers and men are willing to trade things of real value like money in order to get sex.   #  a woman who wants sex a lot can get it without paying for it.   # a woman who wants sex a lot can get it without paying for it.  because they usually do not have to if all they want is sex.  chris rock put it very well URL quantity is not a problem quality is.  while it is very easy for a woman to get sex, it is not necessarily going be  good , orgasmic sex, especially not with a new partner.  most men orgasm from actual sex easier and quicker than women, not necessarily due to hormones but just by virtue of how the penis works and the fact it is literally a hanging, visible thing.  so these two things may be the root in men being incentivized to obtain sex more than women, not the presence of any drive or chemical state.  women can have multiple orgasms, and arguably stronger orgasms, but this requires a man to know what he is doing, or a woman aware of herself enough to tell a man what to do likely not something happening the first time.  therefore, why would a woman who wants sex do things that would tend to get her bad sex ? combine this with the above and it is easy to see why men and women fall in the roles that they do.   #  women are socialized to show passive interest to try and get a man is attention so that the man will ask them out.   #  biologically, sex is riskier for women than men, so it would make sense for them to be more cautious and picky if they held the same amount of desire because it is a cost/benefit analysis.  women are socialized to show passive interest to try and get a man is attention so that the man will ask them out.  this is something that is changing, as it is becoming more socially acceptable for women to ask men out, but not too long ago it just was not socially allowed.  so if a woman was interested in a particular person, she had to work very hard to get that person to ask her out.  this involves signals, and letting someone know your interest.  it involves convoluted messages of letting a guy know that if they asked the answer would definitely be yes, and yet the woman could not be the one to do the asking.  but its still a rejection for her if a man chooses not to ask after being told  the answer is yes if you do ask .  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.   #  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.   # men break a lot of social mores in attempting to get sex prostitution , and in expressing sexual desire groping/cat calling/etc/ .  i think they do so because they are compelled by the potency of their desire.  i believe women are less prone to doing these things because they are not inspired to by their desire.  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.  but, does estrogen have deliver the same intensity of desire as testosterone ?  #  the same would likely be the case with desire.   # i disagree with both those statements.  i do not think men do this commonly.  it happens, but by a small minority of men.  i have also witnessed women cat call.  so you ca not say that women never do it either.  i think overall its a pointless exercise to argue who feels something  more  because there is no way to gauge how deeply another person feels something.  we know men and women both feel desire, and we know that men and women both feel varying ranges of desire.  i would imagine that, like most things, the range within one sex is much greater than the weighted average between the two sexes.  which makes the whole discussion an argument in futility.  men on average are taller than women.  i am a woman.  i am taller than around 0/0 the men i come across, and i am only 0 0.  height is something tangible that can be measured.  and yet it still makes no sense to assume someone will be taller or shorter than you based upon the sex of the other person.  sure a man who is 0 0 can say that he will likely be taller than any woman he meets, but he can also say he will likely be taller than any man he meets.  anyone within the standard deviation range can only give a percent likelihood chance.  the same would likely be the case with desire.  there may be a slight average difference, but it will tell you nothing about an individual person is desire or where they fall within the range.   #  the potential benefits are little, but the risks are high.   #  from my experience as a woman, here is the deal for me: women are not really told that they should/could enjoy sex.  this might sound crazy, but i did not realize women  could  enjoy it until high school.  it is around that time i learned that women could actually masturbate too.  i would known men could pretty much since i learned about sex, but was completely surprised that women could.  for some reason, female sexual pleasure is a bit taboo of a subject.  related to that, it took me quite a while to figure out how to masturbate.  i did not have too much interest in it when i started.  it can be difficult for women to figure out what works for them and some adult women have never reached orgasm as a result.  if you ca not reach orgasm, then it would make sense that you would not be as interested in sex.  if it takes you a long time to figure out how to get yourself to orgasm, then you ca not expect a new partner to be able to get you off right away.  this, along with the risks of pregnancy, stds, violence, etc.  makes offers of sex from strangers not that attractive.  the potential benefits are little, but the risks are high.  in conclusion, i find myself wanting sex all the freaking time.
i do not believe women want sex nearly as much as men do.  this is a generalization, of course.  there are a great many women with high sex drives, of course.  but, in general i believe that men at large are more desiring of sex.  one reason i believe this, is that men patronize prostitutes in significant numbers and men are willing to trade things of real value like money in order to get sex.  i ca not think of any scenario in which women are willing to give up something of significant value in order to get sex.  i also believe this is true because testosterone is largely responsible for the human sex drive.  the more testosterone you produce the more libidinous you are.  men who have lower testosterone have less of a sex drive.  these men seek out testosterone treatment and notice a dramatic increase in sex drive once the treatment becomes effective.  women produce significantly less testosterone than men, consequently their sex drives are typically lower.  women are less proactive when it comes to seeking out sex partners.  i do not have support for this one, but in my experience men are the ones who are proactive about directly asking women out or making direct romantic gestures.  it is usually incumbent upon men to do the asking, to make the first move.  men are compelled to play by these rules because women are the ones who have the thing that men desire, and men are the ones who are forced to act because of the desire.  also, men are much more likely to say yes to a request for an immediate sexual encounter than women are.  according to this URL study women were much, much less likely to say yes to a proposal for immediate sex, whereas men were much, much more likely to say yes.  watch this URL video.  many of the men features men leap at the change to have sex with the girl, despite the fact that she could be leading them into some kind of trap, or that she could have an std of some kind.  there are only a few examples i know there is another video in which is about 0:0 as well , but the average of men that say yes it much higher than the average in the gender opposite video.  the ones who do not leap to sleep with her at least seriously consider doing it, this is because they want, very badly to have sex with a beautiful girl.  the women in this URL video do not react nearly as positively.  none of them leap at the chance.  they are not instantly aroused the way the men are by even the proposal.  i think it is reasonable to conclude that the desire just is not as intense.  you might argue that the desire becomes as intense when the desire is provoked, and that this situation does not provoke the desire but if it is so difficult to provoke the same amount of desire, does not that mean that there is less desire in general ? cmv, please !  #  i ca not think of any scenario in which women are willing to give up something of significant value in order to get sex.   #  because they usually do not have to if all they want is sex.   # a woman who wants sex a lot can get it without paying for it.  because they usually do not have to if all they want is sex.  chris rock put it very well URL quantity is not a problem quality is.  while it is very easy for a woman to get sex, it is not necessarily going be  good , orgasmic sex, especially not with a new partner.  most men orgasm from actual sex easier and quicker than women, not necessarily due to hormones but just by virtue of how the penis works and the fact it is literally a hanging, visible thing.  so these two things may be the root in men being incentivized to obtain sex more than women, not the presence of any drive or chemical state.  women can have multiple orgasms, and arguably stronger orgasms, but this requires a man to know what he is doing, or a woman aware of herself enough to tell a man what to do likely not something happening the first time.  therefore, why would a woman who wants sex do things that would tend to get her bad sex ? combine this with the above and it is easy to see why men and women fall in the roles that they do.   #  so if a woman was interested in a particular person, she had to work very hard to get that person to ask her out.   #  biologically, sex is riskier for women than men, so it would make sense for them to be more cautious and picky if they held the same amount of desire because it is a cost/benefit analysis.  women are socialized to show passive interest to try and get a man is attention so that the man will ask them out.  this is something that is changing, as it is becoming more socially acceptable for women to ask men out, but not too long ago it just was not socially allowed.  so if a woman was interested in a particular person, she had to work very hard to get that person to ask her out.  this involves signals, and letting someone know your interest.  it involves convoluted messages of letting a guy know that if they asked the answer would definitely be yes, and yet the woman could not be the one to do the asking.  but its still a rejection for her if a man chooses not to ask after being told  the answer is yes if you do ask .  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.   #  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.   # men break a lot of social mores in attempting to get sex prostitution , and in expressing sexual desire groping/cat calling/etc/ .  i think they do so because they are compelled by the potency of their desire.  i believe women are less prone to doing these things because they are not inspired to by their desire.  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.  but, does estrogen have deliver the same intensity of desire as testosterone ?  #  which makes the whole discussion an argument in futility.   # i disagree with both those statements.  i do not think men do this commonly.  it happens, but by a small minority of men.  i have also witnessed women cat call.  so you ca not say that women never do it either.  i think overall its a pointless exercise to argue who feels something  more  because there is no way to gauge how deeply another person feels something.  we know men and women both feel desire, and we know that men and women both feel varying ranges of desire.  i would imagine that, like most things, the range within one sex is much greater than the weighted average between the two sexes.  which makes the whole discussion an argument in futility.  men on average are taller than women.  i am a woman.  i am taller than around 0/0 the men i come across, and i am only 0 0.  height is something tangible that can be measured.  and yet it still makes no sense to assume someone will be taller or shorter than you based upon the sex of the other person.  sure a man who is 0 0 can say that he will likely be taller than any woman he meets, but he can also say he will likely be taller than any man he meets.  anyone within the standard deviation range can only give a percent likelihood chance.  the same would likely be the case with desire.  there may be a slight average difference, but it will tell you nothing about an individual person is desire or where they fall within the range.   #  the potential benefits are little, but the risks are high.   #  from my experience as a woman, here is the deal for me: women are not really told that they should/could enjoy sex.  this might sound crazy, but i did not realize women  could  enjoy it until high school.  it is around that time i learned that women could actually masturbate too.  i would known men could pretty much since i learned about sex, but was completely surprised that women could.  for some reason, female sexual pleasure is a bit taboo of a subject.  related to that, it took me quite a while to figure out how to masturbate.  i did not have too much interest in it when i started.  it can be difficult for women to figure out what works for them and some adult women have never reached orgasm as a result.  if you ca not reach orgasm, then it would make sense that you would not be as interested in sex.  if it takes you a long time to figure out how to get yourself to orgasm, then you ca not expect a new partner to be able to get you off right away.  this, along with the risks of pregnancy, stds, violence, etc.  makes offers of sex from strangers not that attractive.  the potential benefits are little, but the risks are high.  in conclusion, i find myself wanting sex all the freaking time.
i do not believe women want sex nearly as much as men do.  this is a generalization, of course.  there are a great many women with high sex drives, of course.  but, in general i believe that men at large are more desiring of sex.  one reason i believe this, is that men patronize prostitutes in significant numbers and men are willing to trade things of real value like money in order to get sex.  i ca not think of any scenario in which women are willing to give up something of significant value in order to get sex.  i also believe this is true because testosterone is largely responsible for the human sex drive.  the more testosterone you produce the more libidinous you are.  men who have lower testosterone have less of a sex drive.  these men seek out testosterone treatment and notice a dramatic increase in sex drive once the treatment becomes effective.  women produce significantly less testosterone than men, consequently their sex drives are typically lower.  women are less proactive when it comes to seeking out sex partners.  i do not have support for this one, but in my experience men are the ones who are proactive about directly asking women out or making direct romantic gestures.  it is usually incumbent upon men to do the asking, to make the first move.  men are compelled to play by these rules because women are the ones who have the thing that men desire, and men are the ones who are forced to act because of the desire.  also, men are much more likely to say yes to a request for an immediate sexual encounter than women are.  according to this URL study women were much, much less likely to say yes to a proposal for immediate sex, whereas men were much, much more likely to say yes.  watch this URL video.  many of the men features men leap at the change to have sex with the girl, despite the fact that she could be leading them into some kind of trap, or that she could have an std of some kind.  there are only a few examples i know there is another video in which is about 0:0 as well , but the average of men that say yes it much higher than the average in the gender opposite video.  the ones who do not leap to sleep with her at least seriously consider doing it, this is because they want, very badly to have sex with a beautiful girl.  the women in this URL video do not react nearly as positively.  none of them leap at the chance.  they are not instantly aroused the way the men are by even the proposal.  i think it is reasonable to conclude that the desire just is not as intense.  you might argue that the desire becomes as intense when the desire is provoked, and that this situation does not provoke the desire but if it is so difficult to provoke the same amount of desire, does not that mean that there is less desire in general ? cmv, please !  #  none of them leap at the chance.   #  they are not instantly aroused the way the men are by even the proposal.   # they are not instantly aroused the way the men are by even the proposal.  i think it is reasonable to conclude that the desire just is not as intense.  so i am a trans woman.  i lived as a guy for the first 0 years of my life and i have been living as a woman for 0 years.  that is 0 years of estrogen so it is had a good bit of time changing things.  i have also had guy friends as a guy and girl friends as a girl.  after experiencing it and talk to plenty of people on both sides i need to point out that male sexual arousal is different from female sexual arousal.  for a guy it is all very sudden and very intense, mostly focused in the genitals.  it kind of feels like a burning need at the time.  for women it is much more gradual.  it kind of just slowly starts up and spreads all over your body.  point is, a lot of women are not going to have the instant arousal horniness that you are attributing to having a lower sex drive, but that does not mean their sex drive is lower.  anyway, just wanted to clear that point up.   #  so if a woman was interested in a particular person, she had to work very hard to get that person to ask her out.   #  biologically, sex is riskier for women than men, so it would make sense for them to be more cautious and picky if they held the same amount of desire because it is a cost/benefit analysis.  women are socialized to show passive interest to try and get a man is attention so that the man will ask them out.  this is something that is changing, as it is becoming more socially acceptable for women to ask men out, but not too long ago it just was not socially allowed.  so if a woman was interested in a particular person, she had to work very hard to get that person to ask her out.  this involves signals, and letting someone know your interest.  it involves convoluted messages of letting a guy know that if they asked the answer would definitely be yes, and yet the woman could not be the one to do the asking.  but its still a rejection for her if a man chooses not to ask after being told  the answer is yes if you do ask .  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.   #  men break a lot of social mores in attempting to get sex prostitution , and in expressing sexual desire groping/cat calling/etc/ .   # men break a lot of social mores in attempting to get sex prostitution , and in expressing sexual desire groping/cat calling/etc/ .  i think they do so because they are compelled by the potency of their desire.  i believe women are less prone to doing these things because they are not inspired to by their desire.  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.  but, does estrogen have deliver the same intensity of desire as testosterone ?  #  there may be a slight average difference, but it will tell you nothing about an individual person is desire or where they fall within the range.   # i disagree with both those statements.  i do not think men do this commonly.  it happens, but by a small minority of men.  i have also witnessed women cat call.  so you ca not say that women never do it either.  i think overall its a pointless exercise to argue who feels something  more  because there is no way to gauge how deeply another person feels something.  we know men and women both feel desire, and we know that men and women both feel varying ranges of desire.  i would imagine that, like most things, the range within one sex is much greater than the weighted average between the two sexes.  which makes the whole discussion an argument in futility.  men on average are taller than women.  i am a woman.  i am taller than around 0/0 the men i come across, and i am only 0 0.  height is something tangible that can be measured.  and yet it still makes no sense to assume someone will be taller or shorter than you based upon the sex of the other person.  sure a man who is 0 0 can say that he will likely be taller than any woman he meets, but he can also say he will likely be taller than any man he meets.  anyone within the standard deviation range can only give a percent likelihood chance.  the same would likely be the case with desire.  there may be a slight average difference, but it will tell you nothing about an individual person is desire or where they fall within the range.   #  it can be difficult for women to figure out what works for them and some adult women have never reached orgasm as a result.   #  from my experience as a woman, here is the deal for me: women are not really told that they should/could enjoy sex.  this might sound crazy, but i did not realize women  could  enjoy it until high school.  it is around that time i learned that women could actually masturbate too.  i would known men could pretty much since i learned about sex, but was completely surprised that women could.  for some reason, female sexual pleasure is a bit taboo of a subject.  related to that, it took me quite a while to figure out how to masturbate.  i did not have too much interest in it when i started.  it can be difficult for women to figure out what works for them and some adult women have never reached orgasm as a result.  if you ca not reach orgasm, then it would make sense that you would not be as interested in sex.  if it takes you a long time to figure out how to get yourself to orgasm, then you ca not expect a new partner to be able to get you off right away.  this, along with the risks of pregnancy, stds, violence, etc.  makes offers of sex from strangers not that attractive.  the potential benefits are little, but the risks are high.  in conclusion, i find myself wanting sex all the freaking time.
i do not believe women want sex nearly as much as men do.  this is a generalization, of course.  there are a great many women with high sex drives, of course.  but, in general i believe that men at large are more desiring of sex.  one reason i believe this, is that men patronize prostitutes in significant numbers and men are willing to trade things of real value like money in order to get sex.  i ca not think of any scenario in which women are willing to give up something of significant value in order to get sex.  i also believe this is true because testosterone is largely responsible for the human sex drive.  the more testosterone you produce the more libidinous you are.  men who have lower testosterone have less of a sex drive.  these men seek out testosterone treatment and notice a dramatic increase in sex drive once the treatment becomes effective.  women produce significantly less testosterone than men, consequently their sex drives are typically lower.  women are less proactive when it comes to seeking out sex partners.  i do not have support for this one, but in my experience men are the ones who are proactive about directly asking women out or making direct romantic gestures.  it is usually incumbent upon men to do the asking, to make the first move.  men are compelled to play by these rules because women are the ones who have the thing that men desire, and men are the ones who are forced to act because of the desire.  also, men are much more likely to say yes to a request for an immediate sexual encounter than women are.  according to this URL study women were much, much less likely to say yes to a proposal for immediate sex, whereas men were much, much more likely to say yes.  watch this URL video.  many of the men features men leap at the change to have sex with the girl, despite the fact that she could be leading them into some kind of trap, or that she could have an std of some kind.  there are only a few examples i know there is another video in which is about 0:0 as well , but the average of men that say yes it much higher than the average in the gender opposite video.  the ones who do not leap to sleep with her at least seriously consider doing it, this is because they want, very badly to have sex with a beautiful girl.  the women in this URL video do not react nearly as positively.  none of them leap at the chance.  they are not instantly aroused the way the men are by even the proposal.  i think it is reasonable to conclude that the desire just is not as intense.  you might argue that the desire becomes as intense when the desire is provoked, and that this situation does not provoke the desire but if it is so difficult to provoke the same amount of desire, does not that mean that there is less desire in general ? cmv, please !  #  but, in general i believe that men at large are more desiring of sex.   #  i think that men have a more urgent need to fill that sexual desire.   # i think they do.  i think that their impulses are no where near as strong as men is impulses are.  sex is an inherently different beast for them.  they assume much much more risk when engaging in sex than men do.  i think that men have a more urgent need to fill that sexual desire.  i am not certain that men, from a genetic perspective, have more desire.  there is a complication however, in us culture and probably western european culture sex is a matter that is more complex for women.  i wo not go into why i think that is, i know you /u/0 and i think you know what i am driving at.  i think they would like to enjoy sex as much as men do but they are ensnared by cultural / religious hangups.  i mentioned impulse satisfaction above, those are examples of impulse satisfaction; not necessarily a differential in desire.  those are rare.  there are however many instances where women sacrifice to a large degree for a complex of emotional/physical attachment.  i think men are more likely to divorce the emotional and physical components of sex than women are.  or at least, that is what hollywood sells us and that propagates down to the women folk.  plenty of studies confirm this.  actually, i have read a lot on how libido is supported in women from strength training because of the increase in free testosterone that is released as a part of the hormonal response to the physical stress brought on by resistance training.  i think this is cultural.  goes back to my impulse control and risk profile thesis from above.   #  women are socialized to show passive interest to try and get a man is attention so that the man will ask them out.   #  biologically, sex is riskier for women than men, so it would make sense for them to be more cautious and picky if they held the same amount of desire because it is a cost/benefit analysis.  women are socialized to show passive interest to try and get a man is attention so that the man will ask them out.  this is something that is changing, as it is becoming more socially acceptable for women to ask men out, but not too long ago it just was not socially allowed.  so if a woman was interested in a particular person, she had to work very hard to get that person to ask her out.  this involves signals, and letting someone know your interest.  it involves convoluted messages of letting a guy know that if they asked the answer would definitely be yes, and yet the woman could not be the one to do the asking.  but its still a rejection for her if a man chooses not to ask after being told  the answer is yes if you do ask .  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.   #  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.   # men break a lot of social mores in attempting to get sex prostitution , and in expressing sexual desire groping/cat calling/etc/ .  i think they do so because they are compelled by the potency of their desire.  i believe women are less prone to doing these things because they are not inspired to by their desire.  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.  but, does estrogen have deliver the same intensity of desire as testosterone ?  #  i think overall its a pointless exercise to argue who feels something  more  because there is no way to gauge how deeply another person feels something.   # i disagree with both those statements.  i do not think men do this commonly.  it happens, but by a small minority of men.  i have also witnessed women cat call.  so you ca not say that women never do it either.  i think overall its a pointless exercise to argue who feels something  more  because there is no way to gauge how deeply another person feels something.  we know men and women both feel desire, and we know that men and women both feel varying ranges of desire.  i would imagine that, like most things, the range within one sex is much greater than the weighted average between the two sexes.  which makes the whole discussion an argument in futility.  men on average are taller than women.  i am a woman.  i am taller than around 0/0 the men i come across, and i am only 0 0.  height is something tangible that can be measured.  and yet it still makes no sense to assume someone will be taller or shorter than you based upon the sex of the other person.  sure a man who is 0 0 can say that he will likely be taller than any woman he meets, but he can also say he will likely be taller than any man he meets.  anyone within the standard deviation range can only give a percent likelihood chance.  the same would likely be the case with desire.  there may be a slight average difference, but it will tell you nothing about an individual person is desire or where they fall within the range.   #  related to that, it took me quite a while to figure out how to masturbate.   #  from my experience as a woman, here is the deal for me: women are not really told that they should/could enjoy sex.  this might sound crazy, but i did not realize women  could  enjoy it until high school.  it is around that time i learned that women could actually masturbate too.  i would known men could pretty much since i learned about sex, but was completely surprised that women could.  for some reason, female sexual pleasure is a bit taboo of a subject.  related to that, it took me quite a while to figure out how to masturbate.  i did not have too much interest in it when i started.  it can be difficult for women to figure out what works for them and some adult women have never reached orgasm as a result.  if you ca not reach orgasm, then it would make sense that you would not be as interested in sex.  if it takes you a long time to figure out how to get yourself to orgasm, then you ca not expect a new partner to be able to get you off right away.  this, along with the risks of pregnancy, stds, violence, etc.  makes offers of sex from strangers not that attractive.  the potential benefits are little, but the risks are high.  in conclusion, i find myself wanting sex all the freaking time.
i do not believe women want sex nearly as much as men do.  this is a generalization, of course.  there are a great many women with high sex drives, of course.  but, in general i believe that men at large are more desiring of sex.  one reason i believe this, is that men patronize prostitutes in significant numbers and men are willing to trade things of real value like money in order to get sex.  i ca not think of any scenario in which women are willing to give up something of significant value in order to get sex.  i also believe this is true because testosterone is largely responsible for the human sex drive.  the more testosterone you produce the more libidinous you are.  men who have lower testosterone have less of a sex drive.  these men seek out testosterone treatment and notice a dramatic increase in sex drive once the treatment becomes effective.  women produce significantly less testosterone than men, consequently their sex drives are typically lower.  women are less proactive when it comes to seeking out sex partners.  i do not have support for this one, but in my experience men are the ones who are proactive about directly asking women out or making direct romantic gestures.  it is usually incumbent upon men to do the asking, to make the first move.  men are compelled to play by these rules because women are the ones who have the thing that men desire, and men are the ones who are forced to act because of the desire.  also, men are much more likely to say yes to a request for an immediate sexual encounter than women are.  according to this URL study women were much, much less likely to say yes to a proposal for immediate sex, whereas men were much, much more likely to say yes.  watch this URL video.  many of the men features men leap at the change to have sex with the girl, despite the fact that she could be leading them into some kind of trap, or that she could have an std of some kind.  there are only a few examples i know there is another video in which is about 0:0 as well , but the average of men that say yes it much higher than the average in the gender opposite video.  the ones who do not leap to sleep with her at least seriously consider doing it, this is because they want, very badly to have sex with a beautiful girl.  the women in this URL video do not react nearly as positively.  none of them leap at the chance.  they are not instantly aroused the way the men are by even the proposal.  i think it is reasonable to conclude that the desire just is not as intense.  you might argue that the desire becomes as intense when the desire is provoked, and that this situation does not provoke the desire but if it is so difficult to provoke the same amount of desire, does not that mean that there is less desire in general ? cmv, please !  #  one reason i believe this, is that men patronize prostitutes in significant numbers and men are willing to trade things of real value like money in order to get sex.   #  i mentioned impulse satisfaction above, those are examples of impulse satisfaction; not necessarily a differential in desire.   # i think they do.  i think that their impulses are no where near as strong as men is impulses are.  sex is an inherently different beast for them.  they assume much much more risk when engaging in sex than men do.  i think that men have a more urgent need to fill that sexual desire.  i am not certain that men, from a genetic perspective, have more desire.  there is a complication however, in us culture and probably western european culture sex is a matter that is more complex for women.  i wo not go into why i think that is, i know you /u/0 and i think you know what i am driving at.  i think they would like to enjoy sex as much as men do but they are ensnared by cultural / religious hangups.  i mentioned impulse satisfaction above, those are examples of impulse satisfaction; not necessarily a differential in desire.  those are rare.  there are however many instances where women sacrifice to a large degree for a complex of emotional/physical attachment.  i think men are more likely to divorce the emotional and physical components of sex than women are.  or at least, that is what hollywood sells us and that propagates down to the women folk.  plenty of studies confirm this.  actually, i have read a lot on how libido is supported in women from strength training because of the increase in free testosterone that is released as a part of the hormonal response to the physical stress brought on by resistance training.  i think this is cultural.  goes back to my impulse control and risk profile thesis from above.   #  this involves signals, and letting someone know your interest.   #  biologically, sex is riskier for women than men, so it would make sense for them to be more cautious and picky if they held the same amount of desire because it is a cost/benefit analysis.  women are socialized to show passive interest to try and get a man is attention so that the man will ask them out.  this is something that is changing, as it is becoming more socially acceptable for women to ask men out, but not too long ago it just was not socially allowed.  so if a woman was interested in a particular person, she had to work very hard to get that person to ask her out.  this involves signals, and letting someone know your interest.  it involves convoluted messages of letting a guy know that if they asked the answer would definitely be yes, and yet the woman could not be the one to do the asking.  but its still a rejection for her if a man chooses not to ask after being told  the answer is yes if you do ask .  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.   #  but, does estrogen have deliver the same intensity of desire as testosterone ?  # men break a lot of social mores in attempting to get sex prostitution , and in expressing sexual desire groping/cat calling/etc/ .  i think they do so because they are compelled by the potency of their desire.  i believe women are less prone to doing these things because they are not inspired to by their desire.  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.  but, does estrogen have deliver the same intensity of desire as testosterone ?  #  sure a man who is 0 0 can say that he will likely be taller than any woman he meets, but he can also say he will likely be taller than any man he meets.   # i disagree with both those statements.  i do not think men do this commonly.  it happens, but by a small minority of men.  i have also witnessed women cat call.  so you ca not say that women never do it either.  i think overall its a pointless exercise to argue who feels something  more  because there is no way to gauge how deeply another person feels something.  we know men and women both feel desire, and we know that men and women both feel varying ranges of desire.  i would imagine that, like most things, the range within one sex is much greater than the weighted average between the two sexes.  which makes the whole discussion an argument in futility.  men on average are taller than women.  i am a woman.  i am taller than around 0/0 the men i come across, and i am only 0 0.  height is something tangible that can be measured.  and yet it still makes no sense to assume someone will be taller or shorter than you based upon the sex of the other person.  sure a man who is 0 0 can say that he will likely be taller than any woman he meets, but he can also say he will likely be taller than any man he meets.  anyone within the standard deviation range can only give a percent likelihood chance.  the same would likely be the case with desire.  there may be a slight average difference, but it will tell you nothing about an individual person is desire or where they fall within the range.   #  this, along with the risks of pregnancy, stds, violence, etc.   #  from my experience as a woman, here is the deal for me: women are not really told that they should/could enjoy sex.  this might sound crazy, but i did not realize women  could  enjoy it until high school.  it is around that time i learned that women could actually masturbate too.  i would known men could pretty much since i learned about sex, but was completely surprised that women could.  for some reason, female sexual pleasure is a bit taboo of a subject.  related to that, it took me quite a while to figure out how to masturbate.  i did not have too much interest in it when i started.  it can be difficult for women to figure out what works for them and some adult women have never reached orgasm as a result.  if you ca not reach orgasm, then it would make sense that you would not be as interested in sex.  if it takes you a long time to figure out how to get yourself to orgasm, then you ca not expect a new partner to be able to get you off right away.  this, along with the risks of pregnancy, stds, violence, etc.  makes offers of sex from strangers not that attractive.  the potential benefits are little, but the risks are high.  in conclusion, i find myself wanting sex all the freaking time.
i do not believe women want sex nearly as much as men do.  this is a generalization, of course.  there are a great many women with high sex drives, of course.  but, in general i believe that men at large are more desiring of sex.  one reason i believe this, is that men patronize prostitutes in significant numbers and men are willing to trade things of real value like money in order to get sex.  i ca not think of any scenario in which women are willing to give up something of significant value in order to get sex.  i also believe this is true because testosterone is largely responsible for the human sex drive.  the more testosterone you produce the more libidinous you are.  men who have lower testosterone have less of a sex drive.  these men seek out testosterone treatment and notice a dramatic increase in sex drive once the treatment becomes effective.  women produce significantly less testosterone than men, consequently their sex drives are typically lower.  women are less proactive when it comes to seeking out sex partners.  i do not have support for this one, but in my experience men are the ones who are proactive about directly asking women out or making direct romantic gestures.  it is usually incumbent upon men to do the asking, to make the first move.  men are compelled to play by these rules because women are the ones who have the thing that men desire, and men are the ones who are forced to act because of the desire.  also, men are much more likely to say yes to a request for an immediate sexual encounter than women are.  according to this URL study women were much, much less likely to say yes to a proposal for immediate sex, whereas men were much, much more likely to say yes.  watch this URL video.  many of the men features men leap at the change to have sex with the girl, despite the fact that she could be leading them into some kind of trap, or that she could have an std of some kind.  there are only a few examples i know there is another video in which is about 0:0 as well , but the average of men that say yes it much higher than the average in the gender opposite video.  the ones who do not leap to sleep with her at least seriously consider doing it, this is because they want, very badly to have sex with a beautiful girl.  the women in this URL video do not react nearly as positively.  none of them leap at the chance.  they are not instantly aroused the way the men are by even the proposal.  i think it is reasonable to conclude that the desire just is not as intense.  you might argue that the desire becomes as intense when the desire is provoked, and that this situation does not provoke the desire but if it is so difficult to provoke the same amount of desire, does not that mean that there is less desire in general ? cmv, please !  #  men are much more likely to say yes to a request for an immediate sexual encounter than women are.   #  goes back to my impulse control and risk profile thesis from above.   # i think they do.  i think that their impulses are no where near as strong as men is impulses are.  sex is an inherently different beast for them.  they assume much much more risk when engaging in sex than men do.  i think that men have a more urgent need to fill that sexual desire.  i am not certain that men, from a genetic perspective, have more desire.  there is a complication however, in us culture and probably western european culture sex is a matter that is more complex for women.  i wo not go into why i think that is, i know you /u/0 and i think you know what i am driving at.  i think they would like to enjoy sex as much as men do but they are ensnared by cultural / religious hangups.  i mentioned impulse satisfaction above, those are examples of impulse satisfaction; not necessarily a differential in desire.  those are rare.  there are however many instances where women sacrifice to a large degree for a complex of emotional/physical attachment.  i think men are more likely to divorce the emotional and physical components of sex than women are.  or at least, that is what hollywood sells us and that propagates down to the women folk.  plenty of studies confirm this.  actually, i have read a lot on how libido is supported in women from strength training because of the increase in free testosterone that is released as a part of the hormonal response to the physical stress brought on by resistance training.  i think this is cultural.  goes back to my impulse control and risk profile thesis from above.   #  women are socialized to show passive interest to try and get a man is attention so that the man will ask them out.   #  biologically, sex is riskier for women than men, so it would make sense for them to be more cautious and picky if they held the same amount of desire because it is a cost/benefit analysis.  women are socialized to show passive interest to try and get a man is attention so that the man will ask them out.  this is something that is changing, as it is becoming more socially acceptable for women to ask men out, but not too long ago it just was not socially allowed.  so if a woman was interested in a particular person, she had to work very hard to get that person to ask her out.  this involves signals, and letting someone know your interest.  it involves convoluted messages of letting a guy know that if they asked the answer would definitely be yes, and yet the woman could not be the one to do the asking.  but its still a rejection for her if a man chooses not to ask after being told  the answer is yes if you do ask .  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.   #  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.   # men break a lot of social mores in attempting to get sex prostitution , and in expressing sexual desire groping/cat calling/etc/ .  i think they do so because they are compelled by the potency of their desire.  i believe women are less prone to doing these things because they are not inspired to by their desire.  this does not mean that because women have more estrogen than men that they have a higher sex drive.  this just means that those particular functions are governed by different hormones for women and men.  but, does estrogen have deliver the same intensity of desire as testosterone ?  #  sure a man who is 0 0 can say that he will likely be taller than any woman he meets, but he can also say he will likely be taller than any man he meets.   # i disagree with both those statements.  i do not think men do this commonly.  it happens, but by a small minority of men.  i have also witnessed women cat call.  so you ca not say that women never do it either.  i think overall its a pointless exercise to argue who feels something  more  because there is no way to gauge how deeply another person feels something.  we know men and women both feel desire, and we know that men and women both feel varying ranges of desire.  i would imagine that, like most things, the range within one sex is much greater than the weighted average between the two sexes.  which makes the whole discussion an argument in futility.  men on average are taller than women.  i am a woman.  i am taller than around 0/0 the men i come across, and i am only 0 0.  height is something tangible that can be measured.  and yet it still makes no sense to assume someone will be taller or shorter than you based upon the sex of the other person.  sure a man who is 0 0 can say that he will likely be taller than any woman he meets, but he can also say he will likely be taller than any man he meets.  anyone within the standard deviation range can only give a percent likelihood chance.  the same would likely be the case with desire.  there may be a slight average difference, but it will tell you nothing about an individual person is desire or where they fall within the range.   #  makes offers of sex from strangers not that attractive.   #  from my experience as a woman, here is the deal for me: women are not really told that they should/could enjoy sex.  this might sound crazy, but i did not realize women  could  enjoy it until high school.  it is around that time i learned that women could actually masturbate too.  i would known men could pretty much since i learned about sex, but was completely surprised that women could.  for some reason, female sexual pleasure is a bit taboo of a subject.  related to that, it took me quite a while to figure out how to masturbate.  i did not have too much interest in it when i started.  it can be difficult for women to figure out what works for them and some adult women have never reached orgasm as a result.  if you ca not reach orgasm, then it would make sense that you would not be as interested in sex.  if it takes you a long time to figure out how to get yourself to orgasm, then you ca not expect a new partner to be able to get you off right away.  this, along with the risks of pregnancy, stds, violence, etc.  makes offers of sex from strangers not that attractive.  the potential benefits are little, but the risks are high.  in conclusion, i find myself wanting sex all the freaking time.
now, i may have my history wrong, but the way i see it is that it was the palestinians land first.  yes, the jewish faith does say that it  should  be their land, but the old testament dates from at least 0nd bce, and i am imagining the palestinians have had that land for a while.  but in what kind of modern world is allowing the formation of a state  where people have already been living for a really long time , and just because it says so in your holy book ! it displaced millions, and has caused massive unrest, which is still going on today.  how on earth is behavior like this moral, especially with no justification beyond  we think we should have this land  ?  #  it displaced millions, and has caused massive unrest, which is still going on today.   #  no, what displaced people was the arabs attacking israel immediately after its declaring independence.   # actually, they have not.  the majority of arabs who today call themselves palestinians can trace their roots in the region no further back than a couple of hundred years, when arabs from the surrounding regions mostly egypt and syria started emigrating because the zionist project was creating the beginnings of a viable economy there for the first time.  besides the fact that the jews did not just come in and kick out all the arabs, zionism from its beginning was a purely secular movement.  it had nothing to do with religion, all the original founders of zionism were socialist atheists.  zionism was purely about creating a state for the jews in their historic homeland where they could be safe from the increasing anti semitism around the world.  no, what displaced people was the arabs attacking israel immediately after its declaring independence.  they were advised and sometimes threatened by the invading arab countries to get out of the way while the jews were wiped out, after which they could return to their homes.  too bad for them, the jews won.  arabs who stayed became full citizens of israel, with all the rights of any other person, and they now constitute fully 0 of the israeli population.   #  URL furthermore, a lot of land was legally purchased by jews under ottoman and british laws foreign powers controlling that region .   #  jews continually lived in palestine.  URL furthermore, a lot of land was legally purchased by jews under ottoman and british laws foreign powers controlling that region .  URL consequently, by 0 a lot of jews were living in israel under completely legal basis.  the 0 plan tried to allocate land to jews and arabs with minimum population transfers.  URL the all hell broke loose after arabs rejected the plan.  URL which specific part of this was  immoral to begin with ?    #  egypt attacked israel, but egypt blundered its attack so badly that israel conquered the sinai peninsula and held on to it for years.   #  this is also why egypt is so friendly to israel.  the last time egypt and israel fought, egypt lost.  badly.  really badly.  it was disastrous for egypt.  egypt attacked israel, but egypt blundered its attack so badly that israel conquered the sinai peninsula and held on to it for years.  israel then gave back the land to egypt in exchange for peace with egypt.  if you start a war, and then lose the war you started so badly that you lost ground, you are in no position to bargain.  israel held all of the cards over egypt, and egypt knew it.   #  that war was kind of ridiculous jordan, syria, and egypt planned to attack israel from all sides.   #  that war was kind of ridiculous jordan, syria, and egypt planned to attack israel from all sides.  israel preemptively attacks egypt as their troops get to the border kicks all three countries collective asses and ends up with more land.  you have to give credit to any country that can get hit from all sides, three on one, win, end up with more land than they started, in  0   days .  i think many americans do not realize that israel is literally surrounded by states which have all publicly stated they wish to absolutely destroy israel and all of its people at one time or another.  that type of context has to be considered when you look at israeli policy.   #  considering whats at stake, israel has absolutely nothing to lose.   #  and the commonly stated goal is to  push the jews into the sea .  this means killing jews.  all of them.  a jewish genocide by water instead of fire.  israel simply is not going to let that happen.  ever.  they will fight to the last man before this happens.  i suspect that should israel end up losing a conventional war it will activate its nuclear arsenal.  israel will nuke its enemies before it loses.  considering whats at stake, israel has absolutely nothing to lose.  israel is not going to go quietly into the night.
now, i may have my history wrong, but the way i see it is that it was the palestinians land first.  yes, the jewish faith does say that it  should  be their land, but the old testament dates from at least 0nd bce, and i am imagining the palestinians have had that land for a while.  but in what kind of modern world is allowing the formation of a state  where people have already been living for a really long time , and just because it says so in your holy book ! it displaced millions, and has caused massive unrest, which is still going on today.  how on earth is behavior like this moral, especially with no justification beyond  we think we should have this land  ?  #  now, i may have my history wrong, but the way i see it is that it was the palestinians land first.   #  can we agree that it was no one is land first ?  # can we agree that it was no one is land first ? figuring out whose land it was is an incredibly tricky subject because it has a tendency to conflate use of the land with ownership of the land.  i am pretty sure, but not in a place to find a source right this second, that the majority of palestine was owned by absentee landlords at the time israel was formed.  portions of the land the jewish settlers bought were also thought to be useless and were gladly sold to the settlers who turned the land around and made it productive again.  however, you ca not completely ignore generations of people who lived on that land and made it their home.  they certainly have a claim as the original tenants but the territory was chopped up into so much swiss cheese by the time efforts were made to partition it.  so, saying any one entity has a solid claim to any large contiguous portion of israel is a difficult argument to solidly make.  i am not sure what relevance this has.  both groups have lived in the area for hundreds of years, establishing tenancy at that point was about individual towns not the entire country.  that is a gross over simplification.  people from both sides had been living there for generations.  the area had not been self governed in hundreds of years, if not thousands.  many of the people who settled in israel had nowhere else to go or were afraid to go back to their homes.  it was essentially a jewish refugee crisis and no one wanted to deal with it just like we do not want to deal with the palestinian refugee crisis today.  another gross simplification.  i think when considering problems of this scale whether or not actions are moral is an incredibly difficult argument to hang your hat on.  i think at this point morality has been ceded by all parties involved and we need to look at practical solutions.   #  the 0 plan tried to allocate land to jews and arabs with minimum population transfers.   #  jews continually lived in palestine.  URL furthermore, a lot of land was legally purchased by jews under ottoman and british laws foreign powers controlling that region .  URL consequently, by 0 a lot of jews were living in israel under completely legal basis.  the 0 plan tried to allocate land to jews and arabs with minimum population transfers.  URL the all hell broke loose after arabs rejected the plan.  URL which specific part of this was  immoral to begin with ?    #  egypt attacked israel, but egypt blundered its attack so badly that israel conquered the sinai peninsula and held on to it for years.   #  this is also why egypt is so friendly to israel.  the last time egypt and israel fought, egypt lost.  badly.  really badly.  it was disastrous for egypt.  egypt attacked israel, but egypt blundered its attack so badly that israel conquered the sinai peninsula and held on to it for years.  israel then gave back the land to egypt in exchange for peace with egypt.  if you start a war, and then lose the war you started so badly that you lost ground, you are in no position to bargain.  israel held all of the cards over egypt, and egypt knew it.   #  that type of context has to be considered when you look at israeli policy.   #  that war was kind of ridiculous jordan, syria, and egypt planned to attack israel from all sides.  israel preemptively attacks egypt as their troops get to the border kicks all three countries collective asses and ends up with more land.  you have to give credit to any country that can get hit from all sides, three on one, win, end up with more land than they started, in  0   days .  i think many americans do not realize that israel is literally surrounded by states which have all publicly stated they wish to absolutely destroy israel and all of its people at one time or another.  that type of context has to be considered when you look at israeli policy.   #  israel will nuke its enemies before it loses.   #  and the commonly stated goal is to  push the jews into the sea .  this means killing jews.  all of them.  a jewish genocide by water instead of fire.  israel simply is not going to let that happen.  ever.  they will fight to the last man before this happens.  i suspect that should israel end up losing a conventional war it will activate its nuclear arsenal.  israel will nuke its enemies before it loses.  considering whats at stake, israel has absolutely nothing to lose.  israel is not going to go quietly into the night.
the way i see it, the school system or at least the american school system is pretty much a criminal waste of time.  students retain almost no information that they could be using to nurture their little plastic brains into a blossoming adult mind later on.  i think that schools should not be this place where a whole bunch of inherently unique kids are forcefully thrown into a normalizing box and then literally legally forced to recite mundane facts and information that will be of virtually no use to them in the future, then let society label it as  education .  students need to be given more freedom in their choices of classes, ect.  and do not get me wrong, i am not saying that students do not learn anything in school.  obviously, in the situation where you put developing minds in a room together for 0 years of their life then they of course will learn something, because human children are hard wired to learn stuff.  but that is beside the point.  these things that they may learn are, first of all, not very abundant, and second of all, almost always slightly/completely useless in their adult life.  the school system needs a lot of revision if people really want the most educated people.   #  students need to be given more freedom in their choices of classes, ect.   #  you gotta learn the basics before you can move on.   # criminal ? i think that schools should not be this place where a whole bunch of inherently unique kids are forcefully thrown into a normalizing box and then literally legally forced to recite mundane facts and information that will be of virtually no use to them in the future, then let society label it as  education .  so you are saying kids are too good for math and science ? should we begin grade three with quantum physics because their brains can just learn anything with ease ? you gotta learn the basics before you can move on.  ect.  as in what else ? obviously, in the situation where you put developing minds in a room together for 0 years of their life then they of course will learn something, because human children are hard wired to learn stuff.  but that is beside the point.  no it is not beside the point.  that is the point.  you learned more than you can even remember in the first 0 years of your educational career.  it seems mundane or quaint because you have already learned so much more.  we cannot simply target our education at  preparing for adult life  because there is no way to do that, especially in such a way that will work for every single kid.  what kind of revision ?  #  i also moved to a smaller, rural, wealthier district.   #  oh, the struggle your comment provokes for me.  you are correct; training students to become followers of authority, stand in line, keep your hands to yourself, keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself, unless i ask for it.  even then, only tell me the most sanitized version of your question, without any risk of offending any of the other 0  people in your class/group/work.  the town i grew up in, that i moved back to during my divorce so my children could grow up with family and  amidwestern work ethics  decided school uniforms would help the  behavior problems  in the district.  at the time, my daughters were preschool and kindergarten.  i left the district deliberately before my youngest started public school.  the uniform rule was one reason.  i also moved to a smaller, rural, wealthier district.  the differences were stark.  in town, crappy lunches with terrible lunch times and less than 0 mins to actually eat, with all the standing in line necessary to get food and a seat.  rural, delicious fresh food, locally grown lunches prepared by older ladies from the community who like having an easy part time job.  salad bar, with unlimited visits.  in town, pe gym class 0 0 days a week, for 0 mins, with less than 0 mins of actual exercise required.  rural, pe for life program, with one hour a day, 0 days a week from 0nd grade to 0th, even if you are in sports.  all required state testing scheduled after pe.  public school can be good, even great.  public school can be like prison.  public school is good for society, but not always good for the independent individual.   #  i was poor when i was growing up in the southeastern asisain country i wont name.   #  . equality is nice.  but in life no one is truely equal.  doctors and engineers are not equal to a janitor or a manager.  diversity is great, both in thought and in clothing.  the sonner we understand that there are different social classes, the better.  i was poor when i was growing up in the southeastern asisain country i wont name.  i did not have uniforms.  made it rich in my 0s  #  the goals of the public school system and post secondary education are different.   # the goals of the public school system and post secondary education are different.  public education is meant to prepare children for life not only in terms of academic knowledge but also in terms of socialization and cultural indoctrination.  high school is not intended to act as a  filter , which is why we opine people dropping out of high school and not college.  we want 0 % of students to graduate high school, it is not a choice, it is what we expect an adult of our society to have as baseline credentials.  this would only be desirable if the educational system was wholly a means to support business, but that is not the case.  the public education  does  do a poor job of introducing its students to the multitude of available employment options, but this is not a problem easily solved by institutionalized education.  the best way to determine what is available and what you want to do is life experience.  this is why so many college students tend to shift majors as they mature and experience the world.  a better solution to the problem of linking students with proper career paths would be to incentivize  not  going into post secondary education but instead taking some time to grow up and determine your aptitudes before taking out a bunch of loans.   #  but i would also say that most teachers are quite sincere in doing the best job that they can, and if there were some obvious way to improve the educational system, they would already be doing that.   #  there are a lot of problems with this argument.  the world of the 0st century is extremely complicated, and most people do not understand it very well, and may make unfortunate blunders in their lives, as a result.  people would benefit from being more educated, rather than less.  can the public education system do this ? perhaps.  but i would also say that most teachers are quite sincere in doing the best job that they can, and if there were some obvious way to improve the educational system, they would already be doing that.  some people do better with home schooling, but there are lots of parents who have neither the ability nor the inclination to educate their own children, or even if they have the ability and the inclination, may still not have enough time.  school is very convenient for parents.  when most people lived on farms, there was always something for children to do, chores to be done, animals to look after, weeding in the fields, and so forth.  having children around was not a problem.  now, parents need to have somewhere to send their children while they are away at their jobs, earning a living.  the public education system is at least 0 a child care service.  it would not be easily replaced.
the way i see it, the school system or at least the american school system is pretty much a criminal waste of time.  students retain almost no information that they could be using to nurture their little plastic brains into a blossoming adult mind later on.  i think that schools should not be this place where a whole bunch of inherently unique kids are forcefully thrown into a normalizing box and then literally legally forced to recite mundane facts and information that will be of virtually no use to them in the future, then let society label it as  education .  students need to be given more freedom in their choices of classes, ect.  and do not get me wrong, i am not saying that students do not learn anything in school.  obviously, in the situation where you put developing minds in a room together for 0 years of their life then they of course will learn something, because human children are hard wired to learn stuff.  but that is beside the point.  these things that they may learn are, first of all, not very abundant, and second of all, almost always slightly/completely useless in their adult life.  the school system needs a lot of revision if people really want the most educated people.   #  and do not get me wrong, i am not saying that students do not learn anything in school.   #  obviously, in the situation where you put developing minds in a room together for 0 years of their life then they of course will learn something, because human children are hard wired to learn stuff.   # criminal ? i think that schools should not be this place where a whole bunch of inherently unique kids are forcefully thrown into a normalizing box and then literally legally forced to recite mundane facts and information that will be of virtually no use to them in the future, then let society label it as  education .  so you are saying kids are too good for math and science ? should we begin grade three with quantum physics because their brains can just learn anything with ease ? you gotta learn the basics before you can move on.  ect.  as in what else ? obviously, in the situation where you put developing minds in a room together for 0 years of their life then they of course will learn something, because human children are hard wired to learn stuff.  but that is beside the point.  no it is not beside the point.  that is the point.  you learned more than you can even remember in the first 0 years of your educational career.  it seems mundane or quaint because you have already learned so much more.  we cannot simply target our education at  preparing for adult life  because there is no way to do that, especially in such a way that will work for every single kid.  what kind of revision ?  #  rural, pe for life program, with one hour a day, 0 days a week from 0nd grade to 0th, even if you are in sports.   #  oh, the struggle your comment provokes for me.  you are correct; training students to become followers of authority, stand in line, keep your hands to yourself, keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself, unless i ask for it.  even then, only tell me the most sanitized version of your question, without any risk of offending any of the other 0  people in your class/group/work.  the town i grew up in, that i moved back to during my divorce so my children could grow up with family and  amidwestern work ethics  decided school uniforms would help the  behavior problems  in the district.  at the time, my daughters were preschool and kindergarten.  i left the district deliberately before my youngest started public school.  the uniform rule was one reason.  i also moved to a smaller, rural, wealthier district.  the differences were stark.  in town, crappy lunches with terrible lunch times and less than 0 mins to actually eat, with all the standing in line necessary to get food and a seat.  rural, delicious fresh food, locally grown lunches prepared by older ladies from the community who like having an easy part time job.  salad bar, with unlimited visits.  in town, pe gym class 0 0 days a week, for 0 mins, with less than 0 mins of actual exercise required.  rural, pe for life program, with one hour a day, 0 days a week from 0nd grade to 0th, even if you are in sports.  all required state testing scheduled after pe.  public school can be good, even great.  public school can be like prison.  public school is good for society, but not always good for the independent individual.   #  the sonner we understand that there are different social classes, the better.   #  . equality is nice.  but in life no one is truely equal.  doctors and engineers are not equal to a janitor or a manager.  diversity is great, both in thought and in clothing.  the sonner we understand that there are different social classes, the better.  i was poor when i was growing up in the southeastern asisain country i wont name.  i did not have uniforms.  made it rich in my 0s  #  the best way to determine what is available and what you want to do is life experience.   # the goals of the public school system and post secondary education are different.  public education is meant to prepare children for life not only in terms of academic knowledge but also in terms of socialization and cultural indoctrination.  high school is not intended to act as a  filter , which is why we opine people dropping out of high school and not college.  we want 0 % of students to graduate high school, it is not a choice, it is what we expect an adult of our society to have as baseline credentials.  this would only be desirable if the educational system was wholly a means to support business, but that is not the case.  the public education  does  do a poor job of introducing its students to the multitude of available employment options, but this is not a problem easily solved by institutionalized education.  the best way to determine what is available and what you want to do is life experience.  this is why so many college students tend to shift majors as they mature and experience the world.  a better solution to the problem of linking students with proper career paths would be to incentivize  not  going into post secondary education but instead taking some time to grow up and determine your aptitudes before taking out a bunch of loans.   #  there are a lot of problems with this argument.   #  there are a lot of problems with this argument.  the world of the 0st century is extremely complicated, and most people do not understand it very well, and may make unfortunate blunders in their lives, as a result.  people would benefit from being more educated, rather than less.  can the public education system do this ? perhaps.  but i would also say that most teachers are quite sincere in doing the best job that they can, and if there were some obvious way to improve the educational system, they would already be doing that.  some people do better with home schooling, but there are lots of parents who have neither the ability nor the inclination to educate their own children, or even if they have the ability and the inclination, may still not have enough time.  school is very convenient for parents.  when most people lived on farms, there was always something for children to do, chores to be done, animals to look after, weeding in the fields, and so forth.  having children around was not a problem.  now, parents need to have somewhere to send their children while they are away at their jobs, earning a living.  the public education system is at least 0 a child care service.  it would not be easily replaced.
the way i see it, the school system or at least the american school system is pretty much a criminal waste of time.  students retain almost no information that they could be using to nurture their little plastic brains into a blossoming adult mind later on.  i think that schools should not be this place where a whole bunch of inherently unique kids are forcefully thrown into a normalizing box and then literally legally forced to recite mundane facts and information that will be of virtually no use to them in the future, then let society label it as  education .  students need to be given more freedom in their choices of classes, ect.  and do not get me wrong, i am not saying that students do not learn anything in school.  obviously, in the situation where you put developing minds in a room together for 0 years of their life then they of course will learn something, because human children are hard wired to learn stuff.  but that is beside the point.  these things that they may learn are, first of all, not very abundant, and second of all, almost always slightly/completely useless in their adult life.  the school system needs a lot of revision if people really want the most educated people.   #  these things that they may learn are, first of all, not very abundant, and second of all, almost always slightly/completely useless in their adult life.   #  you learned more than you can even remember in the first 0 years of your educational career.   # criminal ? i think that schools should not be this place where a whole bunch of inherently unique kids are forcefully thrown into a normalizing box and then literally legally forced to recite mundane facts and information that will be of virtually no use to them in the future, then let society label it as  education .  so you are saying kids are too good for math and science ? should we begin grade three with quantum physics because their brains can just learn anything with ease ? you gotta learn the basics before you can move on.  ect.  as in what else ? obviously, in the situation where you put developing minds in a room together for 0 years of their life then they of course will learn something, because human children are hard wired to learn stuff.  but that is beside the point.  no it is not beside the point.  that is the point.  you learned more than you can even remember in the first 0 years of your educational career.  it seems mundane or quaint because you have already learned so much more.  we cannot simply target our education at  preparing for adult life  because there is no way to do that, especially in such a way that will work for every single kid.  what kind of revision ?  #  rural, pe for life program, with one hour a day, 0 days a week from 0nd grade to 0th, even if you are in sports.   #  oh, the struggle your comment provokes for me.  you are correct; training students to become followers of authority, stand in line, keep your hands to yourself, keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself, unless i ask for it.  even then, only tell me the most sanitized version of your question, without any risk of offending any of the other 0  people in your class/group/work.  the town i grew up in, that i moved back to during my divorce so my children could grow up with family and  amidwestern work ethics  decided school uniforms would help the  behavior problems  in the district.  at the time, my daughters were preschool and kindergarten.  i left the district deliberately before my youngest started public school.  the uniform rule was one reason.  i also moved to a smaller, rural, wealthier district.  the differences were stark.  in town, crappy lunches with terrible lunch times and less than 0 mins to actually eat, with all the standing in line necessary to get food and a seat.  rural, delicious fresh food, locally grown lunches prepared by older ladies from the community who like having an easy part time job.  salad bar, with unlimited visits.  in town, pe gym class 0 0 days a week, for 0 mins, with less than 0 mins of actual exercise required.  rural, pe for life program, with one hour a day, 0 days a week from 0nd grade to 0th, even if you are in sports.  all required state testing scheduled after pe.  public school can be good, even great.  public school can be like prison.  public school is good for society, but not always good for the independent individual.   #  i was poor when i was growing up in the southeastern asisain country i wont name.   #  . equality is nice.  but in life no one is truely equal.  doctors and engineers are not equal to a janitor or a manager.  diversity is great, both in thought and in clothing.  the sonner we understand that there are different social classes, the better.  i was poor when i was growing up in the southeastern asisain country i wont name.  i did not have uniforms.  made it rich in my 0s  #  the public education  does  do a poor job of introducing its students to the multitude of available employment options, but this is not a problem easily solved by institutionalized education.   # the goals of the public school system and post secondary education are different.  public education is meant to prepare children for life not only in terms of academic knowledge but also in terms of socialization and cultural indoctrination.  high school is not intended to act as a  filter , which is why we opine people dropping out of high school and not college.  we want 0 % of students to graduate high school, it is not a choice, it is what we expect an adult of our society to have as baseline credentials.  this would only be desirable if the educational system was wholly a means to support business, but that is not the case.  the public education  does  do a poor job of introducing its students to the multitude of available employment options, but this is not a problem easily solved by institutionalized education.  the best way to determine what is available and what you want to do is life experience.  this is why so many college students tend to shift majors as they mature and experience the world.  a better solution to the problem of linking students with proper career paths would be to incentivize  not  going into post secondary education but instead taking some time to grow up and determine your aptitudes before taking out a bunch of loans.   #  people would benefit from being more educated, rather than less.   #  there are a lot of problems with this argument.  the world of the 0st century is extremely complicated, and most people do not understand it very well, and may make unfortunate blunders in their lives, as a result.  people would benefit from being more educated, rather than less.  can the public education system do this ? perhaps.  but i would also say that most teachers are quite sincere in doing the best job that they can, and if there were some obvious way to improve the educational system, they would already be doing that.  some people do better with home schooling, but there are lots of parents who have neither the ability nor the inclination to educate their own children, or even if they have the ability and the inclination, may still not have enough time.  school is very convenient for parents.  when most people lived on farms, there was always something for children to do, chores to be done, animals to look after, weeding in the fields, and so forth.  having children around was not a problem.  now, parents need to have somewhere to send their children while they are away at their jobs, earning a living.  the public education system is at least 0 a child care service.  it would not be easily replaced.
the way i see it, the school system or at least the american school system is pretty much a criminal waste of time.  students retain almost no information that they could be using to nurture their little plastic brains into a blossoming adult mind later on.  i think that schools should not be this place where a whole bunch of inherently unique kids are forcefully thrown into a normalizing box and then literally legally forced to recite mundane facts and information that will be of virtually no use to them in the future, then let society label it as  education .  students need to be given more freedom in their choices of classes, ect.  and do not get me wrong, i am not saying that students do not learn anything in school.  obviously, in the situation where you put developing minds in a room together for 0 years of their life then they of course will learn something, because human children are hard wired to learn stuff.  but that is beside the point.  these things that they may learn are, first of all, not very abundant, and second of all, almost always slightly/completely useless in their adult life.  the school system needs a lot of revision if people really want the most educated people.   #  the school system needs a lot of revision if people really want the most educated people.   #  i would argue that the government  does not  want the most educated people.   # i would argue that the government  does not  want the most educated people.  schools in their current form developed when we needed unskilled labor for factories.  even though our society has radically changed, i would argue that the government  wants  a populace that is dumbed down and does what they are told because they are easier to control, and they are not as likely to vote.  especially in poor schools, education is woefully subpar and kids are churned out with useless diplomas into a workforce wherein they are increasingly irrelevant.  as a teacher, i try to fight this.  but you are right in the sense that school in its current form does not do enough to educate kids.  my argument is that the system  is not  trying to create an educated populace; it is trying to create automatons.   #  the town i grew up in, that i moved back to during my divorce so my children could grow up with family and  amidwestern work ethics  decided school uniforms would help the  behavior problems  in the district.   #  oh, the struggle your comment provokes for me.  you are correct; training students to become followers of authority, stand in line, keep your hands to yourself, keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself, unless i ask for it.  even then, only tell me the most sanitized version of your question, without any risk of offending any of the other 0  people in your class/group/work.  the town i grew up in, that i moved back to during my divorce so my children could grow up with family and  amidwestern work ethics  decided school uniforms would help the  behavior problems  in the district.  at the time, my daughters were preschool and kindergarten.  i left the district deliberately before my youngest started public school.  the uniform rule was one reason.  i also moved to a smaller, rural, wealthier district.  the differences were stark.  in town, crappy lunches with terrible lunch times and less than 0 mins to actually eat, with all the standing in line necessary to get food and a seat.  rural, delicious fresh food, locally grown lunches prepared by older ladies from the community who like having an easy part time job.  salad bar, with unlimited visits.  in town, pe gym class 0 0 days a week, for 0 mins, with less than 0 mins of actual exercise required.  rural, pe for life program, with one hour a day, 0 days a week from 0nd grade to 0th, even if you are in sports.  all required state testing scheduled after pe.  public school can be good, even great.  public school can be like prison.  public school is good for society, but not always good for the independent individual.   #  but in life no one is truely equal.   #  . equality is nice.  but in life no one is truely equal.  doctors and engineers are not equal to a janitor or a manager.  diversity is great, both in thought and in clothing.  the sonner we understand that there are different social classes, the better.  i was poor when i was growing up in the southeastern asisain country i wont name.  i did not have uniforms.  made it rich in my 0s  #  we want 0 % of students to graduate high school, it is not a choice, it is what we expect an adult of our society to have as baseline credentials.   # the goals of the public school system and post secondary education are different.  public education is meant to prepare children for life not only in terms of academic knowledge but also in terms of socialization and cultural indoctrination.  high school is not intended to act as a  filter , which is why we opine people dropping out of high school and not college.  we want 0 % of students to graduate high school, it is not a choice, it is what we expect an adult of our society to have as baseline credentials.  this would only be desirable if the educational system was wholly a means to support business, but that is not the case.  the public education  does  do a poor job of introducing its students to the multitude of available employment options, but this is not a problem easily solved by institutionalized education.  the best way to determine what is available and what you want to do is life experience.  this is why so many college students tend to shift majors as they mature and experience the world.  a better solution to the problem of linking students with proper career paths would be to incentivize  not  going into post secondary education but instead taking some time to grow up and determine your aptitudes before taking out a bunch of loans.   #  but i would also say that most teachers are quite sincere in doing the best job that they can, and if there were some obvious way to improve the educational system, they would already be doing that.   #  there are a lot of problems with this argument.  the world of the 0st century is extremely complicated, and most people do not understand it very well, and may make unfortunate blunders in their lives, as a result.  people would benefit from being more educated, rather than less.  can the public education system do this ? perhaps.  but i would also say that most teachers are quite sincere in doing the best job that they can, and if there were some obvious way to improve the educational system, they would already be doing that.  some people do better with home schooling, but there are lots of parents who have neither the ability nor the inclination to educate their own children, or even if they have the ability and the inclination, may still not have enough time.  school is very convenient for parents.  when most people lived on farms, there was always something for children to do, chores to be done, animals to look after, weeding in the fields, and so forth.  having children around was not a problem.  now, parents need to have somewhere to send their children while they are away at their jobs, earning a living.  the public education system is at least 0 a child care service.  it would not be easily replaced.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ?  #  was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ?  # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ?  #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.   #  what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ?  # do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? no.  interracial marriage between a man and a women would not include same sex marriage.  the important part is man and women.  what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? the dangerous message is that when we have so much evidence that mothering and fathering are distinct phenomena and that children thrive the most when having both, that we are making them interchangeable and optional.  0 of all americans, 0 of hispanics, 0 of african americans born to single mothers and then all of the social costs that come with that in terms of child poverty, decreased social mobility, increased crime, increased welfare.  with same sex marriage, the message that child does best with a mother and father would disappear from our public policy.  similarly, when we redefined marriage with no fault divorce, we weakened the idea that marriage is supposed to be a commitment between sexually complementary spouses not only to each other but to their children.  before nfd, there were a lot less fragmented families single digit divorce , and theres plenty evidence showing that children without a father figure are 0x more likely to drop out, 0x more likely to go to prison, and many other things.  now as to the study you cited, i would need you to show me the original study, not an article.  there have been many  studies  in favor of same sex parenting but they all have been shown to be biased via snowball sampling or other methods.  the only true representative random sample studies have shown biological mother father to be the best.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.   #  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.   # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.   #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.   #  now as to the study you cited, i would need you to show me the original study, not an article.   # do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? no.  interracial marriage between a man and a women would not include same sex marriage.  the important part is man and women.  what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? the dangerous message is that when we have so much evidence that mothering and fathering are distinct phenomena and that children thrive the most when having both, that we are making them interchangeable and optional.  0 of all americans, 0 of hispanics, 0 of african americans born to single mothers and then all of the social costs that come with that in terms of child poverty, decreased social mobility, increased crime, increased welfare.  with same sex marriage, the message that child does best with a mother and father would disappear from our public policy.  similarly, when we redefined marriage with no fault divorce, we weakened the idea that marriage is supposed to be a commitment between sexually complementary spouses not only to each other but to their children.  before nfd, there were a lot less fragmented families single digit divorce , and theres plenty evidence showing that children without a father figure are 0x more likely to drop out, 0x more likely to go to prison, and many other things.  now as to the study you cited, i would need you to show me the original study, not an article.  there have been many  studies  in favor of same sex parenting but they all have been shown to be biased via snowball sampling or other methods.  the only true representative random sample studies have shown biological mother father to be the best.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ?  #  so why do not we just include polygamists and same sex throuples get marred too ?  # so why do not we just include polygamists and same sex throuples get marred too ? should vasectomies be illegal for a married couple ? what message is that ? so being a single mother/father should be illegal too right ? also, what about children in orphanages ? would not they be better off being in a loving same sex home as opposed to an orphanage or foster home ?  #  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.   # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  even if the comparison is not really the point ?  #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.   #  so being a single mother/father should be illegal too right ?  # so why do not we just include polygamists and same sex throuples get marred too ? should vasectomies be illegal for a married couple ? what message is that ? so being a single mother/father should be illegal too right ? also, what about children in orphanages ? would not they be better off being in a loving same sex home as opposed to an orphanage or foster home ?  #  was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ?  # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.   #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.   #  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.   # when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  what is the goal here ? it seems to be implied as  make sure kids have a stable family to grow up in  why would not allowing gay people to marry aid this goal ? is it better for a kid to grow up in an orphanage, or out of wedlock entirely than with two gay parents ?  #  what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ?  # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ?  #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ?  #  polygamy has its own unique challenges that do not apply to same sex marriage , that its proponents will need to convince the greater public on, before it can be accepted.   # polygamy has its own unique challenges that do not apply to same sex marriage , that its proponents will need to convince the greater public on, before it can be accepted.  just like same sex marriage proponents have.  no one gets to cut in line.  examples: how will we prevent polygynic abusive relationships, costs vs.  benefits to society, conflicting legal situations with multiple spouses etc.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the conclusion does not follow from your premises.  how exactly does allowing more gender combinations weaken marriage ? kindly point us towards those studies, as they are in direct contradiction to recent studies that show that children growing up in same sex families are just as well adjusted as straight families.  URL   URL   URL   URL  #  do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ?  # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ?  #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.   #  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.   # polygamy has its own unique challenges that do not apply to same sex marriage , that its proponents will need to convince the greater public on, before it can be accepted.  just like same sex marriage proponents have.  no one gets to cut in line.  examples: how will we prevent polygynic abusive relationships, costs vs.  benefits to society, conflicting legal situations with multiple spouses etc.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the conclusion does not follow from your premises.  how exactly does allowing more gender combinations weaken marriage ? kindly point us towards those studies, as they are in direct contradiction to recent studies that show that children growing up in same sex families are just as well adjusted as straight families.  URL   URL   URL   URL  #  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ?  #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.   #  kindly point us towards those studies, as they are in direct contradiction to recent studies that show that children growing up in same sex families are just as well adjusted as straight families.   # polygamy has its own unique challenges that do not apply to same sex marriage , that its proponents will need to convince the greater public on, before it can be accepted.  just like same sex marriage proponents have.  no one gets to cut in line.  examples: how will we prevent polygynic abusive relationships, costs vs.  benefits to society, conflicting legal situations with multiple spouses etc.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the conclusion does not follow from your premises.  how exactly does allowing more gender combinations weaken marriage ? kindly point us towards those studies, as they are in direct contradiction to recent studies that show that children growing up in same sex families are just as well adjusted as straight families.  URL   URL   URL   URL  #  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.   # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.   #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ?  #  two entirely seperate issues, maybe someday polygamous marriages are also allowed, but it does not really matter in the issue.   # two entirely seperate issues, maybe someday polygamous marriages are also allowed, but it does not really matter in the issue.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  again, allowing divorce has literally nothing to do with that.  also, studies have shown that children of gay couples can be just as happy as others.   #  do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ?  # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ?  #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.   #  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.   # two entirely seperate issues, maybe someday polygamous marriages are also allowed, but it does not really matter in the issue.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  again, allowing divorce has literally nothing to do with that.  also, studies have shown that children of gay couples can be just as happy as others.   #  do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ?  # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ?  #  these are separate issues each one should be evaluated on their own merits.   # these are separate issues each one should be evaluated on their own merits.  the only issue i can think of with polygamous relationships is the division of legal rights as marriage really is just about the rights and responsibilities you get , but so long as they can find a way to deal with that, i have no problem with polygamy being recognized.  it has nothing to do with children.  go check your state is family law code.  go look at other state is family law codes.  you can get married without the ability to have kids infertile or the desire to, just as you can have kids outside of wedlock and you still receive tax benefits even if you are not married.  no fault divorce has no relationship to who should be able to be married.  we did not  redefine  marriage with no fault divorce laws, we just made it easier to divorce.  we have, however, redefined marriage countless times, even in the 0th century.  moreover, the increased divorce rate is not inherently bad.  back when divorce numbers were lower, people felt forced to stay in unhealthy and even dangerous marriages because society thought it was improper for them to marry.  no it does not.  as mentioned, you know how much marriage has changed ? just in us history ? not too long ago, women did not gain legal rights with marriage like they do now they did not automatically gain property rights or any of that.  it used to be legal for husbands to rape their wives.  changes in divorce law allowed women to be able to divorce their husbands as before, it was much harder, if not impossible, especially if they were housewives with no job training .  we have also had changes in who can marry such as interracial marriages .  these are just the most recent changes and there is others there is tons of changes that happened over the course of centuries.  basically, marriage has always been evolving, and there is no good reason why it should not continue to today.  which really has nothing to do with same sex marriage since most of those studies examined children raised by heterosexual parents.   #  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.   #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.   #  no fault divorce has no relationship to who should be able to be married.   # these are separate issues each one should be evaluated on their own merits.  the only issue i can think of with polygamous relationships is the division of legal rights as marriage really is just about the rights and responsibilities you get , but so long as they can find a way to deal with that, i have no problem with polygamy being recognized.  it has nothing to do with children.  go check your state is family law code.  go look at other state is family law codes.  you can get married without the ability to have kids infertile or the desire to, just as you can have kids outside of wedlock and you still receive tax benefits even if you are not married.  no fault divorce has no relationship to who should be able to be married.  we did not  redefine  marriage with no fault divorce laws, we just made it easier to divorce.  we have, however, redefined marriage countless times, even in the 0th century.  moreover, the increased divorce rate is not inherently bad.  back when divorce numbers were lower, people felt forced to stay in unhealthy and even dangerous marriages because society thought it was improper for them to marry.  no it does not.  as mentioned, you know how much marriage has changed ? just in us history ? not too long ago, women did not gain legal rights with marriage like they do now they did not automatically gain property rights or any of that.  it used to be legal for husbands to rape their wives.  changes in divorce law allowed women to be able to divorce their husbands as before, it was much harder, if not impossible, especially if they were housewives with no job training .  we have also had changes in who can marry such as interracial marriages .  these are just the most recent changes and there is others there is tons of changes that happened over the course of centuries.  basically, marriage has always been evolving, and there is no good reason why it should not continue to today.  which really has nothing to do with same sex marriage since most of those studies examined children raised by heterosexual parents.   #  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ?  # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ?  #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.   #  which really has nothing to do with same sex marriage since most of those studies examined children raised by heterosexual parents.   # these are separate issues each one should be evaluated on their own merits.  the only issue i can think of with polygamous relationships is the division of legal rights as marriage really is just about the rights and responsibilities you get , but so long as they can find a way to deal with that, i have no problem with polygamy being recognized.  it has nothing to do with children.  go check your state is family law code.  go look at other state is family law codes.  you can get married without the ability to have kids infertile or the desire to, just as you can have kids outside of wedlock and you still receive tax benefits even if you are not married.  no fault divorce has no relationship to who should be able to be married.  we did not  redefine  marriage with no fault divorce laws, we just made it easier to divorce.  we have, however, redefined marriage countless times, even in the 0th century.  moreover, the increased divorce rate is not inherently bad.  back when divorce numbers were lower, people felt forced to stay in unhealthy and even dangerous marriages because society thought it was improper for them to marry.  no it does not.  as mentioned, you know how much marriage has changed ? just in us history ? not too long ago, women did not gain legal rights with marriage like they do now they did not automatically gain property rights or any of that.  it used to be legal for husbands to rape their wives.  changes in divorce law allowed women to be able to divorce their husbands as before, it was much harder, if not impossible, especially if they were housewives with no job training .  we have also had changes in who can marry such as interracial marriages .  these are just the most recent changes and there is others there is tons of changes that happened over the course of centuries.  basically, marriage has always been evolving, and there is no good reason why it should not continue to today.  which really has nothing to do with same sex marriage since most of those studies examined children raised by heterosexual parents.   #  do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ?  # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.   #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
so i recently saw a string of videos of ryan t anderson making his case against gay marriage, and i have found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard i try.  some points i would need to be convinced of: 0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ? 0 the state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well.  when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  the only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.  so please, cmvers, cmv ! there are some parts of my view that differ, but i feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.   #  0 on what principle would we act to include same sex marriage that would not be unfair towards other types of relationships like same sex throuples or polygamists, etc ?  #  we have no idea what the law for polygamists should look like.   # we have no idea what the law for polygamists should look like.  if i have one wife and want another, does the first get to object or not ? if my company gives spousal benefits, does it have to extend those benefits to every person i marry ? if i get divorced from one spouse, does he get half the property ? 0/n ? is marriage transitive ? if we tried to legalize polygamy, we would have to answer all these questions.  we have no idea how to answer them, and we would probably get it wrong.  in contrast, same sex marriage is super easy.  we have lived without different laws for husbands vs wives for decades.  the law for one spouse is identical to the law for the other.  given that fact, the answer of how to treat a gay marriage is trivial: just like a straight marriage.  we do not need to make anything up, we can just apply the law as is.   #  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.   # was it unfair to allow interracial marriage without also allowing same sex marriage ? do you think we should have waited to legalize interracial marriage until we could also legalize same sex marriage at the same time ? when we last redefined marriage with no fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened.  redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.  you have proof these problems  worsened  because we  redefined marriage  ? what is the  dangerous message  being sent by allowing same sex marriage ? this is not true.  here URL is a quickly googled study that suggests children of same sex relationships do  better  than children of straight relationships on average.   #  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  just so we are clear then, a study ca not be valid or meaningful if it is not an exact comparison ? even if the comparison is not really the point ? is not the fact that the children of same sex relationship do  well  enough of a reason to not outlaw their marriage ? if you require that same sex parents be consistently better than straight parents before you will allow them to get married then you are placing an unfair onus on gay couples for no good reason.  we do not make straight couples establish that they are good parents before they get married.   #  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.   #  ok, so both of you guys make valid points:  from a scientific standpoint  yes, the socioeconomic differences between average straight who have kids and average gay couples who have kids are definitely important.  if you want to get a good idea of  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well, you should  definitely  consider socioeconomic factors and control for confounding variables as best you can.  but  from a social services/policies standpoint  it does not really matter  why  kids adopted by gay couples do so well it is enough to know that they  do indeed  do well.  if you are talking about foster care vs true adoption, and if your end goal is the maximum well being of the child, none of the whys and wherefores should make much of a difference it is enough to know that the child  will  do well with adoptive gay parents.  from a social well being perspective, it is the end result that matters.  tl;dr you are both right, but you are arguing about different things:  you  are talking about causes while benincognito is talking about results.  apples to oranges and all that.   #  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.   #  your argument is that the study is flawed because since same sex couples do not generally have unplanned pregnancies yes, generally.  it is not impossible to conceive of various situations in which homosexual couples could have an unplanned pregnancy such as child from a previous relationship or in the case of trans people and heterosexual couples  can  have unplanned pregnancies, that it is an unfair comparison as you would expect the results of homosexual couples  children doing better because they are wanted.  my argument is that your argument is simply an explanation of the results and not a flaw in the study.  if you are going to take into account the feeling of the parents towards their children then you would have to also take into account how widespread those feelings are within the population, how often it happens etc.  however, in this case they took a representative sample of people that were heterosexual and a representative sample of people that were homosexual and compared them.  thus we can say  on average  when speaking about children in general.  limiting the heterosexual couples to  only  couples which adopt as you suggest would not be a representative sample of heterosexual parents and thus would not be an accurate study for comparing the populations.  then we can look at the sheer number of other studies which account for various different things and every single study replicates the results of this study so not only is the study not flawed in the way you suggest, but it is results are replicatable which lends credence to it is accuracy.
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.   #  generally, any person who is arrestable for a crime and a danger to people around them will likely always be that way, regardless of who they are around.   #  i feel like you do not have a particularly good grasp of criminals, crime or the penal system judging by most of what you say here.  i do not see why not ? if society has a particular set of morals and ideals upheld by legislated law, why should not we have the right to restrict those who decide to break those rules and laws, knowing the consequences of their actions ? and saying that penal deportation is a legitimate idea for solving the issue is like saying that when someone insults you, it is time for a saber duel to the death.  yeah, maybe it worked before,  like 0 years ago .  you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.  let is assume someone is in jail after their three strikes, or for a violent crime rape, assault, murder, etc.  .  your idea of penal deportation to another, established society implies that rather than having a criminal with some propensity for violence locked up away from any real society, you just want to throw them at somewhere else ? where do you want to throw them ? for criminals that are not here legally, deportation to their country makes sense, but what about the majority of criminals who were born here, learned here, and grew up here ? do you really think any country is going to want thousands of violent criminals on their doorstep ? generally, any person who is arrestable for a crime and a danger to people around them will likely always be that way, regardless of who they are around.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live in that society.  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  but that is  exactly what it does .  crimes that allow large jail sentences are generally those that any society, regardless of how barbaric, will shun.  by assaulting, robbing, or murdering someone, you are taking away their rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.  does that mean you just get to leave and go murder and rob elsewhere ? no.  it means you pay the price for what you did.   #  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ?  #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.   #  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live in that society.   #  i feel like you do not have a particularly good grasp of criminals, crime or the penal system judging by most of what you say here.  i do not see why not ? if society has a particular set of morals and ideals upheld by legislated law, why should not we have the right to restrict those who decide to break those rules and laws, knowing the consequences of their actions ? and saying that penal deportation is a legitimate idea for solving the issue is like saying that when someone insults you, it is time for a saber duel to the death.  yeah, maybe it worked before,  like 0 years ago .  you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.  let is assume someone is in jail after their three strikes, or for a violent crime rape, assault, murder, etc.  .  your idea of penal deportation to another, established society implies that rather than having a criminal with some propensity for violence locked up away from any real society, you just want to throw them at somewhere else ? where do you want to throw them ? for criminals that are not here legally, deportation to their country makes sense, but what about the majority of criminals who were born here, learned here, and grew up here ? do you really think any country is going to want thousands of violent criminals on their doorstep ? generally, any person who is arrestable for a crime and a danger to people around them will likely always be that way, regardless of who they are around.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live in that society.  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  but that is  exactly what it does .  crimes that allow large jail sentences are generally those that any society, regardless of how barbaric, will shun.  by assaulting, robbing, or murdering someone, you are taking away their rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.  does that mean you just get to leave and go murder and rob elsewhere ? no.  it means you pay the price for what you did.   #  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ?  #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.   #  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.   # penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live in that society.  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  well, what are you going to do if someone is a persistent danger to those around them ? keep arresting and releasing ? well what about the kind of control exercised by criminals who make people feel unsafe to leave their homes at night ? or beat them up and take their things ? your whole point seems to be that of pacifism writ large.  but the defence of  rights  which i generally hold to be an unhelpful concept anyway URL has to rely on violence of some sort.  a serial killer must be prevented in some fashion from claiming further victims in order to defend people is right to life, for instance.  even exile is a form of violence, even if it appears to you less forceful than that of incarceration.  most criminals, if given the choice, would certainly have opted for prison rather than being sent to a penal colony, or even released into the wilds of australia or north america.  i guess this is the crux of our disagreement.  i do not believe politics should be steeped in idealism, but in trade offs.  i would say the only thing that makes any course of action in politics justifiable is the lack of a superior alternative.   #  a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.   #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.   #  well what about the kind of control exercised by criminals who make people feel unsafe to leave their homes at night ?  # penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live in that society.  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  well, what are you going to do if someone is a persistent danger to those around them ? keep arresting and releasing ? well what about the kind of control exercised by criminals who make people feel unsafe to leave their homes at night ? or beat them up and take their things ? your whole point seems to be that of pacifism writ large.  but the defence of  rights  which i generally hold to be an unhelpful concept anyway URL has to rely on violence of some sort.  a serial killer must be prevented in some fashion from claiming further victims in order to defend people is right to life, for instance.  even exile is a form of violence, even if it appears to you less forceful than that of incarceration.  most criminals, if given the choice, would certainly have opted for prison rather than being sent to a penal colony, or even released into the wilds of australia or north america.  i guess this is the crux of our disagreement.  i do not believe politics should be steeped in idealism, but in trade offs.  i would say the only thing that makes any course of action in politics justifiable is the lack of a superior alternative.   #  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.   #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  what else do you want me to say ?  #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.   #  yes, but  crime  implies an action is against the law, by definition.   #  for the purpose of the discussion, i will assume an  ideal  country, where there are no obviously unjust or absurd laws.  obviously no prison for homosexuality, pot or blasphemy.  so imagine the actions i am referring to are things like murder or rape.  yes, but  crime  implies an action is against the law, by definition.  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  it is not about agreement.  if an action is bad enough to warrant prison, then it must be seriously morally wrong, not just a matter of disagreement.  the point of modern prison systems is to have the inmates understand why what they have done is wrong, not just keeping them from harming others.  a non rehabilitated criminal is an imminent danger to society.   #  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.   #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.   #  the point of modern prison systems is to have the inmates understand why what they have done is wrong, not just keeping them from harming others.   #  for the purpose of the discussion, i will assume an  ideal  country, where there are no obviously unjust or absurd laws.  obviously no prison for homosexuality, pot or blasphemy.  so imagine the actions i am referring to are things like murder or rape.  yes, but  crime  implies an action is against the law, by definition.  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  it is not about agreement.  if an action is bad enough to warrant prison, then it must be seriously morally wrong, not just a matter of disagreement.  the point of modern prison systems is to have the inmates understand why what they have done is wrong, not just keeping them from harming others.  a non rehabilitated criminal is an imminent danger to society.   #  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ?  #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.   #  they get that right when another human is harming innocent people.   # they get that right when another human is harming innocent people.  i agree that not all  criminals  actually deserve to be locked up drug users for example , but you are saying that we should not lock up murderers and rapists.  no, if you take my money, i am not going to just  block you out , i will take my money back, with force.  same as if you hurt me, i will hurt you back.  we do not have the right to harm innocent people.  when someone harms you without a cause, they are no longer innocent in the situation.  fine, go and live somewhere else.  but prison ? you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  i am all for live and let live.  but some people do not let you live because they want you dead.  some people want to harm you.  you can not simply block people out, who are trying to harm you.  yes we do.  if you rape someone, they are traumatized for life.  you have ruined someones life.  i think such a person deserves to have there lives ruined as well.  you would agree if the victim was someone you cared for.  it is easy to ignore the past when you do not care about the criminal or the victim, but the past matters, and people want revenge that is sometimes justified, sometimes not.  it is the job of the state to make sure the criminal is fairly punished.  human rights do not apply to criminals.  they do not get the freedom to say what they want, they do not have the freedom to buy gun, and some do not have the right to live.   #  a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.   #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.   #  i agree that not all  criminals  actually deserve to be locked up drug users for example , but you are saying that we should not lock up murderers and rapists.   # they get that right when another human is harming innocent people.  i agree that not all  criminals  actually deserve to be locked up drug users for example , but you are saying that we should not lock up murderers and rapists.  no, if you take my money, i am not going to just  block you out , i will take my money back, with force.  same as if you hurt me, i will hurt you back.  we do not have the right to harm innocent people.  when someone harms you without a cause, they are no longer innocent in the situation.  fine, go and live somewhere else.  but prison ? you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  i am all for live and let live.  but some people do not let you live because they want you dead.  some people want to harm you.  you can not simply block people out, who are trying to harm you.  yes we do.  if you rape someone, they are traumatized for life.  you have ruined someones life.  i think such a person deserves to have there lives ruined as well.  you would agree if the victim was someone you cared for.  it is easy to ignore the past when you do not care about the criminal or the victim, but the past matters, and people want revenge that is sometimes justified, sometimes not.  it is the job of the state to make sure the criminal is fairly punished.  human rights do not apply to criminals.  they do not get the freedom to say what they want, they do not have the freedom to buy gun, and some do not have the right to live.   #  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.   #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.   #  no, if you take my money, i am not going to just  block you out , i will take my money back, with force.   # they get that right when another human is harming innocent people.  i agree that not all  criminals  actually deserve to be locked up drug users for example , but you are saying that we should not lock up murderers and rapists.  no, if you take my money, i am not going to just  block you out , i will take my money back, with force.  same as if you hurt me, i will hurt you back.  we do not have the right to harm innocent people.  when someone harms you without a cause, they are no longer innocent in the situation.  fine, go and live somewhere else.  but prison ? you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  i am all for live and let live.  but some people do not let you live because they want you dead.  some people want to harm you.  you can not simply block people out, who are trying to harm you.  yes we do.  if you rape someone, they are traumatized for life.  you have ruined someones life.  i think such a person deserves to have there lives ruined as well.  you would agree if the victim was someone you cared for.  it is easy to ignore the past when you do not care about the criminal or the victim, but the past matters, and people want revenge that is sometimes justified, sometimes not.  it is the job of the state to make sure the criminal is fairly punished.  human rights do not apply to criminals.  they do not get the freedom to say what they want, they do not have the freedom to buy gun, and some do not have the right to live.   #  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.   #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.   #  human rights do not apply to criminals.   # they get that right when another human is harming innocent people.  i agree that not all  criminals  actually deserve to be locked up drug users for example , but you are saying that we should not lock up murderers and rapists.  no, if you take my money, i am not going to just  block you out , i will take my money back, with force.  same as if you hurt me, i will hurt you back.  we do not have the right to harm innocent people.  when someone harms you without a cause, they are no longer innocent in the situation.  fine, go and live somewhere else.  but prison ? you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  i am all for live and let live.  but some people do not let you live because they want you dead.  some people want to harm you.  you can not simply block people out, who are trying to harm you.  yes we do.  if you rape someone, they are traumatized for life.  you have ruined someones life.  i think such a person deserves to have there lives ruined as well.  you would agree if the victim was someone you cared for.  it is easy to ignore the past when you do not care about the criminal or the victim, but the past matters, and people want revenge that is sometimes justified, sometimes not.  it is the job of the state to make sure the criminal is fairly punished.  human rights do not apply to criminals.  they do not get the freedom to say what they want, they do not have the freedom to buy gun, and some do not have the right to live.   #  the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.   #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  what else do you want me to say ?  #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
also, i am not here to advocate deportation, that is a red hering so i am going to stop arguing about it !   i do not see how one of group of humans has the right to restrict another human is movement and intimately control their life.  it is particularly apparent when a crime in one place is not punishable in another.  but i think the point holds more generally anyway.  the most we can do is agree as a society that we do not want certain kinds of people in our society.  we certainly have a right to reject people.  and there are times where this has been done.  i am thinking about penal colonies and deporting prisoners to australia like the british used to.  that seems reasonable to me.   you do not want to follow our code of living ? fine, go and live somewhere else.   but prison ?  you do not agree with us about what is wrong, we will trap you in the middle of our society and punish you for as long as we feel fit even if you do not want to be part of our society.  and in some cases, we wo not even let you move to a place where that behaviour is legal.   it is ridiculous ! yes, we should be able to arrest people who are an imminent danger to those around them but we have no right to long term imprisonment.  penal deportation may no longer be practical but that does not make imprisonment right.  yes, you forfeit certain rights when you commit a crime.  if you break a society is rules you lose the right to live  in that society .  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  tl;dr we can exclude people from out society but we have no right to trap them in it.   #  it does not give them the right to take away fundamental aspects of your life as a human.   #  it appears you understand and agree with the whole  you broke the rules of society and did harm to it, so you do not get to participate in it for a while .   # it appears you understand and agree with the whole  you broke the rules of society and did harm to it, so you do not get to participate in it for a while .  so i guess it depends on what you consider the fundamental aspects of your life as a human.  within imprisonment many countries mandate access to food, shelter, information, healthcare, communication, etc.  these are basically what those countries have decided as the fundamental aspects of human life.  furthermore, many of these countries also ban the use of torture and other inhumane treatments of prisoners.  again they do so because they consider the use of this would take away the fundamental aspects of human life.  so really what you are saying is that freedom of movement is also a fundamental aspect of human life.  that might just come down to personal opinion on what you define as basic humanity, so i probably wo not be able to change your view.  but i will try and explain why i do not think it is a fundamental right, at least in the context of imprisonment.  i think that if you break the rules of society in an unlawful way then society has the right to remove you from it.  but they also have the right to control that form of removal.  one reason is because it is assumed you will return to that society once your  removal time  has expired.  another is because when you participated in that society you knew that they controlled via imprisonment how removal from society was handled when the law was broke.  another is i think that the society you broke the law in has the responsibility to keep you from participating in other societies until you have been properly rehabilitated or justice was served.  lastly, i think that the right to freedom of movement is something that should be earned and cherished, and i think imprisonment is a good lesson/deterrent that society can use to enforce this right.  couple of notes: i use  freedom of movement  as a sort of abstract to mean the antithesis of being imprisoned.  i did not want to get into how good the prison system is at carrying out the purposes or rights i listed.  that seems like another discussion on practical, not abstract ideas.   #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.   #  the fact that you did not mention violent criminals suggests that you are aware that removing them from society not solve the issue.  the first issue is that you ca not simply remove someone from society without imprisoning them.  regardless if they have brutally murdered a dozen people, they still have a mom/dad, maybe a brother, someone he/she loves.  they are going to want to go back.  with phones/email/video it is possible to communicate with someone within another  society , but that is not enough.  so if you remove them from society, where are they being put ? on an island ? you can make/buy/rent a boat.  within specific borders ? well, is not this just a more large scale imprisonment where they might have slightly more freedom, but no means to earn money to trade with the outside countries, no protection for criminals from other criminals, and what country is going to willingly give up land for such a thing that harbors freed criminals within borders ? the next issue would be that this would essentially lead to a lawless society on some island or landmass.  between rampant drug abuse, wanton murder, and massive illegal immigration, you would have first time offenders being put in a situation they do not belong in.  you could slap them with a fine for the first time, but if i rob a store at gunpoint, how much is the fine ? a lot i would presume, but if i am already robbing stores, i do not have money for that fine.  this would just create a system where people that are not teens with their parents to bail them out with little to no income are more or less required to create more crime in order to survive.  i ca not argue that the current system is perfect because it is not; however, removing freedom is far more fair than a boot from society.  you could kick them out of the country for an equal amount of time as the sentence would be, but without assets you have gathered, the job you are now forsaken, you are going to end up in poverty in country or region that has a high crime rate, an even poorer justice system, and a lot of issues.  if the choice is three meals a day behind bars inside four walls with time to exercise, time to socialize, and have guards to protect you from the other inmates if that socializing goes wrong or being removed from the country, i would much rather go to jail.  basically, although imprisoning people obviously ideal, it is realistically the fairest thing to do to someone that is broken the law.  removal of assets, demanding money, or deportation are not viable.  i did not even get into the fact about what crime constitutes forcibly removing someone or the fact that crimes that affect a society may not even be committed within it is borders ie drug kingpins  #  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.   #  in brief: deportation is not necessarily in perpetuum and families might be able to go too.  families relocate for all sorts of reasons all the time.  there are practical issue with deportation, i have already conceded, but i am not arguing for it just against imprisonment.  the practical issues to do with alternatives do not make imprisonment right.  also, australia is not a lawless society like you describe.  however, re offending violent criminals are a relatively small percentage of the prison population as far as i am aware so they may need to be considered differently.   #  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.   #  nobody is saying that imprisonment is something that we should encourage.  it is simply the best thing to do when it comes to protecting the rights of those who abide by our laws, and even those who break them.  ideally, prisons would be safe, healthy environments.  they often are not but that is a matter of the way in which we imprison people, not the fact that we imprison them at all.  if we were to banish people, we would be sending them to a lawless, dangerous place, and the lack of places to send them the british had australia for their penal colonies, but the entire earth is claimed at this point means that the location would likely be small with a very high population density.  put those factors together and you get a place with rampant crime and constant danger.  organized prisons allow us to isolate dangerous individuals from the general population while protecting and, ideally, rehabilitating those individuals.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.   #  i agree, we should not have to imprison people.  it is not a good thing.  however, there is also something inherently wrong with the idea of crime, and one could say that people who infringe on the rights of other by committing crimes give those others the right to imprison them.  nobody ever said that the universe has to be fair and right.  we just have to make the best of what we have, and in some cases the least we can do is limit the damage.  what else do you want me to say ? how can i change your view when you start from a simple moral axiom and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of reality ?
let me start off by addressing my biases.  i have played lol for about a year and a half now, and i still play.  i play it in my free time, and i think i am pretty good because i am in the silver 0 league.  i have also watched a few professional lol tournaments, so i know what goes on in those.  as for baseball, i played from 0 years old to 0 years old.  so i definitely played more baseball than lol.  however, i have had a taste of both, and i think that is what matters.  now for my argument.  i am not saying that professional gamers are not skillful, let me get that out of the way.  i am saying that all pro gaming boils down to using 0 fingers on a mouse and keyboard.  and one may say that baseball boils down to throwing a ball.  but even that is difficult.  i think it takes more dexterity and coordination to throw a ball than it does to press q, w, e, and r at the right times.  as for mental capacity, baseball is an extremely complex sport.  so complex that there are still rules being added to accommodate new and unexpected exceptions of earlier rules.  there are just so many possibilities.  knowing what to do in a rundown.  and not only knowing what the procedure is in that rundown, but getting a firm grip on the seams of the ball, or bare handing the ball for more speed in a split second decision.  batting is also one of the tasks that many scientists claim to be impossible.  the batters get something like 0/0 of a seconds to see how the ball leaves the pitcher is hand, to see how the ball is spinning, to shift back, and then explode forward.  i feel like you just do not get that level of coordination in lol.   #  the batters get something like 0/0 of a seconds to see how the ball leaves the pitcher is hand, to see how the ball is spinning, to shift back, and then explode forward.   #  that is actually 0ms, which is probably your own response time playing lol.   # that is actually 0ms, which is probably your own response time playing lol.  there is nothing scientificly impressive about that.  just think about playing with 0ms ping more to understand the scale of the difference.  you need better responses than that to hit some skillshots or dodge some stuff.  ultimately though , baseball is a simple game.  it is not bad or anything, but it is simpler than lol.  and lol is simpler than other activities, and some real sports or some other e sports in terms of coordination  #  one requires your brain to translate criteria into a physical response that requires more than 0 fingers.   #  this is the most silly argument i have heard they are not comparable.  gaming is not athletic at all. sporting maybe.  baseball is barely athletic. dexterous yes.  but the fallacy is in that you are trying to compare driving in real life to driving in a video game.  one requires your brain to translate criteria into a physical response that requires more than 0 fingers.  the other requires a ton of 0 fingered action at a completely different criteria rate.  just absolutely different activities but both impressive indeed at professional levels.   #  and do not get me wrong here i play my share of video games and have played every console since atari came out in 0.  just pointing out the facts.   #  you are right athletic is not the right term.  baseball is barely aerobic does not require much fitness.  it does, however, require strength and reaction time.  it does not burn that many calories just a little more than  walking grass track  according to this chart.  URL look i agree that baseball takes a ton of coordination more than the 0 fingers/0 thumbs/brain that video games do and i played ball for a long time as well.  you ca not learn to hit a pitch overnight and catching a ball being thrown to you from an infielder is actually freaking scary.  you think  cassio  is tough and scary stand up to the plate to a 0 mph fastball.  baseball is real life danger, real life action, real life visceral experience with wind, grass, movement and the whole 0 yards.  playing lol or any other video game acts more like taking drugs to produce the hormones that athletes produce.  stimulates those glands and pumps adrenaline without any physical output.  quite addictive as well.  and do not get me wrong here i play my share of video games and have played every console since atari came out in 0.  just pointing out the facts.  my point is that they are different activities entirely and it it like saying that driving a car skillfully in rush hour takes more wit, athleticism, coordination, and dexterity than being a short order cook in a popular breakfast joint.   #  sure you can say that every and each one competitive activity is complex, because it has a never ending meta game, but when comparing them to one another it is mostly a non factor.   # that is what we call a meta game.  and it is a staple of any competitive activity that involves humans.  thinking about the things that the opponent can or may or likes to do and ways to counter them.  and the whole game about people expecting others to do that to them too.  sure you can say that every and each one competitive activity is complex, because it has a never ending meta game, but when comparing them to one another it is mostly a non factor.  soccer has a meta game too, involving formattions and player positions.  surely soccer is more complex than baseball.  that is the frame of reference in which i am speaking  #  and he is not only making a decision about those things.   # there is nothing scientificly impressive about that.  well i looked it up and this URL source says a batter gets . 0 seconds to decide if he wants to swing or not.  i totally disagree with you when you say there is nothing scientifically impressive about that.  the batter has to account for wind, ball speed, ball rotation, and where to hit the ball.  and he is not only making a decision about those things.  he is manually moving his muscles and his eyes to make a precision swing that will get him on base.  then he has to run and watch his first base coach for even more added complexity.
let me start off by addressing my biases.  i have played lol for about a year and a half now, and i still play.  i play it in my free time, and i think i am pretty good because i am in the silver 0 league.  i have also watched a few professional lol tournaments, so i know what goes on in those.  as for baseball, i played from 0 years old to 0 years old.  so i definitely played more baseball than lol.  however, i have had a taste of both, and i think that is what matters.  now for my argument.  i am not saying that professional gamers are not skillful, let me get that out of the way.  i am saying that all pro gaming boils down to using 0 fingers on a mouse and keyboard.  and one may say that baseball boils down to throwing a ball.  but even that is difficult.  i think it takes more dexterity and coordination to throw a ball than it does to press q, w, e, and r at the right times.  as for mental capacity, baseball is an extremely complex sport.  so complex that there are still rules being added to accommodate new and unexpected exceptions of earlier rules.  there are just so many possibilities.  knowing what to do in a rundown.  and not only knowing what the procedure is in that rundown, but getting a firm grip on the seams of the ball, or bare handing the ball for more speed in a split second decision.  batting is also one of the tasks that many scientists claim to be impossible.  the batters get something like 0/0 of a seconds to see how the ball leaves the pitcher is hand, to see how the ball is spinning, to shift back, and then explode forward.  i feel like you just do not get that level of coordination in lol.   #  as for mental capacity, baseball is an extremely complex sport.   #  so complex that there are still rules being added to accommodate new and unexpected exceptions of earlier rules.   # the two tasks are not comparable.  throwing a ball at pro level speeds requires extraordinary arm strength and tons of drilling that boils down to physical athleticism.  pressing the buttons on a keyboard is a mental task, not a physical one, so the skills required are completely different.  so complex that there are still rules being added to accommodate new and unexpected exceptions of earlier rules.  having wonky rules does not reflect the mental capacity of the athlete.  games are being patched all the time as well, which is akin to adding new rules to the game.  knowing what to do in a rundown.  and not only knowing what the procedure is in that rundown, but getting a firm grip on the seams of the ball, or bare handing the ball for more speed in a split second decision.  and i would daresay that there are at least as many possibilities in gaming.  i do not play lol, but i dabble in fighting games, and you need to know your character is move set in and out, you need to know all of the other character is move sets so you know what you are up against.  you need to budget your resources meter, hp, character specific guages, time etc.  .  and then there is the meta game of knowing how your opponent will use his character specifically.  and this is only scratching the surface.  it is not fair for you to simply list a long series of basic tasks that need to be completed in baseball albeit completed quickly and then just ignore the complexity of professional gaming.  the batters get something like 0/0 of a seconds to see how the ball leaves the pitcher is hand, to see how the ball is spinning, to shift back, and then explode forward.  i feel like you just do not get that level of coordination in lol.  0/0 of a second is about 0 frames in a fighting game.  this is a short window, but it is a lot of time for people who win tournaments.  there are even certain things that only have 0 frame 0/0 of a second input windows, and i have seen them executed.  it is impressive, both in baseball  and  in gaming.  with all that said, baseball is probably the most difficult sport in existence.  however, it is a primarily physical activity.  much of the complexity is drilled and beaten into the athletes  muscle memories so that they do not have to think when the time comes.  this is not mental capacity; this is athletic capacity.  baseball players have a ton of it, and they must have a decent amount of mental capacity too, but it does not require the same level of thought and strategy that professional gaming does.   #  this is the most silly argument i have heard they are not comparable.   #  this is the most silly argument i have heard they are not comparable.  gaming is not athletic at all. sporting maybe.  baseball is barely athletic. dexterous yes.  but the fallacy is in that you are trying to compare driving in real life to driving in a video game.  one requires your brain to translate criteria into a physical response that requires more than 0 fingers.  the other requires a ton of 0 fingered action at a completely different criteria rate.  just absolutely different activities but both impressive indeed at professional levels.   #  you think  cassio  is tough and scary stand up to the plate to a 0 mph fastball.   #  you are right athletic is not the right term.  baseball is barely aerobic does not require much fitness.  it does, however, require strength and reaction time.  it does not burn that many calories just a little more than  walking grass track  according to this chart.  URL look i agree that baseball takes a ton of coordination more than the 0 fingers/0 thumbs/brain that video games do and i played ball for a long time as well.  you ca not learn to hit a pitch overnight and catching a ball being thrown to you from an infielder is actually freaking scary.  you think  cassio  is tough and scary stand up to the plate to a 0 mph fastball.  baseball is real life danger, real life action, real life visceral experience with wind, grass, movement and the whole 0 yards.  playing lol or any other video game acts more like taking drugs to produce the hormones that athletes produce.  stimulates those glands and pumps adrenaline without any physical output.  quite addictive as well.  and do not get me wrong here i play my share of video games and have played every console since atari came out in 0.  just pointing out the facts.  my point is that they are different activities entirely and it it like saying that driving a car skillfully in rush hour takes more wit, athleticism, coordination, and dexterity than being a short order cook in a popular breakfast joint.   #  it is not bad or anything, but it is simpler than lol.   # that is actually 0ms, which is probably your own response time playing lol.  there is nothing scientificly impressive about that.  just think about playing with 0ms ping more to understand the scale of the difference.  you need better responses than that to hit some skillshots or dodge some stuff.  ultimately though , baseball is a simple game.  it is not bad or anything, but it is simpler than lol.  and lol is simpler than other activities, and some real sports or some other e sports in terms of coordination  #  that is the frame of reference in which i am speaking  # that is what we call a meta game.  and it is a staple of any competitive activity that involves humans.  thinking about the things that the opponent can or may or likes to do and ways to counter them.  and the whole game about people expecting others to do that to them too.  sure you can say that every and each one competitive activity is complex, because it has a never ending meta game, but when comparing them to one another it is mostly a non factor.  soccer has a meta game too, involving formattions and player positions.  surely soccer is more complex than baseball.  that is the frame of reference in which i am speaking
let me start off by addressing my biases.  i have played lol for about a year and a half now, and i still play.  i play it in my free time, and i think i am pretty good because i am in the silver 0 league.  i have also watched a few professional lol tournaments, so i know what goes on in those.  as for baseball, i played from 0 years old to 0 years old.  so i definitely played more baseball than lol.  however, i have had a taste of both, and i think that is what matters.  now for my argument.  i am not saying that professional gamers are not skillful, let me get that out of the way.  i am saying that all pro gaming boils down to using 0 fingers on a mouse and keyboard.  and one may say that baseball boils down to throwing a ball.  but even that is difficult.  i think it takes more dexterity and coordination to throw a ball than it does to press q, w, e, and r at the right times.  as for mental capacity, baseball is an extremely complex sport.  so complex that there are still rules being added to accommodate new and unexpected exceptions of earlier rules.  there are just so many possibilities.  knowing what to do in a rundown.  and not only knowing what the procedure is in that rundown, but getting a firm grip on the seams of the ball, or bare handing the ball for more speed in a split second decision.  batting is also one of the tasks that many scientists claim to be impossible.  the batters get something like 0/0 of a seconds to see how the ball leaves the pitcher is hand, to see how the ball is spinning, to shift back, and then explode forward.  i feel like you just do not get that level of coordination in lol.   #  batting is also one of the tasks that many scientists claim to be impossible.   #  the batters get something like 0/0 of a seconds to see how the ball leaves the pitcher is hand, to see how the ball is spinning, to shift back, and then explode forward.   # the two tasks are not comparable.  throwing a ball at pro level speeds requires extraordinary arm strength and tons of drilling that boils down to physical athleticism.  pressing the buttons on a keyboard is a mental task, not a physical one, so the skills required are completely different.  so complex that there are still rules being added to accommodate new and unexpected exceptions of earlier rules.  having wonky rules does not reflect the mental capacity of the athlete.  games are being patched all the time as well, which is akin to adding new rules to the game.  knowing what to do in a rundown.  and not only knowing what the procedure is in that rundown, but getting a firm grip on the seams of the ball, or bare handing the ball for more speed in a split second decision.  and i would daresay that there are at least as many possibilities in gaming.  i do not play lol, but i dabble in fighting games, and you need to know your character is move set in and out, you need to know all of the other character is move sets so you know what you are up against.  you need to budget your resources meter, hp, character specific guages, time etc.  .  and then there is the meta game of knowing how your opponent will use his character specifically.  and this is only scratching the surface.  it is not fair for you to simply list a long series of basic tasks that need to be completed in baseball albeit completed quickly and then just ignore the complexity of professional gaming.  the batters get something like 0/0 of a seconds to see how the ball leaves the pitcher is hand, to see how the ball is spinning, to shift back, and then explode forward.  i feel like you just do not get that level of coordination in lol.  0/0 of a second is about 0 frames in a fighting game.  this is a short window, but it is a lot of time for people who win tournaments.  there are even certain things that only have 0 frame 0/0 of a second input windows, and i have seen them executed.  it is impressive, both in baseball  and  in gaming.  with all that said, baseball is probably the most difficult sport in existence.  however, it is a primarily physical activity.  much of the complexity is drilled and beaten into the athletes  muscle memories so that they do not have to think when the time comes.  this is not mental capacity; this is athletic capacity.  baseball players have a ton of it, and they must have a decent amount of mental capacity too, but it does not require the same level of thought and strategy that professional gaming does.   #  but the fallacy is in that you are trying to compare driving in real life to driving in a video game.   #  this is the most silly argument i have heard they are not comparable.  gaming is not athletic at all. sporting maybe.  baseball is barely athletic. dexterous yes.  but the fallacy is in that you are trying to compare driving in real life to driving in a video game.  one requires your brain to translate criteria into a physical response that requires more than 0 fingers.  the other requires a ton of 0 fingered action at a completely different criteria rate.  just absolutely different activities but both impressive indeed at professional levels.   #  you think  cassio  is tough and scary stand up to the plate to a 0 mph fastball.   #  you are right athletic is not the right term.  baseball is barely aerobic does not require much fitness.  it does, however, require strength and reaction time.  it does not burn that many calories just a little more than  walking grass track  according to this chart.  URL look i agree that baseball takes a ton of coordination more than the 0 fingers/0 thumbs/brain that video games do and i played ball for a long time as well.  you ca not learn to hit a pitch overnight and catching a ball being thrown to you from an infielder is actually freaking scary.  you think  cassio  is tough and scary stand up to the plate to a 0 mph fastball.  baseball is real life danger, real life action, real life visceral experience with wind, grass, movement and the whole 0 yards.  playing lol or any other video game acts more like taking drugs to produce the hormones that athletes produce.  stimulates those glands and pumps adrenaline without any physical output.  quite addictive as well.  and do not get me wrong here i play my share of video games and have played every console since atari came out in 0.  just pointing out the facts.  my point is that they are different activities entirely and it it like saying that driving a car skillfully in rush hour takes more wit, athleticism, coordination, and dexterity than being a short order cook in a popular breakfast joint.   #  that is actually 0ms, which is probably your own response time playing lol.   # that is actually 0ms, which is probably your own response time playing lol.  there is nothing scientificly impressive about that.  just think about playing with 0ms ping more to understand the scale of the difference.  you need better responses than that to hit some skillshots or dodge some stuff.  ultimately though , baseball is a simple game.  it is not bad or anything, but it is simpler than lol.  and lol is simpler than other activities, and some real sports or some other e sports in terms of coordination  #  sure you can say that every and each one competitive activity is complex, because it has a never ending meta game, but when comparing them to one another it is mostly a non factor.   # that is what we call a meta game.  and it is a staple of any competitive activity that involves humans.  thinking about the things that the opponent can or may or likes to do and ways to counter them.  and the whole game about people expecting others to do that to them too.  sure you can say that every and each one competitive activity is complex, because it has a never ending meta game, but when comparing them to one another it is mostly a non factor.  soccer has a meta game too, involving formattions and player positions.  surely soccer is more complex than baseball.  that is the frame of reference in which i am speaking
i hear all the time how  x  is a fundamental human right whether it be water in detroit, welfare, a basic living wage, etc.  we are all born in poverty and the things you get are a function of your usefulness in society.  that would seem to break down with the recent lifestyle of big business ceos, except when you stop to realize that the reason they are so rich is due to the expensive services they provide to so many people debating whether they are right or wrong is a different thread entirely .  i think your success or failure is entirely dependent on your own tenacity and will to succeed, and almost entirely separate from your race, gender or socio economic background and that people who espouse that everything is a  basic human right  are lazy and ungrateful.  also, success and lack thereof is relative.  for a poor kid growing up on 0 mile, success could be getting a manufacturing job in the midwest and affording a decent house in a small town.  not everyone gets to be a billionaire.   #  we are all born in poverty and the things you get are a function of your usefulness in society.   #  if this is a description of how the world is, it is wrong.   # if this is a description of how the world is, it is wrong.  all functioning societies have some kind of welfare system, and developed countries have enough of one that almost nobody fails to maintain a minimum standard of living.  if this is a description of how the world was in some idealized natural state.  well, that is also wrong.  in a state of nature, i may not be able to get a free apple just for existing, but nobody can stop me from finding an apple tree and plucking one.  so in what sense is this claim true ?  #  footnote: natgeo channel is show  brain games  recently did an episode with a segment showing a dozen children taking the marshmallow test.   # see the famous   marshmallow test URL for young children  here, you can have one now, or you can have three fifteen minutes from now if you do not eat the first one.   baumeister reports that young children who last the full 0 minutes later score an average 0 points higher on the sat than those who give in and eat the marshmallow quickly, after equalizing for iq, ses and other factors.  iq and impulse control/deferred gratification are in fact the  only  meaningfully significant predictors of future success for young children.  arguably impulse control is more important than iq because 0 it determines how much one gets out of one is iq menial jobs and prisons host plenty of people with no impulse control and high iqs; and 0 impulse control and the ability to defer gratification can be taught and improved as a skill, iq ca not.  footnote: natgeo channel is show  brain games  recently did an episode with a segment showing a dozen children taking the marshmallow test.  it is hugely entertaining to watch also very educational as to the strategies used by the four kids who lasted the full 0 minutes: hiding under the table, starting a game with oneself on the other side of the room, looking for someone else to talk to .   out of sight/self distraction  win,  pure will power  always loses.  and as it is with those kids is exactly how it is with successful adults.   #  if day old babies have a right to live then all people who cannot provide for their basic necessities of life have that same right.   #  how can birth be a fundamental human right if every individual requires another person in order to be born ? if a person has the right to birth then, right from the beginning, you are arguing that people have the right to take from other people to sustain themselves.  if a fetus has the right to live within another person to 0 months and consume her resources in order to be born: why does the right to continue living end after birth ? does a one week old child have a right to be fed, clothed, and housed so that it does not die ? does a four year old have the same rights ? why does the right to take completely from others only extend to fetuses and not to all others who cannot provide for the essentials of their existence ? if day old babies have a right to live then all people who cannot provide for their basic necessities of life have that same right.  we can quibble about what constitutes  basic essentials of life , but if birth is a fundamental human right: then  willife  is the same.   #  i think you are disagreeing with the ideas of privilege, disadvantage and systemic inequality.   #  i would call birth and death inevitabilities, not rights.  i disagree with it.  i think you have fallen into the trap of believing that because people who are born disadvantaged  can  be successful, that it is just as easy for them as for those who are born privileged.  it is not.  it very much is not.  if you are saying that there is no such thing as human rights i would agree with you.  i consider them a convention or belief, not an absolute.  but i do not think that is what you are saying.  i think you are disagreeing with the ideas of privilege, disadvantage and systemic inequality.  it might be easier for you to have the debate you want if you clarified this.   #  our society is, in fact, largely based on that idea of steered, guided development and nominally  fair  management of resources, all with the general and nebulous goal of doing what is best  for the whole  generally.   # before i approach the main point, your premise that obtaining these things is  relatively easy  is a lot less true than you think it is.  you are fooling yourself if you think that people are picking vegetables until their hands bleed because life is so easy for them and options so abundant.  my main objection to your position is that it is absolutely acceptable from a legal standpoint and consistent with our ethics over time and into the present day to take from some and give to others in our society.  our society is, in fact, largely based on that idea of steered, guided development and nominally  fair  management of resources, all with the general and nebulous goal of doing what is best  for the whole  generally.  look at the structure of patent laws, for instance.  in exchange for  granting  temporary exclusivity over an invention to its creator or their assignee, we the public claim the right to it forevermore after that temporary period.  all our taxes, even before the income tax existed, funded programs that benefited some individuals more than others.  at the positive end of the spectrum, this meant infrastructure and public works, at the negative end, graft and boss tweed style patronage.  some people are born in poverty, as in their parents cannot afford to feed and care for them.  others are born in palaces and have news cameras following them around everywhere, kept away by a nation is elite armed soldiers.  whatever you mean by poverty, you obliterate any  real  meaning when you use it in a way that actually equates those two very, very different lifestyles.  you then go on to draw a one to one comparison between merit and wealth, which is an  at least  equally ludicrous statement.
i hear all the time how  x  is a fundamental human right whether it be water in detroit, welfare, a basic living wage, etc.  we are all born in poverty and the things you get are a function of your usefulness in society.  that would seem to break down with the recent lifestyle of big business ceos, except when you stop to realize that the reason they are so rich is due to the expensive services they provide to so many people debating whether they are right or wrong is a different thread entirely .  i think your success or failure is entirely dependent on your own tenacity and will to succeed, and almost entirely separate from your race, gender or socio economic background and that people who espouse that everything is a  basic human right  are lazy and ungrateful.  also, success and lack thereof is relative.  for a poor kid growing up on 0 mile, success could be getting a manufacturing job in the midwest and affording a decent house in a small town.  not everyone gets to be a billionaire.   #  and that people who espouse that everything is a  basic human right  are lazy and ungrateful.   #  if you are saying that there is no such thing as human rights i would agree with you.   #  i would call birth and death inevitabilities, not rights.  i disagree with it.  i think you have fallen into the trap of believing that because people who are born disadvantaged  can  be successful, that it is just as easy for them as for those who are born privileged.  it is not.  it very much is not.  if you are saying that there is no such thing as human rights i would agree with you.  i consider them a convention or belief, not an absolute.  but i do not think that is what you are saying.  i think you are disagreeing with the ideas of privilege, disadvantage and systemic inequality.  it might be easier for you to have the debate you want if you clarified this.   #  footnote: natgeo channel is show  brain games  recently did an episode with a segment showing a dozen children taking the marshmallow test.   # see the famous   marshmallow test URL for young children  here, you can have one now, or you can have three fifteen minutes from now if you do not eat the first one.   baumeister reports that young children who last the full 0 minutes later score an average 0 points higher on the sat than those who give in and eat the marshmallow quickly, after equalizing for iq, ses and other factors.  iq and impulse control/deferred gratification are in fact the  only  meaningfully significant predictors of future success for young children.  arguably impulse control is more important than iq because 0 it determines how much one gets out of one is iq menial jobs and prisons host plenty of people with no impulse control and high iqs; and 0 impulse control and the ability to defer gratification can be taught and improved as a skill, iq ca not.  footnote: natgeo channel is show  brain games  recently did an episode with a segment showing a dozen children taking the marshmallow test.  it is hugely entertaining to watch also very educational as to the strategies used by the four kids who lasted the full 0 minutes: hiding under the table, starting a game with oneself on the other side of the room, looking for someone else to talk to .   out of sight/self distraction  win,  pure will power  always loses.  and as it is with those kids is exactly how it is with successful adults.   #  so in what sense is this claim true ?  # if this is a description of how the world is, it is wrong.  all functioning societies have some kind of welfare system, and developed countries have enough of one that almost nobody fails to maintain a minimum standard of living.  if this is a description of how the world was in some idealized natural state.  well, that is also wrong.  in a state of nature, i may not be able to get a free apple just for existing, but nobody can stop me from finding an apple tree and plucking one.  so in what sense is this claim true ?  #  if a person has the right to birth then, right from the beginning, you are arguing that people have the right to take from other people to sustain themselves.   #  how can birth be a fundamental human right if every individual requires another person in order to be born ? if a person has the right to birth then, right from the beginning, you are arguing that people have the right to take from other people to sustain themselves.  if a fetus has the right to live within another person to 0 months and consume her resources in order to be born: why does the right to continue living end after birth ? does a one week old child have a right to be fed, clothed, and housed so that it does not die ? does a four year old have the same rights ? why does the right to take completely from others only extend to fetuses and not to all others who cannot provide for the essentials of their existence ? if day old babies have a right to live then all people who cannot provide for their basic necessities of life have that same right.  we can quibble about what constitutes  basic essentials of life , but if birth is a fundamental human right: then  willife  is the same.   #  my main objection to your position is that it is absolutely acceptable from a legal standpoint and consistent with our ethics over time and into the present day to take from some and give to others in our society.   # before i approach the main point, your premise that obtaining these things is  relatively easy  is a lot less true than you think it is.  you are fooling yourself if you think that people are picking vegetables until their hands bleed because life is so easy for them and options so abundant.  my main objection to your position is that it is absolutely acceptable from a legal standpoint and consistent with our ethics over time and into the present day to take from some and give to others in our society.  our society is, in fact, largely based on that idea of steered, guided development and nominally  fair  management of resources, all with the general and nebulous goal of doing what is best  for the whole  generally.  look at the structure of patent laws, for instance.  in exchange for  granting  temporary exclusivity over an invention to its creator or their assignee, we the public claim the right to it forevermore after that temporary period.  all our taxes, even before the income tax existed, funded programs that benefited some individuals more than others.  at the positive end of the spectrum, this meant infrastructure and public works, at the negative end, graft and boss tweed style patronage.  some people are born in poverty, as in their parents cannot afford to feed and care for them.  others are born in palaces and have news cameras following them around everywhere, kept away by a nation is elite armed soldiers.  whatever you mean by poverty, you obliterate any  real  meaning when you use it in a way that actually equates those two very, very different lifestyles.  you then go on to draw a one to one comparison between merit and wealth, which is an  at least  equally ludicrous statement.
people working  hard  jobs will always be paid more than those working  easier  jobs.  if you can successfully run a company of 0  employees, then you will probably be paid more than someone who supervises no one.  if you can operate on another person, restoring lost function to one of their hands, then you will probably be paid more than the person who empties the waste baskets.  in a classless society, there would certainly be a few that decide to go through medical school, for altruistic or other reasons, but most would choose an easier path to obtain their equal payment.  proponents of a classless society: how do you realistically see the society functioning so that the  hard  jobs are not all vacant ? classless societies are a pipe dream that will never exist.  cmv.   #  people working  hard  jobs will always be paid more than those working  easier  jobs.   #  do you have any data that support this presumption ?  # do you have any data that support this presumption ? how is  hard  and  easy  being defined ? it sounds like they are being defined by the pay they receive, which is a circular argument.  the way jobs are valued in your area is not the same everywhere.  it is not some universal constant of class measurement.  in russia, for instance, doctors are one of the  lowest  paid professions.  many doctors work multiple shifts and take on second jobs just to make ends meet.  doctor is not a respected profession in russia and is not a high class job.  yet they go to medical school just like their american peers.   #  many farms now have more automated systems than ever before.   #  robots.  seriously, automation will soon be able to replace a ton of the general labor that is necessary to keep our society functioning.  in many areas, it already has.  self driving vehicles, for example, will most likely wipe out taxis, busses, delivery vehicles, etc.   driving  as a career will cease to exist.  many farms now have more automated systems than ever before.  accounting departments are being shrunk down and replaced by reliable software.  factory workers are easily replaced by robots.  as soon as fast food worker salaries become more costly than implementing entirely automated systems into the restaurants, you will see those jobs disappear as well.  i love that we are having these conversations, and we need to.  an automated society is right around the corner, and we need to address it and figure out how we are going to handle it before it gets here.  so the real question is not who is going to do the shitty jobs.  the question is, once all those jobs are being done by robots, how do we keep everybody fed ?  #  labor supply shortage is the problem not the absence of labor demand.   #  this is an extremely common economic fallacy.  automation, in any form, does not reduce the demand for labor but rather changes the skills disposition of labor.  0 years ago we needed far more labor to work fields then we do today, automation meant less labor was needed which reduced the price level and freed up labor to work elsewhere.  every time automation or mechanization has been introduced the same calls that labor is going to become obsolete are heard and they are always wrong because they fail to consider the new markets lower price levels will open.  invent a robot that can pick grapes ? great, grapes now cost 0/0th of what they did previously.  economic opportunities that did not exist in the past now do, while those field workers might have to retrain net labor demand will remain constant or grow.  our long term trend it towards labor shortage and this is going to create huge problems in the coming decades.  a number of industries already have a labor shortage problem across the business cycle technology   healthcare particularly and with a falling labor participation rate due to societal aging this problem is only going to get more acute.  labor supply shortage is the problem not the absence of labor demand.   #  but now those same manufacturing jobs are being taken by machines, where are the new jobs going to come from ?  #  the problem is that technology is growing exponentially, and there is no end in sight.  there are increasingly few jobs that humans can do more economically than machines, and jobs are not being created as fast as they are being taken.  historically, when unskilled labor is taken by a machine, new jobs open up in manufacturing those machines.  but now those same manufacturing jobs are being taken by machines, where are the new jobs going to come from ? never mind that the actual amount of man hours that counts as a  full time job  has been falling for a century.  redditors are way to optimistic pessimistic ? about how fast this will happen, but we are going to see a 0 hour work week or 0 unemployment in my lifetime.   #  it would not be the first time we have done it.   # first of all, do you have a source for this ? seems like the cycles are too large and data period too short to give any kind of significant long term trend.  but even if it is, it wo not matter, because technology is improving exponentially, taking out jobs in every sector of the economy at unprecedented rates.  i am saying that there is going to be a large labor surplus, meaning much lower wages.  for tax and benefits reasons, we are going to have to redefine a  full time job  at some point.  it would not be the first time we have done it.
people working  hard  jobs will always be paid more than those working  easier  jobs.  if you can successfully run a company of 0  employees, then you will probably be paid more than someone who supervises no one.  if you can operate on another person, restoring lost function to one of their hands, then you will probably be paid more than the person who empties the waste baskets.  in a classless society, there would certainly be a few that decide to go through medical school, for altruistic or other reasons, but most would choose an easier path to obtain their equal payment.  proponents of a classless society: how do you realistically see the society functioning so that the  hard  jobs are not all vacant ? classless societies are a pipe dream that will never exist.  cmv.   #  proponents of a classless society: how do you realistically see the society functioning so that the  hard  jobs are not all vacant ?  #  almost all jobs are  hard  if you do not have the skills to do them, and conversely: a job that the vast majority of untrained people could not do would be relatively  easy  to someone with years of training and experience.   # almost all jobs are  hard  if you do not have the skills to do them, and conversely: a job that the vast majority of untrained people could not do would be relatively  easy  to someone with years of training and experience.  so, why would anyone work for years to excel in a field when they do not get paid any more than a laborer i assume that equal income is part of your  classless society ? for the same reason that, today, everyone does not take high paying, low skill, physically demanding jobs oil field work, for instance : they would not enjoy the work and making less money is worth the loss of income.  flip your question on it is head:  in a heavily classed society: why does not everyone pursue only the highest earning careers ?   why do some people work for non profits, teach in public schools, or pursue art ? why do some doctors choose to volunteer overseas or work in public health clinics ? also, a  classless society  implies drastically cheaper or free college education.  without hundreds of thousands of dollars in school debt, i think many more people who have a passion for medicine would choose that career path.  in a  classless society , the presumption would be that everyone would earn enough money to take care of the basic essentials of life and would be afforded a dignified retirement.  if you could do anything you wanted with your life,  you  might not pursue medicine nor would i , but many people still would.  being a doctor would still carry a lot of social prestige and respect: even without the large income.  an example from my career field.  the rank of master sommelier has been achieved by 0 people  in history  becoming a master takes decades of study, working experience, and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in travel expenses, examination fees, and most importantly bottles of wine.  yet most of the highest earners in the wine business are not master sommeliers.  so, why do masters go through all the effort and expense to become certified ? i would suggest that they are more interested in the challenge, the prestige, and the acknowledgement that the certification carries than the amount of money it will earn for them.  my brother in law is in residency for his md at the moment, and he would  definitely  still be pursuing medicine even without the large salary that he can expect once he passes his boards.  he loves medicine and would still be doing it without the payday especially if his education was cheap or free .  likewise, i am  not  going into medicine, even though it would pay me tons of money.  wine is my passion, and it pays me an adequate living wage.  i  could  make more money, but i choose to do what i love and make less because i am better at what i do now than anything else i could train to do.   #   driving  as a career will cease to exist.   #  robots.  seriously, automation will soon be able to replace a ton of the general labor that is necessary to keep our society functioning.  in many areas, it already has.  self driving vehicles, for example, will most likely wipe out taxis, busses, delivery vehicles, etc.   driving  as a career will cease to exist.  many farms now have more automated systems than ever before.  accounting departments are being shrunk down and replaced by reliable software.  factory workers are easily replaced by robots.  as soon as fast food worker salaries become more costly than implementing entirely automated systems into the restaurants, you will see those jobs disappear as well.  i love that we are having these conversations, and we need to.  an automated society is right around the corner, and we need to address it and figure out how we are going to handle it before it gets here.  so the real question is not who is going to do the shitty jobs.  the question is, once all those jobs are being done by robots, how do we keep everybody fed ?  #  economic opportunities that did not exist in the past now do, while those field workers might have to retrain net labor demand will remain constant or grow.   #  this is an extremely common economic fallacy.  automation, in any form, does not reduce the demand for labor but rather changes the skills disposition of labor.  0 years ago we needed far more labor to work fields then we do today, automation meant less labor was needed which reduced the price level and freed up labor to work elsewhere.  every time automation or mechanization has been introduced the same calls that labor is going to become obsolete are heard and they are always wrong because they fail to consider the new markets lower price levels will open.  invent a robot that can pick grapes ? great, grapes now cost 0/0th of what they did previously.  economic opportunities that did not exist in the past now do, while those field workers might have to retrain net labor demand will remain constant or grow.  our long term trend it towards labor shortage and this is going to create huge problems in the coming decades.  a number of industries already have a labor shortage problem across the business cycle technology   healthcare particularly and with a falling labor participation rate due to societal aging this problem is only going to get more acute.  labor supply shortage is the problem not the absence of labor demand.   #  there are increasingly few jobs that humans can do more economically than machines, and jobs are not being created as fast as they are being taken.   #  the problem is that technology is growing exponentially, and there is no end in sight.  there are increasingly few jobs that humans can do more economically than machines, and jobs are not being created as fast as they are being taken.  historically, when unskilled labor is taken by a machine, new jobs open up in manufacturing those machines.  but now those same manufacturing jobs are being taken by machines, where are the new jobs going to come from ? never mind that the actual amount of man hours that counts as a  full time job  has been falling for a century.  redditors are way to optimistic pessimistic ? about how fast this will happen, but we are going to see a 0 hour work week or 0 unemployment in my lifetime.   #  but even if it is, it wo not matter, because technology is improving exponentially, taking out jobs in every sector of the economy at unprecedented rates.   # first of all, do you have a source for this ? seems like the cycles are too large and data period too short to give any kind of significant long term trend.  but even if it is, it wo not matter, because technology is improving exponentially, taking out jobs in every sector of the economy at unprecedented rates.  i am saying that there is going to be a large labor surplus, meaning much lower wages.  for tax and benefits reasons, we are going to have to redefine a  full time job  at some point.  it would not be the first time we have done it.
to understand my view, it is important to investigate where that double standard comes from.  it comes from the old fashioned idea that women want a  gentleman .  one aspect of this idea of a  gentleman  is that men should always be the ones to ask women out, to initiate any relationship, romance, or even a one night stand.  therefore, the man has to  put in work  to get the girl, whereas the girl does not have to do any courting at all.  because the man is doing the work, the idea of the slut is perpetuated by  allowing  males to sleep with them, so in a world where the norm is that men and women put in equal work when courting, there could be no sluts.  sadly, this is the reality that guys still face today, and in order to end the slut shaming stereotype, we must first end this idea of a  gentleman  feminists should be focusing on abolishing the idea of a  gentleman , which harms both genders, instead of focusing on slut shaming, which favors women.   #  therefore, the man has to  put in work  to get the girl, whereas the girl does not have to do any courting at all.   #  to say that a woman does not have to  put in work  in this context demonstrates a profound ignorance of women.   # to say that a woman does not have to  put in work  in this context demonstrates a profound ignorance of women.  take a look at any modern magazine targeted at women and you will see that most of the content revolves around attracting and pleasing men.  an enormous industry exists solely because women spend a lot of time painting their faces, adjusting their scent, and removing body hair for the purpose of attracting men.  i am not saying the only reason a woman  dresses up  is for a man, but you ca not deny that it is an expectation of them from the male side.  the expectation of a man is to court the woman.  the expectation of a woman is to maintain their physical fitness and maximize attractiveness.   #  chivalry is what you are talking about: a man being  a gentlemen  in the way he treats women.   #  feminism at the most ultimate basic level is the belief that women and men are equal and society should recognize that.  the next step up, so still a very basic view of what feminism is, is the belief that women and men are equal and society should recognize that,  and  that current society is patriarchal in that is favors men and perpetuates gender roles for men and women that hurt  both  men and women by pigeonholing us into those gender roles.  feminism aims to help women specifically by breaking down the patriarchy that holds us back but by focusing on the ways in which the patriarchy hurts women.  breaking down the patriarchy will indirectly help men too, as it directly hurts men too.  but the strategy with which feminism aims to destroy the patriarchy is by focusing on the ways it hurts women, not men.  i mean you can only work on one problem at a time, so feminism works on the patriarchal problems facing women.  as such, feminism as an ideology focuses a lot on being sex positive and not shaming women for their sexual decisions and actions.  but feminists as individuals very often also focus on not being gender normative and not perpetuating gender stereotypes.  feminists specifically  have perpetuated the ideas that  benevolent sexism is still sexism  and  chivalry is sexist.   chivalry is what you are talking about: a man being  a gentlemen  in the way he treats women.  feminists generally oppose that and preach against it.  my long long winded summary is that feminists do focus on abolishing the idea of chivalry in addition to abolishing the idea of sluts.  it is not an either or thing; feminists  already  preach against both.   #  i hold open doors regardless of age, gender, colour, ignorance, rudeness, unkindness, or whatever.   # when you start assessing if its  ok  based upon people is sex/gender, then it crosses over into  weird  and  uncomfortable  at least for me.  makes me feel better, after opening any door that automatically shuts, i look to see if i can hold the door open for anyone.  most of the time, it ends up being an 0 0 white male, and i could give less than a damn who it is.  i hold open doors regardless of age, gender, colour, ignorance, rudeness, unkindness, or whatever.  i am not going to have the word gentleman taken from me the way i have had it defined all my life.  gentleman: one who attends to the minor and base needs of others out of kindness given and nothing taken, to anyone and anything that needs it.  i am so very patient, but the first time i am scolded for being a gentleman for someone, regardless of their gender, age, or whatever, i am flipping the fuck out.   #  simple rules based on politeness and what you would like people to do for you seem to suffice just fine without bringing gender into the equation.   #  i understand that and appreciate anyone holding a door for me, so long as they do not get upset when i hold the door for them.  i give people the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations, and assume they are just nice people.  i see guys holding doors for other guys all the time, and i hold doors for guys as well.  its very rare for a guy to get upset when a woman holds the door for them.  it does happen, but usually a guy has a momentary reaction, and you can almost see them think it through on their face  why do i care if she is holding the door for me  and then they walk through and say thank you.  personally, i think the rule of whoever gets to the door first, or is carrying the least amount of stuff makes the most sense.  or if its a door that automatically locks like an office entrance with an rfid key , always hold the door as long as you do not have to wait an awkward amount of time for the person behind you to get there.  simple rules based on politeness and what you would like people to do for you seem to suffice just fine without bringing gender into the equation.   #  there are people out there who claim to be feminists that really are fighting solely for the advancement of women, and are willing to engage in efforts to harm men to achieve this.   #  no, it is not strictly semantic.  it is an important point regarding how feminism is perceived by outsiders.  there are people out there who claim to be feminists that really are fighting solely for the advancement of women, and are willing to engage in efforts to harm men to achieve this.  some of these are true misandrists, others are simply reactionary.  the primary example of this is a concentrated effort by these two groups to censor any men who wish to debate the issues, leading to concepts like the word  amansplaining.   this word is propagated by these groups and is repeatedly defined by them in ways that preclude the chance of any man ever having a legitimate view to express.  instead the movement attempts to be all inclusive, allowing its message to be distorted.
to understand my view, it is important to investigate where that double standard comes from.  it comes from the old fashioned idea that women want a  gentleman .  one aspect of this idea of a  gentleman  is that men should always be the ones to ask women out, to initiate any relationship, romance, or even a one night stand.  therefore, the man has to  put in work  to get the girl, whereas the girl does not have to do any courting at all.  because the man is doing the work, the idea of the slut is perpetuated by  allowing  males to sleep with them, so in a world where the norm is that men and women put in equal work when courting, there could be no sluts.  sadly, this is the reality that guys still face today, and in order to end the slut shaming stereotype, we must first end this idea of a  gentleman  feminists should be focusing on abolishing the idea of a  gentleman , which harms both genders, instead of focusing on slut shaming, which favors women.   #  one aspect of this idea of a  gentleman  is that men should always be the ones to ask women out, to initiate any relationship, romance, or even a one night stand.   #  i ca not think of a single feminist who agrees with this, and very few women self proclaimed feminist or not would agree with this.   # i ca not think of a single feminist who agrees with this, and very few women self proclaimed feminist or not would agree with this.  this is an idea that feminists fight very hard against.  however, i would not define this as a gentleman.  in my definition, a  gentleman  would treat men and women equally with respect.  and yes, women want someone who will treat them with respect.  just as men want someone who will treat them with respect.  you have correctly identified double standards that are perceived even though they are very much diminishing but you are incorrect in the idea that feminism is not fighting those double standards.   #  but feminists as individuals very often also focus on not being gender normative and not perpetuating gender stereotypes.   #  feminism at the most ultimate basic level is the belief that women and men are equal and society should recognize that.  the next step up, so still a very basic view of what feminism is, is the belief that women and men are equal and society should recognize that,  and  that current society is patriarchal in that is favors men and perpetuates gender roles for men and women that hurt  both  men and women by pigeonholing us into those gender roles.  feminism aims to help women specifically by breaking down the patriarchy that holds us back but by focusing on the ways in which the patriarchy hurts women.  breaking down the patriarchy will indirectly help men too, as it directly hurts men too.  but the strategy with which feminism aims to destroy the patriarchy is by focusing on the ways it hurts women, not men.  i mean you can only work on one problem at a time, so feminism works on the patriarchal problems facing women.  as such, feminism as an ideology focuses a lot on being sex positive and not shaming women for their sexual decisions and actions.  but feminists as individuals very often also focus on not being gender normative and not perpetuating gender stereotypes.  feminists specifically  have perpetuated the ideas that  benevolent sexism is still sexism  and  chivalry is sexist.   chivalry is what you are talking about: a man being  a gentlemen  in the way he treats women.  feminists generally oppose that and preach against it.  my long long winded summary is that feminists do focus on abolishing the idea of chivalry in addition to abolishing the idea of sluts.  it is not an either or thing; feminists  already  preach against both.   #  i hold open doors regardless of age, gender, colour, ignorance, rudeness, unkindness, or whatever.   # when you start assessing if its  ok  based upon people is sex/gender, then it crosses over into  weird  and  uncomfortable  at least for me.  makes me feel better, after opening any door that automatically shuts, i look to see if i can hold the door open for anyone.  most of the time, it ends up being an 0 0 white male, and i could give less than a damn who it is.  i hold open doors regardless of age, gender, colour, ignorance, rudeness, unkindness, or whatever.  i am not going to have the word gentleman taken from me the way i have had it defined all my life.  gentleman: one who attends to the minor and base needs of others out of kindness given and nothing taken, to anyone and anything that needs it.  i am so very patient, but the first time i am scolded for being a gentleman for someone, regardless of their gender, age, or whatever, i am flipping the fuck out.   #  i understand that and appreciate anyone holding a door for me, so long as they do not get upset when i hold the door for them.   #  i understand that and appreciate anyone holding a door for me, so long as they do not get upset when i hold the door for them.  i give people the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations, and assume they are just nice people.  i see guys holding doors for other guys all the time, and i hold doors for guys as well.  its very rare for a guy to get upset when a woman holds the door for them.  it does happen, but usually a guy has a momentary reaction, and you can almost see them think it through on their face  why do i care if she is holding the door for me  and then they walk through and say thank you.  personally, i think the rule of whoever gets to the door first, or is carrying the least amount of stuff makes the most sense.  or if its a door that automatically locks like an office entrance with an rfid key , always hold the door as long as you do not have to wait an awkward amount of time for the person behind you to get there.  simple rules based on politeness and what you would like people to do for you seem to suffice just fine without bringing gender into the equation.   #  some of these are true misandrists, others are simply reactionary.   #  no, it is not strictly semantic.  it is an important point regarding how feminism is perceived by outsiders.  there are people out there who claim to be feminists that really are fighting solely for the advancement of women, and are willing to engage in efforts to harm men to achieve this.  some of these are true misandrists, others are simply reactionary.  the primary example of this is a concentrated effort by these two groups to censor any men who wish to debate the issues, leading to concepts like the word  amansplaining.   this word is propagated by these groups and is repeatedly defined by them in ways that preclude the chance of any man ever having a legitimate view to express.  instead the movement attempts to be all inclusive, allowing its message to be distorted.
to understand my view, it is important to investigate where that double standard comes from.  it comes from the old fashioned idea that women want a  gentleman .  one aspect of this idea of a  gentleman  is that men should always be the ones to ask women out, to initiate any relationship, romance, or even a one night stand.  therefore, the man has to  put in work  to get the girl, whereas the girl does not have to do any courting at all.  because the man is doing the work, the idea of the slut is perpetuated by  allowing  males to sleep with them, so in a world where the norm is that men and women put in equal work when courting, there could be no sluts.  sadly, this is the reality that guys still face today, and in order to end the slut shaming stereotype, we must first end this idea of a  gentleman  feminists should be focusing on abolishing the idea of a  gentleman , which harms both genders, instead of focusing on slut shaming, which favors women.   #  because the man is doing the work, the idea of the slut is perpetuated by  allowing  males to sleep with them, so in a world where the norm is that men and women put in equal work when courting, there could be no sluts.   #  oh i wish it were that easy !  #  when i think of a  gentleman,  what immediately comes to mind is someone who is polite and treats people with respect.  in fact, i looked it up in the dictionary and it basically says just that.  perhaps a more suitable phrase for what you are talking about are  traditional gender roles,  in which men are dominate and women are passive.  feminists  are  working toward eliminating that stereotype.  oh i wish it were that easy ! but i must disagree with your argument that if men and women simply put in  equal work when courting, there could be no sluts.   i am sure that the rush limbaughs of the world could find a way to label a woman a slut.  what about the women who were  too easy  for a courting man to get ? sluts.  what about women who actively court a man she likes ? slut.  what about women who actively court several men ? ! at the same time ! ssssssssluts ! i can hear it now.  shaming women for being sexually active will not end by eliminating  gentlemen,  nor will it end with more women taking control of their romantic life.  the  root of the problem  is deeply ingrained in our culture and, if you ask me, lies in the belief that women are somehow unable to comprehend their own reality in order to make decisions for themselves and so must be guided through life by the more competent, capable sex.  and if i am being totally honest, posts like this one reinforce that idea that women  need  to be told what they  should  be doing, otherwise they just get it wrong.  what do you think ?  #  it is not an either or thing; feminists  already  preach against both.   #  feminism at the most ultimate basic level is the belief that women and men are equal and society should recognize that.  the next step up, so still a very basic view of what feminism is, is the belief that women and men are equal and society should recognize that,  and  that current society is patriarchal in that is favors men and perpetuates gender roles for men and women that hurt  both  men and women by pigeonholing us into those gender roles.  feminism aims to help women specifically by breaking down the patriarchy that holds us back but by focusing on the ways in which the patriarchy hurts women.  breaking down the patriarchy will indirectly help men too, as it directly hurts men too.  but the strategy with which feminism aims to destroy the patriarchy is by focusing on the ways it hurts women, not men.  i mean you can only work on one problem at a time, so feminism works on the patriarchal problems facing women.  as such, feminism as an ideology focuses a lot on being sex positive and not shaming women for their sexual decisions and actions.  but feminists as individuals very often also focus on not being gender normative and not perpetuating gender stereotypes.  feminists specifically  have perpetuated the ideas that  benevolent sexism is still sexism  and  chivalry is sexist.   chivalry is what you are talking about: a man being  a gentlemen  in the way he treats women.  feminists generally oppose that and preach against it.  my long long winded summary is that feminists do focus on abolishing the idea of chivalry in addition to abolishing the idea of sluts.  it is not an either or thing; feminists  already  preach against both.   #  most of the time, it ends up being an 0 0 white male, and i could give less than a damn who it is.   # when you start assessing if its  ok  based upon people is sex/gender, then it crosses over into  weird  and  uncomfortable  at least for me.  makes me feel better, after opening any door that automatically shuts, i look to see if i can hold the door open for anyone.  most of the time, it ends up being an 0 0 white male, and i could give less than a damn who it is.  i hold open doors regardless of age, gender, colour, ignorance, rudeness, unkindness, or whatever.  i am not going to have the word gentleman taken from me the way i have had it defined all my life.  gentleman: one who attends to the minor and base needs of others out of kindness given and nothing taken, to anyone and anything that needs it.  i am so very patient, but the first time i am scolded for being a gentleman for someone, regardless of their gender, age, or whatever, i am flipping the fuck out.   #  i see guys holding doors for other guys all the time, and i hold doors for guys as well.   #  i understand that and appreciate anyone holding a door for me, so long as they do not get upset when i hold the door for them.  i give people the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations, and assume they are just nice people.  i see guys holding doors for other guys all the time, and i hold doors for guys as well.  its very rare for a guy to get upset when a woman holds the door for them.  it does happen, but usually a guy has a momentary reaction, and you can almost see them think it through on their face  why do i care if she is holding the door for me  and then they walk through and say thank you.  personally, i think the rule of whoever gets to the door first, or is carrying the least amount of stuff makes the most sense.  or if its a door that automatically locks like an office entrance with an rfid key , always hold the door as long as you do not have to wait an awkward amount of time for the person behind you to get there.  simple rules based on politeness and what you would like people to do for you seem to suffice just fine without bringing gender into the equation.   #  instead the movement attempts to be all inclusive, allowing its message to be distorted.   #  no, it is not strictly semantic.  it is an important point regarding how feminism is perceived by outsiders.  there are people out there who claim to be feminists that really are fighting solely for the advancement of women, and are willing to engage in efforts to harm men to achieve this.  some of these are true misandrists, others are simply reactionary.  the primary example of this is a concentrated effort by these two groups to censor any men who wish to debate the issues, leading to concepts like the word  amansplaining.   this word is propagated by these groups and is repeatedly defined by them in ways that preclude the chance of any man ever having a legitimate view to express.  instead the movement attempts to be all inclusive, allowing its message to be distorted.
on a recent askreddit thread, someone asked  what is a complete and utter waste of money that people continue to spend their money on  and one redditor replied funerals URL immediately, people rushed to the defense of american funeral directors who, it is true, have a very difficult and challenging job.  but is all of it  necessary  ? according to the national funeral directors association, median funeral costs in 0 came to $0,0, not including cemetery costs.  $0 is the average embalming cost, and cosmetic reconstruction can run anywhere from $0 to hundreds of dollars.  embalming became popular in north america during the us civil war, when the need to ship large numbers of bodies home by rail without unseemly haste led to the practice.  doctor thomas holmes URL was commissioned by the union medical corps to embalm fallen union soldiers, leading to widespread acceptance of the practice.  president lincoln was embalmed following his assassination, and his procession home to illinois raised the profile of embalming even further.  international law requires embalming for transshipment of bodies, for sanitary and health reasons.  but aside from that concern, there is absolutely no reason for embalming in the vast majority of funerals.  modern refrigeration has made the concerns of the civil war era a thing of the past, yet americans continue the practice.  most other countries around the world do not practice embalming.  cosmetic reconstruction is considered necessary for open casket viewing, visitation and religious ceremonies in america.  this process is separate from embalming, although the two are usually performed in sync.  funeral directors will often ask for a recent photograph of the deceased, and then use a combination of cotton stuffing, sutures and theatrical makeup to try and recreate the photograph on the deceased is face.  the purpose of embalming and cosmetic reconstruction in america is to create what funeral directors have sometimes called a   memory picture URL of the deceased, a kind of final impression of the person as they were in life.  this has even been suggested as a  necessary  part of the bereavement process, as if viewing an unadorned dead body could cause some kind of psychological damage.  in reality, in my view, the aim of embalming and cosmetics is to create an illusion that conceals the reality of death.  practicing a kind of taxidermy on our deceased loved ones is a form of denial of death.  the notion of creating a  memory picture  is in many ways similar to another great american invention, the advertising campaign.  it is an illusion designed to create an arranged, idealized impression of the person is life while completely ignoring the unpleasant reality of death and loss.  in other words, rather than aiding the grieving process, embalming and cosmetics represents an attempt to delay and conceal the reality of dying and grief, and it is therefore neurotic and unhealthy.  not to mention expensive and unnecessary, and downright weird from the perspective of other countries like mexico that have much less artificial, much more intimate funeral rituals.  cmv.   #  in other words, rather than aiding the grieving process, embalming and cosmetics represents an attempt to delay and conceal the reality of dying and grief, and it is therefore neurotic and unhealthy.   #  embalming and cosmetics provide a symbol from which people gain closure and say goodbye.   # embalming and cosmetics provide a symbol from which people gain closure and say goodbye.  it is easier to get closure from seeing the actual  person , and being able to recognize them.  it is more personal and intimate than a video or photograph.  while the practice may disgust you, you have not made the case for it being neurotic or unhealthy.  neurosis has to do with anxiety, obsession, and compulsion.  the practices of the traditional funeral involve none of these.  typically, you see the body at a showing and/or funeral and never again.  you have not created a prop or puppet that will decorate your house for a long period of time.   #  you would not go into a hindu temple and point and say  that symbol reminds me of nazis take it down  because you clearly have a different frame of reference and can respect that cultures give things different meanings.   #  so you get to throw my point out because it is a useful way of viewing culture ? i actually think there are a lot of things to be challenged about the embalming practices, mostly their cost and environmental impact.  that is a good discussion to have.  but a big part of your argument against it is  embalming means this and that is a bad thing.   you are just ignoring the intent and meaning of embalming to people and substituting your own.  you would not go into a hindu temple and point and say  that symbol reminds me of nazis take it down  because you clearly have a different frame of reference and can respect that cultures give things different meanings.  so i think you should not point at embalming and say  you are denying death stop doing that.    #  while you are correct, from a purely logical standpoint, that the purpose of embalming and  funeral makeup  in an open casket wake try to create a  memory picture  which is not exactly what a natural corpse looks like.   #  i think your criticism of the cost of the typical american funeral is justified, but your general point about embalming and makeup, i feel, are off the mark.  while you are correct, from a purely logical standpoint, that the purpose of embalming and  funeral makeup  in an open casket wake try to create a  memory picture  which is not exactly what a natural corpse looks like.  however, we are dealing with a funeral the family and friends are struggling with the death of a loved one, and it is a very emotionally troubling time.  preservation techniques actually allow us to greive properly over the ostentible loss of a loved one without the disgust and added trepidation of seeing them in physical decay, which would be a  distraction  from the emotional healing process.  a funeral is not supposed to be a factual display of  hey, this is what death is like.   it is an opportunity to get emotional closure, and usually the things that ease our psyche cannot be explained in a purely logical fashion.  i find the fictional  memory picture  setup acceptable in principle as above and in scope.  the open casket wakes that i have attended, there was some makeup to make them look  normal  and at peace, but it was still clear that the person is dead.   #  when you said  just makeup for most people,  you probably did not know what a trocar button was.   #  dude URL  the eyes are posed using an eye cap that keeps them shut and in the proper expression.  the mouth may be closed via suturing with a needle and ligature, using an adhesive, or by setting a wire into the maxilla and mandible with a needle injector, a specialized device most commonly utilized in north america and unique to mortuary practice.  care is taken to make the expression look as relaxed and natural as possible, and ideally a recent photograph of the deceased while still living is used as a template.  the process of closing the mouth, eyes, shaving, etc.  is collectively known as setting the features.  the embalmer makes a small incision just above the navel two inches superior and two inches to the right and pushes the trocar in the chest and stomach cavities to puncture the hollow organs and aspirate their contents.  he then fills the cavities with concentrated chemicals that contain formaldehyde.  the incision is either sutured closed or a  trocar button  is secured into place.  when you said  just makeup for most people,  you probably did not know what a trocar button was.   #  the first leader to receive this honor was former speaker of the house of representatives URL henry clay URL when he died in 0.  since then, the honor has been extended to 0 people, including 0 presidents.   #    0;   0;   0; section 0.   united states  URL of article  lying in state  URL sfw  for most federal officeholders, lying in state is the rare honor granted by the united states URL to a deceased official wherein his or her remains are placed in the rotunda URL of the united states capitol URL in washington, d. c.  URL for public viewing.  the casket is guarded by members of the armed forces URL by regulation and custom, only presidents URL military commanders, and members of congress URL are granted the honor of lying in state.  except for presidents and former presidents, the honor is not automatic.  not all those entitled to the honor accept it, however.  the first leader to receive this honor was former speaker of the house of representatives URL henry clay URL when he died in 0.  since then, the honor has been extended to 0 people, including 0 presidents.   will  also  delete  on  comment  score  of   0  or  less.   |   faqs URL  |  mods URL  |  magic  words URL
i recognize that there are israelis who loudly condemn the actions of the israeli government.  i was finding it cumbersome to continually make that distinction in writing this out, so when i say israel or israel is actions, please read that as the actions of the israeli government.   hamas militants might be hiding there but israeli soldiers are the ones that actually fire the missiles.  rockets fired by hamas have killed fewer than 0 israeli civilians in the past 0 years URL while more than a thousand palestinians have died in the most recent offensive alone, most of whom were civilians.  israel could root out weapons caches using methods that are far less likely to kill civilians even if those methods were less effective, since the actual risk to israeli lives would still be minuscule.  hamas has no real choice other than to hide within the civilian population.  whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  hiding amongst civilians is a measure of last resort, there is nothing else they can do besides surrender, which would likely mean death or torture anyways.  even if israel uses the claim that  it is them or us , then israel is effectively trading one israeli saved for more than 0 palestinians killed.  with such a huge difference in killing power, israel has far greater ability than the palestinians to reduce the number of innocent people killed.  since israel has the ability to drastically reduce the total number of innocent people killed on both sides , the fact that they choose not to do so shows that they have little to no regard for the lives of palestinians.  if they effectively do not care about the numbers of innocent people killed, then israel is justification for its attacks are empty.  israel has backed the palestinians into a corner and is slowly choking them to death URL hamas is tactics are a result of this.  israel cannot justify the massive civilian death toll as countering the palestinian resistance is measures of last resort.   #  israel could root out weapons caches using methods that are far less likely to kill civilians even if those methods were less effective, since the actual risk to israeli lives would still be minuscule.   #  is there another method to destroy them ?  # that is more because of the strong defences of israel, not because of any lack of intention to kill from palestine.  the iron dome and such protect israel.  as a legal principle we punish attempted first degree murder with life in jail it is widely recognized that attempted murder is also an evil crime.  URL the consequences of it are things like depression, ptsd, miscarriages, lots of bad things.  it is a horrific crime against israeli citizens.  is there another method to destroy them ? they can send soldiers in, they can bomb them, they can ask hamas to destroy them.  the third method is not working very well so the first one is important.  they have to weigh the death of palestinian citizens against their own civilian is trauma and death.  while it is sad that many have to die their fault is vastly reduced in that they have been left in an impossible situation.  we tend to blame the first aggressor, since we expect people to avoid inciting others into violence.  they could just agree to stop the rocket attacks, and actively stop anyone firing rockets.  in terms of using human shields, israeli forces are vastly superior, human shields are not going to increase their success chance much.  they are causing death with little reason.  plus israeli citizens with ptsd, destroyed homes, depression, sickness.  what method do they have that satisfies the dual desires, reduce israeli ptsd and military expenses, reduce palestine civilian deaths ? they do some methods to reduce deaths certainly.  the palestinians do have another method of resistance, stop firing rockets.   #  hiding behind civilians is a last resort because hamas has essentially backed themselves into a corner by attacking a country with a much superior military instead of trying to work out their problems diplomatically.   # what methods are you suggesting ? whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  this does not justify the act of hamas blatantly putting civilians in danger in this armed conflict, which is a war crime itself.  when israel warns palestinian citizens of an incoming strike, hamas then tells its citizens to stay in place instead of telling them to evacuate.  it is not whether hamas  intends  to hide within the civilian population, it is that this is an actual tactic by them which blatantly puts their own civilians in danger.  or, you know, they could try to solve this issue diplomatically.  gaza and the west bank are currently disputed territories.  israel offered all of gaza and almost all of the west bank to palestinians to form their own sovereign state in 0, and they refused.  this meant that these territories remained disputed and that israelis kept building settlements in them as such.  palestinians had the opportunity to have both of these territories, and refused them.  israel has shown that it is willing to try to settle its disputes diplomatically.  it successfully did so with egypt in 0, and with jordan in 0 i could be wrong with those years, but israel did sign peace treaties with both countries .  hiding behind civilians is a last resort because hamas has essentially backed themselves into a corner by attacking a country with a much superior military instead of trying to work out their problems diplomatically.  if israel had no regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not warn them of attacks.  if they did not have any regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not have agreed to the humanitarian cease fire last week to allow the u. n.  to bring aid into gaza, or they would try to block the $0 million worth of aid that the u. s.  has pledged to gaza.  if israel truly had no regard for the lives of palestinians then it would simply carpet bomb gaza and end this conflict just like that.   #  can i trust that the translation was clear ?  #  ok, but in my mind this is a good example of not a meaningful way to discuss this.  i have no idea what the context of this video is.  can i trust that is an objective source ? can i trust that the translation was clear ? can i assume that this person is in a position to make meaningful policy decisions ? i need much more info before a one off youtube clip is going to have any effect on my opinion.  if i have got time today i might try to answer some of my above questions.   #  how is their god fair, in any single way ?  #  why did they bomb the un school then ? it is a fact that they knew where it was located by gps, why then, did they bomb a school, full of children ? and just now, recently, they bombed the shifa hospital, why ? why would people, who hopefully believe in god make this right.  why is it right to kill so many more innocent people as the americans did before, and are still doing .  how is their god fair, in any single way ? the palestinians were there historically in the first place, all they are doing is using a book, with somewhat credibility to justify genocide, which is ironic isnt it ? i want to say one important thing, i am, in no way againt any religious view.  i have studied religion, and i am a man of faith my self.  but somewhere along these historic lines, you see that some themes that seem religious really are not.  and i am proud of the jews who stand by their right, and say, we are not a part of this slaughter ! that is humanity, that is love.  people, wake up, we need to seriously think about this.  if we as human kind is going anywhere, it is into outerspace, and to do that, we have to unite.   #  0 of israeli jews are atheists, they have a much larger atheist population then the us and many other western states.   #  just to prefix, i do not particularly support either side in this conflict.  israel are badly overreacting and hamas do not seem interested in peace at all.  it was a mortar shell rather then a bomb and has been reported as unintentional, there have been a couple of causes like this where people are regarding shells as bombs and considering them deliberate rather then shelling is simply fairly inaccurate in the best scenario.  hamas have a bunker under the hospital and use the hospital itself as a hq, during the 0 0 conflict hamas leadership were holed up under the hospital and i am sure they are there now too.  jewish does not necessarily mean religious, its also a cultural   ethnic identity.  0 of israeli jews are atheists, they have a much larger atheist population then the us and many other western states.  the problem with historical claims is that so many people can claim so many regions that you are simply guaranteeing conflict by relying on these to form national boundaries.  less then half the current palestinian population is historically descended from people who lived in the area and due to the arabization of the region there is not ethnic palestinians, a country called  palestine  has never actually existed before and the region has always been claimed by another regional power.  the solution to the current conflict is fairly simple.  send in the un, expel hamas from gaza and demand israel stop their attacks.
i recognize that there are israelis who loudly condemn the actions of the israeli government.  i was finding it cumbersome to continually make that distinction in writing this out, so when i say israel or israel is actions, please read that as the actions of the israeli government.   hamas militants might be hiding there but israeli soldiers are the ones that actually fire the missiles.  rockets fired by hamas have killed fewer than 0 israeli civilians in the past 0 years URL while more than a thousand palestinians have died in the most recent offensive alone, most of whom were civilians.  israel could root out weapons caches using methods that are far less likely to kill civilians even if those methods were less effective, since the actual risk to israeli lives would still be minuscule.  hamas has no real choice other than to hide within the civilian population.  whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  hiding amongst civilians is a measure of last resort, there is nothing else they can do besides surrender, which would likely mean death or torture anyways.  even if israel uses the claim that  it is them or us , then israel is effectively trading one israeli saved for more than 0 palestinians killed.  with such a huge difference in killing power, israel has far greater ability than the palestinians to reduce the number of innocent people killed.  since israel has the ability to drastically reduce the total number of innocent people killed on both sides , the fact that they choose not to do so shows that they have little to no regard for the lives of palestinians.  if they effectively do not care about the numbers of innocent people killed, then israel is justification for its attacks are empty.  israel has backed the palestinians into a corner and is slowly choking them to death URL hamas is tactics are a result of this.  israel cannot justify the massive civilian death toll as countering the palestinian resistance is measures of last resort.   #  whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.   #  they could just agree to stop the rocket attacks, and actively stop anyone firing rockets.   # that is more because of the strong defences of israel, not because of any lack of intention to kill from palestine.  the iron dome and such protect israel.  as a legal principle we punish attempted first degree murder with life in jail it is widely recognized that attempted murder is also an evil crime.  URL the consequences of it are things like depression, ptsd, miscarriages, lots of bad things.  it is a horrific crime against israeli citizens.  is there another method to destroy them ? they can send soldiers in, they can bomb them, they can ask hamas to destroy them.  the third method is not working very well so the first one is important.  they have to weigh the death of palestinian citizens against their own civilian is trauma and death.  while it is sad that many have to die their fault is vastly reduced in that they have been left in an impossible situation.  we tend to blame the first aggressor, since we expect people to avoid inciting others into violence.  they could just agree to stop the rocket attacks, and actively stop anyone firing rockets.  in terms of using human shields, israeli forces are vastly superior, human shields are not going to increase their success chance much.  they are causing death with little reason.  plus israeli citizens with ptsd, destroyed homes, depression, sickness.  what method do they have that satisfies the dual desires, reduce israeli ptsd and military expenses, reduce palestine civilian deaths ? they do some methods to reduce deaths certainly.  the palestinians do have another method of resistance, stop firing rockets.   #  when israel warns palestinian citizens of an incoming strike, hamas then tells its citizens to stay in place instead of telling them to evacuate.   # what methods are you suggesting ? whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  this does not justify the act of hamas blatantly putting civilians in danger in this armed conflict, which is a war crime itself.  when israel warns palestinian citizens of an incoming strike, hamas then tells its citizens to stay in place instead of telling them to evacuate.  it is not whether hamas  intends  to hide within the civilian population, it is that this is an actual tactic by them which blatantly puts their own civilians in danger.  or, you know, they could try to solve this issue diplomatically.  gaza and the west bank are currently disputed territories.  israel offered all of gaza and almost all of the west bank to palestinians to form their own sovereign state in 0, and they refused.  this meant that these territories remained disputed and that israelis kept building settlements in them as such.  palestinians had the opportunity to have both of these territories, and refused them.  israel has shown that it is willing to try to settle its disputes diplomatically.  it successfully did so with egypt in 0, and with jordan in 0 i could be wrong with those years, but israel did sign peace treaties with both countries .  hiding behind civilians is a last resort because hamas has essentially backed themselves into a corner by attacking a country with a much superior military instead of trying to work out their problems diplomatically.  if israel had no regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not warn them of attacks.  if they did not have any regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not have agreed to the humanitarian cease fire last week to allow the u. n.  to bring aid into gaza, or they would try to block the $0 million worth of aid that the u. s.  has pledged to gaza.  if israel truly had no regard for the lives of palestinians then it would simply carpet bomb gaza and end this conflict just like that.   #  can i assume that this person is in a position to make meaningful policy decisions ?  #  ok, but in my mind this is a good example of not a meaningful way to discuss this.  i have no idea what the context of this video is.  can i trust that is an objective source ? can i trust that the translation was clear ? can i assume that this person is in a position to make meaningful policy decisions ? i need much more info before a one off youtube clip is going to have any effect on my opinion.  if i have got time today i might try to answer some of my above questions.   #  why did they bomb the un school then ?  #  why did they bomb the un school then ? it is a fact that they knew where it was located by gps, why then, did they bomb a school, full of children ? and just now, recently, they bombed the shifa hospital, why ? why would people, who hopefully believe in god make this right.  why is it right to kill so many more innocent people as the americans did before, and are still doing .  how is their god fair, in any single way ? the palestinians were there historically in the first place, all they are doing is using a book, with somewhat credibility to justify genocide, which is ironic isnt it ? i want to say one important thing, i am, in no way againt any religious view.  i have studied religion, and i am a man of faith my self.  but somewhere along these historic lines, you see that some themes that seem religious really are not.  and i am proud of the jews who stand by their right, and say, we are not a part of this slaughter ! that is humanity, that is love.  people, wake up, we need to seriously think about this.  if we as human kind is going anywhere, it is into outerspace, and to do that, we have to unite.   #  0 of israeli jews are atheists, they have a much larger atheist population then the us and many other western states.   #  just to prefix, i do not particularly support either side in this conflict.  israel are badly overreacting and hamas do not seem interested in peace at all.  it was a mortar shell rather then a bomb and has been reported as unintentional, there have been a couple of causes like this where people are regarding shells as bombs and considering them deliberate rather then shelling is simply fairly inaccurate in the best scenario.  hamas have a bunker under the hospital and use the hospital itself as a hq, during the 0 0 conflict hamas leadership were holed up under the hospital and i am sure they are there now too.  jewish does not necessarily mean religious, its also a cultural   ethnic identity.  0 of israeli jews are atheists, they have a much larger atheist population then the us and many other western states.  the problem with historical claims is that so many people can claim so many regions that you are simply guaranteeing conflict by relying on these to form national boundaries.  less then half the current palestinian population is historically descended from people who lived in the area and due to the arabization of the region there is not ethnic palestinians, a country called  palestine  has never actually existed before and the region has always been claimed by another regional power.  the solution to the current conflict is fairly simple.  send in the un, expel hamas from gaza and demand israel stop their attacks.
i recognize that there are israelis who loudly condemn the actions of the israeli government.  i was finding it cumbersome to continually make that distinction in writing this out, so when i say israel or israel is actions, please read that as the actions of the israeli government.   hamas militants might be hiding there but israeli soldiers are the ones that actually fire the missiles.  rockets fired by hamas have killed fewer than 0 israeli civilians in the past 0 years URL while more than a thousand palestinians have died in the most recent offensive alone, most of whom were civilians.  israel could root out weapons caches using methods that are far less likely to kill civilians even if those methods were less effective, since the actual risk to israeli lives would still be minuscule.  hamas has no real choice other than to hide within the civilian population.  whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  hiding amongst civilians is a measure of last resort, there is nothing else they can do besides surrender, which would likely mean death or torture anyways.  even if israel uses the claim that  it is them or us , then israel is effectively trading one israeli saved for more than 0 palestinians killed.  with such a huge difference in killing power, israel has far greater ability than the palestinians to reduce the number of innocent people killed.  since israel has the ability to drastically reduce the total number of innocent people killed on both sides , the fact that they choose not to do so shows that they have little to no regard for the lives of palestinians.  if they effectively do not care about the numbers of innocent people killed, then israel is justification for its attacks are empty.  israel has backed the palestinians into a corner and is slowly choking them to death URL hamas is tactics are a result of this.  israel cannot justify the massive civilian death toll as countering the palestinian resistance is measures of last resort.   #  even if israel uses the claim that  it is them or us , then israel is effectively trading one israeli saved for more than 0 palestinians killed.   #  plus israeli citizens with ptsd, destroyed homes, depression, sickness.   # that is more because of the strong defences of israel, not because of any lack of intention to kill from palestine.  the iron dome and such protect israel.  as a legal principle we punish attempted first degree murder with life in jail it is widely recognized that attempted murder is also an evil crime.  URL the consequences of it are things like depression, ptsd, miscarriages, lots of bad things.  it is a horrific crime against israeli citizens.  is there another method to destroy them ? they can send soldiers in, they can bomb them, they can ask hamas to destroy them.  the third method is not working very well so the first one is important.  they have to weigh the death of palestinian citizens against their own civilian is trauma and death.  while it is sad that many have to die their fault is vastly reduced in that they have been left in an impossible situation.  we tend to blame the first aggressor, since we expect people to avoid inciting others into violence.  they could just agree to stop the rocket attacks, and actively stop anyone firing rockets.  in terms of using human shields, israeli forces are vastly superior, human shields are not going to increase their success chance much.  they are causing death with little reason.  plus israeli citizens with ptsd, destroyed homes, depression, sickness.  what method do they have that satisfies the dual desires, reduce israeli ptsd and military expenses, reduce palestine civilian deaths ? they do some methods to reduce deaths certainly.  the palestinians do have another method of resistance, stop firing rockets.   #  or, you know, they could try to solve this issue diplomatically.   # what methods are you suggesting ? whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  this does not justify the act of hamas blatantly putting civilians in danger in this armed conflict, which is a war crime itself.  when israel warns palestinian citizens of an incoming strike, hamas then tells its citizens to stay in place instead of telling them to evacuate.  it is not whether hamas  intends  to hide within the civilian population, it is that this is an actual tactic by them which blatantly puts their own civilians in danger.  or, you know, they could try to solve this issue diplomatically.  gaza and the west bank are currently disputed territories.  israel offered all of gaza and almost all of the west bank to palestinians to form their own sovereign state in 0, and they refused.  this meant that these territories remained disputed and that israelis kept building settlements in them as such.  palestinians had the opportunity to have both of these territories, and refused them.  israel has shown that it is willing to try to settle its disputes diplomatically.  it successfully did so with egypt in 0, and with jordan in 0 i could be wrong with those years, but israel did sign peace treaties with both countries .  hiding behind civilians is a last resort because hamas has essentially backed themselves into a corner by attacking a country with a much superior military instead of trying to work out their problems diplomatically.  if israel had no regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not warn them of attacks.  if they did not have any regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not have agreed to the humanitarian cease fire last week to allow the u. n.  to bring aid into gaza, or they would try to block the $0 million worth of aid that the u. s.  has pledged to gaza.  if israel truly had no regard for the lives of palestinians then it would simply carpet bomb gaza and end this conflict just like that.   #  if i have got time today i might try to answer some of my above questions.   #  ok, but in my mind this is a good example of not a meaningful way to discuss this.  i have no idea what the context of this video is.  can i trust that is an objective source ? can i trust that the translation was clear ? can i assume that this person is in a position to make meaningful policy decisions ? i need much more info before a one off youtube clip is going to have any effect on my opinion.  if i have got time today i might try to answer some of my above questions.   #  it is a fact that they knew where it was located by gps, why then, did they bomb a school, full of children ?  #  why did they bomb the un school then ? it is a fact that they knew where it was located by gps, why then, did they bomb a school, full of children ? and just now, recently, they bombed the shifa hospital, why ? why would people, who hopefully believe in god make this right.  why is it right to kill so many more innocent people as the americans did before, and are still doing .  how is their god fair, in any single way ? the palestinians were there historically in the first place, all they are doing is using a book, with somewhat credibility to justify genocide, which is ironic isnt it ? i want to say one important thing, i am, in no way againt any religious view.  i have studied religion, and i am a man of faith my self.  but somewhere along these historic lines, you see that some themes that seem religious really are not.  and i am proud of the jews who stand by their right, and say, we are not a part of this slaughter ! that is humanity, that is love.  people, wake up, we need to seriously think about this.  if we as human kind is going anywhere, it is into outerspace, and to do that, we have to unite.   #  send in the un, expel hamas from gaza and demand israel stop their attacks.   #  just to prefix, i do not particularly support either side in this conflict.  israel are badly overreacting and hamas do not seem interested in peace at all.  it was a mortar shell rather then a bomb and has been reported as unintentional, there have been a couple of causes like this where people are regarding shells as bombs and considering them deliberate rather then shelling is simply fairly inaccurate in the best scenario.  hamas have a bunker under the hospital and use the hospital itself as a hq, during the 0 0 conflict hamas leadership were holed up under the hospital and i am sure they are there now too.  jewish does not necessarily mean religious, its also a cultural   ethnic identity.  0 of israeli jews are atheists, they have a much larger atheist population then the us and many other western states.  the problem with historical claims is that so many people can claim so many regions that you are simply guaranteeing conflict by relying on these to form national boundaries.  less then half the current palestinian population is historically descended from people who lived in the area and due to the arabization of the region there is not ethnic palestinians, a country called  palestine  has never actually existed before and the region has always been claimed by another regional power.  the solution to the current conflict is fairly simple.  send in the un, expel hamas from gaza and demand israel stop their attacks.
i recognize that there are israelis who loudly condemn the actions of the israeli government.  i was finding it cumbersome to continually make that distinction in writing this out, so when i say israel or israel is actions, please read that as the actions of the israeli government.   hamas militants might be hiding there but israeli soldiers are the ones that actually fire the missiles.  rockets fired by hamas have killed fewer than 0 israeli civilians in the past 0 years URL while more than a thousand palestinians have died in the most recent offensive alone, most of whom were civilians.  israel could root out weapons caches using methods that are far less likely to kill civilians even if those methods were less effective, since the actual risk to israeli lives would still be minuscule.  hamas has no real choice other than to hide within the civilian population.  whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  hiding amongst civilians is a measure of last resort, there is nothing else they can do besides surrender, which would likely mean death or torture anyways.  even if israel uses the claim that  it is them or us , then israel is effectively trading one israeli saved for more than 0 palestinians killed.  with such a huge difference in killing power, israel has far greater ability than the palestinians to reduce the number of innocent people killed.  since israel has the ability to drastically reduce the total number of innocent people killed on both sides , the fact that they choose not to do so shows that they have little to no regard for the lives of palestinians.  if they effectively do not care about the numbers of innocent people killed, then israel is justification for its attacks are empty.  israel has backed the palestinians into a corner and is slowly choking them to death URL hamas is tactics are a result of this.  israel cannot justify the massive civilian death toll as countering the palestinian resistance is measures of last resort.   #  since israel has the ability to drastically reduce the total number of innocent people killed on both sides , the fact that they choose not to do so shows that they have little to no regard for the lives of palestinians.   #  what method do they have that satisfies the dual desires, reduce israeli ptsd and military expenses, reduce palestine civilian deaths ?  # that is more because of the strong defences of israel, not because of any lack of intention to kill from palestine.  the iron dome and such protect israel.  as a legal principle we punish attempted first degree murder with life in jail it is widely recognized that attempted murder is also an evil crime.  URL the consequences of it are things like depression, ptsd, miscarriages, lots of bad things.  it is a horrific crime against israeli citizens.  is there another method to destroy them ? they can send soldiers in, they can bomb them, they can ask hamas to destroy them.  the third method is not working very well so the first one is important.  they have to weigh the death of palestinian citizens against their own civilian is trauma and death.  while it is sad that many have to die their fault is vastly reduced in that they have been left in an impossible situation.  we tend to blame the first aggressor, since we expect people to avoid inciting others into violence.  they could just agree to stop the rocket attacks, and actively stop anyone firing rockets.  in terms of using human shields, israeli forces are vastly superior, human shields are not going to increase their success chance much.  they are causing death with little reason.  plus israeli citizens with ptsd, destroyed homes, depression, sickness.  what method do they have that satisfies the dual desires, reduce israeli ptsd and military expenses, reduce palestine civilian deaths ? they do some methods to reduce deaths certainly.  the palestinians do have another method of resistance, stop firing rockets.   #  israel offered all of gaza and almost all of the west bank to palestinians to form their own sovereign state in 0, and they refused.   # what methods are you suggesting ? whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  this does not justify the act of hamas blatantly putting civilians in danger in this armed conflict, which is a war crime itself.  when israel warns palestinian citizens of an incoming strike, hamas then tells its citizens to stay in place instead of telling them to evacuate.  it is not whether hamas  intends  to hide within the civilian population, it is that this is an actual tactic by them which blatantly puts their own civilians in danger.  or, you know, they could try to solve this issue diplomatically.  gaza and the west bank are currently disputed territories.  israel offered all of gaza and almost all of the west bank to palestinians to form their own sovereign state in 0, and they refused.  this meant that these territories remained disputed and that israelis kept building settlements in them as such.  palestinians had the opportunity to have both of these territories, and refused them.  israel has shown that it is willing to try to settle its disputes diplomatically.  it successfully did so with egypt in 0, and with jordan in 0 i could be wrong with those years, but israel did sign peace treaties with both countries .  hiding behind civilians is a last resort because hamas has essentially backed themselves into a corner by attacking a country with a much superior military instead of trying to work out their problems diplomatically.  if israel had no regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not warn them of attacks.  if they did not have any regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not have agreed to the humanitarian cease fire last week to allow the u. n.  to bring aid into gaza, or they would try to block the $0 million worth of aid that the u. s.  has pledged to gaza.  if israel truly had no regard for the lives of palestinians then it would simply carpet bomb gaza and end this conflict just like that.   #  can i assume that this person is in a position to make meaningful policy decisions ?  #  ok, but in my mind this is a good example of not a meaningful way to discuss this.  i have no idea what the context of this video is.  can i trust that is an objective source ? can i trust that the translation was clear ? can i assume that this person is in a position to make meaningful policy decisions ? i need much more info before a one off youtube clip is going to have any effect on my opinion.  if i have got time today i might try to answer some of my above questions.   #  people, wake up, we need to seriously think about this.   #  why did they bomb the un school then ? it is a fact that they knew where it was located by gps, why then, did they bomb a school, full of children ? and just now, recently, they bombed the shifa hospital, why ? why would people, who hopefully believe in god make this right.  why is it right to kill so many more innocent people as the americans did before, and are still doing .  how is their god fair, in any single way ? the palestinians were there historically in the first place, all they are doing is using a book, with somewhat credibility to justify genocide, which is ironic isnt it ? i want to say one important thing, i am, in no way againt any religious view.  i have studied religion, and i am a man of faith my self.  but somewhere along these historic lines, you see that some themes that seem religious really are not.  and i am proud of the jews who stand by their right, and say, we are not a part of this slaughter ! that is humanity, that is love.  people, wake up, we need to seriously think about this.  if we as human kind is going anywhere, it is into outerspace, and to do that, we have to unite.   #  the solution to the current conflict is fairly simple.   #  just to prefix, i do not particularly support either side in this conflict.  israel are badly overreacting and hamas do not seem interested in peace at all.  it was a mortar shell rather then a bomb and has been reported as unintentional, there have been a couple of causes like this where people are regarding shells as bombs and considering them deliberate rather then shelling is simply fairly inaccurate in the best scenario.  hamas have a bunker under the hospital and use the hospital itself as a hq, during the 0 0 conflict hamas leadership were holed up under the hospital and i am sure they are there now too.  jewish does not necessarily mean religious, its also a cultural   ethnic identity.  0 of israeli jews are atheists, they have a much larger atheist population then the us and many other western states.  the problem with historical claims is that so many people can claim so many regions that you are simply guaranteeing conflict by relying on these to form national boundaries.  less then half the current palestinian population is historically descended from people who lived in the area and due to the arabization of the region there is not ethnic palestinians, a country called  palestine  has never actually existed before and the region has always been claimed by another regional power.  the solution to the current conflict is fairly simple.  send in the un, expel hamas from gaza and demand israel stop their attacks.
i recognize that there are israelis who loudly condemn the actions of the israeli government.  i was finding it cumbersome to continually make that distinction in writing this out, so when i say israel or israel is actions, please read that as the actions of the israeli government.   hamas militants might be hiding there but israeli soldiers are the ones that actually fire the missiles.  rockets fired by hamas have killed fewer than 0 israeli civilians in the past 0 years URL while more than a thousand palestinians have died in the most recent offensive alone, most of whom were civilians.  israel could root out weapons caches using methods that are far less likely to kill civilians even if those methods were less effective, since the actual risk to israeli lives would still be minuscule.  hamas has no real choice other than to hide within the civilian population.  whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  hiding amongst civilians is a measure of last resort, there is nothing else they can do besides surrender, which would likely mean death or torture anyways.  even if israel uses the claim that  it is them or us , then israel is effectively trading one israeli saved for more than 0 palestinians killed.  with such a huge difference in killing power, israel has far greater ability than the palestinians to reduce the number of innocent people killed.  since israel has the ability to drastically reduce the total number of innocent people killed on both sides , the fact that they choose not to do so shows that they have little to no regard for the lives of palestinians.  if they effectively do not care about the numbers of innocent people killed, then israel is justification for its attacks are empty.  israel has backed the palestinians into a corner and is slowly choking them to death URL hamas is tactics are a result of this.  israel cannot justify the massive civilian death toll as countering the palestinian resistance is measures of last resort.   #  israel cannot justify the massive civilian death toll as countering the palestinian resistance is measures of last resort.   #  the palestinians do have another method of resistance, stop firing rockets.   # that is more because of the strong defences of israel, not because of any lack of intention to kill from palestine.  the iron dome and such protect israel.  as a legal principle we punish attempted first degree murder with life in jail it is widely recognized that attempted murder is also an evil crime.  URL the consequences of it are things like depression, ptsd, miscarriages, lots of bad things.  it is a horrific crime against israeli citizens.  is there another method to destroy them ? they can send soldiers in, they can bomb them, they can ask hamas to destroy them.  the third method is not working very well so the first one is important.  they have to weigh the death of palestinian citizens against their own civilian is trauma and death.  while it is sad that many have to die their fault is vastly reduced in that they have been left in an impossible situation.  we tend to blame the first aggressor, since we expect people to avoid inciting others into violence.  they could just agree to stop the rocket attacks, and actively stop anyone firing rockets.  in terms of using human shields, israeli forces are vastly superior, human shields are not going to increase their success chance much.  they are causing death with little reason.  plus israeli citizens with ptsd, destroyed homes, depression, sickness.  what method do they have that satisfies the dual desires, reduce israeli ptsd and military expenses, reduce palestine civilian deaths ? they do some methods to reduce deaths certainly.  the palestinians do have another method of resistance, stop firing rockets.   #  it is not whether hamas  intends  to hide within the civilian population, it is that this is an actual tactic by them which blatantly puts their own civilians in danger.   # what methods are you suggesting ? whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  this does not justify the act of hamas blatantly putting civilians in danger in this armed conflict, which is a war crime itself.  when israel warns palestinian citizens of an incoming strike, hamas then tells its citizens to stay in place instead of telling them to evacuate.  it is not whether hamas  intends  to hide within the civilian population, it is that this is an actual tactic by them which blatantly puts their own civilians in danger.  or, you know, they could try to solve this issue diplomatically.  gaza and the west bank are currently disputed territories.  israel offered all of gaza and almost all of the west bank to palestinians to form their own sovereign state in 0, and they refused.  this meant that these territories remained disputed and that israelis kept building settlements in them as such.  palestinians had the opportunity to have both of these territories, and refused them.  israel has shown that it is willing to try to settle its disputes diplomatically.  it successfully did so with egypt in 0, and with jordan in 0 i could be wrong with those years, but israel did sign peace treaties with both countries .  hiding behind civilians is a last resort because hamas has essentially backed themselves into a corner by attacking a country with a much superior military instead of trying to work out their problems diplomatically.  if israel had no regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not warn them of attacks.  if they did not have any regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not have agreed to the humanitarian cease fire last week to allow the u. n.  to bring aid into gaza, or they would try to block the $0 million worth of aid that the u. s.  has pledged to gaza.  if israel truly had no regard for the lives of palestinians then it would simply carpet bomb gaza and end this conflict just like that.   #  i need much more info before a one off youtube clip is going to have any effect on my opinion.   #  ok, but in my mind this is a good example of not a meaningful way to discuss this.  i have no idea what the context of this video is.  can i trust that is an objective source ? can i trust that the translation was clear ? can i assume that this person is in a position to make meaningful policy decisions ? i need much more info before a one off youtube clip is going to have any effect on my opinion.  if i have got time today i might try to answer some of my above questions.   #  people, wake up, we need to seriously think about this.   #  why did they bomb the un school then ? it is a fact that they knew where it was located by gps, why then, did they bomb a school, full of children ? and just now, recently, they bombed the shifa hospital, why ? why would people, who hopefully believe in god make this right.  why is it right to kill so many more innocent people as the americans did before, and are still doing .  how is their god fair, in any single way ? the palestinians were there historically in the first place, all they are doing is using a book, with somewhat credibility to justify genocide, which is ironic isnt it ? i want to say one important thing, i am, in no way againt any religious view.  i have studied religion, and i am a man of faith my self.  but somewhere along these historic lines, you see that some themes that seem religious really are not.  and i am proud of the jews who stand by their right, and say, we are not a part of this slaughter ! that is humanity, that is love.  people, wake up, we need to seriously think about this.  if we as human kind is going anywhere, it is into outerspace, and to do that, we have to unite.   #  just to prefix, i do not particularly support either side in this conflict.   #  just to prefix, i do not particularly support either side in this conflict.  israel are badly overreacting and hamas do not seem interested in peace at all.  it was a mortar shell rather then a bomb and has been reported as unintentional, there have been a couple of causes like this where people are regarding shells as bombs and considering them deliberate rather then shelling is simply fairly inaccurate in the best scenario.  hamas have a bunker under the hospital and use the hospital itself as a hq, during the 0 0 conflict hamas leadership were holed up under the hospital and i am sure they are there now too.  jewish does not necessarily mean religious, its also a cultural   ethnic identity.  0 of israeli jews are atheists, they have a much larger atheist population then the us and many other western states.  the problem with historical claims is that so many people can claim so many regions that you are simply guaranteeing conflict by relying on these to form national boundaries.  less then half the current palestinian population is historically descended from people who lived in the area and due to the arabization of the region there is not ethnic palestinians, a country called  palestine  has never actually existed before and the region has always been claimed by another regional power.  the solution to the current conflict is fairly simple.  send in the un, expel hamas from gaza and demand israel stop their attacks.
i recognize that there are israelis who loudly condemn the actions of the israeli government.  i was finding it cumbersome to continually make that distinction in writing this out, so when i say israel or israel is actions, please read that as the actions of the israeli government.   hamas militants might be hiding there but israeli soldiers are the ones that actually fire the missiles.  rockets fired by hamas have killed fewer than 0 israeli civilians in the past 0 years URL while more than a thousand palestinians have died in the most recent offensive alone, most of whom were civilians.  israel could root out weapons caches using methods that are far less likely to kill civilians even if those methods were less effective, since the actual risk to israeli lives would still be minuscule.  hamas has no real choice other than to hide within the civilian population.  whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  hiding amongst civilians is a measure of last resort, there is nothing else they can do besides surrender, which would likely mean death or torture anyways.  even if israel uses the claim that  it is them or us , then israel is effectively trading one israeli saved for more than 0 palestinians killed.  with such a huge difference in killing power, israel has far greater ability than the palestinians to reduce the number of innocent people killed.  since israel has the ability to drastically reduce the total number of innocent people killed on both sides , the fact that they choose not to do so shows that they have little to no regard for the lives of palestinians.  if they effectively do not care about the numbers of innocent people killed, then israel is justification for its attacks are empty.  israel has backed the palestinians into a corner and is slowly choking them to death URL hamas is tactics are a result of this.  israel cannot justify the massive civilian death toll as countering the palestinian resistance is measures of last resort.   #  hamas has no real choice other than to hide within the civilian population.   #  is not attacking israel not an option ?  #  if hamas knows they will be targeted, and they purposefully choose to store weapons and ammo where civilians can be harmed, how is it israel is responsibility if there are casualties ? if you are going to blow up where i am, wherever that is, and i knowingly stay in a school building, have not i inherently placed those kids in danger ? is not attacking israel not an option ? they choose to make themselves targets by continuing aggressions.  all is fair in war.  you do what it takes to win, or you lose.  this is an inherent truth of living in the universe we are a part of.   #  if they did not have any regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not have agreed to the humanitarian cease fire last week to allow the u. n.   # what methods are you suggesting ? whether or not they actually intend to use humans as shields, if hamas fighters did not hide within the civilian population they would be obliterated overnight.  this does not justify the act of hamas blatantly putting civilians in danger in this armed conflict, which is a war crime itself.  when israel warns palestinian citizens of an incoming strike, hamas then tells its citizens to stay in place instead of telling them to evacuate.  it is not whether hamas  intends  to hide within the civilian population, it is that this is an actual tactic by them which blatantly puts their own civilians in danger.  or, you know, they could try to solve this issue diplomatically.  gaza and the west bank are currently disputed territories.  israel offered all of gaza and almost all of the west bank to palestinians to form their own sovereign state in 0, and they refused.  this meant that these territories remained disputed and that israelis kept building settlements in them as such.  palestinians had the opportunity to have both of these territories, and refused them.  israel has shown that it is willing to try to settle its disputes diplomatically.  it successfully did so with egypt in 0, and with jordan in 0 i could be wrong with those years, but israel did sign peace treaties with both countries .  hiding behind civilians is a last resort because hamas has essentially backed themselves into a corner by attacking a country with a much superior military instead of trying to work out their problems diplomatically.  if israel had no regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not warn them of attacks.  if they did not have any regard for the lives of palestinians then they would not have agreed to the humanitarian cease fire last week to allow the u. n.  to bring aid into gaza, or they would try to block the $0 million worth of aid that the u. s.  has pledged to gaza.  if israel truly had no regard for the lives of palestinians then it would simply carpet bomb gaza and end this conflict just like that.   #  if i have got time today i might try to answer some of my above questions.   #  ok, but in my mind this is a good example of not a meaningful way to discuss this.  i have no idea what the context of this video is.  can i trust that is an objective source ? can i trust that the translation was clear ? can i assume that this person is in a position to make meaningful policy decisions ? i need much more info before a one off youtube clip is going to have any effect on my opinion.  if i have got time today i might try to answer some of my above questions.   #  i have studied religion, and i am a man of faith my self.   #  why did they bomb the un school then ? it is a fact that they knew where it was located by gps, why then, did they bomb a school, full of children ? and just now, recently, they bombed the shifa hospital, why ? why would people, who hopefully believe in god make this right.  why is it right to kill so many more innocent people as the americans did before, and are still doing .  how is their god fair, in any single way ? the palestinians were there historically in the first place, all they are doing is using a book, with somewhat credibility to justify genocide, which is ironic isnt it ? i want to say one important thing, i am, in no way againt any religious view.  i have studied religion, and i am a man of faith my self.  but somewhere along these historic lines, you see that some themes that seem religious really are not.  and i am proud of the jews who stand by their right, and say, we are not a part of this slaughter ! that is humanity, that is love.  people, wake up, we need to seriously think about this.  if we as human kind is going anywhere, it is into outerspace, and to do that, we have to unite.   #  just to prefix, i do not particularly support either side in this conflict.   #  just to prefix, i do not particularly support either side in this conflict.  israel are badly overreacting and hamas do not seem interested in peace at all.  it was a mortar shell rather then a bomb and has been reported as unintentional, there have been a couple of causes like this where people are regarding shells as bombs and considering them deliberate rather then shelling is simply fairly inaccurate in the best scenario.  hamas have a bunker under the hospital and use the hospital itself as a hq, during the 0 0 conflict hamas leadership were holed up under the hospital and i am sure they are there now too.  jewish does not necessarily mean religious, its also a cultural   ethnic identity.  0 of israeli jews are atheists, they have a much larger atheist population then the us and many other western states.  the problem with historical claims is that so many people can claim so many regions that you are simply guaranteeing conflict by relying on these to form national boundaries.  less then half the current palestinian population is historically descended from people who lived in the area and due to the arabization of the region there is not ethnic palestinians, a country called  palestine  has never actually existed before and the region has always been claimed by another regional power.  the solution to the current conflict is fairly simple.  send in the un, expel hamas from gaza and demand israel stop their attacks.
please do not get me wrong here, i am not homophobic and i am not just saying that to make myself appear less offensive.  i attend gay pride every year to support my many homosexual friends.  however, when i go to gay pride, i notice the whole thing is very sexual with lewd performances and so on.  it is not just gay pride that i see this, i see promiscuity highly promoted within the gay community.  my friend has an account on grindr, he often gets people popping up and straight asking him for sex with no flirting or dating.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  this view is probably linked to my rather modest and strict view of sex in general.  i believe promiscuity is a bad thing and that sex should be linked to love.   #  my friend has an account on grindr, he often gets people popping up and straight asking him for sex with no flirting or dating.   #  it is often like there is not that middle stage.   #  i think this is a case of correlation not being causation.  religion is not on the whole tolerant of homosexuality.  religion is also not on the whole tolerant of promiscuity.  i think that a large group of people without the religious attitude toward promiscuity will have more promiscuous sex.  this is not to say you have to be religious to be against it, but there is a strong correlation.  do you think non religious straight people are significantly less promiscuous than gay people ? also, gay people are regular people.  they have jobs, friends, hobbies, etc.  just like straight folks.  at a pride fest, you have a bunch of people getting together to celebrate what ? sports ? movies ? tv shows ? hobbies ? accounting ? no ! they are coming together to celebrate their sexuality.  people celebrating their sexuality might be more apt to have  sexual and lewd performances.   you are getting a skewed sample of what the  gay community  does on a daily basis.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  there are plenty of straight people who do this too.   #  i am not really religious, but i understand what you are saying about religion.   #  i do believe it is probably correlation as well, but i do believe there are more cases of promiscuity with homosexuality compared to heterosexuality.  i am not really religious, but i understand what you are saying about religion.  i believe lust is one of the deadly sins.  a lot of people i know are non religious straight people and none of them are as promiscuous as the people i have met from the gay community, unless they have been consuming alcohol.  although people of all sexualities talk about sex and discuss sex, i see more cases of casual sex within the gay community.  i know they are regular people and i do expect some sexual performances at gay pride, but there is a limit on how much i think should be done at day time, in public with children around.  last time i went to gay pride, there was sexual graphic language, gestures and dancing on stage at around 0pm when there were children around.  a straight friend of mine when on a heterosexual version of grindr and got herself a boyfriend, while my other friend just got a lot of requests for casual sex while he is dressed as a woman.   #  so here is an article using ok cupid data URL that says that gay men are not any more promiscuous than straight men.   #  so here is an article using ok cupid data URL that says that gay men are not any more promiscuous than straight men.  this took literally 0 seconds to find on google.  it is a pet peeve of mine when people have a view and ask everyone else to do their homework for them.  i get, to an extent, that this is what this subreddit is about, but given that you replied to my comment 0 minutes after i made it, i am guessing you did not read through the apa is material that i linked to.  do you have any reason for your view other than the few gay people you happen to know personally ? like, is it a waste of my time to actually post expert is responses showing that your view is scientifically wrong ? or are you just going to believe your anecdotes no matter what ?  #  my reason for my view is that i have not just seen this in my friends, but in the media, in strangers and almost everywhere i go.   #  i do not just ok cupid as a reliable source.  i am not getting people to do my homework, i am asking people to see if they can change my opinion.  my  opinion .  not my knowledge of statistics.  it is six o clock in the morning, so i skim read what you sent me to get a general gist.  my reason for my view is that i have not just seen this in my friends, but in the media, in strangers and almost everywhere i go.  you would not be trying to change my view if i myself did not want it to be changed somehow.  plus, you are selecting your statistics to specifically oppose my view.  it is not a matter of no matter what, but a matter of that i not easily going to just stop believing in something that i have seen so much of, just because gives me some numbers.  i will change my view if someone says something that makes me change my view and if there seems to be an overwhelming amount of people against my view, which there is not.  most people on here are just providing an explanation for my view.   #  i guess i have got the burden of proof, so i will say that large sample sizes are better than small samples sizes, which means that statistics are better than anecdotal evidence.   #  you do not incorporate statistical data into your opinions ? that seems weird to me.  can you elaborate ? i guess i have got the burden of proof, so i will say that large sample sizes are better than small samples sizes, which means that statistics are better than anecdotal evidence.  also, the way people gather the data for their anecdotes is worse than the way people gather data for their statistics.  of course you notice more promiscuity and flamboyancy than monogamy and modesty, because promiscuity and flamboyancy are more noticeable by definition.  i will admit there is some problems with the okcupid statistic in that it is only data from one website, and the stats i am looking at right now are either ancient or clearly biased.  i think you could reasonably hold the opinion that you have as a hypothesis, but you should be aware that it is unconfirmed and that you are limited in your certainty by a small sample size.
please do not get me wrong here, i am not homophobic and i am not just saying that to make myself appear less offensive.  i attend gay pride every year to support my many homosexual friends.  however, when i go to gay pride, i notice the whole thing is very sexual with lewd performances and so on.  it is not just gay pride that i see this, i see promiscuity highly promoted within the gay community.  my friend has an account on grindr, he often gets people popping up and straight asking him for sex with no flirting or dating.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  this view is probably linked to my rather modest and strict view of sex in general.  i believe promiscuity is a bad thing and that sex should be linked to love.   #  my friend has an account on grindr, he often gets people popping up and straight asking him for sex with no flirting or dating.   #  it is often like there is not that middle stage.   #  you are, perhaps, right gay culture is often linked with promiscuity.  the question then becomes is it  inextricably  linked ? here is the thing: in the west, it has traditionally  not  been okay to be openly gay.  long term, out, committed homosexual relationships before the late 0th century were few and far between because of the social stigma against homosexuality.  thus, many gay people were forced to express their sexuality in less candid ways, including engaging in casual sex where the two partners barely knew each other and were unlikely to meet again and thus unlikely to ruin each others  public image.  the reason they were not having sex linked to love is because to do so could be ruinous to their career and to their life in general.  so, when the gay pride/acceptance movement began to take shape in the 0 is and 0 is, that was the culture in which it originated one based on sexual promiscuity out of practical necessity.  to a good extent, it still maintains strong elements of that culture.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  take a stroll over in /r/creepypms one of these days and you will see that this is by no means exclusive to gay culture.   #  people celebrating their sexuality might be more apt to have  sexual and lewd performances.    #  i think this is a case of correlation not being causation.  religion is not on the whole tolerant of homosexuality.  religion is also not on the whole tolerant of promiscuity.  i think that a large group of people without the religious attitude toward promiscuity will have more promiscuous sex.  this is not to say you have to be religious to be against it, but there is a strong correlation.  do you think non religious straight people are significantly less promiscuous than gay people ? also, gay people are regular people.  they have jobs, friends, hobbies, etc.  just like straight folks.  at a pride fest, you have a bunch of people getting together to celebrate what ? sports ? movies ? tv shows ? hobbies ? accounting ? no ! they are coming together to celebrate their sexuality.  people celebrating their sexuality might be more apt to have  sexual and lewd performances.   you are getting a skewed sample of what the  gay community  does on a daily basis.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  there are plenty of straight people who do this too.   #  i am not really religious, but i understand what you are saying about religion.   #  i do believe it is probably correlation as well, but i do believe there are more cases of promiscuity with homosexuality compared to heterosexuality.  i am not really religious, but i understand what you are saying about religion.  i believe lust is one of the deadly sins.  a lot of people i know are non religious straight people and none of them are as promiscuous as the people i have met from the gay community, unless they have been consuming alcohol.  although people of all sexualities talk about sex and discuss sex, i see more cases of casual sex within the gay community.  i know they are regular people and i do expect some sexual performances at gay pride, but there is a limit on how much i think should be done at day time, in public with children around.  last time i went to gay pride, there was sexual graphic language, gestures and dancing on stage at around 0pm when there were children around.  a straight friend of mine when on a heterosexual version of grindr and got herself a boyfriend, while my other friend just got a lot of requests for casual sex while he is dressed as a woman.   #  this took literally 0 seconds to find on google.   #  so here is an article using ok cupid data URL that says that gay men are not any more promiscuous than straight men.  this took literally 0 seconds to find on google.  it is a pet peeve of mine when people have a view and ask everyone else to do their homework for them.  i get, to an extent, that this is what this subreddit is about, but given that you replied to my comment 0 minutes after i made it, i am guessing you did not read through the apa is material that i linked to.  do you have any reason for your view other than the few gay people you happen to know personally ? like, is it a waste of my time to actually post expert is responses showing that your view is scientifically wrong ? or are you just going to believe your anecdotes no matter what ?  #  it is six o clock in the morning, so i skim read what you sent me to get a general gist.   #  i do not just ok cupid as a reliable source.  i am not getting people to do my homework, i am asking people to see if they can change my opinion.  my  opinion .  not my knowledge of statistics.  it is six o clock in the morning, so i skim read what you sent me to get a general gist.  my reason for my view is that i have not just seen this in my friends, but in the media, in strangers and almost everywhere i go.  you would not be trying to change my view if i myself did not want it to be changed somehow.  plus, you are selecting your statistics to specifically oppose my view.  it is not a matter of no matter what, but a matter of that i not easily going to just stop believing in something that i have seen so much of, just because gives me some numbers.  i will change my view if someone says something that makes me change my view and if there seems to be an overwhelming amount of people against my view, which there is not.  most people on here are just providing an explanation for my view.
please do not get me wrong here, i am not homophobic and i am not just saying that to make myself appear less offensive.  i attend gay pride every year to support my many homosexual friends.  however, when i go to gay pride, i notice the whole thing is very sexual with lewd performances and so on.  it is not just gay pride that i see this, i see promiscuity highly promoted within the gay community.  my friend has an account on grindr, he often gets people popping up and straight asking him for sex with no flirting or dating.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  this view is probably linked to my rather modest and strict view of sex in general.  i believe promiscuity is a bad thing and that sex should be linked to love.   #  this view is probably linked to my rather modest and strict view of sex in general.   #  i believe promiscuity is a bad thing and that sex should be linked to love.   # i believe promiscuity is a bad thing and that sex should be linked to love.  why do you think promiscuity is a bad thing ? i am also not sure what do you mean with that last sentence, are you saying that all asexual people are incapable of love, and aromantic people are just lying to themselves ? it is often like there is not that middle stage.  and heterosexual people have the whole business of prostitution.  queer people just hopped on the digitalized bandwagon and left the money out of it for the most part, paid for escort services do exist even for them .  it is not just gay pride that i see this, i see promiscuity highly promoted within the gay community.  gay pride is a once in a year event, also the nature of the gay pride varies with location e. g.  in czech republic, there is a whole week of cultural, sporting, hiv awareness and other events URL before the parade itself .  i have also heard that mardi gras is pretty much a gay pride parade although i ca not know for sure, not being american .  if homosexuality is so strongly linked to promiscuity, why would we spend the last x years fighting for same sex marriage ?  #  this is not to say you have to be religious to be against it, but there is a strong correlation.   #  i think this is a case of correlation not being causation.  religion is not on the whole tolerant of homosexuality.  religion is also not on the whole tolerant of promiscuity.  i think that a large group of people without the religious attitude toward promiscuity will have more promiscuous sex.  this is not to say you have to be religious to be against it, but there is a strong correlation.  do you think non religious straight people are significantly less promiscuous than gay people ? also, gay people are regular people.  they have jobs, friends, hobbies, etc.  just like straight folks.  at a pride fest, you have a bunch of people getting together to celebrate what ? sports ? movies ? tv shows ? hobbies ? accounting ? no ! they are coming together to celebrate their sexuality.  people celebrating their sexuality might be more apt to have  sexual and lewd performances.   you are getting a skewed sample of what the  gay community  does on a daily basis.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  there are plenty of straight people who do this too.   #  a lot of people i know are non religious straight people and none of them are as promiscuous as the people i have met from the gay community, unless they have been consuming alcohol.   #  i do believe it is probably correlation as well, but i do believe there are more cases of promiscuity with homosexuality compared to heterosexuality.  i am not really religious, but i understand what you are saying about religion.  i believe lust is one of the deadly sins.  a lot of people i know are non religious straight people and none of them are as promiscuous as the people i have met from the gay community, unless they have been consuming alcohol.  although people of all sexualities talk about sex and discuss sex, i see more cases of casual sex within the gay community.  i know they are regular people and i do expect some sexual performances at gay pride, but there is a limit on how much i think should be done at day time, in public with children around.  last time i went to gay pride, there was sexual graphic language, gestures and dancing on stage at around 0pm when there were children around.  a straight friend of mine when on a heterosexual version of grindr and got herself a boyfriend, while my other friend just got a lot of requests for casual sex while he is dressed as a woman.   #  so here is an article using ok cupid data URL that says that gay men are not any more promiscuous than straight men.   #  so here is an article using ok cupid data URL that says that gay men are not any more promiscuous than straight men.  this took literally 0 seconds to find on google.  it is a pet peeve of mine when people have a view and ask everyone else to do their homework for them.  i get, to an extent, that this is what this subreddit is about, but given that you replied to my comment 0 minutes after i made it, i am guessing you did not read through the apa is material that i linked to.  do you have any reason for your view other than the few gay people you happen to know personally ? like, is it a waste of my time to actually post expert is responses showing that your view is scientifically wrong ? or are you just going to believe your anecdotes no matter what ?  #  you would not be trying to change my view if i myself did not want it to be changed somehow.   #  i do not just ok cupid as a reliable source.  i am not getting people to do my homework, i am asking people to see if they can change my opinion.  my  opinion .  not my knowledge of statistics.  it is six o clock in the morning, so i skim read what you sent me to get a general gist.  my reason for my view is that i have not just seen this in my friends, but in the media, in strangers and almost everywhere i go.  you would not be trying to change my view if i myself did not want it to be changed somehow.  plus, you are selecting your statistics to specifically oppose my view.  it is not a matter of no matter what, but a matter of that i not easily going to just stop believing in something that i have seen so much of, just because gives me some numbers.  i will change my view if someone says something that makes me change my view and if there seems to be an overwhelming amount of people against my view, which there is not.  most people on here are just providing an explanation for my view.
please do not get me wrong here, i am not homophobic and i am not just saying that to make myself appear less offensive.  i attend gay pride every year to support my many homosexual friends.  however, when i go to gay pride, i notice the whole thing is very sexual with lewd performances and so on.  it is not just gay pride that i see this, i see promiscuity highly promoted within the gay community.  my friend has an account on grindr, he often gets people popping up and straight asking him for sex with no flirting or dating.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  this view is probably linked to my rather modest and strict view of sex in general.  i believe promiscuity is a bad thing and that sex should be linked to love.   #  my friend has an account on grindr, he often gets people popping up and straight asking him for sex with no flirting or dating.   #  it is often like there is not that middle stage.   # i believe promiscuity is a bad thing and that sex should be linked to love.  why do you think promiscuity is a bad thing ? i am also not sure what do you mean with that last sentence, are you saying that all asexual people are incapable of love, and aromantic people are just lying to themselves ? it is often like there is not that middle stage.  and heterosexual people have the whole business of prostitution.  queer people just hopped on the digitalized bandwagon and left the money out of it for the most part, paid for escort services do exist even for them .  it is not just gay pride that i see this, i see promiscuity highly promoted within the gay community.  gay pride is a once in a year event, also the nature of the gay pride varies with location e. g.  in czech republic, there is a whole week of cultural, sporting, hiv awareness and other events URL before the parade itself .  i have also heard that mardi gras is pretty much a gay pride parade although i ca not know for sure, not being american .  if homosexuality is so strongly linked to promiscuity, why would we spend the last x years fighting for same sex marriage ?  #  it is often like there is not that middle stage.   #  i think this is a case of correlation not being causation.  religion is not on the whole tolerant of homosexuality.  religion is also not on the whole tolerant of promiscuity.  i think that a large group of people without the religious attitude toward promiscuity will have more promiscuous sex.  this is not to say you have to be religious to be against it, but there is a strong correlation.  do you think non religious straight people are significantly less promiscuous than gay people ? also, gay people are regular people.  they have jobs, friends, hobbies, etc.  just like straight folks.  at a pride fest, you have a bunch of people getting together to celebrate what ? sports ? movies ? tv shows ? hobbies ? accounting ? no ! they are coming together to celebrate their sexuality.  people celebrating their sexuality might be more apt to have  sexual and lewd performances.   you are getting a skewed sample of what the  gay community  does on a daily basis.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  there are plenty of straight people who do this too.   #  i do believe it is probably correlation as well, but i do believe there are more cases of promiscuity with homosexuality compared to heterosexuality.   #  i do believe it is probably correlation as well, but i do believe there are more cases of promiscuity with homosexuality compared to heterosexuality.  i am not really religious, but i understand what you are saying about religion.  i believe lust is one of the deadly sins.  a lot of people i know are non religious straight people and none of them are as promiscuous as the people i have met from the gay community, unless they have been consuming alcohol.  although people of all sexualities talk about sex and discuss sex, i see more cases of casual sex within the gay community.  i know they are regular people and i do expect some sexual performances at gay pride, but there is a limit on how much i think should be done at day time, in public with children around.  last time i went to gay pride, there was sexual graphic language, gestures and dancing on stage at around 0pm when there were children around.  a straight friend of mine when on a heterosexual version of grindr and got herself a boyfriend, while my other friend just got a lot of requests for casual sex while he is dressed as a woman.   #  it is a pet peeve of mine when people have a view and ask everyone else to do their homework for them.   #  so here is an article using ok cupid data URL that says that gay men are not any more promiscuous than straight men.  this took literally 0 seconds to find on google.  it is a pet peeve of mine when people have a view and ask everyone else to do their homework for them.  i get, to an extent, that this is what this subreddit is about, but given that you replied to my comment 0 minutes after i made it, i am guessing you did not read through the apa is material that i linked to.  do you have any reason for your view other than the few gay people you happen to know personally ? like, is it a waste of my time to actually post expert is responses showing that your view is scientifically wrong ? or are you just going to believe your anecdotes no matter what ?  #  i am not getting people to do my homework, i am asking people to see if they can change my opinion.   #  i do not just ok cupid as a reliable source.  i am not getting people to do my homework, i am asking people to see if they can change my opinion.  my  opinion .  not my knowledge of statistics.  it is six o clock in the morning, so i skim read what you sent me to get a general gist.  my reason for my view is that i have not just seen this in my friends, but in the media, in strangers and almost everywhere i go.  you would not be trying to change my view if i myself did not want it to be changed somehow.  plus, you are selecting your statistics to specifically oppose my view.  it is not a matter of no matter what, but a matter of that i not easily going to just stop believing in something that i have seen so much of, just because gives me some numbers.  i will change my view if someone says something that makes me change my view and if there seems to be an overwhelming amount of people against my view, which there is not.  most people on here are just providing an explanation for my view.
please do not get me wrong here, i am not homophobic and i am not just saying that to make myself appear less offensive.  i attend gay pride every year to support my many homosexual friends.  however, when i go to gay pride, i notice the whole thing is very sexual with lewd performances and so on.  it is not just gay pride that i see this, i see promiscuity highly promoted within the gay community.  my friend has an account on grindr, he often gets people popping up and straight asking him for sex with no flirting or dating.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  this view is probably linked to my rather modest and strict view of sex in general.  i believe promiscuity is a bad thing and that sex should be linked to love.   #  however, when i go to gay pride, i notice the whole thing is very sexual with lewd performances and so on.   #  it is not just gay pride that i see this, i see promiscuity highly promoted within the gay community.   # i believe promiscuity is a bad thing and that sex should be linked to love.  why do you think promiscuity is a bad thing ? i am also not sure what do you mean with that last sentence, are you saying that all asexual people are incapable of love, and aromantic people are just lying to themselves ? it is often like there is not that middle stage.  and heterosexual people have the whole business of prostitution.  queer people just hopped on the digitalized bandwagon and left the money out of it for the most part, paid for escort services do exist even for them .  it is not just gay pride that i see this, i see promiscuity highly promoted within the gay community.  gay pride is a once in a year event, also the nature of the gay pride varies with location e. g.  in czech republic, there is a whole week of cultural, sporting, hiv awareness and other events URL before the parade itself .  i have also heard that mardi gras is pretty much a gay pride parade although i ca not know for sure, not being american .  if homosexuality is so strongly linked to promiscuity, why would we spend the last x years fighting for same sex marriage ?  #  people celebrating their sexuality might be more apt to have  sexual and lewd performances.    #  i think this is a case of correlation not being causation.  religion is not on the whole tolerant of homosexuality.  religion is also not on the whole tolerant of promiscuity.  i think that a large group of people without the religious attitude toward promiscuity will have more promiscuous sex.  this is not to say you have to be religious to be against it, but there is a strong correlation.  do you think non religious straight people are significantly less promiscuous than gay people ? also, gay people are regular people.  they have jobs, friends, hobbies, etc.  just like straight folks.  at a pride fest, you have a bunch of people getting together to celebrate what ? sports ? movies ? tv shows ? hobbies ? accounting ? no ! they are coming together to celebrate their sexuality.  people celebrating their sexuality might be more apt to have  sexual and lewd performances.   you are getting a skewed sample of what the  gay community  does on a daily basis.  it is often like there is not that middle stage.  there are plenty of straight people who do this too.   #  i believe lust is one of the deadly sins.   #  i do believe it is probably correlation as well, but i do believe there are more cases of promiscuity with homosexuality compared to heterosexuality.  i am not really religious, but i understand what you are saying about religion.  i believe lust is one of the deadly sins.  a lot of people i know are non religious straight people and none of them are as promiscuous as the people i have met from the gay community, unless they have been consuming alcohol.  although people of all sexualities talk about sex and discuss sex, i see more cases of casual sex within the gay community.  i know they are regular people and i do expect some sexual performances at gay pride, but there is a limit on how much i think should be done at day time, in public with children around.  last time i went to gay pride, there was sexual graphic language, gestures and dancing on stage at around 0pm when there were children around.  a straight friend of mine when on a heterosexual version of grindr and got herself a boyfriend, while my other friend just got a lot of requests for casual sex while he is dressed as a woman.   #  this took literally 0 seconds to find on google.   #  so here is an article using ok cupid data URL that says that gay men are not any more promiscuous than straight men.  this took literally 0 seconds to find on google.  it is a pet peeve of mine when people have a view and ask everyone else to do their homework for them.  i get, to an extent, that this is what this subreddit is about, but given that you replied to my comment 0 minutes after i made it, i am guessing you did not read through the apa is material that i linked to.  do you have any reason for your view other than the few gay people you happen to know personally ? like, is it a waste of my time to actually post expert is responses showing that your view is scientifically wrong ? or are you just going to believe your anecdotes no matter what ?  #  i will change my view if someone says something that makes me change my view and if there seems to be an overwhelming amount of people against my view, which there is not.   #  i do not just ok cupid as a reliable source.  i am not getting people to do my homework, i am asking people to see if they can change my opinion.  my  opinion .  not my knowledge of statistics.  it is six o clock in the morning, so i skim read what you sent me to get a general gist.  my reason for my view is that i have not just seen this in my friends, but in the media, in strangers and almost everywhere i go.  you would not be trying to change my view if i myself did not want it to be changed somehow.  plus, you are selecting your statistics to specifically oppose my view.  it is not a matter of no matter what, but a matter of that i not easily going to just stop believing in something that i have seen so much of, just because gives me some numbers.  i will change my view if someone says something that makes me change my view and if there seems to be an overwhelming amount of people against my view, which there is not.  most people on here are just providing an explanation for my view.
i am studying the japanese language.  as college students know, course subjects have abbreviations.  history is his, biology is bio, etc.  japanese was changed to jpn from jap in order not to offend since  jap  is considered a derogatory term for japanese people.  out of habit, it gets a strange laugh or look when i refer to it as  jap class  out of habit because that was how i read it on my past syllabuses is that the correct word for the plural form of syllabus ? and on my assignments.  if my school wants to change it then fine, that is their decision and my argument is not about my school doing that.  i was just giving context to where my frustration comes from.  i do not feel i am being insensitive for calling it  jap class .  polish people are poles, scottish people are scots, british people are brits, arabic people are arabs, turkish people are turks, jewish people are jews, czechoslovakian people are czechs, slavic people are slavs swedish people are swedes, mongolian people are mongols.  none of these are considered offensive unless used in context with a negative connotation, but for some reason  japs  is offensive to japanese people.  this is ridiculous.  it is simply easier to say.  the fact that it is in the same category of words like  chink  or  gook  as offensive terms for people of asian descent is silly.   #  polish people are poles, scottish people are scots, british people are brits, arabic people are arabs, turkish people are turks, jewish people are jews, czechoslovakian people are czechs, slavic people are slavs swedish people are swedes, mongolian people are mongols.   #  if you are familiar with english you must realize that in english we add ese to most east asian nationalities.   # if you are familiar with english you must realize that in english we add ese to most east asian nationalities.  do you call chinese people chins ? do you call vietnamese people viets ? if you studying a language in general you must realize that langues are just a collection of sounds.  all meaning we attach to them is based on social construction.  there is nothing more inherently racist in the word gook than vietnamese apart from social construction.  just like there is nothing more polite with the word します then する other than social convention.  therefore, since the broad consensus of society is that word jap is racist and it has been used that way in the past that is why most people feel that it is racist.  similarly many people feel that the word 外人 has more of a racist connotation than 外国人.  it is just social construction, like all languages.   #   jap  was never a term japanese used to describe themselves.   #  no word is inherently offensive.  they are all just squirted air and inky shapes.  the problems all come from meaning we have attached to them.   jap  was never a term japanese used to describe themselves.  it has some benign history before wwii, but it mostly hit the world stage in american war propaganda as an ethnic slur.  URL if you look at terms objectively,  nigger  is just a slight variation on most language is word for black,  hebe  is a shortening of hebrew.  it is the history of usage that creates problematic meanings.   #  before then, it would mostly be used to refer to a weakness in armor.   #  all of those are meanings that people imbue in them.   chink  was not used to refer to people from china until as far as we know the mid to late 0th century.  before then, it would mostly be used to refer to a weakness in armor.  neither the sound not the visual depiction of the word inherently has anything to do with people of asian descent.  the association was created through intentional use.   wetback  was not coined as a slur until the 0s.  you made a slight mistake in the etymology, it refers to undocumented immigrants who gained entry to the us by swimming the rio grande.  URL before this use, neither the sound nor the symbols referred to people of any nationality.  again, the intentional use invested the word with negative meaning.   #  he is part of a group of wealthy people from the area who have meetings and such every week.   #   only does physical labor, which in our society relegates them to second class citizens.   i have always found that entertaining.  my father has a teacher degree and such and has taught maybe 0 years out of 0.  the other 0 he made far and away more money doing physical labor.  he is part of a group of wealthy people from the area who have meetings and such every week.  do barbecues together etc. , again, most do physical labor.  not to mention most people with a lot of money in general certainly started with physical labor even if they do not do it themselves anymore because of their success.   #  if you think that these groups should not be offended by these terms, that is an entirely different matter.   #  any term used to label individuals or groups can be offensive in the right context.  a group of 0 year old boys may take offense to being called  boys , because they consider themselves to be adults.  a radical, female feminist may consider being called  female  offensive because it comes from the root word  male .  none of these terms are  inherently  offensive; no word is.  there is no functional difference between  jew  and  kike , both of them referring to someone of jewish descent.  but simply because the groups or individuals being referred to find them offensive, they are offensive, if only to them and nobody else.   jap  and, as you mentioned in another comment,  paki , are more or less unanimously agreed upon by japanese and pakistanis to be offensive to them, because of the history behind the term, or for whatever other reason.  it does not matter  why .  all that matters when considering if a word is offensive or not is whether others are offended by it, because that is the very definition of offensive: causing others to feel offended.  if these terms are offensive, then by choosing to continue using them, causing the groups they are referring to emotional distress, it is being insensitive.  not racist per se, but kind of dickish, especially since it is so easy to just call them by their preferred labels.  if you think that these groups should not be offended by these terms, that is an entirely different matter.
protects society, protects our children.  imagine your child browsing the internet, doing research for a project, or just browsing around.  chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  also censorship can be helpful.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ? if every government told their people everything, there would be constant worry over nothing.  pointless worry is not a good thing for a country.  especially one in the middle of a war.   #  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.   #  well, assuming that your country is not north korea, i would say that you definitely want your people having this info.   #  i seriously hope that this is a troll post.  in case it is not, here goes: when you support censorship, you are supporting the idea that someone else should control what you know.  you are allowing someone to arbitrarily decide what people should see, in the hope that they will use this power for good.  you are allowing a power to come into existence that threatens the basis for modern democratic society.  the very existence of censorship is a problem.  censorship allows one viewpoint to be simply removed from public discourse, regardless of its merits or how widespread its support actually is.  in a censored medium, no one can see the full picture of what is happening anywhere.  this makes it impossible for anyone to make anything vaguely resembling an  informed  choice.  without freedom of information, democracy simply cannot exist.  you should be thanking search algorithms here, since that is what ensures people find what they are looking for.  internet censorship is not currently instituted fortunately , and yet finding porn if you are not looking for it is not going to happen.  people who want unacceptable amounts of power will always try to say that they are helping you by taking away your decisions.  or maybe they are protecting your children.  does not really matter, since by doing so they just happen to gain the power they want, and now they control your life so you ca not do anything about it.  you do not protect someone from an idea by hiding it, you do it by debunking it.  if you ca not do that, then maybe you should reconsider your views.  and once power is granted to hide things arbitrarily deemed  harmful,  then who defines harmful ? answer: the people doing the censorship, who  definitely  do not want anyone seeing arguments against censorship.  well, assuming that your country is not north korea, i would say that you definitely want your people having this info.  if the government can hide whatever it wants from the population because they  wouldo not need to know,  then you are not looking at a democracy, you are looking at a totalitarian dictatorship.  remember that the purpose of a government is to represent its people, and it ca not do that if it is  protecting  them from the world.  worrying about a war is not pointless, in fact if it is not happening something is very wrong.   #  protects our children or and just spit balling here parents could actually monitor what their children do !  #  protects our children or and just spit balling here parents could actually monitor what their children do ! there are even programs and sites that make this easy.  novel concept, i know.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something things that affect people should be reported.  if the white house were bombed tomorrow, should that be kept from people ? it really only affects people in dc, so why do people in california need to know ? because it  could  affect them too.   #  i run a blog about serial killers and gore and i have to actively look for it.   #  i really truely hope this is a troll.  instead of spending billions of dollars to police the internet, how about we put that money towards education and teaching our children how to behave when online.  children who  accidentally  find gore or porn are usually not using the proper search terms, and not reading before they click links.  i run a blog about serial killers and gore and i have to actively look for it.  the idea of someone else deciding what i see and do not see online is disturbing to me, far more so than any porn or gore or other content.   #  why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ?  # chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  there is software that exists right now that allows parents to set up parental controls on their computer that allows them to restrict what their child can and cannot see on the internet.  such a control, however, should be the responsibility of the parents to set up, and should not be forced upon everybody in society by the government.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ?  war or something  is exactly the kind of information that a democratic population  needs  to know about on a regular basis.  in order to make informed decisions come time for elections, the people need to know as much information as can reasonably be given to them without putting undue risk on those fighting in the war.  obviously the government should not declassify all intelligence for review by the people, but having an informed population is  necessary  to functional democracy.   #  if every government told their people everything, there probably, in the end would not be any need to worry because there would be nothing to hide.   # chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  what is your argument here ? that isps should be able to offer a filtering service marketed at protecting children or that such a filtering service should be standard and perhaps even unable to turn off ? say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ? is this part of your cmv even serious ? you think it acceptable for a government, in a time of crisis to actively censor information about the world on the basis that it might upset the citizens ? what if the government censors its own wrongdoings ? pointless worry is not a good thing for a country.  especially one in the middle of a war.  if every government told their people everything, there probably, in the end would not be any need to worry because there would be nothing to hide.  you are literally arguing for the right for governments to cover up their own misdeeds or the misdeeds of others or those acting in their name.
protects society, protects our children.  imagine your child browsing the internet, doing research for a project, or just browsing around.  chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  also censorship can be helpful.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ? if every government told their people everything, there would be constant worry over nothing.  pointless worry is not a good thing for a country.  especially one in the middle of a war.   #  imagine your child browsing the internet, doing research for a project, or just browsing around.   #  chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.   # chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  there is software that exists right now that allows parents to set up parental controls on their computer that allows them to restrict what their child can and cannot see on the internet.  such a control, however, should be the responsibility of the parents to set up, and should not be forced upon everybody in society by the government.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ?  war or something  is exactly the kind of information that a democratic population  needs  to know about on a regular basis.  in order to make informed decisions come time for elections, the people need to know as much information as can reasonably be given to them without putting undue risk on those fighting in the war.  obviously the government should not declassify all intelligence for review by the people, but having an informed population is  necessary  to functional democracy.   #  if the government can hide whatever it wants from the population because they  wouldo not need to know,  then you are not looking at a democracy, you are looking at a totalitarian dictatorship.   #  i seriously hope that this is a troll post.  in case it is not, here goes: when you support censorship, you are supporting the idea that someone else should control what you know.  you are allowing someone to arbitrarily decide what people should see, in the hope that they will use this power for good.  you are allowing a power to come into existence that threatens the basis for modern democratic society.  the very existence of censorship is a problem.  censorship allows one viewpoint to be simply removed from public discourse, regardless of its merits or how widespread its support actually is.  in a censored medium, no one can see the full picture of what is happening anywhere.  this makes it impossible for anyone to make anything vaguely resembling an  informed  choice.  without freedom of information, democracy simply cannot exist.  you should be thanking search algorithms here, since that is what ensures people find what they are looking for.  internet censorship is not currently instituted fortunately , and yet finding porn if you are not looking for it is not going to happen.  people who want unacceptable amounts of power will always try to say that they are helping you by taking away your decisions.  or maybe they are protecting your children.  does not really matter, since by doing so they just happen to gain the power they want, and now they control your life so you ca not do anything about it.  you do not protect someone from an idea by hiding it, you do it by debunking it.  if you ca not do that, then maybe you should reconsider your views.  and once power is granted to hide things arbitrarily deemed  harmful,  then who defines harmful ? answer: the people doing the censorship, who  definitely  do not want anyone seeing arguments against censorship.  well, assuming that your country is not north korea, i would say that you definitely want your people having this info.  if the government can hide whatever it wants from the population because they  wouldo not need to know,  then you are not looking at a democracy, you are looking at a totalitarian dictatorship.  remember that the purpose of a government is to represent its people, and it ca not do that if it is  protecting  them from the world.  worrying about a war is not pointless, in fact if it is not happening something is very wrong.   #  it really only affects people in dc, so why do people in california need to know ?  #  protects our children or and just spit balling here parents could actually monitor what their children do ! there are even programs and sites that make this easy.  novel concept, i know.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something things that affect people should be reported.  if the white house were bombed tomorrow, should that be kept from people ? it really only affects people in dc, so why do people in california need to know ? because it  could  affect them too.   #  children who  accidentally  find gore or porn are usually not using the proper search terms, and not reading before they click links.   #  i really truely hope this is a troll.  instead of spending billions of dollars to police the internet, how about we put that money towards education and teaching our children how to behave when online.  children who  accidentally  find gore or porn are usually not using the proper search terms, and not reading before they click links.  i run a blog about serial killers and gore and i have to actively look for it.  the idea of someone else deciding what i see and do not see online is disturbing to me, far more so than any porn or gore or other content.   #  that isps should be able to offer a filtering service marketed at protecting children or that such a filtering service should be standard and perhaps even unable to turn off ?  # chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  what is your argument here ? that isps should be able to offer a filtering service marketed at protecting children or that such a filtering service should be standard and perhaps even unable to turn off ? say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ? is this part of your cmv even serious ? you think it acceptable for a government, in a time of crisis to actively censor information about the world on the basis that it might upset the citizens ? what if the government censors its own wrongdoings ? pointless worry is not a good thing for a country.  especially one in the middle of a war.  if every government told their people everything, there probably, in the end would not be any need to worry because there would be nothing to hide.  you are literally arguing for the right for governments to cover up their own misdeeds or the misdeeds of others or those acting in their name.
protects society, protects our children.  imagine your child browsing the internet, doing research for a project, or just browsing around.  chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  also censorship can be helpful.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ? if every government told their people everything, there would be constant worry over nothing.  pointless worry is not a good thing for a country.  especially one in the middle of a war.   #  imagine your child browsing the internet, doing research for a project, or just browsing around.   #  chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.   # chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  what is your argument here ? that isps should be able to offer a filtering service marketed at protecting children or that such a filtering service should be standard and perhaps even unable to turn off ? say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ? is this part of your cmv even serious ? you think it acceptable for a government, in a time of crisis to actively censor information about the world on the basis that it might upset the citizens ? what if the government censors its own wrongdoings ? pointless worry is not a good thing for a country.  especially one in the middle of a war.  if every government told their people everything, there probably, in the end would not be any need to worry because there would be nothing to hide.  you are literally arguing for the right for governments to cover up their own misdeeds or the misdeeds of others or those acting in their name.   #  without freedom of information, democracy simply cannot exist.   #  i seriously hope that this is a troll post.  in case it is not, here goes: when you support censorship, you are supporting the idea that someone else should control what you know.  you are allowing someone to arbitrarily decide what people should see, in the hope that they will use this power for good.  you are allowing a power to come into existence that threatens the basis for modern democratic society.  the very existence of censorship is a problem.  censorship allows one viewpoint to be simply removed from public discourse, regardless of its merits or how widespread its support actually is.  in a censored medium, no one can see the full picture of what is happening anywhere.  this makes it impossible for anyone to make anything vaguely resembling an  informed  choice.  without freedom of information, democracy simply cannot exist.  you should be thanking search algorithms here, since that is what ensures people find what they are looking for.  internet censorship is not currently instituted fortunately , and yet finding porn if you are not looking for it is not going to happen.  people who want unacceptable amounts of power will always try to say that they are helping you by taking away your decisions.  or maybe they are protecting your children.  does not really matter, since by doing so they just happen to gain the power they want, and now they control your life so you ca not do anything about it.  you do not protect someone from an idea by hiding it, you do it by debunking it.  if you ca not do that, then maybe you should reconsider your views.  and once power is granted to hide things arbitrarily deemed  harmful,  then who defines harmful ? answer: the people doing the censorship, who  definitely  do not want anyone seeing arguments against censorship.  well, assuming that your country is not north korea, i would say that you definitely want your people having this info.  if the government can hide whatever it wants from the population because they  wouldo not need to know,  then you are not looking at a democracy, you are looking at a totalitarian dictatorship.  remember that the purpose of a government is to represent its people, and it ca not do that if it is  protecting  them from the world.  worrying about a war is not pointless, in fact if it is not happening something is very wrong.   #  protects our children or and just spit balling here parents could actually monitor what their children do !  #  protects our children or and just spit balling here parents could actually monitor what their children do ! there are even programs and sites that make this easy.  novel concept, i know.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something things that affect people should be reported.  if the white house were bombed tomorrow, should that be kept from people ? it really only affects people in dc, so why do people in california need to know ? because it  could  affect them too.   #  the idea of someone else deciding what i see and do not see online is disturbing to me, far more so than any porn or gore or other content.   #  i really truely hope this is a troll.  instead of spending billions of dollars to police the internet, how about we put that money towards education and teaching our children how to behave when online.  children who  accidentally  find gore or porn are usually not using the proper search terms, and not reading before they click links.  i run a blog about serial killers and gore and i have to actively look for it.  the idea of someone else deciding what i see and do not see online is disturbing to me, far more so than any porn or gore or other content.   #   war or something  is exactly the kind of information that a democratic population  needs  to know about on a regular basis.   # chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  there is software that exists right now that allows parents to set up parental controls on their computer that allows them to restrict what their child can and cannot see on the internet.  such a control, however, should be the responsibility of the parents to set up, and should not be forced upon everybody in society by the government.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ?  war or something  is exactly the kind of information that a democratic population  needs  to know about on a regular basis.  in order to make informed decisions come time for elections, the people need to know as much information as can reasonably be given to them without putting undue risk on those fighting in the war.  obviously the government should not declassify all intelligence for review by the people, but having an informed population is  necessary  to functional democracy.
protects society, protects our children.  imagine your child browsing the internet, doing research for a project, or just browsing around.  chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  also censorship can be helpful.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ? if every government told their people everything, there would be constant worry over nothing.  pointless worry is not a good thing for a country.  especially one in the middle of a war.   #  if every government told their people everything, there would be constant worry over nothing.   #  pointless worry is not a good thing for a country.  especially one in the middle of a war.   # chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  what is your argument here ? that isps should be able to offer a filtering service marketed at protecting children or that such a filtering service should be standard and perhaps even unable to turn off ? say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ? is this part of your cmv even serious ? you think it acceptable for a government, in a time of crisis to actively censor information about the world on the basis that it might upset the citizens ? what if the government censors its own wrongdoings ? pointless worry is not a good thing for a country.  especially one in the middle of a war.  if every government told their people everything, there probably, in the end would not be any need to worry because there would be nothing to hide.  you are literally arguing for the right for governments to cover up their own misdeeds or the misdeeds of others or those acting in their name.   #  internet censorship is not currently instituted fortunately , and yet finding porn if you are not looking for it is not going to happen.   #  i seriously hope that this is a troll post.  in case it is not, here goes: when you support censorship, you are supporting the idea that someone else should control what you know.  you are allowing someone to arbitrarily decide what people should see, in the hope that they will use this power for good.  you are allowing a power to come into existence that threatens the basis for modern democratic society.  the very existence of censorship is a problem.  censorship allows one viewpoint to be simply removed from public discourse, regardless of its merits or how widespread its support actually is.  in a censored medium, no one can see the full picture of what is happening anywhere.  this makes it impossible for anyone to make anything vaguely resembling an  informed  choice.  without freedom of information, democracy simply cannot exist.  you should be thanking search algorithms here, since that is what ensures people find what they are looking for.  internet censorship is not currently instituted fortunately , and yet finding porn if you are not looking for it is not going to happen.  people who want unacceptable amounts of power will always try to say that they are helping you by taking away your decisions.  or maybe they are protecting your children.  does not really matter, since by doing so they just happen to gain the power they want, and now they control your life so you ca not do anything about it.  you do not protect someone from an idea by hiding it, you do it by debunking it.  if you ca not do that, then maybe you should reconsider your views.  and once power is granted to hide things arbitrarily deemed  harmful,  then who defines harmful ? answer: the people doing the censorship, who  definitely  do not want anyone seeing arguments against censorship.  well, assuming that your country is not north korea, i would say that you definitely want your people having this info.  if the government can hide whatever it wants from the population because they  wouldo not need to know,  then you are not looking at a democracy, you are looking at a totalitarian dictatorship.  remember that the purpose of a government is to represent its people, and it ca not do that if it is  protecting  them from the world.  worrying about a war is not pointless, in fact if it is not happening something is very wrong.   #  if the white house were bombed tomorrow, should that be kept from people ?  #  protects our children or and just spit balling here parents could actually monitor what their children do ! there are even programs and sites that make this easy.  novel concept, i know.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something things that affect people should be reported.  if the white house were bombed tomorrow, should that be kept from people ? it really only affects people in dc, so why do people in california need to know ? because it  could  affect them too.   #  children who  accidentally  find gore or porn are usually not using the proper search terms, and not reading before they click links.   #  i really truely hope this is a troll.  instead of spending billions of dollars to police the internet, how about we put that money towards education and teaching our children how to behave when online.  children who  accidentally  find gore or porn are usually not using the proper search terms, and not reading before they click links.  i run a blog about serial killers and gore and i have to actively look for it.  the idea of someone else deciding what i see and do not see online is disturbing to me, far more so than any porn or gore or other content.   #   war or something  is exactly the kind of information that a democratic population  needs  to know about on a regular basis.   # chances are, he or she will note find anything pornographic, violent, or gory, thanks to internet censorship.  without it, he or she would be encountering this type of content on a daily basis, scarring them for life.  do you really want this to happen to your children ? no.  no one does.  there is software that exists right now that allows parents to set up parental controls on their computer that allows them to restrict what their child can and cannot see on the internet.  such a control, however, should be the responsibility of the parents to set up, and should not be forced upon everybody in society by the government.  say that your country is in the middle of a war or something.  why would you give people a reason to worry over something that they do not need to ? why make them stress out over something they have no reason to ?  war or something  is exactly the kind of information that a democratic population  needs  to know about on a regular basis.  in order to make informed decisions come time for elections, the people need to know as much information as can reasonably be given to them without putting undue risk on those fighting in the war.  obviously the government should not declassify all intelligence for review by the people, but having an informed population is  necessary  to functional democracy.
i have had several friends come out as non binary or genderfluid and such and such, and i just ca not buy into it.  i think we all have dysphoria, because having a body can be weird.  just because you have dysphoria does not mean you ca not be male or female anymore.  i would like to believe that these people are genuinely these genders, but i just feel like it is getting a little ridiculous.  we just need to accept ourselves as we are and stop making ourselves seem special.  especially when these people have identified as their own gender their whole lifes, and as soon as they discovered tumblr, bam, they are some crazy new gender.  i feel like this is also taking away from actual trans people who felt this way their whole lives.  cmv  #  i would like to believe that these people are genuinely these genders, but i just feel like it is getting a little ridiculous.   #  you are giving the idea of gender perhaps too much credit.   # you are giving the idea of gender perhaps too much credit.  we can rigorously define sex but gender is another beast all together.  very few people who ascribe to gender theory would say that there are only 0 genders.  so i ask, how many genders are there ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 as according to facebook ? can you have multiple genders ? can gender change over time ? the total number, in fact, is unlimited.  certainly larger than the number of humans alive today.  the conclusion is that when we talk about gender, we are really just coming up with code words for how we feel about our personality with respect to sexuality.  however, there is a trap here and it is in the act of labeling something.  people like to have a personal narrative.  blame brain architecture or disney or whatever, but it is undeniable that people like to feel like the star of their very own movie called  amy life .  some people have decided to play the role of the underdog.  attaching labels for the purpose of  outing  one self is one of the mechanisms to achieve that status.  selecting an edgy gender is a great way of accomplishing that.   #  undoubtedly, there are some  lost souls  who are trying to find an identity and behave as you say.   #  i am not sure how one can change your view.  undoubtedly, there are some  lost souls  who are trying to find an identity and behave as you say.  undoubtedly, there are some many  true  trans people, as you say.  i think it is also fair to say that the world is becoming more accepting of trans people, and understanding it better.  so it is understandable that a number of people who felt that way but either were afraid to come out, or did not know that there was a term for how they were feeling have taken the opportunity to do so, which accounts for some of the increase in the number of people openly calling themselves trans.  so, all that being said how do i change your view ? what percentage of those need to be  lost souls  to confirm or deny your point ? how could anyone determine what that statistic is ? i certainly agree with your point that we should accept ourselves as we are, but you seem to be judging those who are identifying as trans as not being trans enough to be trans.  would not it be better to just accept how they want to be seen and move on ?  #  it is not crazy, it is not seeking attention, and it is certainly not so they can feel  special.    # just because someone identifies as a certain gender does not mean that is how they truly feel inside.  perhaps they did not even realize that there was a term for how they felt.  perhaps they spent their entire lives thinking that there was something wrong with them, and when they finally realized that there was a whole group of people who felt the same way, they were elated.  it is not crazy, it is not seeking attention, and it is certainly not so they can feel  special.   it is about finding out that they are not broken, they are just different.   #  i remember distinctly her being uncomfortable with her boobs and generally anything female oriented; she asked me, perplexed after i explain a little bit of trans identities, if i would call her  wouldrew  instead of her female name.   #  sometimes sexuality and gender identity changes.  my roommate was 0 when i a lgbtq  activist introduced her to the idea of being trans.  she is moved out, but 0 years later i see him on facebook and he is come out as male and started hormone therapy.  i remember distinctly her being uncomfortable with her boobs and generally anything female oriented; she asked me, perplexed after i explain a little bit of trans identities, if i would call her  wouldrew  instead of her female name.  when i said yes, she had a spark in her eyes that was moving to see.  she could not believe it.  it is like i explained to her what she had been feeling her whole life.  now he lives it.  maybe that is how those people feel.  what is it to you, really ? if it makes them feel more comfortable with themselves to identify as something outside of the binary, what is the problem exactly ?  #  they would not be broken either way, but the labels are not always all that.   #  well, there is being comfortable in your skin, and then there is attention seeking.  i think there is an issue of that here, not that gender fluid or nonbinary are not real things, but that the things that they are describing are not all that unusual.  tomboys have never been that unusual, and up until reacent times no one felt the need to come out as gender fluid because they did not fit the female archtype exactly.  no one fits exactly.  and where i find it hard to take seriously is exactly here.  i know people who act as very masculine women, yet do not use such labels.  i know women who hunt and wear camo and fix cars and all of this other stuff that is usually male.  the thing is that they are also perfectly happy with the older label of woman.  they are still women even if their womanhood includes hiking and riding a harley and not wearing makeup.  heck, in some more rural populations, this is just part of being a woman.  some rural women do not bother with makeup unless it is a special occasion.  the point is that i think some not all, but some of the people who choose to label themselves as alternative genders are comparing themselves to a rather small contingent of woman that are seen most often in media and in cities, and thinking that not fitting in with that is the same as not being a woman.  they would not be broken either way, but the labels are not always all that.  sometimes it is a description of normal human behavior that people do not talk about or show on tv or ads.  maybe they are redneck women or something similar ? if you have never heard of that, you might think that your urge to ride a 0 wheeler makes you semi male.
the smaller the body politic, the more the people are in control.  the best size political unit is the city: big enough to have the advantages of scale pooling risk, working together on public projects , small enough to avoid the disadvantages corruption of big money, large inefficient bureaucracy .  look at how well governed norway is with 0 million people.  look how badly china is governed with 0,0 million.  i say the reason is that larger groups are harder to govern with good ideals.  we should invoke article v of the constitution and partition the us into several independent countries, for instance: cascadia, texas, california, heartland, new england, florida, and the confederacy.  these could be linked together with trade and mutual defense deals the way europe is.   #  look at how well governed norway is with 0 million people.   #  look how badly china is governed with 0,0 million.   # look how badly china is governed with 0,0 million.  look at how badly cambodia, laos, or north korea are governed, each with a smaller population than texas.  look at how well japan is governed in comparison, with a historical infrastructure and resources not dissimilar from these, in spite of having 0 million people.  meanwhile, norway is a first world country, part of a technologically developed europe for centuries, plus sitting on oil sources that have a huge per capita value.  and you would have to squint really hard to see statistics in which it is more effective than germany or japan.  in terms of wealth, democracy, corruption levels, and rule of law, the us is far closer to norway than to china.  i am not even sure why you even talk about partitioning the usa, if you think that china is broken, then  china  should be partitioned.  except that as the presence of undemocractic small countries in the same area shows, this is unlikely to be a simple fix to regional problems.  i am not sure what you mean by that.  inefficient bureaucracy is an example of overtly balkanized regions, where every government function is redundantly repeated.  if you are worried about the usa is bureaucratic innefficiency, the solution would be to do away with states  rights.  one legal system, is more efficient than 0 simultenous ones.  one drug legislation, instead of 0.  one corporate regulation, instead of 0.  there is a reason why europe is moving increasingly towards stronger union, first through trade, then in monetary policy, then in banking, and by now passing plenty of federal regulations: when the basic values and ideologies are the same anyways liberal democracy, rule of law , it makes a lot more sense to match the smaller details of governance, and run them through a single unified system.   #  one thing the federal government and even the eu does is transfer money from richer regions to poorer ones food stamps, infrastructure, development grants, education subsidies and grants etc .   #  i absolutely agree with you about the problems a country with 0 million people might have compared to say china or norway and have long argued for more intelligent federalism .  we, for some reason, expect the federal government to provide regulations and services that could be better done at the state or local level then we wonder why we are governed poorly compared to scandinavia.  but your plan for separation into regions poses problems for multiple reasons.  0 .  the us already has common banking and financial regulations so, because our domestic economy is so interconnected, differences in regulation would be destabilizing.  0 .  the us already has obligations to citizens across the country with social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and federal workers comp.  your plan must include ways of decentralizing this very centralized system.  0 .  one thing the federal government and even the eu does is transfer money from richer regions to poorer ones food stamps, infrastructure, development grants, education subsidies and grants etc .  even if the federal government lowered its income tax to allow states to establish much higher rates to pay for their services and regulations, poor regions like the south and lowly populated states would probably see a net loss while urban northern states would very much gain.  the northeast region would turn into something comparable to sweden while the south would remain poor.   #  norway is one of the most secular nations while the us is deeply religious, norway is ethnically homogeneous while the us is a melting pot, norway is quite cold while the us has a lot of deserts.   #  correlation does not mean causation.  first you have to show that the us is a shithole because of its size, not just assert it.  i can make up a whole bunch of other explanations in a breath, without a demonstration of their validity they are solid and/or silly to the same degree.  when we stick with the examples, norway and us, there are multiple other factors that come to mind.  norway is one of the most secular nations while the us is deeply religious, norway is ethnically homogeneous while the us is a melting pot, norway is quite cold while the us has a lot of deserts.  only because your hypothesis sounds logical and is consistent does not mean it is true, or true to the extent you claim.   #  for five dollars, is the candidate going to hire a private investigator and do a character assassination to ensure he is elected ?  #  picture it this way: a five person club elects a leader and everyone chips in a dollar that he can spend for the group is interests.  for five dollars, is the candidate going to hire a private investigator and do a character assassination to ensure he is elected ? not likely.  this time one million people do the same thing.  i think he might try a dirty trick or two to be the bigshot who throws around a million bucks.  so this simple illustration shows that people are probably more willing to do things that are bad for society but good for themselves when the scale is bigger and the stakes are higher.  at the scale of 0 million people, with hundreds of billions of dollars changing hands, i think the effect becomes very pronounced indeed.   #  i have hundreds of data points in favor of my view, gleaned from books, world events, and college courses.   #  i am already withholding judgement in the sense that if i encounter enough evidence against my view i will change it.  that is why i am asking you for evidence, which you are not supplying.  i have hundreds of data points in favor of my view, gleaned from books, world events, and college courses.  i am also fully aware of the risk of confirmation bias.  in the future i will try to recognize people like you who have no point of view of their own and avoid those comments.  only knowledgeable people have a shot at changing my view.
the smaller the body politic, the more the people are in control.  the best size political unit is the city: big enough to have the advantages of scale pooling risk, working together on public projects , small enough to avoid the disadvantages corruption of big money, large inefficient bureaucracy .  look at how well governed norway is with 0 million people.  look how badly china is governed with 0,0 million.  i say the reason is that larger groups are harder to govern with good ideals.  we should invoke article v of the constitution and partition the us into several independent countries, for instance: cascadia, texas, california, heartland, new england, florida, and the confederacy.  these could be linked together with trade and mutual defense deals the way europe is.   #  small enough to avoid the disadvantages corruption of big money, large inefficient bureaucracy .   #  i am not sure what you mean by that.   # look how badly china is governed with 0,0 million.  look at how badly cambodia, laos, or north korea are governed, each with a smaller population than texas.  look at how well japan is governed in comparison, with a historical infrastructure and resources not dissimilar from these, in spite of having 0 million people.  meanwhile, norway is a first world country, part of a technologically developed europe for centuries, plus sitting on oil sources that have a huge per capita value.  and you would have to squint really hard to see statistics in which it is more effective than germany or japan.  in terms of wealth, democracy, corruption levels, and rule of law, the us is far closer to norway than to china.  i am not even sure why you even talk about partitioning the usa, if you think that china is broken, then  china  should be partitioned.  except that as the presence of undemocractic small countries in the same area shows, this is unlikely to be a simple fix to regional problems.  i am not sure what you mean by that.  inefficient bureaucracy is an example of overtly balkanized regions, where every government function is redundantly repeated.  if you are worried about the usa is bureaucratic innefficiency, the solution would be to do away with states  rights.  one legal system, is more efficient than 0 simultenous ones.  one drug legislation, instead of 0.  one corporate regulation, instead of 0.  there is a reason why europe is moving increasingly towards stronger union, first through trade, then in monetary policy, then in banking, and by now passing plenty of federal regulations: when the basic values and ideologies are the same anyways liberal democracy, rule of law , it makes a lot more sense to match the smaller details of governance, and run them through a single unified system.   #  i absolutely agree with you about the problems a country with 0 million people might have compared to say china or norway and have long argued for more intelligent federalism .   #  i absolutely agree with you about the problems a country with 0 million people might have compared to say china or norway and have long argued for more intelligent federalism .  we, for some reason, expect the federal government to provide regulations and services that could be better done at the state or local level then we wonder why we are governed poorly compared to scandinavia.  but your plan for separation into regions poses problems for multiple reasons.  0 .  the us already has common banking and financial regulations so, because our domestic economy is so interconnected, differences in regulation would be destabilizing.  0 .  the us already has obligations to citizens across the country with social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and federal workers comp.  your plan must include ways of decentralizing this very centralized system.  0 .  one thing the federal government and even the eu does is transfer money from richer regions to poorer ones food stamps, infrastructure, development grants, education subsidies and grants etc .  even if the federal government lowered its income tax to allow states to establish much higher rates to pay for their services and regulations, poor regions like the south and lowly populated states would probably see a net loss while urban northern states would very much gain.  the northeast region would turn into something comparable to sweden while the south would remain poor.   #  first you have to show that the us is a shithole because of its size, not just assert it.   #  correlation does not mean causation.  first you have to show that the us is a shithole because of its size, not just assert it.  i can make up a whole bunch of other explanations in a breath, without a demonstration of their validity they are solid and/or silly to the same degree.  when we stick with the examples, norway and us, there are multiple other factors that come to mind.  norway is one of the most secular nations while the us is deeply religious, norway is ethnically homogeneous while the us is a melting pot, norway is quite cold while the us has a lot of deserts.  only because your hypothesis sounds logical and is consistent does not mean it is true, or true to the extent you claim.   #  this time one million people do the same thing.   #  picture it this way: a five person club elects a leader and everyone chips in a dollar that he can spend for the group is interests.  for five dollars, is the candidate going to hire a private investigator and do a character assassination to ensure he is elected ? not likely.  this time one million people do the same thing.  i think he might try a dirty trick or two to be the bigshot who throws around a million bucks.  so this simple illustration shows that people are probably more willing to do things that are bad for society but good for themselves when the scale is bigger and the stakes are higher.  at the scale of 0 million people, with hundreds of billions of dollars changing hands, i think the effect becomes very pronounced indeed.   #  i have hundreds of data points in favor of my view, gleaned from books, world events, and college courses.   #  i am already withholding judgement in the sense that if i encounter enough evidence against my view i will change it.  that is why i am asking you for evidence, which you are not supplying.  i have hundreds of data points in favor of my view, gleaned from books, world events, and college courses.  i am also fully aware of the risk of confirmation bias.  in the future i will try to recognize people like you who have no point of view of their own and avoid those comments.  only knowledgeable people have a shot at changing my view.
let me preface this by saying that i am not a neuroscientist and my knowledge of this field of limited.  yet i have always vehemently perhaps fallaciously argued with people who claim that consciousness cannot possibly be a result of biology, and greater metaphysical notion of the soul must explain its existence.  i maintain that our consciousness is simply an expression of biology, and that there will come a point in time at which our understanding of the brain will catch up with our understanding of the rest of our body.  at this stage, we would be capable of creating consciousness similar to our own.  i believe that our current inability to explain the nature of our self awareness is rooted in ignorance of our biology.  i have no concrete scientific knowledge on which i rest my argument besides the fact i cannot see a reason to believe that a metaphysical explanation is necessary.  this ignorance about the brain is comparable to people in bygone era is being unaware of how our bodies functioned.  as developments in anatomy allowed us to map each blood vessel in our bodies so to will neuroscience map each neuron in our brain.  this is a difficult existential idea to tackle, and is an uncomfortable position to hold as it indicates a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, which in turn has implications on our ideas of morality.  i look forward to some enlightenment on my perhaps ignorant ideas reddit !  #  i believe that our current inability to explain the nature of our self awareness is rooted in ignorance of our biology.   #  part of the problem is the false dichotomy.   # part of the problem is the false dichotomy.  any precise definition of sentience can be countered by examples of beings that are basically too simple/stupid to appear sentient like us.  why should not beings that are able to conceptualize extremly complicated things in a meaningful way, be able to conceptualize themselves ? why should not computer programs be able to map parts of reality to concepts and those concepts to even more abstract concepts, in a way that improves their predictions ? if a computer program is capable of such abstract thought, could not a program have thoughts about previous thoughts and decisions ? why should not such a self reflective process experience some sort of consciousness ? what exactly do we need to learn about our biology to further our understanding of sentience ? do we really need to engineer some super intelligent computer program that appears sentient to us ? causality is an essential part of us.   true free will  would basically free  you  from everything that defines you, i. e.  your memories, previous thoughts and plans.  determinism is very boring in that regard.  you need to recreate the initial states of a deterministic process 0:0 to predict its outcomes.  there is also only  stochastic determinism .  you can only assign probability distributions to possibilities.  we cannot measure everything with arbitrary precision.  URL   there are no relevant implications on our ideas of morality.  we can do anything we want and only we control our actions.   #  more importantly, the chinese room is not supposed to be an argument  for  or  against  anything.   #  i feel like you misunderstand both the purpose of the thought experiment and the idea behind thought experiments in general.  that the supposed experiment  may  not be possible to setup in reality is sort of irrelevant.  more importantly, the chinese room is not supposed to be an argument  for  or  against  anything.  it is purpose is to make you question  what intelligence is .  intelligence is really hard to define, and most seemingly good definitions fall victim to this sort of  coded behavior  trap, in that any  measure  of intelligence can be fooled by simply devising a machine that responds with  correct  answers.   #  from the abstract of  minds, brains, and programs.    # it is purpose is to make you question what intelligence is.  this is just blatantly false.  searle is a proponent of a very specific theory, and the chinese room is specifically intended to support that theory.  on the argument advanced here only a machine could think, and only very special kinds of machines, namely brains and machines with internal causal powers equivalent to those of brains and that is why strong ai has little to tell us about thinking, since it is not about machines but about programs, and no program by itself is sufficient for thinking.  from the abstract of  minds, brains, and programs.   i am not sure you understand the point here yourself.  the argument is not that the chinese room uses a simple set of rules that clearly could not possibly give rise to consciousness searle explicitly equates the  program  used by the occupant with a computer program, meaning, presumably, that it is turing complete.  the argument is that despite the fact that the occupant of the room is able to simulate understanding chinese, he does not actually understand chinese, and therefore there is no entity in the room that understands chinese.  which seems to me to be about as wrong headed as claiming that i do not understand english because the neurons that compose my brain, considered in isolation, do not understand english.   #  searle is not trying to make you think about the definition of  understanding , and whether it can apply to the chinese room.   # or incorrect.  depends on how you define  understands .  see also: the point no, not the point, or at least not searle is point.  you seem to be stuck on this idea of the chinese room as an idle thought experiment, and i have no idea how you could possibly get that idea.  searle is not trying to make you think about the definition of  understanding , and whether it can apply to the chinese room.  he is stating that the chinese room clearly does not possess understanding of chinese.  the stuff that you dismiss as  philosphical hogwash  further down in your original comment  is exactly searle is thesis .   #  is the man computer system what we consider consciousness ?  #  it does not matter if it could exist in order to be thought about.  for example, the utility monster which ca not exist or at least most likely ca not .  it is not that general ai ca not exist, it is the question about what is necessary for consciousness.  is the man computer system what we consider consciousness ? if not what is it missing ? if we do not consider abortion murder, what is the distinction that makes the non born not considered different than set of relevant life ? it is that type of question.
let me preface this by saying that i am not a neuroscientist and my knowledge of this field of limited.  yet i have always vehemently perhaps fallaciously argued with people who claim that consciousness cannot possibly be a result of biology, and greater metaphysical notion of the soul must explain its existence.  i maintain that our consciousness is simply an expression of biology, and that there will come a point in time at which our understanding of the brain will catch up with our understanding of the rest of our body.  at this stage, we would be capable of creating consciousness similar to our own.  i believe that our current inability to explain the nature of our self awareness is rooted in ignorance of our biology.  i have no concrete scientific knowledge on which i rest my argument besides the fact i cannot see a reason to believe that a metaphysical explanation is necessary.  this ignorance about the brain is comparable to people in bygone era is being unaware of how our bodies functioned.  as developments in anatomy allowed us to map each blood vessel in our bodies so to will neuroscience map each neuron in our brain.  this is a difficult existential idea to tackle, and is an uncomfortable position to hold as it indicates a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, which in turn has implications on our ideas of morality.  i look forward to some enlightenment on my perhaps ignorant ideas reddit !  #  this is a difficult existential idea to tackle, and is an uncomfortable position to hold as it indicates a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, which in turn has implications on our ideas of morality.   #  causality is an essential part of us.   # part of the problem is the false dichotomy.  any precise definition of sentience can be countered by examples of beings that are basically too simple/stupid to appear sentient like us.  why should not beings that are able to conceptualize extremly complicated things in a meaningful way, be able to conceptualize themselves ? why should not computer programs be able to map parts of reality to concepts and those concepts to even more abstract concepts, in a way that improves their predictions ? if a computer program is capable of such abstract thought, could not a program have thoughts about previous thoughts and decisions ? why should not such a self reflective process experience some sort of consciousness ? what exactly do we need to learn about our biology to further our understanding of sentience ? do we really need to engineer some super intelligent computer program that appears sentient to us ? causality is an essential part of us.   true free will  would basically free  you  from everything that defines you, i. e.  your memories, previous thoughts and plans.  determinism is very boring in that regard.  you need to recreate the initial states of a deterministic process 0:0 to predict its outcomes.  there is also only  stochastic determinism .  you can only assign probability distributions to possibilities.  we cannot measure everything with arbitrary precision.  URL   there are no relevant implications on our ideas of morality.  we can do anything we want and only we control our actions.   #  it is purpose is to make you question  what intelligence is .   #  i feel like you misunderstand both the purpose of the thought experiment and the idea behind thought experiments in general.  that the supposed experiment  may  not be possible to setup in reality is sort of irrelevant.  more importantly, the chinese room is not supposed to be an argument  for  or  against  anything.  it is purpose is to make you question  what intelligence is .  intelligence is really hard to define, and most seemingly good definitions fall victim to this sort of  coded behavior  trap, in that any  measure  of intelligence can be fooled by simply devising a machine that responds with  correct  answers.   #  searle is a proponent of a very specific theory, and the chinese room is specifically intended to support that theory.   # it is purpose is to make you question what intelligence is.  this is just blatantly false.  searle is a proponent of a very specific theory, and the chinese room is specifically intended to support that theory.  on the argument advanced here only a machine could think, and only very special kinds of machines, namely brains and machines with internal causal powers equivalent to those of brains and that is why strong ai has little to tell us about thinking, since it is not about machines but about programs, and no program by itself is sufficient for thinking.  from the abstract of  minds, brains, and programs.   i am not sure you understand the point here yourself.  the argument is not that the chinese room uses a simple set of rules that clearly could not possibly give rise to consciousness searle explicitly equates the  program  used by the occupant with a computer program, meaning, presumably, that it is turing complete.  the argument is that despite the fact that the occupant of the room is able to simulate understanding chinese, he does not actually understand chinese, and therefore there is no entity in the room that understands chinese.  which seems to me to be about as wrong headed as claiming that i do not understand english because the neurons that compose my brain, considered in isolation, do not understand english.   #  see also: the point no, not the point, or at least not searle is point.   # or incorrect.  depends on how you define  understands .  see also: the point no, not the point, or at least not searle is point.  you seem to be stuck on this idea of the chinese room as an idle thought experiment, and i have no idea how you could possibly get that idea.  searle is not trying to make you think about the definition of  understanding , and whether it can apply to the chinese room.  he is stating that the chinese room clearly does not possess understanding of chinese.  the stuff that you dismiss as  philosphical hogwash  further down in your original comment  is exactly searle is thesis .   #  if we do not consider abortion murder, what is the distinction that makes the non born not considered different than set of relevant life ?  #  it does not matter if it could exist in order to be thought about.  for example, the utility monster which ca not exist or at least most likely ca not .  it is not that general ai ca not exist, it is the question about what is necessary for consciousness.  is the man computer system what we consider consciousness ? if not what is it missing ? if we do not consider abortion murder, what is the distinction that makes the non born not considered different than set of relevant life ? it is that type of question.
let me preface this by saying that i am not a neuroscientist and my knowledge of this field of limited.  yet i have always vehemently perhaps fallaciously argued with people who claim that consciousness cannot possibly be a result of biology, and greater metaphysical notion of the soul must explain its existence.  i maintain that our consciousness is simply an expression of biology, and that there will come a point in time at which our understanding of the brain will catch up with our understanding of the rest of our body.  at this stage, we would be capable of creating consciousness similar to our own.  i believe that our current inability to explain the nature of our self awareness is rooted in ignorance of our biology.  i have no concrete scientific knowledge on which i rest my argument besides the fact i cannot see a reason to believe that a metaphysical explanation is necessary.  this ignorance about the brain is comparable to people in bygone era is being unaware of how our bodies functioned.  as developments in anatomy allowed us to map each blood vessel in our bodies so to will neuroscience map each neuron in our brain.  this is a difficult existential idea to tackle, and is an uncomfortable position to hold as it indicates a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, which in turn has implications on our ideas of morality.  i look forward to some enlightenment on my perhaps ignorant ideas reddit !  #  this is a difficult existential idea to tackle, and is an uncomfortable position to hold as it indicates a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, which in turn has implications on our ideas of morality.   #  these  free will  ideas are, of course, badly dated and should be discarded.   # it is called quantum electrodynamics and it appears that rules other than those contained in it are not needed to derive all of chemistry, biology and, ultimately, psychology.  this is not really contentious in science.  these  free will  ideas are, of course, badly dated and should be discarded.  attempts to force them to fit into a modern understanding of reality do not work.  the lack of these ideas does not really have much on an impact on ethics or the rules we use to make our reality better, though.  it means a move away from the ideas of blame and retribution and more towards the goals of minimising suffering, maximising satisfaction, happiness and so on.  bring ethics into the scientific method and it then largely becomes a rational approach to reducing suffering.   #  that the supposed experiment  may  not be possible to setup in reality is sort of irrelevant.   #  i feel like you misunderstand both the purpose of the thought experiment and the idea behind thought experiments in general.  that the supposed experiment  may  not be possible to setup in reality is sort of irrelevant.  more importantly, the chinese room is not supposed to be an argument  for  or  against  anything.  it is purpose is to make you question  what intelligence is .  intelligence is really hard to define, and most seemingly good definitions fall victim to this sort of  coded behavior  trap, in that any  measure  of intelligence can be fooled by simply devising a machine that responds with  correct  answers.   #  from the abstract of  minds, brains, and programs.    # it is purpose is to make you question what intelligence is.  this is just blatantly false.  searle is a proponent of a very specific theory, and the chinese room is specifically intended to support that theory.  on the argument advanced here only a machine could think, and only very special kinds of machines, namely brains and machines with internal causal powers equivalent to those of brains and that is why strong ai has little to tell us about thinking, since it is not about machines but about programs, and no program by itself is sufficient for thinking.  from the abstract of  minds, brains, and programs.   i am not sure you understand the point here yourself.  the argument is not that the chinese room uses a simple set of rules that clearly could not possibly give rise to consciousness searle explicitly equates the  program  used by the occupant with a computer program, meaning, presumably, that it is turing complete.  the argument is that despite the fact that the occupant of the room is able to simulate understanding chinese, he does not actually understand chinese, and therefore there is no entity in the room that understands chinese.  which seems to me to be about as wrong headed as claiming that i do not understand english because the neurons that compose my brain, considered in isolation, do not understand english.   #  you seem to be stuck on this idea of the chinese room as an idle thought experiment, and i have no idea how you could possibly get that idea.   # or incorrect.  depends on how you define  understands .  see also: the point no, not the point, or at least not searle is point.  you seem to be stuck on this idea of the chinese room as an idle thought experiment, and i have no idea how you could possibly get that idea.  searle is not trying to make you think about the definition of  understanding , and whether it can apply to the chinese room.  he is stating that the chinese room clearly does not possess understanding of chinese.  the stuff that you dismiss as  philosphical hogwash  further down in your original comment  is exactly searle is thesis .   #  it is not that general ai ca not exist, it is the question about what is necessary for consciousness.   #  it does not matter if it could exist in order to be thought about.  for example, the utility monster which ca not exist or at least most likely ca not .  it is not that general ai ca not exist, it is the question about what is necessary for consciousness.  is the man computer system what we consider consciousness ? if not what is it missing ? if we do not consider abortion murder, what is the distinction that makes the non born not considered different than set of relevant life ? it is that type of question.
let me preface this by saying that i am not a neuroscientist and my knowledge of this field of limited.  yet i have always vehemently perhaps fallaciously argued with people who claim that consciousness cannot possibly be a result of biology, and greater metaphysical notion of the soul must explain its existence.  i maintain that our consciousness is simply an expression of biology, and that there will come a point in time at which our understanding of the brain will catch up with our understanding of the rest of our body.  at this stage, we would be capable of creating consciousness similar to our own.  i believe that our current inability to explain the nature of our self awareness is rooted in ignorance of our biology.  i have no concrete scientific knowledge on which i rest my argument besides the fact i cannot see a reason to believe that a metaphysical explanation is necessary.  this ignorance about the brain is comparable to people in bygone era is being unaware of how our bodies functioned.  as developments in anatomy allowed us to map each blood vessel in our bodies so to will neuroscience map each neuron in our brain.  this is a difficult existential idea to tackle, and is an uncomfortable position to hold as it indicates a lack of true free will and the existence of determinism, which in turn has implications on our ideas of morality.  i look forward to some enlightenment on my perhaps ignorant ideas reddit !  #  i have no concrete scientific knowledge on which i rest my argument besides the fact i cannot see a reason to believe that a metaphysical explanation is necessary.   #  it is okay to believe as a personal suspicion that consciousness is material rather than immaterial.   # it is okay to believe as a personal suspicion that consciousness is material rather than immaterial.  however, if you have no scientific evidence to support this claim, you should not you  ought  not  go around claiming it as fact.  if the evidence was all finally compiled and seemed to indicate that an immaterial brain  was  necessary, would you be stubborn or would you cede to the evidence ? if you would not, you are not open to changing your view.  if you would, then you must admit that, in lieu of having the full picture, you should not preemptively make claims about what it is.   #  more importantly, the chinese room is not supposed to be an argument  for  or  against  anything.   #  i feel like you misunderstand both the purpose of the thought experiment and the idea behind thought experiments in general.  that the supposed experiment  may  not be possible to setup in reality is sort of irrelevant.  more importantly, the chinese room is not supposed to be an argument  for  or  against  anything.  it is purpose is to make you question  what intelligence is .  intelligence is really hard to define, and most seemingly good definitions fall victim to this sort of  coded behavior  trap, in that any  measure  of intelligence can be fooled by simply devising a machine that responds with  correct  answers.   #  the argument is that despite the fact that the occupant of the room is able to simulate understanding chinese, he does not actually understand chinese, and therefore there is no entity in the room that understands chinese.   # it is purpose is to make you question what intelligence is.  this is just blatantly false.  searle is a proponent of a very specific theory, and the chinese room is specifically intended to support that theory.  on the argument advanced here only a machine could think, and only very special kinds of machines, namely brains and machines with internal causal powers equivalent to those of brains and that is why strong ai has little to tell us about thinking, since it is not about machines but about programs, and no program by itself is sufficient for thinking.  from the abstract of  minds, brains, and programs.   i am not sure you understand the point here yourself.  the argument is not that the chinese room uses a simple set of rules that clearly could not possibly give rise to consciousness searle explicitly equates the  program  used by the occupant with a computer program, meaning, presumably, that it is turing complete.  the argument is that despite the fact that the occupant of the room is able to simulate understanding chinese, he does not actually understand chinese, and therefore there is no entity in the room that understands chinese.  which seems to me to be about as wrong headed as claiming that i do not understand english because the neurons that compose my brain, considered in isolation, do not understand english.   #  you seem to be stuck on this idea of the chinese room as an idle thought experiment, and i have no idea how you could possibly get that idea.   # or incorrect.  depends on how you define  understands .  see also: the point no, not the point, or at least not searle is point.  you seem to be stuck on this idea of the chinese room as an idle thought experiment, and i have no idea how you could possibly get that idea.  searle is not trying to make you think about the definition of  understanding , and whether it can apply to the chinese room.  he is stating that the chinese room clearly does not possess understanding of chinese.  the stuff that you dismiss as  philosphical hogwash  further down in your original comment  is exactly searle is thesis .   #  it is not that general ai ca not exist, it is the question about what is necessary for consciousness.   #  it does not matter if it could exist in order to be thought about.  for example, the utility monster which ca not exist or at least most likely ca not .  it is not that general ai ca not exist, it is the question about what is necessary for consciousness.  is the man computer system what we consider consciousness ? if not what is it missing ? if we do not consider abortion murder, what is the distinction that makes the non born not considered different than set of relevant life ? it is that type of question.
let is plays, are, in my opinion, incredibly dull and not a good entertainment source.  all i see them as is an hour long video in which somebody plays a video game.  you could easily buy the game yourself, instead of watching somebody making commentary about it.  and i do not why anyone would want to watch the let is play for the commentary, since almost all let is players have a very crude and unoriginal sense of humour.  i feel like let is watches might become a thing.  oh god, that would be horrible .  i have heard the whole  it is the same as sport  argument but it does not really work.  in sport, you do not know what is going to happen but in video games, there is a linear way the game will unfold.   #  in sport, you do not know what is going to happen but in video games, there is a linear way the game will unfold.   #  two things: first, you are assuming everyone watches lps of games they already know/have played.   # two things: first, you are assuming everyone watches lps of games they already know/have played.  that is not always the case.  sometimes they are looking to see if a game is good, or are watching a notoriously bad game be played so they can see hilarious glitches without blowing $$$ on a bad game.  secondly: they are getting less and less linear as time goes on.  i can almost guarantee that without playing some 0  hours of a fallout game, you are not seeing all of the content.  there is almost certainly something new to be seen in a fallout 0 let is play, as everyone presumably has different favorite sidequests and playstyles.  i know this might be a foreign concept, but: some people do not have the money, other people do not have the time, some people have neither, to invest in a game that, say, might have a storyline they like, but also might be in a format they do not enjoy playing.  they might rather save their $0 a nontrivial investment for many; that is 0 hours of work for me pre tax, and i am pretty well paid.  that might be a full day is work for someone earning minimum wage for something they really want to play.  lps are great for gamers who have to limit their game buying for whatever reason.  another two points: firstly, maybe some people like crude humor.  in fact, i am almost sure they do, since it is pretty popular.  secondly: you said it yourself:  most .  so it is possible for someone to find let is plays that they like that  do not  have these things.   #  0.  i can see and understand the mechanics of the game in an uncensored stream so i can know as much as i need to about a product before buying it.   #  let is watches  are  a thing, they are called commentaries.  ever heard of muster science theater ? it is exactly that.  anyway, i like lps for a few reasons.  0.  they take a long time to finish a series so i have a lot of background noise while i do work or something.  0.  i can see and understand the mechanics of the game in an uncensored stream so i can know as much as i need to about a product before buying it.  0.  while most lpers are really bad, that goes for both the larger and smaller names, there are good commentators as well.  maybe it is just that if you smell shit long enough, you will develop a taste for specific kinds of shit, but being an acquired taste is not a bad thing.   #  a lot of what makes let is plays interesting is the people playing the games.   #  a lot of what makes let is plays interesting is the people playing the games.  i would hazard a guess that there is at least  someone  that you know of, famous or not, that would be interesting for you to watch play and comment on a game.  if not just one person, then there is should at least be a group of people that would be interesting to watch.  a lot of it just comes down to being a familiar face.  there is a reason that pewdiepie gets millions of view regardless of what game he is playing, or even if he is playing a video game at all.  ultimately, people go to let is play channels consistently are there to see the lpers first and the games second.   #  in achievement hunter, for example, all the employees have good chemistry, a good sense of humor and good comedic timing.   #  you touched on why people enjoy let is plays in the op.  yes, the commentary.  a good let is play should feel like a podcast, not sitting and watching others play video games.  in achievement hunter, for example, all the employees have good chemistry, a good sense of humor and good comedic timing.  they each have their own unique personality that shows in the videos.  i have never had any kind of interest in video games and i do not play them yet i enjoy their videos for this reason.  their commentary and personalities are the focus of the video, not the game.  in fact, one would be able to enjoy the videos to a considerable extent without the visual at all.  about the commentary, you claimed that almost all let is players have a crude and unoriginal sense of humor.  this cannot be the case considering the wide variety of let is players and their different appeal.  but it appears you are constructing an opinion based on the select few you are familiar with and the bottom of the barrel at that.  keep in mind that turning the tv or the radio on to any random station will probably present you with unimaginative garbage.  but we know that there is great music and tv out there despite this.  with let is plays it is the same.  it is easy to see idiots like pewdiepie or captain sparkles and think that they are representative of the whole genre but they are not.  it is easy to grace over the quality content providers that do not make money by pandering to 0 year olds like roosterteeth, game grumps or creatures to name a few.  finally, all this said, nobody is forcing you to watch let is plays.  if they are not your cup of tea that is fine and nobody here is going to be able to change that.  however, your disinterest does not make it a lower form of entertainment.   #  in procedural games, there  is  an element of suspense.   #  first of all, let is get this straight: sturgeon is law applies, or  0 of everything is crud .  so:   since almost all let is players have a very crude and unoriginal sense of humour.  this should not be a problem.  just do not watch those.  there are many reasons i like let is plays:   a lp allows me to increase my culture about games i have not played, for one reason or another.  for instance, zelda games.  as a geek, i think i should have some knowledge of it, but i have only had playstations i did not even get a ps0 or a psp .  so, occasionally, i like to watch  i ca not be arsed to play myself .  i really like lps of procedurally generated games.  even if i play the game, what i live is a completely different story.  the binding of isaac and minecraft are prime examples.  i play them, but i like to see how other people play.  well, i think i covered both.  in linear games, generally i have not played them.  in procedural games, there  is  an element of suspense.
let is plays, are, in my opinion, incredibly dull and not a good entertainment source.  all i see them as is an hour long video in which somebody plays a video game.  you could easily buy the game yourself, instead of watching somebody making commentary about it.  and i do not why anyone would want to watch the let is play for the commentary, since almost all let is players have a very crude and unoriginal sense of humour.  i feel like let is watches might become a thing.  oh god, that would be horrible .  i have heard the whole  it is the same as sport  argument but it does not really work.  in sport, you do not know what is going to happen but in video games, there is a linear way the game will unfold.   #  you could easily buy the game yourself, instead of watching somebody making commentary about it.   #  what if a person is watching the let is play to see how good the game is ?  # what if a person is watching the let is play to see how good the game is ? buyer beware seems to be becoming a better and better idea these days.  with good reason.  also, you do not find let is plays funny.  who gives a shit ? other people clearly do, that is why they watch them, get over it.   #  secondly: they are getting less and less linear as time goes on.   # two things: first, you are assuming everyone watches lps of games they already know/have played.  that is not always the case.  sometimes they are looking to see if a game is good, or are watching a notoriously bad game be played so they can see hilarious glitches without blowing $$$ on a bad game.  secondly: they are getting less and less linear as time goes on.  i can almost guarantee that without playing some 0  hours of a fallout game, you are not seeing all of the content.  there is almost certainly something new to be seen in a fallout 0 let is play, as everyone presumably has different favorite sidequests and playstyles.  i know this might be a foreign concept, but: some people do not have the money, other people do not have the time, some people have neither, to invest in a game that, say, might have a storyline they like, but also might be in a format they do not enjoy playing.  they might rather save their $0 a nontrivial investment for many; that is 0 hours of work for me pre tax, and i am pretty well paid.  that might be a full day is work for someone earning minimum wage for something they really want to play.  lps are great for gamers who have to limit their game buying for whatever reason.  another two points: firstly, maybe some people like crude humor.  in fact, i am almost sure they do, since it is pretty popular.  secondly: you said it yourself:  most .  so it is possible for someone to find let is plays that they like that  do not  have these things.   #  let is watches  are  a thing, they are called commentaries.   #  let is watches  are  a thing, they are called commentaries.  ever heard of muster science theater ? it is exactly that.  anyway, i like lps for a few reasons.  0.  they take a long time to finish a series so i have a lot of background noise while i do work or something.  0.  i can see and understand the mechanics of the game in an uncensored stream so i can know as much as i need to about a product before buying it.  0.  while most lpers are really bad, that goes for both the larger and smaller names, there are good commentators as well.  maybe it is just that if you smell shit long enough, you will develop a taste for specific kinds of shit, but being an acquired taste is not a bad thing.   #  i would hazard a guess that there is at least  someone  that you know of, famous or not, that would be interesting for you to watch play and comment on a game.   #  a lot of what makes let is plays interesting is the people playing the games.  i would hazard a guess that there is at least  someone  that you know of, famous or not, that would be interesting for you to watch play and comment on a game.  if not just one person, then there is should at least be a group of people that would be interesting to watch.  a lot of it just comes down to being a familiar face.  there is a reason that pewdiepie gets millions of view regardless of what game he is playing, or even if he is playing a video game at all.  ultimately, people go to let is play channels consistently are there to see the lpers first and the games second.   #  they each have their own unique personality that shows in the videos.   #  you touched on why people enjoy let is plays in the op.  yes, the commentary.  a good let is play should feel like a podcast, not sitting and watching others play video games.  in achievement hunter, for example, all the employees have good chemistry, a good sense of humor and good comedic timing.  they each have their own unique personality that shows in the videos.  i have never had any kind of interest in video games and i do not play them yet i enjoy their videos for this reason.  their commentary and personalities are the focus of the video, not the game.  in fact, one would be able to enjoy the videos to a considerable extent without the visual at all.  about the commentary, you claimed that almost all let is players have a crude and unoriginal sense of humor.  this cannot be the case considering the wide variety of let is players and their different appeal.  but it appears you are constructing an opinion based on the select few you are familiar with and the bottom of the barrel at that.  keep in mind that turning the tv or the radio on to any random station will probably present you with unimaginative garbage.  but we know that there is great music and tv out there despite this.  with let is plays it is the same.  it is easy to see idiots like pewdiepie or captain sparkles and think that they are representative of the whole genre but they are not.  it is easy to grace over the quality content providers that do not make money by pandering to 0 year olds like roosterteeth, game grumps or creatures to name a few.  finally, all this said, nobody is forcing you to watch let is plays.  if they are not your cup of tea that is fine and nobody here is going to be able to change that.  however, your disinterest does not make it a lower form of entertainment.
let is plays, are, in my opinion, incredibly dull and not a good entertainment source.  all i see them as is an hour long video in which somebody plays a video game.  you could easily buy the game yourself, instead of watching somebody making commentary about it.  and i do not why anyone would want to watch the let is play for the commentary, since almost all let is players have a very crude and unoriginal sense of humour.  i feel like let is watches might become a thing.  oh god, that would be horrible .  i have heard the whole  it is the same as sport  argument but it does not really work.  in sport, you do not know what is going to happen but in video games, there is a linear way the game will unfold.   #  i have heard the whole  it is the same as sport  argument but it does not really work.   #  in sport, you do not know what is going to happen but in video games, there is a linear way the game will unfold.   #  i think that you have made an incorrect assumption about sports.  in sport, you do not know what is going to happen but in video games, there is a linear way the game will unfold.  i watch a lot of basketball highschool, college, men is league, and nba.  i have a pretty good idea of the way the game will unfold.  people will run from one end of the court to the other, somewhere around 0 of the shots will go in, there will be many points, fewer assists, fewer steals, and even fewer blocks.  but overall, i am there to watch  how people play the game  not to see how the game unfolds.  sometimes, i watch basketball because i want to learn a specific skill, or highlight one for a player.  sometimes, i watch basketball because i want to see which players are the best.  sometimes, i watch basketball because it is on, and i am doing paperwork.  all of those reasons are pretty similar for why someone might watch a let is play.  and before you mention commentators, let me tell you the majority of high school basketball commentators are flat out terrible.  it is just so bad.   #  secondly: they are getting less and less linear as time goes on.   # two things: first, you are assuming everyone watches lps of games they already know/have played.  that is not always the case.  sometimes they are looking to see if a game is good, or are watching a notoriously bad game be played so they can see hilarious glitches without blowing $$$ on a bad game.  secondly: they are getting less and less linear as time goes on.  i can almost guarantee that without playing some 0  hours of a fallout game, you are not seeing all of the content.  there is almost certainly something new to be seen in a fallout 0 let is play, as everyone presumably has different favorite sidequests and playstyles.  i know this might be a foreign concept, but: some people do not have the money, other people do not have the time, some people have neither, to invest in a game that, say, might have a storyline they like, but also might be in a format they do not enjoy playing.  they might rather save their $0 a nontrivial investment for many; that is 0 hours of work for me pre tax, and i am pretty well paid.  that might be a full day is work for someone earning minimum wage for something they really want to play.  lps are great for gamers who have to limit their game buying for whatever reason.  another two points: firstly, maybe some people like crude humor.  in fact, i am almost sure they do, since it is pretty popular.  secondly: you said it yourself:  most .  so it is possible for someone to find let is plays that they like that  do not  have these things.   #  maybe it is just that if you smell shit long enough, you will develop a taste for specific kinds of shit, but being an acquired taste is not a bad thing.   #  let is watches  are  a thing, they are called commentaries.  ever heard of muster science theater ? it is exactly that.  anyway, i like lps for a few reasons.  0.  they take a long time to finish a series so i have a lot of background noise while i do work or something.  0.  i can see and understand the mechanics of the game in an uncensored stream so i can know as much as i need to about a product before buying it.  0.  while most lpers are really bad, that goes for both the larger and smaller names, there are good commentators as well.  maybe it is just that if you smell shit long enough, you will develop a taste for specific kinds of shit, but being an acquired taste is not a bad thing.   #  i would hazard a guess that there is at least  someone  that you know of, famous or not, that would be interesting for you to watch play and comment on a game.   #  a lot of what makes let is plays interesting is the people playing the games.  i would hazard a guess that there is at least  someone  that you know of, famous or not, that would be interesting for you to watch play and comment on a game.  if not just one person, then there is should at least be a group of people that would be interesting to watch.  a lot of it just comes down to being a familiar face.  there is a reason that pewdiepie gets millions of view regardless of what game he is playing, or even if he is playing a video game at all.  ultimately, people go to let is play channels consistently are there to see the lpers first and the games second.   #  i have never had any kind of interest in video games and i do not play them yet i enjoy their videos for this reason.   #  you touched on why people enjoy let is plays in the op.  yes, the commentary.  a good let is play should feel like a podcast, not sitting and watching others play video games.  in achievement hunter, for example, all the employees have good chemistry, a good sense of humor and good comedic timing.  they each have their own unique personality that shows in the videos.  i have never had any kind of interest in video games and i do not play them yet i enjoy their videos for this reason.  their commentary and personalities are the focus of the video, not the game.  in fact, one would be able to enjoy the videos to a considerable extent without the visual at all.  about the commentary, you claimed that almost all let is players have a crude and unoriginal sense of humor.  this cannot be the case considering the wide variety of let is players and their different appeal.  but it appears you are constructing an opinion based on the select few you are familiar with and the bottom of the barrel at that.  keep in mind that turning the tv or the radio on to any random station will probably present you with unimaginative garbage.  but we know that there is great music and tv out there despite this.  with let is plays it is the same.  it is easy to see idiots like pewdiepie or captain sparkles and think that they are representative of the whole genre but they are not.  it is easy to grace over the quality content providers that do not make money by pandering to 0 year olds like roosterteeth, game grumps or creatures to name a few.  finally, all this said, nobody is forcing you to watch let is plays.  if they are not your cup of tea that is fine and nobody here is going to be able to change that.  however, your disinterest does not make it a lower form of entertainment.
i am a middle school student who lives in a pretty wealthy town in new jersey.  taxes are quite high as compared to other places, partially because, well, it is nj, but also because the schools are quite good top 0 in the state .  people living here know this, so most people who live here either do it for the schools, or are elderly and have been living here for years.  some businessmen want to build apartments buildings in my town that allow for cheap housing in the  downtown  area of my town.  many people from poorer areas with kids will jump upon these apartments, in order to send them to good schools.  i have no problem with people getting a good education, but with all the extra students and not much more tax revenue for the schools, the quality of the education lowers.  is it right to ban these apartment buildings ?  #  i have no problem with people getting a good education, but with all the extra students and not much more tax revenue for the schools, the quality of the education lowers.   #  are you sure about the lack of tax revenue ?  # are you sure about the lack of tax revenue ? do not forget indirect impacts to the economy.  what if a concentration of new people in your downtown allows new shops and restaurants to open up, they will generate economic activity and pay taxes as well.  what if the concentration of people attracts employers to your town ? this is a really weak argument.  dollars do not directly correlate with education quality.  some of the worst performing school districts in the country are the large urban districts, which often spend more per student than their suburban counterparts.   #  how many would there be in the apartments ?  #  it is a little hard to comment on your specific issue without a lot more facts.  for instance, how  low income  are these apartments likely to be ? in most  wealthy towns  rents are far from cheap.  next, it is important to scope the size of both your town and the apartments.  how many students are in your district ? how many would there be in the apartments ? is it a significant enough percentage to impact the quality of education ? finally, let is assume that these are truly low income people.  besides the question of fairness and doing your part, there is also the reality that in the real world, you will have to deal with people in all walks of life, not just only those from well to do suburbs.  there is an absolute benefit for students to be exposed to those from other ways of life, who can bring different perspectives to social studies or language arts or music, or art.  .  learning is not just about the text book, but about understanding you world.  a more diverse student body helps you do that.   #  what your town is doing is outsourcing the cost of these people to the communities surrounding it.   #  your town has a high average wealth.  good for you.  your town has no low income housing.  that is a bit of an issue.  your town likely employs a number of people that cannot afford to live in your town.  maids.  gardners.  fast food workers.  janitors.  etc.  what your town is doing is outsourcing the cost of these people to the communities surrounding it.  you are benefiting from their cheap labor, but expect someone else is local government and town to deal with the cost of housing these people.  that is outright shameful.  i am not saying your entire town should become covered in low income housing.  but to ban the construction of any low income housing on general principle is a form of welfare for your rich inhabitants.   #  there is only so much land that can be used to build on, and this is especially true of a state as tiny as new jersey.   # that is not really how taxes work.  their parents will be paying taxes just as your parents are, so that part of your argument really do not have any basis in logic.  as far as building apartments go, it is a great idea.  there is only so much land that can be used to build on, and this is especially true of a state as tiny as new jersey.  adding more housing options can only be a good thing for the economy.  i wonder what the issue really is here.  i too went to a rather well off middle school, and can assure you that no matter what walk of life each student came from, the only thing that mattered was their attitude.  are the apartments really meant to be low income accommodations ? or are they just cheaper than the standard you are used to, and people have misconceptions due to that ? what is the price range of those apartments ? what is the price range of a  normal  apartment in your area ? i would be interested in seeing a legitimate reason to  ban  the building of the apartment homes.   #  and frankly, if education is the concern i would be far more concerned about the elderly that live there because they are notorious for not fully supporting schools.   #  i do not think there is a generic right or wrong answer for this.  it is up to each community to decide what they want to do.  even with a multi story apartment rents will still be fairly high so it wo not really have a huge impact.  and frankly, if education is the concern i would be far more concerned about the elderly that live there because they are notorious for not fully supporting schools.  is it right to ban these buildings ? in my opinion no it is a good way to build and having more people in your community is usually a good thing.  is it a right to ban these buildings ? in my opinion yes it is a right communities have.  it is their community if they want to ban tall buildings then i guess why not.
a debt snowball is when you pay your debts off in order of smallest to largest, ignoring interest rates.   advantages    it is psychologically beneficial.  paying off a $0,0 credit card eliminates an entire monthly payment, whereas paying $0,0 off a car just makes progress on paper.  sure your next bill will say you owe $0,0 instead of $0,0, but nothing has changed in your monthly expenses psychologically it feels like wasted money.    when you pay off a debt, the amount you were paying towards it each month is an instant raise to yourself.  if you pay off a loan that was $0/month, you suddenly have $0/month extra to budget with.    paying off a small debt instantly  adds  to your emergency fund.  your monthly expenses are now less, so you need less of an emergency fund.    it wipes small debts out completely.  if you stop paying off debts for whatever reason, you still have immediate benefits from your efforts because you have eliminated a few monthly payments.  if a financial issue like a disability or long term unemployment comes up, you wo not rack up interest and late fees on a debt that does not exist.    eliminating the number of payments you have makes it easier to keep track of them and not miss any or incur late fees.  it is also psychologically better to have fewer debts you owe.  i am aware that mathematically it is cheapest to pay it off in the order of highest to lowest interest, but i think that the benefits i listed out are worth paying a little extra interest for.   #  when you pay off a debt, the amount you were paying towards it each month is an instant raise to yourself.   #  if you pay off a loan that was $0/month, you suddenly have $0/month extra to budget with.   # paying off a $0,0 credit card eliminates an entire monthly payment, whereas paying $0,0 off a car just makes progress on paper.  sure your next bill will say you owe $0,0 instead of $0,0, but nothing has changed in your monthly expenses psychologically it feels like wasted money.  some people have enough willpower that this is not important.  in most cases, having the willpower means you did not get that far into debt in the first place, but not always.  some people are stupid with money in college then wise up later and now have the willpower to do the most mathematically advantageous thing.  if you pay off a loan that was $0/month, you suddenly have $0/month extra to budget with.  normally if you are paying off debt you should have a fixed amount per month going to paying off debt, so that $0/month is not really  back  until all your debt is paid off.  your monthly expenses are now less, so you need less of an emergency fund.  again, if you are paying off the debt properly, your monthly expenses are the same, because you are putting the same amount towards debt each month.  if you have an emergency and need emergency money, you can only pay the minimum that month, and use the funds you would be paying your debt with to fix the emergency.  if you stop paying off debts for whatever reason, you still have immediate benefits from your efforts because you have eliminated a few monthly payments.  if a financial issue like a disability or long term unemployment comes up, you wo not rack up interest and late fees on a debt that does not exist.  number of payments is for the most part irrelevant, except maybe for late fees.  interest will still accumulate at the same rate.  late fees might be your only good argument.  interest racks up at the same rate, because it is based on the total amount owed   eliminating the number of payments you have makes it easier to keep track of them and not miss any or incur late fees.  it is also psychologically better to have fewer debts you owe.  again, some people have willpower.  also again, number of debts is not really relevant most of the time, its the total amount owed that is what you should pay attention to.   #  you cannot make a blanket statement like you did above, because it implies it is  always  better for  everyone , and that is clearly false.   #  this only works for people on whom it works.  it does not work well for people who get no psychological benefit from the snowball method.  you cannot make a blanket statement like you did above, because it implies it is  always  better for  everyone , and that is clearly false.  personally, i ignored the snowball method because i realized that paying down 0 interest loans are more important than paying down 0 interest loans.  as a result i am no longer paying off my debt something i would still have to be doing if i used the snowball method instead.   #  for people who have more money, they are more interested in paying less overall.   #  regarding the emergency fund, what i mean is that if you pay down small debts, your total monthly minimum payments might go from say $0/month to $0/month.  that is a big difference in an emergency.  when you are laid off you do not care that you are $0k in debt instead of $0k if you ca not make your minimum payments.   for presently cash strapped people, it makes more sense to use this method.   for people who have more money, they are more interested in paying less overall.  most people are cash strapped.  i think the method that applies to most people is the better method.  i also think in general people overestimate their own will power in long term things like this.  it is such a high goal it is like training for a marathon right off the bat instead of starting with a 0k.   #  i do not think it should be the default advice given, as it is not the best method.   #  i guess  better  is a vague term to use.  i think the snowball is better for the very fact that it would help the most people in most situations.  what prompted this is that a lot of the financial subs always give the blanket advice of paying off the highest interest debt first.  i hear that advice in real life a lot too.  i do not think it should be the default advice given, as it is not the best method.   #  once that debt is eliminated you move on to the debt with the next highest interest rate, rinse and repeat.   #  the biggest issue i have with your view is that you say the snowball method is  better  than any other method.  better is hardly an objective term, so it makes it pretty difficult to argue against.  but i will try.  i believe the avalanche method is the best method to eliminate debt if you have the discipline to follow through without seeing quick results.  the avalanche method is simply making minimum payments on all of your debt and putting anything that is left towards the debt with the highest interest rate.  once that debt is eliminated you move on to the debt with the next highest interest rate, rinse and repeat.  this method will require you to pay less money to eliminate your debt, making it, imho, better.  the only exception i would make to this would be to begin by paying off a credit card, even if it is not the debt with the highest interest rate.  the reason for this is that it kills two birds with one stone.  you eliminate a debt and simultaneously create an emergency fund.  i credit this last part to mr.  money mustache URL
a debt snowball is when you pay your debts off in order of smallest to largest, ignoring interest rates.   advantages    it is psychologically beneficial.  paying off a $0,0 credit card eliminates an entire monthly payment, whereas paying $0,0 off a car just makes progress on paper.  sure your next bill will say you owe $0,0 instead of $0,0, but nothing has changed in your monthly expenses psychologically it feels like wasted money.    when you pay off a debt, the amount you were paying towards it each month is an instant raise to yourself.  if you pay off a loan that was $0/month, you suddenly have $0/month extra to budget with.    paying off a small debt instantly  adds  to your emergency fund.  your monthly expenses are now less, so you need less of an emergency fund.    it wipes small debts out completely.  if you stop paying off debts for whatever reason, you still have immediate benefits from your efforts because you have eliminated a few monthly payments.  if a financial issue like a disability or long term unemployment comes up, you wo not rack up interest and late fees on a debt that does not exist.    eliminating the number of payments you have makes it easier to keep track of them and not miss any or incur late fees.  it is also psychologically better to have fewer debts you owe.  i am aware that mathematically it is cheapest to pay it off in the order of highest to lowest interest, but i think that the benefits i listed out are worth paying a little extra interest for.   #  paying off a small debt instantly  adds  to your emergency fund.   #  your monthly expenses are now less, so you need less of an emergency fund.   # paying off a $0,0 credit card eliminates an entire monthly payment, whereas paying $0,0 off a car just makes progress on paper.  sure your next bill will say you owe $0,0 instead of $0,0, but nothing has changed in your monthly expenses psychologically it feels like wasted money.  some people have enough willpower that this is not important.  in most cases, having the willpower means you did not get that far into debt in the first place, but not always.  some people are stupid with money in college then wise up later and now have the willpower to do the most mathematically advantageous thing.  if you pay off a loan that was $0/month, you suddenly have $0/month extra to budget with.  normally if you are paying off debt you should have a fixed amount per month going to paying off debt, so that $0/month is not really  back  until all your debt is paid off.  your monthly expenses are now less, so you need less of an emergency fund.  again, if you are paying off the debt properly, your monthly expenses are the same, because you are putting the same amount towards debt each month.  if you have an emergency and need emergency money, you can only pay the minimum that month, and use the funds you would be paying your debt with to fix the emergency.  if you stop paying off debts for whatever reason, you still have immediate benefits from your efforts because you have eliminated a few monthly payments.  if a financial issue like a disability or long term unemployment comes up, you wo not rack up interest and late fees on a debt that does not exist.  number of payments is for the most part irrelevant, except maybe for late fees.  interest will still accumulate at the same rate.  late fees might be your only good argument.  interest racks up at the same rate, because it is based on the total amount owed   eliminating the number of payments you have makes it easier to keep track of them and not miss any or incur late fees.  it is also psychologically better to have fewer debts you owe.  again, some people have willpower.  also again, number of debts is not really relevant most of the time, its the total amount owed that is what you should pay attention to.   #  as a result i am no longer paying off my debt something i would still have to be doing if i used the snowball method instead.   #  this only works for people on whom it works.  it does not work well for people who get no psychological benefit from the snowball method.  you cannot make a blanket statement like you did above, because it implies it is  always  better for  everyone , and that is clearly false.  personally, i ignored the snowball method because i realized that paying down 0 interest loans are more important than paying down 0 interest loans.  as a result i am no longer paying off my debt something i would still have to be doing if i used the snowball method instead.   #  i think the method that applies to most people is the better method.   #  regarding the emergency fund, what i mean is that if you pay down small debts, your total monthly minimum payments might go from say $0/month to $0/month.  that is a big difference in an emergency.  when you are laid off you do not care that you are $0k in debt instead of $0k if you ca not make your minimum payments.   for presently cash strapped people, it makes more sense to use this method.   for people who have more money, they are more interested in paying less overall.  most people are cash strapped.  i think the method that applies to most people is the better method.  i also think in general people overestimate their own will power in long term things like this.  it is such a high goal it is like training for a marathon right off the bat instead of starting with a 0k.   #  i do not think it should be the default advice given, as it is not the best method.   #  i guess  better  is a vague term to use.  i think the snowball is better for the very fact that it would help the most people in most situations.  what prompted this is that a lot of the financial subs always give the blanket advice of paying off the highest interest debt first.  i hear that advice in real life a lot too.  i do not think it should be the default advice given, as it is not the best method.   #  i believe the avalanche method is the best method to eliminate debt if you have the discipline to follow through without seeing quick results.   #  the biggest issue i have with your view is that you say the snowball method is  better  than any other method.  better is hardly an objective term, so it makes it pretty difficult to argue against.  but i will try.  i believe the avalanche method is the best method to eliminate debt if you have the discipline to follow through without seeing quick results.  the avalanche method is simply making minimum payments on all of your debt and putting anything that is left towards the debt with the highest interest rate.  once that debt is eliminated you move on to the debt with the next highest interest rate, rinse and repeat.  this method will require you to pay less money to eliminate your debt, making it, imho, better.  the only exception i would make to this would be to begin by paying off a credit card, even if it is not the debt with the highest interest rate.  the reason for this is that it kills two birds with one stone.  you eliminate a debt and simultaneously create an emergency fund.  i credit this last part to mr.  money mustache URL
i personally ca not imagine a situation were i would address my gf, fiance, or wife as my so significant other ; maybe in a charming letter or speech but other than that, i would never call her that on a regular basis or even on reddit.  if i went up to my friends and said i had fun with my  so  last night, they would be confused, and maybe even worried at first, as to who i was talking about.  when a redditors do it, i imagine they want to keep the relationship private or want to hide something.  though the reader probably does not think too much about it, they still see that the op of that post wanted to keep the relationship a secret.  but even if the op said  my bf  or  my gf , it would draw roughly the same or even less attention than by saying  my so.   even if their boyfriend or girlfriend was a transsexual/hermaphrodite, they should at least address their partner the way  they  want to be addressed.  if they both ca not agree on a term, then there is something more important to discuss between the two.   #  i imagine they want to keep the relationship private or want to hide something.   #  that could be a reason for it.   # that could be a reason for it.  some people like to be as careful as possible on the internet and by using a generic term like  so  they hide the gender and approximate age of their so while also hiding their own sexuality without taking away anything from the story.  furthermore, saying so puts more of the focus on the story than on the genders of the storyteller and their so.  generally when the gender of the person is so is important to the story, it is included.  most of the time, however, gender is not at all important and only adds unnecessary details to the story.   #  there is a million legit reasons why some people would want to keep the details of their relationship private.   #  so is used when you do not want to specify their gender, or the type of relationship boyfriend, husband, etc .  it is a more private term that communicates less information.  it also hides sexual orientation in some cases.  this has a valid use online.  and sometimes in real life.  with close friends, however, they already know whether you two just met, have been dating, or are married.  thus, the added  privacy  of the term is useless and needless.  you are suggesting, however, that there could be  no possible reason  why someone would want to not disclose sexual orientation or relationship type to potentially complete strangers and this is clearly incorrect.  there is a million legit reasons why some people would want to keep the details of their relationship private.  eta: it may bring slightly more attention to it, but that trade off might be well worth it.   #  it is a more private term that communicates less information.   # it is a more private term that communicates less information.  it also hides sexual orientation in some cases.  this has a valid use online.  and sometimes in real life.  if they want to hide their sexual orientation online the best way to do that is by not posting a pic of their boyfriend or girlfriend in the first place.  it is not like they are giving names or locations.  actually saying  my significant other  vaguely in a real life will lead people to believe your hiding something and puts you in the spotlight more than by saying you were simply  hanging out with a friend  which to me sounds like a better coverup if you were hiding your sexual orientation .  there is a million legit reasons why some people would want to keep the details of their relationship private.  i can see this being the case if the post puts you and your loved ones  identities at stake but the way i have seen it done on reddit at least are usually gifts or some other minor forms of love and affection.  i highly doubt someone can identify your or anyone you know with a gift they got you for your birthday.   #  some people judge based on this, and some people want to avoid judgment and so use the term  so .   #  there is a sense that a husband is more valid than a partner, which is more valid than a boyfriend, which is more valid than a fwb, etc.  some people judge based on this, and some people want to avoid judgment and so use the term  so .  the response could be very different for me buying an expensive piece of jewellery for my girlfriend, versus buying it for my wife.  similarly, the response might be positive if i buy a cheap ring for my new girlfriend, but very negative if i buy a cheap ring for my wife of 0 years.  and some people want to avoid such judgments, because they feel it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.   #  i use it online to keep it gender neutral, as i always try to keep my writing gender neutral unless the gender is relevant.   #  i use  so  online only and never in person.  i use it online to keep it gender neutral, as i always try to keep my writing gender neutral unless the gender is relevant.  i would say my reason is pretty damn valid.  when i used it on an ask subreddit like askreddit or askwomen/askmen, it is very specifically to be inclusive to people with so is of any gender.  if i am asking askwomen what they bought their partner on their last anniversary, i want to be inclusive to partners of any gender, so i say so instead of boyfriend or husband.
i live in czech rep.  and our parliament just agreed on 0 quota dedicated to female candidates in each party is candidate list for elections.  parties without at least 0 of women in their slate will be financially penalised.  first of all, is less women in politics even an issue ? is not it possible that maybe there are not as much women in our society in general that would like to pursue a carrier of politician ? maybe there are not as much women interested in politics and less women in political parties are direct consequence of this ? i am not a women, so i would to hear a perspective of a woman.  do not you find it offensive to get into political party just because of you are a women and not because you are capable of doing so as a person ? i think this is the main issue, from now on, every women would need to prove theirselves twice as hard they really are capable politicians, not that they are here just because some quota said so.  if there is an issue of discriminating women in political parties and i am not exactly convinced about that, as i stated above , i do not think any artificial quota will magically make this go away.  society as whole needs to change their thinking.  stop thinking in terms of women job/men job.  maybe this will take more time, but it is the only way to actually stop discrimination.  i do not think positive discrimination can help get rid of discrimination.   #  is less women in politics even an issue ?  #  is not it possible that maybe there are not as much women in our society in general that would like to pursue a carrier of politician ?  # is not it possible that maybe there are not as much women in our society in general that would like to pursue a carrier of politician ? maybe there are not as much women interested in politics and less women in political parties are direct consequence of this ? people say this about a lot of things, but there is no good reason to believe that it is true.  i am a woman programmer people try to tell me all the time  maybe girls just do not like programming  but that is not true in my experience.  lots of girls start of enjoying programming and then get put of because of sexism or attitude or lack of encouragement or other things.  it is very possible the same thing happens to women in politics.  also, it is a  good thing  for any country to have women in politics.  having a more diverse group of politicians in terms of gender, race, etc means that your politicians are representing a greater range of the people in your country and are bringing a wider range of perspectives to the discussion.  in my country, decisions about women is health and reproductive rights have been made by an all male group, with no input or understand of the issue from a woman is perspective, which is just silly.  i think this is the main issue, from now on, every women would need to prove theirselves twice as hard they really are capable politicians, not that they are here just because some quota said so.  you are correct that this is a problem.  it  is  frustrating when people say  you only have that job because you are a girl, not because you are good .  but we have to fight that by showing that we can do the job.  it  is  a flawed system, but if there is no better alternative, i would rather have a slightly flawed system than have a situation where no women are represented in the politics of my country or in engineering, or anything else .   #  without fail, every single one of them told me:  well, i wanted to take $other science program, but they made us take intro cs.   # and i would like to ask you a question.  i feel like a lot of the voices that you hear publicly bloggers, outspoken community leaders, and even local news sources will often put the blame primarily on the  bro yness  of the industry here i am in the sf bay area .  however, this explanation has felt a little bit too  blame the symptom  to me.  on the one hand, i have somehow navigated through 0 employers now without any of them satisfying a single sexism stereotype.  on the other hand: programming is a hard, challenging job that requires years of education and training, and blaming the problem on the here and now seems superficial.  to me, i see the problem more as a supply problem as anything else.  colloquially: my team would explicitly preferentially hire female programmers over male programmers, all else equal, specifically to maintain diversity.  however,  we ca not .  we have no female applicants.  occasionally we get a few who have just graduated from a code school, but we ca not hire them; there is a difference between being able to spin up a nodejs project in a couple of hours, and being able to maintain a 0 year old, 0,0loc codebase.  the way i see it, there are systemic social biases read: institutionalized sexism that come in to play the better part of a decade before a given hypothetical woman would even be in a position to enter the industry.  the whole barbie doll  math is hard, lets go shopping  thing.  and because i see it this way, i feel like focusing on the superficial  bro y  problems of the here and now are misleading.  i see it as a much better, more effective solution, to start  strongly  focusing on addressing sexism and promoting equality much earlier on.  we need more teachers to stop telling girls they are bad at math.  we need more highschool cs programs to stop being sausage fests.  we need more women  starting  cs programs.  anecdotally: my university had a substantially higher than average gender balance in computer science.  we were approaching 0.  i got to know a few of the women in my class, and i asked them about this.  without fail, every single one of them told me:  well, i wanted to take $other science program, but they made us take intro cs.  and when i found out intro cs was taught by a female professor, it helped me realize that i could also succeed in this program .  i guess this is a long winded way of me saying: i feel like a lot of the efforts to address the gender balance in the tech industry are misguided and, as a result, will be ineffective.  what are your thoughts ?  #  going to events, publicising your company, that sort of thing ?  #  quick comment now because i am out but i would love to come back to this discussion.  i do not think that focusing on the tech industry alone is the solution, but i actually do think it is necessary.  if you want to hire women, are you making the effort to show you are not part of the  brogrammer  culture ? going to events, publicising your company, that sort of thing ? a lot of women will only apply to companies where they have some existing way of knowing the culture there.  but i think a lot more work needs to go on the stages before this schools, colleges/uni, etc.  we need to try to get these girls before they are discouraged.   #  if women are hired in corresponding career fields then it can show people that women are accepted into that field.   #  you are right in that there are not enough female applicants to stem based jobs.  you are also right that there is a societal pressure against girls going into maths/sciences etc in their education.  encouraging and hiring female applicants to such jobs is one part of a wider solution to the problem.  if girls are encouraged to pursue stem subjects, it helps.  if women are hired in corresponding career fields then it can show people that women are accepted into that field.  you need a combination to help with stronger gender equality.  it takes time for this kind of change to come into place and while it is imperative for girls to be encouraged to go into traditionally male subjects, knowing that there will be a career at the end of it helps hugely.  might not have phrased it very well, but basically we need to intervene earlier and ensure balance against discrimination in actual hiring practices.   #  and it certainly should be wrong to discriminate against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.   #  no, quotas based on gender for either side should not be imposed.  rather, we should focus on ensuring society treats both genders as equals on a fundamental basis.  men and women should have equal legal rights, equal legal protections, and equal opportunities for education and employment.  notice, i said opportunities, not handouts.  rights,  not  privileges.  protections, not immunities.  as soon as we say it is okay to give one group an advantage over another, no matter what the rationale, we have thrown that  equal opportunity  ideal out the window.  we all share the same fundamental human dignity, and that no person should be treated as superior to another in the eyes of the law or government.  and it certainly should be wrong to discriminate against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  btw, quotas are discrimination .  but we also have to stop buying into the myth that everybody is the same.  some are smarter than others.  some stronger.  some faster.  and men and women, while equal, have different strengths and weaknesses on the whole, because there are physical and psychological differences between the sexes.  the fact that the majority of college freshmen are women, and yet only a minority of women choose stem fields is telling, given that enrollment is completely voluntary.  and while some will claim that this is because of systematic oppression against women in those fields, i have yet to see an example of a woman being denied the opportunity to study engineering or computer science simply because she is a woman outside of islamic nations.  .  the same goes for the nursing field.  why are not more men in the field ? sure, prevailing cultural attitudes do have an effect.  it is traditionally a career occupied mostly by women.  but enrollment is voluntary; there is nothing to stop men from enrolling, just like there is nothing stopping women from becoming engineers.  we live in a free society ! or at least one that is  supposed  to be free.  and part of living in a free society means accepting the decisions that other people make,  even when they do not always make the choices we want them to .
i live in czech rep.  and our parliament just agreed on 0 quota dedicated to female candidates in each party is candidate list for elections.  parties without at least 0 of women in their slate will be financially penalised.  first of all, is less women in politics even an issue ? is not it possible that maybe there are not as much women in our society in general that would like to pursue a carrier of politician ? maybe there are not as much women interested in politics and less women in political parties are direct consequence of this ? i am not a women, so i would to hear a perspective of a woman.  do not you find it offensive to get into political party just because of you are a women and not because you are capable of doing so as a person ? i think this is the main issue, from now on, every women would need to prove theirselves twice as hard they really are capable politicians, not that they are here just because some quota said so.  if there is an issue of discriminating women in political parties and i am not exactly convinced about that, as i stated above , i do not think any artificial quota will magically make this go away.  society as whole needs to change their thinking.  stop thinking in terms of women job/men job.  maybe this will take more time, but it is the only way to actually stop discrimination.  i do not think positive discrimination can help get rid of discrimination.   #  do not you find it offensive to get into political party just because of you are a women and not because you are capable of doing so as a person ?  #  i think this is the main issue, from now on, every women would need to prove theirselves twice as hard they really are capable politicians, not that they are here just because some quota said so.   # is not it possible that maybe there are not as much women in our society in general that would like to pursue a carrier of politician ? maybe there are not as much women interested in politics and less women in political parties are direct consequence of this ? people say this about a lot of things, but there is no good reason to believe that it is true.  i am a woman programmer people try to tell me all the time  maybe girls just do not like programming  but that is not true in my experience.  lots of girls start of enjoying programming and then get put of because of sexism or attitude or lack of encouragement or other things.  it is very possible the same thing happens to women in politics.  also, it is a  good thing  for any country to have women in politics.  having a more diverse group of politicians in terms of gender, race, etc means that your politicians are representing a greater range of the people in your country and are bringing a wider range of perspectives to the discussion.  in my country, decisions about women is health and reproductive rights have been made by an all male group, with no input or understand of the issue from a woman is perspective, which is just silly.  i think this is the main issue, from now on, every women would need to prove theirselves twice as hard they really are capable politicians, not that they are here just because some quota said so.  you are correct that this is a problem.  it  is  frustrating when people say  you only have that job because you are a girl, not because you are good .  but we have to fight that by showing that we can do the job.  it  is  a flawed system, but if there is no better alternative, i would rather have a slightly flawed system than have a situation where no women are represented in the politics of my country or in engineering, or anything else .   #  however, this explanation has felt a little bit too  blame the symptom  to me.   # and i would like to ask you a question.  i feel like a lot of the voices that you hear publicly bloggers, outspoken community leaders, and even local news sources will often put the blame primarily on the  bro yness  of the industry here i am in the sf bay area .  however, this explanation has felt a little bit too  blame the symptom  to me.  on the one hand, i have somehow navigated through 0 employers now without any of them satisfying a single sexism stereotype.  on the other hand: programming is a hard, challenging job that requires years of education and training, and blaming the problem on the here and now seems superficial.  to me, i see the problem more as a supply problem as anything else.  colloquially: my team would explicitly preferentially hire female programmers over male programmers, all else equal, specifically to maintain diversity.  however,  we ca not .  we have no female applicants.  occasionally we get a few who have just graduated from a code school, but we ca not hire them; there is a difference between being able to spin up a nodejs project in a couple of hours, and being able to maintain a 0 year old, 0,0loc codebase.  the way i see it, there are systemic social biases read: institutionalized sexism that come in to play the better part of a decade before a given hypothetical woman would even be in a position to enter the industry.  the whole barbie doll  math is hard, lets go shopping  thing.  and because i see it this way, i feel like focusing on the superficial  bro y  problems of the here and now are misleading.  i see it as a much better, more effective solution, to start  strongly  focusing on addressing sexism and promoting equality much earlier on.  we need more teachers to stop telling girls they are bad at math.  we need more highschool cs programs to stop being sausage fests.  we need more women  starting  cs programs.  anecdotally: my university had a substantially higher than average gender balance in computer science.  we were approaching 0.  i got to know a few of the women in my class, and i asked them about this.  without fail, every single one of them told me:  well, i wanted to take $other science program, but they made us take intro cs.  and when i found out intro cs was taught by a female professor, it helped me realize that i could also succeed in this program .  i guess this is a long winded way of me saying: i feel like a lot of the efforts to address the gender balance in the tech industry are misguided and, as a result, will be ineffective.  what are your thoughts ?  #  quick comment now because i am out but i would love to come back to this discussion.   #  quick comment now because i am out but i would love to come back to this discussion.  i do not think that focusing on the tech industry alone is the solution, but i actually do think it is necessary.  if you want to hire women, are you making the effort to show you are not part of the  brogrammer  culture ? going to events, publicising your company, that sort of thing ? a lot of women will only apply to companies where they have some existing way of knowing the culture there.  but i think a lot more work needs to go on the stages before this schools, colleges/uni, etc.  we need to try to get these girls before they are discouraged.   #  you are also right that there is a societal pressure against girls going into maths/sciences etc in their education.   #  you are right in that there are not enough female applicants to stem based jobs.  you are also right that there is a societal pressure against girls going into maths/sciences etc in their education.  encouraging and hiring female applicants to such jobs is one part of a wider solution to the problem.  if girls are encouraged to pursue stem subjects, it helps.  if women are hired in corresponding career fields then it can show people that women are accepted into that field.  you need a combination to help with stronger gender equality.  it takes time for this kind of change to come into place and while it is imperative for girls to be encouraged to go into traditionally male subjects, knowing that there will be a career at the end of it helps hugely.  might not have phrased it very well, but basically we need to intervene earlier and ensure balance against discrimination in actual hiring practices.   #  and men and women, while equal, have different strengths and weaknesses on the whole, because there are physical and psychological differences between the sexes.   #  no, quotas based on gender for either side should not be imposed.  rather, we should focus on ensuring society treats both genders as equals on a fundamental basis.  men and women should have equal legal rights, equal legal protections, and equal opportunities for education and employment.  notice, i said opportunities, not handouts.  rights,  not  privileges.  protections, not immunities.  as soon as we say it is okay to give one group an advantage over another, no matter what the rationale, we have thrown that  equal opportunity  ideal out the window.  we all share the same fundamental human dignity, and that no person should be treated as superior to another in the eyes of the law or government.  and it certainly should be wrong to discriminate against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  btw, quotas are discrimination .  but we also have to stop buying into the myth that everybody is the same.  some are smarter than others.  some stronger.  some faster.  and men and women, while equal, have different strengths and weaknesses on the whole, because there are physical and psychological differences between the sexes.  the fact that the majority of college freshmen are women, and yet only a minority of women choose stem fields is telling, given that enrollment is completely voluntary.  and while some will claim that this is because of systematic oppression against women in those fields, i have yet to see an example of a woman being denied the opportunity to study engineering or computer science simply because she is a woman outside of islamic nations.  .  the same goes for the nursing field.  why are not more men in the field ? sure, prevailing cultural attitudes do have an effect.  it is traditionally a career occupied mostly by women.  but enrollment is voluntary; there is nothing to stop men from enrolling, just like there is nothing stopping women from becoming engineers.  we live in a free society ! or at least one that is  supposed  to be free.  and part of living in a free society means accepting the decisions that other people make,  even when they do not always make the choices we want them to .
i have no formal education in logic or philosophy, but here goes.  this is all just based on random thoughts i had, but was sparked from the whole 0 thing.  if i had the necessary programming knowledge, i would have the ability to build a calculator that can do  correct  math for every single calculation possible, with the exception of 00.  i can rewire something somewhere to make it permanently think that 00 0.  now this leads to the simple  what if  situation of if we could just be wired wrong in that respect.  however, humans take things an extra step, probably in more ways than one.  one of these ways is trial and error.  for example, even if we were wired from birth to believe that 00 0, we would quickly realize the problem when we are doing simple tasks such as measuring or counting, and what we expect to come out as a 0 keeps being a 0.  so what i am proposing is a lot more far fetched than simply that we are calculating things incorrectly.  in order to explain what i am actually proposing, let me use the artificial intelligence analogy again.  say i built a robot which has a calculator but also can use basic learning like humans to make sure its calculations are correct.  i could still trick the robot into believing that 00 0 by simply manipulating every single one of its experiences so that they are consistent with this belief.  say it sees 0 apples, and then it sees someone walking over with another 0 apples.  right before putting down the two apples next to the other two, a 0th apple is subtly placed there as well.  the a. i.  never realizes that it is being tricked.  although unlikely, taking matrix like situations into account you ca not rule out the possibility that this could be happening to us, can you ? to put a nail in the coffin consider this.  instead of  00 0 , consider  0 x 0 0 .  if i told you that i could be tricking you with that equation, you would be very quick to accept that possibility because you do not have that one memorized.  but the problem is as you get simpler and simpler there is no hard boundary where math becomes magically something you  know  0.  you will be more and more confident with your knowledge as the numbers get simpler and have less digits, but it never becomes something you know with complete certainty, even the idea that  00 0 .   essentially my point is that everything, even the most basic foundations of our logic, could be completely wrong.  i can prove this simply because i can imagine creating an artificial intelligence in a controlled environment with flawed basic logic.  edit: and, in case you did not get this, i am trying to say that we could be  programmed  to have an incorrect belief just like the a. i. , especially if we are in a matrix or brain in a vat situation.    tl;dr: see my conclusion paragraph above.   here is my response comment URL  #  i could still trick the robot into believing that 00 0 by simply manipulating every single one of its experiences so that they are consistent with this belief.   #  say it sees 0 apples, and then it sees someone walking over with another 0 apples.   #  although i agree that it is technically impossible to be 0 certain about something, i would like to point something out.  say it sees 0 apples, and then it sees someone walking over with another 0 apples.  right before putting down the two apples next to the other two, a 0th apple is subtly placed there as well.  the a. i.  never realizes that it is being tricked.  counting apples is not mathematics.  what an advanced ai would likely do is conclude that particular axioms of mathematics ones that lead to 00 0 do not apply to the situation at hand.  mathematics by itself says nothing about the real world.  you can have a system of numbers where 00 0 just as easily as a system of numbers where 00 0.  the former system cannot be shown inconsistent, or even false, by experiments with counting apples.  instead, what you are really experimenting with is which axioms of mathematics apply to the real world situation of apple counting.  is  00 0  true ? yes, in some number systems, just not any that are known to be particularly useful in real life or to be interesting mathematically.   #  in which case, your answer is meaningless you might as well say  00 tree  because the computer would have no logic to answer this, it is just repeating back a string.   #  to teach a computer/robot maths, you teach it basic logic.  you teach it that 00 0 first, or else it does t understand what 0 is.  then when you teach it what 00 is, it will have the knowledge that 00 is the equivalent to 0000, etc.  logically, you cannot make a computer that will get 0 from 00 unless you do not  teach  it, you just give it outputs directly related to specific inputs.  in which case, your answer is meaningless you might as well say  00 tree  because the computer would have no logic to answer this, it is just repeating back a string.   #  so yes, you could teach a calculator or a computer to lie.   #  no, because it can be applied and toyed with.  so to start, we all accept that numbers are just a concept.  but the concept is tied to a reality.  show me what 0 apples look like in your hand.  now go to the fridge and come back with enough to make it 0 apples.  you are going to have to go get 0 more, otherwise you wo not have 0 apples.  if you come back with 0 more and tell me you have 0 total, you are simply renaming the number 0 and calling it 0.  if it helps, drop the name entirely and imagine every number represents a quantity of apples.  do not call it  0,  simply point at the pile of 0 apples.  now we are dealing in entirely natural concepts and there is no  human  influence attached.  again, point to the 0 apples and then recreate that pile starting with 0 piles of 0 apples.  you wo not get there unless you also grab 0 more.  so yes, you could teach a calculator or a computer to lie.  but it will either be inconsistent 00 0, but 0 0 0 ? or will simply be a calculator that expresses both the number 0 and 0 as a 0.   #  ok i see what you are getting at.   #  ok i see what you are getting at.  but is not there still the possibility that the logic could be flawed ? i admit, i really do not know what i am talking about when it comes to how a calculator is programmed.  specifically could you explain what you mean when you say that  logically, you cannot make a computer that will get 0 from 00 unless you do not  teach  it  ? how are you so sure that you cannot do this ?  #  that is not really how i understand the discussion at all.   #  that is not really how i understand the discussion at all.  the discussion is not  can you ever imagine 00 0  because we just by talking about it we can imagine it.  there is no reason, as far as i can tell, to believe our answers are being fed by a simulation in any way.  what i was discussing is that based on everything we know about the world so far, the way we understand mathematics is by learning principles and applying these to examples.  if your suggestion was correct, that a simulation was generating incorrect answers, then our entire understanding and basis of maths is incorrect anyway.
what does such a sentence even mean ? can i be a horse born in a human body just by claiming it ? sex is solely determined by the sex chromosome, and there is not anything else to it.  i understand if someone likes to assume roles that are not traditionally linked to their sex, or dress that way.  but that is not them being  a man in a woman is body  or the other way around, it is society is expectations being too conservative so that it is viewed as surprising for some.  short haircut and drinking beer does not make you a man, having a y chromosome does.   #  sex is solely determined by the sex chromosome, and there is not anything else to it.   #  even before we get to the whole  man in a woman is body  thing, this is demonstrably not true.   # even before we get to the whole  man in a woman is body  thing, this is demonstrably not true.  your chromosomes only contain the instructions.  i can buy a lego set with instructions on how to make a race car and end up with a space ship if i do not follow the instructions.  does not make my space ship a car though.  there are cases where the human body does not get the right bath of hormones in the uterus when developing, or the sex organs do not develop the right way, or any number of things do not go according to plan and you end up with someone who is not strictly male or female.  they would have physical qualities of both.  your physical sex is not a binary option.  it is a generalization.  male generally means  this person has a penis and the stuff that goes along with it .  female generally means  this person has a vagina and the stuff that goes along with it.   but not having a penis does not imply having a vagina.  one can have both, or at least parts of both.  a person can be genetically male but have breasts and no penis.  these things happen.  and even if we ignore that, if we really do decide that the genes are the  only  determining factor and that xy is man and xx is woman, then what about people who have neither of those combinations ? so the situation is clearly more complex than just man or woman which is determined by genes alone.  now, to address your main point.  there is evidence that male and female brains develop slightly differently.  what actual differences in brain function this causes is not really that well understood, but then again the brain is not well understood in general.  however, among people who claim to be stuck in the wrong body, we can scan their brain and see that there are abnormalities in them URL   they found significant differences between male and female brains in four regions of white matter   and the female to male transsexual people had white matter in these regions that resembled a male brain   guillamon is not sure whether the four regions are at all associated with notions of gender, but ivanka savic berglund at the karolinska institute in stockholm, sweden, thinks they might be.  one of the four regions   the superior longitudinal fascicle   is particularly interesting, she says.   it connects the parietal lobe involved in sensory processing and frontal lobe involved in planning movement and may have implications in body perception.   this is what is meant when someone says they are stuck in a body of the wrong sex.  their brain very literally thinks it is supposed to be in a body of the opposite sex.  this is not just an idea, it is something related to the wiring of your brain.  given that it is much easier to change you body than your brain and that your brain is usually much more strongly associated with your identity many people say they are suck in the wrong body and often do things to change it.   #  only two or three theories really are contested by religious folks lately past 0 0 or so years .   #  no i would not say mostly at all.  there is a long history of science and religion existing harmoniously.  a lot of people in the vatican have a history with at least one form of science.  i believe the pope has a masters in chemistry but i am not sure.  a priest even came up with the big bang theory.  only two or three theories really are contested by religious folks lately past 0 0 or so years .  that is most certainly not most.  also there is some more recent doubt in science when it comes to evolution because of the cambrian explosion.  even darwin acknowledged the ce but thought we would find more evidence in favor of his theory, the opposite is happening but i digress.  the bible mentions no specific way that the universe or animals were created.  also the bible was far ahead of science when it came to what was safe and what was not when it came to food and other things.  depends on how you view science and religion, to me they are fluid but to you maybe not.  if you want sources i will post them later because i am on mobile.   #  i will search for a study on the hormones.   #  that is only one study, and it only looked at certain things.  the amount of gray vs white brain matter, and the sizes of certain portions of the brain.  there are more factors at play, such as hormonal makeup, than they looked at.  or at least what is in the abstract.  that study looks very good for the physical makeup of one is brain, but says nothing to the effect of hormonal differences.  i could be wrong.  i will search for a study on the hormones.  i have also read things about brain wave function, so an fmri study or eeg.  i will look around and try and link.   #  if we can observe change in someones sexuality due to manipulating hormones, then i think it is safe to assume that those introduced imbalances can exist in nature.   #  every single transgender person i know has been attracted to people of their original sex.  that makes them homosexual, if we say that one is  sex  is the presence of xy or xx.  homosexuality involves sex, not gender.  the hole in your argument is saying that homosexuality and being transgender are not related.  they are.  i would have a lot of trouble finding a transgender person who was not attracted to people of their original sex.  i am saying that, in most cases, transexuality is a form of homosexuality.  the two are related to one another.  you put some words in my mouth on this one.  it is reversed from what you assumed i thought.  i think observing the change in response to hormones is relevant, even if my source was not very specific to what we are discussing.  if we can observe change in someones sexuality due to manipulating hormones, then i think it is safe to assume that those introduced imbalances can exist in nature.  think about it: an excess of dopeamine is found in schizophrenia patients.  dopeamine is prescribed for parkinsons patients to help them control their muscles, but the main side effect: hallucinations.  guess what schizophrenia patients have: hallucinations.  one is caused by nature schizophenia and one is caused by hormone manipulation the parkinsons patient .  it would be silly to say that this does not exist for other conditions.  that is where my source becomes relevant.   #  op said they do not believe a man can be born in a women is body and received undeniably false information intended to change his opinion.   #  oh for goodness sakes.  op said they do not believe a man can be born in a women is body and received undeniably false information intended to change his opinion.  no ad hominem attack on me could realize what is demonstratively untrue.  feminism is not a  known hate group.   a few out of place comments pulled from my history and a false description of my beliefs does you no favours either.  i will fight against sexism and genderism for as long as i can.  and i am no longer a moderator of gendercritical.  click your own link and see for yourself.  the fact that you still believed i was suggests to me you have been stalking me for some time.
fact: it is widely accepted that the universe must have a beginning.  claim: intelligent design and the big bang theory explain this phenomenon with the same basic foundation.  id says: there is some intelligent being who exists outside of our understanding of time.  he has no beginning and no end.  he created the universe.  bb says: at some moment, all matter in the universe was contained in one single point.  the big bang took place causing this matter to expand and marked the beginning of the universe.  this matter must have always existed, because based on the laws of science matter cannot be created.  in other words, all matter in the universe must have no beginning and no end.  either you believe in an intelligent being who has no beginning and no end, or you believe in matter that has no beginning and no end.   #  id says: there is some intelligent being who exists outside of our understanding of time.   #  he has no beginning and no end.   # he has no beginning and no end.  he created the universe.  where is the evidence suggesting a being, as opposed to an unknown natural process ? where is the evidence suggesting this being is intelligent, as opposed to some being that is not intelligent but did it anyway ? where is the evidence that this being must exist outside of our understanding of time ? where is the evidence that this being did not have a beginning ? where is the evidence that this being did not have an end ? why is this even a prerequisite for an intelligent designer unless you are trying to sneak some supernatural god concept in there ? where is the evidence that this entity has a gender ? where is the evidence that this entity is gender is male as we understand maleness ? it seems there are lot of poorly supported statements here that  must  be assumed in addition to the assumption of  created the universe .  in fact, if something can just have always have existed without a beginning, why is it not possible that the universe did not always exist without a beginning ? since it is possible, why not save a logical step and just go with  the universe always existed  instead of  isomething which we have no evidence for always existed, and it was responsible for the creation of the universe  ? after all, what you are suggesting, even if we are just going with  something responsible for the creation of our universe  and not anything else has  zero  more explanatory power than just saying the universe always existed.  the big bang took place causing this matter to expand and marked the beginning of the universe.  yes, except it did not mark the beginning of the universe, but merely the beginning of the present state of our universe.  there is a bit of problem with the word  cause  though, since causal relationships necessarily involve time as we understand them, and before the plank time  time  is a meaningless concept, thus therefore causation is also a meaningless concept, but it is pretty much impossible to get around that due to limitations of our language/brains/knowledge.  in any event, there is extremely solid evidence for  all  of this stuff.  no.  energy cannot be created or destroyed.  matter can be created from energy, and be  destroyed  when it changes form to energy.  one has solid supporting evidence.  one does not.  one requires a ton of additional assumptions for zero additional explanatory power.  one does not.  that is pretty different, do not you think ?  #  is it  possible  that that they are correct ?  #  are your serious ? i do not know what the correct answer, neither do they.  i am honest, they are making stuff up.  is it  possible  that that they are correct ? sure, but that would be a complete accident.  what i told you that the cause of big bang is the flying spaghetti monster.  would you criticize my view ?  #  the question being unanswerable though does not presuppose that a god did it, much less that said god guided the development of the universe and of life on earth in particular, much less that evolution by natural selection is false.   #  a question which with our current logical systems is unanswerable.  the question being unanswerable though does not presuppose that a god did it, much less that said god guided the development of the universe and of life on earth in particular, much less that evolution by natural selection is false.  no human statement about whatever events may or may not have occurred before the big bang has ever been meaningful  except for  the realization that such statements are meaningless.  we cannot observe the pre big bang universe, ever, so no statement about it not derived from what we know about the post big bang universe is useful.  and since anything we know about the post big bang universe is useless when applied to the pre big bang universe, we can assume that no statement is useful  period .   #  we also know that there was no spacetime before the big bang.   #  it is not satisfying, but then there is no reason to expect it to be beyond the inflated sense of self importance typical to humanity.  it does not conform to the properties of the universe which we take as axiomatic because those properties had their genesis in a moment at the big bang.  we know that all these things are either properties of spacetime or only ever become meaningful in the context of spacetime.  we also know that there was no spacetime before the big bang.  beyond that the only thing we can claim to understand is that we understand nothing.   #  big bang proponents do not  isay  that all matter was created and expanded from a single point, they  observe  it, based on the current makeup and direction of the world.   #  the big difference between the two is that one is an assumption while the other is an observation.  big bang proponents do not  isay  that all matter was created and expanded from a single point, they  observe  it, based on the current makeup and direction of the world.  the observation is based on data that can be shown false or contradicted.  it is hypothetically possible for scientists to find data showing the universe originated in a different way.  they would then be forced to say that the big bang was not a thing that happened.  not so with id.  if the universe was created by a being that was, by definition, transcendent of this universe, there is no set of data that could disprove the idea of id.  those who support it never have to change or abandon their idea because nothing can contradict it.
fact: it is widely accepted that the universe must have a beginning.  claim: intelligent design and the big bang theory explain this phenomenon with the same basic foundation.  id says: there is some intelligent being who exists outside of our understanding of time.  he has no beginning and no end.  he created the universe.  bb says: at some moment, all matter in the universe was contained in one single point.  the big bang took place causing this matter to expand and marked the beginning of the universe.  this matter must have always existed, because based on the laws of science matter cannot be created.  in other words, all matter in the universe must have no beginning and no end.  either you believe in an intelligent being who has no beginning and no end, or you believe in matter that has no beginning and no end.   #  bb says: at some moment, all matter in the universe was contained in one single point.   #  the big bang took place causing this matter to expand and marked the beginning of the universe.   # he has no beginning and no end.  he created the universe.  where is the evidence suggesting a being, as opposed to an unknown natural process ? where is the evidence suggesting this being is intelligent, as opposed to some being that is not intelligent but did it anyway ? where is the evidence that this being must exist outside of our understanding of time ? where is the evidence that this being did not have a beginning ? where is the evidence that this being did not have an end ? why is this even a prerequisite for an intelligent designer unless you are trying to sneak some supernatural god concept in there ? where is the evidence that this entity has a gender ? where is the evidence that this entity is gender is male as we understand maleness ? it seems there are lot of poorly supported statements here that  must  be assumed in addition to the assumption of  created the universe .  in fact, if something can just have always have existed without a beginning, why is it not possible that the universe did not always exist without a beginning ? since it is possible, why not save a logical step and just go with  the universe always existed  instead of  isomething which we have no evidence for always existed, and it was responsible for the creation of the universe  ? after all, what you are suggesting, even if we are just going with  something responsible for the creation of our universe  and not anything else has  zero  more explanatory power than just saying the universe always existed.  the big bang took place causing this matter to expand and marked the beginning of the universe.  yes, except it did not mark the beginning of the universe, but merely the beginning of the present state of our universe.  there is a bit of problem with the word  cause  though, since causal relationships necessarily involve time as we understand them, and before the plank time  time  is a meaningless concept, thus therefore causation is also a meaningless concept, but it is pretty much impossible to get around that due to limitations of our language/brains/knowledge.  in any event, there is extremely solid evidence for  all  of this stuff.  no.  energy cannot be created or destroyed.  matter can be created from energy, and be  destroyed  when it changes form to energy.  one has solid supporting evidence.  one does not.  one requires a ton of additional assumptions for zero additional explanatory power.  one does not.  that is pretty different, do not you think ?  #  i do not know what the correct answer, neither do they.   #  are your serious ? i do not know what the correct answer, neither do they.  i am honest, they are making stuff up.  is it  possible  that that they are correct ? sure, but that would be a complete accident.  what i told you that the cause of big bang is the flying spaghetti monster.  would you criticize my view ?  #  and since anything we know about the post big bang universe is useless when applied to the pre big bang universe, we can assume that no statement is useful  period .   #  a question which with our current logical systems is unanswerable.  the question being unanswerable though does not presuppose that a god did it, much less that said god guided the development of the universe and of life on earth in particular, much less that evolution by natural selection is false.  no human statement about whatever events may or may not have occurred before the big bang has ever been meaningful  except for  the realization that such statements are meaningless.  we cannot observe the pre big bang universe, ever, so no statement about it not derived from what we know about the post big bang universe is useful.  and since anything we know about the post big bang universe is useless when applied to the pre big bang universe, we can assume that no statement is useful  period .   #  beyond that the only thing we can claim to understand is that we understand nothing.   #  it is not satisfying, but then there is no reason to expect it to be beyond the inflated sense of self importance typical to humanity.  it does not conform to the properties of the universe which we take as axiomatic because those properties had their genesis in a moment at the big bang.  we know that all these things are either properties of spacetime or only ever become meaningful in the context of spacetime.  we also know that there was no spacetime before the big bang.  beyond that the only thing we can claim to understand is that we understand nothing.   #  they would then be forced to say that the big bang was not a thing that happened.   #  the big difference between the two is that one is an assumption while the other is an observation.  big bang proponents do not  isay  that all matter was created and expanded from a single point, they  observe  it, based on the current makeup and direction of the world.  the observation is based on data that can be shown false or contradicted.  it is hypothetically possible for scientists to find data showing the universe originated in a different way.  they would then be forced to say that the big bang was not a thing that happened.  not so with id.  if the universe was created by a being that was, by definition, transcendent of this universe, there is no set of data that could disprove the idea of id.  those who support it never have to change or abandon their idea because nothing can contradict it.
fact: it is widely accepted that the universe must have a beginning.  claim: intelligent design and the big bang theory explain this phenomenon with the same basic foundation.  id says: there is some intelligent being who exists outside of our understanding of time.  he has no beginning and no end.  he created the universe.  bb says: at some moment, all matter in the universe was contained in one single point.  the big bang took place causing this matter to expand and marked the beginning of the universe.  this matter must have always existed, because based on the laws of science matter cannot be created.  in other words, all matter in the universe must have no beginning and no end.  either you believe in an intelligent being who has no beginning and no end, or you believe in matter that has no beginning and no end.   #  either you believe in an intelligent being who has no beginning and no end, or you believe in matter that has no beginning and no end.   #  fair enough, but that still does not mean id and bb are not very different.   # fair enough, but that still does not mean id and bb are not very different.  rather it just means that they have at least one element in common.  id says that the universe was designed intelligently.  bb says that the universe was not designed intelligently.  i would say that makes the two very different.   #  sure, but that would be a complete accident.   #  are your serious ? i do not know what the correct answer, neither do they.  i am honest, they are making stuff up.  is it  possible  that that they are correct ? sure, but that would be a complete accident.  what i told you that the cause of big bang is the flying spaghetti monster.  would you criticize my view ?  #  the question being unanswerable though does not presuppose that a god did it, much less that said god guided the development of the universe and of life on earth in particular, much less that evolution by natural selection is false.   #  a question which with our current logical systems is unanswerable.  the question being unanswerable though does not presuppose that a god did it, much less that said god guided the development of the universe and of life on earth in particular, much less that evolution by natural selection is false.  no human statement about whatever events may or may not have occurred before the big bang has ever been meaningful  except for  the realization that such statements are meaningless.  we cannot observe the pre big bang universe, ever, so no statement about it not derived from what we know about the post big bang universe is useful.  and since anything we know about the post big bang universe is useless when applied to the pre big bang universe, we can assume that no statement is useful  period .   #  it is not satisfying, but then there is no reason to expect it to be beyond the inflated sense of self importance typical to humanity.   #  it is not satisfying, but then there is no reason to expect it to be beyond the inflated sense of self importance typical to humanity.  it does not conform to the properties of the universe which we take as axiomatic because those properties had their genesis in a moment at the big bang.  we know that all these things are either properties of spacetime or only ever become meaningful in the context of spacetime.  we also know that there was no spacetime before the big bang.  beyond that the only thing we can claim to understand is that we understand nothing.   #  if the universe was created by a being that was, by definition, transcendent of this universe, there is no set of data that could disprove the idea of id.   #  the big difference between the two is that one is an assumption while the other is an observation.  big bang proponents do not  isay  that all matter was created and expanded from a single point, they  observe  it, based on the current makeup and direction of the world.  the observation is based on data that can be shown false or contradicted.  it is hypothetically possible for scientists to find data showing the universe originated in a different way.  they would then be forced to say that the big bang was not a thing that happened.  not so with id.  if the universe was created by a being that was, by definition, transcendent of this universe, there is no set of data that could disprove the idea of id.  those who support it never have to change or abandon their idea because nothing can contradict it.
i have heard parents say that it is to hard to prevent your kids from running away.  but personally i think leashing is really silly.  you can simply hold hands like most parents do.  you are limiting your kids ability to discover.  if little timmy wants to go run to the bey blade section at the store, chase after him but let him.  kids are naturally curious and leashing them are teaching them its a bad thing.  now for more serious case like, disney or the grand cannon, the answer is extremely simple.  do not take your 0 year old to that stuff.  little timmy or little becky will not ever remember that.  cmv  #  if little timmy wants to go run to the bey blade section at the store, chase after him but let him.   #  parents can still feel the child tugging at them to go to the toy section even with a leash.   # how does leashing hurt curiosity ? when my sister was small she much preferred wearing a leash backpack to holding hands constantly.  think about it, when a small child is wearing a leash this frees up both their hands, and the adults hands.  instead of forcing them to hold a hand in a crowded area, or just a store, you can allow them greater mobility to explore while still being connected to you.  and it is not like you ca not ever take the leash off.  they are easy to remove and buckle on.  i would also point out that holding hands can be quite uncomfortable after awhile with anyone, but especially so due to the height difference.  some children are particularly finicky with holding hands even for something so short as crossing the street, so why constantly struggle and frustrate them when there is an alternative.  parents can still feel the child tugging at them to go to the toy section even with a leash.  it is not like physically running someplace is the only way for a child to express itself.   #  try shopping for food, or whatever, and having to deal with that.   #  i am going to assume you do not have kids.  i would have said the exact same thing until i had one.  mine is 0 months.  just learning to walk.  once they start walking, it is completely out of control.  they are constantly zipping off in every direction.  and when they do, they are going to want to touch everything.  and rip those things off the shelves.  and once that stuff is on the floor, they are going to want to see just how far they can scatter that shit.  cause that is very amusing to a young child.  hell, it is amusing to me too.  except, now i have got to be the one to clean it up.  a kid is not going to hold his/her parent is hand for any stretch of time.  he is going to scream bloody murder.  he is going to throw a damn fit.  then you are going to say,  ok, just stay right over there.   but of course he wo not.  he is gone.  try shopping for food, or whatever, and having to deal with that.  it does not happen.  a parent in a store with a young kid has one of two options: 0 shop, which is what you went to the store for, or; 0 watch what the kid is doing.  there is no in between ground.  when they are very little, you can strap them into the cart.  when they are too big for that, all bets are off.  additionally, it is simply a common courtesy to others.  a loose, wandering 0 year old is going to annoy the shit out of everybody else nearby: climbing on their carts, pulling on their clothes, getting in their way, etc.  you would be extremely annoyed if someone did this to you, yet you criticize the means by which to restrain this activity.  finally, safety.  i am not one of those who think that everyone in the world is out to kidnap my kid.  they are not.  but some people would.  even if nobody would, it is going to involve me having to go to security and have them help search out where the hell this kid went to.  conclusion: if i can keep a lengthy, 0 ft.  rope tied to my kid, its the best of all worlds.  that guy can wander 0 ft in any direction; he may explore whatever he chooses; he can enjoy 0 ft of independence.  and i can get shit done without having to worry that dcf will be called.   #  i think the harness/leash combo is a brilliant solution for the occasional child that  really needs it .   # depending on the context ? quite high, actually.  the real danger is more likely to exist in a parking lot, than a city street or in front of a car pulling out crossing the sidewalk .  darting from concrete to asphalt is not all that common, but it does happen.   observed  is a very weak condition.  it only takes the blink of an eye for tragedy to strike.  it is up to the parents to gauge just how well behaved their kids are, and not expose them to a scenario where there is a small but believable risk of serious injury.  each kid is different, and making the determination requires familiarity and sound judgment.  let is say that an event occurs exposure to danger and there is a 0 chance of a major problem, but that event repeats 0 times.  the chance that there is at least one problem over those thousand occurrences is more likely than not just above 0 .  that is not at 0, that is at 0 no typo .  for some parents, a thousand occurrences of nearby danger could equate to only a few months time.  parents need to be wary of even small possibilities of major dangers, just due to frequency.  it is really no wonder that parents can get over protective sometimes.  you  ca not  eliminate all risks, and you would smother your kid trying.  i think the harness/leash combo is a brilliant solution for the occasional child that  really needs it .   #  if parents  did not  occasionally resort to extreme measures harness, tightly gripped hand and i mean tight, carried child, secured in a cart, etc , 0 injured would be a  low  number per 0,0 let is say of ages 0 0 .   #  you have misinterpreted and misconstrued my example.  my point was that 0 is a ridiculously low possibility, and that very small possibilities add up in surprising ways.  most people have no conception of this, and it colors their view of what others  ought  to be doing.  i do not believe that 0 is an accurate reflection of parking lot danger.  if i did, i would have said so.  if parents  did not  occasionally resort to extreme measures harness, tightly gripped hand and i mean tight, carried child, secured in a cart, etc , 0 injured would be a  low  number per 0,0 let is say of ages 0 0 .  the reason the probability is much, much lower is not because parents  observe  their children, but because they assess risk and actively intercede.  the kid  ca not  wander into danger because they are somehow firmly attached to their guardian.  arguing that parental observation is sufficient is ludicrous.  for older children, sure, but young children need much more.   #  he was not screaming but i knew from past experience that that is just around the corner so i did what i knew would work and put him on my shoulders.   #  this.  so much this.  i do not have a kid but i live with my brother and his 0 year old son.  we took a quick walk to the market down the street yesterday because my nephew kept saying he wanted to go to the market.  we walk around for a few minutes before he decides he wants to run around.  it is a pretty small market so we let him go around on his own as long as one of us had an eye on him.  well, 0 minutes of that and he decides he wants to go outside the store.  i am able to hold his hand and coax him back into the store a few times in the first few minutes of this he was going in and out .  of course, he eventually decides no more and holding his hand becomes a tug of war.  he was not screaming but i knew from past experience that that is just around the corner so i did what i knew would work and put him on my shoulders.  of course, i also know from past experience that would only work for maybe 0 minutes before he starts screaming to get off so he can run around again.  thankfully we did not need to stay there long and headed home not long after he was perched on my shoulders.  my brother does not leash nor do i think he has a desire to, but the fact that op thinks you can  simply  hold a 0 year old is hand and expect them to just go along with it all day is a pretty strong indication they have never spent that much time watching a 0 year old in public.
i am currently a student in school, and this is a recent debate.  first of all, the physicality of men and women are different, and on the sports field, this would perhaps affect the game.  on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.  also, since this is within the context of school, it is not like female students do not have opportunities to join girls  sports teams.  in addition to that, for many sports, girls have their own teams, so if we allow female students to play on male students  sport teams, should the opposite be allowed to happen ? i just believe that it would help female and male students have more confidence and develop better as athletes, if they are playing with people of similar or equal ability.  i would like to know how you guys feel about this issue.  cmv  #  i just believe that it would help female and male students have more confidence and develop better as athletes, if they are playing with people of similar or equal ability.   #  i coached a boys  jv water polo team that had two girls on it.   # i coached a boys  jv water polo team that had two girls on it.  at the time there was no girls  team, and they tried out.  they had the exact same workout in practice as the boys, and the only thing that was different was the place where they changed.  one of the two was good enough to be a starter, and she was a pretty solid player.  i did not hear a peep from either the boys or their parents about a girl starting over some of the boys because she  earned  it.  if there is a girl who is good enough to start, i would be an idiot not to put on the team just because she is a girl.  is there some way i injured anybody is confidence by letting the two girls play ? did i hinder anybody is ability as an athlete ?  #  it is their success that we tend to use as a gauge for whether a school is competitive in a sport or not; they are reputable.   #  generally i am not opposed to separate sports teams for a few reasons, but just to play devil is advocate, have you considered that boys  sports teams tend to get more support than girls  teams and potentially have more substantial programs and developed coaching ? i am not sure what laws, if any, govern resource allocation with respect to  high school  teams, but even if we are not talking about money, it tends to be boys  sports teams that school spirit rallies behind and parental boosters choose to devote time to.  it is their success that we tend to use as a gauge for whether a school is competitive in a sport or not; they are reputable.  also, while this is rapidly changing with each generation, boys  teams tend to have better coaching, farming and general training of athletes.  when you consider the quality of athletics between the sexes, only so much can be chalked up to physical differences.  the fact that women have been playing sports for far less times means their programs are insufficiently developed.  bearing these facts in mind, if you were a girl in the upper echelons of women is play, you might look towards boys  sports as the next step in competitive play to develop your skills and find comparable opponents.  as a parent, you might want your daughter on a boy is team in order to expose her to better, more experienced, and potentially more demanding play.  this is especially true when you consider most peoples  varying approaches to encouragement between boys and girls the way we push boys might arguably be better suited to competitive development and spirit.  if that proves true, it is another reason why girls competing in boys  leagues is a good idea.  all anecdotal and, again, da, but my own source is having played competitively on women is sports teams and spent my younger years on some boys teams before reaching an age where the girls /women is teams finally became competitive.  i found these endeavors more fruitful as the girls  programs approached closer the boys  ones i played on as a kid in terms of coaching style, quality equipment, parental involvement and community support.   #  would you ban a blind person from joining the wrestling team because you felt it would be unfair for them ?  # for one thing there are cultural reasons, many parts of the world would never compete against women.  for another reason things like genetics become more more prevalent in the upper echelons in competition.  if you do not fall within the correct height range, sex, various other physical features, then you will never be the best in your sport for many sports.  also, as an aside, how do you feel about disabled people competing in sports ? would you ban a blind person from joining the wrestling team because you felt it would be unfair for them ?  #  should all the slow kids be forbidden from going to football practice ?  #  i think there is a confusion about the status quo: there are two kind of sports in public school: gendered or not.  the gendered one has both male and female teams, like soccer or water polo.  the non gendered ones have only one team, like wrestling, football and cheerleading.  no one is arguing about putting girls on the boys soccer team or vice versa.  the debate is whether traditionally male sports that do not have a female equivalent should have girls on them.  in that case i say from personal experience that having girls on a wrestling team is a great idea.  the strength gap was not as large as you might think.  in fact, of the two girls on our team, one made varsity at 0 lbs and won.  in pro mma, the 0 ranked woman trains with men much larger than herself and wins.  the rule that people of lower ability should be barred from participating falls apart under scrutiny.  should all the slow kids be forbidden from going to football practice ? should the organizing bodies for high school basketball have a height requirement to sign up in the name not having  different abilities  ?  #  you can think any gender role you want is proper, but it should not interfere with other people is choices.   #  its very much a team sport.  i guess people do not compete with complete simultaneity, but everyone is within 0 ft of each other the whole meet.  they huddle before every match and scream their hearts out when their teammates wrestle.  the best overall team wins at the end of the night.  the team spirit is as strong as any other sport i have played.  and more importantly to our discussion, girls competed directly with boys in practice and in meets.  i do not think simultaneity with teammates makes a big difference.  i also played water polo, and we frequently trained and scrimmaged with the girls team.  we also supported each other in league games.  it would not be the end of the world if high school polo was co ed.  in fact i played co ed in middle school with no problems.  as far as gender roles, i think we need to make a distinction.  you can think any gender role you want is proper, but it should not interfere with other people is choices.  you can not join a team with girls on it, but why should we prevent people from pursuing their dreams ? if a girl wants to play a sport reserved normally for boys, we should let her go after excellence in that sport.  you do not think she will do well, but give her the opportunity to prove you wrong.
i am currently a student in school, and this is a recent debate.  first of all, the physicality of men and women are different, and on the sports field, this would perhaps affect the game.  on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.  also, since this is within the context of school, it is not like female students do not have opportunities to join girls  sports teams.  in addition to that, for many sports, girls have their own teams, so if we allow female students to play on male students  sport teams, should the opposite be allowed to happen ? i just believe that it would help female and male students have more confidence and develop better as athletes, if they are playing with people of similar or equal ability.  i would like to know how you guys feel about this issue.  cmv  #  it is not like female students do not have opportunities to join girls  sports teams.   #  the problem is that girl is play different sports.   # usually it is not the average girl who tries to join a male sports team, but an exceptionally fit girl.  several years ago my highschool had only one fucking person on the entire football team who could bench 0, i am totally convinced that there are many schools that could have formed all female teams that would have kicked our school is team is ass.  the problem is that girl is play different sports.  even if you offer a different sport like field hockey or cheerleading, you are still depriving the girl of what she wants to play maybe baseball ? and no softball is not a substitute .   #  i found these endeavors more fruitful as the girls  programs approached closer the boys  ones i played on as a kid in terms of coaching style, quality equipment, parental involvement and community support.   #  generally i am not opposed to separate sports teams for a few reasons, but just to play devil is advocate, have you considered that boys  sports teams tend to get more support than girls  teams and potentially have more substantial programs and developed coaching ? i am not sure what laws, if any, govern resource allocation with respect to  high school  teams, but even if we are not talking about money, it tends to be boys  sports teams that school spirit rallies behind and parental boosters choose to devote time to.  it is their success that we tend to use as a gauge for whether a school is competitive in a sport or not; they are reputable.  also, while this is rapidly changing with each generation, boys  teams tend to have better coaching, farming and general training of athletes.  when you consider the quality of athletics between the sexes, only so much can be chalked up to physical differences.  the fact that women have been playing sports for far less times means their programs are insufficiently developed.  bearing these facts in mind, if you were a girl in the upper echelons of women is play, you might look towards boys  sports as the next step in competitive play to develop your skills and find comparable opponents.  as a parent, you might want your daughter on a boy is team in order to expose her to better, more experienced, and potentially more demanding play.  this is especially true when you consider most peoples  varying approaches to encouragement between boys and girls the way we push boys might arguably be better suited to competitive development and spirit.  if that proves true, it is another reason why girls competing in boys  leagues is a good idea.  all anecdotal and, again, da, but my own source is having played competitively on women is sports teams and spent my younger years on some boys teams before reaching an age where the girls /women is teams finally became competitive.  i found these endeavors more fruitful as the girls  programs approached closer the boys  ones i played on as a kid in terms of coaching style, quality equipment, parental involvement and community support.   #  did i hinder anybody is ability as an athlete ?  # i coached a boys  jv water polo team that had two girls on it.  at the time there was no girls  team, and they tried out.  they had the exact same workout in practice as the boys, and the only thing that was different was the place where they changed.  one of the two was good enough to be a starter, and she was a pretty solid player.  i did not hear a peep from either the boys or their parents about a girl starting over some of the boys because she  earned  it.  if there is a girl who is good enough to start, i would be an idiot not to put on the team just because she is a girl.  is there some way i injured anybody is confidence by letting the two girls play ? did i hinder anybody is ability as an athlete ?  #  for another reason things like genetics become more more prevalent in the upper echelons in competition.   # for one thing there are cultural reasons, many parts of the world would never compete against women.  for another reason things like genetics become more more prevalent in the upper echelons in competition.  if you do not fall within the correct height range, sex, various other physical features, then you will never be the best in your sport for many sports.  also, as an aside, how do you feel about disabled people competing in sports ? would you ban a blind person from joining the wrestling team because you felt it would be unfair for them ?  #  should the organizing bodies for high school basketball have a height requirement to sign up in the name not having  different abilities  ?  #  i think there is a confusion about the status quo: there are two kind of sports in public school: gendered or not.  the gendered one has both male and female teams, like soccer or water polo.  the non gendered ones have only one team, like wrestling, football and cheerleading.  no one is arguing about putting girls on the boys soccer team or vice versa.  the debate is whether traditionally male sports that do not have a female equivalent should have girls on them.  in that case i say from personal experience that having girls on a wrestling team is a great idea.  the strength gap was not as large as you might think.  in fact, of the two girls on our team, one made varsity at 0 lbs and won.  in pro mma, the 0 ranked woman trains with men much larger than herself and wins.  the rule that people of lower ability should be barred from participating falls apart under scrutiny.  should all the slow kids be forbidden from going to football practice ? should the organizing bodies for high school basketball have a height requirement to sign up in the name not having  different abilities  ?
i am currently a student in school, and this is a recent debate.  first of all, the physicality of men and women are different, and on the sports field, this would perhaps affect the game.  on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.  also, since this is within the context of school, it is not like female students do not have opportunities to join girls  sports teams.  in addition to that, for many sports, girls have their own teams, so if we allow female students to play on male students  sport teams, should the opposite be allowed to happen ? i just believe that it would help female and male students have more confidence and develop better as athletes, if they are playing with people of similar or equal ability.  i would like to know how you guys feel about this issue.  cmv  #  on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.   #  i have met plenty of women who were faster than me.   # i have met plenty of women who were faster than me.  there are a lot of sports where the strength of the woman are a much lower priority than some of the other athletic faculties that are needed to be a good competitor.  my high school had a female on the football team.  she was pretty strongly disliked and got the shit kicked out of her but she was out there every day just like the rest of us.  i really admire her perseverance now that i can look back on it.  also, my freshman year of high school there was a girl on our wrestling team.  she was my weight and so i was the one who wrestled with her the most often.  she had a great time competing because she loved the sport, who am i to tell her she ca not participate because of her gender ?  #  if that proves true, it is another reason why girls competing in boys  leagues is a good idea.   #  generally i am not opposed to separate sports teams for a few reasons, but just to play devil is advocate, have you considered that boys  sports teams tend to get more support than girls  teams and potentially have more substantial programs and developed coaching ? i am not sure what laws, if any, govern resource allocation with respect to  high school  teams, but even if we are not talking about money, it tends to be boys  sports teams that school spirit rallies behind and parental boosters choose to devote time to.  it is their success that we tend to use as a gauge for whether a school is competitive in a sport or not; they are reputable.  also, while this is rapidly changing with each generation, boys  teams tend to have better coaching, farming and general training of athletes.  when you consider the quality of athletics between the sexes, only so much can be chalked up to physical differences.  the fact that women have been playing sports for far less times means their programs are insufficiently developed.  bearing these facts in mind, if you were a girl in the upper echelons of women is play, you might look towards boys  sports as the next step in competitive play to develop your skills and find comparable opponents.  as a parent, you might want your daughter on a boy is team in order to expose her to better, more experienced, and potentially more demanding play.  this is especially true when you consider most peoples  varying approaches to encouragement between boys and girls the way we push boys might arguably be better suited to competitive development and spirit.  if that proves true, it is another reason why girls competing in boys  leagues is a good idea.  all anecdotal and, again, da, but my own source is having played competitively on women is sports teams and spent my younger years on some boys teams before reaching an age where the girls /women is teams finally became competitive.  i found these endeavors more fruitful as the girls  programs approached closer the boys  ones i played on as a kid in terms of coaching style, quality equipment, parental involvement and community support.   #  i coached a boys  jv water polo team that had two girls on it.   # i coached a boys  jv water polo team that had two girls on it.  at the time there was no girls  team, and they tried out.  they had the exact same workout in practice as the boys, and the only thing that was different was the place where they changed.  one of the two was good enough to be a starter, and she was a pretty solid player.  i did not hear a peep from either the boys or their parents about a girl starting over some of the boys because she  earned  it.  if there is a girl who is good enough to start, i would be an idiot not to put on the team just because she is a girl.  is there some way i injured anybody is confidence by letting the two girls play ? did i hinder anybody is ability as an athlete ?  #  also, as an aside, how do you feel about disabled people competing in sports ?  # for one thing there are cultural reasons, many parts of the world would never compete against women.  for another reason things like genetics become more more prevalent in the upper echelons in competition.  if you do not fall within the correct height range, sex, various other physical features, then you will never be the best in your sport for many sports.  also, as an aside, how do you feel about disabled people competing in sports ? would you ban a blind person from joining the wrestling team because you felt it would be unfair for them ?  #  the gendered one has both male and female teams, like soccer or water polo.   #  i think there is a confusion about the status quo: there are two kind of sports in public school: gendered or not.  the gendered one has both male and female teams, like soccer or water polo.  the non gendered ones have only one team, like wrestling, football and cheerleading.  no one is arguing about putting girls on the boys soccer team or vice versa.  the debate is whether traditionally male sports that do not have a female equivalent should have girls on them.  in that case i say from personal experience that having girls on a wrestling team is a great idea.  the strength gap was not as large as you might think.  in fact, of the two girls on our team, one made varsity at 0 lbs and won.  in pro mma, the 0 ranked woman trains with men much larger than herself and wins.  the rule that people of lower ability should be barred from participating falls apart under scrutiny.  should all the slow kids be forbidden from going to football practice ? should the organizing bodies for high school basketball have a height requirement to sign up in the name not having  different abilities  ?
i am currently a student in school, and this is a recent debate.  first of all, the physicality of men and women are different, and on the sports field, this would perhaps affect the game.  on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.  also, since this is within the context of school, it is not like female students do not have opportunities to join girls  sports teams.  in addition to that, for many sports, girls have their own teams, so if we allow female students to play on male students  sport teams, should the opposite be allowed to happen ? i just believe that it would help female and male students have more confidence and develop better as athletes, if they are playing with people of similar or equal ability.  i would like to know how you guys feel about this issue.  cmv  #  first of all, the physicality of men and women are different, and on the sports field, this would perhaps affect the game.   #  on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.   # on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.  it is a known fact that men are no not all men are better than every women better at sports than women naturally do to stronger physiques.  the main point of bringing women in to a men is is they are not challenged in women is leagues and must compete against a higher skill level.  if a women possessed the skill necessary to compete with men, this would mitigate, as you said, different abilities.  this may not be true in all cases.  where i go to school, we rarely have women is teams in sports such as golf, rugby and football, and we therefore have a team.  and even if they did, the men is teams have better resources and coaches due to higher levels of competition.  a women may chose to join the men is team to further their development in the sport.  going back to the main point of my reply, this would work better as a point for my argument than yours.  if a women would be more suited to play against men, they should be allowed too.  i would not question whether or not women are better than men in some aspects.  canada is women is national team is probably better than most men in canada, they still play against major midget teams 0nd highest rank for males ages 0 0 .  the most elite women can face player better suited to their skill level.  overall, i believe that if a women can compete with men, your points are not valid for saying they are not.   #  also, while this is rapidly changing with each generation, boys  teams tend to have better coaching, farming and general training of athletes.   #  generally i am not opposed to separate sports teams for a few reasons, but just to play devil is advocate, have you considered that boys  sports teams tend to get more support than girls  teams and potentially have more substantial programs and developed coaching ? i am not sure what laws, if any, govern resource allocation with respect to  high school  teams, but even if we are not talking about money, it tends to be boys  sports teams that school spirit rallies behind and parental boosters choose to devote time to.  it is their success that we tend to use as a gauge for whether a school is competitive in a sport or not; they are reputable.  also, while this is rapidly changing with each generation, boys  teams tend to have better coaching, farming and general training of athletes.  when you consider the quality of athletics between the sexes, only so much can be chalked up to physical differences.  the fact that women have been playing sports for far less times means their programs are insufficiently developed.  bearing these facts in mind, if you were a girl in the upper echelons of women is play, you might look towards boys  sports as the next step in competitive play to develop your skills and find comparable opponents.  as a parent, you might want your daughter on a boy is team in order to expose her to better, more experienced, and potentially more demanding play.  this is especially true when you consider most peoples  varying approaches to encouragement between boys and girls the way we push boys might arguably be better suited to competitive development and spirit.  if that proves true, it is another reason why girls competing in boys  leagues is a good idea.  all anecdotal and, again, da, but my own source is having played competitively on women is sports teams and spent my younger years on some boys teams before reaching an age where the girls /women is teams finally became competitive.  i found these endeavors more fruitful as the girls  programs approached closer the boys  ones i played on as a kid in terms of coaching style, quality equipment, parental involvement and community support.   #  they had the exact same workout in practice as the boys, and the only thing that was different was the place where they changed.   # i coached a boys  jv water polo team that had two girls on it.  at the time there was no girls  team, and they tried out.  they had the exact same workout in practice as the boys, and the only thing that was different was the place where they changed.  one of the two was good enough to be a starter, and she was a pretty solid player.  i did not hear a peep from either the boys or their parents about a girl starting over some of the boys because she  earned  it.  if there is a girl who is good enough to start, i would be an idiot not to put on the team just because she is a girl.  is there some way i injured anybody is confidence by letting the two girls play ? did i hinder anybody is ability as an athlete ?  #  if you do not fall within the correct height range, sex, various other physical features, then you will never be the best in your sport for many sports.   # for one thing there are cultural reasons, many parts of the world would never compete against women.  for another reason things like genetics become more more prevalent in the upper echelons in competition.  if you do not fall within the correct height range, sex, various other physical features, then you will never be the best in your sport for many sports.  also, as an aside, how do you feel about disabled people competing in sports ? would you ban a blind person from joining the wrestling team because you felt it would be unfair for them ?  #  i think there is a confusion about the status quo: there are two kind of sports in public school: gendered or not.   #  i think there is a confusion about the status quo: there are two kind of sports in public school: gendered or not.  the gendered one has both male and female teams, like soccer or water polo.  the non gendered ones have only one team, like wrestling, football and cheerleading.  no one is arguing about putting girls on the boys soccer team or vice versa.  the debate is whether traditionally male sports that do not have a female equivalent should have girls on them.  in that case i say from personal experience that having girls on a wrestling team is a great idea.  the strength gap was not as large as you might think.  in fact, of the two girls on our team, one made varsity at 0 lbs and won.  in pro mma, the 0 ranked woman trains with men much larger than herself and wins.  the rule that people of lower ability should be barred from participating falls apart under scrutiny.  should all the slow kids be forbidden from going to football practice ? should the organizing bodies for high school basketball have a height requirement to sign up in the name not having  different abilities  ?
i am currently a student in school, and this is a recent debate.  first of all, the physicality of men and women are different, and on the sports field, this would perhaps affect the game.  on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.  also, since this is within the context of school, it is not like female students do not have opportunities to join girls  sports teams.  in addition to that, for many sports, girls have their own teams, so if we allow female students to play on male students  sport teams, should the opposite be allowed to happen ? i just believe that it would help female and male students have more confidence and develop better as athletes, if they are playing with people of similar or equal ability.  i would like to know how you guys feel about this issue.  cmv  #  also, since this is within the context of school, it is not like female students do not have opportunities to join girls  sports teams.   #  this may not be true in all cases.   # on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.  it is a known fact that men are no not all men are better than every women better at sports than women naturally do to stronger physiques.  the main point of bringing women in to a men is is they are not challenged in women is leagues and must compete against a higher skill level.  if a women possessed the skill necessary to compete with men, this would mitigate, as you said, different abilities.  this may not be true in all cases.  where i go to school, we rarely have women is teams in sports such as golf, rugby and football, and we therefore have a team.  and even if they did, the men is teams have better resources and coaches due to higher levels of competition.  a women may chose to join the men is team to further their development in the sport.  going back to the main point of my reply, this would work better as a point for my argument than yours.  if a women would be more suited to play against men, they should be allowed too.  i would not question whether or not women are better than men in some aspects.  canada is women is national team is probably better than most men in canada, they still play against major midget teams 0nd highest rank for males ages 0 0 .  the most elite women can face player better suited to their skill level.  overall, i believe that if a women can compete with men, your points are not valid for saying they are not.   #  this is especially true when you consider most peoples  varying approaches to encouragement between boys and girls the way we push boys might arguably be better suited to competitive development and spirit.   #  generally i am not opposed to separate sports teams for a few reasons, but just to play devil is advocate, have you considered that boys  sports teams tend to get more support than girls  teams and potentially have more substantial programs and developed coaching ? i am not sure what laws, if any, govern resource allocation with respect to  high school  teams, but even if we are not talking about money, it tends to be boys  sports teams that school spirit rallies behind and parental boosters choose to devote time to.  it is their success that we tend to use as a gauge for whether a school is competitive in a sport or not; they are reputable.  also, while this is rapidly changing with each generation, boys  teams tend to have better coaching, farming and general training of athletes.  when you consider the quality of athletics between the sexes, only so much can be chalked up to physical differences.  the fact that women have been playing sports for far less times means their programs are insufficiently developed.  bearing these facts in mind, if you were a girl in the upper echelons of women is play, you might look towards boys  sports as the next step in competitive play to develop your skills and find comparable opponents.  as a parent, you might want your daughter on a boy is team in order to expose her to better, more experienced, and potentially more demanding play.  this is especially true when you consider most peoples  varying approaches to encouragement between boys and girls the way we push boys might arguably be better suited to competitive development and spirit.  if that proves true, it is another reason why girls competing in boys  leagues is a good idea.  all anecdotal and, again, da, but my own source is having played competitively on women is sports teams and spent my younger years on some boys teams before reaching an age where the girls /women is teams finally became competitive.  i found these endeavors more fruitful as the girls  programs approached closer the boys  ones i played on as a kid in terms of coaching style, quality equipment, parental involvement and community support.   #  i did not hear a peep from either the boys or their parents about a girl starting over some of the boys because she  earned  it.   # i coached a boys  jv water polo team that had two girls on it.  at the time there was no girls  team, and they tried out.  they had the exact same workout in practice as the boys, and the only thing that was different was the place where they changed.  one of the two was good enough to be a starter, and she was a pretty solid player.  i did not hear a peep from either the boys or their parents about a girl starting over some of the boys because she  earned  it.  if there is a girl who is good enough to start, i would be an idiot not to put on the team just because she is a girl.  is there some way i injured anybody is confidence by letting the two girls play ? did i hinder anybody is ability as an athlete ?  #  also, as an aside, how do you feel about disabled people competing in sports ?  # for one thing there are cultural reasons, many parts of the world would never compete against women.  for another reason things like genetics become more more prevalent in the upper echelons in competition.  if you do not fall within the correct height range, sex, various other physical features, then you will never be the best in your sport for many sports.  also, as an aside, how do you feel about disabled people competing in sports ? would you ban a blind person from joining the wrestling team because you felt it would be unfair for them ?  #  the debate is whether traditionally male sports that do not have a female equivalent should have girls on them.   #  i think there is a confusion about the status quo: there are two kind of sports in public school: gendered or not.  the gendered one has both male and female teams, like soccer or water polo.  the non gendered ones have only one team, like wrestling, football and cheerleading.  no one is arguing about putting girls on the boys soccer team or vice versa.  the debate is whether traditionally male sports that do not have a female equivalent should have girls on them.  in that case i say from personal experience that having girls on a wrestling team is a great idea.  the strength gap was not as large as you might think.  in fact, of the two girls on our team, one made varsity at 0 lbs and won.  in pro mma, the 0 ranked woman trains with men much larger than herself and wins.  the rule that people of lower ability should be barred from participating falls apart under scrutiny.  should all the slow kids be forbidden from going to football practice ? should the organizing bodies for high school basketball have a height requirement to sign up in the name not having  different abilities  ?
i am currently a student in school, and this is a recent debate.  first of all, the physicality of men and women are different, and on the sports field, this would perhaps affect the game.  on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.  also, since this is within the context of school, it is not like female students do not have opportunities to join girls  sports teams.  in addition to that, for many sports, girls have their own teams, so if we allow female students to play on male students  sport teams, should the opposite be allowed to happen ? i just believe that it would help female and male students have more confidence and develop better as athletes, if they are playing with people of similar or equal ability.  i would like to know how you guys feel about this issue.  cmv  #  i just believe that it would help female and male students have more confidence and develop better as athletes, if they are playing with people of similar or equal ability.   #  going back to the main point of my reply, this would work better as a point for my argument than yours.   # on average, men are stronger than women, so i do not think that it is fair to have people with different abilities to play together.  it is a known fact that men are no not all men are better than every women better at sports than women naturally do to stronger physiques.  the main point of bringing women in to a men is is they are not challenged in women is leagues and must compete against a higher skill level.  if a women possessed the skill necessary to compete with men, this would mitigate, as you said, different abilities.  this may not be true in all cases.  where i go to school, we rarely have women is teams in sports such as golf, rugby and football, and we therefore have a team.  and even if they did, the men is teams have better resources and coaches due to higher levels of competition.  a women may chose to join the men is team to further their development in the sport.  going back to the main point of my reply, this would work better as a point for my argument than yours.  if a women would be more suited to play against men, they should be allowed too.  i would not question whether or not women are better than men in some aspects.  canada is women is national team is probably better than most men in canada, they still play against major midget teams 0nd highest rank for males ages 0 0 .  the most elite women can face player better suited to their skill level.  overall, i believe that if a women can compete with men, your points are not valid for saying they are not.   #  it is their success that we tend to use as a gauge for whether a school is competitive in a sport or not; they are reputable.   #  generally i am not opposed to separate sports teams for a few reasons, but just to play devil is advocate, have you considered that boys  sports teams tend to get more support than girls  teams and potentially have more substantial programs and developed coaching ? i am not sure what laws, if any, govern resource allocation with respect to  high school  teams, but even if we are not talking about money, it tends to be boys  sports teams that school spirit rallies behind and parental boosters choose to devote time to.  it is their success that we tend to use as a gauge for whether a school is competitive in a sport or not; they are reputable.  also, while this is rapidly changing with each generation, boys  teams tend to have better coaching, farming and general training of athletes.  when you consider the quality of athletics between the sexes, only so much can be chalked up to physical differences.  the fact that women have been playing sports for far less times means their programs are insufficiently developed.  bearing these facts in mind, if you were a girl in the upper echelons of women is play, you might look towards boys  sports as the next step in competitive play to develop your skills and find comparable opponents.  as a parent, you might want your daughter on a boy is team in order to expose her to better, more experienced, and potentially more demanding play.  this is especially true when you consider most peoples  varying approaches to encouragement between boys and girls the way we push boys might arguably be better suited to competitive development and spirit.  if that proves true, it is another reason why girls competing in boys  leagues is a good idea.  all anecdotal and, again, da, but my own source is having played competitively on women is sports teams and spent my younger years on some boys teams before reaching an age where the girls /women is teams finally became competitive.  i found these endeavors more fruitful as the girls  programs approached closer the boys  ones i played on as a kid in terms of coaching style, quality equipment, parental involvement and community support.   #  at the time there was no girls  team, and they tried out.   # i coached a boys  jv water polo team that had two girls on it.  at the time there was no girls  team, and they tried out.  they had the exact same workout in practice as the boys, and the only thing that was different was the place where they changed.  one of the two was good enough to be a starter, and she was a pretty solid player.  i did not hear a peep from either the boys or their parents about a girl starting over some of the boys because she  earned  it.  if there is a girl who is good enough to start, i would be an idiot not to put on the team just because she is a girl.  is there some way i injured anybody is confidence by letting the two girls play ? did i hinder anybody is ability as an athlete ?  #  if you do not fall within the correct height range, sex, various other physical features, then you will never be the best in your sport for many sports.   # for one thing there are cultural reasons, many parts of the world would never compete against women.  for another reason things like genetics become more more prevalent in the upper echelons in competition.  if you do not fall within the correct height range, sex, various other physical features, then you will never be the best in your sport for many sports.  also, as an aside, how do you feel about disabled people competing in sports ? would you ban a blind person from joining the wrestling team because you felt it would be unfair for them ?  #  no one is arguing about putting girls on the boys soccer team or vice versa.   #  i think there is a confusion about the status quo: there are two kind of sports in public school: gendered or not.  the gendered one has both male and female teams, like soccer or water polo.  the non gendered ones have only one team, like wrestling, football and cheerleading.  no one is arguing about putting girls on the boys soccer team or vice versa.  the debate is whether traditionally male sports that do not have a female equivalent should have girls on them.  in that case i say from personal experience that having girls on a wrestling team is a great idea.  the strength gap was not as large as you might think.  in fact, of the two girls on our team, one made varsity at 0 lbs and won.  in pro mma, the 0 ranked woman trains with men much larger than herself and wins.  the rule that people of lower ability should be barred from participating falls apart under scrutiny.  should all the slow kids be forbidden from going to football practice ? should the organizing bodies for high school basketball have a height requirement to sign up in the name not having  different abilities  ?
i do not think you can make a statistical argument for the existence of aliens when you only have one example of a planet with life.  if you had two examples in the milky way galaxy, for example, we could conclude that life probably evolves at least twice per galaxy.  or if we had an example from the nearest star with planets, we could conclude that probably every star with planets evolves life.  but with just a single example, how do you possibly use that to estimate the distribution of life in the universe ? it could be once per universe, once per galaxy or once per 0 stars.  it would look the same.  e: my point is not that life does not exist anywhere else.  my point is basically that i do not think you can estimate the probability at all.   #  or if we had an example from the nearest star with planets, we could conclude that probably every star with planets evolves life.   #  no, but not quite as bad as your galaxy example.   # no.  you have still got the same sample size issue, especially since you are trying to make a conclusion about unsampled galaxies from n 0 sampled galaxies.  you could not make such a conclusion without making basically  all  of the same assumptions that are currently made when arguing for the existence of aliens.  the only difference would be that it might end up being much more probable, given that this other life could have evolved on a very different world than our own, and current estimations of the probability of alien life assume an earth like world.  no, but not quite as bad as your galaxy example.  in this case, we have n 0 samples.  this is still insufficient.  however, if you make virtually the same assumptions based on data.    but with just a single example, how do you possibly use that to estimate the distribution of life in the universe ? we have a good idea all based on solid evidence of the formation of stars/planets/solar systems, the distribution of elements, etc.  we can roughly estimate how many earth like habitable planets there are in a given area of space.  it is a huge number.  if we account for the fact that there is little constraint in the planet being all that earth like, given how irrelevant the gravitational force is compared to the electromagnetic force with respect to life possibly forming.  we have got an even bigger number.  we have a decent idea of how abiogenesis could occur, and although this area of research is not nearly as solid as the above, what we do know suggests that with the right conditions plus sufficient amounts of time, it is a virtual certainty for abiogenesis to occur.  based on the above, we know that lots of other planets almost certainly have the right conditions.  we also know that those other planets are very old.  so basically we have a probability of abiogenesis that is 0 given the right conditions and a sufficient amount of time.  we have an obscenely large number of planets that almost certainly have the right conditions.  and those planets are extremely old.  so the probability of abiogenesis occurring at least once on at least one other world given an approximately infinite amount of  total  time across all worlds, and the fact the  average  world from our sample of worlds almost certainly has the right conditions ? it is approximately 0 0 .  this is a probabilistic argument, and it does have statistical components underlying it.  it is however not a statistical argument its self, because of sample size issues regarding abiogenesis events.  but it is a probabilistic argument, and we definitely can estimate the probability fairly well as p life on other worlds 0, which does contradict your stated view.  if your view is  we ca not estimate the probability  exactly   that is kind of silly, because even with many more samples we ca not do that.  with  many  more samples we could possibly get a somewhat accurate read on the probability that a certain planet has life, or how many planets have life in a given area of space, but when we are still just asking the original question assuming we were dumb enough to ask the question given that we have actual examples now.   what is the probability that alien life exists  somewhere other than earth  in the whole of space, given what we know  then we still get the answer of p life on other worlds 0.   #  of course, that is only assuming that  life  is constrained to the same molecular makeup, environmental conditions, and starting conditions that we already know.   #  i do not think you will find a scientist or a truly science minded person who will seriously claim to have a reliable calculation for the probability of life per given area of space.  although such calculations have been constructed, they are considered thought experiments more than cogent claims.  this is mostly due to the very reasons you give we are the only example of known life, and we therefore have to limit our search to that which we already know is possible.  with that said, however, i believe it is reasonable to assume that there is, somewhere, life in the universe outside of earth.  if you accept the hypothesis for our own abiogenesis, then calculate the number of planets that may have similar atmospheric conditions, it becomes more likely than not that there is at least one object in space with life.  of course, that is only assuming that  life  is constrained to the same molecular makeup, environmental conditions, and starting conditions that we already know.  once you factor in all the other hypothetical ways that life could form, it almost seems silly to not believe in it.  so, can we as of yet formulate accurate statistical odds of life existing in a given sector of space ? no, not really.  can we assertively say whether or not life is likely to exist ? i would say so.   #  it is possible that one of the necessary conditions for life is an event like  atoms randomly arrange to form a complex bio molecule , which could have an astronomically low probability.   # i disagree.  it is possible that one of the necessary conditions for life is an event like  atoms randomly arrange to form a complex bio molecule , which could have an astronomically low probability.  after all, if aliens exist, then where is everybody ? would not they have colonized the galaxy, or at least have sent von neumann machines to scout ? would not they be filling the electromagnetic spectrum with messages ? i think humans would surely do those things in a few millennia if we do not kill ourselves first .   #  the von neumann machines may then pervade the galaxy within a few million years.   #  life on earth has existed for a few billion years.  if humans are still around in a few thousand years from now, it is likely they will start colonizing the galaxy, or at least sending von neumann machines as scouts.  the von neumann machines may then pervade the galaxy within a few million years.  this means that if you believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, they should be in a development stage within a few million years of ours otherwise, we would have seen their scouts.  but that seems like an unlikely coincidence, given there is been life on earth for billions of years.   #  does it understand that i am an animal just like it is, or does it think i am just part of the background like a rock ?  #  among a few possible explanations:   it is possible that intelligent life is self extinguishing by nature.  humans have only been around for a short time.  there are certainly humans alive today who would press a button that ended all human life if they had the button in front of them.  maybe there is a way to make that button out of common household items and we are inevitably going to discover it soon and then go extinct within a generation or so.  maybe aliens are already here and we just do not see them because we do not know what we are looking at.  do you think that an insect that gets inside of my office understands it is exploring an enormous structure constructed by an intelligence purely beyond its comprehension, for purposes it could not begin to understand ? does it understand that i am an animal just like it is, or does it think i am just part of the background like a rock ?
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.   #  i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.   # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.   # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.   #  you need to widen the road, which is expensive and is a waste of time if bicycles are not causing a significant amount of congestion.   # but it is not as simple as painting the lane on.  you need to widen the road, which is expensive and is a waste of time if bicycles are not causing a significant amount of congestion.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  i would not classify dents, scratches, and broken mirrors as  massive damage.   additionally, that is why you have car insurance.  if someone damages your car, your car insurance is used to repair it.  and that is why they have health insurance.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.   #  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ?  # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.   # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.   #  you need to widen the road, which is expensive and is a waste of time if bicycles are not causing a significant amount of congestion.   # but it is not as simple as painting the lane on.  you need to widen the road, which is expensive and is a waste of time if bicycles are not causing a significant amount of congestion.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  i would not classify dents, scratches, and broken mirrors as  massive damage.   additionally, that is why you have car insurance.  if someone damages your car, your car insurance is used to repair it.  and that is why they have health insurance.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.   #  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.   # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.   # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.   #  you need to widen the road, which is expensive and is a waste of time if bicycles are not causing a significant amount of congestion.   # but it is not as simple as painting the lane on.  you need to widen the road, which is expensive and is a waste of time if bicycles are not causing a significant amount of congestion.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  i would not classify dents, scratches, and broken mirrors as  massive damage.   additionally, that is why you have car insurance.  if someone damages your car, your car insurance is used to repair it.  and that is why they have health insurance.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.   #  ummm.  that is because they  are  legally entitled to be on nearly any road they want.   # ummm.  that is because they  are  legally entitled to be on nearly any road they want.  the only exception are major highways which most cyclist do not feel  entitled  to ride on.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? two reasons: first, because improper use of a bicycle is likely to only injure the bicycle user, while improper use of a car can injure and kill innocent bystanders.  second, bicycles cause essentially no wear and tear on the roads.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  this is just flat out wrong.  smaller moped and scooters under specific engine sizes are treated the same as bicycles.   #  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.   # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.   #  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ?  # ummm.  that is because they  are  legally entitled to be on nearly any road they want.  the only exception are major highways which most cyclist do not feel  entitled  to ride on.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? two reasons: first, because improper use of a bicycle is likely to only injure the bicycle user, while improper use of a car can injure and kill innocent bystanders.  second, bicycles cause essentially no wear and tear on the roads.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  this is just flat out wrong.  smaller moped and scooters under specific engine sizes are treated the same as bicycles.   #  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.   # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ?  # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.   #  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ?  # why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? because a normal car driving at normal speeds can cause a lot more damage than a normal bike being ridden at its normal speed.  thats not they way the by laws are, they can bike on particular areas.  cyclists are just following the by laws.  because they helped pay for the roads, so why would not they be entitled to use something their money paid for ? and how are they  entitled  when the by laws say thats where they should be ?  #  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.   # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.   # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.   #  thats not they way the by laws are, they can bike on particular areas.   # why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? because a normal car driving at normal speeds can cause a lot more damage than a normal bike being ridden at its normal speed.  thats not they way the by laws are, they can bike on particular areas.  cyclists are just following the by laws.  because they helped pay for the roads, so why would not they be entitled to use something their money paid for ? and how are they  entitled  when the by laws say thats where they should be ?  #  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.   # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ?  # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.   #  because they helped pay for the roads, so why would not they be entitled to use something their money paid for ?  # why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? because a normal car driving at normal speeds can cause a lot more damage than a normal bike being ridden at its normal speed.  thats not they way the by laws are, they can bike on particular areas.  cyclists are just following the by laws.  because they helped pay for the roads, so why would not they be entitled to use something their money paid for ? and how are they  entitled  when the by laws say thats where they should be ?  #  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.   # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ?  # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.   #  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ?  # i wonder where you live.  i ca not speak to your experience there, but i can speak to my experience in nyc.  i am almost never impeding traffic, in fact, i find that vehicles impede me more than anything.  passing cars stuck in slow traffic or from a light several blocks ahead is very very common, to the point that i am as fast or faster than a car most of the time.  occasionally, i am in front of a car that is ready to accelerate faster than i can and am, temporarily, impeding their way.  but they are going to have to stop or turn in a few blocks anyway, at which point i can usually overtake them.  i have never been in a situation where i slowed someone down indefinitely.  they get bent out of shape, honk, and then, two blocks later, i overtake them at a light or because they are stuck in a line of cars.  their overall speed is the same even thought they had to wait behind me for a block.  they just spend less time at the light.  my point here is that you are probably less impeded than you think.  if you are in heavy traffic, that bike is leaving you in the dust, or only preventing you from stepping on the gas and braking 0 feet later.  if you are on an open road, you have got the room to pass, so pass.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? a bicycle is nowhere near as complicated or dangerous as a car.  i do not need it inspected because it is got no emissions and operates simply enough that even in a state of disrepair, it is still a fairly reliable machine.  i have almost no impact on the road in terms of wear and tear.  insurance ? i ca not really cause that much damage.  i can, but very little compared to a car.  well, roads do not belong to cars.  they belong to the community, and should serve the community.  when cities seek to reduce traffic, they try to encourage more biking,  because it takes a car off the road.  so your thoughts that i am impeding traffic are almost definitely wrong.  on a bike, i am far more out of your way and i am not causing any gridlock or bottleneck.  think of it this way: would you rather have that many more cars on the road ?  #  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ?  # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.   #  well, roads do not belong to cars.   # i wonder where you live.  i ca not speak to your experience there, but i can speak to my experience in nyc.  i am almost never impeding traffic, in fact, i find that vehicles impede me more than anything.  passing cars stuck in slow traffic or from a light several blocks ahead is very very common, to the point that i am as fast or faster than a car most of the time.  occasionally, i am in front of a car that is ready to accelerate faster than i can and am, temporarily, impeding their way.  but they are going to have to stop or turn in a few blocks anyway, at which point i can usually overtake them.  i have never been in a situation where i slowed someone down indefinitely.  they get bent out of shape, honk, and then, two blocks later, i overtake them at a light or because they are stuck in a line of cars.  their overall speed is the same even thought they had to wait behind me for a block.  they just spend less time at the light.  my point here is that you are probably less impeded than you think.  if you are in heavy traffic, that bike is leaving you in the dust, or only preventing you from stepping on the gas and braking 0 feet later.  if you are on an open road, you have got the room to pass, so pass.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? a bicycle is nowhere near as complicated or dangerous as a car.  i do not need it inspected because it is got no emissions and operates simply enough that even in a state of disrepair, it is still a fairly reliable machine.  i have almost no impact on the road in terms of wear and tear.  insurance ? i ca not really cause that much damage.  i can, but very little compared to a car.  well, roads do not belong to cars.  they belong to the community, and should serve the community.  when cities seek to reduce traffic, they try to encourage more biking,  because it takes a car off the road.  so your thoughts that i am impeding traffic are almost definitely wrong.  on a bike, i am far more out of your way and i am not causing any gridlock or bottleneck.  think of it this way: would you rather have that many more cars on the road ?  #  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ?  # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ?  # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.   #  i think you make good points about the attitude of entitlement from some bicyclists.   # i think you make good points about the attitude of entitlement from some bicyclists.  i think that when they ignore traffic laws, it is dangerous.  however, some roads are simply too narrow to accommodate bike lanes, and because of geography or surrounding buildings, they ca not be widened.  for example, i live near several towns in the mountains that only have one road in and out, and widening those roads would be costly or impossible.  i think it would be unreasonable to tell people that they ca not bike in those areas, and lawfully, bicyclists are allowed to use the road there.  as to the insurance issue a lot of people ride bikes because they ca not afford cars.  i am not saying this is the case for everyone, but some people might have a bike as their only mode of transport and would not be able to afford to insure their bikes.  i do not think we should take away one of the few remaining free modes of transportation.   #  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.   # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.   #  i ride on rural roads a lot and this is just so incredibly unnecessary.   # i ride on rural roads a lot and this is just so incredibly unnecessary.  i would not be able to create congestion on these roads, short of turning my bike into a roadblock.  there are a few roads near where i live that have one lane bridges.  one lane ! why should bike lanes be put on roads that have absolutely no need for them ?  #  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.   # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ?  # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.   #  this actually quite rude, offensive, and you have failed to provide any evidence of such.   # this actually quite rude, offensive, and you have failed to provide any evidence of such.  yes there are some  bad  cyclists but have you paid attention to the millions more  bad  motorists on the road ? you have completely soured the rest of your post already.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? you do not really need to be worried about a bicycle with a faulty emissions system, or a cracked windshield.  a cyclist who takes his or her bicycle on the street knowing that there is an issue such as a broken spoke is taking that risk upon themselves.  as for testing, there are slews of completely incompetent users of the road regardless of what their driving.  testing has done nothing, at least in the us to prevent this as far as i am concerned.  if only we tested drivers more.  i will agree that plenty of cyclists have no idea how to interact on the road.  whether that is because they are ignorant or whether they are refusing to follow the rules is more about each individual cyclist.  education is key.  it is a hell of a two way street too.  you better catch yourself, you are on a slippery slope URL this cmv is about bicycles.  unicycles, skates, skateboards, and hellies are not a part of the cmv.   #  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.   # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ?  # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.   #  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ?  # this actually quite rude, offensive, and you have failed to provide any evidence of such.  yes there are some  bad  cyclists but have you paid attention to the millions more  bad  motorists on the road ? you have completely soured the rest of your post already.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? you do not really need to be worried about a bicycle with a faulty emissions system, or a cracked windshield.  a cyclist who takes his or her bicycle on the street knowing that there is an issue such as a broken spoke is taking that risk upon themselves.  as for testing, there are slews of completely incompetent users of the road regardless of what their driving.  testing has done nothing, at least in the us to prevent this as far as i am concerned.  if only we tested drivers more.  i will agree that plenty of cyclists have no idea how to interact on the road.  whether that is because they are ignorant or whether they are refusing to follow the rules is more about each individual cyclist.  education is key.  it is a hell of a two way street too.  you better catch yourself, you are on a slippery slope URL this cmv is about bicycles.  unicycles, skates, skateboards, and hellies are not a part of the cmv.   #  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.   # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
bicyclists have an entitlement mentality that they deserve to be on any road they want, regardless of the fact that they often ca not match or exceed regular traffic speed and end up impeding the flow.  aside from the traffic issue, if i want to drive my car on public roads, i must have be tested, licensed, and have an insured and inspected vehicle in order to do so.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? many places do not allow bicycles on sidewalks, so if that is the case, and there is no bicycle lane designated on that particular road, then there should be no bicycling allowed in that particular area.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  motorcycles, mopeds, etc.  can match most traffic flow and have licensing and insurance requirements, so they are okay.  where does it change or end ? i want to ride my bicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my unicycle here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my roller skates here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my skate board here so i am entitled.  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.  this one will be a tough cmv because i am pretty adamant about it, but i am willing to listen.   #  i want to ride my heelies here so i am entitled.   #  you better catch yourself, you are on a slippery slope URL this cmv is about bicycles.   # this actually quite rude, offensive, and you have failed to provide any evidence of such.  yes there are some  bad  cyclists but have you paid attention to the millions more  bad  motorists on the road ? you have completely soured the rest of your post already.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? you do not really need to be worried about a bicycle with a faulty emissions system, or a cracked windshield.  a cyclist who takes his or her bicycle on the street knowing that there is an issue such as a broken spoke is taking that risk upon themselves.  as for testing, there are slews of completely incompetent users of the road regardless of what their driving.  testing has done nothing, at least in the us to prevent this as far as i am concerned.  if only we tested drivers more.  i will agree that plenty of cyclists have no idea how to interact on the road.  whether that is because they are ignorant or whether they are refusing to follow the rules is more about each individual cyclist.  education is key.  it is a hell of a two way street too.  you better catch yourself, you are on a slippery slope URL this cmv is about bicycles.  unicycles, skates, skateboards, and hellies are not a part of the cmv.   #  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  # i ride my bike around town all the time and i have rarely, if ever, been in a situation where the lane was so small that, if i rode close to or in the shoulder, i could not be passed by cars.  why do not bicyclists have these same restrictions and obligations to use those same roads ? cars have to be tested, licensed, insured, and inspected because cars are several tons of plastic and metal and all running on an incredibly complex internal combustion engine and if even minor things are wrong with the functionality of the car it can lead to massive complications on the road which could result in the deaths of not only the driver of the un inspected car, but in the deaths of other drivers and pedestrians.  bicycles are comparatively simple even bikes with multiple gear shifts are relatively easy to repair and inspect by the layman.  bicycles are also much less dangerous to others should the cyclist lose control of their bicycle.  if we are talking country or rural roads then they can petition to have bicycle lanes painted on.  this seems like a strange suggestion to me.  earlier you said that bicycles impede the flow of traffic.  and yet, you suggest that it would be as simple as painting on a bicycle lane to accommodate cyclists no widening of the road necessary.  so which is it are the lanes wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and cars, or would the lanes need to be widened in order to accommodate cyclists ?  #  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.   #  if widening needs to be done and the resources are there, then it can be done.  if it is a congested downtown area that would be impractical or impossible, then that area should not be used by bicyclists.  i have seen painted bicycle lanes that vary from two feet wide to around five feet, depending n the road.  as for insurance, bicyclists can do massive damage to vehicles they hit.  granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? an as such lightweight, open vehicles, the driver is in constant immanent danger of being severely injured whether he hits a car or the car hits him.  he should be just as covered by insurance as any other vehicle if he is going to be out operating among them.   #  i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.   # granted they do not usually total a car but they can severely dent, scratch, break off mirrors, etc.  why should not they be just as liable ? i am kinda assuming that if i were to hit a bicyclist with my car that if  they were at fault  they would be liable for damages.  the only difference is that it would probably be very minor and out of their pocket.  if it is serious enough and they ca not pay then you take them to court.  simple as that.  if i am at fault then the supposed insurance they have would not really do anything since i am the one paying for it.  problem here is that i highly doubt that this situation happens with any meaningful frequency.  at most it is a minor incident.   #  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.   # and what do you think happens when he gets hit by an uninsured driver ? that is something that actually happens  a lot , do you think that people do not get taken to court for that ? fact of the matter is, that even though in theory it would be pretty cheap to get bicycle insurance it is just not really practical to get.  the odds of me being at fault when an accident happens and i am on my bike is just astronomically low.  i think the solution you are really looking for here is for cops to actually enforce the current laws.  when i rode my bike back and forth through chicago for college i did not wear a helmet, i did not always stop at signs, i did not signal turns. the list goes on.  how about we start with enforcing what is actually on the books rather than add a whole extra layer of bureaucracy to the mix ? that would be a lot simpler no ? if that does not work, and it is such a common occurrence which right now it just is not unless you can pull stats somewhere then we can implement insurance, registration and the whole nine yards.  i really think it is just an issue that is not very prevalent.
i think the killing of the palestinians in isreal is taking the shapes of genocide.  by simply looking at the numbers of casualties on both sides, the casualties on the side of the palistinians massively outnumber the ones on the isrealian side.  they do not seem to care if the people they kill are hamas, it starts to look like they kill purely based on one criterium and that is if the person is from palistina.  if hamas is using their own people as human shield like they say, it does not justify just wrecklessly kill them.  cmv  #  by simply looking at the numbers of casualties on both sides, the casualties on the side of the palistinians massively outnumber the ones on the isrealian side.   #  and the casualty list had been growing and growing year after year with more and more settlements, more checkpoints more walls and less freedoms.   # and the casualty list had been growing and growing year after year with more and more settlements, more checkpoints more walls and less freedoms.  this is clearly a war of attrition.  just because israel has a much stronger military in an armed conflict does not mean that they are committing genocide.  if this was truly a genocide then why did israel agree to a cease fire agreement before the majority of the fighting had happened while hamas did not ? why does israel have such a powerful and sophisticated military with the u. s as their backbone ? every country has the right to defend itself but i think the japanese model should have been apllied t. o israel.  why do they have a huge arms industry ? would you respect the terms of surrender from your opressor ? are you not aware that so called  safe zones  as stipulated by these phonecalls have also been bombed ? this is the slowest genocide in history yet it remains a genocide.  do not be so easily swayed with arguments that can be disproven by simply scrolling through news headlines let alone reading them.  dat jdif argument.   #  they can claim 0 for 0 rocket is fair and world governments will turn a blind eye to it, despite it being anything but fair.   #  not exactly.  they would face much more serious consequences if they jsut flat out carpet bombed gaza.  by blockading gaza and effectively starving them out and bombing them as  retaliation  they achieve far more dmg then simply carpet bombing.  if they went to carpet bombing they no longer have any moral cover.  they ca not say oh we carpet bombed them cause they shot 0 rocket.  they can claim 0 for 0 rocket is fair and world governments will turn a blind eye to it, despite it being anything but fair.  but if they went full carpet bomb nobody would be on their side and they lose their supposed moral high ground.   #  usually it is generally incumbent on the military power with greater strength to be more cautious and careful, especially in regards to civilian casualties.   #  yeaaa.  saying that it is not really fair that a rocket that does next to zero damage to israel is retaliated with a rocket that levels a school or a hospital automatically means i think that they should not be able to fight back or defend themselves at all.  if you wanna strawman use one that is not so common and overused.  there is a doctrine for military responses called proportional response.  usually it is generally incumbent on the military power with greater strength to be more cautious and careful, especially in regards to civilian casualties.  when the actions you take results in 0 civilian casualty you have a serious problem.  yes you can blame your opponent and make claims about how they are using human shields.  but that is not true.  the militants firing rockets are not chaining people to their rocket sights.  israel does not have to bomb the shit out of a school.  they do have a highly trained military that can go in there and take out the rocket sights without leveling the entire building or area.  dropping leaflets and telling people to get out an hour before you bomb the place is not anywhere near adequate prevention for civilian casualties, especially not when the attack that prompted the retaliation is so incredibly ineffective.   #  so the question is do you want the fighting to continue ?  #  exactly, soldiers lives or lives of hundreds of innocent civilians.  consider the outcomes.  let is say you choose the easier route, just bomb the place, fine you take out the rocket site great.  but you also kill a civilian family.  maybe they do not leave cause they have no where to go, no money, all their possessions are in that house and an hour or 0 of warning is not enough.  they choose to risk staying instead of losing everything and eventually dying of hunger some time later because of the blockade.  well now you have a family of dead civilians who have people who love them mourn for them and consequently hate the people who killed them.  put yourself in that situation for a second.  let is pretend that you are an american you are sitting at home and suddenly mexico shoots a missile at your house.  they say it is because some american crazy person shot a missile at them from your driveway.  your family is dead, who do you blame ? maybe in that situation you do not lose your mind and fight a one man war with mexico, but if mexico does that a few hundred times and it happens to a few hundred families you are bound to get some people angry enough to take up arms.  so the question is do you want the fighting to continue ? do you want a situation where both sides just constantly think the other side is the bad guy with good reason.  at some point either 0 side is completely suppressed or 0 side needs to step up and be the good guy for once.  the conflict has been raging for over a century now.  israel has a very decisive advantage in this conflict, how they choose to resolve it is up to them, but one path is very bloody and very dark.  the other path requires a great deal of sacrifice, but it offers a way for innocent people to come out alive and possibly hate each other less.   #  were i to choose, i would tell both sides to stop worrying about a dead swath of land.   #  were i to choose, i would tell both sides to stop worrying about a dead swath of land.  i do not have a dog in this fight.  given what i do know, i think hamas is a much more heinous organization than the israeli complex.  even if israel completely withdrew from this fight and threw down their weapons, the islamic  fighters  would try to slaughter all of them.  there is no feel good outcome to this conflict
i think the killing of the palestinians in isreal is taking the shapes of genocide.  by simply looking at the numbers of casualties on both sides, the casualties on the side of the palistinians massively outnumber the ones on the isrealian side.  they do not seem to care if the people they kill are hamas, it starts to look like they kill purely based on one criterium and that is if the person is from palistina.  if hamas is using their own people as human shield like they say, it does not justify just wrecklessly kill them.  cmv  #  by simply looking at the numbers of casualties on both sides, the casualties on the side of the palistinians massively outnumber the ones on the isrealian side.   #  if the criterion for  genocide  is the of casualties, and in this case we are talking about something like a thousand, then many wars occurring today are genocides.   # if the criterion for  genocide  is the of casualties, and in this case we are talking about something like a thousand, then many wars occurring today are genocides.  that includes the war in syria, and in war iraq, and various wars in africa, etc.  do you believe all of those are genocides ? if so then i ca not change your view, you just have a different definition of the term than most people do in my experience.  typically  genocide  is used for things like rwanda, where a population was basically wiped out by the other.  that is not happening in gaza the population is in the millions.  while any civilian death is a horrible tragedy, the amount of casualties in gaza does not affect overall population size or even begin to threaten its existence, unlike in the example of rwanda.  i think we should keep using  genocide  for the rwanda like things, not for every war being fought today.  it is important to distinguish one horrible thing from another far more horrible thing.  if we call everything by the worst name, we lose that capability.   #  if they went to carpet bombing they no longer have any moral cover.   #  not exactly.  they would face much more serious consequences if they jsut flat out carpet bombed gaza.  by blockading gaza and effectively starving them out and bombing them as  retaliation  they achieve far more dmg then simply carpet bombing.  if they went to carpet bombing they no longer have any moral cover.  they ca not say oh we carpet bombed them cause they shot 0 rocket.  they can claim 0 for 0 rocket is fair and world governments will turn a blind eye to it, despite it being anything but fair.  but if they went full carpet bomb nobody would be on their side and they lose their supposed moral high ground.   #  dropping leaflets and telling people to get out an hour before you bomb the place is not anywhere near adequate prevention for civilian casualties, especially not when the attack that prompted the retaliation is so incredibly ineffective.   #  yeaaa.  saying that it is not really fair that a rocket that does next to zero damage to israel is retaliated with a rocket that levels a school or a hospital automatically means i think that they should not be able to fight back or defend themselves at all.  if you wanna strawman use one that is not so common and overused.  there is a doctrine for military responses called proportional response.  usually it is generally incumbent on the military power with greater strength to be more cautious and careful, especially in regards to civilian casualties.  when the actions you take results in 0 civilian casualty you have a serious problem.  yes you can blame your opponent and make claims about how they are using human shields.  but that is not true.  the militants firing rockets are not chaining people to their rocket sights.  israel does not have to bomb the shit out of a school.  they do have a highly trained military that can go in there and take out the rocket sights without leveling the entire building or area.  dropping leaflets and telling people to get out an hour before you bomb the place is not anywhere near adequate prevention for civilian casualties, especially not when the attack that prompted the retaliation is so incredibly ineffective.   #  at some point either 0 side is completely suppressed or 0 side needs to step up and be the good guy for once.   #  exactly, soldiers lives or lives of hundreds of innocent civilians.  consider the outcomes.  let is say you choose the easier route, just bomb the place, fine you take out the rocket site great.  but you also kill a civilian family.  maybe they do not leave cause they have no where to go, no money, all their possessions are in that house and an hour or 0 of warning is not enough.  they choose to risk staying instead of losing everything and eventually dying of hunger some time later because of the blockade.  well now you have a family of dead civilians who have people who love them mourn for them and consequently hate the people who killed them.  put yourself in that situation for a second.  let is pretend that you are an american you are sitting at home and suddenly mexico shoots a missile at your house.  they say it is because some american crazy person shot a missile at them from your driveway.  your family is dead, who do you blame ? maybe in that situation you do not lose your mind and fight a one man war with mexico, but if mexico does that a few hundred times and it happens to a few hundred families you are bound to get some people angry enough to take up arms.  so the question is do you want the fighting to continue ? do you want a situation where both sides just constantly think the other side is the bad guy with good reason.  at some point either 0 side is completely suppressed or 0 side needs to step up and be the good guy for once.  the conflict has been raging for over a century now.  israel has a very decisive advantage in this conflict, how they choose to resolve it is up to them, but one path is very bloody and very dark.  the other path requires a great deal of sacrifice, but it offers a way for innocent people to come out alive and possibly hate each other less.   #  were i to choose, i would tell both sides to stop worrying about a dead swath of land.   #  were i to choose, i would tell both sides to stop worrying about a dead swath of land.  i do not have a dog in this fight.  given what i do know, i think hamas is a much more heinous organization than the israeli complex.  even if israel completely withdrew from this fight and threw down their weapons, the islamic  fighters  would try to slaughter all of them.  there is no feel good outcome to this conflict
i think the killing of the palestinians in isreal is taking the shapes of genocide.  by simply looking at the numbers of casualties on both sides, the casualties on the side of the palistinians massively outnumber the ones on the isrealian side.  they do not seem to care if the people they kill are hamas, it starts to look like they kill purely based on one criterium and that is if the person is from palistina.  if hamas is using their own people as human shield like they say, it does not justify just wrecklessly kill them.  cmv  #  they do not seem to care if the people they kill are hamas, it starts to look like they kill purely based on one criterium and that is if the person is from palistina.   #  hamas militants have a strong correlation with being male and between a certain age group 0 0s .   # hamas militants have a strong correlation with being male and between a certain age group 0 0s .  if israel is bombing indiscriminately there should be a random distribution based on gaza is demographics.  if israel is selecting its targets with care then the majority of the dead should be men within that age range.  i take my numbers from the un ocha, URL and i am looking at all the deceased both militants and civilians.  out of 0 dead there are 0 children and 0 adult women.  thus the percentage of children casualties of the whole is 0/0  0  assuming an equal number of children are male and female, there are 0/00 0 deceased females.  of the whole this is 0/0  0  if israel were bombing indiscriminately then logically the number of deceased children and women would reflect the national average.  but the national median age is 0 and the ratio of females to males is 0:0 or 0:0.  URL a random bombing campaign like the wwii air campaigns over hamburg, london, or tokyo would produce twice as many child and female casualties or   0  each.  furthermore, the population growth rate of the gaza strip is 0 per year.  so they are expecting to have 0   0 0 people next year, an increase of 0,0.  multiply this by 0/0 the operation is in its 0th day and you see that there would be 0,0 more people in the gaza strip today than 0 days ago if not for protective edge.  instead  there are 0,0 more gazans alive today than there were 0 days ago.  this is not indicative of genocide compare this to any bombing campaign in a serious war.  hamburg lost 0,0 people, mostly in one night.  tokyo lost 0,0.  and those are not termed genocides.   #  by blockading gaza and effectively starving them out and bombing them as  retaliation  they achieve far more dmg then simply carpet bombing.   #  not exactly.  they would face much more serious consequences if they jsut flat out carpet bombed gaza.  by blockading gaza and effectively starving them out and bombing them as  retaliation  they achieve far more dmg then simply carpet bombing.  if they went to carpet bombing they no longer have any moral cover.  they ca not say oh we carpet bombed them cause they shot 0 rocket.  they can claim 0 for 0 rocket is fair and world governments will turn a blind eye to it, despite it being anything but fair.  but if they went full carpet bomb nobody would be on their side and they lose their supposed moral high ground.   #  yes you can blame your opponent and make claims about how they are using human shields.   #  yeaaa.  saying that it is not really fair that a rocket that does next to zero damage to israel is retaliated with a rocket that levels a school or a hospital automatically means i think that they should not be able to fight back or defend themselves at all.  if you wanna strawman use one that is not so common and overused.  there is a doctrine for military responses called proportional response.  usually it is generally incumbent on the military power with greater strength to be more cautious and careful, especially in regards to civilian casualties.  when the actions you take results in 0 civilian casualty you have a serious problem.  yes you can blame your opponent and make claims about how they are using human shields.  but that is not true.  the militants firing rockets are not chaining people to their rocket sights.  israel does not have to bomb the shit out of a school.  they do have a highly trained military that can go in there and take out the rocket sights without leveling the entire building or area.  dropping leaflets and telling people to get out an hour before you bomb the place is not anywhere near adequate prevention for civilian casualties, especially not when the attack that prompted the retaliation is so incredibly ineffective.   #  they say it is because some american crazy person shot a missile at them from your driveway.   #  exactly, soldiers lives or lives of hundreds of innocent civilians.  consider the outcomes.  let is say you choose the easier route, just bomb the place, fine you take out the rocket site great.  but you also kill a civilian family.  maybe they do not leave cause they have no where to go, no money, all their possessions are in that house and an hour or 0 of warning is not enough.  they choose to risk staying instead of losing everything and eventually dying of hunger some time later because of the blockade.  well now you have a family of dead civilians who have people who love them mourn for them and consequently hate the people who killed them.  put yourself in that situation for a second.  let is pretend that you are an american you are sitting at home and suddenly mexico shoots a missile at your house.  they say it is because some american crazy person shot a missile at them from your driveway.  your family is dead, who do you blame ? maybe in that situation you do not lose your mind and fight a one man war with mexico, but if mexico does that a few hundred times and it happens to a few hundred families you are bound to get some people angry enough to take up arms.  so the question is do you want the fighting to continue ? do you want a situation where both sides just constantly think the other side is the bad guy with good reason.  at some point either 0 side is completely suppressed or 0 side needs to step up and be the good guy for once.  the conflict has been raging for over a century now.  israel has a very decisive advantage in this conflict, how they choose to resolve it is up to them, but one path is very bloody and very dark.  the other path requires a great deal of sacrifice, but it offers a way for innocent people to come out alive and possibly hate each other less.   #  were i to choose, i would tell both sides to stop worrying about a dead swath of land.   #  were i to choose, i would tell both sides to stop worrying about a dead swath of land.  i do not have a dog in this fight.  given what i do know, i think hamas is a much more heinous organization than the israeli complex.  even if israel completely withdrew from this fight and threw down their weapons, the islamic  fighters  would try to slaughter all of them.  there is no feel good outcome to this conflict
i was recently discussing news sources with my dad, and he started praising oreilly and the like.  i scolded him for watching fox news, and he asked,  well where do you get your news from ?   of course i mentioned reddit and various blogs/rss feeds, but in terms of tv, it is just the daily show and the colbert report.  he said the daily show does for the left the same thing that fox news does for the right.  i got to thinking, and realized i have seen quite a bit of liberal bias on the show.  stewart is sidekicks will interview people and intentionally make them look stupid by cutting out their responses, making it look like they are staring blankly at the interviewer, or bumbling.  it is all for laughs, but liberal guests are not treated the same way.  then stewart will frame discussions on a biased foundation.  recently there was a scotus ruling that the first amendment prevails on public ground outside an abortion clinic, a 0 0 decision that every legal analyst agrees was correct.  yet stewart put his whole discussion in terms of how the supreme court itself has a protester buffer zone.  nevermind that these high ranking govt officials could likely be assassinated or intimidated into changing the country is operations, or that the judicial branch is an organization which in its standard proceedings  does  listen to speech from plaintiffs/defendents of all points of view.  stewart just said, if scotus gets a buffer, so do abortion clinics, end of story.  as another example, stewart   sidekicks always looks at obamacare from a pov of  healthcare is a basic human right, now let is figure out which system provides the most of it at the least cost to the patients , which is of course flawed.  he also never gives equal airtime to both sides of the minimum wage discussion.  i usually overlook it b/c i am capable of seeing the facts through the haze at least, i hope i am .  but my reality is shaken i now come to see the daily show as being on equal footing as fox:   they both provide commentary on what is already been reported, rather than journalism.    they both have partisan agendas who does not ? .    they both entertain viewers who primarily watch to be entertained, primarily by seeing their partisan views confirmed.    they both frame the discussions in such a way that they are guaranteed to win an argument, or at least cause their viewers to operate in the frame of mind whereby they will reach a liberal conclusion.   #  as another example, stewart   sidekicks always looks at obamacare from a pov of  healthcare is a basic human right, now let is figure out which system provides the most of it at the least cost to the patients , which is of course flawed.   #  he also never gives equal airtime to both sides of the minimum wage discussion.   # he also never gives equal airtime to both sides of the minimum wage discussion.  yea.  no.  dude healthcare is something that  has to exist and always will exist in the world.  they are not framing the issue by trying to find an efficient outcome, they are as objectively covering it as you possibly can be ! they make fun of obama all the time too.  i agree that it is a bit skewed and imperfect, but it is nowhere close to fox  news .   #  tds and cr distort interviews for the sake of humour, where fox does it to provide their version of the truth.   #  the daily show and the colbert report are both news satire programs they are on the comedy network, for goodness sake but fox news frames itself as news programming.  they both have very different stated goals.  tds and cr distort interviews for the sake of humour, where fox does it to provide their version of the truth.  despite all of this, daily show viewers are amongst the most informed URL on current events, and fox news viewers are amongst the most confused.  i do not want to say that this is because of the daily show, as causation and correlation are not the same.  but it shows that those who are informed about the news are more likely to watch the daily show, and so their distortion of the facts are safer the average audience member knows what is up.  fox news  audience are less informed, on average, and so fox is distortions are more dangerous.   #  i am not saying that tds does not have a bias although it does target the left more often than people give it credit for but that it is a totally different beast than a news channel.   #  okay, let is judge the daily show on their actions.  do puppets, swearing, vulgarity, vulva costumes, and children reciting quotes seem like the actions of a legitimate news source ? i am not saying that tds does not have a bias although it does target the left more often than people give it credit for but that it is a totally different beast than a news channel.  fox news has  news  right in the name, and purports to be  fair and balanced .  aside from the fact that they are both biased media outlets, i do not see how they could be easily compared.   #  there is a large population of young people who watch the daily show as opposed to nothing.   #  i disagree.  there is a large population of young people who watch the daily show as opposed to nothing.  tds get young people interested in how our government and our world works, but young prone watch it for the comedic spin and the fact that the show is actually targeted at them.  i have watched daily and colbert since i was 0 in 0 and i remember asking about the berlin wall, communism, pork, ect.  it was a great way to get introduced to the news because the alternative is the newsertainment on fox, nbc, and cnn, and news on pbs and npr i was not ready for because it was over my head.  there exists no news channel that targets young people and engages them about the news like tds and colbert, and thank god for these shows.  it is a great introduction to current events for young people, and truth be told the alternative is nothing.   #  do not expect most people to understand the nuances of legitimate reporting, especially since the only other examples do pretty much the same thing as the daily show.   # do puppets, swearing, vulgarity, vulva costumes, and children reciting quotes seem like the actions of a legitimate news source ? you are cherry picking very rare segments, that are commentary on politics.  most of the show is them reporting on politics and world events.  i repeat  they report on current events , that makes journalists.  their legitimacy is only ever questioned by those who wish to defend the show an absolve them of any responsibility for their actions.  they have very one sided reporting, again they are reporting, and doing interviews.  do not expect most people to understand the nuances of legitimate reporting, especially since the only other examples do pretty much the same thing as the daily show.  just because they lie about what they are does not mean the daily show is honest about what it is.
tribes have long since used the argument that they have lived in the area for generations as a way of strengthening their claim to a land.  with the rising conflict in the middle east, many people are using the same argument as a way of implying that the palestinians have more right to israel than the jews due to the fact that many jews in israel are second generation immigrants from the 0 is.  however, my perspective is this.  it does not matter how long your people have lived somewhere.  if you have spent most of your life in one place, that place is your home.  the fact that your father or your fathers father did not live there makes no difference.  i would like to keep this discussion about indigeneity in general and not about israel as the conflict in the middle east is more complicated than a reddit thread.   #  if you have spent most of your life in one place, that place is your home.   #  while this is true, it has nothing to do with either property rights or sovereignty.   # while this is true, it has nothing to do with either property rights or sovereignty.  home is where you live.  so, ethnic albanians living in kosovo, and out breeding serbian kosovaars, should be able to vote to cede to albanian ? ethnic russians in ukraine ? ethnic mexican americans in california ?  #  in this book, he addresses the issues that come about when an indigenous people, like the maasai and the ahwahnechee, are exiled from the land they have been cultivating for hundreds of years for the sake of conserving biodiversity.   #  i am not sure this will be of any interest to you, but i have been reading a book by mark dowie called conservation refugees.  in this book, he addresses the issues that come about when an indigenous people, like the maasai and the ahwahnechee, are exiled from the land they have been cultivating for hundreds of years for the sake of conserving biodiversity.  one of his main arguments is that these indigenous people have knowledge of the land of which modern western scientists are not immediately aware.  in this way, the indigenous peoples are essentially megafauna necessary for the continued biodiversity of the region.  so, their right to the land has as much to do with the moral issue of what happens to them when they are displaced they often become impoverished and turn to sex work and drugs to support themselves as it has to do with how they support and maintain the health of the land.  so, yes, it may not have been the kind of answer you were looking for or one with which you agree , but there is an ecological argument for indigenous rights.   #  things get more complicated here because even though they did not choose where they were born, they are nonetheless enjoying the benefits of land that was wrongfully acquired.   #  i think part of the issue is  how  the land was acquired.  if the land was acquired through violent or fraudulent means then surely the indigenous people have a claim.  now skip a generation to the children of the  land stealers  who are born on the stolen land.  things get more complicated here because even though they did not choose where they were born, they are nonetheless enjoying the benefits of land that was wrongfully acquired.  the analogy is definitely not perfect, but it can be compared to someone who unknowingly purchases a stolen car.  in that case, the original car owner has more of a right to the car than the final purchaser.   #  some came with more than others but everyone came with something.   #  you are ignoring the fact that history is a seamless fabric and that history lays conditions for the present day.  indigenous people are at an extreme disadvantage today due to how they were treated in the past.  for example, europeans came here with something.  some came with more than others but everyone came with something.  indigenous people had everything taken from them and essentially had to start from scratch and lived as second class citizens for hundreds of years.  this treatment and disadvantage was passed down through generations leaving them significantly more disadvantaged today than your typical native.   #  i feel that this applies to both sovereignty and ownership.   #  sorry, i do not think i was clear before.  i am not implying that property rights and sovereignty are the same.  i think i have a pretty good grasp on the differences.  my point is that if you were born and raised somewhere you have a right to stay there, regardless of whether or not your family or your race lived there before you.  i feel that this applies to both sovereignty and ownership.
so i saw this video URL kicking around on reddit and the line that got me was  what he should have done was walked away or got someone else to sort it out for him.   now, the whole disgusting angle of the news story painting the bus station employee as the villain aside, that is almost always said when someone gets into a fight.  i ca not even wrap my head around the ignorance that goes into that statement.  do they think the attacker is not going to follow them, continuing to assault them ? do they think that turning their back on an attacker is a good idea ? do they think that defending yourself is some ugly mortal sin ? are they just so holier than thou that their inner never having been in a fight gandhi breaks out and they demand peaceful responses at all costs ? now, just walk away  is  good advice  before  violence happens.  but once violence happens, walking away simply is not an option anymore.  this is the real world.  this is not mad max.  you are not the humungus and i do not believe you.  cmv:  just walk away  is terrible, stupid advice and the people giving it have no idea what being attacked is like.   #  i ca not even wrap my head around the ignorance that goes into that statement.   #  ad hominem does not make for a compelling argument.   # ad hominem does not make for a compelling argument.  generally yes, people will not follow you if you walk away before a confrontation escalates into physical attack.  the time to walk away is before it gets physical.  if someone attempts to engage with you verbally do not respond.  do not make eye contact.  do not respond verbally.  walk away and keep walking.  strawman fallacy.  absolutely no one believes this.  i have never been in a fight in my life.  never, not once, and i am at least two or three times as old as most redditors.  i choose not to escalate conflicts.  violence does not  just happen .  violence is a choice that two people make to resolve conflicts.   violence is the last refuge of the incompetent  isacc asimov  #  that is why i personally would have walked away, because it is not worth me as a guy getting called a woman beater just to defend myself from this annoying pest of a woman.   #  let is be honest with ourselves here.  the only reason this is being framed this way is because the employee was a man and the attacker was a woman.  if the tables were turned and this was a man just beating on a female employee, would we really be saying  she overreacted by fighting back.  she should have just walked away !   no, we would be calling her a hero for fighting back against a violent man.  thankfully, the police agreed and investigated her.  but this is a case where this woman was not really doing a lot of damage to him.  that is why i personally would have walked away, because it is not worth me as a guy getting called a woman beater just to defend myself from this annoying pest of a woman.  if it is someone that is actually able to hurt me, then it becomes defense.  if she would gotten a hold of that scooter, i would have knocked her ass out.   #  personally i got this once or twice in middle/high school.   #  the hummungus is advice is not only when you are the victim of assault from a woman.  the hummungus says this about any victim of assault who defends themselves.  strangely the hummungus often looks like our mothers.  personally i got this once or twice in middle/high school.  lucky it was long enough ago that i defended myself and was not expelled for it.  its really sexist to think a woman ca not do harm to you.  its really short sighted to think a woman attacking you who is looking for a heavy weapon ca not hurt you.  do not turn your back on anyone who is attacking you.  my favorite part of the video was  words could dove anything.   when he repeats  please stop  and  not in front of the children  with subtitles.  also this is not exclusively  a woman gets a free pass to assault you until she gets tired  people say this even when its woman on woman violence, or man on man.  people especially say this to bullied kids.   #  i think he was within his rights to fight back, but did not really have to.   #  yes, it is really sexist to assume a woman ca not harm you.  however, as this video shows, that woman really was not doing him any actual harm.  she was being really annoying.  that is about it.  for the record, i personally am totally with him.  i am saying that is why you see people saying he should have walked away, because he outweighed her by a factor of three and she was not really posing a real danger to him.  i think he was within his rights to fight back, but did not really have to.  i would say the same if it was a 0 lb, 0 year old boy trying to  fight  him.   #  he should have defended, but instead went too far and became the one doing the damage.   #  but there is a question of when you go past self defense and into retaliation.  i do not think this guy crossed that line.  he was doing what was necessary to stop the attack, not to fight back and try to win the attack.  but i am guessing that is where everyone is coming from, that knocking her to the ground was too much.  he should have defended, but instead went too far and became the one doing the damage.  i do not even know why i am still arguing, i completely agree with you guys lol.
so i saw this video URL kicking around on reddit and the line that got me was  what he should have done was walked away or got someone else to sort it out for him.   now, the whole disgusting angle of the news story painting the bus station employee as the villain aside, that is almost always said when someone gets into a fight.  i ca not even wrap my head around the ignorance that goes into that statement.  do they think the attacker is not going to follow them, continuing to assault them ? do they think that turning their back on an attacker is a good idea ? do they think that defending yourself is some ugly mortal sin ? are they just so holier than thou that their inner never having been in a fight gandhi breaks out and they demand peaceful responses at all costs ? now, just walk away  is  good advice  before  violence happens.  but once violence happens, walking away simply is not an option anymore.  this is the real world.  this is not mad max.  you are not the humungus and i do not believe you.  cmv:  just walk away  is terrible, stupid advice and the people giving it have no idea what being attacked is like.   #  do they think the attacker is not going to follow them, continuing to assault them ?  #  generally yes, people will not follow you if you walk away before a confrontation escalates into physical attack.   # ad hominem does not make for a compelling argument.  generally yes, people will not follow you if you walk away before a confrontation escalates into physical attack.  the time to walk away is before it gets physical.  if someone attempts to engage with you verbally do not respond.  do not make eye contact.  do not respond verbally.  walk away and keep walking.  strawman fallacy.  absolutely no one believes this.  i have never been in a fight in my life.  never, not once, and i am at least two or three times as old as most redditors.  i choose not to escalate conflicts.  violence does not  just happen .  violence is a choice that two people make to resolve conflicts.   violence is the last refuge of the incompetent  isacc asimov  #  the only reason this is being framed this way is because the employee was a man and the attacker was a woman.   #  let is be honest with ourselves here.  the only reason this is being framed this way is because the employee was a man and the attacker was a woman.  if the tables were turned and this was a man just beating on a female employee, would we really be saying  she overreacted by fighting back.  she should have just walked away !   no, we would be calling her a hero for fighting back against a violent man.  thankfully, the police agreed and investigated her.  but this is a case where this woman was not really doing a lot of damage to him.  that is why i personally would have walked away, because it is not worth me as a guy getting called a woman beater just to defend myself from this annoying pest of a woman.  if it is someone that is actually able to hurt me, then it becomes defense.  if she would gotten a hold of that scooter, i would have knocked her ass out.   #  lucky it was long enough ago that i defended myself and was not expelled for it.   #  the hummungus is advice is not only when you are the victim of assault from a woman.  the hummungus says this about any victim of assault who defends themselves.  strangely the hummungus often looks like our mothers.  personally i got this once or twice in middle/high school.  lucky it was long enough ago that i defended myself and was not expelled for it.  its really sexist to think a woman ca not do harm to you.  its really short sighted to think a woman attacking you who is looking for a heavy weapon ca not hurt you.  do not turn your back on anyone who is attacking you.  my favorite part of the video was  words could dove anything.   when he repeats  please stop  and  not in front of the children  with subtitles.  also this is not exclusively  a woman gets a free pass to assault you until she gets tired  people say this even when its woman on woman violence, or man on man.  people especially say this to bullied kids.   #  i would say the same if it was a 0 lb, 0 year old boy trying to  fight  him.   #  yes, it is really sexist to assume a woman ca not harm you.  however, as this video shows, that woman really was not doing him any actual harm.  she was being really annoying.  that is about it.  for the record, i personally am totally with him.  i am saying that is why you see people saying he should have walked away, because he outweighed her by a factor of three and she was not really posing a real danger to him.  i think he was within his rights to fight back, but did not really have to.  i would say the same if it was a 0 lb, 0 year old boy trying to  fight  him.   #  but there is a question of when you go past self defense and into retaliation.   #  but there is a question of when you go past self defense and into retaliation.  i do not think this guy crossed that line.  he was doing what was necessary to stop the attack, not to fight back and try to win the attack.  but i am guessing that is where everyone is coming from, that knocking her to the ground was too much.  he should have defended, but instead went too far and became the one doing the damage.  i do not even know why i am still arguing, i completely agree with you guys lol.
so i saw this video URL kicking around on reddit and the line that got me was  what he should have done was walked away or got someone else to sort it out for him.   now, the whole disgusting angle of the news story painting the bus station employee as the villain aside, that is almost always said when someone gets into a fight.  i ca not even wrap my head around the ignorance that goes into that statement.  do they think the attacker is not going to follow them, continuing to assault them ? do they think that turning their back on an attacker is a good idea ? do they think that defending yourself is some ugly mortal sin ? are they just so holier than thou that their inner never having been in a fight gandhi breaks out and they demand peaceful responses at all costs ? now, just walk away  is  good advice  before  violence happens.  but once violence happens, walking away simply is not an option anymore.  this is the real world.  this is not mad max.  you are not the humungus and i do not believe you.  cmv:  just walk away  is terrible, stupid advice and the people giving it have no idea what being attacked is like.   #  are they just so holier than thou that their inner never having been in a fight gandhi breaks out and they demand peaceful responses at all costs ?  #  i have never been in a fight in my life.   # ad hominem does not make for a compelling argument.  generally yes, people will not follow you if you walk away before a confrontation escalates into physical attack.  the time to walk away is before it gets physical.  if someone attempts to engage with you verbally do not respond.  do not make eye contact.  do not respond verbally.  walk away and keep walking.  strawman fallacy.  absolutely no one believes this.  i have never been in a fight in my life.  never, not once, and i am at least two or three times as old as most redditors.  i choose not to escalate conflicts.  violence does not  just happen .  violence is a choice that two people make to resolve conflicts.   violence is the last refuge of the incompetent  isacc asimov  #  if she would gotten a hold of that scooter, i would have knocked her ass out.   #  let is be honest with ourselves here.  the only reason this is being framed this way is because the employee was a man and the attacker was a woman.  if the tables were turned and this was a man just beating on a female employee, would we really be saying  she overreacted by fighting back.  she should have just walked away !   no, we would be calling her a hero for fighting back against a violent man.  thankfully, the police agreed and investigated her.  but this is a case where this woman was not really doing a lot of damage to him.  that is why i personally would have walked away, because it is not worth me as a guy getting called a woman beater just to defend myself from this annoying pest of a woman.  if it is someone that is actually able to hurt me, then it becomes defense.  if she would gotten a hold of that scooter, i would have knocked her ass out.   #  lucky it was long enough ago that i defended myself and was not expelled for it.   #  the hummungus is advice is not only when you are the victim of assault from a woman.  the hummungus says this about any victim of assault who defends themselves.  strangely the hummungus often looks like our mothers.  personally i got this once or twice in middle/high school.  lucky it was long enough ago that i defended myself and was not expelled for it.  its really sexist to think a woman ca not do harm to you.  its really short sighted to think a woman attacking you who is looking for a heavy weapon ca not hurt you.  do not turn your back on anyone who is attacking you.  my favorite part of the video was  words could dove anything.   when he repeats  please stop  and  not in front of the children  with subtitles.  also this is not exclusively  a woman gets a free pass to assault you until she gets tired  people say this even when its woman on woman violence, or man on man.  people especially say this to bullied kids.   #  yes, it is really sexist to assume a woman ca not harm you.   #  yes, it is really sexist to assume a woman ca not harm you.  however, as this video shows, that woman really was not doing him any actual harm.  she was being really annoying.  that is about it.  for the record, i personally am totally with him.  i am saying that is why you see people saying he should have walked away, because he outweighed her by a factor of three and she was not really posing a real danger to him.  i think he was within his rights to fight back, but did not really have to.  i would say the same if it was a 0 lb, 0 year old boy trying to  fight  him.   #  i do not think this guy crossed that line.   #  but there is a question of when you go past self defense and into retaliation.  i do not think this guy crossed that line.  he was doing what was necessary to stop the attack, not to fight back and try to win the attack.  but i am guessing that is where everyone is coming from, that knocking her to the ground was too much.  he should have defended, but instead went too far and became the one doing the damage.  i do not even know why i am still arguing, i completely agree with you guys lol.
so i saw this video URL kicking around on reddit and the line that got me was  what he should have done was walked away or got someone else to sort it out for him.   now, the whole disgusting angle of the news story painting the bus station employee as the villain aside, that is almost always said when someone gets into a fight.  i ca not even wrap my head around the ignorance that goes into that statement.  do they think the attacker is not going to follow them, continuing to assault them ? do they think that turning their back on an attacker is a good idea ? do they think that defending yourself is some ugly mortal sin ? are they just so holier than thou that their inner never having been in a fight gandhi breaks out and they demand peaceful responses at all costs ? now, just walk away  is  good advice  before  violence happens.  but once violence happens, walking away simply is not an option anymore.  this is the real world.  this is not mad max.  you are not the humungus and i do not believe you.  cmv:  just walk away  is terrible, stupid advice and the people giving it have no idea what being attacked is like.   #  but once violence happens, walking away simply is not an option anymore.   #  of course it is still an option.   # of course it is still an option.  violent encounters are  never  black and white.  there is always a smooth progression towards direct physical violence.  at every point on that continuum you have not only a choice but a moral obligation to deescalate the encounter as much as possible.  that is not just me talking.  that is the  law  in the us and english common law for hundreds of years.  if you choose to engage another person in a violent encounter you are morally and  legally  culpable for the consequences of that violent encounter.  there are of course innocent victims of violence but that is what the courts are for.  we do not and should not try to adjudicate these matters on the streets.  judge dredd is a great movie but i would not want to live in that world.  isacc asimov had an iq of 0 and wrote over 0 nonfiction books.  he could write his books  at speed , meaning he could just sit down and write them out with little or no need for editing.  my iq tests out at 0.  we are both telling you that violence is a choice.  it is avoidable if you make the effort to identify the antecedents to violence and then choose to not take that path.  we live in a garden of infinitely forking paths.  with a little effort you can see where some paths will take you.  do not go down those paths.  do not choose to be a victim to random encounters that would be otherwise avoidable.  sometimes.  mostly not though.  most of the time people who are involved in violent conflict are there because they made choices that inevitably lead them to that place.  they put themselves in that time in that place and with those people who were more likely than not to use violence to solve their problems.  they could have chosen not to be there in the first place.   #  but this is a case where this woman was not really doing a lot of damage to him.   #  let is be honest with ourselves here.  the only reason this is being framed this way is because the employee was a man and the attacker was a woman.  if the tables were turned and this was a man just beating on a female employee, would we really be saying  she overreacted by fighting back.  she should have just walked away !   no, we would be calling her a hero for fighting back against a violent man.  thankfully, the police agreed and investigated her.  but this is a case where this woman was not really doing a lot of damage to him.  that is why i personally would have walked away, because it is not worth me as a guy getting called a woman beater just to defend myself from this annoying pest of a woman.  if it is someone that is actually able to hurt me, then it becomes defense.  if she would gotten a hold of that scooter, i would have knocked her ass out.   #  the hummungus says this about any victim of assault who defends themselves.   #  the hummungus is advice is not only when you are the victim of assault from a woman.  the hummungus says this about any victim of assault who defends themselves.  strangely the hummungus often looks like our mothers.  personally i got this once or twice in middle/high school.  lucky it was long enough ago that i defended myself and was not expelled for it.  its really sexist to think a woman ca not do harm to you.  its really short sighted to think a woman attacking you who is looking for a heavy weapon ca not hurt you.  do not turn your back on anyone who is attacking you.  my favorite part of the video was  words could dove anything.   when he repeats  please stop  and  not in front of the children  with subtitles.  also this is not exclusively  a woman gets a free pass to assault you until she gets tired  people say this even when its woman on woman violence, or man on man.  people especially say this to bullied kids.   #  yes, it is really sexist to assume a woman ca not harm you.   #  yes, it is really sexist to assume a woman ca not harm you.  however, as this video shows, that woman really was not doing him any actual harm.  she was being really annoying.  that is about it.  for the record, i personally am totally with him.  i am saying that is why you see people saying he should have walked away, because he outweighed her by a factor of three and she was not really posing a real danger to him.  i think he was within his rights to fight back, but did not really have to.  i would say the same if it was a 0 lb, 0 year old boy trying to  fight  him.   #  but there is a question of when you go past self defense and into retaliation.   #  but there is a question of when you go past self defense and into retaliation.  i do not think this guy crossed that line.  he was doing what was necessary to stop the attack, not to fight back and try to win the attack.  but i am guessing that is where everyone is coming from, that knocking her to the ground was too much.  he should have defended, but instead went too far and became the one doing the damage.  i do not even know why i am still arguing, i completely agree with you guys lol.
admittedly, i do not have a ton of exposure to this idea, but in what i have seen, i have never heard anyone handle the objection that if everyone received a set amount of money, prices would increase to price those people on the lowest end of the spectrum out.  income inequality is structural because of a number of factors, including the fact that some people provide more value than others, some have better luck then others, and some make better decisions than others.  as incomes rise, so do prices.  if someone who is not working now makes $0,0 for example , then the guy now working a $0,0 job will justifiably want more money so that he is paid more to work then not work.  this impact will drive other wages up, so therefore prices will also rise.  we will always have the poor with us, and always have the rich.  that is not to say that nothing should be done.  let me repeat, i am not arguing for the status quo, although i think that people who advocate wealth distribution tend to overlook that fact the economies are dynamic, not static.  i would love evidence, or at least reason, based responses to this objection that are more than complaints about the current system/politicians, etc.  it is very easy to protest against something and much harder to design an alternative that actually works.   #  if someone who is not working now makes $0,0 for example , then the guy now working a $0,0 job will justifiably want more money so that he is paid more to work then not work.   #  this impact will drive other wages up, so therefore prices will also rise.   #  there is no theoretical basis for a connection between income and price level.  there  is  a theoretical basis for a connection between money supply and price level.  if we established a basic income requirement, and then paid for it by printing money, you would be correct, prices would rise and either equalise at a level that maintained the same amount of poverty or inflation would get out of control.  however, if basic income was paid for by another method the obvious being to tax rich people and redistribute , there is no reason to believe prices would rise.  selling your product to someone receiving basic income results in just as much revenue, and just as much profit, as selling your product to warren buffett.  this impact will drive other wages up, so therefore prices will also rise.  basic income as a scheme does not work if you only receive it when you do not work.  the entire point of the scheme is that every single citizen receives a basic income, and those who choose to work are free to do so.  now, there will probably be upward pressure on wages, because some people are just going to take the basic income and leave the labor force, and this improves the bargaining position of those who continue to seek employment.  additionally, retooling production towards more automation as those who exit the labor force will be mostly low wage manual labor workers will increase costs and therefore prices, but this will be a temporary effect.   #  there will always be some people who would prefer to live off $0k/year and not work, but i personally do not know any at all.   #  most unemployment is currently not voluntary.  there simply are not enough jobs.  this is largely because there is not enough demand to justify hiring more people.  putting more money in the hands of poor people will instantly make demand skyrocket, as suddenly many more people can afford to eat at restaurants and buy a new tv or get their roof fixed.  restaurants will have to hire more people, construction firms will have to hire more people, television manufacturers will have to hire more people, etc.  and as more jobs are available there will be less people who are involuntarily out of work.  there will always be some people who would prefer to live off $0k/year and not work, but i personally do not know any at all.  if the government offered me $0k/year for free, i would absolutely not just sit back and live in poverty.  i would keep my current job, and go out to eat a local restaurant occasionally and i would get my car is air conditioner fixed.  that is what makes jobs.  and it is obvious that a ubi would not cause wealthy people or even upper middle class people to work less.  no one who is currently making $0k/year or even $0k/year is going to say  wow now that i am getting $0k/year from the government, i can just sell my car and house and live off that money in a trailer park and never have to work again !   the only people who might choose to not work are low wage workers, who do not represent very much tax revenue at all.   #  there is more than one way to do this.   # there simply are not enough jobs.  this is largely because there is not enough demand to justify hiring more people or numerous regulations have priced people out of the workforce.  restaurants will have to hire more people, construction firms will have to hire more people, television manufacturers will have to hire more people, etc.  no, they will have to increase productivity.  there is more than one way to do this.  hiring more people is one of them, but so is automation and replacing your workers with higher skilled workers, displacing your old staff.  no, jobs are created at the intersection of supply of labor and demand for what that labor produces.  the labor force is not infinitely fungible either, so where these intersections occur will vary, and market and regulatory conditions will determine whether it is more economical to hire more workers, or replace them with machines/better workers.  no one who is currently making $0k/year or even $0k/year is going to say  wow now that i am getting $0k/year from the government, i can just sell my car and house and live off that money in a trailer park and never have to work again !   you are ignoring the part where increased taxes increase the marginal cost to work as well.  depending on the degree of taxation and the amount of leisure time they give up by working, it is quite possible they would.  you are just looking at a static scenario.  i am making a dynamic argument.   #  using emergency departments as the first point of access.   #  why the profit motive is bad in healthcare.  the usa has one of the highest healthcare costs and worst of outcomes per $.  healthcare has the problem of figuring the best way to distribute the limited resource over whole problem.  the profit motive takes money that should be spent on health improvement out of the system.  it also insentivises removing or denying health coverage.  then you have the bizarre use of resources whereby the rich get everything done, to the detriment of the system, and the poor are excluded.  using emergency departments as the first point of access.  prevention is much cheaper to the system in the long term.  there are new medicare payment methods being trialed in some areas where hospitals are paid for keeping people healthy, rather than what products or services they use.  also medical debt is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the usa, that is a symptom of the for profit system.   #  the government prevents monopolies and collusion on prices, and now at least sets a minimum plan or  floor  with a marketplace to purchase things where alternatives can be compared.   #  how so ? my frustrating experience with private healthcare is that individual people get screwed, we have no bargaining power.  you get a much better deal on a company plan.  the government prevents monopolies and collusion on prices, and now at least sets a minimum plan or  floor  with a marketplace to purchase things where alternatives can be compared.  the us gives some of the worst healthcare outcomes URL at the highest price.  medicare actually gets pretty good prices on services.  but if you go private or god forbid without insurance, you will be billed URL why ? because there is no cost control, the hospital charges what it likes to the consumer.  i would like to hear how the government has created this artificial scarcity in the free market ? the free market is not a good choice when you have inelastic demand.  healthcare is not a voluntary choice, it is a necessity.
i know this is not a popular view, but hear me out.  the more technology we create the less we are going to need people to do certain jobs.  as it stands right now unemployment raises because we i am speaking mostly about the united states outsource jobs to other countries or to our technologies.  this is a battle we are never going to win because technology increases exponentially.  also, population is on the raise.  meaning, we will reach a point where there will be far more people than traditional jobs.  if we set up a universal minimum allowance then we can  fix  poverty and  fix  the unemployment problem.  will this allow people to be lazy ? yes.  but will it also give people the freedom and choice to go after jobs they enjoy ? i think so.  for example, i work retail and i actually enjoy it.  some countries are already trying something close to this out.  and as far as  how will we pay for it ?   i believe those countries are converting their welfare programs into this new system.  why am i wrong ?  #  the more technology we create the less we are going to need people to do certain jobs.   #  certain jobs but the same technology also created labor demand elsewhere.   # certain jobs but the same technology also created labor demand elsewhere.  throughout history all technology   automation has resulted in higher net labor demand not lower so why do you presume that increased automation will reduce labor demand without any evidence to support that point ? incorrect.  outsourcing simply changes the local skills that are in demand shifts them up , outsourcing creates upwards pressure on both skills and wages.  unemployment is a cyclic issue ie occurs due to the business cycle and each time we reach the peak of the boom we end up beating the previous record for labor shortage.  meaning, we will reach a point where there will be far more people than traditional jobs.  incorrect.  population is expected to peak at around 0b in 0 before falling to around 0b.  in advanced economies we are already seeing this occur demographically with an aging population, the proportion of adult workers to retirees is changing such that there are fewer workers for every retiree which in the coming decades is going to put immense pressure on labor; we are going to have labor shortages in nearly all industries.  setting it up as an nit would allow you to escape this problem.  the us was the first country in the world to have such a system its called the earned income tax credit.  i believe those countries are converting their welfare programs into this new system.  the cost of a universal basic income are far in excess of existing forms of cash transfer in the us, we would need to raise an additional $0t in revenue to afford such a program.   #  tractors destroyed those jobs, but people did not become jobless.   #  yes, new tech replaces jobs.  why do you think this is a problem ? this is nothing new.  it has already happened before.  people did not end up being jobless, they discovered new things to do with their freed up time and invented whole new fields of work.  less than 0 centuries ago, more than 0 of the population was engaged in farming.  tractors destroyed those jobs, but people did not become jobless.  they started new industries instead.  our current jobs will get replaced with tech.  but there will be new jobs that you ca not imagine, just like a farmer 0 centuries ago could not imagine computers and it industry.   #  that would destroy manufacturing, retail, sales, almost everything.   #  i understand that new tech both destroys old jobs and creates new ones but i feel the amount is different.  in the past a farmer need manuel labor to harvest while now he need only a handful of people to use his machines.  that is not a terribly great example but i hope you get my gist.  my other concern is population.  what happens when we max out ? there ca not be enough it jobs for 0 billion people.  and what if admittedly this is far fetched we develop something along the lines of a star trek replicator that can manufacture products in the individual is home ? that would destroy manufacturing, retail, sales, almost everything.  also, what happens when we develop machines that can make machines ? the point i am trying to make is that there will come a time when the power of our technological advancements will surpass the need for our labor.  and i think we should do something to prepare for that future.   #  there is a limit on how much specialized work is needed.   #  my point was that it is impossible to predict the future of labor by looking at the current situation.  you feel like we will max out, but in reality there is no way to know where the maximum is or even if there is a maximum.  a farmer 0 centuries ago will look around his village and see 0 people engaged in farming and 0 doing other stuff.  if you tell him that in the future all the farming will be done by just 0 people, he will worry that 0 people will be out of a job.  sure, some of them can find a different job, but he will make the same arguments about  maxing out .  you do not need 0 blacksmiths in a village.  you do not need 0 candle makers.  there is a limit on how much specialized work is needed.  the village will max out and a lot of people wo not have a job.  but this perceived limit is not real.  that farmer has a limited view on what work is possible.  you and i have that same limit regarding our future.  you can tell that farmer  do not worry, people like you will be doing web design instead of farming one day , just like a person from the future will tell you  do not worry people like you will be doing x instead of production/retail one day .  and x will be so complex, you probably wo not even understand what it is, just like you will have trouble explaining what web design is to a farmer 0 centuries ago.   #  of staying in one place and growing the food needed.   #  i understand that it is possible that i simply do not have the foresight to see future possibilities.  i get that.  but i am not sure i buy the fact that me and the farmer have the same lack of foresight.  i think my foresight is a tiny bit better than his because his understanding of what technology can do is far more limited than mine.  because of the age in which we live and the imagination of science fiction writers we have s clue of what could happen.  and in that possible future i am seeing a surplus of people based on the current raise in population and a deficit of jobs based on the production of new technologies .  now do not get me wrong.  you are argument is very convincing, and i am starting to doubt my initial excitement.  but something in the back of my brain thinks that the hypothetical man from the future wo not say  this is the job you will have  he will say something like  we have moved on from that model of society  like a hunter gatherer society, the future person would not tell them that when they run out of things to hunt and gather they can simply move to a new place with new things to hunt and gather.  the future person would tell them about the new style of society.  of staying in one place and growing the food needed.  in the same way you are assuming that the future person would be working in the same way and form that we do now.
i know this is not a popular view, but hear me out.  the more technology we create the less we are going to need people to do certain jobs.  as it stands right now unemployment raises because we i am speaking mostly about the united states outsource jobs to other countries or to our technologies.  this is a battle we are never going to win because technology increases exponentially.  also, population is on the raise.  meaning, we will reach a point where there will be far more people than traditional jobs.  if we set up a universal minimum allowance then we can  fix  poverty and  fix  the unemployment problem.  will this allow people to be lazy ? yes.  but will it also give people the freedom and choice to go after jobs they enjoy ? i think so.  for example, i work retail and i actually enjoy it.  some countries are already trying something close to this out.  and as far as  how will we pay for it ?   i believe those countries are converting their welfare programs into this new system.  why am i wrong ?  #  will this allow people to be lazy ?  #  setting it up as an nit would allow you to escape this problem.   # certain jobs but the same technology also created labor demand elsewhere.  throughout history all technology   automation has resulted in higher net labor demand not lower so why do you presume that increased automation will reduce labor demand without any evidence to support that point ? incorrect.  outsourcing simply changes the local skills that are in demand shifts them up , outsourcing creates upwards pressure on both skills and wages.  unemployment is a cyclic issue ie occurs due to the business cycle and each time we reach the peak of the boom we end up beating the previous record for labor shortage.  meaning, we will reach a point where there will be far more people than traditional jobs.  incorrect.  population is expected to peak at around 0b in 0 before falling to around 0b.  in advanced economies we are already seeing this occur demographically with an aging population, the proportion of adult workers to retirees is changing such that there are fewer workers for every retiree which in the coming decades is going to put immense pressure on labor; we are going to have labor shortages in nearly all industries.  setting it up as an nit would allow you to escape this problem.  the us was the first country in the world to have such a system its called the earned income tax credit.  i believe those countries are converting their welfare programs into this new system.  the cost of a universal basic income are far in excess of existing forms of cash transfer in the us, we would need to raise an additional $0t in revenue to afford such a program.   #  but there will be new jobs that you ca not imagine, just like a farmer 0 centuries ago could not imagine computers and it industry.   #  yes, new tech replaces jobs.  why do you think this is a problem ? this is nothing new.  it has already happened before.  people did not end up being jobless, they discovered new things to do with their freed up time and invented whole new fields of work.  less than 0 centuries ago, more than 0 of the population was engaged in farming.  tractors destroyed those jobs, but people did not become jobless.  they started new industries instead.  our current jobs will get replaced with tech.  but there will be new jobs that you ca not imagine, just like a farmer 0 centuries ago could not imagine computers and it industry.   #  and i think we should do something to prepare for that future.   #  i understand that new tech both destroys old jobs and creates new ones but i feel the amount is different.  in the past a farmer need manuel labor to harvest while now he need only a handful of people to use his machines.  that is not a terribly great example but i hope you get my gist.  my other concern is population.  what happens when we max out ? there ca not be enough it jobs for 0 billion people.  and what if admittedly this is far fetched we develop something along the lines of a star trek replicator that can manufacture products in the individual is home ? that would destroy manufacturing, retail, sales, almost everything.  also, what happens when we develop machines that can make machines ? the point i am trying to make is that there will come a time when the power of our technological advancements will surpass the need for our labor.  and i think we should do something to prepare for that future.   #  sure, some of them can find a different job, but he will make the same arguments about  maxing out .   #  my point was that it is impossible to predict the future of labor by looking at the current situation.  you feel like we will max out, but in reality there is no way to know where the maximum is or even if there is a maximum.  a farmer 0 centuries ago will look around his village and see 0 people engaged in farming and 0 doing other stuff.  if you tell him that in the future all the farming will be done by just 0 people, he will worry that 0 people will be out of a job.  sure, some of them can find a different job, but he will make the same arguments about  maxing out .  you do not need 0 blacksmiths in a village.  you do not need 0 candle makers.  there is a limit on how much specialized work is needed.  the village will max out and a lot of people wo not have a job.  but this perceived limit is not real.  that farmer has a limited view on what work is possible.  you and i have that same limit regarding our future.  you can tell that farmer  do not worry, people like you will be doing web design instead of farming one day , just like a person from the future will tell you  do not worry people like you will be doing x instead of production/retail one day .  and x will be so complex, you probably wo not even understand what it is, just like you will have trouble explaining what web design is to a farmer 0 centuries ago.   #  of staying in one place and growing the food needed.   #  i understand that it is possible that i simply do not have the foresight to see future possibilities.  i get that.  but i am not sure i buy the fact that me and the farmer have the same lack of foresight.  i think my foresight is a tiny bit better than his because his understanding of what technology can do is far more limited than mine.  because of the age in which we live and the imagination of science fiction writers we have s clue of what could happen.  and in that possible future i am seeing a surplus of people based on the current raise in population and a deficit of jobs based on the production of new technologies .  now do not get me wrong.  you are argument is very convincing, and i am starting to doubt my initial excitement.  but something in the back of my brain thinks that the hypothetical man from the future wo not say  this is the job you will have  he will say something like  we have moved on from that model of society  like a hunter gatherer society, the future person would not tell them that when they run out of things to hunt and gather they can simply move to a new place with new things to hunt and gather.  the future person would tell them about the new style of society.  of staying in one place and growing the food needed.  in the same way you are assuming that the future person would be working in the same way and form that we do now.
i know this is not a popular view, but hear me out.  the more technology we create the less we are going to need people to do certain jobs.  as it stands right now unemployment raises because we i am speaking mostly about the united states outsource jobs to other countries or to our technologies.  this is a battle we are never going to win because technology increases exponentially.  also, population is on the raise.  meaning, we will reach a point where there will be far more people than traditional jobs.  if we set up a universal minimum allowance then we can  fix  poverty and  fix  the unemployment problem.  will this allow people to be lazy ? yes.  but will it also give people the freedom and choice to go after jobs they enjoy ? i think so.  for example, i work retail and i actually enjoy it.  some countries are already trying something close to this out.  and as far as  how will we pay for it ?   i believe those countries are converting their welfare programs into this new system.  why am i wrong ?  #  some countries are already trying something close to this out.   #  the us was the first country in the world to have such a system its called the earned income tax credit.   # certain jobs but the same technology also created labor demand elsewhere.  throughout history all technology   automation has resulted in higher net labor demand not lower so why do you presume that increased automation will reduce labor demand without any evidence to support that point ? incorrect.  outsourcing simply changes the local skills that are in demand shifts them up , outsourcing creates upwards pressure on both skills and wages.  unemployment is a cyclic issue ie occurs due to the business cycle and each time we reach the peak of the boom we end up beating the previous record for labor shortage.  meaning, we will reach a point where there will be far more people than traditional jobs.  incorrect.  population is expected to peak at around 0b in 0 before falling to around 0b.  in advanced economies we are already seeing this occur demographically with an aging population, the proportion of adult workers to retirees is changing such that there are fewer workers for every retiree which in the coming decades is going to put immense pressure on labor; we are going to have labor shortages in nearly all industries.  setting it up as an nit would allow you to escape this problem.  the us was the first country in the world to have such a system its called the earned income tax credit.  i believe those countries are converting their welfare programs into this new system.  the cost of a universal basic income are far in excess of existing forms of cash transfer in the us, we would need to raise an additional $0t in revenue to afford such a program.   #  but there will be new jobs that you ca not imagine, just like a farmer 0 centuries ago could not imagine computers and it industry.   #  yes, new tech replaces jobs.  why do you think this is a problem ? this is nothing new.  it has already happened before.  people did not end up being jobless, they discovered new things to do with their freed up time and invented whole new fields of work.  less than 0 centuries ago, more than 0 of the population was engaged in farming.  tractors destroyed those jobs, but people did not become jobless.  they started new industries instead.  our current jobs will get replaced with tech.  but there will be new jobs that you ca not imagine, just like a farmer 0 centuries ago could not imagine computers and it industry.   #  there ca not be enough it jobs for 0 billion people.   #  i understand that new tech both destroys old jobs and creates new ones but i feel the amount is different.  in the past a farmer need manuel labor to harvest while now he need only a handful of people to use his machines.  that is not a terribly great example but i hope you get my gist.  my other concern is population.  what happens when we max out ? there ca not be enough it jobs for 0 billion people.  and what if admittedly this is far fetched we develop something along the lines of a star trek replicator that can manufacture products in the individual is home ? that would destroy manufacturing, retail, sales, almost everything.  also, what happens when we develop machines that can make machines ? the point i am trying to make is that there will come a time when the power of our technological advancements will surpass the need for our labor.  and i think we should do something to prepare for that future.   #  you do not need 0 blacksmiths in a village.   #  my point was that it is impossible to predict the future of labor by looking at the current situation.  you feel like we will max out, but in reality there is no way to know where the maximum is or even if there is a maximum.  a farmer 0 centuries ago will look around his village and see 0 people engaged in farming and 0 doing other stuff.  if you tell him that in the future all the farming will be done by just 0 people, he will worry that 0 people will be out of a job.  sure, some of them can find a different job, but he will make the same arguments about  maxing out .  you do not need 0 blacksmiths in a village.  you do not need 0 candle makers.  there is a limit on how much specialized work is needed.  the village will max out and a lot of people wo not have a job.  but this perceived limit is not real.  that farmer has a limited view on what work is possible.  you and i have that same limit regarding our future.  you can tell that farmer  do not worry, people like you will be doing web design instead of farming one day , just like a person from the future will tell you  do not worry people like you will be doing x instead of production/retail one day .  and x will be so complex, you probably wo not even understand what it is, just like you will have trouble explaining what web design is to a farmer 0 centuries ago.   #  in the same way you are assuming that the future person would be working in the same way and form that we do now.   #  i understand that it is possible that i simply do not have the foresight to see future possibilities.  i get that.  but i am not sure i buy the fact that me and the farmer have the same lack of foresight.  i think my foresight is a tiny bit better than his because his understanding of what technology can do is far more limited than mine.  because of the age in which we live and the imagination of science fiction writers we have s clue of what could happen.  and in that possible future i am seeing a surplus of people based on the current raise in population and a deficit of jobs based on the production of new technologies .  now do not get me wrong.  you are argument is very convincing, and i am starting to doubt my initial excitement.  but something in the back of my brain thinks that the hypothetical man from the future wo not say  this is the job you will have  he will say something like  we have moved on from that model of society  like a hunter gatherer society, the future person would not tell them that when they run out of things to hunt and gather they can simply move to a new place with new things to hunt and gather.  the future person would tell them about the new style of society.  of staying in one place and growing the food needed.  in the same way you are assuming that the future person would be working in the same way and form that we do now.
i know this is not a popular view, but hear me out.  the more technology we create the less we are going to need people to do certain jobs.  as it stands right now unemployment raises because we i am speaking mostly about the united states outsource jobs to other countries or to our technologies.  this is a battle we are never going to win because technology increases exponentially.  also, population is on the raise.  meaning, we will reach a point where there will be far more people than traditional jobs.  if we set up a universal minimum allowance then we can  fix  poverty and  fix  the unemployment problem.  will this allow people to be lazy ? yes.  but will it also give people the freedom and choice to go after jobs they enjoy ? i think so.  for example, i work retail and i actually enjoy it.  some countries are already trying something close to this out.  and as far as  how will we pay for it ?   i believe those countries are converting their welfare programs into this new system.  why am i wrong ?  #  and as far as  how will we pay for it ?    #  i believe those countries are converting their welfare programs into this new system.   # certain jobs but the same technology also created labor demand elsewhere.  throughout history all technology   automation has resulted in higher net labor demand not lower so why do you presume that increased automation will reduce labor demand without any evidence to support that point ? incorrect.  outsourcing simply changes the local skills that are in demand shifts them up , outsourcing creates upwards pressure on both skills and wages.  unemployment is a cyclic issue ie occurs due to the business cycle and each time we reach the peak of the boom we end up beating the previous record for labor shortage.  meaning, we will reach a point where there will be far more people than traditional jobs.  incorrect.  population is expected to peak at around 0b in 0 before falling to around 0b.  in advanced economies we are already seeing this occur demographically with an aging population, the proportion of adult workers to retirees is changing such that there are fewer workers for every retiree which in the coming decades is going to put immense pressure on labor; we are going to have labor shortages in nearly all industries.  setting it up as an nit would allow you to escape this problem.  the us was the first country in the world to have such a system its called the earned income tax credit.  i believe those countries are converting their welfare programs into this new system.  the cost of a universal basic income are far in excess of existing forms of cash transfer in the us, we would need to raise an additional $0t in revenue to afford such a program.   #  why do you think this is a problem ?  #  yes, new tech replaces jobs.  why do you think this is a problem ? this is nothing new.  it has already happened before.  people did not end up being jobless, they discovered new things to do with their freed up time and invented whole new fields of work.  less than 0 centuries ago, more than 0 of the population was engaged in farming.  tractors destroyed those jobs, but people did not become jobless.  they started new industries instead.  our current jobs will get replaced with tech.  but there will be new jobs that you ca not imagine, just like a farmer 0 centuries ago could not imagine computers and it industry.   #  that would destroy manufacturing, retail, sales, almost everything.   #  i understand that new tech both destroys old jobs and creates new ones but i feel the amount is different.  in the past a farmer need manuel labor to harvest while now he need only a handful of people to use his machines.  that is not a terribly great example but i hope you get my gist.  my other concern is population.  what happens when we max out ? there ca not be enough it jobs for 0 billion people.  and what if admittedly this is far fetched we develop something along the lines of a star trek replicator that can manufacture products in the individual is home ? that would destroy manufacturing, retail, sales, almost everything.  also, what happens when we develop machines that can make machines ? the point i am trying to make is that there will come a time when the power of our technological advancements will surpass the need for our labor.  and i think we should do something to prepare for that future.   #  sure, some of them can find a different job, but he will make the same arguments about  maxing out .   #  my point was that it is impossible to predict the future of labor by looking at the current situation.  you feel like we will max out, but in reality there is no way to know where the maximum is or even if there is a maximum.  a farmer 0 centuries ago will look around his village and see 0 people engaged in farming and 0 doing other stuff.  if you tell him that in the future all the farming will be done by just 0 people, he will worry that 0 people will be out of a job.  sure, some of them can find a different job, but he will make the same arguments about  maxing out .  you do not need 0 blacksmiths in a village.  you do not need 0 candle makers.  there is a limit on how much specialized work is needed.  the village will max out and a lot of people wo not have a job.  but this perceived limit is not real.  that farmer has a limited view on what work is possible.  you and i have that same limit regarding our future.  you can tell that farmer  do not worry, people like you will be doing web design instead of farming one day , just like a person from the future will tell you  do not worry people like you will be doing x instead of production/retail one day .  and x will be so complex, you probably wo not even understand what it is, just like you will have trouble explaining what web design is to a farmer 0 centuries ago.   #  but i am not sure i buy the fact that me and the farmer have the same lack of foresight.   #  i understand that it is possible that i simply do not have the foresight to see future possibilities.  i get that.  but i am not sure i buy the fact that me and the farmer have the same lack of foresight.  i think my foresight is a tiny bit better than his because his understanding of what technology can do is far more limited than mine.  because of the age in which we live and the imagination of science fiction writers we have s clue of what could happen.  and in that possible future i am seeing a surplus of people based on the current raise in population and a deficit of jobs based on the production of new technologies .  now do not get me wrong.  you are argument is very convincing, and i am starting to doubt my initial excitement.  but something in the back of my brain thinks that the hypothetical man from the future wo not say  this is the job you will have  he will say something like  we have moved on from that model of society  like a hunter gatherer society, the future person would not tell them that when they run out of things to hunt and gather they can simply move to a new place with new things to hunt and gather.  the future person would tell them about the new style of society.  of staying in one place and growing the food needed.  in the same way you are assuming that the future person would be working in the same way and form that we do now.
so lena dunham has once again caused another stir in the social justice world by asking twitter why they need birth control.  first of all, even as a woman, i find that an extremely childish point of view.  to  need  birth control.  i would like to preface this by saying that yes i am aware of the various conditions that birth control aides, and for the sake of this cmv, those are not what i am talking about here .  for all non medical reasons, no one needs birth control.  i am a huge advocate for safe sex, and the prevention of pregnancy and the spread of stds through birth control and condoms.  that being said, i do not think sex is a basic human right.  no one needs to have sex every three days or they will face death, maiming, etc.  sex is pleasurable and sex is fun and sex can create life.  but by no means is it a necessity in the way that many claim it is.  furthermore, claiming that your healthcare should be required to cover birth control outside of health concerns because it is a basic right is absolutely ridiculous.  if you are not prepared to make birth control a priority by budgeting for it, then you need to make the decision to either practice unprotected sex and face the consequences or abstain until you can afford to make birth control a priority.  here are some of the main reasons why i think so:   birth control does not have to be super expensive, as low as $0 a month.    if you ca not afford $0 a month for birth control you definitely ca not afford a kid and should be able to abstain until you are more financially stable.    there are other non penetrative methods for sexual release   if you ca not make birth control a priority for your own personal budget, then why should you expect your health care to.  i know this treads very closely with past cmvs on birth control being included in health care, but in this case i think it is hard to talk about one without the other.  i personally think persecuting company is for refusing to provide birth control in their health care package not that the woman could not just buy it without insurance ! is as assine as getting upset if an orthodox jewish meat company refused to purchase pork for their work cafeteria.  i feel like i am one of the few feminists and i use that term very loosely who does not believe that sex is a basic human right.  cmv ?  #  for all non medical reasons, no one needs birth control.   #  i am not sure there are any non medical reasons to use birth control, are there ?  # i am not sure there are any non medical reasons to use birth control, are there ? you use it to prevent a medical condition you do not want to be affected by, just like any other medicine.  it sounds like your point of contention is that this medical condition, pregnancy, it a risk a person willingly takes, which is why it should not be covered.  do you think then that treatment for lung conditions should not be covered at all for smokers ? my dad has pretty severe sleep apnea, which was avoidable if he had chosen to be less sedentary.  should medical coverage not cover that because it was a lifestyle choice ?  #  beside the fact that this argument is the first one to bring in financial situations into the argument, you have the main point that once again, absence is still a choice.   #  so this is kind of where i realized that i was diverging from my main point but stick with me for a moment if you will.  the way i see it is, if sex is not a basic human right than you ca not force companies to cover it via birth control .  in that same thread of though, many people argue that it is the lower socioeconomic classes who ca not afford birth control so their work should cover it.  beside the fact that this argument is the first one to bring in financial situations into the argument, you have the main point that once again, absence is still a choice.  i am not sure i made that any clearer but i feel like i must be missing a step that others are making when they use this and similar arguements.   #  i do not understand their point when saying denying birth control is denying a basic right.   #  arguing whether or not minimum wage is a livable wage is not effective to this discussion and serves nothing more than a distraction.  however, i do want to address your second point.  whether or not sex is a necessity is the whole argument.  if sex is not considered a basic right than i do not think people can continue to use it as an argument when discussing health care requirements.  i do not understand their point when saying denying birth control is denying a basic right.   #  birth control is a form of healthcare and as such it should be a basic right of an adult if healthcare is.   #  for people living paycheck to paycheck on 0k a year, $0 a year can be a burden.  sex is something that almost all people engage in, and while you may not die without it it, it is a biological imperative and has health benefits URL sex isnt like checkers, its not some hobby.  its part of humanity and cannot be removed by restricting birth control.  birth control is a form of healthcare and as such it should be a basic right of an adult if healthcare is.  its a small price to pay to prevent unwanted children.   #  people can function just fine without it i. e.   #  i meant to address the health benefits in my original post but it slipped my mind so thank you for bringing that up actually.  while sex is beneficial, this still does not make it a basic right.  there are other things that i would consider beneficial but not a basic right such as therapy sessions.  i think one on one sessions with trained professionals would help out a lot of people, however that does not mean it is a right.  sex is not like food, or water, or dental health, or physical health.  it can improve one is life but by no means is it necessary.  i am sorry but i do not think you have addressed that at all in your argument.  sex is an act, not a necessary one.  people can function just fine without it i. e.  nuns, priests, etc.  and have before.  furthermore, there are other non penetrative sexual acts that i believe would have the same health benefits as penetrative sex without the same risks.
so lena dunham has once again caused another stir in the social justice world by asking twitter why they need birth control.  first of all, even as a woman, i find that an extremely childish point of view.  to  need  birth control.  i would like to preface this by saying that yes i am aware of the various conditions that birth control aides, and for the sake of this cmv, those are not what i am talking about here .  for all non medical reasons, no one needs birth control.  i am a huge advocate for safe sex, and the prevention of pregnancy and the spread of stds through birth control and condoms.  that being said, i do not think sex is a basic human right.  no one needs to have sex every three days or they will face death, maiming, etc.  sex is pleasurable and sex is fun and sex can create life.  but by no means is it a necessity in the way that many claim it is.  furthermore, claiming that your healthcare should be required to cover birth control outside of health concerns because it is a basic right is absolutely ridiculous.  if you are not prepared to make birth control a priority by budgeting for it, then you need to make the decision to either practice unprotected sex and face the consequences or abstain until you can afford to make birth control a priority.  here are some of the main reasons why i think so:   birth control does not have to be super expensive, as low as $0 a month.    if you ca not afford $0 a month for birth control you definitely ca not afford a kid and should be able to abstain until you are more financially stable.    there are other non penetrative methods for sexual release   if you ca not make birth control a priority for your own personal budget, then why should you expect your health care to.  i know this treads very closely with past cmvs on birth control being included in health care, but in this case i think it is hard to talk about one without the other.  i personally think persecuting company is for refusing to provide birth control in their health care package not that the woman could not just buy it without insurance ! is as assine as getting upset if an orthodox jewish meat company refused to purchase pork for their work cafeteria.  i feel like i am one of the few feminists and i use that term very loosely who does not believe that sex is a basic human right.  cmv ?  #  birth control does not have to be super expensive, as low as $0 a month.   #  not all birth control is made equal.   # not all birth control is made equal.  some women is bodies simply cannot handle the cheap generics.  some women would like to have an iud or alternative methods that work better for them.  besides, if you are living paycheck to paycheck, $0 a month can actually be quite a bit.  people are not going to stop having sex, regardless of if they have contraception or not.  methods of birth control and abortion have been dated back as early as the egyptians, so tell me, how well has the  do not have sex  argument worked, historically and currently ? you ca not ask humans not to be humans.  all in all, i would rather my tax money go towards free birth control, because that will be much cheaper in the long run than paying for pregnancy and birthing costs, as well as welfare for unplanned children.   #  in that same thread of though, many people argue that it is the lower socioeconomic classes who ca not afford birth control so their work should cover it.   #  so this is kind of where i realized that i was diverging from my main point but stick with me for a moment if you will.  the way i see it is, if sex is not a basic human right than you ca not force companies to cover it via birth control .  in that same thread of though, many people argue that it is the lower socioeconomic classes who ca not afford birth control so their work should cover it.  beside the fact that this argument is the first one to bring in financial situations into the argument, you have the main point that once again, absence is still a choice.  i am not sure i made that any clearer but i feel like i must be missing a step that others are making when they use this and similar arguements.   #  whether or not sex is a necessity is the whole argument.   #  arguing whether or not minimum wage is a livable wage is not effective to this discussion and serves nothing more than a distraction.  however, i do want to address your second point.  whether or not sex is a necessity is the whole argument.  if sex is not considered a basic right than i do not think people can continue to use it as an argument when discussing health care requirements.  i do not understand their point when saying denying birth control is denying a basic right.   #  birth control is a form of healthcare and as such it should be a basic right of an adult if healthcare is.   #  for people living paycheck to paycheck on 0k a year, $0 a year can be a burden.  sex is something that almost all people engage in, and while you may not die without it it, it is a biological imperative and has health benefits URL sex isnt like checkers, its not some hobby.  its part of humanity and cannot be removed by restricting birth control.  birth control is a form of healthcare and as such it should be a basic right of an adult if healthcare is.  its a small price to pay to prevent unwanted children.   #  i am sorry but i do not think you have addressed that at all in your argument.   #  i meant to address the health benefits in my original post but it slipped my mind so thank you for bringing that up actually.  while sex is beneficial, this still does not make it a basic right.  there are other things that i would consider beneficial but not a basic right such as therapy sessions.  i think one on one sessions with trained professionals would help out a lot of people, however that does not mean it is a right.  sex is not like food, or water, or dental health, or physical health.  it can improve one is life but by no means is it necessary.  i am sorry but i do not think you have addressed that at all in your argument.  sex is an act, not a necessary one.  people can function just fine without it i. e.  nuns, priests, etc.  and have before.  furthermore, there are other non penetrative sexual acts that i believe would have the same health benefits as penetrative sex without the same risks.
so lena dunham has once again caused another stir in the social justice world by asking twitter why they need birth control.  first of all, even as a woman, i find that an extremely childish point of view.  to  need  birth control.  i would like to preface this by saying that yes i am aware of the various conditions that birth control aides, and for the sake of this cmv, those are not what i am talking about here .  for all non medical reasons, no one needs birth control.  i am a huge advocate for safe sex, and the prevention of pregnancy and the spread of stds through birth control and condoms.  that being said, i do not think sex is a basic human right.  no one needs to have sex every three days or they will face death, maiming, etc.  sex is pleasurable and sex is fun and sex can create life.  but by no means is it a necessity in the way that many claim it is.  furthermore, claiming that your healthcare should be required to cover birth control outside of health concerns because it is a basic right is absolutely ridiculous.  if you are not prepared to make birth control a priority by budgeting for it, then you need to make the decision to either practice unprotected sex and face the consequences or abstain until you can afford to make birth control a priority.  here are some of the main reasons why i think so:   birth control does not have to be super expensive, as low as $0 a month.    if you ca not afford $0 a month for birth control you definitely ca not afford a kid and should be able to abstain until you are more financially stable.    there are other non penetrative methods for sexual release   if you ca not make birth control a priority for your own personal budget, then why should you expect your health care to.  i know this treads very closely with past cmvs on birth control being included in health care, but in this case i think it is hard to talk about one without the other.  i personally think persecuting company is for refusing to provide birth control in their health care package not that the woman could not just buy it without insurance ! is as assine as getting upset if an orthodox jewish meat company refused to purchase pork for their work cafeteria.  i feel like i am one of the few feminists and i use that term very loosely who does not believe that sex is a basic human right.  cmv ?  #  if you ca not make birth control a priority for your own personal budget, then why should you expect your health care to.   #  i am not sure i understand this point.   # i am not sure i understand this point.  the whole point of having health care is so that it will help pay for medical bills when i ca not afford them.  if i find out tomorrow that i have cancer and need intensive treatment, then my health insurance is supposed to help me pay for this expensive treatment.  if i find out tomorrow that i need open heart surgery then my health insurance should help pay for this since i ca not afford it.  my health insurance helps pay for my prescriptions because i ca not afford them on my own.  the entire point of health care is to pay for medical costs that people can afford within their own personal budget.   #  in that same thread of though, many people argue that it is the lower socioeconomic classes who ca not afford birth control so their work should cover it.   #  so this is kind of where i realized that i was diverging from my main point but stick with me for a moment if you will.  the way i see it is, if sex is not a basic human right than you ca not force companies to cover it via birth control .  in that same thread of though, many people argue that it is the lower socioeconomic classes who ca not afford birth control so their work should cover it.  beside the fact that this argument is the first one to bring in financial situations into the argument, you have the main point that once again, absence is still a choice.  i am not sure i made that any clearer but i feel like i must be missing a step that others are making when they use this and similar arguements.   #  arguing whether or not minimum wage is a livable wage is not effective to this discussion and serves nothing more than a distraction.   #  arguing whether or not minimum wage is a livable wage is not effective to this discussion and serves nothing more than a distraction.  however, i do want to address your second point.  whether or not sex is a necessity is the whole argument.  if sex is not considered a basic right than i do not think people can continue to use it as an argument when discussing health care requirements.  i do not understand their point when saying denying birth control is denying a basic right.   #  for people living paycheck to paycheck on 0k a year, $0 a year can be a burden.   #  for people living paycheck to paycheck on 0k a year, $0 a year can be a burden.  sex is something that almost all people engage in, and while you may not die without it it, it is a biological imperative and has health benefits URL sex isnt like checkers, its not some hobby.  its part of humanity and cannot be removed by restricting birth control.  birth control is a form of healthcare and as such it should be a basic right of an adult if healthcare is.  its a small price to pay to prevent unwanted children.   #  it can improve one is life but by no means is it necessary.   #  i meant to address the health benefits in my original post but it slipped my mind so thank you for bringing that up actually.  while sex is beneficial, this still does not make it a basic right.  there are other things that i would consider beneficial but not a basic right such as therapy sessions.  i think one on one sessions with trained professionals would help out a lot of people, however that does not mean it is a right.  sex is not like food, or water, or dental health, or physical health.  it can improve one is life but by no means is it necessary.  i am sorry but i do not think you have addressed that at all in your argument.  sex is an act, not a necessary one.  people can function just fine without it i. e.  nuns, priests, etc.  and have before.  furthermore, there are other non penetrative sexual acts that i believe would have the same health benefits as penetrative sex without the same risks.
i see it quite frequently: western leaders touting the great benefits of democracy, putting down other countries for their anti democratic ways, berating them often quite ironically for not embracing the system that, according to them, is quite clearly better for its citizens.  but i do not think that democracy necessarily benefits its citizens, and that the correlation between development and democracy that so many try to make is wrong.  some of the main issues that i have with democracy are as follows:   the public is not always well educated on election issues, and often make poor decisions in who they elect to solve the issues.  the number of times an election has gone  wrong  and resulted in a shitty leader who fucked things up is uncountable.  what is more, people is misunderstanding of even basic economics leads them to think that many economic arguments surrounding  job creation  are true, where having a more advanced education plus better critical thinking skills would lead them to conclude something entirely different.  this could quite obviously be solved by better educating the public, alas, that would be  a breach of democratic rights to be free of mandatory state education .    many of today is nations succeed without democracy, whereas many democratic states fail.  the soviet union, from its initiation into the middle of the 0th century, experienced great economic growth under soviet 0 year plans.  yes, the human rights situation was not the greatest, but is it any better than it is in some democratically elected states ? iran democratically elects its government and are for all intents and purposes a  wouldemocratic state , but the government is still under the control of the ayatollah and the constitution, which declares it an islamic republic.  it is possible for a democratic nation to be good as well as bad, and therefore it does not make sense that  wouldemocracy is fundamentally good , if it can lead to poor results.    people want the right of democracy, but are not willing to pick up the slack.  with having more freedoms and the right to elect your government, you should be expected to contribute in more ways than just voting.  voting and sending an official to government to represent you means that you should be sure that that person is representing you well, and demanding justice when they do not.  not only do people not exercise this essential tool of democratic election, it actually happens that doing so is not even legal.  in toronto last year, the mayor rob ford admitted to using crack cocaine while in office, spurring a backlash from the public.  when people called for his stepping down, bureaucratic laws and democratic arguments kept him in power, because  the law said it was not allowed .  so because a law was written, people just stepped down and simply remained angry but quiet.  this is not how a democracy succeeds.  when an elected official fails to do their job competently, the people who elected him need to stand up and remove him, and they should have every right to do so, otherwise, what kind of democracy is it that you can place a person in a position of power, but not remove them ?  tl;dr : democracy in its common modern form fails not only to allow people to better interact with their government and choose their own fate, but can even prevent them legally from doing so.  we do not need to follow the democratic dogma so strictly, we have seen before that reducing some liberties, increasing taxation, and giving the government more power whilst letting it demand more from its citizens can improve a country.  in fact, i think it should be a democratic government is obligation to make its people participate, and to better educate them about economics, politics, and hsitory, so they can participate with greater effect.   #  the soviet union, from its initiation into the middle of the 0th century, experienced great economic growth under soviet 0 year plans.   #  yes, the human rights situation was not the greatest, but is it any better than it is in some democratically elected states ?  # the most successful democracies in the world are those that have effective electoral procedures and a well educated populous.  this is not a new concept aristotle wrote about the necessity of education to the function of a democracy in  politics  over two millennia ago.  yes, the human rights situation was not the greatest, but is it any better than it is in some democratically elected states ? i think that this  massively  downplays the human rights violations in the ussr.  by all accounts, human rights in the ussr were some of the worst of  all time  URL most estimates of casualties under stalinism start at 0 million people and range to upwards of 0 million people that is just under stalin, and that is  just  those who died, and does not include the millions of people enslaved in work camps.  the thing you are missing here is, i think, a problem with the way we frame the idea of democracy being fundamentally good.  when we say democracy being fundamentally good, we are talking about a very specific kind of democracy: liberal democracy.  fareed zakaria actually wrote a very interesting article on the rise of illiberal democracy pdf here URL where he talks about the importance not only of the political freedoms to vote and associate in political parties, but also freedoms of the press, of religion, etc.  thus, when people say that democracy is fundamentally good, they are not talking simply of democracy, but are implicitly talking about the type of democracy that the west is most familiar with liberal democracy.  when people called for his stepping down, bureaucratic laws and democratic arguments kept him in power, because  the law said it was not allowed .  so because a law was written, people just stepped down and simply remained angry but quiet.  this is not how a democracy succeeds.  what you describe here is an improper functioning of a democratic system.  however, your disappointment at the failure of rob ford to step down in light of actions that enraged the people is a  democratic  view in and of itself.  an absolute monarch, a plutocracy, an aristocracy, etc.  does not step down because the people will them to.  leaders of democracies, on the other hand, more often than not  do  step down when the people will them to.  hell, the us is not even that good at the democracy thing, comparatively, but for the past 0 years we have not once had a president who has failed to step down when the people decided that was their will.   #  winston churchill democracy has many faults, but it is at least somewhat responsive to the needs of the people by design.   #   democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.   winston churchill democracy has many faults, but it is at least somewhat responsive to the needs of the people by design.  most other forms of choosing the leaders of the country can be bent even worse than the examples you give.  you should read about the way chinese officials run roughshod over their people and i think you might start to look at our system a bit differently.  most of the problems you list are cultural problems, and sometimes economic problems, rather than directly a problem with democracy.  a stronger democracy would give people the feeling that the government is actually responding to their wishes, and could encourage more civic involvement.  right now, the democratic system in the west is far from perfect, but that does not mean that the system is broken.  it means the implementation needs to be adjusted to our current situation.  democracy gives the people the chance to change things without violence.   #  it covers more countries than just china but it is serviceable to see all the actual happenings in china.   #  well i have an intro political science class overview i can tell you.  the chinese government is supposed to be the people elect local officials who pick higher ups from there all the way up to the national peoples congress.  they then pick a president who has a 0 year term.  they also choose a state council of about 0 members.  they are heads of the departments of government and their leader is the premier.  what really happens is the communist party chooses a leader who usually becomes paramount leader.  this means he holds 0 offices: general secretary of the communist party and central committee, chairman of the central military commission, and president.  this is currently xi jingping pronounced roughly she zhingping .  his right hand man becomes the premier.  this is currently li keqiang pronounced, roughly and depending on the translation, as lee key quang these two men run the government and can change all the rules pretty much by their will.  if someone in the party disagrees with them, they often will disappear.  they have nearly complete control except they must listen to the politburo.  the politburo is elder members of the communist party, usually between 0 0 people who really control everything.  because of elder respect in the culture what they say goes.  mr.  xi can do as he pleases, but if it upsets them they will put a stop to if immediately and mr.  xi will listen.  all this means for example, there is a lot of other, far worse, consequences that no one in china dares speak badly of the government.  nowadays, if you dare, you might be able to say something about mr.  xi or mr.  li, but you certainly never speak a bad word about mao zedong.  that would be, quite literally, a death sentence.  to see more about them you can look on wikipedia.  their overview is pretty good but it is kinda lacing all the atrocities.  the book my class used which was pretty good was cases in comparative politics by patrick oneil it is blue do not mix it up with its red counterpart which is the tools for comparing politics .  it covers more countries than just china but it is serviceable to see all the actual happenings in china.  sorry i do not have any other recommendations  #  one such thing is localism for example as many decisions as possible to be cut down to the local, county, town, city district level.   #  but it is so weird that nobody can come up with a better thing how comes there is no innovation or research in this thing ? my opinion is that perhaps the solution lies in the scope of decision making, not in how to make the decisions.  laws in a nation affect everybody, although not the same extent, and everybody gets to vote.  if it would be possible to partition decisions so that they have less of a universal effect, and generally limit voting to those who are affected, that could be better.  one such thing is localism for example as many decisions as possible to be cut down to the local, county, town, city district level.  that is a good idea, but geographical separation is just one axis.  i could imagine all kinds of vertical separation as well.   #  if you are not willing to actively get educated on the issues so you can vote in an informed way, maybe you deserve the shitty leaders you elect.   #  representative democracy is the least worst system.  yes, people are stupid, short sighted, selfish, uninformed, and lazy.  this causes them to elect bad leaders.  but if you think about it, are not they getting exactly the government they deserve ? if you are not willing to actively get educated on the issues so you can vote in an informed way, maybe you deserve the shitty leaders you elect.  every system can work well if we assume the best: a responsible citizenry in the case of democracy, or a benevolent dictator in the case of fascism.  but assuming that the purpose of government is to benefit the people, should not the goodness of government be proportional to how much work they put into it ? i contend that democracy is such a system.  it can work well of citizens put forth the effort.  it makes no sense to advocate for dictatorship i am order to benefit people who are too lazy to care.
i see it quite frequently: western leaders touting the great benefits of democracy, putting down other countries for their anti democratic ways, berating them often quite ironically for not embracing the system that, according to them, is quite clearly better for its citizens.  but i do not think that democracy necessarily benefits its citizens, and that the correlation between development and democracy that so many try to make is wrong.  some of the main issues that i have with democracy are as follows:   the public is not always well educated on election issues, and often make poor decisions in who they elect to solve the issues.  the number of times an election has gone  wrong  and resulted in a shitty leader who fucked things up is uncountable.  what is more, people is misunderstanding of even basic economics leads them to think that many economic arguments surrounding  job creation  are true, where having a more advanced education plus better critical thinking skills would lead them to conclude something entirely different.  this could quite obviously be solved by better educating the public, alas, that would be  a breach of democratic rights to be free of mandatory state education .    many of today is nations succeed without democracy, whereas many democratic states fail.  the soviet union, from its initiation into the middle of the 0th century, experienced great economic growth under soviet 0 year plans.  yes, the human rights situation was not the greatest, but is it any better than it is in some democratically elected states ? iran democratically elects its government and are for all intents and purposes a  wouldemocratic state , but the government is still under the control of the ayatollah and the constitution, which declares it an islamic republic.  it is possible for a democratic nation to be good as well as bad, and therefore it does not make sense that  wouldemocracy is fundamentally good , if it can lead to poor results.    people want the right of democracy, but are not willing to pick up the slack.  with having more freedoms and the right to elect your government, you should be expected to contribute in more ways than just voting.  voting and sending an official to government to represent you means that you should be sure that that person is representing you well, and demanding justice when they do not.  not only do people not exercise this essential tool of democratic election, it actually happens that doing so is not even legal.  in toronto last year, the mayor rob ford admitted to using crack cocaine while in office, spurring a backlash from the public.  when people called for his stepping down, bureaucratic laws and democratic arguments kept him in power, because  the law said it was not allowed .  so because a law was written, people just stepped down and simply remained angry but quiet.  this is not how a democracy succeeds.  when an elected official fails to do their job competently, the people who elected him need to stand up and remove him, and they should have every right to do so, otherwise, what kind of democracy is it that you can place a person in a position of power, but not remove them ?  tl;dr : democracy in its common modern form fails not only to allow people to better interact with their government and choose their own fate, but can even prevent them legally from doing so.  we do not need to follow the democratic dogma so strictly, we have seen before that reducing some liberties, increasing taxation, and giving the government more power whilst letting it demand more from its citizens can improve a country.  in fact, i think it should be a democratic government is obligation to make its people participate, and to better educate them about economics, politics, and hsitory, so they can participate with greater effect.   #  it is possible for a democratic nation to be good as well as bad, and therefore it does not make sense that  wouldemocracy is fundamentally good , if it can lead to poor results.   #  the thing you are missing here is, i think, a problem with the way we frame the idea of democracy being fundamentally good.   # the most successful democracies in the world are those that have effective electoral procedures and a well educated populous.  this is not a new concept aristotle wrote about the necessity of education to the function of a democracy in  politics  over two millennia ago.  yes, the human rights situation was not the greatest, but is it any better than it is in some democratically elected states ? i think that this  massively  downplays the human rights violations in the ussr.  by all accounts, human rights in the ussr were some of the worst of  all time  URL most estimates of casualties under stalinism start at 0 million people and range to upwards of 0 million people that is just under stalin, and that is  just  those who died, and does not include the millions of people enslaved in work camps.  the thing you are missing here is, i think, a problem with the way we frame the idea of democracy being fundamentally good.  when we say democracy being fundamentally good, we are talking about a very specific kind of democracy: liberal democracy.  fareed zakaria actually wrote a very interesting article on the rise of illiberal democracy pdf here URL where he talks about the importance not only of the political freedoms to vote and associate in political parties, but also freedoms of the press, of religion, etc.  thus, when people say that democracy is fundamentally good, they are not talking simply of democracy, but are implicitly talking about the type of democracy that the west is most familiar with liberal democracy.  when people called for his stepping down, bureaucratic laws and democratic arguments kept him in power, because  the law said it was not allowed .  so because a law was written, people just stepped down and simply remained angry but quiet.  this is not how a democracy succeeds.  what you describe here is an improper functioning of a democratic system.  however, your disappointment at the failure of rob ford to step down in light of actions that enraged the people is a  democratic  view in and of itself.  an absolute monarch, a plutocracy, an aristocracy, etc.  does not step down because the people will them to.  leaders of democracies, on the other hand, more often than not  do  step down when the people will them to.  hell, the us is not even that good at the democracy thing, comparatively, but for the past 0 years we have not once had a president who has failed to step down when the people decided that was their will.   #  right now, the democratic system in the west is far from perfect, but that does not mean that the system is broken.   #   democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.   winston churchill democracy has many faults, but it is at least somewhat responsive to the needs of the people by design.  most other forms of choosing the leaders of the country can be bent even worse than the examples you give.  you should read about the way chinese officials run roughshod over their people and i think you might start to look at our system a bit differently.  most of the problems you list are cultural problems, and sometimes economic problems, rather than directly a problem with democracy.  a stronger democracy would give people the feeling that the government is actually responding to their wishes, and could encourage more civic involvement.  right now, the democratic system in the west is far from perfect, but that does not mean that the system is broken.  it means the implementation needs to be adjusted to our current situation.  democracy gives the people the chance to change things without violence.   #  xi can do as he pleases, but if it upsets them they will put a stop to if immediately and mr.   #  well i have an intro political science class overview i can tell you.  the chinese government is supposed to be the people elect local officials who pick higher ups from there all the way up to the national peoples congress.  they then pick a president who has a 0 year term.  they also choose a state council of about 0 members.  they are heads of the departments of government and their leader is the premier.  what really happens is the communist party chooses a leader who usually becomes paramount leader.  this means he holds 0 offices: general secretary of the communist party and central committee, chairman of the central military commission, and president.  this is currently xi jingping pronounced roughly she zhingping .  his right hand man becomes the premier.  this is currently li keqiang pronounced, roughly and depending on the translation, as lee key quang these two men run the government and can change all the rules pretty much by their will.  if someone in the party disagrees with them, they often will disappear.  they have nearly complete control except they must listen to the politburo.  the politburo is elder members of the communist party, usually between 0 0 people who really control everything.  because of elder respect in the culture what they say goes.  mr.  xi can do as he pleases, but if it upsets them they will put a stop to if immediately and mr.  xi will listen.  all this means for example, there is a lot of other, far worse, consequences that no one in china dares speak badly of the government.  nowadays, if you dare, you might be able to say something about mr.  xi or mr.  li, but you certainly never speak a bad word about mao zedong.  that would be, quite literally, a death sentence.  to see more about them you can look on wikipedia.  their overview is pretty good but it is kinda lacing all the atrocities.  the book my class used which was pretty good was cases in comparative politics by patrick oneil it is blue do not mix it up with its red counterpart which is the tools for comparing politics .  it covers more countries than just china but it is serviceable to see all the actual happenings in china.  sorry i do not have any other recommendations  #  i could imagine all kinds of vertical separation as well.   #  but it is so weird that nobody can come up with a better thing how comes there is no innovation or research in this thing ? my opinion is that perhaps the solution lies in the scope of decision making, not in how to make the decisions.  laws in a nation affect everybody, although not the same extent, and everybody gets to vote.  if it would be possible to partition decisions so that they have less of a universal effect, and generally limit voting to those who are affected, that could be better.  one such thing is localism for example as many decisions as possible to be cut down to the local, county, town, city district level.  that is a good idea, but geographical separation is just one axis.  i could imagine all kinds of vertical separation as well.   #  if you are not willing to actively get educated on the issues so you can vote in an informed way, maybe you deserve the shitty leaders you elect.   #  representative democracy is the least worst system.  yes, people are stupid, short sighted, selfish, uninformed, and lazy.  this causes them to elect bad leaders.  but if you think about it, are not they getting exactly the government they deserve ? if you are not willing to actively get educated on the issues so you can vote in an informed way, maybe you deserve the shitty leaders you elect.  every system can work well if we assume the best: a responsible citizenry in the case of democracy, or a benevolent dictator in the case of fascism.  but assuming that the purpose of government is to benefit the people, should not the goodness of government be proportional to how much work they put into it ? i contend that democracy is such a system.  it can work well of citizens put forth the effort.  it makes no sense to advocate for dictatorship i am order to benefit people who are too lazy to care.
i see it quite frequently: western leaders touting the great benefits of democracy, putting down other countries for their anti democratic ways, berating them often quite ironically for not embracing the system that, according to them, is quite clearly better for its citizens.  but i do not think that democracy necessarily benefits its citizens, and that the correlation between development and democracy that so many try to make is wrong.  some of the main issues that i have with democracy are as follows:   the public is not always well educated on election issues, and often make poor decisions in who they elect to solve the issues.  the number of times an election has gone  wrong  and resulted in a shitty leader who fucked things up is uncountable.  what is more, people is misunderstanding of even basic economics leads them to think that many economic arguments surrounding  job creation  are true, where having a more advanced education plus better critical thinking skills would lead them to conclude something entirely different.  this could quite obviously be solved by better educating the public, alas, that would be  a breach of democratic rights to be free of mandatory state education .    many of today is nations succeed without democracy, whereas many democratic states fail.  the soviet union, from its initiation into the middle of the 0th century, experienced great economic growth under soviet 0 year plans.  yes, the human rights situation was not the greatest, but is it any better than it is in some democratically elected states ? iran democratically elects its government and are for all intents and purposes a  wouldemocratic state , but the government is still under the control of the ayatollah and the constitution, which declares it an islamic republic.  it is possible for a democratic nation to be good as well as bad, and therefore it does not make sense that  wouldemocracy is fundamentally good , if it can lead to poor results.    people want the right of democracy, but are not willing to pick up the slack.  with having more freedoms and the right to elect your government, you should be expected to contribute in more ways than just voting.  voting and sending an official to government to represent you means that you should be sure that that person is representing you well, and demanding justice when they do not.  not only do people not exercise this essential tool of democratic election, it actually happens that doing so is not even legal.  in toronto last year, the mayor rob ford admitted to using crack cocaine while in office, spurring a backlash from the public.  when people called for his stepping down, bureaucratic laws and democratic arguments kept him in power, because  the law said it was not allowed .  so because a law was written, people just stepped down and simply remained angry but quiet.  this is not how a democracy succeeds.  when an elected official fails to do their job competently, the people who elected him need to stand up and remove him, and they should have every right to do so, otherwise, what kind of democracy is it that you can place a person in a position of power, but not remove them ?  tl;dr : democracy in its common modern form fails not only to allow people to better interact with their government and choose their own fate, but can even prevent them legally from doing so.  we do not need to follow the democratic dogma so strictly, we have seen before that reducing some liberties, increasing taxation, and giving the government more power whilst letting it demand more from its citizens can improve a country.  in fact, i think it should be a democratic government is obligation to make its people participate, and to better educate them about economics, politics, and hsitory, so they can participate with greater effect.   #  in toronto last year, the mayor rob ford admitted to using crack cocaine while in office, spurring a backlash from the public.   #  when people called for his stepping down, bureaucratic laws and democratic arguments kept him in power, because  the law said it was not allowed .   # the most successful democracies in the world are those that have effective electoral procedures and a well educated populous.  this is not a new concept aristotle wrote about the necessity of education to the function of a democracy in  politics  over two millennia ago.  yes, the human rights situation was not the greatest, but is it any better than it is in some democratically elected states ? i think that this  massively  downplays the human rights violations in the ussr.  by all accounts, human rights in the ussr were some of the worst of  all time  URL most estimates of casualties under stalinism start at 0 million people and range to upwards of 0 million people that is just under stalin, and that is  just  those who died, and does not include the millions of people enslaved in work camps.  the thing you are missing here is, i think, a problem with the way we frame the idea of democracy being fundamentally good.  when we say democracy being fundamentally good, we are talking about a very specific kind of democracy: liberal democracy.  fareed zakaria actually wrote a very interesting article on the rise of illiberal democracy pdf here URL where he talks about the importance not only of the political freedoms to vote and associate in political parties, but also freedoms of the press, of religion, etc.  thus, when people say that democracy is fundamentally good, they are not talking simply of democracy, but are implicitly talking about the type of democracy that the west is most familiar with liberal democracy.  when people called for his stepping down, bureaucratic laws and democratic arguments kept him in power, because  the law said it was not allowed .  so because a law was written, people just stepped down and simply remained angry but quiet.  this is not how a democracy succeeds.  what you describe here is an improper functioning of a democratic system.  however, your disappointment at the failure of rob ford to step down in light of actions that enraged the people is a  democratic  view in and of itself.  an absolute monarch, a plutocracy, an aristocracy, etc.  does not step down because the people will them to.  leaders of democracies, on the other hand, more often than not  do  step down when the people will them to.  hell, the us is not even that good at the democracy thing, comparatively, but for the past 0 years we have not once had a president who has failed to step down when the people decided that was their will.   #  democracy gives the people the chance to change things without violence.   #   democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.   winston churchill democracy has many faults, but it is at least somewhat responsive to the needs of the people by design.  most other forms of choosing the leaders of the country can be bent even worse than the examples you give.  you should read about the way chinese officials run roughshod over their people and i think you might start to look at our system a bit differently.  most of the problems you list are cultural problems, and sometimes economic problems, rather than directly a problem with democracy.  a stronger democracy would give people the feeling that the government is actually responding to their wishes, and could encourage more civic involvement.  right now, the democratic system in the west is far from perfect, but that does not mean that the system is broken.  it means the implementation needs to be adjusted to our current situation.  democracy gives the people the chance to change things without violence.   #  the book my class used which was pretty good was cases in comparative politics by patrick oneil it is blue do not mix it up with its red counterpart which is the tools for comparing politics .   #  well i have an intro political science class overview i can tell you.  the chinese government is supposed to be the people elect local officials who pick higher ups from there all the way up to the national peoples congress.  they then pick a president who has a 0 year term.  they also choose a state council of about 0 members.  they are heads of the departments of government and their leader is the premier.  what really happens is the communist party chooses a leader who usually becomes paramount leader.  this means he holds 0 offices: general secretary of the communist party and central committee, chairman of the central military commission, and president.  this is currently xi jingping pronounced roughly she zhingping .  his right hand man becomes the premier.  this is currently li keqiang pronounced, roughly and depending on the translation, as lee key quang these two men run the government and can change all the rules pretty much by their will.  if someone in the party disagrees with them, they often will disappear.  they have nearly complete control except they must listen to the politburo.  the politburo is elder members of the communist party, usually between 0 0 people who really control everything.  because of elder respect in the culture what they say goes.  mr.  xi can do as he pleases, but if it upsets them they will put a stop to if immediately and mr.  xi will listen.  all this means for example, there is a lot of other, far worse, consequences that no one in china dares speak badly of the government.  nowadays, if you dare, you might be able to say something about mr.  xi or mr.  li, but you certainly never speak a bad word about mao zedong.  that would be, quite literally, a death sentence.  to see more about them you can look on wikipedia.  their overview is pretty good but it is kinda lacing all the atrocities.  the book my class used which was pretty good was cases in comparative politics by patrick oneil it is blue do not mix it up with its red counterpart which is the tools for comparing politics .  it covers more countries than just china but it is serviceable to see all the actual happenings in china.  sorry i do not have any other recommendations  #  that is a good idea, but geographical separation is just one axis.   #  but it is so weird that nobody can come up with a better thing how comes there is no innovation or research in this thing ? my opinion is that perhaps the solution lies in the scope of decision making, not in how to make the decisions.  laws in a nation affect everybody, although not the same extent, and everybody gets to vote.  if it would be possible to partition decisions so that they have less of a universal effect, and generally limit voting to those who are affected, that could be better.  one such thing is localism for example as many decisions as possible to be cut down to the local, county, town, city district level.  that is a good idea, but geographical separation is just one axis.  i could imagine all kinds of vertical separation as well.   #  every system can work well if we assume the best: a responsible citizenry in the case of democracy, or a benevolent dictator in the case of fascism.   #  representative democracy is the least worst system.  yes, people are stupid, short sighted, selfish, uninformed, and lazy.  this causes them to elect bad leaders.  but if you think about it, are not they getting exactly the government they deserve ? if you are not willing to actively get educated on the issues so you can vote in an informed way, maybe you deserve the shitty leaders you elect.  every system can work well if we assume the best: a responsible citizenry in the case of democracy, or a benevolent dictator in the case of fascism.  but assuming that the purpose of government is to benefit the people, should not the goodness of government be proportional to how much work they put into it ? i contend that democracy is such a system.  it can work well of citizens put forth the effort.  it makes no sense to advocate for dictatorship i am order to benefit people who are too lazy to care.
the main argument touted as a reason for the increasing number of obese and morbidly obese people in the uk and usa is that people on low incomes can only afford unhealthy foods, thus their economic circumstance enslaves them to their detrimental physical situation.  but i do not believe this is the case.  fast food is actually relatively expensive in comparison to healthy foods.  for example a mcdonald is big mac in the uk is £0 $0 .  keep in mind that one big mac is not nearly enough to fill up a 0 year old boy.  hence to actively feed oneself on unhealthy foods the supposed obese person would have to consume multiple big macs daily.  now lets take this as a diet for the average obese person i sourced these from the cheapest store i could find them.  if you know a cheaper price then comment and i will go over my calculations breakfast 0 packets of crisps £0,$0   0 ring donuts £0, $0 and a 0ml coca cola £0p, $0 lunch 0 big mac meals £0, $0 dinner chinese takeaway consisting of chicken fried rice, spring rolls and sweet and sour chicken £0, $0 total for a day is £0 $0 i know junk food is generally cheaper in the usa but the prices cannot diverge too much from my above figure.  for someone to actually get morbidly obese the portions they would have to consume would need to be significantly higher than my above estimates.  in the uk you could get a dozen eggs for £0 and fresh vegetables consisting of cherry tomatoes, carrots, peas, romaine lettuce, cucumber for under £0.  the remaining can be used to purchase a bag of chicken or tasty steaks and long grain rice.  and this would last for more than a day.  so i head back to my title.  fat people are not fat because they are poor.  it is simply an excuse for them to continue their lifestyles free of guilt.  change my view  #  people are not fat because they are poor.   #  this one is undeniable, it is simple statistics.   # this one is undeniable, it is simple statistics.  poor people are more touch by obesity than other people, there is no argument possible here.  going to assume that by  fast food  you mean every type of food that could be called junk food it is true overall but with a lot of limitation that are actually a big problem for poor people.  fresh products are pretty expensive and do not keep well so a large part of healthy food, and probably the better, cost more.  the fact that it does not keep is also a big problem, it force you to shop often which can be problem for many poor people especially the ones that end up relying a lot on public transport .  another problem is that the vast majority of  healthy  food is also unprocessed food, even more so for cheaper ones, which mean you have to prepare it and often cook it.  cooking is great both for your health and your budget but it require you to have enough room to cook, a decent amount of kitchen equipment, time and knowledge.  the room is a big problem in many poor family, the equipment can present a substantial upfront investment especially if you rarely cooked before and do not know how much money you can save, already talk about time and it is probably one of the biggest problem and finally even if the knowledge needed to cook simple things is very limited it is still pose a problem to many people, either because they do not know it is simple or they have trouble with simple instruction i saw someone set on fire pastas, i did not even know it was technically possible lastly and in my opinion the more important : instant gratification.  most people like to eat away their felling or when they are stressed or depressed or to celebrate pretty much anything.  junk food is pretty taste and you usually feel much better when you are eating it while for much healthy food you need a decent amount of time to set it up if not a very long time for really good food.  now when you are poor your life is not all that glamorous and junk food might be the one of the rare thing you can enjoy.  i saw a post on reddit about the priority order of a shopping list from someone that used to be dirt poor.  junk food was pretty high and certainly fruits and vegetable because it was literally the only thing he had to look for in his week, once you are at this point it is very easy to become in a way addicted to junk food and kind of snowball into it.   #  if you are working multiple jobs or lack good transportation these are options you simply do not have.   # only if the 0 year old boy is regularly eating larger meals and has been accustomed to consuming much more than they should.  depending on what they are drinking, your  0 big mac meals  estimation for lunch could well meet most people is entire daily caloric needs.  they really would not.  the diet you suggest is probably at least 0 % of the daily requirements for an adult male, let alone a child or female.  the ease of getting fat aside, though, you are discounting the fact that fresh foods have additional travel, storage, and preparation costs.  if you are working multiple jobs or lack good transportation these are options you simply do not have.  a lot of times the convenient option is chosen out of necessity, not laziness.   #  URL and unless british chinese takeout is an order of magnitude better for you than american, that meal alone is going to scale very high.   # the diet you suggest is probably at least 0 % of the daily requirements for an adult male, let alone a child or female.  a big mac has approximately 0 calories.  a small fry will add 0 calories.  a medium 0.  a large 0.  a small coke will add 0.  a medium 0.  a large 0.  a big mac meal will range between 0 0 calories.  two on the small end are very close to meeting daily caloric needs though not in a very healthy way.  URL and unless british chinese takeout is an order of magnitude better for you than american, that meal alone is going to scale very high.  taken with the big mac meals, i would not be surprised if it topped 0 calories.   #  a poor family where the parents have two jobs a piece so not have time to cook.   #  the main way poverty interacts with obesity is time not cost.  a poor family where the parents have two jobs a piece so not have time to cook.  healthy meals take preparation time in most cases, whereas quick packeged meals do not.  when people eat packaged foods high in sugar, salt, fat and calories, problems start.  if they had time and know how to cook, their chance of obesity would go down dramatically.  the main food responsible for obesity are not burgers as  super size me  might suggest.  usually, it is soda.  soda is tasty, filling, quick and cheap.  juice on the other hand is expensive, and only middle class people can afford to drink it.  fresh fruits and vegetables are the number one healthiest thing to eat, and you guessed it: expensive and often not available in poor areas.  there is no whole foods in urban slums.  childhood obesity also seems to go against what you are saying.  kids are more often fat because their meals are snacks like hot pockets, chips, and lots of soda, rather than fast food restaurant meals.  they do not have the means to go to mcdonalds, they eat what is around the house.  exercise is also class based.  running shoes, gym memberships, pool memberships, team sports, and home equipment are all expensive.  diet is only one half of the weight loss coin.  i ate like a pig as a kid whenever i could, but my family could afford to send me to team sports, so i was never very overweight.  while the obese in denial make many excuses, low income is quite frequently a difficult barrier to overcome.   #  nor is it even a large portion of their diet for the most part.   #  you seem to have a misconception of the poor.  their diets do not consist primarily of fast food.  nor is it even a large portion of their diet for the most part.  you need to look at stuff like top ramen, canned crap from the food bank, macaroni   cheese, and snack foods like potato chips.  desserts are high fat stuff like little debbies.  neighborhood grocery stores are often basically large convenience stores that only sell the lowest quality food.  low quality often means high calorie.  and do not forget a lot of poor do not have equipment to cook food.  the middle class take stoves and pots and pans as a given but that is not something all poor have.  nor do many of them have the skills to cook food.  and kids who grow up eating crap are going to like crap and not be able to eat healthy foods because it tastes weird.  so yes, you are right you can eat healthier foods cheaper at the store than you can fast food but people eating primarily fast food are not the poor.  the poor do not have enough money for that.  source: i am a low rent housing landlord who has cleaned many kitchens after poor people have moved out and have had many poor people over to my house for meals.
the main argument touted as a reason for the increasing number of obese and morbidly obese people in the uk and usa is that people on low incomes can only afford unhealthy foods, thus their economic circumstance enslaves them to their detrimental physical situation.  but i do not believe this is the case.  fast food is actually relatively expensive in comparison to healthy foods.  for example a mcdonald is big mac in the uk is £0 $0 .  keep in mind that one big mac is not nearly enough to fill up a 0 year old boy.  hence to actively feed oneself on unhealthy foods the supposed obese person would have to consume multiple big macs daily.  now lets take this as a diet for the average obese person i sourced these from the cheapest store i could find them.  if you know a cheaper price then comment and i will go over my calculations breakfast 0 packets of crisps £0,$0   0 ring donuts £0, $0 and a 0ml coca cola £0p, $0 lunch 0 big mac meals £0, $0 dinner chinese takeaway consisting of chicken fried rice, spring rolls and sweet and sour chicken £0, $0 total for a day is £0 $0 i know junk food is generally cheaper in the usa but the prices cannot diverge too much from my above figure.  for someone to actually get morbidly obese the portions they would have to consume would need to be significantly higher than my above estimates.  in the uk you could get a dozen eggs for £0 and fresh vegetables consisting of cherry tomatoes, carrots, peas, romaine lettuce, cucumber for under £0.  the remaining can be used to purchase a bag of chicken or tasty steaks and long grain rice.  and this would last for more than a day.  so i head back to my title.  fat people are not fat because they are poor.  it is simply an excuse for them to continue their lifestyles free of guilt.  change my view  #  fast food is actually relatively expensive in comparison to healthy foods.   #  going to assume that by  fast food  you mean every type of food that could be called junk food it is true overall but with a lot of limitation that are actually a big problem for poor people.   # this one is undeniable, it is simple statistics.  poor people are more touch by obesity than other people, there is no argument possible here.  going to assume that by  fast food  you mean every type of food that could be called junk food it is true overall but with a lot of limitation that are actually a big problem for poor people.  fresh products are pretty expensive and do not keep well so a large part of healthy food, and probably the better, cost more.  the fact that it does not keep is also a big problem, it force you to shop often which can be problem for many poor people especially the ones that end up relying a lot on public transport .  another problem is that the vast majority of  healthy  food is also unprocessed food, even more so for cheaper ones, which mean you have to prepare it and often cook it.  cooking is great both for your health and your budget but it require you to have enough room to cook, a decent amount of kitchen equipment, time and knowledge.  the room is a big problem in many poor family, the equipment can present a substantial upfront investment especially if you rarely cooked before and do not know how much money you can save, already talk about time and it is probably one of the biggest problem and finally even if the knowledge needed to cook simple things is very limited it is still pose a problem to many people, either because they do not know it is simple or they have trouble with simple instruction i saw someone set on fire pastas, i did not even know it was technically possible lastly and in my opinion the more important : instant gratification.  most people like to eat away their felling or when they are stressed or depressed or to celebrate pretty much anything.  junk food is pretty taste and you usually feel much better when you are eating it while for much healthy food you need a decent amount of time to set it up if not a very long time for really good food.  now when you are poor your life is not all that glamorous and junk food might be the one of the rare thing you can enjoy.  i saw a post on reddit about the priority order of a shopping list from someone that used to be dirt poor.  junk food was pretty high and certainly fruits and vegetable because it was literally the only thing he had to look for in his week, once you are at this point it is very easy to become in a way addicted to junk food and kind of snowball into it.   #  if you are working multiple jobs or lack good transportation these are options you simply do not have.   # only if the 0 year old boy is regularly eating larger meals and has been accustomed to consuming much more than they should.  depending on what they are drinking, your  0 big mac meals  estimation for lunch could well meet most people is entire daily caloric needs.  they really would not.  the diet you suggest is probably at least 0 % of the daily requirements for an adult male, let alone a child or female.  the ease of getting fat aside, though, you are discounting the fact that fresh foods have additional travel, storage, and preparation costs.  if you are working multiple jobs or lack good transportation these are options you simply do not have.  a lot of times the convenient option is chosen out of necessity, not laziness.   #  a medium 0.  a large 0.  a small coke will add 0.  a medium 0.  a large 0.  a big mac meal will range between 0 0 calories.   # the diet you suggest is probably at least 0 % of the daily requirements for an adult male, let alone a child or female.  a big mac has approximately 0 calories.  a small fry will add 0 calories.  a medium 0.  a large 0.  a small coke will add 0.  a medium 0.  a large 0.  a big mac meal will range between 0 0 calories.  two on the small end are very close to meeting daily caloric needs though not in a very healthy way.  URL and unless british chinese takeout is an order of magnitude better for you than american, that meal alone is going to scale very high.  taken with the big mac meals, i would not be surprised if it topped 0 calories.   #  kids are more often fat because their meals are snacks like hot pockets, chips, and lots of soda, rather than fast food restaurant meals.   #  the main way poverty interacts with obesity is time not cost.  a poor family where the parents have two jobs a piece so not have time to cook.  healthy meals take preparation time in most cases, whereas quick packeged meals do not.  when people eat packaged foods high in sugar, salt, fat and calories, problems start.  if they had time and know how to cook, their chance of obesity would go down dramatically.  the main food responsible for obesity are not burgers as  super size me  might suggest.  usually, it is soda.  soda is tasty, filling, quick and cheap.  juice on the other hand is expensive, and only middle class people can afford to drink it.  fresh fruits and vegetables are the number one healthiest thing to eat, and you guessed it: expensive and often not available in poor areas.  there is no whole foods in urban slums.  childhood obesity also seems to go against what you are saying.  kids are more often fat because their meals are snacks like hot pockets, chips, and lots of soda, rather than fast food restaurant meals.  they do not have the means to go to mcdonalds, they eat what is around the house.  exercise is also class based.  running shoes, gym memberships, pool memberships, team sports, and home equipment are all expensive.  diet is only one half of the weight loss coin.  i ate like a pig as a kid whenever i could, but my family could afford to send me to team sports, so i was never very overweight.  while the obese in denial make many excuses, low income is quite frequently a difficult barrier to overcome.   #  nor do many of them have the skills to cook food.   #  you seem to have a misconception of the poor.  their diets do not consist primarily of fast food.  nor is it even a large portion of their diet for the most part.  you need to look at stuff like top ramen, canned crap from the food bank, macaroni   cheese, and snack foods like potato chips.  desserts are high fat stuff like little debbies.  neighborhood grocery stores are often basically large convenience stores that only sell the lowest quality food.  low quality often means high calorie.  and do not forget a lot of poor do not have equipment to cook food.  the middle class take stoves and pots and pans as a given but that is not something all poor have.  nor do many of them have the skills to cook food.  and kids who grow up eating crap are going to like crap and not be able to eat healthy foods because it tastes weird.  so yes, you are right you can eat healthier foods cheaper at the store than you can fast food but people eating primarily fast food are not the poor.  the poor do not have enough money for that.  source: i am a low rent housing landlord who has cleaned many kitchens after poor people have moved out and have had many poor people over to my house for meals.
here URL a paper that was published in  psychological science,  one of the top peer reviewed psychology journals.  its purpose was to refute exaggerated claims about the differences between men is and women is sexualities.  one of the ideas it aims to refute is that straight men have more sexual partners on average than straight women.  it presents this as a widely held belief that has been used to support gender stereotypes about sexuality.  the article then explains a fancy psychological study that manipulated people into being more honest about their sexual history than they would normally be.  these men and women reported similar numbers of sexual partners.  the authors proudly concluded: sexual partners than do men ? no this was clearly intended as evidence against the stereotype that men seek to have more sex than women.  but, as another psychologist pointed out URL on an obscure blog,  of course  straight men and women have the same number of sexual partners, since, every time a man has sex with a new woman, that woman is having sex with a new man.  there is no way for the average straight man to have more sexual partners than the average straight woman except due to differences in the number of men and women in the population, which is beside the point .  nonsense like this is seems rampant in the social sciences.  psychology, sociology, anthropology and related fields seem dominated by people who have no real intellectual curiosity about how the mind works or how societies work.  rather, they are interested in advancing social justice, and they became social scientists in order to generate  research  that supports the perspectives of the social justice movement.  hence, we see  experts  making downright stupid arguments against  gender stereotypes,  getting those arguments published in prestigious journals,  and not having their articles retracted after their egregious errors are pointed out.   edited for clarity as a result, the social sciences have failed to discover much of anything they still ca not really explain why racism exists and how to make it go away, for instance.  i am really interested to hear people is defense of the social sciences against this kind of accusation.  i realize it is a broad topic, and i welcome commenters to use any examples they want to use.  however, if it helps, here is a list of ideas that i think are wrong, and that i think were generated or at least perpetuated by social scientists who were biased by social justice concerns: 0 that people are born  blank slates,  that our  culture  determines our psychological traits to a far greater extent than instincts, and so on.  0 that human cultures are all wildly different from eachother.  0 that ancient hunter gatherers and other pre state peoples were very peaceful, compassionate, and cooperative compared to modern peoples.  the  noble savage  idea.  0 that rape, in general, is a political act intended to oppress women as a class, and not motivated by sexual desire.  0 that males and females only think and behave differently because of differences in how they are socialized.  0 that racism and sexism are fundmentally the same kind of thing.   0 that white westerners are especially bigoted compared to other people.  alright, i think that is plenty.   #  0 that people are born  blank slates,  that our  culture  determines our psychological traits to a far greater extent than instincts, and so on.   #  this one is hard to prove for either sides.   #  most of these ideas are either mostly debunked or not as clearcut as you seem to think.  this one is hard to prove for either sides.  the best argument i have seen is that the largest part of our lives are now spent in areas where  instinct  has lost a lot of it is use.  also, what little we know about  unsocialized  humans seems to show that socialization plays a very large role in your development.  it all depends of what you are focusing on.  in many ways they  are  vastly different, but they  do  have undeniable similitudes seeing as they are all comprised of humans living together.  this idea of cultures being vastly different also predates your perceived  liberal bias  by a long time.  the  noble savage  idea.  this idea predates the more recent  liberal bias  by almost a hundred years and has been vastly undermined in recent years.  it is definitely not uniquely motived by sexual desires.  that is simplistic.  again, like your first point, this is hard to prove from either sides.  all we can really say, as social scientist, is that socialization is different for sure.  seeing as socialization plays a large part in any human development, i could see how some would stipulate that.  i am not sure what you mean.  that something you hear a lot, but it is not an actual stance of sociologist or anthropologist as far as i know.  on the contrary, they are often considered far more open minded, simply because they can access lots of informations.   #  overall, i think the paper goes against your argument it is listing a large amount of experimental, peer reviewed data that supports the view that cultural norms shapes sexual preferences.   #  i do not think your cited study supports the point.  sure, heterosexual men and women would have the same number of sexual partners on mean average, but not at the median.  looking at medians, women is  number  might be lower due to a small number of women like sex workers or just plain promiscuous people having sex with a large number of men.  overall, i think the paper goes against your argument it is listing a large amount of experimental, peer reviewed data that supports the view that cultural norms shapes sexual preferences.  that same 0 study also looked at desired sexual partners, and found that when you reduced the effect of cultural expectations, women and men converged.  that does not sound like bias, that sounds like social scientists investigating culture, sex, and gender with empirical tools.  the vast majority of academics with a ph. d in psychology are going to tell you that it is a complex combination of nature or nurture, but there is plenty of reasonable, empirical evidence for the  social justice  positions at issue in that study.  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .  similar paradoxes exist with regard to men reporting more frequent intercourse than women.  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .  ln light of these illogicalities, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the sex differences in self reports of sexuality are not due to actual sex differences in behavior, but rather to differences in reporting as a function of differential normative expectations for men and women.  emphasis added  #  the study is not about counting sexual partners, it is about understanding why men would over report their sexual activity while women would under report their sexual activity.   #  here is a quote from page 0 of that study, where they state the problem being discussed.  the study is not about counting sexual partners, it is about understanding why men would over report their sexual activity while women would under report their sexual activity.  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .  similar paradoxes exist with regard to men reporting more frequent intercourse than women.  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .  ln light of these illogicalities, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the sex differences in self reports of sexuality are  not due to actual sex differences in behavior, but rather to differences in reporting as a function of differential normative expectations for men and women.  emphasis added i am guessing that evolutionary psychologist was being sensationalist in his blog post.  if anything, it indicates his bias, not the bias of the study.   #  the referenced study which was not the study you linked debunks that.   #  hi ! i have attached here a list of social science journal rankings: URL can i ask for some articles from anything in the top 0 of that list that you feel would meet the points on your list ? i do not see them reflected in reality.  even the paper you listed answered far more questions far more completely than you give it credit for.  for instance it is a common myth that a small number of women have a vast number of sexual partners prostitutes/sluts and thus the graph of sexual partners skews.  the referenced study which was not the study you linked debunks that.  it is a little like summarizing all papers that explore the effects of global warming with the handwave  of course global warming is happening !   so, to be frank, i think much of this stems from you reading blogs and misunderstanding science due to the faulty understandings of blog authors, and thus i am curious to see what other papers you would cite for these positions.   #  i will be happy to take up that challenge over the next day or so.   #  i will be happy to take up that challenge over the next day or so.  as for the sexual partners thing, my criticism pertains only to the paper that i linked.  whatever the actual alexander and fisher 0  bogus pipeline  study was about is beside my point.  maybe that study was making a legitimate point.  but that does not excuse the blatent reasoning errors in the article that i linked.  you do recgnize why it is stupid for those authors to say  bottom line: do women. actually have fewer sexual partners than do men ? no right ?
here URL a paper that was published in  psychological science,  one of the top peer reviewed psychology journals.  its purpose was to refute exaggerated claims about the differences between men is and women is sexualities.  one of the ideas it aims to refute is that straight men have more sexual partners on average than straight women.  it presents this as a widely held belief that has been used to support gender stereotypes about sexuality.  the article then explains a fancy psychological study that manipulated people into being more honest about their sexual history than they would normally be.  these men and women reported similar numbers of sexual partners.  the authors proudly concluded: sexual partners than do men ? no this was clearly intended as evidence against the stereotype that men seek to have more sex than women.  but, as another psychologist pointed out URL on an obscure blog,  of course  straight men and women have the same number of sexual partners, since, every time a man has sex with a new woman, that woman is having sex with a new man.  there is no way for the average straight man to have more sexual partners than the average straight woman except due to differences in the number of men and women in the population, which is beside the point .  nonsense like this is seems rampant in the social sciences.  psychology, sociology, anthropology and related fields seem dominated by people who have no real intellectual curiosity about how the mind works or how societies work.  rather, they are interested in advancing social justice, and they became social scientists in order to generate  research  that supports the perspectives of the social justice movement.  hence, we see  experts  making downright stupid arguments against  gender stereotypes,  getting those arguments published in prestigious journals,  and not having their articles retracted after their egregious errors are pointed out.   edited for clarity as a result, the social sciences have failed to discover much of anything they still ca not really explain why racism exists and how to make it go away, for instance.  i am really interested to hear people is defense of the social sciences against this kind of accusation.  i realize it is a broad topic, and i welcome commenters to use any examples they want to use.  however, if it helps, here is a list of ideas that i think are wrong, and that i think were generated or at least perpetuated by social scientists who were biased by social justice concerns: 0 that people are born  blank slates,  that our  culture  determines our psychological traits to a far greater extent than instincts, and so on.  0 that human cultures are all wildly different from eachother.  0 that ancient hunter gatherers and other pre state peoples were very peaceful, compassionate, and cooperative compared to modern peoples.  the  noble savage  idea.  0 that rape, in general, is a political act intended to oppress women as a class, and not motivated by sexual desire.  0 that males and females only think and behave differently because of differences in how they are socialized.  0 that racism and sexism are fundmentally the same kind of thing.   0 that white westerners are especially bigoted compared to other people.  alright, i think that is plenty.   #  0 that human cultures are all wildly different from eachother.   #  it all depends of what you are focusing on.   #  most of these ideas are either mostly debunked or not as clearcut as you seem to think.  this one is hard to prove for either sides.  the best argument i have seen is that the largest part of our lives are now spent in areas where  instinct  has lost a lot of it is use.  also, what little we know about  unsocialized  humans seems to show that socialization plays a very large role in your development.  it all depends of what you are focusing on.  in many ways they  are  vastly different, but they  do  have undeniable similitudes seeing as they are all comprised of humans living together.  this idea of cultures being vastly different also predates your perceived  liberal bias  by a long time.  the  noble savage  idea.  this idea predates the more recent  liberal bias  by almost a hundred years and has been vastly undermined in recent years.  it is definitely not uniquely motived by sexual desires.  that is simplistic.  again, like your first point, this is hard to prove from either sides.  all we can really say, as social scientist, is that socialization is different for sure.  seeing as socialization plays a large part in any human development, i could see how some would stipulate that.  i am not sure what you mean.  that something you hear a lot, but it is not an actual stance of sociologist or anthropologist as far as i know.  on the contrary, they are often considered far more open minded, simply because they can access lots of informations.   #  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.   #  i do not think your cited study supports the point.  sure, heterosexual men and women would have the same number of sexual partners on mean average, but not at the median.  looking at medians, women is  number  might be lower due to a small number of women like sex workers or just plain promiscuous people having sex with a large number of men.  overall, i think the paper goes against your argument it is listing a large amount of experimental, peer reviewed data that supports the view that cultural norms shapes sexual preferences.  that same 0 study also looked at desired sexual partners, and found that when you reduced the effect of cultural expectations, women and men converged.  that does not sound like bias, that sounds like social scientists investigating culture, sex, and gender with empirical tools.  the vast majority of academics with a ph. d in psychology are going to tell you that it is a complex combination of nature or nurture, but there is plenty of reasonable, empirical evidence for the  social justice  positions at issue in that study.  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .  similar paradoxes exist with regard to men reporting more frequent intercourse than women.  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .  ln light of these illogicalities, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the sex differences in self reports of sexuality are not due to actual sex differences in behavior, but rather to differences in reporting as a function of differential normative expectations for men and women.  emphasis added  #  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .   #  here is a quote from page 0 of that study, where they state the problem being discussed.  the study is not about counting sexual partners, it is about understanding why men would over report their sexual activity while women would under report their sexual activity.  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .  similar paradoxes exist with regard to men reporting more frequent intercourse than women.  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .  ln light of these illogicalities, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the sex differences in self reports of sexuality are  not due to actual sex differences in behavior, but rather to differences in reporting as a function of differential normative expectations for men and women.  emphasis added i am guessing that evolutionary psychologist was being sensationalist in his blog post.  if anything, it indicates his bias, not the bias of the study.   #  it is a little like summarizing all papers that explore the effects of global warming with the handwave  of course global warming is happening !    #  hi ! i have attached here a list of social science journal rankings: URL can i ask for some articles from anything in the top 0 of that list that you feel would meet the points on your list ? i do not see them reflected in reality.  even the paper you listed answered far more questions far more completely than you give it credit for.  for instance it is a common myth that a small number of women have a vast number of sexual partners prostitutes/sluts and thus the graph of sexual partners skews.  the referenced study which was not the study you linked debunks that.  it is a little like summarizing all papers that explore the effects of global warming with the handwave  of course global warming is happening !   so, to be frank, i think much of this stems from you reading blogs and misunderstanding science due to the faulty understandings of blog authors, and thus i am curious to see what other papers you would cite for these positions.   #  but that does not excuse the blatent reasoning errors in the article that i linked.   #  i will be happy to take up that challenge over the next day or so.  as for the sexual partners thing, my criticism pertains only to the paper that i linked.  whatever the actual alexander and fisher 0  bogus pipeline  study was about is beside my point.  maybe that study was making a legitimate point.  but that does not excuse the blatent reasoning errors in the article that i linked.  you do recgnize why it is stupid for those authors to say  bottom line: do women. actually have fewer sexual partners than do men ? no right ?
here URL a paper that was published in  psychological science,  one of the top peer reviewed psychology journals.  its purpose was to refute exaggerated claims about the differences between men is and women is sexualities.  one of the ideas it aims to refute is that straight men have more sexual partners on average than straight women.  it presents this as a widely held belief that has been used to support gender stereotypes about sexuality.  the article then explains a fancy psychological study that manipulated people into being more honest about their sexual history than they would normally be.  these men and women reported similar numbers of sexual partners.  the authors proudly concluded: sexual partners than do men ? no this was clearly intended as evidence against the stereotype that men seek to have more sex than women.  but, as another psychologist pointed out URL on an obscure blog,  of course  straight men and women have the same number of sexual partners, since, every time a man has sex with a new woman, that woman is having sex with a new man.  there is no way for the average straight man to have more sexual partners than the average straight woman except due to differences in the number of men and women in the population, which is beside the point .  nonsense like this is seems rampant in the social sciences.  psychology, sociology, anthropology and related fields seem dominated by people who have no real intellectual curiosity about how the mind works or how societies work.  rather, they are interested in advancing social justice, and they became social scientists in order to generate  research  that supports the perspectives of the social justice movement.  hence, we see  experts  making downright stupid arguments against  gender stereotypes,  getting those arguments published in prestigious journals,  and not having their articles retracted after their egregious errors are pointed out.   edited for clarity as a result, the social sciences have failed to discover much of anything they still ca not really explain why racism exists and how to make it go away, for instance.  i am really interested to hear people is defense of the social sciences against this kind of accusation.  i realize it is a broad topic, and i welcome commenters to use any examples they want to use.  however, if it helps, here is a list of ideas that i think are wrong, and that i think were generated or at least perpetuated by social scientists who were biased by social justice concerns: 0 that people are born  blank slates,  that our  culture  determines our psychological traits to a far greater extent than instincts, and so on.  0 that human cultures are all wildly different from eachother.  0 that ancient hunter gatherers and other pre state peoples were very peaceful, compassionate, and cooperative compared to modern peoples.  the  noble savage  idea.  0 that rape, in general, is a political act intended to oppress women as a class, and not motivated by sexual desire.  0 that males and females only think and behave differently because of differences in how they are socialized.  0 that racism and sexism are fundmentally the same kind of thing.   0 that white westerners are especially bigoted compared to other people.  alright, i think that is plenty.   #  0 that rape, in general, is a political act intended to oppress women as a class, and not motivated by sexual desire.   #  it is definitely not uniquely motived by sexual desires.   #  most of these ideas are either mostly debunked or not as clearcut as you seem to think.  this one is hard to prove for either sides.  the best argument i have seen is that the largest part of our lives are now spent in areas where  instinct  has lost a lot of it is use.  also, what little we know about  unsocialized  humans seems to show that socialization plays a very large role in your development.  it all depends of what you are focusing on.  in many ways they  are  vastly different, but they  do  have undeniable similitudes seeing as they are all comprised of humans living together.  this idea of cultures being vastly different also predates your perceived  liberal bias  by a long time.  the  noble savage  idea.  this idea predates the more recent  liberal bias  by almost a hundred years and has been vastly undermined in recent years.  it is definitely not uniquely motived by sexual desires.  that is simplistic.  again, like your first point, this is hard to prove from either sides.  all we can really say, as social scientist, is that socialization is different for sure.  seeing as socialization plays a large part in any human development, i could see how some would stipulate that.  i am not sure what you mean.  that something you hear a lot, but it is not an actual stance of sociologist or anthropologist as far as i know.  on the contrary, they are often considered far more open minded, simply because they can access lots of informations.   #  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .   #  i do not think your cited study supports the point.  sure, heterosexual men and women would have the same number of sexual partners on mean average, but not at the median.  looking at medians, women is  number  might be lower due to a small number of women like sex workers or just plain promiscuous people having sex with a large number of men.  overall, i think the paper goes against your argument it is listing a large amount of experimental, peer reviewed data that supports the view that cultural norms shapes sexual preferences.  that same 0 study also looked at desired sexual partners, and found that when you reduced the effect of cultural expectations, women and men converged.  that does not sound like bias, that sounds like social scientists investigating culture, sex, and gender with empirical tools.  the vast majority of academics with a ph. d in psychology are going to tell you that it is a complex combination of nature or nurture, but there is plenty of reasonable, empirical evidence for the  social justice  positions at issue in that study.  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .  similar paradoxes exist with regard to men reporting more frequent intercourse than women.  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .  ln light of these illogicalities, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the sex differences in self reports of sexuality are not due to actual sex differences in behavior, but rather to differences in reporting as a function of differential normative expectations for men and women.  emphasis added  #  if anything, it indicates his bias, not the bias of the study.   #  here is a quote from page 0 of that study, where they state the problem being discussed.  the study is not about counting sexual partners, it is about understanding why men would over report their sexual activity while women would under report their sexual activity.  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .  similar paradoxes exist with regard to men reporting more frequent intercourse than women.  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .  ln light of these illogicalities, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the sex differences in self reports of sexuality are  not due to actual sex differences in behavior, but rather to differences in reporting as a function of differential normative expectations for men and women.  emphasis added i am guessing that evolutionary psychologist was being sensationalist in his blog post.  if anything, it indicates his bias, not the bias of the study.   #  for instance it is a common myth that a small number of women have a vast number of sexual partners prostitutes/sluts and thus the graph of sexual partners skews.   #  hi ! i have attached here a list of social science journal rankings: URL can i ask for some articles from anything in the top 0 of that list that you feel would meet the points on your list ? i do not see them reflected in reality.  even the paper you listed answered far more questions far more completely than you give it credit for.  for instance it is a common myth that a small number of women have a vast number of sexual partners prostitutes/sluts and thus the graph of sexual partners skews.  the referenced study which was not the study you linked debunks that.  it is a little like summarizing all papers that explore the effects of global warming with the handwave  of course global warming is happening !   so, to be frank, i think much of this stems from you reading blogs and misunderstanding science due to the faulty understandings of blog authors, and thus i am curious to see what other papers you would cite for these positions.   #  whatever the actual alexander and fisher 0  bogus pipeline  study was about is beside my point.   #  i will be happy to take up that challenge over the next day or so.  as for the sexual partners thing, my criticism pertains only to the paper that i linked.  whatever the actual alexander and fisher 0  bogus pipeline  study was about is beside my point.  maybe that study was making a legitimate point.  but that does not excuse the blatent reasoning errors in the article that i linked.  you do recgnize why it is stupid for those authors to say  bottom line: do women. actually have fewer sexual partners than do men ? no right ?
here URL a paper that was published in  psychological science,  one of the top peer reviewed psychology journals.  its purpose was to refute exaggerated claims about the differences between men is and women is sexualities.  one of the ideas it aims to refute is that straight men have more sexual partners on average than straight women.  it presents this as a widely held belief that has been used to support gender stereotypes about sexuality.  the article then explains a fancy psychological study that manipulated people into being more honest about their sexual history than they would normally be.  these men and women reported similar numbers of sexual partners.  the authors proudly concluded: sexual partners than do men ? no this was clearly intended as evidence against the stereotype that men seek to have more sex than women.  but, as another psychologist pointed out URL on an obscure blog,  of course  straight men and women have the same number of sexual partners, since, every time a man has sex with a new woman, that woman is having sex with a new man.  there is no way for the average straight man to have more sexual partners than the average straight woman except due to differences in the number of men and women in the population, which is beside the point .  nonsense like this is seems rampant in the social sciences.  psychology, sociology, anthropology and related fields seem dominated by people who have no real intellectual curiosity about how the mind works or how societies work.  rather, they are interested in advancing social justice, and they became social scientists in order to generate  research  that supports the perspectives of the social justice movement.  hence, we see  experts  making downright stupid arguments against  gender stereotypes,  getting those arguments published in prestigious journals,  and not having their articles retracted after their egregious errors are pointed out.   edited for clarity as a result, the social sciences have failed to discover much of anything they still ca not really explain why racism exists and how to make it go away, for instance.  i am really interested to hear people is defense of the social sciences against this kind of accusation.  i realize it is a broad topic, and i welcome commenters to use any examples they want to use.  however, if it helps, here is a list of ideas that i think are wrong, and that i think were generated or at least perpetuated by social scientists who were biased by social justice concerns: 0 that people are born  blank slates,  that our  culture  determines our psychological traits to a far greater extent than instincts, and so on.  0 that human cultures are all wildly different from eachother.  0 that ancient hunter gatherers and other pre state peoples were very peaceful, compassionate, and cooperative compared to modern peoples.  the  noble savage  idea.  0 that rape, in general, is a political act intended to oppress women as a class, and not motivated by sexual desire.  0 that males and females only think and behave differently because of differences in how they are socialized.  0 that racism and sexism are fundmentally the same kind of thing.   0 that white westerners are especially bigoted compared to other people.  alright, i think that is plenty.   #  0 that males and females only think and behave differently because of differences in how they are socialized.   #  again, like your first point, this is hard to prove from either sides.   #  most of these ideas are either mostly debunked or not as clearcut as you seem to think.  this one is hard to prove for either sides.  the best argument i have seen is that the largest part of our lives are now spent in areas where  instinct  has lost a lot of it is use.  also, what little we know about  unsocialized  humans seems to show that socialization plays a very large role in your development.  it all depends of what you are focusing on.  in many ways they  are  vastly different, but they  do  have undeniable similitudes seeing as they are all comprised of humans living together.  this idea of cultures being vastly different also predates your perceived  liberal bias  by a long time.  the  noble savage  idea.  this idea predates the more recent  liberal bias  by almost a hundred years and has been vastly undermined in recent years.  it is definitely not uniquely motived by sexual desires.  that is simplistic.  again, like your first point, this is hard to prove from either sides.  all we can really say, as social scientist, is that socialization is different for sure.  seeing as socialization plays a large part in any human development, i could see how some would stipulate that.  i am not sure what you mean.  that something you hear a lot, but it is not an actual stance of sociologist or anthropologist as far as i know.  on the contrary, they are often considered far more open minded, simply because they can access lots of informations.   #  that does not sound like bias, that sounds like social scientists investigating culture, sex, and gender with empirical tools.   #  i do not think your cited study supports the point.  sure, heterosexual men and women would have the same number of sexual partners on mean average, but not at the median.  looking at medians, women is  number  might be lower due to a small number of women like sex workers or just plain promiscuous people having sex with a large number of men.  overall, i think the paper goes against your argument it is listing a large amount of experimental, peer reviewed data that supports the view that cultural norms shapes sexual preferences.  that same 0 study also looked at desired sexual partners, and found that when you reduced the effect of cultural expectations, women and men converged.  that does not sound like bias, that sounds like social scientists investigating culture, sex, and gender with empirical tools.  the vast majority of academics with a ph. d in psychology are going to tell you that it is a complex combination of nature or nurture, but there is plenty of reasonable, empirical evidence for the  social justice  positions at issue in that study.  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .  similar paradoxes exist with regard to men reporting more frequent intercourse than women.  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .  ln light of these illogicalities, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the sex differences in self reports of sexuality are not due to actual sex differences in behavior, but rather to differences in reporting as a function of differential normative expectations for men and women.  emphasis added  #  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .   #  here is a quote from page 0 of that study, where they state the problem being discussed.  the study is not about counting sexual partners, it is about understanding why men would over report their sexual activity while women would under report their sexual activity.  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .  similar paradoxes exist with regard to men reporting more frequent intercourse than women.  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .  ln light of these illogicalities, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the sex differences in self reports of sexuality are  not due to actual sex differences in behavior, but rather to differences in reporting as a function of differential normative expectations for men and women.  emphasis added i am guessing that evolutionary psychologist was being sensationalist in his blog post.  if anything, it indicates his bias, not the bias of the study.   #  for instance it is a common myth that a small number of women have a vast number of sexual partners prostitutes/sluts and thus the graph of sexual partners skews.   #  hi ! i have attached here a list of social science journal rankings: URL can i ask for some articles from anything in the top 0 of that list that you feel would meet the points on your list ? i do not see them reflected in reality.  even the paper you listed answered far more questions far more completely than you give it credit for.  for instance it is a common myth that a small number of women have a vast number of sexual partners prostitutes/sluts and thus the graph of sexual partners skews.  the referenced study which was not the study you linked debunks that.  it is a little like summarizing all papers that explore the effects of global warming with the handwave  of course global warming is happening !   so, to be frank, i think much of this stems from you reading blogs and misunderstanding science due to the faulty understandings of blog authors, and thus i am curious to see what other papers you would cite for these positions.   #  whatever the actual alexander and fisher 0  bogus pipeline  study was about is beside my point.   #  i will be happy to take up that challenge over the next day or so.  as for the sexual partners thing, my criticism pertains only to the paper that i linked.  whatever the actual alexander and fisher 0  bogus pipeline  study was about is beside my point.  maybe that study was making a legitimate point.  but that does not excuse the blatent reasoning errors in the article that i linked.  you do recgnize why it is stupid for those authors to say  bottom line: do women. actually have fewer sexual partners than do men ? no right ?
here URL a paper that was published in  psychological science,  one of the top peer reviewed psychology journals.  its purpose was to refute exaggerated claims about the differences between men is and women is sexualities.  one of the ideas it aims to refute is that straight men have more sexual partners on average than straight women.  it presents this as a widely held belief that has been used to support gender stereotypes about sexuality.  the article then explains a fancy psychological study that manipulated people into being more honest about their sexual history than they would normally be.  these men and women reported similar numbers of sexual partners.  the authors proudly concluded: sexual partners than do men ? no this was clearly intended as evidence against the stereotype that men seek to have more sex than women.  but, as another psychologist pointed out URL on an obscure blog,  of course  straight men and women have the same number of sexual partners, since, every time a man has sex with a new woman, that woman is having sex with a new man.  there is no way for the average straight man to have more sexual partners than the average straight woman except due to differences in the number of men and women in the population, which is beside the point .  nonsense like this is seems rampant in the social sciences.  psychology, sociology, anthropology and related fields seem dominated by people who have no real intellectual curiosity about how the mind works or how societies work.  rather, they are interested in advancing social justice, and they became social scientists in order to generate  research  that supports the perspectives of the social justice movement.  hence, we see  experts  making downright stupid arguments against  gender stereotypes,  getting those arguments published in prestigious journals,  and not having their articles retracted after their egregious errors are pointed out.   edited for clarity as a result, the social sciences have failed to discover much of anything they still ca not really explain why racism exists and how to make it go away, for instance.  i am really interested to hear people is defense of the social sciences against this kind of accusation.  i realize it is a broad topic, and i welcome commenters to use any examples they want to use.  however, if it helps, here is a list of ideas that i think are wrong, and that i think were generated or at least perpetuated by social scientists who were biased by social justice concerns: 0 that people are born  blank slates,  that our  culture  determines our psychological traits to a far greater extent than instincts, and so on.  0 that human cultures are all wildly different from eachother.  0 that ancient hunter gatherers and other pre state peoples were very peaceful, compassionate, and cooperative compared to modern peoples.  the  noble savage  idea.  0 that rape, in general, is a political act intended to oppress women as a class, and not motivated by sexual desire.  0 that males and females only think and behave differently because of differences in how they are socialized.  0 that racism and sexism are fundmentally the same kind of thing.   0 that white westerners are especially bigoted compared to other people.  alright, i think that is plenty.   #  0 that white westerners are especially bigoted compared to other people.   #  that something you hear a lot, but it is not an actual stance of sociologist or anthropologist as far as i know.   #  most of these ideas are either mostly debunked or not as clearcut as you seem to think.  this one is hard to prove for either sides.  the best argument i have seen is that the largest part of our lives are now spent in areas where  instinct  has lost a lot of it is use.  also, what little we know about  unsocialized  humans seems to show that socialization plays a very large role in your development.  it all depends of what you are focusing on.  in many ways they  are  vastly different, but they  do  have undeniable similitudes seeing as they are all comprised of humans living together.  this idea of cultures being vastly different also predates your perceived  liberal bias  by a long time.  the  noble savage  idea.  this idea predates the more recent  liberal bias  by almost a hundred years and has been vastly undermined in recent years.  it is definitely not uniquely motived by sexual desires.  that is simplistic.  again, like your first point, this is hard to prove from either sides.  all we can really say, as social scientist, is that socialization is different for sure.  seeing as socialization plays a large part in any human development, i could see how some would stipulate that.  i am not sure what you mean.  that something you hear a lot, but it is not an actual stance of sociologist or anthropologist as far as i know.  on the contrary, they are often considered far more open minded, simply because they can access lots of informations.   #  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .   #  i do not think your cited study supports the point.  sure, heterosexual men and women would have the same number of sexual partners on mean average, but not at the median.  looking at medians, women is  number  might be lower due to a small number of women like sex workers or just plain promiscuous people having sex with a large number of men.  overall, i think the paper goes against your argument it is listing a large amount of experimental, peer reviewed data that supports the view that cultural norms shapes sexual preferences.  that same 0 study also looked at desired sexual partners, and found that when you reduced the effect of cultural expectations, women and men converged.  that does not sound like bias, that sounds like social scientists investigating culture, sex, and gender with empirical tools.  the vast majority of academics with a ph. d in psychology are going to tell you that it is a complex combination of nature or nurture, but there is plenty of reasonable, empirical evidence for the  social justice  positions at issue in that study.  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .  similar paradoxes exist with regard to men reporting more frequent intercourse than women.  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .  ln light of these illogicalities, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the sex differences in self reports of sexuality are not due to actual sex differences in behavior, but rather to differences in reporting as a function of differential normative expectations for men and women.  emphasis added  #  emphasis added i am guessing that evolutionary psychologist was being sensationalist in his blog post.   #  here is a quote from page 0 of that study, where they state the problem being discussed.  the study is not about counting sexual partners, it is about understanding why men would over report their sexual activity while women would under report their sexual activity.  researchers have questioned the statistical improbability of men having more heterosexual intercourse partners than women, as these numbers should be equivalent for the sexes brown   sinclair, 0; pedersen, miller, putcha bhagavatula,   yang, 0; wiederman, 0 .  similar paradoxes exist with regard to men reporting more frequent intercourse than women.  because a partner is required, it is impossible for men to engage in heterosexual intercourse more often than their female counterparts.  furthermore, males typically report an earlier age of first intercourse than do females oliver   hyde, 0 .  although it is plausible that males have their first sexual experiences with older females, it seems unlikely, given that adolescent females prefer older sexual partners eio, king,   furstenberg, 0; kenrick, gabrielidis, keefe,   cornelius, 0 .  ln light of these illogicalities, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the sex differences in self reports of sexuality are  not due to actual sex differences in behavior, but rather to differences in reporting as a function of differential normative expectations for men and women.  emphasis added i am guessing that evolutionary psychologist was being sensationalist in his blog post.  if anything, it indicates his bias, not the bias of the study.   #  i have attached here a list of social science journal rankings: URL can i ask for some articles from anything in the top 0 of that list that you feel would meet the points on your list ?  #  hi ! i have attached here a list of social science journal rankings: URL can i ask for some articles from anything in the top 0 of that list that you feel would meet the points on your list ? i do not see them reflected in reality.  even the paper you listed answered far more questions far more completely than you give it credit for.  for instance it is a common myth that a small number of women have a vast number of sexual partners prostitutes/sluts and thus the graph of sexual partners skews.  the referenced study which was not the study you linked debunks that.  it is a little like summarizing all papers that explore the effects of global warming with the handwave  of course global warming is happening !   so, to be frank, i think much of this stems from you reading blogs and misunderstanding science due to the faulty understandings of blog authors, and thus i am curious to see what other papers you would cite for these positions.   #  maybe that study was making a legitimate point.   #  i will be happy to take up that challenge over the next day or so.  as for the sexual partners thing, my criticism pertains only to the paper that i linked.  whatever the actual alexander and fisher 0  bogus pipeline  study was about is beside my point.  maybe that study was making a legitimate point.  but that does not excuse the blatent reasoning errors in the article that i linked.  you do recgnize why it is stupid for those authors to say  bottom line: do women. actually have fewer sexual partners than do men ? no right ?
i am skeptical about this URL video  warming it is supposedly a video of a man being shot.  if you do not want to see that, do not watch it  there is little blood or none, it is hard to tell .  if i am wrong i am open to having my opinion changed, and actually, i want to know i am wrong so i can stop believing it is a lie.  please be objective.  take out emotion and thoughts of which side is right and which side is wrong.  this is not about politics, but just this one video.  0 man in green shirt directly next to camera, like within inches and is pretty much standing still.  as we hear a gunshot.  camera aims away and by 0 man in green shirt is 0 0 feet away on the ground on his back.  if he had been running away from the camera as he would have to be why did momentum not make him fall forward.  at 0/0 he is using the injured hand to operate his cell phone.  a hand so injured that it prevents him from moving to take cover.  0 and 0 before and after the second shot. the guys in the yellow vests seem pretty unconcerned there is an active sniper in the area shooting civilians.  0 the third shot hits like 0  away over the guys head.  these are the reasons why i am skeptical that this is a propaganda video and not actually what it is reported to be.  thank you.   #  0 and 0 before and after the second shot. the guys in the yellow vests seem pretty unconcerned there is an active sniper in the area shooting civilians.   #  you act like this is the first person they have seen people shot or killed.   #  life is not a hollywood movie.  people are not shot and gallons of blood coming squirting out of every hole, they do not dramatically fall like a 0 gauge just blasted them in front of a doorway.  they cry, rumble around, and they slowly die if they do not have the good luck to die instantly.  you act like this is the first person they have seen people shot or killed.  these are events people in the gaza strip see happen all of the time.  even the un is stating that there is literally nowhere safe to go in the territory.  at a point, what does worrying accomplish ? where do you  run away  to ? the block down the street may have another sniper or may be targeting by israeli airstrikes.  something to keep in mind is that you are not physically there and do not have your physical senses to give you an accurate sense of the danger.  if they can heard where the rounds are coming in from, they can protect themselves and continue on with their business.  people manage d to do it every day in syria under the constant threat of snipers.  there are videos of whole neighborhoods running across the street in syria to get to work in the morning due to the threat of snipers.   #  0 wounds to extremities like the hands will often not be that painful in the first few moments you have them.   #  0 depending on roes, using a cell phone in a certain manner may have been a sufficient reason to shoot somebody according to the roes .  i would dispute whether those are good roes in that circumstance, but it may explain why he was shot.  0 the guys in the yellow vests are wearing those vests to be recognized as rescue workers.  they know that firing on them is a violation of the geneva conventions wholly separate from other possible violations that israel disputes.  apart from that, there is just no reason to do it.  the aid workers know this, so they probably are not concerned with being shot.  in any case, it appears at various points that they are telling the party making the video to leave.  0 the third shot was aimed at the man on the ground.  if you look at where that shot probably came from from the buildings on the left hand side , the shot was  very, very  close.  my common sense suggests to me that two previous shots probably came from a similar source and were aimed at a similar target.  that suggests that the man was the target and that he was definitely shot.  0 when people are shot, they do not usually rag doll unless they have been killed or knocked unconscious.  when he fell, we was still conscious enough to try not to hurt himself or lay in an overly uncomfortable position.  0 most wounds do not produce geysers of blood.  there is no reason to think a lack of blood indicates that he was not shot.  his reaction to being shot was accurate and difficult to fake.  0 when many people are shot at, they do not take cover.  they freeze deer in the headlights and wo not do things that will preserve their life.  trained professionals do this, so it is understandable that a random guy on the street did the same thing.  0 wounds to extremities like the hands will often not be that painful in the first few moments you have them.  adrenaline and shock keep you from feeling all the pain for at least a few seconds, so working a cell phone which he seemed to be fumbling with, not working is not that strange.   #  if the origional shot was in the hand. i lean to he would not be in enough shock to not take cover and save his life.   # 0 in what time. he traveled 0 0 on closer inspection it looks like 0 feet and rolled over on his back in the span of less than 0 seconds.  0 i have personally seen gunshot wounds.  i do not think one that was not gushing would prevent him from getting up to take cover and save his life.  0 it is absolutly possible.  possibly does not mean likely.  if the origional shot was in the hand. i lean to he would not be in enough shock to not take cover and save his life.  also, iirc nobody is yelling at the guy to take cover, run to me, get out of there. why not ? these would be reasonable reactions.  0 if he was not in pain, and adrenaline was taking over. why would not he also take cover/move ? shock could explain this, but does a shot to the hand cause enough shock to explain the actions ?  #  his physical reaction is entirely consistent with everything i have seen.   #  i am fairly certain the fire was coming from the left.  he was tucking himself into microterrain that protected that side, the camera kept pointing that direction another justification for firing under certain roes; especially if an israeli position was there and from my view that appeared to be the direction from which the visible impact came.  0 it also appeared that at the time of the shot, the people holding the camera retreated.  if they moved back and he moved forward.  0 i have also seen gunshot wounds.  being shot especially for the first time can cause panic, shock and catatonia.  his physical reaction is entirely consistent with everything i have seen.  0 shock and panic.  panic is not wild raving and delirium, it is sub optimum action taken in response to stress.  it is not reasonable.  when you panic, it is because you lack the presence of mind to do the best thing you can in a given moment.  i saw guys in yellow vests waving and gesturing, i do not think the microphone was good enough to pick up a whole lot of audio and i think pretty much everyone panicked.  0 it is shock.  and i do not just mean the kind of shock that comes from physical trauma; i mean the kind of shock that comes from realizing that someone is trying to kill you at this second.  i think the big problem here is that you are doing something 0/0 truthers tend to do.  you are picking apart insignificant details with plausible explanations while ignoring occam is razor.  is it more likely that an israeli soldier fucked up/was malicious/was following questionable roes things that often happen in war or that people put together a propaganda video that at best showed that something bad had happened for some reason ?  #  i find it more plausible that an israeli soldier screwed up.   #  that was not the view you expressed.  what you said was that you  believe  that this is propaganda.  believing it should be authenticated is not the same thing.  i know that hamas is in that business.  that does not mean every video is propaganda.  i also know that israel has an enormous lobbying presence in the us.  that does not mean everything israel does is a concealed war crime.  i make my judgments based on what i think the most likely explanation is.  i find it more plausible that an israeli soldier screwed up.  i did not say war crime, i did not say cold blooded murder; i said screw up.  i was not in his shoes and i do not know what he saw.  the frame of reference i have is very small so i reserve judgment on him personally.  maybe other things were going on, maybe he had a legitimate reason to believe he was in danger, maybe he was an 0 year old who followed roes instead of common sense.  then again, maybe he was an experienced sociopath.  i do not know.  what i believe is that this person was killed and that the most likely killers were israeli soldiers.  i believe that it should not have happened.  i do not know how it could have been prevented.
ok, first a couple caveats.  i have never been a sports fan and i find obsessing over sports ridiculous.  not mearly watching a game, but the obsession of them.  but that is not what this cmv is about, i just think its important and fair to be clear where i am coming from.  what this cmv is stemming from is that i watched a documentary last night,  schooled, the price of college sports .  if you want a more in depth understanding you can watch it or i will just give the very brief summary as i understood it .  one side says players should be compensated for the  work  they do.  the other side says it is essentially extra curricular activities and they are students merely taking part in activities while at college and that paying them would ruin college sports.  now, this was a pretty slanted documentary but i was still able to appreciate the perspective from both sides.  on one hand the reality is that college sports players are part of a big business that makes lots of money.  on the other hand school should exist for learning not creating a big, profit making businesses centered around sports.  my view is this: the problem is not the coaches or the schools making money and not paying the students, afterall they all just have a job and are trying to be paid as best that they can.  fine, i have no issues with that.  on the other hand those students are making a lot of money for other people and not seeing a dime for it.  what the problem really is to me is that people should stop supporting the entire system altogether.  paying $0, $0, $0 or more.  if you want sports entertainment you should go pay professional sports entertainment.  the only reason those sports should exist within a college setting is for the players themselves, something to do on the side while they are attending school.  the moment the populace starts being willing to pay them vast sums of money and pay such a mind to star college athletes, they have become the problem.  leave the students alone to learn and do what they want to do on the side while they are there.  i say the fans are the only solution to the problem because both the ncaa and the student athletes are right in what they say.  the fact is, there just should not be that much money being generated for college sports and the only reason there is, is because fans are obsessive and willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to them.  i believe fans are wrong to do this and should stop and that if you are a fan of college sports, a paying fan of college sports, that you should stop contributing to a problem that can only be solved by you ceasing to provide them so much ridiculous money.   #  if you want sports entertainment you should go pay professional sports entertainment.   #  the only reason those sports should exist within a college setting is for the players themselves, something to do on the side while they are attending school.   # the only reason those sports should exist within a college setting is for the players themselves, something to do on the side while they are attending school.  well, that already happens.  and outside of football, basketball, and maybe hockey, very little attention is payed to collegiate sports.  college baseball ? meh.  soccer ? meh.  swimming ? meh.  gymnastics, wrestling, la crosse, rugby, etc.  all of those athletes are doing exactly what you say, it is for the players themselves.  of course, the same could be said for the most popular sports as well.  but football and basketball are popular, and universities are often major cornerstones of the cities they reside in.  for many people, seeing high level, competitive play is only feasible at the collegiate level.  an nfl ticket costs several hundred dollars per person, an nba ticket costs anywhere from $0 0.  in contrast an ncaa basketball tickets top out at $0, and that is for the biggest teams.  if i am a fan of football, and i want to watch a live football game, my options are: peewee, high school, college, and nfl.  the nfl is outside of most people is budgets.  a college game is not, and a high school game is most certainly not.  if i want to see a high level of play, i am not going to see it at anything less than the college level.  maybe in an ideal world where sports are completely separated from education, but that is just not the reality.  students at college are going to want to watch their college sports team play.  alumni of a college are going to want to watch their college sports team play.  people in the city are going to want to watch their local college sports team.  this is not going to change.  on top of that, that revenue is highly valuable to the university.  they use it those funds to pay for the remainder of sports programs that are not marketable.  they use those funds to improve their campus, to draw in more students.  people are not going to stop being fans of college sports because college sports are deeply integrated into sports.  you may as well argue that people stop being fans of sports altogether.   #  it is basic human nature the same way that most people have a strong sense of nationality that arises automatically for the place of their birth.   #  you raise some fair points, and i would like to bring two of my own to your attention.  the first is that students attending a college, alumni, friends and family, all have a very strong affiliation and love for their educational institution.  it is basic human nature the same way that most people have a strong sense of nationality that arises automatically for the place of their birth.  college sports is a way to show your pride and to gather with your colleagues to celebrate a common identity, which will expand past those attending the institution and to the people closest to them, who will take pride in their kid, cousin, friend, etc and cheer along with them for their school.  you wo not get people to stop.  second, there is a famous discrimination case i apologize for a lack of source as the name escapes me that revolved around trying to take a child away from his mixed race parents because the child was severely bullied and abused by other children and the mostly white community they lived in for having parents of different races.  the judge sitting on that case held that the child should stay with his parents, as they were fit to do their duty, and had done no wrong.  he famously said, and i paraphrase, that he cannot control for the opinions of others, but only do what is right.  in other words, the parents deserved to keep their child and he deserved the good parents he had end of story.  you ca not factor the behavior, attitudes, ignorance, and prejudice of others into this equation and do wrong by the child or parents.  similarly here, why should fans be held responsible and deprived of a great source of identity and pleasure because of how students are treated or affected by this attention ? it is not the responsibility of the fans to correct the situation, and they should not be punished for it.   #  they are just doing what they can with the demand that exist.   #  the fact that they derive pride from the accomplishments of the football or basketball team from the college they graduated from is the problem.  they should take pride in the academic achievements of that school is students and not how well their football team is doing.  that is unless they actually played football there themselves, in which case it is slightly understanding.  i believe it is now the responsiblity of the fans to regulate it.  that is where the money is coming from.  i believe in a free market so i ca not fault the school, coaches, endorsement company is or anyone else making money from doing so.  they are just doing what they can with the demand that exist.  it falls on the shoulders of the people that are willing to pay $0 per ticket to watch a bunch of students play a game against each other.  they should put their pride in professional sports teams or better yet start their own leagues, get out there and play and take pride in themselves.  i do not think anyone should receive punishment for being a fan, just that they should stop and reconsider what they are supporting when they pay that $0 for that saturday game.   #  perhaps if you tried to look at it from the perspective of an activity that you love.   #  i think the problem here, and i am not trying to pick on the background info you gave us, i promise, is that you are not a sports fan.  the fact that you do not enjoy sports makes the subject of pride in sports team hard for you to relate to.  perhaps if you tried to look at it from the perspective of an activity that you love.  for instance and i have no idea about your personal interests, i am just using an example say you loved theater.  you loved it so much you wanted to get as much of it as you possibly could.  you watch movies and go to broadway shows when you can but it is not enough.  now say you are a college student and the theater department is putting on a play.  naturally, the students can not be financially compensated for participating in an extracurricular activity, but you enjoy theater all the same so you go to the show.  you get to the ticket booth and you have to pay $0 for a ticket.  you are excited to see the show so you hand over the money and enjoy the play.  the actors were not compensated for their performances but they still enjoyed performing and it may help them to get exposure and gain experience to pursue and acting career.  now, your argument is that you are at fault because you are supporting your system.  do you see the flaw in that view ? it comes down to the fact that nobody is actually getting hurt in the situation described, it is just a flawed system.  and the argument that the only way to fix a flawed system is to boycott the system all together is slightly irrational.   #  the problem though is that why are we doing this at universities ?  #  i agree with that, i did not intend to make them sound all innocent.  many are putting in their time in order for a big payoff.  big risk/big reward kinda situation, i get it.  the problem though is that why are we doing this at universities ? places of learning ? lets just put it in it is own league like minor league baseball or something.  lets stop pretending that they are to learn because everyone knows that is not the case.  it is merely big money for the school, thus turning a public education institution into a for profit football team.
ok, first a couple caveats.  i have never been a sports fan and i find obsessing over sports ridiculous.  not mearly watching a game, but the obsession of them.  but that is not what this cmv is about, i just think its important and fair to be clear where i am coming from.  what this cmv is stemming from is that i watched a documentary last night,  schooled, the price of college sports .  if you want a more in depth understanding you can watch it or i will just give the very brief summary as i understood it .  one side says players should be compensated for the  work  they do.  the other side says it is essentially extra curricular activities and they are students merely taking part in activities while at college and that paying them would ruin college sports.  now, this was a pretty slanted documentary but i was still able to appreciate the perspective from both sides.  on one hand the reality is that college sports players are part of a big business that makes lots of money.  on the other hand school should exist for learning not creating a big, profit making businesses centered around sports.  my view is this: the problem is not the coaches or the schools making money and not paying the students, afterall they all just have a job and are trying to be paid as best that they can.  fine, i have no issues with that.  on the other hand those students are making a lot of money for other people and not seeing a dime for it.  what the problem really is to me is that people should stop supporting the entire system altogether.  paying $0, $0, $0 or more.  if you want sports entertainment you should go pay professional sports entertainment.  the only reason those sports should exist within a college setting is for the players themselves, something to do on the side while they are attending school.  the moment the populace starts being willing to pay them vast sums of money and pay such a mind to star college athletes, they have become the problem.  leave the students alone to learn and do what they want to do on the side while they are there.  i say the fans are the only solution to the problem because both the ncaa and the student athletes are right in what they say.  the fact is, there just should not be that much money being generated for college sports and the only reason there is, is because fans are obsessive and willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money to them.  i believe fans are wrong to do this and should stop and that if you are a fan of college sports, a paying fan of college sports, that you should stop contributing to a problem that can only be solved by you ceasing to provide them so much ridiculous money.   #  if you want sports entertainment you should go pay professional sports entertainment.   #  maybe in an ideal world where sports are completely separated from education, but that is just not the reality.   # the only reason those sports should exist within a college setting is for the players themselves, something to do on the side while they are attending school.  well, that already happens.  and outside of football, basketball, and maybe hockey, very little attention is payed to collegiate sports.  college baseball ? meh.  soccer ? meh.  swimming ? meh.  gymnastics, wrestling, la crosse, rugby, etc.  all of those athletes are doing exactly what you say, it is for the players themselves.  of course, the same could be said for the most popular sports as well.  but football and basketball are popular, and universities are often major cornerstones of the cities they reside in.  for many people, seeing high level, competitive play is only feasible at the collegiate level.  an nfl ticket costs several hundred dollars per person, an nba ticket costs anywhere from $0 0.  in contrast an ncaa basketball tickets top out at $0, and that is for the biggest teams.  if i am a fan of football, and i want to watch a live football game, my options are: peewee, high school, college, and nfl.  the nfl is outside of most people is budgets.  a college game is not, and a high school game is most certainly not.  if i want to see a high level of play, i am not going to see it at anything less than the college level.  maybe in an ideal world where sports are completely separated from education, but that is just not the reality.  students at college are going to want to watch their college sports team play.  alumni of a college are going to want to watch their college sports team play.  people in the city are going to want to watch their local college sports team.  this is not going to change.  on top of that, that revenue is highly valuable to the university.  they use it those funds to pay for the remainder of sports programs that are not marketable.  they use those funds to improve their campus, to draw in more students.  people are not going to stop being fans of college sports because college sports are deeply integrated into sports.  you may as well argue that people stop being fans of sports altogether.   #  similarly here, why should fans be held responsible and deprived of a great source of identity and pleasure because of how students are treated or affected by this attention ?  #  you raise some fair points, and i would like to bring two of my own to your attention.  the first is that students attending a college, alumni, friends and family, all have a very strong affiliation and love for their educational institution.  it is basic human nature the same way that most people have a strong sense of nationality that arises automatically for the place of their birth.  college sports is a way to show your pride and to gather with your colleagues to celebrate a common identity, which will expand past those attending the institution and to the people closest to them, who will take pride in their kid, cousin, friend, etc and cheer along with them for their school.  you wo not get people to stop.  second, there is a famous discrimination case i apologize for a lack of source as the name escapes me that revolved around trying to take a child away from his mixed race parents because the child was severely bullied and abused by other children and the mostly white community they lived in for having parents of different races.  the judge sitting on that case held that the child should stay with his parents, as they were fit to do their duty, and had done no wrong.  he famously said, and i paraphrase, that he cannot control for the opinions of others, but only do what is right.  in other words, the parents deserved to keep their child and he deserved the good parents he had end of story.  you ca not factor the behavior, attitudes, ignorance, and prejudice of others into this equation and do wrong by the child or parents.  similarly here, why should fans be held responsible and deprived of a great source of identity and pleasure because of how students are treated or affected by this attention ? it is not the responsibility of the fans to correct the situation, and they should not be punished for it.   #  it falls on the shoulders of the people that are willing to pay $0 per ticket to watch a bunch of students play a game against each other.   #  the fact that they derive pride from the accomplishments of the football or basketball team from the college they graduated from is the problem.  they should take pride in the academic achievements of that school is students and not how well their football team is doing.  that is unless they actually played football there themselves, in which case it is slightly understanding.  i believe it is now the responsiblity of the fans to regulate it.  that is where the money is coming from.  i believe in a free market so i ca not fault the school, coaches, endorsement company is or anyone else making money from doing so.  they are just doing what they can with the demand that exist.  it falls on the shoulders of the people that are willing to pay $0 per ticket to watch a bunch of students play a game against each other.  they should put their pride in professional sports teams or better yet start their own leagues, get out there and play and take pride in themselves.  i do not think anyone should receive punishment for being a fan, just that they should stop and reconsider what they are supporting when they pay that $0 for that saturday game.   #  naturally, the students can not be financially compensated for participating in an extracurricular activity, but you enjoy theater all the same so you go to the show.   #  i think the problem here, and i am not trying to pick on the background info you gave us, i promise, is that you are not a sports fan.  the fact that you do not enjoy sports makes the subject of pride in sports team hard for you to relate to.  perhaps if you tried to look at it from the perspective of an activity that you love.  for instance and i have no idea about your personal interests, i am just using an example say you loved theater.  you loved it so much you wanted to get as much of it as you possibly could.  you watch movies and go to broadway shows when you can but it is not enough.  now say you are a college student and the theater department is putting on a play.  naturally, the students can not be financially compensated for participating in an extracurricular activity, but you enjoy theater all the same so you go to the show.  you get to the ticket booth and you have to pay $0 for a ticket.  you are excited to see the show so you hand over the money and enjoy the play.  the actors were not compensated for their performances but they still enjoyed performing and it may help them to get exposure and gain experience to pursue and acting career.  now, your argument is that you are at fault because you are supporting your system.  do you see the flaw in that view ? it comes down to the fact that nobody is actually getting hurt in the situation described, it is just a flawed system.  and the argument that the only way to fix a flawed system is to boycott the system all together is slightly irrational.   #  lets just put it in it is own league like minor league baseball or something.   #  i agree with that, i did not intend to make them sound all innocent.  many are putting in their time in order for a big payoff.  big risk/big reward kinda situation, i get it.  the problem though is that why are we doing this at universities ? places of learning ? lets just put it in it is own league like minor league baseball or something.  lets stop pretending that they are to learn because everyone knows that is not the case.  it is merely big money for the school, thus turning a public education institution into a for profit football team.
i do not think morals actually exist.  i have looked at utilitarianism, kant, etc.  i am not convinced that any moral framework is true.  it is not that i find the frameworks inconsistent or something, i just see no reason to believe any of them.  why should i obey them ? they all seem ultimately driven by arbitrary values, anyway.  we are ultimately just piles of atoms that have assembled themselves into semi self aware regions of influence.  the universe is ultimately uncaring.  so where would morality come from in the first place ? you could argue that human minds are the piece of the universe that cares, and that human minds are the generators of morality, but what prevents it from being arbitrary ? what is good and evil/bad ? that is arbitrary too.  it is not like a tornado is actually bad, it is just a cycle of wind that gets too strong for humans to handle.  shit, even  evil  people thought what they were doing was  good .  so are there morals ? if so, why be moral ? what moral system is correct ? thanks.  update: i get that a lot of people here think that morals exist because they help society function.  but i do not find that to be a convincing statement for the following reasons: 0.  just because a set of shared morals helps society function does not necessarily make that moral set true.  at best it just makes it practical.  i could just point out societies that many of you would find reprehensible to be an immediate counterexample to this.  0.  another user pointed out the idea outlined in 0, by calling it  fictionalism .  i understand it is beneficial to appear moral.  that does not mean morals exist.  also, having empathy does not imply morality.  empathy is just a process your brain goes through to force you to feel what others feel.  to say that this is a morality is like saying that thinking cookies taste good means that cookies are objectively the best food.   #  i do not think morals actually exist.   #  i have looked at utilitarianism, kant, etc.   #  i am far too removed from my last philosophy class to argue based upon any particular foundation, but let is give it a go anyway.  i have looked at utilitarianism, kant, etc.  i am not convinced that any moral framework is true.  for the sake of this discussion, i will agree that morals do not objectively exist in the real world.  i do, however, have an issue with the use of  true  in this context, but, again, for the sake of discussion, i would assume you mean true in the objective sense in that morals ca not be objectively measured.  we can than say that morals are subjective in there very nature, and i would add a purely social construct.  since we have agreed that no morals objectively exist, then you are under no universal requirement to behave in any manner whatsoever.  if you agree with my earlier statement that morals are a social construct, then you would face a social requirement to follow any morals that are accepted by your social group.  any repercussions are then enforced by that group when a violation occurs.  you still do not have to obey, but you will face social consequences.   good  is not really objective either in this context, it is another social construct.  they are subjective social constructs.  because you face social consequences enforced by your social group for violations of social constructs.  this question is strange in the context of this cmv.  correct is another social construct.  as you said, the universe does not care, so nothing that is not objective can be  correct .  but i do not like this arrangement, because i am not wealthy or powerful, and i dislike pain.  too bad ? the universe does not care.  you do not have to like the fact that it gets cold at night, but it is still going to happen.  if we accept that all moral systems are social constructs, then all consequences for the violation of norms is handled withing the social system you are a part of.  you do not have to hold any moral system as  true  to follow it when you are aware of the potential socially enforced consequences for violations of a local socially constructed moral system.  me fail english ? that is umpossible !  #  but since we are not, for example, immaterial beings, we need a set of morals to help dictate how we work in a society.   #  as you say yourself, morality is just a framework of rules grounded in the human conscious.  so to answer your questions: 0.  yes, there are morals.  morals are concepts on how to live your life as dictated by a moral system.  0.  yes, you should be moral ! the reason to be a moral individual can be answered differently depending on your moral system.  which leads to 0.  there is no one correct moral system, though the closest you can probably get to something that fits that answer is virtue ethics.  so now i can answer on why to be moral.  i believe kantism explains most effectively the importance on leading an ethical lifestyle.  in kantism, to decide if an action is good or bad, an autonomous individual must ask him/herself:  how would i react if the outcome of this action was directed at me ?   so, for example, we can determine that maliciously killing someone is an unethical action as we would not want that to happen to us as rational beings.  it is not an arbitrary distinction to say that murder is an unethical action because the concept of morals is grounded in the human consciousness.  we may be piles of atoms, and our morals may have no use elsewhere in the universe.  but since we are not, for example, immaterial beings, we need a set of morals to help dictate how we work in a society.  we have morality because we are humans, and concepts like  good  and  bad  have definitions within those bounds.  different people may have different definitions for these words, which can be attributed to different moral systems.  in general, though, people will have similar meanings for ethical concepts like good and bad.  it is important to be moral in order to maintain an effective and functional society.  if you want to look at it individualistically, conforming with the common morals of society can help you fit in better and help you practically.  those who go against common morality in extreme circumstances will be ostracized a psychopath who kills maliciously and remorselessly.  conclusion: morality is not arbitrary as it grounds itself in the human consciousness and society.  you should be moral because everyone being moral makes society safer, more effective, etc.  there is no one correct moral system, but analyzing different actions, people, and relationships, and comparing what different currently established moral systems would say, you can formulate a good idea of what moral concepts mean to you.   #  no, i do not see how it could be interpreted as circular reasoning.   # no, i do not see how it could be interpreted as circular reasoning.  morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.  the human agent that is exploring morality can assume this to be true: that he exists as a person in a society on earth.  to determine moral beliefs, the mind starts with nothing to compare actions to besides itself.  if i do not understand the concept of death, i would not hold an opinion if i saw someone else murdered in front of me.  but once i consider the ramifications if my consciousness were to disappear, i can reach the conclusion that killing is inherently bad.  the mind of course values itself because it can hold no other concepts other than  i am,  to be an absolute truth if it assumes anything without a 0 truth value to be false.  it is not so different ! the human mind and the concepts it is able to comprehend is constricted.  we cannot imagine the fourth dimension like we can the 0rd, for example.  it is not similar to comparing harry potter to home alone however, that is like trying to explain our morality to a being that cannot experience death it is an unknowable concept to him.   #  this is a common issue in epistemology and ethics.   # morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.  it is circular if you formulate it accurately: morality exists.  why pick one more system or any moral system over another ? some arbitrary criteria.  you ca not bridge the is/ought gap, which means suicide and societal cooperation are both as right and wrong as each other, or neither right and wrong.  kant could say we should always stick with the categorical imperative based on what we choose to accept towards ourselves, but if we say  why is what i chose right  the answer is always arbitrary.  this is a common issue in epistemology and ethics.  just because we admit that morality exists, as in, if we say that murder can actually be right or wrong, does not mean the reason we pick for murder to be right or wrong is not arbitrary.  even if we say the best way to be good is not to murder, does not mean that when we ask  why is it right to be good  we wo not always have a completely arbitrary and thus circular reason.  just to clarify why arbitrary is circular: why follow societal rules ? so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.  why is it right not to like jail ? because we do not enjoy it.  why is not enjoying something mean it is right to avoid it ? because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.  ad infinitum.  there are much better ways to formulate circular reasoning for these, that do not depend on what we feel.   #  similarly, there is no particular right to follow societal rules.   # why pick one more system or any moral system over another ? some arbitrary criteria.  you ca not bridge the is/ought gap, which means suicide and societal cooperation are both as right and wrong as each other, or neither right and wrong.  kant could say we should always stick with the categorical imperative based on what we choose to accept towards ourselves, but if we say  why is what i chose right  the answer is always arbitrary.  no it is not arbitrary, not to us.  of course it is based on your preferences, but if you are a rational person, you would have formed reasons that are acceptable and consistent, and many of those reasons would take a similar form to other people is.  you would have justified why murder is bad, to whom it is bad, to what degree it is bad.  if you have no particular mental defects, those reasons are not arbitrary at all.  this is why we can even argue about our moral choices with each other, because we can argue about that framework.  suicide can be ok for some and not for others, that is fine, what matters is that people can explain why it is so.  so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.  why is it right not to like jail ? because we do not enjoy it.  why is not enjoying something mean it is right to avoid it ? because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.  ad infinitum.  nope, it is not some right that we do not like jail, that is way too general a base to have morals on.  we just do not like jail, because it restricts what we want to do a perfectly logical reason .  does not mean that it is right to not enjoy it or avoid it.  similarly, there is no particular right to follow societal rules.  you have to talk about specific moral actions here.
i do not think morals actually exist.  i have looked at utilitarianism, kant, etc.  i am not convinced that any moral framework is true.  it is not that i find the frameworks inconsistent or something, i just see no reason to believe any of them.  why should i obey them ? they all seem ultimately driven by arbitrary values, anyway.  we are ultimately just piles of atoms that have assembled themselves into semi self aware regions of influence.  the universe is ultimately uncaring.  so where would morality come from in the first place ? you could argue that human minds are the piece of the universe that cares, and that human minds are the generators of morality, but what prevents it from being arbitrary ? what is good and evil/bad ? that is arbitrary too.  it is not like a tornado is actually bad, it is just a cycle of wind that gets too strong for humans to handle.  shit, even  evil  people thought what they were doing was  good .  so are there morals ? if so, why be moral ? what moral system is correct ? thanks.  update: i get that a lot of people here think that morals exist because they help society function.  but i do not find that to be a convincing statement for the following reasons: 0.  just because a set of shared morals helps society function does not necessarily make that moral set true.  at best it just makes it practical.  i could just point out societies that many of you would find reprehensible to be an immediate counterexample to this.  0.  another user pointed out the idea outlined in 0, by calling it  fictionalism .  i understand it is beneficial to appear moral.  that does not mean morals exist.  also, having empathy does not imply morality.  empathy is just a process your brain goes through to force you to feel what others feel.  to say that this is a morality is like saying that thinking cookies taste good means that cookies are objectively the best food.   #  we are ultimately just piles of atoms that have assembled themselves into semi self aware regions of influence.   #  i would say that we are not the atoms, but a part of how the atoms are arranged.   # i would say that we are not the atoms, but a part of how the atoms are arranged.  that is arbitrary too.  many values are universal or almost universal e. g.  : it is generally wrong to murder your neighbors .  and they could perfectly be wrong in the same way geocentrists were.  that is metaethics, and the main thing we are discussing.  this is externalism/internalism, a different issue.  simplified: according to externalism, you may perfectly understand that something is wrong, but that would not be absolutely motivating.  according to internalism, if you ask that question it is because you do not really understand morality.  that is yet another issue.  in general, debates about ethics are done considering some things right/wrong  prima facie .  for instance, if someone wants to make a case against abortion, they may want to say that murder is wrong a premise accepted by both parties , and then justify that the things that make murder wrong apply to abortion for instance the  potential person  argument .  you do not need the  whole  moral system to establish basic things like murder are right or wrong, or even to deal with trickier issues like abortion , the same way you do not need to understand general relativity to throw a ball, or even send a rocket to the moon.   #  those who go against common morality in extreme circumstances will be ostracized a psychopath who kills maliciously and remorselessly.   #  as you say yourself, morality is just a framework of rules grounded in the human conscious.  so to answer your questions: 0.  yes, there are morals.  morals are concepts on how to live your life as dictated by a moral system.  0.  yes, you should be moral ! the reason to be a moral individual can be answered differently depending on your moral system.  which leads to 0.  there is no one correct moral system, though the closest you can probably get to something that fits that answer is virtue ethics.  so now i can answer on why to be moral.  i believe kantism explains most effectively the importance on leading an ethical lifestyle.  in kantism, to decide if an action is good or bad, an autonomous individual must ask him/herself:  how would i react if the outcome of this action was directed at me ?   so, for example, we can determine that maliciously killing someone is an unethical action as we would not want that to happen to us as rational beings.  it is not an arbitrary distinction to say that murder is an unethical action because the concept of morals is grounded in the human consciousness.  we may be piles of atoms, and our morals may have no use elsewhere in the universe.  but since we are not, for example, immaterial beings, we need a set of morals to help dictate how we work in a society.  we have morality because we are humans, and concepts like  good  and  bad  have definitions within those bounds.  different people may have different definitions for these words, which can be attributed to different moral systems.  in general, though, people will have similar meanings for ethical concepts like good and bad.  it is important to be moral in order to maintain an effective and functional society.  if you want to look at it individualistically, conforming with the common morals of society can help you fit in better and help you practically.  those who go against common morality in extreme circumstances will be ostracized a psychopath who kills maliciously and remorselessly.  conclusion: morality is not arbitrary as it grounds itself in the human consciousness and society.  you should be moral because everyone being moral makes society safer, more effective, etc.  there is no one correct moral system, but analyzing different actions, people, and relationships, and comparing what different currently established moral systems would say, you can formulate a good idea of what moral concepts mean to you.   #  morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.   # no, i do not see how it could be interpreted as circular reasoning.  morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.  the human agent that is exploring morality can assume this to be true: that he exists as a person in a society on earth.  to determine moral beliefs, the mind starts with nothing to compare actions to besides itself.  if i do not understand the concept of death, i would not hold an opinion if i saw someone else murdered in front of me.  but once i consider the ramifications if my consciousness were to disappear, i can reach the conclusion that killing is inherently bad.  the mind of course values itself because it can hold no other concepts other than  i am,  to be an absolute truth if it assumes anything without a 0 truth value to be false.  it is not so different ! the human mind and the concepts it is able to comprehend is constricted.  we cannot imagine the fourth dimension like we can the 0rd, for example.  it is not similar to comparing harry potter to home alone however, that is like trying to explain our morality to a being that cannot experience death it is an unknowable concept to him.   #  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.   # morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.  it is circular if you formulate it accurately: morality exists.  why pick one more system or any moral system over another ? some arbitrary criteria.  you ca not bridge the is/ought gap, which means suicide and societal cooperation are both as right and wrong as each other, or neither right and wrong.  kant could say we should always stick with the categorical imperative based on what we choose to accept towards ourselves, but if we say  why is what i chose right  the answer is always arbitrary.  this is a common issue in epistemology and ethics.  just because we admit that morality exists, as in, if we say that murder can actually be right or wrong, does not mean the reason we pick for murder to be right or wrong is not arbitrary.  even if we say the best way to be good is not to murder, does not mean that when we ask  why is it right to be good  we wo not always have a completely arbitrary and thus circular reason.  just to clarify why arbitrary is circular: why follow societal rules ? so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.  why is it right not to like jail ? because we do not enjoy it.  why is not enjoying something mean it is right to avoid it ? because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.  ad infinitum.  there are much better ways to formulate circular reasoning for these, that do not depend on what we feel.   #  does not mean that it is right to not enjoy it or avoid it.   # why pick one more system or any moral system over another ? some arbitrary criteria.  you ca not bridge the is/ought gap, which means suicide and societal cooperation are both as right and wrong as each other, or neither right and wrong.  kant could say we should always stick with the categorical imperative based on what we choose to accept towards ourselves, but if we say  why is what i chose right  the answer is always arbitrary.  no it is not arbitrary, not to us.  of course it is based on your preferences, but if you are a rational person, you would have formed reasons that are acceptable and consistent, and many of those reasons would take a similar form to other people is.  you would have justified why murder is bad, to whom it is bad, to what degree it is bad.  if you have no particular mental defects, those reasons are not arbitrary at all.  this is why we can even argue about our moral choices with each other, because we can argue about that framework.  suicide can be ok for some and not for others, that is fine, what matters is that people can explain why it is so.  so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.  why is it right not to like jail ? because we do not enjoy it.  why is not enjoying something mean it is right to avoid it ? because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.  ad infinitum.  nope, it is not some right that we do not like jail, that is way too general a base to have morals on.  we just do not like jail, because it restricts what we want to do a perfectly logical reason .  does not mean that it is right to not enjoy it or avoid it.  similarly, there is no particular right to follow societal rules.  you have to talk about specific moral actions here.
i do not think morals actually exist.  i have looked at utilitarianism, kant, etc.  i am not convinced that any moral framework is true.  it is not that i find the frameworks inconsistent or something, i just see no reason to believe any of them.  why should i obey them ? they all seem ultimately driven by arbitrary values, anyway.  we are ultimately just piles of atoms that have assembled themselves into semi self aware regions of influence.  the universe is ultimately uncaring.  so where would morality come from in the first place ? you could argue that human minds are the piece of the universe that cares, and that human minds are the generators of morality, but what prevents it from being arbitrary ? what is good and evil/bad ? that is arbitrary too.  it is not like a tornado is actually bad, it is just a cycle of wind that gets too strong for humans to handle.  shit, even  evil  people thought what they were doing was  good .  so are there morals ? if so, why be moral ? what moral system is correct ? thanks.  update: i get that a lot of people here think that morals exist because they help society function.  but i do not find that to be a convincing statement for the following reasons: 0.  just because a set of shared morals helps society function does not necessarily make that moral set true.  at best it just makes it practical.  i could just point out societies that many of you would find reprehensible to be an immediate counterexample to this.  0.  another user pointed out the idea outlined in 0, by calling it  fictionalism .  i understand it is beneficial to appear moral.  that does not mean morals exist.  also, having empathy does not imply morality.  empathy is just a process your brain goes through to force you to feel what others feel.  to say that this is a morality is like saying that thinking cookies taste good means that cookies are objectively the best food.   #  shit, even  evil  people thought what they were doing was  good .   #  and they could perfectly be wrong in the same way geocentrists were.   # i would say that we are not the atoms, but a part of how the atoms are arranged.  that is arbitrary too.  many values are universal or almost universal e. g.  : it is generally wrong to murder your neighbors .  and they could perfectly be wrong in the same way geocentrists were.  that is metaethics, and the main thing we are discussing.  this is externalism/internalism, a different issue.  simplified: according to externalism, you may perfectly understand that something is wrong, but that would not be absolutely motivating.  according to internalism, if you ask that question it is because you do not really understand morality.  that is yet another issue.  in general, debates about ethics are done considering some things right/wrong  prima facie .  for instance, if someone wants to make a case against abortion, they may want to say that murder is wrong a premise accepted by both parties , and then justify that the things that make murder wrong apply to abortion for instance the  potential person  argument .  you do not need the  whole  moral system to establish basic things like murder are right or wrong, or even to deal with trickier issues like abortion , the same way you do not need to understand general relativity to throw a ball, or even send a rocket to the moon.   #  it is not an arbitrary distinction to say that murder is an unethical action because the concept of morals is grounded in the human consciousness.   #  as you say yourself, morality is just a framework of rules grounded in the human conscious.  so to answer your questions: 0.  yes, there are morals.  morals are concepts on how to live your life as dictated by a moral system.  0.  yes, you should be moral ! the reason to be a moral individual can be answered differently depending on your moral system.  which leads to 0.  there is no one correct moral system, though the closest you can probably get to something that fits that answer is virtue ethics.  so now i can answer on why to be moral.  i believe kantism explains most effectively the importance on leading an ethical lifestyle.  in kantism, to decide if an action is good or bad, an autonomous individual must ask him/herself:  how would i react if the outcome of this action was directed at me ?   so, for example, we can determine that maliciously killing someone is an unethical action as we would not want that to happen to us as rational beings.  it is not an arbitrary distinction to say that murder is an unethical action because the concept of morals is grounded in the human consciousness.  we may be piles of atoms, and our morals may have no use elsewhere in the universe.  but since we are not, for example, immaterial beings, we need a set of morals to help dictate how we work in a society.  we have morality because we are humans, and concepts like  good  and  bad  have definitions within those bounds.  different people may have different definitions for these words, which can be attributed to different moral systems.  in general, though, people will have similar meanings for ethical concepts like good and bad.  it is important to be moral in order to maintain an effective and functional society.  if you want to look at it individualistically, conforming with the common morals of society can help you fit in better and help you practically.  those who go against common morality in extreme circumstances will be ostracized a psychopath who kills maliciously and remorselessly.  conclusion: morality is not arbitrary as it grounds itself in the human consciousness and society.  you should be moral because everyone being moral makes society safer, more effective, etc.  there is no one correct moral system, but analyzing different actions, people, and relationships, and comparing what different currently established moral systems would say, you can formulate a good idea of what moral concepts mean to you.   #  morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.   # no, i do not see how it could be interpreted as circular reasoning.  morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.  the human agent that is exploring morality can assume this to be true: that he exists as a person in a society on earth.  to determine moral beliefs, the mind starts with nothing to compare actions to besides itself.  if i do not understand the concept of death, i would not hold an opinion if i saw someone else murdered in front of me.  but once i consider the ramifications if my consciousness were to disappear, i can reach the conclusion that killing is inherently bad.  the mind of course values itself because it can hold no other concepts other than  i am,  to be an absolute truth if it assumes anything without a 0 truth value to be false.  it is not so different ! the human mind and the concepts it is able to comprehend is constricted.  we cannot imagine the fourth dimension like we can the 0rd, for example.  it is not similar to comparing harry potter to home alone however, that is like trying to explain our morality to a being that cannot experience death it is an unknowable concept to him.   #  morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.   # morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.  it is circular if you formulate it accurately: morality exists.  why pick one more system or any moral system over another ? some arbitrary criteria.  you ca not bridge the is/ought gap, which means suicide and societal cooperation are both as right and wrong as each other, or neither right and wrong.  kant could say we should always stick with the categorical imperative based on what we choose to accept towards ourselves, but if we say  why is what i chose right  the answer is always arbitrary.  this is a common issue in epistemology and ethics.  just because we admit that morality exists, as in, if we say that murder can actually be right or wrong, does not mean the reason we pick for murder to be right or wrong is not arbitrary.  even if we say the best way to be good is not to murder, does not mean that when we ask  why is it right to be good  we wo not always have a completely arbitrary and thus circular reason.  just to clarify why arbitrary is circular: why follow societal rules ? so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.  why is it right not to like jail ? because we do not enjoy it.  why is not enjoying something mean it is right to avoid it ? because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.  ad infinitum.  there are much better ways to formulate circular reasoning for these, that do not depend on what we feel.   #  you would have justified why murder is bad, to whom it is bad, to what degree it is bad.   # why pick one more system or any moral system over another ? some arbitrary criteria.  you ca not bridge the is/ought gap, which means suicide and societal cooperation are both as right and wrong as each other, or neither right and wrong.  kant could say we should always stick with the categorical imperative based on what we choose to accept towards ourselves, but if we say  why is what i chose right  the answer is always arbitrary.  no it is not arbitrary, not to us.  of course it is based on your preferences, but if you are a rational person, you would have formed reasons that are acceptable and consistent, and many of those reasons would take a similar form to other people is.  you would have justified why murder is bad, to whom it is bad, to what degree it is bad.  if you have no particular mental defects, those reasons are not arbitrary at all.  this is why we can even argue about our moral choices with each other, because we can argue about that framework.  suicide can be ok for some and not for others, that is fine, what matters is that people can explain why it is so.  so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.  why is it right not to like jail ? because we do not enjoy it.  why is not enjoying something mean it is right to avoid it ? because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.  ad infinitum.  nope, it is not some right that we do not like jail, that is way too general a base to have morals on.  we just do not like jail, because it restricts what we want to do a perfectly logical reason .  does not mean that it is right to not enjoy it or avoid it.  similarly, there is no particular right to follow societal rules.  you have to talk about specific moral actions here.
i do not think morals actually exist.  i have looked at utilitarianism, kant, etc.  i am not convinced that any moral framework is true.  it is not that i find the frameworks inconsistent or something, i just see no reason to believe any of them.  why should i obey them ? they all seem ultimately driven by arbitrary values, anyway.  we are ultimately just piles of atoms that have assembled themselves into semi self aware regions of influence.  the universe is ultimately uncaring.  so where would morality come from in the first place ? you could argue that human minds are the piece of the universe that cares, and that human minds are the generators of morality, but what prevents it from being arbitrary ? what is good and evil/bad ? that is arbitrary too.  it is not like a tornado is actually bad, it is just a cycle of wind that gets too strong for humans to handle.  shit, even  evil  people thought what they were doing was  good .  so are there morals ? if so, why be moral ? what moral system is correct ? thanks.  update: i get that a lot of people here think that morals exist because they help society function.  but i do not find that to be a convincing statement for the following reasons: 0.  just because a set of shared morals helps society function does not necessarily make that moral set true.  at best it just makes it practical.  i could just point out societies that many of you would find reprehensible to be an immediate counterexample to this.  0.  another user pointed out the idea outlined in 0, by calling it  fictionalism .  i understand it is beneficial to appear moral.  that does not mean morals exist.  also, having empathy does not imply morality.  empathy is just a process your brain goes through to force you to feel what others feel.  to say that this is a morality is like saying that thinking cookies taste good means that cookies are objectively the best food.   #  we are ultimately just piles of atoms that have assembled themselves into semi self aware regions of influence.   #  if morals could be demonstrated to be a both a direct product of the interactions of those atoms and a necessary foundation for the arrangements of atoms we call society, without any appeal to supernaturalism, would you accept them as true ?  # if morals could be demonstrated to be a both a direct product of the interactions of those atoms and a necessary foundation for the arrangements of atoms we call society, without any appeal to supernaturalism, would you accept them as true ? from the early stages of life, self preserving and propagation behaviors have conveyed a survival advantage, and, over time, this lead to the adaptation of complex systems for reinforcing advantageous behaviors and discouraging harmful ones.  in modern, man, much of this reinforcement is handled by the dopamine reward system URL unfettered self preservation, however, can be detrimental to the survival of species, as behaviors like the infanticide done by lions URL so, in a competitive environment, a species with a means for balancing self preservation with group survival would win out.  thus, empathy was born as the ability to extend the  self  in self preservation to cover mates and offspring, and it was accomplished using the same neurological pathways as above, but with the modification that consequences experienced by the others in the extended self could trigger rewards and punishments in the self.  empathy gave a great advantage to families, but it also gave an even greater advantage to tribes that could work together by extended their perception of self even further, but, just like self preservation, has the capacity for harm if over applied, for that lion will not think of you as part of the pride no matter how much you love it.  forging the neural pathways for that optimal balance of reward v.  deterrents and self v.  group is costly, and miscalculations would often lead to death, so the ability to share intact lessons with others in the group provided another strong survival advantage, and this is the origin of morals transferable behavioral lessons that enhance the individual is ability to find the optimal balance between the opposing forces of self and group preservation.  the truth of this can be seen in examining the most prevalent moral concepts that exist today.  the golden rule is a direct command to engage in empathy, and the intrinsic knowledge that killing is wrong unless in self defense displays perfectly empathy balanced by self preservation.   #  but since we are not, for example, immaterial beings, we need a set of morals to help dictate how we work in a society.   #  as you say yourself, morality is just a framework of rules grounded in the human conscious.  so to answer your questions: 0.  yes, there are morals.  morals are concepts on how to live your life as dictated by a moral system.  0.  yes, you should be moral ! the reason to be a moral individual can be answered differently depending on your moral system.  which leads to 0.  there is no one correct moral system, though the closest you can probably get to something that fits that answer is virtue ethics.  so now i can answer on why to be moral.  i believe kantism explains most effectively the importance on leading an ethical lifestyle.  in kantism, to decide if an action is good or bad, an autonomous individual must ask him/herself:  how would i react if the outcome of this action was directed at me ?   so, for example, we can determine that maliciously killing someone is an unethical action as we would not want that to happen to us as rational beings.  it is not an arbitrary distinction to say that murder is an unethical action because the concept of morals is grounded in the human consciousness.  we may be piles of atoms, and our morals may have no use elsewhere in the universe.  but since we are not, for example, immaterial beings, we need a set of morals to help dictate how we work in a society.  we have morality because we are humans, and concepts like  good  and  bad  have definitions within those bounds.  different people may have different definitions for these words, which can be attributed to different moral systems.  in general, though, people will have similar meanings for ethical concepts like good and bad.  it is important to be moral in order to maintain an effective and functional society.  if you want to look at it individualistically, conforming with the common morals of society can help you fit in better and help you practically.  those who go against common morality in extreme circumstances will be ostracized a psychopath who kills maliciously and remorselessly.  conclusion: morality is not arbitrary as it grounds itself in the human consciousness and society.  you should be moral because everyone being moral makes society safer, more effective, etc.  there is no one correct moral system, but analyzing different actions, people, and relationships, and comparing what different currently established moral systems would say, you can formulate a good idea of what moral concepts mean to you.   #  the mind of course values itself because it can hold no other concepts other than  i am,  to be an absolute truth if it assumes anything without a 0 truth value to be false.   # no, i do not see how it could be interpreted as circular reasoning.  morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.  the human agent that is exploring morality can assume this to be true: that he exists as a person in a society on earth.  to determine moral beliefs, the mind starts with nothing to compare actions to besides itself.  if i do not understand the concept of death, i would not hold an opinion if i saw someone else murdered in front of me.  but once i consider the ramifications if my consciousness were to disappear, i can reach the conclusion that killing is inherently bad.  the mind of course values itself because it can hold no other concepts other than  i am,  to be an absolute truth if it assumes anything without a 0 truth value to be false.  it is not so different ! the human mind and the concepts it is able to comprehend is constricted.  we cannot imagine the fourth dimension like we can the 0rd, for example.  it is not similar to comparing harry potter to home alone however, that is like trying to explain our morality to a being that cannot experience death it is an unknowable concept to him.   #  because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.   # morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.  it is circular if you formulate it accurately: morality exists.  why pick one more system or any moral system over another ? some arbitrary criteria.  you ca not bridge the is/ought gap, which means suicide and societal cooperation are both as right and wrong as each other, or neither right and wrong.  kant could say we should always stick with the categorical imperative based on what we choose to accept towards ourselves, but if we say  why is what i chose right  the answer is always arbitrary.  this is a common issue in epistemology and ethics.  just because we admit that morality exists, as in, if we say that murder can actually be right or wrong, does not mean the reason we pick for murder to be right or wrong is not arbitrary.  even if we say the best way to be good is not to murder, does not mean that when we ask  why is it right to be good  we wo not always have a completely arbitrary and thus circular reason.  just to clarify why arbitrary is circular: why follow societal rules ? so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.  why is it right not to like jail ? because we do not enjoy it.  why is not enjoying something mean it is right to avoid it ? because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.  ad infinitum.  there are much better ways to formulate circular reasoning for these, that do not depend on what we feel.   #  you have to talk about specific moral actions here.   # why pick one more system or any moral system over another ? some arbitrary criteria.  you ca not bridge the is/ought gap, which means suicide and societal cooperation are both as right and wrong as each other, or neither right and wrong.  kant could say we should always stick with the categorical imperative based on what we choose to accept towards ourselves, but if we say  why is what i chose right  the answer is always arbitrary.  no it is not arbitrary, not to us.  of course it is based on your preferences, but if you are a rational person, you would have formed reasons that are acceptable and consistent, and many of those reasons would take a similar form to other people is.  you would have justified why murder is bad, to whom it is bad, to what degree it is bad.  if you have no particular mental defects, those reasons are not arbitrary at all.  this is why we can even argue about our moral choices with each other, because we can argue about that framework.  suicide can be ok for some and not for others, that is fine, what matters is that people can explain why it is so.  so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.  why is it right not to like jail ? because we do not enjoy it.  why is not enjoying something mean it is right to avoid it ? because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.  ad infinitum.  nope, it is not some right that we do not like jail, that is way too general a base to have morals on.  we just do not like jail, because it restricts what we want to do a perfectly logical reason .  does not mean that it is right to not enjoy it or avoid it.  similarly, there is no particular right to follow societal rules.  you have to talk about specific moral actions here.
i do not think morals actually exist.  i have looked at utilitarianism, kant, etc.  i am not convinced that any moral framework is true.  it is not that i find the frameworks inconsistent or something, i just see no reason to believe any of them.  why should i obey them ? they all seem ultimately driven by arbitrary values, anyway.  we are ultimately just piles of atoms that have assembled themselves into semi self aware regions of influence.  the universe is ultimately uncaring.  so where would morality come from in the first place ? you could argue that human minds are the piece of the universe that cares, and that human minds are the generators of morality, but what prevents it from being arbitrary ? what is good and evil/bad ? that is arbitrary too.  it is not like a tornado is actually bad, it is just a cycle of wind that gets too strong for humans to handle.  shit, even  evil  people thought what they were doing was  good .  so are there morals ? if so, why be moral ? what moral system is correct ? thanks.  update: i get that a lot of people here think that morals exist because they help society function.  but i do not find that to be a convincing statement for the following reasons: 0.  just because a set of shared morals helps society function does not necessarily make that moral set true.  at best it just makes it practical.  i could just point out societies that many of you would find reprehensible to be an immediate counterexample to this.  0.  another user pointed out the idea outlined in 0, by calling it  fictionalism .  i understand it is beneficial to appear moral.  that does not mean morals exist.  also, having empathy does not imply morality.  empathy is just a process your brain goes through to force you to feel what others feel.  to say that this is a morality is like saying that thinking cookies taste good means that cookies are objectively the best food.   #  to say that this is a morality is like saying that thinking cookies taste good means that cookies are objectively the best food.   #  i am confused about what you are saying here, but i feel as though it might be related.   #  what about hedonism ? is eating a slice of pizza in some sense better than eating a dog turd ? if so, why should not we try to maximize pleasure and minimize pain ? i am confused about what you are saying here, but i feel as though it might be related.  can you expand on it ?  #  if you want to look at it individualistically, conforming with the common morals of society can help you fit in better and help you practically.   #  as you say yourself, morality is just a framework of rules grounded in the human conscious.  so to answer your questions: 0.  yes, there are morals.  morals are concepts on how to live your life as dictated by a moral system.  0.  yes, you should be moral ! the reason to be a moral individual can be answered differently depending on your moral system.  which leads to 0.  there is no one correct moral system, though the closest you can probably get to something that fits that answer is virtue ethics.  so now i can answer on why to be moral.  i believe kantism explains most effectively the importance on leading an ethical lifestyle.  in kantism, to decide if an action is good or bad, an autonomous individual must ask him/herself:  how would i react if the outcome of this action was directed at me ?   so, for example, we can determine that maliciously killing someone is an unethical action as we would not want that to happen to us as rational beings.  it is not an arbitrary distinction to say that murder is an unethical action because the concept of morals is grounded in the human consciousness.  we may be piles of atoms, and our morals may have no use elsewhere in the universe.  but since we are not, for example, immaterial beings, we need a set of morals to help dictate how we work in a society.  we have morality because we are humans, and concepts like  good  and  bad  have definitions within those bounds.  different people may have different definitions for these words, which can be attributed to different moral systems.  in general, though, people will have similar meanings for ethical concepts like good and bad.  it is important to be moral in order to maintain an effective and functional society.  if you want to look at it individualistically, conforming with the common morals of society can help you fit in better and help you practically.  those who go against common morality in extreme circumstances will be ostracized a psychopath who kills maliciously and remorselessly.  conclusion: morality is not arbitrary as it grounds itself in the human consciousness and society.  you should be moral because everyone being moral makes society safer, more effective, etc.  there is no one correct moral system, but analyzing different actions, people, and relationships, and comparing what different currently established moral systems would say, you can formulate a good idea of what moral concepts mean to you.   #  we cannot imagine the fourth dimension like we can the 0rd, for example.   # no, i do not see how it could be interpreted as circular reasoning.  morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.  the human agent that is exploring morality can assume this to be true: that he exists as a person in a society on earth.  to determine moral beliefs, the mind starts with nothing to compare actions to besides itself.  if i do not understand the concept of death, i would not hold an opinion if i saw someone else murdered in front of me.  but once i consider the ramifications if my consciousness were to disappear, i can reach the conclusion that killing is inherently bad.  the mind of course values itself because it can hold no other concepts other than  i am,  to be an absolute truth if it assumes anything without a 0 truth value to be false.  it is not so different ! the human mind and the concepts it is able to comprehend is constricted.  we cannot imagine the fourth dimension like we can the 0rd, for example.  it is not similar to comparing harry potter to home alone however, that is like trying to explain our morality to a being that cannot experience death it is an unknowable concept to him.   #  so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.   # morality exists as a concept grounded in human consciousness.  morality is a theoretical guide that dictates one is conduct.  it is circular if you formulate it accurately: morality exists.  why pick one more system or any moral system over another ? some arbitrary criteria.  you ca not bridge the is/ought gap, which means suicide and societal cooperation are both as right and wrong as each other, or neither right and wrong.  kant could say we should always stick with the categorical imperative based on what we choose to accept towards ourselves, but if we say  why is what i chose right  the answer is always arbitrary.  this is a common issue in epistemology and ethics.  just because we admit that morality exists, as in, if we say that murder can actually be right or wrong, does not mean the reason we pick for murder to be right or wrong is not arbitrary.  even if we say the best way to be good is not to murder, does not mean that when we ask  why is it right to be good  we wo not always have a completely arbitrary and thus circular reason.  just to clarify why arbitrary is circular: why follow societal rules ? so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.  why is it right not to like jail ? because we do not enjoy it.  why is not enjoying something mean it is right to avoid it ? because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.  ad infinitum.  there are much better ways to formulate circular reasoning for these, that do not depend on what we feel.   #  nope, it is not some right that we do not like jail, that is way too general a base to have morals on.   # why pick one more system or any moral system over another ? some arbitrary criteria.  you ca not bridge the is/ought gap, which means suicide and societal cooperation are both as right and wrong as each other, or neither right and wrong.  kant could say we should always stick with the categorical imperative based on what we choose to accept towards ourselves, but if we say  why is what i chose right  the answer is always arbitrary.  no it is not arbitrary, not to us.  of course it is based on your preferences, but if you are a rational person, you would have formed reasons that are acceptable and consistent, and many of those reasons would take a similar form to other people is.  you would have justified why murder is bad, to whom it is bad, to what degree it is bad.  if you have no particular mental defects, those reasons are not arbitrary at all.  this is why we can even argue about our moral choices with each other, because we can argue about that framework.  suicide can be ok for some and not for others, that is fine, what matters is that people can explain why it is so.  so we do not go to jail, we do not like jail.  why is it right not to like jail ? because we do not enjoy it.  why is not enjoying something mean it is right to avoid it ? because we do not enjoy it, so we have to act like it is right to avoid.  ad infinitum.  nope, it is not some right that we do not like jail, that is way too general a base to have morals on.  we just do not like jail, because it restricts what we want to do a perfectly logical reason .  does not mean that it is right to not enjoy it or avoid it.  similarly, there is no particular right to follow societal rules.  you have to talk about specific moral actions here.
what prevents someone from buying, borrowing, and/or stealing 0 or 0 self driving cars, packing them full of explosives, and sending them off across the area to hit targets ? i have been concerned about this scenario for a while.  the only way to prevent it, that i can see, is to ban personal ownership of self driving cars.  point/counterpoint:   point: car makers can add sensors to detect for a human being in a vehicle and prevent the vehicle from traveling without a human inside.  counterpoint: unless we are going to increase the price of a car dramatically, sensors can be tricked.  also, cars can be hacked just like iphones jailbreak and other electronic devices.    point: owning multiple self driving car would be a red flag and put someone one a watch list.  counterpoint: what prevents someone from borrowing cars from friends and family ? also, there will no doubt be car sharing services where you can rent out your car to strangers similar to uber .  also, car theft will never end.  people will always find a way to steal cars.  personal ownership of self driving cars will never be allowed.  cmv.   #  also, cars can be hacked just like iphones jailbreak and other electronic devices.   #  if you start mucking around with the software that runs the actual driving of the car, your car will just not be able to drive.   # if you start mucking around with the software that runs the actual driving of the car, your car will just not be able to drive.  it is one thing to change the ui or add apps, but that is completely different then changing the software that actually drives the car.  unless you can swap that out, you are going to be limited in where it will let you drive.  if the cars are designed to not drive if they detect certain physical objects like explosives or tampering with the sensors of any kind, then you are out of luck.  for example, they could have whatever sensors they want set up in a box.  any attempt to open that box sets a flag that says this car needs maintenance, and the only place it will drive now is to the repair shop.  resetting that flag could only be done by a technician.   #  of states estimates, generously padded, put the number of active terrorists around 0,0  worldwide .   #  you do not even have to go that far.  terrorism is an incredibly rare occurrence, with a an extremely small, finite impact, carried out by a very small group of people who have very limited means.  URL using the u. s.  dept.  of states estimates, generously padded, put the number of active terrorists around 0,0  worldwide .  now it is important to note that number is an estimate of total active members of terrorist organizations,  not  people who actually have the capability, know how, and means to carry out a large scale terrorist attack.  that number would be significantly smaller.  even though the number of terrorism deaths has risen recently URL it is still an incredibly small number: 0,0 in 0.  most of those are not in the u. s.  i could not quickly find a solid number of terrorism deaths in the u. s.  since 0/0 so lets make one up: 0.  so about 0 deaths per year op is saying that the u. s.  government is going to ban private ownership of automated vehicles, interrupting industry, messing with the economy, and screwing up my ability to nap while commuting to prevent 0 of the worlds population from enacting a terrorist plot that would likely kill less people than a much simpler plan that could be enacted today, with technology and infrastructure that has existed for decades.  that simply does not make sense.  and as foolish as you think the u. s.  government may be, you ca not credibly think them that obtuse.   #  can you please cite for me a single instance of a terrorist attack that directly resulted in the banning of anything as significant and useful as as self driving cars ?  # after that, personal ownership of self driving cars will be banned.  just like we have banned planes right ? and regular cars.  and spain banned subway cars ? right ? first.  your view has already been apparently changed.  your intial post asserted:  the personal ownership of self driving cars will never be allowed due to terrorism concerns.  now you are saying it may take an actual attack, or more than one.  which is it ? in any case i would say it would take many, many attacks.  like tens of dozens.  the risk would have to far out weigh any utility that driverless cars provide.  can you please cite for me a single instance of a terrorist attack that directly resulted in the banning of anything as significant and useful as as self driving cars ? which can be said about any of he hundreds of thousands of terrorism scenarios we could concoct if we put our mind to it.  that it would be possible, does not mean that it will happen, nor that driverless cars will be banned.  question: how many active terrorist do you think exist in the world today ?  #  it may take an attack, however, for the ban to occur.   # planes are commercial products that average people do not have physical access to.  also, it is harder to have access to 0 0 planes than it would be to have access to 0 0 self driving cars again, see my points .  which is it ? good point here, i guess my view did change a little, but only in regard to when the banning will occur.  if governments think out the security implications before hand, however, personal ownership of self driving cars may still be banned from the offset.  it may take an attack, however, for the ban to occur.  that it would be possible, does not mean that it will happen, nor that driverless cars will be banned.  you are missing the question of scale here.  in the scenario i provided, the scale is very large and the scenario is hard to prevent.   #  the issue is that as we pass over this new technological threshold, that has never been stepped over before, brand new scenarios must be prevented.   #  if someone buys 0 0 personal airplanes, i am sure this will put them on a watch list, or at least flag them for some sort of cursory investigation.  also, unless these planes are automated e. g.  can take off on their own , they are outside the scope of this scenario.  also, planes are much more expensive.  we are entering a whole new realm of technology here.  i agree that this technology will be significant and useful.  the issue is that as we pass over this new technological threshold, that has never been stepped over before, brand new scenarios must be prevented.
what prevents someone from buying, borrowing, and/or stealing 0 or 0 self driving cars, packing them full of explosives, and sending them off across the area to hit targets ? i have been concerned about this scenario for a while.  the only way to prevent it, that i can see, is to ban personal ownership of self driving cars.  point/counterpoint:   point: car makers can add sensors to detect for a human being in a vehicle and prevent the vehicle from traveling without a human inside.  counterpoint: unless we are going to increase the price of a car dramatically, sensors can be tricked.  also, cars can be hacked just like iphones jailbreak and other electronic devices.    point: owning multiple self driving car would be a red flag and put someone one a watch list.  counterpoint: what prevents someone from borrowing cars from friends and family ? also, there will no doubt be car sharing services where you can rent out your car to strangers similar to uber .  also, car theft will never end.  people will always find a way to steal cars.  personal ownership of self driving cars will never be allowed.  cmv.   #  what prevents someone from buying, borrowing, and/or stealing 0 or 0 self driving cars, packing them full of explosives, and sending them off across the area to hit targets ?  #  most of the same things that prevent someone from getting 0 or 0 gullible extremists of some kind to drive cars packed full of explosives to targets and walk away before detonating.   # most of the same things that prevent someone from getting 0 or 0 gullible extremists of some kind to drive cars packed full of explosives to targets and walk away before detonating.  there are a few differences.  for one, it is slightly more likely that someone will get cold feet and report on the effort when there are 0 or 0 people involved instead of just one.  another difference is that it is much easier to refuel a vehicle if someone is actually riding around in it.  it is also easier to fund something when you have 0 or 0 people.  i could see someone kicking up a panic around this to try and ban self driving cars, but i ca not really see automated vehicles as greatly increasing the actual threat.   #  since 0/0 so lets make one up: 0.  so about 0 deaths per year op is saying that the u. s.   #  you do not even have to go that far.  terrorism is an incredibly rare occurrence, with a an extremely small, finite impact, carried out by a very small group of people who have very limited means.  URL using the u. s.  dept.  of states estimates, generously padded, put the number of active terrorists around 0,0  worldwide .  now it is important to note that number is an estimate of total active members of terrorist organizations,  not  people who actually have the capability, know how, and means to carry out a large scale terrorist attack.  that number would be significantly smaller.  even though the number of terrorism deaths has risen recently URL it is still an incredibly small number: 0,0 in 0.  most of those are not in the u. s.  i could not quickly find a solid number of terrorism deaths in the u. s.  since 0/0 so lets make one up: 0.  so about 0 deaths per year op is saying that the u. s.  government is going to ban private ownership of automated vehicles, interrupting industry, messing with the economy, and screwing up my ability to nap while commuting to prevent 0 of the worlds population from enacting a terrorist plot that would likely kill less people than a much simpler plan that could be enacted today, with technology and infrastructure that has existed for decades.  that simply does not make sense.  and as foolish as you think the u. s.  government may be, you ca not credibly think them that obtuse.   #  that it would be possible, does not mean that it will happen, nor that driverless cars will be banned.   # after that, personal ownership of self driving cars will be banned.  just like we have banned planes right ? and regular cars.  and spain banned subway cars ? right ? first.  your view has already been apparently changed.  your intial post asserted:  the personal ownership of self driving cars will never be allowed due to terrorism concerns.  now you are saying it may take an actual attack, or more than one.  which is it ? in any case i would say it would take many, many attacks.  like tens of dozens.  the risk would have to far out weigh any utility that driverless cars provide.  can you please cite for me a single instance of a terrorist attack that directly resulted in the banning of anything as significant and useful as as self driving cars ? which can be said about any of he hundreds of thousands of terrorism scenarios we could concoct if we put our mind to it.  that it would be possible, does not mean that it will happen, nor that driverless cars will be banned.  question: how many active terrorist do you think exist in the world today ?  #  it may take an attack, however, for the ban to occur.   # planes are commercial products that average people do not have physical access to.  also, it is harder to have access to 0 0 planes than it would be to have access to 0 0 self driving cars again, see my points .  which is it ? good point here, i guess my view did change a little, but only in regard to when the banning will occur.  if governments think out the security implications before hand, however, personal ownership of self driving cars may still be banned from the offset.  it may take an attack, however, for the ban to occur.  that it would be possible, does not mean that it will happen, nor that driverless cars will be banned.  you are missing the question of scale here.  in the scenario i provided, the scale is very large and the scenario is hard to prevent.   #  we are entering a whole new realm of technology here.   #  if someone buys 0 0 personal airplanes, i am sure this will put them on a watch list, or at least flag them for some sort of cursory investigation.  also, unless these planes are automated e. g.  can take off on their own , they are outside the scope of this scenario.  also, planes are much more expensive.  we are entering a whole new realm of technology here.  i agree that this technology will be significant and useful.  the issue is that as we pass over this new technological threshold, that has never been stepped over before, brand new scenarios must be prevented.
what prevents someone from buying, borrowing, and/or stealing 0 or 0 self driving cars, packing them full of explosives, and sending them off across the area to hit targets ? i have been concerned about this scenario for a while.  the only way to prevent it, that i can see, is to ban personal ownership of self driving cars.  point/counterpoint:   point: car makers can add sensors to detect for a human being in a vehicle and prevent the vehicle from traveling without a human inside.  counterpoint: unless we are going to increase the price of a car dramatically, sensors can be tricked.  also, cars can be hacked just like iphones jailbreak and other electronic devices.    point: owning multiple self driving car would be a red flag and put someone one a watch list.  counterpoint: what prevents someone from borrowing cars from friends and family ? also, there will no doubt be car sharing services where you can rent out your car to strangers similar to uber .  also, car theft will never end.  people will always find a way to steal cars.  personal ownership of self driving cars will never be allowed.  cmv.   #  what prevents someone from buying, borrowing, and/or stealing 0 or 0 self driving cars, packing them full of explosives, and sending them off across the area to hit targets ?  #  the magic of self driving cars is that they obey traffic laws, avoid hazards, and get to the destination automatically.   # the magic of self driving cars is that they obey traffic laws, avoid hazards, and get to the destination automatically.  if your only goal is to blow something up with a car, then it is quite easy to make  any  car driver less.  using some off the shelf hobby parts and a cell phone can let you control the pedal and steering wheel remotely or with a program.  use some machine vision software like opencv , and you can do basic tasks like not hit the car in front of you and identify the state of traffic lights.  the hardest part about self driving cars is that they have to do everything  almost perfectly .  a well funded or knowledgeable terrorist can cobble together a car that is good enough to get to the destination without much difficulty.  the only way to prevent it, that i can see, is to ban personal ownership of self driving cars.  what is to stop a terrorist from starting a business that requires a fleet self driving cars ? what if a terrorist started up a self driving car dealership ? even if they required a commercial self driving car to do your bomb idea, then your solution does not solve anything.   #  you do not even have to go that far.   #  you do not even have to go that far.  terrorism is an incredibly rare occurrence, with a an extremely small, finite impact, carried out by a very small group of people who have very limited means.  URL using the u. s.  dept.  of states estimates, generously padded, put the number of active terrorists around 0,0  worldwide .  now it is important to note that number is an estimate of total active members of terrorist organizations,  not  people who actually have the capability, know how, and means to carry out a large scale terrorist attack.  that number would be significantly smaller.  even though the number of terrorism deaths has risen recently URL it is still an incredibly small number: 0,0 in 0.  most of those are not in the u. s.  i could not quickly find a solid number of terrorism deaths in the u. s.  since 0/0 so lets make one up: 0.  so about 0 deaths per year op is saying that the u. s.  government is going to ban private ownership of automated vehicles, interrupting industry, messing with the economy, and screwing up my ability to nap while commuting to prevent 0 of the worlds population from enacting a terrorist plot that would likely kill less people than a much simpler plan that could be enacted today, with technology and infrastructure that has existed for decades.  that simply does not make sense.  and as foolish as you think the u. s.  government may be, you ca not credibly think them that obtuse.   #  question: how many active terrorist do you think exist in the world today ?  # after that, personal ownership of self driving cars will be banned.  just like we have banned planes right ? and regular cars.  and spain banned subway cars ? right ? first.  your view has already been apparently changed.  your intial post asserted:  the personal ownership of self driving cars will never be allowed due to terrorism concerns.  now you are saying it may take an actual attack, or more than one.  which is it ? in any case i would say it would take many, many attacks.  like tens of dozens.  the risk would have to far out weigh any utility that driverless cars provide.  can you please cite for me a single instance of a terrorist attack that directly resulted in the banning of anything as significant and useful as as self driving cars ? which can be said about any of he hundreds of thousands of terrorism scenarios we could concoct if we put our mind to it.  that it would be possible, does not mean that it will happen, nor that driverless cars will be banned.  question: how many active terrorist do you think exist in the world today ?  #  that it would be possible, does not mean that it will happen, nor that driverless cars will be banned.   # planes are commercial products that average people do not have physical access to.  also, it is harder to have access to 0 0 planes than it would be to have access to 0 0 self driving cars again, see my points .  which is it ? good point here, i guess my view did change a little, but only in regard to when the banning will occur.  if governments think out the security implications before hand, however, personal ownership of self driving cars may still be banned from the offset.  it may take an attack, however, for the ban to occur.  that it would be possible, does not mean that it will happen, nor that driverless cars will be banned.  you are missing the question of scale here.  in the scenario i provided, the scale is very large and the scenario is hard to prevent.   #  we are entering a whole new realm of technology here.   #  if someone buys 0 0 personal airplanes, i am sure this will put them on a watch list, or at least flag them for some sort of cursory investigation.  also, unless these planes are automated e. g.  can take off on their own , they are outside the scope of this scenario.  also, planes are much more expensive.  we are entering a whole new realm of technology here.  i agree that this technology will be significant and useful.  the issue is that as we pass over this new technological threshold, that has never been stepped over before, brand new scenarios must be prevented.
what prevents someone from buying, borrowing, and/or stealing 0 or 0 self driving cars, packing them full of explosives, and sending them off across the area to hit targets ? i have been concerned about this scenario for a while.  the only way to prevent it, that i can see, is to ban personal ownership of self driving cars.  point/counterpoint:   point: car makers can add sensors to detect for a human being in a vehicle and prevent the vehicle from traveling without a human inside.  counterpoint: unless we are going to increase the price of a car dramatically, sensors can be tricked.  also, cars can be hacked just like iphones jailbreak and other electronic devices.    point: owning multiple self driving car would be a red flag and put someone one a watch list.  counterpoint: what prevents someone from borrowing cars from friends and family ? also, there will no doubt be car sharing services where you can rent out your car to strangers similar to uber .  also, car theft will never end.  people will always find a way to steal cars.  personal ownership of self driving cars will never be allowed.  cmv.   #  i have been concerned about this scenario for a while.   #  the only way to prevent it, that i can see, is to ban personal ownership of self driving cars.   # the magic of self driving cars is that they obey traffic laws, avoid hazards, and get to the destination automatically.  if your only goal is to blow something up with a car, then it is quite easy to make  any  car driver less.  using some off the shelf hobby parts and a cell phone can let you control the pedal and steering wheel remotely or with a program.  use some machine vision software like opencv , and you can do basic tasks like not hit the car in front of you and identify the state of traffic lights.  the hardest part about self driving cars is that they have to do everything  almost perfectly .  a well funded or knowledgeable terrorist can cobble together a car that is good enough to get to the destination without much difficulty.  the only way to prevent it, that i can see, is to ban personal ownership of self driving cars.  what is to stop a terrorist from starting a business that requires a fleet self driving cars ? what if a terrorist started up a self driving car dealership ? even if they required a commercial self driving car to do your bomb idea, then your solution does not solve anything.   #  you do not even have to go that far.   #  you do not even have to go that far.  terrorism is an incredibly rare occurrence, with a an extremely small, finite impact, carried out by a very small group of people who have very limited means.  URL using the u. s.  dept.  of states estimates, generously padded, put the number of active terrorists around 0,0  worldwide .  now it is important to note that number is an estimate of total active members of terrorist organizations,  not  people who actually have the capability, know how, and means to carry out a large scale terrorist attack.  that number would be significantly smaller.  even though the number of terrorism deaths has risen recently URL it is still an incredibly small number: 0,0 in 0.  most of those are not in the u. s.  i could not quickly find a solid number of terrorism deaths in the u. s.  since 0/0 so lets make one up: 0.  so about 0 deaths per year op is saying that the u. s.  government is going to ban private ownership of automated vehicles, interrupting industry, messing with the economy, and screwing up my ability to nap while commuting to prevent 0 of the worlds population from enacting a terrorist plot that would likely kill less people than a much simpler plan that could be enacted today, with technology and infrastructure that has existed for decades.  that simply does not make sense.  and as foolish as you think the u. s.  government may be, you ca not credibly think them that obtuse.   #  can you please cite for me a single instance of a terrorist attack that directly resulted in the banning of anything as significant and useful as as self driving cars ?  # after that, personal ownership of self driving cars will be banned.  just like we have banned planes right ? and regular cars.  and spain banned subway cars ? right ? first.  your view has already been apparently changed.  your intial post asserted:  the personal ownership of self driving cars will never be allowed due to terrorism concerns.  now you are saying it may take an actual attack, or more than one.  which is it ? in any case i would say it would take many, many attacks.  like tens of dozens.  the risk would have to far out weigh any utility that driverless cars provide.  can you please cite for me a single instance of a terrorist attack that directly resulted in the banning of anything as significant and useful as as self driving cars ? which can be said about any of he hundreds of thousands of terrorism scenarios we could concoct if we put our mind to it.  that it would be possible, does not mean that it will happen, nor that driverless cars will be banned.  question: how many active terrorist do you think exist in the world today ?  #  also, it is harder to have access to 0 0 planes than it would be to have access to 0 0 self driving cars again, see my points .   # planes are commercial products that average people do not have physical access to.  also, it is harder to have access to 0 0 planes than it would be to have access to 0 0 self driving cars again, see my points .  which is it ? good point here, i guess my view did change a little, but only in regard to when the banning will occur.  if governments think out the security implications before hand, however, personal ownership of self driving cars may still be banned from the offset.  it may take an attack, however, for the ban to occur.  that it would be possible, does not mean that it will happen, nor that driverless cars will be banned.  you are missing the question of scale here.  in the scenario i provided, the scale is very large and the scenario is hard to prevent.   #  the issue is that as we pass over this new technological threshold, that has never been stepped over before, brand new scenarios must be prevented.   #  if someone buys 0 0 personal airplanes, i am sure this will put them on a watch list, or at least flag them for some sort of cursory investigation.  also, unless these planes are automated e. g.  can take off on their own , they are outside the scope of this scenario.  also, planes are much more expensive.  we are entering a whole new realm of technology here.  i agree that this technology will be significant and useful.  the issue is that as we pass over this new technological threshold, that has never been stepped over before, brand new scenarios must be prevented.
with steam and game bundles, games are often discounted to a fraction of their ordinary price.  for example, 0 years after its release, batman: arkham city was in a humble bundle, lowering its price from $0 to less than $0.  for games not in bundles, steam sales often offer recent games for 0 off.  games do not need to be bought on release.  waiting a year or two to play a game would not lessen enjoyment in any significant way, and most likely would save a lot of money.   #  with steam and game bundles, games are often discounted to a fraction of their ordinary price.   #  for example, 0 years after its release, batman: arkham city was in a humble bundle, lowering its price from $0 to less than $0.   # that is the only reason needed.  for example, 0 years after its release, batman: arkham city was in a humble bundle, lowering its price from $0 to less than $0.  for games not in bundles, steam sales often offer recent games for 0 off.  this is a great reason to wait.  i myself tend to wait until a sale or prices come down a bit.  but it does not negate the fact that  i want to play it now  is a perfectly good reason to buy a new release.  but they can be, and there is nothing wrong with that.  your subjective experience of playing a game does not trump or supersede my subjective experience.  if i want to buy a new release, that is my prerogative.  which is great ! but does not negate that the only necessary justification for buying a new release is  i want to   #  money is a main factor for many gamers.   #  but many people have very limited money for gaming.  instead of spending their $0 dollars on a game at launch, they could wait a year and get several games instead.  money is a main factor for many gamers.  i do agree with the multiplayer point though.  i feel multiplayer is a good reason to buy a game on launch.   #  but by the same logic, they should just wait until these games are free, because why not wait few more years after you waited few years ?  # then they should fully recognise that they will lose an experience of being able to play the game with everybody at launch.  it is a great feeling and is a great community time.  also the sense of discovery everything for yourself, while nobody can spoil you anything and you do not have guides for all secrets available in google.  people should decide for themselves what is more important to them.  but by the same logic, they should just wait until these games are free, because why not wait few more years after you waited few years ?  #  it is easy to play through an old game blind; just do not look up a guide.   # it is a great feeling and is a great community time.  yes, this makes sense, especially for multiplayer games.  i mostly play single player games, so i was not thinking about multiplayer games when making this post.  you could still have the same sense of discovery if you bought the game later.  it is easy to play through an old game blind; just do not look up a guide.  if most games actually became free, i would agree with this.  but most games never become free, and those that do require paying in other forms games with gold, etc.  .   #  that is one minus of being late to the party.   #  yes you can, using special cables not always , this dude sets up snes to hdtv URL plus, there are always emulators.  nothing difficult about anything, people interested in this kinda stuff already figured everything out.  but, if you want original experience you might want to buy a tv this game was intended for.  that is one minus of being late to the party.  the game was not made for future you, but rather for modern actual times.
with steam and game bundles, games are often discounted to a fraction of their ordinary price.  for example, 0 years after its release, batman: arkham city was in a humble bundle, lowering its price from $0 to less than $0.  for games not in bundles, steam sales often offer recent games for 0 off.  games do not need to be bought on release.  waiting a year or two to play a game would not lessen enjoyment in any significant way, and most likely would save a lot of money.   #  games do not need to be bought on release.   #  but they can be, and there is nothing wrong with that.   # that is the only reason needed.  for example, 0 years after its release, batman: arkham city was in a humble bundle, lowering its price from $0 to less than $0.  for games not in bundles, steam sales often offer recent games for 0 off.  this is a great reason to wait.  i myself tend to wait until a sale or prices come down a bit.  but it does not negate the fact that  i want to play it now  is a perfectly good reason to buy a new release.  but they can be, and there is nothing wrong with that.  your subjective experience of playing a game does not trump or supersede my subjective experience.  if i want to buy a new release, that is my prerogative.  which is great ! but does not negate that the only necessary justification for buying a new release is  i want to   #  but many people have very limited money for gaming.   #  but many people have very limited money for gaming.  instead of spending their $0 dollars on a game at launch, they could wait a year and get several games instead.  money is a main factor for many gamers.  i do agree with the multiplayer point though.  i feel multiplayer is a good reason to buy a game on launch.   #  then they should fully recognise that they will lose an experience of being able to play the game with everybody at launch.   # then they should fully recognise that they will lose an experience of being able to play the game with everybody at launch.  it is a great feeling and is a great community time.  also the sense of discovery everything for yourself, while nobody can spoil you anything and you do not have guides for all secrets available in google.  people should decide for themselves what is more important to them.  but by the same logic, they should just wait until these games are free, because why not wait few more years after you waited few years ?  #  it is easy to play through an old game blind; just do not look up a guide.   # it is a great feeling and is a great community time.  yes, this makes sense, especially for multiplayer games.  i mostly play single player games, so i was not thinking about multiplayer games when making this post.  you could still have the same sense of discovery if you bought the game later.  it is easy to play through an old game blind; just do not look up a guide.  if most games actually became free, i would agree with this.  but most games never become free, and those that do require paying in other forms games with gold, etc.  .   #  nothing difficult about anything, people interested in this kinda stuff already figured everything out.   #  yes you can, using special cables not always , this dude sets up snes to hdtv URL plus, there are always emulators.  nothing difficult about anything, people interested in this kinda stuff already figured everything out.  but, if you want original experience you might want to buy a tv this game was intended for.  that is one minus of being late to the party.  the game was not made for future you, but rather for modern actual times.
because of this: people laughing about a man being assaulted URL and this: people doing nothing against a woman who attacks a man URL and this: women laughing about mgm URL we got plenty of viral ads teaching people that it is never okay, to beat a woman.  yet there are a lot of examples where women get away with assaulting men.  thanks to vawa, when there is a fight between a man and a woman, the men is taken by the police, no matter who was violent.  . and when boko haram captured girls, there was a huge outrage in the media, while only mr groups reported about the boys being captured.  but why should it be acceptable that women should be beaten ? because women are people ! people draw other people is hostiliy on them. that is human nature.  when the person happens to be a man, he  apparently deserves to be beaten . but if the person is a woman  no one should lay a hand on her  ? that is a double standard we need to get rid off !  but how about no one should beat everyone ?   if that is your argument, then i suggest, you should try to get rid of the privilege that women can get away with beatin men, thank you.   #  when the person happens to be a man, he  apparently deserves to be beaten . but if the person is a woman  no one should lay a hand on her  ?  #  that is a double standard we need to get rid off !  #  op is argument can be interpreted as this: if we accept gender equality, then if if it is socially acceptable for women to hit men, it should also be socially acceptable for men to hit women.  i do not see how your arguments have addressed it at all.  this is what he means when when he references a double standard and that no such privilege should exist.  that is a double standard we need to get rid off !  but how about no one should beat everyone ?   if that is your argument, then i suggest, you should try to get rid of the privilege that women can get away with beatin men, thank you.   #  it is not acceptable for women to beat men, nor should it be.   #  this is a classic case of  if the premise is false then the claim is false.   it is not acceptable for women to beat men, nor should it be.  therefore, no matter what logic follows you will fail to prove that it should be acceptable for men to beat women.  if you wish to prove that men should be able to beat women, you need a different premise to support it because it is not supported under your stated claims.  in case you are unfamiliar with logical proof, it is the equivalent of saying  if the sky is green, then the bluejay is also green.   you cannot prove this because your premise is false.  if you are given that the sky is green, the bluejay is also green, but you are not given that the sky is green, so nothing that follows can be correct.   #  anyway, the fact that people let it happen does not mean they think it is morally right.   #  hm, i do want to mention the difference between socially  accepted  and morally right.  i put accepted in quotes because it is not really accepted, people seem to merely turn the blind eye.  does that mean they actually approve of men getting beat ? ofcourse not ! they just do not help, partly because men are  isupposed  to man up.  a woman getting beat is more seen as a victim.  anyway, the fact that people let it happen does not mean they think it is morally right.  the general consensus is still that violence is bad.  it is wrong to beat people up, and there is no gender discrepancy in that.  it is still wrong to beat people, and despite the fact that people turn a blind eye, it should not ever be socially acceptable for a man to hit a woman.   #  men not hitting women is more or less to protect the man from legal repercussion.   #  men can do whatever they want.  no one should hit anyone.  that is the general rule.  and anyone, regardless of gender, can be charged with assault.  men not hitting women is more or less to protect the man from legal repercussion.  for the most part men are bigger and stronger than women.  if the police are called and the man has a bruise or no physical injuries and the woman has a broken rib and nose, guess who is getting arrested even if the woman started it ? same thing if russell brand slapped the rock and the rock pummeled him and ended up severely injuring him.  the rock is the one who will likely be charged.  the stronger person whether it is the man or woman has to be more cognizant of their actions, because their actions have the likelihood of causing more damage.  and lawyers, officers, and the general public measures victims by damage.   #  both videos included the man forcibly grabbing the woman is neck/face or restraining her body while pushing her around while the woman would slap/grab hair/pushing an arm.   #  0.  neither is acceptable.  the difference in reactions can many times be attributed to difference in physical build.  in both videos, the man was stronger than the woman and appeared far more capable of inflicting significant damage.  both videos included the man forcibly grabbing the woman is neck/face or restraining her body while pushing her around while the woman would slap/grab hair/pushing an arm.  while i am not arguing that the latter is ok, the first presents more potential for serious harm.  0.  in the case of self defense, appropriate force should be applied.  many men argue that just because a woman slapped them that they should have free reign to uppercut her to the face, or something similar.
first of all a little context.  i do not have kids, i am 0 years old and unmarried.  however, i was spanked as a kid.  my parents would spank me if i did something especially bad or was really disrespectful.  most of the time, they disciplined me with other conventional methods: no video games, music, dessert etc.  they would spank me on the bottom roughly 0 times consecutively with a light ping pong paddle or with their hand.  before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.  when i was really young 0 0 , my mom would slap my wrist with her hand pretty mildly.  now to be clear, i understand this is a grey area for a lot of people.  spanking could be what my parents did or beating a child with a belt for mild bad behavior.  for the sake of this cmv, let is define spanking the way my parents did, which i think is the responsible way to practice it.  let me also so that i do not think anyone should be persuaded to spank their children if they do not feel right about it.  parenting is a subjective thing and people should raise their kids how they see fit.  here is why i think spanking is a good thing: young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  e. g.  if bobby steals a little girls candy bar and eats if for himself, he just knows that his actions resulted in a candy bar.  even if an adult takes him aside and tells him that his actions caused susie to cry, it is not like he really empathizes with her and feels remorse.  he may feel it a little bit, because its instinctual, but probably not enough to make him feel bad.  the adult could then do one of two things.  he could discipline bobby, but what does that really look like to a young child ? he could take away his toy, but what if bobby does not care about the toy ? bobby may be toy less for a period of time that does not affect him and he wo not learn.  a spanking, however, is an immediate, tangible consequence.  doing this bad action will result is an immediately unpleasant feeling the spanking .  i think the point of disciplining a child is not just so they will obey better and make your job as a parent easier, it is to create a simulation of the real world as an adult.  if an adult steals something, there could be serious consequences.  if bobby steals this thing, he gets a bad consequence.  a young child can only make that connection.  as he gets older, spanking wo not be appropriate because he can make those connections about the real world himself.  there is not a feasible way to sit down with a small child, try to teach them that what they did was wrong and hope they do not do it again.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  to be clear, i do not think a spanking is the answer to everything, just the worst things that children do.  if the child stays up past his bedtime to watch television, then perhaps  no tv  is a fine punishment.  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.  again, parenting and discipline  simulates  the real world.  spanking is the universal  ultimate punishment  for a child.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.   #  young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.   #  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.   # they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  i have never understood why this is a reason to spank them.  if they are young enough that they just cannot comprehend bad and good behavior, spanking is not going to teach them morals either.  so why do it ? i do not see the inherent value in making your child suffer when he breaks a rule.  punishments should be used to teach them.  make a mess ? clean it up.  break something ? replace it.  hit someone ? apologize and make it up to them somehow.  there is no lesson in spanking, in fact the lesson being taught is the opposite of what we encourage kids to do, which is respond with violence instead of talking or problem solving.  and toddlers are very impressionable.   #  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.   #  i have read about these studies, and it jibed with my own personal experience.  my parents hit out of raw anger, and it just made me hate and resent them for taking their anger out on me.  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.  unfortunately, i got it in my head that hitting is the proper response to undesirable behavior, and i would hit my little brother sometimes.  i still feel really bad about it.  at least we are on good terms now.  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  however, it depends on the behavior you are trying to correct and the context in which it occurs as to whether it is rational.   #  i am a parent and not a spanker though have smacked my kids through reflex a time or two sneaking up on mom and biting her is not recommended, also, see fire point below .  however, it depends on the behavior you are trying to correct and the context in which it occurs as to whether it is rational.  for example, if you have a kid who wo not stop running into the road.  and you rent and ca not put up a fence.  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.  and you have to sleep sometime.  spanking is a much less dangerous activity than playing in traffic.  there are times as a parent when you have the option of either smacking a kid is hand they reach into a fire or letting them get burned.  spanking over minor misbehavior is one thing.  but spanking over safety issues i. e.   safe  pain in place of permanent damage or death makes some amount of rational sense to me.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.  a child needs to understand that his or her actions have consequences, and a talking to or time out is not always effective in getting that important life lesson across.  that is not to say that hitting your child is the only alternative, but every child and every parent is different.  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.  like any parent, i would only want what is best for my child, i am just not sure how to achieve that and am open to considering various tactics and changing my approach depending on the information available to me.   #  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.  reasons are irrelevant as i am beating you into submission.  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.  it is true to say that it is a spectrum from simple non compliance to destructive abuse.  problems can be solved with various methods.  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.  make sure the outcome is worth the price.
first of all a little context.  i do not have kids, i am 0 years old and unmarried.  however, i was spanked as a kid.  my parents would spank me if i did something especially bad or was really disrespectful.  most of the time, they disciplined me with other conventional methods: no video games, music, dessert etc.  they would spank me on the bottom roughly 0 times consecutively with a light ping pong paddle or with their hand.  before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.  when i was really young 0 0 , my mom would slap my wrist with her hand pretty mildly.  now to be clear, i understand this is a grey area for a lot of people.  spanking could be what my parents did or beating a child with a belt for mild bad behavior.  for the sake of this cmv, let is define spanking the way my parents did, which i think is the responsible way to practice it.  let me also so that i do not think anyone should be persuaded to spank their children if they do not feel right about it.  parenting is a subjective thing and people should raise their kids how they see fit.  here is why i think spanking is a good thing: young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  e. g.  if bobby steals a little girls candy bar and eats if for himself, he just knows that his actions resulted in a candy bar.  even if an adult takes him aside and tells him that his actions caused susie to cry, it is not like he really empathizes with her and feels remorse.  he may feel it a little bit, because its instinctual, but probably not enough to make him feel bad.  the adult could then do one of two things.  he could discipline bobby, but what does that really look like to a young child ? he could take away his toy, but what if bobby does not care about the toy ? bobby may be toy less for a period of time that does not affect him and he wo not learn.  a spanking, however, is an immediate, tangible consequence.  doing this bad action will result is an immediately unpleasant feeling the spanking .  i think the point of disciplining a child is not just so they will obey better and make your job as a parent easier, it is to create a simulation of the real world as an adult.  if an adult steals something, there could be serious consequences.  if bobby steals this thing, he gets a bad consequence.  a young child can only make that connection.  as he gets older, spanking wo not be appropriate because he can make those connections about the real world himself.  there is not a feasible way to sit down with a small child, try to teach them that what they did was wrong and hope they do not do it again.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  to be clear, i do not think a spanking is the answer to everything, just the worst things that children do.  if the child stays up past his bedtime to watch television, then perhaps  no tv  is a fine punishment.  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.  again, parenting and discipline  simulates  the real world.  spanking is the universal  ultimate punishment  for a child.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.   #  young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.   #  so why are you introducing spanking as a  consequence  for their  actions  ?  # so why are you introducing spanking as a  consequence  for their  actions  ? if they do not understand consequences, then they experience someone hitting them for an unknown reason.  if they  do  understand this, you ought to be able to explain it to them.  this is why, instead of spanking, you do something that enables them to develop or strengthen empathy.  if bobby steals a candy bar, then everybody gets to have dessert after dinner except for bobby.  you then explain that this is how susie felt when you stole the candy bar.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  suppose that you were able to effectively teach a child of  any  age that their action was wrong without spanking.  if you can teach the lesson without spanking, would you still feel spanking is necessary ? i believe that spanking is not teaching the lesson you think it does.  to a young child that is making connections, they will connect  being caught  with being spanked.  it encourages a young child to hide the behavior instead of change it.  it does nothing to remove the desire to do the bad behavior.  spanking sends too broad of a message.  if you spank a baby for picking up something dangerous off of the floor, then the baby may associate picking things up with punishment.  you are not teaching them  what  things they should not pick up; they do not know the difference between your categories of things.  in this case, it is better to distract them or redirect their attention.  again, parenting and discipline simulates the real world.  you focus too much on punishment for bad actions.  how well do you think the prison system works ? it is better to reward and reinforce good behavior so that the child wo not have the impulse to do bad behaviors in the first place.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.  with your logic, a child beaten by a belt ought to be the most well behaved.  if spanking is meant to deter behavior, than a beating must be the best deterrent of all ! all you end up doing is teaching a child that physical punishment is how you stop people from doing things you do not like.  this is why the bullies in school are often the recipient of the most physical abuse at home.  your version of light physical abuse teaches the same lesson but to a lesser extent.   #  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.   #  i have read about these studies, and it jibed with my own personal experience.  my parents hit out of raw anger, and it just made me hate and resent them for taking their anger out on me.  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.  unfortunately, i got it in my head that hitting is the proper response to undesirable behavior, and i would hit my little brother sometimes.  i still feel really bad about it.  at least we are on good terms now.  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  for example, if you have a kid who wo not stop running into the road.  and you rent and ca not put up a fence.   #  i am a parent and not a spanker though have smacked my kids through reflex a time or two sneaking up on mom and biting her is not recommended, also, see fire point below .  however, it depends on the behavior you are trying to correct and the context in which it occurs as to whether it is rational.  for example, if you have a kid who wo not stop running into the road.  and you rent and ca not put up a fence.  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.  and you have to sleep sometime.  spanking is a much less dangerous activity than playing in traffic.  there are times as a parent when you have the option of either smacking a kid is hand they reach into a fire or letting them get burned.  spanking over minor misbehavior is one thing.  but spanking over safety issues i. e.   safe  pain in place of permanent damage or death makes some amount of rational sense to me.   #  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.  a child needs to understand that his or her actions have consequences, and a talking to or time out is not always effective in getting that important life lesson across.  that is not to say that hitting your child is the only alternative, but every child and every parent is different.  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.  like any parent, i would only want what is best for my child, i am just not sure how to achieve that and am open to considering various tactics and changing my approach depending on the information available to me.   #  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.  reasons are irrelevant as i am beating you into submission.  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.  it is true to say that it is a spectrum from simple non compliance to destructive abuse.  problems can be solved with various methods.  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.  make sure the outcome is worth the price.
first of all a little context.  i do not have kids, i am 0 years old and unmarried.  however, i was spanked as a kid.  my parents would spank me if i did something especially bad or was really disrespectful.  most of the time, they disciplined me with other conventional methods: no video games, music, dessert etc.  they would spank me on the bottom roughly 0 times consecutively with a light ping pong paddle or with their hand.  before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.  when i was really young 0 0 , my mom would slap my wrist with her hand pretty mildly.  now to be clear, i understand this is a grey area for a lot of people.  spanking could be what my parents did or beating a child with a belt for mild bad behavior.  for the sake of this cmv, let is define spanking the way my parents did, which i think is the responsible way to practice it.  let me also so that i do not think anyone should be persuaded to spank their children if they do not feel right about it.  parenting is a subjective thing and people should raise their kids how they see fit.  here is why i think spanking is a good thing: young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  e. g.  if bobby steals a little girls candy bar and eats if for himself, he just knows that his actions resulted in a candy bar.  even if an adult takes him aside and tells him that his actions caused susie to cry, it is not like he really empathizes with her and feels remorse.  he may feel it a little bit, because its instinctual, but probably not enough to make him feel bad.  the adult could then do one of two things.  he could discipline bobby, but what does that really look like to a young child ? he could take away his toy, but what if bobby does not care about the toy ? bobby may be toy less for a period of time that does not affect him and he wo not learn.  a spanking, however, is an immediate, tangible consequence.  doing this bad action will result is an immediately unpleasant feeling the spanking .  i think the point of disciplining a child is not just so they will obey better and make your job as a parent easier, it is to create a simulation of the real world as an adult.  if an adult steals something, there could be serious consequences.  if bobby steals this thing, he gets a bad consequence.  a young child can only make that connection.  as he gets older, spanking wo not be appropriate because he can make those connections about the real world himself.  there is not a feasible way to sit down with a small child, try to teach them that what they did was wrong and hope they do not do it again.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  to be clear, i do not think a spanking is the answer to everything, just the worst things that children do.  if the child stays up past his bedtime to watch television, then perhaps  no tv  is a fine punishment.  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.  again, parenting and discipline  simulates  the real world.  spanking is the universal  ultimate punishment  for a child.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.   #  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.   #  this is why, instead of spanking, you do something that enables them to develop or strengthen empathy.   # so why are you introducing spanking as a  consequence  for their  actions  ? if they do not understand consequences, then they experience someone hitting them for an unknown reason.  if they  do  understand this, you ought to be able to explain it to them.  this is why, instead of spanking, you do something that enables them to develop or strengthen empathy.  if bobby steals a candy bar, then everybody gets to have dessert after dinner except for bobby.  you then explain that this is how susie felt when you stole the candy bar.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  suppose that you were able to effectively teach a child of  any  age that their action was wrong without spanking.  if you can teach the lesson without spanking, would you still feel spanking is necessary ? i believe that spanking is not teaching the lesson you think it does.  to a young child that is making connections, they will connect  being caught  with being spanked.  it encourages a young child to hide the behavior instead of change it.  it does nothing to remove the desire to do the bad behavior.  spanking sends too broad of a message.  if you spank a baby for picking up something dangerous off of the floor, then the baby may associate picking things up with punishment.  you are not teaching them  what  things they should not pick up; they do not know the difference between your categories of things.  in this case, it is better to distract them or redirect their attention.  again, parenting and discipline simulates the real world.  you focus too much on punishment for bad actions.  how well do you think the prison system works ? it is better to reward and reinforce good behavior so that the child wo not have the impulse to do bad behaviors in the first place.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.  with your logic, a child beaten by a belt ought to be the most well behaved.  if spanking is meant to deter behavior, than a beating must be the best deterrent of all ! all you end up doing is teaching a child that physical punishment is how you stop people from doing things you do not like.  this is why the bullies in school are often the recipient of the most physical abuse at home.  your version of light physical abuse teaches the same lesson but to a lesser extent.   #  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  i have read about these studies, and it jibed with my own personal experience.  my parents hit out of raw anger, and it just made me hate and resent them for taking their anger out on me.  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.  unfortunately, i got it in my head that hitting is the proper response to undesirable behavior, and i would hit my little brother sometimes.  i still feel really bad about it.  at least we are on good terms now.  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.   #  i am a parent and not a spanker though have smacked my kids through reflex a time or two sneaking up on mom and biting her is not recommended, also, see fire point below .  however, it depends on the behavior you are trying to correct and the context in which it occurs as to whether it is rational.  for example, if you have a kid who wo not stop running into the road.  and you rent and ca not put up a fence.  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.  and you have to sleep sometime.  spanking is a much less dangerous activity than playing in traffic.  there are times as a parent when you have the option of either smacking a kid is hand they reach into a fire or letting them get burned.  spanking over minor misbehavior is one thing.  but spanking over safety issues i. e.   safe  pain in place of permanent damage or death makes some amount of rational sense to me.   #  like any parent, i would only want what is best for my child, i am just not sure how to achieve that and am open to considering various tactics and changing my approach depending on the information available to me.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.  a child needs to understand that his or her actions have consequences, and a talking to or time out is not always effective in getting that important life lesson across.  that is not to say that hitting your child is the only alternative, but every child and every parent is different.  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.  like any parent, i would only want what is best for my child, i am just not sure how to achieve that and am open to considering various tactics and changing my approach depending on the information available to me.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.  reasons are irrelevant as i am beating you into submission.  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.  it is true to say that it is a spectrum from simple non compliance to destructive abuse.  problems can be solved with various methods.  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.  make sure the outcome is worth the price.
first of all a little context.  i do not have kids, i am 0 years old and unmarried.  however, i was spanked as a kid.  my parents would spank me if i did something especially bad or was really disrespectful.  most of the time, they disciplined me with other conventional methods: no video games, music, dessert etc.  they would spank me on the bottom roughly 0 times consecutively with a light ping pong paddle or with their hand.  before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.  when i was really young 0 0 , my mom would slap my wrist with her hand pretty mildly.  now to be clear, i understand this is a grey area for a lot of people.  spanking could be what my parents did or beating a child with a belt for mild bad behavior.  for the sake of this cmv, let is define spanking the way my parents did, which i think is the responsible way to practice it.  let me also so that i do not think anyone should be persuaded to spank their children if they do not feel right about it.  parenting is a subjective thing and people should raise their kids how they see fit.  here is why i think spanking is a good thing: young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  e. g.  if bobby steals a little girls candy bar and eats if for himself, he just knows that his actions resulted in a candy bar.  even if an adult takes him aside and tells him that his actions caused susie to cry, it is not like he really empathizes with her and feels remorse.  he may feel it a little bit, because its instinctual, but probably not enough to make him feel bad.  the adult could then do one of two things.  he could discipline bobby, but what does that really look like to a young child ? he could take away his toy, but what if bobby does not care about the toy ? bobby may be toy less for a period of time that does not affect him and he wo not learn.  a spanking, however, is an immediate, tangible consequence.  doing this bad action will result is an immediately unpleasant feeling the spanking .  i think the point of disciplining a child is not just so they will obey better and make your job as a parent easier, it is to create a simulation of the real world as an adult.  if an adult steals something, there could be serious consequences.  if bobby steals this thing, he gets a bad consequence.  a young child can only make that connection.  as he gets older, spanking wo not be appropriate because he can make those connections about the real world himself.  there is not a feasible way to sit down with a small child, try to teach them that what they did was wrong and hope they do not do it again.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  to be clear, i do not think a spanking is the answer to everything, just the worst things that children do.  if the child stays up past his bedtime to watch television, then perhaps  no tv  is a fine punishment.  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.  again, parenting and discipline  simulates  the real world.  spanking is the universal  ultimate punishment  for a child.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.   #  there is not a feasible way to sit down with a small child, try to teach them that what they did was wrong and hope they do not do it again.   #  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.   # so why are you introducing spanking as a  consequence  for their  actions  ? if they do not understand consequences, then they experience someone hitting them for an unknown reason.  if they  do  understand this, you ought to be able to explain it to them.  this is why, instead of spanking, you do something that enables them to develop or strengthen empathy.  if bobby steals a candy bar, then everybody gets to have dessert after dinner except for bobby.  you then explain that this is how susie felt when you stole the candy bar.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  suppose that you were able to effectively teach a child of  any  age that their action was wrong without spanking.  if you can teach the lesson without spanking, would you still feel spanking is necessary ? i believe that spanking is not teaching the lesson you think it does.  to a young child that is making connections, they will connect  being caught  with being spanked.  it encourages a young child to hide the behavior instead of change it.  it does nothing to remove the desire to do the bad behavior.  spanking sends too broad of a message.  if you spank a baby for picking up something dangerous off of the floor, then the baby may associate picking things up with punishment.  you are not teaching them  what  things they should not pick up; they do not know the difference between your categories of things.  in this case, it is better to distract them or redirect their attention.  again, parenting and discipline simulates the real world.  you focus too much on punishment for bad actions.  how well do you think the prison system works ? it is better to reward and reinforce good behavior so that the child wo not have the impulse to do bad behaviors in the first place.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.  with your logic, a child beaten by a belt ought to be the most well behaved.  if spanking is meant to deter behavior, than a beating must be the best deterrent of all ! all you end up doing is teaching a child that physical punishment is how you stop people from doing things you do not like.  this is why the bullies in school are often the recipient of the most physical abuse at home.  your version of light physical abuse teaches the same lesson but to a lesser extent.   #  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.   #  i have read about these studies, and it jibed with my own personal experience.  my parents hit out of raw anger, and it just made me hate and resent them for taking their anger out on me.  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.  unfortunately, i got it in my head that hitting is the proper response to undesirable behavior, and i would hit my little brother sometimes.  i still feel really bad about it.  at least we are on good terms now.  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.   #  i am a parent and not a spanker though have smacked my kids through reflex a time or two sneaking up on mom and biting her is not recommended, also, see fire point below .  however, it depends on the behavior you are trying to correct and the context in which it occurs as to whether it is rational.  for example, if you have a kid who wo not stop running into the road.  and you rent and ca not put up a fence.  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.  and you have to sleep sometime.  spanking is a much less dangerous activity than playing in traffic.  there are times as a parent when you have the option of either smacking a kid is hand they reach into a fire or letting them get burned.  spanking over minor misbehavior is one thing.  but spanking over safety issues i. e.   safe  pain in place of permanent damage or death makes some amount of rational sense to me.   #  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.  a child needs to understand that his or her actions have consequences, and a talking to or time out is not always effective in getting that important life lesson across.  that is not to say that hitting your child is the only alternative, but every child and every parent is different.  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.  like any parent, i would only want what is best for my child, i am just not sure how to achieve that and am open to considering various tactics and changing my approach depending on the information available to me.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.  reasons are irrelevant as i am beating you into submission.  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.  it is true to say that it is a spectrum from simple non compliance to destructive abuse.  problems can be solved with various methods.  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.  make sure the outcome is worth the price.
first of all a little context.  i do not have kids, i am 0 years old and unmarried.  however, i was spanked as a kid.  my parents would spank me if i did something especially bad or was really disrespectful.  most of the time, they disciplined me with other conventional methods: no video games, music, dessert etc.  they would spank me on the bottom roughly 0 times consecutively with a light ping pong paddle or with their hand.  before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.  when i was really young 0 0 , my mom would slap my wrist with her hand pretty mildly.  now to be clear, i understand this is a grey area for a lot of people.  spanking could be what my parents did or beating a child with a belt for mild bad behavior.  for the sake of this cmv, let is define spanking the way my parents did, which i think is the responsible way to practice it.  let me also so that i do not think anyone should be persuaded to spank their children if they do not feel right about it.  parenting is a subjective thing and people should raise their kids how they see fit.  here is why i think spanking is a good thing: young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  e. g.  if bobby steals a little girls candy bar and eats if for himself, he just knows that his actions resulted in a candy bar.  even if an adult takes him aside and tells him that his actions caused susie to cry, it is not like he really empathizes with her and feels remorse.  he may feel it a little bit, because its instinctual, but probably not enough to make him feel bad.  the adult could then do one of two things.  he could discipline bobby, but what does that really look like to a young child ? he could take away his toy, but what if bobby does not care about the toy ? bobby may be toy less for a period of time that does not affect him and he wo not learn.  a spanking, however, is an immediate, tangible consequence.  doing this bad action will result is an immediately unpleasant feeling the spanking .  i think the point of disciplining a child is not just so they will obey better and make your job as a parent easier, it is to create a simulation of the real world as an adult.  if an adult steals something, there could be serious consequences.  if bobby steals this thing, he gets a bad consequence.  a young child can only make that connection.  as he gets older, spanking wo not be appropriate because he can make those connections about the real world himself.  there is not a feasible way to sit down with a small child, try to teach them that what they did was wrong and hope they do not do it again.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  to be clear, i do not think a spanking is the answer to everything, just the worst things that children do.  if the child stays up past his bedtime to watch television, then perhaps  no tv  is a fine punishment.  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.  again, parenting and discipline  simulates  the real world.  spanking is the universal  ultimate punishment  for a child.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.   #  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.   #  again, parenting and discipline simulates the real world.   # so why are you introducing spanking as a  consequence  for their  actions  ? if they do not understand consequences, then they experience someone hitting them for an unknown reason.  if they  do  understand this, you ought to be able to explain it to them.  this is why, instead of spanking, you do something that enables them to develop or strengthen empathy.  if bobby steals a candy bar, then everybody gets to have dessert after dinner except for bobby.  you then explain that this is how susie felt when you stole the candy bar.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  suppose that you were able to effectively teach a child of  any  age that their action was wrong without spanking.  if you can teach the lesson without spanking, would you still feel spanking is necessary ? i believe that spanking is not teaching the lesson you think it does.  to a young child that is making connections, they will connect  being caught  with being spanked.  it encourages a young child to hide the behavior instead of change it.  it does nothing to remove the desire to do the bad behavior.  spanking sends too broad of a message.  if you spank a baby for picking up something dangerous off of the floor, then the baby may associate picking things up with punishment.  you are not teaching them  what  things they should not pick up; they do not know the difference between your categories of things.  in this case, it is better to distract them or redirect their attention.  again, parenting and discipline simulates the real world.  you focus too much on punishment for bad actions.  how well do you think the prison system works ? it is better to reward and reinforce good behavior so that the child wo not have the impulse to do bad behaviors in the first place.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.  with your logic, a child beaten by a belt ought to be the most well behaved.  if spanking is meant to deter behavior, than a beating must be the best deterrent of all ! all you end up doing is teaching a child that physical punishment is how you stop people from doing things you do not like.  this is why the bullies in school are often the recipient of the most physical abuse at home.  your version of light physical abuse teaches the same lesson but to a lesser extent.   #  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.   #  i have read about these studies, and it jibed with my own personal experience.  my parents hit out of raw anger, and it just made me hate and resent them for taking their anger out on me.  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.  unfortunately, i got it in my head that hitting is the proper response to undesirable behavior, and i would hit my little brother sometimes.  i still feel really bad about it.  at least we are on good terms now.  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.   #  i am a parent and not a spanker though have smacked my kids through reflex a time or two sneaking up on mom and biting her is not recommended, also, see fire point below .  however, it depends on the behavior you are trying to correct and the context in which it occurs as to whether it is rational.  for example, if you have a kid who wo not stop running into the road.  and you rent and ca not put up a fence.  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.  and you have to sleep sometime.  spanking is a much less dangerous activity than playing in traffic.  there are times as a parent when you have the option of either smacking a kid is hand they reach into a fire or letting them get burned.  spanking over minor misbehavior is one thing.  but spanking over safety issues i. e.   safe  pain in place of permanent damage or death makes some amount of rational sense to me.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.  a child needs to understand that his or her actions have consequences, and a talking to or time out is not always effective in getting that important life lesson across.  that is not to say that hitting your child is the only alternative, but every child and every parent is different.  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.  like any parent, i would only want what is best for my child, i am just not sure how to achieve that and am open to considering various tactics and changing my approach depending on the information available to me.   #  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.  reasons are irrelevant as i am beating you into submission.  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.  it is true to say that it is a spectrum from simple non compliance to destructive abuse.  problems can be solved with various methods.  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.  make sure the outcome is worth the price.
first of all a little context.  i do not have kids, i am 0 years old and unmarried.  however, i was spanked as a kid.  my parents would spank me if i did something especially bad or was really disrespectful.  most of the time, they disciplined me with other conventional methods: no video games, music, dessert etc.  they would spank me on the bottom roughly 0 times consecutively with a light ping pong paddle or with their hand.  before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.  when i was really young 0 0 , my mom would slap my wrist with her hand pretty mildly.  now to be clear, i understand this is a grey area for a lot of people.  spanking could be what my parents did or beating a child with a belt for mild bad behavior.  for the sake of this cmv, let is define spanking the way my parents did, which i think is the responsible way to practice it.  let me also so that i do not think anyone should be persuaded to spank their children if they do not feel right about it.  parenting is a subjective thing and people should raise their kids how they see fit.  here is why i think spanking is a good thing: young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  e. g.  if bobby steals a little girls candy bar and eats if for himself, he just knows that his actions resulted in a candy bar.  even if an adult takes him aside and tells him that his actions caused susie to cry, it is not like he really empathizes with her and feels remorse.  he may feel it a little bit, because its instinctual, but probably not enough to make him feel bad.  the adult could then do one of two things.  he could discipline bobby, but what does that really look like to a young child ? he could take away his toy, but what if bobby does not care about the toy ? bobby may be toy less for a period of time that does not affect him and he wo not learn.  a spanking, however, is an immediate, tangible consequence.  doing this bad action will result is an immediately unpleasant feeling the spanking .  i think the point of disciplining a child is not just so they will obey better and make your job as a parent easier, it is to create a simulation of the real world as an adult.  if an adult steals something, there could be serious consequences.  if bobby steals this thing, he gets a bad consequence.  a young child can only make that connection.  as he gets older, spanking wo not be appropriate because he can make those connections about the real world himself.  there is not a feasible way to sit down with a small child, try to teach them that what they did was wrong and hope they do not do it again.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  to be clear, i do not think a spanking is the answer to everything, just the worst things that children do.  if the child stays up past his bedtime to watch television, then perhaps  no tv  is a fine punishment.  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.  again, parenting and discipline  simulates  the real world.  spanking is the universal  ultimate punishment  for a child.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.   #  spanking is the universal  ultimate punishment  for a child.   #  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.   # so why are you introducing spanking as a  consequence  for their  actions  ? if they do not understand consequences, then they experience someone hitting them for an unknown reason.  if they  do  understand this, you ought to be able to explain it to them.  this is why, instead of spanking, you do something that enables them to develop or strengthen empathy.  if bobby steals a candy bar, then everybody gets to have dessert after dinner except for bobby.  you then explain that this is how susie felt when you stole the candy bar.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  suppose that you were able to effectively teach a child of  any  age that their action was wrong without spanking.  if you can teach the lesson without spanking, would you still feel spanking is necessary ? i believe that spanking is not teaching the lesson you think it does.  to a young child that is making connections, they will connect  being caught  with being spanked.  it encourages a young child to hide the behavior instead of change it.  it does nothing to remove the desire to do the bad behavior.  spanking sends too broad of a message.  if you spank a baby for picking up something dangerous off of the floor, then the baby may associate picking things up with punishment.  you are not teaching them  what  things they should not pick up; they do not know the difference between your categories of things.  in this case, it is better to distract them or redirect their attention.  again, parenting and discipline simulates the real world.  you focus too much on punishment for bad actions.  how well do you think the prison system works ? it is better to reward and reinforce good behavior so that the child wo not have the impulse to do bad behaviors in the first place.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.  with your logic, a child beaten by a belt ought to be the most well behaved.  if spanking is meant to deter behavior, than a beating must be the best deterrent of all ! all you end up doing is teaching a child that physical punishment is how you stop people from doing things you do not like.  this is why the bullies in school are often the recipient of the most physical abuse at home.  your version of light physical abuse teaches the same lesson but to a lesser extent.   #  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.   #  i have read about these studies, and it jibed with my own personal experience.  my parents hit out of raw anger, and it just made me hate and resent them for taking their anger out on me.  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.  unfortunately, i got it in my head that hitting is the proper response to undesirable behavior, and i would hit my little brother sometimes.  i still feel really bad about it.  at least we are on good terms now.  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #   safe  pain in place of permanent damage or death makes some amount of rational sense to me.   #  i am a parent and not a spanker though have smacked my kids through reflex a time or two sneaking up on mom and biting her is not recommended, also, see fire point below .  however, it depends on the behavior you are trying to correct and the context in which it occurs as to whether it is rational.  for example, if you have a kid who wo not stop running into the road.  and you rent and ca not put up a fence.  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.  and you have to sleep sometime.  spanking is a much less dangerous activity than playing in traffic.  there are times as a parent when you have the option of either smacking a kid is hand they reach into a fire or letting them get burned.  spanking over minor misbehavior is one thing.  but spanking over safety issues i. e.   safe  pain in place of permanent damage or death makes some amount of rational sense to me.   #  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.  a child needs to understand that his or her actions have consequences, and a talking to or time out is not always effective in getting that important life lesson across.  that is not to say that hitting your child is the only alternative, but every child and every parent is different.  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.  like any parent, i would only want what is best for my child, i am just not sure how to achieve that and am open to considering various tactics and changing my approach depending on the information available to me.   #  reasons are irrelevant as i am beating you into submission.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.  reasons are irrelevant as i am beating you into submission.  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.  it is true to say that it is a spectrum from simple non compliance to destructive abuse.  problems can be solved with various methods.  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.  make sure the outcome is worth the price.
first of all a little context.  i do not have kids, i am 0 years old and unmarried.  however, i was spanked as a kid.  my parents would spank me if i did something especially bad or was really disrespectful.  most of the time, they disciplined me with other conventional methods: no video games, music, dessert etc.  they would spank me on the bottom roughly 0 times consecutively with a light ping pong paddle or with their hand.  before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.  when i was really young 0 0 , my mom would slap my wrist with her hand pretty mildly.  now to be clear, i understand this is a grey area for a lot of people.  spanking could be what my parents did or beating a child with a belt for mild bad behavior.  for the sake of this cmv, let is define spanking the way my parents did, which i think is the responsible way to practice it.  let me also so that i do not think anyone should be persuaded to spank their children if they do not feel right about it.  parenting is a subjective thing and people should raise their kids how they see fit.  here is why i think spanking is a good thing: young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  e. g.  if bobby steals a little girls candy bar and eats if for himself, he just knows that his actions resulted in a candy bar.  even if an adult takes him aside and tells him that his actions caused susie to cry, it is not like he really empathizes with her and feels remorse.  he may feel it a little bit, because its instinctual, but probably not enough to make him feel bad.  the adult could then do one of two things.  he could discipline bobby, but what does that really look like to a young child ? he could take away his toy, but what if bobby does not care about the toy ? bobby may be toy less for a period of time that does not affect him and he wo not learn.  a spanking, however, is an immediate, tangible consequence.  doing this bad action will result is an immediately unpleasant feeling the spanking .  i think the point of disciplining a child is not just so they will obey better and make your job as a parent easier, it is to create a simulation of the real world as an adult.  if an adult steals something, there could be serious consequences.  if bobby steals this thing, he gets a bad consequence.  a young child can only make that connection.  as he gets older, spanking wo not be appropriate because he can make those connections about the real world himself.  there is not a feasible way to sit down with a small child, try to teach them that what they did was wrong and hope they do not do it again.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  to be clear, i do not think a spanking is the answer to everything, just the worst things that children do.  if the child stays up past his bedtime to watch television, then perhaps  no tv  is a fine punishment.  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.  again, parenting and discipline  simulates  the real world.  spanking is the universal  ultimate punishment  for a child.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.   #  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.   #  again, parenting and discipline simulates the real world.   # again, parenting and discipline simulates the real world.  i am not sure in what world you live, but where i live europe it is unacceptable to hit someone when he or she does something you do not like.  hitting children for punishment is not how the real world works.  you can punish children by taking away something they care about.  this can be the tv, their allowance, or their freedom.  that is  how the real world works too: an eviction, penalty/fine or imprisonment.  if you need violence to contain your children, then you are bad at parenting.  similarly, if you need violence to solve a dispute, you are bad at life.   #  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  i have read about these studies, and it jibed with my own personal experience.  my parents hit out of raw anger, and it just made me hate and resent them for taking their anger out on me.  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.  unfortunately, i got it in my head that hitting is the proper response to undesirable behavior, and i would hit my little brother sometimes.  i still feel really bad about it.  at least we are on good terms now.  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.   #  i am a parent and not a spanker though have smacked my kids through reflex a time or two sneaking up on mom and biting her is not recommended, also, see fire point below .  however, it depends on the behavior you are trying to correct and the context in which it occurs as to whether it is rational.  for example, if you have a kid who wo not stop running into the road.  and you rent and ca not put up a fence.  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.  and you have to sleep sometime.  spanking is a much less dangerous activity than playing in traffic.  there are times as a parent when you have the option of either smacking a kid is hand they reach into a fire or letting them get burned.  spanking over minor misbehavior is one thing.  but spanking over safety issues i. e.   safe  pain in place of permanent damage or death makes some amount of rational sense to me.   #  a child needs to understand that his or her actions have consequences, and a talking to or time out is not always effective in getting that important life lesson across.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.  a child needs to understand that his or her actions have consequences, and a talking to or time out is not always effective in getting that important life lesson across.  that is not to say that hitting your child is the only alternative, but every child and every parent is different.  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.  like any parent, i would only want what is best for my child, i am just not sure how to achieve that and am open to considering various tactics and changing my approach depending on the information available to me.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.  reasons are irrelevant as i am beating you into submission.  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.  it is true to say that it is a spectrum from simple non compliance to destructive abuse.  problems can be solved with various methods.  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.  make sure the outcome is worth the price.
first of all a little context.  i do not have kids, i am 0 years old and unmarried.  however, i was spanked as a kid.  my parents would spank me if i did something especially bad or was really disrespectful.  most of the time, they disciplined me with other conventional methods: no video games, music, dessert etc.  they would spank me on the bottom roughly 0 times consecutively with a light ping pong paddle or with their hand.  before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.  when i was really young 0 0 , my mom would slap my wrist with her hand pretty mildly.  now to be clear, i understand this is a grey area for a lot of people.  spanking could be what my parents did or beating a child with a belt for mild bad behavior.  for the sake of this cmv, let is define spanking the way my parents did, which i think is the responsible way to practice it.  let me also so that i do not think anyone should be persuaded to spank their children if they do not feel right about it.  parenting is a subjective thing and people should raise their kids how they see fit.  here is why i think spanking is a good thing: young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  e. g.  if bobby steals a little girls candy bar and eats if for himself, he just knows that his actions resulted in a candy bar.  even if an adult takes him aside and tells him that his actions caused susie to cry, it is not like he really empathizes with her and feels remorse.  he may feel it a little bit, because its instinctual, but probably not enough to make him feel bad.  the adult could then do one of two things.  he could discipline bobby, but what does that really look like to a young child ? he could take away his toy, but what if bobby does not care about the toy ? bobby may be toy less for a period of time that does not affect him and he wo not learn.  a spanking, however, is an immediate, tangible consequence.  doing this bad action will result is an immediately unpleasant feeling the spanking .  i think the point of disciplining a child is not just so they will obey better and make your job as a parent easier, it is to create a simulation of the real world as an adult.  if an adult steals something, there could be serious consequences.  if bobby steals this thing, he gets a bad consequence.  a young child can only make that connection.  as he gets older, spanking wo not be appropriate because he can make those connections about the real world himself.  there is not a feasible way to sit down with a small child, try to teach them that what they did was wrong and hope they do not do it again.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  to be clear, i do not think a spanking is the answer to everything, just the worst things that children do.  if the child stays up past his bedtime to watch television, then perhaps  no tv  is a fine punishment.  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.  again, parenting and discipline  simulates  the real world.  spanking is the universal  ultimate punishment  for a child.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.   #  young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.   #  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.   # they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  e. g.  if bobby steals a little girls candy bar and eats if for himself, he just knows that his actions resulted in a candy bar.  even if an adult takes him aside and tells him that his actions caused susie to cry, it is not like he really empathizes with her and feels remorse.  he may feel it a little bit, because its instinctual, but probably not enough to make him feel bad.  then how in the world do non spanking parents discipline their children ? you make it sound as though spanking is the only way to appropriately punish children.  however, there are obviously millions of children who were not spanked, yet grew up well adjusted.  so obviously these parents found a way to discipline their young children without physically punishing them.   #  my parents hit out of raw anger, and it just made me hate and resent them for taking their anger out on me.   #  i have read about these studies, and it jibed with my own personal experience.  my parents hit out of raw anger, and it just made me hate and resent them for taking their anger out on me.  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.  unfortunately, i got it in my head that hitting is the proper response to undesirable behavior, and i would hit my little brother sometimes.  i still feel really bad about it.  at least we are on good terms now.  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  i am a parent and not a spanker though have smacked my kids through reflex a time or two sneaking up on mom and biting her is not recommended, also, see fire point below .   #  i am a parent and not a spanker though have smacked my kids through reflex a time or two sneaking up on mom and biting her is not recommended, also, see fire point below .  however, it depends on the behavior you are trying to correct and the context in which it occurs as to whether it is rational.  for example, if you have a kid who wo not stop running into the road.  and you rent and ca not put up a fence.  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.  and you have to sleep sometime.  spanking is a much less dangerous activity than playing in traffic.  there are times as a parent when you have the option of either smacking a kid is hand they reach into a fire or letting them get burned.  spanking over minor misbehavior is one thing.  but spanking over safety issues i. e.   safe  pain in place of permanent damage or death makes some amount of rational sense to me.   #  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.  a child needs to understand that his or her actions have consequences, and a talking to or time out is not always effective in getting that important life lesson across.  that is not to say that hitting your child is the only alternative, but every child and every parent is different.  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.  like any parent, i would only want what is best for my child, i am just not sure how to achieve that and am open to considering various tactics and changing my approach depending on the information available to me.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.  reasons are irrelevant as i am beating you into submission.  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.  it is true to say that it is a spectrum from simple non compliance to destructive abuse.  problems can be solved with various methods.  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.  make sure the outcome is worth the price.
first of all a little context.  i do not have kids, i am 0 years old and unmarried.  however, i was spanked as a kid.  my parents would spank me if i did something especially bad or was really disrespectful.  most of the time, they disciplined me with other conventional methods: no video games, music, dessert etc.  they would spank me on the bottom roughly 0 times consecutively with a light ping pong paddle or with their hand.  before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.  when i was really young 0 0 , my mom would slap my wrist with her hand pretty mildly.  now to be clear, i understand this is a grey area for a lot of people.  spanking could be what my parents did or beating a child with a belt for mild bad behavior.  for the sake of this cmv, let is define spanking the way my parents did, which i think is the responsible way to practice it.  let me also so that i do not think anyone should be persuaded to spank their children if they do not feel right about it.  parenting is a subjective thing and people should raise their kids how they see fit.  here is why i think spanking is a good thing: young children do not have the faculties to understand action and consequences.  they also do not really think about how what they do affects other people.  e. g.  if bobby steals a little girls candy bar and eats if for himself, he just knows that his actions resulted in a candy bar.  even if an adult takes him aside and tells him that his actions caused susie to cry, it is not like he really empathizes with her and feels remorse.  he may feel it a little bit, because its instinctual, but probably not enough to make him feel bad.  the adult could then do one of two things.  he could discipline bobby, but what does that really look like to a young child ? he could take away his toy, but what if bobby does not care about the toy ? bobby may be toy less for a period of time that does not affect him and he wo not learn.  a spanking, however, is an immediate, tangible consequence.  doing this bad action will result is an immediately unpleasant feeling the spanking .  i think the point of disciplining a child is not just so they will obey better and make your job as a parent easier, it is to create a simulation of the real world as an adult.  if an adult steals something, there could be serious consequences.  if bobby steals this thing, he gets a bad consequence.  a young child can only make that connection.  as he gets older, spanking wo not be appropriate because he can make those connections about the real world himself.  there is not a feasible way to sit down with a small child, try to teach them that what they did was wrong and hope they do not do it again.  there has to be a consequence that will be associated with the bad behavior.  to be clear, i do not think a spanking is the answer to everything, just the worst things that children do.  if the child stays up past his bedtime to watch television, then perhaps  no tv  is a fine punishment.  but if the child does something worse, he must receive a worse punishment, because this is how the real world works.  again, parenting and discipline  simulates  the real world.  spanking is the universal  ultimate punishment  for a child.  extremely bad behavior gets extremely bad consequences.   #  they would spank me on the bottom roughly 0 times consecutively with a light ping pong paddle or with their hand.   #  before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.   # before spanking me, they would sit me down, explain to me what was wrong with what i did, tell me not to do it again, and that even though they loved me, the punishment for x was a spanking.  ideally, yes, that is the best way to spank.  but most parents do not do it so rationally.  they do it more to let out their own anger than to do it as a punishment.  spanking how your parents did it okay.  spanking how the majority do it to take out anger is just harmful to the kids.   #  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  i have read about these studies, and it jibed with my own personal experience.  my parents hit out of raw anger, and it just made me hate and resent them for taking their anger out on me.  i never felt remorse for my actions when i was hit because i did not respect their frame of mind.  there were a couple of times that i almost lashed out like a cornered dog.  unfortunately, i got it in my head that hitting is the proper response to undesirable behavior, and i would hit my little brother sometimes.  i still feel really bad about it.  at least we are on good terms now.  we have never talked about it directly, but i get the sense that he forgives me.   #  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.   #  i am a parent and not a spanker though have smacked my kids through reflex a time or two sneaking up on mom and biting her is not recommended, also, see fire point below .  however, it depends on the behavior you are trying to correct and the context in which it occurs as to whether it is rational.  for example, if you have a kid who wo not stop running into the road.  and you rent and ca not put up a fence.  and you have tried a series of childproof locks and whatnot to keep the kid from escaping the house and they defeat all of them.  and locking things with crazy combination locks is its own hazard.  and you have to sleep sometime.  spanking is a much less dangerous activity than playing in traffic.  there are times as a parent when you have the option of either smacking a kid is hand they reach into a fire or letting them get burned.  spanking over minor misbehavior is one thing.  but spanking over safety issues i. e.   safe  pain in place of permanent damage or death makes some amount of rational sense to me.   #  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.   #  disciplining your child lands on a spectrum it does not have to automatically go to the level of abuse.  a child needs to understand that his or her actions have consequences, and a talking to or time out is not always effective in getting that important life lesson across.  that is not to say that hitting your child is the only alternative, but every child and every parent is different.  at the end of the day a parent is responsible for raising a respectful and productive member of society, and if other alternatives fail i believe it is rational to use force to discipline.  having said that, the studies linked in this thread have contrary conclusions so i may well be wrong.  like any parent, i would only want what is best for my child, i am just not sure how to achieve that and am open to considering various tactics and changing my approach depending on the information available to me.   #  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.   #  violence is the opposite of respect and rationality.  reasons are irrelevant as i am beating you into submission.  doing that it would be clear that i have no respect for you either, because i do not consider your point of view nor empathize with you, but rather tap into that  lizard brain  which understands only reward and punishment.  it is true to say that it is a spectrum from simple non compliance to destructive abuse.  problems can be solved with various methods.  violence is in the severity of amputating a limb to save the person.  make sure the outcome is worth the price.
i believe this for several reasons, including: most importantly large insurance companies will take a hit from this, and we all know who calls the shots in the us government, the big corps.  to be fully effective, all cars on main roads would have to be automated.  how would this happen logistically ? would the automatic driving capabilities be installed, or would you need a whole new car ? if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? and who would pay for all the dumb cars to be re purposed ? in conclusion, i really do not see how these driver less cars are a possibility, but hopefully someone can inform me and possibly change my opinion, thanks ! finally, there are simply too many people who wouldnt trust a system like that.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.   #  would the automatic driving capabilities be installed, or would you need a whole new car ?  #  it looks like, with the way things are going, you would either buy a new car, or just not buy a car at all why buy when you can rent ?  # there is a lot of competing mega corps here.  it looks like, with the way things are going, you would either buy a new car, or just not buy a car at all why buy when you can rent ? economies of scale will make renting cars much cheaper, especially if you are going to use them on a regular schedule.  manual cars will be gradually phased out, like all old technology is.  we constantly update the building codes, and all new buildings need to comply with the new codes, but we do not require old homes to be upgraded immediately.  i imagine this will be similar.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous and yet the airplane business is still moving along just fine.  there are some people who will cling to manually driven cars, but it will become more and more clear over time that self driving cars are safer and offer numerous other benefits as well.   #  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ?  #  i agree there is alot of corps on both sides of the issue here.  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? how will a road system work if its, say, 0/0 automated and manual cars ? if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? unlike other technologies like phones, computers and tvs, cars are very expensive and can easily last 0  years so will take a very long time to just fade out.  you say self driving cars will be safer and have many benefits, where is the evidence to support that, and more importantly where is the evidence to support that having many automated cars on the road is even possible ? or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   #  when you need a car, you just flag one down and an available one comes to pick you up.   # do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? it is already happening.  there are self driving cars on the road right now, and google is currently working on cars that circumvent a lot of the current legislation by making them limited to 0mph .  it is happening, and unless there is huge public support for banning them i ca not see how it would be blocked.  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? the cars already know how to react to unpredictable human drivers.  again, they are on the road today, and they are already dealing with human drivers.  i agree.  the only accidents they have been in have been the fault of other drivers or the fault of the driver in the car who was manually operating it at the time.  URL other benefits, which i do not think i need to cite, are things like increased free time.  i get an hour back each day if i do not have to drive and i can do other things during my trip.  with autonomous car rental services, there is the potential to remove or mitigate the need for so many parking lots.  cars would not park, they would drop you off then go pick up another customer.  when you need a car, you just flag one down and an available one comes to pick you up.  or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.  i am not sure what evidence you want that it is possible.  i mean, again, they are on the road right now.  i have seen them on the free way.   #  in any case, if we find out that a car is loaded up with stuff it should not be, we shut it down remotely.   # but if the tests they have undergone are any indication, less possibility for error than humans.  no one here is claiming they are perfect.  but they are a hell of a lot better than human drivers.  this is such an extreme edge case that i do not think it is a realistic concern.  in any case, if we find out that a car is loaded up with stuff it should not be, we shut it down remotely.  i do not see this significantly hindering the adoption of self driving cars.  at worst, this kind of situation would lead to some new regulation as to how cars may be sold or operated or something.   #  there has only been about 0,0 miles worth of testing with automated cars.   #  average driver may not be as shitty as you assume.  there is on average one accident per every 0,0 miles traveled on american roads.  there has only been about 0,0 miles worth of testing with automated cars.  so obviously there isnt even 0 of enough testing before it can be said it is definitively better than human drivers.  now do not get me wrong, i would love to have every car be automated and there be no accidents, i just do not see it happening within 0 0 years.
i believe this for several reasons, including: most importantly large insurance companies will take a hit from this, and we all know who calls the shots in the us government, the big corps.  to be fully effective, all cars on main roads would have to be automated.  how would this happen logistically ? would the automatic driving capabilities be installed, or would you need a whole new car ? if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? and who would pay for all the dumb cars to be re purposed ? in conclusion, i really do not see how these driver less cars are a possibility, but hopefully someone can inform me and possibly change my opinion, thanks ! finally, there are simply too many people who wouldnt trust a system like that.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.   #  if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ?  #  manual cars will be gradually phased out, like all old technology is.   # there is a lot of competing mega corps here.  it looks like, with the way things are going, you would either buy a new car, or just not buy a car at all why buy when you can rent ? economies of scale will make renting cars much cheaper, especially if you are going to use them on a regular schedule.  manual cars will be gradually phased out, like all old technology is.  we constantly update the building codes, and all new buildings need to comply with the new codes, but we do not require old homes to be upgraded immediately.  i imagine this will be similar.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous and yet the airplane business is still moving along just fine.  there are some people who will cling to manually driven cars, but it will become more and more clear over time that self driving cars are safer and offer numerous other benefits as well.   #  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ?  #  i agree there is alot of corps on both sides of the issue here.  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? how will a road system work if its, say, 0/0 automated and manual cars ? if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? unlike other technologies like phones, computers and tvs, cars are very expensive and can easily last 0  years so will take a very long time to just fade out.  you say self driving cars will be safer and have many benefits, where is the evidence to support that, and more importantly where is the evidence to support that having many automated cars on the road is even possible ? or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   #  again, they are on the road today, and they are already dealing with human drivers.   # do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? it is already happening.  there are self driving cars on the road right now, and google is currently working on cars that circumvent a lot of the current legislation by making them limited to 0mph .  it is happening, and unless there is huge public support for banning them i ca not see how it would be blocked.  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? the cars already know how to react to unpredictable human drivers.  again, they are on the road today, and they are already dealing with human drivers.  i agree.  the only accidents they have been in have been the fault of other drivers or the fault of the driver in the car who was manually operating it at the time.  URL other benefits, which i do not think i need to cite, are things like increased free time.  i get an hour back each day if i do not have to drive and i can do other things during my trip.  with autonomous car rental services, there is the potential to remove or mitigate the need for so many parking lots.  cars would not park, they would drop you off then go pick up another customer.  when you need a car, you just flag one down and an available one comes to pick you up.  or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.  i am not sure what evidence you want that it is possible.  i mean, again, they are on the road right now.  i have seen them on the free way.   #  this is such an extreme edge case that i do not think it is a realistic concern.   # but if the tests they have undergone are any indication, less possibility for error than humans.  no one here is claiming they are perfect.  but they are a hell of a lot better than human drivers.  this is such an extreme edge case that i do not think it is a realistic concern.  in any case, if we find out that a car is loaded up with stuff it should not be, we shut it down remotely.  i do not see this significantly hindering the adoption of self driving cars.  at worst, this kind of situation would lead to some new regulation as to how cars may be sold or operated or something.   #  average driver may not be as shitty as you assume.   #  average driver may not be as shitty as you assume.  there is on average one accident per every 0,0 miles traveled on american roads.  there has only been about 0,0 miles worth of testing with automated cars.  so obviously there isnt even 0 of enough testing before it can be said it is definitively better than human drivers.  now do not get me wrong, i would love to have every car be automated and there be no accidents, i just do not see it happening within 0 0 years.
i believe this for several reasons, including: most importantly large insurance companies will take a hit from this, and we all know who calls the shots in the us government, the big corps.  to be fully effective, all cars on main roads would have to be automated.  how would this happen logistically ? would the automatic driving capabilities be installed, or would you need a whole new car ? if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? and who would pay for all the dumb cars to be re purposed ? in conclusion, i really do not see how these driver less cars are a possibility, but hopefully someone can inform me and possibly change my opinion, thanks ! finally, there are simply too many people who wouldnt trust a system like that.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.   #  finally, there are simply too many people who wouldnt trust a system like that.   #  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous and yet the airplane business is still moving along just fine.   # there is a lot of competing mega corps here.  it looks like, with the way things are going, you would either buy a new car, or just not buy a car at all why buy when you can rent ? economies of scale will make renting cars much cheaper, especially if you are going to use them on a regular schedule.  manual cars will be gradually phased out, like all old technology is.  we constantly update the building codes, and all new buildings need to comply with the new codes, but we do not require old homes to be upgraded immediately.  i imagine this will be similar.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous and yet the airplane business is still moving along just fine.  there are some people who will cling to manually driven cars, but it will become more and more clear over time that self driving cars are safer and offer numerous other benefits as well.   #  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ?  #  i agree there is alot of corps on both sides of the issue here.  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? how will a road system work if its, say, 0/0 automated and manual cars ? if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? unlike other technologies like phones, computers and tvs, cars are very expensive and can easily last 0  years so will take a very long time to just fade out.  you say self driving cars will be safer and have many benefits, where is the evidence to support that, and more importantly where is the evidence to support that having many automated cars on the road is even possible ? or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   #  i get an hour back each day if i do not have to drive and i can do other things during my trip.   # do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? it is already happening.  there are self driving cars on the road right now, and google is currently working on cars that circumvent a lot of the current legislation by making them limited to 0mph .  it is happening, and unless there is huge public support for banning them i ca not see how it would be blocked.  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? the cars already know how to react to unpredictable human drivers.  again, they are on the road today, and they are already dealing with human drivers.  i agree.  the only accidents they have been in have been the fault of other drivers or the fault of the driver in the car who was manually operating it at the time.  URL other benefits, which i do not think i need to cite, are things like increased free time.  i get an hour back each day if i do not have to drive and i can do other things during my trip.  with autonomous car rental services, there is the potential to remove or mitigate the need for so many parking lots.  cars would not park, they would drop you off then go pick up another customer.  when you need a car, you just flag one down and an available one comes to pick you up.  or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.  i am not sure what evidence you want that it is possible.  i mean, again, they are on the road right now.  i have seen them on the free way.   #  at worst, this kind of situation would lead to some new regulation as to how cars may be sold or operated or something.   # but if the tests they have undergone are any indication, less possibility for error than humans.  no one here is claiming they are perfect.  but they are a hell of a lot better than human drivers.  this is such an extreme edge case that i do not think it is a realistic concern.  in any case, if we find out that a car is loaded up with stuff it should not be, we shut it down remotely.  i do not see this significantly hindering the adoption of self driving cars.  at worst, this kind of situation would lead to some new regulation as to how cars may be sold or operated or something.   #  so obviously there isnt even 0 of enough testing before it can be said it is definitively better than human drivers.   #  average driver may not be as shitty as you assume.  there is on average one accident per every 0,0 miles traveled on american roads.  there has only been about 0,0 miles worth of testing with automated cars.  so obviously there isnt even 0 of enough testing before it can be said it is definitively better than human drivers.  now do not get me wrong, i would love to have every car be automated and there be no accidents, i just do not see it happening within 0 0 years.
i believe this for several reasons, including: most importantly large insurance companies will take a hit from this, and we all know who calls the shots in the us government, the big corps.  to be fully effective, all cars on main roads would have to be automated.  how would this happen logistically ? would the automatic driving capabilities be installed, or would you need a whole new car ? if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? and who would pay for all the dumb cars to be re purposed ? in conclusion, i really do not see how these driver less cars are a possibility, but hopefully someone can inform me and possibly change my opinion, thanks ! finally, there are simply too many people who wouldnt trust a system like that.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.   #  most importantly large insurance companies will take a hit from this, and we all know who calls the shots in the us government, the big corps.   #  even granting that big corps call the shots which i do not believe there are still big corps that have a lot to gain from driverless cars shipping corps, taxi corps, the manufacturers of the driverless cars, etc.   # even granting that big corps call the shots which i do not believe there are still big corps that have a lot to gain from driverless cars shipping corps, taxi corps, the manufacturers of the driverless cars, etc.  that will fight back and have the money to do so.  how would this happen logistically ? they do not need to be fully effective immediately.  here is how i see it going: in a few years, the first driverless cars will hit the market.  it will start by only being driverless in a few situations, like highway driving in sunny weather.  this will fund further r d and eventually allow the technology to develop to the point where some cars can be fully driverless.  at some point, the cars will be popular enough that cities will start to have dedicated lanes on some highways for self driving cars, which will allow the cars to unlock more of their potential for higher speeds and closer follow distance.  people will see how much faster they can move with driverless cars and stop buying non driverless cars, however they wo not have to sell their old car yet.  however, eventually the dumb cars will disappear simply because no one wants them anymore.  different companies are experimenting with both methods.  google is first self driving cars were installed, but recently they have tried making a whole new car.  there is also a company making an installed version: URL   if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? they can still be used until they fall apart, just like how it works currently.  their owners, if they decide they want a self driving car, and a company offers this service.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.  those people can continue to drive human driven cars as long as they are sold.   #  manual cars will be gradually phased out, like all old technology is.   # there is a lot of competing mega corps here.  it looks like, with the way things are going, you would either buy a new car, or just not buy a car at all why buy when you can rent ? economies of scale will make renting cars much cheaper, especially if you are going to use them on a regular schedule.  manual cars will be gradually phased out, like all old technology is.  we constantly update the building codes, and all new buildings need to comply with the new codes, but we do not require old homes to be upgraded immediately.  i imagine this will be similar.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous and yet the airplane business is still moving along just fine.  there are some people who will cling to manually driven cars, but it will become more and more clear over time that self driving cars are safer and offer numerous other benefits as well.   #  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ?  #  i agree there is alot of corps on both sides of the issue here.  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? how will a road system work if its, say, 0/0 automated and manual cars ? if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? unlike other technologies like phones, computers and tvs, cars are very expensive and can easily last 0  years so will take a very long time to just fade out.  you say self driving cars will be safer and have many benefits, where is the evidence to support that, and more importantly where is the evidence to support that having many automated cars on the road is even possible ? or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   #  it is happening, and unless there is huge public support for banning them i ca not see how it would be blocked.   # do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? it is already happening.  there are self driving cars on the road right now, and google is currently working on cars that circumvent a lot of the current legislation by making them limited to 0mph .  it is happening, and unless there is huge public support for banning them i ca not see how it would be blocked.  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? the cars already know how to react to unpredictable human drivers.  again, they are on the road today, and they are already dealing with human drivers.  i agree.  the only accidents they have been in have been the fault of other drivers or the fault of the driver in the car who was manually operating it at the time.  URL other benefits, which i do not think i need to cite, are things like increased free time.  i get an hour back each day if i do not have to drive and i can do other things during my trip.  with autonomous car rental services, there is the potential to remove or mitigate the need for so many parking lots.  cars would not park, they would drop you off then go pick up another customer.  when you need a car, you just flag one down and an available one comes to pick you up.  or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.  i am not sure what evidence you want that it is possible.  i mean, again, they are on the road right now.  i have seen them on the free way.   #  but if the tests they have undergone are any indication, less possibility for error than humans.   # but if the tests they have undergone are any indication, less possibility for error than humans.  no one here is claiming they are perfect.  but they are a hell of a lot better than human drivers.  this is such an extreme edge case that i do not think it is a realistic concern.  in any case, if we find out that a car is loaded up with stuff it should not be, we shut it down remotely.  i do not see this significantly hindering the adoption of self driving cars.  at worst, this kind of situation would lead to some new regulation as to how cars may be sold or operated or something.
i believe this for several reasons, including: most importantly large insurance companies will take a hit from this, and we all know who calls the shots in the us government, the big corps.  to be fully effective, all cars on main roads would have to be automated.  how would this happen logistically ? would the automatic driving capabilities be installed, or would you need a whole new car ? if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? and who would pay for all the dumb cars to be re purposed ? in conclusion, i really do not see how these driver less cars are a possibility, but hopefully someone can inform me and possibly change my opinion, thanks ! finally, there are simply too many people who wouldnt trust a system like that.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.   #  would the automatic driving capabilities be installed, or would you need a whole new car ?  #  different companies are experimenting with both methods.   # even granting that big corps call the shots which i do not believe there are still big corps that have a lot to gain from driverless cars shipping corps, taxi corps, the manufacturers of the driverless cars, etc.  that will fight back and have the money to do so.  how would this happen logistically ? they do not need to be fully effective immediately.  here is how i see it going: in a few years, the first driverless cars will hit the market.  it will start by only being driverless in a few situations, like highway driving in sunny weather.  this will fund further r d and eventually allow the technology to develop to the point where some cars can be fully driverless.  at some point, the cars will be popular enough that cities will start to have dedicated lanes on some highways for self driving cars, which will allow the cars to unlock more of their potential for higher speeds and closer follow distance.  people will see how much faster they can move with driverless cars and stop buying non driverless cars, however they wo not have to sell their old car yet.  however, eventually the dumb cars will disappear simply because no one wants them anymore.  different companies are experimenting with both methods.  google is first self driving cars were installed, but recently they have tried making a whole new car.  there is also a company making an installed version: URL   if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? they can still be used until they fall apart, just like how it works currently.  their owners, if they decide they want a self driving car, and a company offers this service.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.  those people can continue to drive human driven cars as long as they are sold.   #  we constantly update the building codes, and all new buildings need to comply with the new codes, but we do not require old homes to be upgraded immediately.   # there is a lot of competing mega corps here.  it looks like, with the way things are going, you would either buy a new car, or just not buy a car at all why buy when you can rent ? economies of scale will make renting cars much cheaper, especially if you are going to use them on a regular schedule.  manual cars will be gradually phased out, like all old technology is.  we constantly update the building codes, and all new buildings need to comply with the new codes, but we do not require old homes to be upgraded immediately.  i imagine this will be similar.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous and yet the airplane business is still moving along just fine.  there are some people who will cling to manually driven cars, but it will become more and more clear over time that self driving cars are safer and offer numerous other benefits as well.   #  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ?  #  i agree there is alot of corps on both sides of the issue here.  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? how will a road system work if its, say, 0/0 automated and manual cars ? if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? unlike other technologies like phones, computers and tvs, cars are very expensive and can easily last 0  years so will take a very long time to just fade out.  you say self driving cars will be safer and have many benefits, where is the evidence to support that, and more importantly where is the evidence to support that having many automated cars on the road is even possible ? or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   #  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ?  # do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? it is already happening.  there are self driving cars on the road right now, and google is currently working on cars that circumvent a lot of the current legislation by making them limited to 0mph .  it is happening, and unless there is huge public support for banning them i ca not see how it would be blocked.  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? the cars already know how to react to unpredictable human drivers.  again, they are on the road today, and they are already dealing with human drivers.  i agree.  the only accidents they have been in have been the fault of other drivers or the fault of the driver in the car who was manually operating it at the time.  URL other benefits, which i do not think i need to cite, are things like increased free time.  i get an hour back each day if i do not have to drive and i can do other things during my trip.  with autonomous car rental services, there is the potential to remove or mitigate the need for so many parking lots.  cars would not park, they would drop you off then go pick up another customer.  when you need a car, you just flag one down and an available one comes to pick you up.  or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.  i am not sure what evidence you want that it is possible.  i mean, again, they are on the road right now.  i have seen them on the free way.   #  in any case, if we find out that a car is loaded up with stuff it should not be, we shut it down remotely.   # but if the tests they have undergone are any indication, less possibility for error than humans.  no one here is claiming they are perfect.  but they are a hell of a lot better than human drivers.  this is such an extreme edge case that i do not think it is a realistic concern.  in any case, if we find out that a car is loaded up with stuff it should not be, we shut it down remotely.  i do not see this significantly hindering the adoption of self driving cars.  at worst, this kind of situation would lead to some new regulation as to how cars may be sold or operated or something.
i believe this for several reasons, including: most importantly large insurance companies will take a hit from this, and we all know who calls the shots in the us government, the big corps.  to be fully effective, all cars on main roads would have to be automated.  how would this happen logistically ? would the automatic driving capabilities be installed, or would you need a whole new car ? if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? and who would pay for all the dumb cars to be re purposed ? in conclusion, i really do not see how these driver less cars are a possibility, but hopefully someone can inform me and possibly change my opinion, thanks ! finally, there are simply too many people who wouldnt trust a system like that.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.   #  and who would pay for all the dumb cars to be re purposed ?  #  their owners, if they decide they want a self driving car, and a company offers this service.   # even granting that big corps call the shots which i do not believe there are still big corps that have a lot to gain from driverless cars shipping corps, taxi corps, the manufacturers of the driverless cars, etc.  that will fight back and have the money to do so.  how would this happen logistically ? they do not need to be fully effective immediately.  here is how i see it going: in a few years, the first driverless cars will hit the market.  it will start by only being driverless in a few situations, like highway driving in sunny weather.  this will fund further r d and eventually allow the technology to develop to the point where some cars can be fully driverless.  at some point, the cars will be popular enough that cities will start to have dedicated lanes on some highways for self driving cars, which will allow the cars to unlock more of their potential for higher speeds and closer follow distance.  people will see how much faster they can move with driverless cars and stop buying non driverless cars, however they wo not have to sell their old car yet.  however, eventually the dumb cars will disappear simply because no one wants them anymore.  different companies are experimenting with both methods.  google is first self driving cars were installed, but recently they have tried making a whole new car.  there is also a company making an installed version: URL   if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? they can still be used until they fall apart, just like how it works currently.  their owners, if they decide they want a self driving car, and a company offers this service.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.  those people can continue to drive human driven cars as long as they are sold.   #  there is a lot of competing mega corps here.   # there is a lot of competing mega corps here.  it looks like, with the way things are going, you would either buy a new car, or just not buy a car at all why buy when you can rent ? economies of scale will make renting cars much cheaper, especially if you are going to use them on a regular schedule.  manual cars will be gradually phased out, like all old technology is.  we constantly update the building codes, and all new buildings need to comply with the new codes, but we do not require old homes to be upgraded immediately.  i imagine this will be similar.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous and yet the airplane business is still moving along just fine.  there are some people who will cling to manually driven cars, but it will become more and more clear over time that self driving cars are safer and offer numerous other benefits as well.   #  unlike other technologies like phones, computers and tvs, cars are very expensive and can easily last 0  years so will take a very long time to just fade out.   #  i agree there is alot of corps on both sides of the issue here.  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? how will a road system work if its, say, 0/0 automated and manual cars ? if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? unlike other technologies like phones, computers and tvs, cars are very expensive and can easily last 0  years so will take a very long time to just fade out.  you say self driving cars will be safer and have many benefits, where is the evidence to support that, and more importantly where is the evidence to support that having many automated cars on the road is even possible ? or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   #  im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   # do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? it is already happening.  there are self driving cars on the road right now, and google is currently working on cars that circumvent a lot of the current legislation by making them limited to 0mph .  it is happening, and unless there is huge public support for banning them i ca not see how it would be blocked.  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? the cars already know how to react to unpredictable human drivers.  again, they are on the road today, and they are already dealing with human drivers.  i agree.  the only accidents they have been in have been the fault of other drivers or the fault of the driver in the car who was manually operating it at the time.  URL other benefits, which i do not think i need to cite, are things like increased free time.  i get an hour back each day if i do not have to drive and i can do other things during my trip.  with autonomous car rental services, there is the potential to remove or mitigate the need for so many parking lots.  cars would not park, they would drop you off then go pick up another customer.  when you need a car, you just flag one down and an available one comes to pick you up.  or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.  i am not sure what evidence you want that it is possible.  i mean, again, they are on the road right now.  i have seen them on the free way.   #  but they are a hell of a lot better than human drivers.   # but if the tests they have undergone are any indication, less possibility for error than humans.  no one here is claiming they are perfect.  but they are a hell of a lot better than human drivers.  this is such an extreme edge case that i do not think it is a realistic concern.  in any case, if we find out that a car is loaded up with stuff it should not be, we shut it down remotely.  i do not see this significantly hindering the adoption of self driving cars.  at worst, this kind of situation would lead to some new regulation as to how cars may be sold or operated or something.
i believe this for several reasons, including: most importantly large insurance companies will take a hit from this, and we all know who calls the shots in the us government, the big corps.  to be fully effective, all cars on main roads would have to be automated.  how would this happen logistically ? would the automatic driving capabilities be installed, or would you need a whole new car ? if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? and who would pay for all the dumb cars to be re purposed ? in conclusion, i really do not see how these driver less cars are a possibility, but hopefully someone can inform me and possibly change my opinion, thanks ! finally, there are simply too many people who wouldnt trust a system like that.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.   #  finally, there are simply too many people who wouldnt trust a system like that.   #  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.   # even granting that big corps call the shots which i do not believe there are still big corps that have a lot to gain from driverless cars shipping corps, taxi corps, the manufacturers of the driverless cars, etc.  that will fight back and have the money to do so.  how would this happen logistically ? they do not need to be fully effective immediately.  here is how i see it going: in a few years, the first driverless cars will hit the market.  it will start by only being driverless in a few situations, like highway driving in sunny weather.  this will fund further r d and eventually allow the technology to develop to the point where some cars can be fully driverless.  at some point, the cars will be popular enough that cities will start to have dedicated lanes on some highways for self driving cars, which will allow the cars to unlock more of their potential for higher speeds and closer follow distance.  people will see how much faster they can move with driverless cars and stop buying non driverless cars, however they wo not have to sell their old car yet.  however, eventually the dumb cars will disappear simply because no one wants them anymore.  different companies are experimenting with both methods.  google is first self driving cars were installed, but recently they have tried making a whole new car.  there is also a company making an installed version: URL   if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? they can still be used until they fall apart, just like how it works currently.  their owners, if they decide they want a self driving car, and a company offers this service.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.  those people can continue to drive human driven cars as long as they are sold.   #  there are some people who will cling to manually driven cars, but it will become more and more clear over time that self driving cars are safer and offer numerous other benefits as well.   # there is a lot of competing mega corps here.  it looks like, with the way things are going, you would either buy a new car, or just not buy a car at all why buy when you can rent ? economies of scale will make renting cars much cheaper, especially if you are going to use them on a regular schedule.  manual cars will be gradually phased out, like all old technology is.  we constantly update the building codes, and all new buildings need to comply with the new codes, but we do not require old homes to be upgraded immediately.  i imagine this will be similar.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous and yet the airplane business is still moving along just fine.  there are some people who will cling to manually driven cars, but it will become more and more clear over time that self driving cars are safer and offer numerous other benefits as well.   #  im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   #  i agree there is alot of corps on both sides of the issue here.  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? how will a road system work if its, say, 0/0 automated and manual cars ? if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? unlike other technologies like phones, computers and tvs, cars are very expensive and can easily last 0  years so will take a very long time to just fade out.  you say self driving cars will be safer and have many benefits, where is the evidence to support that, and more importantly where is the evidence to support that having many automated cars on the road is even possible ? or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   #  im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   # do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? it is already happening.  there are self driving cars on the road right now, and google is currently working on cars that circumvent a lot of the current legislation by making them limited to 0mph .  it is happening, and unless there is huge public support for banning them i ca not see how it would be blocked.  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? the cars already know how to react to unpredictable human drivers.  again, they are on the road today, and they are already dealing with human drivers.  i agree.  the only accidents they have been in have been the fault of other drivers or the fault of the driver in the car who was manually operating it at the time.  URL other benefits, which i do not think i need to cite, are things like increased free time.  i get an hour back each day if i do not have to drive and i can do other things during my trip.  with autonomous car rental services, there is the potential to remove or mitigate the need for so many parking lots.  cars would not park, they would drop you off then go pick up another customer.  when you need a car, you just flag one down and an available one comes to pick you up.  or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.  i am not sure what evidence you want that it is possible.  i mean, again, they are on the road right now.  i have seen them on the free way.   #  this is such an extreme edge case that i do not think it is a realistic concern.   # but if the tests they have undergone are any indication, less possibility for error than humans.  no one here is claiming they are perfect.  but they are a hell of a lot better than human drivers.  this is such an extreme edge case that i do not think it is a realistic concern.  in any case, if we find out that a car is loaded up with stuff it should not be, we shut it down remotely.  i do not see this significantly hindering the adoption of self driving cars.  at worst, this kind of situation would lead to some new regulation as to how cars may be sold or operated or something.
i believe this for several reasons, including: most importantly large insurance companies will take a hit from this, and we all know who calls the shots in the us government, the big corps.  to be fully effective, all cars on main roads would have to be automated.  how would this happen logistically ? would the automatic driving capabilities be installed, or would you need a whole new car ? if you need a car built for this then what would happen to all the old  dumb  cars ? and who would pay for all the dumb cars to be re purposed ? in conclusion, i really do not see how these driver less cars are a possibility, but hopefully someone can inform me and possibly change my opinion, thanks ! finally, there are simply too many people who wouldnt trust a system like that.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous.   #  to be fully effective, all cars on main roads would have to be automated.   #  to me this seems as silly as saying  in order for ebooks to make a profit, all books would need to be digital .   # to me this seems as silly as saying  in order for ebooks to make a profit, all books would need to be digital .  the simple question is, what is driving ? it is navigating a road at a certain speed, remaining in lanes, avoiding all people and other cars, and reaching a set destination.  navigating a road at a set speed and recognizing lanes is easy.  finding a destination is trivial gps .  so we are left with recognizing people/cars/obstacles, and stopping/avoiding them.  in that, humans are crippled.  it takes a quarter second to recognize something is on the road and apply the brakes.  a computer ? maybe 0 ms.  people also panic.  a computer makes better judgments.   my braking distance at this speed in this model of car with x type tires is 0 ft.  that car is 0 ft away.  move to shoulder while applying brakes.   humans lack this, and will often just smash the brakes and plow straight into something they ca not possibly avoid.  computers are better at driving than humans.  why not let them ?  #  there is a lot of competing mega corps here.   # there is a lot of competing mega corps here.  it looks like, with the way things are going, you would either buy a new car, or just not buy a car at all why buy when you can rent ? economies of scale will make renting cars much cheaper, especially if you are going to use them on a regular schedule.  manual cars will be gradually phased out, like all old technology is.  we constantly update the building codes, and all new buildings need to comply with the new codes, but we do not require old homes to be upgraded immediately.  i imagine this will be similar.  for example, many people are too afraid to ride on a plane because it is out of there control, however they are comfortable driving long distances, even though it is statistically much more dangerous and yet the airplane business is still moving along just fine.  there are some people who will cling to manually driven cars, but it will become more and more clear over time that self driving cars are safer and offer numerous other benefits as well.   #  i agree there is alot of corps on both sides of the issue here.   #  i agree there is alot of corps on both sides of the issue here.  do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? how will a road system work if its, say, 0/0 automated and manual cars ? if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? unlike other technologies like phones, computers and tvs, cars are very expensive and can easily last 0  years so will take a very long time to just fade out.  you say self driving cars will be safer and have many benefits, where is the evidence to support that, and more importantly where is the evidence to support that having many automated cars on the road is even possible ? or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.   #  the only accidents they have been in have been the fault of other drivers or the fault of the driver in the car who was manually operating it at the time.   # do not you think that will create a political gridlock, and these things will never be mandated ? it is already happening.  there are self driving cars on the road right now, and google is currently working on cars that circumvent a lot of the current legislation by making them limited to 0mph .  it is happening, and unless there is huge public support for banning them i ca not see how it would be blocked.  if half the traffic is unpredictable human drivers how will the automated cars know what to do with an expectation of safety ? the cars already know how to react to unpredictable human drivers.  again, they are on the road today, and they are already dealing with human drivers.  i agree.  the only accidents they have been in have been the fault of other drivers or the fault of the driver in the car who was manually operating it at the time.  URL other benefits, which i do not think i need to cite, are things like increased free time.  i get an hour back each day if i do not have to drive and i can do other things during my trip.  with autonomous car rental services, there is the potential to remove or mitigate the need for so many parking lots.  cars would not park, they would drop you off then go pick up another customer.  when you need a car, you just flag one down and an available one comes to pick you up.  or is this all just speculation ? im not trying to be stubborn, but studies and evidence is worth a lot more than opinions.  i am not sure what evidence you want that it is possible.  i mean, again, they are on the road right now.  i have seen them on the free way.   #  at worst, this kind of situation would lead to some new regulation as to how cars may be sold or operated or something.   # but if the tests they have undergone are any indication, less possibility for error than humans.  no one here is claiming they are perfect.  but they are a hell of a lot better than human drivers.  this is such an extreme edge case that i do not think it is a realistic concern.  in any case, if we find out that a car is loaded up with stuff it should not be, we shut it down remotely.  i do not see this significantly hindering the adoption of self driving cars.  at worst, this kind of situation would lead to some new regulation as to how cars may be sold or operated or something.
today i saw a homeless man with a dog and which lead me to thinking that he should not be allowed to look after the dog if he cannot even look after himself.  pet dogs are heavily reliant on their owners for things like comfort, food and entertainment, and i believe that if you are homeless you cannot provide all of that.  if a man is struggling in his own life to look after himself, he will struggle even more whilst also trying to provide for a dog too, and i fail to see how they both manage to eat a good meal from begging alone, not to mention the food that the dog does eat most likely will not be ideal for his diet and could even lead to health problems.  going back to what i said before, how can a dog be comfortable on a snowy winter night when temperatures are freezing, even with blankets, this is not an ideal environment for a dog.  obviously some people will own a dog whilst living somewhere, run into a life complication of some sorts and at a last resort end up homeless, in this scenario i believe the person should temporarily give their dog to a friend or family to take care of, and if nobody wants to take the dog, then it should be given to a shelter of sorts where he will get properly cared for and can be visited until the dogs owner is financially stable.  this could also be motivational for some homeless people to get back on their feet and give them something to work for in order to get their dogs back.  thanks for reading and sorry for any errors, i have written this on my phone.  cmv !  #  today i saw a homeless man with a dog and which lead me to thinking that he should not be allowed to look after the dog if he cannot even look after himself.   #  you are assuming that the man ca not look after himself.   # you are assuming that the man ca not look after himself.  it is possible to live without a roof over one is head, but still get by.  you are also assuming that the dog is not a key part of the man looking after himself.  company, protection, etc.  service animals are used for these types of things.  and there are still many places across the globe where dogs are kept for completely utilitarian purposes.   #  some are are just uneducated menial workers down on their luck, they ca not be housed by their friends all the time, can they ?  #  how would that be enforced ? why should it be enforced ? it is just too inefficient and wasteful for my tastes.  any effort to take their pets away would be better spend providing help.  some homeless have mental disorders, can they be expected to have friends and family to perpetually care for them ? some are are just uneducated menial workers down on their luck, they ca not be housed by their friends all the time, can they ? your heart is in the right place, but directed at the wrong subject.  we should care for our fellow citizens and human beings before we look to make the world a better place for other species.  it is much more fulfilling and economically significant to help those who have fallen as far as could be.   #  but rather than helping them, you just take the animal away, and leave the human being in the same situation they were in before you got there.   #  ok, so let is ignore the reason why people are living on the streets in the first place.  you have got a person and a dog, both homeless.  you are arguing that we have plenty of support for homeless people, but not enough for homeless dogs.  i firmly disagree.  if anything, we need to focus more on taking care of our homeless people, and the homeless dog problem will solve itself.  taking away a homeless person is dog is insulting and cruel.  you are telling them their situation is so bad, it is unfit for an animal.  but rather than helping them, you just take the animal away, and leave the human being in the same situation they were in before you got there.  you are arguing that the human is life is worth less than the dogs.  that is just cruel, and insulting.  taking away their dog does not do anything to give the homeless more or better access to families, medication, or help groups.  it is a purely punitive measure.   #  sorry i mis worded the quote about resources.   #  again, i am not trying to do it to be nasty either, i just want what is best for the dog, and i believe that is a better environment than being outside 0/0.  just because somebody has 0 does not mean they have to stay at 0.  by all means i am not saying it is easy to get your life on track but it is not impossible, keeping a dog to live with you outside when it could live in a better environment is selfish imo.  sorry i mis worded the quote about resources.  i meant to say  there are far more resources for humans than dogs  i edited it.  and i believe that to be true because no dog has family to take them in, or groups to help them with their issues.  i believe people become homeless for many reasons, which is why this subject is not an open/shut case.  i think most cases are from people making bad choices in life, such as drugs, or not getting their financial priorities in order, however there are cases where people are mentally ill, or have not been given the chance for a job no matter how hard they have tried and end up without a roof over their head and nowhere to turn.  but i do believe good shelters/family/friends are a way out of homelessness.  just because you have no home currently, does not mean it has to stay that way, and i am sure it is easier said than done, which is why we do have homeless people.   #  is not that a more pressing issue than dogs which are adapted to live outside ?  # unfortunately, that is the fate for most dogs that do not have owners.  you think losing their dog is going to suddenly present them with opportunities that were not there before ? i do not think taking away a person is faithful companion is a good way to encourage them.  i understand the position that you are coming from here, but i do not think you have had much exposure to homelessness.  you do realize that there are homeless children, right ? is not that a more pressing issue than dogs which are adapted to live outside ?
today i saw a homeless man with a dog and which lead me to thinking that he should not be allowed to look after the dog if he cannot even look after himself.  pet dogs are heavily reliant on their owners for things like comfort, food and entertainment, and i believe that if you are homeless you cannot provide all of that.  if a man is struggling in his own life to look after himself, he will struggle even more whilst also trying to provide for a dog too, and i fail to see how they both manage to eat a good meal from begging alone, not to mention the food that the dog does eat most likely will not be ideal for his diet and could even lead to health problems.  going back to what i said before, how can a dog be comfortable on a snowy winter night when temperatures are freezing, even with blankets, this is not an ideal environment for a dog.  obviously some people will own a dog whilst living somewhere, run into a life complication of some sorts and at a last resort end up homeless, in this scenario i believe the person should temporarily give their dog to a friend or family to take care of, and if nobody wants to take the dog, then it should be given to a shelter of sorts where he will get properly cared for and can be visited until the dogs owner is financially stable.  this could also be motivational for some homeless people to get back on their feet and give them something to work for in order to get their dogs back.  thanks for reading and sorry for any errors, i have written this on my phone.  cmv !  #  and if nobody wants to take the dog, then it should be given to a shelter of sorts where he will get properly cared for and can be visited until the dogs owner is financially stable.   #  i am not sure what shelter you are talking about.   # having a companion would not only add to a person is quality of life in such a shit situation, it might also inspire more people to donate food or money.  they do not call them  puppy dog eyes  for no reason.  i am not sure what shelter you are talking about.  it is a bit odd to imagine leaving your pet in a home so you can go sleep in the winter streets alone, but i also know there is a lot of kill shelters in the world.  people collect dogs and kill them if they are too old or unlikely to be adopted.  animals can adapt fairly easily to extreme conditions.  considering your argument and my response, i think it is actually a very positive thing for homeless people to have dogs.  i would wish every homeless person could have a companion that would have otherwise been euthanized.   #  any effort to take their pets away would be better spend providing help.   #  how would that be enforced ? why should it be enforced ? it is just too inefficient and wasteful for my tastes.  any effort to take their pets away would be better spend providing help.  some homeless have mental disorders, can they be expected to have friends and family to perpetually care for them ? some are are just uneducated menial workers down on their luck, they ca not be housed by their friends all the time, can they ? your heart is in the right place, but directed at the wrong subject.  we should care for our fellow citizens and human beings before we look to make the world a better place for other species.  it is much more fulfilling and economically significant to help those who have fallen as far as could be.   #  you are telling them their situation is so bad, it is unfit for an animal.   #  ok, so let is ignore the reason why people are living on the streets in the first place.  you have got a person and a dog, both homeless.  you are arguing that we have plenty of support for homeless people, but not enough for homeless dogs.  i firmly disagree.  if anything, we need to focus more on taking care of our homeless people, and the homeless dog problem will solve itself.  taking away a homeless person is dog is insulting and cruel.  you are telling them their situation is so bad, it is unfit for an animal.  but rather than helping them, you just take the animal away, and leave the human being in the same situation they were in before you got there.  you are arguing that the human is life is worth less than the dogs.  that is just cruel, and insulting.  taking away their dog does not do anything to give the homeless more or better access to families, medication, or help groups.  it is a purely punitive measure.   #  and i believe that to be true because no dog has family to take them in, or groups to help them with their issues.   #  again, i am not trying to do it to be nasty either, i just want what is best for the dog, and i believe that is a better environment than being outside 0/0.  just because somebody has 0 does not mean they have to stay at 0.  by all means i am not saying it is easy to get your life on track but it is not impossible, keeping a dog to live with you outside when it could live in a better environment is selfish imo.  sorry i mis worded the quote about resources.  i meant to say  there are far more resources for humans than dogs  i edited it.  and i believe that to be true because no dog has family to take them in, or groups to help them with their issues.  i believe people become homeless for many reasons, which is why this subject is not an open/shut case.  i think most cases are from people making bad choices in life, such as drugs, or not getting their financial priorities in order, however there are cases where people are mentally ill, or have not been given the chance for a job no matter how hard they have tried and end up without a roof over their head and nowhere to turn.  but i do believe good shelters/family/friends are a way out of homelessness.  just because you have no home currently, does not mean it has to stay that way, and i am sure it is easier said than done, which is why we do have homeless people.   #  you think losing their dog is going to suddenly present them with opportunities that were not there before ?  # unfortunately, that is the fate for most dogs that do not have owners.  you think losing their dog is going to suddenly present them with opportunities that were not there before ? i do not think taking away a person is faithful companion is a good way to encourage them.  i understand the position that you are coming from here, but i do not think you have had much exposure to homelessness.  you do realize that there are homeless children, right ? is not that a more pressing issue than dogs which are adapted to live outside ?
if we go back to the actual meaning of nsfw not safe for work , the idea is clearly that you do not want something on your screen that someone at work could oversee.  i believe that this applies really only to images, and that it is not necessary for text posts.  an image requires only a glance to get you in trouble.  if someone walks into your office, or can see over your shoulder from across the room, an image on your screen of someone is intestines hanging out or some topless lady is something they are going to recognize and possibly get you in trouble for.  a text post, on the other hand, just looks like reddit.  unless someone stands over your shoulder long enough to actually read and comprehend what is on the screen, then it is no more eye catching than any other text based webpage that you might be on.  if they recognize it as reddit and do not have a problem with you being on reddit at work, the odds are low that seeing  fuck  on the screen is going to be what crosses the line into  inappropriate use of company resources.   normally this would simply be an annoyance, but many of us use the res nsfw filter for just this purpose, and as a result do not see a high number of text posts that got flagged as nsfw because someone asked a question that might result in someone saying  sex.   so cmv.  convince me that there really is text on here worth guarding from view at work.   #  if we go back to the actual meaning of nsfw not safe for work , the idea is clearly that you do not want something on your screen that someone at work could oversee.   #  i think this is your basic misunderstanding.   # i think this is your basic misunderstanding.  some nsfw posts are things you do not want someone looking over your shoulder; but some are just things you do not want showing up in your browser history.  there was an ama a while back with a woman who fucked dogs and fisted horses.  if a coworker sits down at your computer, and types in a few letters, you do not want that showing up on your screen.  that is nsfw.   #  to me, nsfw should primarily mean content that contains nudity, but also gore/disturbing images, perhaps drug use or swearing.   #  also, nsfw does not have to be taken literally, it is just the predominant convention for this type of thing.  to me, nsfw should primarily mean content that contains nudity, but also gore/disturbing images, perhaps drug use or swearing.  basically, if it ca not be shown on tv.  if you really think about it,  all  of reddit is not safe for work.  some parts of it are just more  nsfw  than others.   #  if the person making the submission can guess that nsfw comments might be posted, then generally everyone else can too.   #  to me where the issue comes in is that many times the nsfw is used in areas like askreddit where they believe that comments could potentially be nsfw even if the title is not nsfw.  if the person making the submission can guess that nsfw comments might be posted, then generally everyone else can too.  for example this is a topic near the top on that subreddit right now that is marked as nsfw  what is something your parents will never find out about you ? i can appreciate that some text posts with submission titles that are nsfw are marked as such because the site will filter them out if the person has it checked in their settings.  this may allow people to get away with looking at the front page and have it be free of any titles that may be nsfw which makes it safer for them to browse reddit.  however if you look at the example i showed, there is nothing really nsfw about that title, its probably more benign than many others.  it does not really help anyone to mark that topic as nsfw.  it just draws extra attention to it and misleads people into thinking its something more than what it is, which is probably why people dislike nsfw being applied unnecessarily.  for the most part, if the submission title/description is not nsfw then it should not be marked as such, it does not matter what comments may end up being posted there.  each comment should be responsible for marking theirs as nsfw at that point.   #  i dare you to look at the previous sentence and then somehow  not  read the words.   # alright, i agree.  not so much here.  what if it is something i would not want someone at work to oversee ? we ca not help but read words when we see them.  just try it ! i dare you to look at the previous sentence and then somehow  not  read the words.  all it takes is a second for your brain to recognize the symbols f, u, c, and k and contextualize them into  fuck  and if your boss would have a problem looking at that then anything with that word is literally not safe for work.  so sure, we process imagines faster than text.  but we process text pretty darn quickly, and some things will stand out to us if we are primed for them ahead of time like glancing over your employee is shoulder to see if they are doing anything inappropriate .  so while they may not read the entire sentence at a glance, their brain is on the lookout for inappropriate words.   #  it gives me the opportunity to decide whether i want to read it or not.   #  for a large number of people reading erotic stories is not considered appropriate work material.  even on a coffee break or lunch period.  i think it is extremely appropriate to label these as nsfw even if it is simply text.  it gives me the opportunity to decide whether i want to read it or not.  even if you think it is unnecessary what is wrong with having more information at your disposal ? having the nsfw tag quickly gives you more information about what you would be reading.  why is that a problem ? it does not slow you down any.
if we go back to the actual meaning of nsfw not safe for work , the idea is clearly that you do not want something on your screen that someone at work could oversee.  i believe that this applies really only to images, and that it is not necessary for text posts.  an image requires only a glance to get you in trouble.  if someone walks into your office, or can see over your shoulder from across the room, an image on your screen of someone is intestines hanging out or some topless lady is something they are going to recognize and possibly get you in trouble for.  a text post, on the other hand, just looks like reddit.  unless someone stands over your shoulder long enough to actually read and comprehend what is on the screen, then it is no more eye catching than any other text based webpage that you might be on.  if they recognize it as reddit and do not have a problem with you being on reddit at work, the odds are low that seeing  fuck  on the screen is going to be what crosses the line into  inappropriate use of company resources.   normally this would simply be an annoyance, but many of us use the res nsfw filter for just this purpose, and as a result do not see a high number of text posts that got flagged as nsfw because someone asked a question that might result in someone saying  sex.   so cmv.  convince me that there really is text on here worth guarding from view at work.   #  a text post, on the other hand, just looks like reddit.   #  unless someone stands over your shoulder long enough to actually read and comprehend what is on the screen, then it is no more eye catching than any other text based webpage that you might be on.   # unless someone stands over your shoulder long enough to actually read and comprehend what is on the screen, then it is no more eye catching than any other text based webpage that you might be on.  here is a post.  URL fortunately, on my screen right here, it is  relatively  small.  however:   some screens are smaller than others, so some text is bigger.  i might have the text zoomed to make it easier to read.  i can still see  cum inside her ass  easily from a few feet behind my chair.  if someone was even  mildly  curious about what was on my screen, language like that kind of jumps out at you.  if anyone is  at all  curious what you are doing which should not be a problem, as you are at work your only option is to close the tab, which makes it kind of obvious what you are doing.  it shows up in your browser history, especially if you actually open it.  if i hit ctrl t and start searching for  analysis , by the time i have typed  anal , this is a suggestion.  borrowing someone is computer is not  that  uncommon at work, and there is a fair chance they will stumble on something like that.  incognito mode avoids that, but it also  is  obvious from across the room.  unless you are a web developer, there are not that many good reasons to use it at work.  neither incognito nor clearing history protect you from network proxies.  even if the admin does not outright block reddit, every url you visit will be in a log somewhere.  it is not always obvious, without the nsfw tag, whether a particular link leads to somewhere nsfw.  the nsfw tag avoids pretty much all of the above, and definitely all if that res filter is applied.  so, regarding your point:   an image requires only a glance to get you in trouble.  if someone walks into your office.  not every workplace has offices.  there are plenty of good reasons to walk past someone at just behind shoulder length.  and since it is assumed you are working, there is really no good reason someone would not peek at what you are doing.  no, but there is a somewhat wider gap between  on reddit conducting research , or even  on reddit representing your company , and  on reddit reading about anal sex.   it is not necessarily the word  fuck  that makes it nsfw.  sounds like a bug in res.  there should be an option to filter nsfw images and especially thumbnails , but not text posts.  in other words,  your  problem is solvable.  but even if that were not the case, i think someone else is right to not get fired should trump your right to read the word  fuck  at work.   #  if you really think about it,  all  of reddit is not safe for work.   #  also, nsfw does not have to be taken literally, it is just the predominant convention for this type of thing.  to me, nsfw should primarily mean content that contains nudity, but also gore/disturbing images, perhaps drug use or swearing.  basically, if it ca not be shown on tv.  if you really think about it,  all  of reddit is not safe for work.  some parts of it are just more  nsfw  than others.   #  if the person making the submission can guess that nsfw comments might be posted, then generally everyone else can too.   #  to me where the issue comes in is that many times the nsfw is used in areas like askreddit where they believe that comments could potentially be nsfw even if the title is not nsfw.  if the person making the submission can guess that nsfw comments might be posted, then generally everyone else can too.  for example this is a topic near the top on that subreddit right now that is marked as nsfw  what is something your parents will never find out about you ? i can appreciate that some text posts with submission titles that are nsfw are marked as such because the site will filter them out if the person has it checked in their settings.  this may allow people to get away with looking at the front page and have it be free of any titles that may be nsfw which makes it safer for them to browse reddit.  however if you look at the example i showed, there is nothing really nsfw about that title, its probably more benign than many others.  it does not really help anyone to mark that topic as nsfw.  it just draws extra attention to it and misleads people into thinking its something more than what it is, which is probably why people dislike nsfw being applied unnecessarily.  for the most part, if the submission title/description is not nsfw then it should not be marked as such, it does not matter what comments may end up being posted there.  each comment should be responsible for marking theirs as nsfw at that point.   #  i dare you to look at the previous sentence and then somehow  not  read the words.   # alright, i agree.  not so much here.  what if it is something i would not want someone at work to oversee ? we ca not help but read words when we see them.  just try it ! i dare you to look at the previous sentence and then somehow  not  read the words.  all it takes is a second for your brain to recognize the symbols f, u, c, and k and contextualize them into  fuck  and if your boss would have a problem looking at that then anything with that word is literally not safe for work.  so sure, we process imagines faster than text.  but we process text pretty darn quickly, and some things will stand out to us if we are primed for them ahead of time like glancing over your employee is shoulder to see if they are doing anything inappropriate .  so while they may not read the entire sentence at a glance, their brain is on the lookout for inappropriate words.   #  having the nsfw tag quickly gives you more information about what you would be reading.   #  for a large number of people reading erotic stories is not considered appropriate work material.  even on a coffee break or lunch period.  i think it is extremely appropriate to label these as nsfw even if it is simply text.  it gives me the opportunity to decide whether i want to read it or not.  even if you think it is unnecessary what is wrong with having more information at your disposal ? having the nsfw tag quickly gives you more information about what you would be reading.  why is that a problem ? it does not slow you down any.
if we go back to the actual meaning of nsfw not safe for work , the idea is clearly that you do not want something on your screen that someone at work could oversee.  i believe that this applies really only to images, and that it is not necessary for text posts.  an image requires only a glance to get you in trouble.  if someone walks into your office, or can see over your shoulder from across the room, an image on your screen of someone is intestines hanging out or some topless lady is something they are going to recognize and possibly get you in trouble for.  a text post, on the other hand, just looks like reddit.  unless someone stands over your shoulder long enough to actually read and comprehend what is on the screen, then it is no more eye catching than any other text based webpage that you might be on.  if they recognize it as reddit and do not have a problem with you being on reddit at work, the odds are low that seeing  fuck  on the screen is going to be what crosses the line into  inappropriate use of company resources.   normally this would simply be an annoyance, but many of us use the res nsfw filter for just this purpose, and as a result do not see a high number of text posts that got flagged as nsfw because someone asked a question that might result in someone saying  sex.   so cmv.  convince me that there really is text on here worth guarding from view at work.   #  if they recognize it as reddit and do not have a problem with you being on reddit at work, the odds are low that seeing  fuck  on the screen is going to be what crosses the line into  inappropriate use of company resources.    #  no, but there is a somewhat wider gap between  on reddit conducting research , or even  on reddit representing your company , and  on reddit reading about anal sex.    # unless someone stands over your shoulder long enough to actually read and comprehend what is on the screen, then it is no more eye catching than any other text based webpage that you might be on.  here is a post.  URL fortunately, on my screen right here, it is  relatively  small.  however:   some screens are smaller than others, so some text is bigger.  i might have the text zoomed to make it easier to read.  i can still see  cum inside her ass  easily from a few feet behind my chair.  if someone was even  mildly  curious about what was on my screen, language like that kind of jumps out at you.  if anyone is  at all  curious what you are doing which should not be a problem, as you are at work your only option is to close the tab, which makes it kind of obvious what you are doing.  it shows up in your browser history, especially if you actually open it.  if i hit ctrl t and start searching for  analysis , by the time i have typed  anal , this is a suggestion.  borrowing someone is computer is not  that  uncommon at work, and there is a fair chance they will stumble on something like that.  incognito mode avoids that, but it also  is  obvious from across the room.  unless you are a web developer, there are not that many good reasons to use it at work.  neither incognito nor clearing history protect you from network proxies.  even if the admin does not outright block reddit, every url you visit will be in a log somewhere.  it is not always obvious, without the nsfw tag, whether a particular link leads to somewhere nsfw.  the nsfw tag avoids pretty much all of the above, and definitely all if that res filter is applied.  so, regarding your point:   an image requires only a glance to get you in trouble.  if someone walks into your office.  not every workplace has offices.  there are plenty of good reasons to walk past someone at just behind shoulder length.  and since it is assumed you are working, there is really no good reason someone would not peek at what you are doing.  no, but there is a somewhat wider gap between  on reddit conducting research , or even  on reddit representing your company , and  on reddit reading about anal sex.   it is not necessarily the word  fuck  that makes it nsfw.  sounds like a bug in res.  there should be an option to filter nsfw images and especially thumbnails , but not text posts.  in other words,  your  problem is solvable.  but even if that were not the case, i think someone else is right to not get fired should trump your right to read the word  fuck  at work.   #  some parts of it are just more  nsfw  than others.   #  also, nsfw does not have to be taken literally, it is just the predominant convention for this type of thing.  to me, nsfw should primarily mean content that contains nudity, but also gore/disturbing images, perhaps drug use or swearing.  basically, if it ca not be shown on tv.  if you really think about it,  all  of reddit is not safe for work.  some parts of it are just more  nsfw  than others.   #  i can appreciate that some text posts with submission titles that are nsfw are marked as such because the site will filter them out if the person has it checked in their settings.   #  to me where the issue comes in is that many times the nsfw is used in areas like askreddit where they believe that comments could potentially be nsfw even if the title is not nsfw.  if the person making the submission can guess that nsfw comments might be posted, then generally everyone else can too.  for example this is a topic near the top on that subreddit right now that is marked as nsfw  what is something your parents will never find out about you ? i can appreciate that some text posts with submission titles that are nsfw are marked as such because the site will filter them out if the person has it checked in their settings.  this may allow people to get away with looking at the front page and have it be free of any titles that may be nsfw which makes it safer for them to browse reddit.  however if you look at the example i showed, there is nothing really nsfw about that title, its probably more benign than many others.  it does not really help anyone to mark that topic as nsfw.  it just draws extra attention to it and misleads people into thinking its something more than what it is, which is probably why people dislike nsfw being applied unnecessarily.  for the most part, if the submission title/description is not nsfw then it should not be marked as such, it does not matter what comments may end up being posted there.  each comment should be responsible for marking theirs as nsfw at that point.   #  so while they may not read the entire sentence at a glance, their brain is on the lookout for inappropriate words.   # alright, i agree.  not so much here.  what if it is something i would not want someone at work to oversee ? we ca not help but read words when we see them.  just try it ! i dare you to look at the previous sentence and then somehow  not  read the words.  all it takes is a second for your brain to recognize the symbols f, u, c, and k and contextualize them into  fuck  and if your boss would have a problem looking at that then anything with that word is literally not safe for work.  so sure, we process imagines faster than text.  but we process text pretty darn quickly, and some things will stand out to us if we are primed for them ahead of time like glancing over your employee is shoulder to see if they are doing anything inappropriate .  so while they may not read the entire sentence at a glance, their brain is on the lookout for inappropriate words.   #  even if you think it is unnecessary what is wrong with having more information at your disposal ?  #  for a large number of people reading erotic stories is not considered appropriate work material.  even on a coffee break or lunch period.  i think it is extremely appropriate to label these as nsfw even if it is simply text.  it gives me the opportunity to decide whether i want to read it or not.  even if you think it is unnecessary what is wrong with having more information at your disposal ? having the nsfw tag quickly gives you more information about what you would be reading.  why is that a problem ? it does not slow you down any.
there are numerous instances where expressions like this are so laughably wrong that it makes me sad that.  there are some times when it is true, namely healthcare and a sexually more liberal culture.  however, most of the time i hear claims that make it obvious to me that people have never been to europe and are merely regurgitating what other people tell them.  i am no expert on european culture, but i have spent quite a bit of time in various european countries.  by list i have been to every western european country with the exception of spain and portugal, though i have had quite a few spanish friends.  i lived in switzerland for 0 months, have spent over a month in france and italy, as well as visited all countries on the baltic sea.  again, i am no expert, but i have let enough people from enough countries, and asked them enough questions about their culture to see that a lot of conceptions are false.  here are a few europeans hate americans.  i have never once found this to be the case.  i have gone out of my way to ask friends from those countries if this was true and all seemed shocked that this stereotype existed.  even the french who have a reputation for being snooty are surprisingly nice if you just attempt to speak french though if you do not try the stereotype holds true .  in general i actually find quite the opposite, that they love americans.  i even met one italian man who is dream was to move to america and buy a harley davidson.  europe is so much more tolerant and open minded than us.  toward black people, sure.  towards gays ? maybe, depends on the country.  towards muslims, gypsies, and occassionally other european countries ? yeah, no.  just google france and gypsies and tell me how that goes.  europe does not have gun crime because they are so strict on their gun control.  literally the opposite is true in every country except england.  most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime.  gun culture is simply very different there.  they do not have rednecks who are like yehaw let is get dem guns ! but they also do not have nearly the amount of people saying guns are evil and nobody should have them.  dat socialism tho, making them economic gains.  have you ever looked at international news ? like at all ? bro, luxembourg and switzerland and like rolling in it.  yeah, they are also some of the smallest countries in the world, with low populations, and niche economy drivers like banking.  sure, germany and england are also doing very well, and are pretty socialist.  i am not trying to say socialism ca not work.  but the recession was, which most people ignore, global, and europe was hit the hardest.  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.  even outside of the recession, they have a comparable standard of living to the us.  it is not vastly superior.  in my experience it is rather lagging in the tech department.  they are unemployment rate and homelessness levels are so low ! unemployment, see last point.  homelessness, try being homeless in a country where if you are homeless you have to live through fucking cold high mountain winters.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  i ca not think of any more right now, but if you can think of some common conceptions of european culture, feel free to bring it up and back it up.  what do you guys think about europe ? do you see it as some utopia like others seem to ?  #  homelessness, try being homeless in a country where if you are homeless you have to live through fucking cold high mountain winters.   #  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.   #  i think a big driver behind your view is that many us americans are brought up to think their country is the best, and not thinking so is antipatriotic and therefore a second class citizen.  then you bring up some comparison between us and eu and emotions start coming upm so the argument ceases to be rational because it is not comparing country results, it is attacking a personal identity.  i lived in eu for a while and you see many people criticizing their own country, either disappointed, pragmatic or affectionately wishing it was better.  so if you tell an average british citizen that the us is a much better place for a business startup he might shrug and agree.  tell a us american that uk has a much better murder rate and it is likely a few will counterattack somehow.  let is see if your conclusions are sound or just personal perceptions filtered by a love for your country.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  really ? uk is quite cold and has . 0 of the population homeless, one of the worst in eu, compared with italy . 0, spain . 0 and germany . 0.  note that two of those countries are quite warm.  us has . 0, worse than all of those.  source: population URL and homelessness URL   most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime nothing even remotely like us, the highest are switzerland and norway and i think you know the story behind them: switzerland has a load of mandatory rifles handed out as part of a  well regulated militia , and norway has a lot of hunting and sport shooting, and also one of the highest murder rates in europe still low compared to us.  google france and anything and you might see that the problem is not europe nor the gypsies.  it is understandable europe has a diversity tolerance you wo not find in us, any european is exposed to several languages, several currencies until recently , traditions, customs, colours and cultures.  for the us american not in la, new york, miami or similar place it is much less often.  go to any country with low cultural exchange and you will see the same.  a problem us has that others do not is to be able to leave behind racial segregation and integrate, something that happened well in eu after two world wars.  i am at a loss why this is the problem.  i think both places have pros and cons, but to deny this and thing it is  all a big draw  is dishonest.   #  basically, comparing a french and american, they might have comparable standards of living, true, but the french does not need to worry about bankruptcy for a broken limb or health condition.   # you should add  depending on the country , but that holds true for a large part of western europe.  however, there is a number of important differences like vacation time, maternity leave and universal healthcare.  basically, comparing a french and american, they might have comparable standards of living, true, but the french does not need to worry about bankruptcy for a broken limb or health condition.  he also has more vacation time, meaning he works less for comparable standard of living.  all in all, i would say he is better off.   #  i am sure he is using one of the social indicator based comparisons but in real standard of living ie median pc buying power the us leads the world by an absurdly large margin.   # i am sure he is using one of the social indicator based comparisons but in real standard of living ie median pc buying power the us leads the world by an absurdly large margin.  certainly one can argue we should include social indicators but weighting them is so subjective as to render the analysis useless, what relative weights would you attach to vacation time vs freedom of speech and would you expect your neighbor to attach the same weights ? the reason why fixing the very broken healthcare system is so challenging is that even though it is so broken it still works very well for the majority of people.  medical related issues are the leading cause of bankruptcy in france just as they are in nearly all advanced economies, this is not a uniquely american issue.  as discussed factored in to the numbers already.  a curiosity of this is how working time and pay have changed over the last several decades, americans always choose higher pay over working less where citizens from other countries tend to choose more time off.   #  though those that are doing well in france may have it better as far as healthcare goes, the overall economic climate is a lot worse off.   #  true but you are not taking into account the effect that guy who has it better is having on the rest of the country.  unemployment benefits are too lavish in france, and many people simply choose not to work.  take it a step further, unemployment is very high there.  unemployment only counts those looking for a job, not the total population without a job.  though those that are doing well in france may have it better as far as healthcare goes, the overall economic climate is a lot worse off.  in addition, though the guy in the us has inferior medical availability, he is taxed a lot less and therefore has more freedom with how he spends his money.  does that make up for it ? i do not think anyone can say, but it is worth considering.   #  and not everybody can keep those two separate.   #  here are your points from a european point of view:   europeans hate americans.  you are right.  although there is quite some disgust for american politics though.  and not everybody can keep those two separate.  yeah, no.  you are right again.  it is a shame.  in europe there is a rise of far right sentiment.  they use much of the same reasons as the tea party in america.  depends on your situation.  if you are poor, i think it is better to live in europe.  if you are rich or entrepreneurial, maybe america is more your thing.  i do not think this is the entire truth, but i have no numbers to back me up.  better accessible mental healthcare brings homelessness down.  also socialism usually takes better care of the homeless.
there are numerous instances where expressions like this are so laughably wrong that it makes me sad that.  there are some times when it is true, namely healthcare and a sexually more liberal culture.  however, most of the time i hear claims that make it obvious to me that people have never been to europe and are merely regurgitating what other people tell them.  i am no expert on european culture, but i have spent quite a bit of time in various european countries.  by list i have been to every western european country with the exception of spain and portugal, though i have had quite a few spanish friends.  i lived in switzerland for 0 months, have spent over a month in france and italy, as well as visited all countries on the baltic sea.  again, i am no expert, but i have let enough people from enough countries, and asked them enough questions about their culture to see that a lot of conceptions are false.  here are a few europeans hate americans.  i have never once found this to be the case.  i have gone out of my way to ask friends from those countries if this was true and all seemed shocked that this stereotype existed.  even the french who have a reputation for being snooty are surprisingly nice if you just attempt to speak french though if you do not try the stereotype holds true .  in general i actually find quite the opposite, that they love americans.  i even met one italian man who is dream was to move to america and buy a harley davidson.  europe is so much more tolerant and open minded than us.  toward black people, sure.  towards gays ? maybe, depends on the country.  towards muslims, gypsies, and occassionally other european countries ? yeah, no.  just google france and gypsies and tell me how that goes.  europe does not have gun crime because they are so strict on their gun control.  literally the opposite is true in every country except england.  most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime.  gun culture is simply very different there.  they do not have rednecks who are like yehaw let is get dem guns ! but they also do not have nearly the amount of people saying guns are evil and nobody should have them.  dat socialism tho, making them economic gains.  have you ever looked at international news ? like at all ? bro, luxembourg and switzerland and like rolling in it.  yeah, they are also some of the smallest countries in the world, with low populations, and niche economy drivers like banking.  sure, germany and england are also doing very well, and are pretty socialist.  i am not trying to say socialism ca not work.  but the recession was, which most people ignore, global, and europe was hit the hardest.  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.  even outside of the recession, they have a comparable standard of living to the us.  it is not vastly superior.  in my experience it is rather lagging in the tech department.  they are unemployment rate and homelessness levels are so low ! unemployment, see last point.  homelessness, try being homeless in a country where if you are homeless you have to live through fucking cold high mountain winters.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  i ca not think of any more right now, but if you can think of some common conceptions of european culture, feel free to bring it up and back it up.  what do you guys think about europe ? do you see it as some utopia like others seem to ?  #  just google france and gypsies and tell me how that goes.   #  google france and anything and you might see that the problem is not europe nor the gypsies.   #  i think a big driver behind your view is that many us americans are brought up to think their country is the best, and not thinking so is antipatriotic and therefore a second class citizen.  then you bring up some comparison between us and eu and emotions start coming upm so the argument ceases to be rational because it is not comparing country results, it is attacking a personal identity.  i lived in eu for a while and you see many people criticizing their own country, either disappointed, pragmatic or affectionately wishing it was better.  so if you tell an average british citizen that the us is a much better place for a business startup he might shrug and agree.  tell a us american that uk has a much better murder rate and it is likely a few will counterattack somehow.  let is see if your conclusions are sound or just personal perceptions filtered by a love for your country.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  really ? uk is quite cold and has . 0 of the population homeless, one of the worst in eu, compared with italy . 0, spain . 0 and germany . 0.  note that two of those countries are quite warm.  us has . 0, worse than all of those.  source: population URL and homelessness URL   most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime nothing even remotely like us, the highest are switzerland and norway and i think you know the story behind them: switzerland has a load of mandatory rifles handed out as part of a  well regulated militia , and norway has a lot of hunting and sport shooting, and also one of the highest murder rates in europe still low compared to us.  google france and anything and you might see that the problem is not europe nor the gypsies.  it is understandable europe has a diversity tolerance you wo not find in us, any european is exposed to several languages, several currencies until recently , traditions, customs, colours and cultures.  for the us american not in la, new york, miami or similar place it is much less often.  go to any country with low cultural exchange and you will see the same.  a problem us has that others do not is to be able to leave behind racial segregation and integrate, something that happened well in eu after two world wars.  i am at a loss why this is the problem.  i think both places have pros and cons, but to deny this and thing it is  all a big draw  is dishonest.   #  basically, comparing a french and american, they might have comparable standards of living, true, but the french does not need to worry about bankruptcy for a broken limb or health condition.   # you should add  depending on the country , but that holds true for a large part of western europe.  however, there is a number of important differences like vacation time, maternity leave and universal healthcare.  basically, comparing a french and american, they might have comparable standards of living, true, but the french does not need to worry about bankruptcy for a broken limb or health condition.  he also has more vacation time, meaning he works less for comparable standard of living.  all in all, i would say he is better off.   #  the reason why fixing the very broken healthcare system is so challenging is that even though it is so broken it still works very well for the majority of people.   # i am sure he is using one of the social indicator based comparisons but in real standard of living ie median pc buying power the us leads the world by an absurdly large margin.  certainly one can argue we should include social indicators but weighting them is so subjective as to render the analysis useless, what relative weights would you attach to vacation time vs freedom of speech and would you expect your neighbor to attach the same weights ? the reason why fixing the very broken healthcare system is so challenging is that even though it is so broken it still works very well for the majority of people.  medical related issues are the leading cause of bankruptcy in france just as they are in nearly all advanced economies, this is not a uniquely american issue.  as discussed factored in to the numbers already.  a curiosity of this is how working time and pay have changed over the last several decades, americans always choose higher pay over working less where citizens from other countries tend to choose more time off.   #  true but you are not taking into account the effect that guy who has it better is having on the rest of the country.   #  true but you are not taking into account the effect that guy who has it better is having on the rest of the country.  unemployment benefits are too lavish in france, and many people simply choose not to work.  take it a step further, unemployment is very high there.  unemployment only counts those looking for a job, not the total population without a job.  though those that are doing well in france may have it better as far as healthcare goes, the overall economic climate is a lot worse off.  in addition, though the guy in the us has inferior medical availability, he is taxed a lot less and therefore has more freedom with how he spends his money.  does that make up for it ? i do not think anyone can say, but it is worth considering.   #  if you are rich or entrepreneurial, maybe america is more your thing.   #  here are your points from a european point of view:   europeans hate americans.  you are right.  although there is quite some disgust for american politics though.  and not everybody can keep those two separate.  yeah, no.  you are right again.  it is a shame.  in europe there is a rise of far right sentiment.  they use much of the same reasons as the tea party in america.  depends on your situation.  if you are poor, i think it is better to live in europe.  if you are rich or entrepreneurial, maybe america is more your thing.  i do not think this is the entire truth, but i have no numbers to back me up.  better accessible mental healthcare brings homelessness down.  also socialism usually takes better care of the homeless.
there are numerous instances where expressions like this are so laughably wrong that it makes me sad that.  there are some times when it is true, namely healthcare and a sexually more liberal culture.  however, most of the time i hear claims that make it obvious to me that people have never been to europe and are merely regurgitating what other people tell them.  i am no expert on european culture, but i have spent quite a bit of time in various european countries.  by list i have been to every western european country with the exception of spain and portugal, though i have had quite a few spanish friends.  i lived in switzerland for 0 months, have spent over a month in france and italy, as well as visited all countries on the baltic sea.  again, i am no expert, but i have let enough people from enough countries, and asked them enough questions about their culture to see that a lot of conceptions are false.  here are a few europeans hate americans.  i have never once found this to be the case.  i have gone out of my way to ask friends from those countries if this was true and all seemed shocked that this stereotype existed.  even the french who have a reputation for being snooty are surprisingly nice if you just attempt to speak french though if you do not try the stereotype holds true .  in general i actually find quite the opposite, that they love americans.  i even met one italian man who is dream was to move to america and buy a harley davidson.  europe is so much more tolerant and open minded than us.  toward black people, sure.  towards gays ? maybe, depends on the country.  towards muslims, gypsies, and occassionally other european countries ? yeah, no.  just google france and gypsies and tell me how that goes.  europe does not have gun crime because they are so strict on their gun control.  literally the opposite is true in every country except england.  most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime.  gun culture is simply very different there.  they do not have rednecks who are like yehaw let is get dem guns ! but they also do not have nearly the amount of people saying guns are evil and nobody should have them.  dat socialism tho, making them economic gains.  have you ever looked at international news ? like at all ? bro, luxembourg and switzerland and like rolling in it.  yeah, they are also some of the smallest countries in the world, with low populations, and niche economy drivers like banking.  sure, germany and england are also doing very well, and are pretty socialist.  i am not trying to say socialism ca not work.  but the recession was, which most people ignore, global, and europe was hit the hardest.  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.  even outside of the recession, they have a comparable standard of living to the us.  it is not vastly superior.  in my experience it is rather lagging in the tech department.  they are unemployment rate and homelessness levels are so low ! unemployment, see last point.  homelessness, try being homeless in a country where if you are homeless you have to live through fucking cold high mountain winters.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  i ca not think of any more right now, but if you can think of some common conceptions of european culture, feel free to bring it up and back it up.  what do you guys think about europe ? do you see it as some utopia like others seem to ?  #  even outside of the recession, they have a comparable standard of living to the us.   #  you should add  depending on the country , but that holds true for a large part of western europe.   # you should add  depending on the country , but that holds true for a large part of western europe.  however, there is a number of important differences like vacation time, maternity leave and universal healthcare.  basically, comparing a french and american, they might have comparable standards of living, true, but the french does not need to worry about bankruptcy for a broken limb or health condition.  he also has more vacation time, meaning he works less for comparable standard of living.  all in all, i would say he is better off.   #  uk is quite cold and has . 0 of the population homeless, one of the worst in eu, compared with italy . 0, spain . 0 and germany . 0.   #  i think a big driver behind your view is that many us americans are brought up to think their country is the best, and not thinking so is antipatriotic and therefore a second class citizen.  then you bring up some comparison between us and eu and emotions start coming upm so the argument ceases to be rational because it is not comparing country results, it is attacking a personal identity.  i lived in eu for a while and you see many people criticizing their own country, either disappointed, pragmatic or affectionately wishing it was better.  so if you tell an average british citizen that the us is a much better place for a business startup he might shrug and agree.  tell a us american that uk has a much better murder rate and it is likely a few will counterattack somehow.  let is see if your conclusions are sound or just personal perceptions filtered by a love for your country.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  really ? uk is quite cold and has . 0 of the population homeless, one of the worst in eu, compared with italy . 0, spain . 0 and germany . 0.  note that two of those countries are quite warm.  us has . 0, worse than all of those.  source: population URL and homelessness URL   most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime nothing even remotely like us, the highest are switzerland and norway and i think you know the story behind them: switzerland has a load of mandatory rifles handed out as part of a  well regulated militia , and norway has a lot of hunting and sport shooting, and also one of the highest murder rates in europe still low compared to us.  google france and anything and you might see that the problem is not europe nor the gypsies.  it is understandable europe has a diversity tolerance you wo not find in us, any european is exposed to several languages, several currencies until recently , traditions, customs, colours and cultures.  for the us american not in la, new york, miami or similar place it is much less often.  go to any country with low cultural exchange and you will see the same.  a problem us has that others do not is to be able to leave behind racial segregation and integrate, something that happened well in eu after two world wars.  i am at a loss why this is the problem.  i think both places have pros and cons, but to deny this and thing it is  all a big draw  is dishonest.   #  the reason why fixing the very broken healthcare system is so challenging is that even though it is so broken it still works very well for the majority of people.   # i am sure he is using one of the social indicator based comparisons but in real standard of living ie median pc buying power the us leads the world by an absurdly large margin.  certainly one can argue we should include social indicators but weighting them is so subjective as to render the analysis useless, what relative weights would you attach to vacation time vs freedom of speech and would you expect your neighbor to attach the same weights ? the reason why fixing the very broken healthcare system is so challenging is that even though it is so broken it still works very well for the majority of people.  medical related issues are the leading cause of bankruptcy in france just as they are in nearly all advanced economies, this is not a uniquely american issue.  as discussed factored in to the numbers already.  a curiosity of this is how working time and pay have changed over the last several decades, americans always choose higher pay over working less where citizens from other countries tend to choose more time off.   #  take it a step further, unemployment is very high there.   #  true but you are not taking into account the effect that guy who has it better is having on the rest of the country.  unemployment benefits are too lavish in france, and many people simply choose not to work.  take it a step further, unemployment is very high there.  unemployment only counts those looking for a job, not the total population without a job.  though those that are doing well in france may have it better as far as healthcare goes, the overall economic climate is a lot worse off.  in addition, though the guy in the us has inferior medical availability, he is taxed a lot less and therefore has more freedom with how he spends his money.  does that make up for it ? i do not think anyone can say, but it is worth considering.   #  if you are rich or entrepreneurial, maybe america is more your thing.   #  here are your points from a european point of view:   europeans hate americans.  you are right.  although there is quite some disgust for american politics though.  and not everybody can keep those two separate.  yeah, no.  you are right again.  it is a shame.  in europe there is a rise of far right sentiment.  they use much of the same reasons as the tea party in america.  depends on your situation.  if you are poor, i think it is better to live in europe.  if you are rich or entrepreneurial, maybe america is more your thing.  i do not think this is the entire truth, but i have no numbers to back me up.  better accessible mental healthcare brings homelessness down.  also socialism usually takes better care of the homeless.
there are numerous instances where expressions like this are so laughably wrong that it makes me sad that.  there are some times when it is true, namely healthcare and a sexually more liberal culture.  however, most of the time i hear claims that make it obvious to me that people have never been to europe and are merely regurgitating what other people tell them.  i am no expert on european culture, but i have spent quite a bit of time in various european countries.  by list i have been to every western european country with the exception of spain and portugal, though i have had quite a few spanish friends.  i lived in switzerland for 0 months, have spent over a month in france and italy, as well as visited all countries on the baltic sea.  again, i am no expert, but i have let enough people from enough countries, and asked them enough questions about their culture to see that a lot of conceptions are false.  here are a few europeans hate americans.  i have never once found this to be the case.  i have gone out of my way to ask friends from those countries if this was true and all seemed shocked that this stereotype existed.  even the french who have a reputation for being snooty are surprisingly nice if you just attempt to speak french though if you do not try the stereotype holds true .  in general i actually find quite the opposite, that they love americans.  i even met one italian man who is dream was to move to america and buy a harley davidson.  europe is so much more tolerant and open minded than us.  toward black people, sure.  towards gays ? maybe, depends on the country.  towards muslims, gypsies, and occassionally other european countries ? yeah, no.  just google france and gypsies and tell me how that goes.  europe does not have gun crime because they are so strict on their gun control.  literally the opposite is true in every country except england.  most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime.  gun culture is simply very different there.  they do not have rednecks who are like yehaw let is get dem guns ! but they also do not have nearly the amount of people saying guns are evil and nobody should have them.  dat socialism tho, making them economic gains.  have you ever looked at international news ? like at all ? bro, luxembourg and switzerland and like rolling in it.  yeah, they are also some of the smallest countries in the world, with low populations, and niche economy drivers like banking.  sure, germany and england are also doing very well, and are pretty socialist.  i am not trying to say socialism ca not work.  but the recession was, which most people ignore, global, and europe was hit the hardest.  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.  even outside of the recession, they have a comparable standard of living to the us.  it is not vastly superior.  in my experience it is rather lagging in the tech department.  they are unemployment rate and homelessness levels are so low ! unemployment, see last point.  homelessness, try being homeless in a country where if you are homeless you have to live through fucking cold high mountain winters.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  i ca not think of any more right now, but if you can think of some common conceptions of european culture, feel free to bring it up and back it up.  what do you guys think about europe ? do you see it as some utopia like others seem to ?  #  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.   #  i do not think this is the entire truth, but i have no numbers to back me up.   #  here are your points from a european point of view:   europeans hate americans.  you are right.  although there is quite some disgust for american politics though.  and not everybody can keep those two separate.  yeah, no.  you are right again.  it is a shame.  in europe there is a rise of far right sentiment.  they use much of the same reasons as the tea party in america.  depends on your situation.  if you are poor, i think it is better to live in europe.  if you are rich or entrepreneurial, maybe america is more your thing.  i do not think this is the entire truth, but i have no numbers to back me up.  better accessible mental healthcare brings homelessness down.  also socialism usually takes better care of the homeless.   #  so if you tell an average british citizen that the us is a much better place for a business startup he might shrug and agree.   #  i think a big driver behind your view is that many us americans are brought up to think their country is the best, and not thinking so is antipatriotic and therefore a second class citizen.  then you bring up some comparison between us and eu and emotions start coming upm so the argument ceases to be rational because it is not comparing country results, it is attacking a personal identity.  i lived in eu for a while and you see many people criticizing their own country, either disappointed, pragmatic or affectionately wishing it was better.  so if you tell an average british citizen that the us is a much better place for a business startup he might shrug and agree.  tell a us american that uk has a much better murder rate and it is likely a few will counterattack somehow.  let is see if your conclusions are sound or just personal perceptions filtered by a love for your country.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  really ? uk is quite cold and has . 0 of the population homeless, one of the worst in eu, compared with italy . 0, spain . 0 and germany . 0.  note that two of those countries are quite warm.  us has . 0, worse than all of those.  source: population URL and homelessness URL   most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime nothing even remotely like us, the highest are switzerland and norway and i think you know the story behind them: switzerland has a load of mandatory rifles handed out as part of a  well regulated militia , and norway has a lot of hunting and sport shooting, and also one of the highest murder rates in europe still low compared to us.  google france and anything and you might see that the problem is not europe nor the gypsies.  it is understandable europe has a diversity tolerance you wo not find in us, any european is exposed to several languages, several currencies until recently , traditions, customs, colours and cultures.  for the us american not in la, new york, miami or similar place it is much less often.  go to any country with low cultural exchange and you will see the same.  a problem us has that others do not is to be able to leave behind racial segregation and integrate, something that happened well in eu after two world wars.  i am at a loss why this is the problem.  i think both places have pros and cons, but to deny this and thing it is  all a big draw  is dishonest.   #  he also has more vacation time, meaning he works less for comparable standard of living.   # you should add  depending on the country , but that holds true for a large part of western europe.  however, there is a number of important differences like vacation time, maternity leave and universal healthcare.  basically, comparing a french and american, they might have comparable standards of living, true, but the french does not need to worry about bankruptcy for a broken limb or health condition.  he also has more vacation time, meaning he works less for comparable standard of living.  all in all, i would say he is better off.   #  as discussed factored in to the numbers already.   # i am sure he is using one of the social indicator based comparisons but in real standard of living ie median pc buying power the us leads the world by an absurdly large margin.  certainly one can argue we should include social indicators but weighting them is so subjective as to render the analysis useless, what relative weights would you attach to vacation time vs freedom of speech and would you expect your neighbor to attach the same weights ? the reason why fixing the very broken healthcare system is so challenging is that even though it is so broken it still works very well for the majority of people.  medical related issues are the leading cause of bankruptcy in france just as they are in nearly all advanced economies, this is not a uniquely american issue.  as discussed factored in to the numbers already.  a curiosity of this is how working time and pay have changed over the last several decades, americans always choose higher pay over working less where citizens from other countries tend to choose more time off.   #  true but you are not taking into account the effect that guy who has it better is having on the rest of the country.   #  true but you are not taking into account the effect that guy who has it better is having on the rest of the country.  unemployment benefits are too lavish in france, and many people simply choose not to work.  take it a step further, unemployment is very high there.  unemployment only counts those looking for a job, not the total population without a job.  though those that are doing well in france may have it better as far as healthcare goes, the overall economic climate is a lot worse off.  in addition, though the guy in the us has inferior medical availability, he is taxed a lot less and therefore has more freedom with how he spends his money.  does that make up for it ? i do not think anyone can say, but it is worth considering.
there are numerous instances where expressions like this are so laughably wrong that it makes me sad that.  there are some times when it is true, namely healthcare and a sexually more liberal culture.  however, most of the time i hear claims that make it obvious to me that people have never been to europe and are merely regurgitating what other people tell them.  i am no expert on european culture, but i have spent quite a bit of time in various european countries.  by list i have been to every western european country with the exception of spain and portugal, though i have had quite a few spanish friends.  i lived in switzerland for 0 months, have spent over a month in france and italy, as well as visited all countries on the baltic sea.  again, i am no expert, but i have let enough people from enough countries, and asked them enough questions about their culture to see that a lot of conceptions are false.  here are a few europeans hate americans.  i have never once found this to be the case.  i have gone out of my way to ask friends from those countries if this was true and all seemed shocked that this stereotype existed.  even the french who have a reputation for being snooty are surprisingly nice if you just attempt to speak french though if you do not try the stereotype holds true .  in general i actually find quite the opposite, that they love americans.  i even met one italian man who is dream was to move to america and buy a harley davidson.  europe is so much more tolerant and open minded than us.  toward black people, sure.  towards gays ? maybe, depends on the country.  towards muslims, gypsies, and occassionally other european countries ? yeah, no.  just google france and gypsies and tell me how that goes.  europe does not have gun crime because they are so strict on their gun control.  literally the opposite is true in every country except england.  most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime.  gun culture is simply very different there.  they do not have rednecks who are like yehaw let is get dem guns ! but they also do not have nearly the amount of people saying guns are evil and nobody should have them.  dat socialism tho, making them economic gains.  have you ever looked at international news ? like at all ? bro, luxembourg and switzerland and like rolling in it.  yeah, they are also some of the smallest countries in the world, with low populations, and niche economy drivers like banking.  sure, germany and england are also doing very well, and are pretty socialist.  i am not trying to say socialism ca not work.  but the recession was, which most people ignore, global, and europe was hit the hardest.  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.  even outside of the recession, they have a comparable standard of living to the us.  it is not vastly superior.  in my experience it is rather lagging in the tech department.  they are unemployment rate and homelessness levels are so low ! unemployment, see last point.  homelessness, try being homeless in a country where if you are homeless you have to live through fucking cold high mountain winters.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  i ca not think of any more right now, but if you can think of some common conceptions of european culture, feel free to bring it up and back it up.  what do you guys think about europe ? do you see it as some utopia like others seem to ?  #  i am not trying to say socialism ca not work.   #  this is why people bring up europe as an example it is precisely  because  of the argument that socialism does not work.   # this is why people bring up europe as an example it is precisely  because  of the argument that socialism does not work.  it is a rebuttal to the idea that socialism is an evil that gives rise to fascism and totalitarianism, while also being an example of how it can work.  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.  even outside of the recession, they have a comparable standard of living to the us.  it is not vastly superior.  in my experience it is rather lagging in the tech department.  the recession that hit europe was due to a lot of things, not least of which was the eu having an economic union but not a monetary one.  they shared a currency but did not have control over the monetary policies of its members i do not think it is accurate to make this an ideological dichotomy between socialism and capitalism when there are many other factors at play.  i am not really disagreeing with you, i do think that the statement in your title is correct, but i do not think that your arguments are really getting into the core of why people actually bring up europe.   #  for the us american not in la, new york, miami or similar place it is much less often.   #  i think a big driver behind your view is that many us americans are brought up to think their country is the best, and not thinking so is antipatriotic and therefore a second class citizen.  then you bring up some comparison between us and eu and emotions start coming upm so the argument ceases to be rational because it is not comparing country results, it is attacking a personal identity.  i lived in eu for a while and you see many people criticizing their own country, either disappointed, pragmatic or affectionately wishing it was better.  so if you tell an average british citizen that the us is a much better place for a business startup he might shrug and agree.  tell a us american that uk has a much better murder rate and it is likely a few will counterattack somehow.  let is see if your conclusions are sound or just personal perceptions filtered by a love for your country.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  really ? uk is quite cold and has . 0 of the population homeless, one of the worst in eu, compared with italy . 0, spain . 0 and germany . 0.  note that two of those countries are quite warm.  us has . 0, worse than all of those.  source: population URL and homelessness URL   most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime nothing even remotely like us, the highest are switzerland and norway and i think you know the story behind them: switzerland has a load of mandatory rifles handed out as part of a  well regulated militia , and norway has a lot of hunting and sport shooting, and also one of the highest murder rates in europe still low compared to us.  google france and anything and you might see that the problem is not europe nor the gypsies.  it is understandable europe has a diversity tolerance you wo not find in us, any european is exposed to several languages, several currencies until recently , traditions, customs, colours and cultures.  for the us american not in la, new york, miami or similar place it is much less often.  go to any country with low cultural exchange and you will see the same.  a problem us has that others do not is to be able to leave behind racial segregation and integrate, something that happened well in eu after two world wars.  i am at a loss why this is the problem.  i think both places have pros and cons, but to deny this and thing it is  all a big draw  is dishonest.   #  you should add  depending on the country , but that holds true for a large part of western europe.   # you should add  depending on the country , but that holds true for a large part of western europe.  however, there is a number of important differences like vacation time, maternity leave and universal healthcare.  basically, comparing a french and american, they might have comparable standards of living, true, but the french does not need to worry about bankruptcy for a broken limb or health condition.  he also has more vacation time, meaning he works less for comparable standard of living.  all in all, i would say he is better off.   #  a curiosity of this is how working time and pay have changed over the last several decades, americans always choose higher pay over working less where citizens from other countries tend to choose more time off.   # i am sure he is using one of the social indicator based comparisons but in real standard of living ie median pc buying power the us leads the world by an absurdly large margin.  certainly one can argue we should include social indicators but weighting them is so subjective as to render the analysis useless, what relative weights would you attach to vacation time vs freedom of speech and would you expect your neighbor to attach the same weights ? the reason why fixing the very broken healthcare system is so challenging is that even though it is so broken it still works very well for the majority of people.  medical related issues are the leading cause of bankruptcy in france just as they are in nearly all advanced economies, this is not a uniquely american issue.  as discussed factored in to the numbers already.  a curiosity of this is how working time and pay have changed over the last several decades, americans always choose higher pay over working less where citizens from other countries tend to choose more time off.   #  i do not think anyone can say, but it is worth considering.   #  true but you are not taking into account the effect that guy who has it better is having on the rest of the country.  unemployment benefits are too lavish in france, and many people simply choose not to work.  take it a step further, unemployment is very high there.  unemployment only counts those looking for a job, not the total population without a job.  though those that are doing well in france may have it better as far as healthcare goes, the overall economic climate is a lot worse off.  in addition, though the guy in the us has inferior medical availability, he is taxed a lot less and therefore has more freedom with how he spends his money.  does that make up for it ? i do not think anyone can say, but it is worth considering.
there are numerous instances where expressions like this are so laughably wrong that it makes me sad that.  there are some times when it is true, namely healthcare and a sexually more liberal culture.  however, most of the time i hear claims that make it obvious to me that people have never been to europe and are merely regurgitating what other people tell them.  i am no expert on european culture, but i have spent quite a bit of time in various european countries.  by list i have been to every western european country with the exception of spain and portugal, though i have had quite a few spanish friends.  i lived in switzerland for 0 months, have spent over a month in france and italy, as well as visited all countries on the baltic sea.  again, i am no expert, but i have let enough people from enough countries, and asked them enough questions about their culture to see that a lot of conceptions are false.  here are a few europeans hate americans.  i have never once found this to be the case.  i have gone out of my way to ask friends from those countries if this was true and all seemed shocked that this stereotype existed.  even the french who have a reputation for being snooty are surprisingly nice if you just attempt to speak french though if you do not try the stereotype holds true .  in general i actually find quite the opposite, that they love americans.  i even met one italian man who is dream was to move to america and buy a harley davidson.  europe is so much more tolerant and open minded than us.  toward black people, sure.  towards gays ? maybe, depends on the country.  towards muslims, gypsies, and occassionally other european countries ? yeah, no.  just google france and gypsies and tell me how that goes.  europe does not have gun crime because they are so strict on their gun control.  literally the opposite is true in every country except england.  most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime.  gun culture is simply very different there.  they do not have rednecks who are like yehaw let is get dem guns ! but they also do not have nearly the amount of people saying guns are evil and nobody should have them.  dat socialism tho, making them economic gains.  have you ever looked at international news ? like at all ? bro, luxembourg and switzerland and like rolling in it.  yeah, they are also some of the smallest countries in the world, with low populations, and niche economy drivers like banking.  sure, germany and england are also doing very well, and are pretty socialist.  i am not trying to say socialism ca not work.  but the recession was, which most people ignore, global, and europe was hit the hardest.  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.  even outside of the recession, they have a comparable standard of living to the us.  it is not vastly superior.  in my experience it is rather lagging in the tech department.  they are unemployment rate and homelessness levels are so low ! unemployment, see last point.  homelessness, try being homeless in a country where if you are homeless you have to live through fucking cold high mountain winters.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  i ca not think of any more right now, but if you can think of some common conceptions of european culture, feel free to bring it up and back it up.  what do you guys think about europe ? do you see it as some utopia like others seem to ?  #  but the recession was, which most people ignore, global, and europe was hit the hardest.   #  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.   # this is why people bring up europe as an example it is precisely  because  of the argument that socialism does not work.  it is a rebuttal to the idea that socialism is an evil that gives rise to fascism and totalitarianism, while also being an example of how it can work.  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.  even outside of the recession, they have a comparable standard of living to the us.  it is not vastly superior.  in my experience it is rather lagging in the tech department.  the recession that hit europe was due to a lot of things, not least of which was the eu having an economic union but not a monetary one.  they shared a currency but did not have control over the monetary policies of its members i do not think it is accurate to make this an ideological dichotomy between socialism and capitalism when there are many other factors at play.  i am not really disagreeing with you, i do think that the statement in your title is correct, but i do not think that your arguments are really getting into the core of why people actually bring up europe.   #  for the us american not in la, new york, miami or similar place it is much less often.   #  i think a big driver behind your view is that many us americans are brought up to think their country is the best, and not thinking so is antipatriotic and therefore a second class citizen.  then you bring up some comparison between us and eu and emotions start coming upm so the argument ceases to be rational because it is not comparing country results, it is attacking a personal identity.  i lived in eu for a while and you see many people criticizing their own country, either disappointed, pragmatic or affectionately wishing it was better.  so if you tell an average british citizen that the us is a much better place for a business startup he might shrug and agree.  tell a us american that uk has a much better murder rate and it is likely a few will counterattack somehow.  let is see if your conclusions are sound or just personal perceptions filtered by a love for your country.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  really ? uk is quite cold and has . 0 of the population homeless, one of the worst in eu, compared with italy . 0, spain . 0 and germany . 0.  note that two of those countries are quite warm.  us has . 0, worse than all of those.  source: population URL and homelessness URL   most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime nothing even remotely like us, the highest are switzerland and norway and i think you know the story behind them: switzerland has a load of mandatory rifles handed out as part of a  well regulated militia , and norway has a lot of hunting and sport shooting, and also one of the highest murder rates in europe still low compared to us.  google france and anything and you might see that the problem is not europe nor the gypsies.  it is understandable europe has a diversity tolerance you wo not find in us, any european is exposed to several languages, several currencies until recently , traditions, customs, colours and cultures.  for the us american not in la, new york, miami or similar place it is much less often.  go to any country with low cultural exchange and you will see the same.  a problem us has that others do not is to be able to leave behind racial segregation and integrate, something that happened well in eu after two world wars.  i am at a loss why this is the problem.  i think both places have pros and cons, but to deny this and thing it is  all a big draw  is dishonest.   #  however, there is a number of important differences like vacation time, maternity leave and universal healthcare.   # you should add  depending on the country , but that holds true for a large part of western europe.  however, there is a number of important differences like vacation time, maternity leave and universal healthcare.  basically, comparing a french and american, they might have comparable standards of living, true, but the french does not need to worry about bankruptcy for a broken limb or health condition.  he also has more vacation time, meaning he works less for comparable standard of living.  all in all, i would say he is better off.   #  as discussed factored in to the numbers already.   # i am sure he is using one of the social indicator based comparisons but in real standard of living ie median pc buying power the us leads the world by an absurdly large margin.  certainly one can argue we should include social indicators but weighting them is so subjective as to render the analysis useless, what relative weights would you attach to vacation time vs freedom of speech and would you expect your neighbor to attach the same weights ? the reason why fixing the very broken healthcare system is so challenging is that even though it is so broken it still works very well for the majority of people.  medical related issues are the leading cause of bankruptcy in france just as they are in nearly all advanced economies, this is not a uniquely american issue.  as discussed factored in to the numbers already.  a curiosity of this is how working time and pay have changed over the last several decades, americans always choose higher pay over working less where citizens from other countries tend to choose more time off.   #  take it a step further, unemployment is very high there.   #  true but you are not taking into account the effect that guy who has it better is having on the rest of the country.  unemployment benefits are too lavish in france, and many people simply choose not to work.  take it a step further, unemployment is very high there.  unemployment only counts those looking for a job, not the total population without a job.  though those that are doing well in france may have it better as far as healthcare goes, the overall economic climate is a lot worse off.  in addition, though the guy in the us has inferior medical availability, he is taxed a lot less and therefore has more freedom with how he spends his money.  does that make up for it ? i do not think anyone can say, but it is worth considering.
there are numerous instances where expressions like this are so laughably wrong that it makes me sad that.  there are some times when it is true, namely healthcare and a sexually more liberal culture.  however, most of the time i hear claims that make it obvious to me that people have never been to europe and are merely regurgitating what other people tell them.  i am no expert on european culture, but i have spent quite a bit of time in various european countries.  by list i have been to every western european country with the exception of spain and portugal, though i have had quite a few spanish friends.  i lived in switzerland for 0 months, have spent over a month in france and italy, as well as visited all countries on the baltic sea.  again, i am no expert, but i have let enough people from enough countries, and asked them enough questions about their culture to see that a lot of conceptions are false.  here are a few europeans hate americans.  i have never once found this to be the case.  i have gone out of my way to ask friends from those countries if this was true and all seemed shocked that this stereotype existed.  even the french who have a reputation for being snooty are surprisingly nice if you just attempt to speak french though if you do not try the stereotype holds true .  in general i actually find quite the opposite, that they love americans.  i even met one italian man who is dream was to move to america and buy a harley davidson.  europe is so much more tolerant and open minded than us.  toward black people, sure.  towards gays ? maybe, depends on the country.  towards muslims, gypsies, and occassionally other european countries ? yeah, no.  just google france and gypsies and tell me how that goes.  europe does not have gun crime because they are so strict on their gun control.  literally the opposite is true in every country except england.  most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime.  gun culture is simply very different there.  they do not have rednecks who are like yehaw let is get dem guns ! but they also do not have nearly the amount of people saying guns are evil and nobody should have them.  dat socialism tho, making them economic gains.  have you ever looked at international news ? like at all ? bro, luxembourg and switzerland and like rolling in it.  yeah, they are also some of the smallest countries in the world, with low populations, and niche economy drivers like banking.  sure, germany and england are also doing very well, and are pretty socialist.  i am not trying to say socialism ca not work.  but the recession was, which most people ignore, global, and europe was hit the hardest.  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.  even outside of the recession, they have a comparable standard of living to the us.  it is not vastly superior.  in my experience it is rather lagging in the tech department.  they are unemployment rate and homelessness levels are so low ! unemployment, see last point.  homelessness, try being homeless in a country where if you are homeless you have to live through fucking cold high mountain winters.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  i ca not think of any more right now, but if you can think of some common conceptions of european culture, feel free to bring it up and back it up.  what do you guys think about europe ? do you see it as some utopia like others seem to ?  #  but the recession was, which most people ignore, global, and europe was hit the hardest.   #  spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.   # spain, ireland, greece, france, italy, all had a much worse time of it than we did.  it is important to keep in mind  why  that was: those countries are not monetarily sovereign.  they used and use the euro, a currency which they do not control.  this means that their governments are genuinely dependent on the decisions of funds that buy government bonds.  0 as a result, the financial crisis resulted in a vicious cycle: reduced economic activity meant that the government budget automatically went into deficit lower income means less tax revenue, while at the same time more unemployment payments had to be made .  these deficit increases cast doubts on whether those governments might default, which caused interest rates for them to rise, which increased the deficits even more.  then the cycle was made even worse because governments implemented austerity, which lowered economic activity even further.  none of that would have happened if these countries had had their own currencies.  instead, those currencies would simply have devalued naturally, which would have made those countries  exports cheaper and therefore would have boosted their economies.  true, higher import costs would have lowered the living standards in those countries somewhat, at least temporarily, but that would have been paradise compared to the mass unemployment clusterfuck that these countries got into thanks to the euro.  0 monetarily sovereign governments such as the us federal government are not dependent on those decisions even though it may look like it on the surface, because investors simply have no other choice where they could ultimately put their money: in the eurozone, you have a choice between greek and german bonds.  in the usd zone, the buck always stops at us federal government bonds.   #  then you bring up some comparison between us and eu and emotions start coming upm so the argument ceases to be rational because it is not comparing country results, it is attacking a personal identity.   #  i think a big driver behind your view is that many us americans are brought up to think their country is the best, and not thinking so is antipatriotic and therefore a second class citizen.  then you bring up some comparison between us and eu and emotions start coming upm so the argument ceases to be rational because it is not comparing country results, it is attacking a personal identity.  i lived in eu for a while and you see many people criticizing their own country, either disappointed, pragmatic or affectionately wishing it was better.  so if you tell an average british citizen that the us is a much better place for a business startup he might shrug and agree.  tell a us american that uk has a much better murder rate and it is likely a few will counterattack somehow.  let is see if your conclusions are sound or just personal perceptions filtered by a love for your country.  just like in the us, warmer places have more homelessness, colder places do not.  really ? uk is quite cold and has . 0 of the population homeless, one of the worst in eu, compared with italy . 0, spain . 0 and germany . 0.  note that two of those countries are quite warm.  us has . 0, worse than all of those.  source: population URL and homelessness URL   most countries have high rates of gun ownership, and low gun crime nothing even remotely like us, the highest are switzerland and norway and i think you know the story behind them: switzerland has a load of mandatory rifles handed out as part of a  well regulated militia , and norway has a lot of hunting and sport shooting, and also one of the highest murder rates in europe still low compared to us.  google france and anything and you might see that the problem is not europe nor the gypsies.  it is understandable europe has a diversity tolerance you wo not find in us, any european is exposed to several languages, several currencies until recently , traditions, customs, colours and cultures.  for the us american not in la, new york, miami or similar place it is much less often.  go to any country with low cultural exchange and you will see the same.  a problem us has that others do not is to be able to leave behind racial segregation and integrate, something that happened well in eu after two world wars.  i am at a loss why this is the problem.  i think both places have pros and cons, but to deny this and thing it is  all a big draw  is dishonest.   #  basically, comparing a french and american, they might have comparable standards of living, true, but the french does not need to worry about bankruptcy for a broken limb or health condition.   # you should add  depending on the country , but that holds true for a large part of western europe.  however, there is a number of important differences like vacation time, maternity leave and universal healthcare.  basically, comparing a french and american, they might have comparable standards of living, true, but the french does not need to worry about bankruptcy for a broken limb or health condition.  he also has more vacation time, meaning he works less for comparable standard of living.  all in all, i would say he is better off.   #  the reason why fixing the very broken healthcare system is so challenging is that even though it is so broken it still works very well for the majority of people.   # i am sure he is using one of the social indicator based comparisons but in real standard of living ie median pc buying power the us leads the world by an absurdly large margin.  certainly one can argue we should include social indicators but weighting them is so subjective as to render the analysis useless, what relative weights would you attach to vacation time vs freedom of speech and would you expect your neighbor to attach the same weights ? the reason why fixing the very broken healthcare system is so challenging is that even though it is so broken it still works very well for the majority of people.  medical related issues are the leading cause of bankruptcy in france just as they are in nearly all advanced economies, this is not a uniquely american issue.  as discussed factored in to the numbers already.  a curiosity of this is how working time and pay have changed over the last several decades, americans always choose higher pay over working less where citizens from other countries tend to choose more time off.   #  i do not think anyone can say, but it is worth considering.   #  true but you are not taking into account the effect that guy who has it better is having on the rest of the country.  unemployment benefits are too lavish in france, and many people simply choose not to work.  take it a step further, unemployment is very high there.  unemployment only counts those looking for a job, not the total population without a job.  though those that are doing well in france may have it better as far as healthcare goes, the overall economic climate is a lot worse off.  in addition, though the guy in the us has inferior medical availability, he is taxed a lot less and therefore has more freedom with how he spends his money.  does that make up for it ? i do not think anyone can say, but it is worth considering.
i am quite open to changing my view on this topic.  i would like somebody to talk me through the economic reasoning for having interest, before discussing the pros and cons, and moral implications.  the reason i believe it should be banned at the moment is because it allows money to be made simply from having wealth.  it is a vehicle for the wealthy to accumulate wealth from the poor.  also, there is no choice.  if you want a loan, or have a bank account, you must pay/receive interest.  there is no way you can withdraw your consent on ideological grounds: therefore we are trapped by interest.  what are the results of this ? it means payday loan companies like wonga can carry out state sanctioned theft of your possessions and home to cover your debts.  it means that you are penalised for not being rich.  to say this is allowed when really there is no way you can disagree with the system seems wrong to me.  but why ban it ? i admit i have only been clued into this view because usury is something that is criticised in abrahamic religions.  my view is not well informed and so i would like some people to convince me of the opposite view.  0.  so the main benefits of interest seem to be compensating financiers for lending money, allowing small businesses to have access to capital, and allowing people to own items they otherwise would not be able to.  i am realising that economies will grind to halt if financiers cannot make money out of lending money without a viable alternative.  0.  there does seem to be an alternative to interest in the form of islamic banking, whereby interest is not charged.  another system has been illustrated by /u/projectshamrock here URL whether these are good or bad systems is still unclear to me, but it illustrates alternatives are possible.  0.  the way we charge interest in western societies directly empowers financiers.  it is banks who decide interest rates, not their customers who lend them money when they open a bank account or the borrowers.   #  it means that you are penalised for not being rich.   #  the richest people i know of do not pay a lot of interest.   #  okay, i have a few points  llows money to be made simply from having wealth.  it is a vehicle for the wealthy to accumulate wealth from the poor.  the interest is charged based upon the risk the lender is taking on for the borrower to take the money.  what happens is the borrower leaves without paying ? this is why there is interest, and while it does allow the rich people to make money, loans are made in businesses and by business owners, so it is not necessarily just the rich taking advantage of the poor.  if you want a loan, or have a bank account, you must pay/receive interest.  you contradict yourself here.  you say there is no choice, but then list a choice you are making.  yes, getting a loan has interest attached, but you can make the choice to save money until you can purchase in cash rather than taking a loan.  you can also opt out of having a savings account so you are not payed interest, although this interest is an example of the possibility of the rich paying the poor.  the richest people i know of do not pay a lot of interest.  this is because they pay cash for items.  the sooner you begin thinking in the way of saving for it then buying it, the closer you will be to being wealthy as well.  they have never stolen anything from me, but this is because i would never get a payday loan because it is a horrible way to live.  you want interest banned, well the best way for this to happen is for you to ban loans, and people beginning to pay cash.  remember that this is about loans in general.  the borrower is always slave to the lender, even if there is zero interest, there are still feelings that change when a loan occurs.  this is why the bible says if you are going to give money, do so without expecting it back.  thanks ! this was fun !  #  the system of interest might be beneficial in allowing those with more modest incomes to do the same, but is that benefit worth it considering the risk of defaulting.   #  it is a very good point you raise, and i had not thought of it like that before.  however, i do not think the comparison is absolute.  the wealthy loan shark does not have to buy the house themself, organise and employ labourers which gives people both a job and income so even though he might not be doing real work he is still doing a social good.  the system of interest might be beneficial in allowing those with more modest incomes to do the same, but is that benefit worth it considering the risk of defaulting.  is it a fair system that encourages people to risk their earnings, and then punishes them mercilessly if they ca not pay ? also, you are assuming that without interest no one would lend any money, and i am still not sure that would be the case.   #  therefore, if you did not have friends or family members who were willing to lose money on your behalf, you would never be able to get a loan.   #  without interest, money lenders would lose money, for two reasons: 0  inflation .  historically, inflation in the u. s.  has been around 0 a year.  what that means is that every year, a dollar buys 0 less than it did the year before.  if i borrow $0 from you today, and pay you back $0 a year from today, you have actually lost $0 of value, because inflation means that that $0 buys you $0 less worth of goods than it did a year previously.  in order for money lenders to not  lose  money, interest must at least be equal to inflation.  0  risk .  if i lend $0 to 0 people, and 0 of them pay me back, i have lost $0.  in order to account for risk, i have to charge interest to make sure that i get my money back.  if i think that 0 out of 0 people will not pay me back, i need to make sure that those who do pay me back cover my losses from the one that does not.  therefore, i charge 0 interest, so that the 0 people who pay me back give me $0, and i end up making back my $0,0.  without interest, i ca not account for the inherent risk involved in lending money.  as a result, some people might loan money in a world without interest e. g. , the way family members or friends might loan money to one another , but there would be no loans given out by anybody who did not want to lose money.  therefore, if you did not have friends or family members who were willing to lose money on your behalf, you would never be able to get a loan.   #  it seems like a capitalist mantra that everyone is saying without thinking about it surely there is other ways of managing risk with their own pros and cons ?  #  i appreciate the lesson on both these things, because i did not really understand the reasoning behind why they were there.  however, i have 0 questions i would like answered.  so firstly, you say interest is there to counteract inflation.  but if the lender had not lent the money, their $0 would have been worth less anyway.  it is cool that this incentivises lending money as a way to stop your money devaluing as opposed to just letting it sit in a bank account and lose value.  but i also want to think about the borrower, if they borrow the $0 and then pay back $0  interest, am i right in saying that now they have effectively paid inflation twice ? once in paying the interest for the loan and once again for the money that they had which has now devalued ? second question is about risk.  why is everyone saying that  this risk just has to be covered at all costs ?   to me it does not seem like that much of a problem if someone does not pay you back they have done something wrong and you should be entitled to sue them for the money   your legal costs.  it seems like a capitalist mantra that everyone is saying without thinking about it surely there is other ways of managing risk with their own pros and cons ?  #  because inflation made all of the prices go up by 0 per year, you now make $0,0 per year 0,0   0   0 0 .   # actually, inflation makes loans  easier  to pay back, not harder.  an example: let is say in the year 0, you take a 0 year loan for a $0, at a 0 interest rate ignore compounding .  this means, that every year you are going to pay back 0/0th of that money $0 , as well as 0 of the payment every year another $0 .  in total, you are going to pay back $0.  however, lets say that between 0 and 0, there is also about 0 inflation.  this means that all prices go up by 0 per year.  food costs more, but your job also pays more.  overall, you are not any richer or poorer, because all the numbers went up together.  but this has an interesting effect on your loan.  lets say, in the year 0, you make $0,0.  this means that you are paying 0 0 / 0,0 of your income in the year 0 to pay back your loan.  fast forward 0 years.  because inflation made all of the prices go up by 0 per year, you now make $0,0 per year 0,0   0   0 0 .  but your loan did not change.  you do not owe $0,0 now.  you still just owe $0.  that means that in the last year of your loan, you will still make a payment of $0.  but instead of being 0 of your income, this will only be 0 of your income 0 / 0,0 .  this means that in 0 it is much much easier for you to make that payment.  inflation is good for borrowers.  in fact, part of why the us federal reserve bank intentionally tries to make the economy have a 0 inflation rate, is specifically so that banks will be forced to give more loans to people, and so that it will be easier for people to pay back loans
i am quite open to changing my view on this topic.  i would like somebody to talk me through the economic reasoning for having interest, before discussing the pros and cons, and moral implications.  the reason i believe it should be banned at the moment is because it allows money to be made simply from having wealth.  it is a vehicle for the wealthy to accumulate wealth from the poor.  also, there is no choice.  if you want a loan, or have a bank account, you must pay/receive interest.  there is no way you can withdraw your consent on ideological grounds: therefore we are trapped by interest.  what are the results of this ? it means payday loan companies like wonga can carry out state sanctioned theft of your possessions and home to cover your debts.  it means that you are penalised for not being rich.  to say this is allowed when really there is no way you can disagree with the system seems wrong to me.  but why ban it ? i admit i have only been clued into this view because usury is something that is criticised in abrahamic religions.  my view is not well informed and so i would like some people to convince me of the opposite view.  0.  so the main benefits of interest seem to be compensating financiers for lending money, allowing small businesses to have access to capital, and allowing people to own items they otherwise would not be able to.  i am realising that economies will grind to halt if financiers cannot make money out of lending money without a viable alternative.  0.  there does seem to be an alternative to interest in the form of islamic banking, whereby interest is not charged.  another system has been illustrated by /u/projectshamrock here URL whether these are good or bad systems is still unclear to me, but it illustrates alternatives are possible.  0.  the way we charge interest in western societies directly empowers financiers.  it is banks who decide interest rates, not their customers who lend them money when they open a bank account or the borrowers.   #  it means payday loan companies like wonga can carry out state sanctioned theft of your possessions and home to cover your debts.   #  they have never stolen anything from me, but this is because i would never get a payday loan because it is a horrible way to live.   #  okay, i have a few points  llows money to be made simply from having wealth.  it is a vehicle for the wealthy to accumulate wealth from the poor.  the interest is charged based upon the risk the lender is taking on for the borrower to take the money.  what happens is the borrower leaves without paying ? this is why there is interest, and while it does allow the rich people to make money, loans are made in businesses and by business owners, so it is not necessarily just the rich taking advantage of the poor.  if you want a loan, or have a bank account, you must pay/receive interest.  you contradict yourself here.  you say there is no choice, but then list a choice you are making.  yes, getting a loan has interest attached, but you can make the choice to save money until you can purchase in cash rather than taking a loan.  you can also opt out of having a savings account so you are not payed interest, although this interest is an example of the possibility of the rich paying the poor.  the richest people i know of do not pay a lot of interest.  this is because they pay cash for items.  the sooner you begin thinking in the way of saving for it then buying it, the closer you will be to being wealthy as well.  they have never stolen anything from me, but this is because i would never get a payday loan because it is a horrible way to live.  you want interest banned, well the best way for this to happen is for you to ban loans, and people beginning to pay cash.  remember that this is about loans in general.  the borrower is always slave to the lender, even if there is zero interest, there are still feelings that change when a loan occurs.  this is why the bible says if you are going to give money, do so without expecting it back.  thanks ! this was fun !  #  the wealthy loan shark does not have to buy the house themself, organise and employ labourers which gives people both a job and income so even though he might not be doing real work he is still doing a social good.   #  it is a very good point you raise, and i had not thought of it like that before.  however, i do not think the comparison is absolute.  the wealthy loan shark does not have to buy the house themself, organise and employ labourers which gives people both a job and income so even though he might not be doing real work he is still doing a social good.  the system of interest might be beneficial in allowing those with more modest incomes to do the same, but is that benefit worth it considering the risk of defaulting.  is it a fair system that encourages people to risk their earnings, and then punishes them mercilessly if they ca not pay ? also, you are assuming that without interest no one would lend any money, and i am still not sure that would be the case.   #  what that means is that every year, a dollar buys 0 less than it did the year before.   #  without interest, money lenders would lose money, for two reasons: 0  inflation .  historically, inflation in the u. s.  has been around 0 a year.  what that means is that every year, a dollar buys 0 less than it did the year before.  if i borrow $0 from you today, and pay you back $0 a year from today, you have actually lost $0 of value, because inflation means that that $0 buys you $0 less worth of goods than it did a year previously.  in order for money lenders to not  lose  money, interest must at least be equal to inflation.  0  risk .  if i lend $0 to 0 people, and 0 of them pay me back, i have lost $0.  in order to account for risk, i have to charge interest to make sure that i get my money back.  if i think that 0 out of 0 people will not pay me back, i need to make sure that those who do pay me back cover my losses from the one that does not.  therefore, i charge 0 interest, so that the 0 people who pay me back give me $0, and i end up making back my $0,0.  without interest, i ca not account for the inherent risk involved in lending money.  as a result, some people might loan money in a world without interest e. g. , the way family members or friends might loan money to one another , but there would be no loans given out by anybody who did not want to lose money.  therefore, if you did not have friends or family members who were willing to lose money on your behalf, you would never be able to get a loan.   #  so firstly, you say interest is there to counteract inflation.   #  i appreciate the lesson on both these things, because i did not really understand the reasoning behind why they were there.  however, i have 0 questions i would like answered.  so firstly, you say interest is there to counteract inflation.  but if the lender had not lent the money, their $0 would have been worth less anyway.  it is cool that this incentivises lending money as a way to stop your money devaluing as opposed to just letting it sit in a bank account and lose value.  but i also want to think about the borrower, if they borrow the $0 and then pay back $0  interest, am i right in saying that now they have effectively paid inflation twice ? once in paying the interest for the loan and once again for the money that they had which has now devalued ? second question is about risk.  why is everyone saying that  this risk just has to be covered at all costs ?   to me it does not seem like that much of a problem if someone does not pay you back they have done something wrong and you should be entitled to sue them for the money   your legal costs.  it seems like a capitalist mantra that everyone is saying without thinking about it surely there is other ways of managing risk with their own pros and cons ?  #  an example: let is say in the year 0, you take a 0 year loan for a $0, at a 0 interest rate ignore compounding .   # actually, inflation makes loans  easier  to pay back, not harder.  an example: let is say in the year 0, you take a 0 year loan for a $0, at a 0 interest rate ignore compounding .  this means, that every year you are going to pay back 0/0th of that money $0 , as well as 0 of the payment every year another $0 .  in total, you are going to pay back $0.  however, lets say that between 0 and 0, there is also about 0 inflation.  this means that all prices go up by 0 per year.  food costs more, but your job also pays more.  overall, you are not any richer or poorer, because all the numbers went up together.  but this has an interesting effect on your loan.  lets say, in the year 0, you make $0,0.  this means that you are paying 0 0 / 0,0 of your income in the year 0 to pay back your loan.  fast forward 0 years.  because inflation made all of the prices go up by 0 per year, you now make $0,0 per year 0,0   0   0 0 .  but your loan did not change.  you do not owe $0,0 now.  you still just owe $0.  that means that in the last year of your loan, you will still make a payment of $0.  but instead of being 0 of your income, this will only be 0 of your income 0 / 0,0 .  this means that in 0 it is much much easier for you to make that payment.  inflation is good for borrowers.  in fact, part of why the us federal reserve bank intentionally tries to make the economy have a 0 inflation rate, is specifically so that banks will be forced to give more loans to people, and so that it will be easier for people to pay back loans
i am quite open to changing my view on this topic.  i would like somebody to talk me through the economic reasoning for having interest, before discussing the pros and cons, and moral implications.  the reason i believe it should be banned at the moment is because it allows money to be made simply from having wealth.  it is a vehicle for the wealthy to accumulate wealth from the poor.  also, there is no choice.  if you want a loan, or have a bank account, you must pay/receive interest.  there is no way you can withdraw your consent on ideological grounds: therefore we are trapped by interest.  what are the results of this ? it means payday loan companies like wonga can carry out state sanctioned theft of your possessions and home to cover your debts.  it means that you are penalised for not being rich.  to say this is allowed when really there is no way you can disagree with the system seems wrong to me.  but why ban it ? i admit i have only been clued into this view because usury is something that is criticised in abrahamic religions.  my view is not well informed and so i would like some people to convince me of the opposite view.  0.  so the main benefits of interest seem to be compensating financiers for lending money, allowing small businesses to have access to capital, and allowing people to own items they otherwise would not be able to.  i am realising that economies will grind to halt if financiers cannot make money out of lending money without a viable alternative.  0.  there does seem to be an alternative to interest in the form of islamic banking, whereby interest is not charged.  another system has been illustrated by /u/projectshamrock here URL whether these are good or bad systems is still unclear to me, but it illustrates alternatives are possible.  0.  the way we charge interest in western societies directly empowers financiers.  it is banks who decide interest rates, not their customers who lend them money when they open a bank account or the borrowers.   #  i admit i have only been clued into this view because usury is something that is criticised in abrahamic religions.   #  remember that this is about loans in general.   #  okay, i have a few points  llows money to be made simply from having wealth.  it is a vehicle for the wealthy to accumulate wealth from the poor.  the interest is charged based upon the risk the lender is taking on for the borrower to take the money.  what happens is the borrower leaves without paying ? this is why there is interest, and while it does allow the rich people to make money, loans are made in businesses and by business owners, so it is not necessarily just the rich taking advantage of the poor.  if you want a loan, or have a bank account, you must pay/receive interest.  you contradict yourself here.  you say there is no choice, but then list a choice you are making.  yes, getting a loan has interest attached, but you can make the choice to save money until you can purchase in cash rather than taking a loan.  you can also opt out of having a savings account so you are not payed interest, although this interest is an example of the possibility of the rich paying the poor.  the richest people i know of do not pay a lot of interest.  this is because they pay cash for items.  the sooner you begin thinking in the way of saving for it then buying it, the closer you will be to being wealthy as well.  they have never stolen anything from me, but this is because i would never get a payday loan because it is a horrible way to live.  you want interest banned, well the best way for this to happen is for you to ban loans, and people beginning to pay cash.  remember that this is about loans in general.  the borrower is always slave to the lender, even if there is zero interest, there are still feelings that change when a loan occurs.  this is why the bible says if you are going to give money, do so without expecting it back.  thanks ! this was fun !  #  also, you are assuming that without interest no one would lend any money, and i am still not sure that would be the case.   #  it is a very good point you raise, and i had not thought of it like that before.  however, i do not think the comparison is absolute.  the wealthy loan shark does not have to buy the house themself, organise and employ labourers which gives people both a job and income so even though he might not be doing real work he is still doing a social good.  the system of interest might be beneficial in allowing those with more modest incomes to do the same, but is that benefit worth it considering the risk of defaulting.  is it a fair system that encourages people to risk their earnings, and then punishes them mercilessly if they ca not pay ? also, you are assuming that without interest no one would lend any money, and i am still not sure that would be the case.   #  therefore, if you did not have friends or family members who were willing to lose money on your behalf, you would never be able to get a loan.   #  without interest, money lenders would lose money, for two reasons: 0  inflation .  historically, inflation in the u. s.  has been around 0 a year.  what that means is that every year, a dollar buys 0 less than it did the year before.  if i borrow $0 from you today, and pay you back $0 a year from today, you have actually lost $0 of value, because inflation means that that $0 buys you $0 less worth of goods than it did a year previously.  in order for money lenders to not  lose  money, interest must at least be equal to inflation.  0  risk .  if i lend $0 to 0 people, and 0 of them pay me back, i have lost $0.  in order to account for risk, i have to charge interest to make sure that i get my money back.  if i think that 0 out of 0 people will not pay me back, i need to make sure that those who do pay me back cover my losses from the one that does not.  therefore, i charge 0 interest, so that the 0 people who pay me back give me $0, and i end up making back my $0,0.  without interest, i ca not account for the inherent risk involved in lending money.  as a result, some people might loan money in a world without interest e. g. , the way family members or friends might loan money to one another , but there would be no loans given out by anybody who did not want to lose money.  therefore, if you did not have friends or family members who were willing to lose money on your behalf, you would never be able to get a loan.   #  but i also want to think about the borrower, if they borrow the $0 and then pay back $0  interest, am i right in saying that now they have effectively paid inflation twice ?  #  i appreciate the lesson on both these things, because i did not really understand the reasoning behind why they were there.  however, i have 0 questions i would like answered.  so firstly, you say interest is there to counteract inflation.  but if the lender had not lent the money, their $0 would have been worth less anyway.  it is cool that this incentivises lending money as a way to stop your money devaluing as opposed to just letting it sit in a bank account and lose value.  but i also want to think about the borrower, if they borrow the $0 and then pay back $0  interest, am i right in saying that now they have effectively paid inflation twice ? once in paying the interest for the loan and once again for the money that they had which has now devalued ? second question is about risk.  why is everyone saying that  this risk just has to be covered at all costs ?   to me it does not seem like that much of a problem if someone does not pay you back they have done something wrong and you should be entitled to sue them for the money   your legal costs.  it seems like a capitalist mantra that everyone is saying without thinking about it surely there is other ways of managing risk with their own pros and cons ?  #  however, lets say that between 0 and 0, there is also about 0 inflation.   # actually, inflation makes loans  easier  to pay back, not harder.  an example: let is say in the year 0, you take a 0 year loan for a $0, at a 0 interest rate ignore compounding .  this means, that every year you are going to pay back 0/0th of that money $0 , as well as 0 of the payment every year another $0 .  in total, you are going to pay back $0.  however, lets say that between 0 and 0, there is also about 0 inflation.  this means that all prices go up by 0 per year.  food costs more, but your job also pays more.  overall, you are not any richer or poorer, because all the numbers went up together.  but this has an interesting effect on your loan.  lets say, in the year 0, you make $0,0.  this means that you are paying 0 0 / 0,0 of your income in the year 0 to pay back your loan.  fast forward 0 years.  because inflation made all of the prices go up by 0 per year, you now make $0,0 per year 0,0   0   0 0 .  but your loan did not change.  you do not owe $0,0 now.  you still just owe $0.  that means that in the last year of your loan, you will still make a payment of $0.  but instead of being 0 of your income, this will only be 0 of your income 0 / 0,0 .  this means that in 0 it is much much easier for you to make that payment.  inflation is good for borrowers.  in fact, part of why the us federal reserve bank intentionally tries to make the economy have a 0 inflation rate, is specifically so that banks will be forced to give more loans to people, and so that it will be easier for people to pay back loans
i am quite open to changing my view on this topic.  i would like somebody to talk me through the economic reasoning for having interest, before discussing the pros and cons, and moral implications.  the reason i believe it should be banned at the moment is because it allows money to be made simply from having wealth.  it is a vehicle for the wealthy to accumulate wealth from the poor.  also, there is no choice.  if you want a loan, or have a bank account, you must pay/receive interest.  there is no way you can withdraw your consent on ideological grounds: therefore we are trapped by interest.  what are the results of this ? it means payday loan companies like wonga can carry out state sanctioned theft of your possessions and home to cover your debts.  it means that you are penalised for not being rich.  to say this is allowed when really there is no way you can disagree with the system seems wrong to me.  but why ban it ? i admit i have only been clued into this view because usury is something that is criticised in abrahamic religions.  my view is not well informed and so i would like some people to convince me of the opposite view.  0.  so the main benefits of interest seem to be compensating financiers for lending money, allowing small businesses to have access to capital, and allowing people to own items they otherwise would not be able to.  i am realising that economies will grind to halt if financiers cannot make money out of lending money without a viable alternative.  0.  there does seem to be an alternative to interest in the form of islamic banking, whereby interest is not charged.  another system has been illustrated by /u/projectshamrock here URL whether these are good or bad systems is still unclear to me, but it illustrates alternatives are possible.  0.  the way we charge interest in western societies directly empowers financiers.  it is banks who decide interest rates, not their customers who lend them money when they open a bank account or the borrowers.   #  it is a vehicle for the wealthy to accumulate wealth from the poor.   #  this is a misconception based on the  wealth as a pizza pie  model that liberals tend to use.   #  the economic reasoning is twofold: 0 risk: even if there is a 0 chance that a lender will be repaid in full, that means that the lender is being asked to trade  having  his money for having  a 0 chance of  having his money.  that is simply not a good deal for the lender to enter unless the borrower agrees to pay a little interest, in which case, the lender is trading having his money for a 0 chance of having a little  more  money.  0 time: having money now is better than waiting to have it later.  let is say i can afford to renovate my home at the moment.  then somebody comes along and asks me to lend him $0,0, which he will  definitely  pay back at the end of the year.  well, if i make him the loan, i might have to wait a whole year to renovate my home.  so that is a whole year of enjoying those renovations that i have given up ! i would need to be offered interest on the loan in order for it to be worth the wait.  this principle applies all the way up to the world is biggest banks, where it is not so much about enjoying the consumption of durable goods, but rather about earning money on investments that grow over time.  the sooner you invest money, the more of a return you can reap.  now for moral issues:  there is no choice.  if you want a loan, or have a bank account, you must pay/receive interest.  not to be disrespectfully glib, but, honestly, that is like complaining that  if you want a loaf of bread, you must pay for it.   of course, there is nothing wrong with having to pay for the bread you are not just entitled to it.  likewise, you are not simply entitled to borrow other people is money.  so there is no moral problem with having to pay for loans just like you have to pay for anything else.  this is a misconception based on the  wealth as a pizza pie  model that liberals tend to use.  under this model, when one person is wealth goes up, somebody elses goes down, just like taking a piece out of a pizza pie.  if that were the way it worked, then, yes, wealthy people charging poor people interest would mean wealthy people are pulling further ahead of the poor by collecting interest from them.  it would simply be like trading poor people 0 slices of pizza in exchange for 0.  no fair ! but wealth is absolutely nothing like a pizza pie, mainly because it  grows.  when a poor person takes a loan from a rich people, the loan gives the poor person an opportunity to grow that loan into far more money than he ever would have made without it.  the poor person is actually going to   gain   on the rich person as a result of taking the interest loan.  just think how screwed poor people would be if nobody was willing to loan them money.   #  is it a fair system that encourages people to risk their earnings, and then punishes them mercilessly if they ca not pay ?  #  it is a very good point you raise, and i had not thought of it like that before.  however, i do not think the comparison is absolute.  the wealthy loan shark does not have to buy the house themself, organise and employ labourers which gives people both a job and income so even though he might not be doing real work he is still doing a social good.  the system of interest might be beneficial in allowing those with more modest incomes to do the same, but is that benefit worth it considering the risk of defaulting.  is it a fair system that encourages people to risk their earnings, and then punishes them mercilessly if they ca not pay ? also, you are assuming that without interest no one would lend any money, and i am still not sure that would be the case.   #  what that means is that every year, a dollar buys 0 less than it did the year before.   #  without interest, money lenders would lose money, for two reasons: 0  inflation .  historically, inflation in the u. s.  has been around 0 a year.  what that means is that every year, a dollar buys 0 less than it did the year before.  if i borrow $0 from you today, and pay you back $0 a year from today, you have actually lost $0 of value, because inflation means that that $0 buys you $0 less worth of goods than it did a year previously.  in order for money lenders to not  lose  money, interest must at least be equal to inflation.  0  risk .  if i lend $0 to 0 people, and 0 of them pay me back, i have lost $0.  in order to account for risk, i have to charge interest to make sure that i get my money back.  if i think that 0 out of 0 people will not pay me back, i need to make sure that those who do pay me back cover my losses from the one that does not.  therefore, i charge 0 interest, so that the 0 people who pay me back give me $0, and i end up making back my $0,0.  without interest, i ca not account for the inherent risk involved in lending money.  as a result, some people might loan money in a world without interest e. g. , the way family members or friends might loan money to one another , but there would be no loans given out by anybody who did not want to lose money.  therefore, if you did not have friends or family members who were willing to lose money on your behalf, you would never be able to get a loan.   #  but i also want to think about the borrower, if they borrow the $0 and then pay back $0  interest, am i right in saying that now they have effectively paid inflation twice ?  #  i appreciate the lesson on both these things, because i did not really understand the reasoning behind why they were there.  however, i have 0 questions i would like answered.  so firstly, you say interest is there to counteract inflation.  but if the lender had not lent the money, their $0 would have been worth less anyway.  it is cool that this incentivises lending money as a way to stop your money devaluing as opposed to just letting it sit in a bank account and lose value.  but i also want to think about the borrower, if they borrow the $0 and then pay back $0  interest, am i right in saying that now they have effectively paid inflation twice ? once in paying the interest for the loan and once again for the money that they had which has now devalued ? second question is about risk.  why is everyone saying that  this risk just has to be covered at all costs ?   to me it does not seem like that much of a problem if someone does not pay you back they have done something wrong and you should be entitled to sue them for the money   your legal costs.  it seems like a capitalist mantra that everyone is saying without thinking about it surely there is other ways of managing risk with their own pros and cons ?  #  this means, that every year you are going to pay back 0/0th of that money $0 , as well as 0 of the payment every year another $0 .   # actually, inflation makes loans  easier  to pay back, not harder.  an example: let is say in the year 0, you take a 0 year loan for a $0, at a 0 interest rate ignore compounding .  this means, that every year you are going to pay back 0/0th of that money $0 , as well as 0 of the payment every year another $0 .  in total, you are going to pay back $0.  however, lets say that between 0 and 0, there is also about 0 inflation.  this means that all prices go up by 0 per year.  food costs more, but your job also pays more.  overall, you are not any richer or poorer, because all the numbers went up together.  but this has an interesting effect on your loan.  lets say, in the year 0, you make $0,0.  this means that you are paying 0 0 / 0,0 of your income in the year 0 to pay back your loan.  fast forward 0 years.  because inflation made all of the prices go up by 0 per year, you now make $0,0 per year 0,0   0   0 0 .  but your loan did not change.  you do not owe $0,0 now.  you still just owe $0.  that means that in the last year of your loan, you will still make a payment of $0.  but instead of being 0 of your income, this will only be 0 of your income 0 / 0,0 .  this means that in 0 it is much much easier for you to make that payment.  inflation is good for borrowers.  in fact, part of why the us federal reserve bank intentionally tries to make the economy have a 0 inflation rate, is specifically so that banks will be forced to give more loans to people, and so that it will be easier for people to pay back loans
i am quite open to changing my view on this topic.  i would like somebody to talk me through the economic reasoning for having interest, before discussing the pros and cons, and moral implications.  the reason i believe it should be banned at the moment is because it allows money to be made simply from having wealth.  it is a vehicle for the wealthy to accumulate wealth from the poor.  also, there is no choice.  if you want a loan, or have a bank account, you must pay/receive interest.  there is no way you can withdraw your consent on ideological grounds: therefore we are trapped by interest.  what are the results of this ? it means payday loan companies like wonga can carry out state sanctioned theft of your possessions and home to cover your debts.  it means that you are penalised for not being rich.  to say this is allowed when really there is no way you can disagree with the system seems wrong to me.  but why ban it ? i admit i have only been clued into this view because usury is something that is criticised in abrahamic religions.  my view is not well informed and so i would like some people to convince me of the opposite view.  0.  so the main benefits of interest seem to be compensating financiers for lending money, allowing small businesses to have access to capital, and allowing people to own items they otherwise would not be able to.  i am realising that economies will grind to halt if financiers cannot make money out of lending money without a viable alternative.  0.  there does seem to be an alternative to interest in the form of islamic banking, whereby interest is not charged.  another system has been illustrated by /u/projectshamrock here URL whether these are good or bad systems is still unclear to me, but it illustrates alternatives are possible.  0.  the way we charge interest in western societies directly empowers financiers.  it is banks who decide interest rates, not their customers who lend them money when they open a bank account or the borrowers.   #  so the main benefits of interest seem to be compensating financiers for lending money, allowing small businesses to have access to capital, and allowing people to own items they otherwise would not be able to.   #  i am realising that economies will grind to halt if financiers cannot make money out of lending money without a viable alternative.   # i am realising that economies will grind to halt if financiers cannot make money out of lending money without a viable alternative.  there does seem to be an alternative to interest in the form of islamic banking, whereby interest is not charged.  another system has been illustrated by /u/projectshamrock here whether these are good or bad systems is still unclear to me, but it illustrates alternatives are possible.  the way we charge interest in western societies directly empowers financiers.  it is banks who decide interest rates, not their customers who lend them money when they open a bank account or the borrowers.  0.  of course the financiers get compensated.  they are selling a product/service and get paid for that just as you do when you sell your services to your employer and as any other business does when it sells its products 0.  islamic banking and /u/projectshamrock mention of an  administrative fee  is still interest by another name.  it is like when the governments says  it is not a tax, it is a fee .  0.  uh, yeah.  the seller the lender sets terms at which they are willing to sell their product.  the customer borrower can accept those terms or seek a different seller.  the fact that some lenders get some of their funds from people depositing money in banks has nothing to do with this.   #  the wealthy loan shark does not have to buy the house themself, organise and employ labourers which gives people both a job and income so even though he might not be doing real work he is still doing a social good.   #  it is a very good point you raise, and i had not thought of it like that before.  however, i do not think the comparison is absolute.  the wealthy loan shark does not have to buy the house themself, organise and employ labourers which gives people both a job and income so even though he might not be doing real work he is still doing a social good.  the system of interest might be beneficial in allowing those with more modest incomes to do the same, but is that benefit worth it considering the risk of defaulting.  is it a fair system that encourages people to risk their earnings, and then punishes them mercilessly if they ca not pay ? also, you are assuming that without interest no one would lend any money, and i am still not sure that would be the case.   #  therefore, if you did not have friends or family members who were willing to lose money on your behalf, you would never be able to get a loan.   #  without interest, money lenders would lose money, for two reasons: 0  inflation .  historically, inflation in the u. s.  has been around 0 a year.  what that means is that every year, a dollar buys 0 less than it did the year before.  if i borrow $0 from you today, and pay you back $0 a year from today, you have actually lost $0 of value, because inflation means that that $0 buys you $0 less worth of goods than it did a year previously.  in order for money lenders to not  lose  money, interest must at least be equal to inflation.  0  risk .  if i lend $0 to 0 people, and 0 of them pay me back, i have lost $0.  in order to account for risk, i have to charge interest to make sure that i get my money back.  if i think that 0 out of 0 people will not pay me back, i need to make sure that those who do pay me back cover my losses from the one that does not.  therefore, i charge 0 interest, so that the 0 people who pay me back give me $0, and i end up making back my $0,0.  without interest, i ca not account for the inherent risk involved in lending money.  as a result, some people might loan money in a world without interest e. g. , the way family members or friends might loan money to one another , but there would be no loans given out by anybody who did not want to lose money.  therefore, if you did not have friends or family members who were willing to lose money on your behalf, you would never be able to get a loan.   #  however, i have 0 questions i would like answered.   #  i appreciate the lesson on both these things, because i did not really understand the reasoning behind why they were there.  however, i have 0 questions i would like answered.  so firstly, you say interest is there to counteract inflation.  but if the lender had not lent the money, their $0 would have been worth less anyway.  it is cool that this incentivises lending money as a way to stop your money devaluing as opposed to just letting it sit in a bank account and lose value.  but i also want to think about the borrower, if they borrow the $0 and then pay back $0  interest, am i right in saying that now they have effectively paid inflation twice ? once in paying the interest for the loan and once again for the money that they had which has now devalued ? second question is about risk.  why is everyone saying that  this risk just has to be covered at all costs ?   to me it does not seem like that much of a problem if someone does not pay you back they have done something wrong and you should be entitled to sue them for the money   your legal costs.  it seems like a capitalist mantra that everyone is saying without thinking about it surely there is other ways of managing risk with their own pros and cons ?  #  lets say, in the year 0, you make $0,0.   # actually, inflation makes loans  easier  to pay back, not harder.  an example: let is say in the year 0, you take a 0 year loan for a $0, at a 0 interest rate ignore compounding .  this means, that every year you are going to pay back 0/0th of that money $0 , as well as 0 of the payment every year another $0 .  in total, you are going to pay back $0.  however, lets say that between 0 and 0, there is also about 0 inflation.  this means that all prices go up by 0 per year.  food costs more, but your job also pays more.  overall, you are not any richer or poorer, because all the numbers went up together.  but this has an interesting effect on your loan.  lets say, in the year 0, you make $0,0.  this means that you are paying 0 0 / 0,0 of your income in the year 0 to pay back your loan.  fast forward 0 years.  because inflation made all of the prices go up by 0 per year, you now make $0,0 per year 0,0   0   0 0 .  but your loan did not change.  you do not owe $0,0 now.  you still just owe $0.  that means that in the last year of your loan, you will still make a payment of $0.  but instead of being 0 of your income, this will only be 0 of your income 0 / 0,0 .  this means that in 0 it is much much easier for you to make that payment.  inflation is good for borrowers.  in fact, part of why the us federal reserve bank intentionally tries to make the economy have a 0 inflation rate, is specifically so that banks will be forced to give more loans to people, and so that it will be easier for people to pay back loans
i heard this saying several years ago, and i think it captures my foreign policy stance perfectly.  a little background, i live in america.  some of you probably already know where i am going.  it seems like my country is out to solve every problem in the world.  just recently, ive heard people calling for a nuclear standoff with russia over crimea.  that we should send ground troops to secure the crash site of that malaysia airlines flight that got shot down.  and theres the constant demand for more involvement with the israel/palestine conflict.  i could go on listing examples, but i would be here all day.  everything from north korea to josef kony, a significant bloc of american citizens thinks that it is our job to swoop in and save the day.  i ask : why ? what significance does any of that have for our country ? because all i see is our sons and daughters being sent to die in someone else is conflict.  not to mention the billions of dollars that get spent in the process.  why not let the rest of the world police itself for a change ?  #  why not let the rest of the world police itself for a change ?  #  it is strange as an american to wonder why other countries ca not do this, but it is relatively simple.   # it is strange as an american to wonder why other countries ca not do this, but it is relatively simple.  america is huge and completely isolated from realistic threats.  let is take the n.  korea situation for example.  are they a threat to us ? no, not really.  their lack of long range missile capability more or less eliminates the threat of nuclear destruction.  why is it our concern ? well, because s.  korea is our ally.  they provide economic benefit, plus they are a strong ish military presence in asia which allows the us to station their own military presence in the area.  this relationship would not work out if s.  korea did not symbolize us standards for a country.  it also would not work out if the us did not state military support for s.  korea if n.  korea attacked, whether invasion or nuclear attack.  this should be more than enough reason as to why we help other countries, but i assume you are thinking more about situations like crimea and the malaysian crash, so i will try to talk about that.  well, technically, it has none immediately.  but let is consider how the ukrainian situation could play out.  let is say ukraine ended up handling the crimea invasion differently and fired shots.  well, now russia feels they have precedent to invade mainland ukraine.  the ukraine is not in nato, so we have no legal reasons to help still.  but poland and lithuania hold ukraine as an ally and may defend them.  this now gives russia reason to move into these additional countries.  well these countries happen to be nato now.  as far as i know, we still have no legal reason to help because they are not the defending party.  basically, the point i am getting at, is  when  does it become our problem.  the situation does not feel  as  pressing in america, but when you are in europe it feels very different.  other countries that are closer allies to us could get involved until the majority of europe is involved.  now you have got a wwiii scenario.  you might look back at wwii and think well of course we should have joined the war with the allies and attack the nazis, but that is because you are looking back on it rather than living it.  hitler was given appeasement just as allowing russia to have crimea is a form of appeasement.  wwi and ii did not start over nite.  they started from many problems that snowballed into larger and larger ones.  now let is say america is the same geopolitical force now, but place them into the 0 is.  germany has just taken half of poland.  by your logic it would not be our concern; however, the us could easily put a stop to it.  why not ? basically the point is political situations across the world are not standalone.  they leave resentment and loss to some countries, fear in others, and a drive for more in others.  hell, the annexation of crimea has led to rebels whom may be rebels or may not be depending on who you trust shooting down an aircraft killing hundreds of people.  this leads to the point that is far more important than any other in my opinion.  we can stop people from killing more.  these rebels in the ukraine have killed hundreds of innocents now.  people that were not involved.  the ukrainian government does not appear apt to handle the situation, but the us can more than deal with it.  if the us worked towards capturing/killing the rebels, think of how many lives would be saved ? would they be saved american lives ? no.  but i am no different from someone in the ukraine, in lebanon, in iraq, etc.  we are all people and we should not let life be thrown away, regardless if it is our own.   #  isolationism means no new ideas enter the culture, so that innovation grinds to a halt.   #  like your post tile.  :p counterpoint:    no man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.  if a clod be washed away by the sea, europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend is or of thine own were: any man is death diminishes me, because i am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.   i wo not argue that interventionism is a good thing.  but i think that being completely apathetic goes too far.  a lack of curiosity about the outside world is the death of a civilization.  we only need to look at ming china as an example.  isolationism means no new ideas enter the culture, so that innovation grinds to a halt.  furthermore, while these events may seem remote to you, they might not be to all americans.  some people may have friends and family in other parts of the world.   #  i think the world would work itself out, and it can do so without the big kids interfering.   #  america is already the biggest, baddest kid on the geopolitical block.  if we valued human life as cheaply as the terrorist organizations that declared war on the west, we could obliterate all biological life in the middle east in short order.  and still have enough whoop ass left over for a round 0 most likely.  i am saying we could keep that power, and not throw it in everyone is faces.  i think that if america stopped trying to help everyone, we would not have to worry constantly about the thugs that do not want our help.  i think the world would work itself out, and it can do so without the big kids interfering.   #  thus, its position as the military superpower is preserved.   #  it probably wo not be the biggest, baddest kid on the block for long if it withdraws from the world entirely.  why do you think there are so many countries in the u. s.  sphere of influence with anemic militaries that are good for peacekeeping missions but not for global projection of power ? it is because they are confident that if they were ever really in the shit, the u. s.  would come and save them.  without this deal, global geopolitics destabilizes quickly.  without knowledge that the u. s.  will intervene in the event of some conflict, this means more countries will want to build up their own militaries to protect themselves.  if they build up their own militaries, other nations near them will do the same.  if both do this, then there is more potential for conflict between these countries, leading to a destabilized global economy: markets are disrupted, trade routes disappear, and commodities become far more difficult to acquire.  what is more, this means that these countries could potentially go on to challenge the u. s.  on regional issues.  essentially, the u. s.  does not  want  other countries building a military that rivals the u. s. , and so it uses its own military to remove the need to do that.  thus, its position as the military superpower is preserved.   #  we can be empathetic towards people, improve their situation without getting between the two sides or worse, backing one side .   #  foreign policy should focus on diplomacy, hosting talks, suggesting solutions, providing guidance for opposing sides, such as hamas and israel.  we can  intervene  in a way that does not mean our soldiers on the ground.  we can be empathetic towards people, improve their situation without getting between the two sides or worse, backing one side .  we should work more like the un, only having soldiers elsewhere to enforce peace agreements we are impartial towards.  human rights is the best system i have seen so far of getting the best possible deal for everybody.  if we let other countries/factions/sects break this code, then it sets a precedent, which might come back to bite us.  we just need to enforce them in a way that means we do not break them ourselves.
i do not understand how many people are okay with dropping 0k on a ring, and then 0k  on a wedding ceremony.  it is a giant waste of money that could be spent on other things more worth while house, education, possessions.  what is the point of spending all this money on an event ? if it is supposed to be a declaration of two peoples love for each other then why does it need to be so materialistic ? i do not see a reason to even get married in the first place unless a situation demanded it.  i do not think marriage is needed to have sex, prove your love or even have kids.  two people can be committed and happy without spending a bunch of money or having a new title to officially declare themselves.  what really is the point of getting married if you are not doing it for religious reasons ?  #  do not understand how many people are okay with dropping 0k on a ring, and then 0k  on a wedding ceremony.   #  it is a giant waste of money that could be spent on other things more worth while house, education, possessions.    what is the point of spending all this money on an event ?  # it is a giant waste of money that could be spent on other things more worth while house, education, possessions.    what is the point of spending all this money on an event ? if it is supposed to be a declaration of two peoples love for each other then  why does it need to be so materialistic ? spending money on a house and possessions is materialistic.  why are you ok with being materialistic with those but not with a wedding ?  #  marriage does not cost very much under $0 i believe, at least in florida .   #  i think perhaps you are referring to weddings, rather than marriage, when you mention the expense.  marriage does not cost very much under $0 i believe, at least in florida .  people often confuse or rather, equate marriage with weddings.  you can say  i do  in front of a minister/rabbi/the whole world all you want and you are not married until you sign that piece of paper.  i certainly agree that people have a tendency to go overboard with lavish weddings, but that is just a ceremony.  there are lots of legal protections that come with being married.  for example, my fiance and i live in a house that he owns.  if  shudder  something were to happen to him, i would be out on the street.  it does not matter that we have been together for 0 years, i am just a stranger as far as the law is concerned.  visit him in the hospital ? sorry, family only.  i am just some person.  can you take care of these things with individual contracts outside of marriage ? well, kinda.  if you want to spend thousands of dollars and spend weeks talking to lawyers, and even then it might not work out always bear in mind that the law probably does not work the way it would seem it obviously should .   #  while friends ca not see friends in the hospital, for example, at one point, black people had a specific seating arrangement on a bus no im not comparing rights but rather expectations of society .   # for example, my fiance and i live in a house that he owns.  if shudder something were to happen to him, i would be out on the street.  it does not matter that we have been together for 0 years, i am just a stranger as far as the law is concerned.  visit him in the hospital ? sorry, family only.  i am just some person.  can you take care of these things with individual contracts outside of marriage ? well, kinda.  i think this is just a symptom of society.  is that really a good thing we do not let friends in to see others in the hospital, only family ? should you really need to pay the government 0 dollars to link you, in name, and now have that permission ? nothing has changed.  that implies all family gets along.  many people do not have family, or hate their family, and rely on friends.  this is more a policy of the hospital, and outdated, in my opinion, versus a comment towards marriage.  in other words, the only reason marriage does have a meaning is because of absurd rules like that.  if the hospital did not have such a rule, then marriage loses points.  i can also make claims of inequality towards single people.  in canada, spouses can load up their s/o rrsp account for retirement.  it has tax implications.  as a single person, i do not have this advantage, etc.  so, again, these  rules  are just outdated symptoms of society.  while friends ca not see friends in the hospital, for example, at one point, black people had a specific seating arrangement on a bus no im not comparing rights but rather expectations of society .  things change, as i suspect concepts in marriage will as people find less meaning in it.  i think your examples highlight the constraints it can dump on society which does nothing but create road blocks and regulation that just costs society time and money.   #   only family is allowed here, everyone else, leave.    #  well, that i can agree with but at the same time, is this the only scenario ? the individual is out cold ? what if the person was not out cold but rather fully alert ?  only family is allowed here, everyone else, leave.   all long term girl friends, mothers of their children, etc.  are out.  i think it is a fine policy considering the situation, however, i find the issue with policies is that they generalize over everything without consideration.  they do the best they can through discrimination, essentially.  it is like being ticketed by photo radar versus a cop.  i ca not argue a machine but i have argued, successfully, out of the tickets i was to receive to human cops.  they understand a situation is not black and white.  in terms of this policy, it is like photo radar saying i was  speeding  even though i was outside of the speed zone but the machine, or policy, has no reasoning.   #  consider the relationship of scott disick and kourtney kardashian as an example, bear in mind the kardashians are people you really do not want to use as an example.   #  legal and financial reasons really, if you do not like, or care for, the symbolic part of it i suppose.  not every person is wedding is so big, and there are more simple measures, such as simply getting it done by a judge through an appointment.  so, not all marriage ceremonies are materialistic.  and for the legal and financial reasons: URL mainly, i consider getting married for the symbolism of it, and the imperative of it for me.  marriage reaffirms the fact that in a relation with your so, that she is your so, and it certainly makes the family a bit more stable with legal backing and importance.  consider the relationship of scott disick and kourtney kardashian as an example, bear in mind the kardashians are people you really do not want to use as an example.  with a kid, and another on the way all scott is legally entitled to in regards of the children is practically diddly squat, unless he is registered as the legal father at which point he has the same rights as a married father would.  URL so, ultimately if you want to have a family the best way to go is for marriage rather than risk the uncertainty that comes with a non legally recognized partnership.  and i think in your intro, by marriage you mean the wedding ceremony.  not all wedding ceremonies come so cheap, and like i said before there are simpler, faster ways.  it is kind of a cultural fascination that comes with wanting a wedding really, the idea of the  perfect wedding  propagates this, by saying  if you have got money, we have got your dream !   which is not so.
i do not understand how many people are okay with dropping 0k on a ring, and then 0k  on a wedding ceremony.  it is a giant waste of money that could be spent on other things more worth while house, education, possessions.  what is the point of spending all this money on an event ? if it is supposed to be a declaration of two peoples love for each other then why does it need to be so materialistic ? i do not see a reason to even get married in the first place unless a situation demanded it.  i do not think marriage is needed to have sex, prove your love or even have kids.  two people can be committed and happy without spending a bunch of money or having a new title to officially declare themselves.  what really is the point of getting married if you are not doing it for religious reasons ?  #  i do not understand how many people are okay with dropping 0k on a ring, and then 0k  on a wedding ceremony.   #  this is not a requirement of marriage.   # this is not a requirement of marriage.  it depends on the people and how influenced by marketing they are.  i worked with someone whose wedding cost $0.  $0 for the dress, and $0 for the license.  you are judging the whole institution of marriage based on a very recent, popular custom.  two people can be committed and happy without spending a bunch of money or having a new title to officially declare themselves.  what really is the point of getting married if you are not doing it for religious reasons ? being married provides a tax advantage.  it also provides a legal shortcut for a variety of situations.  if one of you dies, the living spouse automatically gets their assets otherwise you would probably have to go to court .  if one of you is in the hospital, you as a family member automatically have the right to stay with them past visiting hours.  if one of you dies, you get sole custody of the children without having to adopt them beforehand.  legal, civil marriage saves a lot of time and money.  also, there used to be a thing and it might still be in some areas as a common law marriage.  where if you live with our partner for a given amount of time, you are automatically granted the legal status of marriage.  i am not sure what happened to it, but i think if marriage was defined as  two people living together in a committed relationship for the long term,  then marriages exist with or without the state is recognition.  and really that is all the state does is recognize legally marriages that already exist or are about to exist.   #  marriage does not cost very much under $0 i believe, at least in florida .   #  i think perhaps you are referring to weddings, rather than marriage, when you mention the expense.  marriage does not cost very much under $0 i believe, at least in florida .  people often confuse or rather, equate marriage with weddings.  you can say  i do  in front of a minister/rabbi/the whole world all you want and you are not married until you sign that piece of paper.  i certainly agree that people have a tendency to go overboard with lavish weddings, but that is just a ceremony.  there are lots of legal protections that come with being married.  for example, my fiance and i live in a house that he owns.  if  shudder  something were to happen to him, i would be out on the street.  it does not matter that we have been together for 0 years, i am just a stranger as far as the law is concerned.  visit him in the hospital ? sorry, family only.  i am just some person.  can you take care of these things with individual contracts outside of marriage ? well, kinda.  if you want to spend thousands of dollars and spend weeks talking to lawyers, and even then it might not work out always bear in mind that the law probably does not work the way it would seem it obviously should .   #  many people do not have family, or hate their family, and rely on friends.   # for example, my fiance and i live in a house that he owns.  if shudder something were to happen to him, i would be out on the street.  it does not matter that we have been together for 0 years, i am just a stranger as far as the law is concerned.  visit him in the hospital ? sorry, family only.  i am just some person.  can you take care of these things with individual contracts outside of marriage ? well, kinda.  i think this is just a symptom of society.  is that really a good thing we do not let friends in to see others in the hospital, only family ? should you really need to pay the government 0 dollars to link you, in name, and now have that permission ? nothing has changed.  that implies all family gets along.  many people do not have family, or hate their family, and rely on friends.  this is more a policy of the hospital, and outdated, in my opinion, versus a comment towards marriage.  in other words, the only reason marriage does have a meaning is because of absurd rules like that.  if the hospital did not have such a rule, then marriage loses points.  i can also make claims of inequality towards single people.  in canada, spouses can load up their s/o rrsp account for retirement.  it has tax implications.  as a single person, i do not have this advantage, etc.  so, again, these  rules  are just outdated symptoms of society.  while friends ca not see friends in the hospital, for example, at one point, black people had a specific seating arrangement on a bus no im not comparing rights but rather expectations of society .  things change, as i suspect concepts in marriage will as people find less meaning in it.  i think your examples highlight the constraints it can dump on society which does nothing but create road blocks and regulation that just costs society time and money.   #   only family is allowed here, everyone else, leave.    #  well, that i can agree with but at the same time, is this the only scenario ? the individual is out cold ? what if the person was not out cold but rather fully alert ?  only family is allowed here, everyone else, leave.   all long term girl friends, mothers of their children, etc.  are out.  i think it is a fine policy considering the situation, however, i find the issue with policies is that they generalize over everything without consideration.  they do the best they can through discrimination, essentially.  it is like being ticketed by photo radar versus a cop.  i ca not argue a machine but i have argued, successfully, out of the tickets i was to receive to human cops.  they understand a situation is not black and white.  in terms of this policy, it is like photo radar saying i was  speeding  even though i was outside of the speed zone but the machine, or policy, has no reasoning.   #  not every person is wedding is so big, and there are more simple measures, such as simply getting it done by a judge through an appointment.   #  legal and financial reasons really, if you do not like, or care for, the symbolic part of it i suppose.  not every person is wedding is so big, and there are more simple measures, such as simply getting it done by a judge through an appointment.  so, not all marriage ceremonies are materialistic.  and for the legal and financial reasons: URL mainly, i consider getting married for the symbolism of it, and the imperative of it for me.  marriage reaffirms the fact that in a relation with your so, that she is your so, and it certainly makes the family a bit more stable with legal backing and importance.  consider the relationship of scott disick and kourtney kardashian as an example, bear in mind the kardashians are people you really do not want to use as an example.  with a kid, and another on the way all scott is legally entitled to in regards of the children is practically diddly squat, unless he is registered as the legal father at which point he has the same rights as a married father would.  URL so, ultimately if you want to have a family the best way to go is for marriage rather than risk the uncertainty that comes with a non legally recognized partnership.  and i think in your intro, by marriage you mean the wedding ceremony.  not all wedding ceremonies come so cheap, and like i said before there are simpler, faster ways.  it is kind of a cultural fascination that comes with wanting a wedding really, the idea of the  perfect wedding  propagates this, by saying  if you have got money, we have got your dream !   which is not so.
i do not understand how many people are okay with dropping 0k on a ring, and then 0k  on a wedding ceremony.  it is a giant waste of money that could be spent on other things more worth while house, education, possessions.  what is the point of spending all this money on an event ? if it is supposed to be a declaration of two peoples love for each other then why does it need to be so materialistic ? i do not see a reason to even get married in the first place unless a situation demanded it.  i do not think marriage is needed to have sex, prove your love or even have kids.  two people can be committed and happy without spending a bunch of money or having a new title to officially declare themselves.  what really is the point of getting married if you are not doing it for religious reasons ?  #  i do not think marriage is needed to have sex, prove your love or even have kids.   #  two people can be committed and happy without spending a bunch of money or having a new title to officially declare themselves.   # this is not a requirement of marriage.  it depends on the people and how influenced by marketing they are.  i worked with someone whose wedding cost $0.  $0 for the dress, and $0 for the license.  you are judging the whole institution of marriage based on a very recent, popular custom.  two people can be committed and happy without spending a bunch of money or having a new title to officially declare themselves.  what really is the point of getting married if you are not doing it for religious reasons ? being married provides a tax advantage.  it also provides a legal shortcut for a variety of situations.  if one of you dies, the living spouse automatically gets their assets otherwise you would probably have to go to court .  if one of you is in the hospital, you as a family member automatically have the right to stay with them past visiting hours.  if one of you dies, you get sole custody of the children without having to adopt them beforehand.  legal, civil marriage saves a lot of time and money.  also, there used to be a thing and it might still be in some areas as a common law marriage.  where if you live with our partner for a given amount of time, you are automatically granted the legal status of marriage.  i am not sure what happened to it, but i think if marriage was defined as  two people living together in a committed relationship for the long term,  then marriages exist with or without the state is recognition.  and really that is all the state does is recognize legally marriages that already exist or are about to exist.   #  if  shudder  something were to happen to him, i would be out on the street.   #  i think perhaps you are referring to weddings, rather than marriage, when you mention the expense.  marriage does not cost very much under $0 i believe, at least in florida .  people often confuse or rather, equate marriage with weddings.  you can say  i do  in front of a minister/rabbi/the whole world all you want and you are not married until you sign that piece of paper.  i certainly agree that people have a tendency to go overboard with lavish weddings, but that is just a ceremony.  there are lots of legal protections that come with being married.  for example, my fiance and i live in a house that he owns.  if  shudder  something were to happen to him, i would be out on the street.  it does not matter that we have been together for 0 years, i am just a stranger as far as the law is concerned.  visit him in the hospital ? sorry, family only.  i am just some person.  can you take care of these things with individual contracts outside of marriage ? well, kinda.  if you want to spend thousands of dollars and spend weeks talking to lawyers, and even then it might not work out always bear in mind that the law probably does not work the way it would seem it obviously should .   #  in other words, the only reason marriage does have a meaning is because of absurd rules like that.   # for example, my fiance and i live in a house that he owns.  if shudder something were to happen to him, i would be out on the street.  it does not matter that we have been together for 0 years, i am just a stranger as far as the law is concerned.  visit him in the hospital ? sorry, family only.  i am just some person.  can you take care of these things with individual contracts outside of marriage ? well, kinda.  i think this is just a symptom of society.  is that really a good thing we do not let friends in to see others in the hospital, only family ? should you really need to pay the government 0 dollars to link you, in name, and now have that permission ? nothing has changed.  that implies all family gets along.  many people do not have family, or hate their family, and rely on friends.  this is more a policy of the hospital, and outdated, in my opinion, versus a comment towards marriage.  in other words, the only reason marriage does have a meaning is because of absurd rules like that.  if the hospital did not have such a rule, then marriage loses points.  i can also make claims of inequality towards single people.  in canada, spouses can load up their s/o rrsp account for retirement.  it has tax implications.  as a single person, i do not have this advantage, etc.  so, again, these  rules  are just outdated symptoms of society.  while friends ca not see friends in the hospital, for example, at one point, black people had a specific seating arrangement on a bus no im not comparing rights but rather expectations of society .  things change, as i suspect concepts in marriage will as people find less meaning in it.  i think your examples highlight the constraints it can dump on society which does nothing but create road blocks and regulation that just costs society time and money.   #  they understand a situation is not black and white.   #  well, that i can agree with but at the same time, is this the only scenario ? the individual is out cold ? what if the person was not out cold but rather fully alert ?  only family is allowed here, everyone else, leave.   all long term girl friends, mothers of their children, etc.  are out.  i think it is a fine policy considering the situation, however, i find the issue with policies is that they generalize over everything without consideration.  they do the best they can through discrimination, essentially.  it is like being ticketed by photo radar versus a cop.  i ca not argue a machine but i have argued, successfully, out of the tickets i was to receive to human cops.  they understand a situation is not black and white.  in terms of this policy, it is like photo radar saying i was  speeding  even though i was outside of the speed zone but the machine, or policy, has no reasoning.   #  not every person is wedding is so big, and there are more simple measures, such as simply getting it done by a judge through an appointment.   #  legal and financial reasons really, if you do not like, or care for, the symbolic part of it i suppose.  not every person is wedding is so big, and there are more simple measures, such as simply getting it done by a judge through an appointment.  so, not all marriage ceremonies are materialistic.  and for the legal and financial reasons: URL mainly, i consider getting married for the symbolism of it, and the imperative of it for me.  marriage reaffirms the fact that in a relation with your so, that she is your so, and it certainly makes the family a bit more stable with legal backing and importance.  consider the relationship of scott disick and kourtney kardashian as an example, bear in mind the kardashians are people you really do not want to use as an example.  with a kid, and another on the way all scott is legally entitled to in regards of the children is practically diddly squat, unless he is registered as the legal father at which point he has the same rights as a married father would.  URL so, ultimately if you want to have a family the best way to go is for marriage rather than risk the uncertainty that comes with a non legally recognized partnership.  and i think in your intro, by marriage you mean the wedding ceremony.  not all wedding ceremonies come so cheap, and like i said before there are simpler, faster ways.  it is kind of a cultural fascination that comes with wanting a wedding really, the idea of the  perfect wedding  propagates this, by saying  if you have got money, we have got your dream !   which is not so.
so my anarchist cousin told me to watch this URL video to address some of my concerns about the system.  he explained some to me.  i think he is pretty qualified, he is at the mesis university in auburn alabama which is a place to learn more about austrian econmoics.  it is my understanding that anarcho capitalism basically is austrian economics.  i just have a few concerns.  the first would be, would not this leave so much room for bullying and eventually a total war over control in this theoretical society.  with multiple privatized police forces and courts, it just seems like human nature would eventually get the better of us and a few police forces would look to advance their own agendas and force other is to succumb to their will.  this would obviously be met with resistance from the people in the society.  eventually this would, in my opinion, lead to a sort of government where one or two of the police forces/ governments will be able to control everything and monopolize everything.  the other possibility would be that the people would rebel and there would be a constant war zone.  the final possibility, which i find highly unlikely, is the people actually let this utopian like society continue as described in the video without any power grabs.  the second issue is what has you convinced that humans are organized enough to have a society like this.  how on earth would we organize this well to have all these privatized things going on ? we have a hard enough time maintaining our comparatively uncomplicated governments today.  how on earth would we get to this before chaos hits and after it does, how do we avoid chaos from starting.  can anybody address these concerns for me ? i am of the mind currently that most things would benefit from privatization.  a couple of the very few things i think would not are the judicial system and the police force.  i just thinks humans are not organized or simply not  nice  enough to have this kind of society.  there is a constant need to get ahead and claim power.  note: i also posted to /r/debateanarchism, but figured i would come here to ask a larger audiance.  here URL is that post.   #  the first would be, would not this leave so much room for bullying and eventually a total war over control in this theoretical society.   #  with multiple privatized police forces and courts, it just seems like human nature would eventually get the better of us and a few police forces would look to advance their own agendas and force other is to succumb to their will.   #  if im not mistaken r/debateanarchism is very much left anarchist and the right and left anarchists, or as they generally see each other, anarchism  tm  and ayncraps; do not get along to well.  with multiple privatized police forces and courts, it just seems like human nature would eventually get the better of us and a few police forces would look to advance their own agendas and force other is to succumb to their will.  this would obviously be met with resistance from the people in the society.  its important to note violence is expensive, and culture once it accepts a type of violence as evil, it rapidly declines, it happened with slavery, it happened with abuse; evil only continues on a large scale under insanely high profitability like say gang violence or under a mask of morality child abuse, wars, current state .  states always have had moral legitimacy URL its only recently they separated form churches they used to be the word of god to people.  people believe they are obligated to pay taxes and in many cases proud to do so, so the state is rather small but gains alot of money, this system would not work with 0 of the population just dodging taxes.  totalitarian states generally need to teach people to feel morally obligated to report their neighbors for minor crimes like owning a banned book, that level of cultural acceptance does not appear over night.  how on earth would we organize this well to have all these privatized things going on ? we have a hard enough time maintaining our comparatively uncomplicated governments today.  how on earth would we get to this before chaos hits and after it does, how do we avoid chaos from starting.  could you explain ? my position is the market is wonderfully simple and all that legalese is hard to follow.   #  in a centrally planned economy, the planners need to know everything about everything to make an optimal decision.   #  one trap that is easy to fall into when thinking about radical political philosophies is the perfect solution fallacy.  it is easy to invent a situation where the solution of that philosophy is not immediately obvious, but it is easy to do that for any  real  system as well.  i am guilty of this as well.  suppose you said,  we should have a system where we elect representatives based on popular vote to make laws for us.   i could bog you down all day with questions like  what if the majority of people decide to elect candidates that are totally racist against the minorities ? what if the rich and powerful use their wealth and influence in the media and education to confuse people into voting for policies that are against their interest ? what if some people refuse follow the laws ? what if they take up arms against the state ? what if this  police  force you propose becomes too zealous and people start getting shot ? what if bad laws are passed in the panic caused by national emergencies and ca not be repealed ?  .  any society, no matter what model it uses is going to encounter difficulties.  so arguing that an anarchist society would encounter difficulties is not very constructive.  and really, the best argument that you can come up is that an anarchist society might end up like our currect society ? your second issue is surprising:  the second issue is what has you convinced that humans are organized enough to have a society like this.  how on earth would we organize this well to have all these privatized things going on ? we have a hard enough time maintaining our comparatively uncomplicated governments today.  how on earth would we get to this before chaos hits and after it does, how do we avoid chaos from starting.  why do you think a market society is more complicated than a centralized one ? i would have thought the complete opposite.  in a centrally planned economy, the planners need to know everything about everything to make an optimal decision.  they need to know what is needed, where it is needed, what the opportunity costs of making it are, what the transport prices are, what the long term benefits are, how to weigh each of these factors.  in a market economy all of this information is encoded into prices.  this video URL is a little patronizing, but it explains the phenomenon well.  i think that principle applies to the services that the government traditionally provides.  i think that choosing an education provider for my children is orders of magnitude less complicated than navigating the bureaucracy and politics involved with trying to change some aspect of the public system.   #  tell me, these econometrics, what have they actually predicted successfully ?  #  not all economists are paul krugman.  some of them approach problems like serious scholars rather than filing everything into binary  good  and  bad  categories based on what helps them advance their political agenda.  looking critically at the austrian school, a professional economist would find they agree with some aspects and disagree with others, as they would with any school.  they would acknowledge the contributions made by austrian economists to the model now considered  mainstream , while perhaps disagreeing with some core assumptions.  find me one austrian economist who ever said that everybody has perfect information.  find me one austrian economist who ever said that everybody was a perfect optimizer.  mises did describe people as rational, but not in the sense you are using it.  he just meant they act with intent, not that their actions are economically optimal.  the austrians recognize the difficulty of establishing causation from correlation in a system that is affected by so many different variables.  so they prefer to study the economy through deduction.  deduction, by the way, does not mean  making shit up .  the entire field of mathematics is based on deduction.  maybe you can argue that they go a little too far in rejecting the role of observation, but the opposite extreme is even worse.  the arguments that internet keynesians tend to make, like  that country started a new social program, then nine years later unemployment went down by 0.  proof that stimulus works !   are worse than useless.  tell me, these econometrics, what have they actually predicted successfully ?  #  and very few serious scholars describe themselves as austrian school.   #  and very few serious scholars describe themselves as austrian school.  it is a natural consequence of advocating for free markets.  for a free market to work, information asymmetry cannot exist in any substantial form; it is why reputation services are advocated so fiercely by ancaps.  do you really need me to detail why mathematics, a purely theoretical field, can be formed solely by deduction, but economics, a field that describes the real world, cannot ? how can empirical observation be able to account for less variables than some people trying to deduce all economic behavior from a single axiom ? the opposite of rejecting empiricism is not poorly utilized empiricism.  i do not think you understand what econometrics is; it is applying statistics to economic data.  so it is used to test hypotheses which can then be used to make limited predictions.  it is not psychohistory.   #  so it is used to test hypotheses which can then be used to make limited predictions.   # for a free market to work, information asymmetry cannot exist in any substantial form; it is why reputation services are advocated so fiercely by ancaps.  so in other words, you ca not quote a single austrian economist who predicted that everyone has perfect information and perfect rationality.  it is a complete straw man.  how can empirical observation be able to account for less variables than some people trying to deduce all economic behavior from a single axiom ? you need both.  we can disagree on which one is a more useful tool, but you ca not ignore either one.  so it is used to test hypotheses which can then be used to make limited predictions.  it is not psychohistory.  so again, tell me what  limited predictions  have been made that prove the accuracy of econometrics beyond a reasonable doubt.
so my anarchist cousin told me to watch this URL video to address some of my concerns about the system.  he explained some to me.  i think he is pretty qualified, he is at the mesis university in auburn alabama which is a place to learn more about austrian econmoics.  it is my understanding that anarcho capitalism basically is austrian economics.  i just have a few concerns.  the first would be, would not this leave so much room for bullying and eventually a total war over control in this theoretical society.  with multiple privatized police forces and courts, it just seems like human nature would eventually get the better of us and a few police forces would look to advance their own agendas and force other is to succumb to their will.  this would obviously be met with resistance from the people in the society.  eventually this would, in my opinion, lead to a sort of government where one or two of the police forces/ governments will be able to control everything and monopolize everything.  the other possibility would be that the people would rebel and there would be a constant war zone.  the final possibility, which i find highly unlikely, is the people actually let this utopian like society continue as described in the video without any power grabs.  the second issue is what has you convinced that humans are organized enough to have a society like this.  how on earth would we organize this well to have all these privatized things going on ? we have a hard enough time maintaining our comparatively uncomplicated governments today.  how on earth would we get to this before chaos hits and after it does, how do we avoid chaos from starting.  can anybody address these concerns for me ? i am of the mind currently that most things would benefit from privatization.  a couple of the very few things i think would not are the judicial system and the police force.  i just thinks humans are not organized or simply not  nice  enough to have this kind of society.  there is a constant need to get ahead and claim power.  note: i also posted to /r/debateanarchism, but figured i would come here to ask a larger audiance.  here URL is that post.   #  the second issue is what has you convinced that humans are organized enough to have a society like this.   #  how on earth would we organize this well to have all these privatized things going on ?  #  if im not mistaken r/debateanarchism is very much left anarchist and the right and left anarchists, or as they generally see each other, anarchism  tm  and ayncraps; do not get along to well.  with multiple privatized police forces and courts, it just seems like human nature would eventually get the better of us and a few police forces would look to advance their own agendas and force other is to succumb to their will.  this would obviously be met with resistance from the people in the society.  its important to note violence is expensive, and culture once it accepts a type of violence as evil, it rapidly declines, it happened with slavery, it happened with abuse; evil only continues on a large scale under insanely high profitability like say gang violence or under a mask of morality child abuse, wars, current state .  states always have had moral legitimacy URL its only recently they separated form churches they used to be the word of god to people.  people believe they are obligated to pay taxes and in many cases proud to do so, so the state is rather small but gains alot of money, this system would not work with 0 of the population just dodging taxes.  totalitarian states generally need to teach people to feel morally obligated to report their neighbors for minor crimes like owning a banned book, that level of cultural acceptance does not appear over night.  how on earth would we organize this well to have all these privatized things going on ? we have a hard enough time maintaining our comparatively uncomplicated governments today.  how on earth would we get to this before chaos hits and after it does, how do we avoid chaos from starting.  could you explain ? my position is the market is wonderfully simple and all that legalese is hard to follow.   #  what if bad laws are passed in the panic caused by national emergencies and ca not be repealed ?  #  one trap that is easy to fall into when thinking about radical political philosophies is the perfect solution fallacy.  it is easy to invent a situation where the solution of that philosophy is not immediately obvious, but it is easy to do that for any  real  system as well.  i am guilty of this as well.  suppose you said,  we should have a system where we elect representatives based on popular vote to make laws for us.   i could bog you down all day with questions like  what if the majority of people decide to elect candidates that are totally racist against the minorities ? what if the rich and powerful use their wealth and influence in the media and education to confuse people into voting for policies that are against their interest ? what if some people refuse follow the laws ? what if they take up arms against the state ? what if this  police  force you propose becomes too zealous and people start getting shot ? what if bad laws are passed in the panic caused by national emergencies and ca not be repealed ?  .  any society, no matter what model it uses is going to encounter difficulties.  so arguing that an anarchist society would encounter difficulties is not very constructive.  and really, the best argument that you can come up is that an anarchist society might end up like our currect society ? your second issue is surprising:  the second issue is what has you convinced that humans are organized enough to have a society like this.  how on earth would we organize this well to have all these privatized things going on ? we have a hard enough time maintaining our comparatively uncomplicated governments today.  how on earth would we get to this before chaos hits and after it does, how do we avoid chaos from starting.  why do you think a market society is more complicated than a centralized one ? i would have thought the complete opposite.  in a centrally planned economy, the planners need to know everything about everything to make an optimal decision.  they need to know what is needed, where it is needed, what the opportunity costs of making it are, what the transport prices are, what the long term benefits are, how to weigh each of these factors.  in a market economy all of this information is encoded into prices.  this video URL is a little patronizing, but it explains the phenomenon well.  i think that principle applies to the services that the government traditionally provides.  i think that choosing an education provider for my children is orders of magnitude less complicated than navigating the bureaucracy and politics involved with trying to change some aspect of the public system.   #  he just meant they act with intent, not that their actions are economically optimal.   #  not all economists are paul krugman.  some of them approach problems like serious scholars rather than filing everything into binary  good  and  bad  categories based on what helps them advance their political agenda.  looking critically at the austrian school, a professional economist would find they agree with some aspects and disagree with others, as they would with any school.  they would acknowledge the contributions made by austrian economists to the model now considered  mainstream , while perhaps disagreeing with some core assumptions.  find me one austrian economist who ever said that everybody has perfect information.  find me one austrian economist who ever said that everybody was a perfect optimizer.  mises did describe people as rational, but not in the sense you are using it.  he just meant they act with intent, not that their actions are economically optimal.  the austrians recognize the difficulty of establishing causation from correlation in a system that is affected by so many different variables.  so they prefer to study the economy through deduction.  deduction, by the way, does not mean  making shit up .  the entire field of mathematics is based on deduction.  maybe you can argue that they go a little too far in rejecting the role of observation, but the opposite extreme is even worse.  the arguments that internet keynesians tend to make, like  that country started a new social program, then nine years later unemployment went down by 0.  proof that stimulus works !   are worse than useless.  tell me, these econometrics, what have they actually predicted successfully ?  #  the opposite of rejecting empiricism is not poorly utilized empiricism.   #  and very few serious scholars describe themselves as austrian school.  it is a natural consequence of advocating for free markets.  for a free market to work, information asymmetry cannot exist in any substantial form; it is why reputation services are advocated so fiercely by ancaps.  do you really need me to detail why mathematics, a purely theoretical field, can be formed solely by deduction, but economics, a field that describes the real world, cannot ? how can empirical observation be able to account for less variables than some people trying to deduce all economic behavior from a single axiom ? the opposite of rejecting empiricism is not poorly utilized empiricism.  i do not think you understand what econometrics is; it is applying statistics to economic data.  so it is used to test hypotheses which can then be used to make limited predictions.  it is not psychohistory.   #  so again, tell me what  limited predictions  have been made that prove the accuracy of econometrics beyond a reasonable doubt.   # for a free market to work, information asymmetry cannot exist in any substantial form; it is why reputation services are advocated so fiercely by ancaps.  so in other words, you ca not quote a single austrian economist who predicted that everyone has perfect information and perfect rationality.  it is a complete straw man.  how can empirical observation be able to account for less variables than some people trying to deduce all economic behavior from a single axiom ? you need both.  we can disagree on which one is a more useful tool, but you ca not ignore either one.  so it is used to test hypotheses which can then be used to make limited predictions.  it is not psychohistory.  so again, tell me what  limited predictions  have been made that prove the accuracy of econometrics beyond a reasonable doubt.
to be more specific, birth control and abortion should be illegalized and people should be forced to have children until the negative utility of a life consisting of being forced to have children reaches equilibrium with the positive utility of having another life experience the world.  one important factor of my argument is that any new human life that comes into existence at this point in time has a net positive experience.  i say this due to the fact that most people do not commit suicide.  additionally, i have the basic belief that we should try to maximize total happiness in the universe.  thus, because on average people is lives are positive, we must be obligated to bring as many people into existence as we can.  therefore i would like to see methods of preventing birth like birth control and abortion illegalized, along with a legal requirement to reproduce.  now, this cannot continue forever.  eventually having so many new people taking up resources and forcing those that are alive to reproduce will create negative effects that take away from happiness.  but when do we stop ? the obvious answer is to stop when the negative effects of my proposal are about to overtake, or reach equilibrium with, the positive effects.  i do not think we have reached this point yet so i currently support forcing people to have children.  i feel like this is a bizarre stance so cmv.   #  i feel like this is a bizarre stance so cmv.   #  since i do not want to break the second commenting rule, all i will say is that yes, your stance is very bizarre, and i think that it should be changed.   # since i do not want to break the second commenting rule, all i will say is that yes, your stance is very bizarre, and i think that it should be changed.  is it wrong for me to assume that you do not have the anatomy to give birth to a child ? i cannot imagine that someone who is capable of giving birth would advocate for forced birth.  you want about half of the world is population to be legally obligated to become baby factories, against their will.  you want to strip them of bodily autonomy for some poorly defined notion of  total happiness.   you are advocating restricting the freedom of half of society because of the anatomy that they are born with.  these are the necessary implications of what your view would require.  how exactly is this going to increase the total happiness of earth ? did you forget that women are human beings with emotions, ambitions, desires, and that many women do not want be baby factories ?  #  i guess the survey could be something like that, although i have decided that suicide is not the perfect measurement of unhappiness.   #  i guess the survey could be something like that, although i have decided that suicide is not the perfect measurement of unhappiness.  but dang, you are right, they could lie on the surveys on purpose ! i suppose we could use current surveys to get around their lies.  for example, current surveys show that most people in denmark are happy, so even if denmark people say they are miserable, we could call their bluff.  another option would be to only do this once, so people do not catch on.  that way we can at least get a few more kids out of it.   #  so yeah, you are advocating a society that would require women getting raped so that your poorly defined notion of happiness would increase.   # no, you are advocating forced birth as someone who will never have to give a forced birth.  these ideas do not apply to you, because you are never going to have to give up your bodily autonomy for them.  seriously, you are advocating restricting the freedom of half the population by taking away their bodily autonomy to increase some poorly defined notion of happiness.  how exactly is that supposed to work ? i will ask this again.  did you forget that women are human beings with emotions, ambitions, desires, and that many women do not want be baby factories ? i hope you realize what is necessary for women who do not want to be baby factories to get pregnant.  in your proposed society, they would have to get raped.  so yeah, you are advocating a society that would require women getting raped so that your poorly defined notion of happiness would increase.  please explain to me how the total happiness of the world will be increased by forcing many women to have an extremely traumatic event that will haunt them for the rest of their lives, combined with having them legally required to give birth to the baby produced by their rapist, which will heavily increase that trauma.  seriously, that is what your view  requires  happen.  sorry, but that is an absolutely horrendous view.   #  your idea also fails to consider a women who cannot get pregnant for physical health reasons or those for whom it is dangerous/potentially fatal, or b women who do not have a partner willing to get them pregnant.   #  i live in a country where abortion is currently illegal.  women here are overall much less happy than they would be if abortion were legal.  we lose control of our bodies, against our will, for 0 months.  it changes shape, it stretches, it becomes unrecognisable, it makes us nauseous and can cause us huge pain.  it is also massively expensive we must buy new clothes, we must buy healthier, fresher more expensive food, we must take time off work, we must pay transport costs as we cannot walk any real distance, we must buy vitamins and supplements.  it is limiting we need halp with basic tasks in the last few months, we cannot do the activities we used to do, etc.  it is  terrifying , your body has become a prison you must pay to keep healthy, all against your will.  on top of that, since all women must have children, there will be less parents wishing to adopt, so there will be either a more miserable children in foster homes or b children with mothers who massively resent their existence.  neither of those scenarios increase happiness.  i would argue that forcing this on women worldwide would decrease overall happiness to a point at which new generation of children born to these mothers would not be able to increase happiness in the way you suggest.  what would you suggest for women who become pregnant due to rape, also ? should they be forced to carry the baby of the man who brutally attacked them, leading them to become bitter and upset and allowing a child to be born potentially hated by both parents ? would this really increase happiness worldwide ? your idea also fails to consider a women who cannot get pregnant for physical health reasons or those for whom it is dangerous/potentially fatal, or b women who do not have a partner willing to get them pregnant.   #  by making birth control illegal then you minimize the amount of happiness experienced by adults, since they  must  have a child every time they have sex.   # how ? by making birth control illegal then you minimize the amount of happiness experienced by adults, since they  must  have a child every time they have sex.  what are we defining as birth control ? if you are eliminating condoms then it also will dramatically change the global population is health which will make the world even less happy.  on top of all that, many people who are using birth control or who are having abortions are people who  know  that a child is not suitable for them or wo not have a good life.  this makes the baby be born into a bad situation and makes both the baby and the parents or parent unhappy.  someone who wants to have a child is not using birth control so if it would be made illegal it would just be making it worse for those who do not want to have a child.  human birth is not intrinsically a happy thing just because they get to experience life.  this is not really evidence of anything.  most do not commit suicide because death is not a known thing, and it is scary.  life is all we know.  people can be unhappy but not commit suicide.
to be more specific, birth control and abortion should be illegalized and people should be forced to have children until the negative utility of a life consisting of being forced to have children reaches equilibrium with the positive utility of having another life experience the world.  one important factor of my argument is that any new human life that comes into existence at this point in time has a net positive experience.  i say this due to the fact that most people do not commit suicide.  additionally, i have the basic belief that we should try to maximize total happiness in the universe.  thus, because on average people is lives are positive, we must be obligated to bring as many people into existence as we can.  therefore i would like to see methods of preventing birth like birth control and abortion illegalized, along with a legal requirement to reproduce.  now, this cannot continue forever.  eventually having so many new people taking up resources and forcing those that are alive to reproduce will create negative effects that take away from happiness.  but when do we stop ? the obvious answer is to stop when the negative effects of my proposal are about to overtake, or reach equilibrium with, the positive effects.  i do not think we have reached this point yet so i currently support forcing people to have children.  i feel like this is a bizarre stance so cmv.   #  therefore i would like to see methods of preventing birth like birth control and abortion illegalized, along with a legal requirement to reproduce.   #  you want about half of the world is population to be legally obligated to become baby factories, against their will.   # since i do not want to break the second commenting rule, all i will say is that yes, your stance is very bizarre, and i think that it should be changed.  is it wrong for me to assume that you do not have the anatomy to give birth to a child ? i cannot imagine that someone who is capable of giving birth would advocate for forced birth.  you want about half of the world is population to be legally obligated to become baby factories, against their will.  you want to strip them of bodily autonomy for some poorly defined notion of  total happiness.   you are advocating restricting the freedom of half of society because of the anatomy that they are born with.  these are the necessary implications of what your view would require.  how exactly is this going to increase the total happiness of earth ? did you forget that women are human beings with emotions, ambitions, desires, and that many women do not want be baby factories ?  #  for example, current surveys show that most people in denmark are happy, so even if denmark people say they are miserable, we could call their bluff.   #  i guess the survey could be something like that, although i have decided that suicide is not the perfect measurement of unhappiness.  but dang, you are right, they could lie on the surveys on purpose ! i suppose we could use current surveys to get around their lies.  for example, current surveys show that most people in denmark are happy, so even if denmark people say they are miserable, we could call their bluff.  another option would be to only do this once, so people do not catch on.  that way we can at least get a few more kids out of it.   #  i hope you realize what is necessary for women who do not want to be baby factories to get pregnant.   # no, you are advocating forced birth as someone who will never have to give a forced birth.  these ideas do not apply to you, because you are never going to have to give up your bodily autonomy for them.  seriously, you are advocating restricting the freedom of half the population by taking away their bodily autonomy to increase some poorly defined notion of happiness.  how exactly is that supposed to work ? i will ask this again.  did you forget that women are human beings with emotions, ambitions, desires, and that many women do not want be baby factories ? i hope you realize what is necessary for women who do not want to be baby factories to get pregnant.  in your proposed society, they would have to get raped.  so yeah, you are advocating a society that would require women getting raped so that your poorly defined notion of happiness would increase.  please explain to me how the total happiness of the world will be increased by forcing many women to have an extremely traumatic event that will haunt them for the rest of their lives, combined with having them legally required to give birth to the baby produced by their rapist, which will heavily increase that trauma.  seriously, that is what your view  requires  happen.  sorry, but that is an absolutely horrendous view.   #  i would argue that forcing this on women worldwide would decrease overall happiness to a point at which new generation of children born to these mothers would not be able to increase happiness in the way you suggest.   #  i live in a country where abortion is currently illegal.  women here are overall much less happy than they would be if abortion were legal.  we lose control of our bodies, against our will, for 0 months.  it changes shape, it stretches, it becomes unrecognisable, it makes us nauseous and can cause us huge pain.  it is also massively expensive we must buy new clothes, we must buy healthier, fresher more expensive food, we must take time off work, we must pay transport costs as we cannot walk any real distance, we must buy vitamins and supplements.  it is limiting we need halp with basic tasks in the last few months, we cannot do the activities we used to do, etc.  it is  terrifying , your body has become a prison you must pay to keep healthy, all against your will.  on top of that, since all women must have children, there will be less parents wishing to adopt, so there will be either a more miserable children in foster homes or b children with mothers who massively resent their existence.  neither of those scenarios increase happiness.  i would argue that forcing this on women worldwide would decrease overall happiness to a point at which new generation of children born to these mothers would not be able to increase happiness in the way you suggest.  what would you suggest for women who become pregnant due to rape, also ? should they be forced to carry the baby of the man who brutally attacked them, leading them to become bitter and upset and allowing a child to be born potentially hated by both parents ? would this really increase happiness worldwide ? your idea also fails to consider a women who cannot get pregnant for physical health reasons or those for whom it is dangerous/potentially fatal, or b women who do not have a partner willing to get them pregnant.   #  most do not commit suicide because death is not a known thing, and it is scary.   # how ? by making birth control illegal then you minimize the amount of happiness experienced by adults, since they  must  have a child every time they have sex.  what are we defining as birth control ? if you are eliminating condoms then it also will dramatically change the global population is health which will make the world even less happy.  on top of all that, many people who are using birth control or who are having abortions are people who  know  that a child is not suitable for them or wo not have a good life.  this makes the baby be born into a bad situation and makes both the baby and the parents or parent unhappy.  someone who wants to have a child is not using birth control so if it would be made illegal it would just be making it worse for those who do not want to have a child.  human birth is not intrinsically a happy thing just because they get to experience life.  this is not really evidence of anything.  most do not commit suicide because death is not a known thing, and it is scary.  life is all we know.  people can be unhappy but not commit suicide.
to be more specific, birth control and abortion should be illegalized and people should be forced to have children until the negative utility of a life consisting of being forced to have children reaches equilibrium with the positive utility of having another life experience the world.  one important factor of my argument is that any new human life that comes into existence at this point in time has a net positive experience.  i say this due to the fact that most people do not commit suicide.  additionally, i have the basic belief that we should try to maximize total happiness in the universe.  thus, because on average people is lives are positive, we must be obligated to bring as many people into existence as we can.  therefore i would like to see methods of preventing birth like birth control and abortion illegalized, along with a legal requirement to reproduce.  now, this cannot continue forever.  eventually having so many new people taking up resources and forcing those that are alive to reproduce will create negative effects that take away from happiness.  but when do we stop ? the obvious answer is to stop when the negative effects of my proposal are about to overtake, or reach equilibrium with, the positive effects.  i do not think we have reached this point yet so i currently support forcing people to have children.  i feel like this is a bizarre stance so cmv.   #  i say this due to the fact that most people do not commit suicide.   #  this is not really evidence of anything.   # how ? by making birth control illegal then you minimize the amount of happiness experienced by adults, since they  must  have a child every time they have sex.  what are we defining as birth control ? if you are eliminating condoms then it also will dramatically change the global population is health which will make the world even less happy.  on top of all that, many people who are using birth control or who are having abortions are people who  know  that a child is not suitable for them or wo not have a good life.  this makes the baby be born into a bad situation and makes both the baby and the parents or parent unhappy.  someone who wants to have a child is not using birth control so if it would be made illegal it would just be making it worse for those who do not want to have a child.  human birth is not intrinsically a happy thing just because they get to experience life.  this is not really evidence of anything.  most do not commit suicide because death is not a known thing, and it is scary.  life is all we know.  people can be unhappy but not commit suicide.   #  i suppose we could use current surveys to get around their lies.   #  i guess the survey could be something like that, although i have decided that suicide is not the perfect measurement of unhappiness.  but dang, you are right, they could lie on the surveys on purpose ! i suppose we could use current surveys to get around their lies.  for example, current surveys show that most people in denmark are happy, so even if denmark people say they are miserable, we could call their bluff.  another option would be to only do this once, so people do not catch on.  that way we can at least get a few more kids out of it.   #  how exactly is this going to increase the total happiness of earth ?  # since i do not want to break the second commenting rule, all i will say is that yes, your stance is very bizarre, and i think that it should be changed.  is it wrong for me to assume that you do not have the anatomy to give birth to a child ? i cannot imagine that someone who is capable of giving birth would advocate for forced birth.  you want about half of the world is population to be legally obligated to become baby factories, against their will.  you want to strip them of bodily autonomy for some poorly defined notion of  total happiness.   you are advocating restricting the freedom of half of society because of the anatomy that they are born with.  these are the necessary implications of what your view would require.  how exactly is this going to increase the total happiness of earth ? did you forget that women are human beings with emotions, ambitions, desires, and that many women do not want be baby factories ?  #  seriously, that is what your view  requires  happen.   # no, you are advocating forced birth as someone who will never have to give a forced birth.  these ideas do not apply to you, because you are never going to have to give up your bodily autonomy for them.  seriously, you are advocating restricting the freedom of half the population by taking away their bodily autonomy to increase some poorly defined notion of happiness.  how exactly is that supposed to work ? i will ask this again.  did you forget that women are human beings with emotions, ambitions, desires, and that many women do not want be baby factories ? i hope you realize what is necessary for women who do not want to be baby factories to get pregnant.  in your proposed society, they would have to get raped.  so yeah, you are advocating a society that would require women getting raped so that your poorly defined notion of happiness would increase.  please explain to me how the total happiness of the world will be increased by forcing many women to have an extremely traumatic event that will haunt them for the rest of their lives, combined with having them legally required to give birth to the baby produced by their rapist, which will heavily increase that trauma.  seriously, that is what your view  requires  happen.  sorry, but that is an absolutely horrendous view.   #  what would you suggest for women who become pregnant due to rape, also ?  #  i live in a country where abortion is currently illegal.  women here are overall much less happy than they would be if abortion were legal.  we lose control of our bodies, against our will, for 0 months.  it changes shape, it stretches, it becomes unrecognisable, it makes us nauseous and can cause us huge pain.  it is also massively expensive we must buy new clothes, we must buy healthier, fresher more expensive food, we must take time off work, we must pay transport costs as we cannot walk any real distance, we must buy vitamins and supplements.  it is limiting we need halp with basic tasks in the last few months, we cannot do the activities we used to do, etc.  it is  terrifying , your body has become a prison you must pay to keep healthy, all against your will.  on top of that, since all women must have children, there will be less parents wishing to adopt, so there will be either a more miserable children in foster homes or b children with mothers who massively resent their existence.  neither of those scenarios increase happiness.  i would argue that forcing this on women worldwide would decrease overall happiness to a point at which new generation of children born to these mothers would not be able to increase happiness in the way you suggest.  what would you suggest for women who become pregnant due to rape, also ? should they be forced to carry the baby of the man who brutally attacked them, leading them to become bitter and upset and allowing a child to be born potentially hated by both parents ? would this really increase happiness worldwide ? your idea also fails to consider a women who cannot get pregnant for physical health reasons or those for whom it is dangerous/potentially fatal, or b women who do not have a partner willing to get them pregnant.
to be more specific, birth control and abortion should be illegalized and people should be forced to have children until the negative utility of a life consisting of being forced to have children reaches equilibrium with the positive utility of having another life experience the world.  one important factor of my argument is that any new human life that comes into existence at this point in time has a net positive experience.  i say this due to the fact that most people do not commit suicide.  additionally, i have the basic belief that we should try to maximize total happiness in the universe.  thus, because on average people is lives are positive, we must be obligated to bring as many people into existence as we can.  therefore i would like to see methods of preventing birth like birth control and abortion illegalized, along with a legal requirement to reproduce.  now, this cannot continue forever.  eventually having so many new people taking up resources and forcing those that are alive to reproduce will create negative effects that take away from happiness.  but when do we stop ? the obvious answer is to stop when the negative effects of my proposal are about to overtake, or reach equilibrium with, the positive effects.  i do not think we have reached this point yet so i currently support forcing people to have children.  i feel like this is a bizarre stance so cmv.   #  i say this due to the fact that most people do not commit suicide.   #  this does not mean it is an objective net positive, just that the negatives are worth it.   # it would be reached instantly.  this does not mean it is an objective net positive, just that the negatives are worth it.  why ? we are already there.  in fact,  way  past that.   #  but dang, you are right, they could lie on the surveys on purpose !  #  i guess the survey could be something like that, although i have decided that suicide is not the perfect measurement of unhappiness.  but dang, you are right, they could lie on the surveys on purpose ! i suppose we could use current surveys to get around their lies.  for example, current surveys show that most people in denmark are happy, so even if denmark people say they are miserable, we could call their bluff.  another option would be to only do this once, so people do not catch on.  that way we can at least get a few more kids out of it.   #  you want to strip them of bodily autonomy for some poorly defined notion of  total happiness.    # since i do not want to break the second commenting rule, all i will say is that yes, your stance is very bizarre, and i think that it should be changed.  is it wrong for me to assume that you do not have the anatomy to give birth to a child ? i cannot imagine that someone who is capable of giving birth would advocate for forced birth.  you want about half of the world is population to be legally obligated to become baby factories, against their will.  you want to strip them of bodily autonomy for some poorly defined notion of  total happiness.   you are advocating restricting the freedom of half of society because of the anatomy that they are born with.  these are the necessary implications of what your view would require.  how exactly is this going to increase the total happiness of earth ? did you forget that women are human beings with emotions, ambitions, desires, and that many women do not want be baby factories ?  #  did you forget that women are human beings with emotions, ambitions, desires, and that many women do not want be baby factories ?  # no, you are advocating forced birth as someone who will never have to give a forced birth.  these ideas do not apply to you, because you are never going to have to give up your bodily autonomy for them.  seriously, you are advocating restricting the freedom of half the population by taking away their bodily autonomy to increase some poorly defined notion of happiness.  how exactly is that supposed to work ? i will ask this again.  did you forget that women are human beings with emotions, ambitions, desires, and that many women do not want be baby factories ? i hope you realize what is necessary for women who do not want to be baby factories to get pregnant.  in your proposed society, they would have to get raped.  so yeah, you are advocating a society that would require women getting raped so that your poorly defined notion of happiness would increase.  please explain to me how the total happiness of the world will be increased by forcing many women to have an extremely traumatic event that will haunt them for the rest of their lives, combined with having them legally required to give birth to the baby produced by their rapist, which will heavily increase that trauma.  seriously, that is what your view  requires  happen.  sorry, but that is an absolutely horrendous view.   #  your idea also fails to consider a women who cannot get pregnant for physical health reasons or those for whom it is dangerous/potentially fatal, or b women who do not have a partner willing to get them pregnant.   #  i live in a country where abortion is currently illegal.  women here are overall much less happy than they would be if abortion were legal.  we lose control of our bodies, against our will, for 0 months.  it changes shape, it stretches, it becomes unrecognisable, it makes us nauseous and can cause us huge pain.  it is also massively expensive we must buy new clothes, we must buy healthier, fresher more expensive food, we must take time off work, we must pay transport costs as we cannot walk any real distance, we must buy vitamins and supplements.  it is limiting we need halp with basic tasks in the last few months, we cannot do the activities we used to do, etc.  it is  terrifying , your body has become a prison you must pay to keep healthy, all against your will.  on top of that, since all women must have children, there will be less parents wishing to adopt, so there will be either a more miserable children in foster homes or b children with mothers who massively resent their existence.  neither of those scenarios increase happiness.  i would argue that forcing this on women worldwide would decrease overall happiness to a point at which new generation of children born to these mothers would not be able to increase happiness in the way you suggest.  what would you suggest for women who become pregnant due to rape, also ? should they be forced to carry the baby of the man who brutally attacked them, leading them to become bitter and upset and allowing a child to be born potentially hated by both parents ? would this really increase happiness worldwide ? your idea also fails to consider a women who cannot get pregnant for physical health reasons or those for whom it is dangerous/potentially fatal, or b women who do not have a partner willing to get them pregnant.
all of these methods of killing result in long and painful deaths.  why is one acceptable but the other not ? a bullet wound to the abdomen can cause intestinal agony for months, which seems on par with mustard gas.  if infection sets in, possibly worse.  having your limbs blown off while you are conscious is probably worse than being gassed.  being burned by the flames from an explosion is probably on par with mustard gas burns.  assume that mustard gas is only used on the battlefield and does not spread to other areas such as civilian areas.   #  all of these methods of killing result in long and painful deaths.   #  a bullet or bomb can result in a long and painful death, or a quick death, or just short term injury.   # a bullet or bomb can result in a long and painful death, or a quick death, or just short term injury.  in all but the light contact, mustard gas is a long and painful recovery, or a painful death.  the burns are said to be much more painful than even regular heat burns, and of course much worse if inhaled.  in survivors, it is also highly carcinogenic.  i ca not assume that, because it is not correct.  you never know which way the wind will blow.  plus symptoms are often not immediate, taking up to 0 hours, but it sticks to skin and clothes.  so anyone a soldier, or his clothes, comes in contact with for all that time is also injured without knowing it.  source: us army nuclear, biological and chemical school.  but the facts are out there on the interwebs too.   #  i ca not change your view if your view keeps changing.   #  op ! i ca not change your view if your view keeps changing.  ; so i should ignore civilians in war zones.  i should also ignore the effects of wind.  what about the nature of gas to spread ? because if not, i would then argue that because gas spreads, there is no way to aim it at the enemy and only at the enemy, thus endangering one is own troops.   #  if they have protective equipment like gas masks, which is likely, it would just be a minor inconvenience to them.   #  well, i generally do not agree with inflicting physical suffering.  however, imo, using gas against well equipped soldiers just is not that effective.  if they have protective equipment like gas masks, which is likely, it would just be a minor inconvenience to them.  i think gas could, in this situation, be used as a scare tactic or a distraction, but in terms of killing one is enemies, there are much more effective ways to do it.  chemical weapons are much more scary for civilians, who have no defense against them making chem weapons more ideal for terrorists .   #  it is not that one set of weapons is perfect and the other is unquestionably evil.   #  i do not mean that you went back and added that condition later.  i mean that if your claim has to come with a major qualifier about how a battle would have be fought around the drawbacks of this weapon, does not that make it an inferior tool for the job ? when discussing weapons you will often hear the claim that the mark of a good weapon is that it gives you options instead of making you work around its limitations.  mustard gas has none of the advantages of conventional weapons.  you ca not point it at a precise target or follow up with immediate troop movement into the area.  the conditions you mentioned ca not usually be relied on in real war.  it is generally considered more painful and causes more permanent injury.  a bullet or bomb ca not always be relied on for a clean kill, but the chances are much higher.  it is not that one set of weapons is perfect and the other is unquestionably evil.  these things are measured in degrees.   #  there will be no clouds, and no rain and the land would become barren.   #  with this assumption, it is impossible to change your view.  0 this is because you have destroyed life on earth in your hypothetical.  let is think about this for a second.  for there to be no wind, there needs to be no temperature differential, or to remove the sun.  for purposes of your hypothetical, let is say that the sun remains and we still have air.  without wind, migratory bird species would die off quickly.  plants will not be able to pollinate and vegetation would likely die off.  humans would be stuck in their own co0, plants would be stuck in their own o0, and both would likely suffocate.  there would be no cars and cities, due to the lack of oxygen.  there will be no clouds, and no rain and the land would become barren.  fish species would perish, due to water temperature becoming constant with atmospheric temperature.  and if this is not enough for you, ocean currents would also stop, causing microbes to produce an overabundance of hs0, which would destroy the ozone layer and effectively kill life on earth.  at the  very  least, humankind anyways .  so after you have killed off mankind, is killing with mustard gas no different than bombs and bullets ? well, that is a moot point if there are no humans left, do not you think ?  0  just  to  be  clear,  i  am  not  insinuating  that  op  is  not   willing   to  change  his/her  view.   just  trying  to  reconcile  an  impossible  assumption.
all of these methods of killing result in long and painful deaths.  why is one acceptable but the other not ? a bullet wound to the abdomen can cause intestinal agony for months, which seems on par with mustard gas.  if infection sets in, possibly worse.  having your limbs blown off while you are conscious is probably worse than being gassed.  being burned by the flames from an explosion is probably on par with mustard gas burns.  assume that mustard gas is only used on the battlefield and does not spread to other areas such as civilian areas.   #  assume that mustard gas is only used on the battlefield and does not spread to other areas such as civilian areas.   #  i ca not assume that, because it is not correct.   # a bullet or bomb can result in a long and painful death, or a quick death, or just short term injury.  in all but the light contact, mustard gas is a long and painful recovery, or a painful death.  the burns are said to be much more painful than even regular heat burns, and of course much worse if inhaled.  in survivors, it is also highly carcinogenic.  i ca not assume that, because it is not correct.  you never know which way the wind will blow.  plus symptoms are often not immediate, taking up to 0 hours, but it sticks to skin and clothes.  so anyone a soldier, or his clothes, comes in contact with for all that time is also injured without knowing it.  source: us army nuclear, biological and chemical school.  but the facts are out there on the interwebs too.   #  ; so i should ignore civilians in war zones.   #  op ! i ca not change your view if your view keeps changing.  ; so i should ignore civilians in war zones.  i should also ignore the effects of wind.  what about the nature of gas to spread ? because if not, i would then argue that because gas spreads, there is no way to aim it at the enemy and only at the enemy, thus endangering one is own troops.   #  well, i generally do not agree with inflicting physical suffering.   #  well, i generally do not agree with inflicting physical suffering.  however, imo, using gas against well equipped soldiers just is not that effective.  if they have protective equipment like gas masks, which is likely, it would just be a minor inconvenience to them.  i think gas could, in this situation, be used as a scare tactic or a distraction, but in terms of killing one is enemies, there are much more effective ways to do it.  chemical weapons are much more scary for civilians, who have no defense against them making chem weapons more ideal for terrorists .   #  mustard gas has none of the advantages of conventional weapons.   #  i do not mean that you went back and added that condition later.  i mean that if your claim has to come with a major qualifier about how a battle would have be fought around the drawbacks of this weapon, does not that make it an inferior tool for the job ? when discussing weapons you will often hear the claim that the mark of a good weapon is that it gives you options instead of making you work around its limitations.  mustard gas has none of the advantages of conventional weapons.  you ca not point it at a precise target or follow up with immediate troop movement into the area.  the conditions you mentioned ca not usually be relied on in real war.  it is generally considered more painful and causes more permanent injury.  a bullet or bomb ca not always be relied on for a clean kill, but the chances are much higher.  it is not that one set of weapons is perfect and the other is unquestionably evil.  these things are measured in degrees.   #  fish species would perish, due to water temperature becoming constant with atmospheric temperature.   #  with this assumption, it is impossible to change your view.  0 this is because you have destroyed life on earth in your hypothetical.  let is think about this for a second.  for there to be no wind, there needs to be no temperature differential, or to remove the sun.  for purposes of your hypothetical, let is say that the sun remains and we still have air.  without wind, migratory bird species would die off quickly.  plants will not be able to pollinate and vegetation would likely die off.  humans would be stuck in their own co0, plants would be stuck in their own o0, and both would likely suffocate.  there would be no cars and cities, due to the lack of oxygen.  there will be no clouds, and no rain and the land would become barren.  fish species would perish, due to water temperature becoming constant with atmospheric temperature.  and if this is not enough for you, ocean currents would also stop, causing microbes to produce an overabundance of hs0, which would destroy the ozone layer and effectively kill life on earth.  at the  very  least, humankind anyways .  so after you have killed off mankind, is killing with mustard gas no different than bombs and bullets ? well, that is a moot point if there are no humans left, do not you think ?  0  just  to  be  clear,  i  am  not  insinuating  that  op  is  not   willing   to  change  his/her  view.   just  trying  to  reconcile  an  impossible  assumption.
just as a preface, i am not a speed runner and i do not watch a terrible amount of speed running.  the majority of my knowledge comes from a few super meat boy speed runners and dark souls 0 speed running.  it seems a common tactic in the speed running community to use tricks in the game to quickly get ahead.  this is exactly what you would expect from someone trying to finish the game as fast as possible; however, often times these  tricks  can cause the player to completely skip a large portion of the game.  my main example would be what is referred to as the brownie skip in super meat boy.  brownie is a boss in super meat boy on the world called the salt factory.  in order to beat him, you have to outrun him through a maze like structure and get to the top of the structure.  doing this normally could take a little longer than a minute.  perhaps less, i do not know the exact amount of time, but definitely significantly more than when using the exploit.  performing the brownie skip, the player is placed into the race, runs immediately to the right outside of few and pauses the game and then ends up being able to land on top of the platform that was initially impeding their progress.  if you do not know or that explanation did not make sense, here URL is what it looks like.  in my opinion, this and tactics like it do not belong in speed running.  while it does make you beat the game faster, you are not actually playing the game.  you are playing  who knows how and when to pause the game and how to wiggle the stick  the best.  the idea of speed running is about being able to beat the game the fastest and bosses are an important part of the game.  actually beating the boss shows off more skill by far.  cmv !  #  while it does make you beat the game faster, you are not actually playing the game.   #  but the entire purpose of a speed run is to finish the game as quickly as possible, not to  play the game .   # but the entire purpose of a speed run is to finish the game as quickly as possible, not to  play the game .  you are being disingenuous if you do not think that same description can be applied to every single aspect of a game.  beating bosses is simply playing  who know how and when to press buttons and how to wiggle the stick  the best.  just because certain mechanics were not intended by game developers does not make them part of the game.  that is true, but you are conflating two different goals here.  a speedrunner is goal is to get from start to finish as quickly as possible, not to 0 the game.  cmv ! i actually disagree.  for many exploits in many games, there are two major areas of skill needed: 0.  the skill to figure it out in the first place e. g.  some super mario world exploits require some knowledge of how the game stores memory and manipulates the gameplay.  that takes more skill than figuring out how to beat a boss.  0.  the skill to do things pixel perfect.  most bosses can be beaten fairly easily by skilled players and require nowhere near the level of perfection as many exploits.   #  i said in another comment that i know there is nothing wrong with using things that are not intended to your advantage, but like i have said, there is a clear difference between exploiting something unintended and skipping what was intended.   # i do not disagree on this point, but i do not necessarily think it is as simple as that.  the only seemingly spoken rule of speed running is beat the game as fast as possible; however, i think there is merit to the idea that you are playing one game over another.  super meat boy is different from binding of issac.  i am having a hard time articulating what i mean by that.  as in why play one game over another if both require the same exploits ? that is not exactly what i mean.  beating bosses is simply playing  who know how and when to press buttons and how to wiggle the stick  the best.  i  knew  someone would make this remark haha.  you are not wrong at all on this point and i would remove this from my post if you had not quoted it.  i said in another comment that i know there is nothing wrong with using things that are not intended to your advantage, but like i have said, there is a clear difference between exploiting something unintended and skipping what was intended.  a speedrunner is goal is to get from start to finish as quickly as possible, not to 0 the game.  i did not mean that as they must fight all the bosses.  in dark souls 0 there are several bosses and even entire sections that are not necessary to beat the game.  this is again my view that there is a need to also play the game rather than just beat it.  if person a finds out exploit  0  and person b finds out exploit  0 , it makes no difference to the fastest runner in the world who found no exploits them self.   #  many exploits still take a significant degree of skill to execute, so competition is still possible, but people competing tend to be good sports about it and have a healthy dose of respect for their peers.   # this is part of what makes the speed running community a community.  doing better and being able to show it off requires, in a sense, giving back to the community.  from what i have seen of them, they are not super competitive.  they are much more cooperative, or at least there is a degree of camaraderie there.  many exploits still take a significant degree of skill to execute, so competition is still possible, but people competing tend to be good sports about it and have a healthy dose of respect for their peers.   #  it is clearly something that was not intended by the developer, but lacks that  glitchy feel  that you have with other exploits.   #  i am not an avid speed runner or sr fan, but i think there are a few things that you should consider.  0.  what is and is not an exploit is subjective.  in your smb example, you could say it is  pretty obvious  what is and is not an exploit, but you end up with some blurry lines.  while some exploits feel  extremely glitchy , there are others that are less so.  for instance, in ocarina of time, it is actually faster to backflip than to run, so speed runners will use that to move across areas more quickly.  it is clearly something that was not intended by the developer, but lacks that  glitchy feel  that you have with other exploits.  rather than try to subjectively determine what is and is not an exploit, it is easier just to allow whatever you can find in the game.  0.  finding the exploits is often considered part of the speed running culture.  i find it interesting when people try to find ways to, in essence, break the game in order to beat it faster.  while i understand the want for only  fair play , the current culture values this kind of creativity in speed running.  it would not be unreasonable to create a  purist  speed running scene, but that does not eliminate the value of the current scene.   #  i meant to mention something of the ilk on both your points in my post.   #  i meant to mention something of the ilk on both your points in my post.  0.  an example similar to the ocarina of time exploit is that in dark souls 0, there is a way to use the bino is to move far faster than normal.  while this was not the developer is original intent, it is something that speeds up the game.  but it does not  skip  part of it.  since been patched, there was a way to completely skip the first half ish of the game using a glitch involving a part of the game called the shrine of winter.  while i know the line gets fuzzy somewhere, i think there is a very clear difference between exploits that speed up the game and ones that  skip  the game.  why even bother playing if you are going to skip such a large amount of it ? 0.  i meant to mention that i am aware that the current speed running culture loves the creativity portion of it all.  who can blame them ? some are really crazy and interesting and involve seemingly random stunts that end up benefiting the player.  but  breaking the game  is far off from speeding running.  in various racing leagues for the binding of issac, certain items are banned in one league while they are not in others.  this is a good solution, but there is always one or two groups that come out on top of the rest as most popular.  i suppose i am arguing for the sake of the top league.  i am not necessarily saying that the way things are currently do not have their value, but if they are going to claim they are speed running the game, they should not, in my opinion, skip any part that ca not naturally be skipped eg in smb any% runs they only do as many levels as it takes to unlock the boss .
just as a preface, i am not a speed runner and i do not watch a terrible amount of speed running.  the majority of my knowledge comes from a few super meat boy speed runners and dark souls 0 speed running.  it seems a common tactic in the speed running community to use tricks in the game to quickly get ahead.  this is exactly what you would expect from someone trying to finish the game as fast as possible; however, often times these  tricks  can cause the player to completely skip a large portion of the game.  my main example would be what is referred to as the brownie skip in super meat boy.  brownie is a boss in super meat boy on the world called the salt factory.  in order to beat him, you have to outrun him through a maze like structure and get to the top of the structure.  doing this normally could take a little longer than a minute.  perhaps less, i do not know the exact amount of time, but definitely significantly more than when using the exploit.  performing the brownie skip, the player is placed into the race, runs immediately to the right outside of few and pauses the game and then ends up being able to land on top of the platform that was initially impeding their progress.  if you do not know or that explanation did not make sense, here URL is what it looks like.  in my opinion, this and tactics like it do not belong in speed running.  while it does make you beat the game faster, you are not actually playing the game.  you are playing  who knows how and when to pause the game and how to wiggle the stick  the best.  the idea of speed running is about being able to beat the game the fastest and bosses are an important part of the game.  actually beating the boss shows off more skill by far.  cmv !  #  you are playing  who knows how and when to pause the game and how to wiggle the stick  the best.   #  you are being disingenuous if you do not think that same description can be applied to every single aspect of a game.   # but the entire purpose of a speed run is to finish the game as quickly as possible, not to  play the game .  you are being disingenuous if you do not think that same description can be applied to every single aspect of a game.  beating bosses is simply playing  who know how and when to press buttons and how to wiggle the stick  the best.  just because certain mechanics were not intended by game developers does not make them part of the game.  that is true, but you are conflating two different goals here.  a speedrunner is goal is to get from start to finish as quickly as possible, not to 0 the game.  cmv ! i actually disagree.  for many exploits in many games, there are two major areas of skill needed: 0.  the skill to figure it out in the first place e. g.  some super mario world exploits require some knowledge of how the game stores memory and manipulates the gameplay.  that takes more skill than figuring out how to beat a boss.  0.  the skill to do things pixel perfect.  most bosses can be beaten fairly easily by skilled players and require nowhere near the level of perfection as many exploits.   #  as in why play one game over another if both require the same exploits ?  # i do not disagree on this point, but i do not necessarily think it is as simple as that.  the only seemingly spoken rule of speed running is beat the game as fast as possible; however, i think there is merit to the idea that you are playing one game over another.  super meat boy is different from binding of issac.  i am having a hard time articulating what i mean by that.  as in why play one game over another if both require the same exploits ? that is not exactly what i mean.  beating bosses is simply playing  who know how and when to press buttons and how to wiggle the stick  the best.  i  knew  someone would make this remark haha.  you are not wrong at all on this point and i would remove this from my post if you had not quoted it.  i said in another comment that i know there is nothing wrong with using things that are not intended to your advantage, but like i have said, there is a clear difference between exploiting something unintended and skipping what was intended.  a speedrunner is goal is to get from start to finish as quickly as possible, not to 0 the game.  i did not mean that as they must fight all the bosses.  in dark souls 0 there are several bosses and even entire sections that are not necessary to beat the game.  this is again my view that there is a need to also play the game rather than just beat it.  if person a finds out exploit  0  and person b finds out exploit  0 , it makes no difference to the fastest runner in the world who found no exploits them self.   #  many exploits still take a significant degree of skill to execute, so competition is still possible, but people competing tend to be good sports about it and have a healthy dose of respect for their peers.   # this is part of what makes the speed running community a community.  doing better and being able to show it off requires, in a sense, giving back to the community.  from what i have seen of them, they are not super competitive.  they are much more cooperative, or at least there is a degree of camaraderie there.  many exploits still take a significant degree of skill to execute, so competition is still possible, but people competing tend to be good sports about it and have a healthy dose of respect for their peers.   #  rather than try to subjectively determine what is and is not an exploit, it is easier just to allow whatever you can find in the game.   #  i am not an avid speed runner or sr fan, but i think there are a few things that you should consider.  0.  what is and is not an exploit is subjective.  in your smb example, you could say it is  pretty obvious  what is and is not an exploit, but you end up with some blurry lines.  while some exploits feel  extremely glitchy , there are others that are less so.  for instance, in ocarina of time, it is actually faster to backflip than to run, so speed runners will use that to move across areas more quickly.  it is clearly something that was not intended by the developer, but lacks that  glitchy feel  that you have with other exploits.  rather than try to subjectively determine what is and is not an exploit, it is easier just to allow whatever you can find in the game.  0.  finding the exploits is often considered part of the speed running culture.  i find it interesting when people try to find ways to, in essence, break the game in order to beat it faster.  while i understand the want for only  fair play , the current culture values this kind of creativity in speed running.  it would not be unreasonable to create a  purist  speed running scene, but that does not eliminate the value of the current scene.   #  since been patched, there was a way to completely skip the first half ish of the game using a glitch involving a part of the game called the shrine of winter.   #  i meant to mention something of the ilk on both your points in my post.  0.  an example similar to the ocarina of time exploit is that in dark souls 0, there is a way to use the bino is to move far faster than normal.  while this was not the developer is original intent, it is something that speeds up the game.  but it does not  skip  part of it.  since been patched, there was a way to completely skip the first half ish of the game using a glitch involving a part of the game called the shrine of winter.  while i know the line gets fuzzy somewhere, i think there is a very clear difference between exploits that speed up the game and ones that  skip  the game.  why even bother playing if you are going to skip such a large amount of it ? 0.  i meant to mention that i am aware that the current speed running culture loves the creativity portion of it all.  who can blame them ? some are really crazy and interesting and involve seemingly random stunts that end up benefiting the player.  but  breaking the game  is far off from speeding running.  in various racing leagues for the binding of issac, certain items are banned in one league while they are not in others.  this is a good solution, but there is always one or two groups that come out on top of the rest as most popular.  i suppose i am arguing for the sake of the top league.  i am not necessarily saying that the way things are currently do not have their value, but if they are going to claim they are speed running the game, they should not, in my opinion, skip any part that ca not naturally be skipped eg in smb any% runs they only do as many levels as it takes to unlock the boss .
just as a preface, i am not a speed runner and i do not watch a terrible amount of speed running.  the majority of my knowledge comes from a few super meat boy speed runners and dark souls 0 speed running.  it seems a common tactic in the speed running community to use tricks in the game to quickly get ahead.  this is exactly what you would expect from someone trying to finish the game as fast as possible; however, often times these  tricks  can cause the player to completely skip a large portion of the game.  my main example would be what is referred to as the brownie skip in super meat boy.  brownie is a boss in super meat boy on the world called the salt factory.  in order to beat him, you have to outrun him through a maze like structure and get to the top of the structure.  doing this normally could take a little longer than a minute.  perhaps less, i do not know the exact amount of time, but definitely significantly more than when using the exploit.  performing the brownie skip, the player is placed into the race, runs immediately to the right outside of few and pauses the game and then ends up being able to land on top of the platform that was initially impeding their progress.  if you do not know or that explanation did not make sense, here URL is what it looks like.  in my opinion, this and tactics like it do not belong in speed running.  while it does make you beat the game faster, you are not actually playing the game.  you are playing  who knows how and when to pause the game and how to wiggle the stick  the best.  the idea of speed running is about being able to beat the game the fastest and bosses are an important part of the game.  actually beating the boss shows off more skill by far.  cmv !  #  the idea of speed running is about being able to beat the game the fastest and bosses are an important part of the game.   #  that is true, but you are conflating two different goals here.   # but the entire purpose of a speed run is to finish the game as quickly as possible, not to  play the game .  you are being disingenuous if you do not think that same description can be applied to every single aspect of a game.  beating bosses is simply playing  who know how and when to press buttons and how to wiggle the stick  the best.  just because certain mechanics were not intended by game developers does not make them part of the game.  that is true, but you are conflating two different goals here.  a speedrunner is goal is to get from start to finish as quickly as possible, not to 0 the game.  cmv ! i actually disagree.  for many exploits in many games, there are two major areas of skill needed: 0.  the skill to figure it out in the first place e. g.  some super mario world exploits require some knowledge of how the game stores memory and manipulates the gameplay.  that takes more skill than figuring out how to beat a boss.  0.  the skill to do things pixel perfect.  most bosses can be beaten fairly easily by skilled players and require nowhere near the level of perfection as many exploits.   #  i did not mean that as they must fight all the bosses.   # i do not disagree on this point, but i do not necessarily think it is as simple as that.  the only seemingly spoken rule of speed running is beat the game as fast as possible; however, i think there is merit to the idea that you are playing one game over another.  super meat boy is different from binding of issac.  i am having a hard time articulating what i mean by that.  as in why play one game over another if both require the same exploits ? that is not exactly what i mean.  beating bosses is simply playing  who know how and when to press buttons and how to wiggle the stick  the best.  i  knew  someone would make this remark haha.  you are not wrong at all on this point and i would remove this from my post if you had not quoted it.  i said in another comment that i know there is nothing wrong with using things that are not intended to your advantage, but like i have said, there is a clear difference between exploiting something unintended and skipping what was intended.  a speedrunner is goal is to get from start to finish as quickly as possible, not to 0 the game.  i did not mean that as they must fight all the bosses.  in dark souls 0 there are several bosses and even entire sections that are not necessary to beat the game.  this is again my view that there is a need to also play the game rather than just beat it.  if person a finds out exploit  0  and person b finds out exploit  0 , it makes no difference to the fastest runner in the world who found no exploits them self.   #  doing better and being able to show it off requires, in a sense, giving back to the community.   # this is part of what makes the speed running community a community.  doing better and being able to show it off requires, in a sense, giving back to the community.  from what i have seen of them, they are not super competitive.  they are much more cooperative, or at least there is a degree of camaraderie there.  many exploits still take a significant degree of skill to execute, so competition is still possible, but people competing tend to be good sports about it and have a healthy dose of respect for their peers.   #  it is clearly something that was not intended by the developer, but lacks that  glitchy feel  that you have with other exploits.   #  i am not an avid speed runner or sr fan, but i think there are a few things that you should consider.  0.  what is and is not an exploit is subjective.  in your smb example, you could say it is  pretty obvious  what is and is not an exploit, but you end up with some blurry lines.  while some exploits feel  extremely glitchy , there are others that are less so.  for instance, in ocarina of time, it is actually faster to backflip than to run, so speed runners will use that to move across areas more quickly.  it is clearly something that was not intended by the developer, but lacks that  glitchy feel  that you have with other exploits.  rather than try to subjectively determine what is and is not an exploit, it is easier just to allow whatever you can find in the game.  0.  finding the exploits is often considered part of the speed running culture.  i find it interesting when people try to find ways to, in essence, break the game in order to beat it faster.  while i understand the want for only  fair play , the current culture values this kind of creativity in speed running.  it would not be unreasonable to create a  purist  speed running scene, but that does not eliminate the value of the current scene.   #  this is a good solution, but there is always one or two groups that come out on top of the rest as most popular.   #  i meant to mention something of the ilk on both your points in my post.  0.  an example similar to the ocarina of time exploit is that in dark souls 0, there is a way to use the bino is to move far faster than normal.  while this was not the developer is original intent, it is something that speeds up the game.  but it does not  skip  part of it.  since been patched, there was a way to completely skip the first half ish of the game using a glitch involving a part of the game called the shrine of winter.  while i know the line gets fuzzy somewhere, i think there is a very clear difference between exploits that speed up the game and ones that  skip  the game.  why even bother playing if you are going to skip such a large amount of it ? 0.  i meant to mention that i am aware that the current speed running culture loves the creativity portion of it all.  who can blame them ? some are really crazy and interesting and involve seemingly random stunts that end up benefiting the player.  but  breaking the game  is far off from speeding running.  in various racing leagues for the binding of issac, certain items are banned in one league while they are not in others.  this is a good solution, but there is always one or two groups that come out on top of the rest as most popular.  i suppose i am arguing for the sake of the top league.  i am not necessarily saying that the way things are currently do not have their value, but if they are going to claim they are speed running the game, they should not, in my opinion, skip any part that ca not naturally be skipped eg in smb any% runs they only do as many levels as it takes to unlock the boss .
hamas has fired some 0 missiles into israel over the past 0 weeks despite numerous attempts by israel to cease fire without retaliation.    hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left israel with no options besides retaliation.  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.    israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.    i believe the disregard for civilian casualties by hamas and continual bombing of israel is enough justification to invade gaza and prevent further bombings.   #  hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left israel with no options besides retaliation.   #  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.   # with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  this is incorrect.  hamas has named terms for a 0 year ceasefire, and they are not unreasonable: URL  israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.  i will continue to hold both hamas and israel responsible for these deaths.  if israel did not bomb that beach, those 0 boys would not have died.  those bombings killed 0 people.  that is right, 0.  israel killed hundreds of palestinians in response, many of them children.  in addition to these points, you should remember that gaza is essentially under siege, with israel severely restricting what goes in and out.  this has been going on for years.  if you lived in gaza, what would you do ?  #  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.   # hamas did not break any ceasefire.  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.  i do not think there is good reason to believe hamas will break its word it is actually often israel that breaks ceasefires.  hopefully hamas and israel can join forces in preventing or restricting such rockets.  it would not be perfect, but one or two rockets are better than thousands.  israel can give a counteroffer as well maybe the border can be loosened only gradually.  it is just that israel does not seem to want to discuss a ceasefire.  it seems like there is a lack of goodwill on the israeli side.   #  URL hamas is negotiating as if they have the upper hand, which they do not.   #  israel does not want to discuss a ceasefire ? dude, hamas rejected the ceasefire to begin with, while israel accepted, and then gave a statement saying  our battle with the enemy will continue and will increase in ferocity and intensity .  at this very moment, kerry and moon are urging hamas, not israel, to accept a new truce offer  along the lines of the egyptian proposal .  this is very publicized, and al jazeera is among the outlets reporting it.  URL hamas is negotiating as if they have the upper hand, which they do not.  they are demanding the blockade be lifted as part of the ceasefire agreement.  not going to happen, because before the blockade was lifted, suicide bombers were regularly streaming over the border from gaza.  there is directly in line with your last point.  why should israel capitulate like that ? how about hamas accepts the ceasefire and we go from there, slowly working towards that under the hope that relations improve a bit.  why would israel, or any country, negotiate against itself like that ? it is a nice thought, but it is not realistic.   #  they were wrong not to accept it before.   #  hamas should accept the ceasefire, i agree.  they were wrong not to accept it before.  but they did make a counter offer, which israel ignored.  so i would not say israel has tried very hard to get a ceasefire agreement.  it depends what they are trying to achieve.  if israel does not care about the lives and welfare of palestinians, then they have no reason to capitulate.  if israel wants to be moral, however, then they should agree to lift the siege and accept a ceasefire.   #  in this case the israeli government has made no such explicit statement of  obliteration.    #  trying to sort out who did what and who is at fault what whatever else is irrelevant at best and inflammatory at worst.  it really does not matter who did what you ca not hop in the 0 delorean to go negotiate with anyone before this or that happened or was done.  if one or both sides have arrived at the position that it is me or you, that is it.  it will be one or the other.  in this case the israeli government has made no such explicit statement of  obliteration.   hamas has.  as such, they are not offering sincere peace terms, or you ca not assume they are.  you must assume they are only asking for a cease fire to re arm.
hamas has fired some 0 missiles into israel over the past 0 weeks despite numerous attempts by israel to cease fire without retaliation.    hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left israel with no options besides retaliation.  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.    israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.    i believe the disregard for civilian casualties by hamas and continual bombing of israel is enough justification to invade gaza and prevent further bombings.   #  israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.   #  are you suggesting israel is not at all culpable for any deaths in the gaza bombing campaign ?  # are you suggesting israel is not at all culpable for any deaths in the gaza bombing campaign ? the person firing the shot has some role to play in the death they cause after all.  the reality is that israel is able to weather criticism of civilian casualties but that does mean it is not to blame for the deaths.  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  the problem of cause is that there is no ability to destroy hamas at all by israel.  it is essentially a cull, where the bombings and invasion damage hamas in the short term while increasing hamas support in gaza over the long term.  no strategy to remove hamas as a persistent threat.  hamas is the result of decades of israeli policies in israel and palestine.  ironically, hamas was first supported by israel because the real threat to israel were the secular arab dictatorships, not religious groups that eventually turned extremist.   #  in addition to these points, you should remember that gaza is essentially under siege, with israel severely restricting what goes in and out.   # with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  this is incorrect.  hamas has named terms for a 0 year ceasefire, and they are not unreasonable: URL  israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.  i will continue to hold both hamas and israel responsible for these deaths.  if israel did not bomb that beach, those 0 boys would not have died.  those bombings killed 0 people.  that is right, 0.  israel killed hundreds of palestinians in response, many of them children.  in addition to these points, you should remember that gaza is essentially under siege, with israel severely restricting what goes in and out.  this has been going on for years.  if you lived in gaza, what would you do ?  #  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.   # hamas did not break any ceasefire.  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.  i do not think there is good reason to believe hamas will break its word it is actually often israel that breaks ceasefires.  hopefully hamas and israel can join forces in preventing or restricting such rockets.  it would not be perfect, but one or two rockets are better than thousands.  israel can give a counteroffer as well maybe the border can be loosened only gradually.  it is just that israel does not seem to want to discuss a ceasefire.  it seems like there is a lack of goodwill on the israeli side.   #  not going to happen, because before the blockade was lifted, suicide bombers were regularly streaming over the border from gaza.   #  israel does not want to discuss a ceasefire ? dude, hamas rejected the ceasefire to begin with, while israel accepted, and then gave a statement saying  our battle with the enemy will continue and will increase in ferocity and intensity .  at this very moment, kerry and moon are urging hamas, not israel, to accept a new truce offer  along the lines of the egyptian proposal .  this is very publicized, and al jazeera is among the outlets reporting it.  URL hamas is negotiating as if they have the upper hand, which they do not.  they are demanding the blockade be lifted as part of the ceasefire agreement.  not going to happen, because before the blockade was lifted, suicide bombers were regularly streaming over the border from gaza.  there is directly in line with your last point.  why should israel capitulate like that ? how about hamas accepts the ceasefire and we go from there, slowly working towards that under the hope that relations improve a bit.  why would israel, or any country, negotiate against itself like that ? it is a nice thought, but it is not realistic.   #  they were wrong not to accept it before.   #  hamas should accept the ceasefire, i agree.  they were wrong not to accept it before.  but they did make a counter offer, which israel ignored.  so i would not say israel has tried very hard to get a ceasefire agreement.  it depends what they are trying to achieve.  if israel does not care about the lives and welfare of palestinians, then they have no reason to capitulate.  if israel wants to be moral, however, then they should agree to lift the siege and accept a ceasefire.
hamas has fired some 0 missiles into israel over the past 0 weeks despite numerous attempts by israel to cease fire without retaliation.    hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left israel with no options besides retaliation.  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.    israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.    i believe the disregard for civilian casualties by hamas and continual bombing of israel is enough justification to invade gaza and prevent further bombings.   #  hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left israel with no options besides retaliation.   #  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.   # are you suggesting israel is not at all culpable for any deaths in the gaza bombing campaign ? the person firing the shot has some role to play in the death they cause after all.  the reality is that israel is able to weather criticism of civilian casualties but that does mean it is not to blame for the deaths.  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  the problem of cause is that there is no ability to destroy hamas at all by israel.  it is essentially a cull, where the bombings and invasion damage hamas in the short term while increasing hamas support in gaza over the long term.  no strategy to remove hamas as a persistent threat.  hamas is the result of decades of israeli policies in israel and palestine.  ironically, hamas was first supported by israel because the real threat to israel were the secular arab dictatorships, not religious groups that eventually turned extremist.   #  if you lived in gaza, what would you do ?  # with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  this is incorrect.  hamas has named terms for a 0 year ceasefire, and they are not unreasonable: URL  israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.  i will continue to hold both hamas and israel responsible for these deaths.  if israel did not bomb that beach, those 0 boys would not have died.  those bombings killed 0 people.  that is right, 0.  israel killed hundreds of palestinians in response, many of them children.  in addition to these points, you should remember that gaza is essentially under siege, with israel severely restricting what goes in and out.  this has been going on for years.  if you lived in gaza, what would you do ?  #  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.   # hamas did not break any ceasefire.  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.  i do not think there is good reason to believe hamas will break its word it is actually often israel that breaks ceasefires.  hopefully hamas and israel can join forces in preventing or restricting such rockets.  it would not be perfect, but one or two rockets are better than thousands.  israel can give a counteroffer as well maybe the border can be loosened only gradually.  it is just that israel does not seem to want to discuss a ceasefire.  it seems like there is a lack of goodwill on the israeli side.   #  at this very moment, kerry and moon are urging hamas, not israel, to accept a new truce offer  along the lines of the egyptian proposal .   #  israel does not want to discuss a ceasefire ? dude, hamas rejected the ceasefire to begin with, while israel accepted, and then gave a statement saying  our battle with the enemy will continue and will increase in ferocity and intensity .  at this very moment, kerry and moon are urging hamas, not israel, to accept a new truce offer  along the lines of the egyptian proposal .  this is very publicized, and al jazeera is among the outlets reporting it.  URL hamas is negotiating as if they have the upper hand, which they do not.  they are demanding the blockade be lifted as part of the ceasefire agreement.  not going to happen, because before the blockade was lifted, suicide bombers were regularly streaming over the border from gaza.  there is directly in line with your last point.  why should israel capitulate like that ? how about hamas accepts the ceasefire and we go from there, slowly working towards that under the hope that relations improve a bit.  why would israel, or any country, negotiate against itself like that ? it is a nice thought, but it is not realistic.   #  if israel does not care about the lives and welfare of palestinians, then they have no reason to capitulate.   #  hamas should accept the ceasefire, i agree.  they were wrong not to accept it before.  but they did make a counter offer, which israel ignored.  so i would not say israel has tried very hard to get a ceasefire agreement.  it depends what they are trying to achieve.  if israel does not care about the lives and welfare of palestinians, then they have no reason to capitulate.  if israel wants to be moral, however, then they should agree to lift the siege and accept a ceasefire.
hamas has fired some 0 missiles into israel over the past 0 weeks despite numerous attempts by israel to cease fire without retaliation.    hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left israel with no options besides retaliation.  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.    israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.    i believe the disregard for civilian casualties by hamas and continual bombing of israel is enough justification to invade gaza and prevent further bombings.   #  hamas has fired some 0 missiles into israel over the past 0 weeks despite numerous attempts by israel to cease fire without retaliation.   #  so for two  whole  weeks, they stopped murdering civilians ?  #  this is the beginning and end of why israel is definitively wrong.  URL just to clarify, that is bob the teacher dead, mary the gardener dead, little timmy just full of bullet holes, and little susie who never even heard the grenade go off.  to kill frank the hamas soldier.  i have a brother, a sister, and two parents.  this is you murdering all of them, and then killing me because i did something to you.  that is some keyser söze shit right there.  however, moving along.  so for two  whole  weeks, they stopped murdering civilians ? i had to edit this comment twice to peel out the sarcasm.  i am left with the response  just because israel stopped murdering palestinians for two weeks does not clean the blood off their hands.  it took my food processor longer to get from amazon to me than that.   with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  by any means necessary, right ? and the  opportunities of peace  boils down to me breaking into your house, throwing you out on the street, and when you come back my offer is  okay.  i am going to stop hitting you in the face with this pipe if you just go away and let me continue living in your my house.   the israel/palestine conflict is a shot for shot remake of the american/indian wars.  complete with reservations, manifest destiny, racism, and outright slaughter of peaceful natives.  then when natives stop being peaceful, they use that as an excuse for the mountain of dead little old ladies.  hamas is not trying to increase civilian casualties, they are fighting in the land they are trying to protect.  i am not going to try and defend times square by fighting new jersey in queens.  i am going to hunker down in times square and point my guns outward.  where does it end ? i mean, if we are talking about preventing future bombings, you are going to have to kill every last member of hamas, right ? does hamas have like face tattoos so you can point them out ? okay, just to be safe, lets murder all of them.  genghis khan murdered babies and fetuses to ensure they would not grow up seeking revenge, so israel should probably just do that in the name of safety too, right ?  #  if israel did not bomb that beach, those 0 boys would not have died.   # with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  this is incorrect.  hamas has named terms for a 0 year ceasefire, and they are not unreasonable: URL  israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.  i will continue to hold both hamas and israel responsible for these deaths.  if israel did not bomb that beach, those 0 boys would not have died.  those bombings killed 0 people.  that is right, 0.  israel killed hundreds of palestinians in response, many of them children.  in addition to these points, you should remember that gaza is essentially under siege, with israel severely restricting what goes in and out.  this has been going on for years.  if you lived in gaza, what would you do ?  #  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.   # hamas did not break any ceasefire.  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.  i do not think there is good reason to believe hamas will break its word it is actually often israel that breaks ceasefires.  hopefully hamas and israel can join forces in preventing or restricting such rockets.  it would not be perfect, but one or two rockets are better than thousands.  israel can give a counteroffer as well maybe the border can be loosened only gradually.  it is just that israel does not seem to want to discuss a ceasefire.  it seems like there is a lack of goodwill on the israeli side.   #  dude, hamas rejected the ceasefire to begin with, while israel accepted, and then gave a statement saying  our battle with the enemy will continue and will increase in ferocity and intensity .   #  israel does not want to discuss a ceasefire ? dude, hamas rejected the ceasefire to begin with, while israel accepted, and then gave a statement saying  our battle with the enemy will continue and will increase in ferocity and intensity .  at this very moment, kerry and moon are urging hamas, not israel, to accept a new truce offer  along the lines of the egyptian proposal .  this is very publicized, and al jazeera is among the outlets reporting it.  URL hamas is negotiating as if they have the upper hand, which they do not.  they are demanding the blockade be lifted as part of the ceasefire agreement.  not going to happen, because before the blockade was lifted, suicide bombers were regularly streaming over the border from gaza.  there is directly in line with your last point.  why should israel capitulate like that ? how about hamas accepts the ceasefire and we go from there, slowly working towards that under the hope that relations improve a bit.  why would israel, or any country, negotiate against itself like that ? it is a nice thought, but it is not realistic.   #  if israel wants to be moral, however, then they should agree to lift the siege and accept a ceasefire.   #  hamas should accept the ceasefire, i agree.  they were wrong not to accept it before.  but they did make a counter offer, which israel ignored.  so i would not say israel has tried very hard to get a ceasefire agreement.  it depends what they are trying to achieve.  if israel does not care about the lives and welfare of palestinians, then they have no reason to capitulate.  if israel wants to be moral, however, then they should agree to lift the siege and accept a ceasefire.
hamas has fired some 0 missiles into israel over the past 0 weeks despite numerous attempts by israel to cease fire without retaliation.    hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left israel with no options besides retaliation.  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.    israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.    i believe the disregard for civilian casualties by hamas and continual bombing of israel is enough justification to invade gaza and prevent further bombings.   #  hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left israel with no options besides retaliation.   #  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.   #  this is the beginning and end of why israel is definitively wrong.  URL just to clarify, that is bob the teacher dead, mary the gardener dead, little timmy just full of bullet holes, and little susie who never even heard the grenade go off.  to kill frank the hamas soldier.  i have a brother, a sister, and two parents.  this is you murdering all of them, and then killing me because i did something to you.  that is some keyser söze shit right there.  however, moving along.  so for two  whole  weeks, they stopped murdering civilians ? i had to edit this comment twice to peel out the sarcasm.  i am left with the response  just because israel stopped murdering palestinians for two weeks does not clean the blood off their hands.  it took my food processor longer to get from amazon to me than that.   with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  by any means necessary, right ? and the  opportunities of peace  boils down to me breaking into your house, throwing you out on the street, and when you come back my offer is  okay.  i am going to stop hitting you in the face with this pipe if you just go away and let me continue living in your my house.   the israel/palestine conflict is a shot for shot remake of the american/indian wars.  complete with reservations, manifest destiny, racism, and outright slaughter of peaceful natives.  then when natives stop being peaceful, they use that as an excuse for the mountain of dead little old ladies.  hamas is not trying to increase civilian casualties, they are fighting in the land they are trying to protect.  i am not going to try and defend times square by fighting new jersey in queens.  i am going to hunker down in times square and point my guns outward.  where does it end ? i mean, if we are talking about preventing future bombings, you are going to have to kill every last member of hamas, right ? does hamas have like face tattoos so you can point them out ? okay, just to be safe, lets murder all of them.  genghis khan murdered babies and fetuses to ensure they would not grow up seeking revenge, so israel should probably just do that in the name of safety too, right ?  #  if israel did not bomb that beach, those 0 boys would not have died.   # with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  this is incorrect.  hamas has named terms for a 0 year ceasefire, and they are not unreasonable: URL  israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.  i will continue to hold both hamas and israel responsible for these deaths.  if israel did not bomb that beach, those 0 boys would not have died.  those bombings killed 0 people.  that is right, 0.  israel killed hundreds of palestinians in response, many of them children.  in addition to these points, you should remember that gaza is essentially under siege, with israel severely restricting what goes in and out.  this has been going on for years.  if you lived in gaza, what would you do ?  #  it seems like there is a lack of goodwill on the israeli side.   # hamas did not break any ceasefire.  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.  i do not think there is good reason to believe hamas will break its word it is actually often israel that breaks ceasefires.  hopefully hamas and israel can join forces in preventing or restricting such rockets.  it would not be perfect, but one or two rockets are better than thousands.  israel can give a counteroffer as well maybe the border can be loosened only gradually.  it is just that israel does not seem to want to discuss a ceasefire.  it seems like there is a lack of goodwill on the israeli side.   #  why would israel, or any country, negotiate against itself like that ?  #  israel does not want to discuss a ceasefire ? dude, hamas rejected the ceasefire to begin with, while israel accepted, and then gave a statement saying  our battle with the enemy will continue and will increase in ferocity and intensity .  at this very moment, kerry and moon are urging hamas, not israel, to accept a new truce offer  along the lines of the egyptian proposal .  this is very publicized, and al jazeera is among the outlets reporting it.  URL hamas is negotiating as if they have the upper hand, which they do not.  they are demanding the blockade be lifted as part of the ceasefire agreement.  not going to happen, because before the blockade was lifted, suicide bombers were regularly streaming over the border from gaza.  there is directly in line with your last point.  why should israel capitulate like that ? how about hamas accepts the ceasefire and we go from there, slowly working towards that under the hope that relations improve a bit.  why would israel, or any country, negotiate against itself like that ? it is a nice thought, but it is not realistic.   #  if israel wants to be moral, however, then they should agree to lift the siege and accept a ceasefire.   #  hamas should accept the ceasefire, i agree.  they were wrong not to accept it before.  but they did make a counter offer, which israel ignored.  so i would not say israel has tried very hard to get a ceasefire agreement.  it depends what they are trying to achieve.  if israel does not care about the lives and welfare of palestinians, then they have no reason to capitulate.  if israel wants to be moral, however, then they should agree to lift the siege and accept a ceasefire.
hamas has fired some 0 missiles into israel over the past 0 weeks despite numerous attempts by israel to cease fire without retaliation.    hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left israel with no options besides retaliation.  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.    israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.    i believe the disregard for civilian casualties by hamas and continual bombing of israel is enough justification to invade gaza and prevent further bombings.   #  israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.   #  hamas is not trying to increase civilian casualties, they are fighting in the land they are trying to protect.   #  this is the beginning and end of why israel is definitively wrong.  URL just to clarify, that is bob the teacher dead, mary the gardener dead, little timmy just full of bullet holes, and little susie who never even heard the grenade go off.  to kill frank the hamas soldier.  i have a brother, a sister, and two parents.  this is you murdering all of them, and then killing me because i did something to you.  that is some keyser söze shit right there.  however, moving along.  so for two  whole  weeks, they stopped murdering civilians ? i had to edit this comment twice to peel out the sarcasm.  i am left with the response  just because israel stopped murdering palestinians for two weeks does not clean the blood off their hands.  it took my food processor longer to get from amazon to me than that.   with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  by any means necessary, right ? and the  opportunities of peace  boils down to me breaking into your house, throwing you out on the street, and when you come back my offer is  okay.  i am going to stop hitting you in the face with this pipe if you just go away and let me continue living in your my house.   the israel/palestine conflict is a shot for shot remake of the american/indian wars.  complete with reservations, manifest destiny, racism, and outright slaughter of peaceful natives.  then when natives stop being peaceful, they use that as an excuse for the mountain of dead little old ladies.  hamas is not trying to increase civilian casualties, they are fighting in the land they are trying to protect.  i am not going to try and defend times square by fighting new jersey in queens.  i am going to hunker down in times square and point my guns outward.  where does it end ? i mean, if we are talking about preventing future bombings, you are going to have to kill every last member of hamas, right ? does hamas have like face tattoos so you can point them out ? okay, just to be safe, lets murder all of them.  genghis khan murdered babies and fetuses to ensure they would not grow up seeking revenge, so israel should probably just do that in the name of safety too, right ?  #  i will continue to hold both hamas and israel responsible for these deaths.   # with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  this is incorrect.  hamas has named terms for a 0 year ceasefire, and they are not unreasonable: URL  israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.  i will continue to hold both hamas and israel responsible for these deaths.  if israel did not bomb that beach, those 0 boys would not have died.  those bombings killed 0 people.  that is right, 0.  israel killed hundreds of palestinians in response, many of them children.  in addition to these points, you should remember that gaza is essentially under siege, with israel severely restricting what goes in and out.  this has been going on for years.  if you lived in gaza, what would you do ?  #  hopefully hamas and israel can join forces in preventing or restricting such rockets.   # hamas did not break any ceasefire.  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.  i do not think there is good reason to believe hamas will break its word it is actually often israel that breaks ceasefires.  hopefully hamas and israel can join forces in preventing or restricting such rockets.  it would not be perfect, but one or two rockets are better than thousands.  israel can give a counteroffer as well maybe the border can be loosened only gradually.  it is just that israel does not seem to want to discuss a ceasefire.  it seems like there is a lack of goodwill on the israeli side.   #  why would israel, or any country, negotiate against itself like that ?  #  israel does not want to discuss a ceasefire ? dude, hamas rejected the ceasefire to begin with, while israel accepted, and then gave a statement saying  our battle with the enemy will continue and will increase in ferocity and intensity .  at this very moment, kerry and moon are urging hamas, not israel, to accept a new truce offer  along the lines of the egyptian proposal .  this is very publicized, and al jazeera is among the outlets reporting it.  URL hamas is negotiating as if they have the upper hand, which they do not.  they are demanding the blockade be lifted as part of the ceasefire agreement.  not going to happen, because before the blockade was lifted, suicide bombers were regularly streaming over the border from gaza.  there is directly in line with your last point.  why should israel capitulate like that ? how about hamas accepts the ceasefire and we go from there, slowly working towards that under the hope that relations improve a bit.  why would israel, or any country, negotiate against itself like that ? it is a nice thought, but it is not realistic.   #  it depends what they are trying to achieve.   #  hamas should accept the ceasefire, i agree.  they were wrong not to accept it before.  but they did make a counter offer, which israel ignored.  so i would not say israel has tried very hard to get a ceasefire agreement.  it depends what they are trying to achieve.  if israel does not care about the lives and welfare of palestinians, then they have no reason to capitulate.  if israel wants to be moral, however, then they should agree to lift the siege and accept a ceasefire.
hamas has fired some 0 missiles into israel over the past 0 weeks despite numerous attempts by israel to cease fire without retaliation.    hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left israel with no options besides retaliation.  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.    israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.    i believe the disregard for civilian casualties by hamas and continual bombing of israel is enough justification to invade gaza and prevent further bombings.   #  israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.   #  so if a gang in your town attacks the police, the police are within their rights to bomb your house ?  # so if a gang in your town attacks the police, the police are within their rights to bomb your house ? after all, you are just a casualty of their war on this gang, some of whom may live near you.  does this sound just ? all of your arguments are based on the idea that palestine hamas, and so whatever happens to palestinians, regardless of their involvement, is justified.  you also do not address the issue of proportional response.  is the death and destruction of hamas supporters created by israel proportional to the death and destruction created by hamas ? if i poke you with my finger, is cutting my head off justified ? is cutting my neighbour is head off justified, as an unfortunate casualty.  you seem to talk in absolutes, not in what is a fair and just response, and balance between justified defensive action with unjust innocent casualties.   #  with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.   # with the main goal of hamas being to destroy israel; israel has the right to neutralize hamas to ensure the safety of israeli citizens.  this is incorrect.  hamas has named terms for a 0 year ceasefire, and they are not unreasonable: URL  israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in gaza when hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings.  i will continue to hold both hamas and israel responsible for these deaths.  if israel did not bomb that beach, those 0 boys would not have died.  those bombings killed 0 people.  that is right, 0.  israel killed hundreds of palestinians in response, many of them children.  in addition to these points, you should remember that gaza is essentially under siege, with israel severely restricting what goes in and out.  this has been going on for years.  if you lived in gaza, what would you do ?  #  it seems like there is a lack of goodwill on the israeli side.   # hamas did not break any ceasefire.  they rejected a ceasefire proposal by egypt, and they accepted and kept a short ceasefire proposed by the un.  i do not think there is good reason to believe hamas will break its word it is actually often israel that breaks ceasefires.  hopefully hamas and israel can join forces in preventing or restricting such rockets.  it would not be perfect, but one or two rockets are better than thousands.  israel can give a counteroffer as well maybe the border can be loosened only gradually.  it is just that israel does not seem to want to discuss a ceasefire.  it seems like there is a lack of goodwill on the israeli side.   #  how about hamas accepts the ceasefire and we go from there, slowly working towards that under the hope that relations improve a bit.   #  israel does not want to discuss a ceasefire ? dude, hamas rejected the ceasefire to begin with, while israel accepted, and then gave a statement saying  our battle with the enemy will continue and will increase in ferocity and intensity .  at this very moment, kerry and moon are urging hamas, not israel, to accept a new truce offer  along the lines of the egyptian proposal .  this is very publicized, and al jazeera is among the outlets reporting it.  URL hamas is negotiating as if they have the upper hand, which they do not.  they are demanding the blockade be lifted as part of the ceasefire agreement.  not going to happen, because before the blockade was lifted, suicide bombers were regularly streaming over the border from gaza.  there is directly in line with your last point.  why should israel capitulate like that ? how about hamas accepts the ceasefire and we go from there, slowly working towards that under the hope that relations improve a bit.  why would israel, or any country, negotiate against itself like that ? it is a nice thought, but it is not realistic.   #  they were wrong not to accept it before.   #  hamas should accept the ceasefire, i agree.  they were wrong not to accept it before.  but they did make a counter offer, which israel ignored.  so i would not say israel has tried very hard to get a ceasefire agreement.  it depends what they are trying to achieve.  if israel does not care about the lives and welfare of palestinians, then they have no reason to capitulate.  if israel wants to be moral, however, then they should agree to lift the siege and accept a ceasefire.
i got into an argument with a friend recently over the use of the term  culture .  we, being people of the internet, of course rushed to wikipedia and the dictionary to get a definition: 0 the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society: afro caribbean culture.  my argument was that younger countries had less culture than older countries, simply because they had been around longer, and had therefore accumulated more arts and intellectual achievements than a younger country culture, for me, is a compilation of unique works that, combined, form a civilization.  my friend contended that i was using the word culture wrong.  for example australia has a culture based on it is climate barbecues, beaches, beer.  the  cultural export  of australia is tiny when compared to that of, say, france, which has had thousands of years of art, poetry, and science.  australia  does  have art and culture, but because it is new, it does not have the range, or volume of culture other older countries may have and the little culture they do have is largely the result of borrowing from other cultures, and not coming up with something that is uniquely from that country.  cmv !  #  the  cultural export  of australia is tiny when compared to that of, say, france, which has had thousands of years of art, poetry, and science.   #  australia does have art and culture, but because it is new, it does not have the range, or volume of culture other older countries may have i am going to tackle this directly as an australian.   #  you say that some countries are  less cultured  than others but you are only viewing it from one perspective.  australia does have art and culture, but because it is new, it does not have the range, or volume of culture other older countries may have i am going to tackle this directly as an australian.  indigenous culture has existed millennia before european arrival: see arts URL music URL and spiritual beliefs URL just because this does not fit a  european  view, does not mean it holds any less merit.  the view that  australia has little culture  is only really applicable as a eurocentric view much of  modern  australian culture can be traced back to european settlement URL the colonists were hostile to the indigenous population, and actually believed that indigenous australians were  less cultured  than they were, and attempted to force european ways onto them, and even attempted to drive them out of their own lands URL further abuse was committed with policies such as removal of children from their homes URL and the crown claiming sovereignty over the land URL to put it in a us perspective would you argue that native americans were less cultured than their european settlers ? a lot of culture spreading right up until recently was as a result of wars, invasions, racism, colonialism, imperialism and more.  remember how the normans conquered england URL and forced their culture onto them ? how about when the nazis conquered most of europe URL to the nazis, the jewish people were  less cultured  but this simply is not the case URL on the flipside, the us is incredible in expressing and exporting their cultural items URL but this does not mean they are  more cultured  than anybody else it is just a sharing of their thoughts and way of life.   #  if so, i would really like you to list those cultural exports, because i am fairly certain the us has contributed more even though it is had 0 fewer years to do so.   # san marino URL is one of the oldest countries in the world.  what  cultural exports  does san marino have ? would you say it has contributed more  cultural exports  over the course of its existence since the 0th century than the united states has since the 0th century ? if so, i would really like you to list those cultural exports, because i am fairly certain the us has contributed more even though it is had 0 fewer years to do so.  this also means essentially nothing.  noodles originated in china, but i am sure you would still saying something like lasagna is a  cultural export  of italy.  pretty much everything is  borrowed  to some extent.   #  and the united states has many, many more: URL i am really not sure what your point is.   #  and the united states has many, many more: URL i am really not sure what your point is.  if you want to know honestly, i think the idea of  less  or  more  culture is absurd to begin with.  that being said, the op used number/significance of  cultural exports  to determine what nation has more culture.  i still think the united states has contributed far more  cultural exports  than san marino.  with that in mind, can you tell me what cultural exports san marino is responsible for ? can you name even one ?  #  i do not see how you can argue with this when you even say san marino only has one.   # it is irrelevant how many people there are.  op did not say  cultural exports per capita.   he/she said  cultural exports.   you have given me one cultural export from san marino a fortress on a rock over it is 0 years of existence.  you are simply proving my point that the us has more cultural exports than san marino.  i have already said this exercise is pointless.  but, given the parameters set by the op, older countries do not necessarily have more cultural exports.  i do not see how you can argue with this when you even say san marino only has one.  if you were to ask a random group of 0 people to list all countries in europe, i would be willing to guess that san marino is one of the last countries that most people name if they can even name it at all.  sure, the image you mention is famous to people who know of san marino, but lots of people have never even heard of it whereas they have definitely heard of places like italy, greece, germany, etc.  and again, i am not even saying that the usa has more culture than san marino.  i am simply saying that when using the framework set out by the op, he is wrong to say that older countries necessarily have  more culture  than newer ones when determining it by number of cultural exports.   #  since op said that older countries have more  culture  defined as cultural exports than newer countries, i think my current example is spot on.   # but it is not your view that we are changing.  op made no mention of  per capita  anywhere.  he compared france and australia, even though france has 0x the population of australia.  since op said that older countries have more  culture  defined as cultural exports than newer countries, i think my current example is spot on.  op never mentioned anything about size.  i picked the oldest country on the planet and compared it with a relatively young country.  the young country younger by 0 years has more culture again, as defined by op to mean cultural exports.  i really do not see how you can disagree with that again, using the parameters set by op.  you even said san marino only had one cultural export, so as far as op is concerned san marino has essentially contributed nothing over 0 years again, this is using op is parameters, not mine.
i got into an argument with a friend recently over the use of the term  culture .  we, being people of the internet, of course rushed to wikipedia and the dictionary to get a definition: 0 the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society: afro caribbean culture.  my argument was that younger countries had less culture than older countries, simply because they had been around longer, and had therefore accumulated more arts and intellectual achievements than a younger country culture, for me, is a compilation of unique works that, combined, form a civilization.  my friend contended that i was using the word culture wrong.  for example australia has a culture based on it is climate barbecues, beaches, beer.  the  cultural export  of australia is tiny when compared to that of, say, france, which has had thousands of years of art, poetry, and science.  australia  does  have art and culture, but because it is new, it does not have the range, or volume of culture other older countries may have and the little culture they do have is largely the result of borrowing from other cultures, and not coming up with something that is uniquely from that country.  cmv !  #  and the little culture they do have is largely the result of borrowing from other cultures, and not coming up with something that is uniquely from that country.   #  a lot of culture spreading right up until recently was as a result of wars, invasions, racism, colonialism, imperialism and more.   #  you say that some countries are  less cultured  than others but you are only viewing it from one perspective.  australia does have art and culture, but because it is new, it does not have the range, or volume of culture other older countries may have i am going to tackle this directly as an australian.  indigenous culture has existed millennia before european arrival: see arts URL music URL and spiritual beliefs URL just because this does not fit a  european  view, does not mean it holds any less merit.  the view that  australia has little culture  is only really applicable as a eurocentric view much of  modern  australian culture can be traced back to european settlement URL the colonists were hostile to the indigenous population, and actually believed that indigenous australians were  less cultured  than they were, and attempted to force european ways onto them, and even attempted to drive them out of their own lands URL further abuse was committed with policies such as removal of children from their homes URL and the crown claiming sovereignty over the land URL to put it in a us perspective would you argue that native americans were less cultured than their european settlers ? a lot of culture spreading right up until recently was as a result of wars, invasions, racism, colonialism, imperialism and more.  remember how the normans conquered england URL and forced their culture onto them ? how about when the nazis conquered most of europe URL to the nazis, the jewish people were  less cultured  but this simply is not the case URL on the flipside, the us is incredible in expressing and exporting their cultural items URL but this does not mean they are  more cultured  than anybody else it is just a sharing of their thoughts and way of life.   #  would you say it has contributed more  cultural exports  over the course of its existence since the 0th century than the united states has since the 0th century ?  # san marino URL is one of the oldest countries in the world.  what  cultural exports  does san marino have ? would you say it has contributed more  cultural exports  over the course of its existence since the 0th century than the united states has since the 0th century ? if so, i would really like you to list those cultural exports, because i am fairly certain the us has contributed more even though it is had 0 fewer years to do so.  this also means essentially nothing.  noodles originated in china, but i am sure you would still saying something like lasagna is a  cultural export  of italy.  pretty much everything is  borrowed  to some extent.   #  i still think the united states has contributed far more  cultural exports  than san marino.   #  and the united states has many, many more: URL i am really not sure what your point is.  if you want to know honestly, i think the idea of  less  or  more  culture is absurd to begin with.  that being said, the op used number/significance of  cultural exports  to determine what nation has more culture.  i still think the united states has contributed far more  cultural exports  than san marino.  with that in mind, can you tell me what cultural exports san marino is responsible for ? can you name even one ?  #  op did not say  cultural exports per capita.    # it is irrelevant how many people there are.  op did not say  cultural exports per capita.   he/she said  cultural exports.   you have given me one cultural export from san marino a fortress on a rock over it is 0 years of existence.  you are simply proving my point that the us has more cultural exports than san marino.  i have already said this exercise is pointless.  but, given the parameters set by the op, older countries do not necessarily have more cultural exports.  i do not see how you can argue with this when you even say san marino only has one.  if you were to ask a random group of 0 people to list all countries in europe, i would be willing to guess that san marino is one of the last countries that most people name if they can even name it at all.  sure, the image you mention is famous to people who know of san marino, but lots of people have never even heard of it whereas they have definitely heard of places like italy, greece, germany, etc.  and again, i am not even saying that the usa has more culture than san marino.  i am simply saying that when using the framework set out by the op, he is wrong to say that older countries necessarily have  more culture  than newer ones when determining it by number of cultural exports.   #  you even said san marino only had one cultural export, so as far as op is concerned san marino has essentially contributed nothing over 0 years again, this is using op is parameters, not mine.   # but it is not your view that we are changing.  op made no mention of  per capita  anywhere.  he compared france and australia, even though france has 0x the population of australia.  since op said that older countries have more  culture  defined as cultural exports than newer countries, i think my current example is spot on.  op never mentioned anything about size.  i picked the oldest country on the planet and compared it with a relatively young country.  the young country younger by 0 years has more culture again, as defined by op to mean cultural exports.  i really do not see how you can disagree with that again, using the parameters set by op.  you even said san marino only had one cultural export, so as far as op is concerned san marino has essentially contributed nothing over 0 years again, this is using op is parameters, not mine.
i often hear people discussing gun control legislation as  common sense , seemingly as a way of getting out of having to actually explain the logic behind them.  to me, the most significant manifestation of this issue is the tremendous amount of support for legislation that would disallow anyone diagnosed with a mental illness to own a firearm.  at first thought, such a measure seems to make sense.  surely this legislation would make it such that dangerous mentally ill people cannot obtain firearms, making the world a safer place.  but consider this.  a man returns from active duty and decides that he wants to purchase a pistol to protect himself.  the man is experiencing ptsd symptoms, but knows that if he seeks help he will be barred from purchasing a gun, so what does he do ? he hides the symptoms he is experiencing and he buys a gun.  so then instead of having an armed mentally ill man who is seeking treatment and whose symptoms are being controlled, you have an armed man who needs medication or at the very least professional help.  legislation like this deters people from seeking help for their mental illnesses and puts guns in the hands of more unstable people.  to me, that is why this type of legislation makes no sense.  but i am open to changing that opinion, so please cmv.   #  to me, that is why this type of legislation makes no sense.   #  i do not believe that is true.   # a man returns from active duty and decides that he wants to purchase a pistol to protect himself.  the man is experiencing ptsd symptoms, but knows that if he seeks help he will be barred from purchasing a gun, so what does he do ? he hides the symptoms he is experiencing and he buys a gun that is a terrible argument.  mental illness means a whole list of things and, depending on exactly what type of mental illness, can lead to an otherwise rational individual becoming wildly unpredictable.  in the us, gun ownership is, sadly, a right.  but a gun is a very destructive item.  it is a tremendous amount of power that requires no skill to wield dangerously.  it should be difficult to get a gun in general.  it should be impossible if you have any of a whole list of disqualifying properties that makes it more likely that you could injure yourself and other.  furthermore, mental instability is often not something that will be identified by the patient who needs treatment.  if someone has ptsd, it is probably going to be identified by family and friends long before the patient comes to terms with it.  this is not like  i am not going to pay my parking tickets because that will only draw attention to myself .  the threat posed by someone with a significant mental instability owning a gun is far worse than the possibility that someone is actively foregoing treatment for an instability because they wish to own a gun.  there are just not that many people who have a choice in the matter.  i do not believe that is true.  it makes perfect sense, you just think it might not be effective at preventing gun accidents for this specific circumstance.  that is an important distinction.  it is not that the idea is flawed universally, but that you have a counter example that you think trumps the intent of the law.  if you agree that it is going to be pretty rare for someone to avoid treatment because they desire a gun assuming they have family who will be facilitating the treatment and, if it is bad enough, potential involuntary hospitalization , and you also agree that preventing gun ownership for the mentally unstable will actually prevent suicides and accidental injuries or deaths, then you pretty much have to accept your view as changed.   #  there were several people who were there for murder.   #  i used to work at the state mental hospital here in utah.  a lot of our  forensics  patients those that were there for criminal charges were there for very violent offenses.  there were several people who were there for murder.  these people had been diagnosed with things like schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, and brain trauma.  their offenses were almost never premeditated, which is the big part.  the idea that sometimes people just  snap  is actually not that far from the realm of possibility.  the main part of this is that these are permanent, debilitating disorders, that can be helped or managed with proper medications.  legislation that bars those with mental illnesses do so to keep those kinds of events from escalating even further.  depression, ptsd, adhd, are all ailments that do not frequently result in violent acts, and thus, are not blocked.   #  the second issue is that you are arguing that all mentally ill people want to purchase a gun, which is not accurate.   #  i think you are misunderstanding how the diagnosis process works.  even if i had been diagnosed privately with my doctor, that information is sealed.  hipa even works against the government.  it is when i go and hurt someone, or commit a crime, that it then blocks me.  the second issue is that you are arguing that all mentally ill people want to purchase a gun, which is not accurate.  even if that issue were occurring, it would be a very small amount of individuals.  the soldier in you example, would probably want to seek treatment and try and get rid of his ptsd more than he would want to go buy a shiny new gun.  mental illness effects a person in every aspect of their life.  work suffers, home suffers, nothing is normal anymore.  most of those who suffer from these want to be normal again, above anything else.  any person who is 0 or older knows if they have a mental illness.  if they are dangerous, they also know, and so do we.   #  you will find out all about it on the evening news.   #  say i have a serious vision problem which i can hide easily enough.  i need to drive for work, but if i tell the transport dept of my vision problem, they wo not give me a drivers license.  should the govt stop regulating drivers because it might stop them from seeking help for health issues that may affect their driving ability and increase their potential to kill someone ? i hope your answer is no.  if some one is suffering ptsd, they definitely should not be owning a gun, considering that it is a condition that very commonly includes hallucinations.  what if he is in a mall and has flashbacks to being in combat and happens to be carrying his gun ? you will find out all about it on the evening news.  imagine the same scenario, but without the gun.  even if he does start freaking out in a mall, he is be relatively easy for a few people to subdue and one way or other, he is still get the help he needs.  only this way, the potential for innocent bystanders is far less.   #  if someone is uninterested in seeking help, they wo not seek help regardless of whether or not this legislation is in place.   # i think that most people, when given the choice between seeking help and owning a gun would choose to give up their right to own a gun in this circumstance.  but those  benefits  would still exist without this legislation, they would just be offered to more people people who would rather own a gun than seek help if given the choice but who still want help .  if someone is uninterested in seeking help, they wo not seek help regardless of whether or not this legislation is in place.  if someone wants to seek help and does not care to own a gun, they will seek help regardless of whether or not this legislation is in place.  but if someone wants to seek help but also wants to own a gun, the legislation would make it such that that person would have to choose between the benefits that come with a diagnosis and gun ownership.  since a diagnosis and help from professionals deters people from committing suicide, should not the greatest number of people have access to that help ? to me, it makes more sense that legislation would actually increase suicide rates rather than decreasing them.
it is simple.  both cannot be proven.  both have little to no evidence.  both have bias faith driven people that try and skew any information towards their own.  i have spent months and months trying to dissect both atheist sources and theist sources and neither have any concrete proof of anything.  it is frustrating and this debate needs to just die because both are faith driven.  change my view ! good luck finding concrete evidence.  to theists the bible is great because it documents some pretty remarkable events, however the issue is that no modern day person was there to witness any of those events nor have concrete records.  not to mention there is debate on what is written in the bible in the first place.  now i know not all theists necessarily only look to the bible but in terms of evidence this is the only piece that points to a creator.  to atheists the biggest problem i have with atheists and evolutionists is that it is all in theory.  yes i understand you have  facts  and that you believe it is scientifically proven.  the problem is that many of you honestly have only read what was in the textbooks and have not done the real research to understand that many of your  facts  have either been proven incorrect or have fatal flaws that make these claims inaccurate.  to add on further i believe that the base thoughts of the darwin theory is correct.  if you theoretically had a disease that made every other child born from now on have different sexual parts and they could only mate with those of the same kind you would over time have a brand new species.  the problem is that nothing like this has ever been documented modern day.  there are many assumptions on what might have happened.  my favorite part is when these phd scientists say   we are assuming   or   our best guess   and the good old classic   however there is huge gaps of information that we cannot further study.   yet these discoveries are seen as scientific undisputable fact.  i do not hate religion, and i do not hate modern day evolutionists, however i do get tired of of these long debates and neither one is correct or giving correct information.  p. s.  please give your thoughts and opinions of why you believe in what you do, or why i should as well.  do not say anything like  pshh you are seriously uneducated and stupid if you do not think evolution has been proven.   it has not been observed period.  do not say anything like   you must just believe in god and feel his presence.    i have asked god several times to just give me anything to believe nights on end and i will even keep it secret and nothing.  if there is anything like this or any personal attacks it will be downvoted and i will ask the mods politely to remove said comment.  i wrote this all quickly at work so if the grammer or spelling is not 0 correct i am sorry.  discuss please.   #  there are many assumptions on what might have happened.   #  my favorite part is when these phd scientists say   we are assuming   or   our best guess   and the good old classic   however there is huge gaps of information that we cannot further study.    # darwin is theory had flaws from the beginning that even other scientists pointed out.  if only the most favorable traits survive then why do some people show traits from say great grandparent instead of only those favorable traits from their parent ? what is the mechanism that determines the passing of traits ? the answer is genetics.  and once we mapped the genomic structures of many animals those scientists noticed something very peculiar, specifically in the structure of chromosome 0.  URL so it is pretty convincing evidence URL although i would be open to something else if new information surfaced.  you also make an argument about the uniformed intellectual, something i agree with and can be observed in any group really.  religious people who have never read their holy religious text outside of sunday school or church but that does not make them less christian does it ? i think it just means they have not read a book.  the difference though is that the bible stays the same and science is constantly adapting and testing new information, introducing new theories.  unless you get paid to keep yourself up to date it is understandable to not have to most current information at all times, i feel anyway.  the classic example being of a parent who is last science class was over 0 years ago trying to help their child with homework and finding pluto is not a planet anymore.  my favorite part is when these phd scientists say   we are assuming   or   our best guess   and the good old classic   however there is huge gaps of information that we cannot further study.   yet these discoveries are seen as scientific undisputable fact.  yes, scientists admit they might be wrong because they might be.  science is the search for truth and sometimes it is partially wrong or right but missing something else fundamental, or on the right track but slightly off.  religion does not only assert absolute truth of knowledge but also, depending on which religion you are talking about lets say christianity , tells you anyone who disagrees is a blasphemer and that they will be tortured for all eternity in a lake of fire.  questioning the bible or any interpretation that comes from it is a strict no no.  i understand the human need to want to put a reason to everything.  i understand how someone preaching absolute knowledge without evidence can seem more convincing that a guess based on evidence, especially if they have a choice choir and get ya feeling the spirit but it is baseless by the bible is own definition.   faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.   heb 0:0 .  the only evidence is the fact you faith it is true, if that is the criteria then how can you look at science and say they have no validity ? they have a belief and actual tangible evidence.  your saying the only proof you will accept is observable proof.  well a theist might say if you can see jesus then it is rapture and you are too late.  if i give you a puzzle with a picture box to work off you can still figure out what is in the picture.  you do not need the box to tell you the answer, you can look at the image on the pieces you have and slowly slove it and figure out what it is.  that is kind of how science works.  i do not understand how you think conclusions made from examining fossil and genetic evidence is just as lacking as religion though.  as for your ps, i have only recently discovered this sub through the depthhub multi and loving it but it is a sub where comments like those you fear might get would likely be removed anyway.  and evolution has absolutely been observed on the microscopic level and is actually a burgeoning problem in medicine through way of anti biotic resistant infections.   #  the point i am making is that rowing across the atlantic ocean is not  anything other  than rowing across a lake many times in a row.   #  i honestly do not think i am nitpicking.  the reason it seems implausible that one species could evolve into another is that a lot of people do not realize the time scales we are dealing with geologically.  0 billion years is an inconceivably long time.  i am guessing the point you are making with the boat analogy is that a human would be physically incapable of rowing that far.  so i agree that in that case there is something limiting rowing across the ocean.  that is why i asked you for what the limiting factor is in regard to evolution.  the point i am making is that rowing across the atlantic ocean is not  anything other  than rowing across a lake many times in a row.  just like evolution is just small changes accumulating over long periods of time.   #  in order to have massive, systemic change to an organism, you have to have completely new genes.   #  and the objection that is often raised against evolution is that it does not work the same way on systems as it does in small changes.  going from dark to light moths is categorically different than going from a reptile to a mammal.  it also does not prove that the mechanism of evolution on mutations is responsible.  the lighter and darker moth genes were there the whole time.  in order to have massive, systemic change to an organism, you have to have completely new genes.   #  a scientific theory is very different from a  theory  that an ordinary person might describe.   # a scientific theory is very different from a  theory  that an ordinary person might describe.  a scientific theory has been rigorously tested and represents a general consensus among the scientific community.  the theory of evolution has been studied, observed, and studied again, and the no stone has been left un turned in regard to the study of darwin is evolutionary theory.  i believe in evolution not because i have seen proof of it firsthand, but because to me, it is the most rational explanation for a series of events that have occurred over the course of history that need desperately to be explained.  to me, creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the bible that i fail to understand because as a rational human being i see no way that that could be the correct explanation.  so even though evolution has not been  proven , it is pretty damn close to fact.  the idea that humans are at least partially responsible for climate change has not been proven yet either.  but 0 of scientists agree with that, and to me, it is an idea that makes rational sense.  and actually, the theory of relativity is just that, a  theory , and so is gravitational theory.  so scientific theories are often pretty close to fact.  unless i hear a justification of why that is not the case that i buy more than the current support for the idea that it is, i will continue to believe that humans play a role in climate change.  and the same goes for evolution.   #  and guess what, if someone found that evolution was total bunk and produced a new way of talking about things and scientifically support his or her research then that new theory would be accepted.   #  science does not accept something just because it is the thing to do.  they have these things called tests and labs and they study things.  and guess what, if someone found that evolution was total bunk and produced a new way of talking about things and scientifically support his or her research then that new theory would be accepted.  germ theory is a great example of this.  before germ theory and cell theory, there was the theory of spontaneous generation.  life came from nothing.  as we learned more, we changed our outlook.  evolution only exists because no one has been able to prove anything better that explains how life changed over time in any way that is better then evolution.  it does not exist because people are forced to think a certain way.
it is simple.  both cannot be proven.  both have little to no evidence.  both have bias faith driven people that try and skew any information towards their own.  i have spent months and months trying to dissect both atheist sources and theist sources and neither have any concrete proof of anything.  it is frustrating and this debate needs to just die because both are faith driven.  change my view ! good luck finding concrete evidence.  to theists the bible is great because it documents some pretty remarkable events, however the issue is that no modern day person was there to witness any of those events nor have concrete records.  not to mention there is debate on what is written in the bible in the first place.  now i know not all theists necessarily only look to the bible but in terms of evidence this is the only piece that points to a creator.  to atheists the biggest problem i have with atheists and evolutionists is that it is all in theory.  yes i understand you have  facts  and that you believe it is scientifically proven.  the problem is that many of you honestly have only read what was in the textbooks and have not done the real research to understand that many of your  facts  have either been proven incorrect or have fatal flaws that make these claims inaccurate.  to add on further i believe that the base thoughts of the darwin theory is correct.  if you theoretically had a disease that made every other child born from now on have different sexual parts and they could only mate with those of the same kind you would over time have a brand new species.  the problem is that nothing like this has ever been documented modern day.  there are many assumptions on what might have happened.  my favorite part is when these phd scientists say   we are assuming   or   our best guess   and the good old classic   however there is huge gaps of information that we cannot further study.   yet these discoveries are seen as scientific undisputable fact.  i do not hate religion, and i do not hate modern day evolutionists, however i do get tired of of these long debates and neither one is correct or giving correct information.  p. s.  please give your thoughts and opinions of why you believe in what you do, or why i should as well.  do not say anything like  pshh you are seriously uneducated and stupid if you do not think evolution has been proven.   it has not been observed period.  do not say anything like   you must just believe in god and feel his presence.    i have asked god several times to just give me anything to believe nights on end and i will even keep it secret and nothing.  if there is anything like this or any personal attacks it will be downvoted and i will ask the mods politely to remove said comment.  i wrote this all quickly at work so if the grammer or spelling is not 0 correct i am sorry.  discuss please.   #  the problem is that nothing like this has ever been documented modern day.   #  well, of course not; our species is too young to do such a thing !  #  i am sorry but i do not think you know what you are talking about.  evolution is considered concrete in science and it is a central theme in biology.  many disciplines such as ethology, ecology, and others are based on evolution, and would not even exist, or would be entirely different, if evolution were not true.  embryological similarities, vestigial structures, dna similarities, protein similarities, and the fossil records all line up to form a near perfect family tree.  well, of course not; our species is too young to do such a thing ! we have only had written language for a few thousand years.  evolution is a gradual process, but we have documented smaller changes such as viral adaptation.  have not you heard of the classic example of the peppered moth ? one is based off of a bronze age myth book and the other is based on the scientific method.  being in a middle ground and rejecting two major sides of a debate does not make you correct.  sometimes one side is simply wrong.  evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life, period.  it is less of a historical account and more of a model, almost a tautology.  the basis is that that which is good at existing tends to exist.  organisms, or genes, as is now orthodox to biologists that are good at existing are more likely to exist and reproduce.  naturally, then, these changes add up over time and form new, unique creatures.  how could they not ? here is some evidence URL i think this is a classic case of simply not understanding, or not looking hard enough.  i beg of you to read  the selfish gene  by dawkins, a very eloquent account of studies around and within evolution, that will most certainly erase any doubts you have.  this book opened my eyes to a world hidden to most, the world of genes and their struggle to survive.  this is the main thesis of the book in my own words sorry, this is copy and pasted as i use this a lot :  abiogenesis describes how 0 billion years ago there was a giant primordial soup containing organic molecules similar to amino acids.  scientists have mixed gases similar to those that existed on earth when it was young and added electricity to resemble lightning.  they derived amino acids and other organic molecules that were previously thought to have only come from living things.  one of these molecules, the first self replicating molecule, attracted like particles, and the two split.  each of these two attracted like particles and again split.  these molecules could be considered proto genes.  now, some of them had mutations to allow for selection, such as a protein coat, which can be considered the first body.  in enough time they evolved into cells, which is a bigger transition in my opinion than that from single celled organisms to animals.  the unique thing about animals is that most of them can move.  behavior equals movement.  they evolved nervous systems, basically computers, to receive information from their environments and to move their bodies accordingly.  minds and bodies are simply  vehicles  for the  replicators,  or genes.  selection is placed on genes because they are functionally immortal.   #  i am guessing the point you are making with the boat analogy is that a human would be physically incapable of rowing that far.   #  i honestly do not think i am nitpicking.  the reason it seems implausible that one species could evolve into another is that a lot of people do not realize the time scales we are dealing with geologically.  0 billion years is an inconceivably long time.  i am guessing the point you are making with the boat analogy is that a human would be physically incapable of rowing that far.  so i agree that in that case there is something limiting rowing across the ocean.  that is why i asked you for what the limiting factor is in regard to evolution.  the point i am making is that rowing across the atlantic ocean is not  anything other  than rowing across a lake many times in a row.  just like evolution is just small changes accumulating over long periods of time.   #  going from dark to light moths is categorically different than going from a reptile to a mammal.   #  and the objection that is often raised against evolution is that it does not work the same way on systems as it does in small changes.  going from dark to light moths is categorically different than going from a reptile to a mammal.  it also does not prove that the mechanism of evolution on mutations is responsible.  the lighter and darker moth genes were there the whole time.  in order to have massive, systemic change to an organism, you have to have completely new genes.   #  so scientific theories are often pretty close to fact.   # a scientific theory is very different from a  theory  that an ordinary person might describe.  a scientific theory has been rigorously tested and represents a general consensus among the scientific community.  the theory of evolution has been studied, observed, and studied again, and the no stone has been left un turned in regard to the study of darwin is evolutionary theory.  i believe in evolution not because i have seen proof of it firsthand, but because to me, it is the most rational explanation for a series of events that have occurred over the course of history that need desperately to be explained.  to me, creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the bible that i fail to understand because as a rational human being i see no way that that could be the correct explanation.  so even though evolution has not been  proven , it is pretty damn close to fact.  the idea that humans are at least partially responsible for climate change has not been proven yet either.  but 0 of scientists agree with that, and to me, it is an idea that makes rational sense.  and actually, the theory of relativity is just that, a  theory , and so is gravitational theory.  so scientific theories are often pretty close to fact.  unless i hear a justification of why that is not the case that i buy more than the current support for the idea that it is, i will continue to believe that humans play a role in climate change.  and the same goes for evolution.   #  evolution only exists because no one has been able to prove anything better that explains how life changed over time in any way that is better then evolution.   #  science does not accept something just because it is the thing to do.  they have these things called tests and labs and they study things.  and guess what, if someone found that evolution was total bunk and produced a new way of talking about things and scientifically support his or her research then that new theory would be accepted.  germ theory is a great example of this.  before germ theory and cell theory, there was the theory of spontaneous generation.  life came from nothing.  as we learned more, we changed our outlook.  evolution only exists because no one has been able to prove anything better that explains how life changed over time in any way that is better then evolution.  it does not exist because people are forced to think a certain way.
it is simple.  both cannot be proven.  both have little to no evidence.  both have bias faith driven people that try and skew any information towards their own.  i have spent months and months trying to dissect both atheist sources and theist sources and neither have any concrete proof of anything.  it is frustrating and this debate needs to just die because both are faith driven.  change my view ! good luck finding concrete evidence.  to theists the bible is great because it documents some pretty remarkable events, however the issue is that no modern day person was there to witness any of those events nor have concrete records.  not to mention there is debate on what is written in the bible in the first place.  now i know not all theists necessarily only look to the bible but in terms of evidence this is the only piece that points to a creator.  to atheists the biggest problem i have with atheists and evolutionists is that it is all in theory.  yes i understand you have  facts  and that you believe it is scientifically proven.  the problem is that many of you honestly have only read what was in the textbooks and have not done the real research to understand that many of your  facts  have either been proven incorrect or have fatal flaws that make these claims inaccurate.  to add on further i believe that the base thoughts of the darwin theory is correct.  if you theoretically had a disease that made every other child born from now on have different sexual parts and they could only mate with those of the same kind you would over time have a brand new species.  the problem is that nothing like this has ever been documented modern day.  there are many assumptions on what might have happened.  my favorite part is when these phd scientists say   we are assuming   or   our best guess   and the good old classic   however there is huge gaps of information that we cannot further study.   yet these discoveries are seen as scientific undisputable fact.  i do not hate religion, and i do not hate modern day evolutionists, however i do get tired of of these long debates and neither one is correct or giving correct information.  p. s.  please give your thoughts and opinions of why you believe in what you do, or why i should as well.  do not say anything like  pshh you are seriously uneducated and stupid if you do not think evolution has been proven.   it has not been observed period.  do not say anything like   you must just believe in god and feel his presence.    i have asked god several times to just give me anything to believe nights on end and i will even keep it secret and nothing.  if there is anything like this or any personal attacks it will be downvoted and i will ask the mods politely to remove said comment.  i wrote this all quickly at work so if the grammer or spelling is not 0 correct i am sorry.  discuss please.   #  the problem is that many of you honestly have only read what was in the textbooks and have not done the real research to understand that many of your  facts  have either been proven incorrect or have fatal flaws that make these claims inaccurate.   #  this line makes me wonder what it takes to convince you of something.   # this line makes me wonder what it takes to convince you of something.  do you believe the world existed before you were born ? do you believe the things you learn in history class actually happened ? all you did was learn of them through textbooks.  you never observed any on that stuff.  this is just factually wrong.  there is no such thing as an undisputable fact in science.   #  that is why i asked you for what the limiting factor is in regard to evolution.   #  i honestly do not think i am nitpicking.  the reason it seems implausible that one species could evolve into another is that a lot of people do not realize the time scales we are dealing with geologically.  0 billion years is an inconceivably long time.  i am guessing the point you are making with the boat analogy is that a human would be physically incapable of rowing that far.  so i agree that in that case there is something limiting rowing across the ocean.  that is why i asked you for what the limiting factor is in regard to evolution.  the point i am making is that rowing across the atlantic ocean is not  anything other  than rowing across a lake many times in a row.  just like evolution is just small changes accumulating over long periods of time.   #  and the objection that is often raised against evolution is that it does not work the same way on systems as it does in small changes.   #  and the objection that is often raised against evolution is that it does not work the same way on systems as it does in small changes.  going from dark to light moths is categorically different than going from a reptile to a mammal.  it also does not prove that the mechanism of evolution on mutations is responsible.  the lighter and darker moth genes were there the whole time.  in order to have massive, systemic change to an organism, you have to have completely new genes.   #  and actually, the theory of relativity is just that, a  theory , and so is gravitational theory.   # a scientific theory is very different from a  theory  that an ordinary person might describe.  a scientific theory has been rigorously tested and represents a general consensus among the scientific community.  the theory of evolution has been studied, observed, and studied again, and the no stone has been left un turned in regard to the study of darwin is evolutionary theory.  i believe in evolution not because i have seen proof of it firsthand, but because to me, it is the most rational explanation for a series of events that have occurred over the course of history that need desperately to be explained.  to me, creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the bible that i fail to understand because as a rational human being i see no way that that could be the correct explanation.  so even though evolution has not been  proven , it is pretty damn close to fact.  the idea that humans are at least partially responsible for climate change has not been proven yet either.  but 0 of scientists agree with that, and to me, it is an idea that makes rational sense.  and actually, the theory of relativity is just that, a  theory , and so is gravitational theory.  so scientific theories are often pretty close to fact.  unless i hear a justification of why that is not the case that i buy more than the current support for the idea that it is, i will continue to believe that humans play a role in climate change.  and the same goes for evolution.   #  before germ theory and cell theory, there was the theory of spontaneous generation.   #  science does not accept something just because it is the thing to do.  they have these things called tests and labs and they study things.  and guess what, if someone found that evolution was total bunk and produced a new way of talking about things and scientifically support his or her research then that new theory would be accepted.  germ theory is a great example of this.  before germ theory and cell theory, there was the theory of spontaneous generation.  life came from nothing.  as we learned more, we changed our outlook.  evolution only exists because no one has been able to prove anything better that explains how life changed over time in any way that is better then evolution.  it does not exist because people are forced to think a certain way.
my understanding of c 0p0 is that he serves mainly as comic relief in the movies.  however, he is in way too many scenes to the point that he just gets annoying.  c 0po does nothing to drive the story forward.  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  the only thing he is good at is language interpretations, but he does not fill that role often enough to justify him getting so much screen time.  if c 0po was in fewer scenes, he would be a decent character, but the fact that he is in so many, and the fact that he is actually kind of useless, really damages our enjoyment of the character.  who do you think is the worst character in the star wars movies, and why is that character worse than c 0po ?  #  my understanding of c 0p0 is that he serves mainly as comic relief in the movies.   #  jar jar serves exclusively as comic relief too, except he is horribly unfunny at all times.   #  i do not think it is necessary to actually dispute any of your points.  any criticism you have leveled at c 0po is exponentially worse for jar jar, consequently, c 0po ca not be the worse character in star wars.  jar jar serves exclusively as comic relief too, except he is horribly unfunny at all times.  jar jar is annoying not because of his overuse, but merely his existence.  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  asking jar jar to serve as a guide only serves to make the wise ancient jedi look like idiotic twats.  he is a constant danger to their mission, he provides no intelligence that is not obvious or could not be found in a public information database, and he is useless as a diplomat because even his own people hate him.  he crowning achievement is to win a battle by bumbling.  would not the battle be much more impressive and engaging if it was won by a risky strategy, a la the x wing assault on the death star ? instead of being a stupid joke ? the next most important thing jar jar does is make a speech imploring the senate to grant emergency powers to the emperor.  that is right, instead of making a powerful  the best of intentions, wait, oh god, what the hell have i done ?  , real and moving political action scene, we have an utterly unbelievable fuckwit ruin the galaxy because  shit, we have to make our caricature bullshit cgi do something in this fucking movie .  his existence in the final movie, without any dialog, is a  fuck you  from lucas, who got overruled on using any more jar jar, but still had to rub it in everybody is faces that  he  likes his dumbass character.  jar jar has none.  qed.   #  what 0po brings to the franchise is an outsider is perspective.   #  c 0po is played like a comedy straight man to r0 d0 is clown.  he is a cranky bud abbott and r0 is lou costello, all emotion and impulse.  he is uptight felix to r0 is carefree oscar.  they are a comedy team.  what 0po brings to the franchise is an outsider is perspective.  because he just does not  get  what is happening most of the time, or why people behave the way they do, he acts as a narrative device as the guy who is dumber than you who ca not understand what is going on.  in other words, 0po makes you feel smart, because you understand the real, hidden subtext of what the characters are up to, and he does not.  it is also a way to highlight the subtext.   #  but prefect/r0 dunno about costello is really the  competent  one, the one dragging the partner along for the ride.   #  eh, i do not think i agree with a characterization of r0 as  emotional  or  impulsive.   yes, he always seems like that, especially to 0p0, but how is he actually like that ? actually, he is pretty damn competent, always seems to know what is going on, and generally has a good handle on things.  you know a comedy duo using the term loosely the two of them  really  remind me of ? arthur dent and ford prefect.  dent/0p0/abbott i guess; i confess i am not real familiar with abbott and costello could qualify as a straight man, sure; the bewildered guy making observations and just barely hanging on.  but prefect/r0 dunno about costello is really the  competent  one, the one dragging the partner along for the ride.  there is a core friendship, and that is why the smart one does not just abandon the idiot.  in star wars, it is because they are actual counterparts, while in hhgttg, it is because dent was a friend to prefect when he was stranded on an alien world.  and there are certainly times when the  smart  one of the duo screws up, in both cases.  but, it is notable when it occurs, as opposed to the straight man comic, which constantly needs saving, or at least explaining to.  one more notable parallel ? as inept as 0p0 and dent are, they never really wind up imperiling anyone but themselves.   #  i do not either, but remember, we are not talking about the concept of a guide in general, but the creation of a specific character, jar jar, to fill the role of a guide.   #  based on  he was originally given some dialogue in the beginning, but this was cut.  0   from URL and my personal opinion of lucas.  i apologize, i am taking artistic liberties here, i ca not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  i do not either, but remember, we are not talking about the concept of a guide in general, but the creation of a specific character, jar jar, to fill the role of a guide.  the guise of protecting jar jar is fine, if not tenuous, but the guise was created for a character that should not have existed in the first place.   #  he may serve a slightly more integral plot point really ?  # yes.  jar jar is also comedic relief.  but missing a partner to build rapport with.  and at an infantile level.  i can see why people might find c 0po annoying.  perhaps i even find him 0 annoying.  jar jar is annoying in the same way but on a whole higher level.  he may serve a slightly more integral plot point really ? .  but just as with c 0po the majority of his scenes could have easily been cut reducing him to less than ewok levels of exposure.
my understanding of c 0p0 is that he serves mainly as comic relief in the movies.  however, he is in way too many scenes to the point that he just gets annoying.  c 0po does nothing to drive the story forward.  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  the only thing he is good at is language interpretations, but he does not fill that role often enough to justify him getting so much screen time.  if c 0po was in fewer scenes, he would be a decent character, but the fact that he is in so many, and the fact that he is actually kind of useless, really damages our enjoyment of the character.  who do you think is the worst character in the star wars movies, and why is that character worse than c 0po ?  #  however, he is in way too many scenes to the point that he just gets annoying.   #  jar jar is annoying not because of his overuse, but merely his existence.   #  i do not think it is necessary to actually dispute any of your points.  any criticism you have leveled at c 0po is exponentially worse for jar jar, consequently, c 0po ca not be the worse character in star wars.  jar jar serves exclusively as comic relief too, except he is horribly unfunny at all times.  jar jar is annoying not because of his overuse, but merely his existence.  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  asking jar jar to serve as a guide only serves to make the wise ancient jedi look like idiotic twats.  he is a constant danger to their mission, he provides no intelligence that is not obvious or could not be found in a public information database, and he is useless as a diplomat because even his own people hate him.  he crowning achievement is to win a battle by bumbling.  would not the battle be much more impressive and engaging if it was won by a risky strategy, a la the x wing assault on the death star ? instead of being a stupid joke ? the next most important thing jar jar does is make a speech imploring the senate to grant emergency powers to the emperor.  that is right, instead of making a powerful  the best of intentions, wait, oh god, what the hell have i done ?  , real and moving political action scene, we have an utterly unbelievable fuckwit ruin the galaxy because  shit, we have to make our caricature bullshit cgi do something in this fucking movie .  his existence in the final movie, without any dialog, is a  fuck you  from lucas, who got overruled on using any more jar jar, but still had to rub it in everybody is faces that  he  likes his dumbass character.  jar jar has none.  qed.   #  he is a cranky bud abbott and r0 is lou costello, all emotion and impulse.   #  c 0po is played like a comedy straight man to r0 d0 is clown.  he is a cranky bud abbott and r0 is lou costello, all emotion and impulse.  he is uptight felix to r0 is carefree oscar.  they are a comedy team.  what 0po brings to the franchise is an outsider is perspective.  because he just does not  get  what is happening most of the time, or why people behave the way they do, he acts as a narrative device as the guy who is dumber than you who ca not understand what is going on.  in other words, 0po makes you feel smart, because you understand the real, hidden subtext of what the characters are up to, and he does not.  it is also a way to highlight the subtext.   #  you know a comedy duo using the term loosely the two of them  really  remind me of ?  #  eh, i do not think i agree with a characterization of r0 as  emotional  or  impulsive.   yes, he always seems like that, especially to 0p0, but how is he actually like that ? actually, he is pretty damn competent, always seems to know what is going on, and generally has a good handle on things.  you know a comedy duo using the term loosely the two of them  really  remind me of ? arthur dent and ford prefect.  dent/0p0/abbott i guess; i confess i am not real familiar with abbott and costello could qualify as a straight man, sure; the bewildered guy making observations and just barely hanging on.  but prefect/r0 dunno about costello is really the  competent  one, the one dragging the partner along for the ride.  there is a core friendship, and that is why the smart one does not just abandon the idiot.  in star wars, it is because they are actual counterparts, while in hhgttg, it is because dent was a friend to prefect when he was stranded on an alien world.  and there are certainly times when the  smart  one of the duo screws up, in both cases.  but, it is notable when it occurs, as opposed to the straight man comic, which constantly needs saving, or at least explaining to.  one more notable parallel ? as inept as 0p0 and dent are, they never really wind up imperiling anyone but themselves.   #  i do not either, but remember, we are not talking about the concept of a guide in general, but the creation of a specific character, jar jar, to fill the role of a guide.   #  based on  he was originally given some dialogue in the beginning, but this was cut.  0   from URL and my personal opinion of lucas.  i apologize, i am taking artistic liberties here, i ca not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  i do not either, but remember, we are not talking about the concept of a guide in general, but the creation of a specific character, jar jar, to fill the role of a guide.  the guise of protecting jar jar is fine, if not tenuous, but the guise was created for a character that should not have existed in the first place.   #  jar jar is annoying in the same way but on a whole higher level.   # yes.  jar jar is also comedic relief.  but missing a partner to build rapport with.  and at an infantile level.  i can see why people might find c 0po annoying.  perhaps i even find him 0 annoying.  jar jar is annoying in the same way but on a whole higher level.  he may serve a slightly more integral plot point really ? .  but just as with c 0po the majority of his scenes could have easily been cut reducing him to less than ewok levels of exposure.
my understanding of c 0p0 is that he serves mainly as comic relief in the movies.  however, he is in way too many scenes to the point that he just gets annoying.  c 0po does nothing to drive the story forward.  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  the only thing he is good at is language interpretations, but he does not fill that role often enough to justify him getting so much screen time.  if c 0po was in fewer scenes, he would be a decent character, but the fact that he is in so many, and the fact that he is actually kind of useless, really damages our enjoyment of the character.  who do you think is the worst character in the star wars movies, and why is that character worse than c 0po ?  #  c 0po does nothing to drive the story forward.   #  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.   #  i do not think it is necessary to actually dispute any of your points.  any criticism you have leveled at c 0po is exponentially worse for jar jar, consequently, c 0po ca not be the worse character in star wars.  jar jar serves exclusively as comic relief too, except he is horribly unfunny at all times.  jar jar is annoying not because of his overuse, but merely his existence.  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  asking jar jar to serve as a guide only serves to make the wise ancient jedi look like idiotic twats.  he is a constant danger to their mission, he provides no intelligence that is not obvious or could not be found in a public information database, and he is useless as a diplomat because even his own people hate him.  he crowning achievement is to win a battle by bumbling.  would not the battle be much more impressive and engaging if it was won by a risky strategy, a la the x wing assault on the death star ? instead of being a stupid joke ? the next most important thing jar jar does is make a speech imploring the senate to grant emergency powers to the emperor.  that is right, instead of making a powerful  the best of intentions, wait, oh god, what the hell have i done ?  , real and moving political action scene, we have an utterly unbelievable fuckwit ruin the galaxy because  shit, we have to make our caricature bullshit cgi do something in this fucking movie .  his existence in the final movie, without any dialog, is a  fuck you  from lucas, who got overruled on using any more jar jar, but still had to rub it in everybody is faces that  he  likes his dumbass character.  jar jar has none.  qed.   #  in other words, 0po makes you feel smart, because you understand the real, hidden subtext of what the characters are up to, and he does not.   #  c 0po is played like a comedy straight man to r0 d0 is clown.  he is a cranky bud abbott and r0 is lou costello, all emotion and impulse.  he is uptight felix to r0 is carefree oscar.  they are a comedy team.  what 0po brings to the franchise is an outsider is perspective.  because he just does not  get  what is happening most of the time, or why people behave the way they do, he acts as a narrative device as the guy who is dumber than you who ca not understand what is going on.  in other words, 0po makes you feel smart, because you understand the real, hidden subtext of what the characters are up to, and he does not.  it is also a way to highlight the subtext.   #  as inept as 0p0 and dent are, they never really wind up imperiling anyone but themselves.   #  eh, i do not think i agree with a characterization of r0 as  emotional  or  impulsive.   yes, he always seems like that, especially to 0p0, but how is he actually like that ? actually, he is pretty damn competent, always seems to know what is going on, and generally has a good handle on things.  you know a comedy duo using the term loosely the two of them  really  remind me of ? arthur dent and ford prefect.  dent/0p0/abbott i guess; i confess i am not real familiar with abbott and costello could qualify as a straight man, sure; the bewildered guy making observations and just barely hanging on.  but prefect/r0 dunno about costello is really the  competent  one, the one dragging the partner along for the ride.  there is a core friendship, and that is why the smart one does not just abandon the idiot.  in star wars, it is because they are actual counterparts, while in hhgttg, it is because dent was a friend to prefect when he was stranded on an alien world.  and there are certainly times when the  smart  one of the duo screws up, in both cases.  but, it is notable when it occurs, as opposed to the straight man comic, which constantly needs saving, or at least explaining to.  one more notable parallel ? as inept as 0p0 and dent are, they never really wind up imperiling anyone but themselves.   #  based on  he was originally given some dialogue in the beginning, but this was cut.   #  based on  he was originally given some dialogue in the beginning, but this was cut.  0   from URL and my personal opinion of lucas.  i apologize, i am taking artistic liberties here, i ca not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  i do not either, but remember, we are not talking about the concept of a guide in general, but the creation of a specific character, jar jar, to fill the role of a guide.  the guise of protecting jar jar is fine, if not tenuous, but the guise was created for a character that should not have existed in the first place.   #  i can see why people might find c 0po annoying.   # yes.  jar jar is also comedic relief.  but missing a partner to build rapport with.  and at an infantile level.  i can see why people might find c 0po annoying.  perhaps i even find him 0 annoying.  jar jar is annoying in the same way but on a whole higher level.  he may serve a slightly more integral plot point really ? .  but just as with c 0po the majority of his scenes could have easily been cut reducing him to less than ewok levels of exposure.
my understanding of c 0p0 is that he serves mainly as comic relief in the movies.  however, he is in way too many scenes to the point that he just gets annoying.  c 0po does nothing to drive the story forward.  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  the only thing he is good at is language interpretations, but he does not fill that role often enough to justify him getting so much screen time.  if c 0po was in fewer scenes, he would be a decent character, but the fact that he is in so many, and the fact that he is actually kind of useless, really damages our enjoyment of the character.  who do you think is the worst character in the star wars movies, and why is that character worse than c 0po ?  #  however, he is in way too many scenes to the point that he just gets annoying.   #  i can see why people might find c 0po annoying.   # yes.  jar jar is also comedic relief.  but missing a partner to build rapport with.  and at an infantile level.  i can see why people might find c 0po annoying.  perhaps i even find him 0 annoying.  jar jar is annoying in the same way but on a whole higher level.  he may serve a slightly more integral plot point really ? .  but just as with c 0po the majority of his scenes could have easily been cut reducing him to less than ewok levels of exposure.   #  what 0po brings to the franchise is an outsider is perspective.   #  c 0po is played like a comedy straight man to r0 d0 is clown.  he is a cranky bud abbott and r0 is lou costello, all emotion and impulse.  he is uptight felix to r0 is carefree oscar.  they are a comedy team.  what 0po brings to the franchise is an outsider is perspective.  because he just does not  get  what is happening most of the time, or why people behave the way they do, he acts as a narrative device as the guy who is dumber than you who ca not understand what is going on.  in other words, 0po makes you feel smart, because you understand the real, hidden subtext of what the characters are up to, and he does not.  it is also a way to highlight the subtext.   #  dent/0p0/abbott i guess; i confess i am not real familiar with abbott and costello could qualify as a straight man, sure; the bewildered guy making observations and just barely hanging on.   #  eh, i do not think i agree with a characterization of r0 as  emotional  or  impulsive.   yes, he always seems like that, especially to 0p0, but how is he actually like that ? actually, he is pretty damn competent, always seems to know what is going on, and generally has a good handle on things.  you know a comedy duo using the term loosely the two of them  really  remind me of ? arthur dent and ford prefect.  dent/0p0/abbott i guess; i confess i am not real familiar with abbott and costello could qualify as a straight man, sure; the bewildered guy making observations and just barely hanging on.  but prefect/r0 dunno about costello is really the  competent  one, the one dragging the partner along for the ride.  there is a core friendship, and that is why the smart one does not just abandon the idiot.  in star wars, it is because they are actual counterparts, while in hhgttg, it is because dent was a friend to prefect when he was stranded on an alien world.  and there are certainly times when the  smart  one of the duo screws up, in both cases.  but, it is notable when it occurs, as opposed to the straight man comic, which constantly needs saving, or at least explaining to.  one more notable parallel ? as inept as 0p0 and dent are, they never really wind up imperiling anyone but themselves.   #  jar jar serves exclusively as comic relief too, except he is horribly unfunny at all times.   #  i do not think it is necessary to actually dispute any of your points.  any criticism you have leveled at c 0po is exponentially worse for jar jar, consequently, c 0po ca not be the worse character in star wars.  jar jar serves exclusively as comic relief too, except he is horribly unfunny at all times.  jar jar is annoying not because of his overuse, but merely his existence.  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  asking jar jar to serve as a guide only serves to make the wise ancient jedi look like idiotic twats.  he is a constant danger to their mission, he provides no intelligence that is not obvious or could not be found in a public information database, and he is useless as a diplomat because even his own people hate him.  he crowning achievement is to win a battle by bumbling.  would not the battle be much more impressive and engaging if it was won by a risky strategy, a la the x wing assault on the death star ? instead of being a stupid joke ? the next most important thing jar jar does is make a speech imploring the senate to grant emergency powers to the emperor.  that is right, instead of making a powerful  the best of intentions, wait, oh god, what the hell have i done ?  , real and moving political action scene, we have an utterly unbelievable fuckwit ruin the galaxy because  shit, we have to make our caricature bullshit cgi do something in this fucking movie .  his existence in the final movie, without any dialog, is a  fuck you  from lucas, who got overruled on using any more jar jar, but still had to rub it in everybody is faces that  he  likes his dumbass character.  jar jar has none.  qed.   #  i apologize, i am taking artistic liberties here, i ca not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.   #  based on  he was originally given some dialogue in the beginning, but this was cut.  0   from URL and my personal opinion of lucas.  i apologize, i am taking artistic liberties here, i ca not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  i do not either, but remember, we are not talking about the concept of a guide in general, but the creation of a specific character, jar jar, to fill the role of a guide.  the guise of protecting jar jar is fine, if not tenuous, but the guise was created for a character that should not have existed in the first place.
my understanding of c 0p0 is that he serves mainly as comic relief in the movies.  however, he is in way too many scenes to the point that he just gets annoying.  c 0po does nothing to drive the story forward.  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  the only thing he is good at is language interpretations, but he does not fill that role often enough to justify him getting so much screen time.  if c 0po was in fewer scenes, he would be a decent character, but the fact that he is in so many, and the fact that he is actually kind of useless, really damages our enjoyment of the character.  who do you think is the worst character in the star wars movies, and why is that character worse than c 0po ?  #  c 0po does nothing to drive the story forward.   #  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.   # i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  for the old trilogy, that is actually the point.  the movies are largely told from the perspective of both 0po and r0.  they serve as stand ins for the audience.  so they should not advance the story because their reason to be there is just to observe.  but since stoic robots got that hal 0 vibe fast, they were written as comedy characters.   #  it is also a way to highlight the subtext.   #  c 0po is played like a comedy straight man to r0 d0 is clown.  he is a cranky bud abbott and r0 is lou costello, all emotion and impulse.  he is uptight felix to r0 is carefree oscar.  they are a comedy team.  what 0po brings to the franchise is an outsider is perspective.  because he just does not  get  what is happening most of the time, or why people behave the way they do, he acts as a narrative device as the guy who is dumber than you who ca not understand what is going on.  in other words, 0po makes you feel smart, because you understand the real, hidden subtext of what the characters are up to, and he does not.  it is also a way to highlight the subtext.   #  in star wars, it is because they are actual counterparts, while in hhgttg, it is because dent was a friend to prefect when he was stranded on an alien world.   #  eh, i do not think i agree with a characterization of r0 as  emotional  or  impulsive.   yes, he always seems like that, especially to 0p0, but how is he actually like that ? actually, he is pretty damn competent, always seems to know what is going on, and generally has a good handle on things.  you know a comedy duo using the term loosely the two of them  really  remind me of ? arthur dent and ford prefect.  dent/0p0/abbott i guess; i confess i am not real familiar with abbott and costello could qualify as a straight man, sure; the bewildered guy making observations and just barely hanging on.  but prefect/r0 dunno about costello is really the  competent  one, the one dragging the partner along for the ride.  there is a core friendship, and that is why the smart one does not just abandon the idiot.  in star wars, it is because they are actual counterparts, while in hhgttg, it is because dent was a friend to prefect when he was stranded on an alien world.  and there are certainly times when the  smart  one of the duo screws up, in both cases.  but, it is notable when it occurs, as opposed to the straight man comic, which constantly needs saving, or at least explaining to.  one more notable parallel ? as inept as 0p0 and dent are, they never really wind up imperiling anyone but themselves.   #  asking jar jar to serve as a guide only serves to make the wise ancient jedi look like idiotic twats.   #  i do not think it is necessary to actually dispute any of your points.  any criticism you have leveled at c 0po is exponentially worse for jar jar, consequently, c 0po ca not be the worse character in star wars.  jar jar serves exclusively as comic relief too, except he is horribly unfunny at all times.  jar jar is annoying not because of his overuse, but merely his existence.  i feel that you could actually remove him from all of the films and the plots would not really change that much.  asking jar jar to serve as a guide only serves to make the wise ancient jedi look like idiotic twats.  he is a constant danger to their mission, he provides no intelligence that is not obvious or could not be found in a public information database, and he is useless as a diplomat because even his own people hate him.  he crowning achievement is to win a battle by bumbling.  would not the battle be much more impressive and engaging if it was won by a risky strategy, a la the x wing assault on the death star ? instead of being a stupid joke ? the next most important thing jar jar does is make a speech imploring the senate to grant emergency powers to the emperor.  that is right, instead of making a powerful  the best of intentions, wait, oh god, what the hell have i done ?  , real and moving political action scene, we have an utterly unbelievable fuckwit ruin the galaxy because  shit, we have to make our caricature bullshit cgi do something in this fucking movie .  his existence in the final movie, without any dialog, is a  fuck you  from lucas, who got overruled on using any more jar jar, but still had to rub it in everybody is faces that  he  likes his dumbass character.  jar jar has none.  qed.   #  0   from URL and my personal opinion of lucas.   #  based on  he was originally given some dialogue in the beginning, but this was cut.  0   from URL and my personal opinion of lucas.  i apologize, i am taking artistic liberties here, i ca not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  i do not either, but remember, we are not talking about the concept of a guide in general, but the creation of a specific character, jar jar, to fill the role of a guide.  the guise of protecting jar jar is fine, if not tenuous, but the guise was created for a character that should not have existed in the first place.
i need to preface my thoughts initially by saying that holding this view does not mean i devalue cheerleading in any way.  i have attended competitions, and known several friends who cheerlead, and though i am a very active, physically fit person, i would still find it challenging to learn and execute many moves in cheerleading, and find it impressive and enjoyable to watch.  however, i do not consider it a sport.  this is not a pejorative assertion, but even so, i have experienced pushback for it in the past.  i also do not subscribe to the olympic definition of sport.  in my view, a sport needs to be able to be won by objective means.  that is to say, you need to have a goal that can be reached: make it to a certain point first, score more points, lift the most weight, etc.  obviously, officials make wrong calls, and goals in hockey/soccer for instance are wrongly disallowed/wrongly given occasionally, but at the end of the day, there is still an objective result/outcome, but for the number of games they decide on the merit of the mistake alone, i am willing to consider them a reasonable minority.  team a 0 0 team b, usain bolt wins race with time of 0 seconds, etc.  i believe events decided solely by judges cannot be sports, and will always be subjective in nature.  sports like boxing, with judging elements, are still sports in my view because there is an objective way to win knocking the opponent out so they cannot respond to a 0 count, for instance.  the judging is a tiebreaker, and i am fine with that.  but in judge only events, an identical routine could win one contest, and lose another, simply by virtue of human subjectivity alone.  for this reason, i lump cheerleading in with figure skating, diving, and other events as athletic activities.   #  for this reason, i lump cheerleading in with figure skating, diving, and other events as athletic activities.   #  i do not think you will have anybody arguing with you that cheerleading is alike to figure skating, diving, and gymnastics in that they use subjective scoring instead of objective.   # i do not think you will have anybody arguing with you that cheerleading is alike to figure skating, diving, and gymnastics in that they use subjective scoring instead of objective.  so your cmv really is not  cheerleading is not a sport  but rather  athletic activities that are subjectively scored are not sports.   correct ? that being said, the  subjective  scoring goes off of a strict and specific rubric and the graders are people with extensive experience in the  sport.   they are not  really  going off of personal opinion; they are going off of a specific rubric and whether or not the athlete adequately performed each motion as per the rubric.  it is not really as subjective as it seems.   #  instead, commenters would start by asking,  why do you feel that way ?  #  this is all well and true, but i think one of the premises that we work under here in /r/changemyview is that people are not exactly arguing their view is  right , but simply that they hold a certain view.  so there is not much point in arguing that his definition of  sport  is wrong because it is an arbitrary determination:   otherwise it would get crazy:   for example, i can say:  in my view, a sport needs to be able to have a ball or a stick.  therefore swimming is not a sport.   rather, replies need to be constructed such that we address why his particular definition of  sport  can be problematic, inconsistent, based on false assumptions, etc.  if you started a separate thread that was titled  swimming is not a sport, because it does not involve a ball or a stick , commenters should not dismiss the topic by saying  that is not what a sport is defined as.  period.   instead, commenters would start by asking,  why do you feel that way ?  ,  what are so important about a stick and a ball to a sport , and so on.  i only post this because i really enjoy some of the more  outlandish  and unique topics that come up here on cmv.  i feel that dismissing any topic at all can deprive us of some really interesting discussion.   #  sportaccord, which is a meta association of sports associations, defines a sport somewhat differently than merriam webster does: URL   the sport proposed should include an element of competition.   #  there  is  dispute on what constitutes a sport.  for example, are esports URL or competitive eating URL sports ? according to the merriam webster definition, they are, and so are auto racing, billiards, competitive bass fishing, dance competitions, and cook offs.  there are certainly plenty of arguments to be had about that, though.  sportaccord, which is a meta association of sports associations, defines a sport somewhat differently than merriam webster does: URL   the sport proposed should include an element of competition.  the sport should not rely on any element of  luck  specifically integrated into the sport.  the sport should not be judged to pose an undue risk to the health and safety of its athletes or participants.  the sport proposed should in no way be harmful to any living creature.  the sport should not rely on equipment that is provided by a single supplier.  this is a definition that is agreed upon by the 0  international sports associations that are members of sportaccord, including fifa, fiba, itf, uci, wbsc, etc.  the agreed upon definition also allows for inclusion of groups like fide chess and, with special relevance to this cmv topic, the international cheer union.  this is not to say that this definition or any, really is universally accepted, though, and that is my point.   #  runners, swimmers, and any other racing sport are competing against time.   #  how do any of those compete against each other ? runners, swimmers, and any other racing sport are competing against time.  they could be in completely different arenas, not even see each other and just have the times compared and achieve the same result.  weight lifters are the same, each is trying to individually do the best they can with zero interference from any other competitor.  their performance is in no way impacted by the performance of anyone around then.  in a sense they are also just competing for an individual score to be compared to others who have done the same thing.   #  i think that idea could easily be argued though.   #  espn actually had an article over this and i am glad you brought the definition into this.  URL the writer puts a separation between stunt and cheerleading to help move forward.  all in all says that stunt is a sport while cheerleading is not due to the infrequency of the competitions.  i think that idea could easily be argued though.  just thought this kind of appeases both sides a bit with the separation of stunt.
i do not like to pay for parking in a lot by my office so i parked in a neighborhood for free.  recently, they zoned it so that only people who lived there could park on the street.  all of the houses that are in the neighborhood have driveways if not multiple car garages.  i think that is dumb.  now if you drive through the neighborhood, there are no cars on the street, so it is not like non residents were taking up spots for residents.  even with cars parked on both sides of the street, the road is not narrow.  i think there is no logistical reason for it.  i think people who lived there got angry for no reason about people parking on  their  street and complained to the county.  i do not think these people have any right to this road because i pay into the same tax pool that they do to maintain the street.  any citizen should have the right to park on any public street.  this is bullshit.  cmv.  .  and sorry for the bitching !  #  now if you drive through the neighborhood, there are no cars on the street, so it is not like non residents were taking up spots for residents.   #  even with cars parked on both sides of the street, the road is not narrow.   # even with cars parked on both sides of the street, the road is not narrow.  i think there is no logistical reason for it.  this sounds like a very unusual scenario for residential permit parking.  usually it is in places where there are not many driveways, narrow streets, and barely enough space for even the residents to park.  in your situation i can think of a few reasons, though:   space available or not, commuters parking there creates unwanted traffic   issues with commutesr parking too close to driveways or directly across from them hard to back out   possible issues with people on their way to their cars.  maybe residents found it unpleasant to have a stream of commuters appear on their sidewalks at rush hour every day.  potentially increased litter from commuters   it makes it easier for residents to have guests over if parking is plentiful.  realize that not all commuters do pay in to the same tax pool as the neighborhood does.  some commuters, maybe even most commuters, are from outside the tax district.   #  you are making assumptions about why the parking rules were changed  getting mad that people are parking on their street  , but it would be more helpful if you knew the actual reasons.   #  have you checked with your local zoning board or traffic board to see if there is an actual reason why the change was made ? you are making assumptions about why the parking rules were changed  getting mad that people are parking on their street  , but it would be more helpful if you knew the actual reasons.  then we could have a reasonable discussion on the topic.  until then, there is not much we can do to change your mind, because we have no facts to go on.  or rather, we only have the facts/details from your point of view, not those of the residents, the county, or other interested parties  #  ok, so someone else here suggested that i call the county.   #  ok, so someone else here suggested that i call the county.  i did that, and they cited disruption in traffic patterns.  i am not a civil engineer so i do not really know how much of an impact 0 cars just guessing on that number can make.  the obvious solution would be more traffic control right ? i would be willing to pay the fee for a permit that residents are charged to fund that.   #  it could also be that the city wants to reduce the priority given to matainence of those streets as a cost cutting measure so that other essential services are not also cut.   #  you argue that you  could  park there, but not that you  should  park there.  it might be that the city is trying to change the walking patterns of commuters.  after all, parking in residential areas poses a potential risk and represents a loss of business for businesses that you would be walking by instead.  it could also be that the city wants to reduce the priority given to matainence of those streets as a cost cutting measure so that other essential services are not also cut.  just because things are optimized for you does not mean that those things are good for everyone else, or even anyone else.  the city made a decision that harmed you, but that does not mean that it was a bad decision if the residents on the street, businesses in adjacent districts, and beneficiaries of city services benefit more collectively than you and those like you were harmed.   #  also, if i still choose to park elsewhere, it might entice me to visit shops along the way because i have no self control .   #  i will give you a   0; because i can buy your argument that giving us the shaft might economically benefit the city more.  for example, if the garage loses money and goes out of business, they lose tax revenue.  also, if i still choose to park elsewhere, it might entice me to visit shops along the way because i have no self control .  however, i think there is still an argument that these zonings are  unfair  and arbitrary at best.  but hey, who ever said life was fair ?
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   #  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  surely only the richest people ever give that much.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.   #  the barista may have plenty of hours of nothing much to do and painting a room is a nice activity whereas painting for an hour would be a huge imposition on gates.   #  while i appreciate the delta i feel i must comment on the last part.  while you are correct that we all have a finite amount it is still absolutely incorrect that the sacrifice is the same for bill gates and a barista.  let is say my plans for today are 0:0 0:0 watch wheel of fortune, 0:0 0:0 make love to my wife.  you call me up and ask me to help serve lunch at a shelter.  do you really think the sacrifice is the same if you ask me to help at 0:0 or at 0:0 ? unless you  really  like wheel of fortune the sacrifice i make is much lower if i help at noon.  it is the same portion of my lifetime hours but the sacrifice is much different.  the same with the barista/gates comparison.  the barista may have plenty of hours of nothing much to do and painting a room is a nice activity whereas painting for an hour would be a huge imposition on gates.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.   #  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.   # therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  i think you are missing the point when it comes to donating.  sacrifice does not have to be made to show generosity; it is almost as if you are expecting something in return when giving donations to those who are needy of course, this does not count the  thank you s that you get for sharing .  the whole point of donating, and generosity in a broader sense, is to for the people who are in a brighter situation to give the people on the other side of the spectrum a chance for a better life.  you do not expect trade to happen at any point, as you should.  this is due to the fact that they were already in a position to give that much to donate.  it is like seeing a kid go through your collection of video games if you have collected them all from early on up to when you are older ; it is not that the figure is amazing or it is the norm, it is just that the people are not used to seeing it that much.  this, i believe, is a direct consequence of being generous, and not always intentional.   #  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.    #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.   #  this is due to the fact that they were already in a position to give that much to donate.   # therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  i think you are missing the point when it comes to donating.  sacrifice does not have to be made to show generosity; it is almost as if you are expecting something in return when giving donations to those who are needy of course, this does not count the  thank you s that you get for sharing .  the whole point of donating, and generosity in a broader sense, is to for the people who are in a brighter situation to give the people on the other side of the spectrum a chance for a better life.  you do not expect trade to happen at any point, as you should.  this is due to the fact that they were already in a position to give that much to donate.  it is like seeing a kid go through your collection of video games if you have collected them all from early on up to when you are older ; it is not that the figure is amazing or it is the norm, it is just that the people are not used to seeing it that much.  this, i believe, is a direct consequence of being generous, and not always intentional.   #  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  surely only the richest people ever give that much.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.   #  so, when you receive a gift from someone, do you review it as  well, you could have afforded better ?    # so, when you receive a gift from someone, do you review it as  well, you could have afforded better ?   given their circumstances ? i was taught to be happy with what is given to you.  the reality is, these people actually owe you nothing.  getting anything from anyone for free, as a gift, is a nice gesture.  evaluating they could have spent more is more rude, in my opinion.  we are, basically, discussing compassion, here, and providing gifts and money is not always the best thing to do.  for instance, handing someone who abuses alcohol 0k may just enable them to drink 0k worth of alcohol versus getting help.  help comes in forms beyond finances.  anyone can throw money at a problem but less will be there to physically help.  if a rich person attends a gathering and then sticks around to help wash dishes while everyone else leaves, is he a bad person since he did not pay for everything, pay for a maid to clean it, etc.  ? i do not think so, no.  do you expect more from this situation ? how come the others do not owe anything ? it seems to be a financial matter.  i agree, but how can one prove this ? bill gates is helping people, is he doing it to boost his reputation ? as well, in this case, does the means justify the ends ? no one is getting hurt and people are being helped.  it is positive propaganda, so to speak.  and you are talking about charity but ignoring the economics of this.  i will just focus on this since it gets severely lost when talking about rich people.  first, i will iterate that rich people do not create jobs.  they do not create demand, etc.  at least, no more than anyone but of the collective .  secondly, to use their life, they buy a home.  many people had a job to build it from resources to management to builders.  that private jet ? that employed people at a jet factory, from designers to resource collectors to management, again.  it is stored at an airport that earns money, maintained by mechanics, flown by pilots, and operated by staff.  what we tend to focus on is that rich people have stuff.  what we ignore is that people work, as a result.  again, rich people do not create jobs, but when they go a buy a jet, that employs a lot of people.  this is beyond their investments into companies and what nots.  rich people do give but because they have a lot, some of us we think they should give a lot.  some of us are thankful for what they provide, some of us spit at it and demand more.  one thing i have struggled with, and the left wing is severely more guilty, is why demanding free stuff from rich people, or government, is not greedy.  it is not your stuff.   #  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #   showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.    #  if a rich person attends a gathering and then sticks around to help wash dishes while everyone else leaves, is he a bad person since he did not pay for everything, pay for a maid to clean it, etc.   # so, when you receive a gift from someone, do you review it as  well, you could have afforded better ?   given their circumstances ? i was taught to be happy with what is given to you.  the reality is, these people actually owe you nothing.  getting anything from anyone for free, as a gift, is a nice gesture.  evaluating they could have spent more is more rude, in my opinion.  we are, basically, discussing compassion, here, and providing gifts and money is not always the best thing to do.  for instance, handing someone who abuses alcohol 0k may just enable them to drink 0k worth of alcohol versus getting help.  help comes in forms beyond finances.  anyone can throw money at a problem but less will be there to physically help.  if a rich person attends a gathering and then sticks around to help wash dishes while everyone else leaves, is he a bad person since he did not pay for everything, pay for a maid to clean it, etc.  ? i do not think so, no.  do you expect more from this situation ? how come the others do not owe anything ? it seems to be a financial matter.  i agree, but how can one prove this ? bill gates is helping people, is he doing it to boost his reputation ? as well, in this case, does the means justify the ends ? no one is getting hurt and people are being helped.  it is positive propaganda, so to speak.  and you are talking about charity but ignoring the economics of this.  i will just focus on this since it gets severely lost when talking about rich people.  first, i will iterate that rich people do not create jobs.  they do not create demand, etc.  at least, no more than anyone but of the collective .  secondly, to use their life, they buy a home.  many people had a job to build it from resources to management to builders.  that private jet ? that employed people at a jet factory, from designers to resource collectors to management, again.  it is stored at an airport that earns money, maintained by mechanics, flown by pilots, and operated by staff.  what we tend to focus on is that rich people have stuff.  what we ignore is that people work, as a result.  again, rich people do not create jobs, but when they go a buy a jet, that employs a lot of people.  this is beyond their investments into companies and what nots.  rich people do give but because they have a lot, some of us we think they should give a lot.  some of us are thankful for what they provide, some of us spit at it and demand more.  one thing i have struggled with, and the left wing is severely more guilty, is why demanding free stuff from rich people, or government, is not greedy.  it is not your stuff.   #  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  surely only the richest people ever give that much.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.   #  i agree, but how can one prove this ?  # so, when you receive a gift from someone, do you review it as  well, you could have afforded better ?   given their circumstances ? i was taught to be happy with what is given to you.  the reality is, these people actually owe you nothing.  getting anything from anyone for free, as a gift, is a nice gesture.  evaluating they could have spent more is more rude, in my opinion.  we are, basically, discussing compassion, here, and providing gifts and money is not always the best thing to do.  for instance, handing someone who abuses alcohol 0k may just enable them to drink 0k worth of alcohol versus getting help.  help comes in forms beyond finances.  anyone can throw money at a problem but less will be there to physically help.  if a rich person attends a gathering and then sticks around to help wash dishes while everyone else leaves, is he a bad person since he did not pay for everything, pay for a maid to clean it, etc.  ? i do not think so, no.  do you expect more from this situation ? how come the others do not owe anything ? it seems to be a financial matter.  i agree, but how can one prove this ? bill gates is helping people, is he doing it to boost his reputation ? as well, in this case, does the means justify the ends ? no one is getting hurt and people are being helped.  it is positive propaganda, so to speak.  and you are talking about charity but ignoring the economics of this.  i will just focus on this since it gets severely lost when talking about rich people.  first, i will iterate that rich people do not create jobs.  they do not create demand, etc.  at least, no more than anyone but of the collective .  secondly, to use their life, they buy a home.  many people had a job to build it from resources to management to builders.  that private jet ? that employed people at a jet factory, from designers to resource collectors to management, again.  it is stored at an airport that earns money, maintained by mechanics, flown by pilots, and operated by staff.  what we tend to focus on is that rich people have stuff.  what we ignore is that people work, as a result.  again, rich people do not create jobs, but when they go a buy a jet, that employs a lot of people.  this is beyond their investments into companies and what nots.  rich people do give but because they have a lot, some of us we think they should give a lot.  some of us are thankful for what they provide, some of us spit at it and demand more.  one thing i have struggled with, and the left wing is severely more guilty, is why demanding free stuff from rich people, or government, is not greedy.  it is not your stuff.   #  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.   #  and you are talking about charity but ignoring the economics of this.   # so, when you receive a gift from someone, do you review it as  well, you could have afforded better ?   given their circumstances ? i was taught to be happy with what is given to you.  the reality is, these people actually owe you nothing.  getting anything from anyone for free, as a gift, is a nice gesture.  evaluating they could have spent more is more rude, in my opinion.  we are, basically, discussing compassion, here, and providing gifts and money is not always the best thing to do.  for instance, handing someone who abuses alcohol 0k may just enable them to drink 0k worth of alcohol versus getting help.  help comes in forms beyond finances.  anyone can throw money at a problem but less will be there to physically help.  if a rich person attends a gathering and then sticks around to help wash dishes while everyone else leaves, is he a bad person since he did not pay for everything, pay for a maid to clean it, etc.  ? i do not think so, no.  do you expect more from this situation ? how come the others do not owe anything ? it seems to be a financial matter.  i agree, but how can one prove this ? bill gates is helping people, is he doing it to boost his reputation ? as well, in this case, does the means justify the ends ? no one is getting hurt and people are being helped.  it is positive propaganda, so to speak.  and you are talking about charity but ignoring the economics of this.  i will just focus on this since it gets severely lost when talking about rich people.  first, i will iterate that rich people do not create jobs.  they do not create demand, etc.  at least, no more than anyone but of the collective .  secondly, to use their life, they buy a home.  many people had a job to build it from resources to management to builders.  that private jet ? that employed people at a jet factory, from designers to resource collectors to management, again.  it is stored at an airport that earns money, maintained by mechanics, flown by pilots, and operated by staff.  what we tend to focus on is that rich people have stuff.  what we ignore is that people work, as a result.  again, rich people do not create jobs, but when they go a buy a jet, that employs a lot of people.  this is beyond their investments into companies and what nots.  rich people do give but because they have a lot, some of us we think they should give a lot.  some of us are thankful for what they provide, some of us spit at it and demand more.  one thing i have struggled with, and the left wing is severely more guilty, is why demanding free stuff from rich people, or government, is not greedy.  it is not your stuff.   #  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.   #  and this hopefully will encourage more people to do so.   # i think it is the opposite.  i think most people are not impressed when someone donates a large amount if that person already has a large income.  from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone is in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.  i am in one of those richer circles, and donating is not expected at all.  nobody is monitoring how much you donate.  probably the only people who would worry about this is someone running a pr campaign.  and those are the millionaires in the public eye.  most millionaires are not in the public eye.  and this hopefully will encourage more people to do so.  how is this a bad thing ? also, you have probably never heard of most of the donations made by millionaires/billionaires.  for example, someone recently donated a lot of money to a wolf sanctuary to get his name written into a game of thrones book.  do you still remember his name ? or do you have to look it up ? most people forget about these things.  usually, the only time someone would remember is if that person already has a reputation and/or is famous.  first of all, let is make sure you understand the tax benefits.  a rich person does not gain money from donating.  when he/she donates, the amount he/she donates does not get taxed.  however, that amount is still given away.  he/she cannot gain anything out of it or else it will not count as a tax deductible donation/gift.  so there is no incentive to give in the first place.  it just does not make sense to tax a donation, because that donation will end up paying someone to do work, and that wage will end up being taxed anyway.  so if you tax a donation, you risk taxing that amount twice before someone benefits from it.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  this is assuming that money did not take time/sacrifice to acquire for a millionaire/billionaire.  how many relationships has that person sacrificed to stay at his workplace to do that extra % of work to make his company more competitive ? how much of that person is health has that person sacrificed sitting at his computer all day and night coding those extra lines of codes ? how many hours were sacrificed by that person to run his businesses ? how much stress has that person endured by risking his initial savings to start a company ? even if the person inherited the money, that money still had to be acquired somehow and a sacrifice had to be made in the past by his ancestors.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  what if what they wanted is to have more money or own more businesses instead of a fancier computer ? let is say donating $0 million changes nothing to the donator is life.  but what about the descendants of his/her ? they will never see that $0 million.  any amount that person donates will take away money from somebody the donator cares about.  if excess wealth is so meaningless and valueless to a wealthy person as you say, then  time  is what that person will value more.  so i might even argue that wealthy people value time more than most people.   #  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.   #  first of all, let is make sure you understand the tax benefits.   # i think it is the opposite.  i think most people are not impressed when someone donates a large amount if that person already has a large income.  from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone is in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.  i am in one of those richer circles, and donating is not expected at all.  nobody is monitoring how much you donate.  probably the only people who would worry about this is someone running a pr campaign.  and those are the millionaires in the public eye.  most millionaires are not in the public eye.  and this hopefully will encourage more people to do so.  how is this a bad thing ? also, you have probably never heard of most of the donations made by millionaires/billionaires.  for example, someone recently donated a lot of money to a wolf sanctuary to get his name written into a game of thrones book.  do you still remember his name ? or do you have to look it up ? most people forget about these things.  usually, the only time someone would remember is if that person already has a reputation and/or is famous.  first of all, let is make sure you understand the tax benefits.  a rich person does not gain money from donating.  when he/she donates, the amount he/she donates does not get taxed.  however, that amount is still given away.  he/she cannot gain anything out of it or else it will not count as a tax deductible donation/gift.  so there is no incentive to give in the first place.  it just does not make sense to tax a donation, because that donation will end up paying someone to do work, and that wage will end up being taxed anyway.  so if you tax a donation, you risk taxing that amount twice before someone benefits from it.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  this is assuming that money did not take time/sacrifice to acquire for a millionaire/billionaire.  how many relationships has that person sacrificed to stay at his workplace to do that extra % of work to make his company more competitive ? how much of that person is health has that person sacrificed sitting at his computer all day and night coding those extra lines of codes ? how many hours were sacrificed by that person to run his businesses ? how much stress has that person endured by risking his initial savings to start a company ? even if the person inherited the money, that money still had to be acquired somehow and a sacrifice had to be made in the past by his ancestors.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  what if what they wanted is to have more money or own more businesses instead of a fancier computer ? let is say donating $0 million changes nothing to the donator is life.  but what about the descendants of his/her ? they will never see that $0 million.  any amount that person donates will take away money from somebody the donator cares about.  if excess wealth is so meaningless and valueless to a wealthy person as you say, then  time  is what that person will value more.  so i might even argue that wealthy people value time more than most people.   #  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.    #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.   #  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.   # i think it is the opposite.  i think most people are not impressed when someone donates a large amount if that person already has a large income.  from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone is in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.  i am in one of those richer circles, and donating is not expected at all.  nobody is monitoring how much you donate.  probably the only people who would worry about this is someone running a pr campaign.  and those are the millionaires in the public eye.  most millionaires are not in the public eye.  and this hopefully will encourage more people to do so.  how is this a bad thing ? also, you have probably never heard of most of the donations made by millionaires/billionaires.  for example, someone recently donated a lot of money to a wolf sanctuary to get his name written into a game of thrones book.  do you still remember his name ? or do you have to look it up ? most people forget about these things.  usually, the only time someone would remember is if that person already has a reputation and/or is famous.  first of all, let is make sure you understand the tax benefits.  a rich person does not gain money from donating.  when he/she donates, the amount he/she donates does not get taxed.  however, that amount is still given away.  he/she cannot gain anything out of it or else it will not count as a tax deductible donation/gift.  so there is no incentive to give in the first place.  it just does not make sense to tax a donation, because that donation will end up paying someone to do work, and that wage will end up being taxed anyway.  so if you tax a donation, you risk taxing that amount twice before someone benefits from it.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  this is assuming that money did not take time/sacrifice to acquire for a millionaire/billionaire.  how many relationships has that person sacrificed to stay at his workplace to do that extra % of work to make his company more competitive ? how much of that person is health has that person sacrificed sitting at his computer all day and night coding those extra lines of codes ? how many hours were sacrificed by that person to run his businesses ? how much stress has that person endured by risking his initial savings to start a company ? even if the person inherited the money, that money still had to be acquired somehow and a sacrifice had to be made in the past by his ancestors.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  what if what they wanted is to have more money or own more businesses instead of a fancier computer ? let is say donating $0 million changes nothing to the donator is life.  but what about the descendants of his/her ? they will never see that $0 million.  any amount that person donates will take away money from somebody the donator cares about.  if excess wealth is so meaningless and valueless to a wealthy person as you say, then  time  is what that person will value more.  so i might even argue that wealthy people value time more than most people.   #  we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  surely only the richest people ever give that much.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.   #  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.   # i think it is the opposite.  i think most people are not impressed when someone donates a large amount if that person already has a large income.  from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone is in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.  i am in one of those richer circles, and donating is not expected at all.  nobody is monitoring how much you donate.  probably the only people who would worry about this is someone running a pr campaign.  and those are the millionaires in the public eye.  most millionaires are not in the public eye.  and this hopefully will encourage more people to do so.  how is this a bad thing ? also, you have probably never heard of most of the donations made by millionaires/billionaires.  for example, someone recently donated a lot of money to a wolf sanctuary to get his name written into a game of thrones book.  do you still remember his name ? or do you have to look it up ? most people forget about these things.  usually, the only time someone would remember is if that person already has a reputation and/or is famous.  first of all, let is make sure you understand the tax benefits.  a rich person does not gain money from donating.  when he/she donates, the amount he/she donates does not get taxed.  however, that amount is still given away.  he/she cannot gain anything out of it or else it will not count as a tax deductible donation/gift.  so there is no incentive to give in the first place.  it just does not make sense to tax a donation, because that donation will end up paying someone to do work, and that wage will end up being taxed anyway.  so if you tax a donation, you risk taxing that amount twice before someone benefits from it.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  this is assuming that money did not take time/sacrifice to acquire for a millionaire/billionaire.  how many relationships has that person sacrificed to stay at his workplace to do that extra % of work to make his company more competitive ? how much of that person is health has that person sacrificed sitting at his computer all day and night coding those extra lines of codes ? how many hours were sacrificed by that person to run his businesses ? how much stress has that person endured by risking his initial savings to start a company ? even if the person inherited the money, that money still had to be acquired somehow and a sacrifice had to be made in the past by his ancestors.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  what if what they wanted is to have more money or own more businesses instead of a fancier computer ? let is say donating $0 million changes nothing to the donator is life.  but what about the descendants of his/her ? they will never see that $0 million.  any amount that person donates will take away money from somebody the donator cares about.  if excess wealth is so meaningless and valueless to a wealthy person as you say, then  time  is what that person will value more.  so i might even argue that wealthy people value time more than most people.   #  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.   #  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.   # i think it is the opposite.  i think most people are not impressed when someone donates a large amount if that person already has a large income.  from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone is in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.  i am in one of those richer circles, and donating is not expected at all.  nobody is monitoring how much you donate.  probably the only people who would worry about this is someone running a pr campaign.  and those are the millionaires in the public eye.  most millionaires are not in the public eye.  and this hopefully will encourage more people to do so.  how is this a bad thing ? also, you have probably never heard of most of the donations made by millionaires/billionaires.  for example, someone recently donated a lot of money to a wolf sanctuary to get his name written into a game of thrones book.  do you still remember his name ? or do you have to look it up ? most people forget about these things.  usually, the only time someone would remember is if that person already has a reputation and/or is famous.  first of all, let is make sure you understand the tax benefits.  a rich person does not gain money from donating.  when he/she donates, the amount he/she donates does not get taxed.  however, that amount is still given away.  he/she cannot gain anything out of it or else it will not count as a tax deductible donation/gift.  so there is no incentive to give in the first place.  it just does not make sense to tax a donation, because that donation will end up paying someone to do work, and that wage will end up being taxed anyway.  so if you tax a donation, you risk taxing that amount twice before someone benefits from it.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  this is assuming that money did not take time/sacrifice to acquire for a millionaire/billionaire.  how many relationships has that person sacrificed to stay at his workplace to do that extra % of work to make his company more competitive ? how much of that person is health has that person sacrificed sitting at his computer all day and night coding those extra lines of codes ? how many hours were sacrificed by that person to run his businesses ? how much stress has that person endured by risking his initial savings to start a company ? even if the person inherited the money, that money still had to be acquired somehow and a sacrifice had to be made in the past by his ancestors.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  what if what they wanted is to have more money or own more businesses instead of a fancier computer ? let is say donating $0 million changes nothing to the donator is life.  but what about the descendants of his/her ? they will never see that $0 million.  any amount that person donates will take away money from somebody the donator cares about.  if excess wealth is so meaningless and valueless to a wealthy person as you say, then  time  is what that person will value more.  so i might even argue that wealthy people value time more than most people.   #  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  surely only the richest people ever give that much.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.    #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   #  if excess wealth is so meaningless and valueless to a wealthy person as you say, then  time  is what that person will value more.   # i think it is the opposite.  i think most people are not impressed when someone donates a large amount if that person already has a large income.  from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone is in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.  i am in one of those richer circles, and donating is not expected at all.  nobody is monitoring how much you donate.  probably the only people who would worry about this is someone running a pr campaign.  and those are the millionaires in the public eye.  most millionaires are not in the public eye.  and this hopefully will encourage more people to do so.  how is this a bad thing ? also, you have probably never heard of most of the donations made by millionaires/billionaires.  for example, someone recently donated a lot of money to a wolf sanctuary to get his name written into a game of thrones book.  do you still remember his name ? or do you have to look it up ? most people forget about these things.  usually, the only time someone would remember is if that person already has a reputation and/or is famous.  first of all, let is make sure you understand the tax benefits.  a rich person does not gain money from donating.  when he/she donates, the amount he/she donates does not get taxed.  however, that amount is still given away.  he/she cannot gain anything out of it or else it will not count as a tax deductible donation/gift.  so there is no incentive to give in the first place.  it just does not make sense to tax a donation, because that donation will end up paying someone to do work, and that wage will end up being taxed anyway.  so if you tax a donation, you risk taxing that amount twice before someone benefits from it.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  this is assuming that money did not take time/sacrifice to acquire for a millionaire/billionaire.  how many relationships has that person sacrificed to stay at his workplace to do that extra % of work to make his company more competitive ? how much of that person is health has that person sacrificed sitting at his computer all day and night coding those extra lines of codes ? how many hours were sacrificed by that person to run his businesses ? how much stress has that person endured by risking his initial savings to start a company ? even if the person inherited the money, that money still had to be acquired somehow and a sacrifice had to be made in the past by his ancestors.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  what if what they wanted is to have more money or own more businesses instead of a fancier computer ? let is say donating $0 million changes nothing to the donator is life.  but what about the descendants of his/her ? they will never see that $0 million.  any amount that person donates will take away money from somebody the donator cares about.  if excess wealth is so meaningless and valueless to a wealthy person as you say, then  time  is what that person will value more.  so i might even argue that wealthy people value time more than most people.   #  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.   #  right here, after you have defined your absolute, you define magnitude.   #  at essence, you are trying to define altruism: an effort, expense or sacrifice made that, otherwise, provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the giver.  a good example that comes to mind is heart, liver and lung donation.  i am not attempting to change your view ideally but in practice, i am afraid, it is impossible.  right here, after you have defined your absolute, you define magnitude.  in doing so you have also created a transaction.  because it requires a a judgment subjectively or objectively it must be recorded and registered.  because we are imposing a public/social norm, it must also be transparent.  the minute one is sacrifice to generous ratio becomes public, he/she may receive reward and/or recognition.  this would be a paradox to generosity being a function of sacrifice, where altruism is some constant c .  it becomes virtually impossible, practically speaking.   #  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  surely only the richest people ever give that much.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
there is several mitigating factors to rich peoples   generosity  i want to put forth in support of my view:   0 many people are wowed by the amounts of zeros present in the gift and forget that proportionately to the giver is income, the gift may have been piddling.    0 generosity is defined as URL  showing a readiness to give more of something, as money or time, than is strictly necessary or expected.   from what i know, i would say that in richer circles, donating to something and/or someone  is  in fact expected and that you may be perceived badly if you do not donate.    0 giving above a certain amount can serve as cheap advertising for those donating and serves to increase their reputation with the public.    0 the tax benefits available for those who donate at large amounts can offset the cost of donating, and i believe even provide an incentive to give in the first place.    0 there is a line for each person that differs i am sure that below which they are scraping by and above which they do not need to worry about making ends meat or having small luxuries.  someone making in excess of 0 figures certainly lives a very comfortable life, even if they ca not afford that 0nd private jet they were drooling over.  lastly, i will put forth what i think is a better way of deciding whom to call generous and whom to not.  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  if a millionaire donates proportionately the same amount but it forces them to change nothing, then they are not.  the bigger the sacrifice, the more generous the person.  and yes, if a millionaire decides to donate the money they intended to spend on a yacht meaning they do not get a boat or even get a smaller one than what they wanted, i would consider that a sacrifice and therefore that they were being generous.  i also add that i personally value the gift of time and effort above most monetary gifts because that is something that everyone values about the same.   0 i realize i can be tone deaf when communicating sometimes, but i did not mean to imply that not being called generous specifically means you are not doing something good.  you absolutely are and clearly those who have more and give very little of it help finance things more than a collective of persons with meager wealth.  the point i was initially making was that  generous  is a very high praise to offer someone and i feel that it can at least sometimes be perceived as a cheap way earning praise for very little.  i am reminded of the biblical story URL of the woman who gave her last cents in offering and was praised by jesus as giving more than anyone else.  that is basically the comparison i am making.    0 this view was not in any way meant to comment on how people should receive donations/gifts.  any gift given freely is worth thanking and worthy of praise from the recipient.    0 nowhere in my view did i state or insinuate that anyone was entitled to anything.  i have several rich friends and do not believe for a second that i am entitled to any of their money at all.  what rich people feel is their responsibility to give is no one is business but their own.   #  make it a rule that unless sacrifice of some sort factors into your gift, you are not being generous.   #  therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.   # therefore, if i donate money to an aids research foundation and as a direct result cannot buy the new fancier computer i wanted, then i am generous.  this is retarded no offense you can not  ameasure  the  goodness  of a deed of how much it sets  you  back.  the  goodness  of a deed should be measured by the amount of good it does.  a billionaire saving the lives of 0 children for 0 years by donating money to a good cause which does not  set him back that much  is not fucking generous but me, when i put in around 0 dollars which is all of my savings i am being  generous  ? rediculous.   #  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.   #  my wife and i actually struggle with this a bit.  we do not give a  lot  away but we give away far more than average in both time and money.  but we do struggle with the idea of are we really sacrificing ? we have a nice lifestyle and do not suffer from wanting things.  but at the same time if we did not donate our money we would have a lot more of it and having more money is fun.  we give most of our money away discretely but never anonymously because that is actually a bad thing to do so are not looking for applause but are often called generous.  we cringe a bit at this but the reality is compared to others it is true.  and non profits calling people generous is not only a way of being grateful but more importantly encourages others to do the same.  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  the people i know that give, even those who give large amounts and enjoy the publicity, give because they care.  sure there are those who buy a girl scout cookie box out of guilt or donate $0,0 to a shelter to get people to quit bugging them at a fundraiser but for the most part they give because they actually care not because they have to.  it may not always be the purest motive but no one has a truly pure motive.  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person.  i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.   #  when people see a donation listed as anonymous they automatically assume someone like bill gates gave it so they ignore it and assume it is nothing something they would ever do.  $0 ? ! surely only the richest people ever give that much.  in reality, those anonymous amounts are often given by an average joe who might be your neighbor.  if you knew this you would be more likely to think that giving larger amounts is something not only could you do but you should do.  sure, it is peer pressure and not completely charity but it makes things so much easier for people raising money when they can list all the regular, unassuming people who give a lot of money away.  it is a tough struggle between not bragging and making it know that being generous is a normal thing to do.   #  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.   #  it is not about bragging, though.  i do almost all my donations anonymously because when i used to donate non anonymously, my mailbox would shortly thereafter start getting flooded with solicitations for more donations from both the charity i donated to and to the other charities they shared their mailing list with.  i give a decent amount each year but that does not mean i am eager to be pelted with solicitations on a daily basis.  if there were somehow a way to give non anonymously but guarantee that i would be left alone afterwards, i would give under my name.  but there is not.  i think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that donating anonymously is  a bad thing to do.   at worst it is less beneficial to the charity than donating under your name but it is not like the anonymous money actually  harms  a charity.  many perhaps most charities do not list individual donations in the $0 range publicly anyway, which makes the downside of anonymity pretty minimal.   #  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.   #  ok, you have earned a   from me.  the view i was presenting was intended to be more of a semantic one and less of a judgmental one though many interpreted it that way unfortunately but you have made me realize that i was coming from a place of judgement about hearing how  generous  rich people who give great sums are when they sacrifice nothing to do so and even gain something tangible because of it.  the part that made me realize this was wrong was:  i do not think it is really fair to judge people without knowing them.  this is something i try to live by and failed at in creating this thread.  yes, the argument can be made that my view is still technically correct removed from any real world context, but when put into any practical use it leads to either over generalization of people you do not know, or pointless judgement of people you do know.  also, as you said, ceasing to liberally apply these kinds of adverbs would actually negatively effect donations especially the disingenuous ones which directly stomps my thread title.  lastly i did want to respond to this as well:  as some who has worked in the non profit world for years i want to call bullshit on this.  people who work 0 hour days value their time off far more than a stay at home parent or a retired person i would also much rather have $0,0 from a ceo than 0 hours of his time painting a house.  i can use the money to not only get more work done but to help someone earn money.  both money and time are important but an organization with no money will not last long while one without volunteer hours can survive just fine.  the point of this whole thread was to discuss only the giving and not the receiving.  the statement you were responding to was about how we all value our time more or less equally not just free time, but time at all and we all have a similarly finite amount of it that money cannot buy back so spending it is almost always going to be a sacrifice whether you are bill gates or a barista at starbucks.
firstly i would just like to point out that i am female.  secondly i would like to clarify that i am all for equality between all people.  however, now men and women are  equal  even though we are clearly very very different i feel we have lost some important values of homemaking and nurturing.  i think it is much harder now for women to 0 feel like being a housewife is an acceptable lifestyle choice and 0 to feel like this is important enough to dedicate their lives to.  i think people should be completely free and i am super happy that their are no restrictions on my life choices because of my gender, but now, when i say a  isuccessful women  you picture a high driven business women in a nice suit with important places to be.  i think the traditional family structure and traditional roles create a perfect environment for raising children and i just feel as though the feminist movement lost sight of what it was trying to achieve and actually ended up destroying something traditional roles that is actually quite vital to society and furthermore to humanity.   #  firstly i would just like to point out that i am female.   #  secondly i would like to clarify that i am all for equality between all people.   # secondly i would like to clarify that i am all for equality between all people.  however, now men and women are  equal  even though we are clearly very very different i feel we have lost some important values of homemaking and nurturing.  society is still nowhere near equal, and your post shows one reason why this is.  the gender roles still exist, and are being enforced socially the same way you are.  pushing your own beliefs on what the best way to raise a child or have a family is.  what works for wo not work for everyone else, trying to force them into your way is as bad as forcing you into theirs.  women receive flak for either choice they make in this regard because people feel they have a right to decide how others should live their lives.  men also receive a lot of flak for trying to be stay at home fathers though.  we live in a society centered on money and business, a successful person regardless of gender will be pictured as someone who makes a lot of money.  this has nothing to do with feminism it is the result of capitalism.  feminism seeks equality, the right for everyone to eventually be free to live however they wish to without judgement or prejudices.  that did not had not really been lost, and the movement is nowhere near done.  traditional roles had to be removed in order to allow women who did not want to be burdened by them to do what they wished, you still have the option to play into them if you wish.  fact of the matter is what you consider traditional is actually not the way things have always been, in fact men used to be viewed as the best gender to raise the children.   #  if it makes you happy then go for it, nobody will stop you and almost nobody will judge you.   #  it is far far easier to become a homemaker than it is to become the ceo of a fortune 0 company.  regardless of gender the latter is always going to be considered more successful because it is much much harder to do.  i am not saying raising children is easy, it definitely has it is difficulties but it is definitely harder to become and senator or a ceo.  this does not mean society views homemakers as unsuccessful, it is just unremarkable.  if it makes you happy then go for it, nobody will stop you and almost nobody will judge you.  i say almost nobody because there is always someone who judges others for totally arbitrary reasons.  if being considered successful by society is something you need to be happy then being a homemaker is the wrong way to go about it.  it is pretty selfish to wish feminism had never happened, that women would still be considered property and have almost no rights, just so that more people would consider you successful for choosing the life of a homemaker.   #  many aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends etc are better suited to that role than the mother.   #  the  traditional  nuclear family is a very recent western invention.  we have not always done that, and there is loads of people who never have lived like that.  the  traditional  family structure you are talking about only really works if everybody wants to do that.  but what if they do not ? how is that better for everyone ? feminism is about separating earning the money and being the primary caregiver from gender roles and from those two being the only choices.  people who are interested in having children should be the only ones having children because they want to, not because they  ishould  be in a heterosexual monogamous marriage and popping out 0 children.  people who are interested in raising children should be the only ones who are the primary caregivers because they want to, not because they are the mother.  many fathers are just as capable, if not more.  many aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends etc are better suited to that role than the mother.  people who are interested in supporting their family financially should be the only ones doing it because they want to, not because they are the father.  in short, feminism does not mean that  traditional  families are wrong or not allowed any more just that other options are just as respected.   #  received no responses, the mailing list was used to nothing but complaints like  which idiot is drilling at a saturday evening ?    #  hmmm.  i am from central europe where city planning has always been more urban than suburbian suburbia is largely the old villages near the cities that get hugely gentrified and expensive, a single family house is something for a succesful 0 years old manager to buy, not the average guy.  yet, i do not see any sense of community in our urban housing.  in fact people are more alienated in them than in suburbia.  i mean that part in desperate housewives where people in suburbia meet neighbors who move in, bring homemade cake to each other, they are interested in each other, form circles of local friends, yeah, it is non existent in european urban housing.  i was, in fact, trying to make local friends, our housing complex has an internal mailing list, but my mails like  who wants to drink a beer together ?   received no responses, the mailing list was used to nothing but complaints like  which idiot is drilling at a saturday evening ?   and  omg someone left a mat in the stairway, this happens when you let the people from the social housing in, typical renter mentality !   all i am saying, just putting people together in a six stories high urban apartment house does not a community make.  in fact, rather the opposite.  i have seen more interest in the neighbors from people living more suburbian or rural, in single family houses, because they are far from everything and there is not much to do.  in our urban housing, people do not care about neighbors because they can afford to not care as they can just jump on the tramway before the house and 0 minutes later there is nightlife and all.   #  nor no idea maybe they are just reclusive.   #  i see.  our issue is that we have all that and much more within 0 meters, but parks, shops, bike paths, schools, kindergartens, tailors, pizza deliveries, bike repairs, hairdressers, and all that do not magically make people talk to each other, to form a community.  i think most folks are just going to other parts of the city to meet with their friends there.  nor no idea maybe they are just reclusive.  surely it is a great idea to have all these at hand but a community does not get formed by them.  i think for example in the suburbia where my mom is living it works better because people have gardens.  so they do not just see each other rushing somewhere but also see each other just hanging out in the garden, enjoying it.  so it makes them talk to each other.  and they feel safe to talk in their own gardens.  in our apartment complex i would not talk to a neighbor when he is walking his dog because contact in a public space is awkard, people would be afraid that it could lead to an assault or something.  there is little trust becasue people are from like 0 0 countries, we have not a clue about each others culture, we are afraid.  but in my moms suburbia, they can talk to the neighbor from their own garden, which makes them safe as the neighbor will probably not climb over the 0 meters tall fence to deliver a bitch slap if they happen to say something wrong, so they feel safe talking.  so my hypothesis, having a community depends on having own gardens or yards.
firstly i would just like to point out that i am female.  secondly i would like to clarify that i am all for equality between all people.  however, now men and women are  equal  even though we are clearly very very different i feel we have lost some important values of homemaking and nurturing.  i think it is much harder now for women to 0 feel like being a housewife is an acceptable lifestyle choice and 0 to feel like this is important enough to dedicate their lives to.  i think people should be completely free and i am super happy that their are no restrictions on my life choices because of my gender, but now, when i say a  isuccessful women  you picture a high driven business women in a nice suit with important places to be.  i think the traditional family structure and traditional roles create a perfect environment for raising children and i just feel as though the feminist movement lost sight of what it was trying to achieve and actually ended up destroying something traditional roles that is actually quite vital to society and furthermore to humanity.   #  i think it is much harder now for women to 0 feel like being a housewife is an acceptable lifestyle choice and 0 to feel like this is important enough to dedicate their lives to.   #  women receive flak for either choice they make in this regard because people feel they have a right to decide how others should live their lives.   # secondly i would like to clarify that i am all for equality between all people.  however, now men and women are  equal  even though we are clearly very very different i feel we have lost some important values of homemaking and nurturing.  society is still nowhere near equal, and your post shows one reason why this is.  the gender roles still exist, and are being enforced socially the same way you are.  pushing your own beliefs on what the best way to raise a child or have a family is.  what works for wo not work for everyone else, trying to force them into your way is as bad as forcing you into theirs.  women receive flak for either choice they make in this regard because people feel they have a right to decide how others should live their lives.  men also receive a lot of flak for trying to be stay at home fathers though.  we live in a society centered on money and business, a successful person regardless of gender will be pictured as someone who makes a lot of money.  this has nothing to do with feminism it is the result of capitalism.  feminism seeks equality, the right for everyone to eventually be free to live however they wish to without judgement or prejudices.  that did not had not really been lost, and the movement is nowhere near done.  traditional roles had to be removed in order to allow women who did not want to be burdened by them to do what they wished, you still have the option to play into them if you wish.  fact of the matter is what you consider traditional is actually not the way things have always been, in fact men used to be viewed as the best gender to raise the children.   #  regardless of gender the latter is always going to be considered more successful because it is much much harder to do.   #  it is far far easier to become a homemaker than it is to become the ceo of a fortune 0 company.  regardless of gender the latter is always going to be considered more successful because it is much much harder to do.  i am not saying raising children is easy, it definitely has it is difficulties but it is definitely harder to become and senator or a ceo.  this does not mean society views homemakers as unsuccessful, it is just unremarkable.  if it makes you happy then go for it, nobody will stop you and almost nobody will judge you.  i say almost nobody because there is always someone who judges others for totally arbitrary reasons.  if being considered successful by society is something you need to be happy then being a homemaker is the wrong way to go about it.  it is pretty selfish to wish feminism had never happened, that women would still be considered property and have almost no rights, just so that more people would consider you successful for choosing the life of a homemaker.   #  many fathers are just as capable, if not more.   #  the  traditional  nuclear family is a very recent western invention.  we have not always done that, and there is loads of people who never have lived like that.  the  traditional  family structure you are talking about only really works if everybody wants to do that.  but what if they do not ? how is that better for everyone ? feminism is about separating earning the money and being the primary caregiver from gender roles and from those two being the only choices.  people who are interested in having children should be the only ones having children because they want to, not because they  ishould  be in a heterosexual monogamous marriage and popping out 0 children.  people who are interested in raising children should be the only ones who are the primary caregivers because they want to, not because they are the mother.  many fathers are just as capable, if not more.  many aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends etc are better suited to that role than the mother.  people who are interested in supporting their family financially should be the only ones doing it because they want to, not because they are the father.  in short, feminism does not mean that  traditional  families are wrong or not allowed any more just that other options are just as respected.   #  all i am saying, just putting people together in a six stories high urban apartment house does not a community make.   #  hmmm.  i am from central europe where city planning has always been more urban than suburbian suburbia is largely the old villages near the cities that get hugely gentrified and expensive, a single family house is something for a succesful 0 years old manager to buy, not the average guy.  yet, i do not see any sense of community in our urban housing.  in fact people are more alienated in them than in suburbia.  i mean that part in desperate housewives where people in suburbia meet neighbors who move in, bring homemade cake to each other, they are interested in each other, form circles of local friends, yeah, it is non existent in european urban housing.  i was, in fact, trying to make local friends, our housing complex has an internal mailing list, but my mails like  who wants to drink a beer together ?   received no responses, the mailing list was used to nothing but complaints like  which idiot is drilling at a saturday evening ?   and  omg someone left a mat in the stairway, this happens when you let the people from the social housing in, typical renter mentality !   all i am saying, just putting people together in a six stories high urban apartment house does not a community make.  in fact, rather the opposite.  i have seen more interest in the neighbors from people living more suburbian or rural, in single family houses, because they are far from everything and there is not much to do.  in our urban housing, people do not care about neighbors because they can afford to not care as they can just jump on the tramway before the house and 0 minutes later there is nightlife and all.   #  so it makes them talk to each other.   #  i see.  our issue is that we have all that and much more within 0 meters, but parks, shops, bike paths, schools, kindergartens, tailors, pizza deliveries, bike repairs, hairdressers, and all that do not magically make people talk to each other, to form a community.  i think most folks are just going to other parts of the city to meet with their friends there.  nor no idea maybe they are just reclusive.  surely it is a great idea to have all these at hand but a community does not get formed by them.  i think for example in the suburbia where my mom is living it works better because people have gardens.  so they do not just see each other rushing somewhere but also see each other just hanging out in the garden, enjoying it.  so it makes them talk to each other.  and they feel safe to talk in their own gardens.  in our apartment complex i would not talk to a neighbor when he is walking his dog because contact in a public space is awkard, people would be afraid that it could lead to an assault or something.  there is little trust becasue people are from like 0 0 countries, we have not a clue about each others culture, we are afraid.  but in my moms suburbia, they can talk to the neighbor from their own garden, which makes them safe as the neighbor will probably not climb over the 0 meters tall fence to deliver a bitch slap if they happen to say something wrong, so they feel safe talking.  so my hypothesis, having a community depends on having own gardens or yards.
firstly i would just like to point out that i am female.  secondly i would like to clarify that i am all for equality between all people.  however, now men and women are  equal  even though we are clearly very very different i feel we have lost some important values of homemaking and nurturing.  i think it is much harder now for women to 0 feel like being a housewife is an acceptable lifestyle choice and 0 to feel like this is important enough to dedicate their lives to.  i think people should be completely free and i am super happy that their are no restrictions on my life choices because of my gender, but now, when i say a  isuccessful women  you picture a high driven business women in a nice suit with important places to be.  i think the traditional family structure and traditional roles create a perfect environment for raising children and i just feel as though the feminist movement lost sight of what it was trying to achieve and actually ended up destroying something traditional roles that is actually quite vital to society and furthermore to humanity.   #  i feel we have lost some important values of homemaking and nurturing.   #  i think it is much harder now for women to 0 feel like being a housewife is an acceptable lifestyle choice and 0 to feel like this is important enough to dedicate their lives to.   # i think it is much harder now for women to 0 feel like being a housewife is an acceptable lifestyle choice and 0 to feel like this is important enough to dedicate their lives to.  is that true ? if not, and if you think that both men and women can fulfill this role whichever parent  wants  to and feel drawn to it then realize that feminism allowed for that.  feminism created a society in which women were not forced to the home and men forced to work to support the home; feminism created a society in which  either parent  can stay at home and  either parent  can work to support the home.  putting aside whether or not it worked, is not that better to have whichever parent  wants  to work and whichever parent  wants  to take care of the home do so, rather than forcing women to do one and men to do the other ? if you agree it would be best to have either parent do it either parent at home/either parent at work , but that you think feminism created a society in which instead of going from all women at home/all men at work to either parent at home/either parent at work, we actually ended up going to a society in which neither parent is at home/both parents work, or that either parent  can  be at home but will face judgement/one parent works then i understand the problem you are seeing but i believe you are incorrect in thinking feminism caused it.  rather, the patriarchal society that values  women is roles  and  women is work  as lesser created it.  feminism saved women from being forced into those  women is roles,  but it has not yet broken down the idea of  women is roles.   the patriarchal society still views  women is roles  as lesser and inherently not as high of value as  men is roles/work.   as such, being a stay at home spouse or parent is still viewed as  women is work  and thus still viewed as lesser in value in society.  women do not have to do that anymore, and  in general  society looks down on it, so men and women are less willing to do it.  that is not feminism is fault; it is the patriarchal society is fault.  feminism just freed women from being forced into that role that the patriarchy positions as lesser.   #  it is pretty selfish to wish feminism had never happened, that women would still be considered property and have almost no rights, just so that more people would consider you successful for choosing the life of a homemaker.   #  it is far far easier to become a homemaker than it is to become the ceo of a fortune 0 company.  regardless of gender the latter is always going to be considered more successful because it is much much harder to do.  i am not saying raising children is easy, it definitely has it is difficulties but it is definitely harder to become and senator or a ceo.  this does not mean society views homemakers as unsuccessful, it is just unremarkable.  if it makes you happy then go for it, nobody will stop you and almost nobody will judge you.  i say almost nobody because there is always someone who judges others for totally arbitrary reasons.  if being considered successful by society is something you need to be happy then being a homemaker is the wrong way to go about it.  it is pretty selfish to wish feminism had never happened, that women would still be considered property and have almost no rights, just so that more people would consider you successful for choosing the life of a homemaker.   #  the  traditional  family structure you are talking about only really works if everybody wants to do that.   #  the  traditional  nuclear family is a very recent western invention.  we have not always done that, and there is loads of people who never have lived like that.  the  traditional  family structure you are talking about only really works if everybody wants to do that.  but what if they do not ? how is that better for everyone ? feminism is about separating earning the money and being the primary caregiver from gender roles and from those two being the only choices.  people who are interested in having children should be the only ones having children because they want to, not because they  ishould  be in a heterosexual monogamous marriage and popping out 0 children.  people who are interested in raising children should be the only ones who are the primary caregivers because they want to, not because they are the mother.  many fathers are just as capable, if not more.  many aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends etc are better suited to that role than the mother.  people who are interested in supporting their family financially should be the only ones doing it because they want to, not because they are the father.  in short, feminism does not mean that  traditional  families are wrong or not allowed any more just that other options are just as respected.   #  i was, in fact, trying to make local friends, our housing complex has an internal mailing list, but my mails like  who wants to drink a beer together ?    #  hmmm.  i am from central europe where city planning has always been more urban than suburbian suburbia is largely the old villages near the cities that get hugely gentrified and expensive, a single family house is something for a succesful 0 years old manager to buy, not the average guy.  yet, i do not see any sense of community in our urban housing.  in fact people are more alienated in them than in suburbia.  i mean that part in desperate housewives where people in suburbia meet neighbors who move in, bring homemade cake to each other, they are interested in each other, form circles of local friends, yeah, it is non existent in european urban housing.  i was, in fact, trying to make local friends, our housing complex has an internal mailing list, but my mails like  who wants to drink a beer together ?   received no responses, the mailing list was used to nothing but complaints like  which idiot is drilling at a saturday evening ?   and  omg someone left a mat in the stairway, this happens when you let the people from the social housing in, typical renter mentality !   all i am saying, just putting people together in a six stories high urban apartment house does not a community make.  in fact, rather the opposite.  i have seen more interest in the neighbors from people living more suburbian or rural, in single family houses, because they are far from everything and there is not much to do.  in our urban housing, people do not care about neighbors because they can afford to not care as they can just jump on the tramway before the house and 0 minutes later there is nightlife and all.   #  i think for example in the suburbia where my mom is living it works better because people have gardens.   #  i see.  our issue is that we have all that and much more within 0 meters, but parks, shops, bike paths, schools, kindergartens, tailors, pizza deliveries, bike repairs, hairdressers, and all that do not magically make people talk to each other, to form a community.  i think most folks are just going to other parts of the city to meet with their friends there.  nor no idea maybe they are just reclusive.  surely it is a great idea to have all these at hand but a community does not get formed by them.  i think for example in the suburbia where my mom is living it works better because people have gardens.  so they do not just see each other rushing somewhere but also see each other just hanging out in the garden, enjoying it.  so it makes them talk to each other.  and they feel safe to talk in their own gardens.  in our apartment complex i would not talk to a neighbor when he is walking his dog because contact in a public space is awkard, people would be afraid that it could lead to an assault or something.  there is little trust becasue people are from like 0 0 countries, we have not a clue about each others culture, we are afraid.  but in my moms suburbia, they can talk to the neighbor from their own garden, which makes them safe as the neighbor will probably not climb over the 0 meters tall fence to deliver a bitch slap if they happen to say something wrong, so they feel safe talking.  so my hypothesis, having a community depends on having own gardens or yards.
hello i am an able bodied 0 year old male, about 0 0 and 0 pounds.  i gotta say i have seen attack dog training videos and i am fairly certain i could fight one off.  if i was being attacked by an 0 lb german shepherd dog for example i am pretty sure i could fight it off given that i keep a upright and stable stance and do not allow any loose appendages for the dog to grab on to.  in an ideal situation where i could see him coming i know i am taller and stronger than him so all i would need to do is brace my legs so that when it is charging at me it does not tackle me to the ground.  i could probably manhandle a dog of that size or punch it in the face or pull on its fur or shove my fist down its throat or do something in the heat of the moment to disable the dog.  the only real threat from the dog is the teeth right ? so as long as you do not get shocked from him biting you all you need to do is keep a tall upright dominant position and wrestle the dog to the ground and induce submission death, knock out, exhaustion etc .  now this is assuming that the dog does not have a handler who is also after me in which case yeah i would be screwed.  but in the event i am facing a charging attack dog coming towards me with absolutely no element of surprise on completely flat terrain with no handler and no weapons including me and the dog, for the dog this would be something like a spiked collar or other metal implements i am fairly confident i could wrestle it into submission.  cmv.   #  the only real threat from the dog is the teeth right ?  #  no, a dog like that has some serious speed, momentum, and power behind it.   # no, a dog like that has some serious speed, momentum, and power behind it.  if it ran at you full speed and made impact above your center of gravity, there would be very little you could do to stay on your feet.  once on the ground, it would be much harder for you to gain the upper hand while protecting your throat.  even if you kept it off your throat, you would face serious blood loss from your defensive wounds.  it is still totally possible to fight off a dog, i just think it would be a much bloodier, desperate scenario then what you have in mind, especially if the dog is trained to kill instead of subdue.   #  i am almost convinced but something is still bothering me.   #  that is a good point about the neck.  i did not think about that.  i figured the dog tackling me down was going to happen weather i braced myself or not.  i am almost convinced but something is still bothering me.  i have not been in many violent situations, and my inexperience clearly shows through my writing.  however it is still a 0 lb creature.  that is like a 0 0 year old kid.  i ca not imagine i would not be able to wrestle a dog of that size.  is a real life attack more violent and aggressive that i am imagining it ?  #  i definitely think it would be much more violent than what you imagine, unless you are already accounting for rips in your arms and throat, broken bones, and missing chunks of muscle and skin.   #  it is 0 pounds of bone and muscle with the instincts of a predator.  there really is no comparison to a child.  i definitely think it would be much more violent than what you imagine, unless you are already accounting for rips in your arms and throat, broken bones, and missing chunks of muscle and skin.  the dog would be faster than you and have quicker reaction times.  could you wrestle it off you ? i think yes, as long as it did not latch onto your throat immediately, but you would definitely take some damage along the way.   #  we really are pretty helpless creatures without our ability to turn a piece of wood into a spear.   #  as others have mentioned comparing an attack dog to a child is not really fair to the viciousness of attack dogs.  physiologically, the dogs muscle structures are different than a human child.  because of this, the amount of power and speed a dog can obtain is much stronger than a child.  it is the reason that chimpanzees are multitudes stronger than humans despite being smaller.  second, the amount of power and speed a dog can obtain in a short distance will almost certainly knock you off your feet.  imagine a german shepard gaining full speed in about 0 seconds and launching itself at your jugular vein.  this is the normal target for predators as it is the easiest way to subdue instantly a target.  the dog would almost certainly knock you off your feet and possibly if it caught you off guard end the fight right there.  i have been stoned and thought about this too much.  dogs are really pretty intimidating creatures when they are allowed to harness their natural killer instincts.  there is a reason why humans, as predators, hunt with weapons and in packs.  we really are pretty helpless creatures without our ability to turn a piece of wood into a spear.   #  not to mention dogs heads are very strong, dogs skulls have evolved to take some serious beating.   #  what are you going to do with the dogs mouth ? a dogs head is going to spin and bite anything it can and its going to be a lot faster than you.  have you ever been bitten by a dog ? a dog could easily break bones in your hand with one bite.  you said something about punching/kicking it in the head.  you are putting your hands close to the dogs mouth, that is never ideal.  not to mention dogs heads are very strong, dogs skulls have evolved to take some serious beating.  you probably could not really even hurt the dog with just your hands.  your best bet is to get something into its mouth, like a 0x0.  and then crush its neck and that is going to be some work.  i have wrestled with all of my dogs i have owned.  they bite back, never viciously but i can tell you i have been hurt by a few.  i would not want to actually defend myself from a dog that was looking for blood.
it bugs me nowadays to see people, particularly many anti theists, so adamant about the rules in the ot of the bible and saying they should be justified now, or even were justified before.  i contend that not only is laws, like slavery and elements of leviticus, irrelevant to christianity but those same things were never the word of god, as evidenced by the bible itself.  my main argument focuses on the pharisees presenting to jesus that moses presented divorce papers in his time.  the whole scene is mark 0:0 0 if you want full context but the important line to note here is mark 0:0.  here we see two major things: 0.  jesus stating that moses wrote laws, instead of being purely seen as god is scribe.  0.  laws were written specifically due to the times and the people in them.  these two points throw into question the christian view of the old testament law and are why the old testament law is not referred to as  god is law  and not often as  old testament law  even, but as  mosaic law .  it was given by moses to the people and moses did write laws in it, with no clarification on how much was done specifically by himself to make sure the people only got as much as they were ready for.  these points also make understandable why jesus contradicts mosaic law on occasion and, in some cases, outright refutes it as he does with the the law on the eating of foods in matthew 0:0 0.  he is referring to the law of god, not of mosaic law.  this is particularly important in the oft mentioned quote in matthew 0:0: since we are already aware jesus does not think the law of god is mosaic law the only other alternative is that the law mentioned he is referring to is the law of god.  evidence of christianity moving beyond mosaic law is evidenced in later parts of the new testament.  the priesthood of leviticus is removed in hebrews 0, the passing and reasoning of mosaic law is extrapolated upon by paul in galatians 0.  there should be no question about the position of the old testament in christian doctrine.  further, with the knowledge that moses wrote an unclear amount of laws, if one law or all laws, in mosaic law purely because of people of that time then that could provide a decent argument for slavery being in ot law than it being of god is character, which is seen often as contradicting.  however you take the argument, there is no proof either way who added the slavery bits into mosaic law.  now the other mentions of slavery in the bible appears in the new testament.  the key mentioning being ephesians 0:0 0: a great many of early christians being slaves, paul was right to speak to slaves during his time.  however, he is berated nowadays for not promoting the anti establishment view on slavery and instead understanding the reality of it during his time argued that if he were anti establishment, the church would be marginalized .  while him promoting the equality of slave and master is tremendous for its time, paul being understanding of the status quo and easing christianity into the traditions of the time does make christianity a slower force for change than an anti establishment view and paul does support the freeing of slaves as the best alternative, as visible in 0 corinthians 0:0.  now everything i have mentioned should be simple stuff to any person who has understood the bible but given the amount of confusion happening now i felt an interest in speaking up about it.  it bothers me the amount of people berating christians and christianity about mosaic law and, moreso, the amount of christians who use mosaic law to spawn horrid actions.  i hope i could clear things up and i would be happy to hear any questions you have or any counterpoints to my claims.  i know i did not touch on all quotes in the bible relevant to some of these topics but i tried to hit the most telling ones.   #  jesus stating that moses wrote laws, instead of being purely seen as god is scribe.   #  are the events described in the bible where these laws are transcribed inaccurate in your view ?  # are the events described in the bible where these laws are transcribed inaccurate in your view ? if so, how do we know the words of jesus are accurate here ? why do you ignore the fact that scribes  write things down  ? hypothetically, if moses was really acting as a scribe for a god, that god could ask him what he wrote, yes ? what would moses say ? maybe something like,  i wrote what you told me to write.   in what context is it ever okay to kill someone because they picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? in what context is slavery ever acceptable ? not all christians ever make this distinction.  some christians will happily make this distinction, and then pretend it is not a meaningful distinction when they want to use something from the  old law  and claim it is from their god.  which is it ? what about parts of the  old law  that as per the bible, god directly weighs in on like killing someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? are they  still  not part of  god is law  ? by what means can we determine if your interpretation of all of these things is the correct one, as opposed to another interpretation with the same quality of reasoning and evidence, but which is contradictory ? this is the same jesus that instructs people to keep to at least some of the ten commandments explicitly, right ? is there at least some overlap between the  law of god  and mosaic law in your view ? or what ? this is the same paul who said eating bacon was fine, when jesus said otherwise, right ? how do you know paul is correct here, even assuming the text is an accurate representation of events ? this is also the same paul that, according to the text, demonstrates some seriously contradictory behavior and statements regarding the old law and circumcision with respect to christians, right ? well, it almost certainly was not moses, because based on historical evidence it is insanely unlikely that he existed as the bible describes, or that he wrote the pentateuch as tradition would suggest.  so, i definitely agree with you here.  i do think we run into the problem that you are going with a view that is basically  the text is super accurate when i want it to be, but unclear when i do not want it to be super accurate , though.  if i read this right, you are arguing that if christianity were anti establishment, it would be marginalized.  but it was already very anti establishment, was not it ? so anti establishment that christians ended up being persecuted by the romans for quite awhile just because they would not properly register their religion, right ? if that level of persecution and perceived anti establishmentness did not marginalize the church, why would saying  slavery is immoral  do so ? should it also be heeded, or are you just picking the stuff you like out of it ? i am pretty sure this is the same chapter that mentions how married persons should live as if they were not, because the end times are coming soon tm , and that unmarried persons really should not try and get married unless they are already pledged to do so .  either that, or it is in the next chapter.  worthwhile advice ? on par with slaves trying to free themselves, and non slaves not entering into slavery except as slaves to jesus ? if not on par with that, why not ? what is different, other than that you just do not agree with it ?  #  it would be hypocritical to say that god does not condone slavery, when the very concept of the religion is built upon the same fundamental framework.   #  lets look at it from an entirely different angle.  the bible sets it out fairly clearly that we as humans are to believe in him and only him, to worship only him, to follow his rules, to do as he wants us to do.  if we do not do this, we are punished and burn for eternity in hell.  if we do, we get to go to to heaven an it will all be good.  as a concept, slavery forces people to do things that their owner desires else they be punished.  if they comply and follow their owners desires, they live in the hope of being freed at some point in the future to live a better life.  it seems to be that the basic foundation of both the religion and slavery are not all that dis similar.  you are forced to follow the set of rules that your master / god puts forward, if you do not you are dammed.  if you do, there is hope of a better life down the line.  it would be hypocritical to say that god does not condone slavery, when the very concept of the religion is built upon the same fundamental framework.   #  its nothing like a slave which is a forced relationship with potentially no escape.  much like christianity, where if you do fly the nest and leave the religion, your dammed to an eternity of hell.   #  a child has to be brought up and raised and guided so that they become a well rounded and good adult.  thats not a slave, its being a parent / child.  as any parent will tell you, a child eventually grows up and leaves the nest.  its nothing like a slave which is a forced relationship with potentially no escape.  much like christianity, where if you do fly the nest and leave the religion, your dammed to an eternity of hell.  if a child, once it reaches adulthood, is forced to stay in the nest, forced to work, forced to whatever, with no option to escape then yeah, its pretty much slavery.   #  and unless you have just awful parents, you probably express gratitude for all they did for you.   #  leaving christianity would not be like moving out of the house.  it would be like refusing to do anything your parents taught you and denying they exist.  i bet you still follow a lot of the rules and things your parents instilled in you, even if you  flew the nest .  and unless you have just awful parents, you probably express gratitude for all they did for you.  how are the requirements for christians more stringent than that ?  #  doing something god says not to is not a one way ticket to hell.   #  i am sure it is much easier to argue against this imaginary religion where any sin equals an eternity of damnation.  but if you want to discuss christianity, you should actually make an effort to understand it.  doing something god says not to is not a one way ticket to hell.  heaven would be barren if that was the case.  requirements for salvation vary somewhat between denominations, but the only constant is that you must accept jesus as your savior.  that is it, acknowledge all that has been done for you, ask for help, and you get into heaven.
it bugs me nowadays to see people, particularly many anti theists, so adamant about the rules in the ot of the bible and saying they should be justified now, or even were justified before.  i contend that not only is laws, like slavery and elements of leviticus, irrelevant to christianity but those same things were never the word of god, as evidenced by the bible itself.  my main argument focuses on the pharisees presenting to jesus that moses presented divorce papers in his time.  the whole scene is mark 0:0 0 if you want full context but the important line to note here is mark 0:0.  here we see two major things: 0.  jesus stating that moses wrote laws, instead of being purely seen as god is scribe.  0.  laws were written specifically due to the times and the people in them.  these two points throw into question the christian view of the old testament law and are why the old testament law is not referred to as  god is law  and not often as  old testament law  even, but as  mosaic law .  it was given by moses to the people and moses did write laws in it, with no clarification on how much was done specifically by himself to make sure the people only got as much as they were ready for.  these points also make understandable why jesus contradicts mosaic law on occasion and, in some cases, outright refutes it as he does with the the law on the eating of foods in matthew 0:0 0.  he is referring to the law of god, not of mosaic law.  this is particularly important in the oft mentioned quote in matthew 0:0: since we are already aware jesus does not think the law of god is mosaic law the only other alternative is that the law mentioned he is referring to is the law of god.  evidence of christianity moving beyond mosaic law is evidenced in later parts of the new testament.  the priesthood of leviticus is removed in hebrews 0, the passing and reasoning of mosaic law is extrapolated upon by paul in galatians 0.  there should be no question about the position of the old testament in christian doctrine.  further, with the knowledge that moses wrote an unclear amount of laws, if one law or all laws, in mosaic law purely because of people of that time then that could provide a decent argument for slavery being in ot law than it being of god is character, which is seen often as contradicting.  however you take the argument, there is no proof either way who added the slavery bits into mosaic law.  now the other mentions of slavery in the bible appears in the new testament.  the key mentioning being ephesians 0:0 0: a great many of early christians being slaves, paul was right to speak to slaves during his time.  however, he is berated nowadays for not promoting the anti establishment view on slavery and instead understanding the reality of it during his time argued that if he were anti establishment, the church would be marginalized .  while him promoting the equality of slave and master is tremendous for its time, paul being understanding of the status quo and easing christianity into the traditions of the time does make christianity a slower force for change than an anti establishment view and paul does support the freeing of slaves as the best alternative, as visible in 0 corinthians 0:0.  now everything i have mentioned should be simple stuff to any person who has understood the bible but given the amount of confusion happening now i felt an interest in speaking up about it.  it bothers me the amount of people berating christians and christianity about mosaic law and, moreso, the amount of christians who use mosaic law to spawn horrid actions.  i hope i could clear things up and i would be happy to hear any questions you have or any counterpoints to my claims.  i know i did not touch on all quotes in the bible relevant to some of these topics but i tried to hit the most telling ones.   #  laws were written specifically due to the times and the people in them.   #  in what context is it ever okay to kill someone because they picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week ?  # are the events described in the bible where these laws are transcribed inaccurate in your view ? if so, how do we know the words of jesus are accurate here ? why do you ignore the fact that scribes  write things down  ? hypothetically, if moses was really acting as a scribe for a god, that god could ask him what he wrote, yes ? what would moses say ? maybe something like,  i wrote what you told me to write.   in what context is it ever okay to kill someone because they picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? in what context is slavery ever acceptable ? not all christians ever make this distinction.  some christians will happily make this distinction, and then pretend it is not a meaningful distinction when they want to use something from the  old law  and claim it is from their god.  which is it ? what about parts of the  old law  that as per the bible, god directly weighs in on like killing someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? are they  still  not part of  god is law  ? by what means can we determine if your interpretation of all of these things is the correct one, as opposed to another interpretation with the same quality of reasoning and evidence, but which is contradictory ? this is the same jesus that instructs people to keep to at least some of the ten commandments explicitly, right ? is there at least some overlap between the  law of god  and mosaic law in your view ? or what ? this is the same paul who said eating bacon was fine, when jesus said otherwise, right ? how do you know paul is correct here, even assuming the text is an accurate representation of events ? this is also the same paul that, according to the text, demonstrates some seriously contradictory behavior and statements regarding the old law and circumcision with respect to christians, right ? well, it almost certainly was not moses, because based on historical evidence it is insanely unlikely that he existed as the bible describes, or that he wrote the pentateuch as tradition would suggest.  so, i definitely agree with you here.  i do think we run into the problem that you are going with a view that is basically  the text is super accurate when i want it to be, but unclear when i do not want it to be super accurate , though.  if i read this right, you are arguing that if christianity were anti establishment, it would be marginalized.  but it was already very anti establishment, was not it ? so anti establishment that christians ended up being persecuted by the romans for quite awhile just because they would not properly register their religion, right ? if that level of persecution and perceived anti establishmentness did not marginalize the church, why would saying  slavery is immoral  do so ? should it also be heeded, or are you just picking the stuff you like out of it ? i am pretty sure this is the same chapter that mentions how married persons should live as if they were not, because the end times are coming soon tm , and that unmarried persons really should not try and get married unless they are already pledged to do so .  either that, or it is in the next chapter.  worthwhile advice ? on par with slaves trying to free themselves, and non slaves not entering into slavery except as slaves to jesus ? if not on par with that, why not ? what is different, other than that you just do not agree with it ?  #  it seems to be that the basic foundation of both the religion and slavery are not all that dis similar.   #  lets look at it from an entirely different angle.  the bible sets it out fairly clearly that we as humans are to believe in him and only him, to worship only him, to follow his rules, to do as he wants us to do.  if we do not do this, we are punished and burn for eternity in hell.  if we do, we get to go to to heaven an it will all be good.  as a concept, slavery forces people to do things that their owner desires else they be punished.  if they comply and follow their owners desires, they live in the hope of being freed at some point in the future to live a better life.  it seems to be that the basic foundation of both the religion and slavery are not all that dis similar.  you are forced to follow the set of rules that your master / god puts forward, if you do not you are dammed.  if you do, there is hope of a better life down the line.  it would be hypocritical to say that god does not condone slavery, when the very concept of the religion is built upon the same fundamental framework.   #  a child has to be brought up and raised and guided so that they become a well rounded and good adult.   #  a child has to be brought up and raised and guided so that they become a well rounded and good adult.  thats not a slave, its being a parent / child.  as any parent will tell you, a child eventually grows up and leaves the nest.  its nothing like a slave which is a forced relationship with potentially no escape.  much like christianity, where if you do fly the nest and leave the religion, your dammed to an eternity of hell.  if a child, once it reaches adulthood, is forced to stay in the nest, forced to work, forced to whatever, with no option to escape then yeah, its pretty much slavery.   #  and unless you have just awful parents, you probably express gratitude for all they did for you.   #  leaving christianity would not be like moving out of the house.  it would be like refusing to do anything your parents taught you and denying they exist.  i bet you still follow a lot of the rules and things your parents instilled in you, even if you  flew the nest .  and unless you have just awful parents, you probably express gratitude for all they did for you.  how are the requirements for christians more stringent than that ?  #  i am sure it is much easier to argue against this imaginary religion where any sin equals an eternity of damnation.   #  i am sure it is much easier to argue against this imaginary religion where any sin equals an eternity of damnation.  but if you want to discuss christianity, you should actually make an effort to understand it.  doing something god says not to is not a one way ticket to hell.  heaven would be barren if that was the case.  requirements for salvation vary somewhat between denominations, but the only constant is that you must accept jesus as your savior.  that is it, acknowledge all that has been done for you, ask for help, and you get into heaven.
it bugs me nowadays to see people, particularly many anti theists, so adamant about the rules in the ot of the bible and saying they should be justified now, or even were justified before.  i contend that not only is laws, like slavery and elements of leviticus, irrelevant to christianity but those same things were never the word of god, as evidenced by the bible itself.  my main argument focuses on the pharisees presenting to jesus that moses presented divorce papers in his time.  the whole scene is mark 0:0 0 if you want full context but the important line to note here is mark 0:0.  here we see two major things: 0.  jesus stating that moses wrote laws, instead of being purely seen as god is scribe.  0.  laws were written specifically due to the times and the people in them.  these two points throw into question the christian view of the old testament law and are why the old testament law is not referred to as  god is law  and not often as  old testament law  even, but as  mosaic law .  it was given by moses to the people and moses did write laws in it, with no clarification on how much was done specifically by himself to make sure the people only got as much as they were ready for.  these points also make understandable why jesus contradicts mosaic law on occasion and, in some cases, outright refutes it as he does with the the law on the eating of foods in matthew 0:0 0.  he is referring to the law of god, not of mosaic law.  this is particularly important in the oft mentioned quote in matthew 0:0: since we are already aware jesus does not think the law of god is mosaic law the only other alternative is that the law mentioned he is referring to is the law of god.  evidence of christianity moving beyond mosaic law is evidenced in later parts of the new testament.  the priesthood of leviticus is removed in hebrews 0, the passing and reasoning of mosaic law is extrapolated upon by paul in galatians 0.  there should be no question about the position of the old testament in christian doctrine.  further, with the knowledge that moses wrote an unclear amount of laws, if one law or all laws, in mosaic law purely because of people of that time then that could provide a decent argument for slavery being in ot law than it being of god is character, which is seen often as contradicting.  however you take the argument, there is no proof either way who added the slavery bits into mosaic law.  now the other mentions of slavery in the bible appears in the new testament.  the key mentioning being ephesians 0:0 0: a great many of early christians being slaves, paul was right to speak to slaves during his time.  however, he is berated nowadays for not promoting the anti establishment view on slavery and instead understanding the reality of it during his time argued that if he were anti establishment, the church would be marginalized .  while him promoting the equality of slave and master is tremendous for its time, paul being understanding of the status quo and easing christianity into the traditions of the time does make christianity a slower force for change than an anti establishment view and paul does support the freeing of slaves as the best alternative, as visible in 0 corinthians 0:0.  now everything i have mentioned should be simple stuff to any person who has understood the bible but given the amount of confusion happening now i felt an interest in speaking up about it.  it bothers me the amount of people berating christians and christianity about mosaic law and, moreso, the amount of christians who use mosaic law to spawn horrid actions.  i hope i could clear things up and i would be happy to hear any questions you have or any counterpoints to my claims.  i know i did not touch on all quotes in the bible relevant to some of these topics but i tried to hit the most telling ones.   #  since we are already aware jesus does not think the law of god is mosaic law the only other alternative is that the law mentioned he is referring to is the law of god.   #  this is the same jesus that instructs people to keep to at least some of the ten commandments explicitly, right ?  # are the events described in the bible where these laws are transcribed inaccurate in your view ? if so, how do we know the words of jesus are accurate here ? why do you ignore the fact that scribes  write things down  ? hypothetically, if moses was really acting as a scribe for a god, that god could ask him what he wrote, yes ? what would moses say ? maybe something like,  i wrote what you told me to write.   in what context is it ever okay to kill someone because they picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? in what context is slavery ever acceptable ? not all christians ever make this distinction.  some christians will happily make this distinction, and then pretend it is not a meaningful distinction when they want to use something from the  old law  and claim it is from their god.  which is it ? what about parts of the  old law  that as per the bible, god directly weighs in on like killing someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? are they  still  not part of  god is law  ? by what means can we determine if your interpretation of all of these things is the correct one, as opposed to another interpretation with the same quality of reasoning and evidence, but which is contradictory ? this is the same jesus that instructs people to keep to at least some of the ten commandments explicitly, right ? is there at least some overlap between the  law of god  and mosaic law in your view ? or what ? this is the same paul who said eating bacon was fine, when jesus said otherwise, right ? how do you know paul is correct here, even assuming the text is an accurate representation of events ? this is also the same paul that, according to the text, demonstrates some seriously contradictory behavior and statements regarding the old law and circumcision with respect to christians, right ? well, it almost certainly was not moses, because based on historical evidence it is insanely unlikely that he existed as the bible describes, or that he wrote the pentateuch as tradition would suggest.  so, i definitely agree with you here.  i do think we run into the problem that you are going with a view that is basically  the text is super accurate when i want it to be, but unclear when i do not want it to be super accurate , though.  if i read this right, you are arguing that if christianity were anti establishment, it would be marginalized.  but it was already very anti establishment, was not it ? so anti establishment that christians ended up being persecuted by the romans for quite awhile just because they would not properly register their religion, right ? if that level of persecution and perceived anti establishmentness did not marginalize the church, why would saying  slavery is immoral  do so ? should it also be heeded, or are you just picking the stuff you like out of it ? i am pretty sure this is the same chapter that mentions how married persons should live as if they were not, because the end times are coming soon tm , and that unmarried persons really should not try and get married unless they are already pledged to do so .  either that, or it is in the next chapter.  worthwhile advice ? on par with slaves trying to free themselves, and non slaves not entering into slavery except as slaves to jesus ? if not on par with that, why not ? what is different, other than that you just do not agree with it ?  #  if we do, we get to go to to heaven an it will all be good.   #  lets look at it from an entirely different angle.  the bible sets it out fairly clearly that we as humans are to believe in him and only him, to worship only him, to follow his rules, to do as he wants us to do.  if we do not do this, we are punished and burn for eternity in hell.  if we do, we get to go to to heaven an it will all be good.  as a concept, slavery forces people to do things that their owner desires else they be punished.  if they comply and follow their owners desires, they live in the hope of being freed at some point in the future to live a better life.  it seems to be that the basic foundation of both the religion and slavery are not all that dis similar.  you are forced to follow the set of rules that your master / god puts forward, if you do not you are dammed.  if you do, there is hope of a better life down the line.  it would be hypocritical to say that god does not condone slavery, when the very concept of the religion is built upon the same fundamental framework.   #  its nothing like a slave which is a forced relationship with potentially no escape.  much like christianity, where if you do fly the nest and leave the religion, your dammed to an eternity of hell.   #  a child has to be brought up and raised and guided so that they become a well rounded and good adult.  thats not a slave, its being a parent / child.  as any parent will tell you, a child eventually grows up and leaves the nest.  its nothing like a slave which is a forced relationship with potentially no escape.  much like christianity, where if you do fly the nest and leave the religion, your dammed to an eternity of hell.  if a child, once it reaches adulthood, is forced to stay in the nest, forced to work, forced to whatever, with no option to escape then yeah, its pretty much slavery.   #  how are the requirements for christians more stringent than that ?  #  leaving christianity would not be like moving out of the house.  it would be like refusing to do anything your parents taught you and denying they exist.  i bet you still follow a lot of the rules and things your parents instilled in you, even if you  flew the nest .  and unless you have just awful parents, you probably express gratitude for all they did for you.  how are the requirements for christians more stringent than that ?  #  requirements for salvation vary somewhat between denominations, but the only constant is that you must accept jesus as your savior.   #  i am sure it is much easier to argue against this imaginary religion where any sin equals an eternity of damnation.  but if you want to discuss christianity, you should actually make an effort to understand it.  doing something god says not to is not a one way ticket to hell.  heaven would be barren if that was the case.  requirements for salvation vary somewhat between denominations, but the only constant is that you must accept jesus as your savior.  that is it, acknowledge all that has been done for you, ask for help, and you get into heaven.
it bugs me nowadays to see people, particularly many anti theists, so adamant about the rules in the ot of the bible and saying they should be justified now, or even were justified before.  i contend that not only is laws, like slavery and elements of leviticus, irrelevant to christianity but those same things were never the word of god, as evidenced by the bible itself.  my main argument focuses on the pharisees presenting to jesus that moses presented divorce papers in his time.  the whole scene is mark 0:0 0 if you want full context but the important line to note here is mark 0:0.  here we see two major things: 0.  jesus stating that moses wrote laws, instead of being purely seen as god is scribe.  0.  laws were written specifically due to the times and the people in them.  these two points throw into question the christian view of the old testament law and are why the old testament law is not referred to as  god is law  and not often as  old testament law  even, but as  mosaic law .  it was given by moses to the people and moses did write laws in it, with no clarification on how much was done specifically by himself to make sure the people only got as much as they were ready for.  these points also make understandable why jesus contradicts mosaic law on occasion and, in some cases, outright refutes it as he does with the the law on the eating of foods in matthew 0:0 0.  he is referring to the law of god, not of mosaic law.  this is particularly important in the oft mentioned quote in matthew 0:0: since we are already aware jesus does not think the law of god is mosaic law the only other alternative is that the law mentioned he is referring to is the law of god.  evidence of christianity moving beyond mosaic law is evidenced in later parts of the new testament.  the priesthood of leviticus is removed in hebrews 0, the passing and reasoning of mosaic law is extrapolated upon by paul in galatians 0.  there should be no question about the position of the old testament in christian doctrine.  further, with the knowledge that moses wrote an unclear amount of laws, if one law or all laws, in mosaic law purely because of people of that time then that could provide a decent argument for slavery being in ot law than it being of god is character, which is seen often as contradicting.  however you take the argument, there is no proof either way who added the slavery bits into mosaic law.  now the other mentions of slavery in the bible appears in the new testament.  the key mentioning being ephesians 0:0 0: a great many of early christians being slaves, paul was right to speak to slaves during his time.  however, he is berated nowadays for not promoting the anti establishment view on slavery and instead understanding the reality of it during his time argued that if he were anti establishment, the church would be marginalized .  while him promoting the equality of slave and master is tremendous for its time, paul being understanding of the status quo and easing christianity into the traditions of the time does make christianity a slower force for change than an anti establishment view and paul does support the freeing of slaves as the best alternative, as visible in 0 corinthians 0:0.  now everything i have mentioned should be simple stuff to any person who has understood the bible but given the amount of confusion happening now i felt an interest in speaking up about it.  it bothers me the amount of people berating christians and christianity about mosaic law and, moreso, the amount of christians who use mosaic law to spawn horrid actions.  i hope i could clear things up and i would be happy to hear any questions you have or any counterpoints to my claims.  i know i did not touch on all quotes in the bible relevant to some of these topics but i tried to hit the most telling ones.   #  extrapolated upon by paul in galatians 0.  there should be no question about the position of the old testament in christian doctrine.   #  this is the same paul who said eating bacon was fine, when jesus said otherwise, right ?  # are the events described in the bible where these laws are transcribed inaccurate in your view ? if so, how do we know the words of jesus are accurate here ? why do you ignore the fact that scribes  write things down  ? hypothetically, if moses was really acting as a scribe for a god, that god could ask him what he wrote, yes ? what would moses say ? maybe something like,  i wrote what you told me to write.   in what context is it ever okay to kill someone because they picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? in what context is slavery ever acceptable ? not all christians ever make this distinction.  some christians will happily make this distinction, and then pretend it is not a meaningful distinction when they want to use something from the  old law  and claim it is from their god.  which is it ? what about parts of the  old law  that as per the bible, god directly weighs in on like killing someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? are they  still  not part of  god is law  ? by what means can we determine if your interpretation of all of these things is the correct one, as opposed to another interpretation with the same quality of reasoning and evidence, but which is contradictory ? this is the same jesus that instructs people to keep to at least some of the ten commandments explicitly, right ? is there at least some overlap between the  law of god  and mosaic law in your view ? or what ? this is the same paul who said eating bacon was fine, when jesus said otherwise, right ? how do you know paul is correct here, even assuming the text is an accurate representation of events ? this is also the same paul that, according to the text, demonstrates some seriously contradictory behavior and statements regarding the old law and circumcision with respect to christians, right ? well, it almost certainly was not moses, because based on historical evidence it is insanely unlikely that he existed as the bible describes, or that he wrote the pentateuch as tradition would suggest.  so, i definitely agree with you here.  i do think we run into the problem that you are going with a view that is basically  the text is super accurate when i want it to be, but unclear when i do not want it to be super accurate , though.  if i read this right, you are arguing that if christianity were anti establishment, it would be marginalized.  but it was already very anti establishment, was not it ? so anti establishment that christians ended up being persecuted by the romans for quite awhile just because they would not properly register their religion, right ? if that level of persecution and perceived anti establishmentness did not marginalize the church, why would saying  slavery is immoral  do so ? should it also be heeded, or are you just picking the stuff you like out of it ? i am pretty sure this is the same chapter that mentions how married persons should live as if they were not, because the end times are coming soon tm , and that unmarried persons really should not try and get married unless they are already pledged to do so .  either that, or it is in the next chapter.  worthwhile advice ? on par with slaves trying to free themselves, and non slaves not entering into slavery except as slaves to jesus ? if not on par with that, why not ? what is different, other than that you just do not agree with it ?  #  if we do, we get to go to to heaven an it will all be good.   #  lets look at it from an entirely different angle.  the bible sets it out fairly clearly that we as humans are to believe in him and only him, to worship only him, to follow his rules, to do as he wants us to do.  if we do not do this, we are punished and burn for eternity in hell.  if we do, we get to go to to heaven an it will all be good.  as a concept, slavery forces people to do things that their owner desires else they be punished.  if they comply and follow their owners desires, they live in the hope of being freed at some point in the future to live a better life.  it seems to be that the basic foundation of both the religion and slavery are not all that dis similar.  you are forced to follow the set of rules that your master / god puts forward, if you do not you are dammed.  if you do, there is hope of a better life down the line.  it would be hypocritical to say that god does not condone slavery, when the very concept of the religion is built upon the same fundamental framework.   #  a child has to be brought up and raised and guided so that they become a well rounded and good adult.   #  a child has to be brought up and raised and guided so that they become a well rounded and good adult.  thats not a slave, its being a parent / child.  as any parent will tell you, a child eventually grows up and leaves the nest.  its nothing like a slave which is a forced relationship with potentially no escape.  much like christianity, where if you do fly the nest and leave the religion, your dammed to an eternity of hell.  if a child, once it reaches adulthood, is forced to stay in the nest, forced to work, forced to whatever, with no option to escape then yeah, its pretty much slavery.   #  it would be like refusing to do anything your parents taught you and denying they exist.   #  leaving christianity would not be like moving out of the house.  it would be like refusing to do anything your parents taught you and denying they exist.  i bet you still follow a lot of the rules and things your parents instilled in you, even if you  flew the nest .  and unless you have just awful parents, you probably express gratitude for all they did for you.  how are the requirements for christians more stringent than that ?  #  doing something god says not to is not a one way ticket to hell.   #  i am sure it is much easier to argue against this imaginary religion where any sin equals an eternity of damnation.  but if you want to discuss christianity, you should actually make an effort to understand it.  doing something god says not to is not a one way ticket to hell.  heaven would be barren if that was the case.  requirements for salvation vary somewhat between denominations, but the only constant is that you must accept jesus as your savior.  that is it, acknowledge all that has been done for you, ask for help, and you get into heaven.
it bugs me nowadays to see people, particularly many anti theists, so adamant about the rules in the ot of the bible and saying they should be justified now, or even were justified before.  i contend that not only is laws, like slavery and elements of leviticus, irrelevant to christianity but those same things were never the word of god, as evidenced by the bible itself.  my main argument focuses on the pharisees presenting to jesus that moses presented divorce papers in his time.  the whole scene is mark 0:0 0 if you want full context but the important line to note here is mark 0:0.  here we see two major things: 0.  jesus stating that moses wrote laws, instead of being purely seen as god is scribe.  0.  laws were written specifically due to the times and the people in them.  these two points throw into question the christian view of the old testament law and are why the old testament law is not referred to as  god is law  and not often as  old testament law  even, but as  mosaic law .  it was given by moses to the people and moses did write laws in it, with no clarification on how much was done specifically by himself to make sure the people only got as much as they were ready for.  these points also make understandable why jesus contradicts mosaic law on occasion and, in some cases, outright refutes it as he does with the the law on the eating of foods in matthew 0:0 0.  he is referring to the law of god, not of mosaic law.  this is particularly important in the oft mentioned quote in matthew 0:0: since we are already aware jesus does not think the law of god is mosaic law the only other alternative is that the law mentioned he is referring to is the law of god.  evidence of christianity moving beyond mosaic law is evidenced in later parts of the new testament.  the priesthood of leviticus is removed in hebrews 0, the passing and reasoning of mosaic law is extrapolated upon by paul in galatians 0.  there should be no question about the position of the old testament in christian doctrine.  further, with the knowledge that moses wrote an unclear amount of laws, if one law or all laws, in mosaic law purely because of people of that time then that could provide a decent argument for slavery being in ot law than it being of god is character, which is seen often as contradicting.  however you take the argument, there is no proof either way who added the slavery bits into mosaic law.  now the other mentions of slavery in the bible appears in the new testament.  the key mentioning being ephesians 0:0 0: a great many of early christians being slaves, paul was right to speak to slaves during his time.  however, he is berated nowadays for not promoting the anti establishment view on slavery and instead understanding the reality of it during his time argued that if he were anti establishment, the church would be marginalized .  while him promoting the equality of slave and master is tremendous for its time, paul being understanding of the status quo and easing christianity into the traditions of the time does make christianity a slower force for change than an anti establishment view and paul does support the freeing of slaves as the best alternative, as visible in 0 corinthians 0:0.  now everything i have mentioned should be simple stuff to any person who has understood the bible but given the amount of confusion happening now i felt an interest in speaking up about it.  it bothers me the amount of people berating christians and christianity about mosaic law and, moreso, the amount of christians who use mosaic law to spawn horrid actions.  i hope i could clear things up and i would be happy to hear any questions you have or any counterpoints to my claims.  i know i did not touch on all quotes in the bible relevant to some of these topics but i tried to hit the most telling ones.   #  however you take the argument, there is no proof either way who added the slavery bits into mosaic law.   #  well, it almost certainly was not moses, because based on historical evidence it is insanely unlikely that he existed as the bible describes, or that he wrote the pentateuch as tradition would suggest.   # are the events described in the bible where these laws are transcribed inaccurate in your view ? if so, how do we know the words of jesus are accurate here ? why do you ignore the fact that scribes  write things down  ? hypothetically, if moses was really acting as a scribe for a god, that god could ask him what he wrote, yes ? what would moses say ? maybe something like,  i wrote what you told me to write.   in what context is it ever okay to kill someone because they picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? in what context is slavery ever acceptable ? not all christians ever make this distinction.  some christians will happily make this distinction, and then pretend it is not a meaningful distinction when they want to use something from the  old law  and claim it is from their god.  which is it ? what about parts of the  old law  that as per the bible, god directly weighs in on like killing someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? are they  still  not part of  god is law  ? by what means can we determine if your interpretation of all of these things is the correct one, as opposed to another interpretation with the same quality of reasoning and evidence, but which is contradictory ? this is the same jesus that instructs people to keep to at least some of the ten commandments explicitly, right ? is there at least some overlap between the  law of god  and mosaic law in your view ? or what ? this is the same paul who said eating bacon was fine, when jesus said otherwise, right ? how do you know paul is correct here, even assuming the text is an accurate representation of events ? this is also the same paul that, according to the text, demonstrates some seriously contradictory behavior and statements regarding the old law and circumcision with respect to christians, right ? well, it almost certainly was not moses, because based on historical evidence it is insanely unlikely that he existed as the bible describes, or that he wrote the pentateuch as tradition would suggest.  so, i definitely agree with you here.  i do think we run into the problem that you are going with a view that is basically  the text is super accurate when i want it to be, but unclear when i do not want it to be super accurate , though.  if i read this right, you are arguing that if christianity were anti establishment, it would be marginalized.  but it was already very anti establishment, was not it ? so anti establishment that christians ended up being persecuted by the romans for quite awhile just because they would not properly register their religion, right ? if that level of persecution and perceived anti establishmentness did not marginalize the church, why would saying  slavery is immoral  do so ? should it also be heeded, or are you just picking the stuff you like out of it ? i am pretty sure this is the same chapter that mentions how married persons should live as if they were not, because the end times are coming soon tm , and that unmarried persons really should not try and get married unless they are already pledged to do so .  either that, or it is in the next chapter.  worthwhile advice ? on par with slaves trying to free themselves, and non slaves not entering into slavery except as slaves to jesus ? if not on par with that, why not ? what is different, other than that you just do not agree with it ?  #  if we do, we get to go to to heaven an it will all be good.   #  lets look at it from an entirely different angle.  the bible sets it out fairly clearly that we as humans are to believe in him and only him, to worship only him, to follow his rules, to do as he wants us to do.  if we do not do this, we are punished and burn for eternity in hell.  if we do, we get to go to to heaven an it will all be good.  as a concept, slavery forces people to do things that their owner desires else they be punished.  if they comply and follow their owners desires, they live in the hope of being freed at some point in the future to live a better life.  it seems to be that the basic foundation of both the religion and slavery are not all that dis similar.  you are forced to follow the set of rules that your master / god puts forward, if you do not you are dammed.  if you do, there is hope of a better life down the line.  it would be hypocritical to say that god does not condone slavery, when the very concept of the religion is built upon the same fundamental framework.   #  if a child, once it reaches adulthood, is forced to stay in the nest, forced to work, forced to whatever, with no option to escape then yeah, its pretty much slavery.   #  a child has to be brought up and raised and guided so that they become a well rounded and good adult.  thats not a slave, its being a parent / child.  as any parent will tell you, a child eventually grows up and leaves the nest.  its nothing like a slave which is a forced relationship with potentially no escape.  much like christianity, where if you do fly the nest and leave the religion, your dammed to an eternity of hell.  if a child, once it reaches adulthood, is forced to stay in the nest, forced to work, forced to whatever, with no option to escape then yeah, its pretty much slavery.   #  leaving christianity would not be like moving out of the house.   #  leaving christianity would not be like moving out of the house.  it would be like refusing to do anything your parents taught you and denying they exist.  i bet you still follow a lot of the rules and things your parents instilled in you, even if you  flew the nest .  and unless you have just awful parents, you probably express gratitude for all they did for you.  how are the requirements for christians more stringent than that ?  #  doing something god says not to is not a one way ticket to hell.   #  i am sure it is much easier to argue against this imaginary religion where any sin equals an eternity of damnation.  but if you want to discuss christianity, you should actually make an effort to understand it.  doing something god says not to is not a one way ticket to hell.  heaven would be barren if that was the case.  requirements for salvation vary somewhat between denominations, but the only constant is that you must accept jesus as your savior.  that is it, acknowledge all that has been done for you, ask for help, and you get into heaven.
it bugs me nowadays to see people, particularly many anti theists, so adamant about the rules in the ot of the bible and saying they should be justified now, or even were justified before.  i contend that not only is laws, like slavery and elements of leviticus, irrelevant to christianity but those same things were never the word of god, as evidenced by the bible itself.  my main argument focuses on the pharisees presenting to jesus that moses presented divorce papers in his time.  the whole scene is mark 0:0 0 if you want full context but the important line to note here is mark 0:0.  here we see two major things: 0.  jesus stating that moses wrote laws, instead of being purely seen as god is scribe.  0.  laws were written specifically due to the times and the people in them.  these two points throw into question the christian view of the old testament law and are why the old testament law is not referred to as  god is law  and not often as  old testament law  even, but as  mosaic law .  it was given by moses to the people and moses did write laws in it, with no clarification on how much was done specifically by himself to make sure the people only got as much as they were ready for.  these points also make understandable why jesus contradicts mosaic law on occasion and, in some cases, outright refutes it as he does with the the law on the eating of foods in matthew 0:0 0.  he is referring to the law of god, not of mosaic law.  this is particularly important in the oft mentioned quote in matthew 0:0: since we are already aware jesus does not think the law of god is mosaic law the only other alternative is that the law mentioned he is referring to is the law of god.  evidence of christianity moving beyond mosaic law is evidenced in later parts of the new testament.  the priesthood of leviticus is removed in hebrews 0, the passing and reasoning of mosaic law is extrapolated upon by paul in galatians 0.  there should be no question about the position of the old testament in christian doctrine.  further, with the knowledge that moses wrote an unclear amount of laws, if one law or all laws, in mosaic law purely because of people of that time then that could provide a decent argument for slavery being in ot law than it being of god is character, which is seen often as contradicting.  however you take the argument, there is no proof either way who added the slavery bits into mosaic law.  now the other mentions of slavery in the bible appears in the new testament.  the key mentioning being ephesians 0:0 0: a great many of early christians being slaves, paul was right to speak to slaves during his time.  however, he is berated nowadays for not promoting the anti establishment view on slavery and instead understanding the reality of it during his time argued that if he were anti establishment, the church would be marginalized .  while him promoting the equality of slave and master is tremendous for its time, paul being understanding of the status quo and easing christianity into the traditions of the time does make christianity a slower force for change than an anti establishment view and paul does support the freeing of slaves as the best alternative, as visible in 0 corinthians 0:0.  now everything i have mentioned should be simple stuff to any person who has understood the bible but given the amount of confusion happening now i felt an interest in speaking up about it.  it bothers me the amount of people berating christians and christianity about mosaic law and, moreso, the amount of christians who use mosaic law to spawn horrid actions.  i hope i could clear things up and i would be happy to hear any questions you have or any counterpoints to my claims.  i know i did not touch on all quotes in the bible relevant to some of these topics but i tried to hit the most telling ones.   #  however, he is berated nowadays for not promoting the anti establishment view on slavery and instead understanding the reality of it during his time argued that if he were anti establishment, the church would be marginalized .   #  if i read this right, you are arguing that if christianity were anti establishment, it would be marginalized.   # are the events described in the bible where these laws are transcribed inaccurate in your view ? if so, how do we know the words of jesus are accurate here ? why do you ignore the fact that scribes  write things down  ? hypothetically, if moses was really acting as a scribe for a god, that god could ask him what he wrote, yes ? what would moses say ? maybe something like,  i wrote what you told me to write.   in what context is it ever okay to kill someone because they picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? in what context is slavery ever acceptable ? not all christians ever make this distinction.  some christians will happily make this distinction, and then pretend it is not a meaningful distinction when they want to use something from the  old law  and claim it is from their god.  which is it ? what about parts of the  old law  that as per the bible, god directly weighs in on like killing someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week ? are they  still  not part of  god is law  ? by what means can we determine if your interpretation of all of these things is the correct one, as opposed to another interpretation with the same quality of reasoning and evidence, but which is contradictory ? this is the same jesus that instructs people to keep to at least some of the ten commandments explicitly, right ? is there at least some overlap between the  law of god  and mosaic law in your view ? or what ? this is the same paul who said eating bacon was fine, when jesus said otherwise, right ? how do you know paul is correct here, even assuming the text is an accurate representation of events ? this is also the same paul that, according to the text, demonstrates some seriously contradictory behavior and statements regarding the old law and circumcision with respect to christians, right ? well, it almost certainly was not moses, because based on historical evidence it is insanely unlikely that he existed as the bible describes, or that he wrote the pentateuch as tradition would suggest.  so, i definitely agree with you here.  i do think we run into the problem that you are going with a view that is basically  the text is super accurate when i want it to be, but unclear when i do not want it to be super accurate , though.  if i read this right, you are arguing that if christianity were anti establishment, it would be marginalized.  but it was already very anti establishment, was not it ? so anti establishment that christians ended up being persecuted by the romans for quite awhile just because they would not properly register their religion, right ? if that level of persecution and perceived anti establishmentness did not marginalize the church, why would saying  slavery is immoral  do so ? should it also be heeded, or are you just picking the stuff you like out of it ? i am pretty sure this is the same chapter that mentions how married persons should live as if they were not, because the end times are coming soon tm , and that unmarried persons really should not try and get married unless they are already pledged to do so .  either that, or it is in the next chapter.  worthwhile advice ? on par with slaves trying to free themselves, and non slaves not entering into slavery except as slaves to jesus ? if not on par with that, why not ? what is different, other than that you just do not agree with it ?  #  if we do, we get to go to to heaven an it will all be good.   #  lets look at it from an entirely different angle.  the bible sets it out fairly clearly that we as humans are to believe in him and only him, to worship only him, to follow his rules, to do as he wants us to do.  if we do not do this, we are punished and burn for eternity in hell.  if we do, we get to go to to heaven an it will all be good.  as a concept, slavery forces people to do things that their owner desires else they be punished.  if they comply and follow their owners desires, they live in the hope of being freed at some point in the future to live a better life.  it seems to be that the basic foundation of both the religion and slavery are not all that dis similar.  you are forced to follow the set of rules that your master / god puts forward, if you do not you are dammed.  if you do, there is hope of a better life down the line.  it would be hypocritical to say that god does not condone slavery, when the very concept of the religion is built upon the same fundamental framework.   #  a child has to be brought up and raised and guided so that they become a well rounded and good adult.   #  a child has to be brought up and raised and guided so that they become a well rounded and good adult.  thats not a slave, its being a parent / child.  as any parent will tell you, a child eventually grows up and leaves the nest.  its nothing like a slave which is a forced relationship with potentially no escape.  much like christianity, where if you do fly the nest and leave the religion, your dammed to an eternity of hell.  if a child, once it reaches adulthood, is forced to stay in the nest, forced to work, forced to whatever, with no option to escape then yeah, its pretty much slavery.   #  it would be like refusing to do anything your parents taught you and denying they exist.   #  leaving christianity would not be like moving out of the house.  it would be like refusing to do anything your parents taught you and denying they exist.  i bet you still follow a lot of the rules and things your parents instilled in you, even if you  flew the nest .  and unless you have just awful parents, you probably express gratitude for all they did for you.  how are the requirements for christians more stringent than that ?  #  that is it, acknowledge all that has been done for you, ask for help, and you get into heaven.   #  i am sure it is much easier to argue against this imaginary religion where any sin equals an eternity of damnation.  but if you want to discuss christianity, you should actually make an effort to understand it.  doing something god says not to is not a one way ticket to hell.  heaven would be barren if that was the case.  requirements for salvation vary somewhat between denominations, but the only constant is that you must accept jesus as your savior.  that is it, acknowledge all that has been done for you, ask for help, and you get into heaven.
i believe that socialism is better than capitalism.  the basis of capitalism is that the hard working have a comfortable life and the non hard workers have a relatively less comfortable life.  sometimes, the people with the less comfortable life work extremely hard only to scrape by.  in socialism, every single person has a relatively equal income.  i am not talking about communism in which there is no currency or ownership, but a market in which everyone is free to spend but the poor are uplifted and the rich are taxed.  according to capitalists, socialism corrupts.  under socialism, ideally everyone should have an equal life, can you please try to cmv and offer good arguments for the benefits of capitalism ?  #  the basis of capitalism is that the hard working have a comfortable life and the non hard workers have a relatively less comfortable life.   #  not only is that not the basis, it is not even true.   # not only is that not the basis, it is not even true.  hard work has little to do with it.  no.  socialism is the workers owning and operating the means of production, democratically.  so your fellow workers will decide how the income is divided up, including personal income.  that is a social democracy, not socialism.  corrupts how ?  #  sure, capitalism is  free  for those with property.   # im not forcing them to do so, if they sell their labor and i buy, who have i wronged ? you deny that workers are forced to work on your terms or starve.  so, for you, free means you are free, not so much for everyone else.  sure, capitalism is  free  for those with property.  i want an economy that is  free  for everyone.   #  capitalism rewards motivation and innovation, socialism does not.   #  innovation.  in capitalism, if you innovate, and create new things, you are rewarded if it is good, by being able to sell your innovations, or just generally making more money off of them.  in socialism, on the other hand, there is no real reason to innovate.  motivation is also key.  in socialism, even if you get rich, it all gets taxed away.  there becomes less reason to work hard, because you will make less money.  capitalism rewards motivation and innovation, socialism does not.  in practice then, socialism, if nothing else, is likely to stagnate.  with less reason to work hard, there is less development.   #  it is a way to alleviate the corrupt monstrosity that is money.   #  there is motivation to work in a socialist state.  healthcare, education, water, food, housing, and income is all given, provided you do the work.  these are all basic necessities for citizens to live in.  the idea of marxism is that without the burden of money and resources, people can start to spend more time on their life amibitions.  it is a way to alleviate the corrupt monstrosity that is money.   #  they never meet themselves, or their family, or their neighbors ?  #  humanity : humaneness; benevolence URL is english your second language or something ? they never meet themselves, or their family, or their neighbors ? this is a strange world you live in.  no wonder you are so bitter.  as for reward, if profit is your only motive, i sure pity you.  most people would like to work for autonomy, mastery and purpose URL
while various sound laws exist around the world, i am using this source URL as a reference.  note how it lists that any sound received in a residential area can not be louder than 0 decibels, which is a little less than the volume of normal conversation at 0 feet.  URL the reason that sound laws exist is to ensure that citizens are not annoyed by audible nuisances.  i and many others URL find ice cream truck music to be a nuisance.  the reasons are as follows: i have a right to reasonable noise level in my own home.  i have a right to avoid solicitations in my own home.  i have a right to avoid being advertised to in my own home unless i permit it turning on a tv, going online, etc .  and, if i were to play annoying music at 0 decibels from my car stereo it would be almost guaranteed a police officer would write me a citation.  finally, other food truck vendors are able to maintain an income without being a nuisance.  pete is taco truck does not blare mariachi music loud enough to hear a half mile away and is fine.  ice cream vending trucks are annoying and should have to turn down their 0 second looped jingles to reasonable volumes expected by everyone else in a residential area.   #  i have a right to avoid being advertised to in my own home unless i permit it turning on a tv, going online, etc .   #  you do not have any such right.   #  from reading your attached link, it sounds like db are measured at the receiver, not the source for example, normal conversation from 0 feet away, jackhammer from 0 feet away .  are you seriously saying that inside your home, icecream trucks are so loud that they drown out your normal conversation inside the home ? i have never had that experience and i have lived in apartments that are literally directly up against the road which the icecream truck would use.  it seems like you are trying to argue that ice cream trucks should not be able to create any sound audible from inside your home but that is not what the law says, and it is not a reasonable requirement.  if ice cream trucks are illegal because they make noise, how can you justify running a radio with your windows down ? how can you justify a noisy car ? should we make it illegal for your car to be audible from houses near the road ? if so, how far from the road should we measure to ? to address your specific complaints:  i have a right to reasonable noise level in my own home.  yes.  you have 0 control over noises within your own home.  but you do not have the right to go outside and tell people walking by your house to shut up.  laws generally regulate  unreasonable  levels of noise for exactly this reason.  no you do not.  you have the right to determine who enters your property and who does not.  but again, if a person standing on the sidewalk talks to you while you mow your lawn, he is doing nothing illegal and his right to be in a public space trumps your right to regulate spaces you do not own.  you do not have any such right.  or rather, let me make it even more clear: you permitted online advertising by going online.  you permitted tv advertising by turning on your tv.  you permitted advertising from the street by  purchasing a house on that street .  you would have a case if the advertising was in some way exceptionally disruptive.  for example, an icecream truck at 0 in the morning is probably not going to be acceptable.  but your  right  to not be advertised to does not exist.  you also do not have a right to controlling other sound creation for example, your neighbor having a barbeque at 0pm.  you do not have the right to tell your neighbor that he ca not have a party just because it is audible to you.  if your neighbor puts in a trampoline and his kids bounce in it and loudly play with one another at a reasonable time of night, you are very unlikely to do well with a noise complaint.  in summary, the right you are claiming to have does not exist.  if people had the right you claim to have, it would be extremely disruptive to everyone and would make living near one another essentially impossible.  if you want the level of privacy you are demanding, it is your obligation to purchase a large enough tract of land to isolate you from sound sources.  nobody around you has an obligation to be completely silent in your vicinity.   #  a guy driving by is also annoying, but not as bad as someone blasting music out of their home loudly enough for people outside it to hear.   #  should people have to choose between being in their homes and having peace and quiet ? because yes, when you play music loudly you are forcing other people to listen to it.  a guy driving by is also annoying, but not as bad as someone blasting music out of their home loudly enough for people outside it to hear.  sure it is not illegal, but it is still asshole behavior.  to put it your way, god forbid you be mildly inconvenienced by playing your music at a reasonable personal volume.  do you also think it is ok to bring a boombox onto a crowded train ?  #  should all those appliances be banned from your neighborhood as  too loud  as well ?  #  how are you taking your decibel reading ? are you suggesting the limit be 0db at the speaker ? is not that unreasonably low ? you likely listen to your tv at closer to 0db at normal viewing distances.  your garbage disposal and dishwasher both pull about 0db when you are standing next to them, and your blender ? closer to 0db.  your gas lawnmower ? a whopping 0db, around 0x louder than the limit you appear to be proposing.  should all those appliances be banned from your neighborhood as  too loud  as well ?  #  for every possible wording of such a law, there would probably be thousands of way to circumvent it.   #  0 dba is less than the sound from the engine and from the tires rolling over asphalt.  such a limit would arbitrarily single out ice cream trucks and require the speakers to make less sound than the vehicle itself.  noise pollution and other  tragedy of the commons  problems are very real, but arbitrary sound limits or laws targeting only ice cream trucks can not solve them.  the cars would just redefine themselves as grocery delivery trucks, frozen soyghurt trucks or dairy limousines.  instead of speakers they would just wire it to the honking horn, which is not only permitted but usually also  required  to be over 0 dba.  for every possible wording of such a law, there would probably be thousands of way to circumvent it.   #  if your neighbors did not buy the ice cream the truck would not be anywhere near you, and if the sound annoyed other people in your community an ordnance would be passed.   #  if your community does not want the ice cream they would not buy it.  if your community did not buy the ice cream the ice cream truck would not come into your neighborhood.  it would seem your problem is not the volume of the truck, it is that your neighbors want ice cream, they want it delivered, and they like to know when it is nearby.  your beef is not with the ice cream vendor, it is with your neighbors that want ice cream.  if your neighbors did not buy the ice cream the truck would not be anywhere near you, and if the sound annoyed other people in your community an ordnance would be passed.
first of all, everyone is afforded their food taste preferences.  so, people who have no ethical/health qualms about eating animal products, but simply do not enjoy the taste or texture of animal flesh are off the hook.  it would make sense for a person like this to be a vegetarian, but still partake in eating things like eggs, dairy, honey, foods made with red dye, etc.  however, vegetarians who want to make a claim that their lifestyle is significantly healthier and/or more ethical than that of the average meat eater cannot justify that claim on either front.  ethics: just because an industrial animal is not being killed for its meat does not mean it has not led a miserable, hellish existence.  dairy cows and egg producing hens that are part of the mainstream ag industry are injected with hormones that deform their bodies and exaggerate their production abilities.  they are often kept in tiny enclosures standing ankle deep in their own shit, in crowded conditions, and may literally never see the light of day once over the course of their short, painful existence.  when they are too old to lay eggs or produce milk, they are killed, with their remains being used in products such as dog food.  honestly, i see less of an argument for honey being unethical, because i do not really think bees suffer during the honey production process, even on a mass scale mainly because they would be doing the same thing anyway in the wild .  however, i am sorely undereducated on this subject and would like to learn more.  if you have strict set of jain like beliefs and are a non vegan vegetarian which i suspect includes about 0 of the population , eating any product made with red dye carmine should be off limits, since the cochineal bug is industrially bred and smushed to harvest their naturally occurring carminic acid stores.  health: this one is a little trickier, because it is true that while vegetarianism is not necessarily healthier than a meat eating lifestyle, it can be easier to eat healthy as a vegetarian because produce typically becomes a much more central aspect of diet, as opposed to meat often full of saturated fat, cholesterol, and excessive calories .  however, while vegetarianism may sometimes be healthier than a meat eating diet, i would argue that veganism is more often a better health choice than vegetarianism alone.  to replace the calories/enjoyment lost in meat elimination, vegetarians often rely on a disproportionate use of other high calorie foods that do not require as much expertise/research/adventurous palate to prepare and eat, like cheese and quick burning carbohydrates.  like almost all foods, if eaten in appropriate proportion to other parts of the diet, these foods can have health benefits, but there are also many drawbacks since they are often high in fat and heavily processed.  vegans, however, ca not eat many of these foods as well as part of their dietary limitations, and vegan substitutes are are nearly across the board lower in saturated fat and calories.  in addition, these substitutes are often hard to find, so to supplement calories, many vegans simply add more produce or plant proteins to their diet, which are healthier and contrary to popular belief, can actually provide all the calories, protein yes, grandma, i am getting enough protein , and nutrients that a human requires.  for these reasons, if you are going to be a vegetarian and justify it with an animal ethics argument or a health based argument, you ca not.  you may as well either go back to eating meat, or go all the way and become vegan.   #  you may as well either go back to eating meat, or go all the way and become vegan.   #  again, it is not a black and white matter.   # why not ? i eat some meat, but i certainly draw the line at eating something that was boiled alive lobster or chopped up while still alive sushi in japan or force fed till its liver nearly explodes.  i know a few  vegetarians  who do eat dairy, but only organic from ethically raised animals.  it is not a black and white matter, and there is no objectively correct place to draw the line between what is ethically okay and what is not.  that is a pretty personal thing.  i must admit, i have never been able to follow the reasoning of fish but no meat  vegetarians .  again, it is not a black and white matter.  every meal i do not eat meat/dairy reduces the total amount of cruelty inflicted on animals.  a pound of cheese a week is ethically better than steak three times a day.  just because no dairy and no meat is even better does not make dairy but no meat an invalid or worthless position to hold.   #  is it possible for a government to institute such powerful welfare reforms ?  #  the most ethical option is not eating animal products at all.  regardless of how well these animals are treated, they are still confined and killed at very young ages once their productivity decreases.  or do you believe in the possibility of a world where loving people adopt countless millions of older, non productive egg laying hens URL and never abuse said animals ? there is simply too much risk involved in raising so many animals for it to be morally preferable to not raising them at all.  alternatively, do you believe it is acceptable for the consumption of animal products to be limited to those who can afford to fund these animals  lavish and long lives ? is it possible for a government to institute such powerful welfare reforms ? and completely destroy billion dollar industry ?  #  should we be counting potential here, and why ?  #  i think this is too quick and convenient.  consider  why  it is that we think these are acceptable reasons for not assigning equal moral weight to animals, and i think you might find that the arguments are pretty weak.  there is no easy way to define sentience that includes all humans and only humans, or even excludes most mammals, birds and fish.  self awareness, again, most farm animals have this to some extent, some greater than others of course.  again, you will be hard pressed to identify where the line is that separates humans and animals, and why that should be an important criterion for assigning moral weight, other than convenience.  humans are mostly much smarter than most animals, but there are exceptions.  my dog is smarter than a 0 month old baby, for instance.  should we be counting potential here, and why ? and why is intelligence so important ? should we assign less moral weight to people with severe mental disabilities ? emotional range, very difficult to argue than humans have more emotions than elephants, cows and pigs, because they do not have language.  but again, does a feral child who was raised without language not deserve as much moral consideration, because she less able to express emotional range ? all of these points are controversial, and the more you think about it, the more you realize these issues are complicated.   #  when you have chickens it is kind of a mutually beneficial arrangement.   #  yeah, growing up in farm country a lot of people had chickens.  adorable little coops, plenty of run around space, get let out into nice little pens to roam around.  they would sell the excess in the roadside stand along with homemade salsa and flowers from the garden.  like.  when you have chickens it is kind of a mutually beneficial arrangement.  you  take care of them  and  protect them  and they give you their unfertilized eggs to make cakes with and, if you are into that sort of thing, scramble and eat or whatever.   #  yet the sex ratio for chicks at birth is . 0.  billions of baby roosters are ground up each year because they serve no purpose to the egg industry.   #  what about the roosters ? any look at a chicken coop will reveal a dearth of males.  yet the sex ratio for chicks at birth is . 0.  billions of baby roosters are ground up each year because they serve no purpose to the egg industry.  and even if they were not ground up, they are still raised and slaughtered at some point.  there is no humane way to farm animals for any purpose, especially at a large scale.  creating an economy based on the bodies and products of living, sentient beings  who did not provide consent  is wrong.
first of all, everyone is afforded their food taste preferences.  so, people who have no ethical/health qualms about eating animal products, but simply do not enjoy the taste or texture of animal flesh are off the hook.  it would make sense for a person like this to be a vegetarian, but still partake in eating things like eggs, dairy, honey, foods made with red dye, etc.  however, vegetarians who want to make a claim that their lifestyle is significantly healthier and/or more ethical than that of the average meat eater cannot justify that claim on either front.  ethics: just because an industrial animal is not being killed for its meat does not mean it has not led a miserable, hellish existence.  dairy cows and egg producing hens that are part of the mainstream ag industry are injected with hormones that deform their bodies and exaggerate their production abilities.  they are often kept in tiny enclosures standing ankle deep in their own shit, in crowded conditions, and may literally never see the light of day once over the course of their short, painful existence.  when they are too old to lay eggs or produce milk, they are killed, with their remains being used in products such as dog food.  honestly, i see less of an argument for honey being unethical, because i do not really think bees suffer during the honey production process, even on a mass scale mainly because they would be doing the same thing anyway in the wild .  however, i am sorely undereducated on this subject and would like to learn more.  if you have strict set of jain like beliefs and are a non vegan vegetarian which i suspect includes about 0 of the population , eating any product made with red dye carmine should be off limits, since the cochineal bug is industrially bred and smushed to harvest their naturally occurring carminic acid stores.  health: this one is a little trickier, because it is true that while vegetarianism is not necessarily healthier than a meat eating lifestyle, it can be easier to eat healthy as a vegetarian because produce typically becomes a much more central aspect of diet, as opposed to meat often full of saturated fat, cholesterol, and excessive calories .  however, while vegetarianism may sometimes be healthier than a meat eating diet, i would argue that veganism is more often a better health choice than vegetarianism alone.  to replace the calories/enjoyment lost in meat elimination, vegetarians often rely on a disproportionate use of other high calorie foods that do not require as much expertise/research/adventurous palate to prepare and eat, like cheese and quick burning carbohydrates.  like almost all foods, if eaten in appropriate proportion to other parts of the diet, these foods can have health benefits, but there are also many drawbacks since they are often high in fat and heavily processed.  vegans, however, ca not eat many of these foods as well as part of their dietary limitations, and vegan substitutes are are nearly across the board lower in saturated fat and calories.  in addition, these substitutes are often hard to find, so to supplement calories, many vegans simply add more produce or plant proteins to their diet, which are healthier and contrary to popular belief, can actually provide all the calories, protein yes, grandma, i am getting enough protein , and nutrients that a human requires.  for these reasons, if you are going to be a vegetarian and justify it with an animal ethics argument or a health based argument, you ca not.  you may as well either go back to eating meat, or go all the way and become vegan.   #  for these reasons, if you are going to be a vegetarian and justify it with an animal ethics argument or a health based argument, you ca not.   #  you may as well either go back to eating meat, or go all the way and become vegan.   # however, while vegetarianism may sometimes be healthier than a meat eating diet, i would argue that veganism is more often a better health choice than vegetarianism alone.  i would argue vegetarianism is way healthier than veganism.  vegetarianism is also more ethical than most meat eating.  you may as well either go back to eating meat, or go all the way and become vegan.  that is bullshit extremism.  it is about reducing footprints, 0 persons becoming vegetarian are better than one vegan and one obsesive meat eater.   #  there is simply too much risk involved in raising so many animals for it to be morally preferable to not raising them at all.   #  the most ethical option is not eating animal products at all.  regardless of how well these animals are treated, they are still confined and killed at very young ages once their productivity decreases.  or do you believe in the possibility of a world where loving people adopt countless millions of older, non productive egg laying hens URL and never abuse said animals ? there is simply too much risk involved in raising so many animals for it to be morally preferable to not raising them at all.  alternatively, do you believe it is acceptable for the consumption of animal products to be limited to those who can afford to fund these animals  lavish and long lives ? is it possible for a government to institute such powerful welfare reforms ? and completely destroy billion dollar industry ?  #  my dog is smarter than a 0 month old baby, for instance.   #  i think this is too quick and convenient.  consider  why  it is that we think these are acceptable reasons for not assigning equal moral weight to animals, and i think you might find that the arguments are pretty weak.  there is no easy way to define sentience that includes all humans and only humans, or even excludes most mammals, birds and fish.  self awareness, again, most farm animals have this to some extent, some greater than others of course.  again, you will be hard pressed to identify where the line is that separates humans and animals, and why that should be an important criterion for assigning moral weight, other than convenience.  humans are mostly much smarter than most animals, but there are exceptions.  my dog is smarter than a 0 month old baby, for instance.  should we be counting potential here, and why ? and why is intelligence so important ? should we assign less moral weight to people with severe mental disabilities ? emotional range, very difficult to argue than humans have more emotions than elephants, cows and pigs, because they do not have language.  but again, does a feral child who was raised without language not deserve as much moral consideration, because she less able to express emotional range ? all of these points are controversial, and the more you think about it, the more you realize these issues are complicated.   #  adorable little coops, plenty of run around space, get let out into nice little pens to roam around.   #  yeah, growing up in farm country a lot of people had chickens.  adorable little coops, plenty of run around space, get let out into nice little pens to roam around.  they would sell the excess in the roadside stand along with homemade salsa and flowers from the garden.  like.  when you have chickens it is kind of a mutually beneficial arrangement.  you  take care of them  and  protect them  and they give you their unfertilized eggs to make cakes with and, if you are into that sort of thing, scramble and eat or whatever.   #  and even if they were not ground up, they are still raised and slaughtered at some point.   #  what about the roosters ? any look at a chicken coop will reveal a dearth of males.  yet the sex ratio for chicks at birth is . 0.  billions of baby roosters are ground up each year because they serve no purpose to the egg industry.  and even if they were not ground up, they are still raised and slaughtered at some point.  there is no humane way to farm animals for any purpose, especially at a large scale.  creating an economy based on the bodies and products of living, sentient beings  who did not provide consent  is wrong.
firstly, let me clarify that i am referring to pre college education, and that i am speaking from my personal experience.  i consider american education to be flawed due to the behavior it encourages.  students, for the most part, are not encouraged to push themselves; the system rewards those who stay well within their capabilities and get a 0.  furthermore, it does not encourage actually learning the material.  instead, all that matters is scoring points.  this turns school into a game; a game where those who know how to exploit the system can perform far better than those of superior skill who are unwilling or unable to exploit the system.  somebody restore my faith in my education.   #  furthermore, it does not encourage actually learning the material.   #  instead, all that matters is scoring points.   # the kids who want the solid 0 are going to take apes.  that continues to be a fallacy.  apes has had a lower percentage of students scoring a 0 than ap chemistry for many years running i know, here i am giving you scores, the very thing you are arguing against .  i took both courses last year, and sure, most people would probably agree that apes is  easier , but that is just a common opinion.  the reason a student  gaming the system  would want to takes apes at  their school  is because they have  heard  that the class is easier at their school.  i am sure there are schools out there where the average grade in an apes classroom is less than that of a ap chemistry classroom at the same school, thus fostering a group of students that believe apes is harder than ap chemistry.  i see where you are coming from, but saying that apes curriculum is  pathetically easy  compared to ap chemistry curriculum is merely opinion.  0 ap score distributions URL back to your post.  instead, all that matters is scoring points.  if by  learning the material  you mean retaining it over a lifetime, that is nonsensical and a false hope.  for example, if a student were to take 0 ap classes in his last two years of high school  sighs  it would be implausible for the student to truly learn all of the material.  however, by taking rigorous classes simultaneously, surely there is something the student would have learned, and most likely it would be beyond that of the curriculum.  ugh. i have done this, and yes, it is incredibly tedious if you are held to unreasonable standards by your teacher.  however, this is not problem with the  education system , whatever that means, it is a problem with the assignment.  i like to believe that true learning is a choice, something that not even a  perfect  education system could force someone to do.   #  and also, are not their still weighted classes to separate those who want to stay at their level and those who want some more of a academic challenge ?  #  if you think that gaming the system stops once you leave high school than the job market is going to be an eye opener for you.  success is not just lining up those with the highest gpa.  it is about finding those people who can make the most with what they have.  it is about manipulating situations for your benefit.  i do not mean that in a bad way exactly.  lining yourself up with a good mentor is one of of gaming the system.  and also, are not their still weighted classes to separate those who want to stay at their level and those who want some more of a academic challenge ? there was when i was in high school.   #  to give you an idea: we are required to annotate our books in english to prove we have read them.   #  there are weighted classes.  but there is still a vast difference between a class like ap environmental science, which is pathetically easy, and ap chemistry, which is much more difficult.  the kids who want the solid 0 are going to take apes.  i sincerely hope gaming the system does not extend to the same extent as it does now.  to give you an idea: we are required to annotate our books in english to prove we have read them.  not only does this serve no purpose and suck the fun out of reading, it means that i have not read any of the books.  they have turned into a game of skimming to see how much time i can save while still scribbling  insightful  crap in the margins.   #  and i do not get practice picking out key information, i get practice identifying common phrases that i can then use to make a generic  insightful  comment.   #  this is not even reading for research though. i am talking about novels.  and i do not get practice picking out key information, i get practice identifying common phrases that i can then use to make a generic  insightful  comment.  that is it.  it is almost like writing random comments, except i ensure they are slightly relevant.  any information about the book itself is gained from sparknotes or an equivalent summary.  it is an exercise in minimizing time and effort spent, and maximizing point gains.   #  0nd point: sure, we learn how to handle the workload.   #  0st point: i am adressing it as an example that definitely holds true at my school.  it is purpose is to illustrate the idea that thise seeming high grades will take certain classes.  0nd point: sure, we learn how to handle the workload.  but we handle it by taking shortcuts, cutting corners, and sending the quality of work down to the ground.  0rd point: when nearly every single teacher assigns these kinds of assignments. when it is expected that they be assigned, i would argue that that  is  a problem in the system.
firstly, let me clarify that i am referring to pre college education, and that i am speaking from my personal experience.  i consider american education to be flawed due to the behavior it encourages.  students, for the most part, are not encouraged to push themselves; the system rewards those who stay well within their capabilities and get a 0.  furthermore, it does not encourage actually learning the material.  instead, all that matters is scoring points.  this turns school into a game; a game where those who know how to exploit the system can perform far better than those of superior skill who are unwilling or unable to exploit the system.  somebody restore my faith in my education.   #  i consider american education to be flawed due to the behavior it encourages.   #  students, for the most part, are not encouraged to push themselves; the system rewards those who stay well within their capabilities and get a 0.  you clearly have not seen college standards recently.   # students, for the most part, are not encouraged to push themselves; the system rewards those who stay well within their capabilities and get a 0.  you clearly have not seen college standards recently.  high end colleges, at least, look at the rigor of your coursework.  if you are intentionally avoiding hard classes they will know, and you will suffer for it.  instead, all that matters is scoring points.  this turns school into a game; a game where those who know how to exploit the system can perform far better than those of superior skill who are unwilling or unable to exploit the system.  you do not explain what you mean by  exploiting the system.   it sounds like you are implying that students who do well in school are always cheating or somehow not deserving of their grades.  you think all that matters is scoring points.  and how are you supposed to score points without actually doing work ?  exploit the system  my ass.  this is not politics, and outside of direct cheating or specific favors, which are problems in  every  educational system, there are few loopholes to get higher grades.   #  it is about manipulating situations for your benefit.   #  if you think that gaming the system stops once you leave high school than the job market is going to be an eye opener for you.  success is not just lining up those with the highest gpa.  it is about finding those people who can make the most with what they have.  it is about manipulating situations for your benefit.  i do not mean that in a bad way exactly.  lining yourself up with a good mentor is one of of gaming the system.  and also, are not their still weighted classes to separate those who want to stay at their level and those who want some more of a academic challenge ? there was when i was in high school.   #  but there is still a vast difference between a class like ap environmental science, which is pathetically easy, and ap chemistry, which is much more difficult.   #  there are weighted classes.  but there is still a vast difference between a class like ap environmental science, which is pathetically easy, and ap chemistry, which is much more difficult.  the kids who want the solid 0 are going to take apes.  i sincerely hope gaming the system does not extend to the same extent as it does now.  to give you an idea: we are required to annotate our books in english to prove we have read them.  not only does this serve no purpose and suck the fun out of reading, it means that i have not read any of the books.  they have turned into a game of skimming to see how much time i can save while still scribbling  insightful  crap in the margins.   #  any information about the book itself is gained from sparknotes or an equivalent summary.   #  this is not even reading for research though. i am talking about novels.  and i do not get practice picking out key information, i get practice identifying common phrases that i can then use to make a generic  insightful  comment.  that is it.  it is almost like writing random comments, except i ensure they are slightly relevant.  any information about the book itself is gained from sparknotes or an equivalent summary.  it is an exercise in minimizing time and effort spent, and maximizing point gains.   #  the reason a student  gaming the system  would want to takes apes at  their school  is because they have  heard  that the class is easier at their school.   # the kids who want the solid 0 are going to take apes.  that continues to be a fallacy.  apes has had a lower percentage of students scoring a 0 than ap chemistry for many years running i know, here i am giving you scores, the very thing you are arguing against .  i took both courses last year, and sure, most people would probably agree that apes is  easier , but that is just a common opinion.  the reason a student  gaming the system  would want to takes apes at  their school  is because they have  heard  that the class is easier at their school.  i am sure there are schools out there where the average grade in an apes classroom is less than that of a ap chemistry classroom at the same school, thus fostering a group of students that believe apes is harder than ap chemistry.  i see where you are coming from, but saying that apes curriculum is  pathetically easy  compared to ap chemistry curriculum is merely opinion.  0 ap score distributions URL back to your post.  instead, all that matters is scoring points.  if by  learning the material  you mean retaining it over a lifetime, that is nonsensical and a false hope.  for example, if a student were to take 0 ap classes in his last two years of high school  sighs  it would be implausible for the student to truly learn all of the material.  however, by taking rigorous classes simultaneously, surely there is something the student would have learned, and most likely it would be beyond that of the curriculum.  ugh. i have done this, and yes, it is incredibly tedious if you are held to unreasonable standards by your teacher.  however, this is not problem with the  education system , whatever that means, it is a problem with the assignment.  i like to believe that true learning is a choice, something that not even a  perfect  education system could force someone to do.
firstly, let me clarify that i am referring to pre college education, and that i am speaking from my personal experience.  i consider american education to be flawed due to the behavior it encourages.  students, for the most part, are not encouraged to push themselves; the system rewards those who stay well within their capabilities and get a 0.  furthermore, it does not encourage actually learning the material.  instead, all that matters is scoring points.  this turns school into a game; a game where those who know how to exploit the system can perform far better than those of superior skill who are unwilling or unable to exploit the system.  somebody restore my faith in my education.   #  furthermore, it does not encourage actually learning the material.   #  instead, all that matters is scoring points.   # students, for the most part, are not encouraged to push themselves; the system rewards those who stay well within their capabilities and get a 0.  you clearly have not seen college standards recently.  high end colleges, at least, look at the rigor of your coursework.  if you are intentionally avoiding hard classes they will know, and you will suffer for it.  instead, all that matters is scoring points.  this turns school into a game; a game where those who know how to exploit the system can perform far better than those of superior skill who are unwilling or unable to exploit the system.  you do not explain what you mean by  exploiting the system.   it sounds like you are implying that students who do well in school are always cheating or somehow not deserving of their grades.  you think all that matters is scoring points.  and how are you supposed to score points without actually doing work ?  exploit the system  my ass.  this is not politics, and outside of direct cheating or specific favors, which are problems in  every  educational system, there are few loopholes to get higher grades.   #  i do not mean that in a bad way exactly.   #  if you think that gaming the system stops once you leave high school than the job market is going to be an eye opener for you.  success is not just lining up those with the highest gpa.  it is about finding those people who can make the most with what they have.  it is about manipulating situations for your benefit.  i do not mean that in a bad way exactly.  lining yourself up with a good mentor is one of of gaming the system.  and also, are not their still weighted classes to separate those who want to stay at their level and those who want some more of a academic challenge ? there was when i was in high school.   #  not only does this serve no purpose and suck the fun out of reading, it means that i have not read any of the books.   #  there are weighted classes.  but there is still a vast difference between a class like ap environmental science, which is pathetically easy, and ap chemistry, which is much more difficult.  the kids who want the solid 0 are going to take apes.  i sincerely hope gaming the system does not extend to the same extent as it does now.  to give you an idea: we are required to annotate our books in english to prove we have read them.  not only does this serve no purpose and suck the fun out of reading, it means that i have not read any of the books.  they have turned into a game of skimming to see how much time i can save while still scribbling  insightful  crap in the margins.   #  any information about the book itself is gained from sparknotes or an equivalent summary.   #  this is not even reading for research though. i am talking about novels.  and i do not get practice picking out key information, i get practice identifying common phrases that i can then use to make a generic  insightful  comment.  that is it.  it is almost like writing random comments, except i ensure they are slightly relevant.  any information about the book itself is gained from sparknotes or an equivalent summary.  it is an exercise in minimizing time and effort spent, and maximizing point gains.   #  apes has had a lower percentage of students scoring a 0 than ap chemistry for many years running i know, here i am giving you scores, the very thing you are arguing against .   # the kids who want the solid 0 are going to take apes.  that continues to be a fallacy.  apes has had a lower percentage of students scoring a 0 than ap chemistry for many years running i know, here i am giving you scores, the very thing you are arguing against .  i took both courses last year, and sure, most people would probably agree that apes is  easier , but that is just a common opinion.  the reason a student  gaming the system  would want to takes apes at  their school  is because they have  heard  that the class is easier at their school.  i am sure there are schools out there where the average grade in an apes classroom is less than that of a ap chemistry classroom at the same school, thus fostering a group of students that believe apes is harder than ap chemistry.  i see where you are coming from, but saying that apes curriculum is  pathetically easy  compared to ap chemistry curriculum is merely opinion.  0 ap score distributions URL back to your post.  instead, all that matters is scoring points.  if by  learning the material  you mean retaining it over a lifetime, that is nonsensical and a false hope.  for example, if a student were to take 0 ap classes in his last two years of high school  sighs  it would be implausible for the student to truly learn all of the material.  however, by taking rigorous classes simultaneously, surely there is something the student would have learned, and most likely it would be beyond that of the curriculum.  ugh. i have done this, and yes, it is incredibly tedious if you are held to unreasonable standards by your teacher.  however, this is not problem with the  education system , whatever that means, it is a problem with the assignment.  i like to believe that true learning is a choice, something that not even a  perfect  education system could force someone to do.
this view was triggered by this post, and i will be using it to draw examples from.  URL basically i ca not begin to understand the rage felt by parents in this situation.  i would guess it to be unbearable, but rage never excuse one from their actions.  i could excuse some degree of injury to the perpetrator, but their are countless cases of parents severely or even kill the perpetrator, and i feel like this should face penalty under the law.  while i would not think a maximum sentence was necessary some form of punishment would be.  as a society if this is allowed to happen then the door is open for people to take justice into their own hands, and that is a very dangerous concept.  as a side note i am sure some examples of it going this way can occur, but for everyone against my view that is provided i could find one supporting it.  so the discrepancy between cases is another problem in this as well.   #  i could excuse some degree of injury to the perpetrator, but their are countless cases of parents severely or even kill the perpetrator, and i feel like this should face penalty under the law.   #  countless cases of vigilante assault and/or murder that are never charged ?  #  the law already makes allowances for an affirmative defense in criminal proceedings.  in an affirmative defense, the accused admits to committing the criminal act but provides a justification or excuse for their actions duress, necessity, insanity, self defense, etc.  in such cases, a successful affirmative defense reduces or even entirely removes culpability for a criminal act.  one famous example of an affirmative defense was  the burning bed  case, where a battered woman essentially lost her mind and burned up her abusive husband while he slept.  she was found not guilty of murder by reason of temporary insanity.  so, while she faced consequences for her actions, the jury decided that she was not of sound mind at the time and therefore not responsible.  prosecutors generally have a fair amount of discretion when deciding whether to bring charges against an individual for criminal actions.  they must weigh the cost of a trial against the probable outcome based on the strength of their case.  i ca not imagine that too many prosecutors would be willing to spend the time and money to prosecute a person for assaulting someone who  in the process  of raping their child.  it is highly likely that a jury would be willing to excuse such behavior, especially in the heat of the moment, and the trial would be a waste of taxpayer money.  countless cases of vigilante assault and/or murder that are never charged ? i find this difficult to believe.  i found a case of a texas man who was not charged when he beat the man raping his daughter to death, but again, he caught the rapist in the act and texas law allows for lethal force when addressing aggravated sexual assault.  another woman actually faced consequences for shooting a man accused of raping her son, and she was convicted of a lesser charge in her first trial phase.  i found several cases of inmates being charged with murder for beating convicted molesters to death.  where are these countless uncharged cases ?  #  i ca not find a decent reason for that woman not to have been convicted.   #  to begin with your first example is awful.  i ca not find a decent reason for that woman not to have been convicted.  it takes thought to light a bed on fire.  the jury and prosecutor bit is true, and that is what i am having a problem with.  they seem to be getting a pass for their actions.  my primary example was indeed the texas one.  just because it is legal now does not mean i have to agree with it.  for the example of a woman getting a lesser charge that too supports my point showing they get lesser or no charges.  here is another example involving a florida man: URL also, i doubt all beatings that would occur in prisons are properly reported.  murders yes, but assaults no.   #  there is no telling how violent he or she might be in response to being interrupted.   # they seem to be getting a pass for their actions.  and why should not they ? sometimes you have to defend yourself or someone else from harm.  sometimes you do crazy things because you are out of your mind with anger or grief or fear.  humans are not robots or purely rational actors.  try to put yourself into that parent is shoes.  you enter a room to find a person raping your child.  he or she is a committing a violent act against a close loved one.  there is no telling how violent he or she might be in response to being interrupted.  you want this to stop immediately but you do not want the perpetrator to escape justice by fleeing the scene.  it is hardly surprising that a parent would respond with violence as opposed to, say, a polite request for the perpetrator to remove him or herself from the child while they call the police.   #  i promise you that they do investigate the victims response and determine if it was justified.   #  the question i would pose next is, what is the purpose of prison at its root ? is it to pay some objective price for actions committed ? on the surface that is certainly how it functions.  but as far as what it is truly for, i would argue that it is to rehabilitate a criminal or to protect the general population from an imminent threat.  in these cases, is there a need to rehabilitate the individual or protect the population ? probably not.  they are still subject to the law and can face trial, but just like every other crime the district attorney will review the case and determine if it should go to court.  if they feel like there is no case defense will easily win or that the spirit of the law does not merit prosecution then it stops there.  i promise you that they do investigate the victims response and determine if it was justified.  if the man had stopped the abuse, beat him, then went and got a gun and killed him, he would be facing charges.  although as you have noted/others have said, they would likely be less than murder tl;dr not everyone who steals goes to jail, not everyone who speeds gets a ticket, not everyone who beats a man half to death gets prison.  its all about circumstances.   #  being caught during the act they are in the realm of self defense now.   # no.  i do not think they do, because that is a  normal  response to such an event.  i hope every good man and woman has that instinct.  as such they deserve equal protection that the law gives everyone.  sure, which is why nobody can hunt them down legally after the crime was committed.  being caught during the act they are in the realm of self defense now.
beer is more complex and interesting than wine.  it seems to me that the cultural perception at least in the us, and as far as i am aware, europe as well is the opposite.  the only reason that wine is considered more complex and interesting is that is more expensive.  first, what i am  not  arguing: 0.  i am not saying that no one should prefer wine to beer.  that would be silly.  preference is not something that is very productive to discuss as a cmv.  0.  i am not saying that wine should not be more expensive.  it takes longer to age, and in some cases perhaps even most cases; i am no expert it takes more expertise to make a good wine than to make a good beer.  what i  am  saying is this: 0.  i have heard of several studies, at varying degrees of scientific rigor, that cast serious doubt on the ability of wine experts to accurately judge wine.  my favorite URL is one where experts were given the same white wine in two glasses, except that one was died red.  they gave reviews of the red dyed one using all the same vocabulary they would use with a real red wine.  now, i would not claim to be knowledgeable enough about beer to give a professional review, but if you gave me the same ipa in two glasses but died one black and told me it was a stout, i would at the very least tell you it was a very unusual stout.  to give a less conservative estimation of my reaction, i would probably completely disagree with the brewery is decision to label it as a stout and say that it was really just a dark colored, bitter light ale not unlike guinness.  trolololol .  what i would expect out of the wine experts in that study is at least a  wow, this really tastes a lot like a white wine .  0.  wine has three ish ingredients ignoring simple ones without much variation like yeast nutrients, fining agents, etc.  grapes, water maybe , and yeast.  beer has at least four grain normally barley but can also include wheat, rye, or others , hops, yeast, water, and adjuncts spices, fruit, etc.  for the more creative/experimental brews.  eliminating grapes/barley as the principal ingredient, and yeast as something the two beverages have in common, beer has an extra two or three variables to play with: other grains, hops, and possibly adjuncts.  i know i am drastically simplifying things here, but even when you get more into the variation in ingredients, the variation in grains and how you roast and mash/boil them is greater than the variation in grapes, and so on; through the the whole process, there are more things you can vary with beer than you can with wine.  given this, i am completely content to buy a $0 bottle of wine if i want something that is pretty good.  i see no reason to buy a $0 bottle, ever.  if i want the best money can buy, i will go with the $0 bottle or $0 0 pack of beer that gets a 0 on beer advocate, before i even think about dropping $0  on a bottle that gets a 0 on wine spectator if such a bottle even exists .   #  there are more things you can vary with beer than you can with wine.   #  there are plent of things you can vary with wine.   #  let is forget the money straight off.  there are umpteen reasons for why wine can be more expensive than beer, not least because wine can keep and improve for years ie.  you can sell one bottle of 0 year old wine for $x,0 or you can sell 0 bottles of one year old blah blah blah .  truth is, they are just as complex and interesting as each other.  you can have dull, bland wines carlo rossi, anyone ? just as easily as you can have dull, bland beers pbr .  but let is go deeper.  there are plent of things you can vary with wine.  you are right that wine is basically just grapes, but  just grapes  ignores the conditions that the grapes grew in.  grapes and vines are much more susceptible to changes in climate than grain.  a particularly harsh winter might mean that that year is grapes are particularly fruity, but in short supply hence a high price on that year is wine stock .  this is why wines come with a year; if you are really super into it, you might know that bordeaux had a very good harvest in 0, and can make a good guess about what that wine is going to be like.  right there, you have not just got a bottle of wine, you have got a story, a history, a year in a glass.  the same can be said with whisky.  it is just grain and water, a mere two ingredients, yet when you have a glass of tobermory, you are going to taste oak and leather, caramel, biscuits, apples, burnt oranges, even sea salt.  because whisky is aged in barrels, it picks up all the characteristics of that barrel and the surrounding storage area , as well as the taste of the water and the grain you go around scotland and tell me the water does not taste different on isla as it does in edinburgh .  i would wager that whisky is orders of magnitude more complex than beer, and it is just water and grain.  tl;dr money does not matter, beer and wine can be as interesting as each other.   #  there are over 0,0 different varietals of grapes, although you can usually on find about 0 or so at your liquor store check out your local wineries .   #  there is a lot of variety that can occur in wines.  there are over 0,0 different varietals of grapes, although you can usually on find about 0 or so at your liquor store check out your local wineries .  there is so much that can influence the taste of the wine.  the soil of the vineyard, the climate, individual days of weather one day of heavy rain before harvest can swell the grapes and dilute the sugars , the yeast, the oak barrels, timing, oxygen, and many others.  every year is vintage has its own unique flavors and aromas that you can taste in side by side comparisons.  i currently some st.  vincent that is split into two different tanks for aging.  they taste completely different and the only difference in the way they were made is the size of the tank they are stored in.  i will agree that psychology and presentation plays a huge roll in how people perceive the taste of wine, but there are complexities there if you know what to look for.   #  yes, i am primarily arguing that the  breadth  aspect of beer is greater.   #  yes, i am primarily arguing that the  breadth  aspect of beer is greater.  however, i do not think it has less  depth  at all.  thenewlove listed off a bunch of extra variables in winemaking and also whiskey making which i intentionally glossed over in my original post, because for both beer and wine we could keep listing stuff like that all day.  water is just as important to some beers as it is to whisky.  some of my favorite beers are aged in used bourbon barrels.  i will concede the point about grapes being more susceptible to growing conditions than grain, but counter that between the different grains, how they are roasted, and the thousands of varieties of hops, beer can still keep up in terms of subtle variables.  i could keep listing examples, but my point is this: most of the things that you can vary with wine, you can also vary with beer, and while there are things that wine has but beer does not, there are more things that beer has but wine does not.  the result, i contend, is that beer has greater breadth, but  equal  depth.  i definitely see how people could say  all amber ales taste the same to me  , because it is similar to how i would say  all dry white wines taste the same to me  .  but that does not mean that all amber ales  are  the same there is as much potential for variation as there is or i am told that there is with dry white wines.   #  this is how my own preference switched from beer to wine, actually: tasting often beats eloquence in these matters, which is a good thing.   #  i agree that basically what you can vary in wine making, you can have it vary also in beer.  i would say that, to me, it is less a matter of what can be done that what i actually find on a common basis.  when i buy a bottle of wine, i know its year, i know where the grapes come from.  i can tell you that this matters: when getting used, you taste it.  when i buy a bottle of beer, this is not a standard that one tells me its year and parcel.  this is rarely expected indeed.  but the most important things to me is my own experience.  i tasted many beers, from many countries, and various sorts.  i also tasted many wines, many countries, various sorts also.  i started with beer and came to wine after.  there are things i felt with some glasses of excellent wines, that were really unique sensorial experiences.  where my best experiences with beer were like  yum, this is really good !  , with these wines it was rather like  wooaah, one can /feel/ that when drinking a glass of something ?  .  only excellent whiskies or chef dishes approached this woah experience in my life.  i am particularly cool with your preference for beer.  i would advise you to keep tasting wines, maybe join oenologic circles.  if you like fine beverages, you will not lose your time.  this is how my own preference switched from beer to wine, actually: tasting often beats eloquence in these matters, which is a good thing.   #  and of a very specific one, the oc ale, brewed in the south of france, which was good and fun.   #  interesting.  which brands were the best ones in your experience ? my favorite beer is the paulaner hefeweisse german .  i had really good experiences with belgian trappist beers.  i have fond memories of the beamish stout irish .  and of a very specific one, the oc ale, brewed in the south of france, which was good and fun.
beer is more complex and interesting than wine.  it seems to me that the cultural perception at least in the us, and as far as i am aware, europe as well is the opposite.  the only reason that wine is considered more complex and interesting is that is more expensive.  first, what i am  not  arguing: 0.  i am not saying that no one should prefer wine to beer.  that would be silly.  preference is not something that is very productive to discuss as a cmv.  0.  i am not saying that wine should not be more expensive.  it takes longer to age, and in some cases perhaps even most cases; i am no expert it takes more expertise to make a good wine than to make a good beer.  what i  am  saying is this: 0.  i have heard of several studies, at varying degrees of scientific rigor, that cast serious doubt on the ability of wine experts to accurately judge wine.  my favorite URL is one where experts were given the same white wine in two glasses, except that one was died red.  they gave reviews of the red dyed one using all the same vocabulary they would use with a real red wine.  now, i would not claim to be knowledgeable enough about beer to give a professional review, but if you gave me the same ipa in two glasses but died one black and told me it was a stout, i would at the very least tell you it was a very unusual stout.  to give a less conservative estimation of my reaction, i would probably completely disagree with the brewery is decision to label it as a stout and say that it was really just a dark colored, bitter light ale not unlike guinness.  trolololol .  what i would expect out of the wine experts in that study is at least a  wow, this really tastes a lot like a white wine .  0.  wine has three ish ingredients ignoring simple ones without much variation like yeast nutrients, fining agents, etc.  grapes, water maybe , and yeast.  beer has at least four grain normally barley but can also include wheat, rye, or others , hops, yeast, water, and adjuncts spices, fruit, etc.  for the more creative/experimental brews.  eliminating grapes/barley as the principal ingredient, and yeast as something the two beverages have in common, beer has an extra two or three variables to play with: other grains, hops, and possibly adjuncts.  i know i am drastically simplifying things here, but even when you get more into the variation in ingredients, the variation in grains and how you roast and mash/boil them is greater than the variation in grapes, and so on; through the the whole process, there are more things you can vary with beer than you can with wine.  given this, i am completely content to buy a $0 bottle of wine if i want something that is pretty good.  i see no reason to buy a $0 bottle, ever.  if i want the best money can buy, i will go with the $0 bottle or $0 0 pack of beer that gets a 0 on beer advocate, before i even think about dropping $0  on a bottle that gets a 0 on wine spectator if such a bottle even exists .   #  wine has three ish ingredients ignoring simple ones without much variation like yeast nutrients, fining agents, etc.   #  grapes, water maybe , and yeast this is the point i want to focus on.   # grapes, water maybe , and yeast this is the point i want to focus on.  i homebrew, but before i started that is kind of the same way i felt about beer.  all you need for beer is hops, grain, water, and yeast.  but the variations in the grains you can use is  astounding .  check out this list URL for some examples.  even when i saw that, i just thought  there ca not possible be that big of a difference between them  but there really is once you experiment and try them.  of course hops have the same variation, so there is endless possibilities for combinations for different flavors.  wine is the exact same way.  yes they are all made from grapes, but the variations in grapes would also surprise you.  plus the fact that even the same plants really will have a lot of variation from year to year depending on the conditions, which you probably know from you own experience with other fruit.  cantaloupe is one of my favorite fruits to eat, and this year i have had some awesome ones.  but some years i never find any that are really sweet or juicy.  that is why people say  this year was really good for this wine.   i do agree that some of it is just the culture and the pretentiousness that some people bring into it, and i find studies like the one you cited hilarious.  but wine and beer are very similar in many respects.  i am definitely a beer guy and have not found a lot of wines that i like.  but i can certainly appreciate the culture around it more after i got into  beer culture.   and trust me there are some beer snobs that are just as bad.  i have entered some homebrewing competitions, which are a great way to learn if you are interested.  you can usually volunteer and follow the judges and taste some and see what their comments are and learn the subtleties.  i ca not talk specifically about wines because like i said, i am honestly not a big fan.  i started out feeling the same way about beer, but after really getting into the complexity of beer, it is easy to see how wine would be the same way.   #  tl;dr money does not matter, beer and wine can be as interesting as each other.   #  let is forget the money straight off.  there are umpteen reasons for why wine can be more expensive than beer, not least because wine can keep and improve for years ie.  you can sell one bottle of 0 year old wine for $x,0 or you can sell 0 bottles of one year old blah blah blah .  truth is, they are just as complex and interesting as each other.  you can have dull, bland wines carlo rossi, anyone ? just as easily as you can have dull, bland beers pbr .  but let is go deeper.  there are plent of things you can vary with wine.  you are right that wine is basically just grapes, but  just grapes  ignores the conditions that the grapes grew in.  grapes and vines are much more susceptible to changes in climate than grain.  a particularly harsh winter might mean that that year is grapes are particularly fruity, but in short supply hence a high price on that year is wine stock .  this is why wines come with a year; if you are really super into it, you might know that bordeaux had a very good harvest in 0, and can make a good guess about what that wine is going to be like.  right there, you have not just got a bottle of wine, you have got a story, a history, a year in a glass.  the same can be said with whisky.  it is just grain and water, a mere two ingredients, yet when you have a glass of tobermory, you are going to taste oak and leather, caramel, biscuits, apples, burnt oranges, even sea salt.  because whisky is aged in barrels, it picks up all the characteristics of that barrel and the surrounding storage area , as well as the taste of the water and the grain you go around scotland and tell me the water does not taste different on isla as it does in edinburgh .  i would wager that whisky is orders of magnitude more complex than beer, and it is just water and grain.  tl;dr money does not matter, beer and wine can be as interesting as each other.   #  i will agree that psychology and presentation plays a huge roll in how people perceive the taste of wine, but there are complexities there if you know what to look for.   #  there is a lot of variety that can occur in wines.  there are over 0,0 different varietals of grapes, although you can usually on find about 0 or so at your liquor store check out your local wineries .  there is so much that can influence the taste of the wine.  the soil of the vineyard, the climate, individual days of weather one day of heavy rain before harvest can swell the grapes and dilute the sugars , the yeast, the oak barrels, timing, oxygen, and many others.  every year is vintage has its own unique flavors and aromas that you can taste in side by side comparisons.  i currently some st.  vincent that is split into two different tanks for aging.  they taste completely different and the only difference in the way they were made is the size of the tank they are stored in.  i will agree that psychology and presentation plays a huge roll in how people perceive the taste of wine, but there are complexities there if you know what to look for.   #  water is just as important to some beers as it is to whisky.   #  yes, i am primarily arguing that the  breadth  aspect of beer is greater.  however, i do not think it has less  depth  at all.  thenewlove listed off a bunch of extra variables in winemaking and also whiskey making which i intentionally glossed over in my original post, because for both beer and wine we could keep listing stuff like that all day.  water is just as important to some beers as it is to whisky.  some of my favorite beers are aged in used bourbon barrels.  i will concede the point about grapes being more susceptible to growing conditions than grain, but counter that between the different grains, how they are roasted, and the thousands of varieties of hops, beer can still keep up in terms of subtle variables.  i could keep listing examples, but my point is this: most of the things that you can vary with wine, you can also vary with beer, and while there are things that wine has but beer does not, there are more things that beer has but wine does not.  the result, i contend, is that beer has greater breadth, but  equal  depth.  i definitely see how people could say  all amber ales taste the same to me  , because it is similar to how i would say  all dry white wines taste the same to me  .  but that does not mean that all amber ales  are  the same there is as much potential for variation as there is or i am told that there is with dry white wines.   #  when i buy a bottle of beer, this is not a standard that one tells me its year and parcel.   #  i agree that basically what you can vary in wine making, you can have it vary also in beer.  i would say that, to me, it is less a matter of what can be done that what i actually find on a common basis.  when i buy a bottle of wine, i know its year, i know where the grapes come from.  i can tell you that this matters: when getting used, you taste it.  when i buy a bottle of beer, this is not a standard that one tells me its year and parcel.  this is rarely expected indeed.  but the most important things to me is my own experience.  i tasted many beers, from many countries, and various sorts.  i also tasted many wines, many countries, various sorts also.  i started with beer and came to wine after.  there are things i felt with some glasses of excellent wines, that were really unique sensorial experiences.  where my best experiences with beer were like  yum, this is really good !  , with these wines it was rather like  wooaah, one can /feel/ that when drinking a glass of something ?  .  only excellent whiskies or chef dishes approached this woah experience in my life.  i am particularly cool with your preference for beer.  i would advise you to keep tasting wines, maybe join oenologic circles.  if you like fine beverages, you will not lose your time.  this is how my own preference switched from beer to wine, actually: tasting often beats eloquence in these matters, which is a good thing.
beer is more complex and interesting than wine.  it seems to me that the cultural perception at least in the us, and as far as i am aware, europe as well is the opposite.  the only reason that wine is considered more complex and interesting is that is more expensive.  first, what i am  not  arguing: 0.  i am not saying that no one should prefer wine to beer.  that would be silly.  preference is not something that is very productive to discuss as a cmv.  0.  i am not saying that wine should not be more expensive.  it takes longer to age, and in some cases perhaps even most cases; i am no expert it takes more expertise to make a good wine than to make a good beer.  what i  am  saying is this: 0.  i have heard of several studies, at varying degrees of scientific rigor, that cast serious doubt on the ability of wine experts to accurately judge wine.  my favorite URL is one where experts were given the same white wine in two glasses, except that one was died red.  they gave reviews of the red dyed one using all the same vocabulary they would use with a real red wine.  now, i would not claim to be knowledgeable enough about beer to give a professional review, but if you gave me the same ipa in two glasses but died one black and told me it was a stout, i would at the very least tell you it was a very unusual stout.  to give a less conservative estimation of my reaction, i would probably completely disagree with the brewery is decision to label it as a stout and say that it was really just a dark colored, bitter light ale not unlike guinness.  trolololol .  what i would expect out of the wine experts in that study is at least a  wow, this really tastes a lot like a white wine .  0.  wine has three ish ingredients ignoring simple ones without much variation like yeast nutrients, fining agents, etc.  grapes, water maybe , and yeast.  beer has at least four grain normally barley but can also include wheat, rye, or others , hops, yeast, water, and adjuncts spices, fruit, etc.  for the more creative/experimental brews.  eliminating grapes/barley as the principal ingredient, and yeast as something the two beverages have in common, beer has an extra two or three variables to play with: other grains, hops, and possibly adjuncts.  i know i am drastically simplifying things here, but even when you get more into the variation in ingredients, the variation in grains and how you roast and mash/boil them is greater than the variation in grapes, and so on; through the the whole process, there are more things you can vary with beer than you can with wine.  given this, i am completely content to buy a $0 bottle of wine if i want something that is pretty good.  i see no reason to buy a $0 bottle, ever.  if i want the best money can buy, i will go with the $0 bottle or $0 0 pack of beer that gets a 0 on beer advocate, before i even think about dropping $0  on a bottle that gets a 0 on wine spectator if such a bottle even exists .   #  0.  i have heard of several studies, at varying degrees of scientific rigor, that cast serious doubt on the ability of wine experts to accurately judge wine.   #  my favorite 0 is one where experts were given the same white wine in two glasses, except that one was died red.   # my favorite 0 is one where experts were given the same white wine in two glasses, except that one was died red.  they gave reviews of the red dyed one using all the same vocabulary they would use with a real red wine.  now, i would not claim to be knowledgeable enough about beer to give a professional review, but if you gave me the same ipa in two glasses but died one black and told me it was a stout, i would at the very least tell you it was a very unusual stout.  to give a less conservative estimation of my reaction, i would probably completely disagree with the brewery is decision to label it as a stout and say that it was really just a dark colored, bitter light ale not unlike guinness.  trolololol .  what i would expect out of the wine experts in that study is at least a  wow, this really tastes a lot like a white wine .  synesthesia is something as humans we cannot escape.  so the way something looks effects the taste, plain and simple.  there is a whole science to this aspect of all beverages   food, not just wines or beers.  so this study does not  make much sense to me.  grapes, water maybe , and yeast.  beer has at least four grain normally barley but can also include wheat, rye, or others , hops, yeast, water, and adjuncts spices, fruit, etc.  for the more creative/experimental brews.  eliminating grapes/barley as the principal ingredient, and yeast as something the two beverages have in common, beer has an extra two or three variables to play with: other grains, hops, and possibly adjuncts.  i know i am drastically simplifying things here, but even when you get more into the variation in ingredients, the variation in grains and how you roast and mash/boil them is greater than the variation in grapes, and so on; through the the whole process, there are more things you can vary with beer than you can with wine.  i am not sure where this point takes you.  how does the amount of ingredients matter ? i see no reason to buy a $0 bottle, ever.  if i want the best money can buy, i will go with the $0 bottle or $0 0 pack of beer that gets a 0 on beer advocate, before i even think about dropping $0  on a bottle that gets a 0 on wine spectator if such a bottle even exists .  now you are argument goes into value.  your taste is what it is, you do not  value wine.  beer is a good beverage, so is wine.  however, the difference between the two is just history.  wines has great history, and wide range of flavors that beers does not.   #  it is just grain and water, a mere two ingredients, yet when you have a glass of tobermory, you are going to taste oak and leather, caramel, biscuits, apples, burnt oranges, even sea salt.   #  let is forget the money straight off.  there are umpteen reasons for why wine can be more expensive than beer, not least because wine can keep and improve for years ie.  you can sell one bottle of 0 year old wine for $x,0 or you can sell 0 bottles of one year old blah blah blah .  truth is, they are just as complex and interesting as each other.  you can have dull, bland wines carlo rossi, anyone ? just as easily as you can have dull, bland beers pbr .  but let is go deeper.  there are plent of things you can vary with wine.  you are right that wine is basically just grapes, but  just grapes  ignores the conditions that the grapes grew in.  grapes and vines are much more susceptible to changes in climate than grain.  a particularly harsh winter might mean that that year is grapes are particularly fruity, but in short supply hence a high price on that year is wine stock .  this is why wines come with a year; if you are really super into it, you might know that bordeaux had a very good harvest in 0, and can make a good guess about what that wine is going to be like.  right there, you have not just got a bottle of wine, you have got a story, a history, a year in a glass.  the same can be said with whisky.  it is just grain and water, a mere two ingredients, yet when you have a glass of tobermory, you are going to taste oak and leather, caramel, biscuits, apples, burnt oranges, even sea salt.  because whisky is aged in barrels, it picks up all the characteristics of that barrel and the surrounding storage area , as well as the taste of the water and the grain you go around scotland and tell me the water does not taste different on isla as it does in edinburgh .  i would wager that whisky is orders of magnitude more complex than beer, and it is just water and grain.  tl;dr money does not matter, beer and wine can be as interesting as each other.   #  vincent that is split into two different tanks for aging.   #  there is a lot of variety that can occur in wines.  there are over 0,0 different varietals of grapes, although you can usually on find about 0 or so at your liquor store check out your local wineries .  there is so much that can influence the taste of the wine.  the soil of the vineyard, the climate, individual days of weather one day of heavy rain before harvest can swell the grapes and dilute the sugars , the yeast, the oak barrels, timing, oxygen, and many others.  every year is vintage has its own unique flavors and aromas that you can taste in side by side comparisons.  i currently some st.  vincent that is split into two different tanks for aging.  they taste completely different and the only difference in the way they were made is the size of the tank they are stored in.  i will agree that psychology and presentation plays a huge roll in how people perceive the taste of wine, but there are complexities there if you know what to look for.   #  water is just as important to some beers as it is to whisky.   #  yes, i am primarily arguing that the  breadth  aspect of beer is greater.  however, i do not think it has less  depth  at all.  thenewlove listed off a bunch of extra variables in winemaking and also whiskey making which i intentionally glossed over in my original post, because for both beer and wine we could keep listing stuff like that all day.  water is just as important to some beers as it is to whisky.  some of my favorite beers are aged in used bourbon barrels.  i will concede the point about grapes being more susceptible to growing conditions than grain, but counter that between the different grains, how they are roasted, and the thousands of varieties of hops, beer can still keep up in terms of subtle variables.  i could keep listing examples, but my point is this: most of the things that you can vary with wine, you can also vary with beer, and while there are things that wine has but beer does not, there are more things that beer has but wine does not.  the result, i contend, is that beer has greater breadth, but  equal  depth.  i definitely see how people could say  all amber ales taste the same to me  , because it is similar to how i would say  all dry white wines taste the same to me  .  but that does not mean that all amber ales  are  the same there is as much potential for variation as there is or i am told that there is with dry white wines.   #  this is how my own preference switched from beer to wine, actually: tasting often beats eloquence in these matters, which is a good thing.   #  i agree that basically what you can vary in wine making, you can have it vary also in beer.  i would say that, to me, it is less a matter of what can be done that what i actually find on a common basis.  when i buy a bottle of wine, i know its year, i know where the grapes come from.  i can tell you that this matters: when getting used, you taste it.  when i buy a bottle of beer, this is not a standard that one tells me its year and parcel.  this is rarely expected indeed.  but the most important things to me is my own experience.  i tasted many beers, from many countries, and various sorts.  i also tasted many wines, many countries, various sorts also.  i started with beer and came to wine after.  there are things i felt with some glasses of excellent wines, that were really unique sensorial experiences.  where my best experiences with beer were like  yum, this is really good !  , with these wines it was rather like  wooaah, one can /feel/ that when drinking a glass of something ?  .  only excellent whiskies or chef dishes approached this woah experience in my life.  i am particularly cool with your preference for beer.  i would advise you to keep tasting wines, maybe join oenologic circles.  if you like fine beverages, you will not lose your time.  this is how my own preference switched from beer to wine, actually: tasting often beats eloquence in these matters, which is a good thing.
beer is more complex and interesting than wine.  it seems to me that the cultural perception at least in the us, and as far as i am aware, europe as well is the opposite.  the only reason that wine is considered more complex and interesting is that is more expensive.  first, what i am  not  arguing: 0.  i am not saying that no one should prefer wine to beer.  that would be silly.  preference is not something that is very productive to discuss as a cmv.  0.  i am not saying that wine should not be more expensive.  it takes longer to age, and in some cases perhaps even most cases; i am no expert it takes more expertise to make a good wine than to make a good beer.  what i  am  saying is this: 0.  i have heard of several studies, at varying degrees of scientific rigor, that cast serious doubt on the ability of wine experts to accurately judge wine.  my favorite URL is one where experts were given the same white wine in two glasses, except that one was died red.  they gave reviews of the red dyed one using all the same vocabulary they would use with a real red wine.  now, i would not claim to be knowledgeable enough about beer to give a professional review, but if you gave me the same ipa in two glasses but died one black and told me it was a stout, i would at the very least tell you it was a very unusual stout.  to give a less conservative estimation of my reaction, i would probably completely disagree with the brewery is decision to label it as a stout and say that it was really just a dark colored, bitter light ale not unlike guinness.  trolololol .  what i would expect out of the wine experts in that study is at least a  wow, this really tastes a lot like a white wine .  0.  wine has three ish ingredients ignoring simple ones without much variation like yeast nutrients, fining agents, etc.  grapes, water maybe , and yeast.  beer has at least four grain normally barley but can also include wheat, rye, or others , hops, yeast, water, and adjuncts spices, fruit, etc.  for the more creative/experimental brews.  eliminating grapes/barley as the principal ingredient, and yeast as something the two beverages have in common, beer has an extra two or three variables to play with: other grains, hops, and possibly adjuncts.  i know i am drastically simplifying things here, but even when you get more into the variation in ingredients, the variation in grains and how you roast and mash/boil them is greater than the variation in grapes, and so on; through the the whole process, there are more things you can vary with beer than you can with wine.  given this, i am completely content to buy a $0 bottle of wine if i want something that is pretty good.  i see no reason to buy a $0 bottle, ever.  if i want the best money can buy, i will go with the $0 bottle or $0 0 pack of beer that gets a 0 on beer advocate, before i even think about dropping $0  on a bottle that gets a 0 on wine spectator if such a bottle even exists .   #  given this, i am completely content to buy a $0 bottle of wine if i want something that is pretty good.   #  i see no reason to buy a $0 bottle, ever.   # my favorite 0 is one where experts were given the same white wine in two glasses, except that one was died red.  they gave reviews of the red dyed one using all the same vocabulary they would use with a real red wine.  now, i would not claim to be knowledgeable enough about beer to give a professional review, but if you gave me the same ipa in two glasses but died one black and told me it was a stout, i would at the very least tell you it was a very unusual stout.  to give a less conservative estimation of my reaction, i would probably completely disagree with the brewery is decision to label it as a stout and say that it was really just a dark colored, bitter light ale not unlike guinness.  trolololol .  what i would expect out of the wine experts in that study is at least a  wow, this really tastes a lot like a white wine .  synesthesia is something as humans we cannot escape.  so the way something looks effects the taste, plain and simple.  there is a whole science to this aspect of all beverages   food, not just wines or beers.  so this study does not  make much sense to me.  grapes, water maybe , and yeast.  beer has at least four grain normally barley but can also include wheat, rye, or others , hops, yeast, water, and adjuncts spices, fruit, etc.  for the more creative/experimental brews.  eliminating grapes/barley as the principal ingredient, and yeast as something the two beverages have in common, beer has an extra two or three variables to play with: other grains, hops, and possibly adjuncts.  i know i am drastically simplifying things here, but even when you get more into the variation in ingredients, the variation in grains and how you roast and mash/boil them is greater than the variation in grapes, and so on; through the the whole process, there are more things you can vary with beer than you can with wine.  i am not sure where this point takes you.  how does the amount of ingredients matter ? i see no reason to buy a $0 bottle, ever.  if i want the best money can buy, i will go with the $0 bottle or $0 0 pack of beer that gets a 0 on beer advocate, before i even think about dropping $0  on a bottle that gets a 0 on wine spectator if such a bottle even exists .  now you are argument goes into value.  your taste is what it is, you do not  value wine.  beer is a good beverage, so is wine.  however, the difference between the two is just history.  wines has great history, and wide range of flavors that beers does not.   #  tl;dr money does not matter, beer and wine can be as interesting as each other.   #  let is forget the money straight off.  there are umpteen reasons for why wine can be more expensive than beer, not least because wine can keep and improve for years ie.  you can sell one bottle of 0 year old wine for $x,0 or you can sell 0 bottles of one year old blah blah blah .  truth is, they are just as complex and interesting as each other.  you can have dull, bland wines carlo rossi, anyone ? just as easily as you can have dull, bland beers pbr .  but let is go deeper.  there are plent of things you can vary with wine.  you are right that wine is basically just grapes, but  just grapes  ignores the conditions that the grapes grew in.  grapes and vines are much more susceptible to changes in climate than grain.  a particularly harsh winter might mean that that year is grapes are particularly fruity, but in short supply hence a high price on that year is wine stock .  this is why wines come with a year; if you are really super into it, you might know that bordeaux had a very good harvest in 0, and can make a good guess about what that wine is going to be like.  right there, you have not just got a bottle of wine, you have got a story, a history, a year in a glass.  the same can be said with whisky.  it is just grain and water, a mere two ingredients, yet when you have a glass of tobermory, you are going to taste oak and leather, caramel, biscuits, apples, burnt oranges, even sea salt.  because whisky is aged in barrels, it picks up all the characteristics of that barrel and the surrounding storage area , as well as the taste of the water and the grain you go around scotland and tell me the water does not taste different on isla as it does in edinburgh .  i would wager that whisky is orders of magnitude more complex than beer, and it is just water and grain.  tl;dr money does not matter, beer and wine can be as interesting as each other.   #  they taste completely different and the only difference in the way they were made is the size of the tank they are stored in.   #  there is a lot of variety that can occur in wines.  there are over 0,0 different varietals of grapes, although you can usually on find about 0 or so at your liquor store check out your local wineries .  there is so much that can influence the taste of the wine.  the soil of the vineyard, the climate, individual days of weather one day of heavy rain before harvest can swell the grapes and dilute the sugars , the yeast, the oak barrels, timing, oxygen, and many others.  every year is vintage has its own unique flavors and aromas that you can taste in side by side comparisons.  i currently some st.  vincent that is split into two different tanks for aging.  they taste completely different and the only difference in the way they were made is the size of the tank they are stored in.  i will agree that psychology and presentation plays a huge roll in how people perceive the taste of wine, but there are complexities there if you know what to look for.   #  i definitely see how people could say  all amber ales taste the same to me  , because it is similar to how i would say  all dry white wines taste the same to me  .   #  yes, i am primarily arguing that the  breadth  aspect of beer is greater.  however, i do not think it has less  depth  at all.  thenewlove listed off a bunch of extra variables in winemaking and also whiskey making which i intentionally glossed over in my original post, because for both beer and wine we could keep listing stuff like that all day.  water is just as important to some beers as it is to whisky.  some of my favorite beers are aged in used bourbon barrels.  i will concede the point about grapes being more susceptible to growing conditions than grain, but counter that between the different grains, how they are roasted, and the thousands of varieties of hops, beer can still keep up in terms of subtle variables.  i could keep listing examples, but my point is this: most of the things that you can vary with wine, you can also vary with beer, and while there are things that wine has but beer does not, there are more things that beer has but wine does not.  the result, i contend, is that beer has greater breadth, but  equal  depth.  i definitely see how people could say  all amber ales taste the same to me  , because it is similar to how i would say  all dry white wines taste the same to me  .  but that does not mean that all amber ales  are  the same there is as much potential for variation as there is or i am told that there is with dry white wines.   #  but the most important things to me is my own experience.   #  i agree that basically what you can vary in wine making, you can have it vary also in beer.  i would say that, to me, it is less a matter of what can be done that what i actually find on a common basis.  when i buy a bottle of wine, i know its year, i know where the grapes come from.  i can tell you that this matters: when getting used, you taste it.  when i buy a bottle of beer, this is not a standard that one tells me its year and parcel.  this is rarely expected indeed.  but the most important things to me is my own experience.  i tasted many beers, from many countries, and various sorts.  i also tasted many wines, many countries, various sorts also.  i started with beer and came to wine after.  there are things i felt with some glasses of excellent wines, that were really unique sensorial experiences.  where my best experiences with beer were like  yum, this is really good !  , with these wines it was rather like  wooaah, one can /feel/ that when drinking a glass of something ?  .  only excellent whiskies or chef dishes approached this woah experience in my life.  i am particularly cool with your preference for beer.  i would advise you to keep tasting wines, maybe join oenologic circles.  if you like fine beverages, you will not lose your time.  this is how my own preference switched from beer to wine, actually: tasting often beats eloquence in these matters, which is a good thing.
the american mall has been a staple of american commerce for several decades.  they are closely related to older shopping arcades that date all the way back to trajan is market in ancient rome and the grand bazaar of istanbul.  the problem is that they never delivered on their promise.  the point of a shopping mall was to create an enclosed, suburban answer to a small town is main street or a big city is shopping districts.  for a long time it was arguably the best way to aggregate a large number of regional shoppers who were making a trip to get a wide variety of different things anyways.  we are not talking about routine purchases as much as getting a number of larger purchases at once.  to this end there were the large department stores, which were your best bet to get said big ticket items anywhere, acting as  anchors  at each end of the mall to convince people to drive there and spaced apart to convince people to walk and a number of smaller local shops, specialty shops, and food service places.  the idea is the big department store gets people to show up and the small shops wring every last dollar of pocket change.  the first problem is that this premise was never really the concept of either the main street or the shopping district, but it developed its own culture for a while what with  mall rats  and such.  they never intertwined with the area as a whole the way the other shopping options did mostly because people did not live there.  the second problem is that the very notion of  anchors  is irretrievably broken.  why would i ever go to a department store ? i can get anything cheap and disposable from walmart or a direct competitor of walmart .  i can get anything else from amazon, ebay, or other website even the department store is own website at the same price or less than going to the mall.  going to the mall is no long the easy solution.  the third problem is that the slow increase in cost of rent over the past half century drove out the unique local and specialty shops that i might actually be induced to physically show up to.  pretty much the only things in malls these days are national chains, none of which are selling anything i ca not get anywhere else.  quite frankly, i do not see how these issues are surmountable without completely reimagining what it means to be a mall.  if there was some bit of mall culture that speaks to the survival of the space, the development of anchors that people have a reason to show up for, or a move away from brookstone and old navy to something that trades on something truly unique connected to the identity of the area then my view would be changed.  pointing out a flaw in my understanding of malls that would speak to their continued survival would also be convincing.   #  that date all the way back to trajan is market in ancient rome and the grand bazaar of istanbul.   #  the problem is that they never delivered on their promise.   # the problem is that they never delivered on their promise.  i was going to come in a whoop your ass on a history lesson, but well,i guess now i am all out of ammo.  however, i do have a question.  do you not see malls as a place to socialize ? you must admit that even in the past, they served that purpose albeit it was an unintended side effect.  while there is some obsolesce in the way business are conducted, malls are changing towards food places, movie theaters, etc.  more like entertainment zones.   #  you are right in that the internet has greatly changed the dynamic of shopping these days, as more and more can be purchased online, even from those very same stores.   #  rather than becoming obsolete, i think what you are seeing is that the point of the mall is changing.  you are right in that the internet has greatly changed the dynamic of shopping these days, as more and more can be purchased online, even from those very same stores.  but the mall still has its place.  people still use it as a time killer, a place to go when everyone wants to get out and do different things, but ca not really agree.  some people really enjoy actually walking through the stores, picking up the things they are considering buying, even if they do not buy it right then.  trying on shoes, trying on clothes, feeling fabrics, testing out electronics.  all of these you ca not do online.  they still require actual interaction.  and clearly there is something to this, because malls are doing just fine.  you are seeing them start to be consolidated, in that the smaller malls are often closing down while the one big mall stays open, but every city still has thriving malls that are not in any danger of becoming a thing of the past any time soon.   #  every time i go in there it is packed.   #  my local mall just built on a very large theater that includes imax screens.  the thing is massive.  along with this, a couple years back they added on a massive new barnes   nobles store.  most book stores in town have gone out of business, but that b n store hosts authors for book signing and has other special events.  every time i go in there it is packed.  these two new stores are great anchors for the mall.  smart retailers innovate, the rest dye off.  it is how natural selection and the evolutionary nature of our capitalist system works.  tldr: the mall in my town is healthy and growing west texas .   #  a structure that artificially replicates that model indoors would be redundant.   #  i do not know about that.  you see, the regional and superregional mall is defined by its ability to collect suburban residents in a single place to go shopping.  in fact, the construction of a new mall north and south on the interstate killed a local mall in the late 0 is in my area.  i would argue that malls as we are familiar with in the us are a reaction to low density and thus are dependent upon it.  i suspect that an increase emphasis on rail transit something that is absurdly expensive to put into place and also would have to lead actual development for years, possibly decades, suffering too low ridership and budget shortfalls until residential and commercial adjustments happen gradually would actually benefit downtown shopping districts.  after all, they would have local residents and preexisting quality stores that would draw shoppers and the geography requires walking.  a structure that artificially replicates that model indoors would be redundant.   #  as for the indoor/outdoor difference, i think that is merely a question of climate, in fact the new mall where i live has a retractable roof, so i guess it would fit the traditional criteria about half the year.   #  i agree with everything you are saying, but just for the sake of discussion i wonder how much of design is ever really not artificial.  the roman forum was basically a deliberate attempt to copy the athenian agora.  times square in new york is totally master planned by disney architects.  as for the indoor/outdoor difference, i think that is merely a question of climate, in fact the new mall where i live has a retractable roof, so i guess it would fit the traditional criteria about half the year.  in summary, if we are talking about the mall in its strictest sense, like where al bundy worked, then you are right it is an artifact of post wwii americana, like muscle cars.  but we would agree that the mall in its broadest sense will live on forever.  so instead of  they did not deliver on their promise,  i prefer the phrasing in your title: the idea has  run its course.
there is a big thing among certain believe groups that it is their job to  educate  and tell of those with  incorrect  views in public.  people on the far left, the very religious, atheists, and hardcore supporters of a paticular product brand come to mind.  this can, understandably, piss many people off.  this is especially true if the group or individual was minding their own business and an outsider barges in to tell them off.  normally considered a very rude thing to do.  now the people that do this do it because they think they are doing good for the world, and i can understand that.  what is  moral  is a very subjective thing though; it is a human creation in the minds of the people.  the universe is cold and indifferent to human action.  the person who you are yelling at does not see themselves as  the bad guy .  given this, the people that engage in such behavior should stop acting victimized when their target yells at them, tells them to fuck off, or threatens them instead of listening.  i have no sympathy for someone who barges into another is personal space and starts making trouble for them.  in my mind, they are reaping what they sowed.  cmv  #  what is  moral  is a very subjective thing though; it is a human creation in the minds of the people.   #  the universe is cold and indifferent to human action.   # the universe is cold and indifferent to human action.  the person who you are yelling at does not see themselves as  the bad guy .  some people believe morality is subjective, others believe it is universal within humans .  this is a divide in sociology.  i myself am on the side that believes that cultural relativism the idea that morality defined within a culture is good within that culture is wrong, and that there are universal morals.  for example, i believe a universal moral that some cultures push against is that violence against women is bad i feel the same way for violence against men, but that is a less common issue .  as a result, i will call people out for committing violence against women or, depending on the circumstance, hinting at it or threatening it.  if the subject that i am calling out for inciting violence against women treats me poorly, i think i not only have the right to complain, i should complain.  this is because they are treating me poorly because they have broken what i and many others believe to be a universal moral, and by complaining, especially in front of them, they are shown that what they are doing is not in line with the universal morality.  of course, if you believe in cultural relativism, you will disagree.  but i personally find that deplorable.   #  i do not think anyone is doing this as a favor or education.   #  are they supposed to pull you aside and explain why your behavior is wrong ? i do not think anyone is doing this as a favor or education.  i think if someone calls you out on behavior in public, they are doing it to publicly shame you.  if they are wrong, they are inviting themselves up for public shaming themselves.  it does not give you the right to start apparently screaming in their face or threatening them, which is illegal.  calmly explain why they are wrong.   #  you seem to be saying that both people are dicks who deserve to be treated as such.   # that is pretty circular it is an  attack  because you called it so ? obviously context counts here.  if i walk up to a priest shaking hands as people leave his church and call him a fuckwit child molester, yeah, that is an attack.  if i am standing on the sidewalk trying to get signatures on a petition to save a local planned parenthood or something which might require changing some minds , it is hard to call that an attack even though i am offending and angering a lot of people i am approaching on the street.  what is the line between these two things ? you seem to be saying that both people are dicks who deserve to be treated as such.  if you actually do find the second activity objectionable, i would point out that those kinds of things are important to any democracy, frustrating as they are to the average joe trying to get home from work.   #  i do not think degree of either would  have to  lead to people being more vocal about their believes.   #  freedom of expression should not justify discrimination.  it would justify disagreement though, or avoidance, to avoid unwanted conflict.  or calling em out as hypocrites if their arguments are as bad as the people is arguments they try to  correct .  or calling em out as uncaring if there is no benefit to them outside of the gratification of feeling right and negative benefit to the people they want to  correct , be it the effort to think through other people is sudden claims.  on a side note, i am curious why you chose  atheists , as well as  very religious , not  atheists  and  religious  or  very religious  and  very atheist  whatever either means.  i do not think degree of either would  have to  lead to people being more vocal about their believes.  now the example you give points towards more than calling others out.  seems more like calling others out and stalking em.  you can call somebody out, get a reply along the lines of  we agree to disagree on this matter, i do not wish to discuss the issue further, i am not obligated to discuss with you , and both parties walk away.  as long as 0 party insists on this and it is respected; if it is not we are bordering on stalking , there is hardly a problem.  but if that triggered the other person is desire to express how right he is about his beliefs, both parties are equally interested in the conversation, so common rules of keeping it civil should apply.  if you join in on somebody is informal invitation to discuss, you carry the same responsibility to keep it civil.  or you both can be disagreeable to each other, if you both just argue to feel passionate and righteous.  but this involves assumptions so really more of a slippery slope.   #  the  very religious , in particular, spend a lot of time trying to get their bullshit encoded into public laws that affect everyone, whether they believe or not.   #  i think there is a very big difference between people who barge in on someone unawares and  call them out , and people that are responding to actual grievances.  the  very religious , in particular, spend a lot of time trying to get their bullshit encoded into public laws that affect everyone, whether they believe or not.  calling people on their intolerance is a completely justified activity, and such people should be lauded rather than  treated poorly .  people that are minding their own business, i completely agree, deserve to be left alone.  when they start intruding on others space and freedom, they deserve to be called out, and pardon my french but they can go fuck themselves if they do not like it.
there is a big thing among certain believe groups that it is their job to  educate  and tell of those with  incorrect  views in public.  people on the far left, the very religious, atheists, and hardcore supporters of a paticular product brand come to mind.  this can, understandably, piss many people off.  this is especially true if the group or individual was minding their own business and an outsider barges in to tell them off.  normally considered a very rude thing to do.  now the people that do this do it because they think they are doing good for the world, and i can understand that.  what is  moral  is a very subjective thing though; it is a human creation in the minds of the people.  the universe is cold and indifferent to human action.  the person who you are yelling at does not see themselves as  the bad guy .  given this, the people that engage in such behavior should stop acting victimized when their target yells at them, tells them to fuck off, or threatens them instead of listening.  i have no sympathy for someone who barges into another is personal space and starts making trouble for them.  in my mind, they are reaping what they sowed.  cmv  #  this can, understandably, piss many people off.   #  this is especially true if the group or individual was minding their own business and an outsider barges in to tell them off.   # why are you lumping in atheists with hard core supporters of brands, religions, and hard core leftists ? why not include people on the far right who are just as guilty of this ? it makes me think that you equate people disagreeing with you as poor treatment.  this is especially true if the group or individual was minding their own business and an outsider barges in to tell them off.  normally considered a very rude thing to do.  do you have any examples of this happening ? are atheists barging into churches and yelling at the preacher ? usually there are two sides to the story where both parties are sharing unwanted opinions.  usually you  call people out  for the benefit of others.  public calling out of a commentator wo not change the mind of the commentator, but can affect the people who heard the original message.  does this actually happen a lot ? do you have any real examples ? it sounds like you are heavily exaggerating.   #  if they are wrong, they are inviting themselves up for public shaming themselves.   #  are they supposed to pull you aside and explain why your behavior is wrong ? i do not think anyone is doing this as a favor or education.  i think if someone calls you out on behavior in public, they are doing it to publicly shame you.  if they are wrong, they are inviting themselves up for public shaming themselves.  it does not give you the right to start apparently screaming in their face or threatening them, which is illegal.  calmly explain why they are wrong.   #  that is pretty circular it is an  attack  because you called it so ?  # that is pretty circular it is an  attack  because you called it so ? obviously context counts here.  if i walk up to a priest shaking hands as people leave his church and call him a fuckwit child molester, yeah, that is an attack.  if i am standing on the sidewalk trying to get signatures on a petition to save a local planned parenthood or something which might require changing some minds , it is hard to call that an attack even though i am offending and angering a lot of people i am approaching on the street.  what is the line between these two things ? you seem to be saying that both people are dicks who deserve to be treated as such.  if you actually do find the second activity objectionable, i would point out that those kinds of things are important to any democracy, frustrating as they are to the average joe trying to get home from work.   #  seems more like calling others out and stalking em.   #  freedom of expression should not justify discrimination.  it would justify disagreement though, or avoidance, to avoid unwanted conflict.  or calling em out as hypocrites if their arguments are as bad as the people is arguments they try to  correct .  or calling em out as uncaring if there is no benefit to them outside of the gratification of feeling right and negative benefit to the people they want to  correct , be it the effort to think through other people is sudden claims.  on a side note, i am curious why you chose  atheists , as well as  very religious , not  atheists  and  religious  or  very religious  and  very atheist  whatever either means.  i do not think degree of either would  have to  lead to people being more vocal about their believes.  now the example you give points towards more than calling others out.  seems more like calling others out and stalking em.  you can call somebody out, get a reply along the lines of  we agree to disagree on this matter, i do not wish to discuss the issue further, i am not obligated to discuss with you , and both parties walk away.  as long as 0 party insists on this and it is respected; if it is not we are bordering on stalking , there is hardly a problem.  but if that triggered the other person is desire to express how right he is about his beliefs, both parties are equally interested in the conversation, so common rules of keeping it civil should apply.  if you join in on somebody is informal invitation to discuss, you carry the same responsibility to keep it civil.  or you both can be disagreeable to each other, if you both just argue to feel passionate and righteous.  but this involves assumptions so really more of a slippery slope.   #  as a result, i will call people out for committing violence against women or, depending on the circumstance, hinting at it or threatening it.   # the universe is cold and indifferent to human action.  the person who you are yelling at does not see themselves as  the bad guy .  some people believe morality is subjective, others believe it is universal within humans .  this is a divide in sociology.  i myself am on the side that believes that cultural relativism the idea that morality defined within a culture is good within that culture is wrong, and that there are universal morals.  for example, i believe a universal moral that some cultures push against is that violence against women is bad i feel the same way for violence against men, but that is a less common issue .  as a result, i will call people out for committing violence against women or, depending on the circumstance, hinting at it or threatening it.  if the subject that i am calling out for inciting violence against women treats me poorly, i think i not only have the right to complain, i should complain.  this is because they are treating me poorly because they have broken what i and many others believe to be a universal moral, and by complaining, especially in front of them, they are shown that what they are doing is not in line with the universal morality.  of course, if you believe in cultural relativism, you will disagree.  but i personally find that deplorable.
there is a big thing among certain believe groups that it is their job to  educate  and tell of those with  incorrect  views in public.  people on the far left, the very religious, atheists, and hardcore supporters of a paticular product brand come to mind.  this can, understandably, piss many people off.  this is especially true if the group or individual was minding their own business and an outsider barges in to tell them off.  normally considered a very rude thing to do.  now the people that do this do it because they think they are doing good for the world, and i can understand that.  what is  moral  is a very subjective thing though; it is a human creation in the minds of the people.  the universe is cold and indifferent to human action.  the person who you are yelling at does not see themselves as  the bad guy .  given this, the people that engage in such behavior should stop acting victimized when their target yells at them, tells them to fuck off, or threatens them instead of listening.  i have no sympathy for someone who barges into another is personal space and starts making trouble for them.  in my mind, they are reaping what they sowed.  cmv  #  the person who you are yelling at does not see themselves as  the bad guy .   #  usually you  call people out  for the benefit of others.   # why are you lumping in atheists with hard core supporters of brands, religions, and hard core leftists ? why not include people on the far right who are just as guilty of this ? it makes me think that you equate people disagreeing with you as poor treatment.  this is especially true if the group or individual was minding their own business and an outsider barges in to tell them off.  normally considered a very rude thing to do.  do you have any examples of this happening ? are atheists barging into churches and yelling at the preacher ? usually there are two sides to the story where both parties are sharing unwanted opinions.  usually you  call people out  for the benefit of others.  public calling out of a commentator wo not change the mind of the commentator, but can affect the people who heard the original message.  does this actually happen a lot ? do you have any real examples ? it sounds like you are heavily exaggerating.   #  it does not give you the right to start apparently screaming in their face or threatening them, which is illegal.   #  are they supposed to pull you aside and explain why your behavior is wrong ? i do not think anyone is doing this as a favor or education.  i think if someone calls you out on behavior in public, they are doing it to publicly shame you.  if they are wrong, they are inviting themselves up for public shaming themselves.  it does not give you the right to start apparently screaming in their face or threatening them, which is illegal.  calmly explain why they are wrong.   #  what is the line between these two things ?  # that is pretty circular it is an  attack  because you called it so ? obviously context counts here.  if i walk up to a priest shaking hands as people leave his church and call him a fuckwit child molester, yeah, that is an attack.  if i am standing on the sidewalk trying to get signatures on a petition to save a local planned parenthood or something which might require changing some minds , it is hard to call that an attack even though i am offending and angering a lot of people i am approaching on the street.  what is the line between these two things ? you seem to be saying that both people are dicks who deserve to be treated as such.  if you actually do find the second activity objectionable, i would point out that those kinds of things are important to any democracy, frustrating as they are to the average joe trying to get home from work.   #  seems more like calling others out and stalking em.   #  freedom of expression should not justify discrimination.  it would justify disagreement though, or avoidance, to avoid unwanted conflict.  or calling em out as hypocrites if their arguments are as bad as the people is arguments they try to  correct .  or calling em out as uncaring if there is no benefit to them outside of the gratification of feeling right and negative benefit to the people they want to  correct , be it the effort to think through other people is sudden claims.  on a side note, i am curious why you chose  atheists , as well as  very religious , not  atheists  and  religious  or  very religious  and  very atheist  whatever either means.  i do not think degree of either would  have to  lead to people being more vocal about their believes.  now the example you give points towards more than calling others out.  seems more like calling others out and stalking em.  you can call somebody out, get a reply along the lines of  we agree to disagree on this matter, i do not wish to discuss the issue further, i am not obligated to discuss with you , and both parties walk away.  as long as 0 party insists on this and it is respected; if it is not we are bordering on stalking , there is hardly a problem.  but if that triggered the other person is desire to express how right he is about his beliefs, both parties are equally interested in the conversation, so common rules of keeping it civil should apply.  if you join in on somebody is informal invitation to discuss, you carry the same responsibility to keep it civil.  or you both can be disagreeable to each other, if you both just argue to feel passionate and righteous.  but this involves assumptions so really more of a slippery slope.   #  as a result, i will call people out for committing violence against women or, depending on the circumstance, hinting at it or threatening it.   # the universe is cold and indifferent to human action.  the person who you are yelling at does not see themselves as  the bad guy .  some people believe morality is subjective, others believe it is universal within humans .  this is a divide in sociology.  i myself am on the side that believes that cultural relativism the idea that morality defined within a culture is good within that culture is wrong, and that there are universal morals.  for example, i believe a universal moral that some cultures push against is that violence against women is bad i feel the same way for violence against men, but that is a less common issue .  as a result, i will call people out for committing violence against women or, depending on the circumstance, hinting at it or threatening it.  if the subject that i am calling out for inciting violence against women treats me poorly, i think i not only have the right to complain, i should complain.  this is because they are treating me poorly because they have broken what i and many others believe to be a universal moral, and by complaining, especially in front of them, they are shown that what they are doing is not in line with the universal morality.  of course, if you believe in cultural relativism, you will disagree.  but i personally find that deplorable.
as a big fan of rap music as well as knowing the catalogs of both artists very well, i have came to the conclusion that the notorious b. i. g.  is a better rapper than 0pac.  i have several criteria for judging them and in all but one of them, biggie surfaces tupac.  0.  lyricism: biggie was able to use his amazing flow to tell intricate stories of urban life and crime warning, niggas bleed , although pac did make some clever songs, none of the had the poetic wordplay of biggie.  0.  flow and voice: biggie had a instantly recognizable voice and incredibly fast rhyming skills, while 0pac had an above average but not great flow, and a typical voice.  0.  consistency: it is true that biggie only had two albums while 0pac had 0 , a large number of pac is albums just were not that good, especially posthumously released albums that he himself wished to be released after his death, while biggie only gave his blessings to two studio albums which both had little to no filler.  0.  influence: this is where i would say 0pac beats out biggie as he essentially pioneered the  thug life  lifestyle that is a sort of  street code  used by gangs.   #  flow and voice: biggie had a instantly recognizable voice and incredibly fast rhyming skills, while 0pac had an above average but not great flow, and a typical voice.   #  in my personal opinion, i would easily pick pac is voice over biggie is.   # pac definitely had stronger lyricism.  maybe not flow wise though he had pretty solid flow on a majority of songs or in wordplay, but definitely more powerful lyrics.  ballad of dead soulja, ghetto gospel, changes, starin through my rearview, they do not give a fuck about us, thugz mansion, wonda why they call u bitch, shorty wanna be a thug, etc.  all have pretty strong sad messages.  biggie is music is mostly party songs.  pac has those, but his music goes way beyond that.  i can listen to a tupac song when i am sad, happy, mad, etc.  as someone else said, his music has a much wider range, i can find a catalog of tupac songs fitting to just about any mood i am in.  in my personal opinion, i would easily pick pac is voice over biggie is.  i actually think about this a lot when i listen to more modern rappers nobody has the power and voice pac had.  he always had emotion in his voice on every song and you could really tell he put the effort into it.  just look at his song changed man.  ti, who is otherwise a pretty decent rapper, sounds like an absolute bitch compared to pac on that track.  his voice has so much power.  i will be completely honest, sometimes i will hear a song and think  is that biggie ?   and have to listen for a couple seconds to make sure because i could not tell.  pac on the other hand, i have never for a second mistaken for someone else because there is really nobody with a comparable voice to his.  tupac also had solid as hell flow.  he never had a song that he just straight up sounded bad in.  maybe not the best flow in the world, but consistently good.  also, rapping fast has never had an appeal to me personally.  nothing about that makes me like a rapper more or less it is just a pointless talent in my opinion.  i believe he had 0 total studio albums and 0 or 0 released before his death.  and have you forgotten all eyez on me ? easily one of the greatest rap albums of all time, something like 0 songs on it and not a single bad one.  it was not quality over quantity, it was quality and quantity.  not to mention, better dayz is one of my favorite albums of his as well, and r u still down ? remember me has some of my favorite songs of his fake ass bitches, open fire .  i will admit it, some of his albums are pretty weak.  i would not say that is necessarily his fault though, just the producers i believe eminem produced a few of them sort of butchered the songs by modernizing his music.  you can tell a lot of his posthumous albums just are not pac music wise.  even though i like better dayz and a lot of songs on there, i know that most of those beats would have been way different if he was still alive when the album was released.  for example never b peace off of better dayz had a way different feel in the og version.  so did out on bail from loyal to the game.  not saying it is necessarily worse maybe  modernizing  his music helped sales of his posthumous albums, but the fact is he made very solid music when he was alive and the beats were completely out of his control on the posthumous albums.  all eyez on me is hands down one of the best rap albums ever in terms of how much there was and how little of it was bad.   #  biggie simply does not have songs like brenda is got a baby URL or keep your head up URL as far as consistency.  biggie is two albums are unassailable classics.   #  i strongly disagree that biggie had better lyrics than tupac.  biggie was a great lyricist, but i think tupac had a much wider range.  his songs touch on a wider range of topics, and a lot of his songs were socially progressive.  biggie simply does not have songs like brenda is got a baby URL or keep your head up URL as far as consistency.  biggie is two albums are unassailable classics.  but just because tupac put out more stuff does not mean his best stuff does not stand up to ready to die or life after death.  if nas had died after he put out illmatic, we would likely view him the same way we do biggie.  where does nas stand now ? biggie having two great albums and nothing else means he did not really get a chance to be as thorough as pac.   #  somebody gotta die  is not really progressive either.   #  both of those songs are great.  but is there really a revolutionary message there, for either song ? things done changed  is basically a survey of biggie is environment.  he knows it is fucked up, but he is not advocating change or renouncing his place in that society.  somebody gotta die  is not really progressive either.  i mean, what is the message ?  you should do a better job of making sure your murder victims are not holding children  ?  #  this is tupac 0.  the bla did not decommission in 0, they ceased military activities.   #  wesley, as much as i like your admiration of pac, you seem to post a lot of misinformation or half learned  truths .  this is tupac 0.  the bla did not decommission in 0, they ceased military activities.  they did not cease to exist.  the same way the provisional ira ceased military activities in 0 but still existed until late 0.  the bla still had chapters inside universities well into the late 0s, and although did not shoot at police officers or attack government workers, they still had been accused of other acts of violence from time to time.  a source is in the article to the very post you replied to.  it states:  but pac began to become restless so antron called me in a panic and asked if we could take him on tour with us because he had a feeling that he was losing him.  he just got offered a position with the black liberation army at this college in atlanta.  even leila steinberg has mentioned it multiple times in many of the documentaries i am sure you have already watched.   #  next you will be telling snoop URL how doggystyle was really produced.   #  is down voting really necessary wesley ? this thread is 0 days old, which means you searched it out.  we know its you downvoting as we are the only two reading this, and in case you did not know, down voting is not to be used when you do not like someone.  look up reddiquette and learn to use the site.  sure.  you flatly denying tupac use to be a muslim in his early years because  you  never read it in your books.  even when given audio of a 0 year old pac saying  thanks be to allah  at the end of every sentence you still could not grasp that it was true.  even when former redditor and tupacs friend easy mo be URL put you in your place, not only hilariously did you tell him he is wrong, you did not even know who he was URL that made you a bit of a joke on /r/hiphipheads.  wesley, the tupac fan that does not seem to know that much about tupac, and will even argue with tupacs personally friends and say the are wrong if there is a fact that he is not personally aware of.  the sheer arrogance.  do you not see how much of a clown that one thread alone makes you look ? bragging about how you are a tupac fan for x amount of years so clearly you know better than  easy mo be .  next you will be telling snoop URL how doggystyle was really produced.  also, your spamming of til of things you did not clearly learn that day is also quite legendary.  thankfully that has stopped over the last few months.
people in my neighborhood just got notified that a house recently sold to a corporation and they have the intention of turning it into a  group home .  we went to a meeting last night to get some details on exactly what that means, and i am worried that it is going to be very bad for the neighborhood.  my concerns are: 0.  the company may potentially be moving  dangerous  people into the house.  i live in a very quiet residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.  even if the residents are well behaved, there is going to be traffic of their  friends  who i am assuming will be similar in nature.  the company wo not say who may be living there.  it could be just infirm elderly people, but it could also be  sexual predators  for all i know.  0.  my house will lose value when people find out that it is near a group home.  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.  0.  the business buying the house is a tax free organization.  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  0.  even if this particular place only houses people who are complete angels, this will set a precedent and open up the neighborhood for other homes, and there is no guarantee that the other homes will be run as well.  so, that is it.  i would love to hear from someone with experience with group homes moving nearby to tell me that all of my concerns are invalid.  and, in truth my  real  view is that i  do not know  if my uninformed opinions are correct or not, so if you happen to be able to  confirm  my thoughts i would consider that to be changing my view as well.   #  the company may potentially be moving  dangerous  people into the house.   #  i live in a very quite residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.   # i live in a very quite residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.  even if the residents are well behaved, there is going to be traffic of their  friends  who i am assuming will be similar in nature.  the company wo not say who may be living there.  it could be just infirm elderly people, but it could also be  sexual predators  for all i know.  if the group home is for recovering addicts, you can assume some sort of supervision.  what do you fear from an addict under supervision ? these are not dealers or drug lords.  i am not quite sure the  friends  would hang around the neighborhood and cause trouble secondly, i have never heard of a group home for sexual predators.  you are making things up now.  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.  are you required to disclose the presence of the group home ? there is no reason they need to know.  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  what type of unpaid resources will they be consuming ? property taxes pay for things like schools and libraries.  this group home is providing a public service and helping to reduce crime and drug usage.  why are you worried about precedent ? your neighborhood is already allowing these types of home so no precedent is necessary.  group homes do not need to compete like stores or restaurants.   #  if they had, the issue might never have gone this far.   # they may be under supervision, but they are not being confined.  i am concerned that people with a criminal past will continue to be criminals.  i do not think that it is unreasonable to assume that  recovering  addicts might still pose a threat to break into my house and rob me.  you are making things up now i am not making anything up, i just do not know.  the company wo not tell us so i do not know  who  will be put in there.  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ? there is no reason they need to know.  i suppose that is the best case scenario.  every other family pays taxes that fund the schools, and the maintenance of the roads, and every other service that the local government supplies.  even if they do not use the resource, they are taking one house off of the tax roles and increasing the burden for everyone else.  it wo not be a home for people from my community, it will be placing people here from other areas.  our community will be paying for the  public service  for other communities.  it is potentially taking criminals and drug addicts and just relocating them to my community.  i am worried because this is the first one.  it seems like this one was only issued a permit due to the fact that our local commissioners are borderline incompetent and did not question why a corporation was buying a residential house.  if they had, the issue might never have gone this far.  once it is in place, there will be nothing at all to prevent others.   #  either your community benefits from that group home or a group home in another community.   # how do you make the jump from recovering addict to burglary ? usually the addicts in group homes are required to have jobs, so they wo not be robbing you for money.  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ? group homes have to be effective.  putting pedophiles in a group home serves no purpose, but if you are disabled or an addict it lowers your living costs and provides a support system.  group homes are not intended for every type of criminal.  what do you think happens to the drug addicts from your community ? either your community benefits from that group home or a group home in another community.  either way, these group homes provide a benefit that outweigh any loss of tax revenue.  they can always change the rules and grandfather the existing home in.  there is also nothing stopping your local government from kicking out the group home if they could prevent it in the first place .   #  i do not see how it can be a positive.   #  here is my concern.  having this facility in my neighborhood can either be a positive, a negative, or neutral.  i do not see how it can be a positive.  the best case is that it is neutral, and i am worried that it will be a negative.  i do not know what the actual impact of having a house full of recovering drug addicts in my neighborhood will be.  can you make an argument that it would be something positive ? and not just something positive to  society , but something positive for the people living directly around it.   #  even then they were not often allowed in the community.   #  i am your guy for this one.  i worked at a group home for 0 years and now work in real estate.  odds are the group home is for adults with special needs and developmental disabilities.  that is the majority of group home residents.  assuming most group homes are like the one i worked at these wo not be violent at least not chronically people.  if they are they would be placed in a mental health facility.  there is the possibility some may be sex offenders.  because of the huge liability my state paid for a one to one staff for residents with a history of that.  in other words we had full time 0/0 staff whose sole job was to monitor these people.  even then they were not often allowed in the community.  for property value concerns, i do not think it would effect you much.  buyers are not allowed to ask about the specific kind of people who make up a neighborhood and agents ca not answer those questions.  people with mental disorders are a protected class and we ca not steer people toward or away from a neighborhood for that reason.  on top of that agents do not have information concerning these homes, just as your information is limited.  it is a right to privacy issue.  right now i think you do not have anything to worry about.  once they move in i am betting you wo not notice a thing has changed in your neighborhood.
people in my neighborhood just got notified that a house recently sold to a corporation and they have the intention of turning it into a  group home .  we went to a meeting last night to get some details on exactly what that means, and i am worried that it is going to be very bad for the neighborhood.  my concerns are: 0.  the company may potentially be moving  dangerous  people into the house.  i live in a very quiet residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.  even if the residents are well behaved, there is going to be traffic of their  friends  who i am assuming will be similar in nature.  the company wo not say who may be living there.  it could be just infirm elderly people, but it could also be  sexual predators  for all i know.  0.  my house will lose value when people find out that it is near a group home.  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.  0.  the business buying the house is a tax free organization.  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  0.  even if this particular place only houses people who are complete angels, this will set a precedent and open up the neighborhood for other homes, and there is no guarantee that the other homes will be run as well.  so, that is it.  i would love to hear from someone with experience with group homes moving nearby to tell me that all of my concerns are invalid.  and, in truth my  real  view is that i  do not know  if my uninformed opinions are correct or not, so if you happen to be able to  confirm  my thoughts i would consider that to be changing my view as well.   #  my house will lose value when people find out that it is near a group home.   #  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.   # i live in a very quite residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.  even if the residents are well behaved, there is going to be traffic of their  friends  who i am assuming will be similar in nature.  the company wo not say who may be living there.  it could be just infirm elderly people, but it could also be  sexual predators  for all i know.  if the group home is for recovering addicts, you can assume some sort of supervision.  what do you fear from an addict under supervision ? these are not dealers or drug lords.  i am not quite sure the  friends  would hang around the neighborhood and cause trouble secondly, i have never heard of a group home for sexual predators.  you are making things up now.  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.  are you required to disclose the presence of the group home ? there is no reason they need to know.  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  what type of unpaid resources will they be consuming ? property taxes pay for things like schools and libraries.  this group home is providing a public service and helping to reduce crime and drug usage.  why are you worried about precedent ? your neighborhood is already allowing these types of home so no precedent is necessary.  group homes do not need to compete like stores or restaurants.   #  you are making things up now i am not making anything up, i just do not know.   # they may be under supervision, but they are not being confined.  i am concerned that people with a criminal past will continue to be criminals.  i do not think that it is unreasonable to assume that  recovering  addicts might still pose a threat to break into my house and rob me.  you are making things up now i am not making anything up, i just do not know.  the company wo not tell us so i do not know  who  will be put in there.  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ? there is no reason they need to know.  i suppose that is the best case scenario.  every other family pays taxes that fund the schools, and the maintenance of the roads, and every other service that the local government supplies.  even if they do not use the resource, they are taking one house off of the tax roles and increasing the burden for everyone else.  it wo not be a home for people from my community, it will be placing people here from other areas.  our community will be paying for the  public service  for other communities.  it is potentially taking criminals and drug addicts and just relocating them to my community.  i am worried because this is the first one.  it seems like this one was only issued a permit due to the fact that our local commissioners are borderline incompetent and did not question why a corporation was buying a residential house.  if they had, the issue might never have gone this far.  once it is in place, there will be nothing at all to prevent others.   #  either your community benefits from that group home or a group home in another community.   # how do you make the jump from recovering addict to burglary ? usually the addicts in group homes are required to have jobs, so they wo not be robbing you for money.  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ? group homes have to be effective.  putting pedophiles in a group home serves no purpose, but if you are disabled or an addict it lowers your living costs and provides a support system.  group homes are not intended for every type of criminal.  what do you think happens to the drug addicts from your community ? either your community benefits from that group home or a group home in another community.  either way, these group homes provide a benefit that outweigh any loss of tax revenue.  they can always change the rules and grandfather the existing home in.  there is also nothing stopping your local government from kicking out the group home if they could prevent it in the first place .   #  and not just something positive to  society , but something positive for the people living directly around it.   #  here is my concern.  having this facility in my neighborhood can either be a positive, a negative, or neutral.  i do not see how it can be a positive.  the best case is that it is neutral, and i am worried that it will be a negative.  i do not know what the actual impact of having a house full of recovering drug addicts in my neighborhood will be.  can you make an argument that it would be something positive ? and not just something positive to  society , but something positive for the people living directly around it.   #  people with mental disorders are a protected class and we ca not steer people toward or away from a neighborhood for that reason.   #  i am your guy for this one.  i worked at a group home for 0 years and now work in real estate.  odds are the group home is for adults with special needs and developmental disabilities.  that is the majority of group home residents.  assuming most group homes are like the one i worked at these wo not be violent at least not chronically people.  if they are they would be placed in a mental health facility.  there is the possibility some may be sex offenders.  because of the huge liability my state paid for a one to one staff for residents with a history of that.  in other words we had full time 0/0 staff whose sole job was to monitor these people.  even then they were not often allowed in the community.  for property value concerns, i do not think it would effect you much.  buyers are not allowed to ask about the specific kind of people who make up a neighborhood and agents ca not answer those questions.  people with mental disorders are a protected class and we ca not steer people toward or away from a neighborhood for that reason.  on top of that agents do not have information concerning these homes, just as your information is limited.  it is a right to privacy issue.  right now i think you do not have anything to worry about.  once they move in i am betting you wo not notice a thing has changed in your neighborhood.
people in my neighborhood just got notified that a house recently sold to a corporation and they have the intention of turning it into a  group home .  we went to a meeting last night to get some details on exactly what that means, and i am worried that it is going to be very bad for the neighborhood.  my concerns are: 0.  the company may potentially be moving  dangerous  people into the house.  i live in a very quiet residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.  even if the residents are well behaved, there is going to be traffic of their  friends  who i am assuming will be similar in nature.  the company wo not say who may be living there.  it could be just infirm elderly people, but it could also be  sexual predators  for all i know.  0.  my house will lose value when people find out that it is near a group home.  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.  0.  the business buying the house is a tax free organization.  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  0.  even if this particular place only houses people who are complete angels, this will set a precedent and open up the neighborhood for other homes, and there is no guarantee that the other homes will be run as well.  so, that is it.  i would love to hear from someone with experience with group homes moving nearby to tell me that all of my concerns are invalid.  and, in truth my  real  view is that i  do not know  if my uninformed opinions are correct or not, so if you happen to be able to  confirm  my thoughts i would consider that to be changing my view as well.   #  the business buying the house is a tax free organization.   #  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.   # i live in a very quite residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.  even if the residents are well behaved, there is going to be traffic of their  friends  who i am assuming will be similar in nature.  the company wo not say who may be living there.  it could be just infirm elderly people, but it could also be  sexual predators  for all i know.  if the group home is for recovering addicts, you can assume some sort of supervision.  what do you fear from an addict under supervision ? these are not dealers or drug lords.  i am not quite sure the  friends  would hang around the neighborhood and cause trouble secondly, i have never heard of a group home for sexual predators.  you are making things up now.  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.  are you required to disclose the presence of the group home ? there is no reason they need to know.  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  what type of unpaid resources will they be consuming ? property taxes pay for things like schools and libraries.  this group home is providing a public service and helping to reduce crime and drug usage.  why are you worried about precedent ? your neighborhood is already allowing these types of home so no precedent is necessary.  group homes do not need to compete like stores or restaurants.   #  i am concerned that people with a criminal past will continue to be criminals.   # they may be under supervision, but they are not being confined.  i am concerned that people with a criminal past will continue to be criminals.  i do not think that it is unreasonable to assume that  recovering  addicts might still pose a threat to break into my house and rob me.  you are making things up now i am not making anything up, i just do not know.  the company wo not tell us so i do not know  who  will be put in there.  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ? there is no reason they need to know.  i suppose that is the best case scenario.  every other family pays taxes that fund the schools, and the maintenance of the roads, and every other service that the local government supplies.  even if they do not use the resource, they are taking one house off of the tax roles and increasing the burden for everyone else.  it wo not be a home for people from my community, it will be placing people here from other areas.  our community will be paying for the  public service  for other communities.  it is potentially taking criminals and drug addicts and just relocating them to my community.  i am worried because this is the first one.  it seems like this one was only issued a permit due to the fact that our local commissioners are borderline incompetent and did not question why a corporation was buying a residential house.  if they had, the issue might never have gone this far.  once it is in place, there will be nothing at all to prevent others.   #  how do you make the jump from recovering addict to burglary ?  # how do you make the jump from recovering addict to burglary ? usually the addicts in group homes are required to have jobs, so they wo not be robbing you for money.  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ? group homes have to be effective.  putting pedophiles in a group home serves no purpose, but if you are disabled or an addict it lowers your living costs and provides a support system.  group homes are not intended for every type of criminal.  what do you think happens to the drug addicts from your community ? either your community benefits from that group home or a group home in another community.  either way, these group homes provide a benefit that outweigh any loss of tax revenue.  they can always change the rules and grandfather the existing home in.  there is also nothing stopping your local government from kicking out the group home if they could prevent it in the first place .   #  the best case is that it is neutral, and i am worried that it will be a negative.   #  here is my concern.  having this facility in my neighborhood can either be a positive, a negative, or neutral.  i do not see how it can be a positive.  the best case is that it is neutral, and i am worried that it will be a negative.  i do not know what the actual impact of having a house full of recovering drug addicts in my neighborhood will be.  can you make an argument that it would be something positive ? and not just something positive to  society , but something positive for the people living directly around it.   #  i worked at a group home for 0 years and now work in real estate.   #  i am your guy for this one.  i worked at a group home for 0 years and now work in real estate.  odds are the group home is for adults with special needs and developmental disabilities.  that is the majority of group home residents.  assuming most group homes are like the one i worked at these wo not be violent at least not chronically people.  if they are they would be placed in a mental health facility.  there is the possibility some may be sex offenders.  because of the huge liability my state paid for a one to one staff for residents with a history of that.  in other words we had full time 0/0 staff whose sole job was to monitor these people.  even then they were not often allowed in the community.  for property value concerns, i do not think it would effect you much.  buyers are not allowed to ask about the specific kind of people who make up a neighborhood and agents ca not answer those questions.  people with mental disorders are a protected class and we ca not steer people toward or away from a neighborhood for that reason.  on top of that agents do not have information concerning these homes, just as your information is limited.  it is a right to privacy issue.  right now i think you do not have anything to worry about.  once they move in i am betting you wo not notice a thing has changed in your neighborhood.
people in my neighborhood just got notified that a house recently sold to a corporation and they have the intention of turning it into a  group home .  we went to a meeting last night to get some details on exactly what that means, and i am worried that it is going to be very bad for the neighborhood.  my concerns are: 0.  the company may potentially be moving  dangerous  people into the house.  i live in a very quiet residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.  even if the residents are well behaved, there is going to be traffic of their  friends  who i am assuming will be similar in nature.  the company wo not say who may be living there.  it could be just infirm elderly people, but it could also be  sexual predators  for all i know.  0.  my house will lose value when people find out that it is near a group home.  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.  0.  the business buying the house is a tax free organization.  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  0.  even if this particular place only houses people who are complete angels, this will set a precedent and open up the neighborhood for other homes, and there is no guarantee that the other homes will be run as well.  so, that is it.  i would love to hear from someone with experience with group homes moving nearby to tell me that all of my concerns are invalid.  and, in truth my  real  view is that i  do not know  if my uninformed opinions are correct or not, so if you happen to be able to  confirm  my thoughts i would consider that to be changing my view as well.   #  the business buying the house is a tax free organization.   #  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.   # i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  while this may be true, they are also ostensibly helping people return to society and therefore the economy.  they should be a net positive in the tax revenue they allow their inhabitants to generate after being released/paroled.  why does there need to be precedent ? clearly there does not, or this house would not be coming in in the first place.   #  if the group home is for recovering addicts, you can assume some sort of supervision.   # i live in a very quite residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.  even if the residents are well behaved, there is going to be traffic of their  friends  who i am assuming will be similar in nature.  the company wo not say who may be living there.  it could be just infirm elderly people, but it could also be  sexual predators  for all i know.  if the group home is for recovering addicts, you can assume some sort of supervision.  what do you fear from an addict under supervision ? these are not dealers or drug lords.  i am not quite sure the  friends  would hang around the neighborhood and cause trouble secondly, i have never heard of a group home for sexual predators.  you are making things up now.  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.  are you required to disclose the presence of the group home ? there is no reason they need to know.  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  what type of unpaid resources will they be consuming ? property taxes pay for things like schools and libraries.  this group home is providing a public service and helping to reduce crime and drug usage.  why are you worried about precedent ? your neighborhood is already allowing these types of home so no precedent is necessary.  group homes do not need to compete like stores or restaurants.   #  you are making things up now i am not making anything up, i just do not know.   # they may be under supervision, but they are not being confined.  i am concerned that people with a criminal past will continue to be criminals.  i do not think that it is unreasonable to assume that  recovering  addicts might still pose a threat to break into my house and rob me.  you are making things up now i am not making anything up, i just do not know.  the company wo not tell us so i do not know  who  will be put in there.  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ? there is no reason they need to know.  i suppose that is the best case scenario.  every other family pays taxes that fund the schools, and the maintenance of the roads, and every other service that the local government supplies.  even if they do not use the resource, they are taking one house off of the tax roles and increasing the burden for everyone else.  it wo not be a home for people from my community, it will be placing people here from other areas.  our community will be paying for the  public service  for other communities.  it is potentially taking criminals and drug addicts and just relocating them to my community.  i am worried because this is the first one.  it seems like this one was only issued a permit due to the fact that our local commissioners are borderline incompetent and did not question why a corporation was buying a residential house.  if they had, the issue might never have gone this far.  once it is in place, there will be nothing at all to prevent others.   #  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ?  # how do you make the jump from recovering addict to burglary ? usually the addicts in group homes are required to have jobs, so they wo not be robbing you for money.  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ? group homes have to be effective.  putting pedophiles in a group home serves no purpose, but if you are disabled or an addict it lowers your living costs and provides a support system.  group homes are not intended for every type of criminal.  what do you think happens to the drug addicts from your community ? either your community benefits from that group home or a group home in another community.  either way, these group homes provide a benefit that outweigh any loss of tax revenue.  they can always change the rules and grandfather the existing home in.  there is also nothing stopping your local government from kicking out the group home if they could prevent it in the first place .   #  i do not know what the actual impact of having a house full of recovering drug addicts in my neighborhood will be.   #  here is my concern.  having this facility in my neighborhood can either be a positive, a negative, or neutral.  i do not see how it can be a positive.  the best case is that it is neutral, and i am worried that it will be a negative.  i do not know what the actual impact of having a house full of recovering drug addicts in my neighborhood will be.  can you make an argument that it would be something positive ? and not just something positive to  society , but something positive for the people living directly around it.
people in my neighborhood just got notified that a house recently sold to a corporation and they have the intention of turning it into a  group home .  we went to a meeting last night to get some details on exactly what that means, and i am worried that it is going to be very bad for the neighborhood.  my concerns are: 0.  the company may potentially be moving  dangerous  people into the house.  i live in a very quiet residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.  even if the residents are well behaved, there is going to be traffic of their  friends  who i am assuming will be similar in nature.  the company wo not say who may be living there.  it could be just infirm elderly people, but it could also be  sexual predators  for all i know.  0.  my house will lose value when people find out that it is near a group home.  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.  0.  the business buying the house is a tax free organization.  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  0.  even if this particular place only houses people who are complete angels, this will set a precedent and open up the neighborhood for other homes, and there is no guarantee that the other homes will be run as well.  so, that is it.  i would love to hear from someone with experience with group homes moving nearby to tell me that all of my concerns are invalid.  and, in truth my  real  view is that i  do not know  if my uninformed opinions are correct or not, so if you happen to be able to  confirm  my thoughts i would consider that to be changing my view as well.   #  even if this particular place only houses people who are complete angels, this will set a precedent and open up the neighborhood for other homes, and there is no guarantee that the other homes will be run as well.   #  why does there need to be precedent ?  # i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  while this may be true, they are also ostensibly helping people return to society and therefore the economy.  they should be a net positive in the tax revenue they allow their inhabitants to generate after being released/paroled.  why does there need to be precedent ? clearly there does not, or this house would not be coming in in the first place.   #  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.   # i live in a very quite residential neighborhood, and the thought of drug addicts being housed near me is disturbing.  even if the residents are well behaved, there is going to be traffic of their  friends  who i am assuming will be similar in nature.  the company wo not say who may be living there.  it could be just infirm elderly people, but it could also be  sexual predators  for all i know.  if the group home is for recovering addicts, you can assume some sort of supervision.  what do you fear from an addict under supervision ? these are not dealers or drug lords.  i am not quite sure the  friends  would hang around the neighborhood and cause trouble secondly, i have never heard of a group home for sexual predators.  you are making things up now.  even if it is not logical, i am assuming that when someone is looking to buy my house they will be put off by the presence of group home nearby.  are you required to disclose the presence of the group home ? there is no reason they need to know.  i do not exactly know what that means, but i assume that they wo not be paying property taxes.  that means that they will be consuming resources but not paying for them, and my share of the community taxes will increase.  what type of unpaid resources will they be consuming ? property taxes pay for things like schools and libraries.  this group home is providing a public service and helping to reduce crime and drug usage.  why are you worried about precedent ? your neighborhood is already allowing these types of home so no precedent is necessary.  group homes do not need to compete like stores or restaurants.   #  i am concerned that people with a criminal past will continue to be criminals.   # they may be under supervision, but they are not being confined.  i am concerned that people with a criminal past will continue to be criminals.  i do not think that it is unreasonable to assume that  recovering  addicts might still pose a threat to break into my house and rob me.  you are making things up now i am not making anything up, i just do not know.  the company wo not tell us so i do not know  who  will be put in there.  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ? there is no reason they need to know.  i suppose that is the best case scenario.  every other family pays taxes that fund the schools, and the maintenance of the roads, and every other service that the local government supplies.  even if they do not use the resource, they are taking one house off of the tax roles and increasing the burden for everyone else.  it wo not be a home for people from my community, it will be placing people here from other areas.  our community will be paying for the  public service  for other communities.  it is potentially taking criminals and drug addicts and just relocating them to my community.  i am worried because this is the first one.  it seems like this one was only issued a permit due to the fact that our local commissioners are borderline incompetent and did not question why a corporation was buying a residential house.  if they had, the issue might never have gone this far.  once it is in place, there will be nothing at all to prevent others.   #  they can always change the rules and grandfather the existing home in.   # how do you make the jump from recovering addict to burglary ? usually the addicts in group homes are required to have jobs, so they wo not be robbing you for money.  what difference is it to the company who gets placed there ? group homes have to be effective.  putting pedophiles in a group home serves no purpose, but if you are disabled or an addict it lowers your living costs and provides a support system.  group homes are not intended for every type of criminal.  what do you think happens to the drug addicts from your community ? either your community benefits from that group home or a group home in another community.  either way, these group homes provide a benefit that outweigh any loss of tax revenue.  they can always change the rules and grandfather the existing home in.  there is also nothing stopping your local government from kicking out the group home if they could prevent it in the first place .   #  i do not know what the actual impact of having a house full of recovering drug addicts in my neighborhood will be.   #  here is my concern.  having this facility in my neighborhood can either be a positive, a negative, or neutral.  i do not see how it can be a positive.  the best case is that it is neutral, and i am worried that it will be a negative.  i do not know what the actual impact of having a house full of recovering drug addicts in my neighborhood will be.  can you make an argument that it would be something positive ? and not just something positive to  society , but something positive for the people living directly around it.
having watched/read numerous debates about politics and morality over the years, i have come to the conclusion that the concept of human rights, civil rights or rights are generally used as a means of shutting down argument.  this is not to say i disapprove of rights as a concept within law, but rather than illustrating a person is point of view it is used as a trump card to stifle the opposition.  this is true whether the concept is used correctly, as in when a us citizen says  i have the right to freedom of speech , or incorrectly as in when a us citizen says  you have no right to say that  when that person does have a legal right to do so.  an assertion of a right in a debate begs the question, and is often used as rhetorical gloss so the speaker does not have to justify their point of view.  as a case in point, on a british panel show called question time a woman said that the public  had the right to know  whether tony blair promised george bush to join the coalition against iraq.  in doing so she avoided having to explain why the public deserved to know such things, and what the parameters of that alleged right were.  despite the generally move towards secularism there appears to be a sense that rights are, if not god given, certainly outside the realm of worldly debate.  this is harmful to democracy and debate, allowing us to forget that laws are imposed by man, and thus subject to change.  cmv.   #  as a case in point, on a british panel show called question time a woman said that the public  had the right to know  whether tony blair promised george bush to join the coalition against iraq.   #  in doing so she avoided having to explain why the public deserved to know such things, and what the parameters of that alleged right were.   # in doing so she avoided having to explain why the public deserved to know such things, and what the parameters of that alleged right were.  do you really think an hour or half an hour long tv show has the time get back into some lockeian theory of the social contract ? the issues surrounding the invasion of iraq are large and complex enough that there just is not the time also start debating the very foundations of republican government in such a format.  all debates are framed by their participants perspectives and assumptions.  in that case, do not you think it is fair in that debate to assume that a head of a democratic republican government is responsible to answer for major national decisions to the populace considering that: 0 i would say 0 of the viewers would agree with such an assumption 0 it is in the foundational documents of the country.   #  th question, which is so often never addressed, is whether it is a  justified  limitation.   # you do not need an in depth analysis of lockean social contract theory, you just need to state a simple justification.  something as easy as  within a democracy we require knowledge of what our pm does and that extends to promises made to gw bush about wars.   i think the main thing is that it is incredibly easy to justify without using rights based language, which coincidentally is the case for most discussions where people use language like  i have a right to x  or  you do not have a right to y .  i tend to agree with op that it is used as a way to stifle opposition and quell meaningful discussions that we ought to having.  to further the problem we have so many different conceptions of rights and the role of government that nothing ever really gets discussed in the way that it should when people begin from a position of their personal belief of what rights are.  does the aca, for instance, violate personal liberty to such a degree that we should not implement it, or does the benefit outweigh that consideration ? saying that it does is only stating an opinion and does not remotely begin to answer the real question that actually needs to be answered because every law is a constraint on freedom, and thus a violation of a right.  th question, which is so often never addressed, is whether it is a  justified  limitation.  that is what is constantly shut down by using rights based language any meaningful dialogue.  what is missing from public discourse is the notion that you have to be able to justify your views and actually make coherent arguments affirming them.  that is what does not happen when one side invokes the  it is my right  claim.   #  no more justification is inherent in your statement, as you ascribe the necessity of knowledge to  wouldemocracy  rather then a  right.    # i do not understand, beyond simply being different words, what the difference between saying what you said and saying  we have a right.   is.  saying that someone has a right to something in this context is exactly the same as what you said.  no more justification is inherent in your statement, as you ascribe the necessity of knowledge to  wouldemocracy  rather then a  right.   but rights are a fundamental principle of democracy so how is what we said any different ? if i ask you  why ?   it leads us down the same rabbit whole of theories of social contract that is a waste of time.   #  if you are debtaing abortion i am sure the right for free speech is already a given.   #  i think any argument has basic axioms or premises true by default.   i have the right to free speech  why ?  because it says so in the constitution  why is the constiution irrefutable ?  because the founding fathers made it central to this nation  what make the founding fathers important ? and so on until any debate about anyhing will reach deep philosophical musings about why we are here and how do we know that.  we can stop at  the right to free speech  or further up or further doen, depends how relevant that right is to the topic at hand.  if you are debtaing abortion i am sure the right for free speech is already a given.  if you are debating censorship i would agree it is definitely not.   #  equality of minorities, like lgbts, ethnicities, women etc.   #  they are only harmful to debate if they are used as conversation halters URL or thought terminating clichés URL but not all uses are of this kind.  for example:   some debates are specifically about  why  certain rights are supposed to be human rights/civil rights etc.  e. g.  equality of minorities, like lgbts, ethnicities, women etc.  in some cases, it becomes necessary to point out how a specific right, like freedom of speech, applies.  e. g.  i have encountered a few people who feel that they ought to be able to use their freedom of speech to say something in public, but at the same time demand that no one should be allowed to publicly criticize them for what they said.  free speech works both ways: their critics have freedom of speech as well.
i have come around on my view of gay people.  they are not the irritating stereotypes paraded around in the media.  i quit using the word fag to describe somebody as irrationally sensitive, since  bitch  or  pussy  works just as well.  but i have not found a good replacement for gay, as in  mtv is gay  or  that honda leaf looks fucking gay  to describe an aesthetic.  it is not strictly an aesthetic problem either.  there is also the every day rule crazy soccer mom fascism.  shit like seat belt/helmet laws and public drinking/smoking bans are pretty fucking  gay .  somebody being charged as a sex offender for pissing on a bush is awful gay.  some times i have to say  i ca not go to that town because it is too fucking gay .  the mandatory 0 character rule around here is mighty gay as well.  i ca not say ugly or dumb, because it would not be the correct or intuitive description.  if there is a better word to match the description i am open to changing my view.   #  i ca not say ugly or dumb, because it would not be the correct or intuitive description.   #  i am curious here; why is  gay  the intuitive and correct description ?  # i am curious here; why is  gay  the intuitive and correct description ? i am a gay man who does not particularly like mtv, the honda leaf, public drinking/smoking bans, charging people ass sex offenders for pissing on a bush, etc.  none of these have  anything to do with  same sex romantic or sexual desire.  so how are they  gay  ? i understand, as a basic point, that the word  gay  is actually two different words with different meanings that happen to be written and pronounced the same, so i am not offended by this usage.  but i am  puzzled  by it, and your defense of it.   #  well, sure you can use  gay  to describe everything you do not like.   #  well, sure you can use  gay  to describe everything you do not like.  or you could practice exercising the vast english lexicon at your disposal and in the process end up sounding refined and intelligent.  for example, what is it you dislike about mtv ? trashy, shallow, repetitive, dull, and base come to mind, but perhaps the reasons you find it distasteful are different.  you might describe seat belt and helmet laws as  coddling  or  demeaning .  drinking and smoking bans, if you disagree with them, can be refereed to as  pushy  or perhaps  overbearing .  charging someone as a sex offender for peeing on a bush is  ridiculous   indiscriminate  and  counterproductive  to the benefit of society.  there is lots of words in english.  you might try using them.  unless you think being intelligent and precise in your verbal interactions is aristocratic and overly cerebral, in which case, well. you are fucking gay.   #  did i not just give a context where i myself used it ?  #  that is not at all what i am saying.  you misunderstand me.  i am saying that an over reliance on the  same  profanity is a sign of a low vocabulary.  particularly profanity that can double as a pejorative should be used sparingly.  i agree that it can be appropriate for come contexts.  did i not just give a context where i myself used it ? but op seems to be using gay in pretty much every context.  i am not suggesting that he eliminate it from his vocabulary, rather that he supplement it with other words both profane and otherwise in an effort at self improvement.   #  i did not mean to say you are not intelligent so do not say that about yourself !  #  hey man, do not put yourself down.  anyone can be well spoken, it just takes practice.  i did not mean to say you are not intelligent so do not say that about yourself ! and having a varied vocabulary does not mean that you have to speak like some high class arrogant ass hat either.  i know some street mother fuckers who just read a lot, and when they speak they sound intelligent, but they are still  them  you feel me ? corny is a good start for describing the leaf, it gives me a better idea of how you feel about it.  here are some other ideas.  pretentious.  ostentatious.  pompous.  smug.  self aggrandizing.  uppity.  :  #  no one starts out with an expressive, elegant vocabulary.   #  there was once a time where you knew 0 words, and now you are posting to reddit.  do not sell yourself short.  vocabulary is not an inherent trait like height or eye color it is more like a muscle that gets stronger the more you work it.  no one starts out with an expressive, elegant vocabulary.  they just all worked their vocab muscles.  try reading more, especially things that are slightly above your skill level, subscribe to word of the day emails and try working that word into at least one sentence daily, and talk to people who know more words than you and pick up things they say.  it takes practice but, imo at least, it is worth it having a large vocabulary allows you to add a great deal of precision to your language, allowing you to cut down on ambiguity.  you will be able to know whether someone did something with aplomb or with style, whether someone was obfuscating or prevaricating, or if you are feeling melancholy or ennui.
i have come around on my view of gay people.  they are not the irritating stereotypes paraded around in the media.  i quit using the word fag to describe somebody as irrationally sensitive, since  bitch  or  pussy  works just as well.  but i have not found a good replacement for gay, as in  mtv is gay  or  that honda leaf looks fucking gay  to describe an aesthetic.  it is not strictly an aesthetic problem either.  there is also the every day rule crazy soccer mom fascism.  shit like seat belt/helmet laws and public drinking/smoking bans are pretty fucking  gay .  somebody being charged as a sex offender for pissing on a bush is awful gay.  some times i have to say  i ca not go to that town because it is too fucking gay .  the mandatory 0 character rule around here is mighty gay as well.  i ca not say ugly or dumb, because it would not be the correct or intuitive description.  if there is a better word to match the description i am open to changing my view.   #  i ca not say ugly or dumb, because it would not be the correct or intuitive description.   #   gay  also is not the correct description and it being intuitive to you is pretty bad, if understandable we are all conditioned by our environment .   #  gay  also is not the correct description and it being intuitive to you is pretty bad, if understandable we are all conditioned by our environment .  why not  weird  ? do you have to be so concise ? slap some more words in that sentence ! obnoxious, atrocious, hideous, silly, wack ! what part do you dislike ? look alternative pejoratives in a dictionary or on the internet, i am sure there is a large amount of them.   #  or you could practice exercising the vast english lexicon at your disposal and in the process end up sounding refined and intelligent.   #  well, sure you can use  gay  to describe everything you do not like.  or you could practice exercising the vast english lexicon at your disposal and in the process end up sounding refined and intelligent.  for example, what is it you dislike about mtv ? trashy, shallow, repetitive, dull, and base come to mind, but perhaps the reasons you find it distasteful are different.  you might describe seat belt and helmet laws as  coddling  or  demeaning .  drinking and smoking bans, if you disagree with them, can be refereed to as  pushy  or perhaps  overbearing .  charging someone as a sex offender for peeing on a bush is  ridiculous   indiscriminate  and  counterproductive  to the benefit of society.  there is lots of words in english.  you might try using them.  unless you think being intelligent and precise in your verbal interactions is aristocratic and overly cerebral, in which case, well. you are fucking gay.   #  i am not suggesting that he eliminate it from his vocabulary, rather that he supplement it with other words both profane and otherwise in an effort at self improvement.   #  that is not at all what i am saying.  you misunderstand me.  i am saying that an over reliance on the  same  profanity is a sign of a low vocabulary.  particularly profanity that can double as a pejorative should be used sparingly.  i agree that it can be appropriate for come contexts.  did i not just give a context where i myself used it ? but op seems to be using gay in pretty much every context.  i am not suggesting that he eliminate it from his vocabulary, rather that he supplement it with other words both profane and otherwise in an effort at self improvement.   #  and having a varied vocabulary does not mean that you have to speak like some high class arrogant ass hat either.   #  hey man, do not put yourself down.  anyone can be well spoken, it just takes practice.  i did not mean to say you are not intelligent so do not say that about yourself ! and having a varied vocabulary does not mean that you have to speak like some high class arrogant ass hat either.  i know some street mother fuckers who just read a lot, and when they speak they sound intelligent, but they are still  them  you feel me ? corny is a good start for describing the leaf, it gives me a better idea of how you feel about it.  here are some other ideas.  pretentious.  ostentatious.  pompous.  smug.  self aggrandizing.  uppity.  :  #  you will be able to know whether someone did something with aplomb or with style, whether someone was obfuscating or prevaricating, or if you are feeling melancholy or ennui.   #  there was once a time where you knew 0 words, and now you are posting to reddit.  do not sell yourself short.  vocabulary is not an inherent trait like height or eye color it is more like a muscle that gets stronger the more you work it.  no one starts out with an expressive, elegant vocabulary.  they just all worked their vocab muscles.  try reading more, especially things that are slightly above your skill level, subscribe to word of the day emails and try working that word into at least one sentence daily, and talk to people who know more words than you and pick up things they say.  it takes practice but, imo at least, it is worth it having a large vocabulary allows you to add a great deal of precision to your language, allowing you to cut down on ambiguity.  you will be able to know whether someone did something with aplomb or with style, whether someone was obfuscating or prevaricating, or if you are feeling melancholy or ennui.
bill murray currently enjoys a level of fame among the 0 0 white american college educated internet using demographic that i feel should be reserved for, say, rowan atkinson i have no clue where this came from.  he seems to just sleepwalk through his roles and use the same intonation for everything.  it seemed to start around the time lost in translation came out.  somebody explain the appeal of this guy, please.  for reference, here are the movies with bill murray that i have seen: little shop of horrors scrooged when i was little what about bob again, when i was little groundhog day when i was little.  ed wood actually enjoyed him in this zombieland i did not think he brought anything special moonrise kingdom i liked this movie, but i thought any actor could have done the same role so, what should i watch to convince me that i am wrong about bill murray, and he actually deserves his cult following ?  #  somebody explain the appeal of this guy, please.   #  he has a sometimes charming, sometimes happy go lucky, sometimes manic personality that some people respond to.   #  bill murray is rated at exactly the level he should be with the people who enjoy his work.  you are not one of these people.  he has a sometimes charming, sometimes happy go lucky, sometimes manic personality that some people respond to.  you are not one of these people  he actually deserves his cult following ? he  deserves  it in as much as anyone deserves anything because it exists.  you might try finding a friend whose opinions you respect who does like bill murray and watch a few movies with him.  often that can trigger some appreciation and recognition.  but you may just have to come to terms with the fact that he is not your cup of tea.   #  here is the secret: you do not have to find him funny.   # here is the secret: you do not have to find him funny.  ever.  at all.  and it will never matter whether you do or not.  humor is one of, if not the most, subjective things out there.  that is the great thing about humor, it is unique to the person watching or listening and therefore creates the variety of humor that we have today.  you do not have like everything, you do not have to like what other people do, you do not have  get it at all.  find an actor you do enjoy and move on.   #  honestly, bill murray made his name in the 0s.   #  what is your favorite couple comedy movies and actors ? honestly, bill murray made his name in the 0s.  the current stuff is somewhat him coasting, capitalizing on his fame and trying something else with his fame.  which is not to say he ca not occasionally turn out an enjoyable role.  if you want to see the movies that made his name you have to go back to stripes, ghostbusters and caddyshack.   #  there is a scene in the royal tenenbaums, one of my top 0 favorite movies , where all he does is eat a cracker and say a couple words, and i laugh hard every time i watch it.   #  overrated as an actor response: broken flowers was pretty critically acclaimed iirc.  not funny response: he went behind a bar at sxsw unannounced and would only serve people tequila shots.  people would order beers, and he would come back with a shot of tequila.  its not an isolated incident.  these stories come up all the time, and despite the  no one will ever believe you  meme, it is often documented with video or photos.  both response: watch more wes anderson movies.  he is deadpan, but its really brilliant.  there is a scene in the royal tenenbaums, one of my top 0 favorite movies , where all he does is eat a cracker and say a couple words, and i laugh hard every time i watch it.  bill murray used to be given really sarcastic over the top roles, which are okay, but i am not crazy about , but i prefer him his more subtle, subdued performances in wes anderson flicks, which made me a huge fan of his .  you liked moonrise kingdom, so i think this is the best route for you.  i think you will find he brings a lot more to the table then you previously thought, as you watch more.   #   oh i kind of like him and this one person in the social circle of conversation is talking about him.   turns into  bill murray is great !  #  you are right, he is a bit overrated it seems.  a lot of stuff is.  hype makes things exciting.  he is currently riding a cultural wave.  i think its a bit hipster induced but he also gives off a fairly eccentric vibe from what i have read on him.  him being largely popular seems more of a meme than anything else.   oh i kind of like him and this one person in the social circle of conversation is talking about him.   turns into  bill murray is great ! i agree with you, and thechive is cool too !
bill murray currently enjoys a level of fame among the 0 0 white american college educated internet using demographic that i feel should be reserved for, say, rowan atkinson i have no clue where this came from.  he seems to just sleepwalk through his roles and use the same intonation for everything.  it seemed to start around the time lost in translation came out.  somebody explain the appeal of this guy, please.  for reference, here are the movies with bill murray that i have seen: little shop of horrors scrooged when i was little what about bob again, when i was little groundhog day when i was little.  ed wood actually enjoyed him in this zombieland i did not think he brought anything special moonrise kingdom i liked this movie, but i thought any actor could have done the same role so, what should i watch to convince me that i am wrong about bill murray, and he actually deserves his cult following ?  #  so, what should i watch to convince me that i am wrong about bill murray, and he actually deserves his cult following ?  #  here is the secret: you do not have to find him funny.   # here is the secret: you do not have to find him funny.  ever.  at all.  and it will never matter whether you do or not.  humor is one of, if not the most, subjective things out there.  that is the great thing about humor, it is unique to the person watching or listening and therefore creates the variety of humor that we have today.  you do not have like everything, you do not have to like what other people do, you do not have  get it at all.  find an actor you do enjoy and move on.   #  he  deserves  it in as much as anyone deserves anything because it exists.   #  bill murray is rated at exactly the level he should be with the people who enjoy his work.  you are not one of these people.  he has a sometimes charming, sometimes happy go lucky, sometimes manic personality that some people respond to.  you are not one of these people  he actually deserves his cult following ? he  deserves  it in as much as anyone deserves anything because it exists.  you might try finding a friend whose opinions you respect who does like bill murray and watch a few movies with him.  often that can trigger some appreciation and recognition.  but you may just have to come to terms with the fact that he is not your cup of tea.   #  if you want to see the movies that made his name you have to go back to stripes, ghostbusters and caddyshack.   #  what is your favorite couple comedy movies and actors ? honestly, bill murray made his name in the 0s.  the current stuff is somewhat him coasting, capitalizing on his fame and trying something else with his fame.  which is not to say he ca not occasionally turn out an enjoyable role.  if you want to see the movies that made his name you have to go back to stripes, ghostbusters and caddyshack.   #  not funny response: he went behind a bar at sxsw unannounced and would only serve people tequila shots.   #  overrated as an actor response: broken flowers was pretty critically acclaimed iirc.  not funny response: he went behind a bar at sxsw unannounced and would only serve people tequila shots.  people would order beers, and he would come back with a shot of tequila.  its not an isolated incident.  these stories come up all the time, and despite the  no one will ever believe you  meme, it is often documented with video or photos.  both response: watch more wes anderson movies.  he is deadpan, but its really brilliant.  there is a scene in the royal tenenbaums, one of my top 0 favorite movies , where all he does is eat a cracker and say a couple words, and i laugh hard every time i watch it.  bill murray used to be given really sarcastic over the top roles, which are okay, but i am not crazy about , but i prefer him his more subtle, subdued performances in wes anderson flicks, which made me a huge fan of his .  you liked moonrise kingdom, so i think this is the best route for you.  i think you will find he brings a lot more to the table then you previously thought, as you watch more.   #   oh i kind of like him and this one person in the social circle of conversation is talking about him.   turns into  bill murray is great !  #  you are right, he is a bit overrated it seems.  a lot of stuff is.  hype makes things exciting.  he is currently riding a cultural wave.  i think its a bit hipster induced but he also gives off a fairly eccentric vibe from what i have read on him.  him being largely popular seems more of a meme than anything else.   oh i kind of like him and this one person in the social circle of conversation is talking about him.   turns into  bill murray is great ! i agree with you, and thechive is cool too !
p0 existence exists p0 man exists p0 man is not omnipotent p0 when man mixes his labor and mind into something earth, wood, etc and creates something new food, furniture , then it becomes his property.  p0 man trades out of mutual interest of both parties p0 man creates currency to make the process of p0 easier, thus making currency a substitute for property, goods, services, etc p0 man creates society government for better trade for all and protection of rights that are required by existence property, life, volition ∴ property is a right because we own our selves and consequently our mind and labor.  life is a right because no man is above another to take his life unless of course the other tries to take his first.  volition is a right because no man is omnipotent and man must be able to make mistakes; no one should force choices for others.  ∴ government is only purpose is to protect these rights and courts, police, and national guard are the only necessary entities.  ∴ forced taxes are a contradiction to existence along with many laws such as speed limits, jay walking, curfew, and child labor laws.   #  property is a right because we own our selves and consequently our mind and labor.   #  life is a right because no man is above another to take his life unless of course the other tries to take his first.   # life is a right because no man is above another to take his life unless of course the other tries to take his first.  volition is a right because no man is omnipotent and man must be able to make mistakes; no one should force choices for others.  you cannot just assert these things.  where do these rights come from ? a different way to look at this would be the fact that the idea of property is dependent upon others recognizing that it exists.  how could property be a right if it does not exist if no one else agrees it exists ?  #  the problem is that no matter how you define a government its definition is necessarily elastic.   #  in order to have police, courts, and national guard then a method of paying them must also exist.  it is impossible to simplify parts of the government out of existence after all a stable currency, a means of taxation, and those to collect that taxation are prerequisites for the government to pay for things.  moreover, if a government is to protect life, should not the government also be involved in supplying emergency medical care to areas and people where that does not exist ? also, how can someone have true volition if they are not given the tools required to be aware of their choices nor the decision making skills required to adequately chose for themselves.  would not disaster response also fall under protection of property and life in the sense of providing a society wide insurance against systemic risk of natural disasters as well as supplying on the ground immediate relief ? what about protecting a citizen is right to volition when being challenged by an unethical business or community group would not some kind of preexisting regulation be more effective than hitting people with police every time a contract is too restrictive ? the problem is that no matter how you define a government its definition is necessarily elastic.  because it is a preexistent effective means of organizing a response and already has manpower and money already mustered it is not a bad tool to use to deal with unexpected problems.   #  curfews attempt to lower crime and therefore protect both property and life.   #  first of all, why do you think government should only do these things ? if the citizens of a society want their government to do other things, what is wrong with that ? second, even if you accept that volition, property, and life are the only things government should protect, a lot of the things the government does can be attributed to those aims.  for instance, speed limits protect the lives of drivers.  jaywalking laws protect the lives of pedestrians and drivers.  curfews attempt to lower crime and therefore protect both property and life.  child labor laws exist to protect the lives and welfare of children.  i think a lot of the other things government does fall into the category of protecting the welfare of its citizens, whether or not that goes as far as protecting their life.  does this count as well ? do you think police should not enforce laws against assault, only laws that stop theft and murder ? can you give any more examples of government practices you disagree with ?  #  assault is an infringement on choice because you do not choose to be assaulted and another cognizant human is doing it, not something uncontrolled like weather.   #  i think you are cutting the right of volition out of the equation: since no one knows everything, choices should not be made for us.  such as being able to cross the street.  what if i want to cross and it is convenient, but get ticketed for it ? assault is an infringement on choice because you do not choose to be assaulted and another cognizant human is doing it, not something uncontrolled like weather.  it could be an infringement on life, because you could die.  for child labor, if a kid wants to work to earn money for food, why should not he/she ? or why ca not i sell my kidney or blood to someone who needs it ? i believe choice is an underappreciated right.  i disagree with banning same sex marriages, only some states apply i disagree with almost anything mandatory, basically.   #  what if i want to cross and it is convenient, but get ticketed for it ?  # such as being able to cross the street.  what if i want to cross and it is convenient, but get ticketed for it ? but the same argument could be made for any enforcement of law.  preventing murder is an infringement on choice.  preventing theft is an infringement on choice.  even preventing people from infringing on other people is right to choose is infringing on someone is right to choose.  but there is a point where society agrees that certain actions are against the common interest of the people, and the government should prevent people from performing those actions.  do you think the freedom to kill other people is important ? what about the freedom to harm others ? at what point do you draw the line ? because usually kids are not working because they want to, they are doing it because their parents forced them to.  additionally, a society in which many children work is a society in which people grow up to be uneducated and unable to contribute as much to society.  people decide that it is a net benefit to society to have age restrictions for working.  i am not an expert in the subject, but i believe selling organs is illegal because a lot of poor people will sell their organs and the procedure it takes to remove an organ, especially if done unprofessionally and poor people might not be able to afford a professional procedure , is potentially dangerous.  why do you think choice is so important ? is it more important than protecting people from harm ? can you elaborate ? do you just mean you disagree with most laws ? also, you still have not fully explained why it is such a problem for government to do more than what you believe it should if its citizens all agree that it should be done.
p0 existence exists p0 man exists p0 man is not omnipotent p0 when man mixes his labor and mind into something earth, wood, etc and creates something new food, furniture , then it becomes his property.  p0 man trades out of mutual interest of both parties p0 man creates currency to make the process of p0 easier, thus making currency a substitute for property, goods, services, etc p0 man creates society government for better trade for all and protection of rights that are required by existence property, life, volition ∴ property is a right because we own our selves and consequently our mind and labor.  life is a right because no man is above another to take his life unless of course the other tries to take his first.  volition is a right because no man is omnipotent and man must be able to make mistakes; no one should force choices for others.  ∴ government is only purpose is to protect these rights and courts, police, and national guard are the only necessary entities.  ∴ forced taxes are a contradiction to existence along with many laws such as speed limits, jay walking, curfew, and child labor laws.   #  no one should force choices for others.   #  outside of completely isolating every human being from every other human being, this is functionally impossible.   # assuming a democracy, a government is meant to do whatever it is citizens and structure decide it is meant to do.  there is no higher authority than us, the people who make up the societies in which these governments exist, to set standards on what a government is purpose is.  we could decide that our government is purpose is to give everybody free slurpees on the third tuesday of every month, and that would be it is purpose.  in order to justify your statement, you would have to explain where this ultimate and only purpose comes from.  rights are granted by a society is citizens to themselves and each other, as there is no higher authority than the society in which those rights are granted to decide objectively what those rights may be.  nor are the rights granted by a society is citizens to themselves and each other inalienable, static, absolute, or non exchangable.  it is within reason, and reflected by reality, that one must relinquish some rights, or measures/parts there of, in order to gain other rights or benefits.  it is within reason, and reflected by reality, that some rights that were once held tantamount are not so important anymore.  it is within reason and reflected by reality that new rights may be needed, or that old rights may need to be adjusted some what in order to better serve society and it is citizens.  there is a case to be made that even those agencies are not strictly necessary.  it is a stupid argument, but an argument none the less.  nope.  your property rights means fuck all outside of a society that has decided that property is a thing.  in addition there is plenty to be quibbled over in terms of what constitutes a person is labor and mind.  no.  property is a right because we as a society have decided it is impractical to share everything with everyone, because property provides incentive to work though there are other incentives , it is not cool to just take stuff from someone else and various other reasons.  we do  own  ourselves, if you must put it that way, but we  own  ourselves in the context of a society in which we must function.  also, there is plenty of property out there that was not derived from  mind and labor  and plenty of  mind and labor  that has not resulted in property.  you could blame this on corruption, or moochers, or whatever but i think we both know that would be pretty intellectually lazy and not an accurate depiction of reality.  nope.  life is a right because we, as a society, have decided that killing people and being killed without very good reasons is not a terribly productive way to interact.  it is an attribute, and one that you have and are able to exercise regardless.  circumstances may narrow or widen your choices, but you quiet literally never do anything except under your own volition.  outside of completely isolating every human being from every other human being, this is functionally impossible.  and even then if some did not want to be isolated you would still be forcing them.  see above.  what does  contradiction to existence  mean ?  #  what about protecting a citizen is right to volition when being challenged by an unethical business or community group would not some kind of preexisting regulation be more effective than hitting people with police every time a contract is too restrictive ?  #  in order to have police, courts, and national guard then a method of paying them must also exist.  it is impossible to simplify parts of the government out of existence after all a stable currency, a means of taxation, and those to collect that taxation are prerequisites for the government to pay for things.  moreover, if a government is to protect life, should not the government also be involved in supplying emergency medical care to areas and people where that does not exist ? also, how can someone have true volition if they are not given the tools required to be aware of their choices nor the decision making skills required to adequately chose for themselves.  would not disaster response also fall under protection of property and life in the sense of providing a society wide insurance against systemic risk of natural disasters as well as supplying on the ground immediate relief ? what about protecting a citizen is right to volition when being challenged by an unethical business or community group would not some kind of preexisting regulation be more effective than hitting people with police every time a contract is too restrictive ? the problem is that no matter how you define a government its definition is necessarily elastic.  because it is a preexistent effective means of organizing a response and already has manpower and money already mustered it is not a bad tool to use to deal with unexpected problems.   #  i think a lot of the other things government does fall into the category of protecting the welfare of its citizens, whether or not that goes as far as protecting their life.   #  first of all, why do you think government should only do these things ? if the citizens of a society want their government to do other things, what is wrong with that ? second, even if you accept that volition, property, and life are the only things government should protect, a lot of the things the government does can be attributed to those aims.  for instance, speed limits protect the lives of drivers.  jaywalking laws protect the lives of pedestrians and drivers.  curfews attempt to lower crime and therefore protect both property and life.  child labor laws exist to protect the lives and welfare of children.  i think a lot of the other things government does fall into the category of protecting the welfare of its citizens, whether or not that goes as far as protecting their life.  does this count as well ? do you think police should not enforce laws against assault, only laws that stop theft and murder ? can you give any more examples of government practices you disagree with ?  #  what if i want to cross and it is convenient, but get ticketed for it ?  #  i think you are cutting the right of volition out of the equation: since no one knows everything, choices should not be made for us.  such as being able to cross the street.  what if i want to cross and it is convenient, but get ticketed for it ? assault is an infringement on choice because you do not choose to be assaulted and another cognizant human is doing it, not something uncontrolled like weather.  it could be an infringement on life, because you could die.  for child labor, if a kid wants to work to earn money for food, why should not he/she ? or why ca not i sell my kidney or blood to someone who needs it ? i believe choice is an underappreciated right.  i disagree with banning same sex marriages, only some states apply i disagree with almost anything mandatory, basically.   #  do you just mean you disagree with most laws ?  # such as being able to cross the street.  what if i want to cross and it is convenient, but get ticketed for it ? but the same argument could be made for any enforcement of law.  preventing murder is an infringement on choice.  preventing theft is an infringement on choice.  even preventing people from infringing on other people is right to choose is infringing on someone is right to choose.  but there is a point where society agrees that certain actions are against the common interest of the people, and the government should prevent people from performing those actions.  do you think the freedom to kill other people is important ? what about the freedom to harm others ? at what point do you draw the line ? because usually kids are not working because they want to, they are doing it because their parents forced them to.  additionally, a society in which many children work is a society in which people grow up to be uneducated and unable to contribute as much to society.  people decide that it is a net benefit to society to have age restrictions for working.  i am not an expert in the subject, but i believe selling organs is illegal because a lot of poor people will sell their organs and the procedure it takes to remove an organ, especially if done unprofessionally and poor people might not be able to afford a professional procedure , is potentially dangerous.  why do you think choice is so important ? is it more important than protecting people from harm ? can you elaborate ? do you just mean you disagree with most laws ? also, you still have not fully explained why it is such a problem for government to do more than what you believe it should if its citizens all agree that it should be done.
when someone says  bless you  when you sneeze, it is basically acknowledging that your sneeze was noticeable and possibly distracting.  since you cannot control when you sneeze or sometimes how much at any given time, these little acknowledgements can be embarrassing.  this is even worse when you got a double sneeze or more.  i do not want to know that you heard me.  i would prefer no one say anything.  seinfeld even gave a better option: instead of saying  god bless you  when people sneeze say  you are sooooo good looking !   that, at least, is an actual complement rather than meaningless traditional fluff.  although i do not think this is as much of an issue, some people do not even believe in god and it is kind of weird to just say  may god bless your soul.   i know it is not really a religious thing, but then why say it ? why say anything at all if it is just a fake complement ? what do you even say when someone says that to you ?  uhhh thanks ?   so basically i think blessing someone for sneezing causes more harm than good, and is less of a kind gesture and more of an embarrassing inducing acknowledgement of a non controllable, natural bodily function.  you should just be silent.  cmv  #  i do not think this is as much of an issue, some people do not even believe in god and it is kind of weird to just say  may god bless your soul.   #  what does this have to do with anything ?  #  you are the first person i have heard of who considers sneezing embarrassing.  it really is not.  two co workers of mine actually have the cutest sneeze you will ever hear, it is like they are children is cartoon characters who inhaled fairy dust, i love it when they do it.  what does this have to do with anything ? i has nothing to do with god.  people of all non beliefs use  thank god  or  goddammit  because it is a figure of speech and not meant to be taken literally.   uhhh thanks ?   yes, you say thanks.   #  your issue is that you find your own sneezes to be embarrassing, which is even more nonsensical.   # common courtesy is not always sensible.  the origin URL of the phrase was a prayer for your welbeing in an attempt to ward off the plauge.  the phrase is not  i am sorry you sneezed  but actually  i see that you sneezed, i am acknowledging this as a way to indicate that i hope you are feeling well regardless.   your issue is that you find your own sneezes to be embarrassing, which is even more nonsensical.  opening a door for someone is not your way of saying that you consider them too enfeebled to open doors on their own.  it is just politeness.  in our culture, saying  bless you  is polite.  exercising manners in this way, even if it is only very tangentially related to the original purpose of warding off disease by way of prayer, is a sign of  respect  for another person.  that is why it is nice.   #  additionally, it portrays them in a better light because they took the time to verbally  help  someone.   #  it is an informal acknowledgement that you sneezed and it is fine.  consider this situation.  someone is presenting.  you sneeze.  if they ignore it then they appear to be dismissive of their audience, not caring about them, and it opens the possibility that they were bothered by it.  if they take the time to say  bless you  then they have acknowledged their audience and indirectly said that the interruption was no big deal.  additionally, it portrays them in a better light because they took the time to verbally  help  someone.  in the origin of the tradition it was helpful.   #  sneezes are completely involuntary, you ca not stop them if you want to.   #  because the majority of your other body sounds are somewhat controllable.  sneezes are completely involuntary, you ca not stop them if you want to.  so if you sneeze, it makes sense for people to acknowledge it and say,  that is okay dude. you ca not control it  in the abbreviated form of  bless you  .  however, if you fart or burb, you had some control, you might have felt the urge, but, in general, you could have suppressed it.  therefore, it does not make sense to say  bless you  because you had control and yet you chose to violate social expectations, which is not okay in the eyes of society.   #  so no one is trying to bless you or complement you, they are just behaving politely like they were taught, same as saying  excuse me  when you bump into someone.   #  i do not think most people say  bless you  because they want god to bless your soul.  they say it out of habit or because they were taught that it is the polite response to a sneeze.  it is not to call attention to your sneeze, it is social.  also, most people do not think of sneezing as an embarrassing bodily function, and as such, the purpose of saying  bless you  is not to call attention to an embarrassing bodily function.  if it was, we might also say it when someone farts, and that would be awkward.  so no one is trying to bless you or complement you, they are just behaving politely like they were taught, same as saying  excuse me  when you bump into someone.
i think that yes, a rapist is responsible for raping someone 0.  but when someone says something like,  well, she should not have worn that.   or  she should not have had 0 beers at that party  they are pointing out ways that people should be responsible and look out for themselves.  it is not victim blaming.  it is saying,  hey, bad things happen to good people and you should act as though there are bad people out there who will do bad things to you if you are not careful.   i think the pointing of fingers by people who scream  victim blaming  is skewed to favor women in any case.  take, for example, if a man got hiv from a woman and she knew she had it.  most people would look at him and say,  you should have worn a condom.  you know better.   but you are victim blaming in that case.  i am in no way comparing rape to choosing to wear a condom or not, but he was a victim in this case any way you look at it.  i also think the same people who scream about  victim shaming  are the sjw we see made fun of on r/tumblrinaction.   #  a rapist is responsible for raping someone 0.   #  but there cannot be a  but  after there is 0 blame assigned to someone.   # but there cannot be a  but  after there is 0 blame assigned to someone.  there is no  butting  0.  women are raped no matter what they wear: babies in onsies, women in tracksuits and nuns in habits still get raped.  already now, by providing us with a common way that people blame the victim, you have proved how these  warnings  are based out of ignorance.  any speaker who  warns  a woman how to prevent getting raped by telling her not to wear something revealing is speaking out of ignorance, and it is not helpful.  most people would look at him and say,  you should have worn a condom.  you know better.   that example is about an action in which both people consented.  two or more ! people consented to performing an action together, and so it is the repsonsibility of each person to be responsible and safe when performing that action.  what action did a rape victim consent to performing ? nothing more than existing.  merely by existing, people are at risk for rape.  existing in a poorer neighborhood puts you at even bigger risk.  what you wear does not.  failure to take personal responsibility does not cause rape; rapists cause rape.   #  all we have to do is teach criminals to not commit crimes !  #  the problem i see with this, at least for the case of rape, is that there is a stigma to telling women what they can do to protect themselves rape prevention .  there are valid things that women, and men for that matter, can do to minimize the possibility of being raped.  do not drink so much that you lose control of your actions, like not being able to walk.  the person who carries you away might not be a scrupulous individual.  do not go somewhere to be alone with a stranger.  stick with your friends.  etc.  however, there is a definite push back against saying these kinds of things, and the umbrella term used to support the push back is  victim blaming .  so much so that some people have essentially boiled it down to  why should we teach women not to be raped ? why ca not we teach men not to be rapists ?   which, of course, is absurd.  yes, let is teach rapists not to rape, because it is such a morally and legally vague topic, like murder or grand theft.  while we teach rapists not to rape, let is teach thieves not to steal, murderers not to kill, and pedophiles not to abuse children.  we could apply this great insight to all forms of crime and completely eradicate all crime everywhere ! all we have to do is teach criminals to not commit crimes ! i think a lot of people would agree that true victim blaming is a bad thing.  talking to someone who was raped about all the things they should or could have done is unproductive, insensitive, and will only make them feel worse, as if the incident was their fault, which is was not.  however, that does not mean we ca not learn something from it.  to take it to a less charged topic, consider food.  when humans started out, we had no idea which foods were good, which were bad, and which were deadly.  when bob ate a handful of berries from that bush over there, he got serious indigestion followed by copious amounts of diarrhea.   no, i did not, what happened ?    he ate those green berries and got the shits real bad  now, we would not go to bob and say  bob, you should not have eaten those berries  victim blaming .  trust me when i say bob knows.  he was there, and he wo not be doing that again.  however, we can turn to the other tribe members and say  hey everyone, see this bush with green berries ? do not eat the green berries.  you will be shitting piss for a week.   and everyone moves on, knowing not to eat those berries.  likewise, we can gather statistics about things that victims have in common rape or otherwise , and we can try to draw conclusions about the conditions that are most common among all victims, and start teaching others to be aware of those conditions.   #  someone will always be able to attribute something in the victim is behavior to explain why they are raped.   #  people can be raped when they are not drunk and when they are not wearing skimpy clothing.  someone will always be able to attribute something in the victim is behavior to explain why they are raped.  there is no formula for avoiding rape.  let is look at clothing should women cover their knees, stomach, and elbows at all times because that is more responsible ? should they cover themselves from head to toe to avoid tempting someone ? should they avoid bars and drinking altogether because someone might roofie their drink ? i think the minute we tell victims that if they had just altered their behavior a little bit, the rape would not have happened, we have shifted the blame from the rapist to the victim.  rape happens and there are no magical circumstances, clothes, or behaviors that can prevent it 0 of the time.  blaming a woman is behavior for her rape is a way to police all women is freedoms.  do not drink.  do not dress this way.  where does it end ?  #  no one is asking to 0 prevent rape.   #  you seem to be implying that there is absolutely people can do to decrease the chances of being raped, which is obviously false.  no one is asking to 0 prevent rape.  severe overreaction.  if you have a guy, wearing an expensive suit, who parades through a crimeridden neighborhood carrying $0,0 on his body, and he gets robbed, are you not going to say  you should not have been doing that ?   obviously you would, because his behavior is idiotic.  does that legitimize the theft ? obviously not.  theft is still illegal and that person is still an idiot.  the same goes for rape victims who took no precautions.   #  if you are a drug dealer and get killed, that is not the same as getting shot during a random drive by.   # someone will always be able to attribute something in the victim is behavior to explain why they are raped.  there are different scenarios.  if scenario goes down where a rape occurs after passing out from drinking too much, the rape maybe could have been avoided.  if scenario goes down where rape occurs by someone you know generally rapes you, then you really ca not do much about that.  if it is a random rape, same.  not all are the same.  you can reduce your chances by avoiding certain scenarios.  by going to a party with drinking you are in a scenario that has a higher potential of resulting in rape than a scenario where you stayed home with all your doors locked.  if you deny this, then you are not thinking.  same with murder.  if you are a drug dealer and get killed, that is not the same as getting shot during a random drive by.  sure, you could not do much to keep the drive by from happening, but if you were not dealing, you probably would not have been killed.  lessons learned ? teach people to avoid illegal actives.  actually, teach people to avoid risky activities.  drinking to passing out is risky.  in certain situations, it increased your chances of being raped.
i think that yes, a rapist is responsible for raping someone 0.  but when someone says something like,  well, she should not have worn that.   or  she should not have had 0 beers at that party  they are pointing out ways that people should be responsible and look out for themselves.  it is not victim blaming.  it is saying,  hey, bad things happen to good people and you should act as though there are bad people out there who will do bad things to you if you are not careful.   i think the pointing of fingers by people who scream  victim blaming  is skewed to favor women in any case.  take, for example, if a man got hiv from a woman and she knew she had it.  most people would look at him and say,  you should have worn a condom.  you know better.   but you are victim blaming in that case.  i am in no way comparing rape to choosing to wear a condom or not, but he was a victim in this case any way you look at it.  i also think the same people who scream about  victim shaming  are the sjw we see made fun of on r/tumblrinaction.   #  take, for example, if a man got hiv from a woman and she knew she had it.   #  most people would look at him and say,  you should have worn a condom.   # but there cannot be a  but  after there is 0 blame assigned to someone.  there is no  butting  0.  women are raped no matter what they wear: babies in onsies, women in tracksuits and nuns in habits still get raped.  already now, by providing us with a common way that people blame the victim, you have proved how these  warnings  are based out of ignorance.  any speaker who  warns  a woman how to prevent getting raped by telling her not to wear something revealing is speaking out of ignorance, and it is not helpful.  most people would look at him and say,  you should have worn a condom.  you know better.   that example is about an action in which both people consented.  two or more ! people consented to performing an action together, and so it is the repsonsibility of each person to be responsible and safe when performing that action.  what action did a rape victim consent to performing ? nothing more than existing.  merely by existing, people are at risk for rape.  existing in a poorer neighborhood puts you at even bigger risk.  what you wear does not.  failure to take personal responsibility does not cause rape; rapists cause rape.   #  we could apply this great insight to all forms of crime and completely eradicate all crime everywhere !  #  the problem i see with this, at least for the case of rape, is that there is a stigma to telling women what they can do to protect themselves rape prevention .  there are valid things that women, and men for that matter, can do to minimize the possibility of being raped.  do not drink so much that you lose control of your actions, like not being able to walk.  the person who carries you away might not be a scrupulous individual.  do not go somewhere to be alone with a stranger.  stick with your friends.  etc.  however, there is a definite push back against saying these kinds of things, and the umbrella term used to support the push back is  victim blaming .  so much so that some people have essentially boiled it down to  why should we teach women not to be raped ? why ca not we teach men not to be rapists ?   which, of course, is absurd.  yes, let is teach rapists not to rape, because it is such a morally and legally vague topic, like murder or grand theft.  while we teach rapists not to rape, let is teach thieves not to steal, murderers not to kill, and pedophiles not to abuse children.  we could apply this great insight to all forms of crime and completely eradicate all crime everywhere ! all we have to do is teach criminals to not commit crimes ! i think a lot of people would agree that true victim blaming is a bad thing.  talking to someone who was raped about all the things they should or could have done is unproductive, insensitive, and will only make them feel worse, as if the incident was their fault, which is was not.  however, that does not mean we ca not learn something from it.  to take it to a less charged topic, consider food.  when humans started out, we had no idea which foods were good, which were bad, and which were deadly.  when bob ate a handful of berries from that bush over there, he got serious indigestion followed by copious amounts of diarrhea.   no, i did not, what happened ?    he ate those green berries and got the shits real bad  now, we would not go to bob and say  bob, you should not have eaten those berries  victim blaming .  trust me when i say bob knows.  he was there, and he wo not be doing that again.  however, we can turn to the other tribe members and say  hey everyone, see this bush with green berries ? do not eat the green berries.  you will be shitting piss for a week.   and everyone moves on, knowing not to eat those berries.  likewise, we can gather statistics about things that victims have in common rape or otherwise , and we can try to draw conclusions about the conditions that are most common among all victims, and start teaching others to be aware of those conditions.   #  blaming a woman is behavior for her rape is a way to police all women is freedoms.   #  people can be raped when they are not drunk and when they are not wearing skimpy clothing.  someone will always be able to attribute something in the victim is behavior to explain why they are raped.  there is no formula for avoiding rape.  let is look at clothing should women cover their knees, stomach, and elbows at all times because that is more responsible ? should they cover themselves from head to toe to avoid tempting someone ? should they avoid bars and drinking altogether because someone might roofie their drink ? i think the minute we tell victims that if they had just altered their behavior a little bit, the rape would not have happened, we have shifted the blame from the rapist to the victim.  rape happens and there are no magical circumstances, clothes, or behaviors that can prevent it 0 of the time.  blaming a woman is behavior for her rape is a way to police all women is freedoms.  do not drink.  do not dress this way.  where does it end ?  #  you seem to be implying that there is absolutely people can do to decrease the chances of being raped, which is obviously false.   #  you seem to be implying that there is absolutely people can do to decrease the chances of being raped, which is obviously false.  no one is asking to 0 prevent rape.  severe overreaction.  if you have a guy, wearing an expensive suit, who parades through a crimeridden neighborhood carrying $0,0 on his body, and he gets robbed, are you not going to say  you should not have been doing that ?   obviously you would, because his behavior is idiotic.  does that legitimize the theft ? obviously not.  theft is still illegal and that person is still an idiot.  the same goes for rape victims who took no precautions.   #  someone will always be able to attribute something in the victim is behavior to explain why they are raped.   # someone will always be able to attribute something in the victim is behavior to explain why they are raped.  there are different scenarios.  if scenario goes down where a rape occurs after passing out from drinking too much, the rape maybe could have been avoided.  if scenario goes down where rape occurs by someone you know generally rapes you, then you really ca not do much about that.  if it is a random rape, same.  not all are the same.  you can reduce your chances by avoiding certain scenarios.  by going to a party with drinking you are in a scenario that has a higher potential of resulting in rape than a scenario where you stayed home with all your doors locked.  if you deny this, then you are not thinking.  same with murder.  if you are a drug dealer and get killed, that is not the same as getting shot during a random drive by.  sure, you could not do much to keep the drive by from happening, but if you were not dealing, you probably would not have been killed.  lessons learned ? teach people to avoid illegal actives.  actually, teach people to avoid risky activities.  drinking to passing out is risky.  in certain situations, it increased your chances of being raped.
i think that yes, a rapist is responsible for raping someone 0.  but when someone says something like,  well, she should not have worn that.   or  she should not have had 0 beers at that party  they are pointing out ways that people should be responsible and look out for themselves.  it is not victim blaming.  it is saying,  hey, bad things happen to good people and you should act as though there are bad people out there who will do bad things to you if you are not careful.   i think the pointing of fingers by people who scream  victim blaming  is skewed to favor women in any case.  take, for example, if a man got hiv from a woman and she knew she had it.  most people would look at him and say,  you should have worn a condom.  you know better.   but you are victim blaming in that case.  i am in no way comparing rape to choosing to wear a condom or not, but he was a victim in this case any way you look at it.  i also think the same people who scream about  victim shaming  are the sjw we see made fun of on r/tumblrinaction.   #  i think that yes, a rapist is responsible for raping someone 0.   #  if you accept this, then you must necessarily accept that statements about what the rape victim was wearing or their blood alcohol content are irrelevant to the aspects of responsibility in the situation of the rape.   # if you accept this, then you must necessarily accept that statements about what the rape victim was wearing or their blood alcohol content are irrelevant to the aspects of responsibility in the situation of the rape.  there is certainly a time and a place to talk about responsible drinking and whatnot, and the context of a rape is never an appropriate time for such a responsibility lesson.  it adds nothing of value, especially given how traumatic a rape can be for the victim, and it is almost always done in a way that defers responsibility from the rapist.  really, the only thing that these  lessons in personal responsibility  toward the victim that you describe do not really do anything except berate and antagonize the victim of a horrendous and very traumatic crime.  it is something that should be avoided, and it most certainly is victim blaming.   #  why ca not we teach men not to be rapists ?    #  the problem i see with this, at least for the case of rape, is that there is a stigma to telling women what they can do to protect themselves rape prevention .  there are valid things that women, and men for that matter, can do to minimize the possibility of being raped.  do not drink so much that you lose control of your actions, like not being able to walk.  the person who carries you away might not be a scrupulous individual.  do not go somewhere to be alone with a stranger.  stick with your friends.  etc.  however, there is a definite push back against saying these kinds of things, and the umbrella term used to support the push back is  victim blaming .  so much so that some people have essentially boiled it down to  why should we teach women not to be raped ? why ca not we teach men not to be rapists ?   which, of course, is absurd.  yes, let is teach rapists not to rape, because it is such a morally and legally vague topic, like murder or grand theft.  while we teach rapists not to rape, let is teach thieves not to steal, murderers not to kill, and pedophiles not to abuse children.  we could apply this great insight to all forms of crime and completely eradicate all crime everywhere ! all we have to do is teach criminals to not commit crimes ! i think a lot of people would agree that true victim blaming is a bad thing.  talking to someone who was raped about all the things they should or could have done is unproductive, insensitive, and will only make them feel worse, as if the incident was their fault, which is was not.  however, that does not mean we ca not learn something from it.  to take it to a less charged topic, consider food.  when humans started out, we had no idea which foods were good, which were bad, and which were deadly.  when bob ate a handful of berries from that bush over there, he got serious indigestion followed by copious amounts of diarrhea.   no, i did not, what happened ?    he ate those green berries and got the shits real bad  now, we would not go to bob and say  bob, you should not have eaten those berries  victim blaming .  trust me when i say bob knows.  he was there, and he wo not be doing that again.  however, we can turn to the other tribe members and say  hey everyone, see this bush with green berries ? do not eat the green berries.  you will be shitting piss for a week.   and everyone moves on, knowing not to eat those berries.  likewise, we can gather statistics about things that victims have in common rape or otherwise , and we can try to draw conclusions about the conditions that are most common among all victims, and start teaching others to be aware of those conditions.   #  people can be raped when they are not drunk and when they are not wearing skimpy clothing.   #  people can be raped when they are not drunk and when they are not wearing skimpy clothing.  someone will always be able to attribute something in the victim is behavior to explain why they are raped.  there is no formula for avoiding rape.  let is look at clothing should women cover their knees, stomach, and elbows at all times because that is more responsible ? should they cover themselves from head to toe to avoid tempting someone ? should they avoid bars and drinking altogether because someone might roofie their drink ? i think the minute we tell victims that if they had just altered their behavior a little bit, the rape would not have happened, we have shifted the blame from the rapist to the victim.  rape happens and there are no magical circumstances, clothes, or behaviors that can prevent it 0 of the time.  blaming a woman is behavior for her rape is a way to police all women is freedoms.  do not drink.  do not dress this way.  where does it end ?  #  no one is asking to 0 prevent rape.   #  you seem to be implying that there is absolutely people can do to decrease the chances of being raped, which is obviously false.  no one is asking to 0 prevent rape.  severe overreaction.  if you have a guy, wearing an expensive suit, who parades through a crimeridden neighborhood carrying $0,0 on his body, and he gets robbed, are you not going to say  you should not have been doing that ?   obviously you would, because his behavior is idiotic.  does that legitimize the theft ? obviously not.  theft is still illegal and that person is still an idiot.  the same goes for rape victims who took no precautions.   #  if you deny this, then you are not thinking.   # someone will always be able to attribute something in the victim is behavior to explain why they are raped.  there are different scenarios.  if scenario goes down where a rape occurs after passing out from drinking too much, the rape maybe could have been avoided.  if scenario goes down where rape occurs by someone you know generally rapes you, then you really ca not do much about that.  if it is a random rape, same.  not all are the same.  you can reduce your chances by avoiding certain scenarios.  by going to a party with drinking you are in a scenario that has a higher potential of resulting in rape than a scenario where you stayed home with all your doors locked.  if you deny this, then you are not thinking.  same with murder.  if you are a drug dealer and get killed, that is not the same as getting shot during a random drive by.  sure, you could not do much to keep the drive by from happening, but if you were not dealing, you probably would not have been killed.  lessons learned ? teach people to avoid illegal actives.  actually, teach people to avoid risky activities.  drinking to passing out is risky.  in certain situations, it increased your chances of being raped.
what sparked this thought: URL this is a pretty simple one.  a lot of people think that if someone is rich, they should be willing to give more money to charity.  first of all, it is really easy to spend someone is money when you do not have to lose any of it.  secondly, a lot of that money that goes to charity pays the ridiculous salaries of some charities ceo is and employees.  lastly, you are entitled to everything you own and gain.  a lot of people, when talking about this subject, say that  oh, if i had that much money, i would be able to give to charity  or  more to charity.   however, there are a lot of things that people do that they could get rid of in their lives to give more if they wanted to.  for example, that fancy dinner you had with your so ? have a sandwich instead and you can give $0 to charity ! if that sounds crazy, it is because it is.  you can spend your money on what you want to because it is your money.  the same goes no matter how much money you have.  many charities that you may donate to pay their employees and ceo is ridiculous salaries.  source URL some very well known charities are on that list such as st.  jude, american cancer association, and others.  if someone who makes $0,0 a year gives 0 percent of their income $0,0 they are barely putting a dent in those salaries.  i recognize that that does not have to do with the rich being greedy or immoral, it is just a good point as to why someone would choose not to donate.  finally, everything you own, everything you work hard for, you are entitled to keep.  after taxes if you earn something, be it money, or property, it is completely yours after you give the necessary money to the government.  if you bought a nice house and it had an extra bedroom that you would not use, you would probably just convert it into an office or something of that sort.  nobody would condemn you for not using it as a place for someone to stay for the night, or for some other philanthropic purpose.  just because you have more than you need does not mean that you are obligated to give that away.  you are entitled to that extra comfort because you or you are family earned it.  tell me what you think.   #  a lot of people, when talking about this subject, say that  oh, if i had that much money, i would be able to give to charity  or  more to charity.    #  however, there are a lot of things that people do that they could get rid of in their lives to give more if they wanted to.   # however, there are a lot of things that people do that they could get rid of in their lives to give more if they wanted to.  .  the same goes no matter how much money you have.  the difference between normal people and rich people is that a rich person  does not have to sacrifice  anything to give to charity.  whereas i would have to trade a nice meal for a sandwich, the rich person would not have to make any trades.  when you get up to ridiculous amounts of money, you encounter diminishing returns.  a nice $0 dinner is a big step up from a sandwich.  the difference between a $0,0 dinner and a $0,0 dinner is superficial at best.  the rich person is looked down upon for spending an exorbitant amount of money for very little added value.  did the extra $0,0 add any real value to their lives ? if not, then it is seen as throwing money away that could improve the lives of others.  there are many charities that do not URL you can also make donations earmarked for certain projects that will not go toward the salary of the ceo.  those salaries are not ridiculous compared to the salaries of ceos in for profit companies.  you may not understand the value of a ceo, but there is a reason they get paid that much money.  if they effectively run the charity then it is a necessary expense that provides value.  this is certainly true.  however, this is not about entitlements but ethics.  if you were a farmer in the middle of a famine, you would certainly have a surplus of food that you worked hard for and can keep.  the question is whether you  should  keep it.  if you have more food than you need, it is unethical to let people starve.  while we all may have more than we need, the ethical consideration scales to the surplus that you have.   #  keeping that in mind, it is beneficial to exert charitable pressure on the wealthy.   #  i will start by saying that no one is efforts are solely their own.  it is important to recognize that most of the work that we do, however challenging, is only possible because of the society that we live in.  we create wealth on a platform built and shared by many others, using tools built and shared by many others.  keeping that in mind, it is beneficial to exert charitable pressure on the wealthy.  nobody expects you to give away every luxury in the service of charity, but any individuals with excessive wealth have a lot of wealth that they never ever have to use, even after luxurious expenses.  it costs these people little to no loss of comfort or lifestyle to donate some portion of wealth.  on the other hand, the benefits to others can be enormous.  i agree that some charities are dodgy, but those are not the only charities available.  the bottom line is that there is deserved pressure on those who can, to help those who cannot.  everyone is wealth is dependent on achievements and opportunities provided by others; it is only fair to expect that those who have benefited the most, also benefit society just as their predecessors did.   #  so, in that sense, it is not greedy because you are losing more of what is supposedly the source of your greed.   #  it is not like the government is some evil force.  while spending is shoddy, the money is used to keep this country working.  also, spending in a lot of charities is pretty shoddy see point number 0 as for your version of wrong, i meant in the moral sense of the word.  morally wrong.  not financially wrong.  and if it is financially damaging, meaning you will end up losing more money, is not that not greedy ? you are giving up more money.  losing money.  so, in that sense, it is not greedy because you are losing more of what is supposedly the source of your greed.   #  what does he have to gain from not giving it ?  #  no it is not.  what does he have to gain from not giving it ? nothing at all.  greed implies that you are selfishly taking or hoarding something.  i absolutely believe that there are good charitable causes.  feeding america is great, except for all of the damn mail they send me and there are probably tons of other ones.  it does not mean that you should be obligated to give to any of them.   #  i feel like it is more greedy to donate to get the tax write off to be honest.   #  i do not necessarily take my philosophical views from definitions on wikipedia.  or dictionaries for that matter.  many people who do not donate to charities do not do so because they have something against charity.  they simply just do not donate to charity.  having a lot of money is not really harmful to anyone.  if they did not have all of their money, people would not even give a rats ass about them.  i feel like it is more greedy to donate to get the tax write off to be honest.  a lot of rich people do that, and it is seen as something really shitty.
what sparked this thought: URL this is a pretty simple one.  a lot of people think that if someone is rich, they should be willing to give more money to charity.  first of all, it is really easy to spend someone is money when you do not have to lose any of it.  secondly, a lot of that money that goes to charity pays the ridiculous salaries of some charities ceo is and employees.  lastly, you are entitled to everything you own and gain.  a lot of people, when talking about this subject, say that  oh, if i had that much money, i would be able to give to charity  or  more to charity.   however, there are a lot of things that people do that they could get rid of in their lives to give more if they wanted to.  for example, that fancy dinner you had with your so ? have a sandwich instead and you can give $0 to charity ! if that sounds crazy, it is because it is.  you can spend your money on what you want to because it is your money.  the same goes no matter how much money you have.  many charities that you may donate to pay their employees and ceo is ridiculous salaries.  source URL some very well known charities are on that list such as st.  jude, american cancer association, and others.  if someone who makes $0,0 a year gives 0 percent of their income $0,0 they are barely putting a dent in those salaries.  i recognize that that does not have to do with the rich being greedy or immoral, it is just a good point as to why someone would choose not to donate.  finally, everything you own, everything you work hard for, you are entitled to keep.  after taxes if you earn something, be it money, or property, it is completely yours after you give the necessary money to the government.  if you bought a nice house and it had an extra bedroom that you would not use, you would probably just convert it into an office or something of that sort.  nobody would condemn you for not using it as a place for someone to stay for the night, or for some other philanthropic purpose.  just because you have more than you need does not mean that you are obligated to give that away.  you are entitled to that extra comfort because you or you are family earned it.  tell me what you think.   #  many charities that you may donate to pay their employees and ceo is ridiculous salaries.   #  there are many charities that do not URL you can also make donations earmarked for certain projects that will not go toward the salary of the ceo.   # however, there are a lot of things that people do that they could get rid of in their lives to give more if they wanted to.  .  the same goes no matter how much money you have.  the difference between normal people and rich people is that a rich person  does not have to sacrifice  anything to give to charity.  whereas i would have to trade a nice meal for a sandwich, the rich person would not have to make any trades.  when you get up to ridiculous amounts of money, you encounter diminishing returns.  a nice $0 dinner is a big step up from a sandwich.  the difference between a $0,0 dinner and a $0,0 dinner is superficial at best.  the rich person is looked down upon for spending an exorbitant amount of money for very little added value.  did the extra $0,0 add any real value to their lives ? if not, then it is seen as throwing money away that could improve the lives of others.  there are many charities that do not URL you can also make donations earmarked for certain projects that will not go toward the salary of the ceo.  those salaries are not ridiculous compared to the salaries of ceos in for profit companies.  you may not understand the value of a ceo, but there is a reason they get paid that much money.  if they effectively run the charity then it is a necessary expense that provides value.  this is certainly true.  however, this is not about entitlements but ethics.  if you were a farmer in the middle of a famine, you would certainly have a surplus of food that you worked hard for and can keep.  the question is whether you  should  keep it.  if you have more food than you need, it is unethical to let people starve.  while we all may have more than we need, the ethical consideration scales to the surplus that you have.   #  i agree that some charities are dodgy, but those are not the only charities available.   #  i will start by saying that no one is efforts are solely their own.  it is important to recognize that most of the work that we do, however challenging, is only possible because of the society that we live in.  we create wealth on a platform built and shared by many others, using tools built and shared by many others.  keeping that in mind, it is beneficial to exert charitable pressure on the wealthy.  nobody expects you to give away every luxury in the service of charity, but any individuals with excessive wealth have a lot of wealth that they never ever have to use, even after luxurious expenses.  it costs these people little to no loss of comfort or lifestyle to donate some portion of wealth.  on the other hand, the benefits to others can be enormous.  i agree that some charities are dodgy, but those are not the only charities available.  the bottom line is that there is deserved pressure on those who can, to help those who cannot.  everyone is wealth is dependent on achievements and opportunities provided by others; it is only fair to expect that those who have benefited the most, also benefit society just as their predecessors did.   #  also, spending in a lot of charities is pretty shoddy see point number 0 as for your version of wrong, i meant in the moral sense of the word.   #  it is not like the government is some evil force.  while spending is shoddy, the money is used to keep this country working.  also, spending in a lot of charities is pretty shoddy see point number 0 as for your version of wrong, i meant in the moral sense of the word.  morally wrong.  not financially wrong.  and if it is financially damaging, meaning you will end up losing more money, is not that not greedy ? you are giving up more money.  losing money.  so, in that sense, it is not greedy because you are losing more of what is supposedly the source of your greed.   #  feeding america is great, except for all of the damn mail they send me and there are probably tons of other ones.   #  no it is not.  what does he have to gain from not giving it ? nothing at all.  greed implies that you are selfishly taking or hoarding something.  i absolutely believe that there are good charitable causes.  feeding america is great, except for all of the damn mail they send me and there are probably tons of other ones.  it does not mean that you should be obligated to give to any of them.   #  if they did not have all of their money, people would not even give a rats ass about them.   #  i do not necessarily take my philosophical views from definitions on wikipedia.  or dictionaries for that matter.  many people who do not donate to charities do not do so because they have something against charity.  they simply just do not donate to charity.  having a lot of money is not really harmful to anyone.  if they did not have all of their money, people would not even give a rats ass about them.  i feel like it is more greedy to donate to get the tax write off to be honest.  a lot of rich people do that, and it is seen as something really shitty.
what sparked this thought: URL this is a pretty simple one.  a lot of people think that if someone is rich, they should be willing to give more money to charity.  first of all, it is really easy to spend someone is money when you do not have to lose any of it.  secondly, a lot of that money that goes to charity pays the ridiculous salaries of some charities ceo is and employees.  lastly, you are entitled to everything you own and gain.  a lot of people, when talking about this subject, say that  oh, if i had that much money, i would be able to give to charity  or  more to charity.   however, there are a lot of things that people do that they could get rid of in their lives to give more if they wanted to.  for example, that fancy dinner you had with your so ? have a sandwich instead and you can give $0 to charity ! if that sounds crazy, it is because it is.  you can spend your money on what you want to because it is your money.  the same goes no matter how much money you have.  many charities that you may donate to pay their employees and ceo is ridiculous salaries.  source URL some very well known charities are on that list such as st.  jude, american cancer association, and others.  if someone who makes $0,0 a year gives 0 percent of their income $0,0 they are barely putting a dent in those salaries.  i recognize that that does not have to do with the rich being greedy or immoral, it is just a good point as to why someone would choose not to donate.  finally, everything you own, everything you work hard for, you are entitled to keep.  after taxes if you earn something, be it money, or property, it is completely yours after you give the necessary money to the government.  if you bought a nice house and it had an extra bedroom that you would not use, you would probably just convert it into an office or something of that sort.  nobody would condemn you for not using it as a place for someone to stay for the night, or for some other philanthropic purpose.  just because you have more than you need does not mean that you are obligated to give that away.  you are entitled to that extra comfort because you or you are family earned it.  tell me what you think.   #  many charities that you may donate to pay their employees and ceo is ridiculous salaries.   #  that is rather an argument against those specific charities.   # that is rather an argument against those specific charities.  there are plenty of charities which deserve any support they can get.  it is not greedy that i do not give to charity.  even if i retire and live in a the lap of luxury without giving a dime, that is my money to do with as i please.  it is not wrong.  legally, sure, but how could you morally justify to own huge amounts of money as an individual and just spend it on yourself ? think about money in terms of how many people you can employ for how long, simply to service you.  generally the work load is spread across a huge number of people, but let is assume that it would only be spread across hundreds/thousands of people.  they would spend their whole lifes just to service one person, while they barely get by.  do you really want society to work like that and do not care about it, just because it is usually not that visible ? you can argue that it would be even worse without capitalism, but you can still acknowledge injustices and demand that those who unfairly benefit from the system give as much as possible back to society.  higher tax rates might achieve something along those lines, but taxes can be evaded and even after taxes there can be exorbitant amounts of money left.   #  those salaries are not ridiculous compared to the salaries of ceos in for profit companies.   # however, there are a lot of things that people do that they could get rid of in their lives to give more if they wanted to.  .  the same goes no matter how much money you have.  the difference between normal people and rich people is that a rich person  does not have to sacrifice  anything to give to charity.  whereas i would have to trade a nice meal for a sandwich, the rich person would not have to make any trades.  when you get up to ridiculous amounts of money, you encounter diminishing returns.  a nice $0 dinner is a big step up from a sandwich.  the difference between a $0,0 dinner and a $0,0 dinner is superficial at best.  the rich person is looked down upon for spending an exorbitant amount of money for very little added value.  did the extra $0,0 add any real value to their lives ? if not, then it is seen as throwing money away that could improve the lives of others.  there are many charities that do not URL you can also make donations earmarked for certain projects that will not go toward the salary of the ceo.  those salaries are not ridiculous compared to the salaries of ceos in for profit companies.  you may not understand the value of a ceo, but there is a reason they get paid that much money.  if they effectively run the charity then it is a necessary expense that provides value.  this is certainly true.  however, this is not about entitlements but ethics.  if you were a farmer in the middle of a famine, you would certainly have a surplus of food that you worked hard for and can keep.  the question is whether you  should  keep it.  if you have more food than you need, it is unethical to let people starve.  while we all may have more than we need, the ethical consideration scales to the surplus that you have.   #  on the other hand, the benefits to others can be enormous.   #  i will start by saying that no one is efforts are solely their own.  it is important to recognize that most of the work that we do, however challenging, is only possible because of the society that we live in.  we create wealth on a platform built and shared by many others, using tools built and shared by many others.  keeping that in mind, it is beneficial to exert charitable pressure on the wealthy.  nobody expects you to give away every luxury in the service of charity, but any individuals with excessive wealth have a lot of wealth that they never ever have to use, even after luxurious expenses.  it costs these people little to no loss of comfort or lifestyle to donate some portion of wealth.  on the other hand, the benefits to others can be enormous.  i agree that some charities are dodgy, but those are not the only charities available.  the bottom line is that there is deserved pressure on those who can, to help those who cannot.  everyone is wealth is dependent on achievements and opportunities provided by others; it is only fair to expect that those who have benefited the most, also benefit society just as their predecessors did.   #  while spending is shoddy, the money is used to keep this country working.   #  it is not like the government is some evil force.  while spending is shoddy, the money is used to keep this country working.  also, spending in a lot of charities is pretty shoddy see point number 0 as for your version of wrong, i meant in the moral sense of the word.  morally wrong.  not financially wrong.  and if it is financially damaging, meaning you will end up losing more money, is not that not greedy ? you are giving up more money.  losing money.  so, in that sense, it is not greedy because you are losing more of what is supposedly the source of your greed.   #  i absolutely believe that there are good charitable causes.   #  no it is not.  what does he have to gain from not giving it ? nothing at all.  greed implies that you are selfishly taking or hoarding something.  i absolutely believe that there are good charitable causes.  feeding america is great, except for all of the damn mail they send me and there are probably tons of other ones.  it does not mean that you should be obligated to give to any of them.
first of all, i myself am a teenage girl and i have a very close relationship with my parents and i feel safe, and trust them, talking to them about sexual activities as i know they are more experienced than me.  i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.  i believe that teenage girls are first of all not mature enough to have a well researched, or experience say in their sex lives.  their parents have gone through decisions like these, and if teenage girls do not have the ability to trust their parents, then they do not have the ability to trust their own decisions.  especially since birth control involves potential health risks that teenage girls may not be aware of increasingly validates the point that teenage girls should talk to their parents before deciding whether or not they should take birth control pills.  another point is that i believe if teens were given the ability to take birth control without the consent of their parents, they would be increasingly prone to chances of obtaining sexually transmitted diseases.  to prevent this, teenagers should talk to their parents about possible health risks involved with taking birth control pills.  however, being a teenage girl myself i feel that my opinions are not well researched and do not consider the statuses of other teenage girls within their families.  i would really appreciate it if you guys could contribute your opinion and expand my knowledge on the issue.  cmv  #  first of all, i myself am a teenage girl and i have a very close relationship with my parents and i feel safe, and trust them, talking to them about sexual activities as i know they are more experienced than me.   #  i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.   # i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.  this is good for you, but not all people have such good relationships with their parents, and having a bad relationship with your parents does not mean you are incapable of making your own decisions.  you seem to imply this here:  i believe that teenage girls are first of all not mature enough to have a well researched, or experience say in their sex lives.  their parents have gone through decisions like these, and if teenage girls do not have the ability to trust their parents, then they do not have the ability to trust their own decisions.  not everyone has great parents and, as i said before, your relationship with your parents says nothing about your quality and maturity as a person.  and teenagers are not totally incompetent.  to prevent this, teenagers should talk to their parents about possible health risks involved with taking birth control pills.  birth control does not make you more prone or susceptible to stis.  stis are not a health risk of birth control pills.  kids are going to have sex, and we ca not stop that, the only thing we can do is make it safe.  there comes a certain time when a teenager has the agency to, together with their doctor, make their own decisions without the consent of the parents, who may have other motives.   #  i say if they are at or above the age of consent, they should be able to go on bc regardless of their parents  approval.   # you are not giving teenagers much credit here.  hate to break it to you, teenagers are going to have sex anyway.  nothing is stopping them from buying condoms or going at it raw.  at least with bc the chances of getting pregnant go down.  you would think that girls would research the risks before going on it, but nothing is keeping them from being unsafe/unprotected until they can buy bc on their own.  a good relationship with your parents is always awesome, but not everyone is lucky enough to have that.  i would even argue to say it is on the lesser side of being common.  i say if they are at or above the age of consent, they should be able to go on bc regardless of their parents  approval.   #  or should these girls have a right to this medication and the right to their own body ?  #  i would say 0 0 or over the age of consent, whichever is first.  they might have some regrets when they are older, but at least they wo not have another mouth to feed.  the grey area is when you consider 0 0 year old girls under the age of consent.  is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? or should these girls have a right to this medication and the right to their own body ? i am 0 by the way.  i am not sexually active nor have i ever been in the position of deciding to go on birth control, but i have had all sorts of friends growing up who were very risky with their sexual activity because they did not have access to bc.   #  it is unusual for a teenager, at any age, to think ahead.   # is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? i do not know what your community is like, but in mine children in that age range will do it regardless.  it is unusual for a teenager, at any age, to think ahead.  i come from an very poor community, teen pregnancy is rampant.  when i left, a 0 year old boy got a girl pregnant and he was a father at 0.  the truth is condoms are not intended to work on young boys, but girls can take birth control and have it work after the onset of puberty.  what is worse: statutory rape, or statutory rape plus a teen pregnancy ? teenagers will have sex, but that should not have to lead to pregnancy.  at least with keeping the option open, and if they choose to take it, they are more likely to think about what they are bodies are capable of.  they will be more aware of potential consequences.  you ca not not take birth control and disregard the consequence of pregnancy, pharmacists and doctors will explain everything.   #  i guess i am advocating for that understanding to extend to young teenagers as well.   # i am just saying the grey area appears when the provider is morals and the current location is laws come into play.  i am sorry, i lost track of the comments.  although i read your previous comments i had not connected the two together.  i guess i am advocating for that understanding to extend to young teenagers as well.  it is not often that they will think of local laws or other is morals.
first of all, i myself am a teenage girl and i have a very close relationship with my parents and i feel safe, and trust them, talking to them about sexual activities as i know they are more experienced than me.  i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.  i believe that teenage girls are first of all not mature enough to have a well researched, or experience say in their sex lives.  their parents have gone through decisions like these, and if teenage girls do not have the ability to trust their parents, then they do not have the ability to trust their own decisions.  especially since birth control involves potential health risks that teenage girls may not be aware of increasingly validates the point that teenage girls should talk to their parents before deciding whether or not they should take birth control pills.  another point is that i believe if teens were given the ability to take birth control without the consent of their parents, they would be increasingly prone to chances of obtaining sexually transmitted diseases.  to prevent this, teenagers should talk to their parents about possible health risks involved with taking birth control pills.  however, being a teenage girl myself i feel that my opinions are not well researched and do not consider the statuses of other teenage girls within their families.  i would really appreciate it if you guys could contribute your opinion and expand my knowledge on the issue.  cmv  #  another point is that i believe if teens were given the ability to take birth control without the consent of their parents, they would be increasingly prone to chances of obtaining sexually transmitted diseases.   #  to prevent this, teenagers should talk to their parents about possible health risks involved with taking birth control pills.   # i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.  this is good for you, but not all people have such good relationships with their parents, and having a bad relationship with your parents does not mean you are incapable of making your own decisions.  you seem to imply this here:  i believe that teenage girls are first of all not mature enough to have a well researched, or experience say in their sex lives.  their parents have gone through decisions like these, and if teenage girls do not have the ability to trust their parents, then they do not have the ability to trust their own decisions.  not everyone has great parents and, as i said before, your relationship with your parents says nothing about your quality and maturity as a person.  and teenagers are not totally incompetent.  to prevent this, teenagers should talk to their parents about possible health risks involved with taking birth control pills.  birth control does not make you more prone or susceptible to stis.  stis are not a health risk of birth control pills.  kids are going to have sex, and we ca not stop that, the only thing we can do is make it safe.  there comes a certain time when a teenager has the agency to, together with their doctor, make their own decisions without the consent of the parents, who may have other motives.   #  you would think that girls would research the risks before going on it, but nothing is keeping them from being unsafe/unprotected until they can buy bc on their own.   # you are not giving teenagers much credit here.  hate to break it to you, teenagers are going to have sex anyway.  nothing is stopping them from buying condoms or going at it raw.  at least with bc the chances of getting pregnant go down.  you would think that girls would research the risks before going on it, but nothing is keeping them from being unsafe/unprotected until they can buy bc on their own.  a good relationship with your parents is always awesome, but not everyone is lucky enough to have that.  i would even argue to say it is on the lesser side of being common.  i say if they are at or above the age of consent, they should be able to go on bc regardless of their parents  approval.   #  they might have some regrets when they are older, but at least they wo not have another mouth to feed.   #  i would say 0 0 or over the age of consent, whichever is first.  they might have some regrets when they are older, but at least they wo not have another mouth to feed.  the grey area is when you consider 0 0 year old girls under the age of consent.  is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? or should these girls have a right to this medication and the right to their own body ? i am 0 by the way.  i am not sexually active nor have i ever been in the position of deciding to go on birth control, but i have had all sorts of friends growing up who were very risky with their sexual activity because they did not have access to bc.   #  i come from an very poor community, teen pregnancy is rampant.   # is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? i do not know what your community is like, but in mine children in that age range will do it regardless.  it is unusual for a teenager, at any age, to think ahead.  i come from an very poor community, teen pregnancy is rampant.  when i left, a 0 year old boy got a girl pregnant and he was a father at 0.  the truth is condoms are not intended to work on young boys, but girls can take birth control and have it work after the onset of puberty.  what is worse: statutory rape, or statutory rape plus a teen pregnancy ? teenagers will have sex, but that should not have to lead to pregnancy.  at least with keeping the option open, and if they choose to take it, they are more likely to think about what they are bodies are capable of.  they will be more aware of potential consequences.  you ca not not take birth control and disregard the consequence of pregnancy, pharmacists and doctors will explain everything.   #  it is not often that they will think of local laws or other is morals.   # i am just saying the grey area appears when the provider is morals and the current location is laws come into play.  i am sorry, i lost track of the comments.  although i read your previous comments i had not connected the two together.  i guess i am advocating for that understanding to extend to young teenagers as well.  it is not often that they will think of local laws or other is morals.
first of all, i myself am a teenage girl and i have a very close relationship with my parents and i feel safe, and trust them, talking to them about sexual activities as i know they are more experienced than me.  i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.  i believe that teenage girls are first of all not mature enough to have a well researched, or experience say in their sex lives.  their parents have gone through decisions like these, and if teenage girls do not have the ability to trust their parents, then they do not have the ability to trust their own decisions.  especially since birth control involves potential health risks that teenage girls may not be aware of increasingly validates the point that teenage girls should talk to their parents before deciding whether or not they should take birth control pills.  another point is that i believe if teens were given the ability to take birth control without the consent of their parents, they would be increasingly prone to chances of obtaining sexually transmitted diseases.  to prevent this, teenagers should talk to their parents about possible health risks involved with taking birth control pills.  however, being a teenage girl myself i feel that my opinions are not well researched and do not consider the statuses of other teenage girls within their families.  i would really appreciate it if you guys could contribute your opinion and expand my knowledge on the issue.  cmv  #  if teenage girls do not have the ability to trust their parents, then they do not have the ability to trust their own decisions.   #  i really envy your relationship with your parents.   # i really envy your relationship with your parents.  i am a teenage guy, and i cannot put my trust in my parents.  they have conflicting views on how they raise me, so i have to make the decision for myself.  for example, my mom believes that i should never compromise my beliefs and i should always make a stand for what i believe is right.  my dad however, says there are times when it is okay to reason with people and to compromise if it could avoid unnecessary conflict.  lengthy story there just to say, many teenagers cannot put complete trust in what their parents say.  parents are just bigger kids raising kids.  it is unfortunate, but sometimes teenagers have to trust in their own ability they have to make choices for themselves.  parents should be there to help their child if they fall down in their pursuit to find what is right for them in life.  now to argue the point, in america, there are many religious people that think it is wrong for their children to have sex.  so they will cut off education, and access to contraceptives as well as organizations such as planned parenthood.  if they needed to have parental consent, it would stop  some  teenagers, but for the ones it would not stop, std is and pregnancies would increase.  plus it would cause a lot of family tension because of what they did.  in rare cases, disowning and sometimes beating.  the solution is not to take away the option of getting birth control, which, for a lot of teenagers you would be doing that for, but rather to educate the people using them properly.  i was never given the talk so i had to do a lot of research about it through school and online.  funny story, i learned about masturbation from a youtube poop video if they could teach what i learned through the sources given to me not youtube poop teenagers would be smarter when making the decision to have sex.  side note, have some confidence in what you are saying.  you are opinion is just as valid as any other non professional persons.   #  at least with bc the chances of getting pregnant go down.   # you are not giving teenagers much credit here.  hate to break it to you, teenagers are going to have sex anyway.  nothing is stopping them from buying condoms or going at it raw.  at least with bc the chances of getting pregnant go down.  you would think that girls would research the risks before going on it, but nothing is keeping them from being unsafe/unprotected until they can buy bc on their own.  a good relationship with your parents is always awesome, but not everyone is lucky enough to have that.  i would even argue to say it is on the lesser side of being common.  i say if they are at or above the age of consent, they should be able to go on bc regardless of their parents  approval.   #  or should these girls have a right to this medication and the right to their own body ?  #  i would say 0 0 or over the age of consent, whichever is first.  they might have some regrets when they are older, but at least they wo not have another mouth to feed.  the grey area is when you consider 0 0 year old girls under the age of consent.  is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? or should these girls have a right to this medication and the right to their own body ? i am 0 by the way.  i am not sexually active nor have i ever been in the position of deciding to go on birth control, but i have had all sorts of friends growing up who were very risky with their sexual activity because they did not have access to bc.   #  i do not know what your community is like, but in mine children in that age range will do it regardless.   # is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? i do not know what your community is like, but in mine children in that age range will do it regardless.  it is unusual for a teenager, at any age, to think ahead.  i come from an very poor community, teen pregnancy is rampant.  when i left, a 0 year old boy got a girl pregnant and he was a father at 0.  the truth is condoms are not intended to work on young boys, but girls can take birth control and have it work after the onset of puberty.  what is worse: statutory rape, or statutory rape plus a teen pregnancy ? teenagers will have sex, but that should not have to lead to pregnancy.  at least with keeping the option open, and if they choose to take it, they are more likely to think about what they are bodies are capable of.  they will be more aware of potential consequences.  you ca not not take birth control and disregard the consequence of pregnancy, pharmacists and doctors will explain everything.   #  although i read your previous comments i had not connected the two together.   # i am just saying the grey area appears when the provider is morals and the current location is laws come into play.  i am sorry, i lost track of the comments.  although i read your previous comments i had not connected the two together.  i guess i am advocating for that understanding to extend to young teenagers as well.  it is not often that they will think of local laws or other is morals.
first of all, i myself am a teenage girl and i have a very close relationship with my parents and i feel safe, and trust them, talking to them about sexual activities as i know they are more experienced than me.  i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.  i believe that teenage girls are first of all not mature enough to have a well researched, or experience say in their sex lives.  their parents have gone through decisions like these, and if teenage girls do not have the ability to trust their parents, then they do not have the ability to trust their own decisions.  especially since birth control involves potential health risks that teenage girls may not be aware of increasingly validates the point that teenage girls should talk to their parents before deciding whether or not they should take birth control pills.  another point is that i believe if teens were given the ability to take birth control without the consent of their parents, they would be increasingly prone to chances of obtaining sexually transmitted diseases.  to prevent this, teenagers should talk to their parents about possible health risks involved with taking birth control pills.  however, being a teenage girl myself i feel that my opinions are not well researched and do not consider the statuses of other teenage girls within their families.  i would really appreciate it if you guys could contribute your opinion and expand my knowledge on the issue.  cmv  #  especially since birth control involves potential health risks that teenage girls may not be aware of increasingly validates the point that teenage girls should talk to their parents before deciding whether or not they should take birth control pills.   #  in the united states, birth control is not available over the counter.   # in the united states, birth control is not available over the counter.  any person, including an underage teenage girl, must get a prescription from a doctor to obtain birth control pills.  that means all girls and women in the us who use birth control pills have been counseled by a doctor first.  additionally, the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists has recently argued URL that the risks associated with birth control pills are not severe enough to justify limiting birth control pills to prescription only, and are pushing for bc pills to be available over the counter.  their reasoning can also apply to countering your cmv argument:  as with any drug, there are risks associated with oral contraceptives.  the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists acknowledges that the pill can increase a patient is risk of blood clots and stroke, especially if she is obese or smokes.  and selling the medication over the counter would reduce the chance that a woman would be screened by a doctor.  the physicians group argues that the risks must be put in context with the risk of blood clots or stroke with an unintended pregnancy.   it is taking the pill or not taking the pill and risking becoming pregnant.   the bolded point especially applies to your cmv.  your arguing in an ideal world, not in reality.  in reality, teens have sex.  anyone who has sex needs to use birth control if they are not actively trying to get pregnant.  while we do give parents control over their underage children is medical decisions, sexual health has always been considered a  personal  decision for individuals.  we associate sexual health with adulthood.  while teens are still not legal adults, engaging in sex is a personal adult decision not one that should be made by the parents of individuals but instead by the individuals themselves.  technically underage teens are not legally allowed to have sex again, because society views sex as an adult activity.  but they do, and when they do, they are engaging in an adult activity, and adult activities should have the decisions made by the individual adults engaging in the activity not by the parents of said adults.  it is not your parents decision whether or not you get pregnant.  it is not their decision whether or not you have sex.  it is not their decision whether or not you abort or carry to term.  and it is not their decision what kind of birth control you use.  any teen is free to ask their parents for permission or input or whatever.  but they should not be legally required to.   #  at least with bc the chances of getting pregnant go down.   # you are not giving teenagers much credit here.  hate to break it to you, teenagers are going to have sex anyway.  nothing is stopping them from buying condoms or going at it raw.  at least with bc the chances of getting pregnant go down.  you would think that girls would research the risks before going on it, but nothing is keeping them from being unsafe/unprotected until they can buy bc on their own.  a good relationship with your parents is always awesome, but not everyone is lucky enough to have that.  i would even argue to say it is on the lesser side of being common.  i say if they are at or above the age of consent, they should be able to go on bc regardless of their parents  approval.   #  or should these girls have a right to this medication and the right to their own body ?  #  i would say 0 0 or over the age of consent, whichever is first.  they might have some regrets when they are older, but at least they wo not have another mouth to feed.  the grey area is when you consider 0 0 year old girls under the age of consent.  is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? or should these girls have a right to this medication and the right to their own body ? i am 0 by the way.  i am not sexually active nor have i ever been in the position of deciding to go on birth control, but i have had all sorts of friends growing up who were very risky with their sexual activity because they did not have access to bc.   #  are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ?  # is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? i do not know what your community is like, but in mine children in that age range will do it regardless.  it is unusual for a teenager, at any age, to think ahead.  i come from an very poor community, teen pregnancy is rampant.  when i left, a 0 year old boy got a girl pregnant and he was a father at 0.  the truth is condoms are not intended to work on young boys, but girls can take birth control and have it work after the onset of puberty.  what is worse: statutory rape, or statutory rape plus a teen pregnancy ? teenagers will have sex, but that should not have to lead to pregnancy.  at least with keeping the option open, and if they choose to take it, they are more likely to think about what they are bodies are capable of.  they will be more aware of potential consequences.  you ca not not take birth control and disregard the consequence of pregnancy, pharmacists and doctors will explain everything.   #  i am just saying the grey area appears when the provider is morals and the current location is laws come into play.   # i am just saying the grey area appears when the provider is morals and the current location is laws come into play.  i am sorry, i lost track of the comments.  although i read your previous comments i had not connected the two together.  i guess i am advocating for that understanding to extend to young teenagers as well.  it is not often that they will think of local laws or other is morals.
first of all, i myself am a teenage girl and i have a very close relationship with my parents and i feel safe, and trust them, talking to them about sexual activities as i know they are more experienced than me.  i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.  i believe that teenage girls are first of all not mature enough to have a well researched, or experience say in their sex lives.  their parents have gone through decisions like these, and if teenage girls do not have the ability to trust their parents, then they do not have the ability to trust their own decisions.  especially since birth control involves potential health risks that teenage girls may not be aware of increasingly validates the point that teenage girls should talk to their parents before deciding whether or not they should take birth control pills.  another point is that i believe if teens were given the ability to take birth control without the consent of their parents, they would be increasingly prone to chances of obtaining sexually transmitted diseases.  to prevent this, teenagers should talk to their parents about possible health risks involved with taking birth control pills.  however, being a teenage girl myself i feel that my opinions are not well researched and do not consider the statuses of other teenage girls within their families.  i would really appreciate it if you guys could contribute your opinion and expand my knowledge on the issue.  cmv  #  first of all, i myself am a teenage girl and i have a very close relationship with my parents and i feel safe, and trust them, talking to them about sexual activities as i know they are more experienced than me.   #  i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.   # i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.  you have great parents.  not everyone does.  i would rather a teenage girl  use a condom  because stis ! , but if she does not feel comfortable discussing sex with her parents and has made up her mind that she is going to have it, then i would want that girl to have access to all preventative measures.   #  you would think that girls would research the risks before going on it, but nothing is keeping them from being unsafe/unprotected until they can buy bc on their own.   # you are not giving teenagers much credit here.  hate to break it to you, teenagers are going to have sex anyway.  nothing is stopping them from buying condoms or going at it raw.  at least with bc the chances of getting pregnant go down.  you would think that girls would research the risks before going on it, but nothing is keeping them from being unsafe/unprotected until they can buy bc on their own.  a good relationship with your parents is always awesome, but not everyone is lucky enough to have that.  i would even argue to say it is on the lesser side of being common.  i say if they are at or above the age of consent, they should be able to go on bc regardless of their parents  approval.   #  they might have some regrets when they are older, but at least they wo not have another mouth to feed.   #  i would say 0 0 or over the age of consent, whichever is first.  they might have some regrets when they are older, but at least they wo not have another mouth to feed.  the grey area is when you consider 0 0 year old girls under the age of consent.  is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? or should these girls have a right to this medication and the right to their own body ? i am 0 by the way.  i am not sexually active nor have i ever been in the position of deciding to go on birth control, but i have had all sorts of friends growing up who were very risky with their sexual activity because they did not have access to bc.   #  it is unusual for a teenager, at any age, to think ahead.   # is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? i do not know what your community is like, but in mine children in that age range will do it regardless.  it is unusual for a teenager, at any age, to think ahead.  i come from an very poor community, teen pregnancy is rampant.  when i left, a 0 year old boy got a girl pregnant and he was a father at 0.  the truth is condoms are not intended to work on young boys, but girls can take birth control and have it work after the onset of puberty.  what is worse: statutory rape, or statutory rape plus a teen pregnancy ? teenagers will have sex, but that should not have to lead to pregnancy.  at least with keeping the option open, and if they choose to take it, they are more likely to think about what they are bodies are capable of.  they will be more aware of potential consequences.  you ca not not take birth control and disregard the consequence of pregnancy, pharmacists and doctors will explain everything.   #  i guess i am advocating for that understanding to extend to young teenagers as well.   # i am just saying the grey area appears when the provider is morals and the current location is laws come into play.  i am sorry, i lost track of the comments.  although i read your previous comments i had not connected the two together.  i guess i am advocating for that understanding to extend to young teenagers as well.  it is not often that they will think of local laws or other is morals.
first of all, i myself am a teenage girl and i have a very close relationship with my parents and i feel safe, and trust them, talking to them about sexual activities as i know they are more experienced than me.  i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.  i believe that teenage girls are first of all not mature enough to have a well researched, or experience say in their sex lives.  their parents have gone through decisions like these, and if teenage girls do not have the ability to trust their parents, then they do not have the ability to trust their own decisions.  especially since birth control involves potential health risks that teenage girls may not be aware of increasingly validates the point that teenage girls should talk to their parents before deciding whether or not they should take birth control pills.  another point is that i believe if teens were given the ability to take birth control without the consent of their parents, they would be increasingly prone to chances of obtaining sexually transmitted diseases.  to prevent this, teenagers should talk to their parents about possible health risks involved with taking birth control pills.  however, being a teenage girl myself i feel that my opinions are not well researched and do not consider the statuses of other teenage girls within their families.  i would really appreciate it if you guys could contribute your opinion and expand my knowledge on the issue.  cmv  #  first of all, i myself am a teenage girl and i have a very close relationship with my parents and i feel safe, and trust them, talking to them about sexual activities as i know they are more experienced than me.   #  i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.   # i would consider myself more independent compared to other teenage girls, however i believe that research is required before making decisions such as birth control.  my dad is a pedophile alcoholic and my mother is in jail.  which one should i talk to about getting on the pill ? my dad probably wo not try anything as i am too old for him now but he wo not give me money.  my mom could give me some of her commissary and i could trade that for a rubber or something.  but if we tried to pass anything she would lose her visitation.  people whose families are pretty functional are often deluded into believing that everyone has parents that do not rape them.   #  you would think that girls would research the risks before going on it, but nothing is keeping them from being unsafe/unprotected until they can buy bc on their own.   # you are not giving teenagers much credit here.  hate to break it to you, teenagers are going to have sex anyway.  nothing is stopping them from buying condoms or going at it raw.  at least with bc the chances of getting pregnant go down.  you would think that girls would research the risks before going on it, but nothing is keeping them from being unsafe/unprotected until they can buy bc on their own.  a good relationship with your parents is always awesome, but not everyone is lucky enough to have that.  i would even argue to say it is on the lesser side of being common.  i say if they are at or above the age of consent, they should be able to go on bc regardless of their parents  approval.   #  the grey area is when you consider 0 0 year old girls under the age of consent.   #  i would say 0 0 or over the age of consent, whichever is first.  they might have some regrets when they are older, but at least they wo not have another mouth to feed.  the grey area is when you consider 0 0 year old girls under the age of consent.  is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? or should these girls have a right to this medication and the right to their own body ? i am 0 by the way.  i am not sexually active nor have i ever been in the position of deciding to go on birth control, but i have had all sorts of friends growing up who were very risky with their sexual activity because they did not have access to bc.   #  what is worse: statutory rape, or statutory rape plus a teen pregnancy ?  # is it illegal supplying these girls with an item that would encourage statutory rape ? are you helping these girls by keeping them from getting pregnant, or supporting an unhealthy, manipulative relationship ? i do not know what your community is like, but in mine children in that age range will do it regardless.  it is unusual for a teenager, at any age, to think ahead.  i come from an very poor community, teen pregnancy is rampant.  when i left, a 0 year old boy got a girl pregnant and he was a father at 0.  the truth is condoms are not intended to work on young boys, but girls can take birth control and have it work after the onset of puberty.  what is worse: statutory rape, or statutory rape plus a teen pregnancy ? teenagers will have sex, but that should not have to lead to pregnancy.  at least with keeping the option open, and if they choose to take it, they are more likely to think about what they are bodies are capable of.  they will be more aware of potential consequences.  you ca not not take birth control and disregard the consequence of pregnancy, pharmacists and doctors will explain everything.   #  although i read your previous comments i had not connected the two together.   # i am just saying the grey area appears when the provider is morals and the current location is laws come into play.  i am sorry, i lost track of the comments.  although i read your previous comments i had not connected the two together.  i guess i am advocating for that understanding to extend to young teenagers as well.  it is not often that they will think of local laws or other is morals.
if you do not pay federal income tax your either a criminal or poor.  if your a criminal, go to hell.  if your poor, your on welfare, if your on welfare, your taking federal funds, funds which come from other taxpayers.  i feel that if you want to have a say in our country is budget, you must pitch into it.  i specify federal income tax, because that is what i am mostly familiar with, and its the most prominent federal tax, and one of if not the largest source of funding for the government.  i also do not think there should be an income tax, and even if there is, it should be the same rate for everyone.  but that is another subject.  also, i am at work: i will be actively responding, but sadly not as fast as i, or you might like.  i will get to everyone.   #  if you do not pay federal income tax your either a criminal or poor.   #  i hope you are trolling, nearly half URL of all americans do not pay federal income tax.   # i hope you are trolling, nearly half URL of all americans do not pay federal income tax.  the claim that  if you do not pay federal income tax your either a criminal or poor.   is patently false and a severe misrepresentation of most americans.  secondly, there is the issue of poll taxes.  URL poll taxes were declared unconstitutional in 0 due to the fact that they were in direct violation of the 0th amendment.  remember romney is famous 0 quote ? most of those people do not pay federal income tax, are you really advocating for the disenfranchisement of nearly half of the american populace ? because if you are the american oligarchy would love to fund and support your push for this pivotal moment in american history.  people voting is a good thing, m kay ?  #  which candidate do i think is the least likely to pass laws that harm other people ?  #  which candidate do i think is the best foreign diplomat, and is the least likely to get us attacked as a result ? which candidate do i think is the most likely to pass laws that help me, as an lgbt person ? which candidate do i think is the least likely to pass laws that harm other people ? which candidate do i think is the least likely to pass laws that, for instance, fuck with the internet ? which candidate do i think is the least likely to be corrupt ? which candidate do i think is the least likely to listen to lobbyists, and do what is right for the country, rather than their own wallet ? that is just off the top of my head.  there is a lot that does not have to do with money.   #  workers without children that have incomes below about $0,0 $0,0 for a married couple can receive a very small eitc benefit.   #    0;   0;   0;  earned income tax credit  URL sfw  the united states federal  earned income tax credit  or  earned income credit   eitc  or  eic  is a refundable tax credit URL for low to moderate income working individuals and couples particularly those with children.  the amount of eitc benefit depends on a recipient is income and number of children.  for a person or couple to claim one or more persons as their qualifying child ren , the relationship, age, and shared residency requirements must be met, as well as some other requirements.  in the 0 tax year, working families with children that have annual incomes below $0,0 to $0,0 depending on the number of dependent children may be eligible for the federal eitc.  workers without children that have incomes below about $0,0 $0,0 for a married couple can receive a very small eitc benefit.  u. s.  tax forms 0ez, 0a, or 0 can be used to claim eitc without qualifying children.  to claim the credit with qualifying children, 0a or 0 must be used along with schedule eitc attached.   will  also  delete  on  comment  score  of   0  or  less.   |   faqs URL  |  mods URL  |  magic  words URL  #  URL   in the 0 tax year, working families with children that have annual incomes below $0,0 to $0,0 depending on the number of dependent children may be eligible for the federal eitc.    # as far as i was aware you do not pay taxes when the government considers you poor.  its right in the article.  unemployement   elderly/retired   low wage workers    fictional  tax credits, e. g.  URL   in the 0 tax year, working families with children that have annual incomes below $0,0 to $0,0 depending on the number of dependent children may be eligible for the federal eitc.   i am not sure if any of these should immediately lose their right to vote.   if you get laid off, you ca not vote .   if you take advantage of tax credits, you ca not vote .  i think also student and new parents on unpaid temporary maternally leave would also cause no income taxes but they should still vote.  i can be  rich  and still fall into those categories.  its just based on income you make.   #  any proportional voting system as per the purposes stated by the op would have to deal in absolute $, since that is what the budget is ultimately made of.   # i get like 0.  i hope you are joking.  you know romney is 0 is, in absolute $ terms, larger than your 0, right ? any proportional voting system as per the purposes stated by the op would have to deal in absolute $, since that is what the budget is ultimately made of.  btw billionaire tom perkins recently made statements that this should be our voting system, since it most closely resemble stockholder voting.  problem is, citizens hold more than just a financial stake in their country.
if you do not pay federal income tax your either a criminal or poor.  if your a criminal, go to hell.  if your poor, your on welfare, if your on welfare, your taking federal funds, funds which come from other taxpayers.  i feel that if you want to have a say in our country is budget, you must pitch into it.  i specify federal income tax, because that is what i am mostly familiar with, and its the most prominent federal tax, and one of if not the largest source of funding for the government.  i also do not think there should be an income tax, and even if there is, it should be the same rate for everyone.  but that is another subject.  also, i am at work: i will be actively responding, but sadly not as fast as i, or you might like.  i will get to everyone.   #  if you do not pay federal income tax your either a criminal or poor.   #  or you are rich and do not need to work for a living because you live off of your inheritance or trust fund.   # or you are rich and do not need to work for a living because you live off of your inheritance or trust fund.  or your own earnings.  what if i paid income tax once but never again ? can i still vote ? do you have to have paid tax the year that you vote ? we will need to pay for the infrastructure to connect the irs records to the fec; and have that be updated annually.  what about retired folks ? they worked their entire life earning a living and paying taxes, now they are retired and living off their savings and not paying taxes.  they do not get to vote anymore ?  #  there is a lot that does not have to do with money.   #  which candidate do i think is the best foreign diplomat, and is the least likely to get us attacked as a result ? which candidate do i think is the most likely to pass laws that help me, as an lgbt person ? which candidate do i think is the least likely to pass laws that harm other people ? which candidate do i think is the least likely to pass laws that, for instance, fuck with the internet ? which candidate do i think is the least likely to be corrupt ? which candidate do i think is the least likely to listen to lobbyists, and do what is right for the country, rather than their own wallet ? that is just off the top of my head.  there is a lot that does not have to do with money.   #  the claim that  if you do not pay federal income tax your either a criminal or poor.    # i hope you are trolling, nearly half URL of all americans do not pay federal income tax.  the claim that  if you do not pay federal income tax your either a criminal or poor.   is patently false and a severe misrepresentation of most americans.  secondly, there is the issue of poll taxes.  URL poll taxes were declared unconstitutional in 0 due to the fact that they were in direct violation of the 0th amendment.  remember romney is famous 0 quote ? most of those people do not pay federal income tax, are you really advocating for the disenfranchisement of nearly half of the american populace ? because if you are the american oligarchy would love to fund and support your push for this pivotal moment in american history.  people voting is a good thing, m kay ?  #  workers without children that have incomes below about $0,0 $0,0 for a married couple can receive a very small eitc benefit.   #    0;   0;   0;  earned income tax credit  URL sfw  the united states federal  earned income tax credit  or  earned income credit   eitc  or  eic  is a refundable tax credit URL for low to moderate income working individuals and couples particularly those with children.  the amount of eitc benefit depends on a recipient is income and number of children.  for a person or couple to claim one or more persons as their qualifying child ren , the relationship, age, and shared residency requirements must be met, as well as some other requirements.  in the 0 tax year, working families with children that have annual incomes below $0,0 to $0,0 depending on the number of dependent children may be eligible for the federal eitc.  workers without children that have incomes below about $0,0 $0,0 for a married couple can receive a very small eitc benefit.  u. s.  tax forms 0ez, 0a, or 0 can be used to claim eitc without qualifying children.  to claim the credit with qualifying children, 0a or 0 must be used along with schedule eitc attached.   will  also  delete  on  comment  score  of   0  or  less.   |   faqs URL  |  mods URL  |  magic  words URL  #  as far as i was aware you do not pay taxes when the government considers you poor.  its right in the article.   # as far as i was aware you do not pay taxes when the government considers you poor.  its right in the article.  unemployement   elderly/retired   low wage workers    fictional  tax credits, e. g.  URL   in the 0 tax year, working families with children that have annual incomes below $0,0 to $0,0 depending on the number of dependent children may be eligible for the federal eitc.   i am not sure if any of these should immediately lose their right to vote.   if you get laid off, you ca not vote .   if you take advantage of tax credits, you ca not vote .  i think also student and new parents on unpaid temporary maternally leave would also cause no income taxes but they should still vote.  i can be  rich  and still fall into those categories.  its just based on income you make.
death with dignity  is a bogus political slogan, even more misleading than pro life/pro choice.  death is antithetical to dignity.  no matter how broken or disgusting your body has become, it will be even worse after death.  you are not preserving anything by choosing to die.  there is dignity in choosing to live even though death would solve your problems.  living with extreme pain proves your strength.  choosing death over disability is insulting to other people who choose to live with their disabilities.  death is the enemy of humanity.  death is the embodiment of evil.  choosing death is siding with death, which means taking a stand against humanity.  in short, choosing death means choosing the easy way out.  dying is not easy, but it is easier than living with your problems.  note that i am talking about assisted suicide, which is often billed as death with dignity.  this is about people choosing death, not having death chosen for them.  being murdered or dying in an accident or dying to save someone else can be dignified, but suicide cannot.  i am not here to say you should not be allowed to choose suicide.  i am just saying it is not in any way dignified.   #  in short, choosing death means choosing the easy way out.   #  dying is not easy, but it is easier than living with your problems.   # death is the embodiment of evil.  choosing death is siding with death, which means taking a stand against humanity.  death is an integral part of humanity.  it is not evil or good, it is just is.  same as life.  they are in a balance with each other.  you do not choose death, because there is no choice.  it is like choosing to exist or not.  you do not have the ability to do that.  dying is not easy, but it is easier than living with your problems.  being dead is easy.  choosing to die is never easy.   #  true, once you are dead it does not matter to you.   # this is the naturalistic fallacy.  lots of things are unavoidable, that does not make them good.  same as life.  people love to say this, but i think it is nonsense.  true, once you are dead it does not matter to you.  but it matters to your loved ones, and it mattered to you while you were still alive.  it might not be easy, but it is easier than living with your problems.  faced with two bad options, death is the easier path.   #  do you have a hand on experience with this type of choice ?  # lots of things are unavoidable, that does not make them good.  does not make them bad either.  life is unavoidable.  you just pop and alive, you never chose anything.  but yet it is good ? death seems like a whole less of a hassle than being alive.  why is life not bad, but death is bad ? true, once you are dead it does not matter to you.  but it matters to your loved ones, and it mattered to you while you were still alive.  nonsense what ? death is like life, like rock or ocean or time or universe.  it just is.  good or bad is defined by humans.  and since we do not know anything about death, it is rather silly to assume anything about it other than it being a neutral state of unknown.  your reality might very well cease to be when you die, leaving nobody and nothing behind.  faced with two bad options, death is the easier path and why do you think that ? do you have a hand on experience with this type of choice ? or you surveyed dead people ?  #  life can have bad moments, but it is also the only possible source of good.   # true, being natural does not make death bad.  death being evil has nothing to do with whether it is natural.  life can have bad moments, but it is also the only possible source of good.  death is the cessation of any possibility of happiness.  the overwhelming majority of humans do not want to die yet death takes them involuntarily that makes it evil.  exactly.  and humans have defined death as bad.  we ca not  know  what happens past the event horizon of a black hole either, but we can make an educated guess based on our observations.  you would have to convert me to a religion i am an atheist to change my view on what happens after we die.  you might be right that my death will be different from everyone else is, and when i die the world will cease to exist.  but in every other case besides my own, death leaves reality unchanged.  so even if my death does not make anyone sad, the billions of other deaths do.  suicide is a single event.  life is a daily burden assuming you see it as a burden .  suicide is viewed as a solution to life is problems; solutions are easier than problems.   #  you only need happiness because you are alive assuming you need it .   # what happens in life is a source of good, not life itself.  it is an empty canvas that has nothing until you paint on it.  still, why good is better than anything else ? it is just another side of a same coin.  you only need happiness because you are alive assuming you need it .  and if we assume there is nothing after death, you do not need that happiness after that.  i would say an involuntary desire for something is not very cool.  nope.  an actor that forces death onto somebody is evil.  and if we assume than involuntarity of something we have no control over is bad, then life is bad too.  so a death is bad because it makes you/others feel things you ca not be sure others actually feel them, since you are not them, but that is another field ? why is any other emotional state any different ? you do not exactly say that things that makes you happy are bad.  maybe some people think that death is a joyful occasion and life is worse than anything.  it is only sad because people are programmed by society to think it is sad.  some societies/cultures do not view it in the same way you do.  people run away from problems all the time so that would not have to face a solution to them.
my view is that publicly owned companies run their business model by focusing on their shareholders first, their customers second, and their employees and assets last.  the assets and people are invested in only enough so that they do not break down and create the highest short term value for the shareholders.  everyone accepts this as a necessary evil.  however if you apply that same philosphy to a worker, they would only do the bare minimum not to get fired.  businesses want people that are motivated and passionate about what they do, and will actively try to fire people meeting the above description.  i think that is hypocritical and ultimately self defeating.  i think that comppanies should upgrade the well being of their employees to a level above assets, and potentially to level equal to their customers in priorities.  i believe this is supported through experiments done at costco and whole foods as two examples.  URL i am torn about this view because left unchecked this leads to bidding wars over personnel and the grass is always greener somewhere else.  however, companies could also increase the total financial investment in activiites, training, bonuses, and yes also salary so cmv that employees are just as important as customers, and that increased investment in employees will lead to higher productivity and retention ?  #  my view is that publicly owned companies run their business model by focusing on their shareholders first, their customers second, and their employees and assets last.   #  i am not sure how you can say assets are last.   # i am not sure how you can say assets are last.  how hard do you think google would fight to retain www. google. com ? how hard do you think microsoft would keep the source code to windows 0 ? how hard do you think a real estate company would keep their buildings ? how hard do you think a gold company would keep its gold mine ? finance companies are mostly people and reputation and business relationships.  those depend on employees.  big tech companies want to keep people around for a long time their productivity growth increases more than their salary growth.  thats why people get big jumps in salary when they change jobs.  some companies do put in training and incentives but they are in the areas where there is high demand for employees.  also, i know it does not seem like it, but sometimes its more profitable to be an employee than to be a shareholder when the share price goes down .   #  many of those people in many of the  problem areas  are customers as well and what happens when you mistreat your customers ?  #  yes, but for the purpose of your first statement, it is completely relevant.  in either case i get it.  i was more just arguing the point over a little itch.  the reality is that the seller generally caters to the market in our economy.  i wo not dispute that.  that being said: this is not good reason to treat human labor like disposable assets.  many of those people in many of the  problem areas  are customers as well and what happens when you mistreat your customers ? it is not a zero sum game.   #  the business does not actually care about the customer, they just want to collect money from them so they do what is necessary to get this money.   #  the reasoning is simple: the business does what it does to keep their customer happy because the customer is their source of income.  the business does not actually care about the customer, they just want to collect money from them so they do what is necessary to get this money.  the customer buys from the business because they provide the most product for the least money.  they do not care about the business, they just want the most product for their money.  as an employee, your employer is your customer.  you sell them your efforts in exchange for money.  you do not care about the customer the business , you just want to collect money from them so you do what is necessary to get this money.  the business as a customer of your efforts buys from you because you provide the most product for the least money.  they do not care about the you, they just want the most product for their money.  does an employee who earns more produce more or better work ? maybe; i am sure it is been the subject of many studies.  if it is shown to the be true, then businesses may adopt it just to get more product for their money.   #  and on top of all that most of us are, and i argue should be, selfish workers who will take the most beneficial path available to us no matter how much it screws over our employers.   #  as an employee i think you are correct but as someone who has also been privy to the finances of a number of small businesses the issue is not that simple.  long term employees mean larger costs to a business.  healthcare for a single person can turn into healthcare for a whole family over decades of employment.  aggressively keeping people means offering your best workers regular raises and promotions and eventually benefits as competition for these workers grows.  also, many businesses ca not compete with larger competitors when it comes to spending for employees so all that investment could go out the window if your best employee gets a better offer.  if you are competing for employees you will end up offering retirement benefits which extends the cost of having am employee decades beyond the point where they still make you money.  and on top of all that most of us are, and i argue should be, selfish workers who will take the most beneficial path available to us no matter how much it screws over our employers.  feeling responsible or loyal for/to your job can seriously hurt your career and your future if you are not careful.  i think most of us would like to be treated better by employers but we still want to be able to make changes without caring how it affects our bosses.   #  go to school, get good grades, and then there will be a job for you that you love and you will be happy and rich.   #  there used to be this idea of a thing called  work ethic .  you worked hard because that is what a job was, and it was the right thing to do™.  call the newer generations ungrateful or lazy or what have you, but the truth of the matter is we were all raised in a lie.  go to school, get good grades, and then there will be a job for you that you love and you will be happy and rich.  it was sold to all of us, and we bought it up.  but that is not reality.  back when everyone had this strong notion of work ethic,  they could afford things .  at then end of a day of hard work, you could actually pay some bills and buy some food.  there were fewer societal expectations of what things you needed to function.  families subsisted of a single car.  there were no cell phones or internet bills.  college, for the rare child that attended, could be paid for by getting a summer job.  now, that is is all a utopian dream.  people are disenchanted.  they are stuck in jobs they are forced to take because it is the only job available.  they  are  cattle.  the only incentive your employer has to keep you is the cost to train a replacement, which means you are extremely expendable.  for a lot of business models, this works.  tell the employees they  should  be happy models of excellence, and hope they listen.  threaten to fire them.  but when they do the bare minimum and get by ? oh well, we still made our profits today.  and if we paid you more and treated you better, then who knows, maybe that would create a better customer experience and business would do better ! but on paper, that is money spent on the employee, a resource that could be purchased for cheaper, in the  hopes  that it might increase overall sales.  so in a sense, you are right.  the employee can be important, but it depends on the business is priority.  a publicly traded business does not care if customers  like  a product, it cares that they exist and keep  buying  the product.  when morale has no effect on sales, it is a cost that can be cut.
this is an opinion of mine that most people seem to disagree with, so maybe i need to be convinced.   0.  what is a successful species ?   a successful species is the one that exploits its environment most efficiently.  growth general reproductive success is a response to an exploitation of the environment.  as such, humans are the most successful large animal species on earth.  i do not think human beings should sacrifice some of this success for the environment.  no other animal would self inflict population control.   0.  the inherent value of the environment.   this touches on whether the environment is worth preserving or not.  as a species, we are at a point where we depend on the environment for survival.  therefore, the environment has utility.  the environment also has aesthetic value for most people.   0.  is there a moral obligation to sustain the environment ?   no.  this is a whole different cmv, but i do not think morality is the ideal method of determining whether or not a population/society should do anything.  on an individual basis, morality is useful, but it has extreme subjectivity.  i feel that, although not perfect, utility is often the more reliable system for societies.  no system of value will avoid subjectivity, and all can be twisted in the same way.   0.  my point.   i use the word  necessarily  in the title because if the solutions we develop allow us to continue to exploit the environment in order to support the growth of our species, then so be it.  i do not believe, however, that the environment on earth will be able to support the growth of humanity indefinitely.  therefore, a more ideal solution is to create synthetic solutions.  i do not think it is too far fetched to imagine generators creating the perfect atmosphere for human growth, synthetic food being healthier and tasting better than traditional food sources.  gardens in place for aesthetic purposes.  i know this is probably a very scattered/incoherent point of view, i am still thinking about it.  in any case, thanks for reading and cmv if you can.   #  this touches on whether the environment is worth preserving or not.   #  as a species, we are at a point where we depend on the environment for survival.   # as a species, we are at a point where we depend on the environment for survival.  therefore, the environment has utility.  the environment also has aesthetic value for most people.  there is more than just that.  we need a lot of diverse foods to fulfill our nutritional requirements, as do many of the things we eat.  plants need soil with a variety of nutrients crop rotation led to a massive increase in yield .  each species requires a great degree of genetic diversity in order to survive without breeding debilitating negative traits into the species.  some species will still go extinct, requiring a large array of otherwise unnecessary species to ensure that another is capable of adapting to fulfill that niche.  all of this leads to an incredibly complex ecological system that is threatened by any attempt to simplify it.  reproducing such a system in a controlled manner is a nightmare of a task, and it will likely always be simpler to simply provide sufficient space and resources for a natural environment to emerge than to try and regulate a manufactured environment.  so, we wo not exactly preserve the current environment, but it is unlikely that it will ever be feasible to do away with a  natural  environment entirely.  even orbital colonies will require a biosphere of some kind.   #  trees are a pretty good way to keep the air clean; there might be other possible methods, but they will never be cheaper than protecting the environment.   #  even if you could design a generator more efficient than a tree, why bother ? that will cost billions in r d, plus you have to build them all.  even if you only needed one generator for every hundred trees, that is still 0 billion generators.  that will be unbelievably expensive, and will require so many resources to build and run that we will essentially have to give up all other industrial production.  i know you do not want to get too specific on the details, but no conceivable ideal generator could possibly be better than trees.  trees are a pretty good way to keep the air clean; there might be other possible methods, but they will never be cheaper than protecting the environment.  what you are proposing is like the segway it is a way to get around that could replace walking, but why do we need it ?  #  is it not possible that said generators could replace trees gradually ?  #   .  the delta is awarded because i had not even considered the r d and building costs.  as i said in my original post, i am still thinking about all of these ideas.  is it not possible that said generators could replace trees gradually ? the project would not be  replace all trees as soon as possible.   as for trees, i am still not convinced that trees are efficient enough to support humanity indefinitely.  on top of that, i have written already that the specifics of alternative solutions the generators is pointless speculation.   #  but i assume we are just using  trees  as shorthand.   # possibly, but we need to preserve the environment until that process is complete.  and even it is gradual, eventually there will be 0 billion generators.  that is a huge amount of resources whatever they are built out of that ca not be put to any other use.  they have done it so far.  by the way, it is worth noting that trees are only responsible for a fraction of our oxygen algae is more important.  but i assume we are just using  trees  as shorthand.   #  so no, perhaps preservation is not the only solution, like how avoiding nuclear war is not the only solution to foreign policy, but those are the only options on the table today.   #  after the centuries and millenniums pass, we might eventually build artificial environment, but preservation is necessary now.  this ballpark guess URL likely a underestimation, estimates that the biosphere gives us services worth over double the worldwide gdp.  to artificially reproduce that would be astronomically expensive.  so no, perhaps preservation is not the only solution, like how avoiding nuclear war is not the only solution to foreign policy, but those are the only options on the table today.  i believe the  moral obligation  argument for preserving the environment is that fact that damaging the environment results in disease, floods, droughts, etc.  that kill humans.
this is an opinion of mine that most people seem to disagree with, so maybe i need to be convinced.   0.  what is a successful species ?   a successful species is the one that exploits its environment most efficiently.  growth general reproductive success is a response to an exploitation of the environment.  as such, humans are the most successful large animal species on earth.  i do not think human beings should sacrifice some of this success for the environment.  no other animal would self inflict population control.   0.  the inherent value of the environment.   this touches on whether the environment is worth preserving or not.  as a species, we are at a point where we depend on the environment for survival.  therefore, the environment has utility.  the environment also has aesthetic value for most people.   0.  is there a moral obligation to sustain the environment ?   no.  this is a whole different cmv, but i do not think morality is the ideal method of determining whether or not a population/society should do anything.  on an individual basis, morality is useful, but it has extreme subjectivity.  i feel that, although not perfect, utility is often the more reliable system for societies.  no system of value will avoid subjectivity, and all can be twisted in the same way.   0.  my point.   i use the word  necessarily  in the title because if the solutions we develop allow us to continue to exploit the environment in order to support the growth of our species, then so be it.  i do not believe, however, that the environment on earth will be able to support the growth of humanity indefinitely.  therefore, a more ideal solution is to create synthetic solutions.  i do not think it is too far fetched to imagine generators creating the perfect atmosphere for human growth, synthetic food being healthier and tasting better than traditional food sources.  gardens in place for aesthetic purposes.  i know this is probably a very scattered/incoherent point of view, i am still thinking about it.  in any case, thanks for reading and cmv if you can.   #  i do not think human beings should sacrifice some of this success for the environment.   #  no other animal would self inflict population control.   # no other animal would self inflict population control.  this is not a  human success vs environment  issue.  it is  human short term success  vs  human long term success .  we ca not be very successful long term if we push ourselves into an ice age.  you touch on this in point 0, though not fully.  and it is easy to imagine a world in which we slowly change the environment, and evolution slowly acclimates our species and other species to the new environment, which would not objectively be a bad thing.  however: historical geologists have conclusively determined that the earth is climate is a  chaotic system , which is mathematical terminology for saying that while it remains a deterministic non random system, small changes have the capacity to produce wild and unpredictable results.  the geologic record shows long periods of gradual changes, interrupted by sharp, immense climate changes that all snowball together at once due to the interconnected nature of all the environment is variables.  we  do not  want anything like this to happen, or we will go extinct just like the dinosaurs.   #  even if you only needed one generator for every hundred trees, that is still 0 billion generators.   #  even if you could design a generator more efficient than a tree, why bother ? that will cost billions in r d, plus you have to build them all.  even if you only needed one generator for every hundred trees, that is still 0 billion generators.  that will be unbelievably expensive, and will require so many resources to build and run that we will essentially have to give up all other industrial production.  i know you do not want to get too specific on the details, but no conceivable ideal generator could possibly be better than trees.  trees are a pretty good way to keep the air clean; there might be other possible methods, but they will never be cheaper than protecting the environment.  what you are proposing is like the segway it is a way to get around that could replace walking, but why do we need it ?  #  on top of that, i have written already that the specifics of alternative solutions the generators is pointless speculation.   #   .  the delta is awarded because i had not even considered the r d and building costs.  as i said in my original post, i am still thinking about all of these ideas.  is it not possible that said generators could replace trees gradually ? the project would not be  replace all trees as soon as possible.   as for trees, i am still not convinced that trees are efficient enough to support humanity indefinitely.  on top of that, i have written already that the specifics of alternative solutions the generators is pointless speculation.   #  that is a huge amount of resources whatever they are built out of that ca not be put to any other use.   # possibly, but we need to preserve the environment until that process is complete.  and even it is gradual, eventually there will be 0 billion generators.  that is a huge amount of resources whatever they are built out of that ca not be put to any other use.  they have done it so far.  by the way, it is worth noting that trees are only responsible for a fraction of our oxygen algae is more important.  but i assume we are just using  trees  as shorthand.   #  this ballpark guess URL likely a underestimation, estimates that the biosphere gives us services worth over double the worldwide gdp.   #  after the centuries and millenniums pass, we might eventually build artificial environment, but preservation is necessary now.  this ballpark guess URL likely a underestimation, estimates that the biosphere gives us services worth over double the worldwide gdp.  to artificially reproduce that would be astronomically expensive.  so no, perhaps preservation is not the only solution, like how avoiding nuclear war is not the only solution to foreign policy, but those are the only options on the table today.  i believe the  moral obligation  argument for preserving the environment is that fact that damaging the environment results in disease, floods, droughts, etc.  that kill humans.
i feel that regardless of whether or not humans are causing climate change, we should be trying to avoid doing it in the future, and we should begin freeing ourselves from oil, no matter the cost.  even if humans are not currently causing global warming and climate change, we are still pumping extraordinary amounts of co0 and other gasses into the atmosphere.  looking at venus, which is roughly the same size as earth, but with a much, much higher co0 concentration, it is very obvious that it does cause warming on a massive scale.  fossil fuels are a finite resource.  there is no other way of looking at it.  one day we will run out.  we need to begin dealing with the rising costs of fossil fuels and free our dependence on them before the price skyrockets or we simply run out all together.  methods for retrieving fossil fuels are growing more expensive and more dangerous every year.  with the introduction of techniques such as fracking, it introduces long term side effects such as pollution of the water supply.   #  looking at venus, which is roughly the same size as earth, but with a much, much higher co0 concentration, it is very obvious that it does cause warming on a massive scale.   #  one argument is that the co0 that humans put out is insignificant compared to the natural levels of co0.   #  i am coming at your position based on the assumption that climate change is  not  valid.  i do not hold this position, but you are not convincing to someone who denies climate change.  one argument is that the co0 that humans put out is insignificant compared to the natural levels of co0.  also, just because venus has high concentrations of co0 and is hot does not mean co0 causes global warming.  it could merely be coincidental.  remember, i do not believe in climate change science so why would i care about co0 and venus ? there is no other way of looking at it.  one day we will run out.  but we have not run out.  why would i start using a more expensive fuel source when the cheaper one is still available ? when the price of alternative energy is below fossil fuels, then i will start using it.  fracking is a relatively new technique.  why not work to make this safer instead of abandoning it altogether ?  #  0.  oil is a finite resource 0.  oil is more harmful to the environment than other energy sources.   #  i am a little confused based on your title vs your post itself.  it seems like you are saying in the title that it is good to move to cleaner energy for reasons other than anthro climate change, but then you devote a paragraph in your post to arguing that anthro climate change is probably a thing.  that aside, i think the phrase  we should begin freeing ourselves from oil, no matter the cost.  is very scary to me.  you are implying that being free from oil is something that is infinitely valuable, whereas realistically, we only want to be free from oil for a few key reasons.  0.  oil is a finite resource 0.  oil is more harmful to the environment than other energy sources.  while both of these are valid, i do not think that we can reasonably say that they constitute more value than everything else in the world.  to address your view as a whole, i want to be clear.  are you saying a.  we as a society should transition away from fossil fuels.  or b.  the government should take significant action to move us away from fossil fuels.   #  do you believe that if you held someone up at gunpoint and took $0 from their wallet and used that to help build a wind farm that it would be okay ?  # governments should help implement legislature promoting the growth and development of alternative sources of energy, and society should work towards adapting those sources and freeing our dependence on oil.  are you  really  sure about that ? i mean, what you are saying is that people with guns should force everyone to hand over their money so that it can be put where they would not voluntarily put it.  do you believe that if you held someone up at gunpoint and took $0 from their wallet and used that to help build a wind farm that it would be okay ? if not, then what makes it okay for the government to do that ? and of course, if it is so obvious that it is such a good idea to put our money into alternative energy sources, why do you have to use violence to get people to contribute.  do not you think people would agree that it is a really good idea and voluntarily invest their money ?  #  you will get more money and so will all the rich people that help subsidise those services you get all those benefits from.   #  well let is try it your way.  everyone gets to keep all their money and get only the services they want.  someone breaks into your house and steals all your stuff ? sorry, you did not pay police service fees, so even if they wanted to help you, they ca not because they do not get enough funding because most people decided to keep their money.  it is a benefit to not only you, but everyone else the way society works today.  i am not going to pretend it is close to perfect, but if my portrayal of your ideal is remotely accurate, then it is a far site worse.  you will get more money and so will all the rich people that help subsidise those services you get all those benefits from.   #  all the cops would do is sign a report that says a break in happened and get some donuts.   # well right now i would be shit out of luck there too.  all the cops would do is sign a report that says a break in happened and get some donuts.  what do you think they do right now, go out and search for your stuff ? fortunately, there is a thing called insurance which covers shitty luck like that.  and so even if there were not any police, there would be insurance that would cover those costs.  and if such a thing were to occur when i was around, those thieves would be shitting their pants running away from the bulletstorm i would rain down upon them.  nobody wants to confront deadly weaponry.  what, you mean that i benefit from the million non violent drug offenders the police keep caged on my dime ? shit i did not know that, thanks for the heads up ! it really is not accurate at all.  i mean, you start off saying that police ca not exist without taking people is money against their will since someone security is a public good, even though the private security industry employs 0/0rds of american security industry workers.  URL
i feel that regardless of whether or not humans are causing climate change, we should be trying to avoid doing it in the future, and we should begin freeing ourselves from oil, no matter the cost.  even if humans are not currently causing global warming and climate change, we are still pumping extraordinary amounts of co0 and other gasses into the atmosphere.  looking at venus, which is roughly the same size as earth, but with a much, much higher co0 concentration, it is very obvious that it does cause warming on a massive scale.  fossil fuels are a finite resource.  there is no other way of looking at it.  one day we will run out.  we need to begin dealing with the rising costs of fossil fuels and free our dependence on them before the price skyrockets or we simply run out all together.  methods for retrieving fossil fuels are growing more expensive and more dangerous every year.  with the introduction of techniques such as fracking, it introduces long term side effects such as pollution of the water supply.   #  i feel that regardless of whether or not humans are causing climate change, we should be trying to avoid doing it in the future, and we should begin freeing ourselves from oil, no matter the cost.   #  cost is the only thing that matters.   # cost is the only thing that matters.  cost resources.  what you do not seem to grasp is that if it costs $0 billion to reduce fossil fuel use 0, then that means we are destroying $0 billion of other resources to do it.  in fact, the very fact that it is unprofitable tells us something that it is a net destructive thing to do and actually does more harm than good.  prices are signals that convey information.  granted, we have government price controls, externalities that go uninternalized lack of property rights enforcement , and other distorting factors.  our prices are not necessarily accurate to what the actual resource costs of things might be.  however, when you make claims that prices can be completely ignored, you are making the claim that all other resources should be spent to solve this one problem, at the expense of solving every other problem.  does that not sound a bit, absurd ? and decaying rainforest plant matter creates more greenhouse gasses than we do.  oh, and we do not even know if global warming will be economically destructive.  it might be beneficial by increasing arable land, biodiversity, reducing deaths due to cold which outweigh those caused by heat , etc.  we ca not really estimate whether changes are going to be good or bad.  it is all guesswork and that means we are just as likely to make things worse than better by changing course.  and so they will become more expensive as they deplete, signaling other producers of energy to create more of their product, such as nuclear, solar, hydro, etc.  but that process naturally occurs if the market is left alone.  there is no need to panic.  people will make investments and solve the issue because they are greedy bastards who want to make a profit.  is not that wonderful ? i have heard no evidence that fracking itself causes any water supply pollution when done correctly.  the only evidence for contamination i have seen is from chemical storage tanks spilling and similar industrial accidents, which: a should make the offending company liable and b can occur in any chemical industry and are not unique to fracking i think you have bought into hype and are not thinking for yourself.   #  you are implying that being free from oil is something that is infinitely valuable, whereas realistically, we only want to be free from oil for a few key reasons.   #  i am a little confused based on your title vs your post itself.  it seems like you are saying in the title that it is good to move to cleaner energy for reasons other than anthro climate change, but then you devote a paragraph in your post to arguing that anthro climate change is probably a thing.  that aside, i think the phrase  we should begin freeing ourselves from oil, no matter the cost.  is very scary to me.  you are implying that being free from oil is something that is infinitely valuable, whereas realistically, we only want to be free from oil for a few key reasons.  0.  oil is a finite resource 0.  oil is more harmful to the environment than other energy sources.  while both of these are valid, i do not think that we can reasonably say that they constitute more value than everything else in the world.  to address your view as a whole, i want to be clear.  are you saying a.  we as a society should transition away from fossil fuels.  or b.  the government should take significant action to move us away from fossil fuels.   #  do you believe that if you held someone up at gunpoint and took $0 from their wallet and used that to help build a wind farm that it would be okay ?  # governments should help implement legislature promoting the growth and development of alternative sources of energy, and society should work towards adapting those sources and freeing our dependence on oil.  are you  really  sure about that ? i mean, what you are saying is that people with guns should force everyone to hand over their money so that it can be put where they would not voluntarily put it.  do you believe that if you held someone up at gunpoint and took $0 from their wallet and used that to help build a wind farm that it would be okay ? if not, then what makes it okay for the government to do that ? and of course, if it is so obvious that it is such a good idea to put our money into alternative energy sources, why do you have to use violence to get people to contribute.  do not you think people would agree that it is a really good idea and voluntarily invest their money ?  #  sorry, you did not pay police service fees, so even if they wanted to help you, they ca not because they do not get enough funding because most people decided to keep their money.   #  well let is try it your way.  everyone gets to keep all their money and get only the services they want.  someone breaks into your house and steals all your stuff ? sorry, you did not pay police service fees, so even if they wanted to help you, they ca not because they do not get enough funding because most people decided to keep their money.  it is a benefit to not only you, but everyone else the way society works today.  i am not going to pretend it is close to perfect, but if my portrayal of your ideal is remotely accurate, then it is a far site worse.  you will get more money and so will all the rich people that help subsidise those services you get all those benefits from.   #  and so even if there were not any police, there would be insurance that would cover those costs.   # well right now i would be shit out of luck there too.  all the cops would do is sign a report that says a break in happened and get some donuts.  what do you think they do right now, go out and search for your stuff ? fortunately, there is a thing called insurance which covers shitty luck like that.  and so even if there were not any police, there would be insurance that would cover those costs.  and if such a thing were to occur when i was around, those thieves would be shitting their pants running away from the bulletstorm i would rain down upon them.  nobody wants to confront deadly weaponry.  what, you mean that i benefit from the million non violent drug offenders the police keep caged on my dime ? shit i did not know that, thanks for the heads up ! it really is not accurate at all.  i mean, you start off saying that police ca not exist without taking people is money against their will since someone security is a public good, even though the private security industry employs 0/0rds of american security industry workers.  URL
i feel that regardless of whether or not humans are causing climate change, we should be trying to avoid doing it in the future, and we should begin freeing ourselves from oil, no matter the cost.  even if humans are not currently causing global warming and climate change, we are still pumping extraordinary amounts of co0 and other gasses into the atmosphere.  looking at venus, which is roughly the same size as earth, but with a much, much higher co0 concentration, it is very obvious that it does cause warming on a massive scale.  fossil fuels are a finite resource.  there is no other way of looking at it.  one day we will run out.  we need to begin dealing with the rising costs of fossil fuels and free our dependence on them before the price skyrockets or we simply run out all together.  methods for retrieving fossil fuels are growing more expensive and more dangerous every year.  with the introduction of techniques such as fracking, it introduces long term side effects such as pollution of the water supply.   #  even if humans are not currently causing global warming and climate change, we are still pumping extraordinary amounts of co0 and other gasses into the atmosphere.   #  and decaying rainforest plant matter creates more greenhouse gasses than we do.   # cost is the only thing that matters.  cost resources.  what you do not seem to grasp is that if it costs $0 billion to reduce fossil fuel use 0, then that means we are destroying $0 billion of other resources to do it.  in fact, the very fact that it is unprofitable tells us something that it is a net destructive thing to do and actually does more harm than good.  prices are signals that convey information.  granted, we have government price controls, externalities that go uninternalized lack of property rights enforcement , and other distorting factors.  our prices are not necessarily accurate to what the actual resource costs of things might be.  however, when you make claims that prices can be completely ignored, you are making the claim that all other resources should be spent to solve this one problem, at the expense of solving every other problem.  does that not sound a bit, absurd ? and decaying rainforest plant matter creates more greenhouse gasses than we do.  oh, and we do not even know if global warming will be economically destructive.  it might be beneficial by increasing arable land, biodiversity, reducing deaths due to cold which outweigh those caused by heat , etc.  we ca not really estimate whether changes are going to be good or bad.  it is all guesswork and that means we are just as likely to make things worse than better by changing course.  and so they will become more expensive as they deplete, signaling other producers of energy to create more of their product, such as nuclear, solar, hydro, etc.  but that process naturally occurs if the market is left alone.  there is no need to panic.  people will make investments and solve the issue because they are greedy bastards who want to make a profit.  is not that wonderful ? i have heard no evidence that fracking itself causes any water supply pollution when done correctly.  the only evidence for contamination i have seen is from chemical storage tanks spilling and similar industrial accidents, which: a should make the offending company liable and b can occur in any chemical industry and are not unique to fracking i think you have bought into hype and are not thinking for yourself.   #  0.  oil is a finite resource 0.  oil is more harmful to the environment than other energy sources.   #  i am a little confused based on your title vs your post itself.  it seems like you are saying in the title that it is good to move to cleaner energy for reasons other than anthro climate change, but then you devote a paragraph in your post to arguing that anthro climate change is probably a thing.  that aside, i think the phrase  we should begin freeing ourselves from oil, no matter the cost.  is very scary to me.  you are implying that being free from oil is something that is infinitely valuable, whereas realistically, we only want to be free from oil for a few key reasons.  0.  oil is a finite resource 0.  oil is more harmful to the environment than other energy sources.  while both of these are valid, i do not think that we can reasonably say that they constitute more value than everything else in the world.  to address your view as a whole, i want to be clear.  are you saying a.  we as a society should transition away from fossil fuels.  or b.  the government should take significant action to move us away from fossil fuels.   #  i mean, what you are saying is that people with guns should force everyone to hand over their money so that it can be put where they would not voluntarily put it.   # governments should help implement legislature promoting the growth and development of alternative sources of energy, and society should work towards adapting those sources and freeing our dependence on oil.  are you  really  sure about that ? i mean, what you are saying is that people with guns should force everyone to hand over their money so that it can be put where they would not voluntarily put it.  do you believe that if you held someone up at gunpoint and took $0 from their wallet and used that to help build a wind farm that it would be okay ? if not, then what makes it okay for the government to do that ? and of course, if it is so obvious that it is such a good idea to put our money into alternative energy sources, why do you have to use violence to get people to contribute.  do not you think people would agree that it is a really good idea and voluntarily invest their money ?  #  someone breaks into your house and steals all your stuff ?  #  well let is try it your way.  everyone gets to keep all their money and get only the services they want.  someone breaks into your house and steals all your stuff ? sorry, you did not pay police service fees, so even if they wanted to help you, they ca not because they do not get enough funding because most people decided to keep their money.  it is a benefit to not only you, but everyone else the way society works today.  i am not going to pretend it is close to perfect, but if my portrayal of your ideal is remotely accurate, then it is a far site worse.  you will get more money and so will all the rich people that help subsidise those services you get all those benefits from.   #  shit i did not know that, thanks for the heads up !  # well right now i would be shit out of luck there too.  all the cops would do is sign a report that says a break in happened and get some donuts.  what do you think they do right now, go out and search for your stuff ? fortunately, there is a thing called insurance which covers shitty luck like that.  and so even if there were not any police, there would be insurance that would cover those costs.  and if such a thing were to occur when i was around, those thieves would be shitting their pants running away from the bulletstorm i would rain down upon them.  nobody wants to confront deadly weaponry.  what, you mean that i benefit from the million non violent drug offenders the police keep caged on my dime ? shit i did not know that, thanks for the heads up ! it really is not accurate at all.  i mean, you start off saying that police ca not exist without taking people is money against their will since someone security is a public good, even though the private security industry employs 0/0rds of american security industry workers.  URL
i feel that regardless of whether or not humans are causing climate change, we should be trying to avoid doing it in the future, and we should begin freeing ourselves from oil, no matter the cost.  even if humans are not currently causing global warming and climate change, we are still pumping extraordinary amounts of co0 and other gasses into the atmosphere.  looking at venus, which is roughly the same size as earth, but with a much, much higher co0 concentration, it is very obvious that it does cause warming on a massive scale.  fossil fuels are a finite resource.  there is no other way of looking at it.  one day we will run out.  we need to begin dealing with the rising costs of fossil fuels and free our dependence on them before the price skyrockets or we simply run out all together.  methods for retrieving fossil fuels are growing more expensive and more dangerous every year.  with the introduction of techniques such as fracking, it introduces long term side effects such as pollution of the water supply.   #  with the introduction of techniques such as fracking, it introduces long term side effects such as pollution of the water supply.   #  i have heard no evidence that fracking itself causes any water supply pollution when done correctly.   # cost is the only thing that matters.  cost resources.  what you do not seem to grasp is that if it costs $0 billion to reduce fossil fuel use 0, then that means we are destroying $0 billion of other resources to do it.  in fact, the very fact that it is unprofitable tells us something that it is a net destructive thing to do and actually does more harm than good.  prices are signals that convey information.  granted, we have government price controls, externalities that go uninternalized lack of property rights enforcement , and other distorting factors.  our prices are not necessarily accurate to what the actual resource costs of things might be.  however, when you make claims that prices can be completely ignored, you are making the claim that all other resources should be spent to solve this one problem, at the expense of solving every other problem.  does that not sound a bit, absurd ? and decaying rainforest plant matter creates more greenhouse gasses than we do.  oh, and we do not even know if global warming will be economically destructive.  it might be beneficial by increasing arable land, biodiversity, reducing deaths due to cold which outweigh those caused by heat , etc.  we ca not really estimate whether changes are going to be good or bad.  it is all guesswork and that means we are just as likely to make things worse than better by changing course.  and so they will become more expensive as they deplete, signaling other producers of energy to create more of their product, such as nuclear, solar, hydro, etc.  but that process naturally occurs if the market is left alone.  there is no need to panic.  people will make investments and solve the issue because they are greedy bastards who want to make a profit.  is not that wonderful ? i have heard no evidence that fracking itself causes any water supply pollution when done correctly.  the only evidence for contamination i have seen is from chemical storage tanks spilling and similar industrial accidents, which: a should make the offending company liable and b can occur in any chemical industry and are not unique to fracking i think you have bought into hype and are not thinking for yourself.   #  i am a little confused based on your title vs your post itself.   #  i am a little confused based on your title vs your post itself.  it seems like you are saying in the title that it is good to move to cleaner energy for reasons other than anthro climate change, but then you devote a paragraph in your post to arguing that anthro climate change is probably a thing.  that aside, i think the phrase  we should begin freeing ourselves from oil, no matter the cost.  is very scary to me.  you are implying that being free from oil is something that is infinitely valuable, whereas realistically, we only want to be free from oil for a few key reasons.  0.  oil is a finite resource 0.  oil is more harmful to the environment than other energy sources.  while both of these are valid, i do not think that we can reasonably say that they constitute more value than everything else in the world.  to address your view as a whole, i want to be clear.  are you saying a.  we as a society should transition away from fossil fuels.  or b.  the government should take significant action to move us away from fossil fuels.   #  and of course, if it is so obvious that it is such a good idea to put our money into alternative energy sources, why do you have to use violence to get people to contribute.   # governments should help implement legislature promoting the growth and development of alternative sources of energy, and society should work towards adapting those sources and freeing our dependence on oil.  are you  really  sure about that ? i mean, what you are saying is that people with guns should force everyone to hand over their money so that it can be put where they would not voluntarily put it.  do you believe that if you held someone up at gunpoint and took $0 from their wallet and used that to help build a wind farm that it would be okay ? if not, then what makes it okay for the government to do that ? and of course, if it is so obvious that it is such a good idea to put our money into alternative energy sources, why do you have to use violence to get people to contribute.  do not you think people would agree that it is a really good idea and voluntarily invest their money ?  #  i am not going to pretend it is close to perfect, but if my portrayal of your ideal is remotely accurate, then it is a far site worse.   #  well let is try it your way.  everyone gets to keep all their money and get only the services they want.  someone breaks into your house and steals all your stuff ? sorry, you did not pay police service fees, so even if they wanted to help you, they ca not because they do not get enough funding because most people decided to keep their money.  it is a benefit to not only you, but everyone else the way society works today.  i am not going to pretend it is close to perfect, but if my portrayal of your ideal is remotely accurate, then it is a far site worse.  you will get more money and so will all the rich people that help subsidise those services you get all those benefits from.   #  well right now i would be shit out of luck there too.   # well right now i would be shit out of luck there too.  all the cops would do is sign a report that says a break in happened and get some donuts.  what do you think they do right now, go out and search for your stuff ? fortunately, there is a thing called insurance which covers shitty luck like that.  and so even if there were not any police, there would be insurance that would cover those costs.  and if such a thing were to occur when i was around, those thieves would be shitting their pants running away from the bulletstorm i would rain down upon them.  nobody wants to confront deadly weaponry.  what, you mean that i benefit from the million non violent drug offenders the police keep caged on my dime ? shit i did not know that, thanks for the heads up ! it really is not accurate at all.  i mean, you start off saying that police ca not exist without taking people is money against their will since someone security is a public good, even though the private security industry employs 0/0rds of american security industry workers.  URL
0 bac: you have done nothing wrong, you are free to go.  0 bac: you are a fucking disgusting excuse for a human being, hope you enjoy rotting in prison and paying $0,0 in legal fees.  your life will be destroyed because you risked destroying others.  i am not in favor of drunk driving.  im aware of how many people are killed by it.  but being against it does not mean being in favor of the irrational way we enforce laws against it.  we need a gradation of punishment, where the punishment is worse the higher your bac.  a basic principle of justice is that the punishment must fit the crime.  if driving around with a 0 bac is considered just fine in the eyes of the law, then we should not go from zero punishment to extreme punishment when you add 0 to that number.  that approach might work by inspiring fear, but it is not just.  what if we did that for speed limits ? zero punishment for going up to 0mph over the speed limit, instant felony for going 0 mph over ? sure most people would be terrified of speeding in that case.  but you are sending confusing messages by saying its perfectly okay to speed as long as its not 0mph over.  and some people, the less cautious ones, will speed anyway thinking they can keep themselves from going over 0.  then bam, felony.  is that any way a just law ? i think not.  also, the speeding law i described would actually be more just than drunk driving laws, because at least you know when you are speeding.  you can only guess at your bac, subjectively estimating how drunk you are.  first, most people have no idea what subjective feeling of drunkness corresponds to a bac of 0.  they have to resort to doing math in their heads:  let is see 0 beers 0 hours ago , plus one shot 0 hours ago, but i ate food with it so it had less of an effect.   secondly some people with high tolerance may not even feel much at all when their bac is 0, and they may feel like and actually are okay to drive.  imagine my speeding law scenerio where there is no such thing as a speedometer, and you have to guess how fast you are going.  then it would be really fair to charge someone with a felony for going 0mph over right ? this is what we should do: have graded punishments with increasing severity for higher bac.  and mandate breathalyzer installation on all cars so that everyone knows exactly whether they are breaking the law or not before starting the ignition.   #  we need a gradation of punishment, where the punishment is worse the higher your bac.   #  a basic principle of justice is that the punishment must fit the crime.   # a basic principle of justice is that the punishment must fit the crime.  if driving around with a 0 bac is considered just fine in the eyes of the law, then we should not go from zero punishment to extreme punishment when you add 0 to that number.  breathalyzer tests are not very exact.  the law is intended to keep people from driving drunk, and puts a reasonable definition on what is considered drunk.  the ability to drive with a . 0 can vary wildly from person to person.  if you scale the punishment, then it will send the message that . 0 is not that dangerous but . 0 or some other number is the real dangerous level.  this very thing already happens.  there is an arbitrary speed in my area it is 0mph over where the consequences involve jail time and not just a fine.  you can only guess at your bac, subjectively estimating how drunk you are.  if you have been drinking, you should not be driving at all.  speeding can be done safely since you can speed with nobody around and slow down to handle congested areas.  you ca not turn off your drunkenness while driving and that is why it is completely different.  if you drink, do not drive.  period.   #  riding a bike or in your horse drawn carriage with a . 0 bac you are screwed.   #  in ohio it is known as an ovi operating a vehicle impaired .  they changed the name several times and just moved to ovi a few years back and it covers everything.  you actually can be charged with ovi even without a breath test and if you are arrested you must submit to a test or face other charges.  as it was explained to me they changed the wording to ovi so that a vehicle no longer needs to be motorized.  riding a bike or in your horse drawn carriage with a . 0 bac you are screwed.  ohio also has escalating punishments based on how impaired you are.   #  let is say a cop just pulled you over for being much cooler than he is.   #  let is say a cop just pulled you over for being much cooler than he is.  he cannot force you to take a breathalyzer test.  he can ask you to submit to one and you can say no.  he can then ask you to perform field sobriety tests.  you can say no.  then he can arrest you for suspicion of dwi and you will be given a blood test at the jail.  as a general rule, a cop is not going to drive around looking for people following traffic laws to pull over.   #  and at the end of the day, anyone they find with any of those methods with a bac above the magic number will be screwed over, even though they were driving just fine.   # he cannot force you to take a breathalyzer test.  he can ask you to submit to one and you can say no.  he can then ask you to perform field sobriety tests.  you can say no.  then he can arrest you for suspicion of dwi and you will be given a blood test at the jail.  you do not see a problem with this ? sure they do.  how else do they meet their quotas or get off on their power tripping ? and even worse, cops will simply blockade a road and stop and harass people, interfering with their right to travel freely.  and at the end of the day, anyone they find with any of those methods with a bac above the magic number will be screwed over, even though they were driving just fine.   #  then he can arrest you for suspicion of dwi and you will be given a blood test at the jail.   # he cannot force you to take a breathalyzer test.  he can ask you to submit to one and you can say no.  he can then ask you to perform field sobriety tests.  you can say no.  then he can arrest you for suspicion of dwi and you will be given a blood test at the jail.  with what ? the fictional cop pulling you over for being too cool ? i was responding to your comment that a cop pulls you over for no reason and  forces  you to take a breathalyzer.  he ca not force you to take a breathalyzer test.  i get that you hate cops.  a lot of people on reddit do.  i disagree with the premise of a cop finding any illegal means to arrest innocent people who drive just fine while drunk.  you seem to be stating that cops should only pull people over who are swerving all over the road and drunk off their ass and not pulling over the guy who had a few too many and wo not be able to react in time to keep from killing the child around the next corner.
0 bac: you have done nothing wrong, you are free to go.  0 bac: you are a fucking disgusting excuse for a human being, hope you enjoy rotting in prison and paying $0,0 in legal fees.  your life will be destroyed because you risked destroying others.  i am not in favor of drunk driving.  im aware of how many people are killed by it.  but being against it does not mean being in favor of the irrational way we enforce laws against it.  we need a gradation of punishment, where the punishment is worse the higher your bac.  a basic principle of justice is that the punishment must fit the crime.  if driving around with a 0 bac is considered just fine in the eyes of the law, then we should not go from zero punishment to extreme punishment when you add 0 to that number.  that approach might work by inspiring fear, but it is not just.  what if we did that for speed limits ? zero punishment for going up to 0mph over the speed limit, instant felony for going 0 mph over ? sure most people would be terrified of speeding in that case.  but you are sending confusing messages by saying its perfectly okay to speed as long as its not 0mph over.  and some people, the less cautious ones, will speed anyway thinking they can keep themselves from going over 0.  then bam, felony.  is that any way a just law ? i think not.  also, the speeding law i described would actually be more just than drunk driving laws, because at least you know when you are speeding.  you can only guess at your bac, subjectively estimating how drunk you are.  first, most people have no idea what subjective feeling of drunkness corresponds to a bac of 0.  they have to resort to doing math in their heads:  let is see 0 beers 0 hours ago , plus one shot 0 hours ago, but i ate food with it so it had less of an effect.   secondly some people with high tolerance may not even feel much at all when their bac is 0, and they may feel like and actually are okay to drive.  imagine my speeding law scenerio where there is no such thing as a speedometer, and you have to guess how fast you are going.  then it would be really fair to charge someone with a felony for going 0mph over right ? this is what we should do: have graded punishments with increasing severity for higher bac.  and mandate breathalyzer installation on all cars so that everyone knows exactly whether they are breaking the law or not before starting the ignition.   #  also, the speeding law i described would actually be more just than drunk driving laws, because at least you know when you are speeding.   #  you can only guess at your bac, subjectively estimating how drunk you are.   # a basic principle of justice is that the punishment must fit the crime.  if driving around with a 0 bac is considered just fine in the eyes of the law, then we should not go from zero punishment to extreme punishment when you add 0 to that number.  breathalyzer tests are not very exact.  the law is intended to keep people from driving drunk, and puts a reasonable definition on what is considered drunk.  the ability to drive with a . 0 can vary wildly from person to person.  if you scale the punishment, then it will send the message that . 0 is not that dangerous but . 0 or some other number is the real dangerous level.  this very thing already happens.  there is an arbitrary speed in my area it is 0mph over where the consequences involve jail time and not just a fine.  you can only guess at your bac, subjectively estimating how drunk you are.  if you have been drinking, you should not be driving at all.  speeding can be done safely since you can speed with nobody around and slow down to handle congested areas.  you ca not turn off your drunkenness while driving and that is why it is completely different.  if you drink, do not drive.  period.   #  riding a bike or in your horse drawn carriage with a . 0 bac you are screwed.   #  in ohio it is known as an ovi operating a vehicle impaired .  they changed the name several times and just moved to ovi a few years back and it covers everything.  you actually can be charged with ovi even without a breath test and if you are arrested you must submit to a test or face other charges.  as it was explained to me they changed the wording to ovi so that a vehicle no longer needs to be motorized.  riding a bike or in your horse drawn carriage with a . 0 bac you are screwed.  ohio also has escalating punishments based on how impaired you are.   #  he can then ask you to perform field sobriety tests.   #  let is say a cop just pulled you over for being much cooler than he is.  he cannot force you to take a breathalyzer test.  he can ask you to submit to one and you can say no.  he can then ask you to perform field sobriety tests.  you can say no.  then he can arrest you for suspicion of dwi and you will be given a blood test at the jail.  as a general rule, a cop is not going to drive around looking for people following traffic laws to pull over.   #  then he can arrest you for suspicion of dwi and you will be given a blood test at the jail.   # he cannot force you to take a breathalyzer test.  he can ask you to submit to one and you can say no.  he can then ask you to perform field sobriety tests.  you can say no.  then he can arrest you for suspicion of dwi and you will be given a blood test at the jail.  you do not see a problem with this ? sure they do.  how else do they meet their quotas or get off on their power tripping ? and even worse, cops will simply blockade a road and stop and harass people, interfering with their right to travel freely.  and at the end of the day, anyone they find with any of those methods with a bac above the magic number will be screwed over, even though they were driving just fine.   #  the fictional cop pulling you over for being too cool ?  # he cannot force you to take a breathalyzer test.  he can ask you to submit to one and you can say no.  he can then ask you to perform field sobriety tests.  you can say no.  then he can arrest you for suspicion of dwi and you will be given a blood test at the jail.  with what ? the fictional cop pulling you over for being too cool ? i was responding to your comment that a cop pulls you over for no reason and  forces  you to take a breathalyzer.  he ca not force you to take a breathalyzer test.  i get that you hate cops.  a lot of people on reddit do.  i disagree with the premise of a cop finding any illegal means to arrest innocent people who drive just fine while drunk.  you seem to be stating that cops should only pull people over who are swerving all over the road and drunk off their ass and not pulling over the guy who had a few too many and wo not be able to react in time to keep from killing the child around the next corner.
idk.  i just feel like in my town at least i see all sorts of  homeless  people who stand on the street corner begging for money.  on the strip of road that they beg on there are at least 0 businesses that hire all forms of work.  sure, they are minimum wage, but with the twelve hours a day you spend standing outside begging for money why do not you get a fucking job and find yourself some housing ? also, they all drink and smoke.  not sure if that is the case everywhere, but they literally do not seem to give a fuck.  my view: homeless people are homeless by choice sure, they may have had an incident that forces them out of their home, but then they keep themselves homeless by giving up and falling into despair.  i do not give money to the homeless.  i do not believe sheltering them is the right thing to do.  i think giving them proper psychological counselling and a job application is more important.  am i wrong in thinking this way ? does anyone here personally know some homeless folks and can attest to their reasons for being homeless ? i do not want just any old schmuck trying to change my view here you do not know their circumstances any better than i do.  cmv.  or do not cmv.  maybe people agree with me ? i guess i am not sure how i should feel about this.   #  i do not believe sheltering them is the right thing to do.   #  i guess it is easy to see how i may have misinterpreted you when you said we should not shelter them.   # i guess it is easy to see how i may have misinterpreted you when you said we should not shelter them.  that said, everyone responds to mental health issues differently.  there is a huge stigma against it in this country that basically says if you have depression, ptsd, or any other form of mental illness then you should be ashamed of it.  it is hard for people to even recognize that they have these issues, and then seek treatment for them.  even then, do you expect that the quality of care the homeless receive is going to be on par with what you or i might be able to get when we have actual money or insurance from our job ? it is easy to be a bystander and say  just get help.  i know some people who got help and they are alright,  but it is hard to put yourself in that person is shoes and feel the weight of their situation.  of course they want to change ! do you think there are that many homeless people who like being homeless ? the problem is that once you become homeless it is extremely hard to get out of that cycle of depression.  there are so many factors holding these people back that the challenge becomes almost insurmountable on their own.  you are projecting your own ideas of what being homeless means onto these people, and those ideas do not match up with reality.  getting out of that situation is not as easy as having a stiff upper lip and trying your hardest.  the american dream is not actually real, and the illusion of it holds these people in their place.  you do not want to help them because they  appear  as if they are not trying hard enough.  how do you  know  they are not trying hard enough ? how do you  know  they are not just ill equipped to deal with being homeless and do not have the tools or resources to get out of it by themselves ? why would you want to let your fellow human beings fall by the wayside for, often enough, circumstances beyond their control.  lastly, if you were in their boots, would you rather that people look down on you and say  just try harder and i am sure you will get out of it  or would you rather they offer you a place to stay, food to eat, and resources to get back on your feet ?  #  more importantly, a lot of homeless people have psychological disorders.   #  first of all, it is much harder to get a job if you are homeless.  that is due to hygiene, looks, whatever.  people are immediately prejudiced against you, making it hard to find work.  more importantly, a lot of homeless people have psychological disorders.  you have mentioned treating that, and that is a good step, but in places like the us, that is not free, so it is not an option for most people.  additionally, people need to recognize their disorders and want help, which, if you have a disorder, is often hard.  sometimes homeless people do not try.  more often, it is due to prejudice, and surprisingly common mental issues.   #  and again, you need to address the psychological issues behind homeless individuals.   #  no, not really.  while the basic hygiene can be amended not accounting for severe dental/health issues that may have come about , they also need clothes, and the ability to continue looking decent for an extended period of time while they work.  shelters do not provide that level of assistance.  and again, you need to address the psychological issues behind homeless individuals.  a lack of care about personal hygiene does often stem from a mental disorder, and people with mental disorders are simply unwilling to help themselves.  that is not their fault, and we cannot blame them for not helping themselves and getting an application, when they are not mentally capable of doing so.  we also ca not treat people for psychological problems without their consent, so it becomes a big circle.  the point is, it is rarely for lack of care.   #  and even though they supposedly had your belongings locked up safely, your personal property is probably missing something when youget it back in the morning.   # homeless shelters are  horrible  ! first, you can only shower immediately before bed after relinquishing all your belongings and being issued  sleep clothes  a kind of hospital gown like thing.  then you go to bed in an open bay with lots of other men.  and if you are not randomly attacked during the night, you are serenaded by wet tuberculosis coughs all night.  and even though they supposedly had your belongings locked up safely, your personal property is probably missing something when youget it back in the morning.  yeah you can brush your teeth.  you got a shower last night.  but because you slept in the same room with all the crusty old men with failing livers and kidneys, you still have the stink of homelessness on you.  and no matter what you do, you still look haggard.  homeless.   #  day labor is generally very hard physical labor, at minimum wage.   #  homeless shelters are horrible.  they do not actually help with much because they are unable, i think and what help they can help with is something you have to compete for.  time spent competing for resources at shelters is time that could have been spent finding those same resources on your own.  and if you do it on your own, you do not have to count on luck.  charities are mostly nonexistent once you have passed the first couple years of adulthood.  though you can always count on a few like food not bombs and various church groups who bring food and things like clean socks around.  of course it is deeply appreciated but it does not really lead to a home or anything.  most temp agencies wo not have anything to do with the homeless.  i do not know if you have ever wondered about where homeless people work but the answer is labor ready, or some other day labor agency.  day labor is generally very hard physical labor, at minimum wage.  and everybody i knew when i was homeless did day labor to get by except those on disability, etc.  .  but you do not get picked to work every day unless you have a car because if you have a car you can drive others to the job site.  so with day labor when they can get it, homeless people can with considerable effort, float just below the capability to get themselves off the street.
idk.  i just feel like in my town at least i see all sorts of  homeless  people who stand on the street corner begging for money.  on the strip of road that they beg on there are at least 0 businesses that hire all forms of work.  sure, they are minimum wage, but with the twelve hours a day you spend standing outside begging for money why do not you get a fucking job and find yourself some housing ? also, they all drink and smoke.  not sure if that is the case everywhere, but they literally do not seem to give a fuck.  my view: homeless people are homeless by choice sure, they may have had an incident that forces them out of their home, but then they keep themselves homeless by giving up and falling into despair.  i do not give money to the homeless.  i do not believe sheltering them is the right thing to do.  i think giving them proper psychological counselling and a job application is more important.  am i wrong in thinking this way ? does anyone here personally know some homeless folks and can attest to their reasons for being homeless ? i do not want just any old schmuck trying to change my view here you do not know their circumstances any better than i do.  cmv.  or do not cmv.  maybe people agree with me ? i guess i am not sure how i should feel about this.   #  on the strip of road that they beg on there are at least 0 businesses that hire all forms of work.   #  sure, they are minimum wage, but with the twelve hours a day you spend standing outside begging for money why do not you get a fucking job and find yourself some housing ?  # sure, they are minimum wage, but with the twelve hours a day you spend standing outside begging for money why do not you get a fucking job and find yourself some housing ? is the labor pool there such that only homeless people can possibly fill those positions ? business hire people who are the least risky to their business interests.  homelessness is a major red flag because it correlates strongly with mental illness and other serious personal issues.  unless those jobs desperately needed to be filled and the only people are who can do that work are the homeless, no business would take such a huge risk hiring someone who lives on the streets.   #  people are immediately prejudiced against you, making it hard to find work.   #  first of all, it is much harder to get a job if you are homeless.  that is due to hygiene, looks, whatever.  people are immediately prejudiced against you, making it hard to find work.  more importantly, a lot of homeless people have psychological disorders.  you have mentioned treating that, and that is a good step, but in places like the us, that is not free, so it is not an option for most people.  additionally, people need to recognize their disorders and want help, which, if you have a disorder, is often hard.  sometimes homeless people do not try.  more often, it is due to prejudice, and surprisingly common mental issues.   #  we also ca not treat people for psychological problems without their consent, so it becomes a big circle.   #  no, not really.  while the basic hygiene can be amended not accounting for severe dental/health issues that may have come about , they also need clothes, and the ability to continue looking decent for an extended period of time while they work.  shelters do not provide that level of assistance.  and again, you need to address the psychological issues behind homeless individuals.  a lack of care about personal hygiene does often stem from a mental disorder, and people with mental disorders are simply unwilling to help themselves.  that is not their fault, and we cannot blame them for not helping themselves and getting an application, when they are not mentally capable of doing so.  we also ca not treat people for psychological problems without their consent, so it becomes a big circle.  the point is, it is rarely for lack of care.   #  and even though they supposedly had your belongings locked up safely, your personal property is probably missing something when youget it back in the morning.   # homeless shelters are  horrible  ! first, you can only shower immediately before bed after relinquishing all your belongings and being issued  sleep clothes  a kind of hospital gown like thing.  then you go to bed in an open bay with lots of other men.  and if you are not randomly attacked during the night, you are serenaded by wet tuberculosis coughs all night.  and even though they supposedly had your belongings locked up safely, your personal property is probably missing something when youget it back in the morning.  yeah you can brush your teeth.  you got a shower last night.  but because you slept in the same room with all the crusty old men with failing livers and kidneys, you still have the stink of homelessness on you.  and no matter what you do, you still look haggard.  homeless.   #  most temp agencies wo not have anything to do with the homeless.   #  homeless shelters are horrible.  they do not actually help with much because they are unable, i think and what help they can help with is something you have to compete for.  time spent competing for resources at shelters is time that could have been spent finding those same resources on your own.  and if you do it on your own, you do not have to count on luck.  charities are mostly nonexistent once you have passed the first couple years of adulthood.  though you can always count on a few like food not bombs and various church groups who bring food and things like clean socks around.  of course it is deeply appreciated but it does not really lead to a home or anything.  most temp agencies wo not have anything to do with the homeless.  i do not know if you have ever wondered about where homeless people work but the answer is labor ready, or some other day labor agency.  day labor is generally very hard physical labor, at minimum wage.  and everybody i knew when i was homeless did day labor to get by except those on disability, etc.  .  but you do not get picked to work every day unless you have a car because if you have a car you can drive others to the job site.  so with day labor when they can get it, homeless people can with considerable effort, float just below the capability to get themselves off the street.
the united states has no minimum leave laws.  women get no maternity leave by law.  employees get no sick or vacation leave by law.  while many might view americans as lazy, we work longer hours and take fewer vacations than people in most other countries.  some companies discouraged people from using sick leave and even give you incentives for  collecting it .  the company i work for gives me 0 weeks of vacation a year, but no sick leave.  i am required to use my vacation leave when i am sick.  i believe the united states should pass the following minimum leave laws.   sick leave:  0 weeks per year.   vacation:  0 weeks per year.   personal:  0 days per year.  can be used without doctors note or prior leave request  maternity:  0 weeks per year  paternity:  0 weeks per year  #  i am required to use my vacation leave when i am sick.   #  while it is easy to view this as  sick leave eating into your vacation time , it is more accurately  just 0 weeks of leave, regardless of purpose .   # while it is easy to view this as  sick leave eating into your vacation time , it is more accurately  just 0 weeks of leave, regardless of purpose .  the reason for not distinguishing between sick, personal, and vacation leave is so that people do not get tied down in micromanagement  did you get a doctor is note ? get a doctor is note ! what disease did you have ? can you prove it ?   .   #  letting companies do things like sick leave on their  own  terms allows them to make sure situations like this wo not happen.   # a lot of countries that have paternity leave give a set amount of weeks and the parents can choose how to split it up.  regardless, you kind of feed into the whole  women are supposed to stay home and take care of children .  i recognize that for a lot of women, that is probably how they would split up the time off, but not for all.  some fathers may want to spend more time with their children.  or a gay couple that adopts a baby would only get 0 weeks.  as for your other suggestions, creating mandatory leave will encourage employers to hire people who probably would not need it.  this means they would prefer hiring probably middle aged people who would not be as likely to get sick as older people would, and would not be as likely to have kids as younger people.  remember that companies are  really  scared of lawsuits; it could also cause a large problem there too.  so, if someone was sick for a week, and then got better, and remained on sick leave anyways, and the company fired them, the company could be sued.  letting companies do things like sick leave on their  own  terms allows them to make sure situations like this wo not happen.   #  i like the idea of the parents have so much time to divvy up between themselves.   #  first point: i was not thinking of cases for adopting a child, which should also be included.  i like the idea of the parents have so much time to divvy up between themselves.  the 0 weeks for a mother was purely based off of recovery from childbirth.  without a doctors note employers expect the mother to return to work after 0 weeks.  my wife was not ready physically or mentally after only 0 weeks.  second point: this will be the biggest challenge, and is currently a challenge with the institution of the affordable care act.  people will always try to find a way around these types of laws, but i do not see that as a reason to not institute them.   #  one of my co workers makes considerably less than i do, because when he was hired he negotiated a lower base salary in exchange for roughly twice the number of  standard  vacation days our employer offers.   #  i have two major problems with your view.  first, i believe that ultimately a leave schedule like this could harm employees.  one of my co workers makes considerably less than i do, because when he was hired he negotiated a lower base salary in exchange for roughly twice the number of  standard  vacation days our employer offers.  i, personally, would find little value in that many vacation days and, as a healthy young woman trying to build her career, with no intentions of starting a family soon, would rather have a higher salary and fewer vacation days.  with your proposed plan i would not have the option to negotiate for that, since my employer would have to comply with government minimums despite my preferences.  secondly, any time the government sets a minimum minimum wage, fmla, etc.  it has to balance the necessity of the benefit to the recipient with the onus/hardship placed on the provider.  what you are suggesting seems to be mostly a luxury to me.  having extra vacation days would be nice, and would make people happier, but happiness is not, in my mind, a good reason for a government mandate.   #  tl;dr  mandatory vacation or maternity leave sounds nice but comes with other costs and would not work well in many industries.   #  mandatory paid leave just gets factored into and then removed from salary.  if an employer is losing 0 weeks of work out of the 0 or so they used to have, you can bet salaries are going to fall about 0 over time.  mandatory paid leave really does not change anything, aside from forcing people to not work for a few weeks out of the year.  what if i do not want to take 0 weeks vacation, and i want to get paid for working those weeks ? as it stands now, people can just negotiate for more paid leave.  whenever i ask for a raise i also negotiate more vacation days.  paid maternity leave just makes hiring women more expensive.  as a hiring manager i would always hire a man over an equally qualified female candidate because i would be mitigating the risk of having to pay for several months maternity leave.  yes, this is illegal, but i have a bottom line to meet and it is very easy to make up a reason to not hire the woman.  tl;dr  mandatory vacation or maternity leave sounds nice but comes with other costs and would not work well in many industries.  americans need to learn to ask for vacation and not just salary increases when discussing benefits.
okay, not the  worst  thing, i know that, but you get my point.  i do not understand it, you go on their website, answer some bullshit questions that have nothing to do with what you are applying for, and pray.  what happened to paper applications and face to face ? i am a very hard worker, i take pride in whatever i do, and i make sure it gets done right as quickly as it can be done right.  but no employer is ever going to know that because i didnt get a high enough score, so my application gets thrown out.  this modern age will be the death of humanity if things keep up.  wall e will happen.  the mcdonald is application was the worst offender.  i remember one question, paraphrased, but still 0 what it said: would you rather: have fancy possessions so others will look up to you look down on people that have less than you only options.  how about i think people are equal.  ? and there were about 0 different questions like that that had absolutely nothing to do with flipping a frickin  burger, or working anywhere at all.  others are not quite as bad as mcd is, but still just as stupid since they do not know me, they know my answers most of which i do not even agree with, but i agree with the others 0x less.  how do you expect to judge someone via multiple choice, as if there is only 0 possible ways to deal with any given situation ? i  do  still think they need a bit of reworking, but you are right, it is kind of silly to do it any other way.  it might be somewhat unfair to me, but the alternative is unfair to the company.  it is a catch 0 of sorts, but what can we do ? that is how the world works, and some things you ca not change.   #  i am a very hard worker, i take pride in whatever i do, and i make sure it gets done right as quickly as it can be done right.   #  but no employer is ever going to know that because i didnt get a high enough score, so my application gets thrown out.   # but no employer is ever going to know that because i didnt get a high enough score, so my application gets thrown out.  how would a paper application indicate your pride in your work and that you make sure it gets done right as quickly as it can be done right ? even an interview is not going to convey this information, it is the sort of thing an employer will only notice if they contact your references and they tell them or after you have been working there for a while.  this would be an arduous undertaking and a significant waste of time.  i think your best bet here is to realize that these questionnaires are going to be par for the course for a while until you get to the point where cover letters and resumes are the norm and try your best to  game the system.   do not answer by how you  actually  feel about them, answer by thinking about what they want to hear.   #  the technology is not replacing human interaction, it is just replacing needless time wasted on applicants who can be eliminated before ever meeting with them face to face.   #  odds are a company will not hire you solely on your responses to an online job application.  the goal of the online questionnaire is to sift through applicants so as to not waste time interviewing everyone needlessly.  in response to your experience with the mcd is application, the goal of the questionnaire is not to see if you can flip a burger, but to evaluate what kind of person you are.  they are basically trying to answer the questions; is this person reliable ? can they make good decisions ? are they going to work well with others ? once they can evaluate your moral compass, they can then bring you in for an interview, meet with you face to face   see how you do on the job.  think about how much time would be wasted if they did this with every potential applicant, without the online questionnaire.  for some context think about background checks.  a lot of companies ask you to allow them to run a background check on you.  some companies will do this, before every meeting with you.  take disney world for example, all employees need to have a background check.  is there a point for disney world to wait and run the background check after the interview, only to see that the person has something on their record that would prevent them from being hired ? would not it make more sense to run the background check, see that the person can qualify for the position, and then bring them in for an interview ? the technology is not replacing human interaction, it is just replacing needless time wasted on applicants who can be eliminated before ever meeting with them face to face.   #  and the fact that you never even get a response either way except lowes.   #  knew i forgot to mention something.  yes, i absolutely understand the pre screening process, it does save time.  but how can you expect to get even an idea of someone if said person agrees 0 with all possible choices ? and the fact that you never even get a response either way except lowes.  that sent me an email saying they were not interested.  not great but hey, they freakin  told me .  or what if i just do not understand a question ? there is no help button, and my required answer to it may well screw me over.  that is not what work is like, you can ask for help at work.  i do get what they are trying to do, i just think it failed, i think the whole thing needs a major facelift.  though, i did.  how to word.  i guess  hate  them more before your post, you brought up good points i had not really thought of.  i mean i always knew everything you just posted, but i never much put thought to it because i was focused on me.  have   0; never awarded a delta before, this may take a few edits lol  #  often times they will try to ask the same question in different ways, to try and give people an opportunity to answer correctly, if maybe they did not understand the question the first way it was asked.   # ideally the company has developed a questionnaire that does not have this problem.  often times they will try to ask the same question in different ways, to try and give people an opportunity to answer correctly, if maybe they did not understand the question the first way it was asked.  i understand that you are commenting from your personal experience, but it is not an objective perspective to say that the questionnaires ask questions with answers that do not make sense.  it is also possible that if you did not agree with one of the answers that was available, that you are not a candidate that they are interested in.  like your subjective opinion on the questions, they are allowed to have a subjective opinion on what kind of answers they desire.  if you do not like the answers they are looking for, i would suggest looking for employment elsewhere.  there is no help button, and my required answer to it may well screw me over.  that is not what work is like, you can ask for help at work.  usually they will have a section for comments at the end of the questionnaire.  this is the place where you should mention your concerns with the questions that you had struggled with answering.  if there is no comment section, then you might want to send an email, or place a phone call explaining that you took a questionnaire and you had issues with .  x, y, z.  i think you are generalizing all questionnaires as being equal, this is not fair.  i know i have taken questionnaires, that were understandable, practical, and did not leave me dismayed.  i think the issue is not with online questionnaires in general, and more so online questionnaires that you have had experiences with.   #  provided you can answer a few questions by choosing the answers that are obvious better, then your application will get looked at.   #  this is the best comment because the op seems to be under impression that those multiple choice questionnaires are somehow the job application itself.  they are not.  they are an automated preliminary metric used to discern whether your application even gets looked at.  the employer wants to see if you are able to adopt a positive attitude and facade for the company, and therefore wants you to be able to pass that initial test by choosing answers that are obviously favorable to the company is priorities.  provided you can answer a few questions by choosing the answers that are obvious better, then your application will get looked at.  so, in short, online applications are not supposed to be a good representation of who you are just your initial qualifications and capability to jump through a relatively easy hurdle.  if you apply for a job that asks for a cover letter, or better yet get invited for an interview,  that is  when you get to show your real strengths.  of course, if you are applying for a job that does not ask for a cover letter or typical resume, they probably do not even care  who  you are; you just need to follow their orders/wishes.
okay, not the  worst  thing, i know that, but you get my point.  i do not understand it, you go on their website, answer some bullshit questions that have nothing to do with what you are applying for, and pray.  what happened to paper applications and face to face ? i am a very hard worker, i take pride in whatever i do, and i make sure it gets done right as quickly as it can be done right.  but no employer is ever going to know that because i didnt get a high enough score, so my application gets thrown out.  this modern age will be the death of humanity if things keep up.  wall e will happen.  the mcdonald is application was the worst offender.  i remember one question, paraphrased, but still 0 what it said: would you rather: have fancy possessions so others will look up to you look down on people that have less than you only options.  how about i think people are equal.  ? and there were about 0 different questions like that that had absolutely nothing to do with flipping a frickin  burger, or working anywhere at all.  others are not quite as bad as mcd is, but still just as stupid since they do not know me, they know my answers most of which i do not even agree with, but i agree with the others 0x less.  how do you expect to judge someone via multiple choice, as if there is only 0 possible ways to deal with any given situation ? i  do  still think they need a bit of reworking, but you are right, it is kind of silly to do it any other way.  it might be somewhat unfair to me, but the alternative is unfair to the company.  it is a catch 0 of sorts, but what can we do ? that is how the world works, and some things you ca not change.   #  i am a very hard worker, i take pride in whatever i do, and i make sure it gets done right as quickly as it can be done right.   #  problem is, your potential employer does not know that, and ca not really discern that without hiring you.   #  hiring is an expensive and risky process for businesses.  so a well managed, for profit business is obviously going to seek ways to mitigate that expense and risk.  the  bullshit  questions you have been asked are attempts to measure  soft  and immeasurable attributes such as  are you a stable person,   are you a moral person,   do you have a decent work ethic.   while a multiple choice test is not really going to enable someone to know who you are truly, it can be argued that those that fail such a test  definitely  should not be chosen by the company.  so think of it as a first level  screen  or filter to weed out the obvious bad fits.  if anything, it is a literacy test.  doing this online allows the company to connect with the maximum number of potentially qualified workers at the minimum cost, this lets you have luxuries like $0 hamburgers and such.  problem is, your potential employer does not know that, and ca not really discern that without hiring you.  they ca not just simply take you at your word, because everyone would simply tell their employer and future source of money what they want to hear.  they are between a rock and a hard place just like you.  the question you cite i think is a good question that could give a hint as how they would treat others they perceive as  beneath  them.  i mean, would you spit in someone is food because the customer was a class or type you considered beneath you ? this is probably what they are trying to get at.  tests like these purposefully restate questions in different forms in an attempt to weed out deception.  finally, another way to look at it: if you ca not complete a slightly annoying multiple choice test, regardless of your perspective of its value, why should the employer bother considering you you are already trying to tell the company what to do and you do not even work there.   #  the goal of the online questionnaire is to sift through applicants so as to not waste time interviewing everyone needlessly.   #  odds are a company will not hire you solely on your responses to an online job application.  the goal of the online questionnaire is to sift through applicants so as to not waste time interviewing everyone needlessly.  in response to your experience with the mcd is application, the goal of the questionnaire is not to see if you can flip a burger, but to evaluate what kind of person you are.  they are basically trying to answer the questions; is this person reliable ? can they make good decisions ? are they going to work well with others ? once they can evaluate your moral compass, they can then bring you in for an interview, meet with you face to face   see how you do on the job.  think about how much time would be wasted if they did this with every potential applicant, without the online questionnaire.  for some context think about background checks.  a lot of companies ask you to allow them to run a background check on you.  some companies will do this, before every meeting with you.  take disney world for example, all employees need to have a background check.  is there a point for disney world to wait and run the background check after the interview, only to see that the person has something on their record that would prevent them from being hired ? would not it make more sense to run the background check, see that the person can qualify for the position, and then bring them in for an interview ? the technology is not replacing human interaction, it is just replacing needless time wasted on applicants who can be eliminated before ever meeting with them face to face.   #  yes, i absolutely understand the pre screening process, it does save time.   #  knew i forgot to mention something.  yes, i absolutely understand the pre screening process, it does save time.  but how can you expect to get even an idea of someone if said person agrees 0 with all possible choices ? and the fact that you never even get a response either way except lowes.  that sent me an email saying they were not interested.  not great but hey, they freakin  told me .  or what if i just do not understand a question ? there is no help button, and my required answer to it may well screw me over.  that is not what work is like, you can ask for help at work.  i do get what they are trying to do, i just think it failed, i think the whole thing needs a major facelift.  though, i did.  how to word.  i guess  hate  them more before your post, you brought up good points i had not really thought of.  i mean i always knew everything you just posted, but i never much put thought to it because i was focused on me.  have   0; never awarded a delta before, this may take a few edits lol  #  i understand that you are commenting from your personal experience, but it is not an objective perspective to say that the questionnaires ask questions with answers that do not make sense.   # ideally the company has developed a questionnaire that does not have this problem.  often times they will try to ask the same question in different ways, to try and give people an opportunity to answer correctly, if maybe they did not understand the question the first way it was asked.  i understand that you are commenting from your personal experience, but it is not an objective perspective to say that the questionnaires ask questions with answers that do not make sense.  it is also possible that if you did not agree with one of the answers that was available, that you are not a candidate that they are interested in.  like your subjective opinion on the questions, they are allowed to have a subjective opinion on what kind of answers they desire.  if you do not like the answers they are looking for, i would suggest looking for employment elsewhere.  there is no help button, and my required answer to it may well screw me over.  that is not what work is like, you can ask for help at work.  usually they will have a section for comments at the end of the questionnaire.  this is the place where you should mention your concerns with the questions that you had struggled with answering.  if there is no comment section, then you might want to send an email, or place a phone call explaining that you took a questionnaire and you had issues with .  x, y, z.  i think you are generalizing all questionnaires as being equal, this is not fair.  i know i have taken questionnaires, that were understandable, practical, and did not leave me dismayed.  i think the issue is not with online questionnaires in general, and more so online questionnaires that you have had experiences with.   #  this is the best comment because the op seems to be under impression that those multiple choice questionnaires are somehow the job application itself.   #  this is the best comment because the op seems to be under impression that those multiple choice questionnaires are somehow the job application itself.  they are not.  they are an automated preliminary metric used to discern whether your application even gets looked at.  the employer wants to see if you are able to adopt a positive attitude and facade for the company, and therefore wants you to be able to pass that initial test by choosing answers that are obviously favorable to the company is priorities.  provided you can answer a few questions by choosing the answers that are obvious better, then your application will get looked at.  so, in short, online applications are not supposed to be a good representation of who you are just your initial qualifications and capability to jump through a relatively easy hurdle.  if you apply for a job that asks for a cover letter, or better yet get invited for an interview,  that is  when you get to show your real strengths.  of course, if you are applying for a job that does not ask for a cover letter or typical resume, they probably do not even care  who  you are; you just need to follow their orders/wishes.
i used windows computers for years growing up.  we had a mixture of machines and operating systems: windows 0, 0, xp, 0; laptop, desktop, tablet.  each windows machine i used save for the w0 tablet which was returned as it was faulty slowed down to an unusable crawl after about 0 months, even after investing in antivirus software.  five years ago, i bought a white 0  macbook.  it works as well   no, better   today than it did when i bought it because i upgraded the ram about two years ago.  it has not slowed down no matter what i have used it for, and despite the plethora of questionable files i have downloaded it has never ground to a halt like my previous windows machines.  yes, macs are expensive.  yes, you are paying for the brand.  but there is one more  yes : a mac will outlast a similarly priced windows computer any day of the week.  change my view.   #  each windows machine i used save for the w0 tablet which was returned as it was faulty slowed down to an unusable crawl after about 0 months, even after investing in antivirus software.   #  antivirus software has very little to do with speed.   # antivirus software has very little to do with speed.  oses get bloated over time after many software installations.  good habits can prevent most malware infections.  macbooks are notorious for being unfriendly to those who repair/upgrade parts: macbook pro 0  retina display late 0 teardown repairability score: 0 out of 0 0 is easiest to repair URL i still have an asus laptop from 0 while it is not good for anything intensive.  replacing a ram module or the hdd is a simple process.  not my model but the process is very similar.  URL  #  bloatwear on the other hand is an issue that can be tricky, pc sellers love installing this crap and other major software downloads love pulling in additional crap like itunes for windows, which use to bring down quicktime and weatherbug .   #  ok a couple of things.  i am going to assume your talking the difference in os and thus assume you do not duel boot windows on mac.  i have worked on both oss over the years, seen and removed viruses on both.  i have never had a windows machine slow down, even after having it for several years, mostly due to being security conscious.  one of the big reason windows will slow down is bloatwear and malware, both of which exist for macs, but are not as commonly a problem since the inherent limitation of software that is compatible with a mac.  malware is simple to get rid of and avoid by using only legit sites to download stuff, and running malwarebytes.  bloatwear on the other hand is an issue that can be tricky, pc sellers love installing this crap and other major software downloads love pulling in additional crap like itunes for windows, which use to bring down quicktime and weatherbug .  i build my own pcs and run minimal software, with good bookkeeping these programs are not allowed on my machine long.  also your anecdotal experience probably does not compare a pc with similar hardware as the mac, especially when it comes to things like an ssds.   #  i am not sure i agree with your math here, but from an investment standpoint, investing in a mac makes sense to a lot of people who prefer osx.   # but what if i  want  to use osx ? if i had an iphone/ipad, continuity features between the two especially for the upcoming yosemite would be something many people would enjoy.  and a lot of people just like using osx, some for aesthetics, ease of use, familiarity, or reliability.  time value of money analysis tends to always favor money in the pocket today than later on down the line.  i am not sure i agree with your math here, but from an investment standpoint, investing in a mac makes sense to a lot of people who prefer osx.  with it is high resale value, people can upgrade to a newer model pretty easily when they already have 0 0 of their new item in their capital.   #  operating in an environment that is less susceptible, for basic users, provides them unparalleled ease of mind.   #  look at identity theft.  is identity theft on the rise ? do you have to be  technologically challenged  to fall victim to identity theft ? i believe that web security, computer security, all digital security has becoming critical in people is interactions with the internet.  operating in an environment that is less susceptible, for basic users, provides them unparalleled ease of mind.  the mac does this.  i think your underestimating what it takes to effectively protect your pc from harm, and overestimating people is knowledge of computer   web security.  take grandma jane who just got a laptop for christmas.  do you think she has the slightest clue about what an antivirus software is ? odds are she has no clue.  so when buying grandma jane a laptop, which would you get her, if your goal was to buy a reliable product ? my answer is a mac, simply because it is safer, by default, because of the number of viruses developed for it.   #  like i said above, phishing sites are not windows or mac specific.   # is identity theft on the rise ? do you have to be  technologically challenged  to fall victim to identity theft ? identity theft / computer virus.  most identity theft that is aided by technology is done through phishing sites basically online spyware which  work on both macs and pcs .  my answer is a mac, simply because it is safer, by default, because of the number of viruses developed for it.  like i said above, phishing sites are not windows or mac specific.  there is virtually no money in  developing viruses  for the windows os just like there is none for the mac.  all the money now a days is in obtaining personal and financial information which is developed almost entirely for the web browser,  not the os .
in today is society, a communist is grouped in with liberals.  both are apparently leftists.  a fascist with a libertarian, both are apparently right wing.  these left and right terms are not advanced enough to describe the vast variety in people political beliefs.  i have met national socialists who have been very socialist, almost communist.  i have seen socially conservative communists.  i have seen extremely capitalist liberals and they are apparently grouped in with communists and socialist.  it just does not work.  what are you if you are economically left, but socially conservative ? are you left or right ? if you are economically left, but socially authoritarian ? economically right but socially liberal ? throw nationalism on top of that and you do not even know what is up or down any more, because nationalism and nationalist values can be applies anywhere.  even communism.  instead of saying  yeah i lean left  or  yeah i am right wing  see yourself outside the spectrum and refer to yourself what you are actually are to avoid confusion.  change my view.   #  a fascist with a libertarian, both are apparently right wing.   #  and the reason the right seems disparate is because it is.   #  the right left dichotomy was always intended to refer to movements, not individuals.  both are apparently leftists.  do you know why communists, socialists, social democrats, feminists, and progressives are grouped together under  the left  ? it is because of their shared interests.  0 years ago, after marx came up with communism, the ideology splintered.  the most radical today you would usually just call them communists wanted to bring about communism through revolution.  the less radical who became socialists, and then social democrats wanted the same goals but through democratic means.  the takeaway is that the left is interested in so called  social justice : not just equality under the law, not just equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome.  and today, the main difference between the far left communists and the center left progressives is mostly magnitude.  a lot of progressives dislike capitalism but do not want to completely tear it down like communists.  a lot of progressives want more women in government, but they do not want quotas like in more socialist countries.  and the reason the right seems disparate is because it is.  most right wing movements are conservative in that they are somewhat reactionary to left wing movements.  national socialism i. e.  hitler and the nazis is considered right wing because it was so much against left wing communism, despite the fact that a lot of it is more leftist.  the religious right/moral majority is right wing because it was mostly a response to the left wing movements e. g.  hippies and free love of the previous decade or so.  libertarianism is a response to a variety of left wing movements over the past decades.  in other words, left wing ideologies mostly differ in intensity and scope, right wing ideologies are more different from each other.  and again, i have to emphasize that you are painting in extremely broad strokes.  you ca not say that stalin is 0 to the left and elizabeth warren is 0 to the left.  you ca not say that hitler is 0 to the right and ted cruz is 0 to the right.  but when you are comparing  contemporary ideologies , it is a useful distinguisher.   #  of course the conversation should not stop there, but it still can convey useful information.   #  you are right that it is overly simplistic.  there are other models which f. e.  add more dimensions to it, like in the model political compass URL uses.  the role of the l r spectrum was more important in the past, when the economic policy was the main driver and divider of politics.  today politics are much more fractured and its limitations show.  however, it still has it is limited use.  if you quickly want to tell people where you stand on economic issues it is still applicable.  of course the conversation should not stop there, but it still can convey useful information.   #  while that would be ideal, it is not how people use it nowadays.   #  even though the political compass is a vast improvement, i do not believe nationalism and cosmopolitanism is accurately displayed there either.  it stands outside social authoritarianism/anarchism and economic authoritarian/anarchism.  the optimal way of displaying where you stand politically would be a 0d space, where you add another axis for nationalism/cosmopolitanism like URL  if you quickly want to tell people where you stand on economic issues it is still applicable.  sure but that is unfortunately not how it is used today.  in that case, liberals should not be leftists, feminism should not be a leftist ideology and someone who is socially conservative should not be associate with the right.  while that would be ideal, it is not how people use it nowadays.   #  in that context the term incororates a whole bunch of stances.   #  every model has its limitations.  in the end every person has his/ her own agenda.  the reason thinks get lumped onto the l r spectrum other than economic views is because they correlate with it.  you have to distinguish a scientific model and a popular understanding.  most people know what your stances on most issues will be if you tell them you lean left or right.  in that context the term incororates a whole bunch of stances.  it is very vague, but everybody can use it.  therefore it has its limited use.  now nobody is described perfectly by the l r spectrum.  therefore political scientists tend to use more and different axis.  what i want to say is: if you plot al people on the political grid of your choice not all combinations will be equally filled.  people tend to cluster.  and you can give these clusters names.  the name we still use today is left and right, even though they took on a lot more meaning over time.  it should never be the end of a conversation, but it can be a start.   #  prostitution:  should be legal as a contract between two adults.   #  if i am right, more than you might think .  .  .  i have always wondered if i could do this.  here goes: you self describe as an  independent  and would never identify exclusively as a republican you  vote people, not parties  .  abortion:  each individual state should make the policy, but overall, you lean towards opposition.  legalization:  you are in favor of legalization of the ganj.  gay marriage:  hmmmmm .  .  .  i am going with  abolish marriage altogether,  right ? the state should not be conferring such benefits anyway.  guess 0 would be that you are in favor of civil unions; with a caveat that, again, the states should be free to determine.  prostitution:  should be legal as a contract between two adults.  fiscal policy:  lower taxes, less regulation.  the  government should get out of the way .  no deficit spending at all, a cap on spending is a cap on spending.  and, let is go for broke, you are not a fan of our monetary system either.  you would prefer a more static currency that was more difficult for the fed or government to inflate, probably gold maybe just more restrictions .  foreign policy:  bring them home, you were never in favor of either war.  the us has enough to worry about at home to be running of to solve problems other places.  you are not opposed to military action, but you no longer see our presence in iraq and afghanistan as desirable.  you also never liked bush ii.  how would i do ? .  .  .  and i would say that i  willean heavily to the left .  me next me next me next !
in today is society, a communist is grouped in with liberals.  both are apparently leftists.  a fascist with a libertarian, both are apparently right wing.  these left and right terms are not advanced enough to describe the vast variety in people political beliefs.  i have met national socialists who have been very socialist, almost communist.  i have seen socially conservative communists.  i have seen extremely capitalist liberals and they are apparently grouped in with communists and socialist.  it just does not work.  what are you if you are economically left, but socially conservative ? are you left or right ? if you are economically left, but socially authoritarian ? economically right but socially liberal ? throw nationalism on top of that and you do not even know what is up or down any more, because nationalism and nationalist values can be applies anywhere.  even communism.  instead of saying  yeah i lean left  or  yeah i am right wing  see yourself outside the spectrum and refer to yourself what you are actually are to avoid confusion.  change my view.   #  instead of saying  yeah i lean left  or  yeah i am right wing  see yourself outside the spectrum and refer to yourself what you are actually are to avoid confusion.   #  the left/right comes mostly from where the person sits in representation to congress.   # the left/right comes mostly from where the person sits in representation to congress.  republicans and those who vote more often with them are on the right side of the chamber and the democrats and those who vote with them are on the left side of the chamber.  there is not really a delineation for north/south or other locations.  it is a simplified seating chart mostly.  this is why you can be a democrat who votes entirely conservative and be left and a republican who votes entirely liberal and be on the right.  i will not argue that this is a great representation of views or beliefs, but it is just the method in which people simply categorize themselves, whether for better or worse.   #  if you quickly want to tell people where you stand on economic issues it is still applicable.   #  you are right that it is overly simplistic.  there are other models which f. e.  add more dimensions to it, like in the model political compass URL uses.  the role of the l r spectrum was more important in the past, when the economic policy was the main driver and divider of politics.  today politics are much more fractured and its limitations show.  however, it still has it is limited use.  if you quickly want to tell people where you stand on economic issues it is still applicable.  of course the conversation should not stop there, but it still can convey useful information.   #  in that case, liberals should not be leftists, feminism should not be a leftist ideology and someone who is socially conservative should not be associate with the right.   #  even though the political compass is a vast improvement, i do not believe nationalism and cosmopolitanism is accurately displayed there either.  it stands outside social authoritarianism/anarchism and economic authoritarian/anarchism.  the optimal way of displaying where you stand politically would be a 0d space, where you add another axis for nationalism/cosmopolitanism like URL  if you quickly want to tell people where you stand on economic issues it is still applicable.  sure but that is unfortunately not how it is used today.  in that case, liberals should not be leftists, feminism should not be a leftist ideology and someone who is socially conservative should not be associate with the right.  while that would be ideal, it is not how people use it nowadays.   #  what i want to say is: if you plot al people on the political grid of your choice not all combinations will be equally filled.   #  every model has its limitations.  in the end every person has his/ her own agenda.  the reason thinks get lumped onto the l r spectrum other than economic views is because they correlate with it.  you have to distinguish a scientific model and a popular understanding.  most people know what your stances on most issues will be if you tell them you lean left or right.  in that context the term incororates a whole bunch of stances.  it is very vague, but everybody can use it.  therefore it has its limited use.  now nobody is described perfectly by the l r spectrum.  therefore political scientists tend to use more and different axis.  what i want to say is: if you plot al people on the political grid of your choice not all combinations will be equally filled.  people tend to cluster.  and you can give these clusters names.  the name we still use today is left and right, even though they took on a lot more meaning over time.  it should never be the end of a conversation, but it can be a start.   #  and i would say that i  willean heavily to the left .   #  if i am right, more than you might think .  .  .  i have always wondered if i could do this.  here goes: you self describe as an  independent  and would never identify exclusively as a republican you  vote people, not parties  .  abortion:  each individual state should make the policy, but overall, you lean towards opposition.  legalization:  you are in favor of legalization of the ganj.  gay marriage:  hmmmmm .  .  .  i am going with  abolish marriage altogether,  right ? the state should not be conferring such benefits anyway.  guess 0 would be that you are in favor of civil unions; with a caveat that, again, the states should be free to determine.  prostitution:  should be legal as a contract between two adults.  fiscal policy:  lower taxes, less regulation.  the  government should get out of the way .  no deficit spending at all, a cap on spending is a cap on spending.  and, let is go for broke, you are not a fan of our monetary system either.  you would prefer a more static currency that was more difficult for the fed or government to inflate, probably gold maybe just more restrictions .  foreign policy:  bring them home, you were never in favor of either war.  the us has enough to worry about at home to be running of to solve problems other places.  you are not opposed to military action, but you no longer see our presence in iraq and afghanistan as desirable.  you also never liked bush ii.  how would i do ? .  .  .  and i would say that i  willean heavily to the left .  me next me next me next !
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.   #  no, they want to prevent your friends from taking away the life of another.   #  yes but i would agree datnewtrees is expressing his views in an us vs them style and is therefore rather hateful.  for example.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  no they do not, they just do not want themselves or anybody else to have to pay for your healthcare.  no, they want to prevent your friends from taking away the life of another.   #  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.   #  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.   #  first off, i do not consider myself a republican/conservative, i consider myself a centrist.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.  this is not right.  economic arguments are not the same as restricting.  am i restricting your right to buy a yacht ? the argument is over funding, not restriction.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.  i have never once seen a prominent republican run on this stance.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.  except the wod started in 0 under a congress that had a majority in the house and the senate.  i mean its easy to blame that fucker nixon for everything, but he ca not do shit without congress.  not to mention that countless democrats and republicans have supported this since its inception.  blaming the gop is just ignorant at this point.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  if you want to blame wars on a president, you have to bring all parties involved into the discussion.  under obama, more people have died on both sides, gitmo has not been closed, we have had multiple disasters.  yes, bush is at fault for a lot so is obama.  you ca not sit there and blame one without blaming the other.  also your post is immature and insulting, why do you browse cmv if you ca not act like an adult ?  #  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.   #  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.   #  first off, i do not consider myself a republican/conservative, i consider myself a centrist.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.  this is not right.  economic arguments are not the same as restricting.  am i restricting your right to buy a yacht ? the argument is over funding, not restriction.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.  i have never once seen a prominent republican run on this stance.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.  except the wod started in 0 under a congress that had a majority in the house and the senate.  i mean its easy to blame that fucker nixon for everything, but he ca not do shit without congress.  not to mention that countless democrats and republicans have supported this since its inception.  blaming the gop is just ignorant at this point.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  if you want to blame wars on a president, you have to bring all parties involved into the discussion.  under obama, more people have died on both sides, gitmo has not been closed, we have had multiple disasters.  yes, bush is at fault for a lot so is obama.  you ca not sit there and blame one without blaming the other.  also your post is immature and insulting, why do you browse cmv if you ca not act like an adult ?  #  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.   #  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.   #  first off, i do not consider myself a republican/conservative, i consider myself a centrist.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.  this is not right.  economic arguments are not the same as restricting.  am i restricting your right to buy a yacht ? the argument is over funding, not restriction.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.  i have never once seen a prominent republican run on this stance.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.  except the wod started in 0 under a congress that had a majority in the house and the senate.  i mean its easy to blame that fucker nixon for everything, but he ca not do shit without congress.  not to mention that countless democrats and republicans have supported this since its inception.  blaming the gop is just ignorant at this point.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  if you want to blame wars on a president, you have to bring all parties involved into the discussion.  under obama, more people have died on both sides, gitmo has not been closed, we have had multiple disasters.  yes, bush is at fault for a lot so is obama.  you ca not sit there and blame one without blaming the other.  also your post is immature and insulting, why do you browse cmv if you ca not act like an adult ?  #  another person pointed this out and i agree.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.   #  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.   #  first off, i do not consider myself a republican/conservative, i consider myself a centrist.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.  this is not right.  economic arguments are not the same as restricting.  am i restricting your right to buy a yacht ? the argument is over funding, not restriction.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.  i have never once seen a prominent republican run on this stance.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.  except the wod started in 0 under a congress that had a majority in the house and the senate.  i mean its easy to blame that fucker nixon for everything, but he ca not do shit without congress.  not to mention that countless democrats and republicans have supported this since its inception.  blaming the gop is just ignorant at this point.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  if you want to blame wars on a president, you have to bring all parties involved into the discussion.  under obama, more people have died on both sides, gitmo has not been closed, we have had multiple disasters.  yes, bush is at fault for a lot so is obama.  you ca not sit there and blame one without blaming the other.  also your post is immature and insulting, why do you browse cmv if you ca not act like an adult ?  #  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.   #  what is wrong with defending the borders of your nation ?  # what is wrong with defending the borders of your nation ? do you know why republicans oppose abortion ? as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.  when did they try to do this ? now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  do you know who was in charge of iraq before we invaded ?  #  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.   #  do you know why republicans oppose abortion ?  # what is wrong with defending the borders of your nation ? do you know why republicans oppose abortion ? as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.  when did they try to do this ? now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  do you know who was in charge of iraq before we invaded ?  #  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.   #  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.   # what is wrong with defending the borders of your nation ? do you know why republicans oppose abortion ? as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.  when did they try to do this ? now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  do you know who was in charge of iraq before we invaded ?  #  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.   #  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.   # what is wrong with defending the borders of your nation ? do you know why republicans oppose abortion ? as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.  when did they try to do this ? now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  do you know who was in charge of iraq before we invaded ?  #  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.   #  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.   # many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.  this is for mostly religious reasons.  we are supposed to keep secular laws and religious beliefs separate, but that does not usually happen.  there is not really any excuses for this one.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.  the other side to this is that public healthcare requires more tax.  tax is just a legal word governments use to make it okay to steal your money.  most people do not want the sick to be untreated anymore then you do, but they do not want people stealing their money for it either.  this was discussed in another thread, but conservative people see abortion as the murder of an innocent life.  an unborn person could literally not have done anything to wrong and therefore does not deserve death.  if we take off the edge cases of rape and life threatening pregnancies  0 of abortions are quality of life for the maternal and/or paternal persons choices and is seen as murder.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.  this is really a globalization issue at it is roots.  it is an understandable fear.  look at how different the eu is from the usa.  there is no way one group of policies could suffice for all of us.  shooting immigrants on site is an immature and ignorant response to a very real threat.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.  everyone has their agenda.  your demand for allowing the murder of unborn children angers and terrifies me as well, but laws are supposed to be secular so i agree with you not that abortion should be legal, but that there should not be religious based laws .  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  that is super unfair.  the democrats supported the war just as much a republicans URL and now that a democrat is commander in chief for his second term, it does not seem like the democrats really care to stop the war either.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.   #  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.   # many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.  this is for mostly religious reasons.  we are supposed to keep secular laws and religious beliefs separate, but that does not usually happen.  there is not really any excuses for this one.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.  the other side to this is that public healthcare requires more tax.  tax is just a legal word governments use to make it okay to steal your money.  most people do not want the sick to be untreated anymore then you do, but they do not want people stealing their money for it either.  this was discussed in another thread, but conservative people see abortion as the murder of an innocent life.  an unborn person could literally not have done anything to wrong and therefore does not deserve death.  if we take off the edge cases of rape and life threatening pregnancies  0 of abortions are quality of life for the maternal and/or paternal persons choices and is seen as murder.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.  this is really a globalization issue at it is roots.  it is an understandable fear.  look at how different the eu is from the usa.  there is no way one group of policies could suffice for all of us.  shooting immigrants on site is an immature and ignorant response to a very real threat.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.  everyone has their agenda.  your demand for allowing the murder of unborn children angers and terrifies me as well, but laws are supposed to be secular so i agree with you not that abortion should be legal, but that there should not be religious based laws .  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  that is super unfair.  the democrats supported the war just as much a republicans URL and now that a democrat is commander in chief for his second term, it does not seem like the democrats really care to stop the war either.   #  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.   #  this was discussed in another thread, but conservative people see abortion as the murder of an innocent life.   # many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.  this is for mostly religious reasons.  we are supposed to keep secular laws and religious beliefs separate, but that does not usually happen.  there is not really any excuses for this one.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.  the other side to this is that public healthcare requires more tax.  tax is just a legal word governments use to make it okay to steal your money.  most people do not want the sick to be untreated anymore then you do, but they do not want people stealing their money for it either.  this was discussed in another thread, but conservative people see abortion as the murder of an innocent life.  an unborn person could literally not have done anything to wrong and therefore does not deserve death.  if we take off the edge cases of rape and life threatening pregnancies  0 of abortions are quality of life for the maternal and/or paternal persons choices and is seen as murder.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.  this is really a globalization issue at it is roots.  it is an understandable fear.  look at how different the eu is from the usa.  there is no way one group of policies could suffice for all of us.  shooting immigrants on site is an immature and ignorant response to a very real threat.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.  everyone has their agenda.  your demand for allowing the murder of unborn children angers and terrifies me as well, but laws are supposed to be secular so i agree with you not that abortion should be legal, but that there should not be religious based laws .  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  that is super unfair.  the democrats supported the war just as much a republicans URL and now that a democrat is commander in chief for his second term, it does not seem like the democrats really care to stop the war either.   #  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.   #  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.   # many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.  this is for mostly religious reasons.  we are supposed to keep secular laws and religious beliefs separate, but that does not usually happen.  there is not really any excuses for this one.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.  the other side to this is that public healthcare requires more tax.  tax is just a legal word governments use to make it okay to steal your money.  most people do not want the sick to be untreated anymore then you do, but they do not want people stealing their money for it either.  this was discussed in another thread, but conservative people see abortion as the murder of an innocent life.  an unborn person could literally not have done anything to wrong and therefore does not deserve death.  if we take off the edge cases of rape and life threatening pregnancies  0 of abortions are quality of life for the maternal and/or paternal persons choices and is seen as murder.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.  this is really a globalization issue at it is roots.  it is an understandable fear.  look at how different the eu is from the usa.  there is no way one group of policies could suffice for all of us.  shooting immigrants on site is an immature and ignorant response to a very real threat.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.  everyone has their agenda.  your demand for allowing the murder of unborn children angers and terrifies me as well, but laws are supposed to be secular so i agree with you not that abortion should be legal, but that there should not be religious based laws .  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  that is super unfair.  the democrats supported the war just as much a republicans URL and now that a democrat is commander in chief for his second term, it does not seem like the democrats really care to stop the war either.   #  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.   #  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.   # many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.  this is for mostly religious reasons.  we are supposed to keep secular laws and religious beliefs separate, but that does not usually happen.  there is not really any excuses for this one.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.  the other side to this is that public healthcare requires more tax.  tax is just a legal word governments use to make it okay to steal your money.  most people do not want the sick to be untreated anymore then you do, but they do not want people stealing their money for it either.  this was discussed in another thread, but conservative people see abortion as the murder of an innocent life.  an unborn person could literally not have done anything to wrong and therefore does not deserve death.  if we take off the edge cases of rape and life threatening pregnancies  0 of abortions are quality of life for the maternal and/or paternal persons choices and is seen as murder.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.  this is really a globalization issue at it is roots.  it is an understandable fear.  look at how different the eu is from the usa.  there is no way one group of policies could suffice for all of us.  shooting immigrants on site is an immature and ignorant response to a very real threat.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.  everyone has their agenda.  your demand for allowing the murder of unborn children angers and terrifies me as well, but laws are supposed to be secular so i agree with you not that abortion should be legal, but that there should not be religious based laws .  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  that is super unfair.  the democrats supported the war just as much a republicans URL and now that a democrat is commander in chief for his second term, it does not seem like the democrats really care to stop the war either.   #  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
i was accused of being  the biggest kind of piece of shit there is, politically  yesterday, so i would like to examine the view of mine that led to that and possibly change it.  to begin, i will say that i do think conservatives perpetuate a laundry list of injustices against minorities and citizens in general.    the gop is base is why my queer friends and i ca not marry who we love in most states.  many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.    conservatives wish to restrict my fellow americans  ability to access healthcare.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.    on a similar note, republicans would also like to take away the ability to have safe, clean abortions from my friends who are ciswomen.    southern republicans often spout rhetoric about shooting immigrants on sight.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.    christian republicans want to legislate their religion and try to do so constantly.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.    the gop started the war on drugs, a policy which is obviously a gross mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and racist to boot.  never mind the fact it is none of the government is business if i smoke weed, as long as i am not driving afterward.    the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  all that said, i do not understand when people decry what they call the  liberal hate machine  as the biggest political problem in the united states.  so what if liberals boycott a business owned by a conservative because of that owner is views ? this is a capitalist society, and lgbt folks are allowed to vote with their dollars.  if a company fires their ceo who publicly donated to conservative causes that restrict the rights of minorities, is not it just a reaction to the market ? to consumers who will refuse to do business with a corporation because of who it deigns to employ and the effect that has on the world ? i do not see how it is so unreasonable.  i think that conservatives are ignorant of the scope of problems they cause and want to believe the other side is just bigoted as they are.  they can trot out as many  liberal professor  stories as they like, it does not change the fact that restricting actual human rights is different than not putting up with someone is racist nonsense.  this might be an overreaction to having my most downvoted comment ever, but if there is an issue with how i think about something, i want to fix it.   #  the last republican president started two wars that killed thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners.   #  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.   # many republicans would ban gay sex entirely if they could.  this is for mostly religious reasons.  we are supposed to keep secular laws and religious beliefs separate, but that does not usually happen.  there is not really any excuses for this one.  it is logical, in my opinion, that this will result in preventable deaths and patients who will live the rest of their lives in debt.  the other side to this is that public healthcare requires more tax.  tax is just a legal word governments use to make it okay to steal your money.  most people do not want the sick to be untreated anymore then you do, but they do not want people stealing their money for it either.  this was discussed in another thread, but conservative people see abortion as the murder of an innocent life.  an unborn person could literally not have done anything to wrong and therefore does not deserve death.  if we take off the edge cases of rape and life threatening pregnancies  0 of abortions are quality of life for the maternal and/or paternal persons choices and is seen as murder.  those who do not seem to think isolationism is the answer.  this is really a globalization issue at it is roots.  it is an understandable fear.  look at how different the eu is from the usa.  there is no way one group of policies could suffice for all of us.  shooting immigrants on site is an immature and ignorant response to a very real threat.  as a non christian queer, this angers and terrifies me.  everyone has their agenda.  your demand for allowing the murder of unborn children angers and terrifies me as well, but laws are supposed to be secular so i agree with you not that abortion should be legal, but that there should not be religious based laws .  now his party tries to obstruct any form of progress in our government.  that is super unfair.  the democrats supported the war just as much a republicans URL and now that a democrat is commander in chief for his second term, it does not seem like the democrats really care to stop the war either.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.   #  another person pointed this out and i agree.  our political society has embraced this  us vs them  and  we are the good guys and they are the bad guys .  our political leaders, news media, and even entertainers further drive a wedge into our society.  we have stopped listening to people is ideas and trying to understand why they have their beliefs because they are on the other side of the political isle.  our political leaders do it for votes.  news outlets do it for viewers, and entertainers do it for  fun .  i wait for the day when a leader will rise and try to unite our country.  your own post further fuels the fires of  pick a side .  we should be trying to unite and understand each other.  not drive each other apart or say  they hate more then us .   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.   #  i guess, but that does not sound like real change that sounds like a temporary change in attitude.  the two main parties would probably just blame each other for the third party guy getting elected anyway.  i guess i see the actions of representatives as being mostly token, with larger actions like health reform being inevitable.  i bet you if the aca did not get rolled out under obama, it would have under someone else with a different name.  i guess i do not think a third party candidate would act any different from your usual politician who we elect every couple of years.   #  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .   #  this statement right here is evidence of  liberal hate  or whatever you want to call it.  a blanket black and white statement that does not consider any grey areas that definitely do exist within the context of that statement.  calls anyone with a different point of view a bad human being pretty hateful .  there are many rights of citizens that the conservatives are more concerned with than liberals.  freedom of speech and right to bare arms come to mind.  you have in your mind this stereotype of some hateful ultra rich white person and act like his interest are the only ones that are considered from the conservative viewpoint.  there are many highly educated conservatives if you really wanted to broaden your mind to other perspectives you could seek them out.  i really do not subscribe to either idealogy.  i see some very good points from both sides of the isle.  if you cannot concede that conservatives have a good point on at least one issue, than there is a good chance all of your sources are highly biased and your thoughts are not your own, but the product of your  sources .  i agree with the comment above about the basic divide and conquer technique used by the system.   #  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.   #  i think you have perfectly demonstrated the issue in your own post.  you title your post about liberals, ostensibly making the question about them, but the actual content of your post is all about conservatives.  what you are really doing is not supporting the liberal point of view, but bashing the conservative point of view.  said another way, you are making a negative argument rather than a positive argument.  a lot of people say that this is the entire problem with the us political system that it devolves into an  us vs.  them  mentality.  if you define yourself in opposition to the conservative point of view rather than in support of the liberal point of view, you are engaging in negative, which could be construed as  hateful  discourse.  i would guess that you do not conceive of yourself that way that you probably think that you  are  just supporting the liberal point of view, but closely read your posts, and decide if you are spending more time talking about liberals or conservatives.
the era has come that citizens can control their country, or ecosystem.  not make the decisions necessarily, but control the decision makers and not just by voting once every few years.  the social structure of government   citizens, or rulers   people, has long served bunch of few people to control the majority of the other people.  i believe that what we call  wouldemocracy  is just a toned version of past tyrannies over decades and decades throughout the history the general public became more informed, more educated and more united so it could demand a softer version of government every once in a while, whether it was by violent revolutions or silent reforms.  in a nutshell, this is how the governmental systems transformed from monarchies of the past, to today is democracies.  however, today is  arepresentative democracy  governmental style, which is predominant in the western world, is overdue.  distance has died: there is no more need to travel few days from your town to the capital in order to get informed or vote.  everything is live, everything is current.  one does not need a representative to supposedly act in his behalf.  we still need representatives at the moment as people cannot run their country all day long from their cell phones.  but we should diminish the 0 years voting system that ensure the power stays in the hand of the ruling bunch.  our representative should work for us, give us daily updates, be accountable for their actions and in case there is a majority of voters who are not happy about a representative performance, they could fire him.  plain and simple.  the people are the boss who hire the representatives to run their precious country.  in my opinion this is how a democratic country of our age should operate representatives should be employees of the citizens.  cmv.   #  there is a majority of voters who are not happy about a representative performance, they could fire him.   #  do you realize how expensive a recall election is ?  #  the reasons for long elective cycles are that they prevent fickle decision making and provide some modicum of stability.  do you really want to live in a world without any real guarantee of how the country will be governed 0 days from now.  people are fickle, which is why their opinion should be crystallized into a leader for a few years to give them time for calm reflection.  do you realize how expensive a recall election is ? also, how much do you consider as a majority ? in my country, only 0 of eligible voters voted, what makes you think people will come out for a recall ? yes, but reps are meant to represent their whole district, not just 0 0.  preventing the majority from making rash decisions is what separates a good democracy from a mob.   #  democracy is not as golden as some like to make it seem.   #  first that is not sustainable.  that is somewhat similar to how america initially operated, but eventually, it ended up turning back to less accountable politicians.  when the people become careless, corruption is able to take root; politicians gain more power, and they become less accountable.  i think this is probably inevitable.  the solution, then, is to write a constitution or create a government that limits political power enough so that, even when people are trying to be corrupt, even when they are not at all accountable, they still ca not violate citizens rights.  i think the american constitution has been overstepped, but it is not major violations.  it has done a pretty good job of running the country.  second accountability is different from working for the people.  so, while i definitely agree politicians should be more accountable, solutions like eliminating the 0 year voting system wo not fix anything.  people can be really fickle.  while politicians do need to explain what they are doing for example, justin amash explains every single vote he makes in congress , in a world where politicians worked for the people, one wrong step or one unpopular step could be that politician is undoing.  they could be fired by the people for voting for or against a popular law.  third balance.  the smallest minority is a minority of one.  indeed, part of the reason the constitution was created was because of fear that the mob would overtake everything.  the tyranny of the many is definitely something to be feared.  democracy is not as golden as some like to make it seem.  just imagine how stupid some people are would you really like them ruling it ? politicians would no longer be restrained.  they would have to follow what the people wanted, or risk being fired.  but what if they know that what the people want is wrong ? politicians are supposed to be able to discern when popular sentiment is a bad idea.  some politicans, for example, have pro lgbtq leanings in fairly anti lgbtq districts, but they stay in office because of their other positions.  when the people control literally everything, it could mean a return of the harms seen under ancient greece is democracy, where thousands were banished by angry voters.  the constitution could even be thrown out the door if politicians were truly accountable, because they would just vote in amendments if what the majority wanted was not achievable.  fourth this would not solve the problem.  all politicians have to do is meet all the people is wishes on the surface.  so, basically passing whatever laws the people want, without any balance or limitations.  behind the scenes, though, they still could engage in corruption, they still could engage bribery, etc, because they would not be caught.  quite possibly, this would be more widespread; the type of person willing to  change  every position to stay in power would also give or take money to stay in power.   #  i do not think bribery could be completely erased, but for sure it will be more difficult by magnitudes for politician to be corrupted.   # they could be fired by the people for voting for or against a popular law.  so they should take the best measures to explain their boss why it is the best way to go, or not to go.  maybe a new breed of politician will yield, one that will actually listen, one that will be rhetorical and coherent enough to pass his messages, one this will be able to be compassionate enough to feel the people and speak to their heart.  this is not for politicians to serve as dummies in that case, you would not need politicians, you could just vote from your phone for each and every decision.  no problem, constitution still sounds like a good idea.  it does not void it.  if today a politician has powers beyond all measures and can make things happen without the general public awareness, in the system suggested in my op every action/law will need to have a sufficient explanation.  i do not think bribery could be completely erased, but for sure it will be more difficult by magnitudes for politician to be corrupted.   #  a lot of the corruption that goes on now, we simply do not know about, because the politician has not been caught.   # maybe a new breed of politician will yield, one that will actually listen, one that will be rhetorical and coherent enough to pass his messages, one this will be able to be compassionate enough to feel the people and speak to their heart.  but that might not happen.  in fact, it probably wo not happen.  because if a politician earnestly tries to change a widely held view for example, an anti gay marriage view in the us south they will fail.  you have to remember: even with the best rhetoric, even with the best logic, you ca not convince people who fail to accept logic.  enough people would be able to gather influence and keep firing politicians until one comes and reflects the majority view on every issue.  already there are some problems with politicians representing some truly outdated views that people have, but when you give more power to the people and less to the politician is own discretion, you take that away.  it does not void it.  but what i am saying is that by giving more power to the people, you  do  risk voiding it.  if the people want something unconstitutional, politicians can change the constitution.  i do not think so.  a lot of the bribery and corruption, at least in america, is buried deep down within lengthy laws like tax laws.  some of it is done under the table.  a corporation could still pay for laws to have certain provisions, or could pay for the tax code to favor it.  more could be buried under administrative laws, or laws boring enough for the public not to have an opinion.  a lot of the corruption that goes on now, we simply do not know about, because the politician has not been caught.   #  enough people would be able to gather influence and keep firing politicians until one comes and reflects the majority view on every issue.   # in fact, it probably wo not happen.  because if a politician earnestly tries to change a widely held view for example, an anti gay marriage view in the us south they will fail.  you have to remember: even with the best rhetoric, even with the best logic, you ca not convince people who fail to accept logic.  enough people would be able to gather influence and keep firing politicians until one comes and reflects the majority view on every issue.  already there are some problems with politicians representing some truly outdated views that people have, but when you give more power to the people and less to the politician is own discretion, you take that away.  what you are doing is rhetorical, you mention the anti gay marriage view in us south and characterise all the voters in the country or the vast majority of them to be uneducated, uninformed mob that are actually being saved today by our  lord  the congressman representative.  in addition, today they can fire him every 0 years, until one comes and reflects the majority view, so it is exactly the same.  you hold the ruling side view of  we are actually helping you by not giving you power over your lives .  it is not something i can personally support and in my view it is the biggest of all lies not yours, theirs .
the era has come that citizens can control their country, or ecosystem.  not make the decisions necessarily, but control the decision makers and not just by voting once every few years.  the social structure of government   citizens, or rulers   people, has long served bunch of few people to control the majority of the other people.  i believe that what we call  wouldemocracy  is just a toned version of past tyrannies over decades and decades throughout the history the general public became more informed, more educated and more united so it could demand a softer version of government every once in a while, whether it was by violent revolutions or silent reforms.  in a nutshell, this is how the governmental systems transformed from monarchies of the past, to today is democracies.  however, today is  arepresentative democracy  governmental style, which is predominant in the western world, is overdue.  distance has died: there is no more need to travel few days from your town to the capital in order to get informed or vote.  everything is live, everything is current.  one does not need a representative to supposedly act in his behalf.  we still need representatives at the moment as people cannot run their country all day long from their cell phones.  but we should diminish the 0 years voting system that ensure the power stays in the hand of the ruling bunch.  our representative should work for us, give us daily updates, be accountable for their actions and in case there is a majority of voters who are not happy about a representative performance, they could fire him.  plain and simple.  the people are the boss who hire the representatives to run their precious country.  in my opinion this is how a democratic country of our age should operate representatives should be employees of the citizens.  cmv.   #  the people are the boss who hire the representatives to run their precious country.   #  yes, but reps are meant to represent their whole district, not just 0 0.   #  the reasons for long elective cycles are that they prevent fickle decision making and provide some modicum of stability.  do you really want to live in a world without any real guarantee of how the country will be governed 0 days from now.  people are fickle, which is why their opinion should be crystallized into a leader for a few years to give them time for calm reflection.  do you realize how expensive a recall election is ? also, how much do you consider as a majority ? in my country, only 0 of eligible voters voted, what makes you think people will come out for a recall ? yes, but reps are meant to represent their whole district, not just 0 0.  preventing the majority from making rash decisions is what separates a good democracy from a mob.   #  the smallest minority is a minority of one.   #  first that is not sustainable.  that is somewhat similar to how america initially operated, but eventually, it ended up turning back to less accountable politicians.  when the people become careless, corruption is able to take root; politicians gain more power, and they become less accountable.  i think this is probably inevitable.  the solution, then, is to write a constitution or create a government that limits political power enough so that, even when people are trying to be corrupt, even when they are not at all accountable, they still ca not violate citizens rights.  i think the american constitution has been overstepped, but it is not major violations.  it has done a pretty good job of running the country.  second accountability is different from working for the people.  so, while i definitely agree politicians should be more accountable, solutions like eliminating the 0 year voting system wo not fix anything.  people can be really fickle.  while politicians do need to explain what they are doing for example, justin amash explains every single vote he makes in congress , in a world where politicians worked for the people, one wrong step or one unpopular step could be that politician is undoing.  they could be fired by the people for voting for or against a popular law.  third balance.  the smallest minority is a minority of one.  indeed, part of the reason the constitution was created was because of fear that the mob would overtake everything.  the tyranny of the many is definitely something to be feared.  democracy is not as golden as some like to make it seem.  just imagine how stupid some people are would you really like them ruling it ? politicians would no longer be restrained.  they would have to follow what the people wanted, or risk being fired.  but what if they know that what the people want is wrong ? politicians are supposed to be able to discern when popular sentiment is a bad idea.  some politicans, for example, have pro lgbtq leanings in fairly anti lgbtq districts, but they stay in office because of their other positions.  when the people control literally everything, it could mean a return of the harms seen under ancient greece is democracy, where thousands were banished by angry voters.  the constitution could even be thrown out the door if politicians were truly accountable, because they would just vote in amendments if what the majority wanted was not achievable.  fourth this would not solve the problem.  all politicians have to do is meet all the people is wishes on the surface.  so, basically passing whatever laws the people want, without any balance or limitations.  behind the scenes, though, they still could engage in corruption, they still could engage bribery, etc, because they would not be caught.  quite possibly, this would be more widespread; the type of person willing to  change  every position to stay in power would also give or take money to stay in power.   #  if today a politician has powers beyond all measures and can make things happen without the general public awareness, in the system suggested in my op every action/law will need to have a sufficient explanation.   # they could be fired by the people for voting for or against a popular law.  so they should take the best measures to explain their boss why it is the best way to go, or not to go.  maybe a new breed of politician will yield, one that will actually listen, one that will be rhetorical and coherent enough to pass his messages, one this will be able to be compassionate enough to feel the people and speak to their heart.  this is not for politicians to serve as dummies in that case, you would not need politicians, you could just vote from your phone for each and every decision.  no problem, constitution still sounds like a good idea.  it does not void it.  if today a politician has powers beyond all measures and can make things happen without the general public awareness, in the system suggested in my op every action/law will need to have a sufficient explanation.  i do not think bribery could be completely erased, but for sure it will be more difficult by magnitudes for politician to be corrupted.   #  you have to remember: even with the best rhetoric, even with the best logic, you ca not convince people who fail to accept logic.   # maybe a new breed of politician will yield, one that will actually listen, one that will be rhetorical and coherent enough to pass his messages, one this will be able to be compassionate enough to feel the people and speak to their heart.  but that might not happen.  in fact, it probably wo not happen.  because if a politician earnestly tries to change a widely held view for example, an anti gay marriage view in the us south they will fail.  you have to remember: even with the best rhetoric, even with the best logic, you ca not convince people who fail to accept logic.  enough people would be able to gather influence and keep firing politicians until one comes and reflects the majority view on every issue.  already there are some problems with politicians representing some truly outdated views that people have, but when you give more power to the people and less to the politician is own discretion, you take that away.  it does not void it.  but what i am saying is that by giving more power to the people, you  do  risk voiding it.  if the people want something unconstitutional, politicians can change the constitution.  i do not think so.  a lot of the bribery and corruption, at least in america, is buried deep down within lengthy laws like tax laws.  some of it is done under the table.  a corporation could still pay for laws to have certain provisions, or could pay for the tax code to favor it.  more could be buried under administrative laws, or laws boring enough for the public not to have an opinion.  a lot of the corruption that goes on now, we simply do not know about, because the politician has not been caught.   #  enough people would be able to gather influence and keep firing politicians until one comes and reflects the majority view on every issue.   # in fact, it probably wo not happen.  because if a politician earnestly tries to change a widely held view for example, an anti gay marriage view in the us south they will fail.  you have to remember: even with the best rhetoric, even with the best logic, you ca not convince people who fail to accept logic.  enough people would be able to gather influence and keep firing politicians until one comes and reflects the majority view on every issue.  already there are some problems with politicians representing some truly outdated views that people have, but when you give more power to the people and less to the politician is own discretion, you take that away.  what you are doing is rhetorical, you mention the anti gay marriage view in us south and characterise all the voters in the country or the vast majority of them to be uneducated, uninformed mob that are actually being saved today by our  lord  the congressman representative.  in addition, today they can fire him every 0 years, until one comes and reflects the majority view, so it is exactly the same.  you hold the ruling side view of  we are actually helping you by not giving you power over your lives .  it is not something i can personally support and in my view it is the biggest of all lies not yours, theirs .
the era has come that citizens can control their country, or ecosystem.  not make the decisions necessarily, but control the decision makers and not just by voting once every few years.  the social structure of government   citizens, or rulers   people, has long served bunch of few people to control the majority of the other people.  i believe that what we call  wouldemocracy  is just a toned version of past tyrannies over decades and decades throughout the history the general public became more informed, more educated and more united so it could demand a softer version of government every once in a while, whether it was by violent revolutions or silent reforms.  in a nutshell, this is how the governmental systems transformed from monarchies of the past, to today is democracies.  however, today is  arepresentative democracy  governmental style, which is predominant in the western world, is overdue.  distance has died: there is no more need to travel few days from your town to the capital in order to get informed or vote.  everything is live, everything is current.  one does not need a representative to supposedly act in his behalf.  we still need representatives at the moment as people cannot run their country all day long from their cell phones.  but we should diminish the 0 years voting system that ensure the power stays in the hand of the ruling bunch.  our representative should work for us, give us daily updates, be accountable for their actions and in case there is a majority of voters who are not happy about a representative performance, they could fire him.  plain and simple.  the people are the boss who hire the representatives to run their precious country.  in my opinion this is how a democratic country of our age should operate representatives should be employees of the citizens.  cmv.   #  our representative should work for us, give us daily updates, be accountable for their actions and in case there is a majority of voters who are not happy about a representative performance, they could fire him.   #  this is already the case, but people rarely get fired up to remove politicians.   # everything is live, everything is current.  one does not need a representative to supposedly act in his behalf.  the job of the representative is to make informed decisions.  the average person is not a lawyer and does not have a staff to research the consequences of a law.  the average person may not have access to the experts regarding the contents of a law.  finally, the average person may not be privy to the information needed to make a good decision.  we all have jobs and lives that prevent us from having enough time to be truly informed for these decisions.  news and commentators cover issues superficially, and bad decisions will come from superficial information.  representatives are a way for society to delegate the job of being informed on these issues.  this is already the case, but people rarely get fired up to remove politicians.  the problem is that people are apathetic toward the government and do not get involved.  changing terms or impeachment processes wo not fix the apathy.   #  the tyranny of the many is definitely something to be feared.   #  first that is not sustainable.  that is somewhat similar to how america initially operated, but eventually, it ended up turning back to less accountable politicians.  when the people become careless, corruption is able to take root; politicians gain more power, and they become less accountable.  i think this is probably inevitable.  the solution, then, is to write a constitution or create a government that limits political power enough so that, even when people are trying to be corrupt, even when they are not at all accountable, they still ca not violate citizens rights.  i think the american constitution has been overstepped, but it is not major violations.  it has done a pretty good job of running the country.  second accountability is different from working for the people.  so, while i definitely agree politicians should be more accountable, solutions like eliminating the 0 year voting system wo not fix anything.  people can be really fickle.  while politicians do need to explain what they are doing for example, justin amash explains every single vote he makes in congress , in a world where politicians worked for the people, one wrong step or one unpopular step could be that politician is undoing.  they could be fired by the people for voting for or against a popular law.  third balance.  the smallest minority is a minority of one.  indeed, part of the reason the constitution was created was because of fear that the mob would overtake everything.  the tyranny of the many is definitely something to be feared.  democracy is not as golden as some like to make it seem.  just imagine how stupid some people are would you really like them ruling it ? politicians would no longer be restrained.  they would have to follow what the people wanted, or risk being fired.  but what if they know that what the people want is wrong ? politicians are supposed to be able to discern when popular sentiment is a bad idea.  some politicans, for example, have pro lgbtq leanings in fairly anti lgbtq districts, but they stay in office because of their other positions.  when the people control literally everything, it could mean a return of the harms seen under ancient greece is democracy, where thousands were banished by angry voters.  the constitution could even be thrown out the door if politicians were truly accountable, because they would just vote in amendments if what the majority wanted was not achievable.  fourth this would not solve the problem.  all politicians have to do is meet all the people is wishes on the surface.  so, basically passing whatever laws the people want, without any balance or limitations.  behind the scenes, though, they still could engage in corruption, they still could engage bribery, etc, because they would not be caught.  quite possibly, this would be more widespread; the type of person willing to  change  every position to stay in power would also give or take money to stay in power.   #  this is not for politicians to serve as dummies in that case, you would not need politicians, you could just vote from your phone for each and every decision.   # they could be fired by the people for voting for or against a popular law.  so they should take the best measures to explain their boss why it is the best way to go, or not to go.  maybe a new breed of politician will yield, one that will actually listen, one that will be rhetorical and coherent enough to pass his messages, one this will be able to be compassionate enough to feel the people and speak to their heart.  this is not for politicians to serve as dummies in that case, you would not need politicians, you could just vote from your phone for each and every decision.  no problem, constitution still sounds like a good idea.  it does not void it.  if today a politician has powers beyond all measures and can make things happen without the general public awareness, in the system suggested in my op every action/law will need to have a sufficient explanation.  i do not think bribery could be completely erased, but for sure it will be more difficult by magnitudes for politician to be corrupted.   #  because if a politician earnestly tries to change a widely held view for example, an anti gay marriage view in the us south they will fail.   # maybe a new breed of politician will yield, one that will actually listen, one that will be rhetorical and coherent enough to pass his messages, one this will be able to be compassionate enough to feel the people and speak to their heart.  but that might not happen.  in fact, it probably wo not happen.  because if a politician earnestly tries to change a widely held view for example, an anti gay marriage view in the us south they will fail.  you have to remember: even with the best rhetoric, even with the best logic, you ca not convince people who fail to accept logic.  enough people would be able to gather influence and keep firing politicians until one comes and reflects the majority view on every issue.  already there are some problems with politicians representing some truly outdated views that people have, but when you give more power to the people and less to the politician is own discretion, you take that away.  it does not void it.  but what i am saying is that by giving more power to the people, you  do  risk voiding it.  if the people want something unconstitutional, politicians can change the constitution.  i do not think so.  a lot of the bribery and corruption, at least in america, is buried deep down within lengthy laws like tax laws.  some of it is done under the table.  a corporation could still pay for laws to have certain provisions, or could pay for the tax code to favor it.  more could be buried under administrative laws, or laws boring enough for the public not to have an opinion.  a lot of the corruption that goes on now, we simply do not know about, because the politician has not been caught.   #  in addition, today they can fire him every 0 years, until one comes and reflects the majority view, so it is exactly the same.   # in fact, it probably wo not happen.  because if a politician earnestly tries to change a widely held view for example, an anti gay marriage view in the us south they will fail.  you have to remember: even with the best rhetoric, even with the best logic, you ca not convince people who fail to accept logic.  enough people would be able to gather influence and keep firing politicians until one comes and reflects the majority view on every issue.  already there are some problems with politicians representing some truly outdated views that people have, but when you give more power to the people and less to the politician is own discretion, you take that away.  what you are doing is rhetorical, you mention the anti gay marriage view in us south and characterise all the voters in the country or the vast majority of them to be uneducated, uninformed mob that are actually being saved today by our  lord  the congressman representative.  in addition, today they can fire him every 0 years, until one comes and reflects the majority view, so it is exactly the same.  you hold the ruling side view of  we are actually helping you by not giving you power over your lives .  it is not something i can personally support and in my view it is the biggest of all lies not yours, theirs .
movie trailers have only one motive: sell tickets to the movie.  the greed of the industry has made it so they will show every good scene of the movie in order to sell you on the film.  they have no regard for whether it spoils the movie or reveals too much.  i am the guy who covers his eyes and ears when i am at the theater and a trailer comes on for a movie i want to see.  i have been shafted way too many times by trailers spoiling important movie points.  my view is that any movie you are definitely going to see you should always avoid trailers for.  they  might  come in handy if you have not yet decided whether to watch the movie.   #  movie trailers have only one motive: sell tickets to the movie.   #  ideally, that goal is parallel to my goal of watching good movies.   # ideally, that goal is parallel to my goal of watching good movies.  not everybody cares about spoilers.  it is not wrong to  spoil  something for somebody for whom  spoilers  do not spoil the movie.  if you want to cover your eyes, go ahead.  your distaste for them does not make them wrong.   #  i still enjoyed most of the harry potter movies despite knowing the entire plots.   #  in the play romeo and juliet, the story is spoiled for you in the prologue.  literally before the play starts, they tell you how it will end.  does this ruin the experience ? i still enjoyed most of the harry potter movies despite knowing the entire plots.  i would argue that most of the plot that is displayed in trailers is not such that it is essential to experience within the movie itself for it to be satisfying.  that is, if i know that in planet of the apes that there is going to be apes fighting humans because of a conflict, that does not spoil anything is important for me to experience firsthand.  it would be different if they showed the twist at the end of the 0th sense for example, but that level of spoilage is not common.   #  ca not agree with you on your romeo and juliet comparison.   #  ca not agree with you on your romeo and juliet comparison.  that is  part of the story .  the story was carefully constructed around revealing that point.  trailers are rarely cut by the director or writer they are made by marketing professionals whose only intention is to sell more tickets.  i have seen countless trailers give away important plot points which essentially  ruin  the movie.  and to cite your planet of the apes example, one of the trailers showed planet of the apes spoilers s  koba killing the gunmen thus spoiling one of the most important plot points the fact that koba is the  bad guy .   this is such an important part of the movie that is carefully built up to and is just given away by the trailer.   #  in fact, the way he was handled was disappointing if anything.   #  i actually did not see the trailer, i just chose that movie because i saw it last night.  however, even without seeing the trailer, it was pretty much a given that koba would turn out the way he did.  it was not surprising in the least.  in fact, the way he was handled was disappointing if anything.  seeing the trailer would not have told me anything i did not already know from the previous movie.  even if i did know for certain rather than knowing based on my suspicion , it would not have mattered i think.  the important part is the journey you take to see his development, not the end result.  characters are made interesting through their development and the trials they encounter.  knowing the ending does not tell you how they got there.  i would go as far as to argue that nearly ever hollywood movie has a completely predictable ending.  when i first stated dating my wife she would routinely get mad at me for spoiling movies while we were watching them.  that does not necessarily mean they were bad movies.  i watched 0 angry men for the first time the other night.  it was a fantastic movie.  i did not see any trailers for it, or have any prior knowledge of the movie other than that it involved 0 jurors and the majority of the movie was in one room.  that is all i knew going in.  once the premise of the movie was established in the first 0 or so minutes, i knew how it would end.  what made the movie so interesting was the journey to get there though how each character had distinct personalities and biases, and how those affected the jury deliberation over the course of the following hour and a half.   #  movie previews also do not show spoilers for the most part, because if they did then there would be no point in going to the movie in the first place.   #  if there is enough time in a preview to show every good part of a movie in 0 seconds or a couple minutes at most then that movie probably is not very good in the first place.  this means that it will get bad reviews whether that be from professional movie critics of from word of mouth from people who have seen it to those who have not.  this will then result in lower ticket sales, and ultimately a less successful movie.  movie previews also do not show spoilers for the most part, because if they did then there would be no point in going to the movie in the first place.  movie previews are meant to show you just enough of the movie to motivate you to go out and buy a ticket to see it.
i believe that in general, the right to free speech is the cornerstone for any just society.  freedom of speech is what guarantees us pretty much every other right that we have.  limitations on free speech to fit society is standards, such as censorship, are a slippery slope and should not exist.  speech that may seem unfit for public consumption is often the type that is needed the most for cultural development.  think about pre civil war united states or the civil rights movement.  what seemed shocking or offensive in those days is now the social norm.  had that type of speech been limited, who knows where our society would be currently ?  #  speech that may seem unfit for public consumption is often the type that is needed the most for cultural development.   #  think about pre civil war united states or the civil rights movement.   # think about pre civil war united states or the civil rights movement.  what seemed shocking or offensive in those days is now the social norm.  had that type of speech been limited, who knows where our society would be currently ? so, based off current responses, you are equating unsolicited mail pornography with civil rights ? i really think this part of your argument falls flat.  at those times, the federal government states are more of a grab bag with this, but that is the nature of federalism did not stop speech.  hell, that is how it happened, was people spoke about it.  furthermore, i doubt that talking about abolition or integration would qualify as obscene then.  the acutal act might, but discussion was certainly not.  and, honestly, the only thing obscenity ever applies to today is porn.  i sincerely doubt that what is holding back society is not enough porn in public.  is there anything besides porn that we censor heavily ?  #  additionally, the marketplace ceases to function if you ignore that speech has actual real consequences in the world.   #  i think you are unfairly conflating  society is moral standards  with censorship.  with free speech, people are free to say shocking and offensive things.  other people are free to go up to those people and say,  hey, you should not do that because it is morally offensive.   people are free to refrain from saying things if they feel that it will be offended from another.  one of the points of free speech is that as ideas are fully debated, the good ones rise and the bad ones fall as silly or irrelevant.  this idea is called  the marketplace of ideas.   what you seem to be proposing disrupts this.  in order for the marketplace to function, people need to be free to debate even if those debating are advocating the  hey, may you should not say that offensive thing  idea.  additionally, the marketplace ceases to function if you ignore that speech has actual real consequences in the world.   #  free speech like the kind you talk about, to me, is great.   #  false advertizing.  this is at least is supposed to be illegal, because we as a society recognize that it is immoral.  i can think of some other examples too.  fraud is illegal.  companies can be sued if they give incorrect directions on how to use their products.  i recognize this is not what you would typically think of when someone says  free speech ; yet all fall under free speech.  free speech like the kind you talk about, to me, is great.  i think everyone should be able to say things that are culturally unacceptable without having to worry about going to jail.  but if someone is exercising their free speech to take advantage of me, that is not okay.  this is where speech can become theft, and can become aggression.  it is rare, it is not the type of thing the constitution was meant to cover, but it is still a limitation on the right to free speech.   #  i am intentionally using the understood notion of a ladder to deceive people into buying it because it cannot perform the claimed functions.   #  that is called fraud.  if i sell you a ladder, and not mention that it collapses under 0lbs of weight, it is fraud.  a ladder is meant for people to climb on, etc, and people are generally over 0lbs.  i am intentionally using the understood notion of a ladder to deceive people into buying it because it cannot perform the claimed functions.  when you get hurt, i am responsible because i lied to you.  however, if i had stated on the packaging or advertisement that it only holds 0lbs, i would not have committed fraud.   #  that is equal to taking $0 directly out of their pocket, without their consent.   #  it actually has very little do with  free speech.   fraud is equivalent to outright theft.  it is selling somebody an envelope with $0 in it when you claimed it had $0.  that is equal to taking $0 directly out of their pocket, without their consent.  fraud is not  free speech  because it is robbery.  it is like saying going to the shooting range is part of the second amendment.  true, but not if there is a person in the way.  the right to bear arms does not include the right to kill people with guns .  accordingly, the right to free speech does not include the right to steal from people with speech .
this is something i used to go back and forth on with an ex.  someone mentioned altruism in another thread and it made me think of this.  since it is always been a very interesting topic to me, and she never succeeded in changing my view on it, i thought i would bring it here to discuss.  my view is that all actions are self serving, and that altruism is no exception.  i do not see that as a bad thing, but people who like to think of themselves as altruists seem to get offended by the idea and rail against it.  self serving is not evil.   but zero,  one might ask,  how would a soldier throwing himself on a grenade be self serving ?   truly that is an altruistic action ! it is, and i do not think it is anything less than it is.  but that soldier would do so because in so doing they fulfill some moral obligation they hold themselves to.  it is in adherence with who they wish to be, and through action serves to make it so.  it also bears noting that this is not something i assert, necessarily.  that is, i do not point it out to people as a counter to their claim of being altruistic.  the topic only even came about as a result of discussing the view that all actions are self serving.   what about altruistic actions ?    well, yes, those too, in their way.   less dire, a person may give to charity or the homeless for a desire to see good done, or because they feel that because they have plenty themselves they should share what they can because they are good people.  it is a behavior which serves to maintain their self image.   #  but that soldier would do so because in so doing they fulfill some moral obligation they hold themselves to.   #  it is in adherence with who they wish to be, and through action serves to make it so.   # it is in adherence with who they wish to be, and through action serves to make it so.  that is not what self serving means.  self serving means  lacking consideration of others: putting personal concerns and interests before those of others  if you are considering the effects on others and trying to help them rather than acting in contradiction to their interests, you are not self serving.  it does not matter whether you are helping yourself or not, the fact that you are trying to help others makes it not self serving.  separately, people often do things they do not believe are in their own best interests.  i sometimes have to move a bowl of candy away from myself in order to stop eating it.  if i always acted in my own interests, you would have to conclude that it serves my interests to eat candy that is 0 foot away but not candy that is three feet away which is clearly incorrect.  i am simply better able to think when the candy is further away.   #  as was pointed out elsewhere, a psychological addiction such as to gambling or giving to charity would be truly selfless, because the addiction may force the hand rather than any motivation to fulfill a moral value.   #  that is the root of the point, though.  psychological research has shown that people place too perceived value on self interest, regardless of how much they value self interest.  by identifying that it exists in small amounts at all levels, and understanding self interest for what it is, we let go of the idea that because everyone is self serving, they will always do what we think they think is best for them.  there was a study in the 0s iirc where participants were to determine what course of action other participants would take with a monetary reward being one.  the finding was that they overestimated the value that other people put on self interest, regardless of what value they placed on it.  it may seem tautological, i believe it is rooted in hobbes, but there is no attempt to obfuscate the point or talk around its relevance which is the mark of a tautology .  it is not meaningless to understand the basis of motivation, and the fact that it can be applied near universally does not detract from its meaning either.  it can identify when something is truly wrong.  as was pointed out elsewhere, a psychological addiction such as to gambling or giving to charity would be truly selfless, because the addiction may force the hand rather than any motivation to fulfill a moral value.   #  but it is still praiseworthy and beneficial to society that someone expends their time and resources on others without immediate external benefit to themselves in the action itself.   #  this is one of those statements that, while  factually  true, is misleading to the point of meaninglessness.  it is useful to have a word for a category of actions that, while admittedly ultimately only done because they serve some interest that the person has, primarily has the effect of benefiting others while incurring a cost to oneself.  yes,  of course  you have a reason for doing anything and everything.  but it is still praiseworthy and beneficial to society that someone expends their time and resources on others without immediate external benefit to themselves in the action itself.  it is a good thing that this is a desire that people have.   #  it does not make any predictions as to a person is action, because by the theory, every action somebody takes is self serving.   #  if i do, then a psychological egoist will ultimately propose some ulterior self serving motive, regardless of how contrived it may be.  even if the egoist cannot come up with such a motive, they will still insist there must be one, as that is their only assumption.  person chooses actions by flipping a coin ? they must have a desire to be, or to be seen as random.  there is no way to disprove psychological egoism because there is no way to prove that the actor fulfilled no self serving desires by performing an action.  it does not make any predictions as to a person is action, because by the theory, every action somebody takes is self serving.  it is completely unfalsifiable and completely trivial.  whether it is actually true or not is of no consequence whatsoever.   #  i think this definition better captures what most people mean when they call a person, action, or motive self serving.   #  yes, every action is self serving in the sense of being the thing that the actor wants to do.  but there is a huge jump from this from the claim that all actions are  primarily  self serving, and an even bigger leap to the idea that the desires that cause them are necessarily self serving.  the usual, not tautologically true definition of self servingness is as the difference between two components, which i will call  pure self interest  and  other servingness .  pure self interest  is an evaluation of an action is desirability ignoring all effects it might have on other people.  something like: how would i like to suddenly have a tv ? other servingness  is an evaluation of an action is effects on other people from what you imagine to be their own perspective.  say: how would they like their tv to suddenly disappear ? i think this definition better captures what most people mean when they call a person, action, or motive self serving.  using the pure self interest criterion means that wanting to help others does not count as selfishness merely because it is a want.  what does it say about altruism ? well, it is clearly other serving, and it is not done in pure self interest any benefits it has for the altruist are because of its effects on other people.  feel free to elaborate on what you mean, or on what you think is usually meant, by  self serving  if you think this definition does not capture the sense you intended.
okay it is over you can quit downvoting now.  fucking christ  first of all i am not  conservative  and i do not hate women.  i am not religious and i voted for obama lol .  at first i was upset.  you know, the usual  do not use your religion to take away our rights .  plus, it is important women have access to birth control.  only recently did i learn that hobby lobby is policy covers 0 types of birth control, ranging from condoms to the daily pill.  the only types of birth control they do not want to pay for are emergency contraceptives the morning after pill and iud is for some reason.  while i do not understand the iud part maybe one of you can explain it to me better , i find the emergency contraceptive part reasonable.  my partner and i have needed to use plan b before.  it is a life saver.  it is also only about 0 dollars.  if you ca not afford a 0 dollar pill that will save you from having kids you probably should not be having sex.  plus, planned parenthood bless their souls provide what they can to those financially lacking.  change my view.  giving it to this person.  if i was religious i would probably be able to argue more but /u/theanswerisforty two did a damn good job.  URL i guess i just wish people would be more careful, especially if they ca not afford kids in the first place.  ideally everyone would have a lot more personal responsibility but it is not like taking away their avenues of aid is going to help anybody.   #  planned parenthood bless their souls provide what they can to those financially lacking.   #  planned parenthood has a very limited presence in some places.   # so ? if you are a teenager who is not responsible enough to use condoms, you probably should not be having sex.  just because someone  probably should not be having sex  does not mean they  are not  going to be having sex.  and it certainly does not mean that they should be forced to carry a child to term when they ca not afford it.  what you are effectively saying is that having a child is a punishment for irresponsibility here, and as far as i am concerned there is something  seriously  wrong with that.  planned parenthood has a very limited presence in some places.  for example, in texas, the second largest state by area, there are six planned parenthood locations.  for a state that takes the better part of two days to drive from one end to the other, that is astonishingly few.  most other states, especially in the south, only have  maybe  two or three locations, so if you do not live in or near an urban population center, planned parenthood is not really available to you.   #  the employer should not have to cover bad decisions.   #  you are not being forced, you are making a decision.  having sex with your partner is a decision.  not wearing a condom is a decision.  not using any other method of preventative birth control is a decision.  not taking the proper steps to prevent pregnancy at the event of conception is a decision.  if you do not want the child, these would all be poor decisions to make.  the employer should not have to cover bad decisions.   #  in an ideal world, none of those things would be an issue.   #  it is  not  affordable to everyone.  not everyone has a credit card or cash set aside for emergencies.  not everyone with a job has enough money for housing and food does that mean they should not be having sex ? you also keep assuming that all sex is consensual.  it is not.  you are also assuming that condoms never break.  in an ideal world, none of those things would be an issue.  it is naive to assume that everyone who needs emergency birth control is an irresponsible person, and it is silly to say that those people deserve to be punished with pregnancy,  if and only if  they happen to work for a religious boss.   #  your employer is not paying for your health insurance.   #  your employer is not paying for your health insurance.  they are paying for your employment.  you, and your fellow employees, are paying for your health insurance through a group insurance policy.  some of that expensive you pay directly in premiums deducted from your paychecks.  the portion that your employer  covers  was a agreed upon part of your compensation for working there.  just like vacation or holiday pay.  instead of paying you more dollars per hour directly, they instead offered other financial compensation in the form of a 0k, life insurance, paid leave, and a health insurance plan.   their  expense is coming out of your agreed upon financial compensation.  in the united states, any employer of more than 0 employees must provide full time employees the option of enrolling in health insurance.  it is factored in to your pay, just like 0k matching or retirement contributions are, and if you are not using it, it is a portion of your compensation that you voluntarily not receiving.  we require that they provide holiday pay.  we do not allow employers to not pay certain holidays because they do not celebrate them.  we require that military member is be allowed leave for their duty.  we do not allow employers to discriminate against servicemen because they are opposed to the war.  we require overtime pay.  we do not allow an employer to not pay overtime, because  where they grew up, 0 hours was expected of everyone.   we require that they provide a health insurance option as part of my compensation, why should they get to pick what it covers ? personally, i do not think we should have our health insurance mixed with our employers.   #  it gives their employees the benefit of  health coverage .   #  the hobby lobby does not give any sort of medication.  it gives their employees the benefit of  health coverage .  it should not be up to them to interfere with  medical decisions/needs  of their employees.  they are not  paying  for contraception.  they are providing health insurance.  interfering with medical decisions, from the basis of  religious opinion , is insanity.  they are not doctors.  it is not their business.  also, it only affects women.  they still happily support ed pills and vasectomies for men.  this is flat out political and sexist.
i have read a lot of threads on here hoping to have my view changed on this, to no avail most of those threads are full of people disparaging the view holder as deluded or brain washed, or only arguing that it is a slippery slope to an orwellian apocalypse.  please do not do that to me.  it does not convince anyone and it certainly wo not convince me.  here is my thinking on this: there is, admittedly, a lot that can go wrong.  i am not concerned with as yet unoccuring rights violations or government oversteps, but rather the act of surveillance itself.  if things go wrong, i will have problems with those policies and actions, not the enabling surveillance technology.  to me, i see a lot to gain from widespread surveillance whether that means tracking internet searches, tapping phones, reading emails, or putting up cameras in public areas .  this could be crime prevention a la person of interest, medical research extensions via mass statistical analysis, or more accurate advertising.  and the losses all would come from policies that are rights violations in themselves, regardless of initial source.  to me, essentially there is no right to privacy in itself, just right to private thoughts, free actions, and private property which surveillance would not and does not change.  to head off something that i suspect will be leveraged against me, i personally have sworn off secrets in my life, but i know many people do not want to.  the closest i will come to lying is lying by omission if asked directly, i will tell.  i do not think everyone needs to follow my rules for my own life, and i do see how this could appear contradictory to mass surveillance.  my resolution for this is that this information need not prevent the keeping of secrets from those in your personal life, just those who gather the data.  and in the incredible amount of data that would be generated, the vast majority of information would disappear amid the flood and be, essentially, private.  all that said, i would love to be convinced otherwise i know my view is the minority, and sometimes i think something is wrong with me to believe this so strongly when pretty much no one else does.  i need a logical argument not based on dangerous potential endgames, or a justification for privacy in itself beyond just that  privacy is good .  thanks !  #  i personally have sworn off secrets in my life, but i know many people do not want to.   #  it is not about secrets or hidden crimes.   # people is thoughts are far more important than there actions.  i do not understand why our thoughts are private if our actions are not.  it is not about secrets or hidden crimes.  it about privacy.  for example, do you think it would be appropriate for your friend to go through you browser history ? for them to ask about what you do in bed with your partner ? for them to go through you texts ? no.  you would be outraged, because it is none of there damn business.  this information is private, and nobody has the right to invade that privacy because they think you might be a criminal.  you underestimate technology.  they could easily store the data and create algorithms to go through the data without missing anything.  there is nothing illogical about the slippery slope argument.  the idea is that, if you give government access to one thing, why would it stop there ? why not have mini cameras in every bodies homes, and there bathrooms it will certainly be possible withing the next few hundred years .  why not record peoples thoughts and store that ? this would all be fine if we lived in a utopian society with a perfect government, ruled by perfect people.  but we do not.  if history has shown anything, it is that when too few people get too much power, they forget about the  common good .  giving up so much privacy, would give the government unimaginable power over it is people.  and the us government sure as hell does not have my trust.  just imagine what kind of surveillance muslims would have been after 0/0, or the japanese during ww0.  our government is far from perfect.  if you really want to be convinced, i would suggest reading 0.  you will not regret reading that book.   #  i have trouble articulating this, but what i am saying is somewhat in line with the  nothing to hide  argument but i do see that as overly simplistic.   #  i promise, i am looking to be convinced.  as i said in a different comment, i do not understand why these are irreconcilable i truly see a distinct difference where apparently most people do not.  my view is more nuanced than i see it portrayed most of the time.  disappearing within a crowd is not privacy in the same sense that never entering that crowd is, but standing alone in a square is also different.  does that make sense ? i have trouble articulating this, but what i am saying is somewhat in line with the  nothing to hide  argument but i do see that as overly simplistic.  it is more, the vast majority of people are inconspicuous, and the data to be gathered by understanding all of them in the aggregate is far more useful than observing any individual on their own, so i feel that is the most likely outcome of surveillance in any situation.   #  this is probably why your discussions generally degrade to personal attacks.   #  why would a person who has no need for privacy have a need to disappear ? if you say  i do not need privacy  then, you cannot then claim the right to disappear for privacy is sake.  you keep saying things like  you misunderstand me  and  my view is more nuanced .  it is not.  you do not get to change the definition of words and then pretend like your position is somehow unique and the onus is on other people to somehow convince you of something.  you are just behaving in a pseudointellectual i want to argue juvenile manner.  this is probably why your discussions generally degrade to personal attacks.   #  and i never said my own discussions degrade to personal attacks i was referring to previous threads on a similar subject posted and replied to by other people in this subreddit.   #  whoa sorry.  what i mean to say is that my position is more nuanced but i am having trouble putting it into words.  and people clearly are misunderstanding me, not that that is their fault at all.  i do not claim it is i know i am not expressing myself as well as i would like to be.  that is rude.  just because i am not good at articulating a complicated personal opinion does not mean i am behaving in a  juvenile  manner.  and i never said my own discussions degrade to personal attacks i was referring to previous threads on a similar subject posted and replied to by other people in this subreddit.   #  can you not think of a single instance where someone might, or indeed already has, done something like this ?  #  this is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.  there is no  anonymity of crowds  when all the data is stored and indexed in a computer database.  yes, there is a lot of data being collected, and some of it is on you.  yes, the amount of data being collected on you is a tiny fraction of the total amount of data being collected.  but if anyone wanted to look at your data, it would only take one query and a few milliseconds and they could have your whole life history.  a computer database is not like a library.  there are not a bunch of books where one could be overlooked.  computerized databases are designed to have any information available quickly and easily without overlooking something or losing anything.  if your argument is that you would be overlooked as a person of interest because you are not important enough and hence  lost in the crowd  , that might be true now.  but later on, you might become a person of interest either through something you have done, something you are trying to do, or something you are accused of having done or are trying to do whether it is true or not.  then you become a person of interest, and anyone could use any of your information against you.  if you wait until it becomes a problem, it is already too late because the data has already been collected.  want a government job ? nope, you posted some anti government ideas on a message board ten years ago.  want a private sector job ? nope, those pictures of you at that party show you are unreliable.  and on more general terms, even if it is not you specifically that we are talking about, think of the power that an organization has that has this much data on so many people.  what if this organization wants to push a particular agenda, for good or ill ? they now have all the information they need to control the people who would potentially oppose them.  can you not think of a single instance where someone might, or indeed already has, done something like this ?
i have read a lot of threads on here hoping to have my view changed on this, to no avail most of those threads are full of people disparaging the view holder as deluded or brain washed, or only arguing that it is a slippery slope to an orwellian apocalypse.  please do not do that to me.  it does not convince anyone and it certainly wo not convince me.  here is my thinking on this: there is, admittedly, a lot that can go wrong.  i am not concerned with as yet unoccuring rights violations or government oversteps, but rather the act of surveillance itself.  if things go wrong, i will have problems with those policies and actions, not the enabling surveillance technology.  to me, i see a lot to gain from widespread surveillance whether that means tracking internet searches, tapping phones, reading emails, or putting up cameras in public areas .  this could be crime prevention a la person of interest, medical research extensions via mass statistical analysis, or more accurate advertising.  and the losses all would come from policies that are rights violations in themselves, regardless of initial source.  to me, essentially there is no right to privacy in itself, just right to private thoughts, free actions, and private property which surveillance would not and does not change.  to head off something that i suspect will be leveraged against me, i personally have sworn off secrets in my life, but i know many people do not want to.  the closest i will come to lying is lying by omission if asked directly, i will tell.  i do not think everyone needs to follow my rules for my own life, and i do see how this could appear contradictory to mass surveillance.  my resolution for this is that this information need not prevent the keeping of secrets from those in your personal life, just those who gather the data.  and in the incredible amount of data that would be generated, the vast majority of information would disappear amid the flood and be, essentially, private.  all that said, i would love to be convinced otherwise i know my view is the minority, and sometimes i think something is wrong with me to believe this so strongly when pretty much no one else does.  i need a logical argument not based on dangerous potential endgames, or a justification for privacy in itself beyond just that  privacy is good .  thanks !  #  i need a logical argument not based on dangerous potential endgames, or a justification for privacy in itself beyond just that  privacy is good .   #  there is nothing illogical about the slippery slope argument.   # people is thoughts are far more important than there actions.  i do not understand why our thoughts are private if our actions are not.  it is not about secrets or hidden crimes.  it about privacy.  for example, do you think it would be appropriate for your friend to go through you browser history ? for them to ask about what you do in bed with your partner ? for them to go through you texts ? no.  you would be outraged, because it is none of there damn business.  this information is private, and nobody has the right to invade that privacy because they think you might be a criminal.  you underestimate technology.  they could easily store the data and create algorithms to go through the data without missing anything.  there is nothing illogical about the slippery slope argument.  the idea is that, if you give government access to one thing, why would it stop there ? why not have mini cameras in every bodies homes, and there bathrooms it will certainly be possible withing the next few hundred years .  why not record peoples thoughts and store that ? this would all be fine if we lived in a utopian society with a perfect government, ruled by perfect people.  but we do not.  if history has shown anything, it is that when too few people get too much power, they forget about the  common good .  giving up so much privacy, would give the government unimaginable power over it is people.  and the us government sure as hell does not have my trust.  just imagine what kind of surveillance muslims would have been after 0/0, or the japanese during ww0.  our government is far from perfect.  if you really want to be convinced, i would suggest reading 0.  you will not regret reading that book.   #  my view is more nuanced than i see it portrayed most of the time.   #  i promise, i am looking to be convinced.  as i said in a different comment, i do not understand why these are irreconcilable i truly see a distinct difference where apparently most people do not.  my view is more nuanced than i see it portrayed most of the time.  disappearing within a crowd is not privacy in the same sense that never entering that crowd is, but standing alone in a square is also different.  does that make sense ? i have trouble articulating this, but what i am saying is somewhat in line with the  nothing to hide  argument but i do see that as overly simplistic.  it is more, the vast majority of people are inconspicuous, and the data to be gathered by understanding all of them in the aggregate is far more useful than observing any individual on their own, so i feel that is the most likely outcome of surveillance in any situation.   #  you keep saying things like  you misunderstand me  and  my view is more nuanced .   #  why would a person who has no need for privacy have a need to disappear ? if you say  i do not need privacy  then, you cannot then claim the right to disappear for privacy is sake.  you keep saying things like  you misunderstand me  and  my view is more nuanced .  it is not.  you do not get to change the definition of words and then pretend like your position is somehow unique and the onus is on other people to somehow convince you of something.  you are just behaving in a pseudointellectual i want to argue juvenile manner.  this is probably why your discussions generally degrade to personal attacks.   #  just because i am not good at articulating a complicated personal opinion does not mean i am behaving in a  juvenile  manner.   #  whoa sorry.  what i mean to say is that my position is more nuanced but i am having trouble putting it into words.  and people clearly are misunderstanding me, not that that is their fault at all.  i do not claim it is i know i am not expressing myself as well as i would like to be.  that is rude.  just because i am not good at articulating a complicated personal opinion does not mean i am behaving in a  juvenile  manner.  and i never said my own discussions degrade to personal attacks i was referring to previous threads on a similar subject posted and replied to by other people in this subreddit.   #  nope, you posted some anti government ideas on a message board ten years ago.   #  this is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.  there is no  anonymity of crowds  when all the data is stored and indexed in a computer database.  yes, there is a lot of data being collected, and some of it is on you.  yes, the amount of data being collected on you is a tiny fraction of the total amount of data being collected.  but if anyone wanted to look at your data, it would only take one query and a few milliseconds and they could have your whole life history.  a computer database is not like a library.  there are not a bunch of books where one could be overlooked.  computerized databases are designed to have any information available quickly and easily without overlooking something or losing anything.  if your argument is that you would be overlooked as a person of interest because you are not important enough and hence  lost in the crowd  , that might be true now.  but later on, you might become a person of interest either through something you have done, something you are trying to do, or something you are accused of having done or are trying to do whether it is true or not.  then you become a person of interest, and anyone could use any of your information against you.  if you wait until it becomes a problem, it is already too late because the data has already been collected.  want a government job ? nope, you posted some anti government ideas on a message board ten years ago.  want a private sector job ? nope, those pictures of you at that party show you are unreliable.  and on more general terms, even if it is not you specifically that we are talking about, think of the power that an organization has that has this much data on so many people.  what if this organization wants to push a particular agenda, for good or ill ? they now have all the information they need to control the people who would potentially oppose them.  can you not think of a single instance where someone might, or indeed already has, done something like this ?
i have read a lot of threads on here hoping to have my view changed on this, to no avail most of those threads are full of people disparaging the view holder as deluded or brain washed, or only arguing that it is a slippery slope to an orwellian apocalypse.  please do not do that to me.  it does not convince anyone and it certainly wo not convince me.  here is my thinking on this: there is, admittedly, a lot that can go wrong.  i am not concerned with as yet unoccuring rights violations or government oversteps, but rather the act of surveillance itself.  if things go wrong, i will have problems with those policies and actions, not the enabling surveillance technology.  to me, i see a lot to gain from widespread surveillance whether that means tracking internet searches, tapping phones, reading emails, or putting up cameras in public areas .  this could be crime prevention a la person of interest, medical research extensions via mass statistical analysis, or more accurate advertising.  and the losses all would come from policies that are rights violations in themselves, regardless of initial source.  to me, essentially there is no right to privacy in itself, just right to private thoughts, free actions, and private property which surveillance would not and does not change.  to head off something that i suspect will be leveraged against me, i personally have sworn off secrets in my life, but i know many people do not want to.  the closest i will come to lying is lying by omission if asked directly, i will tell.  i do not think everyone needs to follow my rules for my own life, and i do see how this could appear contradictory to mass surveillance.  my resolution for this is that this information need not prevent the keeping of secrets from those in your personal life, just those who gather the data.  and in the incredible amount of data that would be generated, the vast majority of information would disappear amid the flood and be, essentially, private.  all that said, i would love to be convinced otherwise i know my view is the minority, and sometimes i think something is wrong with me to believe this so strongly when pretty much no one else does.  i need a logical argument not based on dangerous potential endgames, or a justification for privacy in itself beyond just that  privacy is good .  thanks !  #  to me, essentially there is no right to privacy in itself, just right to private thoughts, free actions, and private property which surveillance would not and does not change.   #  can we admit that there is  some  right to privacy ?  # can we admit that there is  some  right to privacy ? you certainly are not saying that you are fine with the government throwing a camera into each room of your home are you ? i am not trying to split hairs but a claim for an absolute lack of privacy seems excessive.  collecting all this data is one thing, but we have absolutely no control, or even idea, of how people oversee the use of this data.  not even our congressmen, and possibly not even our president, has any direct say in how this data is collected or used.  sure he may have set it up, he could probably intervene.  it is not part of his day to day activities to watch over the days warrants and say  hey this is an abuse of power .  it is a secret court that is overseen by secret judges applying secret warrants.  all those secret people, were not secret people we picked.  they may not have been picked by the president.  they may have been picked by someone, who was picked by the president, or perhaps picked by someone who was picked by someone who was picked by the president, but we do not know.  that does not sound like a responsible way of organizing it.   #  my view is more nuanced than i see it portrayed most of the time.   #  i promise, i am looking to be convinced.  as i said in a different comment, i do not understand why these are irreconcilable i truly see a distinct difference where apparently most people do not.  my view is more nuanced than i see it portrayed most of the time.  disappearing within a crowd is not privacy in the same sense that never entering that crowd is, but standing alone in a square is also different.  does that make sense ? i have trouble articulating this, but what i am saying is somewhat in line with the  nothing to hide  argument but i do see that as overly simplistic.  it is more, the vast majority of people are inconspicuous, and the data to be gathered by understanding all of them in the aggregate is far more useful than observing any individual on their own, so i feel that is the most likely outcome of surveillance in any situation.   #  why would a person who has no need for privacy have a need to disappear ?  #  why would a person who has no need for privacy have a need to disappear ? if you say  i do not need privacy  then, you cannot then claim the right to disappear for privacy is sake.  you keep saying things like  you misunderstand me  and  my view is more nuanced .  it is not.  you do not get to change the definition of words and then pretend like your position is somehow unique and the onus is on other people to somehow convince you of something.  you are just behaving in a pseudointellectual i want to argue juvenile manner.  this is probably why your discussions generally degrade to personal attacks.   #  and people clearly are misunderstanding me, not that that is their fault at all.   #  whoa sorry.  what i mean to say is that my position is more nuanced but i am having trouble putting it into words.  and people clearly are misunderstanding me, not that that is their fault at all.  i do not claim it is i know i am not expressing myself as well as i would like to be.  that is rude.  just because i am not good at articulating a complicated personal opinion does not mean i am behaving in a  juvenile  manner.  and i never said my own discussions degrade to personal attacks i was referring to previous threads on a similar subject posted and replied to by other people in this subreddit.   #  there is no  anonymity of crowds  when all the data is stored and indexed in a computer database.   #  this is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.  there is no  anonymity of crowds  when all the data is stored and indexed in a computer database.  yes, there is a lot of data being collected, and some of it is on you.  yes, the amount of data being collected on you is a tiny fraction of the total amount of data being collected.  but if anyone wanted to look at your data, it would only take one query and a few milliseconds and they could have your whole life history.  a computer database is not like a library.  there are not a bunch of books where one could be overlooked.  computerized databases are designed to have any information available quickly and easily without overlooking something or losing anything.  if your argument is that you would be overlooked as a person of interest because you are not important enough and hence  lost in the crowd  , that might be true now.  but later on, you might become a person of interest either through something you have done, something you are trying to do, or something you are accused of having done or are trying to do whether it is true or not.  then you become a person of interest, and anyone could use any of your information against you.  if you wait until it becomes a problem, it is already too late because the data has already been collected.  want a government job ? nope, you posted some anti government ideas on a message board ten years ago.  want a private sector job ? nope, those pictures of you at that party show you are unreliable.  and on more general terms, even if it is not you specifically that we are talking about, think of the power that an organization has that has this much data on so many people.  what if this organization wants to push a particular agenda, for good or ill ? they now have all the information they need to control the people who would potentially oppose them.  can you not think of a single instance where someone might, or indeed already has, done something like this ?
before i dive into this i would like to make i clear that i do not think they should not be allowed to join the greek organization they want if they are accepted.  so let is get on with it.  at my school it was recently passed that transsexuals can join the fraternity/sorority he/she wants.  that i have no problem with, but they are also attempting to make it so that can not be a reason to turn them down.  fraternities/sororities tend to be selective about the people and culture they want be and by forcing them to accept and by forcing people to accept others they do not want changes them fundamentally.  there are multi culturals that are about certain background.  each one is different, but they generally follow the rule of only accepting that background.  the asian one for example has no whites or black or hispanics and such do not feel like listing all possible races and likewise the black one has no others.  no one has a problem with this and allows that to continue completely unopposed so why should this be different ? the same goes for people who are gay there are some who are opposed to gay members and others who are not.  for example i expect that my fraternity will take the same path we did with gay members and allow them to join, but our neighbors in all likelihood will not.   #  the same goes for people who are gay there are some who are opposed to gay members and others who are not.   #  i suspect that there is never a case where a fraternity explicitly states that they did not allow a particular person to join because they were gay, but rather simply made it uncomfortable for the person until they quit.   # i suspect that there is never a case where a fraternity explicitly states that they did not allow a particular person to join because they were gay, but rather simply made it uncomfortable for the person until they quit.  if they indeed prevent membership based on sexuality i expect they would be kicked off campus.  the same goes for the racial fraternities.  i suspect there is a lack of applicants rather than an actual rule that they do not allow members of other races and that if they had a policy to disallow membership from other races they would be shut down.  if you have a fraternity, then disallowing someone from joining because they are a trans man is equivalent to disallowing someone from joining because they are male.   #  i am just a person who wants to be accepted and loved.   #  background: i am a cofounder of the gamma rho lambda chapter at my college.  i am also a transgender woman extensively far into transition, who is open about her identity.  if i were to rush any given sorority on this campus, i would immediately be rejected.  it would not be on account of my scholarship, my aptitudes, my interests, my ideals, or my dedication.  it would be because of how i look and how i was born.  i cannot change these things without extensive surgical procedures.  if i were to hide my history, i lose my authenticity and my identity, because i would be just another closeted girl in a whole new way.  i helped found my chapter for grl because i knew that i would never get accepted into a classical straight white girl sorority.  if i did, i would likely never have gotten the understanding and support i needed from my sisters.  we know some trans people do not like to be put in the grl box.  we have inquired multiple times to other sororities if they would ever recruit transgender people, and they have continually put on a front that says  yes  in an official capacity, but when the conversation is over, we get the  behind the scenes  aside from one of the members who immediately says that the possibility is doubtful.  but i am not the problem.  i am just a person who wants to be accepted and loved.  the other greek programs are the problem.  i have friends who are in frats and sororities other than ours who only got in by hiding their trans status and revealing it later after their second bid.   #  at any time after you accept the bid you can be cut from the organization immediatly.   #  i do not doubt that there are less applicants of differing races to this kind of organizations, but it has been that way for years and a fairly obvious point they make during recruitment without outright stating it.  the way it works for the majority is you receive a bid from a fraternity if a certain amount of members are interested in you then through the semester you do certain activities and generally hangout with the current members.  at any time after you accept the bid you can be cut from the organization immediatly.  this only needs a low amount of votes generally 0 0 members regardless of size of the organization .  the vote for us is completely anonymous and no reasons need to be provoded.  this alone gives away to keep other races out with no proof at all.   #  i am fine with eliminating de jure discrimination in regards to transgender/transsexual people.   #  i am a bit confused to the view you want changed.  you say fraternities/sororities should not have to accept transgender people, but the policy you mentioned makes it so that they simply ca not be turned down for the sole reason that they are trans.  meaning, unless a greek org explicitly says  no, you ca not join because you are trans,  it is pretty much meaningless.  my impression of the rule is that transgender people are allowed to rush the organizations that represent their gender identity, not that they are entitled to a bid.  discrimination will probably still happen, it just wo not be an official rule.  i am fine with eliminating de jure discrimination in regards to transgender/transsexual people.  are you not ?  #  i imagine similar protections are in place for people of different races or religious beliefs.   #  what, exactly, are greek orgs being forced to do ? they ca not just automatically rule some out for being trans, but they are not forced to accept them either.  from the sound of it, there is nothing about this policy that stops fraternities from simply saying  sorry, we do not think you would fit in well.   i imagine similar protections are in place for people of different races or religious beliefs.  giving them freedom to rush anywhere does not restrict the organization is freedom to bid who they want.
i believe natural rights, i. e.    . those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.    do not exist.  i believe all rights given to any human are social constructs, produced by society from moral structures determined by a multitude of factors.  however, all of these rights can be removed in some way, and are not somehow intrinsically given to a human at birth.  to clarify, i am defining a  right  as a guarantee of access to a commodity or state of being, without necessarily referring to a legal structure.  please, cmv !  #  i believe all rights given to any human are social constructs, produced by society from moral structures determined by a multitude of factors.   #  however, all of these rights can be removed in some way, and are not somehow intrinsically given to a human at birth.   #  . those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.   do not exist.  i think the general term,  moral rights , would better apply here.  natural rights are a usually considered a particular kind of moral right within ethics.  just because you reject natural rights as presented by philosophers like locke and hobbes, does not mean you reject moral rights as a whole.  the previously mentioned philosopher primarily tried to ground these rights as being god given.  there are a multitude of ethical positions that have different conceptions of rights.  utilitarianism, hobbesian social contract, lockean social contract, rawlsian social contract, or whatever.  laying out how these rights are justified, would take quite some time.  but just because a society would function better by respecting certain rights, does not mean these rights are necessarily  amoral .  they are just rational, or expedient.  however, all of these rights can be removed in some way, and are not somehow intrinsically given to a human at birth.  if we are still discussing moral rights or natural rights, then all we can say about the failure to protect those rights is that they have not been protected.  a broad definition of rights are:  rights are entitlements not to perform certain actions, or not to be in certain states; or entitlements that others not perform certain actions or not be in certain states.  URL  #   natural rights , as they were coined by john locke, are inalienable rights that people, and society requires to function in a civil manner.   #  it is true.  all rights are social constructs.  that does not mean they do not exist.  language is a human construct, but it still is  real  per se.  in the same way, rights are still here.   natural rights , as they were coined by john locke, are inalienable rights that people, and society requires to function in a civil manner.  these are rights that we morally cannot deprive people of.  being a social construct does not make it any less essential, or real.   #  now, semantics only matter here because of the definition of  natural.   #  i am going to go ahead and try to convince you that you were right before you awarded this   .  you awarded it, i think, because you acknowledge that the rights some term  natural rights  do exist.  and i wo not disagree with you: there exist certain inalienable rights that are fundamental to our existence as a society.  these rights take into account the nature of human beings.  if we resembled a caste based society like ants do, those rights would be different.  however, calling the rights  natural rights  is where we make a mistake.  in nature, there is no such thing as a right at all: one animal may kill another animal for any reason, and they frequently do.  male lions, for example, will kill or chase off a rival and then kill its young in order to gain a better chance of survival for its own.  only in the context of a society can access to a commodity, including life, be acknowledged, accepted, or enforced.  now, semantics only matter here because of the definition of  natural.  the word implies an origin, which makes the origin an integral part of the definition.  if a right is not derived from nature, it cannot be called a natural right.  therefore  natural  rights do not exist, although the rights often referred to as natural do.   #  what is important is to live life in accordance with your values and morals.   #  is there a problem with saying that racism is natural ? natural does not automatically mean good.  an innate bias towards others that are similar to you only is only a flaw within a human society that values equality.  true equality is not seen in nature.  i would say that overcoming the innate bias we have against different people is the manifestation of society overcoming a flawed natural tendency.  but then again, the whole concept of dividing  natural  from  unnatural  is kind of irrelevant.  what is important is to live life in accordance with your values and morals.   #  if i understand you correctly, you are suggesting that our  rights  are natural because they are derived from our morality, which may have its roots in evolution, a natural process.   #  if i understand you correctly, you are suggesting that our  rights  are natural because they are derived from our morality, which may have its roots in evolution, a natural process.  i am no archaelogical philosopher, so i do not know much about the origin of our morality: is it something that predates written morality, or not ? do other organisms display morality ? an interesting question, but an irrelevant one.  plastic is just about the least natural substance i can think of.  it is the result of our intelligence: intelligence begets knowledge, knowledge begets technology, technology begets plastic.  our intelligence is a naturally evolved trait, but our knowledge is the combined result of our experience and intelligence.  is knowledge natural ? i would think not.  but as knowledge begets technology, it also begets morality.  so unless you are willing to argue that technology is natural, i would argue that morality cannot be considered the same.
i believe natural rights, i. e.    . those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.    do not exist.  i believe all rights given to any human are social constructs, produced by society from moral structures determined by a multitude of factors.  however, all of these rights can be removed in some way, and are not somehow intrinsically given to a human at birth.  to clarify, i am defining a  right  as a guarantee of access to a commodity or state of being, without necessarily referring to a legal structure.  please, cmv !  #  to clarify, i am defining a  right  as a guarantee of access to a commodity or state of being, without necessarily referring to a legal structure.   #  a broad definition of rights are:  rights are entitlements not to perform certain actions, or not to be in certain states; or entitlements that others not perform certain actions or not be in certain states.   #  . those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.   do not exist.  i think the general term,  moral rights , would better apply here.  natural rights are a usually considered a particular kind of moral right within ethics.  just because you reject natural rights as presented by philosophers like locke and hobbes, does not mean you reject moral rights as a whole.  the previously mentioned philosopher primarily tried to ground these rights as being god given.  there are a multitude of ethical positions that have different conceptions of rights.  utilitarianism, hobbesian social contract, lockean social contract, rawlsian social contract, or whatever.  laying out how these rights are justified, would take quite some time.  but just because a society would function better by respecting certain rights, does not mean these rights are necessarily  amoral .  they are just rational, or expedient.  however, all of these rights can be removed in some way, and are not somehow intrinsically given to a human at birth.  if we are still discussing moral rights or natural rights, then all we can say about the failure to protect those rights is that they have not been protected.  a broad definition of rights are:  rights are entitlements not to perform certain actions, or not to be in certain states; or entitlements that others not perform certain actions or not be in certain states.  URL  #  these are rights that we morally cannot deprive people of.   #  it is true.  all rights are social constructs.  that does not mean they do not exist.  language is a human construct, but it still is  real  per se.  in the same way, rights are still here.   natural rights , as they were coined by john locke, are inalienable rights that people, and society requires to function in a civil manner.  these are rights that we morally cannot deprive people of.  being a social construct does not make it any less essential, or real.   #  only in the context of a society can access to a commodity, including life, be acknowledged, accepted, or enforced.   #  i am going to go ahead and try to convince you that you were right before you awarded this   .  you awarded it, i think, because you acknowledge that the rights some term  natural rights  do exist.  and i wo not disagree with you: there exist certain inalienable rights that are fundamental to our existence as a society.  these rights take into account the nature of human beings.  if we resembled a caste based society like ants do, those rights would be different.  however, calling the rights  natural rights  is where we make a mistake.  in nature, there is no such thing as a right at all: one animal may kill another animal for any reason, and they frequently do.  male lions, for example, will kill or chase off a rival and then kill its young in order to gain a better chance of survival for its own.  only in the context of a society can access to a commodity, including life, be acknowledged, accepted, or enforced.  now, semantics only matter here because of the definition of  natural.  the word implies an origin, which makes the origin an integral part of the definition.  if a right is not derived from nature, it cannot be called a natural right.  therefore  natural  rights do not exist, although the rights often referred to as natural do.   #  an innate bias towards others that are similar to you only is only a flaw within a human society that values equality.   #  is there a problem with saying that racism is natural ? natural does not automatically mean good.  an innate bias towards others that are similar to you only is only a flaw within a human society that values equality.  true equality is not seen in nature.  i would say that overcoming the innate bias we have against different people is the manifestation of society overcoming a flawed natural tendency.  but then again, the whole concept of dividing  natural  from  unnatural  is kind of irrelevant.  what is important is to live life in accordance with your values and morals.   #  but as knowledge begets technology, it also begets morality.   #  if i understand you correctly, you are suggesting that our  rights  are natural because they are derived from our morality, which may have its roots in evolution, a natural process.  i am no archaelogical philosopher, so i do not know much about the origin of our morality: is it something that predates written morality, or not ? do other organisms display morality ? an interesting question, but an irrelevant one.  plastic is just about the least natural substance i can think of.  it is the result of our intelligence: intelligence begets knowledge, knowledge begets technology, technology begets plastic.  our intelligence is a naturally evolved trait, but our knowledge is the combined result of our experience and intelligence.  is knowledge natural ? i would think not.  but as knowledge begets technology, it also begets morality.  so unless you are willing to argue that technology is natural, i would argue that morality cannot be considered the same.
i believe natural rights, i. e.    . those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.    do not exist.  i believe all rights given to any human are social constructs, produced by society from moral structures determined by a multitude of factors.  however, all of these rights can be removed in some way, and are not somehow intrinsically given to a human at birth.  to clarify, i am defining a  right  as a guarantee of access to a commodity or state of being, without necessarily referring to a legal structure.  please, cmv !  #  i believe all rights given to any human are social constructs, produced by society from moral structures determined by a multitude of factors.   #  however, all of these rights can be removed in some way, and are not somehow intrinsically given to a human at birth.   # however, all of these rights can be removed in some way, and are not somehow intrinsically given to a human at birth.  so if society says that all blacks can be killed on sight or all jews should be shipped off to be burned, that is ok ? i mean.  there is no natural human rights, so the social construct of that society is all that there is.  who are you to say what they are doing is wrong ? you would have no basis for criticizing them if there are no natural rights.  natural human rights are rights because there are naturally accepted morals: it is wrong to enslave others, wrong to kill others, wrong to steal from others.  why ? because it harms others and we know that harming others is wrong.  it is natural to see that harm is bad and there are very few societies where these basic rights are not valued.   #  language is a human construct, but it still is  real  per se.   #  it is true.  all rights are social constructs.  that does not mean they do not exist.  language is a human construct, but it still is  real  per se.  in the same way, rights are still here.   natural rights , as they were coined by john locke, are inalienable rights that people, and society requires to function in a civil manner.  these are rights that we morally cannot deprive people of.  being a social construct does not make it any less essential, or real.   #  male lions, for example, will kill or chase off a rival and then kill its young in order to gain a better chance of survival for its own.   #  i am going to go ahead and try to convince you that you were right before you awarded this   .  you awarded it, i think, because you acknowledge that the rights some term  natural rights  do exist.  and i wo not disagree with you: there exist certain inalienable rights that are fundamental to our existence as a society.  these rights take into account the nature of human beings.  if we resembled a caste based society like ants do, those rights would be different.  however, calling the rights  natural rights  is where we make a mistake.  in nature, there is no such thing as a right at all: one animal may kill another animal for any reason, and they frequently do.  male lions, for example, will kill or chase off a rival and then kill its young in order to gain a better chance of survival for its own.  only in the context of a society can access to a commodity, including life, be acknowledged, accepted, or enforced.  now, semantics only matter here because of the definition of  natural.  the word implies an origin, which makes the origin an integral part of the definition.  if a right is not derived from nature, it cannot be called a natural right.  therefore  natural  rights do not exist, although the rights often referred to as natural do.   #  an innate bias towards others that are similar to you only is only a flaw within a human society that values equality.   #  is there a problem with saying that racism is natural ? natural does not automatically mean good.  an innate bias towards others that are similar to you only is only a flaw within a human society that values equality.  true equality is not seen in nature.  i would say that overcoming the innate bias we have against different people is the manifestation of society overcoming a flawed natural tendency.  but then again, the whole concept of dividing  natural  from  unnatural  is kind of irrelevant.  what is important is to live life in accordance with your values and morals.   #  it is the result of our intelligence: intelligence begets knowledge, knowledge begets technology, technology begets plastic.   #  if i understand you correctly, you are suggesting that our  rights  are natural because they are derived from our morality, which may have its roots in evolution, a natural process.  i am no archaelogical philosopher, so i do not know much about the origin of our morality: is it something that predates written morality, or not ? do other organisms display morality ? an interesting question, but an irrelevant one.  plastic is just about the least natural substance i can think of.  it is the result of our intelligence: intelligence begets knowledge, knowledge begets technology, technology begets plastic.  our intelligence is a naturally evolved trait, but our knowledge is the combined result of our experience and intelligence.  is knowledge natural ? i would think not.  but as knowledge begets technology, it also begets morality.  so unless you are willing to argue that technology is natural, i would argue that morality cannot be considered the same.
universal basic income seems to be a popular idea on reddit.  supposedly it allows us to solve poverty while reducing the size of government.  we give everyone money with no discrimination and we do not have to tell them how to spend it, so food stamps and unemployment and whatever else just go away.  i posit that ubi would lead to rampant inflation on certain essential goods and services most specifically with regards to rent and mortgage which would in turn lead to various price setting measures and restrictions on what the ubi could be used for; meaning we would still have the same types of government controls advocates of the ubi claim it would remove.  so take housing which i think is the most obvious example.  housing is a limited resource.  we can only squeeze so many people into an area.  therefore there will always be a limited supply and landlords and bankers will be in a position to take advantage of the influx of cash now coming in through ubi.  even though people will have more money, they will still be spending the majority of it on rent or mortgages since the prices will go up.  in response to this situation i can see one of two scenarios playing out: 0.  governments start exercising pricing controls on goods that are becoming too expensive in order to maintain a reasonable ubi.  0.  the ubi does not increase to match inflation the same way minimum wage does not increase and the system ends up not being effective anymore.  also, even with ubi you will still have some poor people who stay poor because they spend all their money on stupid stuff like drugs and dr.  dre headphones or whatever.  even if this is a minority the ones who do not like giving their tax money away will use them as an example the same way they do now for welfare subsidies and food stamps.  i am sorry, but i just do not see any problem being solved here.  cmv side note 0: a lot of people who argue against a universal basic income talk about people not being motivated to work.  i make no claims about this argument; it seems like amateur psychology to me and i have no statement about it.  side note 0: i do not think ubi is  socialism , i think it is a market solution advocated by free market economists like milton friedman.  either way i have no position for or against socialism or free market economics, i am just arguing that it would not solve the problems advocates of the idea say it would solve.   #  therefore there will always be a limited supply and landlords and bankers will be in a position to take advantage of the influx of cash now coming in through ubi.   #  i hope you realize there wo not actually be an influx of cash coming in through ubi.   # we can only squeeze so many people into an area.  and that area is much less than the surface area of the earth.  if the entire population of the world lived in a single city, it would be about the size of texas URL depending on population density.  i hope you realize there wo not actually be an influx of cash coming in through ubi.  the government pays for the basic income the same way it pays for everything else: taxes with some borrowing.  it wo not suddenly be printing massive amounts of money to pay for this.  ubi fundamentally redistributes money, not creates it.  dre headphones or whatever.  i think you are overestimating this, but whatever.  so what if this happens ? so what ? has not stopped welfare.   #  this is not inflation, but it is a rise in the cost of living.   #  i thought i outlined it pretty clearly but i can try to clarify.  the amount of money needed to sustain what we consider a humane existence would increase because the price of essential goods and services like rent or food would increase.  this would happen because you need to buy these things and producers would take advantage of the influx of cash being given to people.  this is already happening now in places like nyc and sf.  gentrification and introduction of more money into those places has resulted in inflated rent costs.  even though you might make more money living in nyc, you also spend more money.  this is not inflation, but it is a rise in the cost of living.  with ubi, in order to match the increased cost of living we need to raise taxes but this can only go so far.  the next step is to start devaluing the currency with additional cash.  or we do not inflate the currency and the ubi becomes useless.  or we start setting cost control measures which is still  big government  which advocates of the ubi say will be solved.  either way, i only see new problems being created without solving any existing ones.   #  ubi would increase just like your regular income increases with the cost of living without any need for creating inflation to make it work.   #  you ignored the arguments put forth against you.  but there is no influx of cash, merely an influx of people who have some small amounts of cash.  it is redistribution, not creation.  this is not inflation, but it is a rise in the cost of living.  right, so why do you claim that ubi would cause inflation ? why ? taxes are already a percentage, the increased cost of living would already increase the amount of taxation without having to change anything.  why would this happen ? ubi would increase just like your regular income increases with the cost of living without any need for creating inflation to make it work.  unless you are claiming that food stamps and existing welfare already cause inflation, there is no reason why a ubi would.   #  my original post said inflation for the costs of essential goods and services, but i  think  that actually inflation is the rise of all goods and services ?  # it is redistribution, not creation.  i believe this type of redistribution would empower producers of necessary goods that are of limited supply; specifically landlords and mortgage collectors.  you can see this happening today with college tuition.  we give students loans which goes to college tuition.  are colleges keeping the cost of tuition the same and just educating more students ? or are they taking advantage and raising the cost of tuition ? at best you could argue a bit of both, but tuition has certainly gone up.  my original post said inflation for the costs of essential goods and services, but i  think  that actually inflation is the rise of all goods and services ? i am not sure here i am not an economist so this may be misleading.  to clarify, i think the costs of some products will go up, and eventually the government will need to start printing more money to fund the program, which will be full inflation.  taxes are already a percentage, the increased cost of living would already increase the amount of taxation without having to change anything.  you know, that i think of this you may be right.  it is possible that the increased cost of living would just yield higher tax revenues and things even out.  i am not sure.  alternatively though it is possible that the increased cost of living is only going to certain producers like landlords and everyone else who is not reaping the benefits of the increased cost of living will feel the pinch of heavy taxation and begin complaining loudly.  can you explain this ? why would ubi increase automatically ? i do think food stamps can raise the cost of food.  in the case of the us where we are pretty miserly with food stamps anyway and where food is kind of in over abundance i do not think the effect is that significant.   #  so either, the ubi has precisely the same effect on the economy as current welfare programs except it is more effective at helping people or current programs do not raise costs and thus ubi would not either.   # or are they taking advantage and raising the cost of tuition ? at best you could argue a bit of both, but tuition has certainly gone up.  some of this comes from the unlimited nature of school loans and the requirements that exist to prevent people from being able to dismiss school loans like they can do with other loans via bankruptcy and such.  the problem is not merely the existence of school loans but everything else around them which makes it beneficial to keep raising the cost of tuition.  thus you ca not generalize this case to the situation of landlords and mortgage collectors.  inflation is a devaluation of the currency which results in a rise in cost for  all goods and services  because the actual value of the currency has reduced.  and this is why lots of companies give cost of living increases to salary.  this is already the situation and already has a mechanism which deals with it.  why would ubi increase automatically ? the point of a universal basic income is that it is an amount at which the bottom level of people can still have all of the necessities.  thus, if cost of living goes up you must increase the ubi in order to keep with the cost of those necessities.  this could create a spiral if you could prove that a ubi causes an increase in the cost of living, but i do not think it would.  in the case of the us where we are pretty miserly with food stamps anyway and where food is kind of in over abundance i do not think the effect is that significant.  we have food stamps, and we have section 0 house, and tons of other welfare programs.  either these programs raise the costs of these products or they do not.  interestingly, it does not matter because a ubi would replace all the welfare programs.  so either, the ubi has precisely the same effect on the economy as current welfare programs except it is more effective at helping people or current programs do not raise costs and thus ubi would not either.
allowing unlimited campaign contributions effectively means that enemies of the state can subvert the will of the american public by buying the election of leaders that favor their interests rather than american interests.  in general the fact that congress only has 0 approval rating and the american public is virtually helpless to do anything about it is a cause for serious concern in my eyes.  i do not think citizens united is the sole cause of this, but i think it is a major factor.  i find it interesting that one of the most hawkish republican politicians today, john mccain, is one of the biggest opponents of the citizen is united decision.  i think  conservative  politicians and patriotic americans should be fighting hardest for an amendment to overturn the supreme court is decision.  cmv  #  i find it interesting that one of the most hawkish republican politicians today, john mccain, is one of the biggest opponents of the citizen is united decision.   #  john mccain co authored the bcra, which was the law that was overturned by citizens united vs.   # john mccain co authored the bcra, which was the law that was overturned by citizens united vs.  fec.  this is likely his reason for opposing the decision.  the citizens united decision has led to a lot of big money involvement in politics, which is undeniably a bad thing.  however, as people have pointed out, money does not guarantee victory, and you ca not actually buy votes.  just look at the cantor/brat race.  eric cantor was the incumbent and raised 0 times the amount of brat and still lost.  bloomberg flooded tons of money into the recall elections of colorado state senators who supported a controversial new gun law, and the were still recalled.  lastly, although citizens united v.  fec had unintended consequences that are far removed from the original decision, it was the right decision to make.  the case was about citizens united wanting to air an ad for a political film about a candidate.  the bcra forbids ads about candidates from anyone but the party or candidate themselves within a certain time of an election.  basically, the bcra limited political speech to the political parties, who are obviously full of shit, and the press, who are obviously also in the tank for one side or the other.  restriction of political speech is about as un american as it gets.  so basically, john mccain is butt hurt about this decision because he does not believe that the 0st amendment applies to anyone but the tv news and the political parties.  half of the news is in the tank for one side, and half for the other.  the law basically turned campaigning into party line propoganda from two approved sources.  i do not know about you, but that sounds like the fucking soviet union to me.  one of the many reasons i am glad he did not get elected in 0.   #  citizens united allowed for independent non profits to spend unlimited money on ads supporting candidates.   # for profit corporations are still completely banned from campaign contributions.  citizens united allowed for independent non profits to spend unlimited money on ads supporting candidates.  also, the 0 approval rating number is misleading.  most people approve of their own congressperson, just not of congress as a whole.  its not like representatives are being kept afloat by corporate money when only 0 of their district likes them.   #  i think a number of factors have left voters trapped into choosing between the lesser of all evils.   # i do not think this is a fact at all.  i think a number of factors have left voters trapped into choosing between the lesser of all evils.  namely unlimited campaign finance, gerrymandering, and first past the post two party politics.  for example, michelle bachman, so called  queen of the tea party , narrowly won re election in 0 receiving just 0,0 more votes than her dfl challenger jim graves.  from wikipedia URL    according to politico. com, as of july 0, bachmann has  raised close to $0 million  for the 0 election, a figure it called  astounding .  more than some senate candidates will collect this year.   from july to the end of september, bachmann raised $0 million.  this amount put her ahead of all other members of congress including allen west who was in second place with $0 million for the third quarter.  bachmann said that she was  humbled by the enormous outpouring of grassroots support for my campaign focused on keeping america the most secure and prosperous nation in the world.   bachmann was subsequently under investigation by the house ethics committee for  alleged campaign finance irregularities .  and it seems the only reason she will not get re elected in 0 is because she has finally decided to not run for re election.  now call me paranoid, but whose to say someone like bachmann could not be getting money from a shell corporation owned by vladimir putin ? this concerns me.   #  i think a number of factors have left voters trapped into choosing between the lesser of all evils.   # this concerns me.  the law.  super pacs are not allowed to donate directly to candidates.  i think a number of factors have left voters trapped into choosing between the lesser of all evils.  namely unlimited campaign finance, gerrymandering, and first past the post two party politics.  you seem to think that money can somehow prevent people from doing what they want.  just last month, eric cantor, the house majority leader, was ousted from his seat in a primary challenge by a man he outspent on a nearly 0 0 ratio.  nothing about campaign finance is stopping primary challenges from ousting any member of congress except the will of the people.  also, fptp and gerrymandering have nothing to do with citizen is united.   #  do you think there is no way for a foreign government to take advantage of the supreme court decision ?  # but it is much more rare and much harder.  you essentially have to be despised for things like this to happen.  super pacs are not allowed to donate directly to candidates.  this is interesting.  do you think there is no way for a foreign government to take advantage of the supreme court decision ? i think the citizens united decision exacerbates the problems of fptp and gerrymandering.  i believe it is amplifying problems that had already existed prior.
allowing unlimited campaign contributions effectively means that enemies of the state can subvert the will of the american public by buying the election of leaders that favor their interests rather than american interests.  in general the fact that congress only has 0 approval rating and the american public is virtually helpless to do anything about it is a cause for serious concern in my eyes.  i do not think citizens united is the sole cause of this, but i think it is a major factor.  i find it interesting that one of the most hawkish republican politicians today, john mccain, is one of the biggest opponents of the citizen is united decision.  i think  conservative  politicians and patriotic americans should be fighting hardest for an amendment to overturn the supreme court is decision.  cmv  #  in general the fact that congress only has 0 approval rating and the american public is virtually helpless to do anything about it is a cause for serious concern in my eyes.   #  i do not think citizens united is the sole cause of this, but i think it is a major factor.   # i do not think citizens united is the sole cause of this, but i think it is a major factor.  and congress has a 0 encumbency re election rate.  some other awesome things:  americans by a majority want a balanced budget.  they also generally do not want to cut any significant amount of spending when asked specifically what they would like to be cut.  going from memory, 0 polls stuck out in my mind.  in one poll, 0  percent of people agreed that the freedom of speech is the bedrock for a civilized society.  a related poll showed that some 0 of people agreed that people should not be allowed to say things that might be offensive to racial groups.  this entire horrifying article: URL so we have a problem in that the average voter is not only uninformed an easy enough remedy , but that they want opposite things.  cmv: i think the american electorate should be treated as a threat to national security.   #  for profit corporations are still completely banned from campaign contributions.   # for profit corporations are still completely banned from campaign contributions.  citizens united allowed for independent non profits to spend unlimited money on ads supporting candidates.  also, the 0 approval rating number is misleading.  most people approve of their own congressperson, just not of congress as a whole.  its not like representatives are being kept afloat by corporate money when only 0 of their district likes them.   #  for example, michelle bachman, so called  queen of the tea party , narrowly won re election in 0 receiving just 0,0 more votes than her dfl challenger jim graves.   # i do not think this is a fact at all.  i think a number of factors have left voters trapped into choosing between the lesser of all evils.  namely unlimited campaign finance, gerrymandering, and first past the post two party politics.  for example, michelle bachman, so called  queen of the tea party , narrowly won re election in 0 receiving just 0,0 more votes than her dfl challenger jim graves.  from wikipedia URL    according to politico. com, as of july 0, bachmann has  raised close to $0 million  for the 0 election, a figure it called  astounding .  more than some senate candidates will collect this year.   from july to the end of september, bachmann raised $0 million.  this amount put her ahead of all other members of congress including allen west who was in second place with $0 million for the third quarter.  bachmann said that she was  humbled by the enormous outpouring of grassroots support for my campaign focused on keeping america the most secure and prosperous nation in the world.   bachmann was subsequently under investigation by the house ethics committee for  alleged campaign finance irregularities .  and it seems the only reason she will not get re elected in 0 is because she has finally decided to not run for re election.  now call me paranoid, but whose to say someone like bachmann could not be getting money from a shell corporation owned by vladimir putin ? this concerns me.   #  just last month, eric cantor, the house majority leader, was ousted from his seat in a primary challenge by a man he outspent on a nearly 0 0 ratio.   # this concerns me.  the law.  super pacs are not allowed to donate directly to candidates.  i think a number of factors have left voters trapped into choosing between the lesser of all evils.  namely unlimited campaign finance, gerrymandering, and first past the post two party politics.  you seem to think that money can somehow prevent people from doing what they want.  just last month, eric cantor, the house majority leader, was ousted from his seat in a primary challenge by a man he outspent on a nearly 0 0 ratio.  nothing about campaign finance is stopping primary challenges from ousting any member of congress except the will of the people.  also, fptp and gerrymandering have nothing to do with citizen is united.   #  super pacs are not allowed to donate directly to candidates.   # but it is much more rare and much harder.  you essentially have to be despised for things like this to happen.  super pacs are not allowed to donate directly to candidates.  this is interesting.  do you think there is no way for a foreign government to take advantage of the supreme court decision ? i think the citizens united decision exacerbates the problems of fptp and gerrymandering.  i believe it is amplifying problems that had already existed prior.
first of all, we already know how the story ends badly. we just do not know when.  we are going to die, and the process of dying is usually excruciating.  it is certainly never pleasant.  in all likelihood, you will be diagnosed with cancer at some point, go through terrible treatments that greatly reduce your quality of life, and then when the treatments are exhausted and you know the disease is terminal, you will suffer indescribable pain and sickness i do not buy the  hospice can usually manage your pain  argument until you finally vanish into a state of non existence, aka death.  you likely wo not even have that brief moment to be aware that your suffering is over. it is not like falling asleep, it is just having your consciousness disappear.  so what is it about life that is  so  good that it is worth  that  eventuality ? 0 second orgasms and a few minutes of enjoyment while you are eating and artificial  goals  we have created as a society, like sports leagues ? that is worth your body being ridden with tumors pressing on your nerves and blocking your airway so you have difficulty swallowing and breathing, progressively getting worse as they pump you full of morphine that makes you hallucinate while you shit and piss yourself, unable to eat ? that is if you are lucky enough not to have uncontrollable vomiting from a bowel obstruction/bleeding.  additionally, is not life to death just like a dream is to real life ? we do not typically care what happens in our dreams, because they are not  real.   if we achieve something in our dreams and wake up, we are disappointed that it was not real.  if something bad happened in our dream, we wake up and then do not really care, unless we are worried it applies to what is  real.   well, based on what seems to be the fact that death/non existence is the only actual reality, what value does life have ? i genuinely wish i had never been born.  i am afraid to take my own life, so i am stuck waiting for cancer to make me face my own mortality while causing me indescribable agony all at once.  being alive is an absolute tragedy.  why do people continue to reproduce ?  why ?   what possible logic is there behind it besides selfish motives desire to live vicariously through children, or wanting to be entertained by  cute  children ?  #  i genuinely wish i had never been born.   #  i am afraid to take my own life, so i am stuck waiting for cancer to make me face my own mortality while causing me indescribable agony all at once.   # i am afraid to take my own life, so i am stuck waiting for cancer to make me face my own mortality while causing me indescribable agony all at once.  this is the important bit.  our brains work differently.  whether it is genetics or environment, or probably both, they just do.  there are people who start their morning with whiskey, there are people who ca not stop thinking about cake, and there are people who piss in bottles because they ca not leave their computer.  the fact that i do not piss in a bottle or drink whiskey for breakfast does not make me a strong person, it just makes my mind different from theirs.  you are not this species.  you are you.  i ate popcorn, had a few brews, and watched the world cup today with friends, and i do not feel that i should cease being because one day it will all end.  in fact i am quite happy my forefathers drudged through life in absolute misery, because today i watched the wc final and enjoyed the company of my friends.  i will happily drudge through shit just to make my ancestors live that.  for most of us, something is better than nothing.  the something might be family, friends, music, work, fishing or a thousand other things.  but the fact that you feel bad should not mean that seven billion people should cease reproducing.  because that is your argument.  i feel sad, hence no one should be.  not happy or sad or horny, just be.  you want to end the human race race because your sad.  that is silly.   #  i do not think you should be looking forward to dying, or hating life; if you are, i think there are some people you can talk to, and you can definitely move forward from this.   #  first you hope for a certain action ending the species because of the way specifically you and, i acknowledge, some others feel about life, but you want the species as a whole to act on your beliefs.  basically you want everyone else to give up on humanity because you feel like life is not worth it.  for your viewpoint to be true, you would have to show everyone is given up on humanity, or feels hopeless, which simply is not true.  thus, the human species wants to continue.  second life is worth living ! not everyone has given up on humanity.  even during the darkest times, people persevered they did not give up.  they fought to stop oppression rather than let the oppression overtake them.  they fought to rid the world of injustice rather than let one, cruel, injustice take the world that wronged them down.  and as a result, we have progressed.  everyone struggles to find their purpose in life but that is part of what it means to be human.  this struggle obviously effects some people more, but for most people, life is worth living, even with painful things both emotionally and physically.  third even if life does not have a worth, or does not have meaning, that does not mean it is the end.  as religion is influence initially began waning, existentialists faced this problem too, but some of them decided that, in the absence of meaning, it is up to humans to create their own meaning.  the raw power of humanity, and the human mind, should be a testament to this.  i think it is amazing that humans 0 years ago could barely survive, and yet, now, we have landed on the moon and created the internet, and amazing skyscrapers, and cloning, and absolutely spectacular art ! .  i think humanity itself is worth something.  it is worth something for our drive, our intelligence, our ingeuitiy, our capabilities to do something even when the world does nothing.  life is worth living.  even if you do not feel that way now, you will eventually.  it gets better ! i do not think you should be looking forward to dying, or hating life; if you are, i think there are some people you can talk to, and you can definitely move forward from this.  i am truly sorry you are feeling worthless, op, but tomorrow will be a better day.  humanity is worth something, and so is life itself.   #  i used to be a lot like you until i sought professional help.   #  you seem to be focusing a lot on pain before death, and seeing it as a certainty.  it is definitely not of everyone i know that is died, very few were in bad pain beforehand, and even fewer were in pain for more than 0 hours.  in addition, depending on how old you are now, it is very likely that things like cancer will have been cured by the time you are close to dying.  as a side note: if you have not, heavily consider seeing a therapist.  i used to be a lot like you until i sought professional help.  i am happy now, life is worth it to me.   #  the reason they have not found a cure is they ca not.   #  maybe they were hiding it from you.  they said that 0  years ago.  not gonna happen.  we have never cured a single disease in human history.  we have developed some vaccines, and that is it.  cancer ca not be vaccinated against because it is not a foreign invader aside from a few types that are linked to genetic mutations as a result of foreign invaders and said foreign invaders can be vaccinated against to reduce the risk .  cancer which is really thousands of different heterogeneous diseases can not be cured.  there is no solution.  the reason they have not found a cure is they ca not.  there is not one to be found.  we built an atomic bomb and went to the moon, but we ca not cure cancer despite 0  years and trillions of dollars globally poured into research.  i am taking that as a sign that it wo not happen.  i am pretty sure i already have cancer, but even if i do not, it is just a matter of time, and i hate that i am here and have to face that.   #  heart attacks that left them dead before they hit the floor or car accidents, etc.   # i am not /u/cadvin, but i have a similar experience.  the people i know who have died died suddenly for the most part .  heart attacks that left them dead before they hit the floor or car accidents, etc.  there are plenty of ways to die that are not slow and agonizing.  additionally, many people who get cancer do go into remission.  as a few others have said you really might want to consider therapy/talking to a professional about these thoughts you are having.  i have felt the same way.  i literally wished i was suddenly stricken with a terminal illness so that the pointlessness of life would end.  now i am happier than i have ever been and i am excited for the future.
first of all, we already know how the story ends badly. we just do not know when.  we are going to die, and the process of dying is usually excruciating.  it is certainly never pleasant.  in all likelihood, you will be diagnosed with cancer at some point, go through terrible treatments that greatly reduce your quality of life, and then when the treatments are exhausted and you know the disease is terminal, you will suffer indescribable pain and sickness i do not buy the  hospice can usually manage your pain  argument until you finally vanish into a state of non existence, aka death.  you likely wo not even have that brief moment to be aware that your suffering is over. it is not like falling asleep, it is just having your consciousness disappear.  so what is it about life that is  so  good that it is worth  that  eventuality ? 0 second orgasms and a few minutes of enjoyment while you are eating and artificial  goals  we have created as a society, like sports leagues ? that is worth your body being ridden with tumors pressing on your nerves and blocking your airway so you have difficulty swallowing and breathing, progressively getting worse as they pump you full of morphine that makes you hallucinate while you shit and piss yourself, unable to eat ? that is if you are lucky enough not to have uncontrollable vomiting from a bowel obstruction/bleeding.  additionally, is not life to death just like a dream is to real life ? we do not typically care what happens in our dreams, because they are not  real.   if we achieve something in our dreams and wake up, we are disappointed that it was not real.  if something bad happened in our dream, we wake up and then do not really care, unless we are worried it applies to what is  real.   well, based on what seems to be the fact that death/non existence is the only actual reality, what value does life have ? i genuinely wish i had never been born.  i am afraid to take my own life, so i am stuck waiting for cancer to make me face my own mortality while causing me indescribable agony all at once.  being alive is an absolute tragedy.  why do people continue to reproduce ?  why ?   what possible logic is there behind it besides selfish motives desire to live vicariously through children, or wanting to be entertained by  cute  children ?  #  i genuinely wish i had never been born.   #  if you do not believe in an afterlife, then what you experience after death will be exactly the same regardless of whether you were born or not unless you believe in this URL which based on your writing, i do not think you do .   # if you do not believe in an afterlife, then what you experience after death will be exactly the same regardless of whether you were born or not unless you believe in this URL which based on your writing, i do not think you do .  what you experience after death will be no different whether you are depressed and mope around, or whether you grab life by its horns and make every second count.  also, there may yet be an afterlife, even without a god although like arthur c clarke is third law URL a god or gods may simply be sufficiently advanced persons .  if that is the case, what would be the meaning of life today ? in the same way that human gestation and childhood prepares the body for physical adolescence and adulthood, life itself could be the gestation of the mind, to prepare it for what lies beyond.  who knows ? the question is, though.  who URL wants URL to URL live URL forever ? URL  #  even if you do not feel that way now, you will eventually.   #  first you hope for a certain action ending the species because of the way specifically you and, i acknowledge, some others feel about life, but you want the species as a whole to act on your beliefs.  basically you want everyone else to give up on humanity because you feel like life is not worth it.  for your viewpoint to be true, you would have to show everyone is given up on humanity, or feels hopeless, which simply is not true.  thus, the human species wants to continue.  second life is worth living ! not everyone has given up on humanity.  even during the darkest times, people persevered they did not give up.  they fought to stop oppression rather than let the oppression overtake them.  they fought to rid the world of injustice rather than let one, cruel, injustice take the world that wronged them down.  and as a result, we have progressed.  everyone struggles to find their purpose in life but that is part of what it means to be human.  this struggle obviously effects some people more, but for most people, life is worth living, even with painful things both emotionally and physically.  third even if life does not have a worth, or does not have meaning, that does not mean it is the end.  as religion is influence initially began waning, existentialists faced this problem too, but some of them decided that, in the absence of meaning, it is up to humans to create their own meaning.  the raw power of humanity, and the human mind, should be a testament to this.  i think it is amazing that humans 0 years ago could barely survive, and yet, now, we have landed on the moon and created the internet, and amazing skyscrapers, and cloning, and absolutely spectacular art ! .  i think humanity itself is worth something.  it is worth something for our drive, our intelligence, our ingeuitiy, our capabilities to do something even when the world does nothing.  life is worth living.  even if you do not feel that way now, you will eventually.  it gets better ! i do not think you should be looking forward to dying, or hating life; if you are, i think there are some people you can talk to, and you can definitely move forward from this.  i am truly sorry you are feeling worthless, op, but tomorrow will be a better day.  humanity is worth something, and so is life itself.   #  as a side note: if you have not, heavily consider seeing a therapist.   #  you seem to be focusing a lot on pain before death, and seeing it as a certainty.  it is definitely not of everyone i know that is died, very few were in bad pain beforehand, and even fewer were in pain for more than 0 hours.  in addition, depending on how old you are now, it is very likely that things like cancer will have been cured by the time you are close to dying.  as a side note: if you have not, heavily consider seeing a therapist.  i used to be a lot like you until i sought professional help.  i am happy now, life is worth it to me.   #  cancer which is really thousands of different heterogeneous diseases can not be cured.   #  maybe they were hiding it from you.  they said that 0  years ago.  not gonna happen.  we have never cured a single disease in human history.  we have developed some vaccines, and that is it.  cancer ca not be vaccinated against because it is not a foreign invader aside from a few types that are linked to genetic mutations as a result of foreign invaders and said foreign invaders can be vaccinated against to reduce the risk .  cancer which is really thousands of different heterogeneous diseases can not be cured.  there is no solution.  the reason they have not found a cure is they ca not.  there is not one to be found.  we built an atomic bomb and went to the moon, but we ca not cure cancer despite 0  years and trillions of dollars globally poured into research.  i am taking that as a sign that it wo not happen.  i am pretty sure i already have cancer, but even if i do not, it is just a matter of time, and i hate that i am here and have to face that.   #  now i am happier than i have ever been and i am excited for the future.   # i am not /u/cadvin, but i have a similar experience.  the people i know who have died died suddenly for the most part .  heart attacks that left them dead before they hit the floor or car accidents, etc.  there are plenty of ways to die that are not slow and agonizing.  additionally, many people who get cancer do go into remission.  as a few others have said you really might want to consider therapy/talking to a professional about these thoughts you are having.  i have felt the same way.  i literally wished i was suddenly stricken with a terminal illness so that the pointlessness of life would end.  now i am happier than i have ever been and i am excited for the future.
first of all, we already know how the story ends badly. we just do not know when.  we are going to die, and the process of dying is usually excruciating.  it is certainly never pleasant.  in all likelihood, you will be diagnosed with cancer at some point, go through terrible treatments that greatly reduce your quality of life, and then when the treatments are exhausted and you know the disease is terminal, you will suffer indescribable pain and sickness i do not buy the  hospice can usually manage your pain  argument until you finally vanish into a state of non existence, aka death.  you likely wo not even have that brief moment to be aware that your suffering is over. it is not like falling asleep, it is just having your consciousness disappear.  so what is it about life that is  so  good that it is worth  that  eventuality ? 0 second orgasms and a few minutes of enjoyment while you are eating and artificial  goals  we have created as a society, like sports leagues ? that is worth your body being ridden with tumors pressing on your nerves and blocking your airway so you have difficulty swallowing and breathing, progressively getting worse as they pump you full of morphine that makes you hallucinate while you shit and piss yourself, unable to eat ? that is if you are lucky enough not to have uncontrollable vomiting from a bowel obstruction/bleeding.  additionally, is not life to death just like a dream is to real life ? we do not typically care what happens in our dreams, because they are not  real.   if we achieve something in our dreams and wake up, we are disappointed that it was not real.  if something bad happened in our dream, we wake up and then do not really care, unless we are worried it applies to what is  real.   well, based on what seems to be the fact that death/non existence is the only actual reality, what value does life have ? i genuinely wish i had never been born.  i am afraid to take my own life, so i am stuck waiting for cancer to make me face my own mortality while causing me indescribable agony all at once.  being alive is an absolute tragedy.  why do people continue to reproduce ?  why ?   what possible logic is there behind it besides selfish motives desire to live vicariously through children, or wanting to be entertained by  cute  children ?  #  0 second orgasms and a few minutes of enjoyment while you are eating and artificial  goals  we have created as a society, like sports leagues ?  #  you go in to great detail on the pains of death, and yet you summarize life with this one, over simplified, inaccurate sentence ?  # you go in to great detail on the pains of death, and yet you summarize life with this one, over simplified, inaccurate sentence ? i am guessing that you have never been so deeply in love that every second in the presence of that person is like heaven.  i guess you have never read a mind blowing book ? never enjoyed a beautiful live symphony ? never sat under a blanket of stars on a clear dark night in awe of the universe ? never gone to a music festival ? never sat on a dock by the lake on a hot day with a cold beer and a loving dog thumping his tail on the boards ? never been surprised by a friend or family member who went out of their way to help you or just to make your day ? you have never held your own child in your arms as they reach up to your face with their tiny hands ? probably not.  you can be miserable all you want.  but to argue that  i  should not reproduce because  you are  a depressed mopey person is kind of silly.  whenever i hear a view like this, that life is not worth living, i can only assume it is because you are not very good at it.   #  i am truly sorry you are feeling worthless, op, but tomorrow will be a better day.   #  first you hope for a certain action ending the species because of the way specifically you and, i acknowledge, some others feel about life, but you want the species as a whole to act on your beliefs.  basically you want everyone else to give up on humanity because you feel like life is not worth it.  for your viewpoint to be true, you would have to show everyone is given up on humanity, or feels hopeless, which simply is not true.  thus, the human species wants to continue.  second life is worth living ! not everyone has given up on humanity.  even during the darkest times, people persevered they did not give up.  they fought to stop oppression rather than let the oppression overtake them.  they fought to rid the world of injustice rather than let one, cruel, injustice take the world that wronged them down.  and as a result, we have progressed.  everyone struggles to find their purpose in life but that is part of what it means to be human.  this struggle obviously effects some people more, but for most people, life is worth living, even with painful things both emotionally and physically.  third even if life does not have a worth, or does not have meaning, that does not mean it is the end.  as religion is influence initially began waning, existentialists faced this problem too, but some of them decided that, in the absence of meaning, it is up to humans to create their own meaning.  the raw power of humanity, and the human mind, should be a testament to this.  i think it is amazing that humans 0 years ago could barely survive, and yet, now, we have landed on the moon and created the internet, and amazing skyscrapers, and cloning, and absolutely spectacular art ! .  i think humanity itself is worth something.  it is worth something for our drive, our intelligence, our ingeuitiy, our capabilities to do something even when the world does nothing.  life is worth living.  even if you do not feel that way now, you will eventually.  it gets better ! i do not think you should be looking forward to dying, or hating life; if you are, i think there are some people you can talk to, and you can definitely move forward from this.  i am truly sorry you are feeling worthless, op, but tomorrow will be a better day.  humanity is worth something, and so is life itself.   #  i am happy now, life is worth it to me.   #  you seem to be focusing a lot on pain before death, and seeing it as a certainty.  it is definitely not of everyone i know that is died, very few were in bad pain beforehand, and even fewer were in pain for more than 0 hours.  in addition, depending on how old you are now, it is very likely that things like cancer will have been cured by the time you are close to dying.  as a side note: if you have not, heavily consider seeing a therapist.  i used to be a lot like you until i sought professional help.  i am happy now, life is worth it to me.   #  we built an atomic bomb and went to the moon, but we ca not cure cancer despite 0  years and trillions of dollars globally poured into research.   #  maybe they were hiding it from you.  they said that 0  years ago.  not gonna happen.  we have never cured a single disease in human history.  we have developed some vaccines, and that is it.  cancer ca not be vaccinated against because it is not a foreign invader aside from a few types that are linked to genetic mutations as a result of foreign invaders and said foreign invaders can be vaccinated against to reduce the risk .  cancer which is really thousands of different heterogeneous diseases can not be cured.  there is no solution.  the reason they have not found a cure is they ca not.  there is not one to be found.  we built an atomic bomb and went to the moon, but we ca not cure cancer despite 0  years and trillions of dollars globally poured into research.  i am taking that as a sign that it wo not happen.  i am pretty sure i already have cancer, but even if i do not, it is just a matter of time, and i hate that i am here and have to face that.   #  heart attacks that left them dead before they hit the floor or car accidents, etc.   # i am not /u/cadvin, but i have a similar experience.  the people i know who have died died suddenly for the most part .  heart attacks that left them dead before they hit the floor or car accidents, etc.  there are plenty of ways to die that are not slow and agonizing.  additionally, many people who get cancer do go into remission.  as a few others have said you really might want to consider therapy/talking to a professional about these thoughts you are having.  i have felt the same way.  i literally wished i was suddenly stricken with a terminal illness so that the pointlessness of life would end.  now i am happier than i have ever been and i am excited for the future.
first of all, we already know how the story ends badly. we just do not know when.  we are going to die, and the process of dying is usually excruciating.  it is certainly never pleasant.  in all likelihood, you will be diagnosed with cancer at some point, go through terrible treatments that greatly reduce your quality of life, and then when the treatments are exhausted and you know the disease is terminal, you will suffer indescribable pain and sickness i do not buy the  hospice can usually manage your pain  argument until you finally vanish into a state of non existence, aka death.  you likely wo not even have that brief moment to be aware that your suffering is over. it is not like falling asleep, it is just having your consciousness disappear.  so what is it about life that is  so  good that it is worth  that  eventuality ? 0 second orgasms and a few minutes of enjoyment while you are eating and artificial  goals  we have created as a society, like sports leagues ? that is worth your body being ridden with tumors pressing on your nerves and blocking your airway so you have difficulty swallowing and breathing, progressively getting worse as they pump you full of morphine that makes you hallucinate while you shit and piss yourself, unable to eat ? that is if you are lucky enough not to have uncontrollable vomiting from a bowel obstruction/bleeding.  additionally, is not life to death just like a dream is to real life ? we do not typically care what happens in our dreams, because they are not  real.   if we achieve something in our dreams and wake up, we are disappointed that it was not real.  if something bad happened in our dream, we wake up and then do not really care, unless we are worried it applies to what is  real.   well, based on what seems to be the fact that death/non existence is the only actual reality, what value does life have ? i genuinely wish i had never been born.  i am afraid to take my own life, so i am stuck waiting for cancer to make me face my own mortality while causing me indescribable agony all at once.  being alive is an absolute tragedy.  why do people continue to reproduce ?  why ?   what possible logic is there behind it besides selfish motives desire to live vicariously through children, or wanting to be entertained by  cute  children ?  #  well, based on what seems to be the fact that death/non existence is the only actual reality, what value does life have ?  #  life has value to us  because  we die, and because it demands that in order to persist action be taken to sustain it for the duration it is possible.   # we do not have a collective brain we are all individuals who die differently, some by depending on how they have lived, some by misfortune and the caprice of nature.  different individuals will die peacefully, horribly, ready, not ready, with pride, with regret.  not all deaths are equal ! elon musk might die a glorious and  heroic  death of fricken  mars  having achieved a life long dream.  he will sitting against some red rock, as his oxygen depletes, looking back towards earth, thinking over his life and smiling.  i did it.  the tragedy is that you were taught an ethical system that said that all actions that profit the self were evil, and that therefore enjoyment of life was shallow and meaningless, and only serving others was good and meaningful.  but there is a solution.  you have to revolt against what you believe to be good and bad, moral and immoral.  discard the religious ethics of  altruism , servitude and slavery to something outside your self and explore aristotelian virtue ethics.  the person you must act for and do good for  is yourself  and others will benefit as a secondary consequence.  learn to differentiate selfish motives into good and bad type earning for yourself is highly moral and heroic, stealing is infact self destructive and costs you your integrity and capacity to enjoy.  if it truly profits you  it is good .  life has value to us  because  we die, and because it demands that in order to persist action be taken to sustain it for the duration it is possible.  when you say  only actual reality , you are wrong you mean  only eventual reality .  the  actual  underlying reality is what has existence  right now  and includes both living and dead things and does not even include the past of future !  #  they fought to rid the world of injustice rather than let one, cruel, injustice take the world that wronged them down.   #  first you hope for a certain action ending the species because of the way specifically you and, i acknowledge, some others feel about life, but you want the species as a whole to act on your beliefs.  basically you want everyone else to give up on humanity because you feel like life is not worth it.  for your viewpoint to be true, you would have to show everyone is given up on humanity, or feels hopeless, which simply is not true.  thus, the human species wants to continue.  second life is worth living ! not everyone has given up on humanity.  even during the darkest times, people persevered they did not give up.  they fought to stop oppression rather than let the oppression overtake them.  they fought to rid the world of injustice rather than let one, cruel, injustice take the world that wronged them down.  and as a result, we have progressed.  everyone struggles to find their purpose in life but that is part of what it means to be human.  this struggle obviously effects some people more, but for most people, life is worth living, even with painful things both emotionally and physically.  third even if life does not have a worth, or does not have meaning, that does not mean it is the end.  as religion is influence initially began waning, existentialists faced this problem too, but some of them decided that, in the absence of meaning, it is up to humans to create their own meaning.  the raw power of humanity, and the human mind, should be a testament to this.  i think it is amazing that humans 0 years ago could barely survive, and yet, now, we have landed on the moon and created the internet, and amazing skyscrapers, and cloning, and absolutely spectacular art ! .  i think humanity itself is worth something.  it is worth something for our drive, our intelligence, our ingeuitiy, our capabilities to do something even when the world does nothing.  life is worth living.  even if you do not feel that way now, you will eventually.  it gets better ! i do not think you should be looking forward to dying, or hating life; if you are, i think there are some people you can talk to, and you can definitely move forward from this.  i am truly sorry you are feeling worthless, op, but tomorrow will be a better day.  humanity is worth something, and so is life itself.   #  as a side note: if you have not, heavily consider seeing a therapist.   #  you seem to be focusing a lot on pain before death, and seeing it as a certainty.  it is definitely not of everyone i know that is died, very few were in bad pain beforehand, and even fewer were in pain for more than 0 hours.  in addition, depending on how old you are now, it is very likely that things like cancer will have been cured by the time you are close to dying.  as a side note: if you have not, heavily consider seeing a therapist.  i used to be a lot like you until i sought professional help.  i am happy now, life is worth it to me.   #  the reason they have not found a cure is they ca not.   #  maybe they were hiding it from you.  they said that 0  years ago.  not gonna happen.  we have never cured a single disease in human history.  we have developed some vaccines, and that is it.  cancer ca not be vaccinated against because it is not a foreign invader aside from a few types that are linked to genetic mutations as a result of foreign invaders and said foreign invaders can be vaccinated against to reduce the risk .  cancer which is really thousands of different heterogeneous diseases can not be cured.  there is no solution.  the reason they have not found a cure is they ca not.  there is not one to be found.  we built an atomic bomb and went to the moon, but we ca not cure cancer despite 0  years and trillions of dollars globally poured into research.  i am taking that as a sign that it wo not happen.  i am pretty sure i already have cancer, but even if i do not, it is just a matter of time, and i hate that i am here and have to face that.   #  i am not /u/cadvin, but i have a similar experience.   # i am not /u/cadvin, but i have a similar experience.  the people i know who have died died suddenly for the most part .  heart attacks that left them dead before they hit the floor or car accidents, etc.  there are plenty of ways to die that are not slow and agonizing.  additionally, many people who get cancer do go into remission.  as a few others have said you really might want to consider therapy/talking to a professional about these thoughts you are having.  i have felt the same way.  i literally wished i was suddenly stricken with a terminal illness so that the pointlessness of life would end.  now i am happier than i have ever been and i am excited for the future.
watching the world cup, their time keeping method is a glaringly inferior system.  there is no reason the fans should not be able to see the same time that the time keeper sees.  some of my main gripes with it: it creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport.  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  it takes away from the suspense of the last few minutes, when for all the players/fans know, they could throw another 0 minutes onto the time.  using counting down/time stop just seems like such an obvious and easy fix that they could do, and the only reason i see for keeping it this way is because of tradition which is a poor reason .   #  it creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport.   #  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.   # i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  i want to challenge you on this point.  first of all, the same barrier exists for other sports.  no sport has a natural timespan that everyone knows.  i only recently learned hockey has three periods or is that basketball ? football has a 0 minute clock, but sometimes there is another 0 second clock, and those can be confusing; plus they sometimes add time back to the clock.  so learning the game is length is a natural barrier to every sport.  more importantly, i think it is good that new fans have to ask about these things.  you ca not learn a sport purely by watching; you need someone to explain things as they happen.  asking how long the game will be is a way in to the sport.  did you watch today is wc final ? after two minutes of added time, they ended up playing about 0.  the argentinian team got several chances to score, each one potentially their last.  the end could come at literally any second, yet the game was still up in the air.  compare that to a football game where they just run down the clock for the last few seconds.   #  everyone who brings this up always says how exciting it would be for a countdown:  messi with 0 seconds !  #  the main difference is that in football/baseball/basketball.  if you are down by 0 score with like 0 seconds on the clock or one out you have a chance to win.  a hail mary, a half court short, etc.  in soccer, the ref is able to let the final possession play out in full.  everyone who brings this up always says how exciting it would be for a countdown:  messi with 0 seconds ! 0 ! 0 ! he shoots ! he scores !   except that would  never  happen.  soccer plays that are threatening ca not be created in an instant they take time to develop.  most 0 scores games would simply end with the ball at mid field, and no final shot/action.   messi steals the ball at mid field ! no defenders between him and the keeper ! it is a sure goal ! he kicks it ahead and runs towards it ! whistle blows.  game over.    the flexibility of the time matches the pace of the game.  for the same reason going out of bounds is different in football with 0 minutes to go in the fourth, or timeouts in the nba can advance the ball to half court the rules are tailored to make the game more exciting.   #  the clock stops briefly while the chains are moved different each time and the viewers are not alerted in completions stop the clock, unless they are thrown backwards, or are deemed intentional grounding.   #  it does run out.  in soccer, the clock goes until 0 minutes, at which the referee alerts the time keeper and the viewers how many minutes of extra time will be added on.  the clock then runs for this added time and ends when the current play is over.  it is far less complicated than the other sports you are saying have a  better  method.  here is how the clock works at the end of american football games: going out of bounds stops the clock: only after 0 minutes left in the 0nd and 0th quarters spiking stops the clock.  penalties only sort of stop the clock except in certain cases where additional time is added back to the clock 0 men on the field injuries stop the clock, unless they do not last the duration of the playclock or do not take that much time.  the clock stops briefly while the chains are moved different each time and the viewers are not alerted in completions stop the clock, unless they are thrown backwards, or are deemed intentional grounding.  it stops at the 0 minute warning, for tv commercial purposes the game does not end when the clock hits 0 if: there is an extra point, a defensive penalty, or the current play is still running.  basically, football is faaaaaaar more complicated than soccer.  the soccer method is more streamlined and frankly, less opaque.   #  i agree that it is more complicated, but it is definitely less opaque.   #  i am going to simplify/correct a few of your points here.  spiking is ruled an incompletion.  you can get rid of the second point passes thrown backwards are fumbles.  you can basically group this into change of possession stops the clock.  points 0 and 0 only apply to college football.  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock unless there was a recent rule change and the clock does not stop to move the chains.  in college, when they do stop the clock to move the chains, the ref will stand over the ball and blow the whistle to restart the clock, which alerts viewers.  i agree that it is more complicated, but it is definitely less opaque.  i think both methods are fine as they are  #  while spiking is technically an incompletion, spiking is a separate item in the rulebook.   # you can get rid of the second point not quite.  while spiking is technically an incompletion, spiking is a separate item in the rulebook.  if it were a normal in completion it would be ruled intentional grounding every time.  therefore a  spike play  falls under separate rules .  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock point 0: no, this is not correct.  the official rules is that: in the nfl the clock only stops on our of bounds inside 0 minutes in the second quarter and 0 minutes in the fourth.  if the clock stopped everytime a player went out of bounds the whole game, games would be like 0 hours long.  point 0: again, not correct.  in college the clock always stops on a first down to allow the chains to move.  in the nfl, the refs have the option to stop the clock if the chain moving will actively prevent the next play from running.  you see what i mean by  opaque  ? no one tells you any of these rules.  half the time the less experienced commentators get them wrong.  you seem to know your stuff, and i am sure you have explained these rules incorrectly to people.  it is confusing as hell.
watching the world cup, their time keeping method is a glaringly inferior system.  there is no reason the fans should not be able to see the same time that the time keeper sees.  some of my main gripes with it: it creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport.  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  it takes away from the suspense of the last few minutes, when for all the players/fans know, they could throw another 0 minutes onto the time.  using counting down/time stop just seems like such an obvious and easy fix that they could do, and the only reason i see for keeping it this way is because of tradition which is a poor reason .   #  it takes away from the suspense of the last few minutes, when for all the players/fans know, they could throw another 0 minutes onto the time.   #  did you watch today is wc final ?  # i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  i want to challenge you on this point.  first of all, the same barrier exists for other sports.  no sport has a natural timespan that everyone knows.  i only recently learned hockey has three periods or is that basketball ? football has a 0 minute clock, but sometimes there is another 0 second clock, and those can be confusing; plus they sometimes add time back to the clock.  so learning the game is length is a natural barrier to every sport.  more importantly, i think it is good that new fans have to ask about these things.  you ca not learn a sport purely by watching; you need someone to explain things as they happen.  asking how long the game will be is a way in to the sport.  did you watch today is wc final ? after two minutes of added time, they ended up playing about 0.  the argentinian team got several chances to score, each one potentially their last.  the end could come at literally any second, yet the game was still up in the air.  compare that to a football game where they just run down the clock for the last few seconds.   #  soccer plays that are threatening ca not be created in an instant they take time to develop.   #  the main difference is that in football/baseball/basketball.  if you are down by 0 score with like 0 seconds on the clock or one out you have a chance to win.  a hail mary, a half court short, etc.  in soccer, the ref is able to let the final possession play out in full.  everyone who brings this up always says how exciting it would be for a countdown:  messi with 0 seconds ! 0 ! 0 ! he shoots ! he scores !   except that would  never  happen.  soccer plays that are threatening ca not be created in an instant they take time to develop.  most 0 scores games would simply end with the ball at mid field, and no final shot/action.   messi steals the ball at mid field ! no defenders between him and the keeper ! it is a sure goal ! he kicks it ahead and runs towards it ! whistle blows.  game over.    the flexibility of the time matches the pace of the game.  for the same reason going out of bounds is different in football with 0 minutes to go in the fourth, or timeouts in the nba can advance the ball to half court the rules are tailored to make the game more exciting.   #  the clock stops briefly while the chains are moved different each time and the viewers are not alerted in completions stop the clock, unless they are thrown backwards, or are deemed intentional grounding.   #  it does run out.  in soccer, the clock goes until 0 minutes, at which the referee alerts the time keeper and the viewers how many minutes of extra time will be added on.  the clock then runs for this added time and ends when the current play is over.  it is far less complicated than the other sports you are saying have a  better  method.  here is how the clock works at the end of american football games: going out of bounds stops the clock: only after 0 minutes left in the 0nd and 0th quarters spiking stops the clock.  penalties only sort of stop the clock except in certain cases where additional time is added back to the clock 0 men on the field injuries stop the clock, unless they do not last the duration of the playclock or do not take that much time.  the clock stops briefly while the chains are moved different each time and the viewers are not alerted in completions stop the clock, unless they are thrown backwards, or are deemed intentional grounding.  it stops at the 0 minute warning, for tv commercial purposes the game does not end when the clock hits 0 if: there is an extra point, a defensive penalty, or the current play is still running.  basically, football is faaaaaaar more complicated than soccer.  the soccer method is more streamlined and frankly, less opaque.   #  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock unless there was a recent rule change and the clock does not stop to move the chains.   #  i am going to simplify/correct a few of your points here.  spiking is ruled an incompletion.  you can get rid of the second point passes thrown backwards are fumbles.  you can basically group this into change of possession stops the clock.  points 0 and 0 only apply to college football.  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock unless there was a recent rule change and the clock does not stop to move the chains.  in college, when they do stop the clock to move the chains, the ref will stand over the ball and blow the whistle to restart the clock, which alerts viewers.  i agree that it is more complicated, but it is definitely less opaque.  i think both methods are fine as they are  #  you seem to know your stuff, and i am sure you have explained these rules incorrectly to people.   # you can get rid of the second point not quite.  while spiking is technically an incompletion, spiking is a separate item in the rulebook.  if it were a normal in completion it would be ruled intentional grounding every time.  therefore a  spike play  falls under separate rules .  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock point 0: no, this is not correct.  the official rules is that: in the nfl the clock only stops on our of bounds inside 0 minutes in the second quarter and 0 minutes in the fourth.  if the clock stopped everytime a player went out of bounds the whole game, games would be like 0 hours long.  point 0: again, not correct.  in college the clock always stops on a first down to allow the chains to move.  in the nfl, the refs have the option to stop the clock if the chain moving will actively prevent the next play from running.  you see what i mean by  opaque  ? no one tells you any of these rules.  half the time the less experienced commentators get them wrong.  you seem to know your stuff, and i am sure you have explained these rules incorrectly to people.  it is confusing as hell.
watching the world cup, their time keeping method is a glaringly inferior system.  there is no reason the fans should not be able to see the same time that the time keeper sees.  some of my main gripes with it: it creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport.  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  it takes away from the suspense of the last few minutes, when for all the players/fans know, they could throw another 0 minutes onto the time.  using counting down/time stop just seems like such an obvious and easy fix that they could do, and the only reason i see for keeping it this way is because of tradition which is a poor reason .   #  it creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport.   #  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.   # i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  stoppage time is integral to the game.  0 minutes   0 extra time makes more sense than 0 time remaining   0 minutes.  there is almost always stoppage time added.  and you know that it is almost definitely going to be between 0 0 minutes.  with that knowledge, it does not take away from the suspense because you still have a good idea of how much time is remaining.  in addition, stoppage time usually only allows for another possession or two.  adding 0 minutes to a 0 minute soccer game is equivalent to adding 0 seconds to an nba game.  similarly, you only have a couple more chances to overcome a score deficit.   #  if you are down by 0 score with like 0 seconds on the clock or one out you have a chance to win.   #  the main difference is that in football/baseball/basketball.  if you are down by 0 score with like 0 seconds on the clock or one out you have a chance to win.  a hail mary, a half court short, etc.  in soccer, the ref is able to let the final possession play out in full.  everyone who brings this up always says how exciting it would be for a countdown:  messi with 0 seconds ! 0 ! 0 ! he shoots ! he scores !   except that would  never  happen.  soccer plays that are threatening ca not be created in an instant they take time to develop.  most 0 scores games would simply end with the ball at mid field, and no final shot/action.   messi steals the ball at mid field ! no defenders between him and the keeper ! it is a sure goal ! he kicks it ahead and runs towards it ! whistle blows.  game over.    the flexibility of the time matches the pace of the game.  for the same reason going out of bounds is different in football with 0 minutes to go in the fourth, or timeouts in the nba can advance the ball to half court the rules are tailored to make the game more exciting.   #  here is how the clock works at the end of american football games: going out of bounds stops the clock: only after 0 minutes left in the 0nd and 0th quarters spiking stops the clock.   #  it does run out.  in soccer, the clock goes until 0 minutes, at which the referee alerts the time keeper and the viewers how many minutes of extra time will be added on.  the clock then runs for this added time and ends when the current play is over.  it is far less complicated than the other sports you are saying have a  better  method.  here is how the clock works at the end of american football games: going out of bounds stops the clock: only after 0 minutes left in the 0nd and 0th quarters spiking stops the clock.  penalties only sort of stop the clock except in certain cases where additional time is added back to the clock 0 men on the field injuries stop the clock, unless they do not last the duration of the playclock or do not take that much time.  the clock stops briefly while the chains are moved different each time and the viewers are not alerted in completions stop the clock, unless they are thrown backwards, or are deemed intentional grounding.  it stops at the 0 minute warning, for tv commercial purposes the game does not end when the clock hits 0 if: there is an extra point, a defensive penalty, or the current play is still running.  basically, football is faaaaaaar more complicated than soccer.  the soccer method is more streamlined and frankly, less opaque.   #  i agree that it is more complicated, but it is definitely less opaque.   #  i am going to simplify/correct a few of your points here.  spiking is ruled an incompletion.  you can get rid of the second point passes thrown backwards are fumbles.  you can basically group this into change of possession stops the clock.  points 0 and 0 only apply to college football.  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock unless there was a recent rule change and the clock does not stop to move the chains.  in college, when they do stop the clock to move the chains, the ref will stand over the ball and blow the whistle to restart the clock, which alerts viewers.  i agree that it is more complicated, but it is definitely less opaque.  i think both methods are fine as they are  #  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock point 0: no, this is not correct.   # you can get rid of the second point not quite.  while spiking is technically an incompletion, spiking is a separate item in the rulebook.  if it were a normal in completion it would be ruled intentional grounding every time.  therefore a  spike play  falls under separate rules .  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock point 0: no, this is not correct.  the official rules is that: in the nfl the clock only stops on our of bounds inside 0 minutes in the second quarter and 0 minutes in the fourth.  if the clock stopped everytime a player went out of bounds the whole game, games would be like 0 hours long.  point 0: again, not correct.  in college the clock always stops on a first down to allow the chains to move.  in the nfl, the refs have the option to stop the clock if the chain moving will actively prevent the next play from running.  you see what i mean by  opaque  ? no one tells you any of these rules.  half the time the less experienced commentators get them wrong.  you seem to know your stuff, and i am sure you have explained these rules incorrectly to people.  it is confusing as hell.
watching the world cup, their time keeping method is a glaringly inferior system.  there is no reason the fans should not be able to see the same time that the time keeper sees.  some of my main gripes with it: it creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport.  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  it takes away from the suspense of the last few minutes, when for all the players/fans know, they could throw another 0 minutes onto the time.  using counting down/time stop just seems like such an obvious and easy fix that they could do, and the only reason i see for keeping it this way is because of tradition which is a poor reason .   #  it takes away from the suspense of the last few minutes, when for all the players/fans know, they could throw another 0 minutes onto the time.   #  there is almost always stoppage time added.   # i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  stoppage time is integral to the game.  0 minutes   0 extra time makes more sense than 0 time remaining   0 minutes.  there is almost always stoppage time added.  and you know that it is almost definitely going to be between 0 0 minutes.  with that knowledge, it does not take away from the suspense because you still have a good idea of how much time is remaining.  in addition, stoppage time usually only allows for another possession or two.  adding 0 minutes to a 0 minute soccer game is equivalent to adding 0 seconds to an nba game.  similarly, you only have a couple more chances to overcome a score deficit.   #  a hail mary, a half court short, etc.   #  the main difference is that in football/baseball/basketball.  if you are down by 0 score with like 0 seconds on the clock or one out you have a chance to win.  a hail mary, a half court short, etc.  in soccer, the ref is able to let the final possession play out in full.  everyone who brings this up always says how exciting it would be for a countdown:  messi with 0 seconds ! 0 ! 0 ! he shoots ! he scores !   except that would  never  happen.  soccer plays that are threatening ca not be created in an instant they take time to develop.  most 0 scores games would simply end with the ball at mid field, and no final shot/action.   messi steals the ball at mid field ! no defenders between him and the keeper ! it is a sure goal ! he kicks it ahead and runs towards it ! whistle blows.  game over.    the flexibility of the time matches the pace of the game.  for the same reason going out of bounds is different in football with 0 minutes to go in the fourth, or timeouts in the nba can advance the ball to half court the rules are tailored to make the game more exciting.   #  the clock then runs for this added time and ends when the current play is over.   #  it does run out.  in soccer, the clock goes until 0 minutes, at which the referee alerts the time keeper and the viewers how many minutes of extra time will be added on.  the clock then runs for this added time and ends when the current play is over.  it is far less complicated than the other sports you are saying have a  better  method.  here is how the clock works at the end of american football games: going out of bounds stops the clock: only after 0 minutes left in the 0nd and 0th quarters spiking stops the clock.  penalties only sort of stop the clock except in certain cases where additional time is added back to the clock 0 men on the field injuries stop the clock, unless they do not last the duration of the playclock or do not take that much time.  the clock stops briefly while the chains are moved different each time and the viewers are not alerted in completions stop the clock, unless they are thrown backwards, or are deemed intentional grounding.  it stops at the 0 minute warning, for tv commercial purposes the game does not end when the clock hits 0 if: there is an extra point, a defensive penalty, or the current play is still running.  basically, football is faaaaaaar more complicated than soccer.  the soccer method is more streamlined and frankly, less opaque.   #  you can get rid of the second point passes thrown backwards are fumbles.   #  i am going to simplify/correct a few of your points here.  spiking is ruled an incompletion.  you can get rid of the second point passes thrown backwards are fumbles.  you can basically group this into change of possession stops the clock.  points 0 and 0 only apply to college football.  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock unless there was a recent rule change and the clock does not stop to move the chains.  in college, when they do stop the clock to move the chains, the ref will stand over the ball and blow the whistle to restart the clock, which alerts viewers.  i agree that it is more complicated, but it is definitely less opaque.  i think both methods are fine as they are  #  the official rules is that: in the nfl the clock only stops on our of bounds inside 0 minutes in the second quarter and 0 minutes in the fourth.   # you can get rid of the second point not quite.  while spiking is technically an incompletion, spiking is a separate item in the rulebook.  if it were a normal in completion it would be ruled intentional grounding every time.  therefore a  spike play  falls under separate rules .  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock point 0: no, this is not correct.  the official rules is that: in the nfl the clock only stops on our of bounds inside 0 minutes in the second quarter and 0 minutes in the fourth.  if the clock stopped everytime a player went out of bounds the whole game, games would be like 0 hours long.  point 0: again, not correct.  in college the clock always stops on a first down to allow the chains to move.  in the nfl, the refs have the option to stop the clock if the chain moving will actively prevent the next play from running.  you see what i mean by  opaque  ? no one tells you any of these rules.  half the time the less experienced commentators get them wrong.  you seem to know your stuff, and i am sure you have explained these rules incorrectly to people.  it is confusing as hell.
watching the world cup, their time keeping method is a glaringly inferior system.  there is no reason the fans should not be able to see the same time that the time keeper sees.  some of my main gripes with it: it creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport.  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  it takes away from the suspense of the last few minutes, when for all the players/fans know, they could throw another 0 minutes onto the time.  using counting down/time stop just seems like such an obvious and easy fix that they could do, and the only reason i see for keeping it this way is because of tradition which is a poor reason .   #  it creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport.   #  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.   # i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  this would only be true if viewers are accustomed to another system.  probably true for americans who are used to football/basketball, but not for someone whose first sport is soccer.  there is also a learning curve for first time viewers of a sport regardless of the time keeping system, and it is a simple enough system to explain to someone who is unfamiliar with it.  the time added on at the end of the second half is usually around 0 0 minutes, and if it is going to be longer, teams and viewers can guess that based on what is happened in the half so far more injuries/other disruptions means more time .  so it is not a super mysterious process; unless something very disruptive happens a trailing team ca not count on stoppage time to significantly lengthen a game.   #  most 0 scores games would simply end with the ball at mid field, and no final shot/action.   #  the main difference is that in football/baseball/basketball.  if you are down by 0 score with like 0 seconds on the clock or one out you have a chance to win.  a hail mary, a half court short, etc.  in soccer, the ref is able to let the final possession play out in full.  everyone who brings this up always says how exciting it would be for a countdown:  messi with 0 seconds ! 0 ! 0 ! he shoots ! he scores !   except that would  never  happen.  soccer plays that are threatening ca not be created in an instant they take time to develop.  most 0 scores games would simply end with the ball at mid field, and no final shot/action.   messi steals the ball at mid field ! no defenders between him and the keeper ! it is a sure goal ! he kicks it ahead and runs towards it ! whistle blows.  game over.    the flexibility of the time matches the pace of the game.  for the same reason going out of bounds is different in football with 0 minutes to go in the fourth, or timeouts in the nba can advance the ball to half court the rules are tailored to make the game more exciting.   #  the clock then runs for this added time and ends when the current play is over.   #  it does run out.  in soccer, the clock goes until 0 minutes, at which the referee alerts the time keeper and the viewers how many minutes of extra time will be added on.  the clock then runs for this added time and ends when the current play is over.  it is far less complicated than the other sports you are saying have a  better  method.  here is how the clock works at the end of american football games: going out of bounds stops the clock: only after 0 minutes left in the 0nd and 0th quarters spiking stops the clock.  penalties only sort of stop the clock except in certain cases where additional time is added back to the clock 0 men on the field injuries stop the clock, unless they do not last the duration of the playclock or do not take that much time.  the clock stops briefly while the chains are moved different each time and the viewers are not alerted in completions stop the clock, unless they are thrown backwards, or are deemed intentional grounding.  it stops at the 0 minute warning, for tv commercial purposes the game does not end when the clock hits 0 if: there is an extra point, a defensive penalty, or the current play is still running.  basically, football is faaaaaaar more complicated than soccer.  the soccer method is more streamlined and frankly, less opaque.   #  points 0 and 0 only apply to college football.   #  i am going to simplify/correct a few of your points here.  spiking is ruled an incompletion.  you can get rid of the second point passes thrown backwards are fumbles.  you can basically group this into change of possession stops the clock.  points 0 and 0 only apply to college football.  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock unless there was a recent rule change and the clock does not stop to move the chains.  in college, when they do stop the clock to move the chains, the ref will stand over the ball and blow the whistle to restart the clock, which alerts viewers.  i agree that it is more complicated, but it is definitely less opaque.  i think both methods are fine as they are  #  therefore a  spike play  falls under separate rules .   # you can get rid of the second point not quite.  while spiking is technically an incompletion, spiking is a separate item in the rulebook.  if it were a normal in completion it would be ruled intentional grounding every time.  therefore a  spike play  falls under separate rules .  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock point 0: no, this is not correct.  the official rules is that: in the nfl the clock only stops on our of bounds inside 0 minutes in the second quarter and 0 minutes in the fourth.  if the clock stopped everytime a player went out of bounds the whole game, games would be like 0 hours long.  point 0: again, not correct.  in college the clock always stops on a first down to allow the chains to move.  in the nfl, the refs have the option to stop the clock if the chain moving will actively prevent the next play from running.  you see what i mean by  opaque  ? no one tells you any of these rules.  half the time the less experienced commentators get them wrong.  you seem to know your stuff, and i am sure you have explained these rules incorrectly to people.  it is confusing as hell.
watching the world cup, their time keeping method is a glaringly inferior system.  there is no reason the fans should not be able to see the same time that the time keeper sees.  some of my main gripes with it: it creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport.  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  it takes away from the suspense of the last few minutes, when for all the players/fans know, they could throw another 0 minutes onto the time.  using counting down/time stop just seems like such an obvious and easy fix that they could do, and the only reason i see for keeping it this way is because of tradition which is a poor reason .   #  it creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport.   #  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.   # i feel that the na way of counting down with time stopping all the time is an even more inferior system.  i have heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 0 minutes, and how long injury time is.  imagine you have never seen basketball/american football/hockey before.  you know that there are periods/quarters of 0/0/0 minutes.  ok the time is counting down, which kind of makes sense.  you do the math, and figure out the game will run 0/0/0 minutes, but for some reason the tv listing shows 0pm 0pm for the game.  you think to yourself, wtf, why is this 0 minute game taking three hours to play ? what else am i watching ? american football is extremely confusing to a new fan, where the time might run at some point in the game, but it wo not if there are two minutes left to play, but only for the last two minutes of each half and only if the player caught it out of bounds instead of rushing it, and if the defending team has no timeouts than the players just ignore the 0 minutes left and walk on the field and the game is over.  in basketball, the last minute of a close game can take half an hour of real time to play.  the big advantage in soccer, is that at any point, i can tell you  / 0 min how much is left until the end of the game.  the added 0 0 minutes at the end of the game are sometimes the most suspense filled moments in any game, where one time is behind and doing everything it can to score the end of the usa belgium game , or next goal wins situation in tied games the final yesterday  #  in soccer, the ref is able to let the final possession play out in full.   #  the main difference is that in football/baseball/basketball.  if you are down by 0 score with like 0 seconds on the clock or one out you have a chance to win.  a hail mary, a half court short, etc.  in soccer, the ref is able to let the final possession play out in full.  everyone who brings this up always says how exciting it would be for a countdown:  messi with 0 seconds ! 0 ! 0 ! he shoots ! he scores !   except that would  never  happen.  soccer plays that are threatening ca not be created in an instant they take time to develop.  most 0 scores games would simply end with the ball at mid field, and no final shot/action.   messi steals the ball at mid field ! no defenders between him and the keeper ! it is a sure goal ! he kicks it ahead and runs towards it ! whistle blows.  game over.    the flexibility of the time matches the pace of the game.  for the same reason going out of bounds is different in football with 0 minutes to go in the fourth, or timeouts in the nba can advance the ball to half court the rules are tailored to make the game more exciting.   #  the soccer method is more streamlined and frankly, less opaque.   #  it does run out.  in soccer, the clock goes until 0 minutes, at which the referee alerts the time keeper and the viewers how many minutes of extra time will be added on.  the clock then runs for this added time and ends when the current play is over.  it is far less complicated than the other sports you are saying have a  better  method.  here is how the clock works at the end of american football games: going out of bounds stops the clock: only after 0 minutes left in the 0nd and 0th quarters spiking stops the clock.  penalties only sort of stop the clock except in certain cases where additional time is added back to the clock 0 men on the field injuries stop the clock, unless they do not last the duration of the playclock or do not take that much time.  the clock stops briefly while the chains are moved different each time and the viewers are not alerted in completions stop the clock, unless they are thrown backwards, or are deemed intentional grounding.  it stops at the 0 minute warning, for tv commercial purposes the game does not end when the clock hits 0 if: there is an extra point, a defensive penalty, or the current play is still running.  basically, football is faaaaaaar more complicated than soccer.  the soccer method is more streamlined and frankly, less opaque.   #  i agree that it is more complicated, but it is definitely less opaque.   #  i am going to simplify/correct a few of your points here.  spiking is ruled an incompletion.  you can get rid of the second point passes thrown backwards are fumbles.  you can basically group this into change of possession stops the clock.  points 0 and 0 only apply to college football.  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock unless there was a recent rule change and the clock does not stop to move the chains.  in college, when they do stop the clock to move the chains, the ref will stand over the ball and blow the whistle to restart the clock, which alerts viewers.  i agree that it is more complicated, but it is definitely less opaque.  i think both methods are fine as they are  #  if it were a normal in completion it would be ruled intentional grounding every time.   # you can get rid of the second point not quite.  while spiking is technically an incompletion, spiking is a separate item in the rulebook.  if it were a normal in completion it would be ruled intentional grounding every time.  therefore a  spike play  falls under separate rules .  in nfl, out of bounds always stops the clock point 0: no, this is not correct.  the official rules is that: in the nfl the clock only stops on our of bounds inside 0 minutes in the second quarter and 0 minutes in the fourth.  if the clock stopped everytime a player went out of bounds the whole game, games would be like 0 hours long.  point 0: again, not correct.  in college the clock always stops on a first down to allow the chains to move.  in the nfl, the refs have the option to stop the clock if the chain moving will actively prevent the next play from running.  you see what i mean by  opaque  ? no one tells you any of these rules.  half the time the less experienced commentators get them wrong.  you seem to know your stuff, and i am sure you have explained these rules incorrectly to people.  it is confusing as hell.
for this post i will mostly use google as a example.  i often see news articles that take a  pick  at google for  intruding  on our personal lives, and the world.  for example this article: URL yes, i admit google may snoop.  but google is helping the world, on the technological front.  google is  innovating .  for example google is connecting the unconnected world, using weather balloons.  the sheer size, logistical and communicational scale of a task like that is huge.  but a californian a sister company  cough  apple  cough  has just partnered with another company that make is extremely bendy unbreakable glass to produce an additional phone to their line of  nerfed  phones and they get claps and cheers from the public and media.  also everyone says that they are a amazing inspirational company and they are  innovating .    but this is beside the point.  google/yahoo/bing are not  the internet  they are a search engines, in this context, but the european court seems to think differently and have ruled they have to take down content from their search engine is.  wtf ! the european court should be targeting the websites and admins to remove the content, and stop pestering the search engines for doing their job.  which is to provide search results ! anyway even if the search results were removed will the content still be on the websites ? secondly, every single person has a responsibility to read the terms and conditions of any online service or  gateway to the internet  service/product they are using.  if the product or service states in their t c is they are going to put information on a search engine for others to view, so be it ! they should not remove the content because you were warned in the terms and conditions.  remember you are using their services and you are  building  on their theoretical  land .  thirdly, all information no matter how irrelevant or relevant should be stored by search engines.  all information is in the public interest to create a archive, just like a library tries to accumulate as many books as possible no matter how ridiculous the books may be   for example willy the sperm :d  .  fourthly, the european court does not seem to understand what the  internet  is, as most of the judges and lawyer do not have a clue how it works ? ! ? so why should they make the decision ? ! ? ! and not specialists ? cmv  #  they should not remove the content because you were warned in the terms and conditions.   #  they are not removing content, they are just not displaying it, just like google currently does with a lot of adult content.   # wtf ! you ca not  take down  content down from search engines, they are not libraries, they are search engines, they search.  google is the equivalent of a phone book and you are thinking that ripping some pages out if it is destroying an industrial district.  they are not removing content, they are just not displaying it, just like google currently does with a lot of adult content.  please tell me how do you feel about google on their current restrictions and what is the difference between this and not displaying results due to the right to be forgotten rule.  do you know how much information is out there ? why is it the search engine is responsibility to store it ? . actually just ignore this.  also the fact that you went against the tos ca not be held against you in court.  it is not a real contract.  you ca not give consent to something by checking a box in on a random page on the internet.  what if i pull your calls from it and make a compilation of derekodwam is phone sex sessions with his wife and put it online.  or what about one with the nudes you sent her ? now every employer who want is to search your history, and most of them do, will find that.  how do you think that is going to affect your life ? it is nothing illegal, why should i take it down ? thought about running for office somewhere ? well, tough luck sucker, all the shit you did will be forever easily displayed in any search engine to anyone who knows your name.  do you understand now what the right to be forgotten law is trying to accomplish ? they are not obliterating the information from the internet, they are making it harder to find.  under article 0 individuals to whom the data appertains are granted the right to  obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data relating to them and the abstention from further dissemination of such data, especially in relation to personal data which are made available by the data subject while he or she was a child or where the data is no longer necessary for the purpose it was collected for, the subject withdraws consent, the storage period has expired, the data subject objects to the processing of personal data or the processing of data does not comply with other regulation.  what about this do you disagree with ?  #  0.  the terms and conditions argument about the  credibility of check boxes  is in  hot debate  so ill leave that one.   #  0.  search engines are the easiest if not most accessible way of accessing information.  so yeah. it removing information is like destroying an industrial district.  0.  the terms and conditions argument about the  credibility of check boxes  is in  hot debate  so ill leave that one.  0.  your point about the nsa has little to no relevance about my point that  all information is in the public interest to create a archive .  what happened with the nsa was quite a while ago and if the information about the spying scandal was brought to the public when it started it would of been shut down and the nsa publicly shamed.   #  . but it is not in the public interest to have your address, ssn or the name of your favorite stripper public.   # so yeah. it removing information is like destroying an industrial district.  but it is not, no matter how you put it.  the information is not touched unless is personal data , the access to it is not limited to anyone who is a little bit  tech savvy .  anyone who you truly needs it, will still get it.  . but it is not in the public interest to have your address, ssn or the name of your favorite stripper public.  you are not arguing why having no privacy is in the greater public interest.  there is no difference between privacy online, on the phone or in your bedroom, i hope you realize that.  the leak was this week.  URL  #  google is job is whatever google wants it to be and currently that is clearly not to display all available content on the internet.   # i asked you how you feel about google already not displaying most adult content like porn or gore.  google is job is whatever google wants it to be and currently that is clearly not to display all available content on the internet.  it is also practically impossible to remove content from the internet, especially when not everything is on the internet.  someone could open tor, find and fill your inbox with child pornography in about 0 minutes.  something  on the internet  is just something hosted on a random machine connected to a network, if i disable it is network nothing short of someone physically showing up and destroying my storage is going to remove it.    english  #  even then, it could be easily bypassed with vpns and proxy servers, so most people would see the  forbidden content  anyways.   #  nice false equivalency fallacy.  coca cola is a physical product sold on markets domestically and abroad, banning that would not even be anywhere near the domain of censoring a website.  the internet is effectively international domain, a website in the us is not subject to foreign laws, and removing a website would involve actually blocking it great firewall style.  even then, it could be easily bypassed with vpns and proxy servers, so most people would see the  forbidden content  anyways.  if the website was based on european soil, and the particular european country accepted that particular eu law, then they could try to physically remove the servers from there.  a us website would just laugh in their faces, and tell the european governments to go fuck themselves like twitter did with france a year ago.
for this post i will mostly use google as a example.  i often see news articles that take a  pick  at google for  intruding  on our personal lives, and the world.  for example this article: URL yes, i admit google may snoop.  but google is helping the world, on the technological front.  google is  innovating .  for example google is connecting the unconnected world, using weather balloons.  the sheer size, logistical and communicational scale of a task like that is huge.  but a californian a sister company  cough  apple  cough  has just partnered with another company that make is extremely bendy unbreakable glass to produce an additional phone to their line of  nerfed  phones and they get claps and cheers from the public and media.  also everyone says that they are a amazing inspirational company and they are  innovating .    but this is beside the point.  google/yahoo/bing are not  the internet  they are a search engines, in this context, but the european court seems to think differently and have ruled they have to take down content from their search engine is.  wtf ! the european court should be targeting the websites and admins to remove the content, and stop pestering the search engines for doing their job.  which is to provide search results ! anyway even if the search results were removed will the content still be on the websites ? secondly, every single person has a responsibility to read the terms and conditions of any online service or  gateway to the internet  service/product they are using.  if the product or service states in their t c is they are going to put information on a search engine for others to view, so be it ! they should not remove the content because you were warned in the terms and conditions.  remember you are using their services and you are  building  on their theoretical  land .  thirdly, all information no matter how irrelevant or relevant should be stored by search engines.  all information is in the public interest to create a archive, just like a library tries to accumulate as many books as possible no matter how ridiculous the books may be   for example willy the sperm :d  .  fourthly, the european court does not seem to understand what the  internet  is, as most of the judges and lawyer do not have a clue how it works ? ! ? so why should they make the decision ? ! ? ! and not specialists ? cmv  #  thirdly, all information no matter how irrelevant or relevant should be stored by search engines.   #  do you know how much information is out there ?  # wtf ! you ca not  take down  content down from search engines, they are not libraries, they are search engines, they search.  google is the equivalent of a phone book and you are thinking that ripping some pages out if it is destroying an industrial district.  they are not removing content, they are just not displaying it, just like google currently does with a lot of adult content.  please tell me how do you feel about google on their current restrictions and what is the difference between this and not displaying results due to the right to be forgotten rule.  do you know how much information is out there ? why is it the search engine is responsibility to store it ? . actually just ignore this.  also the fact that you went against the tos ca not be held against you in court.  it is not a real contract.  you ca not give consent to something by checking a box in on a random page on the internet.  what if i pull your calls from it and make a compilation of derekodwam is phone sex sessions with his wife and put it online.  or what about one with the nudes you sent her ? now every employer who want is to search your history, and most of them do, will find that.  how do you think that is going to affect your life ? it is nothing illegal, why should i take it down ? thought about running for office somewhere ? well, tough luck sucker, all the shit you did will be forever easily displayed in any search engine to anyone who knows your name.  do you understand now what the right to be forgotten law is trying to accomplish ? they are not obliterating the information from the internet, they are making it harder to find.  under article 0 individuals to whom the data appertains are granted the right to  obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data relating to them and the abstention from further dissemination of such data, especially in relation to personal data which are made available by the data subject while he or she was a child or where the data is no longer necessary for the purpose it was collected for, the subject withdraws consent, the storage period has expired, the data subject objects to the processing of personal data or the processing of data does not comply with other regulation.  what about this do you disagree with ?  #  so yeah. it removing information is like destroying an industrial district.   #  0.  search engines are the easiest if not most accessible way of accessing information.  so yeah. it removing information is like destroying an industrial district.  0.  the terms and conditions argument about the  credibility of check boxes  is in  hot debate  so ill leave that one.  0.  your point about the nsa has little to no relevance about my point that  all information is in the public interest to create a archive .  what happened with the nsa was quite a while ago and if the information about the spying scandal was brought to the public when it started it would of been shut down and the nsa publicly shamed.   #  . but it is not in the public interest to have your address, ssn or the name of your favorite stripper public.   # so yeah. it removing information is like destroying an industrial district.  but it is not, no matter how you put it.  the information is not touched unless is personal data , the access to it is not limited to anyone who is a little bit  tech savvy .  anyone who you truly needs it, will still get it.  . but it is not in the public interest to have your address, ssn or the name of your favorite stripper public.  you are not arguing why having no privacy is in the greater public interest.  there is no difference between privacy online, on the phone or in your bedroom, i hope you realize that.  the leak was this week.  URL  #  google is job is whatever google wants it to be and currently that is clearly not to display all available content on the internet.   # i asked you how you feel about google already not displaying most adult content like porn or gore.  google is job is whatever google wants it to be and currently that is clearly not to display all available content on the internet.  it is also practically impossible to remove content from the internet, especially when not everything is on the internet.  someone could open tor, find and fill your inbox with child pornography in about 0 minutes.  something  on the internet  is just something hosted on a random machine connected to a network, if i disable it is network nothing short of someone physically showing up and destroying my storage is going to remove it.    english  #  if the website was based on european soil, and the particular european country accepted that particular eu law, then they could try to physically remove the servers from there.   #  nice false equivalency fallacy.  coca cola is a physical product sold on markets domestically and abroad, banning that would not even be anywhere near the domain of censoring a website.  the internet is effectively international domain, a website in the us is not subject to foreign laws, and removing a website would involve actually blocking it great firewall style.  even then, it could be easily bypassed with vpns and proxy servers, so most people would see the  forbidden content  anyways.  if the website was based on european soil, and the particular european country accepted that particular eu law, then they could try to physically remove the servers from there.  a us website would just laugh in their faces, and tell the european governments to go fuck themselves like twitter did with france a year ago.
for this post i will mostly use google as a example.  i often see news articles that take a  pick  at google for  intruding  on our personal lives, and the world.  for example this article: URL yes, i admit google may snoop.  but google is helping the world, on the technological front.  google is  innovating .  for example google is connecting the unconnected world, using weather balloons.  the sheer size, logistical and communicational scale of a task like that is huge.  but a californian a sister company  cough  apple  cough  has just partnered with another company that make is extremely bendy unbreakable glass to produce an additional phone to their line of  nerfed  phones and they get claps and cheers from the public and media.  also everyone says that they are a amazing inspirational company and they are  innovating .    but this is beside the point.  google/yahoo/bing are not  the internet  they are a search engines, in this context, but the european court seems to think differently and have ruled they have to take down content from their search engine is.  wtf ! the european court should be targeting the websites and admins to remove the content, and stop pestering the search engines for doing their job.  which is to provide search results ! anyway even if the search results were removed will the content still be on the websites ? secondly, every single person has a responsibility to read the terms and conditions of any online service or  gateway to the internet  service/product they are using.  if the product or service states in their t c is they are going to put information on a search engine for others to view, so be it ! they should not remove the content because you were warned in the terms and conditions.  remember you are using their services and you are  building  on their theoretical  land .  thirdly, all information no matter how irrelevant or relevant should be stored by search engines.  all information is in the public interest to create a archive, just like a library tries to accumulate as many books as possible no matter how ridiculous the books may be   for example willy the sperm :d  .  fourthly, the european court does not seem to understand what the  internet  is, as most of the judges and lawyer do not have a clue how it works ? ! ? so why should they make the decision ? ! ? ! and not specialists ? cmv  #  the european court should be targeting the websites and admins to remove the content, and stop pestering the search engines for doing their job.   #  i asked you how you feel about google already not displaying most adult content like porn or gore.   # i asked you how you feel about google already not displaying most adult content like porn or gore.  google is job is whatever google wants it to be and currently that is clearly not to display all available content on the internet.  it is also practically impossible to remove content from the internet, especially when not everything is on the internet.  someone could open tor, find and fill your inbox with child pornography in about 0 minutes.  something  on the internet  is just something hosted on a random machine connected to a network, if i disable it is network nothing short of someone physically showing up and destroying my storage is going to remove it.    english  #  it is nothing illegal, why should i take it down ?  # wtf ! you ca not  take down  content down from search engines, they are not libraries, they are search engines, they search.  google is the equivalent of a phone book and you are thinking that ripping some pages out if it is destroying an industrial district.  they are not removing content, they are just not displaying it, just like google currently does with a lot of adult content.  please tell me how do you feel about google on their current restrictions and what is the difference between this and not displaying results due to the right to be forgotten rule.  do you know how much information is out there ? why is it the search engine is responsibility to store it ? . actually just ignore this.  also the fact that you went against the tos ca not be held against you in court.  it is not a real contract.  you ca not give consent to something by checking a box in on a random page on the internet.  what if i pull your calls from it and make a compilation of derekodwam is phone sex sessions with his wife and put it online.  or what about one with the nudes you sent her ? now every employer who want is to search your history, and most of them do, will find that.  how do you think that is going to affect your life ? it is nothing illegal, why should i take it down ? thought about running for office somewhere ? well, tough luck sucker, all the shit you did will be forever easily displayed in any search engine to anyone who knows your name.  do you understand now what the right to be forgotten law is trying to accomplish ? they are not obliterating the information from the internet, they are making it harder to find.  under article 0 individuals to whom the data appertains are granted the right to  obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data relating to them and the abstention from further dissemination of such data, especially in relation to personal data which are made available by the data subject while he or she was a child or where the data is no longer necessary for the purpose it was collected for, the subject withdraws consent, the storage period has expired, the data subject objects to the processing of personal data or the processing of data does not comply with other regulation.  what about this do you disagree with ?  #  0.  search engines are the easiest if not most accessible way of accessing information.   #  0.  search engines are the easiest if not most accessible way of accessing information.  so yeah. it removing information is like destroying an industrial district.  0.  the terms and conditions argument about the  credibility of check boxes  is in  hot debate  so ill leave that one.  0.  your point about the nsa has little to no relevance about my point that  all information is in the public interest to create a archive .  what happened with the nsa was quite a while ago and if the information about the spying scandal was brought to the public when it started it would of been shut down and the nsa publicly shamed.   #  anyone who you truly needs it, will still get it.   # so yeah. it removing information is like destroying an industrial district.  but it is not, no matter how you put it.  the information is not touched unless is personal data , the access to it is not limited to anyone who is a little bit  tech savvy .  anyone who you truly needs it, will still get it.  . but it is not in the public interest to have your address, ssn or the name of your favorite stripper public.  you are not arguing why having no privacy is in the greater public interest.  there is no difference between privacy online, on the phone or in your bedroom, i hope you realize that.  the leak was this week.  URL  #  coca cola is a physical product sold on markets domestically and abroad, banning that would not even be anywhere near the domain of censoring a website.   #  nice false equivalency fallacy.  coca cola is a physical product sold on markets domestically and abroad, banning that would not even be anywhere near the domain of censoring a website.  the internet is effectively international domain, a website in the us is not subject to foreign laws, and removing a website would involve actually blocking it great firewall style.  even then, it could be easily bypassed with vpns and proxy servers, so most people would see the  forbidden content  anyways.  if the website was based on european soil, and the particular european country accepted that particular eu law, then they could try to physically remove the servers from there.  a us website would just laugh in their faces, and tell the european governments to go fuck themselves like twitter did with france a year ago.
for this post i will mostly use google as a example.  i often see news articles that take a  pick  at google for  intruding  on our personal lives, and the world.  for example this article: URL yes, i admit google may snoop.  but google is helping the world, on the technological front.  google is  innovating .  for example google is connecting the unconnected world, using weather balloons.  the sheer size, logistical and communicational scale of a task like that is huge.  but a californian a sister company  cough  apple  cough  has just partnered with another company that make is extremely bendy unbreakable glass to produce an additional phone to their line of  nerfed  phones and they get claps and cheers from the public and media.  also everyone says that they are a amazing inspirational company and they are  innovating .    but this is beside the point.  google/yahoo/bing are not  the internet  they are a search engines, in this context, but the european court seems to think differently and have ruled they have to take down content from their search engine is.  wtf ! the european court should be targeting the websites and admins to remove the content, and stop pestering the search engines for doing their job.  which is to provide search results ! anyway even if the search results were removed will the content still be on the websites ? secondly, every single person has a responsibility to read the terms and conditions of any online service or  gateway to the internet  service/product they are using.  if the product or service states in their t c is they are going to put information on a search engine for others to view, so be it ! they should not remove the content because you were warned in the terms and conditions.  remember you are using their services and you are  building  on their theoretical  land .  thirdly, all information no matter how irrelevant or relevant should be stored by search engines.  all information is in the public interest to create a archive, just like a library tries to accumulate as many books as possible no matter how ridiculous the books may be   for example willy the sperm :d  .  fourthly, the european court does not seem to understand what the  internet  is, as most of the judges and lawyer do not have a clue how it works ? ! ? so why should they make the decision ? ! ? ! and not specialists ? cmv  #  thirdly, all information no matter how irrelevant or relevant should be stored by search engines.   #  all information is in the public interest to create a archive, just like a library tries to accumulate as many books as possible no matter how ridiculous the books may be for example willy the sperm :d .   # all information is in the public interest to create a archive, just like a library tries to accumulate as many books as possible no matter how ridiculous the books may be for example willy the sperm :d .  i do not necessarily like this idea; i have a bunch of photo albums lying around my house that my dad and grandfather filled with pictures.  they are books.  they are also unique to me and my family; there are pictures there that do not belong in a public library, and i would never want them there.  but at the same time, they are invaluable to me to show my kids what their grandparents and great grandparents were like, should i have kids.  the difference is that these sorts of personal photo albums were, perhaps stupidly, uploaded online for this generation, without full understanding of the implications of doing so.  i do not think people should be held forever accountable for dumb mistakes, as this makes people far too risk averse.  we need people who will take chances and who are not gun shy of failure to advance technology, and what we are teaching people by making their old drunken party pictures from when they were 0 forever available is that if they  do  make a mistake, they will  forever  be ridiculed and/or humiliated for it by, potentially, the entire wired world.  so they wo not bother making the effort.   #  how do you think that is going to affect your life ?  # wtf ! you ca not  take down  content down from search engines, they are not libraries, they are search engines, they search.  google is the equivalent of a phone book and you are thinking that ripping some pages out if it is destroying an industrial district.  they are not removing content, they are just not displaying it, just like google currently does with a lot of adult content.  please tell me how do you feel about google on their current restrictions and what is the difference between this and not displaying results due to the right to be forgotten rule.  do you know how much information is out there ? why is it the search engine is responsibility to store it ? . actually just ignore this.  also the fact that you went against the tos ca not be held against you in court.  it is not a real contract.  you ca not give consent to something by checking a box in on a random page on the internet.  what if i pull your calls from it and make a compilation of derekodwam is phone sex sessions with his wife and put it online.  or what about one with the nudes you sent her ? now every employer who want is to search your history, and most of them do, will find that.  how do you think that is going to affect your life ? it is nothing illegal, why should i take it down ? thought about running for office somewhere ? well, tough luck sucker, all the shit you did will be forever easily displayed in any search engine to anyone who knows your name.  do you understand now what the right to be forgotten law is trying to accomplish ? they are not obliterating the information from the internet, they are making it harder to find.  under article 0 individuals to whom the data appertains are granted the right to  obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data relating to them and the abstention from further dissemination of such data, especially in relation to personal data which are made available by the data subject while he or she was a child or where the data is no longer necessary for the purpose it was collected for, the subject withdraws consent, the storage period has expired, the data subject objects to the processing of personal data or the processing of data does not comply with other regulation.  what about this do you disagree with ?  #  what happened with the nsa was quite a while ago and if the information about the spying scandal was brought to the public when it started it would of been shut down and the nsa publicly shamed.   #  0.  search engines are the easiest if not most accessible way of accessing information.  so yeah. it removing information is like destroying an industrial district.  0.  the terms and conditions argument about the  credibility of check boxes  is in  hot debate  so ill leave that one.  0.  your point about the nsa has little to no relevance about my point that  all information is in the public interest to create a archive .  what happened with the nsa was quite a while ago and if the information about the spying scandal was brought to the public when it started it would of been shut down and the nsa publicly shamed.   #  you are not arguing why having no privacy is in the greater public interest.   # so yeah. it removing information is like destroying an industrial district.  but it is not, no matter how you put it.  the information is not touched unless is personal data , the access to it is not limited to anyone who is a little bit  tech savvy .  anyone who you truly needs it, will still get it.  . but it is not in the public interest to have your address, ssn or the name of your favorite stripper public.  you are not arguing why having no privacy is in the greater public interest.  there is no difference between privacy online, on the phone or in your bedroom, i hope you realize that.  the leak was this week.  URL  #  i asked you how you feel about google already not displaying most adult content like porn or gore.   # i asked you how you feel about google already not displaying most adult content like porn or gore.  google is job is whatever google wants it to be and currently that is clearly not to display all available content on the internet.  it is also practically impossible to remove content from the internet, especially when not everything is on the internet.  someone could open tor, find and fill your inbox with child pornography in about 0 minutes.  something  on the internet  is just something hosted on a random machine connected to a network, if i disable it is network nothing short of someone physically showing up and destroying my storage is going to remove it.    english
i often heard on reddit about /r/mensrights, and about how everyone on there is a woman hating, bigoted piece of shit.  i always assumed that this was correct, and if i went on the subreddit i would find this kind of material.  however when i went on the subreddit, all the posts were actually completely reasonable, and not bigoted at all.  i mean one of the top posts of all time is a quote from a feminist URL and another one is a picture of a post from a feminist blog URL after spending half an hour on the subreddit, i could not find anything bigoted or offensive, and although i recognize that there are probably people on there who do hate women, they are actually quite hard to find.  there are no jokes about feminism or women is rights, which are actually quite frequent outside of the subreddit.  honestly, you are much more likely to find a sexist comment browsing /r/funny than you are browsing mensrights.  i get that the mistreatment of women is a larger problem than the mistreatment of men, but this does not mean the mistreatment of men is not a problem.  it is not as big of a problem, and so there is much less activism, which is fine, but i do not think people should be criticized for participating in that activism.   #  there are no jokes about feminism or women is rights, which are actually quite frequent outside of the subreddit.   #  not jokes, per se, but there is a lot of general hatred directed towards feminism.   # not jokes, per se, but there is a lot of general hatred directed towards feminism.  walk into the comments of most posts there, do a  ctrl f feminis  and you will see how eager people are there to blame feminism for all gender inequalities or generally bash it.  just looking through the commends for a few posts on the front page.   tyt has come out on the side of men is rights issue wise many times so i wo not take the posting of this feminist pandering idiot seriously.  there are a lot of phony liberals out there who playing the feminist cheerleader is their sworn duty no matter how outrageous their demands or expectations  or lastly, it happens and feminists get pissed and try to force it back to the old way where only men have to sign up for the draft, and everyone finally sees just how much for  equality  feminists truly are.  this is what feminism looks like.   #  there are tons of severe issues that affect men that deserve to be addressed in our society that could benefit from a solidarity between the two groups.   #  the issue with the men is rights movement is that it should exist complimentary to the feminist movement.  there are tons of severe issues that affect men that deserve to be addressed in our society that could benefit from a solidarity between the two groups.  however, in practice the men is rights movement has only made itself a group that exists to  combat  or discredit feminism.  on top of that the issues they seem to focus on are issues that do not necessarily affect the least privileged men in society.  it is rare to see a men is rights advocate talk about the drug war that has put millions of young men of color into prison for non violent crimes and ripped apart the family structure of black america.  it is rare to see a men is rights advocate speak out for transgender rights or gay rights.  instead of talking about the millions and millions of men who are raped in our prison system, they are more likely to talk about the problems of false rape accusations by women.  on paper the men is rights movement sounds great, and there are some men is rights advocates who want to talk about the issues i mentioned above and others that are a real problem.  too often, though, they are drowned out by the extreme right wing of their group.  and in practice the movement has been reactionary to the point of being labeled as a hate group by the southern poverty law center .  to turn it around they really need to pull the focus away from being anti feminist and to addressing issues which affect the least privileged men.  correction  some folks have pointed out that the splc never flagged /r/mensrights as a hate group, they simply list it under the list of misogynist websites: URL  #  did you even bother to read the article or are you just parroting talking points that you have been given by others ?  #  did you even bother to read the article or are you just parroting talking points that you have been given by others ? a woman wrote an essay and posted it on youtube.  it was then flagged as hate speech on youtube.  avfm posted to the article in protest.  you do not have to agree with it, and people within the men is rights movement do not need to agree with it but it does not deserve to be flagged as hate speech.  avfm often does things specifically to get a rise out of people.  judging them for that is a failure to understand what you are judging.   #  i am honored to have one of the /r/mensrights mods coming out of the woodwork to say hello.   #  i am honored to have one of the /r/mensrights mods coming out of the woodwork to say hello.  if your movements ideological goals are to  get a rise out of people  instead of offering real solutions, then men is rights advocates are nothing more than a bunch of whining trolls.  this is the reason my mra, as a whole, are so negative.  they do not want to confront gender issues in a meaningful way, they want to whine about feminism.  they do not have answers, just bruised feelings of privilege, and this is why, as a movement, men is rights is a complete non starter.   #  overall, you seem pretty biased against men is rights advocacy.   # not everything an organization within a movement ! does constitutes an ideological goal.  in order to reach a goal, one typically has to formulate a plan, a strategy.  then you implement that strategy with tactics that you think will advance your cause.  could that be what  getting a rise out of people  might be merely a tactic, and not a goal in itself ? overall, you seem pretty biased against men is rights advocacy.  i do not think you really want to even consider its possible legitimacy fairly.  i think you are willing to stoop to intellectual dishonesty by confusing goals with tactics, for example in order to rationalize dismissing the movement is claims to legitimacy.
it is very much a waste of resources in putting effort to cure these kids rather than letting them die and having another.  currently on r/pic there is a post gathering traction about a week old infant that had passed away due to some kind of liver related illness or congenital disorder.  the infant was also put on the transplant list.  odds of them getting a transplant aside, is not it a very inadequate use of resources to make an effort to cure these kids ? from a pure cost benefit prospective, a infant of that age have yet had any contribution to this society.  not only that, their wellbeing following such traumatic interventions are not guaranteed, especially when comes to transplantation.  it is arguable that following such surgery these children might never acquire the level of mobility of wellbeing that someone without such illness will have, and as such will impact he/her future productivity.  moreover, having another child will take only another 0 month, which is very little compared to, say giving the liver to a 0 year old.  in the end, i see very little reason to invest heavily in curing infants.  this is even more true if the healthcare system is overburdened.  the only benefit i see is that going through with the intervention is fruitful scientifically and if the emotional harm caused to parents will be bigger than the cost of the surgery.  ultimately what i am trying to say is that from a cost benefit prospective, infants should have the lowest priority for transplantation, surgery and for any other medical procedure if opportunity cost exists.   #  from a pure cost benefit prospective, a infant of that age have yet had any contribution to this society.   #  not only that people who need to have treatments or transplants, do not get evaluated for there contributions to society.   # not only that people who need to have treatments or transplants, do not get evaluated for there contributions to society.  as far as i know, if a person is going to die, they get treated, regardless of there contributions.  so i do not see why we should draw the line at infants.  why not evaluate every patient based on there contributions to society ? the goal is to give the infant the best possible chance to live.  tell that to a couples who lose there child.   #  this makes focusing on infants more efficient in terms of gain for treatment.   #  0 things: 0 saving the infant would give a larger reward than saving the adult.  if the infant lives a full life 0  yrs , then there is a gain of that amount.  if the thirty year old lives to the same age, then you have only gained that 0 yrs that they have already lived.  this makes focusing on infants more efficient in terms of gain for treatment.  0 letting lots of infants die can do a lot of demographic damage, making it more costly to society over a larger time frame.  western societies are already having demographic problems with an aging population, allowing the young population to shrink is the worst possible way to manage this.  if we focus on saving people who are already adults, then we lose the ability to care for them in their old age.   #  there is an emotional toll for the death of a child, but less so of a demographic toll.   #  0 future benefit is taken at a discount, since it is not guaranteed.  secondly there is a loss of reward because that child can simply be replaced.  saving by performing expensive surgery is not the most effective solution.  replacing it is.  0 that is assuming that people have one kids and that is it.  parents are likely to try again if their attempts are unsuccessful.  there is an emotional toll for the death of a child, but less so of a demographic toll.   #  currently there are demographic problems due to the birthrate falling to the minimum level or lower, so a focus on saving infants is required to increase the survival rate and prevent complete collapse.   #  the 0 yr old is survival is not guaranteed either.  so discount both and you still get the same thing.  also, losing a child can be pretty emotionally devastating to the parents, reducing the chance of a replacement, while if it goes well and they find parenthood rewarding then that increasing the chance of more.  also, keeping stable demographics requires an avg of 0 children/family surviving to reproduce.  since survival rate is always going to be less than 0 that means more than 0 children/family are required on avg.  currently there are demographic problems due to the birthrate falling to the minimum level or lower, so a focus on saving infants is required to increase the survival rate and prevent complete collapse.   #  it means unless the child survive for 0 years following the traumatic event, it wo not be as  productive  as the other wise saved adult had done already, without even taking into account the discount of future benefit.   #  not true.  newborns have weaker immune systems and are generally more prone to infectious diseases.  secondly infants have the complication of development x transplantation factor, which adults wo not have.  lastly for the child to be equivalent  productivity  to the otherwise saved adult, it would take 0 years.  it means unless the child survive for 0 years following the traumatic event, it wo not be as  productive  as the other wise saved adult had done already, without even taking into account the discount of future benefit.  right, which i can also make the argument that if the adult dies and parent lose that member of the family permanently with no possibility of replacement, especially if that adult was the only child.  while if the newborn dies those parents can readily make another.  i did not want to delve into demographic argument because i personally believe we do not need that many people anyways, and that is a whole different nut to crack.  it touches on economics, technological development, legislation, and zero growth model of corporations.  do not want to open this can of worms.
it is very much a waste of resources in putting effort to cure these kids rather than letting them die and having another.  currently on r/pic there is a post gathering traction about a week old infant that had passed away due to some kind of liver related illness or congenital disorder.  the infant was also put on the transplant list.  odds of them getting a transplant aside, is not it a very inadequate use of resources to make an effort to cure these kids ? from a pure cost benefit prospective, a infant of that age have yet had any contribution to this society.  not only that, their wellbeing following such traumatic interventions are not guaranteed, especially when comes to transplantation.  it is arguable that following such surgery these children might never acquire the level of mobility of wellbeing that someone without such illness will have, and as such will impact he/her future productivity.  moreover, having another child will take only another 0 month, which is very little compared to, say giving the liver to a 0 year old.  in the end, i see very little reason to invest heavily in curing infants.  this is even more true if the healthcare system is overburdened.  the only benefit i see is that going through with the intervention is fruitful scientifically and if the emotional harm caused to parents will be bigger than the cost of the surgery.  ultimately what i am trying to say is that from a cost benefit prospective, infants should have the lowest priority for transplantation, surgery and for any other medical procedure if opportunity cost exists.   #  their wellbeing following such traumatic interventions are not guaranteed, especially when comes to transplantation.   #  the goal is to give the infant the best possible chance to live.   # not only that people who need to have treatments or transplants, do not get evaluated for there contributions to society.  as far as i know, if a person is going to die, they get treated, regardless of there contributions.  so i do not see why we should draw the line at infants.  why not evaluate every patient based on there contributions to society ? the goal is to give the infant the best possible chance to live.  tell that to a couples who lose there child.   #  if the infant lives a full life 0  yrs , then there is a gain of that amount.   #  0 things: 0 saving the infant would give a larger reward than saving the adult.  if the infant lives a full life 0  yrs , then there is a gain of that amount.  if the thirty year old lives to the same age, then you have only gained that 0 yrs that they have already lived.  this makes focusing on infants more efficient in terms of gain for treatment.  0 letting lots of infants die can do a lot of demographic damage, making it more costly to society over a larger time frame.  western societies are already having demographic problems with an aging population, allowing the young population to shrink is the worst possible way to manage this.  if we focus on saving people who are already adults, then we lose the ability to care for them in their old age.   #  saving by performing expensive surgery is not the most effective solution.   #  0 future benefit is taken at a discount, since it is not guaranteed.  secondly there is a loss of reward because that child can simply be replaced.  saving by performing expensive surgery is not the most effective solution.  replacing it is.  0 that is assuming that people have one kids and that is it.  parents are likely to try again if their attempts are unsuccessful.  there is an emotional toll for the death of a child, but less so of a demographic toll.   #  also, losing a child can be pretty emotionally devastating to the parents, reducing the chance of a replacement, while if it goes well and they find parenthood rewarding then that increasing the chance of more.   #  the 0 yr old is survival is not guaranteed either.  so discount both and you still get the same thing.  also, losing a child can be pretty emotionally devastating to the parents, reducing the chance of a replacement, while if it goes well and they find parenthood rewarding then that increasing the chance of more.  also, keeping stable demographics requires an avg of 0 children/family surviving to reproduce.  since survival rate is always going to be less than 0 that means more than 0 children/family are required on avg.  currently there are demographic problems due to the birthrate falling to the minimum level or lower, so a focus on saving infants is required to increase the survival rate and prevent complete collapse.   #  secondly infants have the complication of development x transplantation factor, which adults wo not have.   #  not true.  newborns have weaker immune systems and are generally more prone to infectious diseases.  secondly infants have the complication of development x transplantation factor, which adults wo not have.  lastly for the child to be equivalent  productivity  to the otherwise saved adult, it would take 0 years.  it means unless the child survive for 0 years following the traumatic event, it wo not be as  productive  as the other wise saved adult had done already, without even taking into account the discount of future benefit.  right, which i can also make the argument that if the adult dies and parent lose that member of the family permanently with no possibility of replacement, especially if that adult was the only child.  while if the newborn dies those parents can readily make another.  i did not want to delve into demographic argument because i personally believe we do not need that many people anyways, and that is a whole different nut to crack.  it touches on economics, technological development, legislation, and zero growth model of corporations.  do not want to open this can of worms.
it is very much a waste of resources in putting effort to cure these kids rather than letting them die and having another.  currently on r/pic there is a post gathering traction about a week old infant that had passed away due to some kind of liver related illness or congenital disorder.  the infant was also put on the transplant list.  odds of them getting a transplant aside, is not it a very inadequate use of resources to make an effort to cure these kids ? from a pure cost benefit prospective, a infant of that age have yet had any contribution to this society.  not only that, their wellbeing following such traumatic interventions are not guaranteed, especially when comes to transplantation.  it is arguable that following such surgery these children might never acquire the level of mobility of wellbeing that someone without such illness will have, and as such will impact he/her future productivity.  moreover, having another child will take only another 0 month, which is very little compared to, say giving the liver to a 0 year old.  in the end, i see very little reason to invest heavily in curing infants.  this is even more true if the healthcare system is overburdened.  the only benefit i see is that going through with the intervention is fruitful scientifically and if the emotional harm caused to parents will be bigger than the cost of the surgery.  ultimately what i am trying to say is that from a cost benefit prospective, infants should have the lowest priority for transplantation, surgery and for any other medical procedure if opportunity cost exists.   #  moreover, having another child will take only another 0 month, which is very little compared to, say giving the liver to a 0 year old.   #  tell that to a couples who lose there child.   # not only that people who need to have treatments or transplants, do not get evaluated for there contributions to society.  as far as i know, if a person is going to die, they get treated, regardless of there contributions.  so i do not see why we should draw the line at infants.  why not evaluate every patient based on there contributions to society ? the goal is to give the infant the best possible chance to live.  tell that to a couples who lose there child.   #  this makes focusing on infants more efficient in terms of gain for treatment.   #  0 things: 0 saving the infant would give a larger reward than saving the adult.  if the infant lives a full life 0  yrs , then there is a gain of that amount.  if the thirty year old lives to the same age, then you have only gained that 0 yrs that they have already lived.  this makes focusing on infants more efficient in terms of gain for treatment.  0 letting lots of infants die can do a lot of demographic damage, making it more costly to society over a larger time frame.  western societies are already having demographic problems with an aging population, allowing the young population to shrink is the worst possible way to manage this.  if we focus on saving people who are already adults, then we lose the ability to care for them in their old age.   #  there is an emotional toll for the death of a child, but less so of a demographic toll.   #  0 future benefit is taken at a discount, since it is not guaranteed.  secondly there is a loss of reward because that child can simply be replaced.  saving by performing expensive surgery is not the most effective solution.  replacing it is.  0 that is assuming that people have one kids and that is it.  parents are likely to try again if their attempts are unsuccessful.  there is an emotional toll for the death of a child, but less so of a demographic toll.   #  so discount both and you still get the same thing.   #  the 0 yr old is survival is not guaranteed either.  so discount both and you still get the same thing.  also, losing a child can be pretty emotionally devastating to the parents, reducing the chance of a replacement, while if it goes well and they find parenthood rewarding then that increasing the chance of more.  also, keeping stable demographics requires an avg of 0 children/family surviving to reproduce.  since survival rate is always going to be less than 0 that means more than 0 children/family are required on avg.  currently there are demographic problems due to the birthrate falling to the minimum level or lower, so a focus on saving infants is required to increase the survival rate and prevent complete collapse.   #  newborns have weaker immune systems and are generally more prone to infectious diseases.   #  not true.  newborns have weaker immune systems and are generally more prone to infectious diseases.  secondly infants have the complication of development x transplantation factor, which adults wo not have.  lastly for the child to be equivalent  productivity  to the otherwise saved adult, it would take 0 years.  it means unless the child survive for 0 years following the traumatic event, it wo not be as  productive  as the other wise saved adult had done already, without even taking into account the discount of future benefit.  right, which i can also make the argument that if the adult dies and parent lose that member of the family permanently with no possibility of replacement, especially if that adult was the only child.  while if the newborn dies those parents can readily make another.  i did not want to delve into demographic argument because i personally believe we do not need that many people anyways, and that is a whole different nut to crack.  it touches on economics, technological development, legislation, and zero growth model of corporations.  do not want to open this can of worms.
if you do not know anything about africa, you probably see it as a mess.  if you do actually research africa, you will find that it is indeed a mess.  a big big mess.  many of the biggest problems facing africans on the whole relate to their poverty: disease, difficult access to medicine, lack of education, lack of development.  many charities focus on providing short term solutions to african problems: eradicating disease, education to citizens on issues of sexuality, etc.  very noble and very important, but even a disease free and enlightened africa is still going to be very poor.  on the whole, africa is economy is based on exporting raw materials.  if you look at a map of african railroads, you will see most still go from the interior to the coast, just like colonial times.  their function is to transport raw materials to be shipped elsewhere.  africa is being treated the same way it has since antiquity as a giant mine.  if africa started processing the raw materials before exporting them, it would bring more wealth to the country.  making jewelry and industrial components, instead of just exporting the gold.  roasting and grinding the coffee instead of just exporting beans.  even processing the oil instead of just exporting crude.  of course, this could lead to suffering in the short term.  sweatshops, unequal wealth distribution already a problem industrial accidents etc.  but i believe it is a completely necessary step towards development.  africa cannot gain wealth while it is being mined, and it cannot leapfrog to a service based economy without developing manufacturing first.  my opinion is highly controversial so please cmv !  #  many charities focus on providing short term solutions to african problems: eradicating disease, education to citizens on issues of sexuality, etc.   #  very noble and very important, but even a disease free and enlightened africa is still going to be very poor.   # very noble and very important, but even a disease free and enlightened africa is still going to be very poor.  eradicating malaria and small pox was not  short term  at all.  we populated florida because of quinine work done in the sub sahara.  why are you being so dismissive about the value of millions of human lives ? overpopulation, lack of investment, and security concerns are constantly cited as some of the biggest threats to the gdp and  farmable land per capita  of africa.  things that have to happen first, conditionally, before a manufacturing base can thrive.  why not at least give these issues lip service ? it sounds like you are very opinionated   have not  actually  learned anything about the issue.  despite your posturing.  the railroads of kenya, for instance, reflect a manufacturing base.  this textile manufacturing did little once the colonial government   anti competitive charters were forced out in the 0 is.  people were broke with manufacturing, their broke without it.  but the quality of life is slowly rising.  despite the fact none of the trains actually go where the people need to travel any more.   #  finally, china has the ability to devalue its currency to make its exports more competitive, in a way that african countries do not.   #  i broadly agree with you but i think you are ignoring a few important barriers to developing a manufacturing industry: 0.  competition china is the obvious source of competition, but the rest of asia also has large labour forces willing to work for low amounts.  additionally, asia already has the infrastructure for large scale manufacturing.  finally, china has the ability to devalue its currency to make its exports more competitive, in a way that african countries do not.  0.  environmental damage resource extraction has already caused massive amounts of environmental damage in africa, but the rise of energy inefficient manufacturing as it inevitably will be can make this significantly worse.  aside from thew obvious global warming effects, the corruption endemic in many african countries will make it easy for factories to dump pollutants into the local ecosystem.  in an area particularly sub saharan africa that already has huge environmental problems, this could cause irreversible long term harms.  0.  intervention of transnational corporations the reality is that manufacturing would be done by large global brands and they would keep a lot of the profit for themselves.  local workers lack information about how much their labour is worth and have almost no bargaining power.  0.  health effects the long term health effects of working in a factory particularly diseases caused by exposure to pollutants wo not be immediately obvious to people working there.  so whilst they may see a new factory as having a  good  safety record, they are being exposed to long term health risks.   #    0; 0.  i have no response to this.   #  great points.    0; 0.  i have no response to this.  i simply lacked the economics education to anticipate this exact point.  i guess my hope is that asia is labor force will gradually demand higher wages, making africa more economical.  there is some infrastructure in africa: there are ports, so they would be a good place to start putting factories.  0.  excellent point.  african governments are generally corrupt and self serving, so this would probably play out as you described.  0.  depressing but true.  it would likely be a very small step in the right direction.  my hope is that transnational companies are gradually being pressured to provide better working conditions, and this would carry over to africa as well.  someday.  0.  yes, but this one is true everywhere, including america/europe during the industrial revolution, and we pulled through.   #  china is also investing heavily in african infrastructure which is great in the short term, but it worries me because it is hard to imagine that china is government/industry have humanitarian interests at heart.   #  that is what i was going for.  it is the path every successful country i can think of has followed.  right now, all the cheap manufactured stuff at least in my experience in africa comes from china.  at the most basic level, i think it would be better if africa was manufacturing more of this stuff for itself.  china is also investing heavily in african infrastructure which is great in the short term, but it worries me because it is hard to imagine that china is government/industry have humanitarian interests at heart.  in fact, it is hard for me to see exactly what china is end game is it keeps giving africans loans and then cancelling the debt.  are they hoping to just get cheap resources, or some kind of new subjugating relationship ?  #  just like the americans did to the chinese.   #  times have changed.  power has shifted. the usa is no longer the superpower of the world, china is.  china invests in africa because africa will take up the manufacturing role for the chinese in the next 0  years.  this will happen when the chinese export their factories overseas to africa so africans can manufacture good for the chinese public to consume.  just like the americans did to the chinese.  what many people do not understand is africa is in the best position right now ! as its ready to absorb the chinese infer structure.  if this process is correct, africa plays its cards right and power shifts again.  africa could be the next global superpower in the next 0,0  years.  imagine that.  :d
firstly, there are people who naturally have incredible ability in one particular area, like savants and such; i am not talking about them, i am talking about the average person who has done something well and is congratulated at being  talented .  people are not naturally talented at anything; the people that excel in music/art/whatever are the ones who have been practising for years, not because they were born with some extra ability that other is have not got.  it may be true that they started learning from a young age and therefore it  seems  like they are  talented  but that is just that they started early.  i think it is somewhat different with sport, since genes do influence someone is strength and agility, but i am focusing on more mental sorts of skill, like music, acting, art.  anyway i think you get the point.  skills in certain areas are ones you accumulate, not ones you are born with.  cmv.  in actual fact the point i wanted to make is that when a friend does something well like play the piano, they should not be congratulated for having  talent , since that assumes too much.  saying that they have talent assumes that they were born above everyone else and are especially cut out for this activity.  rather we should congratulate them for hard work, not assuming that they are special.  if i then find out that they had only heard the piece they had just played once and then did a stunning performance,  that  is when they should be told they have talent.  however we should not just through the work  talent  around as if it is at the root of everything.   #  saying that they have talent assumes that they were born above everyone else and are especially cut out for this activity.   #  the fact is that they  are  especially cut out for certain activities, and they  were  born above the average person in that very narrow, specific instance .   # my point is that  everyone  has varying natural abilities like that.  some are just significant and common enough to get a label.  it seems extremely relevant.  your opinion is based on classifying people and putting them all in exactly the same category for talent.  the fact is that they  are  especially cut out for certain activities, and they  were  born above the average person in that very narrow, specific instance .  oddly enough, i agree with this.  praising people for hard work is much better than praising them for talent because it leads to them valuing hard work which they can change about themselves instead of talent which they ca not .  changing what you say still does not change the way the world is, though.   #  savant skills are not caused by accidents or fits.   #  i do not know what you have been reading but you should definitely not go there again.  savant skills are not caused by accidents or fits.  autistic people tend to stick and focus on one subject that they deeply admire.  in more extreme cases, they are born with the natural talent.  there was no accident or catastrophe that caused it.  savant skills are  not  a pay off for being socially inept.  that is a very derogatory statement to make.  you can not depict if their skill is justified by them not being able to speak to people or connect with people.  the majority of autistic people do not even have these  special  skills that you are talking about and some are decent with people.   #  i am not trying to be derogative here, but the fact is that people who are savants  tend  to have difficulties in other areas.   #  i am having to generalise a little here.  allow me to copy and paste from wikipedia a bit:   people with savant syndrome may have neurodevelopmental disorders, notably autism spectrum disorders, or brain injuries.  i am not trying to be derogative here, but the fact is that people who are savants  tend  to have difficulties in other areas.  i am not talking about autistic people, i am talking about savants.  there are a tiny amount of savants around depending on where you look , which is why i am so surprised that everyone wants to include savants in a statement about  amost people .  time to get off the topic of who to include, the point i want to make is that we should not congratulate people on their successes being down to talent, it is hard work.  talent is not something you can control, so you should not be congratulated on it, rather your hard work.   #  at the age of 0 months, he programmed our remote control and turned on our dvd player first tv, remote or electronic component he had ever been exposed to in his life.   #  my amazing talent is organizing stuff.  i am incredibly good at designing space efficiently and quickly.  i automatically see the best plan in my head.  i have been doing it since i was old enough to play with toys.  no one taught me.  my son, on the other hand, has an amazing gift for figuring out how things work mechanically, way beyond his years.  at the age of 0 months, he programmed our remote control and turned on our dvd player first tv, remote or electronic component he had ever been exposed to in his life.  people are born with special abilities, even if they are subtle.   #  why do you think that everyone is genetic program for height/mass/metabolism is the same ?  #  why do you think abilities and traits do not exist on a spectrum ? a few basic principle of natural selection are that there exists differences in populations and that these differences are heritable i. e.   natural  .  while there is certainly a nurture component to the application of these base skills, you really should be providing a model for why lebron james who happens to have been given the genetic gifts of supreme coordination, a 0 0  frame and is ambidextrous is not helped at all by  natural gifts  even if he does spend an inordinate amount of time in the gym working on his game.  but he is just one example i think you have a couple questions you need to answer: why do you think every brain is the same and people are intelligent/perceptive/reasoning at equivalent amounts in the same place ? do you not think that base differences in the brain would change the way people are able to utilize learned skills, or the rate at which the aquire them ? why do you think that everyone is genetic program for height/mass/metabolism is the same ? wo not this affect their natural ability with regards to sports ? or maintaining a helpful physique for their chosen hobby ? i am 0 0  do you think that i would be able to put in the same amount of effort as a someone that is 0 0 to be an nfl running back ? what is your mechanism for how skills are achieved ? does the brain factor in at all ? does your body ? what is  learning  these skills and why does it not exist on a biologically heterogenous spectrum no matter what the skill is ?
firstly, there are people who naturally have incredible ability in one particular area, like savants and such; i am not talking about them, i am talking about the average person who has done something well and is congratulated at being  talented .  people are not naturally talented at anything; the people that excel in music/art/whatever are the ones who have been practising for years, not because they were born with some extra ability that other is have not got.  it may be true that they started learning from a young age and therefore it  seems  like they are  talented  but that is just that they started early.  i think it is somewhat different with sport, since genes do influence someone is strength and agility, but i am focusing on more mental sorts of skill, like music, acting, art.  anyway i think you get the point.  skills in certain areas are ones you accumulate, not ones you are born with.  cmv.  in actual fact the point i wanted to make is that when a friend does something well like play the piano, they should not be congratulated for having  talent , since that assumes too much.  saying that they have talent assumes that they were born above everyone else and are especially cut out for this activity.  rather we should congratulate them for hard work, not assuming that they are special.  if i then find out that they had only heard the piece they had just played once and then did a stunning performance,  that  is when they should be told they have talent.  however we should not just through the work  talent  around as if it is at the root of everything.   #  people are not naturally talented at anything; the people that excel in music/art/whatever are the ones who have been practising for years, not because they were born with some extra ability that other is have not got.   #  it may be true that they started learning from a young age and therefore it seems like they are  talented  but that is just that they started early.   # it may be true that they started learning from a young age and therefore it seems like they are  talented  but that is just that they started early.  there is a new element that you are neglecting, and that is upbringing.  someone may be raised to persevere more, to try harder, to have higher standards, and so on.  some may have had more opportunities and therefore started at a younger age.  some may have grown up in a background full of music, or art, or acting, and were exposed to and took up interest in them earlier than others.  although you are correct that skills are not entirely dependent on innate talent, they are not entirely dependent on hard work either.   #  savant skills are  not  a pay off for being socially inept.   #  i do not know what you have been reading but you should definitely not go there again.  savant skills are not caused by accidents or fits.  autistic people tend to stick and focus on one subject that they deeply admire.  in more extreme cases, they are born with the natural talent.  there was no accident or catastrophe that caused it.  savant skills are  not  a pay off for being socially inept.  that is a very derogatory statement to make.  you can not depict if their skill is justified by them not being able to speak to people or connect with people.  the majority of autistic people do not even have these  special  skills that you are talking about and some are decent with people.   #  talent is not something you can control, so you should not be congratulated on it, rather your hard work.   #  i am having to generalise a little here.  allow me to copy and paste from wikipedia a bit:   people with savant syndrome may have neurodevelopmental disorders, notably autism spectrum disorders, or brain injuries.  i am not trying to be derogative here, but the fact is that people who are savants  tend  to have difficulties in other areas.  i am not talking about autistic people, i am talking about savants.  there are a tiny amount of savants around depending on where you look , which is why i am so surprised that everyone wants to include savants in a statement about  amost people .  time to get off the topic of who to include, the point i want to make is that we should not congratulate people on their successes being down to talent, it is hard work.  talent is not something you can control, so you should not be congratulated on it, rather your hard work.   #  at the age of 0 months, he programmed our remote control and turned on our dvd player first tv, remote or electronic component he had ever been exposed to in his life.   #  my amazing talent is organizing stuff.  i am incredibly good at designing space efficiently and quickly.  i automatically see the best plan in my head.  i have been doing it since i was old enough to play with toys.  no one taught me.  my son, on the other hand, has an amazing gift for figuring out how things work mechanically, way beyond his years.  at the age of 0 months, he programmed our remote control and turned on our dvd player first tv, remote or electronic component he had ever been exposed to in his life.  people are born with special abilities, even if they are subtle.   #  i am 0 0  do you think that i would be able to put in the same amount of effort as a someone that is 0 0 to be an nfl running back ?  #  why do you think abilities and traits do not exist on a spectrum ? a few basic principle of natural selection are that there exists differences in populations and that these differences are heritable i. e.   natural  .  while there is certainly a nurture component to the application of these base skills, you really should be providing a model for why lebron james who happens to have been given the genetic gifts of supreme coordination, a 0 0  frame and is ambidextrous is not helped at all by  natural gifts  even if he does spend an inordinate amount of time in the gym working on his game.  but he is just one example i think you have a couple questions you need to answer: why do you think every brain is the same and people are intelligent/perceptive/reasoning at equivalent amounts in the same place ? do you not think that base differences in the brain would change the way people are able to utilize learned skills, or the rate at which the aquire them ? why do you think that everyone is genetic program for height/mass/metabolism is the same ? wo not this affect their natural ability with regards to sports ? or maintaining a helpful physique for their chosen hobby ? i am 0 0  do you think that i would be able to put in the same amount of effort as a someone that is 0 0 to be an nfl running back ? what is your mechanism for how skills are achieved ? does the brain factor in at all ? does your body ? what is  learning  these skills and why does it not exist on a biologically heterogenous spectrum no matter what the skill is ?
companies have a finite amount of resources in that they cannot simply print money.  because of this spending significant amounts of money on ceo pay implies that workers themselves take home less money than they could had they gotten larger raises.  i see no reason that these workers should not receive larger wages which might be the weakest point of this view.  all in all, i believe inequality is a problem that needs to be taken care of as it causes instability and problems for the economy.  if our source of demand dries up from workers no longer having sufficient money to pay for goods and services, businesses will respond two ways, cut prices or off load employees.  i strongly feel that the second option will be what businesses do which would lead to a vicious downward cycle.  change my view.   #  because of this spending significant amounts of money on ceo pay implies that workers themselves take home less money than they could had they gotten larger raises.   #  on this point specifically, i would like to note that because there is only 0 ceo, but many many employees, taking away all the ceo is pay and distributing it among the employees wo not actually result in the much of a raise.   # on this point specifically, i would like to note that because there is only 0 ceo, but many many employees, taking away all the ceo is pay and distributing it among the employees wo not actually result in the much of a raise.  larry ellison, ceo or oracle, makes $0 million.  split that among his 0 thousand employees, and its only about $0 each.  and larry is the 0rd highest paid ceo in the world, so it only goes down from there.  glenn murphy, ceo of gap, makes $0 million, split that among his 0 thousand employees is $0 each.  glenn is the 0th highest paid ceo.  there are few cases where a ceo makes a lot of money, but does not have that many employees, but the majority of people would not get that much more if their ceo did not get paid.  there are also other reasons not to cap ceo pay, i just wanted to focus on this one.  i agree that equality is a problem that needs to be solved, i just do not think that capping ceo pay is the solution.   #  now, ask yourself because this is extremely important are you ok with having an apple in the world even if it means one man/family has $0b personally.   #  whenever a hiring decision is made for any employee, the company is asking themselves two questions: 0.   does the contribution this person makes to the company exceed his or her salary ?   and 0.   how cheaply can we get an equal employee ?   the first question determines whether you should hire someone at all.  just as you would not pay $0 for goods you can then sell at $0, you would not pay $0k for someone who only provides $0k of value.  the second question is really one of supply and demand what is the going market price for a comparable object.  i would love to buy a new car for $0k, but that is not my choice to make.  i have to pay the price auto companies are willing to sell their cars.  in the labor market, you have to pay people what they are demanding for their time and skills.  let is talk about the first part for ceos.  when you are dealing with fortune 0 companies, you are talking about companies with tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars of market cap.  let is say you have an absolute rockstar ceo who makes the company 0 better in the eyes of investors.  if you have a $0b company, the ceo just raised the value of the company by $0m.  if you were a shareholder, would you be ok with paying someone $0m to raise the value by $0m ? the second part is equally important.  if you are offering $0m a year for a job, you are going to have tons of people clamoring for it.  i do not care what other people are saying about stress, if you were having people being physically tortured for $0m a year there would be takers.  this shows there is no shortage of demand of people for the job.  but, think of how many bad ceos there are out there.  there are a nearly infinite amount of people willing to take the job, you are paying $0m a year, and people can still suck.  this shows you how incredibly hard it is to be a ceo.  you are in charge of tens or hundreds of thousands of employees, commanding billions of dollars of revenue, billions of dollars of profits, etc.  a good ceo can easily create tremendous value and they are in incredibly high demand.  if one company is willing to pay $0m and the other is willing to pay $0m, an individual will gravitate towards the $0m.  now to your bigger point even if it makes sense economically for the company, should society consider things like the cost of inequality.  let is take everyone is favorite ceo as an example steve jobs.  while he is not solely responsible, it is pretty evident apple would not be remotely what it is today without his influence.  because of him, a $0b company exists in the world this is value that is shared by all stakeholders in the company.  apple employs 0k people directly and supports many more through outsourcing.  these people is livelihoods are a result of apple.  and furthermore, people have the entirety of human knowledge instantly accessible in their pocket for $0.  how much do you think someone in 0 would have paid for that ? the benefits to the world through products like this are astounding.  now, ask yourself because this is extremely important are you ok with having an apple in the world even if it means one man/family has $0b personally.  would you rather have more equality, or risk losing something like that ?  #  it seems to me the two parties engaged in the exchange have both  far  more information than you do about value, value added, etc. , and far more interest to value correctly than you do.   #  how do you determine the value of a good, service, etc.  ? why should your value of that good be forced on everyone else who have different valuations and who are the parties actually engaged in the exchange whose time/money/etc.  are being exchanged ? furthermore, what information are you using to make such a claim ? do you think the people involved and whose money is at stake have more, less, or equal information than you as well as interest in the exchange ? it seems to me the two parties engaged in the exchange have both  far  more information than you do about value, value added, etc. , and far more interest to value correctly than you do.  when you are talking about large companies with many employees, good management can increase the value of the company by  billions  of dollars and many times the salaries you are seeing which seem so ridiculous are  tied to the increase in value.   #  if my company pays me too little, as a skilled worker i can just go somewhere else.   #  i think the free market has many, many failings i think it fails on the low end of worker salaries, which is why you need regulations and minimum wage , and i think it fails for a lot of different kinds of services and goods, like, say, healthcare .  i do, however, think that is very very good at determining the value of something like a ceo.  it is a company is best interest to hire a given ceo as little as possible, just like any other employee.  if my company pays me too little, as a skilled worker i can just go somewhere else.  and my company is not going to pay me more than necessary to keep me around just for shits and giggles.  same with a ceo.  in terms of fixing inequality, i think the problem is more easily solved with a combination of raising the minimum wage and raising rates on the higher tax brackets.   #  in any society, local or global, there will always be things that are harder to understand the value in.   #  you really need to spend some more time asking questions on eli0.  because of the past decade is price fluctuation, there has been a rise in naysayers pointing a finger at the system of capitalism as a whole.  however, capitalistic systems have proven to have more static prices over time than any other system.  in any society, local or global, there will always be things that are harder to understand the value in.  the things that are most difficult to measure are what can bring an economy to it is knees.  there are many arguments as to what exactly caused the 0 financially crisis to occur, but i personally believe it was that complex financial packages such as cdo is, were hard to understand, and therefore hard to measure properly in value which lead many people to get screwed.  however, those are only a small portion of the things being traded on the market.  common things like groceries, and household items, typically remain more static in capitalistic societies than others.  because of this, families can actually plan for security rather than always worrying if they have enough.  even if a family never sits down to conduct their finances through the use of a spreadsheet, or any other tracking tool, they will usually be able to judge whether or not they are bringing in enough money each paycheck to buy enough food.  they do not have to worry that groceries are going to suddenly skyrocket next week/month.  this is a luxury brought by a capitalistic system, which does not have the same track record in other systems.
a  normal  district often has a very diverse population.  they often contain a number of different social groups.  rich/poor, liberal/conservative, suburban/rural and so on.  that means that any representative elected by such a district is highly unlikely to actually represent the entire district, that is it is likely that a large portion of those living in the district would have liked someone else.  that means that in a non gerrymandering system there are a large number of people that simply go unrepresented.  a large number of people that are simply left voiceless.  gerrymandering, as silly as it is, solves this problem.  by creating the most homogenous selection of people possible it ensures that a much bigger percentage of voters actually get the representative that they want.  i therefor think that gerrymandering is a good thing that helps us all get a government that actually represents the people.  .   #  gerrymandering, as silly as it is, solves this problem.   #  by creating the most homogenous selection of people possible it ensures that a much bigger percentage of voters actually get the representative that they want.   # by creating the most homogenous selection of people possible it ensures that a much bigger percentage of voters actually get the representative that they want.  that is not what happens at all.  in order to gerrymander districts, the party in power concentrates all their opposition into one or two districts.  these people get represented.  but in districts they intend to win, it splits the vote much more closely, while still ensuring their party dominates.  if one party wins two districts by 0 and the other party wins 0 or 0 with 0 there are a lot of people in the majority districts who are not represented.   #  for example, texas might cram as many democratic voters into a single district as possible, and then spread out all the other democratic voters into republican voting districts.   #  gerrymandering does not necessarily lead to more homogenous districts.  that is not it is purpose.  there are two basic strategies to gerrymandering, called packing and cracking URL  packing  involves cramming as many people of one group racial group, a political party, etc.  into a single voting district.  this can be done with good intentions, as in creating a majority minority district URL in order to give groups like african americans a guaranteed representative in congress or a state legislature.  but this same strategy can also be used to diminish the power of a voting group.  for example, texas might cram as many democratic voters into a single district as possible, and then spread out all the other democratic voters into republican voting districts.  that way, they ensure republican dominance of the legislature at the cost of giving away just one guaranteed seat to their rival party.  the other method,  cracking  involves spreading out members of a voting block through a bunch of different districts in order to deny their ability to elect a representative from any district.  this method is illegal when applied to racial categories, as the voting rights act makes it a crime.   packing  and  cracking  are often applied together, but they do not have to be.  in short, gerrymandering is a method that a majority party can use to ensure that its political rivals have no hope of challenging their control of the government.  even if the votes are there.  currently in us congress, republicans are estimated to have about an 0 point advantage over democrats nationwide.  in other words, democrats have to win 0 more of the national vote just in order to barely win back the majority.  one analyst estimates 0 seats in the house of representatives URL went republican due to gerrymandering.  there are some who argue the effect is smaller or larger, but none argue that there is no effect.  in 0, democrats won 0 of the total votes just over a million more votes nationwide for the house, yet lost 0 seats.  tl;dr gerrymandering has nothing to do with making districts  homogenous.   half the time it makes them less homogenous by scattering groups into other districts to dilute their vote.  the real goal of gerrymandering is political control; increasing yours and diminishing your rivals .   #  what i am saying here however is that the idea in itself of having the political parties actively manipulating the shapes of the districts should result in more people getting what they voted for.   #  i am sorry if i am being unfair to your post but there is a theme emerging here in that people are not objecting to gerrymandering as such but to how it has been abused, especially by the republicans.  i am not going to defend abuses, abuse is bad, mmmkay.  if you abuse something you are being bad and i am not going to defend you or your abuse.  what i am saying here however is that the idea in itself of having the political parties actively manipulating the shapes of the districts should result in more people getting what they voted for.  i think that the problem here is not that the republicans are doing this but that they are the only ones doing this.  when the democrats finally get of their asses and start gerrymandering right back then we should end up with a system that actually results in a more accurate representation.   #  cracking actually reduces the representation of the group getting  cracked.    #  that is a fair point and i apologize if you feel i derailed the topic a bit.  i agree, let is leave the republican/democratic stuff out of it.  the core of my point was not about abuses, it is about how gerrymandering is defined and how it is practiced.   packing  and  cracking  have nothing to do with making districts more homogenous.  rather, packing makes districts more homogenous, but cracking makes them less homogeneous.  cracking actually reduces the representation of the group getting  cracked.   it results in manipulated district shapes that ensure those people get  less  of what they voted for.  in other words, one of the major gerrymandering techniques does exactly the opposite of what your cmv says it does.  that is my real challenge to you.   #  if only one side is doing this it will indeed result in both packing and cracking.   #  true, gerrymandering is basically when the political parties manipulate the shape of the districts in order to get a more favorable results.  if only one side is doing this it will indeed result in both packing and cracking.  but if everyone is doing it then they should all be actively be trying to pack their supporters and crack their opponents.  i stipulate that the resulting back and forth should result in a nicely homogenous districts and therefor in a more proper representation.  i am not saying  would not it be nice if everyone was nice .  i am saying that if everyone is sufficiently bastardy about it the end result, when the fighting dies down  should be much more representative then the current system.
every time i watch a series or film with my girlfriend, i get 0 theories and speculations about what is going to happen next, some of which are right, and some of which are wrong.  the point is though, that i believe actively trying to deduce and meta think the film or series takes away from the wonder that the original author was trying to impart on you.  it is like trying to spent the magic show trying to figure out how the magician did the illusion instead of just enjoying the show for what it is: entertainment meant to emotionally provoke you.  i believe that allowing yourself to be swept away and immersed in the story and characters provides a far better experience than trying to prove to the author you could guess his plot, and quite frankly i get a bit irritated at people who try to do so at least, out loud, anyway .  my girlfriend, though, is of the opinion that speculation is part of the fun.  i tend to disagree, but i would love to hear alternate arguments so i can make a bit more sense of it.  :  #  it is like trying to spent the magic show trying to figure out how the magician did the illusion instead of just enjoying the show for what it is: entertainment meant to emotionally provoke you.   #  as an amateur magician, if you are not trying to figure out how the magician did his illusion, you are not getting the full experience of the show.   # as an amateur magician, if you are not trying to figure out how the magician did his illusion, you are not getting the full experience of the show.  you can appreciate magic on a much deeper level when you realize that what that card trick is  trick  is is just sleight of hand.  that took years of training to do so effortlessly that you barely noticed.  similarly with a film: you can get a fuller appreciation for the medium by realizing the patterns that the medium follows; this serves to make stories more predictable, from time to time, but it can also enrich the experience by making you more aware of the tropes of storytelling in general, and allow you to appreciate the subtle variances that are thrown on.  it is like the difference between guzzling wine down and being the sort of connoisseur who can smell and taste the different notes in a given wine.   #  just about every molecule in me hates passivity.   #  i believe the speculation is part of the fun.  i also like to read challenging books rather than books that are pure escapism.  i am sure many are like me, in that i am not a fan of being passively entertained.  i enjoy it more when my brain is getting a workout.  just about every molecule in me hates passivity.  even listening to music makes me want to play my guitar.  my wife is the opposite.  we have two kids one is like me and one is like her.  i think it is just the way people are wired.   #  the fun of a magic trick is what it creates in your brain, not what you see with your eyes.   #  i think you definitely should try to think about how a magician does a trick.  the fun of a magic trick is what it creates in your brain, not what you see with your eyes.  a magic performance of  sawing a woman in half  is a different experience than watching a cartoon of  sawing a woman in half  and that is because we know cartoons are not real.  even though the content is the same the magic show is designed to make you think  how did they do that ?   there are certainly some arts that are meant to just wash over you without engaging critical analysis.  but i do not think magic is one of them.  i think most tv shows are better with deep analysis.  i just used magic as the clearest example of a show that should be thought about.   #  authors and directors derive their material from inspiration from stories they have experienced.   #  actively trying to figure out what happens in a book, movie, or show may ruin the individual story but i feel it does a greater good in the long run.  ultimately the reason audience members can predict what is going to happen is because they have seen it before somewhere else.  authors and directors derive their material from inspiration from stories they have experienced.  the stories the authors and directors have experienced are most likely the same stories the audience has experienced.  many times authors and directors wont intentionally copy content from other works, but instead they do it subconsciously because the work their inspiration is coming from has been that impactful to them.  when you read an author or screenwriters work, predict what is going to happen, and then point out the parallels to other works, at first the author will most likely be upset.  however, after they have gotten over how upset they are that their story is predictable, they will work harder at changing it so that it becomes harder to predict.  a good author will leave foreshadowing embedded into the story so that the audience  can  predict the ending if they tried.  it does not give the audience member any pleasure if they could not predict the ending because the plot twist was completely random to the main plot.  however, when you give subtle clues that the audience can look back on and say  oh god how did i miss that ?  , that is when you have written something great.  great writing comes from trial and error.  if no one tries to predict what is going to happen, authors would most likely produce the same formulaic story over and over and the audience would be void of any films or books that are different.   #  sub standard storytelling is more useful to me to study than experience, as any enjoyment i have lost is repaid a hundredfold when i encounter that which is truly great of which there really is no shortage .   #  i am fairly talented at this sort of thing, figuring out what is going to happen before it does.  i have to ask myself what the creator meant when they wrote down every word or composed every shot.  if i am right, i expect certain things to happen later on which will confirm what i believe to know.  it is not even intentional any more.  the thing is though, if the author or writer is talented enough themselves, i should either be  wrong  about my expectations which is not to say that there ca not be foreshadowing , or otherwise my foreknowledge should not greatly impact my enjoyment of the story.  i knew  exactly  what would happen in, say,  the stranger  based only on the description on the back of the book and the first page of the story, but that did not detract from my enjoyment of it in any meaningful way.  i also had no idea at all where  catch 0  was going until almost the end despite my considerable penchant for such things, and i loved it heller was right when he said nobody has ever written anything as good .  if i, with my complete lack of formal education in all things artistic, can discern the major plot developments of a story long before they occur, and if the author of that story seriously intended these developments to be unknown beforehand, than the issue lies with them, not me.  sub standard storytelling is more useful to me to study than experience, as any enjoyment i have lost is repaid a hundredfold when i encounter that which is truly great of which there really is no shortage .
hello, my name is stvey, and i believe justin bieber should be deported under drug crimes.  justin bieber has a green card, which makes him generally applicable to deportation back to his home nation, of canada.  the several times he has used drugs marijuana counts as a multiple moral turpitude offense, which generally is considered against standards of  contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.   furthermore, grounds of deportation contain:  . is, or at any time after u. s.  admission has been, a drug abuser or addict.    . any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of or a conspiracy or attempt to violate any law or regulation of a state, the united states, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance as defined in section 0 of title 0 .   all of which bieber has committed.  there has also been first person testimony against bieber, for example those who stated that on bieber is plane, large amounts of marijuana was smoked.  furthermore, a drug test has stated that he was driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and xanax.  under any other immigrant, they would most definitely be deported.  thanks !  #  the several times he has used drugs marijuana counts as a multiple moral turpitude offense, which generally is considered against standards of  contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.    #  our country is in the middle of a  green revolution .   #  well it is a real shame your opinion does not inform the justice system.  i am not saying he deserves to stay here; i am saying he wo not get deported for this, as no celebrity would.  our country is in the middle of a  green revolution .  here is a list for you: URL most states do not even punish marijuana use, let alone enforce it against a high profile celebrity.  belief that he is susceptible to this because he has a green card is silly.  would you believe he deserved to go to jail if he were an american citizen ? it sounds like you want him punished for a crime he committed, which is fine and all; but it sounds more like you want to use this crime as a justification for what you actually want, which is him to be deported.  i hate to break it to you, but justin bieber is going to be famous, rich, and live a better more fulfilling life than you no matter where he lives.  the rules wo not apply to him, he will go places and do things you could never dream of literally or afford in your wildest dreams.  and a couple tokes of grass is not going to change or stop that in any way.  guess what ? justin bieber is deported from america for drug use ? kicks off a world tour of everywhere but the us, starting in amsterdam.  he makes a ton of money and continues moving about the countries of the world, being above the law, having unprotected sex with beautiful women, enjoying the finest vices available, etc.  where he is on the planet is basically completely irrelevant to his success and stardom.  in fact, having him be deported would probably give his career which is waning and on the down slope a sudden and major  jolt , i would suspect.  he would go from aging poorly pop star to bad boy tattoo covered weed smoking law breaking badass who sings songs written by fat white guys and unattractive women who bilk pennies off his voice and face.  the world is an unfair world; do not assume that just because  it would happen to anyone else who did it  is a good enough argument.  not only does it not matter where he lives, the rules do not apply to him.  i honestly have not even heard of him in the past.  however long it is been since i first said  who ?   when i the office was talking about justice beavers.  him breaking what is slowly becoming the memory of a silly law is not enough to get him deported.  and even if it was, that is like sending a kid to his room filled with xboxes and whatnot as  punishment .   #  the law should deal in justice not capitalistic min/max of profit or we might just cut to making prisons into workcamps and crimes are reduced to excuses for turning citizens into low maintainance slaves.   #  it is the same thing, people with shitloads of money is treated differently in the eyes of the law.  the reasons they are rich should not matter, that they make cash should not matter.  a crime is a crime and socioeconomic standings should not matter.  why accept a social contract, rule of law that openly favors a minority of people of which you are not included ? the law should deal in justice not capitalistic min/max of profit or we might just cut to making prisons into workcamps and crimes are reduced to excuses for turning citizens into low maintainance slaves.   #  this is the kind of reasoning that keeps pedophiles and sociopaths in places of power, untouchables.   #  to clarify, if you thumb on this law, compromise justice with profit, why stop there ? a standard is already set making people unequal in the eyes of the law.  what stops this reasoning from influencing other parts of the justice system ? taxes could help everyone but when you thumb with justice for profit then everyone does not actually mean everyone.  it means everyone that is profitable.  the law should not be a system of oppression viewing and judging people based on their income/contribution.  this is the kind of reasoning that keeps pedophiles and sociopaths in places of power, untouchables.   #  justin bieber despite how much weed he smokes is not hurting the country in any tangible way.   #  i mean, say what you will about him as a person or musician, but justin bieber is an industry that employs thousands of people across the entire country.  he also generates millions of dollars worth of revenue, not just for himself or his record company, but for venues, retailers, merchandisers, the service companies that provide food and people for his tours, hell even scalpers and fan artists if you want to get really granular.  people are deported because they are hurting the country, either by contributing to crime or by directly causing injury to their fellows.  justin bieber despite how much weed he smokes is not hurting the country in any tangible way.  like it or not bieber is more valuable than a typical immigrant, and that a big part of what immigration law cares about.  so far he is only been convicted of crimes that damage himself the dui being on the shady side of that line .   #  note: spending vs saving as it relates to economic health is pretty controversial as a general topic b/c of househeld debt and a million other factors.   # when i say bieber generates a profit, it does not just mean that he is taking lots money from millions and sifting through himself to distribute it in larger parcels to other people.  it is not just redistribution of wealth, he literally creates value.  in terms of the actual economy, there is more money at the end of a bieber concert than there was before.  note: spending vs saving as it relates to economic health is pretty controversial as a general topic b/c of househeld debt and a million other factors.  economics is complicated and i am only slightly knowledgeable about it disclaimer aside: if bieber had never existed, maybe you are right, maybe there would be another pop star in his exact place.  or maybe the jonas brothers would never have broken up, who knows.  but that does not matter, because he does exist, and deporting him does not suddenly wipe out the memory of him from millions of fans, hell it would probably make him an even bigger star because of all the martyr points he would get.  so, yeah, eventually there would be another pop star.  but that is going to happen anyway as bieber ages out.  deporting him just kills a lot of jobs now.
hello, my name is stvey, and i believe justin bieber should be deported under drug crimes.  justin bieber has a green card, which makes him generally applicable to deportation back to his home nation, of canada.  the several times he has used drugs marijuana counts as a multiple moral turpitude offense, which generally is considered against standards of  contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.   furthermore, grounds of deportation contain:  . is, or at any time after u. s.  admission has been, a drug abuser or addict.    . any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of or a conspiracy or attempt to violate any law or regulation of a state, the united states, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance as defined in section 0 of title 0 .   all of which bieber has committed.  there has also been first person testimony against bieber, for example those who stated that on bieber is plane, large amounts of marijuana was smoked.  furthermore, a drug test has stated that he was driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and xanax.  under any other immigrant, they would most definitely be deported.  thanks !  #  a drug test has stated that he was driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and xanax.   #  under any other immigrant, they would most definitely be deported.   # under any other immigrant, they would most definitely be deported.  i can tell you from experience that this is not true, even for repeat offenders.  i dated a gal from canada, she had a visa, was definitely not a permanent resident.  she not only was caught driving under the influence of all of the above, she caused multiple accidents within a relatively short amount of time, was caught with weed on her person, and did not have insurance.  she went to court, and got a slap on the wrist.  not even community service.  deportation did not even come up.   #  it is the same thing, people with shitloads of money is treated differently in the eyes of the law.   #  it is the same thing, people with shitloads of money is treated differently in the eyes of the law.  the reasons they are rich should not matter, that they make cash should not matter.  a crime is a crime and socioeconomic standings should not matter.  why accept a social contract, rule of law that openly favors a minority of people of which you are not included ? the law should deal in justice not capitalistic min/max of profit or we might just cut to making prisons into workcamps and crimes are reduced to excuses for turning citizens into low maintainance slaves.   #  the law should not be a system of oppression viewing and judging people based on their income/contribution.   #  to clarify, if you thumb on this law, compromise justice with profit, why stop there ? a standard is already set making people unequal in the eyes of the law.  what stops this reasoning from influencing other parts of the justice system ? taxes could help everyone but when you thumb with justice for profit then everyone does not actually mean everyone.  it means everyone that is profitable.  the law should not be a system of oppression viewing and judging people based on their income/contribution.  this is the kind of reasoning that keeps pedophiles and sociopaths in places of power, untouchables.   #  justin bieber despite how much weed he smokes is not hurting the country in any tangible way.   #  i mean, say what you will about him as a person or musician, but justin bieber is an industry that employs thousands of people across the entire country.  he also generates millions of dollars worth of revenue, not just for himself or his record company, but for venues, retailers, merchandisers, the service companies that provide food and people for his tours, hell even scalpers and fan artists if you want to get really granular.  people are deported because they are hurting the country, either by contributing to crime or by directly causing injury to their fellows.  justin bieber despite how much weed he smokes is not hurting the country in any tangible way.  like it or not bieber is more valuable than a typical immigrant, and that a big part of what immigration law cares about.  so far he is only been convicted of crimes that damage himself the dui being on the shady side of that line .   #  it is not just redistribution of wealth, he literally creates value.   # when i say bieber generates a profit, it does not just mean that he is taking lots money from millions and sifting through himself to distribute it in larger parcels to other people.  it is not just redistribution of wealth, he literally creates value.  in terms of the actual economy, there is more money at the end of a bieber concert than there was before.  note: spending vs saving as it relates to economic health is pretty controversial as a general topic b/c of househeld debt and a million other factors.  economics is complicated and i am only slightly knowledgeable about it disclaimer aside: if bieber had never existed, maybe you are right, maybe there would be another pop star in his exact place.  or maybe the jonas brothers would never have broken up, who knows.  but that does not matter, because he does exist, and deporting him does not suddenly wipe out the memory of him from millions of fans, hell it would probably make him an even bigger star because of all the martyr points he would get.  so, yeah, eventually there would be another pop star.  but that is going to happen anyway as bieber ages out.  deporting him just kills a lot of jobs now.
hi /r/changemyview.  i am sure many of you are familiar with the subreddit /r/tumblrinaction.  i am posting here because i do not really get why so many seem to like it.  i feel like i am going crazy here, because i just realized that the sub has so many of the same qualities as /r/shitredditsays, a sub that i really dislike.  i want help to reconcile these differences.  some things i noticed:   hyperbole and misrepresentation.  obviously it is a circlejerk sub, but i really feel like people there actually believe what they say about what feminists believe.  i lurk /r/femradebates a lot and have learned a lot about both mrm and feminism there, and have noticed a huge disconnect between what is said there and what people circlejerk about in tia.  what tia says about feminists is like what srs says about mras.    outrage culture.  it is been getting really bad there lately.  it used to be pretty chill but people are getting so angry and worked up that it feels really toxic now.  i browse /r/tiadiscussion and a lot of people seem to agree.  there was even a sticky mod post about how to deal with rage.  URL   missing sarcasm/obvious jokes, and circlejerking about the opposition anyways.  srs does this a lot with regards to mras and they get a lot of flak rightfully for it.  but then i see things like this on the front page of tia: URL and am starting to think that you can post almost anything fake from tumblr to circlejerk about.    starting to attract actual bigots.  srs can get really bad with the actual communists eg.  mao/stalin apologists and that sucks.  i am a muslim and i really hate how tumblr tries to speak on our behalf, but i hate islamophobes way more.  threads like this: URL were really disheartening to me especially because the article itself was so sensationalist and pretty much made shit up.  i had the op of that thread tagged as an islamophobic white nationalist before so it sucks to see that actual bigots can get away with using the sub as a political soapbox.  : plus the whole 0chan vs.  tumblr thing showed that there were a lot of 0chan. org/pol/ users there.  a place that is legitimately fucked up.    touching the poop.  srs likes to see themselves as the white knights of reddit who like to call out reddit, but tia is starting to act like shittumblrsays more and more.  it is supposed to be a humor sub not the sub that keeps watch over the shit that tumblrinas say.  this one feels so weird.  people are even starting to act like the tumblr police: URL that is just what srs likes to do too when they cry to the reddit admins ?   this last one is really petty but i feel like the cult of personality around the mods has been getting a bit over the top.  the mods of tia are treated like the archangelles of srs.  it is really weird to me.  i thought about this for awhile, and i first thought that one major difference between the two subreddits is that tia does not ban anybody with a different opinion like srs does.  but when i thought about it some more i realized that since srs is so unpopular and tia is so popular that tia does not need any mod enforcement to make the sub a circlejerk.  i remember seeing someone try to support affirmative action on the sub and they got hammered with downvotes even when they were being completely reasonable.  this part made the thread go in a direction i did not care about so i am removing it tl;dr: i am starting to dislike tia because it is become like a mirror of /r/shitredditsays.  please convince me where i am wrong ! it just feels really weird to laugh at srs types when the sub acts just like them.   #  i thought about this for awhile, and i first thought that one major difference between the two subreddits is that tia does not ban anybody with a different opinion like srs does.   #  but when i thought about it some more i realized that since srs is so unpopular and tia is so popular that tia does not need any mod enforcement to make the sub a circlejerk.   # but when i thought about it some more i realized that since srs is so unpopular and tia is so popular that tia does not need any mod enforcement to make the sub a circlejerk.  i remember seeing someone try to support affirmative action on the sub and they got hammered with downvotes even when they were being completely reasonable.  that may be true, but there is still a significant difference there.  the way it is now the tia community still has the potential to do better, for example to be more accepting of differing or unpopular opinions.  whereas the similiar bad attitudes we can see in srs are built into the whole structure of that community; how the subs are run, how they are connected, how they are introduced to new users like the casual bigotry built right in to the official srs faq .  it is like a few bad apples in a pile can potentially be picked out, or just not eaten, but make apple sauce with that and now the bad is inextricable from the rest; its now all bad.  the srs community is irreversibly poisoned, is what i am saying.  whereas in the tia subs you will find some attitudes and views you agree with and some you very much do not, but that is ok because agreement with specific views is not enforced there and it is not meant to be.   #  i will admit the thread you linked about islamaphobia is depressing, but i have also seen a lot of instances of people on tia jumping all over people expressing bigoted views.   #  the difference is, tia members are pretty clear that they do not believe  all  feminists are like that, just crazy tumblrite radfems.  tia members tend to be in favor of most of the ideals espoused by mainstream feminism.  people posting satire and troll blogs is a problem on tia that the mods are trying to combat and usually at least some people in the comments point out that it is a troll/satire post.  whereas doing so on srs is a banworthy offense.  i will admit the thread you linked about islamaphobia is depressing, but i have also seen a lot of instances of people on tia jumping all over people expressing bigoted views.   #  yeah that was one thing i liked about the sub at first but since it is gotten bigger i feel like it is become a losing battle.   # i do not know.  i feel like that is starting to become less and less true as the sub has gotten bigger.  i have seen people try and defend feminists but it is almost always met with downvotes and something about how  since feminists are not actively campaigning against these extremists then that means they must support them !   that argument annoys me because i have seen so many bigots use it to justify hating all muslims.  whereas doing so on srs is a banworthy offense.  i do not get how that counters my view ? yeah that was one thing i liked about the sub at first but since it is gotten bigger i feel like it is become a losing battle.   #  i do not have a problem with feminists trying to deal with getting more women into stem, or more female ceos or something like that.   #  i will speak for only myself because i am on there.  there is a difference between feminism as espoused by people offline and the feminism espoused by tumblr.  tumblrfems are different in that they tend to be active haters, which is pretty bad.  they like to say things like  bathing in male tears  or things like that.  the hate, i have a problem with.  i do not have a problem with feminists trying to deal with getting more women into stem, or more female ceos or something like that.  the rape thing is complex, because it is really two problems at once there is an actual rape problem on campus that the campuses have been reluctant to deal with and there is a problem with how they are proposing to deal with these issues going forward.  the answer to  underreaction  is not  overreaction , and taking an active shit on the bedrock of american jurisprudence by removing the presumption of innocence is compounding evil.  the other thing is that a lot of the people on that board are actually the minorities that tumblr claims to speak for.  this is not a case of straight white males deciding what is or is not a minority issue.  it is actual trans guy disputing the tumblr version of trans, or a gay guy laughing about what tumblr thinks gsm is all about.  or in my case, a female befuddled at the narrow gender roles that constitute being an actual woman best i can tell is that i am supposed to be genderqueer or nanogender because i do not think and act like the dowager countess on downtown abbey .  i think that is different from srs, because my read on srs is that they are doing a lot of what tumblrites do speaking for other people, not finding out what is a joke that even op is laughing about, and in general trying to project their views onto everyone else.   #  i do not think you can claim moral superiority just based off that.   # this is not a case of straight white males deciding what is or is not a minority issue.  it is actual trans guy disputing the tumblr version of trans, or a gay guy laughing about what tumblr thinks gsm is all about.  or in my case, a female befuddled at the narrow gender roles that constitute being an actual woman best i can tell is that i am supposed to be genderqueer or nanogender because i do not think and act like the dowager countess on downtown abbey .  i think that is different from srs, because my read on srs is that they are doing a lot of what tumblrites do speaking for other people, not finding out what is a joke that even op is laughing about, and in general trying to project their views onto everyone else.  well, while tia is certainly more inclusive than most other boards it is still majority straight white guys like srs.  i do not think you can claim moral superiority just based off that.  srs and tumblr are also higher than average minority demographics too.
i believe the fact that most americans are fat or obese is pathetic since staying average size for sake of argument, i would define average between 0 0 bmi although i know bmi is not a great measure of a healthy weight is easy.  in fact, very easy.  what i do to stay in decent shape: 0.  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  0.  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  0.  limit the amount of times i go out to a restaurant for dinner, since american portion sizes are ridiculous.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  0.  i do not eat excessively or drink lots of beer at weekend social gatherings.  i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  thats it.  nothing special, no crazy diets, no 0 hour a day exercise programs, no special pills, and i maintain a good shape, 0 bmi, while having a 0 hour a day office job.  cmw, i think it is easy not to be fat.   #  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.   #  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.   # no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  it is great for you that these do not cost an arm and a leg.  but cost is relative.  you do not know everyone is financial situation, or living situation.  you know what a lot of places that have cheap rent lack ? a working oven.  you know what is cheaper than buying an oven ? taco bell.  you see the problem in this ? so do the people who are living that diet.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  lucky you to live so close to the gym.  my 0 hour job actually 0 hours with a lunch break plus hour each way commute means that when i get home, i want to do something that will actually de stress me.  going to a gym and repeatedly moving heavy things is not one of them.  martial arts is one of my favorite things to do, but the closest studio is 0 mins from my house, 0 mins from my job, and costs way more monthly than i can afford.  and if i do not actively want to do it, chances are i wo not do it, so a gym membership is a straight up drain on my bank account for no benefit.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  sticking with the poor thing, this kinda speaks for itself, but you also must be a master at disappointing visiting relatives/friends.  while i agree this is a personal/subjective thing, part of the problem is that america is default night out involves massive caloric intake.  and everyone who you have not seen in forever keeps begging  just this one time  and how do you explain to them that no, you did it for the last 0 visiting friends but you  really  ca not do it for  them  when they laid on the same guilt trip ? i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  see point 0, but to add to that: this goes back to that genetic thing.  we are trained to eat when our stomach makes noise at us, no matter what other caloric intake we have that day.   #  and many people that are fat do not have even 0 minutes per day that they can devote to going to the gym.   #  you seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of the term  easy .  perhaps what you are looking for is  not complicated .  yes, there are steps that you can take that will result in not being fat, and as you point out they can be listed in a short 0 point list.  heck, i could make an even  less complicated  list of steps: 0 to lose weight, consume fewer calories than you expend.  what you are missing that these things are, while simple, not  easy  for many people to do.  everyone is literally physically addicted to food.  food raises many of exactly the same signals in your brain that cocaine does though at much lower magnitude , and unlike most addictive drugs, you ca not break the addiction by going  cold turkey  because you have to eat to live.  and many people that are fat do not have even 0 minutes per day that they can devote to going to the gym.  and many others have psychological and even physical difficulties with exercise.  i, for example, have exercise induced asthma.  exercise hurts.  no one likes that.  it is not  easy .   #  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.   #  it is wrong when you are morbidly obese and it affects everyone around you.  as in when i have to sit next to a 0 lb person on an airplane/bus/car or when obese people get  disability  benefits through insurance or otherwise.  changing lifestyles can definitely be easy if you take small enough steps.  like waking up one morning and saying i will eat 0 less calories today when i am normally eating 0 calories a day.  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.  if 0 calories is too much, drop down to 0.  another example is saying that i will walk for 0 min today.  after a week, add another 0 min.  surely you can find 0 min everyday.  before you know it, you will be on a 0 calorie diet and walking an hour a day.   #  the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.   #  in addition to the genetic aspect which has already been mentioned i would like to talk about the money part.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, green veggies etc are not very expensive.  however, preparing a fresh meal takes time.  for many low income families, time  is  money.  kraft dinner is simply way faster and cheaper than whole wheat pasta with homemade marinara sauce.  a box of kraft dinner serving 0 is 0$ at walmart in canada.  let is say you eat one box of kraft dinner per day.  cheap, fast, easy.  add some milk and you got your food.  that would add up to less than $0 per month if you only eat that and some milk.  what about if you eat two packs of kraft dinner per day ? that is less than $0 every month on food.  of course, most families would also have some other canned varieties canned fruit, veggies, maybe some ham which are cheaper and keep for longer than their fresh counterparts.  it is even cheaper if you get the 0cent no name spaghetti and split that through several days.  you see where i am going regarding carbs ? it is usually cheap ! the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.  it is hard for parents especially single parents of small children who work at minimum wage jobs to find the time to go to the gym if they are exhausted from their work and have to take care of children.  a person who is financially comfortable, does not have kids/can have someone else take care of their kids, and has the time/income to spend on buying and preparing fresh food and going to the gym is going to have a relatively easier time objectively, according to your post staying fit.  however, there are also genetic and emotional factors at play.  lastly, though tangentially related, thin people also should up their game in an effort to get to a healthier weight by the same value implication that  average  is better.  that is actually a topic i would love to see being discussed.   #  like drug addiction, food addiction is caused by a myriad of psychological and emotional issues, often having very little to do with physical hunger.   #  this is the exact same argument as telling addicts that it is easy to not be an addict, just stop doing drugs.  of course it is not that easy.  like drug addiction, food addiction is caused by a myriad of psychological and emotional issues, often having very little to do with physical hunger.  when people have spent most of their lives using food to treat their anxiety, depression and boredom, telling to just eat less is not really going to work.  as for exercise, while it can have some impact, most research now indicates that exercise itself has only a minor impact on weight.  diet is by and large the primary driver.
i believe the fact that most americans are fat or obese is pathetic since staying average size for sake of argument, i would define average between 0 0 bmi although i know bmi is not a great measure of a healthy weight is easy.  in fact, very easy.  what i do to stay in decent shape: 0.  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  0.  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  0.  limit the amount of times i go out to a restaurant for dinner, since american portion sizes are ridiculous.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  0.  i do not eat excessively or drink lots of beer at weekend social gatherings.  i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  thats it.  nothing special, no crazy diets, no 0 hour a day exercise programs, no special pills, and i maintain a good shape, 0 bmi, while having a 0 hour a day office job.  cmw, i think it is easy not to be fat.   #  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.   #  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.   # no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  it is great for you that these do not cost an arm and a leg.  but cost is relative.  you do not know everyone is financial situation, or living situation.  you know what a lot of places that have cheap rent lack ? a working oven.  you know what is cheaper than buying an oven ? taco bell.  you see the problem in this ? so do the people who are living that diet.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  lucky you to live so close to the gym.  my 0 hour job actually 0 hours with a lunch break plus hour each way commute means that when i get home, i want to do something that will actually de stress me.  going to a gym and repeatedly moving heavy things is not one of them.  martial arts is one of my favorite things to do, but the closest studio is 0 mins from my house, 0 mins from my job, and costs way more monthly than i can afford.  and if i do not actively want to do it, chances are i wo not do it, so a gym membership is a straight up drain on my bank account for no benefit.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  sticking with the poor thing, this kinda speaks for itself, but you also must be a master at disappointing visiting relatives/friends.  while i agree this is a personal/subjective thing, part of the problem is that america is default night out involves massive caloric intake.  and everyone who you have not seen in forever keeps begging  just this one time  and how do you explain to them that no, you did it for the last 0 visiting friends but you  really  ca not do it for  them  when they laid on the same guilt trip ? i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  see point 0, but to add to that: this goes back to that genetic thing.  we are trained to eat when our stomach makes noise at us, no matter what other caloric intake we have that day.   #  perhaps what you are looking for is  not complicated .   #  you seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of the term  easy .  perhaps what you are looking for is  not complicated .  yes, there are steps that you can take that will result in not being fat, and as you point out they can be listed in a short 0 point list.  heck, i could make an even  less complicated  list of steps: 0 to lose weight, consume fewer calories than you expend.  what you are missing that these things are, while simple, not  easy  for many people to do.  everyone is literally physically addicted to food.  food raises many of exactly the same signals in your brain that cocaine does though at much lower magnitude , and unlike most addictive drugs, you ca not break the addiction by going  cold turkey  because you have to eat to live.  and many people that are fat do not have even 0 minutes per day that they can devote to going to the gym.  and many others have psychological and even physical difficulties with exercise.  i, for example, have exercise induced asthma.  exercise hurts.  no one likes that.  it is not  easy .   #  changing lifestyles can definitely be easy if you take small enough steps.   #  it is wrong when you are morbidly obese and it affects everyone around you.  as in when i have to sit next to a 0 lb person on an airplane/bus/car or when obese people get  disability  benefits through insurance or otherwise.  changing lifestyles can definitely be easy if you take small enough steps.  like waking up one morning and saying i will eat 0 less calories today when i am normally eating 0 calories a day.  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.  if 0 calories is too much, drop down to 0.  another example is saying that i will walk for 0 min today.  after a week, add another 0 min.  surely you can find 0 min everyday.  before you know it, you will be on a 0 calorie diet and walking an hour a day.   #  it is hard for parents especially single parents of small children who work at minimum wage jobs to find the time to go to the gym if they are exhausted from their work and have to take care of children.   #  in addition to the genetic aspect which has already been mentioned i would like to talk about the money part.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, green veggies etc are not very expensive.  however, preparing a fresh meal takes time.  for many low income families, time  is  money.  kraft dinner is simply way faster and cheaper than whole wheat pasta with homemade marinara sauce.  a box of kraft dinner serving 0 is 0$ at walmart in canada.  let is say you eat one box of kraft dinner per day.  cheap, fast, easy.  add some milk and you got your food.  that would add up to less than $0 per month if you only eat that and some milk.  what about if you eat two packs of kraft dinner per day ? that is less than $0 every month on food.  of course, most families would also have some other canned varieties canned fruit, veggies, maybe some ham which are cheaper and keep for longer than their fresh counterparts.  it is even cheaper if you get the 0cent no name spaghetti and split that through several days.  you see where i am going regarding carbs ? it is usually cheap ! the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.  it is hard for parents especially single parents of small children who work at minimum wage jobs to find the time to go to the gym if they are exhausted from their work and have to take care of children.  a person who is financially comfortable, does not have kids/can have someone else take care of their kids, and has the time/income to spend on buying and preparing fresh food and going to the gym is going to have a relatively easier time objectively, according to your post staying fit.  however, there are also genetic and emotional factors at play.  lastly, though tangentially related, thin people also should up their game in an effort to get to a healthier weight by the same value implication that  average  is better.  that is actually a topic i would love to see being discussed.   #  this is the exact same argument as telling addicts that it is easy to not be an addict, just stop doing drugs.   #  this is the exact same argument as telling addicts that it is easy to not be an addict, just stop doing drugs.  of course it is not that easy.  like drug addiction, food addiction is caused by a myriad of psychological and emotional issues, often having very little to do with physical hunger.  when people have spent most of their lives using food to treat their anxiety, depression and boredom, telling to just eat less is not really going to work.  as for exercise, while it can have some impact, most research now indicates that exercise itself has only a minor impact on weight.  diet is by and large the primary driver.
i believe the fact that most americans are fat or obese is pathetic since staying average size for sake of argument, i would define average between 0 0 bmi although i know bmi is not a great measure of a healthy weight is easy.  in fact, very easy.  what i do to stay in decent shape: 0.  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  0.  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  0.  limit the amount of times i go out to a restaurant for dinner, since american portion sizes are ridiculous.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  0.  i do not eat excessively or drink lots of beer at weekend social gatherings.  i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  thats it.  nothing special, no crazy diets, no 0 hour a day exercise programs, no special pills, and i maintain a good shape, 0 bmi, while having a 0 hour a day office job.  cmw, i think it is easy not to be fat.   #  limit the amount of times i go out to a restaurant for dinner, since american portion sizes are ridiculous.   #  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.   # no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  it is great for you that these do not cost an arm and a leg.  but cost is relative.  you do not know everyone is financial situation, or living situation.  you know what a lot of places that have cheap rent lack ? a working oven.  you know what is cheaper than buying an oven ? taco bell.  you see the problem in this ? so do the people who are living that diet.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  lucky you to live so close to the gym.  my 0 hour job actually 0 hours with a lunch break plus hour each way commute means that when i get home, i want to do something that will actually de stress me.  going to a gym and repeatedly moving heavy things is not one of them.  martial arts is one of my favorite things to do, but the closest studio is 0 mins from my house, 0 mins from my job, and costs way more monthly than i can afford.  and if i do not actively want to do it, chances are i wo not do it, so a gym membership is a straight up drain on my bank account for no benefit.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  sticking with the poor thing, this kinda speaks for itself, but you also must be a master at disappointing visiting relatives/friends.  while i agree this is a personal/subjective thing, part of the problem is that america is default night out involves massive caloric intake.  and everyone who you have not seen in forever keeps begging  just this one time  and how do you explain to them that no, you did it for the last 0 visiting friends but you  really  ca not do it for  them  when they laid on the same guilt trip ? i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  see point 0, but to add to that: this goes back to that genetic thing.  we are trained to eat when our stomach makes noise at us, no matter what other caloric intake we have that day.   #  what you are missing that these things are, while simple, not  easy  for many people to do.   #  you seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of the term  easy .  perhaps what you are looking for is  not complicated .  yes, there are steps that you can take that will result in not being fat, and as you point out they can be listed in a short 0 point list.  heck, i could make an even  less complicated  list of steps: 0 to lose weight, consume fewer calories than you expend.  what you are missing that these things are, while simple, not  easy  for many people to do.  everyone is literally physically addicted to food.  food raises many of exactly the same signals in your brain that cocaine does though at much lower magnitude , and unlike most addictive drugs, you ca not break the addiction by going  cold turkey  because you have to eat to live.  and many people that are fat do not have even 0 minutes per day that they can devote to going to the gym.  and many others have psychological and even physical difficulties with exercise.  i, for example, have exercise induced asthma.  exercise hurts.  no one likes that.  it is not  easy .   #  before you know it, you will be on a 0 calorie diet and walking an hour a day.   #  it is wrong when you are morbidly obese and it affects everyone around you.  as in when i have to sit next to a 0 lb person on an airplane/bus/car or when obese people get  disability  benefits through insurance or otherwise.  changing lifestyles can definitely be easy if you take small enough steps.  like waking up one morning and saying i will eat 0 less calories today when i am normally eating 0 calories a day.  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.  if 0 calories is too much, drop down to 0.  another example is saying that i will walk for 0 min today.  after a week, add another 0 min.  surely you can find 0 min everyday.  before you know it, you will be on a 0 calorie diet and walking an hour a day.   #  it is hard for parents especially single parents of small children who work at minimum wage jobs to find the time to go to the gym if they are exhausted from their work and have to take care of children.   #  in addition to the genetic aspect which has already been mentioned i would like to talk about the money part.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, green veggies etc are not very expensive.  however, preparing a fresh meal takes time.  for many low income families, time  is  money.  kraft dinner is simply way faster and cheaper than whole wheat pasta with homemade marinara sauce.  a box of kraft dinner serving 0 is 0$ at walmart in canada.  let is say you eat one box of kraft dinner per day.  cheap, fast, easy.  add some milk and you got your food.  that would add up to less than $0 per month if you only eat that and some milk.  what about if you eat two packs of kraft dinner per day ? that is less than $0 every month on food.  of course, most families would also have some other canned varieties canned fruit, veggies, maybe some ham which are cheaper and keep for longer than their fresh counterparts.  it is even cheaper if you get the 0cent no name spaghetti and split that through several days.  you see where i am going regarding carbs ? it is usually cheap ! the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.  it is hard for parents especially single parents of small children who work at minimum wage jobs to find the time to go to the gym if they are exhausted from their work and have to take care of children.  a person who is financially comfortable, does not have kids/can have someone else take care of their kids, and has the time/income to spend on buying and preparing fresh food and going to the gym is going to have a relatively easier time objectively, according to your post staying fit.  however, there are also genetic and emotional factors at play.  lastly, though tangentially related, thin people also should up their game in an effort to get to a healthier weight by the same value implication that  average  is better.  that is actually a topic i would love to see being discussed.   #  as for exercise, while it can have some impact, most research now indicates that exercise itself has only a minor impact on weight.   #  this is the exact same argument as telling addicts that it is easy to not be an addict, just stop doing drugs.  of course it is not that easy.  like drug addiction, food addiction is caused by a myriad of psychological and emotional issues, often having very little to do with physical hunger.  when people have spent most of their lives using food to treat their anxiety, depression and boredom, telling to just eat less is not really going to work.  as for exercise, while it can have some impact, most research now indicates that exercise itself has only a minor impact on weight.  diet is by and large the primary driver.
i believe the fact that most americans are fat or obese is pathetic since staying average size for sake of argument, i would define average between 0 0 bmi although i know bmi is not a great measure of a healthy weight is easy.  in fact, very easy.  what i do to stay in decent shape: 0.  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  0.  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  0.  limit the amount of times i go out to a restaurant for dinner, since american portion sizes are ridiculous.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  0.  i do not eat excessively or drink lots of beer at weekend social gatherings.  i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  thats it.  nothing special, no crazy diets, no 0 hour a day exercise programs, no special pills, and i maintain a good shape, 0 bmi, while having a 0 hour a day office job.  cmw, i think it is easy not to be fat.   #  i do not eat excessively or drink lots of beer at weekend social gatherings.   #  i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.   # no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  it is great for you that these do not cost an arm and a leg.  but cost is relative.  you do not know everyone is financial situation, or living situation.  you know what a lot of places that have cheap rent lack ? a working oven.  you know what is cheaper than buying an oven ? taco bell.  you see the problem in this ? so do the people who are living that diet.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  lucky you to live so close to the gym.  my 0 hour job actually 0 hours with a lunch break plus hour each way commute means that when i get home, i want to do something that will actually de stress me.  going to a gym and repeatedly moving heavy things is not one of them.  martial arts is one of my favorite things to do, but the closest studio is 0 mins from my house, 0 mins from my job, and costs way more monthly than i can afford.  and if i do not actively want to do it, chances are i wo not do it, so a gym membership is a straight up drain on my bank account for no benefit.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  sticking with the poor thing, this kinda speaks for itself, but you also must be a master at disappointing visiting relatives/friends.  while i agree this is a personal/subjective thing, part of the problem is that america is default night out involves massive caloric intake.  and everyone who you have not seen in forever keeps begging  just this one time  and how do you explain to them that no, you did it for the last 0 visiting friends but you  really  ca not do it for  them  when they laid on the same guilt trip ? i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  see point 0, but to add to that: this goes back to that genetic thing.  we are trained to eat when our stomach makes noise at us, no matter what other caloric intake we have that day.   #  you seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of the term  easy .   #  you seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of the term  easy .  perhaps what you are looking for is  not complicated .  yes, there are steps that you can take that will result in not being fat, and as you point out they can be listed in a short 0 point list.  heck, i could make an even  less complicated  list of steps: 0 to lose weight, consume fewer calories than you expend.  what you are missing that these things are, while simple, not  easy  for many people to do.  everyone is literally physically addicted to food.  food raises many of exactly the same signals in your brain that cocaine does though at much lower magnitude , and unlike most addictive drugs, you ca not break the addiction by going  cold turkey  because you have to eat to live.  and many people that are fat do not have even 0 minutes per day that they can devote to going to the gym.  and many others have psychological and even physical difficulties with exercise.  i, for example, have exercise induced asthma.  exercise hurts.  no one likes that.  it is not  easy .   #  changing lifestyles can definitely be easy if you take small enough steps.   #  it is wrong when you are morbidly obese and it affects everyone around you.  as in when i have to sit next to a 0 lb person on an airplane/bus/car or when obese people get  disability  benefits through insurance or otherwise.  changing lifestyles can definitely be easy if you take small enough steps.  like waking up one morning and saying i will eat 0 less calories today when i am normally eating 0 calories a day.  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.  if 0 calories is too much, drop down to 0.  another example is saying that i will walk for 0 min today.  after a week, add another 0 min.  surely you can find 0 min everyday.  before you know it, you will be on a 0 calorie diet and walking an hour a day.   #  let is say you eat one box of kraft dinner per day.   #  in addition to the genetic aspect which has already been mentioned i would like to talk about the money part.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, green veggies etc are not very expensive.  however, preparing a fresh meal takes time.  for many low income families, time  is  money.  kraft dinner is simply way faster and cheaper than whole wheat pasta with homemade marinara sauce.  a box of kraft dinner serving 0 is 0$ at walmart in canada.  let is say you eat one box of kraft dinner per day.  cheap, fast, easy.  add some milk and you got your food.  that would add up to less than $0 per month if you only eat that and some milk.  what about if you eat two packs of kraft dinner per day ? that is less than $0 every month on food.  of course, most families would also have some other canned varieties canned fruit, veggies, maybe some ham which are cheaper and keep for longer than their fresh counterparts.  it is even cheaper if you get the 0cent no name spaghetti and split that through several days.  you see where i am going regarding carbs ? it is usually cheap ! the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.  it is hard for parents especially single parents of small children who work at minimum wage jobs to find the time to go to the gym if they are exhausted from their work and have to take care of children.  a person who is financially comfortable, does not have kids/can have someone else take care of their kids, and has the time/income to spend on buying and preparing fresh food and going to the gym is going to have a relatively easier time objectively, according to your post staying fit.  however, there are also genetic and emotional factors at play.  lastly, though tangentially related, thin people also should up their game in an effort to get to a healthier weight by the same value implication that  average  is better.  that is actually a topic i would love to see being discussed.   #  diet is by and large the primary driver.   #  this is the exact same argument as telling addicts that it is easy to not be an addict, just stop doing drugs.  of course it is not that easy.  like drug addiction, food addiction is caused by a myriad of psychological and emotional issues, often having very little to do with physical hunger.  when people have spent most of their lives using food to treat their anxiety, depression and boredom, telling to just eat less is not really going to work.  as for exercise, while it can have some impact, most research now indicates that exercise itself has only a minor impact on weight.  diet is by and large the primary driver.
i believe the fact that most americans are fat or obese is pathetic since staying average size for sake of argument, i would define average between 0 0 bmi although i know bmi is not a great measure of a healthy weight is easy.  in fact, very easy.  what i do to stay in decent shape: 0.  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  0.  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  0.  limit the amount of times i go out to a restaurant for dinner, since american portion sizes are ridiculous.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  0.  i do not eat excessively or drink lots of beer at weekend social gatherings.  i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  thats it.  nothing special, no crazy diets, no 0 hour a day exercise programs, no special pills, and i maintain a good shape, 0 bmi, while having a 0 hour a day office job.  cmw, i think it is easy not to be fat.   #  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.   #  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.   #  ok, let is look at the list.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  i agree on the nutritional aspect of it however the cost is not accurate.  i am in and out of grocery stores once or twice a week with the people i work with so i can keep a pretty good eye on prices.  these are assuming i am buying enough for one week.  bacon $0 0 eggs $0 0/dozen pork $0 0/lb chicken frozen $0 0/lb beef $0 0/lb so if i am buying a pound of each type of meat and a package of bacon, i am looking at $0 including tax.  add on about $0 for vegetables and you are at $0 a week for food.  that is assuming you stick completely to that list and can eat everything on that list.  $0/month for food is not astronomical but it is well outside a lot of people is budgets.  for $0/week i can get a hell of a lot more fast/crappy food and raw calories.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  sound advice for anyone however this is assuming you have the time and physical ability to do so.  if i am working two jobs and taking care of kids, i damn sure am not going to have the time or the physical energy to go to the gym.  basically, it is easy for  you  not to be fat.  you are adopting the  i can do it, why cant everyone ?   mentality when the truth is that people is life situations and finances differ wildly.  you are also completely ignoring any sort of psychological factors that people have varying degrees of control over; no, drinking five or six beers every night before bed is not going to help you lose weight but if you genuinely feel that that is what it takes to decompress after working a full day then those beers mean a hell of a lot more.  i completely agree that the actual process of losing weight is easy if you are looking at it from just a checklist of things to do.  where it gets complicated is when you start trying to fit that into people is lives who maybe really do not have $0/month for a gym membership.  i am pretty low income and i actively try to avoid eating fast food or other junk even though i can afford it much more readily than better food.  while i am somewhat healthier, i do pay a price; i do not have as much food available to me on a daily basis and all the associated problems with that.   #  and many people that are fat do not have even 0 minutes per day that they can devote to going to the gym.   #  you seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of the term  easy .  perhaps what you are looking for is  not complicated .  yes, there are steps that you can take that will result in not being fat, and as you point out they can be listed in a short 0 point list.  heck, i could make an even  less complicated  list of steps: 0 to lose weight, consume fewer calories than you expend.  what you are missing that these things are, while simple, not  easy  for many people to do.  everyone is literally physically addicted to food.  food raises many of exactly the same signals in your brain that cocaine does though at much lower magnitude , and unlike most addictive drugs, you ca not break the addiction by going  cold turkey  because you have to eat to live.  and many people that are fat do not have even 0 minutes per day that they can devote to going to the gym.  and many others have psychological and even physical difficulties with exercise.  i, for example, have exercise induced asthma.  exercise hurts.  no one likes that.  it is not  easy .   #  it is wrong when you are morbidly obese and it affects everyone around you.   #  it is wrong when you are morbidly obese and it affects everyone around you.  as in when i have to sit next to a 0 lb person on an airplane/bus/car or when obese people get  disability  benefits through insurance or otherwise.  changing lifestyles can definitely be easy if you take small enough steps.  like waking up one morning and saying i will eat 0 less calories today when i am normally eating 0 calories a day.  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.  if 0 calories is too much, drop down to 0.  another example is saying that i will walk for 0 min today.  after a week, add another 0 min.  surely you can find 0 min everyday.  before you know it, you will be on a 0 calorie diet and walking an hour a day.   #  for many low income families, time  is  money.   #  in addition to the genetic aspect which has already been mentioned i would like to talk about the money part.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, green veggies etc are not very expensive.  however, preparing a fresh meal takes time.  for many low income families, time  is  money.  kraft dinner is simply way faster and cheaper than whole wheat pasta with homemade marinara sauce.  a box of kraft dinner serving 0 is 0$ at walmart in canada.  let is say you eat one box of kraft dinner per day.  cheap, fast, easy.  add some milk and you got your food.  that would add up to less than $0 per month if you only eat that and some milk.  what about if you eat two packs of kraft dinner per day ? that is less than $0 every month on food.  of course, most families would also have some other canned varieties canned fruit, veggies, maybe some ham which are cheaper and keep for longer than their fresh counterparts.  it is even cheaper if you get the 0cent no name spaghetti and split that through several days.  you see where i am going regarding carbs ? it is usually cheap ! the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.  it is hard for parents especially single parents of small children who work at minimum wage jobs to find the time to go to the gym if they are exhausted from their work and have to take care of children.  a person who is financially comfortable, does not have kids/can have someone else take care of their kids, and has the time/income to spend on buying and preparing fresh food and going to the gym is going to have a relatively easier time objectively, according to your post staying fit.  however, there are also genetic and emotional factors at play.  lastly, though tangentially related, thin people also should up their game in an effort to get to a healthier weight by the same value implication that  average  is better.  that is actually a topic i would love to see being discussed.   #  diet is by and large the primary driver.   #  this is the exact same argument as telling addicts that it is easy to not be an addict, just stop doing drugs.  of course it is not that easy.  like drug addiction, food addiction is caused by a myriad of psychological and emotional issues, often having very little to do with physical hunger.  when people have spent most of their lives using food to treat their anxiety, depression and boredom, telling to just eat less is not really going to work.  as for exercise, while it can have some impact, most research now indicates that exercise itself has only a minor impact on weight.  diet is by and large the primary driver.
i believe the fact that most americans are fat or obese is pathetic since staying average size for sake of argument, i would define average between 0 0 bmi although i know bmi is not a great measure of a healthy weight is easy.  in fact, very easy.  what i do to stay in decent shape: 0.  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  0.  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  0.  limit the amount of times i go out to a restaurant for dinner, since american portion sizes are ridiculous.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  0.  i do not eat excessively or drink lots of beer at weekend social gatherings.  i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  thats it.  nothing special, no crazy diets, no 0 hour a day exercise programs, no special pills, and i maintain a good shape, 0 bmi, while having a 0 hour a day office job.  cmw, i think it is easy not to be fat.   #  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.   #  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.   #  ok, let is look at the list.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  i agree on the nutritional aspect of it however the cost is not accurate.  i am in and out of grocery stores once or twice a week with the people i work with so i can keep a pretty good eye on prices.  these are assuming i am buying enough for one week.  bacon $0 0 eggs $0 0/dozen pork $0 0/lb chicken frozen $0 0/lb beef $0 0/lb so if i am buying a pound of each type of meat and a package of bacon, i am looking at $0 including tax.  add on about $0 for vegetables and you are at $0 a week for food.  that is assuming you stick completely to that list and can eat everything on that list.  $0/month for food is not astronomical but it is well outside a lot of people is budgets.  for $0/week i can get a hell of a lot more fast/crappy food and raw calories.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  sound advice for anyone however this is assuming you have the time and physical ability to do so.  if i am working two jobs and taking care of kids, i damn sure am not going to have the time or the physical energy to go to the gym.  basically, it is easy for  you  not to be fat.  you are adopting the  i can do it, why cant everyone ?   mentality when the truth is that people is life situations and finances differ wildly.  you are also completely ignoring any sort of psychological factors that people have varying degrees of control over; no, drinking five or six beers every night before bed is not going to help you lose weight but if you genuinely feel that that is what it takes to decompress after working a full day then those beers mean a hell of a lot more.  i completely agree that the actual process of losing weight is easy if you are looking at it from just a checklist of things to do.  where it gets complicated is when you start trying to fit that into people is lives who maybe really do not have $0/month for a gym membership.  i am pretty low income and i actively try to avoid eating fast food or other junk even though i can afford it much more readily than better food.  while i am somewhat healthier, i do pay a price; i do not have as much food available to me on a daily basis and all the associated problems with that.   #  food raises many of exactly the same signals in your brain that cocaine does though at much lower magnitude , and unlike most addictive drugs, you ca not break the addiction by going  cold turkey  because you have to eat to live.   #  you seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of the term  easy .  perhaps what you are looking for is  not complicated .  yes, there are steps that you can take that will result in not being fat, and as you point out they can be listed in a short 0 point list.  heck, i could make an even  less complicated  list of steps: 0 to lose weight, consume fewer calories than you expend.  what you are missing that these things are, while simple, not  easy  for many people to do.  everyone is literally physically addicted to food.  food raises many of exactly the same signals in your brain that cocaine does though at much lower magnitude , and unlike most addictive drugs, you ca not break the addiction by going  cold turkey  because you have to eat to live.  and many people that are fat do not have even 0 minutes per day that they can devote to going to the gym.  and many others have psychological and even physical difficulties with exercise.  i, for example, have exercise induced asthma.  exercise hurts.  no one likes that.  it is not  easy .   #  like waking up one morning and saying i will eat 0 less calories today when i am normally eating 0 calories a day.   #  it is wrong when you are morbidly obese and it affects everyone around you.  as in when i have to sit next to a 0 lb person on an airplane/bus/car or when obese people get  disability  benefits through insurance or otherwise.  changing lifestyles can definitely be easy if you take small enough steps.  like waking up one morning and saying i will eat 0 less calories today when i am normally eating 0 calories a day.  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.  if 0 calories is too much, drop down to 0.  another example is saying that i will walk for 0 min today.  after a week, add another 0 min.  surely you can find 0 min everyday.  before you know it, you will be on a 0 calorie diet and walking an hour a day.   #  the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.   #  in addition to the genetic aspect which has already been mentioned i would like to talk about the money part.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, green veggies etc are not very expensive.  however, preparing a fresh meal takes time.  for many low income families, time  is  money.  kraft dinner is simply way faster and cheaper than whole wheat pasta with homemade marinara sauce.  a box of kraft dinner serving 0 is 0$ at walmart in canada.  let is say you eat one box of kraft dinner per day.  cheap, fast, easy.  add some milk and you got your food.  that would add up to less than $0 per month if you only eat that and some milk.  what about if you eat two packs of kraft dinner per day ? that is less than $0 every month on food.  of course, most families would also have some other canned varieties canned fruit, veggies, maybe some ham which are cheaper and keep for longer than their fresh counterparts.  it is even cheaper if you get the 0cent no name spaghetti and split that through several days.  you see where i am going regarding carbs ? it is usually cheap ! the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.  it is hard for parents especially single parents of small children who work at minimum wage jobs to find the time to go to the gym if they are exhausted from their work and have to take care of children.  a person who is financially comfortable, does not have kids/can have someone else take care of their kids, and has the time/income to spend on buying and preparing fresh food and going to the gym is going to have a relatively easier time objectively, according to your post staying fit.  however, there are also genetic and emotional factors at play.  lastly, though tangentially related, thin people also should up their game in an effort to get to a healthier weight by the same value implication that  average  is better.  that is actually a topic i would love to see being discussed.   #  when people have spent most of their lives using food to treat their anxiety, depression and boredom, telling to just eat less is not really going to work.   #  this is the exact same argument as telling addicts that it is easy to not be an addict, just stop doing drugs.  of course it is not that easy.  like drug addiction, food addiction is caused by a myriad of psychological and emotional issues, often having very little to do with physical hunger.  when people have spent most of their lives using food to treat their anxiety, depression and boredom, telling to just eat less is not really going to work.  as for exercise, while it can have some impact, most research now indicates that exercise itself has only a minor impact on weight.  diet is by and large the primary driver.
i believe the fact that most americans are fat or obese is pathetic since staying average size for sake of argument, i would define average between 0 0 bmi although i know bmi is not a great measure of a healthy weight is easy.  in fact, very easy.  what i do to stay in decent shape: 0.  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  0.  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  0.  limit the amount of times i go out to a restaurant for dinner, since american portion sizes are ridiculous.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  0.  i do not eat excessively or drink lots of beer at weekend social gatherings.  i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  thats it.  nothing special, no crazy diets, no 0 hour a day exercise programs, no special pills, and i maintain a good shape, 0 bmi, while having a 0 hour a day office job.  cmw, i think it is easy not to be fat.   #  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.   #  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.   #  a lot of assumptions made here.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  what about people who live in food deserts ? URL some people live in areas e. g.  detrot where fresh nutritious food is very difficult / expensive to obtain.  many are forced to shop at convenience stores which mostly carry processed carb rich food.  some people rely on food pantries and get no choice at all.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  0 minute gym commute is a dream for many.  there are people out there who have no car and do not live close to a gym.  going to a gym may be a huge time/money commitment and may involve waiting for a bus at night in unsafe areas.  also, 0$ a month may be a huge amount for a family with many kids which is struggling to get by already.  same for time commitment.  poor family with kids may have hard time finding any free time, let alone time needed to go to the gym.  child care ai not easy to get and is not free.  tl:dr your post boils down to: it is easy not to be fat if you have time, money and live in a good neighborhood.  also keep in mind that obesity is correlated to low income: URL  #  perhaps what you are looking for is  not complicated .   #  you seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of the term  easy .  perhaps what you are looking for is  not complicated .  yes, there are steps that you can take that will result in not being fat, and as you point out they can be listed in a short 0 point list.  heck, i could make an even  less complicated  list of steps: 0 to lose weight, consume fewer calories than you expend.  what you are missing that these things are, while simple, not  easy  for many people to do.  everyone is literally physically addicted to food.  food raises many of exactly the same signals in your brain that cocaine does though at much lower magnitude , and unlike most addictive drugs, you ca not break the addiction by going  cold turkey  because you have to eat to live.  and many people that are fat do not have even 0 minutes per day that they can devote to going to the gym.  and many others have psychological and even physical difficulties with exercise.  i, for example, have exercise induced asthma.  exercise hurts.  no one likes that.  it is not  easy .   #  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.   #  it is wrong when you are morbidly obese and it affects everyone around you.  as in when i have to sit next to a 0 lb person on an airplane/bus/car or when obese people get  disability  benefits through insurance or otherwise.  changing lifestyles can definitely be easy if you take small enough steps.  like waking up one morning and saying i will eat 0 less calories today when i am normally eating 0 calories a day.  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.  if 0 calories is too much, drop down to 0.  another example is saying that i will walk for 0 min today.  after a week, add another 0 min.  surely you can find 0 min everyday.  before you know it, you will be on a 0 calorie diet and walking an hour a day.   #  the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.   #  in addition to the genetic aspect which has already been mentioned i would like to talk about the money part.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, green veggies etc are not very expensive.  however, preparing a fresh meal takes time.  for many low income families, time  is  money.  kraft dinner is simply way faster and cheaper than whole wheat pasta with homemade marinara sauce.  a box of kraft dinner serving 0 is 0$ at walmart in canada.  let is say you eat one box of kraft dinner per day.  cheap, fast, easy.  add some milk and you got your food.  that would add up to less than $0 per month if you only eat that and some milk.  what about if you eat two packs of kraft dinner per day ? that is less than $0 every month on food.  of course, most families would also have some other canned varieties canned fruit, veggies, maybe some ham which are cheaper and keep for longer than their fresh counterparts.  it is even cheaper if you get the 0cent no name spaghetti and split that through several days.  you see where i am going regarding carbs ? it is usually cheap ! the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.  it is hard for parents especially single parents of small children who work at minimum wage jobs to find the time to go to the gym if they are exhausted from their work and have to take care of children.  a person who is financially comfortable, does not have kids/can have someone else take care of their kids, and has the time/income to spend on buying and preparing fresh food and going to the gym is going to have a relatively easier time objectively, according to your post staying fit.  however, there are also genetic and emotional factors at play.  lastly, though tangentially related, thin people also should up their game in an effort to get to a healthier weight by the same value implication that  average  is better.  that is actually a topic i would love to see being discussed.   #  like drug addiction, food addiction is caused by a myriad of psychological and emotional issues, often having very little to do with physical hunger.   #  this is the exact same argument as telling addicts that it is easy to not be an addict, just stop doing drugs.  of course it is not that easy.  like drug addiction, food addiction is caused by a myriad of psychological and emotional issues, often having very little to do with physical hunger.  when people have spent most of their lives using food to treat their anxiety, depression and boredom, telling to just eat less is not really going to work.  as for exercise, while it can have some impact, most research now indicates that exercise itself has only a minor impact on weight.  diet is by and large the primary driver.
i believe the fact that most americans are fat or obese is pathetic since staying average size for sake of argument, i would define average between 0 0 bmi although i know bmi is not a great measure of a healthy weight is easy.  in fact, very easy.  what i do to stay in decent shape: 0.  0 meals a day, 0 small breakfast, 0 small lunch, and a medium sized dinner.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  0.  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  0.  limit the amount of times i go out to a restaurant for dinner, since american portion sizes are ridiculous.  i perhaps go out to dinner one a month.  0.  i do not eat excessively or drink lots of beer at weekend social gatherings.  i will eat nothing and have water or perhaps have one glass of wine or liquor.  i notice a lot of people eat dinner, then a few hours later go to a bbq the eat a shit load of food again and drink a shit load of beer.  i avoid this things like this.  thats it.  nothing special, no crazy diets, no 0 hour a day exercise programs, no special pills, and i maintain a good shape, 0 bmi, while having a 0 hour a day office job.  cmw, i think it is easy not to be fat.   #  0 mins exercise a day at the gym 0 days a week m f , about a 0 mins trip to the gym and back.   #  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.   #  a lot of assumptions made here.  no or very little carbs or sugars, high protein, high fat, and high fiber.  no special food that cost a arm and a leg.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, green vegetables, etc.  what about people who live in food deserts ? URL some people live in areas e. g.  detrot where fresh nutritious food is very difficult / expensive to obtain.  many are forced to shop at convenience stores which mostly carry processed carb rich food.  some people rely on food pantries and get no choice at all.  so that is 0 mins a day 0 days a week so now a huge time sink.  gym membership is $0/month so that is not a big burden.  0 minute gym commute is a dream for many.  there are people out there who have no car and do not live close to a gym.  going to a gym may be a huge time/money commitment and may involve waiting for a bus at night in unsafe areas.  also, 0$ a month may be a huge amount for a family with many kids which is struggling to get by already.  same for time commitment.  poor family with kids may have hard time finding any free time, let alone time needed to go to the gym.  child care ai not easy to get and is not free.  tl:dr your post boils down to: it is easy not to be fat if you have time, money and live in a good neighborhood.  also keep in mind that obesity is correlated to low income: URL  #  you seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of the term  easy .   #  you seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition of the term  easy .  perhaps what you are looking for is  not complicated .  yes, there are steps that you can take that will result in not being fat, and as you point out they can be listed in a short 0 point list.  heck, i could make an even  less complicated  list of steps: 0 to lose weight, consume fewer calories than you expend.  what you are missing that these things are, while simple, not  easy  for many people to do.  everyone is literally physically addicted to food.  food raises many of exactly the same signals in your brain that cocaine does though at much lower magnitude , and unlike most addictive drugs, you ca not break the addiction by going  cold turkey  because you have to eat to live.  and many people that are fat do not have even 0 minutes per day that they can devote to going to the gym.  and many others have psychological and even physical difficulties with exercise.  i, for example, have exercise induced asthma.  exercise hurts.  no one likes that.  it is not  easy .   #  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.   #  it is wrong when you are morbidly obese and it affects everyone around you.  as in when i have to sit next to a 0 lb person on an airplane/bus/car or when obese people get  disability  benefits through insurance or otherwise.  changing lifestyles can definitely be easy if you take small enough steps.  like waking up one morning and saying i will eat 0 less calories today when i am normally eating 0 calories a day.  after a week, drop by another 0 calories.  if 0 calories is too much, drop down to 0.  another example is saying that i will walk for 0 min today.  after a week, add another 0 min.  surely you can find 0 min everyday.  before you know it, you will be on a 0 calorie diet and walking an hour a day.   #  that is less than $0 every month on food.   #  in addition to the genetic aspect which has already been mentioned i would like to talk about the money part.  bacon, eggs, chicken, pork, green veggies etc are not very expensive.  however, preparing a fresh meal takes time.  for many low income families, time  is  money.  kraft dinner is simply way faster and cheaper than whole wheat pasta with homemade marinara sauce.  a box of kraft dinner serving 0 is 0$ at walmart in canada.  let is say you eat one box of kraft dinner per day.  cheap, fast, easy.  add some milk and you got your food.  that would add up to less than $0 per month if you only eat that and some milk.  what about if you eat two packs of kraft dinner per day ? that is less than $0 every month on food.  of course, most families would also have some other canned varieties canned fruit, veggies, maybe some ham which are cheaper and keep for longer than their fresh counterparts.  it is even cheaper if you get the 0cent no name spaghetti and split that through several days.  you see where i am going regarding carbs ? it is usually cheap ! the thing about cheap, quick food including ramen is that it has lots of calories and salt.  it is hard for parents especially single parents of small children who work at minimum wage jobs to find the time to go to the gym if they are exhausted from their work and have to take care of children.  a person who is financially comfortable, does not have kids/can have someone else take care of their kids, and has the time/income to spend on buying and preparing fresh food and going to the gym is going to have a relatively easier time objectively, according to your post staying fit.  however, there are also genetic and emotional factors at play.  lastly, though tangentially related, thin people also should up their game in an effort to get to a healthier weight by the same value implication that  average  is better.  that is actually a topic i would love to see being discussed.   #  this is the exact same argument as telling addicts that it is easy to not be an addict, just stop doing drugs.   #  this is the exact same argument as telling addicts that it is easy to not be an addict, just stop doing drugs.  of course it is not that easy.  like drug addiction, food addiction is caused by a myriad of psychological and emotional issues, often having very little to do with physical hunger.  when people have spent most of their lives using food to treat their anxiety, depression and boredom, telling to just eat less is not really going to work.  as for exercise, while it can have some impact, most research now indicates that exercise itself has only a minor impact on weight.  diet is by and large the primary driver.
0 disclaimers: 0.  by  hunter gatherer  i do not mean to exclude pastoralists, semi agriculturalists, etc.  other terms i might use include: native people, indigenous people, tribes, traditional cultures; that is, i am groping for an umbrella term that includes the vastly diverse cultures that exist outside our modern civilization/economy.  0.  i do not have many hard sources for this; my view is mostly based on appeals to reason.  any sources, either for or against my view, are appreciated; any input from a trained anthropologist/archeologist would be greatly helpful.  my view is that the quality of life in an average hunter gaitherer culture was better than that of the average human today.  this is due to several factors: they worked less, had less mental illness, less crime, more connected families, and had richer cultural identities and religious practices that they found deeply meaningful.  they had less discrimination and were far more egalitarian.  i am aware of the  noble savage  fallacy, and i try not to romanticise native cultures; my opinion is that smaller scale societies, as a system, are better at encouraging people to have a happy life, whereas large scale societies are systemically worse at doing so.  as a second, perhaps tangential point: native cultures were inherently more sustainable than our current civilization.  we are at great danger to ourselves, be it through nuclear war, climate change, peak oil, overpopulation, or some other factor.  native cultures cannot grow past a certain point without fracturing, so the chances of native cultures bringing the whole species to extinction is extremely low.  common arguments against my view include:  life expectancy was shorter/infant mortality was higher.   this is true although life expectancy and health have declined since the agricultural revolution, only surpassing paleolithic people in recent centuries , but i would personally choose a happier, shorter life over a less happy, longer life.  the other argument i can forsee is  we are far more technologically advanced and have superior medical care.   i have three rebuttals: a early anthropologists have consistently overlooked the subtle technology of native cultures.  b advanced technology does not necessarily make people happier; people got on just fine without air conditioners and refridgerators.  c what percentage of modern humans have access to our advanced technology ? last i remember, it takes maybe $0 usd to cure someone of malaria, and $0 usd to give someone clean water for life, but millions to billions are dying of both.  please, change my view !  #  but i would personally choose a happier, shorter life over a less happy, longer life.   #  sure, but what if you stay alive, but the people who you love die ?  # sure, but what if you stay alive, but the people who you love die ? in hunter/gatherer societies the death rate is highest among the young.  would not losing more than half your children before they reach adulthood make you unhappy ? what about your wife dying in childbirth ? a very common way to die in hunter/gather society.  so, not only your life would be shorter, you would also be constantly dealing with death of the loved ones.  how is that happiness ? one of the greatest blessing of modern live is not having to bury your children another factor that you are overlooking: endemic warfare.  when human groups compete for patchy resources hunting grounds, gathering areas endemic warfare is inevitable.  such warfare can easily escalate to  all out wars of annihilation between tribes.   URL i do not really think i would be happy living in a state of constant war, that may at any time turn into tribal annihilation.  that is true for human factors.  small societies are less likely to destroy the entire human species by human means.  on the other hand the same is not true for external / environmental factors.  for example.  say we detect an asteroid/comet on collision course with earth.  large technologically advanced countries would be able to pull resources and come up with solution e. g.  armageddon the movie or at least build shelter to ensure some humans survive.  small tribes could do not nothing in a situation like that, except to go extinct.  in facts they would not even realize that they are in any danger until the time zero.   #  at least the tribe is fighting for their own survival, modern nations only fight for economic supremacy, where their soldiers are brainwashed to believe in some kook ideology like american freedom, or some other demented nationalism.   #  people die all the time death is inevitable.  its only modern society that has an extreme fear of debt because the vast bulk of modern humans do not do anything with their bodies and and thus do not go through the natural processes of life.  endemic warfare is better than nation states fighting; where you can be killed or maimed by enemies you cannot even see.  at least the tribe is fighting for their own survival, modern nations only fight for economic supremacy, where their soldiers are brainwashed to believe in some kook ideology like american freedom, or some other demented nationalism.  you also fail to note the drawbacks of industrial civilization nuclear war can wipe out all life on earth, the pollution brought on by capitalism has already ruined vast sections of the earth and continues to do so.   #  sure it can be horrific while it lasts, but then it ends.   #  0 death is inevitable, but what is particularly pernicious about primitive societies is high mortality among the young as compared to grown ups.  no parent wants to bury his/her children.  0 war among nation states is sporadic.  sure it can be horrific while it lasts, but then it ends.  it beats living your whole life in a the state of war.  0 sure humans can go extinct due b to nukes, but we call also use nukes to prevent  armageddon   meteor impact.  or many other potential disasters.  this can save millions of species.  no other species has an ability to. act globally  #  as for the point about burying one is own children, you are looking at an ancient phenomenon through a modern lens.   #  why is it important for the human species to save itself ? in op is ideal scenario, the tribes would not give two shits about the human species.  there is only the intra tribal relationships at stake, and dying as a group, together, is not nearly as awful sounding as dying in a hospital bed, alone.  as for the point about burying one is own children, you are looking at an ancient phenomenon through a modern lens.  in the past, a child is life was not worth that much.  of course they were cared for/protected, but given the ubiquity of infant/mother/child mortality, we can expect the adults to be less grieved over the children is deaths.  in the modern age, we accept the deaths of 0 year olds without much grief or despair.  it is a natural fact of life, just as kids dying is a natural fact of life outside of modern civilization.  in 0,0 years, we might have greatly extended lifespans.  then an eighty year old is death becomes a tragedy.  the threshold for what constitutes a  willong a happy life  will continue to grow, and i am unsure if this is a good thing.  nothing lasts forever.   #  think of it this way most species alive today would die out again when the next chicxulub asteroid comes along.   #  there is no argument that human are responsible for an extinction event.  yet that does not nullify my point: sure high tech societies can do damage the environment, but they can also be saviors of the environment.  think of it this way most species alive today would die out again when the next chicxulub asteroid comes along.  humans can stop that.  i repeat my question: let is say we do face  armageddon  scenario.  would not you want humans to be able to save themselves, as well as millions of other species ?
0 disclaimers: 0.  by  hunter gatherer  i do not mean to exclude pastoralists, semi agriculturalists, etc.  other terms i might use include: native people, indigenous people, tribes, traditional cultures; that is, i am groping for an umbrella term that includes the vastly diverse cultures that exist outside our modern civilization/economy.  0.  i do not have many hard sources for this; my view is mostly based on appeals to reason.  any sources, either for or against my view, are appreciated; any input from a trained anthropologist/archeologist would be greatly helpful.  my view is that the quality of life in an average hunter gaitherer culture was better than that of the average human today.  this is due to several factors: they worked less, had less mental illness, less crime, more connected families, and had richer cultural identities and religious practices that they found deeply meaningful.  they had less discrimination and were far more egalitarian.  i am aware of the  noble savage  fallacy, and i try not to romanticise native cultures; my opinion is that smaller scale societies, as a system, are better at encouraging people to have a happy life, whereas large scale societies are systemically worse at doing so.  as a second, perhaps tangential point: native cultures were inherently more sustainable than our current civilization.  we are at great danger to ourselves, be it through nuclear war, climate change, peak oil, overpopulation, or some other factor.  native cultures cannot grow past a certain point without fracturing, so the chances of native cultures bringing the whole species to extinction is extremely low.  common arguments against my view include:  life expectancy was shorter/infant mortality was higher.   this is true although life expectancy and health have declined since the agricultural revolution, only surpassing paleolithic people in recent centuries , but i would personally choose a happier, shorter life over a less happy, longer life.  the other argument i can forsee is  we are far more technologically advanced and have superior medical care.   i have three rebuttals: a early anthropologists have consistently overlooked the subtle technology of native cultures.  b advanced technology does not necessarily make people happier; people got on just fine without air conditioners and refridgerators.  c what percentage of modern humans have access to our advanced technology ? last i remember, it takes maybe $0 usd to cure someone of malaria, and $0 usd to give someone clean water for life, but millions to billions are dying of both.  please, change my view !  #   life expectancy was shorter/infant mortality was higher.    #  this is a deal breaker for me.   # this is a deal breaker for me.  life expectancy was not a bit shorter and a bit more violent, you were lucky to reach 0 years old and 0 0 of people per year in small tribes died killed by other tribesmen.  the rate in a modern civilization is more like 0.  source: the better angels of our nature by steven pinker .  you point out some drawbacks in modern life we could agree are bad, but they are much much much better than caveman days and getting better all the time.  you give the impression you are just not happy and idealize a very different time, which is normal, but not correct.   #  a very common way to die in hunter/gather society.   # sure, but what if you stay alive, but the people who you love die ? in hunter/gatherer societies the death rate is highest among the young.  would not losing more than half your children before they reach adulthood make you unhappy ? what about your wife dying in childbirth ? a very common way to die in hunter/gather society.  so, not only your life would be shorter, you would also be constantly dealing with death of the loved ones.  how is that happiness ? one of the greatest blessing of modern live is not having to bury your children another factor that you are overlooking: endemic warfare.  when human groups compete for patchy resources hunting grounds, gathering areas endemic warfare is inevitable.  such warfare can easily escalate to  all out wars of annihilation between tribes.   URL i do not really think i would be happy living in a state of constant war, that may at any time turn into tribal annihilation.  that is true for human factors.  small societies are less likely to destroy the entire human species by human means.  on the other hand the same is not true for external / environmental factors.  for example.  say we detect an asteroid/comet on collision course with earth.  large technologically advanced countries would be able to pull resources and come up with solution e. g.  armageddon the movie or at least build shelter to ensure some humans survive.  small tribes could do not nothing in a situation like that, except to go extinct.  in facts they would not even realize that they are in any danger until the time zero.   #  its only modern society that has an extreme fear of debt because the vast bulk of modern humans do not do anything with their bodies and and thus do not go through the natural processes of life.   #  people die all the time death is inevitable.  its only modern society that has an extreme fear of debt because the vast bulk of modern humans do not do anything with their bodies and and thus do not go through the natural processes of life.  endemic warfare is better than nation states fighting; where you can be killed or maimed by enemies you cannot even see.  at least the tribe is fighting for their own survival, modern nations only fight for economic supremacy, where their soldiers are brainwashed to believe in some kook ideology like american freedom, or some other demented nationalism.  you also fail to note the drawbacks of industrial civilization nuclear war can wipe out all life on earth, the pollution brought on by capitalism has already ruined vast sections of the earth and continues to do so.   #  no other species has an ability to. act globally  #  0 death is inevitable, but what is particularly pernicious about primitive societies is high mortality among the young as compared to grown ups.  no parent wants to bury his/her children.  0 war among nation states is sporadic.  sure it can be horrific while it lasts, but then it ends.  it beats living your whole life in a the state of war.  0 sure humans can go extinct due b to nukes, but we call also use nukes to prevent  armageddon   meteor impact.  or many other potential disasters.  this can save millions of species.  no other species has an ability to. act globally  #  in op is ideal scenario, the tribes would not give two shits about the human species.   #  why is it important for the human species to save itself ? in op is ideal scenario, the tribes would not give two shits about the human species.  there is only the intra tribal relationships at stake, and dying as a group, together, is not nearly as awful sounding as dying in a hospital bed, alone.  as for the point about burying one is own children, you are looking at an ancient phenomenon through a modern lens.  in the past, a child is life was not worth that much.  of course they were cared for/protected, but given the ubiquity of infant/mother/child mortality, we can expect the adults to be less grieved over the children is deaths.  in the modern age, we accept the deaths of 0 year olds without much grief or despair.  it is a natural fact of life, just as kids dying is a natural fact of life outside of modern civilization.  in 0,0 years, we might have greatly extended lifespans.  then an eighty year old is death becomes a tragedy.  the threshold for what constitutes a  willong a happy life  will continue to grow, and i am unsure if this is a good thing.  nothing lasts forever.
0 disclaimers: 0.  by  hunter gatherer  i do not mean to exclude pastoralists, semi agriculturalists, etc.  other terms i might use include: native people, indigenous people, tribes, traditional cultures; that is, i am groping for an umbrella term that includes the vastly diverse cultures that exist outside our modern civilization/economy.  0.  i do not have many hard sources for this; my view is mostly based on appeals to reason.  any sources, either for or against my view, are appreciated; any input from a trained anthropologist/archeologist would be greatly helpful.  my view is that the quality of life in an average hunter gaitherer culture was better than that of the average human today.  this is due to several factors: they worked less, had less mental illness, less crime, more connected families, and had richer cultural identities and religious practices that they found deeply meaningful.  they had less discrimination and were far more egalitarian.  i am aware of the  noble savage  fallacy, and i try not to romanticise native cultures; my opinion is that smaller scale societies, as a system, are better at encouraging people to have a happy life, whereas large scale societies are systemically worse at doing so.  as a second, perhaps tangential point: native cultures were inherently more sustainable than our current civilization.  we are at great danger to ourselves, be it through nuclear war, climate change, peak oil, overpopulation, or some other factor.  native cultures cannot grow past a certain point without fracturing, so the chances of native cultures bringing the whole species to extinction is extremely low.  common arguments against my view include:  life expectancy was shorter/infant mortality was higher.   this is true although life expectancy and health have declined since the agricultural revolution, only surpassing paleolithic people in recent centuries , but i would personally choose a happier, shorter life over a less happy, longer life.  the other argument i can forsee is  we are far more technologically advanced and have superior medical care.   i have three rebuttals: a early anthropologists have consistently overlooked the subtle technology of native cultures.  b advanced technology does not necessarily make people happier; people got on just fine without air conditioners and refridgerators.  c what percentage of modern humans have access to our advanced technology ? last i remember, it takes maybe $0 usd to cure someone of malaria, and $0 usd to give someone clean water for life, but millions to billions are dying of both.  please, change my view !  #  it takes maybe $0 usd to cure someone of malaria, and $0 usd to give someone clean water for life, but millions to billions are dying of both.   #  they are dying horribly because they do not have access to modern technology.   # of course, the justice system would have relied on the personal prejudices of elders.  i would consider casting someone out of society to die on their own because they did not adequately respect your family a crime.  connected does not mean healthy by any stretch, and the lack of a society to find another  family,  so to speak, makes it near impossible to just get up and leave.  if by  egalitarian  you are speaking about gender, then that is absolute bullshit.  modern gender roles are a direct product of hunter gatherer society.  women are the key element of reproduction, so they stay home where it is safe and have babies.  while they are there, they can do domestic things as well.  men, being able to reproduce significantly more often than women, are expendable and are expected to sacrifice themselves for women and children.  it is hard to want something that you have no concept of, and i am sure that early cultures strongly desired new ways to preserve food and maintain their living environment.  after all, they invented drying and salting meat and many variants on the home designed to create livable conditions.  they are dying horribly because they do not have access to modern technology.  just like early tribal cultures.   #  such warfare can easily escalate to  all out wars of annihilation between tribes.    # sure, but what if you stay alive, but the people who you love die ? in hunter/gatherer societies the death rate is highest among the young.  would not losing more than half your children before they reach adulthood make you unhappy ? what about your wife dying in childbirth ? a very common way to die in hunter/gather society.  so, not only your life would be shorter, you would also be constantly dealing with death of the loved ones.  how is that happiness ? one of the greatest blessing of modern live is not having to bury your children another factor that you are overlooking: endemic warfare.  when human groups compete for patchy resources hunting grounds, gathering areas endemic warfare is inevitable.  such warfare can easily escalate to  all out wars of annihilation between tribes.   URL i do not really think i would be happy living in a state of constant war, that may at any time turn into tribal annihilation.  that is true for human factors.  small societies are less likely to destroy the entire human species by human means.  on the other hand the same is not true for external / environmental factors.  for example.  say we detect an asteroid/comet on collision course with earth.  large technologically advanced countries would be able to pull resources and come up with solution e. g.  armageddon the movie or at least build shelter to ensure some humans survive.  small tribes could do not nothing in a situation like that, except to go extinct.  in facts they would not even realize that they are in any danger until the time zero.   #  you also fail to note the drawbacks of industrial civilization nuclear war can wipe out all life on earth, the pollution brought on by capitalism has already ruined vast sections of the earth and continues to do so.   #  people die all the time death is inevitable.  its only modern society that has an extreme fear of debt because the vast bulk of modern humans do not do anything with their bodies and and thus do not go through the natural processes of life.  endemic warfare is better than nation states fighting; where you can be killed or maimed by enemies you cannot even see.  at least the tribe is fighting for their own survival, modern nations only fight for economic supremacy, where their soldiers are brainwashed to believe in some kook ideology like american freedom, or some other demented nationalism.  you also fail to note the drawbacks of industrial civilization nuclear war can wipe out all life on earth, the pollution brought on by capitalism has already ruined vast sections of the earth and continues to do so.   #  0 death is inevitable, but what is particularly pernicious about primitive societies is high mortality among the young as compared to grown ups.   #  0 death is inevitable, but what is particularly pernicious about primitive societies is high mortality among the young as compared to grown ups.  no parent wants to bury his/her children.  0 war among nation states is sporadic.  sure it can be horrific while it lasts, but then it ends.  it beats living your whole life in a the state of war.  0 sure humans can go extinct due b to nukes, but we call also use nukes to prevent  armageddon   meteor impact.  or many other potential disasters.  this can save millions of species.  no other species has an ability to. act globally  #  in op is ideal scenario, the tribes would not give two shits about the human species.   #  why is it important for the human species to save itself ? in op is ideal scenario, the tribes would not give two shits about the human species.  there is only the intra tribal relationships at stake, and dying as a group, together, is not nearly as awful sounding as dying in a hospital bed, alone.  as for the point about burying one is own children, you are looking at an ancient phenomenon through a modern lens.  in the past, a child is life was not worth that much.  of course they were cared for/protected, but given the ubiquity of infant/mother/child mortality, we can expect the adults to be less grieved over the children is deaths.  in the modern age, we accept the deaths of 0 year olds without much grief or despair.  it is a natural fact of life, just as kids dying is a natural fact of life outside of modern civilization.  in 0,0 years, we might have greatly extended lifespans.  then an eighty year old is death becomes a tragedy.  the threshold for what constitutes a  willong a happy life  will continue to grow, and i am unsure if this is a good thing.  nothing lasts forever.
often i have heard people who have no problem abusing alcohol or marijuana rationalizing their habits by saying they do not do  hard  drugs.  because heroin, meth, and crack are avoided, abusing other drugs is easier to justify.  this is symptomatic of drug education that fails to differentiate between use and abuse, and instead differentiates between good drugs and bad drugs.  alcohol and nicotine are legal, and excessive drinking or smoking are is not as big of a problem as just one experience with a  bad  drug.  an environment that prioritizes which specific drug is being used over how said drug is being used makes it difficult for young people to learn how to manage drugs, whether it is tylenol or crack cocaine.  i have seen alcohol be as  hard  of a drug as anything out there, and put people in unsettling, unsafe, and terrifying situations.  i have also seen alcohol turn people cheerful and docile.  the fact of the matter is, different drugs affect different people differently.  the separation of  hard  drugs and  soft  drugs ignores this, and lazily tries to skirt the education and information aspect of responsible drug use.  i would not take or recommend that anyone take heroin or meth.  in my experience these drugs are veritable life ruiners that really do fuck people up.  however, i still treat any drug with the same respect that i would a bag of black tar.  drugs are not sentient beings dedicated to destroying life, but they are powerful, powerful substances whether one considers them  hard  or not.  cmv please !  #  i would not take or recommend that anyone take heroin or meth.   #  in my experience these drugs are veritable life ruiners that really do fuck people up.   # in my experience these drugs are veritable life ruiners that really do fuck people up.  you said it right there.  that is the distinction between hard drugs and  other  drugs.  hard drugs are much more likely to destroy your life than say, alcohol which still can, but it is easier to control and/or quit .  that being said, i do not think there is a clear dichotomy between hard and soft, more of a continuum, with some drugs being  harder  or  softer  than others.   #  they are both  hard  drugs and therefore never tried.   #  there are a large number of people who simply do not do hard drugs.  they may use caffeine, alcohol, and possibly marijuana.  they learn about the drugs they use, and do not treat them as identical calling caffeine, alcohol and tobacco  soft  does not change the fact that drinking coffee before driving is different than drinking alcohol, or that discovering one has had a coffee every day for a month does not raise the same questions as a daily cigar would.  for these people, it is completely irrelevant to know the difference between ketamine and lsd.  they are both  hard  drugs and therefore never tried.  what do you see as wrong with this sort of black and white dichotomy ? on the one side we have  soft  drugs which it is useful to know the details of, and on the other side are  hard  drugs to be left to others  hands.  if one is a non physician square, where does this dichotomy fall short ?  #  what is wrong with this dichotomy is the first sentence of your post.   # they are educating themselves, they are being smart about what they do, and are not in need of meaningful and effective drug abuse.  this group of people is not really the focus of my post.  what is wrong with this dichotomy is the first sentence of your post.  the defining characteristic of these  non physician squares  is that they do not do  hard  drugs.  not that they know about the substances they use, or that they use those substances responsibly, but that they do not do hard drugs.  when the main goal of abuse prevention is not doing  hard  drugs or just not doing drugs in general, it is just not good enough to satisfy curious teenage minds.   #  by us setting up the shibboleth, most teenagers never try hard drugs.   #  it is good enough to satisfy many if not most teenage minds.  by us setting up the shibboleth, most teenagers never try hard drugs.  they move from the  amight try many drugs  group to the square group.  they are more likely to be smart.  so that is the plus of the bright line.  now, the flip side of this is that the people who want to use hard drugs are not getting an education about those drug, but would they get one in an alternate system without the dichotomy ? if there were not the dichotomy, they would be taught by people who have never used the drugs, and would presumably be fairly inaccurate.  so would that benefit be enough to make up for the larger base of users ?  #  mdma and even cocaine not crack are maybe semi hard.   #  the problem with your reasoning is that you are saying other drugs are dangerous because they are hard drugs, and they are  hard  because they are dangerous.  it is circular logic.  lsd and mushrooms are  considered  hard drugs, but they certainly are not, possessing no addictive or physically harmful properties.  mdma and even cocaine not crack are maybe semi hard.  i certainly would not argue that heroin and meth are not hard drugs, but then, i am not arguing against a spectrum, just against the dichotomy.  on the other side of things, failing to call alcohol and tobacco  hard  drugs when they are easily on par with cocaine is just.  straight up bullshit.  various drugs can be harder or softer than others, but the current dichotomy is totally lacking in factual basis and analytic thinking.
carbon dioxide is a far greater threat to the planet than accidents at nuclear power plants or radiation from nuclear waste.  our house, the earth, is on fire from global warming and we are worried that the fire extinguisher, nuclear power, has harmful byproducts.  it is more important to extinguish the fire ! wind and solar power are great but nuclear power is more reliable and produces far more power.  chernobyl and three mile island and fukushima are cautionary lessons about safety, but they are not arguments for giving up on nuclear power altogether, not when global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act.   #  wind and solar power are great but nuclear power is more reliable and produces far more power.   #  actually nuclear power plants are not too reliable.   #  i think it should be important to realize where the world is greenhouse gas emissions come from.  in 0, only 0 of emissions came from energy supply 0 URL that is, burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat.  agreed, using nuclear power for energy generation could curb emissions caused by this sector.  other emission sources were:   industry 0 stuff like mining and smelting metals, making chemicals etc   forestry 0 burning down forests for agricultural land etc.  agriculture 0   transportation 0 cars and airplanes run on fossil fuels, mostly.  buildings 0 heating using on site fuels   waste and wastewater 0 mostly methane from landfilling so, if we were to begin building new nuclear power plants so that energy supply emissions were to drop to zero, what effects would that have ? emissions from construction alone would be significant 0 URL this could also mean the proliferation of technology to produce nuclear weapons.  i think that emissions from industry sector would rise.  this is because energy generated on site ca not typically be replaced with electrical energy.  then again demand for highly refined materials i. e.  nuclear fuel would rise.  agricultral emissions would stay the same also.  emissions from transportation could, in theory, lower if electric cars were adopted.  however, this would mean the production of new cars, which is quite energy intensive.  it is my understanding also that there is no proper technology to store energy for electric cars.  lithium is actually quite rare, lead batteries too heavy and hydrogen fuel escapes from the steel containers easily.  correct me on this one if i am wrong, though ! emissions from heating could perhaps go down if nuclear power stations were constructed close to big cities to utilize district heating.  all in all, i do not think that switching to nuclear power generation alone would be a silver bullet.  there is also the question of nuclear waste and what to do with it, unlike with other power generation methods.  actually nuclear power plants are not too reliable.  it is my understanding that about 0 uptime is the best that can be done.  i think that solar and wind power are quite competetive in this area, given that enough capacity is built and it is distributed over a wide area.  there are also solar technologies that can store heat and produce electricity even in night time.  i do not get what you mean when you say that nuclear produces  far more power .  is not that only dependant on installed capacity ? energy rois for nuclear can actually be worse than for wind !  #  the build time on a concrete structure of that magnitude would be over 0 months from the first pour, not including engineering, tendering , mobilization etc.   #  i guess it depends on how many reactors are called for in the model ? the build time on a concrete structure of that magnitude would be over 0 months from the first pour, not including engineering, tendering , mobilization etc.  that stuff takes time to do right.  think about the build time on a mega stadium.  far less complex and smaller yet often take a couple of years in major centers.  would you even want reactors put up quickly ? i would think caution would be the name of the game there would not you ?  #  by that time it will be too late as far as global warming is concerned.   #  do you realize how many reactors we would have to build just to make a dent ? the total energy production in the world is approx.  0 x 0 0 watt hrs per year.  the largest nuclear power plant in the world is in japan and it is capable of producing 0,0 mw power.  so in 0 year it is capable of producing approximately 0 x 0 0 watt hrs.  in order to produce all our energy from nuclear energy, we would need to build 0 x 0 0 / 0 x 0 0 0.  let is say we only wanted to convert a quarter of our energy production to nuclear.  that would mean we would need to build 0 nuclear power plants that are as big as the largest nuclear power plant in the world.  if we were able to build 0 of these a year, it would take 0 years.  by that time it will be too late as far as global warming is concerned.  we would have to build closer to 0 of the largest nuclear power plants each year just to get only 0 of our energy over to nuclear in 0 years.  that is a new power plant every 0 days for 0 years ! note: this problem of scalability is not unique to nuclear.  we have the same problem with solar or wind.  we use so much energy each year that replacing our current infrastructure with renewable energy infrastructure is a near impossible task.   #  i am not an expert in the field student of nuclear eng but i feel it is definitely possible to extend it past that 0 year mark.   #  at the current moment we are using nuclear power very inefficiently.  only a fraction of the waste produce is reprocessed and there are no breeder in use at the moment.  theses could extend the life of uranium based energy production by a good deal.  combined with the use of thorium based reactors which is more common than uranium we could prolong it further.  there are various asteroids in the asteroid belt that contain large amount of heavy metals some of which are fissionable we could bring back to earth and mine out in the more distant future.  i am not an expert in the field student of nuclear eng but i feel it is definitely possible to extend it past that 0 year mark.   #  and one last thing unrelated to peak theory is that all energy in use by humans ultimately comes from the sun, with the exception of nuclear or maybe geothermal.   #  just to expand on this general theory.  many people have heard of the term  peak oil , which essentially means that eventually the amount of oil production for a certain  place  will eventually peak, then decline.  this can mean globally or be confined to a certain country or region.  this is one theory in a  class  of theories called peak theory.  other such notable examples are peak coal and peak uranium.  attention should be drawn to the fact that it is still somewhat difficult to know for sure where the peak is, and how fast the decline in production will be.  and one last thing unrelated to peak theory is that all energy in use by humans ultimately comes from the sun, with the exception of nuclear or maybe geothermal.  coal is the product of trees and other biomass that in the past has grown from energy from the sun, and then died and got buried.  extracted oil is the result of sea creatures like algae growing from energy from the sun, then dying and getting buried somehow.  fuel from crops like maize grew because of the sun.  energy from rivers, dams and other hydroelectric only happen because the sun is heat evaporates water, then it rains down somewhere uphill and allows humans to convert kinetic energy to electrical.  wind power from wind turbines only happens because the sun unevenly heats the earth.  no sun, no wind, no rivers, no oil, no coal no nothing.  what does that mean ? if the power from the sun alone is not enough, then the current society in place is facing a practical physical limitation for which there is no known solution.  power consumption must be equal to or lower than what is coming from the sun, or it simply is not renewable and can not continue indefinitely.  much of the energy used today, is nothing more than ancient, concentrated sunlight collected over millions of years.  this means that humans are essentially using millions of years worth of naturally collect energy in the span of 0 0 years.
tl;dr : i understand if you do not want to read the whole thing, but please do.  read only the bolded parts if you must.   for the purposes of discussion, i will be putting this view in the context of rape and victim blaming.  i know this topic has been done to death.  however, it does not encompass the entirety of my belief, only a familiar framework within which to work.  one could apply these principles to any crime with one perpetrator and one victim.  if you think you can find another way to change my view, go for it.   concerning the anathema that is rape, people tend to get up in arms when it comes to victim blaming, and they are wholly justified in doing so.  however, i have never been fully able to reconcile my moral and ethical beliefs with the way in which responsibility is ascribed.  in the context of another thread about victim blaming i forget which , one of the most popular replies was that ascribing responsibility is a zero sum game.  by making the victim responsible in any way for the crime, the perpetrator is automatically less responsible.  however, i found this an unsatisfactory answer.  the way we use language, the concept of being  fully responsible  makes it seem so, but  i believe that a victim can be partially be at fault, without making a perpetrator any less responsible.   a commonly used analogy is leaving your valuables in a public space and expecting them to not get stolen, and this is accordingly often thrown out for reasons that escape me.  to me, they are morally comparable situations.  if you do not want to address the hot topic of rape, then you can address this analogy instead.  the robber is  fully  responsible for his actions, but the person leaving their valuables behind is still at fault, as he has not taken  reasonable precautions .  i will concede that they are wrong in different ways.  the perpetrator has done something morally wrong, and the victim has done something instrumentally wrong.  perhaps this is why responsibility does not seem like a zero sum game to me.  however, the victim is  still in the wrong .  do not throw statistics around about how the majority of rapes are by people that you know, or people you trust, and how dressing provocatively does not increase your chances of rape.   i am specifically addressing situations that make one more susceptible to being raped.   for example getting black out drunk at parties, and if that statistically is not the case, then let is construct a hypothetical scenario in which it is.   i understand that it is the last thing victims need to hear, given the emotional or psychological trauma.  it is not helpful to outright blame them or tell them they have done wrong.    the rape is punishment enough  seems like a horrible sentiment because it implies that any punishment is deserved.  i know the whole  they were asking for it  thing is bullshit.   i definitely do not think that they should be punished for it, but i still think they are at fault.  i accordingly have less sympathy for them, and this is why i want my view changed.   /u/swearrengen for pointing out that responsibility can be a zero sum game only if the domains of responsibility are the same.  URL /u/dhckris for pointing out the absurd claims that can be made by working through chain of responsibility.  URL /u/hooj for making clear the  lack of case for causal effect .  URL  #  a commonly used analogy is leaving your valuables in a public space and expecting them to not get stolen, and this is accordingly often thrown out for reasons that escape me.   #  to me, they are morally comparable situations.   # to me, they are morally comparable situations.  it almost sounds like you are conflating/confusing morality with intelligence.  it is not immoral to lack information, be naive, innocent in the ways of the world, young, immature, an air head, dumb or to have a low iq.  there are important differences between 0 a person who leaves his valuables in a public space expecting them not to be stolen and 0 a girl who dresses in a sexy style and traverses a non public space expecting not to be raped: while both may be  foolish , firstly, the valuables appear to be  missing an owner , while the girl is body  still has it is owner .  severed or lost  relationships of ownership  backpack on the subway versus  patently obvious  ownership the pack on your back or your body carry different expectations of continued ownership.  secondly, material valuables is a completely inferior class of property to that of a human being is body, again with different expectations of continued ownership the government taxes our material valuables but at least protects our right to believe what we want ! the foremost expectation in  civilised  society is that  property belongs to the owner  and the more  important  the property to an individual, the more sacred and inviolate the ownership  and expectation of continued ownership .  and  i will concede that they are wrong in different ways.  the perpetrator has done something morally wrong, and the victim has done something instrumentally wrong.  perhaps this is why responsibility does not seem like a zero sum game to me.  however, the victim is still in the wrong.  as you noted, you have to differentiate between types of responsibility.  you can only claim that responsibility for the specific outcome is not a zero sum game  if the domains of responsibility are the same , e. g.  they both took immoral causative actions that resulted in the rape.  by your own admission, they are not.  but more important, the  effect/result  for which each party was responsible was different the girl for drinking too much, the guy for the rape.   drinking too much  can not  cause  rape, no matter how well correlated the two events might appear.  i am not sure if we can call a victim  instrumentally wrong .  a victim may have made an error of judgment perhaps, but making a mistake, being naive, or lacking of foresight or predictive ability is a morally blameless state the only responsibility we have is to treat errors as learning experiences.  can we make up a situation where both victim and rapist are responsible in a similar way for the actual rape ? a mature woman with full knowledge and past experience, in an uncivilised society, could take deliberate actions to cause herself to be raped and then it truly would not be a  zero sum game  as you call it but then it would not be rape either !  #  so i do not see much of an argument here.   #  i do not think anyone disagrees with the semantic argument you present.  i think when people talk about victim blaming, they mean: shifting responsibility to the victim, and telling them  they should not have done that if they did not want to be raped.   well, the rapist is also a human being capable of making decisions, and they made a decision to take advantage of another person is state to commit a horrible crime.  yes, obviously, had the victim not put themselves in that state, nothing would have happened, so if that is how you define fault, there is no changing your view.  but as you note, that does not take responsibilty away from the attacker nor does it mean the victim deserves punishment, so in pretty much every meaningful way you agree with the sentiment of  do not blame the victim.   so i do not see much of an argument here.   #  your fault for not wearing a helmet at all times.    #  driving recklessly is risky behavior that endangers yourself and others.  being drunk is only risky because of others.  if you were drunk in the safety of your home rape would have a zero chance of happening.  in your scenario, the victim being drunk is a red herring.  someone who rapes another, regardless of their state, bears full responsibility.  you are not at fault for the decisions of others.   whoops, you got robbed ? your fault for falling asleep on a bench.    whoops, somebody threw a brick at you ? your fault for not wearing a helmet at all times.    hey, someone tied your shoelaces together and you fell and broke your jaw ? your fault for not investing in velcro.    #  as another person put it, perhaps a distinction should be made between  being at fault  and  being responsible  for a crime.   # which is partially my point.  the person who was robbed might have fallen asleep in a sketchy neighborhood.  the person that was hit by a brick walked into a construction site.  the person who had his shoelaces tied together fell asleep, knowing that his friends were prone to playing dangerous pranks.  throughout this discussion, i have been working in the context of someone knowingly engaging in risky behavior.  as another person put it, perhaps a distinction should be made between  being at fault  and  being responsible  for a crime.  the person is  at fault  for doing something foolish, but they are not  responsible  for being victimized.   #  it is undeniably your responsibilty that you are drunk.   #  i basically agree with this, it is more or less what i have been saying.  you are not responsible for another person is actions, only for your own.  it is undeniably your responsibilty that you are drunk.  but it is in no way your responsibilty that, while you are drunk, someone else decides to rape you.  that is their action, not yours.  i think your attitude is sorta dehumanizing; let is take your rebuttal to the shoelace scenario.  oh, my friends are pranksters so i should be careful around them, ignores the fact that your friends are human beings that are capable of introspection, communication, and empathy.  they are making a fucked up decision to potentially cause you great pain.  i think victim blaming approaches treating humans as mindless animals: if you walk into a lion is den covered in meat, you can reasonably expect to be killed.  that is your fault.  however, if you are an attractive, drunk girl walking into a room full of men, you are not at fault if you get raped unless men are as mindless as lions.
tl;dr : i understand if you do not want to read the whole thing, but please do.  read only the bolded parts if you must.   for the purposes of discussion, i will be putting this view in the context of rape and victim blaming.  i know this topic has been done to death.  however, it does not encompass the entirety of my belief, only a familiar framework within which to work.  one could apply these principles to any crime with one perpetrator and one victim.  if you think you can find another way to change my view, go for it.   concerning the anathema that is rape, people tend to get up in arms when it comes to victim blaming, and they are wholly justified in doing so.  however, i have never been fully able to reconcile my moral and ethical beliefs with the way in which responsibility is ascribed.  in the context of another thread about victim blaming i forget which , one of the most popular replies was that ascribing responsibility is a zero sum game.  by making the victim responsible in any way for the crime, the perpetrator is automatically less responsible.  however, i found this an unsatisfactory answer.  the way we use language, the concept of being  fully responsible  makes it seem so, but  i believe that a victim can be partially be at fault, without making a perpetrator any less responsible.   a commonly used analogy is leaving your valuables in a public space and expecting them to not get stolen, and this is accordingly often thrown out for reasons that escape me.  to me, they are morally comparable situations.  if you do not want to address the hot topic of rape, then you can address this analogy instead.  the robber is  fully  responsible for his actions, but the person leaving their valuables behind is still at fault, as he has not taken  reasonable precautions .  i will concede that they are wrong in different ways.  the perpetrator has done something morally wrong, and the victim has done something instrumentally wrong.  perhaps this is why responsibility does not seem like a zero sum game to me.  however, the victim is  still in the wrong .  do not throw statistics around about how the majority of rapes are by people that you know, or people you trust, and how dressing provocatively does not increase your chances of rape.   i am specifically addressing situations that make one more susceptible to being raped.   for example getting black out drunk at parties, and if that statistically is not the case, then let is construct a hypothetical scenario in which it is.   i understand that it is the last thing victims need to hear, given the emotional or psychological trauma.  it is not helpful to outright blame them or tell them they have done wrong.    the rape is punishment enough  seems like a horrible sentiment because it implies that any punishment is deserved.  i know the whole  they were asking for it  thing is bullshit.   i definitely do not think that they should be punished for it, but i still think they are at fault.  i accordingly have less sympathy for them, and this is why i want my view changed.   /u/swearrengen for pointing out that responsibility can be a zero sum game only if the domains of responsibility are the same.  URL /u/dhckris for pointing out the absurd claims that can be made by working through chain of responsibility.  URL /u/hooj for making clear the  lack of case for causal effect .  URL  #  however, i have never been fully able to reconcile my moral and ethical beliefs with the way in which responsibility is ascribed.   #  and  i will concede that they are wrong in different ways.   # to me, they are morally comparable situations.  it almost sounds like you are conflating/confusing morality with intelligence.  it is not immoral to lack information, be naive, innocent in the ways of the world, young, immature, an air head, dumb or to have a low iq.  there are important differences between 0 a person who leaves his valuables in a public space expecting them not to be stolen and 0 a girl who dresses in a sexy style and traverses a non public space expecting not to be raped: while both may be  foolish , firstly, the valuables appear to be  missing an owner , while the girl is body  still has it is owner .  severed or lost  relationships of ownership  backpack on the subway versus  patently obvious  ownership the pack on your back or your body carry different expectations of continued ownership.  secondly, material valuables is a completely inferior class of property to that of a human being is body, again with different expectations of continued ownership the government taxes our material valuables but at least protects our right to believe what we want ! the foremost expectation in  civilised  society is that  property belongs to the owner  and the more  important  the property to an individual, the more sacred and inviolate the ownership  and expectation of continued ownership .  and  i will concede that they are wrong in different ways.  the perpetrator has done something morally wrong, and the victim has done something instrumentally wrong.  perhaps this is why responsibility does not seem like a zero sum game to me.  however, the victim is still in the wrong.  as you noted, you have to differentiate between types of responsibility.  you can only claim that responsibility for the specific outcome is not a zero sum game  if the domains of responsibility are the same , e. g.  they both took immoral causative actions that resulted in the rape.  by your own admission, they are not.  but more important, the  effect/result  for which each party was responsible was different the girl for drinking too much, the guy for the rape.   drinking too much  can not  cause  rape, no matter how well correlated the two events might appear.  i am not sure if we can call a victim  instrumentally wrong .  a victim may have made an error of judgment perhaps, but making a mistake, being naive, or lacking of foresight or predictive ability is a morally blameless state the only responsibility we have is to treat errors as learning experiences.  can we make up a situation where both victim and rapist are responsible in a similar way for the actual rape ? a mature woman with full knowledge and past experience, in an uncivilised society, could take deliberate actions to cause herself to be raped and then it truly would not be a  zero sum game  as you call it but then it would not be rape either !  #  i think when people talk about victim blaming, they mean: shifting responsibility to the victim, and telling them  they should not have done that if they did not want to be raped.    #  i do not think anyone disagrees with the semantic argument you present.  i think when people talk about victim blaming, they mean: shifting responsibility to the victim, and telling them  they should not have done that if they did not want to be raped.   well, the rapist is also a human being capable of making decisions, and they made a decision to take advantage of another person is state to commit a horrible crime.  yes, obviously, had the victim not put themselves in that state, nothing would have happened, so if that is how you define fault, there is no changing your view.  but as you note, that does not take responsibilty away from the attacker nor does it mean the victim deserves punishment, so in pretty much every meaningful way you agree with the sentiment of  do not blame the victim.   so i do not see much of an argument here.   #  you are not at fault for the decisions of others.   #  driving recklessly is risky behavior that endangers yourself and others.  being drunk is only risky because of others.  if you were drunk in the safety of your home rape would have a zero chance of happening.  in your scenario, the victim being drunk is a red herring.  someone who rapes another, regardless of their state, bears full responsibility.  you are not at fault for the decisions of others.   whoops, you got robbed ? your fault for falling asleep on a bench.    whoops, somebody threw a brick at you ? your fault for not wearing a helmet at all times.    hey, someone tied your shoelaces together and you fell and broke your jaw ? your fault for not investing in velcro.    #  the person who had his shoelaces tied together fell asleep, knowing that his friends were prone to playing dangerous pranks.   # which is partially my point.  the person who was robbed might have fallen asleep in a sketchy neighborhood.  the person that was hit by a brick walked into a construction site.  the person who had his shoelaces tied together fell asleep, knowing that his friends were prone to playing dangerous pranks.  throughout this discussion, i have been working in the context of someone knowingly engaging in risky behavior.  as another person put it, perhaps a distinction should be made between  being at fault  and  being responsible  for a crime.  the person is  at fault  for doing something foolish, but they are not  responsible  for being victimized.   #  but it is in no way your responsibilty that, while you are drunk, someone else decides to rape you.   #  i basically agree with this, it is more or less what i have been saying.  you are not responsible for another person is actions, only for your own.  it is undeniably your responsibilty that you are drunk.  but it is in no way your responsibilty that, while you are drunk, someone else decides to rape you.  that is their action, not yours.  i think your attitude is sorta dehumanizing; let is take your rebuttal to the shoelace scenario.  oh, my friends are pranksters so i should be careful around them, ignores the fact that your friends are human beings that are capable of introspection, communication, and empathy.  they are making a fucked up decision to potentially cause you great pain.  i think victim blaming approaches treating humans as mindless animals: if you walk into a lion is den covered in meat, you can reasonably expect to be killed.  that is your fault.  however, if you are an attractive, drunk girl walking into a room full of men, you are not at fault if you get raped unless men are as mindless as lions.
this cmv centers around the current situation surrounding disposable cutlery in western nations, wherein we spend precious resources on making one use plastic cutlery which is disposed of immediately after a meal.  this is also a big issue in eastern asia, where disposable chopsticks are consumed at an alarming rate.  i think we should return to the system of medieval europe, where people brought a knife for eating wherever they went and while eating  out  there would be no expectation for the host to provide cutlery.  this could be done easily with either a hybrid of a fork/knife/spoon or simply bringing several tools for the job.  a non disposable pair of chopsticks would be even easier to bring with you, too.  this would also be a boon for hygiene, as every person would be responsible for keeping their set of cutlery clean, preferably with some type of paper napkin to rub over with after a meal.  a common counterargument i get is about where one would carry the cutlery, especially for men who tend to not bring handbags with them.  but this is a non issue, as there are are several foldable sporks on the market even today.  i look forward to hearing possible counterarguments to my view.   #  this cmv centers around the current situation surrounding disposable cutlery in western nations, wherein we spend precious resources on making one use plastic cutlery which is disposed of immediately after a meal.   #  this is also a big issue in eastern asia, where disposable chopsticks are consumed at an alarming rate.   # this is also a big issue in eastern asia, where disposable chopsticks are consumed at an alarming rate.  it is not  necessarily  true that one use plastic cutlery is a bigger waste of resources than the constant water, energy for heating the water , and soap usage that cleaning metal cutlery requires.  additionally, it is hard to adjudicate the relative merits of one type of  green ness  vs the other.  one use plastic cutlery can be a waste of precious oil resources, and contribute to landfill pollution.  on the other hand, if we successfully transition to renewable energy, all the sudden we have a ton more oil with which to make disposable plastics.  on the other hand, it is possible and quite common, at least where i am from to make one use cutlery out of compostable starches, and throw them into a composter when you are done.  on the other hand, using metal cutlery requires washing it after every usage.  in places where water is scarce \ waves \  california drought, reporting in ! , wasting water washing cutlery may be worse, overall, than wasting plastic throwing it out.  or, in large population areas, the amount of soap in the sewage runoff can have long lasting damaging effects to the local water table.  without hard numbers, it is basically impossible to judge whether or not metal cutlery, or disposable cutlery, is a bigger  waste .  it also varies wildly depending on the local resource constraints of whichever region you are in.   #  but these are rare occasions for most people, it would be hard to expect people to adopt a permanent habit for such rare occasions.   #  i ca not actually remember the last time i used a plastic fork.  at  normal  restaurants they give you metal cutlery.  at mcdonalds you do not use cutlery.  at various stands on the street they usually do not give you any cutlery either, they sell food you can eat with your hands.  so when was the last time you used plastic forks and knives ? at a picnic of some sort or at a meeting with a buffet ? but these are rare occasions for most people, it would be hard to expect people to adopt a permanent habit for such rare occasions.   #  there are lots of mentally unstable people, i do not want them running around with knifes just to save some plastic.   #  a lot of fast food places  provide  cutlery in the sense that it is there for you to grab at your leisure.  but i have yet to see one actually hand you plastic utensils without someone explicitly asking for them barring cookout .  at that point, it is indeed up to you whether you want to bring your own cutlery or not.  that being said, the same way i do not trust everyone around me to carry a gun, i do not trust everyone around me to carry a knife.  i know there are lots of people with anger management problems in american.  there are lots of mentally unstable people, i do not want them running around with knifes just to save some plastic.   #  a lot of people do not decide in advance where to eat, and i think allowing the restaurant to provide non disposable cutlery, they will then clean, is a much better idea.   #  would it not be far simpler for the host to provide the appropriate cutlery, and after a meal, clean it properly in soap and water ? i think this would be more hygienic, and add to the atmosphere of a restaurant.  particularly higher end locations, the cutlery is part of the appearance of the dish.  in addition, there are, as you have noted, case specific pieces of cutlery.  if i carry a foldable spork, eating ramen, or chinese food, or sushi would feel simply wrong, as i should be using chopsticks.  alternatively, if i choose to eat a sunday roast, with lamb, potatoes and vegetables, chopsticks would be inefficient and feel wrong.  the best case is probably things like steaks, where you need a specific knife to be able to easily cut it.  a lot of people do not decide in advance where to eat, and i think allowing the restaurant to provide non disposable cutlery, they will then clean, is a much better idea.   #  however, that seems to be an entirely different argument.   #  i do not think you really intend for everyone to always carry it around then.  if we exclude eating at restaraunts, you are really only referring to situations like picnics and barbecues, where people would commonly use plastic objects.  carrying it around permanently would be inefficient, and i described how different foods may make for an issue.  in regards solely to situations like picnics, i think i could agree, carrying your own set of metal pieces for the event would be good.  however, that seems to be an entirely different argument.
it is a lottery luck of the draw.  it will decide a winner, to be sure.  but the better team does not always win.  and truthfully shoot outs are exciting as anything any other sport can produce but it is a lazy and unfair way to decide a game, especially at the level of the world cup.  the standard argument is that if 0 minutes in regulation time and 0 more in over time does not produce a winner another 0 or more wo not either.  why not ? how about removing players from each side as more and more overtime is played or allow more substitutes during ot ? there are many other options that can be used besides shoot outs but everyone seems to be ok with this style of game play.  it is an unfair, and truthfully a sissy way to decide something so important.  cmv  #  it is a lazy and unfair way to decide a game, especially at the level of the world cup.   #  lazy how many systems have been tried and this ones stood up the best  the standard argument is that if 0 minutes in regulation time and 0 more in over time does not produce a winner another 0 or more wo not either.   # yes almost certianly  but the better team does not always win true but football is especially open to upsets due to the low scoring nature of the game even in normal play.  lazy how many systems have been tried and this ones stood up the best  the standard argument is that if 0 minutes in regulation time and 0 more in over time does not produce a winner another 0 or more wo not either.  why not ? given enough extra times yes there will be a winner but the game will turn in to defence from both teams as its much easier to defend than attack with a tired team and try and catch the other team on the counter attack but if both teams know this both teams will mostly sit back and defend leading to boring stale mates.  removing players will lead to worsening the problem because atacking players will be more tired and removed first.  allowing more subs is currently being considered by fifa in the one period of extra time but personally im against this because i feel that faguige should be a deciding factor.  like what ?  #  and for his first 0 penalties he had a 0 stopping rate.   #  in soccer, not always the best team wins, i wo not go deep into this, because other people have already.  but one major misconception with your post is that penalty shootouts are skillless, and basicaly a coin flip.  how would you explain for example, the netherlands keepers.  their stats from recent games before the wc : percentage of penalties saved since the 0/0 season: vorm: 0 krul: 0 cillessen: 0 cillessen is arguably the better goalkeeper, one of the reason he starts for the netherlands.  but vorm stopped way more penalties than he did over his carreer.  i do not think it is fair to call him lucky.  also, diego alves carreira, valencia cf is goalkeeper, and for a while touted in spain as the king of penalties.  since he joined the spanish football he saved an astonishing 0 0/0 of all penalty shoots agaisnt his goal.  and for his first 0 penalties he had a 0 stopping rate.  if you are a good goalkeeper you can stop penalties consistently, and punish badly shot ones.  it also takes skill from the kickers.  there are some players that are not great penalty takers.  sometimes is the pressure, or the lack of precision, but not all are good kick takers.  the ideal penalty would be aimed at the top corner of the goal, as well as shot with a decent speed.  but it is extremely easy to miss if you aim it there, so usually a great penalty kick is near the post near the ground, and really fast.  it is not easy to shoot this way.  but why would not a penalty shotout be fair ? both team know the rules beforehand.  sometimes a team facing a really great penalty stopping gk will feel pressured to score.  galatasaray vs arsenal in the 0 uefa cup comes to mind.  arsenal was the favorites to win, with a better team, but galatasaray managed to hold 0 0 for the whole game, with a great performance by brazilian gk and world cup winner and famous penalty stopper claudio taffarel.  in the shoot out, maybe because of the fame taffarel had for saving penalties, two of arsenal is players tried extremely risky shots high, fast and slightly to the side , and failed, giving galatasaray a historical uefa cup title.  you might say that it does not require the same set of skills that the rest of the soccer game, and thus it does not determine the best team.  but i think that it is a part of the soccer game, so if all other things are equal, the best team at penalty shootouts is the best one at soccer  #  the skills being tested are very different from what the proper game itself tests.   #  the skills being tested are very different from what the proper game itself tests.  soccer, perhaps more so than any other sport, is a team game.  penalties test individual skills.  it would be best to have a mechanism which speeds up the actual game process while not sacrificing the heart of the game itself.  i propose sudden death while removing players from the field.  often in soccer, the defensive capabilities of both teams overshadow the offensive capabilities.  a few less players on the field would open the game up tremendously and expedite the rising of the better team to the top.  we would also get to see slightly more individual input from the star players, which could be exciting.  penalties make me feel that i have watched 0 0 minutes for nothing as they break the continuity of the game between the normal game and the conclusion.   #  do they teams pick the players that leave ?  #  how would you propose the players be removed from the field ? do they teams pick the players that leave ? if so, that could be highly demoralising for certain players.  also, what if you are left with two players on the field ? then you are once again testing individual skills, only this time it is purely individual, rather than a compilation of individual skills like penalties is.   #  take the best 0 players on two teams and put them on a field.   # if so, that could be highly demoralising for certain players.  yes, they would.  they could specify the order before the additional period.  missing a penalty can be demoralizing also.  this is not a sport in which we design everything to be moralizing.  take the best 0 players on two teams and put them on a field.  see how long it takes one to score a goal.  in fact, the moment you are a few players down, the goal scoring chances will come fast and furious.  you could also specify that defending players come off first.
it is a lottery luck of the draw.  it will decide a winner, to be sure.  but the better team does not always win.  and truthfully shoot outs are exciting as anything any other sport can produce but it is a lazy and unfair way to decide a game, especially at the level of the world cup.  the standard argument is that if 0 minutes in regulation time and 0 more in over time does not produce a winner another 0 or more wo not either.  why not ? how about removing players from each side as more and more overtime is played or allow more substitutes during ot ? there are many other options that can be used besides shoot outs but everyone seems to be ok with this style of game play.  it is an unfair, and truthfully a sissy way to decide something so important.  cmv  #  how about removing players from each side as more and more overtime is played or allow more substitutes during ot ?  #  removing players will lead to worsening the problem because atacking players will be more tired and removed first.   # yes almost certianly  but the better team does not always win true but football is especially open to upsets due to the low scoring nature of the game even in normal play.  lazy how many systems have been tried and this ones stood up the best  the standard argument is that if 0 minutes in regulation time and 0 more in over time does not produce a winner another 0 or more wo not either.  why not ? given enough extra times yes there will be a winner but the game will turn in to defence from both teams as its much easier to defend than attack with a tired team and try and catch the other team on the counter attack but if both teams know this both teams will mostly sit back and defend leading to boring stale mates.  removing players will lead to worsening the problem because atacking players will be more tired and removed first.  allowing more subs is currently being considered by fifa in the one period of extra time but personally im against this because i feel that faguige should be a deciding factor.  like what ?  #  their stats from recent games before the wc : percentage of penalties saved since the 0/0 season: vorm: 0 krul: 0 cillessen: 0 cillessen is arguably the better goalkeeper, one of the reason he starts for the netherlands.   #  in soccer, not always the best team wins, i wo not go deep into this, because other people have already.  but one major misconception with your post is that penalty shootouts are skillless, and basicaly a coin flip.  how would you explain for example, the netherlands keepers.  their stats from recent games before the wc : percentage of penalties saved since the 0/0 season: vorm: 0 krul: 0 cillessen: 0 cillessen is arguably the better goalkeeper, one of the reason he starts for the netherlands.  but vorm stopped way more penalties than he did over his carreer.  i do not think it is fair to call him lucky.  also, diego alves carreira, valencia cf is goalkeeper, and for a while touted in spain as the king of penalties.  since he joined the spanish football he saved an astonishing 0 0/0 of all penalty shoots agaisnt his goal.  and for his first 0 penalties he had a 0 stopping rate.  if you are a good goalkeeper you can stop penalties consistently, and punish badly shot ones.  it also takes skill from the kickers.  there are some players that are not great penalty takers.  sometimes is the pressure, or the lack of precision, but not all are good kick takers.  the ideal penalty would be aimed at the top corner of the goal, as well as shot with a decent speed.  but it is extremely easy to miss if you aim it there, so usually a great penalty kick is near the post near the ground, and really fast.  it is not easy to shoot this way.  but why would not a penalty shotout be fair ? both team know the rules beforehand.  sometimes a team facing a really great penalty stopping gk will feel pressured to score.  galatasaray vs arsenal in the 0 uefa cup comes to mind.  arsenal was the favorites to win, with a better team, but galatasaray managed to hold 0 0 for the whole game, with a great performance by brazilian gk and world cup winner and famous penalty stopper claudio taffarel.  in the shoot out, maybe because of the fame taffarel had for saving penalties, two of arsenal is players tried extremely risky shots high, fast and slightly to the side , and failed, giving galatasaray a historical uefa cup title.  you might say that it does not require the same set of skills that the rest of the soccer game, and thus it does not determine the best team.  but i think that it is a part of the soccer game, so if all other things are equal, the best team at penalty shootouts is the best one at soccer  #  a few less players on the field would open the game up tremendously and expedite the rising of the better team to the top.   #  the skills being tested are very different from what the proper game itself tests.  soccer, perhaps more so than any other sport, is a team game.  penalties test individual skills.  it would be best to have a mechanism which speeds up the actual game process while not sacrificing the heart of the game itself.  i propose sudden death while removing players from the field.  often in soccer, the defensive capabilities of both teams overshadow the offensive capabilities.  a few less players on the field would open the game up tremendously and expedite the rising of the better team to the top.  we would also get to see slightly more individual input from the star players, which could be exciting.  penalties make me feel that i have watched 0 0 minutes for nothing as they break the continuity of the game between the normal game and the conclusion.   #  also, what if you are left with two players on the field ?  #  how would you propose the players be removed from the field ? do they teams pick the players that leave ? if so, that could be highly demoralising for certain players.  also, what if you are left with two players on the field ? then you are once again testing individual skills, only this time it is purely individual, rather than a compilation of individual skills like penalties is.   #  take the best 0 players on two teams and put them on a field.   # if so, that could be highly demoralising for certain players.  yes, they would.  they could specify the order before the additional period.  missing a penalty can be demoralizing also.  this is not a sport in which we design everything to be moralizing.  take the best 0 players on two teams and put them on a field.  see how long it takes one to score a goal.  in fact, the moment you are a few players down, the goal scoring chances will come fast and furious.  you could also specify that defending players come off first.
it is a lottery luck of the draw.  it will decide a winner, to be sure.  but the better team does not always win.  and truthfully shoot outs are exciting as anything any other sport can produce but it is a lazy and unfair way to decide a game, especially at the level of the world cup.  the standard argument is that if 0 minutes in regulation time and 0 more in over time does not produce a winner another 0 or more wo not either.  why not ? how about removing players from each side as more and more overtime is played or allow more substitutes during ot ? there are many other options that can be used besides shoot outs but everyone seems to be ok with this style of game play.  it is an unfair, and truthfully a sissy way to decide something so important.  cmv  #  how about removing players from each side as more and more overtime is played or allow more substitutes during ot ?  #  removing players would lead to a situation that is just as unlike the rest of the game after a while 0 on 0 ?  # removing players would lead to a situation that is just as unlike the rest of the game after a while 0 on 0 ? and more substitutes does not mean goals.  i suppose you could argue for golden goal after extra time like hockey playoffs instead but that would lead to even more defense for fear of giving up a bad break.  players have already been playing for two hours well at least 0 of them with only a few short breaks by the time penalties occur with no one winning.  putting players in a situation where they end up having to play another 0 0 minutes before it is over just to avoid penalties puts them at a disadvantage in their next game.  it is not an ideal situation but forcing players to possibly play a whole second game remember many teams will play even more defensively as it goes on to prevent those bad rushes or more is less fair to the winner than penalties are to the loser.   #  in soccer, not always the best team wins, i wo not go deep into this, because other people have already.   #  in soccer, not always the best team wins, i wo not go deep into this, because other people have already.  but one major misconception with your post is that penalty shootouts are skillless, and basicaly a coin flip.  how would you explain for example, the netherlands keepers.  their stats from recent games before the wc : percentage of penalties saved since the 0/0 season: vorm: 0 krul: 0 cillessen: 0 cillessen is arguably the better goalkeeper, one of the reason he starts for the netherlands.  but vorm stopped way more penalties than he did over his carreer.  i do not think it is fair to call him lucky.  also, diego alves carreira, valencia cf is goalkeeper, and for a while touted in spain as the king of penalties.  since he joined the spanish football he saved an astonishing 0 0/0 of all penalty shoots agaisnt his goal.  and for his first 0 penalties he had a 0 stopping rate.  if you are a good goalkeeper you can stop penalties consistently, and punish badly shot ones.  it also takes skill from the kickers.  there are some players that are not great penalty takers.  sometimes is the pressure, or the lack of precision, but not all are good kick takers.  the ideal penalty would be aimed at the top corner of the goal, as well as shot with a decent speed.  but it is extremely easy to miss if you aim it there, so usually a great penalty kick is near the post near the ground, and really fast.  it is not easy to shoot this way.  but why would not a penalty shotout be fair ? both team know the rules beforehand.  sometimes a team facing a really great penalty stopping gk will feel pressured to score.  galatasaray vs arsenal in the 0 uefa cup comes to mind.  arsenal was the favorites to win, with a better team, but galatasaray managed to hold 0 0 for the whole game, with a great performance by brazilian gk and world cup winner and famous penalty stopper claudio taffarel.  in the shoot out, maybe because of the fame taffarel had for saving penalties, two of arsenal is players tried extremely risky shots high, fast and slightly to the side , and failed, giving galatasaray a historical uefa cup title.  you might say that it does not require the same set of skills that the rest of the soccer game, and thus it does not determine the best team.  but i think that it is a part of the soccer game, so if all other things are equal, the best team at penalty shootouts is the best one at soccer  #  the skills being tested are very different from what the proper game itself tests.   #  the skills being tested are very different from what the proper game itself tests.  soccer, perhaps more so than any other sport, is a team game.  penalties test individual skills.  it would be best to have a mechanism which speeds up the actual game process while not sacrificing the heart of the game itself.  i propose sudden death while removing players from the field.  often in soccer, the defensive capabilities of both teams overshadow the offensive capabilities.  a few less players on the field would open the game up tremendously and expedite the rising of the better team to the top.  we would also get to see slightly more individual input from the star players, which could be exciting.  penalties make me feel that i have watched 0 0 minutes for nothing as they break the continuity of the game between the normal game and the conclusion.   #  then you are once again testing individual skills, only this time it is purely individual, rather than a compilation of individual skills like penalties is.   #  how would you propose the players be removed from the field ? do they teams pick the players that leave ? if so, that could be highly demoralising for certain players.  also, what if you are left with two players on the field ? then you are once again testing individual skills, only this time it is purely individual, rather than a compilation of individual skills like penalties is.   #  in fact, the moment you are a few players down, the goal scoring chances will come fast and furious.   # if so, that could be highly demoralising for certain players.  yes, they would.  they could specify the order before the additional period.  missing a penalty can be demoralizing also.  this is not a sport in which we design everything to be moralizing.  take the best 0 players on two teams and put them on a field.  see how long it takes one to score a goal.  in fact, the moment you are a few players down, the goal scoring chances will come fast and furious.  you could also specify that defending players come off first.
it is a lottery luck of the draw.  it will decide a winner, to be sure.  but the better team does not always win.  and truthfully shoot outs are exciting as anything any other sport can produce but it is a lazy and unfair way to decide a game, especially at the level of the world cup.  the standard argument is that if 0 minutes in regulation time and 0 more in over time does not produce a winner another 0 or more wo not either.  why not ? how about removing players from each side as more and more overtime is played or allow more substitutes during ot ? there are many other options that can be used besides shoot outs but everyone seems to be ok with this style of game play.  it is an unfair, and truthfully a sissy way to decide something so important.  cmv  #  it is a lottery luck of the draw.   #  could you, and 0 of your friends, beat the argentinean team in penalty kicks ?  # could you, and 0 of your friends, beat the argentinean team in penalty kicks ? if not, then there is an element of skill.  how is this unfair ? well, at the end of the day, it is a game.  i am not sure how important it can be.   #  you might say that it does not require the same set of skills that the rest of the soccer game, and thus it does not determine the best team.   #  in soccer, not always the best team wins, i wo not go deep into this, because other people have already.  but one major misconception with your post is that penalty shootouts are skillless, and basicaly a coin flip.  how would you explain for example, the netherlands keepers.  their stats from recent games before the wc : percentage of penalties saved since the 0/0 season: vorm: 0 krul: 0 cillessen: 0 cillessen is arguably the better goalkeeper, one of the reason he starts for the netherlands.  but vorm stopped way more penalties than he did over his carreer.  i do not think it is fair to call him lucky.  also, diego alves carreira, valencia cf is goalkeeper, and for a while touted in spain as the king of penalties.  since he joined the spanish football he saved an astonishing 0 0/0 of all penalty shoots agaisnt his goal.  and for his first 0 penalties he had a 0 stopping rate.  if you are a good goalkeeper you can stop penalties consistently, and punish badly shot ones.  it also takes skill from the kickers.  there are some players that are not great penalty takers.  sometimes is the pressure, or the lack of precision, but not all are good kick takers.  the ideal penalty would be aimed at the top corner of the goal, as well as shot with a decent speed.  but it is extremely easy to miss if you aim it there, so usually a great penalty kick is near the post near the ground, and really fast.  it is not easy to shoot this way.  but why would not a penalty shotout be fair ? both team know the rules beforehand.  sometimes a team facing a really great penalty stopping gk will feel pressured to score.  galatasaray vs arsenal in the 0 uefa cup comes to mind.  arsenal was the favorites to win, with a better team, but galatasaray managed to hold 0 0 for the whole game, with a great performance by brazilian gk and world cup winner and famous penalty stopper claudio taffarel.  in the shoot out, maybe because of the fame taffarel had for saving penalties, two of arsenal is players tried extremely risky shots high, fast and slightly to the side , and failed, giving galatasaray a historical uefa cup title.  you might say that it does not require the same set of skills that the rest of the soccer game, and thus it does not determine the best team.  but i think that it is a part of the soccer game, so if all other things are equal, the best team at penalty shootouts is the best one at soccer  #  often in soccer, the defensive capabilities of both teams overshadow the offensive capabilities.   #  the skills being tested are very different from what the proper game itself tests.  soccer, perhaps more so than any other sport, is a team game.  penalties test individual skills.  it would be best to have a mechanism which speeds up the actual game process while not sacrificing the heart of the game itself.  i propose sudden death while removing players from the field.  often in soccer, the defensive capabilities of both teams overshadow the offensive capabilities.  a few less players on the field would open the game up tremendously and expedite the rising of the better team to the top.  we would also get to see slightly more individual input from the star players, which could be exciting.  penalties make me feel that i have watched 0 0 minutes for nothing as they break the continuity of the game between the normal game and the conclusion.   #  how would you propose the players be removed from the field ?  #  how would you propose the players be removed from the field ? do they teams pick the players that leave ? if so, that could be highly demoralising for certain players.  also, what if you are left with two players on the field ? then you are once again testing individual skills, only this time it is purely individual, rather than a compilation of individual skills like penalties is.   #  in fact, the moment you are a few players down, the goal scoring chances will come fast and furious.   # if so, that could be highly demoralising for certain players.  yes, they would.  they could specify the order before the additional period.  missing a penalty can be demoralizing also.  this is not a sport in which we design everything to be moralizing.  take the best 0 players on two teams and put them on a field.  see how long it takes one to score a goal.  in fact, the moment you are a few players down, the goal scoring chances will come fast and furious.  you could also specify that defending players come off first.
hey cmv.  so far when it comes to changing my view, you guys are 0/0, so i figured i would post another opinion of mine.  in general, i am pretty accepting of other people is views, but i absolutely cannot stand pacifists.  i am completely dumbfounded that any intelligent human being could ever be naive or idealistic enough to believe that violence is always wrong.  i ca not even begin to understand that mindset.  what, do you think if you are nice to people, everyone will just be nice back and we can all sing  kumbaya  while smoking a peace pipe ? what happens when some asshole comes around who values your possessions more than your friendly disposition ? to clarify, i do not mean people who think violence should be a last resort, because that is pretty much everyone.  i mean people with the specific mindset that violence is  always  wrong and stooping to it makes you as bad as your enemies.  they are weak, pathetic, spineless, cowards that would rather lay down and die than fight to defend themselves.  and, at least on some level, all of them are pretty much hypocrites.  sure, mr.  amish guy, it is really easy to talk about how unnecessary violence is when you live in america  and have the entire us army to defend your worthless ass !   try pulling that crap down in cartel, mexico, or maybe warzone, africa, and see how it works.  i have never once heard of a pacifist compound surviving completely independently, without any cops or soldiers to defend their retarded philosophy.  the thing is, i do not like having this reflexive disdain for any group of people.  i normally hate guys who are willing to just write people off because of their views, but i ca not help it in this case.  please cmv, show me the worth of pacifism as a belief.   #  they are weak, pathetic, spineless, cowards that would rather lay down and die than fight to defend themselves.   #  dying for a cause you believe in subverts thousands of years of evolutionary forces that compel you to keep yourself alive at all costs.   # dying for a cause you believe in subverts thousands of years of evolutionary forces that compel you to keep yourself alive at all costs.  personally, i think that takes an unfathomable amount of courage, fighting to defend yourself is not particularly admirable; it is the default response to danger that is programmed into every animal.  was it pathetic, spineless and cowardly when members of the civil rights movement sat down in the street and took beatings without reciprocation ? fighting is the easy way out.  passive resistance places potential long term societal progress over the immediate short term harm caused by physical aggression.  it worked to secure equal rights for black people in america, and it worked to free india from england.   #  i do not think mlk was a complete pacifist, and gandhi is bid only worked with england.   #  that is not always real pacifism.  peaceful resistance is great when you are trying to change opinions in your current society, less so when two societies are throwing down, and the other guy is winning.  i do not think mlk was a complete pacifist, and gandhi is bid only worked with england.  he said that if hitler came rolling in, no one should oppose him, and we can all guess how that would work out.  in my opinion, it is the actions that matter, the results, not your own dedication.  or to use an extreme analogy a lax and half hearted priest is still a much better person than a fervent klansmen.   #  are you talking about political pacifism, interpersonal pacifism, or both ?  # are you talking about political pacifism, interpersonal pacifism, or both ? not sure what the difference is, but my working definition is someone who is not willing to fight for any reason.  they would rather die than kill, basically.  no ! what the heck, why does everyone keep saying that ? means, are actions too, if you kill a bunch a people for the greater good, you still killed a bunch of people.  thoughts are not actions though, and they only matter in that they lead you to action.  a fervently held harmful belief is still freaking wrong, and to say it is better than a loosely held helpful belief is ludicrous.   #  i do not necessarily disagree with that; i only defended the courage of pacifists because you attacked it.   # is this limited to personal, physical aggression, or do you encompass within that support for armed conflict ? if i personally refuse to use violence against another human, but advocate for war, am i a pacifist ? and for the sake of clarification, can you explain how, under that definition, passive resistance does not count as pacifism, and how mlk was not a  real  pacifist ? so you are saying that positive outcomes matter more than the courage or conviction held by those who obtain them ? i do not necessarily disagree with that; i only defended the courage of pacifists because you attacked it.   #  that is not you opposing violence, that is you being to weak to do it yourself.   #  i would say that a person who refuses to engage in violence but supports other doing it is a hypocrite and not a real pacifist.  that is not you opposing violence, that is you being to weak to do it yourself.  as for mlk, he advocated non violence in this one specific conflict.  i do not know if he ever supported it as the solution to all problems, like gandhi did.  he might have been fine with killing people under different circumstances, but recognized it would do little good in his situation.  i do not necessarily disagree with that; i only defended the courage of pacifists because you attacked it.  of course.  here is how i would put it: the conviction the courage fights for matters more than the courage itself.
hey cmv.  so far when it comes to changing my view, you guys are 0/0, so i figured i would post another opinion of mine.  in general, i am pretty accepting of other people is views, but i absolutely cannot stand pacifists.  i am completely dumbfounded that any intelligent human being could ever be naive or idealistic enough to believe that violence is always wrong.  i ca not even begin to understand that mindset.  what, do you think if you are nice to people, everyone will just be nice back and we can all sing  kumbaya  while smoking a peace pipe ? what happens when some asshole comes around who values your possessions more than your friendly disposition ? to clarify, i do not mean people who think violence should be a last resort, because that is pretty much everyone.  i mean people with the specific mindset that violence is  always  wrong and stooping to it makes you as bad as your enemies.  they are weak, pathetic, spineless, cowards that would rather lay down and die than fight to defend themselves.  and, at least on some level, all of them are pretty much hypocrites.  sure, mr.  amish guy, it is really easy to talk about how unnecessary violence is when you live in america  and have the entire us army to defend your worthless ass !   try pulling that crap down in cartel, mexico, or maybe warzone, africa, and see how it works.  i have never once heard of a pacifist compound surviving completely independently, without any cops or soldiers to defend their retarded philosophy.  the thing is, i do not like having this reflexive disdain for any group of people.  i normally hate guys who are willing to just write people off because of their views, but i ca not help it in this case.  please cmv, show me the worth of pacifism as a belief.   #  they are weak, pathetic, spineless, cowards that would rather lay down and die than fight to defend themselves.   #  do you consider the actions of mahatma gandhi and his followers to be cowardly and spineless ?  # do you consider the actions of mahatma gandhi and his followers to be cowardly and spineless ? recall that gandhi was dealing with a largely unarmed populace fighting against a heavily armed colonial force, and that his demonstrations involved standing still and accepting physical trauma without resistance.  during the salt march, webb miller reported that:  not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows.  they went down like ten pins.  from where i stood i heard the sickening whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls.  the waiting crowd of watchers groaned and sucked in their breaths in sympathetic pain at every blow.  those struck down fell sprawling, unconscious or writhing in pain with fractured skulls or broken shoulders.  in two or three minutes the ground was quilted with bodies.  great patches of blood widened on their white clothes.  the survivors without breaking ranks silently and doggedly marched on until struck down. finally the police became enraged by the non resistance. they commenced savagely kicking the seated men in the abdomen and testicles.  the injured men writhed and squealed in agony, which seemed to inflame the fury of the police. the police then began dragging the sitting men by the arms or feet, sometimes for a hundred yards, and throwing them into ditches.  gandhi himself realized that the amount of courage required to partake in nonviolent civil disobedience was so great that he once said:  where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, i would advise violence.   i do not think that absolute pacifism is realistic, but civil disobedience is not always something that can realistically be undertaken by a spineless coward.  nonviolent resistance is something that should be taken seriously because it can be a powerful political tool.   #  passive resistance places potential long term societal progress over the immediate short term harm caused by physical aggression.   # dying for a cause you believe in subverts thousands of years of evolutionary forces that compel you to keep yourself alive at all costs.  personally, i think that takes an unfathomable amount of courage, fighting to defend yourself is not particularly admirable; it is the default response to danger that is programmed into every animal.  was it pathetic, spineless and cowardly when members of the civil rights movement sat down in the street and took beatings without reciprocation ? fighting is the easy way out.  passive resistance places potential long term societal progress over the immediate short term harm caused by physical aggression.  it worked to secure equal rights for black people in america, and it worked to free india from england.   #  in my opinion, it is the actions that matter, the results, not your own dedication.   #  that is not always real pacifism.  peaceful resistance is great when you are trying to change opinions in your current society, less so when two societies are throwing down, and the other guy is winning.  i do not think mlk was a complete pacifist, and gandhi is bid only worked with england.  he said that if hitler came rolling in, no one should oppose him, and we can all guess how that would work out.  in my opinion, it is the actions that matter, the results, not your own dedication.  or to use an extreme analogy a lax and half hearted priest is still a much better person than a fervent klansmen.   #  not sure what the difference is, but my working definition is someone who is not willing to fight for any reason.   # are you talking about political pacifism, interpersonal pacifism, or both ? not sure what the difference is, but my working definition is someone who is not willing to fight for any reason.  they would rather die than kill, basically.  no ! what the heck, why does everyone keep saying that ? means, are actions too, if you kill a bunch a people for the greater good, you still killed a bunch of people.  thoughts are not actions though, and they only matter in that they lead you to action.  a fervently held harmful belief is still freaking wrong, and to say it is better than a loosely held helpful belief is ludicrous.   #  and for the sake of clarification, can you explain how, under that definition, passive resistance does not count as pacifism, and how mlk was not a  real  pacifist ?  # is this limited to personal, physical aggression, or do you encompass within that support for armed conflict ? if i personally refuse to use violence against another human, but advocate for war, am i a pacifist ? and for the sake of clarification, can you explain how, under that definition, passive resistance does not count as pacifism, and how mlk was not a  real  pacifist ? so you are saying that positive outcomes matter more than the courage or conviction held by those who obtain them ? i do not necessarily disagree with that; i only defended the courage of pacifists because you attacked it.
hey cmv.  so far when it comes to changing my view, you guys are 0/0, so i figured i would post another opinion of mine.  in general, i am pretty accepting of other people is views, but i absolutely cannot stand pacifists.  i am completely dumbfounded that any intelligent human being could ever be naive or idealistic enough to believe that violence is always wrong.  i ca not even begin to understand that mindset.  what, do you think if you are nice to people, everyone will just be nice back and we can all sing  kumbaya  while smoking a peace pipe ? what happens when some asshole comes around who values your possessions more than your friendly disposition ? to clarify, i do not mean people who think violence should be a last resort, because that is pretty much everyone.  i mean people with the specific mindset that violence is  always  wrong and stooping to it makes you as bad as your enemies.  they are weak, pathetic, spineless, cowards that would rather lay down and die than fight to defend themselves.  and, at least on some level, all of them are pretty much hypocrites.  sure, mr.  amish guy, it is really easy to talk about how unnecessary violence is when you live in america  and have the entire us army to defend your worthless ass !   try pulling that crap down in cartel, mexico, or maybe warzone, africa, and see how it works.  i have never once heard of a pacifist compound surviving completely independently, without any cops or soldiers to defend their retarded philosophy.  the thing is, i do not like having this reflexive disdain for any group of people.  i normally hate guys who are willing to just write people off because of their views, but i ca not help it in this case.  please cmv, show me the worth of pacifism as a belief.   #  i do not mean people who think violence should be a last resort, because that is pretty much everyone.   #  i mean people with the specific mindset that violence is always wrong and stooping to it makes you as bad as your enemies.   #  there is a reason why philosophers consider war as a  moral catastrophe .  i mean people with the specific mindset that violence is always wrong and stooping to it makes you as bad as your enemies.  have you ever wondered why individuals consider violence the last resort ? it has nothing to do with them lacking the strength to defend themselves, it is possessing the principles that restrict them from harming/ending another human life.  deep compassion or empathy for another is viewpoint which merits consideration what is motivating another is actions.  many contemporary philosophers and global theorists point out that many wars were failures to contract, rather than good decision making.  a metaphor i have heard is: throughout history, war is a long term contract negotiation where humans lives are bartered rather than rational cooperation.  many people are cosmopolitans in the regard that they believe there is no moral separation between them and a pakistani or african beyond being born in different location and into a different culture.  we may value different things for different reasons, but the fact we  all place value on certain things  is a universally human feature.  war and violence denies others this capacity to the extent it becomes justified to end their lives.  pacifists are willing to hold to this truth to the point they would die for it, rather than end other is life for failing to see this truth.  in fact they will call themselves  hypocrites for fighting  since it would require them to act against what they consider truth of human nature.   #  dying for a cause you believe in subverts thousands of years of evolutionary forces that compel you to keep yourself alive at all costs.   # dying for a cause you believe in subverts thousands of years of evolutionary forces that compel you to keep yourself alive at all costs.  personally, i think that takes an unfathomable amount of courage, fighting to defend yourself is not particularly admirable; it is the default response to danger that is programmed into every animal.  was it pathetic, spineless and cowardly when members of the civil rights movement sat down in the street and took beatings without reciprocation ? fighting is the easy way out.  passive resistance places potential long term societal progress over the immediate short term harm caused by physical aggression.  it worked to secure equal rights for black people in america, and it worked to free india from england.   #  in my opinion, it is the actions that matter, the results, not your own dedication.   #  that is not always real pacifism.  peaceful resistance is great when you are trying to change opinions in your current society, less so when two societies are throwing down, and the other guy is winning.  i do not think mlk was a complete pacifist, and gandhi is bid only worked with england.  he said that if hitler came rolling in, no one should oppose him, and we can all guess how that would work out.  in my opinion, it is the actions that matter, the results, not your own dedication.  or to use an extreme analogy a lax and half hearted priest is still a much better person than a fervent klansmen.   #  not sure what the difference is, but my working definition is someone who is not willing to fight for any reason.   # are you talking about political pacifism, interpersonal pacifism, or both ? not sure what the difference is, but my working definition is someone who is not willing to fight for any reason.  they would rather die than kill, basically.  no ! what the heck, why does everyone keep saying that ? means, are actions too, if you kill a bunch a people for the greater good, you still killed a bunch of people.  thoughts are not actions though, and they only matter in that they lead you to action.  a fervently held harmful belief is still freaking wrong, and to say it is better than a loosely held helpful belief is ludicrous.   #  if i personally refuse to use violence against another human, but advocate for war, am i a pacifist ?  # is this limited to personal, physical aggression, or do you encompass within that support for armed conflict ? if i personally refuse to use violence against another human, but advocate for war, am i a pacifist ? and for the sake of clarification, can you explain how, under that definition, passive resistance does not count as pacifism, and how mlk was not a  real  pacifist ? so you are saying that positive outcomes matter more than the courage or conviction held by those who obtain them ? i do not necessarily disagree with that; i only defended the courage of pacifists because you attacked it.
i am able to entrust my choices to others in many situations.  i am able to hand my money over to mutual funds for it to be invested on my behalf.  i can turn my car over to a mechanic for it to be repaired on my behalf.  i can purchase part of a corporation and allow a ceo to make business decisions on my behalf.  i can join a union and allow people to bargain for job benefits on my behalf.  in all of these cases, i would argue that i have the ability to do these actions myself.  however, it would take enormous amount of time, effort and resources to match the quality i get from entrusting those that i think perform the job better.  i can still act on my own.  i can change who i entrust to a certain extent.  i am not forced into the situation neither.  even better, for areas like corporations and unions, i have better representation since they are a pooled resource that are more powerful since they project more power as a group than they would as individuals.  i feel that this is a good justification for something like a trusted voter.  something that says  i am letting this person vote on my behalf .  it would not be the same as electing a mayor, governor or representative since i have only partial say in who might get picked.  this is a person i trust that is not only educated in the election process and local political climate, but will vote in a manner mirroring in part how i too would vote.  why would i want to give my vote to another ? in my case, i do not live at my home of record where i would be registered to vote.  i do not follow local, county or state politics.  an absentee ballot cast by myself would be a ballot cast blindly which could actually work against my best interest.  not voting is also works against me since i remove any say on representation in politics.  if i had somebody i trust vote on my behalf, that means my vote is not cast blindly nor is it lost by not voting at all.  going with the unions and corporations, if a trusted voter were allowed to vote on behalf of multiple people, then that voter also has a stronger voice in politics for the voters he represents.  instead of 0 people that might turn up and vote the same way, there is now this person that will turn up and will vote a certain way.  also like corporations and unions and legislatures, such a person would have to be more public with his voting.  at the very least, i need to know is he voting in a manner i believe in and would choose him again.  i am more liberal than conservative.  it is abhorrent to me that in the us the idea of voter reduction to help in elections exists as a tactic currently a conservative tactic in the general election .  however, it is also abhorrent on the opposite end of turning out many voters excited only by ads and not actual content of the issues more of a liberal activity in general elections .  i am not naive enough to not realize that a trusted voter system could be just as open to abuse as corporations, unions or legislatures.  however, as their activity is limited to an election and could be much more transparent, it could help override modern day issues of political ad money being the driving force of elections.  change my view.   #  why would i want to give my vote to another ?  #  in my case, i do not live at my home of record where i would be registered to vote.   # in my case, i do not live at my home of record where i would be registered to vote.  i do not follow local, county or state politics.  an absentee ballot cast by myself would be a ballot cast blindly which could actually work against my best interest.  you could be following your politics at home though.  it really is not very difficult with the internet.  casting a vote blindly is entirely your fault.  also, the laws in your official residence presumably do not affect you, since you do not live there.  if they did, i would imagine you cared enough to vote on them knowledgeably.  if i had somebody i trust vote on my behalf, that means my vote is not cast blindly nor is it lost by not voting at all.  you are not voting though.  you have still removed any representation you have in politics, and merely given someone else more representation which is bad for democracy .  the only way for you to be represented in a democratic election is to vote.  any other hands on that ballot and you are no longer the person being represented.   #  now you want to choose someone to speak for us by voting for us in elections.   #  oh man this is a super interesting one.  at first there was nothing i could disagree with, but now i think.  this is essentially our government now, only you want to add one more layer of representation than we have now.  the whole premise of our government is that we choose someone to speak for us, and literally vote for us in congress.  now you want to choose someone to speak for us by voting for us in elections.  i supposed that is fine, but at one point you eventually have to have an individual make that choice which in your hypothetical would be a person making the selection of who can vote for them, which  is  voting in a way.  so it is still voting.  as long as one individual makes the choice on a person to represent them, that is voting.  especially since this would lessen the number of voters it is not like you are having someone else vote for you while you then vote for a third person no, realistically several people would  elect,  if you will, the same person to represent their vote, so it really would be just like voting is now.   #  what if you want to vary on any one item ?  #  whoa.  i did not get that from the op.  i retract everything.  let me start over.  where would you register ? how ? with a person, a system ? how long would that last ? one election ? indefinitely until you retract it ? renewed every certain number of years ? what specifically are you selecting ? a party, and all races with that party versus others would vote for that party   an option for when it is same party versus same party, what happens ? parties would presumably publicize their stances on ballot initiatives and propositions, so you would select that ? what if you want to vary on any one item ? what about people who are  decline to state  for a political party ?  #  really, if i were going to dictate how to vote, i might as well cast an absentee ballot.   #  the overall system including fail safes, checks and balances, is not important to my view.  if it is completely unworkable, which i doubt, then i would agree that the details would be important.  it can last as long as you want it to last i guess.  maybe there is a modest fee to the trusted voter seeing as they are going to do much more in the way of paperwork to ensure every vote they cast goes as it should.  i would just be picking a person to vote on my behalf, but not dictate how that person should vote.  we could have an agreement, but he is not bound to it.  really, if i were going to dictate how to vote, i might as well cast an absentee ballot.  the idea here is the trusted person is somebody that follows politics more that i do, yet i trust to vote in my stead in a manner that benefits my best interests.  for your last part, again, if i wanted to specify how my votes are cast, i might as well do it myself.   #  for those not aware, the netherlands actually has a system that allows you to empower someone else to vote on your behalf.   #  for those not aware, the netherlands actually has a system that allows you to empower someone else to vote on your behalf.  it is simply a matter of signing your vote card, and declaring the identity of the person that will vote for you.  it is usually used by people to allow someone else to vote when they are unable to make it.  it is against the law to procure votes this way if done through, for example, the act of buying them.  not really an argument against the op, just wanted to point out that the system does exist in some countries.
i am able to entrust my choices to others in many situations.  i am able to hand my money over to mutual funds for it to be invested on my behalf.  i can turn my car over to a mechanic for it to be repaired on my behalf.  i can purchase part of a corporation and allow a ceo to make business decisions on my behalf.  i can join a union and allow people to bargain for job benefits on my behalf.  in all of these cases, i would argue that i have the ability to do these actions myself.  however, it would take enormous amount of time, effort and resources to match the quality i get from entrusting those that i think perform the job better.  i can still act on my own.  i can change who i entrust to a certain extent.  i am not forced into the situation neither.  even better, for areas like corporations and unions, i have better representation since they are a pooled resource that are more powerful since they project more power as a group than they would as individuals.  i feel that this is a good justification for something like a trusted voter.  something that says  i am letting this person vote on my behalf .  it would not be the same as electing a mayor, governor or representative since i have only partial say in who might get picked.  this is a person i trust that is not only educated in the election process and local political climate, but will vote in a manner mirroring in part how i too would vote.  why would i want to give my vote to another ? in my case, i do not live at my home of record where i would be registered to vote.  i do not follow local, county or state politics.  an absentee ballot cast by myself would be a ballot cast blindly which could actually work against my best interest.  not voting is also works against me since i remove any say on representation in politics.  if i had somebody i trust vote on my behalf, that means my vote is not cast blindly nor is it lost by not voting at all.  going with the unions and corporations, if a trusted voter were allowed to vote on behalf of multiple people, then that voter also has a stronger voice in politics for the voters he represents.  instead of 0 people that might turn up and vote the same way, there is now this person that will turn up and will vote a certain way.  also like corporations and unions and legislatures, such a person would have to be more public with his voting.  at the very least, i need to know is he voting in a manner i believe in and would choose him again.  i am more liberal than conservative.  it is abhorrent to me that in the us the idea of voter reduction to help in elections exists as a tactic currently a conservative tactic in the general election .  however, it is also abhorrent on the opposite end of turning out many voters excited only by ads and not actual content of the issues more of a liberal activity in general elections .  i am not naive enough to not realize that a trusted voter system could be just as open to abuse as corporations, unions or legislatures.  however, as their activity is limited to an election and could be much more transparent, it could help override modern day issues of political ad money being the driving force of elections.  change my view.   #  not voting is also works against me since i remove any say on representation in politics.   #  if i had somebody i trust vote on my behalf, that means my vote is not cast blindly nor is it lost by not voting at all.   # in my case, i do not live at my home of record where i would be registered to vote.  i do not follow local, county or state politics.  an absentee ballot cast by myself would be a ballot cast blindly which could actually work against my best interest.  you could be following your politics at home though.  it really is not very difficult with the internet.  casting a vote blindly is entirely your fault.  also, the laws in your official residence presumably do not affect you, since you do not live there.  if they did, i would imagine you cared enough to vote on them knowledgeably.  if i had somebody i trust vote on my behalf, that means my vote is not cast blindly nor is it lost by not voting at all.  you are not voting though.  you have still removed any representation you have in politics, and merely given someone else more representation which is bad for democracy .  the only way for you to be represented in a democratic election is to vote.  any other hands on that ballot and you are no longer the person being represented.   #  now you want to choose someone to speak for us by voting for us in elections.   #  oh man this is a super interesting one.  at first there was nothing i could disagree with, but now i think.  this is essentially our government now, only you want to add one more layer of representation than we have now.  the whole premise of our government is that we choose someone to speak for us, and literally vote for us in congress.  now you want to choose someone to speak for us by voting for us in elections.  i supposed that is fine, but at one point you eventually have to have an individual make that choice which in your hypothetical would be a person making the selection of who can vote for them, which  is  voting in a way.  so it is still voting.  as long as one individual makes the choice on a person to represent them, that is voting.  especially since this would lessen the number of voters it is not like you are having someone else vote for you while you then vote for a third person no, realistically several people would  elect,  if you will, the same person to represent their vote, so it really would be just like voting is now.   #  what about people who are  decline to state  for a political party ?  #  whoa.  i did not get that from the op.  i retract everything.  let me start over.  where would you register ? how ? with a person, a system ? how long would that last ? one election ? indefinitely until you retract it ? renewed every certain number of years ? what specifically are you selecting ? a party, and all races with that party versus others would vote for that party   an option for when it is same party versus same party, what happens ? parties would presumably publicize their stances on ballot initiatives and propositions, so you would select that ? what if you want to vary on any one item ? what about people who are  decline to state  for a political party ?  #  i would just be picking a person to vote on my behalf, but not dictate how that person should vote.   #  the overall system including fail safes, checks and balances, is not important to my view.  if it is completely unworkable, which i doubt, then i would agree that the details would be important.  it can last as long as you want it to last i guess.  maybe there is a modest fee to the trusted voter seeing as they are going to do much more in the way of paperwork to ensure every vote they cast goes as it should.  i would just be picking a person to vote on my behalf, but not dictate how that person should vote.  we could have an agreement, but he is not bound to it.  really, if i were going to dictate how to vote, i might as well cast an absentee ballot.  the idea here is the trusted person is somebody that follows politics more that i do, yet i trust to vote in my stead in a manner that benefits my best interests.  for your last part, again, if i wanted to specify how my votes are cast, i might as well do it myself.   #  it is simply a matter of signing your vote card, and declaring the identity of the person that will vote for you.   #  for those not aware, the netherlands actually has a system that allows you to empower someone else to vote on your behalf.  it is simply a matter of signing your vote card, and declaring the identity of the person that will vote for you.  it is usually used by people to allow someone else to vote when they are unable to make it.  it is against the law to procure votes this way if done through, for example, the act of buying them.  not really an argument against the op, just wanted to point out that the system does exist in some countries.
poverty is not something that  has  to exist, like many people seem to believe.  there does not have to be an abysmal depth for the heights of a pyramid to exist.  the fact that our distant ancestors agreed to place value into worthless pieces of paper to the end of coexisting peacefully does not mean that we must be bound to the exact same archaic system established centuries ago.  so many of the rich are under the impression that they alone earned the money they have, well, who allowed them to accumulate all this cash ? the people, everyone collectively consuming goods and services allow the so called elite to rise above.  what the hell does a billionaire need that much money for ? at that point it can really only be used to accumulate even more gems and baubles into their proverbial mountain of gold; allowing them to sit on top of it masturbating their ego.  furthermore, when anyone brings up the fact that we can redistribute this wealth with little to no effect on the wealthy and a drastic positive effect on the poor everyone screams about  handouts  to druggie hippie homeless rapist murderers that somewhere along the process of losing any notable property also lost their status as human beings.  pegged as leeches upon society and blamed for institutional shortcomings, the excessively poor are completely trapped between a lack of economic capital and a stigmatized existence as worthless.  when presented with this opinion of the poor and destitute, i simply say why do not we just kill them then ? with near 0 occurrence people are appalled by this notion because everyone is on the same page when it comes to everyone having the right to live.  the fact that life is seen as an intrinsic right, yet the basic necessities for life are viewed as something that must be worked for is a disgusting contradiction pervasive throughout human society.  while many economic models such as universal basic income and negative income taxes propose a feasible way to eliminate poverty in a given society, they will never be ratified because those with the power to do so only hold onto their power through maintaining the status quo.  i hope this can spur some discussion : food: already we have an incredibly small % of the population involved in agriculture 0 i believe and they provide more than enough crops to feed everyone and create countless biochemical products as well.  it is not far fetched to assume that less and less man hours will be able to feed more and more people moving into the future.  so a few people running a predominantly automated farm can feed thousands even millions of people.  meaning, that the food is available to sustain everyone without them directly working in agriculture.  shelter: this is a bit more convoluted, what is the motivation to build housing to give away for free ? well in a ubi system, which i believe is one of the few feasible ways to turn this idea into policy they would still be getting paid rent for their buildings.  motivation remains exactly the same as for building housing in the current system.   #  when presented with this opinion of the poor and destitute, i simply say why do not we just kill them then ?  #  you would need to kill the vast majority of the population of the g0 countries.   #  if you live in a g0 country, its really hard to get to where people in the rest of the world consider poverty.  there are just too many formal and informal safety nets.  you are the 0 complaining about the top 0 ignoring the 0 below you.  most of the world lives on $0/day.  if you do not live on, say, less than $0/day, or $0,0/yr, then you are the rich you are talking about.  the medium net worth globally is $0,0 usd URL so if you own your home, own a new car or paid for your post secondary education, you are the rich.  note: these numbers are in purchasing price parity URL so it takes into consideration that some areas of the world are more expensive than others.  you would need to kill the vast majority of the population of the g0 countries.  i very much doubt you would say this is a good decision.   #  what you are suggesting is that poverty does not need to exist, and that people trapped in impossible impoverished circumstances deserve some help from those whom the economy has been kinder to, and that is an argument most people agree with.   #  food enough food to feed everyone on the planet does not just grow in the wild.  someone has to plant it, grow it, harvest it, transport it, sell it, wash it, prepare it, and cook it before you can eat it.  hell, even if we all lived in a tropical paradise with fruits and vegetables, fish and meats in abundance, somebody still has to do the work of picking the food off of trees and preparing it for eating.  in other words, someone has to work, or nobody eats.  what you are suggesting is that poverty does not need to exist, and that people trapped in impossible impoverished circumstances deserve some help from those whom the economy has been kinder to, and that is an argument most people agree with.  however, to suggest that no one should  ever  have to work is unfortunately not possible.  not until technology makes a machine that never breaks down and converts solar energy into three square meals a day, at any rate.   #  there is more than enough money hoarded by the very wealthy to fund a minimum income for all.   #  i do not think the idea is that 0 of the population should be allowed to sit around and be creative/investigate problems etc.  if you are an optimist, perhaps sit around masturbating for 0 years if you are not.  , but that everyone should have access to a minimum level of nutrition, water, and shelter.  just a basic income for all citizens is a huge step in that direction, i think.  we also need a better tax system, which everyone has known for many years.  there is more than enough money hoarded by the very wealthy to fund a minimum income for all.  in the us, there are also 0 empty houses for every homeless person, and proof of concept projects have proven that it is far cheaper for society to provide a free house to a homeless person so that they can get back on their feet, rather than spending tax money to treat them every time they go to the hospital, covering the costs of the crimes they must commit to survive, etc.   #  the reality is that  somebody  has to work.   #  i am basically just arguing against a fairly radical point: the idea that  nobody should have to work for basic necessities.   the reality is that  somebody  has to work.  that said, i agree with the remainder of what you are saying.  there is more than enough production on earth to feed and house and clothe and educate every single person on the planet and then some, whether they work or not.  in most cases, it would be better for the economy as well as people who are poor to meet their basic needs so that they can then afford higher level needs like job training, pursuit of a career, etc.  i do think it is a bad thing to give people something for nothing indefinitely for a limited period, to help people out of poverty and into better economic situations, sure .  eventually i think the goal should be that every able adult should do something productive, however that is defined.   #  if you are talking about organizing  all  productive labor that way, i would answer that government driven economies have been tried and all have failed because they prove to be inflexible/unresponsive to actual production needs.   #  if you are talking about organizing  all  productive labor that way, i would answer that government driven economies have been tried and all have failed because they prove to be inflexible/unresponsive to actual production needs.  but if you are talking about identifying certain sectors as  basic necessities  and running them collectively/democratically, why, most oecd countries on earth already do that.  food, healthcare and housing are all provided by the government to people based on need, even in the us.  these programs tend to be  lossy : i. e.  some of them are efficient and some are inefficient, but they are generally revenue negative and require input from taxes.  you ca not run  all  industries off of revenue from taxes when they underproduce or rather you can, but only for a few years assuming you can burn through the reserves of capital owned by rich people .  are those programs adequate ? generally no, especially in the case of the us.  however the principle at least is already widely accepted.
poverty is not something that  has  to exist, like many people seem to believe.  there does not have to be an abysmal depth for the heights of a pyramid to exist.  the fact that our distant ancestors agreed to place value into worthless pieces of paper to the end of coexisting peacefully does not mean that we must be bound to the exact same archaic system established centuries ago.  so many of the rich are under the impression that they alone earned the money they have, well, who allowed them to accumulate all this cash ? the people, everyone collectively consuming goods and services allow the so called elite to rise above.  what the hell does a billionaire need that much money for ? at that point it can really only be used to accumulate even more gems and baubles into their proverbial mountain of gold; allowing them to sit on top of it masturbating their ego.  furthermore, when anyone brings up the fact that we can redistribute this wealth with little to no effect on the wealthy and a drastic positive effect on the poor everyone screams about  handouts  to druggie hippie homeless rapist murderers that somewhere along the process of losing any notable property also lost their status as human beings.  pegged as leeches upon society and blamed for institutional shortcomings, the excessively poor are completely trapped between a lack of economic capital and a stigmatized existence as worthless.  when presented with this opinion of the poor and destitute, i simply say why do not we just kill them then ? with near 0 occurrence people are appalled by this notion because everyone is on the same page when it comes to everyone having the right to live.  the fact that life is seen as an intrinsic right, yet the basic necessities for life are viewed as something that must be worked for is a disgusting contradiction pervasive throughout human society.  while many economic models such as universal basic income and negative income taxes propose a feasible way to eliminate poverty in a given society, they will never be ratified because those with the power to do so only hold onto their power through maintaining the status quo.  i hope this can spur some discussion : food: already we have an incredibly small % of the population involved in agriculture 0 i believe and they provide more than enough crops to feed everyone and create countless biochemical products as well.  it is not far fetched to assume that less and less man hours will be able to feed more and more people moving into the future.  so a few people running a predominantly automated farm can feed thousands even millions of people.  meaning, that the food is available to sustain everyone without them directly working in agriculture.  shelter: this is a bit more convoluted, what is the motivation to build housing to give away for free ? well in a ubi system, which i believe is one of the few feasible ways to turn this idea into policy they would still be getting paid rent for their buildings.  motivation remains exactly the same as for building housing in the current system.   #  when presented with this opinion of the poor and destitute, i simply say why do not we just kill them then ?  #  with near 0 occurrence people are appalled by this notion because everyone is on the same page when it comes to everyone having the right to live.   #  we still have to have the slightest bit of survival of the fittest going on.  if you are truly so lazy that you would rather stave than get a job and contribute to society, then stave and stop wasting space and resources.  imagine that society is a company and being a person in that society you are an employee of that company.  society wants to succeed, it wants to be a great company that makes good products and still has a decent profit margin.  if you are so lazy that you wo not work, you will get fired.  just like if you are too lazy to work for something as basic as food, you will starve.  with near 0 occurrence people are appalled by this notion because everyone is on the same page when it comes to everyone having the right to live.  the fact that life is seen as an intrinsic right, yet the basic necessities for life are viewed as something that must be worked for is a disgusting contradiction pervasive throughout human society.  killing the poor people would be your choice, not the poor people choice.  that is someone else is decision affecting them.  if they choose to not work for their basic necessities, that is their choice, that is suicide, not murder.   #  someone has to plant it, grow it, harvest it, transport it, sell it, wash it, prepare it, and cook it before you can eat it.   #  food enough food to feed everyone on the planet does not just grow in the wild.  someone has to plant it, grow it, harvest it, transport it, sell it, wash it, prepare it, and cook it before you can eat it.  hell, even if we all lived in a tropical paradise with fruits and vegetables, fish and meats in abundance, somebody still has to do the work of picking the food off of trees and preparing it for eating.  in other words, someone has to work, or nobody eats.  what you are suggesting is that poverty does not need to exist, and that people trapped in impossible impoverished circumstances deserve some help from those whom the economy has been kinder to, and that is an argument most people agree with.  however, to suggest that no one should  ever  have to work is unfortunately not possible.  not until technology makes a machine that never breaks down and converts solar energy into three square meals a day, at any rate.   #  there is more than enough money hoarded by the very wealthy to fund a minimum income for all.   #  i do not think the idea is that 0 of the population should be allowed to sit around and be creative/investigate problems etc.  if you are an optimist, perhaps sit around masturbating for 0 years if you are not.  , but that everyone should have access to a minimum level of nutrition, water, and shelter.  just a basic income for all citizens is a huge step in that direction, i think.  we also need a better tax system, which everyone has known for many years.  there is more than enough money hoarded by the very wealthy to fund a minimum income for all.  in the us, there are also 0 empty houses for every homeless person, and proof of concept projects have proven that it is far cheaper for society to provide a free house to a homeless person so that they can get back on their feet, rather than spending tax money to treat them every time they go to the hospital, covering the costs of the crimes they must commit to survive, etc.   #  i am basically just arguing against a fairly radical point: the idea that  nobody should have to work for basic necessities.    #  i am basically just arguing against a fairly radical point: the idea that  nobody should have to work for basic necessities.   the reality is that  somebody  has to work.  that said, i agree with the remainder of what you are saying.  there is more than enough production on earth to feed and house and clothe and educate every single person on the planet and then some, whether they work or not.  in most cases, it would be better for the economy as well as people who are poor to meet their basic needs so that they can then afford higher level needs like job training, pursuit of a career, etc.  i do think it is a bad thing to give people something for nothing indefinitely for a limited period, to help people out of poverty and into better economic situations, sure .  eventually i think the goal should be that every able adult should do something productive, however that is defined.   #  generally no, especially in the case of the us.   #  if you are talking about organizing  all  productive labor that way, i would answer that government driven economies have been tried and all have failed because they prove to be inflexible/unresponsive to actual production needs.  but if you are talking about identifying certain sectors as  basic necessities  and running them collectively/democratically, why, most oecd countries on earth already do that.  food, healthcare and housing are all provided by the government to people based on need, even in the us.  these programs tend to be  lossy : i. e.  some of them are efficient and some are inefficient, but they are generally revenue negative and require input from taxes.  you ca not run  all  industries off of revenue from taxes when they underproduce or rather you can, but only for a few years assuming you can burn through the reserves of capital owned by rich people .  are those programs adequate ? generally no, especially in the case of the us.  however the principle at least is already widely accepted.
poverty is not something that  has  to exist, like many people seem to believe.  there does not have to be an abysmal depth for the heights of a pyramid to exist.  the fact that our distant ancestors agreed to place value into worthless pieces of paper to the end of coexisting peacefully does not mean that we must be bound to the exact same archaic system established centuries ago.  so many of the rich are under the impression that they alone earned the money they have, well, who allowed them to accumulate all this cash ? the people, everyone collectively consuming goods and services allow the so called elite to rise above.  what the hell does a billionaire need that much money for ? at that point it can really only be used to accumulate even more gems and baubles into their proverbial mountain of gold; allowing them to sit on top of it masturbating their ego.  furthermore, when anyone brings up the fact that we can redistribute this wealth with little to no effect on the wealthy and a drastic positive effect on the poor everyone screams about  handouts  to druggie hippie homeless rapist murderers that somewhere along the process of losing any notable property also lost their status as human beings.  pegged as leeches upon society and blamed for institutional shortcomings, the excessively poor are completely trapped between a lack of economic capital and a stigmatized existence as worthless.  when presented with this opinion of the poor and destitute, i simply say why do not we just kill them then ? with near 0 occurrence people are appalled by this notion because everyone is on the same page when it comes to everyone having the right to live.  the fact that life is seen as an intrinsic right, yet the basic necessities for life are viewed as something that must be worked for is a disgusting contradiction pervasive throughout human society.  while many economic models such as universal basic income and negative income taxes propose a feasible way to eliminate poverty in a given society, they will never be ratified because those with the power to do so only hold onto their power through maintaining the status quo.  i hope this can spur some discussion : food: already we have an incredibly small % of the population involved in agriculture 0 i believe and they provide more than enough crops to feed everyone and create countless biochemical products as well.  it is not far fetched to assume that less and less man hours will be able to feed more and more people moving into the future.  so a few people running a predominantly automated farm can feed thousands even millions of people.  meaning, that the food is available to sustain everyone without them directly working in agriculture.  shelter: this is a bit more convoluted, what is the motivation to build housing to give away for free ? well in a ubi system, which i believe is one of the few feasible ways to turn this idea into policy they would still be getting paid rent for their buildings.  motivation remains exactly the same as for building housing in the current system.   #  so many of the rich are under the impression that they alone earned the money they have, well, who allowed them to accumulate all this cash ?  #  the people, everyone collectively consuming goods and services allow the so called elite to rise above.   # the people, everyone collectively consuming goods and services allow the so called elite to rise above.  you say that as if the society that  allowed them to accumulate  all their cash did not already receive something in return.  they did when they purchased their product/service.  i buy or make a product for $0 and sell it for $0.  thus i have made a $0 profit.  what makes society have entitlement to any of that $0, aside from the taxes that everyone has to pay ?  #  food enough food to feed everyone on the planet does not just grow in the wild.   #  food enough food to feed everyone on the planet does not just grow in the wild.  someone has to plant it, grow it, harvest it, transport it, sell it, wash it, prepare it, and cook it before you can eat it.  hell, even if we all lived in a tropical paradise with fruits and vegetables, fish and meats in abundance, somebody still has to do the work of picking the food off of trees and preparing it for eating.  in other words, someone has to work, or nobody eats.  what you are suggesting is that poverty does not need to exist, and that people trapped in impossible impoverished circumstances deserve some help from those whom the economy has been kinder to, and that is an argument most people agree with.  however, to suggest that no one should  ever  have to work is unfortunately not possible.  not until technology makes a machine that never breaks down and converts solar energy into three square meals a day, at any rate.   #  there is more than enough money hoarded by the very wealthy to fund a minimum income for all.   #  i do not think the idea is that 0 of the population should be allowed to sit around and be creative/investigate problems etc.  if you are an optimist, perhaps sit around masturbating for 0 years if you are not.  , but that everyone should have access to a minimum level of nutrition, water, and shelter.  just a basic income for all citizens is a huge step in that direction, i think.  we also need a better tax system, which everyone has known for many years.  there is more than enough money hoarded by the very wealthy to fund a minimum income for all.  in the us, there are also 0 empty houses for every homeless person, and proof of concept projects have proven that it is far cheaper for society to provide a free house to a homeless person so that they can get back on their feet, rather than spending tax money to treat them every time they go to the hospital, covering the costs of the crimes they must commit to survive, etc.   #  i do think it is a bad thing to give people something for nothing indefinitely for a limited period, to help people out of poverty and into better economic situations, sure .   #  i am basically just arguing against a fairly radical point: the idea that  nobody should have to work for basic necessities.   the reality is that  somebody  has to work.  that said, i agree with the remainder of what you are saying.  there is more than enough production on earth to feed and house and clothe and educate every single person on the planet and then some, whether they work or not.  in most cases, it would be better for the economy as well as people who are poor to meet their basic needs so that they can then afford higher level needs like job training, pursuit of a career, etc.  i do think it is a bad thing to give people something for nothing indefinitely for a limited period, to help people out of poverty and into better economic situations, sure .  eventually i think the goal should be that every able adult should do something productive, however that is defined.   #  you ca not run  all  industries off of revenue from taxes when they underproduce or rather you can, but only for a few years assuming you can burn through the reserves of capital owned by rich people .   #  if you are talking about organizing  all  productive labor that way, i would answer that government driven economies have been tried and all have failed because they prove to be inflexible/unresponsive to actual production needs.  but if you are talking about identifying certain sectors as  basic necessities  and running them collectively/democratically, why, most oecd countries on earth already do that.  food, healthcare and housing are all provided by the government to people based on need, even in the us.  these programs tend to be  lossy : i. e.  some of them are efficient and some are inefficient, but they are generally revenue negative and require input from taxes.  you ca not run  all  industries off of revenue from taxes when they underproduce or rather you can, but only for a few years assuming you can burn through the reserves of capital owned by rich people .  are those programs adequate ? generally no, especially in the case of the us.  however the principle at least is already widely accepted.
the basic idea is to tax all land and natural resources at close to 0 of their rental value.  this would essentially eliminate real estate speculation.  at the moment, a lot of valuable land is held idle for speculative purposes.  this tax would free up that land so that society can gain the economic benefits from its use.  in the us, vacant houses outnumber homeless people.  by making it expensive to hold on to land without using it, we could force those homes on to the market and make housing more affordable for everyone.  socially, this would be a way to resolve historical injustices.  in the us, land was taken from the native americans.  countless countries all across the world have seen the exploitation of peasant farmers by wealthy landlords.  in zimbabwe, the issue with the white farmers shows the disasterous consequences of simply redistributing that land.  at the same time, the new distribution is not necessarily more just.  with a land value tax, we could use a percentage of the proceeds to create a basic income, so that all people will share equally in the land wealth of a country, regardless of history.   #  with a land value tax, we could use a percentage of the proceeds to create a basic income, so that all people will share equally in the land wealth of a country, regardless of history.   #  in general i am in favor of an lvt for many reasons, but primarily because it is a form of wealth tax.   # in general i am in favor of an lvt for many reasons, but primarily because it is a form of wealth tax.  however, i take issue with the above statement.  the amount of economic rent available to tax is not nearly the vast resource many people assume it to be.  i did some rather shoddy math a while back, and the numbers came up rather low.  .  do you see the lvt replacing existing revenue entirely, or just supplementing ?  #  so people hold on to them, and see if the market goes up.   #  the reason people do not sell their houses, is because they do not want to lose massive amounts of money on them.  if you have bought a house, and the market is in a place where selling it would lose you a few thousand dollars, you wo not, and should not, sell it.  so people hold on to them, and see if the market goes up.  this would just force people to sell property for less than they paid substantially, and ultimately lose more money than they every had.  this is obviously in the case of individuals who had bought a house and no longer live there.  in regards to larger groups, as with anything remotely near 0 tax, all this will achieve is scaring people away from going into any kind of real estate.  if my company builds houses, but every house we build, we quickly lose money on, what do you think will happen ? how is that a remotely profitable business idea ? this kind of taxation is not really viable.   #  most houses are sold quite a while after being built.   #  that is unfortunate but does not change my point.  i agree, you ca not protect everyone from failure.  forcing incredibly high taxation to simply own land does not seem like a very strong free market ideal to me though.  the free market allows for individuals to do whatever they wish to do within the confines of law , on the property they have legally purchased.  if they choose to do nothing, society has no mandate to change that.  construction would be significantly less, if at all profitable.  most houses are sold quite a while after being built.  so aside from the initial cost of building, there is now an incredibly high tax on simply owning the house and having it there with no one living in it.  i imagine that is less profitable for anyone building these houses.   #  in the history of probably literally every country i know of, land disputes were resolved by violence.   #  how does it not change your point ? your concern was for the people who bought houses for more than they are worth now.  my counterpoint is that this would improve that situation, not worsen it.   . the property they have legally purchased .  that is the key.  a purchase is not lawful if the seller was not the rightful owner of the merchandise in question.  in the history of probably literally every country i know of, land disputes were resolved by violence.  there is zero chance of tracking down the original owners of the land, and that is assuming even they could be considered its rightful owners.  construction would make less to the extent it would no longer be fueled by real estate bubbles.  that is not a bad thing.  unlike most industries, construction does not face much in the way of foreign competition.  so the tax burden would fall evenly on all competitors, and thus could be priced in to the final selling price of the property.   #  the construction company can raise their prices all they want but if the banks wo not lend that much then they will have to have a cash buyer lined up.   #  i am clearly over my head here and was merely trying to clarify that other users argument.  but, when i bought my house, i learned that banks/markets set the the price, not the owners.  the owners can only get as much as the bank is willing to lend for that property.  they make this decision based upon market value of comparable properties.  the construction company can raise their prices all they want but if the banks wo not lend that much then they will have to have a cash buyer lined up.  again, i am not an economist, just wanted to point out that the market controls the prices and not the builders/owners.  construction companies would not be able to just up the price above market value.  on the other hand i am sure the taxes you propose would have some sort of accommodation to allow for a solution to this until the market adjusted.
increasingly over the last decade the police in america have become more and more aggressive and abusive of their powers.  almost daily we hear of police shooting and killing unarmed and unthreatening citizens along with animals.  most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.  i understand that they serve a vital function in our society, but has become evident that they are abusing that trust.  in many places they have tried to institute personally mounted cameras which have been proven to lower incidents and false abuse claims, yet police departments have been adamant against implementation.  this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.  if i smoke marijuana i am infinitely more prone to danger from police then from anyone or anything else.  and with the increasing militarization this threat is ever increasing.   #  increasingly over the last decade the police in america have become more and more aggressive and abusive of their powers.   #  do you have any statistical evidence for this claim ?  # do you have any statistical evidence for this claim ? without any statistical evidence to back up your previous claim, this serves as nothing more than an example of the availability heuristic.  URL  i understand that they serve a vital function in our society, but has become evident that they are abusing that trust.  who does  they  refer to ? are you claiming that  all  cops are abusive of their power ? or that just some are ? and if it is just some, what proportion ? if it is a negligible proportion, meanwhile the vast majority of police officers are doing their jobs and arresting those who break the law without committing unnecessary acts of violence, then i would argue that the general statement  fuck the police  is unwarranted.   #  this happens to the majority of professions, though.   #  this happens to the majority of professions, though.  cashiers and the like are known to run drugs, and other employees aware of the scheme have been known to keep silent.  doctors, pharmacists, and surgeons are known to steal pain killers from their patients and run up fraudulent  redispensing  schemes, and again there are silent coworkers.  scientists have been known to falsify data and take bribes, and groups have been known to turn blind eyes.  basically, any significant profession has criminals and has people who permit criminals to do harm.   #  but the majority of cops are regular, reasonable people trying to make ends meet, just like you are; they are not  out to get you .   #  because they are not all the power hungry pigs you think they are ? yes, there is some bad apples in the bunch, just like there is with any large group of people.  but the majority of cops are regular, reasonable people trying to make ends meet, just like you are; they are not  out to get you .  remember, for every sensationalized  power hungry cop kills bus full of puppies  story you hear about, there is hundreds of  cops make huge drug bust, cops arrest violent criminal, cops find missing person  stories that you do not hear about.  i personally blame the media for that, but that is a different argument entirely.  let is say you were walking down the street, when someone walks up to you and pulls a knife on you, asking for your money.  you happen to see a cop standing on the other side of the street.  you are telling me you would not call out to that cop for help ? you would instead just stand there silently and give the robber your money, because  fuck the police  ?  #  and beyond that, yes, there are some very abusive and arrogant police officers who need to be weeded out.   #  we have a very big problem which results from the war on drugs.  the best solution to this is not to fuck the police.  the police are only enforcing the laws, as passed by politicians who in turn have been elected by the general public the same general public who then get harassed by the police.  we need to change the laws and end the war on drugs.  there are doubtlessly some other adjustments to the law which can also be made in order to improve our relationship with the police.  and beyond that, yes, there are some very abusive and arrogant police officers who need to be weeded out.  but the police as an institution remain valuable and should be appreciated as such.   #  we do not need to prevent people from using drugs.   #  no, it is not the sole explanation for police aggressiveness.  a lot of police officers are justifiably frightened by the extreme violence of some drug dealers and organized criminal gangs which deal in drugs.  the war on drugs has created a very dangerous situation, not just for drug users and drug dealers, but for the police as well.  some police over react out of fear.  even so, the problem can be solved very efficiently by simply legalizing drugs.  we do not need to prevent people from using drugs.  even if people use drugs foolishly, people still need to be in control of their own lives, and make their own choices.  the attempt by government to run everybody is lives is not working out well, and it is the basic reason why you are left with the feeling that we should just fuck the police.  let is change the laws instead.  this has already begun, in a small but significant way, with the legalization of marijuana in washington and oregon.
increasingly over the last decade the police in america have become more and more aggressive and abusive of their powers.  almost daily we hear of police shooting and killing unarmed and unthreatening citizens along with animals.  most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.  i understand that they serve a vital function in our society, but has become evident that they are abusing that trust.  in many places they have tried to institute personally mounted cameras which have been proven to lower incidents and false abuse claims, yet police departments have been adamant against implementation.  this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.  if i smoke marijuana i am infinitely more prone to danger from police then from anyone or anything else.  and with the increasing militarization this threat is ever increasing.   #  almost daily we hear of police shooting and killing unarmed and unthreatening citizens along with animals.   #  without any statistical evidence to back up your previous claim, this serves as nothing more than an example of the availability heuristic.   # do you have any statistical evidence for this claim ? without any statistical evidence to back up your previous claim, this serves as nothing more than an example of the availability heuristic.  URL  i understand that they serve a vital function in our society, but has become evident that they are abusing that trust.  who does  they  refer to ? are you claiming that  all  cops are abusive of their power ? or that just some are ? and if it is just some, what proportion ? if it is a negligible proportion, meanwhile the vast majority of police officers are doing their jobs and arresting those who break the law without committing unnecessary acts of violence, then i would argue that the general statement  fuck the police  is unwarranted.   #  doctors, pharmacists, and surgeons are known to steal pain killers from their patients and run up fraudulent  redispensing  schemes, and again there are silent coworkers.   #  this happens to the majority of professions, though.  cashiers and the like are known to run drugs, and other employees aware of the scheme have been known to keep silent.  doctors, pharmacists, and surgeons are known to steal pain killers from their patients and run up fraudulent  redispensing  schemes, and again there are silent coworkers.  scientists have been known to falsify data and take bribes, and groups have been known to turn blind eyes.  basically, any significant profession has criminals and has people who permit criminals to do harm.   #  you would instead just stand there silently and give the robber your money, because  fuck the police  ?  #  because they are not all the power hungry pigs you think they are ? yes, there is some bad apples in the bunch, just like there is with any large group of people.  but the majority of cops are regular, reasonable people trying to make ends meet, just like you are; they are not  out to get you .  remember, for every sensationalized  power hungry cop kills bus full of puppies  story you hear about, there is hundreds of  cops make huge drug bust, cops arrest violent criminal, cops find missing person  stories that you do not hear about.  i personally blame the media for that, but that is a different argument entirely.  let is say you were walking down the street, when someone walks up to you and pulls a knife on you, asking for your money.  you happen to see a cop standing on the other side of the street.  you are telling me you would not call out to that cop for help ? you would instead just stand there silently and give the robber your money, because  fuck the police  ?  #  there are doubtlessly some other adjustments to the law which can also be made in order to improve our relationship with the police.   #  we have a very big problem which results from the war on drugs.  the best solution to this is not to fuck the police.  the police are only enforcing the laws, as passed by politicians who in turn have been elected by the general public the same general public who then get harassed by the police.  we need to change the laws and end the war on drugs.  there are doubtlessly some other adjustments to the law which can also be made in order to improve our relationship with the police.  and beyond that, yes, there are some very abusive and arrogant police officers who need to be weeded out.  but the police as an institution remain valuable and should be appreciated as such.   #  this has already begun, in a small but significant way, with the legalization of marijuana in washington and oregon.   #  no, it is not the sole explanation for police aggressiveness.  a lot of police officers are justifiably frightened by the extreme violence of some drug dealers and organized criminal gangs which deal in drugs.  the war on drugs has created a very dangerous situation, not just for drug users and drug dealers, but for the police as well.  some police over react out of fear.  even so, the problem can be solved very efficiently by simply legalizing drugs.  we do not need to prevent people from using drugs.  even if people use drugs foolishly, people still need to be in control of their own lives, and make their own choices.  the attempt by government to run everybody is lives is not working out well, and it is the basic reason why you are left with the feeling that we should just fuck the police.  let is change the laws instead.  this has already begun, in a small but significant way, with the legalization of marijuana in washington and oregon.
increasingly over the last decade the police in america have become more and more aggressive and abusive of their powers.  almost daily we hear of police shooting and killing unarmed and unthreatening citizens along with animals.  most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.  i understand that they serve a vital function in our society, but has become evident that they are abusing that trust.  in many places they have tried to institute personally mounted cameras which have been proven to lower incidents and false abuse claims, yet police departments have been adamant against implementation.  this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.  if i smoke marijuana i am infinitely more prone to danger from police then from anyone or anything else.  and with the increasing militarization this threat is ever increasing.   #  almost daily we hear of police shooting and killing unarmed and unthreatening citizens along with animals.   #  because information is easier to obtain do to increase in technology efficiency.   # opinion or fact ? because information is easier to obtain do to increase in technology efficiency.  but is it going up ? is it actually going down ? do you have any facts and figures to support this ? if you read nothing but negativity you will assume that nothing positive happens.  bad news sells better then good news.  again is this fact or opinion ? it is going to be hard to change your view if everything is based on opinion then fact.  when looking at sites to support your view are you looking at non bias sites ? if you google police brutality you will find many sites that talk very similar to you, but they use examples.  the problem is they do not address the issue of if police misconduct is increasing or decreasing.  i see that argument thrown around a lot.  but how much of it is also citizens who are just angry that know they are on camera, all of a sudden acting more civilized as well ? i am not saying this is the case every time but it makes one wonder.  is it a combination of the police officer and the citizen acting different when they are being filmed ? that is why ? not cost ? police budgets, like many budgets from the government despite what many think are tight.  maybe some do not want it because it could cost the state to much and still not fix other issues inside the department ? lol what ? you ca not be serious.  are you saying that if you are smoking weed and someone is getting beaten to death, the police will not only go after you but also you will be punished to a hire extent of the law ? and this goes completely against reality.  more and more states are going towards decriminalizing and states have begun legalizing it.  according to the fbi is annual uniform crime reports, of the 0,0,0 arrests for drug law violations in 0, 0 0,0,0 were for mere possession of a controlled substance.  only 0 0,0 were for the sale or manufacturing of a drug.  further, nearly half 0 of drug arrests in 0 were for marijuana a total of 0,0.  of those, an estimated 0,0 arrests 0 of all drug arrests were for marijuana possession alone.  by contrast in 0, a total of 0,0 americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 0,0 0 were for possession alone.  see more at: URL  #  scientists have been known to falsify data and take bribes, and groups have been known to turn blind eyes.   #  this happens to the majority of professions, though.  cashiers and the like are known to run drugs, and other employees aware of the scheme have been known to keep silent.  doctors, pharmacists, and surgeons are known to steal pain killers from their patients and run up fraudulent  redispensing  schemes, and again there are silent coworkers.  scientists have been known to falsify data and take bribes, and groups have been known to turn blind eyes.  basically, any significant profession has criminals and has people who permit criminals to do harm.   #  but the majority of cops are regular, reasonable people trying to make ends meet, just like you are; they are not  out to get you .   #  because they are not all the power hungry pigs you think they are ? yes, there is some bad apples in the bunch, just like there is with any large group of people.  but the majority of cops are regular, reasonable people trying to make ends meet, just like you are; they are not  out to get you .  remember, for every sensationalized  power hungry cop kills bus full of puppies  story you hear about, there is hundreds of  cops make huge drug bust, cops arrest violent criminal, cops find missing person  stories that you do not hear about.  i personally blame the media for that, but that is a different argument entirely.  let is say you were walking down the street, when someone walks up to you and pulls a knife on you, asking for your money.  you happen to see a cop standing on the other side of the street.  you are telling me you would not call out to that cop for help ? you would instead just stand there silently and give the robber your money, because  fuck the police  ?  #  there are doubtlessly some other adjustments to the law which can also be made in order to improve our relationship with the police.   #  we have a very big problem which results from the war on drugs.  the best solution to this is not to fuck the police.  the police are only enforcing the laws, as passed by politicians who in turn have been elected by the general public the same general public who then get harassed by the police.  we need to change the laws and end the war on drugs.  there are doubtlessly some other adjustments to the law which can also be made in order to improve our relationship with the police.  and beyond that, yes, there are some very abusive and arrogant police officers who need to be weeded out.  but the police as an institution remain valuable and should be appreciated as such.   #  the war on drugs has created a very dangerous situation, not just for drug users and drug dealers, but for the police as well.   #  no, it is not the sole explanation for police aggressiveness.  a lot of police officers are justifiably frightened by the extreme violence of some drug dealers and organized criminal gangs which deal in drugs.  the war on drugs has created a very dangerous situation, not just for drug users and drug dealers, but for the police as well.  some police over react out of fear.  even so, the problem can be solved very efficiently by simply legalizing drugs.  we do not need to prevent people from using drugs.  even if people use drugs foolishly, people still need to be in control of their own lives, and make their own choices.  the attempt by government to run everybody is lives is not working out well, and it is the basic reason why you are left with the feeling that we should just fuck the police.  let is change the laws instead.  this has already begun, in a small but significant way, with the legalization of marijuana in washington and oregon.
increasingly over the last decade the police in america have become more and more aggressive and abusive of their powers.  almost daily we hear of police shooting and killing unarmed and unthreatening citizens along with animals.  most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.  i understand that they serve a vital function in our society, but has become evident that they are abusing that trust.  in many places they have tried to institute personally mounted cameras which have been proven to lower incidents and false abuse claims, yet police departments have been adamant against implementation.  this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.  if i smoke marijuana i am infinitely more prone to danger from police then from anyone or anything else.  and with the increasing militarization this threat is ever increasing.   #  in many places they have tried to institute personally mounted cameras which have been proven to lower incidents and false abuse claims, yet police departments have been adamant against implementation.   #  i see that argument thrown around a lot.   # opinion or fact ? because information is easier to obtain do to increase in technology efficiency.  but is it going up ? is it actually going down ? do you have any facts and figures to support this ? if you read nothing but negativity you will assume that nothing positive happens.  bad news sells better then good news.  again is this fact or opinion ? it is going to be hard to change your view if everything is based on opinion then fact.  when looking at sites to support your view are you looking at non bias sites ? if you google police brutality you will find many sites that talk very similar to you, but they use examples.  the problem is they do not address the issue of if police misconduct is increasing or decreasing.  i see that argument thrown around a lot.  but how much of it is also citizens who are just angry that know they are on camera, all of a sudden acting more civilized as well ? i am not saying this is the case every time but it makes one wonder.  is it a combination of the police officer and the citizen acting different when they are being filmed ? that is why ? not cost ? police budgets, like many budgets from the government despite what many think are tight.  maybe some do not want it because it could cost the state to much and still not fix other issues inside the department ? lol what ? you ca not be serious.  are you saying that if you are smoking weed and someone is getting beaten to death, the police will not only go after you but also you will be punished to a hire extent of the law ? and this goes completely against reality.  more and more states are going towards decriminalizing and states have begun legalizing it.  according to the fbi is annual uniform crime reports, of the 0,0,0 arrests for drug law violations in 0, 0 0,0,0 were for mere possession of a controlled substance.  only 0 0,0 were for the sale or manufacturing of a drug.  further, nearly half 0 of drug arrests in 0 were for marijuana a total of 0,0.  of those, an estimated 0,0 arrests 0 of all drug arrests were for marijuana possession alone.  by contrast in 0, a total of 0,0 americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 0,0 0 were for possession alone.  see more at: URL  #  scientists have been known to falsify data and take bribes, and groups have been known to turn blind eyes.   #  this happens to the majority of professions, though.  cashiers and the like are known to run drugs, and other employees aware of the scheme have been known to keep silent.  doctors, pharmacists, and surgeons are known to steal pain killers from their patients and run up fraudulent  redispensing  schemes, and again there are silent coworkers.  scientists have been known to falsify data and take bribes, and groups have been known to turn blind eyes.  basically, any significant profession has criminals and has people who permit criminals to do harm.   #  remember, for every sensationalized  power hungry cop kills bus full of puppies  story you hear about, there is hundreds of  cops make huge drug bust, cops arrest violent criminal, cops find missing person  stories that you do not hear about.   #  because they are not all the power hungry pigs you think they are ? yes, there is some bad apples in the bunch, just like there is with any large group of people.  but the majority of cops are regular, reasonable people trying to make ends meet, just like you are; they are not  out to get you .  remember, for every sensationalized  power hungry cop kills bus full of puppies  story you hear about, there is hundreds of  cops make huge drug bust, cops arrest violent criminal, cops find missing person  stories that you do not hear about.  i personally blame the media for that, but that is a different argument entirely.  let is say you were walking down the street, when someone walks up to you and pulls a knife on you, asking for your money.  you happen to see a cop standing on the other side of the street.  you are telling me you would not call out to that cop for help ? you would instead just stand there silently and give the robber your money, because  fuck the police  ?  #  we have a very big problem which results from the war on drugs.   #  we have a very big problem which results from the war on drugs.  the best solution to this is not to fuck the police.  the police are only enforcing the laws, as passed by politicians who in turn have been elected by the general public the same general public who then get harassed by the police.  we need to change the laws and end the war on drugs.  there are doubtlessly some other adjustments to the law which can also be made in order to improve our relationship with the police.  and beyond that, yes, there are some very abusive and arrogant police officers who need to be weeded out.  but the police as an institution remain valuable and should be appreciated as such.   #  even if people use drugs foolishly, people still need to be in control of their own lives, and make their own choices.   #  no, it is not the sole explanation for police aggressiveness.  a lot of police officers are justifiably frightened by the extreme violence of some drug dealers and organized criminal gangs which deal in drugs.  the war on drugs has created a very dangerous situation, not just for drug users and drug dealers, but for the police as well.  some police over react out of fear.  even so, the problem can be solved very efficiently by simply legalizing drugs.  we do not need to prevent people from using drugs.  even if people use drugs foolishly, people still need to be in control of their own lives, and make their own choices.  the attempt by government to run everybody is lives is not working out well, and it is the basic reason why you are left with the feeling that we should just fuck the police.  let is change the laws instead.  this has already begun, in a small but significant way, with the legalization of marijuana in washington and oregon.
increasingly over the last decade the police in america have become more and more aggressive and abusive of their powers.  almost daily we hear of police shooting and killing unarmed and unthreatening citizens along with animals.  most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.  i understand that they serve a vital function in our society, but has become evident that they are abusing that trust.  in many places they have tried to institute personally mounted cameras which have been proven to lower incidents and false abuse claims, yet police departments have been adamant against implementation.  this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.  if i smoke marijuana i am infinitely more prone to danger from police then from anyone or anything else.  and with the increasing militarization this threat is ever increasing.   #  almost daily we hear of police shooting and killing unarmed and unthreatening citizens along with animals.   #  most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.   # source ? most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.  once again, source ? you have to remember that cases of police abuse are not settled right away.  they have to be investigated like any other criminal case, so when a police officer is given paid leave after being accused of abuse, they do this so that the officer is no longer on the force to prevent any potential issues while the case is being investigated while still paying him/her since it would be unfair to suspend someone is pay without first investigating what happened.  do you ever follow up on researching the results of these cases that you read everyday, or do you just read the article that day and that is it ? this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.  or that they do not want to be constantly monitored just like anyone else would not.  you you be ok with wearing a camera on yourself every time you went out in public in an effort to reduce crime ? unless you live in washington or colorado or have a medical card in certain states if you smoke marijuana you are still committing a crime.  whether you believe that this should be a crime or not is another discussion, but if you are breaking the law it is the job of the police to enforce the law as it is written where you live.   #  scientists have been known to falsify data and take bribes, and groups have been known to turn blind eyes.   #  this happens to the majority of professions, though.  cashiers and the like are known to run drugs, and other employees aware of the scheme have been known to keep silent.  doctors, pharmacists, and surgeons are known to steal pain killers from their patients and run up fraudulent  redispensing  schemes, and again there are silent coworkers.  scientists have been known to falsify data and take bribes, and groups have been known to turn blind eyes.  basically, any significant profession has criminals and has people who permit criminals to do harm.   #  yes, there is some bad apples in the bunch, just like there is with any large group of people.   #  because they are not all the power hungry pigs you think they are ? yes, there is some bad apples in the bunch, just like there is with any large group of people.  but the majority of cops are regular, reasonable people trying to make ends meet, just like you are; they are not  out to get you .  remember, for every sensationalized  power hungry cop kills bus full of puppies  story you hear about, there is hundreds of  cops make huge drug bust, cops arrest violent criminal, cops find missing person  stories that you do not hear about.  i personally blame the media for that, but that is a different argument entirely.  let is say you were walking down the street, when someone walks up to you and pulls a knife on you, asking for your money.  you happen to see a cop standing on the other side of the street.  you are telling me you would not call out to that cop for help ? you would instead just stand there silently and give the robber your money, because  fuck the police  ?  #  there are doubtlessly some other adjustments to the law which can also be made in order to improve our relationship with the police.   #  we have a very big problem which results from the war on drugs.  the best solution to this is not to fuck the police.  the police are only enforcing the laws, as passed by politicians who in turn have been elected by the general public the same general public who then get harassed by the police.  we need to change the laws and end the war on drugs.  there are doubtlessly some other adjustments to the law which can also be made in order to improve our relationship with the police.  and beyond that, yes, there are some very abusive and arrogant police officers who need to be weeded out.  but the police as an institution remain valuable and should be appreciated as such.   #  a lot of police officers are justifiably frightened by the extreme violence of some drug dealers and organized criminal gangs which deal in drugs.   #  no, it is not the sole explanation for police aggressiveness.  a lot of police officers are justifiably frightened by the extreme violence of some drug dealers and organized criminal gangs which deal in drugs.  the war on drugs has created a very dangerous situation, not just for drug users and drug dealers, but for the police as well.  some police over react out of fear.  even so, the problem can be solved very efficiently by simply legalizing drugs.  we do not need to prevent people from using drugs.  even if people use drugs foolishly, people still need to be in control of their own lives, and make their own choices.  the attempt by government to run everybody is lives is not working out well, and it is the basic reason why you are left with the feeling that we should just fuck the police.  let is change the laws instead.  this has already begun, in a small but significant way, with the legalization of marijuana in washington and oregon.
increasingly over the last decade the police in america have become more and more aggressive and abusive of their powers.  almost daily we hear of police shooting and killing unarmed and unthreatening citizens along with animals.  most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.  i understand that they serve a vital function in our society, but has become evident that they are abusing that trust.  in many places they have tried to institute personally mounted cameras which have been proven to lower incidents and false abuse claims, yet police departments have been adamant against implementation.  this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.  if i smoke marijuana i am infinitely more prone to danger from police then from anyone or anything else.  and with the increasing militarization this threat is ever increasing.   #  in many places they have tried to institute personally mounted cameras which have been proven to lower incidents and false abuse claims, yet police departments have been adamant against implementation.   #  this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.   # source ? most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.  once again, source ? you have to remember that cases of police abuse are not settled right away.  they have to be investigated like any other criminal case, so when a police officer is given paid leave after being accused of abuse, they do this so that the officer is no longer on the force to prevent any potential issues while the case is being investigated while still paying him/her since it would be unfair to suspend someone is pay without first investigating what happened.  do you ever follow up on researching the results of these cases that you read everyday, or do you just read the article that day and that is it ? this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.  or that they do not want to be constantly monitored just like anyone else would not.  you you be ok with wearing a camera on yourself every time you went out in public in an effort to reduce crime ? unless you live in washington or colorado or have a medical card in certain states if you smoke marijuana you are still committing a crime.  whether you believe that this should be a crime or not is another discussion, but if you are breaking the law it is the job of the police to enforce the law as it is written where you live.   #  basically, any significant profession has criminals and has people who permit criminals to do harm.   #  this happens to the majority of professions, though.  cashiers and the like are known to run drugs, and other employees aware of the scheme have been known to keep silent.  doctors, pharmacists, and surgeons are known to steal pain killers from their patients and run up fraudulent  redispensing  schemes, and again there are silent coworkers.  scientists have been known to falsify data and take bribes, and groups have been known to turn blind eyes.  basically, any significant profession has criminals and has people who permit criminals to do harm.   #  remember, for every sensationalized  power hungry cop kills bus full of puppies  story you hear about, there is hundreds of  cops make huge drug bust, cops arrest violent criminal, cops find missing person  stories that you do not hear about.   #  because they are not all the power hungry pigs you think they are ? yes, there is some bad apples in the bunch, just like there is with any large group of people.  but the majority of cops are regular, reasonable people trying to make ends meet, just like you are; they are not  out to get you .  remember, for every sensationalized  power hungry cop kills bus full of puppies  story you hear about, there is hundreds of  cops make huge drug bust, cops arrest violent criminal, cops find missing person  stories that you do not hear about.  i personally blame the media for that, but that is a different argument entirely.  let is say you were walking down the street, when someone walks up to you and pulls a knife on you, asking for your money.  you happen to see a cop standing on the other side of the street.  you are telling me you would not call out to that cop for help ? you would instead just stand there silently and give the robber your money, because  fuck the police  ?  #  but the police as an institution remain valuable and should be appreciated as such.   #  we have a very big problem which results from the war on drugs.  the best solution to this is not to fuck the police.  the police are only enforcing the laws, as passed by politicians who in turn have been elected by the general public the same general public who then get harassed by the police.  we need to change the laws and end the war on drugs.  there are doubtlessly some other adjustments to the law which can also be made in order to improve our relationship with the police.  and beyond that, yes, there are some very abusive and arrogant police officers who need to be weeded out.  but the police as an institution remain valuable and should be appreciated as such.   #  even if people use drugs foolishly, people still need to be in control of their own lives, and make their own choices.   #  no, it is not the sole explanation for police aggressiveness.  a lot of police officers are justifiably frightened by the extreme violence of some drug dealers and organized criminal gangs which deal in drugs.  the war on drugs has created a very dangerous situation, not just for drug users and drug dealers, but for the police as well.  some police over react out of fear.  even so, the problem can be solved very efficiently by simply legalizing drugs.  we do not need to prevent people from using drugs.  even if people use drugs foolishly, people still need to be in control of their own lives, and make their own choices.  the attempt by government to run everybody is lives is not working out well, and it is the basic reason why you are left with the feeling that we should just fuck the police.  let is change the laws instead.  this has already begun, in a small but significant way, with the legalization of marijuana in washington and oregon.
increasingly over the last decade the police in america have become more and more aggressive and abusive of their powers.  almost daily we hear of police shooting and killing unarmed and unthreatening citizens along with animals.  most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.  i understand that they serve a vital function in our society, but has become evident that they are abusing that trust.  in many places they have tried to institute personally mounted cameras which have been proven to lower incidents and false abuse claims, yet police departments have been adamant against implementation.  this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.  if i smoke marijuana i am infinitely more prone to danger from police then from anyone or anything else.  and with the increasing militarization this threat is ever increasing.   #  if i smoke marijuana i am infinitely more prone to danger from police then from anyone or anything else.   #  unless you live in washington or colorado or have a medical card in certain states if you smoke marijuana you are still committing a crime.   # source ? most times these cops are given a slap on the wrist or paid leave at worst.  once again, source ? you have to remember that cases of police abuse are not settled right away.  they have to be investigated like any other criminal case, so when a police officer is given paid leave after being accused of abuse, they do this so that the officer is no longer on the force to prevent any potential issues while the case is being investigated while still paying him/her since it would be unfair to suspend someone is pay without first investigating what happened.  do you ever follow up on researching the results of these cases that you read everyday, or do you just read the article that day and that is it ? this leads me to believe that they are trying to hide criminal activity and widespread systemic abuse.  or that they do not want to be constantly monitored just like anyone else would not.  you you be ok with wearing a camera on yourself every time you went out in public in an effort to reduce crime ? unless you live in washington or colorado or have a medical card in certain states if you smoke marijuana you are still committing a crime.  whether you believe that this should be a crime or not is another discussion, but if you are breaking the law it is the job of the police to enforce the law as it is written where you live.   #  cashiers and the like are known to run drugs, and other employees aware of the scheme have been known to keep silent.   #  this happens to the majority of professions, though.  cashiers and the like are known to run drugs, and other employees aware of the scheme have been known to keep silent.  doctors, pharmacists, and surgeons are known to steal pain killers from their patients and run up fraudulent  redispensing  schemes, and again there are silent coworkers.  scientists have been known to falsify data and take bribes, and groups have been known to turn blind eyes.  basically, any significant profession has criminals and has people who permit criminals to do harm.   #  you happen to see a cop standing on the other side of the street.   #  because they are not all the power hungry pigs you think they are ? yes, there is some bad apples in the bunch, just like there is with any large group of people.  but the majority of cops are regular, reasonable people trying to make ends meet, just like you are; they are not  out to get you .  remember, for every sensationalized  power hungry cop kills bus full of puppies  story you hear about, there is hundreds of  cops make huge drug bust, cops arrest violent criminal, cops find missing person  stories that you do not hear about.  i personally blame the media for that, but that is a different argument entirely.  let is say you were walking down the street, when someone walks up to you and pulls a knife on you, asking for your money.  you happen to see a cop standing on the other side of the street.  you are telling me you would not call out to that cop for help ? you would instead just stand there silently and give the robber your money, because  fuck the police  ?  #  but the police as an institution remain valuable and should be appreciated as such.   #  we have a very big problem which results from the war on drugs.  the best solution to this is not to fuck the police.  the police are only enforcing the laws, as passed by politicians who in turn have been elected by the general public the same general public who then get harassed by the police.  we need to change the laws and end the war on drugs.  there are doubtlessly some other adjustments to the law which can also be made in order to improve our relationship with the police.  and beyond that, yes, there are some very abusive and arrogant police officers who need to be weeded out.  but the police as an institution remain valuable and should be appreciated as such.   #  the war on drugs has created a very dangerous situation, not just for drug users and drug dealers, but for the police as well.   #  no, it is not the sole explanation for police aggressiveness.  a lot of police officers are justifiably frightened by the extreme violence of some drug dealers and organized criminal gangs which deal in drugs.  the war on drugs has created a very dangerous situation, not just for drug users and drug dealers, but for the police as well.  some police over react out of fear.  even so, the problem can be solved very efficiently by simply legalizing drugs.  we do not need to prevent people from using drugs.  even if people use drugs foolishly, people still need to be in control of their own lives, and make their own choices.  the attempt by government to run everybody is lives is not working out well, and it is the basic reason why you are left with the feeling that we should just fuck the police.  let is change the laws instead.  this has already begun, in a small but significant way, with the legalization of marijuana in washington and oregon.
i believe that men should be allowed to wear shorts in any workplace that a woman is allowed to wear a skirt.  with the temperatures scorching i believe it is unjust that women are allowed to wear skirts to work but men are not allowed to wear shorts.  especially since some of the skirts that women wear are the kinds with shorts on the inside, it just seems like a biased double standard that is based on sex.  i am not talking about wearing shorts in places wear necessary attire is required for work, but any institution that allows for business attire that permits females to wear attire that exposes their legs, men should have the same right.  change my view.  since we can not agree that skirts   shorts are comparable, let is just say the ability to expose your legs.  women have the ability to expose their legs in the workplace, and men do not.  i believe men should have that same ability, and that ability not existing for them, is a bias based on gender.   #  women have the ability to expose their legs in the workplace, and men do not.   #  i believe men should have that same ability, and that ability not existing for them, is a bias based on gender.   # i believe men should have that same ability, and that ability not existing for them, is a bias based on gender.  i disagree that it is a bias based on gender.  i would characterize it as a subjective social construct that nobody agrees on URL but has some roots in historical bias URL due to it initially being intended for young boys:  in much of europe and north america during the 0th and early 0th centuries  shorts were worn as outerwear only by young boys until they reached a certain height or maturity .  when boys got older, typically around puberty, they would receive their first pair of long trousers.  some additional historical perspective is shown here URL which shows that shorts have been oppressed, but it took a war for them to become more socially acceptable:  let is fast forward to the 0s when women displayed their proclivity, to wear shorts like their children did for casual and athletic activity.  it then became commonplace for those shorts to be worn everywhere by men … and women, too.  based on this, it may take either until world war 0, fruition of some global phenomenon e. g.  warming , or another century to pass for shorts to become more widely accepted in the workplace.   #  yes, black guys get discriminated against in construction.   #  you are exactly right.  these companies are competing in a dog eat dog industry and they do not need one single extra problem to deal with and from the perspective of someone who just wants to get the work done the easiest way to handle the situation is to get rid of the girl.  ianal as well, but it is definitely illegal.  if all your workers hate black guys and a black guy gets hired it is not legal to fire him just because the other workers ca not handle him being there.  it still happens.  yes, black guys get discriminated against in construction.  it is appalling.  frequently there will be a  two man layoff  consisting of a woman and a black guy.  it happens all.  the.  time.  others get discriminated against, too, but it varies depending upon who is running the job.   #  and even if you win are you going to win enough money to offset the damage to you career that can result from being blackballed within your industry ?  #  a lot of employment laws are broken, violated, vandalized, trashed, mocked, etc.  day in and day out.  how can the laws be enforced when employers tolerate, or promote the violations ? if it is something osha can be involved in that is one way.  if there is a union they might be able to help, but in all honesty a union wo not get involved in something they are not  sure  they can win because losing fights reduces a union is power and credibility in the bigger picture and it can be hard to prove something that happened that should not have or to prove the  reason  someone was  laid off.   when it comes down to it lawsuits can be the ultimate enforcers of labor laws but who has the time and money to sue employers ? especially knowing you wo not be guaranteed to win just because you were wronged.  and even if you win are you going to win enough money to offset the damage to you career that can result from being blackballed within your industry ? it is insane how much of a joke a lot of labor law is, and i ca not express how little difference it would make to try to  make points  about fairness or whatever.  it is an absolute myth that modern workplaces are fair to members of both/every gender.   #  unfortunately we are still a long way from fair.   #  unfortunately we are still a long way from fair.  i once worked at a construction site that was about 0 miles from my home, but learned that the company was working on another site that was about 0 miles from my home.  i asked if i could be transferred to the closer site.  all they had to say was  no  but instead the general foreman said  the guy we have running our work over there would not want you.  the last time a girl was sent to his job he told her to get out of there and go get a job as a cocktail waitress instead.   and he said it in front of another foreman and a rep from the general contractor.  totally illegal.  there are about 0 levels of shit wrong with this scenario but it all comes down to: whatcha gonna do about it ? seriously, though, do not get me started.  i gotta million little anecdotes that some people would not believe because it is popular to think we are past all that.  we are not past all that.   #  you place far too much emphasis on the social aspect of schools honestly.   #  i do not know what kind of schools you went to but dress codes are pretty gender neutral in my experience.  boys ca not expose their chests or midriffs anymore than girls can.  the specific articles of clothing that get targeted might be different but that just reflects trends in how men and women dress differently.  you place far too much emphasis on the social aspect of schools honestly.  academics are the main focus of school, the social part is a byproduct of placing a lot of children into the same building.  there are good social lessons to learn from being in school but they should not come at the expense of academic education.  you ca not expect a teenager to just miraculously discard their hormones and stop noticing the people around them, maybe they will learn a few years down the road if you keep forcing them into those situations but in the meantime you are distracting them from learning the foundations of all their academic success.  people will grow out of that distraction phase eventually even with a modest dress code, but those academic lessons are very hard to catch up on if you are falling behind in school.  on another note, you made this a specific issue of boys being distracted by girls when that had not come up before and you really should not have.  i doubt you really believe that girls are all perfect students and never get distracted by the boys around them.
first off, i am not going to go into the reasons for invading another sovereign country.  it happened, and i am one of the  casualties  of the war.  the point i am trying to make is that as a result of it, had we should have followed through completely.  it would have been a great thing.  i think that while it was the bush administration, from an even that happened when i was in 0th grade, it could have ended up as a good thing without a sudden withdrawal.  like i said, not going into the reasons, but at the height of us presense in the country, the only opinion i had gotten from people was hope.  i talked to dozens of iraqis, from business owners to drug addicts, and even 0 years after the initial invasion, they were happy with the terrible things that happened as a result of saddamn getting overthrown.  please, change my view as to why we completely left the country which is now in anarchy.   #  first off, i am not going to go into the reasons for invading another sovereign country.   #  you do not think the justification of a war has anything to do with whether it is a  good thing  or not ?  # you do not think the justification of a war has anything to do with whether it is a  good thing  or not ? are you okay with any country invading another for any reason ? please, change my view as to why we completely left the country which is now in anarchy.  selection bias.  do you think the people who viewed the american invasion as a bad thing would likely talk to an american ? do you think that someone with a negative opinion of you would talk to you while you were armed and had the power to kill them ? i certainly would be telling my honest opinion to gun wielding invaders if i did not like them.   #  i am saying that i have zero illusion of an iraqi democracy happening because we were there and waved a flag for a while.   #  i am saying that i have zero illusion of an iraqi democracy happening because we were there and waved a flag for a while.  the sunni/shiite situation is what we should have really been focused on.  however we did not.  as i said, i am not trying to defend the asinine way we tried to manage the war.  the initial way we dealt with things was shit.  we disbanded the iraqi army for years.  i think of that as the biggest single mistake of the entire iraq debacle.  living conditions were horrible under saddam.  i talked to people who had their spouses disappear to never return.  i talked to those who were forced to do terrible things because their children were threatened.  what i am trying to say, is that a total withdrawal of us forces was a mistake, because the fact that we were there acted as a deterrent against organizations such as isis without having a solid iraqi military.  i think we did a good thing by deposing saddam.  i also think that mismanagement and apathy destroyed any chance of us rebuilding the country short of the us maintaining a military presence for at least a decade longer.   #  we did not accidentally kill them, we intentionally killed them because there was no other way to accomplish the mission without doing so.   #  you have said a couple things that make me think you have a skewed perspective of collateral damage.  first off a lot of collateral damage are not accidents.  the guy living two floors above the secret al qaeda meeting did not accidentally get killed.  the decision was made that saving that innocent life was not as important as killing the leaders in that meeting.  we did not accidentally kill them, we intentionally killed them because there was no other way to accomplish the mission without doing so.  perpetuating the  fact  as far as we have seen that there will always be collateral damage is not meant to desensitize us to the carnage involved in war, but to make sure we never use war as a tool when we do not have to.  you  will  kill innocent people if you decide to use war as a tool, and unless you think that is a good thing, then war should be your last resort.   #  we spent billions of dollars rebuilding afghanistan after we invaded, but it did not seem to do shit because we were not talking to the people.   #  i actually agree with you quite a bit.  when we withdrew from iraq, it was a political landmine.  the biggest problem was, we went into the country to overthrow a government.  military leadership failed, big time.  and actually, it is very sad because we had the  exact same precedent  set by funding afghanistan against the soviets in the 0s.  the us no longer has the fortitude to sustain a rebuilding effort.  we could have spent $0million dollars to rebuild afghanistan after the soviets left, but we did not because  we won .  we spent billions of dollars rebuilding afghanistan after we invaded, but it did not seem to do shit because we were not talking to the people.  our ultimate failure in iraq is leadership not listening to people on the ground.  we did not listen to the immediate needs of the people.  we did not understand the religious/cultural differences.  we could have at least prevented the massive current violence in the country by leaving a presence there.  there are so many  woulda, coulda, shoulda,  in the situation it is rediculous.   #  history has shown time and time again that western democracy just does not work in today is middle east.   #  history has shown time and time again that western democracy just does not work in today is middle east.  charging in to overthrow hussein, for whatever reason oil, regime change, shits and giggles and expecting democracy to just flourish was foolhardy.  i mean, look at it now: there is a type of democracy in place in iraq, and it is just crumbled to dust under the insurgency from isis.  isis did not really stand a chance while the us was there; the us was heavily armed and had a good sense of unity, not unlike the military dictatorship situation under saddam.  but now there is this infant democracy, it is ripe for a rebellion.  the us led an invasion into a country that was undoubtedly brutally run, but had an element of stability to it.  you have most likely met iraqis who have benefited from the invasion, but there will have been those who did not.  both sides are now bearing the brunt of the consequences as yet another group leads an invasion.
first off, i am not going to go into the reasons for invading another sovereign country.  it happened, and i am one of the  casualties  of the war.  the point i am trying to make is that as a result of it, had we should have followed through completely.  it would have been a great thing.  i think that while it was the bush administration, from an even that happened when i was in 0th grade, it could have ended up as a good thing without a sudden withdrawal.  like i said, not going into the reasons, but at the height of us presense in the country, the only opinion i had gotten from people was hope.  i talked to dozens of iraqis, from business owners to drug addicts, and even 0 years after the initial invasion, they were happy with the terrible things that happened as a result of saddamn getting overthrown.  please, change my view as to why we completely left the country which is now in anarchy.   #  i talked to dozens of iraqis, from business owners to drug addicts, and even 0 years after the initial invasion, they were happy with the terrible things that happened as a result of saddamn getting overthrown.   #  please, change my view as to why we completely left the country which is now in anarchy.   # you do not think the justification of a war has anything to do with whether it is a  good thing  or not ? are you okay with any country invading another for any reason ? please, change my view as to why we completely left the country which is now in anarchy.  selection bias.  do you think the people who viewed the american invasion as a bad thing would likely talk to an american ? do you think that someone with a negative opinion of you would talk to you while you were armed and had the power to kill them ? i certainly would be telling my honest opinion to gun wielding invaders if i did not like them.   #  i think of that as the biggest single mistake of the entire iraq debacle.   #  i am saying that i have zero illusion of an iraqi democracy happening because we were there and waved a flag for a while.  the sunni/shiite situation is what we should have really been focused on.  however we did not.  as i said, i am not trying to defend the asinine way we tried to manage the war.  the initial way we dealt with things was shit.  we disbanded the iraqi army for years.  i think of that as the biggest single mistake of the entire iraq debacle.  living conditions were horrible under saddam.  i talked to people who had their spouses disappear to never return.  i talked to those who were forced to do terrible things because their children were threatened.  what i am trying to say, is that a total withdrawal of us forces was a mistake, because the fact that we were there acted as a deterrent against organizations such as isis without having a solid iraqi military.  i think we did a good thing by deposing saddam.  i also think that mismanagement and apathy destroyed any chance of us rebuilding the country short of the us maintaining a military presence for at least a decade longer.   #  you have said a couple things that make me think you have a skewed perspective of collateral damage.   #  you have said a couple things that make me think you have a skewed perspective of collateral damage.  first off a lot of collateral damage are not accidents.  the guy living two floors above the secret al qaeda meeting did not accidentally get killed.  the decision was made that saving that innocent life was not as important as killing the leaders in that meeting.  we did not accidentally kill them, we intentionally killed them because there was no other way to accomplish the mission without doing so.  perpetuating the  fact  as far as we have seen that there will always be collateral damage is not meant to desensitize us to the carnage involved in war, but to make sure we never use war as a tool when we do not have to.  you  will  kill innocent people if you decide to use war as a tool, and unless you think that is a good thing, then war should be your last resort.   #  and actually, it is very sad because we had the  exact same precedent  set by funding afghanistan against the soviets in the 0s.   #  i actually agree with you quite a bit.  when we withdrew from iraq, it was a political landmine.  the biggest problem was, we went into the country to overthrow a government.  military leadership failed, big time.  and actually, it is very sad because we had the  exact same precedent  set by funding afghanistan against the soviets in the 0s.  the us no longer has the fortitude to sustain a rebuilding effort.  we could have spent $0million dollars to rebuild afghanistan after the soviets left, but we did not because  we won .  we spent billions of dollars rebuilding afghanistan after we invaded, but it did not seem to do shit because we were not talking to the people.  our ultimate failure in iraq is leadership not listening to people on the ground.  we did not listen to the immediate needs of the people.  we did not understand the religious/cultural differences.  we could have at least prevented the massive current violence in the country by leaving a presence there.  there are so many  woulda, coulda, shoulda,  in the situation it is rediculous.   #  both sides are now bearing the brunt of the consequences as yet another group leads an invasion.   #  history has shown time and time again that western democracy just does not work in today is middle east.  charging in to overthrow hussein, for whatever reason oil, regime change, shits and giggles and expecting democracy to just flourish was foolhardy.  i mean, look at it now: there is a type of democracy in place in iraq, and it is just crumbled to dust under the insurgency from isis.  isis did not really stand a chance while the us was there; the us was heavily armed and had a good sense of unity, not unlike the military dictatorship situation under saddam.  but now there is this infant democracy, it is ripe for a rebellion.  the us led an invasion into a country that was undoubtedly brutally run, but had an element of stability to it.  you have most likely met iraqis who have benefited from the invasion, but there will have been those who did not.  both sides are now bearing the brunt of the consequences as yet another group leads an invasion.
every being within a natural environment or ecosystem has some form of a predatory prey relationship with the other inhabitants; animals eat each other and this is acceptable, it is a natural way of creating an ecological balance within the given environment.  this all got a little misconstrued with us, as we currently stand, humans are  now  completely removed form any form of food chain and yet it is still socially acceptable and even actively encouraged that we eat meat.  so much so that sentient beings are bred in mass quantity to be steroid pumped, force fed and devoid of movement in order to create larger, tastier morsels for us to consume.   disclaimer: i eat so much meat  there is no ecological balance here and it certainly is not  humane ; so why does this occur ? it is self indulgent, it is delicious.  why ca not this be taken one step further ? i simply ask, why ca not we eat our own species if every other is present on the menu harhar ? i can appreciate how the shifting of parameters can be annoying with all the editing but the question has grown and changed as better answers are given but i ca not quite find myself convinced.   #  but the question has grown and changed as better answers are given but i ca not quite find myself convinced.   #  you ca not expect people to keep answering different views.   # that is a willing, able and sane volunteer chooses to be consumed.  the victim agreed to be killed.  that is not considered to be sane by society.  you ca not expect people to keep answering different views.  you conditions will become unrealistic and removed from reality.   imagine a world where eating human flesh is acceptable, there is no disease, and people want to be eaten.  whats wrong with eating human flesh ?   you might as well have the condition where its self evident e. g.   and there is nothing objectively and nothing morally wrong with eating human flesh.     #  to eat human flesh safely, you would need extremely powerful chemicals to destroy all the proteins.   #  it was very frequent in the people that practiced cannibalism, and is guaranteed to happen in an population that practices cannibalism.  0.  prions are going to happen in a population.  normally, when prions form in a person, the prion do not multiply fast enough to pass themselves on to the next generation.  0.  if eating human flesh is popular, prions will be concentrated.  bioconcentration is a well understood concept.  if cannibalism is common, then the number of prions passed on to the next generation will gradually multiply.  the  kuru  epidemic i linked is thought to have begun with one individual around 0.  add the fact that prions create more of themselves, and you have a problem.  0.  it is impossible to destroy prions and still have something edible.  cooking ca not destroy a prion.  surgical sterilizing procedure does not work.  to eat human flesh safely, you would need extremely powerful chemicals to destroy all the proteins.  meat without any proteins is just a slurry of chemicals.   #  iirc kuru was only encountered in one society.   # which i do not think the op is saying.  i believe he is saying that he is no problem with eating human meat in todays society, where canibalism is not wide spread, thus kuru would not be an issue.  also knowing kuru is a thing, a cannibal could just avoid those areas.  im sure eating a human today would be no more dangerous than eating fugu.  ill need to see a source for this.  if this were true every cannibalistic society encountered should have exhibited this disease.  iirc kuru was only encountered in one society.  according to wikipedia it followed family mortuary cannibalism, not all types of cannibalism.   #  but the problem occurs when you try to apply this to the real world.   #  i believe the answer to this is quite similar to the arguments against being paid for organ donations.  in a bubble, free from all outside influence, sure, maybe 0 voluntary cannibalism is not a priori bad.  but the problem occurs when you try to apply this to the real world.  if there is a demand for human flesh, then there will be a market for human flesh.  if there is a market for human flesh, then there will be a financial incentive for people to sacrifice themselves so that their families may be better off.  regardless of what laws you put in place regarding informed, voluntary consent, they will not be followed perfectly.  this means there will be pressure on individuals, especially the poor, to end their lives before they might otherwise want and it is this pressure which i find immoral.   #  in order to produce human meat in a quantity big enough to sell at a large scale, it would have to be mass produced on a farm or other facility.   #  since my previous answer has already been stated, i will give you one of a slightly different vein.  let is talk about sourcing human meat.  0\.  in order to produce human meat in a quantity big enough to sell at a large scale, it would have to be mass produced on a farm or other facility.  farming humans is unethical and hopefully that is not what we are arguing here.  what i think you mean is, why ca not someone give consent for their body to be consumed before they die, as we do in the case of organ donors ? well, we could, but not on a large enough scale to be a regular menu item across the nation.  0\.  usda inspection.  in an ideal situation, the livestock is raised with its eventual destination in mind.  substances are controlled any sort of medicine, environmental factors, etc that will affect the quality of the meat throughout the animal is lifetime.  with a human, though, they have not been under the scope their entire life.  because every vaccination, illness, factor like diet, activity level, etc factors into the quality of the meat, it would be impossible to create a standard, very specific set of requirements to ensure that the meat was safe to eat.  0\.  assuming we are not talking about killing humans for meat, we would have to get our meat from three primary sources: illness, injury and old age.  you would not want to eat something that died of illness, and depending on the injury the meat may not be suitable for consumption.  so that leaves you with people that die of old age.  that has to be the toughest, saltiest, nastiest steak ever.  0\.  we would need special butchering facilities.  our headmeats can be very dangerous if consumed, and from the documentaries i have seen of butcher houses they do not have the kind of equipment you would need for us.  so all in all, aside from arguments against its ethicality, it would be impractical.
i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, you should go on a cruise.  it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  most large cities are on the coast and you are able to travel anywhere.  cruises are also full of activities to keep yourself and your kids occupied during the trip.  why would anyone like to travel any other way ? room service, room cleaned twice daily, amazing food all you can eat , daily entertainment, and ways to relax.  cmv  #  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, you should go on a cruise.   #  cruises are not valid for travel to all destinations.   # cruises are not valid for travel to all destinations.  what if one would like to visit devil is tower, mount rushmore, yosemite, or yellowstone ? you can go on vacation to those places.  you ca not go on a cruse there, though.  i am planning to go to hueco tanks in el paso texas this winter, for the amazing climbing.  el paso is smack dab between the gulf of california and the gulf of mexico.  a cruise is not a viable means of transportation for this trip, nor a viable means of lodging.  so maybe you really mean  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, and can travel there on a cruise, you should go on a cruise    it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  it is not necessarily the most cost efficient way to travel, though.  some people are airline employees, and if a flight has empty seats, they can catch a ride for free.  that is definitely more cost efficient.  some people fly a lot for work, and have a ton of frequent flier miles they can use, basically making their travel via air free, and might also have hotel rewards points or similar greatly reducing the cost of their accomodations.  taking a plane cheaply , or driving cheaply to a destination and engaging in a house/apartment swap with someone from that destination is also almost certainly cheaper, and heck, even using airbnb after getting there can and does rival cruise ship prices.  it is not the most luxurious for the price always, either.  first off, stated prices are not always exactly the same as actual prices that you will end up paying.  second off, something like a house swap can be quite luxerious and much cheaper, given you are getting basically free accommodations and can buy and cook a lot of your own food.  you can stay in a destination longer, for cheaper, and with better accommodations.  so, maybe you really meant  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, and can travel there on a cruise, and a cruise actually does provide you with the most cost efficient and luxurious trip, you should go on a cruise .  not all large cities are on the coast.  in fact, not all large cities you can take a cruise to are on the coast, either see: paris .  more importantly, not everyone wants to travel a large city.  you might want to travel to a small town, a natural wonder, or literally the middle of nowhere.  i do not have any children, and i am perfectly able to keep myself occupied on a trip without going on a cruise.  i would much rather find things to do that i really enjoy or that are unique to a place, than to just sit back and be entertained on a cruise ship.  because they are going to a destination not accessible by a cruise ship ? because they would rather stay  in their actual destination  as much as possible while on vacation ? because they are afraid of boats or sailing ? because they object to how the crew on board such ships are treated ? because they are aware of the fairly atrocious food handling and food storage on board most cruise ships ? cmv some people do not care about room service.  or their room being cleaned twice daily.  or relatively inauthentic to the place you are going relatively lower quality hence  all you can eat  food.  or the entertainment and other ways to relax available on cruise ships compared to what is available at a destination.   #  i do not want to have preplanned activities i do not want to see canned shows i do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of people all the time.   #  i personally  hate  cruises.  i find them really boring.  i hate doing nothing, and by nothing i mean just sitting by the pool, napping, etc.  if i am going to travel, i want to experience a culture.  stay in one place for an extended period of time, and really immerse.  i do not want preplanned meals.  i do not want to have preplanned activities i do not want to see canned shows i do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of people all the time.  really, i do not want the be limited to a ship.  i know you get off the ship at certain destinations, but your time is limited and again, you are just stuck with that boat.  i like to travel with fluidity, i want to plan what i do and i want to plan when i do it.  cruises may be good for some people my grandmother  loves  them , but they are certainly not the best.   #  vegas hotels offer all the amenities you say  there is no other way to travel  except that i can then spend my days sightseeing and doing all of the touristy things in the tourist city.   #  when i travel, i like to go to las vegas.  i live in washington dc.  you will notice that neither of those are port towns.  vegas hotels offer all the amenities you say  there is no other way to travel  except that i can then spend my days sightseeing and doing all of the touristy things in the tourist city.  cruises are a couple thousand and a couple of weeks, and most end up not actually  going  anywhere for a destination.  they are not really transportation, they are, well, a cruise.  it is like a tour bus on water that takes 0x as long.  and since i am more interested in the destination, coupled with the fact that i am either using up vacation time salaried or not getting paid while out of work hourly i am using up more money by taking more time to get where i am going.   #  like actual backpacking with your tent and food in your bag.   #  you want to go to an inland city.  say chicago, berlin, paris, denver, any number of other cities.  not possible on cruises.  maybe you want to go skiing.  not possible on a cruise.  maybe you want to backpack.  like actual backpacking with your tent and food in your bag.  ca not do that on a cruise.  this is literally the worst cmv ever.  enjoying cruises is clearly subjective and every time anyone says anything you just say  cruises have that, but better.   or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  they generally work 0 day weeks and a lot of labor laws do not apply at sea.   #  if you just want to relax, go in a pool, see some standard shows, briefly set foot in another country, and eat in a buffet, cruises are great.  they are cheap for what you get.  they are not, however, very exciting.  you do not get the chance to experience local culture no matter what you do with your time at shore, there just is not enough time .  a cruise to one place might as well be the same as any other cruise other than the few hours you spend on shore.  the rooms are cramped, and sea sickness is always possible.  they can be crowded, the food can be bland and gets boring fast, and they can be rather cheesy why is everyone dressed for the prom ? .  alcohol is overpriced.  you cannot get away from the cruise.  cruise employees are also exploited, though this is common in the service industry elsewhere.  they generally work 0 day weeks and a lot of labor laws do not apply at sea.
i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, you should go on a cruise.  it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  most large cities are on the coast and you are able to travel anywhere.  cruises are also full of activities to keep yourself and your kids occupied during the trip.  why would anyone like to travel any other way ? room service, room cleaned twice daily, amazing food all you can eat , daily entertainment, and ways to relax.  cmv  #  most large cities are on the coast and you are able to travel anywhere.   #  not all large cities are on the coast.   # cruises are not valid for travel to all destinations.  what if one would like to visit devil is tower, mount rushmore, yosemite, or yellowstone ? you can go on vacation to those places.  you ca not go on a cruse there, though.  i am planning to go to hueco tanks in el paso texas this winter, for the amazing climbing.  el paso is smack dab between the gulf of california and the gulf of mexico.  a cruise is not a viable means of transportation for this trip, nor a viable means of lodging.  so maybe you really mean  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, and can travel there on a cruise, you should go on a cruise    it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  it is not necessarily the most cost efficient way to travel, though.  some people are airline employees, and if a flight has empty seats, they can catch a ride for free.  that is definitely more cost efficient.  some people fly a lot for work, and have a ton of frequent flier miles they can use, basically making their travel via air free, and might also have hotel rewards points or similar greatly reducing the cost of their accomodations.  taking a plane cheaply , or driving cheaply to a destination and engaging in a house/apartment swap with someone from that destination is also almost certainly cheaper, and heck, even using airbnb after getting there can and does rival cruise ship prices.  it is not the most luxurious for the price always, either.  first off, stated prices are not always exactly the same as actual prices that you will end up paying.  second off, something like a house swap can be quite luxerious and much cheaper, given you are getting basically free accommodations and can buy and cook a lot of your own food.  you can stay in a destination longer, for cheaper, and with better accommodations.  so, maybe you really meant  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, and can travel there on a cruise, and a cruise actually does provide you with the most cost efficient and luxurious trip, you should go on a cruise .  not all large cities are on the coast.  in fact, not all large cities you can take a cruise to are on the coast, either see: paris .  more importantly, not everyone wants to travel a large city.  you might want to travel to a small town, a natural wonder, or literally the middle of nowhere.  i do not have any children, and i am perfectly able to keep myself occupied on a trip without going on a cruise.  i would much rather find things to do that i really enjoy or that are unique to a place, than to just sit back and be entertained on a cruise ship.  because they are going to a destination not accessible by a cruise ship ? because they would rather stay  in their actual destination  as much as possible while on vacation ? because they are afraid of boats or sailing ? because they object to how the crew on board such ships are treated ? because they are aware of the fairly atrocious food handling and food storage on board most cruise ships ? cmv some people do not care about room service.  or their room being cleaned twice daily.  or relatively inauthentic to the place you are going relatively lower quality hence  all you can eat  food.  or the entertainment and other ways to relax available on cruise ships compared to what is available at a destination.   #  if i am going to travel, i want to experience a culture.   #  i personally  hate  cruises.  i find them really boring.  i hate doing nothing, and by nothing i mean just sitting by the pool, napping, etc.  if i am going to travel, i want to experience a culture.  stay in one place for an extended period of time, and really immerse.  i do not want preplanned meals.  i do not want to have preplanned activities i do not want to see canned shows i do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of people all the time.  really, i do not want the be limited to a ship.  i know you get off the ship at certain destinations, but your time is limited and again, you are just stuck with that boat.  i like to travel with fluidity, i want to plan what i do and i want to plan when i do it.  cruises may be good for some people my grandmother  loves  them , but they are certainly not the best.   #  they are not really transportation, they are, well, a cruise.   #  when i travel, i like to go to las vegas.  i live in washington dc.  you will notice that neither of those are port towns.  vegas hotels offer all the amenities you say  there is no other way to travel  except that i can then spend my days sightseeing and doing all of the touristy things in the tourist city.  cruises are a couple thousand and a couple of weeks, and most end up not actually  going  anywhere for a destination.  they are not really transportation, they are, well, a cruise.  it is like a tour bus on water that takes 0x as long.  and since i am more interested in the destination, coupled with the fact that i am either using up vacation time salaried or not getting paid while out of work hourly i am using up more money by taking more time to get where i am going.   #  enjoying cruises is clearly subjective and every time anyone says anything you just say  cruises have that, but better.    #  you want to go to an inland city.  say chicago, berlin, paris, denver, any number of other cities.  not possible on cruises.  maybe you want to go skiing.  not possible on a cruise.  maybe you want to backpack.  like actual backpacking with your tent and food in your bag.  ca not do that on a cruise.  this is literally the worst cmv ever.  enjoying cruises is clearly subjective and every time anyone says anything you just say  cruises have that, but better.   or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  the rooms are cramped, and sea sickness is always possible.   #  if you just want to relax, go in a pool, see some standard shows, briefly set foot in another country, and eat in a buffet, cruises are great.  they are cheap for what you get.  they are not, however, very exciting.  you do not get the chance to experience local culture no matter what you do with your time at shore, there just is not enough time .  a cruise to one place might as well be the same as any other cruise other than the few hours you spend on shore.  the rooms are cramped, and sea sickness is always possible.  they can be crowded, the food can be bland and gets boring fast, and they can be rather cheesy why is everyone dressed for the prom ? .  alcohol is overpriced.  you cannot get away from the cruise.  cruise employees are also exploited, though this is common in the service industry elsewhere.  they generally work 0 day weeks and a lot of labor laws do not apply at sea.
i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, you should go on a cruise.  it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  most large cities are on the coast and you are able to travel anywhere.  cruises are also full of activities to keep yourself and your kids occupied during the trip.  why would anyone like to travel any other way ? room service, room cleaned twice daily, amazing food all you can eat , daily entertainment, and ways to relax.  cmv  #  cruises are also full of activities to keep yourself and your kids occupied during the trip.   #  i do not have any children, and i am perfectly able to keep myself occupied on a trip without going on a cruise.   # cruises are not valid for travel to all destinations.  what if one would like to visit devil is tower, mount rushmore, yosemite, or yellowstone ? you can go on vacation to those places.  you ca not go on a cruse there, though.  i am planning to go to hueco tanks in el paso texas this winter, for the amazing climbing.  el paso is smack dab between the gulf of california and the gulf of mexico.  a cruise is not a viable means of transportation for this trip, nor a viable means of lodging.  so maybe you really mean  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, and can travel there on a cruise, you should go on a cruise    it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  it is not necessarily the most cost efficient way to travel, though.  some people are airline employees, and if a flight has empty seats, they can catch a ride for free.  that is definitely more cost efficient.  some people fly a lot for work, and have a ton of frequent flier miles they can use, basically making their travel via air free, and might also have hotel rewards points or similar greatly reducing the cost of their accomodations.  taking a plane cheaply , or driving cheaply to a destination and engaging in a house/apartment swap with someone from that destination is also almost certainly cheaper, and heck, even using airbnb after getting there can and does rival cruise ship prices.  it is not the most luxurious for the price always, either.  first off, stated prices are not always exactly the same as actual prices that you will end up paying.  second off, something like a house swap can be quite luxerious and much cheaper, given you are getting basically free accommodations and can buy and cook a lot of your own food.  you can stay in a destination longer, for cheaper, and with better accommodations.  so, maybe you really meant  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, and can travel there on a cruise, and a cruise actually does provide you with the most cost efficient and luxurious trip, you should go on a cruise .  not all large cities are on the coast.  in fact, not all large cities you can take a cruise to are on the coast, either see: paris .  more importantly, not everyone wants to travel a large city.  you might want to travel to a small town, a natural wonder, or literally the middle of nowhere.  i do not have any children, and i am perfectly able to keep myself occupied on a trip without going on a cruise.  i would much rather find things to do that i really enjoy or that are unique to a place, than to just sit back and be entertained on a cruise ship.  because they are going to a destination not accessible by a cruise ship ? because they would rather stay  in their actual destination  as much as possible while on vacation ? because they are afraid of boats or sailing ? because they object to how the crew on board such ships are treated ? because they are aware of the fairly atrocious food handling and food storage on board most cruise ships ? cmv some people do not care about room service.  or their room being cleaned twice daily.  or relatively inauthentic to the place you are going relatively lower quality hence  all you can eat  food.  or the entertainment and other ways to relax available on cruise ships compared to what is available at a destination.   #  if i am going to travel, i want to experience a culture.   #  i personally  hate  cruises.  i find them really boring.  i hate doing nothing, and by nothing i mean just sitting by the pool, napping, etc.  if i am going to travel, i want to experience a culture.  stay in one place for an extended period of time, and really immerse.  i do not want preplanned meals.  i do not want to have preplanned activities i do not want to see canned shows i do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of people all the time.  really, i do not want the be limited to a ship.  i know you get off the ship at certain destinations, but your time is limited and again, you are just stuck with that boat.  i like to travel with fluidity, i want to plan what i do and i want to plan when i do it.  cruises may be good for some people my grandmother  loves  them , but they are certainly not the best.   #  it is like a tour bus on water that takes 0x as long.   #  when i travel, i like to go to las vegas.  i live in washington dc.  you will notice that neither of those are port towns.  vegas hotels offer all the amenities you say  there is no other way to travel  except that i can then spend my days sightseeing and doing all of the touristy things in the tourist city.  cruises are a couple thousand and a couple of weeks, and most end up not actually  going  anywhere for a destination.  they are not really transportation, they are, well, a cruise.  it is like a tour bus on water that takes 0x as long.  and since i am more interested in the destination, coupled with the fact that i am either using up vacation time salaried or not getting paid while out of work hourly i am using up more money by taking more time to get where i am going.   #  or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  you want to go to an inland city.  say chicago, berlin, paris, denver, any number of other cities.  not possible on cruises.  maybe you want to go skiing.  not possible on a cruise.  maybe you want to backpack.  like actual backpacking with your tent and food in your bag.  ca not do that on a cruise.  this is literally the worst cmv ever.  enjoying cruises is clearly subjective and every time anyone says anything you just say  cruises have that, but better.   or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  if you just want to relax, go in a pool, see some standard shows, briefly set foot in another country, and eat in a buffet, cruises are great.   #  if you just want to relax, go in a pool, see some standard shows, briefly set foot in another country, and eat in a buffet, cruises are great.  they are cheap for what you get.  they are not, however, very exciting.  you do not get the chance to experience local culture no matter what you do with your time at shore, there just is not enough time .  a cruise to one place might as well be the same as any other cruise other than the few hours you spend on shore.  the rooms are cramped, and sea sickness is always possible.  they can be crowded, the food can be bland and gets boring fast, and they can be rather cheesy why is everyone dressed for the prom ? .  alcohol is overpriced.  you cannot get away from the cruise.  cruise employees are also exploited, though this is common in the service industry elsewhere.  they generally work 0 day weeks and a lot of labor laws do not apply at sea.
i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, you should go on a cruise.  it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  most large cities are on the coast and you are able to travel anywhere.  cruises are also full of activities to keep yourself and your kids occupied during the trip.  why would anyone like to travel any other way ? room service, room cleaned twice daily, amazing food all you can eat , daily entertainment, and ways to relax.  cmv  #  why would anyone like to travel any other way ?  #  because they are going to a destination not accessible by a cruise ship ?  # cruises are not valid for travel to all destinations.  what if one would like to visit devil is tower, mount rushmore, yosemite, or yellowstone ? you can go on vacation to those places.  you ca not go on a cruse there, though.  i am planning to go to hueco tanks in el paso texas this winter, for the amazing climbing.  el paso is smack dab between the gulf of california and the gulf of mexico.  a cruise is not a viable means of transportation for this trip, nor a viable means of lodging.  so maybe you really mean  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, and can travel there on a cruise, you should go on a cruise    it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  it is not necessarily the most cost efficient way to travel, though.  some people are airline employees, and if a flight has empty seats, they can catch a ride for free.  that is definitely more cost efficient.  some people fly a lot for work, and have a ton of frequent flier miles they can use, basically making their travel via air free, and might also have hotel rewards points or similar greatly reducing the cost of their accomodations.  taking a plane cheaply , or driving cheaply to a destination and engaging in a house/apartment swap with someone from that destination is also almost certainly cheaper, and heck, even using airbnb after getting there can and does rival cruise ship prices.  it is not the most luxurious for the price always, either.  first off, stated prices are not always exactly the same as actual prices that you will end up paying.  second off, something like a house swap can be quite luxerious and much cheaper, given you are getting basically free accommodations and can buy and cook a lot of your own food.  you can stay in a destination longer, for cheaper, and with better accommodations.  so, maybe you really meant  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, and can travel there on a cruise, and a cruise actually does provide you with the most cost efficient and luxurious trip, you should go on a cruise .  not all large cities are on the coast.  in fact, not all large cities you can take a cruise to are on the coast, either see: paris .  more importantly, not everyone wants to travel a large city.  you might want to travel to a small town, a natural wonder, or literally the middle of nowhere.  i do not have any children, and i am perfectly able to keep myself occupied on a trip without going on a cruise.  i would much rather find things to do that i really enjoy or that are unique to a place, than to just sit back and be entertained on a cruise ship.  because they are going to a destination not accessible by a cruise ship ? because they would rather stay  in their actual destination  as much as possible while on vacation ? because they are afraid of boats or sailing ? because they object to how the crew on board such ships are treated ? because they are aware of the fairly atrocious food handling and food storage on board most cruise ships ? cmv some people do not care about room service.  or their room being cleaned twice daily.  or relatively inauthentic to the place you are going relatively lower quality hence  all you can eat  food.  or the entertainment and other ways to relax available on cruise ships compared to what is available at a destination.   #  if i am going to travel, i want to experience a culture.   #  i personally  hate  cruises.  i find them really boring.  i hate doing nothing, and by nothing i mean just sitting by the pool, napping, etc.  if i am going to travel, i want to experience a culture.  stay in one place for an extended period of time, and really immerse.  i do not want preplanned meals.  i do not want to have preplanned activities i do not want to see canned shows i do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of people all the time.  really, i do not want the be limited to a ship.  i know you get off the ship at certain destinations, but your time is limited and again, you are just stuck with that boat.  i like to travel with fluidity, i want to plan what i do and i want to plan when i do it.  cruises may be good for some people my grandmother  loves  them , but they are certainly not the best.   #  it is like a tour bus on water that takes 0x as long.   #  when i travel, i like to go to las vegas.  i live in washington dc.  you will notice that neither of those are port towns.  vegas hotels offer all the amenities you say  there is no other way to travel  except that i can then spend my days sightseeing and doing all of the touristy things in the tourist city.  cruises are a couple thousand and a couple of weeks, and most end up not actually  going  anywhere for a destination.  they are not really transportation, they are, well, a cruise.  it is like a tour bus on water that takes 0x as long.  and since i am more interested in the destination, coupled with the fact that i am either using up vacation time salaried or not getting paid while out of work hourly i am using up more money by taking more time to get where i am going.   #  or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  you want to go to an inland city.  say chicago, berlin, paris, denver, any number of other cities.  not possible on cruises.  maybe you want to go skiing.  not possible on a cruise.  maybe you want to backpack.  like actual backpacking with your tent and food in your bag.  ca not do that on a cruise.  this is literally the worst cmv ever.  enjoying cruises is clearly subjective and every time anyone says anything you just say  cruises have that, but better.   or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  they can be crowded, the food can be bland and gets boring fast, and they can be rather cheesy why is everyone dressed for the prom ?  #  if you just want to relax, go in a pool, see some standard shows, briefly set foot in another country, and eat in a buffet, cruises are great.  they are cheap for what you get.  they are not, however, very exciting.  you do not get the chance to experience local culture no matter what you do with your time at shore, there just is not enough time .  a cruise to one place might as well be the same as any other cruise other than the few hours you spend on shore.  the rooms are cramped, and sea sickness is always possible.  they can be crowded, the food can be bland and gets boring fast, and they can be rather cheesy why is everyone dressed for the prom ? .  alcohol is overpriced.  you cannot get away from the cruise.  cruise employees are also exploited, though this is common in the service industry elsewhere.  they generally work 0 day weeks and a lot of labor laws do not apply at sea.
i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, you should go on a cruise.  it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  most large cities are on the coast and you are able to travel anywhere.  cruises are also full of activities to keep yourself and your kids occupied during the trip.  why would anyone like to travel any other way ? room service, room cleaned twice daily, amazing food all you can eat , daily entertainment, and ways to relax.  cmv  #  room service, room cleaned twice daily, amazing food all you can eat , daily entertainment, and ways to relax.   #  cmv some people do not care about room service.   # cruises are not valid for travel to all destinations.  what if one would like to visit devil is tower, mount rushmore, yosemite, or yellowstone ? you can go on vacation to those places.  you ca not go on a cruse there, though.  i am planning to go to hueco tanks in el paso texas this winter, for the amazing climbing.  el paso is smack dab between the gulf of california and the gulf of mexico.  a cruise is not a viable means of transportation for this trip, nor a viable means of lodging.  so maybe you really mean  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, and can travel there on a cruise, you should go on a cruise    it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  it is not necessarily the most cost efficient way to travel, though.  some people are airline employees, and if a flight has empty seats, they can catch a ride for free.  that is definitely more cost efficient.  some people fly a lot for work, and have a ton of frequent flier miles they can use, basically making their travel via air free, and might also have hotel rewards points or similar greatly reducing the cost of their accomodations.  taking a plane cheaply , or driving cheaply to a destination and engaging in a house/apartment swap with someone from that destination is also almost certainly cheaper, and heck, even using airbnb after getting there can and does rival cruise ship prices.  it is not the most luxurious for the price always, either.  first off, stated prices are not always exactly the same as actual prices that you will end up paying.  second off, something like a house swap can be quite luxerious and much cheaper, given you are getting basically free accommodations and can buy and cook a lot of your own food.  you can stay in a destination longer, for cheaper, and with better accommodations.  so, maybe you really meant  i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, and can travel there on a cruise, and a cruise actually does provide you with the most cost efficient and luxurious trip, you should go on a cruise .  not all large cities are on the coast.  in fact, not all large cities you can take a cruise to are on the coast, either see: paris .  more importantly, not everyone wants to travel a large city.  you might want to travel to a small town, a natural wonder, or literally the middle of nowhere.  i do not have any children, and i am perfectly able to keep myself occupied on a trip without going on a cruise.  i would much rather find things to do that i really enjoy or that are unique to a place, than to just sit back and be entertained on a cruise ship.  because they are going to a destination not accessible by a cruise ship ? because they would rather stay  in their actual destination  as much as possible while on vacation ? because they are afraid of boats or sailing ? because they object to how the crew on board such ships are treated ? because they are aware of the fairly atrocious food handling and food storage on board most cruise ships ? cmv some people do not care about room service.  or their room being cleaned twice daily.  or relatively inauthentic to the place you are going relatively lower quality hence  all you can eat  food.  or the entertainment and other ways to relax available on cruise ships compared to what is available at a destination.   #  cruises may be good for some people my grandmother  loves  them , but they are certainly not the best.   #  i personally  hate  cruises.  i find them really boring.  i hate doing nothing, and by nothing i mean just sitting by the pool, napping, etc.  if i am going to travel, i want to experience a culture.  stay in one place for an extended period of time, and really immerse.  i do not want preplanned meals.  i do not want to have preplanned activities i do not want to see canned shows i do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of people all the time.  really, i do not want the be limited to a ship.  i know you get off the ship at certain destinations, but your time is limited and again, you are just stuck with that boat.  i like to travel with fluidity, i want to plan what i do and i want to plan when i do it.  cruises may be good for some people my grandmother  loves  them , but they are certainly not the best.   #  vegas hotels offer all the amenities you say  there is no other way to travel  except that i can then spend my days sightseeing and doing all of the touristy things in the tourist city.   #  when i travel, i like to go to las vegas.  i live in washington dc.  you will notice that neither of those are port towns.  vegas hotels offer all the amenities you say  there is no other way to travel  except that i can then spend my days sightseeing and doing all of the touristy things in the tourist city.  cruises are a couple thousand and a couple of weeks, and most end up not actually  going  anywhere for a destination.  they are not really transportation, they are, well, a cruise.  it is like a tour bus on water that takes 0x as long.  and since i am more interested in the destination, coupled with the fact that i am either using up vacation time salaried or not getting paid while out of work hourly i am using up more money by taking more time to get where i am going.   #  enjoying cruises is clearly subjective and every time anyone says anything you just say  cruises have that, but better.    #  you want to go to an inland city.  say chicago, berlin, paris, denver, any number of other cities.  not possible on cruises.  maybe you want to go skiing.  not possible on a cruise.  maybe you want to backpack.  like actual backpacking with your tent and food in your bag.  ca not do that on a cruise.  this is literally the worst cmv ever.  enjoying cruises is clearly subjective and every time anyone says anything you just say  cruises have that, but better.   or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  cruise employees are also exploited, though this is common in the service industry elsewhere.   #  if you just want to relax, go in a pool, see some standard shows, briefly set foot in another country, and eat in a buffet, cruises are great.  they are cheap for what you get.  they are not, however, very exciting.  you do not get the chance to experience local culture no matter what you do with your time at shore, there just is not enough time .  a cruise to one place might as well be the same as any other cruise other than the few hours you spend on shore.  the rooms are cramped, and sea sickness is always possible.  they can be crowded, the food can be bland and gets boring fast, and they can be rather cheesy why is everyone dressed for the prom ? .  alcohol is overpriced.  you cannot get away from the cruise.  cruise employees are also exploited, though this is common in the service industry elsewhere.  they generally work 0 day weeks and a lot of labor laws do not apply at sea.
i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, you should go on a cruise.  it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  most large cities are on the coast and you are able to travel anywhere.  cruises are also full of activities to keep yourself and your kids occupied during the trip.  why would anyone like to travel any other way ? room service, room cleaned twice daily, amazing food all you can eat , daily entertainment, and ways to relax.  cmv  #  most large cities are on the coast and you are able to travel anywhere.   #  large cities are not the only thing i would want to travel to on a vacation.   # i looked up the prices for if i were to travel to juneau, ak and it is cheaper to fly by several thousand dollars anchorage had similar prices .  it is also much faster which gives me more time to do things in alaska per vacation day i take.  there are also some places in the world that it would take so long to travel to by boat that it would almost not be worth making the trip.  for example, i once left the country for 0 weeks to visit israel.  i flew so only about 0 days were spent in travel and the rest were spent touring the country.  if i had traveled by boat, it would have taken so long that i would have spent the whole vacation in transit and not had any time to see israel.  large cities are not the only thing i would want to travel to on a vacation.  if i want to go hiking/camping in the mountains or visit family in the midwest, then a cruise would be completely useless to me.  mostly, i like to travel to the wilderness, which is not a place most cruises go.  i like making my own activities rather than using the ones laid out for me.  most of the things that i do for fun are best when they are not organised in a large group but rather something i do by myself or in a small group.  hiking, fishing, body surfing, wildlife photography, biking, and many other things are much easier to plan for myself when i do not have to worry about the schedule the cruise is keeping.  planning it myself gives me the flexibility to priorities the things that are important to me.  for instance, having my room cleaned for me twice a day is not something i need and i would find annoying.  i would be better off spending $0 for a cheap bed and place to lay my stuff and then spend the day out.  also, a big thing about traveling for me is trying local cuisine.  if i am eating on the ship i am eating the same food the whole time, instead of trying a different small local place each day.  overall, i can see myself taking a cruise where that means me renting a sailboat and sailing up and down the coast, but a trip where it means stuck in big ship with a large crowd of people sound terrible to me.   #  i know you get off the ship at certain destinations, but your time is limited and again, you are just stuck with that boat.   #  i personally  hate  cruises.  i find them really boring.  i hate doing nothing, and by nothing i mean just sitting by the pool, napping, etc.  if i am going to travel, i want to experience a culture.  stay in one place for an extended period of time, and really immerse.  i do not want preplanned meals.  i do not want to have preplanned activities i do not want to see canned shows i do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of people all the time.  really, i do not want the be limited to a ship.  i know you get off the ship at certain destinations, but your time is limited and again, you are just stuck with that boat.  i like to travel with fluidity, i want to plan what i do and i want to plan when i do it.  cruises may be good for some people my grandmother  loves  them , but they are certainly not the best.   #  you will notice that neither of those are port towns.   #  when i travel, i like to go to las vegas.  i live in washington dc.  you will notice that neither of those are port towns.  vegas hotels offer all the amenities you say  there is no other way to travel  except that i can then spend my days sightseeing and doing all of the touristy things in the tourist city.  cruises are a couple thousand and a couple of weeks, and most end up not actually  going  anywhere for a destination.  they are not really transportation, they are, well, a cruise.  it is like a tour bus on water that takes 0x as long.  and since i am more interested in the destination, coupled with the fact that i am either using up vacation time salaried or not getting paid while out of work hourly i am using up more money by taking more time to get where i am going.   #  or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  you want to go to an inland city.  say chicago, berlin, paris, denver, any number of other cities.  not possible on cruises.  maybe you want to go skiing.  not possible on a cruise.  maybe you want to backpack.  like actual backpacking with your tent and food in your bag.  ca not do that on a cruise.  this is literally the worst cmv ever.  enjoying cruises is clearly subjective and every time anyone says anything you just say  cruises have that, but better.   or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  if you just want to relax, go in a pool, see some standard shows, briefly set foot in another country, and eat in a buffet, cruises are great.   #  if you just want to relax, go in a pool, see some standard shows, briefly set foot in another country, and eat in a buffet, cruises are great.  they are cheap for what you get.  they are not, however, very exciting.  you do not get the chance to experience local culture no matter what you do with your time at shore, there just is not enough time .  a cruise to one place might as well be the same as any other cruise other than the few hours you spend on shore.  the rooms are cramped, and sea sickness is always possible.  they can be crowded, the food can be bland and gets boring fast, and they can be rather cheesy why is everyone dressed for the prom ? .  alcohol is overpriced.  you cannot get away from the cruise.  cruise employees are also exploited, though this is common in the service industry elsewhere.  they generally work 0 day weeks and a lot of labor laws do not apply at sea.
i think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, you should go on a cruise.  it is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price.  most large cities are on the coast and you are able to travel anywhere.  cruises are also full of activities to keep yourself and your kids occupied during the trip.  why would anyone like to travel any other way ? room service, room cleaned twice daily, amazing food all you can eat , daily entertainment, and ways to relax.  cmv  #  cruises are also full of activities to keep yourself and your kids occupied during the trip.   #  i like making my own activities rather than using the ones laid out for me.   # i looked up the prices for if i were to travel to juneau, ak and it is cheaper to fly by several thousand dollars anchorage had similar prices .  it is also much faster which gives me more time to do things in alaska per vacation day i take.  there are also some places in the world that it would take so long to travel to by boat that it would almost not be worth making the trip.  for example, i once left the country for 0 weeks to visit israel.  i flew so only about 0 days were spent in travel and the rest were spent touring the country.  if i had traveled by boat, it would have taken so long that i would have spent the whole vacation in transit and not had any time to see israel.  large cities are not the only thing i would want to travel to on a vacation.  if i want to go hiking/camping in the mountains or visit family in the midwest, then a cruise would be completely useless to me.  mostly, i like to travel to the wilderness, which is not a place most cruises go.  i like making my own activities rather than using the ones laid out for me.  most of the things that i do for fun are best when they are not organised in a large group but rather something i do by myself or in a small group.  hiking, fishing, body surfing, wildlife photography, biking, and many other things are much easier to plan for myself when i do not have to worry about the schedule the cruise is keeping.  planning it myself gives me the flexibility to priorities the things that are important to me.  for instance, having my room cleaned for me twice a day is not something i need and i would find annoying.  i would be better off spending $0 for a cheap bed and place to lay my stuff and then spend the day out.  also, a big thing about traveling for me is trying local cuisine.  if i am eating on the ship i am eating the same food the whole time, instead of trying a different small local place each day.  overall, i can see myself taking a cruise where that means me renting a sailboat and sailing up and down the coast, but a trip where it means stuck in big ship with a large crowd of people sound terrible to me.   #  i like to travel with fluidity, i want to plan what i do and i want to plan when i do it.   #  i personally  hate  cruises.  i find them really boring.  i hate doing nothing, and by nothing i mean just sitting by the pool, napping, etc.  if i am going to travel, i want to experience a culture.  stay in one place for an extended period of time, and really immerse.  i do not want preplanned meals.  i do not want to have preplanned activities i do not want to see canned shows i do not want to be surrounded by a bunch of people all the time.  really, i do not want the be limited to a ship.  i know you get off the ship at certain destinations, but your time is limited and again, you are just stuck with that boat.  i like to travel with fluidity, i want to plan what i do and i want to plan when i do it.  cruises may be good for some people my grandmother  loves  them , but they are certainly not the best.   #  it is like a tour bus on water that takes 0x as long.   #  when i travel, i like to go to las vegas.  i live in washington dc.  you will notice that neither of those are port towns.  vegas hotels offer all the amenities you say  there is no other way to travel  except that i can then spend my days sightseeing and doing all of the touristy things in the tourist city.  cruises are a couple thousand and a couple of weeks, and most end up not actually  going  anywhere for a destination.  they are not really transportation, they are, well, a cruise.  it is like a tour bus on water that takes 0x as long.  and since i am more interested in the destination, coupled with the fact that i am either using up vacation time salaried or not getting paid while out of work hourly i am using up more money by taking more time to get where i am going.   #  or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  you want to go to an inland city.  say chicago, berlin, paris, denver, any number of other cities.  not possible on cruises.  maybe you want to go skiing.  not possible on a cruise.  maybe you want to backpack.  like actual backpacking with your tent and food in your bag.  ca not do that on a cruise.  this is literally the worst cmv ever.  enjoying cruises is clearly subjective and every time anyone says anything you just say  cruises have that, but better.   or  you get the highlights  cruises are good for some things/people, but not everything and they are not for everyone.   #  you cannot get away from the cruise.   #  if you just want to relax, go in a pool, see some standard shows, briefly set foot in another country, and eat in a buffet, cruises are great.  they are cheap for what you get.  they are not, however, very exciting.  you do not get the chance to experience local culture no matter what you do with your time at shore, there just is not enough time .  a cruise to one place might as well be the same as any other cruise other than the few hours you spend on shore.  the rooms are cramped, and sea sickness is always possible.  they can be crowded, the food can be bland and gets boring fast, and they can be rather cheesy why is everyone dressed for the prom ? .  alcohol is overpriced.  you cannot get away from the cruise.  cruise employees are also exploited, though this is common in the service industry elsewhere.  they generally work 0 day weeks and a lot of labor laws do not apply at sea.
i am a high school teacher with my master is degree in my content area literature .  my background is not in education.  i have only recently begun to take education courses, and i find that a lot of things are taken for granted that i do not accept.  many textbooks in the field frame standard teaching concepts as if they were revolutionary, yet when implemented they seem to ultimately be only a small changed from the old methods.  the classes are also taught prescriptively and generally do not challenge students to question the existing educational system.  from my point of view, school reform has to remake schools from the ground up, throwing out the status quo completely.  this cannot happen until we drop standardized tests entirely, which are designed in the interests of test companies and politicians, not students or even teachers.  standardized tests are actually made to be failed.  it is simply not possible for all students to pass the tests, because if they do, everyone will say the tests are too easy, and new, harder tests will replace them.  this could cycle forever, even if students kept getting better and better with no limit.  testing companies sell expensive lesson plans and books to teachers and strategies and guides to parents and students, and so they require that students always be struggling to pass.  in this system, there is no way for all schools and students to be successful.  learning is not linear, and there will always be stronger and weaker students in different areas.  these tests therefore measure nothing other than the tests themselves.  higher scores in any particular school come at huge costs, as teachers must drop material that does not directly teach to the tests.  the consequences of high stakes testing come down hard on kids, who experience pressure so strong and lessons so unengaging that school becomes a place they hate to be.  however, as a teacher in a high school, i would really like to have a more forgiving view of these tests so that i can help my students to pass them and generally not feel like i am participating in something oppressive and terrible.  change my mind at least a little bit, please !  #  however, as a teacher in a high school, i would really like to have a more forgiving view of these tests so that i can help my students to pass them and generally not feel like i am participating in something oppressive and terrible.   #  change my mind at least a little bit, please !  # change my mind at least a little bit, please ! this is probably covering a lot of other people is comments so sorry in advance.  nobody likes standardized tests because they are not really fair and do not measure the full spectrum of meaningful knowledge learned throughout the educational experience.  having said that, they are a necessary evil.  we do not have a uniform curriculum in all of our schools.  how do you propose we compare students to each other ? gpa is a terrible measure.  some schools have 0 point scales, some have 0 point scales, and others have weighting systems for honors, ap, cis, etc.  classes.  even if the scales are the same, some schools are better than others, and some give out easier grades than others.  i think they are unfair to more intelligent students as well.  i took calculus in high school.  i knew more about math when i took the sat than most.  that was not measured though because math barely even covers trig on these tests.  that is kind of the point.  the test is supposed to give you a spectrum of quality of student so that comparisons can be drawn.  it gives people who have choose between students another data point to draw on.  i agree that it should not be the  only  data point,  but i feel like one experiment where the only variable is the student is a necessity if you want to make a fair scientific comparison .  if there is one thing you should take away it is that.  not everyone deserves to be the best.  not everyone can do well in higher education.  that does not mean they ca not be successful in life, and be well functioning essential members of society.  a plumber or other skilled worker will probably make more in life than me.   #  teachers are not empowered to use their expertise when teaching but instead are expected to follow curriculums written by people who have never even been in a classroom.   #  for me, the answer is no, and i do not think that is sad at all.  what makes me sad are attempts to quantify everything ending in disasterous results.  the human brain is incredeibly complex, and no set of multiple choice questions or even short essays can accurately assess that complexity.  the schools in the united states are  deeply  racist and classist, and those prejuidices are reinforced by a system of constant evaluation.  tying teacher pay to student performance encourages the best teachers to take jobs in school districts where students are already doing well, and leaves new teachers who often burn out and quit with students who need help the most.  the new common core also means education companies now create new materials which they sell to schools.  teachers are not empowered to use their expertise when teaching but instead are expected to follow curriculums written by people who have never even been in a classroom.   #  test the students in september and in june on a narrow core set of material and compare the results.   #  are teachers forced to use the curricula that these companies publish, or can they write any lesson plans they want provided they teach everything in the ohio standards soon to be common core i guess ? could you use a system of bi yearly testing to evaluate improvement of students from the beginning to end of a year ? test the students in september and in june on a narrow core set of material and compare the results.  sure, the test in september would be obnoxiously hard, but you would not evaluate the students based on either.  doing this would at least control for the well documented income based disparity in learning/forgetting during summers.   #  this causes a variety of problems, from teaching to the test which is much worse, pedagogically, than people think to just wasting a large amount of time on testing, to straight up academic corruption to game the system.   #  while this does not completely support op is point and i actually think there are ways of  objectively  measuring success that do not involved standardized tests , we do not need a bunch of easy tests like we have now.  we need a couple of really difficult tests maybe at the end of middle school and the end of high school .  the idea behind the testing system we have now is about not  leaving children behind,  so they want to test all the time to make sure everyone is always on the same page.  this causes a variety of problems, from teaching to the test which is much worse, pedagogically, than people think to just wasting a large amount of time on testing, to straight up academic corruption to game the system.  ultimately, in an attempt to micromanage the system to success we micromanage it into failure.  fewer tests would accomplish the same goals and would be better for shaping effective policy overall.  it really does not matter if mrs.  smith is doing a  bad  job of teaching to the curriculum for 0th grade if her students end up doing better in 0th grade because of it.  if we want to measure results, we should measure results, not intermediary steps.   #  there is not anything effective because we cannot account for all performance factors and the weighting each should have.   #  there is not anything effective because we cannot account for all performance factors and the weighting each should have.  example, how do you account for shawn having fetal alcohol syndrome who only this year became homeless.  sure you can do a  between teachers  measure.  but then you have to say that there is one objective way to teach something.  also, you have to further define good teaching.  this is pretty impossible.  not only do you have student variables, but each school site is a different animal.  there just are not enough objective measures to hang a cause on.
this is inspired by the hobby lobby case that granted religiously motivated corporations the right to opt out of providing birth control, but it  my argument  also applies to other laws from which religious people are exempt such as peyote prohibition.  it is pretty simple: i believe laws should apply equally to everyone.  anything else is unfair.  this is true regardless of how i feel about any particular law.  i want all corporations to supply birth control, but since the supreme court has ruled that some do not i believe none should.  since the hobby lobby decisions applies to corporations, it is now creating unfair competition because religious companies can save money on insurance.  laws that affect actual people are even more important, because that is discrimination.  in the us your right to practice your religion is constitutionally protected, and so is my right to not practice your religion.  yet if i want to take peyote, the federal government has essentially said i must convert to a religion that allows it.  the only exception i have thought of is the tax exempt status of religious organizations.  personally i do not think they should be exempt at all, but you can probably make a compelling argument in favor.  however, they could just be covered by the same laws as non profits without requiring their own special tax code.   #  the only exception i have thought of is the tax exempt status of religious organizations.   #  personally i do not think they should be exempt at all, but you can probably make a compelling argument in favor.   #  should not all people be able to opt out of any law for any reason ? it is called voluntaryism.  basically if you are not infringing on another person is rights by assaulting or threatening or hurting them or their property, then you should be allowed to do what you want.  this is the non aggression principle of government.  should not government work based on the consent of the governed ? should not government base their function on protecting people and their property, rather than ceasing property and forcing their idea of morality on people ? that principle is certainly a lot closer to what our founders had in mind than a government that forces far more taxes and restrictions on freedom than the british government ever did before the revolutionary war.  personally i do not think they should be exempt at all, but you can probably make a compelling argument in favor.  however, they could just be covered by the same laws as non profits without requiring their own special tax code.  so why not make everyone and everything tax exempt ? repeal the income tax amendment and go to fair tax or other forms of taxing the us used effectively before the 0s.  why should anyone be forced to pay taxes ?  #  do you believe it is okay that you can claim to be a conscientious objector to avoid combat duties ?  #  i would agree that a religious exemption should not be exclusive, but i would also like to say that  for any reason whatsoever  is much too broad.  consider the case of conscientious objectors URL and military service.  a conscientious objector is defined as someone who has claimed the right to refuse military service on the grounds of  freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion.   note that religion is only one of the possible ways to be a conscientious objector.  do you believe it is okay that you can claim to be a conscientious objector to avoid combat duties ? i would argue that the mental toll it would take on a conscientious objector to be forced to serve in combat duty is not sufficient to outweigh a need for soldiers so we should grant an exemption for this personal conviction.  looking at religious beliefs objectively, without regard for the truth of any particular religion, that is all they are strong personal convictions, which may be essential to a person is mental well being.  so the question becomes,  should we allow a person is strong personal convictions to factor in whether or not a law should apply equally ?   i think in rare cases we should, whether or not that belief is religious in nature, because it is generally detrimental to force someone to act against their own convictions.  if it becomes so detrimental that we cause them significant harm for no real gain, then perhaps we can violate the rule of law.  i do not think this situation is very common and certainly not in the case of hobby lobby in fact, off the top of my head, conscientious objection is about the only one i can think of.  but at least in principle, it should be possible to claim a religious exemption under the banner of strong personal conviction.   #  i think my wording in the op might not have been great, since you and others have fixated on the idea of  opting out for any reason.    #  thanks for bringing up conscientious objectors, i forgot about them.  my answer in this case is that there should not be a draft at all.  i do not want to go to war because i am a coward, which in the eyes of the law should be just as legitimate as my religious beliefs.  i think my wording in the op might not have been great, since you and others have fixated on the idea of  opting out for any reason.   what i meant is  opting out  should not be part of the law; laws either apply to everyone or to no one.  i completely agree, but this has no bearing on the topic at hand.  regardless of why a law is struck down whether because it violates the rights of a christian or just an agnostic with strong convictions , once it has been struck down it should not apply to anyone.   #  the army still has toilet cleaners, people who load guns, people who fly transport planes, etc.   #  we have jobs that do not require fighting in the military.  i doubt that there is no possible positions for someone.  the army still has toilet cleaners, people who load guns, people who fly transport planes, etc.  you can be in the military and not fire a single bullet.  how is making food for military different than paying taxes to military ?  #  it is stupid to make it, but sometimes, well, there is a bunch of asshole with clubs and sticks, and there drunk.   #  yeah, i tend to think the same think.  i do not like the draft exemple, because, in that case i think the draft is always a bad solution.  i am a freaking hippies.  war should not be mandatory.  it is stupid to make it, but sometimes, well, there is a bunch of asshole with clubs and sticks, and there drunk.  so, someone should get smash them if they come to close.  but it should not be mandatory, maybe i like being smashed by clubs and sticks.  but i do feel the same way as you about case where it should be mandatory for everyone to do something for the sake of eveyone.  case where a religion or belief is just wrong.  it is okay, religion are not always right, neither is science or myself.  the next question is who is deciding ? what if i am the one with a strong unpopular belief ? i am not sure on that
some cases in point: the us/english pronunciation of the name rothschild as  roth is child  suggests that the speaker believes the meaning of the name is something like  child of roth .  the speaker is showing ignorance of that the  sh  sound is spelled  sch  in germanic languages, and that the structure of the name is  roth schild , meaning  red shield .  its proper pronunciation is along the lines of  roth shild .  us/english pronunciations of latin phrases show the speaker is complete ignorance of how sounds are formed in romance languages.  i can excuse the inability to pronounce the alveolar trill rolled r , because it is not easily learned.  but this does not excuse pronouncing  a fortiori  as  ey for tay or ey , when an authentic pronunciation would be  ah for tih or ee .  it does not excuse pronouncing  ex ante  as  ex an tee  instead of  ex an teh ,  corpus delicti  as  kor pus dee lik tay  instead of  kor pus deh lik tee , and so on.  hearing us/english speakers pronounce things like that conveys the impression that they want to appear learned, but have done little learning; that their knowledge is superficial, rather than deep.  it makes me suspicious of how much they  really  know, and inclined to interpret what they are saying with skepticism.  why would you believe someone who ca not get  red shield  right ? it sounds cringe worthy.  cmv.  i received insight from vl0 is comment URL and responded with a delta with respect to how growing up in a culture will make a person perceive a bastardized pronunciation as normal, so therefore it does not necessarily reflect on the person is knowledge; i continue to find that the way schools in english speaking countries fail to teach latin pronunciation, and encourage students to pronounce latin words with english rules, results in a derivative that is neither english nor latin, is incompatible with latin learned by people in other cultures, and can be considered acceptable only if one believes that english speaking culture is the self evident center of, and measure of the world.  i must now depart to take care of things, and i hope everyone continues to have a meaningful discussion.   #  hearing us/english speakers pronounce things like that conveys the impression that they want to appear learned, but have done little learning; that their knowledge is superficial, rather than deep.   #  you mean, not everyone who says  corpus delicti  knows latin and not everyone who says  rothschild  speaks german ?  # english is a germanic language and  sh  is spelled  sh  in it.  but i am very surprised to find out that people in the us pronounce it as  roth is child .  have you heard a latin native speaker pronounce it like this ? do you have a recording ? seriously, though, you have given three reasons why a person wo not know how to pronounce a word properly and none of them indicate ignorance or lack of intelligence in my opinion:   if it is a word from a language that died before humanity invented reliable means of recording sounds, no one can say for sure what it sounded like.  but we know for more or less certain that, for example, medieval latin was different from classical latin.  yes, there are phonetic reconstructions, some pronunciations seem to be closer to reality than others, but berating people for  not saying it right  when you yourself ca not really know how to say it right sounds.  immature.  if it is a word from a foreign language, then, well, it is the problem of all languages that use latin alphabet.  foreign words are just written as they are.  when you want to use a foreign word in, say, russian, even a name, you have to transcribe it in cyrillic, so every native and non native speaker will know the  proper  pronunciation.  i put  proper  in quotes because this transcription will definitely be somewhat inaccurate, because for many sounds of the ipa there just are not any russian letters and even other cyrillic scripts may not have them all .  some words and phrases like  corpus delicti  have been so assimilated by english speakers that they are no longer entirely foreign, so they have a different pronunciation in english than in their language of origin.  you mean, not everyone who says  corpus delicti  knows latin and not everyone who says  rothschild  speaks german ? well, ok.  but it does not mean that they are not well versed in the subjects that they actually talk about.  and here is one more question.  do you find it acceptable to say  munich  instead of  münchen ,  rome  instead of  roma  or  moscow  instead of  moskva  ?  #  i ca not say turnstile no matter how many times i have people repeat it for me.   #  the fact of the matter is, if it is used in every day english and has been for generations, it is an english word with foreign origins, no longer a foreign word.  moose is an algonquian word, for example.  but you will never hear anyone argue that except when they are explicitly studying the language or the history of the algonquians.  and even then, there are way more interesting things about them to study.  the same thing happens in other countries though, using english words poorly.  the japanese say  ba su ba ru  or my one friend from the south says  bai su bo ru  that does not mean they do not have a deep understanding and love of baseball.  they are exactly as human as i am, if they practiced as a country they could say  baseball.   but there is no reason to change the way everyone does it.  no one cares what the name means, what it means in an economic and political sense is what is important.  they could be called the buggersquads and that would be the least important part.  i have a hearing problem and there are many words i can spell, define, and not pronounce.  sometimes common words.  i ca not say turnstile no matter how many times i have people repeat it for me.  there is more to knowledge than etymology.   #  it is pronounced  la hoya  but originally was pronounced wa laya.   #  where i come from we have a town named  la jolla , a bad spanish interpretation of the native american name.  it is pronounced  la hoya  but originally was pronounced wa laya.  everyone from out of town says  la jollah .  where i live now we have a town called del norte, pronounced  del nort .  back home, this would be pronounced  del nortay .   #  i find it disrespectful to treat either as if english pronunciation applies.   # :/ sorry about that.  i did upvote your comment, for what that is worth.  if you would like specifically my response rather than someone else is it seems to me that the argument you are making is one to which i have responded elsewhere, but perhaps i can respond again.  words become part of the english language, yes.  absorbing words from other languages is a strength of english which i respect.  this is the case for words like paris, moscow, munich, or as you mention, moose.  but the reason i opened this topic is due to treatment of words that  have not  made this transition.  rothschild is a german surname, not an english one.   corpus delicti  is a latin phrase.  i find it disrespectful to treat either as if english pronunciation applies.  if you disagree, perhaps there is an argument to be had about when exactly it is that words become native.  perhaps the boundary is muddy, and the transition ambiguous.  but it seems intuitively clear to me that words and phrases used only in specific contexts such as latin phrases used in a legal setting remain on the foreign side.  a useful rule of thumb might be:  do teenagers use it ?   if a word or phrase is being adopted by people without formal education, in a variety of everyday settings, then yes, it has become a native word.  but, i would argue, it betrays a lack of respect to treat the word or phrase as native before that has occurred.   #  i knew a guy with the last name schlecht who carefully schooled people on pronouncing his last name.   #  your argument was that people who pronounce popular us/english borrowed words wrong, are ignorant.  now it seems you mean pronouncing technical loan words in professional settings is disrespectful ? i argued your original point and you changed it because it did not hold up.   do teenagers use it  is a horrible rule of thumb.  the english language would be narrowed down to about 0k words in its entirety.  it should be asked more if the average person is likely to encounter it in their day to day lives.  as for surnames, my friend is name is zellner.  based probably on the german zollner.  she pronounces it with a hard z and as you would expect it to sound in english, as does her mother and grandfather and as far back as anyone remembers.  i knew a guy with the last name schlecht who carefully schooled people on pronouncing his last name.  i knew a guy with the last name schmidt who did not give two squirts how you said his name.  how names were originally pronounced does not have much of a bearing in america as to how they are pronounced.
some cases in point: the us/english pronunciation of the name rothschild as  roth is child  suggests that the speaker believes the meaning of the name is something like  child of roth .  the speaker is showing ignorance of that the  sh  sound is spelled  sch  in germanic languages, and that the structure of the name is  roth schild , meaning  red shield .  its proper pronunciation is along the lines of  roth shild .  us/english pronunciations of latin phrases show the speaker is complete ignorance of how sounds are formed in romance languages.  i can excuse the inability to pronounce the alveolar trill rolled r , because it is not easily learned.  but this does not excuse pronouncing  a fortiori  as  ey for tay or ey , when an authentic pronunciation would be  ah for tih or ee .  it does not excuse pronouncing  ex ante  as  ex an tee  instead of  ex an teh ,  corpus delicti  as  kor pus dee lik tay  instead of  kor pus deh lik tee , and so on.  hearing us/english speakers pronounce things like that conveys the impression that they want to appear learned, but have done little learning; that their knowledge is superficial, rather than deep.  it makes me suspicious of how much they  really  know, and inclined to interpret what they are saying with skepticism.  why would you believe someone who ca not get  red shield  right ? it sounds cringe worthy.  cmv.  i received insight from vl0 is comment URL and responded with a delta with respect to how growing up in a culture will make a person perceive a bastardized pronunciation as normal, so therefore it does not necessarily reflect on the person is knowledge; i continue to find that the way schools in english speaking countries fail to teach latin pronunciation, and encourage students to pronounce latin words with english rules, results in a derivative that is neither english nor latin, is incompatible with latin learned by people in other cultures, and can be considered acceptable only if one believes that english speaking culture is the self evident center of, and measure of the world.  i must now depart to take care of things, and i hope everyone continues to have a meaningful discussion.   #  us/english pronunciations of latin phrases show the speaker is complete ignorance of how sounds are formed in romance languages.   #  i can excuse the inability to pronounce the alveolar trill rolled r , because it is not easily learned.   # i can excuse the inability to pronounce the alveolar trill rolled r , because it is not easily learned.  but this does not excuse pronouncing  a fortiori  as  ey for tay or ey , when an authentic pronunciation would be  ah for tih or ee .  it does not excuse pronouncing  ex ante  as  ex an tee  instead of  ex an teh ,  corpus delicti  as  kor pus dee lik tay  instead of  kor pus deh lik tee , and so on.  i am a lawyer.  corpus delicti  and  a fortiori  have accepted pronounciations  as legal jargon .  there are pronunciations of these phrases which, if i were to use them, would be immediately understood by other lawyers.  there are different pronunciations which would not be.  i should  always  use the one which will make my meaning clear to the people i am trying to communicate to, even if that pronunciation is not  correct  per the rules of spoken latin.  because otherwise if i am choosing to use a pronunciation which the people i am speaking to wo not immediately understand i am just being a pretentious dick, and letting my pretentiousness get in the way of the communication i claim to be seeking.   #  the japanese say  ba su ba ru  or my one friend from the south says  bai su bo ru  that does not mean they do not have a deep understanding and love of baseball.   #  the fact of the matter is, if it is used in every day english and has been for generations, it is an english word with foreign origins, no longer a foreign word.  moose is an algonquian word, for example.  but you will never hear anyone argue that except when they are explicitly studying the language or the history of the algonquians.  and even then, there are way more interesting things about them to study.  the same thing happens in other countries though, using english words poorly.  the japanese say  ba su ba ru  or my one friend from the south says  bai su bo ru  that does not mean they do not have a deep understanding and love of baseball.  they are exactly as human as i am, if they practiced as a country they could say  baseball.   but there is no reason to change the way everyone does it.  no one cares what the name means, what it means in an economic and political sense is what is important.  they could be called the buggersquads and that would be the least important part.  i have a hearing problem and there are many words i can spell, define, and not pronounce.  sometimes common words.  i ca not say turnstile no matter how many times i have people repeat it for me.  there is more to knowledge than etymology.   #  everyone from out of town says  la jollah .   #  where i come from we have a town named  la jolla , a bad spanish interpretation of the native american name.  it is pronounced  la hoya  but originally was pronounced wa laya.  everyone from out of town says  la jollah .  where i live now we have a town called del norte, pronounced  del nort .  back home, this would be pronounced  del nortay .   #  i find it disrespectful to treat either as if english pronunciation applies.   # :/ sorry about that.  i did upvote your comment, for what that is worth.  if you would like specifically my response rather than someone else is it seems to me that the argument you are making is one to which i have responded elsewhere, but perhaps i can respond again.  words become part of the english language, yes.  absorbing words from other languages is a strength of english which i respect.  this is the case for words like paris, moscow, munich, or as you mention, moose.  but the reason i opened this topic is due to treatment of words that  have not  made this transition.  rothschild is a german surname, not an english one.   corpus delicti  is a latin phrase.  i find it disrespectful to treat either as if english pronunciation applies.  if you disagree, perhaps there is an argument to be had about when exactly it is that words become native.  perhaps the boundary is muddy, and the transition ambiguous.  but it seems intuitively clear to me that words and phrases used only in specific contexts such as latin phrases used in a legal setting remain on the foreign side.  a useful rule of thumb might be:  do teenagers use it ?   if a word or phrase is being adopted by people without formal education, in a variety of everyday settings, then yes, it has become a native word.  but, i would argue, it betrays a lack of respect to treat the word or phrase as native before that has occurred.   #  your argument was that people who pronounce popular us/english borrowed words wrong, are ignorant.   #  your argument was that people who pronounce popular us/english borrowed words wrong, are ignorant.  now it seems you mean pronouncing technical loan words in professional settings is disrespectful ? i argued your original point and you changed it because it did not hold up.   do teenagers use it  is a horrible rule of thumb.  the english language would be narrowed down to about 0k words in its entirety.  it should be asked more if the average person is likely to encounter it in their day to day lives.  as for surnames, my friend is name is zellner.  based probably on the german zollner.  she pronounces it with a hard z and as you would expect it to sound in english, as does her mother and grandfather and as far back as anyone remembers.  i knew a guy with the last name schlecht who carefully schooled people on pronouncing his last name.  i knew a guy with the last name schmidt who did not give two squirts how you said his name.  how names were originally pronounced does not have much of a bearing in america as to how they are pronounced.
some cases in point: the us/english pronunciation of the name rothschild as  roth is child  suggests that the speaker believes the meaning of the name is something like  child of roth .  the speaker is showing ignorance of that the  sh  sound is spelled  sch  in germanic languages, and that the structure of the name is  roth schild , meaning  red shield .  its proper pronunciation is along the lines of  roth shild .  us/english pronunciations of latin phrases show the speaker is complete ignorance of how sounds are formed in romance languages.  i can excuse the inability to pronounce the alveolar trill rolled r , because it is not easily learned.  but this does not excuse pronouncing  a fortiori  as  ey for tay or ey , when an authentic pronunciation would be  ah for tih or ee .  it does not excuse pronouncing  ex ante  as  ex an tee  instead of  ex an teh ,  corpus delicti  as  kor pus dee lik tay  instead of  kor pus deh lik tee , and so on.  hearing us/english speakers pronounce things like that conveys the impression that they want to appear learned, but have done little learning; that their knowledge is superficial, rather than deep.  it makes me suspicious of how much they  really  know, and inclined to interpret what they are saying with skepticism.  why would you believe someone who ca not get  red shield  right ? it sounds cringe worthy.  cmv.  i received insight from vl0 is comment URL and responded with a delta with respect to how growing up in a culture will make a person perceive a bastardized pronunciation as normal, so therefore it does not necessarily reflect on the person is knowledge; i continue to find that the way schools in english speaking countries fail to teach latin pronunciation, and encourage students to pronounce latin words with english rules, results in a derivative that is neither english nor latin, is incompatible with latin learned by people in other cultures, and can be considered acceptable only if one believes that english speaking culture is the self evident center of, and measure of the world.  i must now depart to take care of things, and i hope everyone continues to have a meaningful discussion.   #  and that the structure of the name is  roth schild , meaning  red shield .   #  again, unless they speak the language in question, how would they know this ?  #  i actually have to question the point of your entire thesis.  of course they do.  maybe they do.  maybe they do not.  why would a speaker of american english necessarily have any knowledge of the word is origin at all ? again, unless they speak the language in question, how would they know this ? so ? the definition/etymology of  every  word needs to be learned.  no one is born knowing  any  language, let alone one they were not raised around.  everyone  is ignorant of more languages than they are proficient in.   #  the fact of the matter is, if it is used in every day english and has been for generations, it is an english word with foreign origins, no longer a foreign word.   #  the fact of the matter is, if it is used in every day english and has been for generations, it is an english word with foreign origins, no longer a foreign word.  moose is an algonquian word, for example.  but you will never hear anyone argue that except when they are explicitly studying the language or the history of the algonquians.  and even then, there are way more interesting things about them to study.  the same thing happens in other countries though, using english words poorly.  the japanese say  ba su ba ru  or my one friend from the south says  bai su bo ru  that does not mean they do not have a deep understanding and love of baseball.  they are exactly as human as i am, if they practiced as a country they could say  baseball.   but there is no reason to change the way everyone does it.  no one cares what the name means, what it means in an economic and political sense is what is important.  they could be called the buggersquads and that would be the least important part.  i have a hearing problem and there are many words i can spell, define, and not pronounce.  sometimes common words.  i ca not say turnstile no matter how many times i have people repeat it for me.  there is more to knowledge than etymology.   #  back home, this would be pronounced  del nortay .   #  where i come from we have a town named  la jolla , a bad spanish interpretation of the native american name.  it is pronounced  la hoya  but originally was pronounced wa laya.  everyone from out of town says  la jollah .  where i live now we have a town called del norte, pronounced  del nort .  back home, this would be pronounced  del nortay .   #  but it seems intuitively clear to me that words and phrases used only in specific contexts such as latin phrases used in a legal setting remain on the foreign side.   # :/ sorry about that.  i did upvote your comment, for what that is worth.  if you would like specifically my response rather than someone else is it seems to me that the argument you are making is one to which i have responded elsewhere, but perhaps i can respond again.  words become part of the english language, yes.  absorbing words from other languages is a strength of english which i respect.  this is the case for words like paris, moscow, munich, or as you mention, moose.  but the reason i opened this topic is due to treatment of words that  have not  made this transition.  rothschild is a german surname, not an english one.   corpus delicti  is a latin phrase.  i find it disrespectful to treat either as if english pronunciation applies.  if you disagree, perhaps there is an argument to be had about when exactly it is that words become native.  perhaps the boundary is muddy, and the transition ambiguous.  but it seems intuitively clear to me that words and phrases used only in specific contexts such as latin phrases used in a legal setting remain on the foreign side.  a useful rule of thumb might be:  do teenagers use it ?   if a word or phrase is being adopted by people without formal education, in a variety of everyday settings, then yes, it has become a native word.  but, i would argue, it betrays a lack of respect to treat the word or phrase as native before that has occurred.   #  it should be asked more if the average person is likely to encounter it in their day to day lives.   #  your argument was that people who pronounce popular us/english borrowed words wrong, are ignorant.  now it seems you mean pronouncing technical loan words in professional settings is disrespectful ? i argued your original point and you changed it because it did not hold up.   do teenagers use it  is a horrible rule of thumb.  the english language would be narrowed down to about 0k words in its entirety.  it should be asked more if the average person is likely to encounter it in their day to day lives.  as for surnames, my friend is name is zellner.  based probably on the german zollner.  she pronounces it with a hard z and as you would expect it to sound in english, as does her mother and grandfather and as far back as anyone remembers.  i knew a guy with the last name schlecht who carefully schooled people on pronouncing his last name.  i knew a guy with the last name schmidt who did not give two squirts how you said his name.  how names were originally pronounced does not have much of a bearing in america as to how they are pronounced.
why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ? if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ? could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? you ca not argue that condoms do not have medical benefits other than the prevention of unwanted pregnancy because there is a very long list of harmful diseases they prevent.  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ? where is the misstep in logic here ? i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.   #  why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ?  #  this does not parallel the hobby lobby case.   # this does not parallel the hobby lobby case.  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.  hobby lobby asked for an exemption to a regulation.  you  do not have much of a right to demand any kind of additional coverage in your insurance, for condoms or anything else, unless you are willing to fork over the extra money.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? if they are defying a government regulation for insurance to cover condoms by saying it is immoral to use condoms and sex should not be consequence free, then yes you could say those things.  where is the misstep in logic here ? the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   #  it is a little more complicated than  women get free birth control but men do not.    #  in america, hormonal birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor.  the law used to say that women had to get an annual exam in order to renew that prescription, but it was struck down.  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.  moreover, an employer based healthcare plan is part of one is compensation for one is job.  so, women pay for their hormonal birth control when the cost is deducted from their paychecks, just as men pay for condoms after the paycheck is in their account.  it is a little more complicated than  women get free birth control but men do not.   in addition, there is no rule that says only men can buy condoms.  women can and do buy condoms.  if a man is in a committed sexual relationship with a woman, and they use condoms as birth control, he could and, imo, should ask her to pay him half or buy them half the time.  the same goes for two men in a sexual relationship who use condoms.   #  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.  my point is that saying condoms are not medications is a silly argument against coverage.  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.  there is also a less decent argument that all hormonal birth control is aborificent, because there is a miniscule chance that it affects implantation.  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  we are not talking about the non sex related reasons.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.  they do.  but op does not argue against that.  we are not talking about the non sex related reasons.  we are talking about available contraceptives.  the knock on hobby lobby is that they are limiting the choices of birth control that women have access to covered by their insurance plan.  condoms are a form a birth control.  if people who disagree with the hobby lobby case would mandate that  all  contraceptives be covered, and condoms are contraceptives, then condoms should be covered.   #  if that is what you believe, then how are they also not condemning me by not paying for my condoms.   #  /u/drderpberg is correct in what i was getting at.  moreso, i was getting at the idea that i find it ridiculous that people are saying that hobby lobby not covering birth control is somehow having  bosses in the bedroom  which is a phrase i have heard used often.  i have also heard often that it boils down to religious men having sexist feelings against sexually active women.  if that is what you believe, then how are they also not condemning me by not paying for my condoms.  to be logically consistent, you must also expect them to pay for them as well.
why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ? if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ? could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? you ca not argue that condoms do not have medical benefits other than the prevention of unwanted pregnancy because there is a very long list of harmful diseases they prevent.  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ? where is the misstep in logic here ? i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.   #  if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ?  #  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ?  # this does not parallel the hobby lobby case.  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.  hobby lobby asked for an exemption to a regulation.  you  do not have much of a right to demand any kind of additional coverage in your insurance, for condoms or anything else, unless you are willing to fork over the extra money.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? if they are defying a government regulation for insurance to cover condoms by saying it is immoral to use condoms and sex should not be consequence free, then yes you could say those things.  where is the misstep in logic here ? the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   #  the same goes for two men in a sexual relationship who use condoms.   #  in america, hormonal birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor.  the law used to say that women had to get an annual exam in order to renew that prescription, but it was struck down.  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.  moreover, an employer based healthcare plan is part of one is compensation for one is job.  so, women pay for their hormonal birth control when the cost is deducted from their paychecks, just as men pay for condoms after the paycheck is in their account.  it is a little more complicated than  women get free birth control but men do not.   in addition, there is no rule that says only men can buy condoms.  women can and do buy condoms.  if a man is in a committed sexual relationship with a woman, and they use condoms as birth control, he could and, imo, should ask her to pay him half or buy them half the time.  the same goes for two men in a sexual relationship who use condoms.   #  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.  my point is that saying condoms are not medications is a silly argument against coverage.  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.  there is also a less decent argument that all hormonal birth control is aborificent, because there is a miniscule chance that it affects implantation.  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  the knock on hobby lobby is that they are limiting the choices of birth control that women have access to covered by their insurance plan.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.  they do.  but op does not argue against that.  we are not talking about the non sex related reasons.  we are talking about available contraceptives.  the knock on hobby lobby is that they are limiting the choices of birth control that women have access to covered by their insurance plan.  condoms are a form a birth control.  if people who disagree with the hobby lobby case would mandate that  all  contraceptives be covered, and condoms are contraceptives, then condoms should be covered.   #  if that is what you believe, then how are they also not condemning me by not paying for my condoms.   #  /u/drderpberg is correct in what i was getting at.  moreso, i was getting at the idea that i find it ridiculous that people are saying that hobby lobby not covering birth control is somehow having  bosses in the bedroom  which is a phrase i have heard used often.  i have also heard often that it boils down to religious men having sexist feelings against sexually active women.  if that is what you believe, then how are they also not condemning me by not paying for my condoms.  to be logically consistent, you must also expect them to pay for them as well.
why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ? if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ? could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? you ca not argue that condoms do not have medical benefits other than the prevention of unwanted pregnancy because there is a very long list of harmful diseases they prevent.  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ? where is the misstep in logic here ? i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.   #  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ?  #  where is the misstep in logic here ?  # this does not parallel the hobby lobby case.  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.  hobby lobby asked for an exemption to a regulation.  you  do not have much of a right to demand any kind of additional coverage in your insurance, for condoms or anything else, unless you are willing to fork over the extra money.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? if they are defying a government regulation for insurance to cover condoms by saying it is immoral to use condoms and sex should not be consequence free, then yes you could say those things.  where is the misstep in logic here ? the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   #  if a man is in a committed sexual relationship with a woman, and they use condoms as birth control, he could and, imo, should ask her to pay him half or buy them half the time.   #  in america, hormonal birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor.  the law used to say that women had to get an annual exam in order to renew that prescription, but it was struck down.  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.  moreover, an employer based healthcare plan is part of one is compensation for one is job.  so, women pay for their hormonal birth control when the cost is deducted from their paychecks, just as men pay for condoms after the paycheck is in their account.  it is a little more complicated than  women get free birth control but men do not.   in addition, there is no rule that says only men can buy condoms.  women can and do buy condoms.  if a man is in a committed sexual relationship with a woman, and they use condoms as birth control, he could and, imo, should ask her to pay him half or buy them half the time.  the same goes for two men in a sexual relationship who use condoms.   #  there is also a less decent argument that all hormonal birth control is aborificent, because there is a miniscule chance that it affects implantation.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.  my point is that saying condoms are not medications is a silly argument against coverage.  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.  there is also a less decent argument that all hormonal birth control is aborificent, because there is a miniscule chance that it affects implantation.  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.  they do.  but op does not argue against that.  we are not talking about the non sex related reasons.  we are talking about available contraceptives.  the knock on hobby lobby is that they are limiting the choices of birth control that women have access to covered by their insurance plan.  condoms are a form a birth control.  if people who disagree with the hobby lobby case would mandate that  all  contraceptives be covered, and condoms are contraceptives, then condoms should be covered.   #  to be logically consistent, you must also expect them to pay for them as well.   #  /u/drderpberg is correct in what i was getting at.  moreso, i was getting at the idea that i find it ridiculous that people are saying that hobby lobby not covering birth control is somehow having  bosses in the bedroom  which is a phrase i have heard used often.  i have also heard often that it boils down to religious men having sexist feelings against sexually active women.  if that is what you believe, then how are they also not condemning me by not paying for my condoms.  to be logically consistent, you must also expect them to pay for them as well.
why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ? if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ? could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? you ca not argue that condoms do not have medical benefits other than the prevention of unwanted pregnancy because there is a very long list of harmful diseases they prevent.  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ? where is the misstep in logic here ? i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.   #  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ?  #  this is probably off topic and i will get downvotes galore, but it would be absurd because the war on women is also absurd, as is the war on religion, or any war on anything.   # this is very true.  if every woman had access to free birth control but no access to condoms existed, there would still be a great public health risk to sexual activity from disease.  additionally, it is also nice two have a back up in case birth control fails for whatever reason.  from a philosophical perspective, it is not hypocritical at all to expect condoms to be covered by a reasonable health insurance plan.  i think they are just as important if not more, and you are equally entitled to condoms as a woman is birth control, all things being equal.  however, all things are not equal, specifically price.  i do not see a need for condoms to be covered for that reason.  the most expensive part of the condom is probably the wrapper.  if you ca not afford the $0 it takes to buy perfectly good condoms, sex probably wo not be a priority for you.  this is probably off topic and i will get downvotes galore, but it would be absurd because the war on women is also absurd, as is the war on religion, or any war on anything.  these are ploys of the political parties  both of them  to coerce weak minded individuals into voting for them.  tl;dr i agree that they probably should be covered, but cost is an issue.  condoms are cheap, birth control is not.   #  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.   # this does not parallel the hobby lobby case.  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.  hobby lobby asked for an exemption to a regulation.  you  do not have much of a right to demand any kind of additional coverage in your insurance, for condoms or anything else, unless you are willing to fork over the extra money.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? if they are defying a government regulation for insurance to cover condoms by saying it is immoral to use condoms and sex should not be consequence free, then yes you could say those things.  where is the misstep in logic here ? the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   #  so, women pay for their hormonal birth control when the cost is deducted from their paychecks, just as men pay for condoms after the paycheck is in their account.   #  in america, hormonal birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor.  the law used to say that women had to get an annual exam in order to renew that prescription, but it was struck down.  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.  moreover, an employer based healthcare plan is part of one is compensation for one is job.  so, women pay for their hormonal birth control when the cost is deducted from their paychecks, just as men pay for condoms after the paycheck is in their account.  it is a little more complicated than  women get free birth control but men do not.   in addition, there is no rule that says only men can buy condoms.  women can and do buy condoms.  if a man is in a committed sexual relationship with a woman, and they use condoms as birth control, he could and, imo, should ask her to pay him half or buy them half the time.  the same goes for two men in a sexual relationship who use condoms.   #  my point is that saying condoms are not medications is a silly argument against coverage.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.  my point is that saying condoms are not medications is a silly argument against coverage.  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.  there is also a less decent argument that all hormonal birth control is aborificent, because there is a miniscule chance that it affects implantation.  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.  they do.  but op does not argue against that.  we are not talking about the non sex related reasons.  we are talking about available contraceptives.  the knock on hobby lobby is that they are limiting the choices of birth control that women have access to covered by their insurance plan.  condoms are a form a birth control.  if people who disagree with the hobby lobby case would mandate that  all  contraceptives be covered, and condoms are contraceptives, then condoms should be covered.
why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ? if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ? could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? you ca not argue that condoms do not have medical benefits other than the prevention of unwanted pregnancy because there is a very long list of harmful diseases they prevent.  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ? where is the misstep in logic here ? i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.   #  why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ?  #  because medication we commonly refer to as  birth control  is useful for a number of other medical purposes wrt womens  reproductive systems.   # because medication we commonly refer to as  birth control  is useful for a number of other medical purposes wrt womens  reproductive systems.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? sure, i suppose, but your argument is not reasonably considered equivalent unless if people were required to have a prescription in order to purchase condoms.  has anyone made that argument ? because access to condoms is not restricted in any way, and because  companies  do not pay for condoms for women either.  there are lots of ways to get free condoms in many circumstances.  even where the free ones are unavailable or just inconvenient, condoms are so cheap and widely available that there is little reason for anyone who needs one, not to have one.  i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.  men is or women is access to condoms is not limited, as opposed to  birth control  which is prescription medication; which as you are no doubt aware, prescriptions must be acquired from a doctor.  condoms are inexpensive, and do not require special permission from a doctor to be obtained.  condoms do not have medical uses beyond the prevention of std is and pregnancy, whereas  birth control  for women has other medical applications beyond just contraception.  condoms are not reasonably comparable to women is  birth control .   #  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.   # this does not parallel the hobby lobby case.  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.  hobby lobby asked for an exemption to a regulation.  you  do not have much of a right to demand any kind of additional coverage in your insurance, for condoms or anything else, unless you are willing to fork over the extra money.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? if they are defying a government regulation for insurance to cover condoms by saying it is immoral to use condoms and sex should not be consequence free, then yes you could say those things.  where is the misstep in logic here ? the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   #  moreover, an employer based healthcare plan is part of one is compensation for one is job.   #  in america, hormonal birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor.  the law used to say that women had to get an annual exam in order to renew that prescription, but it was struck down.  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.  moreover, an employer based healthcare plan is part of one is compensation for one is job.  so, women pay for their hormonal birth control when the cost is deducted from their paychecks, just as men pay for condoms after the paycheck is in their account.  it is a little more complicated than  women get free birth control but men do not.   in addition, there is no rule that says only men can buy condoms.  women can and do buy condoms.  if a man is in a committed sexual relationship with a woman, and they use condoms as birth control, he could and, imo, should ask her to pay him half or buy them half the time.  the same goes for two men in a sexual relationship who use condoms.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.  my point is that saying condoms are not medications is a silly argument against coverage.  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.  there is also a less decent argument that all hormonal birth control is aborificent, because there is a miniscule chance that it affects implantation.  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.  they do.  but op does not argue against that.  we are not talking about the non sex related reasons.  we are talking about available contraceptives.  the knock on hobby lobby is that they are limiting the choices of birth control that women have access to covered by their insurance plan.  condoms are a form a birth control.  if people who disagree with the hobby lobby case would mandate that  all  contraceptives be covered, and condoms are contraceptives, then condoms should be covered.
why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ? if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ? could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? you ca not argue that condoms do not have medical benefits other than the prevention of unwanted pregnancy because there is a very long list of harmful diseases they prevent.  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ? where is the misstep in logic here ? i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.   #  if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ?  #  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ?  # because medication we commonly refer to as  birth control  is useful for a number of other medical purposes wrt womens  reproductive systems.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? sure, i suppose, but your argument is not reasonably considered equivalent unless if people were required to have a prescription in order to purchase condoms.  has anyone made that argument ? because access to condoms is not restricted in any way, and because  companies  do not pay for condoms for women either.  there are lots of ways to get free condoms in many circumstances.  even where the free ones are unavailable or just inconvenient, condoms are so cheap and widely available that there is little reason for anyone who needs one, not to have one.  i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.  men is or women is access to condoms is not limited, as opposed to  birth control  which is prescription medication; which as you are no doubt aware, prescriptions must be acquired from a doctor.  condoms are inexpensive, and do not require special permission from a doctor to be obtained.  condoms do not have medical uses beyond the prevention of std is and pregnancy, whereas  birth control  for women has other medical applications beyond just contraception.  condoms are not reasonably comparable to women is  birth control .   #  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ?  # this does not parallel the hobby lobby case.  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.  hobby lobby asked for an exemption to a regulation.  you  do not have much of a right to demand any kind of additional coverage in your insurance, for condoms or anything else, unless you are willing to fork over the extra money.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? if they are defying a government regulation for insurance to cover condoms by saying it is immoral to use condoms and sex should not be consequence free, then yes you could say those things.  where is the misstep in logic here ? the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   #  in addition, there is no rule that says only men can buy condoms.   #  in america, hormonal birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor.  the law used to say that women had to get an annual exam in order to renew that prescription, but it was struck down.  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.  moreover, an employer based healthcare plan is part of one is compensation for one is job.  so, women pay for their hormonal birth control when the cost is deducted from their paychecks, just as men pay for condoms after the paycheck is in their account.  it is a little more complicated than  women get free birth control but men do not.   in addition, there is no rule that says only men can buy condoms.  women can and do buy condoms.  if a man is in a committed sexual relationship with a woman, and they use condoms as birth control, he could and, imo, should ask her to pay him half or buy them half the time.  the same goes for two men in a sexual relationship who use condoms.   #  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.  my point is that saying condoms are not medications is a silly argument against coverage.  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.  there is also a less decent argument that all hormonal birth control is aborificent, because there is a miniscule chance that it affects implantation.  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.  they do.  but op does not argue against that.  we are not talking about the non sex related reasons.  we are talking about available contraceptives.  the knock on hobby lobby is that they are limiting the choices of birth control that women have access to covered by their insurance plan.  condoms are a form a birth control.  if people who disagree with the hobby lobby case would mandate that  all  contraceptives be covered, and condoms are contraceptives, then condoms should be covered.
why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ? if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ? could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? you ca not argue that condoms do not have medical benefits other than the prevention of unwanted pregnancy because there is a very long list of harmful diseases they prevent.  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ? where is the misstep in logic here ? i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.   #  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ?  #  because access to condoms is not restricted in any way, and because  companies  do not pay for condoms for women either.   # because medication we commonly refer to as  birth control  is useful for a number of other medical purposes wrt womens  reproductive systems.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? sure, i suppose, but your argument is not reasonably considered equivalent unless if people were required to have a prescription in order to purchase condoms.  has anyone made that argument ? because access to condoms is not restricted in any way, and because  companies  do not pay for condoms for women either.  there are lots of ways to get free condoms in many circumstances.  even where the free ones are unavailable or just inconvenient, condoms are so cheap and widely available that there is little reason for anyone who needs one, not to have one.  i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.  men is or women is access to condoms is not limited, as opposed to  birth control  which is prescription medication; which as you are no doubt aware, prescriptions must be acquired from a doctor.  condoms are inexpensive, and do not require special permission from a doctor to be obtained.  condoms do not have medical uses beyond the prevention of std is and pregnancy, whereas  birth control  for women has other medical applications beyond just contraception.  condoms are not reasonably comparable to women is  birth control .   #  you  do not have much of a right to demand any kind of additional coverage in your insurance, for condoms or anything else, unless you are willing to fork over the extra money.   # this does not parallel the hobby lobby case.  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.  hobby lobby asked for an exemption to a regulation.  you  do not have much of a right to demand any kind of additional coverage in your insurance, for condoms or anything else, unless you are willing to fork over the extra money.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? if they are defying a government regulation for insurance to cover condoms by saying it is immoral to use condoms and sex should not be consequence free, then yes you could say those things.  where is the misstep in logic here ? the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   #  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.   #  in america, hormonal birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor.  the law used to say that women had to get an annual exam in order to renew that prescription, but it was struck down.  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.  moreover, an employer based healthcare plan is part of one is compensation for one is job.  so, women pay for their hormonal birth control when the cost is deducted from their paychecks, just as men pay for condoms after the paycheck is in their account.  it is a little more complicated than  women get free birth control but men do not.   in addition, there is no rule that says only men can buy condoms.  women can and do buy condoms.  if a man is in a committed sexual relationship with a woman, and they use condoms as birth control, he could and, imo, should ask her to pay him half or buy them half the time.  the same goes for two men in a sexual relationship who use condoms.   #  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.  my point is that saying condoms are not medications is a silly argument against coverage.  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.  there is also a less decent argument that all hormonal birth control is aborificent, because there is a miniscule chance that it affects implantation.  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  if people who disagree with the hobby lobby case would mandate that  all  contraceptives be covered, and condoms are contraceptives, then condoms should be covered.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.  they do.  but op does not argue against that.  we are not talking about the non sex related reasons.  we are talking about available contraceptives.  the knock on hobby lobby is that they are limiting the choices of birth control that women have access to covered by their insurance plan.  condoms are a form a birth control.  if people who disagree with the hobby lobby case would mandate that  all  contraceptives be covered, and condoms are contraceptives, then condoms should be covered.
why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ? if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ? could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? you ca not argue that condoms do not have medical benefits other than the prevention of unwanted pregnancy because there is a very long list of harmful diseases they prevent.  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ? where is the misstep in logic here ? i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.   #  where is the misstep in logic here ?  #  i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.   # because medication we commonly refer to as  birth control  is useful for a number of other medical purposes wrt womens  reproductive systems.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? sure, i suppose, but your argument is not reasonably considered equivalent unless if people were required to have a prescription in order to purchase condoms.  has anyone made that argument ? because access to condoms is not restricted in any way, and because  companies  do not pay for condoms for women either.  there are lots of ways to get free condoms in many circumstances.  even where the free ones are unavailable or just inconvenient, condoms are so cheap and widely available that there is little reason for anyone who needs one, not to have one.  i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.  men is or women is access to condoms is not limited, as opposed to  birth control  which is prescription medication; which as you are no doubt aware, prescriptions must be acquired from a doctor.  condoms are inexpensive, and do not require special permission from a doctor to be obtained.  condoms do not have medical uses beyond the prevention of std is and pregnancy, whereas  birth control  for women has other medical applications beyond just contraception.  condoms are not reasonably comparable to women is  birth control .   #  the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   # this does not parallel the hobby lobby case.  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.  hobby lobby asked for an exemption to a regulation.  you  do not have much of a right to demand any kind of additional coverage in your insurance, for condoms or anything else, unless you are willing to fork over the extra money.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? if they are defying a government regulation for insurance to cover condoms by saying it is immoral to use condoms and sex should not be consequence free, then yes you could say those things.  where is the misstep in logic here ? the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   #  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.   #  in america, hormonal birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor.  the law used to say that women had to get an annual exam in order to renew that prescription, but it was struck down.  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.  moreover, an employer based healthcare plan is part of one is compensation for one is job.  so, women pay for their hormonal birth control when the cost is deducted from their paychecks, just as men pay for condoms after the paycheck is in their account.  it is a little more complicated than  women get free birth control but men do not.   in addition, there is no rule that says only men can buy condoms.  women can and do buy condoms.  if a man is in a committed sexual relationship with a woman, and they use condoms as birth control, he could and, imo, should ask her to pay him half or buy them half the time.  the same goes for two men in a sexual relationship who use condoms.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.  my point is that saying condoms are not medications is a silly argument against coverage.  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.  there is also a less decent argument that all hormonal birth control is aborificent, because there is a miniscule chance that it affects implantation.  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.  they do.  but op does not argue against that.  we are not talking about the non sex related reasons.  we are talking about available contraceptives.  the knock on hobby lobby is that they are limiting the choices of birth control that women have access to covered by their insurance plan.  condoms are a form a birth control.  if people who disagree with the hobby lobby case would mandate that  all  contraceptives be covered, and condoms are contraceptives, then condoms should be covered.
why would it be any different if i were to demand my employer to pay for condoms ? if my employer did not cover free condoms under their health care package, could i accuse them of imposing their views of sexual morality upon me ? could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? you ca not argue that condoms do not have medical benefits other than the prevention of unwanted pregnancy because there is a very long list of harmful diseases they prevent.  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ? where is the misstep in logic here ? i am genuinely asking, not being sarcastic.  i just want to understand the heart of this issue here.   #  why would it be absurd to proclaim that there is a war on men if companies do not pay for my condoms ?  #  because you are comparing a legally restricted medication with a common sundry item ?  # because you are comparing a legally restricted medication with a common sundry item ? i can go on amazon and get a 0 pack of condoms for less than $0.  that is less than the copay for a month of hormonal bc.  and not just the pill.  you ca not get a cervical cap or a diaphragm without a doctor is prescription, either.  if they kept iuds next to the preparation h at your local 0/0 and charged $0 for them, the situation would be different; if the only way to get condoms was with the permission of a doctor, the situation would be different.  but  for whatever reason , the most common form of birth control used by men is sold in vending machines and gas stations and given out for free to college freshmen, while the most common methods of birth control used by women require a doctor is approval.  maybe this is biologically justifiable; it is still a distinction that comprehensive health coverage must address.   #  the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   # this does not parallel the hobby lobby case.  it was not women demanding insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage, it was the government.  hobby lobby asked for an exemption to a regulation.  you  do not have much of a right to demand any kind of additional coverage in your insurance, for condoms or anything else, unless you are willing to fork over the extra money.  could i rightfully say they are being actively involved in my personal sex life by not paying for my condoms ? if they are defying a government regulation for insurance to cover condoms by saying it is immoral to use condoms and sex should not be consequence free, then yes you could say those things.  where is the misstep in logic here ? the misstep is the government does not mandate employer provided insurance covers condoms, and so companies are not seeking weird exemptions to paying for that coverage by citing moral objections.   #  the law used to say that women had to get an annual exam in order to renew that prescription, but it was struck down.   #  in america, hormonal birth control pills must be prescribed by a doctor.  the law used to say that women had to get an annual exam in order to renew that prescription, but it was struck down.  some people are starting to argue that, like condoms, birth control pills should be available over the counter, sans perscription URL i think the article i posted makes an excellent argument.  moreover, an employer based healthcare plan is part of one is compensation for one is job.  so, women pay for their hormonal birth control when the cost is deducted from their paychecks, just as men pay for condoms after the paycheck is in their account.  it is a little more complicated than  women get free birth control but men do not.   in addition, there is no rule that says only men can buy condoms.  women can and do buy condoms.  if a man is in a committed sexual relationship with a woman, and they use condoms as birth control, he could and, imo, should ask her to pay him half or buy them half the time.  the same goes for two men in a sexual relationship who use condoms.   #  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  that is true, but they are not medications, per se.  my point is that saying condoms are not medications is a silly argument against coverage.  however there is a decent argument to be made that iuds are aborificent, since the zygote has gone through multiple cell divisions by the time of implantation, which iuds prevent.  there is also a less decent argument that all hormonal birth control is aborificent, because there is a miniscule chance that it affects implantation.  so hobby lobby is cherry picking facts, and are assholes, but vasectomies and conditions should be covered under the aca, the pill should be otc and everybody should bang like bunnies.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.   #  prilosec is also available without a prescription, but many insurance plans cover it at a reduced rate.  i am not saying birth control pills do not have other legitimate uses.  they do.  but op does not argue against that.  we are not talking about the non sex related reasons.  we are talking about available contraceptives.  the knock on hobby lobby is that they are limiting the choices of birth control that women have access to covered by their insurance plan.  condoms are a form a birth control.  if people who disagree with the hobby lobby case would mandate that  all  contraceptives be covered, and condoms are contraceptives, then condoms should be covered.
i think it is convoluted and pointless how some companies offer multiple paid time off banks.  some employers will have a pto bank for vacation days, another one for sick days, another one for personal days, and another for floating holidays.  there is a lot of reasons i think this is worse than using a single combined pto bank.    the employee will have trouble calculating how much time is available to them.  if the employer requires pto to be used in 0 hour chunks, the actual amount of pto available may be different from the  useable  amount of pto available.    accounting on the employer side is complicated as there are going to be multiple ways of accounting for an employee is day off.    the various pto banks usually accrue at different rates, which makes it hard to estimate how much time off you will have in the future.    the various pto banks usually have different rules for how much time can be accumulated and whether or not it rolls over from year to year, as well as how much can roll over each year.    it encourages employees to lie, which is bad for employee morale and bad for the company.  it is better to know fred will not be in a week ahead of time than for him to fake sick the morning of.    it is disingenuous to offer a sick bank as employers typically act like it is the same as vacation time when hiring you, but it is only supposed to be available if you are sick.  i once was offered to leave a job with 0 weeks pto all one bank for a job with 0 weeks pto 0 week vacation, 0 weeks sick and the recruiter tried to claim that it was just a semantic difference.  in reality to use those 0 weeks i would have to actually be sick, or lie about it.  and even if i did lie about it, i could not use more than a day or two at a time, unlike vacation time.   #  accounting on the employer side is complicated as there are going to be multiple ways of accounting for an employee is day off.   #  i do not buy these arguments at all.   # i do not buy these arguments at all.  these days there is any number of good hr software that makes individual employee log in accounting fairly simple.  what you describe is really just a straitforward hr problem that is remedied by even very modest levels of competence.  i also do not believe separate banks encourage employees to lie.  again, a base level time tracking system is actually a pretty simple thing to acheive.  competent management is going to catch the chronic abuser of friday itis.  but, most folks worth career consideration actually are not there to really a use the system.  it is odd to me that some folks that give lip service to a free market economy do not trust individuals to actually behave if given even a tiny bit of self determination.   #  if you do not think i am productive enough fire me.   #  its amazing that i just so happened to be sick right after my vacation.  lucky too since i was not back from hawaii yet.  breaking them into separate pools just leads to lieing, which is not a good thing to encourage.  here is the way its worked in every sane place i have ever been you take days off for vacation, and if you are sick you just take what you need working from home if well enough .  of course my personal rule is also not to claim days off at all.  if you do not think i am productive enough fire me.   #  if you are really sick and contagious or otherwise not yourself enough to focus on the work, then showing up is doing more damage than it is worth.   #  i am going to take a different approach.  sick time should not be counted at all.  if you are really sick and contagious or otherwise not yourself enough to focus on the work, then showing up is doing more damage than it is worth.  my company does not count any sick days against you and it is great for both health and morale.  you may think it would be abused but not many people abuse it any more than they would if it counted.  most people at some point will lie about being sick whether they have x sick days or unlimited.  and few are brash enough to do so frequently.  if you do abuse it it is not hard to catch and reprimand.  also vacation and personal time have important distinctions.  you have to request vaca time or at least i do.  you can have everyone take monday off or some other day.  staffing issues are important so some time needs to be approved.  but everyone also needs to at least a few times call off without notice no questions asked.  it is important to offer both.   #  legitimate sick days will not be planned regardless of how the bank is organized, but someone planning a fake sick day would be able to give notice ahead of time if they had a single pto bank.   #  the unlimited sick bank is a really interesting concept.  i like it a lot.  it does not change my view that a single pto bank is better than a separated bank, but i think it does change my unstated view that a combined pto bank is best.  i bet it is a tough sell for most companies though, especially larger ones with lots of employees.    as for your second point, that is what the  personal day  bank is for at a lot of companies, unscheduled days when you are not sick.  i would argue the end result in reality is better with a combined bank though.  legitimate sick days will not be planned regardless of how the bank is organized, but someone planning a fake sick day would be able to give notice ahead of time if they had a single pto bank.   #  in fact i think it makes it worse, because some employees will see  oh, i need next wednesday off, but i am out of vacation. but i still have 0 sick days, i will just call in sick .   #  a lot of companies have a third bank called  personal time , which is separate from vacation and sick time.  it is intended for  oh crap my basement is flooding  or  my car wo not start  type of situations.  you can have everyone take monday off or some other day.  staffing issues are important so some time needs to be approved.  i do not think that separating vacation time and sick time helps with this.  in fact i think it makes it worse, because some employees will see  oh, i need next wednesday off, but i am out of vacation. but i still have 0 sick days, i will just call in sick .  the end result is that the employee is out for the day, but the company finds out at the last minute.  with a joint pto bank, the employee could feel free to inform them right now that he wont  be in next wednesday.  your explanation that employers separate sick time and vacation time in order to allot for unplanned call offs assumes that most employees follow the rules about sick days and only use them when sick, which i do not think is true.
some people choose to not eat meat because they disagree with the accumulation, storage, and production of meat.  animals are kept in cages hardly bigger than their bodies, sometimes stacked on top of each other, and are forcefully bred to produce more.  it is no doubt that methods to satisfy the demand for meat are atrociously disgusting.  unfortunately, choosing to not eat meat does not realistically make a difference nor does it completely accomplish what you are actually aiming to achieve via vegetarianism.  if you decide to not eat animals so that hopefully less farm animals are subject to such horrible conditions, you are ignoring the bigger picture.  animals are mass produced for a variety of reasons, not only for human consumption.  animals are used for fur URL held in captivity for entertainment URL animal feed like feeder mice and fish , and are mass produced as pets.  if you choose to not eat meat, you must also agree that you should not own a pet from a pet store because this means the animal was bred in a mill of mass production.  this does allow you to purchase a dog from a reasonably adequate breeder, however do not think that you can feed them 0 of dog foods that are in the store.  the meat in the kibble comes from the same places our meat comes from.  admittedly, i will mention that there are vegetarian dog foods, however, i would not be willing to say that it is a particularly healthy diet for an omnivorous dog.  so you do run into a bit of a dilemma when deciding what you want to feed your dog.  this does however lead to an interesting, but admittedly outlandish, next point.  if you choose to avoid things that are derived from the cruel treatment of living things, then you could also make a similar argument pertaining to plants.  i will state now that obviously we as humans, unable to make our own food from the sun, could not realistically survive without the consumption of plants and animals, but the argument does seem as if it could pertain to plants as well.  given that we are not talking about plants, instead, only animals then we must focus on all animals.  the way we treat all animals are simply ignored by vegetarians.  this is because animals generally have no rights.  we have pesticides that protect our crops.  we have exterminators that remove vermin from our houses.  animals are hunted, sometimes for better reasons than others.  and then there is also animal testing which i feel is for the greater good , yet does unavoidably lead to the suffering of animals.  the thing we are ultimately trying to avoid.  vegetarianism is not completely useless, only mostly.  to speak realistically about the world: a small percentage of newfound vegetarians does not impact the specific industry nor the whole picture all together.  even a quite large number would not change the world.  animals will be used for food even if no humans eat it.  animals will be mistreated, big and small.  they are utilized by humans in such ways that achieves us the most comfortable life possible.  to become a vegetarian does little that will change the overall treatment animals.   #  if you decide to not eat animals so that hopefully less farm animals are subject to such horrible conditions, you are ignoring the bigger picture.   #  animals are mass produced for a variety of reasons, not only for human consumption.   # animals are mass produced for a variety of reasons, not only for human consumption.  animals are used for fur, held in captivity for entertainment, animal feed like feeder mice and fish , and are mass produced as pets.  if you choose to not eat meat, you must also agree that you should not own a pet from a pet store because this means the animal was bred in a mill of mass production.  this does allow you to purchase a dog from a reasonably adequate breeder, however do not think that you can feed them 0 of dog foods that are in the store.  the meat in the kibble comes from the same places our meat comes from.  admittedly, i will mention that there are vegetarian dog foods, however, i would not be willing to say that it is a particularly healthy diet for an omnivorous dog.  so you do run into a bit of a dilemma when deciding what you want to feed your dog.  people who do not eat meat for ethical reasons are more often than not also against exploiting animals for other uses too, so i do not see your point.  if you take this stance, then it is of course advisable to only have pets that can thrive on vegetarian diets.  i already had a dog when i went vegan, so i choose to bite the bullet and pay for meat products for now.  to provide my dog with proper nutrition from plants would be incredibly expensive.  so, my next pet will likely be a pig.  they make great pets and thrive on horse feed and veggies.  plants are not sentient, they do not feel pain or pleasure nor do have emotions.  that is why people refrain from eating animals and choose a plant based diet.  you ca not really be cruel to something that does not experience life.  this is because animals generally have no rights.  we have pesticides that protect our crops.  we have exterminators that remove vermin from our houses.  animals are hunted, sometimes for better reasons than others.  and then there is also animal testing which i feel is for the greater good , yet does unavoidably lead to the suffering of animals.  the thing we are ultimately trying to avoid.  vegetarianism is not completely useless, only mostly.  again, many of us avoid using products that are tested on animals most products that are tested on animals only serve our most trivial interests and have tried and true, cruelty free alternatives; admittedly, the good may outweigh the bad when it comes to some medical testing, but cosmetic testing is entirely unnecessary .  i do not hunt, and i would rather eat food that is not doused in pesticides.  but, yes, animals are going to die as a result of agriculture.  the point is to minimize your impact, not eliminate it.  even a quite large number would not change the world.  animals will be used for food even if no humans eat it.  animals will be mistreated, big and small.  they are utilized by humans in such ways that achieves us the most comfortable life possible.  to become a vegetarian does little that will change the overall treatment animals.  yet, even if i take this as truth though i do not , i have no interest in taking part in something i disagree with.   #  similarly by boycotting meat by those who care about animal welfare there is left only those who do not care as much consuming the meat.   #  you would be right to say it helps towards reducing the amount of animals killed, but this is not the same as increasing the welfare for those animals that are killed.  if you imagine a train service should only a few people use that service there would be little impetus or indeed money from the powers that be to increase the quality of said service.  similarly by boycotting meat by those who care about animal welfare there is left only those who do not care as much consuming the meat.  most of the vegetarians i know are so not because they object to the killing of animals, but because of the welfare of those animals.  but because they have boycotted the product they have lost their voice in the process.   #  also, i think you will find that a great number of vegetarians are likewise in favor of pesticide free foods, which negates that point as well.   #  supply and demand is the simple answer to what you are saying.  the cow at the slaughterhouse is still going to get killed today whether or not i eat it, but if i do not, and lots of other people resolve not to, then the number of cows getting slaughtered goes down, maybe even reaches zero.  you are using  animals  as an all encompassing term, but making like 0 different points here.  most vegetarians are against the fur trade, and puppy mills, and all of the other ways that animals are mistreated.  it is not like they are going out and buying fur coats and saying that we should not eat these animals.  also, i think you will find that a great number of vegetarians are likewise in favor of pesticide free foods, which negates that point as well.  if the only reason that so many cows are being killed is to feed us and it is , then it logically follows that if we do not need them for feeding us, that they wo not be killed.  they wo not ever live in those conditions, and so on.   #  this point does not cover all sources of animal mistreatment also.   #  if 0 of humans began to stop eating meat all together there would be a very noticeable change in the production of say beef and chickens.  however, 0 is a completely unrealistic expectation.  the number of vegetarians by country averages around say 0.  sometimes lower than 0 and never reaching or higher than 0.  even if this number were to triple, the demand solely for chickens and cows would be mainly unchanged as we must remember humans are not the entire demand for such animals.  this point does not cover all sources of animal mistreatment also.  so i would say the overall picture would still be unchanged and the goal largely unachieved.   #  what we do does aim towards another ultimately good goal: feeding humans.   #  well.  it is interesting to call our methods a problem.  what we do does aim towards another ultimately good goal: feeding humans.  are there alternatives ? perhaps.  i honestly could not say if 0 vegetarian diets from birth would be healthy, but i would assume they would be reasonably okay.  most people agree that our overall treatment ignoring what i am hoping are outlier instances of specifically cruel treatments of animals , is not good.  but it does aim for a good goal.
some people choose to not eat meat because they disagree with the accumulation, storage, and production of meat.  animals are kept in cages hardly bigger than their bodies, sometimes stacked on top of each other, and are forcefully bred to produce more.  it is no doubt that methods to satisfy the demand for meat are atrociously disgusting.  unfortunately, choosing to not eat meat does not realistically make a difference nor does it completely accomplish what you are actually aiming to achieve via vegetarianism.  if you decide to not eat animals so that hopefully less farm animals are subject to such horrible conditions, you are ignoring the bigger picture.  animals are mass produced for a variety of reasons, not only for human consumption.  animals are used for fur URL held in captivity for entertainment URL animal feed like feeder mice and fish , and are mass produced as pets.  if you choose to not eat meat, you must also agree that you should not own a pet from a pet store because this means the animal was bred in a mill of mass production.  this does allow you to purchase a dog from a reasonably adequate breeder, however do not think that you can feed them 0 of dog foods that are in the store.  the meat in the kibble comes from the same places our meat comes from.  admittedly, i will mention that there are vegetarian dog foods, however, i would not be willing to say that it is a particularly healthy diet for an omnivorous dog.  so you do run into a bit of a dilemma when deciding what you want to feed your dog.  this does however lead to an interesting, but admittedly outlandish, next point.  if you choose to avoid things that are derived from the cruel treatment of living things, then you could also make a similar argument pertaining to plants.  i will state now that obviously we as humans, unable to make our own food from the sun, could not realistically survive without the consumption of plants and animals, but the argument does seem as if it could pertain to plants as well.  given that we are not talking about plants, instead, only animals then we must focus on all animals.  the way we treat all animals are simply ignored by vegetarians.  this is because animals generally have no rights.  we have pesticides that protect our crops.  we have exterminators that remove vermin from our houses.  animals are hunted, sometimes for better reasons than others.  and then there is also animal testing which i feel is for the greater good , yet does unavoidably lead to the suffering of animals.  the thing we are ultimately trying to avoid.  vegetarianism is not completely useless, only mostly.  to speak realistically about the world: a small percentage of newfound vegetarians does not impact the specific industry nor the whole picture all together.  even a quite large number would not change the world.  animals will be used for food even if no humans eat it.  animals will be mistreated, big and small.  they are utilized by humans in such ways that achieves us the most comfortable life possible.  to become a vegetarian does little that will change the overall treatment animals.   #  if you choose to avoid things that are derived from the cruel treatment of living things, then you could also make a similar argument pertaining to plants.   #  plants are not sentient, they do not feel pain or pleasure nor do have emotions.   # animals are mass produced for a variety of reasons, not only for human consumption.  animals are used for fur, held in captivity for entertainment, animal feed like feeder mice and fish , and are mass produced as pets.  if you choose to not eat meat, you must also agree that you should not own a pet from a pet store because this means the animal was bred in a mill of mass production.  this does allow you to purchase a dog from a reasonably adequate breeder, however do not think that you can feed them 0 of dog foods that are in the store.  the meat in the kibble comes from the same places our meat comes from.  admittedly, i will mention that there are vegetarian dog foods, however, i would not be willing to say that it is a particularly healthy diet for an omnivorous dog.  so you do run into a bit of a dilemma when deciding what you want to feed your dog.  people who do not eat meat for ethical reasons are more often than not also against exploiting animals for other uses too, so i do not see your point.  if you take this stance, then it is of course advisable to only have pets that can thrive on vegetarian diets.  i already had a dog when i went vegan, so i choose to bite the bullet and pay for meat products for now.  to provide my dog with proper nutrition from plants would be incredibly expensive.  so, my next pet will likely be a pig.  they make great pets and thrive on horse feed and veggies.  plants are not sentient, they do not feel pain or pleasure nor do have emotions.  that is why people refrain from eating animals and choose a plant based diet.  you ca not really be cruel to something that does not experience life.  this is because animals generally have no rights.  we have pesticides that protect our crops.  we have exterminators that remove vermin from our houses.  animals are hunted, sometimes for better reasons than others.  and then there is also animal testing which i feel is for the greater good , yet does unavoidably lead to the suffering of animals.  the thing we are ultimately trying to avoid.  vegetarianism is not completely useless, only mostly.  again, many of us avoid using products that are tested on animals most products that are tested on animals only serve our most trivial interests and have tried and true, cruelty free alternatives; admittedly, the good may outweigh the bad when it comes to some medical testing, but cosmetic testing is entirely unnecessary .  i do not hunt, and i would rather eat food that is not doused in pesticides.  but, yes, animals are going to die as a result of agriculture.  the point is to minimize your impact, not eliminate it.  even a quite large number would not change the world.  animals will be used for food even if no humans eat it.  animals will be mistreated, big and small.  they are utilized by humans in such ways that achieves us the most comfortable life possible.  to become a vegetarian does little that will change the overall treatment animals.  yet, even if i take this as truth though i do not , i have no interest in taking part in something i disagree with.   #  most of the vegetarians i know are so not because they object to the killing of animals, but because of the welfare of those animals.   #  you would be right to say it helps towards reducing the amount of animals killed, but this is not the same as increasing the welfare for those animals that are killed.  if you imagine a train service should only a few people use that service there would be little impetus or indeed money from the powers that be to increase the quality of said service.  similarly by boycotting meat by those who care about animal welfare there is left only those who do not care as much consuming the meat.  most of the vegetarians i know are so not because they object to the killing of animals, but because of the welfare of those animals.  but because they have boycotted the product they have lost their voice in the process.   #  also, i think you will find that a great number of vegetarians are likewise in favor of pesticide free foods, which negates that point as well.   #  supply and demand is the simple answer to what you are saying.  the cow at the slaughterhouse is still going to get killed today whether or not i eat it, but if i do not, and lots of other people resolve not to, then the number of cows getting slaughtered goes down, maybe even reaches zero.  you are using  animals  as an all encompassing term, but making like 0 different points here.  most vegetarians are against the fur trade, and puppy mills, and all of the other ways that animals are mistreated.  it is not like they are going out and buying fur coats and saying that we should not eat these animals.  also, i think you will find that a great number of vegetarians are likewise in favor of pesticide free foods, which negates that point as well.  if the only reason that so many cows are being killed is to feed us and it is , then it logically follows that if we do not need them for feeding us, that they wo not be killed.  they wo not ever live in those conditions, and so on.   #  if 0 of humans began to stop eating meat all together there would be a very noticeable change in the production of say beef and chickens.   #  if 0 of humans began to stop eating meat all together there would be a very noticeable change in the production of say beef and chickens.  however, 0 is a completely unrealistic expectation.  the number of vegetarians by country averages around say 0.  sometimes lower than 0 and never reaching or higher than 0.  even if this number were to triple, the demand solely for chickens and cows would be mainly unchanged as we must remember humans are not the entire demand for such animals.  this point does not cover all sources of animal mistreatment also.  so i would say the overall picture would still be unchanged and the goal largely unachieved.   #  most people agree that our overall treatment ignoring what i am hoping are outlier instances of specifically cruel treatments of animals , is not good.   #  well.  it is interesting to call our methods a problem.  what we do does aim towards another ultimately good goal: feeding humans.  are there alternatives ? perhaps.  i honestly could not say if 0 vegetarian diets from birth would be healthy, but i would assume they would be reasonably okay.  most people agree that our overall treatment ignoring what i am hoping are outlier instances of specifically cruel treatments of animals , is not good.  but it does aim for a good goal.
some people choose to not eat meat because they disagree with the accumulation, storage, and production of meat.  animals are kept in cages hardly bigger than their bodies, sometimes stacked on top of each other, and are forcefully bred to produce more.  it is no doubt that methods to satisfy the demand for meat are atrociously disgusting.  unfortunately, choosing to not eat meat does not realistically make a difference nor does it completely accomplish what you are actually aiming to achieve via vegetarianism.  if you decide to not eat animals so that hopefully less farm animals are subject to such horrible conditions, you are ignoring the bigger picture.  animals are mass produced for a variety of reasons, not only for human consumption.  animals are used for fur URL held in captivity for entertainment URL animal feed like feeder mice and fish , and are mass produced as pets.  if you choose to not eat meat, you must also agree that you should not own a pet from a pet store because this means the animal was bred in a mill of mass production.  this does allow you to purchase a dog from a reasonably adequate breeder, however do not think that you can feed them 0 of dog foods that are in the store.  the meat in the kibble comes from the same places our meat comes from.  admittedly, i will mention that there are vegetarian dog foods, however, i would not be willing to say that it is a particularly healthy diet for an omnivorous dog.  so you do run into a bit of a dilemma when deciding what you want to feed your dog.  this does however lead to an interesting, but admittedly outlandish, next point.  if you choose to avoid things that are derived from the cruel treatment of living things, then you could also make a similar argument pertaining to plants.  i will state now that obviously we as humans, unable to make our own food from the sun, could not realistically survive without the consumption of plants and animals, but the argument does seem as if it could pertain to plants as well.  given that we are not talking about plants, instead, only animals then we must focus on all animals.  the way we treat all animals are simply ignored by vegetarians.  this is because animals generally have no rights.  we have pesticides that protect our crops.  we have exterminators that remove vermin from our houses.  animals are hunted, sometimes for better reasons than others.  and then there is also animal testing which i feel is for the greater good , yet does unavoidably lead to the suffering of animals.  the thing we are ultimately trying to avoid.  vegetarianism is not completely useless, only mostly.  to speak realistically about the world: a small percentage of newfound vegetarians does not impact the specific industry nor the whole picture all together.  even a quite large number would not change the world.  animals will be used for food even if no humans eat it.  animals will be mistreated, big and small.  they are utilized by humans in such ways that achieves us the most comfortable life possible.  to become a vegetarian does little that will change the overall treatment animals.   #  the way we treat all animals are simply ignored by vegetarians.   #  this is because animals generally have no rights.   # animals are mass produced for a variety of reasons, not only for human consumption.  animals are used for fur, held in captivity for entertainment, animal feed like feeder mice and fish , and are mass produced as pets.  if you choose to not eat meat, you must also agree that you should not own a pet from a pet store because this means the animal was bred in a mill of mass production.  this does allow you to purchase a dog from a reasonably adequate breeder, however do not think that you can feed them 0 of dog foods that are in the store.  the meat in the kibble comes from the same places our meat comes from.  admittedly, i will mention that there are vegetarian dog foods, however, i would not be willing to say that it is a particularly healthy diet for an omnivorous dog.  so you do run into a bit of a dilemma when deciding what you want to feed your dog.  people who do not eat meat for ethical reasons are more often than not also against exploiting animals for other uses too, so i do not see your point.  if you take this stance, then it is of course advisable to only have pets that can thrive on vegetarian diets.  i already had a dog when i went vegan, so i choose to bite the bullet and pay for meat products for now.  to provide my dog with proper nutrition from plants would be incredibly expensive.  so, my next pet will likely be a pig.  they make great pets and thrive on horse feed and veggies.  plants are not sentient, they do not feel pain or pleasure nor do have emotions.  that is why people refrain from eating animals and choose a plant based diet.  you ca not really be cruel to something that does not experience life.  this is because animals generally have no rights.  we have pesticides that protect our crops.  we have exterminators that remove vermin from our houses.  animals are hunted, sometimes for better reasons than others.  and then there is also animal testing which i feel is for the greater good , yet does unavoidably lead to the suffering of animals.  the thing we are ultimately trying to avoid.  vegetarianism is not completely useless, only mostly.  again, many of us avoid using products that are tested on animals most products that are tested on animals only serve our most trivial interests and have tried and true, cruelty free alternatives; admittedly, the good may outweigh the bad when it comes to some medical testing, but cosmetic testing is entirely unnecessary .  i do not hunt, and i would rather eat food that is not doused in pesticides.  but, yes, animals are going to die as a result of agriculture.  the point is to minimize your impact, not eliminate it.  even a quite large number would not change the world.  animals will be used for food even if no humans eat it.  animals will be mistreated, big and small.  they are utilized by humans in such ways that achieves us the most comfortable life possible.  to become a vegetarian does little that will change the overall treatment animals.  yet, even if i take this as truth though i do not , i have no interest in taking part in something i disagree with.   #  but because they have boycotted the product they have lost their voice in the process.   #  you would be right to say it helps towards reducing the amount of animals killed, but this is not the same as increasing the welfare for those animals that are killed.  if you imagine a train service should only a few people use that service there would be little impetus or indeed money from the powers that be to increase the quality of said service.  similarly by boycotting meat by those who care about animal welfare there is left only those who do not care as much consuming the meat.  most of the vegetarians i know are so not because they object to the killing of animals, but because of the welfare of those animals.  but because they have boycotted the product they have lost their voice in the process.   #  you are using  animals  as an all encompassing term, but making like 0 different points here.   #  supply and demand is the simple answer to what you are saying.  the cow at the slaughterhouse is still going to get killed today whether or not i eat it, but if i do not, and lots of other people resolve not to, then the number of cows getting slaughtered goes down, maybe even reaches zero.  you are using  animals  as an all encompassing term, but making like 0 different points here.  most vegetarians are against the fur trade, and puppy mills, and all of the other ways that animals are mistreated.  it is not like they are going out and buying fur coats and saying that we should not eat these animals.  also, i think you will find that a great number of vegetarians are likewise in favor of pesticide free foods, which negates that point as well.  if the only reason that so many cows are being killed is to feed us and it is , then it logically follows that if we do not need them for feeding us, that they wo not be killed.  they wo not ever live in those conditions, and so on.   #  sometimes lower than 0 and never reaching or higher than 0.   #  if 0 of humans began to stop eating meat all together there would be a very noticeable change in the production of say beef and chickens.  however, 0 is a completely unrealistic expectation.  the number of vegetarians by country averages around say 0.  sometimes lower than 0 and never reaching or higher than 0.  even if this number were to triple, the demand solely for chickens and cows would be mainly unchanged as we must remember humans are not the entire demand for such animals.  this point does not cover all sources of animal mistreatment also.  so i would say the overall picture would still be unchanged and the goal largely unachieved.   #  it is interesting to call our methods a problem.   #  well.  it is interesting to call our methods a problem.  what we do does aim towards another ultimately good goal: feeding humans.  are there alternatives ? perhaps.  i honestly could not say if 0 vegetarian diets from birth would be healthy, but i would assume they would be reasonably okay.  most people agree that our overall treatment ignoring what i am hoping are outlier instances of specifically cruel treatments of animals , is not good.  but it does aim for a good goal.
some people choose to not eat meat because they disagree with the accumulation, storage, and production of meat.  animals are kept in cages hardly bigger than their bodies, sometimes stacked on top of each other, and are forcefully bred to produce more.  it is no doubt that methods to satisfy the demand for meat are atrociously disgusting.  unfortunately, choosing to not eat meat does not realistically make a difference nor does it completely accomplish what you are actually aiming to achieve via vegetarianism.  if you decide to not eat animals so that hopefully less farm animals are subject to such horrible conditions, you are ignoring the bigger picture.  animals are mass produced for a variety of reasons, not only for human consumption.  animals are used for fur URL held in captivity for entertainment URL animal feed like feeder mice and fish , and are mass produced as pets.  if you choose to not eat meat, you must also agree that you should not own a pet from a pet store because this means the animal was bred in a mill of mass production.  this does allow you to purchase a dog from a reasonably adequate breeder, however do not think that you can feed them 0 of dog foods that are in the store.  the meat in the kibble comes from the same places our meat comes from.  admittedly, i will mention that there are vegetarian dog foods, however, i would not be willing to say that it is a particularly healthy diet for an omnivorous dog.  so you do run into a bit of a dilemma when deciding what you want to feed your dog.  this does however lead to an interesting, but admittedly outlandish, next point.  if you choose to avoid things that are derived from the cruel treatment of living things, then you could also make a similar argument pertaining to plants.  i will state now that obviously we as humans, unable to make our own food from the sun, could not realistically survive without the consumption of plants and animals, but the argument does seem as if it could pertain to plants as well.  given that we are not talking about plants, instead, only animals then we must focus on all animals.  the way we treat all animals are simply ignored by vegetarians.  this is because animals generally have no rights.  we have pesticides that protect our crops.  we have exterminators that remove vermin from our houses.  animals are hunted, sometimes for better reasons than others.  and then there is also animal testing which i feel is for the greater good , yet does unavoidably lead to the suffering of animals.  the thing we are ultimately trying to avoid.  vegetarianism is not completely useless, only mostly.  to speak realistically about the world: a small percentage of newfound vegetarians does not impact the specific industry nor the whole picture all together.  even a quite large number would not change the world.  animals will be used for food even if no humans eat it.  animals will be mistreated, big and small.  they are utilized by humans in such ways that achieves us the most comfortable life possible.  to become a vegetarian does little that will change the overall treatment animals.   #  to speak realistically about the world: a small percentage of newfound vegetarians does not impact the specific industry nor the whole picture all together.   #  even a quite large number would not change the world.   # animals are mass produced for a variety of reasons, not only for human consumption.  animals are used for fur, held in captivity for entertainment, animal feed like feeder mice and fish , and are mass produced as pets.  if you choose to not eat meat, you must also agree that you should not own a pet from a pet store because this means the animal was bred in a mill of mass production.  this does allow you to purchase a dog from a reasonably adequate breeder, however do not think that you can feed them 0 of dog foods that are in the store.  the meat in the kibble comes from the same places our meat comes from.  admittedly, i will mention that there are vegetarian dog foods, however, i would not be willing to say that it is a particularly healthy diet for an omnivorous dog.  so you do run into a bit of a dilemma when deciding what you want to feed your dog.  people who do not eat meat for ethical reasons are more often than not also against exploiting animals for other uses too, so i do not see your point.  if you take this stance, then it is of course advisable to only have pets that can thrive on vegetarian diets.  i already had a dog when i went vegan, so i choose to bite the bullet and pay for meat products for now.  to provide my dog with proper nutrition from plants would be incredibly expensive.  so, my next pet will likely be a pig.  they make great pets and thrive on horse feed and veggies.  plants are not sentient, they do not feel pain or pleasure nor do have emotions.  that is why people refrain from eating animals and choose a plant based diet.  you ca not really be cruel to something that does not experience life.  this is because animals generally have no rights.  we have pesticides that protect our crops.  we have exterminators that remove vermin from our houses.  animals are hunted, sometimes for better reasons than others.  and then there is also animal testing which i feel is for the greater good , yet does unavoidably lead to the suffering of animals.  the thing we are ultimately trying to avoid.  vegetarianism is not completely useless, only mostly.  again, many of us avoid using products that are tested on animals most products that are tested on animals only serve our most trivial interests and have tried and true, cruelty free alternatives; admittedly, the good may outweigh the bad when it comes to some medical testing, but cosmetic testing is entirely unnecessary .  i do not hunt, and i would rather eat food that is not doused in pesticides.  but, yes, animals are going to die as a result of agriculture.  the point is to minimize your impact, not eliminate it.  even a quite large number would not change the world.  animals will be used for food even if no humans eat it.  animals will be mistreated, big and small.  they are utilized by humans in such ways that achieves us the most comfortable life possible.  to become a vegetarian does little that will change the overall treatment animals.  yet, even if i take this as truth though i do not , i have no interest in taking part in something i disagree with.   #  most of the vegetarians i know are so not because they object to the killing of animals, but because of the welfare of those animals.   #  you would be right to say it helps towards reducing the amount of animals killed, but this is not the same as increasing the welfare for those animals that are killed.  if you imagine a train service should only a few people use that service there would be little impetus or indeed money from the powers that be to increase the quality of said service.  similarly by boycotting meat by those who care about animal welfare there is left only those who do not care as much consuming the meat.  most of the vegetarians i know are so not because they object to the killing of animals, but because of the welfare of those animals.  but because they have boycotted the product they have lost their voice in the process.   #  most vegetarians are against the fur trade, and puppy mills, and all of the other ways that animals are mistreated.   #  supply and demand is the simple answer to what you are saying.  the cow at the slaughterhouse is still going to get killed today whether or not i eat it, but if i do not, and lots of other people resolve not to, then the number of cows getting slaughtered goes down, maybe even reaches zero.  you are using  animals  as an all encompassing term, but making like 0 different points here.  most vegetarians are against the fur trade, and puppy mills, and all of the other ways that animals are mistreated.  it is not like they are going out and buying fur coats and saying that we should not eat these animals.  also, i think you will find that a great number of vegetarians are likewise in favor of pesticide free foods, which negates that point as well.  if the only reason that so many cows are being killed is to feed us and it is , then it logically follows that if we do not need them for feeding us, that they wo not be killed.  they wo not ever live in those conditions, and so on.   #  sometimes lower than 0 and never reaching or higher than 0.   #  if 0 of humans began to stop eating meat all together there would be a very noticeable change in the production of say beef and chickens.  however, 0 is a completely unrealistic expectation.  the number of vegetarians by country averages around say 0.  sometimes lower than 0 and never reaching or higher than 0.  even if this number were to triple, the demand solely for chickens and cows would be mainly unchanged as we must remember humans are not the entire demand for such animals.  this point does not cover all sources of animal mistreatment also.  so i would say the overall picture would still be unchanged and the goal largely unachieved.   #  but it does aim for a good goal.   #  well.  it is interesting to call our methods a problem.  what we do does aim towards another ultimately good goal: feeding humans.  are there alternatives ? perhaps.  i honestly could not say if 0 vegetarian diets from birth would be healthy, but i would assume they would be reasonably okay.  most people agree that our overall treatment ignoring what i am hoping are outlier instances of specifically cruel treatments of animals , is not good.  but it does aim for a good goal.
i believe that if women want to gain full equality and gender roles dropped, then they should gain an equal amount of responsibility.  i consider myself an egalitarian.  i think everyone should have equal responsibilities and rights from the government, and socially most gender stereotypes are negative.  however, i see an inequality being pushed by feminist movements.  the  rape culture  that people speak of exists to an extent much less than what is claimed.  i understand that people lose the ability to make good decisions while drunk and i understand that men, biologically, are the more aggressive sex with exceptions.  but there is a push escalating trivial hookups to rape.  i understand it is absolutely not acceptable to have sex with a woman who is incapable of giving consent.  but what happens if the roles are reversed and the man is the one who is too intoxicated ? no one ever cares.  or in a hypothetical situation where both parties are much too intoxicated to consent, who gets the blame ? should the man be charged with rape if she regrets it later ? should the woman ? should they both ? or should neither ? i feel incredibly judged when explaining this position to people.  even after explaining that if i knew a girl was too drunk to consent, that i would never attempt to have sex with her i would still get people scowling and acting like i am a piece of shit rape apologist.  i just think that the system should be fair to both sexes.  plus, i am terrified of me getting absolutely hammered at a party and hooking up with someone who may be less intoxicated than myself and getting charged with rape because they regretted their decision.  it just seems unfair to me that men are seen as potential rapists and women are seen as infallible and always have to watch their backs.   #  but there is a push escalating trivial hookups to rape.   #  please point me to reliable sources that prove this push actually exists.   #  first and foremost, you might want to search cmv as this topic is in the top 0 of  done to god damn death topics   i believe that if women want to gain full equality and gender roles dropped, then they should gain an equal amount of responsibility.  is there anyone worth listening to saying that this should not be the case ? please point me to reliable sources that prove this push actually exists.  as in laws, policies, or academic schools of thought that believe that  any  sex  at all  while under the influence of alcohol is  automatically  and  unequivocally  rape, and should be prosecuted as such, regardless of the consent of either party or their history.  my understanding is that legally, the presence of alcohol serves as a compounding factor in rape investigations which would be rape investigations whether or not alcohol was present.  then the women has committed rape.  lots of people do.  including the state, who would investigate the incident as a rape and act in accordance with the evidence they have found.  provided neither feels the other has transgressed, no one.  should the woman ? should they both ? no.  no.  and no.  if anyone has regrets after the fact, they should deal with it like adults.  the only time someone should be charged with rape is when one party believes they have been raped and the investigation finds this to be true.  so you know.  how rape cases actually work in the real world.  this is because you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting the reality of the situation.  granted there is hyperbole coming from both sides, but the core idea of what you are arguing against is  you should not fuck drunk people who you do not know particularly well, as you do not know whether they are in a place to give accurate consent.   that is it.  pretty easy to follow.  it bares saying that the reason you should not fuck drunk people who you do not know particularly well is not  so you do not get accused of rape  it is  because that is a kind and respectful way to treat someone you would like to fuck.   i would agree, but the problem you are complaining about simply does not exist.  not that likely, and super easy to avoid.   #  i know tumblr and srs are not good references to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.   #  if you ever frequent places with a strong feminist presence, you will see it.  i tried to explain this on the comment section of a relevant huffpost article, and i was met with a lot of opposition.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.  i know tumblr and srs are not good references to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.  people do believe that. just maybe not rational people.   #  i know those internet sources are not a good reference to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.   #  there is a push to reduce the perception of rape to nothing more than regret after a trivial hook up.  by who ? if you frequent places with a strong men is rights activists or red piller presence, you will see.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.  i know those internet sources are not a good reference to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.  people do believe that.  just maybe not rational people.  yes those views exist.  but isolating fundamentalist minorities who hold extremist points of views, and then presenting those point of views as if there is some how a building of momentum in the public psyche supporting those views, is very misleading.   #  the person then decides to report the rapist to the authorities.   #  legally, a rape conviction from the scenarios you are describing is unlikely to happen.  frequently, rape requires a showing of 0 force, 0 threat of force, 0 that victim is unconscious and defendant knows that victim is unconscious, or 0  where defendant substantially impairs victim is ability to consent by administering an intoxicating substance without the victim is consent.  it is not a matter of the victim merely being drunk and then regretting it.  there has to be a showing that the defendant essentially tricked the victim into being drunk in order to effectuate the rape.  so what would happen in this hypothetical scenario ? first, a person is raped.  the person then decides to report the rapist to the authorities.  the police conduct an investigation, and determine whether there is probable cause to arrest the defendant under any of the above theories of rape.  then the prosecutor makes a determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence to convict, with an eye to whether they are going to meet their burden at trial.  a judge or magistrate then makes a neutral finding that there is enough evidence to hold the defendant.  the defendant then gets a trial, along with an attorney and the benefit of the 0th amendment and any other constitutional protection.  the state offers its evidence, the defendant does the same, and they cross examine each other is witnesses in order to attack their credibility and to poke holes in their argument.  then the jury decides whether the state met its burden of proving the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.   #  i would like it if the system functioned as you described it everywhere and all the time, but it is not reasonable to expect things work out perfectly.   #  not necessarily.  the definition of rape is different in different jurisdictions.  many places actually have penetration as a prerequisite for rape.  by that definition, a female could not rape a male while participating in conventional sex.  also, your hypothetical is assuming the justice system would function as intended, but there are a lot of places where that would not happen.  also, it could be possible to get a feminist dense jury who may overlook evidence following the legality of the situation and substitute their own beliefs.  my situation is purely hypothetical, but it is not impossible, just as your perfect legal system hypothetical is possible as well.  i would like it if the system functioned as you described it everywhere and all the time, but it is not reasonable to expect things work out perfectly.
i believe that if women want to gain full equality and gender roles dropped, then they should gain an equal amount of responsibility.  i consider myself an egalitarian.  i think everyone should have equal responsibilities and rights from the government, and socially most gender stereotypes are negative.  however, i see an inequality being pushed by feminist movements.  the  rape culture  that people speak of exists to an extent much less than what is claimed.  i understand that people lose the ability to make good decisions while drunk and i understand that men, biologically, are the more aggressive sex with exceptions.  but there is a push escalating trivial hookups to rape.  i understand it is absolutely not acceptable to have sex with a woman who is incapable of giving consent.  but what happens if the roles are reversed and the man is the one who is too intoxicated ? no one ever cares.  or in a hypothetical situation where both parties are much too intoxicated to consent, who gets the blame ? should the man be charged with rape if she regrets it later ? should the woman ? should they both ? or should neither ? i feel incredibly judged when explaining this position to people.  even after explaining that if i knew a girl was too drunk to consent, that i would never attempt to have sex with her i would still get people scowling and acting like i am a piece of shit rape apologist.  i just think that the system should be fair to both sexes.  plus, i am terrified of me getting absolutely hammered at a party and hooking up with someone who may be less intoxicated than myself and getting charged with rape because they regretted their decision.  it just seems unfair to me that men are seen as potential rapists and women are seen as infallible and always have to watch their backs.   #  or in a hypothetical situation where both parties are much too intoxicated to consent, who gets the blame ?  #  provided neither feels the other has transgressed, no one.   #  first and foremost, you might want to search cmv as this topic is in the top 0 of  done to god damn death topics   i believe that if women want to gain full equality and gender roles dropped, then they should gain an equal amount of responsibility.  is there anyone worth listening to saying that this should not be the case ? please point me to reliable sources that prove this push actually exists.  as in laws, policies, or academic schools of thought that believe that  any  sex  at all  while under the influence of alcohol is  automatically  and  unequivocally  rape, and should be prosecuted as such, regardless of the consent of either party or their history.  my understanding is that legally, the presence of alcohol serves as a compounding factor in rape investigations which would be rape investigations whether or not alcohol was present.  then the women has committed rape.  lots of people do.  including the state, who would investigate the incident as a rape and act in accordance with the evidence they have found.  provided neither feels the other has transgressed, no one.  should the woman ? should they both ? no.  no.  and no.  if anyone has regrets after the fact, they should deal with it like adults.  the only time someone should be charged with rape is when one party believes they have been raped and the investigation finds this to be true.  so you know.  how rape cases actually work in the real world.  this is because you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting the reality of the situation.  granted there is hyperbole coming from both sides, but the core idea of what you are arguing against is  you should not fuck drunk people who you do not know particularly well, as you do not know whether they are in a place to give accurate consent.   that is it.  pretty easy to follow.  it bares saying that the reason you should not fuck drunk people who you do not know particularly well is not  so you do not get accused of rape  it is  because that is a kind and respectful way to treat someone you would like to fuck.   i would agree, but the problem you are complaining about simply does not exist.  not that likely, and super easy to avoid.   #  if you ever frequent places with a strong feminist presence, you will see it.   #  if you ever frequent places with a strong feminist presence, you will see it.  i tried to explain this on the comment section of a relevant huffpost article, and i was met with a lot of opposition.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.  i know tumblr and srs are not good references to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.  people do believe that. just maybe not rational people.   #  there is a push to reduce the perception of rape to nothing more than regret after a trivial hook up.   #  there is a push to reduce the perception of rape to nothing more than regret after a trivial hook up.  by who ? if you frequent places with a strong men is rights activists or red piller presence, you will see.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.  i know those internet sources are not a good reference to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.  people do believe that.  just maybe not rational people.  yes those views exist.  but isolating fundamentalist minorities who hold extremist points of views, and then presenting those point of views as if there is some how a building of momentum in the public psyche supporting those views, is very misleading.   #  then the jury decides whether the state met its burden of proving the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.   #  legally, a rape conviction from the scenarios you are describing is unlikely to happen.  frequently, rape requires a showing of 0 force, 0 threat of force, 0 that victim is unconscious and defendant knows that victim is unconscious, or 0  where defendant substantially impairs victim is ability to consent by administering an intoxicating substance without the victim is consent.  it is not a matter of the victim merely being drunk and then regretting it.  there has to be a showing that the defendant essentially tricked the victim into being drunk in order to effectuate the rape.  so what would happen in this hypothetical scenario ? first, a person is raped.  the person then decides to report the rapist to the authorities.  the police conduct an investigation, and determine whether there is probable cause to arrest the defendant under any of the above theories of rape.  then the prosecutor makes a determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence to convict, with an eye to whether they are going to meet their burden at trial.  a judge or magistrate then makes a neutral finding that there is enough evidence to hold the defendant.  the defendant then gets a trial, along with an attorney and the benefit of the 0th amendment and any other constitutional protection.  the state offers its evidence, the defendant does the same, and they cross examine each other is witnesses in order to attack their credibility and to poke holes in their argument.  then the jury decides whether the state met its burden of proving the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.   #  my situation is purely hypothetical, but it is not impossible, just as your perfect legal system hypothetical is possible as well.   #  not necessarily.  the definition of rape is different in different jurisdictions.  many places actually have penetration as a prerequisite for rape.  by that definition, a female could not rape a male while participating in conventional sex.  also, your hypothetical is assuming the justice system would function as intended, but there are a lot of places where that would not happen.  also, it could be possible to get a feminist dense jury who may overlook evidence following the legality of the situation and substitute their own beliefs.  my situation is purely hypothetical, but it is not impossible, just as your perfect legal system hypothetical is possible as well.  i would like it if the system functioned as you described it everywhere and all the time, but it is not reasonable to expect things work out perfectly.
i believe that if women want to gain full equality and gender roles dropped, then they should gain an equal amount of responsibility.  i consider myself an egalitarian.  i think everyone should have equal responsibilities and rights from the government, and socially most gender stereotypes are negative.  however, i see an inequality being pushed by feminist movements.  the  rape culture  that people speak of exists to an extent much less than what is claimed.  i understand that people lose the ability to make good decisions while drunk and i understand that men, biologically, are the more aggressive sex with exceptions.  but there is a push escalating trivial hookups to rape.  i understand it is absolutely not acceptable to have sex with a woman who is incapable of giving consent.  but what happens if the roles are reversed and the man is the one who is too intoxicated ? no one ever cares.  or in a hypothetical situation where both parties are much too intoxicated to consent, who gets the blame ? should the man be charged with rape if she regrets it later ? should the woman ? should they both ? or should neither ? i feel incredibly judged when explaining this position to people.  even after explaining that if i knew a girl was too drunk to consent, that i would never attempt to have sex with her i would still get people scowling and acting like i am a piece of shit rape apologist.  i just think that the system should be fair to both sexes.  plus, i am terrified of me getting absolutely hammered at a party and hooking up with someone who may be less intoxicated than myself and getting charged with rape because they regretted their decision.  it just seems unfair to me that men are seen as potential rapists and women are seen as infallible and always have to watch their backs.   #  i feel incredibly judged when explaining this position to people.   #  this is because you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting the reality of the situation.   #  first and foremost, you might want to search cmv as this topic is in the top 0 of  done to god damn death topics   i believe that if women want to gain full equality and gender roles dropped, then they should gain an equal amount of responsibility.  is there anyone worth listening to saying that this should not be the case ? please point me to reliable sources that prove this push actually exists.  as in laws, policies, or academic schools of thought that believe that  any  sex  at all  while under the influence of alcohol is  automatically  and  unequivocally  rape, and should be prosecuted as such, regardless of the consent of either party or their history.  my understanding is that legally, the presence of alcohol serves as a compounding factor in rape investigations which would be rape investigations whether or not alcohol was present.  then the women has committed rape.  lots of people do.  including the state, who would investigate the incident as a rape and act in accordance with the evidence they have found.  provided neither feels the other has transgressed, no one.  should the woman ? should they both ? no.  no.  and no.  if anyone has regrets after the fact, they should deal with it like adults.  the only time someone should be charged with rape is when one party believes they have been raped and the investigation finds this to be true.  so you know.  how rape cases actually work in the real world.  this is because you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting the reality of the situation.  granted there is hyperbole coming from both sides, but the core idea of what you are arguing against is  you should not fuck drunk people who you do not know particularly well, as you do not know whether they are in a place to give accurate consent.   that is it.  pretty easy to follow.  it bares saying that the reason you should not fuck drunk people who you do not know particularly well is not  so you do not get accused of rape  it is  because that is a kind and respectful way to treat someone you would like to fuck.   i would agree, but the problem you are complaining about simply does not exist.  not that likely, and super easy to avoid.   #  if you ever frequent places with a strong feminist presence, you will see it.   #  if you ever frequent places with a strong feminist presence, you will see it.  i tried to explain this on the comment section of a relevant huffpost article, and i was met with a lot of opposition.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.  i know tumblr and srs are not good references to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.  people do believe that. just maybe not rational people.   #  people do believe that.  just maybe not rational people.   #  there is a push to reduce the perception of rape to nothing more than regret after a trivial hook up.  by who ? if you frequent places with a strong men is rights activists or red piller presence, you will see.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.  i know those internet sources are not a good reference to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.  people do believe that.  just maybe not rational people.  yes those views exist.  but isolating fundamentalist minorities who hold extremist points of views, and then presenting those point of views as if there is some how a building of momentum in the public psyche supporting those views, is very misleading.   #  the person then decides to report the rapist to the authorities.   #  legally, a rape conviction from the scenarios you are describing is unlikely to happen.  frequently, rape requires a showing of 0 force, 0 threat of force, 0 that victim is unconscious and defendant knows that victim is unconscious, or 0  where defendant substantially impairs victim is ability to consent by administering an intoxicating substance without the victim is consent.  it is not a matter of the victim merely being drunk and then regretting it.  there has to be a showing that the defendant essentially tricked the victim into being drunk in order to effectuate the rape.  so what would happen in this hypothetical scenario ? first, a person is raped.  the person then decides to report the rapist to the authorities.  the police conduct an investigation, and determine whether there is probable cause to arrest the defendant under any of the above theories of rape.  then the prosecutor makes a determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence to convict, with an eye to whether they are going to meet their burden at trial.  a judge or magistrate then makes a neutral finding that there is enough evidence to hold the defendant.  the defendant then gets a trial, along with an attorney and the benefit of the 0th amendment and any other constitutional protection.  the state offers its evidence, the defendant does the same, and they cross examine each other is witnesses in order to attack their credibility and to poke holes in their argument.  then the jury decides whether the state met its burden of proving the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.   #  by that definition, a female could not rape a male while participating in conventional sex.   #  not necessarily.  the definition of rape is different in different jurisdictions.  many places actually have penetration as a prerequisite for rape.  by that definition, a female could not rape a male while participating in conventional sex.  also, your hypothetical is assuming the justice system would function as intended, but there are a lot of places where that would not happen.  also, it could be possible to get a feminist dense jury who may overlook evidence following the legality of the situation and substitute their own beliefs.  my situation is purely hypothetical, but it is not impossible, just as your perfect legal system hypothetical is possible as well.  i would like it if the system functioned as you described it everywhere and all the time, but it is not reasonable to expect things work out perfectly.
i believe that if women want to gain full equality and gender roles dropped, then they should gain an equal amount of responsibility.  i consider myself an egalitarian.  i think everyone should have equal responsibilities and rights from the government, and socially most gender stereotypes are negative.  however, i see an inequality being pushed by feminist movements.  the  rape culture  that people speak of exists to an extent much less than what is claimed.  i understand that people lose the ability to make good decisions while drunk and i understand that men, biologically, are the more aggressive sex with exceptions.  but there is a push escalating trivial hookups to rape.  i understand it is absolutely not acceptable to have sex with a woman who is incapable of giving consent.  but what happens if the roles are reversed and the man is the one who is too intoxicated ? no one ever cares.  or in a hypothetical situation where both parties are much too intoxicated to consent, who gets the blame ? should the man be charged with rape if she regrets it later ? should the woman ? should they both ? or should neither ? i feel incredibly judged when explaining this position to people.  even after explaining that if i knew a girl was too drunk to consent, that i would never attempt to have sex with her i would still get people scowling and acting like i am a piece of shit rape apologist.  i just think that the system should be fair to both sexes.  plus, i am terrified of me getting absolutely hammered at a party and hooking up with someone who may be less intoxicated than myself and getting charged with rape because they regretted their decision.  it just seems unfair to me that men are seen as potential rapists and women are seen as infallible and always have to watch their backs.   #  i just think that the system should be fair to both sexes.   #  i would agree, but the problem you are complaining about simply does not exist.   #  first and foremost, you might want to search cmv as this topic is in the top 0 of  done to god damn death topics   i believe that if women want to gain full equality and gender roles dropped, then they should gain an equal amount of responsibility.  is there anyone worth listening to saying that this should not be the case ? please point me to reliable sources that prove this push actually exists.  as in laws, policies, or academic schools of thought that believe that  any  sex  at all  while under the influence of alcohol is  automatically  and  unequivocally  rape, and should be prosecuted as such, regardless of the consent of either party or their history.  my understanding is that legally, the presence of alcohol serves as a compounding factor in rape investigations which would be rape investigations whether or not alcohol was present.  then the women has committed rape.  lots of people do.  including the state, who would investigate the incident as a rape and act in accordance with the evidence they have found.  provided neither feels the other has transgressed, no one.  should the woman ? should they both ? no.  no.  and no.  if anyone has regrets after the fact, they should deal with it like adults.  the only time someone should be charged with rape is when one party believes they have been raped and the investigation finds this to be true.  so you know.  how rape cases actually work in the real world.  this is because you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting the reality of the situation.  granted there is hyperbole coming from both sides, but the core idea of what you are arguing against is  you should not fuck drunk people who you do not know particularly well, as you do not know whether they are in a place to give accurate consent.   that is it.  pretty easy to follow.  it bares saying that the reason you should not fuck drunk people who you do not know particularly well is not  so you do not get accused of rape  it is  because that is a kind and respectful way to treat someone you would like to fuck.   i would agree, but the problem you are complaining about simply does not exist.  not that likely, and super easy to avoid.   #  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.   #  if you ever frequent places with a strong feminist presence, you will see it.  i tried to explain this on the comment section of a relevant huffpost article, and i was met with a lot of opposition.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.  i know tumblr and srs are not good references to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.  people do believe that. just maybe not rational people.   #  if you frequent places with a strong men is rights activists or red piller presence, you will see.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.   #  there is a push to reduce the perception of rape to nothing more than regret after a trivial hook up.  by who ? if you frequent places with a strong men is rights activists or red piller presence, you will see.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.  i know those internet sources are not a good reference to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.  people do believe that.  just maybe not rational people.  yes those views exist.  but isolating fundamentalist minorities who hold extremist points of views, and then presenting those point of views as if there is some how a building of momentum in the public psyche supporting those views, is very misleading.   #  the defendant then gets a trial, along with an attorney and the benefit of the 0th amendment and any other constitutional protection.   #  legally, a rape conviction from the scenarios you are describing is unlikely to happen.  frequently, rape requires a showing of 0 force, 0 threat of force, 0 that victim is unconscious and defendant knows that victim is unconscious, or 0  where defendant substantially impairs victim is ability to consent by administering an intoxicating substance without the victim is consent.  it is not a matter of the victim merely being drunk and then regretting it.  there has to be a showing that the defendant essentially tricked the victim into being drunk in order to effectuate the rape.  so what would happen in this hypothetical scenario ? first, a person is raped.  the person then decides to report the rapist to the authorities.  the police conduct an investigation, and determine whether there is probable cause to arrest the defendant under any of the above theories of rape.  then the prosecutor makes a determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence to convict, with an eye to whether they are going to meet their burden at trial.  a judge or magistrate then makes a neutral finding that there is enough evidence to hold the defendant.  the defendant then gets a trial, along with an attorney and the benefit of the 0th amendment and any other constitutional protection.  the state offers its evidence, the defendant does the same, and they cross examine each other is witnesses in order to attack their credibility and to poke holes in their argument.  then the jury decides whether the state met its burden of proving the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.   #  also, it could be possible to get a feminist dense jury who may overlook evidence following the legality of the situation and substitute their own beliefs.   #  not necessarily.  the definition of rape is different in different jurisdictions.  many places actually have penetration as a prerequisite for rape.  by that definition, a female could not rape a male while participating in conventional sex.  also, your hypothetical is assuming the justice system would function as intended, but there are a lot of places where that would not happen.  also, it could be possible to get a feminist dense jury who may overlook evidence following the legality of the situation and substitute their own beliefs.  my situation is purely hypothetical, but it is not impossible, just as your perfect legal system hypothetical is possible as well.  i would like it if the system functioned as you described it everywhere and all the time, but it is not reasonable to expect things work out perfectly.
i believe that if women want to gain full equality and gender roles dropped, then they should gain an equal amount of responsibility.  i consider myself an egalitarian.  i think everyone should have equal responsibilities and rights from the government, and socially most gender stereotypes are negative.  however, i see an inequality being pushed by feminist movements.  the  rape culture  that people speak of exists to an extent much less than what is claimed.  i understand that people lose the ability to make good decisions while drunk and i understand that men, biologically, are the more aggressive sex with exceptions.  but there is a push escalating trivial hookups to rape.  i understand it is absolutely not acceptable to have sex with a woman who is incapable of giving consent.  but what happens if the roles are reversed and the man is the one who is too intoxicated ? no one ever cares.  or in a hypothetical situation where both parties are much too intoxicated to consent, who gets the blame ? should the man be charged with rape if she regrets it later ? should the woman ? should they both ? or should neither ? i feel incredibly judged when explaining this position to people.  even after explaining that if i knew a girl was too drunk to consent, that i would never attempt to have sex with her i would still get people scowling and acting like i am a piece of shit rape apologist.  i just think that the system should be fair to both sexes.  plus, i am terrified of me getting absolutely hammered at a party and hooking up with someone who may be less intoxicated than myself and getting charged with rape because they regretted their decision.  it just seems unfair to me that men are seen as potential rapists and women are seen as infallible and always have to watch their backs.   #  plus, i am terrified of me getting absolutely hammered at a party and hooking up with someone who may be less intoxicated than myself and getting charged with rape because they regretted their decision.   #  not that likely, and super easy to avoid.   #  first and foremost, you might want to search cmv as this topic is in the top 0 of  done to god damn death topics   i believe that if women want to gain full equality and gender roles dropped, then they should gain an equal amount of responsibility.  is there anyone worth listening to saying that this should not be the case ? please point me to reliable sources that prove this push actually exists.  as in laws, policies, or academic schools of thought that believe that  any  sex  at all  while under the influence of alcohol is  automatically  and  unequivocally  rape, and should be prosecuted as such, regardless of the consent of either party or their history.  my understanding is that legally, the presence of alcohol serves as a compounding factor in rape investigations which would be rape investigations whether or not alcohol was present.  then the women has committed rape.  lots of people do.  including the state, who would investigate the incident as a rape and act in accordance with the evidence they have found.  provided neither feels the other has transgressed, no one.  should the woman ? should they both ? no.  no.  and no.  if anyone has regrets after the fact, they should deal with it like adults.  the only time someone should be charged with rape is when one party believes they have been raped and the investigation finds this to be true.  so you know.  how rape cases actually work in the real world.  this is because you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting the reality of the situation.  granted there is hyperbole coming from both sides, but the core idea of what you are arguing against is  you should not fuck drunk people who you do not know particularly well, as you do not know whether they are in a place to give accurate consent.   that is it.  pretty easy to follow.  it bares saying that the reason you should not fuck drunk people who you do not know particularly well is not  so you do not get accused of rape  it is  because that is a kind and respectful way to treat someone you would like to fuck.   i would agree, but the problem you are complaining about simply does not exist.  not that likely, and super easy to avoid.   #  i tried to explain this on the comment section of a relevant huffpost article, and i was met with a lot of opposition.   #  if you ever frequent places with a strong feminist presence, you will see it.  i tried to explain this on the comment section of a relevant huffpost article, and i was met with a lot of opposition.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.  i know tumblr and srs are not good references to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.  people do believe that. just maybe not rational people.   #  i know those internet sources are not a good reference to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.   #  there is a push to reduce the perception of rape to nothing more than regret after a trivial hook up.  by who ? if you frequent places with a strong men is rights activists or red piller presence, you will see.  a few friends in my personal life believe this too.  i know those internet sources are not a good reference to use for the general population, but i am sure if you ask just about anyone there, just about everyone would have this mindset.  people do believe that.  just maybe not rational people.  yes those views exist.  but isolating fundamentalist minorities who hold extremist points of views, and then presenting those point of views as if there is some how a building of momentum in the public psyche supporting those views, is very misleading.   #  legally, a rape conviction from the scenarios you are describing is unlikely to happen.   #  legally, a rape conviction from the scenarios you are describing is unlikely to happen.  frequently, rape requires a showing of 0 force, 0 threat of force, 0 that victim is unconscious and defendant knows that victim is unconscious, or 0  where defendant substantially impairs victim is ability to consent by administering an intoxicating substance without the victim is consent.  it is not a matter of the victim merely being drunk and then regretting it.  there has to be a showing that the defendant essentially tricked the victim into being drunk in order to effectuate the rape.  so what would happen in this hypothetical scenario ? first, a person is raped.  the person then decides to report the rapist to the authorities.  the police conduct an investigation, and determine whether there is probable cause to arrest the defendant under any of the above theories of rape.  then the prosecutor makes a determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence to convict, with an eye to whether they are going to meet their burden at trial.  a judge or magistrate then makes a neutral finding that there is enough evidence to hold the defendant.  the defendant then gets a trial, along with an attorney and the benefit of the 0th amendment and any other constitutional protection.  the state offers its evidence, the defendant does the same, and they cross examine each other is witnesses in order to attack their credibility and to poke holes in their argument.  then the jury decides whether the state met its burden of proving the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.   #  also, your hypothetical is assuming the justice system would function as intended, but there are a lot of places where that would not happen.   #  not necessarily.  the definition of rape is different in different jurisdictions.  many places actually have penetration as a prerequisite for rape.  by that definition, a female could not rape a male while participating in conventional sex.  also, your hypothetical is assuming the justice system would function as intended, but there are a lot of places where that would not happen.  also, it could be possible to get a feminist dense jury who may overlook evidence following the legality of the situation and substitute their own beliefs.  my situation is purely hypothetical, but it is not impossible, just as your perfect legal system hypothetical is possible as well.  i would like it if the system functioned as you described it everywhere and all the time, but it is not reasonable to expect things work out perfectly.
i believe that any sort of fashion statement tattoos, jewelry, lineaments, etc.  is a tool used to give off some sort of statement or idea of a person but this image can be and often is incongruous with the person.  i believe people often dress a certain way to make other people believe they belong to some sub culture hold certain ideals and morals, and possess certain personality traits.  i believe this tends to reinforce subcultures which i view as a negative construct limiting and narrowing people is beliefs and perspectives .  i think it tends to make people try to behave a certain way to reinforce the image that they have created, and tends to diminish frankness and genuineness which i hold to be very valuable traits in people .  it is a cheap fix to create the illusion that a person is something they are not and this in general limits introspection and self improvement.  i understand the appeal of it it is precisely because it works so well and is so easy that it is so normal and is a widely used tool in society.  i think my understanding of this is incomplete; almost everybody i look up to and think of as quality people present and historical do not hold this view, and are often quite fashionable.  i feel better when i do not dress shabbily, and have a sort of  fashion  that i have adopted simple and utilitarian it is, i still take pride in it, and would feel uncomfortable dressing outside of it.  i feel like i need to place some sort of value in or else it would make socializing difficult.  i, like everybody else, still hold prejudices of what looks good or proper and though i consciously try to separate a person is image from their personality and worth, it still influences my judgement of them.  i also see people who just mesh so well with their style; it seems so natural and like a true expression of themselves.  still i cannot help but hold these beliefs, and as much as it may look nice and be comforting, i still feel at some level that i and everybody else is cheating themselves and everybody else by dressing a certain way.  my thoughts are still unclear and not fully developed about this, so hopefully a discussion will give me insight and i am sorry if my view is unclear or ambiguous or difficult to understand; i am not great with brevity and conciseness .   #  i still feel at some level that i and everybody else is cheating themselves and everybody else by dressing a certain way.   #  i do not really understand what you mean by that.   # i do not really understand what you mean by that.  it seems to me like you are saying that no matter how people dress, they are going to display some false image of themselves.  you also seem to admit that your utilitarian style has this fault, so i do not understand why you are advocating it above other styles.  i also do not understand why my presentation of myself is necessarily false.  if i present myself in a certain way, does not that make me the kind of person who would present themselves in that way ? is not that kind of a tautology, that everything i do is exactly the kind of thing i would do ?  #  just because some people wear crosses for other reasons does not mean everyone who wears a cross is faking it.   #  why do you feel that just because some people wear clothes that do not reflect their values, that everyone does ? your utilitarian clothes reflect your utilitarian style.  something like, for example, a cross necklace would not fit that style because it is not physically useful.  but for someone to whom their christian beliefs are very important, it is very useful.  it says,  i am christian and that is important to me,  and that is a message that aligns with who they genuinely are and is something they want to broadcast.  just because some people wear crosses for other reasons does not mean everyone who wears a cross is faking it.  likewise, someone wearing an expensive watch is also sending at least one of several messages.  those messages include,  i have money,   i care about high quality things,  and  i care about my appearance.   there is a quote i read somewhere along the lines of,  i strive to own nothing that is not either useful or beautiful.   i think this is a great quote because beauty is functional.  if simply looking at something gives me as much joy as interacting with something else, why is the thing i look at not as useful as the thing i interact with ? if someone is wearing, say, a pair of earrings that are beautiful and bring out their eyes, enhancing their overall attractiveness, that is useful both for the people who look at them whose aesthetic experience of the world is now improved and for themself, because they are more attractive now and gain the benefits thereof.  flagging yourself as a member of a particular subculture, sending conscious messages about your values, and increasing your attractiveness are all highly useful things.   #  marking yourself as a member of certain subcultures, like skinheads and really really gothy goths, can reduce the likelihood of some other people interacting with you.   #  marking yourself as a member of certain subcultures, like skinheads and really really gothy goths, can reduce the likelihood of some other people interacting with you.  but that is not true for all subcultures or all markings.  for example, the cross necklace mentioned earlier; few people are going to avoid someone just because they are wearing a cross.  or to pick a personal example, i will often wear a pentacle around.  i am not wiccan specifically but it is a much more recognizable pagan symbol than anything else i could use.  this helps me meet other pagans, which is great, and it also opens up interesting conversations with non pagans that allow me to help educate them about what paganism is and is not.  these people are now less likely to vote for laws restricting my religious freedoms, which is a  very  useful outcome for me.  there are a lot of subcultural markings that are only really visible to people in that subculture.  for example, the bdsm symbol looks a lot like a yin yang and is almost completely unknown to people outside the bdsm community.  wearing one of those is not going to narrow the scope of people you interact with since those outside the community wo not recognize it and it may help you find others who share your interests.  wearing an eternity collar, on the other hand, is not subtle, but that is an unrelated pet peeve of mine.  or to take a more common example, plenty of people wear things with sports related logos.  i do not care about sports but a sports team jacket or cap is not going to cause me to avoid interacting with someone.  a fan or fan of a rival of the team might use the logos to strike up a conversation, which is enjoyable and potentially useful for both people participating.   #  the other day one of my closest friends of a decade told me that i have developed a very definitive personal style in the years since college.   # this seems spot on to me.  you say that you do not value aesthetics, but you come off as valuing them  extremely  highly but just  your  particular aesthetic, which is not actually about the inherent simplicity of the clothing but because it  signifies   simplicity, utilitarianism  values you hold in high regard and also, i assume,  western, mainstream  to you.  those are absolutely aesthetics, and you are absolutely marking yourself as belonging to a culture or  subculture  but you seem to simply be saying that everyone should adopt  your  particular aesthetic that reflect your particular values.  for someone who does not value simplicity or utilitarianism, but rather complexity and art for art is sake, it would certainly be contrived and not at all an expression of their genuine self to dress just like you.  the other day one of my closest friends of a decade told me that i have developed a very definitive personal style in the years since college.  i thought that was funny i think as i have gotten older i have been far  less  self conscious in my clothes embodying a particular genre, and just buy what i like.  but what i like i am sure partly has to do with what those things, consciously or unconsciously, signify to me.  it is no different for you, or else you would freely wear indian saris and clown pants interchangeably.  when people are young i think they tend to craft particular images more carefully because they are searching for an identity, but later on people is styles get more refined, individualized, and really seem like expressions of individuality rather than desire to belong, even if they fall within the parameters of certain  genres  of style.  personally, i really appreciate the variety of fashion, and the diversity of personal aesthetics, even if they are ones i would never wear or want to wear.  saying that it necessarily closes people off from one another sounds too much like saying that in order to get along, we have to pretend to be exactly the same and value the same things.   #  you can enhance your aesthetics by wearing a good cologne, adding a few accessories to your shirt and pants, wear makeup or flattering cuts of clothing, and even add some body modifications.   #  beauty is not worthless.  people who dress more nicely and are more attractive are more successful in general.  they typically get more promotions, get more dates, people smile at them more and life is generally easier on them.  you can enhance your aesthetics by wearing a good cologne, adding a few accessories to your shirt and pants, wear makeup or flattering cuts of clothing, and even add some body modifications.  all of these things add to the perceived attractiveness of someone and can take them from a four to an eight.  people are all playing this game.  some like distinguishing characteristics, because many of the same thing together is not attractive.  some go with traditional attractiveness.  some go with too much, and it makes you cringe.  but everyone is participating in this game, and they remind others not trying hard enough to participate.  and when you participate, it is awesome :
when i come across someone with tattoos on their neck or face, my first thoughts are: they have spent time in prison, they are in a gang, they do not respect social norms, i should probably avoid them.  i am not opposed to tattoos in general, and it seems that society, especially our younger generations, are more accepting of visible tattoos.  i live in the united states, and from my visual experiences, the overwhelming majority of individuals who get tattoos do not get them in non traditional places such as the neck or face.  if you placing tattoos in that area, you are sending a message to society, whether you intend to or not.  to quote /u/stratys0 with their comment on piercings, as i feel it applies to tattoos as well: URL so how are you trying to communicate with the rest of the world ? i think those types of tattoos give off a signal that says  leave me alone.   it is clearly a sign of looking to stand out and be noticed, to be rebellious, but in a negative way.  i am fully willing to admit that my negative attribution to those types of tattoos may have been formed due the negative portrayal of these individuals in tv and movies.  do you have those types of tattoos ? then c amon and cmv.  note i also understand that some cultures encourage neck/facial tattoos, and some people may get them as a way to connect with their past.  so i am not applying this to things like tā moko, the face marking done by the māori or other similar cultures.  here are some extreme examples: URL  #  when i come across someone with tattoos on their neck or face, my first thoughts are: they have spent time in prison, they are in a gang, they do not respect social norms, i should probably avoid them.   #  just because you are not a social norm, it does not mean you do not respect them.   # just because you are not a social norm, it does not mean you do not respect them.  also, facial tattoos do not mean someone is in a gang or has been in prison.  that is close minded, however it is your choice to avoid them or not.  no matter what your appearance is you are also sending a message to society.  wearing dockers and polo is sends a message to society.  so this is a moot point.  i will just skip past that just because you think something or feel a certain way it does not make it valid and explain why this is not always the case.  i had an ex boyfriend who was a tattoo artist, he traveled the world and had many tattoo artists do work on him.  tattoos are an art form, and people like to showcase them.  that is in fact the entire point of a tattoo in lieu of cultural tradition.  they are inked on someone to be seen, i ca not understand why you think because they are inked on someone is bicep opposed to their neck people want them to go unnoticed.   #  i am not saying that i am right for thinking that way, i am just trying to understand why i think it.   #    0; hmmmm.  i do not disagree with you.  perhaps i have a bias towards a certain style of tattoo ? though if i were to envision those tattoos on a male instead of a female, i think i would still feel the same way.  for whatever reason, in my mind, the small tattoos on women seem  cute .  i am not saying that i am right for thinking that way, i am just trying to understand why i think it.  however, you did make me realize that i am probably overgeneralizing things, and need to dig down deeper.   #  by your same logic, seeing as i knew that many would get this first impression of me at first glance, i was intending to give off this vibe at first impression.   #  even regardless of specific anecdotal examples, the mere existence of a tattoo that some perceive to be threatening does not mean that it is intrinsically meant to have that effect.  personally, i have an entire sleeve on my left arm, which a number of strangers have told me appears to be very intimidating the predominant piece of this sleeve is a depiction of behemoth and leviathan combatting one another, looks pretty fearsome .  without exception, within 0 minutes of our conversation, these same strangers have expressed that i am actually very friendly and not at all what they would have perceived me as without talking to me.  by your same logic, seeing as i knew that many would get this first impression of me at first glance, i was intending to give off this vibe at first impression.  in actuality, this piece, and all of the other pieces integrated into my sleeve including quotes said by lucifer in milton is  paradise lost , a pentagram/serpent to signify the speaker, the inscription on the gates of hell of dante is  inferno , and eventually a depiction of the hydra from ancient greek mythology is tattooed onto my body for the significance these mythologies have to my life and my personality.  i just feel so strongly about it that i do not care how it would affect one is first impression of me, as this is not as important as the art is value to me.  tl;dr: knowing that other folks may misinterpret the purpose of one is tattoos does not necessarily mean that one is intending to portray it.  it may mean they refuse to let their expressions be limited by others  misinterpretations.   #  the one exception to this being formal/business situations e. g.   #  for me personally ? yeah i was totally aware of how many people would take it.  in that case, i am happy to let my personality dispel any sort of predispositions one might have at first glance.  i totally understood what kind of first impression it might make on some folk, i just do not care enough in most situations to let it influence my appearance.  the one exception to this being formal/business situations e. g.  weddings, or the odd office situation that i do not encounter often working in it .  it is strategically placed so that in such a situation the tattoos are easily covered up with a rolled up sleeve i. e.  it goes a little less than halfway down my forearm .  in any situation where it would be appropriate to wear short sleeves, it would also be appropriate to have exposed tattoos.   #  i ca not imagine her deciding to get a job as a teacher or an accountant and having much success with a bunch of stars across the side of her face.   #  you know, the lady with stars on her face in particular is someone that i would avoid.  even though she does not line up with op is  dangerous  aspect, she is not really someone that i would consider approachable.  i used to know a kid whose mom had a birth mark on the side of her face that made her look a little like zartan from g. i.  joe.  i do not know why someone would voluntarily make themselves look like that.  i ca not imagine her deciding to get a job as a teacher or an accountant and having much success with a bunch of stars across the side of her face.  it is voluntarily making your life harder for yourself, which does not seem smart to me.
when i come across someone with tattoos on their neck or face, my first thoughts are: they have spent time in prison, they are in a gang, they do not respect social norms, i should probably avoid them.  i am not opposed to tattoos in general, and it seems that society, especially our younger generations, are more accepting of visible tattoos.  i live in the united states, and from my visual experiences, the overwhelming majority of individuals who get tattoos do not get them in non traditional places such as the neck or face.  if you placing tattoos in that area, you are sending a message to society, whether you intend to or not.  to quote /u/stratys0 with their comment on piercings, as i feel it applies to tattoos as well: URL so how are you trying to communicate with the rest of the world ? i think those types of tattoos give off a signal that says  leave me alone.   it is clearly a sign of looking to stand out and be noticed, to be rebellious, but in a negative way.  i am fully willing to admit that my negative attribution to those types of tattoos may have been formed due the negative portrayal of these individuals in tv and movies.  do you have those types of tattoos ? then c amon and cmv.  note i also understand that some cultures encourage neck/facial tattoos, and some people may get them as a way to connect with their past.  so i am not applying this to things like tā moko, the face marking done by the māori or other similar cultures.  here are some extreme examples: URL  #  if you placing tattoos in that area, you are sending a message to society, whether you intend to or not.   #  no matter what your appearance is you are also sending a message to society.   # just because you are not a social norm, it does not mean you do not respect them.  also, facial tattoos do not mean someone is in a gang or has been in prison.  that is close minded, however it is your choice to avoid them or not.  no matter what your appearance is you are also sending a message to society.  wearing dockers and polo is sends a message to society.  so this is a moot point.  i will just skip past that just because you think something or feel a certain way it does not make it valid and explain why this is not always the case.  i had an ex boyfriend who was a tattoo artist, he traveled the world and had many tattoo artists do work on him.  tattoos are an art form, and people like to showcase them.  that is in fact the entire point of a tattoo in lieu of cultural tradition.  they are inked on someone to be seen, i ca not understand why you think because they are inked on someone is bicep opposed to their neck people want them to go unnoticed.   #  for whatever reason, in my mind, the small tattoos on women seem  cute .   #    0; hmmmm.  i do not disagree with you.  perhaps i have a bias towards a certain style of tattoo ? though if i were to envision those tattoos on a male instead of a female, i think i would still feel the same way.  for whatever reason, in my mind, the small tattoos on women seem  cute .  i am not saying that i am right for thinking that way, i am just trying to understand why i think it.  however, you did make me realize that i am probably overgeneralizing things, and need to dig down deeper.   #  without exception, within 0 minutes of our conversation, these same strangers have expressed that i am actually very friendly and not at all what they would have perceived me as without talking to me.   #  even regardless of specific anecdotal examples, the mere existence of a tattoo that some perceive to be threatening does not mean that it is intrinsically meant to have that effect.  personally, i have an entire sleeve on my left arm, which a number of strangers have told me appears to be very intimidating the predominant piece of this sleeve is a depiction of behemoth and leviathan combatting one another, looks pretty fearsome .  without exception, within 0 minutes of our conversation, these same strangers have expressed that i am actually very friendly and not at all what they would have perceived me as without talking to me.  by your same logic, seeing as i knew that many would get this first impression of me at first glance, i was intending to give off this vibe at first impression.  in actuality, this piece, and all of the other pieces integrated into my sleeve including quotes said by lucifer in milton is  paradise lost , a pentagram/serpent to signify the speaker, the inscription on the gates of hell of dante is  inferno , and eventually a depiction of the hydra from ancient greek mythology is tattooed onto my body for the significance these mythologies have to my life and my personality.  i just feel so strongly about it that i do not care how it would affect one is first impression of me, as this is not as important as the art is value to me.  tl;dr: knowing that other folks may misinterpret the purpose of one is tattoos does not necessarily mean that one is intending to portray it.  it may mean they refuse to let their expressions be limited by others  misinterpretations.   #  it goes a little less than halfway down my forearm .   #  for me personally ? yeah i was totally aware of how many people would take it.  in that case, i am happy to let my personality dispel any sort of predispositions one might have at first glance.  i totally understood what kind of first impression it might make on some folk, i just do not care enough in most situations to let it influence my appearance.  the one exception to this being formal/business situations e. g.  weddings, or the odd office situation that i do not encounter often working in it .  it is strategically placed so that in such a situation the tattoos are easily covered up with a rolled up sleeve i. e.  it goes a little less than halfway down my forearm .  in any situation where it would be appropriate to wear short sleeves, it would also be appropriate to have exposed tattoos.   #  even though she does not line up with op is  dangerous  aspect, she is not really someone that i would consider approachable.   #  you know, the lady with stars on her face in particular is someone that i would avoid.  even though she does not line up with op is  dangerous  aspect, she is not really someone that i would consider approachable.  i used to know a kid whose mom had a birth mark on the side of her face that made her look a little like zartan from g. i.  joe.  i do not know why someone would voluntarily make themselves look like that.  i ca not imagine her deciding to get a job as a teacher or an accountant and having much success with a bunch of stars across the side of her face.  it is voluntarily making your life harder for yourself, which does not seem smart to me.
when i come across someone with tattoos on their neck or face, my first thoughts are: they have spent time in prison, they are in a gang, they do not respect social norms, i should probably avoid them.  i am not opposed to tattoos in general, and it seems that society, especially our younger generations, are more accepting of visible tattoos.  i live in the united states, and from my visual experiences, the overwhelming majority of individuals who get tattoos do not get them in non traditional places such as the neck or face.  if you placing tattoos in that area, you are sending a message to society, whether you intend to or not.  to quote /u/stratys0 with their comment on piercings, as i feel it applies to tattoos as well: URL so how are you trying to communicate with the rest of the world ? i think those types of tattoos give off a signal that says  leave me alone.   it is clearly a sign of looking to stand out and be noticed, to be rebellious, but in a negative way.  i am fully willing to admit that my negative attribution to those types of tattoos may have been formed due the negative portrayal of these individuals in tv and movies.  do you have those types of tattoos ? then c amon and cmv.  note i also understand that some cultures encourage neck/facial tattoos, and some people may get them as a way to connect with their past.  so i am not applying this to things like tā moko, the face marking done by the māori or other similar cultures.  here are some extreme examples: URL  #  it is clearly a sign of looking to stand out and be noticed, to be rebellious, but in a negative way.   #  i will just skip past that just because you think something or feel a certain way it does not make it valid and explain why this is not always the case.   # just because you are not a social norm, it does not mean you do not respect them.  also, facial tattoos do not mean someone is in a gang or has been in prison.  that is close minded, however it is your choice to avoid them or not.  no matter what your appearance is you are also sending a message to society.  wearing dockers and polo is sends a message to society.  so this is a moot point.  i will just skip past that just because you think something or feel a certain way it does not make it valid and explain why this is not always the case.  i had an ex boyfriend who was a tattoo artist, he traveled the world and had many tattoo artists do work on him.  tattoos are an art form, and people like to showcase them.  that is in fact the entire point of a tattoo in lieu of cultural tradition.  they are inked on someone to be seen, i ca not understand why you think because they are inked on someone is bicep opposed to their neck people want them to go unnoticed.   #  perhaps i have a bias towards a certain style of tattoo ?  #    0; hmmmm.  i do not disagree with you.  perhaps i have a bias towards a certain style of tattoo ? though if i were to envision those tattoos on a male instead of a female, i think i would still feel the same way.  for whatever reason, in my mind, the small tattoos on women seem  cute .  i am not saying that i am right for thinking that way, i am just trying to understand why i think it.  however, you did make me realize that i am probably overgeneralizing things, and need to dig down deeper.   #  tl;dr: knowing that other folks may misinterpret the purpose of one is tattoos does not necessarily mean that one is intending to portray it.   #  even regardless of specific anecdotal examples, the mere existence of a tattoo that some perceive to be threatening does not mean that it is intrinsically meant to have that effect.  personally, i have an entire sleeve on my left arm, which a number of strangers have told me appears to be very intimidating the predominant piece of this sleeve is a depiction of behemoth and leviathan combatting one another, looks pretty fearsome .  without exception, within 0 minutes of our conversation, these same strangers have expressed that i am actually very friendly and not at all what they would have perceived me as without talking to me.  by your same logic, seeing as i knew that many would get this first impression of me at first glance, i was intending to give off this vibe at first impression.  in actuality, this piece, and all of the other pieces integrated into my sleeve including quotes said by lucifer in milton is  paradise lost , a pentagram/serpent to signify the speaker, the inscription on the gates of hell of dante is  inferno , and eventually a depiction of the hydra from ancient greek mythology is tattooed onto my body for the significance these mythologies have to my life and my personality.  i just feel so strongly about it that i do not care how it would affect one is first impression of me, as this is not as important as the art is value to me.  tl;dr: knowing that other folks may misinterpret the purpose of one is tattoos does not necessarily mean that one is intending to portray it.  it may mean they refuse to let their expressions be limited by others  misinterpretations.   #  the one exception to this being formal/business situations e. g.   #  for me personally ? yeah i was totally aware of how many people would take it.  in that case, i am happy to let my personality dispel any sort of predispositions one might have at first glance.  i totally understood what kind of first impression it might make on some folk, i just do not care enough in most situations to let it influence my appearance.  the one exception to this being formal/business situations e. g.  weddings, or the odd office situation that i do not encounter often working in it .  it is strategically placed so that in such a situation the tattoos are easily covered up with a rolled up sleeve i. e.  it goes a little less than halfway down my forearm .  in any situation where it would be appropriate to wear short sleeves, it would also be appropriate to have exposed tattoos.   #  i ca not imagine her deciding to get a job as a teacher or an accountant and having much success with a bunch of stars across the side of her face.   #  you know, the lady with stars on her face in particular is someone that i would avoid.  even though she does not line up with op is  dangerous  aspect, she is not really someone that i would consider approachable.  i used to know a kid whose mom had a birth mark on the side of her face that made her look a little like zartan from g. i.  joe.  i do not know why someone would voluntarily make themselves look like that.  i ca not imagine her deciding to get a job as a teacher or an accountant and having much success with a bunch of stars across the side of her face.  it is voluntarily making your life harder for yourself, which does not seem smart to me.
i think that male urinal etiquette is essentially silly.  the central tenets, as i understand them are as follows:   never utilize a urinal adjacent an occupied urinal   never utilize the centralmost urinal unless there are an odd number of urinals installed in the latrine   never speak to anyone unless you and the potential conversation partner are washing hands or leaving the bathroom   never, under any circumstances, make eye to eye/eye to groin contact i actually do not see any problems with the latter, for the record in my life, i have had two very serious moments where i realized that these rules were unproductive to me, insofar as emptying my bladder goes, and also socially.  the first was during basic training.  in the army, we did a lot of hard, physical labor in the hot sun, and as a consequence of that, were constantly reminded to drink water and keep hydrated.  at the end of the day, we would all line up to use  one of the two  urinals in the bathroom in our billet.  thinking this was unreasonable, as we had all showered together and seen one another naked anyways, i would cut the line and use the available urinal.  because of this, i was often seen as the  strange one  in my platoon.  the second time i actually had reason to think about the absurdities of male urinal etiquette was working for a university.  my department had granted a professorship to the famous author haruki murakami, and for whatever reason we happened to run into one another in the restroom at least twice a week for over six months during his appointment.  during those six months, i never spoke to him, despite the myriad opportunities i had to strike up conversation with him in the bathroom, simply because of male urinal etiquette.  because of this ridiculous cross cultural shyness when it comes to the bathroom, i missed out on opportunities to introduce myself to one of my favorite authors ! i want to understand why male urinal etiquette is so strictly adhered to.  i feel like the only person on the planet that is not afraid to strike up a conversation with a fellow man while handling my junk, and i firmly believe that i am in the right here.  as far as i see it, it is caused nothing but awkward misunderstandings and missed social opportunities.  go ahead everyone, cmv.   i am well aware that i am not the only one that feels this way, that is the primary reason i even feel the way i do.  when i was in high school, i had an english teacher who was generally considered by most to be a strange guy.  he was a complete hippy, sang songs and played guitar in the middle of class, and laughed a lot.    one day i was alone in the bathroom, taking a pee in the rightmost urinal in a row of five, when he walked in, came right up to the urinal next to me and started to pee as well.    i thought to myself,  what the actual fuck, there are five perfectly good urinals he could have used, why did he have to stand next to me ? why does that even bother me ?   and then i asked him, aloud,  i wonder why people think this is strange ?     ever since then, i have more or less ignored urinal etiquette.  and i will continue to do so until i find an answer sufficient to cmv.   #  i realized that these rules were unproductive to me, insofar as emptying my bladder goes, and also socially.   #  the fact is, restroom time is a break for a lot of people, productively and socially.   # the fact is, restroom time is a break for a lot of people, productively and socially.  it is  rest  time.  not productive time, not social time.  people want a two minute escape from the world with a social agreement that that time will be respected.  it makes no difference if they are embarrassed, are meditating or just want a time out with a semblance of space in an imaginary boundary.  it is their private time and it should be respected.   #  your first example deals with people using adjacent urinals, if there are only two.   #  firstly, these rules are, in some circumstances, allowed to be broken.  your first example deals with people using adjacent urinals, if there are only two.  in my experience, it is perfectly acceptable to use an adjacent urinal, if there are no other urinals available.  it saves time, and, let is be honest, makes sense.  i cannot imagine a reason why anyone would not use the second urinal, and instead line up for the first.  if anything that was less to do with urinal etiquette, and more to do with an odd instance of conformity.  since no one else is doing it, neither will i.  secondly, you mention talking to your favourite author, in the bathroom.  unfortunately, this etiquette is to make the most number of people feel comfortable, and most people are uncomfortable talking to someone else while, as you put it,  holding their junk .  this is just a human discomfort, and since it is widely held in our culture, we have urinal etiquette.  do you really want to strike up a conversation with your favourite author in the bathroom ? i imagine he might find it slightly unsettling.  additionally, if you shared a bathroom with him, for six months, i am certain you could have found time outside the bathroom to visit him, and simply express how big a fan you were.  male urinal etiquette is adhered to in most cases, because it makes people comfortable, in a shared environment when they have to pull their junk out.  in our society, expelling waste is an exceptionally private thing, and makes most people uncomfortable.  think of all the people who get stage fright with urinals, even as they are adhering to this code of etiquette.  the point is, this code makes people more comfortable, in what is seen as an uncomfortable situation.   #  you ca not really take nudity, or excreting waste completely out of the context of our society.   #  well it is not odd if you take it in context.  it is all to do with bodily privacy, probably came up when humans started wearing clothing for protection from the weather.  point being, it is around now, and it makes sense as we all live today.  as i have mentioned, because it is so ingrained in our culture, it makes people comfortable in otherwise uncomfortable situations.  you ca not really take nudity, or excreting waste completely out of the context of our society.   #  the only thing i care about is i do not want anyone eyeballing my junk.   #  i do not think  urinal etiquette  is strictly adhered to.  i have talked to plenty of people in the restrooms.  heck, in boot camp we would pee 0 people per urinal just because we did not have time to wait.  i think you have an issue with these things.  the only thing i care about is i do not want anyone eyeballing my junk.   #  reasoning: this should be fairly obvious, especially the groin part.   #  reasoning behind common urinal etiquette.  these are not hard and fast rules, they are more like guidelines.  adjacent urinals reasoning: if there are only 0 urinals, you just use the urinals right next to eachother unless there is obviously an empty stall right there.  if you can separate with at least one empty urinal, do that.  the reasoning is splashing.  try as we might, there is some splashing.  you do not want to get piss on yourself, but you certainly do not want to get other people is piss on your shoes and pants.  if you happen to be wearing sandals.  most people do not want others looking at their junk, a one urinal buffer zone ensures this.  i have caught people looking.  very uncomfortable.  do not use the central most urinal when you can use the ends.  reasoning: this is just an extension of rule one.  if there are only 0 urinals and they are all empty you should choose an end one so if a person comes in behind you they can have a 0 urinal buffer zone.  never speak to anyone unless you are washing hands.  reasoning: well this is not really a rule either, but there are better places to strike up a conversation with a stranger than the bathroom.  if you must say something make sure it is very offhand and humerous or short, most of us are not in there to make friends.  there is a job to do, and we are doing it, and then we are out.  but, generally when people who do not know each other meet, at least in the us, the proper thing to do is shake hands.  it is a bit offputting to shake someones hand who has just been holding their junk, so if you are going to make conversation it is best to do it after you have washed your hands.  clean hands.  no eye to eye/groin contact.  reasoning: this should be fairly obvious, especially the groin part.  most people do not want you looking at their junk.  we tend to keep it covered for a reason.  what are you looking at ? mind your own business.  the bathroom is not some social club people are there to go to the bathroom not talk to strangers and not to be oggled.
by this point we have all seen the numbers from the latest wapo leak.  0,0 intercept reports, 0,0 intercepts.  0 e mails believed to belong to us citizens but 0,0 reports that were marked as likely us citizens and minimized accordingly .  only 0 linked directly to nsa targets.  all of them sitting in a server farm somewhere, never seeing the light of day.  until, of course, edward snowden.  what is the greater breach of privacy, storing that information on a secure server in a government facility, or opening it up for the whole world to see ? the fact that wapo censored this information should be forever to their credit, but it does not change the fact that mr.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  the  post  openly state that the files which were leaked by snowden not only contained personal details, but operational ones.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  to say nothing of the obvious value of this information to his friends and protectors in the russian government.  the issue of collecting this data is a detailed one, and one that i do not overly feel like talking about at this moment.  what i am talking about here is the  release  of this information by mr.  snowden.  if an nsa employee were to publish all of this data, we would be right to hate them, and want to see them convicted.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ?  #  , or opening it up for the whole world to see ?  #  this is a disingenuous misrepresentation of snowden is actual conduct.   #  you are  shooting the messenger  snowden is not the cause of all this trouble.  the trouble was already there, only we were not privy to it.  you are trying to use false assertions to support your conclusion.  consider the fact that snowden was able to exfiltrate that data with relatively little difficulty, and then try to understand that if snowden has done it, that others have probably done it as well.  the others however, would have sold or given that data to hostile foreign powers.  this is a disingenuous misrepresentation of snowden is actual conduct.  it has not been opened up for the whole world, but rather for a group of journalists.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  if you are giving credit to wapo for censoring, why not credit to snowden for giving it to wapo/guardian rather than posting it to wikileaks or just torrenting it ? snowden has not  given the data freely  but instead gave it to journalists.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  you are again mis characterizing snowden is actions.  snowden could have easily put his archive s on a torrent website where it would have spread like wildfire.  instead, the info is in the hands of journalists.  not only did snowden not release the info indiscriminately, he also took pains to ensure that the journalists who received the information kept it secure by using encrypted communications and storage.  this has been covered in the press and given that we are not all currently looking at the unredacted archives is evidence of that.  0.  snowden is in russia because the us chased him to there.  if our government had more respect for the sovereignty of other governments, he would likely be elsewhere.  0.  there is nothing to indicate that snowden shared this info with russia.  0.  snowden could be a rich man right now, and quite probably without the us government is knowledge.  even if the gov t were to continue mass surveillance unabated, snowden has done us a favor by forcing the nsa to admit their own security failure.  i suspect you want to avoid the issue because you have decided to blame snowden, and it is rather hard to blame snowden for collecting the data.  but, collecting the data was the great sin here.  snowden.  without collecting the data, there can be no releasing the data.  blaming snowden, punishing snowden, deterring future snowdens; none of these things solve the real problem of mass surveillance, but rather, makes those problems worse because they might deter future leakers, they wo not however, deter future spies.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ? because the data is unambiguous and inescapable proof of the government is conduct; and without that proof, we would have largely regarded snowden is allegations as the ravings of a tinfoil hatted nutter, and promptly forgotten him or never even heard of him.  0.  snowden is breach of the law is small and singular in comparison to the nsa is continuous ongoing breaches of the laws.  0.  sonwden is disclosures serve a public good in that now the public is aware, and now citizens have standing to challenge it.  0.  there are many people who have preceded snowden in attempting to bring the nsa is illegal conduct to the attention of authorities including: nsa internal compliance, congressional oversight, judicial oversight, etc.  every previous attempt was a failure.   #  we can remember easily the mccarthy era, when us intelligence was used to squash political dissent, or the nixon era, where that apparatus was used to punish personal enemies.   #  but we do accept arguments for the greater good.  there is no flaw with that line of argumentation, just the specifics of whether or not it is true and a real cost benefit analysis of the damage done and the real effectiveness towards that  greater good .  for instance, taxes suck, but the benefits of that system are worth it.  the reason most dismiss nsas arguments toward the greater good is because we feel that a government with no accountability and too much secrecy moves us away from the greater good.  we can remember easily the mccarthy era, when us intelligence was used to squash political dissent, or the nixon era, where that apparatus was used to punish personal enemies.  when intelligence is given a huge amount of power, a huge amount of secrecy, and is not accountable to law, not only do we have those abuses, but we make ourselves powerless to stop them or even know they are happening.   #  according to previous snowden disclosures, there are 0,0 nsa targets.   #  of  course  more data is going to be collected on non targets, there are a shitload more non targets than there are targets.  according to previous snowden disclosures, there are 0,0 nsa targets.  that makes them 0 of the nsa is collection, whilst being 0 of the world is population.  that is pretty good targeting resolution if you ask me, and anyone who thinks otherwise should take a refresher course in bayesian statistics.  ben wittes URL has a good read on the topic for the less mathematically inclined.   #  the bad thing is that it takes an action like this to make me really believe any of the nsa comments about actionable intelligence gained through their spying, or about the selectivity of their searching.   #  i am tired of the nsa is lies.  james clapper lies as easily as he breaths, and the half truths and technically correct answers do nothing to establish trust in the organization.  but you have a good point, we can now see just how effective the nsa has been in collecting data from real targets.  a 0x signal to noise ratio is pretty good.  the bad thing is that it takes an action like this to make me really believe any of the nsa comments about actionable intelligence gained through their spying, or about the selectivity of their searching.  snowden is not the one that commited the breach of privacy, the nsa did, and now we are just seeing at a granular level what it is like.   #  leaks revealed that the nsa scans basically all internet traffic.   #  you seem to be unaware of how the data is collected.  the most recent or now second most recent ? leaks revealed that the nsa scans basically all internet traffic.  it then should throw out all internet traffic unrelated to  targets.   however, it also fails to throw out a large amount of other internet traffic such that 0 of the information stored long term, after some basic amount of processing/analysis is unrelated to targets.  your numbers are a red herring because the data is not kept indiscriminately, everything is collected and then irrelevant data is or should be thrown out.
by this point we have all seen the numbers from the latest wapo leak.  0,0 intercept reports, 0,0 intercepts.  0 e mails believed to belong to us citizens but 0,0 reports that were marked as likely us citizens and minimized accordingly .  only 0 linked directly to nsa targets.  all of them sitting in a server farm somewhere, never seeing the light of day.  until, of course, edward snowden.  what is the greater breach of privacy, storing that information on a secure server in a government facility, or opening it up for the whole world to see ? the fact that wapo censored this information should be forever to their credit, but it does not change the fact that mr.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  the  post  openly state that the files which were leaked by snowden not only contained personal details, but operational ones.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  to say nothing of the obvious value of this information to his friends and protectors in the russian government.  the issue of collecting this data is a detailed one, and one that i do not overly feel like talking about at this moment.  what i am talking about here is the  release  of this information by mr.  snowden.  if an nsa employee were to publish all of this data, we would be right to hate them, and want to see them convicted.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ?  #  the fact that wapo censored this information should be forever to their credit, but it does not change the fact that mr.   #  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.   #  you are  shooting the messenger  snowden is not the cause of all this trouble.  the trouble was already there, only we were not privy to it.  you are trying to use false assertions to support your conclusion.  consider the fact that snowden was able to exfiltrate that data with relatively little difficulty, and then try to understand that if snowden has done it, that others have probably done it as well.  the others however, would have sold or given that data to hostile foreign powers.  this is a disingenuous misrepresentation of snowden is actual conduct.  it has not been opened up for the whole world, but rather for a group of journalists.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  if you are giving credit to wapo for censoring, why not credit to snowden for giving it to wapo/guardian rather than posting it to wikileaks or just torrenting it ? snowden has not  given the data freely  but instead gave it to journalists.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  you are again mis characterizing snowden is actions.  snowden could have easily put his archive s on a torrent website where it would have spread like wildfire.  instead, the info is in the hands of journalists.  not only did snowden not release the info indiscriminately, he also took pains to ensure that the journalists who received the information kept it secure by using encrypted communications and storage.  this has been covered in the press and given that we are not all currently looking at the unredacted archives is evidence of that.  0.  snowden is in russia because the us chased him to there.  if our government had more respect for the sovereignty of other governments, he would likely be elsewhere.  0.  there is nothing to indicate that snowden shared this info with russia.  0.  snowden could be a rich man right now, and quite probably without the us government is knowledge.  even if the gov t were to continue mass surveillance unabated, snowden has done us a favor by forcing the nsa to admit their own security failure.  i suspect you want to avoid the issue because you have decided to blame snowden, and it is rather hard to blame snowden for collecting the data.  but, collecting the data was the great sin here.  snowden.  without collecting the data, there can be no releasing the data.  blaming snowden, punishing snowden, deterring future snowdens; none of these things solve the real problem of mass surveillance, but rather, makes those problems worse because they might deter future leakers, they wo not however, deter future spies.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ? because the data is unambiguous and inescapable proof of the government is conduct; and without that proof, we would have largely regarded snowden is allegations as the ravings of a tinfoil hatted nutter, and promptly forgotten him or never even heard of him.  0.  snowden is breach of the law is small and singular in comparison to the nsa is continuous ongoing breaches of the laws.  0.  sonwden is disclosures serve a public good in that now the public is aware, and now citizens have standing to challenge it.  0.  there are many people who have preceded snowden in attempting to bring the nsa is illegal conduct to the attention of authorities including: nsa internal compliance, congressional oversight, judicial oversight, etc.  every previous attempt was a failure.   #  for instance, taxes suck, but the benefits of that system are worth it.   #  but we do accept arguments for the greater good.  there is no flaw with that line of argumentation, just the specifics of whether or not it is true and a real cost benefit analysis of the damage done and the real effectiveness towards that  greater good .  for instance, taxes suck, but the benefits of that system are worth it.  the reason most dismiss nsas arguments toward the greater good is because we feel that a government with no accountability and too much secrecy moves us away from the greater good.  we can remember easily the mccarthy era, when us intelligence was used to squash political dissent, or the nixon era, where that apparatus was used to punish personal enemies.  when intelligence is given a huge amount of power, a huge amount of secrecy, and is not accountable to law, not only do we have those abuses, but we make ourselves powerless to stop them or even know they are happening.   #  ben wittes URL has a good read on the topic for the less mathematically inclined.   #  of  course  more data is going to be collected on non targets, there are a shitload more non targets than there are targets.  according to previous snowden disclosures, there are 0,0 nsa targets.  that makes them 0 of the nsa is collection, whilst being 0 of the world is population.  that is pretty good targeting resolution if you ask me, and anyone who thinks otherwise should take a refresher course in bayesian statistics.  ben wittes URL has a good read on the topic for the less mathematically inclined.   #  snowden is not the one that commited the breach of privacy, the nsa did, and now we are just seeing at a granular level what it is like.   #  i am tired of the nsa is lies.  james clapper lies as easily as he breaths, and the half truths and technically correct answers do nothing to establish trust in the organization.  but you have a good point, we can now see just how effective the nsa has been in collecting data from real targets.  a 0x signal to noise ratio is pretty good.  the bad thing is that it takes an action like this to make me really believe any of the nsa comments about actionable intelligence gained through their spying, or about the selectivity of their searching.  snowden is not the one that commited the breach of privacy, the nsa did, and now we are just seeing at a granular level what it is like.   #  your numbers are a red herring because the data is not kept indiscriminately, everything is collected and then irrelevant data is or should be thrown out.   #  you seem to be unaware of how the data is collected.  the most recent or now second most recent ? leaks revealed that the nsa scans basically all internet traffic.  it then should throw out all internet traffic unrelated to  targets.   however, it also fails to throw out a large amount of other internet traffic such that 0 of the information stored long term, after some basic amount of processing/analysis is unrelated to targets.  your numbers are a red herring because the data is not kept indiscriminately, everything is collected and then irrelevant data is or should be thrown out.
by this point we have all seen the numbers from the latest wapo leak.  0,0 intercept reports, 0,0 intercepts.  0 e mails believed to belong to us citizens but 0,0 reports that were marked as likely us citizens and minimized accordingly .  only 0 linked directly to nsa targets.  all of them sitting in a server farm somewhere, never seeing the light of day.  until, of course, edward snowden.  what is the greater breach of privacy, storing that information on a secure server in a government facility, or opening it up for the whole world to see ? the fact that wapo censored this information should be forever to their credit, but it does not change the fact that mr.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  the  post  openly state that the files which were leaked by snowden not only contained personal details, but operational ones.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  to say nothing of the obvious value of this information to his friends and protectors in the russian government.  the issue of collecting this data is a detailed one, and one that i do not overly feel like talking about at this moment.  what i am talking about here is the  release  of this information by mr.  snowden.  if an nsa employee were to publish all of this data, we would be right to hate them, and want to see them convicted.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ?  #  to say nothing of the obvious value of this information to his friends and protectors in the russian government.   #  0.  snowden is in russia because the us chased him to there.   #  you are  shooting the messenger  snowden is not the cause of all this trouble.  the trouble was already there, only we were not privy to it.  you are trying to use false assertions to support your conclusion.  consider the fact that snowden was able to exfiltrate that data with relatively little difficulty, and then try to understand that if snowden has done it, that others have probably done it as well.  the others however, would have sold or given that data to hostile foreign powers.  this is a disingenuous misrepresentation of snowden is actual conduct.  it has not been opened up for the whole world, but rather for a group of journalists.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  if you are giving credit to wapo for censoring, why not credit to snowden for giving it to wapo/guardian rather than posting it to wikileaks or just torrenting it ? snowden has not  given the data freely  but instead gave it to journalists.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  you are again mis characterizing snowden is actions.  snowden could have easily put his archive s on a torrent website where it would have spread like wildfire.  instead, the info is in the hands of journalists.  not only did snowden not release the info indiscriminately, he also took pains to ensure that the journalists who received the information kept it secure by using encrypted communications and storage.  this has been covered in the press and given that we are not all currently looking at the unredacted archives is evidence of that.  0.  snowden is in russia because the us chased him to there.  if our government had more respect for the sovereignty of other governments, he would likely be elsewhere.  0.  there is nothing to indicate that snowden shared this info with russia.  0.  snowden could be a rich man right now, and quite probably without the us government is knowledge.  even if the gov t were to continue mass surveillance unabated, snowden has done us a favor by forcing the nsa to admit their own security failure.  i suspect you want to avoid the issue because you have decided to blame snowden, and it is rather hard to blame snowden for collecting the data.  but, collecting the data was the great sin here.  snowden.  without collecting the data, there can be no releasing the data.  blaming snowden, punishing snowden, deterring future snowdens; none of these things solve the real problem of mass surveillance, but rather, makes those problems worse because they might deter future leakers, they wo not however, deter future spies.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ? because the data is unambiguous and inescapable proof of the government is conduct; and without that proof, we would have largely regarded snowden is allegations as the ravings of a tinfoil hatted nutter, and promptly forgotten him or never even heard of him.  0.  snowden is breach of the law is small and singular in comparison to the nsa is continuous ongoing breaches of the laws.  0.  sonwden is disclosures serve a public good in that now the public is aware, and now citizens have standing to challenge it.  0.  there are many people who have preceded snowden in attempting to bring the nsa is illegal conduct to the attention of authorities including: nsa internal compliance, congressional oversight, judicial oversight, etc.  every previous attempt was a failure.   #  for instance, taxes suck, but the benefits of that system are worth it.   #  but we do accept arguments for the greater good.  there is no flaw with that line of argumentation, just the specifics of whether or not it is true and a real cost benefit analysis of the damage done and the real effectiveness towards that  greater good .  for instance, taxes suck, but the benefits of that system are worth it.  the reason most dismiss nsas arguments toward the greater good is because we feel that a government with no accountability and too much secrecy moves us away from the greater good.  we can remember easily the mccarthy era, when us intelligence was used to squash political dissent, or the nixon era, where that apparatus was used to punish personal enemies.  when intelligence is given a huge amount of power, a huge amount of secrecy, and is not accountable to law, not only do we have those abuses, but we make ourselves powerless to stop them or even know they are happening.   #  that makes them 0 of the nsa is collection, whilst being 0 of the world is population.   #  of  course  more data is going to be collected on non targets, there are a shitload more non targets than there are targets.  according to previous snowden disclosures, there are 0,0 nsa targets.  that makes them 0 of the nsa is collection, whilst being 0 of the world is population.  that is pretty good targeting resolution if you ask me, and anyone who thinks otherwise should take a refresher course in bayesian statistics.  ben wittes URL has a good read on the topic for the less mathematically inclined.   #  a 0x signal to noise ratio is pretty good.   #  i am tired of the nsa is lies.  james clapper lies as easily as he breaths, and the half truths and technically correct answers do nothing to establish trust in the organization.  but you have a good point, we can now see just how effective the nsa has been in collecting data from real targets.  a 0x signal to noise ratio is pretty good.  the bad thing is that it takes an action like this to make me really believe any of the nsa comments about actionable intelligence gained through their spying, or about the selectivity of their searching.  snowden is not the one that commited the breach of privacy, the nsa did, and now we are just seeing at a granular level what it is like.   #  the most recent or now second most recent ?  #  you seem to be unaware of how the data is collected.  the most recent or now second most recent ? leaks revealed that the nsa scans basically all internet traffic.  it then should throw out all internet traffic unrelated to  targets.   however, it also fails to throw out a large amount of other internet traffic such that 0 of the information stored long term, after some basic amount of processing/analysis is unrelated to targets.  your numbers are a red herring because the data is not kept indiscriminately, everything is collected and then irrelevant data is or should be thrown out.
by this point we have all seen the numbers from the latest wapo leak.  0,0 intercept reports, 0,0 intercepts.  0 e mails believed to belong to us citizens but 0,0 reports that were marked as likely us citizens and minimized accordingly .  only 0 linked directly to nsa targets.  all of them sitting in a server farm somewhere, never seeing the light of day.  until, of course, edward snowden.  what is the greater breach of privacy, storing that information on a secure server in a government facility, or opening it up for the whole world to see ? the fact that wapo censored this information should be forever to their credit, but it does not change the fact that mr.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  the  post  openly state that the files which were leaked by snowden not only contained personal details, but operational ones.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  to say nothing of the obvious value of this information to his friends and protectors in the russian government.  the issue of collecting this data is a detailed one, and one that i do not overly feel like talking about at this moment.  what i am talking about here is the  release  of this information by mr.  snowden.  if an nsa employee were to publish all of this data, we would be right to hate them, and want to see them convicted.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ?  #  the issue of collecting this data is a detailed one, and one that i do not overly feel like talking about at this moment.   #  i suspect you want to avoid the issue because you have decided to blame snowden, and it is rather hard to blame snowden for collecting the data.   #  you are  shooting the messenger  snowden is not the cause of all this trouble.  the trouble was already there, only we were not privy to it.  you are trying to use false assertions to support your conclusion.  consider the fact that snowden was able to exfiltrate that data with relatively little difficulty, and then try to understand that if snowden has done it, that others have probably done it as well.  the others however, would have sold or given that data to hostile foreign powers.  this is a disingenuous misrepresentation of snowden is actual conduct.  it has not been opened up for the whole world, but rather for a group of journalists.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  if you are giving credit to wapo for censoring, why not credit to snowden for giving it to wapo/guardian rather than posting it to wikileaks or just torrenting it ? snowden has not  given the data freely  but instead gave it to journalists.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  you are again mis characterizing snowden is actions.  snowden could have easily put his archive s on a torrent website where it would have spread like wildfire.  instead, the info is in the hands of journalists.  not only did snowden not release the info indiscriminately, he also took pains to ensure that the journalists who received the information kept it secure by using encrypted communications and storage.  this has been covered in the press and given that we are not all currently looking at the unredacted archives is evidence of that.  0.  snowden is in russia because the us chased him to there.  if our government had more respect for the sovereignty of other governments, he would likely be elsewhere.  0.  there is nothing to indicate that snowden shared this info with russia.  0.  snowden could be a rich man right now, and quite probably without the us government is knowledge.  even if the gov t were to continue mass surveillance unabated, snowden has done us a favor by forcing the nsa to admit their own security failure.  i suspect you want to avoid the issue because you have decided to blame snowden, and it is rather hard to blame snowden for collecting the data.  but, collecting the data was the great sin here.  snowden.  without collecting the data, there can be no releasing the data.  blaming snowden, punishing snowden, deterring future snowdens; none of these things solve the real problem of mass surveillance, but rather, makes those problems worse because they might deter future leakers, they wo not however, deter future spies.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ? because the data is unambiguous and inescapable proof of the government is conduct; and without that proof, we would have largely regarded snowden is allegations as the ravings of a tinfoil hatted nutter, and promptly forgotten him or never even heard of him.  0.  snowden is breach of the law is small and singular in comparison to the nsa is continuous ongoing breaches of the laws.  0.  sonwden is disclosures serve a public good in that now the public is aware, and now citizens have standing to challenge it.  0.  there are many people who have preceded snowden in attempting to bring the nsa is illegal conduct to the attention of authorities including: nsa internal compliance, congressional oversight, judicial oversight, etc.  every previous attempt was a failure.   #  we can remember easily the mccarthy era, when us intelligence was used to squash political dissent, or the nixon era, where that apparatus was used to punish personal enemies.   #  but we do accept arguments for the greater good.  there is no flaw with that line of argumentation, just the specifics of whether or not it is true and a real cost benefit analysis of the damage done and the real effectiveness towards that  greater good .  for instance, taxes suck, but the benefits of that system are worth it.  the reason most dismiss nsas arguments toward the greater good is because we feel that a government with no accountability and too much secrecy moves us away from the greater good.  we can remember easily the mccarthy era, when us intelligence was used to squash political dissent, or the nixon era, where that apparatus was used to punish personal enemies.  when intelligence is given a huge amount of power, a huge amount of secrecy, and is not accountable to law, not only do we have those abuses, but we make ourselves powerless to stop them or even know they are happening.   #  of  course  more data is going to be collected on non targets, there are a shitload more non targets than there are targets.   #  of  course  more data is going to be collected on non targets, there are a shitload more non targets than there are targets.  according to previous snowden disclosures, there are 0,0 nsa targets.  that makes them 0 of the nsa is collection, whilst being 0 of the world is population.  that is pretty good targeting resolution if you ask me, and anyone who thinks otherwise should take a refresher course in bayesian statistics.  ben wittes URL has a good read on the topic for the less mathematically inclined.   #  the bad thing is that it takes an action like this to make me really believe any of the nsa comments about actionable intelligence gained through their spying, or about the selectivity of their searching.   #  i am tired of the nsa is lies.  james clapper lies as easily as he breaths, and the half truths and technically correct answers do nothing to establish trust in the organization.  but you have a good point, we can now see just how effective the nsa has been in collecting data from real targets.  a 0x signal to noise ratio is pretty good.  the bad thing is that it takes an action like this to make me really believe any of the nsa comments about actionable intelligence gained through their spying, or about the selectivity of their searching.  snowden is not the one that commited the breach of privacy, the nsa did, and now we are just seeing at a granular level what it is like.   #  it then should throw out all internet traffic unrelated to  targets.    #  you seem to be unaware of how the data is collected.  the most recent or now second most recent ? leaks revealed that the nsa scans basically all internet traffic.  it then should throw out all internet traffic unrelated to  targets.   however, it also fails to throw out a large amount of other internet traffic such that 0 of the information stored long term, after some basic amount of processing/analysis is unrelated to targets.  your numbers are a red herring because the data is not kept indiscriminately, everything is collected and then irrelevant data is or should be thrown out.
by this point we have all seen the numbers from the latest wapo leak.  0,0 intercept reports, 0,0 intercepts.  0 e mails believed to belong to us citizens but 0,0 reports that were marked as likely us citizens and minimized accordingly .  only 0 linked directly to nsa targets.  all of them sitting in a server farm somewhere, never seeing the light of day.  until, of course, edward snowden.  what is the greater breach of privacy, storing that information on a secure server in a government facility, or opening it up for the whole world to see ? the fact that wapo censored this information should be forever to their credit, but it does not change the fact that mr.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  the  post  openly state that the files which were leaked by snowden not only contained personal details, but operational ones.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  to say nothing of the obvious value of this information to his friends and protectors in the russian government.  the issue of collecting this data is a detailed one, and one that i do not overly feel like talking about at this moment.  what i am talking about here is the  release  of this information by mr.  snowden.  if an nsa employee were to publish all of this data, we would be right to hate them, and want to see them convicted.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ?  #  we would be right to hate them, and want to see them convicted.   #  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.   #  you are  shooting the messenger  snowden is not the cause of all this trouble.  the trouble was already there, only we were not privy to it.  you are trying to use false assertions to support your conclusion.  consider the fact that snowden was able to exfiltrate that data with relatively little difficulty, and then try to understand that if snowden has done it, that others have probably done it as well.  the others however, would have sold or given that data to hostile foreign powers.  this is a disingenuous misrepresentation of snowden is actual conduct.  it has not been opened up for the whole world, but rather for a group of journalists.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  if you are giving credit to wapo for censoring, why not credit to snowden for giving it to wapo/guardian rather than posting it to wikileaks or just torrenting it ? snowden has not  given the data freely  but instead gave it to journalists.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  you are again mis characterizing snowden is actions.  snowden could have easily put his archive s on a torrent website where it would have spread like wildfire.  instead, the info is in the hands of journalists.  not only did snowden not release the info indiscriminately, he also took pains to ensure that the journalists who received the information kept it secure by using encrypted communications and storage.  this has been covered in the press and given that we are not all currently looking at the unredacted archives is evidence of that.  0.  snowden is in russia because the us chased him to there.  if our government had more respect for the sovereignty of other governments, he would likely be elsewhere.  0.  there is nothing to indicate that snowden shared this info with russia.  0.  snowden could be a rich man right now, and quite probably without the us government is knowledge.  even if the gov t were to continue mass surveillance unabated, snowden has done us a favor by forcing the nsa to admit their own security failure.  i suspect you want to avoid the issue because you have decided to blame snowden, and it is rather hard to blame snowden for collecting the data.  but, collecting the data was the great sin here.  snowden.  without collecting the data, there can be no releasing the data.  blaming snowden, punishing snowden, deterring future snowdens; none of these things solve the real problem of mass surveillance, but rather, makes those problems worse because they might deter future leakers, they wo not however, deter future spies.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ? because the data is unambiguous and inescapable proof of the government is conduct; and without that proof, we would have largely regarded snowden is allegations as the ravings of a tinfoil hatted nutter, and promptly forgotten him or never even heard of him.  0.  snowden is breach of the law is small and singular in comparison to the nsa is continuous ongoing breaches of the laws.  0.  sonwden is disclosures serve a public good in that now the public is aware, and now citizens have standing to challenge it.  0.  there are many people who have preceded snowden in attempting to bring the nsa is illegal conduct to the attention of authorities including: nsa internal compliance, congressional oversight, judicial oversight, etc.  every previous attempt was a failure.   #  for instance, taxes suck, but the benefits of that system are worth it.   #  but we do accept arguments for the greater good.  there is no flaw with that line of argumentation, just the specifics of whether or not it is true and a real cost benefit analysis of the damage done and the real effectiveness towards that  greater good .  for instance, taxes suck, but the benefits of that system are worth it.  the reason most dismiss nsas arguments toward the greater good is because we feel that a government with no accountability and too much secrecy moves us away from the greater good.  we can remember easily the mccarthy era, when us intelligence was used to squash political dissent, or the nixon era, where that apparatus was used to punish personal enemies.  when intelligence is given a huge amount of power, a huge amount of secrecy, and is not accountable to law, not only do we have those abuses, but we make ourselves powerless to stop them or even know they are happening.   #  that is pretty good targeting resolution if you ask me, and anyone who thinks otherwise should take a refresher course in bayesian statistics.   #  of  course  more data is going to be collected on non targets, there are a shitload more non targets than there are targets.  according to previous snowden disclosures, there are 0,0 nsa targets.  that makes them 0 of the nsa is collection, whilst being 0 of the world is population.  that is pretty good targeting resolution if you ask me, and anyone who thinks otherwise should take a refresher course in bayesian statistics.  ben wittes URL has a good read on the topic for the less mathematically inclined.   #  but you have a good point, we can now see just how effective the nsa has been in collecting data from real targets.   #  i am tired of the nsa is lies.  james clapper lies as easily as he breaths, and the half truths and technically correct answers do nothing to establish trust in the organization.  but you have a good point, we can now see just how effective the nsa has been in collecting data from real targets.  a 0x signal to noise ratio is pretty good.  the bad thing is that it takes an action like this to make me really believe any of the nsa comments about actionable intelligence gained through their spying, or about the selectivity of their searching.  snowden is not the one that commited the breach of privacy, the nsa did, and now we are just seeing at a granular level what it is like.   #  however, it also fails to throw out a large amount of other internet traffic such that 0 of the information stored long term, after some basic amount of processing/analysis is unrelated to targets.   #  you seem to be unaware of how the data is collected.  the most recent or now second most recent ? leaks revealed that the nsa scans basically all internet traffic.  it then should throw out all internet traffic unrelated to  targets.   however, it also fails to throw out a large amount of other internet traffic such that 0 of the information stored long term, after some basic amount of processing/analysis is unrelated to targets.  your numbers are a red herring because the data is not kept indiscriminately, everything is collected and then irrelevant data is or should be thrown out.
by this point we have all seen the numbers from the latest wapo leak.  0,0 intercept reports, 0,0 intercepts.  0 e mails believed to belong to us citizens but 0,0 reports that were marked as likely us citizens and minimized accordingly .  only 0 linked directly to nsa targets.  all of them sitting in a server farm somewhere, never seeing the light of day.  until, of course, edward snowden.  what is the greater breach of privacy, storing that information on a secure server in a government facility, or opening it up for the whole world to see ? the fact that wapo censored this information should be forever to their credit, but it does not change the fact that mr.  snowden gave the data freely and unredacted.  the  post  openly state that the files which were leaked by snowden not only contained personal details, but operational ones.  secret nuclear programs, military intelligence, and ongoing terrorist tracking operations are just a few of the details that mr.  snowden seems to feel should be open and unsecured.  to say nothing of the obvious value of this information to his friends and protectors in the russian government.  the issue of collecting this data is a detailed one, and one that i do not overly feel like talking about at this moment.  what i am talking about here is the  release  of this information by mr.  snowden.  if an nsa employee were to publish all of this data, we would be right to hate them, and want to see them convicted.  when edward snowden does it, many people seem to see him as a champion in the fight for privacy.  why ?  #  if an nsa employee were to publish all of this data, we would be right to hate them, and want to see them convicted.   #  when edward snowden does it he did not publish it.   # when edward snowden does it he did not publish it.  he gave encrypted archives to a handful of journalists with strict instructions to publish only what was relevant to furthering a national debate on the issues of privacy and the limits of government intrusion.  the crypto he used and training he gave are apparently good enough that the most sophisticated adversary, the nsa, still does not know what he leaked.  they were caught flatfooted by the recent leak of this fisa data.  keith alexander denied snowden could even access it up until wapo published it.  your argument is fallacious.   #  we can remember easily the mccarthy era, when us intelligence was used to squash political dissent, or the nixon era, where that apparatus was used to punish personal enemies.   #  but we do accept arguments for the greater good.  there is no flaw with that line of argumentation, just the specifics of whether or not it is true and a real cost benefit analysis of the damage done and the real effectiveness towards that  greater good .  for instance, taxes suck, but the benefits of that system are worth it.  the reason most dismiss nsas arguments toward the greater good is because we feel that a government with no accountability and too much secrecy moves us away from the greater good.  we can remember easily the mccarthy era, when us intelligence was used to squash political dissent, or the nixon era, where that apparatus was used to punish personal enemies.  when intelligence is given a huge amount of power, a huge amount of secrecy, and is not accountable to law, not only do we have those abuses, but we make ourselves powerless to stop them or even know they are happening.   #  according to previous snowden disclosures, there are 0,0 nsa targets.   #  of  course  more data is going to be collected on non targets, there are a shitload more non targets than there are targets.  according to previous snowden disclosures, there are 0,0 nsa targets.  that makes them 0 of the nsa is collection, whilst being 0 of the world is population.  that is pretty good targeting resolution if you ask me, and anyone who thinks otherwise should take a refresher course in bayesian statistics.  ben wittes URL has a good read on the topic for the less mathematically inclined.   #  james clapper lies as easily as he breaths, and the half truths and technically correct answers do nothing to establish trust in the organization.   #  i am tired of the nsa is lies.  james clapper lies as easily as he breaths, and the half truths and technically correct answers do nothing to establish trust in the organization.  but you have a good point, we can now see just how effective the nsa has been in collecting data from real targets.  a 0x signal to noise ratio is pretty good.  the bad thing is that it takes an action like this to make me really believe any of the nsa comments about actionable intelligence gained through their spying, or about the selectivity of their searching.  snowden is not the one that commited the breach of privacy, the nsa did, and now we are just seeing at a granular level what it is like.   #  the most recent or now second most recent ?  #  you seem to be unaware of how the data is collected.  the most recent or now second most recent ? leaks revealed that the nsa scans basically all internet traffic.  it then should throw out all internet traffic unrelated to  targets.   however, it also fails to throw out a large amount of other internet traffic such that 0 of the information stored long term, after some basic amount of processing/analysis is unrelated to targets.  your numbers are a red herring because the data is not kept indiscriminately, everything is collected and then irrelevant data is or should be thrown out.
downvoting around here is like the rules of fight club.  except it is often abused.  the downvoting i see a lot of the time is the downvoting of opinions.  trolling seems very low.  0.  people come to reddit for the community.  however it plays out in their head: to feel superior, to vent, to put content out for opinion, for cerebral exercise.  if you are here for community, it is chickenshit to stay hidden when you are already anonymous.  0.  hit and run downvoting discourages content.  i frequent r/debatereligion.  it is heavily atheist.  theists sometimes participate, but i know they lurk due to the variety who comment.  no one wants to get anonymously slapped for an opinion; no matter the opinion.  at least give reason to your downvote.  0.  downvoting does not help stubbornness in threads.  someone may be stuck in their opinion.  sometimes i change my opinion.  sometimes i stick to my guns.  that is not worth a downvote.  again, if you have something to say, say it or walk away.  0.  downvoting is a reflex.  it is really designed superficially.  log in, disagree, click, move on.  there is no thought, no engagement, this does not make for a strong community.  there is a hivemind.  hagel said it best.  thesis, antithesis, synthesis.  0.  your voice is worthy.  you should have something to say.  lobbing rocks from the back of the crowd serves no function but to encourage thoughtlessness.  now in the dialog box i am on the fence about a character count.  i think at this point putting yourself up on the board is good enough.  you may wonder about upvotes.  again, hagel.  if you support someone add to what they said or support it.  an upvote probably means you could not have said it better.  sure the hivemind works the other way and people get supported for knee jerk reasons, but i think it is more important to support the contrary opinion.   #  no one wants to get anonymously slapped for an opinion; no matter the opinion.   #  similarly, posting the reason for downvoting a popular comment can get one slapped.   #  oftentimes someone else has already articulated the reason something is worthy of a downvote.  if this is fine for upvotes, is it really necessary to have dozens of comments saying essentially the same thing, just so each can justify their downvote individually ? i feel this would lead to extreme clutter and far more  written upvotes  of what someone else said than currently exists.  similarly, posting the reason for downvoting a popular comment can get one slapped.  on hot button issues people are eager to jump on anyone, and not everyone wants to get into a meta argument about their reason for downvoting a comment that they did not feel added to the discussion.  i do support giving a reason for downvoting when that itself adds to the discussion, but for these reasons i believe requiring it would create unnecessary clutter and at times potentially discourage use of the feature except by those wanting to jump into an argument themselves which i feel would be a group less likely to responsibly use the downvote than the community at large .   #  i downvote things that do not contribute to the discussion.   #  i treat downvoting how i believe it was meant to be treated.  i do not downvote things that i disagree with.  i downvote things that do not contribute to the discussion.  if someone completely disagrees with me, but says it in a way that gets a discussion going, they are getting an upvote for making reddit better.  it is exactly the people that write something too worthless to comment on that get my downvotes.   lol  gets a downvote.  what am i supposed to say to that ?  #  if not, someone else will likely come along with the same opinion and be able to formulate a well thought out comment to oppose it.   #  if you cannot think of a reply, then maybe the comment is dumb enough to stand out as stupid without needing to be called out and it will sink to the bottom.  if not, someone else will likely come along with the same opinion and be able to formulate a well thought out comment to oppose it.  if it is not adding to the discussion, it can also be reported.  think of it like real life, if someone says something you do not like, you cannot  downvote  them.  you say something in reply or you ignore them.   #  reddiquette states  if you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off topic in a particular community, downvote it.    #  i mentioned the  lol  response since it was the original example given in the top level comment.  this entire string of responses was predicated on the  lol  in that comment.  that sort of post is not a valid counterpoint.  i have no issue with reporting such inane posts, but i would also love to see them  sink to the bottom  more quickly with downvotes so that i do not have to see them.  what set of standards are you using for your reasoning ? reddiquette states  if you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off topic in a particular community, downvote it.    #  people will feel discouraged to keep responding effectively making them harmless .   # the attention.  do not give them attention.  first of all, what do you want ? to have trolls stop trolling, or to make them harmless ? downvoting reduces them to a small italicized username at the bottom of the comment page.  people will feel discouraged to keep responding effectively making them harmless .  it is the most effective way of starving them off attention, rather than convincing everyone of  not even trying  if this ca not discourage them, nothing can .  do not try  if you do not look, it is not there .  they  know  they are being read, and that jimmies are being rustled.  let is reduce the number of rustled jimmies, because that is the thing they hate the most.
i will add some arguments here, but please do not feel obligated to address them point by point.  there is plenty of stuff i have probably missed/gotten 0.  with the advent of constantly variable transmissions that shift gears more efficiently than humans, stick shifts even well driven ones no longer have the potential to give better fuel economy.  0.  the chance of a manual stalling on a busy road is a very real threat to public safety.  0.  the frequency of replacing a broken clutch is higher than repairing automatic gearboxes, negating the cheaper cost of manual cars over the long term.  0.  they are a liability trying to start on uphill roads.  0.  they are generally far noisier in urban areas due to the average driver is reluctance to shift up gears on short streets or journeys.  0.  they divert the driver is attention away from the road as they focus on selecting the optimal gear.  0.  i cannot eat a cheeseburger while driving.  please cmv.   #  0.  with the advent of constantly variable transmissions that shift gears more efficiently than humans, stick shifts even well driven ones no longer have the potential to give better fuel economy.   #  autos ca not see the road ahead of you, hills, traffic, turns, etc.   # autos ca not see the road ahead of you, hills, traffic, turns, etc.  in that aspect a human manually shifting will always be superior.  whenever i drive autos they shift gear at in opportune or dangerous moments because they ca not see the road.  stalls a happen maybe once a year for drivers who know stick, and they happen at lights, when traffic is not moving.  if i stall at a light i should not be hit by the car behind me, that is the real safety issue.  shift properly and that clutch lasts you a very very long time.  clutches are a lot cheaper to replace than replacing or repairing auto gearboxes in addition to the cars being cheaper.  not for experienced drivers.  once you learn, actually learn, and get comfortable working the clutch and gas starting on hills is not an issue.  you can also use the handbrake to prevent rolling back.  ease off the clutch, push down the gas pedal, and then release the handbrake.  i do not understand what you mean.  no one who knows how to drive drives any distance redlining first gear because they are reluctant to up shift.  maybe they keep in second going down a residential road because a it naturally moderates your speed.  takes a whole lot of gas to get over about 0 in second for most cars and b related to your first claim, because there is no point to shifting to third if you can see a hill/stop sign five seconds ahead of you.  the difference between those scenarios is not more than a few hundred rpm difference and i guarantee you wo not hear it from inside.  most manual drivers experience the opposite.  gear selection is completely second nature and makes you more focused on driving.  with experience it is possible.  i have smoked a bowl while driving stick through lights.  look there are upsides and downsides to both auto and manual transmissions, but claiming manual is obsolete is ridiculous.   #  0 is not going to blow out anyones ear drums.   #  i will go through this point by point.  0.  this is your best point.  cvt is, dual clutches and 0 0 speed auto is can have better gas mileage.  this has nothing to do with manual vs.  auto though more to do with the fact it is easier to fit 0 0 gears in a dct or auto box then in an h pattern shifter.  a 0spd manual vs.  0 spd auto with the same gear ratios will still have better mileage in the manual due to lighter weight and less drivetrain loss.  0.  first of all stalling is really rare.  second of all it is not really dangerous since you will only stall at a complete stop.  you might piss people off behind you at a light or in traffic but you are not going to come to a screeching halt in the middle of an intersection and cause a pile up.  0.  well if you suck at driving this is true, a non abused clutch can go over 0k.  0.  option a.  be good at driving and it is no issue option b.  pull the hand brake and release it as you release the clutch 0.  this is kind of true.  but not really a big deal i mean going at 0 rpm vs.  0 is not going to blow out anyones ear drums.  0.  you do not need to look away from the road to shift.  also you really do not shift that much, unless you are on a race track or a windy road where you are paying full attention to driving anyways you upshift a few times to get up to speed then cruise in the optimal gear for that speed and clutch in while you brake to come to a stop though i always liked downshifting as i came up to a light 0.  not even getting into the fact that the idea of eating while driving is a terrible idea it is still possible eat at lights or when your just at the speed limit and cruising .  mechanically in someways they are obsolete.  a dual clutch can shift faster than any human and have more gears to be better optimized for acceleration and gas mileage.  manual still has some advantages.  it is simpler mechanically so less likely to break and cheaper when it does.  typically it is lighter which in a sports car can mean slightly better acceleration and handling.  also jump starting is great, my friend did not close the door all the way on my car once and when i went to drive to school in the morning the battery was dead; i was parked on a hill so i put it in second turned the ignition on got rolling to about 0 miles an hour and popped the clutch and i was on my way.  another kind of weird benefit is since not everyone knows how to drive a stick you have a smaller chance of your car being stolen.  then there is the fact that some people just want a more involved driving experience.  to me driving is not always a chore and i do not view my car as an appliance to get from point a to point b.  i enjoy the process and the extra control a manual transmission gives me makes the whole driving experience a lot more enjoyable.   #  0 again, these are arguments against the idiots driving them, not the cars.   #  i am going to address them point by point as an ardent supporter of manual transmissions: 0 i disagree entirely.  i will put up my hypermiling against any cvt any day of the week.  0 no, the chance of me doing that is zero.  it is not luck.  i am very good at it.  0 also not true if you are doing it right.  i am through 0,0 miles on this car, and in 0,0 miles on several cars, i have never replaced a clutch.  0 again, i am starting to feel like you just only hang out with people that suck at this.  0 again, these are arguments against the idiots driving them, not the cars.  0 absolutely false.  driving a manual means you have to pay attention to driving, instead of zoning out and just letting the car do the work.  i do not have to stop watching the road to decide what gear to be in.  0 see 0.  you are not supposed to be eating a cheeseburger while driving, and the fact that you would say that, i think, renders this whole post pointless.   #  in addition, there is no transmission fluid, so even the routine maintenance is cheaper.   #  no problem : i do not know that the car itself is superior, but i think the experience of driving one is superior.  you ultimately have more control over the car, which to me is a good thing.  you are more involved with the process of driving, you are more attentive, and you are just generally more focused on the task at hand instead of being easily distracted.  it makes it hard to do the things you should not be doing while driving anyway talking on the phone, eating, putting on makeup, etc.  a mechanical part is going to be a lot cheaper to fix if it breaks, and is not going to require a bunch of computer diagnosis like an automatic will.  in addition, there is no transmission fluid, so even the routine maintenance is cheaper.  lastly, with fuel economy, i have so much more control than any automatic, cvt included.  because even the cvt ca not see a hill coming.  i can adapt my driving before any automatic ever could, so while they are playing catchup on a hill, i have already made the necessary gear changes.   #  but what are your chances you will be forced to drive one if you do not know how ?  #  but what are your chances you will be forced to drive one if you do not know how ? at least in the us i know europe is different the vast majority of cars for the last 0 years have been automatic.  i would have to work hard to find anyone i know without one i think i have rode in exactly one in my life.  even my parents never learned how to drive in one they had automatics since they were teenagers and they are 0  now .  without going to another continent, there is pretty much no situation where i would be called upon to drive a manual and if it comes up, i will call a cab.  no i do not know how.  it was not taught in drivers ed, none of the drivers ed teachers in my 0 school district knew how and that was 0 years ago .
i will add some arguments here, but please do not feel obligated to address them point by point.  there is plenty of stuff i have probably missed/gotten 0.  with the advent of constantly variable transmissions that shift gears more efficiently than humans, stick shifts even well driven ones no longer have the potential to give better fuel economy.  0.  the chance of a manual stalling on a busy road is a very real threat to public safety.  0.  the frequency of replacing a broken clutch is higher than repairing automatic gearboxes, negating the cheaper cost of manual cars over the long term.  0.  they are a liability trying to start on uphill roads.  0.  they are generally far noisier in urban areas due to the average driver is reluctance to shift up gears on short streets or journeys.  0.  they divert the driver is attention away from the road as they focus on selecting the optimal gear.  0.  i cannot eat a cheeseburger while driving.  please cmv.   #  0.  the chance of a manual stalling on a busy road is a very real threat to public safety.   #  stalls a happen maybe once a year for drivers who know stick, and they happen at lights, when traffic is not moving.   # autos ca not see the road ahead of you, hills, traffic, turns, etc.  in that aspect a human manually shifting will always be superior.  whenever i drive autos they shift gear at in opportune or dangerous moments because they ca not see the road.  stalls a happen maybe once a year for drivers who know stick, and they happen at lights, when traffic is not moving.  if i stall at a light i should not be hit by the car behind me, that is the real safety issue.  shift properly and that clutch lasts you a very very long time.  clutches are a lot cheaper to replace than replacing or repairing auto gearboxes in addition to the cars being cheaper.  not for experienced drivers.  once you learn, actually learn, and get comfortable working the clutch and gas starting on hills is not an issue.  you can also use the handbrake to prevent rolling back.  ease off the clutch, push down the gas pedal, and then release the handbrake.  i do not understand what you mean.  no one who knows how to drive drives any distance redlining first gear because they are reluctant to up shift.  maybe they keep in second going down a residential road because a it naturally moderates your speed.  takes a whole lot of gas to get over about 0 in second for most cars and b related to your first claim, because there is no point to shifting to third if you can see a hill/stop sign five seconds ahead of you.  the difference between those scenarios is not more than a few hundred rpm difference and i guarantee you wo not hear it from inside.  most manual drivers experience the opposite.  gear selection is completely second nature and makes you more focused on driving.  with experience it is possible.  i have smoked a bowl while driving stick through lights.  look there are upsides and downsides to both auto and manual transmissions, but claiming manual is obsolete is ridiculous.   #  0.  you do not need to look away from the road to shift.   #  i will go through this point by point.  0.  this is your best point.  cvt is, dual clutches and 0 0 speed auto is can have better gas mileage.  this has nothing to do with manual vs.  auto though more to do with the fact it is easier to fit 0 0 gears in a dct or auto box then in an h pattern shifter.  a 0spd manual vs.  0 spd auto with the same gear ratios will still have better mileage in the manual due to lighter weight and less drivetrain loss.  0.  first of all stalling is really rare.  second of all it is not really dangerous since you will only stall at a complete stop.  you might piss people off behind you at a light or in traffic but you are not going to come to a screeching halt in the middle of an intersection and cause a pile up.  0.  well if you suck at driving this is true, a non abused clutch can go over 0k.  0.  option a.  be good at driving and it is no issue option b.  pull the hand brake and release it as you release the clutch 0.  this is kind of true.  but not really a big deal i mean going at 0 rpm vs.  0 is not going to blow out anyones ear drums.  0.  you do not need to look away from the road to shift.  also you really do not shift that much, unless you are on a race track or a windy road where you are paying full attention to driving anyways you upshift a few times to get up to speed then cruise in the optimal gear for that speed and clutch in while you brake to come to a stop though i always liked downshifting as i came up to a light 0.  not even getting into the fact that the idea of eating while driving is a terrible idea it is still possible eat at lights or when your just at the speed limit and cruising .  mechanically in someways they are obsolete.  a dual clutch can shift faster than any human and have more gears to be better optimized for acceleration and gas mileage.  manual still has some advantages.  it is simpler mechanically so less likely to break and cheaper when it does.  typically it is lighter which in a sports car can mean slightly better acceleration and handling.  also jump starting is great, my friend did not close the door all the way on my car once and when i went to drive to school in the morning the battery was dead; i was parked on a hill so i put it in second turned the ignition on got rolling to about 0 miles an hour and popped the clutch and i was on my way.  another kind of weird benefit is since not everyone knows how to drive a stick you have a smaller chance of your car being stolen.  then there is the fact that some people just want a more involved driving experience.  to me driving is not always a chore and i do not view my car as an appliance to get from point a to point b.  i enjoy the process and the extra control a manual transmission gives me makes the whole driving experience a lot more enjoyable.   #  driving a manual means you have to pay attention to driving, instead of zoning out and just letting the car do the work.   #  i am going to address them point by point as an ardent supporter of manual transmissions: 0 i disagree entirely.  i will put up my hypermiling against any cvt any day of the week.  0 no, the chance of me doing that is zero.  it is not luck.  i am very good at it.  0 also not true if you are doing it right.  i am through 0,0 miles on this car, and in 0,0 miles on several cars, i have never replaced a clutch.  0 again, i am starting to feel like you just only hang out with people that suck at this.  0 again, these are arguments against the idiots driving them, not the cars.  0 absolutely false.  driving a manual means you have to pay attention to driving, instead of zoning out and just letting the car do the work.  i do not have to stop watching the road to decide what gear to be in.  0 see 0.  you are not supposed to be eating a cheeseburger while driving, and the fact that you would say that, i think, renders this whole post pointless.   #  no problem : i do not know that the car itself is superior, but i think the experience of driving one is superior.   #  no problem : i do not know that the car itself is superior, but i think the experience of driving one is superior.  you ultimately have more control over the car, which to me is a good thing.  you are more involved with the process of driving, you are more attentive, and you are just generally more focused on the task at hand instead of being easily distracted.  it makes it hard to do the things you should not be doing while driving anyway talking on the phone, eating, putting on makeup, etc.  a mechanical part is going to be a lot cheaper to fix if it breaks, and is not going to require a bunch of computer diagnosis like an automatic will.  in addition, there is no transmission fluid, so even the routine maintenance is cheaper.  lastly, with fuel economy, i have so much more control than any automatic, cvt included.  because even the cvt ca not see a hill coming.  i can adapt my driving before any automatic ever could, so while they are playing catchup on a hill, i have already made the necessary gear changes.   #  i would have to work hard to find anyone i know without one i think i have rode in exactly one in my life.   #  but what are your chances you will be forced to drive one if you do not know how ? at least in the us i know europe is different the vast majority of cars for the last 0 years have been automatic.  i would have to work hard to find anyone i know without one i think i have rode in exactly one in my life.  even my parents never learned how to drive in one they had automatics since they were teenagers and they are 0  now .  without going to another continent, there is pretty much no situation where i would be called upon to drive a manual and if it comes up, i will call a cab.  no i do not know how.  it was not taught in drivers ed, none of the drivers ed teachers in my 0 school district knew how and that was 0 years ago .
i will add some arguments here, but please do not feel obligated to address them point by point.  there is plenty of stuff i have probably missed/gotten 0.  with the advent of constantly variable transmissions that shift gears more efficiently than humans, stick shifts even well driven ones no longer have the potential to give better fuel economy.  0.  the chance of a manual stalling on a busy road is a very real threat to public safety.  0.  the frequency of replacing a broken clutch is higher than repairing automatic gearboxes, negating the cheaper cost of manual cars over the long term.  0.  they are a liability trying to start on uphill roads.  0.  they are generally far noisier in urban areas due to the average driver is reluctance to shift up gears on short streets or journeys.  0.  they divert the driver is attention away from the road as they focus on selecting the optimal gear.  0.  i cannot eat a cheeseburger while driving.  please cmv.   #  0.  the frequency of replacing a broken clutch is higher than repairing automatic gearboxes, negating the cheaper cost of manual cars over the long term.   #  shift properly and that clutch lasts you a very very long time.   # autos ca not see the road ahead of you, hills, traffic, turns, etc.  in that aspect a human manually shifting will always be superior.  whenever i drive autos they shift gear at in opportune or dangerous moments because they ca not see the road.  stalls a happen maybe once a year for drivers who know stick, and they happen at lights, when traffic is not moving.  if i stall at a light i should not be hit by the car behind me, that is the real safety issue.  shift properly and that clutch lasts you a very very long time.  clutches are a lot cheaper to replace than replacing or repairing auto gearboxes in addition to the cars being cheaper.  not for experienced drivers.  once you learn, actually learn, and get comfortable working the clutch and gas starting on hills is not an issue.  you can also use the handbrake to prevent rolling back.  ease off the clutch, push down the gas pedal, and then release the handbrake.  i do not understand what you mean.  no one who knows how to drive drives any distance redlining first gear because they are reluctant to up shift.  maybe they keep in second going down a residential road because a it naturally moderates your speed.  takes a whole lot of gas to get over about 0 in second for most cars and b related to your first claim, because there is no point to shifting to third if you can see a hill/stop sign five seconds ahead of you.  the difference between those scenarios is not more than a few hundred rpm difference and i guarantee you wo not hear it from inside.  most manual drivers experience the opposite.  gear selection is completely second nature and makes you more focused on driving.  with experience it is possible.  i have smoked a bowl while driving stick through lights.  look there are upsides and downsides to both auto and manual transmissions, but claiming manual is obsolete is ridiculous.   #  0.  you do not need to look away from the road to shift.   #  i will go through this point by point.  0.  this is your best point.  cvt is, dual clutches and 0 0 speed auto is can have better gas mileage.  this has nothing to do with manual vs.  auto though more to do with the fact it is easier to fit 0 0 gears in a dct or auto box then in an h pattern shifter.  a 0spd manual vs.  0 spd auto with the same gear ratios will still have better mileage in the manual due to lighter weight and less drivetrain loss.  0.  first of all stalling is really rare.  second of all it is not really dangerous since you will only stall at a complete stop.  you might piss people off behind you at a light or in traffic but you are not going to come to a screeching halt in the middle of an intersection and cause a pile up.  0.  well if you suck at driving this is true, a non abused clutch can go over 0k.  0.  option a.  be good at driving and it is no issue option b.  pull the hand brake and release it as you release the clutch 0.  this is kind of true.  but not really a big deal i mean going at 0 rpm vs.  0 is not going to blow out anyones ear drums.  0.  you do not need to look away from the road to shift.  also you really do not shift that much, unless you are on a race track or a windy road where you are paying full attention to driving anyways you upshift a few times to get up to speed then cruise in the optimal gear for that speed and clutch in while you brake to come to a stop though i always liked downshifting as i came up to a light 0.  not even getting into the fact that the idea of eating while driving is a terrible idea it is still possible eat at lights or when your just at the speed limit and cruising .  mechanically in someways they are obsolete.  a dual clutch can shift faster than any human and have more gears to be better optimized for acceleration and gas mileage.  manual still has some advantages.  it is simpler mechanically so less likely to break and cheaper when it does.  typically it is lighter which in a sports car can mean slightly better acceleration and handling.  also jump starting is great, my friend did not close the door all the way on my car once and when i went to drive to school in the morning the battery was dead; i was parked on a hill so i put it in second turned the ignition on got rolling to about 0 miles an hour and popped the clutch and i was on my way.  another kind of weird benefit is since not everyone knows how to drive a stick you have a smaller chance of your car being stolen.  then there is the fact that some people just want a more involved driving experience.  to me driving is not always a chore and i do not view my car as an appliance to get from point a to point b.  i enjoy the process and the extra control a manual transmission gives me makes the whole driving experience a lot more enjoyable.   #  driving a manual means you have to pay attention to driving, instead of zoning out and just letting the car do the work.   #  i am going to address them point by point as an ardent supporter of manual transmissions: 0 i disagree entirely.  i will put up my hypermiling against any cvt any day of the week.  0 no, the chance of me doing that is zero.  it is not luck.  i am very good at it.  0 also not true if you are doing it right.  i am through 0,0 miles on this car, and in 0,0 miles on several cars, i have never replaced a clutch.  0 again, i am starting to feel like you just only hang out with people that suck at this.  0 again, these are arguments against the idiots driving them, not the cars.  0 absolutely false.  driving a manual means you have to pay attention to driving, instead of zoning out and just letting the car do the work.  i do not have to stop watching the road to decide what gear to be in.  0 see 0.  you are not supposed to be eating a cheeseburger while driving, and the fact that you would say that, i think, renders this whole post pointless.   #  lastly, with fuel economy, i have so much more control than any automatic, cvt included.   #  no problem : i do not know that the car itself is superior, but i think the experience of driving one is superior.  you ultimately have more control over the car, which to me is a good thing.  you are more involved with the process of driving, you are more attentive, and you are just generally more focused on the task at hand instead of being easily distracted.  it makes it hard to do the things you should not be doing while driving anyway talking on the phone, eating, putting on makeup, etc.  a mechanical part is going to be a lot cheaper to fix if it breaks, and is not going to require a bunch of computer diagnosis like an automatic will.  in addition, there is no transmission fluid, so even the routine maintenance is cheaper.  lastly, with fuel economy, i have so much more control than any automatic, cvt included.  because even the cvt ca not see a hill coming.  i can adapt my driving before any automatic ever could, so while they are playing catchup on a hill, i have already made the necessary gear changes.   #  i would have to work hard to find anyone i know without one i think i have rode in exactly one in my life.   #  but what are your chances you will be forced to drive one if you do not know how ? at least in the us i know europe is different the vast majority of cars for the last 0 years have been automatic.  i would have to work hard to find anyone i know without one i think i have rode in exactly one in my life.  even my parents never learned how to drive in one they had automatics since they were teenagers and they are 0  now .  without going to another continent, there is pretty much no situation where i would be called upon to drive a manual and if it comes up, i will call a cab.  no i do not know how.  it was not taught in drivers ed, none of the drivers ed teachers in my 0 school district knew how and that was 0 years ago .
i will add some arguments here, but please do not feel obligated to address them point by point.  there is plenty of stuff i have probably missed/gotten 0.  with the advent of constantly variable transmissions that shift gears more efficiently than humans, stick shifts even well driven ones no longer have the potential to give better fuel economy.  0.  the chance of a manual stalling on a busy road is a very real threat to public safety.  0.  the frequency of replacing a broken clutch is higher than repairing automatic gearboxes, negating the cheaper cost of manual cars over the long term.  0.  they are a liability trying to start on uphill roads.  0.  they are generally far noisier in urban areas due to the average driver is reluctance to shift up gears on short streets or journeys.  0.  they divert the driver is attention away from the road as they focus on selecting the optimal gear.  0.  i cannot eat a cheeseburger while driving.  please cmv.   #  0.  they are generally far noisier in urban areas due to the average driver is reluctance to shift up gears on short streets or journeys.   #  i do not understand what you mean.   # autos ca not see the road ahead of you, hills, traffic, turns, etc.  in that aspect a human manually shifting will always be superior.  whenever i drive autos they shift gear at in opportune or dangerous moments because they ca not see the road.  stalls a happen maybe once a year for drivers who know stick, and they happen at lights, when traffic is not moving.  if i stall at a light i should not be hit by the car behind me, that is the real safety issue.  shift properly and that clutch lasts you a very very long time.  clutches are a lot cheaper to replace than replacing or repairing auto gearboxes in addition to the cars being cheaper.  not for experienced drivers.  once you learn, actually learn, and get comfortable working the clutch and gas starting on hills is not an issue.  you can also use the handbrake to prevent rolling back.  ease off the clutch, push down the gas pedal, and then release the handbrake.  i do not understand what you mean.  no one who knows how to drive drives any distance redlining first gear because they are reluctant to up shift.  maybe they keep in second going down a residential road because a it naturally moderates your speed.  takes a whole lot of gas to get over about 0 in second for most cars and b related to your first claim, because there is no point to shifting to third if you can see a hill/stop sign five seconds ahead of you.  the difference between those scenarios is not more than a few hundred rpm difference and i guarantee you wo not hear it from inside.  most manual drivers experience the opposite.  gear selection is completely second nature and makes you more focused on driving.  with experience it is possible.  i have smoked a bowl while driving stick through lights.  look there are upsides and downsides to both auto and manual transmissions, but claiming manual is obsolete is ridiculous.   #  0.  well if you suck at driving this is true, a non abused clutch can go over 0k.   #  i will go through this point by point.  0.  this is your best point.  cvt is, dual clutches and 0 0 speed auto is can have better gas mileage.  this has nothing to do with manual vs.  auto though more to do with the fact it is easier to fit 0 0 gears in a dct or auto box then in an h pattern shifter.  a 0spd manual vs.  0 spd auto with the same gear ratios will still have better mileage in the manual due to lighter weight and less drivetrain loss.  0.  first of all stalling is really rare.  second of all it is not really dangerous since you will only stall at a complete stop.  you might piss people off behind you at a light or in traffic but you are not going to come to a screeching halt in the middle of an intersection and cause a pile up.  0.  well if you suck at driving this is true, a non abused clutch can go over 0k.  0.  option a.  be good at driving and it is no issue option b.  pull the hand brake and release it as you release the clutch 0.  this is kind of true.  but not really a big deal i mean going at 0 rpm vs.  0 is not going to blow out anyones ear drums.  0.  you do not need to look away from the road to shift.  also you really do not shift that much, unless you are on a race track or a windy road where you are paying full attention to driving anyways you upshift a few times to get up to speed then cruise in the optimal gear for that speed and clutch in while you brake to come to a stop though i always liked downshifting as i came up to a light 0.  not even getting into the fact that the idea of eating while driving is a terrible idea it is still possible eat at lights or when your just at the speed limit and cruising .  mechanically in someways they are obsolete.  a dual clutch can shift faster than any human and have more gears to be better optimized for acceleration and gas mileage.  manual still has some advantages.  it is simpler mechanically so less likely to break and cheaper when it does.  typically it is lighter which in a sports car can mean slightly better acceleration and handling.  also jump starting is great, my friend did not close the door all the way on my car once and when i went to drive to school in the morning the battery was dead; i was parked on a hill so i put it in second turned the ignition on got rolling to about 0 miles an hour and popped the clutch and i was on my way.  another kind of weird benefit is since not everyone knows how to drive a stick you have a smaller chance of your car being stolen.  then there is the fact that some people just want a more involved driving experience.  to me driving is not always a chore and i do not view my car as an appliance to get from point a to point b.  i enjoy the process and the extra control a manual transmission gives me makes the whole driving experience a lot more enjoyable.   #  i will put up my hypermiling against any cvt any day of the week.   #  i am going to address them point by point as an ardent supporter of manual transmissions: 0 i disagree entirely.  i will put up my hypermiling against any cvt any day of the week.  0 no, the chance of me doing that is zero.  it is not luck.  i am very good at it.  0 also not true if you are doing it right.  i am through 0,0 miles on this car, and in 0,0 miles on several cars, i have never replaced a clutch.  0 again, i am starting to feel like you just only hang out with people that suck at this.  0 again, these are arguments against the idiots driving them, not the cars.  0 absolutely false.  driving a manual means you have to pay attention to driving, instead of zoning out and just letting the car do the work.  i do not have to stop watching the road to decide what gear to be in.  0 see 0.  you are not supposed to be eating a cheeseburger while driving, and the fact that you would say that, i think, renders this whole post pointless.   #  in addition, there is no transmission fluid, so even the routine maintenance is cheaper.   #  no problem : i do not know that the car itself is superior, but i think the experience of driving one is superior.  you ultimately have more control over the car, which to me is a good thing.  you are more involved with the process of driving, you are more attentive, and you are just generally more focused on the task at hand instead of being easily distracted.  it makes it hard to do the things you should not be doing while driving anyway talking on the phone, eating, putting on makeup, etc.  a mechanical part is going to be a lot cheaper to fix if it breaks, and is not going to require a bunch of computer diagnosis like an automatic will.  in addition, there is no transmission fluid, so even the routine maintenance is cheaper.  lastly, with fuel economy, i have so much more control than any automatic, cvt included.  because even the cvt ca not see a hill coming.  i can adapt my driving before any automatic ever could, so while they are playing catchup on a hill, i have already made the necessary gear changes.   #  it was not taught in drivers ed, none of the drivers ed teachers in my 0 school district knew how and that was 0 years ago .   #  but what are your chances you will be forced to drive one if you do not know how ? at least in the us i know europe is different the vast majority of cars for the last 0 years have been automatic.  i would have to work hard to find anyone i know without one i think i have rode in exactly one in my life.  even my parents never learned how to drive in one they had automatics since they were teenagers and they are 0  now .  without going to another continent, there is pretty much no situation where i would be called upon to drive a manual and if it comes up, i will call a cab.  no i do not know how.  it was not taught in drivers ed, none of the drivers ed teachers in my 0 school district knew how and that was 0 years ago .
this cmv is born out of a discussion i had with a friend wherein we compared the modern feminist movement to the civil rights movement of the 0s.  i took the stance that during the civil rights era, martin luther king jr.  was more successful than malcolm x because he took a more tempered approach, presenting arguments that simply could not be denied, and using tactics like sit ins to prove the brutality of the oppression by the racists of the era rather than using offensive tactics to get the oppressors to back down in submission.  if i recall correctly, my friend argued that he was successful because he did not in fact take a tempered approach, but instead that his tactics were very in your face, citing his quote that freedom cannot be attained by simply asking.  nb: i pretty much just talking about civil rights, here.  political and economic inequality are somewhat different issues here is a basic outline of my position and the opposing one: my belief: equality for any oppressed group can only logically happen if the enough of the oppressors realize their fault and change ignorance breeds intolerance, and therefore education breeds tolerance in the case of the feminist movement, activists should work to make society aware of problems and favor hard data to rhetoric not that rhetoric is not useful you are better served by telling someone why they are wrong than by berating them criticize the action rather than the person.  for example: tell someone that what they did was racist, not that they are racist and they should feel ashamed even if they are equality not only means being able to achieve the same result as another person, but being able to achieve it with the same ease/difficulty opposing belief: equality for any oppressed group can only be achieved by empowerment of the oppressed group, enabling them to go their own way gains need to be won without any connection with the oppressor, because they are not going to help.  if they were, they would not be oppressors feminist activists should take what is rightfully theirs instead of waiting for it to be handed over to them you are better off berating someone who practices intolerance to express the seriousness of what they have done criticizing an intolerant person is character might make them reconsider their positions activists have been trying to educate for a long time, and the hate is still flowing  tl;dr what serves modern movements like the fights for women is and minority rights better: the approach of mlk or that of malcolm x ?  #  criticize the action rather than the person.   #  you are again assuming that people give a shit that racism is a bad thing.   #  i would argue that empathy is the only way to end intolerance.  we can preach and spew data all we want, but until people see the repressed and ostracized people as people worthy of the same rights and liberties as the majority of people.  they  knew  the education system was unfair.  they just did not have enough empathy with the people they saw as different.  you could argue that showing them statistics and  facts  that blacks were  worth  what whites were, but honestly, what facts ? what data ? how a person views of the worth of a fellow human being is subjective.  we can give a trp redditor all the data in the world that women are smart, face prejudice everyday, and deserve more recognitions, but the problem is that the redpillers do not view women as worth the the effort.  you are again assuming that people give a shit that racism is a bad thing.  a lot of white supremists are fully aware they are racist.  they think their racism is justified.   #  in the case of women is rights/feminism, sometimes men and i am guilty of this too do things that make women feel belittled or threatened.   # are just words; anyone offended by them are delusional about the world they live in and how slow progress is.  in such cases as demeaning slurs, it is not the word but the way they are used.  when someone calls a black person a nigger in a malevolent manner, it encapsulates the menace behind it, even if the menace is not as strong as perceived.  but what i meant was more actions than words.  in the case of women is rights/feminism, sometimes men and i am guilty of this too do things that make women feel belittled or threatened.  some guys even have not been brought up to realize that taking advantage of a drunk girl is wrong and of course that applies not only to man on woman rape, but on all kinds .  but my issue is this: what makes them turn away from that racist grandmother ? why did not they and their parents before them grow up racist, raised by their racist grandparents ? who broke the cycle, and how ?  #  speaking of which, spanking is assault; just as surely as taxation is theft and war is murder; guess which one you can do something about  # but what i meant was more actions than words they know what they are doing.  roll eyes  i do not care about so called  micro aggressions .  your in deep in that shit philosophy how where you made  aware  of such things, belittled by a feminist professor ? , saw a public put down happening ? tried to sleep with a 0rd wave/neo feminist ? feminists really got the changing views down, lots of moral outrage with no compromise which on ending spousal abuse is a good thing, not so much on the insanity that is  womens science  or defending single motherhood lots of social pressure everything from sex, marrage and college degrees , they went from underprivileged to overprivileged very very rapidly.  why did not they and their parents before them grow up racist, raised by their racist grandparents ? who broke the cycle, and how ? the few people who do respond to the intellectual argument; but if you spend your time endlessly on education you get cases like the vulgar libertarians who really really want to end the fed but do nothing about it, beyond voting.  speaking of which, spanking is assault; just as surely as taxation is theft and war is murder; guess which one you can do something about  #  the friend with whom i was debating this is certainly a feminist, and she says that moral outrage calls problems to society is attention.   # , saw a public put down happening ? tried to sleep with a 0rd wave/neo feminist ? i know some 0rd wave feminists who have brought certain topics to my attention, but mostly a lot of my beliefs just fall under equal rights.  the most important issues to me in this regard are primarily the legal inequalities, then a few social issues like gender roles mostly because they are pointless and archaic and double standards like how apparently it is bad for a girl to fuck lots of guys, even though men are often exalted for sleeping around .  if by  micro aggressions , you mean stuff like unequal representation in video games, that is not really an area of huge concern for me.  i do not deny that the little problems exist, i just do not find them to be huge, and i think that changing the big things will end up changing the small ones automatically.  but i digress.  that brings me to the root of this debate:  feminists really got the changing views down, lots of moral outrage with no compromise i would agree with that to a good extent.  i would not say that all or even a lot of feminists are like that no movement is uniform in methodology , but a good amount are.  the friend with whom i was debating this is certainly a feminist, and she says that moral outrage calls problems to society is attention.  and furthermore that brings me to.   the few people who do respond to the intellectual argument; but if you spend your time endlessly on education you get cases like the vulgar libertarians who really really want to end the fed but do nothing about it, beyond voting.  so is not the goal then just to get those few people to change ? my original point was that rational debate is a better way to fight intolerance than is hostility towards the oppressing, intolerant group.   #  male on female abuse has been declining for decades while female on male abuse has been stagnant; males get raped more then females at this point and there are few male shelters.   # male on female abuse has been declining for decades while female on male abuse has been stagnant; males get raped more then females at this point and there are few male shelters.  also the cycle of violence is continued by adult to child abuse, which thanks to threats of being called a pedophile if males work with children and the raise in single mothers, the ball is in their court.  my original point was that rational debate is a better way to fight intolerance than is hostility towards the oppressing, intolerant group.  how effective has the libertarian movement been ? they have been around for decades, they had endless books including ayn rand, insane as she was URL her books have been best sellers , they had ron paul, and they had the progressive positions of ending war and legalizing drugs.  given that they generally lack the moral courage to get in peoples face like feminists do; what has it got them ? can you even tell me what a vulgar/brutalist/tea party libertarain, believes ?
i am an atheist and a freethinker who generally votes liberal democrat, but i did not jump on the general hobby lobby bandwagon.  i believe that sincerely held religious beliefs should be respected so long as they do not impede on the health, safety and rights of another person.  i do not believe that women have a right to receive birth control unless it is a health issue, and that it is not terribly difficult for them to obtain other insurance that covers it at their expense.  additionally, the supreme court decision was narrow enough in scope that it does not apply to things like vaccines and other health impacting medical views.  hobby lobby is a privately held company, and the owners have privately decided that they do not support birth control on religious grounds.  they may be wrong to do so, and they may be retards, but that does not impede upon their right to their faith and opinion.  cmv.   #  i believe that sincerely held religious beliefs should be respected so long as they do not impede on the health, safety and rights of another person.   #  which is  exactly  what this ruling is doing.   #  addressing this point:  i do not believe that women have a right to receive birth control unless it is a health issue, and that it is not terribly difficult for them to obtain other insurance that covers it at their expense in her dissent, justice ruth bader ginsburg wrote  it bears note in this regard that the cost of an iud is nearly equivalent to a month is full time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.   that is quite expensive, especially when part of your wages and part of the agreed upon benefits your employer gives you is health insurance meant to pay for  all  the health necessities a person will need, such as birth control like an iud.  additionally, unless they are part of a conservative religious sect, virtually all biologists, psychologists, and those who study humanity will agree that an active healthy sex life is a vital part of a normal healthy adult life.  and that birth control is a necessity to properly control your sex life and reproduction.  we ca not reasonably expect humans to abstain from sex and only have sex when they want to procreate, and we ca not base our society is laws on such a view.  which is  exactly  what this ruling is doing.  impeding upon women is rights and health based on their employer is religious views which also impedes upon the  employees   religious views.  the bottom line of this ruling is that a corporation is a legal entity, not a person with religious beliefs, but the scotus ruled to change that once again, and that is bad.   #  hobby lobby ignores this essential aspect of corporate personhood.   #  the entire rationale of corporations is that they exist as a legal entity for the purpose of carrying on lawful business.  they are a special type of person that stands apart from the shareholders.  because they are this special type of person that is separate from the shareholders, the shareholders are not personally liable for the wrongs of the corporation.  hobby lobby ignores this essential aspect of corporate personhood.  while limited liability still exists, closely held corporations paradoxically take on the beliefs of its shareholders as if the corporation is the shareholder.  neutral laws of general application make sense in the world of commerce.  while the religious freedom restoration act applied a standard of strict scrutiny on the federal government for laws that inhibit one is freedom of exercise, the rfra was intended to rectify issues like in employment division v.  smith where a law actually intereferd with a private individuals right to free exercise.  this situation is involves a business imposing its  right to exercise  to deny a right that is others have by statute.  participating in business is significantly different, and commerce should rely on the even handed imposition of neutral laws of regulation.  united states v.  lee, which held that businesses have to pay taxes even if they incidentally conflict with their religious principles remains good law and should have been applied to hobby lobby.   #  congress has the authority to tax and the authority to regulate commerce, among other things.   #  i do not follow.  i agree that corporations can have religious principles, values, and aims, but i do not understand why this absolves corporations from being subject to neutral laws of general application.  it should be immaterial if these sort of laws incidentally burden one is freedom of exercise/consciousness.  congress has the authority to tax and the authority to regulate commerce, among other things.  these powers should not be curtailed when otherwise valid laws just happen to interfere with a religious belief no matter how sincerely held.  there is a very clear line that is crossed when a group of business people incorporate so that they can participate in commerce.  the court made it is decision on the religious freedom restoration act, which was a congressional act that required laws forbade laws from incidentally burdening religious expression unless that law is necessary for a compelling government purpose, and unless that law is narrowly drawn to fit that purpose.  my original point was the rfra should not be applicable here because it was never intended to apply to congress is plenary power to tax and regulate commerce.   #  my more in depth view of this issue is here URL on a different topic but i used this case as an example.   #  my more in depth view of this issue is here URL on a different topic but i used this case as an example.  it is in a similar vein to what others here have argued but i tried to walk the person through corporate liability and its related policy, so maybe it should clear some things up, if you are interested in reading a wall of text.  hey, if the owner is want to use their corporate status as a sword for their personal sincerely held beliefs, they really should not be able to use it as a shield against personal liability.  i know the court did not dive much into this issue and just assumed that the sheer economic impact constituted a  isubstantial burden,  but the fact that hobby lobby et al.  were effectively required to just shuffle papers is just too attenuated to constitute a  isubstantial burden   on   their   belief  rather than on the  corporation is  ability to make a profit.  there is  some  separation between these entities and the court is opinion engages all sorts of assumptions and ignores other, relevant questions and consequences to make it stand alone as a single, nuanced exception.  it is the majority trying to have their cake and eat it too by allowing a handful of corporations with very particular beliefs be elevated above this law while assuring us that none of those other weirdo sincerely held beliefs would pass this test.  part of this is because the rfra is a bad law, but another part of it is that its application is probably, under a good faith reading of the law and possible future litigants, more broadly applicable than the courts argues.  that reads like a preference for certain sincerely held beliefs more than others regardless of how much the majority assures us that it is only because they would likely fail the  willeast restrictive  prong of the analysis.   #  as long as the employee has the option to not buy birth control, the employer is religion is not implicated.   #  you are fighting the hypothetical, but whatever.  let is go with your logic.  as long as the employee has the option to not buy birth control, the employer is religion is not implicated.  that is already true in the case of insurance.  hobby lobby did not have to pass out plan b around the office.  they just had to pay insurance policies that gave employees the option of acquiring birth control.  the employees maintain the option to use their drug coverage for only non birth control medications.  so, hobby lobby has no legitimate religious objection in this case, right ?
i fear we are becoming a bigger and more militarized police state.  sherif joe in arizona has a giant howitzer at his disposal.  there are armored personal carriers that the swat team uses.  the swat team has full automatic rifles and flash bang grenades.  the military has drones that have already killed us citizens without trail.  then they have these studies going on by facebook to see how social media effects the general population, how fast things travel and the general uproar caused and how fast things will die down.  does not this scare anyone else ? our founding fathers said  those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.   i feel as though we are giving up some of our liberties freely and willingly for some safety.  i like the tsa and nsa.  these things are not necessary.  is safety really that important ? if the government was to turn on us.  we would have no chance.  we would get absolutely obliterated.  the american people could not fight back.  the government is becoming too large and too much like an octopus reaching it is leathery arms into private life to dictate what morality is and enforcing these rules by tanks and swat teams.  one other thought.  i think it is extremely scare how the best way to survive a no knock swat raid is to fire on the swat team.  there was an article on reddit a while back about this.  but i am just afraid of what is happening, especially when washington tells the public to  trust them .  right.   #  i fear we are becoming a bigger and more militarized police state.   #  sherif joe in arizona has a giant howitzer at his disposal.   # sherif joe in arizona has a giant howitzer at his disposal.  there are armored personal carriers that the swat team uses.  the swat team has full automatic rifles and flash bang grenades.  the police are adopting more sophisticated technology.  so what ? who is the  government,  and who is  us ?   that is a great way to commit suicide.   #  they are all just smaller gangs/drug dealers with at most full autos.   #  thats true.  but some americans own guns, like my self, and if i hear my front door being smashed down my first reaction would be to go get my gun and shoot the bastard.  not go and check first, then go and get my gun.  that just dose not make sense.  all they would have to do is announce their presence before they smashed my door down.  if they really are going after a hardcore criminal with connections to big fully auto guns and rpg and shit, the likelyhood is that he will have someone and the inside and be long gone before the cops arrive there.  i could see no knocks being useful going up against people like this.  but i never hear of these huge gun/terrorist like busts in the news.  they are all just smaller gangs/drug dealers with at most full autos.  hardly warrants the use of armored personal carriers or howitzers.   #  the suspect was not there and did not even live there and was arrested at another location without incident.   #  this is all bad logic.  first, if the answer to those questions is no, then the police should not be coming in either.  no knock raids typically do not blow out all your windows and your front door, they just use a ram most of the time which is just going to sound like your door is being kicked in, which there are many examples of criminals doing.  furthermore, if they do not have sufficient evidence that i am i violent criminal and an imminent danger to the public, they should not be kicking my door in.  even if i am, they should announce themselves first, for the safety of all involved.  there have been cases on both sides of this spectrum: swat enters home and an officer is killed by a homeowner who was cleared of charges because he did not know it was police, same situation except charged with murder, cops enter wrong house and kill pets, innocent parties, etc, and there was one in the news just yesterday where the cops entered a house where they suspected a person wanted for a low level drug crime might be and severely injured a baby with a flash bang.  the suspect was not there and did not even live there and was arrested at another location without incident.  cops should always announce themselves before entrance, and if they do not it should be an illegal entry and they should be colored under the law as criminals making an entrance.  the same should apply if they enter the wrong house.  in too many of these cases, innocent people die even when they do not try to shoot.  homes are a place where people should be able to feel secure, and there should be strict requirements for police entering.  to put this in more perspective, i work in law enforcement.   #  well yeah obviously, by even writing this in a real police state, i would be arrested and or killed.   # that would not be allowed in a police state.  the police have to be able to out gun criminals.  do not they already ? i hardly ever hear of criminals using full autos and flashbangs and what not.  do you really believe any criminals could get a tank/armored car/howitzer into the states ? most criminals do not have that find of funding, unless their terrorists and even then.  second, in a police state, you do not have the option to give up liberty, it is taken from you whether you like it or not.  is becoming a police state, you have obviously never lived in one.  well yeah obviously, by even writing this in a real police state, i would be arrested and or killed.  my fear is that we are becoming one ! i would like to be convinced that we are not becoming a police state !  #  that is why voting does not matter and that is why your assumption is wrong.   # there are millions upon millions of victimless laws on the books.  these are basically state rules set out by politicians who have nothing to do but write rules for the peasants to fallow. and then punish them if they break them.  all of that without even one victim.  so are you seriously asking what personal liberties are given up ? if i could get a list of all of victimless laws, you would have millions of examples.  if the majority of people actually knew and believed they were being spied on and they also knew the reasons why,  then  they  might  put the pressure on their  representatives .  i say  representatives  because it is ridiculous to believe they actually represent anyone seeing as each congressman is  representing  0,0 people.  it is a joke to think one can represent that many people.  but that is all part of the propaganda campaign.  if the government controls what is on the tv and the mainstream news which is a pretty easy assumption to make then most people are completely unaware of all of the police state like things happening in this country.  that is why voting does not matter and that is why your assumption is wrong.  is becoming a police state, you have obviously never lived in one.  even in police states, people have  some  freedom.  it just varies with each  style  of police state.  here is a good indication of a police state: during and encounter with a cop/pig/state thug, if you have to basically have to verbally suck the cock of a cop just so that you do not get assaulted arrested or have your wealth stolen from you give you a ticket, you live in a police state.  when the cops treat every citizen as a potential enemy combatant, you live in a police state.
i fear we are becoming a bigger and more militarized police state.  sherif joe in arizona has a giant howitzer at his disposal.  there are armored personal carriers that the swat team uses.  the swat team has full automatic rifles and flash bang grenades.  the military has drones that have already killed us citizens without trail.  then they have these studies going on by facebook to see how social media effects the general population, how fast things travel and the general uproar caused and how fast things will die down.  does not this scare anyone else ? our founding fathers said  those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.   i feel as though we are giving up some of our liberties freely and willingly for some safety.  i like the tsa and nsa.  these things are not necessary.  is safety really that important ? if the government was to turn on us.  we would have no chance.  we would get absolutely obliterated.  the american people could not fight back.  the government is becoming too large and too much like an octopus reaching it is leathery arms into private life to dictate what morality is and enforcing these rules by tanks and swat teams.  one other thought.  i think it is extremely scare how the best way to survive a no knock swat raid is to fire on the swat team.  there was an article on reddit a while back about this.  but i am just afraid of what is happening, especially when washington tells the public to  trust them .  right.   #  if the government was to turn on us.   #  who is the  government,  and who is  us ?    # sherif joe in arizona has a giant howitzer at his disposal.  there are armored personal carriers that the swat team uses.  the swat team has full automatic rifles and flash bang grenades.  the police are adopting more sophisticated technology.  so what ? who is the  government,  and who is  us ?   that is a great way to commit suicide.   #  they are all just smaller gangs/drug dealers with at most full autos.   #  thats true.  but some americans own guns, like my self, and if i hear my front door being smashed down my first reaction would be to go get my gun and shoot the bastard.  not go and check first, then go and get my gun.  that just dose not make sense.  all they would have to do is announce their presence before they smashed my door down.  if they really are going after a hardcore criminal with connections to big fully auto guns and rpg and shit, the likelyhood is that he will have someone and the inside and be long gone before the cops arrive there.  i could see no knocks being useful going up against people like this.  but i never hear of these huge gun/terrorist like busts in the news.  they are all just smaller gangs/drug dealers with at most full autos.  hardly warrants the use of armored personal carriers or howitzers.   #  to put this in more perspective, i work in law enforcement.   #  this is all bad logic.  first, if the answer to those questions is no, then the police should not be coming in either.  no knock raids typically do not blow out all your windows and your front door, they just use a ram most of the time which is just going to sound like your door is being kicked in, which there are many examples of criminals doing.  furthermore, if they do not have sufficient evidence that i am i violent criminal and an imminent danger to the public, they should not be kicking my door in.  even if i am, they should announce themselves first, for the safety of all involved.  there have been cases on both sides of this spectrum: swat enters home and an officer is killed by a homeowner who was cleared of charges because he did not know it was police, same situation except charged with murder, cops enter wrong house and kill pets, innocent parties, etc, and there was one in the news just yesterday where the cops entered a house where they suspected a person wanted for a low level drug crime might be and severely injured a baby with a flash bang.  the suspect was not there and did not even live there and was arrested at another location without incident.  cops should always announce themselves before entrance, and if they do not it should be an illegal entry and they should be colored under the law as criminals making an entrance.  the same should apply if they enter the wrong house.  in too many of these cases, innocent people die even when they do not try to shoot.  homes are a place where people should be able to feel secure, and there should be strict requirements for police entering.  to put this in more perspective, i work in law enforcement.   #  that would not be allowed in a police state.   # that would not be allowed in a police state.  the police have to be able to out gun criminals.  do not they already ? i hardly ever hear of criminals using full autos and flashbangs and what not.  do you really believe any criminals could get a tank/armored car/howitzer into the states ? most criminals do not have that find of funding, unless their terrorists and even then.  second, in a police state, you do not have the option to give up liberty, it is taken from you whether you like it or not.  is becoming a police state, you have obviously never lived in one.  well yeah obviously, by even writing this in a real police state, i would be arrested and or killed.  my fear is that we are becoming one ! i would like to be convinced that we are not becoming a police state !  #  is becoming a police state, you have obviously never lived in one.   # there are millions upon millions of victimless laws on the books.  these are basically state rules set out by politicians who have nothing to do but write rules for the peasants to fallow. and then punish them if they break them.  all of that without even one victim.  so are you seriously asking what personal liberties are given up ? if i could get a list of all of victimless laws, you would have millions of examples.  if the majority of people actually knew and believed they were being spied on and they also knew the reasons why,  then  they  might  put the pressure on their  representatives .  i say  representatives  because it is ridiculous to believe they actually represent anyone seeing as each congressman is  representing  0,0 people.  it is a joke to think one can represent that many people.  but that is all part of the propaganda campaign.  if the government controls what is on the tv and the mainstream news which is a pretty easy assumption to make then most people are completely unaware of all of the police state like things happening in this country.  that is why voting does not matter and that is why your assumption is wrong.  is becoming a police state, you have obviously never lived in one.  even in police states, people have  some  freedom.  it just varies with each  style  of police state.  here is a good indication of a police state: during and encounter with a cop/pig/state thug, if you have to basically have to verbally suck the cock of a cop just so that you do not get assaulted arrested or have your wealth stolen from you give you a ticket, you live in a police state.  when the cops treat every citizen as a potential enemy combatant, you live in a police state.
i fear we are becoming a bigger and more militarized police state.  sherif joe in arizona has a giant howitzer at his disposal.  there are armored personal carriers that the swat team uses.  the swat team has full automatic rifles and flash bang grenades.  the military has drones that have already killed us citizens without trail.  then they have these studies going on by facebook to see how social media effects the general population, how fast things travel and the general uproar caused and how fast things will die down.  does not this scare anyone else ? our founding fathers said  those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.   i feel as though we are giving up some of our liberties freely and willingly for some safety.  i like the tsa and nsa.  these things are not necessary.  is safety really that important ? if the government was to turn on us.  we would have no chance.  we would get absolutely obliterated.  the american people could not fight back.  the government is becoming too large and too much like an octopus reaching it is leathery arms into private life to dictate what morality is and enforcing these rules by tanks and swat teams.  one other thought.  i think it is extremely scare how the best way to survive a no knock swat raid is to fire on the swat team.  there was an article on reddit a while back about this.  but i am just afraid of what is happening, especially when washington tells the public to  trust them .  right.   #  i think it is extremely scare how the best way to survive a no knock swat raid is to fire on the swat team.   #  that is a great way to commit suicide.   # sherif joe in arizona has a giant howitzer at his disposal.  there are armored personal carriers that the swat team uses.  the swat team has full automatic rifles and flash bang grenades.  the police are adopting more sophisticated technology.  so what ? who is the  government,  and who is  us ?   that is a great way to commit suicide.   #  hardly warrants the use of armored personal carriers or howitzers.   #  thats true.  but some americans own guns, like my self, and if i hear my front door being smashed down my first reaction would be to go get my gun and shoot the bastard.  not go and check first, then go and get my gun.  that just dose not make sense.  all they would have to do is announce their presence before they smashed my door down.  if they really are going after a hardcore criminal with connections to big fully auto guns and rpg and shit, the likelyhood is that he will have someone and the inside and be long gone before the cops arrive there.  i could see no knocks being useful going up against people like this.  but i never hear of these huge gun/terrorist like busts in the news.  they are all just smaller gangs/drug dealers with at most full autos.  hardly warrants the use of armored personal carriers or howitzers.   #  the same should apply if they enter the wrong house.   #  this is all bad logic.  first, if the answer to those questions is no, then the police should not be coming in either.  no knock raids typically do not blow out all your windows and your front door, they just use a ram most of the time which is just going to sound like your door is being kicked in, which there are many examples of criminals doing.  furthermore, if they do not have sufficient evidence that i am i violent criminal and an imminent danger to the public, they should not be kicking my door in.  even if i am, they should announce themselves first, for the safety of all involved.  there have been cases on both sides of this spectrum: swat enters home and an officer is killed by a homeowner who was cleared of charges because he did not know it was police, same situation except charged with murder, cops enter wrong house and kill pets, innocent parties, etc, and there was one in the news just yesterday where the cops entered a house where they suspected a person wanted for a low level drug crime might be and severely injured a baby with a flash bang.  the suspect was not there and did not even live there and was arrested at another location without incident.  cops should always announce themselves before entrance, and if they do not it should be an illegal entry and they should be colored under the law as criminals making an entrance.  the same should apply if they enter the wrong house.  in too many of these cases, innocent people die even when they do not try to shoot.  homes are a place where people should be able to feel secure, and there should be strict requirements for police entering.  to put this in more perspective, i work in law enforcement.   #  that would not be allowed in a police state.   # that would not be allowed in a police state.  the police have to be able to out gun criminals.  do not they already ? i hardly ever hear of criminals using full autos and flashbangs and what not.  do you really believe any criminals could get a tank/armored car/howitzer into the states ? most criminals do not have that find of funding, unless their terrorists and even then.  second, in a police state, you do not have the option to give up liberty, it is taken from you whether you like it or not.  is becoming a police state, you have obviously never lived in one.  well yeah obviously, by even writing this in a real police state, i would be arrested and or killed.  my fear is that we are becoming one ! i would like to be convinced that we are not becoming a police state !  #  if the government controls what is on the tv and the mainstream news which is a pretty easy assumption to make then most people are completely unaware of all of the police state like things happening in this country.   # there are millions upon millions of victimless laws on the books.  these are basically state rules set out by politicians who have nothing to do but write rules for the peasants to fallow. and then punish them if they break them.  all of that without even one victim.  so are you seriously asking what personal liberties are given up ? if i could get a list of all of victimless laws, you would have millions of examples.  if the majority of people actually knew and believed they were being spied on and they also knew the reasons why,  then  they  might  put the pressure on their  representatives .  i say  representatives  because it is ridiculous to believe they actually represent anyone seeing as each congressman is  representing  0,0 people.  it is a joke to think one can represent that many people.  but that is all part of the propaganda campaign.  if the government controls what is on the tv and the mainstream news which is a pretty easy assumption to make then most people are completely unaware of all of the police state like things happening in this country.  that is why voting does not matter and that is why your assumption is wrong.  is becoming a police state, you have obviously never lived in one.  even in police states, people have  some  freedom.  it just varies with each  style  of police state.  here is a good indication of a police state: during and encounter with a cop/pig/state thug, if you have to basically have to verbally suck the cock of a cop just so that you do not get assaulted arrested or have your wealth stolen from you give you a ticket, you live in a police state.  when the cops treat every citizen as a potential enemy combatant, you live in a police state.
global warming is real.   treats global warming as a thing that either exists or does not exist.  this is how 0 year olds think about the boogie man.  if he is real, we are in trouble.  remember south park is manbearpig ? a more appropriate way of putting  global warming is real  is  the globe is warming.   after all, when we observe that fewer people have jobs than before, we do not say  unemployment rise is real,  we say  unemployment is rising.   i suspect the reason climate activists prefer  global warming is real.   to  the globe is warming.   is because the former makes people scream  aaahhh  while the latter makes people wonder  how much ? how quickly ?   and the answer 0f over the past 0 years does not sound like a crisis.   . and we are causing it.   implicit in this claim is the idea that a rise in global temperature must have some discernable cause.  when climate activists say things like this, they talk as if it is natural for global termperature to remain constant.  the mere fact that the globe is warming is presented as a sign that something has gone wrong with the planet e. g.  the earth  has a fever,  as some like to put it.  , and we can determine what caused to problem like a doctor identifies diseases based on syptoms.  but the fact, as i understand it, is that there is no compelling reason to think that 0f of warming over 0 years is anything other than the climate just doing its thing.  if anyone wants to play hockey URL in a comment thread, i am down.  global temperature change is not an abnormality that demands an explanation.  rather, it is just a result of chaos in the climate system.  the only defensible meaning of  we are causing it  is  we are causing the globe to be warmer than it otherwise would have been had we not burned so much fuel and cut down so many trees.   again, the more accurate way of putting things is  explicitly quantitative,  which leads people to follow up and ask  by how much ?   scientific organizations like the ipcc have basically said that humans have caused  most  of the warming since 0, meaning we have caused somewhere between 0 and 0 f of warming over about 0 years.  i suspect that climate activists want to conceal this from the public in order to give it a much more troubling sense of what the  consensus  is.  so, i think the statements like  global warming is real and we are causing it.   are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.  feel free to challenge me from either a linguistic, political, or scientific angle.   p. s.   i understand that there are plenty of more substantive scientific claims being made by climate activists like james hansen, about how maybe some of the heat trapped by human emitted co0 is now being sunk into the deep oceans and so on, but what i am really taking issue with here is the exaggerated and grossly oversimplified rhetoric presented to the general public during political discussions like those you will see on news channels.   #  and the answer 0f over the past 0 years does not sound like a crisis.   #  climate change myth:  it is not bad.    #  you have embedded a few of the most common  arguments  against climate change in your post, so i have broken them out with links to rebuttals written by folks over at skeptical science.  if you have any additional arguments against climate change, feel free to comment here or you can peruse the list of common  arguments against climate change  over at skeptical science here.  URL the rebuttals provided by the skeptical science team are written in levels of difficulty many rebuttals include basic and intermediate explanations, and some rebuttals have a more in depth explanation.  the rebuttals cite to legitimate sources and are well written.  i encourage you to review whatever arguments interest you.  climate change myth:  it is not bad.   URL  but the fact, as i understand it, is that there is no compelling reason to think that 0f of warming over 0 years is anything other than the climate just doing its thing.  climate change myth:  the climate has changed like this before.   URL climate change myth:  it is a natural cycle.   URL  if anyone wants to play hockey in a comment thread, i am down.  climate change myth:  the  hockey stick  is wrong.   URL  global temperature change is not an abnormality that demands an explanation.  rather, it is just a result of chaos in the climate system.  climate change myth:  climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.   URL  the only defensible meaning of  we are causing it  is  we are causing the globe to be warmer than it otherwise would have been had we not burned so much fuel and cut down so many trees.   again, the more accurate way of putting things is explicitly quantitative, which leads people to follow up and ask  by how much ?   scientific organizations like the ipcc have basically said that humans have caused most of the warming since 0, meaning we have caused somewhere between 0 and 0 f of warming over about 0 years.  i suspect that climate activists want to conceal this from the public in order to give it a much more troubling sense of what the  consensus  is.  climate change myth:  there is no consensus.   URL climate change myth:  it is only a few degrees.   URL  #  i am not saying we should totally dismiss these predictions.   #  your first paragraph comports with my understanding of the mainstream projections, but we need to remember the difference between projections, which and based on models, and the actual observations we have recorded of past temperature change.  i think climate activists are obscuring the fact that there is nothing terribly scary about the observations.  even the scientific american article you quoted, which is obviously trying to make global warming sound as scary as possible, could not identify any scary observations of present of past climate patterns.  earlier springs and the spreading in plant life into formerly inhospitably cold areas sound quite lovely, and arctic sea ice really is not that important.  i am not saying we should totally dismiss these predictions.  they may be right.  but it is important for people to understand that scary, destructive climate change is  not upon  us.  most of the predicted harmful effects, like worsening droughts and storms, are only expected to manifest in the late 0st century.  see page five of this recent ipcc report URL for reference.   #  warming the poles causes a reduction in the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which, in theory, should weaken hurricanes, for instance.   #  us  is the world as a whole.  of course you can find parts of the world where climate is changing for the worse, but that is always the case  somewhere.  yes, but i have never seen despite reading a good amount on climate change anyone suggest that the albedo reduction caused by melting sea ice will warm the planet by much.  it might warm the arctic a bit, which you seem to think would be catastrophic, but i just do not see evidence of that.  warming the poles causes a reduction in the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which, in theory, should weaken hurricanes, for instance.  the main positive feedback being looked at is the evaporation of seawater, which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere.  but climate activists do not like to emphasize that in public because it requires revealing that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which makes  greenhouse gas  sound less scary.  the planet is not that fragile.  humanity is getting more and more resilient to the weather.  we do not need to sacrifice millions of poor people is lives by depriving them of the fuel they need for survival in order to avoid some ice at the north pole melting.   #  0 sums up the main point: climate change could lead to about 0 million  additional people at risk of hunger  by the 0, almost of whom in africa.   # you write  against their interests because of climate change  it is against all of our interests to increase how much carbon dioxide we are emitting.  it still sounds to me like you are opposed to or, at least, not much in favor of bringing energy infrastructure to people who desperately need it.  you are speaking as if that would be against those people is interests because of climate change, which is just crazy to me.  but let is talk about this paper you brought up URL it seems like fig.  0 sums up the main point: climate change could lead to about 0 million  additional people at risk of hunger  by the 0, almost of whom in africa.  does that account for the huge amounts of wealth and innovation created as the world keeps industrializing ? specifically, does it account for the fact that, even if crop yields go down, far less of the crops would go to waste as the infrastructure to transport and preserve to food refrigerators, anyone ? increases ? does it account for the large relief from hunger that would come to china and southeast asia according to fig.  0, or is it merely counting the number of people who will be put at risk in countries where food production drops ? and even if the answers to all those questions support your view, ya know, 0 million is not that many ! i ca not imagine fewer than 0 million poor people being tremendously benefited by rapid industrialization.  just look at the enormous progress benefiting china and india already.   #  temperature being the integral of temperature change is neither here nor there.   #  lol, we are really geeking out now.  you are argument is about  temperature  being the  current value  as opposed to the rate at which the value changes.  then you are concluding that my statement:  the relationship between atmospheric co0 concentration and temperature change is logarithmic is incorrect.  but my statement is about  temperature change  not  temperature.   temperature change is what we have been talking about all along.  temperature being the integral of temperature change is neither here nor there.  btw, i did not pull this stuff off of rightwingkook. com or something.  this is generally acknowledged by the science community, and it is built into all the ipcc is models.
global warming is real.   treats global warming as a thing that either exists or does not exist.  this is how 0 year olds think about the boogie man.  if he is real, we are in trouble.  remember south park is manbearpig ? a more appropriate way of putting  global warming is real  is  the globe is warming.   after all, when we observe that fewer people have jobs than before, we do not say  unemployment rise is real,  we say  unemployment is rising.   i suspect the reason climate activists prefer  global warming is real.   to  the globe is warming.   is because the former makes people scream  aaahhh  while the latter makes people wonder  how much ? how quickly ?   and the answer 0f over the past 0 years does not sound like a crisis.   . and we are causing it.   implicit in this claim is the idea that a rise in global temperature must have some discernable cause.  when climate activists say things like this, they talk as if it is natural for global termperature to remain constant.  the mere fact that the globe is warming is presented as a sign that something has gone wrong with the planet e. g.  the earth  has a fever,  as some like to put it.  , and we can determine what caused to problem like a doctor identifies diseases based on syptoms.  but the fact, as i understand it, is that there is no compelling reason to think that 0f of warming over 0 years is anything other than the climate just doing its thing.  if anyone wants to play hockey URL in a comment thread, i am down.  global temperature change is not an abnormality that demands an explanation.  rather, it is just a result of chaos in the climate system.  the only defensible meaning of  we are causing it  is  we are causing the globe to be warmer than it otherwise would have been had we not burned so much fuel and cut down so many trees.   again, the more accurate way of putting things is  explicitly quantitative,  which leads people to follow up and ask  by how much ?   scientific organizations like the ipcc have basically said that humans have caused  most  of the warming since 0, meaning we have caused somewhere between 0 and 0 f of warming over about 0 years.  i suspect that climate activists want to conceal this from the public in order to give it a much more troubling sense of what the  consensus  is.  so, i think the statements like  global warming is real and we are causing it.   are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.  feel free to challenge me from either a linguistic, political, or scientific angle.   p. s.   i understand that there are plenty of more substantive scientific claims being made by climate activists like james hansen, about how maybe some of the heat trapped by human emitted co0 is now being sunk into the deep oceans and so on, but what i am really taking issue with here is the exaggerated and grossly oversimplified rhetoric presented to the general public during political discussions like those you will see on news channels.   #  and the answer 0f over the past 0 years does not sound like a crisis.   #  you realise this is an astounding amount of energy, right ?  # you realise this is an astounding amount of energy, right ? no, what is said is that the temp is rising at an unnaturally faster rate.  yes there are fluctuations in the past but they have been much slower.  you realise it is not just  activists  but actual scientists, right ? are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.  nevermind advocates.  look at the people who do the actual science.   #  see page five of this recent ipcc report URL for reference.   #  your first paragraph comports with my understanding of the mainstream projections, but we need to remember the difference between projections, which and based on models, and the actual observations we have recorded of past temperature change.  i think climate activists are obscuring the fact that there is nothing terribly scary about the observations.  even the scientific american article you quoted, which is obviously trying to make global warming sound as scary as possible, could not identify any scary observations of present of past climate patterns.  earlier springs and the spreading in plant life into formerly inhospitably cold areas sound quite lovely, and arctic sea ice really is not that important.  i am not saying we should totally dismiss these predictions.  they may be right.  but it is important for people to understand that scary, destructive climate change is  not upon  us.  most of the predicted harmful effects, like worsening droughts and storms, are only expected to manifest in the late 0st century.  see page five of this recent ipcc report URL for reference.   #  warming the poles causes a reduction in the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which, in theory, should weaken hurricanes, for instance.   #  us  is the world as a whole.  of course you can find parts of the world where climate is changing for the worse, but that is always the case  somewhere.  yes, but i have never seen despite reading a good amount on climate change anyone suggest that the albedo reduction caused by melting sea ice will warm the planet by much.  it might warm the arctic a bit, which you seem to think would be catastrophic, but i just do not see evidence of that.  warming the poles causes a reduction in the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which, in theory, should weaken hurricanes, for instance.  the main positive feedback being looked at is the evaporation of seawater, which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere.  but climate activists do not like to emphasize that in public because it requires revealing that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which makes  greenhouse gas  sound less scary.  the planet is not that fragile.  humanity is getting more and more resilient to the weather.  we do not need to sacrifice millions of poor people is lives by depriving them of the fuel they need for survival in order to avoid some ice at the north pole melting.   #  but let is talk about this paper you brought up URL it seems like fig.   # you write  against their interests because of climate change  it is against all of our interests to increase how much carbon dioxide we are emitting.  it still sounds to me like you are opposed to or, at least, not much in favor of bringing energy infrastructure to people who desperately need it.  you are speaking as if that would be against those people is interests because of climate change, which is just crazy to me.  but let is talk about this paper you brought up URL it seems like fig.  0 sums up the main point: climate change could lead to about 0 million  additional people at risk of hunger  by the 0, almost of whom in africa.  does that account for the huge amounts of wealth and innovation created as the world keeps industrializing ? specifically, does it account for the fact that, even if crop yields go down, far less of the crops would go to waste as the infrastructure to transport and preserve to food refrigerators, anyone ? increases ? does it account for the large relief from hunger that would come to china and southeast asia according to fig.  0, or is it merely counting the number of people who will be put at risk in countries where food production drops ? and even if the answers to all those questions support your view, ya know, 0 million is not that many ! i ca not imagine fewer than 0 million poor people being tremendously benefited by rapid industrialization.  just look at the enormous progress benefiting china and india already.   #  temperature being the integral of temperature change is neither here nor there.   #  lol, we are really geeking out now.  you are argument is about  temperature  being the  current value  as opposed to the rate at which the value changes.  then you are concluding that my statement:  the relationship between atmospheric co0 concentration and temperature change is logarithmic is incorrect.  but my statement is about  temperature change  not  temperature.   temperature change is what we have been talking about all along.  temperature being the integral of temperature change is neither here nor there.  btw, i did not pull this stuff off of rightwingkook. com or something.  this is generally acknowledged by the science community, and it is built into all the ipcc is models.
global warming is real.   treats global warming as a thing that either exists or does not exist.  this is how 0 year olds think about the boogie man.  if he is real, we are in trouble.  remember south park is manbearpig ? a more appropriate way of putting  global warming is real  is  the globe is warming.   after all, when we observe that fewer people have jobs than before, we do not say  unemployment rise is real,  we say  unemployment is rising.   i suspect the reason climate activists prefer  global warming is real.   to  the globe is warming.   is because the former makes people scream  aaahhh  while the latter makes people wonder  how much ? how quickly ?   and the answer 0f over the past 0 years does not sound like a crisis.   . and we are causing it.   implicit in this claim is the idea that a rise in global temperature must have some discernable cause.  when climate activists say things like this, they talk as if it is natural for global termperature to remain constant.  the mere fact that the globe is warming is presented as a sign that something has gone wrong with the planet e. g.  the earth  has a fever,  as some like to put it.  , and we can determine what caused to problem like a doctor identifies diseases based on syptoms.  but the fact, as i understand it, is that there is no compelling reason to think that 0f of warming over 0 years is anything other than the climate just doing its thing.  if anyone wants to play hockey URL in a comment thread, i am down.  global temperature change is not an abnormality that demands an explanation.  rather, it is just a result of chaos in the climate system.  the only defensible meaning of  we are causing it  is  we are causing the globe to be warmer than it otherwise would have been had we not burned so much fuel and cut down so many trees.   again, the more accurate way of putting things is  explicitly quantitative,  which leads people to follow up and ask  by how much ?   scientific organizations like the ipcc have basically said that humans have caused  most  of the warming since 0, meaning we have caused somewhere between 0 and 0 f of warming over about 0 years.  i suspect that climate activists want to conceal this from the public in order to give it a much more troubling sense of what the  consensus  is.  so, i think the statements like  global warming is real and we are causing it.   are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.  feel free to challenge me from either a linguistic, political, or scientific angle.   p. s.   i understand that there are plenty of more substantive scientific claims being made by climate activists like james hansen, about how maybe some of the heat trapped by human emitted co0 is now being sunk into the deep oceans and so on, but what i am really taking issue with here is the exaggerated and grossly oversimplified rhetoric presented to the general public during political discussions like those you will see on news channels.   #  when climate activists say things like this, they talk as if it is natural for global termperature to remain constant.   #  no, what is said is that the temp is rising at an unnaturally faster rate.   # you realise this is an astounding amount of energy, right ? no, what is said is that the temp is rising at an unnaturally faster rate.  yes there are fluctuations in the past but they have been much slower.  you realise it is not just  activists  but actual scientists, right ? are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.  nevermind advocates.  look at the people who do the actual science.   #  but it is important for people to understand that scary, destructive climate change is  not upon  us.   #  your first paragraph comports with my understanding of the mainstream projections, but we need to remember the difference between projections, which and based on models, and the actual observations we have recorded of past temperature change.  i think climate activists are obscuring the fact that there is nothing terribly scary about the observations.  even the scientific american article you quoted, which is obviously trying to make global warming sound as scary as possible, could not identify any scary observations of present of past climate patterns.  earlier springs and the spreading in plant life into formerly inhospitably cold areas sound quite lovely, and arctic sea ice really is not that important.  i am not saying we should totally dismiss these predictions.  they may be right.  but it is important for people to understand that scary, destructive climate change is  not upon  us.  most of the predicted harmful effects, like worsening droughts and storms, are only expected to manifest in the late 0st century.  see page five of this recent ipcc report URL for reference.   #  the main positive feedback being looked at is the evaporation of seawater, which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere.   #  us  is the world as a whole.  of course you can find parts of the world where climate is changing for the worse, but that is always the case  somewhere.  yes, but i have never seen despite reading a good amount on climate change anyone suggest that the albedo reduction caused by melting sea ice will warm the planet by much.  it might warm the arctic a bit, which you seem to think would be catastrophic, but i just do not see evidence of that.  warming the poles causes a reduction in the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which, in theory, should weaken hurricanes, for instance.  the main positive feedback being looked at is the evaporation of seawater, which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere.  but climate activists do not like to emphasize that in public because it requires revealing that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which makes  greenhouse gas  sound less scary.  the planet is not that fragile.  humanity is getting more and more resilient to the weather.  we do not need to sacrifice millions of poor people is lives by depriving them of the fuel they need for survival in order to avoid some ice at the north pole melting.   #  it still sounds to me like you are opposed to or, at least, not much in favor of bringing energy infrastructure to people who desperately need it.   # you write  against their interests because of climate change  it is against all of our interests to increase how much carbon dioxide we are emitting.  it still sounds to me like you are opposed to or, at least, not much in favor of bringing energy infrastructure to people who desperately need it.  you are speaking as if that would be against those people is interests because of climate change, which is just crazy to me.  but let is talk about this paper you brought up URL it seems like fig.  0 sums up the main point: climate change could lead to about 0 million  additional people at risk of hunger  by the 0, almost of whom in africa.  does that account for the huge amounts of wealth and innovation created as the world keeps industrializing ? specifically, does it account for the fact that, even if crop yields go down, far less of the crops would go to waste as the infrastructure to transport and preserve to food refrigerators, anyone ? increases ? does it account for the large relief from hunger that would come to china and southeast asia according to fig.  0, or is it merely counting the number of people who will be put at risk in countries where food production drops ? and even if the answers to all those questions support your view, ya know, 0 million is not that many ! i ca not imagine fewer than 0 million poor people being tremendously benefited by rapid industrialization.  just look at the enormous progress benefiting china and india already.   #  but my statement is about  temperature change  not  temperature.    #  lol, we are really geeking out now.  you are argument is about  temperature  being the  current value  as opposed to the rate at which the value changes.  then you are concluding that my statement:  the relationship between atmospheric co0 concentration and temperature change is logarithmic is incorrect.  but my statement is about  temperature change  not  temperature.   temperature change is what we have been talking about all along.  temperature being the integral of temperature change is neither here nor there.  btw, i did not pull this stuff off of rightwingkook. com or something.  this is generally acknowledged by the science community, and it is built into all the ipcc is models.
global warming is real.   treats global warming as a thing that either exists or does not exist.  this is how 0 year olds think about the boogie man.  if he is real, we are in trouble.  remember south park is manbearpig ? a more appropriate way of putting  global warming is real  is  the globe is warming.   after all, when we observe that fewer people have jobs than before, we do not say  unemployment rise is real,  we say  unemployment is rising.   i suspect the reason climate activists prefer  global warming is real.   to  the globe is warming.   is because the former makes people scream  aaahhh  while the latter makes people wonder  how much ? how quickly ?   and the answer 0f over the past 0 years does not sound like a crisis.   . and we are causing it.   implicit in this claim is the idea that a rise in global temperature must have some discernable cause.  when climate activists say things like this, they talk as if it is natural for global termperature to remain constant.  the mere fact that the globe is warming is presented as a sign that something has gone wrong with the planet e. g.  the earth  has a fever,  as some like to put it.  , and we can determine what caused to problem like a doctor identifies diseases based on syptoms.  but the fact, as i understand it, is that there is no compelling reason to think that 0f of warming over 0 years is anything other than the climate just doing its thing.  if anyone wants to play hockey URL in a comment thread, i am down.  global temperature change is not an abnormality that demands an explanation.  rather, it is just a result of chaos in the climate system.  the only defensible meaning of  we are causing it  is  we are causing the globe to be warmer than it otherwise would have been had we not burned so much fuel and cut down so many trees.   again, the more accurate way of putting things is  explicitly quantitative,  which leads people to follow up and ask  by how much ?   scientific organizations like the ipcc have basically said that humans have caused  most  of the warming since 0, meaning we have caused somewhere between 0 and 0 f of warming over about 0 years.  i suspect that climate activists want to conceal this from the public in order to give it a much more troubling sense of what the  consensus  is.  so, i think the statements like  global warming is real and we are causing it.   are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.  feel free to challenge me from either a linguistic, political, or scientific angle.   p. s.   i understand that there are plenty of more substantive scientific claims being made by climate activists like james hansen, about how maybe some of the heat trapped by human emitted co0 is now being sunk into the deep oceans and so on, but what i am really taking issue with here is the exaggerated and grossly oversimplified rhetoric presented to the general public during political discussions like those you will see on news channels.   #  i suspect that climate activists want to conceal this from the public in order to give it a much more troubling sense of what the  consensus  is.   #  you realise it is not just  activists  but actual scientists, right ?  # you realise this is an astounding amount of energy, right ? no, what is said is that the temp is rising at an unnaturally faster rate.  yes there are fluctuations in the past but they have been much slower.  you realise it is not just  activists  but actual scientists, right ? are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.  nevermind advocates.  look at the people who do the actual science.   #  but it is important for people to understand that scary, destructive climate change is  not upon  us.   #  your first paragraph comports with my understanding of the mainstream projections, but we need to remember the difference between projections, which and based on models, and the actual observations we have recorded of past temperature change.  i think climate activists are obscuring the fact that there is nothing terribly scary about the observations.  even the scientific american article you quoted, which is obviously trying to make global warming sound as scary as possible, could not identify any scary observations of present of past climate patterns.  earlier springs and the spreading in plant life into formerly inhospitably cold areas sound quite lovely, and arctic sea ice really is not that important.  i am not saying we should totally dismiss these predictions.  they may be right.  but it is important for people to understand that scary, destructive climate change is  not upon  us.  most of the predicted harmful effects, like worsening droughts and storms, are only expected to manifest in the late 0st century.  see page five of this recent ipcc report URL for reference.   #  the main positive feedback being looked at is the evaporation of seawater, which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere.   #  us  is the world as a whole.  of course you can find parts of the world where climate is changing for the worse, but that is always the case  somewhere.  yes, but i have never seen despite reading a good amount on climate change anyone suggest that the albedo reduction caused by melting sea ice will warm the planet by much.  it might warm the arctic a bit, which you seem to think would be catastrophic, but i just do not see evidence of that.  warming the poles causes a reduction in the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which, in theory, should weaken hurricanes, for instance.  the main positive feedback being looked at is the evaporation of seawater, which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere.  but climate activists do not like to emphasize that in public because it requires revealing that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which makes  greenhouse gas  sound less scary.  the planet is not that fragile.  humanity is getting more and more resilient to the weather.  we do not need to sacrifice millions of poor people is lives by depriving them of the fuel they need for survival in order to avoid some ice at the north pole melting.   #  0 sums up the main point: climate change could lead to about 0 million  additional people at risk of hunger  by the 0, almost of whom in africa.   # you write  against their interests because of climate change  it is against all of our interests to increase how much carbon dioxide we are emitting.  it still sounds to me like you are opposed to or, at least, not much in favor of bringing energy infrastructure to people who desperately need it.  you are speaking as if that would be against those people is interests because of climate change, which is just crazy to me.  but let is talk about this paper you brought up URL it seems like fig.  0 sums up the main point: climate change could lead to about 0 million  additional people at risk of hunger  by the 0, almost of whom in africa.  does that account for the huge amounts of wealth and innovation created as the world keeps industrializing ? specifically, does it account for the fact that, even if crop yields go down, far less of the crops would go to waste as the infrastructure to transport and preserve to food refrigerators, anyone ? increases ? does it account for the large relief from hunger that would come to china and southeast asia according to fig.  0, or is it merely counting the number of people who will be put at risk in countries where food production drops ? and even if the answers to all those questions support your view, ya know, 0 million is not that many ! i ca not imagine fewer than 0 million poor people being tremendously benefited by rapid industrialization.  just look at the enormous progress benefiting china and india already.   #  this is generally acknowledged by the science community, and it is built into all the ipcc is models.   #  lol, we are really geeking out now.  you are argument is about  temperature  being the  current value  as opposed to the rate at which the value changes.  then you are concluding that my statement:  the relationship between atmospheric co0 concentration and temperature change is logarithmic is incorrect.  but my statement is about  temperature change  not  temperature.   temperature change is what we have been talking about all along.  temperature being the integral of temperature change is neither here nor there.  btw, i did not pull this stuff off of rightwingkook. com or something.  this is generally acknowledged by the science community, and it is built into all the ipcc is models.
global warming is real.   treats global warming as a thing that either exists or does not exist.  this is how 0 year olds think about the boogie man.  if he is real, we are in trouble.  remember south park is manbearpig ? a more appropriate way of putting  global warming is real  is  the globe is warming.   after all, when we observe that fewer people have jobs than before, we do not say  unemployment rise is real,  we say  unemployment is rising.   i suspect the reason climate activists prefer  global warming is real.   to  the globe is warming.   is because the former makes people scream  aaahhh  while the latter makes people wonder  how much ? how quickly ?   and the answer 0f over the past 0 years does not sound like a crisis.   . and we are causing it.   implicit in this claim is the idea that a rise in global temperature must have some discernable cause.  when climate activists say things like this, they talk as if it is natural for global termperature to remain constant.  the mere fact that the globe is warming is presented as a sign that something has gone wrong with the planet e. g.  the earth  has a fever,  as some like to put it.  , and we can determine what caused to problem like a doctor identifies diseases based on syptoms.  but the fact, as i understand it, is that there is no compelling reason to think that 0f of warming over 0 years is anything other than the climate just doing its thing.  if anyone wants to play hockey URL in a comment thread, i am down.  global temperature change is not an abnormality that demands an explanation.  rather, it is just a result of chaos in the climate system.  the only defensible meaning of  we are causing it  is  we are causing the globe to be warmer than it otherwise would have been had we not burned so much fuel and cut down so many trees.   again, the more accurate way of putting things is  explicitly quantitative,  which leads people to follow up and ask  by how much ?   scientific organizations like the ipcc have basically said that humans have caused  most  of the warming since 0, meaning we have caused somewhere between 0 and 0 f of warming over about 0 years.  i suspect that climate activists want to conceal this from the public in order to give it a much more troubling sense of what the  consensus  is.  so, i think the statements like  global warming is real and we are causing it.   are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.  feel free to challenge me from either a linguistic, political, or scientific angle.   p. s.   i understand that there are plenty of more substantive scientific claims being made by climate activists like james hansen, about how maybe some of the heat trapped by human emitted co0 is now being sunk into the deep oceans and so on, but what i am really taking issue with here is the exaggerated and grossly oversimplified rhetoric presented to the general public during political discussions like those you will see on news channels.   #  so, i think the statements like  global warming is real and we are causing it.    #  are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.   # you realise this is an astounding amount of energy, right ? no, what is said is that the temp is rising at an unnaturally faster rate.  yes there are fluctuations in the past but they have been much slower.  you realise it is not just  activists  but actual scientists, right ? are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.  nevermind advocates.  look at the people who do the actual science.   #  see page five of this recent ipcc report URL for reference.   #  your first paragraph comports with my understanding of the mainstream projections, but we need to remember the difference between projections, which and based on models, and the actual observations we have recorded of past temperature change.  i think climate activists are obscuring the fact that there is nothing terribly scary about the observations.  even the scientific american article you quoted, which is obviously trying to make global warming sound as scary as possible, could not identify any scary observations of present of past climate patterns.  earlier springs and the spreading in plant life into formerly inhospitably cold areas sound quite lovely, and arctic sea ice really is not that important.  i am not saying we should totally dismiss these predictions.  they may be right.  but it is important for people to understand that scary, destructive climate change is  not upon  us.  most of the predicted harmful effects, like worsening droughts and storms, are only expected to manifest in the late 0st century.  see page five of this recent ipcc report URL for reference.   #  the main positive feedback being looked at is the evaporation of seawater, which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere.   #  us  is the world as a whole.  of course you can find parts of the world where climate is changing for the worse, but that is always the case  somewhere.  yes, but i have never seen despite reading a good amount on climate change anyone suggest that the albedo reduction caused by melting sea ice will warm the planet by much.  it might warm the arctic a bit, which you seem to think would be catastrophic, but i just do not see evidence of that.  warming the poles causes a reduction in the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which, in theory, should weaken hurricanes, for instance.  the main positive feedback being looked at is the evaporation of seawater, which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere.  but climate activists do not like to emphasize that in public because it requires revealing that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which makes  greenhouse gas  sound less scary.  the planet is not that fragile.  humanity is getting more and more resilient to the weather.  we do not need to sacrifice millions of poor people is lives by depriving them of the fuel they need for survival in order to avoid some ice at the north pole melting.   #  does that account for the huge amounts of wealth and innovation created as the world keeps industrializing ?  # you write  against their interests because of climate change  it is against all of our interests to increase how much carbon dioxide we are emitting.  it still sounds to me like you are opposed to or, at least, not much in favor of bringing energy infrastructure to people who desperately need it.  you are speaking as if that would be against those people is interests because of climate change, which is just crazy to me.  but let is talk about this paper you brought up URL it seems like fig.  0 sums up the main point: climate change could lead to about 0 million  additional people at risk of hunger  by the 0, almost of whom in africa.  does that account for the huge amounts of wealth and innovation created as the world keeps industrializing ? specifically, does it account for the fact that, even if crop yields go down, far less of the crops would go to waste as the infrastructure to transport and preserve to food refrigerators, anyone ? increases ? does it account for the large relief from hunger that would come to china and southeast asia according to fig.  0, or is it merely counting the number of people who will be put at risk in countries where food production drops ? and even if the answers to all those questions support your view, ya know, 0 million is not that many ! i ca not imagine fewer than 0 million poor people being tremendously benefited by rapid industrialization.  just look at the enormous progress benefiting china and india already.   #  temperature change is what we have been talking about all along.   #  lol, we are really geeking out now.  you are argument is about  temperature  being the  current value  as opposed to the rate at which the value changes.  then you are concluding that my statement:  the relationship between atmospheric co0 concentration and temperature change is logarithmic is incorrect.  but my statement is about  temperature change  not  temperature.   temperature change is what we have been talking about all along.  temperature being the integral of temperature change is neither here nor there.  btw, i did not pull this stuff off of rightwingkook. com or something.  this is generally acknowledged by the science community, and it is built into all the ipcc is models.
global warming is real.   treats global warming as a thing that either exists or does not exist.  this is how 0 year olds think about the boogie man.  if he is real, we are in trouble.  remember south park is manbearpig ? a more appropriate way of putting  global warming is real  is  the globe is warming.   after all, when we observe that fewer people have jobs than before, we do not say  unemployment rise is real,  we say  unemployment is rising.   i suspect the reason climate activists prefer  global warming is real.   to  the globe is warming.   is because the former makes people scream  aaahhh  while the latter makes people wonder  how much ? how quickly ?   and the answer 0f over the past 0 years does not sound like a crisis.   . and we are causing it.   implicit in this claim is the idea that a rise in global temperature must have some discernable cause.  when climate activists say things like this, they talk as if it is natural for global termperature to remain constant.  the mere fact that the globe is warming is presented as a sign that something has gone wrong with the planet e. g.  the earth  has a fever,  as some like to put it.  , and we can determine what caused to problem like a doctor identifies diseases based on syptoms.  but the fact, as i understand it, is that there is no compelling reason to think that 0f of warming over 0 years is anything other than the climate just doing its thing.  if anyone wants to play hockey URL in a comment thread, i am down.  global temperature change is not an abnormality that demands an explanation.  rather, it is just a result of chaos in the climate system.  the only defensible meaning of  we are causing it  is  we are causing the globe to be warmer than it otherwise would have been had we not burned so much fuel and cut down so many trees.   again, the more accurate way of putting things is  explicitly quantitative,  which leads people to follow up and ask  by how much ?   scientific organizations like the ipcc have basically said that humans have caused  most  of the warming since 0, meaning we have caused somewhere between 0 and 0 f of warming over about 0 years.  i suspect that climate activists want to conceal this from the public in order to give it a much more troubling sense of what the  consensus  is.  so, i think the statements like  global warming is real and we are causing it.   are intended to frame the issue in a non quantitative way, since the numbers are not on climate activists  side.  feel free to challenge me from either a linguistic, political, or scientific angle.   p. s.   i understand that there are plenty of more substantive scientific claims being made by climate activists like james hansen, about how maybe some of the heat trapped by human emitted co0 is now being sunk into the deep oceans and so on, but what i am really taking issue with here is the exaggerated and grossly oversimplified rhetoric presented to the general public during political discussions like those you will see on news channels.   #  and the answer 0f over the past 0 years does not sound like a crisis.   #  i do not know whether your numbers are right, but the past is not what people are worried about, anyway.   # i do not know whether your numbers are right, but the past is not what people are worried about, anyway.  what they are worried about is that the level of greenhouse gases has risen tremendously, and everything we know about how the earth is climate system works tells us that this is going to cause significant warming going forward.  i believe that this URL is a nice illustration of what that might mean.  as for the phrasing of  global warming is real , i do not think it is vacuous, and i think scientists and proponents of reason are actually doing themselves a disservice by using it.  here is why: every time somebody says  global warming is real , they are implicitly acknowledging the challenges to an established truth.  in that sense, it would indeed be better to say things like  the earth is going to get warmer by 0°c on average over the next 0 years, so what are we going to do about that ?    #  your first paragraph comports with my understanding of the mainstream projections, but we need to remember the difference between projections, which and based on models, and the actual observations we have recorded of past temperature change.   #  your first paragraph comports with my understanding of the mainstream projections, but we need to remember the difference between projections, which and based on models, and the actual observations we have recorded of past temperature change.  i think climate activists are obscuring the fact that there is nothing terribly scary about the observations.  even the scientific american article you quoted, which is obviously trying to make global warming sound as scary as possible, could not identify any scary observations of present of past climate patterns.  earlier springs and the spreading in plant life into formerly inhospitably cold areas sound quite lovely, and arctic sea ice really is not that important.  i am not saying we should totally dismiss these predictions.  they may be right.  but it is important for people to understand that scary, destructive climate change is  not upon  us.  most of the predicted harmful effects, like worsening droughts and storms, are only expected to manifest in the late 0st century.  see page five of this recent ipcc report URL for reference.   #  we do not need to sacrifice millions of poor people is lives by depriving them of the fuel they need for survival in order to avoid some ice at the north pole melting.   #  us  is the world as a whole.  of course you can find parts of the world where climate is changing for the worse, but that is always the case  somewhere.  yes, but i have never seen despite reading a good amount on climate change anyone suggest that the albedo reduction caused by melting sea ice will warm the planet by much.  it might warm the arctic a bit, which you seem to think would be catastrophic, but i just do not see evidence of that.  warming the poles causes a reduction in the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which, in theory, should weaken hurricanes, for instance.  the main positive feedback being looked at is the evaporation of seawater, which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere.  but climate activists do not like to emphasize that in public because it requires revealing that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which makes  greenhouse gas  sound less scary.  the planet is not that fragile.  humanity is getting more and more resilient to the weather.  we do not need to sacrifice millions of poor people is lives by depriving them of the fuel they need for survival in order to avoid some ice at the north pole melting.   #  but let is talk about this paper you brought up URL it seems like fig.   # you write  against their interests because of climate change  it is against all of our interests to increase how much carbon dioxide we are emitting.  it still sounds to me like you are opposed to or, at least, not much in favor of bringing energy infrastructure to people who desperately need it.  you are speaking as if that would be against those people is interests because of climate change, which is just crazy to me.  but let is talk about this paper you brought up URL it seems like fig.  0 sums up the main point: climate change could lead to about 0 million  additional people at risk of hunger  by the 0, almost of whom in africa.  does that account for the huge amounts of wealth and innovation created as the world keeps industrializing ? specifically, does it account for the fact that, even if crop yields go down, far less of the crops would go to waste as the infrastructure to transport and preserve to food refrigerators, anyone ? increases ? does it account for the large relief from hunger that would come to china and southeast asia according to fig.  0, or is it merely counting the number of people who will be put at risk in countries where food production drops ? and even if the answers to all those questions support your view, ya know, 0 million is not that many ! i ca not imagine fewer than 0 million poor people being tremendously benefited by rapid industrialization.  just look at the enormous progress benefiting china and india already.   #  temperature change is what we have been talking about all along.   #  lol, we are really geeking out now.  you are argument is about  temperature  being the  current value  as opposed to the rate at which the value changes.  then you are concluding that my statement:  the relationship between atmospheric co0 concentration and temperature change is logarithmic is incorrect.  but my statement is about  temperature change  not  temperature.   temperature change is what we have been talking about all along.  temperature being the integral of temperature change is neither here nor there.  btw, i did not pull this stuff off of rightwingkook. com or something.  this is generally acknowledged by the science community, and it is built into all the ipcc is models.
i personally do not care about spoilers, but find those that do among the most annoying.  some family in that category i want to understand their viewpoint, maybe even gain some compassion.  reasons below: 0.  at what time do spoilers expire ? ever ? never ? when they enter public knowledge ? the school system ? does the ending to a christmas carol or moby dick count as spoilers at this point in time ? if you do not finish your reading assignment, but have questions about the ending, did it spoil it for you ? 0.  if you do not care about the show, why get all uppity if you now know the ending ? example: friend quit watching a show after a few episodes, called it boring.  several seasons later, discussing various shows, i say he should get back into it.  he claims boring.  i say it gets better, there is adventure x with so and so, and adventure y to look forward to.  enter madness about learning ending.  they were not going to watch it anyway, yet get stuffy about learning it ? 0.  if you have even a basic understanding of literature, it is nothing but repeats anyway.  betrayal, murder, twist x.  they are all the same reusable literary elements that have been in use for hundreds of years.  so what if it happens with person y and z instead of x and u ? it is still enjoyable, even if you recognize what is going on.  the change of settings/characters is its own fun.  you watched the lion king just fine, even though it is a copy of shakespeare or that low quality chinese version .  0a ? is it due to how we all view the world ? having a stem degree, an analytical mind, and knowledge of general literary tools, it is pretty easy to predict what is coming on a show.  to the point, i can watch live television with my wife, and  guess  how it will end with accuracy.  even more so once you see the tone and feel the show is going for.  she even is starting to get pretty good at it.  0.  is it a personal bubble that everyone needs to be aware of ? not everyone has seen everything.  how much of that is personal responsibility ? if you are a spoiler fanatic, but visit the forums or other image/meme sites, why should you be protected because you did not want/could not view/read the content fast enough ? if it is popular enough, it will spread like wildfire on the internet.  do you get mad at the world for not protecting your personal spoiler bubble ? or mad at yourself for going places where spoilers are known and common.  0.  if the realization of spoilers ruins an item for you, was it a good item to begin with ? if the item only has impact because you do not know what is going to happen, what happens once the item is known ? do you forever not care about the event ? i am sure there are more, but my fingers are tired, brain seeking attention elsewhere.  is it a complete suspension of logic that enables people to only view shows with the spoiler free mindset ? how can they not recognize basic elements, patterns, and even directing styles that scream what is going to happen anyway ?  #  if you do not care about the show, why get all uppity if you now know the ending ?  #  example: friend quit watching a show after a few episodes, called it boring.   # example: friend quit watching a show after a few episodes, called it boring.  several seasons later, discussing various shows, i say he should get back into it.  he claims boring.  i say it gets better, there is adventure x with so and so, and adventure y to look forward to.  enter madness about learning ending.  they were not going to watch it anyway, yet get stuffy about learning it ? i guess in this specific situation you are in the right, but this really only accounts for people who have already said they were not going to watch the show/read the book.  nothing but repeats ? i understand the concept that you are getting at, but it is not like literally all of television, cinema, and literature, is the same hand full of stories being retold.  people put there own twist on stories, and there are plenty of shows that are completely original.  not to mention some people might just not be as good as recognizing these things as you, and you should respect that.  i do not think that many people would flat out not watch a show or read a book because they knew the ending, but that does not mean they would not enjoy it more if it were a surprise.  and some shows like lost or true detective pretty much rely mystery and suspense to tell the story.  the story itself is about finding answers and solving puzzles, in true detective is case, the conflict revolves around the characters not knowing who the killer is, so spoiling the ending does not just ruin the end, it ruins the whole show.  every scene where they are interpreting clues or questioning people would lose it is suspense.   #  you should apologize and that should be the end of it.   #  surprises in storytelling have value.  readers enjoy surprises.  storytellers use surprises to increase the impact of their stories.  if someone  spoils  a story for you, they have robbed you of a valuable experience.  if you disagree with this assumption that surprises in storytelling have value then you wo not see the point of spoilers.  the burden is on you to protect yourself from spoilers if you do not want to know the ending of a very popular television show, avoid social media, the internet, and other news sources until you have had a chance to watch the ending yourself.  you ca not expect the world to protect you from spoilers.  with that said, friends and family members tend to work out their own unspoken agreements about spoilers especially if one person puts his friends and family on notice about a particular story.  your friends and family should respect your desire about spoilers, because they should care about your wishes.  if they do not, they are dicks.  intentionally spoiling a story for someone is not the end of the world, not by any means, but it is a dickish thing to do.  if you accidentally spoil a story for someone, after you were told to avoid spoilers, that is not dickish, just unfortunate like smacking someone in the shin with your grocery cart.  you should apologize and that should be the end of it.   #  a good story will have you looking forward to it, and poor ones try to slap you in the face with it randomly.   # readers enjoy surprises.  storytellers use surprises to increase the impact of their stories.  if someone  spoils  a story for you, they have robbed you of a valuable experience.  if you disagree with this assumption that surprises in storytelling have value then you wo not see the point of spoilers.  surprises have very limited value.  mostly as a method to advance the story to the next segment.  i definitely see their value as a character of the media, but as an outside viewer/reader, i am not able to engross myself so much in a book/show that i am shocked when they arrive.  i think they work only for the younger viewer/reader.  i am much more enthused by the method used to arrive at the surprise.  a good story will have you looking forward to it, and poor ones try to slap you in the face with it randomly.   #  like i said above, the person who wants to avoid spoilers must take responsibility for avoiding situations that could lead to a spoiler.   # this is your opinion.  others may disagree.  other people may get a lot more out of a surprise than you.  if you spoil the surprise for them, you are depriving them of a benefit that they enjoy from the story and for what ? you do not get anything positive by spoiling the surprise well, maybe you do if you enjoy that sort of thing .  it does not take a lot of effort not to spoil something for a friend do not talk about the story in front of them.  like i said above, the person who wants to avoid spoilers must take responsibility for avoiding situations that could lead to a spoiler.  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.   #  i can see your point to a degree, and a better understanding is what i am going for, so   0; for you.   # like i said before, the person who wants to avoid spoilers must take responsibility for avoiding situations that could lead to a spoiler.  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.  i can see your point to a degree, and a better understanding is what i am going for, so   0; for you.  the family and friends in question however, take spoiler free attitude to an annoying level.  such as not viewing a show/not wanting to read a book, because it does not interest them getting mad that i have ruined it , by letting them know about the interesting parts.  if they never had any intention of watching/reading, what have i spoiled ? while we get along in many areas, this one we will probably forever disagree.
i personally do not care about spoilers, but find those that do among the most annoying.  some family in that category i want to understand their viewpoint, maybe even gain some compassion.  reasons below: 0.  at what time do spoilers expire ? ever ? never ? when they enter public knowledge ? the school system ? does the ending to a christmas carol or moby dick count as spoilers at this point in time ? if you do not finish your reading assignment, but have questions about the ending, did it spoil it for you ? 0.  if you do not care about the show, why get all uppity if you now know the ending ? example: friend quit watching a show after a few episodes, called it boring.  several seasons later, discussing various shows, i say he should get back into it.  he claims boring.  i say it gets better, there is adventure x with so and so, and adventure y to look forward to.  enter madness about learning ending.  they were not going to watch it anyway, yet get stuffy about learning it ? 0.  if you have even a basic understanding of literature, it is nothing but repeats anyway.  betrayal, murder, twist x.  they are all the same reusable literary elements that have been in use for hundreds of years.  so what if it happens with person y and z instead of x and u ? it is still enjoyable, even if you recognize what is going on.  the change of settings/characters is its own fun.  you watched the lion king just fine, even though it is a copy of shakespeare or that low quality chinese version .  0a ? is it due to how we all view the world ? having a stem degree, an analytical mind, and knowledge of general literary tools, it is pretty easy to predict what is coming on a show.  to the point, i can watch live television with my wife, and  guess  how it will end with accuracy.  even more so once you see the tone and feel the show is going for.  she even is starting to get pretty good at it.  0.  is it a personal bubble that everyone needs to be aware of ? not everyone has seen everything.  how much of that is personal responsibility ? if you are a spoiler fanatic, but visit the forums or other image/meme sites, why should you be protected because you did not want/could not view/read the content fast enough ? if it is popular enough, it will spread like wildfire on the internet.  do you get mad at the world for not protecting your personal spoiler bubble ? or mad at yourself for going places where spoilers are known and common.  0.  if the realization of spoilers ruins an item for you, was it a good item to begin with ? if the item only has impact because you do not know what is going to happen, what happens once the item is known ? do you forever not care about the event ? i am sure there are more, but my fingers are tired, brain seeking attention elsewhere.  is it a complete suspension of logic that enables people to only view shows with the spoiler free mindset ? how can they not recognize basic elements, patterns, and even directing styles that scream what is going to happen anyway ?  #  if the realization of spoilers ruins an item for you, was it a good item to begin with ?  #  i do not think that many people would flat out not watch a show or read a book because they knew the ending, but that does not mean they would not enjoy it more if it were a surprise.   # example: friend quit watching a show after a few episodes, called it boring.  several seasons later, discussing various shows, i say he should get back into it.  he claims boring.  i say it gets better, there is adventure x with so and so, and adventure y to look forward to.  enter madness about learning ending.  they were not going to watch it anyway, yet get stuffy about learning it ? i guess in this specific situation you are in the right, but this really only accounts for people who have already said they were not going to watch the show/read the book.  nothing but repeats ? i understand the concept that you are getting at, but it is not like literally all of television, cinema, and literature, is the same hand full of stories being retold.  people put there own twist on stories, and there are plenty of shows that are completely original.  not to mention some people might just not be as good as recognizing these things as you, and you should respect that.  i do not think that many people would flat out not watch a show or read a book because they knew the ending, but that does not mean they would not enjoy it more if it were a surprise.  and some shows like lost or true detective pretty much rely mystery and suspense to tell the story.  the story itself is about finding answers and solving puzzles, in true detective is case, the conflict revolves around the characters not knowing who the killer is, so spoiling the ending does not just ruin the end, it ruins the whole show.  every scene where they are interpreting clues or questioning people would lose it is suspense.   #  intentionally spoiling a story for someone is not the end of the world, not by any means, but it is a dickish thing to do.   #  surprises in storytelling have value.  readers enjoy surprises.  storytellers use surprises to increase the impact of their stories.  if someone  spoils  a story for you, they have robbed you of a valuable experience.  if you disagree with this assumption that surprises in storytelling have value then you wo not see the point of spoilers.  the burden is on you to protect yourself from spoilers if you do not want to know the ending of a very popular television show, avoid social media, the internet, and other news sources until you have had a chance to watch the ending yourself.  you ca not expect the world to protect you from spoilers.  with that said, friends and family members tend to work out their own unspoken agreements about spoilers especially if one person puts his friends and family on notice about a particular story.  your friends and family should respect your desire about spoilers, because they should care about your wishes.  if they do not, they are dicks.  intentionally spoiling a story for someone is not the end of the world, not by any means, but it is a dickish thing to do.  if you accidentally spoil a story for someone, after you were told to avoid spoilers, that is not dickish, just unfortunate like smacking someone in the shin with your grocery cart.  you should apologize and that should be the end of it.   #  i am much more enthused by the method used to arrive at the surprise.   # readers enjoy surprises.  storytellers use surprises to increase the impact of their stories.  if someone  spoils  a story for you, they have robbed you of a valuable experience.  if you disagree with this assumption that surprises in storytelling have value then you wo not see the point of spoilers.  surprises have very limited value.  mostly as a method to advance the story to the next segment.  i definitely see their value as a character of the media, but as an outside viewer/reader, i am not able to engross myself so much in a book/show that i am shocked when they arrive.  i think they work only for the younger viewer/reader.  i am much more enthused by the method used to arrive at the surprise.  a good story will have you looking forward to it, and poor ones try to slap you in the face with it randomly.   #  it does not take a lot of effort not to spoil something for a friend do not talk about the story in front of them.   # this is your opinion.  others may disagree.  other people may get a lot more out of a surprise than you.  if you spoil the surprise for them, you are depriving them of a benefit that they enjoy from the story and for what ? you do not get anything positive by spoiling the surprise well, maybe you do if you enjoy that sort of thing .  it does not take a lot of effort not to spoil something for a friend do not talk about the story in front of them.  like i said above, the person who wants to avoid spoilers must take responsibility for avoiding situations that could lead to a spoiler.  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.   #  like i said before, the person who wants to avoid spoilers must take responsibility for avoiding situations that could lead to a spoiler.   # like i said before, the person who wants to avoid spoilers must take responsibility for avoiding situations that could lead to a spoiler.  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.  i can see your point to a degree, and a better understanding is what i am going for, so   0; for you.  the family and friends in question however, take spoiler free attitude to an annoying level.  such as not viewing a show/not wanting to read a book, because it does not interest them getting mad that i have ruined it , by letting them know about the interesting parts.  if they never had any intention of watching/reading, what have i spoiled ? while we get along in many areas, this one we will probably forever disagree.
i personally do not care about spoilers, but find those that do among the most annoying.  some family in that category i want to understand their viewpoint, maybe even gain some compassion.  reasons below: 0.  at what time do spoilers expire ? ever ? never ? when they enter public knowledge ? the school system ? does the ending to a christmas carol or moby dick count as spoilers at this point in time ? if you do not finish your reading assignment, but have questions about the ending, did it spoil it for you ? 0.  if you do not care about the show, why get all uppity if you now know the ending ? example: friend quit watching a show after a few episodes, called it boring.  several seasons later, discussing various shows, i say he should get back into it.  he claims boring.  i say it gets better, there is adventure x with so and so, and adventure y to look forward to.  enter madness about learning ending.  they were not going to watch it anyway, yet get stuffy about learning it ? 0.  if you have even a basic understanding of literature, it is nothing but repeats anyway.  betrayal, murder, twist x.  they are all the same reusable literary elements that have been in use for hundreds of years.  so what if it happens with person y and z instead of x and u ? it is still enjoyable, even if you recognize what is going on.  the change of settings/characters is its own fun.  you watched the lion king just fine, even though it is a copy of shakespeare or that low quality chinese version .  0a ? is it due to how we all view the world ? having a stem degree, an analytical mind, and knowledge of general literary tools, it is pretty easy to predict what is coming on a show.  to the point, i can watch live television with my wife, and  guess  how it will end with accuracy.  even more so once you see the tone and feel the show is going for.  she even is starting to get pretty good at it.  0.  is it a personal bubble that everyone needs to be aware of ? not everyone has seen everything.  how much of that is personal responsibility ? if you are a spoiler fanatic, but visit the forums or other image/meme sites, why should you be protected because you did not want/could not view/read the content fast enough ? if it is popular enough, it will spread like wildfire on the internet.  do you get mad at the world for not protecting your personal spoiler bubble ? or mad at yourself for going places where spoilers are known and common.  0.  if the realization of spoilers ruins an item for you, was it a good item to begin with ? if the item only has impact because you do not know what is going to happen, what happens once the item is known ? do you forever not care about the event ? i am sure there are more, but my fingers are tired, brain seeking attention elsewhere.  is it a complete suspension of logic that enables people to only view shows with the spoiler free mindset ? how can they not recognize basic elements, patterns, and even directing styles that scream what is going to happen anyway ?  #  if you do not care about the show, why get all uppity if you now know the ending ?  #  example: friend quit watching a show after a few episodes, called it boring.   # ever ? never ? when they enter public knowledge ? this is a nonsensical question.  people who have not watched, read or played specific content do not want to generally be exposed to spoilers for the content.  sometimes in the case of archaic shows or really popular shows it happens.  people should however not go out of their ways to be disrespectful of the fact that some people may be still making their way through the show/content etc.  expectations of secrecy on this point though really depend on the context of the location.  example: friend quit watching a show after a few episodes, called it boring.  several seasons later, discussing various shows, i say he should get back into it.  he claims boring.  i say it gets better, there is adventure x with so and so, and adventure y to look forward to.  enter madness about learning ending.  they were not going to watch it anyway, yet get stuffy about learning it ? i think people like that are really rare.  i have never heard of people like that being defended.  sometimes you need to invoke spoilers if you want a friend to be interested in a show or a book.  betrayal, murder, twist x.  they are all the same reusable literary elements that have been in use for hundreds of years.  so what if it happens with person y and z instead of x and u ? it is still enjoyable, even if you recognize what is going on.  speaking for myself, no it is not.   #  you ca not expect the world to protect you from spoilers.   #  surprises in storytelling have value.  readers enjoy surprises.  storytellers use surprises to increase the impact of their stories.  if someone  spoils  a story for you, they have robbed you of a valuable experience.  if you disagree with this assumption that surprises in storytelling have value then you wo not see the point of spoilers.  the burden is on you to protect yourself from spoilers if you do not want to know the ending of a very popular television show, avoid social media, the internet, and other news sources until you have had a chance to watch the ending yourself.  you ca not expect the world to protect you from spoilers.  with that said, friends and family members tend to work out their own unspoken agreements about spoilers especially if one person puts his friends and family on notice about a particular story.  your friends and family should respect your desire about spoilers, because they should care about your wishes.  if they do not, they are dicks.  intentionally spoiling a story for someone is not the end of the world, not by any means, but it is a dickish thing to do.  if you accidentally spoil a story for someone, after you were told to avoid spoilers, that is not dickish, just unfortunate like smacking someone in the shin with your grocery cart.  you should apologize and that should be the end of it.   #  if someone  spoils  a story for you, they have robbed you of a valuable experience.   # readers enjoy surprises.  storytellers use surprises to increase the impact of their stories.  if someone  spoils  a story for you, they have robbed you of a valuable experience.  if you disagree with this assumption that surprises in storytelling have value then you wo not see the point of spoilers.  surprises have very limited value.  mostly as a method to advance the story to the next segment.  i definitely see their value as a character of the media, but as an outside viewer/reader, i am not able to engross myself so much in a book/show that i am shocked when they arrive.  i think they work only for the younger viewer/reader.  i am much more enthused by the method used to arrive at the surprise.  a good story will have you looking forward to it, and poor ones try to slap you in the face with it randomly.   #  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.   # this is your opinion.  others may disagree.  other people may get a lot more out of a surprise than you.  if you spoil the surprise for them, you are depriving them of a benefit that they enjoy from the story and for what ? you do not get anything positive by spoiling the surprise well, maybe you do if you enjoy that sort of thing .  it does not take a lot of effort not to spoil something for a friend do not talk about the story in front of them.  like i said above, the person who wants to avoid spoilers must take responsibility for avoiding situations that could lead to a spoiler.  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.   #  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.   # like i said before, the person who wants to avoid spoilers must take responsibility for avoiding situations that could lead to a spoiler.  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.  i can see your point to a degree, and a better understanding is what i am going for, so   0; for you.  the family and friends in question however, take spoiler free attitude to an annoying level.  such as not viewing a show/not wanting to read a book, because it does not interest them getting mad that i have ruined it , by letting them know about the interesting parts.  if they never had any intention of watching/reading, what have i spoiled ? while we get along in many areas, this one we will probably forever disagree.
i personally do not care about spoilers, but find those that do among the most annoying.  some family in that category i want to understand their viewpoint, maybe even gain some compassion.  reasons below: 0.  at what time do spoilers expire ? ever ? never ? when they enter public knowledge ? the school system ? does the ending to a christmas carol or moby dick count as spoilers at this point in time ? if you do not finish your reading assignment, but have questions about the ending, did it spoil it for you ? 0.  if you do not care about the show, why get all uppity if you now know the ending ? example: friend quit watching a show after a few episodes, called it boring.  several seasons later, discussing various shows, i say he should get back into it.  he claims boring.  i say it gets better, there is adventure x with so and so, and adventure y to look forward to.  enter madness about learning ending.  they were not going to watch it anyway, yet get stuffy about learning it ? 0.  if you have even a basic understanding of literature, it is nothing but repeats anyway.  betrayal, murder, twist x.  they are all the same reusable literary elements that have been in use for hundreds of years.  so what if it happens with person y and z instead of x and u ? it is still enjoyable, even if you recognize what is going on.  the change of settings/characters is its own fun.  you watched the lion king just fine, even though it is a copy of shakespeare or that low quality chinese version .  0a ? is it due to how we all view the world ? having a stem degree, an analytical mind, and knowledge of general literary tools, it is pretty easy to predict what is coming on a show.  to the point, i can watch live television with my wife, and  guess  how it will end with accuracy.  even more so once you see the tone and feel the show is going for.  she even is starting to get pretty good at it.  0.  is it a personal bubble that everyone needs to be aware of ? not everyone has seen everything.  how much of that is personal responsibility ? if you are a spoiler fanatic, but visit the forums or other image/meme sites, why should you be protected because you did not want/could not view/read the content fast enough ? if it is popular enough, it will spread like wildfire on the internet.  do you get mad at the world for not protecting your personal spoiler bubble ? or mad at yourself for going places where spoilers are known and common.  0.  if the realization of spoilers ruins an item for you, was it a good item to begin with ? if the item only has impact because you do not know what is going to happen, what happens once the item is known ? do you forever not care about the event ? i am sure there are more, but my fingers are tired, brain seeking attention elsewhere.  is it a complete suspension of logic that enables people to only view shows with the spoiler free mindset ? how can they not recognize basic elements, patterns, and even directing styles that scream what is going to happen anyway ?  #  if you have even a basic understanding of literature, it is nothing but repeats anyway.   #  betrayal, murder, twist x.  they are all the same reusable literary elements that have been in use for hundreds of years.   # ever ? never ? when they enter public knowledge ? this is a nonsensical question.  people who have not watched, read or played specific content do not want to generally be exposed to spoilers for the content.  sometimes in the case of archaic shows or really popular shows it happens.  people should however not go out of their ways to be disrespectful of the fact that some people may be still making their way through the show/content etc.  expectations of secrecy on this point though really depend on the context of the location.  example: friend quit watching a show after a few episodes, called it boring.  several seasons later, discussing various shows, i say he should get back into it.  he claims boring.  i say it gets better, there is adventure x with so and so, and adventure y to look forward to.  enter madness about learning ending.  they were not going to watch it anyway, yet get stuffy about learning it ? i think people like that are really rare.  i have never heard of people like that being defended.  sometimes you need to invoke spoilers if you want a friend to be interested in a show or a book.  betrayal, murder, twist x.  they are all the same reusable literary elements that have been in use for hundreds of years.  so what if it happens with person y and z instead of x and u ? it is still enjoyable, even if you recognize what is going on.  speaking for myself, no it is not.   #  if someone  spoils  a story for you, they have robbed you of a valuable experience.   #  surprises in storytelling have value.  readers enjoy surprises.  storytellers use surprises to increase the impact of their stories.  if someone  spoils  a story for you, they have robbed you of a valuable experience.  if you disagree with this assumption that surprises in storytelling have value then you wo not see the point of spoilers.  the burden is on you to protect yourself from spoilers if you do not want to know the ending of a very popular television show, avoid social media, the internet, and other news sources until you have had a chance to watch the ending yourself.  you ca not expect the world to protect you from spoilers.  with that said, friends and family members tend to work out their own unspoken agreements about spoilers especially if one person puts his friends and family on notice about a particular story.  your friends and family should respect your desire about spoilers, because they should care about your wishes.  if they do not, they are dicks.  intentionally spoiling a story for someone is not the end of the world, not by any means, but it is a dickish thing to do.  if you accidentally spoil a story for someone, after you were told to avoid spoilers, that is not dickish, just unfortunate like smacking someone in the shin with your grocery cart.  you should apologize and that should be the end of it.   #  i am much more enthused by the method used to arrive at the surprise.   # readers enjoy surprises.  storytellers use surprises to increase the impact of their stories.  if someone  spoils  a story for you, they have robbed you of a valuable experience.  if you disagree with this assumption that surprises in storytelling have value then you wo not see the point of spoilers.  surprises have very limited value.  mostly as a method to advance the story to the next segment.  i definitely see their value as a character of the media, but as an outside viewer/reader, i am not able to engross myself so much in a book/show that i am shocked when they arrive.  i think they work only for the younger viewer/reader.  i am much more enthused by the method used to arrive at the surprise.  a good story will have you looking forward to it, and poor ones try to slap you in the face with it randomly.   #  if you spoil the surprise for them, you are depriving them of a benefit that they enjoy from the story and for what ?  # this is your opinion.  others may disagree.  other people may get a lot more out of a surprise than you.  if you spoil the surprise for them, you are depriving them of a benefit that they enjoy from the story and for what ? you do not get anything positive by spoiling the surprise well, maybe you do if you enjoy that sort of thing .  it does not take a lot of effort not to spoil something for a friend do not talk about the story in front of them.  like i said above, the person who wants to avoid spoilers must take responsibility for avoiding situations that could lead to a spoiler.  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.   #  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.   # like i said before, the person who wants to avoid spoilers must take responsibility for avoiding situations that could lead to a spoiler.  but even so, if you are talking to a family member who you know is trying to avoid a spoiler, it is an easy thing for you to respect and it helps preserve a benefit for the family member.  i can see your point to a degree, and a better understanding is what i am going for, so   0; for you.  the family and friends in question however, take spoiler free attitude to an annoying level.  such as not viewing a show/not wanting to read a book, because it does not interest them getting mad that i have ruined it , by letting them know about the interesting parts.  if they never had any intention of watching/reading, what have i spoiled ? while we get along in many areas, this one we will probably forever disagree.
note: my judgements exclude gender dysphoric people, who are actually medically afflicted with pains and discomfort due to their mind and body disagreeing on what parts the body has.  this condition is definitely a serious medical condition  at first i thought i was okay with it, when tumblr started a wave of people identifying as he, she even if the pronoun did not actually match up with its intended use.  but them came  them, ze, xe .  now there are genderqueers, nonbinaries, deerkins.  and you know what ? i am not going to respect their misuse of the english language and call them what they want just to get attention.  misusing pronouns such as he and she promotes discriminatory gender stereotypes.  it teaches that if a boy likes to play with dolls, he is not a boy.  sure, he has a penis, but obviously if he does not fit into the exact 0 is definition of a man, working on cars and providing for the family, then he is not a man.  gender used to be synonymous with sex and it always should be, otherwise it is just being bigoted towards people who do not perfectly fit into little stereotype gender roles.  making up new genders, like genderqueer, is pretty confusing to me.  it feels like for the mostpart it is just confused teens on tumblr being like  you know, i have been watching a lot of rigid 0s sitcoms lately, and i do not feel like my entire personality can be described using one of these words which are so rigid in my mind.  let is make a new gender, and then i will be a special little flower !  no.   your gender is not your place to express your personality.  it is your place to let people know how/if they will have sex with you.  you ca not just make up genders.  that should not be a thing.  finally, i would like to brush up on the whole  kin  thing.  now, i get that different people have different beliefs about spirituality and reincarnation and whatever.  but when idiots on tumblr go throwing around their new gender identity as a  turtlekin  and are seriously determined to make people respect and accept such an absurd claim, then they need to just pick up a biology book, calm down, and keep it to themselves.  i understand that people get confused about their identity, but tumblr is idea of expressing our personalities via our genders is stupid.  we should not be expected to conform to rigid gender norms nobody truly perfectly fits them anyways.  we should just be accepting that some girls are tomboys, and some boys like shopping, wearing makeup, or looking fabulous.  also tumblr should be deleted from the internet permanently.  pls obama.   #  note: my judgements exclude gender dysphoric people, who are actually medically afflicted with pains and discomfort due to their mind and body disagreeing on what parts the body has.   #  this condition is definitely a serious medical condition why is this a legitimate medical condition ?  # this condition is definitely a serious medical condition why is this a legitimate medical condition ? but the others not ? because the number of people who believe it to be true ? the amount of research into one but not the other ? should it be treated as a mental illness as well ?  #  surely there is more to your personality than just the single word,  nonbinary .   # okay, that is good.  but seriously, what do you gain by saying that you are nonbinary ? attention ? confusion from people that may or may not want to fuck you ? surely there is more to your personality than just the single word,  nonbinary .  and nobody really fits into gender stereotypes perfectly, do they ? is every man chuck norris and every woman katy perry ? no.  we are all unique.  know what genders are for ? so monosexual people know if they want to mate with you.  that is why they are there.  that is what they have always been for until confused teens tried finding ways to express themselves.  your gender is not the place to express yourself.  write a poem.  draw a painting.  do not fuck with the english language.  dress how you want, act how you desire, be your own person ! just know that inside, you are either a boy or a girl, just like everyone else.  nothing can change that, nor  should  anything.   #  gender is more than just how you want to experience sex, it is all the cultural norms that surround physical sex.   #  you are arguing from a, well, unpopular view of gender.  gender is more than just how you want to experience sex, it is all the cultural norms that surround physical sex.  and people are perfectly free to say that they feel in alignment with whatever set of norms they please; they are in the best position to decide for themselves.  traditionally, there is the idea of men and women although these are not the same through all cultures, and some cultures have third  genders .  however, there is no reason why we should accept these as the only sets of norms, unless they were enough to adequately describe everyone.  and surprise, they are not.  and here is the intersection with your question at least with regards to genderqueer people people can feel free to adopt whatever norms they please.  they can even reject popular social norms as applying to their experience of their body, because a lot of these norms are just personal preference.  and if people believe that the best description of the norms they want applied to them is say, genderfluid alternating between masculine norms and feminine ones , then i do not see how that is not useful/accurate information, at least when dealing with that person.   #  it is a word that was created specifically not to refer to the biological facts about males and females, but the social facts that are built on them.   #  op was arguing that gender just contained the information  how and by whom i want to be fucked .  but it is clearly more than that.  it also says things about aesthetic preferences, health preferences, values, etc.  gender refers to the social norms that surround biological sex.  seriously.  the word  gender  used to have one use in the english language, and that was as a grammatical class, as in, the masculine form of the word  one  in french is  un , and the feminine form  une ; the use of one or the other depends on the  gender  of the word.  but then a sexologist in the fifties adopted it to refer to exactly the things i wrote above.  feminists picked up the term in the 0s, and from there it came into common use.  it is a word that was created specifically not to refer to the biological facts about males and females, but the social facts that are built on them.   #  we are all the same inside and people have to realize that.   #  but these  norms  are only taken seriously by idiots and bigots.  as you said, plenty of people do not fit them.  the solution is not too label them as a new thing, it is to understand that maybe not everyone is the goddamn same.  go ahead.  wear makeup.  be fabulous.  you are still a man and that is fine.  by using these definitions of gender we are just perpetuating stereotypes.  gender fluid does not exist simply because gender does not exist.  gender is sex, because outside of medical gender dysphoria, you ca not feel like a woman.  we are all the same inside and people have to realize that.
note: my judgements exclude gender dysphoric people, who are actually medically afflicted with pains and discomfort due to their mind and body disagreeing on what parts the body has.  this condition is definitely a serious medical condition  at first i thought i was okay with it, when tumblr started a wave of people identifying as he, she even if the pronoun did not actually match up with its intended use.  but them came  them, ze, xe .  now there are genderqueers, nonbinaries, deerkins.  and you know what ? i am not going to respect their misuse of the english language and call them what they want just to get attention.  misusing pronouns such as he and she promotes discriminatory gender stereotypes.  it teaches that if a boy likes to play with dolls, he is not a boy.  sure, he has a penis, but obviously if he does not fit into the exact 0 is definition of a man, working on cars and providing for the family, then he is not a man.  gender used to be synonymous with sex and it always should be, otherwise it is just being bigoted towards people who do not perfectly fit into little stereotype gender roles.  making up new genders, like genderqueer, is pretty confusing to me.  it feels like for the mostpart it is just confused teens on tumblr being like  you know, i have been watching a lot of rigid 0s sitcoms lately, and i do not feel like my entire personality can be described using one of these words which are so rigid in my mind.  let is make a new gender, and then i will be a special little flower !  no.   your gender is not your place to express your personality.  it is your place to let people know how/if they will have sex with you.  you ca not just make up genders.  that should not be a thing.  finally, i would like to brush up on the whole  kin  thing.  now, i get that different people have different beliefs about spirituality and reincarnation and whatever.  but when idiots on tumblr go throwing around their new gender identity as a  turtlekin  and are seriously determined to make people respect and accept such an absurd claim, then they need to just pick up a biology book, calm down, and keep it to themselves.  i understand that people get confused about their identity, but tumblr is idea of expressing our personalities via our genders is stupid.  we should not be expected to conform to rigid gender norms nobody truly perfectly fits them anyways.  we should just be accepting that some girls are tomboys, and some boys like shopping, wearing makeup, or looking fabulous.  also tumblr should be deleted from the internet permanently.  pls obama.   #  it is your place to let people know how/if they will have sex with you.   #  is that really what genders are for ?  #  let is start with a few quick questions.  why the hell do you care ? do you personally interact with any non binary individuals ? are they hurting anybody by not conforming to the gender binary ? why do you believe that you know these people is minds better than they themselves do ? is it really so much more difficult to type  ze  instead of  he  that you go on the internet and write angry rants about it ? call me crazy, but that certainly seems like a ton more work to me.  is that really what genders are for ? if you are a guy, is that your way of letting me know that you will have sex with me ? if somebody does not want to have sex with anybody, what gender are they ? if somebody wants to have sex with everybody, what gender are they ? that is news to me.  i could have sworn there was a long history of past and current societies not conforming the modern american equivalence of biological sex and gender.  if only there was a wikipedia page for such things URL  #  dress how you want, act how you desire, be your own person !  # okay, that is good.  but seriously, what do you gain by saying that you are nonbinary ? attention ? confusion from people that may or may not want to fuck you ? surely there is more to your personality than just the single word,  nonbinary .  and nobody really fits into gender stereotypes perfectly, do they ? is every man chuck norris and every woman katy perry ? no.  we are all unique.  know what genders are for ? so monosexual people know if they want to mate with you.  that is why they are there.  that is what they have always been for until confused teens tried finding ways to express themselves.  your gender is not the place to express yourself.  write a poem.  draw a painting.  do not fuck with the english language.  dress how you want, act how you desire, be your own person ! just know that inside, you are either a boy or a girl, just like everyone else.  nothing can change that, nor  should  anything.   #  traditionally, there is the idea of men and women although these are not the same through all cultures, and some cultures have third  genders .   #  you are arguing from a, well, unpopular view of gender.  gender is more than just how you want to experience sex, it is all the cultural norms that surround physical sex.  and people are perfectly free to say that they feel in alignment with whatever set of norms they please; they are in the best position to decide for themselves.  traditionally, there is the idea of men and women although these are not the same through all cultures, and some cultures have third  genders .  however, there is no reason why we should accept these as the only sets of norms, unless they were enough to adequately describe everyone.  and surprise, they are not.  and here is the intersection with your question at least with regards to genderqueer people people can feel free to adopt whatever norms they please.  they can even reject popular social norms as applying to their experience of their body, because a lot of these norms are just personal preference.  and if people believe that the best description of the norms they want applied to them is say, genderfluid alternating between masculine norms and feminine ones , then i do not see how that is not useful/accurate information, at least when dealing with that person.   #  it also says things about aesthetic preferences, health preferences, values, etc.   #  op was arguing that gender just contained the information  how and by whom i want to be fucked .  but it is clearly more than that.  it also says things about aesthetic preferences, health preferences, values, etc.  gender refers to the social norms that surround biological sex.  seriously.  the word  gender  used to have one use in the english language, and that was as a grammatical class, as in, the masculine form of the word  one  in french is  un , and the feminine form  une ; the use of one or the other depends on the  gender  of the word.  but then a sexologist in the fifties adopted it to refer to exactly the things i wrote above.  feminists picked up the term in the 0s, and from there it came into common use.  it is a word that was created specifically not to refer to the biological facts about males and females, but the social facts that are built on them.   #  gender is sex, because outside of medical gender dysphoria, you ca not feel like a woman.   #  but these  norms  are only taken seriously by idiots and bigots.  as you said, plenty of people do not fit them.  the solution is not too label them as a new thing, it is to understand that maybe not everyone is the goddamn same.  go ahead.  wear makeup.  be fabulous.  you are still a man and that is fine.  by using these definitions of gender we are just perpetuating stereotypes.  gender fluid does not exist simply because gender does not exist.  gender is sex, because outside of medical gender dysphoria, you ca not feel like a woman.  we are all the same inside and people have to realize that.
note: my judgements exclude gender dysphoric people, who are actually medically afflicted with pains and discomfort due to their mind and body disagreeing on what parts the body has.  this condition is definitely a serious medical condition  at first i thought i was okay with it, when tumblr started a wave of people identifying as he, she even if the pronoun did not actually match up with its intended use.  but them came  them, ze, xe .  now there are genderqueers, nonbinaries, deerkins.  and you know what ? i am not going to respect their misuse of the english language and call them what they want just to get attention.  misusing pronouns such as he and she promotes discriminatory gender stereotypes.  it teaches that if a boy likes to play with dolls, he is not a boy.  sure, he has a penis, but obviously if he does not fit into the exact 0 is definition of a man, working on cars and providing for the family, then he is not a man.  gender used to be synonymous with sex and it always should be, otherwise it is just being bigoted towards people who do not perfectly fit into little stereotype gender roles.  making up new genders, like genderqueer, is pretty confusing to me.  it feels like for the mostpart it is just confused teens on tumblr being like  you know, i have been watching a lot of rigid 0s sitcoms lately, and i do not feel like my entire personality can be described using one of these words which are so rigid in my mind.  let is make a new gender, and then i will be a special little flower !  no.   your gender is not your place to express your personality.  it is your place to let people know how/if they will have sex with you.  you ca not just make up genders.  that should not be a thing.  finally, i would like to brush up on the whole  kin  thing.  now, i get that different people have different beliefs about spirituality and reincarnation and whatever.  but when idiots on tumblr go throwing around their new gender identity as a  turtlekin  and are seriously determined to make people respect and accept such an absurd claim, then they need to just pick up a biology book, calm down, and keep it to themselves.  i understand that people get confused about their identity, but tumblr is idea of expressing our personalities via our genders is stupid.  we should not be expected to conform to rigid gender norms nobody truly perfectly fits them anyways.  we should just be accepting that some girls are tomboys, and some boys like shopping, wearing makeup, or looking fabulous.  also tumblr should be deleted from the internet permanently.  pls obama.   #  making up new genders, like genderqueer, is pretty confusing to me.   #  the lbgt community is internally unclear to the use of those specific terms as well as pronouns, so no one is out to get the english language.   # sjs reject the kin thing.  it has no scientific basis and people claiming  kin  are not serious enough to take drastic measures that could be life changing.  the social justice people are embarrassed by  kin  people and distance themselves from them.  the lbgt community is internally unclear to the use of those specific terms as well as pronouns, so no one is out to get the english language.  however, non binary gender identity exists, but different people call it different things, and some people prefer one term over another.  there is a lot of in fighting within the lgbt community regarding this as well.  gender  identity  is a biological thing and related to development of the brain.  gender  role  is a social construct.  a woman in america does not become a  man  for wearing a t shirt and jeans.  whether you are a man or a woman is a gender identity whereas whether a society expects a man or a woman to play with dolls is a gender role.  this is different from your assumption that there exists only two things 0 genetalia and 0 your role in the society, and nothing in between.   #  so monosexual people know if they want to mate with you.   # okay, that is good.  but seriously, what do you gain by saying that you are nonbinary ? attention ? confusion from people that may or may not want to fuck you ? surely there is more to your personality than just the single word,  nonbinary .  and nobody really fits into gender stereotypes perfectly, do they ? is every man chuck norris and every woman katy perry ? no.  we are all unique.  know what genders are for ? so monosexual people know if they want to mate with you.  that is why they are there.  that is what they have always been for until confused teens tried finding ways to express themselves.  your gender is not the place to express yourself.  write a poem.  draw a painting.  do not fuck with the english language.  dress how you want, act how you desire, be your own person ! just know that inside, you are either a boy or a girl, just like everyone else.  nothing can change that, nor  should  anything.   #  however, there is no reason why we should accept these as the only sets of norms, unless they were enough to adequately describe everyone.   #  you are arguing from a, well, unpopular view of gender.  gender is more than just how you want to experience sex, it is all the cultural norms that surround physical sex.  and people are perfectly free to say that they feel in alignment with whatever set of norms they please; they are in the best position to decide for themselves.  traditionally, there is the idea of men and women although these are not the same through all cultures, and some cultures have third  genders .  however, there is no reason why we should accept these as the only sets of norms, unless they were enough to adequately describe everyone.  and surprise, they are not.  and here is the intersection with your question at least with regards to genderqueer people people can feel free to adopt whatever norms they please.  they can even reject popular social norms as applying to their experience of their body, because a lot of these norms are just personal preference.  and if people believe that the best description of the norms they want applied to them is say, genderfluid alternating between masculine norms and feminine ones , then i do not see how that is not useful/accurate information, at least when dealing with that person.   #  it also says things about aesthetic preferences, health preferences, values, etc.   #  op was arguing that gender just contained the information  how and by whom i want to be fucked .  but it is clearly more than that.  it also says things about aesthetic preferences, health preferences, values, etc.  gender refers to the social norms that surround biological sex.  seriously.  the word  gender  used to have one use in the english language, and that was as a grammatical class, as in, the masculine form of the word  one  in french is  un , and the feminine form  une ; the use of one or the other depends on the  gender  of the word.  but then a sexologist in the fifties adopted it to refer to exactly the things i wrote above.  feminists picked up the term in the 0s, and from there it came into common use.  it is a word that was created specifically not to refer to the biological facts about males and females, but the social facts that are built on them.   #  but these  norms  are only taken seriously by idiots and bigots.   #  but these  norms  are only taken seriously by idiots and bigots.  as you said, plenty of people do not fit them.  the solution is not too label them as a new thing, it is to understand that maybe not everyone is the goddamn same.  go ahead.  wear makeup.  be fabulous.  you are still a man and that is fine.  by using these definitions of gender we are just perpetuating stereotypes.  gender fluid does not exist simply because gender does not exist.  gender is sex, because outside of medical gender dysphoria, you ca not feel like a woman.  we are all the same inside and people have to realize that.
note: my judgements exclude gender dysphoric people, who are actually medically afflicted with pains and discomfort due to their mind and body disagreeing on what parts the body has.  this condition is definitely a serious medical condition  at first i thought i was okay with it, when tumblr started a wave of people identifying as he, she even if the pronoun did not actually match up with its intended use.  but them came  them, ze, xe .  now there are genderqueers, nonbinaries, deerkins.  and you know what ? i am not going to respect their misuse of the english language and call them what they want just to get attention.  misusing pronouns such as he and she promotes discriminatory gender stereotypes.  it teaches that if a boy likes to play with dolls, he is not a boy.  sure, he has a penis, but obviously if he does not fit into the exact 0 is definition of a man, working on cars and providing for the family, then he is not a man.  gender used to be synonymous with sex and it always should be, otherwise it is just being bigoted towards people who do not perfectly fit into little stereotype gender roles.  making up new genders, like genderqueer, is pretty confusing to me.  it feels like for the mostpart it is just confused teens on tumblr being like  you know, i have been watching a lot of rigid 0s sitcoms lately, and i do not feel like my entire personality can be described using one of these words which are so rigid in my mind.  let is make a new gender, and then i will be a special little flower !  no.   your gender is not your place to express your personality.  it is your place to let people know how/if they will have sex with you.  you ca not just make up genders.  that should not be a thing.  finally, i would like to brush up on the whole  kin  thing.  now, i get that different people have different beliefs about spirituality and reincarnation and whatever.  but when idiots on tumblr go throwing around their new gender identity as a  turtlekin  and are seriously determined to make people respect and accept such an absurd claim, then they need to just pick up a biology book, calm down, and keep it to themselves.  i understand that people get confused about their identity, but tumblr is idea of expressing our personalities via our genders is stupid.  we should not be expected to conform to rigid gender norms nobody truly perfectly fits them anyways.  we should just be accepting that some girls are tomboys, and some boys like shopping, wearing makeup, or looking fabulous.  also tumblr should be deleted from the internet permanently.  pls obama.   #  who do not perfectly fit into little stereotype gender roles.   #  gender  identity  is a biological thing and related to development of the brain.   # sjs reject the kin thing.  it has no scientific basis and people claiming  kin  are not serious enough to take drastic measures that could be life changing.  the social justice people are embarrassed by  kin  people and distance themselves from them.  the lbgt community is internally unclear to the use of those specific terms as well as pronouns, so no one is out to get the english language.  however, non binary gender identity exists, but different people call it different things, and some people prefer one term over another.  there is a lot of in fighting within the lgbt community regarding this as well.  gender  identity  is a biological thing and related to development of the brain.  gender  role  is a social construct.  a woman in america does not become a  man  for wearing a t shirt and jeans.  whether you are a man or a woman is a gender identity whereas whether a society expects a man or a woman to play with dolls is a gender role.  this is different from your assumption that there exists only two things 0 genetalia and 0 your role in the society, and nothing in between.   #  is every man chuck norris and every woman katy perry ?  # okay, that is good.  but seriously, what do you gain by saying that you are nonbinary ? attention ? confusion from people that may or may not want to fuck you ? surely there is more to your personality than just the single word,  nonbinary .  and nobody really fits into gender stereotypes perfectly, do they ? is every man chuck norris and every woman katy perry ? no.  we are all unique.  know what genders are for ? so monosexual people know if they want to mate with you.  that is why they are there.  that is what they have always been for until confused teens tried finding ways to express themselves.  your gender is not the place to express yourself.  write a poem.  draw a painting.  do not fuck with the english language.  dress how you want, act how you desire, be your own person ! just know that inside, you are either a boy or a girl, just like everyone else.  nothing can change that, nor  should  anything.   #  and here is the intersection with your question at least with regards to genderqueer people people can feel free to adopt whatever norms they please.   #  you are arguing from a, well, unpopular view of gender.  gender is more than just how you want to experience sex, it is all the cultural norms that surround physical sex.  and people are perfectly free to say that they feel in alignment with whatever set of norms they please; they are in the best position to decide for themselves.  traditionally, there is the idea of men and women although these are not the same through all cultures, and some cultures have third  genders .  however, there is no reason why we should accept these as the only sets of norms, unless they were enough to adequately describe everyone.  and surprise, they are not.  and here is the intersection with your question at least with regards to genderqueer people people can feel free to adopt whatever norms they please.  they can even reject popular social norms as applying to their experience of their body, because a lot of these norms are just personal preference.  and if people believe that the best description of the norms they want applied to them is say, genderfluid alternating between masculine norms and feminine ones , then i do not see how that is not useful/accurate information, at least when dealing with that person.   #  it also says things about aesthetic preferences, health preferences, values, etc.   #  op was arguing that gender just contained the information  how and by whom i want to be fucked .  but it is clearly more than that.  it also says things about aesthetic preferences, health preferences, values, etc.  gender refers to the social norms that surround biological sex.  seriously.  the word  gender  used to have one use in the english language, and that was as a grammatical class, as in, the masculine form of the word  one  in french is  un , and the feminine form  une ; the use of one or the other depends on the  gender  of the word.  but then a sexologist in the fifties adopted it to refer to exactly the things i wrote above.  feminists picked up the term in the 0s, and from there it came into common use.  it is a word that was created specifically not to refer to the biological facts about males and females, but the social facts that are built on them.   #  gender fluid does not exist simply because gender does not exist.   #  but these  norms  are only taken seriously by idiots and bigots.  as you said, plenty of people do not fit them.  the solution is not too label them as a new thing, it is to understand that maybe not everyone is the goddamn same.  go ahead.  wear makeup.  be fabulous.  you are still a man and that is fine.  by using these definitions of gender we are just perpetuating stereotypes.  gender fluid does not exist simply because gender does not exist.  gender is sex, because outside of medical gender dysphoria, you ca not feel like a woman.  we are all the same inside and people have to realize that.
if they are to receive benefits from the land their tribes families own, then so be it.  i have no disagreements that the indigenous peoples of the us where i am referring to were screwed over many years ago.  the indigenous peoples of today are born into our society as i was and should not be treated any differently than i am.  they are not entitled to anything that i am not entitled to from society as a whole.  i did not steal their land.  they are not entitled to the land i live on just because their ancestors owned it two hundred years ago.  their ancestors are long dead and my european ancestors that robbed them are long dead.  we are the prevailing society and they can either assimilate or keep to themselves.  i do not owe them anything.  maybe many people here do not face this issue regularly, but i live in an area where there are quite a few reservations in the area.  there is a lot of non indigenous hate from them and general nationalism coming out of them for their tribes.  regardless of their ancestry, i believe they are american like i am.  i am a native american.  i was born here, my parents were born here, and their parents were born here.   #  their ancestors are long dead and my european ancestors that robbed them are long dead.   #  so do you believe that at one point white america did owe something to the natives ?  # so do you believe that at one point white america did owe something to the natives ? what about black people after slavery ? do you think that once slavery was abolished by lincoln that all the work was done ? or were black people  entitled  to certain things after slavery that were withheld from them for hundreds of years ? what about the fact that there were policies enacted to destroy the culture and livelihood of native americans ? URL up until the 0s, native americans were forcibly removed from their homes and made to go to boarding schools intended to assimilate them.  not hundreds of years ago, 0 years ago.  people who went to those schools are certainly still alive.   #  do you want to live in a country that does  nothing  about injustice and unfairness, even if it happened in the past ?  #  first, what happened to the ancestors of today is native americans was perpetrated by the us government and the state governments.  you  might not be responsible, but the government itself is definitely responsible for actions it took however long ago.  the us government owes them, and therefore, since you are part of  the people  who elect that government, you owe them as well.  that is what it means to be a citizen of a country: you take on all of that country is debts and obligations.  for example, you are still paying debts incurred during wwii and vietnam.  secondly, from a socio economic point of view, do you want to live in a country where your neighbors grow up disadvantaged because of past injustices ? do you want to live in a country that does  nothing  about injustice and unfairness, even if it happened in the past ? do you want your local economy to be dragged down by poor people who receive inferior education and have few good economic prospects, or would you rather that everyone receive a good education and that you all work together to make your region as economically successful as possible ? even if you reject responsibility under the first point, why would you want your own neighbors and fellow citizens to suffer the effects of injustice, discrimination and betrayal by your government, especially since their suffering will also hurt your local economy, home values, businesses, etc ?  #  the us government of today did not do that to the native americans.   #  my concern with your argument is that you believe they are still to this day suffering injustices.  yes they are entitled to their reservation land as promised, however to this day that are constantly given opportunities to receive arguably, haha great educations that we as americans receive because we are born here.  they are not suffering any more injustices than i am in this american society.  i am faced with racism as are they, but from government institutions they receive the same opportunities if not more.  in many cases they are awarded a significant amount more in scholarships, in fact many i go to school with are on a completely free ride albeit it often is coming from their family is money, not the tax payers.  they are not economically disadvantaged anymore than i am.  the injustice suffered are by people who are long dead.  you can not make reparations for the dead.  the us government is ran by the people in elected offices with constant revolutions of change in office.  law makers and leaders who fucked those people over are long gone.  the us government of today did not do that to the native americans.   #  law makers and leaders who fucked those people over are long gone.   # law makers and leaders who fucked those people over are long gone.  the us government of today did not do that to the native americans.  that is not how government works.  if that was how government worked, then we would never be able to claim social security the social security act was signed in 0 by people who are long dead or medicare the medicare act was signed in 0 by people who are mostly dead .  the us government would be able to disown its debts as soon as the people who authorized those debts are out of office.  you would not have the right to free speech or to a speedy and public trial, because the states who ratified those amendments have totally different officeholders today.  but instead, governments uphold their obligations, debts and liabilities, even those incurred by people who are now long dead.  it really could not be any other way.   #  the entire theme of my argument is that this is in the past.   #  should have.  this is past tense.  the entire theme of my argument is that this is in the past.  the present is what it is today, humanitarian efforts are pointless.  human rights were violated many times in the past two hundred years.  we can not do anything for those people who were wronged, they are for the most part long gone.  presently if there were wrongdoings happening to these native folk, or if people decided to kill white settlers in the southwest, there would be repercussions.
morning cmvers.  i have got a bit of a dilemma that i am interested in discussing with you all.  i hope this is the right place, and i think i need an opposing viewpoint on all this.  my so and i are to be soon getting married.  we have been looking through the guest list and noticed that some family members and friends are homosexual a couple of lesbians and a gay .  we are both atheists, and hold no religious views whatsoever, however, i have always firmly held the belief that marriage is something that celebrates heterosexual partnership, and i would be extremely uncomfortable seeing men/women dancing/kissing people of the same sex at the wedding.  there is also the problem that one of these people is single, and like to try and seduce other women.  i am not sure how to deal with her as this would cause great disapproval from both sides of the family, and potentially alienate us from family members.  i am also worried that family members would think our wedding was a  ishambles  for having them invited in the first place.  my so and i have already made the decision that we are not going to be inviting any homosexual partners, as we do not want them to be a part of the wedding.  but i am still very unsure about the remaining homosexuals.  anyone care to weigh in ? my main concerns are: 0 that i am worried, because these individuals are heavily into gay culture that they will act  havery gay  and almost make the whole wedding about them being gays at a straight wedding look at us.  and 0 that because of the above, my family members wo not remember my and my fiancée is special day as a wonderful memory to be cherished, but a shambles that is best left forgotten, shame on i like food lots for letting his wedding go on this way.  i appreciate that these people  are  bigoted, but they are my closest family all the same and i want to make them feel special with us.  i have to go now but thanks to everyone who contributed, even those who were somewhat negative, everyone is entitled to their opinion ! i have enjoyed this and can honestly say my view has been changed.  i have given the delta to those who i think helped but please let me know if i mistakenly missed you.  i wo not be able to respond any more but please feel free to continue to post, i may be able to come back and talk some more later, however again i would say that for now i think my problems are on the way to being resolved and i now see how wrong i was in my old view.  i am going to talk to the partygoers who i think may cause a scene and just ask them to tone it down for the day just the same as i would with any straight person who would act the same way.  i will point out that i am not singling them out  because they are gay  but because of the way they act as a person.  i am also going to talk with my family members and let them know that this is our decision and that i want them to support us on out big day, hopefully i am just overreacting and there wo not be an issue.  but if there is i think a lot of you are right in saying that excluding people says far worse about me than anything else ever could.  thanks guys, i wish you all successful and happy days and great lives :  #  i would be extremely uncomfortable seeing men/women dancing/kissing people of the same sex at the wedding.   #  this is a personal feeling and something that i am unlikely to be able to change.   # this is a personal feeling and something that i am unlikely to be able to change.  however, i would suggest that you consider how hurt you would feel if you went to a wedding and people felt it unpleasant to see you dance with your fiancée it would feel awful.  the easiest thing to do, honestly, is simply not to pay attention to them since i very much doubt you pay large attention to the dancing or kisses of straight couples around you at weddings.  the simplest solution i can see to this is to speak to this person but not make it in any way related to her orientation.  simply make it clear that you are hoping for a calm and tasteful wedding and that  nobody  regardless of gender or orientation will be welcome if they cannot respect the other guests.  something that might be worth thinking about is: why are you getting married ? most people get married because they want to have their relationship recognised by their loved ones.  now imagine if you were invited to a wedding but your fiancée was not imagine how disrespectful that would be.  that is what you are doing to these people you are telling them that because of something out of their control their gender of their partner their relationship is not  areal  to you.  you are saying that they do not count as a real couple, that you do not respect them or their partner.   #  i have never really been able to wrap my head around a marriage between two men, or vice versa.   #  ok, to answer your post.   first of all i am curious as to why you feel marriage exclusively celebrates heterosexual partnerships, if you can pinpoint why you feel this way it might help in changing your view.  most people get married because they want to have their relationship recognised by their loved ones.  now imagine if you were invited to a wedding but your fiancée was not imagine how disrespectful that would be.  that is what you are doing to these people you are telling them that because of something out of their control their gender of their partner their relationship is not  areal  to you.  you are saying that they do not count as a real couple, that you do not respect them or their partner.  i think its because the only kind of marriage, nay, relationship i have ever been exposed to has been hetrosexual.  the friends that are homosexual are friends of my so she is known them since before they were homosexual and wants them to be part of her big day.  i have never had any gay people i would consider friends.  i have excluded them as friends not because of their sexual orientation, but because of their actions as a person.  i should probably make clear that i really do not care what gets peoples rocks off, if someone makes another person happy then i am happy for them.  anyway, i have always viewed a married couple as a man and a woman.  i have never really been able to wrap my head around a marriage between two men, or vice versa.  just before i go on, people need to be clear that i do not hate homosexuals, have any problems with them or so on.  i just have a problem with homosexuals acting all gay at  my  wedding.  i know that sounds odd and i came here because it sounds odd and i want to try and work it out.  simply make it clear that you are hoping for a calm and tasteful wedding and that nobody regardless of gender or orientation will be welcome if they cannot respect the other guests.  fair point, and this person does act wrongly in any social setting, and i would not accept the same kind of behaviour from a straight person either.  i will talk to the person in question and get a promise to behave.  if they ca not i will have to remove the invitation.   #  it is similar, from m ypoint of view, to the polish children who move to my town and then freak out when they see a dark skinned person not because they are racist, they just are not used to it.   #  that makes perfect sense actually.  it is similar, from m ypoint of view, to the polish children who move to my town and then freak out when they see a dark skinned person not because they are racist, they just are not used to it.  but i would say that as friends of your so, these people are likely to continue to be part of your life in some way.  refusing to interact with them will likely cause upset to your so if she stops being friendly with them, or refusing to have them at her wedding, and could potentially cause issues between you and your so when she is upset on her wedding day that her friends are not there or are not happy because their partners have been excluded .  when it comes down to it, homosexual people are not doing anything different from straight people they are holding hands with, dancing with, kissing, etc the person they love.  the only way that you will stop having this issue with this is probably by exposing yourself to it.  remind yourself that the gender of the people involved may make it  unusual  to you, but that should not make it  gross  or  weird .  imagine if your close friend was getting married, but then told you that you could not bring your wife because they feel that couples where one person is not a natural redhead are not  areal  couples like they are.  i imagine you would be hurt, that you would feel insulted about the fact that they consider you less of a person for that.  that because of something neither of you can control, your wife and possibly even you are being excluded from this important happy day of celebration.   #  however, i think the best way to tackle this is to ask the guests to be polite and respectful, and dress appropriately, etc.   #  this really hinges on what you see as  gay culture .  you can easily ask them to be respectful at your wedding in a way that does not focus on their orientation remind them that a wedding is all about the bride and groom, that any attempts to make it  all about them  or steal the spotlight will not be accepted.  however, if  gay culture  refers to simple things like kissing their partner, or dancing with them, then it is more complex.  when you have your first dance during your wedding, will you consider that  istraight culture  ? because to me, it would seem unreasonable fo you to do something and then say they are not allowed to do it, just because they are not straight.  i fully understand not wanting anything to distract from your special day, believe me.  however, i think the best way to tackle this is to ask the guests to be polite and respectful, and dress appropriately, etc.  banning them or their partners from the wedding because of their  gay culture , for behaving like any straight couple would with simple dancing or hand holding, is likely to strongly upset them and your so is likely to lose her friends that way.   #  i think my main worry is what my relatives will think of me at this point, and i do not know how i would deal with it.   # when you have your first dance during your wedding, will you consider that  istraight culture  ? because to me, it would seem unreasonable fo you to do something and then say they are not allowed to do it, just because they are not straight.  honestly, if their partner is there, and they want to have a dance/peck on the cheek i am fine with it.  yes it makes me uncomfortable, but as we have already established i think perhaps i need to put myself in that uncomfortable situation.  i think my main worry is what my relatives will think of me at this point, and i do not know how i would deal with it.
morning cmvers.  i have got a bit of a dilemma that i am interested in discussing with you all.  i hope this is the right place, and i think i need an opposing viewpoint on all this.  my so and i are to be soon getting married.  we have been looking through the guest list and noticed that some family members and friends are homosexual a couple of lesbians and a gay .  we are both atheists, and hold no religious views whatsoever, however, i have always firmly held the belief that marriage is something that celebrates heterosexual partnership, and i would be extremely uncomfortable seeing men/women dancing/kissing people of the same sex at the wedding.  there is also the problem that one of these people is single, and like to try and seduce other women.  i am not sure how to deal with her as this would cause great disapproval from both sides of the family, and potentially alienate us from family members.  i am also worried that family members would think our wedding was a  ishambles  for having them invited in the first place.  my so and i have already made the decision that we are not going to be inviting any homosexual partners, as we do not want them to be a part of the wedding.  but i am still very unsure about the remaining homosexuals.  anyone care to weigh in ? my main concerns are: 0 that i am worried, because these individuals are heavily into gay culture that they will act  havery gay  and almost make the whole wedding about them being gays at a straight wedding look at us.  and 0 that because of the above, my family members wo not remember my and my fiancée is special day as a wonderful memory to be cherished, but a shambles that is best left forgotten, shame on i like food lots for letting his wedding go on this way.  i appreciate that these people  are  bigoted, but they are my closest family all the same and i want to make them feel special with us.  i have to go now but thanks to everyone who contributed, even those who were somewhat negative, everyone is entitled to their opinion ! i have enjoyed this and can honestly say my view has been changed.  i have given the delta to those who i think helped but please let me know if i mistakenly missed you.  i wo not be able to respond any more but please feel free to continue to post, i may be able to come back and talk some more later, however again i would say that for now i think my problems are on the way to being resolved and i now see how wrong i was in my old view.  i am going to talk to the partygoers who i think may cause a scene and just ask them to tone it down for the day just the same as i would with any straight person who would act the same way.  i will point out that i am not singling them out  because they are gay  but because of the way they act as a person.  i am also going to talk with my family members and let them know that this is our decision and that i want them to support us on out big day, hopefully i am just overreacting and there wo not be an issue.  but if there is i think a lot of you are right in saying that excluding people says far worse about me than anything else ever could.  thanks guys, i wish you all successful and happy days and great lives :  #  one of these people is single, and like to try and seduce other women.   #  the simplest solution i can see to this is to speak to this person but not make it in any way related to her orientation.   # this is a personal feeling and something that i am unlikely to be able to change.  however, i would suggest that you consider how hurt you would feel if you went to a wedding and people felt it unpleasant to see you dance with your fiancée it would feel awful.  the easiest thing to do, honestly, is simply not to pay attention to them since i very much doubt you pay large attention to the dancing or kisses of straight couples around you at weddings.  the simplest solution i can see to this is to speak to this person but not make it in any way related to her orientation.  simply make it clear that you are hoping for a calm and tasteful wedding and that  nobody  regardless of gender or orientation will be welcome if they cannot respect the other guests.  something that might be worth thinking about is: why are you getting married ? most people get married because they want to have their relationship recognised by their loved ones.  now imagine if you were invited to a wedding but your fiancée was not imagine how disrespectful that would be.  that is what you are doing to these people you are telling them that because of something out of their control their gender of their partner their relationship is not  areal  to you.  you are saying that they do not count as a real couple, that you do not respect them or their partner.   #  i have excluded them as friends not because of their sexual orientation, but because of their actions as a person.   #  ok, to answer your post.   first of all i am curious as to why you feel marriage exclusively celebrates heterosexual partnerships, if you can pinpoint why you feel this way it might help in changing your view.  most people get married because they want to have their relationship recognised by their loved ones.  now imagine if you were invited to a wedding but your fiancée was not imagine how disrespectful that would be.  that is what you are doing to these people you are telling them that because of something out of their control their gender of their partner their relationship is not  areal  to you.  you are saying that they do not count as a real couple, that you do not respect them or their partner.  i think its because the only kind of marriage, nay, relationship i have ever been exposed to has been hetrosexual.  the friends that are homosexual are friends of my so she is known them since before they were homosexual and wants them to be part of her big day.  i have never had any gay people i would consider friends.  i have excluded them as friends not because of their sexual orientation, but because of their actions as a person.  i should probably make clear that i really do not care what gets peoples rocks off, if someone makes another person happy then i am happy for them.  anyway, i have always viewed a married couple as a man and a woman.  i have never really been able to wrap my head around a marriage between two men, or vice versa.  just before i go on, people need to be clear that i do not hate homosexuals, have any problems with them or so on.  i just have a problem with homosexuals acting all gay at  my  wedding.  i know that sounds odd and i came here because it sounds odd and i want to try and work it out.  simply make it clear that you are hoping for a calm and tasteful wedding and that nobody regardless of gender or orientation will be welcome if they cannot respect the other guests.  fair point, and this person does act wrongly in any social setting, and i would not accept the same kind of behaviour from a straight person either.  i will talk to the person in question and get a promise to behave.  if they ca not i will have to remove the invitation.   #  that because of something neither of you can control, your wife and possibly even you are being excluded from this important happy day of celebration.   #  that makes perfect sense actually.  it is similar, from m ypoint of view, to the polish children who move to my town and then freak out when they see a dark skinned person not because they are racist, they just are not used to it.  but i would say that as friends of your so, these people are likely to continue to be part of your life in some way.  refusing to interact with them will likely cause upset to your so if she stops being friendly with them, or refusing to have them at her wedding, and could potentially cause issues between you and your so when she is upset on her wedding day that her friends are not there or are not happy because their partners have been excluded .  when it comes down to it, homosexual people are not doing anything different from straight people they are holding hands with, dancing with, kissing, etc the person they love.  the only way that you will stop having this issue with this is probably by exposing yourself to it.  remind yourself that the gender of the people involved may make it  unusual  to you, but that should not make it  gross  or  weird .  imagine if your close friend was getting married, but then told you that you could not bring your wife because they feel that couples where one person is not a natural redhead are not  areal  couples like they are.  i imagine you would be hurt, that you would feel insulted about the fact that they consider you less of a person for that.  that because of something neither of you can control, your wife and possibly even you are being excluded from this important happy day of celebration.   #  however, i think the best way to tackle this is to ask the guests to be polite and respectful, and dress appropriately, etc.   #  this really hinges on what you see as  gay culture .  you can easily ask them to be respectful at your wedding in a way that does not focus on their orientation remind them that a wedding is all about the bride and groom, that any attempts to make it  all about them  or steal the spotlight will not be accepted.  however, if  gay culture  refers to simple things like kissing their partner, or dancing with them, then it is more complex.  when you have your first dance during your wedding, will you consider that  istraight culture  ? because to me, it would seem unreasonable fo you to do something and then say they are not allowed to do it, just because they are not straight.  i fully understand not wanting anything to distract from your special day, believe me.  however, i think the best way to tackle this is to ask the guests to be polite and respectful, and dress appropriately, etc.  banning them or their partners from the wedding because of their  gay culture , for behaving like any straight couple would with simple dancing or hand holding, is likely to strongly upset them and your so is likely to lose her friends that way.   #  when you have your first dance during your wedding, will you consider that  istraight culture  ?  # when you have your first dance during your wedding, will you consider that  istraight culture  ? because to me, it would seem unreasonable fo you to do something and then say they are not allowed to do it, just because they are not straight.  honestly, if their partner is there, and they want to have a dance/peck on the cheek i am fine with it.  yes it makes me uncomfortable, but as we have already established i think perhaps i need to put myself in that uncomfortable situation.  i think my main worry is what my relatives will think of me at this point, and i do not know how i would deal with it.
areas these services suck at:  quality  spotify streams ogg audio, at 0kbps on mobile, 0kbps on desktop, and 0 to paying customers.  i know that ogg is supposed to sound better at low bitrates, but there is only so far you can push that.  the 0 stream is fine, and a 0 stream is  good enough , but the 0 mobile stream is just.  ugh.  none of these even come close to cd quality, though cd quality might be overkill.  netflix is really the larger offender in this regard.  i have not the faintest clue about video compression, but they probably use a lot, judging by the blockiness, banding, and blurry motion.  i really do not mean to sound like a snob, but how do people stand watching that ? last i remember it, most of it was still sd, too.   buffering  this is insufferable.  even if it only happens once for every 0 movies i watch, i should not have to deal with this, ever.  when i am consuming something, i will damn right consume the whole thing, start to finish, without interruptions.    support the creators   i am not going to get on some kind of moral high horse and say some bullshit like  it is no different from piracy !   here.  i am sure the deals amazon, pandora, etc.  all pull must be huge.  they do not get a lot of money, but they get it from a lot of people.  still, if you care about that kind of thing, there is simply no way that $0/mo is going to do nearly as much in terms of directly showing support as buying the bds would.   ads  thankfully, this is mostly a free service thing, and most free services have premium options that let you disable the ads.  hulu  is all kinds of wrong, though.   physical niceties  this is an  if you are into that  thing.  i like to fill up my bookshelves with my favorite books, movies, games, albums, etc.  some people hate gathering that stuff.  you can still buy the songs off amazon or itunes if you find a physical collection a pain.   selection  the selection across pretty much all streaming services is crap.  even disregarding currently airing shows, which i can wait for, there is plenty of stuff that probably wo not ever get licensed, ever.  it is just impossible to license a billion and one self published films, and having to deal with foreign content publishers seems crazy.  there is just too many individual publishers for a single monolithic streaming service to ever have a satisfactory selection.  it is not happening.   ownership/licensing/drm  the part i despise the most.  with subscription services, you do not pay for your own media.  you pay for access to someone else is collection.  spotify suddenly ca not get a deal with sony ? no more sony music for you.  netflix finds your profile fishy ? lol no more netflix for you.  my cds or drm free mp0s ? the only way to take those away would be to physically break into my house and steal them.  i can lend them to a friend, or hide them in a chest in some kind of attempt to preserve them.  if i so please, i can throw them away and forget they ever exist.  i can make copies to keep across all my computers.  i can take them to france and they will continue to work fine.  i guess this could be flipped on its head to say  you do not have to worry about keeping track of your stuff  since it is just on their servers, but i seriously doubt there are many people who care that much for that particular convenience.  oh, and stop putting drm on content i actually payed for.  fucking stop that shit.   #  spotify streams ogg audio, at 0kbps on mobile, 0kbps on desktop, and 0 to paying customers.   #  i know that ogg is supposed to sound better at low bitrates, but there is only so far you can push that.   # i know that ogg is supposed to sound better at low bitrates, but there is only so far you can push that.  the 0 stream is fine, and a 0 stream is  good enough , but the 0 mobile stream is just.  ugh.  none of these even come close to cd quality, though cd quality might be overkill.  streaming services like that offered by apple and google will stream a cd quality song even if you own a lower quality song.  0 kbps is mostly for free services, and that is used as a teaser to get you to pay for the subscription.  should companies not give out free samples to drum up subscribers ? most people ca not tell the difference above 0 kbps.  i have not the faintest clue about video compression, but they probably use a lot, judging by the blockiness, banding, and blurry motion.  i really do not mean to sound like a snob, but how do people stand watching that ? last i remember it, most of it was still sd, too.  netflix is starting to stream 0k content which is higher quality than most people can use.  the compression artifacts you see may be due to congestion on your internet service provider.  also, the device you use to stream netflix may not be up to the task.  i stream netflix on a relatively slow connection 0mpbs down and it is indistinguishable from dvd quality.  even disregarding currently airing shows, which i can wait for, there is plenty of stuff that probably wo not ever get licensed, ever.  it is just impossible to license a billion and one self published films, and having to deal with foreign content publishers seems crazy.  there is just too many individual publishers for a single monolithic streaming service to ever have a satisfactory selection.  it is not happening.  this is steadily improving as streaming becomes more popular.  is the netflix selection better than the local walmart ? does spotify have a better selection than the local music store ? with physical things, there is an inherent limit to the selection.  with streaming services, there is no limit to the selection.  with subscription services, you do not pay for your own media.  you pay for access to someone else is collection.  spotify suddenly ca not get a deal with sony ? no more sony music for you.  netflix finds your profile fishy ? lol no more netflix for you.  that is the point.  if you like to listen to tons of different music, it is more expensive to buy the tracks than to subscribe to a collection.  i can watch 0 hd movies or shows a month on netflix for the price of 0 rentals with redbox or about half the price of a blu ray disc.   #  through a sports package that costs me about $0 and netflix for another $0, i am guaranteed to always find something i am interested in watching something my much more expensive tv package ca not offer.   #  what you call  below average in every area except price  is what i call a well priced product that people enjoy.  even if you are the kind of person who buys every movie and tv show, there will still be instances when you want to check out a new movie without paying full price, or watch a couple episodes to find out if you like a show.  i do not consider netflix an alternative to buying movies, it is an alternative to paying for television.  through a sports package that costs me about $0 and netflix for another $0, i am guaranteed to always find something i am interested in watching something my much more expensive tv package ca not offer.  in the same way, spotify did not replace my record collection, it replaced my radio.  comparing netflix and spotify to television and radio places the former in an absolute league of their own, at much less than half the price.  it is an incredibly easy decision for me.   #  as i write this, i am finishing up the avengers on netflix, and i pre ordered that on dvd.   #  addressing a few all: quality: netflix streams in hd when it can.  there are current  ahem  issues with certain isps in that regard, but for someone like me who needs glasses to see in sd, hd is barely a noticeable improvement to my eyes.  as for audio quality.  i have never cared much; spotify is good enough for background noise.  buffering: annoying, but i do not ever deal with it; it is a matter of internet speed and connectivity; it has issues, sure, but it is generally fine.   support the creators  that is why i am using netflix rather than torrenting; i unfortunately ca not afford to buy every single movie i might want to watch; it is similar to renting in that regard; before netflix we had blockbuster, and as you might remember before netflix was a streaming service primarily, its benefit was namely a more convenient way to rent dvds ads this is annoying but also why i do not use hulu  physical niceties: i never understood it.  i have precious small living space, i would rather use as much of it for things i actually use servers, lockpicks, more viewing space than some little booklet that cost $0 to make and adds another $0 to the sticker price.  selection the selection sucks based on quantity, but it is rare for me to run across a movie on netflix that sucked so badly i wanted to just not watch it.  further, it sucks only as a function of how much it has vs every film in existence.  it blows my collection of dvds away, and it stomps the selection of my local theater that has 0 screens playing 0 0 movies.  ownership/drm this is the main thing for me: if i like a movie enough to want to own it, i will go buy it after having seen it.  as i write this, i am finishing up the avengers on netflix, and i pre ordered that on dvd.  i use netflix because it is simply more convenient than getting up and finding that dvd.  but i agree, on principle; drm for paid content is just annoying.   #  banding is banding is banding, whether that is 0p banding, 0p banding, or 0k banding.   #  streaming in hd is not going to fix how bitrate starved the thing is.  banding is banding is banding, whether that is 0p banding, 0p banding, or 0k banding.  i rarely deal with buffering myself.  but yeah.  i guess i just thought of it as shoddy because i was comparing it to complete bought and payed for content.  thinking of it as a rental service, it is solid.  have a   0;.   #  what it offers over its direct competition is a better selection of offerings for the same/a similar price hulu does not operate in the uk and amazon prime has a very poor selection  #  your quality and buffering issues are likely related.  in essence, when the bandwidth is so low that it cannot stream properly netflix chooses to provide lower resolution or higher compression versions of the stream in order to make your experience as good as it can.  obviously anecdotal, but the service never pauses for buffering for me, nor does it suffer from compression artifact or low resolution problems.  for the price i pay, the service is exceptionally good value.  especially as their android app is able to provide the same quality if my connection can handle it two people can watch in hd at the same time, on two different devices without problems .  what it offers over tv or other similar services is obviously convenience.  what it offers over its direct competition is a better selection of offerings for the same/a similar price hulu does not operate in the uk and amazon prime has a very poor selection
areas these services suck at:  quality  spotify streams ogg audio, at 0kbps on mobile, 0kbps on desktop, and 0 to paying customers.  i know that ogg is supposed to sound better at low bitrates, but there is only so far you can push that.  the 0 stream is fine, and a 0 stream is  good enough , but the 0 mobile stream is just.  ugh.  none of these even come close to cd quality, though cd quality might be overkill.  netflix is really the larger offender in this regard.  i have not the faintest clue about video compression, but they probably use a lot, judging by the blockiness, banding, and blurry motion.  i really do not mean to sound like a snob, but how do people stand watching that ? last i remember it, most of it was still sd, too.   buffering  this is insufferable.  even if it only happens once for every 0 movies i watch, i should not have to deal with this, ever.  when i am consuming something, i will damn right consume the whole thing, start to finish, without interruptions.    support the creators   i am not going to get on some kind of moral high horse and say some bullshit like  it is no different from piracy !   here.  i am sure the deals amazon, pandora, etc.  all pull must be huge.  they do not get a lot of money, but they get it from a lot of people.  still, if you care about that kind of thing, there is simply no way that $0/mo is going to do nearly as much in terms of directly showing support as buying the bds would.   ads  thankfully, this is mostly a free service thing, and most free services have premium options that let you disable the ads.  hulu  is all kinds of wrong, though.   physical niceties  this is an  if you are into that  thing.  i like to fill up my bookshelves with my favorite books, movies, games, albums, etc.  some people hate gathering that stuff.  you can still buy the songs off amazon or itunes if you find a physical collection a pain.   selection  the selection across pretty much all streaming services is crap.  even disregarding currently airing shows, which i can wait for, there is plenty of stuff that probably wo not ever get licensed, ever.  it is just impossible to license a billion and one self published films, and having to deal with foreign content publishers seems crazy.  there is just too many individual publishers for a single monolithic streaming service to ever have a satisfactory selection.  it is not happening.   ownership/licensing/drm  the part i despise the most.  with subscription services, you do not pay for your own media.  you pay for access to someone else is collection.  spotify suddenly ca not get a deal with sony ? no more sony music for you.  netflix finds your profile fishy ? lol no more netflix for you.  my cds or drm free mp0s ? the only way to take those away would be to physically break into my house and steal them.  i can lend them to a friend, or hide them in a chest in some kind of attempt to preserve them.  if i so please, i can throw them away and forget they ever exist.  i can make copies to keep across all my computers.  i can take them to france and they will continue to work fine.  i guess this could be flipped on its head to say  you do not have to worry about keeping track of your stuff  since it is just on their servers, but i seriously doubt there are many people who care that much for that particular convenience.  oh, and stop putting drm on content i actually payed for.  fucking stop that shit.   #  netflix is really the larger offender in this regard.   #  i have not the faintest clue about video compression, but they probably use a lot, judging by the blockiness, banding, and blurry motion.   # i know that ogg is supposed to sound better at low bitrates, but there is only so far you can push that.  the 0 stream is fine, and a 0 stream is  good enough , but the 0 mobile stream is just.  ugh.  none of these even come close to cd quality, though cd quality might be overkill.  streaming services like that offered by apple and google will stream a cd quality song even if you own a lower quality song.  0 kbps is mostly for free services, and that is used as a teaser to get you to pay for the subscription.  should companies not give out free samples to drum up subscribers ? most people ca not tell the difference above 0 kbps.  i have not the faintest clue about video compression, but they probably use a lot, judging by the blockiness, banding, and blurry motion.  i really do not mean to sound like a snob, but how do people stand watching that ? last i remember it, most of it was still sd, too.  netflix is starting to stream 0k content which is higher quality than most people can use.  the compression artifacts you see may be due to congestion on your internet service provider.  also, the device you use to stream netflix may not be up to the task.  i stream netflix on a relatively slow connection 0mpbs down and it is indistinguishable from dvd quality.  even disregarding currently airing shows, which i can wait for, there is plenty of stuff that probably wo not ever get licensed, ever.  it is just impossible to license a billion and one self published films, and having to deal with foreign content publishers seems crazy.  there is just too many individual publishers for a single monolithic streaming service to ever have a satisfactory selection.  it is not happening.  this is steadily improving as streaming becomes more popular.  is the netflix selection better than the local walmart ? does spotify have a better selection than the local music store ? with physical things, there is an inherent limit to the selection.  with streaming services, there is no limit to the selection.  with subscription services, you do not pay for your own media.  you pay for access to someone else is collection.  spotify suddenly ca not get a deal with sony ? no more sony music for you.  netflix finds your profile fishy ? lol no more netflix for you.  that is the point.  if you like to listen to tons of different music, it is more expensive to buy the tracks than to subscribe to a collection.  i can watch 0 hd movies or shows a month on netflix for the price of 0 rentals with redbox or about half the price of a blu ray disc.   #  what you call  below average in every area except price  is what i call a well priced product that people enjoy.   #  what you call  below average in every area except price  is what i call a well priced product that people enjoy.  even if you are the kind of person who buys every movie and tv show, there will still be instances when you want to check out a new movie without paying full price, or watch a couple episodes to find out if you like a show.  i do not consider netflix an alternative to buying movies, it is an alternative to paying for television.  through a sports package that costs me about $0 and netflix for another $0, i am guaranteed to always find something i am interested in watching something my much more expensive tv package ca not offer.  in the same way, spotify did not replace my record collection, it replaced my radio.  comparing netflix and spotify to television and radio places the former in an absolute league of their own, at much less than half the price.  it is an incredibly easy decision for me.   #  ownership/drm this is the main thing for me: if i like a movie enough to want to own it, i will go buy it after having seen it.   #  addressing a few all: quality: netflix streams in hd when it can.  there are current  ahem  issues with certain isps in that regard, but for someone like me who needs glasses to see in sd, hd is barely a noticeable improvement to my eyes.  as for audio quality.  i have never cared much; spotify is good enough for background noise.  buffering: annoying, but i do not ever deal with it; it is a matter of internet speed and connectivity; it has issues, sure, but it is generally fine.   support the creators  that is why i am using netflix rather than torrenting; i unfortunately ca not afford to buy every single movie i might want to watch; it is similar to renting in that regard; before netflix we had blockbuster, and as you might remember before netflix was a streaming service primarily, its benefit was namely a more convenient way to rent dvds ads this is annoying but also why i do not use hulu  physical niceties: i never understood it.  i have precious small living space, i would rather use as much of it for things i actually use servers, lockpicks, more viewing space than some little booklet that cost $0 to make and adds another $0 to the sticker price.  selection the selection sucks based on quantity, but it is rare for me to run across a movie on netflix that sucked so badly i wanted to just not watch it.  further, it sucks only as a function of how much it has vs every film in existence.  it blows my collection of dvds away, and it stomps the selection of my local theater that has 0 screens playing 0 0 movies.  ownership/drm this is the main thing for me: if i like a movie enough to want to own it, i will go buy it after having seen it.  as i write this, i am finishing up the avengers on netflix, and i pre ordered that on dvd.  i use netflix because it is simply more convenient than getting up and finding that dvd.  but i agree, on principle; drm for paid content is just annoying.   #  banding is banding is banding, whether that is 0p banding, 0p banding, or 0k banding.   #  streaming in hd is not going to fix how bitrate starved the thing is.  banding is banding is banding, whether that is 0p banding, 0p banding, or 0k banding.  i rarely deal with buffering myself.  but yeah.  i guess i just thought of it as shoddy because i was comparing it to complete bought and payed for content.  thinking of it as a rental service, it is solid.  have a   0;.   #  in essence, when the bandwidth is so low that it cannot stream properly netflix chooses to provide lower resolution or higher compression versions of the stream in order to make your experience as good as it can.   #  your quality and buffering issues are likely related.  in essence, when the bandwidth is so low that it cannot stream properly netflix chooses to provide lower resolution or higher compression versions of the stream in order to make your experience as good as it can.  obviously anecdotal, but the service never pauses for buffering for me, nor does it suffer from compression artifact or low resolution problems.  for the price i pay, the service is exceptionally good value.  especially as their android app is able to provide the same quality if my connection can handle it two people can watch in hd at the same time, on two different devices without problems .  what it offers over tv or other similar services is obviously convenience.  what it offers over its direct competition is a better selection of offerings for the same/a similar price hulu does not operate in the uk and amazon prime has a very poor selection
areas these services suck at:  quality  spotify streams ogg audio, at 0kbps on mobile, 0kbps on desktop, and 0 to paying customers.  i know that ogg is supposed to sound better at low bitrates, but there is only so far you can push that.  the 0 stream is fine, and a 0 stream is  good enough , but the 0 mobile stream is just.  ugh.  none of these even come close to cd quality, though cd quality might be overkill.  netflix is really the larger offender in this regard.  i have not the faintest clue about video compression, but they probably use a lot, judging by the blockiness, banding, and blurry motion.  i really do not mean to sound like a snob, but how do people stand watching that ? last i remember it, most of it was still sd, too.   buffering  this is insufferable.  even if it only happens once for every 0 movies i watch, i should not have to deal with this, ever.  when i am consuming something, i will damn right consume the whole thing, start to finish, without interruptions.    support the creators   i am not going to get on some kind of moral high horse and say some bullshit like  it is no different from piracy !   here.  i am sure the deals amazon, pandora, etc.  all pull must be huge.  they do not get a lot of money, but they get it from a lot of people.  still, if you care about that kind of thing, there is simply no way that $0/mo is going to do nearly as much in terms of directly showing support as buying the bds would.   ads  thankfully, this is mostly a free service thing, and most free services have premium options that let you disable the ads.  hulu  is all kinds of wrong, though.   physical niceties  this is an  if you are into that  thing.  i like to fill up my bookshelves with my favorite books, movies, games, albums, etc.  some people hate gathering that stuff.  you can still buy the songs off amazon or itunes if you find a physical collection a pain.   selection  the selection across pretty much all streaming services is crap.  even disregarding currently airing shows, which i can wait for, there is plenty of stuff that probably wo not ever get licensed, ever.  it is just impossible to license a billion and one self published films, and having to deal with foreign content publishers seems crazy.  there is just too many individual publishers for a single monolithic streaming service to ever have a satisfactory selection.  it is not happening.   ownership/licensing/drm  the part i despise the most.  with subscription services, you do not pay for your own media.  you pay for access to someone else is collection.  spotify suddenly ca not get a deal with sony ? no more sony music for you.  netflix finds your profile fishy ? lol no more netflix for you.  my cds or drm free mp0s ? the only way to take those away would be to physically break into my house and steal them.  i can lend them to a friend, or hide them in a chest in some kind of attempt to preserve them.  if i so please, i can throw them away and forget they ever exist.  i can make copies to keep across all my computers.  i can take them to france and they will continue to work fine.  i guess this could be flipped on its head to say  you do not have to worry about keeping track of your stuff  since it is just on their servers, but i seriously doubt there are many people who care that much for that particular convenience.  oh, and stop putting drm on content i actually payed for.  fucking stop that shit.   #  the selection across pretty much all streaming services is crap.   #  even disregarding currently airing shows, which i can wait for, there is plenty of stuff that probably wo not ever get licensed, ever.   # i know that ogg is supposed to sound better at low bitrates, but there is only so far you can push that.  the 0 stream is fine, and a 0 stream is  good enough , but the 0 mobile stream is just.  ugh.  none of these even come close to cd quality, though cd quality might be overkill.  streaming services like that offered by apple and google will stream a cd quality song even if you own a lower quality song.  0 kbps is mostly for free services, and that is used as a teaser to get you to pay for the subscription.  should companies not give out free samples to drum up subscribers ? most people ca not tell the difference above 0 kbps.  i have not the faintest clue about video compression, but they probably use a lot, judging by the blockiness, banding, and blurry motion.  i really do not mean to sound like a snob, but how do people stand watching that ? last i remember it, most of it was still sd, too.  netflix is starting to stream 0k content which is higher quality than most people can use.  the compression artifacts you see may be due to congestion on your internet service provider.  also, the device you use to stream netflix may not be up to the task.  i stream netflix on a relatively slow connection 0mpbs down and it is indistinguishable from dvd quality.  even disregarding currently airing shows, which i can wait for, there is plenty of stuff that probably wo not ever get licensed, ever.  it is just impossible to license a billion and one self published films, and having to deal with foreign content publishers seems crazy.  there is just too many individual publishers for a single monolithic streaming service to ever have a satisfactory selection.  it is not happening.  this is steadily improving as streaming becomes more popular.  is the netflix selection better than the local walmart ? does spotify have a better selection than the local music store ? with physical things, there is an inherent limit to the selection.  with streaming services, there is no limit to the selection.  with subscription services, you do not pay for your own media.  you pay for access to someone else is collection.  spotify suddenly ca not get a deal with sony ? no more sony music for you.  netflix finds your profile fishy ? lol no more netflix for you.  that is the point.  if you like to listen to tons of different music, it is more expensive to buy the tracks than to subscribe to a collection.  i can watch 0 hd movies or shows a month on netflix for the price of 0 rentals with redbox or about half the price of a blu ray disc.   #  through a sports package that costs me about $0 and netflix for another $0, i am guaranteed to always find something i am interested in watching something my much more expensive tv package ca not offer.   #  what you call  below average in every area except price  is what i call a well priced product that people enjoy.  even if you are the kind of person who buys every movie and tv show, there will still be instances when you want to check out a new movie without paying full price, or watch a couple episodes to find out if you like a show.  i do not consider netflix an alternative to buying movies, it is an alternative to paying for television.  through a sports package that costs me about $0 and netflix for another $0, i am guaranteed to always find something i am interested in watching something my much more expensive tv package ca not offer.  in the same way, spotify did not replace my record collection, it replaced my radio.  comparing netflix and spotify to television and radio places the former in an absolute league of their own, at much less than half the price.  it is an incredibly easy decision for me.   #  as for audio quality.  i have never cared much; spotify is good enough for background noise.   #  addressing a few all: quality: netflix streams in hd when it can.  there are current  ahem  issues with certain isps in that regard, but for someone like me who needs glasses to see in sd, hd is barely a noticeable improvement to my eyes.  as for audio quality.  i have never cared much; spotify is good enough for background noise.  buffering: annoying, but i do not ever deal with it; it is a matter of internet speed and connectivity; it has issues, sure, but it is generally fine.   support the creators  that is why i am using netflix rather than torrenting; i unfortunately ca not afford to buy every single movie i might want to watch; it is similar to renting in that regard; before netflix we had blockbuster, and as you might remember before netflix was a streaming service primarily, its benefit was namely a more convenient way to rent dvds ads this is annoying but also why i do not use hulu  physical niceties: i never understood it.  i have precious small living space, i would rather use as much of it for things i actually use servers, lockpicks, more viewing space than some little booklet that cost $0 to make and adds another $0 to the sticker price.  selection the selection sucks based on quantity, but it is rare for me to run across a movie on netflix that sucked so badly i wanted to just not watch it.  further, it sucks only as a function of how much it has vs every film in existence.  it blows my collection of dvds away, and it stomps the selection of my local theater that has 0 screens playing 0 0 movies.  ownership/drm this is the main thing for me: if i like a movie enough to want to own it, i will go buy it after having seen it.  as i write this, i am finishing up the avengers on netflix, and i pre ordered that on dvd.  i use netflix because it is simply more convenient than getting up and finding that dvd.  but i agree, on principle; drm for paid content is just annoying.   #  thinking of it as a rental service, it is solid.   #  streaming in hd is not going to fix how bitrate starved the thing is.  banding is banding is banding, whether that is 0p banding, 0p banding, or 0k banding.  i rarely deal with buffering myself.  but yeah.  i guess i just thought of it as shoddy because i was comparing it to complete bought and payed for content.  thinking of it as a rental service, it is solid.  have a   0;.   #  what it offers over its direct competition is a better selection of offerings for the same/a similar price hulu does not operate in the uk and amazon prime has a very poor selection  #  your quality and buffering issues are likely related.  in essence, when the bandwidth is so low that it cannot stream properly netflix chooses to provide lower resolution or higher compression versions of the stream in order to make your experience as good as it can.  obviously anecdotal, but the service never pauses for buffering for me, nor does it suffer from compression artifact or low resolution problems.  for the price i pay, the service is exceptionally good value.  especially as their android app is able to provide the same quality if my connection can handle it two people can watch in hd at the same time, on two different devices without problems .  what it offers over tv or other similar services is obviously convenience.  what it offers over its direct competition is a better selection of offerings for the same/a similar price hulu does not operate in the uk and amazon prime has a very poor selection
i believe using adblock in almost any form is immoral.  presumably one is on a site because they enjoy the site is content or they at the very least want access to it.  this site has associated costs in producing and hosting that content.  if they are running ads this is how they have chosen to pay for those costs.  by disabling those ads you are effectively taking the content that the site is providing but not using the agreed upon payment method having the ads on your screen .  i think there are rare examples where it is okay sites that promised to not have ads behind a paywall and lied , and i think using something to disable tracking is fine as well, but disabling ads, even with a whitelist, is immoral.  cmv.   #  by disabling those ads you are effectively taking the content that the site is providing but not using the agreed upon payment method having the ads on your screen .   #  and   i think using something to disable tracking is fine tracking is a part of the agreed upon payment method for the site hosting not the content, which is often provided by the users for free .   #  could you clarify how these two statements are consistent in your mind ? and   i think using something to disable tracking is fine tracking is a part of the agreed upon payment method for the site hosting not the content, which is often provided by the users for free .  i will just go ahead and say that you are already on the slippery slope of ethical rationalization of your own preferred experience.  you think video ads are fine, but tracking is not.  that is not an ethical argument.  it is a personal preference.  you know who else makes decisions about blocking vs.  not blocking based on personal preference ? people who do ad blocking.  adblock plus has published a manifesto of acceptable ads.  URL acceptable ads are not annoying.  acceptable ads do not disrupt or distort the page content we are trying to read.  acceptable ads are transparent with us about being an ad.  acceptable ads are effective without shouting at us.  acceptable ads are appropriate to the site that we are on.  so really, how much of this conversation is about the ethical basis for blocking ads, and how much is based on where to draw the line about what we block or boycott ? for an example of boycotting, let me reference a facebook app.  one time i tried to play farmville.  at that time, it seemed that they would not let you start unless you invited 0 new friends.  this is just another form of compensation, similar to ads and tracking.  the company gets something from you in order to let you participate.  so i did not participate.  the line has to be drawn somewhere, and anything that wo not allow somewhat fluid and free access is not worthy of being considered to exist on the  web .  this is a complicated arms race, not a binary distinction.  for instance, the new york times will block access to people trying to view an article and solicit to buy a subscription , but yet, it will let search engines crawl its content.  as a consolation to google, they sometimes allow access  when they otherwise would not have  if the user gets to it via a google search.  why ? because if they did not, google would have de listed them in search.  bad guys are out there, who would like to  benefit  from the web is ecosystem, but refuse to contribute to it.  you ca not have it both ways.  no one prevents you from hosting a private network.  if your content is hidden behind so many layers of ads, then i should not encounter it organically browsing the web  in the first place .   #  is changing channels during tv or radio commercials immoral too ?  #  is changing channels during tv or radio commercials immoral too ? to me this is not a matter of morality at all.  they send me a bunch chunk of data that i requested.  i did not agree to view it in any specific way.  once the data is on my computer, i can render it however i want, even if that means excluding parts of it.  if that is not a sustainable business model, they can find another one.  i do not understand why i am morally responsible for a business is financial decisions.   #  google also donates tons of money to fund firefox, which similarly has ad block as a featured extension in their add on page.   # since when ? who decided this ? google for example which is at it is heart an advertising company allows ad block to be added to their web browser and hosts the ad block extension in their web store.  google also donates tons of money to fund firefox, which similarly has ad block as a featured extension in their add on page.  if there is an implicit agreement for me to view ads, why are the one benefiting from it the most making it so easy to block them ? no, because i disagree that by viewing their content i am agreeing to anything.  the only implicit agreement here is that when i send an http get request, i get served a page in return.  and they are free to not hold up their end of the bargain.  when i get that page served back, if i want to view it with ad block on, or upside down and backwards, or in a text based browser that does not even support ads then that is my prerogative.  there is no moral right to dictate how i view the data they have sent to me.   #  i can load it up in lynx, a text only browser that does not even have the capability of displaying images.   #  not really.  i mean, if you do not want me to view your page, do not send it to me.  if you send it to me, you have given me permission to do whatever i want with the data within the law.  i can read it as raw html.  i can use a browser to turn it into a nice looking page.  i can load it up in lynx, a text only browser that does not even have the capability of displaying images.  site operators do not send me a rendered web page, they send me a blob of data.  it is my computer is job to turn that into something useful to me.  when i buy video games, there is nothing immoral about me modding them.  when i buy a movie, there is nothing wrong with me skipping a scene i did not want to watch.  the data is in my possession, i can do what i want with it.  it is not my responsibility to find a business model that works for you.  making this a moral issue is useless.  it is a business issue that needs to be solved by trying different business models until you find something that works.  reddit decided they could not stay in business by just serving ads, so rather than tell everyone how they were stealing content for free and shaming them for doing something ostensibly immoral, they introduced reddit gold.  and to placate the rest of the users, they do not always use the ad space for ads, and they take care to only show well behaved ads rather than obnoxious ones so that people will be inclined to leave the site unblocked.  they found a business solution to the problem and it worked.  blaming users for stealing something you willingly gave to them is ridiculous.   #  however, even if you have heard review that puzzles 0 0 are subpar and not worth playing, you ca not simply pay for the rest of the levels and those levels only.   #  the problem with your analogy if nodding video games or skipping movies is that it does not compare.  ads are served along with the website at least are intended to be consumed and viewed as one , and so are say, the 0 levels that come with this puzzle game you just bought.  however, even if you have heard review that puzzles 0 0 are subpar and not worth playing, you ca not simply pay for the rest of the levels and those levels only.  it comes in a package, either you buy the whole package with some shitty levels or you do not get the whole game.  now you might say that the company should not have had those shitty levels and instead should have ensured a certain quality to their entire game, but the company made no promise to deliver quality games and is simply risking their own sales with these shitty levels.  if a company decides to sell their meat only at $0 per 0kg and not any other way, how can you say you want to buy 0kg for $0, or even worse, 0kg for nothing ? the company has decided for the 0kg of meat to go together and together only, and regardless of whether they chose to do so because they were not making enough money selling them in smaller packets or simply feel like 0kg is the right amount.  you should respect that decision, like how the company respects your decision to not buy from them because of how they package and sell their food.  the company accepts the fact that it will drive some customers away, and you accept that you might get some things you do not want game levels, too much meat, etc.  by choosing their product.  similarly, a website, poor or good, chooses to deliver ads along with it as a complete package, well knowing that they might lose users because of them being averted by ads.  the difference that causes confusion and trouble here is that in the internet you have the ability to very easily block out the content you want to view no matter how the server sends it.
i believe using adblock in almost any form is immoral.  presumably one is on a site because they enjoy the site is content or they at the very least want access to it.  this site has associated costs in producing and hosting that content.  if they are running ads this is how they have chosen to pay for those costs.  by disabling those ads you are effectively taking the content that the site is providing but not using the agreed upon payment method having the ads on your screen .  i think there are rare examples where it is okay sites that promised to not have ads behind a paywall and lied , and i think using something to disable tracking is fine as well, but disabling ads, even with a whitelist, is immoral.  cmv.   #  by disabling those ads you are effectively taking the content that the site is providing but not using the agreed upon payment method having the ads on your screen .   #  i think that is the big point.   # i think that is the big point.  i have not agreed to anything in most of the cases.  most web pages offer me their content for free, there is no agreement that i have to pay by loading their ads.  my personal security and privacy is worth more than an ad view for the company.  personally i have adblock with the default settings, so it wo not block every ad.  if a company wants to earn money with their content, then they have to find a business model that works best for them.  maybe the best model are ads, as the amount of users is so high, that it does not matter that many of the users are using adblock.  if it is not enough, then they should think about different business models.  i think a better example would be a restaurant that gives away their food for free and you only have to pay for drinks, without requiring that you have to buy one.   #  is changing channels during tv or radio commercials immoral too ?  #  is changing channels during tv or radio commercials immoral too ? to me this is not a matter of morality at all.  they send me a bunch chunk of data that i requested.  i did not agree to view it in any specific way.  once the data is on my computer, i can render it however i want, even if that means excluding parts of it.  if that is not a sustainable business model, they can find another one.  i do not understand why i am morally responsible for a business is financial decisions.   #  google for example which is at it is heart an advertising company allows ad block to be added to their web browser and hosts the ad block extension in their web store.   # since when ? who decided this ? google for example which is at it is heart an advertising company allows ad block to be added to their web browser and hosts the ad block extension in their web store.  google also donates tons of money to fund firefox, which similarly has ad block as a featured extension in their add on page.  if there is an implicit agreement for me to view ads, why are the one benefiting from it the most making it so easy to block them ? no, because i disagree that by viewing their content i am agreeing to anything.  the only implicit agreement here is that when i send an http get request, i get served a page in return.  and they are free to not hold up their end of the bargain.  when i get that page served back, if i want to view it with ad block on, or upside down and backwards, or in a text based browser that does not even support ads then that is my prerogative.  there is no moral right to dictate how i view the data they have sent to me.   #  blaming users for stealing something you willingly gave to them is ridiculous.   #  not really.  i mean, if you do not want me to view your page, do not send it to me.  if you send it to me, you have given me permission to do whatever i want with the data within the law.  i can read it as raw html.  i can use a browser to turn it into a nice looking page.  i can load it up in lynx, a text only browser that does not even have the capability of displaying images.  site operators do not send me a rendered web page, they send me a blob of data.  it is my computer is job to turn that into something useful to me.  when i buy video games, there is nothing immoral about me modding them.  when i buy a movie, there is nothing wrong with me skipping a scene i did not want to watch.  the data is in my possession, i can do what i want with it.  it is not my responsibility to find a business model that works for you.  making this a moral issue is useless.  it is a business issue that needs to be solved by trying different business models until you find something that works.  reddit decided they could not stay in business by just serving ads, so rather than tell everyone how they were stealing content for free and shaming them for doing something ostensibly immoral, they introduced reddit gold.  and to placate the rest of the users, they do not always use the ad space for ads, and they take care to only show well behaved ads rather than obnoxious ones so that people will be inclined to leave the site unblocked.  they found a business solution to the problem and it worked.  blaming users for stealing something you willingly gave to them is ridiculous.   #  similarly, a website, poor or good, chooses to deliver ads along with it as a complete package, well knowing that they might lose users because of them being averted by ads.   #  the problem with your analogy if nodding video games or skipping movies is that it does not compare.  ads are served along with the website at least are intended to be consumed and viewed as one , and so are say, the 0 levels that come with this puzzle game you just bought.  however, even if you have heard review that puzzles 0 0 are subpar and not worth playing, you ca not simply pay for the rest of the levels and those levels only.  it comes in a package, either you buy the whole package with some shitty levels or you do not get the whole game.  now you might say that the company should not have had those shitty levels and instead should have ensured a certain quality to their entire game, but the company made no promise to deliver quality games and is simply risking their own sales with these shitty levels.  if a company decides to sell their meat only at $0 per 0kg and not any other way, how can you say you want to buy 0kg for $0, or even worse, 0kg for nothing ? the company has decided for the 0kg of meat to go together and together only, and regardless of whether they chose to do so because they were not making enough money selling them in smaller packets or simply feel like 0kg is the right amount.  you should respect that decision, like how the company respects your decision to not buy from them because of how they package and sell their food.  the company accepts the fact that it will drive some customers away, and you accept that you might get some things you do not want game levels, too much meat, etc.  by choosing their product.  similarly, a website, poor or good, chooses to deliver ads along with it as a complete package, well knowing that they might lose users because of them being averted by ads.  the difference that causes confusion and trouble here is that in the internet you have the ability to very easily block out the content you want to view no matter how the server sends it.
i believe using adblock in almost any form is immoral.  presumably one is on a site because they enjoy the site is content or they at the very least want access to it.  this site has associated costs in producing and hosting that content.  if they are running ads this is how they have chosen to pay for those costs.  by disabling those ads you are effectively taking the content that the site is providing but not using the agreed upon payment method having the ads on your screen .  i think there are rare examples where it is okay sites that promised to not have ads behind a paywall and lied , and i think using something to disable tracking is fine as well, but disabling ads, even with a whitelist, is immoral.  cmv.   #  by disabling those ads you are effectively taking the content that the site is providing but not using the agreed upon payment method having the ads on your screen .   #  i agreed to no such thing when accessing a site.   # i agreed to no such thing when accessing a site.  if i am truly obligated to view ads in order to view that site is content, then i would have had to accept such an agreement.  also, i do not care if the site is only source of revenue is through ads.  if ads as the only source of income are so unreliable, then they should seek other means of income than seeking the pity card.  and many ads tend to be intrusive, obstructive, and sometimes malicious.  they range from being irritating when i am on sparknotes, i do not want my train of thought be distracted by obnoxious promotions , to disturbing sites often have offensive or pornographic ads , to plain malicious ads that download viruses or unwanted content .   #  i did not agree to view it in any specific way.   #  is changing channels during tv or radio commercials immoral too ? to me this is not a matter of morality at all.  they send me a bunch chunk of data that i requested.  i did not agree to view it in any specific way.  once the data is on my computer, i can render it however i want, even if that means excluding parts of it.  if that is not a sustainable business model, they can find another one.  i do not understand why i am morally responsible for a business is financial decisions.   #  google for example which is at it is heart an advertising company allows ad block to be added to their web browser and hosts the ad block extension in their web store.   # since when ? who decided this ? google for example which is at it is heart an advertising company allows ad block to be added to their web browser and hosts the ad block extension in their web store.  google also donates tons of money to fund firefox, which similarly has ad block as a featured extension in their add on page.  if there is an implicit agreement for me to view ads, why are the one benefiting from it the most making it so easy to block them ? no, because i disagree that by viewing their content i am agreeing to anything.  the only implicit agreement here is that when i send an http get request, i get served a page in return.  and they are free to not hold up their end of the bargain.  when i get that page served back, if i want to view it with ad block on, or upside down and backwards, or in a text based browser that does not even support ads then that is my prerogative.  there is no moral right to dictate how i view the data they have sent to me.   #  the data is in my possession, i can do what i want with it.   #  not really.  i mean, if you do not want me to view your page, do not send it to me.  if you send it to me, you have given me permission to do whatever i want with the data within the law.  i can read it as raw html.  i can use a browser to turn it into a nice looking page.  i can load it up in lynx, a text only browser that does not even have the capability of displaying images.  site operators do not send me a rendered web page, they send me a blob of data.  it is my computer is job to turn that into something useful to me.  when i buy video games, there is nothing immoral about me modding them.  when i buy a movie, there is nothing wrong with me skipping a scene i did not want to watch.  the data is in my possession, i can do what i want with it.  it is not my responsibility to find a business model that works for you.  making this a moral issue is useless.  it is a business issue that needs to be solved by trying different business models until you find something that works.  reddit decided they could not stay in business by just serving ads, so rather than tell everyone how they were stealing content for free and shaming them for doing something ostensibly immoral, they introduced reddit gold.  and to placate the rest of the users, they do not always use the ad space for ads, and they take care to only show well behaved ads rather than obnoxious ones so that people will be inclined to leave the site unblocked.  they found a business solution to the problem and it worked.  blaming users for stealing something you willingly gave to them is ridiculous.   #  the company accepts the fact that it will drive some customers away, and you accept that you might get some things you do not want game levels, too much meat, etc.   #  the problem with your analogy if nodding video games or skipping movies is that it does not compare.  ads are served along with the website at least are intended to be consumed and viewed as one , and so are say, the 0 levels that come with this puzzle game you just bought.  however, even if you have heard review that puzzles 0 0 are subpar and not worth playing, you ca not simply pay for the rest of the levels and those levels only.  it comes in a package, either you buy the whole package with some shitty levels or you do not get the whole game.  now you might say that the company should not have had those shitty levels and instead should have ensured a certain quality to their entire game, but the company made no promise to deliver quality games and is simply risking their own sales with these shitty levels.  if a company decides to sell their meat only at $0 per 0kg and not any other way, how can you say you want to buy 0kg for $0, or even worse, 0kg for nothing ? the company has decided for the 0kg of meat to go together and together only, and regardless of whether they chose to do so because they were not making enough money selling them in smaller packets or simply feel like 0kg is the right amount.  you should respect that decision, like how the company respects your decision to not buy from them because of how they package and sell their food.  the company accepts the fact that it will drive some customers away, and you accept that you might get some things you do not want game levels, too much meat, etc.  by choosing their product.  similarly, a website, poor or good, chooses to deliver ads along with it as a complete package, well knowing that they might lose users because of them being averted by ads.  the difference that causes confusion and trouble here is that in the internet you have the ability to very easily block out the content you want to view no matter how the server sends it.
i find it acceptable that certain groups of people do not deserve to live.  i think the environment is more important than individual people.  though the continued existence of humanity is, selfishly, important to me i think that crimes against the environment and society should be much more severely punished.  people who hunt endangered trophy animals and people who do things like this URL should be eligible for extremely harsh prison sentences 0 to life .  there are also people who are in positions of power ex.  high level businessmen, politicians, and police officers and betray the public trust.  these people ought to be stripped of their personhood.  they would be unable to be sued or be sued, sure.  that is one drawback, however, the complete and total forfeiture of their assets to be distributed amongst those most affected would preclude the need to sue such things.  they would not have an easy life as they could be forced to do any such task that people see fit for them to perform.  laws would not apply to them.  i am not sure who would be responsible for the things, but i do not see that as a point of concern.   meat of the argument if you want to skip a bit of a tangent:  the reason i see such a harsh punishment as just and fair is that these sorts of things are easily worse than the worst crimes we have now.  people who kill other people on anything but a genocidal scale harm many lives, but people who cause other species to be extinct through gross misconduct or warm the earth by being wasteful, do harm to all of us and all future generations of society.  they should be removed from it.  also, few people would be in jail overall in this scenario as i would reduce the sentences for more minor crimes.  potential counterpoints:  that is communism !   i do not care that it is anti capitalist.  i view it as a heavily modified form of utilitarianism/socialism though inconsistencies with the base ideology is not worth mentioning .   people have inherent value and are way more important than the environment.   i do buy into the idea that one human has a higher base value than one non endangered, non human animal, but one human does not outweigh all of society and then environment.   this goes too far.   i do not believe that compromise is possible in america.  we do not prioritize the environment and society nearly enough and i would rather be too harsh than not harsh enough and destroy one of the few and possibly only life supporting planets in the universe.   this will never work !   i think it could work in my form of government, but that is another, longer cmv, i guess.  for now, let is stick to the idea that these sorts of crimes are much worse.  note: this specifically refers to the united states of america, but i could see it as acceptable elsewhere if need be.  i really only mention this to help the cmvers looking for a delta to get a frame of reference.  not claiming america is better or worse than anywhere else on this issue.   #  we do not prioritize the environment and society nearly enough and i would rather be too harsh than not harsh enough and destroy one of the few and possibly only life supporting planets in the universe.   #  if  people are destroying the environment, it is happening in india and pr china.   # baning the hunting of some of these  extinct in the wild  animals is going to lead to their extinction URL would you rather have animals not exist at all or have some hunted ? it seems the people responsible for the loss of these creatures on earth are those who want to ban them from being hunted.  if  people are destroying the environment, it is happening in india and pr china.  your argument should not be against the usa.  i am an avid angler, hiker, and hunter.  i go outside and see the natural wonders, and it is not as you make it out to be.   #  i think the ultimate issue you have to face is  how much damage do the individual actions actually cause ?  #  i think the ultimate issue you have to face is  how much damage do the individual actions actually cause ?  .  with few exceptions, the amount of environmental damage any individual action can cause is negligible.  even on a larger scale, you still run into the issue of having no idea how much damage was actually caused.  how many people will the emissions of this particular factory kill ? maybe billions, maybe zero, we do not really know.  since you specifically mentioned the usa, we try criminal cases on a scale of reasonable doubt.  for someone to be convicted of a crime, they have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which you ca not really do for future environmental damage.  all of this is like, 0 times more difficult when it comes to contributing to the extinction of a species.  it is equally hard to show the actual damage that one person contributed, and it is almost impossible to guess the scale of damage that a reduction in diversity of species will cause to humanity.   #  people use phrases like  against society  because they ca not find a real victim other than the consumer themselves.   #  prohibitionists, both of alcohol in yesteryear and drugs today, have considered such indulgent consumption to be a crime against society.  the proliferation of vice, as they saw it, was a menace to civilization.  you have to ask yourself: what is a crime against society ? where do you draw the line ? people use phrases like  against society  because they ca not find a real victim other than the consumer themselves.  governments are still using this thought process today, by outright ban of drugs, and tolerance of alcohol and tobacco, so long as the tax man gets his cut  to discourage people from making bad decisions.    #  that is why warren buffett and bill gates can say things like  the rich should pay higher income taxes  and they wo not even be phased.   # even when you put in something seemingly for progress or good.  for example, environmental regulations in the automotive industry, setting emission standards required of all newly made cars.  the big three in detroit might pretend to hate this stuff, because of their increased r d and manufacturing costs, but they love more regulations.  why ? because it shuts out small start up companies that might compete with them in 0 or 0 years.  big incumbent businesses can soak up regulatory costs, and newcomers in the market will fail.  income tax hikes on the rich ? a total joke.  the 0 hardly make a dime off their salaries compared to their investments.  that is why warren buffett and bill gates can say things like  the rich should pay higher income taxes  and they wo not even be phased.  a capital gains tax would hit them much harder, but then that also hits everyone 0 and above who have invested in a 0k, just for some liberal politician to score some points with their constituents to look like they are trying to get more income equality.  those politicians wo not do anything their rich campaign donors do not approve of.   #  if we were to stop all pollution right now current estimates are that it would warm another degree.   #  you are argument rests on the assumption that doing some damage to the environment now endangers people in the future.  i do not think this is a fair assumption.  the world is heating up very fast.  if we were to stop all pollution right now current estimates are that it would warm another degree.  stopping all pollution right now is not feasible, so we seem to be headed for large scale warming, mass flooding, drought, famine etc.  however, i do not think we will let it get to that point.  once warming gets out of hand i believe there will be enough popular will for climate engineering to become the solution that everyone reaches for.  i think the mostly likely end result is that we pump chemicals into the environment to stop all the warming, and perhaps even cool back down as necessary.  this may be a solution that you do not like very much, but there is hardly a guarantee that environmental crimes now will lead to mass deaths now or in the future.
jefferson davis and robert e.  lee, lee especially, were directly responsible for the single worst crisis in u. s.  history and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans.  while it helped the nation heal to offer amnesty to the bulk of confederate soldiers and collaborators, it sent exactly the wrong message to allow the leaders to escape unscathed.  lee is betrayal was the worst, because it was exactly his military expertise that allowed the confederacy to survive so long.  if he would fought for the union, the war would have been over much sooner.  all his previous service to the country means nothing in the face of such a betrayal.  to say that they would have been idolized as martyrs misses the fact that they are still idolized today even though they lived out their lives.   #  jefferson davis and robert e.  lee, lee especially, were directly responsible for the single worst crisis in u. s.   #  history and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans.   # history and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans.  does not matter.  soldiers cannot be prosecuted for acts of war.  lee is acts killed a lot of union soldiers.  it is not a crime for soldiers to kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield.  the confederacy did not survive for very long.  the union had competent generals as well you know.   #  the anti federal sentiment was not strictly rooted in a pro slavery viewpoint, but that is how the war is taught.   #  while i was taking us history courses in college i realized how poorly the post civil war era is taught in high schools.  it seems like, as far as these high school classes are concerned, after lincoln is assassination and lee is surrender, pretty much nothing happens in the south until the civil rights movement in the  0s and  0s.  high schools  really  gloss over the tumultuous 0 year period that was reconstruction.  the south did not simply cave in the spring of 0, it just did not have the  capability  to continue fighting.  the will had not entirely disappeared.  i see a lot of really passionate hatred not mere dislike,  hatred  for the south on reddit, and i think a lot of it is caused by the way high schools teach the civil war.  the anti federal sentiment was not strictly rooted in a pro slavery viewpoint, but that is how the war is taught.  i have seen people on reddit say that anyone who even  fought  for the confederacy should have been either executed or imprisoned for decades or even life.  without a college level understanding of the situation, you ca not fully appreciate how important a degree of amnesty was needed.  at the risk of sounding arrogant, if redditors like op had their way, the civil war would have never really ended.  the resentment would have been perpetuated, and in some ways justified imo.   #  because it was pretty well rooted in slavery is why.   # because it was pretty well rooted in slavery is why.  it is not just simplistic it is also largely true.  just take a gander at why south carolina said it was leaving the union.  for many years these laws were executed.  but an increasing hostility on the part of the non slaveholding states to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the general government have ceased to effect the objects of the constitution.  the states of maine, new hampshire, vermont, massachusetts, connecticut, rhode island, new york, pennsylvania, illinois, indiana, michigan, wisconsin and iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the acts of congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.  in many of these states the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the state government complied with the stipulation made in the constitution.  the state of new jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of congress.  in the state of new york even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the states of ohio and iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the state of virginia.  thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non slaveholding states, and the consequence follows that south carolina is released from her obligation.  URL regardless of a lot of the rhetoric about the civil war being fought for state rights it really boils down to the state right they wanted was slavery and that is what they were fighting for.   #  renewed violence as a result of their executions was very unlikely.   #  but it is not like amnesty was the absolute consensus view.  if both lincoln and johnson had been killed by booth and gang, it is likely schuyler colfax and the rest of the radical republicans would not have been as forgiving.  southern forces were completely defeated; casualties were crippling, southern capitals had been burned to the ground, and the economy was severely restricted by the naval blockade and war damage.  renewed violence as a result of their executions was very unlikely.  the subsequent preamture end of reconstruction and the century that followed shows the country was barely united regardless of amnesty.   #  if the south did not want war, they should not have shelled it.   #  you mean the federal fort inside territory of treacherous states ? do you honestly think the union should have just shrugged it is shoulders and let the south have their way ? they did not like the direction democratic process was taking them away from slavery so they decided to leave, and take whatever they felt entitled to with them.  the union was sure as hell justified in not having over sumter.  if the south did not want war, they should not have shelled it.
jefferson davis and robert e.  lee, lee especially, were directly responsible for the single worst crisis in u. s.  history and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans.  while it helped the nation heal to offer amnesty to the bulk of confederate soldiers and collaborators, it sent exactly the wrong message to allow the leaders to escape unscathed.  lee is betrayal was the worst, because it was exactly his military expertise that allowed the confederacy to survive so long.  if he would fought for the union, the war would have been over much sooner.  all his previous service to the country means nothing in the face of such a betrayal.  to say that they would have been idolized as martyrs misses the fact that they are still idolized today even though they lived out their lives.   #  lee is betrayal was the worst, because it was exactly his military expertise that allowed the confederacy to survive so long.   #  the confederacy did not survive for very long.   # history and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans.  does not matter.  soldiers cannot be prosecuted for acts of war.  lee is acts killed a lot of union soldiers.  it is not a crime for soldiers to kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield.  the confederacy did not survive for very long.  the union had competent generals as well you know.   #  the anti federal sentiment was not strictly rooted in a pro slavery viewpoint, but that is how the war is taught.   #  while i was taking us history courses in college i realized how poorly the post civil war era is taught in high schools.  it seems like, as far as these high school classes are concerned, after lincoln is assassination and lee is surrender, pretty much nothing happens in the south until the civil rights movement in the  0s and  0s.  high schools  really  gloss over the tumultuous 0 year period that was reconstruction.  the south did not simply cave in the spring of 0, it just did not have the  capability  to continue fighting.  the will had not entirely disappeared.  i see a lot of really passionate hatred not mere dislike,  hatred  for the south on reddit, and i think a lot of it is caused by the way high schools teach the civil war.  the anti federal sentiment was not strictly rooted in a pro slavery viewpoint, but that is how the war is taught.  i have seen people on reddit say that anyone who even  fought  for the confederacy should have been either executed or imprisoned for decades or even life.  without a college level understanding of the situation, you ca not fully appreciate how important a degree of amnesty was needed.  at the risk of sounding arrogant, if redditors like op had their way, the civil war would have never really ended.  the resentment would have been perpetuated, and in some ways justified imo.   #  just take a gander at why south carolina said it was leaving the union.   # because it was pretty well rooted in slavery is why.  it is not just simplistic it is also largely true.  just take a gander at why south carolina said it was leaving the union.  for many years these laws were executed.  but an increasing hostility on the part of the non slaveholding states to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the general government have ceased to effect the objects of the constitution.  the states of maine, new hampshire, vermont, massachusetts, connecticut, rhode island, new york, pennsylvania, illinois, indiana, michigan, wisconsin and iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the acts of congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.  in many of these states the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the state government complied with the stipulation made in the constitution.  the state of new jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of congress.  in the state of new york even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the states of ohio and iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the state of virginia.  thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non slaveholding states, and the consequence follows that south carolina is released from her obligation.  URL regardless of a lot of the rhetoric about the civil war being fought for state rights it really boils down to the state right they wanted was slavery and that is what they were fighting for.   #  southern forces were completely defeated; casualties were crippling, southern capitals had been burned to the ground, and the economy was severely restricted by the naval blockade and war damage.   #  but it is not like amnesty was the absolute consensus view.  if both lincoln and johnson had been killed by booth and gang, it is likely schuyler colfax and the rest of the radical republicans would not have been as forgiving.  southern forces were completely defeated; casualties were crippling, southern capitals had been burned to the ground, and the economy was severely restricted by the naval blockade and war damage.  renewed violence as a result of their executions was very unlikely.  the subsequent preamture end of reconstruction and the century that followed shows the country was barely united regardless of amnesty.   #  if the south did not want war, they should not have shelled it.   #  you mean the federal fort inside territory of treacherous states ? do you honestly think the union should have just shrugged it is shoulders and let the south have their way ? they did not like the direction democratic process was taking them away from slavery so they decided to leave, and take whatever they felt entitled to with them.  the union was sure as hell justified in not having over sumter.  if the south did not want war, they should not have shelled it.
jefferson davis and robert e.  lee, lee especially, were directly responsible for the single worst crisis in u. s.  history and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans.  while it helped the nation heal to offer amnesty to the bulk of confederate soldiers and collaborators, it sent exactly the wrong message to allow the leaders to escape unscathed.  lee is betrayal was the worst, because it was exactly his military expertise that allowed the confederacy to survive so long.  if he would fought for the union, the war would have been over much sooner.  all his previous service to the country means nothing in the face of such a betrayal.  to say that they would have been idolized as martyrs misses the fact that they are still idolized today even though they lived out their lives.   #  if he would fought for the union, the war would have been over much sooner.   #  the union had competent generals as well you know.   # history and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans.  does not matter.  soldiers cannot be prosecuted for acts of war.  lee is acts killed a lot of union soldiers.  it is not a crime for soldiers to kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield.  the confederacy did not survive for very long.  the union had competent generals as well you know.   #  it seems like, as far as these high school classes are concerned, after lincoln is assassination and lee is surrender, pretty much nothing happens in the south until the civil rights movement in the  0s and  0s.   #  while i was taking us history courses in college i realized how poorly the post civil war era is taught in high schools.  it seems like, as far as these high school classes are concerned, after lincoln is assassination and lee is surrender, pretty much nothing happens in the south until the civil rights movement in the  0s and  0s.  high schools  really  gloss over the tumultuous 0 year period that was reconstruction.  the south did not simply cave in the spring of 0, it just did not have the  capability  to continue fighting.  the will had not entirely disappeared.  i see a lot of really passionate hatred not mere dislike,  hatred  for the south on reddit, and i think a lot of it is caused by the way high schools teach the civil war.  the anti federal sentiment was not strictly rooted in a pro slavery viewpoint, but that is how the war is taught.  i have seen people on reddit say that anyone who even  fought  for the confederacy should have been either executed or imprisoned for decades or even life.  without a college level understanding of the situation, you ca not fully appreciate how important a degree of amnesty was needed.  at the risk of sounding arrogant, if redditors like op had their way, the civil war would have never really ended.  the resentment would have been perpetuated, and in some ways justified imo.   #  because it was pretty well rooted in slavery is why.   # because it was pretty well rooted in slavery is why.  it is not just simplistic it is also largely true.  just take a gander at why south carolina said it was leaving the union.  for many years these laws were executed.  but an increasing hostility on the part of the non slaveholding states to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the general government have ceased to effect the objects of the constitution.  the states of maine, new hampshire, vermont, massachusetts, connecticut, rhode island, new york, pennsylvania, illinois, indiana, michigan, wisconsin and iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the acts of congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.  in many of these states the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the state government complied with the stipulation made in the constitution.  the state of new jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of congress.  in the state of new york even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the states of ohio and iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the state of virginia.  thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non slaveholding states, and the consequence follows that south carolina is released from her obligation.  URL regardless of a lot of the rhetoric about the civil war being fought for state rights it really boils down to the state right they wanted was slavery and that is what they were fighting for.   #  if both lincoln and johnson had been killed by booth and gang, it is likely schuyler colfax and the rest of the radical republicans would not have been as forgiving.   #  but it is not like amnesty was the absolute consensus view.  if both lincoln and johnson had been killed by booth and gang, it is likely schuyler colfax and the rest of the radical republicans would not have been as forgiving.  southern forces were completely defeated; casualties were crippling, southern capitals had been burned to the ground, and the economy was severely restricted by the naval blockade and war damage.  renewed violence as a result of their executions was very unlikely.  the subsequent preamture end of reconstruction and the century that followed shows the country was barely united regardless of amnesty.   #  do you honestly think the union should have just shrugged it is shoulders and let the south have their way ?  #  you mean the federal fort inside territory of treacherous states ? do you honestly think the union should have just shrugged it is shoulders and let the south have their way ? they did not like the direction democratic process was taking them away from slavery so they decided to leave, and take whatever they felt entitled to with them.  the union was sure as hell justified in not having over sumter.  if the south did not want war, they should not have shelled it.
i manage a restaurant.  i sometimes get an employee that wants to take a day off on their birthday.  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.  i mention they can celebrate it any time during the week they like but i feel they are just looking for an excuse to take the day off.  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.  celebrate it when it is best for you during that week.  you are grown up now and the most important thing is managing your day to day life in a productive manner, not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.  why does taking that exact date off really matter ? cmv  #  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.   #  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.  i have taken days off to do nothing.  literally nothing.  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.  it is none of my bosses business why i am off.  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.  any day can be special if you make it special.  and ? and ? she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.  it is for others.  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.  this is management 0.   #  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.   # fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  that sounds like she made a good plan.  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ? do you know their exact birthdays ? from your post,  0 of them seem to fall into  0 of times friday or weekends which would be a very strange statistical quirk.  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   #  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.   #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ? why then is it okay with you if your employees ask for weekends off and not weekdays ? furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.  yes, any day of the week.  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.  who are you that gets to decide what day is special to other people ? the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.   #  however when it conflicts with scheduling i would like to know some details on the request.   #  because everything you described is done all the time, drinking at 0 am, the beach ect.  these employees do/can do this throughout the summer or year.  if it was planned, and family oriented grandparents and other family traveling to see you and i was notified earlier than usual that puts more thoughtfulness into the date.  in our business you are employed knowing that you will miss holidays.  you work on the weekends and on days others are celebrating.  i allow everyone to get opportunities to have those days off but you also have to work many those days.  you need to trade off.  if an employee requests holidays off often, specially a server, they are not the right fit for the restaurant work force.  i will fill that time with people who are available or hire someone who understands what the job requires.  if more employees are hired for that department then everyone is hours are shortened.  so the request of time off should be intelligently planned.  yes i want to know what you will be doing.  i give random days off for people often and i do not care.  however when it conflicts with scheduling i would like to know some details on the request.
i manage a restaurant.  i sometimes get an employee that wants to take a day off on their birthday.  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.  i mention they can celebrate it any time during the week they like but i feel they are just looking for an excuse to take the day off.  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.  celebrate it when it is best for you during that week.  you are grown up now and the most important thing is managing your day to day life in a productive manner, not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.  why does taking that exact date off really matter ? cmv  #  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.   #  any day can be special if you make it special.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.  i have taken days off to do nothing.  literally nothing.  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.  it is none of my bosses business why i am off.  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.  any day can be special if you make it special.  and ? and ? she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.  it is for others.  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.  this is management 0.   #  that sounds like she made a good plan.   # fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  that sounds like she made a good plan.  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ? do you know their exact birthdays ? from your post,  0 of them seem to fall into  0 of times friday or weekends which would be a very strange statistical quirk.  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ?  #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ? why then is it okay with you if your employees ask for weekends off and not weekdays ? furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.  yes, any day of the week.  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.  who are you that gets to decide what day is special to other people ? the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.   #  yes i want to know what you will be doing.   #  because everything you described is done all the time, drinking at 0 am, the beach ect.  these employees do/can do this throughout the summer or year.  if it was planned, and family oriented grandparents and other family traveling to see you and i was notified earlier than usual that puts more thoughtfulness into the date.  in our business you are employed knowing that you will miss holidays.  you work on the weekends and on days others are celebrating.  i allow everyone to get opportunities to have those days off but you also have to work many those days.  you need to trade off.  if an employee requests holidays off often, specially a server, they are not the right fit for the restaurant work force.  i will fill that time with people who are available or hire someone who understands what the job requires.  if more employees are hired for that department then everyone is hours are shortened.  so the request of time off should be intelligently planned.  yes i want to know what you will be doing.  i give random days off for people often and i do not care.  however when it conflicts with scheduling i would like to know some details on the request.
i manage a restaurant.  i sometimes get an employee that wants to take a day off on their birthday.  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.  i mention they can celebrate it any time during the week they like but i feel they are just looking for an excuse to take the day off.  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.  celebrate it when it is best for you during that week.  you are grown up now and the most important thing is managing your day to day life in a productive manner, not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.  why does taking that exact date off really matter ? cmv  #  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.   #  she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.  i have taken days off to do nothing.  literally nothing.  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.  it is none of my bosses business why i am off.  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.  any day can be special if you make it special.  and ? and ? she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.  it is for others.  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.  this is management 0.   #  fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.   # fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  that sounds like she made a good plan.  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ? do you know their exact birthdays ? from your post,  0 of them seem to fall into  0 of times friday or weekends which would be a very strange statistical quirk.  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   #  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.   #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ? why then is it okay with you if your employees ask for weekends off and not weekdays ? furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.  yes, any day of the week.  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.  who are you that gets to decide what day is special to other people ? the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.   #  yes i want to know what you will be doing.   #  because everything you described is done all the time, drinking at 0 am, the beach ect.  these employees do/can do this throughout the summer or year.  if it was planned, and family oriented grandparents and other family traveling to see you and i was notified earlier than usual that puts more thoughtfulness into the date.  in our business you are employed knowing that you will miss holidays.  you work on the weekends and on days others are celebrating.  i allow everyone to get opportunities to have those days off but you also have to work many those days.  you need to trade off.  if an employee requests holidays off often, specially a server, they are not the right fit for the restaurant work force.  i will fill that time with people who are available or hire someone who understands what the job requires.  if more employees are hired for that department then everyone is hours are shortened.  so the request of time off should be intelligently planned.  yes i want to know what you will be doing.  i give random days off for people often and i do not care.  however when it conflicts with scheduling i would like to know some details on the request.
i manage a restaurant.  i sometimes get an employee that wants to take a day off on their birthday.  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.  i mention they can celebrate it any time during the week they like but i feel they are just looking for an excuse to take the day off.  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.  celebrate it when it is best for you during that week.  you are grown up now and the most important thing is managing your day to day life in a productive manner, not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.  why does taking that exact date off really matter ? cmv  #  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.   #  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.  i have taken days off to do nothing.  literally nothing.  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.  it is none of my bosses business why i am off.  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.  any day can be special if you make it special.  and ? and ? she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.  it is for others.  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.  this is management 0.   #  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.   # fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  that sounds like she made a good plan.  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ? do you know their exact birthdays ? from your post,  0 of them seem to fall into  0 of times friday or weekends which would be a very strange statistical quirk.  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   #  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.   #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ? why then is it okay with you if your employees ask for weekends off and not weekdays ? furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.  yes, any day of the week.  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.  who are you that gets to decide what day is special to other people ? the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.   #  however when it conflicts with scheduling i would like to know some details on the request.   #  because everything you described is done all the time, drinking at 0 am, the beach ect.  these employees do/can do this throughout the summer or year.  if it was planned, and family oriented grandparents and other family traveling to see you and i was notified earlier than usual that puts more thoughtfulness into the date.  in our business you are employed knowing that you will miss holidays.  you work on the weekends and on days others are celebrating.  i allow everyone to get opportunities to have those days off but you also have to work many those days.  you need to trade off.  if an employee requests holidays off often, specially a server, they are not the right fit for the restaurant work force.  i will fill that time with people who are available or hire someone who understands what the job requires.  if more employees are hired for that department then everyone is hours are shortened.  so the request of time off should be intelligently planned.  yes i want to know what you will be doing.  i give random days off for people often and i do not care.  however when it conflicts with scheduling i would like to know some details on the request.
i manage a restaurant.  i sometimes get an employee that wants to take a day off on their birthday.  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.  i mention they can celebrate it any time during the week they like but i feel they are just looking for an excuse to take the day off.  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.  celebrate it when it is best for you during that week.  you are grown up now and the most important thing is managing your day to day life in a productive manner, not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.  why does taking that exact date off really matter ? cmv  #  not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.   #  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.  i have taken days off to do nothing.  literally nothing.  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.  it is none of my bosses business why i am off.  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.  any day can be special if you make it special.  and ? and ? she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.  it is for others.  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.  this is management 0.   #  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.   # fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  that sounds like she made a good plan.  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ? do you know their exact birthdays ? from your post,  0 of them seem to fall into  0 of times friday or weekends which would be a very strange statistical quirk.  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   #  the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.   #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ? why then is it okay with you if your employees ask for weekends off and not weekdays ? furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.  yes, any day of the week.  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.  who are you that gets to decide what day is special to other people ? the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.   #  so the request of time off should be intelligently planned.   #  because everything you described is done all the time, drinking at 0 am, the beach ect.  these employees do/can do this throughout the summer or year.  if it was planned, and family oriented grandparents and other family traveling to see you and i was notified earlier than usual that puts more thoughtfulness into the date.  in our business you are employed knowing that you will miss holidays.  you work on the weekends and on days others are celebrating.  i allow everyone to get opportunities to have those days off but you also have to work many those days.  you need to trade off.  if an employee requests holidays off often, specially a server, they are not the right fit for the restaurant work force.  i will fill that time with people who are available or hire someone who understands what the job requires.  if more employees are hired for that department then everyone is hours are shortened.  so the request of time off should be intelligently planned.  yes i want to know what you will be doing.  i give random days off for people often and i do not care.  however when it conflicts with scheduling i would like to know some details on the request.
i manage a restaurant.  i sometimes get an employee that wants to take a day off on their birthday.  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.  i mention they can celebrate it any time during the week they like but i feel they are just looking for an excuse to take the day off.  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.  celebrate it when it is best for you during that week.  you are grown up now and the most important thing is managing your day to day life in a productive manner, not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.  why does taking that exact date off really matter ? cmv  #  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.   #  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.  this is management 0.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.  i have taken days off to do nothing.  literally nothing.  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.  it is none of my bosses business why i am off.  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.  any day can be special if you make it special.  and ? and ? she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.  it is for others.  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  i teased her about it but she got it off.   # fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  that sounds like she made a good plan.  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ? do you know their exact birthdays ? from your post,  0 of them seem to fall into  0 of times friday or weekends which would be a very strange statistical quirk.  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ?  #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ? why then is it okay with you if your employees ask for weekends off and not weekdays ? furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.  yes, any day of the week.  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.  who are you that gets to decide what day is special to other people ? the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.   #  you work on the weekends and on days others are celebrating.   #  because everything you described is done all the time, drinking at 0 am, the beach ect.  these employees do/can do this throughout the summer or year.  if it was planned, and family oriented grandparents and other family traveling to see you and i was notified earlier than usual that puts more thoughtfulness into the date.  in our business you are employed knowing that you will miss holidays.  you work on the weekends and on days others are celebrating.  i allow everyone to get opportunities to have those days off but you also have to work many those days.  you need to trade off.  if an employee requests holidays off often, specially a server, they are not the right fit for the restaurant work force.  i will fill that time with people who are available or hire someone who understands what the job requires.  if more employees are hired for that department then everyone is hours are shortened.  so the request of time off should be intelligently planned.  yes i want to know what you will be doing.  i give random days off for people often and i do not care.  however when it conflicts with scheduling i would like to know some details on the request.
i manage a restaurant.  i sometimes get an employee that wants to take a day off on their birthday.  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.  i mention they can celebrate it any time during the week they like but i feel they are just looking for an excuse to take the day off.  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.  celebrate it when it is best for you during that week.  you are grown up now and the most important thing is managing your day to day life in a productive manner, not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.  why does taking that exact date off really matter ? cmv  #  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.   #  fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.   # fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  that sounds like she made a good plan.  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ? do you know their exact birthdays ? from your post,  0 of them seem to fall into  0 of times friday or weekends which would be a very strange statistical quirk.  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   #  any day can be special if you make it special.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.  i have taken days off to do nothing.  literally nothing.  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.  it is none of my bosses business why i am off.  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.  any day can be special if you make it special.  and ? and ? she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.  it is for others.  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.  this is management 0.   #  furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.   #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ? why then is it okay with you if your employees ask for weekends off and not weekdays ? furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.  yes, any day of the week.  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.  who are you that gets to decide what day is special to other people ? the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.   #  i allow everyone to get opportunities to have those days off but you also have to work many those days.   #  because everything you described is done all the time, drinking at 0 am, the beach ect.  these employees do/can do this throughout the summer or year.  if it was planned, and family oriented grandparents and other family traveling to see you and i was notified earlier than usual that puts more thoughtfulness into the date.  in our business you are employed knowing that you will miss holidays.  you work on the weekends and on days others are celebrating.  i allow everyone to get opportunities to have those days off but you also have to work many those days.  you need to trade off.  if an employee requests holidays off often, specially a server, they are not the right fit for the restaurant work force.  i will fill that time with people who are available or hire someone who understands what the job requires.  if more employees are hired for that department then everyone is hours are shortened.  so the request of time off should be intelligently planned.  yes i want to know what you will be doing.  i give random days off for people often and i do not care.  however when it conflicts with scheduling i would like to know some details on the request.
i manage a restaurant.  i sometimes get an employee that wants to take a day off on their birthday.  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.  i mention they can celebrate it any time during the week they like but i feel they are just looking for an excuse to take the day off.  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.  celebrate it when it is best for you during that week.  you are grown up now and the most important thing is managing your day to day life in a productive manner, not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.  why does taking that exact date off really matter ? cmv  #  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.   #  i teased her about it but she got it off.   # fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  that sounds like she made a good plan.  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ? do you know their exact birthdays ? from your post,  0 of them seem to fall into  0 of times friday or weekends which would be a very strange statistical quirk.  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   #  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.  i have taken days off to do nothing.  literally nothing.  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.  it is none of my bosses business why i am off.  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.  any day can be special if you make it special.  and ? and ? she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.  it is for others.  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.  this is management 0.   #  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.   #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ? why then is it okay with you if your employees ask for weekends off and not weekdays ? furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.  yes, any day of the week.  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.  who are you that gets to decide what day is special to other people ? the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.   #  i will fill that time with people who are available or hire someone who understands what the job requires.   #  because everything you described is done all the time, drinking at 0 am, the beach ect.  these employees do/can do this throughout the summer or year.  if it was planned, and family oriented grandparents and other family traveling to see you and i was notified earlier than usual that puts more thoughtfulness into the date.  in our business you are employed knowing that you will miss holidays.  you work on the weekends and on days others are celebrating.  i allow everyone to get opportunities to have those days off but you also have to work many those days.  you need to trade off.  if an employee requests holidays off often, specially a server, they are not the right fit for the restaurant work force.  i will fill that time with people who are available or hire someone who understands what the job requires.  if more employees are hired for that department then everyone is hours are shortened.  so the request of time off should be intelligently planned.  yes i want to know what you will be doing.  i give random days off for people often and i do not care.  however when it conflicts with scheduling i would like to know some details on the request.
i manage a restaurant.  i sometimes get an employee that wants to take a day off on their birthday.  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.  i mention they can celebrate it any time during the week they like but i feel they are just looking for an excuse to take the day off.  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.  celebrate it when it is best for you during that week.  you are grown up now and the most important thing is managing your day to day life in a productive manner, not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.  why does taking that exact date off really matter ? cmv  #  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.   #  it does not necessarily have to but it certainly can be.   #  think about it.  if it only were for having a reason to take a day off would not it make sense that they would just regularly take days off ? i do not know how it works in your restaurant but generally you do not have to have a reason to take a day off.  you have your vacation days and can / have to use them during a year.  this is wrong.  i am now turning 0 clearly not a kid anymore .  i work full time in a big company in the it area.  i am grown up at least on paper but that does not mean a birthday is not special to me.  i guess it depends on how your parents raised you but for me and in my family a birthday of anyone my parents, brother or myself is an important day and even if we do not invite people we celebrate it.  i still enjoy seeing a din a0 sized paper on the table with happy birthday wishes etc.  i still enjoy being the  star  of the day.  being older does not make it any less special.  it does not necessarily have to but it certainly can be.  talking from myself we have almost always invited our close family godfather / mother, grandparents and some close friends to my birthday on the date of the birthday.  also see the paragraph before this for other explanations.  because that day can be special for people the same way as there are people who could not care less .  because the date is important to people URL i find it explained very well in that thread why a birthday is important.  the exact date of your birthday can be special for you because you make it special.  sure you could party or celebrate on any other given date but maybe you exactly want to celebrate on the day that is actually the reason to celebrate.  maybe taking a day off is a present to one self to be able to relax and do whatever they may want to do instead of just working the whole day.   #  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.  i have taken days off to do nothing.  literally nothing.  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.  it is none of my bosses business why i am off.  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.  any day can be special if you make it special.  and ? and ? she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.  it is for others.  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.  this is management 0.   #  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ?  # fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  that sounds like she made a good plan.  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ? do you know their exact birthdays ? from your post,  0 of them seem to fall into  0 of times friday or weekends which would be a very strange statistical quirk.  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   #  the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.   #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ? why then is it okay with you if your employees ask for weekends off and not weekdays ? furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.  yes, any day of the week.  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.  who are you that gets to decide what day is special to other people ? the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.
i manage a restaurant.  i sometimes get an employee that wants to take a day off on their birthday.  most of the time this is a friday or weekend when they are needed most.  i mention they can celebrate it any time during the week they like but i feel they are just looking for an excuse to take the day off.  once you are not a little kid anymore a birthday is not that special.  a server desperately wanted to take off on her birthday this last thursday july 0rd.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  taking a day off on your exact birthday date is not that important.  celebrate it when it is best for you during that week.  you are grown up now and the most important thing is managing your day to day life in a productive manner, not a manner of taking advantage of using your birthday to escape responsibility.  why does taking that exact date off really matter ? cmv  #  why does taking that exact date off really matter ?  #  because that day can be special for people the same way as there are people who could not care less .   #  think about it.  if it only were for having a reason to take a day off would not it make sense that they would just regularly take days off ? i do not know how it works in your restaurant but generally you do not have to have a reason to take a day off.  you have your vacation days and can / have to use them during a year.  this is wrong.  i am now turning 0 clearly not a kid anymore .  i work full time in a big company in the it area.  i am grown up at least on paper but that does not mean a birthday is not special to me.  i guess it depends on how your parents raised you but for me and in my family a birthday of anyone my parents, brother or myself is an important day and even if we do not invite people we celebrate it.  i still enjoy seeing a din a0 sized paper on the table with happy birthday wishes etc.  i still enjoy being the  star  of the day.  being older does not make it any less special.  it does not necessarily have to but it certainly can be.  talking from myself we have almost always invited our close family godfather / mother, grandparents and some close friends to my birthday on the date of the birthday.  also see the paragraph before this for other explanations.  because that day can be special for people the same way as there are people who could not care less .  because the date is important to people URL i find it explained very well in that thread why a birthday is important.  the exact date of your birthday can be special for you because you make it special.  sure you could party or celebrate on any other given date but maybe you exactly want to celebrate on the day that is actually the reason to celebrate.  maybe taking a day off is a present to one self to be able to relax and do whatever they may want to do instead of just working the whole day.   #  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.   #  the reasons that an employee takes off is their own concern.  i have taken days off to do nothing.  literally nothing.  sleep in, do not put on pants, nothing nothing nothing.  it is none of my bosses business why i am off.  it would seem that is your problem as the manager, and not theirs.  any day can be special if you make it special.  and ? and ? she made her choice and i am sure she was quite happy with it.  you taking  your  birthday off on that exact day may not be important to you.  it is for others.  requesting a day off is not escaping responsibility.  especially for wage slaves such as your employees.  what happens when they are not scheduled is 0 not their responsibility, it is yours.   #  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.   #  it sounds like you are not very good at managing your shifts.  to you, that may be true, but it is not to everyone else.  some people just do not want to work on their birthday, and want to do whatever they want instead.  it is also none of your business what days they want off or what they do on those days off.  if you do not have enough people to cover the shift, deny them the day or find someone to cover.  this is management 0.   #  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   # fridays and weekends cover 0/0 of the time.  if a majority of time off for birthdays is in that stretch, then you should suspect that it is not random.  i am guessing that they want to have time off at the same time as their friends.  i teased her about it but she got it off.  she had plans for the beach ect.  when thursday came it rained all day and she did not get to do the things she planned for.  it ended up being a regular day off for her except if she had work she would have made good money because it was the day before a holiday.  that sounds like she made a good plan.  what are you expecting, her to have precognitive visions of the weather ? do you know their exact birthdays ? from your post,  0 of them seem to fall into  0 of times friday or weekends which would be a very strange statistical quirk.  my guess is that they are coordinating with friends and family.   #  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.   #  would not the busiest days at a restaurant be the weekend, not weekdays ? why then is it okay with you if your employees ask for weekends off and not weekdays ? furthermore, there is often a drinking culture in college.  i know some of my classmates started pre drinking for their birthday at 0pm the night before and were wasted all day.  yes, any day of the week.  but if that is how they want to enjoy their birthday, so be it.  better they ask for it off which shows forethought and responsibility than do not show up, call in  sick  last minute, or show up pissed drunk.  who are you that gets to decide what day is special to other people ? the right day is arguably the actual date of birth, not the closest weekend day.
for those of you whom do not know, the last of us is an post apocalyptic video game that has you playing as a man named joel travel what is left of the world in a order to deliver a girl whom is believed to be immune from the disease in hopes that a vaccine can be made.  when you finally reach the hospital where her allies are at, it is discovered a potential vaccine ca not be made without killing the girl by removing her brain.  neither her nor her traveling partner ever consent to this.  instead, she is put in for the lethal surgery while he is asked to leave at gun point.  he eventually saves her, shots the woman who is responsible for the decision, and lies to the girl saying that there were dozens of other immune people but they could not make a vaccine to prevent survivor is guilt, i am deducing .  my main point in making these decisions would be that even if it was possible, i do not think humanity really deserves a savior, especially at the cost of innocent life.  it took less than 0 years for humanity to revert to a savage tribal system.  the two main groups of tribalistic people you meet hunt you down to know ends to either rob you or cannibalize you.  i know this sounds harsh, but everyone was always out for themselves, even when it was not even needed for survival.  i am fairly certain that some of you will say that people are not really like that when we are  civilized  but to me it just seems like we are a lot more subtle about it.  we fight tons of pointless wars for foolish political, social, religious reasons, or sometimes just for money.  we, as a species also have a horrible habit of choosing the most cruel, psychopathic, and merciless leaders simply because they are witty and charming.  most of us are not even aware of the world around us even though we have ample opportunity and resources.  most humans prefer having simple minds and intentionally avoid intelligent thought or discussion just look at all the people who avoid talking about social issues or philosophy, or just turn on the television and look at all the pointless reality shows, they far outnumber science or other intellectual shows .  so, if you are one of these lazy people, i will give you a tl;dr, i would never sacrifice the person i cared most about to help such a selfish, deliberately ignorant, and self centered species.   #  i do not think humanity really deserves a savior, especially at the cost of innocent life.   #  it took less than 0 years for humanity to revert to a savage tribal system.   # it took less than 0 years for humanity to revert to a savage tribal system.  the two main groups of tribalistic people you meet hunt you down to know ends to either rob you or cannibalize you.  i know this sounds harsh, but everyone was always out for themselves, even when it was not even needed for survival.  we meet more groups than just two.  yes, david is group are a bad bunch though we do not necessarily know that all of them are as bad as david himself .  but you are completely forgetting joel is brother tommy, who has a community of what we could call  good people , and also ish is group, which we never really  ameet , but from what we do hear of it, it was most certainly a benevolent group.  plus, we meet quite a lot of decent people on the way: bill, sam, henry, etc.  compared to something like the road by cormac mccarthy, tlou actually goes to quite a length to show just how many decent people are still out there.  refusing the vaccine is to condemn all these people to death.  we fight tons of pointless wars for foolish political, social, religious reasons, or sometimes just for money.  we, as a species also have a horrible habit of choosing the most cruel, psychopathic, and merciless leaders simply because they are witty and charming.  most of us are not even aware of the world around us even though we have ample opportunity and resources  this last sentence is the very reason why we should help humanity.  you are right: at their core, humans are a bad bunch.  ever read hobbes ? we have developed a moral code and social laws to prevent ourselves from our own greedy natures.  but the better off we are in terms of wealth and comfort, the better people we are.  those who have  ample opportunity and resources  have what is often called  amoral luck  as in, you or i living comfortable lives never get to find out how depraved we can really be, because we are never in a position desperate enough for us to want to break the law, or lower our moral standards.  so if we help humanity, humanity gets better it is as simple as that.   bad people  are by and large just a reflection of their particular social circumstances.  if conditions improve, people improve, and they become people who you would consider  worth saving .  you are part of the problem then.  saving a single person over millions just because you care for that single person is the very definition of selfishness.  i am not saying that i am any less selfish.  it would be an incredibly tough decision for me too.  but nonetheless the decision is as self centred as it gets.   #  tl;dr  it is not joel is decision to make, it is ellie is.   #  at first i thought joel is biggest problem was that nobody ever asked ellie what  she  wanted to do.  certainly quite a bit of his dialogue with the people who sedated her suggests that this is what he is trying to convey to them that ellie should have had a choice in the matter, because ultimately it is her body and her choice.  here is the crux:  he is totally lying .  to them, to her, to himself.  in the end, joel is decisions  disregard ellie is personal autonomy in the same way that the doctor is did .  he made a decision regarding her life and body that she was not a part of, not even aware of.  i think if joel was acting in a way that showed he truly respected ellie and not just responding to his own paternal instincts stemming from his emotional trauma and history with his real daughter at the beginning of the game he would have  saved  her taken her away from the doctors long enough to explain the situation to her and ask her which choice  she  wanted to make.  and i really do believe that, judging by ellie is dialogue at the end of the game that is sort of supposed to make you feel bad about joel is choice,  ellie would have chosen to undergo the surgery and end her life in hopes of saving others .  the audience/player  knows  that ellie would have chosen otherwise if given the chance.  they know that joel intentionally left ellie out of the decision making process of her own life.  they know that ellie is extremely mature for her age judging by a lot of her dialogue and how she describes the experiences of how the disease has ravaged the world, and such knowledge suggests that she is capable of making the decision for herself.  the audience sees joel lying to ellie after the fact, which to me further displays the guilt he feels knowing he made a dishonourable decision.  knowing that he made a decision ellie would hate.  knowing that he treated her not with respect, but with a fatherly pity, out of an irresponsible emotional response caused by his own traumatic experiences and not by any rational decision making processes.  tl;dr  it is not joel is decision to make, it is ellie is.  if you would disregard the decisions and desires of the people you loved, how can you say you really love and respect them ?  #  you admit that this is probably the case for you above.   #  before telling her the truth ? surely in doing that you are inhibiting her ability to make the decision as the world may have fully collapsed by then.  i think joel was prevented from telling the truth because of the selfishness of his love precluding him from forgoing elsie and allowing her to make the ultimate sacrifice.  she would be dead, but he would have to suffer a life without her.  i also think that if he had told her after the fact she would have held what joel did against him, another selfish reason for joel to lie at the end.  i think a reasonable person so absorbed by a single love in a world of pain may make the irrational and selfish decision made by joel, but unless that love was so blinding i think you would eventually have to come clean.  you admit that this is probably the case for you above.  but having considered this conundrum now, i feel that if put in that situation you would realise that you would have to come clean eventually, and that this knowledge would enable you to make the hard decision that joel was unable to make: to, at the earliest possible convenience, inform elsie of the true reality of the situation so that she may make her own decision.  if you are instead arguing that humanity does not deserve to be saved, that is surely another argument.   #  which, incidentally, i hated at first. because like everybody else, i wanted something satisfying.   # i think you are mistaken on this.  why does ellie ask joel ? i think she knows. or at the very least has a strong suspicion. that joel lied to her.  so, think about ellie is story.  how she was abandoned by her family, by her friend, by her guardian.  ellie is story is about looking for a connection. returning to a family.  and joel is that family.  i think ellie asks joel to promise, because she has this conflict between wanting to be the cure and wanting to be a kid with a family.  having joel promise is a way of shifting this burden off herself.  in short, what i am saying is that ellie knew she could not make a decision between joel and martyrdom.  and it is for this reason that the last of us might have my favorite ending ever.  which, incidentally, i hated at first. because like everybody else, i wanted something satisfying.  yet of course this game ca not have a satisfying ending.  however, when you think in terms of two survivors with strong histories one who lost a daughter in so painful a way as to not even say her name, and then to make that type of connection again. and the other who has drifted around between  families  without ever belonging only to find somebody that truly cares for her joel and ellie do the only things that makes sense for their characters.  . and that sits in the pit of your stomach.  terrible and wonderful.   #  while there are good people, it seems like they are far outnumbered by the bad, or at the very least, those that are weak or stupid enough to follow the bad.   #  while there are good people, it seems like they are far outnumbered by the bad, or at the very least, those that are weak or stupid enough to follow the bad.  if it was possible to give vaccines to those people without giving them to the others, i would be more likely to consider, but we do not live in a vacuum so i do not think thats possible.  also, i do not think what hobbes is saying is anything more than an illusion.  he is basically saying that people are good as long as they have enough resources.  he is also saying that people do not suck that much as long as you pacify them.  but if another event or natural disaster we are to happen, they would fall right back into their patterns without a second thought.  that would make my sacrifice and vaccine pretty much a waste.  my sacrifice would mean that i made peoples lives suck less so they would be a little less animalistic.
for those of you whom do not know, the last of us is an post apocalyptic video game that has you playing as a man named joel travel what is left of the world in a order to deliver a girl whom is believed to be immune from the disease in hopes that a vaccine can be made.  when you finally reach the hospital where her allies are at, it is discovered a potential vaccine ca not be made without killing the girl by removing her brain.  neither her nor her traveling partner ever consent to this.  instead, she is put in for the lethal surgery while he is asked to leave at gun point.  he eventually saves her, shots the woman who is responsible for the decision, and lies to the girl saying that there were dozens of other immune people but they could not make a vaccine to prevent survivor is guilt, i am deducing .  my main point in making these decisions would be that even if it was possible, i do not think humanity really deserves a savior, especially at the cost of innocent life.  it took less than 0 years for humanity to revert to a savage tribal system.  the two main groups of tribalistic people you meet hunt you down to know ends to either rob you or cannibalize you.  i know this sounds harsh, but everyone was always out for themselves, even when it was not even needed for survival.  i am fairly certain that some of you will say that people are not really like that when we are  civilized  but to me it just seems like we are a lot more subtle about it.  we fight tons of pointless wars for foolish political, social, religious reasons, or sometimes just for money.  we, as a species also have a horrible habit of choosing the most cruel, psychopathic, and merciless leaders simply because they are witty and charming.  most of us are not even aware of the world around us even though we have ample opportunity and resources.  most humans prefer having simple minds and intentionally avoid intelligent thought or discussion just look at all the people who avoid talking about social issues or philosophy, or just turn on the television and look at all the pointless reality shows, they far outnumber science or other intellectual shows .  so, if you are one of these lazy people, i will give you a tl;dr, i would never sacrifice the person i cared most about to help such a selfish, deliberately ignorant, and self centered species.   #  i am fairly certain that some of you will say that people are not really like that when we are  civilized  but to me it just seems like we are a lot more subtle about it.   #  we fight tons of pointless wars for foolish political, social, religious reasons, or sometimes just for money.   # it took less than 0 years for humanity to revert to a savage tribal system.  the two main groups of tribalistic people you meet hunt you down to know ends to either rob you or cannibalize you.  i know this sounds harsh, but everyone was always out for themselves, even when it was not even needed for survival.  we meet more groups than just two.  yes, david is group are a bad bunch though we do not necessarily know that all of them are as bad as david himself .  but you are completely forgetting joel is brother tommy, who has a community of what we could call  good people , and also ish is group, which we never really  ameet , but from what we do hear of it, it was most certainly a benevolent group.  plus, we meet quite a lot of decent people on the way: bill, sam, henry, etc.  compared to something like the road by cormac mccarthy, tlou actually goes to quite a length to show just how many decent people are still out there.  refusing the vaccine is to condemn all these people to death.  we fight tons of pointless wars for foolish political, social, religious reasons, or sometimes just for money.  we, as a species also have a horrible habit of choosing the most cruel, psychopathic, and merciless leaders simply because they are witty and charming.  most of us are not even aware of the world around us even though we have ample opportunity and resources  this last sentence is the very reason why we should help humanity.  you are right: at their core, humans are a bad bunch.  ever read hobbes ? we have developed a moral code and social laws to prevent ourselves from our own greedy natures.  but the better off we are in terms of wealth and comfort, the better people we are.  those who have  ample opportunity and resources  have what is often called  amoral luck  as in, you or i living comfortable lives never get to find out how depraved we can really be, because we are never in a position desperate enough for us to want to break the law, or lower our moral standards.  so if we help humanity, humanity gets better it is as simple as that.   bad people  are by and large just a reflection of their particular social circumstances.  if conditions improve, people improve, and they become people who you would consider  worth saving .  you are part of the problem then.  saving a single person over millions just because you care for that single person is the very definition of selfishness.  i am not saying that i am any less selfish.  it would be an incredibly tough decision for me too.  but nonetheless the decision is as self centred as it gets.   #  tl;dr  it is not joel is decision to make, it is ellie is.   #  at first i thought joel is biggest problem was that nobody ever asked ellie what  she  wanted to do.  certainly quite a bit of his dialogue with the people who sedated her suggests that this is what he is trying to convey to them that ellie should have had a choice in the matter, because ultimately it is her body and her choice.  here is the crux:  he is totally lying .  to them, to her, to himself.  in the end, joel is decisions  disregard ellie is personal autonomy in the same way that the doctor is did .  he made a decision regarding her life and body that she was not a part of, not even aware of.  i think if joel was acting in a way that showed he truly respected ellie and not just responding to his own paternal instincts stemming from his emotional trauma and history with his real daughter at the beginning of the game he would have  saved  her taken her away from the doctors long enough to explain the situation to her and ask her which choice  she  wanted to make.  and i really do believe that, judging by ellie is dialogue at the end of the game that is sort of supposed to make you feel bad about joel is choice,  ellie would have chosen to undergo the surgery and end her life in hopes of saving others .  the audience/player  knows  that ellie would have chosen otherwise if given the chance.  they know that joel intentionally left ellie out of the decision making process of her own life.  they know that ellie is extremely mature for her age judging by a lot of her dialogue and how she describes the experiences of how the disease has ravaged the world, and such knowledge suggests that she is capable of making the decision for herself.  the audience sees joel lying to ellie after the fact, which to me further displays the guilt he feels knowing he made a dishonourable decision.  knowing that he made a decision ellie would hate.  knowing that he treated her not with respect, but with a fatherly pity, out of an irresponsible emotional response caused by his own traumatic experiences and not by any rational decision making processes.  tl;dr  it is not joel is decision to make, it is ellie is.  if you would disregard the decisions and desires of the people you loved, how can you say you really love and respect them ?  #  i think joel was prevented from telling the truth because of the selfishness of his love precluding him from forgoing elsie and allowing her to make the ultimate sacrifice.   #  before telling her the truth ? surely in doing that you are inhibiting her ability to make the decision as the world may have fully collapsed by then.  i think joel was prevented from telling the truth because of the selfishness of his love precluding him from forgoing elsie and allowing her to make the ultimate sacrifice.  she would be dead, but he would have to suffer a life without her.  i also think that if he had told her after the fact she would have held what joel did against him, another selfish reason for joel to lie at the end.  i think a reasonable person so absorbed by a single love in a world of pain may make the irrational and selfish decision made by joel, but unless that love was so blinding i think you would eventually have to come clean.  you admit that this is probably the case for you above.  but having considered this conundrum now, i feel that if put in that situation you would realise that you would have to come clean eventually, and that this knowledge would enable you to make the hard decision that joel was unable to make: to, at the earliest possible convenience, inform elsie of the true reality of the situation so that she may make her own decision.  if you are instead arguing that humanity does not deserve to be saved, that is surely another argument.   #  yet of course this game ca not have a satisfying ending.   # i think you are mistaken on this.  why does ellie ask joel ? i think she knows. or at the very least has a strong suspicion. that joel lied to her.  so, think about ellie is story.  how she was abandoned by her family, by her friend, by her guardian.  ellie is story is about looking for a connection. returning to a family.  and joel is that family.  i think ellie asks joel to promise, because she has this conflict between wanting to be the cure and wanting to be a kid with a family.  having joel promise is a way of shifting this burden off herself.  in short, what i am saying is that ellie knew she could not make a decision between joel and martyrdom.  and it is for this reason that the last of us might have my favorite ending ever.  which, incidentally, i hated at first. because like everybody else, i wanted something satisfying.  yet of course this game ca not have a satisfying ending.  however, when you think in terms of two survivors with strong histories one who lost a daughter in so painful a way as to not even say her name, and then to make that type of connection again. and the other who has drifted around between  families  without ever belonging only to find somebody that truly cares for her joel and ellie do the only things that makes sense for their characters.  . and that sits in the pit of your stomach.  terrible and wonderful.   #  he is also saying that people do not suck that much as long as you pacify them.   #  while there are good people, it seems like they are far outnumbered by the bad, or at the very least, those that are weak or stupid enough to follow the bad.  if it was possible to give vaccines to those people without giving them to the others, i would be more likely to consider, but we do not live in a vacuum so i do not think thats possible.  also, i do not think what hobbes is saying is anything more than an illusion.  he is basically saying that people are good as long as they have enough resources.  he is also saying that people do not suck that much as long as you pacify them.  but if another event or natural disaster we are to happen, they would fall right back into their patterns without a second thought.  that would make my sacrifice and vaccine pretty much a waste.  my sacrifice would mean that i made peoples lives suck less so they would be a little less animalistic.
for those of you whom do not know, the last of us is an post apocalyptic video game that has you playing as a man named joel travel what is left of the world in a order to deliver a girl whom is believed to be immune from the disease in hopes that a vaccine can be made.  when you finally reach the hospital where her allies are at, it is discovered a potential vaccine ca not be made without killing the girl by removing her brain.  neither her nor her traveling partner ever consent to this.  instead, she is put in for the lethal surgery while he is asked to leave at gun point.  he eventually saves her, shots the woman who is responsible for the decision, and lies to the girl saying that there were dozens of other immune people but they could not make a vaccine to prevent survivor is guilt, i am deducing .  my main point in making these decisions would be that even if it was possible, i do not think humanity really deserves a savior, especially at the cost of innocent life.  it took less than 0 years for humanity to revert to a savage tribal system.  the two main groups of tribalistic people you meet hunt you down to know ends to either rob you or cannibalize you.  i know this sounds harsh, but everyone was always out for themselves, even when it was not even needed for survival.  i am fairly certain that some of you will say that people are not really like that when we are  civilized  but to me it just seems like we are a lot more subtle about it.  we fight tons of pointless wars for foolish political, social, religious reasons, or sometimes just for money.  we, as a species also have a horrible habit of choosing the most cruel, psychopathic, and merciless leaders simply because they are witty and charming.  most of us are not even aware of the world around us even though we have ample opportunity and resources.  most humans prefer having simple minds and intentionally avoid intelligent thought or discussion just look at all the people who avoid talking about social issues or philosophy, or just turn on the television and look at all the pointless reality shows, they far outnumber science or other intellectual shows .  so, if you are one of these lazy people, i will give you a tl;dr, i would never sacrifice the person i cared most about to help such a selfish, deliberately ignorant, and self centered species.   #  i would never sacrifice the person i cared most about to help such a selfish, deliberately ignorant, and self centered species.   #  you are part of the problem then.   # it took less than 0 years for humanity to revert to a savage tribal system.  the two main groups of tribalistic people you meet hunt you down to know ends to either rob you or cannibalize you.  i know this sounds harsh, but everyone was always out for themselves, even when it was not even needed for survival.  we meet more groups than just two.  yes, david is group are a bad bunch though we do not necessarily know that all of them are as bad as david himself .  but you are completely forgetting joel is brother tommy, who has a community of what we could call  good people , and also ish is group, which we never really  ameet , but from what we do hear of it, it was most certainly a benevolent group.  plus, we meet quite a lot of decent people on the way: bill, sam, henry, etc.  compared to something like the road by cormac mccarthy, tlou actually goes to quite a length to show just how many decent people are still out there.  refusing the vaccine is to condemn all these people to death.  we fight tons of pointless wars for foolish political, social, religious reasons, or sometimes just for money.  we, as a species also have a horrible habit of choosing the most cruel, psychopathic, and merciless leaders simply because they are witty and charming.  most of us are not even aware of the world around us even though we have ample opportunity and resources  this last sentence is the very reason why we should help humanity.  you are right: at their core, humans are a bad bunch.  ever read hobbes ? we have developed a moral code and social laws to prevent ourselves from our own greedy natures.  but the better off we are in terms of wealth and comfort, the better people we are.  those who have  ample opportunity and resources  have what is often called  amoral luck  as in, you or i living comfortable lives never get to find out how depraved we can really be, because we are never in a position desperate enough for us to want to break the law, or lower our moral standards.  so if we help humanity, humanity gets better it is as simple as that.   bad people  are by and large just a reflection of their particular social circumstances.  if conditions improve, people improve, and they become people who you would consider  worth saving .  you are part of the problem then.  saving a single person over millions just because you care for that single person is the very definition of selfishness.  i am not saying that i am any less selfish.  it would be an incredibly tough decision for me too.  but nonetheless the decision is as self centred as it gets.   #  if you would disregard the decisions and desires of the people you loved, how can you say you really love and respect them ?  #  at first i thought joel is biggest problem was that nobody ever asked ellie what  she  wanted to do.  certainly quite a bit of his dialogue with the people who sedated her suggests that this is what he is trying to convey to them that ellie should have had a choice in the matter, because ultimately it is her body and her choice.  here is the crux:  he is totally lying .  to them, to her, to himself.  in the end, joel is decisions  disregard ellie is personal autonomy in the same way that the doctor is did .  he made a decision regarding her life and body that she was not a part of, not even aware of.  i think if joel was acting in a way that showed he truly respected ellie and not just responding to his own paternal instincts stemming from his emotional trauma and history with his real daughter at the beginning of the game he would have  saved  her taken her away from the doctors long enough to explain the situation to her and ask her which choice  she  wanted to make.  and i really do believe that, judging by ellie is dialogue at the end of the game that is sort of supposed to make you feel bad about joel is choice,  ellie would have chosen to undergo the surgery and end her life in hopes of saving others .  the audience/player  knows  that ellie would have chosen otherwise if given the chance.  they know that joel intentionally left ellie out of the decision making process of her own life.  they know that ellie is extremely mature for her age judging by a lot of her dialogue and how she describes the experiences of how the disease has ravaged the world, and such knowledge suggests that she is capable of making the decision for herself.  the audience sees joel lying to ellie after the fact, which to me further displays the guilt he feels knowing he made a dishonourable decision.  knowing that he made a decision ellie would hate.  knowing that he treated her not with respect, but with a fatherly pity, out of an irresponsible emotional response caused by his own traumatic experiences and not by any rational decision making processes.  tl;dr  it is not joel is decision to make, it is ellie is.  if you would disregard the decisions and desires of the people you loved, how can you say you really love and respect them ?  #  you admit that this is probably the case for you above.   #  before telling her the truth ? surely in doing that you are inhibiting her ability to make the decision as the world may have fully collapsed by then.  i think joel was prevented from telling the truth because of the selfishness of his love precluding him from forgoing elsie and allowing her to make the ultimate sacrifice.  she would be dead, but he would have to suffer a life without her.  i also think that if he had told her after the fact she would have held what joel did against him, another selfish reason for joel to lie at the end.  i think a reasonable person so absorbed by a single love in a world of pain may make the irrational and selfish decision made by joel, but unless that love was so blinding i think you would eventually have to come clean.  you admit that this is probably the case for you above.  but having considered this conundrum now, i feel that if put in that situation you would realise that you would have to come clean eventually, and that this knowledge would enable you to make the hard decision that joel was unable to make: to, at the earliest possible convenience, inform elsie of the true reality of the situation so that she may make her own decision.  if you are instead arguing that humanity does not deserve to be saved, that is surely another argument.   #  yet of course this game ca not have a satisfying ending.   # i think you are mistaken on this.  why does ellie ask joel ? i think she knows. or at the very least has a strong suspicion. that joel lied to her.  so, think about ellie is story.  how she was abandoned by her family, by her friend, by her guardian.  ellie is story is about looking for a connection. returning to a family.  and joel is that family.  i think ellie asks joel to promise, because she has this conflict between wanting to be the cure and wanting to be a kid with a family.  having joel promise is a way of shifting this burden off herself.  in short, what i am saying is that ellie knew she could not make a decision between joel and martyrdom.  and it is for this reason that the last of us might have my favorite ending ever.  which, incidentally, i hated at first. because like everybody else, i wanted something satisfying.  yet of course this game ca not have a satisfying ending.  however, when you think in terms of two survivors with strong histories one who lost a daughter in so painful a way as to not even say her name, and then to make that type of connection again. and the other who has drifted around between  families  without ever belonging only to find somebody that truly cares for her joel and ellie do the only things that makes sense for their characters.  . and that sits in the pit of your stomach.  terrible and wonderful.   #  also, i do not think what hobbes is saying is anything more than an illusion.   #  while there are good people, it seems like they are far outnumbered by the bad, or at the very least, those that are weak or stupid enough to follow the bad.  if it was possible to give vaccines to those people without giving them to the others, i would be more likely to consider, but we do not live in a vacuum so i do not think thats possible.  also, i do not think what hobbes is saying is anything more than an illusion.  he is basically saying that people are good as long as they have enough resources.  he is also saying that people do not suck that much as long as you pacify them.  but if another event or natural disaster we are to happen, they would fall right back into their patterns without a second thought.  that would make my sacrifice and vaccine pretty much a waste.  my sacrifice would mean that i made peoples lives suck less so they would be a little less animalistic.
i have seen  demand creates jobs,  many times on political and economic subreddits, sometimes with variations on it like  the rich do not create jobs,  behind it.  usually it is agreed with by most comments, at least the highly upvoted ones, so much so that it might even be taken as common knowledge.  however, while it seems intuitive, it is simply untrue.  before i go on, i will assume everyone knows that to satisfy new or greater demands, companies have to hire more people, or innovate devise a method of producing more with the same amount of people or less but that is beside the point.  what  generally  goes is that greater or newer demands will result in more hiring if a business wants to meet those demands.  i can understand where this  demand creates jobs  line is coming from if there is no demand, then there probably will be no jobs.  however, demand is a blunt want, not a constructive force.  while it may be true that demand creates the  need  for jobs, the actual jobs do not come into place until some sort of business sets itself to meet the demand.  0 people in want of computers do not create computers, nor put people to work making them.  as many as they are, and as much as they want one, it is only the tech companies that can handle the research, design, and hyper complex logistics that is needed to bring materials together from all over the world and assemble them, with painstaking care, into a computer, all while putting many people to work.  think of it like hunger it is true that without hunger, there would be no meals, but it is not the hunger that makes the meals it is the constructive force of your body working as a system, or the business that made the meal you ordered.  now, many will say that since businesses will naturally try to meet new demands, then by syllogism demand will create jobs, even though demand is not creating them directly.  and this is generally true.  however, this is where my second point comes in that businesses should be taxed less.  why ? simply because meeting a new demand is an investment.  take google is self driving car project, for example.  for the all the new costs associated with such a project including the costs of new researchers and employees in general google hopes to make a profit in the future that will cover those costs and then some.  is the self driving car sure to make a profit for google ? google does not know for sure, but they are taking the risk anyway.  this applies to any business entering a new market, or doing new research.  the restaurant chain opening in a new location or the tech company developing a new kind of cpu both risk their capital for the sake of future returns and they are hiring new people too.  naturally, a business will not make these investments unless they are sure they have the capital needed and preferably the capital to help them cope if they do not get the returns they wanted and end up with a net loss.  in other words: more capital means more investing.  and this is where taxation comes in by taking a portion of a business  capital, taxation is retarding progress and job growth.  if taxes are lower, then businesses will pass the capital thresholds needed for them to comfortably invest earlier.  will some businesses just send the extra capital to the people at the top ? of course.  but generally, less taxation will result in more investment, and more job growth.   #  however, demand is a blunt want, not a constructive force.   #  while it may be true that demand creates the need for jobs, the actual jobs do not come into place until some sort of business sets itself to meet the demand.   # while it may be true that demand creates the need for jobs, the actual jobs do not come into place until some sort of business sets itself to meet the demand.  0 people in want of computers do not create computers, nor put people to work making them.  as many as they are, and as much as they want one, it is only the tech companies that can handle the research, design, and hyper complex logistics that is needed to bring materials together from all over the world and assemble them, with painstaking care, into a computer, all while putting many people to work.  demand is a resource.  businesses are formed to take advantage that resource, although the larger and better funded ones can often shape demand or uncover new demands.  without demand, a business dies.  if a company ignores demand, or deliberately rebuffs it, another business will swoop in to take advantage of it often, one formed solely to take advantage of the opportunity.  and in the case of a failing business, propped up by prior wealth ? that is jobs being created by a rich person is demand to control people and/or fulfill a fantasy.  the point of  demand creates jobs  is that businesses are step two in the process.  step one is a person wanting something and being willing to pay for it, step two is a business figuring out how to profit from providing it.  helping businesses before, or instead of, helping the people that make businesses economically functional is just backwards thinking if your goal is economic improvement.  more people being able to afford things they want helps people they get what they want and businesses they get to sell more things at a profit and grow their operation .  businesses being more efficient from a profitability standpoint just helps businesses unless improved profitability is coupled with more work to be done, with greater demand for them to produce goods or provide services, the business has no reason to hire more people.  a few people might be taking home more pay in that scenario, but the key words are  few  and  might  plus, there is a much lower chance of that additional income being any kind of marginal income in that circumstance.  someone who makes $0 million/year making $0 million/year probably is not going to change their purchasing habits all that much.  why ? simply because meeting a new demand is an investment.  r d expenses are tax deductible.  URL there is no reason to reduce taxes on top of that, and there is no reason to expect tax breaks would lead to increased spending on r d the average company only spends 0 of their revenue on r d based on global figures, even outliers rarely push past 0 of their revenue, and most importantly the results of r d do not correlate closely with r d spending.  r d is not a simply  throw money at it  problem while money certainly makes some parts easier, giving the biggest r d spenders another trillion dollars to do with as they like would not get intel is 0nm fabrication process to market any quicker or get pfizer is drugs to market any faster.   #  you assert that lower taxes will encourage more investment.   # you are making a false dichotomy here.  what you actually need is both demand and the ability to meet that demand.  i can have the most sophisticated business in the world, but if no one wants my product my company wo not grow and wo not create jobs.  you assert that lower taxes will encourage more investment.  i think  lower taxes  in general are too blunt an instrument if you want to encourage investment.  certainly, you might be able to encourage investment with  more targeted  tax incentives, and maybe a reformed intellectual property system.  as a result of ultra low interest rate policy, businesses  operating costs have fallen.  this is because it is cheaper to borrow money and service debt.  however, capital expenditure has been more or less flat since 0.  this shows that a drop in operating costs does not necessarily translate into a rise in capital expenditure.  there is no evidence it would be any different in an across the board cut in corporate tax.  see here: URL  #  so your argument does not make sense in this context.   #  how are companies taxed in the us ? here they are taxed on profits.  so your argument does not make sense in this context.  taxes do not affect the ability of a company to invest and grow, the money they use to do that  is not taxed .  the leftover money they  do not  use to do that is what is taxed.  if a company ends up with a net loss, this is not because of taxes, in fact, such a company did not pay any corporate income taxes ! basically, the tax system for legal entities is set up in such a way that taxes do not impede a company is ability to be successful they do not affect competitiveness in any way they only affect how much money the owners take home.  a much bigger obstacle to a company is success and even owners  earnings , at least here, are taxes and other expenses related to employees, as those are very high in my country around 0 of net salary in various additional costs for well paid employees ! price of labor is a far bigger deal than corporate income tax as it negatively affects competitiveness and profit margins.   #  lowering taxes on profits in the future creates a greater incentive to invest now.   # here they are taxed on profits.  so your argument does not make sense in this context.  taxes do not affect the ability of a company to invest and grow, the money they use to do that is not taxed.  the leftover money they do not use to do that is what is taxed.  right, but the decision to invest is based upon the expectation of future profits, which is taxed.  invested capital will be taxed when it is returned to shareholders, no matter if it is now or later.  lowering taxes on profits in the future creates a greater incentive to invest now.   #  i do not know about that bell labs produced an awful lot of important stuff.   #  i do not know about that bell labs produced an awful lot of important stuff.  private companies have written most of the linux kernel.  auto companies produced abs and more efficient engine designs.  google is doing fundamental research now.  i agree it is unusual for private companies to do blue sky research, but i do not think it is fair to say the  only  way we are going to get advancements is through publicly funded research.  i mean, even university labs have to target their grant applications towards applicable stuff, because that is what governments like to fund.
i have seen  demand creates jobs,  many times on political and economic subreddits, sometimes with variations on it like  the rich do not create jobs,  behind it.  usually it is agreed with by most comments, at least the highly upvoted ones, so much so that it might even be taken as common knowledge.  however, while it seems intuitive, it is simply untrue.  before i go on, i will assume everyone knows that to satisfy new or greater demands, companies have to hire more people, or innovate devise a method of producing more with the same amount of people or less but that is beside the point.  what  generally  goes is that greater or newer demands will result in more hiring if a business wants to meet those demands.  i can understand where this  demand creates jobs  line is coming from if there is no demand, then there probably will be no jobs.  however, demand is a blunt want, not a constructive force.  while it may be true that demand creates the  need  for jobs, the actual jobs do not come into place until some sort of business sets itself to meet the demand.  0 people in want of computers do not create computers, nor put people to work making them.  as many as they are, and as much as they want one, it is only the tech companies that can handle the research, design, and hyper complex logistics that is needed to bring materials together from all over the world and assemble them, with painstaking care, into a computer, all while putting many people to work.  think of it like hunger it is true that without hunger, there would be no meals, but it is not the hunger that makes the meals it is the constructive force of your body working as a system, or the business that made the meal you ordered.  now, many will say that since businesses will naturally try to meet new demands, then by syllogism demand will create jobs, even though demand is not creating them directly.  and this is generally true.  however, this is where my second point comes in that businesses should be taxed less.  why ? simply because meeting a new demand is an investment.  take google is self driving car project, for example.  for the all the new costs associated with such a project including the costs of new researchers and employees in general google hopes to make a profit in the future that will cover those costs and then some.  is the self driving car sure to make a profit for google ? google does not know for sure, but they are taking the risk anyway.  this applies to any business entering a new market, or doing new research.  the restaurant chain opening in a new location or the tech company developing a new kind of cpu both risk their capital for the sake of future returns and they are hiring new people too.  naturally, a business will not make these investments unless they are sure they have the capital needed and preferably the capital to help them cope if they do not get the returns they wanted and end up with a net loss.  in other words: more capital means more investing.  and this is where taxation comes in by taking a portion of a business  capital, taxation is retarding progress and job growth.  if taxes are lower, then businesses will pass the capital thresholds needed for them to comfortably invest earlier.  will some businesses just send the extra capital to the people at the top ? of course.  but generally, less taxation will result in more investment, and more job growth.   #  naturally, a business will not make these investments unless they are sure they have the capital needed and preferably the capital to help them cope if they do not get the returns they wanted and end up with a net loss.   #  in other words: more capital means more investing.   #  i certainly agree with your critique on the difference between market demand and business desire; yet would add that most macroeconomic theorists are not refuting that businesses must desire meeting that demand, rather the market growth always generates job creation sometimes referred to as structural unemployment or okun is law URL however i do not believe that you have provided sufficient justification for limiting taxes on businesses for a couple of reasons.  you are assuming: 0.  that taxes radically alter a company is desire to invest in profit making ventures.  0.  that business will reinvest all their wealth in profit making ventures within the system, rather than using it for rent seeking URL investments in foreign markets, or deposting them into collective funds or securities which do not lead to market growth.  0.  that these taxes are not causing growth in the market through welfare maintenance and subsidies.  in other words: more capital means more investing.  while your claim about rational investing is true, it does not lead to your  in other words  claim that more wealth capital guarantees more investment.  this is because you cannot guarantee investment by a company, only that they have greater freedom to invest; just because the  can  does not mean they  will .  they are also likely to spend portions of their wealth in the activities mention in my 0nd contention which do not lead to overall market growth.  this may defend business owner is wanting to invest, but detracts away from how taxes are utilized.  a majority of the taxes are used for public goods URL such as health programs, welfare, infrastructure, and basic social needs.  these are important due to the pareto principle URL the need for a crucial baseline of social well being to maintain competive market function and prevent collapse.  in general, you also seem to believe that any increase in taxation will directly lead to a decrease in a company is desire to invest.  i am not sure if that follows, since investment corresponds with profit gain, not taxation.  a company would plan tax lost, but i do not see why it is the singular factor, or even a considerable factor affecting the company is desire to invest in profit making ventures.  this combined with no guarantee of meaningful investments, and taxes preserving productivity and stability within the system; limiting taxes is not justified.   #  you assert that lower taxes will encourage more investment.   # you are making a false dichotomy here.  what you actually need is both demand and the ability to meet that demand.  i can have the most sophisticated business in the world, but if no one wants my product my company wo not grow and wo not create jobs.  you assert that lower taxes will encourage more investment.  i think  lower taxes  in general are too blunt an instrument if you want to encourage investment.  certainly, you might be able to encourage investment with  more targeted  tax incentives, and maybe a reformed intellectual property system.  as a result of ultra low interest rate policy, businesses  operating costs have fallen.  this is because it is cheaper to borrow money and service debt.  however, capital expenditure has been more or less flat since 0.  this shows that a drop in operating costs does not necessarily translate into a rise in capital expenditure.  there is no evidence it would be any different in an across the board cut in corporate tax.  see here: URL  #  taxes do not affect the ability of a company to invest and grow, the money they use to do that  is not taxed .   #  how are companies taxed in the us ? here they are taxed on profits.  so your argument does not make sense in this context.  taxes do not affect the ability of a company to invest and grow, the money they use to do that  is not taxed .  the leftover money they  do not  use to do that is what is taxed.  if a company ends up with a net loss, this is not because of taxes, in fact, such a company did not pay any corporate income taxes ! basically, the tax system for legal entities is set up in such a way that taxes do not impede a company is ability to be successful they do not affect competitiveness in any way they only affect how much money the owners take home.  a much bigger obstacle to a company is success and even owners  earnings , at least here, are taxes and other expenses related to employees, as those are very high in my country around 0 of net salary in various additional costs for well paid employees ! price of labor is a far bigger deal than corporate income tax as it negatively affects competitiveness and profit margins.   #  the leftover money they do not use to do that is what is taxed.   # here they are taxed on profits.  so your argument does not make sense in this context.  taxes do not affect the ability of a company to invest and grow, the money they use to do that is not taxed.  the leftover money they do not use to do that is what is taxed.  right, but the decision to invest is based upon the expectation of future profits, which is taxed.  invested capital will be taxed when it is returned to shareholders, no matter if it is now or later.  lowering taxes on profits in the future creates a greater incentive to invest now.   #  auto companies produced abs and more efficient engine designs.   #  i do not know about that bell labs produced an awful lot of important stuff.  private companies have written most of the linux kernel.  auto companies produced abs and more efficient engine designs.  google is doing fundamental research now.  i agree it is unusual for private companies to do blue sky research, but i do not think it is fair to say the  only  way we are going to get advancements is through publicly funded research.  i mean, even university labs have to target their grant applications towards applicable stuff, because that is what governments like to fund.
i have seen  demand creates jobs,  many times on political and economic subreddits, sometimes with variations on it like  the rich do not create jobs,  behind it.  usually it is agreed with by most comments, at least the highly upvoted ones, so much so that it might even be taken as common knowledge.  however, while it seems intuitive, it is simply untrue.  before i go on, i will assume everyone knows that to satisfy new or greater demands, companies have to hire more people, or innovate devise a method of producing more with the same amount of people or less but that is beside the point.  what  generally  goes is that greater or newer demands will result in more hiring if a business wants to meet those demands.  i can understand where this  demand creates jobs  line is coming from if there is no demand, then there probably will be no jobs.  however, demand is a blunt want, not a constructive force.  while it may be true that demand creates the  need  for jobs, the actual jobs do not come into place until some sort of business sets itself to meet the demand.  0 people in want of computers do not create computers, nor put people to work making them.  as many as they are, and as much as they want one, it is only the tech companies that can handle the research, design, and hyper complex logistics that is needed to bring materials together from all over the world and assemble them, with painstaking care, into a computer, all while putting many people to work.  think of it like hunger it is true that without hunger, there would be no meals, but it is not the hunger that makes the meals it is the constructive force of your body working as a system, or the business that made the meal you ordered.  now, many will say that since businesses will naturally try to meet new demands, then by syllogism demand will create jobs, even though demand is not creating them directly.  and this is generally true.  however, this is where my second point comes in that businesses should be taxed less.  why ? simply because meeting a new demand is an investment.  take google is self driving car project, for example.  for the all the new costs associated with such a project including the costs of new researchers and employees in general google hopes to make a profit in the future that will cover those costs and then some.  is the self driving car sure to make a profit for google ? google does not know for sure, but they are taking the risk anyway.  this applies to any business entering a new market, or doing new research.  the restaurant chain opening in a new location or the tech company developing a new kind of cpu both risk their capital for the sake of future returns and they are hiring new people too.  naturally, a business will not make these investments unless they are sure they have the capital needed and preferably the capital to help them cope if they do not get the returns they wanted and end up with a net loss.  in other words: more capital means more investing.  and this is where taxation comes in by taking a portion of a business  capital, taxation is retarding progress and job growth.  if taxes are lower, then businesses will pass the capital thresholds needed for them to comfortably invest earlier.  will some businesses just send the extra capital to the people at the top ? of course.  but generally, less taxation will result in more investment, and more job growth.   #  and this is where taxation comes in by taking a portion of a business  capital, taxation is retarding progress and job growth.   #  this may defend business owner is wanting to invest, but detracts away from how taxes are utilized.   #  i certainly agree with your critique on the difference between market demand and business desire; yet would add that most macroeconomic theorists are not refuting that businesses must desire meeting that demand, rather the market growth always generates job creation sometimes referred to as structural unemployment or okun is law URL however i do not believe that you have provided sufficient justification for limiting taxes on businesses for a couple of reasons.  you are assuming: 0.  that taxes radically alter a company is desire to invest in profit making ventures.  0.  that business will reinvest all their wealth in profit making ventures within the system, rather than using it for rent seeking URL investments in foreign markets, or deposting them into collective funds or securities which do not lead to market growth.  0.  that these taxes are not causing growth in the market through welfare maintenance and subsidies.  in other words: more capital means more investing.  while your claim about rational investing is true, it does not lead to your  in other words  claim that more wealth capital guarantees more investment.  this is because you cannot guarantee investment by a company, only that they have greater freedom to invest; just because the  can  does not mean they  will .  they are also likely to spend portions of their wealth in the activities mention in my 0nd contention which do not lead to overall market growth.  this may defend business owner is wanting to invest, but detracts away from how taxes are utilized.  a majority of the taxes are used for public goods URL such as health programs, welfare, infrastructure, and basic social needs.  these are important due to the pareto principle URL the need for a crucial baseline of social well being to maintain competive market function and prevent collapse.  in general, you also seem to believe that any increase in taxation will directly lead to a decrease in a company is desire to invest.  i am not sure if that follows, since investment corresponds with profit gain, not taxation.  a company would plan tax lost, but i do not see why it is the singular factor, or even a considerable factor affecting the company is desire to invest in profit making ventures.  this combined with no guarantee of meaningful investments, and taxes preserving productivity and stability within the system; limiting taxes is not justified.   #  i think  lower taxes  in general are too blunt an instrument if you want to encourage investment.   # you are making a false dichotomy here.  what you actually need is both demand and the ability to meet that demand.  i can have the most sophisticated business in the world, but if no one wants my product my company wo not grow and wo not create jobs.  you assert that lower taxes will encourage more investment.  i think  lower taxes  in general are too blunt an instrument if you want to encourage investment.  certainly, you might be able to encourage investment with  more targeted  tax incentives, and maybe a reformed intellectual property system.  as a result of ultra low interest rate policy, businesses  operating costs have fallen.  this is because it is cheaper to borrow money and service debt.  however, capital expenditure has been more or less flat since 0.  this shows that a drop in operating costs does not necessarily translate into a rise in capital expenditure.  there is no evidence it would be any different in an across the board cut in corporate tax.  see here: URL  #  so your argument does not make sense in this context.   #  how are companies taxed in the us ? here they are taxed on profits.  so your argument does not make sense in this context.  taxes do not affect the ability of a company to invest and grow, the money they use to do that  is not taxed .  the leftover money they  do not  use to do that is what is taxed.  if a company ends up with a net loss, this is not because of taxes, in fact, such a company did not pay any corporate income taxes ! basically, the tax system for legal entities is set up in such a way that taxes do not impede a company is ability to be successful they do not affect competitiveness in any way they only affect how much money the owners take home.  a much bigger obstacle to a company is success and even owners  earnings , at least here, are taxes and other expenses related to employees, as those are very high in my country around 0 of net salary in various additional costs for well paid employees ! price of labor is a far bigger deal than corporate income tax as it negatively affects competitiveness and profit margins.   #  so your argument does not make sense in this context.   # here they are taxed on profits.  so your argument does not make sense in this context.  taxes do not affect the ability of a company to invest and grow, the money they use to do that is not taxed.  the leftover money they do not use to do that is what is taxed.  right, but the decision to invest is based upon the expectation of future profits, which is taxed.  invested capital will be taxed when it is returned to shareholders, no matter if it is now or later.  lowering taxes on profits in the future creates a greater incentive to invest now.   #  i mean, even university labs have to target their grant applications towards applicable stuff, because that is what governments like to fund.   #  i do not know about that bell labs produced an awful lot of important stuff.  private companies have written most of the linux kernel.  auto companies produced abs and more efficient engine designs.  google is doing fundamental research now.  i agree it is unusual for private companies to do blue sky research, but i do not think it is fair to say the  only  way we are going to get advancements is through publicly funded research.  i mean, even university labs have to target their grant applications towards applicable stuff, because that is what governments like to fund.
to my way of thinking, being a bisexual would be great.  the amount of erotica i could view would be increased by a significant degree, the potential partners i could have would be increased, et cetera.  i am actually rather disappointed that i am attracted exclusively to females, and have tried, with very little success, to broaden my interests.  i do recognize that bisexuals experience a great deal of bigotry from the general public.  however, there is an aspect to my orientation i am going to avoid directly mentioning, in hopes of keeping this topic on topic, that means that i can fairly safely say i already experience as much orientation phobia that a bisexual would, or more, so the argument of the existence of biphobia will not be compelling.  so, yeah.  besides that, i ca not think of any major downsides, while i can think of some major upsides, to being a bisexual in my specific case, and i would choose to be such if orientation could be chosen.  cmv.   #  to my way of thinking, being a bisexual would be great.   #  the amount of erotica i could view would be increased by a significant degree, the potential partners i could have would be increased, et cetera.   # the amount of erotica i could view would be increased by a significant degree, the potential partners i could have would be increased, et cetera.  i am actually rather disappointed that i am attracted exclusively to females, and have tried, with very little success, to broaden my interests.  your  pool of potential partners  right now is currently in the millions.  there is an extremely large amount of women or men ? i am assuming you are a hetro man for you to potentially date.  practically speaking of course you are limited by how many you wish to approach, and how much rejection you are willing to face.  this would  still  be the case if you were bisexual, i ca not imagine being rejected by a guy is any easier than a woman.   #  i am not saying being bisexual sucks, it is pretty great at times, but it does face backlash from others.   #  one thing you might want to keep in mind is that bisexuals rarely are attracted to both genders equally.  they tend to have a preference one way or the other.  this kind of results in a confusion of emotions at times, trying to figure out what you really are.  there are also some issues to face.  many straight people view you as gay, and many gay people view you as a slutty liar.  also, depending on how strong the anti gay feelings are where you live, you may say to yourself  well, i do not want people to know i like dudes, so i am just going to date girls .  this often does not work out, and you may suddenly find yourself in a relationship with a guy you fall for.  i am not saying being bisexual sucks, it is pretty great at times, but it does face backlash from others.   #  i was going to say something like this.   #  i was going to say something like this.  my god, it can be so stressful and a massive emotional strain to be somewhere between heterosexual and homosexual for different amounts of time, it is really quite difficult.  i have had my straight friends wonder if i was just gay and after being out as bi to them for a while a few accept that but a few still question if i have still got one foot in the closet, however my behaviour has probably kept their questions unanswered so i do not view this as an issue, more them being confused/unsure.  of the minute amount of gay people who know i am bi, the response has been   pick a side for gods sake  .  so there is that.  anti gay feelings where i live are almost non existent so i know i would be okay  wouldeclaring  my sexuality but there has not been a need to and i felt stupid actively telling the small amount of people i have so now i just let it come out naturally to everyone else.  in regards to the cmv, of course i am going to say it would be great to be bisexual because i am and i am comfortable with it and in a position where i would not receive any negativity from being completely out however that certainly is not always the case and i do not agree that the advantage is the greater number of potential partners.  if you look at someone and they do not do anything for you in terms of attraction then you should not try and make them, just go with whatever happens.  hell, it could transpire that i am actually homosexual but for now i am just gonna roll with it.   #  but it definitely depends on where you are and who you are around whether or not people say  pick a side  or just assume you are gay.   #  sure orientations can, and do, fluctuate.  but it definitely depends on where you are and who you are around whether or not people say  pick a side  or just assume you are gay.  those people are being biphobic and yes straight people might assume you are gay but why do you care ? where i come from girls would not date a bi guy because they assumed he would cheat on them and leave them for a gay guy because he was actually gay.  yea, that was frustrating.  where i live now no one cares.  i have primarily hooked up with girls and i am actually dating a girl right now.  no one seems to care.  a few girls  will  initially respond that they would not date a bi guy but if they are into you then they all eventually decide that it does not matter if you are bi.  i do not talk to my girlfriend about how much i like guys just like i do not tell her how much i like other girls.   #  as a bisexual man, i have had gay men turn me down because,  bisexuals invariably wind up with women .   #  as a bisexual man, i have had gay men turn me down because,  bisexuals invariably wind up with women .  i have also talked with bisexuals who have been insulted or outright attacked by homosexuals in bars and other hang outs for not being  open  enough when they started chatting, as if every bisexual needs to identify themselves as such immediately.  while homosexuals get bigotry from mostly straight people, bisexuals get it from both ends, so to speak.  also, a question for you.  do you think you could just be friends with a female ? if the answer is no because of sexual tension, imagine being attracted to everyone.
to my way of thinking, being a bisexual would be great.  the amount of erotica i could view would be increased by a significant degree, the potential partners i could have would be increased, et cetera.  i am actually rather disappointed that i am attracted exclusively to females, and have tried, with very little success, to broaden my interests.  i do recognize that bisexuals experience a great deal of bigotry from the general public.  however, there is an aspect to my orientation i am going to avoid directly mentioning, in hopes of keeping this topic on topic, that means that i can fairly safely say i already experience as much orientation phobia that a bisexual would, or more, so the argument of the existence of biphobia will not be compelling.  so, yeah.  besides that, i ca not think of any major downsides, while i can think of some major upsides, to being a bisexual in my specific case, and i would choose to be such if orientation could be chosen.  cmv.   #  the potential partners i could have would be increased, et cetera.   #  such a lie, as someone who is bi i can promise you this is not true.   # such a lie, as someone who is bi i can promise you this is not true.  once you remove the number of bigots from both the gay and straight dating pools you are left with a lot less options then a typical straight person.  this is especially true for bi men who face more stigma then bi women do.  being bi is a lot like having two closets, your sexuality is constantly erased and dismissed.  people assume your orientation based on the gender of your current partner and you never really fit neatly into any community.  only point i will give you is that having sex with people of different genders is awesome as is group sex.  although that may be unique to me since i am bi and non monogamous, someone who is monogamous and bisexual would not experience this the same way i do.   #  many straight people view you as gay, and many gay people view you as a slutty liar.   #  one thing you might want to keep in mind is that bisexuals rarely are attracted to both genders equally.  they tend to have a preference one way or the other.  this kind of results in a confusion of emotions at times, trying to figure out what you really are.  there are also some issues to face.  many straight people view you as gay, and many gay people view you as a slutty liar.  also, depending on how strong the anti gay feelings are where you live, you may say to yourself  well, i do not want people to know i like dudes, so i am just going to date girls .  this often does not work out, and you may suddenly find yourself in a relationship with a guy you fall for.  i am not saying being bisexual sucks, it is pretty great at times, but it does face backlash from others.   #  of the minute amount of gay people who know i am bi, the response has been   pick a side for gods sake  .  so there is that.   #  i was going to say something like this.  my god, it can be so stressful and a massive emotional strain to be somewhere between heterosexual and homosexual for different amounts of time, it is really quite difficult.  i have had my straight friends wonder if i was just gay and after being out as bi to them for a while a few accept that but a few still question if i have still got one foot in the closet, however my behaviour has probably kept their questions unanswered so i do not view this as an issue, more them being confused/unsure.  of the minute amount of gay people who know i am bi, the response has been   pick a side for gods sake  .  so there is that.  anti gay feelings where i live are almost non existent so i know i would be okay  wouldeclaring  my sexuality but there has not been a need to and i felt stupid actively telling the small amount of people i have so now i just let it come out naturally to everyone else.  in regards to the cmv, of course i am going to say it would be great to be bisexual because i am and i am comfortable with it and in a position where i would not receive any negativity from being completely out however that certainly is not always the case and i do not agree that the advantage is the greater number of potential partners.  if you look at someone and they do not do anything for you in terms of attraction then you should not try and make them, just go with whatever happens.  hell, it could transpire that i am actually homosexual but for now i am just gonna roll with it.   #  i do not talk to my girlfriend about how much i like guys just like i do not tell her how much i like other girls.   #  sure orientations can, and do, fluctuate.  but it definitely depends on where you are and who you are around whether or not people say  pick a side  or just assume you are gay.  those people are being biphobic and yes straight people might assume you are gay but why do you care ? where i come from girls would not date a bi guy because they assumed he would cheat on them and leave them for a gay guy because he was actually gay.  yea, that was frustrating.  where i live now no one cares.  i have primarily hooked up with girls and i am actually dating a girl right now.  no one seems to care.  a few girls  will  initially respond that they would not date a bi guy but if they are into you then they all eventually decide that it does not matter if you are bi.  i do not talk to my girlfriend about how much i like guys just like i do not tell her how much i like other girls.   #  if the answer is no because of sexual tension, imagine being attracted to everyone.   #  as a bisexual man, i have had gay men turn me down because,  bisexuals invariably wind up with women .  i have also talked with bisexuals who have been insulted or outright attacked by homosexuals in bars and other hang outs for not being  open  enough when they started chatting, as if every bisexual needs to identify themselves as such immediately.  while homosexuals get bigotry from mostly straight people, bisexuals get it from both ends, so to speak.  also, a question for you.  do you think you could just be friends with a female ? if the answer is no because of sexual tension, imagine being attracted to everyone.
as technology advances, we are reducing the matter, energy, space, and time required by technology.  the simplest example is microchips.  they use less materials, use less energy, take up less space, and run faster.  but this can expand to other examples as well in general we are becoming more efficient, and using less resources for the same tasks, as time progresses.  so even if the human population keeps increasing, we may never run out of resources, even if we stay confined to earth.  as such, we will never have the need to leave our solar system for raw materials or for new sources of energy.  taking the dramatic view of some futurists,  life  and our minds will eventually be running on computers and microchips all of which will take up less resources as time goes on, further reducing our need to travel through space and colonize other planets or solar systems.  i agree that at some point we may need to leave our sun behind, or we may need to relocate due to asteroids and other dangers.  but i do not believe in some of the science fiction i have read that suggests we will grow and expand exponentially and at some point  fill up  the universe or, if it is limitless, then just keep on expanding exponentially forever .  because of  compression , we will continually get smaller and smaller, and if anything, we will use less space on earth, and use less resources in the future.  i know reddit has a fetish for colonizing all of space, but it just does not seem to make any sense to me.  if anyone can, then please cmv.  eta: grammer   speeling  #  in general we are becoming more efficient, and using less resources for the same tasks, as time progresses.   #  while this is true, there is a limit to everything.   # while this is true, there is a limit to everything.  you mention microchips getting smaller and smaller but there will come a day, as soon as 0 0 years from now, where this will no longer be the case.  the main reason microchips are getting smaller is because transistors electronic switches can be made to be extremely tiny, on the order of just a handful of atoms across.  however, if the current trends continue, we will reach a point where these transistors are so incredibly tiny that the laws of quantum mechanics will take over making these components effectively useless.  thus from then on chips will start getting bigger and bigger to pack in more and more transistors since you ca not make transistors any smaller.  this is known as the end of moore is law.  you can already see a bit of this happening now with smartphones that have dual core or quad core processors.  you argue that some new form of computing will be invented, like quantum computing, but even those will start out to be huge and clunky.  they also will get smaller and smaller until a limit has been reached.  you can only repeat this cycle for so long before you have no option but to simply make things bigger and bigger.  as such, we will never have the need to leave our solar system for raw materials or for new sources of energy.  where will people live ? human population is growing exponentially and we are currently at 0 billion people.  this is already over the carrying capacity of the planet.  since there are more of us, our energy needs are actually increasing.  imagine an average house 0 years ago.  you did not need much to live comfortably, simply some food and books to read.  you had absolutely no need for electricity.  now the average household has multiple tv is and computers, dozens of lights, air conditioning, and other electrical devices thermostat, refrigerator, microwave, etc .  add in there the fact that more people exist today than 0 years ago.  not only are we using more energy, there are more of us using consuming energy.  this will only continue to increase.  you could argue for the use of solar energy or wind energy, but those take up space to generate.  with an ever increasing population, how will you create more and more space for solar and wind farms.  this leads me to food.  we also need more and more farms to feed an ever growing population.  if these trends continue as they are today, we will have no space for everything.  simple as that.  you cannot make the earth any bigger.  something will have to go if we do not expand into the universe.  true, but it still does not solve the problems i mentioned above regarding population, energy, and food  i do not believe in some of the science fiction i have read that suggests we will grow and expand exponentially and at some point  fill up  the universe even if we do not need to expand, that does not mean we wo not.  humans by nature are curious and want to explore.  also, we will probably expand out of greed.  there are entire planets bigger than the earth made completely out of diamond.  imagine physically discovering and owning that planet.  if you had the means to get there, you would probably go.  more realistically, there are asteroids in our solar system filled with rare and precious materials.  whoever mines even one of them will become instantly richer than bill gates.   #  as for what motives our progeny will have, it is likely that the desire to do  something  will be it.   #  colonizing space for survival is not just because we need more resources, it is to minimize existential risk.  as for what motives our progeny will have, it is likely that the desire to do  something  will be it.  i do not know if they will want to solve mathematical equations, invent the ultimate blood sport, conquer everything, or build a large orbital mass made of cheetohs, but i find it unlikely that it will be  nothing.   which is the only thing i can conceive of that would not be helped by the expansion of our capabilities.  as for why i consider it unlikely, try viewing it from a memetic perspective.  those who want more will get more, those who want nothing wo not.  if 0 percent of a post scarcity society is made up of contented buddha like robots, the . 0 will expand maximally.   #  we like to find ways to accomplish more.   #  bear in minds that other planets, asteroids, comets and other objects in space are not just sources of mest.  they are different than the earth, and some of them not necessarily the ones in our own solar system may contain amazing things, such as novel forms of life and even intelligent life that has developed interesting civilizations.  even aside from life, there could be all sorts of things on other planets that we have never found or made, here on earth.  just as the colonists from the eastern hemisphere of the earth found new things in the western hemisphere, not just more of the same things that they already had in the eastern hemisphere, so could the human race potentially discover many interesting new things by expanding beyond the limits of our native planet.  and while it is true, from a certain perspective, that the human race may never  need  to colonize the universe, we are hardly limited to doing only what we need to do.  people in the remaining stone age tribes manage to do what they need to do, to survive.  they eat, sleep, and procreate.  but we like doing more than the bare minimum.  we like to find ways to accomplish more.  and certainly, colonizing the universe should such a thing ever become technologically feasible would be a fascinating accomplishment.   #  adding these numbers up, we get a minimum of 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 that is 0 sextillion celestial bodies where life can possibly develop.   #  you think finding alien life is pretty slim ? let me try to convince you otherwise.  there are over 0 billion galaxies, a highly conservative number, in the observable universe not even the entire universe .  each of those galaxies usually have about 0 billion stars.  furthermore each star has an average of 0 planet.  each planet probably has at least 0 moon moons can be habitable under the right situation .  adding these numbers up, we get a minimum of 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 that is 0 sextillion celestial bodies where life can possibly develop.  some of these bodies are hostile, others are perfect.  if we assume even only 0, which is incredibly rare, of all those celestial bodies support life, then we have 0,0,0,0,0 instances were life has emerged.  now, lets assume that the probability of intelligent life out of all life possible is equally rare, 0.  the number comes out to be 0,0 places where intelligent life has formed, which is actually a lot considering how rare that is, 0 chance that any given celestial body has intelligent life on it.  i completely made up all the percentages to show that no matter how unlikely life may be, the universe is simply too big for alien life to not exist.  the most astounding part of this is that the numbers i used are very very conservative.  you can easily double, maybe even triple, all these numbers and everything will still be somewhat reasonable and realistic.  now you may be wondering if life is really that common why have not we detected anything yet ? several reasons 0 we do not have the technology to accurately tell if an extrasolar planet has life on it.  in fact, we ca not even detect any extrasolar moons.  0 it might be that it takes a really long time for intelligent life to develop and maybe we are just ahead of schedule.  or that interstellar travel is so hard that it take a lot of time to perfect the technology.  maybe intelligent life tends to destroy itself before colonizing the universe.  there are a whole host of reasons  #  in the event that we are able to colonize the universe, it is a big universe, with a ridiculously large number of planets.   #  considering that we have not visited any planets beyond earth, other than by robotic probe, and have only visited one satellite, the moon, it seems premature to assess the kinds of things that we may find on other planets, or the probability of finding life.  there is some chance that there is extraterrestrial life even in our own solar system; the moon europa does have oceans.  in the event that we are able to colonize the universe, it is a big universe, with a ridiculously large number of planets.  i am sure that there is life on some of them.  i see no reason why life should evolve only on earth.  beyond that, we do not really know what we may find.  i do expect that some planets, perhaps quite a lot of planets, are just boring balls of rock with no interesting features, but even within our own solar system, there is quite a variety of planets and we have yet to examine them closely enough to really know what interesting features they may have.
as technology advances, we are reducing the matter, energy, space, and time required by technology.  the simplest example is microchips.  they use less materials, use less energy, take up less space, and run faster.  but this can expand to other examples as well in general we are becoming more efficient, and using less resources for the same tasks, as time progresses.  so even if the human population keeps increasing, we may never run out of resources, even if we stay confined to earth.  as such, we will never have the need to leave our solar system for raw materials or for new sources of energy.  taking the dramatic view of some futurists,  life  and our minds will eventually be running on computers and microchips all of which will take up less resources as time goes on, further reducing our need to travel through space and colonize other planets or solar systems.  i agree that at some point we may need to leave our sun behind, or we may need to relocate due to asteroids and other dangers.  but i do not believe in some of the science fiction i have read that suggests we will grow and expand exponentially and at some point  fill up  the universe or, if it is limitless, then just keep on expanding exponentially forever .  because of  compression , we will continually get smaller and smaller, and if anything, we will use less space on earth, and use less resources in the future.  i know reddit has a fetish for colonizing all of space, but it just does not seem to make any sense to me.  if anyone can, then please cmv.  eta: grammer   speeling  #  so even if the human population keeps increasing, we may never run out of resources, even if we stay confined to earth.   #  as such, we will never have the need to leave our solar system for raw materials or for new sources of energy.   # while this is true, there is a limit to everything.  you mention microchips getting smaller and smaller but there will come a day, as soon as 0 0 years from now, where this will no longer be the case.  the main reason microchips are getting smaller is because transistors electronic switches can be made to be extremely tiny, on the order of just a handful of atoms across.  however, if the current trends continue, we will reach a point where these transistors are so incredibly tiny that the laws of quantum mechanics will take over making these components effectively useless.  thus from then on chips will start getting bigger and bigger to pack in more and more transistors since you ca not make transistors any smaller.  this is known as the end of moore is law.  you can already see a bit of this happening now with smartphones that have dual core or quad core processors.  you argue that some new form of computing will be invented, like quantum computing, but even those will start out to be huge and clunky.  they also will get smaller and smaller until a limit has been reached.  you can only repeat this cycle for so long before you have no option but to simply make things bigger and bigger.  as such, we will never have the need to leave our solar system for raw materials or for new sources of energy.  where will people live ? human population is growing exponentially and we are currently at 0 billion people.  this is already over the carrying capacity of the planet.  since there are more of us, our energy needs are actually increasing.  imagine an average house 0 years ago.  you did not need much to live comfortably, simply some food and books to read.  you had absolutely no need for electricity.  now the average household has multiple tv is and computers, dozens of lights, air conditioning, and other electrical devices thermostat, refrigerator, microwave, etc .  add in there the fact that more people exist today than 0 years ago.  not only are we using more energy, there are more of us using consuming energy.  this will only continue to increase.  you could argue for the use of solar energy or wind energy, but those take up space to generate.  with an ever increasing population, how will you create more and more space for solar and wind farms.  this leads me to food.  we also need more and more farms to feed an ever growing population.  if these trends continue as they are today, we will have no space for everything.  simple as that.  you cannot make the earth any bigger.  something will have to go if we do not expand into the universe.  true, but it still does not solve the problems i mentioned above regarding population, energy, and food  i do not believe in some of the science fiction i have read that suggests we will grow and expand exponentially and at some point  fill up  the universe even if we do not need to expand, that does not mean we wo not.  humans by nature are curious and want to explore.  also, we will probably expand out of greed.  there are entire planets bigger than the earth made completely out of diamond.  imagine physically discovering and owning that planet.  if you had the means to get there, you would probably go.  more realistically, there are asteroids in our solar system filled with rare and precious materials.  whoever mines even one of them will become instantly richer than bill gates.   #  as for why i consider it unlikely, try viewing it from a memetic perspective.   #  colonizing space for survival is not just because we need more resources, it is to minimize existential risk.  as for what motives our progeny will have, it is likely that the desire to do  something  will be it.  i do not know if they will want to solve mathematical equations, invent the ultimate blood sport, conquer everything, or build a large orbital mass made of cheetohs, but i find it unlikely that it will be  nothing.   which is the only thing i can conceive of that would not be helped by the expansion of our capabilities.  as for why i consider it unlikely, try viewing it from a memetic perspective.  those who want more will get more, those who want nothing wo not.  if 0 percent of a post scarcity society is made up of contented buddha like robots, the . 0 will expand maximally.   #  bear in minds that other planets, asteroids, comets and other objects in space are not just sources of mest.   #  bear in minds that other planets, asteroids, comets and other objects in space are not just sources of mest.  they are different than the earth, and some of them not necessarily the ones in our own solar system may contain amazing things, such as novel forms of life and even intelligent life that has developed interesting civilizations.  even aside from life, there could be all sorts of things on other planets that we have never found or made, here on earth.  just as the colonists from the eastern hemisphere of the earth found new things in the western hemisphere, not just more of the same things that they already had in the eastern hemisphere, so could the human race potentially discover many interesting new things by expanding beyond the limits of our native planet.  and while it is true, from a certain perspective, that the human race may never  need  to colonize the universe, we are hardly limited to doing only what we need to do.  people in the remaining stone age tribes manage to do what they need to do, to survive.  they eat, sleep, and procreate.  but we like doing more than the bare minimum.  we like to find ways to accomplish more.  and certainly, colonizing the universe should such a thing ever become technologically feasible would be a fascinating accomplishment.   #  adding these numbers up, we get a minimum of 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 that is 0 sextillion celestial bodies where life can possibly develop.   #  you think finding alien life is pretty slim ? let me try to convince you otherwise.  there are over 0 billion galaxies, a highly conservative number, in the observable universe not even the entire universe .  each of those galaxies usually have about 0 billion stars.  furthermore each star has an average of 0 planet.  each planet probably has at least 0 moon moons can be habitable under the right situation .  adding these numbers up, we get a minimum of 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 that is 0 sextillion celestial bodies where life can possibly develop.  some of these bodies are hostile, others are perfect.  if we assume even only 0, which is incredibly rare, of all those celestial bodies support life, then we have 0,0,0,0,0 instances were life has emerged.  now, lets assume that the probability of intelligent life out of all life possible is equally rare, 0.  the number comes out to be 0,0 places where intelligent life has formed, which is actually a lot considering how rare that is, 0 chance that any given celestial body has intelligent life on it.  i completely made up all the percentages to show that no matter how unlikely life may be, the universe is simply too big for alien life to not exist.  the most astounding part of this is that the numbers i used are very very conservative.  you can easily double, maybe even triple, all these numbers and everything will still be somewhat reasonable and realistic.  now you may be wondering if life is really that common why have not we detected anything yet ? several reasons 0 we do not have the technology to accurately tell if an extrasolar planet has life on it.  in fact, we ca not even detect any extrasolar moons.  0 it might be that it takes a really long time for intelligent life to develop and maybe we are just ahead of schedule.  or that interstellar travel is so hard that it take a lot of time to perfect the technology.  maybe intelligent life tends to destroy itself before colonizing the universe.  there are a whole host of reasons  #  i am sure that there is life on some of them.   #  considering that we have not visited any planets beyond earth, other than by robotic probe, and have only visited one satellite, the moon, it seems premature to assess the kinds of things that we may find on other planets, or the probability of finding life.  there is some chance that there is extraterrestrial life even in our own solar system; the moon europa does have oceans.  in the event that we are able to colonize the universe, it is a big universe, with a ridiculously large number of planets.  i am sure that there is life on some of them.  i see no reason why life should evolve only on earth.  beyond that, we do not really know what we may find.  i do expect that some planets, perhaps quite a lot of planets, are just boring balls of rock with no interesting features, but even within our own solar system, there is quite a variety of planets and we have yet to examine them closely enough to really know what interesting features they may have.
many car crashes are caused by distractions of the driver.  one of these distractions is due to listening to music.  these distractions are either the driver adjusting the music or just the distraction of the sound.  many professional drivers such as airline pilots or train engineers are legally prohibited to listen to music.  if professionals are prohibited to listening to music because of distraction then that is even more reason to prohibit amateurs to listening to music.  since enforment of this would be difficult for law enforcement the prohibition needs to be technical.  this would mean that all new cars need to turn off music when the car is in motion.  plus all add on sound equipment would need to be designed so that it would work with the technical standards developed to prevent listening to music while driving.   #  since enforment of this would be difficult for law enforcement the prohibition needs to be technical.   #  this would mean that all new cars need to turn off music when the car is in motion.   # source ? that does not sound true at all.  again.  source ? what kind of  professional  driver ? a taxi driver is a professional driver and they are not prohibited from listening to music or radio.  airline pilots and train engineers are not using everyday roads.  they are also  on the job .  amateur drivers are not  on the job  typically when they are driving.  this would mean that all new cars need to turn off music when the car is in motion.  plus all add on sound equipment would need to be designed so that it would work with the technical standards developed to prevent listening to music while driving.  why not just remove the audio mechanism completely then ? whats the point of having a cd player and radio in a car if you ca not listen to them while driving ? who is going to go sit in their car to listen to music when they can do that just fine inside in a nice comfy chair ?  #  it is a lot more dangerous than being auditorily word ?  #  the reason we ban things likes cell phones for texting is because it impairs you visually.  and by impair, i mean completely take your vision away.  music is only auditory and you can still hear sirens and stuff.  it is a lot more dangerous than being auditorily word ? impaired.  this is why deaf people can get driver is licenses but blind people ca not.   #  laws are about striking a balance between eliminating every potential harm and allowing people liberty which is a good in and of itself .   #  laws are about striking a balance between eliminating every potential harm and allowing people liberty which is a good in and of itself .  we allow cheese burgers even though obesity is a huge issue because the liberty of being able to eat them is worth more to society than the health benefits from banning them.  likewise listening to music when driving.  nothing in this world is totally risk free people drown in their bath tubs every single day .  the proper role of government is carefully considering when the harm caused by allowing people to behave a certain way clearly exceeds the benefit to personal liberty obtained from giving people the freedom to choose.  there are a few notable cases where government has gotten it wrong but that is the goal.  in this case i think it would take a great deal of really solid evidence to show listening to music actually results in a huge number of car accidents before government could stick its fingers into that pie.  basically your argument ignores the worth of freedom from consideration .   #  in the future there can be in vehicle notification of approaching emergency vehicles aside from just a loud siren.   #    current research may not yet support a full ban of music when driving.  it may support a volume limit so that drivers can hear approaching emergency vehicles.  cars could also lower the volume when important messages need to be heard such as collision alerts.  in the future there can be in vehicle notification of approaching emergency vehicles aside from just a loud siren.  one option is to use cell phones, intelligent wireless routing and notification system for emergency services vehicles URL  #  this would mean that all new cars need to turn off music when the car is in motion.   # this would mean that all new cars need to turn off music when the car is in motion.  plus all add on sound equipment would need to be designed so that it would work with the technical standards developed to prevent listening to music while driving.  how would you design a phone to not play while a car is operating ? or portable speakers ? it sounds like a solution easier said than done.  honestly, it seems like such an easy thing to work around it is effectively the same as doing something like banning chatting with passengers in a car.
many car crashes are caused by distractions of the driver.  one of these distractions is due to listening to music.  these distractions are either the driver adjusting the music or just the distraction of the sound.  many professional drivers such as airline pilots or train engineers are legally prohibited to listen to music.  if professionals are prohibited to listening to music because of distraction then that is even more reason to prohibit amateurs to listening to music.  since enforment of this would be difficult for law enforcement the prohibition needs to be technical.  this would mean that all new cars need to turn off music when the car is in motion.  plus all add on sound equipment would need to be designed so that it would work with the technical standards developed to prevent listening to music while driving.   #  since enforment of this would be difficult for law enforcement the prohibition needs to be technical.   #  this would mean that all new cars need to turn off music when the car is in motion.   # this would mean that all new cars need to turn off music when the car is in motion.  plus all add on sound equipment would need to be designed so that it would work with the technical standards developed to prevent listening to music while driving.  how would you design a phone to not play while a car is operating ? or portable speakers ? it sounds like a solution easier said than done.  honestly, it seems like such an easy thing to work around it is effectively the same as doing something like banning chatting with passengers in a car.   #  why not just remove the audio mechanism completely then ?  # source ? that does not sound true at all.  again.  source ? what kind of  professional  driver ? a taxi driver is a professional driver and they are not prohibited from listening to music or radio.  airline pilots and train engineers are not using everyday roads.  they are also  on the job .  amateur drivers are not  on the job  typically when they are driving.  this would mean that all new cars need to turn off music when the car is in motion.  plus all add on sound equipment would need to be designed so that it would work with the technical standards developed to prevent listening to music while driving.  why not just remove the audio mechanism completely then ? whats the point of having a cd player and radio in a car if you ca not listen to them while driving ? who is going to go sit in their car to listen to music when they can do that just fine inside in a nice comfy chair ?  #  this is why deaf people can get driver is licenses but blind people ca not.   #  the reason we ban things likes cell phones for texting is because it impairs you visually.  and by impair, i mean completely take your vision away.  music is only auditory and you can still hear sirens and stuff.  it is a lot more dangerous than being auditorily word ? impaired.  this is why deaf people can get driver is licenses but blind people ca not.   #  there are a few notable cases where government has gotten it wrong but that is the goal.   #  laws are about striking a balance between eliminating every potential harm and allowing people liberty which is a good in and of itself .  we allow cheese burgers even though obesity is a huge issue because the liberty of being able to eat them is worth more to society than the health benefits from banning them.  likewise listening to music when driving.  nothing in this world is totally risk free people drown in their bath tubs every single day .  the proper role of government is carefully considering when the harm caused by allowing people to behave a certain way clearly exceeds the benefit to personal liberty obtained from giving people the freedom to choose.  there are a few notable cases where government has gotten it wrong but that is the goal.  in this case i think it would take a great deal of really solid evidence to show listening to music actually results in a huge number of car accidents before government could stick its fingers into that pie.  basically your argument ignores the worth of freedom from consideration .   #    current research may not yet support a full ban of music when driving.   #    current research may not yet support a full ban of music when driving.  it may support a volume limit so that drivers can hear approaching emergency vehicles.  cars could also lower the volume when important messages need to be heard such as collision alerts.  in the future there can be in vehicle notification of approaching emergency vehicles aside from just a loud siren.  one option is to use cell phones, intelligent wireless routing and notification system for emergency services vehicles URL
i used to be afraid of death, especially when i was a kid/teenager.  but the more i thought about it and how it affects our decisions, death made less and less sense.  i am talking about people worrying about/fearing death.  after years of reflection i came to the conclusion that everyone who fears death is either ignorant or weak, because there is nothing to gain by this.  you just waste time of your life thinking about something that you will never experience.  sure, you may worry about your kids or your legacy, but the event  wouldeath  will never be experienced by anyone, because, well, we just wo not be there for it anymore.  now, i could go on and on about why you are weak if you fear death, but i think most of you will get this, as it is something many people have already discussed.  i will add more info in the comments.   #  i used to be afraid of death, especially when i was a kid/teenager.   #  but the more i thought about it and how it affects our decisions, death made less and less sense.   # but the more i thought about it and how it affects our decisions, death made less and less sense.  i am talking about people worrying about/fearing death.  you are in the position to understand why people might have an irrational fear of death, but you instead choose to view those people as ignorant or weak.  there are millions of things you can spend your time doing and thinking about, and you choose to see people who have not spent the years of self reflection that you did as weak.  it seems perfectly reasonable to be afraid of death and not give it a second thought.  just because you were bothered by it enough to reflect for years does not mean others are ignorant.   #  and i think that counts as both a fear of death, and is nether weakness nor ignorance.   #  there are many middle aged people i know who have gotten past the  omg i am going to die someday,  but still fear death.  they fear it specifically in the context of,  when i am not here, how will my spouse/children/grandchildren/company/volunteer work etc make out ? will they be okay ?   and i think that counts as both a fear of death, and is nether weakness nor ignorance.  it is hard to mourn loss.  it is reasonable to be worried about other people mourning you, and how that will affect their lives.  then there are other practicalities, like trying to make arrangements for what will happen to people or organisations you took care of.  but the best laid plans are not guaranteed.  other people probably do not care about those things like you do, because if they did they would be taking care of them too, and they are not.  this seems more than reasonable to me.   #  they have already achieved their goals and dreams, and have no more left.   #  wow, that must be terrible.  that said, it might be an age thing.  when i was young, i would occasionally be  very  concerned i would not call it panic exactly, but some might have called it fear.  why was i bothered by death ? because i was young, and had many goals and many dreams and many desires,  but i had not attained any of them yet .  and who the hell wants to die like that.  right ? but now that i am older and have achieved at least some of my goals and attained some of my dreams, i am a little bit better.  when i talk to old people who have had good lives they are not even bothered by death, and some of them are even welcoming of it.  they have already achieved their goals and dreams, and have no more left.  it is like they have played a video game and finished it.  it is done.  and they are okay with it.  i would be upset to if i paid $0 for a game and it turns out that i am only given 0 life in it, and i accidentally die in the first 0 minutes and the game deletes itself from my harddrive and that is the end of it.  i would be pissed.  maybe even afraid of dying.  but if i play my $0 video game for 0 hours, and complete it i am not upset when it is over.  another analogy might be a $0 book that is 0 pages long.  i would like to get to the end of the book.  i would be unhappy if i get to page 0, and then my book is taken away from me.  i do not know how things get resolved, how things play out, i would feel cheated.  maybe you could say i am  afraid  of losing my book on the bus.  because who wants to invest in a book, only to lose it before you even got half way through it.   #  books do not know time, the way humans think about time.   # that is not at all what i am saying.  i am saying: why does not it bother you now ? do you have some sorta of fear of a lifeless future, but not a fear of the lifeless past ? if so, then why ? overall, the way i see it is this: time and history is like a very large book.  each page could represent a year.  stratys0 is mentioned on 0 0 pages within, but not before, and not after.  me living right here right now is like reading the part of the book that includes my time here on earth.  but just like all the other books on my shelf,  they do not cease to exist after i have finished reading them .  they are still there, the pages are still intact.  books do not know time, the way humans think about time.  and i do not think the universe knows time either.  days and months and years are just different pages in different books.  we live on after our pages have been read, just like the books on my shelf live on after i have read them.   #  i think that the linearity of time is in part a human illusion.   #  but i see the past and future as nearly equals and i exist in neither.  the only thing i may not like, is that my current existence is finite and i would prefer it to be either longer, or infinite, obviously .  as for the book analogy, i think it is soundly based on the principles of science and physics.  i think that the linearity of time is in part a human illusion.  instead of only 0 page existing at a time, i view all pages existing simultaneously.  it just happens that each individual person only exists on a fixed number of pages.  in this sense, it is impossible for someone to  cease to exist , because that would require purging them from history, and purging all evidence of their existence as well genetics, family, friends, and all the things in this universe that their existence has effected .  and i think that would be impossible.
i used to be afraid of death, especially when i was a kid/teenager.  but the more i thought about it and how it affects our decisions, death made less and less sense.  i am talking about people worrying about/fearing death.  after years of reflection i came to the conclusion that everyone who fears death is either ignorant or weak, because there is nothing to gain by this.  you just waste time of your life thinking about something that you will never experience.  sure, you may worry about your kids or your legacy, but the event  wouldeath  will never be experienced by anyone, because, well, we just wo not be there for it anymore.  now, i could go on and on about why you are weak if you fear death, but i think most of you will get this, as it is something many people have already discussed.  i will add more info in the comments.   #  after years of reflection i came to the conclusion that everyone who fears death is either ignorant or weak, because there is nothing to gain by this.   #  fear motivates us to change our behaviour to attempt to escape something.   # fear motivates us to change our behaviour to attempt to escape something.  you cannot escape death forever, but you can try to escape it for a bit longer.  you can attempt to live a more healthy life, avoid unnecessary risks, try not to waste time and live an eventful life, such that time subjectively passes by more slowly.  i therefore do not think it is ignorant or weak to fear death and it can be something that drives you in a positive way.  people obviously can have less productive reactions to fear, but in that case their decision making is the problem and not the emotion itself.   #  then there are other practicalities, like trying to make arrangements for what will happen to people or organisations you took care of.   #  there are many middle aged people i know who have gotten past the  omg i am going to die someday,  but still fear death.  they fear it specifically in the context of,  when i am not here, how will my spouse/children/grandchildren/company/volunteer work etc make out ? will they be okay ?   and i think that counts as both a fear of death, and is nether weakness nor ignorance.  it is hard to mourn loss.  it is reasonable to be worried about other people mourning you, and how that will affect their lives.  then there are other practicalities, like trying to make arrangements for what will happen to people or organisations you took care of.  but the best laid plans are not guaranteed.  other people probably do not care about those things like you do, because if they did they would be taking care of them too, and they are not.  this seems more than reasonable to me.   #  there are millions of things you can spend your time doing and thinking about, and you choose to see people who have not spent the years of self reflection that you did as weak.   # but the more i thought about it and how it affects our decisions, death made less and less sense.  i am talking about people worrying about/fearing death.  you are in the position to understand why people might have an irrational fear of death, but you instead choose to view those people as ignorant or weak.  there are millions of things you can spend your time doing and thinking about, and you choose to see people who have not spent the years of self reflection that you did as weak.  it seems perfectly reasonable to be afraid of death and not give it a second thought.  just because you were bothered by it enough to reflect for years does not mean others are ignorant.   #  i would be unhappy if i get to page 0, and then my book is taken away from me.   #  wow, that must be terrible.  that said, it might be an age thing.  when i was young, i would occasionally be  very  concerned i would not call it panic exactly, but some might have called it fear.  why was i bothered by death ? because i was young, and had many goals and many dreams and many desires,  but i had not attained any of them yet .  and who the hell wants to die like that.  right ? but now that i am older and have achieved at least some of my goals and attained some of my dreams, i am a little bit better.  when i talk to old people who have had good lives they are not even bothered by death, and some of them are even welcoming of it.  they have already achieved their goals and dreams, and have no more left.  it is like they have played a video game and finished it.  it is done.  and they are okay with it.  i would be upset to if i paid $0 for a game and it turns out that i am only given 0 life in it, and i accidentally die in the first 0 minutes and the game deletes itself from my harddrive and that is the end of it.  i would be pissed.  maybe even afraid of dying.  but if i play my $0 video game for 0 hours, and complete it i am not upset when it is over.  another analogy might be a $0 book that is 0 pages long.  i would like to get to the end of the book.  i would be unhappy if i get to page 0, and then my book is taken away from me.  i do not know how things get resolved, how things play out, i would feel cheated.  maybe you could say i am  afraid  of losing my book on the bus.  because who wants to invest in a book, only to lose it before you even got half way through it.   #  but just like all the other books on my shelf,  they do not cease to exist after i have finished reading them .   # that is not at all what i am saying.  i am saying: why does not it bother you now ? do you have some sorta of fear of a lifeless future, but not a fear of the lifeless past ? if so, then why ? overall, the way i see it is this: time and history is like a very large book.  each page could represent a year.  stratys0 is mentioned on 0 0 pages within, but not before, and not after.  me living right here right now is like reading the part of the book that includes my time here on earth.  but just like all the other books on my shelf,  they do not cease to exist after i have finished reading them .  they are still there, the pages are still intact.  books do not know time, the way humans think about time.  and i do not think the universe knows time either.  days and months and years are just different pages in different books.  we live on after our pages have been read, just like the books on my shelf live on after i have read them.
that is right folks, this age old argument is back.  but this time, there is a twist.  i believe the age where somebody can get behind the wheel after having a drink or so at a bar under the . 0 limit should be 0.  if anyone under 0 is caught with any alcohol in their system while driving, they should lose their license for x number of years.  zero tolerance, no exceptions.  i believe this will absolutely cut some of the stigma around alcohol, teach kids how to be responsible drinkers because they will no longer have to hide it.  the  forbidden fruit  nature of alcohol would be lifted.  binge drinking is the norm for many college students, but is  out if their system  by the time they are out of school for a few years, and is seen as something the younger crowd does.  with the drinking age set to 0, that stigma would shift.  i also believe that if you are old enough to serve your country and die in the military, you are sure as hell old enough to drink a beer.  if lawmakers really thought  what about the children  the recruitment age would not be 0.  so go ahead, change my view.   #  i also believe that if you are old enough to serve your country and die in the military, you are sure as hell old enough to drink a beer.   #  i agree with this. but i also feel like 0 is too young to serve in the military.   # i agree with this. but i also feel like 0 is too young to serve in the military.  at 0, you are still a dumb kid fresh out of high school, where they rope you into joining the military instead of going to college by making it sound financially beneficial.  kids at 0 years old are not thinking about or even aware of the kind of thing they could be getting into if sent to war.  i say keep the drinking age at 0 and raise the military age to 0 also.   #  people get older siblings, relatives, friends, friends of friends, parents, or friends  parents to buy them alcohol.   #  as a countering opinion, i dislike the idea because it is still limiting the ability of adults.  it is, in my opinion, a major inconsistency if we say that an 0 year old is  old enough  to drive, smoke, vote, or fight in the army, yet is not allowed to drink solely because they might sell it to younger people.  also, i have been in places that have a legal drinking age of 0 eg, alberta, canada and currently live in an area with a drinking age of 0 saskatchewan, canada .  in anecdotal experience, the high schooler is access to alcohol is not noticeably different.  the drinking age really does not stop minors from getting alcohol.  people get older siblings, relatives, friends, friends of friends, parents, or friends  parents to buy them alcohol.  also, the drunk drivers per 0,0 URL see chart 0 per province does not really have a noticeable difference for whether the province has a drinking age of 0 or 0 alberta and quebec are 0, while saskatchewan and pei are 0 .   #  by allowing drinking in bars and clubs from the age of 0, there is supervision.   #  let me give you some views on the matter.  by allowing drinking in bars and clubs from the age of 0, there is supervision.  bartenders are forced by law to not serve you if you are too drunk.  i believe water must be available free of charge as well by law.  the reasoning behind this system i have sometimes heard is that this eases you in to alcohol consumption.  a bar or club is a safe place with stringent laws overseeing their practice.  a countering view however is that in practice bars and clubs may not at all be a safer place than for instance your own home.   #  if you set the limit low enough as sweden seems to have you are at least setting up a scenario where someone would have to drink a prohibitive amount of liquid to get seriously drunk.   #  i wonder what the logic is behind this, or the netherlandish version.  if you set the limit low enough as sweden seems to have you are at least setting up a scenario where someone would have to drink a prohibitive amount of liquid to get seriously drunk.  so at least there is an implicit, bladder based barrier to binge drinking.  but if the limit is anywhere above 0, what is the actual goal of the policy ? it really does not take that long to get obliterated at 0, unless you are already a serious practitioner.  and at 0, alcohol poisoning is easily within the reach of even a beginner.   #  the teens have no problem getting the strong stuff, but you can hope they will buy the legal stuff if it is not too restrictive, and it is much harder to cross your limit with 0 than with 0.   #  because teenagers drink.  we know this.  the lawmakers know this.  the store employees know this.  the parents know this.  we are not trying to prohibit the kids from drinking because we know it does not work.  but for comparison, the standard bottle of vodka/alcohol you would see teens run around with before the law was around 0.  after the law, they started making versions of this on 0.  the teens have no problem getting the strong stuff, but you can hope they will buy the legal stuff if it is not too restrictive, and it is much harder to cross your limit with 0 than with 0.  one of the other reasons we ca not do it like sweden is because denmark does not have a government monopoly on alcohol sale it is actually the only nordic country that does not , so if you set the laws too restrictive the kids will just buy it illegally.  you have to be unlucky to get refused a purchase, especially if you know where to buy.  same problem with smokes.  we do have a problem with alcohol poisoning, especially in the 0 0 age range, but i believe that education rather than restrictive laws is the best way to solve it.
recently i seem to have offended multiple people with this belief.  i am american.  i was born in america, and so were my parents, and theirs before them.  my great grandparents were not born in america but i sure as fuck do not have a clue where they were born.  somewhere in eastern europe maybe since i am jewish.  my parents do not know either.  i would define american white culture as separate from  black  culture as the stereotypical black  thug life  culture.  this does not mean that there ca not be black or brown or yellow or red people who identify with american white culture and are natively american.  i do not mean it as a racist thing, just as a way of separating it from another prominent american  culture  that no one seems to get offended by.  basically what i am saying is that i believe people can be natively american without being cherokees.  i see people, especially recently, talking about how we are all  illegal immigrants  on this land.  that is bullshit.  this is my land and my country.  maybe even more so than the native americans, as they only own small portions of it.  we have as much of a culture as any other country, and that is obvious if you travel.  just because we are more heterogeneous than most places does not mean there are not things that bond us.  if you say this about black american culture, everyone agrees.  during slavery africans had their native cultures erased and came together to form a new one for all african americans.  no one will say that  black culture  does not exist in america.  but white culture ? suddenly you are a racist.  tell me how that is different.  for whatever reason we are all here and we left behind our old cultures too, to form a new one.   #  recently i seem to have offended multiple people with this belief.   #  there is many factual inaccuracies in the post, so i am not surprised.   # there is many factual inaccuracies in the post, so i am not surprised.  i was born in america, and so were my parents, and theirs before them.  my great grandparents were not born in america but i sure as fuck do not have a clue where they were born.  somewhere in eastern europe maybe since i am jewish.  my parents do not know either.  the funny thing is, your people probably were not even considered white until very recently.  to some white nationalists still today, being  white  excludes jews.  as long as you accept all the negative aspects of stereotypical american culture as aspects of your so called american white culture, sure.  and there is a lot of that.  that is bullshit.  this is my land and my country.  maybe even more so than the native americans, as they only own small portions of it.  because the settlers literally killed off, intentionally and unintentionally, the vast majority of natives and stole the land by warring and forced relocation.  i would say that is an argument against you.  america is so diverse that we do not have a unified culture.  no one will say that  black culture  does not exist in america.  you have just listed something that unified black people in the past, and something that helped form american  black culture.   nothing of the sort exists of white people in america.  there is  nothing  that unifies american white people on the basis of their skin color here.  no shared experiences of being white.  unless you want to count being benefactors of slavery or segregation, then be my guest ! we might have an american culture, but there sure as hell is not an american white culture.   #  there is ugly racism against minorities in japan, too.   #  well, you could say that about any large culture, really.  they always fracture into subcultures.  for instance, american people often talk about  japanese culture  as if it is something monolithic and absolute, but there are easily as many distinct japanese subcultures in japan as there are white subcultures in america yes, there are rednecks and hippies and goths and everything else .  a japanese right wing nationalist would probably reject the idea that they share any kind of culture with kyary pamyu pamyu.  there is ugly racism against minorities in japan, too.  but no one would say that variability or majority status in japan, at least means that there is no  japanese culture.   people who share language, history, education, etc.  are more likely to share general social values.  culture is complicated and personal.  everyone belongs to multiple, overlapping, conflicting cultural groups.  i think acknowledging that cultures everything from small subcultures to larger national, racial, political, religious, etc.  cultures  exist  and having a general awareness of culture is the first step to identifying problems that might exist within those cultures.  for some reason, white americans seem to prefer to see themselves as  culturally neutral  or  culturally default,  but the idea that  white american default  and  everything else different  is problematic in its own way.   #  so a black muslim in downtown chicago could belong to the chicago culture, the illinois culture, urban culture, black culture, and muslim culture simultaneously.   #  there is actually way more than that probably too many to reliably count .  rural midwest is very different from urban and suburban midwest.  black people in chicago, for example have a very different culture from black people mississippi.  to a certain extent, you can say that each state has a unique culture apart from the urban/rural divide .  so, geographical culture, social status culture, and racial/ethnic culture all kind of play off each other to create unique cultures, which are not really mutually exclusive.  so a black muslim in downtown chicago could belong to the chicago culture, the illinois culture, urban culture, black culture, and muslim culture simultaneously.   #  that was hundreds of years ago and i was not involved.   #  first off, i am really sorry i broke the rules about replies.  i passed out right next to this post.  will respond to everything now though.  i do understand there is negative aspects, there is negative aspects of every culture.  i think that i guess american culture can be split into different subgroups, the person who commented that was right and i agree with them.  i do not think arguments involving the indians have any significance.  that was hundreds of years ago and i was not involved.  i do not care about what they were in the past, this is not their land now.  my point with the black thing was to mention that i believe the same thing happened to whites, though it was not forced like it was with blacks, in the cultural melting pot of cities.   #  they were all derivatives of their respective european country of origin is culture.   # but it did not.  black people have the shared experiences that you described, but nothing actually unified the white people in america.  you might have been right if there was not a constant influx of immigrants from europe that all contributed their own culture to the melting pot of america, but you ca not ignore that that is the reality of what happened.  people left behind their homes in europe and formed new lives in america.  new ideas and cultural practices were born.  but none of these new cultures had anything to do with being white.  they were all derivatives of their respective european country of origin is culture.
recently i seem to have offended multiple people with this belief.  i am american.  i was born in america, and so were my parents, and theirs before them.  my great grandparents were not born in america but i sure as fuck do not have a clue where they were born.  somewhere in eastern europe maybe since i am jewish.  my parents do not know either.  i would define american white culture as separate from  black  culture as the stereotypical black  thug life  culture.  this does not mean that there ca not be black or brown or yellow or red people who identify with american white culture and are natively american.  i do not mean it as a racist thing, just as a way of separating it from another prominent american  culture  that no one seems to get offended by.  basically what i am saying is that i believe people can be natively american without being cherokees.  i see people, especially recently, talking about how we are all  illegal immigrants  on this land.  that is bullshit.  this is my land and my country.  maybe even more so than the native americans, as they only own small portions of it.  we have as much of a culture as any other country, and that is obvious if you travel.  just because we are more heterogeneous than most places does not mean there are not things that bond us.  if you say this about black american culture, everyone agrees.  during slavery africans had their native cultures erased and came together to form a new one for all african americans.  no one will say that  black culture  does not exist in america.  but white culture ? suddenly you are a racist.  tell me how that is different.  for whatever reason we are all here and we left behind our old cultures too, to form a new one.   #  i would define american white culture as separate from  black  culture as the stereotypical black  thug life  culture.   #  as long as you accept all the negative aspects of stereotypical american culture as aspects of your so called american white culture, sure.   # there is many factual inaccuracies in the post, so i am not surprised.  i was born in america, and so were my parents, and theirs before them.  my great grandparents were not born in america but i sure as fuck do not have a clue where they were born.  somewhere in eastern europe maybe since i am jewish.  my parents do not know either.  the funny thing is, your people probably were not even considered white until very recently.  to some white nationalists still today, being  white  excludes jews.  as long as you accept all the negative aspects of stereotypical american culture as aspects of your so called american white culture, sure.  and there is a lot of that.  that is bullshit.  this is my land and my country.  maybe even more so than the native americans, as they only own small portions of it.  because the settlers literally killed off, intentionally and unintentionally, the vast majority of natives and stole the land by warring and forced relocation.  i would say that is an argument against you.  america is so diverse that we do not have a unified culture.  no one will say that  black culture  does not exist in america.  you have just listed something that unified black people in the past, and something that helped form american  black culture.   nothing of the sort exists of white people in america.  there is  nothing  that unifies american white people on the basis of their skin color here.  no shared experiences of being white.  unless you want to count being benefactors of slavery or segregation, then be my guest ! we might have an american culture, but there sure as hell is not an american white culture.   #  but no one would say that variability or majority status in japan, at least means that there is no  japanese culture.    #  well, you could say that about any large culture, really.  they always fracture into subcultures.  for instance, american people often talk about  japanese culture  as if it is something monolithic and absolute, but there are easily as many distinct japanese subcultures in japan as there are white subcultures in america yes, there are rednecks and hippies and goths and everything else .  a japanese right wing nationalist would probably reject the idea that they share any kind of culture with kyary pamyu pamyu.  there is ugly racism against minorities in japan, too.  but no one would say that variability or majority status in japan, at least means that there is no  japanese culture.   people who share language, history, education, etc.  are more likely to share general social values.  culture is complicated and personal.  everyone belongs to multiple, overlapping, conflicting cultural groups.  i think acknowledging that cultures everything from small subcultures to larger national, racial, political, religious, etc.  cultures  exist  and having a general awareness of culture is the first step to identifying problems that might exist within those cultures.  for some reason, white americans seem to prefer to see themselves as  culturally neutral  or  culturally default,  but the idea that  white american default  and  everything else different  is problematic in its own way.   #  black people in chicago, for example have a very different culture from black people mississippi.   #  there is actually way more than that probably too many to reliably count .  rural midwest is very different from urban and suburban midwest.  black people in chicago, for example have a very different culture from black people mississippi.  to a certain extent, you can say that each state has a unique culture apart from the urban/rural divide .  so, geographical culture, social status culture, and racial/ethnic culture all kind of play off each other to create unique cultures, which are not really mutually exclusive.  so a black muslim in downtown chicago could belong to the chicago culture, the illinois culture, urban culture, black culture, and muslim culture simultaneously.   #  i do understand there is negative aspects, there is negative aspects of every culture.   #  first off, i am really sorry i broke the rules about replies.  i passed out right next to this post.  will respond to everything now though.  i do understand there is negative aspects, there is negative aspects of every culture.  i think that i guess american culture can be split into different subgroups, the person who commented that was right and i agree with them.  i do not think arguments involving the indians have any significance.  that was hundreds of years ago and i was not involved.  i do not care about what they were in the past, this is not their land now.  my point with the black thing was to mention that i believe the same thing happened to whites, though it was not forced like it was with blacks, in the cultural melting pot of cities.   #  they were all derivatives of their respective european country of origin is culture.   # but it did not.  black people have the shared experiences that you described, but nothing actually unified the white people in america.  you might have been right if there was not a constant influx of immigrants from europe that all contributed their own culture to the melting pot of america, but you ca not ignore that that is the reality of what happened.  people left behind their homes in europe and formed new lives in america.  new ideas and cultural practices were born.  but none of these new cultures had anything to do with being white.  they were all derivatives of their respective european country of origin is culture.
recently i seem to have offended multiple people with this belief.  i am american.  i was born in america, and so were my parents, and theirs before them.  my great grandparents were not born in america but i sure as fuck do not have a clue where they were born.  somewhere in eastern europe maybe since i am jewish.  my parents do not know either.  i would define american white culture as separate from  black  culture as the stereotypical black  thug life  culture.  this does not mean that there ca not be black or brown or yellow or red people who identify with american white culture and are natively american.  i do not mean it as a racist thing, just as a way of separating it from another prominent american  culture  that no one seems to get offended by.  basically what i am saying is that i believe people can be natively american without being cherokees.  i see people, especially recently, talking about how we are all  illegal immigrants  on this land.  that is bullshit.  this is my land and my country.  maybe even more so than the native americans, as they only own small portions of it.  we have as much of a culture as any other country, and that is obvious if you travel.  just because we are more heterogeneous than most places does not mean there are not things that bond us.  if you say this about black american culture, everyone agrees.  during slavery africans had their native cultures erased and came together to form a new one for all african americans.  no one will say that  black culture  does not exist in america.  but white culture ? suddenly you are a racist.  tell me how that is different.  for whatever reason we are all here and we left behind our old cultures too, to form a new one.   #  we have as much of a culture as any other country, and that is obvious if you travel.   #  i would say that is an argument against you.   # there is many factual inaccuracies in the post, so i am not surprised.  i was born in america, and so were my parents, and theirs before them.  my great grandparents were not born in america but i sure as fuck do not have a clue where they were born.  somewhere in eastern europe maybe since i am jewish.  my parents do not know either.  the funny thing is, your people probably were not even considered white until very recently.  to some white nationalists still today, being  white  excludes jews.  as long as you accept all the negative aspects of stereotypical american culture as aspects of your so called american white culture, sure.  and there is a lot of that.  that is bullshit.  this is my land and my country.  maybe even more so than the native americans, as they only own small portions of it.  because the settlers literally killed off, intentionally and unintentionally, the vast majority of natives and stole the land by warring and forced relocation.  i would say that is an argument against you.  america is so diverse that we do not have a unified culture.  no one will say that  black culture  does not exist in america.  you have just listed something that unified black people in the past, and something that helped form american  black culture.   nothing of the sort exists of white people in america.  there is  nothing  that unifies american white people on the basis of their skin color here.  no shared experiences of being white.  unless you want to count being benefactors of slavery or segregation, then be my guest ! we might have an american culture, but there sure as hell is not an american white culture.   #  cultures  exist  and having a general awareness of culture is the first step to identifying problems that might exist within those cultures.   #  well, you could say that about any large culture, really.  they always fracture into subcultures.  for instance, american people often talk about  japanese culture  as if it is something monolithic and absolute, but there are easily as many distinct japanese subcultures in japan as there are white subcultures in america yes, there are rednecks and hippies and goths and everything else .  a japanese right wing nationalist would probably reject the idea that they share any kind of culture with kyary pamyu pamyu.  there is ugly racism against minorities in japan, too.  but no one would say that variability or majority status in japan, at least means that there is no  japanese culture.   people who share language, history, education, etc.  are more likely to share general social values.  culture is complicated and personal.  everyone belongs to multiple, overlapping, conflicting cultural groups.  i think acknowledging that cultures everything from small subcultures to larger national, racial, political, religious, etc.  cultures  exist  and having a general awareness of culture is the first step to identifying problems that might exist within those cultures.  for some reason, white americans seem to prefer to see themselves as  culturally neutral  or  culturally default,  but the idea that  white american default  and  everything else different  is problematic in its own way.   #  there is actually way more than that probably too many to reliably count .   #  there is actually way more than that probably too many to reliably count .  rural midwest is very different from urban and suburban midwest.  black people in chicago, for example have a very different culture from black people mississippi.  to a certain extent, you can say that each state has a unique culture apart from the urban/rural divide .  so, geographical culture, social status culture, and racial/ethnic culture all kind of play off each other to create unique cultures, which are not really mutually exclusive.  so a black muslim in downtown chicago could belong to the chicago culture, the illinois culture, urban culture, black culture, and muslim culture simultaneously.   #  i passed out right next to this post.   #  first off, i am really sorry i broke the rules about replies.  i passed out right next to this post.  will respond to everything now though.  i do understand there is negative aspects, there is negative aspects of every culture.  i think that i guess american culture can be split into different subgroups, the person who commented that was right and i agree with them.  i do not think arguments involving the indians have any significance.  that was hundreds of years ago and i was not involved.  i do not care about what they were in the past, this is not their land now.  my point with the black thing was to mention that i believe the same thing happened to whites, though it was not forced like it was with blacks, in the cultural melting pot of cities.   #  people left behind their homes in europe and formed new lives in america.   # but it did not.  black people have the shared experiences that you described, but nothing actually unified the white people in america.  you might have been right if there was not a constant influx of immigrants from europe that all contributed their own culture to the melting pot of america, but you ca not ignore that that is the reality of what happened.  people left behind their homes in europe and formed new lives in america.  new ideas and cultural practices were born.  but none of these new cultures had anything to do with being white.  they were all derivatives of their respective european country of origin is culture.
recently i seem to have offended multiple people with this belief.  i am american.  i was born in america, and so were my parents, and theirs before them.  my great grandparents were not born in america but i sure as fuck do not have a clue where they were born.  somewhere in eastern europe maybe since i am jewish.  my parents do not know either.  i would define american white culture as separate from  black  culture as the stereotypical black  thug life  culture.  this does not mean that there ca not be black or brown or yellow or red people who identify with american white culture and are natively american.  i do not mean it as a racist thing, just as a way of separating it from another prominent american  culture  that no one seems to get offended by.  basically what i am saying is that i believe people can be natively american without being cherokees.  i see people, especially recently, talking about how we are all  illegal immigrants  on this land.  that is bullshit.  this is my land and my country.  maybe even more so than the native americans, as they only own small portions of it.  we have as much of a culture as any other country, and that is obvious if you travel.  just because we are more heterogeneous than most places does not mean there are not things that bond us.  if you say this about black american culture, everyone agrees.  during slavery africans had their native cultures erased and came together to form a new one for all african americans.  no one will say that  black culture  does not exist in america.  but white culture ? suddenly you are a racist.  tell me how that is different.  for whatever reason we are all here and we left behind our old cultures too, to form a new one.   #  during slavery africans had their native cultures erased and came together to form a new one for all african americans.   #  no one will say that  black culture  does not exist in america.   # there is many factual inaccuracies in the post, so i am not surprised.  i was born in america, and so were my parents, and theirs before them.  my great grandparents were not born in america but i sure as fuck do not have a clue where they were born.  somewhere in eastern europe maybe since i am jewish.  my parents do not know either.  the funny thing is, your people probably were not even considered white until very recently.  to some white nationalists still today, being  white  excludes jews.  as long as you accept all the negative aspects of stereotypical american culture as aspects of your so called american white culture, sure.  and there is a lot of that.  that is bullshit.  this is my land and my country.  maybe even more so than the native americans, as they only own small portions of it.  because the settlers literally killed off, intentionally and unintentionally, the vast majority of natives and stole the land by warring and forced relocation.  i would say that is an argument against you.  america is so diverse that we do not have a unified culture.  no one will say that  black culture  does not exist in america.  you have just listed something that unified black people in the past, and something that helped form american  black culture.   nothing of the sort exists of white people in america.  there is  nothing  that unifies american white people on the basis of their skin color here.  no shared experiences of being white.  unless you want to count being benefactors of slavery or segregation, then be my guest ! we might have an american culture, but there sure as hell is not an american white culture.   #  everyone belongs to multiple, overlapping, conflicting cultural groups.   #  well, you could say that about any large culture, really.  they always fracture into subcultures.  for instance, american people often talk about  japanese culture  as if it is something monolithic and absolute, but there are easily as many distinct japanese subcultures in japan as there are white subcultures in america yes, there are rednecks and hippies and goths and everything else .  a japanese right wing nationalist would probably reject the idea that they share any kind of culture with kyary pamyu pamyu.  there is ugly racism against minorities in japan, too.  but no one would say that variability or majority status in japan, at least means that there is no  japanese culture.   people who share language, history, education, etc.  are more likely to share general social values.  culture is complicated and personal.  everyone belongs to multiple, overlapping, conflicting cultural groups.  i think acknowledging that cultures everything from small subcultures to larger national, racial, political, religious, etc.  cultures  exist  and having a general awareness of culture is the first step to identifying problems that might exist within those cultures.  for some reason, white americans seem to prefer to see themselves as  culturally neutral  or  culturally default,  but the idea that  white american default  and  everything else different  is problematic in its own way.   #  rural midwest is very different from urban and suburban midwest.   #  there is actually way more than that probably too many to reliably count .  rural midwest is very different from urban and suburban midwest.  black people in chicago, for example have a very different culture from black people mississippi.  to a certain extent, you can say that each state has a unique culture apart from the urban/rural divide .  so, geographical culture, social status culture, and racial/ethnic culture all kind of play off each other to create unique cultures, which are not really mutually exclusive.  so a black muslim in downtown chicago could belong to the chicago culture, the illinois culture, urban culture, black culture, and muslim culture simultaneously.   #  first off, i am really sorry i broke the rules about replies.   #  first off, i am really sorry i broke the rules about replies.  i passed out right next to this post.  will respond to everything now though.  i do understand there is negative aspects, there is negative aspects of every culture.  i think that i guess american culture can be split into different subgroups, the person who commented that was right and i agree with them.  i do not think arguments involving the indians have any significance.  that was hundreds of years ago and i was not involved.  i do not care about what they were in the past, this is not their land now.  my point with the black thing was to mention that i believe the same thing happened to whites, though it was not forced like it was with blacks, in the cultural melting pot of cities.   #  they were all derivatives of their respective european country of origin is culture.   # but it did not.  black people have the shared experiences that you described, but nothing actually unified the white people in america.  you might have been right if there was not a constant influx of immigrants from europe that all contributed their own culture to the melting pot of america, but you ca not ignore that that is the reality of what happened.  people left behind their homes in europe and formed new lives in america.  new ideas and cultural practices were born.  but none of these new cultures had anything to do with being white.  they were all derivatives of their respective european country of origin is culture.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.   #  just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.   #  there are thousands and thousands of things exactly like the ones in that article, going on every single day.   #  but gay people  do  know they will get beaten up, hated, etc.  they are well aware of it.  also you are speaking in a way that implies your frankly laughable and absurd belief is already a proven fact, with statements like  when he decided to be gay .  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped have you ever heard of a person being raped or murdered for being fat or paraplegic ? it is probably happened, yes, but not on the systematic and widespread scale of homophobia.  and yes, people are ethnically discriminated just as much as gays are.  if you seriously doubt that there is frequent homophobia in the us, i suggest you read this article: URL and that is just the recorded, confirmed, and most extreme cases.  there are thousands and thousands of things exactly like the ones in that article, going on every single day.  they are violations of basic human rights, and attitudes like yours are enabling and causing them.  and finally, since the other guy did not ask, i will.  when did you choose to straight ?
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.   #  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.   #  it is probably happened, yes, but not on the systematic and widespread scale of homophobia.   #  but gay people  do  know they will get beaten up, hated, etc.  they are well aware of it.  also you are speaking in a way that implies your frankly laughable and absurd belief is already a proven fact, with statements like  when he decided to be gay .  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped have you ever heard of a person being raped or murdered for being fat or paraplegic ? it is probably happened, yes, but not on the systematic and widespread scale of homophobia.  and yes, people are ethnically discriminated just as much as gays are.  if you seriously doubt that there is frequent homophobia in the us, i suggest you read this article: URL and that is just the recorded, confirmed, and most extreme cases.  there are thousands and thousands of things exactly like the ones in that article, going on every single day.  they are violations of basic human rights, and attitudes like yours are enabling and causing them.  and finally, since the other guy did not ask, i will.  when did you choose to straight ?
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.   #  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.   # if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  look up the gay uncle hypothesis, or any other number of explanations for homosexuality is role in evolution.  also, how do you explain homosexuality being prevalent in many other species ? it is society is views that are changing, and we are in the middle of that change.  many, if not most people try to provide a lot of support for gay people to come out, and help make it a norm and not have people think they have to hide it or be bullied.  you might be confusing that with thinking it is becoming a thing people do to become cool.  like i said earlier, it is because they provide each other with support.  it is something they have in common, experiences they share.  non of this supports the idea that homosexuality is a choice.  here is a source i would like you to read.   there is no consensus among scientists about the exact causes of sexual orientation.  regardless of cause, however, research shows that most gay men and many or most lesbians do not experience their sexual orientation as the result of a voluntary choice and that sexual orientation is highly resistant to change.  current scientific and professional understanding is that the core feelings and attractions which form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence without any necessary prior sexual experience.  most gay men and lesbian women do not experience their sexual orientation as the result of a voluntary choice.  in a u. s.  national probability sample of 0 self identified lesbian, gay and bisexual adults,  0 reported perceiving no choice at all about their sexual orientation.  research and the clinical experience of amici is members also indicate that, once established, sexual orientation is resistant to change.  nonetheless, several  conversion  or  reparative  therapies that purport to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.  no scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe.  indeed, research suggests the opposite.  an american psychological association task force conducting a systematic review of the peer reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and indeed can be harmful.   source URL if homosexuality is a choice, the number of people who say it is not a choice would be a lot lower than 0.  also, studies would show that sexual orientation is able to be changed.  but no studies show this.   #  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.   #  it is society is views that are changing, and we are in the middle of that change.   # if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  look up the gay uncle hypothesis, or any other number of explanations for homosexuality is role in evolution.  also, how do you explain homosexuality being prevalent in many other species ? it is society is views that are changing, and we are in the middle of that change.  many, if not most people try to provide a lot of support for gay people to come out, and help make it a norm and not have people think they have to hide it or be bullied.  you might be confusing that with thinking it is becoming a thing people do to become cool.  like i said earlier, it is because they provide each other with support.  it is something they have in common, experiences they share.  non of this supports the idea that homosexuality is a choice.  here is a source i would like you to read.   there is no consensus among scientists about the exact causes of sexual orientation.  regardless of cause, however, research shows that most gay men and many or most lesbians do not experience their sexual orientation as the result of a voluntary choice and that sexual orientation is highly resistant to change.  current scientific and professional understanding is that the core feelings and attractions which form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence without any necessary prior sexual experience.  most gay men and lesbian women do not experience their sexual orientation as the result of a voluntary choice.  in a u. s.  national probability sample of 0 self identified lesbian, gay and bisexual adults,  0 reported perceiving no choice at all about their sexual orientation.  research and the clinical experience of amici is members also indicate that, once established, sexual orientation is resistant to change.  nonetheless, several  conversion  or  reparative  therapies that purport to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.  no scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe.  indeed, research suggests the opposite.  an american psychological association task force conducting a systematic review of the peer reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and indeed can be harmful.   source URL if homosexuality is a choice, the number of people who say it is not a choice would be a lot lower than 0.  also, studies would show that sexual orientation is able to be changed.  but no studies show this.   #  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  like i said earlier, it is because they provide each other with support.   # if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  look up the gay uncle hypothesis, or any other number of explanations for homosexuality is role in evolution.  also, how do you explain homosexuality being prevalent in many other species ? it is society is views that are changing, and we are in the middle of that change.  many, if not most people try to provide a lot of support for gay people to come out, and help make it a norm and not have people think they have to hide it or be bullied.  you might be confusing that with thinking it is becoming a thing people do to become cool.  like i said earlier, it is because they provide each other with support.  it is something they have in common, experiences they share.  non of this supports the idea that homosexuality is a choice.  here is a source i would like you to read.   there is no consensus among scientists about the exact causes of sexual orientation.  regardless of cause, however, research shows that most gay men and many or most lesbians do not experience their sexual orientation as the result of a voluntary choice and that sexual orientation is highly resistant to change.  current scientific and professional understanding is that the core feelings and attractions which form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence without any necessary prior sexual experience.  most gay men and lesbian women do not experience their sexual orientation as the result of a voluntary choice.  in a u. s.  national probability sample of 0 self identified lesbian, gay and bisexual adults,  0 reported perceiving no choice at all about their sexual orientation.  research and the clinical experience of amici is members also indicate that, once established, sexual orientation is resistant to change.  nonetheless, several  conversion  or  reparative  therapies that purport to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.  no scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe.  indeed, research suggests the opposite.  an american psychological association task force conducting a systematic review of the peer reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and indeed can be harmful.   source URL if homosexuality is a choice, the number of people who say it is not a choice would be a lot lower than 0.  also, studies would show that sexual orientation is able to be changed.  but no studies show this.   #  what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.   #  it seems like you should change what you think about evolution.   # it seems like you should change what you think about evolution.  homosexuality exists, and if it does not fit into your concept of how the world is, then your thoughts on evolution must change in light of that fact.  there are genetic disorders that are nearly 0 fatal before maturity, but they are still around several generations later.  not impossible, just less likely due to different motivations and rewards.  social pressure can be a big enough factor to overcome this.   #  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.   #  so people are out there risking getting their ass kicked or murdered for attention ?  # so people are out there risking getting their ass kicked or murdered for attention ? young kids hate themselves and hide in the closet from their parents and friends for years cause it is fun ? this is so far from how genetics and evolution work.  read about group selection, kin selection, and the  gay uncle  hypothesis.  then read about recessive genes, polygenic inheritance, and epigenetics.  educate yourself because this is so staggeringly wrong.  if this is true, then i am glad, because it is better to be thought of as cool and interesting rather than freakish and deviant.  this attitude adjustment saves lives, literally and figuratively.  why does that bother you so much ?  #  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.   #  this is so far from how genetics and evolution work.   # so people are out there risking getting their ass kicked or murdered for attention ? young kids hate themselves and hide in the closet from their parents and friends for years cause it is fun ? this is so far from how genetics and evolution work.  read about group selection, kin selection, and the  gay uncle  hypothesis.  then read about recessive genes, polygenic inheritance, and epigenetics.  educate yourself because this is so staggeringly wrong.  if this is true, then i am glad, because it is better to be thought of as cool and interesting rather than freakish and deviant.  this attitude adjustment saves lives, literally and figuratively.  why does that bother you so much ?  #  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.   #  if this is true, then i am glad, because it is better to be thought of as cool and interesting rather than freakish and deviant.   # so people are out there risking getting their ass kicked or murdered for attention ? young kids hate themselves and hide in the closet from their parents and friends for years cause it is fun ? this is so far from how genetics and evolution work.  read about group selection, kin selection, and the  gay uncle  hypothesis.  then read about recessive genes, polygenic inheritance, and epigenetics.  educate yourself because this is so staggeringly wrong.  if this is true, then i am glad, because it is better to be thought of as cool and interesting rather than freakish and deviant.  this attitude adjustment saves lives, literally and figuratively.  why does that bother you so much ?  #  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.   #  participating in any action is a choice.   # participating in any action is a choice.  being attracted to a certain set of people, however, is not.  it is a work in progress, but there are scientific explanations for why homosexuality exists: URL   it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it actually is not though.  gay people are not infertile.  they just are not attracted to other genders.  that being said, gay people can have kids without having to resort to any unnatural processes such as artificial insemination.  the likelihood of it happening is lower, but it is still possible.  well, it certainly is normal.  i do not know or care if it is considered cool, but lgbt organizations are going to be more welcoming of those who are lgbt than the rest of the general population.  let me ask you this.  when exactly did you choose to be straight ? i am inferring from your comments that you are male, so when did you decided to perceive women as being sexually attractive ? why ca not you perceive men as being sexually attractive ? if it is because of how your brain is wired, then why could not the brains of gay people be wired differently ?  #  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.   #  it is a work in progress, but there are scientific explanations for why homosexuality exists: URL   it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.   # participating in any action is a choice.  being attracted to a certain set of people, however, is not.  it is a work in progress, but there are scientific explanations for why homosexuality exists: URL   it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it actually is not though.  gay people are not infertile.  they just are not attracted to other genders.  that being said, gay people can have kids without having to resort to any unnatural processes such as artificial insemination.  the likelihood of it happening is lower, but it is still possible.  well, it certainly is normal.  i do not know or care if it is considered cool, but lgbt organizations are going to be more welcoming of those who are lgbt than the rest of the general population.  let me ask you this.  when exactly did you choose to be straight ? i am inferring from your comments that you are male, so when did you decided to perceive women as being sexually attractive ? why ca not you perceive men as being sexually attractive ? if it is because of how your brain is wired, then why could not the brains of gay people be wired differently ?  #  what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.   #  and mostly everyone would agree with you.   # and mostly everyone would agree with you.  however being homosexual only means you are attracted to the same sex.  you can be gay without actually having gay sex.  there are  gay for pay  men who act in same sex pornography for the money despite it being unattractive for them they have magazines of naked ladies to keep them going .  to put it plainly, being gay means you are attracted to other men, nothing more.  i have never chosen to be attracted to anyone.  i either am attracted to them or i am not.  i do not choose to find a pretty girl sexually attractive.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  your assuming firstly that being gay is genetic and secondly that gay peoples genes are not passed on.  it is never been proven to be genetic.  it may very well be caused by any number other things like the testosterone levels in the womb etc.  gay people despite some minor inconveniences can create children.  we are very similar in genetic make up to our siblings.  if there was a  gay gene  then they could be carriers hence taking it through to the next generation.  finally, even if homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end due to a lack of babies, so what ? evolution is not and has never been established as a moral code.  it is the explanation for the variety of species found on our planet, nothing more.  when i was brought up gay was used as another way of saying  bad .   i ca not go to the park today ? well that is gay.   now my language and that of my peers has changed dramatically over the years.  we would not really use gay that way any more.  still, earlier this year i saw a sports commentator call a tactic used by an american football coach  gay .  this surprised me.  it is not something i would see on uk television.  lgbt organisations are trying to destroy the idea of that gay bad.  people from their community have faced discrimination for being homosexuals so i ca not see any fault in them trying to overthrow this status quo.  despite their efforts i would not say it is considered cool to be gay, it is just not considered as big of a taboo.  which is a good thing.  that is an understandable thing to think.  people tend to congregate around others that have similar life experiences to themselves.  they are not becoming gay just to be part of a clique.   #  they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.   #  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.   # and mostly everyone would agree with you.  however being homosexual only means you are attracted to the same sex.  you can be gay without actually having gay sex.  there are  gay for pay  men who act in same sex pornography for the money despite it being unattractive for them they have magazines of naked ladies to keep them going .  to put it plainly, being gay means you are attracted to other men, nothing more.  i have never chosen to be attracted to anyone.  i either am attracted to them or i am not.  i do not choose to find a pretty girl sexually attractive.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  your assuming firstly that being gay is genetic and secondly that gay peoples genes are not passed on.  it is never been proven to be genetic.  it may very well be caused by any number other things like the testosterone levels in the womb etc.  gay people despite some minor inconveniences can create children.  we are very similar in genetic make up to our siblings.  if there was a  gay gene  then they could be carriers hence taking it through to the next generation.  finally, even if homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end due to a lack of babies, so what ? evolution is not and has never been established as a moral code.  it is the explanation for the variety of species found on our planet, nothing more.  when i was brought up gay was used as another way of saying  bad .   i ca not go to the park today ? well that is gay.   now my language and that of my peers has changed dramatically over the years.  we would not really use gay that way any more.  still, earlier this year i saw a sports commentator call a tactic used by an american football coach  gay .  this surprised me.  it is not something i would see on uk television.  lgbt organisations are trying to destroy the idea of that gay bad.  people from their community have faced discrimination for being homosexuals so i ca not see any fault in them trying to overthrow this status quo.  despite their efforts i would not say it is considered cool to be gay, it is just not considered as big of a taboo.  which is a good thing.  that is an understandable thing to think.  people tend to congregate around others that have similar life experiences to themselves.  they are not becoming gay just to be part of a clique.   #  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.   #  when i was brought up gay was used as another way of saying  bad .   # and mostly everyone would agree with you.  however being homosexual only means you are attracted to the same sex.  you can be gay without actually having gay sex.  there are  gay for pay  men who act in same sex pornography for the money despite it being unattractive for them they have magazines of naked ladies to keep them going .  to put it plainly, being gay means you are attracted to other men, nothing more.  i have never chosen to be attracted to anyone.  i either am attracted to them or i am not.  i do not choose to find a pretty girl sexually attractive.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  your assuming firstly that being gay is genetic and secondly that gay peoples genes are not passed on.  it is never been proven to be genetic.  it may very well be caused by any number other things like the testosterone levels in the womb etc.  gay people despite some minor inconveniences can create children.  we are very similar in genetic make up to our siblings.  if there was a  gay gene  then they could be carriers hence taking it through to the next generation.  finally, even if homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end due to a lack of babies, so what ? evolution is not and has never been established as a moral code.  it is the explanation for the variety of species found on our planet, nothing more.  when i was brought up gay was used as another way of saying  bad .   i ca not go to the park today ? well that is gay.   now my language and that of my peers has changed dramatically over the years.  we would not really use gay that way any more.  still, earlier this year i saw a sports commentator call a tactic used by an american football coach  gay .  this surprised me.  it is not something i would see on uk television.  lgbt organisations are trying to destroy the idea of that gay bad.  people from their community have faced discrimination for being homosexuals so i ca not see any fault in them trying to overthrow this status quo.  despite their efforts i would not say it is considered cool to be gay, it is just not considered as big of a taboo.  which is a good thing.  that is an understandable thing to think.  people tend to congregate around others that have similar life experiences to themselves.  they are not becoming gay just to be part of a clique.   #  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  that is an understandable thing to think.   # and mostly everyone would agree with you.  however being homosexual only means you are attracted to the same sex.  you can be gay without actually having gay sex.  there are  gay for pay  men who act in same sex pornography for the money despite it being unattractive for them they have magazines of naked ladies to keep them going .  to put it plainly, being gay means you are attracted to other men, nothing more.  i have never chosen to be attracted to anyone.  i either am attracted to them or i am not.  i do not choose to find a pretty girl sexually attractive.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  your assuming firstly that being gay is genetic and secondly that gay peoples genes are not passed on.  it is never been proven to be genetic.  it may very well be caused by any number other things like the testosterone levels in the womb etc.  gay people despite some minor inconveniences can create children.  we are very similar in genetic make up to our siblings.  if there was a  gay gene  then they could be carriers hence taking it through to the next generation.  finally, even if homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end due to a lack of babies, so what ? evolution is not and has never been established as a moral code.  it is the explanation for the variety of species found on our planet, nothing more.  when i was brought up gay was used as another way of saying  bad .   i ca not go to the park today ? well that is gay.   now my language and that of my peers has changed dramatically over the years.  we would not really use gay that way any more.  still, earlier this year i saw a sports commentator call a tactic used by an american football coach  gay .  this surprised me.  it is not something i would see on uk television.  lgbt organisations are trying to destroy the idea of that gay bad.  people from their community have faced discrimination for being homosexuals so i ca not see any fault in them trying to overthrow this status quo.  despite their efforts i would not say it is considered cool to be gay, it is just not considered as big of a taboo.  which is a good thing.  that is an understandable thing to think.  people tend to congregate around others that have similar life experiences to themselves.  they are not becoming gay just to be part of a clique.   #  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ?  # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice.  regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do.  for instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so.  maybe his genes influenced him, but that does not mean he is incapable of choosing his own actions.  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  it seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual.  this view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.   #  homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution.   #  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.   # if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  that is most likely because you do not really know anything about evolution.  homosexuality is  common  in the animal kingdom, and is  extremely  common in one of our closest relatives, the bonobo ape.  they have not gone extinct yet.  having homosexual sex does not mean that you ca not also have non homosexual sex which results in offspring.   #  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.   # just to be clear,  participating  in anything is a choice.  having the  desire  to participate is the part that is not.  if joe is attracted to men, but does not have sex with any of them, surely that does not somehow make him straight.  if being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce.  this does not follow at all, for several reasons.  first, how on earth is it impossible for gay people to reproduce ? are gay sperm and eggs defective ? they are less inclined to have sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are still very much  capable  of reproduction.  second, its not how genetics works.  in addition to recessive genes, and there are also conditions that only manifest when certain  combinations  of genes are present.  individually, these genes may be totally harmless, or maybe even beneficial.  so even things that are detrimental to reproduction can still survive in the gene pool, as indicated by the multitude of genetic disorders we see in the world.  third, it is not at all necessary for all members of a species to be actively involved in reproduction in order for the species to flourish.  if a trait renders an individual infertile, they may still contribute to the success of the species, in which case populations that contained that gene in some proportion would be more successful than those that did not.  if only that were true.  i think most of the gay folks i know will strongly disagree that it was cool/interesting to be gay openly or not while in high school and some for much later depending on where they live .  even in societies where being gay is completely shunned, and even met with violence, you still find gay people.  are they doing it for the attention ? what about people who are not publicly gay, or even go so far as to hide their sexual orientation.  attention is the last thing they want.   #  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  yep, that makes so much sense.  i am sure my gay friend  wanted  to get jumped by 0 guys, hospitalized with severe lacerations and 0 broken ribs, all because he was gay.  that makes  total  sense, you are a genius.  i am sorry if that comes off hostile, but really: if being gay is a choice, i will pay you a million dollars to be gay.  not just to engage in gay sex, but to go be openly gay.  go ahead.  choose to be gay.  i will wait.  i could just ask when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, but that is so passe.   #  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.   #  seriously.  i was on a rocky footing with my dad for a while when i came out as gay   and trans .  some people have called me a faggot and a freak.  sometimes i wish  it was  a choice, certainly would make things easier.  i do not desire this fucking attention.  i hid who i was for years hoping it would go away.  sure, i have gotten tons of support, but this is not some special attention i am whoring out for.  these are friends, people who do not care what i am, who just see me.  as me !  #  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.   #  i will fuck a dude for a million dollars no problem.  you will have to bump up the pay if you want it to be a lifetime thing but for a fat 0mil i will manage it.  as for your friend, from your perspective he is a hero.  he sounds like a rosa parks figure the way you speak about him.  i am sure there is a lot of congrats for that.  anyways it is not like he knew he would have gotten beat up when he decided to be gay so your whole story is irrelevant.  i am positive the  discrimination  against the gay community is few and far between in the u. s. a.  no more than being obese, ethnic, or being handicapped so it should not have factored into his decision.
i am not really big into sports, but i think that having leagues distributed by height could be great for basketball.  i always enjoyed college games over professional games due to a greater focus on teamwork and strategy as opposed to personalities doing massive feats.  while some, even the majority of, people will always prefer the nbas entertainment value, there is little to be lost by offering the vertically challenged a chance to strut their stuff.  much like boxing, while many want to see the heavy hitters engaged in a mighty battle, some appreciate the agility and and timing of the lower weight classes.  these lower classes are every bit if not more talented, but hardly stand a chance when pitted against the heaviest men in the sport.  i think basketball also loses many talented players due to the lack of height classes.  only reason i could not see this happening is funding, but for community and school sports it should be a no brainer.  i could see playing  up a class  as a non issue, but not down; so basically a height cap on different leagues as opposed to a height range.   #  while some, even the majority of, people will always prefer the nbas entertainment value, there is little to be lost by offering the vertically challenged a chance to strut their stuff.   #  i do not think its true that there is  little to be lost .   # i do not think its true that there is  little to be lost .  there is lots of money that can be lost ! where are they going to play ? venues are expensive.  the players will expect to be paid.  will this venture be able to support itself financially ? i am not sure what you mean by community sports, but for schools i do not think it is as much of a slam dunk ziiiing as you think.  you need enough participants to have a league, which means you need enough schools with enough interested players, and you do still need funding.  school sports are not free.  uniforms, coaches, buses, etc.  when budgets get tight, i am pretty sure  short basketball  is going to be first on the chopping block.  plus, will you get enough kids that even want to participate ? i am not so sure.  and you have the additional issue of having to share whatever facilities you do have with the other basketball team.  there are enough challenges that i do not think it has a chance without there being substantial demand for it, and i am skeptical that such a demand exists at any level.  it also kind of sucks if a kid has a growth spurt halfway through the season, but is not good enough to compete in the  tall league  :  #  watching someone like allen iverson take on shaq is interesting as hell !  #  can i jump in ? i still am inclined to disagree with you but i am not tryin to talk down or anything .  the point is, height can be overrated in basketball.  sure there are many guys who get drafted because of their height, but there are also plenty who barely last a season i can see your point about it being enough to get you into the nba in the first place, but i just do not think its enough to warrant changing the league .  there are countless examples of great players who are not considered tall nate robsinson is a prime example, look him up if you get a chance , who have had fantastic careers.  furthermore, it is the contrast and variety that makes it interesting ! watching someone like allen iverson take on shaq is interesting as hell ! URL do not forget that the smaller guys are less injury prone, generally faster and more nimble.  things like crossovers, fast breaks and jump shots come easier to the smaller guys.  so enormous height can be a disadvantage also isaiah austin URL might be a good example to look at .  in something like boxing, being bigger is pretty much all advantage heavier hitter, greater reach etc.  .  in basketball, it is not as unfair a fight.  to divide the sport into classes would deprive the game of really interesting moments like the one above and ultimately, i believe, dilute the talent pool.  tl:dr; its the little guys that make it fun to watch  #  at least these guys put in the hours and provide some kind of positive role model.   #  why do not they deserve it ? they create many jobs in an industry.  they work very, very hard.  they generate tonnes of revenue.  you think its outrageous that they make this money, but its ok for paris hilton to be worth 0 million ? at least these guys put in the hours and provide some kind of positive role model.  yeah its generous compared nearly all jobs but they are the best at it.  just like the best movie director get the most money because the most people want to see their movie.  but you think they should be taxed 0 to lower ticket prices.   #  i could build a robot that is 0 accurate 0 of the time.   #  by that logic, there are many other careers where people should be making millions.  for example, teachers.  they generate tons of jobs and bring in revenue to different industries by creating highly skilled workers.  people like scientists, engineers, and doctors who do surgeries for hours on end work equally hard for relatively low wages compared to athlete salaries.  in fact, those people have built society as we know it.  the only problem is that this did not happen overnight which means no instant gratification.  why do not they deserve to get paid equally as much ? i could be the best of the best engineer, teacher, scientist, or doctor and yet i will not get paid $0 million.  athletes just throw ball better than others, big deal.  i could build a robot that is 0 accurate 0 of the time.  why wo not that robot or me get paid $0 million for doing the exact same task ? also, i think actors/actresses and anyone else in the entertainment business being worth hundreds of millions is also just as absurd, if not more so.   #  not having enough players is not a shortcoming of extra divisions, but of requiring teammates in general.   # again, the  main event  would have no height maximum as it does now.  talented individuals could play up a division.  not having enough players is not a shortcoming of extra divisions, but of requiring teammates in general.  there could also be a hypothetical school that only has 0 basketball players of any height.  there is not a lot of funding on a school level that would need to be preferential to different heights, basically just bussing the students which is often paid for by fundraising anyways.  the growth spurt thing would suck, but if it prevents them from joining the next team that is a matter of lacking talent, not height.  i am advocating shortsketball, not sucksketball.
i am not really big into sports, but i think that having leagues distributed by height could be great for basketball.  i always enjoyed college games over professional games due to a greater focus on teamwork and strategy as opposed to personalities doing massive feats.  while some, even the majority of, people will always prefer the nbas entertainment value, there is little to be lost by offering the vertically challenged a chance to strut their stuff.  much like boxing, while many want to see the heavy hitters engaged in a mighty battle, some appreciate the agility and and timing of the lower weight classes.  these lower classes are every bit if not more talented, but hardly stand a chance when pitted against the heaviest men in the sport.  i think basketball also loses many talented players due to the lack of height classes.  only reason i could not see this happening is funding, but for community and school sports it should be a no brainer.  i could see playing  up a class  as a non issue, but not down; so basically a height cap on different leagues as opposed to a height range.   #  only reason i could not see this happening is funding, but for community and school sports it should be a no brainer.   #  i am not sure what you mean by community sports, but for schools i do not think it is as much of a slam dunk ziiiing as you think.   # i do not think its true that there is  little to be lost .  there is lots of money that can be lost ! where are they going to play ? venues are expensive.  the players will expect to be paid.  will this venture be able to support itself financially ? i am not sure what you mean by community sports, but for schools i do not think it is as much of a slam dunk ziiiing as you think.  you need enough participants to have a league, which means you need enough schools with enough interested players, and you do still need funding.  school sports are not free.  uniforms, coaches, buses, etc.  when budgets get tight, i am pretty sure  short basketball  is going to be first on the chopping block.  plus, will you get enough kids that even want to participate ? i am not so sure.  and you have the additional issue of having to share whatever facilities you do have with the other basketball team.  there are enough challenges that i do not think it has a chance without there being substantial demand for it, and i am skeptical that such a demand exists at any level.  it also kind of sucks if a kid has a growth spurt halfway through the season, but is not good enough to compete in the  tall league  :  #  things like crossovers, fast breaks and jump shots come easier to the smaller guys.   #  can i jump in ? i still am inclined to disagree with you but i am not tryin to talk down or anything .  the point is, height can be overrated in basketball.  sure there are many guys who get drafted because of their height, but there are also plenty who barely last a season i can see your point about it being enough to get you into the nba in the first place, but i just do not think its enough to warrant changing the league .  there are countless examples of great players who are not considered tall nate robsinson is a prime example, look him up if you get a chance , who have had fantastic careers.  furthermore, it is the contrast and variety that makes it interesting ! watching someone like allen iverson take on shaq is interesting as hell ! URL do not forget that the smaller guys are less injury prone, generally faster and more nimble.  things like crossovers, fast breaks and jump shots come easier to the smaller guys.  so enormous height can be a disadvantage also isaiah austin URL might be a good example to look at .  in something like boxing, being bigger is pretty much all advantage heavier hitter, greater reach etc.  .  in basketball, it is not as unfair a fight.  to divide the sport into classes would deprive the game of really interesting moments like the one above and ultimately, i believe, dilute the talent pool.  tl:dr; its the little guys that make it fun to watch  #  just like the best movie director get the most money because the most people want to see their movie.   #  why do not they deserve it ? they create many jobs in an industry.  they work very, very hard.  they generate tonnes of revenue.  you think its outrageous that they make this money, but its ok for paris hilton to be worth 0 million ? at least these guys put in the hours and provide some kind of positive role model.  yeah its generous compared nearly all jobs but they are the best at it.  just like the best movie director get the most money because the most people want to see their movie.  but you think they should be taxed 0 to lower ticket prices.   #  in fact, those people have built society as we know it.   #  by that logic, there are many other careers where people should be making millions.  for example, teachers.  they generate tons of jobs and bring in revenue to different industries by creating highly skilled workers.  people like scientists, engineers, and doctors who do surgeries for hours on end work equally hard for relatively low wages compared to athlete salaries.  in fact, those people have built society as we know it.  the only problem is that this did not happen overnight which means no instant gratification.  why do not they deserve to get paid equally as much ? i could be the best of the best engineer, teacher, scientist, or doctor and yet i will not get paid $0 million.  athletes just throw ball better than others, big deal.  i could build a robot that is 0 accurate 0 of the time.  why wo not that robot or me get paid $0 million for doing the exact same task ? also, i think actors/actresses and anyone else in the entertainment business being worth hundreds of millions is also just as absurd, if not more so.   #  not having enough players is not a shortcoming of extra divisions, but of requiring teammates in general.   # again, the  main event  would have no height maximum as it does now.  talented individuals could play up a division.  not having enough players is not a shortcoming of extra divisions, but of requiring teammates in general.  there could also be a hypothetical school that only has 0 basketball players of any height.  there is not a lot of funding on a school level that would need to be preferential to different heights, basically just bussing the students which is often paid for by fundraising anyways.  the growth spurt thing would suck, but if it prevents them from joining the next team that is a matter of lacking talent, not height.  i am advocating shortsketball, not sucksketball.
please read the entire argument before posting firstly, let me say that even though the title explicitly names two races of people, this argument can be applied to any group who meets the criteria i am about to lay out.  secondly, this argument only applies to people who actually believe in the concept of affirmative action in any sense.  i understand not all people even believe affirmative action is necessary and/or ethical.  even though many have nuanced and differing views of what affirmative action is, my argument only relies on the general, and almost unanimously accepted definition of what affirmative action is.  to me, affirmative action is: the policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination straight from wikipedia here is my argument: 0. 	it is clear that african americans do face discrimination, lack of opportunities, negative systematic and historical racial bias and/or a number of other negative factors which affects them in the game of academic college admission.  0. 	affirmative action seeks to  balance the playing field  by providing proportionally equal special consideration and/or opportunities to these people who face some amount of discrimination.  to explain, if x is the difficulty caused by discrimination, lack of opportunities etc, then  x is the amount of consideration affirmative action seeks to employ into the college admission game for that group of people.  0. 	asian americans face similar, yet probably not as extreme discrimination and/or cultural tropes scrawny smart nerd vs.  big, black football/basketball player , lack of being taken seriously athletically similar to what women experience when in positions of power compared to men   they are not taken as seriously, or when blacks report actually being made fun of in school for performing well in classes , and pushed at a young age into a non athletic role super majority of asian men expected to become doctors, lawyers, engineers vs.  blacks expected to become athletes, musicians, and entertainers .  so again, if  y is the difficulty caused by discrimination, then  y should be applied to this group of people in the area they face  y in.  if you do not believe that this discrimination exists in d0 basketball/football recruitment just look at jeremy lin.  it is pretty much factual that some amount of very significant discrimination does exist for this race of people.  a good article about it: URL 0.  there is nothing a priori that makes educational opportunity more important than athletic opportunity.  both are valid and legitimate ways of enriching your life through and pursuing a career and future.  people should have equality of opportunity to choose for themselves which path they wish to take.  0. 	thus, proponents who call for african american affirmative action to equalize and account for the amount of discrimination blacks face in regard to academic opportunity should concede that the only fair and proper way to implement college affirmative action is to equalize and account for the amount of discrimination other races namely asians face in regard to athletic opportunity.  note: my argument only proposes that an equal amount of positive discrimination be applied to the group facing an equal amount of negative discrimination.  it is entirely possible, and probably likely, that the amount of negative discrimination that blacks face in regard to academic opportunity is more than the negative discrimination asians face toward d0 football/basketball recruitment.  however, it still holds that however much amount of negative discrimination asians face should be equalized by affirmative action just like it is proposed to do for african americans.  thanks for taking the time to read my argument.  sincerely, scrotum of stalin  #  there is nothing a priori that makes educational opportunity more important than athletic opportunity.   #  that is about the worst argument ever.   # that is about the worst argument ever.  you think there are swaths of poor americans thinking  man, i wish i would played football.  i would not be working at walmart now.  and i could throw this ball over those mountains.   education is supposed to lead to advancement.  sports are fun things we do with pneumatic spheres.   #  URL the children of those workers, by turn, had fewer educational opportunities, all because their parents were forced to make less because of the color of their skin.   #  what ? affirmative action is a  policy  meant to make up for previous, blatantly racist  policies .  when black people came home from wwii, they were deliberately funneled, by racist southern politicians, toward low skilled jobs with distinctly lower earning potential.  URL the children of those workers, by turn, had fewer educational opportunities, all because their parents were forced to make less because of the color of their skin.  education is a stepping stone to earning potential and the financial stability that was  intentionally denied  to a group.  absolutely regardless of the stereotype of asian americans, the chance to play sports with their peers has not been, through  policy , intentionally denied them.  it is outrageous to call these two situations identical.   #  if the latter is the case, then why not apply affirmative action to other fields, sports and music and entertainment included ?  #  then is the policy aimed at righting past wrongs or at achieving equality of outcome ? if the latter is the case, then why not apply affirmative action to other fields, sports and music and entertainment included ? and is the latter really something we want enforced by quota or preferential treatment ? it is hard to argue that asian american applicants are not hurt by affirmative action.  they regularly need much higher average academic achievements to get into college.  so, what kind of message is sent ?  hey, we did you wrong but you worked hard and managed to succeed in some fields despite discrimination.  you are too successful though and now we gotta hit you with a second helping of discrimination ?    #  the point of affirmative action is not to make everybody equal at everything, which is the line of thought you are taking.   # there are over 0 million college students and less than 0,0 ncaa student athletes.  it is assumed that a college education is needed for most people to attain gainful employment, a good home, etc.  not so for being an athlete, or even a musician.  the point of affirmative action is not to make everybody equal at everything, which is the line of thought you are taking.  the point of affirmative action is to ensure that minorities are getting comparable educational opportunity so that they too can prosper and participate fully in our society.   hurt  is highly subjective.  a few individual applicants may be denied their first choice school, just as a few white applicants may.  in general though, the asian american and white populations are thriving regardless of affirmative action, particularly in contrast to black and hispanic minorities.  affirmative action is not discrimination.  race is not the sole or primary factor in college applications by any stretch.  if asian americans were discriminated against by academia, they would not be the most scholastically successful ethnic group in the country like they are.   #  affirmative action games results and does not solve problems.   # that is an assumption that is not categorically true.  URL a majority of adults do not have a bachelor is degree.  this has to be accomplished at the k 0 level.  it has to be accomplished at home and in the community and at school long before the college admissions stage.  affirmative action games results and does not solve problems.  0 times as likely.  0 ! you also say:   if asian americans were discriminated against by academia, they would not be the most scholastically successful ethnic group in the country like they are.  that is not logically sound.  people can be successful despite discrimination or hardship.  consider this:   URL URL   malays make up the majority close to 0 of the 0 million population.  this is despite blatant quota discrimination against non malays:  URL   under such affirmative action, various concessions are made to bumiputeras.  amongst many other concessions, 0 of seats in public universities are to be allocated to bumiputeras, all initial public offerings ipos must set aside a 0 share for bumiputera investors and monetary support is provided to bumiputeras for entrepreneurial development.
okay, so let me start off by saying that i have many friends with tattoos.  i have seen a lot of tattoos on people, and a lot of times, people proudly display their tattoos.  rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  so, obviously there is got to be a disconnect there, right ? i have been told all my life that tattoos are simply bad ideas, yet no one seems to regret their choice.  personally, i am trans, so i am used to the idea of body modification, but for some reason, i ca not seem to reconcile how tattoos fall under that umbrella.  anyway, my view is simply that tattoos are just not a good idea.  sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.  i know many people who went on a  life changing  retreat who got tattoos of the symbol that is generally used on the retreat, but most of those people severely regretted their decision a few years later.  the symbol held no meaning to their current life, and even though it was applicable when they got it, the feeling fizzled out after a few years.  inversely, get a tattoo of something that has little meaning, and it would be cool for a year, maybe.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  there is always the problem of landing a decent job with ink on you.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  i do hear a lot that tattoos tend to become less artistic and more tacky with age, and that most tattoos wo not age well at all.  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  and lastly, if you do regret your decision, they are difficult to remove, if not impossible considering the color of the ink.  again, i have heard it is possible, but extremely painful and not recommended most of the time.  well, reddit, do your thing.  change my view !  #  anyway, my view is simply that tattoos are just not a good idea.   #  sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.   # sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.  i know many people who went on a  life changing  retreat who got tattoos of the symbol that is generally used on the retreat, but most of those people severely regretted their decision a few years later.  the symbol held no meaning to their current life, and even though it was applicable when they got it, the feeling fizzled out after a few years.  for people who get tattoos with a symbolic meaning:  does it really matter if the meaning does not apply to their current life ? it is a testament to a feeling they once had, that they will always be able to look back on.  past thoughts and feelings comprise who you are in your present, even if you know longer hold the same views.  in this way, i think it is a great idea.  do you take pictures of yourself ? obviously, we do not take pictures of ourselves because it is a manifestation of the present; we want to remember where we were, what we did, what we experienced, what we thought.  tattoos can embody the same thing, with thoughts or experiences.  i do not really have much of an argument for those who get tattooed without a meaning, since i do not like people like that.  but, i would argue that the purpose of getting a tattoo for them is for the immediate gratification of having the tattoo.  it would be no different than buying anything else, like a car.  you might like it now, but a year later you might hate it.  of course, tattoos are more permanent, but there is still a loss for other things, like a car you wo not usually make all your money back.  .  get a tattoo where it wo not be visible.  problem solved .  .  .  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  it really depends.  i have seen old people with great looking tattoos.  but, it depends on your skin, usually.  but, you can always get a tattoo re done.   #  it is a part of my appearance now that i had no control over.   #  you are making a broad, sweeping statement that tattoos are universally a bad idea, so technically you only need a single example of a good tattoo that goes against your points, so here goes: URL this guy god a tattoo of the last drawing/note that his dying son created.  this is something that will never cease to have meaning for him.  it is not objectively aesthetically pleasing, so his detiorating skin will never be a factor the last quality of the tattoo.  this father simply made sure his son will be part of his life forever.  on a more general note, i think that things happen to our bodies that will be on them forever.  i have acne scarring on my face that will never go away, and i had no choice in the matter.  it is a part of my appearance now that i had no control over.  a tattoo is something that i have control over.  maybe it will look silly or dated later, but i do not think it will ever look as bad as acne scarring on a 0 year old is face.   #  but then again, memories act in a similar fashion, i suppose.   #  hah, technically, maybe.  it is definitely a way to prove most of those points wrong, yeah.  but uh, what if that tattoo becomes painful to see every single day ? i mean, such a traumatic event in one is life etched on one is skin.  but then again, memories act in a similar fashion, i suppose.  are not they etchings on one is mind ? forever engraved, the death of a child would never leave you, in much the same way as a tattoo.  and that acne example is very similar to how i feel about my own body.  i know i am making irreversible changes to myself, but in the end, i view them as worth it because of how happy i would feel with them on.  tattoos  could  be viewed in much the same way, but i suppose it is difficult for me to admit that as a voluntary choice it would have the same impact years down the road.  doing something about dysphoria or body scaring, sure.  but just getting ink ? seems like a temporary thing.  still,   0; for the example.  but, it is a rather extreme example !  #  i have my tattoo of a celtic shield knot.   #  thanks for the delta, but it sounds like you are still a little on the fence, so i will give another example.  i have my tattoo of a celtic shield knot.  i got a celtic tattoo because i am irish, and again, that is something that is never going to change about me.  i am always going to be irish, no matter what else happens in my life, so that is as permanent as a tattoo.  by getting a simple, straightforward design, the effects of aging skin and changing sensibilities will hopefully be moderated.  celtic designs have been around for a thousand years, far longer than my lifetime !  #  my dad died when i was comparatively young 0 so it means a lot to me to be able to have a physical reminder of him with me always.   #  i have yet another example of, what i think is really, a broad exception to the rule you presented.  i got a tattoo of the an oak tree that was the logo used for the restaurant my dad owned when i was born.  i saw that logo all the time growing up, and it was always associated with me seeing my dad.  my dad died when i was comparatively young 0 so it means a lot to me to be able to have a physical reminder of him with me always.  i think that a memorial tattoo of any sort, is a sort of thing that you would rarely, if ever regret.  and so long as it is not a photo realistic depiction, it probably would not suffer from substantial degradation over the years.
okay, so let me start off by saying that i have many friends with tattoos.  i have seen a lot of tattoos on people, and a lot of times, people proudly display their tattoos.  rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  so, obviously there is got to be a disconnect there, right ? i have been told all my life that tattoos are simply bad ideas, yet no one seems to regret their choice.  personally, i am trans, so i am used to the idea of body modification, but for some reason, i ca not seem to reconcile how tattoos fall under that umbrella.  anyway, my view is simply that tattoos are just not a good idea.  sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.  i know many people who went on a  life changing  retreat who got tattoos of the symbol that is generally used on the retreat, but most of those people severely regretted their decision a few years later.  the symbol held no meaning to their current life, and even though it was applicable when they got it, the feeling fizzled out after a few years.  inversely, get a tattoo of something that has little meaning, and it would be cool for a year, maybe.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  there is always the problem of landing a decent job with ink on you.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  i do hear a lot that tattoos tend to become less artistic and more tacky with age, and that most tattoos wo not age well at all.  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  and lastly, if you do regret your decision, they are difficult to remove, if not impossible considering the color of the ink.  again, i have heard it is possible, but extremely painful and not recommended most of the time.  well, reddit, do your thing.  change my view !  #  there is always the problem of landing a decent job with ink on you.   #  get a tattoo where it wo not be visible.   # sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.  i know many people who went on a  life changing  retreat who got tattoos of the symbol that is generally used on the retreat, but most of those people severely regretted their decision a few years later.  the symbol held no meaning to their current life, and even though it was applicable when they got it, the feeling fizzled out after a few years.  for people who get tattoos with a symbolic meaning:  does it really matter if the meaning does not apply to their current life ? it is a testament to a feeling they once had, that they will always be able to look back on.  past thoughts and feelings comprise who you are in your present, even if you know longer hold the same views.  in this way, i think it is a great idea.  do you take pictures of yourself ? obviously, we do not take pictures of ourselves because it is a manifestation of the present; we want to remember where we were, what we did, what we experienced, what we thought.  tattoos can embody the same thing, with thoughts or experiences.  i do not really have much of an argument for those who get tattooed without a meaning, since i do not like people like that.  but, i would argue that the purpose of getting a tattoo for them is for the immediate gratification of having the tattoo.  it would be no different than buying anything else, like a car.  you might like it now, but a year later you might hate it.  of course, tattoos are more permanent, but there is still a loss for other things, like a car you wo not usually make all your money back.  .  get a tattoo where it wo not be visible.  problem solved .  .  .  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  it really depends.  i have seen old people with great looking tattoos.  but, it depends on your skin, usually.  but, you can always get a tattoo re done.   #  a tattoo is something that i have control over.   #  you are making a broad, sweeping statement that tattoos are universally a bad idea, so technically you only need a single example of a good tattoo that goes against your points, so here goes: URL this guy god a tattoo of the last drawing/note that his dying son created.  this is something that will never cease to have meaning for him.  it is not objectively aesthetically pleasing, so his detiorating skin will never be a factor the last quality of the tattoo.  this father simply made sure his son will be part of his life forever.  on a more general note, i think that things happen to our bodies that will be on them forever.  i have acne scarring on my face that will never go away, and i had no choice in the matter.  it is a part of my appearance now that i had no control over.  a tattoo is something that i have control over.  maybe it will look silly or dated later, but i do not think it will ever look as bad as acne scarring on a 0 year old is face.   #  tattoos  could  be viewed in much the same way, but i suppose it is difficult for me to admit that as a voluntary choice it would have the same impact years down the road.   #  hah, technically, maybe.  it is definitely a way to prove most of those points wrong, yeah.  but uh, what if that tattoo becomes painful to see every single day ? i mean, such a traumatic event in one is life etched on one is skin.  but then again, memories act in a similar fashion, i suppose.  are not they etchings on one is mind ? forever engraved, the death of a child would never leave you, in much the same way as a tattoo.  and that acne example is very similar to how i feel about my own body.  i know i am making irreversible changes to myself, but in the end, i view them as worth it because of how happy i would feel with them on.  tattoos  could  be viewed in much the same way, but i suppose it is difficult for me to admit that as a voluntary choice it would have the same impact years down the road.  doing something about dysphoria or body scaring, sure.  but just getting ink ? seems like a temporary thing.  still,   0; for the example.  but, it is a rather extreme example !  #  by getting a simple, straightforward design, the effects of aging skin and changing sensibilities will hopefully be moderated.   #  thanks for the delta, but it sounds like you are still a little on the fence, so i will give another example.  i have my tattoo of a celtic shield knot.  i got a celtic tattoo because i am irish, and again, that is something that is never going to change about me.  i am always going to be irish, no matter what else happens in my life, so that is as permanent as a tattoo.  by getting a simple, straightforward design, the effects of aging skin and changing sensibilities will hopefully be moderated.  celtic designs have been around for a thousand years, far longer than my lifetime !  #  i have yet another example of, what i think is really, a broad exception to the rule you presented.   #  i have yet another example of, what i think is really, a broad exception to the rule you presented.  i got a tattoo of the an oak tree that was the logo used for the restaurant my dad owned when i was born.  i saw that logo all the time growing up, and it was always associated with me seeing my dad.  my dad died when i was comparatively young 0 so it means a lot to me to be able to have a physical reminder of him with me always.  i think that a memorial tattoo of any sort, is a sort of thing that you would rarely, if ever regret.  and so long as it is not a photo realistic depiction, it probably would not suffer from substantial degradation over the years.
okay, so let me start off by saying that i have many friends with tattoos.  i have seen a lot of tattoos on people, and a lot of times, people proudly display their tattoos.  rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  so, obviously there is got to be a disconnect there, right ? i have been told all my life that tattoos are simply bad ideas, yet no one seems to regret their choice.  personally, i am trans, so i am used to the idea of body modification, but for some reason, i ca not seem to reconcile how tattoos fall under that umbrella.  anyway, my view is simply that tattoos are just not a good idea.  sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.  i know many people who went on a  life changing  retreat who got tattoos of the symbol that is generally used on the retreat, but most of those people severely regretted their decision a few years later.  the symbol held no meaning to their current life, and even though it was applicable when they got it, the feeling fizzled out after a few years.  inversely, get a tattoo of something that has little meaning, and it would be cool for a year, maybe.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  there is always the problem of landing a decent job with ink on you.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  i do hear a lot that tattoos tend to become less artistic and more tacky with age, and that most tattoos wo not age well at all.  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  and lastly, if you do regret your decision, they are difficult to remove, if not impossible considering the color of the ink.  again, i have heard it is possible, but extremely painful and not recommended most of the time.  well, reddit, do your thing.  change my view !  #  i do hear a lot that tattoos tend to become less artistic and more tacky with age, and that most tattoos wo not age well at all.   #  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.   # sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.  i know many people who went on a  life changing  retreat who got tattoos of the symbol that is generally used on the retreat, but most of those people severely regretted their decision a few years later.  the symbol held no meaning to their current life, and even though it was applicable when they got it, the feeling fizzled out after a few years.  for people who get tattoos with a symbolic meaning:  does it really matter if the meaning does not apply to their current life ? it is a testament to a feeling they once had, that they will always be able to look back on.  past thoughts and feelings comprise who you are in your present, even if you know longer hold the same views.  in this way, i think it is a great idea.  do you take pictures of yourself ? obviously, we do not take pictures of ourselves because it is a manifestation of the present; we want to remember where we were, what we did, what we experienced, what we thought.  tattoos can embody the same thing, with thoughts or experiences.  i do not really have much of an argument for those who get tattooed without a meaning, since i do not like people like that.  but, i would argue that the purpose of getting a tattoo for them is for the immediate gratification of having the tattoo.  it would be no different than buying anything else, like a car.  you might like it now, but a year later you might hate it.  of course, tattoos are more permanent, but there is still a loss for other things, like a car you wo not usually make all your money back.  .  get a tattoo where it wo not be visible.  problem solved .  .  .  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  it really depends.  i have seen old people with great looking tattoos.  but, it depends on your skin, usually.  but, you can always get a tattoo re done.   #  on a more general note, i think that things happen to our bodies that will be on them forever.   #  you are making a broad, sweeping statement that tattoos are universally a bad idea, so technically you only need a single example of a good tattoo that goes against your points, so here goes: URL this guy god a tattoo of the last drawing/note that his dying son created.  this is something that will never cease to have meaning for him.  it is not objectively aesthetically pleasing, so his detiorating skin will never be a factor the last quality of the tattoo.  this father simply made sure his son will be part of his life forever.  on a more general note, i think that things happen to our bodies that will be on them forever.  i have acne scarring on my face that will never go away, and i had no choice in the matter.  it is a part of my appearance now that i had no control over.  a tattoo is something that i have control over.  maybe it will look silly or dated later, but i do not think it will ever look as bad as acne scarring on a 0 year old is face.   #  but then again, memories act in a similar fashion, i suppose.   #  hah, technically, maybe.  it is definitely a way to prove most of those points wrong, yeah.  but uh, what if that tattoo becomes painful to see every single day ? i mean, such a traumatic event in one is life etched on one is skin.  but then again, memories act in a similar fashion, i suppose.  are not they etchings on one is mind ? forever engraved, the death of a child would never leave you, in much the same way as a tattoo.  and that acne example is very similar to how i feel about my own body.  i know i am making irreversible changes to myself, but in the end, i view them as worth it because of how happy i would feel with them on.  tattoos  could  be viewed in much the same way, but i suppose it is difficult for me to admit that as a voluntary choice it would have the same impact years down the road.  doing something about dysphoria or body scaring, sure.  but just getting ink ? seems like a temporary thing.  still,   0; for the example.  but, it is a rather extreme example !  #  i am always going to be irish, no matter what else happens in my life, so that is as permanent as a tattoo.   #  thanks for the delta, but it sounds like you are still a little on the fence, so i will give another example.  i have my tattoo of a celtic shield knot.  i got a celtic tattoo because i am irish, and again, that is something that is never going to change about me.  i am always going to be irish, no matter what else happens in my life, so that is as permanent as a tattoo.  by getting a simple, straightforward design, the effects of aging skin and changing sensibilities will hopefully be moderated.  celtic designs have been around for a thousand years, far longer than my lifetime !  #  i have yet another example of, what i think is really, a broad exception to the rule you presented.   #  i have yet another example of, what i think is really, a broad exception to the rule you presented.  i got a tattoo of the an oak tree that was the logo used for the restaurant my dad owned when i was born.  i saw that logo all the time growing up, and it was always associated with me seeing my dad.  my dad died when i was comparatively young 0 so it means a lot to me to be able to have a physical reminder of him with me always.  i think that a memorial tattoo of any sort, is a sort of thing that you would rarely, if ever regret.  and so long as it is not a photo realistic depiction, it probably would not suffer from substantial degradation over the years.
okay, so let me start off by saying that i have many friends with tattoos.  i have seen a lot of tattoos on people, and a lot of times, people proudly display their tattoos.  rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  so, obviously there is got to be a disconnect there, right ? i have been told all my life that tattoos are simply bad ideas, yet no one seems to regret their choice.  personally, i am trans, so i am used to the idea of body modification, but for some reason, i ca not seem to reconcile how tattoos fall under that umbrella.  anyway, my view is simply that tattoos are just not a good idea.  sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.  i know many people who went on a  life changing  retreat who got tattoos of the symbol that is generally used on the retreat, but most of those people severely regretted their decision a few years later.  the symbol held no meaning to their current life, and even though it was applicable when they got it, the feeling fizzled out after a few years.  inversely, get a tattoo of something that has little meaning, and it would be cool for a year, maybe.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  there is always the problem of landing a decent job with ink on you.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  i do hear a lot that tattoos tend to become less artistic and more tacky with age, and that most tattoos wo not age well at all.  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  and lastly, if you do regret your decision, they are difficult to remove, if not impossible considering the color of the ink.  again, i have heard it is possible, but extremely painful and not recommended most of the time.  well, reddit, do your thing.  change my view !  #  and a lot of times, people proudly display their tattoos.   #  rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.   # rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  those are not the two only options.  i have many tattoo is.  i do not show them off to people.  i am never like  hey check out my tattoo !   unless someone shows me theirs first and it is part of the discussion.  i also am not ashamed of my tattoo is at all.  because i did not get my tattoos for other people and i do not particularly care what other people think about them.  i got them for me.  who told you that ? and if no body you know regrets their tattoo why is that bad ? so what ? i have a tattoo on my leg of a sketch of a scottish thistle that my grandmother gave me before she died.  the original sketch is lost.  to you, or anyone else, when you look at it, you see.  a picture of a flower.  which is fine.  but to me, when i look at it, it is weekend trips to the mall when nanny would buy me candy and toys my mom would not let me have.  it is walks through the woods with her two dogs learning about plants and bugs.  it is her playing the organ and singing old scottish songs, which still sometimes tears me up when i think about.  so, when i am as old as my nanny was, maybe i wo not remember all that, but for now, and for a good long while, i will.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  again, myself, and the dozen people i know who have tattoos did not get them for other people.  they are not to be  cool .  i do not care if you think my tattoo is cool or not because it is not for you.  that is not to say that stupid people do not get stupid fad tattoo is, but to say that  all  tattoos are bad because of that is a bit naive.  even though there are many of them, i am certain they are in a minority.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  nope.  i have tattoos all over.  but, from the neck down and the elbow up.  pants and a short sleeve shirt will cover 0 of my tattoo is.  a suit would do just the same.  i work in a professional corporate office.  ya, neck and face and hand tattoo is may stop you from getting that cfo position.  but most people with visible tattoo is as you said, are in the arts profession or something where they do not need to look 0 professional.  but if that is the field they choose to work in, why is that any of your concern ? i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  i am not even sure what  less artistic  means.  can you expand on that ? and a tattoo ages with the body that it is on.  so i do not see what the problem there is either.  i am not saying there are not bad tattoos out there.  there are millions of dumb people with dumb tattoos.  but for every person with a stupid monster energy drink tattoo on their chest, there is someone like me, with a tattoo that reminds them of happy times and is a reminder to them of who they are and what they have been through.  to say that tattoos in general are a bad idea, because  some  people get stupid one is is not fair or correct.   #  it is a part of my appearance now that i had no control over.   #  you are making a broad, sweeping statement that tattoos are universally a bad idea, so technically you only need a single example of a good tattoo that goes against your points, so here goes: URL this guy god a tattoo of the last drawing/note that his dying son created.  this is something that will never cease to have meaning for him.  it is not objectively aesthetically pleasing, so his detiorating skin will never be a factor the last quality of the tattoo.  this father simply made sure his son will be part of his life forever.  on a more general note, i think that things happen to our bodies that will be on them forever.  i have acne scarring on my face that will never go away, and i had no choice in the matter.  it is a part of my appearance now that i had no control over.  a tattoo is something that i have control over.  maybe it will look silly or dated later, but i do not think it will ever look as bad as acne scarring on a 0 year old is face.   #  tattoos  could  be viewed in much the same way, but i suppose it is difficult for me to admit that as a voluntary choice it would have the same impact years down the road.   #  hah, technically, maybe.  it is definitely a way to prove most of those points wrong, yeah.  but uh, what if that tattoo becomes painful to see every single day ? i mean, such a traumatic event in one is life etched on one is skin.  but then again, memories act in a similar fashion, i suppose.  are not they etchings on one is mind ? forever engraved, the death of a child would never leave you, in much the same way as a tattoo.  and that acne example is very similar to how i feel about my own body.  i know i am making irreversible changes to myself, but in the end, i view them as worth it because of how happy i would feel with them on.  tattoos  could  be viewed in much the same way, but i suppose it is difficult for me to admit that as a voluntary choice it would have the same impact years down the road.  doing something about dysphoria or body scaring, sure.  but just getting ink ? seems like a temporary thing.  still,   0; for the example.  but, it is a rather extreme example !  #  celtic designs have been around for a thousand years, far longer than my lifetime !  #  thanks for the delta, but it sounds like you are still a little on the fence, so i will give another example.  i have my tattoo of a celtic shield knot.  i got a celtic tattoo because i am irish, and again, that is something that is never going to change about me.  i am always going to be irish, no matter what else happens in my life, so that is as permanent as a tattoo.  by getting a simple, straightforward design, the effects of aging skin and changing sensibilities will hopefully be moderated.  celtic designs have been around for a thousand years, far longer than my lifetime !  #  i think that a memorial tattoo of any sort, is a sort of thing that you would rarely, if ever regret.   #  i have yet another example of, what i think is really, a broad exception to the rule you presented.  i got a tattoo of the an oak tree that was the logo used for the restaurant my dad owned when i was born.  i saw that logo all the time growing up, and it was always associated with me seeing my dad.  my dad died when i was comparatively young 0 so it means a lot to me to be able to have a physical reminder of him with me always.  i think that a memorial tattoo of any sort, is a sort of thing that you would rarely, if ever regret.  and so long as it is not a photo realistic depiction, it probably would not suffer from substantial degradation over the years.
okay, so let me start off by saying that i have many friends with tattoos.  i have seen a lot of tattoos on people, and a lot of times, people proudly display their tattoos.  rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  so, obviously there is got to be a disconnect there, right ? i have been told all my life that tattoos are simply bad ideas, yet no one seems to regret their choice.  personally, i am trans, so i am used to the idea of body modification, but for some reason, i ca not seem to reconcile how tattoos fall under that umbrella.  anyway, my view is simply that tattoos are just not a good idea.  sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.  i know many people who went on a  life changing  retreat who got tattoos of the symbol that is generally used on the retreat, but most of those people severely regretted their decision a few years later.  the symbol held no meaning to their current life, and even though it was applicable when they got it, the feeling fizzled out after a few years.  inversely, get a tattoo of something that has little meaning, and it would be cool for a year, maybe.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  there is always the problem of landing a decent job with ink on you.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  i do hear a lot that tattoos tend to become less artistic and more tacky with age, and that most tattoos wo not age well at all.  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  and lastly, if you do regret your decision, they are difficult to remove, if not impossible considering the color of the ink.  again, i have heard it is possible, but extremely painful and not recommended most of the time.  well, reddit, do your thing.  change my view !  #  inversely, get a tattoo of something that has little meaning, and it would be cool for a year, maybe.   #  but eventually, it would lose its luster.   # rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  those are not the two only options.  i have many tattoo is.  i do not show them off to people.  i am never like  hey check out my tattoo !   unless someone shows me theirs first and it is part of the discussion.  i also am not ashamed of my tattoo is at all.  because i did not get my tattoos for other people and i do not particularly care what other people think about them.  i got them for me.  who told you that ? and if no body you know regrets their tattoo why is that bad ? so what ? i have a tattoo on my leg of a sketch of a scottish thistle that my grandmother gave me before she died.  the original sketch is lost.  to you, or anyone else, when you look at it, you see.  a picture of a flower.  which is fine.  but to me, when i look at it, it is weekend trips to the mall when nanny would buy me candy and toys my mom would not let me have.  it is walks through the woods with her two dogs learning about plants and bugs.  it is her playing the organ and singing old scottish songs, which still sometimes tears me up when i think about.  so, when i am as old as my nanny was, maybe i wo not remember all that, but for now, and for a good long while, i will.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  again, myself, and the dozen people i know who have tattoos did not get them for other people.  they are not to be  cool .  i do not care if you think my tattoo is cool or not because it is not for you.  that is not to say that stupid people do not get stupid fad tattoo is, but to say that  all  tattoos are bad because of that is a bit naive.  even though there are many of them, i am certain they are in a minority.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  nope.  i have tattoos all over.  but, from the neck down and the elbow up.  pants and a short sleeve shirt will cover 0 of my tattoo is.  a suit would do just the same.  i work in a professional corporate office.  ya, neck and face and hand tattoo is may stop you from getting that cfo position.  but most people with visible tattoo is as you said, are in the arts profession or something where they do not need to look 0 professional.  but if that is the field they choose to work in, why is that any of your concern ? i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  i am not even sure what  less artistic  means.  can you expand on that ? and a tattoo ages with the body that it is on.  so i do not see what the problem there is either.  i am not saying there are not bad tattoos out there.  there are millions of dumb people with dumb tattoos.  but for every person with a stupid monster energy drink tattoo on their chest, there is someone like me, with a tattoo that reminds them of happy times and is a reminder to them of who they are and what they have been through.  to say that tattoos in general are a bad idea, because  some  people get stupid one is is not fair or correct.   #  on a more general note, i think that things happen to our bodies that will be on them forever.   #  you are making a broad, sweeping statement that tattoos are universally a bad idea, so technically you only need a single example of a good tattoo that goes against your points, so here goes: URL this guy god a tattoo of the last drawing/note that his dying son created.  this is something that will never cease to have meaning for him.  it is not objectively aesthetically pleasing, so his detiorating skin will never be a factor the last quality of the tattoo.  this father simply made sure his son will be part of his life forever.  on a more general note, i think that things happen to our bodies that will be on them forever.  i have acne scarring on my face that will never go away, and i had no choice in the matter.  it is a part of my appearance now that i had no control over.  a tattoo is something that i have control over.  maybe it will look silly or dated later, but i do not think it will ever look as bad as acne scarring on a 0 year old is face.   #  but then again, memories act in a similar fashion, i suppose.   #  hah, technically, maybe.  it is definitely a way to prove most of those points wrong, yeah.  but uh, what if that tattoo becomes painful to see every single day ? i mean, such a traumatic event in one is life etched on one is skin.  but then again, memories act in a similar fashion, i suppose.  are not they etchings on one is mind ? forever engraved, the death of a child would never leave you, in much the same way as a tattoo.  and that acne example is very similar to how i feel about my own body.  i know i am making irreversible changes to myself, but in the end, i view them as worth it because of how happy i would feel with them on.  tattoos  could  be viewed in much the same way, but i suppose it is difficult for me to admit that as a voluntary choice it would have the same impact years down the road.  doing something about dysphoria or body scaring, sure.  but just getting ink ? seems like a temporary thing.  still,   0; for the example.  but, it is a rather extreme example !  #  i have my tattoo of a celtic shield knot.   #  thanks for the delta, but it sounds like you are still a little on the fence, so i will give another example.  i have my tattoo of a celtic shield knot.  i got a celtic tattoo because i am irish, and again, that is something that is never going to change about me.  i am always going to be irish, no matter what else happens in my life, so that is as permanent as a tattoo.  by getting a simple, straightforward design, the effects of aging skin and changing sensibilities will hopefully be moderated.  celtic designs have been around for a thousand years, far longer than my lifetime !  #  i got a tattoo of the an oak tree that was the logo used for the restaurant my dad owned when i was born.   #  i have yet another example of, what i think is really, a broad exception to the rule you presented.  i got a tattoo of the an oak tree that was the logo used for the restaurant my dad owned when i was born.  i saw that logo all the time growing up, and it was always associated with me seeing my dad.  my dad died when i was comparatively young 0 so it means a lot to me to be able to have a physical reminder of him with me always.  i think that a memorial tattoo of any sort, is a sort of thing that you would rarely, if ever regret.  and so long as it is not a photo realistic depiction, it probably would not suffer from substantial degradation over the years.
okay, so let me start off by saying that i have many friends with tattoos.  i have seen a lot of tattoos on people, and a lot of times, people proudly display their tattoos.  rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  so, obviously there is got to be a disconnect there, right ? i have been told all my life that tattoos are simply bad ideas, yet no one seems to regret their choice.  personally, i am trans, so i am used to the idea of body modification, but for some reason, i ca not seem to reconcile how tattoos fall under that umbrella.  anyway, my view is simply that tattoos are just not a good idea.  sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.  i know many people who went on a  life changing  retreat who got tattoos of the symbol that is generally used on the retreat, but most of those people severely regretted their decision a few years later.  the symbol held no meaning to their current life, and even though it was applicable when they got it, the feeling fizzled out after a few years.  inversely, get a tattoo of something that has little meaning, and it would be cool for a year, maybe.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  there is always the problem of landing a decent job with ink on you.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  i do hear a lot that tattoos tend to become less artistic and more tacky with age, and that most tattoos wo not age well at all.  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  and lastly, if you do regret your decision, they are difficult to remove, if not impossible considering the color of the ink.  again, i have heard it is possible, but extremely painful and not recommended most of the time.  well, reddit, do your thing.  change my view !  #  there is always the problem of landing a decent job with ink on you.   #  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.   # rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  those are not the two only options.  i have many tattoo is.  i do not show them off to people.  i am never like  hey check out my tattoo !   unless someone shows me theirs first and it is part of the discussion.  i also am not ashamed of my tattoo is at all.  because i did not get my tattoos for other people and i do not particularly care what other people think about them.  i got them for me.  who told you that ? and if no body you know regrets their tattoo why is that bad ? so what ? i have a tattoo on my leg of a sketch of a scottish thistle that my grandmother gave me before she died.  the original sketch is lost.  to you, or anyone else, when you look at it, you see.  a picture of a flower.  which is fine.  but to me, when i look at it, it is weekend trips to the mall when nanny would buy me candy and toys my mom would not let me have.  it is walks through the woods with her two dogs learning about plants and bugs.  it is her playing the organ and singing old scottish songs, which still sometimes tears me up when i think about.  so, when i am as old as my nanny was, maybe i wo not remember all that, but for now, and for a good long while, i will.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  again, myself, and the dozen people i know who have tattoos did not get them for other people.  they are not to be  cool .  i do not care if you think my tattoo is cool or not because it is not for you.  that is not to say that stupid people do not get stupid fad tattoo is, but to say that  all  tattoos are bad because of that is a bit naive.  even though there are many of them, i am certain they are in a minority.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  nope.  i have tattoos all over.  but, from the neck down and the elbow up.  pants and a short sleeve shirt will cover 0 of my tattoo is.  a suit would do just the same.  i work in a professional corporate office.  ya, neck and face and hand tattoo is may stop you from getting that cfo position.  but most people with visible tattoo is as you said, are in the arts profession or something where they do not need to look 0 professional.  but if that is the field they choose to work in, why is that any of your concern ? i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  i am not even sure what  less artistic  means.  can you expand on that ? and a tattoo ages with the body that it is on.  so i do not see what the problem there is either.  i am not saying there are not bad tattoos out there.  there are millions of dumb people with dumb tattoos.  but for every person with a stupid monster energy drink tattoo on their chest, there is someone like me, with a tattoo that reminds them of happy times and is a reminder to them of who they are and what they have been through.  to say that tattoos in general are a bad idea, because  some  people get stupid one is is not fair or correct.   #  on a more general note, i think that things happen to our bodies that will be on them forever.   #  you are making a broad, sweeping statement that tattoos are universally a bad idea, so technically you only need a single example of a good tattoo that goes against your points, so here goes: URL this guy god a tattoo of the last drawing/note that his dying son created.  this is something that will never cease to have meaning for him.  it is not objectively aesthetically pleasing, so his detiorating skin will never be a factor the last quality of the tattoo.  this father simply made sure his son will be part of his life forever.  on a more general note, i think that things happen to our bodies that will be on them forever.  i have acne scarring on my face that will never go away, and i had no choice in the matter.  it is a part of my appearance now that i had no control over.  a tattoo is something that i have control over.  maybe it will look silly or dated later, but i do not think it will ever look as bad as acne scarring on a 0 year old is face.   #  it is definitely a way to prove most of those points wrong, yeah.   #  hah, technically, maybe.  it is definitely a way to prove most of those points wrong, yeah.  but uh, what if that tattoo becomes painful to see every single day ? i mean, such a traumatic event in one is life etched on one is skin.  but then again, memories act in a similar fashion, i suppose.  are not they etchings on one is mind ? forever engraved, the death of a child would never leave you, in much the same way as a tattoo.  and that acne example is very similar to how i feel about my own body.  i know i am making irreversible changes to myself, but in the end, i view them as worth it because of how happy i would feel with them on.  tattoos  could  be viewed in much the same way, but i suppose it is difficult for me to admit that as a voluntary choice it would have the same impact years down the road.  doing something about dysphoria or body scaring, sure.  but just getting ink ? seems like a temporary thing.  still,   0; for the example.  but, it is a rather extreme example !  #  by getting a simple, straightforward design, the effects of aging skin and changing sensibilities will hopefully be moderated.   #  thanks for the delta, but it sounds like you are still a little on the fence, so i will give another example.  i have my tattoo of a celtic shield knot.  i got a celtic tattoo because i am irish, and again, that is something that is never going to change about me.  i am always going to be irish, no matter what else happens in my life, so that is as permanent as a tattoo.  by getting a simple, straightforward design, the effects of aging skin and changing sensibilities will hopefully be moderated.  celtic designs have been around for a thousand years, far longer than my lifetime !  #  my dad died when i was comparatively young 0 so it means a lot to me to be able to have a physical reminder of him with me always.   #  i have yet another example of, what i think is really, a broad exception to the rule you presented.  i got a tattoo of the an oak tree that was the logo used for the restaurant my dad owned when i was born.  i saw that logo all the time growing up, and it was always associated with me seeing my dad.  my dad died when i was comparatively young 0 so it means a lot to me to be able to have a physical reminder of him with me always.  i think that a memorial tattoo of any sort, is a sort of thing that you would rarely, if ever regret.  and so long as it is not a photo realistic depiction, it probably would not suffer from substantial degradation over the years.
okay, so let me start off by saying that i have many friends with tattoos.  i have seen a lot of tattoos on people, and a lot of times, people proudly display their tattoos.  rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  so, obviously there is got to be a disconnect there, right ? i have been told all my life that tattoos are simply bad ideas, yet no one seems to regret their choice.  personally, i am trans, so i am used to the idea of body modification, but for some reason, i ca not seem to reconcile how tattoos fall under that umbrella.  anyway, my view is simply that tattoos are just not a good idea.  sure, they can hold serious symbolic meaning or importance to people, but a lot of the time, these meanings will fade away with time.  i know many people who went on a  life changing  retreat who got tattoos of the symbol that is generally used on the retreat, but most of those people severely regretted their decision a few years later.  the symbol held no meaning to their current life, and even though it was applicable when they got it, the feeling fizzled out after a few years.  inversely, get a tattoo of something that has little meaning, and it would be cool for a year, maybe.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  there is always the problem of landing a decent job with ink on you.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  i do hear a lot that tattoos tend to become less artistic and more tacky with age, and that most tattoos wo not age well at all.  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  and lastly, if you do regret your decision, they are difficult to remove, if not impossible considering the color of the ink.  again, i have heard it is possible, but extremely painful and not recommended most of the time.  well, reddit, do your thing.  change my view !  #  i do hear a lot that tattoos tend to become less artistic and more tacky with age, and that most tattoos wo not age well at all.   #  i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.   # rarely have i met someone who hides a tattoo or is shameful of one.  those are not the two only options.  i have many tattoo is.  i do not show them off to people.  i am never like  hey check out my tattoo !   unless someone shows me theirs first and it is part of the discussion.  i also am not ashamed of my tattoo is at all.  because i did not get my tattoos for other people and i do not particularly care what other people think about them.  i got them for me.  who told you that ? and if no body you know regrets their tattoo why is that bad ? so what ? i have a tattoo on my leg of a sketch of a scottish thistle that my grandmother gave me before she died.  the original sketch is lost.  to you, or anyone else, when you look at it, you see.  a picture of a flower.  which is fine.  but to me, when i look at it, it is weekend trips to the mall when nanny would buy me candy and toys my mom would not let me have.  it is walks through the woods with her two dogs learning about plants and bugs.  it is her playing the organ and singing old scottish songs, which still sometimes tears me up when i think about.  so, when i am as old as my nanny was, maybe i wo not remember all that, but for now, and for a good long while, i will.  but eventually, it would lose its luster.  it would not be cool anymore, it would just be that awkward tattoo of the triforce you decided to get inked on your shoulder.  again, myself, and the dozen people i know who have tattoos did not get them for other people.  they are not to be  cool .  i do not care if you think my tattoo is cool or not because it is not for you.  that is not to say that stupid people do not get stupid fad tattoo is, but to say that  all  tattoos are bad because of that is a bit naive.  even though there are many of them, i am certain they are in a minority.  i figure it depends on the places, but generally speaking, most places that would hire people with tattoos are either elusively art oriented or service level jobs.  not that i am personally shooting for the stars here, but i feel like that is something to consider.  nope.  i have tattoos all over.  but, from the neck down and the elbow up.  pants and a short sleeve shirt will cover 0 of my tattoo is.  a suit would do just the same.  i work in a professional corporate office.  ya, neck and face and hand tattoo is may stop you from getting that cfo position.  but most people with visible tattoo is as you said, are in the arts profession or something where they do not need to look 0 professional.  but if that is the field they choose to work in, why is that any of your concern ? i feel like this depends on the person, but i think as a general rule it is important to consider.  i am not even sure what  less artistic  means.  can you expand on that ? and a tattoo ages with the body that it is on.  so i do not see what the problem there is either.  i am not saying there are not bad tattoos out there.  there are millions of dumb people with dumb tattoos.  but for every person with a stupid monster energy drink tattoo on their chest, there is someone like me, with a tattoo that reminds them of happy times and is a reminder to them of who they are and what they have been through.  to say that tattoos in general are a bad idea, because  some  people get stupid one is is not fair or correct.   #  i have acne scarring on my face that will never go away, and i had no choice in the matter.   #  you are making a broad, sweeping statement that tattoos are universally a bad idea, so technically you only need a single example of a good tattoo that goes against your points, so here goes: URL this guy god a tattoo of the last drawing/note that his dying son created.  this is something that will never cease to have meaning for him.  it is not objectively aesthetically pleasing, so his detiorating skin will never be a factor the last quality of the tattoo.  this father simply made sure his son will be part of his life forever.  on a more general note, i think that things happen to our bodies that will be on them forever.  i have acne scarring on my face that will never go away, and i had no choice in the matter.  it is a part of my appearance now that i had no control over.  a tattoo is something that i have control over.  maybe it will look silly or dated later, but i do not think it will ever look as bad as acne scarring on a 0 year old is face.   #  but uh, what if that tattoo becomes painful to see every single day ?  #  hah, technically, maybe.  it is definitely a way to prove most of those points wrong, yeah.  but uh, what if that tattoo becomes painful to see every single day ? i mean, such a traumatic event in one is life etched on one is skin.  but then again, memories act in a similar fashion, i suppose.  are not they etchings on one is mind ? forever engraved, the death of a child would never leave you, in much the same way as a tattoo.  and that acne example is very similar to how i feel about my own body.  i know i am making irreversible changes to myself, but in the end, i view them as worth it because of how happy i would feel with them on.  tattoos  could  be viewed in much the same way, but i suppose it is difficult for me to admit that as a voluntary choice it would have the same impact years down the road.  doing something about dysphoria or body scaring, sure.  but just getting ink ? seems like a temporary thing.  still,   0; for the example.  but, it is a rather extreme example !  #  i got a celtic tattoo because i am irish, and again, that is something that is never going to change about me.   #  thanks for the delta, but it sounds like you are still a little on the fence, so i will give another example.  i have my tattoo of a celtic shield knot.  i got a celtic tattoo because i am irish, and again, that is something that is never going to change about me.  i am always going to be irish, no matter what else happens in my life, so that is as permanent as a tattoo.  by getting a simple, straightforward design, the effects of aging skin and changing sensibilities will hopefully be moderated.  celtic designs have been around for a thousand years, far longer than my lifetime !  #  i got a tattoo of the an oak tree that was the logo used for the restaurant my dad owned when i was born.   #  i have yet another example of, what i think is really, a broad exception to the rule you presented.  i got a tattoo of the an oak tree that was the logo used for the restaurant my dad owned when i was born.  i saw that logo all the time growing up, and it was always associated with me seeing my dad.  my dad died when i was comparatively young 0 so it means a lot to me to be able to have a physical reminder of him with me always.  i think that a memorial tattoo of any sort, is a sort of thing that you would rarely, if ever regret.  and so long as it is not a photo realistic depiction, it probably would not suffer from substantial degradation over the years.
in order for a child to be sucessful, he/she needs to be raised in a stable household economically, socially, and emotionally.  it is the responsibility of the parents to maintain this stability.  a divorce screws up the devolopment of the child, because he/she is being removed from the previous household climate, and is likely to become depressed and emotionally unstable.  the only excusable times for a divorce while raising kids would be if there is clear domestic violence or abuse, in which case the child is not safe.  otherwise, divorce neglects the child is emotional needs, the same way exposing the child to second hand smoke neglicts his/her health needs.  marriage is like a contract, and it is irresponsible for it to be broken without a valid reason.   #  in order for a child to be sucessful, he/she needs to be raised in a stable household economically, socially, and emotionally.   #  i like to think i am pretty successful by most metrics.   # i like to think i am pretty successful by most metrics.  parts of my childhood were kinda shitty because of my parents divorce when i was in elementary school, but i have a pretty good job now at one of the biggest tech companies in the world, i am married, have a house, a car, a dog, etc.  having your parents get a divorce is the lesser of two evils here.  having them stay together would have meant subjecting me to a pretty toxic environment.  to use an analogy, i had a friend when i was a kid who got in a car accident and her foot was crushed.  her family had the choice of saving as much of the foot as possible, or just amputating the whole thing to make it easier to get a prosthetic.  they chose to try to save the foot.  that did not go well.  it would have been better to realize that there is nothing there to save, and that it would have been better to just accept it is not going to work and solve the problem another way.  that would mean a part of her is gone now, but working with a crippled foot stub is actually worse in the long run.  growing up with divorced parents sucked, but it sucked less than living with parents who hate each other.  trying to live with parents in a shitty relationship who resented each other would have been worse for me.  it is hard enough seeing them together in the same place on those rare occasions where we are all together, i would hate to live though that every day.   #  seeing mom and dad fight all the time ?  #  you are suggesting that a failing marriage is a perfectly safe, secure, ideal environment for a child ? seeing mom and dad fight all the time ? having them blame it on you accidentally ? anyway, plenty of kids grow up fine with divorced parents.  especially young kids do not understand the lasting implications of marriage.  hell mom and dad have only existed for five years two of which you can remember ! when my parents got divorced, my teacher and guidance counselor made a  huge  deal about it.  for me, it was just now i have two houses.  woo ?  #  after my parents finally did divorce, once i had graduated and moved out, they transformed into relaxed, easy going people who were actually fun to be around.   # that is what my parents did, and it was terrible.  it would have been far better, in my opinion, for them to separate.  having miserable parents is far worse than having divorced parents.  after my parents finally did divorce, once i had graduated and moved out, they transformed into relaxed, easy going people who were actually fun to be around.  friends of ours who came over after the separation said it felt like the air in our house had gotten lighter.  seeing them feeling trapped in a bad marriage probably had a lot to do with why i have no interest in getting married or having kids.  typically, when a couple is headed for divorce, the change in the  household climate  as you put it, is a change for the better.  bad marriages lead to bad households climates, and kids pick up on these things even if the parents think they are being stalwarts for the kids  sake.   #  after my parents were divorced, my relationship with both of them markedly improved, but the decade of nearly constant anger and vitriol that preceded it no doubt resulted in some lasting issues i do not believe will be ever resolved.   #  living in a household with a dysfunctional marriage is far more toxic to a child than having divorced parents.  i can assure you of that.  after my parents were divorced, my relationship with both of them markedly improved, but the decade of nearly constant anger and vitriol that preceded it no doubt resulted in some lasting issues i do not believe will be ever resolved.  financially i am better off than most, but to this day i am uncomfortable with affection, and romantic affection in particular.  growing up i had not a single example of a working relationship, so such things feel foreign and strange to me.  i find normal human affection  creepy .  if my parents had split up when i was 0 instead of 0, perhaps this would not be the case.   #  most couples consider the damage the divorce would have to the child in the short term and thus delay it for this reason.   #  i would disagree solely on the fact that parents do not exist simply to raise a child, but have their own lives.  especially in cases where one parent thinks the other is irresponsible or non criminally negligent, it makes complete sense to attempt and remove some of their ability to control the child is life.  most couples consider the damage the divorce would have to the child in the short term and thus delay it for this reason.  no one breaks marriages without any reason, but outsiders might consider the reason to be dubious.  while there might be some cases where the divorce is irresponsible, the majority of times it revolves around core incompatibility and concern for their own happiness which, of coarse, has value on its own.
this is in response to an earlier post today that, in many people is minds, seemed to conflate libertarianism with anarcho capitalism.  so.  i am referring specifically to the belief that personal liberties should trump other factors when deciding policy/action.  this is often associated with an  if i am not harming anybody, who cares what i am doing ?   mindset.  i feel in our current world, this mindset has all the nuance of the 0 year old college students that so often embrace the ideology.  it is near impossible to come up with examples where there is no real impact on others that needs to be accounted for.  common examples: abortion boils down to if the fetus has to be considered.  it is the same place everyone else is on the debate; libertarianism offers nothing new to the discussion economics what you do with your money affects the markets.  buying quinoa affects the ability of indigenous peoples to afford it.  drug use using heroin may be super fun for you, but will almost certainly negatively impact those you care about.  tl;dr i could concede to personal liberties being an okay starting point for judging policies, but libertarianism as a philosophy seems to require so many caveats as to be useless.   #  the belief that personal liberties should trump other factors when deciding policy/action.   #  thats one way of describing libertarian ideology, but i have a better example.   # thats one way of describing libertarian ideology, but i have a better example.  libertarian ideology is a combination of a concept and an observation: concept: policy/action should be decided based on outcomes rather than ideology or intention observation: in the vast majority of cases, government intervention creates more problems than it solves conclusion: government intervention/prohibition should be an absolute last resort, used only in cases where failure to act would result in complete economic collapse or another equally catastrophic event / the law should only be used to solve problems when all other options have failed, and it can be demonstrated that government intervention will not create worse problems.  the idea that drugs should be legally avaliable isnt a result of thinking  people should have the right to take drugs , its a result of looking at the last few decades of history and realising that drug prohibition does not work, and causes many problems.  the idea that economic freedom should be a priority is not a result of thinking  money is everything , its a result of looking at the last few centuries of history and noticing that the nations with the most economic freedom for individuals are also the most prosperous.  i would like to note that i am not talking about corporations, i am talking soely about individuals.  the interactions between corporations and their customers must be regulated and controlled to ensure the customers are not being ripped off or being lied to abortion really does not have anything whatsoever to do with libertarianism, the only reason this association may exist is because of wingnut christians who wont shut up about it, despite there being much more important issues to worry about.   #  we should then ban mean language as that might hurt family members and friends.   #  the issue is that it is not the government is roll to determine what is and is not good for society.  are we to make the assumption that certain things makes us worse citizens, let alone the idea that imprisoning someone can improve the situation.  first with drug use, it may have a negative effect on people you like, but so does alcohol, smoking, excessive computer use, insufficient exercise, spending time away from them, etc.  are we to say that anything that might hurt people you know should be illegal ? that is insane.  we should then ban mean language as that might hurt family members and friends.  second, in the department of economics, i am not sure what specific argument you are making.  to take a scatter shot approach, libertarian economics states that it is not the government is roll to determine the prices of different resources.  this is agreed upon by most competing views.  perhaps it would be more beneficial to know what specific flaws you see or how you would replace a libertarian system.   #  when  society  decides what is and is not good for society in the united states, it does so through the mechanism of representative government.   # are we to make the assumption that certain things makes us worse citizens, let alone the idea that imprisoning someone can improve the situation.  the problem with this argument is that it defines  the government  as some kind of alien entity, divorced from the interests of ordinary people and basically playing the role of a dictator or tyrant.  in other words, the fundamental premise of libertarianism is that  democracy itself does not work .  the reality is that we  are  society.  and we are the government.  when  society  decides what is and is not good for society in the united states, it does so through the mechanism of representative government.  in order to be libertarian, you have to be anti democracy.  you do not believe in majority rule under a supermajority constitution.  you do not believe in consent of the governed.  you do not believe in  of the people, by the people, for the people.   instead you believe in bureaucratic waste.  you believe the government and its officeholders and civil servants have interests that are diametrically opposed to yours.  if you fully embrace libertarianism, in other words, then you are basically indistinguishable from an anarchist.  i do not think many people fully realize the implications of libertarian doctrine; anarchism is one of them.  this is all in addition to jobaht is points about libertarian economics: on economic questions libertarianism amounts to a rejection of what you might call  globalization,  or the increasing interconnectedness of all economic transactions anywhere in the world.  we no longer live in a world where one group of people can consume resources in complete ignorance and callous disregard for other people who have to do without those resources.  we no longer live in a world where economic activity in one county or town or state or country has zero effect on the economies of other counties, towns, and countries.  libertarians are not alone in rejecting the implications of modern economics.  but again i do not think many people who call themselves libertarian have fully thought through the implications.  you ca not get rid of modern economies without getting rid of the modern world itself.  tl;dr libertarianism embraces political and economic concepts that are deeply radical in the che guevara sense yet many self professed  libertarians  never stop to consider just how radical their commitments truly are.   #  you need to provide an example to back up your claims instead of inventing ideas which you claim we believe.   #  libertarians do not think that democracy is bad, but instead assert that representative democracy has inherent flaws.  while we are society, society is not the government.  investigate the policies of any government and you will see that it is more interested in keeping its power than improving the lives of its citizens.  i do not understand how you can assert that libertarians anarchist.  we are not anti government, we are pro small government.  the basis of libertarianism is  by the people for the people , that when a government no longer defends the rights of the citizens, it is no longer fit to rule.  on economics, you are once again confusing the facts.  libertarians do not reject the existence of globalization.  instead, we embrace humility and rationalism.  we state that the government does not have the right to manipulate the economy which does have a profound effect on other nations.  libertarianism is built on top of the ideas of modern economics, not in place of it.  tl;dr libertarians are not anarchist or economics deniers.  you need to provide an example to back up your claims instead of inventing ideas which you claim we believe.   #  if not, how is a small goverment supposed to keep such huge corporations in check ?  # could not you say the same about society as a whole ? people in power are more interested to stay in power than to improve the lives of fellow members of society.  why is only govermental power a problem ? any type of power can be abused.  if concentration of power is the issue, you certainly oppose huge corporations and and conglomerates ? if not, how is a small goverment supposed to keep such huge corporations in check ? you can argue that a big government is not necessarily great at it either, but how do you know it would not be even worse, if it was not around ?
this is in response to an earlier post today that, in many people is minds, seemed to conflate libertarianism with anarcho capitalism.  so.  i am referring specifically to the belief that personal liberties should trump other factors when deciding policy/action.  this is often associated with an  if i am not harming anybody, who cares what i am doing ?   mindset.  i feel in our current world, this mindset has all the nuance of the 0 year old college students that so often embrace the ideology.  it is near impossible to come up with examples where there is no real impact on others that needs to be accounted for.  common examples: abortion boils down to if the fetus has to be considered.  it is the same place everyone else is on the debate; libertarianism offers nothing new to the discussion economics what you do with your money affects the markets.  buying quinoa affects the ability of indigenous peoples to afford it.  drug use using heroin may be super fun for you, but will almost certainly negatively impact those you care about.  tl;dr i could concede to personal liberties being an okay starting point for judging policies, but libertarianism as a philosophy seems to require so many caveats as to be useless.   #  economics what you do with your money affects the markets.   #  buying quinoa affects the ability of indigenous peoples to afford it.   #  i see you are running with the  a bunch of children believe in this  non sense.  for one, it completely contradicts the idea that, in reality, most children actually support liberalism.  being controlled by government, something both right wing and left wing enjoys, is really the belief that closest resembles being a child someone makes decisions for you .  URL  abortion boils down to if the fetus has to be considered.  it is the same place everyone else is on the debate; libertarianism offers nothing new to the discussion defining libertarianism based on it is views on abortion ? why is this such a massive topic ? do you and your family and friends all have experiences with abortion ? the fact this is brought up so often, i have to wonder, what is your experience with abortion ? why is it important to you ? none of my friends deal with this, talk about it, etc.  economics we do, jobs, health, etc.  but not abortion.  this is a law issue.  in libertarianism, laws exist, just like they do now.  why do not you hate the other beliefs, then, that, really, do not share your opinion on the subject ? you suggest it offers nothing new but i think it just does not offer what you want to hear.  buying quinoa affects the ability of indigenous peoples to afford it.  i should suggest that the reason we have electricity, the airplane, the telephone, etc.  was because of economic freedom enjoyed by many american is.  in 0  years of government rule, not one government changed the way we lit a room.  you talk about no new views on abortion, but, what did a controlling society do to invent a lightbulb ? nothing ! the romans used flames just the same way paul revere used a tiny flame in a lantern.  it was during a time of economic freedom, in america, that not only made it the place to be, but a time of wonderful invention and discovery.  people still buy into that dream from many decades ago.  history does not lie about that.  this is about individual rights.  you are basically making the claim you have the right to control others.  eating fatty foods and becoming obese hurts not only you, your friends, but burdens the economy.  should we expand this to include unhealthy foods ? i do not ski because it is dangerous to me.  i would get hurt.  should we ban skiing since it can kill ? a more realistic example is the way we hand out car licenses.  thousands die every year, millions affected, yet, still legal.  granted, a car benefits society more than a drug, but really, if someone does a drug in their own home and does not hurt anyone, whats the deal ? i do not mean  emotionally destroys someone because they are abusing themselves,  i mean physically.  the former is just a huge can of worms that applies to anything dangerous.  in libertarianism, we do not pick and choose what is dangerous.  logic is consistent.  if you ban drugs because they are dangerous then ban everything else that fits the same logic.  that would be silly so we go the other way and allow it.  especially considering since a ban never actually prevented drug use, in the first place.   #  to take a scatter shot approach, libertarian economics states that it is not the government is roll to determine the prices of different resources.   #  the issue is that it is not the government is roll to determine what is and is not good for society.  are we to make the assumption that certain things makes us worse citizens, let alone the idea that imprisoning someone can improve the situation.  first with drug use, it may have a negative effect on people you like, but so does alcohol, smoking, excessive computer use, insufficient exercise, spending time away from them, etc.  are we to say that anything that might hurt people you know should be illegal ? that is insane.  we should then ban mean language as that might hurt family members and friends.  second, in the department of economics, i am not sure what specific argument you are making.  to take a scatter shot approach, libertarian economics states that it is not the government is roll to determine the prices of different resources.  this is agreed upon by most competing views.  perhaps it would be more beneficial to know what specific flaws you see or how you would replace a libertarian system.   #  we no longer live in a world where one group of people can consume resources in complete ignorance and callous disregard for other people who have to do without those resources.   # are we to make the assumption that certain things makes us worse citizens, let alone the idea that imprisoning someone can improve the situation.  the problem with this argument is that it defines  the government  as some kind of alien entity, divorced from the interests of ordinary people and basically playing the role of a dictator or tyrant.  in other words, the fundamental premise of libertarianism is that  democracy itself does not work .  the reality is that we  are  society.  and we are the government.  when  society  decides what is and is not good for society in the united states, it does so through the mechanism of representative government.  in order to be libertarian, you have to be anti democracy.  you do not believe in majority rule under a supermajority constitution.  you do not believe in consent of the governed.  you do not believe in  of the people, by the people, for the people.   instead you believe in bureaucratic waste.  you believe the government and its officeholders and civil servants have interests that are diametrically opposed to yours.  if you fully embrace libertarianism, in other words, then you are basically indistinguishable from an anarchist.  i do not think many people fully realize the implications of libertarian doctrine; anarchism is one of them.  this is all in addition to jobaht is points about libertarian economics: on economic questions libertarianism amounts to a rejection of what you might call  globalization,  or the increasing interconnectedness of all economic transactions anywhere in the world.  we no longer live in a world where one group of people can consume resources in complete ignorance and callous disregard for other people who have to do without those resources.  we no longer live in a world where economic activity in one county or town or state or country has zero effect on the economies of other counties, towns, and countries.  libertarians are not alone in rejecting the implications of modern economics.  but again i do not think many people who call themselves libertarian have fully thought through the implications.  you ca not get rid of modern economies without getting rid of the modern world itself.  tl;dr libertarianism embraces political and economic concepts that are deeply radical in the che guevara sense yet many self professed  libertarians  never stop to consider just how radical their commitments truly are.   #  i do not understand how you can assert that libertarians anarchist.   #  libertarians do not think that democracy is bad, but instead assert that representative democracy has inherent flaws.  while we are society, society is not the government.  investigate the policies of any government and you will see that it is more interested in keeping its power than improving the lives of its citizens.  i do not understand how you can assert that libertarians anarchist.  we are not anti government, we are pro small government.  the basis of libertarianism is  by the people for the people , that when a government no longer defends the rights of the citizens, it is no longer fit to rule.  on economics, you are once again confusing the facts.  libertarians do not reject the existence of globalization.  instead, we embrace humility and rationalism.  we state that the government does not have the right to manipulate the economy which does have a profound effect on other nations.  libertarianism is built on top of the ideas of modern economics, not in place of it.  tl;dr libertarians are not anarchist or economics deniers.  you need to provide an example to back up your claims instead of inventing ideas which you claim we believe.   #  could not you say the same about society as a whole ?  # could not you say the same about society as a whole ? people in power are more interested to stay in power than to improve the lives of fellow members of society.  why is only govermental power a problem ? any type of power can be abused.  if concentration of power is the issue, you certainly oppose huge corporations and and conglomerates ? if not, how is a small goverment supposed to keep such huge corporations in check ? you can argue that a big government is not necessarily great at it either, but how do you know it would not be even worse, if it was not around ?
one example of this case is the issue about facebook data mining and using the information that users put into their facebook accounts for facebook is personal gain.  people generally have a negative reaction to this and there is now generally a form of hatred against the company.  i find this a really odd reaction because i thought that it was clear to both parties that that is what your getting into when you use facebook.  i usually think that when you are accessing the internet in some form, especially when it requires creating accounts, you are already opening your own information for the company is use or even for the general public is use.  so, it seems that many people did not expect facebook would use or  exploit  its users  information for their own profit.  and this type of relationship between facebook and the oblivious facebook user becomes a relationship of exploitation.  about this type of exploitation relationship, i think it is better to stop people from being exploited by simply informing people about facebook and what they are getting into when they are creating an account.  either that or blame the law and acting upon that blame by passing a law that stops companies such as facebook from exploiting user information.  it seems to me that blaming facebook or the exploiter is a regressive way of thinking in that it leads to no action.  blaming the ignorance of the exploited on the other hand helps to improve the thinking of the victims so that they would not be exploited again in the future.  it is like in a bully situation, instead of blaming the bully, you blame the victim.  the victim has to stand up for hirself so he would be able to face any future bullies.  there is the counter argument that in today is society, facebook has turned into a form of necessity for many people and thus they ca not simply avoid giving their own information.  i think that this varies in degrees.  for example, one can create a facebook account and only add their names and no other information in the account.  with them having the idea of giving away their information to facebook, they would be more conscientious about giving away their information.   #  instead of blaming the bully, you blame the victim.   #  the victim has to stand up for hirself so he would be able to face any future bullies.   # the victim has to stand up for hirself so he would be able to face any future bullies.  let is take the facebook example.  do you honestly believe that the end user will blame themselves and start reading the terms of service, extrapolating any possible scenario where they can be exploited ? you are putting the user in this case up against a team of lawyers, people who go to school for 0 0 years to make sure something is air tight ? i ca not remember where but the average time was that it would be 0 years to read the average person is terms of service agreements.  let is look back to your example, usually the idea behind those advocating for the blame the bully solution is that once the kid hits back the bully will stop hitting the kid.  do you think that will be the case here ? there is no pain to worry about on the commercial end, they will still make just as difficult a terms of service and can just weigh someone down through attrition, given that the vast majority of persons will advance much quicker without reading a present day terms of service.  would not it be better for the blame to be placed on those making the terms of service that much more difficult, so pressure is put on the companies to put more money into making the terms simpler ?  #  i keep thinking that freedom is something to fear and that the only way we can trust each other is if our freedoms are taken away.   #    yeah, i guess it boils down to that.  the way you phrase is quite concise.  consider my view changed.  i keep thinking that freedom is something to fear and that the only way we can trust each other is if our freedoms are taken away.  to build such a trusting society means a lot of freedom and a lot positive vibes as well.  the problem is if one person is extremely deviant to this extremely trusting society.  i also keep thinking that companies are not composed of individuals, but they are stil individuals except they are less nice.   #  the problem is if one person is extremely deviant to this extremely trusting society.   #    0; yeah, i guess it boils down to that.  the way you phrase is quite concise.  consider my view changed.  i keep thinking that freedom is something to fear and that the only way we can trust each other is if our freedoms are taken away.  to build such a trusting society means a lot of freedom and a lot positive vibes as well.  the problem is if one person is extremely deviant to this extremely trusting society.  i also keep thinking that companies are not composed of individuals, but they are stil individuals except they are less nice.   #  i rely on my doctor not to prescribe needlessly expensive and ineffective medication.   #  i agree that knowledge and knowledge gaining is a responsibility, and i personally take it very seriously.  however, the breadth of human knowledge is extreme.  i am an expert in my field and strive to learn even more , but i know very little about medicine.  so i rely on my doctor to treat me responsible and not trick me, e. g.  i rely on my doctor not to prescribe needlessly expensive and ineffective medication.  would it be great if i knew more about medicine ? sure.  however, learning the required basics and then building on them so that i can reliably judge whether my doctor is prescriptions make sense would take so much time that it would take away from my mastery of my chosen field of expertise.  put it differently, the marginal benefit both for myself and for society is  much  higher if i spend time gaining knowledge in my area of expertise, rather than if i tried to catch up with my doctor when it comes to medicine.   #  how much effort is required to shift the blame to the exploiter ?  # sure, stepping off a ledge without checking what the drop is like is stupid.  society probably should not encourage it.  however, i do not think that metaphor describes much of the exploitation that actually ends up happening.  your examples all seem to include some element of unconditional trust  selection without any rationalization  .  but this does not tell us how much evidence people should require in order to be convinced; it only tells us that this amount should be greater than zero.  at some point, a background check is going to come up clean when it should not.  should we still blame the person who trusted that background check for doing so ? how much effort is required to shift the blame to the exploiter ?
what did you do this weekend ? say  i watched stuff on netflix the whole time  and you are a zero.  but say  i got wrapped up in a novel and spent the whole time reading it,  and you are a hero.  but i do not see it that way.  i do not see reading, in and of itself, as any more admirable than consuming any other kind of media, like video.  there is just no reason to.  as the internet evolves, it is becoming easier and easier to replace text with audio and video, so that people can, for instance, watch interviews with journalists on youtube rather than read those journalists  articles.  this, to me, is tremendous progress ! hurray ! no more having to squint at print ! i can hear what people have to say by  hearing  what they have to  say,  which is what the human brain has spent millions of years evolving to do: language evolved as speech.  babies brains naturally acquire the ability to effortlessly decode the meaning in the way people is vocal chords vibrate the air.  it is a pretty incredible talent: let is embrace it, right ? yet, there is this continued nastalgia for newspapers.  boo hoo, people do not sit and  read  like they used to.  who cares ? seriously, who cares ? and i do not just mean about newspapers.  i mean about reading in general.  i am especially interested to see if anyone can explain why reading is  admirable.   caveat: i am not suggesting that literacy being able to read is unimportant.  i am just saying that there is nothing wrong with replacing reading where it is not needed anymore.   #  i am especially interested to see if anyone can explain why reading is  admirable.    #  as mentioned in the first part, people tend to admire consuming novels rather than the act of reading itself.   # say  i watched stuff on netflix the whole time  and you are a zero.  but say  i got wrapped up in a novel and spent the whole time reading it,  and you are a hero.  i think you are hyperbolizing how much reading is admired, and consumption of other media is not.  if you watched the criterion collection or a bunch of engaging documentaries, many people would find that laudable.  if you read a trashy, formulaic bodice ripper or language mangling sci fi novel, few would consider your reading heroic.  actively engaging in media, rather than just passively killing time, is often seen as a better use of time.  it is not just a high brow, low brow issue: i have read plenty of reviews by people who consume  terrible  media with the attitude that  i did this so you did not have to, here is a review  and they are often lauded.  the key part is active engagement, rather than quality of media.  there is just no reason to.  for visual learners, reading is a more effective way to receive and retain information than a video or audiotape.  just as you are thrilled that you can find audio of many texts, i am excited that i can find a transcript of many videos.  it is important to note that reading is truly preferable to many people, rather than an attempt to cling to something antiquated because  it is harder and old and therefore better .  this does not make it more or less admirable than other media consumption, simply an equally valid choice.  as mentioned in the first part, people tend to admire consuming novels rather than the act of reading itself.  novels contain more complex language and structure, require more imagination on the part of the consumer, and demand a longer attention span than most movies or videos though visuals are superior medium for certain ideas and stories .  listening to an audio book will still give one many of the benefits and i have not heard that mode of consumption condemned.  i see reading as less automatically superior, but rather superior for certain purposes.  many novels are intended to be read, and the spelling or structure of the language is an important part of the novel.  reading also helps one learn new or difficult words there are many words i understand in print but am not sure how to pronounce correctly, so this is a skill that should be balanced with speech .  it is also easier to read books that are complicated or rely on knowledge the reader may not possess than it is to listen to them, as it is simple to reread parts that are not fully understood, read an annotated copy, or note words or concepts that require further examination in the text without interrupting the flow.  thus books can be a better tool for learning.  reading is a highly pleasurable and rewarding activity for many, and people often admire people who enjoy the same things they do.  there is a level of enjoyment in reading a classic that has been read in the same way for centuries.  that level of personal bias is evident in many types of media, but the fact that some elevate their favored types of media above others does not discredit the media entirely.   #  your mistake is in distilling every medium down to simply conveying information, when that simply is not true.   #  there is a challenge in reading that changes the way one is mind views and uses language.  reading takes patience, focus, and concentration that listening does not.  writing is not just about conveying information.  it is about conveying information through a particular use of language.  virginia woolfe is style in expressing a concept evokes something different than hemingway.  it is not just about reading the words and having them pass through your brain, it is about looking at how those words are arranged and manipulated.  movies and videogames have a special value, but it is a value that is distinct from reading and writing.  your mistake is in distilling every medium down to simply conveying information, when that simply is not true.   #  compare the writing of someone to their candid speech.   #  without reading, you cannot readily develop new vocabulary, for one.  books and articles are much more diverse in vocabulary than speech.  compare the writing of someone to their candid speech.  the writing is more eloquent, thoughtful, the ideas are more developed, it is more consistent in its logic.  ideas can be expressed to laypeople by way of videos and interviews, but an in depth analysis and understanding of a subject requires reading up on the subject.   #  while it is not impossible to read passively, if this is done the reader will find that they are at the bottom of the page and have no idea what they read.   #  the problem with video is that the viewer needs to bring nothing to the media.  the viewer of a video is able to be completely passive.  this is not the case with reading.  reading requires the reader to form images and ideas of their own as they decode the text.  while it is not impossible to read passively, if this is done the reader will find that they are at the bottom of the page and have no idea what they read.  now, i am not bashing other forms of media.  you just wanna grab a quick bit of info from a news site, fine.  but reading is  admirable  as you put it because it is an intellectual process.  when you sat at home watching netflix, your brain was passive; you quite literally did nothing.  if you read all weekend, your brain was actively engaged, and you have essentially spent all weekend thinking.  it is just like if you spent all weekend at the gym.  doing this is admirable because people see you as somebody who cares about your body.  with reading, people see you as someone who cares about your mind.   #  those are books that really enrich your mind and thinking.   #  i agree with you for a lot of popular fiction.  i really do not see much difference between a harry potter novel and its related movies.  however reading has a few important advantages over video as a format.  it is much easier to organize complex ideas in writing than it is to order those thoughts through speech or images.  you can also convey a large volume of information faster in words than through video and with more precision .  a few good books  outliers ,  freakonomics .  those are books that really enrich your mind and thinking.  the difference here is that virtually all videos except the ones you watch in highschool are for entertainment, but not all books are to entertain.  a large number are to inform and deal with complex subject matter that it takes days to really get into.  you will likely rebut this point by saying documentaries exist to inform.  the problem is they are really just another form of entertainment.  you ca not really deal with any complex subject in 0 hours and good documentaries dumb down the topic and explain it with a fun enough story that you feel like you were informed when in fact you were just entertained.  a great deal of novels also, accidentally, fall into the trap of educating when they meant to simply entertain.  tom clancy does this a lot.  he means to be telling an exciting story but you find yourself learning technical details of modern warfare and having fun while you do it ! my point is that the longer time they have to work with you gives an author the chance to do something most director is do not have the length for.  i might suggest you give a michel crichton, tom clancy do yourself a favor and start with patriot games , or michel lewis book a chance and see if you do not have a richer experience with it than the 0 hour film adaptation provided.
at the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application.  it only applies to companies that are owned at least 0 by 0 or fewer people.  this basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  it is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 0 types of birth control.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus are not affected by the decision.  some people make the argument that it is a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.  it does not open some pandora is box.  if it did though, if the world worked that way, i would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling: opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances.  why is not that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools ? i am not christian, i do not agree with the hobby lobby stances, but i think that the supreme court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision.  cmv !  #  it only applies to companies that are owned at least 0 by 0 or fewer people.   #  according to a study done in 0 by the copenhagen business school, about 0 of companies in the united states are  closely held .   # well, that is not entirely true.  the justices that were part of the majority opinion  think  it is limited application and mentioned that in their decision.  the minority, including justice ruth bader ginsburg do not agree.  ironically, the very fact that ruth bader ginsburg mentioned in her dissent means that justices could try to apply it more broadly, citing that a supreme court justice believes it may be applicable.  according to a study done in 0 by the copenhagen business school, about 0 of companies in the united states are  closely held .  in 0, a research paper from the nyu stern school of business, they found that  closely held  businesses apply for 0 of employment and 0 of private sector output in the country.  so.  that is a large number of people.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  actually, if a small number of people managed to get over 0 of the apple company, they could become a  closely held  business.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  while i agree that people are assuming they do not allow any birth control, the fact remains that by law they  were  supposed to be covering those four as well.  the healthcare law that passed set a baseline for insurance policies, and those included those four types of birth control.  in the same way that black people are under no obligation to work for companies that discriminate against black people.  but, companies ca not  do  that because it is against the law.  although it works in principle, what about towns with a very limited amount of jobs ? or how about unemployment benefits which might cut out if you refuse to take a job you were offered, due to your personal principles ? or it could be that they need a job.  america is finally getting out of what some were saying was the biggest recession since the great depression.  for lots of people, they may not have the luxury of being picky with a job.  should they rather go on unemployment ? even if they do agree with management about their personal opinions regarding abortion and these specific pills, a person ca not  force  you to think that way.  it does not open some pandora is box.  why does not it ? just because the 0 supreme court justices in the majority opinion do not think it does ? the government of the united states is a representative democracy based on a constitution and bill of rights which guarantee rights to everyone.  you think that the minority opinion would be encroaching on individual rights.  i and probably everyone who sides with the minority opinion would view it instead as protection from a religious entity.  this may seem weird, but in reality one of the only things that has higher precedence than majority opinion is how it affects the civil rights of individuals especially the minority .  a church may believe that they have the right to torture and kill non believers, but the government has a  fundamental responsibility  to  limit  their right to do so if it infringes on other people.  and that is what it basically comes down to.  the religious owners of hobby lobby wanted to avoid following a law.  one of the laws that businesses implicitly agree to follow in order to do business in the united states of america.  a law that was passed to guarantee that any person, no matter what their status or who their employer was, would be guaranteed at least a minimum amount of healthcare.  now, those people can be given less than the minimum.  i do not understand what you mean by this.  do you mean public schools ?  #  in the legal world, this type of thing is called  precedent .   # they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  this is incorrect URL   people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  why not use this as an argument against minimum wage ? we have to set a minimum standard for what companies must offer as compensation.  it does not open some pandora is box.  just because you think it is a fallacy does not mean it is false.  in the legal world, this type of thing is called  precedent .  the next challenge that goes to the scotus will cite this case to support their own.  if you do not want to compensate employees as required by law then do not start a business.  this does not even make sense; do you mean public schools ? birth control is not a religious ideology while prayer most certainly is.  nobody is under pressure or obligated to use these forms of birth control, while school prayer results in obligation and pressure.   #  mill, on liberty no religion demands that adherents use birth control, so necessitating that companies provide resources for birth control is not religious persecution, it only reinforces the separation between church and state in a land with a majority christian population.   #  i do not know if i am breaking any rules by quoting philosophers, but j. s.  mill says a similar thing to your last point:  suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were mussulmans, that majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country.  this would be nothing new in mahomedan countries.  would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion ? and if not, why not ? the practice is really revolting to such a public.  they also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the deity.  neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution.  it might be religious in its origin, but it would not be persecution for religion, since nobody is religion makes it a duty to eat pork.  the only tenable ground of condemnation would be, that with the personal tastes and self regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere.   j. s.  mill, on liberty no religion demands that adherents use birth control, so necessitating that companies provide resources for birth control is not religious persecution, it only reinforces the separation between church and state in a land with a majority christian population.  religions do demand prayer, however, so mandating prayer in public places would be persecution.  rather, these thoughts are only perpetuated by personal taste and self regarding concerns, which have no place in governmental work.   #  your statement about precedent and slippery slopes is misleading.   #  your statement about precedent and slippery slopes is misleading.  first of all, scotus is never constrained by previous decisions.  that is how we have completely antithetical decisions like dredd scott and brown v.  board.  sure the hobby lobby case could be cited by scotus in future cases, but it has no obligation to conform future decisions to this one as you imply .  second, the slippery slope argument applies to the unintended or unforeseen consequences and effects of a case holding, not the risk that scotus will cite itself in future case law.  here, the slippery slope is that corporations will now use religion as a way to circumvent providing certain health care benefits.  the slippery slope is not that scotus will uphold any and all corporate decisions to revoke health care benefits for religious reasons something that would not even be true if the holding were binding precedent on scotus which it is not .  the holding was narrowly tailored to only apply to closely held corporations, so it does not even apply to most large corporations.  op is still wrong that it does not open a pandora is box it does in the sense that now lower courts have to implement their own interpretations of the ruling, which could lead to all sorts of craziness , but he is not wrong about that because it creates a precedent for future scotus cases.   #  iirc the majority opinion basically said all future issues must be judged on their own merits and that the ruling in this situation should not be used as justification in and of itself.   #  let me pick your brain for a second then.  iirc the majority opinion basically said all future issues must be judged on their own merits and that the ruling in this situation should not be used as justification in and of itself.  that said, someone from a lower court could then argue that this gave them the jurisdiction to make a decision.  if they then go through their own mental musings they could then rule in a similar fashion saying they did in fact weigh the merits in their own mind.  this is what i understand the dangerous precedent that ginsburg was alluding to.  or is this not a possible scenario ? is there something in the law that prohibits this ?
at the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application.  it only applies to companies that are owned at least 0 by 0 or fewer people.  this basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  it is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 0 types of birth control.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus are not affected by the decision.  some people make the argument that it is a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.  it does not open some pandora is box.  if it did though, if the world worked that way, i would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling: opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances.  why is not that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools ? i am not christian, i do not agree with the hobby lobby stances, but i think that the supreme court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision.  cmv !  #  this basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values.   #  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.   # well, that is not entirely true.  the justices that were part of the majority opinion  think  it is limited application and mentioned that in their decision.  the minority, including justice ruth bader ginsburg do not agree.  ironically, the very fact that ruth bader ginsburg mentioned in her dissent means that justices could try to apply it more broadly, citing that a supreme court justice believes it may be applicable.  according to a study done in 0 by the copenhagen business school, about 0 of companies in the united states are  closely held .  in 0, a research paper from the nyu stern school of business, they found that  closely held  businesses apply for 0 of employment and 0 of private sector output in the country.  so.  that is a large number of people.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  actually, if a small number of people managed to get over 0 of the apple company, they could become a  closely held  business.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  while i agree that people are assuming they do not allow any birth control, the fact remains that by law they  were  supposed to be covering those four as well.  the healthcare law that passed set a baseline for insurance policies, and those included those four types of birth control.  in the same way that black people are under no obligation to work for companies that discriminate against black people.  but, companies ca not  do  that because it is against the law.  although it works in principle, what about towns with a very limited amount of jobs ? or how about unemployment benefits which might cut out if you refuse to take a job you were offered, due to your personal principles ? or it could be that they need a job.  america is finally getting out of what some were saying was the biggest recession since the great depression.  for lots of people, they may not have the luxury of being picky with a job.  should they rather go on unemployment ? even if they do agree with management about their personal opinions regarding abortion and these specific pills, a person ca not  force  you to think that way.  it does not open some pandora is box.  why does not it ? just because the 0 supreme court justices in the majority opinion do not think it does ? the government of the united states is a representative democracy based on a constitution and bill of rights which guarantee rights to everyone.  you think that the minority opinion would be encroaching on individual rights.  i and probably everyone who sides with the minority opinion would view it instead as protection from a religious entity.  this may seem weird, but in reality one of the only things that has higher precedence than majority opinion is how it affects the civil rights of individuals especially the minority .  a church may believe that they have the right to torture and kill non believers, but the government has a  fundamental responsibility  to  limit  their right to do so if it infringes on other people.  and that is what it basically comes down to.  the religious owners of hobby lobby wanted to avoid following a law.  one of the laws that businesses implicitly agree to follow in order to do business in the united states of america.  a law that was passed to guarantee that any person, no matter what their status or who their employer was, would be guaranteed at least a minimum amount of healthcare.  now, those people can be given less than the minimum.  i do not understand what you mean by this.  do you mean public schools ?  #  if you do not want to compensate employees as required by law then do not start a business.   # they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  this is incorrect URL   people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  why not use this as an argument against minimum wage ? we have to set a minimum standard for what companies must offer as compensation.  it does not open some pandora is box.  just because you think it is a fallacy does not mean it is false.  in the legal world, this type of thing is called  precedent .  the next challenge that goes to the scotus will cite this case to support their own.  if you do not want to compensate employees as required by law then do not start a business.  this does not even make sense; do you mean public schools ? birth control is not a religious ideology while prayer most certainly is.  nobody is under pressure or obligated to use these forms of birth control, while school prayer results in obligation and pressure.   #  this would be nothing new in mahomedan countries.   #  i do not know if i am breaking any rules by quoting philosophers, but j. s.  mill says a similar thing to your last point:  suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were mussulmans, that majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country.  this would be nothing new in mahomedan countries.  would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion ? and if not, why not ? the practice is really revolting to such a public.  they also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the deity.  neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution.  it might be religious in its origin, but it would not be persecution for religion, since nobody is religion makes it a duty to eat pork.  the only tenable ground of condemnation would be, that with the personal tastes and self regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere.   j. s.  mill, on liberty no religion demands that adherents use birth control, so necessitating that companies provide resources for birth control is not religious persecution, it only reinforces the separation between church and state in a land with a majority christian population.  religions do demand prayer, however, so mandating prayer in public places would be persecution.  rather, these thoughts are only perpetuated by personal taste and self regarding concerns, which have no place in governmental work.   #  sure the hobby lobby case could be cited by scotus in future cases, but it has no obligation to conform future decisions to this one as you imply .   #  your statement about precedent and slippery slopes is misleading.  first of all, scotus is never constrained by previous decisions.  that is how we have completely antithetical decisions like dredd scott and brown v.  board.  sure the hobby lobby case could be cited by scotus in future cases, but it has no obligation to conform future decisions to this one as you imply .  second, the slippery slope argument applies to the unintended or unforeseen consequences and effects of a case holding, not the risk that scotus will cite itself in future case law.  here, the slippery slope is that corporations will now use religion as a way to circumvent providing certain health care benefits.  the slippery slope is not that scotus will uphold any and all corporate decisions to revoke health care benefits for religious reasons something that would not even be true if the holding were binding precedent on scotus which it is not .  the holding was narrowly tailored to only apply to closely held corporations, so it does not even apply to most large corporations.  op is still wrong that it does not open a pandora is box it does in the sense that now lower courts have to implement their own interpretations of the ruling, which could lead to all sorts of craziness , but he is not wrong about that because it creates a precedent for future scotus cases.   #  this is what i understand the dangerous precedent that ginsburg was alluding to.   #  let me pick your brain for a second then.  iirc the majority opinion basically said all future issues must be judged on their own merits and that the ruling in this situation should not be used as justification in and of itself.  that said, someone from a lower court could then argue that this gave them the jurisdiction to make a decision.  if they then go through their own mental musings they could then rule in a similar fashion saying they did in fact weigh the merits in their own mind.  this is what i understand the dangerous precedent that ginsburg was alluding to.  or is this not a possible scenario ? is there something in the law that prohibits this ?
at the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application.  it only applies to companies that are owned at least 0 by 0 or fewer people.  this basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  it is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 0 types of birth control.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus are not affected by the decision.  some people make the argument that it is a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.  it does not open some pandora is box.  if it did though, if the world worked that way, i would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling: opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances.  why is not that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools ? i am not christian, i do not agree with the hobby lobby stances, but i think that the supreme court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision.  cmv !  #  it is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 0 types of birth control.   #  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.   # well, that is not entirely true.  the justices that were part of the majority opinion  think  it is limited application and mentioned that in their decision.  the minority, including justice ruth bader ginsburg do not agree.  ironically, the very fact that ruth bader ginsburg mentioned in her dissent means that justices could try to apply it more broadly, citing that a supreme court justice believes it may be applicable.  according to a study done in 0 by the copenhagen business school, about 0 of companies in the united states are  closely held .  in 0, a research paper from the nyu stern school of business, they found that  closely held  businesses apply for 0 of employment and 0 of private sector output in the country.  so.  that is a large number of people.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  actually, if a small number of people managed to get over 0 of the apple company, they could become a  closely held  business.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  while i agree that people are assuming they do not allow any birth control, the fact remains that by law they  were  supposed to be covering those four as well.  the healthcare law that passed set a baseline for insurance policies, and those included those four types of birth control.  in the same way that black people are under no obligation to work for companies that discriminate against black people.  but, companies ca not  do  that because it is against the law.  although it works in principle, what about towns with a very limited amount of jobs ? or how about unemployment benefits which might cut out if you refuse to take a job you were offered, due to your personal principles ? or it could be that they need a job.  america is finally getting out of what some were saying was the biggest recession since the great depression.  for lots of people, they may not have the luxury of being picky with a job.  should they rather go on unemployment ? even if they do agree with management about their personal opinions regarding abortion and these specific pills, a person ca not  force  you to think that way.  it does not open some pandora is box.  why does not it ? just because the 0 supreme court justices in the majority opinion do not think it does ? the government of the united states is a representative democracy based on a constitution and bill of rights which guarantee rights to everyone.  you think that the minority opinion would be encroaching on individual rights.  i and probably everyone who sides with the minority opinion would view it instead as protection from a religious entity.  this may seem weird, but in reality one of the only things that has higher precedence than majority opinion is how it affects the civil rights of individuals especially the minority .  a church may believe that they have the right to torture and kill non believers, but the government has a  fundamental responsibility  to  limit  their right to do so if it infringes on other people.  and that is what it basically comes down to.  the religious owners of hobby lobby wanted to avoid following a law.  one of the laws that businesses implicitly agree to follow in order to do business in the united states of america.  a law that was passed to guarantee that any person, no matter what their status or who their employer was, would be guaranteed at least a minimum amount of healthcare.  now, those people can be given less than the minimum.  i do not understand what you mean by this.  do you mean public schools ?  #  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.   # they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  this is incorrect URL   people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  why not use this as an argument against minimum wage ? we have to set a minimum standard for what companies must offer as compensation.  it does not open some pandora is box.  just because you think it is a fallacy does not mean it is false.  in the legal world, this type of thing is called  precedent .  the next challenge that goes to the scotus will cite this case to support their own.  if you do not want to compensate employees as required by law then do not start a business.  this does not even make sense; do you mean public schools ? birth control is not a religious ideology while prayer most certainly is.  nobody is under pressure or obligated to use these forms of birth control, while school prayer results in obligation and pressure.   #  neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution.   #  i do not know if i am breaking any rules by quoting philosophers, but j. s.  mill says a similar thing to your last point:  suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were mussulmans, that majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country.  this would be nothing new in mahomedan countries.  would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion ? and if not, why not ? the practice is really revolting to such a public.  they also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the deity.  neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution.  it might be religious in its origin, but it would not be persecution for religion, since nobody is religion makes it a duty to eat pork.  the only tenable ground of condemnation would be, that with the personal tastes and self regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere.   j. s.  mill, on liberty no religion demands that adherents use birth control, so necessitating that companies provide resources for birth control is not religious persecution, it only reinforces the separation between church and state in a land with a majority christian population.  religions do demand prayer, however, so mandating prayer in public places would be persecution.  rather, these thoughts are only perpetuated by personal taste and self regarding concerns, which have no place in governmental work.   #  here, the slippery slope is that corporations will now use religion as a way to circumvent providing certain health care benefits.   #  your statement about precedent and slippery slopes is misleading.  first of all, scotus is never constrained by previous decisions.  that is how we have completely antithetical decisions like dredd scott and brown v.  board.  sure the hobby lobby case could be cited by scotus in future cases, but it has no obligation to conform future decisions to this one as you imply .  second, the slippery slope argument applies to the unintended or unforeseen consequences and effects of a case holding, not the risk that scotus will cite itself in future case law.  here, the slippery slope is that corporations will now use religion as a way to circumvent providing certain health care benefits.  the slippery slope is not that scotus will uphold any and all corporate decisions to revoke health care benefits for religious reasons something that would not even be true if the holding were binding precedent on scotus which it is not .  the holding was narrowly tailored to only apply to closely held corporations, so it does not even apply to most large corporations.  op is still wrong that it does not open a pandora is box it does in the sense that now lower courts have to implement their own interpretations of the ruling, which could lead to all sorts of craziness , but he is not wrong about that because it creates a precedent for future scotus cases.   #  is there something in the law that prohibits this ?  #  let me pick your brain for a second then.  iirc the majority opinion basically said all future issues must be judged on their own merits and that the ruling in this situation should not be used as justification in and of itself.  that said, someone from a lower court could then argue that this gave them the jurisdiction to make a decision.  if they then go through their own mental musings they could then rule in a similar fashion saying they did in fact weigh the merits in their own mind.  this is what i understand the dangerous precedent that ginsburg was alluding to.  or is this not a possible scenario ? is there something in the law that prohibits this ?
at the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application.  it only applies to companies that are owned at least 0 by 0 or fewer people.  this basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  it is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 0 types of birth control.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus are not affected by the decision.  some people make the argument that it is a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.  it does not open some pandora is box.  if it did though, if the world worked that way, i would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling: opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances.  why is not that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools ? i am not christian, i do not agree with the hobby lobby stances, but i think that the supreme court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision.  cmv !  #  people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.   #  in the same way that black people are under no obligation to work for companies that discriminate against black people.   # well, that is not entirely true.  the justices that were part of the majority opinion  think  it is limited application and mentioned that in their decision.  the minority, including justice ruth bader ginsburg do not agree.  ironically, the very fact that ruth bader ginsburg mentioned in her dissent means that justices could try to apply it more broadly, citing that a supreme court justice believes it may be applicable.  according to a study done in 0 by the copenhagen business school, about 0 of companies in the united states are  closely held .  in 0, a research paper from the nyu stern school of business, they found that  closely held  businesses apply for 0 of employment and 0 of private sector output in the country.  so.  that is a large number of people.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  actually, if a small number of people managed to get over 0 of the apple company, they could become a  closely held  business.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  while i agree that people are assuming they do not allow any birth control, the fact remains that by law they  were  supposed to be covering those four as well.  the healthcare law that passed set a baseline for insurance policies, and those included those four types of birth control.  in the same way that black people are under no obligation to work for companies that discriminate against black people.  but, companies ca not  do  that because it is against the law.  although it works in principle, what about towns with a very limited amount of jobs ? or how about unemployment benefits which might cut out if you refuse to take a job you were offered, due to your personal principles ? or it could be that they need a job.  america is finally getting out of what some were saying was the biggest recession since the great depression.  for lots of people, they may not have the luxury of being picky with a job.  should they rather go on unemployment ? even if they do agree with management about their personal opinions regarding abortion and these specific pills, a person ca not  force  you to think that way.  it does not open some pandora is box.  why does not it ? just because the 0 supreme court justices in the majority opinion do not think it does ? the government of the united states is a representative democracy based on a constitution and bill of rights which guarantee rights to everyone.  you think that the minority opinion would be encroaching on individual rights.  i and probably everyone who sides with the minority opinion would view it instead as protection from a religious entity.  this may seem weird, but in reality one of the only things that has higher precedence than majority opinion is how it affects the civil rights of individuals especially the minority .  a church may believe that they have the right to torture and kill non believers, but the government has a  fundamental responsibility  to  limit  their right to do so if it infringes on other people.  and that is what it basically comes down to.  the religious owners of hobby lobby wanted to avoid following a law.  one of the laws that businesses implicitly agree to follow in order to do business in the united states of america.  a law that was passed to guarantee that any person, no matter what their status or who their employer was, would be guaranteed at least a minimum amount of healthcare.  now, those people can be given less than the minimum.  i do not understand what you mean by this.  do you mean public schools ?  #  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.   # they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  this is incorrect URL   people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  why not use this as an argument against minimum wage ? we have to set a minimum standard for what companies must offer as compensation.  it does not open some pandora is box.  just because you think it is a fallacy does not mean it is false.  in the legal world, this type of thing is called  precedent .  the next challenge that goes to the scotus will cite this case to support their own.  if you do not want to compensate employees as required by law then do not start a business.  this does not even make sense; do you mean public schools ? birth control is not a religious ideology while prayer most certainly is.  nobody is under pressure or obligated to use these forms of birth control, while school prayer results in obligation and pressure.   #  neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution.   #  i do not know if i am breaking any rules by quoting philosophers, but j. s.  mill says a similar thing to your last point:  suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were mussulmans, that majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country.  this would be nothing new in mahomedan countries.  would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion ? and if not, why not ? the practice is really revolting to such a public.  they also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the deity.  neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution.  it might be religious in its origin, but it would not be persecution for religion, since nobody is religion makes it a duty to eat pork.  the only tenable ground of condemnation would be, that with the personal tastes and self regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere.   j. s.  mill, on liberty no religion demands that adherents use birth control, so necessitating that companies provide resources for birth control is not religious persecution, it only reinforces the separation between church and state in a land with a majority christian population.  religions do demand prayer, however, so mandating prayer in public places would be persecution.  rather, these thoughts are only perpetuated by personal taste and self regarding concerns, which have no place in governmental work.   #  first of all, scotus is never constrained by previous decisions.   #  your statement about precedent and slippery slopes is misleading.  first of all, scotus is never constrained by previous decisions.  that is how we have completely antithetical decisions like dredd scott and brown v.  board.  sure the hobby lobby case could be cited by scotus in future cases, but it has no obligation to conform future decisions to this one as you imply .  second, the slippery slope argument applies to the unintended or unforeseen consequences and effects of a case holding, not the risk that scotus will cite itself in future case law.  here, the slippery slope is that corporations will now use religion as a way to circumvent providing certain health care benefits.  the slippery slope is not that scotus will uphold any and all corporate decisions to revoke health care benefits for religious reasons something that would not even be true if the holding were binding precedent on scotus which it is not .  the holding was narrowly tailored to only apply to closely held corporations, so it does not even apply to most large corporations.  op is still wrong that it does not open a pandora is box it does in the sense that now lower courts have to implement their own interpretations of the ruling, which could lead to all sorts of craziness , but he is not wrong about that because it creates a precedent for future scotus cases.   #  that said, someone from a lower court could then argue that this gave them the jurisdiction to make a decision.   #  let me pick your brain for a second then.  iirc the majority opinion basically said all future issues must be judged on their own merits and that the ruling in this situation should not be used as justification in and of itself.  that said, someone from a lower court could then argue that this gave them the jurisdiction to make a decision.  if they then go through their own mental musings they could then rule in a similar fashion saying they did in fact weigh the merits in their own mind.  this is what i understand the dangerous precedent that ginsburg was alluding to.  or is this not a possible scenario ? is there something in the law that prohibits this ?
at the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application.  it only applies to companies that are owned at least 0 by 0 or fewer people.  this basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  it is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 0 types of birth control.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus are not affected by the decision.  some people make the argument that it is a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.  it does not open some pandora is box.  if it did though, if the world worked that way, i would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling: opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances.  why is not that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools ? i am not christian, i do not agree with the hobby lobby stances, but i think that the supreme court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision.  cmv !  #  likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus are not affected by the decision.   #  or it could be that they need a job.   # well, that is not entirely true.  the justices that were part of the majority opinion  think  it is limited application and mentioned that in their decision.  the minority, including justice ruth bader ginsburg do not agree.  ironically, the very fact that ruth bader ginsburg mentioned in her dissent means that justices could try to apply it more broadly, citing that a supreme court justice believes it may be applicable.  according to a study done in 0 by the copenhagen business school, about 0 of companies in the united states are  closely held .  in 0, a research paper from the nyu stern school of business, they found that  closely held  businesses apply for 0 of employment and 0 of private sector output in the country.  so.  that is a large number of people.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  actually, if a small number of people managed to get over 0 of the apple company, they could become a  closely held  business.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  while i agree that people are assuming they do not allow any birth control, the fact remains that by law they  were  supposed to be covering those four as well.  the healthcare law that passed set a baseline for insurance policies, and those included those four types of birth control.  in the same way that black people are under no obligation to work for companies that discriminate against black people.  but, companies ca not  do  that because it is against the law.  although it works in principle, what about towns with a very limited amount of jobs ? or how about unemployment benefits which might cut out if you refuse to take a job you were offered, due to your personal principles ? or it could be that they need a job.  america is finally getting out of what some were saying was the biggest recession since the great depression.  for lots of people, they may not have the luxury of being picky with a job.  should they rather go on unemployment ? even if they do agree with management about their personal opinions regarding abortion and these specific pills, a person ca not  force  you to think that way.  it does not open some pandora is box.  why does not it ? just because the 0 supreme court justices in the majority opinion do not think it does ? the government of the united states is a representative democracy based on a constitution and bill of rights which guarantee rights to everyone.  you think that the minority opinion would be encroaching on individual rights.  i and probably everyone who sides with the minority opinion would view it instead as protection from a religious entity.  this may seem weird, but in reality one of the only things that has higher precedence than majority opinion is how it affects the civil rights of individuals especially the minority .  a church may believe that they have the right to torture and kill non believers, but the government has a  fundamental responsibility  to  limit  their right to do so if it infringes on other people.  and that is what it basically comes down to.  the religious owners of hobby lobby wanted to avoid following a law.  one of the laws that businesses implicitly agree to follow in order to do business in the united states of america.  a law that was passed to guarantee that any person, no matter what their status or who their employer was, would be guaranteed at least a minimum amount of healthcare.  now, those people can be given less than the minimum.  i do not understand what you mean by this.  do you mean public schools ?  #  this does not even make sense; do you mean public schools ?  # they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  this is incorrect URL   people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  why not use this as an argument against minimum wage ? we have to set a minimum standard for what companies must offer as compensation.  it does not open some pandora is box.  just because you think it is a fallacy does not mean it is false.  in the legal world, this type of thing is called  precedent .  the next challenge that goes to the scotus will cite this case to support their own.  if you do not want to compensate employees as required by law then do not start a business.  this does not even make sense; do you mean public schools ? birth control is not a religious ideology while prayer most certainly is.  nobody is under pressure or obligated to use these forms of birth control, while school prayer results in obligation and pressure.   #  this would be nothing new in mahomedan countries.   #  i do not know if i am breaking any rules by quoting philosophers, but j. s.  mill says a similar thing to your last point:  suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were mussulmans, that majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country.  this would be nothing new in mahomedan countries.  would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion ? and if not, why not ? the practice is really revolting to such a public.  they also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the deity.  neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution.  it might be religious in its origin, but it would not be persecution for religion, since nobody is religion makes it a duty to eat pork.  the only tenable ground of condemnation would be, that with the personal tastes and self regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere.   j. s.  mill, on liberty no religion demands that adherents use birth control, so necessitating that companies provide resources for birth control is not religious persecution, it only reinforces the separation between church and state in a land with a majority christian population.  religions do demand prayer, however, so mandating prayer in public places would be persecution.  rather, these thoughts are only perpetuated by personal taste and self regarding concerns, which have no place in governmental work.   #  first of all, scotus is never constrained by previous decisions.   #  your statement about precedent and slippery slopes is misleading.  first of all, scotus is never constrained by previous decisions.  that is how we have completely antithetical decisions like dredd scott and brown v.  board.  sure the hobby lobby case could be cited by scotus in future cases, but it has no obligation to conform future decisions to this one as you imply .  second, the slippery slope argument applies to the unintended or unforeseen consequences and effects of a case holding, not the risk that scotus will cite itself in future case law.  here, the slippery slope is that corporations will now use religion as a way to circumvent providing certain health care benefits.  the slippery slope is not that scotus will uphold any and all corporate decisions to revoke health care benefits for religious reasons something that would not even be true if the holding were binding precedent on scotus which it is not .  the holding was narrowly tailored to only apply to closely held corporations, so it does not even apply to most large corporations.  op is still wrong that it does not open a pandora is box it does in the sense that now lower courts have to implement their own interpretations of the ruling, which could lead to all sorts of craziness , but he is not wrong about that because it creates a precedent for future scotus cases.   #  this is what i understand the dangerous precedent that ginsburg was alluding to.   #  let me pick your brain for a second then.  iirc the majority opinion basically said all future issues must be judged on their own merits and that the ruling in this situation should not be used as justification in and of itself.  that said, someone from a lower court could then argue that this gave them the jurisdiction to make a decision.  if they then go through their own mental musings they could then rule in a similar fashion saying they did in fact weigh the merits in their own mind.  this is what i understand the dangerous precedent that ginsburg was alluding to.  or is this not a possible scenario ? is there something in the law that prohibits this ?
at the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application.  it only applies to companies that are owned at least 0 by 0 or fewer people.  this basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  it is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 0 types of birth control.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus are not affected by the decision.  some people make the argument that it is a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.  it does not open some pandora is box.  if it did though, if the world worked that way, i would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling: opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances.  why is not that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools ? i am not christian, i do not agree with the hobby lobby stances, but i think that the supreme court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision.  cmv !  #  some people make the argument that it is a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.   #  it does not open some pandora is box.   # well, that is not entirely true.  the justices that were part of the majority opinion  think  it is limited application and mentioned that in their decision.  the minority, including justice ruth bader ginsburg do not agree.  ironically, the very fact that ruth bader ginsburg mentioned in her dissent means that justices could try to apply it more broadly, citing that a supreme court justice believes it may be applicable.  according to a study done in 0 by the copenhagen business school, about 0 of companies in the united states are  closely held .  in 0, a research paper from the nyu stern school of business, they found that  closely held  businesses apply for 0 of employment and 0 of private sector output in the country.  so.  that is a large number of people.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  actually, if a small number of people managed to get over 0 of the apple company, they could become a  closely held  business.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  while i agree that people are assuming they do not allow any birth control, the fact remains that by law they  were  supposed to be covering those four as well.  the healthcare law that passed set a baseline for insurance policies, and those included those four types of birth control.  in the same way that black people are under no obligation to work for companies that discriminate against black people.  but, companies ca not  do  that because it is against the law.  although it works in principle, what about towns with a very limited amount of jobs ? or how about unemployment benefits which might cut out if you refuse to take a job you were offered, due to your personal principles ? or it could be that they need a job.  america is finally getting out of what some were saying was the biggest recession since the great depression.  for lots of people, they may not have the luxury of being picky with a job.  should they rather go on unemployment ? even if they do agree with management about their personal opinions regarding abortion and these specific pills, a person ca not  force  you to think that way.  it does not open some pandora is box.  why does not it ? just because the 0 supreme court justices in the majority opinion do not think it does ? the government of the united states is a representative democracy based on a constitution and bill of rights which guarantee rights to everyone.  you think that the minority opinion would be encroaching on individual rights.  i and probably everyone who sides with the minority opinion would view it instead as protection from a religious entity.  this may seem weird, but in reality one of the only things that has higher precedence than majority opinion is how it affects the civil rights of individuals especially the minority .  a church may believe that they have the right to torture and kill non believers, but the government has a  fundamental responsibility  to  limit  their right to do so if it infringes on other people.  and that is what it basically comes down to.  the religious owners of hobby lobby wanted to avoid following a law.  one of the laws that businesses implicitly agree to follow in order to do business in the united states of america.  a law that was passed to guarantee that any person, no matter what their status or who their employer was, would be guaranteed at least a minimum amount of healthcare.  now, those people can be given less than the minimum.  i do not understand what you mean by this.  do you mean public schools ?  #  if you do not want to compensate employees as required by law then do not start a business.   # they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  this is incorrect URL   people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  why not use this as an argument against minimum wage ? we have to set a minimum standard for what companies must offer as compensation.  it does not open some pandora is box.  just because you think it is a fallacy does not mean it is false.  in the legal world, this type of thing is called  precedent .  the next challenge that goes to the scotus will cite this case to support their own.  if you do not want to compensate employees as required by law then do not start a business.  this does not even make sense; do you mean public schools ? birth control is not a religious ideology while prayer most certainly is.  nobody is under pressure or obligated to use these forms of birth control, while school prayer results in obligation and pressure.   #  religions do demand prayer, however, so mandating prayer in public places would be persecution.   #  i do not know if i am breaking any rules by quoting philosophers, but j. s.  mill says a similar thing to your last point:  suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were mussulmans, that majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country.  this would be nothing new in mahomedan countries.  would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion ? and if not, why not ? the practice is really revolting to such a public.  they also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the deity.  neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution.  it might be religious in its origin, but it would not be persecution for religion, since nobody is religion makes it a duty to eat pork.  the only tenable ground of condemnation would be, that with the personal tastes and self regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere.   j. s.  mill, on liberty no religion demands that adherents use birth control, so necessitating that companies provide resources for birth control is not religious persecution, it only reinforces the separation between church and state in a land with a majority christian population.  religions do demand prayer, however, so mandating prayer in public places would be persecution.  rather, these thoughts are only perpetuated by personal taste and self regarding concerns, which have no place in governmental work.   #  here, the slippery slope is that corporations will now use religion as a way to circumvent providing certain health care benefits.   #  your statement about precedent and slippery slopes is misleading.  first of all, scotus is never constrained by previous decisions.  that is how we have completely antithetical decisions like dredd scott and brown v.  board.  sure the hobby lobby case could be cited by scotus in future cases, but it has no obligation to conform future decisions to this one as you imply .  second, the slippery slope argument applies to the unintended or unforeseen consequences and effects of a case holding, not the risk that scotus will cite itself in future case law.  here, the slippery slope is that corporations will now use religion as a way to circumvent providing certain health care benefits.  the slippery slope is not that scotus will uphold any and all corporate decisions to revoke health care benefits for religious reasons something that would not even be true if the holding were binding precedent on scotus which it is not .  the holding was narrowly tailored to only apply to closely held corporations, so it does not even apply to most large corporations.  op is still wrong that it does not open a pandora is box it does in the sense that now lower courts have to implement their own interpretations of the ruling, which could lead to all sorts of craziness , but he is not wrong about that because it creates a precedent for future scotus cases.   #  this is what i understand the dangerous precedent that ginsburg was alluding to.   #  let me pick your brain for a second then.  iirc the majority opinion basically said all future issues must be judged on their own merits and that the ruling in this situation should not be used as justification in and of itself.  that said, someone from a lower court could then argue that this gave them the jurisdiction to make a decision.  if they then go through their own mental musings they could then rule in a similar fashion saying they did in fact weigh the merits in their own mind.  this is what i understand the dangerous precedent that ginsburg was alluding to.  or is this not a possible scenario ? is there something in the law that prohibits this ?
at the end of the day, the decision made by the supreme courts has very limited application.  it only applies to companies that are owned at least 0 by 0 or fewer people.  this basically means that if you and your family own a company that gets large enough that you can sell some of it to raise capital, you can still run it according to your values.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  it is also almost completely being neglected that it only applies to 0 types of birth control.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  likely, the people who work for these companies work there because they share the values of the company, and thus are not affected by the decision.  some people make the argument that it is a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.  it does not open some pandora is box.  if it did though, if the world worked that way, i would rather have the box opened that could lead to more individual freedom from governmental power, than the box that would be opened with an opposite ruling: opening the door for the government to impose laws on anyone regardless of their ideological stances.  why is not that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools ? i am not christian, i do not agree with the hobby lobby stances, but i think that the supreme court made the morally and constitutionally correct decision.  cmv !  #  why is not that comparable to mandating prayer in private schools ?  #  i do not understand what you mean by this.   # well, that is not entirely true.  the justices that were part of the majority opinion  think  it is limited application and mentioned that in their decision.  the minority, including justice ruth bader ginsburg do not agree.  ironically, the very fact that ruth bader ginsburg mentioned in her dissent means that justices could try to apply it more broadly, citing that a supreme court justice believes it may be applicable.  according to a study done in 0 by the copenhagen business school, about 0 of companies in the united states are  closely held .  in 0, a research paper from the nyu stern school of business, they found that  closely held  businesses apply for 0 of employment and 0 of private sector output in the country.  so.  that is a large number of people.  this does not mean a company the size of apple could do the same thing.  actually, if a small number of people managed to get over 0 of the apple company, they could become a  closely held  business.  they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  while i agree that people are assuming they do not allow any birth control, the fact remains that by law they  were  supposed to be covering those four as well.  the healthcare law that passed set a baseline for insurance policies, and those included those four types of birth control.  in the same way that black people are under no obligation to work for companies that discriminate against black people.  but, companies ca not  do  that because it is against the law.  although it works in principle, what about towns with a very limited amount of jobs ? or how about unemployment benefits which might cut out if you refuse to take a job you were offered, due to your personal principles ? or it could be that they need a job.  america is finally getting out of what some were saying was the biggest recession since the great depression.  for lots of people, they may not have the luxury of being picky with a job.  should they rather go on unemployment ? even if they do agree with management about their personal opinions regarding abortion and these specific pills, a person ca not  force  you to think that way.  it does not open some pandora is box.  why does not it ? just because the 0 supreme court justices in the majority opinion do not think it does ? the government of the united states is a representative democracy based on a constitution and bill of rights which guarantee rights to everyone.  you think that the minority opinion would be encroaching on individual rights.  i and probably everyone who sides with the minority opinion would view it instead as protection from a religious entity.  this may seem weird, but in reality one of the only things that has higher precedence than majority opinion is how it affects the civil rights of individuals especially the minority .  a church may believe that they have the right to torture and kill non believers, but the government has a  fundamental responsibility  to  limit  their right to do so if it infringes on other people.  and that is what it basically comes down to.  the religious owners of hobby lobby wanted to avoid following a law.  one of the laws that businesses implicitly agree to follow in order to do business in the united states of america.  a law that was passed to guarantee that any person, no matter what their status or who their employer was, would be guaranteed at least a minimum amount of healthcare.  now, those people can be given less than the minimum.  i do not understand what you mean by this.  do you mean public schools ?  #  if you do not want to compensate employees as required by law then do not start a business.   # they did not limit coverage for all preventative birth control measures, only a few retroactive ones that they consider to be similar to abortion.  this is incorrect URL   people are also under no obligation to work for these companies.  why not use this as an argument against minimum wage ? we have to set a minimum standard for what companies must offer as compensation.  it does not open some pandora is box.  just because you think it is a fallacy does not mean it is false.  in the legal world, this type of thing is called  precedent .  the next challenge that goes to the scotus will cite this case to support their own.  if you do not want to compensate employees as required by law then do not start a business.  this does not even make sense; do you mean public schools ? birth control is not a religious ideology while prayer most certainly is.  nobody is under pressure or obligated to use these forms of birth control, while school prayer results in obligation and pressure.   #  they also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the deity.   #  i do not know if i am breaking any rules by quoting philosophers, but j. s.  mill says a similar thing to your last point:  suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were mussulmans, that majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country.  this would be nothing new in mahomedan countries.  would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion ? and if not, why not ? the practice is really revolting to such a public.  they also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the deity.  neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution.  it might be religious in its origin, but it would not be persecution for religion, since nobody is religion makes it a duty to eat pork.  the only tenable ground of condemnation would be, that with the personal tastes and self regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere.   j. s.  mill, on liberty no religion demands that adherents use birth control, so necessitating that companies provide resources for birth control is not religious persecution, it only reinforces the separation between church and state in a land with a majority christian population.  religions do demand prayer, however, so mandating prayer in public places would be persecution.  rather, these thoughts are only perpetuated by personal taste and self regarding concerns, which have no place in governmental work.   #  first of all, scotus is never constrained by previous decisions.   #  your statement about precedent and slippery slopes is misleading.  first of all, scotus is never constrained by previous decisions.  that is how we have completely antithetical decisions like dredd scott and brown v.  board.  sure the hobby lobby case could be cited by scotus in future cases, but it has no obligation to conform future decisions to this one as you imply .  second, the slippery slope argument applies to the unintended or unforeseen consequences and effects of a case holding, not the risk that scotus will cite itself in future case law.  here, the slippery slope is that corporations will now use religion as a way to circumvent providing certain health care benefits.  the slippery slope is not that scotus will uphold any and all corporate decisions to revoke health care benefits for religious reasons something that would not even be true if the holding were binding precedent on scotus which it is not .  the holding was narrowly tailored to only apply to closely held corporations, so it does not even apply to most large corporations.  op is still wrong that it does not open a pandora is box it does in the sense that now lower courts have to implement their own interpretations of the ruling, which could lead to all sorts of craziness , but he is not wrong about that because it creates a precedent for future scotus cases.   #  let me pick your brain for a second then.   #  let me pick your brain for a second then.  iirc the majority opinion basically said all future issues must be judged on their own merits and that the ruling in this situation should not be used as justification in and of itself.  that said, someone from a lower court could then argue that this gave them the jurisdiction to make a decision.  if they then go through their own mental musings they could then rule in a similar fashion saying they did in fact weigh the merits in their own mind.  this is what i understand the dangerous precedent that ginsburg was alluding to.  or is this not a possible scenario ? is there something in the law that prohibits this ?
i think if sports are broken up into male/female categories for fairness then sports should also be broken up into racial categories for fairness.  i think the only reason they are currently separated is sexism, or at least traditionalism born from a sexist era.  i agree that men are often stronger, but this is only a generalisation.  some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  just a note, i do not actually want sports broken up into racial categories i think that would be racist.  i think the only reasonable solution is to not categorise based on genetics.  i have no issue with defining categories based on physical ability, like heavy weight and light weight in boxing.  this makes more sense because it is not tarring an entire gender/race/whatever with one brush and insisting that nobody from that group could ever be good enough to compete with another.   #  i agree that men are often stronger, but this is only a generalisation.   #  some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.   # some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  most sports with a gender division do not have an explicitly  men only  league.  there is usually a mixed gender league which is predominantly or entirely men and a women is only league which allows women a place to play a sport competitively even when they do not compete as effectively with men .  the nba, for example, is not explicitly a men is only league.  commissioner david stern himself said that there was a good possibility that women would one day play in the league.  the fact that it is currently all men is simply a reflection of the fact that no current women basketball players can compete at the nba level or if they can they have still opted into the women is only league .  there is however no prohibition against women playing in the league.  the same is true for ice hockey globally where the very best women players often find themselves playing in male dominated professional leagues.  the tampa bay lightning, for example, tried out a female goalie and used her in preseason games.  she went on to play in a male dominated league in europe.  using this logic it  could  make sense to have a white is only league if it was literally impossible for white players to compete effectively with black players at all levels of competition. which is not really the case.  yes certain sports have over representation of black players but white players still compete in those leagues in significant percentages.  if there were literally 0 white players in the nba, the nba development league, and college basketball, then yeah it might make sense to have a separate league for them.  however people are not that radically differentiated so we do not do this.  as an aside, if physical ability between races was  that  extreme i think the conversation about race would be radically different.   #  men and women do not even have the same sets of internal organs !  #  so.  i do not think you can really make this kind of equivalency.  there are certainly similarities between the racial differences and the sexual differences.  but when you get down to the details, the sexual differences are waaaasy more dramatic.  besides simple  results  the differences between male and female 0m performance are more dramatic than the difference between black and white performances  , just look at the biological differences.  men and women do not even have the same sets of internal organs ! hormone levels are totally different.  this is not just being  genetically predisposed  for something.  these are major structural and functional differences.  0m results: men is record usain bolt 0s fastest white guy i can find christophe lemaitre 0s . 0s delta women is record florencee griffith joyner 0s . 0s delta  #  the fast  black  times come from geographical areas with hot/humid/high elevation climates near the equator that help with conditioning, and are often from cultures that put much greater value on competitive running from a young age.   # um.  what about breasts, different hip structure to  fit  a uterus, hormone levels that i already mentioned but you did not address which heavily impact muscle growth distribution ? because nobody wants to do that ? i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? besides, the results i listed were not an argument in themselves.  they were evidence that the biological differences between men and women are  more  dramatic than the ones between different races.  this is indicative of the non trivial structural/functional differences between male and female bodies, which is why it makes much more sense to separate them than it does to separate based on race, where the differences are present, but are more differences of degree, and less of fundamental differences.  there are also non racial aspects that affect the disparity.  the fast  black  times come from geographical areas with hot/humid/high elevation climates near the equator that help with conditioning, and are often from cultures that put much greater value on competitive running from a young age.   #  it certainly is racist to provide different racial categories for competition, but i think by the same token, it is sexist to provide different categories for the genders to compete in.   # i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? the aaba is a good, recent example URL it is certainly an interesting concept, considering the over representation of black athletes in the nba.  for whatever reason athletes of any descent other than african fail to achieve at the level of genetically african athletes in the nba.  it certainly is racist to provide different racial categories for competition, but i think by the same token, it is sexist to provide different categories for the genders to compete in.  the basis of why we accept one type of division and not the other seems to be that there is a more coherent argument for why women are not able to compete in sports with males.  there does not exist a cohesive narrative of why there seems to be dramatic differences in racial achievement in certain sports, but it is clearly evidenced by looking at the number of black people on the court in an nba game, or the number of white people on the ice in a hockey game.  the op is getting toward the fact that we drive the  acceptability  of sporting divisions based on the validity of the reasoning that you can construct, not on the actual outcomes and makeup of the leagues we can observe.  we have things like wheelchair basketball leagues because there is a narrative for why we would want a separate league, but furnishing an asian basketball league does not have an equally as strong narrative, so it is dismissed on grounds of being racist.  this does nothing to mitigate the fact that asians are under represented in the nba, just like women and people in wheelchairs are under represented in the nba.  now i agree those are not all equivalent, but certainly an asian man is more capable of playing in the nba than a woman, who is in turn more capable of playing in the nba than a person in a wheelchair.  it is not wrong, in my mind, to have discussions about where we should draw the lines about representation in sports, if we are going into the discussion accepting that there will be lines drawn.   #  the height differences between certain parts of asia and people in africa for example makes competing in certain sports almost entirely prohibitive for the asians.   #  you can have pretty significant differences based on race.  the height differences between certain parts of asia and people in africa for example makes competing in certain sports almost entirely prohibitive for the asians.  yet they do not get their own category.  the only differences mentioned that you ca not get based on race are a uterus and a penis, that is why they are the only ones i mentioned.  some women have almost no breasts, this is almost a requirement for competing at a professional level in gymnastics.  some women produce naturally high levels of testosterone, some men produce very low levels of testosterone.  these are obviously not the norm, but i have never said they are, all i am saying is that there are women who can compete at the highest level so why stop them ?
i think if sports are broken up into male/female categories for fairness then sports should also be broken up into racial categories for fairness.  i think the only reason they are currently separated is sexism, or at least traditionalism born from a sexist era.  i agree that men are often stronger, but this is only a generalisation.  some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  just a note, i do not actually want sports broken up into racial categories i think that would be racist.  i think the only reasonable solution is to not categorise based on genetics.  i have no issue with defining categories based on physical ability, like heavy weight and light weight in boxing.  this makes more sense because it is not tarring an entire gender/race/whatever with one brush and insisting that nobody from that group could ever be good enough to compete with another.   #  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.   #  using this logic it  could  make sense to have a white is only league if it was literally impossible for white players to compete effectively with black players at all levels of competition. which is not really the case.   # some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  most sports with a gender division do not have an explicitly  men only  league.  there is usually a mixed gender league which is predominantly or entirely men and a women is only league which allows women a place to play a sport competitively even when they do not compete as effectively with men .  the nba, for example, is not explicitly a men is only league.  commissioner david stern himself said that there was a good possibility that women would one day play in the league.  the fact that it is currently all men is simply a reflection of the fact that no current women basketball players can compete at the nba level or if they can they have still opted into the women is only league .  there is however no prohibition against women playing in the league.  the same is true for ice hockey globally where the very best women players often find themselves playing in male dominated professional leagues.  the tampa bay lightning, for example, tried out a female goalie and used her in preseason games.  she went on to play in a male dominated league in europe.  using this logic it  could  make sense to have a white is only league if it was literally impossible for white players to compete effectively with black players at all levels of competition. which is not really the case.  yes certain sports have over representation of black players but white players still compete in those leagues in significant percentages.  if there were literally 0 white players in the nba, the nba development league, and college basketball, then yeah it might make sense to have a separate league for them.  however people are not that radically differentiated so we do not do this.  as an aside, if physical ability between races was  that  extreme i think the conversation about race would be radically different.   #  men and women do not even have the same sets of internal organs !  #  so.  i do not think you can really make this kind of equivalency.  there are certainly similarities between the racial differences and the sexual differences.  but when you get down to the details, the sexual differences are waaaasy more dramatic.  besides simple  results  the differences between male and female 0m performance are more dramatic than the difference between black and white performances  , just look at the biological differences.  men and women do not even have the same sets of internal organs ! hormone levels are totally different.  this is not just being  genetically predisposed  for something.  these are major structural and functional differences.  0m results: men is record usain bolt 0s fastest white guy i can find christophe lemaitre 0s . 0s delta women is record florencee griffith joyner 0s . 0s delta  #  i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.   # um.  what about breasts, different hip structure to  fit  a uterus, hormone levels that i already mentioned but you did not address which heavily impact muscle growth distribution ? because nobody wants to do that ? i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? besides, the results i listed were not an argument in themselves.  they were evidence that the biological differences between men and women are  more  dramatic than the ones between different races.  this is indicative of the non trivial structural/functional differences between male and female bodies, which is why it makes much more sense to separate them than it does to separate based on race, where the differences are present, but are more differences of degree, and less of fundamental differences.  there are also non racial aspects that affect the disparity.  the fast  black  times come from geographical areas with hot/humid/high elevation climates near the equator that help with conditioning, and are often from cultures that put much greater value on competitive running from a young age.   #  it certainly is racist to provide different racial categories for competition, but i think by the same token, it is sexist to provide different categories for the genders to compete in.   # i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? the aaba is a good, recent example URL it is certainly an interesting concept, considering the over representation of black athletes in the nba.  for whatever reason athletes of any descent other than african fail to achieve at the level of genetically african athletes in the nba.  it certainly is racist to provide different racial categories for competition, but i think by the same token, it is sexist to provide different categories for the genders to compete in.  the basis of why we accept one type of division and not the other seems to be that there is a more coherent argument for why women are not able to compete in sports with males.  there does not exist a cohesive narrative of why there seems to be dramatic differences in racial achievement in certain sports, but it is clearly evidenced by looking at the number of black people on the court in an nba game, or the number of white people on the ice in a hockey game.  the op is getting toward the fact that we drive the  acceptability  of sporting divisions based on the validity of the reasoning that you can construct, not on the actual outcomes and makeup of the leagues we can observe.  we have things like wheelchair basketball leagues because there is a narrative for why we would want a separate league, but furnishing an asian basketball league does not have an equally as strong narrative, so it is dismissed on grounds of being racist.  this does nothing to mitigate the fact that asians are under represented in the nba, just like women and people in wheelchairs are under represented in the nba.  now i agree those are not all equivalent, but certainly an asian man is more capable of playing in the nba than a woman, who is in turn more capable of playing in the nba than a person in a wheelchair.  it is not wrong, in my mind, to have discussions about where we should draw the lines about representation in sports, if we are going into the discussion accepting that there will be lines drawn.   #  you can have pretty significant differences based on race.   #  you can have pretty significant differences based on race.  the height differences between certain parts of asia and people in africa for example makes competing in certain sports almost entirely prohibitive for the asians.  yet they do not get their own category.  the only differences mentioned that you ca not get based on race are a uterus and a penis, that is why they are the only ones i mentioned.  some women have almost no breasts, this is almost a requirement for competing at a professional level in gymnastics.  some women produce naturally high levels of testosterone, some men produce very low levels of testosterone.  these are obviously not the norm, but i have never said they are, all i am saying is that there are women who can compete at the highest level so why stop them ?
i think if sports are broken up into male/female categories for fairness then sports should also be broken up into racial categories for fairness.  i think the only reason they are currently separated is sexism, or at least traditionalism born from a sexist era.  i agree that men are often stronger, but this is only a generalisation.  some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  just a note, i do not actually want sports broken up into racial categories i think that would be racist.  i think the only reasonable solution is to not categorise based on genetics.  i have no issue with defining categories based on physical ability, like heavy weight and light weight in boxing.  this makes more sense because it is not tarring an entire gender/race/whatever with one brush and insisting that nobody from that group could ever be good enough to compete with another.   #  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.   #  are you sure that is not cultural instead of genetic ?  # are you sure that is not cultural instead of genetic ? white people are not generally better at hockey because it is in our genes.  one of the reasons african countries are so good at running is that it take little to no equipment/money to train for it and it is often seen as one of the only ways out of poverty.  the same is true for basketball in this country in black communities.  they do not see a lot of opportunity, so they tend to work much harder on that one in a million long shot than white people who have other options.  men however have more testosterone than women, which makes it easier to build muscle mass.  that is just a fact of biology, and we tend to look down on artificially augmenting your testosterone.   #  men and women do not even have the same sets of internal organs !  #  so.  i do not think you can really make this kind of equivalency.  there are certainly similarities between the racial differences and the sexual differences.  but when you get down to the details, the sexual differences are waaaasy more dramatic.  besides simple  results  the differences between male and female 0m performance are more dramatic than the difference between black and white performances  , just look at the biological differences.  men and women do not even have the same sets of internal organs ! hormone levels are totally different.  this is not just being  genetically predisposed  for something.  these are major structural and functional differences.  0m results: men is record usain bolt 0s fastest white guy i can find christophe lemaitre 0s . 0s delta women is record florencee griffith joyner 0s . 0s delta  #  they were evidence that the biological differences between men and women are  more  dramatic than the ones between different races.   # um.  what about breasts, different hip structure to  fit  a uterus, hormone levels that i already mentioned but you did not address which heavily impact muscle growth distribution ? because nobody wants to do that ? i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? besides, the results i listed were not an argument in themselves.  they were evidence that the biological differences between men and women are  more  dramatic than the ones between different races.  this is indicative of the non trivial structural/functional differences between male and female bodies, which is why it makes much more sense to separate them than it does to separate based on race, where the differences are present, but are more differences of degree, and less of fundamental differences.  there are also non racial aspects that affect the disparity.  the fast  black  times come from geographical areas with hot/humid/high elevation climates near the equator that help with conditioning, and are often from cultures that put much greater value on competitive running from a young age.   #  the aaba is a good, recent example URL it is certainly an interesting concept, considering the over representation of black athletes in the nba.   # i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? the aaba is a good, recent example URL it is certainly an interesting concept, considering the over representation of black athletes in the nba.  for whatever reason athletes of any descent other than african fail to achieve at the level of genetically african athletes in the nba.  it certainly is racist to provide different racial categories for competition, but i think by the same token, it is sexist to provide different categories for the genders to compete in.  the basis of why we accept one type of division and not the other seems to be that there is a more coherent argument for why women are not able to compete in sports with males.  there does not exist a cohesive narrative of why there seems to be dramatic differences in racial achievement in certain sports, but it is clearly evidenced by looking at the number of black people on the court in an nba game, or the number of white people on the ice in a hockey game.  the op is getting toward the fact that we drive the  acceptability  of sporting divisions based on the validity of the reasoning that you can construct, not on the actual outcomes and makeup of the leagues we can observe.  we have things like wheelchair basketball leagues because there is a narrative for why we would want a separate league, but furnishing an asian basketball league does not have an equally as strong narrative, so it is dismissed on grounds of being racist.  this does nothing to mitigate the fact that asians are under represented in the nba, just like women and people in wheelchairs are under represented in the nba.  now i agree those are not all equivalent, but certainly an asian man is more capable of playing in the nba than a woman, who is in turn more capable of playing in the nba than a person in a wheelchair.  it is not wrong, in my mind, to have discussions about where we should draw the lines about representation in sports, if we are going into the discussion accepting that there will be lines drawn.   #  the height differences between certain parts of asia and people in africa for example makes competing in certain sports almost entirely prohibitive for the asians.   #  you can have pretty significant differences based on race.  the height differences between certain parts of asia and people in africa for example makes competing in certain sports almost entirely prohibitive for the asians.  yet they do not get their own category.  the only differences mentioned that you ca not get based on race are a uterus and a penis, that is why they are the only ones i mentioned.  some women have almost no breasts, this is almost a requirement for competing at a professional level in gymnastics.  some women produce naturally high levels of testosterone, some men produce very low levels of testosterone.  these are obviously not the norm, but i have never said they are, all i am saying is that there are women who can compete at the highest level so why stop them ?
i think if sports are broken up into male/female categories for fairness then sports should also be broken up into racial categories for fairness.  i think the only reason they are currently separated is sexism, or at least traditionalism born from a sexist era.  i agree that men are often stronger, but this is only a generalisation.  some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  just a note, i do not actually want sports broken up into racial categories i think that would be racist.  i think the only reasonable solution is to not categorise based on genetics.  i have no issue with defining categories based on physical ability, like heavy weight and light weight in boxing.  this makes more sense because it is not tarring an entire gender/race/whatever with one brush and insisting that nobody from that group could ever be good enough to compete with another.   #  i agree that men are often stronger, but this is only a generalisation.   #  some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.   # some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  do you have any evidence for this ? the only matches i have heard of were: serena williams, occupying the first rank at the time losing to the 0th man in the rankings and the german national team of women losing to a youth team 0 0yr olds of a mediocre bundesleague club.  i have no evidence to the contrary that they are indeed similarly strong.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  uhm, which kind of pseudoscience do we use to determine who is black and who is white ? they are no genetical differences between the two like between man and woman  #  so.  i do not think you can really make this kind of equivalency.   #  so.  i do not think you can really make this kind of equivalency.  there are certainly similarities between the racial differences and the sexual differences.  but when you get down to the details, the sexual differences are waaaasy more dramatic.  besides simple  results  the differences between male and female 0m performance are more dramatic than the difference between black and white performances  , just look at the biological differences.  men and women do not even have the same sets of internal organs ! hormone levels are totally different.  this is not just being  genetically predisposed  for something.  these are major structural and functional differences.  0m results: men is record usain bolt 0s fastest white guy i can find christophe lemaitre 0s . 0s delta women is record florencee griffith joyner 0s . 0s delta  #  the fast  black  times come from geographical areas with hot/humid/high elevation climates near the equator that help with conditioning, and are often from cultures that put much greater value on competitive running from a young age.   # um.  what about breasts, different hip structure to  fit  a uterus, hormone levels that i already mentioned but you did not address which heavily impact muscle growth distribution ? because nobody wants to do that ? i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? besides, the results i listed were not an argument in themselves.  they were evidence that the biological differences between men and women are  more  dramatic than the ones between different races.  this is indicative of the non trivial structural/functional differences between male and female bodies, which is why it makes much more sense to separate them than it does to separate based on race, where the differences are present, but are more differences of degree, and less of fundamental differences.  there are also non racial aspects that affect the disparity.  the fast  black  times come from geographical areas with hot/humid/high elevation climates near the equator that help with conditioning, and are often from cultures that put much greater value on competitive running from a young age.   #  i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.   # i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? the aaba is a good, recent example URL it is certainly an interesting concept, considering the over representation of black athletes in the nba.  for whatever reason athletes of any descent other than african fail to achieve at the level of genetically african athletes in the nba.  it certainly is racist to provide different racial categories for competition, but i think by the same token, it is sexist to provide different categories for the genders to compete in.  the basis of why we accept one type of division and not the other seems to be that there is a more coherent argument for why women are not able to compete in sports with males.  there does not exist a cohesive narrative of why there seems to be dramatic differences in racial achievement in certain sports, but it is clearly evidenced by looking at the number of black people on the court in an nba game, or the number of white people on the ice in a hockey game.  the op is getting toward the fact that we drive the  acceptability  of sporting divisions based on the validity of the reasoning that you can construct, not on the actual outcomes and makeup of the leagues we can observe.  we have things like wheelchair basketball leagues because there is a narrative for why we would want a separate league, but furnishing an asian basketball league does not have an equally as strong narrative, so it is dismissed on grounds of being racist.  this does nothing to mitigate the fact that asians are under represented in the nba, just like women and people in wheelchairs are under represented in the nba.  now i agree those are not all equivalent, but certainly an asian man is more capable of playing in the nba than a woman, who is in turn more capable of playing in the nba than a person in a wheelchair.  it is not wrong, in my mind, to have discussions about where we should draw the lines about representation in sports, if we are going into the discussion accepting that there will be lines drawn.   #  these are obviously not the norm, but i have never said they are, all i am saying is that there are women who can compete at the highest level so why stop them ?  #  you can have pretty significant differences based on race.  the height differences between certain parts of asia and people in africa for example makes competing in certain sports almost entirely prohibitive for the asians.  yet they do not get their own category.  the only differences mentioned that you ca not get based on race are a uterus and a penis, that is why they are the only ones i mentioned.  some women have almost no breasts, this is almost a requirement for competing at a professional level in gymnastics.  some women produce naturally high levels of testosterone, some men produce very low levels of testosterone.  these are obviously not the norm, but i have never said they are, all i am saying is that there are women who can compete at the highest level so why stop them ?
i think if sports are broken up into male/female categories for fairness then sports should also be broken up into racial categories for fairness.  i think the only reason they are currently separated is sexism, or at least traditionalism born from a sexist era.  i agree that men are often stronger, but this is only a generalisation.  some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  just a note, i do not actually want sports broken up into racial categories i think that would be racist.  i think the only reasonable solution is to not categorise based on genetics.  i have no issue with defining categories based on physical ability, like heavy weight and light weight in boxing.  this makes more sense because it is not tarring an entire gender/race/whatever with one brush and insisting that nobody from that group could ever be good enough to compete with another.   #  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.   #  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.   # some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  do you have any evidence for this ? the only matches i have heard of were: serena williams, occupying the first rank at the time losing to the 0th man in the rankings and the german national team of women losing to a youth team 0 0yr olds of a mediocre bundesleague club.  i have no evidence to the contrary that they are indeed similarly strong.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  uhm, which kind of pseudoscience do we use to determine who is black and who is white ? they are no genetical differences between the two like between man and woman  #  so.  i do not think you can really make this kind of equivalency.   #  so.  i do not think you can really make this kind of equivalency.  there are certainly similarities between the racial differences and the sexual differences.  but when you get down to the details, the sexual differences are waaaasy more dramatic.  besides simple  results  the differences between male and female 0m performance are more dramatic than the difference between black and white performances  , just look at the biological differences.  men and women do not even have the same sets of internal organs ! hormone levels are totally different.  this is not just being  genetically predisposed  for something.  these are major structural and functional differences.  0m results: men is record usain bolt 0s fastest white guy i can find christophe lemaitre 0s . 0s delta women is record florencee griffith joyner 0s . 0s delta  #  um.  what about breasts, different hip structure to  fit  a uterus, hormone levels that i already mentioned but you did not address which heavily impact muscle growth distribution ?  # um.  what about breasts, different hip structure to  fit  a uterus, hormone levels that i already mentioned but you did not address which heavily impact muscle growth distribution ? because nobody wants to do that ? i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? besides, the results i listed were not an argument in themselves.  they were evidence that the biological differences between men and women are  more  dramatic than the ones between different races.  this is indicative of the non trivial structural/functional differences between male and female bodies, which is why it makes much more sense to separate them than it does to separate based on race, where the differences are present, but are more differences of degree, and less of fundamental differences.  there are also non racial aspects that affect the disparity.  the fast  black  times come from geographical areas with hot/humid/high elevation climates near the equator that help with conditioning, and are often from cultures that put much greater value on competitive running from a young age.   #  it is not wrong, in my mind, to have discussions about where we should draw the lines about representation in sports, if we are going into the discussion accepting that there will be lines drawn.   # i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? the aaba is a good, recent example URL it is certainly an interesting concept, considering the over representation of black athletes in the nba.  for whatever reason athletes of any descent other than african fail to achieve at the level of genetically african athletes in the nba.  it certainly is racist to provide different racial categories for competition, but i think by the same token, it is sexist to provide different categories for the genders to compete in.  the basis of why we accept one type of division and not the other seems to be that there is a more coherent argument for why women are not able to compete in sports with males.  there does not exist a cohesive narrative of why there seems to be dramatic differences in racial achievement in certain sports, but it is clearly evidenced by looking at the number of black people on the court in an nba game, or the number of white people on the ice in a hockey game.  the op is getting toward the fact that we drive the  acceptability  of sporting divisions based on the validity of the reasoning that you can construct, not on the actual outcomes and makeup of the leagues we can observe.  we have things like wheelchair basketball leagues because there is a narrative for why we would want a separate league, but furnishing an asian basketball league does not have an equally as strong narrative, so it is dismissed on grounds of being racist.  this does nothing to mitigate the fact that asians are under represented in the nba, just like women and people in wheelchairs are under represented in the nba.  now i agree those are not all equivalent, but certainly an asian man is more capable of playing in the nba than a woman, who is in turn more capable of playing in the nba than a person in a wheelchair.  it is not wrong, in my mind, to have discussions about where we should draw the lines about representation in sports, if we are going into the discussion accepting that there will be lines drawn.   #  the height differences between certain parts of asia and people in africa for example makes competing in certain sports almost entirely prohibitive for the asians.   #  you can have pretty significant differences based on race.  the height differences between certain parts of asia and people in africa for example makes competing in certain sports almost entirely prohibitive for the asians.  yet they do not get their own category.  the only differences mentioned that you ca not get based on race are a uterus and a penis, that is why they are the only ones i mentioned.  some women have almost no breasts, this is almost a requirement for competing at a professional level in gymnastics.  some women produce naturally high levels of testosterone, some men produce very low levels of testosterone.  these are obviously not the norm, but i have never said they are, all i am saying is that there are women who can compete at the highest level so why stop them ?
i think if sports are broken up into male/female categories for fairness then sports should also be broken up into racial categories for fairness.  i think the only reason they are currently separated is sexism, or at least traditionalism born from a sexist era.  i agree that men are often stronger, but this is only a generalisation.  some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  just a note, i do not actually want sports broken up into racial categories i think that would be racist.  i think the only reasonable solution is to not categorise based on genetics.  i have no issue with defining categories based on physical ability, like heavy weight and light weight in boxing.  this makes more sense because it is not tarring an entire gender/race/whatever with one brush and insisting that nobody from that group could ever be good enough to compete with another.   #  i think if sports are broken up into male/female categories for fairness then sports should also be broken up into racial categories for fairness.   #  i think the only reason they are currently separated is sexism, or at least traditionalism born from a sexist era.   # i think the only reason they are currently separated is sexism, or at least traditionalism born from a sexist era.  nope it is biology.  we are a sexually dimorphic species URL  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  i would love to see the proof of that mindset, and preferably not from  mein kampf .  i do not think there is any evidence that black people are genetically superior at running pretty much the definition of racism .  the best runners on earth are neither black nor white, they are native americans URL and they live in mexico.  the king of the mile is from morocco URL most of the female record holders are white.  so if males and females are equal in sports as you claim , and an equal number of white women and black men hold running records, then it would seem that skin color has absolutely no effect on running prowess.  that is not the assumption that is being made at all.  male and females are naturally and biologically different from each other.  the us military has allowed women to train to fight finally.  so far only 0 women have passed the test URL 0 exceptions to not make the rule for all women.   #  but when you get down to the details, the sexual differences are waaaasy more dramatic.   #  so.  i do not think you can really make this kind of equivalency.  there are certainly similarities between the racial differences and the sexual differences.  but when you get down to the details, the sexual differences are waaaasy more dramatic.  besides simple  results  the differences between male and female 0m performance are more dramatic than the difference between black and white performances  , just look at the biological differences.  men and women do not even have the same sets of internal organs ! hormone levels are totally different.  this is not just being  genetically predisposed  for something.  these are major structural and functional differences.  0m results: men is record usain bolt 0s fastest white guy i can find christophe lemaitre 0s . 0s delta women is record florencee griffith joyner 0s . 0s delta  #  i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.   # um.  what about breasts, different hip structure to  fit  a uterus, hormone levels that i already mentioned but you did not address which heavily impact muscle growth distribution ? because nobody wants to do that ? i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? besides, the results i listed were not an argument in themselves.  they were evidence that the biological differences between men and women are  more  dramatic than the ones between different races.  this is indicative of the non trivial structural/functional differences between male and female bodies, which is why it makes much more sense to separate them than it does to separate based on race, where the differences are present, but are more differences of degree, and less of fundamental differences.  there are also non racial aspects that affect the disparity.  the fast  black  times come from geographical areas with hot/humid/high elevation climates near the equator that help with conditioning, and are often from cultures that put much greater value on competitive running from a young age.   #  for whatever reason athletes of any descent other than african fail to achieve at the level of genetically african athletes in the nba.   # i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? the aaba is a good, recent example URL it is certainly an interesting concept, considering the over representation of black athletes in the nba.  for whatever reason athletes of any descent other than african fail to achieve at the level of genetically african athletes in the nba.  it certainly is racist to provide different racial categories for competition, but i think by the same token, it is sexist to provide different categories for the genders to compete in.  the basis of why we accept one type of division and not the other seems to be that there is a more coherent argument for why women are not able to compete in sports with males.  there does not exist a cohesive narrative of why there seems to be dramatic differences in racial achievement in certain sports, but it is clearly evidenced by looking at the number of black people on the court in an nba game, or the number of white people on the ice in a hockey game.  the op is getting toward the fact that we drive the  acceptability  of sporting divisions based on the validity of the reasoning that you can construct, not on the actual outcomes and makeup of the leagues we can observe.  we have things like wheelchair basketball leagues because there is a narrative for why we would want a separate league, but furnishing an asian basketball league does not have an equally as strong narrative, so it is dismissed on grounds of being racist.  this does nothing to mitigate the fact that asians are under represented in the nba, just like women and people in wheelchairs are under represented in the nba.  now i agree those are not all equivalent, but certainly an asian man is more capable of playing in the nba than a woman, who is in turn more capable of playing in the nba than a person in a wheelchair.  it is not wrong, in my mind, to have discussions about where we should draw the lines about representation in sports, if we are going into the discussion accepting that there will be lines drawn.   #  the only differences mentioned that you ca not get based on race are a uterus and a penis, that is why they are the only ones i mentioned.   #  you can have pretty significant differences based on race.  the height differences between certain parts of asia and people in africa for example makes competing in certain sports almost entirely prohibitive for the asians.  yet they do not get their own category.  the only differences mentioned that you ca not get based on race are a uterus and a penis, that is why they are the only ones i mentioned.  some women have almost no breasts, this is almost a requirement for competing at a professional level in gymnastics.  some women produce naturally high levels of testosterone, some men produce very low levels of testosterone.  these are obviously not the norm, but i have never said they are, all i am saying is that there are women who can compete at the highest level so why stop them ?
i think if sports are broken up into male/female categories for fairness then sports should also be broken up into racial categories for fairness.  i think the only reason they are currently separated is sexism, or at least traditionalism born from a sexist era.  i agree that men are often stronger, but this is only a generalisation.  some women are fit to compete with men in sports requiring physical strength.  i do not see the fact that men are often stronger as a good enough reason to exclude women who are well able to compete.  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  just a note, i do not actually want sports broken up into racial categories i think that would be racist.  i think the only reasonable solution is to not categorise based on genetics.  i have no issue with defining categories based on physical ability, like heavy weight and light weight in boxing.  this makes more sense because it is not tarring an entire gender/race/whatever with one brush and insisting that nobody from that group could ever be good enough to compete with another.   #  this makes more sense because it is not tarring an entire gender/race/whatever with one brush and insisting that nobody from that group could ever be good enough to compete with another.   #  that is not the assumption that is being made at all.   # i think the only reason they are currently separated is sexism, or at least traditionalism born from a sexist era.  nope it is biology.  we are a sexually dimorphic species URL  using the same logic that is used now it would only be fair to have two separate running categories in the olympics, one for black people and one for white people.  at the moment it is very difficult for white people to compete because black people are just genetically predisposed to being better at those type of sports.  i would love to see the proof of that mindset, and preferably not from  mein kampf .  i do not think there is any evidence that black people are genetically superior at running pretty much the definition of racism .  the best runners on earth are neither black nor white, they are native americans URL and they live in mexico.  the king of the mile is from morocco URL most of the female record holders are white.  so if males and females are equal in sports as you claim , and an equal number of white women and black men hold running records, then it would seem that skin color has absolutely no effect on running prowess.  that is not the assumption that is being made at all.  male and females are naturally and biologically different from each other.  the us military has allowed women to train to fight finally.  so far only 0 women have passed the test URL 0 exceptions to not make the rule for all women.   #  besides simple  results  the differences between male and female 0m performance are more dramatic than the difference between black and white performances  , just look at the biological differences.   #  so.  i do not think you can really make this kind of equivalency.  there are certainly similarities between the racial differences and the sexual differences.  but when you get down to the details, the sexual differences are waaaasy more dramatic.  besides simple  results  the differences between male and female 0m performance are more dramatic than the difference between black and white performances  , just look at the biological differences.  men and women do not even have the same sets of internal organs ! hormone levels are totally different.  this is not just being  genetically predisposed  for something.  these are major structural and functional differences.  0m results: men is record usain bolt 0s fastest white guy i can find christophe lemaitre 0s . 0s delta women is record florencee griffith joyner 0s . 0s delta  #  there are also non racial aspects that affect the disparity.   # um.  what about breasts, different hip structure to  fit  a uterus, hormone levels that i already mentioned but you did not address which heavily impact muscle growth distribution ? because nobody wants to do that ? i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? besides, the results i listed were not an argument in themselves.  they were evidence that the biological differences between men and women are  more  dramatic than the ones between different races.  this is indicative of the non trivial structural/functional differences between male and female bodies, which is why it makes much more sense to separate them than it does to separate based on race, where the differences are present, but are more differences of degree, and less of fundamental differences.  there are also non racial aspects that affect the disparity.  the fast  black  times come from geographical areas with hot/humid/high elevation climates near the equator that help with conditioning, and are often from cultures that put much greater value on competitive running from a young age.   #  the aaba is a good, recent example URL it is certainly an interesting concept, considering the over representation of black athletes in the nba.   # i have never heard a white athlete wanting this.  i have never heard of viewers wanting this.  who wants this ? why would we do it ? the aaba is a good, recent example URL it is certainly an interesting concept, considering the over representation of black athletes in the nba.  for whatever reason athletes of any descent other than african fail to achieve at the level of genetically african athletes in the nba.  it certainly is racist to provide different racial categories for competition, but i think by the same token, it is sexist to provide different categories for the genders to compete in.  the basis of why we accept one type of division and not the other seems to be that there is a more coherent argument for why women are not able to compete in sports with males.  there does not exist a cohesive narrative of why there seems to be dramatic differences in racial achievement in certain sports, but it is clearly evidenced by looking at the number of black people on the court in an nba game, or the number of white people on the ice in a hockey game.  the op is getting toward the fact that we drive the  acceptability  of sporting divisions based on the validity of the reasoning that you can construct, not on the actual outcomes and makeup of the leagues we can observe.  we have things like wheelchair basketball leagues because there is a narrative for why we would want a separate league, but furnishing an asian basketball league does not have an equally as strong narrative, so it is dismissed on grounds of being racist.  this does nothing to mitigate the fact that asians are under represented in the nba, just like women and people in wheelchairs are under represented in the nba.  now i agree those are not all equivalent, but certainly an asian man is more capable of playing in the nba than a woman, who is in turn more capable of playing in the nba than a person in a wheelchair.  it is not wrong, in my mind, to have discussions about where we should draw the lines about representation in sports, if we are going into the discussion accepting that there will be lines drawn.   #  some women have almost no breasts, this is almost a requirement for competing at a professional level in gymnastics.   #  you can have pretty significant differences based on race.  the height differences between certain parts of asia and people in africa for example makes competing in certain sports almost entirely prohibitive for the asians.  yet they do not get their own category.  the only differences mentioned that you ca not get based on race are a uterus and a penis, that is why they are the only ones i mentioned.  some women have almost no breasts, this is almost a requirement for competing at a professional level in gymnastics.  some women produce naturally high levels of testosterone, some men produce very low levels of testosterone.  these are obviously not the norm, but i have never said they are, all i am saying is that there are women who can compete at the highest level so why stop them ?
the ada URL was intended to extend civil rights to disabled people.  but the reason the disabled are discriminated against is because they cost more to serve, often making it not worth serving them.  people of other races, genders do not cost any more to serve.  this extra cost should not be forced on individuals.  if we decide to cover these costs it should be done by taxes.  instead of mandating accommodation a grant program could be provided.  the law says that only accommodations of reasonable cost needs to be provided.  but if these costs were reasonable, the increased revenue from the disabled as customers exceeds the cost of accomodation, then the accommodations would be made voluntarily and there would be no need for this law.  this implies that accommodating the disabled is a net loss for society.  this cost should not be imposed on individuals.   #  this extra cost should not be forced on individuals.   #  if we decide to cover these costs it should be done by taxes.   # if we decide to cover these costs it should be done by taxes.  instead of mandating accommodation a grant program could be provided.  while i get how this seems more fair, i do not think there is a good way to do this.  if a disabled accommodations tax was introduced, how would the money be spent ? if the money is paid out to companies so they can buy equipment, people will scream abuse, and probably rightly so.  because how do you know how much money a specific company needs ? some services/tools cost more to adapt than others.  it also ends up costing more, because people will need to handle the claims.   #  because private entities are in the best position to determine how best to make accommodations.   #  because private entities are in the best position to determine how best to make accommodations.  using tax dollars to have the government install ramps in everyone is business would be much more inefficient.  when a business owner knows the requirements, they can design the layout of a store around ramps/automatic doors/handicapped bathrooms in the way that is best for their business.  do you really think it would be more efficient to collect a disability tax from every business, create a government agency to spend those tax dollars, and have the agency hire contractors to go to every business to install accommodations ? that would probably cost the businesses even more money, and it would give them less freedom to decide how best to comply with the law.   #  of course, the reason is human safety and public decency.   #  your argument above could be made incorrectly for any number of things involving a business.  let is say a business is not up to building code and is actually extraordinarily dangerous for any patrons who enter let is say it is on the top floor of a building that is beginning to fall apart.  why should the business have to accommodate people who want a safe business ? if the business does not want to pay, they should not be forced to.  people can choose to go somewhere else.  employees can leave.  why should an individual company bear this burden ? of course, the reason is human safety and public decency.  if you own a business, it needs to be safe.  otherwise building inspectors or someone will come shut it down.  businesses do not exist in a vacuum and must make many, many accommodations.  what is so different about this one ?  #  while public companies are concerned about short term results they also make long term investments.   #  while public companies are concerned about short term results they also make long term investments.  airlines buy aircraft, cruise lines buy ships and railroads buy locomotives.  all of these are expensive investments that require long term planning.  if accommodating the disabled was profitable then companies would make these investments.  i think that investing in making new buildings accessible is probably profitable.  but the ada demands that businesses make many unprofitable accommodations such as pool lifts and sign language interpreters.  the costs of these accommodations should be paid by the disabled or society through taxes and not businesses.   #  however if there was a pool located a block away from an assisted living facility with a large number of disabled people a government grant to pay for a pool lift would be a good thing.   #  there are two different issues: how disability legislation should be structured and how it is structured.  i have a lot of dreadful things to say about the ada specifically.  however i am generally in favor of the building code mandating hallways be wide enough for a wheelchair and that entrance level steps should be avoided.  the reality is that there is going to need to be a multi strategy approach to this issue.  some things will be efficient and cheap to implement everywhere in the country hallway width requirements and handrails on staircases , other things are probably best done through grants.  for example i think the pool lift thing is incredibly stupid.  however if there was a pool located a block away from an assisted living facility with a large number of disabled people a government grant to pay for a pool lift would be a good thing.  however just saying the free market will take care of things ignores those places in which legislative requirements are economically efficient.  personally i like regulations which are transparent to businesses.  the architect who designs an office building needs to know the building code its his job to and designs the structure to comply without the owners ever taking a positive step to comply themselves.  to my mind the best laws are the ones that help people behind the scenes without them ever feeling the hand of government.
the ada URL was intended to extend civil rights to disabled people.  but the reason the disabled are discriminated against is because they cost more to serve, often making it not worth serving them.  people of other races, genders do not cost any more to serve.  this extra cost should not be forced on individuals.  if we decide to cover these costs it should be done by taxes.  instead of mandating accommodation a grant program could be provided.  the law says that only accommodations of reasonable cost needs to be provided.  but if these costs were reasonable, the increased revenue from the disabled as customers exceeds the cost of accomodation, then the accommodations would be made voluntarily and there would be no need for this law.  this implies that accommodating the disabled is a net loss for society.  this cost should not be imposed on individuals.   #  but the reason the disabled are discriminated against is because they cost more to serve, often making it not worth serving them.   #  people of other races, genders do not cost any more to serve.   # people of other races, genders do not cost any more to serve.  the reason people with disabilities are discriminated against are because people forget that not everyone is just like them.  why would a person who has never lost the function of either foot think about what it would be like to lose one or both of them, and try to accommodate that ? the same bias is shown in media: everyone is straight and fully abled.  it is a bias that needs to be fought, because not everyone is.  but, the most important reason to advocate for disability accommodations:  it could be you one day  disability is the only physical class that anyone could join at any time.  you ca not suddenly go from being a straight white male to being a black lesbian.  but you can go from being fully abled to mentally or physically disabled in a heartbeat.  someone runs a red light this morning.  you hit a deer.  you have a sudden aneurysm.  you trip.  you get older, and start to loose function.  suddenly, the entire world is a prison.  you ca not get your wheelchair up the stairs.  the atm only has text, and you are blind/ca not read anymore.  you want to keep your job, but your slight mental disability makes it too hard and you get fired.  one day you are a working adult, and the next you are a prisoner in your home living on a disability check.  requiring businesses to accommodate disability is requiring business to treat all customers equally.  sure, it makes good economic sense, and it is common decency.  but you want it required because not all businesses give a flying fuck.  it may seem stupid or unfair until the day its you, and it could be any of us one day.  protecting one person is right to accommodation protects all of us.   #  do you really think it would be more efficient to collect a disability tax from every business, create a government agency to spend those tax dollars, and have the agency hire contractors to go to every business to install accommodations ?  #  because private entities are in the best position to determine how best to make accommodations.  using tax dollars to have the government install ramps in everyone is business would be much more inefficient.  when a business owner knows the requirements, they can design the layout of a store around ramps/automatic doors/handicapped bathrooms in the way that is best for their business.  do you really think it would be more efficient to collect a disability tax from every business, create a government agency to spend those tax dollars, and have the agency hire contractors to go to every business to install accommodations ? that would probably cost the businesses even more money, and it would give them less freedom to decide how best to comply with the law.   #  of course, the reason is human safety and public decency.   #  your argument above could be made incorrectly for any number of things involving a business.  let is say a business is not up to building code and is actually extraordinarily dangerous for any patrons who enter let is say it is on the top floor of a building that is beginning to fall apart.  why should the business have to accommodate people who want a safe business ? if the business does not want to pay, they should not be forced to.  people can choose to go somewhere else.  employees can leave.  why should an individual company bear this burden ? of course, the reason is human safety and public decency.  if you own a business, it needs to be safe.  otherwise building inspectors or someone will come shut it down.  businesses do not exist in a vacuum and must make many, many accommodations.  what is so different about this one ?  #  the costs of these accommodations should be paid by the disabled or society through taxes and not businesses.   #  while public companies are concerned about short term results they also make long term investments.  airlines buy aircraft, cruise lines buy ships and railroads buy locomotives.  all of these are expensive investments that require long term planning.  if accommodating the disabled was profitable then companies would make these investments.  i think that investing in making new buildings accessible is probably profitable.  but the ada demands that businesses make many unprofitable accommodations such as pool lifts and sign language interpreters.  the costs of these accommodations should be paid by the disabled or society through taxes and not businesses.   #  i have a lot of dreadful things to say about the ada specifically.   #  there are two different issues: how disability legislation should be structured and how it is structured.  i have a lot of dreadful things to say about the ada specifically.  however i am generally in favor of the building code mandating hallways be wide enough for a wheelchair and that entrance level steps should be avoided.  the reality is that there is going to need to be a multi strategy approach to this issue.  some things will be efficient and cheap to implement everywhere in the country hallway width requirements and handrails on staircases , other things are probably best done through grants.  for example i think the pool lift thing is incredibly stupid.  however if there was a pool located a block away from an assisted living facility with a large number of disabled people a government grant to pay for a pool lift would be a good thing.  however just saying the free market will take care of things ignores those places in which legislative requirements are economically efficient.  personally i like regulations which are transparent to businesses.  the architect who designs an office building needs to know the building code its his job to and designs the structure to comply without the owners ever taking a positive step to comply themselves.  to my mind the best laws are the ones that help people behind the scenes without them ever feeling the hand of government.
watching sports, imho, should be more about a love of the game than it should be about broader nationalistic views.  i truly feel that other countries, while similarly patriotic,  also  enjoy watching soccer.  but in the us, no one gives a shit about soccer the other four years between world cups.  it is derided as  not a good sport,  youth programs receive way less attention than football, basketball, or baseball, and the mlb is pretty much the most poorly attended national sport their is.  i do not even know if they show it on tv.  sure, this may have to do more with advertisers and tv networks, but that makes it  worse .  that means that american is may be watching games that they might not even like, save for the fact that it helps big media companies get rich.  you can sell way more ad space during a 0 hour football game with about 0 minutes of game play versus a game of soccer which is 0 minutes with only 0 ad breaks.  baseball has 0 games per year which again suits advertisers very well.  as a soccer player, i went out to a few bars to watch the games, and i was absolutely stunned at the turnout.  the place was packed ! but for what ? the us is team never had a chance; they suck.  if the fans had been supporting soccer for the past few decades by watching mls, going to games, and spending money there, maybe the mls would have attracted better talent, better youth players who would rise up, give us an actually competitive team, etc.  the fact that any american can think you can just have a great team once every 0 years is pathetic.  so what do you think ? thanks cmv ers !  #  it is derided as  not a good sport,  youth programs receive way less attention than football, basketball, or baseball, and the mlb is pretty much the most poorly attended national sport their is.   #  i do not even know if they show it on tv.   # i do not even know if they show it on tv.  soccer is right up there in terms of youth participation in the us URL mls has higher average attendance than the nhl URL and increased its attendance more than any other sport between 0 and 0.  many games are shown on tv, including national networks such as espn and nbs sports.  something fundamentally bothers me about this post.  your argument is disconnected from your title and you guess at your statistical support.  guess what, i did not know the numbers i just cited off the top of my head.  i spent two minutes looking them up.  oh and the us did have a chance.  they advanced out of one of the two hardest groups into the knockout round.  something traditional powers england, italy, and spain were unable to do.  they played a tough belgium side to the last and went into extra time before losing.  the mls is gaining momentum, by the way, david villa and kaka will be joining thierry henry, michael bradley, and julio caesar in the league next year.  many of the top american players play in european leagues, a strong domestic league certainly is no guarantee of success for the host nation.  again, england.  i do not know your point with this entire paragraph but i will just say that those placard boards lining the field full of advertisements are not free, neither are the companies that pay to be on display on the shirts of club teams.   #  do you think all those people that are suddenly interested give two shits about the sport ?  #  i would say a  majority  of sports fans are bandwaggoners when it comes to big events like this.  look at all the people that suddenly love their city is american football team when they make it to the superbowl.  do you think all those people that are suddenly interested give two shits about the sport ? they might have not watched a game all year, never seen a local game, etc, but all of a sudden i see it every year are super fans.  again, i think this is just a normal phenomenon that occurs whenever there is a  big match  of some sort.   #  first, companies seem to really be pushing hard this time around with the soccer media campaigns.   #  well, i think there is a few reasons for this added interest.  first, companies seem to really be pushing hard this time around with the soccer media campaigns.  i am seeing a ton of world cup commercials, print ads, etc.  secondly, i think it was only a matter of time before it caught on in the us and this year just so happened to be the tipping point.  in 0, people did not have things like the internet and the only sports they were really exposed to were the domestic ones they could see and participate with on a local level.  however, the internet has opened up all sorts of new doors, and i think the fact people are noticing that soccer is  so popular  abroad   that is somewhat enticing.  there have not been all that many world cups since the internet really took off, if you think about it.   #  us soccer is the beneficiary of that and therefore a great way to judge it.   #  no they were not.  the team was mildly better than in 0.  they had a better coach and are starting to have some very exciting young prospects like yedlin and green who came off the bench and changed the belgium game.  but they are not there yet either and nothing is really significantly ahead of where we were four years ago.  the difference is mls is expanding, the league is miles better than it was four years ago.  stars like zusi and gonzalez are staying and bigger names like bradley and dempsey are coming back.  the league is growing spectacularly and steadily.  they will bring few older big names into the league, kaka, lampard, villa, after the world cup and it will upswing again.  the mls is really the driving force for the growth of soccer in the usa.  us soccer is the beneficiary of that and therefore a great way to judge it.   #  just look at the recent photo of orlando announcing kaka is signing and see how many fans showed up.   # i know they still are not world beaters or anything close to it, but for a nation which you claim does not care about soccer i think that is pretty good.  again i french people care much more about soccer than americans but you ca not really say that americans do not support their league.  just look at the recent photo of orlando announcing kaka is signing and see how many fans showed up.  how do you think a sport grows, people give it a chance because they are intrigued or have a rooting interest.  the world cup has already received 0 more streaming hours than the olympics did two years, an event where the americans typically do very well.  soccer is on the raise in this country and people are looking for a rooting interest and the usmnt gives them one.
watching sports, imho, should be more about a love of the game than it should be about broader nationalistic views.  i truly feel that other countries, while similarly patriotic,  also  enjoy watching soccer.  but in the us, no one gives a shit about soccer the other four years between world cups.  it is derided as  not a good sport,  youth programs receive way less attention than football, basketball, or baseball, and the mlb is pretty much the most poorly attended national sport their is.  i do not even know if they show it on tv.  sure, this may have to do more with advertisers and tv networks, but that makes it  worse .  that means that american is may be watching games that they might not even like, save for the fact that it helps big media companies get rich.  you can sell way more ad space during a 0 hour football game with about 0 minutes of game play versus a game of soccer which is 0 minutes with only 0 ad breaks.  baseball has 0 games per year which again suits advertisers very well.  as a soccer player, i went out to a few bars to watch the games, and i was absolutely stunned at the turnout.  the place was packed ! but for what ? the us is team never had a chance; they suck.  if the fans had been supporting soccer for the past few decades by watching mls, going to games, and spending money there, maybe the mls would have attracted better talent, better youth players who would rise up, give us an actually competitive team, etc.  the fact that any american can think you can just have a great team once every 0 years is pathetic.  so what do you think ? thanks cmv ers !  #  you can sell way more ad space during a 0 hour football game with about 0 minutes of game play versus a game of soccer which is 0 minutes with only 0 ad breaks.   #  i do not know your point with this entire paragraph but i will just say that those placard boards lining the field full of advertisements are not free, neither are the companies that pay to be on display on the shirts of club teams.   # i do not even know if they show it on tv.  soccer is right up there in terms of youth participation in the us URL mls has higher average attendance than the nhl URL and increased its attendance more than any other sport between 0 and 0.  many games are shown on tv, including national networks such as espn and nbs sports.  something fundamentally bothers me about this post.  your argument is disconnected from your title and you guess at your statistical support.  guess what, i did not know the numbers i just cited off the top of my head.  i spent two minutes looking them up.  oh and the us did have a chance.  they advanced out of one of the two hardest groups into the knockout round.  something traditional powers england, italy, and spain were unable to do.  they played a tough belgium side to the last and went into extra time before losing.  the mls is gaining momentum, by the way, david villa and kaka will be joining thierry henry, michael bradley, and julio caesar in the league next year.  many of the top american players play in european leagues, a strong domestic league certainly is no guarantee of success for the host nation.  again, england.  i do not know your point with this entire paragraph but i will just say that those placard boards lining the field full of advertisements are not free, neither are the companies that pay to be on display on the shirts of club teams.   #  look at all the people that suddenly love their city is american football team when they make it to the superbowl.   #  i would say a  majority  of sports fans are bandwaggoners when it comes to big events like this.  look at all the people that suddenly love their city is american football team when they make it to the superbowl.  do you think all those people that are suddenly interested give two shits about the sport ? they might have not watched a game all year, never seen a local game, etc, but all of a sudden i see it every year are super fans.  again, i think this is just a normal phenomenon that occurs whenever there is a  big match  of some sort.   #  secondly, i think it was only a matter of time before it caught on in the us and this year just so happened to be the tipping point.   #  well, i think there is a few reasons for this added interest.  first, companies seem to really be pushing hard this time around with the soccer media campaigns.  i am seeing a ton of world cup commercials, print ads, etc.  secondly, i think it was only a matter of time before it caught on in the us and this year just so happened to be the tipping point.  in 0, people did not have things like the internet and the only sports they were really exposed to were the domestic ones they could see and participate with on a local level.  however, the internet has opened up all sorts of new doors, and i think the fact people are noticing that soccer is  so popular  abroad   that is somewhat enticing.  there have not been all that many world cups since the internet really took off, if you think about it.   #  the team was mildly better than in 0.  they had a better coach and are starting to have some very exciting young prospects like yedlin and green who came off the bench and changed the belgium game.   #  no they were not.  the team was mildly better than in 0.  they had a better coach and are starting to have some very exciting young prospects like yedlin and green who came off the bench and changed the belgium game.  but they are not there yet either and nothing is really significantly ahead of where we were four years ago.  the difference is mls is expanding, the league is miles better than it was four years ago.  stars like zusi and gonzalez are staying and bigger names like bradley and dempsey are coming back.  the league is growing spectacularly and steadily.  they will bring few older big names into the league, kaka, lampard, villa, after the world cup and it will upswing again.  the mls is really the driving force for the growth of soccer in the usa.  us soccer is the beneficiary of that and therefore a great way to judge it.   #  just look at the recent photo of orlando announcing kaka is signing and see how many fans showed up.   # i know they still are not world beaters or anything close to it, but for a nation which you claim does not care about soccer i think that is pretty good.  again i french people care much more about soccer than americans but you ca not really say that americans do not support their league.  just look at the recent photo of orlando announcing kaka is signing and see how many fans showed up.  how do you think a sport grows, people give it a chance because they are intrigued or have a rooting interest.  the world cup has already received 0 more streaming hours than the olympics did two years, an event where the americans typically do very well.  soccer is on the raise in this country and people are looking for a rooting interest and the usmnt gives them one.
many times on online sites you will read a profile describing a person and included in it might be a message ranging from the subtle  looking for racial/ethnic group here men/women.   the less tactful  not interested in hearing from racial/ethnic group here .  and the obvious  not attracted to insert racial/ethnic group here .  people who do this hide behind having  preferences  that are harmless.  i believe this is racist since outright telling people of certain groups not to contact you means cultural differences are no longer a factor and skin color is the only measure the man/woman is using.  i would also like to add that i think not posting this publicly and still rejecting men/woman on the basis of being insert racial/ethnic group here is also racist.  why do i think this is racist ? an individual in this scenario is outright say he/she does not wish to speak to someone on the basis of race and we are to assume he/she will ignore comments from individuals belonging to whatever group he/she is excluding.  i find this exclusion to be racist and the  public  shamelessness involved in saying that you do not want to talk to or be contacted by insert racial/ethnic group here is racist.  i would be appalled if i heard someone say this to me in any other circumstance.  why do we make an exception for dating ?  #  hy do i think this is racist ?  #  an individual in this scenario is outright say he/she does not wish to speak to someone on the basis of race and we are to assume he/she will ignore comments from individuals belonging to whatever group he/she is excluding.   #  i have already explained my reasoning throughly.  multiple times.  it is your burden to explain why it is not racist, not mine to defend my view in every one of your comments.  if you ca not reasonably argue your point without asking 0 clarifying question and changing the topic, than you should go to another subreddit.   i am not attracted to you  does not equal  you are ugly  since you may find people i am attracted to ugly and be relieved you are not in that group.  the next time you respond.  just delete any sentence that has the word  attraction  in it because it is irrelevant.  simply for mentioning race ? i am going to answer this since you are not reading any of my other comments.  an individual in this scenario is outright say he/she does not wish to speak to someone on the basis of race and we are to assume he/she will ignore comments from individuals belonging to whatever group he/she is excluding.  i find this exclusion to be racist and the public shamelessness involved in saying that you do not want to talk to or be contacted by insert racial/ethnic group here is racist.  i would be appalled if i heard someone say this to me in any other circumstance.  why do we make an exception for dating ? if part of the society suffers for benefit of others, it is clearly not a good decision.  by me saying i am not attracted to someone, no one suffers.  you shame someone which makes them feel bad.  why ? because they were born a certain skin color.   #  many people on dating sites are older and are experienced enough to know they have a certain type or build they are attracted to.   #  i do not think you can bring up this topic about dating websites and say  this is not about sexual attraction .  that is like saying  why do baseball players train so much  while at the same time claiming  it is not about competitiveness .  0/0 people are going to consider attractiveness especially in the initial stages of dating a very important metric.  many people on dating sites are older and are experienced enough to know they have a certain type or build they are attracted to.  if a 0 year old woman is only attracted to white men and is looking for one specifically to date/shack up with, so be it.  you ca not call someone racist because they do not find men of x minority attractive.  people have busy schedules and limited time.  sometimes they just want to cut to the chase.  acknowledging that people of different races look different is not racist.  now, if she was a boss hiring for a finance position and said  black men need not apply  then  of course  i would call her out for being racist.  but again this is a dating site, so we need to approach it as such.   #  in situation 0 you are choosing someone based on how attractive you think they look in large part , and in situation 0 you are choosing someone based on how intelligent and competent they are.   #  it is simple.  in situation 0 you are choosing someone based on how attractive you think they look in large part , and in situation 0 you are choosing someone based on how intelligent and competent they are.  saying that race x might look different than race y is not a racist statement situation 0 .  some people just prefer dark skinned individuals, and that is that.  but saying that race x is less intelligent or not as hardworking as race y is a racist statement situation 0 .  we all might look different on the outside, but inside we are all the same.  make sense ?  #  i would argue that outright saying you are not attracted to a certain race is labeling a race to be lesser if only in one area of your life .   #  i would argue that outright saying you are not attracted to a certain race is labeling a race to be lesser if only in one area of your life .  is this racist ? i think so, but i am not asking anyone to defend their sexual attraction.  is the stating of racial biases justify labeling those statements as racist ? i have not seen a defense of this point so far.  if you are at a party and a person comes up to you and your friends and asks to get a drink with you, would you tell someone that asked to get a drink with you,  sorry i do not get drinks with black guys/girls ?   i do not know, but as an onlooker i would say that was a racist comment and i am inclined to think most people would not say something like that.   #  most people who have a racial attraction would have no problem befriending someone of a diffrent race but they simply do not want them sexualy.   #  not being attracted to someone is diffrent from thinking they are less of a human being, thats like sayins you think guys are lesser people because you do not want to have sex with them.  i have not seen a defense of this point so far.  if you are at a party and a person comes up to you and your friends and asks to get a drink with you, would you tell someone that asked to get a drink with you,  sorry i do not get drinks with black guys/girls ?   the diffrence is that saying that a race is not good enough to drink with you is diffrent then if they had said they were not interested in them.  most people who have a racial attraction would have no problem befriending someone of a diffrent race but they simply do not want them sexualy.  people are not businesses and they have no obligation to consider or be attracted to anyone.
i am about to go into college from a decent university and plan on co majoring finance and international business.  i am thinking of taking out about $0,0 $0,0 over the next 0 years but i see no serious problem in that.  once i graduate from uni with no kids or anything to hold me back hopefully , i am expecting to make anywhere between $0,0 $0,0 a year.  assuming the the former, and paying anywhere from $0 $0 a month.  i should be done paying it off within 0 0 years.  i am not planning on making any large purchases my first few years out of college such as a car or a new home.  i am thinking a reasonably priced apartment with maybe a bro or 0 .  i feel like as long as you play your cards right not getting a chick pregnant or getting yourself into any additional debt , it should not be that big of a deal.   #  i am expecting to make anywhere between $0,0 $0,0 a year.   #  so you are expecting to have a  job  in your  field of choice  after you graduate.   # i know people who had to take out that much  per  year.  so you are expecting to have a  job  in your  field of choice  after you graduate.  i wish you the best, but those are some pretty high expectations in this economy.  most of the people that i know worked retail for at least a few years  after  getting their ba.  i should be done paying it off within 0 0 years.  ok, let is assume you are making 0k and paying 0/month.  you would be making 0k a month.  minus taxes, so like 0k.  minus reasonably priced rent in a decent apartment for a month. another k, leaves you with 0k.  now there is food, utilities, clothes, and other living expenses.  let is say you are being frugal and only spending 0 a week.  0k.  you do not have a car, so you will need to pay for public transportation.  if that is 0 dollars a day which is another low estimate you are down to 0k.  after paying your loans then, that leaves you with 0k wiggle room for the month.  that roughly 0 per week for luxury  and  savings combined.  this is the absolute best case scenario assuming god smiles on you and does not throw any medical bills or unexpected expenses your way and notice there is no cable/internet/cell phone bills in that , and even then it is not a lot of wiggle room.  now, consider what will happen if only one thing does not go your way.  you get laid off, you get sick, bro does not pay his rent, condom breaks.  you would be surprised what life can throw at you.  now, i am not saying that your future will be all doom and gloom.  i am just saying it is not fair to say that student loans are no big deal.  most people are not as fortunate as the scenario i described, and i know some people that are counting the dollars in their wallet to see if they have enough money to eat.  for those people 0 a month is a pretty heavy hit.   #  and private schools do not give in state tuition everyone pays the same amount.   #  i do not think i appreciate being called stupid for choosing a school where i would get a better education as a computer science major.  i do not deserve to pay off all my debt which i should easily be able to do given my field just because i want to go to a better school.  since when does education come down to  lets go to my cheapest option which coincidentally is the worst school i can go to .  because i was put in that situation and i chose the good school.  and private schools do not give in state tuition everyone pays the same amount.  so are you suggest that everyone that does not go to their local public university is stupid ? that is a bold claim.  i might be in about $0k of debt not including money i make from jobs while attending university, but at least i am getting a good education at a school that i will be happy at.   #  why should only the rich be able to make a true choice of which college they want to attend ?  #  i was not trying to say that.  it was simply the situation i was put in and i find its often the situation other people are put in.  if you apply to a school whose average gpa matches your gpa, they will give you some merit aid.  if you apply to a worse school where your gpa is twice their average, they pretty much give you a full ride thus making it cheaper .  i just do not understand why i should try to be forced to go to a sub par school because of my economic status.  why should only the rich be able to make a true choice of which college they want to attend ?  #  the roi is terrible it is simply pragmatic thinking.   #  your immature, snarky answer aside, what would an influx of college grads do for the country when we are already at higher than normal unemployed  and  underemployed rates ? seriously.  we already ship out jobs in the tech/software industry that can be done cheaper elsewhere, and having a bigger pool of candidates is not going to change that.  hell, skilled blue collar jobs are available but not sought, yet you do not even need a college degree for those.  further, what interest should the average person have for their tax dollars supporting people pursuing degrees with very little practical application ? i do not think art degrees or philosophy degrees should be done away with, but i also do not see why the public should have to pay for that.  the roi is terrible it is simply pragmatic thinking.  for the money i would much rather invest that in primary and secondary education so that children and teens would be better educated and make much more informed decisions  before  going to college.  i live in a college town that houses a very large state school.  there are tons of kids in college because it is simply the  thing to do,  and not because they have planned out their future in any meaningful way.  i do not see why the state and the public should be on the hook to support that.   #  there are many programs that have very limited options.   #  i think you are looking at a very specific situation where you have many options.  there are many programs that have very limited options.  for many people if you do not make it into the in state school program you want your only options are private or out of state.  there are programs that only accept 0 or so students a year.  also, many careers require masters or doctorate degrees.  despite making all the right decisions regarding cost, you can still end up with huge loan amounts URL this is why many people do not even have the option to make the  financially sound  decision.
i am about to go into college from a decent university and plan on co majoring finance and international business.  i am thinking of taking out about $0,0 $0,0 over the next 0 years but i see no serious problem in that.  once i graduate from uni with no kids or anything to hold me back hopefully , i am expecting to make anywhere between $0,0 $0,0 a year.  assuming the the former, and paying anywhere from $0 $0 a month.  i should be done paying it off within 0 0 years.  i am not planning on making any large purchases my first few years out of college such as a car or a new home.  i am thinking a reasonably priced apartment with maybe a bro or 0 .  i feel like as long as you play your cards right not getting a chick pregnant or getting yourself into any additional debt , it should not be that big of a deal.   #  assuming the the former, and paying anywhere from $0 $0 a month.   #  i should be done paying it off within 0 0 years.   # i know people who had to take out that much  per  year.  so you are expecting to have a  job  in your  field of choice  after you graduate.  i wish you the best, but those are some pretty high expectations in this economy.  most of the people that i know worked retail for at least a few years  after  getting their ba.  i should be done paying it off within 0 0 years.  ok, let is assume you are making 0k and paying 0/month.  you would be making 0k a month.  minus taxes, so like 0k.  minus reasonably priced rent in a decent apartment for a month. another k, leaves you with 0k.  now there is food, utilities, clothes, and other living expenses.  let is say you are being frugal and only spending 0 a week.  0k.  you do not have a car, so you will need to pay for public transportation.  if that is 0 dollars a day which is another low estimate you are down to 0k.  after paying your loans then, that leaves you with 0k wiggle room for the month.  that roughly 0 per week for luxury  and  savings combined.  this is the absolute best case scenario assuming god smiles on you and does not throw any medical bills or unexpected expenses your way and notice there is no cable/internet/cell phone bills in that , and even then it is not a lot of wiggle room.  now, consider what will happen if only one thing does not go your way.  you get laid off, you get sick, bro does not pay his rent, condom breaks.  you would be surprised what life can throw at you.  now, i am not saying that your future will be all doom and gloom.  i am just saying it is not fair to say that student loans are no big deal.  most people are not as fortunate as the scenario i described, and i know some people that are counting the dollars in their wallet to see if they have enough money to eat.  for those people 0 a month is a pretty heavy hit.   #  so are you suggest that everyone that does not go to their local public university is stupid ?  #  i do not think i appreciate being called stupid for choosing a school where i would get a better education as a computer science major.  i do not deserve to pay off all my debt which i should easily be able to do given my field just because i want to go to a better school.  since when does education come down to  lets go to my cheapest option which coincidentally is the worst school i can go to .  because i was put in that situation and i chose the good school.  and private schools do not give in state tuition everyone pays the same amount.  so are you suggest that everyone that does not go to their local public university is stupid ? that is a bold claim.  i might be in about $0k of debt not including money i make from jobs while attending university, but at least i am getting a good education at a school that i will be happy at.   #  why should only the rich be able to make a true choice of which college they want to attend ?  #  i was not trying to say that.  it was simply the situation i was put in and i find its often the situation other people are put in.  if you apply to a school whose average gpa matches your gpa, they will give you some merit aid.  if you apply to a worse school where your gpa is twice their average, they pretty much give you a full ride thus making it cheaper .  i just do not understand why i should try to be forced to go to a sub par school because of my economic status.  why should only the rich be able to make a true choice of which college they want to attend ?  #  hell, skilled blue collar jobs are available but not sought, yet you do not even need a college degree for those.   #  your immature, snarky answer aside, what would an influx of college grads do for the country when we are already at higher than normal unemployed  and  underemployed rates ? seriously.  we already ship out jobs in the tech/software industry that can be done cheaper elsewhere, and having a bigger pool of candidates is not going to change that.  hell, skilled blue collar jobs are available but not sought, yet you do not even need a college degree for those.  further, what interest should the average person have for their tax dollars supporting people pursuing degrees with very little practical application ? i do not think art degrees or philosophy degrees should be done away with, but i also do not see why the public should have to pay for that.  the roi is terrible it is simply pragmatic thinking.  for the money i would much rather invest that in primary and secondary education so that children and teens would be better educated and make much more informed decisions  before  going to college.  i live in a college town that houses a very large state school.  there are tons of kids in college because it is simply the  thing to do,  and not because they have planned out their future in any meaningful way.  i do not see why the state and the public should be on the hook to support that.   #  also, many careers require masters or doctorate degrees.   #  i think you are looking at a very specific situation where you have many options.  there are many programs that have very limited options.  for many people if you do not make it into the in state school program you want your only options are private or out of state.  there are programs that only accept 0 or so students a year.  also, many careers require masters or doctorate degrees.  despite making all the right decisions regarding cost, you can still end up with huge loan amounts URL this is why many people do not even have the option to make the  financially sound  decision.
i am about to go into college from a decent university and plan on co majoring finance and international business.  i am thinking of taking out about $0,0 $0,0 over the next 0 years but i see no serious problem in that.  once i graduate from uni with no kids or anything to hold me back hopefully , i am expecting to make anywhere between $0,0 $0,0 a year.  assuming the the former, and paying anywhere from $0 $0 a month.  i should be done paying it off within 0 0 years.  i am not planning on making any large purchases my first few years out of college such as a car or a new home.  i am thinking a reasonably priced apartment with maybe a bro or 0 .  i feel like as long as you play your cards right not getting a chick pregnant or getting yourself into any additional debt , it should not be that big of a deal.   #  once i graduate from uni with no kids or anything to hold me back hopefully , i am expecting to make anywhere between $0,0 $0,0 a year.   #  remember, a lot can change in 0 years.   # remember, a lot can change in 0 years.  part of the issue is that with what has happened to the economy, even with a degree in what is currently a safe major, from a good school, does not mean it will be in 0 0 years time i add the 0, because you may find that in those 0 years, a masters suddenly becomes the required entry level qualification for your field .  i have a lot of friends who went into what were traditionally  safe  fields, to find that the job market turned during or just after they finished uni, leaving their job prospects pretty glum.  examples of this include friends who got their degrees in certain stem fields to finish and find out that research funding had been cut therefore jobs were fewer.  this happened to a couple of friends who went to excellent schools.  or friends who entered teaching programs, as a few years ago it was predicted that there would be a significant need for teachers as the boomers retired and birth rates rose.  recession hit and a lot of boomers lost their pensions or other retirement income, could not afford to retire and stayed teaching, alongside former teachers who went back teaching because either they had lost their jobs in other industries, or had left teaching to be an at home parent and their spouse lost their job.  also, to save money, an estimated 0 teaching jobs were eliminated across the us.  as a result, instead of the predicted need for teachers my friends entered their programs expecting, there was a surplus of teachers and they were/are struggling to find jobs.  even people with mbas, a degree that used to pretty much be a ticket to an awesome job, have found themselves with challenges finding employment.  furthermore, in a lot of industries, the entry level pay has dropped dramatically.  when there is a surplus of people wanting professional jobs, people will work for significantly under traditional market value.  the worst i have personally seen is a full time teaching job requiring a masters degree in a private school for only 0k per year starting pay for public school in my state with a masters is 0k .  the sad thing is, someone would have taken it, because realistically a 0k full time teaching job will do far more for their future than earning 0k from waiting tables   retail, or subbing.  in full disclosure i have a background in teaching, hence that is the field i know, and it was traditionally seen as a field that is safe regardless of economy.  not working now as having complications with pregnancy/ recently immigrated and figuring a new system/ finishing my masters.  i was lucky.  i certified 0 months before the recession hit in my home country, so have been almost always employed since then.  i have watched friends who graduated a year later than me struggle for years to get stable teaching jobs.   #  because i was put in that situation and i chose the good school.   #  i do not think i appreciate being called stupid for choosing a school where i would get a better education as a computer science major.  i do not deserve to pay off all my debt which i should easily be able to do given my field just because i want to go to a better school.  since when does education come down to  lets go to my cheapest option which coincidentally is the worst school i can go to .  because i was put in that situation and i chose the good school.  and private schools do not give in state tuition everyone pays the same amount.  so are you suggest that everyone that does not go to their local public university is stupid ? that is a bold claim.  i might be in about $0k of debt not including money i make from jobs while attending university, but at least i am getting a good education at a school that i will be happy at.   #  why should only the rich be able to make a true choice of which college they want to attend ?  #  i was not trying to say that.  it was simply the situation i was put in and i find its often the situation other people are put in.  if you apply to a school whose average gpa matches your gpa, they will give you some merit aid.  if you apply to a worse school where your gpa is twice their average, they pretty much give you a full ride thus making it cheaper .  i just do not understand why i should try to be forced to go to a sub par school because of my economic status.  why should only the rich be able to make a true choice of which college they want to attend ?  #  there are tons of kids in college because it is simply the  thing to do,  and not because they have planned out their future in any meaningful way.   #  your immature, snarky answer aside, what would an influx of college grads do for the country when we are already at higher than normal unemployed  and  underemployed rates ? seriously.  we already ship out jobs in the tech/software industry that can be done cheaper elsewhere, and having a bigger pool of candidates is not going to change that.  hell, skilled blue collar jobs are available but not sought, yet you do not even need a college degree for those.  further, what interest should the average person have for their tax dollars supporting people pursuing degrees with very little practical application ? i do not think art degrees or philosophy degrees should be done away with, but i also do not see why the public should have to pay for that.  the roi is terrible it is simply pragmatic thinking.  for the money i would much rather invest that in primary and secondary education so that children and teens would be better educated and make much more informed decisions  before  going to college.  i live in a college town that houses a very large state school.  there are tons of kids in college because it is simply the  thing to do,  and not because they have planned out their future in any meaningful way.  i do not see why the state and the public should be on the hook to support that.   #  i think you are looking at a very specific situation where you have many options.   #  i think you are looking at a very specific situation where you have many options.  there are many programs that have very limited options.  for many people if you do not make it into the in state school program you want your only options are private or out of state.  there are programs that only accept 0 or so students a year.  also, many careers require masters or doctorate degrees.  despite making all the right decisions regarding cost, you can still end up with huge loan amounts URL this is why many people do not even have the option to make the  financially sound  decision.
i am of the belief that appeals to authority may be incorrectly applied, but not necessarily.  i think any form of inductive reasoning is ultimately an appeal to authority.  what is a meaningful difference between the two ? after all; inductive reasoning is making predictions of the future based on the fact that we expect a pattern to continue while an appeal to authority is a specific form of the same thing.  am i right to equate the two ? after all i recognise that inductive reasoning is not the right tool to use all the time, and neither is useless.  so what is the difference.   #  am i right to equate the two ?  #  no, you have made the classic mistake of reversing the direction of property inheritance.   # no, you have made the classic mistake of reversing the direction of property inheritance.  the generalised abstraction is true of all it is members, but the concrete details of the members in not true for the generalised abstraction.  if  appeal to authority  is a a specific form, or type, of  inductive reasoning , then aa inherits what it is parent, ir, is.  but ir does not inherit any properties from it is children or members.  consider  cutlery  and one of it is specific forms  knifes .  a knife is everything cutlery is, but cutlery does not inherit all the properties of the knife.  infact, the abstract concept  cutlery  is only the  commonality  between all it is specific forms and particular concrete examples the defining characteristics of spoons, knives and forks are all  omitted  from the abstraction.  or consider  political system .  it possesses neither the particular characteristics of capitalism, communism or socialism it only possesses the commonality between these specific forms and none of their differences.  i do however sympathise with the similarity you might be referencing.  since induction is reliant on past evidence, it can be said to be an  appeal  to the  authority  of that evidence.  in a metaphorical or poetic sense, you can say this, but not in a literal sense since  induction  can not  appeal , only humans can, and evidence can not possess the property of  authority , which requires the ability to know things better than other knowers, as evidence ca not  know .   #  it is that an appeal to authority is not always right.   #  this issue is not that an appeal to authority is always wrong.  that, ironically, is a fallacy itself called the fallacy fallacy .  it is that an appeal to authority is not always right.  it is reasonable to assume the jerry coyne is comments on evolutionary biology would be more legitimate than my plumber joe is beliefs.  it would be bad to assume that because he is jerry coyne, everything he says about evolutionary biology is objectively right and does not need to be fact checked.   #  ir does not prove things, but it provides the only type of evidence we expect to ever see for certain predictions.   #  ir does not prove things, but it provides the only type of evidence we expect to ever see for certain predictions.  how else would you decide to inhale your next breath of air, if you did not inductively reason that there would be oxygen you could use ? why would farmers plant seeds, if they did not inductively reason that they would grow into plants ? that does not mean your next breath of air could not be full of random helium atoms, that a crop will grow, or that the seeds could not turn to gold.  but it seems impractical to live without drawing any conclusions by inductive reasoning.  it would also be impractical to reject all appeals to authority, but it would still be possible to live without an authority figure telling you to take each breath.   #  but even then, from a logical standpoint and this might be the technicalities you are referring to ,  appeal to authority  is a  type  of inductive reasoning.   #  is your view different from wikipedia is entry on  argument from authority  ? it describes it as  a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy  when misused  .  it goes on to say:    fallacious examples of using the appeal  include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, 0 0 0 0 as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, citation needed they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink.  emphasis mine.  it seems clear that it is not an inherently fallacious way of thinking, which jives with the fact that pretty much everyone listens to their dentists and plumbers.  who are you talking to that is rejecting  every  appeal to authority ? but even then, from a logical standpoint and this might be the technicalities you are referring to ,  appeal to authority  is a  type  of inductive reasoning.  you can although you should not ! reject all appeals to authority while still accepting some other forms of inductive reasoning, just as i can reject pepperoni without rejecting  all  pizza toppings.  not that i think taking only some of inductive reasoning makes much sense, because as i described, i do not think it makes sense to outright reject appeals to authority in general.  basically, i think your arguing against a view that you are either misinterpreting, or does not exist at all.   #  maybe that would help shed some light on what is going on in those cases.   # because its only a rejection of a subset of inductive reasoning, like the pizza topping example.  but i think this is not where i would like to really debate here, because like i said, i do not think such a blanket rejection actually makes sense.  could you find an example ? maybe that would help shed some light on what is going on in those cases.  because for the most part, it seems like wikipedia agrees with you.  its certainly true that some people on the internet are just plain wrong.
the title says it all: accusing a person of being a hypocrite is a weak and desperate way to contest a point you have nothing for.  an obese dietitian may well be a hypocrite, but it does not affect their logic.  a smoker working on preventing kids from lighting up is probably right, and even might have a deep insight on the matter.  a murderer speaking on the merits of self control may be completely right.  even a pedophile preaching on respect for others might have very good, constructive points.  in short, pointing out a person is shortcomings in order to distract from an argument or contest their qualification to make the point is an ad hominem attack, and a particularly insidious one, since in the eyes of many listeners it does marginalize the person.   why should we listen to you,  comes the rallying cry.   you do not even listen to yourself !   well, we should listen.  if a gambler tells me to invest instead of blowing my money on the tables, he is probably right.  the fact that he is blowing his money on the tables does not change that.  this does not apply if the intended subject of a conversation or debate is a person is moral fiber or consistency.  i just do not see why that consistency should matter unless they are in a position of power reached by proclaiming that consistency politicians, clergy.  and in that case the point of the charge is not to invalidate their message, but to call them a liar, and imply that they have used their station to violate the values that got them there.   #  a smoker working on preventing kids from lighting up is probably right, and even might have a deep insight on the matter.   #  smoking is a physical addiction, and he can hate smoking and want to stop while advising other not to.   # certainly.  but a to be a dietitian or at least a good one you need to understand health benefits and risks.  a true dietitian would take precautions not to be obese.  if a gambler tells me to invest instead of blowing my money on the tables, he is probably right.  you are suggesting improbable, but not impossible points.  the person would not be a real gambler if he recognized that investment was better for a person.  he would not make that suggestion, especially if he had nothing to lose and was gambler.  smoking is a physical addiction, and he can hate smoking and want to stop while advising other not to.  if he did not see a problem with smoking, then he would not be telling people not to smoke.  see, if someone recognizes would should be done, they would follow it themselves.  if they ca not follow their own beliefs about what others should do, then others should fine another source of morals.   #  i do not think it is at all childish to assume that 0 is relevant, although it may often be false.   #  you are right in that the argument: 0 person a is a hypocrite.  0 therefore, anything person a says is questionable.  would just be a standard  ad hominem , and false.  but usually, saying that someone is a hypocrite does not take that form.  an argument would typically be something like: 0 person a claims x.  0 if person a really believed x, person a would act in manner y.  0 person a does not act in manner y.  0 therefore, person a does not really believe x.  0 therefore, person a is untrustworthy, or at least claim x is untrustworthy because person a does not sincerely believe it.  and this seems pretty reasonable.  the issues is 0 : there are plenty of cases where this might not hold.  for example, with an obese nutritionist, she may give me perfectly good advice about dieting, but not have enough willpower to follow her own advice.  so i think this really boils down to how often you believe 0 is relevant.  i do not think it is at all childish to assume that 0 is relevant, although it may often be false.  a person who has never dieted may not realize how much willpower it takes to lose weight, and thus not realize why a nutritionist might be unable to follow her own advice.  in the case of a moral authority, such as clergyman, 0 is essentially always true, which explains the discrepancy in your intuition.  accusing someone of being a hypocrite is generally an attack on someone is qualifications to give advice, something which is very relevant.   #  the problem is his concerns did not come from integrity, they came from his hidden agenda all along which was nepotism.   #  you put this much better than i would have, but essentially what i was thinking.  pointing out hypocrisy matters i think greatly in the tone and reason it is done and what it is pertaining to.  for example when hypocrisy is pointed out to reveal a hidden agenda.  mayor platypus wants only cage free eggs allowed to be sold at the local super market.  he makes very good claims about why this would be better than eggs from super farms who have chickens in poor conditions.  a few citizens point out they saw mayor platypus buy the super farm eggs just last week.  not too long after it is discovered the biggest supplier locally to the town of cage free eggs is a 0nd cousin of mayor platypus is wife.  mayor platypus still is not wrong.  cage free eggs are more humane than super farm eggs.  the problem is his concerns did not come from integrity, they came from his hidden agenda all along which was nepotism.   #  so the end result is that they are the same, but the value is increased when one side admits wrong, which is why i consider their advice as stronger.   #  i can concede that it is equally valuable for me to be told to avoid paths to addiction by either sober or inebriated people, but let me move the discussion to a different scale.  if only sober people are saying  avoid drugs , but all inebriated people are saying  drugs rule, and my life is better with them  regardless of decreased life expectency or financial stability , we are at an impasse.  we ca not really tell the inebriated people  no, you do not think that.   but as soon as an inebriated person says,  this shit is absolutely not worth it , the value of the advice has increased.  in other words, a sober person telling me to be drug free is stronger if they are backed by actually admissions from drug users, otherwise the argument is an arguable matter of preference.  so the end result is that they are the same, but the value is increased when one side admits wrong, which is why i consider their advice as stronger.   #  well, for one, i would say 0 is pretty relevant in any situation where someone gives advice.   #  well, for one, i would say 0 is pretty relevant in any situation where someone gives advice.  if i give advice about dieting and i do not seem to eat healthy myself, it undercuts the advice.  it could be because dieting is hard, but it could also be because my advice does not really work.  if an it guy recommends you not use internet explorer because it exposes you to viruses, but routinely has viruses on his own computer, it seems to discredit his expertise.  if that is the case, then why  would  you believe anything he has to say about computers ? you have evidence he is not really that good at his job.  of course, again, there might be plenty of reasons this is not actually the case, but it is not irrational or childish to believe that it is.
i would like to preface this post with the statement that i am a man and also a feminist.  my political views tend to be utilitarian, libertarian /anarchist , and structuralist marxist .  this kind of puts me in the tradition of classical liberals who thought that people free to converse and act produced the freest and therefore best society.  in real life, i tend to be more feminist than almost all the people i know, at least in appreciating feminism in the same tradition of other civil rights activities and in consideration of gender politics in social and cultural contexts.  what i would like to consider for a moment is an evaluation of feminism from a purely structural focus.  i would like to discharge the ethical and factual context of feminism and look at the endgame of a feminist society.  this society, i am concerned with is something like this: women and men have equal access to wealth, education or if you would like privilege generally.  when it comes to asymmetric laws such as those affecting childbirth, the laws are consistent with what feminists want.  that is, free access for contraception, abortion, etc.  i will not consider some of the social goals of feminism.  i am not sure if feminists think that rape would disappear in an ideal feminist society or which mechanisms they think would cause this to happen.  neither am i sure whether feminists think that gender ratios would all go to 0 under equal access to privilege so we can ignore this focus.  the point is that under these circumstances, it seems like men have been stripped of just about every biological advantage.  women choose whose genes get passed along almost completely.  women have more access to contraceptive action: morning after pill, contraception, etc.  since men are not are not allowed to use physical force, the way matters are settled are through social interaction where women have strong biological advantages.  furthermore, reproductively, almost every man on earth has become redundant.  one man is enough to satisfy the reproductive needs of at least ten women.  without privilege, that makes at least 0 of men biologically irrelevant.  this seems to imply a strongly uneven power structure.  i honestly do not see any biological advantage to being a man in this context whatsoever except perhaps that men can usually masturbate more easily.  and while masturbation is great, i ca not see it as the basis of a free society.  i can see no structural reason for men to advocate feminism.  what am i missing ? i am not asking you to defend feminism.  i am pro feminist so your attempts to defend feminism by definition cannot change my view.  i am asking you to change my view about the particular consequences of a feminist society.  read the damned post.  people, i am trying to understand the important issues better.  very frequently, i am the only feminist who has to represent it to other people.  it would make my job easier if i could represent how feminism makes for a better society and how it is not emasculating.  i am a very rational analytical person who can take any argument seriously if it is adequately supported.  even if an argument is difficult or goes against my beliefs, i will give it full consideration.  thanks to those of you that have stayed with me even in the face of a difficult topic.  i apologize for using a bad title for this.  a lot of people have a very hard time understanding why someone would want to discuss something theoretically instead of in practice.  but by practicing, maybe it will become easier for both of us.   #  women choose whose genes get passed along almost completely.   #  women have more access to contraceptive action: morning after pill, contraception, etc.   # women have more access to contraceptive action: morning after pill, contraception, etc.  this is something that i, as a man, want my daughters, sisters, mother and girlfriends to have.  full control of their body.  something i as a man have, they should have it too.  what ? what kind of society you live in where  matters are settled with force  ? what does that even mean ? do you hit your friends now when they do not want sushi or what ? what kind of advantages do you have ? what kind of artificial advantages do you want, or do you feel entitled to just because you are a man ? what does any of this mean ? i want feminism because my sisters feel uncomfortable using the bus because they get catcalled, stared at and in general feel uncomfortable.  i want feminism because if i know about 0 girls, at least one of them statistically would have been abused at some point, and the social and institutional structures to help her are not really there yet.  neither for boys, come to that matter i want feminism because we perceive an artificial disadvantage to being a girl in a lot of fields.  i just want that artificial disadvantage removed.   #  if you want to analyze gender dynamics in terms of a power structure fine, but you are unnecessarily looking at this dynamic through some sort of evolutionary imperative to reproduce.   #  it is disingenuous to describe reproduction solely as some sort of biological imperative because it ignores all of the social and economic consequences of birth.  women do have rights that men do not have when it comes to carrying a birth, but they also face consequences that men do not have.  if you want to analyze gender dynamics in terms of a power structure fine, but you are unnecessarily looking at this dynamic through some sort of evolutionary imperative to reproduce.  this simply is not the sole determination of how people work and there is no reason for you to ignore history, tradition, race, class, economics, love, emotion, psychology, and every other reason why people act the way that they do.  when people decide to have children, a whole bunch of things go through their head besides  which genes should i chose in order to engineer my next descendant.   it is ridiculous to think of men becoming obsolete because women will love men for reasons other than their genetic worth.   #  i do not want her to face discrimination or violence on account of her being a women.   #  women are relevant with the patriarchy.  they will always be relevant.  the same is true for men, with or without the patriarchy, or a even a matriarchy.  even in a patriarchal society, men love and value women for reasons beyond biology.  i am a guy who benefits from the patriarchal structure, but i love my fiancee very much and want the best for her.  i do not want her to face discrimination or violence on account of her being a women.  i want her to be able to control her own body, because i think people should be able to control their own body.  the fact that this gives her exclusive choice over whether to carry a child to birth does not make me irrelevant because she still loves me, finds me funny, and attractive, interesting, and worth spending her time with.  i defend feminism because i think people should be treated with an essential dignity.  i defend feminism, even if it means that i have to pay for a child i do not want and even if it means that i might be able to have a child that i want born, because i trust the women around me to make informed decisions as fully fledged individuals capable of love and decency.   #  a lot of people are doing the same thing in this thread.   #  it just seems like you are not arguing against my viewpoint, just against an implied perhaps ? is/ought.  a lot of people are doing the same thing in this thread.  they retreat to the lowest argument which is the ethical imperative.  i am trying to strengthen my resolve by having something stronger than an ethical imperative or happy pictures.  as i explained in my post, i share liberal feel good ethics.  but some people do not, and i think that is an important position to consider.   #  the larger context is that i see people using structuralist arguments to support their points of view all the time.   #  i am sorry for being so particularized.  it just seems difficult to sidestep all of the bias people introduce into these conversations.  the larger context is that i see people using structuralist arguments to support their points of view all the time.  but they always stop somewhere in the middle and it really bothers me.  i would like to understand and use structuralist arguments in my politics and philosophy, but i am not sure how to.  do you think women would lose relevance if men had complete control over the birthing process ? i do not think that women have a lot of relevance right now, in the sense that outside of some narrow blocks, culture does not really consider women is interest.  at all levels, proportionately more money is spent catering to male cultural interest.  the highest levels of academia are generally male dominated.  culturally, women are marginalized down to a biological function in fiction and news.  so yes, i can see the same thing happening to men.
i would like to preface this post with the statement that i am a man and also a feminist.  my political views tend to be utilitarian, libertarian /anarchist , and structuralist marxist .  this kind of puts me in the tradition of classical liberals who thought that people free to converse and act produced the freest and therefore best society.  in real life, i tend to be more feminist than almost all the people i know, at least in appreciating feminism in the same tradition of other civil rights activities and in consideration of gender politics in social and cultural contexts.  what i would like to consider for a moment is an evaluation of feminism from a purely structural focus.  i would like to discharge the ethical and factual context of feminism and look at the endgame of a feminist society.  this society, i am concerned with is something like this: women and men have equal access to wealth, education or if you would like privilege generally.  when it comes to asymmetric laws such as those affecting childbirth, the laws are consistent with what feminists want.  that is, free access for contraception, abortion, etc.  i will not consider some of the social goals of feminism.  i am not sure if feminists think that rape would disappear in an ideal feminist society or which mechanisms they think would cause this to happen.  neither am i sure whether feminists think that gender ratios would all go to 0 under equal access to privilege so we can ignore this focus.  the point is that under these circumstances, it seems like men have been stripped of just about every biological advantage.  women choose whose genes get passed along almost completely.  women have more access to contraceptive action: morning after pill, contraception, etc.  since men are not are not allowed to use physical force, the way matters are settled are through social interaction where women have strong biological advantages.  furthermore, reproductively, almost every man on earth has become redundant.  one man is enough to satisfy the reproductive needs of at least ten women.  without privilege, that makes at least 0 of men biologically irrelevant.  this seems to imply a strongly uneven power structure.  i honestly do not see any biological advantage to being a man in this context whatsoever except perhaps that men can usually masturbate more easily.  and while masturbation is great, i ca not see it as the basis of a free society.  i can see no structural reason for men to advocate feminism.  what am i missing ? i am not asking you to defend feminism.  i am pro feminist so your attempts to defend feminism by definition cannot change my view.  i am asking you to change my view about the particular consequences of a feminist society.  read the damned post.  people, i am trying to understand the important issues better.  very frequently, i am the only feminist who has to represent it to other people.  it would make my job easier if i could represent how feminism makes for a better society and how it is not emasculating.  i am a very rational analytical person who can take any argument seriously if it is adequately supported.  even if an argument is difficult or goes against my beliefs, i will give it full consideration.  thanks to those of you that have stayed with me even in the face of a difficult topic.  i apologize for using a bad title for this.  a lot of people have a very hard time understanding why someone would want to discuss something theoretically instead of in practice.  but by practicing, maybe it will become easier for both of us.   #  furthermore, reproductively, almost every man on earth has become redundant.   #  one man is enough to satisfy the reproductive needs of at least ten women.   #  i did read your post.  you claim to be a feminist, and it is fine if you want to use that label, but you said a lot of things that most feminists would find extremely problematic, if not downright offensive.  one man is enough to satisfy the reproductive needs of at least ten women.  without privilege, that makes at least 0 of men biologically irrelevant.  what the fuck ? this is some trp, evo psych bullshit.  sexual selection is done by both genders.  the idea that every woman gets to reproduce but that only the most desirable men do is simply not true.  we are not a pride of lions.  we are a mostly monogamous species.  we value companionship and love in our mates.  you will not become biologically irrelevant, that line is just a trp scare tactic.  holy shit.  you think men settle their problems using physical force and women settle them through social interaction ? you have subscribed to the  men are neanderthals  theory.  it is more ev psych bullshit.  people are capable of solving problems without violence.  people.  men and women.  we are not that different after all.  men is  disadvantage in social interactions  is not innate.  it is part of the traditional gender roles that society teaches boys from a young age.  feminism is trying to fix that one.  furthermore, biological advantages and disadvantages are irrelevant.  we are all just people.  we deserve to be treated as people and not according to our specific gender.  you do not get extra societal privileges just because you are incapable of giving birth.  that is bullshit.  literally, the only difference between men and women is in our reproductive organs.  everything else is just society trying to fit us into comfortable little boxes.   #  women do have rights that men do not have when it comes to carrying a birth, but they also face consequences that men do not have.   #  it is disingenuous to describe reproduction solely as some sort of biological imperative because it ignores all of the social and economic consequences of birth.  women do have rights that men do not have when it comes to carrying a birth, but they also face consequences that men do not have.  if you want to analyze gender dynamics in terms of a power structure fine, but you are unnecessarily looking at this dynamic through some sort of evolutionary imperative to reproduce.  this simply is not the sole determination of how people work and there is no reason for you to ignore history, tradition, race, class, economics, love, emotion, psychology, and every other reason why people act the way that they do.  when people decide to have children, a whole bunch of things go through their head besides  which genes should i chose in order to engineer my next descendant.   it is ridiculous to think of men becoming obsolete because women will love men for reasons other than their genetic worth.   #  the same is true for men, with or without the patriarchy, or a even a matriarchy.   #  women are relevant with the patriarchy.  they will always be relevant.  the same is true for men, with or without the patriarchy, or a even a matriarchy.  even in a patriarchal society, men love and value women for reasons beyond biology.  i am a guy who benefits from the patriarchal structure, but i love my fiancee very much and want the best for her.  i do not want her to face discrimination or violence on account of her being a women.  i want her to be able to control her own body, because i think people should be able to control their own body.  the fact that this gives her exclusive choice over whether to carry a child to birth does not make me irrelevant because she still loves me, finds me funny, and attractive, interesting, and worth spending her time with.  i defend feminism because i think people should be treated with an essential dignity.  i defend feminism, even if it means that i have to pay for a child i do not want and even if it means that i might be able to have a child that i want born, because i trust the women around me to make informed decisions as fully fledged individuals capable of love and decency.   #  i am trying to strengthen my resolve by having something stronger than an ethical imperative or happy pictures.   #  it just seems like you are not arguing against my viewpoint, just against an implied perhaps ? is/ought.  a lot of people are doing the same thing in this thread.  they retreat to the lowest argument which is the ethical imperative.  i am trying to strengthen my resolve by having something stronger than an ethical imperative or happy pictures.  as i explained in my post, i share liberal feel good ethics.  but some people do not, and i think that is an important position to consider.   #  but they always stop somewhere in the middle and it really bothers me.   #  i am sorry for being so particularized.  it just seems difficult to sidestep all of the bias people introduce into these conversations.  the larger context is that i see people using structuralist arguments to support their points of view all the time.  but they always stop somewhere in the middle and it really bothers me.  i would like to understand and use structuralist arguments in my politics and philosophy, but i am not sure how to.  do you think women would lose relevance if men had complete control over the birthing process ? i do not think that women have a lot of relevance right now, in the sense that outside of some narrow blocks, culture does not really consider women is interest.  at all levels, proportionately more money is spent catering to male cultural interest.  the highest levels of academia are generally male dominated.  culturally, women are marginalized down to a biological function in fiction and news.  so yes, i can see the same thing happening to men.
i often see criticisms of the use of burqas and other pieces of clothing meant to cover up muslim women.  i have read countless online discussions and seen many television debates/newscasts critiquing the role of burqas within the muslim religion.  however, nobody seems to acknowledge that the west does the exact same thing with breasts.  in most places, women must cover up their breast in public, websites consider it nudity and will censor these videos/images, and even if it is legal, it is often frowned down on by the public.  we have sexualized breasts and therefore have forbidden them from being exposed publicly, how is this different from preventing women from exposing their faces or legs ? i invite you all to cmv.   #  how is this different from preventing women from exposing their faces or legs ?  #  for the most part, men and women have  almost  the same laws and norms applied to showing skin.   # for the most part, men and women have  almost  the same laws and norms applied to showing skin.  in many ways, in fact, women can socially get away with showing a lot more, save at a beach.  burqas are a whole other ball game.  whereas men can waltz around in a speedo, their wives are expected to remain almost totally covered by a heavy black garment.  this is not even remotely similar.  i would agree that women should be legally allowed to show as much skin as men and in many jurisdictions they can but you are making a false equivalence.   #  a pair of tits adds very little to normal communication, i ca not look at someones nipples to see if they are happy or sad.   #  wearing something that covers your entire face, including your eyes, deprives you from normal human communication.  we rely heavily on non verbal communication, and things like smiles and eye contact are subconsciously very important.  you also cannot be recognised whilst wearing a burqa, and in a sense it robs you from your identity.  neighbours, shopkeepers, bus drivers,and other people you might come in contact with in everyday life are incapable of communicating with you in a normal manner.  being  forced  to cover up your breasts does not do any of this.  a pair of tits adds very little to normal communication, i ca not look at someones nipples to see if they are happy or sad.   #  i did not think about the fact that covering up the face causes many problems for a woman is day to day life.   #    i found this argument to be the most convincing.  i did not think about the fact that covering up the face causes many problems for a woman is day to day life.  it is true that covering up breasts does not cause much trouble for women in general.  however, it seems like most of the media do not have an argument as solid as yours.  i often hear vague statements such as  forcing women to cover up is oppression  which can be applied to many non muslim countries.  speak for yourself.   #  i do not think that such commentators usually base their arguments on the fact that burqas impede communication.   #  it is true that forcing a woman to cover her face is in some strong sense  worse  than a woman to cover her breasts, but this does not mean that criticizing one while accepting the other is not hypocritical.  the google definition of hypocritical is:  behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.   in order to decide the question, it is necessary to consider the motivation of the people who criticise the burqa requirement.  i do not think that such commentators usually base their arguments on the fact that burqas impede communication.  rather, a burqa is often alleged to be a symbol of oppression.  the identity criticism is much closer to home, but does not capture the full extent of what is usually argued.  i think it is fair to say that criticism of societies which force women to wear burqas is generally from the perspective that it is wrong to attempt to control the wardrobe of women.  this is hypocritical if those same people attempt to control the wardrobe of women for no good reason, even in a more limited way.  the distinction between shirt and burqa is real, but it is one of convenience, chosen as a justification after the fact, and not a genuine reason for hating the burqa.   #  i guess, i have yet to hear a good argument for why women should be  required  to cover their breasts while men are not.   # i realize that op already awarded you a delta, but i am still curious.  the original argument seemed to be that it was wrong to ask women to cover up their body against their will so to speak .  i realize that your point is that exposed breasts are not required for  normal  human interaction but that is not a satisfying answer to me.  the main reason is that  men  can go shirtless exposing their breasts , and that is also something that is not required for  normal  interaction.  i guess, i have yet to hear a good argument for why women should be  required  to cover their breasts while men are not.
tl;dr we expect to be able to control our digital information, and should in turn extend that courtesy to our children.  the risks to both personal safety and privacy are too severe to force on them just for convenience.  facebook and social media used to be a great way to keep in touch with family and friends, but their focus has clearly shifted towards data collection and monetization.  everyone has what amounts to a  wouldigital identity  that should be solely under their control.  you decide what information about you is put out on the web.  it is considered bad form to post information about others without their consent.  the same should be applied to children.  parents should leave their child is digital identity alone until the child is old enough to make their own probably bad choices.  consider the following:   once an image is on the internet, it is there forever and largely out of your control.  there is no way to guarantee that adorable picture of your 0 year old in a bathing suit wo not end up on a pedophile is computer someday.  even benign images are now manipulated to be simulated child pornography.  also, identity thieves love to target children because their credit/financial status is not routinely monitored.  people have a rather cavalier attitude about what is put online, and it is relatively easy to piece together identifying information i work in financial security dealing with this exact thing .    facebook and other sites will collect, analyze, and monetize data even if you try to keep your kid offline.  they will create shadow profiles for people who did not sign up, collecting the bits of data that come to them.  opting out of a digital identity is already difficult without having one forced on you as an infant.    if i were to create a profile for an adult against their will, posting their daily activities and photos for all to see, that person would be well within their rights to be furious.  today is adults grew up without their every  adorable  embarrassing moment being stored online for posterity.  kids are better off without that baggage.  these are just a few examples of the myriad of reasons why children should be left off social media, but i believe them the most significant.  cmv !  #  today is adults grew up without their every  adorable  embarrassing moment being stored online for posterity.   #  kids are better off without that baggage.   #  what about taking a photo of your kid at an awards ceremony ? or doing well in some sport ? i. e not the only kid present why just social media ? why not the newspaper articles online ? why not just take em off the news stories as well ? they are online too now right ? social media is defined as ;websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.  however does not other forms of media pose the same risks as the ones you suggest ? also is it just the pictures ? or the    posting their daily activities and photos for all to see because if it is the latter, which is including their daily activities, then sure i agree.  they should not be doing that, but i came here because you said pictures in the title.  however i think you mean children should be left off social media.  you know those guys taking videos of cops and they are always going on about their right to take videos of people in public space yadi yadi yah ? well what is stopping those types of people from taking a photo of your kid and posting it on their social medium ? you say parents should not like no one else can anyways.  kids are better off without that baggage.  you are right, they were stored for their 0st birthdays and what not.  they had all the embarrassing pictures in their photo album.  but who uses those these days ? people use digital cameras, smart phones, etc.  so what else are you doing to do ?  oh better back them pictures up on my computer so i do not lose them in case my camera, memory card, phone breaks  but then what ? how do you share that with the people you care about ?  oh hey  random name of a random friend  want to sit down and look at my photo album on the computer while i either lean over your shoulder, or you lean over mine, because this computer is designed for one person only sorry lol ?   or do you share them ? just the meaningful, harmless pictures online so the people you care about see them ? how else are you supposed to do so in this day and age ? %bringit  #  you cannot piece together financial information from a photograph.   #  0.  fud.   an image of a child on the internet might give a pedophile something to beat off to.   that argument is older than the hills.  there are no shortage of pictures on the internet of kids doing normal kid shit.  if that was enough to keep pedophiles satisfied, then there would be no need to produce actual child porn.  0b.  you cannot piece together financial information from a photograph.  what is more, using children as targets for identity theft is a niche practice that requires very specific information since very few companies or agencies have a record of the child anywhere that would facilitate phishing attempts.  it is orders of magnitude easier to dox a random person on the internet than it is a random toddler.  0.  facebook gonna facebook.  that is the world we live in now.  you ca not opt out of a digital identity short of moving to the woods of montana.  if facebook creates profiles for every unique face they see, then it is simply a matter of time before they are collecting data on you.  but that does not matter.  because your face as a child is different from your face as an adult.  creating profiles for children with the intent of tracking data about that face is just a waste of data storage for them.  and even if they could do it, that data does not get them anywhere.  they ca not target ads to kids who ca not use a computer.  once they can use a computer, the deal is off anyway.  0.  you have jumped from  uploading a picture  to  creating a profile and impersonating them .  it is not the same thing.  in 0 years, maybe a kid is going to look up a classmate is facebook profile assuming facebook exists and maybe see pictures of them as a toddler.  maybe.  which is not all that much different from seeing the pictures your parents send to the school whenever they want to do some kitchy  look at your classmates as babies !   bulletin board or yearbook section.  shit has been going on since the invention of the photograph.  people take pictures of their kids and want to share them with their friends.  that is part of being in the information age.  it is not an undue hardship on the child to have a picture of them as an infant seen by people on facebook.  you ca not hide the existence of children.  if someone is targeting harm toward your child via facebook, it is almost certain that they already know you anyway and they would not need facebook to collect information.  it is possible to be too paranoid about having yoru picture displayed on the internet.  there are billions upon billions of photos on the internet.  it doens t inherently put you at risk of anything.   #  what is more, using children as targets for identity theft is a niche practice that requires very specific information since very few companies or agencies have a record of the child anywhere that would facilitate phishing attempts.   # you cannot piece together financial information from a photograph.  what is more, using children as targets for identity theft is a niche practice that requires very specific information since very few companies or agencies have a record of the child anywhere that would facilitate phishing attempts.  it is orders of magnitude easier to dox a random person on the internet than it is a random toddler.  identity thieves do not normally need to figure out all of your  financial  information.  as was in the op, people can piece together  identifying  information.  lots of personally identifying information would be easy to get from the photographs many parents post online, like your name from the tags, comments, or contextual info in the pictures themselves like maybe a  happy birthday michael  sign in the backround , birthdate from the day a picture is posted or contextual information from the picture , and address many pictures are geotagged without the poster is knowledge .  there is probably lots of other potentially useful information a prospective identity thief could get from facebook photos of children but even if there were not those three pieces of information would be enough for a skilled social engineer to steal somebody is identity.  i have read about cases where it is been done, it is definitely possible.  that depends on the kind of harm.  if they mean financial harm then there is a good chance they wo not know you, and they are just looking for an easy mark so they can open up a credit card in your child is name.   #  i would not want to put a child through that experience, because even as a grown adult i find it traumatic.   #  the  block  feature on most social media is flawed to say the least.  there is a predatory person in my life who has  blocked  me from their social media, which means that i cannot view any of the content of any of their social media, or so much as search for them and find them.  this i am perfectly ok with, as i have no desire to do so.  however, because i make my posts open to  friends of friends  and that person is still facebook friends with some of my friends, they are able to see my content.  because i cannot so much as search for them and find them, i cannot block them from doing so.  while i have removed a number of mutual friends who i no longer have contact with, we have enough social overlap that i will never not be a  friend of friends  with this person.  mutual friends have made pointed out that this individual still frequents my social media which i am not comfortable with, and has forced me to significantly alter how i use social media to protect myself.  my only options are to make everything restrictively private which then hurts me even more as i use social media in part to promote my business, or to accept that regardless to how violated i feel, that person can always be watching.  i would not want to put a child through that experience, because even as a grown adult i find it traumatic.   #  how is this any different from gossip at any point in history ?  #  you find that somebody who has blocked you, yet occasionally gets updates of you indirectly because you personally use  friends of friends  instead of just  friends  , traumatic ? how is this any different from gossip at any point in history ? people have always heard about what is going on in friend networks.  are you really traumatized by somebody you do not like and does not like you, apparently, but sort of does if they want to keep track ? is able to find out about events that you personally make very public to people who are not even your friends  friends of friends  ? and you do not see any issues with your reaction ? regardless, if this is a worst case scenario for trauma, it is a pretty lousy argument that all of the people who see benefits of keeping friends and friends of friends ! up to date should have to give up that convenience to avoid such a rare, weird, and  traumatic  situation.  heck, even you have not given up facebook posting even though you are traumatized by it.  so the trauma is not bad enough to make you stop doing it.  your own actions betray your apparent agreement with the op.
in some cases of special needs children, i know it can be very difficult and unrewarding to be a sah parent.  but typically speaking, people who are intelligent and hardworking can easily manage a household in a few hours a day, and use the rest of the time to have fun with the kids, like on an extended vacation.   let it be known: i have no disrespect for people who take advantage of being a stay at home parent, since i would do it in a second  if my partner made enough money and was willing to work while lounged around and worked on hobbies all day, after the kids were tended to.  who would not ? i lose respect for them when they try to tell me it is difficult.  i do understand that it is hard work for some people but that is the result of being lazy, inefficient or. just not very smart.  if they were very good at managing time and/or people, they would either still be in the work force, or at home loving being able to relax most of the day.  if the kids are horribly behaved devils, then that also bodes poorly for the sah parent.  even though some children have severe behavior disorders, this is not the case most of the time…. it is simply lazy parenting.  cleaning, laundry, study time with kids, paying bills, managing doctors  appointments, etc.  are things that all parents have to do any way.  when a sah parent lists these in the  overwhelming responsibilities  that they do every day, i will always mentally knock them down a few inches in my respect for them as a person.  in short, a lot of stay at home parents who claim to  have the most difficult job in the world  are really just not good at anything else.  they should thank their lucky stars that they scored a s. o.  to support them  #  if they were very good at managing time and/or people, they would either still be in the work force, or at home loving being able to relax most of the day.   #  if the kids are horribly behaved devils, then that also bodes poorly for the sah parent.   # if the kids are horribly behaved devils, then that also bodes poorly for the sah parent.  even though some children have severe behavior disorders, this is not the case most of the time…. it is simply lazy parenting.  if the stay at home parent were primarily dealing with  people  as you say, then you may have a point.  but they are not.  they are dealing with children.  and children, by their very nature, are childish.  i do not have to ask my coworkers if they have to pee before we start a meeting.  i do not have to insist they try to pee anyway, just in case.  i do not have to argue about the merits of emptying a bladder that is not full at this very moment.  i do not have to wipe up their spilled soda or coffee.  i usually do not have to insist they stop shouting or singing out loud in the office.  i do not have to wipe their butts for them after they poop.  i do not have to make sure they have washed their hands after eating a peanut butter and honey sandwich before touching the furniture.  i do not have to repeat this or any request to get them to comply.  my kids 0 and 0 , i consider to be very well behaved.  the mrs.  and i are often complimented by other parents on our kids  behavior.  they know how to act in public and, as kids go, they listen fairly well.  but even the best behaved kids are argumentative, irrational, stubborn for the sake of just being stubborn , and emotional.  it is nothing like dealing with other adults.  things may be different for sah parents with older kids, i do not have experience with that yet.  but i doubt it.   #  i follow whatever interest i have at the moment.   #  i have been a sahm for 0 years.  it is the greatest gig ever ! what you say has been true for me, most of the past 0 years.  for example, at this time in my life, three of my kids are grown and gone.  i have got one fairly independent 0 year old still at home.  my time spent with her is a joy.  when she is at school, my days are my own.  my house is spotless.  i read a book every two days.  i make elaborate dinners.  i follow whatever interest i have at the moment.  but, it was not always like this.  i would say i had about 0 or 0 years that i would describe as  hard.   you say infants are not included.  i did not find infants that hard.  the hard ones are the toddlers and preschoolers, because they require constant supervision and attention.  having three around the same age was physically and mentally challenging.  i could not get everything done in a few hours, then relax with the kids.  the entire day was spent putting out fires.  and it was the entire day, from the moment i got up to the moment i fell asleep.  i was exhausted by the end of the day.  was it the most difficult job in the world ? well, no.  i would not compare it to coal mining or roofing in the summer.  but, those years were difficult.  after that, thought, it is been gravy.   #  i am sorry i did not put as much time into this one.   #  i have had to go through about 0 or 0 comments and respond to all of them.  i am sorry i did not put as much time into this one.  i was more of a concession than a response.  i was kind of agreeing with her points of having multiple small children being legitimate work.  when i responded i did not give the delta since i still think it is a lot easier than a lot of the complainers make it out to be.  she even confirmed that most of it was gravy.  but i certainly ca not argue that if she says she could not get it all done in a few ours and watch tv maybe should could not.  that is fair.   #  when i hear a sahm say it is a  hard job,  i assume she is talking about the isolation and tedium, not the laundry.   #  it is not necessarily about  getting it all done.   it has been my experience that new sahms find themselves isolated, bored, and depressed.  small children are little soul suckers who take 0/0.  nobody tells you that.  when i hear a sahm say it is a  hard job,  i assume she is talking about the isolation and tedium, not the laundry.  and it is usually something that passes as kids get older and moms learn how to make the most of their days.   #  any little mistake they make could screw things up in ways they do not know and do not see.   #  i am not quite sure what you mean.  being a housewife/housedad is much easier when kids can do things on their own.  right before that stage, when babies are dumb  and  try to do things on their own, child raising is indeed difficult.  i am going to compare it to operating a mars probe.  the leader of a space probe project spends the entire day sleeping, commuting, and operating the probe.  housepeople managing 0/0 large toddlers have equal downtimes.  at any time, toddlers randomly demand food or wake up and cause problems, and the manager of the probe may get calls at poor times.  both remain in tremendous social isolation.  if the houseperson has no money to hire babysitters or the project manager has no staff then they ca not go out.  how bad the situation is depends on whether or no the sahp has a family/social network or the technician has funds.  neither hold regular sleeping schedules.  psychologically, that screws with them both.  nasa used to have a problem with people constantly entering the wrong area, as they were too tired to pay attention to signs.  parents have a similar strain.  mostly importantly, neither have any idea what they are doing.  any little mistake they make could screw things up in ways they do not know and do not see.  significant portions of their life is put into their work, and they only get one chance to do it.  children and rovers get sick a lot.  sometimes babies have colic, meaning they cry for no physical reason for hours on end, sleep, and do it again.  things fail.
in some cases of special needs children, i know it can be very difficult and unrewarding to be a sah parent.  but typically speaking, people who are intelligent and hardworking can easily manage a household in a few hours a day, and use the rest of the time to have fun with the kids, like on an extended vacation.   let it be known: i have no disrespect for people who take advantage of being a stay at home parent, since i would do it in a second  if my partner made enough money and was willing to work while lounged around and worked on hobbies all day, after the kids were tended to.  who would not ? i lose respect for them when they try to tell me it is difficult.  i do understand that it is hard work for some people but that is the result of being lazy, inefficient or. just not very smart.  if they were very good at managing time and/or people, they would either still be in the work force, or at home loving being able to relax most of the day.  if the kids are horribly behaved devils, then that also bodes poorly for the sah parent.  even though some children have severe behavior disorders, this is not the case most of the time…. it is simply lazy parenting.  cleaning, laundry, study time with kids, paying bills, managing doctors  appointments, etc.  are things that all parents have to do any way.  when a sah parent lists these in the  overwhelming responsibilities  that they do every day, i will always mentally knock them down a few inches in my respect for them as a person.  in short, a lot of stay at home parents who claim to  have the most difficult job in the world  are really just not good at anything else.  they should thank their lucky stars that they scored a s. o.  to support them  #  i do understand that it is hard work for some people but that is the result of being lazy, inefficient or. just not very smart.   #  this is semantics, but if you acknowledge that it is hard for them because of these reasons then does not that validate their saying that it is hard ?  #  the best i can offer for this is that staying at home sucks.  even without kids you fall into the same routine day after day after day and all of a sudden your entire life becomes this boring, long, shining example of same shit different day.  i can see that being even more true with kids because while they are amusing at times they also serve as an anchor that grounds you to either the house or kid friendly places and you can only do kid friendly activities in the house or kid friendly places.  there was a very brief time in my life where i could not work a legitimate job because of my responsibilities to my son as a single parent.  it would have driven me absolutely insane except for the fact that i had to compensate by doing less than legitimate activities that allowed me to work around my son and take care of everything.  the days where i sat around the house with my kid, or maybe even took him to a park, were terrible for me because all i wanted to do was get my ass back to work.  now that i am back to work 0 days a week i absolutely cherish the little time off that i do get, every 0 day weekend is like a mini vacation and if i could take a month off i like to tell myself i would love it.  but you know what ? if i dated a girl that could afford to pay off the bills i would still work because i never want to be a stay at home dad again, not for any extended amount of time.  this is semantics, but if you acknowledge that it is hard for them because of these reasons then does not that validate their saying that it is hard ? tl;dr:  the grass is always greener on the other side.   #  the hard ones are the toddlers and preschoolers, because they require constant supervision and attention.   #  i have been a sahm for 0 years.  it is the greatest gig ever ! what you say has been true for me, most of the past 0 years.  for example, at this time in my life, three of my kids are grown and gone.  i have got one fairly independent 0 year old still at home.  my time spent with her is a joy.  when she is at school, my days are my own.  my house is spotless.  i read a book every two days.  i make elaborate dinners.  i follow whatever interest i have at the moment.  but, it was not always like this.  i would say i had about 0 or 0 years that i would describe as  hard.   you say infants are not included.  i did not find infants that hard.  the hard ones are the toddlers and preschoolers, because they require constant supervision and attention.  having three around the same age was physically and mentally challenging.  i could not get everything done in a few hours, then relax with the kids.  the entire day was spent putting out fires.  and it was the entire day, from the moment i got up to the moment i fell asleep.  i was exhausted by the end of the day.  was it the most difficult job in the world ? well, no.  i would not compare it to coal mining or roofing in the summer.  but, those years were difficult.  after that, thought, it is been gravy.   #  i have had to go through about 0 or 0 comments and respond to all of them.   #  i have had to go through about 0 or 0 comments and respond to all of them.  i am sorry i did not put as much time into this one.  i was more of a concession than a response.  i was kind of agreeing with her points of having multiple small children being legitimate work.  when i responded i did not give the delta since i still think it is a lot easier than a lot of the complainers make it out to be.  she even confirmed that most of it was gravy.  but i certainly ca not argue that if she says she could not get it all done in a few ours and watch tv maybe should could not.  that is fair.   #  and it is usually something that passes as kids get older and moms learn how to make the most of their days.   #  it is not necessarily about  getting it all done.   it has been my experience that new sahms find themselves isolated, bored, and depressed.  small children are little soul suckers who take 0/0.  nobody tells you that.  when i hear a sahm say it is a  hard job,  i assume she is talking about the isolation and tedium, not the laundry.  and it is usually something that passes as kids get older and moms learn how to make the most of their days.   #  the leader of a space probe project spends the entire day sleeping, commuting, and operating the probe.   #  i am not quite sure what you mean.  being a housewife/housedad is much easier when kids can do things on their own.  right before that stage, when babies are dumb  and  try to do things on their own, child raising is indeed difficult.  i am going to compare it to operating a mars probe.  the leader of a space probe project spends the entire day sleeping, commuting, and operating the probe.  housepeople managing 0/0 large toddlers have equal downtimes.  at any time, toddlers randomly demand food or wake up and cause problems, and the manager of the probe may get calls at poor times.  both remain in tremendous social isolation.  if the houseperson has no money to hire babysitters or the project manager has no staff then they ca not go out.  how bad the situation is depends on whether or no the sahp has a family/social network or the technician has funds.  neither hold regular sleeping schedules.  psychologically, that screws with them both.  nasa used to have a problem with people constantly entering the wrong area, as they were too tired to pay attention to signs.  parents have a similar strain.  mostly importantly, neither have any idea what they are doing.  any little mistake they make could screw things up in ways they do not know and do not see.  significant portions of their life is put into their work, and they only get one chance to do it.  children and rovers get sick a lot.  sometimes babies have colic, meaning they cry for no physical reason for hours on end, sleep, and do it again.  things fail.
colloquially, and infection can be cured with antibiotics.  it usually refers to what happens when you scrape your knee and do not clean it properly.  it gets infected and you take a course of amoxicillin and you are fine.  aids, herpes, chlamydia, syphilis, and so forth are much more serious than this.  they are dangerous infectious diseases that need to be treated as such.  it is my view that the term  sti  emerged from the std community as a way for them to not feel like they are carrying a terrible disease, but it is misleading.  the change in the descriptor helps people is feelings, but conveys less information.  saying that someone who has aids is not diseased, but merely  has an infection  significantly reduces the severity of the condition.  the person does not have an infection in the way we use the term colloquially, as though a little pus is forming in a wound, but a communicable disease that is highly dangerous.  doctor is offices, universities, health practitioners, and so forth should continue using the term std because it better conveys the conditions represented.   #  it is my view that the term  sti  emerged from the std community as a way for them to not feel like they are carrying a terrible disease, but it is misleading.   #  i am quite curious of this std community, since i have never heard of them.   # i am quite curious of this std community, since i have never heard of them.  do they have meetings ? a website ? conventions where they swap std is ? i honestly ca not imagine someone who knows what aids is suddenly changing their mind to  it is basically okay since it is like an infection .  your argument is a bit like saying that comedians should not use the word  killed  when referring to a good gig, because people might think they just committed murder.  anyone with half a brain should realise that diseases that range from open sores and puss from your genitalia to will eventually kill you are not like scratching your knee.   #  std and sti are two terms that often mean the same thing   but the  d  stands for  disease,  while the  i  stands for  infection.   #  this is from the planned parenthood website and makes it clear that there is a difference between std and sti.  it is not to make people feel better.  an infection and a disease are not the same thing.  std and sti are two terms that often mean the same thing   but the  d  stands for  disease,  while the  i  stands for  infection.  .  medically, infections are only called diseases when they cause symptoms, and many stis do not have any symptoms.  so that is why you may hear people say stis   it is technically more accurate, and also reminds people that there are often no symptoms so it is important to get tested.   #  yes, some people use the word theory incorrectly by using it when they mean to say idea.   #  i understand your point but i still think it is important to encourage people to learn the correct terms rather than encouraging the dumbing down of information.  just because some people do not understand what infection means when referred to in a technical way does not mean we should just abandon the idea of technical terms meaning anything.  yes, some people use the word theory incorrectly by using it when they mean to say idea.  but that does not mean we should not continue to teach that in science  theory  means a well confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.  it is important to encourage everyone to understand the connotation of words that carry more than one definition.   #  layperson  knowledge  here an infection may not immediately make you sick.   #  layperson  knowledge  here an infection may not immediately make you sick.  many sti is lay dormant for extended periods.  a disease makes you actively feel sick/is actively manifesting symptoms.  so someone with aids could be said to have either, or both.  furthermore, a disease can have many causes from genetic to environmental.  an infection is more specifically a foreign body.   #  additionally, there are historical/social reasons that gay people had less access to safe sex information and materials, and since, in the 0 is, condoms were primarily seen as pregnancy prevention, mostly only straight people were using them.   #  hiv is more easily transmitted by anal sex and from the insertive partner to the receptive partner.  gay people have more anal sex than straight people and can switch from bottom more likely to get it to top more likely to give it .  additionally, there are historical/social reasons that gay people had less access to safe sex information and materials, and since, in the 0 is, condoms were primarily seen as pregnancy prevention, mostly only straight people were using them.  also, persecution leads to poverty and depression, which lead to drug use.  over time, all this causes a build up within the gay community, which itself makes gay sex riskier.
why i want this view changed ? i feel about it pretty strongly and all of these are basically going against most relationship advice i hear that is considered mature, while my mentality is often regarded as shallow or immature.  i wand to understand better where the other side is coming from.  title explains it summed up, here are my arguments and additional views that may be relevant: 0.  relationship is not superior to being single and should not be searched for at all cost.  relationship should be wanted only when there is a person you want to be in a relationship with.  0.  you either want someone or you do not.  you are either attracted to them or you are not.  they can be nice and compatible, but if they are not what you want, there is no point in trying to make it work for the sake of being nice or fair.  relationships are not deserved.  0.  preferring physically attractive people does not make you shallow.  in fact it is shallow to assume that relationships are so important that person is preferences in them determine their whole depth as human beings.  0.  there is no objective measure as to what should or should not be changed for the sake of your partner.  you have to take the person for what they are and not imagine you will change them, or compromise and change yourself for them unless it is a change you want to make yourself.  for example, it is considered unreasonable to expect your so to stop talking to someone you do not like, but it is reasonable to expect your so to stop drinking every day.  in my opinion, no one owes their partner a change, and no one owes a relationship you can leave over anything you do not like and you do not have to change anything you do not want to.  but there should be no hard feelings because neither side is a bitch or a jerk for their choice.  it is not a moral issue either.  0.  no one owes a relationship.  it is ok to only want sex with someone hot over wanting a relationship and looking for  deeper  things, that is not in any way a moral issue.  0.  standards are not objective, even though many people might share the same standards.  you do not have to give back everything you expect, you simply have to know what you want and someone either fits or does not.  0.  it is stupid that people get offended for not being someone is type.  you are not hurting anyone by not wanting to be with them over something, even if they think the reason is not fair.  relationships are not favors or rewards anyway.  0.  there is no bad reason to end a relationship.  i keep hearing people say how someone broke up with them over something dumb think of it, the dumber the reason someone breaks up with you over, the more it means that the relationship was not that important to them in the first place.  which means the break up was necessary, even more so than when people in love break up over something big and understandable.  0.  being with someone, or staying with someone, you do not want the most is harming not only you but them as well.  someone might like them more than you do, so committing yourself while not that attracted or for the sake of keeping the relationship effort was put in is in fact disrespectful to the other person.  therefore they should not get angry but understand the situation.  however problem still is that these type of relationships may not be something many people can handle, at least not at this point.  but a lot about them makes so much sense to me that now i would change the focus of this view all together because it is only a little part of a much bigger problem underneath.   #  0.  relationship is not superior to being single and should not be searched for at all cost.   #  relationship should be wanted only when there is a person you want to be in a relationship with.   #  this is probably going to be mostly anecdotal, but that seems to be the context of the discussion so try not to hold it against me.  relationship should be wanted only when there is a person you want to be in a relationship with.  that being said, i am not sure if you are trying to justify never pursuing a relationship or if you are just trying to say that your methods are morally fine.  if it is the latter then i can say as long as you do not feel entitled to a relationship in spite of your methods and you do not seem that way then it is fine by my book, but in all actuality your morals are the only ones that matter so who really gives a fuck what anyone here thinks ? if it is the former i would say that everyone definitely should be on point and ready to pursue the man, woman, or whatever of their dreams because you will get greater satisfaction out of it.  as long as you do not let that pursuit define you as a person i do not see the harm that can come from it.   #  if you have very high standards you also have to accept the possibility of being alone for a long time, possibly forever.   #  you can have high standards, but where i get miffed is when people hold others to a highers standard than themselves.  they complain that a gorgeous, smart, talented, kind, amazing person will not date them when they themselves bring almost nothing to the table.  as you said, no one owes you a relationship, and no one owes you sex either.  if you have very high standards you also have to accept the possibility of being alone for a long time, possibly forever.  you may call it settling, but i would rather date a chunky, dorky, balding guy who is also sweet, funny and kind than wait for what ever absolute ideal to come along.   #  for all you know, you meet their standards which happen to be lower than yours.   #  like you said, nobody owes you a relationship.  you can have as high standards as you want even if you do not meet them yourself .  since it is up to the other person if they want to date you, i see nothing wrong with this.  for all you know, you meet their standards which happen to be lower than yours.  sure it is not practical, but not wanting to date someone below your standards is not a judgement of them as a person; it simply means you do not want to date them.  i am sure there are some assholes out there who ridicule the people they do not want to date in a hypocritical way, but this is in no way general.   #  if no such person exists, or if they do, they wo not like me, i am still ok holding on to my standards.   #  why would not they have standards they themselves do not meet though ? i do not look for everything that i already have in others, i may want someone more nurturing than me for instance, or more likely to take initiative because i am reserved in some ways.  that does not make it unfair although this is something i want in a partner despite the fact i do not have it i would not want someone who expected me to act that way.  they might not care at all for these traits so me not having them wo not be a problem, and i might have traits they lack that they will appreciate.  if no such person exists, or if they do, they wo not like me, i am still ok holding on to my standards.  this is who i am and this is what i want, and if you are convinced to settle on things that matter to you, you are being dishonest.  i think there is nothing wrong with that, it is weak people who are scared of this.  and perhaps you are doing the partner you settled on no favors because they will be liked more by someone else.  besides, what if you eventually do meet someone who is closer to your ideal ? you are simply saying  this is the best i can have for now so i am putting my bets on this one in case nothing better comes along.   you are the one trying to play a game where you will not end up losing either way.  are you into chunky, dorky, balding guys ? if you are, or if these are irrelevant points to you, go ahead.  if these things bother you, you are still waiting for the ideal to come along but ensuring you do not end up alone which is your fear.  even if you are not consciously doing that, you would do it once your feelings somehow change.   #  even if you are not consciously doing that, you would do it once your feelings somehow change.   # if you are, or if these are irrelevant points to you, go ahead.  if these things bother you, you are still waiting for the ideal to come along but ensuring you do not end up alone which is your fear.  even if you are not consciously doing that, you would do it once your feelings somehow change.  what i am saying is i would rather get 0 of what i want than wait around for a perfect 0 that probably does not even exist.  i am not perfect, so how can i expect my partner to be ?
i am going to use the terms pro abortion and anti abortion because pro life and pro choice are too loaded.   pro abortion  is short for  in favor of the right to abort.   for the record, i am a socialist pro abortion atheist.  although i disagree with the anti abortion view, i do not think it has anything to do with religion or excessive government control.  the chief anti abortion argument is that fetuses are alive.  whether life begins at conception, 0 weeks, or whatever is not the point; wherever you draw the line, the motivation behind prohibiting abortion is to save lives.  some people is beliefs about when life begins are determined by their religion.  but i see no reason why religion should be the  only  determining factor.  unless you think it is okay to kill newborns, you ca not criticize someone for wanting to protect a 0 month fetus.  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ? and so on.  the claim that atheists ca not reach the same conclusions as christians rests on the same logic as the claim that atheists cannot be moral.  libertarians, and here i mean genuine libertarians and not tea party social conservatives, can also be anti abortion without being hypocrites.  libertarians are not anarchists; they believe there should be some laws in order to protect your basic rights, just not too many.  no right is more fundamental than life.  so if a libertarian believes life begins at conception, whether because of religious or other views, it is fine for him/her to want to outlaw abortion.  since i am neither libertarian nor anti abortion, i am not particularly emotionally invested in this view so it should not be too hard to change though i admit i can be stubborn sometimes .   #  the chief anti abortion argument is that fetuses are alive.   #  that is probably the shittiest argument  ever .   # that is probably the shittiest argument  ever .  fetuses are alive, but so are both grown humans and cockroaches.  clearly being alive does not entail any right to life.  it is not impossible, but indeed  extremely hard  for a libertarian, to justify a violation of self ownership so vital for libertarians.  pregnancy is essentially blood donation, and by aborting she would be acting in self defense.  even if the fetus had some intrinsic right to life, bodily autonomy is more important.  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ? the issue is more nuanced.  one could justify a general ban on infanticide as a violation of the rights of the parents, not the newborn.  how so ?  #  leave aside abortion for a second; if there are two grown adults and you had to violate either person a is right to life or person b is right to bodily autonomy, you are saying you would kill person a ?  # how is bodily autonomy more important than a right to life ? leave aside abortion for a second; if there are two grown adults and you had to violate either person a is right to life or person b is right to bodily autonomy, you are saying you would kill person a ? what is the reasoning behind that ? i do not know what you mean here.  you can be atheist and believe murder is wrong, you do not need to be told that belief by a priest.  so you can equally be atheist and believe fetuses are alive.  just because most people with a certain belief are religious does not mean that belief is fundamentally religious.   #  let is improve the mental experiment to make it more like pregnancy.   # what is the reasoning behind that ? let is make it less abstract: person a needs a kidney which can only come from person b.  can i force, at gunpoint even, that person b has a kidney removed ? let is improve the mental experiment to make it more like pregnancy.  person a has drones that will perform the transplant as long as he is alive.  the only way to stop them is to kill him directly.  you would effectively kill him if you could stop the drones anyway.  as i have said, fetuses are obviously alive.  that is a scientific fact.  i am not arguing this.  this does not mean they have a  right to life .  that is a moral statement i believe is false.   #  it is an autonomous being, its life does not conflict the autonomy of anyone else.   # no, it is not fine.  they accuse women who get an abortion of murder.  that is quite a serious accusation and it is not justified.  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ? it is completely silly to give a human body which never even had any brain activity such type of personhood protections.  our existence as a sentient being did not start at an instant, we gradually came into existence.  it would make sense to gradually extend more and more personhood protections instead of this false dichotomy.  if you draw an arbitrary line, there should be at least some type of brain activity.  i honestly do not see any indication that even a newborn is much of a sentient being, but i see other good reasons to outlaw very late term abortions and infanticide.  it is an autonomous being, its life does not conflict the autonomy of anyone else.  if you do not want it, you can give it up for adoption.  even if it might not be a sentient being like us, it still appears to be a sentient being, because it looks like a little human and people get emotionally attached in the same way as they are attached to other people.   #  you have to weigh these things against each other.   # i agree, but many people seem to consider protections from physical torture and other cruelties as more important.  the well being and autonomy of a person over their own body is also heavily protected.  you have to weigh these things against each other.  you could gradually increase the priority of the organism is rights during their development into a sentient being.  i do not think a 0 week fetus could survive on their own ? URL at that stage, the womens  autonomy over their own body is therefore at stake as well.  the burden of proof lies with those who want to restrict other people is rights.  if they are not able to prove that something could at least theoretically be a sentient being like us, i do not think they are justified to demand the denial of any rights.
i am going to use the terms pro abortion and anti abortion because pro life and pro choice are too loaded.   pro abortion  is short for  in favor of the right to abort.   for the record, i am a socialist pro abortion atheist.  although i disagree with the anti abortion view, i do not think it has anything to do with religion or excessive government control.  the chief anti abortion argument is that fetuses are alive.  whether life begins at conception, 0 weeks, or whatever is not the point; wherever you draw the line, the motivation behind prohibiting abortion is to save lives.  some people is beliefs about when life begins are determined by their religion.  but i see no reason why religion should be the  only  determining factor.  unless you think it is okay to kill newborns, you ca not criticize someone for wanting to protect a 0 month fetus.  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ? and so on.  the claim that atheists ca not reach the same conclusions as christians rests on the same logic as the claim that atheists cannot be moral.  libertarians, and here i mean genuine libertarians and not tea party social conservatives, can also be anti abortion without being hypocrites.  libertarians are not anarchists; they believe there should be some laws in order to protect your basic rights, just not too many.  no right is more fundamental than life.  so if a libertarian believes life begins at conception, whether because of religious or other views, it is fine for him/her to want to outlaw abortion.  since i am neither libertarian nor anti abortion, i am not particularly emotionally invested in this view so it should not be too hard to change though i admit i can be stubborn sometimes .   #  unless you think it is okay to kill newborns, you ca not criticize someone for wanting to protect a 0 month fetus.   #  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ?  # that is probably the shittiest argument  ever .  fetuses are alive, but so are both grown humans and cockroaches.  clearly being alive does not entail any right to life.  it is not impossible, but indeed  extremely hard  for a libertarian, to justify a violation of self ownership so vital for libertarians.  pregnancy is essentially blood donation, and by aborting she would be acting in self defense.  even if the fetus had some intrinsic right to life, bodily autonomy is more important.  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ? the issue is more nuanced.  one could justify a general ban on infanticide as a violation of the rights of the parents, not the newborn.  how so ?  #  just because most people with a certain belief are religious does not mean that belief is fundamentally religious.   # how is bodily autonomy more important than a right to life ? leave aside abortion for a second; if there are two grown adults and you had to violate either person a is right to life or person b is right to bodily autonomy, you are saying you would kill person a ? what is the reasoning behind that ? i do not know what you mean here.  you can be atheist and believe murder is wrong, you do not need to be told that belief by a priest.  so you can equally be atheist and believe fetuses are alive.  just because most people with a certain belief are religious does not mean that belief is fundamentally religious.   #  you would effectively kill him if you could stop the drones anyway.   # what is the reasoning behind that ? let is make it less abstract: person a needs a kidney which can only come from person b.  can i force, at gunpoint even, that person b has a kidney removed ? let is improve the mental experiment to make it more like pregnancy.  person a has drones that will perform the transplant as long as he is alive.  the only way to stop them is to kill him directly.  you would effectively kill him if you could stop the drones anyway.  as i have said, fetuses are obviously alive.  that is a scientific fact.  i am not arguing this.  this does not mean they have a  right to life .  that is a moral statement i believe is false.   #  it would make sense to gradually extend more and more personhood protections instead of this false dichotomy.   # no, it is not fine.  they accuse women who get an abortion of murder.  that is quite a serious accusation and it is not justified.  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ? it is completely silly to give a human body which never even had any brain activity such type of personhood protections.  our existence as a sentient being did not start at an instant, we gradually came into existence.  it would make sense to gradually extend more and more personhood protections instead of this false dichotomy.  if you draw an arbitrary line, there should be at least some type of brain activity.  i honestly do not see any indication that even a newborn is much of a sentient being, but i see other good reasons to outlaw very late term abortions and infanticide.  it is an autonomous being, its life does not conflict the autonomy of anyone else.  if you do not want it, you can give it up for adoption.  even if it might not be a sentient being like us, it still appears to be a sentient being, because it looks like a little human and people get emotionally attached in the same way as they are attached to other people.   #  i agree, but many people seem to consider protections from physical torture and other cruelties as more important.   # i agree, but many people seem to consider protections from physical torture and other cruelties as more important.  the well being and autonomy of a person over their own body is also heavily protected.  you have to weigh these things against each other.  you could gradually increase the priority of the organism is rights during their development into a sentient being.  i do not think a 0 week fetus could survive on their own ? URL at that stage, the womens  autonomy over their own body is therefore at stake as well.  the burden of proof lies with those who want to restrict other people is rights.  if they are not able to prove that something could at least theoretically be a sentient being like us, i do not think they are justified to demand the denial of any rights.
i am going to use the terms pro abortion and anti abortion because pro life and pro choice are too loaded.   pro abortion  is short for  in favor of the right to abort.   for the record, i am a socialist pro abortion atheist.  although i disagree with the anti abortion view, i do not think it has anything to do with religion or excessive government control.  the chief anti abortion argument is that fetuses are alive.  whether life begins at conception, 0 weeks, or whatever is not the point; wherever you draw the line, the motivation behind prohibiting abortion is to save lives.  some people is beliefs about when life begins are determined by their religion.  but i see no reason why religion should be the  only  determining factor.  unless you think it is okay to kill newborns, you ca not criticize someone for wanting to protect a 0 month fetus.  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ? and so on.  the claim that atheists ca not reach the same conclusions as christians rests on the same logic as the claim that atheists cannot be moral.  libertarians, and here i mean genuine libertarians and not tea party social conservatives, can also be anti abortion without being hypocrites.  libertarians are not anarchists; they believe there should be some laws in order to protect your basic rights, just not too many.  no right is more fundamental than life.  so if a libertarian believes life begins at conception, whether because of religious or other views, it is fine for him/her to want to outlaw abortion.  since i am neither libertarian nor anti abortion, i am not particularly emotionally invested in this view so it should not be too hard to change though i admit i can be stubborn sometimes .   #  unless you think it is okay to kill newborns, you ca not criticize someone for wanting to protect a 0 month fetus.   #  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ?  # no, it is not fine.  they accuse women who get an abortion of murder.  that is quite a serious accusation and it is not justified.  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ? it is completely silly to give a human body which never even had any brain activity such type of personhood protections.  our existence as a sentient being did not start at an instant, we gradually came into existence.  it would make sense to gradually extend more and more personhood protections instead of this false dichotomy.  if you draw an arbitrary line, there should be at least some type of brain activity.  i honestly do not see any indication that even a newborn is much of a sentient being, but i see other good reasons to outlaw very late term abortions and infanticide.  it is an autonomous being, its life does not conflict the autonomy of anyone else.  if you do not want it, you can give it up for adoption.  even if it might not be a sentient being like us, it still appears to be a sentient being, because it looks like a little human and people get emotionally attached in the same way as they are attached to other people.   #  pregnancy is essentially blood donation, and by aborting she would be acting in self defense.   # that is probably the shittiest argument  ever .  fetuses are alive, but so are both grown humans and cockroaches.  clearly being alive does not entail any right to life.  it is not impossible, but indeed  extremely hard  for a libertarian, to justify a violation of self ownership so vital for libertarians.  pregnancy is essentially blood donation, and by aborting she would be acting in self defense.  even if the fetus had some intrinsic right to life, bodily autonomy is more important.  and if 0 months is reasonable, why not 0 ? the issue is more nuanced.  one could justify a general ban on infanticide as a violation of the rights of the parents, not the newborn.  how so ?  #  just because most people with a certain belief are religious does not mean that belief is fundamentally religious.   # how is bodily autonomy more important than a right to life ? leave aside abortion for a second; if there are two grown adults and you had to violate either person a is right to life or person b is right to bodily autonomy, you are saying you would kill person a ? what is the reasoning behind that ? i do not know what you mean here.  you can be atheist and believe murder is wrong, you do not need to be told that belief by a priest.  so you can equally be atheist and believe fetuses are alive.  just because most people with a certain belief are religious does not mean that belief is fundamentally religious.   #  let is make it less abstract: person a needs a kidney which can only come from person b.  can i force, at gunpoint even, that person b has a kidney removed ?  # what is the reasoning behind that ? let is make it less abstract: person a needs a kidney which can only come from person b.  can i force, at gunpoint even, that person b has a kidney removed ? let is improve the mental experiment to make it more like pregnancy.  person a has drones that will perform the transplant as long as he is alive.  the only way to stop them is to kill him directly.  you would effectively kill him if you could stop the drones anyway.  as i have said, fetuses are obviously alive.  that is a scientific fact.  i am not arguing this.  this does not mean they have a  right to life .  that is a moral statement i believe is false.   #  the well being and autonomy of a person over their own body is also heavily protected.   # i agree, but many people seem to consider protections from physical torture and other cruelties as more important.  the well being and autonomy of a person over their own body is also heavily protected.  you have to weigh these things against each other.  you could gradually increase the priority of the organism is rights during their development into a sentient being.  i do not think a 0 week fetus could survive on their own ? URL at that stage, the womens  autonomy over their own body is therefore at stake as well.  the burden of proof lies with those who want to restrict other people is rights.  if they are not able to prove that something could at least theoretically be a sentient being like us, i do not think they are justified to demand the denial of any rights.
i define positive rights as opposed to negative rights as those rights which involved something others must do for you or give you, as opposed to something others must not do to you.  i understand many rights can be phrased either way, but i do think that fundamentally there is a difference in that some rights cannot simply be rephrased.  for example, i will use internet access, as many people have proposed it as a basic human right.  this post is not about internet access as a human right, its just an example.  anything from water, to food, to shelter could be substituted.  positive rights require that someone provide them for each person with those rights.  this means that, when each person is born, it is required that others provide those rights to that each new born person.  it also means that each person is born with moral imperative to provide for others.  this debt of required labor at birth does not seem to me to significantly different than an excuse for forced labor.  if you tell someone at birth that they must ensure, through their own labor, that their neighbor has internet access, and are willing to use government force to compel that person provide that for their neighbor, i do not see how that is not similar to slavery.  in fact, the idea that it is a universal human right implies that all people everywhere are born morally indebted to provide labor for others.  being born in debt strikes as no different from religions interpretation of original sin.  how is it possible to say that 0.  it is acceptable to use force to compel a newborn person from birth to death to provide a service to others, directly or indirectly, and 0.  that it is immoral to force people to provide labor against their will ? tl;dr: saying that  being given x is a guaranteed right for all people  is the same as saying that  people can be forced to provide x for someone  which to me seems like a type of morally justified slavery.   #  in fact, the idea that it is a universal human right implies that all people everywhere are born morally indebted to provide labor for others.   #  first and foremost, morality is not actually a thing.   #  i would say that all  rights  involve something someone must do for you or give to you in as much as all rights are a generally agreed upon set of ideals, behaviors, and rules that members of society agree to extend to one another.  you do not have an inherent right to life outside of a society that has decided that is it is probably best that we not murder each other all the time.  without a group of people who agree that a certain set of rights should be established and then  work  to make sure that those rights remain protected.  in light of that a distinction between positive right and negative rights is meaningless.  it is not slavery.  it is citizenship.  people get hung up trying to fit citizenship into boxes that it simply does not fit into, it is it is own category of being, complete with it is own benefits, problems, contradictions, and grey areas.  just like every thing else in life.  the relationship between a citizen and government in a democracy is not a consumer:vendor relationship, nor master:slave relationship.  you can draw parallels and make comparisons, but eventually they all fall flat.  first and foremost, morality is not actually a thing.  whether something is moral or not depends mostly on where the person passing judgement stands, and even then most people believe themselves moral regardless of how immoral they themselves may behave, even by their own standards.  and newborns are not indebted from birth.  they are simply expected to be active citizens, and contribute to the society in which they live.  some people have begun to use the phrase  human right  when what they really mean is  thing that it would be beneficial for everybody to have .  that may be a good thing, or a bad thing.  mainly it is semantics.  considering that what you might typify as a  negative right  is essentially the same thing something it would be good for everyone to have it does not really make sense to justify one over the other based on false ideas like morality.  instead, argue the benefits and detriments of the actual issue itself.   #  they are property and can be treated as such.   #  slavery has nothing to do with the ideas you are talking about.  there is not even a comparison except the most vague and superficial one.  slavery is when one person has their autonomy stripped from them.  they have no quality of life or freedom to make any meaningful choices in their life.  they are property and can be treated as such.  that is nothing like what you are describing.  paying some taxes to facilitate someone else providing basic utilities is not slavery, especially as advances in technology make these things increasingly cheap to fund with less and less impact on those paying for it.   #  it is a loaded word that people rightfully associate with terrible things.   #  and if slavery making 0 figures and living in a mansion, then i would love to be a slave.  but when we start messing with what words mean like that, they sort of lose their impact.  there is a reason people throw around the word slave in these situations, and it is dishonest.  it is only done to provoke an emotional reaction, not a rational one.  it is a loaded word that people rightfully associate with terrible things.  paying taxes is not one of those terrible things.  paying taxes only bears the most superficial similarities with slavery and is not even close to the same magnitude of loss of freedom.   #  its very easy to argue why that was a bad thing.   #  they are not born with debt though.  how much were you in debt when you were born ? being required to pay taxes is not the same as being in debt.  either way, why should complete autonomy be the goal ? slavery was bad because it was a complete and absolute removal of autonomy.  its very easy to argue why that was a bad thing.  the arguments that apply to why slavery was bad do not apply to, e. g. , taxes, or disallowing me from being discriminatory in my hiring practices.   #  and in response to that we have easements to address exactly that kind of thing.   #  well, you could look at that as a negative rights thing as restricting freedom of movement.  and in response to that we have easements to address exactly that kind of thing.  it is not a ridiculous circumstance, it happens all the time.  you are not addressing positive rights, only that people can be provided for without forcing anyone.  that may be true, but it does not show that people are guaranteed certain things.
i define positive rights as opposed to negative rights as those rights which involved something others must do for you or give you, as opposed to something others must not do to you.  i understand many rights can be phrased either way, but i do think that fundamentally there is a difference in that some rights cannot simply be rephrased.  for example, i will use internet access, as many people have proposed it as a basic human right.  this post is not about internet access as a human right, its just an example.  anything from water, to food, to shelter could be substituted.  positive rights require that someone provide them for each person with those rights.  this means that, when each person is born, it is required that others provide those rights to that each new born person.  it also means that each person is born with moral imperative to provide for others.  this debt of required labor at birth does not seem to me to significantly different than an excuse for forced labor.  if you tell someone at birth that they must ensure, through their own labor, that their neighbor has internet access, and are willing to use government force to compel that person provide that for their neighbor, i do not see how that is not similar to slavery.  in fact, the idea that it is a universal human right implies that all people everywhere are born morally indebted to provide labor for others.  being born in debt strikes as no different from religions interpretation of original sin.  how is it possible to say that 0.  it is acceptable to use force to compel a newborn person from birth to death to provide a service to others, directly or indirectly, and 0.  that it is immoral to force people to provide labor against their will ? tl;dr: saying that  being given x is a guaranteed right for all people  is the same as saying that  people can be forced to provide x for someone  which to me seems like a type of morally justified slavery.   #  saying that  being given x is a guaranteed right for all people  is the same as saying that  people can be forced to provide x for someone  which to me seems like a type of morally justified slavery.   #  there is a superficial similarity when phrased in a specific way but it lacks the fundamental identifying features of slavery and especially it lacks the morally outrageous features of slavery.   # there is a superficial similarity when phrased in a specific way but it lacks the fundamental identifying features of slavery and especially it lacks the morally outrageous features of slavery.  specifically that people are property and the hideous abuses that slavery is infamous for, respectively.  at it is core your argument is that taxation and laws are slavery.  this is not true, a better analogy is that taxation is membership dues for a club that you were born into, and that laws are the club rules.  i will assume we are talking about the sort of liberal democracies that most redditors live in, and ignore arguments related to dictatorships and such.  you can leave  the club  if you so choose, but for as long as you choose not to you will be forced to pay your membership dues and obey the rules.  this is a voluntary choice, a loaded one but a choice nevertheless.   #  they have no quality of life or freedom to make any meaningful choices in their life.   #  slavery has nothing to do with the ideas you are talking about.  there is not even a comparison except the most vague and superficial one.  slavery is when one person has their autonomy stripped from them.  they have no quality of life or freedom to make any meaningful choices in their life.  they are property and can be treated as such.  that is nothing like what you are describing.  paying some taxes to facilitate someone else providing basic utilities is not slavery, especially as advances in technology make these things increasingly cheap to fund with less and less impact on those paying for it.   #  there is a reason people throw around the word slave in these situations, and it is dishonest.   #  and if slavery making 0 figures and living in a mansion, then i would love to be a slave.  but when we start messing with what words mean like that, they sort of lose their impact.  there is a reason people throw around the word slave in these situations, and it is dishonest.  it is only done to provoke an emotional reaction, not a rational one.  it is a loaded word that people rightfully associate with terrible things.  paying taxes is not one of those terrible things.  paying taxes only bears the most superficial similarities with slavery and is not even close to the same magnitude of loss of freedom.   #  either way, why should complete autonomy be the goal ?  #  they are not born with debt though.  how much were you in debt when you were born ? being required to pay taxes is not the same as being in debt.  either way, why should complete autonomy be the goal ? slavery was bad because it was a complete and absolute removal of autonomy.  its very easy to argue why that was a bad thing.  the arguments that apply to why slavery was bad do not apply to, e. g. , taxes, or disallowing me from being discriminatory in my hiring practices.   #  you are not addressing positive rights, only that people can be provided for without forcing anyone.   #  well, you could look at that as a negative rights thing as restricting freedom of movement.  and in response to that we have easements to address exactly that kind of thing.  it is not a ridiculous circumstance, it happens all the time.  you are not addressing positive rights, only that people can be provided for without forcing anyone.  that may be true, but it does not show that people are guaranteed certain things.
there days, the typical internet user needs to remember a whole list of passwords.  the temptation to duplicate them is strong.  passwords can be easy to forget, easy to guess, and easy to steal.  every online service needs to have a password reset procedure because it is so common to lose one of the many passwords you need to remember for all the different websites you go to.  better alternatives are openid and one time keys.  openid allows you to use one login across sites, which solves the problem of having too many passwords to remember, and potentially allows new login technology to be implemented as it becomes availible.  one time keys are nice, because even if you get tricked by a fake login form, or a keylogger, or something, the attacker wo not be able to use the key you gave them.  examples of this technology are yubikey and google authenticator.  i know that password managers elminate some of the problems with passwords, but it would be better if we had a similar solution for one time keys.   #  there days, the typical internet user needs to remember a whole list of passwords.   #  the temptation to duplicate them is strong.   # the temptation to duplicate them is strong.  i use a password manager that can auto type the passwords for me.  i do not have this problem.  this is great until your open id service goes down.  also, if your open id service gets compromised, then the attacker has access to all accounts on the service and all websites used by those accounts .  if a site gets compromised, then only the site is affected.  one time keys are a pain to use.  a fake login form could request and save an authentication token that can be reused.  this does not protect people from phishing.   #  if my password manager gets compromised, then the attacker only has access to my accounts.   # no.  if my password manager gets compromised, then the attacker only has access to my accounts.  if my password manager is compromised then my computer is compromised; it does not matter what service i use.  they are called  one time keys  for a reason.  you could also make them expire quickly, so the attacker would only have a very narrow window of opportunity to use the stolen credentials.  nobody is going to use one time keys for the majority of their accounts.  services provided by companies like google, twitter, facebook, etc allow software to request a token that can be reused.  theoretically, this token can be revoked but that relies on the user.  i have 0 financial accounts that i track using software.  if i had to deal with 0 one time keys every time i wanted to update my accounts, that would be quite the ordeal.  this solution is unworkable.   #  besides, if you could use one openid provider to access them, then that would not even be a problem.   # if my password manager gets compromised, then the attacker only has access to my accounts.  huh ? what does compromising your openid provider get the attacker besides your accounts ? if you do not back up your password manager, you risk losing everything if your computer is destroyed.  so you do not mind dealing with 0 seperate passwords, but reading them off a smartphone is too much of an ordeal ? besides, if you could use one openid provider to access them, then that would not even be a problem.   #  then all my eggs are in one basket and out of my control.   # what does compromising your openid provider get the attacker besides your accounts ? compromising the provider gets the attacker access to all accounts served by that provider more than one person .  that means if you compromise a popular open id provider you can hijack the authentication of many different users.  i back it up on a cloud service which also synchronizes the database between all devices.  the database is encrypted so only i can read it is contents.  i do not deal with the passwords.  i go to a website or open a program, press control alt a, and it gets typed in for me.  your solution requires me to wait for a text message and then transcribe the text message onto a computer.  if i browse the web from my phone, now i am toggling back and forth between programs to type in the code.  then all my eggs are in one basket and out of my control.  if my openid account gets compromised, then all of my accounts are compromised.  if the openid provider is compromised, then all accounts for all of the users are compromised.  what happens when the provider shuts down ? do i lose all my accounts ?  #  in order to  compromise  an open id provider in that way, you would need almost complete control and access to their database.   #  in order to  compromise  an open id provider in that way, you would need almost complete control and access to their database.  why is your cloud service intrinsically less vulnerable to that ? if a major openid provider like google was compromised in that way, we would have bigger problems.  text messages are not the only way to communicate one time keys.  why do you think keyboard shortcuts could not be used with a one time key system ? what happens when the provider shuts down ? the same thing that happens when an email service shuts down.  you migrate all your accounts to one that has not.
there days, the typical internet user needs to remember a whole list of passwords.  the temptation to duplicate them is strong.  passwords can be easy to forget, easy to guess, and easy to steal.  every online service needs to have a password reset procedure because it is so common to lose one of the many passwords you need to remember for all the different websites you go to.  better alternatives are openid and one time keys.  openid allows you to use one login across sites, which solves the problem of having too many passwords to remember, and potentially allows new login technology to be implemented as it becomes availible.  one time keys are nice, because even if you get tricked by a fake login form, or a keylogger, or something, the attacker wo not be able to use the key you gave them.  examples of this technology are yubikey and google authenticator.  i know that password managers elminate some of the problems with passwords, but it would be better if we had a similar solution for one time keys.   #  openid allows you to use one login across sites, which solves the problem of having too many passwords to remember, and potentially allows new login technology to be implemented as it becomes availible.   #  this is great until your open id service goes down.   # the temptation to duplicate them is strong.  i use a password manager that can auto type the passwords for me.  i do not have this problem.  this is great until your open id service goes down.  also, if your open id service gets compromised, then the attacker has access to all accounts on the service and all websites used by those accounts .  if a site gets compromised, then only the site is affected.  one time keys are a pain to use.  a fake login form could request and save an authentication token that can be reused.  this does not protect people from phishing.   #  you could also make them expire quickly, so the attacker would only have a very narrow window of opportunity to use the stolen credentials.   # no.  if my password manager gets compromised, then the attacker only has access to my accounts.  if my password manager is compromised then my computer is compromised; it does not matter what service i use.  they are called  one time keys  for a reason.  you could also make them expire quickly, so the attacker would only have a very narrow window of opportunity to use the stolen credentials.  nobody is going to use one time keys for the majority of their accounts.  services provided by companies like google, twitter, facebook, etc allow software to request a token that can be reused.  theoretically, this token can be revoked but that relies on the user.  i have 0 financial accounts that i track using software.  if i had to deal with 0 one time keys every time i wanted to update my accounts, that would be quite the ordeal.  this solution is unworkable.   #  so you do not mind dealing with 0 seperate passwords, but reading them off a smartphone is too much of an ordeal ?  # if my password manager gets compromised, then the attacker only has access to my accounts.  huh ? what does compromising your openid provider get the attacker besides your accounts ? if you do not back up your password manager, you risk losing everything if your computer is destroyed.  so you do not mind dealing with 0 seperate passwords, but reading them off a smartphone is too much of an ordeal ? besides, if you could use one openid provider to access them, then that would not even be a problem.   #  what does compromising your openid provider get the attacker besides your accounts ?  # what does compromising your openid provider get the attacker besides your accounts ? compromising the provider gets the attacker access to all accounts served by that provider more than one person .  that means if you compromise a popular open id provider you can hijack the authentication of many different users.  i back it up on a cloud service which also synchronizes the database between all devices.  the database is encrypted so only i can read it is contents.  i do not deal with the passwords.  i go to a website or open a program, press control alt a, and it gets typed in for me.  your solution requires me to wait for a text message and then transcribe the text message onto a computer.  if i browse the web from my phone, now i am toggling back and forth between programs to type in the code.  then all my eggs are in one basket and out of my control.  if my openid account gets compromised, then all of my accounts are compromised.  if the openid provider is compromised, then all accounts for all of the users are compromised.  what happens when the provider shuts down ? do i lose all my accounts ?  #  text messages are not the only way to communicate one time keys.   #  in order to  compromise  an open id provider in that way, you would need almost complete control and access to their database.  why is your cloud service intrinsically less vulnerable to that ? if a major openid provider like google was compromised in that way, we would have bigger problems.  text messages are not the only way to communicate one time keys.  why do you think keyboard shortcuts could not be used with a one time key system ? what happens when the provider shuts down ? the same thing that happens when an email service shuts down.  you migrate all your accounts to one that has not.
there days, the typical internet user needs to remember a whole list of passwords.  the temptation to duplicate them is strong.  passwords can be easy to forget, easy to guess, and easy to steal.  every online service needs to have a password reset procedure because it is so common to lose one of the many passwords you need to remember for all the different websites you go to.  better alternatives are openid and one time keys.  openid allows you to use one login across sites, which solves the problem of having too many passwords to remember, and potentially allows new login technology to be implemented as it becomes availible.  one time keys are nice, because even if you get tricked by a fake login form, or a keylogger, or something, the attacker wo not be able to use the key you gave them.  examples of this technology are yubikey and google authenticator.  i know that password managers elminate some of the problems with passwords, but it would be better if we had a similar solution for one time keys.   #  one time keys are nice, because even if you get tricked by a fake login form, or a keylogger, or something, the attacker wo not be able to use the key you gave them.   #  one time keys are a pain to use.   # the temptation to duplicate them is strong.  i use a password manager that can auto type the passwords for me.  i do not have this problem.  this is great until your open id service goes down.  also, if your open id service gets compromised, then the attacker has access to all accounts on the service and all websites used by those accounts .  if a site gets compromised, then only the site is affected.  one time keys are a pain to use.  a fake login form could request and save an authentication token that can be reused.  this does not protect people from phishing.   #  if my password manager gets compromised, then the attacker only has access to my accounts.   # no.  if my password manager gets compromised, then the attacker only has access to my accounts.  if my password manager is compromised then my computer is compromised; it does not matter what service i use.  they are called  one time keys  for a reason.  you could also make them expire quickly, so the attacker would only have a very narrow window of opportunity to use the stolen credentials.  nobody is going to use one time keys for the majority of their accounts.  services provided by companies like google, twitter, facebook, etc allow software to request a token that can be reused.  theoretically, this token can be revoked but that relies on the user.  i have 0 financial accounts that i track using software.  if i had to deal with 0 one time keys every time i wanted to update my accounts, that would be quite the ordeal.  this solution is unworkable.   #  if you do not back up your password manager, you risk losing everything if your computer is destroyed.   # if my password manager gets compromised, then the attacker only has access to my accounts.  huh ? what does compromising your openid provider get the attacker besides your accounts ? if you do not back up your password manager, you risk losing everything if your computer is destroyed.  so you do not mind dealing with 0 seperate passwords, but reading them off a smartphone is too much of an ordeal ? besides, if you could use one openid provider to access them, then that would not even be a problem.   #  if my openid account gets compromised, then all of my accounts are compromised.   # what does compromising your openid provider get the attacker besides your accounts ? compromising the provider gets the attacker access to all accounts served by that provider more than one person .  that means if you compromise a popular open id provider you can hijack the authentication of many different users.  i back it up on a cloud service which also synchronizes the database between all devices.  the database is encrypted so only i can read it is contents.  i do not deal with the passwords.  i go to a website or open a program, press control alt a, and it gets typed in for me.  your solution requires me to wait for a text message and then transcribe the text message onto a computer.  if i browse the web from my phone, now i am toggling back and forth between programs to type in the code.  then all my eggs are in one basket and out of my control.  if my openid account gets compromised, then all of my accounts are compromised.  if the openid provider is compromised, then all accounts for all of the users are compromised.  what happens when the provider shuts down ? do i lose all my accounts ?  #  why is your cloud service intrinsically less vulnerable to that ?  #  in order to  compromise  an open id provider in that way, you would need almost complete control and access to their database.  why is your cloud service intrinsically less vulnerable to that ? if a major openid provider like google was compromised in that way, we would have bigger problems.  text messages are not the only way to communicate one time keys.  why do you think keyboard shortcuts could not be used with a one time key system ? what happens when the provider shuts down ? the same thing that happens when an email service shuts down.  you migrate all your accounts to one that has not.
recently over the past few years, i have been grappling with an issues of priorities.  i feel that most societies of the world focus far to much on artistic expressions such as dance, art, and music.  there is nothing inherently wrong with these activities, but in comparison to mathematics, engineering, and science they are not as productive, and are more leisurely in nature.  the only reason i believe people would rebuttal against this assumption is because they are involved or work in these arts, and do not understand how significant scientific discovery has been over the past generations.  agriculture, technology, and medicine rely on scientist, what has music contributed ?  #  there is nothing inherently wrong with these activities, but in comparison to mathematics, engineering, and science they are not as productive, and are more leisurely in nature.   #  it seems like it is obvious to you that the purpose of life is to maximize  productivity.    # it seems like it is obvious to you that the purpose of life is to maximize  productivity.   that is not obvious to me.  can you explain why you feel that way ? i ca not speak for everyone in the world who would agree that art in general is valuable in some way, but i personally value it because it makes me feel good.  do you think that is not a good reason to value something ? what would be a good reason, in your view ? are you telling me you would not mind living in a world without music ?  #  arts and entertainment take your mind off work, allowing for a mental break, preventing burnout.   #  i work in the stem areas myself and i value science and art.  i used to hold opinions similar to the opinion you hold, but i realized is that entertainment is hugely important to society.  burnout can be problematic in stem fields.  arts and entertainment take your mind off work, allowing for a mental break, preventing burnout.  this entertainment can be viewing paintings, listening to music, watching tv, watching live performances, or partaking in the arts themselves.  i think all of these are legitimate reasons for focus upon arts; it allows for the balance of work and leisure that creates a productive society.   #  the fact that we can afford such leisure is a fantastic thing.   #  music has contributed joy and pleasure, to the musician and the audience, directly.  entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  the fact that we can afford such leisure is a fantastic thing.  i do not know about you, but productivity is not inherently important, quality of life is, and productivity is a means to that end.   #  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.   # entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  just because something contributes joy and pleasure gives it superficial value.  monkeys enjoy eating bananas, overweight people enjoy eating.  i do not necessarily understand your point  #  i have seen no evidence to suggest that terraforming mars will ever be anything but science fiction at this stage.   #  i have absolutely no idea why you feel that.  i have seen no evidence to suggest that terraforming mars will ever be anything but science fiction at this stage.  i also completely disagree that anything that wipes us out would necessarily wipe out all life.  cockroaches would survive a nuclear apocalypse much better than humans.  bacteria would laugh in the face of many, many circumstances that would end humans.
recently over the past few years, i have been grappling with an issues of priorities.  i feel that most societies of the world focus far to much on artistic expressions such as dance, art, and music.  there is nothing inherently wrong with these activities, but in comparison to mathematics, engineering, and science they are not as productive, and are more leisurely in nature.  the only reason i believe people would rebuttal against this assumption is because they are involved or work in these arts, and do not understand how significant scientific discovery has been over the past generations.  agriculture, technology, and medicine rely on scientist, what has music contributed ?  #  the only reason i believe people would rebuttal against this assumption is because they are involved or work in these arts, and do not understand how significant scientific discovery has been over the past generations.   #  i ca not speak for everyone in the world who would agree that art in general is valuable in some way, but i personally value it because it makes me feel good.   # it seems like it is obvious to you that the purpose of life is to maximize  productivity.   that is not obvious to me.  can you explain why you feel that way ? i ca not speak for everyone in the world who would agree that art in general is valuable in some way, but i personally value it because it makes me feel good.  do you think that is not a good reason to value something ? what would be a good reason, in your view ? are you telling me you would not mind living in a world without music ?  #  arts and entertainment take your mind off work, allowing for a mental break, preventing burnout.   #  i work in the stem areas myself and i value science and art.  i used to hold opinions similar to the opinion you hold, but i realized is that entertainment is hugely important to society.  burnout can be problematic in stem fields.  arts and entertainment take your mind off work, allowing for a mental break, preventing burnout.  this entertainment can be viewing paintings, listening to music, watching tv, watching live performances, or partaking in the arts themselves.  i think all of these are legitimate reasons for focus upon arts; it allows for the balance of work and leisure that creates a productive society.   #  music has contributed joy and pleasure, to the musician and the audience, directly.   #  music has contributed joy and pleasure, to the musician and the audience, directly.  entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  the fact that we can afford such leisure is a fantastic thing.  i do not know about you, but productivity is not inherently important, quality of life is, and productivity is a means to that end.   #  entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.   # entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  just because something contributes joy and pleasure gives it superficial value.  monkeys enjoy eating bananas, overweight people enjoy eating.  i do not necessarily understand your point  #  bacteria would laugh in the face of many, many circumstances that would end humans.   #  i have absolutely no idea why you feel that.  i have seen no evidence to suggest that terraforming mars will ever be anything but science fiction at this stage.  i also completely disagree that anything that wipes us out would necessarily wipe out all life.  cockroaches would survive a nuclear apocalypse much better than humans.  bacteria would laugh in the face of many, many circumstances that would end humans.
recently over the past few years, i have been grappling with an issues of priorities.  i feel that most societies of the world focus far to much on artistic expressions such as dance, art, and music.  there is nothing inherently wrong with these activities, but in comparison to mathematics, engineering, and science they are not as productive, and are more leisurely in nature.  the only reason i believe people would rebuttal against this assumption is because they are involved or work in these arts, and do not understand how significant scientific discovery has been over the past generations.  agriculture, technology, and medicine rely on scientist, what has music contributed ?  #  agriculture, technology, and medicine rely on scientist, what has music contributed ?  #  are you telling me you would not mind living in a world without music ?  # it seems like it is obvious to you that the purpose of life is to maximize  productivity.   that is not obvious to me.  can you explain why you feel that way ? i ca not speak for everyone in the world who would agree that art in general is valuable in some way, but i personally value it because it makes me feel good.  do you think that is not a good reason to value something ? what would be a good reason, in your view ? are you telling me you would not mind living in a world without music ?  #  this entertainment can be viewing paintings, listening to music, watching tv, watching live performances, or partaking in the arts themselves.   #  i work in the stem areas myself and i value science and art.  i used to hold opinions similar to the opinion you hold, but i realized is that entertainment is hugely important to society.  burnout can be problematic in stem fields.  arts and entertainment take your mind off work, allowing for a mental break, preventing burnout.  this entertainment can be viewing paintings, listening to music, watching tv, watching live performances, or partaking in the arts themselves.  i think all of these are legitimate reasons for focus upon arts; it allows for the balance of work and leisure that creates a productive society.   #  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.   #  music has contributed joy and pleasure, to the musician and the audience, directly.  entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  the fact that we can afford such leisure is a fantastic thing.  i do not know about you, but productivity is not inherently important, quality of life is, and productivity is a means to that end.   #  entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.   # entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  just because something contributes joy and pleasure gives it superficial value.  monkeys enjoy eating bananas, overweight people enjoy eating.  i do not necessarily understand your point  #  i have absolutely no idea why you feel that.   #  i have absolutely no idea why you feel that.  i have seen no evidence to suggest that terraforming mars will ever be anything but science fiction at this stage.  i also completely disagree that anything that wipes us out would necessarily wipe out all life.  cockroaches would survive a nuclear apocalypse much better than humans.  bacteria would laugh in the face of many, many circumstances that would end humans.
recently over the past few years, i have been grappling with an issues of priorities.  i feel that most societies of the world focus far to much on artistic expressions such as dance, art, and music.  there is nothing inherently wrong with these activities, but in comparison to mathematics, engineering, and science they are not as productive, and are more leisurely in nature.  the only reason i believe people would rebuttal against this assumption is because they are involved or work in these arts, and do not understand how significant scientific discovery has been over the past generations.  agriculture, technology, and medicine rely on scientist, what has music contributed ?  #  i feel that most societies of the world focus far to much on artistic expressions such as dance, art, and music.   #  and yet the past hundred and ten years or so have seen a completely unprecedented explosion of science and tech that shows no sign of slowing down anytime soon.   # and yet the past hundred and ten years or so have seen a completely unprecedented explosion of science and tech that shows no sign of slowing down anytime soon.  i am not sure what your basing your view on.  is it that there is not some sort of stemish equivalent to pop culture ? they are not leisurely or unproductive for those who participate.  i have a pretty good understanding of science, and the leaps and bounds we have made.  but that does not mean i am incapable of appreciating art.  like wise, most of your stem super heroes probably had a strong appreciation.  so where does that leave you ? were those generations of geniuses simply misguided, wasting away their time with unproductive and leisurely frivolities, or maybe there is something to be found in art that you just have not taken the time understand ?  #  i think all of these are legitimate reasons for focus upon arts; it allows for the balance of work and leisure that creates a productive society.   #  i work in the stem areas myself and i value science and art.  i used to hold opinions similar to the opinion you hold, but i realized is that entertainment is hugely important to society.  burnout can be problematic in stem fields.  arts and entertainment take your mind off work, allowing for a mental break, preventing burnout.  this entertainment can be viewing paintings, listening to music, watching tv, watching live performances, or partaking in the arts themselves.  i think all of these are legitimate reasons for focus upon arts; it allows for the balance of work and leisure that creates a productive society.   #  i do not know about you, but productivity is not inherently important, quality of life is, and productivity is a means to that end.   #  music has contributed joy and pleasure, to the musician and the audience, directly.  entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  the fact that we can afford such leisure is a fantastic thing.  i do not know about you, but productivity is not inherently important, quality of life is, and productivity is a means to that end.   #  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.   # entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  just because something contributes joy and pleasure gives it superficial value.  monkeys enjoy eating bananas, overweight people enjoy eating.  i do not necessarily understand your point  #  i have absolutely no idea why you feel that.   #  i have absolutely no idea why you feel that.  i have seen no evidence to suggest that terraforming mars will ever be anything but science fiction at this stage.  i also completely disagree that anything that wipes us out would necessarily wipe out all life.  cockroaches would survive a nuclear apocalypse much better than humans.  bacteria would laugh in the face of many, many circumstances that would end humans.
recently over the past few years, i have been grappling with an issues of priorities.  i feel that most societies of the world focus far to much on artistic expressions such as dance, art, and music.  there is nothing inherently wrong with these activities, but in comparison to mathematics, engineering, and science they are not as productive, and are more leisurely in nature.  the only reason i believe people would rebuttal against this assumption is because they are involved or work in these arts, and do not understand how significant scientific discovery has been over the past generations.  agriculture, technology, and medicine rely on scientist, what has music contributed ?  #  they are not as productive, and are more leisurely in nature.   #  they are not leisurely or unproductive for those who participate.   # and yet the past hundred and ten years or so have seen a completely unprecedented explosion of science and tech that shows no sign of slowing down anytime soon.  i am not sure what your basing your view on.  is it that there is not some sort of stemish equivalent to pop culture ? they are not leisurely or unproductive for those who participate.  i have a pretty good understanding of science, and the leaps and bounds we have made.  but that does not mean i am incapable of appreciating art.  like wise, most of your stem super heroes probably had a strong appreciation.  so where does that leave you ? were those generations of geniuses simply misguided, wasting away their time with unproductive and leisurely frivolities, or maybe there is something to be found in art that you just have not taken the time understand ?  #  this entertainment can be viewing paintings, listening to music, watching tv, watching live performances, or partaking in the arts themselves.   #  i work in the stem areas myself and i value science and art.  i used to hold opinions similar to the opinion you hold, but i realized is that entertainment is hugely important to society.  burnout can be problematic in stem fields.  arts and entertainment take your mind off work, allowing for a mental break, preventing burnout.  this entertainment can be viewing paintings, listening to music, watching tv, watching live performances, or partaking in the arts themselves.  i think all of these are legitimate reasons for focus upon arts; it allows for the balance of work and leisure that creates a productive society.   #  entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.   #  music has contributed joy and pleasure, to the musician and the audience, directly.  entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  the fact that we can afford such leisure is a fantastic thing.  i do not know about you, but productivity is not inherently important, quality of life is, and productivity is a means to that end.   #  entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.   # entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  just because something contributes joy and pleasure gives it superficial value.  monkeys enjoy eating bananas, overweight people enjoy eating.  i do not necessarily understand your point  #  cockroaches would survive a nuclear apocalypse much better than humans.   #  i have absolutely no idea why you feel that.  i have seen no evidence to suggest that terraforming mars will ever be anything but science fiction at this stage.  i also completely disagree that anything that wipes us out would necessarily wipe out all life.  cockroaches would survive a nuclear apocalypse much better than humans.  bacteria would laugh in the face of many, many circumstances that would end humans.
recently over the past few years, i have been grappling with an issues of priorities.  i feel that most societies of the world focus far to much on artistic expressions such as dance, art, and music.  there is nothing inherently wrong with these activities, but in comparison to mathematics, engineering, and science they are not as productive, and are more leisurely in nature.  the only reason i believe people would rebuttal against this assumption is because they are involved or work in these arts, and do not understand how significant scientific discovery has been over the past generations.  agriculture, technology, and medicine rely on scientist, what has music contributed ?  #  do not understand how significant scientific discovery has been over the past generations.   #  i have a pretty good understanding of science, and the leaps and bounds we have made.   # and yet the past hundred and ten years or so have seen a completely unprecedented explosion of science and tech that shows no sign of slowing down anytime soon.  i am not sure what your basing your view on.  is it that there is not some sort of stemish equivalent to pop culture ? they are not leisurely or unproductive for those who participate.  i have a pretty good understanding of science, and the leaps and bounds we have made.  but that does not mean i am incapable of appreciating art.  like wise, most of your stem super heroes probably had a strong appreciation.  so where does that leave you ? were those generations of geniuses simply misguided, wasting away their time with unproductive and leisurely frivolities, or maybe there is something to be found in art that you just have not taken the time understand ?  #  i work in the stem areas myself and i value science and art.   #  i work in the stem areas myself and i value science and art.  i used to hold opinions similar to the opinion you hold, but i realized is that entertainment is hugely important to society.  burnout can be problematic in stem fields.  arts and entertainment take your mind off work, allowing for a mental break, preventing burnout.  this entertainment can be viewing paintings, listening to music, watching tv, watching live performances, or partaking in the arts themselves.  i think all of these are legitimate reasons for focus upon arts; it allows for the balance of work and leisure that creates a productive society.   #  the fact that we can afford such leisure is a fantastic thing.   #  music has contributed joy and pleasure, to the musician and the audience, directly.  entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  the fact that we can afford such leisure is a fantastic thing.  i do not know about you, but productivity is not inherently important, quality of life is, and productivity is a means to that end.   #  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.   # entertainment does not have to have an end beyond entertainment.  i like reading, i like listening to music, i like art and architecture.  all this adds to my life, and the lives of many.  just because something contributes joy and pleasure gives it superficial value.  monkeys enjoy eating bananas, overweight people enjoy eating.  i do not necessarily understand your point  #  i also completely disagree that anything that wipes us out would necessarily wipe out all life.   #  i have absolutely no idea why you feel that.  i have seen no evidence to suggest that terraforming mars will ever be anything but science fiction at this stage.  i also completely disagree that anything that wipes us out would necessarily wipe out all life.  cockroaches would survive a nuclear apocalypse much better than humans.  bacteria would laugh in the face of many, many circumstances that would end humans.
clarification of terms: i am using  consciousness  here to refer to any kind of subjectivity/awareness/interiority.  i am emphatically not using it to mean  self reflective awareness , ie the kind of awareness that knows that it knows though that would of course be included as a form of awareness.  okay, to start off i do not see myself as just being my memories and inclinations.  i say this because, when i am dreaming, i have different memories/inclinations than when i am awake, but it still seems to be  me  that is dreaming and not somebody else.  so my memories/inclinations are totally changeable without changing my  me ness .  now consider the somewhat cartoonish thought experiment of a brain transplant people tend to assign identity to brains, so we think that brain transplanted people would  switch bodies .  but what if you kept both brains in the same skulls, and altered them so that all memories/inclinations swapped between the people ? who is who then ? how about if you make an exact duplicate of me is it  really me  ? i think people make this more complicated than it has to be.  remember occam is razor:  entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity .  URL my view is simple: we are all the same thing/person/entity/consciousness/whatever in the first place, looking out through all eyes at once.  everybody is  really  the same person as everybody else.  we are all literally different blobs of the same stuff URL we are the universe suffering from/enjoying multiple personality disorder amongst itself.  some scientific sources to maybe make this seem less like empty word games: split brain patients can host two  consciousnesses  in the same brain i interpret this to mean that, whatever  aminds  are, they are divisible.  URL these twins, conjoined at the brain, can experience each other is sensations.  URL even human brains and rat brains are, apparently, connectable by something like a more complicated usb cable.  URL lastly, to use an analogy for how this might relate to the idea of an afterlife: what if somebody told you that, if mars were to blow up tomorrow, its gravity field would just wink out like a tv set being shut off ? that martian gravity would return to the state of non existence it had occupied before mars was formed ? most alarmingly, what if they told you that there was no place to safely warehouse the gravity fields of exploded planets so that, if mars blew up tomorrow, martian gravity would be lost forever ? my answer is simple: there is no such thing as  martian gravity .  gravity is just gravity.  similarly, whatever generates it, consciousness is just consciousness, and it is who/what we really are.  cmv.   #  clarification of terms: i am using  consciousness  here to refer to any kind of subjectivity/awareness/interiority.   #  my point is, if people on the other side of the world are experiencing things that i will never know, then that would be a separate  consciousness  by your definition.   # my point is, if people on the other side of the world are experiencing things that i will never know, then that would be a separate  consciousness  by your definition.  if i experience something in a dream that i will never know. well first of all, how would i know that that is even possible, if i will  never know  it ? second, if it is possible, then that would still be separate consciousnesses, based on your definition.  in other words, you have not made the point that everyone is the same consciousness.  you have only made the point that a person may have multiple separate consciousnesses within himself.   #  i am not really sure what you mean by all of this, but i think you are smuggling definitions in with the word  consciousness  which has implications other than that which you are directly discussing.   #  i am not really sure what you mean by all of this, but i think you are smuggling definitions in with the word  consciousness  which has implications other than that which you are directly discussing.  particularly in the afterlife thing.  nobody disagrees that matter and energy are preserved, but whatever we refer to as consciousness is likely more similar to something like information.  information can, and must, be destroyed; this is entropy.  none of what you have said is evidence for any kind of non physical, supernatural type of consciousness.  it violates the spirit of occam is razor, by presupposing something other than the physics we know, without providing any further empirical predictions.   #  therefore, consciousness, as a certain thing brains can do, is the same thing across them all.   # i am not meaning to imply anything supernatural.  particularly in the afterlife thing.  okay, i will try to be clearer: it makes most sense for people to identify with consciousness itself.  whatever consciousness is, it is the same for everybody.  therefore, it makes more sense for us all to share a collective identity than to assume we are separate.  information can, and must, be destroyed; this is entropy.  my turn to not be sure what you mean my understanding of consciousness is that it is the trait/attribute whereby we are aware of anything at all.  any information we may be aware of may be destroyed, sure, but the fact of being aware at all seems to be consistent across people, in the same way that the trait of having two eyes or one nose tends to be consistent.  i am not saying, again, that consciousness is necessarily non physical let is assume that it is either generated by, or is identical with, physical processes that is, let is assume that brains do a, b, and c, and consciousness either is that, or is generated by that.  in that case, a, b, and c are going to be the same across all conscious brains.  therefore, consciousness, as a certain thing brains can do, is the same thing across them all.   #  hm you may be right about this sub issue .   # hm you may be right about this sub issue .  i am not a supernaturalist though, and i am meaning to suggest anything about consciousness other than what we can observe about it, though mainly, it lets us be aware of things.  my lack of science background is probably showing would you say that heat, gravity, and  the trait/faculty/attribute/quality of being a triangle  are physical ? i think consciousness may be something like those things.  just to reiterate my core view again, though, in the terms you have put forward here the idea is that whatever the structures in brains are that let consciousness be a property of them those structures are necessarily the same structures in all brains, or else the structures would not all be producing this same property consciousness right ? the same way multiple sculptures of dogs have to have doglike traits to be distinguishable from sculptures of cats, or mere piles of marble dust.  so whatever consciousness is or however it is produced, it is the same property, because it is produced by the same processes.   #  or are they all separate examples of dogs ?  # or are they all separate examples of dogs ? second one.  why would not they be ? i mean, the structures in ovens that let them heat things up have to be the same, or they wo not give the same result.  since this trait called  consciousness  seems to be the same across people, i would assume that the structures that give rise to it must, basically, be the same.  but, anyway:   that would just mean that everyone is a separate example of a conscious being.  i do not disagree that that is valid phrasing to a point, but then we get into issues of whether split brain patients URL are one or two conscious beings.  you could argue that this distinction, between  one  or  two , is just semantics.  i, personally, find it interesting though, and my answer to the question of whether sbp are one vs two people, or whether my exact duplicate with all my memories is  really  me, or even whether i am still myself when i am dreaming i am somebody else, is everybody is really me, and i am really them.
the same applies on the individual level, as well, provided that the retaliation is legal or it is virtually guaranteed that you wo not get caught for it.  i often hear people say stuff like  we should not stoop to their level , or  we are better than that , or  let is be the bigger man here , when one nation is unjustly hostile to another, or does not behave unfairly.  for example, if x shoots missiles at y and kills 0 people.  y has the right to retaliate with equal force, but y is a civilized and decent nation and wants to be  better , so abstains from retaliating.  x shoots them again, killing more people, and levies high taxes on imports from y.  again, y pretends to be the bigger man and prefers to hold diplomatic talks, prefers patience, prefers understanding, even though it may be a waste of time.  i believe x now has a strategic advantage over y because while y is concerned with morality, x is concerned more earthly things, like conquest.  i think the same holds on the individual level.  being the  better man  is bullshit.  it sounds good, but it comes with a large gaping security hole that anyone can exploit.  i was inspired to think about this when i thought about saudi arabia is global leverage.  their people can go almost anywhere in the world in burkas, and set up mosques.  they can continue to express many of their wahabist beliefs without being forced by law to assimilate.  however, when entering saudi arabia, everyone is expected to immediately assimilate more or less to their standards, even on the expatriate compounds.  this gives them an advantage of being able to slowly subvert another culture, while their is stands on the firm of ground of stubborness and closed mindedness.  no one will easily change their methods.  this also lead me to notice a possible flaw in liberalism in general.  the principle is similar, liberal societies must tolerate both liberal and conservative members.  but conservative societies do not have to tolerate liberal members.  thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it is only allies are  education  and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations.  the former is difficult to achieve.  you ca not simply  enlighten  people.  the latter is easy, just wait for the old cons to die and hope that they did not spawn more cons.  i am not arguing for or liberalism or conservatism, i am just trying to illustrate a flaw i see inherant in the above mentioned mentality.   #  i often hear people say stuff like  we should not stoop to their level , or  we are better than that , or  let is be the bigger man here , when one nation is unjustly hostile to another, or does not behave unfairly.   #  you must set the example for how others should act.   # you must set the example for how others should act.  if you respond in kind, then it validates the actions of your enemy.  if we believe people should not be tortured, then responding with torturing is implicitly saying that torture is okay.  when a country or individual is seen as immoral, others tend to rally behind the moral party.  would you rather have an immoral country with power, or a moral country with power ? you see it for what it is because of your freedom of thought and expression.  obviously saudi arabia does not have the cultural leverage you claim it does.  thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it is only allies are  education  and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations.  the former is difficult to achieve.  you ca not simply  enlighten  people.  the latter is easy, just wait for the old cons to die and hope that they did not spawn more cons.  i am not arguing for or liberalism or conservatism, i am just trying to illustrate a flaw i see inherant in the above mentioned mentality.  you enlighten people one funeral at a time.  the goal is to raise new generations with a more liberal mindset and let the old ones pass.  liberalism is winning so far.   #  i can maybe see an argument that a country should  have the right  to respond with equal force, but saying that it is  always  beneficial for any country to respond to an aggressor with equal aggression does not really make any sense.   #  have you thought about that fact that international relations are pretty complicated, and that perhaps the appropriate amount of hostility to apply to a given country should be considered on a case by case basis, and not an arbitrary rule ? i can maybe see an argument that a country should  have the right  to respond with equal force, but saying that it is  always  beneficial for any country to respond to an aggressor with equal aggression does not really make any sense.  when people advocate for diplomatic, non violent approaches to global conflict, there are usually good reasons that go far beyond being politically correct or morally superior.  there are plenty of situations in which it could be in a country is best interest to respond with lesser or no force.  perhaps the region is politically unstable, and intervening with military force will create more conflict between political groups that will result in collateral civilian deaths.  perhaps one country depends on the other for an important resource, and it is in their best interest to keep the conflict from escalating.  maybe the aggressor is much more powerful than the victim, and the victim is worried that escalating the conflict will result in them losing more lives and resources than it would stand to gain.   #  if you dislike walmart is labor practices, boycott them.   #  unfortunately, equal hostility does not work.  let is take a plausible example, using your x is and y is.  north korea shoots a small, soviet era missile across the dmz and into south korea.  it is spotted by the south koreans, but there is no time to shoot down the missile before it hits a border village, killing a few dozen civilian villagers.  under your train of thought, the south koreans should retaliate with a similar missile.  but does kim jong un care about a few dozen north korean villagers living near the border ? assuming south korea delivered a counter missile, would any north korean know about it or would the state media report it as unprovoked south korean aggression into north korean territory ? what good does counter aggression do other than escalation and potentially to the nuclear level ? your saudi example is flawed.  they are a sovereign nation and can make laws as they see fit.  there is no  aggression ; their government, culture and religion are all mixed closely together and how they run their society is up to them, just as how americans run american society bill of rights, constitutional rights, etc.  is up to americans.  what right do you or any other foreigner have to tell them they should be different ? if you dislike walmart is labor practices, boycott them.  nobody can easily change walmart is methods.  not really sure where the liberalism versus conservatism paragraph fits into all this.   #  the issue is that this tends to lead to escalating cycles of violence that eventually leave the involved parties/nations devastated.   #  i do not think that you are taking your logic far enough.  the answer is not to respond with equal levels of violence.  the answer is to respond with overwhelming hostility, so that you thoroughly take care of the problem, and demonstrate to others that you are a fierce and unreasonable entity, who will hurt them very badly if they hurt you.  this is what has happened historically, and this is where the concept of  honor  comes from.  you besmirch my honor, i kick the living shit out of you, because that is the only way that i can guarantee that no one else is going to mess with me.  the issue is that this tends to lead to escalating cycles of violence that eventually leave the involved parties/nations devastated.  but there are better answers.  instead of relying on our own ability to inflict carnage, we set up governments, who can deploy police forces to protect citizens and ensure that hostile parties are appropriately chastised or removed.  this is the basis of a smoothly functioning modern civilization: people do not have to protect their honor, because the police are there to ensure that everyone plays nicely with each other.  this is also why we have international law, and the idea of the rights and responsibilities of civilized nations: we want to avoid devastating conflicts like world war i and world war ii.  this is especially important because we have invented nuclear weapons, and can actually end all human life if we take the idea of national honor too far.  of course, some nations/people take advantage of the fact that the police ca not be everywhere, or that the police are corrupt, and get away with bad things.  but that just means that the police forces and governments need maintenance and improvement.  down the other path lies m. a. d. ness.   #  let is say a nation blows up an airliner full of civilians that happened to cross into its airspace.   #  the problem is that you are thinking by analogy to individual people, and at the level of nations that analogy breaks down completely.  example: you are at the beach and some drunk a hole starts a fight with you, then punches you.  you are fully within your legal rights to defend yourself, and i think most people agree it would be  moral  if not legal depending on jurisdiction to respond in kind.  that person hit you; you hit that person back.  the person who did the harm is the person getting punished.  this is a fair example of  justice.   now compare to a nation.  let is say a nation blows up an airliner full of civilians that happened to cross into its airspace.  is the other nation then justified in blowing up an airliner from the first nation ? hell no ! why ? because the people on that airliner likely had nothing to do with the decision to attack the first one.  the people who did the harm are completely different from the people getting punished.  this is not  an eye for an eye,  it is a form of guilt by association and collective punishment.  someone from afghanistan kills an american civilian contractor.  that does not mean you or i or the us government has any right to just randomly kill the next person they find who has an afghan passport.
the same applies on the individual level, as well, provided that the retaliation is legal or it is virtually guaranteed that you wo not get caught for it.  i often hear people say stuff like  we should not stoop to their level , or  we are better than that , or  let is be the bigger man here , when one nation is unjustly hostile to another, or does not behave unfairly.  for example, if x shoots missiles at y and kills 0 people.  y has the right to retaliate with equal force, but y is a civilized and decent nation and wants to be  better , so abstains from retaliating.  x shoots them again, killing more people, and levies high taxes on imports from y.  again, y pretends to be the bigger man and prefers to hold diplomatic talks, prefers patience, prefers understanding, even though it may be a waste of time.  i believe x now has a strategic advantage over y because while y is concerned with morality, x is concerned more earthly things, like conquest.  i think the same holds on the individual level.  being the  better man  is bullshit.  it sounds good, but it comes with a large gaping security hole that anyone can exploit.  i was inspired to think about this when i thought about saudi arabia is global leverage.  their people can go almost anywhere in the world in burkas, and set up mosques.  they can continue to express many of their wahabist beliefs without being forced by law to assimilate.  however, when entering saudi arabia, everyone is expected to immediately assimilate more or less to their standards, even on the expatriate compounds.  this gives them an advantage of being able to slowly subvert another culture, while their is stands on the firm of ground of stubborness and closed mindedness.  no one will easily change their methods.  this also lead me to notice a possible flaw in liberalism in general.  the principle is similar, liberal societies must tolerate both liberal and conservative members.  but conservative societies do not have to tolerate liberal members.  thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it is only allies are  education  and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations.  the former is difficult to achieve.  you ca not simply  enlighten  people.  the latter is easy, just wait for the old cons to die and hope that they did not spawn more cons.  i am not arguing for or liberalism or conservatism, i am just trying to illustrate a flaw i see inherant in the above mentioned mentality.   #  i believe x now has a strategic advantage over y because while y is concerned with morality, x is concerned more earthly things, like conquest.   #  when a country or individual is seen as immoral, others tend to rally behind the moral party.   # you must set the example for how others should act.  if you respond in kind, then it validates the actions of your enemy.  if we believe people should not be tortured, then responding with torturing is implicitly saying that torture is okay.  when a country or individual is seen as immoral, others tend to rally behind the moral party.  would you rather have an immoral country with power, or a moral country with power ? you see it for what it is because of your freedom of thought and expression.  obviously saudi arabia does not have the cultural leverage you claim it does.  thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it is only allies are  education  and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations.  the former is difficult to achieve.  you ca not simply  enlighten  people.  the latter is easy, just wait for the old cons to die and hope that they did not spawn more cons.  i am not arguing for or liberalism or conservatism, i am just trying to illustrate a flaw i see inherant in the above mentioned mentality.  you enlighten people one funeral at a time.  the goal is to raise new generations with a more liberal mindset and let the old ones pass.  liberalism is winning so far.   #  perhaps the region is politically unstable, and intervening with military force will create more conflict between political groups that will result in collateral civilian deaths.   #  have you thought about that fact that international relations are pretty complicated, and that perhaps the appropriate amount of hostility to apply to a given country should be considered on a case by case basis, and not an arbitrary rule ? i can maybe see an argument that a country should  have the right  to respond with equal force, but saying that it is  always  beneficial for any country to respond to an aggressor with equal aggression does not really make any sense.  when people advocate for diplomatic, non violent approaches to global conflict, there are usually good reasons that go far beyond being politically correct or morally superior.  there are plenty of situations in which it could be in a country is best interest to respond with lesser or no force.  perhaps the region is politically unstable, and intervening with military force will create more conflict between political groups that will result in collateral civilian deaths.  perhaps one country depends on the other for an important resource, and it is in their best interest to keep the conflict from escalating.  maybe the aggressor is much more powerful than the victim, and the victim is worried that escalating the conflict will result in them losing more lives and resources than it would stand to gain.   #  under your train of thought, the south koreans should retaliate with a similar missile.   #  unfortunately, equal hostility does not work.  let is take a plausible example, using your x is and y is.  north korea shoots a small, soviet era missile across the dmz and into south korea.  it is spotted by the south koreans, but there is no time to shoot down the missile before it hits a border village, killing a few dozen civilian villagers.  under your train of thought, the south koreans should retaliate with a similar missile.  but does kim jong un care about a few dozen north korean villagers living near the border ? assuming south korea delivered a counter missile, would any north korean know about it or would the state media report it as unprovoked south korean aggression into north korean territory ? what good does counter aggression do other than escalation and potentially to the nuclear level ? your saudi example is flawed.  they are a sovereign nation and can make laws as they see fit.  there is no  aggression ; their government, culture and religion are all mixed closely together and how they run their society is up to them, just as how americans run american society bill of rights, constitutional rights, etc.  is up to americans.  what right do you or any other foreigner have to tell them they should be different ? if you dislike walmart is labor practices, boycott them.  nobody can easily change walmart is methods.  not really sure where the liberalism versus conservatism paragraph fits into all this.   #  this is also why we have international law, and the idea of the rights and responsibilities of civilized nations: we want to avoid devastating conflicts like world war i and world war ii.   #  i do not think that you are taking your logic far enough.  the answer is not to respond with equal levels of violence.  the answer is to respond with overwhelming hostility, so that you thoroughly take care of the problem, and demonstrate to others that you are a fierce and unreasonable entity, who will hurt them very badly if they hurt you.  this is what has happened historically, and this is where the concept of  honor  comes from.  you besmirch my honor, i kick the living shit out of you, because that is the only way that i can guarantee that no one else is going to mess with me.  the issue is that this tends to lead to escalating cycles of violence that eventually leave the involved parties/nations devastated.  but there are better answers.  instead of relying on our own ability to inflict carnage, we set up governments, who can deploy police forces to protect citizens and ensure that hostile parties are appropriately chastised or removed.  this is the basis of a smoothly functioning modern civilization: people do not have to protect their honor, because the police are there to ensure that everyone plays nicely with each other.  this is also why we have international law, and the idea of the rights and responsibilities of civilized nations: we want to avoid devastating conflicts like world war i and world war ii.  this is especially important because we have invented nuclear weapons, and can actually end all human life if we take the idea of national honor too far.  of course, some nations/people take advantage of the fact that the police ca not be everywhere, or that the police are corrupt, and get away with bad things.  but that just means that the police forces and governments need maintenance and improvement.  down the other path lies m. a. d. ness.   #  the problem is that you are thinking by analogy to individual people, and at the level of nations that analogy breaks down completely.   #  the problem is that you are thinking by analogy to individual people, and at the level of nations that analogy breaks down completely.  example: you are at the beach and some drunk a hole starts a fight with you, then punches you.  you are fully within your legal rights to defend yourself, and i think most people agree it would be  moral  if not legal depending on jurisdiction to respond in kind.  that person hit you; you hit that person back.  the person who did the harm is the person getting punished.  this is a fair example of  justice.   now compare to a nation.  let is say a nation blows up an airliner full of civilians that happened to cross into its airspace.  is the other nation then justified in blowing up an airliner from the first nation ? hell no ! why ? because the people on that airliner likely had nothing to do with the decision to attack the first one.  the people who did the harm are completely different from the people getting punished.  this is not  an eye for an eye,  it is a form of guilt by association and collective punishment.  someone from afghanistan kills an american civilian contractor.  that does not mean you or i or the us government has any right to just randomly kill the next person they find who has an afghan passport.
the same applies on the individual level, as well, provided that the retaliation is legal or it is virtually guaranteed that you wo not get caught for it.  i often hear people say stuff like  we should not stoop to their level , or  we are better than that , or  let is be the bigger man here , when one nation is unjustly hostile to another, or does not behave unfairly.  for example, if x shoots missiles at y and kills 0 people.  y has the right to retaliate with equal force, but y is a civilized and decent nation and wants to be  better , so abstains from retaliating.  x shoots them again, killing more people, and levies high taxes on imports from y.  again, y pretends to be the bigger man and prefers to hold diplomatic talks, prefers patience, prefers understanding, even though it may be a waste of time.  i believe x now has a strategic advantage over y because while y is concerned with morality, x is concerned more earthly things, like conquest.  i think the same holds on the individual level.  being the  better man  is bullshit.  it sounds good, but it comes with a large gaping security hole that anyone can exploit.  i was inspired to think about this when i thought about saudi arabia is global leverage.  their people can go almost anywhere in the world in burkas, and set up mosques.  they can continue to express many of their wahabist beliefs without being forced by law to assimilate.  however, when entering saudi arabia, everyone is expected to immediately assimilate more or less to their standards, even on the expatriate compounds.  this gives them an advantage of being able to slowly subvert another culture, while their is stands on the firm of ground of stubborness and closed mindedness.  no one will easily change their methods.  this also lead me to notice a possible flaw in liberalism in general.  the principle is similar, liberal societies must tolerate both liberal and conservative members.  but conservative societies do not have to tolerate liberal members.  thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it is only allies are  education  and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations.  the former is difficult to achieve.  you ca not simply  enlighten  people.  the latter is easy, just wait for the old cons to die and hope that they did not spawn more cons.  i am not arguing for or liberalism or conservatism, i am just trying to illustrate a flaw i see inherant in the above mentioned mentality.   #  this gives them an advantage of being able to slowly subvert another culture, while their is stands on the firm of ground of stubborness and closed mindedness.   #  you see it for what it is because of your freedom of thought and expression.   # you must set the example for how others should act.  if you respond in kind, then it validates the actions of your enemy.  if we believe people should not be tortured, then responding with torturing is implicitly saying that torture is okay.  when a country or individual is seen as immoral, others tend to rally behind the moral party.  would you rather have an immoral country with power, or a moral country with power ? you see it for what it is because of your freedom of thought and expression.  obviously saudi arabia does not have the cultural leverage you claim it does.  thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it is only allies are  education  and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations.  the former is difficult to achieve.  you ca not simply  enlighten  people.  the latter is easy, just wait for the old cons to die and hope that they did not spawn more cons.  i am not arguing for or liberalism or conservatism, i am just trying to illustrate a flaw i see inherant in the above mentioned mentality.  you enlighten people one funeral at a time.  the goal is to raise new generations with a more liberal mindset and let the old ones pass.  liberalism is winning so far.   #  when people advocate for diplomatic, non violent approaches to global conflict, there are usually good reasons that go far beyond being politically correct or morally superior.   #  have you thought about that fact that international relations are pretty complicated, and that perhaps the appropriate amount of hostility to apply to a given country should be considered on a case by case basis, and not an arbitrary rule ? i can maybe see an argument that a country should  have the right  to respond with equal force, but saying that it is  always  beneficial for any country to respond to an aggressor with equal aggression does not really make any sense.  when people advocate for diplomatic, non violent approaches to global conflict, there are usually good reasons that go far beyond being politically correct or morally superior.  there are plenty of situations in which it could be in a country is best interest to respond with lesser or no force.  perhaps the region is politically unstable, and intervening with military force will create more conflict between political groups that will result in collateral civilian deaths.  perhaps one country depends on the other for an important resource, and it is in their best interest to keep the conflict from escalating.  maybe the aggressor is much more powerful than the victim, and the victim is worried that escalating the conflict will result in them losing more lives and resources than it would stand to gain.   #  not really sure where the liberalism versus conservatism paragraph fits into all this.   #  unfortunately, equal hostility does not work.  let is take a plausible example, using your x is and y is.  north korea shoots a small, soviet era missile across the dmz and into south korea.  it is spotted by the south koreans, but there is no time to shoot down the missile before it hits a border village, killing a few dozen civilian villagers.  under your train of thought, the south koreans should retaliate with a similar missile.  but does kim jong un care about a few dozen north korean villagers living near the border ? assuming south korea delivered a counter missile, would any north korean know about it or would the state media report it as unprovoked south korean aggression into north korean territory ? what good does counter aggression do other than escalation and potentially to the nuclear level ? your saudi example is flawed.  they are a sovereign nation and can make laws as they see fit.  there is no  aggression ; their government, culture and religion are all mixed closely together and how they run their society is up to them, just as how americans run american society bill of rights, constitutional rights, etc.  is up to americans.  what right do you or any other foreigner have to tell them they should be different ? if you dislike walmart is labor practices, boycott them.  nobody can easily change walmart is methods.  not really sure where the liberalism versus conservatism paragraph fits into all this.   #  the answer is not to respond with equal levels of violence.   #  i do not think that you are taking your logic far enough.  the answer is not to respond with equal levels of violence.  the answer is to respond with overwhelming hostility, so that you thoroughly take care of the problem, and demonstrate to others that you are a fierce and unreasonable entity, who will hurt them very badly if they hurt you.  this is what has happened historically, and this is where the concept of  honor  comes from.  you besmirch my honor, i kick the living shit out of you, because that is the only way that i can guarantee that no one else is going to mess with me.  the issue is that this tends to lead to escalating cycles of violence that eventually leave the involved parties/nations devastated.  but there are better answers.  instead of relying on our own ability to inflict carnage, we set up governments, who can deploy police forces to protect citizens and ensure that hostile parties are appropriately chastised or removed.  this is the basis of a smoothly functioning modern civilization: people do not have to protect their honor, because the police are there to ensure that everyone plays nicely with each other.  this is also why we have international law, and the idea of the rights and responsibilities of civilized nations: we want to avoid devastating conflicts like world war i and world war ii.  this is especially important because we have invented nuclear weapons, and can actually end all human life if we take the idea of national honor too far.  of course, some nations/people take advantage of the fact that the police ca not be everywhere, or that the police are corrupt, and get away with bad things.  but that just means that the police forces and governments need maintenance and improvement.  down the other path lies m. a. d. ness.   #  this is not  an eye for an eye,  it is a form of guilt by association and collective punishment.   #  the problem is that you are thinking by analogy to individual people, and at the level of nations that analogy breaks down completely.  example: you are at the beach and some drunk a hole starts a fight with you, then punches you.  you are fully within your legal rights to defend yourself, and i think most people agree it would be  moral  if not legal depending on jurisdiction to respond in kind.  that person hit you; you hit that person back.  the person who did the harm is the person getting punished.  this is a fair example of  justice.   now compare to a nation.  let is say a nation blows up an airliner full of civilians that happened to cross into its airspace.  is the other nation then justified in blowing up an airliner from the first nation ? hell no ! why ? because the people on that airliner likely had nothing to do with the decision to attack the first one.  the people who did the harm are completely different from the people getting punished.  this is not  an eye for an eye,  it is a form of guilt by association and collective punishment.  someone from afghanistan kills an american civilian contractor.  that does not mean you or i or the us government has any right to just randomly kill the next person they find who has an afghan passport.
the same applies on the individual level, as well, provided that the retaliation is legal or it is virtually guaranteed that you wo not get caught for it.  i often hear people say stuff like  we should not stoop to their level , or  we are better than that , or  let is be the bigger man here , when one nation is unjustly hostile to another, or does not behave unfairly.  for example, if x shoots missiles at y and kills 0 people.  y has the right to retaliate with equal force, but y is a civilized and decent nation and wants to be  better , so abstains from retaliating.  x shoots them again, killing more people, and levies high taxes on imports from y.  again, y pretends to be the bigger man and prefers to hold diplomatic talks, prefers patience, prefers understanding, even though it may be a waste of time.  i believe x now has a strategic advantage over y because while y is concerned with morality, x is concerned more earthly things, like conquest.  i think the same holds on the individual level.  being the  better man  is bullshit.  it sounds good, but it comes with a large gaping security hole that anyone can exploit.  i was inspired to think about this when i thought about saudi arabia is global leverage.  their people can go almost anywhere in the world in burkas, and set up mosques.  they can continue to express many of their wahabist beliefs without being forced by law to assimilate.  however, when entering saudi arabia, everyone is expected to immediately assimilate more or less to their standards, even on the expatriate compounds.  this gives them an advantage of being able to slowly subvert another culture, while their is stands on the firm of ground of stubborness and closed mindedness.  no one will easily change their methods.  this also lead me to notice a possible flaw in liberalism in general.  the principle is similar, liberal societies must tolerate both liberal and conservative members.  but conservative societies do not have to tolerate liberal members.  thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it is only allies are  education  and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations.  the former is difficult to achieve.  you ca not simply  enlighten  people.  the latter is easy, just wait for the old cons to die and hope that they did not spawn more cons.  i am not arguing for or liberalism or conservatism, i am just trying to illustrate a flaw i see inherant in the above mentioned mentality.   #  but conservative societies do not have to tolerate liberal members.   #  thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it is only allies are  education  and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations.   # you must set the example for how others should act.  if you respond in kind, then it validates the actions of your enemy.  if we believe people should not be tortured, then responding with torturing is implicitly saying that torture is okay.  when a country or individual is seen as immoral, others tend to rally behind the moral party.  would you rather have an immoral country with power, or a moral country with power ? you see it for what it is because of your freedom of thought and expression.  obviously saudi arabia does not have the cultural leverage you claim it does.  thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it is only allies are  education  and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations.  the former is difficult to achieve.  you ca not simply  enlighten  people.  the latter is easy, just wait for the old cons to die and hope that they did not spawn more cons.  i am not arguing for or liberalism or conservatism, i am just trying to illustrate a flaw i see inherant in the above mentioned mentality.  you enlighten people one funeral at a time.  the goal is to raise new generations with a more liberal mindset and let the old ones pass.  liberalism is winning so far.   #  there are plenty of situations in which it could be in a country is best interest to respond with lesser or no force.   #  have you thought about that fact that international relations are pretty complicated, and that perhaps the appropriate amount of hostility to apply to a given country should be considered on a case by case basis, and not an arbitrary rule ? i can maybe see an argument that a country should  have the right  to respond with equal force, but saying that it is  always  beneficial for any country to respond to an aggressor with equal aggression does not really make any sense.  when people advocate for diplomatic, non violent approaches to global conflict, there are usually good reasons that go far beyond being politically correct or morally superior.  there are plenty of situations in which it could be in a country is best interest to respond with lesser or no force.  perhaps the region is politically unstable, and intervening with military force will create more conflict between political groups that will result in collateral civilian deaths.  perhaps one country depends on the other for an important resource, and it is in their best interest to keep the conflict from escalating.  maybe the aggressor is much more powerful than the victim, and the victim is worried that escalating the conflict will result in them losing more lives and resources than it would stand to gain.   #  what good does counter aggression do other than escalation and potentially to the nuclear level ?  #  unfortunately, equal hostility does not work.  let is take a plausible example, using your x is and y is.  north korea shoots a small, soviet era missile across the dmz and into south korea.  it is spotted by the south koreans, but there is no time to shoot down the missile before it hits a border village, killing a few dozen civilian villagers.  under your train of thought, the south koreans should retaliate with a similar missile.  but does kim jong un care about a few dozen north korean villagers living near the border ? assuming south korea delivered a counter missile, would any north korean know about it or would the state media report it as unprovoked south korean aggression into north korean territory ? what good does counter aggression do other than escalation and potentially to the nuclear level ? your saudi example is flawed.  they are a sovereign nation and can make laws as they see fit.  there is no  aggression ; their government, culture and religion are all mixed closely together and how they run their society is up to them, just as how americans run american society bill of rights, constitutional rights, etc.  is up to americans.  what right do you or any other foreigner have to tell them they should be different ? if you dislike walmart is labor practices, boycott them.  nobody can easily change walmart is methods.  not really sure where the liberalism versus conservatism paragraph fits into all this.   #  this is what has happened historically, and this is where the concept of  honor  comes from.   #  i do not think that you are taking your logic far enough.  the answer is not to respond with equal levels of violence.  the answer is to respond with overwhelming hostility, so that you thoroughly take care of the problem, and demonstrate to others that you are a fierce and unreasonable entity, who will hurt them very badly if they hurt you.  this is what has happened historically, and this is where the concept of  honor  comes from.  you besmirch my honor, i kick the living shit out of you, because that is the only way that i can guarantee that no one else is going to mess with me.  the issue is that this tends to lead to escalating cycles of violence that eventually leave the involved parties/nations devastated.  but there are better answers.  instead of relying on our own ability to inflict carnage, we set up governments, who can deploy police forces to protect citizens and ensure that hostile parties are appropriately chastised or removed.  this is the basis of a smoothly functioning modern civilization: people do not have to protect their honor, because the police are there to ensure that everyone plays nicely with each other.  this is also why we have international law, and the idea of the rights and responsibilities of civilized nations: we want to avoid devastating conflicts like world war i and world war ii.  this is especially important because we have invented nuclear weapons, and can actually end all human life if we take the idea of national honor too far.  of course, some nations/people take advantage of the fact that the police ca not be everywhere, or that the police are corrupt, and get away with bad things.  but that just means that the police forces and governments need maintenance and improvement.  down the other path lies m. a. d. ness.   #  is the other nation then justified in blowing up an airliner from the first nation ?  #  the problem is that you are thinking by analogy to individual people, and at the level of nations that analogy breaks down completely.  example: you are at the beach and some drunk a hole starts a fight with you, then punches you.  you are fully within your legal rights to defend yourself, and i think most people agree it would be  moral  if not legal depending on jurisdiction to respond in kind.  that person hit you; you hit that person back.  the person who did the harm is the person getting punished.  this is a fair example of  justice.   now compare to a nation.  let is say a nation blows up an airliner full of civilians that happened to cross into its airspace.  is the other nation then justified in blowing up an airliner from the first nation ? hell no ! why ? because the people on that airliner likely had nothing to do with the decision to attack the first one.  the people who did the harm are completely different from the people getting punished.  this is not  an eye for an eye,  it is a form of guilt by association and collective punishment.  someone from afghanistan kills an american civilian contractor.  that does not mean you or i or the us government has any right to just randomly kill the next person they find who has an afghan passport.
the way i see it, those who want to keep gay marriage illegal are attempting to legislate their own personal morals.  and your average/mainstream liberal takes issue with that, because they allegedly do not want people to legislate their morals.  yet, and again this is average/mainstream ideology.  i recognize that liberals are not one cohesive unit that all think  exactly  the same way they have no issue legislating their morals when it comes to helping the needy.  they have no issue forcing people to give up their hard earned money, whether they want to or not.  because they believe, morally, it is the right thing to do.  to me, this is either a double standard where liberals have allowed  themselves  to legislate morality, but no one else, or it is hypocritical.  for the record, i am a libertarian.  i have no problem with helping the needy although i do not believe by force is the proper way to accomplish that goal , nor do i have a problem with gay marriage.   #  they have no issue forcing people to give up their hard earned money, whether they want to or not.   #  because they believe, morally, it is the right thing to do.   # because they believe, morally, it is the right thing to do.  welfare is not about morals, it is a social safety net.  if people lose their job and ca not collect unemployment, they will either starve or steal food.  do you want crime to run rampant because people ca not afford to live ? another social aspect is that it benefits our nation to not have homeless and starving people littering the streets.  all developed countries care for their needy, and most third world countries do not.  our national standing affects trade agreements and attracts business.   #  there are literally thousands of charities across the country devoted to helping those who fall on hard times.   #  the government is the only option for those in need.  there are literally thousands of charities across the country devoted to helping those who fall on hard times.  if the tax burden were relieved, people could donate more to those charities because they would have a higher disposable income.  my church, as well as many others in the area, has programs in place to help the needy.  there are also a plethora of secular charities dedicated to feeding, clothing, and housing the poor.   #  automatic stabilizers like food stamps and unemployment insurance keep people financially secure and maintain purchasing power to stop recessions from getting worse.   # i am sorry, but this conservative dream of a safety net funded by private charity is a myth.  in 0, americans donated $0 billion to charity URL and that is including all charitable deductions, so that includes money not used for social purposes, like church contributions and money for arts .  that same year, we spent $0 billion on social security, $0 billion on medicare/medicaid, $0 billion on food stamps.  and $0 billion on tanf.  there is absolutely no economic evidence that this could be made up by private donations.  this was the dominant discourse during the depression and before the new deal, and it did not work URL when the economy tanks, so does charitable giving.  private charities ca not weather economic storms the way the government can.  automatic stabilizers like food stamps and unemployment insurance keep people financially secure and maintain purchasing power to stop recessions from getting worse.   #  people will use that extra money to pay bills and buy things.   # this is a stretch.  the tax burden for these types of programs probably equates to a few dollars for an individual.  people will use that extra money to pay bills and buy things.  i do not know anybody whose charity hinges on their tax burden.  there are also a plethora of secular charities dedicated to feeding, clothing, and housing the poor.  many of the churches and organizations get grants from the government for these programs.  if you cut all forms of welfare out of the government, the homeless and needy population would explode and overwhelm these charities.  now you have a situation where everybody suffers.   #  the more money you earn, a higher portion is taken.   # if only 0 of my taxes goes towards social programs i have seen charts that say it is as high as 0 that means i am being forced to work for 0 weeks each year without compensation… at a minimum.  that means i lose at least one  entire paycheck  each year to social programs.  to me, that is a little more than  a few dollars .  and i am in the lowest tax bracket.  the more money you earn, a higher portion is taken.
to me it seems as if men have no safe spaces to talk to other men about things.  here are some things that i viewed as traditionally viewed as safe spaces for men: 0 video games which were dominated by men for a while now have even genders overall, in hard core games where women are a low percentage the gamer community/games themselves are labeled as sexist.  see: female character model controversies, mirrors edge 0, assassins creed, etc.  0 jobs dominated by men engineering, blue collar jobs, etc.  are being encouraged more and more for females to join.  at the same time society is essentially calling these jobs/companies sexist because of the low percentages of women which has resulted in lots of companies pushing hard for more women in the work place.  0 domestic shelters are dominated in numbers by women with few shelters being available for men.  0 websites on the internet, like reddit, have the communities called sexist all the time and even now we are seeing a constant push towards making reddit more female friendly see: twoxchromosomes becoming a default subreddit and pushing aside the male demographic.  anyway, the result of all of this is i think that men essentially have limited/no avenues for places to talk to other men, where as women have a plethora of places that they can go to.  any place that was once traditionally male dominated is being gutted, but females still get to keep their exclusivity.  cmv ?  #  websites on the internet, like reddit, have the communities called sexist all the time and even now we are seeing a constant push towards making reddit more female friendly see: twoxchromosomes becoming a default subreddit and pushing aside the male demographic.   #  i do not even know what you are going for here.   #  you seem to have a strange understanding of what the idea behind a safe space for women is.  men do not need a safe space because most of society is safe for them.  the fact that your idea of a safe space for men apparently primarily entails a space where men can be openly sexist demonstrates this.  your basic interpretation of reality is skewed:   video games.  have even genders overall i assume here that you mean either that employment or gender representation in games is even.  this is blatantly untrue.  i do not even know what you are going for here.  this site was never intended as a primarily male space.  reddit is called sexist a lot because there is a lot of sexism on this site, and 0x was made a default sub not as part of a conspiracy to oppress men but because a lot of big subs were defaulted and 0x is a big sub because there are actually quite a few women on this site because  they are half of the human race .  you make a good point about male victims of domestic violence not having many options or not being taken seriously, but the rest is just you whining that while actually there are plenty of places to talk about guy stuff with guys, there are fewer and fewer places to take part in gleeful misogyny.   #  but these places have very little justification to be gendered spaces, because their primary reason to exist has to do with society.   #  public houses used to be for men only.  universities used to be for men only.  but these places have very little justification to be gendered spaces, because their primary reason to exist has to do with society.  games exist so we can play them; chatting is a secondary activity.  if you choose to frame the equalisation of public spaces as the loss of male space, then i am afraid you are going to be in for a long and annoying road.  try a barbershop.  try a boxing ring.  try the guy is night out.  go down the pub with a few of your mates, and ignore anyone else who is also there to have fun.  that is what those things are for.  there is a point about women is shelters, but hell, that is like saying that prison is a pretty good place to have some time with your bros.  i mean, as a woman, i ca not imagine going to a  domestic shelter  to hang out with other women.  or are there other spaces i should know about ?  #  i am all for the existence of segregated spaces and there are plenty of websites that are vetted and only for men, too , but complaining because you are losing spaces that  should be  equal is pretty poor.   #  no, i mean a boxing ring.  a good old fashioned boxing gym, thank you very much.  again, nothing to stop me going in there legally.  but very masculine space, with its own integrity.  there  are  men is shelters.  more are needed, but that does not have much to do with the fact that women is shelters exist.  the reason why they are women only is for the protection of the people there, many of whom are not psychologically ready to be near men, particularly troubled men.  here is a thought: if women did not feel unduly uncomfortable in many situations, there would be no market for  women only  hours at the gym.  trust me, those hours are not there so girls can have heart to heart talks between sets.  how about we fix that ? if the only women is only spaces you can bring up are spaces designed specifically to  protect  women, then that is what needs fixing.  i am all for the existence of segregated spaces and there are plenty of websites that are vetted and only for men, too , but complaining because you are losing spaces that  should be  equal is pretty poor.  or if you want, you guys can have the kitchen from now on.   #  the gay community took it over on saturday mornings and sundays typically wednesday night was the first foray into  bi singles meetup.    #  the problem with space that has no means of gatekeeping is that if enough people do not respect the spirit of the place, it loses the feeling of being a safe space.  in the town i used to live in there was a really fascinating coffee shop that had really worked on making space for a bunch of marginalized and/or  homeless  groups.  the knitters not really welcome in the fabric stores had a knit in, and the stroller brigade showed up on weekday mornings with the babies.  the gay community took it over on saturday mornings and sundays typically wednesday night was the first foray into  bi singles meetup.   the trouble is, this wonderful place got torn down by a couple of people that decided to turn bi singles night into a kinky swingers creepshow.  not that kinky swingers have to be a creep show, just that this guy definitely enjoyed that vibe, so he created it.  and once he had taken over wednesday night, he went in and ruined a few more nights.  the coffee place got shut down for lack of business, because it no longer felt like a safe space to the people that had previously frequented it.  i am all for equal spaces and i know this is a dramatic example of what can happen but everyone needs a safe place to vent off steam from dealing with societal pressures and where they are safe from those societal pressures.  even men.  it is easy to ruin the integrity of these spaces.  which is probably why people need a means of legal enforcing the integrity.  but that is a sticky spot and i recognize that.   #  he said a boxing ring, not a gym, but i will bite anyway.   # because it is legally unjust to have a public business that profiles customers based on race, gender, religion, etc.  that said, barber shops are still predominantly visited by men.  in a similar fashion, hair salons are predominantly visited by women.  but for the owner of either to adopt a policy of  only  serving women, that is unjust and illegal.  the ones that have women is classes but no male only classes ? that charge men and women the same monthly rates yet limit some hours to  women only ?   he said a boxing ring, not a gym, but i will bite anyway.  the reason for women is only classes and women is only hours is because the gym is a place ripe for sexual harassment.  perhaps more than any other public establishment that does not serve alcohol.  women only classes and hours serve to create a safe space for women.  and currently, there are almost zero  men only  shelters.  not that many men are admitted to those sorts of shelters anyway.  to start off i will say that it may be a good idea to have men only domestic abuse shelters.  that said, the demand for it is  significantly  lower because the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of domestic abuse cases are of women being abused by men, not the other way around.  again, i am not saying that there are no cases of women abusing men, but that they are a small minority of cases.
i refuse to work for 0$ an hour.  the work is usually menial and grueling.  they are rarely things i am passionate about.  i once worked a minimum wage job over the summer and it was extremely boring and felt pointless.  i came to this conclusion as a consequence from working that job.  my viewpoint has pushed me to work harder to find better opportunities.  for example, i always strive for better paying jobs by searching through multiple mediums web, newspaper, friends, etc.  .  i also once came up with my own lesson plan to teach junior high students which landed me 0$ an hour.  i sell things on the internet for profit.  i own stocks and do market research.  i also simultaneously have more time for personal use such as reading, leisure etc.  if i want to go to the library, i can.  if i want to hang out with friends, i can because i do not have to work a grueling night shift for measly pay.  if i settled for a minimum wage job, i never would have pushed myself to find better opportunities out there which takes time and effort.  by the way, i am 0.  i am asking because it seems like my view point is offending a lot of people.  i think it is because some of them work for near minimum wage and they believe i am looking down on them as people.  i never judge people for working minimum wage, if it works for them, i respect that.  but for me, i set a higher standard for myself to meet for my own good, and that is something i believe in.  cmv reddit ? am i a prick ? ehnree  #  the work is usually menial and grueling.   #  they are rarely things i am passionate about.   # they are rarely things i am passionate about.  if they see your success as offensive, it is their fault.  i do not think there is any issues here, regarding people being offended by you refusing to not work for minimum wage.  i was in a similar boat, and i could have chose to work at a retail store doing mind numbing manual labor, but i did not.  if you are not enjoying your job, i do not see much point in working there, because for the majority of jobs, it is going to be most of your day, and days.  why make yourself suffer just for $$, and not a lot of it ? i think you will get a lot of heat from people saying you are not working hard enough because you are refusing to take minimum wage jobs, but i think you are making the smart choice.  as long as you continue to do that, you will be fine.  do not stay at any one job for too long.   #  you  refuse  to work for minimum wage, meanwhile there is someone who works 0 jobs for minimum wage who does not have that luxury.   #  i think the issue with your viewpoint is its based upon having the luxury of not working to begin with.  you  refuse  to work for minimum wage, meanwhile there is someone who works 0 jobs for minimum wage who does not have that luxury.  sure, that person may have made bad choices forcing them to take 0 minimum wage jobs, but they could also be victims of circumstance, forced to drop out of school to help keep their family afloat.  regardless, they work their ass off for the $0 dollars an hour, meanwhile you are spouting how your too good for that work.  they too probably think they are too good for that work, the difference being they do not have the luxury of time and not working to find something different.   #  as a side note, i think the fact that the us is at 0 unemployed is because most of those people think that they too are too good for a minimum wage job.   #  that is where i think there is an issue, you think some people have the luxury of time and energy to explore extra work, but most simply do not have the time between their jobs and familial duties.  they also may not have the know how due to poor educations and have other fears, such as being deported, extorted, etc.  i do think there are some who simply have no motivation/ambition, but these people are the exception.  for reference, i too come from a place of privilege and live in an area surrounded by people of privilege.  i am not ashamed of my privilege, i just think we need to cut those who do not have privilege and work hard some people some slack.  if i was in their shoes and someone told me they were too good for a minimum wage job, i would probably lose it too.  as a side note, i think the fact that the us is at 0 unemployed is because most of those people think that they too are too good for a minimum wage job.  however, they ca not find a  real  job, so they sit on their butt collecting unemployment while someone else works three jobs to earn the same amount of money.  you should never be too good to do a job; you may be overqualified or have the ability to do something else, but you are never above digging ditches in the heat.   #  frankly, i do not see how that mindset could piss anyone off.   #  i do not see how anyone would be angry for thinking that you are not too good for work.  my parents are now rather wealthy, but both are from a families that were poor; one was a farmer and one has five siblings.  my father and mother have impressed upon me the ideals of frugality and hard work.  when they got married they both had high paying jobs, but they made a promise that if worst came to worst, they would dig ditches, flip burgers, or anything that would help pay the bills.  frankly, i do not see how that mindset could piss anyone off.  even an elitist would not care if you worked minimum wage to support yourself.   #  it seems like i would rather just have traded that time for something for meaningful like leisure and enjoying myself, building connections, learning something new, anything but for 0$/hr.   #  the mindset of refusing to do minimum wage is not motivated by what i think other people will think of me, it is really a personal choice.  i did not feel embarrassed when i worked at a minimum wage job, i felt miserable because it felt like i was trading precious time for meager money.  that was probably because i did not need the money due to my parent is support.  it seems like i would rather just have traded that time for something for meaningful like leisure and enjoying myself, building connections, learning something new, anything but for 0$/hr.  if i have learned anything, it is that i come from a place of privilege and i should be aware of that.
i am a dude.  for three years i have taken public transport twice a day, from home to work to home, with occasional stops to various stores.  as should probably be expected, i never once have gotten cat called.  every day it is the same.  i get on the bus, i get off.  i get on the train, i get off.  nobody ever notices me or talks to me, and i rarely even end up making eye contact with anybody.  all my life i have not been very attractive.  i did well in school and i have a few friends but i have never been desired by anybody i know.  last year, i finally mustered up the courage to ask a girl from one of my classes if she wanted to hang out but she paused and said,  do you realize you are an ugly faggot ?   since then, i have had a lot of trouble speaking to anybody, in public or for something important in private.  i am really lonely, but i do not want to bother/harass women by asking them out if they do not find me attractive.  i know that i should not, but sometimes i really feel jealous of women for the validation they receive in the form of cat calling and harassment.  i would love that kind of attention, really.  i have never once been called sexy or hot in my entire life, and when i see people complaining about being called sexy on the street i find it hard to understand why that is a bad thing.  is it because it happens so often ? or is it because sometimes it can be scary ? about a year ago, i got an anonymous message on my blog just saying  i would fuck you .  i do not know who sent it and it might of just been a mean joke, but that stupid little message made me feel the best i have ever felt in my adult life.  this is cheesy but that validation really made me feel warm inside and actually made me feel like i was worth something.  do you ever feel like this when men call you sexy on the street ? or is it completely a negative experience ? could you change my view as to why i should not wish i was cat called/harassed ? i know i should not feel this way, but i do.  basically i do not understand why constant complements and validation are a bad thing.  because your appearance is something you are born with, as opposed to something you work at like intelligence, social skills, or a good job i feel like people who get cat called should be proud that they get so much attention.  but again, i know i should not feel that way, because it seems like all women hate cat calling.  my appearance is absolutely the thing i am most insecure about, but i regularly see women who insist that they are not attractive talk about getting catcalled.  i really sometimes this would happen to me.  a  hey sexy !   or  wanna fuck ?   shouted by a random woman or man would make my day and probably make me feel happy for the whole week.  but i know i should not feel this way.  change my view ?  #  i know that i should not, but sometimes i really feel jealous of women for the validation they receive in the form of cat calling and harassment.   #  i am a man, but i will try to provide some insight.   # i am a man, but i will try to provide some insight.  think about your imagined scenario  you may be thinking how great it would be to be cat called or  harassed  by attractive women.  re imagine this but with unattractive women.  you have no interest in these people, yet they yell for your attention and wo not leave you alone.  safety  women tend to be smaller than man, and the ones who receive cat calls are most likely thin and not very muscular.  this unwanted attention can feel threatening, because you start to wonder if the person will leave you alone or follow you home.  imagine ugly gigantic amazonian woman are cat calling or harassing you.  maybe they will leave you alone, maybe you get followed to your car, house, or work.  maybe they walk away, or maybe they force themselves upon you.  there is the notion that many men have of trying to  turn a no into a yes .   #  to me, the idea of privilege, first and foremost, is about the limitations of personal perspective.   #  you seem genuinely open to listening, so i think this is honestly an excellently teachable moment.  this example, to me, is what most opened my eyes to the idea of privilege, so let me see if i can explain it to you.  to me, the idea of privilege, first and foremost, is about the limitations of personal perspective.  one insidious thing about how our brains work is that they make us think that our experience is universal, and to process the stated experiences of others through the filter of our own perspective.  what you are thinking is totally normal, but what you are still doing is looking at the problems you deal with struggling with appearance and insecurity and not properly considering the problems you do not deal with.  let me offer a few examples: 0 you touch on the safety issue, but the truth is, you are still understating it.  the simple fact is that as men, we just ca not process the extent to which the fear of rape and assault is a defining factor in women is lives.  this is one of those huge differences in perspective that you have to try to learn through empathy.  have you ever been in a bad neighborhood, full of sketchy people, and felt that anxiety as they looked at you, checked your wallet, started picturing what would happen if one of them pulled a knife ? understand that this is how women feel all the time.  they feel that way alone in the elevator with men, in parking garages, at parties.  they feel that checking drinks on dates, on intentional outings to try to make a meaningful human connection.  let is go back to that sketchy street.  now imagine if one of those scary, burly, menacing guys turned to you and shouted  i want to fuck your mouth, boy.   would you feel complimented ? or would you feel terrified ? 0 so that is safety.  now there is the other issue which again requires you to leave your perspective and try to imagine another.  imagine if your appearance was not a source of anxiety for you, but the fact that all people cared about was your appearance.  imagine if no matter how hard you studied or how hard you worked or what accomplishments you earned, people saw you first and foremost for your body and just did not give a shit about you as a person.  imagine if no matter how much you excelled above your peers, the only thing people cared about was how you looked.  imagine if you struggled all the time to have people listen to you and interact with you as a person and respect your intelligence and beliefs and point of view, and despite everything you did, most of the world just gave a shit about your body and nothing more.  can you see how within that framework, getting catcalled daily would just make you feel so shitty, would make it clear that no matter what else you were, for so many people you were just a piece of meat to be ogled and yelled at ? i am not trying to marginalize your feelings of loneliness and insecurity.  they are very real and very painful.  i am asking you to empathize with the problems women face that you do not, and understand how while cat calling might seem appealing to you, it is very hurtful and scary ! to them.  does that make sense ?  #  only problem is if it is in a situation where you can feel threatened, but again, that is not the case most of the time to make it seem like catcalling equals that.   #  i think you are also pushing the other extreme.  0.  women are not constantly afraid of rape.  maybe if they had a specially traumatic experience with it, but otherwise most of the time you are not in a situation where you think someone can rape you.  something can click in your head when you are alone in a dark ally and a stranger approaches, but how often does that happen anyway ? not saying that there are not such situations, but most catcalling you would experience is still in a safe environment.  of all that i would say a big part is simply complimentary comments uttered by passers by, and they are great.  then there are more sexual/potentially violent comments, but it is not like you expect some average dude to say that, it is the drunk homeless guy or drunk not homeless guy, and these are much less personal you know they just do this to everyone who will pass them by because they are fucked, so why take it personally ? only problem is if it is in a situation where you can feel threatened, but again, that is not the case most of the time to make it seem like catcalling equals that.  0.  am i the only one who frankly does not expect strangers to acknowledge my hard work and brilliant mind because it is not obvious to them ? i expect a stranger to notice my appearance.  i do not expect them to be affected by it, but if they are in a positive way, more power to me.  my only trait that was visible to this person got a positive reaction.  why would that make me feel my other traits are diminished by this ? i live in my own head, i have absolutely no need for everything that is there to be validated by every person who finds me hot, and it is a weird concept for me that i should.  so i have to disagree, although this is obviously dependent on the person, but a lot of catcalling does make me smile, and i have had the bad experiences as well grabbing etc , which i would not compare to this but would attribute serious problems in those people.   #  are the same ones who are then upset when women are fearful of men.   #  0  this is how women feel  is not necessarily an accurate reflector of reality, but a statement of societal pressure; ironically enough, many of the same people who encourage women to be more fearful  women should be responsible for their own safety and watch out for being raped !   are the same ones who are then upset when women are fearful of men.  0 in terms of the specific threat being discussed rape , women are absolutely not the safest demographic unless you bring in prison rape, which, come on.  0 when you are rich, you have ample resources to spend on whatever you want.  in addition, being rich is associated with success and value and accomplishment.  when you are attractive, people want to do things to you.   #  and when you know you are at the whim of this this person who is intentionally disrespecting you, then of course you are gonna be scared.   # you a normal guy and you are aware that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible users.  they carry it privately and would never think to use it anything but self defense.  then, as you are sitting in a restaurant or park or somewhere another man walks by and sits across from and takes out his pistol and starts cleaning it, staring at you.  after a moment he smiles and yells  hey boy.  you wanna fuck with my gun ? you look like a boy who likes to get shot.   and you know rationally that he is probably just fucking with you.  most guns shots happen in the home, by someone you know.  but it does not make you feel any better and you leave.  in a couple days it happens again with another gun owner, and again.  you know by now that people in this town just like to fuck with pedestrians.  they would  probably  never actually shoot you.  you know this rationally, but it still makes you feel terrified.  you might wanna stay at home, you might only want to walk around town with a gun owning friend.  why would it be any different for cat calling ? sure, men do not own firearms, but as a woman i am not as strong as a man.  nowhere even close.  i am fit, i work out, i lift, but despite doing all these things regularly for over a year i am still far weaker than any average guy.  if they wanted to rape me, i could not stop them.  and even though i know most guys would never even think of hurting me, how can you not expect me to be scared when someone brings it up ? when you are all alone with a stranger  i bet you wanna fuck me  sounds an awful lot like  i am gonna fuck you.   and when you know you are at the whim of this this person who is intentionally disrespecting you, then of course you are gonna be scared.
i am a dude.  for three years i have taken public transport twice a day, from home to work to home, with occasional stops to various stores.  as should probably be expected, i never once have gotten cat called.  every day it is the same.  i get on the bus, i get off.  i get on the train, i get off.  nobody ever notices me or talks to me, and i rarely even end up making eye contact with anybody.  all my life i have not been very attractive.  i did well in school and i have a few friends but i have never been desired by anybody i know.  last year, i finally mustered up the courage to ask a girl from one of my classes if she wanted to hang out but she paused and said,  do you realize you are an ugly faggot ?   since then, i have had a lot of trouble speaking to anybody, in public or for something important in private.  i am really lonely, but i do not want to bother/harass women by asking them out if they do not find me attractive.  i know that i should not, but sometimes i really feel jealous of women for the validation they receive in the form of cat calling and harassment.  i would love that kind of attention, really.  i have never once been called sexy or hot in my entire life, and when i see people complaining about being called sexy on the street i find it hard to understand why that is a bad thing.  is it because it happens so often ? or is it because sometimes it can be scary ? about a year ago, i got an anonymous message on my blog just saying  i would fuck you .  i do not know who sent it and it might of just been a mean joke, but that stupid little message made me feel the best i have ever felt in my adult life.  this is cheesy but that validation really made me feel warm inside and actually made me feel like i was worth something.  do you ever feel like this when men call you sexy on the street ? or is it completely a negative experience ? could you change my view as to why i should not wish i was cat called/harassed ? i know i should not feel this way, but i do.  basically i do not understand why constant complements and validation are a bad thing.  because your appearance is something you are born with, as opposed to something you work at like intelligence, social skills, or a good job i feel like people who get cat called should be proud that they get so much attention.  but again, i know i should not feel that way, because it seems like all women hate cat calling.  my appearance is absolutely the thing i am most insecure about, but i regularly see women who insist that they are not attractive talk about getting catcalled.  i really sometimes this would happen to me.  a  hey sexy !   or  wanna fuck ?   shouted by a random woman or man would make my day and probably make me feel happy for the whole week.  but i know i should not feel this way.  change my view ?  #  i know that i should not, but sometimes i really feel jealous of women for the validation they receive in the form of cat calling and harassment.   #  i would love that kind of attention, really.   # i would love that kind of attention, really.  it seems that you are jealous of the attention, not the catcalling itself.  would you feel similarly validated if a stranger said  hey, you are really hot !   or some nice old lady said  you are a handsome young man  ? each is a form of compliment.  but female here catcalls are scary.  when i first got catcalled i was scared to go outside alone for a week because some creepy guys screamed and hooted out of their car.  part of me was flattered, but a way bigger part of me was creeped out.  compliments and validation are not bad ! i like being told i am pretty, i am hot,  as long as it is not in a scary way .  but catcalling is quite scary.  and sometimes it is not even a compliment, it is almost like they are saying they want to rape you.   #  let me offer a few examples: 0 you touch on the safety issue, but the truth is, you are still understating it.   #  you seem genuinely open to listening, so i think this is honestly an excellently teachable moment.  this example, to me, is what most opened my eyes to the idea of privilege, so let me see if i can explain it to you.  to me, the idea of privilege, first and foremost, is about the limitations of personal perspective.  one insidious thing about how our brains work is that they make us think that our experience is universal, and to process the stated experiences of others through the filter of our own perspective.  what you are thinking is totally normal, but what you are still doing is looking at the problems you deal with struggling with appearance and insecurity and not properly considering the problems you do not deal with.  let me offer a few examples: 0 you touch on the safety issue, but the truth is, you are still understating it.  the simple fact is that as men, we just ca not process the extent to which the fear of rape and assault is a defining factor in women is lives.  this is one of those huge differences in perspective that you have to try to learn through empathy.  have you ever been in a bad neighborhood, full of sketchy people, and felt that anxiety as they looked at you, checked your wallet, started picturing what would happen if one of them pulled a knife ? understand that this is how women feel all the time.  they feel that way alone in the elevator with men, in parking garages, at parties.  they feel that checking drinks on dates, on intentional outings to try to make a meaningful human connection.  let is go back to that sketchy street.  now imagine if one of those scary, burly, menacing guys turned to you and shouted  i want to fuck your mouth, boy.   would you feel complimented ? or would you feel terrified ? 0 so that is safety.  now there is the other issue which again requires you to leave your perspective and try to imagine another.  imagine if your appearance was not a source of anxiety for you, but the fact that all people cared about was your appearance.  imagine if no matter how hard you studied or how hard you worked or what accomplishments you earned, people saw you first and foremost for your body and just did not give a shit about you as a person.  imagine if no matter how much you excelled above your peers, the only thing people cared about was how you looked.  imagine if you struggled all the time to have people listen to you and interact with you as a person and respect your intelligence and beliefs and point of view, and despite everything you did, most of the world just gave a shit about your body and nothing more.  can you see how within that framework, getting catcalled daily would just make you feel so shitty, would make it clear that no matter what else you were, for so many people you were just a piece of meat to be ogled and yelled at ? i am not trying to marginalize your feelings of loneliness and insecurity.  they are very real and very painful.  i am asking you to empathize with the problems women face that you do not, and understand how while cat calling might seem appealing to you, it is very hurtful and scary ! to them.  does that make sense ?  #  maybe if they had a specially traumatic experience with it, but otherwise most of the time you are not in a situation where you think someone can rape you.   #  i think you are also pushing the other extreme.  0.  women are not constantly afraid of rape.  maybe if they had a specially traumatic experience with it, but otherwise most of the time you are not in a situation where you think someone can rape you.  something can click in your head when you are alone in a dark ally and a stranger approaches, but how often does that happen anyway ? not saying that there are not such situations, but most catcalling you would experience is still in a safe environment.  of all that i would say a big part is simply complimentary comments uttered by passers by, and they are great.  then there are more sexual/potentially violent comments, but it is not like you expect some average dude to say that, it is the drunk homeless guy or drunk not homeless guy, and these are much less personal you know they just do this to everyone who will pass them by because they are fucked, so why take it personally ? only problem is if it is in a situation where you can feel threatened, but again, that is not the case most of the time to make it seem like catcalling equals that.  0.  am i the only one who frankly does not expect strangers to acknowledge my hard work and brilliant mind because it is not obvious to them ? i expect a stranger to notice my appearance.  i do not expect them to be affected by it, but if they are in a positive way, more power to me.  my only trait that was visible to this person got a positive reaction.  why would that make me feel my other traits are diminished by this ? i live in my own head, i have absolutely no need for everything that is there to be validated by every person who finds me hot, and it is a weird concept for me that i should.  so i have to disagree, although this is obviously dependent on the person, but a lot of catcalling does make me smile, and i have had the bad experiences as well grabbing etc , which i would not compare to this but would attribute serious problems in those people.   #  in addition, being rich is associated with success and value and accomplishment.   #  0  this is how women feel  is not necessarily an accurate reflector of reality, but a statement of societal pressure; ironically enough, many of the same people who encourage women to be more fearful  women should be responsible for their own safety and watch out for being raped !   are the same ones who are then upset when women are fearful of men.  0 in terms of the specific threat being discussed rape , women are absolutely not the safest demographic unless you bring in prison rape, which, come on.  0 when you are rich, you have ample resources to spend on whatever you want.  in addition, being rich is associated with success and value and accomplishment.  when you are attractive, people want to do things to you.   #  in a couple days it happens again with another gun owner, and again.   # you a normal guy and you are aware that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible users.  they carry it privately and would never think to use it anything but self defense.  then, as you are sitting in a restaurant or park or somewhere another man walks by and sits across from and takes out his pistol and starts cleaning it, staring at you.  after a moment he smiles and yells  hey boy.  you wanna fuck with my gun ? you look like a boy who likes to get shot.   and you know rationally that he is probably just fucking with you.  most guns shots happen in the home, by someone you know.  but it does not make you feel any better and you leave.  in a couple days it happens again with another gun owner, and again.  you know by now that people in this town just like to fuck with pedestrians.  they would  probably  never actually shoot you.  you know this rationally, but it still makes you feel terrified.  you might wanna stay at home, you might only want to walk around town with a gun owning friend.  why would it be any different for cat calling ? sure, men do not own firearms, but as a woman i am not as strong as a man.  nowhere even close.  i am fit, i work out, i lift, but despite doing all these things regularly for over a year i am still far weaker than any average guy.  if they wanted to rape me, i could not stop them.  and even though i know most guys would never even think of hurting me, how can you not expect me to be scared when someone brings it up ? when you are all alone with a stranger  i bet you wanna fuck me  sounds an awful lot like  i am gonna fuck you.   and when you know you are at the whim of this this person who is intentionally disrespecting you, then of course you are gonna be scared.
i am a dude.  for three years i have taken public transport twice a day, from home to work to home, with occasional stops to various stores.  as should probably be expected, i never once have gotten cat called.  every day it is the same.  i get on the bus, i get off.  i get on the train, i get off.  nobody ever notices me or talks to me, and i rarely even end up making eye contact with anybody.  all my life i have not been very attractive.  i did well in school and i have a few friends but i have never been desired by anybody i know.  last year, i finally mustered up the courage to ask a girl from one of my classes if she wanted to hang out but she paused and said,  do you realize you are an ugly faggot ?   since then, i have had a lot of trouble speaking to anybody, in public or for something important in private.  i am really lonely, but i do not want to bother/harass women by asking them out if they do not find me attractive.  i know that i should not, but sometimes i really feel jealous of women for the validation they receive in the form of cat calling and harassment.  i would love that kind of attention, really.  i have never once been called sexy or hot in my entire life, and when i see people complaining about being called sexy on the street i find it hard to understand why that is a bad thing.  is it because it happens so often ? or is it because sometimes it can be scary ? about a year ago, i got an anonymous message on my blog just saying  i would fuck you .  i do not know who sent it and it might of just been a mean joke, but that stupid little message made me feel the best i have ever felt in my adult life.  this is cheesy but that validation really made me feel warm inside and actually made me feel like i was worth something.  do you ever feel like this when men call you sexy on the street ? or is it completely a negative experience ? could you change my view as to why i should not wish i was cat called/harassed ? i know i should not feel this way, but i do.  basically i do not understand why constant complements and validation are a bad thing.  because your appearance is something you are born with, as opposed to something you work at like intelligence, social skills, or a good job i feel like people who get cat called should be proud that they get so much attention.  but again, i know i should not feel that way, because it seems like all women hate cat calling.  my appearance is absolutely the thing i am most insecure about, but i regularly see women who insist that they are not attractive talk about getting catcalled.  i really sometimes this would happen to me.  a  hey sexy !   or  wanna fuck ?   shouted by a random woman or man would make my day and probably make me feel happy for the whole week.  but i know i should not feel this way.  change my view ?  #  is it because it happens so often ?  #  or is it because sometimes it can be scary ?  # or is it because sometimes it can be scary ? it is because in the us it denotes a lack of respect for social norms.  what you are supposed to do in the us when you come across a stranger on the street is to demonstrate that you wo not bother them.  in some cities you may say  hello  or the like, but you do not stop and engage them in conversation without a demonstration of harmlessness.  if you do, you are violating a social norm and it is uncomfortable.  you have demonstrated an interest in the person and a willingness to ignore social constraints on proper behavior.  how do you feel when a scruffy looking man asks you how you are doing today ? you probably feel like he will either beg for money or mug you.  when a woman is cat called in the us, it is a little like that except with potentially scarier concerns.  now, culture and social acceptability changes this entirely.  look at women talking about piropos instead of cat calling, and you will find that it is much more acceptable in many countries.  where it is acceptable, it is not the same kind of threat, because it does not demonstrate a willingness to ignore the rules.  in those places, some women enjoy them.  others do not, of course.   #  the simple fact is that as men, we just ca not process the extent to which the fear of rape and assault is a defining factor in women is lives.   #  you seem genuinely open to listening, so i think this is honestly an excellently teachable moment.  this example, to me, is what most opened my eyes to the idea of privilege, so let me see if i can explain it to you.  to me, the idea of privilege, first and foremost, is about the limitations of personal perspective.  one insidious thing about how our brains work is that they make us think that our experience is universal, and to process the stated experiences of others through the filter of our own perspective.  what you are thinking is totally normal, but what you are still doing is looking at the problems you deal with struggling with appearance and insecurity and not properly considering the problems you do not deal with.  let me offer a few examples: 0 you touch on the safety issue, but the truth is, you are still understating it.  the simple fact is that as men, we just ca not process the extent to which the fear of rape and assault is a defining factor in women is lives.  this is one of those huge differences in perspective that you have to try to learn through empathy.  have you ever been in a bad neighborhood, full of sketchy people, and felt that anxiety as they looked at you, checked your wallet, started picturing what would happen if one of them pulled a knife ? understand that this is how women feel all the time.  they feel that way alone in the elevator with men, in parking garages, at parties.  they feel that checking drinks on dates, on intentional outings to try to make a meaningful human connection.  let is go back to that sketchy street.  now imagine if one of those scary, burly, menacing guys turned to you and shouted  i want to fuck your mouth, boy.   would you feel complimented ? or would you feel terrified ? 0 so that is safety.  now there is the other issue which again requires you to leave your perspective and try to imagine another.  imagine if your appearance was not a source of anxiety for you, but the fact that all people cared about was your appearance.  imagine if no matter how hard you studied or how hard you worked or what accomplishments you earned, people saw you first and foremost for your body and just did not give a shit about you as a person.  imagine if no matter how much you excelled above your peers, the only thing people cared about was how you looked.  imagine if you struggled all the time to have people listen to you and interact with you as a person and respect your intelligence and beliefs and point of view, and despite everything you did, most of the world just gave a shit about your body and nothing more.  can you see how within that framework, getting catcalled daily would just make you feel so shitty, would make it clear that no matter what else you were, for so many people you were just a piece of meat to be ogled and yelled at ? i am not trying to marginalize your feelings of loneliness and insecurity.  they are very real and very painful.  i am asking you to empathize with the problems women face that you do not, and understand how while cat calling might seem appealing to you, it is very hurtful and scary ! to them.  does that make sense ?  #  i live in my own head, i have absolutely no need for everything that is there to be validated by every person who finds me hot, and it is a weird concept for me that i should.   #  i think you are also pushing the other extreme.  0.  women are not constantly afraid of rape.  maybe if they had a specially traumatic experience with it, but otherwise most of the time you are not in a situation where you think someone can rape you.  something can click in your head when you are alone in a dark ally and a stranger approaches, but how often does that happen anyway ? not saying that there are not such situations, but most catcalling you would experience is still in a safe environment.  of all that i would say a big part is simply complimentary comments uttered by passers by, and they are great.  then there are more sexual/potentially violent comments, but it is not like you expect some average dude to say that, it is the drunk homeless guy or drunk not homeless guy, and these are much less personal you know they just do this to everyone who will pass them by because they are fucked, so why take it personally ? only problem is if it is in a situation where you can feel threatened, but again, that is not the case most of the time to make it seem like catcalling equals that.  0.  am i the only one who frankly does not expect strangers to acknowledge my hard work and brilliant mind because it is not obvious to them ? i expect a stranger to notice my appearance.  i do not expect them to be affected by it, but if they are in a positive way, more power to me.  my only trait that was visible to this person got a positive reaction.  why would that make me feel my other traits are diminished by this ? i live in my own head, i have absolutely no need for everything that is there to be validated by every person who finds me hot, and it is a weird concept for me that i should.  so i have to disagree, although this is obviously dependent on the person, but a lot of catcalling does make me smile, and i have had the bad experiences as well grabbing etc , which i would not compare to this but would attribute serious problems in those people.   #  are the same ones who are then upset when women are fearful of men.   #  0  this is how women feel  is not necessarily an accurate reflector of reality, but a statement of societal pressure; ironically enough, many of the same people who encourage women to be more fearful  women should be responsible for their own safety and watch out for being raped !   are the same ones who are then upset when women are fearful of men.  0 in terms of the specific threat being discussed rape , women are absolutely not the safest demographic unless you bring in prison rape, which, come on.  0 when you are rich, you have ample resources to spend on whatever you want.  in addition, being rich is associated with success and value and accomplishment.  when you are attractive, people want to do things to you.   #  and even though i know most guys would never even think of hurting me, how can you not expect me to be scared when someone brings it up ?  # you a normal guy and you are aware that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible users.  they carry it privately and would never think to use it anything but self defense.  then, as you are sitting in a restaurant or park or somewhere another man walks by and sits across from and takes out his pistol and starts cleaning it, staring at you.  after a moment he smiles and yells  hey boy.  you wanna fuck with my gun ? you look like a boy who likes to get shot.   and you know rationally that he is probably just fucking with you.  most guns shots happen in the home, by someone you know.  but it does not make you feel any better and you leave.  in a couple days it happens again with another gun owner, and again.  you know by now that people in this town just like to fuck with pedestrians.  they would  probably  never actually shoot you.  you know this rationally, but it still makes you feel terrified.  you might wanna stay at home, you might only want to walk around town with a gun owning friend.  why would it be any different for cat calling ? sure, men do not own firearms, but as a woman i am not as strong as a man.  nowhere even close.  i am fit, i work out, i lift, but despite doing all these things regularly for over a year i am still far weaker than any average guy.  if they wanted to rape me, i could not stop them.  and even though i know most guys would never even think of hurting me, how can you not expect me to be scared when someone brings it up ? when you are all alone with a stranger  i bet you wanna fuck me  sounds an awful lot like  i am gonna fuck you.   and when you know you are at the whim of this this person who is intentionally disrespecting you, then of course you are gonna be scared.
i am a dude.  for three years i have taken public transport twice a day, from home to work to home, with occasional stops to various stores.  as should probably be expected, i never once have gotten cat called.  every day it is the same.  i get on the bus, i get off.  i get on the train, i get off.  nobody ever notices me or talks to me, and i rarely even end up making eye contact with anybody.  all my life i have not been very attractive.  i did well in school and i have a few friends but i have never been desired by anybody i know.  last year, i finally mustered up the courage to ask a girl from one of my classes if she wanted to hang out but she paused and said,  do you realize you are an ugly faggot ?   since then, i have had a lot of trouble speaking to anybody, in public or for something important in private.  i am really lonely, but i do not want to bother/harass women by asking them out if they do not find me attractive.  i know that i should not, but sometimes i really feel jealous of women for the validation they receive in the form of cat calling and harassment.  i would love that kind of attention, really.  i have never once been called sexy or hot in my entire life, and when i see people complaining about being called sexy on the street i find it hard to understand why that is a bad thing.  is it because it happens so often ? or is it because sometimes it can be scary ? about a year ago, i got an anonymous message on my blog just saying  i would fuck you .  i do not know who sent it and it might of just been a mean joke, but that stupid little message made me feel the best i have ever felt in my adult life.  this is cheesy but that validation really made me feel warm inside and actually made me feel like i was worth something.  do you ever feel like this when men call you sexy on the street ? or is it completely a negative experience ? could you change my view as to why i should not wish i was cat called/harassed ? i know i should not feel this way, but i do.  basically i do not understand why constant complements and validation are a bad thing.  because your appearance is something you are born with, as opposed to something you work at like intelligence, social skills, or a good job i feel like people who get cat called should be proud that they get so much attention.  but again, i know i should not feel that way, because it seems like all women hate cat calling.  my appearance is absolutely the thing i am most insecure about, but i regularly see women who insist that they are not attractive talk about getting catcalled.  i really sometimes this would happen to me.  a  hey sexy !   or  wanna fuck ?   shouted by a random woman or man would make my day and probably make me feel happy for the whole week.  but i know i should not feel this way.  change my view ?  #  last year, i finally mustered up the courage to ask a girl from one of my classes if she wanted to hang out but she paused and said,  do you realize you are an ugly faggot ?    #  since then, i have had a lot of trouble speaking to anybody, in public or for something important in private.   # since then, i have had a lot of trouble speaking to anybody, in public or for something important in private.  i am really lonely, but i do not want to bother/harass women by asking them out if they do not find me attractive.  do not take this the wrong way.  but, duuuuuude, go see a therapist.  even if it is only one time.  i am sure you found this posting somewhat therapeutic, and further discussions about your sexual feelings and issues will only help.  it is not like you are  broken  or anything, but you clearly have some very reasonable issues that would benefit from discussion with a professional.   #  you seem genuinely open to listening, so i think this is honestly an excellently teachable moment.   #  you seem genuinely open to listening, so i think this is honestly an excellently teachable moment.  this example, to me, is what most opened my eyes to the idea of privilege, so let me see if i can explain it to you.  to me, the idea of privilege, first and foremost, is about the limitations of personal perspective.  one insidious thing about how our brains work is that they make us think that our experience is universal, and to process the stated experiences of others through the filter of our own perspective.  what you are thinking is totally normal, but what you are still doing is looking at the problems you deal with struggling with appearance and insecurity and not properly considering the problems you do not deal with.  let me offer a few examples: 0 you touch on the safety issue, but the truth is, you are still understating it.  the simple fact is that as men, we just ca not process the extent to which the fear of rape and assault is a defining factor in women is lives.  this is one of those huge differences in perspective that you have to try to learn through empathy.  have you ever been in a bad neighborhood, full of sketchy people, and felt that anxiety as they looked at you, checked your wallet, started picturing what would happen if one of them pulled a knife ? understand that this is how women feel all the time.  they feel that way alone in the elevator with men, in parking garages, at parties.  they feel that checking drinks on dates, on intentional outings to try to make a meaningful human connection.  let is go back to that sketchy street.  now imagine if one of those scary, burly, menacing guys turned to you and shouted  i want to fuck your mouth, boy.   would you feel complimented ? or would you feel terrified ? 0 so that is safety.  now there is the other issue which again requires you to leave your perspective and try to imagine another.  imagine if your appearance was not a source of anxiety for you, but the fact that all people cared about was your appearance.  imagine if no matter how hard you studied or how hard you worked or what accomplishments you earned, people saw you first and foremost for your body and just did not give a shit about you as a person.  imagine if no matter how much you excelled above your peers, the only thing people cared about was how you looked.  imagine if you struggled all the time to have people listen to you and interact with you as a person and respect your intelligence and beliefs and point of view, and despite everything you did, most of the world just gave a shit about your body and nothing more.  can you see how within that framework, getting catcalled daily would just make you feel so shitty, would make it clear that no matter what else you were, for so many people you were just a piece of meat to be ogled and yelled at ? i am not trying to marginalize your feelings of loneliness and insecurity.  they are very real and very painful.  i am asking you to empathize with the problems women face that you do not, and understand how while cat calling might seem appealing to you, it is very hurtful and scary ! to them.  does that make sense ?  #  i expect a stranger to notice my appearance.   #  i think you are also pushing the other extreme.  0.  women are not constantly afraid of rape.  maybe if they had a specially traumatic experience with it, but otherwise most of the time you are not in a situation where you think someone can rape you.  something can click in your head when you are alone in a dark ally and a stranger approaches, but how often does that happen anyway ? not saying that there are not such situations, but most catcalling you would experience is still in a safe environment.  of all that i would say a big part is simply complimentary comments uttered by passers by, and they are great.  then there are more sexual/potentially violent comments, but it is not like you expect some average dude to say that, it is the drunk homeless guy or drunk not homeless guy, and these are much less personal you know they just do this to everyone who will pass them by because they are fucked, so why take it personally ? only problem is if it is in a situation where you can feel threatened, but again, that is not the case most of the time to make it seem like catcalling equals that.  0.  am i the only one who frankly does not expect strangers to acknowledge my hard work and brilliant mind because it is not obvious to them ? i expect a stranger to notice my appearance.  i do not expect them to be affected by it, but if they are in a positive way, more power to me.  my only trait that was visible to this person got a positive reaction.  why would that make me feel my other traits are diminished by this ? i live in my own head, i have absolutely no need for everything that is there to be validated by every person who finds me hot, and it is a weird concept for me that i should.  so i have to disagree, although this is obviously dependent on the person, but a lot of catcalling does make me smile, and i have had the bad experiences as well grabbing etc , which i would not compare to this but would attribute serious problems in those people.   #  in addition, being rich is associated with success and value and accomplishment.   #  0  this is how women feel  is not necessarily an accurate reflector of reality, but a statement of societal pressure; ironically enough, many of the same people who encourage women to be more fearful  women should be responsible for their own safety and watch out for being raped !   are the same ones who are then upset when women are fearful of men.  0 in terms of the specific threat being discussed rape , women are absolutely not the safest demographic unless you bring in prison rape, which, come on.  0 when you are rich, you have ample resources to spend on whatever you want.  in addition, being rich is associated with success and value and accomplishment.  when you are attractive, people want to do things to you.   #  and even though i know most guys would never even think of hurting me, how can you not expect me to be scared when someone brings it up ?  # you a normal guy and you are aware that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible users.  they carry it privately and would never think to use it anything but self defense.  then, as you are sitting in a restaurant or park or somewhere another man walks by and sits across from and takes out his pistol and starts cleaning it, staring at you.  after a moment he smiles and yells  hey boy.  you wanna fuck with my gun ? you look like a boy who likes to get shot.   and you know rationally that he is probably just fucking with you.  most guns shots happen in the home, by someone you know.  but it does not make you feel any better and you leave.  in a couple days it happens again with another gun owner, and again.  you know by now that people in this town just like to fuck with pedestrians.  they would  probably  never actually shoot you.  you know this rationally, but it still makes you feel terrified.  you might wanna stay at home, you might only want to walk around town with a gun owning friend.  why would it be any different for cat calling ? sure, men do not own firearms, but as a woman i am not as strong as a man.  nowhere even close.  i am fit, i work out, i lift, but despite doing all these things regularly for over a year i am still far weaker than any average guy.  if they wanted to rape me, i could not stop them.  and even though i know most guys would never even think of hurting me, how can you not expect me to be scared when someone brings it up ? when you are all alone with a stranger  i bet you wanna fuck me  sounds an awful lot like  i am gonna fuck you.   and when you know you are at the whim of this this person who is intentionally disrespecting you, then of course you are gonna be scared.
i believe that having different or inequal roles in society are ok if the people participating in those roles are not bothered by it.  for example, i often hear some women complain how other wives do dishes, laundry, or other chores that their partners do not even if they the wives are ok and happy to do them.  i would describe myself as liberal, but i do not think that absolute equality is necessarily right in all circumstances, given natural differences in biology and culture.  cmv.  changemyview/wiki/guidelines wiki upvoting. 0fdownvoting   ! if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  i believe that having different or inequal roles in society are ok if the people participating in those roles are not bothered by it.   #  i am not sure if i understand your definition of inequality.   # i am not sure if i understand your definition of inequality.  it seems like you are defining inequality as the freedom to choose whichever role you would like.  i believe most people would define that as equality.  no one expects everyone to live like bill gates.  equality is more about equal opportunity than equal lifestyles.   #  a smaller portion of women would rather go out and work, and a smaller portion of men would rather stay at home.   #  to elaborate on this point, equality means the freedom to choose.  this is why you still have a lot of stay a home mums, and working dads.  in fact, the majority of families still adopt the pre feministic perception of the ideal family, with the sexism removed mind you.  but the point is, in this example, equality comes from the option to choose.  to force someone to do something is just as unreasonable to prohibit them.  you should not force women to work just as you should not prevent them.  equality is about the choice to be viewed and regarded in the same manner.  although clear biological distinctions can be made which sometimes limits what is equal and not , this is irrespective of a person is basic freedom.  if a person can perform a task just as well as anyone else, and wishes to do so, then they should have the right to do that task.  this is why a lot of mums stay a home.  they would rather be perceived as materialistic, and that is okay.  same with beauty pageants.  if women want to be objectified, it is their right.  as long as no one forces em, and the option is open, it is equality.  a smaller portion of women would rather go out and work, and a smaller portion of men would rather stay at home.  they are not the majority, but they have every right to defy the stereotypes which prohibit them from conducting their lives as they wish.   #  walmart has been the main target for this argument.   #  i wo not personally speak on my opinion as i am nowhere near an economist but the basic premise of the call for increasing minimum wage is that they argue those with low wage jobs are not getting livable wages.  as such they turn to and qualify for government assistance to break even.  raising the minimum wage would theoretically put more pressure on employers to pay their employees enough to survive.  walmart has been the main target for this argument.  i would not say this is looking for equal outcome as much as raising the minimum standard of living for the working class.  as for the $0, is that hyperbole ? i would assume only a few would look for that large of a change on a national scale.   #  it is this latent mindset that tells me volumes about lesser educated people in america.   #  to elaborate, i get lots of hispanic and blank jokes at work.  i can deal with them fine, however, when i say a redneck joke, it seems i ruffle feathers.  hhhmmm, there is still a latent assumption that it is ok to joke about people but not others.  i have a degree and left my industry for a menial blue collar job to start my own company ! it is this latent mindset that tells me volumes about lesser educated people in america.  cough  some white people  cough .   #  is not it horrible that she is suffering from inequality in her relationship ?    #  i am not sure exactly what you are seeing, but i will give an example of something that i think is an understandable critique of society.   mary beth got married and gave up her high paying job.  now she spends all day doing chores, her husband stays out late every night and gets mad if she questions where he is been, and every time they are out together she never gets a word in to the conversation without being interrupted.  is not it horrible that she is suffering from inequality in her relationship ?   even if mary beth says she is happy, or that god gave her a strong husband to be her master, and that it is the natural way of the world that she be doing what she is doing, it is still inequality.  mary beth is exhibiting internalized sexism.  she is bought in to the idea that women are supposed to have a certain role, and that it is not her place to question it.  questioning why people do things in a society is a pretty central pillar of changing society.  seeing women taking on the majority of housework and child care and asking if they really want to do it, or if they just think they ca not ask their partners to help is a valid thing to talk about.  it is like seeing people sending their mentally handicapped children to a group home and asking if that is really the best thing for everyone involved.  maybe everyone is happy with the arrangement, in which case we will discover that by talking about it.  maybe there is some pressure from society that is causing people to act a certain way, in which case we should address it and try to change the pressure so that everyone can act in a way that does make them happy.  is this the kind of discussion that you are objecting to, or is it something else ?
this may sound hypocritical, but let me explain.  for the record, i smoke marijuana regularly and have tried cigarettes and alcohol but not hard drugs.  i will start out by saying i do not expect the criminalization of cigarettes to end their use.  as we have seen with harder drugs, prohibition does not make a drug disappear.  however, it does reduce the number of users.  not everyone cares about the law, but plenty of others do.  my evidence for this claim is that i know several people who refuse to try marijuana for the sole reason that it is illegal where i live; one of these friends actually tried it in colorado recently.  so the advantages of banning cigarettes are clear.  reduced usage, people who deal to kids get harsher punishments, vastly reduced supply, federal funding can be spent entirely on treatment rather than regulation, etc.  there are three reasons to make a drug legal.  the benefit provided by any of these can override the above listed advantages of prohibition, though simply meeting one criteria is not  necessarily  sufficient: 0.   public health through regulation.   intravenous drugs spread disease when improperly regulated, so there is a compelling reason to legalize heroin.  needle exchanges are good, but they would be better if they were not just run by charities.   edit : this means legalization would provide the opportunity for a regulation that would not otherwise be possible or would be much less effective.  0.   humans have the right to pleasure.   getting high makes people happy.  even though drugs often cause longer term issues, you have the right to fuck up your own body and personal life for the sake of getting high.  this is why i am okay with alcohol though personally not a fan .  0.   the drug is harmless.   if a drug in and of itself not just how it is consumed, e. g.  pills as opposed to needles causes no major health issues, there is no reason to dissuade people from using it.  marijuana falls under this rule as well as 0 .   edit : obviously every chemical has the potential to cause harm; i am not arguing this as an absolute.  a drug like tobacco causes huge amounts of harm to a large number of users i do not know where to draw the line but that does not take away from the principle of this test is validity.  cigarettes fail all three tests.  regulation has done nothing to reduce rates of lung cancer caused by cigarettes.  additionally, they give no genuine pleasure beyond  getting your fix;  other drugs like heroin are pleasurable so i hear because they get you high in addition to satisfying your addiction, but cigarettes are purely an addiction.  finally, they are clearly terrible for your health.  to change my view, you can either challenge my three reasons for legalization in principle or convince me that tobacco passes those tests.  i am just as prepared to accept legalized tobacco as i am to oppose the legalization of other drugs.  i also do not particularly care about any single drug except tobacco, so arguing against alcohol or marijuana will not change my view in a meaningful way.   #  finally, they are clearly terrible for your health.   #  not if you smoke after drinking, which is pleasurable, and occasional enough to not get you addicted.   # regulation has done nothing to reduce rates of lung cancer caused by cigarettes.  source ? not so.  trust me, there is a sort of high you get from smoking cigarettes.  nicotine is a drug; a stimulant.  it would not make you addicted if it did not make you feel something.  why would people smoke to begin with ? not if you smoke after drinking, which is pleasurable, and occasional enough to not get you addicted.  in that case, it is not any less healthy than drinking itself, or eating junk food.  this is a minor point anyway considering you are advocating legalizing drugs that are many times more lethal and  unhealthy  than cigarettes.   #  to sum up, i think your strongest argument is on pleasure but i am still not convinced on that front.   # 0 of male smokers get cancer URL compared to 0 of intravenous drug users with hiv URL and as i said in the op, that 0 could be even lower with regulation.  i was a regular smoker for several months, so i know that rush.  but that rush is the result of addiction, not the drug itself.  URL   it is not any less healthy than drinking itself, or eating junk food those are justified by the pleasure argument.  if something is more lethal than cigarettes and does not pass the other two tests it should not be legal.  to sum up, i think your strongest argument is on pleasure but i am still not convinced on that front.  btw your final paragraph is formatting got screwy.   #  but that rush is the result of addiction, not the drug itself.   # but that rush is the result of addiction, not the drug itself.  how does that make any sense ? you are addicted to the drug itself.  i do not do drugs.  i smoked tobacco once and i enjoyed it, it was pleasurable.  i smoked marijuana once and it made me feel dizzy and sick.  am i going to base any legislation on my own subjective experience with these drugs ? not what i meant.  if i drink once a month and have a single cigarette each time, i will not get addicted to cigarettes, nor will my health be impacted to a great degree especially compared to heroin/cocaine/pcp .   #  that was two years ago and i have never felt the desire to have a cigarette since, but if my friends took me out to a hookah bar again, i would probably say  yes.    #  you are basically arguing that cigarettes provide no good feelings whatsoever to justify using it, which is absurd.  how can you get addicted to a feeling that does not exist ? news flash: people smoke for pleasure.  consider that some people only smoke a cigarette when they go out which could be every six months , or when they are with friends.  there are different kinds of cigarettes, different flavors.  i went to a hookah bar once and smoked the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes in one night.  it was relaxing, the act of smoking felt good, and i felt the buzz  that nicotine provides.  URL i enjoyed it.  that was two years ago and i have never felt the desire to have a cigarette since, but if my friends took me out to a hookah bar again, i would probably say  yes.    #  the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.   #    i did not think this was objectively disprovable, but you succeeded.  science supercedes my subjective experience.  deltabot requires me to keep writing so i am going to paste in some random text, since there is really very little to say about your simple yet effective comment.  but, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate we can not consecrate we can not hallow this ground.  the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.  the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.  it is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.  it is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under god, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
going back through, lets say american history, and you will find there is always something to hate.  there is always a gender, sexual preference, belief system, or minority that we are influenced by media, teachers, parents, etc to avoid, treat with disrespect and ignorance, and just purely hate.  then, as we start to realize that these differences do not matter in the person and usually play no role in what makes up that person is character we try to change it to be fair for all.  this has been going on for as long as i have been been alive 0 years and has been going on long long long before i have been alive.  humans are 0 the exact same on a molecular level.  URL yet some people ca not get over something as silly as a type of skin color someone has.  furthermore, humans must live on this planet together.  as of right now we have no where else to go.  instead of finding things to hate about one another, lets focus on how human we all are.  have empathy for all people, not just the ones you are comfortable with.  everyone has their own story, their own problems, their own hopes and dreams.  we are all in this together and the sooner we can realize this as a species then the better off we will all be.   #  yet some people ca not get over something as silly as a type of skin color someone has.   #  most wars have not been over race.   # graphite is virtually the same as diamond.  thalidomide is sterioisomers are virtually the same.  small differences matter.  most wars have not been over race.  as of right now we have no where else to go.  to play devil is advocate, we simply do not i could just wipe you off he world .  even still, there is no reason why i should not be able to demand my share.  instead of finding things to hate about one another, lets focus on how human we all are.  have empathy for all people, not just the ones you are comfortable with.  this is a wish not a fact.   #  let me tell you that kind of cynicism went out of style mid bush administration.   #  did you read my post or are you just looking to seem  edgy  with that kind of phrasing of highly complex global issues ? let me tell you that kind of cynicism went out of style mid bush administration.  0 .  we are approaching the end to absolute poverty and as poverty goes, so does health and sanitation related problems, violent manifestations of cultural and religious conflict, education problems etc.  0 .  what evidence do you have that we are not anywhere closer to realizing these important milestones in society ? 0 .  i am assuming by the phrase  dropping bombs  you are referring to the us.  we can, however, safely assume we are not in the wars we are in because of religious reasons, but rather a myriad of economic and political ones.  cheers !  #  this is a foolish and dangerous thing to believe.   #  you assume that everyone will react in exactly the same way when exposed to the same information.  this is a foolish and dangerous thing to believe.  human beings are different even if they are also 0 the same on a molecular level.  if i were to swap your significant other for another random human being, would you be bothered by it ? why ? after all, according to your argument there is only a 0 difference, which might as well be a rounding error.  you mentioned that  everyone has their own story, their own problems, their own hopes and dreams.   therein lies also the reason why even if you taught every human on earth the same things, the outcome will be different.  two rational and well educated persons can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions about them.  subjectivity is bitch, that way.  a one size fits all education program has problems being stretched across a single country, what makes you think that it would be even remotely possible across countless cultures around the globe ? i said at the beginning that this idea is not only foolish, but dangerous.  what did i mean with that ? when you try to apply a homogeneous rule across an heterogeneous population, there are bound to be outliers: people who disagree with your methods, or arrive at different conclusions even though they perfectly understood what you were trying to teach them.  what happens to them ? what does  weeding them out  means ? hammering dissent down into submission hardly seems like an utopia to me.   #  the difference between i and my own brother is little to none.   #  simply knowing is not enough.  i hope it would change your view if you consider the nuclear family unit.  parents, siblings, cousins, all alike in so many ways.  yet all across the world, families fight among themselves.  sometimes lightly, they yell.  sometimes they fight.  and if history has taught us anything, sometimes they wage bloody war against each other.  yet we  know  deep down we are alike.  the difference between i and my own brother is little to none.  yet he chose a life against the law, and i chose a life to enforce the law.  i pray our paths never cross in this context, but if it were.  knowing we share the same blood, the same family, will not save us.   #  how do you propose this be resolved without war ?  #  that selfishness has been the foundation of entire fields.  people act in self interest, that much has been shown, through evolution, economics and many other fields.  even once you stripe away all those things you will still have the people saying  x has resources which keep threaten our relative hold on power thus security , lifestyle and comparative stability .  people will go to war for that because people generally do not like a reduced quality of life.  but more importantly there is a breech of sovereignty at some level, a disagreement on ownership of a resource or resources.  how do you propose this be resolved without war ?
going back through, lets say american history, and you will find there is always something to hate.  there is always a gender, sexual preference, belief system, or minority that we are influenced by media, teachers, parents, etc to avoid, treat with disrespect and ignorance, and just purely hate.  then, as we start to realize that these differences do not matter in the person and usually play no role in what makes up that person is character we try to change it to be fair for all.  this has been going on for as long as i have been been alive 0 years and has been going on long long long before i have been alive.  humans are 0 the exact same on a molecular level.  URL yet some people ca not get over something as silly as a type of skin color someone has.  furthermore, humans must live on this planet together.  as of right now we have no where else to go.  instead of finding things to hate about one another, lets focus on how human we all are.  have empathy for all people, not just the ones you are comfortable with.  everyone has their own story, their own problems, their own hopes and dreams.  we are all in this together and the sooner we can realize this as a species then the better off we will all be.   #  furthermore, humans must live on this planet together.   #  as of right now we have no where else to go.   # graphite is virtually the same as diamond.  thalidomide is sterioisomers are virtually the same.  small differences matter.  most wars have not been over race.  as of right now we have no where else to go.  to play devil is advocate, we simply do not i could just wipe you off he world .  even still, there is no reason why i should not be able to demand my share.  instead of finding things to hate about one another, lets focus on how human we all are.  have empathy for all people, not just the ones you are comfortable with.  this is a wish not a fact.   #  did you read my post or are you just looking to seem  edgy  with that kind of phrasing of highly complex global issues ?  #  did you read my post or are you just looking to seem  edgy  with that kind of phrasing of highly complex global issues ? let me tell you that kind of cynicism went out of style mid bush administration.  0 .  we are approaching the end to absolute poverty and as poverty goes, so does health and sanitation related problems, violent manifestations of cultural and religious conflict, education problems etc.  0 .  what evidence do you have that we are not anywhere closer to realizing these important milestones in society ? 0 .  i am assuming by the phrase  dropping bombs  you are referring to the us.  we can, however, safely assume we are not in the wars we are in because of religious reasons, but rather a myriad of economic and political ones.  cheers !  #  you mentioned that  everyone has their own story, their own problems, their own hopes and dreams.    #  you assume that everyone will react in exactly the same way when exposed to the same information.  this is a foolish and dangerous thing to believe.  human beings are different even if they are also 0 the same on a molecular level.  if i were to swap your significant other for another random human being, would you be bothered by it ? why ? after all, according to your argument there is only a 0 difference, which might as well be a rounding error.  you mentioned that  everyone has their own story, their own problems, their own hopes and dreams.   therein lies also the reason why even if you taught every human on earth the same things, the outcome will be different.  two rational and well educated persons can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions about them.  subjectivity is bitch, that way.  a one size fits all education program has problems being stretched across a single country, what makes you think that it would be even remotely possible across countless cultures around the globe ? i said at the beginning that this idea is not only foolish, but dangerous.  what did i mean with that ? when you try to apply a homogeneous rule across an heterogeneous population, there are bound to be outliers: people who disagree with your methods, or arrive at different conclusions even though they perfectly understood what you were trying to teach them.  what happens to them ? what does  weeding them out  means ? hammering dissent down into submission hardly seems like an utopia to me.   #  i hope it would change your view if you consider the nuclear family unit.   #  simply knowing is not enough.  i hope it would change your view if you consider the nuclear family unit.  parents, siblings, cousins, all alike in so many ways.  yet all across the world, families fight among themselves.  sometimes lightly, they yell.  sometimes they fight.  and if history has taught us anything, sometimes they wage bloody war against each other.  yet we  know  deep down we are alike.  the difference between i and my own brother is little to none.  yet he chose a life against the law, and i chose a life to enforce the law.  i pray our paths never cross in this context, but if it were.  knowing we share the same blood, the same family, will not save us.   #  people act in self interest, that much has been shown, through evolution, economics and many other fields.   #  that selfishness has been the foundation of entire fields.  people act in self interest, that much has been shown, through evolution, economics and many other fields.  even once you stripe away all those things you will still have the people saying  x has resources which keep threaten our relative hold on power thus security , lifestyle and comparative stability .  people will go to war for that because people generally do not like a reduced quality of life.  but more importantly there is a breech of sovereignty at some level, a disagreement on ownership of a resource or resources.  how do you propose this be resolved without war ?
people, even prisoners should not be exploited for free labor.  they should not be exploited for the condition they are in.  enabling prison population as workers gives incentive to having more prisons and imprisonations.  having prisoners work create dangerous conditions in which they can harm their fellow prisoners or officers.  having prisoners work are inefficient and the work produced will be shoddy because they are poorly trained and because they lack the mental faculty required for skilled labor.  being not compensated gives no incentive for quality, which is often required for skilled work.  prisoners work does not facilitate rehabilitation.   #  people, even prisoners should not be exploited for free labor.   #  they should not be exploited for the condition they are in.   #  prisoners are compensated for their labor.  they often get something more entertaining to do than the alternative, are often paid in money they can use although, paid very much below minimum wage , can possibly learn valuable skills or at least develop some sense of work ethic, and i would imagine it contributes towards parole/early parole chances.  all of these things are compensation, although not all of them are monetary compensation.  they should not be exploited for the condition they are in.  given the above, they are clearly not being exploited, at least not any more than other workers in the economy.  they are getting something for their labor, and what they are getting is valuable enough for them to want to work, which is actually a better situation than other workers who might not even  want  to work, but are forced to do so due to needing to provide for themselves prisoners will be provided for regardless of whether they work or not .  depends on the nature of the work.  in any event, prisoners evidently already have a ton of opportunity to harm their fellow prisoners, and evidently already have a decent amount of opportunity to harm officers.  the actual statistics would be quite valuable here, do you have them ? plus, we must consider the costs along with the benefits.  part of the reason it is beneficial is because it teaches the prisoner valuable skills, even if those skills are shoddily learned or taught.  it gives them an idea of what it is like to work, and a chance to develop work ethic as well.  a lot of labor everywhere in the economy is poorly trained, so i do not see why singling prisons out here in this respect matters.  as for mental faculty, perhaps that is true of some prisoners, but not all, and certainly it does not matter.  most of the work prisoners do is utterly mindless stuff, just like most of the low skill work everywhere else in the economy that is not going away any time soon.  but they are compensated.  see above.  the lack of sufficiently merit based variable compensation might give less incentive for quality, but the lack of that incentive is not unique to prison labor, but is pretty well in common with virtually all labor.  even middle to upper level white collar labor has this, although it is much worse at the low end of the labor market and this is where the prisoners are.  mcdonalds and sears employees are there, too, though .  got data suggesting this ?  #  i am no expert on psychology or ciminilogy, but my instinct is that having the means to tangibly pay one is debt could be an important step towards changing someone is self image as a criminal.   #  wikipedia lists six purposes of sentencing URL i think the problem with our system is there is no consensus on which of these takes the highest priority.  in my opinion, there are worse choices than  reparation .  to be clear, i would agree that prison labor should not be considered a freebie for the state.  the revenues should go to the victims, should be limited to what is necessary to compensate them for the crime, and there should be strong safeguards against abuse.  recovery programs such as aa often include  making amends  as part of the procedure.  i am no expert on psychology or ciminilogy, but my instinct is that having the means to tangibly pay one is debt could be an important step towards changing someone is self image as a criminal.   #  once the original crime is paid for, the cause of reparative justice has been served.   #  once the original crime is paid for, the cause of reparative justice has been served.  if the state is not the wronged party, then it is unjust for them to take any part of it.  the issue of competing with china and indonesia is a seperate one.  i wo not derail the thread with my opinion on those issues.  but i will ask this: why is prison labor better than outsourcing ?  #  there are a number of things we could do to cut down on prison population tremendously.   #  that is assuming our justice system continued to be based on warehousing a large segment of our population.  i was speaking hypothetically, if we could reform our justice system.  there are a number of things we could do to cut down on prison population tremendously.  even though the number of people we have incarcerated in the current system is horrifying, it still does not compare to the number of impoverished people in the third world.  between that and the security concerns, i would question how competitive prison labor really is.   #  but on the other hand, whether you think prison is for rehabilitation or incapacitation, society is the one that benefits.   #  so you want to put aside the economic question and focus on the moral question ? first of all,  forcing  anyone to do any work implies the threat of violence.  so that is a big moral problem right there.  when i was speaking hypothetically, i was imagining a system where working off the debt got you early release.  however, if the work is optional, and the prisoners are paid even if it is less than the market rate , then i think there is an argument to be made for it.  but on the other hand, whether you think prison is for rehabilitation or incapacitation, society is the one that benefits.  it could be argued that they already cover the cost of their incarceration by reforming, or at least not committing any crimes in prison.
people, even prisoners should not be exploited for free labor.  they should not be exploited for the condition they are in.  enabling prison population as workers gives incentive to having more prisons and imprisonations.  having prisoners work create dangerous conditions in which they can harm their fellow prisoners or officers.  having prisoners work are inefficient and the work produced will be shoddy because they are poorly trained and because they lack the mental faculty required for skilled labor.  being not compensated gives no incentive for quality, which is often required for skilled work.  prisoners work does not facilitate rehabilitation.   #  having prisoners work create dangerous conditions in which they can harm their fellow prisoners or officers.   #  depends on the nature of the work.   #  prisoners are compensated for their labor.  they often get something more entertaining to do than the alternative, are often paid in money they can use although, paid very much below minimum wage , can possibly learn valuable skills or at least develop some sense of work ethic, and i would imagine it contributes towards parole/early parole chances.  all of these things are compensation, although not all of them are monetary compensation.  they should not be exploited for the condition they are in.  given the above, they are clearly not being exploited, at least not any more than other workers in the economy.  they are getting something for their labor, and what they are getting is valuable enough for them to want to work, which is actually a better situation than other workers who might not even  want  to work, but are forced to do so due to needing to provide for themselves prisoners will be provided for regardless of whether they work or not .  depends on the nature of the work.  in any event, prisoners evidently already have a ton of opportunity to harm their fellow prisoners, and evidently already have a decent amount of opportunity to harm officers.  the actual statistics would be quite valuable here, do you have them ? plus, we must consider the costs along with the benefits.  part of the reason it is beneficial is because it teaches the prisoner valuable skills, even if those skills are shoddily learned or taught.  it gives them an idea of what it is like to work, and a chance to develop work ethic as well.  a lot of labor everywhere in the economy is poorly trained, so i do not see why singling prisons out here in this respect matters.  as for mental faculty, perhaps that is true of some prisoners, but not all, and certainly it does not matter.  most of the work prisoners do is utterly mindless stuff, just like most of the low skill work everywhere else in the economy that is not going away any time soon.  but they are compensated.  see above.  the lack of sufficiently merit based variable compensation might give less incentive for quality, but the lack of that incentive is not unique to prison labor, but is pretty well in common with virtually all labor.  even middle to upper level white collar labor has this, although it is much worse at the low end of the labor market and this is where the prisoners are.  mcdonalds and sears employees are there, too, though .  got data suggesting this ?  #  the revenues should go to the victims, should be limited to what is necessary to compensate them for the crime, and there should be strong safeguards against abuse.   #  wikipedia lists six purposes of sentencing URL i think the problem with our system is there is no consensus on which of these takes the highest priority.  in my opinion, there are worse choices than  reparation .  to be clear, i would agree that prison labor should not be considered a freebie for the state.  the revenues should go to the victims, should be limited to what is necessary to compensate them for the crime, and there should be strong safeguards against abuse.  recovery programs such as aa often include  making amends  as part of the procedure.  i am no expert on psychology or ciminilogy, but my instinct is that having the means to tangibly pay one is debt could be an important step towards changing someone is self image as a criminal.   #  the issue of competing with china and indonesia is a seperate one.   #  once the original crime is paid for, the cause of reparative justice has been served.  if the state is not the wronged party, then it is unjust for them to take any part of it.  the issue of competing with china and indonesia is a seperate one.  i wo not derail the thread with my opinion on those issues.  but i will ask this: why is prison labor better than outsourcing ?  #  between that and the security concerns, i would question how competitive prison labor really is.   #  that is assuming our justice system continued to be based on warehousing a large segment of our population.  i was speaking hypothetically, if we could reform our justice system.  there are a number of things we could do to cut down on prison population tremendously.  even though the number of people we have incarcerated in the current system is horrifying, it still does not compare to the number of impoverished people in the third world.  between that and the security concerns, i would question how competitive prison labor really is.   #  so you want to put aside the economic question and focus on the moral question ?  #  so you want to put aside the economic question and focus on the moral question ? first of all,  forcing  anyone to do any work implies the threat of violence.  so that is a big moral problem right there.  when i was speaking hypothetically, i was imagining a system where working off the debt got you early release.  however, if the work is optional, and the prisoners are paid even if it is less than the market rate , then i think there is an argument to be made for it.  but on the other hand, whether you think prison is for rehabilitation or incapacitation, society is the one that benefits.  it could be argued that they already cover the cost of their incarceration by reforming, or at least not committing any crimes in prison.
people, even prisoners should not be exploited for free labor.  they should not be exploited for the condition they are in.  enabling prison population as workers gives incentive to having more prisons and imprisonations.  having prisoners work create dangerous conditions in which they can harm their fellow prisoners or officers.  having prisoners work are inefficient and the work produced will be shoddy because they are poorly trained and because they lack the mental faculty required for skilled labor.  being not compensated gives no incentive for quality, which is often required for skilled work.  prisoners work does not facilitate rehabilitation.   #  having prisoners work are inefficient and the work produced will be shoddy because they are poorly trained and because they lack the mental faculty required for skilled labor.   #  part of the reason it is beneficial is because it teaches the prisoner valuable skills, even if those skills are shoddily learned or taught.   #  prisoners are compensated for their labor.  they often get something more entertaining to do than the alternative, are often paid in money they can use although, paid very much below minimum wage , can possibly learn valuable skills or at least develop some sense of work ethic, and i would imagine it contributes towards parole/early parole chances.  all of these things are compensation, although not all of them are monetary compensation.  they should not be exploited for the condition they are in.  given the above, they are clearly not being exploited, at least not any more than other workers in the economy.  they are getting something for their labor, and what they are getting is valuable enough for them to want to work, which is actually a better situation than other workers who might not even  want  to work, but are forced to do so due to needing to provide for themselves prisoners will be provided for regardless of whether they work or not .  depends on the nature of the work.  in any event, prisoners evidently already have a ton of opportunity to harm their fellow prisoners, and evidently already have a decent amount of opportunity to harm officers.  the actual statistics would be quite valuable here, do you have them ? plus, we must consider the costs along with the benefits.  part of the reason it is beneficial is because it teaches the prisoner valuable skills, even if those skills are shoddily learned or taught.  it gives them an idea of what it is like to work, and a chance to develop work ethic as well.  a lot of labor everywhere in the economy is poorly trained, so i do not see why singling prisons out here in this respect matters.  as for mental faculty, perhaps that is true of some prisoners, but not all, and certainly it does not matter.  most of the work prisoners do is utterly mindless stuff, just like most of the low skill work everywhere else in the economy that is not going away any time soon.  but they are compensated.  see above.  the lack of sufficiently merit based variable compensation might give less incentive for quality, but the lack of that incentive is not unique to prison labor, but is pretty well in common with virtually all labor.  even middle to upper level white collar labor has this, although it is much worse at the low end of the labor market and this is where the prisoners are.  mcdonalds and sears employees are there, too, though .  got data suggesting this ?  #  i am no expert on psychology or ciminilogy, but my instinct is that having the means to tangibly pay one is debt could be an important step towards changing someone is self image as a criminal.   #  wikipedia lists six purposes of sentencing URL i think the problem with our system is there is no consensus on which of these takes the highest priority.  in my opinion, there are worse choices than  reparation .  to be clear, i would agree that prison labor should not be considered a freebie for the state.  the revenues should go to the victims, should be limited to what is necessary to compensate them for the crime, and there should be strong safeguards against abuse.  recovery programs such as aa often include  making amends  as part of the procedure.  i am no expert on psychology or ciminilogy, but my instinct is that having the means to tangibly pay one is debt could be an important step towards changing someone is self image as a criminal.   #  but i will ask this: why is prison labor better than outsourcing ?  #  once the original crime is paid for, the cause of reparative justice has been served.  if the state is not the wronged party, then it is unjust for them to take any part of it.  the issue of competing with china and indonesia is a seperate one.  i wo not derail the thread with my opinion on those issues.  but i will ask this: why is prison labor better than outsourcing ?  #  between that and the security concerns, i would question how competitive prison labor really is.   #  that is assuming our justice system continued to be based on warehousing a large segment of our population.  i was speaking hypothetically, if we could reform our justice system.  there are a number of things we could do to cut down on prison population tremendously.  even though the number of people we have incarcerated in the current system is horrifying, it still does not compare to the number of impoverished people in the third world.  between that and the security concerns, i would question how competitive prison labor really is.   #  so that is a big moral problem right there.   #  so you want to put aside the economic question and focus on the moral question ? first of all,  forcing  anyone to do any work implies the threat of violence.  so that is a big moral problem right there.  when i was speaking hypothetically, i was imagining a system where working off the debt got you early release.  however, if the work is optional, and the prisoners are paid even if it is less than the market rate , then i think there is an argument to be made for it.  but on the other hand, whether you think prison is for rehabilitation or incapacitation, society is the one that benefits.  it could be argued that they already cover the cost of their incarceration by reforming, or at least not committing any crimes in prison.
as most people are aware, many businesses, organizations, and schools have been implementing byod   short for  bring your own device    which partially or fully replaces organization owned technology with individuals  own devices.  although i somewhat agree with byod in the workplace, it has no place in secondary education.  my biggest concern with byod in schools is increased social division.  although this is somewhat prevalent already, increased use of students  own phones and computers will boost the notion of high end technology as status symbols.  poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  both options would clearly emphasize the gap between the poor, with second rate technology, and the rich, with the latest and greatest gadgets.  secondly, lack of consistency with students  devices would cause confusion.  between operating systems, ages of devices, applications, and so on, there exist differences in what can be done and how it is done.  this would inevitably cause chaos in the teaching environment as teachers have to explain multiple ways of doing something, or simply saying that certain students  ca not  do something.  this is in stark contrast to the traditional way of consistency across all devices, where things typically function the same everywhere.  a possible solution is to simply get all the students to get the same devices, but of course that has many problems on its own.  that leads me to my next point: byod may cause students to have to buy even more to prepare for school.  although the school would likely provide most or all technology, social pressure may cause students to want to buy high end technology.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  there are many other problems that byod could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.  while i understand that there are many advantages to byod, primarily reducing costs for schools, obstacles like these cannot be avoided and outweigh the benefits.  i am not anti change, i just do not want people making careless changes just to save money and to be more  innovative  or  0st century .   #  secondly, lack of consistency with students  devices would cause confusion.   #  in my experience as a highschool student at a byod school this has never been a problem.   #  it is really a matter of funding for a lot of schools, allowing students to bring in their own technology means that they wo not have to actually pay for complete sets of very expensive technology.  in my experience as a highschool student at a byod school this has never been a problem.  the only situations where devices are usually needed for use is typically research, or word processing.  two things that all technology for the past few years are capable of.  really the only time where specialised software is required is in classes like media arts, where programs like photoshop are required.  if students do not already have the needed software on their device, there is usually a few computers available for use.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  although the desire to have the most updated technology is always going to be an issue, it has very little to do with whether or not it is needed at school.  teens will be flaunting their smartphones until the end of times, regardless of it is needed for school or not.  not having access to technology will never make it impossible for you to participate in school, as most schools will always have the necessary provided.  by allowing kids to bring in their own devices, and reducing the number devices the school has to purchase, it allows the school to actually purchase better quality devices.   #  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.   #  preventing minor social stratifications is less important than providing a minimal level of access.  many schools do not have the budget to provide computers to all students.  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.  this is especially true given that status symbols will exist in some way no matter how restrictive you are.  even with a very strict uniform requirement, tailoring and proper creasing will be used.  even with a very strict device policy, payed user accounts online will be used.  if you manage to eliminate these, cliques will use hand signals, hand shakes and speech mannerisms.  playing whack a mole on status symbols is a fool is errand.   #  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.   # in a school setting typically what is important is the software, not the technology itself.  as long as a student is device is able to run the software, the matter of teacher familiarity is moot.  if a student is device is unable to run the software, schools like i said previously will have devices available 0 times out of 0.  classrooms are integrating tech in more and more ways, making ti even more important that the devices can communicate and interface with each other and the teacher.  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.  it is not like if there is three students, one with a galaxy s0, one with a s0, and one with an iphone, they wo not be able to communicate with each other.  again, it is the ability to run the software itself that is important, not the technology.   #  i disagree for simply this reason: many of the current technological devices have the same features.   # poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  i think the more concerning thing would be that the school as well as the student would not be able to afford the technology needed.  however, it is unlikely that a lower socioeconomic school district would even implement a byod system in their schools.  are there any poor school district in the country that uses byod ? also school owned technology is not necessarily a negative.  sure, they might not be the most up to date, but they still provide the basic needs necessary.  the school would definitely not provide a poor device that could not keep up with the rest of the class.  i disagree for simply this reason: many of the current technological devices have the same features.  the teacher first and foremost needs to make sure everyone can access the same material ie: going onto a certain website vs.  finding a specific app on your phone/tablet .  pretty much all standard devices have some kind of web browser and the internet is going to be the main source of information and activity in a high school.  there are websites designed for students where they can catch up on lectures, turn in homework or chat with other classmates.  difficult to say at this point.  but look at it this way, for a $0 laptop, you not only save on regular supplies such as paper, pencils, binders, markers and other material, but it is also something that can be used for years and help students understand computers and other devices from a young age.  technology is becoming extremely prevalent in college and the work force, they are going to have to learn eventually.  it is up the teachers to prevent cheating, the technology has been around for a while and teachers are adapting to the new technology.  personally, i am a current student teacher who is almost finished getting certified, and i was lucky enough to be in a classroom that went paperless, where students were provided laptops during the class.  some students were clearly better at navigating a laptop than others this was an 0th grade class , but everyone was able to do the work and it provided an epicenter for all of the students work, grades, progress, etc.   #  it is true we live in a have/ have not society.   #  we have a threat to byod in ca right now; ab 0.  the argument goes that if a student is not supplied with a resource other students are, they can complain and the teacher, school, district pays a fine.  the trouble with this kind of logic is students who have the tech are denied an education as well.  if we base our education system on how it makes children feel, we will be immobile.  it is true we live in a have/ have not society.  but now we have no opportunity to teach because it might make a student feel inferior.  a child could feel inferior having to type an essay in the library.  i do t want to be fined; and i ca not even require students to being pencil and paper.  it may go so far as not being able to grade a student who did not turn anything in.
as most people are aware, many businesses, organizations, and schools have been implementing byod   short for  bring your own device    which partially or fully replaces organization owned technology with individuals  own devices.  although i somewhat agree with byod in the workplace, it has no place in secondary education.  my biggest concern with byod in schools is increased social division.  although this is somewhat prevalent already, increased use of students  own phones and computers will boost the notion of high end technology as status symbols.  poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  both options would clearly emphasize the gap between the poor, with second rate technology, and the rich, with the latest and greatest gadgets.  secondly, lack of consistency with students  devices would cause confusion.  between operating systems, ages of devices, applications, and so on, there exist differences in what can be done and how it is done.  this would inevitably cause chaos in the teaching environment as teachers have to explain multiple ways of doing something, or simply saying that certain students  ca not  do something.  this is in stark contrast to the traditional way of consistency across all devices, where things typically function the same everywhere.  a possible solution is to simply get all the students to get the same devices, but of course that has many problems on its own.  that leads me to my next point: byod may cause students to have to buy even more to prepare for school.  although the school would likely provide most or all technology, social pressure may cause students to want to buy high end technology.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  there are many other problems that byod could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.  while i understand that there are many advantages to byod, primarily reducing costs for schools, obstacles like these cannot be avoided and outweigh the benefits.  i am not anti change, i just do not want people making careless changes just to save money and to be more  innovative  or  0st century .   #  although the school would likely provide most or all technology, social pressure may cause students to want to buy high end technology.   #  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.   #  it is really a matter of funding for a lot of schools, allowing students to bring in their own technology means that they wo not have to actually pay for complete sets of very expensive technology.  in my experience as a highschool student at a byod school this has never been a problem.  the only situations where devices are usually needed for use is typically research, or word processing.  two things that all technology for the past few years are capable of.  really the only time where specialised software is required is in classes like media arts, where programs like photoshop are required.  if students do not already have the needed software on their device, there is usually a few computers available for use.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  although the desire to have the most updated technology is always going to be an issue, it has very little to do with whether or not it is needed at school.  teens will be flaunting their smartphones until the end of times, regardless of it is needed for school or not.  not having access to technology will never make it impossible for you to participate in school, as most schools will always have the necessary provided.  by allowing kids to bring in their own devices, and reducing the number devices the school has to purchase, it allows the school to actually purchase better quality devices.   #  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.   #  preventing minor social stratifications is less important than providing a minimal level of access.  many schools do not have the budget to provide computers to all students.  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.  this is especially true given that status symbols will exist in some way no matter how restrictive you are.  even with a very strict uniform requirement, tailoring and proper creasing will be used.  even with a very strict device policy, payed user accounts online will be used.  if you manage to eliminate these, cliques will use hand signals, hand shakes and speech mannerisms.  playing whack a mole on status symbols is a fool is errand.   #  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.   # in a school setting typically what is important is the software, not the technology itself.  as long as a student is device is able to run the software, the matter of teacher familiarity is moot.  if a student is device is unable to run the software, schools like i said previously will have devices available 0 times out of 0.  classrooms are integrating tech in more and more ways, making ti even more important that the devices can communicate and interface with each other and the teacher.  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.  it is not like if there is three students, one with a galaxy s0, one with a s0, and one with an iphone, they wo not be able to communicate with each other.  again, it is the ability to run the software itself that is important, not the technology.   #  it is up the teachers to prevent cheating, the technology has been around for a while and teachers are adapting to the new technology.   # poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  i think the more concerning thing would be that the school as well as the student would not be able to afford the technology needed.  however, it is unlikely that a lower socioeconomic school district would even implement a byod system in their schools.  are there any poor school district in the country that uses byod ? also school owned technology is not necessarily a negative.  sure, they might not be the most up to date, but they still provide the basic needs necessary.  the school would definitely not provide a poor device that could not keep up with the rest of the class.  i disagree for simply this reason: many of the current technological devices have the same features.  the teacher first and foremost needs to make sure everyone can access the same material ie: going onto a certain website vs.  finding a specific app on your phone/tablet .  pretty much all standard devices have some kind of web browser and the internet is going to be the main source of information and activity in a high school.  there are websites designed for students where they can catch up on lectures, turn in homework or chat with other classmates.  difficult to say at this point.  but look at it this way, for a $0 laptop, you not only save on regular supplies such as paper, pencils, binders, markers and other material, but it is also something that can be used for years and help students understand computers and other devices from a young age.  technology is becoming extremely prevalent in college and the work force, they are going to have to learn eventually.  it is up the teachers to prevent cheating, the technology has been around for a while and teachers are adapting to the new technology.  personally, i am a current student teacher who is almost finished getting certified, and i was lucky enough to be in a classroom that went paperless, where students were provided laptops during the class.  some students were clearly better at navigating a laptop than others this was an 0th grade class , but everyone was able to do the work and it provided an epicenter for all of the students work, grades, progress, etc.   #  we have a threat to byod in ca right now; ab 0.  the argument goes that if a student is not supplied with a resource other students are, they can complain and the teacher, school, district pays a fine.   #  we have a threat to byod in ca right now; ab 0.  the argument goes that if a student is not supplied with a resource other students are, they can complain and the teacher, school, district pays a fine.  the trouble with this kind of logic is students who have the tech are denied an education as well.  if we base our education system on how it makes children feel, we will be immobile.  it is true we live in a have/ have not society.  but now we have no opportunity to teach because it might make a student feel inferior.  a child could feel inferior having to type an essay in the library.  i do t want to be fined; and i ca not even require students to being pencil and paper.  it may go so far as not being able to grade a student who did not turn anything in.
as most people are aware, many businesses, organizations, and schools have been implementing byod   short for  bring your own device    which partially or fully replaces organization owned technology with individuals  own devices.  although i somewhat agree with byod in the workplace, it has no place in secondary education.  my biggest concern with byod in schools is increased social division.  although this is somewhat prevalent already, increased use of students  own phones and computers will boost the notion of high end technology as status symbols.  poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  both options would clearly emphasize the gap between the poor, with second rate technology, and the rich, with the latest and greatest gadgets.  secondly, lack of consistency with students  devices would cause confusion.  between operating systems, ages of devices, applications, and so on, there exist differences in what can be done and how it is done.  this would inevitably cause chaos in the teaching environment as teachers have to explain multiple ways of doing something, or simply saying that certain students  ca not  do something.  this is in stark contrast to the traditional way of consistency across all devices, where things typically function the same everywhere.  a possible solution is to simply get all the students to get the same devices, but of course that has many problems on its own.  that leads me to my next point: byod may cause students to have to buy even more to prepare for school.  although the school would likely provide most or all technology, social pressure may cause students to want to buy high end technology.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  there are many other problems that byod could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.  while i understand that there are many advantages to byod, primarily reducing costs for schools, obstacles like these cannot be avoided and outweigh the benefits.  i am not anti change, i just do not want people making careless changes just to save money and to be more  innovative  or  0st century .   #  my biggest concern with byod in schools is increased social division.   #  poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .   # poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  i think the more concerning thing would be that the school as well as the student would not be able to afford the technology needed.  however, it is unlikely that a lower socioeconomic school district would even implement a byod system in their schools.  are there any poor school district in the country that uses byod ? also school owned technology is not necessarily a negative.  sure, they might not be the most up to date, but they still provide the basic needs necessary.  the school would definitely not provide a poor device that could not keep up with the rest of the class.  i disagree for simply this reason: many of the current technological devices have the same features.  the teacher first and foremost needs to make sure everyone can access the same material ie: going onto a certain website vs.  finding a specific app on your phone/tablet .  pretty much all standard devices have some kind of web browser and the internet is going to be the main source of information and activity in a high school.  there are websites designed for students where they can catch up on lectures, turn in homework or chat with other classmates.  difficult to say at this point.  but look at it this way, for a $0 laptop, you not only save on regular supplies such as paper, pencils, binders, markers and other material, but it is also something that can be used for years and help students understand computers and other devices from a young age.  technology is becoming extremely prevalent in college and the work force, they are going to have to learn eventually.  it is up the teachers to prevent cheating, the technology has been around for a while and teachers are adapting to the new technology.  personally, i am a current student teacher who is almost finished getting certified, and i was lucky enough to be in a classroom that went paperless, where students were provided laptops during the class.  some students were clearly better at navigating a laptop than others this was an 0th grade class , but everyone was able to do the work and it provided an epicenter for all of the students work, grades, progress, etc.   #  if students do not already have the needed software on their device, there is usually a few computers available for use.   #  it is really a matter of funding for a lot of schools, allowing students to bring in their own technology means that they wo not have to actually pay for complete sets of very expensive technology.  in my experience as a highschool student at a byod school this has never been a problem.  the only situations where devices are usually needed for use is typically research, or word processing.  two things that all technology for the past few years are capable of.  really the only time where specialised software is required is in classes like media arts, where programs like photoshop are required.  if students do not already have the needed software on their device, there is usually a few computers available for use.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  although the desire to have the most updated technology is always going to be an issue, it has very little to do with whether or not it is needed at school.  teens will be flaunting their smartphones until the end of times, regardless of it is needed for school or not.  not having access to technology will never make it impossible for you to participate in school, as most schools will always have the necessary provided.  by allowing kids to bring in their own devices, and reducing the number devices the school has to purchase, it allows the school to actually purchase better quality devices.   #  this is especially true given that status symbols will exist in some way no matter how restrictive you are.   #  preventing minor social stratifications is less important than providing a minimal level of access.  many schools do not have the budget to provide computers to all students.  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.  this is especially true given that status symbols will exist in some way no matter how restrictive you are.  even with a very strict uniform requirement, tailoring and proper creasing will be used.  even with a very strict device policy, payed user accounts online will be used.  if you manage to eliminate these, cliques will use hand signals, hand shakes and speech mannerisms.  playing whack a mole on status symbols is a fool is errand.   #  as long as a student is device is able to run the software, the matter of teacher familiarity is moot.   # in a school setting typically what is important is the software, not the technology itself.  as long as a student is device is able to run the software, the matter of teacher familiarity is moot.  if a student is device is unable to run the software, schools like i said previously will have devices available 0 times out of 0.  classrooms are integrating tech in more and more ways, making ti even more important that the devices can communicate and interface with each other and the teacher.  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.  it is not like if there is three students, one with a galaxy s0, one with a s0, and one with an iphone, they wo not be able to communicate with each other.  again, it is the ability to run the software itself that is important, not the technology.   #  but now we have no opportunity to teach because it might make a student feel inferior.   #  we have a threat to byod in ca right now; ab 0.  the argument goes that if a student is not supplied with a resource other students are, they can complain and the teacher, school, district pays a fine.  the trouble with this kind of logic is students who have the tech are denied an education as well.  if we base our education system on how it makes children feel, we will be immobile.  it is true we live in a have/ have not society.  but now we have no opportunity to teach because it might make a student feel inferior.  a child could feel inferior having to type an essay in the library.  i do t want to be fined; and i ca not even require students to being pencil and paper.  it may go so far as not being able to grade a student who did not turn anything in.
as most people are aware, many businesses, organizations, and schools have been implementing byod   short for  bring your own device    which partially or fully replaces organization owned technology with individuals  own devices.  although i somewhat agree with byod in the workplace, it has no place in secondary education.  my biggest concern with byod in schools is increased social division.  although this is somewhat prevalent already, increased use of students  own phones and computers will boost the notion of high end technology as status symbols.  poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  both options would clearly emphasize the gap between the poor, with second rate technology, and the rich, with the latest and greatest gadgets.  secondly, lack of consistency with students  devices would cause confusion.  between operating systems, ages of devices, applications, and so on, there exist differences in what can be done and how it is done.  this would inevitably cause chaos in the teaching environment as teachers have to explain multiple ways of doing something, or simply saying that certain students  ca not  do something.  this is in stark contrast to the traditional way of consistency across all devices, where things typically function the same everywhere.  a possible solution is to simply get all the students to get the same devices, but of course that has many problems on its own.  that leads me to my next point: byod may cause students to have to buy even more to prepare for school.  although the school would likely provide most or all technology, social pressure may cause students to want to buy high end technology.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  there are many other problems that byod could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.  while i understand that there are many advantages to byod, primarily reducing costs for schools, obstacles like these cannot be avoided and outweigh the benefits.  i am not anti change, i just do not want people making careless changes just to save money and to be more  innovative  or  0st century .   #  secondly, lack of consistency with students  devices would cause confusion.   #  i disagree for simply this reason: many of the current technological devices have the same features.   # poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  i think the more concerning thing would be that the school as well as the student would not be able to afford the technology needed.  however, it is unlikely that a lower socioeconomic school district would even implement a byod system in their schools.  are there any poor school district in the country that uses byod ? also school owned technology is not necessarily a negative.  sure, they might not be the most up to date, but they still provide the basic needs necessary.  the school would definitely not provide a poor device that could not keep up with the rest of the class.  i disagree for simply this reason: many of the current technological devices have the same features.  the teacher first and foremost needs to make sure everyone can access the same material ie: going onto a certain website vs.  finding a specific app on your phone/tablet .  pretty much all standard devices have some kind of web browser and the internet is going to be the main source of information and activity in a high school.  there are websites designed for students where they can catch up on lectures, turn in homework or chat with other classmates.  difficult to say at this point.  but look at it this way, for a $0 laptop, you not only save on regular supplies such as paper, pencils, binders, markers and other material, but it is also something that can be used for years and help students understand computers and other devices from a young age.  technology is becoming extremely prevalent in college and the work force, they are going to have to learn eventually.  it is up the teachers to prevent cheating, the technology has been around for a while and teachers are adapting to the new technology.  personally, i am a current student teacher who is almost finished getting certified, and i was lucky enough to be in a classroom that went paperless, where students were provided laptops during the class.  some students were clearly better at navigating a laptop than others this was an 0th grade class , but everyone was able to do the work and it provided an epicenter for all of the students work, grades, progress, etc.   #  the only situations where devices are usually needed for use is typically research, or word processing.   #  it is really a matter of funding for a lot of schools, allowing students to bring in their own technology means that they wo not have to actually pay for complete sets of very expensive technology.  in my experience as a highschool student at a byod school this has never been a problem.  the only situations where devices are usually needed for use is typically research, or word processing.  two things that all technology for the past few years are capable of.  really the only time where specialised software is required is in classes like media arts, where programs like photoshop are required.  if students do not already have the needed software on their device, there is usually a few computers available for use.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  although the desire to have the most updated technology is always going to be an issue, it has very little to do with whether or not it is needed at school.  teens will be flaunting their smartphones until the end of times, regardless of it is needed for school or not.  not having access to technology will never make it impossible for you to participate in school, as most schools will always have the necessary provided.  by allowing kids to bring in their own devices, and reducing the number devices the school has to purchase, it allows the school to actually purchase better quality devices.   #  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.   #  preventing minor social stratifications is less important than providing a minimal level of access.  many schools do not have the budget to provide computers to all students.  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.  this is especially true given that status symbols will exist in some way no matter how restrictive you are.  even with a very strict uniform requirement, tailoring and proper creasing will be used.  even with a very strict device policy, payed user accounts online will be used.  if you manage to eliminate these, cliques will use hand signals, hand shakes and speech mannerisms.  playing whack a mole on status symbols is a fool is errand.   #  it is not like if there is three students, one with a galaxy s0, one with a s0, and one with an iphone, they wo not be able to communicate with each other.   # in a school setting typically what is important is the software, not the technology itself.  as long as a student is device is able to run the software, the matter of teacher familiarity is moot.  if a student is device is unable to run the software, schools like i said previously will have devices available 0 times out of 0.  classrooms are integrating tech in more and more ways, making ti even more important that the devices can communicate and interface with each other and the teacher.  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.  it is not like if there is three students, one with a galaxy s0, one with a s0, and one with an iphone, they wo not be able to communicate with each other.  again, it is the ability to run the software itself that is important, not the technology.   #  a child could feel inferior having to type an essay in the library.   #  we have a threat to byod in ca right now; ab 0.  the argument goes that if a student is not supplied with a resource other students are, they can complain and the teacher, school, district pays a fine.  the trouble with this kind of logic is students who have the tech are denied an education as well.  if we base our education system on how it makes children feel, we will be immobile.  it is true we live in a have/ have not society.  but now we have no opportunity to teach because it might make a student feel inferior.  a child could feel inferior having to type an essay in the library.  i do t want to be fined; and i ca not even require students to being pencil and paper.  it may go so far as not being able to grade a student who did not turn anything in.
as most people are aware, many businesses, organizations, and schools have been implementing byod   short for  bring your own device    which partially or fully replaces organization owned technology with individuals  own devices.  although i somewhat agree with byod in the workplace, it has no place in secondary education.  my biggest concern with byod in schools is increased social division.  although this is somewhat prevalent already, increased use of students  own phones and computers will boost the notion of high end technology as status symbols.  poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  both options would clearly emphasize the gap between the poor, with second rate technology, and the rich, with the latest and greatest gadgets.  secondly, lack of consistency with students  devices would cause confusion.  between operating systems, ages of devices, applications, and so on, there exist differences in what can be done and how it is done.  this would inevitably cause chaos in the teaching environment as teachers have to explain multiple ways of doing something, or simply saying that certain students  ca not  do something.  this is in stark contrast to the traditional way of consistency across all devices, where things typically function the same everywhere.  a possible solution is to simply get all the students to get the same devices, but of course that has many problems on its own.  that leads me to my next point: byod may cause students to have to buy even more to prepare for school.  although the school would likely provide most or all technology, social pressure may cause students to want to buy high end technology.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  there are many other problems that byod could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.  while i understand that there are many advantages to byod, primarily reducing costs for schools, obstacles like these cannot be avoided and outweigh the benefits.  i am not anti change, i just do not want people making careless changes just to save money and to be more  innovative  or  0st century .   #  there are many other problems that byod could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.   #  it is up the teachers to prevent cheating, the technology has been around for a while and teachers are adapting to the new technology.   # poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  i think the more concerning thing would be that the school as well as the student would not be able to afford the technology needed.  however, it is unlikely that a lower socioeconomic school district would even implement a byod system in their schools.  are there any poor school district in the country that uses byod ? also school owned technology is not necessarily a negative.  sure, they might not be the most up to date, but they still provide the basic needs necessary.  the school would definitely not provide a poor device that could not keep up with the rest of the class.  i disagree for simply this reason: many of the current technological devices have the same features.  the teacher first and foremost needs to make sure everyone can access the same material ie: going onto a certain website vs.  finding a specific app on your phone/tablet .  pretty much all standard devices have some kind of web browser and the internet is going to be the main source of information and activity in a high school.  there are websites designed for students where they can catch up on lectures, turn in homework or chat with other classmates.  difficult to say at this point.  but look at it this way, for a $0 laptop, you not only save on regular supplies such as paper, pencils, binders, markers and other material, but it is also something that can be used for years and help students understand computers and other devices from a young age.  technology is becoming extremely prevalent in college and the work force, they are going to have to learn eventually.  it is up the teachers to prevent cheating, the technology has been around for a while and teachers are adapting to the new technology.  personally, i am a current student teacher who is almost finished getting certified, and i was lucky enough to be in a classroom that went paperless, where students were provided laptops during the class.  some students were clearly better at navigating a laptop than others this was an 0th grade class , but everyone was able to do the work and it provided an epicenter for all of the students work, grades, progress, etc.   #  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.   #  it is really a matter of funding for a lot of schools, allowing students to bring in their own technology means that they wo not have to actually pay for complete sets of very expensive technology.  in my experience as a highschool student at a byod school this has never been a problem.  the only situations where devices are usually needed for use is typically research, or word processing.  two things that all technology for the past few years are capable of.  really the only time where specialised software is required is in classes like media arts, where programs like photoshop are required.  if students do not already have the needed software on their device, there is usually a few computers available for use.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  although the desire to have the most updated technology is always going to be an issue, it has very little to do with whether or not it is needed at school.  teens will be flaunting their smartphones until the end of times, regardless of it is needed for school or not.  not having access to technology will never make it impossible for you to participate in school, as most schools will always have the necessary provided.  by allowing kids to bring in their own devices, and reducing the number devices the school has to purchase, it allows the school to actually purchase better quality devices.   #  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.   #  preventing minor social stratifications is less important than providing a minimal level of access.  many schools do not have the budget to provide computers to all students.  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.  this is especially true given that status symbols will exist in some way no matter how restrictive you are.  even with a very strict uniform requirement, tailoring and proper creasing will be used.  even with a very strict device policy, payed user accounts online will be used.  if you manage to eliminate these, cliques will use hand signals, hand shakes and speech mannerisms.  playing whack a mole on status symbols is a fool is errand.   #  classrooms are integrating tech in more and more ways, making ti even more important that the devices can communicate and interface with each other and the teacher.   # in a school setting typically what is important is the software, not the technology itself.  as long as a student is device is able to run the software, the matter of teacher familiarity is moot.  if a student is device is unable to run the software, schools like i said previously will have devices available 0 times out of 0.  classrooms are integrating tech in more and more ways, making ti even more important that the devices can communicate and interface with each other and the teacher.  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.  it is not like if there is three students, one with a galaxy s0, one with a s0, and one with an iphone, they wo not be able to communicate with each other.  again, it is the ability to run the software itself that is important, not the technology.   #  it is true we live in a have/ have not society.   #  we have a threat to byod in ca right now; ab 0.  the argument goes that if a student is not supplied with a resource other students are, they can complain and the teacher, school, district pays a fine.  the trouble with this kind of logic is students who have the tech are denied an education as well.  if we base our education system on how it makes children feel, we will be immobile.  it is true we live in a have/ have not society.  but now we have no opportunity to teach because it might make a student feel inferior.  a child could feel inferior having to type an essay in the library.  i do t want to be fined; and i ca not even require students to being pencil and paper.  it may go so far as not being able to grade a student who did not turn anything in.
as most people are aware, many businesses, organizations, and schools have been implementing byod   short for  bring your own device    which partially or fully replaces organization owned technology with individuals  own devices.  although i somewhat agree with byod in the workplace, it has no place in secondary education.  my biggest concern with byod in schools is increased social division.  although this is somewhat prevalent already, increased use of students  own phones and computers will boost the notion of high end technology as status symbols.  poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  both options would clearly emphasize the gap between the poor, with second rate technology, and the rich, with the latest and greatest gadgets.  secondly, lack of consistency with students  devices would cause confusion.  between operating systems, ages of devices, applications, and so on, there exist differences in what can be done and how it is done.  this would inevitably cause chaos in the teaching environment as teachers have to explain multiple ways of doing something, or simply saying that certain students  ca not  do something.  this is in stark contrast to the traditional way of consistency across all devices, where things typically function the same everywhere.  a possible solution is to simply get all the students to get the same devices, but of course that has many problems on its own.  that leads me to my next point: byod may cause students to have to buy even more to prepare for school.  although the school would likely provide most or all technology, social pressure may cause students to want to buy high end technology.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  there are many other problems that byod could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.  while i understand that there are many advantages to byod, primarily reducing costs for schools, obstacles like these cannot be avoided and outweigh the benefits.  i am not anti change, i just do not want people making careless changes just to save money and to be more  innovative  or  0st century .   #  my biggest concern with byod in schools is increased social division.   #  this arguement would also apply to cars, clothes, and any number of items that could possibly show difference in wealth between the students.   # this arguement would also apply to cars, clothes, and any number of items that could possibly show difference in wealth between the students.  even without byod the students already have ways of dividing each other.  unless i am wrong, usually the only application that would even be used are microsoft word or powerpoint or using the internet to research so there really is not any issue with having their own device.  even if they are other applications teachers usually would use school computers instead of their own devices.  teachers still have the power to take away the device if they deemed them distracting do they not ? unless the students are taking computer tests on their own devices or having their cellphones out during tests i see no reason why they would be more likely to cheat.   #  although the desire to have the most updated technology is always going to be an issue, it has very little to do with whether or not it is needed at school.   #  it is really a matter of funding for a lot of schools, allowing students to bring in their own technology means that they wo not have to actually pay for complete sets of very expensive technology.  in my experience as a highschool student at a byod school this has never been a problem.  the only situations where devices are usually needed for use is typically research, or word processing.  two things that all technology for the past few years are capable of.  really the only time where specialised software is required is in classes like media arts, where programs like photoshop are required.  if students do not already have the needed software on their device, there is usually a few computers available for use.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  although the desire to have the most updated technology is always going to be an issue, it has very little to do with whether or not it is needed at school.  teens will be flaunting their smartphones until the end of times, regardless of it is needed for school or not.  not having access to technology will never make it impossible for you to participate in school, as most schools will always have the necessary provided.  by allowing kids to bring in their own devices, and reducing the number devices the school has to purchase, it allows the school to actually purchase better quality devices.   #  many schools do not have the budget to provide computers to all students.   #  preventing minor social stratifications is less important than providing a minimal level of access.  many schools do not have the budget to provide computers to all students.  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.  this is especially true given that status symbols will exist in some way no matter how restrictive you are.  even with a very strict uniform requirement, tailoring and proper creasing will be used.  even with a very strict device policy, payed user accounts online will be used.  if you manage to eliminate these, cliques will use hand signals, hand shakes and speech mannerisms.  playing whack a mole on status symbols is a fool is errand.   #  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.   # in a school setting typically what is important is the software, not the technology itself.  as long as a student is device is able to run the software, the matter of teacher familiarity is moot.  if a student is device is unable to run the software, schools like i said previously will have devices available 0 times out of 0.  classrooms are integrating tech in more and more ways, making ti even more important that the devices can communicate and interface with each other and the teacher.  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.  it is not like if there is three students, one with a galaxy s0, one with a s0, and one with an iphone, they wo not be able to communicate with each other.  again, it is the ability to run the software itself that is important, not the technology.   #  there are websites designed for students where they can catch up on lectures, turn in homework or chat with other classmates.   # poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  i think the more concerning thing would be that the school as well as the student would not be able to afford the technology needed.  however, it is unlikely that a lower socioeconomic school district would even implement a byod system in their schools.  are there any poor school district in the country that uses byod ? also school owned technology is not necessarily a negative.  sure, they might not be the most up to date, but they still provide the basic needs necessary.  the school would definitely not provide a poor device that could not keep up with the rest of the class.  i disagree for simply this reason: many of the current technological devices have the same features.  the teacher first and foremost needs to make sure everyone can access the same material ie: going onto a certain website vs.  finding a specific app on your phone/tablet .  pretty much all standard devices have some kind of web browser and the internet is going to be the main source of information and activity in a high school.  there are websites designed for students where they can catch up on lectures, turn in homework or chat with other classmates.  difficult to say at this point.  but look at it this way, for a $0 laptop, you not only save on regular supplies such as paper, pencils, binders, markers and other material, but it is also something that can be used for years and help students understand computers and other devices from a young age.  technology is becoming extremely prevalent in college and the work force, they are going to have to learn eventually.  it is up the teachers to prevent cheating, the technology has been around for a while and teachers are adapting to the new technology.  personally, i am a current student teacher who is almost finished getting certified, and i was lucky enough to be in a classroom that went paperless, where students were provided laptops during the class.  some students were clearly better at navigating a laptop than others this was an 0th grade class , but everyone was able to do the work and it provided an epicenter for all of the students work, grades, progress, etc.
as most people are aware, many businesses, organizations, and schools have been implementing byod   short for  bring your own device    which partially or fully replaces organization owned technology with individuals  own devices.  although i somewhat agree with byod in the workplace, it has no place in secondary education.  my biggest concern with byod in schools is increased social division.  although this is somewhat prevalent already, increased use of students  own phones and computers will boost the notion of high end technology as status symbols.  poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  both options would clearly emphasize the gap between the poor, with second rate technology, and the rich, with the latest and greatest gadgets.  secondly, lack of consistency with students  devices would cause confusion.  between operating systems, ages of devices, applications, and so on, there exist differences in what can be done and how it is done.  this would inevitably cause chaos in the teaching environment as teachers have to explain multiple ways of doing something, or simply saying that certain students  ca not  do something.  this is in stark contrast to the traditional way of consistency across all devices, where things typically function the same everywhere.  a possible solution is to simply get all the students to get the same devices, but of course that has many problems on its own.  that leads me to my next point: byod may cause students to have to buy even more to prepare for school.  although the school would likely provide most or all technology, social pressure may cause students to want to buy high end technology.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  there are many other problems that byod could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.  while i understand that there are many advantages to byod, primarily reducing costs for schools, obstacles like these cannot be avoided and outweigh the benefits.  i am not anti change, i just do not want people making careless changes just to save money and to be more  innovative  or  0st century .   #  between operating systems, ages of devices, applications, and so on, there exist differences in what can be done and how it is done.   #  unless i am wrong, usually the only application that would even be used are microsoft word or powerpoint or using the internet to research so there really is not any issue with having their own device.   # this arguement would also apply to cars, clothes, and any number of items that could possibly show difference in wealth between the students.  even without byod the students already have ways of dividing each other.  unless i am wrong, usually the only application that would even be used are microsoft word or powerpoint or using the internet to research so there really is not any issue with having their own device.  even if they are other applications teachers usually would use school computers instead of their own devices.  teachers still have the power to take away the device if they deemed them distracting do they not ? unless the students are taking computer tests on their own devices or having their cellphones out during tests i see no reason why they would be more likely to cheat.   #  the only situations where devices are usually needed for use is typically research, or word processing.   #  it is really a matter of funding for a lot of schools, allowing students to bring in their own technology means that they wo not have to actually pay for complete sets of very expensive technology.  in my experience as a highschool student at a byod school this has never been a problem.  the only situations where devices are usually needed for use is typically research, or word processing.  two things that all technology for the past few years are capable of.  really the only time where specialised software is required is in classes like media arts, where programs like photoshop are required.  if students do not already have the needed software on their device, there is usually a few computers available for use.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  although the desire to have the most updated technology is always going to be an issue, it has very little to do with whether or not it is needed at school.  teens will be flaunting their smartphones until the end of times, regardless of it is needed for school or not.  not having access to technology will never make it impossible for you to participate in school, as most schools will always have the necessary provided.  by allowing kids to bring in their own devices, and reducing the number devices the school has to purchase, it allows the school to actually purchase better quality devices.   #  if you manage to eliminate these, cliques will use hand signals, hand shakes and speech mannerisms.   #  preventing minor social stratifications is less important than providing a minimal level of access.  many schools do not have the budget to provide computers to all students.  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.  this is especially true given that status symbols will exist in some way no matter how restrictive you are.  even with a very strict uniform requirement, tailoring and proper creasing will be used.  even with a very strict device policy, payed user accounts online will be used.  if you manage to eliminate these, cliques will use hand signals, hand shakes and speech mannerisms.  playing whack a mole on status symbols is a fool is errand.   #  if a student is device is unable to run the software, schools like i said previously will have devices available 0 times out of 0.   # in a school setting typically what is important is the software, not the technology itself.  as long as a student is device is able to run the software, the matter of teacher familiarity is moot.  if a student is device is unable to run the software, schools like i said previously will have devices available 0 times out of 0.  classrooms are integrating tech in more and more ways, making ti even more important that the devices can communicate and interface with each other and the teacher.  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.  it is not like if there is three students, one with a galaxy s0, one with a s0, and one with an iphone, they wo not be able to communicate with each other.  again, it is the ability to run the software itself that is important, not the technology.   #  pretty much all standard devices have some kind of web browser and the internet is going to be the main source of information and activity in a high school.   # poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  i think the more concerning thing would be that the school as well as the student would not be able to afford the technology needed.  however, it is unlikely that a lower socioeconomic school district would even implement a byod system in their schools.  are there any poor school district in the country that uses byod ? also school owned technology is not necessarily a negative.  sure, they might not be the most up to date, but they still provide the basic needs necessary.  the school would definitely not provide a poor device that could not keep up with the rest of the class.  i disagree for simply this reason: many of the current technological devices have the same features.  the teacher first and foremost needs to make sure everyone can access the same material ie: going onto a certain website vs.  finding a specific app on your phone/tablet .  pretty much all standard devices have some kind of web browser and the internet is going to be the main source of information and activity in a high school.  there are websites designed for students where they can catch up on lectures, turn in homework or chat with other classmates.  difficult to say at this point.  but look at it this way, for a $0 laptop, you not only save on regular supplies such as paper, pencils, binders, markers and other material, but it is also something that can be used for years and help students understand computers and other devices from a young age.  technology is becoming extremely prevalent in college and the work force, they are going to have to learn eventually.  it is up the teachers to prevent cheating, the technology has been around for a while and teachers are adapting to the new technology.  personally, i am a current student teacher who is almost finished getting certified, and i was lucky enough to be in a classroom that went paperless, where students were provided laptops during the class.  some students were clearly better at navigating a laptop than others this was an 0th grade class , but everyone was able to do the work and it provided an epicenter for all of the students work, grades, progress, etc.
as most people are aware, many businesses, organizations, and schools have been implementing byod   short for  bring your own device    which partially or fully replaces organization owned technology with individuals  own devices.  although i somewhat agree with byod in the workplace, it has no place in secondary education.  my biggest concern with byod in schools is increased social division.  although this is somewhat prevalent already, increased use of students  own phones and computers will boost the notion of high end technology as status symbols.  poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  both options would clearly emphasize the gap between the poor, with second rate technology, and the rich, with the latest and greatest gadgets.  secondly, lack of consistency with students  devices would cause confusion.  between operating systems, ages of devices, applications, and so on, there exist differences in what can be done and how it is done.  this would inevitably cause chaos in the teaching environment as teachers have to explain multiple ways of doing something, or simply saying that certain students  ca not  do something.  this is in stark contrast to the traditional way of consistency across all devices, where things typically function the same everywhere.  a possible solution is to simply get all the students to get the same devices, but of course that has many problems on its own.  that leads me to my next point: byod may cause students to have to buy even more to prepare for school.  although the school would likely provide most or all technology, social pressure may cause students to want to buy high end technology.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  there are many other problems that byod could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.  while i understand that there are many advantages to byod, primarily reducing costs for schools, obstacles like these cannot be avoided and outweigh the benefits.  i am not anti change, i just do not want people making careless changes just to save money and to be more  innovative  or  0st century .   #  there are many other problems that byod could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.   #  teachers still have the power to take away the device if they deemed them distracting do they not ?  # this arguement would also apply to cars, clothes, and any number of items that could possibly show difference in wealth between the students.  even without byod the students already have ways of dividing each other.  unless i am wrong, usually the only application that would even be used are microsoft word or powerpoint or using the internet to research so there really is not any issue with having their own device.  even if they are other applications teachers usually would use school computers instead of their own devices.  teachers still have the power to take away the device if they deemed them distracting do they not ? unless the students are taking computer tests on their own devices or having their cellphones out during tests i see no reason why they would be more likely to cheat.   #  really the only time where specialised software is required is in classes like media arts, where programs like photoshop are required.   #  it is really a matter of funding for a lot of schools, allowing students to bring in their own technology means that they wo not have to actually pay for complete sets of very expensive technology.  in my experience as a highschool student at a byod school this has never been a problem.  the only situations where devices are usually needed for use is typically research, or word processing.  two things that all technology for the past few years are capable of.  really the only time where specialised software is required is in classes like media arts, where programs like photoshop are required.  if students do not already have the needed software on their device, there is usually a few computers available for use.  also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents  expense.  many people simply ca not afford all of this stuff.  although the desire to have the most updated technology is always going to be an issue, it has very little to do with whether or not it is needed at school.  teens will be flaunting their smartphones until the end of times, regardless of it is needed for school or not.  not having access to technology will never make it impossible for you to participate in school, as most schools will always have the necessary provided.  by allowing kids to bring in their own devices, and reducing the number devices the school has to purchase, it allows the school to actually purchase better quality devices.   #  preventing minor social stratifications is less important than providing a minimal level of access.   #  preventing minor social stratifications is less important than providing a minimal level of access.  many schools do not have the budget to provide computers to all students.  all schools could do a lot more for all their students with the money saved then an additional vector of status symbols can do harm.  this is especially true given that status symbols will exist in some way no matter how restrictive you are.  even with a very strict uniform requirement, tailoring and proper creasing will be used.  even with a very strict device policy, payed user accounts online will be used.  if you manage to eliminate these, cliques will use hand signals, hand shakes and speech mannerisms.  playing whack a mole on status symbols is a fool is errand.   #  if a student is device is unable to run the software, schools like i said previously will have devices available 0 times out of 0.   # in a school setting typically what is important is the software, not the technology itself.  as long as a student is device is able to run the software, the matter of teacher familiarity is moot.  if a student is device is unable to run the software, schools like i said previously will have devices available 0 times out of 0.  classrooms are integrating tech in more and more ways, making ti even more important that the devices can communicate and interface with each other and the teacher.  when it comes to communicating with one another i fail to see how a wide variety of devices is of any concern.  it is not like if there is three students, one with a galaxy s0, one with a s0, and one with an iphone, they wo not be able to communicate with each other.  again, it is the ability to run the software itself that is important, not the technology.   #  sure, they might not be the most up to date, but they still provide the basic needs necessary.   # poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school owned technology which is likely to be less advanced as well .  i think the more concerning thing would be that the school as well as the student would not be able to afford the technology needed.  however, it is unlikely that a lower socioeconomic school district would even implement a byod system in their schools.  are there any poor school district in the country that uses byod ? also school owned technology is not necessarily a negative.  sure, they might not be the most up to date, but they still provide the basic needs necessary.  the school would definitely not provide a poor device that could not keep up with the rest of the class.  i disagree for simply this reason: many of the current technological devices have the same features.  the teacher first and foremost needs to make sure everyone can access the same material ie: going onto a certain website vs.  finding a specific app on your phone/tablet .  pretty much all standard devices have some kind of web browser and the internet is going to be the main source of information and activity in a high school.  there are websites designed for students where they can catch up on lectures, turn in homework or chat with other classmates.  difficult to say at this point.  but look at it this way, for a $0 laptop, you not only save on regular supplies such as paper, pencils, binders, markers and other material, but it is also something that can be used for years and help students understand computers and other devices from a young age.  technology is becoming extremely prevalent in college and the work force, they are going to have to learn eventually.  it is up the teachers to prevent cheating, the technology has been around for a while and teachers are adapting to the new technology.  personally, i am a current student teacher who is almost finished getting certified, and i was lucky enough to be in a classroom that went paperless, where students were provided laptops during the class.  some students were clearly better at navigating a laptop than others this was an 0th grade class , but everyone was able to do the work and it provided an epicenter for all of the students work, grades, progress, etc.
i believe that people are becoming to offended by words, completely disregarding context, motivation, and value of those words.  i have run into, and heard of people who become offended by the words they hear in a conversation, without actually knowing the context of the conversation.  things like someone saying,  yeah he called him a nigger and things escalated pretty quickly !   only hearing one word of the sentence, some go ballistic, instantly stereotyping that person based on a perversion of what they were actually trying to say.  now i understand that there are times where this would actually be unacceptable, like at a  black tie event  or fancy restaurant and so on.  but on a sidewalk talking to a friend ? surely you can speak you mind there as long as you are being respectful by keeping a low volume.  one example that happened to me was when i was walking with a friend and i called him a faggot.  i must of said it loudly and for that i agree i am at fault, i should of kept just a talking volume , but we quickly had a middle age women run over and lecture us on the harm of   the f word .  as a bisexual, i found it almost funny.  she does not know my views, she does not know what else i said, she knew nothing of me.  just that i said  faggot  so apparently i was homophobic.  but she was offended, offended on behalf of the minority  i am apart of .  i think these people have no business being offended at the words being said, and i would also like to say that i personally do not see a problem with either word being said.  the more the word is used, the more it ends up being separated from it is original meaning, and the less power that word has.  so, cmv s : offensive words should be ignored without context, and should even be used to break their power, such as what is happening with the word  faggot .   #  as a bisexual, i found it almost funny.   #  she does not know my views, she does not know what else i said, she knew nothing of me.   # she does not know my views, she does not know what else i said, she knew nothing of me.  it is not about you.  if i shouted out  gay people are the scum of the earth  on a bus, would it make any difference whether i was gay or not, or whether i genuinely believed in what i said ? of course not.  as you say, the people on the bus ca not possibly know whether i actually mean what i said so they are probably going to take what i say at face value.  if i throw a brick into a crowd, it does not matter whether or not i intended to hurt anyone.  the fact you are a bisexual does not make any difference.  regardless of who you are, you are are using the term  faggot  as way to insult someone, and latent in that is the implication that it is a bad thing to be gay.  it does not matter whether or not you believe it is a bad thing to be gay, you are using language that suggests it is a bad thing to be gay.  offence is subjective, and obviously it does not seem to bother you, but do you not see how some people might take issue with someone jokily insulting their friend by suggesting they might be homosexual ? if i wanted to joke that my friend was being greedy, would it be okay of me to call them a filthy jew ? if i wanted to jokily call my friend ugly, would it be okay of me to say:  wow, you are as ugly as a black man  ? you are missing out the most important factor: it depends on  how  it is used.  words are not magically intrinsically dirty, and i agree that it is ridiculous to berate someone for using the word  nigger  or  faggot  in an explanatory context.  no one should take offence to someone saying   yeah he called him a nigger and things escalated pretty quickly !   .  i agree that it is very silly to get upset over words as if they were collections of magically dirty syllables.  it is all about the context in which you use them.  and using words like  nigger  and  faggot   as insults  even jokily is a context which does more harm than good.  it reveals a racism and homophobia still deeply ingrained in our language.  so basically my point is: do not ignore the context of how you are using the word.  it is all important.  if someone gets upset at you for using a word like  nigger  in an explanatory context, then it is them who needs to re think their attitude.  however, if you use a word signifying a group of people as a way to insult someone else, it is  you  who are in the wrong, and  you  who need to think about what you say before saying it, to avoid hurting people.   #  for all they know, you may be an ex convict white supremacist.   #  you ca not say anyone is just  wrong  to be offended.  maybe you did not mean for something to be offensive, but if you are going to be communicating potentially offensive words to someone, it is  your  responsibility to make sure they interpret your words as such.  and when you casually throw out slurs in public spaces, it is practically impossible to keep people from interpreting it as hostility.  for all they know, you may be an ex convict white supremacist.  that is why it is best to just keep from using those words entirely, not just for their sake, but so  you  do not get branded as a homophobe when you are really not.   #  there are people who get offended at people who simply disagree with them regardless of whether that disagreement is reasonable.   #  i am not actually disagreeing with the main thrust of your post or your general point because i think you are mostly correct, but i would say that it is not totally the responsibility of the individual speaking to make sure that other people are not offended.  this does not really apply to most racist or sexist slurs, but there is a huge grey area where people completely misinterpret what is said but the terms or phrases are just part of colloquial language.  it is easy to point and say that certain words and terms are not acceptable, but being civil is a two way street.  the offended have to attempt to understand the intent of people just as much as the offenders need to understand how their words may be perceived.  i mean, there are people who take historical context into account and get offended without ever considering whether or not the colloquial use of the term is even remotely in the same ballpark as its original intent.  there are people who are really unreasonable about how they determine what is offensive or not.  there are people who get offended at people who simply disagree with them regardless of whether that disagreement is reasonable.  civility is not about making one group of people completely at ease with everything or not giving offense, it is about recognizing that people are different and that those differences may be misunderstood from time to time, and that includes people who are offended just as much as it includes people who offend.   #  so if i am speaking to an audience of black people, i should seriously consider my ability to gain their trust and make my perspective clear to them before ever using that word.   #  while it is not wrong to be offended about anything, it is also not necessarily right.  what offends some does not offend others; it is what it is.  it is an emotional response based on deep seated ideas and values.  it is easy to say  well if you interpret my words as hostility when i did not mean that at all, that is just you being judgmental or irrational  which i think op was getting at.  but as you say, communication works both ways.  that is why  i am offended  ca not just end the discussion if anything meaningful is to come out of it.  it is not right for me to conclude someone is hostile just because i perceive them as such, but the perception itself is not wrong, and if i am doing the speaking, i should communicate in such a way that people perceive what i want them to, not necessarily to avoid offending someone, but to avoid miscommunication.  i do not think it is categorically wrong for me white guy to say nigger, but i understand that it has a lot of baggage and  who i am  can affect people is perceptions just as much as what i am saying.  so if i am speaking to an audience of black people, i should seriously consider my ability to gain their trust and make my perspective clear to them before ever using that word.  it could be that i am best off just avoiding it the  safe  option.   #  you are on your cell, and you say to the other party,  and then spencer was like,  fuck that bitch in her pussy !    #  the example in your post uses nigger as a pejorative, it just so happened that it was in the context of someone else having said it.  is one justified in taking offense to nigger in this context ? let is say you are waiting in a walmart checkout line behind a father and his young daughter.  you are on your cell, and you say to the other party,  and then spencer was like,  fuck that bitch in her pussy !   and things escalated pretty quickly.   would the father be justified in taking offense to your language ? you were not to him nor his daughter, but are not those words still inappropriate in the presence of certain individuals ? nigger had become a racial slur several decades prior to the civil rights movement, and had  always  been used in reference to black people.
i believe that people are becoming to offended by words, completely disregarding context, motivation, and value of those words.  i have run into, and heard of people who become offended by the words they hear in a conversation, without actually knowing the context of the conversation.  things like someone saying,  yeah he called him a nigger and things escalated pretty quickly !   only hearing one word of the sentence, some go ballistic, instantly stereotyping that person based on a perversion of what they were actually trying to say.  now i understand that there are times where this would actually be unacceptable, like at a  black tie event  or fancy restaurant and so on.  but on a sidewalk talking to a friend ? surely you can speak you mind there as long as you are being respectful by keeping a low volume.  one example that happened to me was when i was walking with a friend and i called him a faggot.  i must of said it loudly and for that i agree i am at fault, i should of kept just a talking volume , but we quickly had a middle age women run over and lecture us on the harm of   the f word .  as a bisexual, i found it almost funny.  she does not know my views, she does not know what else i said, she knew nothing of me.  just that i said  faggot  so apparently i was homophobic.  but she was offended, offended on behalf of the minority  i am apart of .  i think these people have no business being offended at the words being said, and i would also like to say that i personally do not see a problem with either word being said.  the more the word is used, the more it ends up being separated from it is original meaning, and the less power that word has.  so, cmv s : offensive words should be ignored without context, and should even be used to break their power, such as what is happening with the word  faggot .   #  the more the word is used, the more it ends up being separated from it is original meaning, and the less power that word has.   #  you are missing out the most important factor: it depends on  how  it is used.   # she does not know my views, she does not know what else i said, she knew nothing of me.  it is not about you.  if i shouted out  gay people are the scum of the earth  on a bus, would it make any difference whether i was gay or not, or whether i genuinely believed in what i said ? of course not.  as you say, the people on the bus ca not possibly know whether i actually mean what i said so they are probably going to take what i say at face value.  if i throw a brick into a crowd, it does not matter whether or not i intended to hurt anyone.  the fact you are a bisexual does not make any difference.  regardless of who you are, you are are using the term  faggot  as way to insult someone, and latent in that is the implication that it is a bad thing to be gay.  it does not matter whether or not you believe it is a bad thing to be gay, you are using language that suggests it is a bad thing to be gay.  offence is subjective, and obviously it does not seem to bother you, but do you not see how some people might take issue with someone jokily insulting their friend by suggesting they might be homosexual ? if i wanted to joke that my friend was being greedy, would it be okay of me to call them a filthy jew ? if i wanted to jokily call my friend ugly, would it be okay of me to say:  wow, you are as ugly as a black man  ? you are missing out the most important factor: it depends on  how  it is used.  words are not magically intrinsically dirty, and i agree that it is ridiculous to berate someone for using the word  nigger  or  faggot  in an explanatory context.  no one should take offence to someone saying   yeah he called him a nigger and things escalated pretty quickly !   .  i agree that it is very silly to get upset over words as if they were collections of magically dirty syllables.  it is all about the context in which you use them.  and using words like  nigger  and  faggot   as insults  even jokily is a context which does more harm than good.  it reveals a racism and homophobia still deeply ingrained in our language.  so basically my point is: do not ignore the context of how you are using the word.  it is all important.  if someone gets upset at you for using a word like  nigger  in an explanatory context, then it is them who needs to re think their attitude.  however, if you use a word signifying a group of people as a way to insult someone else, it is  you  who are in the wrong, and  you  who need to think about what you say before saying it, to avoid hurting people.   #  for all they know, you may be an ex convict white supremacist.   #  you ca not say anyone is just  wrong  to be offended.  maybe you did not mean for something to be offensive, but if you are going to be communicating potentially offensive words to someone, it is  your  responsibility to make sure they interpret your words as such.  and when you casually throw out slurs in public spaces, it is practically impossible to keep people from interpreting it as hostility.  for all they know, you may be an ex convict white supremacist.  that is why it is best to just keep from using those words entirely, not just for their sake, but so  you  do not get branded as a homophobe when you are really not.   #  the offended have to attempt to understand the intent of people just as much as the offenders need to understand how their words may be perceived.   #  i am not actually disagreeing with the main thrust of your post or your general point because i think you are mostly correct, but i would say that it is not totally the responsibility of the individual speaking to make sure that other people are not offended.  this does not really apply to most racist or sexist slurs, but there is a huge grey area where people completely misinterpret what is said but the terms or phrases are just part of colloquial language.  it is easy to point and say that certain words and terms are not acceptable, but being civil is a two way street.  the offended have to attempt to understand the intent of people just as much as the offenders need to understand how their words may be perceived.  i mean, there are people who take historical context into account and get offended without ever considering whether or not the colloquial use of the term is even remotely in the same ballpark as its original intent.  there are people who are really unreasonable about how they determine what is offensive or not.  there are people who get offended at people who simply disagree with them regardless of whether that disagreement is reasonable.  civility is not about making one group of people completely at ease with everything or not giving offense, it is about recognizing that people are different and that those differences may be misunderstood from time to time, and that includes people who are offended just as much as it includes people who offend.   #  that is why  i am offended  ca not just end the discussion if anything meaningful is to come out of it.   #  while it is not wrong to be offended about anything, it is also not necessarily right.  what offends some does not offend others; it is what it is.  it is an emotional response based on deep seated ideas and values.  it is easy to say  well if you interpret my words as hostility when i did not mean that at all, that is just you being judgmental or irrational  which i think op was getting at.  but as you say, communication works both ways.  that is why  i am offended  ca not just end the discussion if anything meaningful is to come out of it.  it is not right for me to conclude someone is hostile just because i perceive them as such, but the perception itself is not wrong, and if i am doing the speaking, i should communicate in such a way that people perceive what i want them to, not necessarily to avoid offending someone, but to avoid miscommunication.  i do not think it is categorically wrong for me white guy to say nigger, but i understand that it has a lot of baggage and  who i am  can affect people is perceptions just as much as what i am saying.  so if i am speaking to an audience of black people, i should seriously consider my ability to gain their trust and make my perspective clear to them before ever using that word.  it could be that i am best off just avoiding it the  safe  option.   #  would the father be justified in taking offense to your language ?  #  the example in your post uses nigger as a pejorative, it just so happened that it was in the context of someone else having said it.  is one justified in taking offense to nigger in this context ? let is say you are waiting in a walmart checkout line behind a father and his young daughter.  you are on your cell, and you say to the other party,  and then spencer was like,  fuck that bitch in her pussy !   and things escalated pretty quickly.   would the father be justified in taking offense to your language ? you were not to him nor his daughter, but are not those words still inappropriate in the presence of certain individuals ? nigger had become a racial slur several decades prior to the civil rights movement, and had  always  been used in reference to black people.
disclaimer: i am talking about contraceptives as means of preventing or terminating pregnancy resulting from consensual sex.  the treatment of fertilized eggs/embryos/fetuses resulting from rape are a whole different question.  pregnancy is not a disease that needs to be cured.  therefore, its  cure  or prevention is not a part of healthcare.  your employer does not pay  housing care  or  feeding care , he pays you a wage and you decide what you want to eat and where you want to live.  if you want to eat healthy and live in a good neighborhood, it costs something out of your wage.  same with sex, if you want to have safe sex, it is going to cost something out of your earnings.  i believe you are more entitled to food and shelter than to safe sex, and nobody expects your employer to take care of your food and shelter above paying a living wage , so why should he pay extra for your safe sex ? for the record, i am not american nor do i live there.  reading through this discussion and the older discussion on the topic, i see one argument against my post with some merit to it: from a cost/benefit point of view, contraception is cheaper than no contraception, if you have to bear the costs of both, which is basically a pill every day vs an unwanted kid.  so it makes financial sense to pay for contraception, if you are also the one who would pay for the kid.  now i do not think the law should force this cost/benefit pov on private healthcare providers / insurance companies.  but i understand that not all of the cost of an unwanted kid is born by the insurer, some are also born by all taxpayers.  so as a society, it is cheaper to prevent pregnancies, perhaps even if the taxpayers had to pay for the contraception which in some cases they probably will, even though now the debate is about employer funded healthcare however, i am afraid this argumentation will not lead to a delta.  i do not believe the cost/benefit analysis is an ethical viewpoint, and i do not mean only financial cost/benefit putting a price on human life.  .  in this line of argumentation, it is in the interest of taxpayers to terminate pregnancies that lead to strains on the society financial strains, criminality,.  .  in this line of argumentation, it would also be correct to terminate pregnancies which will lead to children with certain birth defects, genetic disorders and so on.  this is called eugenics, first thought of in the nineteenth century, then exploded after ww i, and later tested in practice by the third reich.  i do not share this worldview, in which society gets to judge people by how much they are a benefit to society.  humans deserve respect on the basis that they are human, not on the basis of their benefits to society.   #  pregnancy is not a disease that needs to be cured.   #  therefore, its  cure  or prevention is not a part of healthcare.   # therefore, its  cure  or prevention is not a part of healthcare.  this is a pretty narrow definition of healthcare.  the aca also mandates coverage for prenatal care, childbirth, addiction counseling, breastfeeding equipment and general wellness and prevention benefits that have nothing to do with the treatment of a specific disease.  should none of those be covered either, or should we accept that some things covered by insurance exist to create a generally healthier, more prosperous society ? i hear often that access to contraception is not a legitimate health issue because it is about allowing people to have safe sex whenever they want, but that is an extremely short sighted perspective.  access to contraception is a health issue because it is been universally shown that easy access to contraception directly correlates to healthier, more economically prosperous societies URL this is why the gates foundation has pledged to get birth control to 0 million women in the poorest countries in the world URL as part of their global development efforts.  making unplanned and high risk pregnancies less common means avoiding the negative health consequences that come along with them, and making it easier for women to participate in the workforce is beneficial for any economy.  i do not think your employer should have to pay for your healthcare at all, i think the government should do that a discussion for another day , but because we live a country that ties healthcare to employment, it is perfecly reasonable to expect your employer to contribute financially to things that benefit your health.  when you look at the big picture, access to contraception is beneficial to the health of employees as well as the well being of society because it is so closely tied to positive societal health outcomes.  no one benefits from making birth control less accessible.  it is easy to say  i should not have to pay for someone else to have sex  but that is not how you should be looking at it.  that is an attitude that comes from principle, not pragmatism.  it is about shifting blame and has nothing to do with trying to create a healthy society.  when you subsidize contraception through your tax dollars or insurance premiums, what you are doing is preventing homeless women from giving birth to kids that will grow up in foster care.  you are preventing teenagers in texas from trying to give themselves unsafe abortions.  you are preventing women from being kept out of the workforce because of unexpected pregnancies.  this is good for everyone.   #  birth control in these cases is a good way to prevent birth defects from medications known to cause issues.   #  actually, the hormones are used directly to fix the issues.  in the case of acne, having excessive hormones can cause acne even without other issues thus, prescribing antibiotics would not help, topical creams do not help, etc.  .  far more serious, however, are diseases like endrometriosis, pcos, and other hormonally based problems.  medicine currently does not have a lot of treatments for these diseases; the medical standard that exists birth control is there because there are not targeted drugs that fully address the symptoms.  in the case of endrometriosis URL the condition is not even very easily diagnosed and requires exploratory surgery.  the hormones that are present in birth control can prevent endometriosis, but they also reduce the inflammation of the tissue that is causing pain, and prevent further spreading of that tissue outside the uterus.  this has the additional benefit of preserving any remaining fertility as the scarring from endo is what causes the associated infertility issues ; that is, in this case, birth control actually can help a woman have children later.  birth control is also much less dramatic and medically invasive than having a complete or partial hysterectomy.  pcos is another condition that is often helped by birth control.  the condition is characterized by a whole clusterfuck of hormone malfunctions insulin resistance, testosterone, etc.  which can lead to women not having a period at all or bleeding continuously for months or years.  this kind of bleeding can cause anemia, in addition to profound inconvenience and pain cramps, etc.  , and the simplest solution is to actually take on the hormones causing the problem.  taking birth control regulates that system, and while it does prevent ovulation, people with pcos were not ovulating regularly anyways.  again, this step radically improves people is lives in a much less invasive manner than a hysterectomy would.  finally, there are all sorts of women who are on other medications which would make pregnancy extremely risky to the mother or fetus.  birth control in these cases is a good way to prevent birth defects from medications known to cause issues.  it is also a good way to minimize complications if you are treating someone with severe depression due to hormonal imbalances, you do not want them to get pregnant hormones going nuts , have to go off their meds very quickly withdrawal and suicide risk , and then potentially not even be able to care for the child at the end of the pregnancy due to their mental state.  there are a lot of valid reasons for a woman to be on birth control that have very little to do with trying to not have children.  hormones are powerful and are entwined in many different medical conditions; birth control is one tool to regulate these hormones.   #  that is the  can of worms  similar to medicinal marijuana, we all know it is a banality in some states to get the  weed card  with virtually no legit diagnosis, and contraceptives would be even bigger.   #  let me start by saying i would love to be knowledgeable enough to fully understand why the only existing treatment for at least some of these conditions is birth control, because somehow i am inclined to say it might not be the case.  but even if it was the case, i.  e.   the only way to treat some legitimate conditions is a form of contraceptive no longer legally required to be covered by health care plans : it is still slightly beside my original point let is, in properly diagnosed cases, allow contraceptives to be prescribed as treatment for these conditions.  but i am not against the physical pill itself, i am against healthcare covering people is  need  for safe sex.  so i  would not  cover any medication prescribed to soley prevent pregnancy, but perhaps i  would  cover the pill itself prescribed to treat legitimate medical conditions.  that, of course, if those two could be reliably differentiated.  that is the  can of worms  similar to medicinal marijuana, we all know it is a banality in some states to get the  weed card  with virtually no legit diagnosis, and contraceptives would be even bigger.  but that is an argument about the possibility of implementation, whereas i would like to focus on the principle behind it not  do we pay for this pill in particular, which is also good for many legit conditions ?  , but  do we pay for pregnancy prevention by any means as part of healthcare ?    #  please eli0 how he will pay for the unwanted child ?  #  please eli0 how he will pay for the unwanted child ? i am not familiar enough with us social care / employer funded health care rules.  will the employer be required to provide any form child support ? will he be required to pay for health care of the immediate family, including the unwanted child ? is there a form of mandatory paid maternity/paternity leave he will have to pay for ?  #  why should they be banned from doing that by law ?  #  if you operate simply on terms of cost/benefit, then surely employers would want to cover birth control, if it was cheaper overall.  so some of them are actually willing to spend more in order not to cover birth control ? why should they be banned from doing that by law ? the free market would prevent that, would not it ? a bit of argumentatio ad absurdum my point is the law is not here to enforce your cost/benefit efficiency as a company .
an employer should have no responsibility to provide their employees with health insurance.  requiring them to do so needlessly burdens the employers freedoms while forcing employers to act as an agent of the government in enforcing the individual mandate.  the american people and employer liberties would be far better served if employee compensation was increased and employers were left to shop for their own health insurance.  this may require en equivalent bump to the minimum wage to make up for an employers contribution, but other than that i do not see any room for ill effects on the system.  it is a simple accounting game.  instead of my employer giving the money to the insurance company, they give it to me and then i give it to the insurance company.  also note.  i am not saying that employers should be required not to give health insurance as a form of compensation.  obviously there are some cases where an employer has a vested interest in the health of its workers.  some are targeting employees who see it as a perk that outweighs the cost.  there is no reason they should not be allowed to do so.   #  this may require en equivalent bump to the minimum wage to make up for an employers contribution, but other than that i do not see any room for ill effects on the system.   #  it is a simple accounting game.  instead of my employer giving the money to the insurance company, they give it to me and then i give it to the insurance company.   # it is a simple accounting game.  instead of my employer giving the money to the insurance company, they give it to me and then i give it to the insurance company.  one of the main issues companies got into the health insurance racket is because of taxes, more specifically how to avoid them.  when a company hires an individual they have to pay medicare and fica taxes based on the employees wages.  the higher the wages the higher the taxes.  in contradistinction, health care that is bought by the company is not taxed.  so, the net effect is that a company can give an employee health care insurance instead of a corresponding amount of money to buy it on their own, and pay less in taxes.  switching it to the system you mention would cost more.  that is why companies do not do it.   #  all in all, it is easy to say, but virtually impossible to do in the current political climate.   #  congress. do. anything. useful. this. century.  please, tell me you are joking.  employee is already have a section on their 0 where they can deduct health care expenses including insurance plans.  the issue though is that it is limited in terms of its scope, is subject to amt and they do not necessarily get all of their money back it has to be over a threshold as a % of their salary, and everything past a certain % of their salary they do not get back .  in order to get past all this stuff you would need to have an irs overhaul, which is unlikely.  on the employer is side, if they increase salary, their fica/medicare taxes increase.  if you want to lower corporate taxes, good luck.  all in all, it is easy to say, but virtually impossible to do in the current political climate.   #  you are generally free to opt out and purchase your own health care.   #  the benefits of a healthy society extend beyond the company.  it is assumed you will take money and buy food to survive on a day to day basis.  because healthcare does not routinely come up daily, it is not treated the same even though it is equally essential over the long term.  your employer wanting to attract the best talent has decided to offer health services directly.  you are generally free to opt out and purchase your own health care.  they do not stop you.  but your decision not to participate in their program does not obligate them to pay you extra any more than it obligates them to cover you.  also, i simply commented on the reality that many companies consider savings  arecovered profits  and treat them accordingly.   #  why under your mindset should there even be a minimum wage ?  #  why under your mindset should there even be a minimum wage ? are companies obligated to pay a survivable wage or just a high enough wage to attract talent ? i can tell you i would not do my job for minimum wage, but that does not mean there is not someone out there desperate enough for a job that they would.  does that mean they are better for the job ? not necessarily, it just means they are cheaper.  higher wages and benefit packages attract talent.  the companies and markets have shown that corporate health care is popular.  why would a company buck that just to appease a small group that would prefer not to participate when the vast majority do ? that does not attract talent as much as a political mindset.  they should and do go for the option with the most broad appeal.   #  one reason for getting rid of corporate health care might be that the employee and employer have disagreements about what kind of health care is ethical to insure.   #  a minimum wage is required because we as a society will not let people starve.  therefore if someone is to benefit from their labor, they must pay enough to ensure that our society will not have to support them.  one reason for getting rid of corporate health care might be that the employee and employer have disagreements about what kind of health care is ethical to insure.  in general there is no need for an employee and employer to agree on what types of health care are ethical.  regardless, it does not matter if any companies actually would get rid of their health insurance plans.  only that they should not be forced to maintain them.
i have noticed that there are a lot of guys specifically people who are not asian who have  yellow fever .  or there are white girls with  jungle fever  who will only date black men.  they try to justify that this is a  preference , but this makes me uncomfortable.  the thing i am talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction.  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  when that same person dates a person of their preferred race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   when the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of  true, innate attractiveness .  i hope my opinion is making sense.  the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  thank you so much for anyone who chooses to answer this.  i am willing to expand on this view if need be.  it was recommended that i edit this post.  i am trying to focus on the objectification/sexualization part of all of this.  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.  i am talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations asian women expected to be submissive, latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be  animalistic   #  when that same person dates a person of their preferred race.   #  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ?  #  do you have no problem with other types of preferences ? like, to name a few, height preferences for both men and women , breast size preferences, or really any other preference for something that is pretty much exclusively not in control of a person how about intelligence, since you mentioned that explicitly as a good criteria, even though  actual intelligence  is largely genetic and largely early environmental, and really does not change much after those early environmental influences are past ? because if you do not find that disturbing, i am not sure why you find racial preferences disturbing, or resent people for them.  it is literally the exact same thing.  if you do find that disturbing and/or resent those people too read: everyone, including yourself, because  those people  happens to be every human being ever , then i do not think your main view can really be changed; we are a pretty shallow species in this respect, and we generally do not like to acknowledge this fact plus, acknowledging it would not change anything.  after all a requirement of a sexual partner is that they be someone you want to have sex with, right ? .  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   presumably, this is not their only criteria for dating someone ? it is just one of many criteria, and they would not be dating the person if that person did not  iscore  high enough on all criteria when considered together.  if you are saying that race is the  only  meaningful standard for these people, because it trumps everything else entirely, then you just probably should not associate with these people, as any remotely reasonable person, even a person with an insanely strong racial preference, has other standards too.  there is no one standard for any one person.  even if there were, no one will ever find a partner that 0 meets that standard assuming anything like  ideal possible partner  standards that people actually hold .  and in any event, although we are not consciously aware of it, our standards for attraction are actually quite fluid and do shift given certain circumstances.  this statement you have made just seems terribly naive and shortsighted, i will take you at your word that it is what you feel, but does your feeling here match up to any kind of reality ?  #  i really do not want to have this bias, because i have several very good friends who are asian women.   #  i would like to address the last paragraph of your comment.  thank you for pointing out the fluidity of attraction.  i believe i hold this view because my own relationships have been affected by race.  some past boyfriends of mine have had fetishes for asian girls and were open about it, which made me feel insecure that i would never live up to that standard.  this was just a feeling until later on when i learned that i had been cheated on several times, with asian women.  i think that over time, i built up this personal bias.  i really do not want to have this bias, because i have several very good friends who are asian women.  talking with them, they agree that sometimes they feel objectified by people who think they are happy and demure and submissive.  i have also been the target of things like these.  it bothers me that i do not strongly identify with any race i am mixed black/white , yet guys always say  you are pretty for a black girl , or  i have a thing for black girls .  it makes me feel like i have to fulfilli their personal fantasy and meet the expectations of what it means to be black.  it bothers me that many asian women have to go through the same thing, yet it is so accepted in our society to have an overt preference.   #  are you attracted sexually to absolutely every single thing that exists ?  #  let is apply some logic.  are you attracted sexually to absolutely every single thing that exists ? if so, you are truly omnisexual.  if not, then we have established that there exists within you some criteria for what does and does not sexually excite you.  i would argue that 0 of people have some sort of criteria possibly a low estimate , even if that criteria seems odd or alien to us there is a woman who wants to have sex with/get married to the brooklyn bridge, if memory serves.  so, given that absolutely everyone has some arbitrary limit on what is and is not sexually attractive to them, we then have to ask why ? and this is a ridiculously simple question only 0 letters and a punctuation with a ridiculously complex answer we have been studying human sexuality for years and there is no one blanket answer for what determines attraction ; but one thing seems to be clear: nobody is really in control of what gives them boners or ladyboners , even in a perfect world where boners or ladyboners did not sometimes just happen for no reason and/or not happen even when you are looking at naked sexy people.  that all said: why should their preference for certain traits make you   are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   it is probably a combination of both.  this is why finding a mate is complicated: not only are you looking for someone who is the sort of person you want to spend all of your time with, they also have to make your boner or ladyboner happen, otherwise there is no reason to actually date them, unless you are both asexual.  i know plenty of people who have a racial preference and you are not the only one who frets over whether or not it is racist: they do too.  but really, it is not something they can control.  at best, they are going to end up dating people who might not be a certain race, but who exhibit traits that are typical to that racial gene pool.   #  the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.   # it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  now you are rather dishonestly trying to segue one argument into another.  whether or not a certain area of the porn industry objectifies women does not have any bearing on whether or not someone is  justified  in having an attraction towards a certain race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   why ca not it be all of those things ? the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  here is what i think might change it: i am willing to bet that  you  have a racial preference.  we all do.  the norm is to have a racial preference for people of our own race, or people who appear physically similar to our own race.  sexual attraction is innate, but it has also been shaped by our culture, so the aspects of physical appearance that attract me are ones that have come from the society i grew up in.  i also happen to prefer music that comes from my culture more than music that feels alien to that music such as indian music .  however, due to things like the internet, we experience a lot of different cultures as we grow up, and so we can end up with preferences that come from places geographically distant from us.  this does not need to be called a  fetish .  there is nothing obscure about this.   #  it is one thing to value other perspectives quite another to pretend like you are not prejudiced yourself.   #  yeah this is a really disturbing line of thought.  it is one thing to value other perspectives quite another to pretend like you are not prejudiced yourself.  which god are we honoring by insisting we have to be equally impartial to all experiences and people ? how can we even honor others individuality if we cannot accept our own ? frankly i care more about the attraction i feel towards the concrete woman right in front of me than the abstract heaven of open mindedness.
i have noticed that there are a lot of guys specifically people who are not asian who have  yellow fever .  or there are white girls with  jungle fever  who will only date black men.  they try to justify that this is a  preference , but this makes me uncomfortable.  the thing i am talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction.  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  when that same person dates a person of their preferred race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   when the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of  true, innate attractiveness .  i hope my opinion is making sense.  the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  thank you so much for anyone who chooses to answer this.  i am willing to expand on this view if need be.  it was recommended that i edit this post.  i am trying to focus on the objectification/sexualization part of all of this.  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.  i am talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations asian women expected to be submissive, latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be  animalistic   #  when the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of  true, innate attractiveness .   #  there is no one standard for any one person.   #  do you have no problem with other types of preferences ? like, to name a few, height preferences for both men and women , breast size preferences, or really any other preference for something that is pretty much exclusively not in control of a person how about intelligence, since you mentioned that explicitly as a good criteria, even though  actual intelligence  is largely genetic and largely early environmental, and really does not change much after those early environmental influences are past ? because if you do not find that disturbing, i am not sure why you find racial preferences disturbing, or resent people for them.  it is literally the exact same thing.  if you do find that disturbing and/or resent those people too read: everyone, including yourself, because  those people  happens to be every human being ever , then i do not think your main view can really be changed; we are a pretty shallow species in this respect, and we generally do not like to acknowledge this fact plus, acknowledging it would not change anything.  after all a requirement of a sexual partner is that they be someone you want to have sex with, right ? .  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   presumably, this is not their only criteria for dating someone ? it is just one of many criteria, and they would not be dating the person if that person did not  iscore  high enough on all criteria when considered together.  if you are saying that race is the  only  meaningful standard for these people, because it trumps everything else entirely, then you just probably should not associate with these people, as any remotely reasonable person, even a person with an insanely strong racial preference, has other standards too.  there is no one standard for any one person.  even if there were, no one will ever find a partner that 0 meets that standard assuming anything like  ideal possible partner  standards that people actually hold .  and in any event, although we are not consciously aware of it, our standards for attraction are actually quite fluid and do shift given certain circumstances.  this statement you have made just seems terribly naive and shortsighted, i will take you at your word that it is what you feel, but does your feeling here match up to any kind of reality ?  #  i think that over time, i built up this personal bias.   #  i would like to address the last paragraph of your comment.  thank you for pointing out the fluidity of attraction.  i believe i hold this view because my own relationships have been affected by race.  some past boyfriends of mine have had fetishes for asian girls and were open about it, which made me feel insecure that i would never live up to that standard.  this was just a feeling until later on when i learned that i had been cheated on several times, with asian women.  i think that over time, i built up this personal bias.  i really do not want to have this bias, because i have several very good friends who are asian women.  talking with them, they agree that sometimes they feel objectified by people who think they are happy and demure and submissive.  i have also been the target of things like these.  it bothers me that i do not strongly identify with any race i am mixed black/white , yet guys always say  you are pretty for a black girl , or  i have a thing for black girls .  it makes me feel like i have to fulfilli their personal fantasy and meet the expectations of what it means to be black.  it bothers me that many asian women have to go through the same thing, yet it is so accepted in our society to have an overt preference.   #  at best, they are going to end up dating people who might not be a certain race, but who exhibit traits that are typical to that racial gene pool.   #  let is apply some logic.  are you attracted sexually to absolutely every single thing that exists ? if so, you are truly omnisexual.  if not, then we have established that there exists within you some criteria for what does and does not sexually excite you.  i would argue that 0 of people have some sort of criteria possibly a low estimate , even if that criteria seems odd or alien to us there is a woman who wants to have sex with/get married to the brooklyn bridge, if memory serves.  so, given that absolutely everyone has some arbitrary limit on what is and is not sexually attractive to them, we then have to ask why ? and this is a ridiculously simple question only 0 letters and a punctuation with a ridiculously complex answer we have been studying human sexuality for years and there is no one blanket answer for what determines attraction ; but one thing seems to be clear: nobody is really in control of what gives them boners or ladyboners , even in a perfect world where boners or ladyboners did not sometimes just happen for no reason and/or not happen even when you are looking at naked sexy people.  that all said: why should their preference for certain traits make you   are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   it is probably a combination of both.  this is why finding a mate is complicated: not only are you looking for someone who is the sort of person you want to spend all of your time with, they also have to make your boner or ladyboner happen, otherwise there is no reason to actually date them, unless you are both asexual.  i know plenty of people who have a racial preference and you are not the only one who frets over whether or not it is racist: they do too.  but really, it is not something they can control.  at best, they are going to end up dating people who might not be a certain race, but who exhibit traits that are typical to that racial gene pool.   #  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .   # it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  now you are rather dishonestly trying to segue one argument into another.  whether or not a certain area of the porn industry objectifies women does not have any bearing on whether or not someone is  justified  in having an attraction towards a certain race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   why ca not it be all of those things ? the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  here is what i think might change it: i am willing to bet that  you  have a racial preference.  we all do.  the norm is to have a racial preference for people of our own race, or people who appear physically similar to our own race.  sexual attraction is innate, but it has also been shaped by our culture, so the aspects of physical appearance that attract me are ones that have come from the society i grew up in.  i also happen to prefer music that comes from my culture more than music that feels alien to that music such as indian music .  however, due to things like the internet, we experience a lot of different cultures as we grow up, and so we can end up with preferences that come from places geographically distant from us.  this does not need to be called a  fetish .  there is nothing obscure about this.   #  it is one thing to value other perspectives quite another to pretend like you are not prejudiced yourself.   #  yeah this is a really disturbing line of thought.  it is one thing to value other perspectives quite another to pretend like you are not prejudiced yourself.  which god are we honoring by insisting we have to be equally impartial to all experiences and people ? how can we even honor others individuality if we cannot accept our own ? frankly i care more about the attraction i feel towards the concrete woman right in front of me than the abstract heaven of open mindedness.
i have noticed that there are a lot of guys specifically people who are not asian who have  yellow fever .  or there are white girls with  jungle fever  who will only date black men.  they try to justify that this is a  preference , but this makes me uncomfortable.  the thing i am talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction.  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  when that same person dates a person of their preferred race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   when the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of  true, innate attractiveness .  i hope my opinion is making sense.  the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  thank you so much for anyone who chooses to answer this.  i am willing to expand on this view if need be.  it was recommended that i edit this post.  i am trying to focus on the objectification/sexualization part of all of this.  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.  i am talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations asian women expected to be submissive, latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be  animalistic   #  the thing i am talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction.   #  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .   # it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  now you are rather dishonestly trying to segue one argument into another.  whether or not a certain area of the porn industry objectifies women does not have any bearing on whether or not someone is  justified  in having an attraction towards a certain race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   why ca not it be all of those things ? the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  here is what i think might change it: i am willing to bet that  you  have a racial preference.  we all do.  the norm is to have a racial preference for people of our own race, or people who appear physically similar to our own race.  sexual attraction is innate, but it has also been shaped by our culture, so the aspects of physical appearance that attract me are ones that have come from the society i grew up in.  i also happen to prefer music that comes from my culture more than music that feels alien to that music such as indian music .  however, due to things like the internet, we experience a lot of different cultures as we grow up, and so we can end up with preferences that come from places geographically distant from us.  this does not need to be called a  fetish .  there is nothing obscure about this.   #  do you have no problem with other types of preferences ?  #  do you have no problem with other types of preferences ? like, to name a few, height preferences for both men and women , breast size preferences, or really any other preference for something that is pretty much exclusively not in control of a person how about intelligence, since you mentioned that explicitly as a good criteria, even though  actual intelligence  is largely genetic and largely early environmental, and really does not change much after those early environmental influences are past ? because if you do not find that disturbing, i am not sure why you find racial preferences disturbing, or resent people for them.  it is literally the exact same thing.  if you do find that disturbing and/or resent those people too read: everyone, including yourself, because  those people  happens to be every human being ever , then i do not think your main view can really be changed; we are a pretty shallow species in this respect, and we generally do not like to acknowledge this fact plus, acknowledging it would not change anything.  after all a requirement of a sexual partner is that they be someone you want to have sex with, right ? .  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   presumably, this is not their only criteria for dating someone ? it is just one of many criteria, and they would not be dating the person if that person did not  iscore  high enough on all criteria when considered together.  if you are saying that race is the  only  meaningful standard for these people, because it trumps everything else entirely, then you just probably should not associate with these people, as any remotely reasonable person, even a person with an insanely strong racial preference, has other standards too.  there is no one standard for any one person.  even if there were, no one will ever find a partner that 0 meets that standard assuming anything like  ideal possible partner  standards that people actually hold .  and in any event, although we are not consciously aware of it, our standards for attraction are actually quite fluid and do shift given certain circumstances.  this statement you have made just seems terribly naive and shortsighted, i will take you at your word that it is what you feel, but does your feeling here match up to any kind of reality ?  #  this was just a feeling until later on when i learned that i had been cheated on several times, with asian women.   #  i would like to address the last paragraph of your comment.  thank you for pointing out the fluidity of attraction.  i believe i hold this view because my own relationships have been affected by race.  some past boyfriends of mine have had fetishes for asian girls and were open about it, which made me feel insecure that i would never live up to that standard.  this was just a feeling until later on when i learned that i had been cheated on several times, with asian women.  i think that over time, i built up this personal bias.  i really do not want to have this bias, because i have several very good friends who are asian women.  talking with them, they agree that sometimes they feel objectified by people who think they are happy and demure and submissive.  i have also been the target of things like these.  it bothers me that i do not strongly identify with any race i am mixed black/white , yet guys always say  you are pretty for a black girl , or  i have a thing for black girls .  it makes me feel like i have to fulfilli their personal fantasy and meet the expectations of what it means to be black.  it bothers me that many asian women have to go through the same thing, yet it is so accepted in our society to have an overt preference.   #  i know plenty of people who have a racial preference and you are not the only one who frets over whether or not it is racist: they do too.   #  let is apply some logic.  are you attracted sexually to absolutely every single thing that exists ? if so, you are truly omnisexual.  if not, then we have established that there exists within you some criteria for what does and does not sexually excite you.  i would argue that 0 of people have some sort of criteria possibly a low estimate , even if that criteria seems odd or alien to us there is a woman who wants to have sex with/get married to the brooklyn bridge, if memory serves.  so, given that absolutely everyone has some arbitrary limit on what is and is not sexually attractive to them, we then have to ask why ? and this is a ridiculously simple question only 0 letters and a punctuation with a ridiculously complex answer we have been studying human sexuality for years and there is no one blanket answer for what determines attraction ; but one thing seems to be clear: nobody is really in control of what gives them boners or ladyboners , even in a perfect world where boners or ladyboners did not sometimes just happen for no reason and/or not happen even when you are looking at naked sexy people.  that all said: why should their preference for certain traits make you   are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   it is probably a combination of both.  this is why finding a mate is complicated: not only are you looking for someone who is the sort of person you want to spend all of your time with, they also have to make your boner or ladyboner happen, otherwise there is no reason to actually date them, unless you are both asexual.  i know plenty of people who have a racial preference and you are not the only one who frets over whether or not it is racist: they do too.  but really, it is not something they can control.  at best, they are going to end up dating people who might not be a certain race, but who exhibit traits that are typical to that racial gene pool.   #  yeah this is a really disturbing line of thought.   #  yeah this is a really disturbing line of thought.  it is one thing to value other perspectives quite another to pretend like you are not prejudiced yourself.  which god are we honoring by insisting we have to be equally impartial to all experiences and people ? how can we even honor others individuality if we cannot accept our own ? frankly i care more about the attraction i feel towards the concrete woman right in front of me than the abstract heaven of open mindedness.
i have noticed that there are a lot of guys specifically people who are not asian who have  yellow fever .  or there are white girls with  jungle fever  who will only date black men.  they try to justify that this is a  preference , but this makes me uncomfortable.  the thing i am talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction.  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  when that same person dates a person of their preferred race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   when the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of  true, innate attractiveness .  i hope my opinion is making sense.  the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  thank you so much for anyone who chooses to answer this.  i am willing to expand on this view if need be.  it was recommended that i edit this post.  i am trying to focus on the objectification/sexualization part of all of this.  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.  i am talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations asian women expected to be submissive, latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be  animalistic   #  when that same person dates a person of their preferred race.   #  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ?  # it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  now you are rather dishonestly trying to segue one argument into another.  whether or not a certain area of the porn industry objectifies women does not have any bearing on whether or not someone is  justified  in having an attraction towards a certain race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   why ca not it be all of those things ? the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  here is what i think might change it: i am willing to bet that  you  have a racial preference.  we all do.  the norm is to have a racial preference for people of our own race, or people who appear physically similar to our own race.  sexual attraction is innate, but it has also been shaped by our culture, so the aspects of physical appearance that attract me are ones that have come from the society i grew up in.  i also happen to prefer music that comes from my culture more than music that feels alien to that music such as indian music .  however, due to things like the internet, we experience a lot of different cultures as we grow up, and so we can end up with preferences that come from places geographically distant from us.  this does not need to be called a  fetish .  there is nothing obscure about this.   #  this statement you have made just seems terribly naive and shortsighted, i will take you at your word that it is what you feel, but does your feeling here match up to any kind of reality ?  #  do you have no problem with other types of preferences ? like, to name a few, height preferences for both men and women , breast size preferences, or really any other preference for something that is pretty much exclusively not in control of a person how about intelligence, since you mentioned that explicitly as a good criteria, even though  actual intelligence  is largely genetic and largely early environmental, and really does not change much after those early environmental influences are past ? because if you do not find that disturbing, i am not sure why you find racial preferences disturbing, or resent people for them.  it is literally the exact same thing.  if you do find that disturbing and/or resent those people too read: everyone, including yourself, because  those people  happens to be every human being ever , then i do not think your main view can really be changed; we are a pretty shallow species in this respect, and we generally do not like to acknowledge this fact plus, acknowledging it would not change anything.  after all a requirement of a sexual partner is that they be someone you want to have sex with, right ? .  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   presumably, this is not their only criteria for dating someone ? it is just one of many criteria, and they would not be dating the person if that person did not  iscore  high enough on all criteria when considered together.  if you are saying that race is the  only  meaningful standard for these people, because it trumps everything else entirely, then you just probably should not associate with these people, as any remotely reasonable person, even a person with an insanely strong racial preference, has other standards too.  there is no one standard for any one person.  even if there were, no one will ever find a partner that 0 meets that standard assuming anything like  ideal possible partner  standards that people actually hold .  and in any event, although we are not consciously aware of it, our standards for attraction are actually quite fluid and do shift given certain circumstances.  this statement you have made just seems terribly naive and shortsighted, i will take you at your word that it is what you feel, but does your feeling here match up to any kind of reality ?  #  i think that over time, i built up this personal bias.   #  i would like to address the last paragraph of your comment.  thank you for pointing out the fluidity of attraction.  i believe i hold this view because my own relationships have been affected by race.  some past boyfriends of mine have had fetishes for asian girls and were open about it, which made me feel insecure that i would never live up to that standard.  this was just a feeling until later on when i learned that i had been cheated on several times, with asian women.  i think that over time, i built up this personal bias.  i really do not want to have this bias, because i have several very good friends who are asian women.  talking with them, they agree that sometimes they feel objectified by people who think they are happy and demure and submissive.  i have also been the target of things like these.  it bothers me that i do not strongly identify with any race i am mixed black/white , yet guys always say  you are pretty for a black girl , or  i have a thing for black girls .  it makes me feel like i have to fulfilli their personal fantasy and meet the expectations of what it means to be black.  it bothers me that many asian women have to go through the same thing, yet it is so accepted in our society to have an overt preference.   #  at best, they are going to end up dating people who might not be a certain race, but who exhibit traits that are typical to that racial gene pool.   #  let is apply some logic.  are you attracted sexually to absolutely every single thing that exists ? if so, you are truly omnisexual.  if not, then we have established that there exists within you some criteria for what does and does not sexually excite you.  i would argue that 0 of people have some sort of criteria possibly a low estimate , even if that criteria seems odd or alien to us there is a woman who wants to have sex with/get married to the brooklyn bridge, if memory serves.  so, given that absolutely everyone has some arbitrary limit on what is and is not sexually attractive to them, we then have to ask why ? and this is a ridiculously simple question only 0 letters and a punctuation with a ridiculously complex answer we have been studying human sexuality for years and there is no one blanket answer for what determines attraction ; but one thing seems to be clear: nobody is really in control of what gives them boners or ladyboners , even in a perfect world where boners or ladyboners did not sometimes just happen for no reason and/or not happen even when you are looking at naked sexy people.  that all said: why should their preference for certain traits make you   are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   it is probably a combination of both.  this is why finding a mate is complicated: not only are you looking for someone who is the sort of person you want to spend all of your time with, they also have to make your boner or ladyboner happen, otherwise there is no reason to actually date them, unless you are both asexual.  i know plenty of people who have a racial preference and you are not the only one who frets over whether or not it is racist: they do too.  but really, it is not something they can control.  at best, they are going to end up dating people who might not be a certain race, but who exhibit traits that are typical to that racial gene pool.   #  frankly i care more about the attraction i feel towards the concrete woman right in front of me than the abstract heaven of open mindedness.   #  yeah this is a really disturbing line of thought.  it is one thing to value other perspectives quite another to pretend like you are not prejudiced yourself.  which god are we honoring by insisting we have to be equally impartial to all experiences and people ? how can we even honor others individuality if we cannot accept our own ? frankly i care more about the attraction i feel towards the concrete woman right in front of me than the abstract heaven of open mindedness.
i have noticed that there are a lot of guys specifically people who are not asian who have  yellow fever .  or there are white girls with  jungle fever  who will only date black men.  they try to justify that this is a  preference , but this makes me uncomfortable.  the thing i am talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction.  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  when that same person dates a person of their preferred race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   when the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of  true, innate attractiveness .  i hope my opinion is making sense.  the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  thank you so much for anyone who chooses to answer this.  i am willing to expand on this view if need be.  it was recommended that i edit this post.  i am trying to focus on the objectification/sexualization part of all of this.  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.  i am talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations asian women expected to be submissive, latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be  animalistic   #  i hope my opinion is making sense.   #  the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.   # it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  now you are rather dishonestly trying to segue one argument into another.  whether or not a certain area of the porn industry objectifies women does not have any bearing on whether or not someone is  justified  in having an attraction towards a certain race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   why ca not it be all of those things ? the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  here is what i think might change it: i am willing to bet that  you  have a racial preference.  we all do.  the norm is to have a racial preference for people of our own race, or people who appear physically similar to our own race.  sexual attraction is innate, but it has also been shaped by our culture, so the aspects of physical appearance that attract me are ones that have come from the society i grew up in.  i also happen to prefer music that comes from my culture more than music that feels alien to that music such as indian music .  however, due to things like the internet, we experience a lot of different cultures as we grow up, and so we can end up with preferences that come from places geographically distant from us.  this does not need to be called a  fetish .  there is nothing obscure about this.   #  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ?  #  do you have no problem with other types of preferences ? like, to name a few, height preferences for both men and women , breast size preferences, or really any other preference for something that is pretty much exclusively not in control of a person how about intelligence, since you mentioned that explicitly as a good criteria, even though  actual intelligence  is largely genetic and largely early environmental, and really does not change much after those early environmental influences are past ? because if you do not find that disturbing, i am not sure why you find racial preferences disturbing, or resent people for them.  it is literally the exact same thing.  if you do find that disturbing and/or resent those people too read: everyone, including yourself, because  those people  happens to be every human being ever , then i do not think your main view can really be changed; we are a pretty shallow species in this respect, and we generally do not like to acknowledge this fact plus, acknowledging it would not change anything.  after all a requirement of a sexual partner is that they be someone you want to have sex with, right ? .  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   presumably, this is not their only criteria for dating someone ? it is just one of many criteria, and they would not be dating the person if that person did not  iscore  high enough on all criteria when considered together.  if you are saying that race is the  only  meaningful standard for these people, because it trumps everything else entirely, then you just probably should not associate with these people, as any remotely reasonable person, even a person with an insanely strong racial preference, has other standards too.  there is no one standard for any one person.  even if there were, no one will ever find a partner that 0 meets that standard assuming anything like  ideal possible partner  standards that people actually hold .  and in any event, although we are not consciously aware of it, our standards for attraction are actually quite fluid and do shift given certain circumstances.  this statement you have made just seems terribly naive and shortsighted, i will take you at your word that it is what you feel, but does your feeling here match up to any kind of reality ?  #  i really do not want to have this bias, because i have several very good friends who are asian women.   #  i would like to address the last paragraph of your comment.  thank you for pointing out the fluidity of attraction.  i believe i hold this view because my own relationships have been affected by race.  some past boyfriends of mine have had fetishes for asian girls and were open about it, which made me feel insecure that i would never live up to that standard.  this was just a feeling until later on when i learned that i had been cheated on several times, with asian women.  i think that over time, i built up this personal bias.  i really do not want to have this bias, because i have several very good friends who are asian women.  talking with them, they agree that sometimes they feel objectified by people who think they are happy and demure and submissive.  i have also been the target of things like these.  it bothers me that i do not strongly identify with any race i am mixed black/white , yet guys always say  you are pretty for a black girl , or  i have a thing for black girls .  it makes me feel like i have to fulfilli their personal fantasy and meet the expectations of what it means to be black.  it bothers me that many asian women have to go through the same thing, yet it is so accepted in our society to have an overt preference.   #  but really, it is not something they can control.   #  let is apply some logic.  are you attracted sexually to absolutely every single thing that exists ? if so, you are truly omnisexual.  if not, then we have established that there exists within you some criteria for what does and does not sexually excite you.  i would argue that 0 of people have some sort of criteria possibly a low estimate , even if that criteria seems odd or alien to us there is a woman who wants to have sex with/get married to the brooklyn bridge, if memory serves.  so, given that absolutely everyone has some arbitrary limit on what is and is not sexually attractive to them, we then have to ask why ? and this is a ridiculously simple question only 0 letters and a punctuation with a ridiculously complex answer we have been studying human sexuality for years and there is no one blanket answer for what determines attraction ; but one thing seems to be clear: nobody is really in control of what gives them boners or ladyboners , even in a perfect world where boners or ladyboners did not sometimes just happen for no reason and/or not happen even when you are looking at naked sexy people.  that all said: why should their preference for certain traits make you   are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   it is probably a combination of both.  this is why finding a mate is complicated: not only are you looking for someone who is the sort of person you want to spend all of your time with, they also have to make your boner or ladyboner happen, otherwise there is no reason to actually date them, unless you are both asexual.  i know plenty of people who have a racial preference and you are not the only one who frets over whether or not it is racist: they do too.  but really, it is not something they can control.  at best, they are going to end up dating people who might not be a certain race, but who exhibit traits that are typical to that racial gene pool.   #  which god are we honoring by insisting we have to be equally impartial to all experiences and people ?  #  yeah this is a really disturbing line of thought.  it is one thing to value other perspectives quite another to pretend like you are not prejudiced yourself.  which god are we honoring by insisting we have to be equally impartial to all experiences and people ? how can we even honor others individuality if we cannot accept our own ? frankly i care more about the attraction i feel towards the concrete woman right in front of me than the abstract heaven of open mindedness.
i have noticed that there are a lot of guys specifically people who are not asian who have  yellow fever .  or there are white girls with  jungle fever  who will only date black men.  they try to justify that this is a  preference , but this makes me uncomfortable.  the thing i am talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction.  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  when that same person dates a person of their preferred race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   when the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of  true, innate attractiveness .  i hope my opinion is making sense.  the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  thank you so much for anyone who chooses to answer this.  i am willing to expand on this view if need be.  it was recommended that i edit this post.  i am trying to focus on the objectification/sexualization part of all of this.  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.  i am talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations asian women expected to be submissive, latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be  animalistic   #  when the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of  true, innate attractiveness .   #  as for this quote, no one will ever fit another person is standard of true innate attractiveness.   #  the first thing i question about your op is why you single this out.  there are people into fat people, skinny people, gore, vore, consensual non consent play, whipping, cutting, what have you.  to single this out as particularly disturbing is somewhat amusing to me.  as for the fetish, the first thing to understand is that we can not help what we are turned on by.  if someone finds asians more attractive more often, to call them disturbing is to shame their sexuality.  as for this quote, no one will ever fit another person is standard of true innate attractiveness.  even if they are the  perfect  body, the person will  still  be attracted to other people.  finally, people do not fall in love with a person is body, they fall in love with a person.  i always think that is one of the exciting things about relationships is how often people  do not  end up with their  preference  because it is not just some switch you can flip.  all that said, i think you can certainly call into question how prevelent the practice is in us society at least.  you bring up the point here  the thing i am talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction.  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  and this is certainly a legitimate concern, especially when talking about the reasaons why having to do with power.  as far as i am aware there really is not a fetishization of male asians, just female asians, and it has to do with the submissiveness as you say.  now i think it is fine to hit the triggers that come from playing with power dynamics, even if it involves stereotyping a culture, but it has to be done in a healthy way.  a person with this fetish should be extra vigilant that their sexual fetish does not bleed over into any other situations.  they should self reflect constantly, especially when first coming into their fetish, both because it is just all around a good thing to do and because not doing so can cause this fetish to be damaging.  i also think it is fine and in fact good to question why this particular kind is so prevelent among certain demographics.  i think that while power play is very common among everyone, the specific ways it manifests are often very influenced by social factors, and this is not always a healthy thing for society.  so to sum up, i think that you should look at how people act on these desires.  someone who shows blind disregard for any harm they may be causing is likely not a very nice person in the first place, they just happen to be demonstrating it with this particular fetish.  however for everyone who acts on their desires in a healthy way, there really is no problem.  it will be on you to challenge yourself to judge others on  how  they act on a desire rather than what their desire is.   #  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ?  #  do you have no problem with other types of preferences ? like, to name a few, height preferences for both men and women , breast size preferences, or really any other preference for something that is pretty much exclusively not in control of a person how about intelligence, since you mentioned that explicitly as a good criteria, even though  actual intelligence  is largely genetic and largely early environmental, and really does not change much after those early environmental influences are past ? because if you do not find that disturbing, i am not sure why you find racial preferences disturbing, or resent people for them.  it is literally the exact same thing.  if you do find that disturbing and/or resent those people too read: everyone, including yourself, because  those people  happens to be every human being ever , then i do not think your main view can really be changed; we are a pretty shallow species in this respect, and we generally do not like to acknowledge this fact plus, acknowledging it would not change anything.  after all a requirement of a sexual partner is that they be someone you want to have sex with, right ? .  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   presumably, this is not their only criteria for dating someone ? it is just one of many criteria, and they would not be dating the person if that person did not  iscore  high enough on all criteria when considered together.  if you are saying that race is the  only  meaningful standard for these people, because it trumps everything else entirely, then you just probably should not associate with these people, as any remotely reasonable person, even a person with an insanely strong racial preference, has other standards too.  there is no one standard for any one person.  even if there were, no one will ever find a partner that 0 meets that standard assuming anything like  ideal possible partner  standards that people actually hold .  and in any event, although we are not consciously aware of it, our standards for attraction are actually quite fluid and do shift given certain circumstances.  this statement you have made just seems terribly naive and shortsighted, i will take you at your word that it is what you feel, but does your feeling here match up to any kind of reality ?  #  it bothers me that many asian women have to go through the same thing, yet it is so accepted in our society to have an overt preference.   #  i would like to address the last paragraph of your comment.  thank you for pointing out the fluidity of attraction.  i believe i hold this view because my own relationships have been affected by race.  some past boyfriends of mine have had fetishes for asian girls and were open about it, which made me feel insecure that i would never live up to that standard.  this was just a feeling until later on when i learned that i had been cheated on several times, with asian women.  i think that over time, i built up this personal bias.  i really do not want to have this bias, because i have several very good friends who are asian women.  talking with them, they agree that sometimes they feel objectified by people who think they are happy and demure and submissive.  i have also been the target of things like these.  it bothers me that i do not strongly identify with any race i am mixed black/white , yet guys always say  you are pretty for a black girl , or  i have a thing for black girls .  it makes me feel like i have to fulfilli their personal fantasy and meet the expectations of what it means to be black.  it bothers me that many asian women have to go through the same thing, yet it is so accepted in our society to have an overt preference.   #  but really, it is not something they can control.   #  let is apply some logic.  are you attracted sexually to absolutely every single thing that exists ? if so, you are truly omnisexual.  if not, then we have established that there exists within you some criteria for what does and does not sexually excite you.  i would argue that 0 of people have some sort of criteria possibly a low estimate , even if that criteria seems odd or alien to us there is a woman who wants to have sex with/get married to the brooklyn bridge, if memory serves.  so, given that absolutely everyone has some arbitrary limit on what is and is not sexually attractive to them, we then have to ask why ? and this is a ridiculously simple question only 0 letters and a punctuation with a ridiculously complex answer we have been studying human sexuality for years and there is no one blanket answer for what determines attraction ; but one thing seems to be clear: nobody is really in control of what gives them boners or ladyboners , even in a perfect world where boners or ladyboners did not sometimes just happen for no reason and/or not happen even when you are looking at naked sexy people.  that all said: why should their preference for certain traits make you   are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   it is probably a combination of both.  this is why finding a mate is complicated: not only are you looking for someone who is the sort of person you want to spend all of your time with, they also have to make your boner or ladyboner happen, otherwise there is no reason to actually date them, unless you are both asexual.  i know plenty of people who have a racial preference and you are not the only one who frets over whether or not it is racist: they do too.  but really, it is not something they can control.  at best, they are going to end up dating people who might not be a certain race, but who exhibit traits that are typical to that racial gene pool.   #  i also happen to prefer music that comes from my culture more than music that feels alien to that music such as indian music .   # it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  now you are rather dishonestly trying to segue one argument into another.  whether or not a certain area of the porn industry objectifies women does not have any bearing on whether or not someone is  justified  in having an attraction towards a certain race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   why ca not it be all of those things ? the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  here is what i think might change it: i am willing to bet that  you  have a racial preference.  we all do.  the norm is to have a racial preference for people of our own race, or people who appear physically similar to our own race.  sexual attraction is innate, but it has also been shaped by our culture, so the aspects of physical appearance that attract me are ones that have come from the society i grew up in.  i also happen to prefer music that comes from my culture more than music that feels alien to that music such as indian music .  however, due to things like the internet, we experience a lot of different cultures as we grow up, and so we can end up with preferences that come from places geographically distant from us.  this does not need to be called a  fetish .  there is nothing obscure about this.
i have noticed that there are a lot of guys specifically people who are not asian who have  yellow fever .  or there are white girls with  jungle fever  who will only date black men.  they try to justify that this is a  preference , but this makes me uncomfortable.  the thing i am talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction.  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  when that same person dates a person of their preferred race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   when the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of  true, innate attractiveness .  i hope my opinion is making sense.  the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  thank you so much for anyone who chooses to answer this.  i am willing to expand on this view if need be.  it was recommended that i edit this post.  i am trying to focus on the objectification/sexualization part of all of this.  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.  i am talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations asian women expected to be submissive, latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be  animalistic   #  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .   #  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.   # it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.  i am talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations asian women expected to be submissive, latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be  animalistic  indeed, if  racial fetish  means having strong stereotypes about a particular race, being attracted to that race due to these stereotypes and seeing men or women of that race as nothing more than sex objects, it is disturbing.  however, how many people do you know who have racial fetish by this definition ? because obviously the only way you can know if a person has racial fetish or not is if you are either telepathic and read their mind or if they tell you such deeply personal and disturbing things about themselves.  if the latter is the case with many of your friends, then you either inspire great trust in people or have very weird friends.  on the other hand, if you see a person watch, say, asian porn or you know that a particular person dates an asian boy/girlfriend and then you immediately assume that it is only because of stereotypes they have about asians, that they  objectify  asian women or men , and even if it is a real life boy/girlfriend, there can be no true feelings, etc. , etc. , then it does not mean that person has an asian fetish.  it just means that you just made up a lot of things about them for no reason and now you are disturbed by your own imagination.   #  there is no one standard for any one person.   #  do you have no problem with other types of preferences ? like, to name a few, height preferences for both men and women , breast size preferences, or really any other preference for something that is pretty much exclusively not in control of a person how about intelligence, since you mentioned that explicitly as a good criteria, even though  actual intelligence  is largely genetic and largely early environmental, and really does not change much after those early environmental influences are past ? because if you do not find that disturbing, i am not sure why you find racial preferences disturbing, or resent people for them.  it is literally the exact same thing.  if you do find that disturbing and/or resent those people too read: everyone, including yourself, because  those people  happens to be every human being ever , then i do not think your main view can really be changed; we are a pretty shallow species in this respect, and we generally do not like to acknowledge this fact plus, acknowledging it would not change anything.  after all a requirement of a sexual partner is that they be someone you want to have sex with, right ? .  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   presumably, this is not their only criteria for dating someone ? it is just one of many criteria, and they would not be dating the person if that person did not  iscore  high enough on all criteria when considered together.  if you are saying that race is the  only  meaningful standard for these people, because it trumps everything else entirely, then you just probably should not associate with these people, as any remotely reasonable person, even a person with an insanely strong racial preference, has other standards too.  there is no one standard for any one person.  even if there were, no one will ever find a partner that 0 meets that standard assuming anything like  ideal possible partner  standards that people actually hold .  and in any event, although we are not consciously aware of it, our standards for attraction are actually quite fluid and do shift given certain circumstances.  this statement you have made just seems terribly naive and shortsighted, i will take you at your word that it is what you feel, but does your feeling here match up to any kind of reality ?  #  i believe i hold this view because my own relationships have been affected by race.   #  i would like to address the last paragraph of your comment.  thank you for pointing out the fluidity of attraction.  i believe i hold this view because my own relationships have been affected by race.  some past boyfriends of mine have had fetishes for asian girls and were open about it, which made me feel insecure that i would never live up to that standard.  this was just a feeling until later on when i learned that i had been cheated on several times, with asian women.  i think that over time, i built up this personal bias.  i really do not want to have this bias, because i have several very good friends who are asian women.  talking with them, they agree that sometimes they feel objectified by people who think they are happy and demure and submissive.  i have also been the target of things like these.  it bothers me that i do not strongly identify with any race i am mixed black/white , yet guys always say  you are pretty for a black girl , or  i have a thing for black girls .  it makes me feel like i have to fulfilli their personal fantasy and meet the expectations of what it means to be black.  it bothers me that many asian women have to go through the same thing, yet it is so accepted in our society to have an overt preference.   #  are you attracted sexually to absolutely every single thing that exists ?  #  let is apply some logic.  are you attracted sexually to absolutely every single thing that exists ? if so, you are truly omnisexual.  if not, then we have established that there exists within you some criteria for what does and does not sexually excite you.  i would argue that 0 of people have some sort of criteria possibly a low estimate , even if that criteria seems odd or alien to us there is a woman who wants to have sex with/get married to the brooklyn bridge, if memory serves.  so, given that absolutely everyone has some arbitrary limit on what is and is not sexually attractive to them, we then have to ask why ? and this is a ridiculously simple question only 0 letters and a punctuation with a ridiculously complex answer we have been studying human sexuality for years and there is no one blanket answer for what determines attraction ; but one thing seems to be clear: nobody is really in control of what gives them boners or ladyboners , even in a perfect world where boners or ladyboners did not sometimes just happen for no reason and/or not happen even when you are looking at naked sexy people.  that all said: why should their preference for certain traits make you   are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   it is probably a combination of both.  this is why finding a mate is complicated: not only are you looking for someone who is the sort of person you want to spend all of your time with, they also have to make your boner or ladyboner happen, otherwise there is no reason to actually date them, unless you are both asexual.  i know plenty of people who have a racial preference and you are not the only one who frets over whether or not it is racist: they do too.  but really, it is not something they can control.  at best, they are going to end up dating people who might not be a certain race, but who exhibit traits that are typical to that racial gene pool.   #  however, due to things like the internet, we experience a lot of different cultures as we grow up, and so we can end up with preferences that come from places geographically distant from us.   # it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  now you are rather dishonestly trying to segue one argument into another.  whether or not a certain area of the porn industry objectifies women does not have any bearing on whether or not someone is  justified  in having an attraction towards a certain race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   why ca not it be all of those things ? the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  here is what i think might change it: i am willing to bet that  you  have a racial preference.  we all do.  the norm is to have a racial preference for people of our own race, or people who appear physically similar to our own race.  sexual attraction is innate, but it has also been shaped by our culture, so the aspects of physical appearance that attract me are ones that have come from the society i grew up in.  i also happen to prefer music that comes from my culture more than music that feels alien to that music such as indian music .  however, due to things like the internet, we experience a lot of different cultures as we grow up, and so we can end up with preferences that come from places geographically distant from us.  this does not need to be called a  fetish .  there is nothing obscure about this.
i have noticed that there are a lot of guys specifically people who are not asian who have  yellow fever .  or there are white girls with  jungle fever  who will only date black men.  they try to justify that this is a  preference , but this makes me uncomfortable.  the thing i am talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction.  it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  when that same person dates a person of their preferred race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   when the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of  true, innate attractiveness .  i hope my opinion is making sense.  the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  thank you so much for anyone who chooses to answer this.  i am willing to expand on this view if need be.  it was recommended that i edit this post.  i am trying to focus on the objectification/sexualization part of all of this.  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.  i am talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations asian women expected to be submissive, latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be  animalistic   #  i am trying to focus on the objectification/sexualization part of all of this.   #  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.   # it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  i have no problem with dating in or outside of race.  i am talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations asian women expected to be submissive, latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be  animalistic  indeed, if  racial fetish  means having strong stereotypes about a particular race, being attracted to that race due to these stereotypes and seeing men or women of that race as nothing more than sex objects, it is disturbing.  however, how many people do you know who have racial fetish by this definition ? because obviously the only way you can know if a person has racial fetish or not is if you are either telepathic and read their mind or if they tell you such deeply personal and disturbing things about themselves.  if the latter is the case with many of your friends, then you either inspire great trust in people or have very weird friends.  on the other hand, if you see a person watch, say, asian porn or you know that a particular person dates an asian boy/girlfriend and then you immediately assume that it is only because of stereotypes they have about asians, that they  objectify  asian women or men , and even if it is a real life boy/girlfriend, there can be no true feelings, etc. , etc. , then it does not mean that person has an asian fetish.  it just means that you just made up a lot of things about them for no reason and now you are disturbed by your own imagination.   #  there is no one standard for any one person.   #  do you have no problem with other types of preferences ? like, to name a few, height preferences for both men and women , breast size preferences, or really any other preference for something that is pretty much exclusively not in control of a person how about intelligence, since you mentioned that explicitly as a good criteria, even though  actual intelligence  is largely genetic and largely early environmental, and really does not change much after those early environmental influences are past ? because if you do not find that disturbing, i am not sure why you find racial preferences disturbing, or resent people for them.  it is literally the exact same thing.  if you do find that disturbing and/or resent those people too read: everyone, including yourself, because  those people  happens to be every human being ever , then i do not think your main view can really be changed; we are a pretty shallow species in this respect, and we generally do not like to acknowledge this fact plus, acknowledging it would not change anything.  after all a requirement of a sexual partner is that they be someone you want to have sex with, right ? .  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   presumably, this is not their only criteria for dating someone ? it is just one of many criteria, and they would not be dating the person if that person did not  iscore  high enough on all criteria when considered together.  if you are saying that race is the  only  meaningful standard for these people, because it trumps everything else entirely, then you just probably should not associate with these people, as any remotely reasonable person, even a person with an insanely strong racial preference, has other standards too.  there is no one standard for any one person.  even if there were, no one will ever find a partner that 0 meets that standard assuming anything like  ideal possible partner  standards that people actually hold .  and in any event, although we are not consciously aware of it, our standards for attraction are actually quite fluid and do shift given certain circumstances.  this statement you have made just seems terribly naive and shortsighted, i will take you at your word that it is what you feel, but does your feeling here match up to any kind of reality ?  #  thank you for pointing out the fluidity of attraction.   #  i would like to address the last paragraph of your comment.  thank you for pointing out the fluidity of attraction.  i believe i hold this view because my own relationships have been affected by race.  some past boyfriends of mine have had fetishes for asian girls and were open about it, which made me feel insecure that i would never live up to that standard.  this was just a feeling until later on when i learned that i had been cheated on several times, with asian women.  i think that over time, i built up this personal bias.  i really do not want to have this bias, because i have several very good friends who are asian women.  talking with them, they agree that sometimes they feel objectified by people who think they are happy and demure and submissive.  i have also been the target of things like these.  it bothers me that i do not strongly identify with any race i am mixed black/white , yet guys always say  you are pretty for a black girl , or  i have a thing for black girls .  it makes me feel like i have to fulfilli their personal fantasy and meet the expectations of what it means to be black.  it bothers me that many asian women have to go through the same thing, yet it is so accepted in our society to have an overt preference.   #  so, given that absolutely everyone has some arbitrary limit on what is and is not sexually attractive to them, we then have to ask why ?  #  let is apply some logic.  are you attracted sexually to absolutely every single thing that exists ? if so, you are truly omnisexual.  if not, then we have established that there exists within you some criteria for what does and does not sexually excite you.  i would argue that 0 of people have some sort of criteria possibly a low estimate , even if that criteria seems odd or alien to us there is a woman who wants to have sex with/get married to the brooklyn bridge, if memory serves.  so, given that absolutely everyone has some arbitrary limit on what is and is not sexually attractive to them, we then have to ask why ? and this is a ridiculously simple question only 0 letters and a punctuation with a ridiculously complex answer we have been studying human sexuality for years and there is no one blanket answer for what determines attraction ; but one thing seems to be clear: nobody is really in control of what gives them boners or ladyboners , even in a perfect world where boners or ladyboners did not sometimes just happen for no reason and/or not happen even when you are looking at naked sexy people.  that all said: why should their preference for certain traits make you   are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   it is probably a combination of both.  this is why finding a mate is complicated: not only are you looking for someone who is the sort of person you want to spend all of your time with, they also have to make your boner or ladyboner happen, otherwise there is no reason to actually date them, unless you are both asexual.  i know plenty of people who have a racial preference and you are not the only one who frets over whether or not it is racist: they do too.  but really, it is not something they can control.  at best, they are going to end up dating people who might not be a certain race, but who exhibit traits that are typical to that racial gene pool.   #  i also happen to prefer music that comes from my culture more than music that feels alien to that music such as indian music .   # it is about the people who watch specifically  asian porn  where asian females are depicted as weak and submissive .  it seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.  now you are rather dishonestly trying to segue one argument into another.  whether or not a certain area of the porn industry objectifies women does not have any bearing on whether or not someone is  justified  in having an attraction towards a certain race.  it makes me question  are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent ? or because they are asian ?   why ca not it be all of those things ? the reason i want to change it is because i have come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.  here is what i think might change it: i am willing to bet that  you  have a racial preference.  we all do.  the norm is to have a racial preference for people of our own race, or people who appear physically similar to our own race.  sexual attraction is innate, but it has also been shaped by our culture, so the aspects of physical appearance that attract me are ones that have come from the society i grew up in.  i also happen to prefer music that comes from my culture more than music that feels alien to that music such as indian music .  however, due to things like the internet, we experience a lot of different cultures as we grow up, and so we can end up with preferences that come from places geographically distant from us.  this does not need to be called a  fetish .  there is nothing obscure about this.
the more postmodern or liberal philosophy on people is that we seem to be genuinely good or pure beings that eventually become corrupted by society.  i disagree.  i think people at their core are pretty bad and things like love, compassion, and generosity are things that society has to instill in us.  people always talk about how pure children are.  what are the things you constantly have to hammer into children ? share.  do not hit people.  play nice.  these are things that children need to be taught because when left to their own, they do not share, play nice, and they often hit each other.  i am not a religious person, but if there is something that christianity got right it is that people are naturally sinful.  we are prideful, selfish beings, just like animals.  the thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to try and curb our violent, selfish nature.  it is not the lack of the violent, selfish nature that we share with animals.  i guess the way i would need you to change my view would be to convince me that what we consider to be evil is taught or comes about because of upbringing, and that what we consider to be good behavior is inherent in humans, not instilled by society.   #  i am not a religious person, but if there is something that christianity got right it is that people are naturally sinful.   #  not all christians hold to that idea.   # not all christians hold to that idea.  i believe the original idea in the christian scriptures which i not only agree with, but find to be resoundingly evident, as i think you will agree is not that people have an inherent  sinful nature  as the niv, nlt and some calvinist inspired translations of the bible put it but rather that people have the  flesh.   that is, our actions are heavily influenced by the meat that we are made of.  or to put it much more simply, we do not have an  evil  nature, we have an  animal  nature.  when an animal does something selfish or indulgent, we do not call it evil do we ? no, it is just an animal.  it seeks its comfort and security, it might hurt or kill to get it, as animals do.  it is the same with humans.  when we especially as children do something bad, it is not because we love  evil , it is just because being animals, we have drives that are violent, hurtful, deceptive, greedy .  this is to be expected of animals.  and according to christian scriptures, we have a part, the  flesh  that behaves as you would expect an animal to do.   #  being good is just as much a part of us as being  evil .   #  i can only argue half of your premise.  i believe the  evil  is there, though i would not call it that.  i believe the good is there too.  what i would call these things are the self serving impulse and the social impulse.  how much time have you spent around little kids ? yes, you have to tell them not to hit each other.  sometimes you have to tell them to share.  but sometimes they will spontaneously hug it out, too.  or hug for no reason at all.  or just give another little kid something as an invitation to play together.  assuming you have not seen that and wo not take my word for it: how do you think society developed a  good  message to teach to kids if it was not inborn in most of us ? when everyone was born self serving, how did anyone grow up to be  good  and start teaching their kids to grow up to be good too ? i think the answer is pretty clear.  being good is just as much a part of us as being  evil .  being self serving or socially bonded and mutually helpful, are both instincts we have as a race.  they are survival traits.   #  society is not the corrupter of people, it is what keeps us in line.   #  we realized it was in all of our best interests not to steal, kill, etc.  we learned this through our mistakes.  racism was extremely commonplace in almost everyone until very recently in human history.  racism is now  evil .  we have deemed it evil as a society because we have learned it is harmful.   good  is taught to children from society that is constantly evolving to understand what behaviors are beneficial to all.  we teach good behavior because that makes society function best.  society is not the corrupter of people, it is what keeps us in line.   #  you would need new vocabulary to describe each level of  evil .   #  the problem is in your definition of evil.  it seems as if you are defining evil as  can be traced back to some obscure selfish motivation .  for instance if someone saved a worm from drowning in a puddle, you might say that the person was just acting to produce a feeling in themselves of self importance.  the person is acting selfishly ultimately, and therefore is fundamentally evil.  the problem is that you are alone in defining evil this way.  good and evil are human concepts after all, and we have chosen to define evil in a way that denotes a direct and intentional desire to harm without proper justification.  exactly what that justification is, i would rather not get into ending slavery may be evil by your definition, but not by most of the rest of the world is.  for the sake of argument however, let is assume that your definition is correct.  we still need to differentiate between saving a worm from a puddle, and killing your slave because he tried to run away.  one is clearly different from the other.  you could not call everything evil.  the word would lose its meaning fast.  you would need new vocabulary to describe each level of  evil .  can you see what would happen ? you would end up right back where we are now, just with new vocabulary.   #  i think people act on their instincts a great deal more than they act on trained methods of thinking.   #  i do not buy it.  i think people act on their instincts a great deal more than they act on trained methods of thinking.  you know what went hand in hand with the decline or racism ? ease of global travel.  people of different kinds intermingling more often and more easily.  this made it easier to overcome another human instinct: xenophobia.  i am not saying you are entirely wrong, either.  i do think that society develops and grows better ideas, and morality is an ever improving aspect of society, just like scientific progress.  but i think you are mistaken to think humans lack  good  in their basic nature.   good  and the social instinct are the same thing.  if human beings did not have a social instinct, a human society would never have developed to progress at all, scientifically or morally.
the more postmodern or liberal philosophy on people is that we seem to be genuinely good or pure beings that eventually become corrupted by society.  i disagree.  i think people at their core are pretty bad and things like love, compassion, and generosity are things that society has to instill in us.  people always talk about how pure children are.  what are the things you constantly have to hammer into children ? share.  do not hit people.  play nice.  these are things that children need to be taught because when left to their own, they do not share, play nice, and they often hit each other.  i am not a religious person, but if there is something that christianity got right it is that people are naturally sinful.  we are prideful, selfish beings, just like animals.  the thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to try and curb our violent, selfish nature.  it is not the lack of the violent, selfish nature that we share with animals.  i guess the way i would need you to change my view would be to convince me that what we consider to be evil is taught or comes about because of upbringing, and that what we consider to be good behavior is inherent in humans, not instilled by society.   #  people always talk about how pure children are.   #  what are the things you constantly have to hammer into children ?  #  for first i exscuse myself for my low english, i am not a native speaker, but i want to try to answer you and help you to chage this idea.  i will understand if you do not want to read this comment if it is too hard for you : as i know, postmodern doese not believe in a thing that humane nature, but is just a part of your comment; for talk about the main part is necessary know a bit of historical factors: humane nature is not demonstrated in scientific view, but we have to clarify first what human nature is intended:  humane nature, which can be positive or negative, is a theory where people have a natural tendency who modify their action .  this idea come from the studies of cesare lombroso.  he believed that human physics factor determine action; so a particular nose can demonstrate that someone is a natural killer or thief.  for this studies in italy were killed many people only for particular physics factors.  luckily lombroso was wrong and his studies where rejected as pseudo scientifics.  from these ideas was born racism, in particular the idea that jew physical factor determine a negative nature.  from these things, and the two world wars who change many cultural factors, was spread the idea that all people are naturally evil.  what are the things you constantly have to hammer into children ? share.  do not hit people.  play nice.  these are things that children need to be taught because when left to their own, they do not share, play nice, and they often hit each other.  as i think that human nature doese not exist at all, i believe that when human born he is void apart from little factor who determine is natural survive instic, which can be easily suppressed and every thing that happen will change him, forming his way of think, that i easy call behavior wishing that is the corret word for it .  for this, you will have bad people if you act bad vs them.  so you have good people if you act good vs them.  this generally, because at some point people stop forming if i remember it was at age of 0 and have their particular behavior.  we are prideful, selfish beings, just like animals.  the thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to try and curb our violent, selfish nature.  it is not the lack of the violent, selfish nature that we share with animals.  i do not believe in god, i think bible is just fiction, so i think will be really stupid to try to answer on this.  i am not trying to change your view on god, because you asked for other.  as i said, i think your are wrong when you expect that human nature is positive, because such a thing doese not exist at all.  it will be really nice if you try to explain why you think human nature exist.   #  what i would call these things are the self serving impulse and the social impulse.   #  i can only argue half of your premise.  i believe the  evil  is there, though i would not call it that.  i believe the good is there too.  what i would call these things are the self serving impulse and the social impulse.  how much time have you spent around little kids ? yes, you have to tell them not to hit each other.  sometimes you have to tell them to share.  but sometimes they will spontaneously hug it out, too.  or hug for no reason at all.  or just give another little kid something as an invitation to play together.  assuming you have not seen that and wo not take my word for it: how do you think society developed a  good  message to teach to kids if it was not inborn in most of us ? when everyone was born self serving, how did anyone grow up to be  good  and start teaching their kids to grow up to be good too ? i think the answer is pretty clear.  being good is just as much a part of us as being  evil .  being self serving or socially bonded and mutually helpful, are both instincts we have as a race.  they are survival traits.   #  we realized it was in all of our best interests not to steal, kill, etc.   #  we realized it was in all of our best interests not to steal, kill, etc.  we learned this through our mistakes.  racism was extremely commonplace in almost everyone until very recently in human history.  racism is now  evil .  we have deemed it evil as a society because we have learned it is harmful.   good  is taught to children from society that is constantly evolving to understand what behaviors are beneficial to all.  we teach good behavior because that makes society function best.  society is not the corrupter of people, it is what keeps us in line.   #  we still need to differentiate between saving a worm from a puddle, and killing your slave because he tried to run away.   #  the problem is in your definition of evil.  it seems as if you are defining evil as  can be traced back to some obscure selfish motivation .  for instance if someone saved a worm from drowning in a puddle, you might say that the person was just acting to produce a feeling in themselves of self importance.  the person is acting selfishly ultimately, and therefore is fundamentally evil.  the problem is that you are alone in defining evil this way.  good and evil are human concepts after all, and we have chosen to define evil in a way that denotes a direct and intentional desire to harm without proper justification.  exactly what that justification is, i would rather not get into ending slavery may be evil by your definition, but not by most of the rest of the world is.  for the sake of argument however, let is assume that your definition is correct.  we still need to differentiate between saving a worm from a puddle, and killing your slave because he tried to run away.  one is clearly different from the other.  you could not call everything evil.  the word would lose its meaning fast.  you would need new vocabulary to describe each level of  evil .  can you see what would happen ? you would end up right back where we are now, just with new vocabulary.   #  you know what went hand in hand with the decline or racism ?  #  i do not buy it.  i think people act on their instincts a great deal more than they act on trained methods of thinking.  you know what went hand in hand with the decline or racism ? ease of global travel.  people of different kinds intermingling more often and more easily.  this made it easier to overcome another human instinct: xenophobia.  i am not saying you are entirely wrong, either.  i do think that society develops and grows better ideas, and morality is an ever improving aspect of society, just like scientific progress.  but i think you are mistaken to think humans lack  good  in their basic nature.   good  and the social instinct are the same thing.  if human beings did not have a social instinct, a human society would never have developed to progress at all, scientifically or morally.
the more postmodern or liberal philosophy on people is that we seem to be genuinely good or pure beings that eventually become corrupted by society.  i disagree.  i think people at their core are pretty bad and things like love, compassion, and generosity are things that society has to instill in us.  people always talk about how pure children are.  what are the things you constantly have to hammer into children ? share.  do not hit people.  play nice.  these are things that children need to be taught because when left to their own, they do not share, play nice, and they often hit each other.  i am not a religious person, but if there is something that christianity got right it is that people are naturally sinful.  we are prideful, selfish beings, just like animals.  the thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to try and curb our violent, selfish nature.  it is not the lack of the violent, selfish nature that we share with animals.  i guess the way i would need you to change my view would be to convince me that what we consider to be evil is taught or comes about because of upbringing, and that what we consider to be good behavior is inherent in humans, not instilled by society.   #  i am not a religious person, but if there is something that christianity got right it is that people are naturally sinful.   #  we are prideful, selfish beings, just like animals.   #  for first i exscuse myself for my low english, i am not a native speaker, but i want to try to answer you and help you to chage this idea.  i will understand if you do not want to read this comment if it is too hard for you : as i know, postmodern doese not believe in a thing that humane nature, but is just a part of your comment; for talk about the main part is necessary know a bit of historical factors: humane nature is not demonstrated in scientific view, but we have to clarify first what human nature is intended:  humane nature, which can be positive or negative, is a theory where people have a natural tendency who modify their action .  this idea come from the studies of cesare lombroso.  he believed that human physics factor determine action; so a particular nose can demonstrate that someone is a natural killer or thief.  for this studies in italy were killed many people only for particular physics factors.  luckily lombroso was wrong and his studies where rejected as pseudo scientifics.  from these ideas was born racism, in particular the idea that jew physical factor determine a negative nature.  from these things, and the two world wars who change many cultural factors, was spread the idea that all people are naturally evil.  what are the things you constantly have to hammer into children ? share.  do not hit people.  play nice.  these are things that children need to be taught because when left to their own, they do not share, play nice, and they often hit each other.  as i think that human nature doese not exist at all, i believe that when human born he is void apart from little factor who determine is natural survive instic, which can be easily suppressed and every thing that happen will change him, forming his way of think, that i easy call behavior wishing that is the corret word for it .  for this, you will have bad people if you act bad vs them.  so you have good people if you act good vs them.  this generally, because at some point people stop forming if i remember it was at age of 0 and have their particular behavior.  we are prideful, selfish beings, just like animals.  the thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to try and curb our violent, selfish nature.  it is not the lack of the violent, selfish nature that we share with animals.  i do not believe in god, i think bible is just fiction, so i think will be really stupid to try to answer on this.  i am not trying to change your view on god, because you asked for other.  as i said, i think your are wrong when you expect that human nature is positive, because such a thing doese not exist at all.  it will be really nice if you try to explain why you think human nature exist.   #  sometimes you have to tell them to share.   #  i can only argue half of your premise.  i believe the  evil  is there, though i would not call it that.  i believe the good is there too.  what i would call these things are the self serving impulse and the social impulse.  how much time have you spent around little kids ? yes, you have to tell them not to hit each other.  sometimes you have to tell them to share.  but sometimes they will spontaneously hug it out, too.  or hug for no reason at all.  or just give another little kid something as an invitation to play together.  assuming you have not seen that and wo not take my word for it: how do you think society developed a  good  message to teach to kids if it was not inborn in most of us ? when everyone was born self serving, how did anyone grow up to be  good  and start teaching their kids to grow up to be good too ? i think the answer is pretty clear.  being good is just as much a part of us as being  evil .  being self serving or socially bonded and mutually helpful, are both instincts we have as a race.  they are survival traits.   #  we realized it was in all of our best interests not to steal, kill, etc.   #  we realized it was in all of our best interests not to steal, kill, etc.  we learned this through our mistakes.  racism was extremely commonplace in almost everyone until very recently in human history.  racism is now  evil .  we have deemed it evil as a society because we have learned it is harmful.   good  is taught to children from society that is constantly evolving to understand what behaviors are beneficial to all.  we teach good behavior because that makes society function best.  society is not the corrupter of people, it is what keeps us in line.   #  the person is acting selfishly ultimately, and therefore is fundamentally evil.   #  the problem is in your definition of evil.  it seems as if you are defining evil as  can be traced back to some obscure selfish motivation .  for instance if someone saved a worm from drowning in a puddle, you might say that the person was just acting to produce a feeling in themselves of self importance.  the person is acting selfishly ultimately, and therefore is fundamentally evil.  the problem is that you are alone in defining evil this way.  good and evil are human concepts after all, and we have chosen to define evil in a way that denotes a direct and intentional desire to harm without proper justification.  exactly what that justification is, i would rather not get into ending slavery may be evil by your definition, but not by most of the rest of the world is.  for the sake of argument however, let is assume that your definition is correct.  we still need to differentiate between saving a worm from a puddle, and killing your slave because he tried to run away.  one is clearly different from the other.  you could not call everything evil.  the word would lose its meaning fast.  you would need new vocabulary to describe each level of  evil .  can you see what would happen ? you would end up right back where we are now, just with new vocabulary.   #  i think people act on their instincts a great deal more than they act on trained methods of thinking.   #  i do not buy it.  i think people act on their instincts a great deal more than they act on trained methods of thinking.  you know what went hand in hand with the decline or racism ? ease of global travel.  people of different kinds intermingling more often and more easily.  this made it easier to overcome another human instinct: xenophobia.  i am not saying you are entirely wrong, either.  i do think that society develops and grows better ideas, and morality is an ever improving aspect of society, just like scientific progress.  but i think you are mistaken to think humans lack  good  in their basic nature.   good  and the social instinct are the same thing.  if human beings did not have a social instinct, a human society would never have developed to progress at all, scientifically or morally.
the more postmodern or liberal philosophy on people is that we seem to be genuinely good or pure beings that eventually become corrupted by society.  i disagree.  i think people at their core are pretty bad and things like love, compassion, and generosity are things that society has to instill in us.  people always talk about how pure children are.  what are the things you constantly have to hammer into children ? share.  do not hit people.  play nice.  these are things that children need to be taught because when left to their own, they do not share, play nice, and they often hit each other.  i am not a religious person, but if there is something that christianity got right it is that people are naturally sinful.  we are prideful, selfish beings, just like animals.  the thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to try and curb our violent, selfish nature.  it is not the lack of the violent, selfish nature that we share with animals.  i guess the way i would need you to change my view would be to convince me that what we consider to be evil is taught or comes about because of upbringing, and that what we consider to be good behavior is inherent in humans, not instilled by society.   #  people always talk about how pure children are.   #  what are the things you constantly have to hammer into children ?  # what are the things you constantly have to hammer into children ? share.  do not hit people.  play nice.  these are things that children need to be taught because when left to their own, they do not share, play nice, and they often hit each other.  father of a third culture child here.  a lot of the stuff we teach children is very social, and is not generally applicable in other cultures.  i am raising my daughter in cambodia with a canadian parenting paradigm, and it is vastly different to how the cambodian kids around my daughter are being raised.  and yet, do cambodians learn to share, love, and not hit ? you bet ya ! children do not really understand sharing until they are 0 or 0 years old.  you can make them, but they do not develop the social understanding to make sense of why it is good before then.  that is why you need to teach kids to share, it is not because they wo not ever share, but because they develop that instinct and understanding later.  also, the flip side of kids is look at parents.  a lot of parents basically put their dreams and the things that make them really happy on hold for years, so that they can try and raise a well to do young person.  and we do not do that because we have been trained to, we do it because it is instinctive and our bodies need to give love and support to these little packages of joy.   #  or just give another little kid something as an invitation to play together.   #  i can only argue half of your premise.  i believe the  evil  is there, though i would not call it that.  i believe the good is there too.  what i would call these things are the self serving impulse and the social impulse.  how much time have you spent around little kids ? yes, you have to tell them not to hit each other.  sometimes you have to tell them to share.  but sometimes they will spontaneously hug it out, too.  or hug for no reason at all.  or just give another little kid something as an invitation to play together.  assuming you have not seen that and wo not take my word for it: how do you think society developed a  good  message to teach to kids if it was not inborn in most of us ? when everyone was born self serving, how did anyone grow up to be  good  and start teaching their kids to grow up to be good too ? i think the answer is pretty clear.  being good is just as much a part of us as being  evil .  being self serving or socially bonded and mutually helpful, are both instincts we have as a race.  they are survival traits.   #  racism was extremely commonplace in almost everyone until very recently in human history.   #  we realized it was in all of our best interests not to steal, kill, etc.  we learned this through our mistakes.  racism was extremely commonplace in almost everyone until very recently in human history.  racism is now  evil .  we have deemed it evil as a society because we have learned it is harmful.   good  is taught to children from society that is constantly evolving to understand what behaviors are beneficial to all.  we teach good behavior because that makes society function best.  society is not the corrupter of people, it is what keeps us in line.   #  for the sake of argument however, let is assume that your definition is correct.   #  the problem is in your definition of evil.  it seems as if you are defining evil as  can be traced back to some obscure selfish motivation .  for instance if someone saved a worm from drowning in a puddle, you might say that the person was just acting to produce a feeling in themselves of self importance.  the person is acting selfishly ultimately, and therefore is fundamentally evil.  the problem is that you are alone in defining evil this way.  good and evil are human concepts after all, and we have chosen to define evil in a way that denotes a direct and intentional desire to harm without proper justification.  exactly what that justification is, i would rather not get into ending slavery may be evil by your definition, but not by most of the rest of the world is.  for the sake of argument however, let is assume that your definition is correct.  we still need to differentiate between saving a worm from a puddle, and killing your slave because he tried to run away.  one is clearly different from the other.  you could not call everything evil.  the word would lose its meaning fast.  you would need new vocabulary to describe each level of  evil .  can you see what would happen ? you would end up right back where we are now, just with new vocabulary.   #  you know what went hand in hand with the decline or racism ?  #  i do not buy it.  i think people act on their instincts a great deal more than they act on trained methods of thinking.  you know what went hand in hand with the decline or racism ? ease of global travel.  people of different kinds intermingling more often and more easily.  this made it easier to overcome another human instinct: xenophobia.  i am not saying you are entirely wrong, either.  i do think that society develops and grows better ideas, and morality is an ever improving aspect of society, just like scientific progress.  but i think you are mistaken to think humans lack  good  in their basic nature.   good  and the social instinct are the same thing.  if human beings did not have a social instinct, a human society would never have developed to progress at all, scientifically or morally.
a bit of background, first: i am a university student, majoring in mathematics.  i was raised to be interested in science and knowledge, and for the most part, you could say that i am fairly sympathetic to the science loving, skeptical, freethinking reddit/internet culture.  however, one thing that i have never gotten into is the pop science obsession with space.  i roll my eyes when i see pretty photos of space posted on facebook, usually from a group like  i fucking love science , often superimposed with an inspirational quote of some kind.  here is a well known parody of the kind of thing i am talking about.  URL i have also never really put much effort into following news regarding the iss or the curiosity rover.  as i said, i am majoring mathematics and i am interested in science.  but when i think of the kinds of things i am interested in, outer space does not really come to mind.  before posting this, i did some research on google to try to figure out why space is interesting i. e.  i looked up the phrase  why is space interesting .  most of the answers seemed to revolve around two ideas: 0 space is big.  0 space has, like, neat things, that are made of stuff ! as for 0 , earth has plenty of neat things that are made of stuff things that i can directly improve my life by learning about.  as for 0 idunno.  space is sort of big, i guess.  there are plenty of famous visualizations of how big space is, like the film  powers of 0  and the scale of the universe URL flash thingy.  but i have never found learning about space to be the humbling, awe inspiring experience people describe it to be.  people make a big deal about the  big  numbers involved when talking about astronomy the universe is 0 billion years old, our galaxy has over 0 billion stars, any line from that song from monty python is meaning of life URL etc .  i have never been very impressed with these numbers.  there are plenty of much, much bigger numbers that are more applicable to everyday life.  take, for example, the number possible tweets in the english language URL or the number of ways to shuffle a deck of 0 cards URL or even the number of steps a busy beaver turing machine with 0,0 states will run before halting URL people say we should be amazed at how small we are.  i do not agree.  if anything, i am amazed at how  big  we are.  in the scale of the universe thing i linked to above, on a scale of  planck length  to  size of the observable universe , on a logarithmic scale, humans are slightly closer to the size of the universe than to the planck length.  as richard feynman said, there is plenty of room at the bottom URL and i am much more interested in learning about the particles i am made of than in learning about a bunch of big lifeless spheres i will never get to visit.  the reason i would not mind having my view changed on this is that it seems like a lot of people are getting a lot of enjoyment from learning about space, including some of my friends and family, and i would hate to be missing out on the fun.  is there something i am missing ?  #  as for 0 , earth has plenty of neat things that are made of stuff things that i can directly improve my life by learning about.   #  this is a bizarre argument for a math major to make.   # this is a bizarre argument for a math major to make.  mathematics is often very abstract and theoretical, and there is a shitload of good math that has nothing to do with everyday life.  so, i fail to see how an argument against learning about space based on how one can directly improve one is life as a very persuasive argument.  i am also really failing to see the point that you are trying to make here.  yes, earth has plenty of neat things that are made of stuff, and nobody is committed to picking one source of origin of these neat things made of stuff to study.  i encourage you to study terrestrial based phenomena, because that is interesting.  that being said, just because you find earth based phenomena interesting does not mean that one ca not find space based phenomena interesting.  personally, i think that my life has been directly improved by studying space.  it gives me a broader knowledge of what exists in the universe, which personally inspires awe, because of the awesomeness of the physical processes going on in space.  the universe is an incredibly beautiful place in many ways that cannot be replicated on earth.  yes.  space allows for tests of different types of physics in regimes that cannot be created on earth.  for example, jupiter contains metallic hydrogen, which can only exist due to the very high pressure at jupiter is core.  the sun provides tests of nuclear physics in ways that can never be achieved on earth.  very massive objects allow us to further understood the basic structure of space and time.  the physics of what goes on in outer space is very interesting.   #  and when what you discover is this URL it ties right back into the beauty of it all.   #  hi ! i am majoring in computer science with a minor in mathematics.  it is very easy to dwarf the number of things  we know about  in space.  there are a couple key points i want to draw your attention to: 0.  beauty.  the way you worded point two is does a little injustice to that  stuff , i feel.  if you look at the beautiful things on this planet earth, most of the most beautiful things do not really serve you any purpose to learn about.  granted, you could look at the statistical version of  well i have a 0 more chance of applying that knowledge than space knowledge, cause i wo not go in space.   but keep in mind that 0 more of 0 is still 0.  i feel this needs to be stressed a little bit more, one of the things about space  is  how pretty it is, and that is a completely subjective thing.  maybe you find something like this URL more beautiful than this URL and that is completely fine.  it is subjective, and nobody can really change your mind.  but everybody i know who loves space cites its beauty.  not that it is a bunch of dots in the sky, but the colours, the brightness, the seeming lack of a pattern, it is beautiful to some people.  0.  the unknown.  the thing about space is we have yet to prove where it ends.  you say you know the number of ways you can shuffle a deck of 0 cards.  it is pretty intense.  but can you say you have found the end of the universe ? this is often a crux of space love.  i want you to imagine that everything out there is infinite.  the amount of conditions very so much, and we have yet to scratch the surface.  when we find something new, it satisfies a sense of curiosity to dig deep, and uncover the unknown.  and when what you discover is this URL it ties right back into the beauty of it all.  the beauty of seeing new things in the universe, the actual aesthetic quality of it all.  this is something astronomers love.  0.  the history.  this is kinda a minor note to me, but have you read the mythology behind people is understanding of outer space ? it is really incredible to me, and i encourage it.  thousands of years have passed since the times of old and our original theories about space.  that might just be a me thing, but i think there is a reason astronomers still name constellations after astrology.  0.  for science ! outer space is a haven of science.  i do not have to tell you that, there is hopes of interstellar travel, colonizing mars, sailing across the galaxy, scientific endeavours around the globe focus on that deep beyond.  those are some of my thoughts on the matter.  and in the end when i am looking from inside my tree trunk at night, that deep unknown beauty that extends farther than i could imagine fascinates me, and will continue to fascinate me until the day that i die.  but it is subjective.  if you do not like space, you do not like space.  hopefully i got you to think on the matter, and maybe we will see you looking through a telescope sometime soon.  sincerely,   an owl  #  you seem like me in terms of utilitarianism, the things you know have to have some type of purpose, and the fulfillment of that purpose is what makes things beautiful.   #  the common concept of life is  life is what you make it.   there is nothing i can do or say that will change your mind about what you find beautiful.  i like psychology and think it is  beautiful .  but i suppose i should clear up what i mean by beautiful in terms of the  aesthetic  beauty of space.  something i found interesting about what you said comes in the last paragraph.  the thing i find interesting about this is your perception of what is useful appears to only be relevant in comparison to where you are and what you are doing.  astronomers are interested in all these things, specifically ones that focus on planets.  you seem like me in terms of utilitarianism, the things you know have to have some type of purpose, and the fulfillment of that purpose is what makes things beautiful.  i ask you then, as an owl who desires near infinite knowledge, what is really preventing you from learning about space ? the feeling that that knowledge is somehow inconclusive to providing some means to an end ? but does not that violate the very idea of what it means to learn in the first place ? to understand and have a greater comprehension of everything surrounding us ? our world is ever expanding, and i have no doubt we will see our  world  expand outside our own atmosphere, and if you truly want that knowledge to serve a purpose, then think of the purpose being that space is an obtainable goal that humans strive to conquer, and we are not far from it.  and due to how close we are too it, the relevance of that knowledge becomes undoubtedly clear.  this is what i would say to someone utilitarian, like you, or me.   #  i saw someone who held the same exact view as you, and whatthe person in response to them said is that you are operating under the assumption that technology will always be limited to what we have now.   #  i saw someone who held the same exact view as you, and whatthe person in response to them said is that you are operating under the assumption that technology will always be limited to what we have now.  if you examine the trends we have been setting so far, specifically raymond kurzweil is graph this one right here URL what you notice is that human beings  ability to develop technology grows at an exponential rate.  we may very well find the key to traveling those interstellar distances necessary.  there is truth however, in the fact that currently, and for a while we wo not be able to travel those distances, because even at the speed of light, it would still take several hundred years to reach even some of the closer stuff.  but mars is ripe for the picking, even now.  0 minute radio transmissions from earth to mars is still incredible given the distance between them.   #  how can we detect and deflect and asteroid headed towards earth ?  #  well, a lot of people who are interested in space are also interested in science fiction.  while science fiction provides a lot of speculation about what may happen, it has actually predicted a lot of technology.  as far as space is concerned, scifi presents a lot of hypothetical technology.  can you travel faster than light ? how can you create artificial gravity ? can you make a space elevator ? could we mine asteroids ? how can we detect and deflect and asteroid headed towards earth ? these are all potentially useful to someone living on earth.  most of them if possible require a greater understanding of outer space.  additionally, many people love to think about space because they like to imagine what is out there.  are we alone ? is there intelligent life elsewhere ? look at drake is equation URL and the fermi paradox URL there should be life out there. so where is it ? when we look up at the stars, is there someone looking back at us from millions of light years away ? i mentioned asteroids earlier, but there are other ways outer space could screw us over as well.  read a bit about gamma ray bursts.  i have tried to give some reasons why learning about space is somewhat practical, but i am not sure you will ever really be interested if it has not grabbed your attention so far.
greetings reddit, as horrific and racist as my title sounds, i would like to start by saying that i am hardly a racist person by nature and do not discriminate in my dealings with anyone.  this is simply a belief that i have held for quite some time, based on my study of history and observation of present day situations.  unfortunately i ca not seem to bring this up without being called racist, so i am genuinely interested in hearing a sound argument that does not involve that logic.  i believe that slavery gave african descendants a better future in the americas particularly the usa than they would have otherwise had in africa.  africa was, and still is, a pretty awful place to live in.  between aids and other diseases, famine, civil unrest, inadequate healthcare, lack of electricity/water, and non existent educational systems, should not african americans be glad that they are in america now and not africa ? would today is african americans not certainly be in a worse state if they had been born in africa today ? i am well aware that the initial slaves brought over had to suffer horrific atrocities and it is a tragedy that they had to be subjected to such immense terror.  they clearly did not benefit.  but their children ? or their grandchildren ? the african americans of today, are not they better off because of slavery ? so that is about it, change my view.  but i would like to say thanks to /u/fibonacciapples for putting a different spin on things by pointing out that i should consider the entirety of time between slavery and today, not just the present state of african americans.   #  africa was, and still is, a pretty awful place to live in.   #  imagine if we americans had never interfered.   # i disagree.  i think they would have been better off without suffering through the midway passage, where 0 of them died.  and then suffering through slavery.  slavery lasted from the 0s to 0 in america.  and even after that, mlk gave his  i have a dream  speech in 0.  from the 0s to quite a bit past 0, i believe africans would be better off in africa.  today they may be better in america than they would be in africa.  but are those over 0 years of suffering worth these past 0 or so years of being better off ? i would say no.  imagine if we americans had never interfered.  they would be like they were before.  africa, pre colonialism, was a pretty good society.  in west africa there were many kingdoms in pre colonialism.  they had their own society.  there were advanced societies, centralized governments, educational systems, judicial systems.  and some parts of africa did not have centralized government, but that does not necessarily mean they were worse off.  who is to say we are better off than hunter gatherers ? google  what would africa be like without slavery/without colonization  and click around.  it is quite interesting to speculate about.  but i surely believe that the people living in africa would be in less dramatic poverty and poor living conditions.   #  south america got screwed over royally with the effects of colonization.   #  i would argue that a continent full of countries has even more chances to succeed.  it just bothers me that most of them have not been able to do so.  we ca not indefinitely blame african countries  troubles on previous european involvements can we ? how long does that last ? south america got screwed over royally with the effects of colonization.  to this day some are still a mess venezuela comes to mind .  some are doing quite well.  peru went from being a terrorist ridden disaster to being the fastest growing country in the continent in just 0 years.  i do not think it is fair to give the whole continent of africa a free pass just because of our involvement beforehand.   #  in any case,  amplify  is an understatement 0 million people were taken across the atlantic in only 0 years, compared to something like 0 million in 0 years of the muslim slave trade.   #  slavery create the africa of today, colonization did.  slavery was a key driving force behind european colonization.  the atlantic trade did not just  amplify  the existing trade, it created an entirely new infrastructure for european exploitation.  in any case,  amplify  is an understatement 0 million people were taken across the atlantic in only 0 years, compared to something like 0 million in 0 years of the muslim slave trade.  also, the slavery of the atlantic slave trade was an entirely new kind.  slavery is as old as humanity, but if you look back at romans for instance you will see slaves were more of an economic class than a repressed minority.  our modern concept of race and hence racism resulted largely from the atlantic slave trade.  during that time period transcontinental immigration was limited and dangerous, and they would not have found conditions much better in america than they were in africa.  rather, like the vast majority of ethnic groups, they could have immigrated to america during the 0th 0th centuries.   #  or that going to america would be good for them ?  #  just because slavery was around before does not neglect the damage done from the atlantic slave trade, you are also comparing modern africa to how it was when they were being taken, a lot of the taken were from their tribes only to become slaves.  then there children and grandchildren were also slaves and this was a theme for hundreds of years.  it has only been for the past 0 or so not sure when, but fairly recent years that african americans could vote in america or were not segregated.  if given the chance do you really think that the quality of life would be better or worse ? or that going to america would be good for them ? becuase i do not really see that the usa is really as good as you may think it is  #  i have to be willing to consider the entire timespan between slavery and today, not just today.   # but are those over 0 years of suffering worth these past 0 or so years of being better off ?   0; that is a good question.  my view has focused exclusively on the present day state of things.  i find hypothetical scenarios fairly hard to reconcile given the amount of variables and uncertainty, but this point you have made has changed my view somewhat.  i have to be willing to consider the entire timespan between slavery and today, not just today.  while i still think ultimately the end result is worth it, you make a good point that black people have endured much beyond slavery itself.
so, dc is adding a museum to the smithsonian and it is the african american history and culture museum.  normally, i am all for adding museums and making more available for the public to see and providing resources for people to learn, but i do not think this museum is a good idea in its current form.  here is why: 0.  there is currently an american history museum and african american history is and should be strongly present in that museum.  african american history  is  american history.  0.  if anything, they should be building a second american history museum and spreading the exhibits out so that everything is better incorporated and less segregated.  creating a separate museum seems divisive.  like saying,  here is american white people history, if you want to learn about other people who live here, they have separate museums.   0.  there are already a lot of museums.  people who come to dc try to fit in as much as they can and the most popular museums are natural history, air and space, and american history.  people are probably going to pick only one history museum unless they are really into it.  if the reason for the museum is to get more people to learn about black history and culture, it seems like it would be a better move to have that history spread out and incorporated into american history parts 0 and 0 possibly based on time periods .  i understand if people may be unhappy that there is not enough in the american history museum about minorities or women, but the way to solve that is not to create a separate museum.  creating a separate museum just intensifies feelings of separateness.  so, i really want to believe the new museum will do more good than not, but it honestly seems like a bad idea to me.  cmv.   #  creating a separate museum just intensifies feelings of separateness.   #  you raise a number of important issues regarding the purpose of historical museums.   # you raise a number of important issues regarding the purpose of historical museums.  this debate over how and why to tell people about history rages not only among the general public, but within the profession itself.  you appear to strongly wish that the history museums in dc, via their physical array, promote the impression that american history and by extension, if you will allow me to read in between the lines, america itself is a unified whole.  you worry that separating out the history of black americans into its own museum promotes the idea that an integrated and non divisive history of the us cannot be told.  historians refer to this debate as a tug of war between  lumpers  and  splitters.   it is a dialogue that occurs around zillions of topics, not just ethnic history.  sometimes it makes sense for the historian to say that all people are the same, and sometimes it makes sense for the historian to stress their categorization.  sometimes this wrestling match is determined by the available data; other times it is pure politics.  ethnicity is not the only dividing line within the subject matter of history.  in some cases, the borders are so stark that the profession actually awards separate advanced degrees, history of science and history of art being two of the most important.  many historians spend their lives focused on one small aspect of the human condition: military history, immigration history, history of the family, environmental history, psychological history, economic history, chinese history.  historians seem to already have  split  themselves into many categories, raising the issue of whether or not a integrative, totalizing history is even possible.  for many decades now, historians have seen the wisdom of ethnic history, given the social and cultural differences, as well as the different lived experiences, of ethnic groups in the united states.  i have never been to the smithsonian, but i have certainly seen my fair share of college history textbooks, and all of them sometimes grudgingly come around to the admission that different peoples have different histories, and they need to be addressed in separate paragraphs, or subsections, or sections.  in the case of a very large or distinct minority like african americans, you might see the wisdom of an entire chapter or two.  would it make sense to discuss the war of 0 and the invention of the light bulb in the same paragraph ? splitters gotta split.  my personal take as a professional historian is that the more history museums, the better.  i do not have the same concern as washington politicians do about making americans feel good or bad about themselves.  in some important ways, whites and blacks have had different histories in the us, and some interesting methodologies have been used to tease out african american history which make the project of a separate museum justifiable.  look at it this way: as dubois said, black people have one foot in africa and one foot in america, and maybe the only way to do their history justice is to look at them through the prism of both types of museums.  tl;dr: politics aside, the nature of the history itself might warrant a separate museum.   #  you worry that separating out the history of black americans into its own museum promotes the idea that an integrated and non divisive history of the us cannot be told.   # you worry that separating out the history of black americans into its own museum promotes the idea that an integrated and non divisive history of the us cannot be told.  i think you have hit the nail on the head.  it felt strange to me that i did not really have a problem with the idea of a black history museum in, say atlanta, but it did not work for me in dc.  i guess i feel that if there is a place to try to represent a unified history of the us, it is at the smithsonian in the nation is capital.  i recognize the usefulness of focusing on a particular topic, but ah, i am not sure right now.  you have given me a lot to think about.  thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.  if it is not on your list of places to go, you should add it.   #  the museum will use african american history and culture as a lens into what it means to be an american.   #  yup, been there love a museum.  the problem with attempting to succinctly relate the history of the u. s.  is that the  major  events are dominated by a specific group: white cis, hetero, etc.  men.  it is not dominated by that group because they were objectively the best, but because they systematically and institutionally excluded everyone else ignoring, downplaying, or straight up appropriating the contributions of women and people of color.  there is no way to properly acknowledge the contributions of marginalized people in the context of a single museum whose job is  also  to tell the story of the history of the country as a whole.  the space in a museum is finite as is the time a typical visitor has available.  have you looked at the mission statement for the nmaahc URL   there are four legs upon which this museum will stand:     0.  the first is to create an opportunity for those that care about african american culture to explore and revel in this history.  the museum will use african american history and culture as a lens into what it means to be an american.  we must be a truly national museum that reaches beyond washington to engage new audiences and to collaborate with the myriad of museums and educational institutions, both nationally and internationally.  if there were a feasible way to meet those goals within the existing museum, they would be doing it already.  creating the nmaahc does not mean that the contributions of black people to the history and development of the united states will be downplayed at the national museum of american history.  it just creates a space where these contributions can be fully acknowledged and properly expanded on, as well as providing a home base for those whose studies and efforts are concentrated on this aspect of u. s.  history.   #  separating them is not saying that black people are inferior in some way.   #  i actually do not mind that it is separate.  black american people have a distinctly different culture from white american people.  separating them is not saying that black people are inferior in some way.  in fact, it is saying that black american culture is just as important and valid as white american culture.  by giving it a separate place to exist, they are underlining that concept.  you can say that the american history museum should be called  white american history , but most well read black people do not really care about semantics like that.  it is understood that white was normal in the past, and now this is trying to show that black culture is different, interesting, and rich.  it is the same reason why we often have separate native american or latin american museums.   #  i also do not think there should be a separate museum for latin americans or women in the smithsonian.   #    0; while it is true that the culture is different, you can also see differences in culture based on region, religion, class, etc.  i have a difficult time picturing why race should be emphasized as much as it is.  i will admit, you have swayed my opinion a bit though.  i guess i do not think it is bad anymore, but maybe not as good as expanding the american history would be.  it still seems like having both cultures represented in the same museum would do that best.  i somewhat agree that it is reasonable to have a separate native american museum which the smithsonian does , but only because there are native americans that are separate from the united states and they have a lot of history in what is now the us from before the americas were called the americas.  i also do not think there should be a separate museum for latin americans or women in the smithsonian.
the position i am taking here focuses on what is fundamental to many christian denominations, but may not be in all of them.  in the beginning genesis there was a garden with a tree, usually symbolizing knowledge or life.  adam and eve were told not to eat from the tree i. e.  obey god .  they non the less did it anyways.  this is where we either became flawed or  wouldied  from a  perfect human  depending on the theology.  but many years later god sent his only son, jesus, to spread his word and ultimately to be sacrificed to pay for the sins that came after adam and even and including that ultimate sin.  if jesus is accepted to be part of the trinity, then it has been said that god sent himself to earth, to sacrifice himself, to himself, so that he can forgive us for the act that adam and eve did did he forsee this action ? .  for this cmv i am narrowing it to two specific views: 0.  the proported act of sacrifice is morally wrong   no sacrifice to a deity could be considered moral in any circumstance.  0.  the modern spreading of this ghastly tale as a justification of faith is morally tainted by the first part.  i will not entertain the idea that morality is relative.  there are things that are wrong at any time, the standards of the day cannot be used to justify it.  i will not entertain a superior morality of god, because it has not be established that he exists.   #  the proported act of sacrifice is morally wrong   no sacrifice to a deity could be considered moral in any circumstance.   #  you did not support this view at all.   #  the tree is actually referred to as that of  knowledge of good   evil  it is debateable whether the tree of life is distinct .  think about what that means: it means that taking this fruit is to negate the single command of god.  if god establishes what is good, and he tells you not to do one thing, that thing is evil.  once you do this, you know how to be evil by contravening the will of god.  once you realize that what you want will not always be what god wants what is immoral , you understand that you in part  want  to be evil.  so what was previously free will that was still in line with the will of god became free will that was antithetical to god.  have you ever done something you knew to be wrong ? have you ever done something wrong in the heat of the moment because of an overwhelming urge ? i know i have done both, and that fact seems to confirm the idea that we are innately flawed.  even if i did embrace total moral relativism i would be hard pressed to look at my whole life and find no moral mistakes.  if that which is imperfect is flawed, a series of imperfections in my character suggests that i am flawed.  .  that is not it.  humanity is innately sinful; that is just something that anyone who has a moral compass can attest to.  we all do bad things.  going back to st.  augustine and before, christians have interpreted the story of adam   eve as a metaphor for humanity is collective fall from grace: we act against the will of god out of selfishness.  it is not that adam   eve tainted us; they were just the first to do what every one of us does all the time.  the sacrifice of jesus is in my view god recognizing that we ca not save ourselves.  we are imperfect and unable to reach perfection, so god takes what we pay and makes up the difference with his own sacrifice.  to me, that is an incredible relief.  in my life, i have hurt people that did not deserve it in ways i can never undo or make up for.  some of them could never forgive me, and if i knew that the responsibility for that was always mine, it would be a heavy burden and there would be nothing i could do to shrug it off.  but because of that sacrifice, i know what i have to do: repent, ask forgiveness, do better.  you did not support this view at all.  i do not know what thought process leads you to believe it, or why you would think that what amounts to self sacrifice for the sake of humanity is immoral.  the act itself seems very, very benevolent.  if i choose to die so that many others will live, how is that wrong ? this view does not stand without the first, so i have got nothing.  there are things that are wrong at any time, the standards of the day cannot be used to justify it.  i will not entertain a superior morality of god, because it has not be established that he exists.  that is a bit of a paradox with a dash of unfair positioning on your part.  if god absolutely did not exist, then the whole story would be a lie.  if lying is wrong, then telling the story is wrong.  if you ca not entertain the notion that god  might  exist, it is impossible for you to change your view while maintaining your integrity.  and how are you determining an objective moral reality in the absence of some authority that determines that morality ?  #  for example,  female genital mutilation  can be shown the be harmful, while the religious authorities in the region consider it to be moral.   #  i have to start with a short answer because i am about to go out for some food.  i will address your last point now, and the rest when i return.  i do not believe  objective moral reality  means anything.  but how do we determine what is moral without an authority, is the same way that we determine the earth is going around the sun without an authority telling us that.  the best standard for morality that i think we have is whatever reduces harm.  we can study the effects of certain things to see how they affect us.  does a certain thing harm another ? for example,  female genital mutilation  can be shown the be harmful, while the religious authorities in the region consider it to be moral.  by this standard, i would say that is immoral.  there are certainly degrees, and using the words moral and immoral are sort of providing a dichotomy that does not really exist.   #  what is in question really is not the act itself; it is the relative correctness of it is justification.   # i think you are misunderstanding what i mean by authority.  i am indicating that we have some authoritative evidence that proves something we claim.  earth is rotation around the sun can be verified, value judgments concerning good and evil ca not.  so you indicate that  harm  is your standard of determining right and wrong, but that is lacking in two ways: first, i highly doubt that you or anyone else can produce a universally satisfactory definition of  harm .  is it pain ? reduction in lifespan ? psychological trauma ? loss of property ? second, even if you had a concrete definition for harm, you would have no positive reason to value the reduction of harm.  even you describe your opinion as  the best standard for morality that i  think  we have .  it is awkward making moral pronouncements when your definition of what is moral is shaky in and of itself.  so consider your example of mutilation.  what is in question really is not the act itself; it is the relative correctness of it is justification.  if the person that does it is  actually right  about the nature of the authority that determines what is objectively right and wrong, then the act is moral.  that is why i think nailing down your own moral position and allowing me to argue for the correctness or at least possible correctness of my position are both so important.  i can see why you would think that, but  moral  and  immoral  are at least valid terms for comparing two moral actions along a wide spectrum of behavior.  there maybe hundreds of possible choices, but i can look at two and try to determine which is the more moral choice.   #  that has nothing to do with the existence of god; that goes back to the  0 literal accuracy  issue that you have conflated with the existence of god.   # that is akin to saying that because i read conflicting accounts of the battle of gettysburg, robert e.  lee did not exist.  the evidence does not support the conclusion.  it could instead be that the bible is open to interpretation like most things that have been written down and are longer than a fortune cookie. scratch that,  including fortune cookies  and you have conflated  0 literal accuracy  with the existence of the god described.  considering that a  minority  of the books in the bible are historical narrative and christians and jews, for that matter were interpreting large portions of the bible as metaphor long before people insisted on taking those stories literally, your expectation is entirely unrealistic.  the world was not created in 0 days, bats are not birds, et cetera.  that has nothing to do with the existence of god; that goes back to the  0 literal accuracy  issue that you have conflated with the existence of god.  i point again to metaphors and how christians have been interpreting texts for the better part of their history.  this problem is simple: what would evidence of the god of the bible is  nonexistence  look like ? if you can provide that image, you have a falsifiable claim.   #  i can be certain about the existence of god while being unable to prove it.   #  well. the bible  does  exist so you really have to discern whether you think it is valid.  internal contradictions do not prove that the subject matter is completely false and that is what the post i replied to suggested.  so your alternate analogy really does not apply at all.  you can say all sorts of things without any doubt, that does not mean you are justified in your certainty.  i can be absolutely certain that the sun revolves around the earth, and i can be wrong.  i can be certain about the existence of god while being unable to prove it.  so all the things you are certain about do not add up to a justification for that certainty.
the position i am taking here focuses on what is fundamental to many christian denominations, but may not be in all of them.  in the beginning genesis there was a garden with a tree, usually symbolizing knowledge or life.  adam and eve were told not to eat from the tree i. e.  obey god .  they non the less did it anyways.  this is where we either became flawed or  wouldied  from a  perfect human  depending on the theology.  but many years later god sent his only son, jesus, to spread his word and ultimately to be sacrificed to pay for the sins that came after adam and even and including that ultimate sin.  if jesus is accepted to be part of the trinity, then it has been said that god sent himself to earth, to sacrifice himself, to himself, so that he can forgive us for the act that adam and eve did did he forsee this action ? .  for this cmv i am narrowing it to two specific views: 0.  the proported act of sacrifice is morally wrong   no sacrifice to a deity could be considered moral in any circumstance.  0.  the modern spreading of this ghastly tale as a justification of faith is morally tainted by the first part.  i will not entertain the idea that morality is relative.  there are things that are wrong at any time, the standards of the day cannot be used to justify it.  i will not entertain a superior morality of god, because it has not be established that he exists.   #  the modern spreading of this ghastly tale as a justification of faith is morally tainted by the first part.   #  this view does not stand without the first, so i have got nothing.   #  the tree is actually referred to as that of  knowledge of good   evil  it is debateable whether the tree of life is distinct .  think about what that means: it means that taking this fruit is to negate the single command of god.  if god establishes what is good, and he tells you not to do one thing, that thing is evil.  once you do this, you know how to be evil by contravening the will of god.  once you realize that what you want will not always be what god wants what is immoral , you understand that you in part  want  to be evil.  so what was previously free will that was still in line with the will of god became free will that was antithetical to god.  have you ever done something you knew to be wrong ? have you ever done something wrong in the heat of the moment because of an overwhelming urge ? i know i have done both, and that fact seems to confirm the idea that we are innately flawed.  even if i did embrace total moral relativism i would be hard pressed to look at my whole life and find no moral mistakes.  if that which is imperfect is flawed, a series of imperfections in my character suggests that i am flawed.  .  that is not it.  humanity is innately sinful; that is just something that anyone who has a moral compass can attest to.  we all do bad things.  going back to st.  augustine and before, christians have interpreted the story of adam   eve as a metaphor for humanity is collective fall from grace: we act against the will of god out of selfishness.  it is not that adam   eve tainted us; they were just the first to do what every one of us does all the time.  the sacrifice of jesus is in my view god recognizing that we ca not save ourselves.  we are imperfect and unable to reach perfection, so god takes what we pay and makes up the difference with his own sacrifice.  to me, that is an incredible relief.  in my life, i have hurt people that did not deserve it in ways i can never undo or make up for.  some of them could never forgive me, and if i knew that the responsibility for that was always mine, it would be a heavy burden and there would be nothing i could do to shrug it off.  but because of that sacrifice, i know what i have to do: repent, ask forgiveness, do better.  you did not support this view at all.  i do not know what thought process leads you to believe it, or why you would think that what amounts to self sacrifice for the sake of humanity is immoral.  the act itself seems very, very benevolent.  if i choose to die so that many others will live, how is that wrong ? this view does not stand without the first, so i have got nothing.  there are things that are wrong at any time, the standards of the day cannot be used to justify it.  i will not entertain a superior morality of god, because it has not be established that he exists.  that is a bit of a paradox with a dash of unfair positioning on your part.  if god absolutely did not exist, then the whole story would be a lie.  if lying is wrong, then telling the story is wrong.  if you ca not entertain the notion that god  might  exist, it is impossible for you to change your view while maintaining your integrity.  and how are you determining an objective moral reality in the absence of some authority that determines that morality ?  #  by this standard, i would say that is immoral.   #  i have to start with a short answer because i am about to go out for some food.  i will address your last point now, and the rest when i return.  i do not believe  objective moral reality  means anything.  but how do we determine what is moral without an authority, is the same way that we determine the earth is going around the sun without an authority telling us that.  the best standard for morality that i think we have is whatever reduces harm.  we can study the effects of certain things to see how they affect us.  does a certain thing harm another ? for example,  female genital mutilation  can be shown the be harmful, while the religious authorities in the region consider it to be moral.  by this standard, i would say that is immoral.  there are certainly degrees, and using the words moral and immoral are sort of providing a dichotomy that does not really exist.   #  so you indicate that  harm  is your standard of determining right and wrong, but that is lacking in two ways: first, i highly doubt that you or anyone else can produce a universally satisfactory definition of  harm .   # i think you are misunderstanding what i mean by authority.  i am indicating that we have some authoritative evidence that proves something we claim.  earth is rotation around the sun can be verified, value judgments concerning good and evil ca not.  so you indicate that  harm  is your standard of determining right and wrong, but that is lacking in two ways: first, i highly doubt that you or anyone else can produce a universally satisfactory definition of  harm .  is it pain ? reduction in lifespan ? psychological trauma ? loss of property ? second, even if you had a concrete definition for harm, you would have no positive reason to value the reduction of harm.  even you describe your opinion as  the best standard for morality that i  think  we have .  it is awkward making moral pronouncements when your definition of what is moral is shaky in and of itself.  so consider your example of mutilation.  what is in question really is not the act itself; it is the relative correctness of it is justification.  if the person that does it is  actually right  about the nature of the authority that determines what is objectively right and wrong, then the act is moral.  that is why i think nailing down your own moral position and allowing me to argue for the correctness or at least possible correctness of my position are both so important.  i can see why you would think that, but  moral  and  immoral  are at least valid terms for comparing two moral actions along a wide spectrum of behavior.  there maybe hundreds of possible choices, but i can look at two and try to determine which is the more moral choice.   #  that is akin to saying that because i read conflicting accounts of the battle of gettysburg, robert e.  lee did not exist.   # that is akin to saying that because i read conflicting accounts of the battle of gettysburg, robert e.  lee did not exist.  the evidence does not support the conclusion.  it could instead be that the bible is open to interpretation like most things that have been written down and are longer than a fortune cookie. scratch that,  including fortune cookies  and you have conflated  0 literal accuracy  with the existence of the god described.  considering that a  minority  of the books in the bible are historical narrative and christians and jews, for that matter were interpreting large portions of the bible as metaphor long before people insisted on taking those stories literally, your expectation is entirely unrealistic.  the world was not created in 0 days, bats are not birds, et cetera.  that has nothing to do with the existence of god; that goes back to the  0 literal accuracy  issue that you have conflated with the existence of god.  i point again to metaphors and how christians have been interpreting texts for the better part of their history.  this problem is simple: what would evidence of the god of the bible is  nonexistence  look like ? if you can provide that image, you have a falsifiable claim.   #  i can be absolutely certain that the sun revolves around the earth, and i can be wrong.   #  well. the bible  does  exist so you really have to discern whether you think it is valid.  internal contradictions do not prove that the subject matter is completely false and that is what the post i replied to suggested.  so your alternate analogy really does not apply at all.  you can say all sorts of things without any doubt, that does not mean you are justified in your certainty.  i can be absolutely certain that the sun revolves around the earth, and i can be wrong.  i can be certain about the existence of god while being unable to prove it.  so all the things you are certain about do not add up to a justification for that certainty.
the position i am taking here focuses on what is fundamental to many christian denominations, but may not be in all of them.  in the beginning genesis there was a garden with a tree, usually symbolizing knowledge or life.  adam and eve were told not to eat from the tree i. e.  obey god .  they non the less did it anyways.  this is where we either became flawed or  wouldied  from a  perfect human  depending on the theology.  but many years later god sent his only son, jesus, to spread his word and ultimately to be sacrificed to pay for the sins that came after adam and even and including that ultimate sin.  if jesus is accepted to be part of the trinity, then it has been said that god sent himself to earth, to sacrifice himself, to himself, so that he can forgive us for the act that adam and eve did did he forsee this action ? .  for this cmv i am narrowing it to two specific views: 0.  the proported act of sacrifice is morally wrong   no sacrifice to a deity could be considered moral in any circumstance.  0.  the modern spreading of this ghastly tale as a justification of faith is morally tainted by the first part.  i will not entertain the idea that morality is relative.  there are things that are wrong at any time, the standards of the day cannot be used to justify it.  i will not entertain a superior morality of god, because it has not be established that he exists.   #  i will not entertain the idea that morality is relative.   #  there are things that are wrong at any time, the standards of the day cannot be used to justify it.   #  the tree is actually referred to as that of  knowledge of good   evil  it is debateable whether the tree of life is distinct .  think about what that means: it means that taking this fruit is to negate the single command of god.  if god establishes what is good, and he tells you not to do one thing, that thing is evil.  once you do this, you know how to be evil by contravening the will of god.  once you realize that what you want will not always be what god wants what is immoral , you understand that you in part  want  to be evil.  so what was previously free will that was still in line with the will of god became free will that was antithetical to god.  have you ever done something you knew to be wrong ? have you ever done something wrong in the heat of the moment because of an overwhelming urge ? i know i have done both, and that fact seems to confirm the idea that we are innately flawed.  even if i did embrace total moral relativism i would be hard pressed to look at my whole life and find no moral mistakes.  if that which is imperfect is flawed, a series of imperfections in my character suggests that i am flawed.  .  that is not it.  humanity is innately sinful; that is just something that anyone who has a moral compass can attest to.  we all do bad things.  going back to st.  augustine and before, christians have interpreted the story of adam   eve as a metaphor for humanity is collective fall from grace: we act against the will of god out of selfishness.  it is not that adam   eve tainted us; they were just the first to do what every one of us does all the time.  the sacrifice of jesus is in my view god recognizing that we ca not save ourselves.  we are imperfect and unable to reach perfection, so god takes what we pay and makes up the difference with his own sacrifice.  to me, that is an incredible relief.  in my life, i have hurt people that did not deserve it in ways i can never undo or make up for.  some of them could never forgive me, and if i knew that the responsibility for that was always mine, it would be a heavy burden and there would be nothing i could do to shrug it off.  but because of that sacrifice, i know what i have to do: repent, ask forgiveness, do better.  you did not support this view at all.  i do not know what thought process leads you to believe it, or why you would think that what amounts to self sacrifice for the sake of humanity is immoral.  the act itself seems very, very benevolent.  if i choose to die so that many others will live, how is that wrong ? this view does not stand without the first, so i have got nothing.  there are things that are wrong at any time, the standards of the day cannot be used to justify it.  i will not entertain a superior morality of god, because it has not be established that he exists.  that is a bit of a paradox with a dash of unfair positioning on your part.  if god absolutely did not exist, then the whole story would be a lie.  if lying is wrong, then telling the story is wrong.  if you ca not entertain the notion that god  might  exist, it is impossible for you to change your view while maintaining your integrity.  and how are you determining an objective moral reality in the absence of some authority that determines that morality ?  #  for example,  female genital mutilation  can be shown the be harmful, while the religious authorities in the region consider it to be moral.   #  i have to start with a short answer because i am about to go out for some food.  i will address your last point now, and the rest when i return.  i do not believe  objective moral reality  means anything.  but how do we determine what is moral without an authority, is the same way that we determine the earth is going around the sun without an authority telling us that.  the best standard for morality that i think we have is whatever reduces harm.  we can study the effects of certain things to see how they affect us.  does a certain thing harm another ? for example,  female genital mutilation  can be shown the be harmful, while the religious authorities in the region consider it to be moral.  by this standard, i would say that is immoral.  there are certainly degrees, and using the words moral and immoral are sort of providing a dichotomy that does not really exist.   #  i can see why you would think that, but  moral  and  immoral  are at least valid terms for comparing two moral actions along a wide spectrum of behavior.   # i think you are misunderstanding what i mean by authority.  i am indicating that we have some authoritative evidence that proves something we claim.  earth is rotation around the sun can be verified, value judgments concerning good and evil ca not.  so you indicate that  harm  is your standard of determining right and wrong, but that is lacking in two ways: first, i highly doubt that you or anyone else can produce a universally satisfactory definition of  harm .  is it pain ? reduction in lifespan ? psychological trauma ? loss of property ? second, even if you had a concrete definition for harm, you would have no positive reason to value the reduction of harm.  even you describe your opinion as  the best standard for morality that i  think  we have .  it is awkward making moral pronouncements when your definition of what is moral is shaky in and of itself.  so consider your example of mutilation.  what is in question really is not the act itself; it is the relative correctness of it is justification.  if the person that does it is  actually right  about the nature of the authority that determines what is objectively right and wrong, then the act is moral.  that is why i think nailing down your own moral position and allowing me to argue for the correctness or at least possible correctness of my position are both so important.  i can see why you would think that, but  moral  and  immoral  are at least valid terms for comparing two moral actions along a wide spectrum of behavior.  there maybe hundreds of possible choices, but i can look at two and try to determine which is the more moral choice.   #  if you can provide that image, you have a falsifiable claim.   # that is akin to saying that because i read conflicting accounts of the battle of gettysburg, robert e.  lee did not exist.  the evidence does not support the conclusion.  it could instead be that the bible is open to interpretation like most things that have been written down and are longer than a fortune cookie. scratch that,  including fortune cookies  and you have conflated  0 literal accuracy  with the existence of the god described.  considering that a  minority  of the books in the bible are historical narrative and christians and jews, for that matter were interpreting large portions of the bible as metaphor long before people insisted on taking those stories literally, your expectation is entirely unrealistic.  the world was not created in 0 days, bats are not birds, et cetera.  that has nothing to do with the existence of god; that goes back to the  0 literal accuracy  issue that you have conflated with the existence of god.  i point again to metaphors and how christians have been interpreting texts for the better part of their history.  this problem is simple: what would evidence of the god of the bible is  nonexistence  look like ? if you can provide that image, you have a falsifiable claim.   #  internal contradictions do not prove that the subject matter is completely false and that is what the post i replied to suggested.   #  well. the bible  does  exist so you really have to discern whether you think it is valid.  internal contradictions do not prove that the subject matter is completely false and that is what the post i replied to suggested.  so your alternate analogy really does not apply at all.  you can say all sorts of things without any doubt, that does not mean you are justified in your certainty.  i can be absolutely certain that the sun revolves around the earth, and i can be wrong.  i can be certain about the existence of god while being unable to prove it.  so all the things you are certain about do not add up to a justification for that certainty.
read the update before replying ! i think we should put tariffs on foreign goods as high as we possibly can without creating a black market.  my reasoning is as follows.  cheap imported goods hurt both us as a country and developing countries.  they hurt us by reducing the number of items produced in our country.  if we export money, we lose that money from our economy.  that is how an economy works, period.  i could go into various ways importing goods generally hurts the economy, but pretty much all of them boil down to that.  as a secondary reason, helping other people is also a good thing to do.  creating markets for slaves is the same thing as supporting slavery.  essentially, if there is a large economic demand for slavery and little regulation, it will usually occur.  not justifying that, just saying it how i see it.  providing money for goods that are so cheap they could only be made by slaves is no better than owning slaves imo.  we should not just export slavery, and that is what importing cheap goods is.  when i have expressed this view to others before, they have always replied that it  would raise prices.   i think this argument is irrelevant.  reducing our country is gdp reduces the wealth per capita.  in other words, importing goods makes us poor.  i would rather have more money with more expensive goods than less money with goods at the same price.  to make an analogy real quick for anyone who is confused by what i am saying, let is say there is a person who contributes nothing to society.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? why would our country be any different ? if imports   exports, we lose wealth.  i think other methods of reducing importation would either create a black market or be horribly inefficient.  i think tariffs are the best way to reduce importation, by discouraging our own citizens via high prices.  my knowledge of economic matters is limited to reading adam smith is  the wealth of nations.   so tell me what i have missed.  update: my view has been changed, not by any one answer, but by a number of answers that all brought up good points.  however, i still do not see anything wrong with raising tariffs just enough to reduce our import/export deficit URL it still seems to me that tariffs would be the best way to even this out.   #  let is say there is a person who contributes nothing to society.   #  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.   #  i can understand your position on the matter.  balance of trade is about as counter intuitive as the monty hall problem URL the wealth of nations is a great place to start learning about economics but i recommend reading it again.  i would also recommend milton friedman and thomas sowell for a slightly easier to understand explanation of balance of trade.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? right, except they would not have any money in the first place.  how does a person get money ? export.  now let is imagine you have lots of money from all your exports a big scrooge mcduck vault to swim in.  how does this benefit you exactly ? money does not benefit you until you spend it.  that is import.  i am guessing you do not work your job never to spend the money you earn.  you could, but why would you ? the equivalent here is a stunted standard of living.  aside from missing the opportunity to reap the rewards of export, tariffs and cash hoarding lead to other problems including inflation where an increase in money supply increases prices, and weak foreign relations a lack of incentive to maintain diplomacy.   #  is there another source you are getting your ideas from ?  #  what you are describing is mercantilism, an economic theory that went out of fashion about 0 years ago.  the reason for this is that economists universally across every school, party, and background have accepted that exploiting comparative advantages URL benefit all parties involved.  actually, i find it weird that you would espouse mercantilist theories after reading wealth of nations.  is there another source you are getting your ideas from ? anyway, that only adresses the economic health side of the issue, but what about the moral side ? now, i think everybody can agree that it is a terrible state if affairs that so many people on earth are forced to live on a dollar a day or less.  but the problem is, what can we do about it ? if we take away sweatshop workers jobs, they wo not find better ones.  and the people of china are not fortunate enough to enjoy the social safety nets of the citizens of first world countries, even more limited ones like the us.  so while a dollar a day is bad, subsistence farming and starvation is worse.  and let is not forget that the u. s. , which has far superior pay rates and social programs to china was able to achieve this in no small part to extremely low costs of labor during the industrial revolution, and china is rapid modernization is a similar scenario.   #  if they can choose to start farming land and building their own economy, they could well make themselves better off, rather than being stuck working for a company that controls their entire regions supplies and will keep them in poverty.   # if they can choose to start farming land and building their own economy, they could well make themselves better off, rather than being stuck working for a company that controls their entire regions supplies and will keep them in poverty.  i think you might find this unicef URL report interesting.  back in the 0 is, we were buying lots of clothes from bangladesh, and the factories there employed lots of children.  senator harkin introduced the child labor deterrence act, and the factories laid off about 0,0 children workers even though the act did not end up passing .  the consequences were devastating.  in follow up trips, unicef workers found that the children who would been laid off were working in stone crushing, street grifting, and most horrifyingly as child prostitutes.  there were not schools, and the jobs they went to were almost universally much more dangerous and awful than the  sweatshop  jobs they had before.  in other words.  yes, we do know this.  cutting off trade to the third world will be condemning millions to more awful working conditions than we can imagine in our first world comfort.   #  for the same reason insider trading is illegal.   # because that is what is good for the economy.  for the same reason insider trading is illegal.  in the modern world this does not work.  take north korea for example they have virtually no imports, they try to make everything themselves and that has not at all worked out for them.  not completely, but certainly more self sustainable than we are.  we currently have a large deficit in our import/export ratio URL which is a problem.  this is a solution.  also, north korea is not really a good country to compare us to.  they have some other pretty big problems as well that are hurting them economically, like a slew of crazy leaders.  boeing will increase the price if they have to, we will keep going.  i replied to this argument already in my op.  i am including people who are payed less than minimum wage.  unless your somehow implying that there is some other way for a company to produce a good and ship it here, and it somehow still be cheaper than if they just produced it here ? no tariffs, no shipping ? sounds cheaper unless they are cutting corners somewhere.  this does not mean we should not of ended slavery.  furthermore, as long as there are homeless, starving kids in the us, they should be our priority, imo.  i had not considered that.   #  industrial poverty is loads better than the agrarian poverty that came before people would not work in the sweatshops otherwise .   # for the same reason insider trading is illegal.  why is it good for the economy ? besides the fact that americans are not inherently more important than norwegians, we could save some efficiency by producing more of what the us is good a producing.  producing that gas has an opportunity cost.  you are giving up the chance to do something you  are  good at to do something you  are not  good at.  with this statement you are disagreeing with  all  of modern economics and virtually  all  notable economists the only exception being marx .  are you comfortable with that ? you cannot apply american minimum wage to other nations.  the economies are different.  purchasing power is different.  industrial poverty is loads better than the agrarian poverty that came before people would not work in the sweatshops otherwise .  it is just more visible.  chinese factory workers are not working ten hours so they can afford a pack of chewing gum; they are not idiots.  i do not see how free trade somehow precludes social programs in the united states, or how american children are more important than chinese, indonesian, or malaysian ones.
read the update before replying ! i think we should put tariffs on foreign goods as high as we possibly can without creating a black market.  my reasoning is as follows.  cheap imported goods hurt both us as a country and developing countries.  they hurt us by reducing the number of items produced in our country.  if we export money, we lose that money from our economy.  that is how an economy works, period.  i could go into various ways importing goods generally hurts the economy, but pretty much all of them boil down to that.  as a secondary reason, helping other people is also a good thing to do.  creating markets for slaves is the same thing as supporting slavery.  essentially, if there is a large economic demand for slavery and little regulation, it will usually occur.  not justifying that, just saying it how i see it.  providing money for goods that are so cheap they could only be made by slaves is no better than owning slaves imo.  we should not just export slavery, and that is what importing cheap goods is.  when i have expressed this view to others before, they have always replied that it  would raise prices.   i think this argument is irrelevant.  reducing our country is gdp reduces the wealth per capita.  in other words, importing goods makes us poor.  i would rather have more money with more expensive goods than less money with goods at the same price.  to make an analogy real quick for anyone who is confused by what i am saying, let is say there is a person who contributes nothing to society.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? why would our country be any different ? if imports   exports, we lose wealth.  i think other methods of reducing importation would either create a black market or be horribly inefficient.  i think tariffs are the best way to reduce importation, by discouraging our own citizens via high prices.  my knowledge of economic matters is limited to reading adam smith is  the wealth of nations.   so tell me what i have missed.  update: my view has been changed, not by any one answer, but by a number of answers that all brought up good points.  however, i still do not see anything wrong with raising tariffs just enough to reduce our import/export deficit URL it still seems to me that tariffs would be the best way to even this out.   #  it still seems to me that tariffs would be the best way to even this out.   #  the best way to even import/export exchange is to offer goods and services at competitive price or offer goods and services that are better than the competition.   # the best way to even import/export exchange is to offer goods and services at competitive price or offer goods and services that are better than the competition.  another fact you are missing is that the larger our trade deficit the cheaper our goods and services become on the world market and the more expensive foreign goods and services become.  tariffs are unnecessary and only serve to protect rent seekers.  tariffs make trade harder for rich and poor countries.  example: when a country has a strong economy its citizens travel and spend money abroad.  when a country has a weak economy foreigners come to it to spend money because goods and services are cheaper.  tarrifs make it harder for the rich country to buy from the poor county.   as far as necessary  would still end most international trade.   #  if we take away sweatshop workers jobs, they wo not find better ones.   #  what you are describing is mercantilism, an economic theory that went out of fashion about 0 years ago.  the reason for this is that economists universally across every school, party, and background have accepted that exploiting comparative advantages URL benefit all parties involved.  actually, i find it weird that you would espouse mercantilist theories after reading wealth of nations.  is there another source you are getting your ideas from ? anyway, that only adresses the economic health side of the issue, but what about the moral side ? now, i think everybody can agree that it is a terrible state if affairs that so many people on earth are forced to live on a dollar a day or less.  but the problem is, what can we do about it ? if we take away sweatshop workers jobs, they wo not find better ones.  and the people of china are not fortunate enough to enjoy the social safety nets of the citizens of first world countries, even more limited ones like the us.  so while a dollar a day is bad, subsistence farming and starvation is worse.  and let is not forget that the u. s. , which has far superior pay rates and social programs to china was able to achieve this in no small part to extremely low costs of labor during the industrial revolution, and china is rapid modernization is a similar scenario.   #  they would run out of money, would they not ?  #  i can understand your position on the matter.  balance of trade is about as counter intuitive as the monty hall problem URL the wealth of nations is a great place to start learning about economics but i recommend reading it again.  i would also recommend milton friedman and thomas sowell for a slightly easier to understand explanation of balance of trade.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? right, except they would not have any money in the first place.  how does a person get money ? export.  now let is imagine you have lots of money from all your exports a big scrooge mcduck vault to swim in.  how does this benefit you exactly ? money does not benefit you until you spend it.  that is import.  i am guessing you do not work your job never to spend the money you earn.  you could, but why would you ? the equivalent here is a stunted standard of living.  aside from missing the opportunity to reap the rewards of export, tariffs and cash hoarding lead to other problems including inflation where an increase in money supply increases prices, and weak foreign relations a lack of incentive to maintain diplomacy.   #  in other words.  yes, we do know this.   # if they can choose to start farming land and building their own economy, they could well make themselves better off, rather than being stuck working for a company that controls their entire regions supplies and will keep them in poverty.  i think you might find this unicef URL report interesting.  back in the 0 is, we were buying lots of clothes from bangladesh, and the factories there employed lots of children.  senator harkin introduced the child labor deterrence act, and the factories laid off about 0,0 children workers even though the act did not end up passing .  the consequences were devastating.  in follow up trips, unicef workers found that the children who would been laid off were working in stone crushing, street grifting, and most horrifyingly as child prostitutes.  there were not schools, and the jobs they went to were almost universally much more dangerous and awful than the  sweatshop  jobs they had before.  in other words.  yes, we do know this.  cutting off trade to the third world will be condemning millions to more awful working conditions than we can imagine in our first world comfort.   #  for the same reason insider trading is illegal.   # because that is what is good for the economy.  for the same reason insider trading is illegal.  in the modern world this does not work.  take north korea for example they have virtually no imports, they try to make everything themselves and that has not at all worked out for them.  not completely, but certainly more self sustainable than we are.  we currently have a large deficit in our import/export ratio URL which is a problem.  this is a solution.  also, north korea is not really a good country to compare us to.  they have some other pretty big problems as well that are hurting them economically, like a slew of crazy leaders.  boeing will increase the price if they have to, we will keep going.  i replied to this argument already in my op.  i am including people who are payed less than minimum wage.  unless your somehow implying that there is some other way for a company to produce a good and ship it here, and it somehow still be cheaper than if they just produced it here ? no tariffs, no shipping ? sounds cheaper unless they are cutting corners somewhere.  this does not mean we should not of ended slavery.  furthermore, as long as there are homeless, starving kids in the us, they should be our priority, imo.  i had not considered that.
read the update before replying ! i think we should put tariffs on foreign goods as high as we possibly can without creating a black market.  my reasoning is as follows.  cheap imported goods hurt both us as a country and developing countries.  they hurt us by reducing the number of items produced in our country.  if we export money, we lose that money from our economy.  that is how an economy works, period.  i could go into various ways importing goods generally hurts the economy, but pretty much all of them boil down to that.  as a secondary reason, helping other people is also a good thing to do.  creating markets for slaves is the same thing as supporting slavery.  essentially, if there is a large economic demand for slavery and little regulation, it will usually occur.  not justifying that, just saying it how i see it.  providing money for goods that are so cheap they could only be made by slaves is no better than owning slaves imo.  we should not just export slavery, and that is what importing cheap goods is.  when i have expressed this view to others before, they have always replied that it  would raise prices.   i think this argument is irrelevant.  reducing our country is gdp reduces the wealth per capita.  in other words, importing goods makes us poor.  i would rather have more money with more expensive goods than less money with goods at the same price.  to make an analogy real quick for anyone who is confused by what i am saying, let is say there is a person who contributes nothing to society.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? why would our country be any different ? if imports   exports, we lose wealth.  i think other methods of reducing importation would either create a black market or be horribly inefficient.  i think tariffs are the best way to reduce importation, by discouraging our own citizens via high prices.  my knowledge of economic matters is limited to reading adam smith is  the wealth of nations.   so tell me what i have missed.  update: my view has been changed, not by any one answer, but by a number of answers that all brought up good points.  however, i still do not see anything wrong with raising tariffs just enough to reduce our import/export deficit URL it still seems to me that tariffs would be the best way to even this out.   #  i think other methods of reducing importation would either create a black market or be horribly inefficient.   #  i think tariffs are the best way to reduce importation, by discouraging our own citizens via high prices.   # i think tariffs are the best way to reduce importation, by discouraging our own citizens via high prices.  i am just going to get this out of the way early: tariffs are pretty massively inefficient.  URL putting a tariff in place will hurt consumers, and export oriented businesses.  that will lead to layoffs and will have a negative effect on gdp.  that is how an economy works, period.  not quite.  that is how an economy works without variable exchange rates.  in a gold standard situation, that is how things worked.  every ounce of gold that left the country was an ounce of gold lost and the gdp would shrink.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? why would our country be any different ? if imports   exports, we lose wealth.  what is the source of american wealth ? we export dollars in exchange for goods, but we print them.  the fed just magics them up out of thin air.  how can we run out of something that we have an effectively infinite supply of ? how can the remaining supply of dollars be relevant to the size of the economy when that number is basically infinite ? why does it matter if someone in another country holds dollars when the value of those dollars is determined by the fed ? the value of the dollar is not set in the same way it was under the gold standard, and so the export of a dollar does not mean that wealth is being exported.  what should happen when capital gets exported under a floating exchange rate is that the dollar should depreciate, but that is hardly a cataclysmic event.  in fact, if the currency does appreciate, american producers get a boost they can sell their products more cheaply abroad , american consumers take a hit in the form of higher prices , and we are right where you wanted us to be post tariff, only without the massive loss in efficiency.   #  is there another source you are getting your ideas from ?  #  what you are describing is mercantilism, an economic theory that went out of fashion about 0 years ago.  the reason for this is that economists universally across every school, party, and background have accepted that exploiting comparative advantages URL benefit all parties involved.  actually, i find it weird that you would espouse mercantilist theories after reading wealth of nations.  is there another source you are getting your ideas from ? anyway, that only adresses the economic health side of the issue, but what about the moral side ? now, i think everybody can agree that it is a terrible state if affairs that so many people on earth are forced to live on a dollar a day or less.  but the problem is, what can we do about it ? if we take away sweatshop workers jobs, they wo not find better ones.  and the people of china are not fortunate enough to enjoy the social safety nets of the citizens of first world countries, even more limited ones like the us.  so while a dollar a day is bad, subsistence farming and starvation is worse.  and let is not forget that the u. s. , which has far superior pay rates and social programs to china was able to achieve this in no small part to extremely low costs of labor during the industrial revolution, and china is rapid modernization is a similar scenario.   #  balance of trade is about as counter intuitive as the monty hall problem URL the wealth of nations is a great place to start learning about economics but i recommend reading it again.   #  i can understand your position on the matter.  balance of trade is about as counter intuitive as the monty hall problem URL the wealth of nations is a great place to start learning about economics but i recommend reading it again.  i would also recommend milton friedman and thomas sowell for a slightly easier to understand explanation of balance of trade.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? right, except they would not have any money in the first place.  how does a person get money ? export.  now let is imagine you have lots of money from all your exports a big scrooge mcduck vault to swim in.  how does this benefit you exactly ? money does not benefit you until you spend it.  that is import.  i am guessing you do not work your job never to spend the money you earn.  you could, but why would you ? the equivalent here is a stunted standard of living.  aside from missing the opportunity to reap the rewards of export, tariffs and cash hoarding lead to other problems including inflation where an increase in money supply increases prices, and weak foreign relations a lack of incentive to maintain diplomacy.   #  if they can choose to start farming land and building their own economy, they could well make themselves better off, rather than being stuck working for a company that controls their entire regions supplies and will keep them in poverty.   # if they can choose to start farming land and building their own economy, they could well make themselves better off, rather than being stuck working for a company that controls their entire regions supplies and will keep them in poverty.  i think you might find this unicef URL report interesting.  back in the 0 is, we were buying lots of clothes from bangladesh, and the factories there employed lots of children.  senator harkin introduced the child labor deterrence act, and the factories laid off about 0,0 children workers even though the act did not end up passing .  the consequences were devastating.  in follow up trips, unicef workers found that the children who would been laid off were working in stone crushing, street grifting, and most horrifyingly as child prostitutes.  there were not schools, and the jobs they went to were almost universally much more dangerous and awful than the  sweatshop  jobs they had before.  in other words.  yes, we do know this.  cutting off trade to the third world will be condemning millions to more awful working conditions than we can imagine in our first world comfort.   #  for the same reason insider trading is illegal.   # because that is what is good for the economy.  for the same reason insider trading is illegal.  in the modern world this does not work.  take north korea for example they have virtually no imports, they try to make everything themselves and that has not at all worked out for them.  not completely, but certainly more self sustainable than we are.  we currently have a large deficit in our import/export ratio URL which is a problem.  this is a solution.  also, north korea is not really a good country to compare us to.  they have some other pretty big problems as well that are hurting them economically, like a slew of crazy leaders.  boeing will increase the price if they have to, we will keep going.  i replied to this argument already in my op.  i am including people who are payed less than minimum wage.  unless your somehow implying that there is some other way for a company to produce a good and ship it here, and it somehow still be cheaper than if they just produced it here ? no tariffs, no shipping ? sounds cheaper unless they are cutting corners somewhere.  this does not mean we should not of ended slavery.  furthermore, as long as there are homeless, starving kids in the us, they should be our priority, imo.  i had not considered that.
read the update before replying ! i think we should put tariffs on foreign goods as high as we possibly can without creating a black market.  my reasoning is as follows.  cheap imported goods hurt both us as a country and developing countries.  they hurt us by reducing the number of items produced in our country.  if we export money, we lose that money from our economy.  that is how an economy works, period.  i could go into various ways importing goods generally hurts the economy, but pretty much all of them boil down to that.  as a secondary reason, helping other people is also a good thing to do.  creating markets for slaves is the same thing as supporting slavery.  essentially, if there is a large economic demand for slavery and little regulation, it will usually occur.  not justifying that, just saying it how i see it.  providing money for goods that are so cheap they could only be made by slaves is no better than owning slaves imo.  we should not just export slavery, and that is what importing cheap goods is.  when i have expressed this view to others before, they have always replied that it  would raise prices.   i think this argument is irrelevant.  reducing our country is gdp reduces the wealth per capita.  in other words, importing goods makes us poor.  i would rather have more money with more expensive goods than less money with goods at the same price.  to make an analogy real quick for anyone who is confused by what i am saying, let is say there is a person who contributes nothing to society.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? why would our country be any different ? if imports   exports, we lose wealth.  i think other methods of reducing importation would either create a black market or be horribly inefficient.  i think tariffs are the best way to reduce importation, by discouraging our own citizens via high prices.  my knowledge of economic matters is limited to reading adam smith is  the wealth of nations.   so tell me what i have missed.  update: my view has been changed, not by any one answer, but by a number of answers that all brought up good points.  however, i still do not see anything wrong with raising tariffs just enough to reduce our import/export deficit URL it still seems to me that tariffs would be the best way to even this out.   #  if we export money, we lose that money from our economy.   #  that is how an economy works, period.   # i think tariffs are the best way to reduce importation, by discouraging our own citizens via high prices.  i am just going to get this out of the way early: tariffs are pretty massively inefficient.  URL putting a tariff in place will hurt consumers, and export oriented businesses.  that will lead to layoffs and will have a negative effect on gdp.  that is how an economy works, period.  not quite.  that is how an economy works without variable exchange rates.  in a gold standard situation, that is how things worked.  every ounce of gold that left the country was an ounce of gold lost and the gdp would shrink.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? why would our country be any different ? if imports   exports, we lose wealth.  what is the source of american wealth ? we export dollars in exchange for goods, but we print them.  the fed just magics them up out of thin air.  how can we run out of something that we have an effectively infinite supply of ? how can the remaining supply of dollars be relevant to the size of the economy when that number is basically infinite ? why does it matter if someone in another country holds dollars when the value of those dollars is determined by the fed ? the value of the dollar is not set in the same way it was under the gold standard, and so the export of a dollar does not mean that wealth is being exported.  what should happen when capital gets exported under a floating exchange rate is that the dollar should depreciate, but that is hardly a cataclysmic event.  in fact, if the currency does appreciate, american producers get a boost they can sell their products more cheaply abroad , american consumers take a hit in the form of higher prices , and we are right where you wanted us to be post tariff, only without the massive loss in efficiency.   #  now, i think everybody can agree that it is a terrible state if affairs that so many people on earth are forced to live on a dollar a day or less.   #  what you are describing is mercantilism, an economic theory that went out of fashion about 0 years ago.  the reason for this is that economists universally across every school, party, and background have accepted that exploiting comparative advantages URL benefit all parties involved.  actually, i find it weird that you would espouse mercantilist theories after reading wealth of nations.  is there another source you are getting your ideas from ? anyway, that only adresses the economic health side of the issue, but what about the moral side ? now, i think everybody can agree that it is a terrible state if affairs that so many people on earth are forced to live on a dollar a day or less.  but the problem is, what can we do about it ? if we take away sweatshop workers jobs, they wo not find better ones.  and the people of china are not fortunate enough to enjoy the social safety nets of the citizens of first world countries, even more limited ones like the us.  so while a dollar a day is bad, subsistence farming and starvation is worse.  and let is not forget that the u. s. , which has far superior pay rates and social programs to china was able to achieve this in no small part to extremely low costs of labor during the industrial revolution, and china is rapid modernization is a similar scenario.   #  i am guessing you do not work your job never to spend the money you earn.   #  i can understand your position on the matter.  balance of trade is about as counter intuitive as the monty hall problem URL the wealth of nations is a great place to start learning about economics but i recommend reading it again.  i would also recommend milton friedman and thomas sowell for a slightly easier to understand explanation of balance of trade.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? right, except they would not have any money in the first place.  how does a person get money ? export.  now let is imagine you have lots of money from all your exports a big scrooge mcduck vault to swim in.  how does this benefit you exactly ? money does not benefit you until you spend it.  that is import.  i am guessing you do not work your job never to spend the money you earn.  you could, but why would you ? the equivalent here is a stunted standard of living.  aside from missing the opportunity to reap the rewards of export, tariffs and cash hoarding lead to other problems including inflation where an increase in money supply increases prices, and weak foreign relations a lack of incentive to maintain diplomacy.   #  senator harkin introduced the child labor deterrence act, and the factories laid off about 0,0 children workers even though the act did not end up passing .   # if they can choose to start farming land and building their own economy, they could well make themselves better off, rather than being stuck working for a company that controls their entire regions supplies and will keep them in poverty.  i think you might find this unicef URL report interesting.  back in the 0 is, we were buying lots of clothes from bangladesh, and the factories there employed lots of children.  senator harkin introduced the child labor deterrence act, and the factories laid off about 0,0 children workers even though the act did not end up passing .  the consequences were devastating.  in follow up trips, unicef workers found that the children who would been laid off were working in stone crushing, street grifting, and most horrifyingly as child prostitutes.  there were not schools, and the jobs they went to were almost universally much more dangerous and awful than the  sweatshop  jobs they had before.  in other words.  yes, we do know this.  cutting off trade to the third world will be condemning millions to more awful working conditions than we can imagine in our first world comfort.   #  not completely, but certainly more self sustainable than we are.   # because that is what is good for the economy.  for the same reason insider trading is illegal.  in the modern world this does not work.  take north korea for example they have virtually no imports, they try to make everything themselves and that has not at all worked out for them.  not completely, but certainly more self sustainable than we are.  we currently have a large deficit in our import/export ratio URL which is a problem.  this is a solution.  also, north korea is not really a good country to compare us to.  they have some other pretty big problems as well that are hurting them economically, like a slew of crazy leaders.  boeing will increase the price if they have to, we will keep going.  i replied to this argument already in my op.  i am including people who are payed less than minimum wage.  unless your somehow implying that there is some other way for a company to produce a good and ship it here, and it somehow still be cheaper than if they just produced it here ? no tariffs, no shipping ? sounds cheaper unless they are cutting corners somewhere.  this does not mean we should not of ended slavery.  furthermore, as long as there are homeless, starving kids in the us, they should be our priority, imo.  i had not considered that.
read the update before replying ! i think we should put tariffs on foreign goods as high as we possibly can without creating a black market.  my reasoning is as follows.  cheap imported goods hurt both us as a country and developing countries.  they hurt us by reducing the number of items produced in our country.  if we export money, we lose that money from our economy.  that is how an economy works, period.  i could go into various ways importing goods generally hurts the economy, but pretty much all of them boil down to that.  as a secondary reason, helping other people is also a good thing to do.  creating markets for slaves is the same thing as supporting slavery.  essentially, if there is a large economic demand for slavery and little regulation, it will usually occur.  not justifying that, just saying it how i see it.  providing money for goods that are so cheap they could only be made by slaves is no better than owning slaves imo.  we should not just export slavery, and that is what importing cheap goods is.  when i have expressed this view to others before, they have always replied that it  would raise prices.   i think this argument is irrelevant.  reducing our country is gdp reduces the wealth per capita.  in other words, importing goods makes us poor.  i would rather have more money with more expensive goods than less money with goods at the same price.  to make an analogy real quick for anyone who is confused by what i am saying, let is say there is a person who contributes nothing to society.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? why would our country be any different ? if imports   exports, we lose wealth.  i think other methods of reducing importation would either create a black market or be horribly inefficient.  i think tariffs are the best way to reduce importation, by discouraging our own citizens via high prices.  my knowledge of economic matters is limited to reading adam smith is  the wealth of nations.   so tell me what i have missed.  update: my view has been changed, not by any one answer, but by a number of answers that all brought up good points.  however, i still do not see anything wrong with raising tariffs just enough to reduce our import/export deficit URL it still seems to me that tariffs would be the best way to even this out.   #  to make an analogy real quick for anyone who is confused by what i am saying, let is say there is a person who contributes nothing to society.   #  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.   # i think tariffs are the best way to reduce importation, by discouraging our own citizens via high prices.  i am just going to get this out of the way early: tariffs are pretty massively inefficient.  URL putting a tariff in place will hurt consumers, and export oriented businesses.  that will lead to layoffs and will have a negative effect on gdp.  that is how an economy works, period.  not quite.  that is how an economy works without variable exchange rates.  in a gold standard situation, that is how things worked.  every ounce of gold that left the country was an ounce of gold lost and the gdp would shrink.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? why would our country be any different ? if imports   exports, we lose wealth.  what is the source of american wealth ? we export dollars in exchange for goods, but we print them.  the fed just magics them up out of thin air.  how can we run out of something that we have an effectively infinite supply of ? how can the remaining supply of dollars be relevant to the size of the economy when that number is basically infinite ? why does it matter if someone in another country holds dollars when the value of those dollars is determined by the fed ? the value of the dollar is not set in the same way it was under the gold standard, and so the export of a dollar does not mean that wealth is being exported.  what should happen when capital gets exported under a floating exchange rate is that the dollar should depreciate, but that is hardly a cataclysmic event.  in fact, if the currency does appreciate, american producers get a boost they can sell their products more cheaply abroad , american consumers take a hit in the form of higher prices , and we are right where you wanted us to be post tariff, only without the massive loss in efficiency.   #  anyway, that only adresses the economic health side of the issue, but what about the moral side ?  #  what you are describing is mercantilism, an economic theory that went out of fashion about 0 years ago.  the reason for this is that economists universally across every school, party, and background have accepted that exploiting comparative advantages URL benefit all parties involved.  actually, i find it weird that you would espouse mercantilist theories after reading wealth of nations.  is there another source you are getting your ideas from ? anyway, that only adresses the economic health side of the issue, but what about the moral side ? now, i think everybody can agree that it is a terrible state if affairs that so many people on earth are forced to live on a dollar a day or less.  but the problem is, what can we do about it ? if we take away sweatshop workers jobs, they wo not find better ones.  and the people of china are not fortunate enough to enjoy the social safety nets of the citizens of first world countries, even more limited ones like the us.  so while a dollar a day is bad, subsistence farming and starvation is worse.  and let is not forget that the u. s. , which has far superior pay rates and social programs to china was able to achieve this in no small part to extremely low costs of labor during the industrial revolution, and china is rapid modernization is a similar scenario.   #  money does not benefit you until you spend it.   #  i can understand your position on the matter.  balance of trade is about as counter intuitive as the monty hall problem URL the wealth of nations is a great place to start learning about economics but i recommend reading it again.  i would also recommend milton friedman and thomas sowell for a slightly easier to understand explanation of balance of trade.  they do not create and  export  any wealth from themselves.  however, they constantly buy things.  they would run out of money, would they not ? right, except they would not have any money in the first place.  how does a person get money ? export.  now let is imagine you have lots of money from all your exports a big scrooge mcduck vault to swim in.  how does this benefit you exactly ? money does not benefit you until you spend it.  that is import.  i am guessing you do not work your job never to spend the money you earn.  you could, but why would you ? the equivalent here is a stunted standard of living.  aside from missing the opportunity to reap the rewards of export, tariffs and cash hoarding lead to other problems including inflation where an increase in money supply increases prices, and weak foreign relations a lack of incentive to maintain diplomacy.   #  if they can choose to start farming land and building their own economy, they could well make themselves better off, rather than being stuck working for a company that controls their entire regions supplies and will keep them in poverty.   # if they can choose to start farming land and building their own economy, they could well make themselves better off, rather than being stuck working for a company that controls their entire regions supplies and will keep them in poverty.  i think you might find this unicef URL report interesting.  back in the 0 is, we were buying lots of clothes from bangladesh, and the factories there employed lots of children.  senator harkin introduced the child labor deterrence act, and the factories laid off about 0,0 children workers even though the act did not end up passing .  the consequences were devastating.  in follow up trips, unicef workers found that the children who would been laid off were working in stone crushing, street grifting, and most horrifyingly as child prostitutes.  there were not schools, and the jobs they went to were almost universally much more dangerous and awful than the  sweatshop  jobs they had before.  in other words.  yes, we do know this.  cutting off trade to the third world will be condemning millions to more awful working conditions than we can imagine in our first world comfort.   #  not completely, but certainly more self sustainable than we are.   # because that is what is good for the economy.  for the same reason insider trading is illegal.  in the modern world this does not work.  take north korea for example they have virtually no imports, they try to make everything themselves and that has not at all worked out for them.  not completely, but certainly more self sustainable than we are.  we currently have a large deficit in our import/export ratio URL which is a problem.  this is a solution.  also, north korea is not really a good country to compare us to.  they have some other pretty big problems as well that are hurting them economically, like a slew of crazy leaders.  boeing will increase the price if they have to, we will keep going.  i replied to this argument already in my op.  i am including people who are payed less than minimum wage.  unless your somehow implying that there is some other way for a company to produce a good and ship it here, and it somehow still be cheaper than if they just produced it here ? no tariffs, no shipping ? sounds cheaper unless they are cutting corners somewhere.  this does not mean we should not of ended slavery.  furthermore, as long as there are homeless, starving kids in the us, they should be our priority, imo.  i had not considered that.
hypothetically speaking, say there is a person who has done all unspeakable evil: for example raping, murdering, stealing, etc.  they have no intent to change for the better and will continue their ways when and if they are let free.  should this person be put to death ? i think so.  on a lower scale: say we have a street thug.  i am talking about those 0 0 something low lives, grown and raised in the ghetto, steals and fights and is jobless.  again, unable to change per se.  i also would agree this person be put to death.  i am leaving out those with mental illnesses for the sake of my ignorant argument.  i am no psychologist or sociologist.  i am merely someone who thinks that think the reason why the world is shit is because not only are those that are on top of the world are rotten but also those that are on the bottom.  i have been thinking about this for a really long time.  i would definitely alter my screening process for those who have no aptitude or capacity for human mutual respect, but for now the main idea is as it is.   also, please read past comments before you reply  #  i am leaving out those with mental illnesses for the sake of my ignorant argument.   #  why are you leaving out the mentally ill ?  # why are you leaving out the mentally ill ? if we cannot treat them, surely it makes just as much sense to exterminate them as well.  they probably wo not contribute and require effort to take care of.  just like some street hoodlum.  as an objection to your over all plan though, giving the government the authority to exterminate a considerable number of people likely would not end well.  how do we determine the sub humans ? is this determination going to favor a political agenda ? for example, say poor people vote republican, and the poor are likelier to be thugs.  you have now given any democrats with sway and loose morals an opportunity to enhance their political careers by eliminating the political base of their opponents.  you may think people would have to be heartless to kill for political objectives, but first, many politicians are sociopaths and second, you would have to be heartless anyway to go on with your extermination campaign.  a final reason why this is a bad idea is that we simply cannot predict who will have future value to society.  if we could reliably asses this, then your plan would at least be possible.  but we ca not.   #  it would be tough to decide who exactly these people are, since humans are really complicated, but putting that aside.  strictly in regards to my view is principle, am i wrong ?  #  i believe it was kant correct me if it is not, i just remember this from some philosophy readings who said that it is wrong to kill someone not because of the effect on their family, or the pain that they experience, but rather because you take away their potential to do, well, anything at all.  if one is potential is only to meaninglessly destroy whatever it is that is around them, what good are they to the earth or other humans ? killing someone would be bad because a part of them is good, i think.  so what if nothing about them is good.  rotten to the core and will remain that way.  it would be tough to decide who exactly these people are, since humans are really complicated, but putting that aside.  strictly in regards to my view is principle, am i wrong ?  #  a stoner on his couch is not hitler, but he does not contribute to humanity like newton did.   #  assuming for a moment a system is developed to judge someone is worth to society and everyone can be put on a scale.  one end, you have louis pasteur, isaac newton, and truly great individuals on one end ranked in that system and hitler, mussolini, john wayne gacy, etc on he other.  while i understand the idea to get rid off bad guys, where is the line drawn ? do unproductive members stay ? a stoner on his couch is not hitler, but he does not contribute to humanity like newton did.  frank abingale jr was a conman for years before finally getting caught.  since then he has taught companies how to avoid scams.  would he be executed ? he certainly was a bad guy, but not murdering bad.  the biggest problem i have is where that line is drawn.   #  in the case of frank abingale jr, his goal was not simply con for the sake of conning.   #  i mentioned this in another comment, but the only real way to not be unproductive is to sit still forever.  eventually you have to buy food, which helps out wherever you buy it from.  in the case of frank abingale jr, his goal was not simply con for the sake of conning.  i am sure he wanted lots of money.  why ? buy cars and houses and whatever.  both of these people may not be the greatest of people at some point, but they can find a way to be a good person.  why ? well, it depends on their mentality.  do they do evil for evil or is it to achieve something else hopefully something productive, if not good .   #  are you bothered by the knowledge that women in afghanistan are being raped, or that abused workers in chinese factories are contracted diseases due to poor work conditions ?  #  a lot of people die every day: innocent men, women and children; hungry families; unlucky people who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.  not only that, but some even experience extreme suffering before they are lucky enough to be released from the pain via death.  the worst part is, we sip coffee on our porches and ultimately indulge in the things that people have slaved to make, risking their health and well being.  are you bothered by the knowledge that women in afghanistan are being raped, or that abused workers in chinese factories are contracted diseases due to poor work conditions ? i would rather kill a lot of useless degenerates and spare the suffering and death of people who can actually make a positive difference.  i know it seems a bit unrealistic.  i basically want to wipe most, if not all evil from the face of the earth and work towards world peace and global respect for life.  would not you sacrifice, say, 0 million people for the good of us all and for as long as we thrive as a race ?
the reason we created laws for working conditions is that we realize that it is unethical to force people to work in dangerous conditions for overlong hours for low compensation.  we see how bad child labor is.  why should only our citizens get these rights if we can help it.  it seems to me that the only reason we do not do this is that our things will cost more.  but we ca not put a price on people is lives and wellbeing.  the subject is complicated, but i believe it would incentivize creating american jobs.  because there would be the same standards, costs would be similar, and america with the lower transportation costs would seem like a better option.  we will also make more money off the taxes.  money is not the main reason, but it is a benefit.   #  the subject is complicated, but i believe it would incentivize creating american jobs.   #  there is an extremely large in between you are missing.   #  how would you enforce this ? salaries would be impossible.  reports on work conditions and hours can be easily forged because the government is not going to send american public workers to check factories in china or africa.  there is an extremely large in between you are missing.  i work, in a relatively poor country, for an american company.  our facilities and work conditions are superior to most american workplaces and the building i work in is not even owned by my employer.  i provide my services for $0/month.  not to mention that they do not have to hire people directly to have them work for them ! a pretty large number of my colleagues are not even employed by the american firm they work for.  their contracts are signed with an outsourcing firm.  though i am sure big companies do not even have to do that.  they would just set up another company in the country they want which has zero ties with the american government/law.   #  so the wage is honest, but poor working conditions can easily be dishonest.   # they both have the same positives.  the difference lies in the negatives.  things that damage the health of workers are not something the workers are easily equipped to gauge.  the wage is.  so the wage is honest, but poor working conditions can easily be dishonest.  keeping children from learning damages the long term economic development of the nation.  multinational corporations  benefit from  this, because otherwise they wo not be able to keep the cheap labour.  if you do not want to ban the us companies employing child labour a sensible midpoint could be to require them to educate those children.  they do not want to, and it costs them money, but it means that they are truly contributing to the nation is development.   #  in some of those factories it is not completely unskilled labor.   #  it is not always a moral responsibility, but a financial one.  in some of those factories it is not completely unskilled labor.  in a lot of those electronics factories it takes time and money to train new workers, if they treat them unfairly and do not pay them acceptable wages they will take the money they invested to a competitor.  they have incentive to treat their workers well.  now i am not saying it is ideal or shitty things do not happen, just that not all of those workers are disposable and the companies know it is in their own interest to make sure they are happy.   #  this is the response that should have changed the op is mind.   #  this is the response that should have changed the op is mind.  nearly the whole world has improved it is standard of living in the last 0 years because the early industrialized nations have been outsourcing so aggressively.  there is no reason for a country to have the labor laws until they get abused and their people ask for them.  when working 0 hour days is preferable to subsistence farming and occasional starvation we should allow them to opportunity to do so.  where the conditions are worse than you stomach then you should buy products from companies that are more ethical  #  regarding the improved standards because of industrialized nations outsourcing, they can continue to advance while having safe working conditions and freedom from abuse.   #  basically, you are saying that those countries should not learn from the mistakes of others.  if they are not currently abusing or endangering their working class, then it seems perfectly reasonable to create the laws and continue to not abuse them.  why wait until people are abused or suffering before protecting them ? is it not ok to think ahead and prevent abuse ? regarding the improved standards because of industrialized nations outsourcing, they can continue to advance while having safe working conditions and freedom from abuse.
the reason we created laws for working conditions is that we realize that it is unethical to force people to work in dangerous conditions for overlong hours for low compensation.  we see how bad child labor is.  why should only our citizens get these rights if we can help it.  it seems to me that the only reason we do not do this is that our things will cost more.  but we ca not put a price on people is lives and wellbeing.  the subject is complicated, but i believe it would incentivize creating american jobs.  because there would be the same standards, costs would be similar, and america with the lower transportation costs would seem like a better option.  we will also make more money off the taxes.  money is not the main reason, but it is a benefit.   #  why should only our citizens get these rights if we can help it.   #  this is why so many countries hate america.   #  that will hurt our foreign affairs.  by doing business with other nations it makes our nation more peaceable and at better terms with other countries.  we need allies/friends.  by employing workers who need jobs in other countries, we look like the good guys.  if we begin to withdraw from these places we will soon look like bad guys.  this is why so many countries hate america.  we feel as though we have the duty to spread democracy and we are constantly interfering in foreign conflicts in order to impose our beliefs upon other nations.  if another nation does not have strict labor laws, it is not our place to try to enforce them on the people or to attack the government by withdrawing our businesses unless they make their laws just like ours.   #  keeping children from learning damages the long term economic development of the nation.   # they both have the same positives.  the difference lies in the negatives.  things that damage the health of workers are not something the workers are easily equipped to gauge.  the wage is.  so the wage is honest, but poor working conditions can easily be dishonest.  keeping children from learning damages the long term economic development of the nation.  multinational corporations  benefit from  this, because otherwise they wo not be able to keep the cheap labour.  if you do not want to ban the us companies employing child labour a sensible midpoint could be to require them to educate those children.  they do not want to, and it costs them money, but it means that they are truly contributing to the nation is development.   #  they have incentive to treat their workers well.   #  it is not always a moral responsibility, but a financial one.  in some of those factories it is not completely unskilled labor.  in a lot of those electronics factories it takes time and money to train new workers, if they treat them unfairly and do not pay them acceptable wages they will take the money they invested to a competitor.  they have incentive to treat their workers well.  now i am not saying it is ideal or shitty things do not happen, just that not all of those workers are disposable and the companies know it is in their own interest to make sure they are happy.   #  there is no reason for a country to have the labor laws until they get abused and their people ask for them.   #  this is the response that should have changed the op is mind.  nearly the whole world has improved it is standard of living in the last 0 years because the early industrialized nations have been outsourcing so aggressively.  there is no reason for a country to have the labor laws until they get abused and their people ask for them.  when working 0 hour days is preferable to subsistence farming and occasional starvation we should allow them to opportunity to do so.  where the conditions are worse than you stomach then you should buy products from companies that are more ethical  #  if they are not currently abusing or endangering their working class, then it seems perfectly reasonable to create the laws and continue to not abuse them.   #  basically, you are saying that those countries should not learn from the mistakes of others.  if they are not currently abusing or endangering their working class, then it seems perfectly reasonable to create the laws and continue to not abuse them.  why wait until people are abused or suffering before protecting them ? is it not ok to think ahead and prevent abuse ? regarding the improved standards because of industrialized nations outsourcing, they can continue to advance while having safe working conditions and freedom from abuse.
i work for a school photography company, and around this time of year i am usually dispatched to graduations to take pictures of people receiving their diplomas.  now, every so often at graduations we have to take the picture of someone with a severe mental disability.  i am not talking about someone who is just a little slower than normal i am talking about people who are confined to a wheelchair and have the mental capacity of a two year old.  these kinds of people likely do not even understand the  concept  of graduation i had one person try to  eat his diploma.   we have to use all these tricks to make them look at the camera, like whistling, snapping, etc. , and even then it hardly ever comes out as a good picture.  my view is that the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society.  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.  dropouts are shunned and excluded from society denied the same opportunities in society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly.  those with severe mental disabilities were physically unable to take many of the same classes as the majority of people who graduated, and so i believe they should not be entitled to the same diploma.  i am usually a pretty liberal guy, but this issue has always bugged me because it is cognitively dissonant from the rest of my beliefs.  i believe we should still take care of these people, but if they are unable to function properly i do not think we should give them the certification that says they are a functioning member of society.   gt;  hello, users of cmv ! this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.   #  dropouts are shunned and excluded from society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly.   #  that is not what a diploma means, even if it is how people chose to interpret the diploma.  the diploma means a person went through a particular course of training and, by whatever means, came out the other side.  this can include: inherent talent in a lazy person, lots of hard work in someone who does not really grasp the material, cheating, a little help on the side, taking easy classes, etc.  i have seen people get diplomas by paying for them.  so if you choose to interpret the diploma in one way and the people coming out with the diploma do not meet your expectations, that is your mistake.  you are choosing to ignore the vast number of ways a person can get a diploma without being a functioning member of society and focusing on one in particular.  the mistake is not giving people a diploma.  the mistake is assuming it suffices and not testing the person beyond the diploma.  a person, regardless of previous certification, should have to jump through hoops.  dropouts are shunned and excluded from society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly.  jesus no.  i hope this is not your view.  if you know someone who holds it, please correct them.  not going through a degree program by no means invalidates a life.  what it might mean is that these people did not go through a traditional education.  this might be because they were working a farm and veterinary science was of no use to them , became ill, could not afford to take the time, etc.   #  it is not like schools can keep them after a certain age usually around 0, but varies by state .   #  with severe disabilities, it is mostly a ceremonial thing, yeah.  it costs the school a negligible amount, and means a lot to the student, their parents, and the press.  it is not like schools can keep them after a certain age usually around 0, but varies by state .  it is not like it has any tangible effect either.  if the disability is that severe, a mcdonald is manager is not going to be fooled or given a false impression of their capabilities.  also, please do not get the wrong idea about students.  whistling and clapping to them to get their attention is treating them like an animal or an infant.  a lot of them simply have less motor control than they have mental ability.  a lot of them may be drawn to do things like put a diploma in their mouth, but that does not mean they have the mind of a toddler.  you do not need to patronize them and tell them they did a great job for looking at you for five seconds, but please do not belittle them or make them feel even more ashamed of themselves than many people already make them feel.   #  looking at it from the perspective of a graduate of average mental functioning, they expended a certain amount of effort to get that diploma.   #  that is true that it does not have a tangible effect on the job prospects of the student itself, but does not it lessen the diploma for everyone else ? looking at it from the perspective of a graduate of average mental functioning, they expended a certain amount of effort to get that diploma.  meanwhile, they see someone with severe autism earning that same diploma.  now, it may have taken the person with autism the same amount of effort to get to that point, but from their perspective it makes their diploma less  special,  for lack of a better term.  as for your second point we try not to do it in a belittling way if we can, if that makes sense.  we at first ask them to look at the camera, then we get the person watching over them behind the cameraman.  usually the person watching them helps out here, but if they still do not respond, then we use those sorts of things as a last resort.  and of course, afterward we do try our best to reward them for looking at the camera.   #  however, now i am considering the opposite problem: should we make school harder for those of above average intelligence ?  #  i would say that is a perfectly fair assessment, so i will grant you a delta.  δ i was mistaken, perhaps, about the idea that a diploma is granted for maintaining a minimum standard throughout school.  instead, a diploma is given based on doing the best you can throughout school and accomplishing  something .  however, now i am considering the opposite problem: should we make school harder for those of above average intelligence ? these kids do not have to give their all when they graduate they can put in a minimum amount of effort and still graduate with flying colors.  we already have that to a degree with honors/ap classes, but those classes are optional.  should we mandate that people of above average intelligence take harder classes, in order to ensure that the achievement of earning a diploma remains fair ? how would we know objectively that someone is of above average intelligence and is not just overperforming or underperforming on tests ? these are not exactly relevant to my original question, but are still interesting to think about.  i am also still a little ambivalent about how society interprets a diploma.  a lot of job applications ask,  do you have a high school diploma or equivalent ?  , and while these kids might have put forth the same amount of effort trying to get a diploma, they are likely to be less efficient at their job simply due to their mental state.  however, this is a rare situation and it is the reason why we have in person interviews with job candidates.   #  they worked hard for it, and they were not really happy about the challenged kids receiving the same thing as they did when they felt they did not deserve it.   #  i know you have been awarded a delta already, but a high school diploma meant alot to a couple kids i graduated with.  they worked hard for it, and they were not really happy about the challenged kids receiving the same thing as they did when they felt they did not deserve it.  i agreed with them wholehearedly until i read your post, but i am still not convinced it is good for society.  not to mention that the argument not made by you, but still of it not costing  that  much to give them an education is silly.  they are not really getting an education, and we could be spending no money on them.  my school ran out of paper halfway through the year when i was a senior; the teachers had to buy their own.
i work for a school photography company, and around this time of year i am usually dispatched to graduations to take pictures of people receiving their diplomas.  now, every so often at graduations we have to take the picture of someone with a severe mental disability.  i am not talking about someone who is just a little slower than normal i am talking about people who are confined to a wheelchair and have the mental capacity of a two year old.  these kinds of people likely do not even understand the  concept  of graduation i had one person try to  eat his diploma.   we have to use all these tricks to make them look at the camera, like whistling, snapping, etc. , and even then it hardly ever comes out as a good picture.  my view is that the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society.  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.  dropouts are shunned and excluded from society denied the same opportunities in society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly.  those with severe mental disabilities were physically unable to take many of the same classes as the majority of people who graduated, and so i believe they should not be entitled to the same diploma.  i am usually a pretty liberal guy, but this issue has always bugged me because it is cognitively dissonant from the rest of my beliefs.  i believe we should still take care of these people, but if they are unable to function properly i do not think we should give them the certification that says they are a functioning member of society.   gt;  hello, users of cmv ! this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  my view is that the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society.   #  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.   # those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.  dropouts are shunned and excluded from society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly.  my parents do not have diplomas from highschool.  my mom does not have a diploma of any sort but still works min wage jobs.  my dad went to trade school.  i think you are really giving too much value to a highschool/college diploma.  my friend dropped out and started his own business.  its now two years later and he is making twice as much as both my parents make combined.  he has a brand new 0 car and he is only 0.  so your whole reasoning is kinda bad.   #  it is not like it has any tangible effect either.   #  with severe disabilities, it is mostly a ceremonial thing, yeah.  it costs the school a negligible amount, and means a lot to the student, their parents, and the press.  it is not like schools can keep them after a certain age usually around 0, but varies by state .  it is not like it has any tangible effect either.  if the disability is that severe, a mcdonald is manager is not going to be fooled or given a false impression of their capabilities.  also, please do not get the wrong idea about students.  whistling and clapping to them to get their attention is treating them like an animal or an infant.  a lot of them simply have less motor control than they have mental ability.  a lot of them may be drawn to do things like put a diploma in their mouth, but that does not mean they have the mind of a toddler.  you do not need to patronize them and tell them they did a great job for looking at you for five seconds, but please do not belittle them or make them feel even more ashamed of themselves than many people already make them feel.   #  we at first ask them to look at the camera, then we get the person watching over them behind the cameraman.   #  that is true that it does not have a tangible effect on the job prospects of the student itself, but does not it lessen the diploma for everyone else ? looking at it from the perspective of a graduate of average mental functioning, they expended a certain amount of effort to get that diploma.  meanwhile, they see someone with severe autism earning that same diploma.  now, it may have taken the person with autism the same amount of effort to get to that point, but from their perspective it makes their diploma less  special,  for lack of a better term.  as for your second point we try not to do it in a belittling way if we can, if that makes sense.  we at first ask them to look at the camera, then we get the person watching over them behind the cameraman.  usually the person watching them helps out here, but if they still do not respond, then we use those sorts of things as a last resort.  and of course, afterward we do try our best to reward them for looking at the camera.   #  instead, a diploma is given based on doing the best you can throughout school and accomplishing  something .   #  i would say that is a perfectly fair assessment, so i will grant you a delta.  δ i was mistaken, perhaps, about the idea that a diploma is granted for maintaining a minimum standard throughout school.  instead, a diploma is given based on doing the best you can throughout school and accomplishing  something .  however, now i am considering the opposite problem: should we make school harder for those of above average intelligence ? these kids do not have to give their all when they graduate they can put in a minimum amount of effort and still graduate with flying colors.  we already have that to a degree with honors/ap classes, but those classes are optional.  should we mandate that people of above average intelligence take harder classes, in order to ensure that the achievement of earning a diploma remains fair ? how would we know objectively that someone is of above average intelligence and is not just overperforming or underperforming on tests ? these are not exactly relevant to my original question, but are still interesting to think about.  i am also still a little ambivalent about how society interprets a diploma.  a lot of job applications ask,  do you have a high school diploma or equivalent ?  , and while these kids might have put forth the same amount of effort trying to get a diploma, they are likely to be less efficient at their job simply due to their mental state.  however, this is a rare situation and it is the reason why we have in person interviews with job candidates.   #  i agreed with them wholehearedly until i read your post, but i am still not convinced it is good for society.   #  i know you have been awarded a delta already, but a high school diploma meant alot to a couple kids i graduated with.  they worked hard for it, and they were not really happy about the challenged kids receiving the same thing as they did when they felt they did not deserve it.  i agreed with them wholehearedly until i read your post, but i am still not convinced it is good for society.  not to mention that the argument not made by you, but still of it not costing  that  much to give them an education is silly.  they are not really getting an education, and we could be spending no money on them.  my school ran out of paper halfway through the year when i was a senior; the teachers had to buy their own.
i work for a school photography company, and around this time of year i am usually dispatched to graduations to take pictures of people receiving their diplomas.  now, every so often at graduations we have to take the picture of someone with a severe mental disability.  i am not talking about someone who is just a little slower than normal i am talking about people who are confined to a wheelchair and have the mental capacity of a two year old.  these kinds of people likely do not even understand the  concept  of graduation i had one person try to  eat his diploma.   we have to use all these tricks to make them look at the camera, like whistling, snapping, etc. , and even then it hardly ever comes out as a good picture.  my view is that the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society.  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.  dropouts are shunned and excluded from society denied the same opportunities in society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly.  those with severe mental disabilities were physically unable to take many of the same classes as the majority of people who graduated, and so i believe they should not be entitled to the same diploma.  i am usually a pretty liberal guy, but this issue has always bugged me because it is cognitively dissonant from the rest of my beliefs.  i believe we should still take care of these people, but if they are unable to function properly i do not think we should give them the certification that says they are a functioning member of society.   gt;  hello, users of cmv ! this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society.   #  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.   # those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.  dropouts are shunned and excluded from society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly.  if this is your view on the purpose of a diploma, then who says that those with severe mental disabilities are not able to function in a civilized society, albeit with some help ? also, i would hardly say that those without a diploma are excluded/shunned from society.  this would mean that anyone without a diploma would essentially be exiled.  people without diplomas still have the same rights as everyone else, they simply have not had the same academic achievements which means that they may not necessarily have the same opportunities down the line.   #  whistling and clapping to them to get their attention is treating them like an animal or an infant.   #  with severe disabilities, it is mostly a ceremonial thing, yeah.  it costs the school a negligible amount, and means a lot to the student, their parents, and the press.  it is not like schools can keep them after a certain age usually around 0, but varies by state .  it is not like it has any tangible effect either.  if the disability is that severe, a mcdonald is manager is not going to be fooled or given a false impression of their capabilities.  also, please do not get the wrong idea about students.  whistling and clapping to them to get their attention is treating them like an animal or an infant.  a lot of them simply have less motor control than they have mental ability.  a lot of them may be drawn to do things like put a diploma in their mouth, but that does not mean they have the mind of a toddler.  you do not need to patronize them and tell them they did a great job for looking at you for five seconds, but please do not belittle them or make them feel even more ashamed of themselves than many people already make them feel.   #  that is true that it does not have a tangible effect on the job prospects of the student itself, but does not it lessen the diploma for everyone else ?  #  that is true that it does not have a tangible effect on the job prospects of the student itself, but does not it lessen the diploma for everyone else ? looking at it from the perspective of a graduate of average mental functioning, they expended a certain amount of effort to get that diploma.  meanwhile, they see someone with severe autism earning that same diploma.  now, it may have taken the person with autism the same amount of effort to get to that point, but from their perspective it makes their diploma less  special,  for lack of a better term.  as for your second point we try not to do it in a belittling way if we can, if that makes sense.  we at first ask them to look at the camera, then we get the person watching over them behind the cameraman.  usually the person watching them helps out here, but if they still do not respond, then we use those sorts of things as a last resort.  and of course, afterward we do try our best to reward them for looking at the camera.   #  instead, a diploma is given based on doing the best you can throughout school and accomplishing  something .   #  i would say that is a perfectly fair assessment, so i will grant you a delta.  δ i was mistaken, perhaps, about the idea that a diploma is granted for maintaining a minimum standard throughout school.  instead, a diploma is given based on doing the best you can throughout school and accomplishing  something .  however, now i am considering the opposite problem: should we make school harder for those of above average intelligence ? these kids do not have to give their all when they graduate they can put in a minimum amount of effort and still graduate with flying colors.  we already have that to a degree with honors/ap classes, but those classes are optional.  should we mandate that people of above average intelligence take harder classes, in order to ensure that the achievement of earning a diploma remains fair ? how would we know objectively that someone is of above average intelligence and is not just overperforming or underperforming on tests ? these are not exactly relevant to my original question, but are still interesting to think about.  i am also still a little ambivalent about how society interprets a diploma.  a lot of job applications ask,  do you have a high school diploma or equivalent ?  , and while these kids might have put forth the same amount of effort trying to get a diploma, they are likely to be less efficient at their job simply due to their mental state.  however, this is a rare situation and it is the reason why we have in person interviews with job candidates.   #  my school ran out of paper halfway through the year when i was a senior; the teachers had to buy their own.   #  i know you have been awarded a delta already, but a high school diploma meant alot to a couple kids i graduated with.  they worked hard for it, and they were not really happy about the challenged kids receiving the same thing as they did when they felt they did not deserve it.  i agreed with them wholehearedly until i read your post, but i am still not convinced it is good for society.  not to mention that the argument not made by you, but still of it not costing  that  much to give them an education is silly.  they are not really getting an education, and we could be spending no money on them.  my school ran out of paper halfway through the year when i was a senior; the teachers had to buy their own.
i work for a school photography company, and around this time of year i am usually dispatched to graduations to take pictures of people receiving their diplomas.  now, every so often at graduations we have to take the picture of someone with a severe mental disability.  i am not talking about someone who is just a little slower than normal i am talking about people who are confined to a wheelchair and have the mental capacity of a two year old.  these kinds of people likely do not even understand the  concept  of graduation i had one person try to  eat his diploma.   we have to use all these tricks to make them look at the camera, like whistling, snapping, etc. , and even then it hardly ever comes out as a good picture.  my view is that the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society.  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.  dropouts are shunned and excluded from society denied the same opportunities in society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly.  those with severe mental disabilities were physically unable to take many of the same classes as the majority of people who graduated, and so i believe they should not be entitled to the same diploma.  i am usually a pretty liberal guy, but this issue has always bugged me because it is cognitively dissonant from the rest of my beliefs.  i believe we should still take care of these people, but if they are unable to function properly i do not think we should give them the certification that says they are a functioning member of society.   gt;  hello, users of cmv ! this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  my view is that the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society.   #  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.   # those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.  dropouts are shunned and excluded from society denied the same opportunities in society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly i think you need to reanalyze this bit here, especially that last clause.  are they  really  denied opportunities because they have not proven themselves ? or are they denied opportunities because they  have  proven that they  ca not  function properly ? what if a high school diploma does not represent anything other than  you have done the minimum of what society expects of someone with your capabilities, in the time that was so designated  ? that would explain why the 0 y/o junior does not find having no degree to be a problem when they try to find a job.  it also would explain why society largely treats people with a ged different from people with hs diplomas, despite them being legally equivalent: a ged is almost always held by someone who, for whatever reason, could not meet expectations in expected time frame.  as to the severely disabled.  they have done everything that was expected of them.  yes, that expectation could be accurately described as  not terribly much at all,  but the fact that they met that expectation does not change the fact that they me it.  because, really.  someone who is as limited as you are referring to is not going to have an advantage when it comes to flipping burgers when compared to a dropout because one of them has a fancy piece of paper; the jobs that would consider the former would consider  both,  based wholly on their ability   willingness to do what is asked of them.   #  whistling and clapping to them to get their attention is treating them like an animal or an infant.   #  with severe disabilities, it is mostly a ceremonial thing, yeah.  it costs the school a negligible amount, and means a lot to the student, their parents, and the press.  it is not like schools can keep them after a certain age usually around 0, but varies by state .  it is not like it has any tangible effect either.  if the disability is that severe, a mcdonald is manager is not going to be fooled or given a false impression of their capabilities.  also, please do not get the wrong idea about students.  whistling and clapping to them to get their attention is treating them like an animal or an infant.  a lot of them simply have less motor control than they have mental ability.  a lot of them may be drawn to do things like put a diploma in their mouth, but that does not mean they have the mind of a toddler.  you do not need to patronize them and tell them they did a great job for looking at you for five seconds, but please do not belittle them or make them feel even more ashamed of themselves than many people already make them feel.   #  looking at it from the perspective of a graduate of average mental functioning, they expended a certain amount of effort to get that diploma.   #  that is true that it does not have a tangible effect on the job prospects of the student itself, but does not it lessen the diploma for everyone else ? looking at it from the perspective of a graduate of average mental functioning, they expended a certain amount of effort to get that diploma.  meanwhile, they see someone with severe autism earning that same diploma.  now, it may have taken the person with autism the same amount of effort to get to that point, but from their perspective it makes their diploma less  special,  for lack of a better term.  as for your second point we try not to do it in a belittling way if we can, if that makes sense.  we at first ask them to look at the camera, then we get the person watching over them behind the cameraman.  usually the person watching them helps out here, but if they still do not respond, then we use those sorts of things as a last resort.  and of course, afterward we do try our best to reward them for looking at the camera.   #   , and while these kids might have put forth the same amount of effort trying to get a diploma, they are likely to be less efficient at their job simply due to their mental state.   #  i would say that is a perfectly fair assessment, so i will grant you a delta.  δ i was mistaken, perhaps, about the idea that a diploma is granted for maintaining a minimum standard throughout school.  instead, a diploma is given based on doing the best you can throughout school and accomplishing  something .  however, now i am considering the opposite problem: should we make school harder for those of above average intelligence ? these kids do not have to give their all when they graduate they can put in a minimum amount of effort and still graduate with flying colors.  we already have that to a degree with honors/ap classes, but those classes are optional.  should we mandate that people of above average intelligence take harder classes, in order to ensure that the achievement of earning a diploma remains fair ? how would we know objectively that someone is of above average intelligence and is not just overperforming or underperforming on tests ? these are not exactly relevant to my original question, but are still interesting to think about.  i am also still a little ambivalent about how society interprets a diploma.  a lot of job applications ask,  do you have a high school diploma or equivalent ?  , and while these kids might have put forth the same amount of effort trying to get a diploma, they are likely to be less efficient at their job simply due to their mental state.  however, this is a rare situation and it is the reason why we have in person interviews with job candidates.   #  not to mention that the argument not made by you, but still of it not costing  that  much to give them an education is silly.   #  i know you have been awarded a delta already, but a high school diploma meant alot to a couple kids i graduated with.  they worked hard for it, and they were not really happy about the challenged kids receiving the same thing as they did when they felt they did not deserve it.  i agreed with them wholehearedly until i read your post, but i am still not convinced it is good for society.  not to mention that the argument not made by you, but still of it not costing  that  much to give them an education is silly.  they are not really getting an education, and we could be spending no money on them.  my school ran out of paper halfway through the year when i was a senior; the teachers had to buy their own.
i work for a school photography company, and around this time of year i am usually dispatched to graduations to take pictures of people receiving their diplomas.  now, every so often at graduations we have to take the picture of someone with a severe mental disability.  i am not talking about someone who is just a little slower than normal i am talking about people who are confined to a wheelchair and have the mental capacity of a two year old.  these kinds of people likely do not even understand the  concept  of graduation i had one person try to  eat his diploma.   we have to use all these tricks to make them look at the camera, like whistling, snapping, etc. , and even then it hardly ever comes out as a good picture.  my view is that the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society.  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.  dropouts are shunned and excluded from society denied the same opportunities in society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly.  those with severe mental disabilities were physically unable to take many of the same classes as the majority of people who graduated, and so i believe they should not be entitled to the same diploma.  i am usually a pretty liberal guy, but this issue has always bugged me because it is cognitively dissonant from the rest of my beliefs.  i believe we should still take care of these people, but if they are unable to function properly i do not think we should give them the certification that says they are a functioning member of society.   gt;  hello, users of cmv ! this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving !  #  my view is that the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society.   #  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.   #  i think it is a pretty harmless thing.  even if the kid does not fully understand it, it is to try to give him/her as normal of a life as possible.  deep down the kid may have some type of insecurity about how he/she looks and acts compared to all the other kids.  he/she may be unable to express this.  also, the parents and family enjoy seeing the child recognized for all of his/her efforts in school, even if there was not much progress made.  those without diplomas or equivalent i. e.  dropouts are denied the same opportunities in society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly.  i do not think this is an issue.  if a man with severe mental retardation ends up at an advertising agency with a diploma, he is not going to get the job  just  because he has a diploma.  imagine having a mentally handicapped son who ca not really talk, walk, or do many things.  you will feel absolutely terrible for him as you raise him and see him missing out on all the amazing luxuries and opportunities that normal children get to enjoy.  then imagine after many years of intensive schooling to try to rehabilitate or teach him new things, he is denied entrance to the graduation ceremony and will not get a diploma or certificate of recognition.   #  it is not like schools can keep them after a certain age usually around 0, but varies by state .   #  with severe disabilities, it is mostly a ceremonial thing, yeah.  it costs the school a negligible amount, and means a lot to the student, their parents, and the press.  it is not like schools can keep them after a certain age usually around 0, but varies by state .  it is not like it has any tangible effect either.  if the disability is that severe, a mcdonald is manager is not going to be fooled or given a false impression of their capabilities.  also, please do not get the wrong idea about students.  whistling and clapping to them to get their attention is treating them like an animal or an infant.  a lot of them simply have less motor control than they have mental ability.  a lot of them may be drawn to do things like put a diploma in their mouth, but that does not mean they have the mind of a toddler.  you do not need to patronize them and tell them they did a great job for looking at you for five seconds, but please do not belittle them or make them feel even more ashamed of themselves than many people already make them feel.   #  we at first ask them to look at the camera, then we get the person watching over them behind the cameraman.   #  that is true that it does not have a tangible effect on the job prospects of the student itself, but does not it lessen the diploma for everyone else ? looking at it from the perspective of a graduate of average mental functioning, they expended a certain amount of effort to get that diploma.  meanwhile, they see someone with severe autism earning that same diploma.  now, it may have taken the person with autism the same amount of effort to get to that point, but from their perspective it makes their diploma less  special,  for lack of a better term.  as for your second point we try not to do it in a belittling way if we can, if that makes sense.  we at first ask them to look at the camera, then we get the person watching over them behind the cameraman.  usually the person watching them helps out here, but if they still do not respond, then we use those sorts of things as a last resort.  and of course, afterward we do try our best to reward them for looking at the camera.   #  should we mandate that people of above average intelligence take harder classes, in order to ensure that the achievement of earning a diploma remains fair ?  #  i would say that is a perfectly fair assessment, so i will grant you a delta.  δ i was mistaken, perhaps, about the idea that a diploma is granted for maintaining a minimum standard throughout school.  instead, a diploma is given based on doing the best you can throughout school and accomplishing  something .  however, now i am considering the opposite problem: should we make school harder for those of above average intelligence ? these kids do not have to give their all when they graduate they can put in a minimum amount of effort and still graduate with flying colors.  we already have that to a degree with honors/ap classes, but those classes are optional.  should we mandate that people of above average intelligence take harder classes, in order to ensure that the achievement of earning a diploma remains fair ? how would we know objectively that someone is of above average intelligence and is not just overperforming or underperforming on tests ? these are not exactly relevant to my original question, but are still interesting to think about.  i am also still a little ambivalent about how society interprets a diploma.  a lot of job applications ask,  do you have a high school diploma or equivalent ?  , and while these kids might have put forth the same amount of effort trying to get a diploma, they are likely to be less efficient at their job simply due to their mental state.  however, this is a rare situation and it is the reason why we have in person interviews with job candidates.   #  i agreed with them wholehearedly until i read your post, but i am still not convinced it is good for society.   #  i know you have been awarded a delta already, but a high school diploma meant alot to a couple kids i graduated with.  they worked hard for it, and they were not really happy about the challenged kids receiving the same thing as they did when they felt they did not deserve it.  i agreed with them wholehearedly until i read your post, but i am still not convinced it is good for society.  not to mention that the argument not made by you, but still of it not costing  that  much to give them an education is silly.  they are not really getting an education, and we could be spending no money on them.  my school ran out of paper halfway through the year when i was a senior; the teachers had to buy their own.
in many superhero tv shows and comics, superheroes are extremely unwilling to kill villains, instead preferring to capture them.  ordinarily, this would be fine, and i think it is for the most part effective against ordinary criminals who are easily contained.  when we consider supervillains, we consistently see that they either break free of capture or avoid getting captured in the first place.  these villains often go on to pursue other schemes that result in significant harm or death to innocent civilians.  if that is the case, then it would be better for heroes to apply lethal force in order to prevent villains from escaping and endangering more lives.  note that this does not always entail killing.  a hero would not be justified in killing a villain if merely handicapping that villain would be equally or more effective at preventing harm.  my basic argument boils down to: 0.  it is justified to use the minimal amount of force necessary to safely prevent a person from infringing on others  rights, provided that the minimal amount is still reasonably proportional to the crime that would be committed we would permit a john to kill jack if it was necessary in order to prevent jack from killing another person, but would not allow john to kill jack if it were the minimal amount of force necessary to prevent him from stealing $0.  0.  supervillains often commit crimes that result in numerous deaths or at the very least, a significant amount of danger to the lives of innocent people.  0.  crimes that result in numerous deaths or at the very least, a significant amount of danger to the lives of innocent people warrant the criminal being killed if necessary.  0.  thus, the crimes that supervillains commit warrant them being killed if it is necessary.  0.  killing or handicapping a supervillain is the minimal amount of force to subdue them as capture is not an option.  c.  killing or handicapping a supervillain is morally permissible; obligatory if you think superheroes have a moral obligation to stop villains.   tl;dr:  killing or handicapping prevents villains from infringing on others rights better than simple capture does, so superheroes should use those means.  extra note: i bring up killing because for certain varieties of villains, such as psychic villains like psimon, magic villains like loki, or smart villains like lex luthor cannot have their relevant abilities handicapped without doing something that is probably about as bad as killing them granted, i do not know enough about superhero universes to know if there are ways to disable these abilities .  cmv  #  when we consider supervillains, we consistently see that they either break free of capture or avoid getting captured in the first place.   #  but we also see many villains killed during their plots, only to return later usually stronger .   # but we also see many villains killed during their plots, only to return later usually stronger .  they suffer from the comic book effect of  nobody ever actually dies.   it is far better to try to find a way to incarcerate them, rather than underestimate them.  this is especially true with villains who meticulously plan their plots, and expect a hero is response.  however, the main argument against superheroes committing homicide is a little more nuanced, and has to deal with the relative power of the hero vs his villain.  a superhero is in most cases very powerful, generally thousands of times more effective than any regular person.  because he skews the balance of power  so much  in his own favor, he is ethically bound to do whatever he can to capture his villains alive; so that impartial courts and the rule of law can decide what to do with them.  he is not a judge, jury, and executioner just a guy capable of doing the work of many, many cops.  this is the logic behind most superheroes, and is explicitly stated for the more well known ones like batman, supes, and green lantern.   #  the minute a hero kills, even if it is someone as deranged and dangerous as the joker, what is to say that in the future they wo not decide that  you  are deranged and dangerous ?  #  superheroes do not kill because their image is as important as the work they do.  most superheroes are essentialy vigilantes very few of them have the backing or even implicit approval of the state where they function.  just by existing and doing what they do, superheroes break laws everyday.  yet the one thing that goes for them is that they do not  hurt  people, and as long as they do not people can see them as heroes who look out for them, rather than dangerous lunatics who just want to kill.  the minute a hero kills, even if it is someone as deranged and dangerous as the joker, what is to say that in the future they wo not decide that  you  are deranged and dangerous ? what is to say they wo not use it as an excuse to kill  you  ? as readers, we sympathize with the hero and believe he or she will always do the right thing.  yet, a random joe in the hero is universe does not, and cannot, most of the time, know the superhero is true motivation.  hence, by holding themselves to a strong moral code with respect to killing, a superhero becomes someone who the random joe believes in, rather than someone who the random joe distrusts.   #  but i do not think that is true in batman is case.   #  batman is an odd example, though.  he walks a very fine line.  warning: spoilers for arkham city at the end of this.  he  does  hurt people.  he hurts people all the time.  he leaves them beaten, bloody, and broken, tied up, outside, in the snow, slowly freezing to death, but he can live with himself because he did not  kill  them, and if they die of hypothermia before the police find them, that is somehow not his fault.  and he has an image to uphold as a hero, but just as important is his image of fear.   i am vengeance.  i am the night.   he strikes fear into the hearts of criminals, and not because he is a hero.  superman could squish you like a bug, but he mostly stands for hope, for  truth, justice, and the american way,  and no one really seems to be  afraid  of him.  they take him seriously, but they do not  cower  at his approach.  whereas in gotham, your average street thug is jumping at shadows even if you really know the bat wo not kill you, he could still have you eating through a straw for the rest of your life.  and, especially in batman is case, it is not at all a pr decision.  again, spoilers.  when batman walks out carrying the joker is body, he does not want to talk about it.  he is perfectly happy letting the city believe that he finally did it.  and, really, harley quinn is the only one sad to see him go.  so, batman does not believe it is a pr issue, and no one in gotham except harley sees it as a pr problem.  with some heroes, like superman, maybe it makes sense not to use lethal force, and maybe it makes sense that it is a pr campaign.  but i do not think that is true in batman is case.  the reason batman does not kill the joker, especially knowing he will just get out again and kill more people, is entirely to do with his own issues, his near psychotic refusal to ever take a human life, or use a gun even non lethally.   #  well, he  does not  kill in arkham city, if i recall.   #  well, he  does not  kill in arkham city, if i recall.  it is just that he leaves criminals beaten, bloody, broken, and unconscious, outside, in freezing weather.  same thing in arkham origins.  in theory, they woke up on their own, and maybe managed to get some medical help.  in origins, maybe we can hope the cops showed up.  but do we really believe that  none  of these people froze to death ? that everyone survived the night ? i guess the story is that they did, but can batman really know that ?  #  while in the settings that they do exist this holds, this is not universal for any settings.   # while in the settings that they do exist this holds, this is not universal for any settings.  in a universe where they would be hunted down by the military if they ever caused harm, they do more good by not causing harm.  but in a universe where they have enough support disabling the bad guys and where the police are willing to turn a blind eye, the math behind it changes.  as to the notion of  once they kill, they may kill again .  that does not convince me at all.  every bad person out there was once a person who had never done anything of the type before.  even if the superhero does not kill the joker, who says they wont become deranged ? it only matters in as much as how people view it and how they use it to judge the superhero.  of course, if people do not at all care about the stopped future crimes caused by killing the super villian now, then it wo not make sense to kill them to keep popular favor.
ever since the elliot rodger shooting there is been a lot of discussion on gender related subreddits about so called  nice guys .  we have all heard of these people guys who think that, because they show signs of basic human kindness or decency, they are entitled to sex/love/affection from a girl, and when that girl does not give it, they lash out and do all sorts of thing a truly kind person would not.  the general criticism of such people is that they have a sense of entitlement.  they view women as, basically, sex/love/affection vending machines.  another way to put it is that they view sex/love/affection from women as something to be  earned , like a paycheck.  i agree with these criticisms, but i think it goes even further than that.  like it or not, there are certain people who, for a variety of reasons, are not supposed to experience love, sex, and affection.  i suppose you could say it is their destiny.  or you could say it is their role in life.  the thing is, we kind of already realize that.  even though i think the caste system is disgusting, there  is  a sort of caste system when it comes to whether or not a man deserves love/sex/affection.  the hard truth is that some people are meant to go through life without those things.  some people are just not meant to date, get married, have sex, or start a family.  and when those people try to go against that, that causes problems.  obviously,  nice guys  do not deserve love/sex/affection.  but even certain people who are genuinely kind, who are not entitled pieces of shit, who are actually good people do not deserve those things.  when they stop forgetting their place when they try to go after things they do not deserve or that they are not destined to have that causes trouble.  in fact, i would argue that, even by wanting female affection, those people are being sexist and misogynist.  furthermore, women who actually choose to date or have sex with these people are enabling sexism and misogyny.  so i would argue that even if  nice guys  changed their ways and improved themselves, they are still not supposed to date, get married or have sex.  certain people are just not supposed to experience these things, and to try to go against that is an act of misogyny.  and any women who give those men love/sex/affection are also at fault.  after the elliot rodger shooting, there was a hashtag trend on twitter called   allmencan .  it was about how men can make a better world for women by treating them with more respect and as human beings, rather than as objects.  a large part of that is by fighting against this  nice guy  bullshit.  but i think that another way some men can make the world a better place for women is by realizing that they are not supposed to, or destined to, get love/sex/affection from women and by not wanting those things.  by knowing their place and not trying to go against it, they would make life for the women of the world much better.  they can make themselves better men not just by treating women with respect, but by not wanting women in the first place.   #  after the elliot rodger shooting, there was a hashtag trend on twitter called   allmencan .   #  it was about how men can make a better world for women by treating them with more respect and as human beings, rather than as objects.   #  you are trolling, right ? i ca not tell if you are a raging redpiller or a raging feminist, either way, you;re raging.  i agree that some men who try too hard do not get laid, and nobody is entitled to it, but what you are saying is when they get lucky, its the girl is fault for giving them false hope ? what if i told you that there are just as many women desperate for love/affection/attention as men ? when these two untouchables meet and find some chemistry, they should just say  you know what ? you;re not premium dating material, and i am not premium dating material, we should not date.  even though we could provide companionship and happiness for eachother.   it was about how men can make a better world for women by treating them with more respect and as human beings, rather than as objects.  a large part of that is by fighting against this  nice guy  bullshit.  pretty sure treating women with respect and as human beings is the definition of  nice guy  that most people i know follow.  what you describe as  nice guy  is a sociopathic phony.  most people who are desperate are probably just trying too hard, or have not foudn their game yet.  does not mean they wo not find it and it certainly does not give you the right to say they ca not try.  obviously violence is wrong, but i think you waaay overestimate how many sexually frustrated guys lash out violently.   #  of course, if these men were to act on their desires, they would not be breaking the law, but they would be traumatizing, humiliating, debasing, and devaluing the women they pursue.   # a number of ways, really.  physical appearance, socio economic status, your job, fashion sense, the way your voice sounds, cultural background i. e.  if you come from a culture in which arranged marriage is the norm, you probably should not be dating .  if you do not have much of a social life, i think it is fair to assume you are undesirable.  it also has to do with time.  if you have not been found desirable by a women by a certain age for whatever reason , then it is safe to assume it will never happen, and that it never should.  what do you expect of them ? i do not know.  it is not my place to tell women what they do or do not deserve.  for the same reason pedophiles can make the world a better place for children by denying their  desires .  of course, if these men were to act on their desires, they would not be breaking the law, but they would be traumatizing, humiliating, debasing, and devaluing the women they pursue.  the well being of women is more important than these men is desires.  in any case, desires can change.  once upon a time, i used to want to play in the nfl, but i realized that it just was not in the cards and that it was silly to have that desire.  i am a 0 year old man, by both sex and gender.   #  is your position that a woman is not mature enough to decide whether sex for her is a good or bad idea ?  # of course, if these men were to act on their desires, they would not be breaking the law, but they would be traumatizing, humiliating, debasing, and devaluing the women they pursue.  sex with children is immoral because children cannot consent to sex.  they are not psychologically mature enough to do so.  worse, they are often not mature enough to grasp what sex entails.  is your position that a woman is not mature enough to decide whether sex for her is a good or bad idea ? why ? more precisely, even if a woman suffers a loss of well being by a man she does not desire attempting to seduce her i do not concede she suffers any loss of well being here why does that outweigh the loss of well being your outcast men would suffer under the knowledge that they will never have love and cannot even morally try to find it ? you could not answer the question about whether undesirable women would have the same obligation to refrain.  you said you ca not tell women  what they do or do not deserve ?   why can you tell other men what they do or do not deserve ?  #  when a woman shares her life, her affection, her body, etc.   # they are not psychologically mature enough to do so.  worse, they are often not mature enough to grasp what sex entails.  is your position that a woman is not mature enough to decide whether sex for her is a good or bad idea ? no, but often times women with, say, low self esteem or psychological/emotional issues often enter into abusive relationships.  i would say low self esteem or psychological/emotional issues are the same reasons they enter into relationships with the class of men i am describing.  more precisely, even if a woman suffers a loss of well being by a man she does not desire attempting to seduce her i do not concede she suffers any loss of well being here why does that outweigh the loss of well being your outcast men would suffer under the knowledge that they will never have love and cannot even morally try to find it ? it is about more than just  omg ugly guy tried to get in my pants .  it is about respecting women.  when a woman shares her life, her affection, her body, etc.  with what you are calling outcast men, she devalues herself.  kind of like when women stay with abusive boyfriends/husbands.  so i think that, out of respect for women, the men you call outcasts, should stay away from them.  furthermore, i do not really think you can call it suffering for the men.  i mean, i know, for example, that i will never own a ferrari.  it is disappointing, sure, but i do not think i am suffering under that knowledge.  i know i will never play in the nfl, but i am not suffering as a result.  there are lots of things each of us will never do, but that does not make us suffer.  in fact, dwelling on it only makes us miserable.  i would say these  outcast  men should embrace their place in life or, at the very least, stop complaining.  when these men bitch and moan about being lonely, they are showing a total lack of respect for women and girls.  a big point in feminism is that there is something called rape culture.  i would argue that, by wanting sex or love from women, these men are contributing to rape culture.   #  i would say low self esteem or psychological/emotional issues are the same reasons they enter into relationships with the class of men i am describing.   # i would say low self esteem or psychological/emotional issues are the same reasons they enter into relationships with the class of men i am describing.  so, are you saying that men specifically, men who have somehow been designated as the least deserving of love have a special moral obligation to protect woman with low self esteem from their own choices ? with what you are calling outcast men, she devalues herself.  assuming there a men of such objectively low value, are not there also women of equally low value ? why ca not they get together ? why do these men need to stay away from even very lonely women who might appreciate even them ? i do not want to put words in your mouth, but it seems that your position is that any slight suffering, hypothetical imposition or abstract  devaluing  of a woman none of which i agree even happen when a guy feels or expresses attraction is a really horrible thing.  it is so horrible that men,  in particular  the men who have the hardest time achieving sexual and romantic intimacy something that nearly everyone greatly wants have to bear the immense burden of sublimating all their feelings to spare women this supposed indignity.  why do you have so much compassion for women and none for these men ? even if i grant that this indignity is reasonable, why does it outweigh the possibility that some of these men are wrong about themselves, and by abstaining from trying to attract women, they are denying themselves the chance at happiness, as well as the happiness of the woman who might love them ? but you will say there are a class of men who can be 0 sure they are correct about their worthlessness.
to give context before a shitnado of comments covers this place, here is the situation: i live in pennsylvania and my mom just moved into a small town.  around the corner an old white man displays a confederate flag next to an american flag in his front lawn.  i thought to myself,  wow, that would be really shitty to see if you were a person of color driving into this town, that is really insensitive .  not only to most people of color feel uncomfortable in general where they are minorities and guns hang in the back windows of pickup trucks, but to see a flag representing the enslavement of a people so proudly flown is just unacceptable.  i do not mean to assert that they are the same thing, but i kind of consider the confederate flag to be like the nazi flag.  however, people who collect paraphernalia of the respective wars for historical or genealogical purposes i can understand, but the flags stand for the ideology and trauma of the events more so than a uniform, rifle, or cutlery.  initially, i wanted to tear this flag down and shove it in his garbage can, but i realized i was just acting on passionate emotions.  i am considering writing to this gentleman to ask him to remove this flag from his house, but i wanted to gauge your feelings, reddit, to see if i am acting unreasonably ? 0 frankly, it is of no consequence to me what was the real start of the civil war.  0 i grew up in this town but do not live in this town, however my mum does.  i am not picketing outside this persons house, i am just percolating on the idea that what he is doing in this neighborhood is insensitive, unwelcoming, and just an ostentatious display of his political protest against the world.  a does he have the right to fly the flag: yes.  b am i faulty, a  sjw , because i am not  from the neighborhood  and i have issue with this flag: no, this house is an outlier on an otherwise agreeable, well adjusted neighborhood.  if a gay couple were to move in to this neighborhood and found this house flying westboro baptist church style hate symbols are they wrong to be offended, because they are not  from this block  ? i think that is a weak argument.  while communities change as people move in and out, its not morally acceptable to defend the comfort of people who are racist or bigoted against people who are different from them moving into their neighborhood.  0 the confederate flag is not the nazi flag.  while they both carry passionate emotions to groups on either side of history, neither seems to be acceptable in all contexts.  0 given that this post is contextualized in a small town in pennsylvania, i appreciate the light that has been shed upon the cultural significance of the flag for southerners it is a complicated icon in the north seemingly representing more than the historical but also a political, and i would assert racial undertones.  tl;dr i did not change my view, the confederate flag is a complicated symbol.  i think i will ask this gentleman gentlewoman ? why they are displaying the flag, try to understand the type of thinking that made them feel compelled to act upon how they think and feel.  i will report back when i visit my mother on the 0th of july weekend, seems like an appropriate time to strike up conversation about flags right ?  #  but i kind of consider the confederate flag to be like the nazi flag.   #  what do you think of when you look at the american flag ?  # what do you think of when you look at the american flag ? do you think of:   the forced removal and extermination of native americans.  pre civil war slavery that occurred in both the south and the north.  the denial of women is and minorities  rights.  institutionalized discrimination and racism.  the internment of japanese americans during wwii.  the use of agent orange in vietnam   every other war crime that occurred during that war.  the cia is deep involvement in overthrowing democratically elected foreign leaders during the cold war.  the unjustified war in iraq that has resulted in 0,0  civilian deaths.  i could keep going on.  the point is you probably do not think of those things when they look at the american flag, but a lot of people do, and are understandably offended by it.  the american flag has stood for a lot of truly horrible things.  it has also stood for a lot of truly great things, do not get me wrong.  i do not think people should fly the confederate flag and frankly, it is bizarre that someone would fly one in pennsylvania of all places , but i understand why some people do, and often it has nothing to do with being  pro slavery  or even  pro states  rights,  even though that is what people like you might assume understandably so, to be fair .  for a lot of southerners, the flag represents the collective hardship they have all faced since the post civil war era and it represents their collective regional identity that has been forever defined by their history.  the south was unquestionably wrong to secede from the union and to fight ostensibly for slavery.  but the end result was the obliteration of a generation of young men, most of whom had no choice but to fight and did not come from families that owned slaves.  i do not deny that many southerners fly the confederate flag as a way to convey their racist beliefs, but for many it is as much about their own heritage and honoring their ancestors who died in one of the bloodiest wars of all time.  i guess my point is, yes, the confederate flag might stand for slavery to a lot of people, just as the american flag represents other equally reprehensible things to a lot of people too.  you ca not always assume the worst out of the people who fly the confederate flag, and while i think people should not fly it, it is important to understand southern culture and empathize with people who choose to fly it anyway.   #  in the south the confederate flag can mean white power, or it can mean that the person flying it wants to feel connected to the traditions and history of the south even if some parts of that history is fucked.   #  context is everything, signs do not have significance in a vacuum.  in the south the confederate flag can mean white power, or it can mean that the person flying it wants to feel connected to the traditions and history of the south even if some parts of that history is fucked.  in the north the overwhelmingly recognized significance of the confederate flag is white power.  though it may be the case that they are a southern transplant, most would understand that the significance of the flag is different north of the mason dixon.  flying the flag in the north, especially while identifying as a northerner sends a clear message.  similarly the american flags significance changes depending on context and geographic location.  i would side with op here, in phillidelphia flying the confederate flag unless it was part of a state flag, sends a message that thou one should have the right legally to do, is socially unacceptable.   #  in 0 to 0 years soil depletion in the south would have made slave owning nearly impossible in the numbers at the time of the civil war.   #  the civil war was much more complex then just slavery.  the civil war was also about state rights and state power vs federal rights and federal power.  the burgeoning manufacturing strength, the refusal of southern industrialists to sell ship building wood to the northern shipbuilders in favor of building the infrastructure to build ships in the south, the desire of southern shipping companies to handle the trade of southern cotton to england and france instead of moving the raw cotton thru northern shipping lines.  the development of southern mining and smelting operations were removing business from northern companies.  all these things combined to create the atmosphere that made succession possible.  when you add the fact that soil depletion was beginning to interfere with the only two major industries of the south, cotton growing and tobacco, the southern growers desperately needed the new territories and states to be pro slave to have any chance of recovery.  in 0 to 0 years soil depletion in the south would have made slave owning nearly impossible in the numbers at the time of the civil war.  southerners would have been forced to grow less labor intensive crops and leave many fields fallow in order for them to recover.  slave owners would have no choice but to free many of their slaves in order to avoid having to feed them while the soil recovered.   #  it is seldom taught except by word of mouth which is how most tales survive.   #  why on earth would the lost cause movement not exist ? it is seldom taught except by word of mouth which is how most tales survive.  look at the irish tales, perennial losers and their written language is not even deciphered,  ogham , yet the tales survive in one form or another.  many children aspire to be astronauts or presidents but how many are willing to devote their lives to such things ? mexicans aspire to live in a safe society but only in the last few years have they been willing to sacrifice lives to make a safe society.  the world is covered with people that aspire to things but how many are willing to die for them ? it is not nearly as common as you seem to believe.   #  southerners would have been forced to grow less labor intensive crops and leave many fields fallow in order for them to recover.   # in 0 to 0 years soil depletion in the south would have made slave owning nearly impossible in the numbers at the time of the civil war.  southerners would have been forced to grow less labor intensive crops and leave many fields fallow in order for them to recover.  slave owners would have no choice but to free many of their slaves in order to avoid having to feed them while the soil recovered.  i am not sure how this follows.  freeing slaves and employing them should not result in a decrease in available labor.  it would just mean that the plantation owners would make less money, which is something that i think everyone agrees on.
the statement  affirmative action is wrong  is very subjective.  this can be twisted in many ways.  for the purpose of intellectual honesty, we should argue whether affirmative action helps minorities more than it hurts those in the majority.  we should also examine whether or not injury to the majority is such that affirmative action is unjust, regardless of its positive affect on minorities.  i would argue that though there are examples of affirmative action being injurious to the very organization employing it, there are far greater examples of affirmative action helping society overall.  this may be indicative of the application of affirmative action in different settings, but the overall intent of affirmative action, as well as the primary benefits are not  wrong  by any measure i can think of.  opponents make a misguided attempt to show that affirmative action is wrong based on emotional appeals, and irrelevant statements about one group that has benefited from affirmative action blacks .  they further implies those in the majority  suffer  from affirmative action.  opponents also imply that affirmative action is some kind of punishment against whites for having enslaved blacks.  all these statements are based on a misguided interpretation of how affirmative action works, and who it benefits.  according to the national council on state legislatures, president john f.  kennedy first coined the term in an executive order urging that contractors use  affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.   this led to the establishment of the eeoc equal employment opportunity commission , and eeo policies in the workplace.  lyndon johnson later issued his own executive order requiring contractors to raise their number of minority workers.  colleges and universities later executed similar policies in recruiting in order to boost their number of minority students.  0 the argument that simple policies somehow hurt whites as a whole is a very frivolous argument.  for centuries, whites have held a monopoly on legislation, law enforcement, education, politics, finance, and land ownership.  during the  new deal,  according to the book  when affirmative action was white,  0 of african americans were denied benefits.  during and after wwii, while black military members had trouble receiving even the benefits they earned like the gi bill, recent immigrants from eastern europe experienced a revolutionary transformation in their citizenship status.  0 in a country where the wealth gap is growing between whites and minorities, affirmative action is not only beneficial to all, but necessary.  in 0, whites had a median household net worth of $0,0.  hispanics had a median household net worth of $0,0, and black had a median household net worth of $0,0.  just 0 years later, white is median household net worth had fallen to $0,0.  for hispanics, it fell to $0,0, and for blacks it fell to $0,0.  a third of hispanic and black households in 0 had a zero or negative net worth in 0, while only 0 of blacks fit that profile.  0 it is important to note, also, that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are not black, rather white women.  white women, like blacks, once could not vote, and once were considered property.  thanks to affirmative action, the number of women mostly white women has grown in the following areas and more :   the percentage of women architects increased from 0 to nearly 0 of the total;   the percentage of women doctors more than doubled from 0 to 0 of all doctors;   the percentage of women lawyers grew from 0 to 0 of the national total;   the percentage of female engineers went from less than 0 to nearly 0;   the percentage of female chemists grew from 0 to 0 of all chemists; and   the percentage of female college faculty went from 0 to 0 of all faculty.  0 it would seem to me that affirmative action is not  wrong,  rather beneficial to those it is intended to aid, and largely harmless to those who perceive it as  wrong.   0 URL 0 when affirmative action was white by ira katznelson 0 URL 0 URL  #  the argument that simple policies somehow hurt whites as a whole is a very frivolous argument.   #  you do not provide anything to back that up.   #  i agree with you that affirmative action is not wrong and may be right in some cases.  but i think you made a weak argument for it, so i guess i will try to convince you of that.  you do not provide anything to back that up.  the rest of that paragraph and the others after it mention how bad things were, and what strides women made.  but you do not show that 0 things being bad justifies affirmative action since it must be proven to work, and 0 the strides women made may not have been due to affirmative action, but other reasons for example, a lifting of legal barriers to women, and women just succeeding normally because they are just as good as men.  in particular, there is a very obvious reason to suspect that affirmative action hurts whites: affirmative action gives a minority applicant a benefit to increase their chance of being hired/admitted to school/etc.  the benefit attempts to compensate for other disadvantages.  but benefiting one group in the competition for a limited resource a job or a spot in a school harms the others.  again, it may be justified given other unfairness.  but the burden is to prove that.  overall, in my opinion affirmative action is a  fight fire with fire  type of thing.  it might be necessary overall, even if it risks being unfair in itself.  proving so, however, is very hard.   #  and that is a tricky problem, one that is hard to address in politically incorrect terms.   #  i believe that affirmative action policies, for women as well as racial minorities, address an extremely important issue but do so at the wrong point in time.  in terms of both college admissions and job hiring, there is clear evidence that white males have a statistical advantage.  but why ? yes, it is because they enjoy a history of privilege.  but that is not why they are admitted/hired, at least not in most instances in our modern society.  they are admitted/hired because this privilege has made them more productive and competitive.  they are, put in the most blunt and realistic terms possible, simply better candidates.  they have received better education and been told they are whole life that they are valuable, smart, and capable of success, all of which have helped to sculpt them into extremely qualified and productive individuals.  and that is a tricky problem, one that is hard to address in politically incorrect terms.  the way most liberals deal with the issue is to pretend that there is no difference between whites and blacks by the time they reach college age, and that is simply not true.  affirmative action does not allow us to properly deal with the reality that blacks and whites are statistically at very different stages by the time they reach college, and it acts to reward those blacks who have  almost  made it to a similar level as their white peers by giving them an extra push, the idea being that the presence of educated blacks will help the black community.  clearly this is not working black schools are doing worse than they ever have been even after decades of affirmative action.  the solution to these racial issues is making investments in primary and secondary education in black communities which would therefore eliminate the need for affirmative action policies by ensuring that whites and blacks are in fact equally qualified during their application processes.   #  but the continuing issue with school is, eventually, the bell rings.   #  porque no los dos ? i listened to an npr debate about affirmative action and the opposing side brought up more than once that blacks were not becoming doctors, like white were.  it is true, there is no blank slate at the collegiate level, but we should not cut it off completely.  there are plenty of less challenging roles blanks could fill in the community: instead if being a civil engineer, be an mfcc or social worker.  yes, fund the lower levels adequately.  but the continuing issue with school is, eventually, the bell rings.  then they go back to the abuse, drugs, violence, absenteeism, hunger.  so whatever financial increases you give schools gets soaked up undoing the damage at home.  we need more proactive neighborhood revitalization.  less laissez faire than here is your wic and here is a loan for that for profit college.  targeted programs.  pay neighborhood people to patrol their own block.  pay people to do construction repair, road repair.  pay people to visit neighbor homes often to check on the kids, daycares, etc.  keep all of this within small areas, 0 square blocks.  then have each square elect blocks supervisors to coordinate programs between blocks.  legalize drugs; but create mandatory treatment.  essentially, we need to stop assuming the problem with education are the schools.   #  regardless, the trend exists and is biased against women, so i suggest that you take the source into consideration unless there is contradictory evidence.   #  incredulity with the facts does not change them.  did you read the argument presented in the source ? short answer, essay, constructed response except multiple choice.  it is hypothesised that this trend is so for reasons stated later in the source girls are less likely to take risks/make educated guesses .  regardless, the trend exists and is biased against women, so i suggest that you take the source into consideration unless there is contradictory evidence.  also, please do not disregard the whole source simply because one facet of its argument is difficult for you to come to terms with.  there were multiple other arguments made in the source that collectively demonstrate that entrance exams are biased against girls.   #  the link i sent clearly states that the sat is ineffective at predicting post secondary performance in boys vs girls, and over predicts male performance/under predicts female performance.   #  what  actual trend  are you referring to ? the link i sent clearly states that the sat is ineffective at predicting post secondary performance in boys vs girls, and over predicts male performance/under predicts female performance.  regardless of any benefits of the biases towards risk taking, the sat is not  meant  to measure this factor.  the sat is also biased against people who do better with relationships than with sports arguably, are not relationship skills good qualities in person ? also, too much risk taking is not good either erring on the side of caution is also important in the  real world , and criminals often have high amounts of testosterone.  we should not bias the test for  or  against any factors except those that the test aims to determine.  the sat is not  supposed  to measure risk taking or educated guessing ability, it is supposed to reflect future academic performance, which is does poorly see the above paragraph for why .  there is no reason for the test to bias itself against the feminine inclination because their inclinations have nothing to do with what the test is attempting to measure and in fact skew the results.  women tend to err on the side of caution, while men tend to err on the side of aggression; neither is more beneficial to an educational institute or indeed the  real world  than the other.
after binge watching several of the movies with some friends i have come to this conclusion.  for a hunter species, they really are not that great at hunting.  lets look at some facts.  0.  they are nearly 0 reliant on their tech, to the point where a washed up over age cop managed to kill one by himself.  0.  the are the  perfect  hunter, in the sense that they do not have to do anything.  their camouflage, thermal vision, auto targeting system, does everything for them.  in the few instances of them doing things without being carried by tech they fall short.  0.  despite this massive tech advantage, they are still killed by soft little fleshy meat bags who still use slug based weaponry, and regularly killed by the aliens whos only real advantage is being able to wall crawl.  0.  they are cocky.  they always think they are gonna win, and do not bother using tactics or techniques.  0.  kind of on the last point, but they are also stupid.  despite going after only  worthy  targets, they consistently underestimate these targets that they go out of their way to hunt them.   #  the are the  perfect  hunter, in the sense that they do not have to do anything.   #  their camouflage, thermal vision, auto targeting system, does everything for them.   # great part of the story.  follows a lot of story lines of that time.  that computers are not better than the mind.  they always think they are gonna win, and do not bother using tactics or techniques.  in alien vs predator the predators are much more crafty, so i am not sure i buy all of what you are saying.  they also think very lowly of the humans.  in fact, the predator is more of a game to them than a real fight.  if they really wanted to whipe out humans it would be very easy.  but as the story goes the predator movie shows that humans are very strong, so not good slaves so of no use to the predator race.  their camouflage, thermal vision, auto targeting system, does everything for them.  in the few instances of them doing things without being carried by tech they fall short.  i think this is more of a story element.  where as if you say the predators are mediocre hunters when xyz, but excellent at abc t kind of loses meaning, and more importantly no reason to watch.  they are clearly very good hunters.  but to say they do not have to do anything is just incorrect.  as any predator, the challenge is knowing the prey and predicting what the prey will do.  part of the story is showing that we are not easy game.  despite going after only  worthy  targets, they consistently underestimate these targets that they go out of their way to hunt them.  hubris is a bitch.   #  here is the thing, we know they are perfect hunters.   #  here is the thing, we know they are perfect hunters.  let is take that as a given.  stay with me, i am kinda using induction.  therefore, they can kill most things pretty easily.  but  the stories we are seeing  are not about that.  those times where they easily dominated prey were boring.  our story is about the rare instance where the predator managed to kill 0 out of 0 people, then the last one, against all odds got him ! it was a long shot that /u/govschwarzenegger was ever going to win, but he did ! it is selection bias.  the only significant event in human predator interaction is where one of them loses, so that is the one we are seeing.  it is far from the norm.   #  the predators are amazing hunters, but their ritualistic manners hinder them.   #  avp0 actually does albeit in a flashback/history lesson.  the predators easily take on hives with a party of three.  the three in the movie do badly because they are teenagers proving themselves.  in predator 0 they mention multiple succesful hunts, though i only remember iwo jima and the 0th century.  in predators noland/morpheus has survived ten hunting seasons as the only one.  and to do that he had to kill one to take its camo.  the predators are amazing hunters, but their ritualistic manners hinder them.   #  it is the same reason why honour as a concept was so important to the feudal japanese.   # the reason why species like the yautja have ritual, is because said ritual prescribes when and how they can kill other species, or each other.  they have a sufficiently violent nature that if they were not constrained by such rules, you would have a scenario of anarchy, where not only would they be constantly killing each other, but most of their prey species would get hunted to extinction.  it is the same reason why honour as a concept was so important to the feudal japanese.  the point is not to prevent violence completely, because that fairly simply is not possible.  an honour code acts like a series of water channels; it directs the violent instincts only towards targets which are acceptable, and in acceptable numbers, so that the species or society ruled by said code, can continue to survive.  that is a concept which unfortunately, we have tended to forget in contemporary society; at least as far as politicians and bankers are concerned.   #  when they are outnumbered or outgunned they will break out the special weapons, but for the most part they use wristblades.   # just from the first movie, i certainly could not jump from branch to branch in the jungle.  i probably would not have been able to recognise and avoid the majority of the traps that were set.  i do not have enough medical knowledge to repair a bullet wound, and even then, i probably would not be able to take that kind of pain without passing out.  even with cloaking technology, i probably could not sneak up on people half as well as it did.  of the weaknesses you mentioned, they are about as reliant on their technology as human hunters are on ours.  i mean, barring special circumstances, they essentially hunt with knives.  when they are outnumbered or outgunned they will break out the special weapons, but for the most part they use wristblades.  would you be able to hunt and kill a deer, for example, with a knife ? i mean, even if i gave you thermal vision, would you be able to do that ?
after binge watching several of the movies with some friends i have come to this conclusion.  for a hunter species, they really are not that great at hunting.  lets look at some facts.  0.  they are nearly 0 reliant on their tech, to the point where a washed up over age cop managed to kill one by himself.  0.  the are the  perfect  hunter, in the sense that they do not have to do anything.  their camouflage, thermal vision, auto targeting system, does everything for them.  in the few instances of them doing things without being carried by tech they fall short.  0.  despite this massive tech advantage, they are still killed by soft little fleshy meat bags who still use slug based weaponry, and regularly killed by the aliens whos only real advantage is being able to wall crawl.  0.  they are cocky.  they always think they are gonna win, and do not bother using tactics or techniques.  0.  kind of on the last point, but they are also stupid.  despite going after only  worthy  targets, they consistently underestimate these targets that they go out of their way to hunt them.   #  kind of on the last point, but they are also stupid.   #  despite going after only  worthy  targets, they consistently underestimate these targets that they go out of their way to hunt them.   # great part of the story.  follows a lot of story lines of that time.  that computers are not better than the mind.  they always think they are gonna win, and do not bother using tactics or techniques.  in alien vs predator the predators are much more crafty, so i am not sure i buy all of what you are saying.  they also think very lowly of the humans.  in fact, the predator is more of a game to them than a real fight.  if they really wanted to whipe out humans it would be very easy.  but as the story goes the predator movie shows that humans are very strong, so not good slaves so of no use to the predator race.  their camouflage, thermal vision, auto targeting system, does everything for them.  in the few instances of them doing things without being carried by tech they fall short.  i think this is more of a story element.  where as if you say the predators are mediocre hunters when xyz, but excellent at abc t kind of loses meaning, and more importantly no reason to watch.  they are clearly very good hunters.  but to say they do not have to do anything is just incorrect.  as any predator, the challenge is knowing the prey and predicting what the prey will do.  part of the story is showing that we are not easy game.  despite going after only  worthy  targets, they consistently underestimate these targets that they go out of their way to hunt them.  hubris is a bitch.   #  the only significant event in human predator interaction is where one of them loses, so that is the one we are seeing.   #  here is the thing, we know they are perfect hunters.  let is take that as a given.  stay with me, i am kinda using induction.  therefore, they can kill most things pretty easily.  but  the stories we are seeing  are not about that.  those times where they easily dominated prey were boring.  our story is about the rare instance where the predator managed to kill 0 out of 0 people, then the last one, against all odds got him ! it was a long shot that /u/govschwarzenegger was ever going to win, but he did ! it is selection bias.  the only significant event in human predator interaction is where one of them loses, so that is the one we are seeing.  it is far from the norm.   #  the three in the movie do badly because they are teenagers proving themselves.   #  avp0 actually does albeit in a flashback/history lesson.  the predators easily take on hives with a party of three.  the three in the movie do badly because they are teenagers proving themselves.  in predator 0 they mention multiple succesful hunts, though i only remember iwo jima and the 0th century.  in predators noland/morpheus has survived ten hunting seasons as the only one.  and to do that he had to kill one to take its camo.  the predators are amazing hunters, but their ritualistic manners hinder them.   #  it is the same reason why honour as a concept was so important to the feudal japanese.   # the reason why species like the yautja have ritual, is because said ritual prescribes when and how they can kill other species, or each other.  they have a sufficiently violent nature that if they were not constrained by such rules, you would have a scenario of anarchy, where not only would they be constantly killing each other, but most of their prey species would get hunted to extinction.  it is the same reason why honour as a concept was so important to the feudal japanese.  the point is not to prevent violence completely, because that fairly simply is not possible.  an honour code acts like a series of water channels; it directs the violent instincts only towards targets which are acceptable, and in acceptable numbers, so that the species or society ruled by said code, can continue to survive.  that is a concept which unfortunately, we have tended to forget in contemporary society; at least as far as politicians and bankers are concerned.   #  just from the first movie, i certainly could not jump from branch to branch in the jungle.   # just from the first movie, i certainly could not jump from branch to branch in the jungle.  i probably would not have been able to recognise and avoid the majority of the traps that were set.  i do not have enough medical knowledge to repair a bullet wound, and even then, i probably would not be able to take that kind of pain without passing out.  even with cloaking technology, i probably could not sneak up on people half as well as it did.  of the weaknesses you mentioned, they are about as reliant on their technology as human hunters are on ours.  i mean, barring special circumstances, they essentially hunt with knives.  when they are outnumbered or outgunned they will break out the special weapons, but for the most part they use wristblades.  would you be able to hunt and kill a deer, for example, with a knife ? i mean, even if i gave you thermal vision, would you be able to do that ?
i am from an upper middle class family who lives in a very well off town.  to me shopping at a thrift store always was for people who could not afford normal clothes.  i have donated lots of clothes to thrift shops assuming that it would go to people who need it.  recently a lot of rich kids in my town have started shopping at the local thrift shop looking for cheap hipster clothes.  i think this is wrong as thrift shops only have a limited amount of clothes and they should go to people who need them.  to me it seems like going to a thrift shop is like going to a food bank.  i am not begrudging people who go to thrift shops who are poor.  that is who they are for.  i am saying that rich people should not shop there.   #  i think this is wrong as thrift shops only have a limited amount of clothes and they should go to people who need them.   #  here is a problem in your argument.   # here is a problem in your argument.  you believe that there is a shortage of clothes in thrift stores, but there is not.  just a month ago or so there was a gilded post i think it made it to /r/bestof where somebody outlined what actually happens to used clothes that you donate.  apparently there is  way  more clothing donated every year than could possibly be sold, so only a very small proportion of what you donate makes it to the storefront.  the rest of it gets sold to companies that reprocess it in some way into something new, often making it into new fabric that gets shipped over to africa and crushes local textile industries.  in light of this information, would you still think it immoral to shop at a thrift store even though you could afford not to ? the thrift store will not run out of clothes to sell, they receive more than enough to do that and sell the extra clothes in bulk.  you may even be indirectly helping the economy of a 0rd world country because if you buy more from the thrift store they will refill their storefront with fabric that otherwise would have been sold in bulk, and that is less reprocessed fabric that gets shipped overseas to compete with local textile workers trying to make a living.   #  goodwill for example has an job training program, or something like that, that they fund with the money from sales in their stores.   #  thrift stores are more about raising money for whatever charity runs them that getting poor people clothes.  goodwill for example has an job training program, or something like that, that they fund with the money from sales in their stores.  while poor people do shop at thrift stores due to the price that is not really the main goal of the store.  if you want to help poor people get clothes then you should donate them to organizations that run  istores  that are free for people with low incomes.  most cities have charities that run shops that effectively allow poor people to fill a bag with clothes, etc.  for free.   #  there is a thrift store in my town that does this too.   #  there is a thrift store in my town that does this too.  it is called out of the closet and it donates to aids charities.  it is cool that they do charity work, but their business model bugs the everliving hell out of me.  they only accept choice goods as donations, meaning you load up your stuff and go down there to give them stuff, trying to being a good person.  then some slender fuckmook wearing a tank top and an asymmetrical haircut scoffs at you and looks at your shit with a facial expression that says,  you are poor and you are not hip either.  that is gross.   then, if you want to buy something from them because they give to charity and that is nice, they charge more for it than it would cost new.   #  i must admit i have never browsed their clothes, only furniture.   #  i must admit i have never browsed their clothes, only furniture.  maybe  more expensive than it would cost new  is an exaggeration, but they definitely are not giving any great deals.  you can go to ikea and furnish your apartment for less i would wager.  your stuff will be ikea rather than nicer used stuff, but still.  i think they put a little too much stock in their customer is desire to support their cause.  it just bugs me that if it were not for the charity aspect their business model would not stand on its own at all.  i do not feel that way about salvation army.   #  i buy used because i can get a perfectly serviceable clothing item that someone else has tossed away.   # there is your mistake.  you looked down on it as for the poor, and then elevated them to the status of a charity for the poor.  that is not the case.  food banks give away food to people who ca not afford it.  they are also always looking for food and money.  when was the last time you heard a thrift store asking everyone to please please bring in donations because supplies are short ? a thrift store is not a clothing drive.  some thrift stores exist simply to recycle clothing and that is a very admirable thing, given how many people get rid of perfectly wearable clothing.  some thrift stores are charities not in giving away clothing, but in using the money they earn from selling donated clothing to put towards some kind of other charitable work.  that is certainly something a rich person could feel worth paying money to.  by concentrating only on the low cost, you completely miss the value of the re using.  as a person concerned about the environment, it is a major factor in my choice to shop at thrift stores.  yes, i can afford to buy clothing new, but why should i put more new clothes into the cycle when i can help keep some cloth out of the junk pile by buying it used ? i buy used because i can get a perfectly serviceable clothing item that someone else has tossed away.  and i see zero good reason to spend several times the money just to get it new.  despite being  able  to buy new, i think it is much better to re use stuff that is already out there, and just pay the silly expense for new clothing when i am unable to find something used that will do the job.
i am from an upper middle class family who lives in a very well off town.  to me shopping at a thrift store always was for people who could not afford normal clothes.  i have donated lots of clothes to thrift shops assuming that it would go to people who need it.  recently a lot of rich kids in my town have started shopping at the local thrift shop looking for cheap hipster clothes.  i think this is wrong as thrift shops only have a limited amount of clothes and they should go to people who need them.  to me it seems like going to a thrift shop is like going to a food bank.  i am not begrudging people who go to thrift shops who are poor.  that is who they are for.  i am saying that rich people should not shop there.   #  i think this is wrong as thrift shops only have a limited amount of clothes and they should go to people who need them.   #  great, let is define the need then.   # great, let is define the need then.  then should the thrift store screen every person who comes in ? that will cost a lot, i think.  for what gain ? more clothes for the poor to buy ? or can it be possible that the incomes from the thrift store can be used to supplement provision of aid to those in need, rather than simply be a direct need provision itself ? not all of the clothes in the stores will be desirable for those in need, for a variety of reasons.  money, on the other hand, is very fungible.   #  thrift stores are more about raising money for whatever charity runs them that getting poor people clothes.   #  thrift stores are more about raising money for whatever charity runs them that getting poor people clothes.  goodwill for example has an job training program, or something like that, that they fund with the money from sales in their stores.  while poor people do shop at thrift stores due to the price that is not really the main goal of the store.  if you want to help poor people get clothes then you should donate them to organizations that run  istores  that are free for people with low incomes.  most cities have charities that run shops that effectively allow poor people to fill a bag with clothes, etc.  for free.   #  there is a thrift store in my town that does this too.   #  there is a thrift store in my town that does this too.  it is called out of the closet and it donates to aids charities.  it is cool that they do charity work, but their business model bugs the everliving hell out of me.  they only accept choice goods as donations, meaning you load up your stuff and go down there to give them stuff, trying to being a good person.  then some slender fuckmook wearing a tank top and an asymmetrical haircut scoffs at you and looks at your shit with a facial expression that says,  you are poor and you are not hip either.  that is gross.   then, if you want to buy something from them because they give to charity and that is nice, they charge more for it than it would cost new.   #  i must admit i have never browsed their clothes, only furniture.   #  i must admit i have never browsed their clothes, only furniture.  maybe  more expensive than it would cost new  is an exaggeration, but they definitely are not giving any great deals.  you can go to ikea and furnish your apartment for less i would wager.  your stuff will be ikea rather than nicer used stuff, but still.  i think they put a little too much stock in their customer is desire to support their cause.  it just bugs me that if it were not for the charity aspect their business model would not stand on its own at all.  i do not feel that way about salvation army.   #  that is certainly something a rich person could feel worth paying money to.   # there is your mistake.  you looked down on it as for the poor, and then elevated them to the status of a charity for the poor.  that is not the case.  food banks give away food to people who ca not afford it.  they are also always looking for food and money.  when was the last time you heard a thrift store asking everyone to please please bring in donations because supplies are short ? a thrift store is not a clothing drive.  some thrift stores exist simply to recycle clothing and that is a very admirable thing, given how many people get rid of perfectly wearable clothing.  some thrift stores are charities not in giving away clothing, but in using the money they earn from selling donated clothing to put towards some kind of other charitable work.  that is certainly something a rich person could feel worth paying money to.  by concentrating only on the low cost, you completely miss the value of the re using.  as a person concerned about the environment, it is a major factor in my choice to shop at thrift stores.  yes, i can afford to buy clothing new, but why should i put more new clothes into the cycle when i can help keep some cloth out of the junk pile by buying it used ? i buy used because i can get a perfectly serviceable clothing item that someone else has tossed away.  and i see zero good reason to spend several times the money just to get it new.  despite being  able  to buy new, i think it is much better to re use stuff that is already out there, and just pay the silly expense for new clothing when i am unable to find something used that will do the job.
i am from an upper middle class family who lives in a very well off town.  to me shopping at a thrift store always was for people who could not afford normal clothes.  i have donated lots of clothes to thrift shops assuming that it would go to people who need it.  recently a lot of rich kids in my town have started shopping at the local thrift shop looking for cheap hipster clothes.  i think this is wrong as thrift shops only have a limited amount of clothes and they should go to people who need them.  to me it seems like going to a thrift shop is like going to a food bank.  i am not begrudging people who go to thrift shops who are poor.  that is who they are for.  i am saying that rich people should not shop there.   #  i think this is wrong as thrift shops only have a limited amount of clothes and they should go to people who need them.   #  have you been to a thrift store ?  # have you been to a thrift store ? they are overflowing with shitloads of clothes that people did not want.  in fact the us exports most of its donated clothing because we have so much.  there is just way more clothing than anyone will ever need to wear.  unless so many of their customers are rich that they jack up prices, it does not affect poor people at all.   #  while poor people do shop at thrift stores due to the price that is not really the main goal of the store.   #  thrift stores are more about raising money for whatever charity runs them that getting poor people clothes.  goodwill for example has an job training program, or something like that, that they fund with the money from sales in their stores.  while poor people do shop at thrift stores due to the price that is not really the main goal of the store.  if you want to help poor people get clothes then you should donate them to organizations that run  istores  that are free for people with low incomes.  most cities have charities that run shops that effectively allow poor people to fill a bag with clothes, etc.  for free.   #  there is a thrift store in my town that does this too.   #  there is a thrift store in my town that does this too.  it is called out of the closet and it donates to aids charities.  it is cool that they do charity work, but their business model bugs the everliving hell out of me.  they only accept choice goods as donations, meaning you load up your stuff and go down there to give them stuff, trying to being a good person.  then some slender fuckmook wearing a tank top and an asymmetrical haircut scoffs at you and looks at your shit with a facial expression that says,  you are poor and you are not hip either.  that is gross.   then, if you want to buy something from them because they give to charity and that is nice, they charge more for it than it would cost new.   #  maybe  more expensive than it would cost new  is an exaggeration, but they definitely are not giving any great deals.   #  i must admit i have never browsed their clothes, only furniture.  maybe  more expensive than it would cost new  is an exaggeration, but they definitely are not giving any great deals.  you can go to ikea and furnish your apartment for less i would wager.  your stuff will be ikea rather than nicer used stuff, but still.  i think they put a little too much stock in their customer is desire to support their cause.  it just bugs me that if it were not for the charity aspect their business model would not stand on its own at all.  i do not feel that way about salvation army.   #  some thrift stores are charities not in giving away clothing, but in using the money they earn from selling donated clothing to put towards some kind of other charitable work.   # there is your mistake.  you looked down on it as for the poor, and then elevated them to the status of a charity for the poor.  that is not the case.  food banks give away food to people who ca not afford it.  they are also always looking for food and money.  when was the last time you heard a thrift store asking everyone to please please bring in donations because supplies are short ? a thrift store is not a clothing drive.  some thrift stores exist simply to recycle clothing and that is a very admirable thing, given how many people get rid of perfectly wearable clothing.  some thrift stores are charities not in giving away clothing, but in using the money they earn from selling donated clothing to put towards some kind of other charitable work.  that is certainly something a rich person could feel worth paying money to.  by concentrating only on the low cost, you completely miss the value of the re using.  as a person concerned about the environment, it is a major factor in my choice to shop at thrift stores.  yes, i can afford to buy clothing new, but why should i put more new clothes into the cycle when i can help keep some cloth out of the junk pile by buying it used ? i buy used because i can get a perfectly serviceable clothing item that someone else has tossed away.  and i see zero good reason to spend several times the money just to get it new.  despite being  able  to buy new, i think it is much better to re use stuff that is already out there, and just pay the silly expense for new clothing when i am unable to find something used that will do the job.
i have personally come to the conclusion that we humans have manufactured a word that is not meant to exist.  we think that so long as there is no war, then we live in peace.  how can there be peace when our own species cannot understand each other ? you speak of peace yet not everyone has come to think well of homosexuals.  you speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated.   i am very open to this particular subject because i have not read too much about it.   however, the answer seems to be clear.  power, money, and all that brings the goods of this world will always be the determinant factor, whether or not  true peace  can be achieved.  nonetheless, i think it is a good idea to give you guys an idea of what i mean by true peace.   i personally think true peace is the time when humans as a whole understand each other.  i do not mean for them to understand how i feel when i have experienced something they have not, but rather that not everyone is mentality is the same.  when homosexuals are not hated because  they are different , or religious people are not hated because  they are dangerous , or any of the on going stereotypes to be honest.   again, i am very open to this subject and willing to have a proper discussion.  thanks for your time, i appreciate it.   #  you speak of peace yet not everyone has come to think well of homosexuals.   #  not thinking well of homosexuals does not remove the possibility of peace.   #  i think you are running the risk of falling into a no true scotsman territory with this  true  peace argument.  i want to link the wikipedia definition of peace because i think it suffices for most of your objections to its use  peace is an occurrence of harmony characterized by lack of violence, conflict behaviors and the freedom from fear of violence.  commonly understood as the absence of hostility and retribution, peace also suggests sincere attempts at reconciliation, the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, prosperity in matters of social or economic welfare, the establishment of equality, and a working political order that serves the true interests of all.  religion not being tolerated would come under equality.  not thinking well of homosexuals does not remove the possibility of peace.  you can disagree with peoples choices or views but the point of peace is that you do not act in a violent or discriminatory way.  i do not mean for them to understand how i feel when i have experienced something they have not, but rather that not everyone is mentality is the same.  when homosexuals are not hated because  they are different , or religious people are not hated because  they are dangerous , or any of the on going stereotypes to be honest.  so  true  peace is when everyone is mentality is not the same ? if everyone now thinks well of homosexuals is that now a barrier to  true  peace ? i find this a weird definition since we could be at war but still meet the  true  peace requirement.   #  i think it is fair to say that most wars stem from one of these three issues: 0.  scarcity 0.  ideological difference scarcity is becoming less and less of a problem.   #  i think that you are confusing peace with utopia.  there can still be violence in a peaceful world, the hope is that we get to a point where that violence is mostly tied to crime and not large scale country vs country, ideology vs ideology war.  given that idea, then all we have left to examine is whether it can even theoretically come about.  my argument would be that yes, it can.  i think it is fair to say that most wars stem from one of these three issues: 0.  scarcity 0.  ideological difference scarcity is becoming less and less of a problem.  less people do not have enough food, less people do not have enough water.  more people have homes, more people have better goods and services.  while it may be quite some time before scarcity is no longer causing wars i think it is a state that  can definitely exist.  ideological difference seems to be growing mainly between many middle eastern countries and the rest of the world .  it will be a long time before this gap is bridged, but i think there are many indicators to suggest that it will lessen over time.  the internet and free flow of information has been shown to be a moderating force.  more information   civil rights movements will, in my opinion, eventually lead to the moderation of hard line islamic ideologies.  once those are gone i do not think the rest of the world has enough ideological differences to cause significant war.  overall, i think that time   information   increased global quality of life can easily eventually lead to a society without large scale conflict.  however, i think it may be half a millennium before we get there.   #  however, i can at least conceive of ways in which this could change.   #  it is often asserted that human nature can never change, and we human beings have a very long, nasty history of war and tragic conflicts of many types.  however, i can at least conceive of ways in which this could change.  universal telepathy, perhaps mediated by computer neural interface or some other technology that we have not invented yet, could help people to understand each other better, or even to merge their individual identities into a single enormous group mind, which would certainly prevent war among other consequences .  or perhaps in the future, people will genetically engineer their own children when they are still zygotes so that they will grow up to be compassionate and reasonable people who will get along with their fellow human beings and never want to go to war with them.  or perhaps artificial intelligences will take over the world at some point, and will run it better than people ever did, and will not allow war to happen.  the future holds many possibilities.  one might very well question how likely any of these possibilities are, however, we do not really know the future.  nobody in the year 0 could possibly have imagined what the year 0 was going to be like, and equally well, we may be unable to even imagine what the year 0 will be like.  so i hesitate to make categorical statements such as, true peace can never exist.  it is certainly not going to exist in the near future.  maybe it will exist 0,0 years from now.   #  my basic problem with your view is that you are taking a very very strawman definition of  peace  here and claiming that because of that there is no use for the word.   #  my basic problem with your view is that you are taking a very very strawman definition of  peace  here and claiming that because of that there is no use for the word.  it is quite useful to have a word for  a condition with no war  even if that condition is not the be all, end all utopia of existence.  saying that we have invented a word for which there is no use is a massive overstatement.  if you want a word that is unachievable, try  utopia .  its impossibility is well documented in history and fiction.   #   peace  will never be perfect due to the variability of life, but it absolutely  is  possible given enough time and proper advancement/training.   # you speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated.  i consider this points to be conflicting.  the main reason that homosexuality is not observed with empathy is because religion is polluting the situation.  as time progresses, we will move farther and farther from religion.  by that time, we should generally empathize with more people.   peace  will never be perfect due to the variability of life, but it absolutely  is  possible given enough time and proper advancement/training.
i have personally come to the conclusion that we humans have manufactured a word that is not meant to exist.  we think that so long as there is no war, then we live in peace.  how can there be peace when our own species cannot understand each other ? you speak of peace yet not everyone has come to think well of homosexuals.  you speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated.   i am very open to this particular subject because i have not read too much about it.   however, the answer seems to be clear.  power, money, and all that brings the goods of this world will always be the determinant factor, whether or not  true peace  can be achieved.  nonetheless, i think it is a good idea to give you guys an idea of what i mean by true peace.   i personally think true peace is the time when humans as a whole understand each other.  i do not mean for them to understand how i feel when i have experienced something they have not, but rather that not everyone is mentality is the same.  when homosexuals are not hated because  they are different , or religious people are not hated because  they are dangerous , or any of the on going stereotypes to be honest.   again, i am very open to this subject and willing to have a proper discussion.  thanks for your time, i appreciate it.   #  i personally think true peace is the time when humans as a whole understand each other.   #  i do not mean for them to understand how i feel when i have experienced something they have not, but rather that not everyone is mentality is the same.   #  i think you are running the risk of falling into a no true scotsman territory with this  true  peace argument.  i want to link the wikipedia definition of peace because i think it suffices for most of your objections to its use  peace is an occurrence of harmony characterized by lack of violence, conflict behaviors and the freedom from fear of violence.  commonly understood as the absence of hostility and retribution, peace also suggests sincere attempts at reconciliation, the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, prosperity in matters of social or economic welfare, the establishment of equality, and a working political order that serves the true interests of all.  religion not being tolerated would come under equality.  not thinking well of homosexuals does not remove the possibility of peace.  you can disagree with peoples choices or views but the point of peace is that you do not act in a violent or discriminatory way.  i do not mean for them to understand how i feel when i have experienced something they have not, but rather that not everyone is mentality is the same.  when homosexuals are not hated because  they are different , or religious people are not hated because  they are dangerous , or any of the on going stereotypes to be honest.  so  true  peace is when everyone is mentality is not the same ? if everyone now thinks well of homosexuals is that now a barrier to  true  peace ? i find this a weird definition since we could be at war but still meet the  true  peace requirement.   #  less people do not have enough food, less people do not have enough water.   #  i think that you are confusing peace with utopia.  there can still be violence in a peaceful world, the hope is that we get to a point where that violence is mostly tied to crime and not large scale country vs country, ideology vs ideology war.  given that idea, then all we have left to examine is whether it can even theoretically come about.  my argument would be that yes, it can.  i think it is fair to say that most wars stem from one of these three issues: 0.  scarcity 0.  ideological difference scarcity is becoming less and less of a problem.  less people do not have enough food, less people do not have enough water.  more people have homes, more people have better goods and services.  while it may be quite some time before scarcity is no longer causing wars i think it is a state that  can definitely exist.  ideological difference seems to be growing mainly between many middle eastern countries and the rest of the world .  it will be a long time before this gap is bridged, but i think there are many indicators to suggest that it will lessen over time.  the internet and free flow of information has been shown to be a moderating force.  more information   civil rights movements will, in my opinion, eventually lead to the moderation of hard line islamic ideologies.  once those are gone i do not think the rest of the world has enough ideological differences to cause significant war.  overall, i think that time   information   increased global quality of life can easily eventually lead to a society without large scale conflict.  however, i think it may be half a millennium before we get there.   #  or perhaps artificial intelligences will take over the world at some point, and will run it better than people ever did, and will not allow war to happen.   #  it is often asserted that human nature can never change, and we human beings have a very long, nasty history of war and tragic conflicts of many types.  however, i can at least conceive of ways in which this could change.  universal telepathy, perhaps mediated by computer neural interface or some other technology that we have not invented yet, could help people to understand each other better, or even to merge their individual identities into a single enormous group mind, which would certainly prevent war among other consequences .  or perhaps in the future, people will genetically engineer their own children when they are still zygotes so that they will grow up to be compassionate and reasonable people who will get along with their fellow human beings and never want to go to war with them.  or perhaps artificial intelligences will take over the world at some point, and will run it better than people ever did, and will not allow war to happen.  the future holds many possibilities.  one might very well question how likely any of these possibilities are, however, we do not really know the future.  nobody in the year 0 could possibly have imagined what the year 0 was going to be like, and equally well, we may be unable to even imagine what the year 0 will be like.  so i hesitate to make categorical statements such as, true peace can never exist.  it is certainly not going to exist in the near future.  maybe it will exist 0,0 years from now.   #  it is quite useful to have a word for  a condition with no war  even if that condition is not the be all, end all utopia of existence.   #  my basic problem with your view is that you are taking a very very strawman definition of  peace  here and claiming that because of that there is no use for the word.  it is quite useful to have a word for  a condition with no war  even if that condition is not the be all, end all utopia of existence.  saying that we have invented a word for which there is no use is a massive overstatement.  if you want a word that is unachievable, try  utopia .  its impossibility is well documented in history and fiction.   #  you speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated.   # you speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated.  i consider this points to be conflicting.  the main reason that homosexuality is not observed with empathy is because religion is polluting the situation.  as time progresses, we will move farther and farther from religion.  by that time, we should generally empathize with more people.   peace  will never be perfect due to the variability of life, but it absolutely  is  possible given enough time and proper advancement/training.
i have personally come to the conclusion that we humans have manufactured a word that is not meant to exist.  we think that so long as there is no war, then we live in peace.  how can there be peace when our own species cannot understand each other ? you speak of peace yet not everyone has come to think well of homosexuals.  you speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated.   i am very open to this particular subject because i have not read too much about it.   however, the answer seems to be clear.  power, money, and all that brings the goods of this world will always be the determinant factor, whether or not  true peace  can be achieved.  nonetheless, i think it is a good idea to give you guys an idea of what i mean by true peace.   i personally think true peace is the time when humans as a whole understand each other.  i do not mean for them to understand how i feel when i have experienced something they have not, but rather that not everyone is mentality is the same.  when homosexuals are not hated because  they are different , or religious people are not hated because  they are dangerous , or any of the on going stereotypes to be honest.   again, i am very open to this subject and willing to have a proper discussion.  thanks for your time, i appreciate it.   #  you speak of peace yet not everyone has come to think well of homosexuals.   #  you speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated.   # you speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated.  i consider this points to be conflicting.  the main reason that homosexuality is not observed with empathy is because religion is polluting the situation.  as time progresses, we will move farther and farther from religion.  by that time, we should generally empathize with more people.   peace  will never be perfect due to the variability of life, but it absolutely  is  possible given enough time and proper advancement/training.   #  there can still be violence in a peaceful world, the hope is that we get to a point where that violence is mostly tied to crime and not large scale country vs country, ideology vs ideology war.   #  i think that you are confusing peace with utopia.  there can still be violence in a peaceful world, the hope is that we get to a point where that violence is mostly tied to crime and not large scale country vs country, ideology vs ideology war.  given that idea, then all we have left to examine is whether it can even theoretically come about.  my argument would be that yes, it can.  i think it is fair to say that most wars stem from one of these three issues: 0.  scarcity 0.  ideological difference scarcity is becoming less and less of a problem.  less people do not have enough food, less people do not have enough water.  more people have homes, more people have better goods and services.  while it may be quite some time before scarcity is no longer causing wars i think it is a state that  can definitely exist.  ideological difference seems to be growing mainly between many middle eastern countries and the rest of the world .  it will be a long time before this gap is bridged, but i think there are many indicators to suggest that it will lessen over time.  the internet and free flow of information has been shown to be a moderating force.  more information   civil rights movements will, in my opinion, eventually lead to the moderation of hard line islamic ideologies.  once those are gone i do not think the rest of the world has enough ideological differences to cause significant war.  overall, i think that time   information   increased global quality of life can easily eventually lead to a society without large scale conflict.  however, i think it may be half a millennium before we get there.   #  however, i can at least conceive of ways in which this could change.   #  it is often asserted that human nature can never change, and we human beings have a very long, nasty history of war and tragic conflicts of many types.  however, i can at least conceive of ways in which this could change.  universal telepathy, perhaps mediated by computer neural interface or some other technology that we have not invented yet, could help people to understand each other better, or even to merge their individual identities into a single enormous group mind, which would certainly prevent war among other consequences .  or perhaps in the future, people will genetically engineer their own children when they are still zygotes so that they will grow up to be compassionate and reasonable people who will get along with their fellow human beings and never want to go to war with them.  or perhaps artificial intelligences will take over the world at some point, and will run it better than people ever did, and will not allow war to happen.  the future holds many possibilities.  one might very well question how likely any of these possibilities are, however, we do not really know the future.  nobody in the year 0 could possibly have imagined what the year 0 was going to be like, and equally well, we may be unable to even imagine what the year 0 will be like.  so i hesitate to make categorical statements such as, true peace can never exist.  it is certainly not going to exist in the near future.  maybe it will exist 0,0 years from now.   #  its impossibility is well documented in history and fiction.   #  my basic problem with your view is that you are taking a very very strawman definition of  peace  here and claiming that because of that there is no use for the word.  it is quite useful to have a word for  a condition with no war  even if that condition is not the be all, end all utopia of existence.  saying that we have invented a word for which there is no use is a massive overstatement.  if you want a word that is unachievable, try  utopia .  its impossibility is well documented in history and fiction.   #  i do not mean for them to understand how i feel when i have experienced something they have not, but rather that not everyone is mentality is the same.   #  i think you are running the risk of falling into a no true scotsman territory with this  true  peace argument.  i want to link the wikipedia definition of peace because i think it suffices for most of your objections to its use  peace is an occurrence of harmony characterized by lack of violence, conflict behaviors and the freedom from fear of violence.  commonly understood as the absence of hostility and retribution, peace also suggests sincere attempts at reconciliation, the existence of healthy or newly healed interpersonal or international relationships, prosperity in matters of social or economic welfare, the establishment of equality, and a working political order that serves the true interests of all.  religion not being tolerated would come under equality.  not thinking well of homosexuals does not remove the possibility of peace.  you can disagree with peoples choices or views but the point of peace is that you do not act in a violent or discriminatory way.  i do not mean for them to understand how i feel when i have experienced something they have not, but rather that not everyone is mentality is the same.  when homosexuals are not hated because  they are different , or religious people are not hated because  they are dangerous , or any of the on going stereotypes to be honest.  so  true  peace is when everyone is mentality is not the same ? if everyone now thinks well of homosexuals is that now a barrier to  true  peace ? i find this a weird definition since we could be at war but still meet the  true  peace requirement.
to be clear, i am arguing against the popular assumption that wwii bombers automatically equal heroes.  this has been on my mind since i saw a front page article a couple days ago i think it was from /r/worldnews, i forget about an english widow asking people to attend her recently deceased husband is funeral.  he had been a bomber in world war 0; i forget whether he was a pilot or what, but that is irrelevant to my argument.  the response was universally positive, with people calling him a hero etc.  millions of civilians were killed on both sides during wwii.  the majority of ally caused civilian deaths were resulted from aerial bombing.  killing civilians is not heroic, it is that simple.  now i will preemptively counter some potential arguments.   bombers were just following orders.   that excuse was explicitly rejected by the allies at the end of the war.  personally i find it more convincing than most do, to the degree that i think it should be a valid argument in court.  but i am not proposing we put this bomber on trial, i just do not think we should celebrate him.   bombing civilians was necessary to win the war.   patently false.  that strategy was invented to destroy the public is will to fight, but as wwii showed it only makes people fight harder.  being on the right side of the war does not justify your military strategy.   this guy might have only bombed military targets.   it is entirely possible; the article did not say.  but i am arguing against bombers as a group, not just this guy.  if you can prove to me he did not bomb civilians, i might agree that he specifically is a hero.  however, given the prevalence of civilian targeted bombing bombers should be treated as guilty until proven innocent i mean as a moral question, not in a court of law .   it took a lot of bravery to fly during wwii.   it certainly did, airplanes got shot down all the time and given the choice i would rather be front line infantry.  but bravery does not a hero make.  plenty of actions require extreme bravery but are nonetheless evil, like 0/0.   the war ended 0 years ago, ex bombers have since lived lives of peace and contributed positively to society.   i do not doubt it.  if i would met this guy before he died, i am sure i would find him a pleasant man worthy of respect for the civilian life he is lived.  but living a peaceful life does not make you a hero, and it does not undo any evil you may have committed in youth.   #  bombing civilians was necessary to win the war.   #  i am assuming that this person flew bombing missions over germany, and it sounds like you are too.   # i am assuming that this person flew bombing missions over germany, and it sounds like you are too.  this is a different story if he was dropping bombs on the normandy strongpoints.  most of the allied bombing missions were not terror missions over cities like dresden or hamburg.  common targets were fuel refineries/storage, uboat pens, and ball bearing factories.  the first was highly successful you sound like you have read a good amount about wwii, so you know that germans were crippled by chronic fuel shortages, which made their army far less mobile and their superior tanks far less effective.  source URL there are points there that back both of our positions my understanding is that since german anti air countermeasures were so strong, the allies could not bomb strategic targets from lower, more accurate altitudes and instead had to bomb from much higher altitudes where they would be far less accurate.  given that the intent of many bombing missions was elimination of strategic resources, are you willing to moderate your position ?  #  however,  hero  is a title you have to earn.   #  you are right that a lot of civilian bombing was only collateral damage due to the inaccuracy of the equipment.  but there were plenty of air raids where civilians were the primary target.  those raids might have been a minority, but they are enough to stain the honor of the entire allied air force.  my argument certainly does not preclude the possibility that some pilots were heroes.  plenty of pilots were only ever assigned to bomb military targets, and i am sure there were some who got punished for refusing to bomb civilians.  these people can reasonably be called heroes.  however,  hero  is a title you have to earn.  usually it is earned on an individual basis, but sometimes i will apply it to groups without examining every member.  for example, the freedom riders of the civil rights era were heroes.  maybe there are even some wwii military units that earned the title.  but bombers committed enough evil that no man can be described as a hero simply for being part of that group.   #  your ability to evaluate and challenge what the target actually was was extremely limited.   #  i think you are overestimating how knowledgeable bombers were about their targets and their ability to challenge them.  based on stories i have been told a bombing run would go something like this.   x is your target.  it is here on the map.  try not to die.   your ability to evaluate and challenge what the target actually was was extremely limited.  i doubt they were announcing to many bombers that their goal was  kill civilians for demoralization.   i have heard it was more akin to  here is your target, it is important to the war, you leave in 0 hours.   it is easy to look back on it and say that it was evil for the bombers to carry out the act, but i do not think the majority believed they were slaughtering civilians.  so, if we want to take that as a given then their actions were as follows: 0.  hear about hitler is evil and the war 0.  join the war 0.  contribute to the war effort in whatever way deemed most helpful bombing pilot 0.  follow the strategy laid out for you 0.  fly dangerous missions and be brave in the face of adversity for the sake of others if they were picking targets and choosing civilians then i think you would have a good argument, but from my point of view they are being brave in order to help other people, which is heroic.   #  you do not have the information, you may not have the intellectual skills and you definitely do not have the authority.   #  you honestly sound more knowledgeable than me on the topic, but i imagine that even if targets were questionable the bombing pilots were not in a position to gather more information.  starving people to death in concentration/death camps is different.  you can clearly see the people dying.  you can see children suffering.  you would be hard pressed to argue that it was anything but reprehensible.  but with bombers, you are given the target, you press a button, then you maybe see the flashes below.  it would be hard to know if you were bombing cities that housed huge amounts of military, or if you were hitting completely innocent civilians.  it would be even harder to stand up to someone about this grey moral area.  i imagine the conversation would be something like  are we killing innocent civilians ?    possibly, but the damage is unfortunate but necessary if we want to win the war.   then you would not really have a response.  how are you, a bomber pilot, able to question the high level strategic thinking that must be going on in this war ? you do not have the information, you may not have the intellectual skills and you definitely do not have the authority.   #  if anything, it had an observably negative effect because it encouraged retaliation.   # i am saying these people should not be admired because their deeds were not noble.  if anything, it had an observably negative effect because it encouraged retaliation.  the majority of bombers had plenty of hindsight before taking off.  also,  seeming necessary  does not make an action right.  the 0/0 hijackers thought what they did was right.  by your logic ignorance is a heroic quality.  did mlk ? what about beethoven, or andy warhol ? those are some of my heroes.
to be clear, i am arguing against the popular assumption that wwii bombers automatically equal heroes.  this has been on my mind since i saw a front page article a couple days ago i think it was from /r/worldnews, i forget about an english widow asking people to attend her recently deceased husband is funeral.  he had been a bomber in world war 0; i forget whether he was a pilot or what, but that is irrelevant to my argument.  the response was universally positive, with people calling him a hero etc.  millions of civilians were killed on both sides during wwii.  the majority of ally caused civilian deaths were resulted from aerial bombing.  killing civilians is not heroic, it is that simple.  now i will preemptively counter some potential arguments.   bombers were just following orders.   that excuse was explicitly rejected by the allies at the end of the war.  personally i find it more convincing than most do, to the degree that i think it should be a valid argument in court.  but i am not proposing we put this bomber on trial, i just do not think we should celebrate him.   bombing civilians was necessary to win the war.   patently false.  that strategy was invented to destroy the public is will to fight, but as wwii showed it only makes people fight harder.  being on the right side of the war does not justify your military strategy.   this guy might have only bombed military targets.   it is entirely possible; the article did not say.  but i am arguing against bombers as a group, not just this guy.  if you can prove to me he did not bomb civilians, i might agree that he specifically is a hero.  however, given the prevalence of civilian targeted bombing bombers should be treated as guilty until proven innocent i mean as a moral question, not in a court of law .   it took a lot of bravery to fly during wwii.   it certainly did, airplanes got shot down all the time and given the choice i would rather be front line infantry.  but bravery does not a hero make.  plenty of actions require extreme bravery but are nonetheless evil, like 0/0.   the war ended 0 years ago, ex bombers have since lived lives of peace and contributed positively to society.   i do not doubt it.  if i would met this guy before he died, i am sure i would find him a pleasant man worthy of respect for the civilian life he is lived.  but living a peaceful life does not make you a hero, and it does not undo any evil you may have committed in youth.   #  but bravery does not a hero make.   #  plenty of actions require extreme bravery but are nonetheless evil, like 0/0.   # plenty of actions require extreme bravery but are nonetheless evil, like 0/0.  actually bravery is exactly what defines a hero and there was nothing brave about the 0/0 terrorists.  as an analogy consider fighting in a war to be like a boxing match while 0/0 was like sucker punching a random person walking down the street.  for your point about taking away the will of the people, only the two atomic bombs were directly meant for that and they worked.  other actions like firebombing dresden and tokyo were primarily about taking away the ability to fight.  and they did not have precision guidance back then so trying to limit an attack increased the odds of not destroying the target and having them risk their lives for nothing.  plus you can find plenty of examples of allies praising and honoring the efforts of germans and japanese during the war so it is not a case of just thinking we are good heroes and they are bad villains.  finally there are different levels of heroism.  a bomber pilot is not the same as, for example, diving on a grenade to save your squad but do you really want a strict line on defining heroes ? would you say a bomber pilot who never killed a civilian was a hero but then take it away when you found one civilian was killed ? or say 0 to 0 civilians would be understandable but any more than that and you are disqualified ?  #  the first was highly successful you sound like you have read a good amount about wwii, so you know that germans were crippled by chronic fuel shortages, which made their army far less mobile and their superior tanks far less effective.   # i am assuming that this person flew bombing missions over germany, and it sounds like you are too.  this is a different story if he was dropping bombs on the normandy strongpoints.  most of the allied bombing missions were not terror missions over cities like dresden or hamburg.  common targets were fuel refineries/storage, uboat pens, and ball bearing factories.  the first was highly successful you sound like you have read a good amount about wwii, so you know that germans were crippled by chronic fuel shortages, which made their army far less mobile and their superior tanks far less effective.  source URL there are points there that back both of our positions my understanding is that since german anti air countermeasures were so strong, the allies could not bomb strategic targets from lower, more accurate altitudes and instead had to bomb from much higher altitudes where they would be far less accurate.  given that the intent of many bombing missions was elimination of strategic resources, are you willing to moderate your position ?  #  those raids might have been a minority, but they are enough to stain the honor of the entire allied air force.   #  you are right that a lot of civilian bombing was only collateral damage due to the inaccuracy of the equipment.  but there were plenty of air raids where civilians were the primary target.  those raids might have been a minority, but they are enough to stain the honor of the entire allied air force.  my argument certainly does not preclude the possibility that some pilots were heroes.  plenty of pilots were only ever assigned to bomb military targets, and i am sure there were some who got punished for refusing to bomb civilians.  these people can reasonably be called heroes.  however,  hero  is a title you have to earn.  usually it is earned on an individual basis, but sometimes i will apply it to groups without examining every member.  for example, the freedom riders of the civil rights era were heroes.  maybe there are even some wwii military units that earned the title.  but bombers committed enough evil that no man can be described as a hero simply for being part of that group.   #  based on stories i have been told a bombing run would go something like this.   #  i think you are overestimating how knowledgeable bombers were about their targets and their ability to challenge them.  based on stories i have been told a bombing run would go something like this.   x is your target.  it is here on the map.  try not to die.   your ability to evaluate and challenge what the target actually was was extremely limited.  i doubt they were announcing to many bombers that their goal was  kill civilians for demoralization.   i have heard it was more akin to  here is your target, it is important to the war, you leave in 0 hours.   it is easy to look back on it and say that it was evil for the bombers to carry out the act, but i do not think the majority believed they were slaughtering civilians.  so, if we want to take that as a given then their actions were as follows: 0.  hear about hitler is evil and the war 0.  join the war 0.  contribute to the war effort in whatever way deemed most helpful bombing pilot 0.  follow the strategy laid out for you 0.  fly dangerous missions and be brave in the face of adversity for the sake of others if they were picking targets and choosing civilians then i think you would have a good argument, but from my point of view they are being brave in order to help other people, which is heroic.   #  starving people to death in concentration/death camps is different.   #  you honestly sound more knowledgeable than me on the topic, but i imagine that even if targets were questionable the bombing pilots were not in a position to gather more information.  starving people to death in concentration/death camps is different.  you can clearly see the people dying.  you can see children suffering.  you would be hard pressed to argue that it was anything but reprehensible.  but with bombers, you are given the target, you press a button, then you maybe see the flashes below.  it would be hard to know if you were bombing cities that housed huge amounts of military, or if you were hitting completely innocent civilians.  it would be even harder to stand up to someone about this grey moral area.  i imagine the conversation would be something like  are we killing innocent civilians ?    possibly, but the damage is unfortunate but necessary if we want to win the war.   then you would not really have a response.  how are you, a bomber pilot, able to question the high level strategic thinking that must be going on in this war ? you do not have the information, you may not have the intellectual skills and you definitely do not have the authority.
health insurance already covers far more than it should.  there is no good reason why people ca not directly pay for routine check ups, simple medical treatment e. g.  getting stitches , or even for drugs that we can anticipate needing as we age.  all these things would be much cheaper if their prices were not artificially inflated by the unnecessary involvement of insurance companies.  health insurance should be like all other kinds of insurance: it should only cover costs that are prohibitively expensive, urgently needed, and difficult to predict needing in advance.  you do not use homeowner is insurance to fix a broken window, or use car insurance to get an oil change.  so, that is my broad reason for being against health insurance covering birth control and, incidentally, viagra too .  but i would go even further to argue that birth control  especially  does not belong in health insurance policies, even compared to viagra.  and the reason is simple: birth control is not medicine.  it does not treat an affliction.  rather, it just helps women manage their risk of pregnancy.  but there are other ways to do that condoms, pulling out, avoiding sex for the few days around ovulation or entirely .  i understand that its deeply important to women to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but that does not justify extending the concept of  healthcare  to birth control.  again, its just not medicine.  one way to change my view would be to convince me that putting birth control on insurance policies would increase women is overall access to it.  most people take this as a given, but its far from obvious to me.  0 of products are bought and sold directly between the consumer and the provider, without insurance companies in the middle.  in general, we recognize that that is the most efficient way for the market to operate.  that is why we do not see anyone advocating for other highly beneficial things like vegetables and gym memberships  to be covered by insurance.  so, why are we so sure that birth control will be more available if it is covered by insurance ?  #  it should only cover costs that are prohibitively expensive, urgently needed, and difficult to predict needing in advance.   #  congratulations, you just described pregnancy and raising a child.   # congratulations, you just described pregnancy and raising a child.  thus by your own argument, health insurance should cover costs like birth control, because absent that preventive care, the other will likely be higher.  cars may also be rated on their safety, and that will vary your insurance.  same with your house.  mine offers a discount for getting smoke alarms for example.   #  health insurance companies do not exist to provide health care.   #  this right here.  what do you suppose costs more, a pregnancy or nine nuvarings ? it is a no brainer.  health insurance companies do not exist to provide health care.  they exist to make money.  to counter op is example, there is absolutely no reason you could not purchase a car insurance policy that covers your oil changes.  it would not be very cost effective, but it is not against any sort of rule.  if i wanted that and i was willing to pay enough, i could buy that insurance.  this is why op is opinion does not make sense to me.  an insurance policy is a commercial transaction.  what is the benefit to op of dictating what other people are allowed to buy from their insurance company ?  #  this would reduce teenage pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and welfare, and would overall help our economy.   #  0 of women of have pcos polycystic ovarian syndrome .  birth control pills regulate a woman is period and hormones and treat pcos successfully.  women who do not have their period regularly can have a myriad of medical issues due to hormonal imbalances.  this includes cysts that have to be removed surgically and pregnancy/fertility complications, which drive up healthcare costs.  also, almost 0 of births in america are unplanned.  obviously having at least the mindset of  i would like to have a kid  before getting pregnant would be a lot better than  oops i am pregnant .  at the very least some sort of planning is better than an accident.  making birth control as easy to get and ideally free would reduce the number of accidental births.  this would reduce teenage pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and welfare, and would overall help our economy.   #  that is certainly not the case with check ups.   #  reply to paragraph 0: we could set different policies for birth control pills being sought for medical purposes and birth control pills being sought for solely contraceptive purposes.  yes, but, again, having insurance companies cover birth control pills might have the opposite effect.  i probably should have made this a more central theme of my op.  i think its a fallacy to think  covered by health insurance more widely available.   that is certainly not the case with check ups.   #  i actually appreciate the idea of basic income, but it is infeasible without a robot labor force that as of today does not exist.   # could you please point out exactly where i did this ? my point is you are severely underestimating the difficulty of the logistics of what you are proposing.  the government does not have any money.  all of it is money has to come from the work of citizens.  taking this money from them is both difficult and not cost effective.  case in point, taxes.  i actually appreciate the idea of basic income, but it is infeasible without a robot labor force that as of today does not exist.  additionally, i would appreciate it if you did not downvote all of my posts, and i preemptively apologize if it was not you, the timing was rather suspect.
health insurance already covers far more than it should.  there is no good reason why people ca not directly pay for routine check ups, simple medical treatment e. g.  getting stitches , or even for drugs that we can anticipate needing as we age.  all these things would be much cheaper if their prices were not artificially inflated by the unnecessary involvement of insurance companies.  health insurance should be like all other kinds of insurance: it should only cover costs that are prohibitively expensive, urgently needed, and difficult to predict needing in advance.  you do not use homeowner is insurance to fix a broken window, or use car insurance to get an oil change.  so, that is my broad reason for being against health insurance covering birth control and, incidentally, viagra too .  but i would go even further to argue that birth control  especially  does not belong in health insurance policies, even compared to viagra.  and the reason is simple: birth control is not medicine.  it does not treat an affliction.  rather, it just helps women manage their risk of pregnancy.  but there are other ways to do that condoms, pulling out, avoiding sex for the few days around ovulation or entirely .  i understand that its deeply important to women to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but that does not justify extending the concept of  healthcare  to birth control.  again, its just not medicine.  one way to change my view would be to convince me that putting birth control on insurance policies would increase women is overall access to it.  most people take this as a given, but its far from obvious to me.  0 of products are bought and sold directly between the consumer and the provider, without insurance companies in the middle.  in general, we recognize that that is the most efficient way for the market to operate.  that is why we do not see anyone advocating for other highly beneficial things like vegetables and gym memberships  to be covered by insurance.  so, why are we so sure that birth control will be more available if it is covered by insurance ?  #  0 of products are bought and sold directly between the consumer and the provider, without insurance companies in the middle.   #  in general, we recognize that that is the most efficient way for the market to operate.   # it does not treat an affliction.  rather, it just helps women manage their risk of pregnancy.  that is unless you consider being pregnant an affliction.  in many instances within medicine and law, pregnancy is considered a medical condition.  and birth control is considered a preventative medicine against this medical condition.  even if there are other methods, usually insurance covers all different types of preventative medicine.  in general, we recognize that that is the most efficient way for the market to operate.  that is why we do not see anyone advocating for other highly beneficial things like vegetables and gym memberships  to be covered by insurance.  so, why are we so sure that birth control will be more available if it is covered by insurance ? i am not sure what non insurance products and the market really have to do with this.  accessibility to tvs has nothing to do with medical accessibility.  accessibility usually increases with additional sources, competition, demand and supply.  birth control is still available to people without insurance, at places that do not accept insurance, etc.  so all the per insurance coverage of birth control is still in place.  but by also having it covered by insurance adds supply, demand, competition, and payment sources.  it is exactly why many insurance companies  do  cover things like gym memberships.  not only that, i get gift cards for doing things like filling out health risk assessments, preventative maintenance, etc.  simply making one small step in ease can have a dramatic effect on if people use it or not.  and the more people who use it the more accessible it becomes.  but in the end, it is cost effective for health insurance to cover birth control.  they have more people without unwanted pregnancies that leads to additional medical care.  if covering safer cars and paying people is groceries was also cost effective you  would  see it covered.   #  it would not be very cost effective, but it is not against any sort of rule.   #  this right here.  what do you suppose costs more, a pregnancy or nine nuvarings ? it is a no brainer.  health insurance companies do not exist to provide health care.  they exist to make money.  to counter op is example, there is absolutely no reason you could not purchase a car insurance policy that covers your oil changes.  it would not be very cost effective, but it is not against any sort of rule.  if i wanted that and i was willing to pay enough, i could buy that insurance.  this is why op is opinion does not make sense to me.  an insurance policy is a commercial transaction.  what is the benefit to op of dictating what other people are allowed to buy from their insurance company ?  #  obviously having at least the mindset of  i would like to have a kid  before getting pregnant would be a lot better than  oops i am pregnant .   #  0 of women of have pcos polycystic ovarian syndrome .  birth control pills regulate a woman is period and hormones and treat pcos successfully.  women who do not have their period regularly can have a myriad of medical issues due to hormonal imbalances.  this includes cysts that have to be removed surgically and pregnancy/fertility complications, which drive up healthcare costs.  also, almost 0 of births in america are unplanned.  obviously having at least the mindset of  i would like to have a kid  before getting pregnant would be a lot better than  oops i am pregnant .  at the very least some sort of planning is better than an accident.  making birth control as easy to get and ideally free would reduce the number of accidental births.  this would reduce teenage pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and welfare, and would overall help our economy.   #  that is certainly not the case with check ups.   #  reply to paragraph 0: we could set different policies for birth control pills being sought for medical purposes and birth control pills being sought for solely contraceptive purposes.  yes, but, again, having insurance companies cover birth control pills might have the opposite effect.  i probably should have made this a more central theme of my op.  i think its a fallacy to think  covered by health insurance more widely available.   that is certainly not the case with check ups.   #  all of it is money has to come from the work of citizens.   # could you please point out exactly where i did this ? my point is you are severely underestimating the difficulty of the logistics of what you are proposing.  the government does not have any money.  all of it is money has to come from the work of citizens.  taking this money from them is both difficult and not cost effective.  case in point, taxes.  i actually appreciate the idea of basic income, but it is infeasible without a robot labor force that as of today does not exist.  additionally, i would appreciate it if you did not downvote all of my posts, and i preemptively apologize if it was not you, the timing was rather suspect.
health insurance already covers far more than it should.  there is no good reason why people ca not directly pay for routine check ups, simple medical treatment e. g.  getting stitches , or even for drugs that we can anticipate needing as we age.  all these things would be much cheaper if their prices were not artificially inflated by the unnecessary involvement of insurance companies.  health insurance should be like all other kinds of insurance: it should only cover costs that are prohibitively expensive, urgently needed, and difficult to predict needing in advance.  you do not use homeowner is insurance to fix a broken window, or use car insurance to get an oil change.  so, that is my broad reason for being against health insurance covering birth control and, incidentally, viagra too .  but i would go even further to argue that birth control  especially  does not belong in health insurance policies, even compared to viagra.  and the reason is simple: birth control is not medicine.  it does not treat an affliction.  rather, it just helps women manage their risk of pregnancy.  but there are other ways to do that condoms, pulling out, avoiding sex for the few days around ovulation or entirely .  i understand that its deeply important to women to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but that does not justify extending the concept of  healthcare  to birth control.  again, its just not medicine.  one way to change my view would be to convince me that putting birth control on insurance policies would increase women is overall access to it.  most people take this as a given, but its far from obvious to me.  0 of products are bought and sold directly between the consumer and the provider, without insurance companies in the middle.  in general, we recognize that that is the most efficient way for the market to operate.  that is why we do not see anyone advocating for other highly beneficial things like vegetables and gym memberships  to be covered by insurance.  so, why are we so sure that birth control will be more available if it is covered by insurance ?  #  and the reason is simple: birth control is not medicine.   #  most of the women i know who take birth control take it for medical reasons they have an irregular cycle, to reduce how much blood is loss, to reduce pain, etc.   # most of the women i know who take birth control take it for medical reasons they have an irregular cycle, to reduce how much blood is loss, to reduce pain, etc.  the idea that we should be determining who is using birth control for what specific reason is asinine, overly burdensome, and simply increases unnecessary paperwork when there is no need for it.  moreover, even if it is just to reduce the chance of pregnancy, it still should be covered.  keeping someone on birth control is much cheaper than paying for the the high costs of pregnancy including all the doctor checkups and tests during pregnancy, the cost of delivery, and the later costs of raising the child .  it is cheaper for everyone the woman who is not getting pregnant and the insurance for not having to cover portions of all those medical costs.  the difference between those examples and birth control is those only happen once in awhile.  birth control is every month, and contrary to popular opinion, it is not always cheap.  it can range anywhere from $0 a month to $0 a month.   #  what is the benefit to op of dictating what other people are allowed to buy from their insurance company ?  #  this right here.  what do you suppose costs more, a pregnancy or nine nuvarings ? it is a no brainer.  health insurance companies do not exist to provide health care.  they exist to make money.  to counter op is example, there is absolutely no reason you could not purchase a car insurance policy that covers your oil changes.  it would not be very cost effective, but it is not against any sort of rule.  if i wanted that and i was willing to pay enough, i could buy that insurance.  this is why op is opinion does not make sense to me.  an insurance policy is a commercial transaction.  what is the benefit to op of dictating what other people are allowed to buy from their insurance company ?  #  at the very least some sort of planning is better than an accident.   #  0 of women of have pcos polycystic ovarian syndrome .  birth control pills regulate a woman is period and hormones and treat pcos successfully.  women who do not have their period regularly can have a myriad of medical issues due to hormonal imbalances.  this includes cysts that have to be removed surgically and pregnancy/fertility complications, which drive up healthcare costs.  also, almost 0 of births in america are unplanned.  obviously having at least the mindset of  i would like to have a kid  before getting pregnant would be a lot better than  oops i am pregnant .  at the very least some sort of planning is better than an accident.  making birth control as easy to get and ideally free would reduce the number of accidental births.  this would reduce teenage pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and welfare, and would overall help our economy.   #  that is certainly not the case with check ups.   #  reply to paragraph 0: we could set different policies for birth control pills being sought for medical purposes and birth control pills being sought for solely contraceptive purposes.  yes, but, again, having insurance companies cover birth control pills might have the opposite effect.  i probably should have made this a more central theme of my op.  i think its a fallacy to think  covered by health insurance more widely available.   that is certainly not the case with check ups.   #  taking this money from them is both difficult and not cost effective.   # could you please point out exactly where i did this ? my point is you are severely underestimating the difficulty of the logistics of what you are proposing.  the government does not have any money.  all of it is money has to come from the work of citizens.  taking this money from them is both difficult and not cost effective.  case in point, taxes.  i actually appreciate the idea of basic income, but it is infeasible without a robot labor force that as of today does not exist.  additionally, i would appreciate it if you did not downvote all of my posts, and i preemptively apologize if it was not you, the timing was rather suspect.
health insurance already covers far more than it should.  there is no good reason why people ca not directly pay for routine check ups, simple medical treatment e. g.  getting stitches , or even for drugs that we can anticipate needing as we age.  all these things would be much cheaper if their prices were not artificially inflated by the unnecessary involvement of insurance companies.  health insurance should be like all other kinds of insurance: it should only cover costs that are prohibitively expensive, urgently needed, and difficult to predict needing in advance.  you do not use homeowner is insurance to fix a broken window, or use car insurance to get an oil change.  so, that is my broad reason for being against health insurance covering birth control and, incidentally, viagra too .  but i would go even further to argue that birth control  especially  does not belong in health insurance policies, even compared to viagra.  and the reason is simple: birth control is not medicine.  it does not treat an affliction.  rather, it just helps women manage their risk of pregnancy.  but there are other ways to do that condoms, pulling out, avoiding sex for the few days around ovulation or entirely .  i understand that its deeply important to women to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but that does not justify extending the concept of  healthcare  to birth control.  again, its just not medicine.  one way to change my view would be to convince me that putting birth control on insurance policies would increase women is overall access to it.  most people take this as a given, but its far from obvious to me.  0 of products are bought and sold directly between the consumer and the provider, without insurance companies in the middle.  in general, we recognize that that is the most efficient way for the market to operate.  that is why we do not see anyone advocating for other highly beneficial things like vegetables and gym memberships  to be covered by insurance.  so, why are we so sure that birth control will be more available if it is covered by insurance ?  #  you do not use homeowner is insurance to fix a broken window, or use car insurance to get an oil change.   #  the difference between those examples and birth control is those only happen once in awhile.   # most of the women i know who take birth control take it for medical reasons they have an irregular cycle, to reduce how much blood is loss, to reduce pain, etc.  the idea that we should be determining who is using birth control for what specific reason is asinine, overly burdensome, and simply increases unnecessary paperwork when there is no need for it.  moreover, even if it is just to reduce the chance of pregnancy, it still should be covered.  keeping someone on birth control is much cheaper than paying for the the high costs of pregnancy including all the doctor checkups and tests during pregnancy, the cost of delivery, and the later costs of raising the child .  it is cheaper for everyone the woman who is not getting pregnant and the insurance for not having to cover portions of all those medical costs.  the difference between those examples and birth control is those only happen once in awhile.  birth control is every month, and contrary to popular opinion, it is not always cheap.  it can range anywhere from $0 a month to $0 a month.   #  if i wanted that and i was willing to pay enough, i could buy that insurance.   #  this right here.  what do you suppose costs more, a pregnancy or nine nuvarings ? it is a no brainer.  health insurance companies do not exist to provide health care.  they exist to make money.  to counter op is example, there is absolutely no reason you could not purchase a car insurance policy that covers your oil changes.  it would not be very cost effective, but it is not against any sort of rule.  if i wanted that and i was willing to pay enough, i could buy that insurance.  this is why op is opinion does not make sense to me.  an insurance policy is a commercial transaction.  what is the benefit to op of dictating what other people are allowed to buy from their insurance company ?  #  women who do not have their period regularly can have a myriad of medical issues due to hormonal imbalances.   #  0 of women of have pcos polycystic ovarian syndrome .  birth control pills regulate a woman is period and hormones and treat pcos successfully.  women who do not have their period regularly can have a myriad of medical issues due to hormonal imbalances.  this includes cysts that have to be removed surgically and pregnancy/fertility complications, which drive up healthcare costs.  also, almost 0 of births in america are unplanned.  obviously having at least the mindset of  i would like to have a kid  before getting pregnant would be a lot better than  oops i am pregnant .  at the very least some sort of planning is better than an accident.  making birth control as easy to get and ideally free would reduce the number of accidental births.  this would reduce teenage pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and welfare, and would overall help our economy.   #  yes, but, again, having insurance companies cover birth control pills might have the opposite effect.   #  reply to paragraph 0: we could set different policies for birth control pills being sought for medical purposes and birth control pills being sought for solely contraceptive purposes.  yes, but, again, having insurance companies cover birth control pills might have the opposite effect.  i probably should have made this a more central theme of my op.  i think its a fallacy to think  covered by health insurance more widely available.   that is certainly not the case with check ups.   #  additionally, i would appreciate it if you did not downvote all of my posts, and i preemptively apologize if it was not you, the timing was rather suspect.   # could you please point out exactly where i did this ? my point is you are severely underestimating the difficulty of the logistics of what you are proposing.  the government does not have any money.  all of it is money has to come from the work of citizens.  taking this money from them is both difficult and not cost effective.  case in point, taxes.  i actually appreciate the idea of basic income, but it is infeasible without a robot labor force that as of today does not exist.  additionally, i would appreciate it if you did not downvote all of my posts, and i preemptively apologize if it was not you, the timing was rather suspect.
health insurance already covers far more than it should.  there is no good reason why people ca not directly pay for routine check ups, simple medical treatment e. g.  getting stitches , or even for drugs that we can anticipate needing as we age.  all these things would be much cheaper if their prices were not artificially inflated by the unnecessary involvement of insurance companies.  health insurance should be like all other kinds of insurance: it should only cover costs that are prohibitively expensive, urgently needed, and difficult to predict needing in advance.  you do not use homeowner is insurance to fix a broken window, or use car insurance to get an oil change.  so, that is my broad reason for being against health insurance covering birth control and, incidentally, viagra too .  but i would go even further to argue that birth control  especially  does not belong in health insurance policies, even compared to viagra.  and the reason is simple: birth control is not medicine.  it does not treat an affliction.  rather, it just helps women manage their risk of pregnancy.  but there are other ways to do that condoms, pulling out, avoiding sex for the few days around ovulation or entirely .  i understand that its deeply important to women to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but that does not justify extending the concept of  healthcare  to birth control.  again, its just not medicine.  one way to change my view would be to convince me that putting birth control on insurance policies would increase women is overall access to it.  most people take this as a given, but its far from obvious to me.  0 of products are bought and sold directly between the consumer and the provider, without insurance companies in the middle.  in general, we recognize that that is the most efficient way for the market to operate.  that is why we do not see anyone advocating for other highly beneficial things like vegetables and gym memberships  to be covered by insurance.  so, why are we so sure that birth control will be more available if it is covered by insurance ?  #  there is no good reason why people ca not directly pay for routine check ups, simple medical treatment e. g.   #  getting stitches , have you ever been to an er and received a bill ?  # getting stitches , have you ever been to an er and received a bill ? getting stitches at an er can be $0s of dollars, not everyone has the money to pay that right out of pocket.  this relates directly to bc.  it is in everyone is interest that women have children only when they are ready and choose too.  having a child can drag a woman into poverty, and it is terrible for the child to grow up impoverished.  women who are already impoverished, and thus ca not afford bc, would benefit greatly from bc provided through aca health coverage.  generics can be the answer for some women, but each women is different and has different hormonal needs.  the current system helps the women who need bc the most get access to it.   #  it would not be very cost effective, but it is not against any sort of rule.   #  this right here.  what do you suppose costs more, a pregnancy or nine nuvarings ? it is a no brainer.  health insurance companies do not exist to provide health care.  they exist to make money.  to counter op is example, there is absolutely no reason you could not purchase a car insurance policy that covers your oil changes.  it would not be very cost effective, but it is not against any sort of rule.  if i wanted that and i was willing to pay enough, i could buy that insurance.  this is why op is opinion does not make sense to me.  an insurance policy is a commercial transaction.  what is the benefit to op of dictating what other people are allowed to buy from their insurance company ?  #  also, almost 0 of births in america are unplanned.   #  0 of women of have pcos polycystic ovarian syndrome .  birth control pills regulate a woman is period and hormones and treat pcos successfully.  women who do not have their period regularly can have a myriad of medical issues due to hormonal imbalances.  this includes cysts that have to be removed surgically and pregnancy/fertility complications, which drive up healthcare costs.  also, almost 0 of births in america are unplanned.  obviously having at least the mindset of  i would like to have a kid  before getting pregnant would be a lot better than  oops i am pregnant .  at the very least some sort of planning is better than an accident.  making birth control as easy to get and ideally free would reduce the number of accidental births.  this would reduce teenage pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and welfare, and would overall help our economy.   #  reply to paragraph 0: we could set different policies for birth control pills being sought for medical purposes and birth control pills being sought for solely contraceptive purposes.   #  reply to paragraph 0: we could set different policies for birth control pills being sought for medical purposes and birth control pills being sought for solely contraceptive purposes.  yes, but, again, having insurance companies cover birth control pills might have the opposite effect.  i probably should have made this a more central theme of my op.  i think its a fallacy to think  covered by health insurance more widely available.   that is certainly not the case with check ups.   #  additionally, i would appreciate it if you did not downvote all of my posts, and i preemptively apologize if it was not you, the timing was rather suspect.   # could you please point out exactly where i did this ? my point is you are severely underestimating the difficulty of the logistics of what you are proposing.  the government does not have any money.  all of it is money has to come from the work of citizens.  taking this money from them is both difficult and not cost effective.  case in point, taxes.  i actually appreciate the idea of basic income, but it is infeasible without a robot labor force that as of today does not exist.  additionally, i would appreciate it if you did not downvote all of my posts, and i preemptively apologize if it was not you, the timing was rather suspect.
after moving homes about 0 times as an adult, i have started to think that we have the idea of owning furniture and large appliances backwards.  we go to great expense and effort to move heavy tables, beds, refrigerators, washer/driers etc.  whenever we relocate, and at the same time embrace the concept that light fixtures, sinks, bathtubs, toilets, kitchen counters and so on should come with the house and be left with the house.  i think we should extend this attitude to furniture and appliances.  beds, couches, armchairs, dining room tables and chairs, refrigerators, washing machines, and other large furniture and appliances should be considered part of the house, condo, or apartment, and included in the price when you buy or sell it.  they do not belong on a moving van.  we should view upgrades to our couches the same way we see remodeling a kitchen.  when we move, we do not usually rip out the countertops, sinks, and cabinets just because we paid for them.  rather, we perceive it to be something that improves the resale value of the home.  furniture should only be moved when it is being replaced, not when you change address.   #  i think we should extend this attitude to furniture and appliances.   #  beds, couches, armchairs, .  the thought of using someone is old bed, couch, or chair is a little disgusting.   # beds, couches, armchairs, .  the thought of using someone is old bed, couch, or chair is a little disgusting.  when we move, we do not usually rip out the countertops, sinks, and cabinets just because we paid for them.  rather, we perceive it to be something that improves the resale value of the home.  furniture and appliances can be placed into a room with little effort.  ripping out fixtures requires a lot of work, can cause damage, and may not fit in the new house.  i recently moved into a house and took my $0,0 refrigerator with me.  the fridge in the new house was old and barely working.  i do not want to rely on the budget and care of the previous owner.   #  this is why i said that our  culture  should change.   #  would this be necessarily more expensive than the cost of shipping your existing couch ? even if you did the lifting yourself and rented a u haul, it is not cost free.  and if leaving your old furniture adds to the value of the home you are selling, then it gives everyone an incentive to keep it in good shape.  at the worst, it is just putting the cost of depreciation and wear n tear in a different column.  i also think that the reason we do not take this attitude toward fixtures is because we simply do not perceive them to be a thing we are supposed to take with us.  you  can  move a kitchen faucet if you want to, and it takes no more effort than to move a couch.  in fact, it takes less effort, because a singe person could do it and the fittings are standardized.  but we take it for granted that our new home will come with plumbing fixtures, and we will leave them behind in our old home.  this is why i said that our  culture  should change.  i think people should just see large appliances and furniture the same way they see toilets and bathtubs.  so far, most of the arguments i have seen about having your chic couch could also be applied to having a chic bathtub.  if that is important to us, we seek out properties that already have them.   #  i love sectional couches so i will have to get a new one because my new place just has a standard sofa and love seat.   #  where do we draw the line ? should i leave my excessive shelving space for my huge dvd and book collection just because it is large furniture ? i am gonna have to buy it all over again since i need it and the next guy who is all netflix and kindle will throw mine out.  or my large dining room table that expands to sit 0 people will be wasted on the couple moving in that does not entertain and i will have to buy a new one at my new house where i was left a simple four person table.  i love sectional couches so i will have to get a new one because my new place just has a standard sofa and love seat.  but the perfect set i am leaving behind will be put out to goodwill because they like bean bags and individual lounge chairs.  how about my aquarium and stand.  that is awfully personal.  or my wicker patio furniture.  the new place has metal and glass outdoor furniture i hate and the wicker stuff i am leaving will be burnt in a fire by the newbies who prefer wooden outdoor furniture.  i researched and shopped carefully for every piece in my home.  i care about it and have sentimental value assigned to it.  some of it i refinished myself.  i built this stuff.  some of the pieces are family heirlooms.  i do not want the ugly, cheap or otherwise distasteful furniture someone else bought cluttering up my new home.  i do not want someone who wo not appreciate it letting their cats on my beautiful couch or scratching my amish built table with their shit.  the reason counters and water heaters and such things are considered part of the house is that they are tied down and removing them would damage them and frankly is not worth the effort.  moving a bed is not that hard.   #  you can buy a new house and the next day you can be living a perfectly normal existence in it with no work outside of putting in new locks, but i do not know if everyone does that .   #  if you took the sink or tub with you, the house would no longer be move in ready.  you can buy a new house and the next day you can be living a perfectly normal existence in it with no work outside of putting in new locks, but i do not know if everyone does that .  this is why you cannot take light fixtures, sinks, etc with you.  appliances like the washer/dryer and fridge are actually sold separately from the house.  i 0 did not buy an otherwise good house because i did not like how they had finished the bathroom.  do you really want a home seller to have to wait for someone who either likes your taste in finishings and furniture, or is willing to replace everything in the house ? finally, what you call  wear n tear , i call my butt groove.  you expect me to surrender my butt groove ! ? ! no, sir !  #  it is not hard to have $0,0  worth of furniture in a house depends on the size , not to mention the cost of the appliances and such.   # even if you did the lifting yourself and rented a u haul, it is not cost free.  yes, it would be more expensive.  it is not hard to have $0,0  worth of furniture in a house depends on the size , not to mention the cost of the appliances and such.  a u haul costs like $0 a day for a big one and like $. 0 a mile.  not in the way that hardwood floors or granite countertops will, anyways.  you may be able to tack on the worth of the furniture to the agreed price of the house, but it is not adding value to the house itself.
after moving homes about 0 times as an adult, i have started to think that we have the idea of owning furniture and large appliances backwards.  we go to great expense and effort to move heavy tables, beds, refrigerators, washer/driers etc.  whenever we relocate, and at the same time embrace the concept that light fixtures, sinks, bathtubs, toilets, kitchen counters and so on should come with the house and be left with the house.  i think we should extend this attitude to furniture and appliances.  beds, couches, armchairs, dining room tables and chairs, refrigerators, washing machines, and other large furniture and appliances should be considered part of the house, condo, or apartment, and included in the price when you buy or sell it.  they do not belong on a moving van.  we should view upgrades to our couches the same way we see remodeling a kitchen.  when we move, we do not usually rip out the countertops, sinks, and cabinets just because we paid for them.  rather, we perceive it to be something that improves the resale value of the home.  furniture should only be moved when it is being replaced, not when you change address.   #  we should view upgrades to our couches the same way we see remodeling a kitchen.   #  when we move, we do not usually rip out the countertops, sinks, and cabinets just because we paid for them.   # beds, couches, armchairs, .  the thought of using someone is old bed, couch, or chair is a little disgusting.  when we move, we do not usually rip out the countertops, sinks, and cabinets just because we paid for them.  rather, we perceive it to be something that improves the resale value of the home.  furniture and appliances can be placed into a room with little effort.  ripping out fixtures requires a lot of work, can cause damage, and may not fit in the new house.  i recently moved into a house and took my $0,0 refrigerator with me.  the fridge in the new house was old and barely working.  i do not want to rely on the budget and care of the previous owner.   #  even if you did the lifting yourself and rented a u haul, it is not cost free.   #  would this be necessarily more expensive than the cost of shipping your existing couch ? even if you did the lifting yourself and rented a u haul, it is not cost free.  and if leaving your old furniture adds to the value of the home you are selling, then it gives everyone an incentive to keep it in good shape.  at the worst, it is just putting the cost of depreciation and wear n tear in a different column.  i also think that the reason we do not take this attitude toward fixtures is because we simply do not perceive them to be a thing we are supposed to take with us.  you  can  move a kitchen faucet if you want to, and it takes no more effort than to move a couch.  in fact, it takes less effort, because a singe person could do it and the fittings are standardized.  but we take it for granted that our new home will come with plumbing fixtures, and we will leave them behind in our old home.  this is why i said that our  culture  should change.  i think people should just see large appliances and furniture the same way they see toilets and bathtubs.  so far, most of the arguments i have seen about having your chic couch could also be applied to having a chic bathtub.  if that is important to us, we seek out properties that already have them.   #  the reason counters and water heaters and such things are considered part of the house is that they are tied down and removing them would damage them and frankly is not worth the effort.   #  where do we draw the line ? should i leave my excessive shelving space for my huge dvd and book collection just because it is large furniture ? i am gonna have to buy it all over again since i need it and the next guy who is all netflix and kindle will throw mine out.  or my large dining room table that expands to sit 0 people will be wasted on the couple moving in that does not entertain and i will have to buy a new one at my new house where i was left a simple four person table.  i love sectional couches so i will have to get a new one because my new place just has a standard sofa and love seat.  but the perfect set i am leaving behind will be put out to goodwill because they like bean bags and individual lounge chairs.  how about my aquarium and stand.  that is awfully personal.  or my wicker patio furniture.  the new place has metal and glass outdoor furniture i hate and the wicker stuff i am leaving will be burnt in a fire by the newbies who prefer wooden outdoor furniture.  i researched and shopped carefully for every piece in my home.  i care about it and have sentimental value assigned to it.  some of it i refinished myself.  i built this stuff.  some of the pieces are family heirlooms.  i do not want the ugly, cheap or otherwise distasteful furniture someone else bought cluttering up my new home.  i do not want someone who wo not appreciate it letting their cats on my beautiful couch or scratching my amish built table with their shit.  the reason counters and water heaters and such things are considered part of the house is that they are tied down and removing them would damage them and frankly is not worth the effort.  moving a bed is not that hard.   #  you can buy a new house and the next day you can be living a perfectly normal existence in it with no work outside of putting in new locks, but i do not know if everyone does that .   #  if you took the sink or tub with you, the house would no longer be move in ready.  you can buy a new house and the next day you can be living a perfectly normal existence in it with no work outside of putting in new locks, but i do not know if everyone does that .  this is why you cannot take light fixtures, sinks, etc with you.  appliances like the washer/dryer and fridge are actually sold separately from the house.  i 0 did not buy an otherwise good house because i did not like how they had finished the bathroom.  do you really want a home seller to have to wait for someone who either likes your taste in finishings and furniture, or is willing to replace everything in the house ? finally, what you call  wear n tear , i call my butt groove.  you expect me to surrender my butt groove ! ? ! no, sir !  #  it is not hard to have $0,0  worth of furniture in a house depends on the size , not to mention the cost of the appliances and such.   # even if you did the lifting yourself and rented a u haul, it is not cost free.  yes, it would be more expensive.  it is not hard to have $0,0  worth of furniture in a house depends on the size , not to mention the cost of the appliances and such.  a u haul costs like $0 a day for a big one and like $. 0 a mile.  not in the way that hardwood floors or granite countertops will, anyways.  you may be able to tack on the worth of the furniture to the agreed price of the house, but it is not adding value to the house itself.
to start this off, let me say that i one day want to work in manufacturing currently going into junior year of chemical engineering and thus i tend to view the monetary aspects of issues too much.  pros of electric vehicles: great for personal use  0 miles daily very quite and often comfortable form of transportation low cost to operate on a daily basis for the user can be powered through renewable energy sources mass production fuels innovation promotes the awareness of sustainable behaviors can be powered from a home easily cons: upfront cost everyone loves tesla, but that is a ton of money.  even the leaf is very expensive for what you get if you compare it to a combustion subcompact sourcing of some materials lead has been phased out, still reliant of rare earth metals though typically challenging to recycle tesla has done a good job at mitigating this very low mileage especially cheaper models wo not work on current infrastructure for a decade or two on a mass scale burden on non electric purchasers.  this is one of my biggest concerns.  if you can afford a tesla, you really should not need a $0,0 tax break ! artificial cost due to fleet standards lowering the cost of evs and hybrids while raising the cost of standard vehicles pointless if the energy comes from coal the nation is doing a fantastic job at lowering coal dependance though currently high cost of replacing the battery every 0 0 years current low production of rare earth metals will restrict the mass production of electric vehicles until production picks up dependence on foreign nations for some rare earth metals many vehicles simply demand too much energy to be battery powered construction, military, freight, etc.  and these vehicles contribute quite a bit to current vehicle emissions many purchasers of evs simply purchase the vehicles as a status symbol with no actual care for the environment in some areas, evs contribute to congestion ca allowing evs to use carpool lanes and thus taking away incentive to carpool which protects the environment more than owning an ev anyways so my viewpoint to summarize is thus: evs are wonderful concepts and should continue to be worked on.  they should not however be mass produced yet.  we need to continue our work on energy storage, production, and delivery first.  after these aspects have been improved, then we can begin the mass production of evs again.   #  we need to continue our work on energy storage, production, and delivery first.   #  after these aspects have been improved, then we can begin the mass production of evs again.   # mass production is the only thing that will solve the upfront cost problem.  saying evs should not be mass produced because they are too expensive is tantamount to saying they should not be mass produced because they are not mass produced.  circular logic at its finest.  there is really nothing objective that can be said about recycling yet, since evs are still too new.  but there is every reason to believe that once large numbers of depleted ev batteries exist it will make more sense to recycle them than to just junk them.  evs can plug in to any existing electrical outlet, or tap into the existing grid supply with relatively minor effort.  contrast adding a bunch of simple charging stations to something like building out an entirely new hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure.  also the law already provides for the sunsetting of the credit once a certain number of evs per manufacturer have claimed it.  what about the burdens imposed on  everybody  by the production and operation of  gasoline  powered vehicles ? the costs associated with securing, shipping, refining, and ultimately combusting gasoline in automobiles are enormous, and almost completely dissociated from the price paid for gas powered automobiles or at the pump.  mix , but you are wrong to say that there would be no benefits from transitioning our transportation energy from oil to coal.  you are thinking only in terms of environmental harm in which case, sure  if  electricity were 0 coal powered it would pretty much be a wash.  but what about the ramifications to the u. s.  economy and national security of transitioning from oil, a  largely imported  energy source, to 0 domestically sourced coal ? and like the subsidy/regulation issue, you ca not look at this in a vacuum.  while battery replacement may be expensive, what about the near  complete lack  of other maintenance evs require relative to ice vehicles ? no oil changes, no transmissions, belts, spark plugs, smog checks, and so on.  even the brakes wear much more slowly.  it matters not  why  individual consumers buy evs, only that they  do.  every mile driven on electricity rather than gasoline is a good thing, regardless of individual motivations.  granting carpool access to evs actually improves overall traffic, according to a berkeley study.  URL also, evs are more than 0x as efficient as the average car, so unless that 0 person carpool is in a prius it is probably still  greener  to have someone riding solo in an ev.  after these aspects have been improved, then we can begin the mass production of evs again.  as you yourself pointed out,  mass production fuels innovation.   research is great, but only real production effects change.  even if evs still are not perfect, they are already much better than the alternative.  do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.   #  this is an argument against the tax break, not an argument against mass production.   # this is one of my biggest concerns.  if you can afford a tesla, you really should not need a $0,0 tax break ! this is an argument against the tax break, not an argument against mass production.  i am sure they could still mass produce tesla model s is, nissan leafs etc.  without the tax break.  plus it exists as a policy tool to encourage people to buy electric cars, for good reasons which will i will mention below.  also, climate change is not the only reason to be in favor of electric cars; another benefit is the reduction in local emissions.  people who live near highways are much more likely to get heart disease and other problems due to particulate pollution from car engines.  many people who purchase gasoline cars also do not care about the environment; does this mean we should stop mass producing gas powered cars ?  #  that being said, you are argument towards protecting those near highways is valid.   # the tax break is an aspect of mass production currently.  without the tax break, production demand would be altered.  i am actually quite curious.  here in the midwest we have some fairly efficient plants.  however, many are becoming quite dated and produce heavy levels of harmful emissions.  that being said, you are argument towards protecting those near highways is valid.  as for your argument on the status symbol aspect, i will say your right on that one.  with mass production, further congestion will occur.  each of those evs further congests the carpool lane, lowering the enticement for individuals to carpool and thus potentially harming the environment, economy, and transportation network of the local area.   #  i would say to your first point that yes batteries being more efficient and clean is debatable.   #  i would say to your first point that yes batteries being more efficient and clean is debatable.  we are certainly advancing in that field however.  for the second aspect of that argument though you are very correct.  i am hesitant though to say evs are a perfect solution though until we can manage to improve power transmission to allow gas/coal plants to be far enough away to not impact major sprawling cities like la unless we could effectively switch to other power sources which we are also making great strides towards.  point two i do not agree with.  if point one were true, point two would follow on environmental grounds.  i do not agree fully with point one and thus can not say point two is,  pretty clear in their favor .  on top of this, there are things contributing far more harmful pollutants besides co0 than personal transportation vehicles in major cities that should be receiving funding rather than evs.  your second point also does not address the fact that there are negative economic aspects to evs that would impact the public.  by your first statement in point two this means the government should not provide tax breaks and other incentives to account for the negative externalities of switching to evs.   #  the average gasoline car gets 0 or 0 mpg.   #  here is a nice report on ev emissions: URL check out table 0, showing mpg ghg equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of a gasoline car with a certain mpg rating .  coal is 0 mpg ghg , and that is the worst case scenario.  the average gasoline car gets 0 or 0 mpg.  but of course, most of our power is not coal, and we are reducing our usage of coal.  oil is 0, natural gas is 0, and anything else is ludicrously better.
to start this off, let me say that i one day want to work in manufacturing currently going into junior year of chemical engineering and thus i tend to view the monetary aspects of issues too much.  pros of electric vehicles: great for personal use  0 miles daily very quite and often comfortable form of transportation low cost to operate on a daily basis for the user can be powered through renewable energy sources mass production fuels innovation promotes the awareness of sustainable behaviors can be powered from a home easily cons: upfront cost everyone loves tesla, but that is a ton of money.  even the leaf is very expensive for what you get if you compare it to a combustion subcompact sourcing of some materials lead has been phased out, still reliant of rare earth metals though typically challenging to recycle tesla has done a good job at mitigating this very low mileage especially cheaper models wo not work on current infrastructure for a decade or two on a mass scale burden on non electric purchasers.  this is one of my biggest concerns.  if you can afford a tesla, you really should not need a $0,0 tax break ! artificial cost due to fleet standards lowering the cost of evs and hybrids while raising the cost of standard vehicles pointless if the energy comes from coal the nation is doing a fantastic job at lowering coal dependance though currently high cost of replacing the battery every 0 0 years current low production of rare earth metals will restrict the mass production of electric vehicles until production picks up dependence on foreign nations for some rare earth metals many vehicles simply demand too much energy to be battery powered construction, military, freight, etc.  and these vehicles contribute quite a bit to current vehicle emissions many purchasers of evs simply purchase the vehicles as a status symbol with no actual care for the environment in some areas, evs contribute to congestion ca allowing evs to use carpool lanes and thus taking away incentive to carpool which protects the environment more than owning an ev anyways so my viewpoint to summarize is thus: evs are wonderful concepts and should continue to be worked on.  they should not however be mass produced yet.  we need to continue our work on energy storage, production, and delivery first.  after these aspects have been improved, then we can begin the mass production of evs again.   #  many vehicles simply demand too much energy to be battery powered construction, military, freight, etc.   #  and these vehicles contribute quite a bit to current vehicle emissions if only it were conceivable to power vehicles that often travel along a fixed route with some fixed power transmission system.   # this is one of my biggest concerns.  if you can afford a tesla, you really should not need a $0,0 tax break ! tax break aside, are you weighing this one thing against all of the money spent for fossil fuel consumption ? those have their own tax break and subsidies, if they are not so obvious, they still exist.  and these vehicles contribute quite a bit to current vehicle emissions if only it were conceivable to power vehicles that often travel along a fixed route with some fixed power transmission system.  oh wait, it is.  there goes a lot of freight emissions which are indeed quite heavy contributors to emissions.  they should not however be mass produced yet.  you failed to articulate a reason against mass production.  you merely asserted problems you have with mass adoption.  production is a different stage of the process, and often precedes adoption by a considerable amount.  it being cheaper to manufacturer things in a factory than the alternatives.  you have not even given us a framework for deciding when a given vehicle or process should be mass produced.  just thrown up a wall of some specious objections and taken them as an impediment.   #  people who live near highways are much more likely to get heart disease and other problems due to particulate pollution from car engines.   # this is one of my biggest concerns.  if you can afford a tesla, you really should not need a $0,0 tax break ! this is an argument against the tax break, not an argument against mass production.  i am sure they could still mass produce tesla model s is, nissan leafs etc.  without the tax break.  plus it exists as a policy tool to encourage people to buy electric cars, for good reasons which will i will mention below.  also, climate change is not the only reason to be in favor of electric cars; another benefit is the reduction in local emissions.  people who live near highways are much more likely to get heart disease and other problems due to particulate pollution from car engines.  many people who purchase gasoline cars also do not care about the environment; does this mean we should stop mass producing gas powered cars ?  #  however, many are becoming quite dated and produce heavy levels of harmful emissions.   # the tax break is an aspect of mass production currently.  without the tax break, production demand would be altered.  i am actually quite curious.  here in the midwest we have some fairly efficient plants.  however, many are becoming quite dated and produce heavy levels of harmful emissions.  that being said, you are argument towards protecting those near highways is valid.  as for your argument on the status symbol aspect, i will say your right on that one.  with mass production, further congestion will occur.  each of those evs further congests the carpool lane, lowering the enticement for individuals to carpool and thus potentially harming the environment, economy, and transportation network of the local area.   #  if point one were true, point two would follow on environmental grounds.   #  i would say to your first point that yes batteries being more efficient and clean is debatable.  we are certainly advancing in that field however.  for the second aspect of that argument though you are very correct.  i am hesitant though to say evs are a perfect solution though until we can manage to improve power transmission to allow gas/coal plants to be far enough away to not impact major sprawling cities like la unless we could effectively switch to other power sources which we are also making great strides towards.  point two i do not agree with.  if point one were true, point two would follow on environmental grounds.  i do not agree fully with point one and thus can not say point two is,  pretty clear in their favor .  on top of this, there are things contributing far more harmful pollutants besides co0 than personal transportation vehicles in major cities that should be receiving funding rather than evs.  your second point also does not address the fact that there are negative economic aspects to evs that would impact the public.  by your first statement in point two this means the government should not provide tax breaks and other incentives to account for the negative externalities of switching to evs.   #  here is a nice report on ev emissions: URL check out table 0, showing mpg ghg equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of a gasoline car with a certain mpg rating .   #  here is a nice report on ev emissions: URL check out table 0, showing mpg ghg equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of a gasoline car with a certain mpg rating .  coal is 0 mpg ghg , and that is the worst case scenario.  the average gasoline car gets 0 or 0 mpg.  but of course, most of our power is not coal, and we are reducing our usage of coal.  oil is 0, natural gas is 0, and anything else is ludicrously better.
to start this off, let me say that i one day want to work in manufacturing currently going into junior year of chemical engineering and thus i tend to view the monetary aspects of issues too much.  pros of electric vehicles: great for personal use  0 miles daily very quite and often comfortable form of transportation low cost to operate on a daily basis for the user can be powered through renewable energy sources mass production fuels innovation promotes the awareness of sustainable behaviors can be powered from a home easily cons: upfront cost everyone loves tesla, but that is a ton of money.  even the leaf is very expensive for what you get if you compare it to a combustion subcompact sourcing of some materials lead has been phased out, still reliant of rare earth metals though typically challenging to recycle tesla has done a good job at mitigating this very low mileage especially cheaper models wo not work on current infrastructure for a decade or two on a mass scale burden on non electric purchasers.  this is one of my biggest concerns.  if you can afford a tesla, you really should not need a $0,0 tax break ! artificial cost due to fleet standards lowering the cost of evs and hybrids while raising the cost of standard vehicles pointless if the energy comes from coal the nation is doing a fantastic job at lowering coal dependance though currently high cost of replacing the battery every 0 0 years current low production of rare earth metals will restrict the mass production of electric vehicles until production picks up dependence on foreign nations for some rare earth metals many vehicles simply demand too much energy to be battery powered construction, military, freight, etc.  and these vehicles contribute quite a bit to current vehicle emissions many purchasers of evs simply purchase the vehicles as a status symbol with no actual care for the environment in some areas, evs contribute to congestion ca allowing evs to use carpool lanes and thus taking away incentive to carpool which protects the environment more than owning an ev anyways so my viewpoint to summarize is thus: evs are wonderful concepts and should continue to be worked on.  they should not however be mass produced yet.  we need to continue our work on energy storage, production, and delivery first.  after these aspects have been improved, then we can begin the mass production of evs again.   #  so my viewpoint to summarize is thus: evs are wonderful concepts and should continue to be worked on.   #  they should not however be mass produced yet.   # this is one of my biggest concerns.  if you can afford a tesla, you really should not need a $0,0 tax break ! tax break aside, are you weighing this one thing against all of the money spent for fossil fuel consumption ? those have their own tax break and subsidies, if they are not so obvious, they still exist.  and these vehicles contribute quite a bit to current vehicle emissions if only it were conceivable to power vehicles that often travel along a fixed route with some fixed power transmission system.  oh wait, it is.  there goes a lot of freight emissions which are indeed quite heavy contributors to emissions.  they should not however be mass produced yet.  you failed to articulate a reason against mass production.  you merely asserted problems you have with mass adoption.  production is a different stage of the process, and often precedes adoption by a considerable amount.  it being cheaper to manufacturer things in a factory than the alternatives.  you have not even given us a framework for deciding when a given vehicle or process should be mass produced.  just thrown up a wall of some specious objections and taken them as an impediment.   #  if you can afford a tesla, you really should not need a $0,0 tax break !  # this is one of my biggest concerns.  if you can afford a tesla, you really should not need a $0,0 tax break ! this is an argument against the tax break, not an argument against mass production.  i am sure they could still mass produce tesla model s is, nissan leafs etc.  without the tax break.  plus it exists as a policy tool to encourage people to buy electric cars, for good reasons which will i will mention below.  also, climate change is not the only reason to be in favor of electric cars; another benefit is the reduction in local emissions.  people who live near highways are much more likely to get heart disease and other problems due to particulate pollution from car engines.  many people who purchase gasoline cars also do not care about the environment; does this mean we should stop mass producing gas powered cars ?  #  each of those evs further congests the carpool lane, lowering the enticement for individuals to carpool and thus potentially harming the environment, economy, and transportation network of the local area.   # the tax break is an aspect of mass production currently.  without the tax break, production demand would be altered.  i am actually quite curious.  here in the midwest we have some fairly efficient plants.  however, many are becoming quite dated and produce heavy levels of harmful emissions.  that being said, you are argument towards protecting those near highways is valid.  as for your argument on the status symbol aspect, i will say your right on that one.  with mass production, further congestion will occur.  each of those evs further congests the carpool lane, lowering the enticement for individuals to carpool and thus potentially harming the environment, economy, and transportation network of the local area.   #  we are certainly advancing in that field however.   #  i would say to your first point that yes batteries being more efficient and clean is debatable.  we are certainly advancing in that field however.  for the second aspect of that argument though you are very correct.  i am hesitant though to say evs are a perfect solution though until we can manage to improve power transmission to allow gas/coal plants to be far enough away to not impact major sprawling cities like la unless we could effectively switch to other power sources which we are also making great strides towards.  point two i do not agree with.  if point one were true, point two would follow on environmental grounds.  i do not agree fully with point one and thus can not say point two is,  pretty clear in their favor .  on top of this, there are things contributing far more harmful pollutants besides co0 than personal transportation vehicles in major cities that should be receiving funding rather than evs.  your second point also does not address the fact that there are negative economic aspects to evs that would impact the public.  by your first statement in point two this means the government should not provide tax breaks and other incentives to account for the negative externalities of switching to evs.   #  coal is 0 mpg ghg , and that is the worst case scenario.   #  here is a nice report on ev emissions: URL check out table 0, showing mpg ghg equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of a gasoline car with a certain mpg rating .  coal is 0 mpg ghg , and that is the worst case scenario.  the average gasoline car gets 0 or 0 mpg.  but of course, most of our power is not coal, and we are reducing our usage of coal.  oil is 0, natural gas is 0, and anything else is ludicrously better.
let me begin by syaing that i am an indian.  the vast majority of indians around 0 are hindus.  even though many hindus are not vegetarian, most still hold cow to be a very sacred creature and almost divine.  a cow provides sustenance and support to the family, it nourishes them.  its milk is used is major component of a typical indian diet.  the dung is widely used as a fuel source and to make manure.  apart from this cows feature prominently as bountiful creatures in scriptures and hindu literature.  knowing all this i think i understand the reverence that people might hold for the cow.  yet, when people say that sale of beef should be banned just because it irks the majority i instinctively react as if my very rights are being infringed upon.  i wonder if there is a reason good enough to change my view.   #  yet, when people say that sale of beef should be banned just because it irks the majority i instinctively react as if my very rights are being infringed upon.   #  what if you apply this to child porn ?  #  well the idea of government not being influenced by religious sentiments is pretty much one of the fundamentals of  reason,  but what about a cultural belief that is not directly tied to a religion ? is it that much different in practice ? what if you apply this to child porn ? your logic suggests that just because the majority hindus/most decent human beings wants to ban abuse slaughter and consumption/sexualization of something they think is  sacred  cows/children does not mean we should ban it outright.  if you think cows are universally sacred and should not be eaten, being told  you do not have to consume it if you do not want  is not a satisfactory reason to keep beef legal.  nor is  participation in pornography for minors is not  inherently  harmful  a valid reason for legalizing cp in any form.   #  in my county i ca not slaughter animals that are endangered or otherwise perceived to have an elevated status.   #  i would like to point out that access to food is considered a human right, access to any kind of food one wants is not.  there are different cultural bans on animal slaughter across the globe.  in my county i ca not slaughter animals that are endangered or otherwise perceived to have an elevated status.  i, for instance, cannot slaughter dogs, cats or horses for food because those animals are revered as companion animals where i live.  there are other countries that eating those animals is perfectly acceptable.   #  also just because something is a  right  does not mean it is not wrong to restrict access to it.   #  actually i would argue that there is significant doublethink regarding this.  also just because something is a  right  does not mean it is not wrong to restrict access to it.  tv is not a right, but it is not right to ban tv.  URL details the mess of laws surrounding it in the us.  additionally there are laws that differentiate between pet slaughter and farm animal slaughter instead of between breeds.  a large number of indians eat meat, and beef is a traditional dish in quite a few places in india.   #  that sucks because i have to plan ahead for my 0th of july party, but i am in the minority when it comes to changing these laws.   #  that is what democracy is.  democracy is supposed to be the majority enacting their moral code on the rest, but letting the actual population decide what that code should or should not be.  if 0 of people think that it is against their moral code to eat beef, then they have every right to pass a law saying that no one can eat it.  this does not sound fair to those 0, but just remember that if you are a normal indian that you would be in the majority more often than not.  0 of people may think that it should be legal to do heroin in their basement, but if all of the other people vote to make it illegal then they are not allowed to do that.  sometimes it sucks.  i live in the southeastern united states, and while most of the country can purchase alcohol how and when they wish, here i cannot.  they have what are called blue laws.  liquor stores have set hours, are the only places allowed to sell over 0, are closed on sundays, and closed on all holidays.  that sucks because i have to plan ahead for my 0th of july party, but i am in the minority when it comes to changing these laws.  that is just one example.  there are tons of alcohol laws like this.  just be glad that in your country the beef lobby is not strong enough to buy politicians.  when that happens the government stops working to give the people what they actually want/need.  also, they are getting very close to being able to grow steaks from dna instead of actually harming a cow, so that should be legal when it happens.   #  this is not strictly against your view, but i am not sure it is as significant a problem as you state.   #  this is not strictly against your view, but i am not sure it is as significant a problem as you state.  it is true that there are a number of laws on the books regarding cow slaughter religiously motivated.  but the laws are were loosely enforced in many places in no small part because a lot more people enjoy beef than it would seem.  this is also a class issue, as many consumers of meat traditionally belong to the lower sections of society.  where i come from tamil nadu beef is not all that uncommon even though there is a law on the books regarding it.  URL URL this is compounded by the fact that this is an election big ticket issue that many people run on.  this does not mean that the laws are appropriate, but consider also that the gap between laws and enforcement allow significant freedom.  whether this should be the case is a different issue altogether.
these programs do not follow any sort of regulation, drivers are very inexperienced, cars are sometimes questionable and they often only carry minimum insurance.  in addition, lyft uses facebook and it becomes easy for a driver to stalk a woman if he chooses to.  on top of that, there are already some incidences where a driver has taken a young lady to a remote location and sexually assaulted her URL .  these types of incidents can only increase as ridesharing increases.  finally, ridesharing is taking jobs away from hard working immigrants who come to north america specifically to drive cabs.  this is highly unfair to them and many cab drivers could potentially become destitute with the loss of their livelihood and no other skills.  i think it is only right cities should have them use livery plates and only take rides with a high minimum fare, essentially making them on demand livery rather than a glorified and gypsy cab that is just as unsafe.  cmv.   #  on top of that, there are already some incidences where a driver has taken a young lady to a remote location and sexually assaulted her URL .   #  these types of incidents can only increase as ridesharing increases.   # these types of incidents can only increase as ridesharing increases.  are you implying this does not happen with taxis ? why is this a hit on only these services when it happens in both ? this is highly unfair to them and many cab drivers could potentially become destitute with the loss of their livelihood and no other skills.  are they unable to drive for one of these companies ? arguably they would make very good drivers for these companies, as they know the areas from being a taxi driver.  why is this right ? it is simply to meet demand.  supply generally does not increase much in these situations they only have so many drivers , but demand increases exponentially.  what is wrong with this model ? either you wait 0 hours for a taxi at the normal rate, or you pay a premium to get a car within 0 minutes with uber.  a rate increase decreases demand somewhat, allowing them to continue meeting it with their business goals a car within x minutes .  if this was not the case, they would most likely not be able to meet demand and achieve their business goals.  since this is all voluntary between the company and the customers, why is this a problem ? this is a decision up to the consumer, and imo, the way it should be.   #  if a random cab picks you up downtown there is no record of this.   #  every lyft and uber ride is documented on computers.  if a random cab picks you up downtown there is no record of this.  they could have their way with you and leave you in a ditch and no one would have any idea.  every person i have rode with was as normal as you or i, whereas the normal cabbies can be dicks a lot of the time.  most americans would argue that americans taking jobs away from immigrants is not possible because  we were here first  or some ignorant shit.  they are kind of right.  you ca not take away a job from an immigrant, they take jobs away from the folks who are already here technically.  regardless, the best man/woman should get the job, immigrant or not, so i think it is a non issue.   #  most cities have a similar system wherein registering a taxi and competing with taxi companies established before the stringent rules becomes prohibitively expensive.   #  i see this as a way to get rid of a harmful monopoly that many companies have on taxi systems by skirting around unjust laws.  did you know that it can cost $0,0,0 to get your nyc taxi medallion ? source URL how is a small business owner supposed to get that kind of capital for a business type that is not going to see that kind of return for a decade ? well, yes; those are times when it is more dangerous to be driving.  the greater the risk, the more experienced the drivers have to be, and therefore the smaller the pool of drivers.  that is supply and demand.  most cities have a similar system wherein registering a taxi and competing with taxi companies established before the stringent rules becomes prohibitively expensive.   #  i am new to this, so i do not know the details, but do not most cars have insurance  in general  ?  #  i am new to this, so i do not know the details, but do not most cars have insurance  in general  ? and if you do not have insurance, then are not you breaking the law already ? as for medallions to me that is just a government supported fuck you to the people who actually do the hard work.  wanna drive a cab ? sorry, you gotta pay $0/month for the privelige.  why is the government supporting medallion owners ? why should medallion owners collect so much money for doing effectively nothing ? what purpose does it serve ? if it serves no valid purpose, the system should be changed.   #  if the taxi drivers were smart they would just switch to being an uber or lyft driver instead.   #  i am sorry but i do not buy it.  you ever try getting a cab in some cities ? new york, they wont cross state lines unless you deal with them even if the drive is like 0 minutes.  some cabs wont go to your house period, at all.  you live somewhere not near a ton of other possible customers ? they do not come.  you call them hours in advanced to schedule a taxi ? sometimes they choose not to come because the route you are requesting is not good, or where you live is too out of the way.  the plain truth is the medallion system does not meet demand.  it is an artificial way to limit supply, pretty much no different then what debeers did with diamonds.  now obviously i think they need some regulation, insurance for example.  but the medallion system can go fuck itself.  it does nothing but screw over both taxi drivers and customers.  taxi drivers have to pay a fee to do their job, and customers get shafted in prices in return, and fleet owners get to profit from it all.  it is a horrible system that rips off both independent drivers and customers.  your analogy is a bit incorrect imo.  this is more like you are all running a race but the rules do not allow you to move faster then x speed, and they only allow runners into the race that they choose and they put weights on you.  now someone comes in and does not have any of those restrictions, of course they are going to do better.  the only thing that uber and lyft is doing is shining a glaring light on how absolutely broken the medallion system is for taxi is.  that is all there is to it.  if the taxi drivers were smart they would just switch to being an uber or lyft driver instead.  saves them from paying a premium every year for a medallion, keep their taxi insurance for safety.
these programs do not follow any sort of regulation, drivers are very inexperienced, cars are sometimes questionable and they often only carry minimum insurance.  in addition, lyft uses facebook and it becomes easy for a driver to stalk a woman if he chooses to.  on top of that, there are already some incidences where a driver has taken a young lady to a remote location and sexually assaulted her URL .  these types of incidents can only increase as ridesharing increases.  finally, ridesharing is taking jobs away from hard working immigrants who come to north america specifically to drive cabs.  this is highly unfair to them and many cab drivers could potentially become destitute with the loss of their livelihood and no other skills.  i think it is only right cities should have them use livery plates and only take rides with a high minimum fare, essentially making them on demand livery rather than a glorified and gypsy cab that is just as unsafe.  cmv.   #  finally, ridesharing is taking jobs away from hard working immigrants who come to north america specifically to drive cabs.   #  this is highly unfair to them and many cab drivers could potentially become destitute with the loss of their livelihood and no other skills.   # these types of incidents can only increase as ridesharing increases.  are you implying this does not happen with taxis ? why is this a hit on only these services when it happens in both ? this is highly unfair to them and many cab drivers could potentially become destitute with the loss of their livelihood and no other skills.  are they unable to drive for one of these companies ? arguably they would make very good drivers for these companies, as they know the areas from being a taxi driver.  why is this right ? it is simply to meet demand.  supply generally does not increase much in these situations they only have so many drivers , but demand increases exponentially.  what is wrong with this model ? either you wait 0 hours for a taxi at the normal rate, or you pay a premium to get a car within 0 minutes with uber.  a rate increase decreases demand somewhat, allowing them to continue meeting it with their business goals a car within x minutes .  if this was not the case, they would most likely not be able to meet demand and achieve their business goals.  since this is all voluntary between the company and the customers, why is this a problem ? this is a decision up to the consumer, and imo, the way it should be.   #  if a random cab picks you up downtown there is no record of this.   #  every lyft and uber ride is documented on computers.  if a random cab picks you up downtown there is no record of this.  they could have their way with you and leave you in a ditch and no one would have any idea.  every person i have rode with was as normal as you or i, whereas the normal cabbies can be dicks a lot of the time.  most americans would argue that americans taking jobs away from immigrants is not possible because  we were here first  or some ignorant shit.  they are kind of right.  you ca not take away a job from an immigrant, they take jobs away from the folks who are already here technically.  regardless, the best man/woman should get the job, immigrant or not, so i think it is a non issue.   #  most cities have a similar system wherein registering a taxi and competing with taxi companies established before the stringent rules becomes prohibitively expensive.   #  i see this as a way to get rid of a harmful monopoly that many companies have on taxi systems by skirting around unjust laws.  did you know that it can cost $0,0,0 to get your nyc taxi medallion ? source URL how is a small business owner supposed to get that kind of capital for a business type that is not going to see that kind of return for a decade ? well, yes; those are times when it is more dangerous to be driving.  the greater the risk, the more experienced the drivers have to be, and therefore the smaller the pool of drivers.  that is supply and demand.  most cities have a similar system wherein registering a taxi and competing with taxi companies established before the stringent rules becomes prohibitively expensive.   #  sorry, you gotta pay $0/month for the privelige.   #  i am new to this, so i do not know the details, but do not most cars have insurance  in general  ? and if you do not have insurance, then are not you breaking the law already ? as for medallions to me that is just a government supported fuck you to the people who actually do the hard work.  wanna drive a cab ? sorry, you gotta pay $0/month for the privelige.  why is the government supporting medallion owners ? why should medallion owners collect so much money for doing effectively nothing ? what purpose does it serve ? if it serves no valid purpose, the system should be changed.   #  you call them hours in advanced to schedule a taxi ?  #  i am sorry but i do not buy it.  you ever try getting a cab in some cities ? new york, they wont cross state lines unless you deal with them even if the drive is like 0 minutes.  some cabs wont go to your house period, at all.  you live somewhere not near a ton of other possible customers ? they do not come.  you call them hours in advanced to schedule a taxi ? sometimes they choose not to come because the route you are requesting is not good, or where you live is too out of the way.  the plain truth is the medallion system does not meet demand.  it is an artificial way to limit supply, pretty much no different then what debeers did with diamonds.  now obviously i think they need some regulation, insurance for example.  but the medallion system can go fuck itself.  it does nothing but screw over both taxi drivers and customers.  taxi drivers have to pay a fee to do their job, and customers get shafted in prices in return, and fleet owners get to profit from it all.  it is a horrible system that rips off both independent drivers and customers.  your analogy is a bit incorrect imo.  this is more like you are all running a race but the rules do not allow you to move faster then x speed, and they only allow runners into the race that they choose and they put weights on you.  now someone comes in and does not have any of those restrictions, of course they are going to do better.  the only thing that uber and lyft is doing is shining a glaring light on how absolutely broken the medallion system is for taxi is.  that is all there is to it.  if the taxi drivers were smart they would just switch to being an uber or lyft driver instead.  saves them from paying a premium every year for a medallion, keep their taxi insurance for safety.
these programs do not follow any sort of regulation, drivers are very inexperienced, cars are sometimes questionable and they often only carry minimum insurance.  in addition, lyft uses facebook and it becomes easy for a driver to stalk a woman if he chooses to.  on top of that, there are already some incidences where a driver has taken a young lady to a remote location and sexually assaulted her URL .  these types of incidents can only increase as ridesharing increases.  finally, ridesharing is taking jobs away from hard working immigrants who come to north america specifically to drive cabs.  this is highly unfair to them and many cab drivers could potentially become destitute with the loss of their livelihood and no other skills.  i think it is only right cities should have them use livery plates and only take rides with a high minimum fare, essentially making them on demand livery rather than a glorified and gypsy cab that is just as unsafe.  cmv.   #  finally, ridesharing is taking jobs away from hard working immigrants who come to north america specifically to drive cabs.   #  this is highly unfair to them this is ludicrous.   # there are tons of easier ways to stalk women, please stop worrying about bullshit like this.  nobody is forced to take a ride with anybody else, if you do not like a driver/passanger you pass.  we should ban taxis too, right ? how is getting into a cab different from ride sharing in this respect ? this is highly unfair to them this is ludicrous.  you ca not force people to pay for something just because service providers would like them to.  this is progressive mentality at its worst.  reading internet news is unfair to old school newspapers, right ? getting water from a drinking fountain is unfair to bottled water companies.  oh god.   #  they could have their way with you and leave you in a ditch and no one would have any idea.   #  every lyft and uber ride is documented on computers.  if a random cab picks you up downtown there is no record of this.  they could have their way with you and leave you in a ditch and no one would have any idea.  every person i have rode with was as normal as you or i, whereas the normal cabbies can be dicks a lot of the time.  most americans would argue that americans taking jobs away from immigrants is not possible because  we were here first  or some ignorant shit.  they are kind of right.  you ca not take away a job from an immigrant, they take jobs away from the folks who are already here technically.  regardless, the best man/woman should get the job, immigrant or not, so i think it is a non issue.   #  did you know that it can cost $0,0,0 to get your nyc taxi medallion ?  #  i see this as a way to get rid of a harmful monopoly that many companies have on taxi systems by skirting around unjust laws.  did you know that it can cost $0,0,0 to get your nyc taxi medallion ? source URL how is a small business owner supposed to get that kind of capital for a business type that is not going to see that kind of return for a decade ? well, yes; those are times when it is more dangerous to be driving.  the greater the risk, the more experienced the drivers have to be, and therefore the smaller the pool of drivers.  that is supply and demand.  most cities have a similar system wherein registering a taxi and competing with taxi companies established before the stringent rules becomes prohibitively expensive.   #  i am new to this, so i do not know the details, but do not most cars have insurance  in general  ?  #  i am new to this, so i do not know the details, but do not most cars have insurance  in general  ? and if you do not have insurance, then are not you breaking the law already ? as for medallions to me that is just a government supported fuck you to the people who actually do the hard work.  wanna drive a cab ? sorry, you gotta pay $0/month for the privelige.  why is the government supporting medallion owners ? why should medallion owners collect so much money for doing effectively nothing ? what purpose does it serve ? if it serves no valid purpose, the system should be changed.   #  some cabs wont go to your house period, at all.   #  i am sorry but i do not buy it.  you ever try getting a cab in some cities ? new york, they wont cross state lines unless you deal with them even if the drive is like 0 minutes.  some cabs wont go to your house period, at all.  you live somewhere not near a ton of other possible customers ? they do not come.  you call them hours in advanced to schedule a taxi ? sometimes they choose not to come because the route you are requesting is not good, or where you live is too out of the way.  the plain truth is the medallion system does not meet demand.  it is an artificial way to limit supply, pretty much no different then what debeers did with diamonds.  now obviously i think they need some regulation, insurance for example.  but the medallion system can go fuck itself.  it does nothing but screw over both taxi drivers and customers.  taxi drivers have to pay a fee to do their job, and customers get shafted in prices in return, and fleet owners get to profit from it all.  it is a horrible system that rips off both independent drivers and customers.  your analogy is a bit incorrect imo.  this is more like you are all running a race but the rules do not allow you to move faster then x speed, and they only allow runners into the race that they choose and they put weights on you.  now someone comes in and does not have any of those restrictions, of course they are going to do better.  the only thing that uber and lyft is doing is shining a glaring light on how absolutely broken the medallion system is for taxi is.  that is all there is to it.  if the taxi drivers were smart they would just switch to being an uber or lyft driver instead.  saves them from paying a premium every year for a medallion, keep their taxi insurance for safety.
these programs do not follow any sort of regulation, drivers are very inexperienced, cars are sometimes questionable and they often only carry minimum insurance.  in addition, lyft uses facebook and it becomes easy for a driver to stalk a woman if he chooses to.  on top of that, there are already some incidences where a driver has taken a young lady to a remote location and sexually assaulted her URL .  these types of incidents can only increase as ridesharing increases.  finally, ridesharing is taking jobs away from hard working immigrants who come to north america specifically to drive cabs.  this is highly unfair to them and many cab drivers could potentially become destitute with the loss of their livelihood and no other skills.  i think it is only right cities should have them use livery plates and only take rides with a high minimum fare, essentially making them on demand livery rather than a glorified and gypsy cab that is just as unsafe.  cmv.   #  in addition, lyft uses facebook and it becomes easy for a driver to stalk a woman if he chooses to.   #  no, lyft uses facebook to confirm identities internally, in part to ensure nobody is using the platform while masquerading as somebody else.   # no, lyft uses facebook to confirm identities internally, in part to ensure nobody is using the platform while masquerading as somebody else.  that information is only used by the app itself, and not by the drivers or passengers, aside from simply displaying first names upon ride request.  identity verification is incredibly complicated and creates a host of privacy and security issues.  a badly designed identity verification system can lead to major breaches in personal security, so lyft  outsources  this architecture to facebook, who are quite good at it.  the passengers  and drivers  full names and facebook profiles are never shared with one another.  if you do not want the driver to know who you are, they will not know anything you do not tell them except your first name and what you look like.  however, lyft also allows you sign up using your mobile phone number if you choose to, no facebook required.  it will then verify your identity by periodically sending a verification code to the phone number on file, as a text message, which you then enter into the app to verify that you are the owner of that phone, and thus, that account.  likewise, this phone number is never shared with any other community members.  lyft uses a phone number masking system so that if you call or text your driver, they see a  proxy  phone number.   #  every person i have rode with was as normal as you or i, whereas the normal cabbies can be dicks a lot of the time.   #  every lyft and uber ride is documented on computers.  if a random cab picks you up downtown there is no record of this.  they could have their way with you and leave you in a ditch and no one would have any idea.  every person i have rode with was as normal as you or i, whereas the normal cabbies can be dicks a lot of the time.  most americans would argue that americans taking jobs away from immigrants is not possible because  we were here first  or some ignorant shit.  they are kind of right.  you ca not take away a job from an immigrant, they take jobs away from the folks who are already here technically.  regardless, the best man/woman should get the job, immigrant or not, so i think it is a non issue.   #  well, yes; those are times when it is more dangerous to be driving.   #  i see this as a way to get rid of a harmful monopoly that many companies have on taxi systems by skirting around unjust laws.  did you know that it can cost $0,0,0 to get your nyc taxi medallion ? source URL how is a small business owner supposed to get that kind of capital for a business type that is not going to see that kind of return for a decade ? well, yes; those are times when it is more dangerous to be driving.  the greater the risk, the more experienced the drivers have to be, and therefore the smaller the pool of drivers.  that is supply and demand.  most cities have a similar system wherein registering a taxi and competing with taxi companies established before the stringent rules becomes prohibitively expensive.   #  sorry, you gotta pay $0/month for the privelige.   #  i am new to this, so i do not know the details, but do not most cars have insurance  in general  ? and if you do not have insurance, then are not you breaking the law already ? as for medallions to me that is just a government supported fuck you to the people who actually do the hard work.  wanna drive a cab ? sorry, you gotta pay $0/month for the privelige.  why is the government supporting medallion owners ? why should medallion owners collect so much money for doing effectively nothing ? what purpose does it serve ? if it serves no valid purpose, the system should be changed.   #  some cabs wont go to your house period, at all.   #  i am sorry but i do not buy it.  you ever try getting a cab in some cities ? new york, they wont cross state lines unless you deal with them even if the drive is like 0 minutes.  some cabs wont go to your house period, at all.  you live somewhere not near a ton of other possible customers ? they do not come.  you call them hours in advanced to schedule a taxi ? sometimes they choose not to come because the route you are requesting is not good, or where you live is too out of the way.  the plain truth is the medallion system does not meet demand.  it is an artificial way to limit supply, pretty much no different then what debeers did with diamonds.  now obviously i think they need some regulation, insurance for example.  but the medallion system can go fuck itself.  it does nothing but screw over both taxi drivers and customers.  taxi drivers have to pay a fee to do their job, and customers get shafted in prices in return, and fleet owners get to profit from it all.  it is a horrible system that rips off both independent drivers and customers.  your analogy is a bit incorrect imo.  this is more like you are all running a race but the rules do not allow you to move faster then x speed, and they only allow runners into the race that they choose and they put weights on you.  now someone comes in and does not have any of those restrictions, of course they are going to do better.  the only thing that uber and lyft is doing is shining a glaring light on how absolutely broken the medallion system is for taxi is.  that is all there is to it.  if the taxi drivers were smart they would just switch to being an uber or lyft driver instead.  saves them from paying a premium every year for a medallion, keep their taxi insurance for safety.
these programs do not follow any sort of regulation, drivers are very inexperienced, cars are sometimes questionable and they often only carry minimum insurance.  in addition, lyft uses facebook and it becomes easy for a driver to stalk a woman if he chooses to.  on top of that, there are already some incidences where a driver has taken a young lady to a remote location and sexually assaulted her URL .  these types of incidents can only increase as ridesharing increases.  finally, ridesharing is taking jobs away from hard working immigrants who come to north america specifically to drive cabs.  this is highly unfair to them and many cab drivers could potentially become destitute with the loss of their livelihood and no other skills.  i think it is only right cities should have them use livery plates and only take rides with a high minimum fare, essentially making them on demand livery rather than a glorified and gypsy cab that is just as unsafe.  cmv.   #  finally, ridesharing is taking jobs away from hard working immigrants who come to north america specifically to drive cabs.   #  this is highly unfair to them and many cab drivers could potentially become destitute with the loss of their livelihood and no other skills.   #  i would agree that some type of regulation is probably called for commercial insurance should be required, for instance , but two of your points are in direct contradiction with one another.  this is highly unfair to them and many cab drivers could potentially become destitute with the loss of their livelihood and no other skills.  and  they intentionally overcharge during snowstorms and rush hours and holidays like halloween, which is company endorsed price gouging and something taxis do not do.  they do charge what they think the market will bear.  they do this because uber has a constant and instantaneous understanding of both their car supply and the demand for their cars.  for this exact reason uber cars are not going to ever put taxis out of business.  if there were ever enough uber cars to meet all of the demand that taxis meet, the price of uber cars would go way down, making uber cars much less profitable for the drivers themselves, which would lead to fewer drivers.  the market could correct instantaneously.  the only reason the system they have  works so well  from a consumer point of view is because they  overcharge  or  price gouge  during times of high demand.  further, the business model of taxis themselves is the cause for the supply shortages that uber uses to  gouge  in the first place.  uber charges more in instances where taxi drivers are not taking customers, either due to too much demand or too much risk like during snow storms .  they only  gouge  you in instances where the lack of an uber car would mean that you do not get to have a ride at all.  what you see as  gouging  is in fact the strength of their entire business model: the customer pays more for more convenience.  as a result, of this, uber wo not ever put taxis out of business, regardless of what taxi drivers themselves say.   #  regardless, the best man/woman should get the job, immigrant or not, so i think it is a non issue.   #  every lyft and uber ride is documented on computers.  if a random cab picks you up downtown there is no record of this.  they could have their way with you and leave you in a ditch and no one would have any idea.  every person i have rode with was as normal as you or i, whereas the normal cabbies can be dicks a lot of the time.  most americans would argue that americans taking jobs away from immigrants is not possible because  we were here first  or some ignorant shit.  they are kind of right.  you ca not take away a job from an immigrant, they take jobs away from the folks who are already here technically.  regardless, the best man/woman should get the job, immigrant or not, so i think it is a non issue.   #  the greater the risk, the more experienced the drivers have to be, and therefore the smaller the pool of drivers.   #  i see this as a way to get rid of a harmful monopoly that many companies have on taxi systems by skirting around unjust laws.  did you know that it can cost $0,0,0 to get your nyc taxi medallion ? source URL how is a small business owner supposed to get that kind of capital for a business type that is not going to see that kind of return for a decade ? well, yes; those are times when it is more dangerous to be driving.  the greater the risk, the more experienced the drivers have to be, and therefore the smaller the pool of drivers.  that is supply and demand.  most cities have a similar system wherein registering a taxi and competing with taxi companies established before the stringent rules becomes prohibitively expensive.   #  sorry, you gotta pay $0/month for the privelige.   #  i am new to this, so i do not know the details, but do not most cars have insurance  in general  ? and if you do not have insurance, then are not you breaking the law already ? as for medallions to me that is just a government supported fuck you to the people who actually do the hard work.  wanna drive a cab ? sorry, you gotta pay $0/month for the privelige.  why is the government supporting medallion owners ? why should medallion owners collect so much money for doing effectively nothing ? what purpose does it serve ? if it serves no valid purpose, the system should be changed.   #  this is more like you are all running a race but the rules do not allow you to move faster then x speed, and they only allow runners into the race that they choose and they put weights on you.   #  i am sorry but i do not buy it.  you ever try getting a cab in some cities ? new york, they wont cross state lines unless you deal with them even if the drive is like 0 minutes.  some cabs wont go to your house period, at all.  you live somewhere not near a ton of other possible customers ? they do not come.  you call them hours in advanced to schedule a taxi ? sometimes they choose not to come because the route you are requesting is not good, or where you live is too out of the way.  the plain truth is the medallion system does not meet demand.  it is an artificial way to limit supply, pretty much no different then what debeers did with diamonds.  now obviously i think they need some regulation, insurance for example.  but the medallion system can go fuck itself.  it does nothing but screw over both taxi drivers and customers.  taxi drivers have to pay a fee to do their job, and customers get shafted in prices in return, and fleet owners get to profit from it all.  it is a horrible system that rips off both independent drivers and customers.  your analogy is a bit incorrect imo.  this is more like you are all running a race but the rules do not allow you to move faster then x speed, and they only allow runners into the race that they choose and they put weights on you.  now someone comes in and does not have any of those restrictions, of course they are going to do better.  the only thing that uber and lyft is doing is shining a glaring light on how absolutely broken the medallion system is for taxi is.  that is all there is to it.  if the taxi drivers were smart they would just switch to being an uber or lyft driver instead.  saves them from paying a premium every year for a medallion, keep their taxi insurance for safety.
without getting specific as to which ones are worse or denying the necessity of anti virus software in general for you know, viruses.  the secondary purpose to me at least of such programs is to keep your computer clutter free from adware, popups, and generally keep it running smooth and fast.  while this not being as bad as getting a trojan, if your internet usage is kept relatively simple by mainly visiting places like reddit and such, many if not all free av software hit you with a constant barrage of auto updates, mini scans, and popups for  discounted offers  to upgrade that in effect, slow your computer down more than anything.  this only gets worse when trial offers expire and you now have popups and nothing protecting you.  yes, i know there are work arounds such as changing settings and uninstalling when expired, but this is not the point.  besides, sometimes, this wo not even work.  currently, for example, one noted av software is running a  world cup promotion  and constantly pops up an ad about it.  not saying this is horrible, but i am starting to feel like the programs are becoming more and more malware like every day.  0ndly, i fully understand they  want  you to buy upgrades, and that is fine.  it is how they go about it that matters.  0rd, let me make a side comparison to some actual adware.  let is try conduit search engine.  not malicious but surely invasive.  easy to get rid of too.  but what does it do ? it changes your default homepage and search engine mainly.  neither of these are hard to fix nor is getting rid of it which you have to do to keep you changes .  i can akin most av software to this, confirmed malware, for the level of interference it delivers.  granted, av software is downloaded voluntarily and actually does serve a positive purpose.  but my argument was that the free/trial av software was  nearly  as bad in some aspects.   #  i am starting to feel like the programs are becoming more and more malware like every day.   #  showing you a promotion is adware like, not malware like.   #  that is also inaccurate.  most of the free versions that have upgraded versions are using the exact same codebase, maybe with extra services that may or may not run in the background.  it goes against a company to offer you a free version that is somehow slower or less resource hungry than the paid version you might get because you like the free one so much.  per your other points, you said stopping by daily, i said weekly.  you do not want it to update in the middle of the day ? change the settings, this is the same with a paid version and updates on really good av software will do be performed multiple times a day when new protection from zero day infections become available.  rarely have i ever had a paid version of av/am software that i do not have to tweak to my and my users  liking.  your point of view as stated is you think malware is just as bad as free av software.  forgive me for my perceived hostility in my previous post, but as an it guy and also as a home user who has used many many different av solutions over the years most being free, all of your arguments fall flat even if you pay for it.  other than offers to upgrade, which i wholeheartedly agree is annoying.  you still have not argued against the pros/cons of malware/free av software i presented to you.  one can potentially encrypt all data on your hard drive and hold it for ransom for hundreds of dollars cryptolocker, and yes, the encryption is unbreakable.  and free av can protect you from it.  other times it can be a piece of software masquerading as av software, pretends to scan your computer extremely quickly, falsely finds tons of infections and demands money to clean it.  both of these examples are called  ransomware  and are getting extremely prevalent most likely due to being  well funded .  some free av solutions are supported by ads, which is one of your main gripes, and some do not or do it to a much less invasive degree.  it serves an av company to have more end points protected and getting hit by malware everyday in order to bolster their library of known malware further for both paid and free customers.  free anti virus software can save consumers across the globe millions if not billions in damages accrued by repairing and preventing infections.  malware on the other hand is out to cause this and make your life a living hell.  showing you a promotion is adware like, not malware like.  i have experienced either frequent popups, constant pc lagging updates or unwanted scans from all of these recently.  thing is, most or all of these never gave me a problem in past years.  this can be attributed to dozens of other things.  conflicting or incompatible software, lack of ram, a slow or full hd especially if it is a mechanical hd a broken os, numerous other services running in the background chewing away at cpu usage.  assuming it is av software updating itself or performing any type of scan is a big assumption.   #  popping up once a year asking me to renew my free registration.   #  i have never used commercial av software outside of work, but i have also never seen any of the issues you describe.  the closest thing was one of them avast ! i think ? popping up once a year asking me to renew my free registration.  i have never had msse do a pop up, and avg has only ever done a pop up when it was a big update.  easy enough to suppress.  i have never seen legitimate av software do pop up ads.  for the record, right now i use msse on my desktops and sophos on my servers at home.  in the past, i have used avast, avg, comodo and a few others i ca not remember.  could you describe which avs you are referring to that do this ?  #  it does not tell me what any of that stuff actually is or what it will remove at all though, unless i pay.   #  heh so how about recently ? i have been using avast ! for years too without any issues, and now it keeps harrassing me about having a  search engine that has been identified by avast users as bad  in my browser half the time i start up opera.  the only search engine i use is google.  and it does not identify what engine it is and wants me to set yahoo ! or bing as my new default search engine and homepage ! wtf ! ? it also keeps bugging me about its  grime removal  ad on about how i have  unnecessary applications slowing start up  i know exactly what five programs those are, and i want/like having them start with windows and some other bullshit about how it can clean up 0 gbs of space on my hard drive.  it does not tell me what any of that stuff actually is or what it will remove at all though, unless i pay.  all i have to say to avast about it is fuck off, that kind of shit is only annoying and will make me look elsewhere.   #  i ca not say anything about any of the other programs you mention, but avast does not put out a  barrage  of popups at least for me and is not comparable to malware.   #  do you have a screenshot of this world cup popup ? i have been using avast for years and i am using it right this second, but i have not had any such popups.  i dunno if that is just because my settings were different from yours i am the type who likes to look through and adjust settings as soon as i get a new program or if i have a different version or what.  i personally like avast.  it gives me a popup maybe once or twice a day, which i find easily ignoreable, and it is never really slowed down any of my computers.  i have experience with malware from my parents  computer, and that shit made everything so slow it was almost unusable.  i ca not say if it is just because of how much malware there was or the types of malware, but avast is in no way comparable to what i experienced there.  in fact, after i removed the malware and speeded the computer up, i added avast to it.  the popups did not make it noticeably slower compared to before i added avast.  i ca not say anything about any of the other programs you mention, but avast does not put out a  barrage  of popups at least for me and is not comparable to malware.   #  close it when it is not scanning or updating.   #  it professional here.  i am going to hop in with a  nope  here.  most free av tools are generally not terrible, but generally not great.  if you do not know how to configure them to only update or scan at certain times, it is not the fault of the tool.  operator error cannot be traced to a dev.  also, a lot of malware masquerades as an av tool, sometimes with stunning accuracy.  you may have actually had malware on your machine.  but when it all boils down you are left with the fact that real av tools seek out viruses and remove them while real malware is intentionally detrimental to your machine.  annoying ads that pop up from a tool that you choose not to turn off when you do not need it do not count as malware.  set your av tool to only scan and update when you want it to scan or update.  close it when it is not scanning or updating.  suddenly, all of your annoyances are gone.  malware ca not be turned off and does not let you configure when it is running.  annoyances are there until you crawl back to a temporarily annoying av tool for help.  as far as conduit goes, it is malware, bro.  it hijacks your browser and reports on your internet activity.  that is malware.
it is not about redistribution of wealth, it is actually quite the opposite.  i believe money you earn through work should be yours to keep as long as your alive and i believe we should live in a culture where only your own work and effort can bring you wealth.  inheriting wealth is just as detrimental to society as massive welfare.  if your parent is want to take care of you while they are alive, that is fine but when they are gone, their money should be used to fund the va, schools, cancer research or whatever noble cause du jour.  i know a family who is going on  0 generations now of not working ever .  they own 0 houses; 0 is a $0m lake house in tahoe and another is a beach house.  that is not what america is about.  we are supposed to pride ourselves in putting hard work and sweat into our fortunes.  a lot of 0 ers are there because they worked at it but the rest should not be there at all unless they put in equal effort.   #  that is not what america is about.   #  we are supposed to pride ourselves in putting hard work and sweat into our fortunes.   # we are supposed to pride ourselves in putting hard work and sweat into our fortunes.  who are you to define what america is about ? most families come to the united states and work backbreaking jobs exactly so that their children can grow up in less of a state of hardship than they did.  would you rather they work shitty jobs their entire lives, then have the product of that work taken away so that their children can also work shitty jobs for their entire lives ? raising hard working children and being wealthy parents are not mutually exclusive things.  if your issue is with people who do not want to work, focus on shitty parents.  there are plenty of people born in a golden cradle who grew up to be perfectly productive members of society, it just sounds like the ones you knew eschewed that part of their kids  upbringing  #  no matter how spoiled you think my kids are.   #  there is simply no justification for this.  why does your family suddenly become unworthy of its own wealth when the person who generated it dies ? does this also mean that the government should come seize 0 of your parents  material goods when they die ? what that money could be better spent on, or who  deserves  it is of no consequence.  if i die, my kids get my things.  you do not.  no matter how spoiled you think my kids are.  basically, this boils down to you think it is unfair that some people get to live on inheritance.  it is unfair.  so what ? you know what is more unfair ? just taking it away from them because you do not like it.   #  they go to the best schools, they mingle in the most well connected and powerful social circles.   #  it is not a matter of fairness.  i am not advocating giving that money to the poor or to someone who does not work as hard.  it is about establishing a society where only hard work can bring you wealth.  you should be raising your kids teaching them how to make money like you did as opposed to making money so they can spend it their whole lives without working for it.  just taking it away from them because you do not like it how is this more unfair ? these kids have the best opportunities in the world.  they go to the best schools, they mingle in the most well connected and powerful social circles.  they have everything lined up to succeed.  why is it unfair to suggest they make their own way so that we can better fund projects that desperately need funding without taxing the working man to kingdom come ?  #  and secondly, forget the kids for a minute.   # it is not any of your business how i raise my children.  and who is to say they ca not be both hard working and benefit from my hard work ? and secondly, forget the kids for a minute.  how is it fair to me to bust my ass providing for my family for a lifetime, just so you can come claim all of my hard work is earnings as your own when i die ? if i want that money to go to a good cause, then i will decide what cause it goes to.  it is my money, not yours.  that really is the summary of that discussion.  it is my money.  it is not yours.  you have exactly zero say in what happens to it.   #  now that you have money: how do you keep it ?  #  how much money would you make without roads, electricity, running water ? how successful would you be without any education ? those are just a few of hundreds of examples of how society allows you to make money.  now that you have money: how do you keep it ? for example, if you have a house you want to pass on to your children, how do you stop someone from kicking you out ? if it was not for society, your only solution would be  have a better get gun than them.
everyone accepts that videos shot in landscape are vastly superior to ones shot in portrait mode.  i see no advantage to allowing people to shoot videos from their phones in this constrictive set up.  i think it would do their users a great favor if phone manufacturers at the very least built in a little warning message suggesting that people flip their phones 0 degrees for better results.  how many amazing things have been caught on video in this pointless format ? they could put an end to it so easily.   #  i see no advantage to allowing people to shoot videos from their phones in this constrictive set up.   #  not only that, but there is a field of view issue as well.   # not only that, but there is a field of view issue as well.  in a tight environment, to capture something that is longer vertically like, you know, a person , you may need to hold the phone in portrait mode, as landscape could cut off the feet/head.  being able to film in portrait mode is a way to get around the limitations of relatively narrow angle lenses in specific circumstances.  not only that, but phone videos are not just used for putting stuff on youtube, which is really the only place it is annoying.  if you show somebody a video on a phone, it takes up the full screen regardless of portrait or landscape.  like this guy said intentionally crippling hardware is a terrible idea.  just because you ca not seem to think of a time it is useful does not mean somebody else ca not, and your shortsightedness or, less than savvy people filming in a non optimal orientation has no business imposing restrictions on others.   #  more comfortable and easier to hold with an aspect ratio that makes sense for more situations.   #  when you hold a phone in portrait mode, it rests on your palm and/or pinky while you stabilize with your other fingers, leaving your thumb open to use the screen and provide additional stabilization if necessary.  when you hold it with one hand in landscape, you can only really hold one side of the phone.  it is much less stable, especially if you take your thumb off and try to use the screen.  you really need two hands to shoot something in landscape.  i think allowing landscape videos to be shot in portrait mode is a good compromise.  more comfortable and easier to hold with an aspect ratio that makes sense for more situations.   #  there is no reason they should waste time disabling features that already exist.   #  that is still taking away functionality that already exists.  if i am holding my phone in portrait, i want my video in portrait.  if you are software or hardware is not going to let me do that, i am going to ditch this phone and find one that does.  there is no reason they should waste time disabling features that already exist.  at most they might offer an option to ignore orientation and always film in a specific mode, but anything beyond that is taking choice and functionality from the user and benefits no one.   #  their key differentiator compared to the competition is that they remain more focused on a goal, and reject adding complexity and choice just for choice sake.   # limiting function in the name of  usability .  this is not their standard procedure.  this implies they start out with something more capable and intentionally remove functionality.  it is understandable why it is perceived as such though, and i once saw it this way growing up on the ibm pc/dos side and looking at the macs of the era.  they iteratively build up, just like everyone else.  their key differentiator compared to the competition is that they remain more focused on a goal, and reject adding complexity and choice just for choice sake.  and at times, they avoid adding choice to force themselves to engineer a better overall solution.  it does not always work, but it has turned out some industry leading products.  they try to illustrate their design process with a video last year.  it is worth a watch if you have not seen it, and is pretty short.  URL a key piece of this process is that they ask why frequently, and if no good reason comes out of that question, then that path turns into one of the many  no s shown in the video.  recognizing this subtle difference is key to understanding apple is core philosophies.  they blend a lot of technical engineering talent with liberal arts.  mixing emotional and rational aspects.  much of this is a bit off topic for this thread, but feel free to ping me if you want pointers on resources to learn more.  i have spent a fair amount of time studying how apple, microsoft, google and a few other tech giants operate to improve my own technical skill set.   #  now, whether or not there is a need for portrait video, there is a huge step between something being unnecessary, and something being downright impossible.   #  your argument is that  there is no need for portrait video.   i disagree, but that is not the point.  your cmv says that phone companies should spend time and money purposefully  limiting  their hardware.  now, whether or not there is a need for portrait video, there is a huge step between something being unnecessary, and something being downright impossible.  who will be more inconvenienced ? those who wish to film in portrait, and ca not, or those who idiotically forgot to switch to landscape ? the one who forgot to switch should just remember next time, but the one who needs portrait will be forever limited.
everyone accepts that videos shot in landscape are vastly superior to ones shot in portrait mode.  i see no advantage to allowing people to shoot videos from their phones in this constrictive set up.  i think it would do their users a great favor if phone manufacturers at the very least built in a little warning message suggesting that people flip their phones 0 degrees for better results.  how many amazing things have been caught on video in this pointless format ? they could put an end to it so easily.   #  i think it would do their users a great favor if phone manufacturers at the very least built in a little warning message suggesting that people flip their phones 0 degrees for better results.   #  my phone recently got an update and now it does this !  # my phone recently got an update and now it does this ! i have a nexus 0 running android kitkat 0. 0 ? and if you try to shoot video in portrait mode, it shows a helpful little animation in the middle of the screen trying to stop you.  it wo not prevent you, but you will know.  more info: URL  #  i think allowing landscape videos to be shot in portrait mode is a good compromise.   #  when you hold a phone in portrait mode, it rests on your palm and/or pinky while you stabilize with your other fingers, leaving your thumb open to use the screen and provide additional stabilization if necessary.  when you hold it with one hand in landscape, you can only really hold one side of the phone.  it is much less stable, especially if you take your thumb off and try to use the screen.  you really need two hands to shoot something in landscape.  i think allowing landscape videos to be shot in portrait mode is a good compromise.  more comfortable and easier to hold with an aspect ratio that makes sense for more situations.   #  like this guy said intentionally crippling hardware is a terrible idea.   # not only that, but there is a field of view issue as well.  in a tight environment, to capture something that is longer vertically like, you know, a person , you may need to hold the phone in portrait mode, as landscape could cut off the feet/head.  being able to film in portrait mode is a way to get around the limitations of relatively narrow angle lenses in specific circumstances.  not only that, but phone videos are not just used for putting stuff on youtube, which is really the only place it is annoying.  if you show somebody a video on a phone, it takes up the full screen regardless of portrait or landscape.  like this guy said intentionally crippling hardware is a terrible idea.  just because you ca not seem to think of a time it is useful does not mean somebody else ca not, and your shortsightedness or, less than savvy people filming in a non optimal orientation has no business imposing restrictions on others.   #  if you are software or hardware is not going to let me do that, i am going to ditch this phone and find one that does.   #  that is still taking away functionality that already exists.  if i am holding my phone in portrait, i want my video in portrait.  if you are software or hardware is not going to let me do that, i am going to ditch this phone and find one that does.  there is no reason they should waste time disabling features that already exist.  at most they might offer an option to ignore orientation and always film in a specific mode, but anything beyond that is taking choice and functionality from the user and benefits no one.   #  they try to illustrate their design process with a video last year.   # limiting function in the name of  usability .  this is not their standard procedure.  this implies they start out with something more capable and intentionally remove functionality.  it is understandable why it is perceived as such though, and i once saw it this way growing up on the ibm pc/dos side and looking at the macs of the era.  they iteratively build up, just like everyone else.  their key differentiator compared to the competition is that they remain more focused on a goal, and reject adding complexity and choice just for choice sake.  and at times, they avoid adding choice to force themselves to engineer a better overall solution.  it does not always work, but it has turned out some industry leading products.  they try to illustrate their design process with a video last year.  it is worth a watch if you have not seen it, and is pretty short.  URL a key piece of this process is that they ask why frequently, and if no good reason comes out of that question, then that path turns into one of the many  no s shown in the video.  recognizing this subtle difference is key to understanding apple is core philosophies.  they blend a lot of technical engineering talent with liberal arts.  mixing emotional and rational aspects.  much of this is a bit off topic for this thread, but feel free to ping me if you want pointers on resources to learn more.  i have spent a fair amount of time studying how apple, microsoft, google and a few other tech giants operate to improve my own technical skill set.
it was after i did some research and talked to friends and family that i personally learned how big this vaccinations and anti vaccinations topic is.  in my opinion, it should be up to the parents whether or not kids get vaccinated.  some people do not get vaccinated and live long healthy lives and some people do and the same thing happens.  i would assume this is because of our biology.  of course vaccinated people get sick and people who are not vaccinated get sick.  my conclusion is why should people be forced to vaccinate kids if they do not want to.  they should be informed of the pros and cons of their decision and make an informed decision and people should be satisfied with that.   #  in my opinion, it should be up to the parents whether or not kids get vaccinated.   #  what is your view on other medical care ?  # what is your view on other medical care ? there are parents who have let their child die by relying strictly on prayer.  there is a line between freedom and neglect, and i think vaccinations fall on the neglect side.  people who get vaccinated will absolutely get sick less often.  not everybody gets in a car accident, but we still force parents to safely secure their child.  luck is not a good argument against vaccinations.  they should be informed of the pros and cons of their decision and make an informed decision and people should be satisfied with that.  if everybody understood and  accepted  the science there would be no opposition to vaccines.  there is no amount of facts you can throw at a conspiracy theorist to change their mind.  the problem is that these people  refuse  to be informed.   #  people who did everything to the best of their ability will get sick and die because other people made shitty decisions.   #  positive externalities of vaccination or negative externalities of opting out, depending on your view .  there are people who ca not be, or are not, vaccinated and do not have the option to be vaccinated, such as the elderly and those with suppressed immune systems.  lowering vaccination rates increases the spread of disease, and can harm those who have chosen vaccines but for whom it might not be effective.  it is like saying restaurants can make informed decisions about whether or not to ensure their employees practice proper hygiene.  people who did everything to the best of their ability will get sick and die because other people made shitty decisions.   #  and second, that the first actually spread the illness.   # these are  very different things  and if you do not want to acknowledge that prohibiting something is very different than mandating something then you are just being intellectually dishonest.  the kidney analogy was flawed by being on the extreme end, however, compulsory donation blood or marrow renewable organs would not be a terribly different analogy.  having a proper hla type, or a rare blood type means that some peoples refusal to donate blood meas that other people will die.  modern techniques make both procedures extremely safe, and in the case of blood, the approximate discomfort of a vaccination.  however i highly doubt that you would argue for compulsory blood/marrow donation even though the inaction of an individual means someone will die.  as for the unvaccinated being the direct cause of other illnesses; this relies on two points.  first, that the second person person is also unvaccinated.  and second, that the first actually spread the illness.  i have been over the first in a few other posts, but ill summarize here; the number of people who are unvaccinated by anything other than choice is exceedingly small.  sacrificing the rights of control over our body to protect such a small minority is not a trade society should be making, and furthermore i would challenge you to find a single case where someone unvaccinated because it would have been unsafe for them to do so contracted an illness from someone unvaccinated by choice.  to my second point, just because my wife gets sick does not mean i will.  this is because we can prevent the spread of illnesses by taking specific action like staying home, washing our hands, using surgical masks.  compliance rates for the most important immunization, mmr, are above 0 in nearly every state some above 0 .  people who are asking for the government to force other people to vaccinate are just trying to force their decisions on other people because they think those people are stupid.  without question, those people have made a bad decision, but they get to do so.   #  my point is not about the public health ramifications of mandatory vaccination, my point is about the balance of power between citizens and governments.   #  my point is not about the public health ramifications of mandatory vaccination, my point is about the balance of power between citizens and governments.  by affording the government the right to force an individual to take a medication/drug we have sacrificed an enormous amount of liberty including the foundation upon which roe v wade was decided .  furthermore if your goal is to promote public health, a government ban on smoking or obesity would be substantially more effective than a vaccine mandate which already has an a very high voluntary compliance would.  what this boils down to is a demand that the government to force people, who are only causing problems for themselves, to do what you want them to, because you think they are stupid.  i think they are stupid to, but they get that option to be so.   #  you are potentially saving a persons life at almost no risk at all to you.   #  if you are actively choosing not to save a person who could be saved without any risk to you personally, then you can be penalized for it.  it is called omission law URL and the common example is that if a child was drowning in a pool with 0 inches of water and there was a floatation device present, and you knew that if you did not throw them the float it could kill them, then you could be criminally charged.  you are not, however, required to jump into a raging white water river to save someone who is drowning, as this is taking a significant risk to your personal safety.  think of the child drowning as any person not able to be vaccinated for health reasons, and think of the floatation device as a vaccine.  you are potentially saving a persons life at almost no risk at all to you.  refering to your second point, you are right, but i do not see how that is particularly relevant to this argument and is a separate debate entirely.
it was after i did some research and talked to friends and family that i personally learned how big this vaccinations and anti vaccinations topic is.  in my opinion, it should be up to the parents whether or not kids get vaccinated.  some people do not get vaccinated and live long healthy lives and some people do and the same thing happens.  i would assume this is because of our biology.  of course vaccinated people get sick and people who are not vaccinated get sick.  my conclusion is why should people be forced to vaccinate kids if they do not want to.  they should be informed of the pros and cons of their decision and make an informed decision and people should be satisfied with that.   #  some people do not get vaccinated and live long healthy lives and some people do and the same thing happens.   #  people who get vaccinated will absolutely get sick less often.   # what is your view on other medical care ? there are parents who have let their child die by relying strictly on prayer.  there is a line between freedom and neglect, and i think vaccinations fall on the neglect side.  people who get vaccinated will absolutely get sick less often.  not everybody gets in a car accident, but we still force parents to safely secure their child.  luck is not a good argument against vaccinations.  they should be informed of the pros and cons of their decision and make an informed decision and people should be satisfied with that.  if everybody understood and  accepted  the science there would be no opposition to vaccines.  there is no amount of facts you can throw at a conspiracy theorist to change their mind.  the problem is that these people  refuse  to be informed.   #  positive externalities of vaccination or negative externalities of opting out, depending on your view .   #  positive externalities of vaccination or negative externalities of opting out, depending on your view .  there are people who ca not be, or are not, vaccinated and do not have the option to be vaccinated, such as the elderly and those with suppressed immune systems.  lowering vaccination rates increases the spread of disease, and can harm those who have chosen vaccines but for whom it might not be effective.  it is like saying restaurants can make informed decisions about whether or not to ensure their employees practice proper hygiene.  people who did everything to the best of their ability will get sick and die because other people made shitty decisions.   #  without question, those people have made a bad decision, but they get to do so.   # these are  very different things  and if you do not want to acknowledge that prohibiting something is very different than mandating something then you are just being intellectually dishonest.  the kidney analogy was flawed by being on the extreme end, however, compulsory donation blood or marrow renewable organs would not be a terribly different analogy.  having a proper hla type, or a rare blood type means that some peoples refusal to donate blood meas that other people will die.  modern techniques make both procedures extremely safe, and in the case of blood, the approximate discomfort of a vaccination.  however i highly doubt that you would argue for compulsory blood/marrow donation even though the inaction of an individual means someone will die.  as for the unvaccinated being the direct cause of other illnesses; this relies on two points.  first, that the second person person is also unvaccinated.  and second, that the first actually spread the illness.  i have been over the first in a few other posts, but ill summarize here; the number of people who are unvaccinated by anything other than choice is exceedingly small.  sacrificing the rights of control over our body to protect such a small minority is not a trade society should be making, and furthermore i would challenge you to find a single case where someone unvaccinated because it would have been unsafe for them to do so contracted an illness from someone unvaccinated by choice.  to my second point, just because my wife gets sick does not mean i will.  this is because we can prevent the spread of illnesses by taking specific action like staying home, washing our hands, using surgical masks.  compliance rates for the most important immunization, mmr, are above 0 in nearly every state some above 0 .  people who are asking for the government to force other people to vaccinate are just trying to force their decisions on other people because they think those people are stupid.  without question, those people have made a bad decision, but they get to do so.   #  furthermore if your goal is to promote public health, a government ban on smoking or obesity would be substantially more effective than a vaccine mandate which already has an a very high voluntary compliance would.   #  my point is not about the public health ramifications of mandatory vaccination, my point is about the balance of power between citizens and governments.  by affording the government the right to force an individual to take a medication/drug we have sacrificed an enormous amount of liberty including the foundation upon which roe v wade was decided .  furthermore if your goal is to promote public health, a government ban on smoking or obesity would be substantially more effective than a vaccine mandate which already has an a very high voluntary compliance would.  what this boils down to is a demand that the government to force people, who are only causing problems for themselves, to do what you want them to, because you think they are stupid.  i think they are stupid to, but they get that option to be so.   #  you are not, however, required to jump into a raging white water river to save someone who is drowning, as this is taking a significant risk to your personal safety.   #  if you are actively choosing not to save a person who could be saved without any risk to you personally, then you can be penalized for it.  it is called omission law URL and the common example is that if a child was drowning in a pool with 0 inches of water and there was a floatation device present, and you knew that if you did not throw them the float it could kill them, then you could be criminally charged.  you are not, however, required to jump into a raging white water river to save someone who is drowning, as this is taking a significant risk to your personal safety.  think of the child drowning as any person not able to be vaccinated for health reasons, and think of the floatation device as a vaccine.  you are potentially saving a persons life at almost no risk at all to you.  refering to your second point, you are right, but i do not see how that is particularly relevant to this argument and is a separate debate entirely.
it was after i did some research and talked to friends and family that i personally learned how big this vaccinations and anti vaccinations topic is.  in my opinion, it should be up to the parents whether or not kids get vaccinated.  some people do not get vaccinated and live long healthy lives and some people do and the same thing happens.  i would assume this is because of our biology.  of course vaccinated people get sick and people who are not vaccinated get sick.  my conclusion is why should people be forced to vaccinate kids if they do not want to.  they should be informed of the pros and cons of their decision and make an informed decision and people should be satisfied with that.   #  my conclusion is why should people be forced to vaccinate kids if they do not want to.   #  they should be informed of the pros and cons of their decision and make an informed decision and people should be satisfied with that.   # what is your view on other medical care ? there are parents who have let their child die by relying strictly on prayer.  there is a line between freedom and neglect, and i think vaccinations fall on the neglect side.  people who get vaccinated will absolutely get sick less often.  not everybody gets in a car accident, but we still force parents to safely secure their child.  luck is not a good argument against vaccinations.  they should be informed of the pros and cons of their decision and make an informed decision and people should be satisfied with that.  if everybody understood and  accepted  the science there would be no opposition to vaccines.  there is no amount of facts you can throw at a conspiracy theorist to change their mind.  the problem is that these people  refuse  to be informed.   #  it is like saying restaurants can make informed decisions about whether or not to ensure their employees practice proper hygiene.   #  positive externalities of vaccination or negative externalities of opting out, depending on your view .  there are people who ca not be, or are not, vaccinated and do not have the option to be vaccinated, such as the elderly and those with suppressed immune systems.  lowering vaccination rates increases the spread of disease, and can harm those who have chosen vaccines but for whom it might not be effective.  it is like saying restaurants can make informed decisions about whether or not to ensure their employees practice proper hygiene.  people who did everything to the best of their ability will get sick and die because other people made shitty decisions.   #  first, that the second person person is also unvaccinated.   # these are  very different things  and if you do not want to acknowledge that prohibiting something is very different than mandating something then you are just being intellectually dishonest.  the kidney analogy was flawed by being on the extreme end, however, compulsory donation blood or marrow renewable organs would not be a terribly different analogy.  having a proper hla type, or a rare blood type means that some peoples refusal to donate blood meas that other people will die.  modern techniques make both procedures extremely safe, and in the case of blood, the approximate discomfort of a vaccination.  however i highly doubt that you would argue for compulsory blood/marrow donation even though the inaction of an individual means someone will die.  as for the unvaccinated being the direct cause of other illnesses; this relies on two points.  first, that the second person person is also unvaccinated.  and second, that the first actually spread the illness.  i have been over the first in a few other posts, but ill summarize here; the number of people who are unvaccinated by anything other than choice is exceedingly small.  sacrificing the rights of control over our body to protect such a small minority is not a trade society should be making, and furthermore i would challenge you to find a single case where someone unvaccinated because it would have been unsafe for them to do so contracted an illness from someone unvaccinated by choice.  to my second point, just because my wife gets sick does not mean i will.  this is because we can prevent the spread of illnesses by taking specific action like staying home, washing our hands, using surgical masks.  compliance rates for the most important immunization, mmr, are above 0 in nearly every state some above 0 .  people who are asking for the government to force other people to vaccinate are just trying to force their decisions on other people because they think those people are stupid.  without question, those people have made a bad decision, but they get to do so.   #  my point is not about the public health ramifications of mandatory vaccination, my point is about the balance of power between citizens and governments.   #  my point is not about the public health ramifications of mandatory vaccination, my point is about the balance of power between citizens and governments.  by affording the government the right to force an individual to take a medication/drug we have sacrificed an enormous amount of liberty including the foundation upon which roe v wade was decided .  furthermore if your goal is to promote public health, a government ban on smoking or obesity would be substantially more effective than a vaccine mandate which already has an a very high voluntary compliance would.  what this boils down to is a demand that the government to force people, who are only causing problems for themselves, to do what you want them to, because you think they are stupid.  i think they are stupid to, but they get that option to be so.   #  you are potentially saving a persons life at almost no risk at all to you.   #  if you are actively choosing not to save a person who could be saved without any risk to you personally, then you can be penalized for it.  it is called omission law URL and the common example is that if a child was drowning in a pool with 0 inches of water and there was a floatation device present, and you knew that if you did not throw them the float it could kill them, then you could be criminally charged.  you are not, however, required to jump into a raging white water river to save someone who is drowning, as this is taking a significant risk to your personal safety.  think of the child drowning as any person not able to be vaccinated for health reasons, and think of the floatation device as a vaccine.  you are potentially saving a persons life at almost no risk at all to you.  refering to your second point, you are right, but i do not see how that is particularly relevant to this argument and is a separate debate entirely.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ?  #  this goes against every known law of physics.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.   #  as such, unless your theory is actually proven, it does not weaken my position in any way.   # ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  eternal does not necessarily imply an infinite amount of time.  the stance would be that god created time along with everything else; and is thus  outside  of time in the same way that he is  outside  of the physical laws of the universe.  sure.  there are theories out there.  op is argument is that god  ca not  exist.  i do not have to prove that god exists to change his view; i just have to show that his arguments are not sufficient to  prove  that god ca not exist.  as such, unless your theory is actually proven, it does not weaken my position in any way.  by the definition of those who believe in said god, yes.  however, for the sake of staying on topic, is it  possible  for god to exist ? , i will drop this one.  this argument is a question of morality.  unless you can show how questions which arise from it undermine the possible existence of god, i do not see how it is actually relevant to the thread.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ?  #  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.   #  by the definition of those who believe in said god, yes.   # ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  eternal does not necessarily imply an infinite amount of time.  the stance would be that god created time along with everything else; and is thus  outside  of time in the same way that he is  outside  of the physical laws of the universe.  sure.  there are theories out there.  op is argument is that god  ca not  exist.  i do not have to prove that god exists to change his view; i just have to show that his arguments are not sufficient to  prove  that god ca not exist.  as such, unless your theory is actually proven, it does not weaken my position in any way.  by the definition of those who believe in said god, yes.  however, for the sake of staying on topic, is it  possible  for god to exist ? , i will drop this one.  this argument is a question of morality.  unless you can show how questions which arise from it undermine the possible existence of god, i do not see how it is actually relevant to the thread.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.   #  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ?  # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? paradoxes equate to gibberish.  we ca not conceive of an indestructible wall that can be destroyed, so it is not a valid test.  if a god did exist and actually could perform paradoxical acts, you would not comprehend it.  you might as well simplify this argument to be  god ca not do things that are impossible for gods to do .  this relies on your arbitrary definition of impossible and holds no value.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? it can be compatible with the laws of physics.  in string theory, god would exist in 0th or 0th dimension.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  either reality exists on it is own, or it was created.  this argument does not disprove either point.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? how do you propose we will discover alternate dimensions ? with known physics, we simply cannot interact with things outside of our dimension.  at best, we can only infer their existence.  if there were other dimensions, god would have created them as well.  nobody knows god is intentions.  god created us in his image, but did not create us with his will or intentions.  god is considered good because he is defined as such.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  teach a man to fish.  more specifically, if you believe in an eternal heaven then any possible amount of suffering on earth is inconsequential when compared to an eternity in heaven.   #  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ?  #  this goes against every known law of physics.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? paradoxes equate to gibberish.  we ca not conceive of an indestructible wall that can be destroyed, so it is not a valid test.  if a god did exist and actually could perform paradoxical acts, you would not comprehend it.  you might as well simplify this argument to be  god ca not do things that are impossible for gods to do .  this relies on your arbitrary definition of impossible and holds no value.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? it can be compatible with the laws of physics.  in string theory, god would exist in 0th or 0th dimension.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  either reality exists on it is own, or it was created.  this argument does not disprove either point.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? how do you propose we will discover alternate dimensions ? with known physics, we simply cannot interact with things outside of our dimension.  at best, we can only infer their existence.  if there were other dimensions, god would have created them as well.  nobody knows god is intentions.  god created us in his image, but did not create us with his will or intentions.  god is considered good because he is defined as such.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  teach a man to fish.  more specifically, if you believe in an eternal heaven then any possible amount of suffering on earth is inconsequential when compared to an eternity in heaven.   #  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ?  #  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? paradoxes equate to gibberish.  we ca not conceive of an indestructible wall that can be destroyed, so it is not a valid test.  if a god did exist and actually could perform paradoxical acts, you would not comprehend it.  you might as well simplify this argument to be  god ca not do things that are impossible for gods to do .  this relies on your arbitrary definition of impossible and holds no value.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? it can be compatible with the laws of physics.  in string theory, god would exist in 0th or 0th dimension.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  either reality exists on it is own, or it was created.  this argument does not disprove either point.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? how do you propose we will discover alternate dimensions ? with known physics, we simply cannot interact with things outside of our dimension.  at best, we can only infer their existence.  if there were other dimensions, god would have created them as well.  nobody knows god is intentions.  god created us in his image, but did not create us with his will or intentions.  god is considered good because he is defined as such.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  teach a man to fish.  more specifically, if you believe in an eternal heaven then any possible amount of suffering on earth is inconsequential when compared to an eternity in heaven.   #  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ?  #  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ?  # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? paradoxes equate to gibberish.  we ca not conceive of an indestructible wall that can be destroyed, so it is not a valid test.  if a god did exist and actually could perform paradoxical acts, you would not comprehend it.  you might as well simplify this argument to be  god ca not do things that are impossible for gods to do .  this relies on your arbitrary definition of impossible and holds no value.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? it can be compatible with the laws of physics.  in string theory, god would exist in 0th or 0th dimension.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  either reality exists on it is own, or it was created.  this argument does not disprove either point.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? how do you propose we will discover alternate dimensions ? with known physics, we simply cannot interact with things outside of our dimension.  at best, we can only infer their existence.  if there were other dimensions, god would have created them as well.  nobody knows god is intentions.  god created us in his image, but did not create us with his will or intentions.  god is considered good because he is defined as such.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  teach a man to fish.  more specifically, if you believe in an eternal heaven then any possible amount of suffering on earth is inconsequential when compared to an eternity in heaven.   #  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  0 i would agree to this as well.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ?  #  god created us in his image, but did not create us with his will or intentions.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? paradoxes equate to gibberish.  we ca not conceive of an indestructible wall that can be destroyed, so it is not a valid test.  if a god did exist and actually could perform paradoxical acts, you would not comprehend it.  you might as well simplify this argument to be  god ca not do things that are impossible for gods to do .  this relies on your arbitrary definition of impossible and holds no value.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? it can be compatible with the laws of physics.  in string theory, god would exist in 0th or 0th dimension.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  either reality exists on it is own, or it was created.  this argument does not disprove either point.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? how do you propose we will discover alternate dimensions ? with known physics, we simply cannot interact with things outside of our dimension.  at best, we can only infer their existence.  if there were other dimensions, god would have created them as well.  nobody knows god is intentions.  god created us in his image, but did not create us with his will or intentions.  god is considered good because he is defined as such.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  teach a man to fish.  more specifically, if you believe in an eternal heaven then any possible amount of suffering on earth is inconsequential when compared to an eternity in heaven.   #  considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .   #  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? paradoxes equate to gibberish.  we ca not conceive of an indestructible wall that can be destroyed, so it is not a valid test.  if a god did exist and actually could perform paradoxical acts, you would not comprehend it.  you might as well simplify this argument to be  god ca not do things that are impossible for gods to do .  this relies on your arbitrary definition of impossible and holds no value.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? it can be compatible with the laws of physics.  in string theory, god would exist in 0th or 0th dimension.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  either reality exists on it is own, or it was created.  this argument does not disprove either point.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? how do you propose we will discover alternate dimensions ? with known physics, we simply cannot interact with things outside of our dimension.  at best, we can only infer their existence.  if there were other dimensions, god would have created them as well.  nobody knows god is intentions.  god created us in his image, but did not create us with his will or intentions.  god is considered good because he is defined as such.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  teach a man to fish.  more specifically, if you believe in an eternal heaven then any possible amount of suffering on earth is inconsequential when compared to an eternity in heaven.   #  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.   #  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ?  # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ?  all powerful  can simply mean  most powerful being that is logically possible.   same is true for all knowing.  alternatively: i can answer that yes he can create an indestructible wall that he cannot break.  and yet he can also break that wall, because an all powerful being can break the laws of logic.  this goes against every known law of physics.  laws of physics do not affect an all powerful being.  laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe, for example they do not apply to god.  not required for existence of god.  i do not know.  but that does not prove it is impossible.  god always existed independently of the universe.  true, but we are arguing possibility of god, not his actual existence.  and how does that disprove possibility of god ? purposed of god are inscrutable to finite being.  besides, humans may be a byproduct of god is plan, not the focus.  i do not know.  but that does not disprove possibility of god.  maybe he did, maybe he did not.  what does that have to do with possibility of god ? you have changed your definition.  you started by saying that  god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.   you did not say anything about  all good.   is all goodness truly required for god ? again, this does not disprove possibility of god in any way.   #  this goes against every known law of physics.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ?  #  this goes against every known law of physics.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ?  all powerful  can simply mean  most powerful being that is logically possible.   same is true for all knowing.  alternatively: i can answer that yes he can create an indestructible wall that he cannot break.  and yet he can also break that wall, because an all powerful being can break the laws of logic.  this goes against every known law of physics.  laws of physics do not affect an all powerful being.  laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe, for example they do not apply to god.  not required for existence of god.  i do not know.  but that does not prove it is impossible.  god always existed independently of the universe.  true, but we are arguing possibility of god, not his actual existence.  and how does that disprove possibility of god ? purposed of god are inscrutable to finite being.  besides, humans may be a byproduct of god is plan, not the focus.  i do not know.  but that does not disprove possibility of god.  maybe he did, maybe he did not.  what does that have to do with possibility of god ? you have changed your definition.  you started by saying that  god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.   you did not say anything about  all good.   is all goodness truly required for god ? again, this does not disprove possibility of god in any way.   #  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ?  #  laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe, for example they do not apply to god.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ?  all powerful  can simply mean  most powerful being that is logically possible.   same is true for all knowing.  alternatively: i can answer that yes he can create an indestructible wall that he cannot break.  and yet he can also break that wall, because an all powerful being can break the laws of logic.  this goes against every known law of physics.  laws of physics do not affect an all powerful being.  laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe, for example they do not apply to god.  not required for existence of god.  i do not know.  but that does not prove it is impossible.  god always existed independently of the universe.  true, but we are arguing possibility of god, not his actual existence.  and how does that disprove possibility of god ? purposed of god are inscrutable to finite being.  besides, humans may be a byproduct of god is plan, not the focus.  i do not know.  but that does not disprove possibility of god.  maybe he did, maybe he did not.  what does that have to do with possibility of god ? you have changed your definition.  you started by saying that  god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.   you did not say anything about  all good.   is all goodness truly required for god ? again, this does not disprove possibility of god in any way.   #  if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ?  #  god always existed independently of the universe.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ?  all powerful  can simply mean  most powerful being that is logically possible.   same is true for all knowing.  alternatively: i can answer that yes he can create an indestructible wall that he cannot break.  and yet he can also break that wall, because an all powerful being can break the laws of logic.  this goes against every known law of physics.  laws of physics do not affect an all powerful being.  laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe, for example they do not apply to god.  not required for existence of god.  i do not know.  but that does not prove it is impossible.  god always existed independently of the universe.  true, but we are arguing possibility of god, not his actual existence.  and how does that disprove possibility of god ? purposed of god are inscrutable to finite being.  besides, humans may be a byproduct of god is plan, not the focus.  i do not know.  but that does not disprove possibility of god.  maybe he did, maybe he did not.  what does that have to do with possibility of god ? you have changed your definition.  you started by saying that  god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.   you did not say anything about  all good.   is all goodness truly required for god ? again, this does not disprove possibility of god in any way.   #  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  i am gonna look at all of these.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.   #  true, but we are arguing possibility of god, not his actual existence.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ?  all powerful  can simply mean  most powerful being that is logically possible.   same is true for all knowing.  alternatively: i can answer that yes he can create an indestructible wall that he cannot break.  and yet he can also break that wall, because an all powerful being can break the laws of logic.  this goes against every known law of physics.  laws of physics do not affect an all powerful being.  laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe, for example they do not apply to god.  not required for existence of god.  i do not know.  but that does not prove it is impossible.  god always existed independently of the universe.  true, but we are arguing possibility of god, not his actual existence.  and how does that disprove possibility of god ? purposed of god are inscrutable to finite being.  besides, humans may be a byproduct of god is plan, not the focus.  i do not know.  but that does not disprove possibility of god.  maybe he did, maybe he did not.  what does that have to do with possibility of god ? you have changed your definition.  you started by saying that  god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.   you did not say anything about  all good.   is all goodness truly required for god ? again, this does not disprove possibility of god in any way.   #  this goes against every known law of physics.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.   #  and how does that disprove possibility of god ?  # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ?  all powerful  can simply mean  most powerful being that is logically possible.   same is true for all knowing.  alternatively: i can answer that yes he can create an indestructible wall that he cannot break.  and yet he can also break that wall, because an all powerful being can break the laws of logic.  this goes against every known law of physics.  laws of physics do not affect an all powerful being.  laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe, for example they do not apply to god.  not required for existence of god.  i do not know.  but that does not prove it is impossible.  god always existed independently of the universe.  true, but we are arguing possibility of god, not his actual existence.  and how does that disprove possibility of god ? purposed of god are inscrutable to finite being.  besides, humans may be a byproduct of god is plan, not the focus.  i do not know.  but that does not disprove possibility of god.  maybe he did, maybe he did not.  what does that have to do with possibility of god ? you have changed your definition.  you started by saying that  god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.   you did not say anything about  all good.   is all goodness truly required for god ? again, this does not disprove possibility of god in any way.   #  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ?  #  purposed of god are inscrutable to finite being.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ?  all powerful  can simply mean  most powerful being that is logically possible.   same is true for all knowing.  alternatively: i can answer that yes he can create an indestructible wall that he cannot break.  and yet he can also break that wall, because an all powerful being can break the laws of logic.  this goes against every known law of physics.  laws of physics do not affect an all powerful being.  laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe, for example they do not apply to god.  not required for existence of god.  i do not know.  but that does not prove it is impossible.  god always existed independently of the universe.  true, but we are arguing possibility of god, not his actual existence.  and how does that disprove possibility of god ? purposed of god are inscrutable to finite being.  besides, humans may be a byproduct of god is plan, not the focus.  i do not know.  but that does not disprove possibility of god.  maybe he did, maybe he did not.  what does that have to do with possibility of god ? you have changed your definition.  you started by saying that  god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.   you did not say anything about  all good.   is all goodness truly required for god ? again, this does not disprove possibility of god in any way.   #  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ?  #  maybe he did, maybe he did not.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ?  all powerful  can simply mean  most powerful being that is logically possible.   same is true for all knowing.  alternatively: i can answer that yes he can create an indestructible wall that he cannot break.  and yet he can also break that wall, because an all powerful being can break the laws of logic.  this goes against every known law of physics.  laws of physics do not affect an all powerful being.  laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe, for example they do not apply to god.  not required for existence of god.  i do not know.  but that does not prove it is impossible.  god always existed independently of the universe.  true, but we are arguing possibility of god, not his actual existence.  and how does that disprove possibility of god ? purposed of god are inscrutable to finite being.  besides, humans may be a byproduct of god is plan, not the focus.  i do not know.  but that does not disprove possibility of god.  maybe he did, maybe he did not.  what does that have to do with possibility of god ? you have changed your definition.  you started by saying that  god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.   you did not say anything about  all good.   is all goodness truly required for god ? again, this does not disprove possibility of god in any way.   #  considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ?  #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.   #  again, this does not disprove possibility of god in any way.   # such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ?  all powerful  can simply mean  most powerful being that is logically possible.   same is true for all knowing.  alternatively: i can answer that yes he can create an indestructible wall that he cannot break.  and yet he can also break that wall, because an all powerful being can break the laws of logic.  this goes against every known law of physics.  laws of physics do not affect an all powerful being.  laws of physics are not constant throughout the universe, for example they do not apply to god.  not required for existence of god.  i do not know.  but that does not prove it is impossible.  god always existed independently of the universe.  true, but we are arguing possibility of god, not his actual existence.  and how does that disprove possibility of god ? purposed of god are inscrutable to finite being.  besides, humans may be a byproduct of god is plan, not the focus.  i do not know.  but that does not disprove possibility of god.  maybe he did, maybe he did not.  what does that have to do with possibility of god ? you have changed your definition.  you started by saying that  god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.   you did not say anything about  all good.   is all goodness truly required for god ? again, this does not disprove possibility of god in any way.   #  we can choose to be more good or more evil.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ?  #  you cannot understand supernatural things like you understand natural things.   #  devil is advocate i consider the belief in something supernatural as irrational :  being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? if you define an all powerful being as something that cannot be restricted by anything but itself, none of your two examples lead to paradoxes.  the all powerful being can simply decide to never destroy a certain wall and to never know the contents of a certain box.  if you are all powerful, you obviously should be able to restrict your own powers.  you cannot understand supernatural things like you understand natural things.  that is a good reason against the belief of such things, but it does not disprove their existence.  existed always.  we are clearly not created all powerful and all knowing, which introduces flaws.  if we are unable to solve problems, it is also to some extent our choice to not be able to solve them, because we do not put enough effort into it.  we also should not be able to solve all problems, because we otherwise would be all powerful and all knowing, which is apparently not intended.   #  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ?  #  we are clearly not created all powerful and all knowing, which introduces flaws.   #  devil is advocate i consider the belief in something supernatural as irrational :  being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? if you define an all powerful being as something that cannot be restricted by anything but itself, none of your two examples lead to paradoxes.  the all powerful being can simply decide to never destroy a certain wall and to never know the contents of a certain box.  if you are all powerful, you obviously should be able to restrict your own powers.  you cannot understand supernatural things like you understand natural things.  that is a good reason against the belief of such things, but it does not disprove their existence.  existed always.  we are clearly not created all powerful and all knowing, which introduces flaws.  if we are unable to solve problems, it is also to some extent our choice to not be able to solve them, because we do not put enough effort into it.  we also should not be able to solve all problems, because we otherwise would be all powerful and all knowing, which is apparently not intended.   #  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.   #  well, first we need to define a scope for  all knowing/powerful   does this just imply in the scope of our universe, or does this have to extend to whatever other multiverses may exist ?  #  so, firstly, i am agnostic leaning towards atheist.  well, first we need to define a scope for  all knowing/powerful   does this just imply in the scope of our universe, or does this have to extend to whatever other multiverses may exist ? it is entirely possible for a being to be all knowing and all powerful within a certain universe that exists within the one they reside in; i am all knowing and all powerful in my 0d world where i have console commands on.  i can create, i can destroy, i can erase existence from those things.  at this level, think of god more as a programmer.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? being all powerful means being able to grant and deny yourself rights as you see fit.  much like having root access, you can implicitly deny yourself read/write/delete access to a file on the system, and then not have the ability to edit it, delete it, or see its contents.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? this is quite a few questions, so:   if we are viewing our universe as a computer program that god is writing or otherwise interacting in, then it is clear that he exists outside our universe, inputting commands to make it work the way he wants it to when something goes out of bounds.  he is been at this for a while, so he might not need to debug for a while.  but when he does, he can operate freely, turn on/off variables like gravity and physics, and set things up the way he wants them.  heaven and hell are not mutually inclusive with the idea of god; they are constructs unique to christianity, and plenty of religions acknowledge the idea of a god without the idea of heaven and hell.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation we also know that engineers try to be as simple and elegant as possible, which could point to an engineered universe.  we would first have to prove or disprove god to start to tackle the meta god questions.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? firstly, if he created this universe for humans, then by all accounts he did a piss poor job of it; the vast vast majority of the universe will kill you within 0 seconds if you dropped into it naked, and even the parts where it would not be 0 seconds would likely be a couple of minutes.  even the safest places on earth can kill you in a freak accident.  but assuming he did, there is a really simple answer: he created  this  universe for humans.  those other ones are  not for us , they are for his  other  programs.  depends who you ask.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  any number of reasons, up to and including god being a sadist and thus making a species that constantly wars with itself.  there are a lot of inconsistencies around the idea of the christian god, but a god in general is pretty easy to reconcile.   #  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ?  #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.   #  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ?  #  so, firstly, i am agnostic leaning towards atheist.  well, first we need to define a scope for  all knowing/powerful   does this just imply in the scope of our universe, or does this have to extend to whatever other multiverses may exist ? it is entirely possible for a being to be all knowing and all powerful within a certain universe that exists within the one they reside in; i am all knowing and all powerful in my 0d world where i have console commands on.  i can create, i can destroy, i can erase existence from those things.  at this level, think of god more as a programmer.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? being all powerful means being able to grant and deny yourself rights as you see fit.  much like having root access, you can implicitly deny yourself read/write/delete access to a file on the system, and then not have the ability to edit it, delete it, or see its contents.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? this is quite a few questions, so:   if we are viewing our universe as a computer program that god is writing or otherwise interacting in, then it is clear that he exists outside our universe, inputting commands to make it work the way he wants it to when something goes out of bounds.  he is been at this for a while, so he might not need to debug for a while.  but when he does, he can operate freely, turn on/off variables like gravity and physics, and set things up the way he wants them.  heaven and hell are not mutually inclusive with the idea of god; they are constructs unique to christianity, and plenty of religions acknowledge the idea of a god without the idea of heaven and hell.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation we also know that engineers try to be as simple and elegant as possible, which could point to an engineered universe.  we would first have to prove or disprove god to start to tackle the meta god questions.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? firstly, if he created this universe for humans, then by all accounts he did a piss poor job of it; the vast vast majority of the universe will kill you within 0 seconds if you dropped into it naked, and even the parts where it would not be 0 seconds would likely be a couple of minutes.  even the safest places on earth can kill you in a freak accident.  but assuming he did, there is a really simple answer: he created  this  universe for humans.  those other ones are  not for us , they are for his  other  programs.  depends who you ask.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  any number of reasons, up to and including god being a sadist and thus making a species that constantly wars with itself.  there are a lot of inconsistencies around the idea of the christian god, but a god in general is pretty easy to reconcile.   #  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ?  #  this goes against every known law of physics.   #  so, firstly, i am agnostic leaning towards atheist.  well, first we need to define a scope for  all knowing/powerful   does this just imply in the scope of our universe, or does this have to extend to whatever other multiverses may exist ? it is entirely possible for a being to be all knowing and all powerful within a certain universe that exists within the one they reside in; i am all knowing and all powerful in my 0d world where i have console commands on.  i can create, i can destroy, i can erase existence from those things.  at this level, think of god more as a programmer.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? being all powerful means being able to grant and deny yourself rights as you see fit.  much like having root access, you can implicitly deny yourself read/write/delete access to a file on the system, and then not have the ability to edit it, delete it, or see its contents.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? this is quite a few questions, so:   if we are viewing our universe as a computer program that god is writing or otherwise interacting in, then it is clear that he exists outside our universe, inputting commands to make it work the way he wants it to when something goes out of bounds.  he is been at this for a while, so he might not need to debug for a while.  but when he does, he can operate freely, turn on/off variables like gravity and physics, and set things up the way he wants them.  heaven and hell are not mutually inclusive with the idea of god; they are constructs unique to christianity, and plenty of religions acknowledge the idea of a god without the idea of heaven and hell.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation we also know that engineers try to be as simple and elegant as possible, which could point to an engineered universe.  we would first have to prove or disprove god to start to tackle the meta god questions.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? firstly, if he created this universe for humans, then by all accounts he did a piss poor job of it; the vast vast majority of the universe will kill you within 0 seconds if you dropped into it naked, and even the parts where it would not be 0 seconds would likely be a couple of minutes.  even the safest places on earth can kill you in a freak accident.  but assuming he did, there is a really simple answer: he created  this  universe for humans.  those other ones are  not for us , they are for his  other  programs.  depends who you ask.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  any number of reasons, up to and including god being a sadist and thus making a species that constantly wars with itself.  there are a lot of inconsistencies around the idea of the christian god, but a god in general is pretty easy to reconcile.   #  we call these things paradoxes for a reason.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ?  #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ?  #  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.   #  so, firstly, i am agnostic leaning towards atheist.  well, first we need to define a scope for  all knowing/powerful   does this just imply in the scope of our universe, or does this have to extend to whatever other multiverses may exist ? it is entirely possible for a being to be all knowing and all powerful within a certain universe that exists within the one they reside in; i am all knowing and all powerful in my 0d world where i have console commands on.  i can create, i can destroy, i can erase existence from those things.  at this level, think of god more as a programmer.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? being all powerful means being able to grant and deny yourself rights as you see fit.  much like having root access, you can implicitly deny yourself read/write/delete access to a file on the system, and then not have the ability to edit it, delete it, or see its contents.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? this is quite a few questions, so:   if we are viewing our universe as a computer program that god is writing or otherwise interacting in, then it is clear that he exists outside our universe, inputting commands to make it work the way he wants it to when something goes out of bounds.  he is been at this for a while, so he might not need to debug for a while.  but when he does, he can operate freely, turn on/off variables like gravity and physics, and set things up the way he wants them.  heaven and hell are not mutually inclusive with the idea of god; they are constructs unique to christianity, and plenty of religions acknowledge the idea of a god without the idea of heaven and hell.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation we also know that engineers try to be as simple and elegant as possible, which could point to an engineered universe.  we would first have to prove or disprove god to start to tackle the meta god questions.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? firstly, if he created this universe for humans, then by all accounts he did a piss poor job of it; the vast vast majority of the universe will kill you within 0 seconds if you dropped into it naked, and even the parts where it would not be 0 seconds would likely be a couple of minutes.  even the safest places on earth can kill you in a freak accident.  but assuming he did, there is a really simple answer: he created  this  universe for humans.  those other ones are  not for us , they are for his  other  programs.  depends who you ask.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  any number of reasons, up to and including god being a sadist and thus making a species that constantly wars with itself.  there are a lot of inconsistencies around the idea of the christian god, but a god in general is pretty easy to reconcile.   #  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ?  #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ?  #  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ?  #  so, firstly, i am agnostic leaning towards atheist.  well, first we need to define a scope for  all knowing/powerful   does this just imply in the scope of our universe, or does this have to extend to whatever other multiverses may exist ? it is entirely possible for a being to be all knowing and all powerful within a certain universe that exists within the one they reside in; i am all knowing and all powerful in my 0d world where i have console commands on.  i can create, i can destroy, i can erase existence from those things.  at this level, think of god more as a programmer.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? being all powerful means being able to grant and deny yourself rights as you see fit.  much like having root access, you can implicitly deny yourself read/write/delete access to a file on the system, and then not have the ability to edit it, delete it, or see its contents.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? this is quite a few questions, so:   if we are viewing our universe as a computer program that god is writing or otherwise interacting in, then it is clear that he exists outside our universe, inputting commands to make it work the way he wants it to when something goes out of bounds.  he is been at this for a while, so he might not need to debug for a while.  but when he does, he can operate freely, turn on/off variables like gravity and physics, and set things up the way he wants them.  heaven and hell are not mutually inclusive with the idea of god; they are constructs unique to christianity, and plenty of religions acknowledge the idea of a god without the idea of heaven and hell.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation we also know that engineers try to be as simple and elegant as possible, which could point to an engineered universe.  we would first have to prove or disprove god to start to tackle the meta god questions.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? firstly, if he created this universe for humans, then by all accounts he did a piss poor job of it; the vast vast majority of the universe will kill you within 0 seconds if you dropped into it naked, and even the parts where it would not be 0 seconds would likely be a couple of minutes.  even the safest places on earth can kill you in a freak accident.  but assuming he did, there is a really simple answer: he created  this  universe for humans.  those other ones are  not for us , they are for his  other  programs.  depends who you ask.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  any number of reasons, up to and including god being a sadist and thus making a species that constantly wars with itself.  there are a lot of inconsistencies around the idea of the christian god, but a god in general is pretty easy to reconcile.   #  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ?  #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .   #  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.   #  so, firstly, i am agnostic leaning towards atheist.  well, first we need to define a scope for  all knowing/powerful   does this just imply in the scope of our universe, or does this have to extend to whatever other multiverses may exist ? it is entirely possible for a being to be all knowing and all powerful within a certain universe that exists within the one they reside in; i am all knowing and all powerful in my 0d world where i have console commands on.  i can create, i can destroy, i can erase existence from those things.  at this level, think of god more as a programmer.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? being all powerful means being able to grant and deny yourself rights as you see fit.  much like having root access, you can implicitly deny yourself read/write/delete access to a file on the system, and then not have the ability to edit it, delete it, or see its contents.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? this is quite a few questions, so:   if we are viewing our universe as a computer program that god is writing or otherwise interacting in, then it is clear that he exists outside our universe, inputting commands to make it work the way he wants it to when something goes out of bounds.  he is been at this for a while, so he might not need to debug for a while.  but when he does, he can operate freely, turn on/off variables like gravity and physics, and set things up the way he wants them.  heaven and hell are not mutually inclusive with the idea of god; they are constructs unique to christianity, and plenty of religions acknowledge the idea of a god without the idea of heaven and hell.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation we also know that engineers try to be as simple and elegant as possible, which could point to an engineered universe.  we would first have to prove or disprove god to start to tackle the meta god questions.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? firstly, if he created this universe for humans, then by all accounts he did a piss poor job of it; the vast vast majority of the universe will kill you within 0 seconds if you dropped into it naked, and even the parts where it would not be 0 seconds would likely be a couple of minutes.  even the safest places on earth can kill you in a freak accident.  but assuming he did, there is a really simple answer: he created  this  universe for humans.  those other ones are  not for us , they are for his  other  programs.  depends who you ask.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  any number of reasons, up to and including god being a sadist and thus making a species that constantly wars with itself.  there are a lot of inconsistencies around the idea of the christian god, but a god in general is pretty easy to reconcile.   #  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ?  # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ?  #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
i mean god as a supreme being/entity who is all knowing, all powerful, and created the universe.  he is not just another word for universe 0 being all knowing and all powerful leads to paradoxes.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? 0 how can god be all powerful and all knowing in the first place ? this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? 0 if god is the creator of the universe, who/what created him ? if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation 0 if god created the universe for specifically humans at least according to christianity , what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access ? assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? 0 if god created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species ? 0 if god is actually all good, why does not he solve most, if not all, our problems for us poverty, food shortages, disease, ec .  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.  if someone offers a compelling argument, i am 0 willing to change my view.  i might add in more reasons as an edit if i come up with them later  #  basically i am saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of god.   #  there are a lot of inconsistencies around the idea of the christian god, but a god in general is pretty easy to reconcile.   #  so, firstly, i am agnostic leaning towards atheist.  well, first we need to define a scope for  all knowing/powerful   does this just imply in the scope of our universe, or does this have to extend to whatever other multiverses may exist ? it is entirely possible for a being to be all knowing and all powerful within a certain universe that exists within the one they reside in; i am all knowing and all powerful in my 0d world where i have console commands on.  i can create, i can destroy, i can erase existence from those things.  at this level, think of god more as a programmer.  such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried ? or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what is happening inside ? being all powerful means being able to grant and deny yourself rights as you see fit.  much like having root access, you can implicitly deny yourself read/write/delete access to a file on the system, and then not have the ability to edit it, delete it, or see its contents.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live ? where is heaven and hell ? if you say he still lives in the universe, how does matter/energy following conventional laws of physics interact with something following different laws of physics ? this is quite a few questions, so:   if we are viewing our universe as a computer program that god is writing or otherwise interacting in, then it is clear that he exists outside our universe, inputting commands to make it work the way he wants it to when something goes out of bounds.  he is been at this for a while, so he might not need to debug for a while.  but when he does, he can operate freely, turn on/off variables like gravity and physics, and set things up the way he wants them.  heaven and hell are not mutually inclusive with the idea of god; they are constructs unique to christianity, and plenty of religions acknowledge the idea of a god without the idea of heaven and hell.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  keeping god into the universe makes an endless chain of one god creating another.  we know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible as seen by math and science and thus it makes no sense to include god into the equation we also know that engineers try to be as simple and elegant as possible, which could point to an engineered universe.  we would first have to prove or disprove god to start to tackle the meta god questions.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? firstly, if he created this universe for humans, then by all accounts he did a piss poor job of it; the vast vast majority of the universe will kill you within 0 seconds if you dropped into it naked, and even the parts where it would not be 0 seconds would likely be a couple of minutes.  even the safest places on earth can kill you in a freak accident.  but assuming he did, there is a really simple answer: he created  this  universe for humans.  those other ones are  not for us , they are for his  other  programs.  depends who you ask.  if it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why does not he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.  any number of reasons, up to and including god being a sadist and thus making a species that constantly wars with itself.  there are a lot of inconsistencies around the idea of the christian god, but a god in general is pretty easy to reconcile.   #  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.   # we call these things paradoxes for a reason.  this goes against every known law of physics.  if different laws of physics apply to him.  if god does exists, and he created the universe, as is claimed ; you absolutely ca not force the physical laws of the universe onto god.  he would be under absolutely no obligation to conform to any laws which he created.  that would be like a robot saying  humans ca not be real because they have no source of electric power  or something like that.  the creator of the robot does not have to conform to the same rules as the robot.  if you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the universe.  god is eternal.  that is to say, he is uncreated.  there is great difficulty in translating that answer to the universe because of a the evidence of the big bang which  seems  to indicate a beginning; and b the logical impossibility of something  actually  being infinite.  more on that in the first large paragraph here URL this does not mean that you ca not  try  to apply this same answer to the universe, however.  lots of attempts are being made.  assuming those exist not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist , why would god create those things ? first of all, how are we going to discover something that is impossible for us to access ? considering that this entire question is based upon conjecture, i do not think i can give a very solid answer.  in theory, if there are other universes/dimensions then god would be the creator of those as well.  why would he create them ? why not ? if you could create things out of nothing you might have a little fun with it, too.  god is considered  good  by definition.  whatever he does  is  good.  whatever opposes him  is  evil.  the closer one comes to conforming to the character of god, the more  good  they are.  the further they distance themselves from his character, the more  evil  they are.  one of the ways that we are like him, made in his image is that we have our own will.  we can choose to be more good or more evil.  our lack of goodness is a reflection of the way in which we choose to exercise the will that god has given us.  however, if god is good by definition, your point 0 , then this argument has absolutely no weight.  why should your opinion of  good  be considered more valid than god is opinion of  good  ?  #  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  i am gonna look at all of these.  i will admit, the op did not have the strongest arguments, and you did break  some  of them down, but i will look at your arguments as well, using the numbers of the points you were responding to.  0 yeah, that is true, good point.  0 i would agree to this as well.  0 ah.  ok.  so first, you say  god is eternal  and as far as i know, eternal implies an infinite amount of time, which you say ca not exist.  furthermore, from what i understand, the big bang created time.  the singularity that was there for the big bang did not exist for an infinite amount of time before, because there  was  no before, time did not exist yet.  so, that singularity could be  uncreated  as you say god is.  0 yeah, i do not think that was a very strong argument by the op 0 so conforming to god is character is good ? well, if we are talking about the christian god, which i think we might be ? then that god commits genocide, but we say genocide is bad, and in fact, the ten commandments forbid killing, soooo, which is it ? that is probably the biggest place problems arise with god, at least the christian one, and likely others.  0 see 0.  i may have not been concise or explained things well, if you want any clarification, just ask.   #  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  in regards to the whole killing thing, the ten commandments do not forbid all killing.  they forbid unlawful killing, which is a pretty big distinction.  and i know it is commonly said that god breaks his own laws all the time, but the thing is that he is not breaking  his  laws, these are not laws that are governing him, they are governing us, and that sorta makes sense.  with killing for example, it seems fair that god would be the only entity who could justly kill a person because god knows everything, they know all the context and all the information regarding everything.  people do not though, people can err, so god makes specific rules regarding when they can kill people.  god would make rules for people because people are imperfect and cannot act with full certainty.  god knows everything so he can act with impunity because it would be impossible for him to screw up.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.   #  the point of the laws would be precautionary.  yes, killing someone might be the good thing to do sometimes, but since people have a limited perspective, they ca not know for sure when it would be the right thing to do.  however god would since he knows everything.  kind of a  better safe than sorry  deal with the laws.  sure sometimes you should kill people and it would be right, but most of the time you should not, so just do not kill people in order to be on the safe side.  it is like how the manager of a store is allowed to give certain people discounts when he deems it necessary, but the employees are not.  the employee does not know when to give someone a discount, and most of the time they should not, so they are just told to not give discounts.  however the manager knows when the circumstances allow discounts, so he can break the rule that the employee has to follow.
title pretty much says it all.  i do not have a reason for feeling this, but it just seems to be rooted down into me which i wish it was not.  i am an 0 y/o and play and write music so the  feel admired by people  means to be famous and be playing live shows with lots of fans.  it probably sounds ridiculous, because it is.  i just want to be able stand in the side lines and enjoy the arts of life and take it all in, but for some reason just feel depressed if i am not the star or center of attention.  any words of advice to help cure this would seriously mean the world to me.  thank you so much.   #  i am an 0 y/o and play and write music so the  feel admired by people  means to be famous and be playing live shows with lots of fans.   #  you are unhappy because your trying to draw happiness from your ego.   # thoughts become feelings.  ingrained patterns of thought become ingrained patterns of feeling, which become mental illness.  be more self aware and control negative thought, replacing it with positivity.  you are unhappy because your trying to draw happiness from your ego.  chances are you will never be famous and even then look at how many famous people od on heroin and shit, being famous does not make you happy it brings you temporary selfish pleasure like an addiction.  thank you so much.  you need to remember you do not have a clue who you are.  think about how much you have changed since you were 0 years old.  that much change or more is going to occur in the next 0 years.  find some meaning in your life.  make sense of being here and justify your existence.  find healthy goals and achieve them.   #   talking to a pro  is not equivalent to being  mental shit .   #  i wonder if it would be bad to add that theres a difference between  wanting  popularity and  needing  popularity to be happy.  it is ok to have ridiculous dreams that you might never acheive, but internalizing failure to meet an insanely high standard is going to hold you back from that dream.  rayher than seeing it as  i am not successful and cannot enjoy life , your understanding should be closer to  i am not satisfied and will pursue the next step to greatness.   also, pretty much any artist i know of, including myself, dreams of being appreciated on a high level.  we do a lot of cool stuff that we wish everyone could see and understand.  seeing as art is generally a form of communication, it makes sense that you want to communicate with everyone.  the point here is that you are not a mental patient.  everyone on this thread is of the opinion that you have some sort of illness just because you are acting like a 0 year old facing the rest of his life.   talking to a pro  is not equivalent to being  mental shit .  it helps to have a studied person talk to you about what they have studied.  internalizing  i am mentally ill because i do not operate like the majority  is going to keep you from acheiving much.   #  is the adoration of an average joe worth that much, really ?  #  do you look at other people and think they ought to live for your adoration ? do you think it should be very important for the average joe to be highly admired by other average joes ? is the adoration of an average joe worth that much, really ? at the end of the day, one opinion is not worth anything.  you ca not eat it, you ca not sell it, and it wo not keep you warm at night.  it wo not pick you up at the airport or cook you dinner.  basically, attention and admiration are worthless.  look at extremely famous people.  what does it get them, after all ? they are sometimes rich, but it is also ultimately a huge pain in the ass.  you can be happy for absolutely no reason, just like you can be unhappy for absolutely no reason.  better choose to be happy, it is much nicer.   #  i like being loved by them, and being cared about, and maybe even a bit admired by them.   #  this is probably has to do with being a teenager.  why ? well.  it is not as bad as it seems perhaps .  everyone wants to be loved and admired to some extent.  the problem with high school is that you are forced to be around the people you are around.  you do not get a choice.  obviously most people probably wo not like you, and there is nothing you can do about it.  but as you grow up, and become an adult, things change for the better.  you get to choose who your friends are, who you work with, who you spend your time with.  personally i only spend time with people who i care about and are good friends that i have made over the last 0 years.  i like being loved by them, and being cared about, and maybe even a bit admired by them.  i am no longer surrounded by people i do not like, and people with whom i do not fit in.  i only hang out with people i fit in with.  that is one of the things about being an adult you get to choose your friends, your coworkers, who you live with, and who you spend time with.  the people i do not get along with.  i do not interact with them, and i do not have to, because nobody is forcing me to anymore the way it was forced back in school .  that struggle to be  liked  and to be accepted and to be a part of the group, is gone now that i am an adult.  it is  easy  now, because i am in charge.  this change made that struggle go away, and i have not had it since i was 0.  i am surrounded by people that love and care about me, and no one else.  it is great.   #  you are still a kid, and it is going to take time for you to develop into who you are going to be.   # grow up.  i am not saying that to be an asshole, it is just the only answer to your plight.  you are still a kid, and it is going to take time for you to develop into who you are going to be.  there is no magic spell that breaks at the stroke of midnight on your 0th birthday, no switch to flip, or button to push.  the government might consider you an adult, but you are not, none of us were at 0.  in 0 years, you will more than likely be a completely different person than you are now, but if you are not, if you still feel the need to be the constant center of attention, then that is okay too.  embrace it and run with it.  there are a lot of famous people out there who were probably the same way when they were your age.   if you are gonna be a bear, be a grizzly .
i am feeling brave, so i would like to share one of my more controversial thoughts.  leave aside the issue of whether or not this philosophy is analysis of society is correct.  please understand, i am only referring to the philosophy i describe in the title.  i think all reasonable people can agree that success in life is based partly on the circumstances of your birth and partly on your actions.  by overplaying the role of race and sex in life success, leftists understate the amount of ambition and hard work needed to succeed.  if they are not successful, they are likely blame the system rather than change their behavior.  if they are successful, they are likely to feel guilty about exploiting the system rather than using their experience to help others get where they are.  leftist culture demonizes capitalism, which is the mechanism by which one attains material security in our society.  starting a business, investing your savings, or choosing a stem career are things that can improve one is quality of life, but they are things that radical leftists will refuse to do.  the idea of formal education as self improvement rather than an economic investment puts people into crippling debt.  leftists place people into categories, which damages their ability to connect to them as individuals.  there is a doctrine that describes certain categories as having legitimate complainst and anxieties, and other categories of being  blinded by privilege .  this will ruin their ability to connect to many of the people they will encounter in life.  leftists find ways to be angry about the most innocent things.  that delicious meal ? full of pesticides.  that inspiring historical narrative ? worthless because the characters may have been racist.  that cartoon you loved as a child ? full of damaging stereotypes.  that sweet old man playing happily with a puppy ? animal exploitation.  that woman taking comfort in her faith while she fights a terrible illness ? grr, religion ! i am sure to a certain extent these things are true about any radical philosophy, but i feel that my happiness and quality of life improved once i stopped looking at the world in a leftist way.  please change my view.  if you are such a leftist, let me know what makes you happy, or what useful life skills you have learned from your belief system.  if you see similar flaws in other beliefs, let me know.  here goes nothing.   #  leftist culture demonizes capitalism, which is the mechanism by which one attains material security in our society.   #  this sort of thinking always baffles me.   #  i am just going to address the comments about economics and leftism.  this sort of thinking always baffles me.  there is this notion that the  left  wastes money and is anti capitalist and the  right  is fiscally conservative and pro capitalist.  my first counterpoints are on fiscal conservatism.  0 i think health care is a nice counter example.  canada has cheaper health care per capita than the us in health related taxes alone that is, before your costs for insurance and we are all covered.  by most measures we have equally favourable outcomes, if not better.  especially when you factor in the number that were not covered pre obamacare.  great synopsis below: URL 0 on the other hand, american conservatism launched an unnecessary war in iraq which was astronomically irresponsible from a budgetary point of view and amusingly was in effect the antithesis of canadian health care in that the war is a single payer system, carried out in large part by private companies, only death not health was the objective .  as for my second counterpoint, i will challenge the assumptions about political leanings on capitalism.  0 it is hard for me to say one side is more pro capitalist or anti capitalist than the other, when at the end of the day political decisions have so much more to do with the exchange of campaign donations than ideology on both sides ! obstructionist moves against tesla and uber for example are perfect examples of incumbents automakers and taxi companies lobbying with campaign donations to prevent having to compete in the marketplace.  further, when the banks were too big to fail, us leaders again yielded to their donors, bailed them out and left them as is, rather than break the monopolies into smaller pieces that could compete and fail/succeed individually without hurting the economy.  as a  leftist,  i would love to see capitalism instead of legalized bribery, regulatory capture and unabated monopolies.  i definitely do not see how the  right  nor  left  loves capitalism more than helping out their biggest donors.   #  i just think it is worth noticing and it is worth talking about.   #  i would probably be considered radical left, sjw by most people on the internet because i say something when i think someone is being racist, sexist, fatphobic, transphobic, or whatever.  but my life is real normal.  i am a 0 something professional.  i live in a major east coast city, enjoy videogames, and i am getting married in a few months.  it is all real normal.  none of my friends have any idea of what  sjw  or whatever means.  this is mostly an internet phenomena that has little bearing in the physical world.  when i am not on reddit, i do not normally hear a lot of jokes about fat people, or  i do not hate black people, just black culture , or any of the other sort of things that i hate, but are common on reddit.  if people acted like that in real life, they will be ostracized by many people.  if someone came up to my friends at a bar and told an  it is only a joke  type of thing that you might see on /r/imgoingtohellforthis, everyone would roll their eyes.  i see the value in viewing society in terms of privilege.  i work as an attorney and i have my own company , and the more that i see how biases shape the way decisions are made, the more i am aware of how lucky i have it being a white, straight, cis, etc guy.  i do not hate myself for it, but i think it is important to realize.  i work very hard, but i do not know if i would be where i am today, simply by virtue of my hard work, if i were born into a different situation.  that delicious meal ? full of pesticides.  that inspiring historical narrative ? worthless because the characters may have been racist.  that cartoon you loved as a child ? full of damaging stereotypes.  that sweet old man playing happily with a puppy ? animal exploitation.  that woman taking comfort in her faith while she fights a terrible illness ? grr, religion ! i get that you are being hyperbolic, but this stuff does not make me angry necessarily.  i just think it is worth noticing and it is worth talking about.  your views are a little cartoonish.   #  yea the two axis approach is a fine one as well.   #  yea the two axis approach is a fine one as well.  as far as compromise is concerned, the only thing i dislike is when one side is more willing to compromise than the other, the strategy becomes  demand the craziest things and then settle for less crazy but still nuts.   canadian politics are not as polarized as the us.  our most right party is still probably left of your democrats.  so the extremes of us politics are difficult for me to follow.   #  if i was in congress, i might be willing to agree to a plan that involves both a basic income and some programs i disagree with.   #  well.  has it occurred to you that maybe some people really do want those crazy things ? extremists exist, on both sides.  i get the impression that when you first responded to me, you thought i was strawmanning the left with the anti capitalist part of my post.  i was not.  i have spoken to and debated with people who genuinely were rabidly anti capitalist.  from your perspective, they are demanding the craziest things, but your views are just as far from theirs as theirs are from yours.  they probably think you are demanding the craziest things.  also, people online are not politicians.  a lot of people on the left think i am an extremist because i think a universal basic income is the most cost effective way to provide a social safety net.  if i was in congress, i might be willing to agree to a plan that involves both a basic income and some programs i disagree with.  but online, i do not gain anything by pretending i do not think those programs are wasteful or harmful compared to a basic income.   #  their political view is just another way to spot negatives.   #  it is true that your  attitude  determines happiness more than your  circumstances .  focusing on the negatives also makes you less happy.  so you are correct in that.  but it is not exclusive to leftists.  it is also true of, say, religious extremists who point out all the things we do that god will hate, how god is judging them based on how others in the community act, etc.  but politics/society is far from the only circumstance people will focus on.  think of an elderly person who constantly gripes about their aching back, the too loud neighbor.  people who are sure that if their spouse was only  just a little less damn lazy  they would be so much happier.  leftism itself is not making these people focus on the negatives.  it is just how they are.  it is in the personality to focus on negatives.  leftism does not take off their rose colored glasses and make them focus on the negatives.  they were already focusing on the negatives.  their political view is just another way to spot negatives.  if they did not focus on the negatives about the state of discrimination, it would be something else.  there are plenty of people who have radical left beliefs but do not spend their whole lives focusing on their negatove circumstances.  who is to say whining about politics is any worse than whining about the puppy who chews your slipper ? there are plenty of leftists who see the positives.  look how far we have come, they say.  a black president, the environmental regulations we already have, etc.  you would not even know they are radical leftists.  people who focus on the positives do not tend to come gripe on the internet, and you do not tend to even know they exist.
i see people on reddit recommend password managers all the time: applications or online services that have a master password with all your account passwords banking, social media, online shopping, etc contained within.  i think these are a terrible idea.  first of all, if these systems are stored in the cloud somewhere, there is a chance that a single breach of this system could allow an attacker access to everything you have.  if your device gets malware/keyloggers installed, someone malicious would only need to sniff out this one password to now have access to everything.  compare this scenario vs.  a situation where you had malware installed on your device but only entered a few passwords before realizing it.  this could potentially wreak havoc on your life.  if these systems are stored locally and not in a cloud service, they may be impossible to access when necessary e. g.  overseas, spending the night in a hotel without your pc, etc.  .  also, you could lose access to all your accounts if the data is corrupted or lost on the device where this info is stored if you stupidly did not back it up .  also add to the fact that no system is 0 bug free and secure, and who are the people administering the service that we are entrusting with so much potential access to our lives ? even the best encryption software with many code audits could have a serious security hole that goes undiscovered for years i. e.  heartbleed .  i do not think password managers are a good idea.  passwords should never be written down or stored anywhere regardless of the level of encryption or protection obviously exceptions for one way salted/hashed data used to authenticate the password .  ideally, passwords should not be reused, and a formula should be used to generate unique passwords for each account you have.   #  if these systems are stored locally and not in a cloud service, they may be impossible to access when necessary e. g.   #  overseas, spending the night in a hotel without your pc, etc.   # compare this scenario vs.  a situation where you had malware installed on your device but only entered a few passwords before realizing it.  this could potentially wreak havoc on your life.  if you have a keylogger on your computer, all bets are off.  if they get your e mail password probably the most used service , they could reset the passwords for all of your accounts.  without a password manager, you will probably use the same password multiple times.  getting the few passwords you use will give the attacker your common password, or clue them into what pattern you use.  overseas, spending the night in a hotel without your pc, etc.  .  also, you could lose access to all your accounts if the data is corrupted or lost on the device where this info is stored if you stupidly did not back it up .  i use keepass, and then store the password database on a cloud service.  i can access my password database on my computers and my phone.  the database is encrypted so nobody can access it, but it is also available and backed up.  heartbleed .  prove it.  heartbleed was not an encryption problem, it was an implementation problem.  you are better off trusting security professionals than yourself in any case.  ideals do not always work in reality.  how many complex and unique passwords can you juggle in your head ? i probably have over 0 accounts online, and there is no way i could do that.  any formula you use can be derived from a few of your passwords.  you are better off with pure random passwords.   #  ok, then i do not have to explain that.   #  ok, then i do not have to explain that.  i do not use pw managers myself, but i understand that people use them simply because they ca not keep track of 0 different passwords.  as someone who works on a lot of websites with a lot of stupid fucking password rules, i can understand why someone would use one.  its to the point of necessity for a lot of people.  for example, off the top of my head, 0 websites i use with work have the requirements of: 0 chars minimum, 0 special chars, 0 caps, 0 numbers 0 0, no special chars, 0 caps or 0 numbers max 0 chars, 0 special chars, 0 numbers 0 0, 0 special, 0 caps, 0 numbers and i do not get to pick my username for any of them, 0 out of the 0 are different.  i do not use these passwords every day often twice a month , and i usually have to reset them every time.   #  even if you do crack one account, all the others have a different salt.   # you should know that most brute force attempts are done with the offline saved hashes, not over the web.  if the data is salted properly with unique salts for each user, this should not be a huge problem especially if the salts are stored in a separate location/database from the passwords to prevent both pw and salts from being stolen .  you can try to brute force all day long, but if you do not know how the salts are applied before hashing, it is going to take ages to crack one account.  even if you do crack one account, all the others have a different salt.  now you ca not even use the data you have gathered from cracking one account to help you crack others.  it is an immensely slow process even with super computing power.   #  then someone that key logged my master pw would still need my phone as well.   #  the salts are almost always trivial to recover if you have access to both code and data.  which you have to assume in a breach.  and by definition the application must have access to the salt to calculate if your password is correct.  i share your misgivings somewhat so i use last pass with 0 factor authentication.  then someone that key logged my master pw would still need my phone as well.   #  it would have been great for you if you checked the glove compartment and found 0 of the credit cards, but because of my rule, i prevented people from doing something so daft.   #  not really.  as a simple analogy, imagine that you are trying to find credit cards hidden somewhere on my premises.  adding a simple rule like   0 characters, must use numbers and symbols, etc.  is like saying  no cards are in the glove compartment of my car .  okay, technically i saved you time, but it would have taken you hardly any time to search there.  it is going to take you a lot longer to search the rest of the premises, which is where i forced people to hide their cards.  it would have been great for you if you checked the glove compartment and found 0 of the credit cards, but because of my rule, i prevented people from doing something so daft.
i see people on reddit recommend password managers all the time: applications or online services that have a master password with all your account passwords banking, social media, online shopping, etc contained within.  i think these are a terrible idea.  first of all, if these systems are stored in the cloud somewhere, there is a chance that a single breach of this system could allow an attacker access to everything you have.  if your device gets malware/keyloggers installed, someone malicious would only need to sniff out this one password to now have access to everything.  compare this scenario vs.  a situation where you had malware installed on your device but only entered a few passwords before realizing it.  this could potentially wreak havoc on your life.  if these systems are stored locally and not in a cloud service, they may be impossible to access when necessary e. g.  overseas, spending the night in a hotel without your pc, etc.  .  also, you could lose access to all your accounts if the data is corrupted or lost on the device where this info is stored if you stupidly did not back it up .  also add to the fact that no system is 0 bug free and secure, and who are the people administering the service that we are entrusting with so much potential access to our lives ? even the best encryption software with many code audits could have a serious security hole that goes undiscovered for years i. e.  heartbleed .  i do not think password managers are a good idea.  passwords should never be written down or stored anywhere regardless of the level of encryption or protection obviously exceptions for one way salted/hashed data used to authenticate the password .  ideally, passwords should not be reused, and a formula should be used to generate unique passwords for each account you have.   #  ideally, passwords should not be reused, and a formula should be used to generate unique passwords for each account you have.   #  ideals do not always work in reality.   # compare this scenario vs.  a situation where you had malware installed on your device but only entered a few passwords before realizing it.  this could potentially wreak havoc on your life.  if you have a keylogger on your computer, all bets are off.  if they get your e mail password probably the most used service , they could reset the passwords for all of your accounts.  without a password manager, you will probably use the same password multiple times.  getting the few passwords you use will give the attacker your common password, or clue them into what pattern you use.  overseas, spending the night in a hotel without your pc, etc.  .  also, you could lose access to all your accounts if the data is corrupted or lost on the device where this info is stored if you stupidly did not back it up .  i use keepass, and then store the password database on a cloud service.  i can access my password database on my computers and my phone.  the database is encrypted so nobody can access it, but it is also available and backed up.  heartbleed .  prove it.  heartbleed was not an encryption problem, it was an implementation problem.  you are better off trusting security professionals than yourself in any case.  ideals do not always work in reality.  how many complex and unique passwords can you juggle in your head ? i probably have over 0 accounts online, and there is no way i could do that.  any formula you use can be derived from a few of your passwords.  you are better off with pure random passwords.   #  ok, then i do not have to explain that.   #  ok, then i do not have to explain that.  i do not use pw managers myself, but i understand that people use them simply because they ca not keep track of 0 different passwords.  as someone who works on a lot of websites with a lot of stupid fucking password rules, i can understand why someone would use one.  its to the point of necessity for a lot of people.  for example, off the top of my head, 0 websites i use with work have the requirements of: 0 chars minimum, 0 special chars, 0 caps, 0 numbers 0 0, no special chars, 0 caps or 0 numbers max 0 chars, 0 special chars, 0 numbers 0 0, 0 special, 0 caps, 0 numbers and i do not get to pick my username for any of them, 0 out of the 0 are different.  i do not use these passwords every day often twice a month , and i usually have to reset them every time.   #  it is an immensely slow process even with super computing power.   # you should know that most brute force attempts are done with the offline saved hashes, not over the web.  if the data is salted properly with unique salts for each user, this should not be a huge problem especially if the salts are stored in a separate location/database from the passwords to prevent both pw and salts from being stolen .  you can try to brute force all day long, but if you do not know how the salts are applied before hashing, it is going to take ages to crack one account.  even if you do crack one account, all the others have a different salt.  now you ca not even use the data you have gathered from cracking one account to help you crack others.  it is an immensely slow process even with super computing power.   #  which you have to assume in a breach.   #  the salts are almost always trivial to recover if you have access to both code and data.  which you have to assume in a breach.  and by definition the application must have access to the salt to calculate if your password is correct.  i share your misgivings somewhat so i use last pass with 0 factor authentication.  then someone that key logged my master pw would still need my phone as well.   #  it would have been great for you if you checked the glove compartment and found 0 of the credit cards, but because of my rule, i prevented people from doing something so daft.   #  not really.  as a simple analogy, imagine that you are trying to find credit cards hidden somewhere on my premises.  adding a simple rule like   0 characters, must use numbers and symbols, etc.  is like saying  no cards are in the glove compartment of my car .  okay, technically i saved you time, but it would have taken you hardly any time to search there.  it is going to take you a lot longer to search the rest of the premises, which is where i forced people to hide their cards.  it would have been great for you if you checked the glove compartment and found 0 of the credit cards, but because of my rule, i prevented people from doing something so daft.
i see people on reddit recommend password managers all the time: applications or online services that have a master password with all your account passwords banking, social media, online shopping, etc contained within.  i think these are a terrible idea.  first of all, if these systems are stored in the cloud somewhere, there is a chance that a single breach of this system could allow an attacker access to everything you have.  if your device gets malware/keyloggers installed, someone malicious would only need to sniff out this one password to now have access to everything.  compare this scenario vs.  a situation where you had malware installed on your device but only entered a few passwords before realizing it.  this could potentially wreak havoc on your life.  if these systems are stored locally and not in a cloud service, they may be impossible to access when necessary e. g.  overseas, spending the night in a hotel without your pc, etc.  .  also, you could lose access to all your accounts if the data is corrupted or lost on the device where this info is stored if you stupidly did not back it up .  also add to the fact that no system is 0 bug free and secure, and who are the people administering the service that we are entrusting with so much potential access to our lives ? even the best encryption software with many code audits could have a serious security hole that goes undiscovered for years i. e.  heartbleed .  i do not think password managers are a good idea.  passwords should never be written down or stored anywhere regardless of the level of encryption or protection obviously exceptions for one way salted/hashed data used to authenticate the password .  ideally, passwords should not be reused, and a formula should be used to generate unique passwords for each account you have.   #  ideally, passwords should not be reused, and a formula should be used to generate unique passwords for each account you have.   #  but if you use such a formula, then all an attacker needs is to crack the formula and he has cracked all your passwords.   # but if you use such a formula, then all an attacker needs is to crack the formula and he has cracked all your passwords.  the question is, is it more likely that an attacker could crack public key encryption, which is widely audited and as long as p ! np verifiable with mathematically proven concepts, or that they could crack your password generation algorithm, which you probably secretly came up with yourself ? i expect that for any human rememberable password generation algorithm, that an attacker with a single  generated  clear text password could crack all your other passwords with brute force just by stemming from your original.  it would narrow down the brute force keyspace by at least 0:0, probably more.  if the attacker had as few as  two  generated passwords, it is likely he could crack the generation method entirely, and have all your passwords then.  unless your  generation method  involves the use of outside info, like low significant digits of your gps coordinates at creation time .  but even then the fact you were generating using an algorithm, rather than pure cryptographically secure randomness, would  very significantly  narrow the search space.  so what is more likely ? they crack 0 bit encryption and/or your one hopefully very secure passphrase for that encrypted password file, or that they crack one or two of your other passwords you  know  not every account you have, and i would guess probably less than half, uses proper hashes, do not you ?  #  i do not use pw managers myself, but i understand that people use them simply because they ca not keep track of 0 different passwords.   #  ok, then i do not have to explain that.  i do not use pw managers myself, but i understand that people use them simply because they ca not keep track of 0 different passwords.  as someone who works on a lot of websites with a lot of stupid fucking password rules, i can understand why someone would use one.  its to the point of necessity for a lot of people.  for example, off the top of my head, 0 websites i use with work have the requirements of: 0 chars minimum, 0 special chars, 0 caps, 0 numbers 0 0, no special chars, 0 caps or 0 numbers max 0 chars, 0 special chars, 0 numbers 0 0, 0 special, 0 caps, 0 numbers and i do not get to pick my username for any of them, 0 out of the 0 are different.  i do not use these passwords every day often twice a month , and i usually have to reset them every time.   #  you can try to brute force all day long, but if you do not know how the salts are applied before hashing, it is going to take ages to crack one account.   # you should know that most brute force attempts are done with the offline saved hashes, not over the web.  if the data is salted properly with unique salts for each user, this should not be a huge problem especially if the salts are stored in a separate location/database from the passwords to prevent both pw and salts from being stolen .  you can try to brute force all day long, but if you do not know how the salts are applied before hashing, it is going to take ages to crack one account.  even if you do crack one account, all the others have a different salt.  now you ca not even use the data you have gathered from cracking one account to help you crack others.  it is an immensely slow process even with super computing power.   #  and by definition the application must have access to the salt to calculate if your password is correct.   #  the salts are almost always trivial to recover if you have access to both code and data.  which you have to assume in a breach.  and by definition the application must have access to the salt to calculate if your password is correct.  i share your misgivings somewhat so i use last pass with 0 factor authentication.  then someone that key logged my master pw would still need my phone as well.   #  okay, technically i saved you time, but it would have taken you hardly any time to search there.   #  not really.  as a simple analogy, imagine that you are trying to find credit cards hidden somewhere on my premises.  adding a simple rule like   0 characters, must use numbers and symbols, etc.  is like saying  no cards are in the glove compartment of my car .  okay, technically i saved you time, but it would have taken you hardly any time to search there.  it is going to take you a lot longer to search the rest of the premises, which is where i forced people to hide their cards.  it would have been great for you if you checked the glove compartment and found 0 of the credit cards, but because of my rule, i prevented people from doing something so daft.
and no, i do not think i am in the superior group, which is the reason i have come here.  it seems totally logical to me some people are better than others in life, and because of that, some groups of people can be better.  areas with many superior people can form a group which is superior to an area with a fewer amount of superior people.  however, i do not think it is possible to measure or to know which group is the best, and also i think the best group changes from time to time to another group.  i define  superior  as those people who are the 0 most intelligent, 0 most physically fit, 0 most immune to illness or disease, 0 most able to adapt to change, 0 most able to abide by a set of morals and live more or less decently, 0 most attractive person to mate with.  then i look at each race or nation depending on how i group them , and try to rank each of them by the above criteria, and based on how i perceive the groups.  i do this probably because of some inferiority complex.  then i try to estimate which group has the highest number of superior individuals.  based on criteria i would say that spanish people, for example, are superior to belorussians, for example.  spain has simply given humanity much more.  let is say nation a has men who have more superior qualities mentioned above than nation b, but fewer women of high quality.  however, nation b, has many women of superior quality, and fewer men of low high quality.  thus, the optimal match would be men from nation a and women from nation b, in order to produce the best offspring.  the men of b and the women of a are the losers in this scenario because they do not deserve to mate with their own group.  in reality they can, but it would not be optimal.  i do not claim to know which is the superior group, but i do think individuals can be ranked, and thus groups can be ranked as well.  this is reminiscent of racism and eugenics, of course.  but i hate it.  i hate feeling like i have to compare everyone and know that i am on the bottom, but i ca not help it.  the inability to know who is best also causes me anxiety.   #  let is say nation a has men who have more superior qualities mentioned above than nation b, but fewer women of high quality.   #  however, nation b, has many women of superior quality, and fewer men of low high quality.   # however, nation b, has many women of superior quality, and fewer men of low high quality.  thus, the optimal match would be men from nation a and women from nation b, in order to produce the best offspring.  the men of b and the women of a are the losers in this scenario because they do not deserve to mate with their own group.  in reality they can, but it would not be optimal.  fortunately intelligent people tend to mate with other intelligent people.  and for those who chose not to, i think it is best to give them the choice to choice their own mates, even if it is not  optimal.   so your suggestion is not necessary.  it already exists.   #  this is not to say that people do not engage in behavior that is harmful, both to themselves, their neighbors, and to humanity as a whole.   #  but then, what does it mean to contribute to society and humanity ? people are complicated and it is rare that we can justifiably paint someone with a single broad brush.  one man may be a cruel and vicious businessman who has ruined thousands of people, but he could also be a devoted husband and wonderful father.  someone could be an unemployed alcoholic, yes, but at the same time he could be compassionate, funny and one hell of a good guitar player.  meanwhile, someone may indeed spend all day long sitting around, chain smoking and listening to italian pop music as he collects welfare payments but, could also have crippling depression that prevents him from taking action.  and then, let is take instances where virtues conflict: someone is a criminal, leaking insider information in exchange for cash.  but the reason he is doing this is because his friend is in dire straits and he cares so much about this friend, he is so compassionate, that he decides to do it this way.  he had a choice between prioritizing the law or prioritizing his friendship; both are worthy, and he made a decision.  being a good friend meant being a bad citizen.  or, because i just thought of it, walter white from breaking bad at least the first few seasons : he is dying of cancer and he needs to make sure his family is cared for when he is gone.  he has almost no time to get money legitimately and so turns to manufacturing drugs.  or, take dexter, from dexter: he does terrible things to people for, ostensibly, a good cause.  are these people uniformly superior or inferior ? by what criteria are we judging this ? taken to the macro level, a single country could indeed be a backwards place with an economy that always a basket case.  is this because the people there are inherently worse ? or could it be that a dictator which they overthrew took out tons of loans to buy weapons to further oppress them, and when the new democratic government takes over, they are still saddled with billions in interest payments which the imf refuses to negotiate ? this is to add on to the original point that the fundamental problem with your analysis is that it is premised on a necessarily subjective set of criteria.  you are confusing something personal with something universal.  you are taking your feelings towards a particular person or type of person and using your subjective experience as some sort of objective, universal metric.  it is essentially saying  good people are those who please me.  bad people are those who do not  and trying to base an entire society on that notion.  in general, what kind of person we are is more dependent, i believe, on the circumstances we find ourselves in, rather than anything inherent in us.  this view of people being objectively good or bad, superior or inferior, relies on this notion that people are somehow special, that they are imbued with some sort of agency that, frankly, i do not believe they have.  this is not to say that people do not engage in behavior that is harmful, both to themselves, their neighbors, and to humanity as a whole.  but i feel, because it is useless to make broad pronouncements about their character, to instead focus on actions.  in our interactions with other people, who we are is less important than what we do.  it is our actions that are important, and if our actions are harmful, it is our actions that must be stopped, not our character as a whole.   #  clearly subsets of populations of a given species are better than others in this regard, and the result is generally the superior allele confers a selective advantage and begins to dominate population.   #  but op is point is that even though we ca not measure any of the metrics, it does not mean the differences are not there.  presumably an all knowing diety would know which race averaged superiorly on a given metric.  to that point, the differences would be so minute when averaged, and it is highly unlikely that a given group would be superior in all or even most of your metrics simultaneously.  without realizing it, i believe op is sort of describing natural selection.  the only metric that really matters is fitness to produce viable offspring.  clearly subsets of populations of a given species are better than others in this regard, and the result is generally the superior allele confers a selective advantage and begins to dominate population.  however, the same allele can be advantageous in one niche and disadvantageous in another, and so it is hard to say that a given trait is superior generally.   #  so any situation which extincts humans would create a paradox, at least from the human perspective.   #  well  better  and  success  are value judgments that require an entity to value the thing being measured.  if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound ? is an asteroid full of gold better than an asteroid full of lead if there is no one there to make the value judgment that gold is  better  ? so any situation which extincts humans would create a paradox, at least from the human perspective.  arguably most humans think this is  bad  but once it happens there is no human left to make a value judgment.  of course other species or intelligences might be able to make their own judgments.  i agree with your larger point that metrics for  better  and  success  are arbitrary, and are only really useful in comparing strategies to obtain some sort of agreed upon goal.   #  therefore there are large groups of people from a single ethnicity that have not have the chance to  compete fairly  according to whatever measure you choose to measure them by.   #  an ethnic group may have had a difficult history where they have been persecuted, oppressed, stolen from, or displaced.  their descendants were not the ones that were defeated, but they must struggles with the conditions of their birth.  therefore there are large groups of people from a single ethnicity that have not have the chance to  compete fairly  according to whatever measure you choose to measure them by.  if i burnt down your house while you were pregnant, is your baby inferior because you have no home ? some ethnic groups inhabit or inhabited locations where resources are more bountiful.  if you were born to rich parents and lived in a rich house, i would not say that you are superior to me, though your position might be, according to some measures that i can think up.  nor would i count myself superior to you if i went and murdered your parents and kicked you out of your house.  all this is predicated upon humans having a  purpose  and then being ranked according to their ability to achieve that purpose.  but not everyone is pursuing the same purpose.  you are judging people by the purpose that you propose, but you will have to defend why that is the objective purpose against which things are measured.  i think that what you are admitting when you suggest that the  rankings  might change is that people are being judged by their  situation , not their inherent traits, and you have to be careful to recognise that not everyone chooses to be in the situation that they are in.
alright let me preface by saying that i played video games competitively for many years during my early to late teens.  it was also during the years where i was the most unhealthy in my life.  i was 0lbs and did not really do anything but play ssbm with the crew training for tournaments.  i cringe every time i see a post on all about esports or scholarships for video game players.  now i am not saying that it is not competitive or exciting but labeling video games a sport just tarnishes actual athletes that play actual sports.  let is put up pictures of every team that won their respective leagues championship this year next to mlg winners of their game.  athletes are only in the picture where there are not any video games present.  i expect the argument of  hey they show poker on espn so that means it is a sport does not it ?   no.  no it does not.  it is a competition and espn airs competitions all the time.  spelling bees, poker, chess, etc.  but they do not call it a sport because they know better.  i honestly believe that the competitive video game community would only benefit by not calling itself a sport because doing so opens the door for ridicule from actual athletes.   #  now i am not saying that it is not competitive or exciting but labeling video games a sport just tarnishes actual athletes that play actual sports.   #  let is put up pictures of every team that won their respective leagues championship this year next to mlg winners of their game.   #  for me a sport is any competition where you can win vs.  equal opponents , on your own accord.  if your activity is judged and you win because of a vote, then it is not a sport.  golf a sport chess a sport rod and reel fishing a sport boxing that results in a knockout a sport figure skating not a sport olympic diving not a sport boxing that ends in a decision not a sport you have to win on your accord.  in this regard playing video games could be a sport.  let is put up pictures of every team that won their respective leagues championship this year next to mlg winners of their game.  athletes are only in the picture where there are not any video games present.  what would you say about bowling ? it is physical, it is competitive, and you can still be a fat ass and be good at it.   #  the fact b that he can throw fast does not make him any less obese or unhealthy.   #  an obese statecraft player can press keys at a very far rate.  so what ? op defines an activity not to be a sport when an obese and unhealthy man can be a champion.  cc sabathia is obese and not healthy.  the fact b that he can throw fast does not make him any less obese or unhealthy.  yet he won the world series.  by op definition baseball is not a sport.  which is silly.  p. s.  yeah, i can make the same argument about football.  what is your point ?  #  they are normally 0lbs but they can also run the 0 yard dash in under 0 seconds.   #  no you just misunderstood what i meant by 0lbs and in terrible shape.  because if you understood that then you would not have just googled fat athletes.  cc may be heavy but he is in better shape than most people.  same for nfl linemen.  they are normally 0lbs but they can also run the 0 yard dash in under 0 seconds.  so you should be confused because you grabbed the wrong information out of my posts.   #  that was a very hard thought to articulate but i think i got it how it sounded in my head  #  have you played golf with professional golfers ? it is physically demanding when you are not just playing a casual game with casual players.  yes an 0 year old competed recently.  kids throw out first pitches at baseball games.  but that 0 year old did not and is not driving a golf ball 0 yards until they grow up.  the threshold to me is when the drop off between i will just use golf in this example as the least physically demanding real sport golf and poker.  there is a huge drop off in physical nature of said sport.  so much so that it not a sport.  i would love to make a graph with all the major sports and competitions and the amount of physically demanding activity they each have.  because visualized it is obvious that there is a gigantic drop off physical talent needed to compete.  that was a very hard thought to articulate but i think i got it how it sounded in my head  #  not a single person has justified why they are called sports.   #  i have said countless times what i consider sports.  you just keep twisting things asking well what if kids are playing it or something else.  not a single person has justified why they are called sports.  you have all just brought up some of the lessor sports and asked my opinion on that.  i am trying here but i am not just going to agree because you mentioned kids playing it.
i really do not like websites like this URL stating that depression is completely curable.  i will state both a weak case here and a strong case here for my arguments.  i wish i could believe that my depression is curable, but quite frankly if something is been going on for more than a decade without a cure, it is not very likely it is going to stop.  weak case argument:  severe depression is not always curable because people vary, and also because an illness that takes decades to  cure  is not what we would call curable or else we would call cancer curable  strong case argument  severe depression is not curable at all because of the fact that depressive episodes recur the more they have already occurred along with the severity of their appearance, and because no method of actually  curing  severe depression works more than making people functional as opposed to cured.  there is an extreme difference between curing something and treating something chemotherapy can treat cancer, but curing cancer ?  .  a personal example of how people mix up curing and treating: i was considered almost able to be discharged from psychiatric help before my recent spiral because i was functioning fine in everyday life.  how did i actually feel ? i could not feel any pleasurable emotions, and felt like everyday was a chore, albeit a bearable chore.  sure sounds cured to me ! basically i would like people to first argue against the strong case, then if they feel they have defeated the strong case, argue against the weak case.  thanks !  #  i wish i could believe that my depression is curable, but quite frankly if something is been going on for more than a decade without a cure, it is not very likely it is going to stop.   #  the first step to being cured is believing it can happen.   # the first step to being cured is believing it can happen.  it will never happen until you realise it can.  you are not involving your own mind enough, you are treating it like a physical disease and waiting for a doctor to appear on their white horse with a cure.  that is not how you get better.  sounds like you are having a tough time of it and those reasons explain why you feel like you ca not be cured but that does not mean nobody with severe depression gets cured.  how many different therapies have you tried ? i completely disagree.  i experienced admittedly mild moderate depression as well as really severe anxiety and i have pretty much cured myself, i have definitely gone beyond just functional, lots of people do.  again, how many different therapies and treatments have you tried ?  #   bottom line, i ca not say for sure that depression is curable but i also think it is incorrect to say that is not curable because there are so many other environmental factors which may have significant effects.   #  actually the internet has a lot on the history of depression.  it is been around a lot longer than the 0s, apparently URL  i argue that the actual incidents were lower, because undiagnosed, the ultimate conclusion of depression is suicide, right ? so, if untreated people were walking around, there would be an enormous number of suicides and it would just be  part of being human .  however that is not what we see.   actually no, there are many barriers to committing suicide, social, psychological and actually medical as well, especially when people can wind up  saved , crippled and worse off.   bottom line, i ca not say for sure that depression is curable but i also think it is incorrect to say that is not curable because there are so many other environmental factors which may have significant effects.  pharmaceuticals being probably the biggest.  take a walk through /r/mmfb or /r/needadvice one day there is almost a 0:0 correlation of people who have  crippling depression  and their long history of taking pharmaceuticals.   actually no, i have had pretty bad depression since age 0 turned severe by age 0 or so , and i do not have any such history.  anecdotal evidence though i suppose.   #  some people can be cured of severe depression.   #  a large number of psychologists now believe that depression is the result of a lack of serotonin being produced, and taken up at the synapse, hence why we now use ssris selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors to treat severe depression.  for the sake of the argument, let is say being diagnosed with mdd major depressive disorder is  severe depression.  a study conducted by elkin et.  al.  in 0 found that when ssris are used to treat mdd, approximately half the time, the treatment is effective and the individual can lead a healthy life without the negative effects of depression being so prevalent.  this was backed up in 0 by a study by leuchter et.  al. , the results equally found that half the participants showed no symptoms of depression after being administered ssris for a period of time.  if you have mdd, you can lead your entire life, while taking daily doses of ssris, if need be.  you can  cure  mdd, in the sense that you can make it go away, and lead a happy and healthy life, with a few pills a day.  in regards to relapses, if you are taken off ssris with mdd, a study by neale et.  al. , a meta analysis of previous studies, found that after a treatment by ssris, approximately 0 of the individuals relapsed back into depression.  now, none of these figures are amazing, but they do show that it is curable.  some people can be cured of severe depression.   #  as far as the field of psychology is concerned, these people are  cured .   #  yes.  i have mentioned two studies, conducted by psychologists, that state that the symptoms of depression are removed following a course of ssris, in half of all cases.  as far as the field of psychology is concerned, these people are  cured .  i do not know if they can be as happy as someone else, because there is no baseline for what constitutes  happy .  a symptom of depression is that you fail to enjoy things that would normally make you emotionally happy/content.  ssris have been shown to remove the symptoms of depression.  therefore, we can conclude that ssris allow people to feel happiness, and not simply be functional.   #  to be  cured , the disease is not gone.   # some people do not respond to treatment, and as of yet, it is not always curable.  i would claim that in the future, as we develop a better understanding of the brain, and its chemistry, it will become curable, but that is not the point.  however, mdd does not take decades to cure.  psychiatry is very different to medicinal practices.  to be  cured , the disease is not gone.  you cannot compare depression to cancer, or a cold, because they are very different.  to be  cured , you need to return to a level of mental normality.  i will use the definition developed by seligman and rosenhans in 0 here, which laid out 0 criteria for abnormality in mental health.  0.  does the behavior cause suffering, 0.  irrationality, 0.  observer discomfort 0.  maladaptivity, 0.  unconventionality, 0.  violation of social norms, 0.  statistical frequency.  now, if someone no longer has the above issues, they can be considered mentally healthy.  depression is abnormal, because it breaks these.  if any treatment can indefinitely bring someone to a state of normality mentally, they are considered  cured , in psychiatry and psychology.  this can be by teaching them coping mechanisms to deal with the disorder, such as through cognitive behavioral therapy cbt, a common therapy , or through ssris.   cured  does not mean depression is gone, and will never ever return because some disease in your body went away, because that is not how these disorders work.  it is not a disease, it is an issue in the brain not producing the right amount of the right chemicals.  ssris do not produce more chemicals, but they stop the reuptake of excess seratonin, and allow the brain to take more in at the synapse, and so they can effectively, indefinitely get rid of the issue.  therefore, in psychology, ssris are definitely a  cure  to mdd.  cure simply means a different thing in psychology, to fields like modern medicine.
i have always thought it was a funny phenomenon that our society perpetuates this lie to our children for really no benefit at all.  it is become a joke that when an adult becomes disillusioned by something, they compare it to when they  first learned santa was not real.   and it may be a joke, but it is only funny because there is truth in it.  there is real disillusionment in that moment when you first learn that santa is not real, and there is a real feeling that you have been lied to, because well you have been lied to all your life by the very people you should trust the most.  the only thing it teaches children is that it is ok to lie, your parents have lied to you all your life, and even society itself will go to great lengths to trick you.  find me one kid who was not crushed when they learned santa was not real.  now i am not saying that a kid is going to need to go into therapy over it or anything, and there are much worse things out there, but there is really no benefit to this lie at all.  we might lie to our kids about other things like when they first learn about death, you might tell them,  no, i am not going to die for a long, long time,  even though that is obviously something nobody knows.  but there is a very useful benefit to that lie.  it calms your child is fears about death.  they could develop all kinds of fears and neuroses if you did not find a way to calm them, so it makes sense.  the lie about santa offers nothing.  some people will say that it helps foster their imagination, but i would say that, yes, stories like this and other fairy tales do help to foster a kid is imagination, but why do we need to go to such great lengths to convince our kids that he is real ? we do not do this with other stories.  we do not try to tell our kids that hansel and gretel were real kids, or that spiderman exists, or that daniel radcliff really is a wizard.  in fact, we often take the time to explain to them that daniel radcliff is just an actor, and harry potter ca not really cast those spells, and all of that stuff is just movie magic.  so why do not we do the same with santa ? we could still tell them the story, but why lie to them about it being real ?  #  there is a real feeling that you have been lied to, because well you have been lied to all your life by the very people you should trust the most.   #  are you saying that kids do not lie before they learn the truth about santa ?  # are you saying that kids do not lie before they learn the truth about santa ? if they are sad it is because santa and all his magic elves and reindeers do not exist, not because they have been horribly deceived.  you make it sound it is like your partner confessing to cheating on you.  i was not, but then again, i was piss poor and santa was a bit inconsistent.  to kids who are still young enough they believe in santa ? . and if we do, it is because we do not want them to copy their behavior.  i would not want my kid hopping on a broom an jumping out the window to go play quidditch with his friends.  because it is something magical . or something.  do you even remember the feeling you had when you found your presents ? holy shit it was the best day of the year for me, nothing compared.  you would wait for weeks for that morning.  how would christmas morning feel when you would know that your presents have been hidden in the closet for a week ?  #  i wrote a solemn vow which he read and promised to withhold.   #  i understand your view, but disagree.  i can only draw upon my own experience, so i wish to share mine.  it is not a lie.  i am santa claus.  it is not a lie for my son as well, because he became santa claus.  allow me to explain.  my son at the age of 0 was being teased quite e bit for believing in santa and one day had enough of it, and asked me to tell him the truth.  now when a child asks that of you, it is important to take it seriously.  not all truths are meant to be told to 0 yr olds, and it can be difficult for parents to navigate this.  this was a bit different.  i said to my son,  have a seat and i will tell you.   i told him that this was a secret that i needed to be sure he was mature enough to keep, and that i was depending on him, and trusting him with the truth.  i said,  yes, santa is real.  that is the truth.  but there is more to the story than you know.  santa claus at one time was a real person, who was incredibly generous and gave presents every year to children and to those in need.  his life was committed to caring for others.  when he died, other people decided to continue the mission of his life, and they have  become santa  in order to secretly continue his love and generosity.  is santa real ? yes, but not in the way you think it is actually many, many people who have chosen to continue as santa.  i also told my son that at one time i made a decision to become santa claus to secretly give gifts to others at christmas, and other times during the year, to spread joy and love.  it is a secret that i m sharing with you.  and when you are old enough, you also can become santa claus.  the next day he was very thoughtful all day, then came to me and said  i am ready to be santa claus.   i explained it is a very serious secret, and that he would be committing to keeping the spirit of love and giving all year, not just at christmas, and to not tell anyone his secret identity.  i wrote a solemn vow which he read and promised to withhold.  and he became santa claus that day.  yes, santa is real.  i am santa.  and so are others.   #  i ca not imagine at 0 wrapping my head around the fact that i should just give others gifts because it is a nice thing to do.   #  i think using santa is a good way to get a point across to a kid who could not grasp the concept of  doing nice things for the sake of doing nice things.   santa gives gifts selflessly and does not expect reward.  i think the lesson is more easily digestible for kids when it is masked in the mystery and not outright  hey timmy, be nice to people.   at least this is how i have come to think about it and plan to share with my kids.  i ca not imagine at 0 wrapping my head around the fact that i should just give others gifts because it is a nice thing to do.   #  i also forgave my parents immediately once i realized it was a harmless lie that brought me unmeasurable amounts of happiness as a kid.   #  why not just do it from the beginning ? my answer for that is its fun.  i had a lot of fun believing in santa as a kid.  i do not know anyone who believed in santa but did not enjoy it.  waiting for him to come with presents, leaving milk and cookies out for him, listening for the sounds of reindeer hooves on the roof.  christmas was 0x better every year that i believed in santa than it is now that i do not and i am older.  but i ca not wait to have kids and make their christmases fucking amazing with santa claus.  basically, tell your kids about santa and make them believe.  because it is fun, lots of fun, no other reason really.  i remember finding out he was not real at 0 and being a little upset with my parents.  but you know what, i was upset for like a day.  i was happy as fuck believing in santa for like 0 years of my life.  i also forgave my parents immediately once i realized it was a harmless lie that brought me unmeasurable amounts of happiness as a kid.  it did not teach me that lying was okay, i do not think any kid would think that, and if they did they would realize they were wrong as they got older.  the pros out way the cons by like 0 years of childhood happiness man.  i ca not wait to teach my kids about santa.   #  too soon, it will be gone and you will lose those experiences with your children.   #  when you are a kid, things seem magical.  it is like going to disney world.  as a kid, you revel in how amazing the place is and how magical it seems.  there will be a point where the magic no longer shine for them.  at least in the same way.  as a an adult, you can revel in your kids having experiencing that much fun and joy or if you are like me, i particularly like the imagination, foresight and planning that goes into disney world.  are you going to tell them that there are really people in the costumes ? that they are all paid actors ? what is the point ? why rob a magical experience from them.  you might end up with the kids that goes around kicking the people in costumes because they know it is fake.  they will figure it out in there own time.  you will end up regretting not allowing them and yourself to experience their joy and wonderment while it lasts.  kids grow up quickly.  there will be a time when they realize that the world is grimy and harsh.  let them believe and allow their imaginations run wild.  too soon, it will be gone and you will lose those experiences with your children.  i used to cringe when someone would call their daughters princesses.  i used to roll my eyes thinking that they are going to be spoiled.  in the end someone on here, or a friend said, that they do it for very similar reasons as above or the reasons promote santa.  let them believe for now.
i have always thought it was a funny phenomenon that our society perpetuates this lie to our children for really no benefit at all.  it is become a joke that when an adult becomes disillusioned by something, they compare it to when they  first learned santa was not real.   and it may be a joke, but it is only funny because there is truth in it.  there is real disillusionment in that moment when you first learn that santa is not real, and there is a real feeling that you have been lied to, because well you have been lied to all your life by the very people you should trust the most.  the only thing it teaches children is that it is ok to lie, your parents have lied to you all your life, and even society itself will go to great lengths to trick you.  find me one kid who was not crushed when they learned santa was not real.  now i am not saying that a kid is going to need to go into therapy over it or anything, and there are much worse things out there, but there is really no benefit to this lie at all.  we might lie to our kids about other things like when they first learn about death, you might tell them,  no, i am not going to die for a long, long time,  even though that is obviously something nobody knows.  but there is a very useful benefit to that lie.  it calms your child is fears about death.  they could develop all kinds of fears and neuroses if you did not find a way to calm them, so it makes sense.  the lie about santa offers nothing.  some people will say that it helps foster their imagination, but i would say that, yes, stories like this and other fairy tales do help to foster a kid is imagination, but why do we need to go to such great lengths to convince our kids that he is real ? we do not do this with other stories.  we do not try to tell our kids that hansel and gretel were real kids, or that spiderman exists, or that daniel radcliff really is a wizard.  in fact, we often take the time to explain to them that daniel radcliff is just an actor, and harry potter ca not really cast those spells, and all of that stuff is just movie magic.  so why do not we do the same with santa ? we could still tell them the story, but why lie to them about it being real ?  #  find me one kid who was not crushed when they learned santa was not real.   #  i was not, but then again, i was piss poor and santa was a bit inconsistent.   # are you saying that kids do not lie before they learn the truth about santa ? if they are sad it is because santa and all his magic elves and reindeers do not exist, not because they have been horribly deceived.  you make it sound it is like your partner confessing to cheating on you.  i was not, but then again, i was piss poor and santa was a bit inconsistent.  to kids who are still young enough they believe in santa ? . and if we do, it is because we do not want them to copy their behavior.  i would not want my kid hopping on a broom an jumping out the window to go play quidditch with his friends.  because it is something magical . or something.  do you even remember the feeling you had when you found your presents ? holy shit it was the best day of the year for me, nothing compared.  you would wait for weeks for that morning.  how would christmas morning feel when you would know that your presents have been hidden in the closet for a week ?  #  and when you are old enough, you also can become santa claus.   #  i understand your view, but disagree.  i can only draw upon my own experience, so i wish to share mine.  it is not a lie.  i am santa claus.  it is not a lie for my son as well, because he became santa claus.  allow me to explain.  my son at the age of 0 was being teased quite e bit for believing in santa and one day had enough of it, and asked me to tell him the truth.  now when a child asks that of you, it is important to take it seriously.  not all truths are meant to be told to 0 yr olds, and it can be difficult for parents to navigate this.  this was a bit different.  i said to my son,  have a seat and i will tell you.   i told him that this was a secret that i needed to be sure he was mature enough to keep, and that i was depending on him, and trusting him with the truth.  i said,  yes, santa is real.  that is the truth.  but there is more to the story than you know.  santa claus at one time was a real person, who was incredibly generous and gave presents every year to children and to those in need.  his life was committed to caring for others.  when he died, other people decided to continue the mission of his life, and they have  become santa  in order to secretly continue his love and generosity.  is santa real ? yes, but not in the way you think it is actually many, many people who have chosen to continue as santa.  i also told my son that at one time i made a decision to become santa claus to secretly give gifts to others at christmas, and other times during the year, to spread joy and love.  it is a secret that i m sharing with you.  and when you are old enough, you also can become santa claus.  the next day he was very thoughtful all day, then came to me and said  i am ready to be santa claus.   i explained it is a very serious secret, and that he would be committing to keeping the spirit of love and giving all year, not just at christmas, and to not tell anyone his secret identity.  i wrote a solemn vow which he read and promised to withhold.  and he became santa claus that day.  yes, santa is real.  i am santa.  and so are others.   #  i think using santa is a good way to get a point across to a kid who could not grasp the concept of  doing nice things for the sake of doing nice things.    #  i think using santa is a good way to get a point across to a kid who could not grasp the concept of  doing nice things for the sake of doing nice things.   santa gives gifts selflessly and does not expect reward.  i think the lesson is more easily digestible for kids when it is masked in the mystery and not outright  hey timmy, be nice to people.   at least this is how i have come to think about it and plan to share with my kids.  i ca not imagine at 0 wrapping my head around the fact that i should just give others gifts because it is a nice thing to do.   #  i also forgave my parents immediately once i realized it was a harmless lie that brought me unmeasurable amounts of happiness as a kid.   #  why not just do it from the beginning ? my answer for that is its fun.  i had a lot of fun believing in santa as a kid.  i do not know anyone who believed in santa but did not enjoy it.  waiting for him to come with presents, leaving milk and cookies out for him, listening for the sounds of reindeer hooves on the roof.  christmas was 0x better every year that i believed in santa than it is now that i do not and i am older.  but i ca not wait to have kids and make their christmases fucking amazing with santa claus.  basically, tell your kids about santa and make them believe.  because it is fun, lots of fun, no other reason really.  i remember finding out he was not real at 0 and being a little upset with my parents.  but you know what, i was upset for like a day.  i was happy as fuck believing in santa for like 0 years of my life.  i also forgave my parents immediately once i realized it was a harmless lie that brought me unmeasurable amounts of happiness as a kid.  it did not teach me that lying was okay, i do not think any kid would think that, and if they did they would realize they were wrong as they got older.  the pros out way the cons by like 0 years of childhood happiness man.  i ca not wait to teach my kids about santa.   #  there will be a time when they realize that the world is grimy and harsh.   #  when you are a kid, things seem magical.  it is like going to disney world.  as a kid, you revel in how amazing the place is and how magical it seems.  there will be a point where the magic no longer shine for them.  at least in the same way.  as a an adult, you can revel in your kids having experiencing that much fun and joy or if you are like me, i particularly like the imagination, foresight and planning that goes into disney world.  are you going to tell them that there are really people in the costumes ? that they are all paid actors ? what is the point ? why rob a magical experience from them.  you might end up with the kids that goes around kicking the people in costumes because they know it is fake.  they will figure it out in there own time.  you will end up regretting not allowing them and yourself to experience their joy and wonderment while it lasts.  kids grow up quickly.  there will be a time when they realize that the world is grimy and harsh.  let them believe and allow their imaginations run wild.  too soon, it will be gone and you will lose those experiences with your children.  i used to cringe when someone would call their daughters princesses.  i used to roll my eyes thinking that they are going to be spoiled.  in the end someone on here, or a friend said, that they do it for very similar reasons as above or the reasons promote santa.  let them believe for now.
i have always thought it was a funny phenomenon that our society perpetuates this lie to our children for really no benefit at all.  it is become a joke that when an adult becomes disillusioned by something, they compare it to when they  first learned santa was not real.   and it may be a joke, but it is only funny because there is truth in it.  there is real disillusionment in that moment when you first learn that santa is not real, and there is a real feeling that you have been lied to, because well you have been lied to all your life by the very people you should trust the most.  the only thing it teaches children is that it is ok to lie, your parents have lied to you all your life, and even society itself will go to great lengths to trick you.  find me one kid who was not crushed when they learned santa was not real.  now i am not saying that a kid is going to need to go into therapy over it or anything, and there are much worse things out there, but there is really no benefit to this lie at all.  we might lie to our kids about other things like when they first learn about death, you might tell them,  no, i am not going to die for a long, long time,  even though that is obviously something nobody knows.  but there is a very useful benefit to that lie.  it calms your child is fears about death.  they could develop all kinds of fears and neuroses if you did not find a way to calm them, so it makes sense.  the lie about santa offers nothing.  some people will say that it helps foster their imagination, but i would say that, yes, stories like this and other fairy tales do help to foster a kid is imagination, but why do we need to go to such great lengths to convince our kids that he is real ? we do not do this with other stories.  we do not try to tell our kids that hansel and gretel were real kids, or that spiderman exists, or that daniel radcliff really is a wizard.  in fact, we often take the time to explain to them that daniel radcliff is just an actor, and harry potter ca not really cast those spells, and all of that stuff is just movie magic.  so why do not we do the same with santa ? we could still tell them the story, but why lie to them about it being real ?  #  in fact, we often take the time to explain to them that daniel radcliff is just an actor, and harry potter ca not really cast those spells, and all of that stuff is just movie magic.   #  to kids who are still young enough they believe in santa ?  # are you saying that kids do not lie before they learn the truth about santa ? if they are sad it is because santa and all his magic elves and reindeers do not exist, not because they have been horribly deceived.  you make it sound it is like your partner confessing to cheating on you.  i was not, but then again, i was piss poor and santa was a bit inconsistent.  to kids who are still young enough they believe in santa ? . and if we do, it is because we do not want them to copy their behavior.  i would not want my kid hopping on a broom an jumping out the window to go play quidditch with his friends.  because it is something magical . or something.  do you even remember the feeling you had when you found your presents ? holy shit it was the best day of the year for me, nothing compared.  you would wait for weeks for that morning.  how would christmas morning feel when you would know that your presents have been hidden in the closet for a week ?  #  i explained it is a very serious secret, and that he would be committing to keeping the spirit of love and giving all year, not just at christmas, and to not tell anyone his secret identity.   #  i understand your view, but disagree.  i can only draw upon my own experience, so i wish to share mine.  it is not a lie.  i am santa claus.  it is not a lie for my son as well, because he became santa claus.  allow me to explain.  my son at the age of 0 was being teased quite e bit for believing in santa and one day had enough of it, and asked me to tell him the truth.  now when a child asks that of you, it is important to take it seriously.  not all truths are meant to be told to 0 yr olds, and it can be difficult for parents to navigate this.  this was a bit different.  i said to my son,  have a seat and i will tell you.   i told him that this was a secret that i needed to be sure he was mature enough to keep, and that i was depending on him, and trusting him with the truth.  i said,  yes, santa is real.  that is the truth.  but there is more to the story than you know.  santa claus at one time was a real person, who was incredibly generous and gave presents every year to children and to those in need.  his life was committed to caring for others.  when he died, other people decided to continue the mission of his life, and they have  become santa  in order to secretly continue his love and generosity.  is santa real ? yes, but not in the way you think it is actually many, many people who have chosen to continue as santa.  i also told my son that at one time i made a decision to become santa claus to secretly give gifts to others at christmas, and other times during the year, to spread joy and love.  it is a secret that i m sharing with you.  and when you are old enough, you also can become santa claus.  the next day he was very thoughtful all day, then came to me and said  i am ready to be santa claus.   i explained it is a very serious secret, and that he would be committing to keeping the spirit of love and giving all year, not just at christmas, and to not tell anyone his secret identity.  i wrote a solemn vow which he read and promised to withhold.  and he became santa claus that day.  yes, santa is real.  i am santa.  and so are others.   #  i think using santa is a good way to get a point across to a kid who could not grasp the concept of  doing nice things for the sake of doing nice things.    #  i think using santa is a good way to get a point across to a kid who could not grasp the concept of  doing nice things for the sake of doing nice things.   santa gives gifts selflessly and does not expect reward.  i think the lesson is more easily digestible for kids when it is masked in the mystery and not outright  hey timmy, be nice to people.   at least this is how i have come to think about it and plan to share with my kids.  i ca not imagine at 0 wrapping my head around the fact that i should just give others gifts because it is a nice thing to do.   #  why not just do it from the beginning ?  #  why not just do it from the beginning ? my answer for that is its fun.  i had a lot of fun believing in santa as a kid.  i do not know anyone who believed in santa but did not enjoy it.  waiting for him to come with presents, leaving milk and cookies out for him, listening for the sounds of reindeer hooves on the roof.  christmas was 0x better every year that i believed in santa than it is now that i do not and i am older.  but i ca not wait to have kids and make their christmases fucking amazing with santa claus.  basically, tell your kids about santa and make them believe.  because it is fun, lots of fun, no other reason really.  i remember finding out he was not real at 0 and being a little upset with my parents.  but you know what, i was upset for like a day.  i was happy as fuck believing in santa for like 0 years of my life.  i also forgave my parents immediately once i realized it was a harmless lie that brought me unmeasurable amounts of happiness as a kid.  it did not teach me that lying was okay, i do not think any kid would think that, and if they did they would realize they were wrong as they got older.  the pros out way the cons by like 0 years of childhood happiness man.  i ca not wait to teach my kids about santa.   #  there will be a point where the magic no longer shine for them.   #  when you are a kid, things seem magical.  it is like going to disney world.  as a kid, you revel in how amazing the place is and how magical it seems.  there will be a point where the magic no longer shine for them.  at least in the same way.  as a an adult, you can revel in your kids having experiencing that much fun and joy or if you are like me, i particularly like the imagination, foresight and planning that goes into disney world.  are you going to tell them that there are really people in the costumes ? that they are all paid actors ? what is the point ? why rob a magical experience from them.  you might end up with the kids that goes around kicking the people in costumes because they know it is fake.  they will figure it out in there own time.  you will end up regretting not allowing them and yourself to experience their joy and wonderment while it lasts.  kids grow up quickly.  there will be a time when they realize that the world is grimy and harsh.  let them believe and allow their imaginations run wild.  too soon, it will be gone and you will lose those experiences with your children.  i used to cringe when someone would call their daughters princesses.  i used to roll my eyes thinking that they are going to be spoiled.  in the end someone on here, or a friend said, that they do it for very similar reasons as above or the reasons promote santa.  let them believe for now.
i have always thought it was a funny phenomenon that our society perpetuates this lie to our children for really no benefit at all.  it is become a joke that when an adult becomes disillusioned by something, they compare it to when they  first learned santa was not real.   and it may be a joke, but it is only funny because there is truth in it.  there is real disillusionment in that moment when you first learn that santa is not real, and there is a real feeling that you have been lied to, because well you have been lied to all your life by the very people you should trust the most.  the only thing it teaches children is that it is ok to lie, your parents have lied to you all your life, and even society itself will go to great lengths to trick you.  find me one kid who was not crushed when they learned santa was not real.  now i am not saying that a kid is going to need to go into therapy over it or anything, and there are much worse things out there, but there is really no benefit to this lie at all.  we might lie to our kids about other things like when they first learn about death, you might tell them,  no, i am not going to die for a long, long time,  even though that is obviously something nobody knows.  but there is a very useful benefit to that lie.  it calms your child is fears about death.  they could develop all kinds of fears and neuroses if you did not find a way to calm them, so it makes sense.  the lie about santa offers nothing.  some people will say that it helps foster their imagination, but i would say that, yes, stories like this and other fairy tales do help to foster a kid is imagination, but why do we need to go to such great lengths to convince our kids that he is real ? we do not do this with other stories.  we do not try to tell our kids that hansel and gretel were real kids, or that spiderman exists, or that daniel radcliff really is a wizard.  in fact, we often take the time to explain to them that daniel radcliff is just an actor, and harry potter ca not really cast those spells, and all of that stuff is just movie magic.  so why do not we do the same with santa ? we could still tell them the story, but why lie to them about it being real ?  #  we could still tell them the story, but why lie to them about it being real ?  #  because it is something magical . or something.   # are you saying that kids do not lie before they learn the truth about santa ? if they are sad it is because santa and all his magic elves and reindeers do not exist, not because they have been horribly deceived.  you make it sound it is like your partner confessing to cheating on you.  i was not, but then again, i was piss poor and santa was a bit inconsistent.  to kids who are still young enough they believe in santa ? . and if we do, it is because we do not want them to copy their behavior.  i would not want my kid hopping on a broom an jumping out the window to go play quidditch with his friends.  because it is something magical . or something.  do you even remember the feeling you had when you found your presents ? holy shit it was the best day of the year for me, nothing compared.  you would wait for weeks for that morning.  how would christmas morning feel when you would know that your presents have been hidden in the closet for a week ?  #  my son at the age of 0 was being teased quite e bit for believing in santa and one day had enough of it, and asked me to tell him the truth.   #  i understand your view, but disagree.  i can only draw upon my own experience, so i wish to share mine.  it is not a lie.  i am santa claus.  it is not a lie for my son as well, because he became santa claus.  allow me to explain.  my son at the age of 0 was being teased quite e bit for believing in santa and one day had enough of it, and asked me to tell him the truth.  now when a child asks that of you, it is important to take it seriously.  not all truths are meant to be told to 0 yr olds, and it can be difficult for parents to navigate this.  this was a bit different.  i said to my son,  have a seat and i will tell you.   i told him that this was a secret that i needed to be sure he was mature enough to keep, and that i was depending on him, and trusting him with the truth.  i said,  yes, santa is real.  that is the truth.  but there is more to the story than you know.  santa claus at one time was a real person, who was incredibly generous and gave presents every year to children and to those in need.  his life was committed to caring for others.  when he died, other people decided to continue the mission of his life, and they have  become santa  in order to secretly continue his love and generosity.  is santa real ? yes, but not in the way you think it is actually many, many people who have chosen to continue as santa.  i also told my son that at one time i made a decision to become santa claus to secretly give gifts to others at christmas, and other times during the year, to spread joy and love.  it is a secret that i m sharing with you.  and when you are old enough, you also can become santa claus.  the next day he was very thoughtful all day, then came to me and said  i am ready to be santa claus.   i explained it is a very serious secret, and that he would be committing to keeping the spirit of love and giving all year, not just at christmas, and to not tell anyone his secret identity.  i wrote a solemn vow which he read and promised to withhold.  and he became santa claus that day.  yes, santa is real.  i am santa.  and so are others.   #  at least this is how i have come to think about it and plan to share with my kids.   #  i think using santa is a good way to get a point across to a kid who could not grasp the concept of  doing nice things for the sake of doing nice things.   santa gives gifts selflessly and does not expect reward.  i think the lesson is more easily digestible for kids when it is masked in the mystery and not outright  hey timmy, be nice to people.   at least this is how i have come to think about it and plan to share with my kids.  i ca not imagine at 0 wrapping my head around the fact that i should just give others gifts because it is a nice thing to do.   #  i ca not wait to teach my kids about santa.   #  why not just do it from the beginning ? my answer for that is its fun.  i had a lot of fun believing in santa as a kid.  i do not know anyone who believed in santa but did not enjoy it.  waiting for him to come with presents, leaving milk and cookies out for him, listening for the sounds of reindeer hooves on the roof.  christmas was 0x better every year that i believed in santa than it is now that i do not and i am older.  but i ca not wait to have kids and make their christmases fucking amazing with santa claus.  basically, tell your kids about santa and make them believe.  because it is fun, lots of fun, no other reason really.  i remember finding out he was not real at 0 and being a little upset with my parents.  but you know what, i was upset for like a day.  i was happy as fuck believing in santa for like 0 years of my life.  i also forgave my parents immediately once i realized it was a harmless lie that brought me unmeasurable amounts of happiness as a kid.  it did not teach me that lying was okay, i do not think any kid would think that, and if they did they would realize they were wrong as they got older.  the pros out way the cons by like 0 years of childhood happiness man.  i ca not wait to teach my kids about santa.   #  in the end someone on here, or a friend said, that they do it for very similar reasons as above or the reasons promote santa.   #  when you are a kid, things seem magical.  it is like going to disney world.  as a kid, you revel in how amazing the place is and how magical it seems.  there will be a point where the magic no longer shine for them.  at least in the same way.  as a an adult, you can revel in your kids having experiencing that much fun and joy or if you are like me, i particularly like the imagination, foresight and planning that goes into disney world.  are you going to tell them that there are really people in the costumes ? that they are all paid actors ? what is the point ? why rob a magical experience from them.  you might end up with the kids that goes around kicking the people in costumes because they know it is fake.  they will figure it out in there own time.  you will end up regretting not allowing them and yourself to experience their joy and wonderment while it lasts.  kids grow up quickly.  there will be a time when they realize that the world is grimy and harsh.  let them believe and allow their imaginations run wild.  too soon, it will be gone and you will lose those experiences with your children.  i used to cringe when someone would call their daughters princesses.  i used to roll my eyes thinking that they are going to be spoiled.  in the end someone on here, or a friend said, that they do it for very similar reasons as above or the reasons promote santa.  let them believe for now.
i have always thought it was a funny phenomenon that our society perpetuates this lie to our children for really no benefit at all.  it is become a joke that when an adult becomes disillusioned by something, they compare it to when they  first learned santa was not real.   and it may be a joke, but it is only funny because there is truth in it.  there is real disillusionment in that moment when you first learn that santa is not real, and there is a real feeling that you have been lied to, because well you have been lied to all your life by the very people you should trust the most.  the only thing it teaches children is that it is ok to lie, your parents have lied to you all your life, and even society itself will go to great lengths to trick you.  find me one kid who was not crushed when they learned santa was not real.  now i am not saying that a kid is going to need to go into therapy over it or anything, and there are much worse things out there, but there is really no benefit to this lie at all.  we might lie to our kids about other things like when they first learn about death, you might tell them,  no, i am not going to die for a long, long time,  even though that is obviously something nobody knows.  but there is a very useful benefit to that lie.  it calms your child is fears about death.  they could develop all kinds of fears and neuroses if you did not find a way to calm them, so it makes sense.  the lie about santa offers nothing.  some people will say that it helps foster their imagination, but i would say that, yes, stories like this and other fairy tales do help to foster a kid is imagination, but why do we need to go to such great lengths to convince our kids that he is real ? we do not do this with other stories.  we do not try to tell our kids that hansel and gretel were real kids, or that spiderman exists, or that daniel radcliff really is a wizard.  in fact, we often take the time to explain to them that daniel radcliff is just an actor, and harry potter ca not really cast those spells, and all of that stuff is just movie magic.  so why do not we do the same with santa ? we could still tell them the story, but why lie to them about it being real ?  #  l kids, or that spiderman exists, or that daniel radcliff really is a wizard.   #  in fact, we often take the time to explain to or that even parents can tell you a lie and you should not trust any authority figure.   # in fact, we often take the time to explain to or that even parents can tell you a lie and you should not trust any authority figure.  however, lying about santa in no way teaches critical thinking, when you live with this lie for several years.  do you even know how to teach people to think cricitally ? it is not telling them lies.  it is by explaining things.   #  the next day he was very thoughtful all day, then came to me and said  i am ready to be santa claus.    #  i understand your view, but disagree.  i can only draw upon my own experience, so i wish to share mine.  it is not a lie.  i am santa claus.  it is not a lie for my son as well, because he became santa claus.  allow me to explain.  my son at the age of 0 was being teased quite e bit for believing in santa and one day had enough of it, and asked me to tell him the truth.  now when a child asks that of you, it is important to take it seriously.  not all truths are meant to be told to 0 yr olds, and it can be difficult for parents to navigate this.  this was a bit different.  i said to my son,  have a seat and i will tell you.   i told him that this was a secret that i needed to be sure he was mature enough to keep, and that i was depending on him, and trusting him with the truth.  i said,  yes, santa is real.  that is the truth.  but there is more to the story than you know.  santa claus at one time was a real person, who was incredibly generous and gave presents every year to children and to those in need.  his life was committed to caring for others.  when he died, other people decided to continue the mission of his life, and they have  become santa  in order to secretly continue his love and generosity.  is santa real ? yes, but not in the way you think it is actually many, many people who have chosen to continue as santa.  i also told my son that at one time i made a decision to become santa claus to secretly give gifts to others at christmas, and other times during the year, to spread joy and love.  it is a secret that i m sharing with you.  and when you are old enough, you also can become santa claus.  the next day he was very thoughtful all day, then came to me and said  i am ready to be santa claus.   i explained it is a very serious secret, and that he would be committing to keeping the spirit of love and giving all year, not just at christmas, and to not tell anyone his secret identity.  i wrote a solemn vow which he read and promised to withhold.  and he became santa claus that day.  yes, santa is real.  i am santa.  and so are others.   #  i ca not imagine at 0 wrapping my head around the fact that i should just give others gifts because it is a nice thing to do.   #  i think using santa is a good way to get a point across to a kid who could not grasp the concept of  doing nice things for the sake of doing nice things.   santa gives gifts selflessly and does not expect reward.  i think the lesson is more easily digestible for kids when it is masked in the mystery and not outright  hey timmy, be nice to people.   at least this is how i have come to think about it and plan to share with my kids.  i ca not imagine at 0 wrapping my head around the fact that i should just give others gifts because it is a nice thing to do.   #  christmas was 0x better every year that i believed in santa than it is now that i do not and i am older.   #  why not just do it from the beginning ? my answer for that is its fun.  i had a lot of fun believing in santa as a kid.  i do not know anyone who believed in santa but did not enjoy it.  waiting for him to come with presents, leaving milk and cookies out for him, listening for the sounds of reindeer hooves on the roof.  christmas was 0x better every year that i believed in santa than it is now that i do not and i am older.  but i ca not wait to have kids and make their christmases fucking amazing with santa claus.  basically, tell your kids about santa and make them believe.  because it is fun, lots of fun, no other reason really.  i remember finding out he was not real at 0 and being a little upset with my parents.  but you know what, i was upset for like a day.  i was happy as fuck believing in santa for like 0 years of my life.  i also forgave my parents immediately once i realized it was a harmless lie that brought me unmeasurable amounts of happiness as a kid.  it did not teach me that lying was okay, i do not think any kid would think that, and if they did they would realize they were wrong as they got older.  the pros out way the cons by like 0 years of childhood happiness man.  i ca not wait to teach my kids about santa.   #  they will figure it out in there own time.   #  when you are a kid, things seem magical.  it is like going to disney world.  as a kid, you revel in how amazing the place is and how magical it seems.  there will be a point where the magic no longer shine for them.  at least in the same way.  as a an adult, you can revel in your kids having experiencing that much fun and joy or if you are like me, i particularly like the imagination, foresight and planning that goes into disney world.  are you going to tell them that there are really people in the costumes ? that they are all paid actors ? what is the point ? why rob a magical experience from them.  you might end up with the kids that goes around kicking the people in costumes because they know it is fake.  they will figure it out in there own time.  you will end up regretting not allowing them and yourself to experience their joy and wonderment while it lasts.  kids grow up quickly.  there will be a time when they realize that the world is grimy and harsh.  let them believe and allow their imaginations run wild.  too soon, it will be gone and you will lose those experiences with your children.  i used to cringe when someone would call their daughters princesses.  i used to roll my eyes thinking that they are going to be spoiled.  in the end someone on here, or a friend said, that they do it for very similar reasons as above or the reasons promote santa.  let them believe for now.
i have always thought it was a funny phenomenon that our society perpetuates this lie to our children for really no benefit at all.  it is become a joke that when an adult becomes disillusioned by something, they compare it to when they  first learned santa was not real.   and it may be a joke, but it is only funny because there is truth in it.  there is real disillusionment in that moment when you first learn that santa is not real, and there is a real feeling that you have been lied to, because well you have been lied to all your life by the very people you should trust the most.  the only thing it teaches children is that it is ok to lie, your parents have lied to you all your life, and even society itself will go to great lengths to trick you.  find me one kid who was not crushed when they learned santa was not real.  now i am not saying that a kid is going to need to go into therapy over it or anything, and there are much worse things out there, but there is really no benefit to this lie at all.  we might lie to our kids about other things like when they first learn about death, you might tell them,  no, i am not going to die for a long, long time,  even though that is obviously something nobody knows.  but there is a very useful benefit to that lie.  it calms your child is fears about death.  they could develop all kinds of fears and neuroses if you did not find a way to calm them, so it makes sense.  the lie about santa offers nothing.  some people will say that it helps foster their imagination, but i would say that, yes, stories like this and other fairy tales do help to foster a kid is imagination, but why do we need to go to such great lengths to convince our kids that he is real ? we do not do this with other stories.  we do not try to tell our kids that hansel and gretel were real kids, or that spiderman exists, or that daniel radcliff really is a wizard.  in fact, we often take the time to explain to them that daniel radcliff is just an actor, and harry potter ca not really cast those spells, and all of that stuff is just movie magic.  so why do not we do the same with santa ? we could still tell them the story, but why lie to them about it being real ?  #  find me one kid who was not crushed when they learned santa was not real.   #  i am always left agog when i see a kid who is actually crushed when finding out santa was a fable.   # so, are you arguing that it is never okay to lie ? i think there are healthy lies, and unhealthy ones.  teaching kids that they should never lie would be unrealistic.  i am always left agog when i see a kid who is actually crushed when finding out santa was a fable.  i was able to deduce it on my own around the age of 0 or so.  my parents kept on with that game long after i figured things out.  furthermore, as i am writing this, i have just realized that the fable of santa clause is an excellent way to teach atheism, and faith in logic over the word of others.   #  it is a secret that i m sharing with you.   #  i understand your view, but disagree.  i can only draw upon my own experience, so i wish to share mine.  it is not a lie.  i am santa claus.  it is not a lie for my son as well, because he became santa claus.  allow me to explain.  my son at the age of 0 was being teased quite e bit for believing in santa and one day had enough of it, and asked me to tell him the truth.  now when a child asks that of you, it is important to take it seriously.  not all truths are meant to be told to 0 yr olds, and it can be difficult for parents to navigate this.  this was a bit different.  i said to my son,  have a seat and i will tell you.   i told him that this was a secret that i needed to be sure he was mature enough to keep, and that i was depending on him, and trusting him with the truth.  i said,  yes, santa is real.  that is the truth.  but there is more to the story than you know.  santa claus at one time was a real person, who was incredibly generous and gave presents every year to children and to those in need.  his life was committed to caring for others.  when he died, other people decided to continue the mission of his life, and they have  become santa  in order to secretly continue his love and generosity.  is santa real ? yes, but not in the way you think it is actually many, many people who have chosen to continue as santa.  i also told my son that at one time i made a decision to become santa claus to secretly give gifts to others at christmas, and other times during the year, to spread joy and love.  it is a secret that i m sharing with you.  and when you are old enough, you also can become santa claus.  the next day he was very thoughtful all day, then came to me and said  i am ready to be santa claus.   i explained it is a very serious secret, and that he would be committing to keeping the spirit of love and giving all year, not just at christmas, and to not tell anyone his secret identity.  i wrote a solemn vow which he read and promised to withhold.  and he became santa claus that day.  yes, santa is real.  i am santa.  and so are others.   #  i think using santa is a good way to get a point across to a kid who could not grasp the concept of  doing nice things for the sake of doing nice things.    #  i think using santa is a good way to get a point across to a kid who could not grasp the concept of  doing nice things for the sake of doing nice things.   santa gives gifts selflessly and does not expect reward.  i think the lesson is more easily digestible for kids when it is masked in the mystery and not outright  hey timmy, be nice to people.   at least this is how i have come to think about it and plan to share with my kids.  i ca not imagine at 0 wrapping my head around the fact that i should just give others gifts because it is a nice thing to do.   #  i also forgave my parents immediately once i realized it was a harmless lie that brought me unmeasurable amounts of happiness as a kid.   #  why not just do it from the beginning ? my answer for that is its fun.  i had a lot of fun believing in santa as a kid.  i do not know anyone who believed in santa but did not enjoy it.  waiting for him to come with presents, leaving milk and cookies out for him, listening for the sounds of reindeer hooves on the roof.  christmas was 0x better every year that i believed in santa than it is now that i do not and i am older.  but i ca not wait to have kids and make their christmases fucking amazing with santa claus.  basically, tell your kids about santa and make them believe.  because it is fun, lots of fun, no other reason really.  i remember finding out he was not real at 0 and being a little upset with my parents.  but you know what, i was upset for like a day.  i was happy as fuck believing in santa for like 0 years of my life.  i also forgave my parents immediately once i realized it was a harmless lie that brought me unmeasurable amounts of happiness as a kid.  it did not teach me that lying was okay, i do not think any kid would think that, and if they did they would realize they were wrong as they got older.  the pros out way the cons by like 0 years of childhood happiness man.  i ca not wait to teach my kids about santa.   #  they will figure it out in there own time.   #  when you are a kid, things seem magical.  it is like going to disney world.  as a kid, you revel in how amazing the place is and how magical it seems.  there will be a point where the magic no longer shine for them.  at least in the same way.  as a an adult, you can revel in your kids having experiencing that much fun and joy or if you are like me, i particularly like the imagination, foresight and planning that goes into disney world.  are you going to tell them that there are really people in the costumes ? that they are all paid actors ? what is the point ? why rob a magical experience from them.  you might end up with the kids that goes around kicking the people in costumes because they know it is fake.  they will figure it out in there own time.  you will end up regretting not allowing them and yourself to experience their joy and wonderment while it lasts.  kids grow up quickly.  there will be a time when they realize that the world is grimy and harsh.  let them believe and allow their imaginations run wild.  too soon, it will be gone and you will lose those experiences with your children.  i used to cringe when someone would call their daughters princesses.  i used to roll my eyes thinking that they are going to be spoiled.  in the end someone on here, or a friend said, that they do it for very similar reasons as above or the reasons promote santa.  let them believe for now.
i personally think that, in our modern society, corporations or large companies should not be legally allowed to alter the government.  through corporate lobbying, many bills have been passed allowing things such as ads that target young children by the food industry, making them want foods that are incredibly unhealthy for them because they come with some sort of toy or are associated with a child friendly mascot.  many companies have used child labor URL to get cheaper products, and once again were able to do this without any countries in the world stopping them.  due to actions like this, i think that the government of any particular country has to not allow a large business to alter the position of the government in any way, shape, or form.  while the government in question should also be allowed to keep tabs on and control the corporation.   #  due to actions like this, i think that the government of any particular country has to not allow a large business to alter the position of the government in any way, shape, or form.   #  there are many types of corporations: URL URL a corporation could be 0 shareholders.   #  first off, do you know what a corporation is ? there are many types of corporations: URL URL a corporation could be 0 shareholders.  is it bad that bp or the auto industry has excessive influence on government ? probably.  but a lot of small businesses are corporations too.  should 0 guys like is suggested by /u/mckoijion not have the right to call their representatives ? also, while corporate lobbying is huge, groups like the aarp, the nra, and unions lobby just as hard if not more.  why are they ok and corporations not ?  #  even if you preserve an individual is right to freedom of speech, your argument would violate these other equally important parts of the first amendment.   #  the first amendment includes the right to freedom of speech, but it also includes the right to freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government.  together, these ideas compromise freedom of association, which was reaffirmed by the supreme court in naacp v.  alabama.  even if you preserve an individual is right to freedom of speech, your argument would violate these other equally important parts of the first amendment.  remember that  in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.   ultimately, the best way to combat corporate influence is not to limit their speech, but to expand everyone else is speech.  this means finding ways to more effectively band together to influence legislation.  corporations, non profit organizations, unions, etc.  have a leg up because they are already organized, but, aside from apathy, there is no reason why private citizens ca not influence legislation the same way.   #  the 0st amendment gives everybody the right to speak it does not give everybody the right to speak with the same volume.   #  so, as a practical matter, recognize that the owners are the people speaking through the corporation, not the employees.  the employees are just people who the corporation pays to do stuff.  i will note that the amount of money somebody has can have a huge effect on how effective their speech is.  the 0st amendment gives everybody the right to speak it does not give everybody the right to speak with the same volume.  can you imagine if it did ? one of two things would happen either a nobody could speak louder than the person with the quietest voice, or b the government would somehow subsidize everybody who was quieter than the person with the loudest voice.  money is not as important in speech as some seem to think it is.  recall eric cantor is loss in virginia.  recall sopa.   #  a member decides what to spend the company is money on.   #   member , in the business world carriers a very specific definition.  a  member  is a shot caller.  a partner or board member, depending on the structure, who makes decisions and almost always enjoys dividends based on the company is performance.  a member decides what to spend the company is money on.  an employee is not a member in that sense.  an employee shows up, does his or her job, and goes home with a paycheck, generally the same regardless of how well the company is doing.  members, in smaller companies, get paid last they owe payroll to their employees before seeing what is left over for them.  an employee that does not like his or her company is political activities is free to leave and find another job.   #  if you are talking about child labor in rich countries, you would have more weight in the argument, than a place where even working people might only be able to afford a single meal every two days.   #  child labor is not ideal, but in a country where they ca not afford school, and are in real, absolute poverty, would you deny them work, if it meant their starvation or sold to traffickers and pimps ? for all of human history, if you could walk, you worked, except for an aristocratic few.  only these new affluent times are people escaping the knife edge of starvation in some parts of the world.  you have to allow people to work to make their lives better, so they can develop the affluence necessary to provide better options and opportunities.  if you are talking about child labor in rich countries, you would have more weight in the argument, than a place where even working people might only be able to afford a single meal every two days.  you must be careful not to cause more harm to people who are already extremely vulnerable.  why should the citizens owning or operating business lose their right to access government ? it could be arguable they have a more valid claim in political matters.  a corporation is a group of people, pursuing common, cooperative pursuits, in a legal arrangement with governments for protection and compliance.  many  regulations  are applicable only to businesses that have contracted with governments to become corporations.  in essence it is the government that makes corporations.
at the end of  the life of pi  the author provides you with an alternative, more realistic version of events.  as apposed to the fantastical story involving being stranded at sea with a tiger, bumping into another stranded blind man in the middle of the ocean, and finding a moving carnivorous island populated with prairy dogs, the author paints a more sober and tragic picture of cruelty and loss.  he then asks you to choose which one of those versions to accept as truth.  both versions lead to the same result with pi in the same place.  neither version has any physical evidence to support it.  note: in the movie, the actor playing pi is delivery of the second version seems to be given with the interpretation that the second version is true.  in the book it is much more ambiguous, left to the interpretation of the reader, and that is what i am referring to.  given that, there is no reason to choose to believe in the more cruel version as the  real  story.  the more fantastical version is more beautiful, more interesting, and more fun, and so given the choice i do not see any reason why anyone would choose the version based on cruelty.  as a more real world example, this URL post showed up in /r/vegan yesterday.  someone posted a picture of meat left on the tofu in the supermarket.  now there are three possible versions of events regarding this: 0 someone as op seems to have thought changed their mind from meat to tofu, selecting a more compassionate option, and decided to leave the meat behind.  0 someone decided they did not want the meat for whatever reason, and just put it down wherever they happened to be on the tofu .  0 as the majority of commentors seem to believe, someone, in an effort to irritate vegans, decided to intentionally and maliciously place meat on top of tofu for the lolz.  we have no way of knowing which of those three versions of reality took place actually happened.  there is no evidence one way or the other.  all are perfectly plausible.  now, in terms of choosing what to believe, being  right , having guessed the one that actually happened, accomplishes nothing.  it does not change anything, nor does it provide clarity or truth.  and given that there is no way to know what actually happened, there is absolutely no reason to believe the more negative version of events.  in fact, choosing to believe in the worst case scenario, the malicious act, is unhealthy.  conversely, choosing to believe in the best case scenario, a change of heart, or the neutral scenario, shows a much healthier and more positive state of mind.  in certain situations, what actually happened is irrelevant.  truth can be irrelevant.  in fact, when we choose to believe something, when there is no evidence to the contrary, we make it true.  by believing in something, we give it power, and so we should believe in those things that are positive and good, that make us feel happy.  to do otherwise is to choose pain and misery for it is own sake.  cmv !  #  to do otherwise is to choose pain and misery for it is own sake.   #  while it may not be the most pleasing of choices, it demonstrates how a healthy mind is able analyse   entertain foreign ideas.   # is not this a bit tautologous ? i assume something is true, there is no evidence to the contrary, therefore it is true.  reading through a few other comments made me think about your vegan example.  you have told a story   left a  reality  for me to decide.  i think this is analogous to reference frames within a story; the truth is unknowable, but in different frames, you see different things.  you then argue a healthy mind would pick the reference frame it would be happiest with.  i disagree on that point; a healthy mind should seek to challenge its perceptions, thus not necessarily choose the  happiest  choice.  while it may not be the most pleasing of choices, it demonstrates how a healthy mind is able analyse   entertain foreign ideas.  an inability to do so would indicate an unhealthy mind.  choosing the happiest version may not be a sign of healthiness, but be a sign of the opposite.   #  you also might forget which beliefs you came to this way and which ones you came to honestly, so you might not update far enough for that reason.   #  okay, so to fully understand each other we should lay down some definitions.  the way that rational beliefs are formed is that, upon conceiving of the idea but before encountering any evidence, you form a  prior.   this is how likely you think the claim is to be true, and is based on how well it fits with what you already know about the world, and how complicated it is occam is razor .  you are saying, if i am interpreting you correctly, that instead it should be based on happiness inducing the claim is.  then you encounter evidence, and perform a bayesian update URL on the new evidence.  if you are using a well formulated prior, you are now at the correct confidence level given the amount of information you have.  if you do not, then the evidence you are updating on wo not push you to the correct position, unless you deliberately perform an irrational update in order to counteract your irrational prior.  that has a lot of problems, one of which is that, if your prior makes you happy, you might be disinclined to update far enough on the new evidence, since that would make you less happy.  you also might forget which beliefs you came to this way and which ones you came to honestly, so you might not update far enough for that reason.  also, your beliefs affect each other basically all your beliefs are interconnected, so if some evidence affects one it will affect a lot of others.  if you have one irrational belief, it will make you more likely to have other irrational beliefs which are supported by that.  for instance, if you believe the life of pi story, you might be less afraid of a tiger than you should be, if for some reason you encounter one.  or more likely to believe that a giant creepy island is responsible for amelia earhart is disappearance.  or be taken in by a con artist is fantastical sob story.  tl;dr most situations without evidence become situations with evidence eventually, and if you start out being deliberately irrational, it could be difficult to change course.   #  the root cause of his ptsd is not fully explored meaning he is less able to cope with the trauma he is been through.   #  take the life of pi example and think about what the long term outcome  could  be.  you assume pi lived on a boat with a tiger and had fantastic adventures.  the root cause of his ptsd is not fully explored meaning he is less able to cope with the trauma he is been through.  being a child pi is not likely to confront the reality of his situation.  i propose that by not trying to explore what actually happened you would likely be causing direct harm to pi if the long term consequences of his crash could be better dealt if the actual results was known.   #  but to  pi  one of those versions actually  did  happen, just because those looking in do not know does not meant the actual reality changes.   #  but to  pi  one of those versions actually  did  happen, just because those looking in do not know does not meant the actual reality changes.  he lives in whatever reality actually happened, any stories he says does not change that fact.  also, that is not how psychology works though.  you ca not unsee your mother getting canabalized by  choosing  the fantastic version.  especially as a child that would stay with you in some form or another.  pi coming up with a coping mechanism whereby he does not acknowledge that a bad thing happened to him is not a good strategy for long term health.  psychologists/psychiatrists would need to know the actual events so they could develop proper strategies.   #  which one of those interpretations is correct is  completely  up to you.   # he lives in whatever reality actually happened, any stories he says does not change that fact.  no ! because pi does not exist.  neither version actually happened.  you can choose to interpret the book as you do, that it is a book about a boy who was subject to terrible cruelty, who developed ptsd as a result, and who never confronted his emotional scars.  or you can to choose to interpret the book as being about a boy who had an incredible and fantastic adventure that no one he shared it with believed.  which one of those interpretations is correct is  completely  up to you.  you are decision  entirely  changes the meaning and message behind the whole book.
i believe there is no god, no heaven and no hell.  there is no afterlife, as far as i am concerned.  nothing we do is essential, everything is temporary.  in the grand scheme of things, we are less than a drop in the ocean, our time is insignificant.  i believe we invented set of rules, laws, social structures, moral values to put some meaning to all this, but truth is this meaning lays on no substance.  there is one, huge nothingness behind us, lies in peace and waiting for us at the end.  i believe we should only follow our feelings, void all social constrains we carry, and try to focus and getting to physical and mental enjoyment as much as we can without harming others, because this is the only true thing that we have.  please feel free to try and change my view.  we can get down the avenue of what exactly are the limits  harming others .  but tbh, i did this cmv because i really want someone to enlighten me it is not a fun way to live life when you feel there is absolutely no meaning to all of this.  it is not a philosophical stand point, moral ground nor ideology i chose, just something i feel in my bones and heart.  please cmv.   #  there is one, huge nothingness behind us, lies in peace and waiting for us at the end.   #  let is leave aside beliefs about a specific afterlife for a minute.   #  any view on how to live your life really comes down to how you view the nature of existence and reality.  so i will just briefly address this:   i believe there is no god, no heaven and no hell.  there is no afterlife, as far as i am concerned.  let is leave aside beliefs about a specific afterlife for a minute.  let is consider just these two options.  after death you either: 0 do not exist.  0 continue to experience  something .  the first scenario is by far the most convenient one.  if true, it guarantees release from any kind of suffering after death.  acting selfishly, however you see fit, is the most optimal way to live in this case.  you are basically a temporary island of existence in this scenario, so you only care about not harming others in so far that harming others causes unhappiness for you feeling guilty for the rest of your life is not a nice feeling i guess.  .  hedonism makes sense.  the second possibility, the continuation of experience, has two subscenarios: 0a what you do before death affects what you will experience after death.  0b what you do now has no effect on what happens after death.  believing in the second subscenario results in a pretty much indistinguishable philosophy on how to live life as the first hedonism .  i would argue believing in scenario 0a is most optimal if you are genuinely interested in future happiness.  why ? because this shifts your view from short term thinking  doing what feels good  to really long term thinking both for yourself and for the planet and humanity as a whole.  and this makes sense in my mind.  it makes sense to believe that your conscious experience right now will be recycled at death and transformed into something else, just like everything else in this universe.  this life is much like a dream, but a dream that affects the dreams that will follow.  just because there is no memory of previous  dreams  for some, does not mean they did not actually happen and that our actions from that past did not determine this experience.  so this argument is a bit like pascal is wager, except much more generally and, as i see it, actually sound.  cmv ! ; a lot can still be said about it, but hopefully it is food for thought already for someone.   #  put in a more pragmatic way, human beings are happiest when they have meaning in their lives.   #  my favorite  atheist  quote is this:  if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.   cause that is all there is.  what we do.  now.  today.  … all i wanna do is help.  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.  because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.  put in a more pragmatic way, human beings are happiest when they have meaning in their lives.  for someone who does not believe in any sort of higher power or higher meaning, the most beneficial thing they can do for themselves is to  create meaning of their own .  and because human beings are very social creatures, often the best form of that meaning comes in helping and caring about others.   #  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.   #  it is actually from an episode of  angel , believe it or not.  URL   angel: well, i guess i kinda worked it out.  if there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters.  then all that matters is what we do.   cause that is all there is.  what we do.  now.  today.  i fought for so long, for redemption, for a reward, and finally just to beat the other guy, but i never got it.  all i wanna do is help.  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.  because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.  it sounds like you have had an epiphany.   #  we are constantly searching for our purpose in life.   #  we either create meaning, or we do not have meaning.  objective meaning does not exist.  you can base your meaning on the thoughts and opinions of others indeed, the majority of any one person is ideas are based on the things they have experienced and the things that they have heard other people espouse but to claim any particular meaning as  fact  or as  true  above all others is probably a little foolish.  but human beings crave meaning of some sort.  we are constantly searching for our purpose in life.  if some people choose purposes that are harmful to others, as a society we can try to stop them by enforcing laws and such.  and thankfully, as highly social creatures, we do place a high importance on non harm within communities, and most of us do derive meaning from our relationships with others.   #  unfortunately meaning can only exist with arbitrary and incomplete conclusions in thought, otherwise we would never arrive at meaning because that would require us to have infinite knowledge.   #  thought is the creator of craving and desire which are the same thing .  your human body may  crave  food, but it is really your stomach contracting, creating a degree of pain, and then your brain may create a desire for you to eat.  thinking is desiring, and desiring is  the  action.  we crave meaning because it makes us feel secure in our thought.  unfortunately meaning can only exist with arbitrary and incomplete conclusions in thought, otherwise we would never arrive at meaning because that would require us to have infinite knowledge.  therefore, thinking, by itself, is the limited but present creator of desire and meaning it is judge, jury, and executioner and i think we should be wary of it because it is common to us all, and its use is  untouchable  and encouraged.
i believe there is no god, no heaven and no hell.  there is no afterlife, as far as i am concerned.  nothing we do is essential, everything is temporary.  in the grand scheme of things, we are less than a drop in the ocean, our time is insignificant.  i believe we invented set of rules, laws, social structures, moral values to put some meaning to all this, but truth is this meaning lays on no substance.  there is one, huge nothingness behind us, lies in peace and waiting for us at the end.  i believe we should only follow our feelings, void all social constrains we carry, and try to focus and getting to physical and mental enjoyment as much as we can without harming others, because this is the only true thing that we have.  please feel free to try and change my view.  we can get down the avenue of what exactly are the limits  harming others .  but tbh, i did this cmv because i really want someone to enlighten me it is not a fun way to live life when you feel there is absolutely no meaning to all of this.  it is not a philosophical stand point, moral ground nor ideology i chose, just something i feel in my bones and heart.  please cmv.   #  because this is the only true thing that we have.   #  how is this  something  that we  have  ?  # why ? how is this  something  that we  have  ? what makes it  true  ? just for arguments  sake, is not pain and suffering likewise something that we  have  ? is not it  true  in the same sense any happiness we might get ?  #  because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.   #  my favorite  atheist  quote is this:  if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.   cause that is all there is.  what we do.  now.  today.  … all i wanna do is help.  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.  because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.  put in a more pragmatic way, human beings are happiest when they have meaning in their lives.  for someone who does not believe in any sort of higher power or higher meaning, the most beneficial thing they can do for themselves is to  create meaning of their own .  and because human beings are very social creatures, often the best form of that meaning comes in helping and caring about others.   #  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.   #  it is actually from an episode of  angel , believe it or not.  URL   angel: well, i guess i kinda worked it out.  if there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters.  then all that matters is what we do.   cause that is all there is.  what we do.  now.  today.  i fought for so long, for redemption, for a reward, and finally just to beat the other guy, but i never got it.  all i wanna do is help.  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.  because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.  it sounds like you have had an epiphany.   #  and thankfully, as highly social creatures, we do place a high importance on non harm within communities, and most of us do derive meaning from our relationships with others.   #  we either create meaning, or we do not have meaning.  objective meaning does not exist.  you can base your meaning on the thoughts and opinions of others indeed, the majority of any one person is ideas are based on the things they have experienced and the things that they have heard other people espouse but to claim any particular meaning as  fact  or as  true  above all others is probably a little foolish.  but human beings crave meaning of some sort.  we are constantly searching for our purpose in life.  if some people choose purposes that are harmful to others, as a society we can try to stop them by enforcing laws and such.  and thankfully, as highly social creatures, we do place a high importance on non harm within communities, and most of us do derive meaning from our relationships with others.   #  unfortunately meaning can only exist with arbitrary and incomplete conclusions in thought, otherwise we would never arrive at meaning because that would require us to have infinite knowledge.   #  thought is the creator of craving and desire which are the same thing .  your human body may  crave  food, but it is really your stomach contracting, creating a degree of pain, and then your brain may create a desire for you to eat.  thinking is desiring, and desiring is  the  action.  we crave meaning because it makes us feel secure in our thought.  unfortunately meaning can only exist with arbitrary and incomplete conclusions in thought, otherwise we would never arrive at meaning because that would require us to have infinite knowledge.  therefore, thinking, by itself, is the limited but present creator of desire and meaning it is judge, jury, and executioner and i think we should be wary of it because it is common to us all, and its use is  untouchable  and encouraged.
i believe there is no god, no heaven and no hell.  there is no afterlife, as far as i am concerned.  nothing we do is essential, everything is temporary.  in the grand scheme of things, we are less than a drop in the ocean, our time is insignificant.  i believe we invented set of rules, laws, social structures, moral values to put some meaning to all this, but truth is this meaning lays on no substance.  there is one, huge nothingness behind us, lies in peace and waiting for us at the end.  i believe we should only follow our feelings, void all social constrains we carry, and try to focus and getting to physical and mental enjoyment as much as we can without harming others, because this is the only true thing that we have.  please feel free to try and change my view.  we can get down the avenue of what exactly are the limits  harming others .  but tbh, i did this cmv because i really want someone to enlighten me it is not a fun way to live life when you feel there is absolutely no meaning to all of this.  it is not a philosophical stand point, moral ground nor ideology i chose, just something i feel in my bones and heart.  please cmv.   #  i believe we invented set of rules, laws, social structures, moral values to put some meaning to all this, but truth is this meaning lays on no substance.   #  there is one, huge nothingness behind us, lies in peace and waiting for us at the end.   # there is one, huge nothingness behind us, lies in peace and waiting for us at the end.  first, your two ideas that you should only live by feelings, but also should not harm others are contradictory.  the desire to not cause harm to others is one of those moral values men have created.  there are many people who, following their feelings, would harm others.  for example, rape would likely be a really common result of your system.  the second thing i wanted to do is merely tell you why i do the opposite of what you propose.  feelings, gained from food, sex, and the like, are only temporary, as you point out.  therefore, you will never get your fill, and will never be satisfied.  thus, what is the point of following those feelings ? you would essentially be like sisyphus, who was condemned to push a boulder up a hill, even though he knew that once he reached the top, the boulder would be set back and he would have to do the same thing again, as he did everyday.  i like having purpose, even if i have to make up my own purpose.  i would much rather accomplish some arbitrary goal than do something devoid of purpose and meaning.   #  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.   #  my favorite  atheist  quote is this:  if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.   cause that is all there is.  what we do.  now.  today.  … all i wanna do is help.  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.  because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.  put in a more pragmatic way, human beings are happiest when they have meaning in their lives.  for someone who does not believe in any sort of higher power or higher meaning, the most beneficial thing they can do for themselves is to  create meaning of their own .  and because human beings are very social creatures, often the best form of that meaning comes in helping and caring about others.   #  because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.   #  it is actually from an episode of  angel , believe it or not.  URL   angel: well, i guess i kinda worked it out.  if there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters.  then all that matters is what we do.   cause that is all there is.  what we do.  now.  today.  i fought for so long, for redemption, for a reward, and finally just to beat the other guy, but i never got it.  all i wanna do is help.  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.  because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.  it sounds like you have had an epiphany.   #  we either create meaning, or we do not have meaning.   #  we either create meaning, or we do not have meaning.  objective meaning does not exist.  you can base your meaning on the thoughts and opinions of others indeed, the majority of any one person is ideas are based on the things they have experienced and the things that they have heard other people espouse but to claim any particular meaning as  fact  or as  true  above all others is probably a little foolish.  but human beings crave meaning of some sort.  we are constantly searching for our purpose in life.  if some people choose purposes that are harmful to others, as a society we can try to stop them by enforcing laws and such.  and thankfully, as highly social creatures, we do place a high importance on non harm within communities, and most of us do derive meaning from our relationships with others.   #  unfortunately meaning can only exist with arbitrary and incomplete conclusions in thought, otherwise we would never arrive at meaning because that would require us to have infinite knowledge.   #  thought is the creator of craving and desire which are the same thing .  your human body may  crave  food, but it is really your stomach contracting, creating a degree of pain, and then your brain may create a desire for you to eat.  thinking is desiring, and desiring is  the  action.  we crave meaning because it makes us feel secure in our thought.  unfortunately meaning can only exist with arbitrary and incomplete conclusions in thought, otherwise we would never arrive at meaning because that would require us to have infinite knowledge.  therefore, thinking, by itself, is the limited but present creator of desire and meaning it is judge, jury, and executioner and i think we should be wary of it because it is common to us all, and its use is  untouchable  and encouraged.
i believe there is no god, no heaven and no hell.  there is no afterlife, as far as i am concerned.  nothing we do is essential, everything is temporary.  in the grand scheme of things, we are less than a drop in the ocean, our time is insignificant.  i believe we invented set of rules, laws, social structures, moral values to put some meaning to all this, but truth is this meaning lays on no substance.  there is one, huge nothingness behind us, lies in peace and waiting for us at the end.  i believe we should only follow our feelings, void all social constrains we carry, and try to focus and getting to physical and mental enjoyment as much as we can without harming others, because this is the only true thing that we have.  please feel free to try and change my view.  we can get down the avenue of what exactly are the limits  harming others .  but tbh, i did this cmv because i really want someone to enlighten me it is not a fun way to live life when you feel there is absolutely no meaning to all of this.  it is not a philosophical stand point, moral ground nor ideology i chose, just something i feel in my bones and heart.  please cmv.   #  i believe there is no god, no heaven and no hell.   #  there is no afterlife, as far as i am concerned.   # there is no afterlife, as far as i am concerned.  nothing we do is essential, everything is temporary.  in the grand scheme of things, we are less than a drop in the ocean, our time is insignificant.  i completely agree with this but completely disagree with your conclusion.  on the contrary, the atheist/nihilist has the  greater  moral imperative to sacrifice themselves to help others.  any follower of a theological tradition that posits an afterlife is granted the following luxury: they can believe that whatever injustices, suffering, pain and illness they witness in the real world will be remedied in the afterlife.  for those of us who do not adhere to these beliefs: this life is it.  when we witness an individual living a life full of suffering, we believe that absent any intervention suffering will comprise the totality of their experience and time on earth as a human being.  if this is as true as we believe it to be, then suffering is an unbearable moral burden and we must act to correct it in any way we can.   #  and because human beings are very social creatures, often the best form of that meaning comes in helping and caring about others.   #  my favorite  atheist  quote is this:  if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.   cause that is all there is.  what we do.  now.  today.  … all i wanna do is help.  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.  because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.  put in a more pragmatic way, human beings are happiest when they have meaning in their lives.  for someone who does not believe in any sort of higher power or higher meaning, the most beneficial thing they can do for themselves is to  create meaning of their own .  and because human beings are very social creatures, often the best form of that meaning comes in helping and caring about others.   #  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.   #  it is actually from an episode of  angel , believe it or not.  URL   angel: well, i guess i kinda worked it out.  if there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters.  then all that matters is what we do.   cause that is all there is.  what we do.  now.  today.  i fought for so long, for redemption, for a reward, and finally just to beat the other guy, but i never got it.  all i wanna do is help.  i wanna help because, i do not think people should suffer as they do.  because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.  it sounds like you have had an epiphany.   #  if some people choose purposes that are harmful to others, as a society we can try to stop them by enforcing laws and such.   #  we either create meaning, or we do not have meaning.  objective meaning does not exist.  you can base your meaning on the thoughts and opinions of others indeed, the majority of any one person is ideas are based on the things they have experienced and the things that they have heard other people espouse but to claim any particular meaning as  fact  or as  true  above all others is probably a little foolish.  but human beings crave meaning of some sort.  we are constantly searching for our purpose in life.  if some people choose purposes that are harmful to others, as a society we can try to stop them by enforcing laws and such.  and thankfully, as highly social creatures, we do place a high importance on non harm within communities, and most of us do derive meaning from our relationships with others.   #  we crave meaning because it makes us feel secure in our thought.   #  thought is the creator of craving and desire which are the same thing .  your human body may  crave  food, but it is really your stomach contracting, creating a degree of pain, and then your brain may create a desire for you to eat.  thinking is desiring, and desiring is  the  action.  we crave meaning because it makes us feel secure in our thought.  unfortunately meaning can only exist with arbitrary and incomplete conclusions in thought, otherwise we would never arrive at meaning because that would require us to have infinite knowledge.  therefore, thinking, by itself, is the limited but present creator of desire and meaning it is judge, jury, and executioner and i think we should be wary of it because it is common to us all, and its use is  untouchable  and encouraged.
recently the fellas over at mensrights have been talking about getting paternity leave for men.  this is in response to obama is recent comments about maternity leave for women.  i believe that any guaranteed paid leave of absence raises the cost of employing someone.  by doing this, employers are less likely to hire those people.  with this raised cost, you get rigidity in the labor market.  women are so integral to the child they give birth to that they need to be with it in it is first months.  this is a societally accepted value and i see it as fine.  in germany, paid leave is really big with the cdu/csu, while greater social benefits for children and new parents are touted by the spd.  if men were to also have paid leave it would equal a massive cost in the hiring of men.  i think this would create unemployment and would hurt the demand for goods in the u. s.  rather than have the market have to take the cost of new fathers, we should have a transfer of funds to early childhood development and new parenting aid.  in finland, new parents get to choose between a cash sum or a parenting kit.  0 choose the kit.  paternity leave increase in the cost of labor market rigidity unemployment.  cmv !  #  rather than have the market have to take the cost of new fathers, we should have a transfer of funds to early childhood development and new parenting aid.   #  wait, who would be paying these funds ?  #  let is assume for a second that the results of paid paternity leave are as you say i doubt it but i am no expert by any means and so i could be wrong .  the problem ultimately that i come to is it in no way takes into account whether this is morally a good thing or not.  i think that men should be viewed as parents, equal in ability to women excepting a few biological things that are really only factors for as long as the woman is breast feeding .  to not give men this leave we are essentially downgrading men in their role as parents and reinforcing their role as provider, both of which are bullshit social constructs.  wait, who would be paying these funds ? if it is not the  market  then it would be the state. which is funded by the market.  this goes back to the walmart discussion.  rather than have walmart pay its workers enough to live off of, we the people are paying for those workers instead.   #  do companies spend money on labor for fun and do not really need it ?  # genderless people ? do companies spend money on labor for fun and do not really need it ? yeah, what ? the risk with paid maternity leave for women is that men consequently come at less possible cost.  if both can take paid leave, then you eliminate that and both genders a get the benefit of that leave, and; b neither one of them has this  advantage  over the other.  moreover, parental leave is not just some amorphous benefit.  the reality is that most people will start families at some point in their life and will want a job that can accommodate that to some extent.  these families include fathers.  employers who want to solicit and keep talented workers will need to offer competitive packages and companies that begin accommodating men i am not going to say  family oriented men  because, frankly, i think it is stupid that we tack that on as something unique and special when i think fathers are implicitly family oriented and should have the option to be present will get that talent.   #  but it is not like i can buy parental leave somewhere else.   #  i  sort of  thought the same way, but earlier in the thread my view was changed URL i think most  benefits  are ridiculous.  my employer should be my employer, not my insurance agent, retirement planner, or anything else.  it bothers me that policy and society is set up in such a way that i have to accept them in these roles.  but it is not like i can buy parental leave somewhere else.  pay is not the only thing you look at when choosing a job.  you also consider whether the hours suit you, whether the commute is managable, and so on.  and if you are planning on having children at some point, which most people are, you should consider whether or not your employer will make accomodations for that.  you are within your rights to negotiate the terms of your employment.  if you mean you do not think it should be mandatory, then i can see where you are coming from.   #  employers generally ca not be less likely to hire everyone in the society, and providing paid maternity leave to only one parent results in institutionalized gender barriers.   #  paid paternity leave and men actually taking it is a  feminist  issue.  it is one of the best ways for society to equalize the hiring and pay gap.  currently, businesses are more hesitant to hire young women at equal pay out of anticipation of having the labor be absent in the coming years.  by equalizing that worry across the workforce, you combat pay and hiring inequality.  this ignores the equalizing effect of making women more desirable as workers.  employers generally ca not be less likely to hire everyone in the society, and providing paid maternity leave to only one parent results in institutionalized gender barriers.   #  sigh.  no, it does not go against trends, for the reasons i have already covered.   # the income disparity for  same level workers , high level hiring disparity, personal experience in hiring committees and interviews, and common sense if you just put yourself into the position of an hr manager .  it is a clear disincentive to hire young child bearing aged women over men if one is mandated to pay leave.  sigh.  no, it does not go against trends, for the reasons i have already covered.  you ca not use gender wide income or hiring numbers to address this issue.  you have to compare  same level  education/position income and hiring levels.  the pay disparity  within occupations  is well established.  also note that the us does not have mandated paid maternity leave, so current stats are only partially applicable to the issue.
recently the fellas over at mensrights have been talking about getting paternity leave for men.  this is in response to obama is recent comments about maternity leave for women.  i believe that any guaranteed paid leave of absence raises the cost of employing someone.  by doing this, employers are less likely to hire those people.  with this raised cost, you get rigidity in the labor market.  women are so integral to the child they give birth to that they need to be with it in it is first months.  this is a societally accepted value and i see it as fine.  in germany, paid leave is really big with the cdu/csu, while greater social benefits for children and new parents are touted by the spd.  if men were to also have paid leave it would equal a massive cost in the hiring of men.  i think this would create unemployment and would hurt the demand for goods in the u. s.  rather than have the market have to take the cost of new fathers, we should have a transfer of funds to early childhood development and new parenting aid.  in finland, new parents get to choose between a cash sum or a parenting kit.  0 choose the kit.  paternity leave increase in the cost of labor market rigidity unemployment.  cmv !  #  paternity leave increase in the cost of labor market rigidity unemployment.   #  this ignores the equalizing effect of making women more desirable as workers.   #  paid paternity leave and men actually taking it is a  feminist  issue.  it is one of the best ways for society to equalize the hiring and pay gap.  currently, businesses are more hesitant to hire young women at equal pay out of anticipation of having the labor be absent in the coming years.  by equalizing that worry across the workforce, you combat pay and hiring inequality.  this ignores the equalizing effect of making women more desirable as workers.  employers generally ca not be less likely to hire everyone in the society, and providing paid maternity leave to only one parent results in institutionalized gender barriers.   #  the reality is that most people will start families at some point in their life and will want a job that can accommodate that to some extent.   # genderless people ? do companies spend money on labor for fun and do not really need it ? yeah, what ? the risk with paid maternity leave for women is that men consequently come at less possible cost.  if both can take paid leave, then you eliminate that and both genders a get the benefit of that leave, and; b neither one of them has this  advantage  over the other.  moreover, parental leave is not just some amorphous benefit.  the reality is that most people will start families at some point in their life and will want a job that can accommodate that to some extent.  these families include fathers.  employers who want to solicit and keep talented workers will need to offer competitive packages and companies that begin accommodating men i am not going to say  family oriented men  because, frankly, i think it is stupid that we tack that on as something unique and special when i think fathers are implicitly family oriented and should have the option to be present will get that talent.   #  my employer should be my employer, not my insurance agent, retirement planner, or anything else.   #  i  sort of  thought the same way, but earlier in the thread my view was changed URL i think most  benefits  are ridiculous.  my employer should be my employer, not my insurance agent, retirement planner, or anything else.  it bothers me that policy and society is set up in such a way that i have to accept them in these roles.  but it is not like i can buy parental leave somewhere else.  pay is not the only thing you look at when choosing a job.  you also consider whether the hours suit you, whether the commute is managable, and so on.  and if you are planning on having children at some point, which most people are, you should consider whether or not your employer will make accomodations for that.  you are within your rights to negotiate the terms of your employment.  if you mean you do not think it should be mandatory, then i can see where you are coming from.   #  to not give men this leave we are essentially downgrading men in their role as parents and reinforcing their role as provider, both of which are bullshit social constructs.   #  let is assume for a second that the results of paid paternity leave are as you say i doubt it but i am no expert by any means and so i could be wrong .  the problem ultimately that i come to is it in no way takes into account whether this is morally a good thing or not.  i think that men should be viewed as parents, equal in ability to women excepting a few biological things that are really only factors for as long as the woman is breast feeding .  to not give men this leave we are essentially downgrading men in their role as parents and reinforcing their role as provider, both of which are bullshit social constructs.  wait, who would be paying these funds ? if it is not the  market  then it would be the state. which is funded by the market.  this goes back to the walmart discussion.  rather than have walmart pay its workers enough to live off of, we the people are paying for those workers instead.   #  it is a clear disincentive to hire young child bearing aged women over men if one is mandated to pay leave.   # the income disparity for  same level workers , high level hiring disparity, personal experience in hiring committees and interviews, and common sense if you just put yourself into the position of an hr manager .  it is a clear disincentive to hire young child bearing aged women over men if one is mandated to pay leave.  sigh.  no, it does not go against trends, for the reasons i have already covered.  you ca not use gender wide income or hiring numbers to address this issue.  you have to compare  same level  education/position income and hiring levels.  the pay disparity  within occupations  is well established.  also note that the us does not have mandated paid maternity leave, so current stats are only partially applicable to the issue.
tax on cigarettes have been increasing exponentially for years.  URL there has been nearly a 0 increase since 0 ! some groups still want to triple the taxes placed on cigarettes.  URL i understand that smoking is unhealthy, but that is no excuse for our politicians to be exploiting a subset of society.  we do not put absurdly high tax on foods high in fat and sugars even though they are the leading cause of heart disease the leading cause of death in the us .  smokers are milked like a prized heifer and it is disgusting and immoral.   #  we do not put absurdly high tax on foods high in fat and sugars even though they are the leading cause of heart disease the leading cause of death in the us .   #  is it the foods which are are the leading cause of cardiovascular disease or is it more of a behavioral problem involving those foods ?  # is it the foods which are are the leading cause of cardiovascular disease or is it more of a behavioral problem involving those foods ? foods have serving sizes and plainly available information regarding their nutritional contents.  tobacco by comparison is quite different.  also, you mentioned that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the us but those deaths are not only from diet.  those deaths are also from smoking.  why not ?  #  dying 0 years earlier does not necessarily mean that their life suddenly ended earlier, where a normal person would have continued living.   #  dying 0 years earlier does not necessarily mean that their life suddenly ended earlier, where a normal person would have continued living.  you also have to think about the fact that these smokers would have severe lung problems later in life, leading up to their death.  these chronic problems could easily interfere with many different forms of work likely hit manual labor the hardest , thereby reducing the work to retirement ratio that you are advertising.  the study you linked does not address the average retirement age of the smokers, or what sorts of work they were actually doing.  especially with treatment of chronic problems, the 0 years or retirement money  isaved  may not have been as cost effective as they portray.   #  fat people know this and grew wise to this tactic.   #  the vast majority of people smoked too in the past.  we shamed them  til they gave up and acquiesced.  fat people know this and grew wise to this tactic.  they have been trying to make themselves socially acceptable for a few years now.  i am not saying we need to go around fat shaming all of the overweight people in the us, but we need to stop buying into this  big is beautiful  bullshit, because we subconsciously conflate  beauty  with  health  and the link works both ways;  fat advocates  or whatever they are called know this, and they are using it to their advantage by appealing to an aesthetic judgment to cover up their mistake.  being obese is not healthy just like smoking is not healthy.  being obese may be accepted as beautiful if you really want it to, but it wo not change the cold, hard fact that you are going to die sooner and live a lower quality life .  .  .  no matter what your subconscious link tells you.   #  i am not saying unhealthy foods should not be taxed, i am saying that just because there is one transgression that escaped punishment does not mean that every other transgression is punishment is invalid.   #  0th time i have addressed this: money is not the only consideration, and the justifications/associations of obesity with poor heart health are still relatively new in the public arena.  people have known for nearly a century that smoking is bad for you.  we are just finding out in the last few decades that obesity causes heart issues.  asking why situation a that has been researched and publically judged for years does not get the same laws as situation b that is  just  getting some social traction is asking too much of the current legal system.  the taxes/laws may come soon, but we are not there yet.  american society still has not shown enough outrage.  i am not saying unhealthy foods should not be taxed, i am saying that just because there is one transgression that escaped punishment does not mean that every other transgression is punishment is invalid.  going back to a previous analogy i posted: should we let all of the murderers in our society get away free because some of them are not caught/sentenced ?  #  we have too many gimmicks and toys right ?  #  where do you draw the line then ? where do you draw the line where government decides what you can and cannot buy through taxes ? do not you find as a society we over consume ? we have too many gimmicks and toys right ? we are destroying forests and changing climate.  but there are only warning labels on cigarettes.  you can cite whatever reasons you want, you can justify it however you want.  but whatever the reasoning is, the point is, that cigarettes are being singled out, and targeted.  the reason for that, is that enough people have been convinced that it is justified.  the reason is not because that is logical.
howdy, so let me start by saying i am not trying to shit on anyone with this statement.  i am open minded and willing to take everything into consideration.  i am coming from the point of view of a male graphic designer who has been in the industry about 0 years.  change my view you lovely people.  basically my thought is that the lack of women in tech is not so much a result of fewer options being available for them to break into tech but more a result of women not being interested in the subject matter.  i am constantly seeing figures in the news and on blogs that there are less than 0 of women in the tech industry and how alarmingly wrong that is.  now what i also see is tons of opportunities and incentives for women to be a part of these industries, whether that comes from college scholarships or other programs to encourage the young women of today to be a part of the industry.  i think that if these women were interested in the subject matter they would get involved and the ones who are interested do get involved, they just happen to be the minority.  my whole reasoning for this comes from the idea that we do not see it a problem that there are less men in the fashion and garment creation industry.  we do not offer men scholarships to go to fashion school and there are no media reports telling me how terribly sexist the fashion and garment creation industry is for not hiring more men.  now this is a bad example and i know this but i wanted to pick something that was a little more cut and dry female dominated.  i do not think that there is anything wrong with women being a part of the tech industry nor do i think that lack of women in the industry is alarming.  just as i do not think there is anything wrong with men being a part of the fashion industry nor do i think we should be alarmed by the lack of men in it either.  i do not want this to become a him vs her argument.  i just do not believe that forcing an uninterested party into an industry is the answer to a non existent problem.  thanks ! let me just say where some of my views are coming from, a little backstory.   my sister is an extremely strong women who is top of her class for her bofs in geology   my girlfriend is finance courses mathematics heavy are female dominated   the lead developer at our company is a woman who has three men working for her  from my point of view these are all women who decided they wanted to be interested in their fields and took charge.  i have the utmost respect for them but do not feel like they have any troubles with male domination in their fields, albeit not being the subject at hand.   #  basically my thought is that the lack of women in tech is not so much a result of fewer options being available for them to break into tech but more a result of women not being interested in the subject matter.   #  why do you believe they are less interested in the subject ?  #  i am just going to start by asking a lot of questions.  why do you believe they are less interested in the subject ? is it just an inherent part of being a woman that you are genetically predisposed to being less interested in tech ? are there sociological factors that discourage women from entering tech fields ? again, same question: why do you think men are not that interested in the fashion industry compared to women ? also, are you suggesting that the fashion industry does not harbor sexism, or just that people do not see that sexism as a problem ? and finally, if the people in one industry do not see sexism as a problem, why should that mean that it is not a problem in other industries ? if one group decides to be more introspective about their gender representation, are their concerns invalidated just because other groups are not doing the same ?  #  we do care about progress in technology that is what will get me a jetpack or immortality one day.   #  but we do not care if the fashion industry does better or worse.  if every fashion designer in the world lost 0 iq points tomorrow, the world would be virtually unchanged.  we do care about progress in technology that is what will get me a jetpack or immortality one day.  so it is vital that we get the smartest people interested in technology.  given that many brilliant women are being turned off by something whether it is middle school teachers, a toxic work environment, we do not really know yet , it would be super helpful if we could fix that lack of interest and attract the smartest people regardless of gender to these important problems.  the faster we do so, the more likely i am to get to live forever instead of dying.  or at least to get a good personal jetpack.   #  and conversely: women only care about and are good at silly things, like fashion.   #  i would add to that to say that part of the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector is because it is female dominated or, perhaps more accurately, female targetted .  fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .  and conversely: women only care about and are good at silly things, like fashion.  there are a host of problematic tropes here.  not every human has an obligation to apply themselves to building jetpacks.  it is ok to be interested in things like art including fashion that improve the beauty in the lives we do live, even if they do not extent their length.  but what we should try to achieve is having the best people working at the jobs they are best suited for: a guy who has an aptitude for fashion design or loves working with children should not be discouraged from pursuing a career in those areas just because of his gender.  and a girl who has the potential to be a great techie should not be taught she ca not possibly really have the chops.  we have gotten to the point where we can at least acknowledge that that second scenario of conditioning girls against conventionally  manly  jobs is a problem.  we are slowly starting to consider the negative implications of conditioning boys as well.  now what we have to do is put an end to both.   #  fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .   # fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .  i argue that the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector as technology is because it is not.  if everyone put on a potato sack tomorrow or say some generic outfit that protected from the elements everything could continue as normal.  no fashion, no problem.  if the technology we have disappeared tomorrow or we did not use it everything would come to a grinding halt.  no computers, internet, cars, refrigeration, electrical appliances, etc.  i am sure you get the idea.  we would not function as a society.  technology is more important.  i personally enjoy fashion and think it is a great form of self expression.  i just do not think it is the best example for the point i think you are trying to make.  perhaps teachers.  one of the main careers for women is teaching, and i get the impression that women in some cases are now being steered away from things like teaching into stem careers.  in reality though, while stem careers are great, and it would be great to have more women in careers in which they are underrepresented, teaching is an  incredibly  important job and teachers are undervalued.  i do appreciate your argument and agree with your main point.  i also understand that the teaching example addresses more the female dominated aspect more than the female targeted aspect of what you were saying.   #  when we had no internet we still spent hours on end spinning cloth to dress ourselves and not trying to develop a way to communicate through tubes.   #  i see what you are saying, but i still disagree.  for starters, i think there would be a huge problem if all our clothes were replaced by potato sacks tomorrow.  the world would probably grind to a halt and the news would mention nothing else.  technology certainly makes our lives easier, but on the other hand humans survived for thousands of years without great technology but we did have clothes.  we did value clothes.  we did concern ourselves with clothes.  clothes play a vital role in how we organise our societies, how we communicate with each other, how we form relationships, how we move forward to a better world and of course in our relationship with our environment.  they shape our view of ourselves and therefore what we think we are capable of.  when we had no internet we still spent hours on end spinning cloth to dress ourselves and not trying to develop a way to communicate through tubes.  in fact i am not even sure that the distinction between fashion and technology makes a lot of sense given that textile production requires technology.  the fact that nowadays fashion is presented as a vain, frivolous thing despite the fact that it really is not exactly because of its association with women, was exactly my point.
howdy, so let me start by saying i am not trying to shit on anyone with this statement.  i am open minded and willing to take everything into consideration.  i am coming from the point of view of a male graphic designer who has been in the industry about 0 years.  change my view you lovely people.  basically my thought is that the lack of women in tech is not so much a result of fewer options being available for them to break into tech but more a result of women not being interested in the subject matter.  i am constantly seeing figures in the news and on blogs that there are less than 0 of women in the tech industry and how alarmingly wrong that is.  now what i also see is tons of opportunities and incentives for women to be a part of these industries, whether that comes from college scholarships or other programs to encourage the young women of today to be a part of the industry.  i think that if these women were interested in the subject matter they would get involved and the ones who are interested do get involved, they just happen to be the minority.  my whole reasoning for this comes from the idea that we do not see it a problem that there are less men in the fashion and garment creation industry.  we do not offer men scholarships to go to fashion school and there are no media reports telling me how terribly sexist the fashion and garment creation industry is for not hiring more men.  now this is a bad example and i know this but i wanted to pick something that was a little more cut and dry female dominated.  i do not think that there is anything wrong with women being a part of the tech industry nor do i think that lack of women in the industry is alarming.  just as i do not think there is anything wrong with men being a part of the fashion industry nor do i think we should be alarmed by the lack of men in it either.  i do not want this to become a him vs her argument.  i just do not believe that forcing an uninterested party into an industry is the answer to a non existent problem.  thanks ! let me just say where some of my views are coming from, a little backstory.   my sister is an extremely strong women who is top of her class for her bofs in geology   my girlfriend is finance courses mathematics heavy are female dominated   the lead developer at our company is a woman who has three men working for her  from my point of view these are all women who decided they wanted to be interested in their fields and took charge.  i have the utmost respect for them but do not feel like they have any troubles with male domination in their fields, albeit not being the subject at hand.   #  my whole reasoning for this comes from the idea that we do not see it a problem that there are less men in the fashion and garment creation industry.   #  again, same question: why do you think men are not that interested in the fashion industry compared to women ?  #  i am just going to start by asking a lot of questions.  why do you believe they are less interested in the subject ? is it just an inherent part of being a woman that you are genetically predisposed to being less interested in tech ? are there sociological factors that discourage women from entering tech fields ? again, same question: why do you think men are not that interested in the fashion industry compared to women ? also, are you suggesting that the fashion industry does not harbor sexism, or just that people do not see that sexism as a problem ? and finally, if the people in one industry do not see sexism as a problem, why should that mean that it is not a problem in other industries ? if one group decides to be more introspective about their gender representation, are their concerns invalidated just because other groups are not doing the same ?  #  so it is vital that we get the smartest people interested in technology.   #  but we do not care if the fashion industry does better or worse.  if every fashion designer in the world lost 0 iq points tomorrow, the world would be virtually unchanged.  we do care about progress in technology that is what will get me a jetpack or immortality one day.  so it is vital that we get the smartest people interested in technology.  given that many brilliant women are being turned off by something whether it is middle school teachers, a toxic work environment, we do not really know yet , it would be super helpful if we could fix that lack of interest and attract the smartest people regardless of gender to these important problems.  the faster we do so, the more likely i am to get to live forever instead of dying.  or at least to get a good personal jetpack.   #  there are a host of problematic tropes here.   #  i would add to that to say that part of the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector is because it is female dominated or, perhaps more accurately, female targetted .  fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .  and conversely: women only care about and are good at silly things, like fashion.  there are a host of problematic tropes here.  not every human has an obligation to apply themselves to building jetpacks.  it is ok to be interested in things like art including fashion that improve the beauty in the lives we do live, even if they do not extent their length.  but what we should try to achieve is having the best people working at the jobs they are best suited for: a guy who has an aptitude for fashion design or loves working with children should not be discouraged from pursuing a career in those areas just because of his gender.  and a girl who has the potential to be a great techie should not be taught she ca not possibly really have the chops.  we have gotten to the point where we can at least acknowledge that that second scenario of conditioning girls against conventionally  manly  jobs is a problem.  we are slowly starting to consider the negative implications of conditioning boys as well.  now what we have to do is put an end to both.   #  i argue that the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector as technology is because it is not.   # fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .  i argue that the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector as technology is because it is not.  if everyone put on a potato sack tomorrow or say some generic outfit that protected from the elements everything could continue as normal.  no fashion, no problem.  if the technology we have disappeared tomorrow or we did not use it everything would come to a grinding halt.  no computers, internet, cars, refrigeration, electrical appliances, etc.  i am sure you get the idea.  we would not function as a society.  technology is more important.  i personally enjoy fashion and think it is a great form of self expression.  i just do not think it is the best example for the point i think you are trying to make.  perhaps teachers.  one of the main careers for women is teaching, and i get the impression that women in some cases are now being steered away from things like teaching into stem careers.  in reality though, while stem careers are great, and it would be great to have more women in careers in which they are underrepresented, teaching is an  incredibly  important job and teachers are undervalued.  i do appreciate your argument and agree with your main point.  i also understand that the teaching example addresses more the female dominated aspect more than the female targeted aspect of what you were saying.   #  technology certainly makes our lives easier, but on the other hand humans survived for thousands of years without great technology but we did have clothes.   #  i see what you are saying, but i still disagree.  for starters, i think there would be a huge problem if all our clothes were replaced by potato sacks tomorrow.  the world would probably grind to a halt and the news would mention nothing else.  technology certainly makes our lives easier, but on the other hand humans survived for thousands of years without great technology but we did have clothes.  we did value clothes.  we did concern ourselves with clothes.  clothes play a vital role in how we organise our societies, how we communicate with each other, how we form relationships, how we move forward to a better world and of course in our relationship with our environment.  they shape our view of ourselves and therefore what we think we are capable of.  when we had no internet we still spent hours on end spinning cloth to dress ourselves and not trying to develop a way to communicate through tubes.  in fact i am not even sure that the distinction between fashion and technology makes a lot of sense given that textile production requires technology.  the fact that nowadays fashion is presented as a vain, frivolous thing despite the fact that it really is not exactly because of its association with women, was exactly my point.
howdy, so let me start by saying i am not trying to shit on anyone with this statement.  i am open minded and willing to take everything into consideration.  i am coming from the point of view of a male graphic designer who has been in the industry about 0 years.  change my view you lovely people.  basically my thought is that the lack of women in tech is not so much a result of fewer options being available for them to break into tech but more a result of women not being interested in the subject matter.  i am constantly seeing figures in the news and on blogs that there are less than 0 of women in the tech industry and how alarmingly wrong that is.  now what i also see is tons of opportunities and incentives for women to be a part of these industries, whether that comes from college scholarships or other programs to encourage the young women of today to be a part of the industry.  i think that if these women were interested in the subject matter they would get involved and the ones who are interested do get involved, they just happen to be the minority.  my whole reasoning for this comes from the idea that we do not see it a problem that there are less men in the fashion and garment creation industry.  we do not offer men scholarships to go to fashion school and there are no media reports telling me how terribly sexist the fashion and garment creation industry is for not hiring more men.  now this is a bad example and i know this but i wanted to pick something that was a little more cut and dry female dominated.  i do not think that there is anything wrong with women being a part of the tech industry nor do i think that lack of women in the industry is alarming.  just as i do not think there is anything wrong with men being a part of the fashion industry nor do i think we should be alarmed by the lack of men in it either.  i do not want this to become a him vs her argument.  i just do not believe that forcing an uninterested party into an industry is the answer to a non existent problem.  thanks ! let me just say where some of my views are coming from, a little backstory.   my sister is an extremely strong women who is top of her class for her bofs in geology   my girlfriend is finance courses mathematics heavy are female dominated   the lead developer at our company is a woman who has three men working for her  from my point of view these are all women who decided they wanted to be interested in their fields and took charge.  i have the utmost respect for them but do not feel like they have any troubles with male domination in their fields, albeit not being the subject at hand.   #  i think that if these women were interested in the subject matter they would get involved and the ones who are interested do get involved, they just happen to be the minority.   #  do you really think assuming your stats are right that men and women are so vastly different that women are 0 times less interested in being part of the technology industry ?  # do you really think assuming your stats are right that men and women are so vastly different that women are 0 times less interested in being part of the technology industry ? are you basing this on anything besides  gut feeling  ? are there less men in that industry ? i believe men actually dominate that industry URL too, at least at the highest levels.  again, what leads you to that conclusion ? who is forcing anyone into industries they do not want to be in ? where is this happening ? working to shift our cultural biases away from gender stereotypes related to occupation is hardly that.  what are you opposed to, exactly ?  #  but we do not care if the fashion industry does better or worse.   #  but we do not care if the fashion industry does better or worse.  if every fashion designer in the world lost 0 iq points tomorrow, the world would be virtually unchanged.  we do care about progress in technology that is what will get me a jetpack or immortality one day.  so it is vital that we get the smartest people interested in technology.  given that many brilliant women are being turned off by something whether it is middle school teachers, a toxic work environment, we do not really know yet , it would be super helpful if we could fix that lack of interest and attract the smartest people regardless of gender to these important problems.  the faster we do so, the more likely i am to get to live forever instead of dying.  or at least to get a good personal jetpack.   #  it is ok to be interested in things like art including fashion that improve the beauty in the lives we do live, even if they do not extent their length.   #  i would add to that to say that part of the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector is because it is female dominated or, perhaps more accurately, female targetted .  fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .  and conversely: women only care about and are good at silly things, like fashion.  there are a host of problematic tropes here.  not every human has an obligation to apply themselves to building jetpacks.  it is ok to be interested in things like art including fashion that improve the beauty in the lives we do live, even if they do not extent their length.  but what we should try to achieve is having the best people working at the jobs they are best suited for: a guy who has an aptitude for fashion design or loves working with children should not be discouraged from pursuing a career in those areas just because of his gender.  and a girl who has the potential to be a great techie should not be taught she ca not possibly really have the chops.  we have gotten to the point where we can at least acknowledge that that second scenario of conditioning girls against conventionally  manly  jobs is a problem.  we are slowly starting to consider the negative implications of conditioning boys as well.  now what we have to do is put an end to both.   #  no computers, internet, cars, refrigeration, electrical appliances, etc.   # fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .  i argue that the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector as technology is because it is not.  if everyone put on a potato sack tomorrow or say some generic outfit that protected from the elements everything could continue as normal.  no fashion, no problem.  if the technology we have disappeared tomorrow or we did not use it everything would come to a grinding halt.  no computers, internet, cars, refrigeration, electrical appliances, etc.  i am sure you get the idea.  we would not function as a society.  technology is more important.  i personally enjoy fashion and think it is a great form of self expression.  i just do not think it is the best example for the point i think you are trying to make.  perhaps teachers.  one of the main careers for women is teaching, and i get the impression that women in some cases are now being steered away from things like teaching into stem careers.  in reality though, while stem careers are great, and it would be great to have more women in careers in which they are underrepresented, teaching is an  incredibly  important job and teachers are undervalued.  i do appreciate your argument and agree with your main point.  i also understand that the teaching example addresses more the female dominated aspect more than the female targeted aspect of what you were saying.   #  the fact that nowadays fashion is presented as a vain, frivolous thing despite the fact that it really is not exactly because of its association with women, was exactly my point.   #  i see what you are saying, but i still disagree.  for starters, i think there would be a huge problem if all our clothes were replaced by potato sacks tomorrow.  the world would probably grind to a halt and the news would mention nothing else.  technology certainly makes our lives easier, but on the other hand humans survived for thousands of years without great technology but we did have clothes.  we did value clothes.  we did concern ourselves with clothes.  clothes play a vital role in how we organise our societies, how we communicate with each other, how we form relationships, how we move forward to a better world and of course in our relationship with our environment.  they shape our view of ourselves and therefore what we think we are capable of.  when we had no internet we still spent hours on end spinning cloth to dress ourselves and not trying to develop a way to communicate through tubes.  in fact i am not even sure that the distinction between fashion and technology makes a lot of sense given that textile production requires technology.  the fact that nowadays fashion is presented as a vain, frivolous thing despite the fact that it really is not exactly because of its association with women, was exactly my point.
howdy, so let me start by saying i am not trying to shit on anyone with this statement.  i am open minded and willing to take everything into consideration.  i am coming from the point of view of a male graphic designer who has been in the industry about 0 years.  change my view you lovely people.  basically my thought is that the lack of women in tech is not so much a result of fewer options being available for them to break into tech but more a result of women not being interested in the subject matter.  i am constantly seeing figures in the news and on blogs that there are less than 0 of women in the tech industry and how alarmingly wrong that is.  now what i also see is tons of opportunities and incentives for women to be a part of these industries, whether that comes from college scholarships or other programs to encourage the young women of today to be a part of the industry.  i think that if these women were interested in the subject matter they would get involved and the ones who are interested do get involved, they just happen to be the minority.  my whole reasoning for this comes from the idea that we do not see it a problem that there are less men in the fashion and garment creation industry.  we do not offer men scholarships to go to fashion school and there are no media reports telling me how terribly sexist the fashion and garment creation industry is for not hiring more men.  now this is a bad example and i know this but i wanted to pick something that was a little more cut and dry female dominated.  i do not think that there is anything wrong with women being a part of the tech industry nor do i think that lack of women in the industry is alarming.  just as i do not think there is anything wrong with men being a part of the fashion industry nor do i think we should be alarmed by the lack of men in it either.  i do not want this to become a him vs her argument.  i just do not believe that forcing an uninterested party into an industry is the answer to a non existent problem.  thanks ! let me just say where some of my views are coming from, a little backstory.   my sister is an extremely strong women who is top of her class for her bofs in geology   my girlfriend is finance courses mathematics heavy are female dominated   the lead developer at our company is a woman who has three men working for her  from my point of view these are all women who decided they wanted to be interested in their fields and took charge.  i have the utmost respect for them but do not feel like they have any troubles with male domination in their fields, albeit not being the subject at hand.   #  now this is a bad example and i know this but i wanted to pick something that was a little more cut and dry female dominated.   #  are there less men in that industry ?  # do you really think assuming your stats are right that men and women are so vastly different that women are 0 times less interested in being part of the technology industry ? are you basing this on anything besides  gut feeling  ? are there less men in that industry ? i believe men actually dominate that industry URL too, at least at the highest levels.  again, what leads you to that conclusion ? who is forcing anyone into industries they do not want to be in ? where is this happening ? working to shift our cultural biases away from gender stereotypes related to occupation is hardly that.  what are you opposed to, exactly ?  #  or at least to get a good personal jetpack.   #  but we do not care if the fashion industry does better or worse.  if every fashion designer in the world lost 0 iq points tomorrow, the world would be virtually unchanged.  we do care about progress in technology that is what will get me a jetpack or immortality one day.  so it is vital that we get the smartest people interested in technology.  given that many brilliant women are being turned off by something whether it is middle school teachers, a toxic work environment, we do not really know yet , it would be super helpful if we could fix that lack of interest and attract the smartest people regardless of gender to these important problems.  the faster we do so, the more likely i am to get to live forever instead of dying.  or at least to get a good personal jetpack.   #  not every human has an obligation to apply themselves to building jetpacks.   #  i would add to that to say that part of the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector is because it is female dominated or, perhaps more accurately, female targetted .  fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .  and conversely: women only care about and are good at silly things, like fashion.  there are a host of problematic tropes here.  not every human has an obligation to apply themselves to building jetpacks.  it is ok to be interested in things like art including fashion that improve the beauty in the lives we do live, even if they do not extent their length.  but what we should try to achieve is having the best people working at the jobs they are best suited for: a guy who has an aptitude for fashion design or loves working with children should not be discouraged from pursuing a career in those areas just because of his gender.  and a girl who has the potential to be a great techie should not be taught she ca not possibly really have the chops.  we have gotten to the point where we can at least acknowledge that that second scenario of conditioning girls against conventionally  manly  jobs is a problem.  we are slowly starting to consider the negative implications of conditioning boys as well.  now what we have to do is put an end to both.   #  i do appreciate your argument and agree with your main point.   # fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .  i argue that the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector as technology is because it is not.  if everyone put on a potato sack tomorrow or say some generic outfit that protected from the elements everything could continue as normal.  no fashion, no problem.  if the technology we have disappeared tomorrow or we did not use it everything would come to a grinding halt.  no computers, internet, cars, refrigeration, electrical appliances, etc.  i am sure you get the idea.  we would not function as a society.  technology is more important.  i personally enjoy fashion and think it is a great form of self expression.  i just do not think it is the best example for the point i think you are trying to make.  perhaps teachers.  one of the main careers for women is teaching, and i get the impression that women in some cases are now being steered away from things like teaching into stem careers.  in reality though, while stem careers are great, and it would be great to have more women in careers in which they are underrepresented, teaching is an  incredibly  important job and teachers are undervalued.  i do appreciate your argument and agree with your main point.  i also understand that the teaching example addresses more the female dominated aspect more than the female targeted aspect of what you were saying.   #  technology certainly makes our lives easier, but on the other hand humans survived for thousands of years without great technology but we did have clothes.   #  i see what you are saying, but i still disagree.  for starters, i think there would be a huge problem if all our clothes were replaced by potato sacks tomorrow.  the world would probably grind to a halt and the news would mention nothing else.  technology certainly makes our lives easier, but on the other hand humans survived for thousands of years without great technology but we did have clothes.  we did value clothes.  we did concern ourselves with clothes.  clothes play a vital role in how we organise our societies, how we communicate with each other, how we form relationships, how we move forward to a better world and of course in our relationship with our environment.  they shape our view of ourselves and therefore what we think we are capable of.  when we had no internet we still spent hours on end spinning cloth to dress ourselves and not trying to develop a way to communicate through tubes.  in fact i am not even sure that the distinction between fashion and technology makes a lot of sense given that textile production requires technology.  the fact that nowadays fashion is presented as a vain, frivolous thing despite the fact that it really is not exactly because of its association with women, was exactly my point.
howdy, so let me start by saying i am not trying to shit on anyone with this statement.  i am open minded and willing to take everything into consideration.  i am coming from the point of view of a male graphic designer who has been in the industry about 0 years.  change my view you lovely people.  basically my thought is that the lack of women in tech is not so much a result of fewer options being available for them to break into tech but more a result of women not being interested in the subject matter.  i am constantly seeing figures in the news and on blogs that there are less than 0 of women in the tech industry and how alarmingly wrong that is.  now what i also see is tons of opportunities and incentives for women to be a part of these industries, whether that comes from college scholarships or other programs to encourage the young women of today to be a part of the industry.  i think that if these women were interested in the subject matter they would get involved and the ones who are interested do get involved, they just happen to be the minority.  my whole reasoning for this comes from the idea that we do not see it a problem that there are less men in the fashion and garment creation industry.  we do not offer men scholarships to go to fashion school and there are no media reports telling me how terribly sexist the fashion and garment creation industry is for not hiring more men.  now this is a bad example and i know this but i wanted to pick something that was a little more cut and dry female dominated.  i do not think that there is anything wrong with women being a part of the tech industry nor do i think that lack of women in the industry is alarming.  just as i do not think there is anything wrong with men being a part of the fashion industry nor do i think we should be alarmed by the lack of men in it either.  i do not want this to become a him vs her argument.  i just do not believe that forcing an uninterested party into an industry is the answer to a non existent problem.  thanks ! let me just say where some of my views are coming from, a little backstory.   my sister is an extremely strong women who is top of her class for her bofs in geology   my girlfriend is finance courses mathematics heavy are female dominated   the lead developer at our company is a woman who has three men working for her  from my point of view these are all women who decided they wanted to be interested in their fields and took charge.  i have the utmost respect for them but do not feel like they have any troubles with male domination in their fields, albeit not being the subject at hand.   #  i just do not believe that forcing an uninterested party into an industry is the answer to a non existent problem.   #  who is forcing anyone into industries they do not want to be in ?  # do you really think assuming your stats are right that men and women are so vastly different that women are 0 times less interested in being part of the technology industry ? are you basing this on anything besides  gut feeling  ? are there less men in that industry ? i believe men actually dominate that industry URL too, at least at the highest levels.  again, what leads you to that conclusion ? who is forcing anyone into industries they do not want to be in ? where is this happening ? working to shift our cultural biases away from gender stereotypes related to occupation is hardly that.  what are you opposed to, exactly ?  #  so it is vital that we get the smartest people interested in technology.   #  but we do not care if the fashion industry does better or worse.  if every fashion designer in the world lost 0 iq points tomorrow, the world would be virtually unchanged.  we do care about progress in technology that is what will get me a jetpack or immortality one day.  so it is vital that we get the smartest people interested in technology.  given that many brilliant women are being turned off by something whether it is middle school teachers, a toxic work environment, we do not really know yet , it would be super helpful if we could fix that lack of interest and attract the smartest people regardless of gender to these important problems.  the faster we do so, the more likely i am to get to live forever instead of dying.  or at least to get a good personal jetpack.   #  we have gotten to the point where we can at least acknowledge that that second scenario of conditioning girls against conventionally  manly  jobs is a problem.   #  i would add to that to say that part of the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector is because it is female dominated or, perhaps more accurately, female targetted .  fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .  and conversely: women only care about and are good at silly things, like fashion.  there are a host of problematic tropes here.  not every human has an obligation to apply themselves to building jetpacks.  it is ok to be interested in things like art including fashion that improve the beauty in the lives we do live, even if they do not extent their length.  but what we should try to achieve is having the best people working at the jobs they are best suited for: a guy who has an aptitude for fashion design or loves working with children should not be discouraged from pursuing a career in those areas just because of his gender.  and a girl who has the potential to be a great techie should not be taught she ca not possibly really have the chops.  we have gotten to the point where we can at least acknowledge that that second scenario of conditioning girls against conventionally  manly  jobs is a problem.  we are slowly starting to consider the negative implications of conditioning boys as well.  now what we have to do is put an end to both.   #  i also understand that the teaching example addresses more the female dominated aspect more than the female targeted aspect of what you were saying.   # fashion is a frivolous thing that only those vain, silly women care about many people think .  i argue that the reason we do not consider fashion to be as important a sector as technology is because it is not.  if everyone put on a potato sack tomorrow or say some generic outfit that protected from the elements everything could continue as normal.  no fashion, no problem.  if the technology we have disappeared tomorrow or we did not use it everything would come to a grinding halt.  no computers, internet, cars, refrigeration, electrical appliances, etc.  i am sure you get the idea.  we would not function as a society.  technology is more important.  i personally enjoy fashion and think it is a great form of self expression.  i just do not think it is the best example for the point i think you are trying to make.  perhaps teachers.  one of the main careers for women is teaching, and i get the impression that women in some cases are now being steered away from things like teaching into stem careers.  in reality though, while stem careers are great, and it would be great to have more women in careers in which they are underrepresented, teaching is an  incredibly  important job and teachers are undervalued.  i do appreciate your argument and agree with your main point.  i also understand that the teaching example addresses more the female dominated aspect more than the female targeted aspect of what you were saying.   #  they shape our view of ourselves and therefore what we think we are capable of.   #  i see what you are saying, but i still disagree.  for starters, i think there would be a huge problem if all our clothes were replaced by potato sacks tomorrow.  the world would probably grind to a halt and the news would mention nothing else.  technology certainly makes our lives easier, but on the other hand humans survived for thousands of years without great technology but we did have clothes.  we did value clothes.  we did concern ourselves with clothes.  clothes play a vital role in how we organise our societies, how we communicate with each other, how we form relationships, how we move forward to a better world and of course in our relationship with our environment.  they shape our view of ourselves and therefore what we think we are capable of.  when we had no internet we still spent hours on end spinning cloth to dress ourselves and not trying to develop a way to communicate through tubes.  in fact i am not even sure that the distinction between fashion and technology makes a lot of sense given that textile production requires technology.  the fact that nowadays fashion is presented as a vain, frivolous thing despite the fact that it really is not exactly because of its association with women, was exactly my point.
the recent va scandal serves as a great example of how inept, incompetent, malicious, and literally deadly single payer healthcare in the united states would be.  i am not opposed to single payer healthcare in principle, and i acknowledge it generally works in countries like canada or the uk.  but after seeing the disaster at the va, i see no reason why single payer healthcare in the us would be any better.  already there is more political bickering regarding the va scandal than actual action to fix it.  i also recall the jon stewart comments on the va backlog that was so big it was causing structural damage to the floor where they had to keep all the records.  imagine that for the entire population of the us.   proponents of single payer healthcare seem to ignore all this and believe in the fantasy  but this time we will get it right !   when there is ever increasing evidence to the contrary.   i feel like steps to institute single payer healthcare in the us would overall cause a sharp decrease in quality of medical care, waiting times, false records, falsified causes of death, etc, at least for a very long time before we ever reach a level on par with canada or the uk.   #  proponents of single payer healthcare seem to ignore all this and believe in the fantasy  but this time we will get it right !    #  when there is ever increasing evidence to the contrary.   # when there is ever increasing evidence to the contrary.  there is ever increasing evidence that when you stack the deck against government success by forcing all non defense programs to operate on shoestring budgets and awarding low bidders, and when an entire political party seems hell bent on supporting a self fulfilling prophecy of government failure, you get failure.  other countries have  gotten it right  because they have sucked it up and paid for it, something the us is always reluctant to do.  also it is important to note the reason for the surge in va cases we made it easier for those entitled to va benefits to get them, and allowed easier access to vietnam vets and ptsd cases, etc.  then congress read: the gop killed its funding.  so we had more people than ever trying to get more  earned  benefits and no support from the government in fulfilling that need.  you ca not squeeze blood from a turnip.   #  that remains to be seen, and until then you just ca not compare it to implementing a single payer system.   #  first of all, you are ignoring the primary fact about the va system: it exists to serve the military.  to predict how many patients the va have to serve over the next 0 years, we have to make guesses about the military is future.  0 years ago, nobody knew the va would have to accommodate all the veterans of the iraq and afghanistan wars not to mention the military is recent recognition that it is responsible for all the agent orange fallout back in vietnam.  basically the va is dealing with far more patients than it ever expected.  by contrast, predicting long term demographic change on the country the size of the us is relatively easy.  obviously there is a lot of uncertainty, but not to the same degree as the military provides.  we know how many citizens there are, and the system would have to be designed to accommodate all of them.  also, the va has basically been ignored for decades; the recent scandal is big news because nobody was paying attention to it three months ago.  due to the department is low status, it has been stuck with some of the shittiest budgets and staff in washington.  if single payer healthcare was implemented, it would be given more public scrutiny than any other government program.  the question is not whether the va has hitherto failed with its limited resources, but can it succeed now that it is everyone is highest priority ? that remains to be seen, and until then you just ca not compare it to implementing a single payer system.  anyway, up to now government supplied healthcare has had to compete with the private market.  insurance companies can afford much better care doctors, hospitals, advanced drugs than the federal government is able to pay for.  the whole point of a single payer system is it eliminates the private sector, and thereby takes those resources.  doctors might get paid less, drug manufacturers might have to cut back on some of their r d, but do you really think everyone will intentionally provide shittier service just because their wages go down ?  #  less work less stress more happiness better work, in my experience.   #  but would that cause   a sharp decrease in quality of medical care, waiting times, false records, falsified causes of death ? i cannot see doctors lying about the cause of death just because they are paid less.  maybe i am wrong, in which case presumably there are some studies to back up a counterargument.  otherwise, i see no logical cause and effect.  if anything, i assume doctors working fewer hours would be better at their jobs.  less work less stress more happiness better work, in my experience.   #  this in and of its self would cause higher waiting times.   # if the autopsy is taking to long an underpaid dr.  might just write something down.  studies have shown it is more efficient for doctors to work the hours they are currently working.  every shift change the new dr.  needs to be caught up on every patient they are going to see and what has happened since they last saw the patient.  fewer hours means more doctors which means more time spent getting caught up on whats going on.  this in and of its self would cause higher waiting times.  this can lower the quality of health care if a doctor forgets to write something down, does not portray an idea well enough, if the new doctor does not read the chart thoroughly or does not understand something.  so the original dr.  may be seeing 0 people in a day and when they see patient 0 they get the history and have an idea of what to keep an eye out for.  the dr is then rushed off to patients 0 0 and then has to set down and write down whats going on with each.  they may forget to put down what they were watching out for on patient 0, as nothing has actually happened yet.  when it does happen the new dr may not be ready for it and patient 0 dies, gets sicker, etc.   #  if you cut doctors  hours this would definitely be an issue.   #  first of all i want to state that i consider this the most minor part of my overall argument, so while i will accept some of your claims they have little to no impact on my larger view.  in fact i did not even bring up the idea of cutting doctors  hours, and i do not see it as a necessary consequence of single payer healthcare.  that said.    if the autopsy is taking to long an underpaid dr.  might just write something down.  this sounds ridiculous to me.  yeah we all try to cut corners in our jobs, but i just ca not believe a doctor would lie on such a consequential medical form.  surely they could lose their license over that ? i am sure people do it sometimes just as people break all rules, but the potential consequences seem like they would outweigh the benefits for even the busiest doctor.  even leaving the doctor is interests aside, an autopsy could reveal medical issues that endanger other people is lives.  if the autopsy is of any real consequence, the doctor would be crazy to lie.  the only time it would be logical for the doctor to lie is if it really does not matter how the person died hypoethetically, the doctor has narrowed it down to two potential causes of death and neither could impact anyone else , in which case i could care less if the doctor lies because there are no practical downsides and no one will ever know the difference.  this in and of its self would cause higher waiting times.  sounds logical, you are right here.  if you cut doctors  hours this would definitely be an issue.  but people make as many mistakes when they are overworked with long hours.  if you cut my hours and rushed my work, i personally would make the same number of mistakes as i do working overtime.  i assume the same tradeoff is true in all professions, including medicine.
despite the trite and exceedingly dull but all too common responses to suicide, the motivations that precede the act are almost never selfish or cowardly.  firstly, it takes a lot of guts and determination to end one is existence, given that all humans are animals, and all animals are survival machines first and foremost.  overriding such a primal instinct is a marvel of human uniqueness, if tragic and futile in manifestation.  secondly, the drive to commit suicide is provided by one is mis perception of being a burden, and so the motivation for killing oneself is obviously and inescapably altruistic and selfless.  it does not matter that people who reason this way are usually wrong about their perceived burdensomeness; they believe they are acting in a way that benefits others at the complete expense of themselves, and their motives are beyond reproach, least of all being judged  cowardly  or  selfish .  suicide is almost always tragic, misguided and ultimately futile.  yet the common responses to it are pig ignorant, unempathetic, pernicious in their misinformation and plainly transparent as instruments of social pressure.  suicide is not easy, in fact it is quite hard.  it is a hard way out for people who perceive no other option, it is their  only  way out in their eyes.  and they are taking charge, they can finally feel determined, even if they are determined to kill themselves.  and a final bugbear; even if suicide  were  easy, that would not make it wrong.  it would just make it easy.  people are so fucking stupid when they compare the ease of completing an action to its desirability; many actions are extremely hard to perform but sure as hell are not desirable, conversely, many easy actions are desirable and necessary.   #  secondly, the drive to commit suicide is provided by one is mis perception of being a burden, and so the motivation for killing oneself is obviously and inescapably altruistic and selfless.   #  maybe some of the time that is true.   #  as someone who has attempted suicide in the past i agree to an extent and also disagree to an extent.  i do not think it is cowardly but i do believe it can be selfish.  suicide can be selfish in the sense that a person may only be thinking of themselves.  a person may commit suicide while having no concern or even perception for how it may affect anyone else.  when i attempted to kill myself, i just wanted to get away from all of my problems.  in the end i did not care, i could not care how it would affect anyone which was selfish.  maybe some of the time that is true.  it is certainly not the only motivation people have for killing themselves.  easy or not, hard or not, selfish or not, whatever or not.  i believe it to be wrong.  i am glad that the three times i attempted to kill myself i was never successful.  i never would have thought i would ever be glad to be alive in the event i survived.  with a few exceptions, suicidal ideation is abnormal.  in some ways i believe it is the easier way out.  if continuing to live were easier, would a person not continue to live ?  #  it has much more to do with depression and mental illness.   #  i do not think a typical suicide involves the person perceiving themselves as a burden.  it has much more to do with depression and mental illness.  people say suicide is cowardly because it is an alternative to dealing with the problems in your life, but i would not defend that notion.  suicide is quite often a selfish act, and the two times i have experienced it were very selfish, because they are last acts on earth were to spite other people with their death.  one man wrote a scathing note about his ex wife before killing himself, and she is now an emotional train wreck because she blames herself, irrationally, for his death.  obviously every case is different, but blanketly saying  suicide is not selfish  is just as generalized and misleading as saying  suicide is selfish  because suicidal people often do not think about how their actions will affect their loved ones.   #  true but i figure that typical should not be an applied term to something so detailed and intrinsic.   #  true but i figure that typical should not be an applied term to something so detailed and intrinsic.  as someone who has attempted suicide i can tell you this is a very personal thing.  continuing on, i believe you are right in the sense that society has an exaggeratedly negative view in suicide.  mostly due to culture and whatnot, most people do not have a developed opinion on the topic because they take other words and have it shoved down their mouths.  but that can be said about a lot of things and is deserving of another conversation.   #  one could say that it takes a certain bravery in that situation.   #  i think that you trying to say that suicide is inherently selfless and brave is just as absurd as people trying to say that all suicides are selfish and cowardly.  suicide is an act that a person performs.  all the circumstances surrounding the action is what determines whether it can be attributed as any of those things, or none of them.  a person who kills themselves after battling an unendurable disease and not having any hope for defeating it is neither selfless nor selfish.  one could say that it takes a certain bravery in that situation.  a person who kills themselves on valentines day after their girlfriend breaks up with them and they simply do not want to have to  put up with  living in society any more is extremely selfish likely due to mental illness , but not necessarily brave  or  cowardly in any particular way.  there is no  general sense  or  typical  when speaking about suicide.  it is specific to the situation and the person.   #  understanding that committing suicide can ruin the lives of others and in some justifying it is extremely selfish.   #  not considering how much your own actions are going to hurt others is by definition selfish.  understanding that committing suicide can ruin the lives of others and in some justifying it is extremely selfish.  making huge choices for others with out their knowledge is selfish.  what is not selfish about it ? being so delusional that you think the people who care about you are better of with you dead ? that delusion does not account for how they will actually feel when you die which is selfish.
despite the trite and exceedingly dull but all too common responses to suicide, the motivations that precede the act are almost never selfish or cowardly.  firstly, it takes a lot of guts and determination to end one is existence, given that all humans are animals, and all animals are survival machines first and foremost.  overriding such a primal instinct is a marvel of human uniqueness, if tragic and futile in manifestation.  secondly, the drive to commit suicide is provided by one is mis perception of being a burden, and so the motivation for killing oneself is obviously and inescapably altruistic and selfless.  it does not matter that people who reason this way are usually wrong about their perceived burdensomeness; they believe they are acting in a way that benefits others at the complete expense of themselves, and their motives are beyond reproach, least of all being judged  cowardly  or  selfish .  suicide is almost always tragic, misguided and ultimately futile.  yet the common responses to it are pig ignorant, unempathetic, pernicious in their misinformation and plainly transparent as instruments of social pressure.  suicide is not easy, in fact it is quite hard.  it is a hard way out for people who perceive no other option, it is their  only  way out in their eyes.  and they are taking charge, they can finally feel determined, even if they are determined to kill themselves.  and a final bugbear; even if suicide  were  easy, that would not make it wrong.  it would just make it easy.  people are so fucking stupid when they compare the ease of completing an action to its desirability; many actions are extremely hard to perform but sure as hell are not desirable, conversely, many easy actions are desirable and necessary.   #  secondly, the drive to commit suicide is provided by one is mis perception of being a burden, and so the motivation for killing oneself is obviously and inescapably altruistic and selfless.   #  the motivation could not possibly be just a simple,  i do not want to live anymore  ?  # the motivation could not possibly be just a simple,  i do not want to live anymore  ? i would find that to be such an eminently worthy reason to kill oneself.  this i can get behind.  this seems to me to be a confirmation that you believe there is no way to commit suicide that is not  amisguided .  and futile ? i fail to see how the result is not precisely something the individual once felt to be useful.   #  one man wrote a scathing note about his ex wife before killing himself, and she is now an emotional train wreck because she blames herself, irrationally, for his death.   #  i do not think a typical suicide involves the person perceiving themselves as a burden.  it has much more to do with depression and mental illness.  people say suicide is cowardly because it is an alternative to dealing with the problems in your life, but i would not defend that notion.  suicide is quite often a selfish act, and the two times i have experienced it were very selfish, because they are last acts on earth were to spite other people with their death.  one man wrote a scathing note about his ex wife before killing himself, and she is now an emotional train wreck because she blames herself, irrationally, for his death.  obviously every case is different, but blanketly saying  suicide is not selfish  is just as generalized and misleading as saying  suicide is selfish  because suicidal people often do not think about how their actions will affect their loved ones.   #  but that can be said about a lot of things and is deserving of another conversation.   #  true but i figure that typical should not be an applied term to something so detailed and intrinsic.  as someone who has attempted suicide i can tell you this is a very personal thing.  continuing on, i believe you are right in the sense that society has an exaggeratedly negative view in suicide.  mostly due to culture and whatnot, most people do not have a developed opinion on the topic because they take other words and have it shoved down their mouths.  but that can be said about a lot of things and is deserving of another conversation.   #  all the circumstances surrounding the action is what determines whether it can be attributed as any of those things, or none of them.   #  i think that you trying to say that suicide is inherently selfless and brave is just as absurd as people trying to say that all suicides are selfish and cowardly.  suicide is an act that a person performs.  all the circumstances surrounding the action is what determines whether it can be attributed as any of those things, or none of them.  a person who kills themselves after battling an unendurable disease and not having any hope for defeating it is neither selfless nor selfish.  one could say that it takes a certain bravery in that situation.  a person who kills themselves on valentines day after their girlfriend breaks up with them and they simply do not want to have to  put up with  living in society any more is extremely selfish likely due to mental illness , but not necessarily brave  or  cowardly in any particular way.  there is no  general sense  or  typical  when speaking about suicide.  it is specific to the situation and the person.   #  not considering how much your own actions are going to hurt others is by definition selfish.   #  not considering how much your own actions are going to hurt others is by definition selfish.  understanding that committing suicide can ruin the lives of others and in some justifying it is extremely selfish.  making huge choices for others with out their knowledge is selfish.  what is not selfish about it ? being so delusional that you think the people who care about you are better of with you dead ? that delusion does not account for how they will actually feel when you die which is selfish.
despite the trite and exceedingly dull but all too common responses to suicide, the motivations that precede the act are almost never selfish or cowardly.  firstly, it takes a lot of guts and determination to end one is existence, given that all humans are animals, and all animals are survival machines first and foremost.  overriding such a primal instinct is a marvel of human uniqueness, if tragic and futile in manifestation.  secondly, the drive to commit suicide is provided by one is mis perception of being a burden, and so the motivation for killing oneself is obviously and inescapably altruistic and selfless.  it does not matter that people who reason this way are usually wrong about their perceived burdensomeness; they believe they are acting in a way that benefits others at the complete expense of themselves, and their motives are beyond reproach, least of all being judged  cowardly  or  selfish .  suicide is almost always tragic, misguided and ultimately futile.  yet the common responses to it are pig ignorant, unempathetic, pernicious in their misinformation and plainly transparent as instruments of social pressure.  suicide is not easy, in fact it is quite hard.  it is a hard way out for people who perceive no other option, it is their  only  way out in their eyes.  and they are taking charge, they can finally feel determined, even if they are determined to kill themselves.  and a final bugbear; even if suicide  were  easy, that would not make it wrong.  it would just make it easy.  people are so fucking stupid when they compare the ease of completing an action to its desirability; many actions are extremely hard to perform but sure as hell are not desirable, conversely, many easy actions are desirable and necessary.   #  suicide is almost always tragic, misguided and ultimately futile.   #  this seems to me to be a confirmation that you believe there is no way to commit suicide that is not  amisguided .   # the motivation could not possibly be just a simple,  i do not want to live anymore  ? i would find that to be such an eminently worthy reason to kill oneself.  this i can get behind.  this seems to me to be a confirmation that you believe there is no way to commit suicide that is not  amisguided .  and futile ? i fail to see how the result is not precisely something the individual once felt to be useful.   #  suicide is quite often a selfish act, and the two times i have experienced it were very selfish, because they are last acts on earth were to spite other people with their death.   #  i do not think a typical suicide involves the person perceiving themselves as a burden.  it has much more to do with depression and mental illness.  people say suicide is cowardly because it is an alternative to dealing with the problems in your life, but i would not defend that notion.  suicide is quite often a selfish act, and the two times i have experienced it were very selfish, because they are last acts on earth were to spite other people with their death.  one man wrote a scathing note about his ex wife before killing himself, and she is now an emotional train wreck because she blames herself, irrationally, for his death.  obviously every case is different, but blanketly saying  suicide is not selfish  is just as generalized and misleading as saying  suicide is selfish  because suicidal people often do not think about how their actions will affect their loved ones.   #  true but i figure that typical should not be an applied term to something so detailed and intrinsic.   #  true but i figure that typical should not be an applied term to something so detailed and intrinsic.  as someone who has attempted suicide i can tell you this is a very personal thing.  continuing on, i believe you are right in the sense that society has an exaggeratedly negative view in suicide.  mostly due to culture and whatnot, most people do not have a developed opinion on the topic because they take other words and have it shoved down their mouths.  but that can be said about a lot of things and is deserving of another conversation.   #  i think that you trying to say that suicide is inherently selfless and brave is just as absurd as people trying to say that all suicides are selfish and cowardly.   #  i think that you trying to say that suicide is inherently selfless and brave is just as absurd as people trying to say that all suicides are selfish and cowardly.  suicide is an act that a person performs.  all the circumstances surrounding the action is what determines whether it can be attributed as any of those things, or none of them.  a person who kills themselves after battling an unendurable disease and not having any hope for defeating it is neither selfless nor selfish.  one could say that it takes a certain bravery in that situation.  a person who kills themselves on valentines day after their girlfriend breaks up with them and they simply do not want to have to  put up with  living in society any more is extremely selfish likely due to mental illness , but not necessarily brave  or  cowardly in any particular way.  there is no  general sense  or  typical  when speaking about suicide.  it is specific to the situation and the person.   #  not considering how much your own actions are going to hurt others is by definition selfish.   #  not considering how much your own actions are going to hurt others is by definition selfish.  understanding that committing suicide can ruin the lives of others and in some justifying it is extremely selfish.  making huge choices for others with out their knowledge is selfish.  what is not selfish about it ? being so delusional that you think the people who care about you are better of with you dead ? that delusion does not account for how they will actually feel when you die which is selfish.
and lets just get out the way that i am not talking about extremes of not wanting to date 0 0 0lb guy with a neckbead that does not shower.  nor am i some kind of bitter loser, as i am a perfectly happy ltr with my girlfriend of about 0 years.  i have no skin in the game, just is just my observation as a 0 year old.  now lets get on to my view.  it seems like women pretty much only care about how hot a guy is based on what hollywood deams to be what the ideal hot guy is from movies, magazines, etc , and that is exactly what the women chase above all else, to the complete exclusion of others.  what i mean by this, is that most of these women will not give a guy a chance if you do not pass their extremely high bar of physical attractiveness standard, even if they themselves are only average on the bell curve of attractiveness.  this goes for chance meetings for example trying to start a casual conversation at a coffee house , meat markets clubs, bars, online dating , and social gatherings with friends.  pretty much all the ways that people normally meet people of romantic interests.  what am i basing my view on ? the following: 0.  personal experience when i was single.  0.  observation of my girlfriend is single friends all the way from high school to now different girlfriends and many different friends, so lots of observation .  0.  many studies on the subject, for example this one:  women rate 0 of men below average  URL 0.  the way that there are so many websites/communities sole dedicated to how to pick up women, which leads me to the conclusion that lots of men have trouble attracting women.  0.  from 0 to mid thirties, i have no seen the dating behavior of women  mature  or change in any way.   #  the way that there are so many websites/communities sole dedicated to how to pick up women, which leads me to the conclusion that lots of men have trouble attracting women.   #  post a profile as a woman on okcupid you will quickly see why many guys are having trouble attracting women.   # who is it that women like ? is it /r/cillianmurphy /r/chrishemsworth /r/martinfreeman /r/johnnydepp /r/leonardodicaprio these guys all have way different faces and body types, yet they are popular.  now, maybe everyone picks their own ideal from the spread of hollywood folks, but in my experience, personality seems to win hearts more than physical appearance.  i. e.  if i had to rate people on purely physical appearance, my bff is an 0 and her bf is a 0.  she do not care  cause he is a great person with a great personality that matches hers.  ex: i had a guy ask me out at the gym recently and he was not the most attractive guy ever, but that is not why i turned him down.  i turned him down because i was not really looking for a relationship and even if i was, i did not know him or anything about him.  i felt a bit cornered in the way he approached me and it made me uncomfortable.  post a profile as a woman on okcupid you will quickly see why many guys are having trouble attracting women.  some of the messages i have gotten on that site. some of the profiles. just.  terrible.  could be what they guys are saying.  behold ! actual messages i have gotten lately:  what would you do if a giant spider webbed your head mummy style and slowly dragged you to the ceiling by the top of your head ?   no other context.   myyyyyystery haaaand.   what does that even mean ?  so what are you looking for on here honestly ?  looking sexy af  that is all.   #  op, your cited source directly disagrees with you.   #  i am not going to dive into the dangers of anecdotal data because others have covered that, but i want to point out that the study you are citing is actually really bad for your point: 0 it does not suggest that women place a larger emphasis on looks, just that they find a large number of men below average in terms of appearance.  if most women continue to date despite finding men unattractive, that suggests appearance actually does not matter that much to them.  if appearance was the primary characteristic for women and they find 0 of men unattractive, services like okcupid would go bankrupt.  0 it is limited to people on okcupid.  if we presume that the higher end of attractive men have less trouble finding partners, it is actually totally plausible that 0 of men on okcupid are below society is average.  in addition, citing pickup classes also argues against your point.  while they might touch on appearance, they are overwhelmingly focused on  game  and technique.  if they have any degree of success and their popularity suggests they do , i think it shows that things like confidence and charisma are, at the very least, quite important.  eta: ha, this is not just my conclusion, it is literally stated in the okcupid article itself, which directly and explicitly contradicts the op women find fewer men attractive, but care less about the appearance .  op, your cited source directly disagrees with you.   #  meanwhile, men are more reserved in their attractiveness rating, but only actually pursue women who they rate as extremely attractive.   #  i want to point out that you misread the conclusion of your okcupid article.  if you actually read it, it shows that while women rate 0 of the men as below average, they actually pursue dates with men of all levels of appearance.  meanwhile, men are more reserved in their attractiveness rating, but only actually pursue women who they rate as extremely attractive.  this suggests that the men of okcupid are more concerned with appearance, not the opposite as you claim.  not that okcupid is a scholarly source anyway.   #  maybe op is girl just has really shallow friends and so that is most of what he finds, i will buy that.   #  that sounds a lot like throwing your hands in the air and giving up to me.  maybe op is girl just has really shallow friends and so that is most of what he finds, i will buy that.  but it is not unreasonable to think that a majority of women might think in a certain way.  that is sort of the basis of social sciences.  okc may not be a scholarly source, but it is a really large data set so it is worth acknowledging.  it is also self selected, but so is most social data.  the conclusion reached by the article also seems pretty reasonable.  it is well known that the perceptions people hold are skewed.  most people think they are more attractive than they are, it seems reasonable that they think others are less attractive.  that might not support the conclusion of  women are shallow bitches  but it is not something to brush aside.   #  it may not be perfect but it is all how people would really behave in a dating scenario, so it is worth something.   #  ok, do you have a better data set ? your objections are speculative so they may or may not be valid in the first place.  the problem with social data is that it is usually self reported.  it is also really difficult to get a large sample of this type of information with any accuracy.  it may not be perfect but it is all how people would really behave in a dating scenario, so it is worth something.
and lets just get out the way that i am not talking about extremes of not wanting to date 0 0 0lb guy with a neckbead that does not shower.  nor am i some kind of bitter loser, as i am a perfectly happy ltr with my girlfriend of about 0 years.  i have no skin in the game, just is just my observation as a 0 year old.  now lets get on to my view.  it seems like women pretty much only care about how hot a guy is based on what hollywood deams to be what the ideal hot guy is from movies, magazines, etc , and that is exactly what the women chase above all else, to the complete exclusion of others.  what i mean by this, is that most of these women will not give a guy a chance if you do not pass their extremely high bar of physical attractiveness standard, even if they themselves are only average on the bell curve of attractiveness.  this goes for chance meetings for example trying to start a casual conversation at a coffee house , meat markets clubs, bars, online dating , and social gatherings with friends.  pretty much all the ways that people normally meet people of romantic interests.  what am i basing my view on ? the following: 0.  personal experience when i was single.  0.  observation of my girlfriend is single friends all the way from high school to now different girlfriends and many different friends, so lots of observation .  0.  many studies on the subject, for example this one:  women rate 0 of men below average  URL 0.  the way that there are so many websites/communities sole dedicated to how to pick up women, which leads me to the conclusion that lots of men have trouble attracting women.  0.  from 0 to mid thirties, i have no seen the dating behavior of women  mature  or change in any way.   #  0.  personal experience when i was single.   #  is it possible you are drawn to a small subgroup of women who have things in common shallowness being one of them ?  # it seems like women pretty much only care about how hot a guy is based on what hollywood deams to be what the ideal hot guy is from movies, magazines, etc , and that is exactly what the women chase above all else, to the complete exclusion of others.  as a woman i can assure you this is not the case.  for one, most of the  hot guys  that hollywood promotes are not my type.  everyone has their own standard of beauty/hansomeness.  what some might find sexy may not be my type.  and i personally look for different traits than just a pretty face.  i do not have time to deal with crazy, arrogant, self centered, or amoral.  is it possible you are drawn to a small subgroup of women who have things in common shallowness being one of them ? i am not saying that to insult anyone.  but it is what it is.  people do get drawn to a type, do not you think ? if a person finds themself drawn to shallow women, and women tend to hang around others like them it only makes sense the friends might also tend to be shallow.  it is a hook up site and a not very classy one imo .  it would be like going to only one cheap singles bar and then basing conclusions about  all  women based on narrow subset of women interviewed there.  what those are are some slick salesmen selling their ebooks and video tutorials, exploiting the insecurity some men have over meeting women.  their buyers chat on the pua forums, making each other feel better by venting their frustrations about women.  this is not a reflection on women; it is a sign some men do not grow up with the skills they need to interact with the opposite sex.  if you are completely confident that all women are like this, that is all you are going to see.  as a woman who is beyond her mid 0s, my friends and i were not like that.  i am sure there are a handful of women who are, but that is the exception not the rule.   #  eta: ha, this is not just my conclusion, it is literally stated in the okcupid article itself, which directly and explicitly contradicts the op women find fewer men attractive, but care less about the appearance .   #  i am not going to dive into the dangers of anecdotal data because others have covered that, but i want to point out that the study you are citing is actually really bad for your point: 0 it does not suggest that women place a larger emphasis on looks, just that they find a large number of men below average in terms of appearance.  if most women continue to date despite finding men unattractive, that suggests appearance actually does not matter that much to them.  if appearance was the primary characteristic for women and they find 0 of men unattractive, services like okcupid would go bankrupt.  0 it is limited to people on okcupid.  if we presume that the higher end of attractive men have less trouble finding partners, it is actually totally plausible that 0 of men on okcupid are below society is average.  in addition, citing pickup classes also argues against your point.  while they might touch on appearance, they are overwhelmingly focused on  game  and technique.  if they have any degree of success and their popularity suggests they do , i think it shows that things like confidence and charisma are, at the very least, quite important.  eta: ha, this is not just my conclusion, it is literally stated in the okcupid article itself, which directly and explicitly contradicts the op women find fewer men attractive, but care less about the appearance .  op, your cited source directly disagrees with you.   #  this suggests that the men of okcupid are more concerned with appearance, not the opposite as you claim.   #  i want to point out that you misread the conclusion of your okcupid article.  if you actually read it, it shows that while women rate 0 of the men as below average, they actually pursue dates with men of all levels of appearance.  meanwhile, men are more reserved in their attractiveness rating, but only actually pursue women who they rate as extremely attractive.  this suggests that the men of okcupid are more concerned with appearance, not the opposite as you claim.  not that okcupid is a scholarly source anyway.   #  the conclusion reached by the article also seems pretty reasonable.   #  that sounds a lot like throwing your hands in the air and giving up to me.  maybe op is girl just has really shallow friends and so that is most of what he finds, i will buy that.  but it is not unreasonable to think that a majority of women might think in a certain way.  that is sort of the basis of social sciences.  okc may not be a scholarly source, but it is a really large data set so it is worth acknowledging.  it is also self selected, but so is most social data.  the conclusion reached by the article also seems pretty reasonable.  it is well known that the perceptions people hold are skewed.  most people think they are more attractive than they are, it seems reasonable that they think others are less attractive.  that might not support the conclusion of  women are shallow bitches  but it is not something to brush aside.   #  the problem with social data is that it is usually self reported.   #  ok, do you have a better data set ? your objections are speculative so they may or may not be valid in the first place.  the problem with social data is that it is usually self reported.  it is also really difficult to get a large sample of this type of information with any accuracy.  it may not be perfect but it is all how people would really behave in a dating scenario, so it is worth something.
and lets just get out the way that i am not talking about extremes of not wanting to date 0 0 0lb guy with a neckbead that does not shower.  nor am i some kind of bitter loser, as i am a perfectly happy ltr with my girlfriend of about 0 years.  i have no skin in the game, just is just my observation as a 0 year old.  now lets get on to my view.  it seems like women pretty much only care about how hot a guy is based on what hollywood deams to be what the ideal hot guy is from movies, magazines, etc , and that is exactly what the women chase above all else, to the complete exclusion of others.  what i mean by this, is that most of these women will not give a guy a chance if you do not pass their extremely high bar of physical attractiveness standard, even if they themselves are only average on the bell curve of attractiveness.  this goes for chance meetings for example trying to start a casual conversation at a coffee house , meat markets clubs, bars, online dating , and social gatherings with friends.  pretty much all the ways that people normally meet people of romantic interests.  what am i basing my view on ? the following: 0.  personal experience when i was single.  0.  observation of my girlfriend is single friends all the way from high school to now different girlfriends and many different friends, so lots of observation .  0.  many studies on the subject, for example this one:  women rate 0 of men below average  URL 0.  the way that there are so many websites/communities sole dedicated to how to pick up women, which leads me to the conclusion that lots of men have trouble attracting women.  0.  from 0 to mid thirties, i have no seen the dating behavior of women  mature  or change in any way.   #  0.  observation of my girlfriend is single friends all the way from high school to now different girlfriends and many different friends, so lots of observation .   #  if a person finds themself drawn to shallow women, and women tend to hang around others like them it only makes sense the friends might also tend to be shallow.   # it seems like women pretty much only care about how hot a guy is based on what hollywood deams to be what the ideal hot guy is from movies, magazines, etc , and that is exactly what the women chase above all else, to the complete exclusion of others.  as a woman i can assure you this is not the case.  for one, most of the  hot guys  that hollywood promotes are not my type.  everyone has their own standard of beauty/hansomeness.  what some might find sexy may not be my type.  and i personally look for different traits than just a pretty face.  i do not have time to deal with crazy, arrogant, self centered, or amoral.  is it possible you are drawn to a small subgroup of women who have things in common shallowness being one of them ? i am not saying that to insult anyone.  but it is what it is.  people do get drawn to a type, do not you think ? if a person finds themself drawn to shallow women, and women tend to hang around others like them it only makes sense the friends might also tend to be shallow.  it is a hook up site and a not very classy one imo .  it would be like going to only one cheap singles bar and then basing conclusions about  all  women based on narrow subset of women interviewed there.  what those are are some slick salesmen selling their ebooks and video tutorials, exploiting the insecurity some men have over meeting women.  their buyers chat on the pua forums, making each other feel better by venting their frustrations about women.  this is not a reflection on women; it is a sign some men do not grow up with the skills they need to interact with the opposite sex.  if you are completely confident that all women are like this, that is all you are going to see.  as a woman who is beyond her mid 0s, my friends and i were not like that.  i am sure there are a handful of women who are, but that is the exception not the rule.   #  eta: ha, this is not just my conclusion, it is literally stated in the okcupid article itself, which directly and explicitly contradicts the op women find fewer men attractive, but care less about the appearance .   #  i am not going to dive into the dangers of anecdotal data because others have covered that, but i want to point out that the study you are citing is actually really bad for your point: 0 it does not suggest that women place a larger emphasis on looks, just that they find a large number of men below average in terms of appearance.  if most women continue to date despite finding men unattractive, that suggests appearance actually does not matter that much to them.  if appearance was the primary characteristic for women and they find 0 of men unattractive, services like okcupid would go bankrupt.  0 it is limited to people on okcupid.  if we presume that the higher end of attractive men have less trouble finding partners, it is actually totally plausible that 0 of men on okcupid are below society is average.  in addition, citing pickup classes also argues against your point.  while they might touch on appearance, they are overwhelmingly focused on  game  and technique.  if they have any degree of success and their popularity suggests they do , i think it shows that things like confidence and charisma are, at the very least, quite important.  eta: ha, this is not just my conclusion, it is literally stated in the okcupid article itself, which directly and explicitly contradicts the op women find fewer men attractive, but care less about the appearance .  op, your cited source directly disagrees with you.   #  if you actually read it, it shows that while women rate 0 of the men as below average, they actually pursue dates with men of all levels of appearance.   #  i want to point out that you misread the conclusion of your okcupid article.  if you actually read it, it shows that while women rate 0 of the men as below average, they actually pursue dates with men of all levels of appearance.  meanwhile, men are more reserved in their attractiveness rating, but only actually pursue women who they rate as extremely attractive.  this suggests that the men of okcupid are more concerned with appearance, not the opposite as you claim.  not that okcupid is a scholarly source anyway.   #  it is also self selected, but so is most social data.   #  that sounds a lot like throwing your hands in the air and giving up to me.  maybe op is girl just has really shallow friends and so that is most of what he finds, i will buy that.  but it is not unreasonable to think that a majority of women might think in a certain way.  that is sort of the basis of social sciences.  okc may not be a scholarly source, but it is a really large data set so it is worth acknowledging.  it is also self selected, but so is most social data.  the conclusion reached by the article also seems pretty reasonable.  it is well known that the perceptions people hold are skewed.  most people think they are more attractive than they are, it seems reasonable that they think others are less attractive.  that might not support the conclusion of  women are shallow bitches  but it is not something to brush aside.   #  your objections are speculative so they may or may not be valid in the first place.   #  ok, do you have a better data set ? your objections are speculative so they may or may not be valid in the first place.  the problem with social data is that it is usually self reported.  it is also really difficult to get a large sample of this type of information with any accuracy.  it may not be perfect but it is all how people would really behave in a dating scenario, so it is worth something.
and lets just get out the way that i am not talking about extremes of not wanting to date 0 0 0lb guy with a neckbead that does not shower.  nor am i some kind of bitter loser, as i am a perfectly happy ltr with my girlfriend of about 0 years.  i have no skin in the game, just is just my observation as a 0 year old.  now lets get on to my view.  it seems like women pretty much only care about how hot a guy is based on what hollywood deams to be what the ideal hot guy is from movies, magazines, etc , and that is exactly what the women chase above all else, to the complete exclusion of others.  what i mean by this, is that most of these women will not give a guy a chance if you do not pass their extremely high bar of physical attractiveness standard, even if they themselves are only average on the bell curve of attractiveness.  this goes for chance meetings for example trying to start a casual conversation at a coffee house , meat markets clubs, bars, online dating , and social gatherings with friends.  pretty much all the ways that people normally meet people of romantic interests.  what am i basing my view on ? the following: 0.  personal experience when i was single.  0.  observation of my girlfriend is single friends all the way from high school to now different girlfriends and many different friends, so lots of observation .  0.  many studies on the subject, for example this one:  women rate 0 of men below average  URL 0.  the way that there are so many websites/communities sole dedicated to how to pick up women, which leads me to the conclusion that lots of men have trouble attracting women.  0.  from 0 to mid thirties, i have no seen the dating behavior of women  mature  or change in any way.   #  0.  from 0 to mid thirties, i have no seen the dating behavior of women  mature  or change in any way.   #  if you are completely confident that all women are like this, that is all you are going to see.   # it seems like women pretty much only care about how hot a guy is based on what hollywood deams to be what the ideal hot guy is from movies, magazines, etc , and that is exactly what the women chase above all else, to the complete exclusion of others.  as a woman i can assure you this is not the case.  for one, most of the  hot guys  that hollywood promotes are not my type.  everyone has their own standard of beauty/hansomeness.  what some might find sexy may not be my type.  and i personally look for different traits than just a pretty face.  i do not have time to deal with crazy, arrogant, self centered, or amoral.  is it possible you are drawn to a small subgroup of women who have things in common shallowness being one of them ? i am not saying that to insult anyone.  but it is what it is.  people do get drawn to a type, do not you think ? if a person finds themself drawn to shallow women, and women tend to hang around others like them it only makes sense the friends might also tend to be shallow.  it is a hook up site and a not very classy one imo .  it would be like going to only one cheap singles bar and then basing conclusions about  all  women based on narrow subset of women interviewed there.  what those are are some slick salesmen selling their ebooks and video tutorials, exploiting the insecurity some men have over meeting women.  their buyers chat on the pua forums, making each other feel better by venting their frustrations about women.  this is not a reflection on women; it is a sign some men do not grow up with the skills they need to interact with the opposite sex.  if you are completely confident that all women are like this, that is all you are going to see.  as a woman who is beyond her mid 0s, my friends and i were not like that.  i am sure there are a handful of women who are, but that is the exception not the rule.   #  eta: ha, this is not just my conclusion, it is literally stated in the okcupid article itself, which directly and explicitly contradicts the op women find fewer men attractive, but care less about the appearance .   #  i am not going to dive into the dangers of anecdotal data because others have covered that, but i want to point out that the study you are citing is actually really bad for your point: 0 it does not suggest that women place a larger emphasis on looks, just that they find a large number of men below average in terms of appearance.  if most women continue to date despite finding men unattractive, that suggests appearance actually does not matter that much to them.  if appearance was the primary characteristic for women and they find 0 of men unattractive, services like okcupid would go bankrupt.  0 it is limited to people on okcupid.  if we presume that the higher end of attractive men have less trouble finding partners, it is actually totally plausible that 0 of men on okcupid are below society is average.  in addition, citing pickup classes also argues against your point.  while they might touch on appearance, they are overwhelmingly focused on  game  and technique.  if they have any degree of success and their popularity suggests they do , i think it shows that things like confidence and charisma are, at the very least, quite important.  eta: ha, this is not just my conclusion, it is literally stated in the okcupid article itself, which directly and explicitly contradicts the op women find fewer men attractive, but care less about the appearance .  op, your cited source directly disagrees with you.   #  meanwhile, men are more reserved in their attractiveness rating, but only actually pursue women who they rate as extremely attractive.   #  i want to point out that you misread the conclusion of your okcupid article.  if you actually read it, it shows that while women rate 0 of the men as below average, they actually pursue dates with men of all levels of appearance.  meanwhile, men are more reserved in their attractiveness rating, but only actually pursue women who they rate as extremely attractive.  this suggests that the men of okcupid are more concerned with appearance, not the opposite as you claim.  not that okcupid is a scholarly source anyway.   #  that might not support the conclusion of  women are shallow bitches  but it is not something to brush aside.   #  that sounds a lot like throwing your hands in the air and giving up to me.  maybe op is girl just has really shallow friends and so that is most of what he finds, i will buy that.  but it is not unreasonable to think that a majority of women might think in a certain way.  that is sort of the basis of social sciences.  okc may not be a scholarly source, but it is a really large data set so it is worth acknowledging.  it is also self selected, but so is most social data.  the conclusion reached by the article also seems pretty reasonable.  it is well known that the perceptions people hold are skewed.  most people think they are more attractive than they are, it seems reasonable that they think others are less attractive.  that might not support the conclusion of  women are shallow bitches  but it is not something to brush aside.   #  it is also really difficult to get a large sample of this type of information with any accuracy.   #  ok, do you have a better data set ? your objections are speculative so they may or may not be valid in the first place.  the problem with social data is that it is usually self reported.  it is also really difficult to get a large sample of this type of information with any accuracy.  it may not be perfect but it is all how people would really behave in a dating scenario, so it is worth something.
i am generally a big government guy.  i believe everything, from education to healthcare to justice, would run much smoother if we allowed the federal government to have more power.  if the federal government is actually allowed to govern, everything would be better.  there would be no more devolution to state governments, and corporations would lose their stranglehold on politics.  it really makes me angry how little power the federal government is allowed to have.  state governments are an outdated, useless, and backward institution.  if i had my way, the state governments would be dissolved and reduced to ceremonial districts.  counties would be kept in place, but state powers would be given to the federal government.  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.  mississippi did not decided to ratify the thirteenth amendment until fucking 0.  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.  i think libertarianism is an awful idea because the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.  schooling should be federal, so states like texas and louisiana do not fill their public students  brains with revisionist history and creationist vitrol.  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the devolution of certain government responsibilities to corporations.  lockheed martin and similar weapons dealers should be nationalized pronto.  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  while it does not endorse hate, libertarianism is fundamentally based on selfishness and neglect.  it is a bit like the simpsons joke, of fox news being  not racist, but 0 with racists .  change my view ?  #  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.   #  0 of government bigotry is caused by bigots being elected to state governments.   #  i generally agree with you, though take a more nuanced view.  however, one thing really bothers me.  0 of government bigotry is caused by bigots being elected to state governments.  an uncomfortable reality is that many of these  backwards  things happening in  backwards  states are not the result of rogue governments doing evil things.  they are the will of the people in those respective areas.  removing / preventing a government from doing that will not prevent it from happening, so long as the people there still want it.  you are addressing a symptom, not a cause  #  many crimes could be justified in this way.   #  liberty is a gray area.  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.  many crimes could be justified in this way.  where is the line drawn ? where people make choices that do not hurt others ? but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.   #  well ultimately the defintion of liberty itself is non existant as it means different things to different people.  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.  i think you have the right to behave how you wish as long as it does not negatively effect other people.  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.  human beings have the right to do as they wish with their money in the same way meaning me buying a twinkie instead of donating said money to charity should not be illegal.  it might seem frivolous but it is the only means of achieving liberty in my view.  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.  if you pass someone on the street you do not steal from them by not giving them money.  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.  also you quoted the wrong person.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.  if charity was privatized, the resources would be used much better and there would be no government middle man to pay the salary of.  talk about cronyism.  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.
i am generally a big government guy.  i believe everything, from education to healthcare to justice, would run much smoother if we allowed the federal government to have more power.  if the federal government is actually allowed to govern, everything would be better.  there would be no more devolution to state governments, and corporations would lose their stranglehold on politics.  it really makes me angry how little power the federal government is allowed to have.  state governments are an outdated, useless, and backward institution.  if i had my way, the state governments would be dissolved and reduced to ceremonial districts.  counties would be kept in place, but state powers would be given to the federal government.  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.  mississippi did not decided to ratify the thirteenth amendment until fucking 0.  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.  i think libertarianism is an awful idea because the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.  schooling should be federal, so states like texas and louisiana do not fill their public students  brains with revisionist history and creationist vitrol.  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the devolution of certain government responsibilities to corporations.  lockheed martin and similar weapons dealers should be nationalized pronto.  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  while it does not endorse hate, libertarianism is fundamentally based on selfishness and neglect.  it is a bit like the simpsons joke, of fox news being  not racist, but 0 with racists .  change my view ?  #  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.   #  you have provided no evidence for this assertion.   # you have provided no evidence for this assertion.  another baseless assertion  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  are federal prisons less violent than state prisons ? you have simply assumed this without justification.  another assumption without any justification whatsoever.  did you know that gay marriage and abortion on demand were part of the libertarian party is official policy as early as 0 ? another utterly baseless assumption  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  nazism and stalinism were both extremely big government  #  many crimes could be justified in this way.   #  liberty is a gray area.  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.  many crimes could be justified in this way.  where is the line drawn ? where people make choices that do not hurt others ? but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.   #  well ultimately the defintion of liberty itself is non existant as it means different things to different people.  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.  i think you have the right to behave how you wish as long as it does not negatively effect other people.  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.  human beings have the right to do as they wish with their money in the same way meaning me buying a twinkie instead of donating said money to charity should not be illegal.  it might seem frivolous but it is the only means of achieving liberty in my view.  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.  if you pass someone on the street you do not steal from them by not giving them money.  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.  also you quoted the wrong person.   #  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.  if charity was privatized, the resources would be used much better and there would be no government middle man to pay the salary of.  talk about cronyism.  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.
i am generally a big government guy.  i believe everything, from education to healthcare to justice, would run much smoother if we allowed the federal government to have more power.  if the federal government is actually allowed to govern, everything would be better.  there would be no more devolution to state governments, and corporations would lose their stranglehold on politics.  it really makes me angry how little power the federal government is allowed to have.  state governments are an outdated, useless, and backward institution.  if i had my way, the state governments would be dissolved and reduced to ceremonial districts.  counties would be kept in place, but state powers would be given to the federal government.  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.  mississippi did not decided to ratify the thirteenth amendment until fucking 0.  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.  i think libertarianism is an awful idea because the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.  schooling should be federal, so states like texas and louisiana do not fill their public students  brains with revisionist history and creationist vitrol.  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the devolution of certain government responsibilities to corporations.  lockheed martin and similar weapons dealers should be nationalized pronto.  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  while it does not endorse hate, libertarianism is fundamentally based on selfishness and neglect.  it is a bit like the simpsons joke, of fox news being  not racist, but 0 with racists .  change my view ?  #  the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.   #  another baseless assertion  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.   # you have provided no evidence for this assertion.  another baseless assertion  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  are federal prisons less violent than state prisons ? you have simply assumed this without justification.  another assumption without any justification whatsoever.  did you know that gay marriage and abortion on demand were part of the libertarian party is official policy as early as 0 ? another utterly baseless assumption  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  nazism and stalinism were both extremely big government  #  but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.   #  liberty is a gray area.  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.  many crimes could be justified in this way.  where is the line drawn ? where people make choices that do not hurt others ? but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.   #  well ultimately the defintion of liberty itself is non existant as it means different things to different people.  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.  i think you have the right to behave how you wish as long as it does not negatively effect other people.  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.  human beings have the right to do as they wish with their money in the same way meaning me buying a twinkie instead of donating said money to charity should not be illegal.  it might seem frivolous but it is the only means of achieving liberty in my view.  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.  if you pass someone on the street you do not steal from them by not giving them money.  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.  also you quoted the wrong person.   #  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.  if charity was privatized, the resources would be used much better and there would be no government middle man to pay the salary of.  talk about cronyism.  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.
i am generally a big government guy.  i believe everything, from education to healthcare to justice, would run much smoother if we allowed the federal government to have more power.  if the federal government is actually allowed to govern, everything would be better.  there would be no more devolution to state governments, and corporations would lose their stranglehold on politics.  it really makes me angry how little power the federal government is allowed to have.  state governments are an outdated, useless, and backward institution.  if i had my way, the state governments would be dissolved and reduced to ceremonial districts.  counties would be kept in place, but state powers would be given to the federal government.  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.  mississippi did not decided to ratify the thirteenth amendment until fucking 0.  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.  i think libertarianism is an awful idea because the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.  schooling should be federal, so states like texas and louisiana do not fill their public students  brains with revisionist history and creationist vitrol.  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the devolution of certain government responsibilities to corporations.  lockheed martin and similar weapons dealers should be nationalized pronto.  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  while it does not endorse hate, libertarianism is fundamentally based on selfishness and neglect.  it is a bit like the simpsons joke, of fox news being  not racist, but 0 with racists .  change my view ?  #  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.   #  another utterly baseless assumption  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.   # you have provided no evidence for this assertion.  another baseless assertion  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  are federal prisons less violent than state prisons ? you have simply assumed this without justification.  another assumption without any justification whatsoever.  did you know that gay marriage and abortion on demand were part of the libertarian party is official policy as early as 0 ? another utterly baseless assumption  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  nazism and stalinism were both extremely big government  #  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.   #  liberty is a gray area.  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.  many crimes could be justified in this way.  where is the line drawn ? where people make choices that do not hurt others ? but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  well ultimately the defintion of liberty itself is non existant as it means different things to different people.  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.  i think you have the right to behave how you wish as long as it does not negatively effect other people.  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.  human beings have the right to do as they wish with their money in the same way meaning me buying a twinkie instead of donating said money to charity should not be illegal.  it might seem frivolous but it is the only means of achieving liberty in my view.  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.  if you pass someone on the street you do not steal from them by not giving them money.  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.  also you quoted the wrong person.   #  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.  if charity was privatized, the resources would be used much better and there would be no government middle man to pay the salary of.  talk about cronyism.  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.
i am generally a big government guy.  i believe everything, from education to healthcare to justice, would run much smoother if we allowed the federal government to have more power.  if the federal government is actually allowed to govern, everything would be better.  there would be no more devolution to state governments, and corporations would lose their stranglehold on politics.  it really makes me angry how little power the federal government is allowed to have.  state governments are an outdated, useless, and backward institution.  if i had my way, the state governments would be dissolved and reduced to ceremonial districts.  counties would be kept in place, but state powers would be given to the federal government.  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.  mississippi did not decided to ratify the thirteenth amendment until fucking 0.  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.  i think libertarianism is an awful idea because the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.  schooling should be federal, so states like texas and louisiana do not fill their public students  brains with revisionist history and creationist vitrol.  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the devolution of certain government responsibilities to corporations.  lockheed martin and similar weapons dealers should be nationalized pronto.  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  while it does not endorse hate, libertarianism is fundamentally based on selfishness and neglect.  it is a bit like the simpsons joke, of fox news being  not racist, but 0 with racists .  change my view ?  #  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.   #  unlike slavery being endorsed or allowed for years on the part of the federal government ?  # unlike slavery being endorsed or allowed for years on the part of the federal government ? i would argue that it is state governments that allow progress.  states are smaller, which makes it easier for individual states to make social improvements/changes like legalizing marijuana or gay marriage.  once one state makes such a change, it can make it easier for other states to gain support for such changes if it works well.  changes that federal congress ca not make as easily because the country is still divided on some issues.  no. not really.  do you have any sources for this ? i hear  iselfish  levied against libertarians often, but in my experience, that is very far from the truth.  it is not that libertarians are cold, uncaring people, but rather that they want more control over where their money goes and feel the federal government especially is coercive and does not manage money well i mean, look at the amount of debt the country is in .  for example, instead of having the government allocate as much money for food stamps, they would rather run additional private food banks and help out personally those they know who need help.  libertarians i know are also very into creating private scholarships to help kids pay for college.  they want to help others as much as the next person, they just do not think that the federal government is generally the best way to do that.  i actually feel that libertarians may be less selfish than others in some ways.  some people take the attitude that,  well, if people really need help, then the government will help them !  .  that is definitely not always the case and is an attitude that generally libertarians are against.  it calls for more personal accountability.  if you see someone who needs help, you help them.  you do not wait for all the proper forms to be filed.  you are not forced to help via taxes, you just want to help.   #  many crimes could be justified in this way.   #  liberty is a gray area.  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.  many crimes could be justified in this way.  where is the line drawn ? where people make choices that do not hurt others ? but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.   #  well ultimately the defintion of liberty itself is non existant as it means different things to different people.  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.  i think you have the right to behave how you wish as long as it does not negatively effect other people.  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.  human beings have the right to do as they wish with their money in the same way meaning me buying a twinkie instead of donating said money to charity should not be illegal.  it might seem frivolous but it is the only means of achieving liberty in my view.  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.  if you pass someone on the street you do not steal from them by not giving them money.  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.  also you quoted the wrong person.   #  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.  if charity was privatized, the resources would be used much better and there would be no government middle man to pay the salary of.  talk about cronyism.  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.
i am generally a big government guy.  i believe everything, from education to healthcare to justice, would run much smoother if we allowed the federal government to have more power.  if the federal government is actually allowed to govern, everything would be better.  there would be no more devolution to state governments, and corporations would lose their stranglehold on politics.  it really makes me angry how little power the federal government is allowed to have.  state governments are an outdated, useless, and backward institution.  if i had my way, the state governments would be dissolved and reduced to ceremonial districts.  counties would be kept in place, but state powers would be given to the federal government.  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.  mississippi did not decided to ratify the thirteenth amendment until fucking 0.  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.  i think libertarianism is an awful idea because the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.  schooling should be federal, so states like texas and louisiana do not fill their public students  brains with revisionist history and creationist vitrol.  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the devolution of certain government responsibilities to corporations.  lockheed martin and similar weapons dealers should be nationalized pronto.  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  while it does not endorse hate, libertarianism is fundamentally based on selfishness and neglect.  it is a bit like the simpsons joke, of fox news being  not racist, but 0 with racists .  change my view ?  #  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.   #  i hear  iselfish  levied against libertarians often, but in my experience, that is very far from the truth.   # unlike slavery being endorsed or allowed for years on the part of the federal government ? i would argue that it is state governments that allow progress.  states are smaller, which makes it easier for individual states to make social improvements/changes like legalizing marijuana or gay marriage.  once one state makes such a change, it can make it easier for other states to gain support for such changes if it works well.  changes that federal congress ca not make as easily because the country is still divided on some issues.  no. not really.  do you have any sources for this ? i hear  iselfish  levied against libertarians often, but in my experience, that is very far from the truth.  it is not that libertarians are cold, uncaring people, but rather that they want more control over where their money goes and feel the federal government especially is coercive and does not manage money well i mean, look at the amount of debt the country is in .  for example, instead of having the government allocate as much money for food stamps, they would rather run additional private food banks and help out personally those they know who need help.  libertarians i know are also very into creating private scholarships to help kids pay for college.  they want to help others as much as the next person, they just do not think that the federal government is generally the best way to do that.  i actually feel that libertarians may be less selfish than others in some ways.  some people take the attitude that,  well, if people really need help, then the government will help them !  .  that is definitely not always the case and is an attitude that generally libertarians are against.  it calls for more personal accountability.  if you see someone who needs help, you help them.  you do not wait for all the proper forms to be filed.  you are not forced to help via taxes, you just want to help.   #  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  liberty is a gray area.  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.  many crimes could be justified in this way.  where is the line drawn ? where people make choices that do not hurt others ? but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.   #  well ultimately the defintion of liberty itself is non existant as it means different things to different people.  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.  i think you have the right to behave how you wish as long as it does not negatively effect other people.  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.  human beings have the right to do as they wish with their money in the same way meaning me buying a twinkie instead of donating said money to charity should not be illegal.  it might seem frivolous but it is the only means of achieving liberty in my view.  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.  if you pass someone on the street you do not steal from them by not giving them money.  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.  also you quoted the wrong person.   #  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.  if charity was privatized, the resources would be used much better and there would be no government middle man to pay the salary of.  talk about cronyism.  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.
i am generally a big government guy.  i believe everything, from education to healthcare to justice, would run much smoother if we allowed the federal government to have more power.  if the federal government is actually allowed to govern, everything would be better.  there would be no more devolution to state governments, and corporations would lose their stranglehold on politics.  it really makes me angry how little power the federal government is allowed to have.  state governments are an outdated, useless, and backward institution.  if i had my way, the state governments would be dissolved and reduced to ceremonial districts.  counties would be kept in place, but state powers would be given to the federal government.  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.  mississippi did not decided to ratify the thirteenth amendment until fucking 0.  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.  i think libertarianism is an awful idea because the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.  schooling should be federal, so states like texas and louisiana do not fill their public students  brains with revisionist history and creationist vitrol.  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the devolution of certain government responsibilities to corporations.  lockheed martin and similar weapons dealers should be nationalized pronto.  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  while it does not endorse hate, libertarianism is fundamentally based on selfishness and neglect.  it is a bit like the simpsons joke, of fox news being  not racist, but 0 with racists .  change my view ?  #  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.   #  i am assuming you think gay marriage is a good thing.  remind me, who passed that first, the federal government, or a state ?  #  small, weak federal government which is what you would say about what we have now does not run efficiently.  but do you have any evidence to support your argument that a bigger government would be better and not just even more inefficient ? i am assuming you think gay marriage is a good thing.  remind me, who passed that first, the federal government, or a state ? some states are  wrong  and some are  right.   again, evidence ? you cannot expect a bunch of people in washington to adequately represent the needs of everyone.  america is a very broad and diverse place.  wyoming needs a different minimum wage than new york because cost of living is different.  how do you elect representatives ? senators ? the president ? if you do away with state lines, our whole system of government has to be redone.  do you even want elections ? and not to be smart ass, but can you name me something the federal government does well other than waste money, lie, and take bribes ? the va is a disaster, congress ca not get anything done, there are too many 0 letter agencies that abuse their power in violation of the constitution.  where is the money for this coming from ?  #  many crimes could be justified in this way.   #  liberty is a gray area.  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.  many crimes could be justified in this way.  where is the line drawn ? where people make choices that do not hurt others ? but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  well ultimately the defintion of liberty itself is non existant as it means different things to different people.  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.  i think you have the right to behave how you wish as long as it does not negatively effect other people.  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.  human beings have the right to do as they wish with their money in the same way meaning me buying a twinkie instead of donating said money to charity should not be illegal.  it might seem frivolous but it is the only means of achieving liberty in my view.  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.  if you pass someone on the street you do not steal from them by not giving them money.  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.  also you quoted the wrong person.   #  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.  if charity was privatized, the resources would be used much better and there would be no government middle man to pay the salary of.  talk about cronyism.  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.
i am generally a big government guy.  i believe everything, from education to healthcare to justice, would run much smoother if we allowed the federal government to have more power.  if the federal government is actually allowed to govern, everything would be better.  there would be no more devolution to state governments, and corporations would lose their stranglehold on politics.  it really makes me angry how little power the federal government is allowed to have.  state governments are an outdated, useless, and backward institution.  if i had my way, the state governments would be dissolved and reduced to ceremonial districts.  counties would be kept in place, but state powers would be given to the federal government.  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.  mississippi did not decided to ratify the thirteenth amendment until fucking 0.  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.  i think libertarianism is an awful idea because the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.  schooling should be federal, so states like texas and louisiana do not fill their public students  brains with revisionist history and creationist vitrol.  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the devolution of certain government responsibilities to corporations.  lockheed martin and similar weapons dealers should be nationalized pronto.  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  while it does not endorse hate, libertarianism is fundamentally based on selfishness and neglect.  it is a bit like the simpsons joke, of fox news being  not racist, but 0 with racists .  change my view ?  #  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.   #  where is the money for this coming from ?  #  small, weak federal government which is what you would say about what we have now does not run efficiently.  but do you have any evidence to support your argument that a bigger government would be better and not just even more inefficient ? i am assuming you think gay marriage is a good thing.  remind me, who passed that first, the federal government, or a state ? some states are  wrong  and some are  right.   again, evidence ? you cannot expect a bunch of people in washington to adequately represent the needs of everyone.  america is a very broad and diverse place.  wyoming needs a different minimum wage than new york because cost of living is different.  how do you elect representatives ? senators ? the president ? if you do away with state lines, our whole system of government has to be redone.  do you even want elections ? and not to be smart ass, but can you name me something the federal government does well other than waste money, lie, and take bribes ? the va is a disaster, congress ca not get anything done, there are too many 0 letter agencies that abuse their power in violation of the constitution.  where is the money for this coming from ?  #  but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.   #  liberty is a gray area.  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.  many crimes could be justified in this way.  where is the line drawn ? where people make choices that do not hurt others ? but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.   #  well ultimately the defintion of liberty itself is non existant as it means different things to different people.  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.  i think you have the right to behave how you wish as long as it does not negatively effect other people.  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.  human beings have the right to do as they wish with their money in the same way meaning me buying a twinkie instead of donating said money to charity should not be illegal.  it might seem frivolous but it is the only means of achieving liberty in my view.  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.  if you pass someone on the street you do not steal from them by not giving them money.  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.  also you quoted the wrong person.   #  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.  if charity was privatized, the resources would be used much better and there would be no government middle man to pay the salary of.  talk about cronyism.  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.
i am generally a big government guy.  i believe everything, from education to healthcare to justice, would run much smoother if we allowed the federal government to have more power.  if the federal government is actually allowed to govern, everything would be better.  there would be no more devolution to state governments, and corporations would lose their stranglehold on politics.  it really makes me angry how little power the federal government is allowed to have.  state governments are an outdated, useless, and backward institution.  if i had my way, the state governments would be dissolved and reduced to ceremonial districts.  counties would be kept in place, but state powers would be given to the federal government.  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.  mississippi did not decided to ratify the thirteenth amendment until fucking 0.  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.  i think libertarianism is an awful idea because the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.  schooling should be federal, so states like texas and louisiana do not fill their public students  brains with revisionist history and creationist vitrol.  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the devolution of certain government responsibilities to corporations.  lockheed martin and similar weapons dealers should be nationalized pronto.  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  while it does not endorse hate, libertarianism is fundamentally based on selfishness and neglect.  it is a bit like the simpsons joke, of fox news being  not racist, but 0 with racists .  change my view ?  #  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.   #  many libertarians believe in social liberalism, including equal rights for all sexual orientations, genders, and races.   # so u. s.  postal service is better than fedex ? please remember that companies have serious reason to be the best and most efficient and customer friendly they can be.  government has no reason to be best/efficient/customer friendly, because they can make themselves the monopoly in a service and cut out all competition.  you need to have competition to have the best service in any market.  you are suffering from anti market bias, a common problem in people who have not taken economics.  URL   anti market bias explanation.  many libertarians believe in social liberalism, including equal rights for all sexual orientations, genders, and races.  libertarians simply do not support government handouts, affirmative action, and messing with the  invisible hand of the marketplace .  they believe in social and financial freedom be who you want to be and support yourself; do not force others to pay for your xyz.  show me any facts on this.  i promise if you actually research you will find government intervention leads to more poverty and blocks the prevention of racism who was it who installed the jim crow laws again ? oh right .  libertarianism is based off of economics and free markets.  it has been proven to work.  democrats and republicans are the ones with illegitimate, emotional viewpoints, as they base everything on  should be  rather than  what is .   #  where people make choices that do not hurt others ?  #  liberty is a gray area.  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.  many crimes could be justified in this way.  where is the line drawn ? where people make choices that do not hurt others ? but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.   #  well ultimately the defintion of liberty itself is non existant as it means different things to different people.  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.  i think you have the right to behave how you wish as long as it does not negatively effect other people.  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.  human beings have the right to do as they wish with their money in the same way meaning me buying a twinkie instead of donating said money to charity should not be illegal.  it might seem frivolous but it is the only means of achieving liberty in my view.  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.  if you pass someone on the street you do not steal from them by not giving them money.  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.  also you quoted the wrong person.   #  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.  if charity was privatized, the resources would be used much better and there would be no government middle man to pay the salary of.  talk about cronyism.  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.
i am generally a big government guy.  i believe everything, from education to healthcare to justice, would run much smoother if we allowed the federal government to have more power.  if the federal government is actually allowed to govern, everything would be better.  there would be no more devolution to state governments, and corporations would lose their stranglehold on politics.  it really makes me angry how little power the federal government is allowed to have.  state governments are an outdated, useless, and backward institution.  if i had my way, the state governments would be dissolved and reduced to ceremonial districts.  counties would be kept in place, but state powers would be given to the federal government.  0 of government bigotry legalization against gay marriage, racist or sexist policy, etc is caused by the state governments.  mississippi did not decided to ratify the thirteenth amendment until fucking 0.  state governments should be given no responsibility, as they have proved they deserve none.  i think libertarianism is an awful idea because the federal government is better at services than any company or state institution can be.  schooling should be federal, so states like texas and louisiana do not fill their public students  brains with revisionist history and creationist vitrol.  the prison system needs to be federalized pronto, to crack down on violence.  i would be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the devolution of certain government responsibilities to corporations.  lockheed martin and similar weapons dealers should be nationalized pronto.  the united states government should also buy at least 0 in stock of many domestic corporations, like mcdonalds or coca cola, to begin the integration of corporate economics and government economics.  i feel that libertarians are mostly selfish ingrates who either hate the poor or do not care about anybody who is not a straight white person from a well off background.  libertarianism leads to more poverty, blocks the prevention of racism and other prejudice, and ensures that poor people have little hope of escaping their plight.  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.  to me, it is nearly as hateful and dangerous as nazism or stalinism.  while it does not endorse hate, libertarianism is fundamentally based on selfishness and neglect.  it is a bit like the simpsons joke, of fox news being  not racist, but 0 with racists .  change my view ?  #  i see absolutely no reason why libertarianism should be tolerated as a legitimate viewpoint.   #  libertarianism is based off of economics and free markets.   # so u. s.  postal service is better than fedex ? please remember that companies have serious reason to be the best and most efficient and customer friendly they can be.  government has no reason to be best/efficient/customer friendly, because they can make themselves the monopoly in a service and cut out all competition.  you need to have competition to have the best service in any market.  you are suffering from anti market bias, a common problem in people who have not taken economics.  URL   anti market bias explanation.  many libertarians believe in social liberalism, including equal rights for all sexual orientations, genders, and races.  libertarians simply do not support government handouts, affirmative action, and messing with the  invisible hand of the marketplace .  they believe in social and financial freedom be who you want to be and support yourself; do not force others to pay for your xyz.  show me any facts on this.  i promise if you actually research you will find government intervention leads to more poverty and blocks the prevention of racism who was it who installed the jim crow laws again ? oh right .  libertarianism is based off of economics and free markets.  it has been proven to work.  democrats and republicans are the ones with illegitimate, emotional viewpoints, as they base everything on  should be  rather than  what is .   #  where people make choices that do not hurt others ?  #  liberty is a gray area.  owning slaves could be justified by saying that it is a freedom to own anything.  many crimes could be justified in this way.  where is the line drawn ? where people make choices that do not hurt others ? but that would restrict the choices people make greatly.  a person would then not be allowed to burn their own money, for example.   #  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.   #  well ultimately the defintion of liberty itself is non existant as it means different things to different people.  communists and libertarians view each other as authoritarians for this very reason.  i think you have the right to behave how you wish as long as it does not negatively effect other people.  therefore you ca not kill people or hurt them or steal from them.  human beings have the right to do as they wish with their money in the same way meaning me buying a twinkie instead of donating said money to charity should not be illegal.  it might seem frivolous but it is the only means of achieving liberty in my view.  the way i see it if i earnt money i deserve to spend it how i wish and not be told how to by someone else.  do what you wish but do not force me to join you.  i am personally in favour of government in certain instances because corporations can effectively act like government in some situations and at least with government its a  devil you know  situation.  however by and large my life is no one elses business and i should be free to do what i want.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.   #  you are making appear as if it is binary.  you are not hurting someone by not helping them.  if you pass someone on the street you do not steal from them by not giving them money.  by not helping someone you are neutral, usually its a morally neutral act not to help someone.  it would be good to help them and bad to hurt them but neutral to do nothing.  also you quoted the wrong person.   #  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.   #  so you are assuming taxation is a better charity than private charities, okay.  americans are told that the government is fixing the problem of poor and underprivileged through our taxes.  so when asked to donate to charity, the response is i already donate, through taxes.  clearly poverty is still rampant in america, so it looks like government is not doing such a good job despite racking up an insane debt in the process.  if charity was privatized, the resources would be used much better and there would be no government middle man to pay the salary of.  talk about cronyism.  tldr: i believe in charity, strongly, and so do libertarians.  the government does a piss poor job as a charity though.
this is the year 0 and we are still extremely dependent on fossil fuels for something as mundane as going to work or going out to eat.  electric cars, despite the technology being around almost as long as their gas and diesel powered counterparts, are still this very  niche  thing, with this vague  hope  that maybe one day sometime in the distant future, battery electric cars may become the norm.  but we are not there now because the technology for electric cars is  just not ready yet .  bull.  shit.  it is ready.  or it would be if it were not for coprorate interests collaborating with corrupt government to purposely raise the barrier of entry for start up car companies to nearly impossible to reach levels.  tesla motors only exists because a man wanted to get into the business of selling mass produced electric vehicles to the public, and had the wealth and connections to make it happen.  which is extremely rare in this world for various very boringly complex reasons.  electric cars are practical.  just look at the tesla model s and realize that if gm, ford, and chrysler had put as much weight into research and development of electric cars as they had defending their business interest from having to actually have some fucking foresight, we would probably be farther ahead today than the tesla model s is now.  so what if it takes a night to recharge that battery ? that should post no problems to your daily commute ! maybe travelling would be a bit slower.  but that is really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere.  if electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts.  tl;dr electric cars have been held back by extremely powerful corporate entities who want to sell you the same crappy gas powered cars and trucks until the dinosaur juice runs out and/or the earth just flat out explodes, whichever comes first.  it has very little to do with their practicality.   #  crappy gas powered cars and trucks until the dinosaur juice runs out and/or the earth just flat out explodes, whichever comes first.   #  it has very little to do with their practicality.   # it has very little to do with their practicality.  i also think that people forget that just because the car is electric does not mean it is really more environmentally friendly.  mining the toxic metals that make up suitable batteries have a huge impact environmentally.  also, keep in mind that huge amounts of electricity comes from burning coal.  assuming that electric cars are infinitely better because you personally are not burning fossil fuels while driving is careless first order thinking.  URL to recap:  minimal  increase in environmental friendliness, and as others have pointed out, no infrastructure recharging stations .   #  you do not think battery manufacturers are not trying their hardest to be the first battery provider in an electric corolla ?  #  it is not electric motors or the cars themselves that is the problem, it is battery tech.  it is not bullshit, batteries at their current level are expensive, heavy, and have limited capacity.  it is not gm is fault that batteries have not advanced to the point where you can have 0km of range and recharge in 0 minutes like i can with my car.  electric cars are practical right now if you are rich enough to afford a model s and do not drive 0km or so in a day.  they are practical right now if you live in certain parts of the world and can get a heavily subsidized nissan leaf to commute.  they are not practical right now if you need affordable transportation which reflects the vast majority of car buyers.  these things take time.  the model s is a very significant step because it is the first electric car that a real person could justifiably buy with real money i. e.  not as a fleet car over the competition.  that is the issue right now, with every other electric car you are compromising somewhere and paying more for the privilege.  with the model s you are getting a car with fantastic quality, great styling, an excellent interior, good handling, and gobs of torque and power which has enough range that it is not a deal breaker .  it is competitive  as a car , not just as an electric car.  you talk about a vague hope of electric cars, but the reality is that thanks to the model s it does not have to be a vague hope anymore, a real electric car that you could actually buy as your everyday car finally exists.  you are handwaving ideas about how if they were common they would be cheap, while ignoring the significant issues with the tech.  they are not commonplace for a reason, do not you think that gm or ford would like to be the first to the punch with an affordable electric car ? you do not think battery manufacturers are not trying their hardest to be the first battery provider in an electric corolla ? the technology just is not there yet.  it works in the model s because people in that market are not nickel and diming over a couple thousand dollars, nobody balks at paying 0k for a tesla that they like more than an audi that costs $0k.  people will walk away from buying a small electric car for $0 0k when gas powered ones do the same things for 0 0k.   #  they were clearly inferior to the teslas, probably more like the nissan leaf that you mentioned.   #  i read your argument and i agree that it is valid, but only for some places in the world the us is probably the main country most people in reddit are interested in.  however, here in israel, there started a company called  better place  that started to bring electric cars to the market.  they were clearly inferior to the teslas, probably more like the nissan leaf that you mentioned.  the upshot is that almost nobody here needs to do more than 0km a day and these cars sufficed.  some of the things that brought them down were that:   they did not open the charging technology for competitors or for charging from a regular power outlet .  the government which exacts huge amounts of taxes 0  markup over the price on regular cars already, could have given more tax rebates and such to electric car owners and thus made them more attractive.  but they did not, they preferred the gasoline industry.  there were probably several other dumb non technology related decisions made along the way, but i am only partly familiar with better place and its mistakes.   #  electric cars are coming along, and i would like to see them keep coming along.   # awesome acceleration.  also, it allows more freedom in the design of the car.  the flip over test was impossible for the tesla using the regular test equipment because it has such a low center of gravity due to battery placement.  electric cars are coming along, and i would like to see them keep coming along.  but op is wrong, the tech just is not there yet for mass production at an affordable price, especially if you discount subsidies.  think of the family with two kids that does not make much money, so does not pay much if any in income taxes after the kids are deducted.  the nissan leaf is almost $0,0, and the family wo not get to take advantage of the $0,0 plus tax credit that brings it down the the price they always show in the ads with the asterisk next to it.   #  basically just charging you for transmitting the power and assuming creating it is free.   #  /u/seththebest0 was referring to needing additional power infrastructure to charge cars.  that is not really correct, as the infrastructure already exists and just is not being used at night.  and utilities offer reduced pricing to ev users to charge at night.  see this link URL from 0 cents/kwh during the day to only 0cents/kwh at night.  basically just charging you for transmitting the power and assuming creating it is free.
this is the year 0 and we are still extremely dependent on fossil fuels for something as mundane as going to work or going out to eat.  electric cars, despite the technology being around almost as long as their gas and diesel powered counterparts, are still this very  niche  thing, with this vague  hope  that maybe one day sometime in the distant future, battery electric cars may become the norm.  but we are not there now because the technology for electric cars is  just not ready yet .  bull.  shit.  it is ready.  or it would be if it were not for coprorate interests collaborating with corrupt government to purposely raise the barrier of entry for start up car companies to nearly impossible to reach levels.  tesla motors only exists because a man wanted to get into the business of selling mass produced electric vehicles to the public, and had the wealth and connections to make it happen.  which is extremely rare in this world for various very boringly complex reasons.  electric cars are practical.  just look at the tesla model s and realize that if gm, ford, and chrysler had put as much weight into research and development of electric cars as they had defending their business interest from having to actually have some fucking foresight, we would probably be farther ahead today than the tesla model s is now.  so what if it takes a night to recharge that battery ? that should post no problems to your daily commute ! maybe travelling would be a bit slower.  but that is really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere.  if electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts.  tl;dr electric cars have been held back by extremely powerful corporate entities who want to sell you the same crappy gas powered cars and trucks until the dinosaur juice runs out and/or the earth just flat out explodes, whichever comes first.  it has very little to do with their practicality.   #  this is the year 0 and we are still extremely dependent on fossil fuels for something as mundane as going to work or going out to eat.   #  can you tell me how an electric car changes that ?  # can you tell me how an electric car changes that ? do you believe that coal, oil, and natural gas are not being used in power plants today ? if this is the reason you think electric cars are good, then please consider that they are still using these fuels.  shit.  it is ready.  or it would be if it were not for coprorate interests collaborating with corrupt government to purposely raise the barrier of entry for start up car companies to nearly impossible to reach levels.  this has nothing to do with corruption or corporate interests.  the cost of starting a company like an automobile manufacturer is incredibly high.  there is no such thing as starting small with an automobile manufacturer.  they are not a product that you can mass produce and dump a million of them across the world.  they are expensive to make, expensive to ship, expensive to sell and expensive to market to consumers.  tesla had the money, and the selling point to launch their product and even then received help from the government to get there and did not sell a lot of product quickly.  if they do not start offering a non luxury vehicle in the next 0 years, tesla will find itself in the red quick.  luxury is not the prime market.  just look at the tesla model s and realize that if gm, ford, and chrysler had put as much weight into research and development of electric cars as they had defending their business interest from having to actually have some fucking foresight, we would probably be farther ahead today than the tesla model s is now.  not too likely.  the american automotive industry relies less on innovation and more on patriotism.  they have been producing substandard vehicles for many many years and only recently have begun to catch up in quality.  on the flip side, if this was simply a matter of r d, certainly one of the other dozens of car manufacturers in other countries would have been leading the way right ? multiple asian countries with car manufacturers, in the heart of technology development, would have produced electric cars to sell in countries where they believed the technology was viable ? or the british and german manufacturers whose oil prices are sky high ? the sad fact is no, these companies had no motive to engage in electric vehicles as the new wave.  a few tried, but ultimately they proved incredibly unpopular.  that should post no problems to your daily commute ! maybe travelling would be a bit slower.  but that is really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere.  if electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts.  this is the current problem.  if i want to go run around the city making multiple stops, i risk myself getting stuck somewhere without power.  charging stations are not common, even in places of large electric vehicle usage.  and if you want to take a road trip or go an extended distance that is right out.  not to mention colder climates tend to wreck batteries.  slowly the price would go down, but you have to consider a multiple fuel source scenario like this.  first, we already have infrastructure in place for gasoline distribution.  many of these stations are not in places where high level current can be routed for mass electric charging stations.  you also have to consider that the cost of making that change does not fall upon oil companies, tax payers, or anyone but the small business owner themselves.  many of whom are affiliated with an oil company to get their fuel.  lastly, we will always need gasoline stations for other things lawnmowers, weed whackers, toy planes, classic cars, race cars, boats, rvs, commercial vehicles, semi trucks which are not feasible as electric vehicles.  also, even the electric vehicles are dinosaur fueled.   #  that is the issue right now, with every other electric car you are compromising somewhere and paying more for the privilege.   #  it is not electric motors or the cars themselves that is the problem, it is battery tech.  it is not bullshit, batteries at their current level are expensive, heavy, and have limited capacity.  it is not gm is fault that batteries have not advanced to the point where you can have 0km of range and recharge in 0 minutes like i can with my car.  electric cars are practical right now if you are rich enough to afford a model s and do not drive 0km or so in a day.  they are practical right now if you live in certain parts of the world and can get a heavily subsidized nissan leaf to commute.  they are not practical right now if you need affordable transportation which reflects the vast majority of car buyers.  these things take time.  the model s is a very significant step because it is the first electric car that a real person could justifiably buy with real money i. e.  not as a fleet car over the competition.  that is the issue right now, with every other electric car you are compromising somewhere and paying more for the privilege.  with the model s you are getting a car with fantastic quality, great styling, an excellent interior, good handling, and gobs of torque and power which has enough range that it is not a deal breaker .  it is competitive  as a car , not just as an electric car.  you talk about a vague hope of electric cars, but the reality is that thanks to the model s it does not have to be a vague hope anymore, a real electric car that you could actually buy as your everyday car finally exists.  you are handwaving ideas about how if they were common they would be cheap, while ignoring the significant issues with the tech.  they are not commonplace for a reason, do not you think that gm or ford would like to be the first to the punch with an affordable electric car ? you do not think battery manufacturers are not trying their hardest to be the first battery provider in an electric corolla ? the technology just is not there yet.  it works in the model s because people in that market are not nickel and diming over a couple thousand dollars, nobody balks at paying 0k for a tesla that they like more than an audi that costs $0k.  people will walk away from buying a small electric car for $0 0k when gas powered ones do the same things for 0 0k.   #  however, here in israel, there started a company called  better place  that started to bring electric cars to the market.   #  i read your argument and i agree that it is valid, but only for some places in the world the us is probably the main country most people in reddit are interested in.  however, here in israel, there started a company called  better place  that started to bring electric cars to the market.  they were clearly inferior to the teslas, probably more like the nissan leaf that you mentioned.  the upshot is that almost nobody here needs to do more than 0km a day and these cars sufficed.  some of the things that brought them down were that:   they did not open the charging technology for competitors or for charging from a regular power outlet .  the government which exacts huge amounts of taxes 0  markup over the price on regular cars already, could have given more tax rebates and such to electric car owners and thus made them more attractive.  but they did not, they preferred the gasoline industry.  there were probably several other dumb non technology related decisions made along the way, but i am only partly familiar with better place and its mistakes.   #  the flip over test was impossible for the tesla using the regular test equipment because it has such a low center of gravity due to battery placement.   # awesome acceleration.  also, it allows more freedom in the design of the car.  the flip over test was impossible for the tesla using the regular test equipment because it has such a low center of gravity due to battery placement.  electric cars are coming along, and i would like to see them keep coming along.  but op is wrong, the tech just is not there yet for mass production at an affordable price, especially if you discount subsidies.  think of the family with two kids that does not make much money, so does not pay much if any in income taxes after the kids are deducted.  the nissan leaf is almost $0,0, and the family wo not get to take advantage of the $0,0 plus tax credit that brings it down the the price they always show in the ads with the asterisk next to it.   #  and utilities offer reduced pricing to ev users to charge at night.   #  /u/seththebest0 was referring to needing additional power infrastructure to charge cars.  that is not really correct, as the infrastructure already exists and just is not being used at night.  and utilities offer reduced pricing to ev users to charge at night.  see this link URL from 0 cents/kwh during the day to only 0cents/kwh at night.  basically just charging you for transmitting the power and assuming creating it is free.
this is the year 0 and we are still extremely dependent on fossil fuels for something as mundane as going to work or going out to eat.  electric cars, despite the technology being around almost as long as their gas and diesel powered counterparts, are still this very  niche  thing, with this vague  hope  that maybe one day sometime in the distant future, battery electric cars may become the norm.  but we are not there now because the technology for electric cars is  just not ready yet .  bull.  shit.  it is ready.  or it would be if it were not for coprorate interests collaborating with corrupt government to purposely raise the barrier of entry for start up car companies to nearly impossible to reach levels.  tesla motors only exists because a man wanted to get into the business of selling mass produced electric vehicles to the public, and had the wealth and connections to make it happen.  which is extremely rare in this world for various very boringly complex reasons.  electric cars are practical.  just look at the tesla model s and realize that if gm, ford, and chrysler had put as much weight into research and development of electric cars as they had defending their business interest from having to actually have some fucking foresight, we would probably be farther ahead today than the tesla model s is now.  so what if it takes a night to recharge that battery ? that should post no problems to your daily commute ! maybe travelling would be a bit slower.  but that is really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere.  if electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts.  tl;dr electric cars have been held back by extremely powerful corporate entities who want to sell you the same crappy gas powered cars and trucks until the dinosaur juice runs out and/or the earth just flat out explodes, whichever comes first.  it has very little to do with their practicality.   #  so what if it takes a night to recharge that battery ?  #  that should post no problems to your daily commute !  # can you tell me how an electric car changes that ? do you believe that coal, oil, and natural gas are not being used in power plants today ? if this is the reason you think electric cars are good, then please consider that they are still using these fuels.  shit.  it is ready.  or it would be if it were not for coprorate interests collaborating with corrupt government to purposely raise the barrier of entry for start up car companies to nearly impossible to reach levels.  this has nothing to do with corruption or corporate interests.  the cost of starting a company like an automobile manufacturer is incredibly high.  there is no such thing as starting small with an automobile manufacturer.  they are not a product that you can mass produce and dump a million of them across the world.  they are expensive to make, expensive to ship, expensive to sell and expensive to market to consumers.  tesla had the money, and the selling point to launch their product and even then received help from the government to get there and did not sell a lot of product quickly.  if they do not start offering a non luxury vehicle in the next 0 years, tesla will find itself in the red quick.  luxury is not the prime market.  just look at the tesla model s and realize that if gm, ford, and chrysler had put as much weight into research and development of electric cars as they had defending their business interest from having to actually have some fucking foresight, we would probably be farther ahead today than the tesla model s is now.  not too likely.  the american automotive industry relies less on innovation and more on patriotism.  they have been producing substandard vehicles for many many years and only recently have begun to catch up in quality.  on the flip side, if this was simply a matter of r d, certainly one of the other dozens of car manufacturers in other countries would have been leading the way right ? multiple asian countries with car manufacturers, in the heart of technology development, would have produced electric cars to sell in countries where they believed the technology was viable ? or the british and german manufacturers whose oil prices are sky high ? the sad fact is no, these companies had no motive to engage in electric vehicles as the new wave.  a few tried, but ultimately they proved incredibly unpopular.  that should post no problems to your daily commute ! maybe travelling would be a bit slower.  but that is really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere.  if electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts.  this is the current problem.  if i want to go run around the city making multiple stops, i risk myself getting stuck somewhere without power.  charging stations are not common, even in places of large electric vehicle usage.  and if you want to take a road trip or go an extended distance that is right out.  not to mention colder climates tend to wreck batteries.  slowly the price would go down, but you have to consider a multiple fuel source scenario like this.  first, we already have infrastructure in place for gasoline distribution.  many of these stations are not in places where high level current can be routed for mass electric charging stations.  you also have to consider that the cost of making that change does not fall upon oil companies, tax payers, or anyone but the small business owner themselves.  many of whom are affiliated with an oil company to get their fuel.  lastly, we will always need gasoline stations for other things lawnmowers, weed whackers, toy planes, classic cars, race cars, boats, rvs, commercial vehicles, semi trucks which are not feasible as electric vehicles.  also, even the electric vehicles are dinosaur fueled.   #  they are practical right now if you live in certain parts of the world and can get a heavily subsidized nissan leaf to commute.   #  it is not electric motors or the cars themselves that is the problem, it is battery tech.  it is not bullshit, batteries at their current level are expensive, heavy, and have limited capacity.  it is not gm is fault that batteries have not advanced to the point where you can have 0km of range and recharge in 0 minutes like i can with my car.  electric cars are practical right now if you are rich enough to afford a model s and do not drive 0km or so in a day.  they are practical right now if you live in certain parts of the world and can get a heavily subsidized nissan leaf to commute.  they are not practical right now if you need affordable transportation which reflects the vast majority of car buyers.  these things take time.  the model s is a very significant step because it is the first electric car that a real person could justifiably buy with real money i. e.  not as a fleet car over the competition.  that is the issue right now, with every other electric car you are compromising somewhere and paying more for the privilege.  with the model s you are getting a car with fantastic quality, great styling, an excellent interior, good handling, and gobs of torque and power which has enough range that it is not a deal breaker .  it is competitive  as a car , not just as an electric car.  you talk about a vague hope of electric cars, but the reality is that thanks to the model s it does not have to be a vague hope anymore, a real electric car that you could actually buy as your everyday car finally exists.  you are handwaving ideas about how if they were common they would be cheap, while ignoring the significant issues with the tech.  they are not commonplace for a reason, do not you think that gm or ford would like to be the first to the punch with an affordable electric car ? you do not think battery manufacturers are not trying their hardest to be the first battery provider in an electric corolla ? the technology just is not there yet.  it works in the model s because people in that market are not nickel and diming over a couple thousand dollars, nobody balks at paying 0k for a tesla that they like more than an audi that costs $0k.  people will walk away from buying a small electric car for $0 0k when gas powered ones do the same things for 0 0k.   #  they were clearly inferior to the teslas, probably more like the nissan leaf that you mentioned.   #  i read your argument and i agree that it is valid, but only for some places in the world the us is probably the main country most people in reddit are interested in.  however, here in israel, there started a company called  better place  that started to bring electric cars to the market.  they were clearly inferior to the teslas, probably more like the nissan leaf that you mentioned.  the upshot is that almost nobody here needs to do more than 0km a day and these cars sufficed.  some of the things that brought them down were that:   they did not open the charging technology for competitors or for charging from a regular power outlet .  the government which exacts huge amounts of taxes 0  markup over the price on regular cars already, could have given more tax rebates and such to electric car owners and thus made them more attractive.  but they did not, they preferred the gasoline industry.  there were probably several other dumb non technology related decisions made along the way, but i am only partly familiar with better place and its mistakes.   #  the flip over test was impossible for the tesla using the regular test equipment because it has such a low center of gravity due to battery placement.   # awesome acceleration.  also, it allows more freedom in the design of the car.  the flip over test was impossible for the tesla using the regular test equipment because it has such a low center of gravity due to battery placement.  electric cars are coming along, and i would like to see them keep coming along.  but op is wrong, the tech just is not there yet for mass production at an affordable price, especially if you discount subsidies.  think of the family with two kids that does not make much money, so does not pay much if any in income taxes after the kids are deducted.  the nissan leaf is almost $0,0, and the family wo not get to take advantage of the $0,0 plus tax credit that brings it down the the price they always show in the ads with the asterisk next to it.   #  /u/seththebest0 was referring to needing additional power infrastructure to charge cars.   #  /u/seththebest0 was referring to needing additional power infrastructure to charge cars.  that is not really correct, as the infrastructure already exists and just is not being used at night.  and utilities offer reduced pricing to ev users to charge at night.  see this link URL from 0 cents/kwh during the day to only 0cents/kwh at night.  basically just charging you for transmitting the power and assuming creating it is free.
this is the year 0 and we are still extremely dependent on fossil fuels for something as mundane as going to work or going out to eat.  electric cars, despite the technology being around almost as long as their gas and diesel powered counterparts, are still this very  niche  thing, with this vague  hope  that maybe one day sometime in the distant future, battery electric cars may become the norm.  but we are not there now because the technology for electric cars is  just not ready yet .  bull.  shit.  it is ready.  or it would be if it were not for coprorate interests collaborating with corrupt government to purposely raise the barrier of entry for start up car companies to nearly impossible to reach levels.  tesla motors only exists because a man wanted to get into the business of selling mass produced electric vehicles to the public, and had the wealth and connections to make it happen.  which is extremely rare in this world for various very boringly complex reasons.  electric cars are practical.  just look at the tesla model s and realize that if gm, ford, and chrysler had put as much weight into research and development of electric cars as they had defending their business interest from having to actually have some fucking foresight, we would probably be farther ahead today than the tesla model s is now.  so what if it takes a night to recharge that battery ? that should post no problems to your daily commute ! maybe travelling would be a bit slower.  but that is really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere.  if electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts.  tl;dr electric cars have been held back by extremely powerful corporate entities who want to sell you the same crappy gas powered cars and trucks until the dinosaur juice runs out and/or the earth just flat out explodes, whichever comes first.  it has very little to do with their practicality.   #  if electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts.   #  slowly the price would go down, but you have to consider a multiple fuel source scenario like this.   # can you tell me how an electric car changes that ? do you believe that coal, oil, and natural gas are not being used in power plants today ? if this is the reason you think electric cars are good, then please consider that they are still using these fuels.  shit.  it is ready.  or it would be if it were not for coprorate interests collaborating with corrupt government to purposely raise the barrier of entry for start up car companies to nearly impossible to reach levels.  this has nothing to do with corruption or corporate interests.  the cost of starting a company like an automobile manufacturer is incredibly high.  there is no such thing as starting small with an automobile manufacturer.  they are not a product that you can mass produce and dump a million of them across the world.  they are expensive to make, expensive to ship, expensive to sell and expensive to market to consumers.  tesla had the money, and the selling point to launch their product and even then received help from the government to get there and did not sell a lot of product quickly.  if they do not start offering a non luxury vehicle in the next 0 years, tesla will find itself in the red quick.  luxury is not the prime market.  just look at the tesla model s and realize that if gm, ford, and chrysler had put as much weight into research and development of electric cars as they had defending their business interest from having to actually have some fucking foresight, we would probably be farther ahead today than the tesla model s is now.  not too likely.  the american automotive industry relies less on innovation and more on patriotism.  they have been producing substandard vehicles for many many years and only recently have begun to catch up in quality.  on the flip side, if this was simply a matter of r d, certainly one of the other dozens of car manufacturers in other countries would have been leading the way right ? multiple asian countries with car manufacturers, in the heart of technology development, would have produced electric cars to sell in countries where they believed the technology was viable ? or the british and german manufacturers whose oil prices are sky high ? the sad fact is no, these companies had no motive to engage in electric vehicles as the new wave.  a few tried, but ultimately they proved incredibly unpopular.  that should post no problems to your daily commute ! maybe travelling would be a bit slower.  but that is really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere.  if electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts.  this is the current problem.  if i want to go run around the city making multiple stops, i risk myself getting stuck somewhere without power.  charging stations are not common, even in places of large electric vehicle usage.  and if you want to take a road trip or go an extended distance that is right out.  not to mention colder climates tend to wreck batteries.  slowly the price would go down, but you have to consider a multiple fuel source scenario like this.  first, we already have infrastructure in place for gasoline distribution.  many of these stations are not in places where high level current can be routed for mass electric charging stations.  you also have to consider that the cost of making that change does not fall upon oil companies, tax payers, or anyone but the small business owner themselves.  many of whom are affiliated with an oil company to get their fuel.  lastly, we will always need gasoline stations for other things lawnmowers, weed whackers, toy planes, classic cars, race cars, boats, rvs, commercial vehicles, semi trucks which are not feasible as electric vehicles.  also, even the electric vehicles are dinosaur fueled.   #  it is competitive  as a car , not just as an electric car.   #  it is not electric motors or the cars themselves that is the problem, it is battery tech.  it is not bullshit, batteries at their current level are expensive, heavy, and have limited capacity.  it is not gm is fault that batteries have not advanced to the point where you can have 0km of range and recharge in 0 minutes like i can with my car.  electric cars are practical right now if you are rich enough to afford a model s and do not drive 0km or so in a day.  they are practical right now if you live in certain parts of the world and can get a heavily subsidized nissan leaf to commute.  they are not practical right now if you need affordable transportation which reflects the vast majority of car buyers.  these things take time.  the model s is a very significant step because it is the first electric car that a real person could justifiably buy with real money i. e.  not as a fleet car over the competition.  that is the issue right now, with every other electric car you are compromising somewhere and paying more for the privilege.  with the model s you are getting a car with fantastic quality, great styling, an excellent interior, good handling, and gobs of torque and power which has enough range that it is not a deal breaker .  it is competitive  as a car , not just as an electric car.  you talk about a vague hope of electric cars, but the reality is that thanks to the model s it does not have to be a vague hope anymore, a real electric car that you could actually buy as your everyday car finally exists.  you are handwaving ideas about how if they were common they would be cheap, while ignoring the significant issues with the tech.  they are not commonplace for a reason, do not you think that gm or ford would like to be the first to the punch with an affordable electric car ? you do not think battery manufacturers are not trying their hardest to be the first battery provider in an electric corolla ? the technology just is not there yet.  it works in the model s because people in that market are not nickel and diming over a couple thousand dollars, nobody balks at paying 0k for a tesla that they like more than an audi that costs $0k.  people will walk away from buying a small electric car for $0 0k when gas powered ones do the same things for 0 0k.   #  the upshot is that almost nobody here needs to do more than 0km a day and these cars sufficed.   #  i read your argument and i agree that it is valid, but only for some places in the world the us is probably the main country most people in reddit are interested in.  however, here in israel, there started a company called  better place  that started to bring electric cars to the market.  they were clearly inferior to the teslas, probably more like the nissan leaf that you mentioned.  the upshot is that almost nobody here needs to do more than 0km a day and these cars sufficed.  some of the things that brought them down were that:   they did not open the charging technology for competitors or for charging from a regular power outlet .  the government which exacts huge amounts of taxes 0  markup over the price on regular cars already, could have given more tax rebates and such to electric car owners and thus made them more attractive.  but they did not, they preferred the gasoline industry.  there were probably several other dumb non technology related decisions made along the way, but i am only partly familiar with better place and its mistakes.   #  the flip over test was impossible for the tesla using the regular test equipment because it has such a low center of gravity due to battery placement.   # awesome acceleration.  also, it allows more freedom in the design of the car.  the flip over test was impossible for the tesla using the regular test equipment because it has such a low center of gravity due to battery placement.  electric cars are coming along, and i would like to see them keep coming along.  but op is wrong, the tech just is not there yet for mass production at an affordable price, especially if you discount subsidies.  think of the family with two kids that does not make much money, so does not pay much if any in income taxes after the kids are deducted.  the nissan leaf is almost $0,0, and the family wo not get to take advantage of the $0,0 plus tax credit that brings it down the the price they always show in the ads with the asterisk next to it.   #  and utilities offer reduced pricing to ev users to charge at night.   #  /u/seththebest0 was referring to needing additional power infrastructure to charge cars.  that is not really correct, as the infrastructure already exists and just is not being used at night.  and utilities offer reduced pricing to ev users to charge at night.  see this link URL from 0 cents/kwh during the day to only 0cents/kwh at night.  basically just charging you for transmitting the power and assuming creating it is free.
this is the year 0 and we are still extremely dependent on fossil fuels for something as mundane as going to work or going out to eat.  electric cars, despite the technology being around almost as long as their gas and diesel powered counterparts, are still this very  niche  thing, with this vague  hope  that maybe one day sometime in the distant future, battery electric cars may become the norm.  but we are not there now because the technology for electric cars is  just not ready yet .  bull.  shit.  it is ready.  or it would be if it were not for coprorate interests collaborating with corrupt government to purposely raise the barrier of entry for start up car companies to nearly impossible to reach levels.  tesla motors only exists because a man wanted to get into the business of selling mass produced electric vehicles to the public, and had the wealth and connections to make it happen.  which is extremely rare in this world for various very boringly complex reasons.  electric cars are practical.  just look at the tesla model s and realize that if gm, ford, and chrysler had put as much weight into research and development of electric cars as they had defending their business interest from having to actually have some fucking foresight, we would probably be farther ahead today than the tesla model s is now.  so what if it takes a night to recharge that battery ? that should post no problems to your daily commute ! maybe travelling would be a bit slower.  but that is really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere.  if electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts.  tl;dr electric cars have been held back by extremely powerful corporate entities who want to sell you the same crappy gas powered cars and trucks until the dinosaur juice runs out and/or the earth just flat out explodes, whichever comes first.  it has very little to do with their practicality.   #  so what if it takes a night to recharge that battery ?  #  that should post no problems to your daily commute !  # shit.  it is ready.  no, it is not.  there is not a charging station that can fill my car in under 0 minutes every 0 miles at the  bare  fucking minimum , and until there is electric will be  nowhere near  ready.  until engineers figure out how to fully charge a battery in under half an hour without permanently damaging the battery, it wo not be ready.  hell, hyrdrogen fuel cell cars are closer to  ready  simply because you do not sacrifice anything in the ease of filling up; the infrastructure is easy to fit into existing gas stations hydrogen tanks are gas tanks essentially, with some extra safety features and hfc are just as  clean  as pure electric their exhaust is water vapor .  that should post no problems to your daily commute ! maybe travelling would be a bit slower.  but that is really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere.  if electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts.  this paragraph speaks to me of an ignorance of trip planning and of the scale you are dealing with.  let is crunch some numbers: i live on the east coast of the us, and i want to take a road trip to disney land.  it is a 0,0 mile drive from my house to disney land.  i know that my car gets roughly 0 miles to the tank 0 mpg highway and a 0 gallon tank.  i drive a fiesta ; this means that 0/0 about 0 tanks of gas to get to disney land.  the tesla gets about 0 miles to the charge the epa puts it at 0 but let is stick with 0 so that is 0 repeating charges to get to disney land.  the difference is that each of my fuel stops takes me 0 minutes.  at highway speeds of 0 mph, 0 miles will take me about 0 hours, with stops every 0 hours or so to fuel up.  here is the big  gotcha :  the charging off of a standard wall plug for a tesla is 0 miles of range for every hour of charge , so after getting 0 miles in about 0 hours of driving, you need to charge up for a good 0 hours 0 days , if you do not have the right outlet.  that is clearly impractical let is assume, though, that you can get their best case of 0 miles of range for every hour of charge for the rv style outlets.  that is  still  0 hours of driving per 0 hours of charge.  you are basically getting 0 miles per day of driving.  that takes your 0 day road trip assuming 0 hours of driving a day and stretches it across  0 days .  that is not something to plan for, that is a whole fucking  week  that you are not spending at disney land.  to say nothing of the drive back.  now instead of your month long family vacation being a week total of driving cross country and 0 weeks of disney land, you are spending a week at disney, 0 week driving, and 0 weeks charging.  that is the  definition  of  this tech is not ready.    #  it is competitive  as a car , not just as an electric car.   #  it is not electric motors or the cars themselves that is the problem, it is battery tech.  it is not bullshit, batteries at their current level are expensive, heavy, and have limited capacity.  it is not gm is fault that batteries have not advanced to the point where you can have 0km of range and recharge in 0 minutes like i can with my car.  electric cars are practical right now if you are rich enough to afford a model s and do not drive 0km or so in a day.  they are practical right now if you live in certain parts of the world and can get a heavily subsidized nissan leaf to commute.  they are not practical right now if you need affordable transportation which reflects the vast majority of car buyers.  these things take time.  the model s is a very significant step because it is the first electric car that a real person could justifiably buy with real money i. e.  not as a fleet car over the competition.  that is the issue right now, with every other electric car you are compromising somewhere and paying more for the privilege.  with the model s you are getting a car with fantastic quality, great styling, an excellent interior, good handling, and gobs of torque and power which has enough range that it is not a deal breaker .  it is competitive  as a car , not just as an electric car.  you talk about a vague hope of electric cars, but the reality is that thanks to the model s it does not have to be a vague hope anymore, a real electric car that you could actually buy as your everyday car finally exists.  you are handwaving ideas about how if they were common they would be cheap, while ignoring the significant issues with the tech.  they are not commonplace for a reason, do not you think that gm or ford would like to be the first to the punch with an affordable electric car ? you do not think battery manufacturers are not trying their hardest to be the first battery provider in an electric corolla ? the technology just is not there yet.  it works in the model s because people in that market are not nickel and diming over a couple thousand dollars, nobody balks at paying 0k for a tesla that they like more than an audi that costs $0k.  people will walk away from buying a small electric car for $0 0k when gas powered ones do the same things for 0 0k.   #  i read your argument and i agree that it is valid, but only for some places in the world the us is probably the main country most people in reddit are interested in.   #  i read your argument and i agree that it is valid, but only for some places in the world the us is probably the main country most people in reddit are interested in.  however, here in israel, there started a company called  better place  that started to bring electric cars to the market.  they were clearly inferior to the teslas, probably more like the nissan leaf that you mentioned.  the upshot is that almost nobody here needs to do more than 0km a day and these cars sufficed.  some of the things that brought them down were that:   they did not open the charging technology for competitors or for charging from a regular power outlet .  the government which exacts huge amounts of taxes 0  markup over the price on regular cars already, could have given more tax rebates and such to electric car owners and thus made them more attractive.  but they did not, they preferred the gasoline industry.  there were probably several other dumb non technology related decisions made along the way, but i am only partly familiar with better place and its mistakes.   #  the flip over test was impossible for the tesla using the regular test equipment because it has such a low center of gravity due to battery placement.   # awesome acceleration.  also, it allows more freedom in the design of the car.  the flip over test was impossible for the tesla using the regular test equipment because it has such a low center of gravity due to battery placement.  electric cars are coming along, and i would like to see them keep coming along.  but op is wrong, the tech just is not there yet for mass production at an affordable price, especially if you discount subsidies.  think of the family with two kids that does not make much money, so does not pay much if any in income taxes after the kids are deducted.  the nissan leaf is almost $0,0, and the family wo not get to take advantage of the $0,0 plus tax credit that brings it down the the price they always show in the ads with the asterisk next to it.   #  and utilities offer reduced pricing to ev users to charge at night.   #  /u/seththebest0 was referring to needing additional power infrastructure to charge cars.  that is not really correct, as the infrastructure already exists and just is not being used at night.  and utilities offer reduced pricing to ev users to charge at night.  see this link URL from 0 cents/kwh during the day to only 0cents/kwh at night.  basically just charging you for transmitting the power and assuming creating it is free.
i know there is a huge moral case against this view, and i have tried to ask myself this: should we treat for madness or punish for badness ? but no matter how rational my reasoning for the against camp is, i ca not seem to convince myself that these people should seek rehabilitation.  why is it fair for us, as taxpayers, to help feed, clothe, and shelter monsters like this in prison ? when we can just rid the world of these things by killing them.  yes you may claim this is not a useful deterrent, but the less of these there are, the better our society will become and the more we can protect the vulnerable in society ie.  woman alone at night, children, elderly etc.  .  using moral means/methods to  cleanse/cure  these people is just a joke.  we spend millions of rehabilitation but not only are the results discouraging for the amount spent, why should these people have a second chance at life, or at most likely killing/capitalising on more vulnerable members of our society ? these people do not only destroy the lives of their victims, but also their families.  these people are morally grotesque and hard, and by committing these vile acts they concede their moral rights.  which is why it is unfair on the victims to use the moral case for these people, as they do not uphold the same principles that protect them, themselves.   #  as they do not uphold the same principles that protect them, themselves.   #  likewise as above, that is a major assumption and not all paedophiles are  monsters  as you depict.   # but no matter how rational my reasoning for the against camp is, i ca not seem to convince myself that these people should seek rehabilitation.  why is it fair for us, as taxpayers, to help feed, clothe, and shelter  monsters  like this in prison ? when we can just rid the world of these things by killing them.  yes you may claim this is not a useful deterrent, but the less of these there are, the better our society will become and the more we can protect the vulnerable in society ie.  woman alone at night, children, elderly etc.  why do you go into this matter with the set perception that these people are  monsters  ? perhaps if you see them and treat them the same as ordinary people born that way then that might change your view.  but in any case, maybe you are seeing paedophiles as only those people who rape children and do other unthinkable acts but this is just the extreme end.  the truth is that like most other things, its a spectrum.  there are many other paedophiles who do not take it out on children in direct ways like that.  like in any other matter, there are those who are able to control themselves and those who are not.  do not let yourself perceive everyone as a  monster  because you do not hear of the less extreme cases.  the point on tax payers monies paying for prison can be extended to many many other crimes.  especially because even for small crimes, the recurrence rate of committing the crime again after being let out of prison is quite high.  most of your point stands against all of such crimes that put people in jail so unless you are actually fighting over the whole jail system, that it should be abolished and most people just killed off, then i shall not debate over it here as it bears no significance to this problem itself.  likewise as above, that is a major assumption and not all paedophiles are  monsters  as you depict.   #  the heroic thing to do is let your emotions die down and  realize the villain is life/death is not even worth the slightest destruction of your own integrity  and walk away.   #  ultimately, the best reason and moral case to remove the death penalty is not because you care that they get either treated or punished, not even because you think society might be safer or better off financially it is what having a death penalty does to  you , the advocate.  there is a sense in which having a death penalty runs the risk of reducing your own stature down towards the level of the murderer you are executing.  it is self destructive and demoralising on an abstract level to be an executioner, and certainly the act destroys your own innocence not as in guilt vs innocent, but innocence as in the way you look at the world .  you see the trope in mythology/literature/the movies/tv the hero has won the battle, and the villain coaxes;  go on, finish me off ! you and i are not so different ! feel the hate !   the villain seeks proof that good does not exist for if everyone is at his level, then this justifies what he is done.  the heroic thing to do is let your emotions die down and  realize the villain is life/death is not even worth the slightest destruction of your own integrity  and walk away.  at this point, the villain either screams in anguish realizing his evil and dies inside or ca not accept it and makes a back stabbing attempt, whereupon the hero kills him, rightly reasoning that the  ethics of emergencies  now applies.  but in non emergency cases, when the villain has been beaten, captured, restrained there is no good reason to risk the integrity of the innocent, including yourself, by being complicit in murder even if it is a just execution.   #  as we have seen when  three strikes  laws are passed, it is not a good thing for justice.   #  unfortunately, i think your topic is awfully broad to address cleanly.  one problem is that your statement does not leave a lot of room for judgement.  as we have seen when  three strikes  laws are passed, it is not a good thing for justice.  for instance, let is consider a kid who has been sodomized and beaten nightly by his stepfather.  at 0, as is all too common, he abuses a younger kid.  does he really deserve death ? is he unredeemable ? and if the younger child finds a gun and kills his 0 year old abuser, should he be executed as a  child killer  ? not to belittle date rape in any way, but should someone who got trashed at a frat party one time and raped his girlfriend be executed the same as a serial rapist ?  #  and yet, they are still thrown under the bus, demonized, outcast and told that they are monsters and need to be put to death for something they have no control over.   # does not work that way.  we are not here to guess what you mean.  if you want to make an argument you have to make it clear and concise and say what you mean.  otherwise what is the point ? you said,  rapists, child killers, molesters, pedophiles should all face the death penalty.  rapists are someone who rapes another person.  a child killer is someone that kills a child.  a molester is someone that molests someone else, and depending on your wording for  killers  if you meant child molesters/killers then that is someone who has molested or taken the life of a child.  a pedophile is someone who is attracted to under age people.  that is not a crime .  it is a thought process.  the problem arises when people just throw words around without putting any thought in to it, and just throw everyone under the same umbrella.  most, i would argue in the high 0 percentile of pedophiles never have and never will act on their urges because they know they are wrong.  you more than likely know and associate with people who have pedaphilic tendencies.  you just do not know it because they would not admit it to you since you want to put them to death.  and yet, they are still thrown under the bus, demonized, outcast and told that they are monsters and need to be put to death for something they have no control over.  so you are being redundant.   #  it is extremely relevant, because it is a number pulled out of one is ass being used to promote the concept that a high number, 0 percent in this case, of pedophiles do not molest children.   #  it is extremely relevant, because it is a number pulled out of one is ass being used to promote the concept that a high number, 0 percent in this case, of pedophiles do not molest children.  what is interesting is that we are discounting here the pedophiles who admit to  grooming  children.  pedophiles on reddit talk about their jobs working with children of their target age and gender, how cute and innocent they think the children are, and how much they enjoy hugging them and interacting with them.  they also claim they would never, ever, ever harm a child, yet when you suggest they not put themselves around that which they desire, they refuse the suggestion outright.  grooming is not a crime that i know of, but that does not make pedophiles behaving that way with children   even when they are not raping them   okay or acceptable.  it does not make them working with children acceptable either.
i know there is a huge moral case against this view, and i have tried to ask myself this: should we treat for madness or punish for badness ? but no matter how rational my reasoning for the against camp is, i ca not seem to convince myself that these people should seek rehabilitation.  why is it fair for us, as taxpayers, to help feed, clothe, and shelter monsters like this in prison ? when we can just rid the world of these things by killing them.  yes you may claim this is not a useful deterrent, but the less of these there are, the better our society will become and the more we can protect the vulnerable in society ie.  woman alone at night, children, elderly etc.  .  using moral means/methods to  cleanse/cure  these people is just a joke.  we spend millions of rehabilitation but not only are the results discouraging for the amount spent, why should these people have a second chance at life, or at most likely killing/capitalising on more vulnerable members of our society ? these people do not only destroy the lives of their victims, but also their families.  these people are morally grotesque and hard, and by committing these vile acts they concede their moral rights.  which is why it is unfair on the victims to use the moral case for these people, as they do not uphold the same principles that protect them, themselves.   #  why is it fair for us, as taxpayers, to help feed, clothe, and shelter monsters like this in prison ?  #  why is fairness an important part of the equation ?  # why is fairness an important part of the equation ? does the system actually need to be fair, so far as tax dollars are concerned ? if so, why ? it will cost far more to execute them due to the protections of having due process.  trying to help people is a joke ? your opinion appears disingenuous.  they still have rights.  another part of why people should be able to help and as you put it  a second chance at life  is due to the myriad of reasons why a person may have committed a crime.  people may suffer from mental disorders, they may have made a mistake or various different mistakes, they may have been motivated by various different circumstances.  the point is not that any of these things are excuses.  the point is that these are possible areas where rehabilitation can find success.   #  at this point, the villain either screams in anguish realizing his evil and dies inside or ca not accept it and makes a back stabbing attempt, whereupon the hero kills him, rightly reasoning that the  ethics of emergencies  now applies.   #  ultimately, the best reason and moral case to remove the death penalty is not because you care that they get either treated or punished, not even because you think society might be safer or better off financially it is what having a death penalty does to  you , the advocate.  there is a sense in which having a death penalty runs the risk of reducing your own stature down towards the level of the murderer you are executing.  it is self destructive and demoralising on an abstract level to be an executioner, and certainly the act destroys your own innocence not as in guilt vs innocent, but innocence as in the way you look at the world .  you see the trope in mythology/literature/the movies/tv the hero has won the battle, and the villain coaxes;  go on, finish me off ! you and i are not so different ! feel the hate !   the villain seeks proof that good does not exist for if everyone is at his level, then this justifies what he is done.  the heroic thing to do is let your emotions die down and  realize the villain is life/death is not even worth the slightest destruction of your own integrity  and walk away.  at this point, the villain either screams in anguish realizing his evil and dies inside or ca not accept it and makes a back stabbing attempt, whereupon the hero kills him, rightly reasoning that the  ethics of emergencies  now applies.  but in non emergency cases, when the villain has been beaten, captured, restrained there is no good reason to risk the integrity of the innocent, including yourself, by being complicit in murder even if it is a just execution.   #  likewise as above, that is a major assumption and not all paedophiles are  monsters  as you depict.   # but no matter how rational my reasoning for the against camp is, i ca not seem to convince myself that these people should seek rehabilitation.  why is it fair for us, as taxpayers, to help feed, clothe, and shelter  monsters  like this in prison ? when we can just rid the world of these things by killing them.  yes you may claim this is not a useful deterrent, but the less of these there are, the better our society will become and the more we can protect the vulnerable in society ie.  woman alone at night, children, elderly etc.  why do you go into this matter with the set perception that these people are  monsters  ? perhaps if you see them and treat them the same as ordinary people born that way then that might change your view.  but in any case, maybe you are seeing paedophiles as only those people who rape children and do other unthinkable acts but this is just the extreme end.  the truth is that like most other things, its a spectrum.  there are many other paedophiles who do not take it out on children in direct ways like that.  like in any other matter, there are those who are able to control themselves and those who are not.  do not let yourself perceive everyone as a  monster  because you do not hear of the less extreme cases.  the point on tax payers monies paying for prison can be extended to many many other crimes.  especially because even for small crimes, the recurrence rate of committing the crime again after being let out of prison is quite high.  most of your point stands against all of such crimes that put people in jail so unless you are actually fighting over the whole jail system, that it should be abolished and most people just killed off, then i shall not debate over it here as it bears no significance to this problem itself.  likewise as above, that is a major assumption and not all paedophiles are  monsters  as you depict.   #  for instance, let is consider a kid who has been sodomized and beaten nightly by his stepfather.   #  unfortunately, i think your topic is awfully broad to address cleanly.  one problem is that your statement does not leave a lot of room for judgement.  as we have seen when  three strikes  laws are passed, it is not a good thing for justice.  for instance, let is consider a kid who has been sodomized and beaten nightly by his stepfather.  at 0, as is all too common, he abuses a younger kid.  does he really deserve death ? is he unredeemable ? and if the younger child finds a gun and kills his 0 year old abuser, should he be executed as a  child killer  ? not to belittle date rape in any way, but should someone who got trashed at a frat party one time and raped his girlfriend be executed the same as a serial rapist ?  #  you just do not know it because they would not admit it to you since you want to put them to death.   # does not work that way.  we are not here to guess what you mean.  if you want to make an argument you have to make it clear and concise and say what you mean.  otherwise what is the point ? you said,  rapists, child killers, molesters, pedophiles should all face the death penalty.  rapists are someone who rapes another person.  a child killer is someone that kills a child.  a molester is someone that molests someone else, and depending on your wording for  killers  if you meant child molesters/killers then that is someone who has molested or taken the life of a child.  a pedophile is someone who is attracted to under age people.  that is not a crime .  it is a thought process.  the problem arises when people just throw words around without putting any thought in to it, and just throw everyone under the same umbrella.  most, i would argue in the high 0 percentile of pedophiles never have and never will act on their urges because they know they are wrong.  you more than likely know and associate with people who have pedaphilic tendencies.  you just do not know it because they would not admit it to you since you want to put them to death.  and yet, they are still thrown under the bus, demonized, outcast and told that they are monsters and need to be put to death for something they have no control over.  so you are being redundant.
i know there is a huge moral case against this view, and i have tried to ask myself this: should we treat for madness or punish for badness ? but no matter how rational my reasoning for the against camp is, i ca not seem to convince myself that these people should seek rehabilitation.  why is it fair for us, as taxpayers, to help feed, clothe, and shelter monsters like this in prison ? when we can just rid the world of these things by killing them.  yes you may claim this is not a useful deterrent, but the less of these there are, the better our society will become and the more we can protect the vulnerable in society ie.  woman alone at night, children, elderly etc.  .  using moral means/methods to  cleanse/cure  these people is just a joke.  we spend millions of rehabilitation but not only are the results discouraging for the amount spent, why should these people have a second chance at life, or at most likely killing/capitalising on more vulnerable members of our society ? these people do not only destroy the lives of their victims, but also their families.  these people are morally grotesque and hard, and by committing these vile acts they concede their moral rights.  which is why it is unfair on the victims to use the moral case for these people, as they do not uphold the same principles that protect them, themselves.   #  when we can just rid the world of these things by killing them.   #  it will cost far more to execute them due to the protections of having due process.   # why is fairness an important part of the equation ? does the system actually need to be fair, so far as tax dollars are concerned ? if so, why ? it will cost far more to execute them due to the protections of having due process.  trying to help people is a joke ? your opinion appears disingenuous.  they still have rights.  another part of why people should be able to help and as you put it  a second chance at life  is due to the myriad of reasons why a person may have committed a crime.  people may suffer from mental disorders, they may have made a mistake or various different mistakes, they may have been motivated by various different circumstances.  the point is not that any of these things are excuses.  the point is that these are possible areas where rehabilitation can find success.   #  you see the trope in mythology/literature/the movies/tv the hero has won the battle, and the villain coaxes;  go on, finish me off !  #  ultimately, the best reason and moral case to remove the death penalty is not because you care that they get either treated or punished, not even because you think society might be safer or better off financially it is what having a death penalty does to  you , the advocate.  there is a sense in which having a death penalty runs the risk of reducing your own stature down towards the level of the murderer you are executing.  it is self destructive and demoralising on an abstract level to be an executioner, and certainly the act destroys your own innocence not as in guilt vs innocent, but innocence as in the way you look at the world .  you see the trope in mythology/literature/the movies/tv the hero has won the battle, and the villain coaxes;  go on, finish me off ! you and i are not so different ! feel the hate !   the villain seeks proof that good does not exist for if everyone is at his level, then this justifies what he is done.  the heroic thing to do is let your emotions die down and  realize the villain is life/death is not even worth the slightest destruction of your own integrity  and walk away.  at this point, the villain either screams in anguish realizing his evil and dies inside or ca not accept it and makes a back stabbing attempt, whereupon the hero kills him, rightly reasoning that the  ethics of emergencies  now applies.  but in non emergency cases, when the villain has been beaten, captured, restrained there is no good reason to risk the integrity of the innocent, including yourself, by being complicit in murder even if it is a just execution.   #  do not let yourself perceive everyone as a  monster  because you do not hear of the less extreme cases.   # but no matter how rational my reasoning for the against camp is, i ca not seem to convince myself that these people should seek rehabilitation.  why is it fair for us, as taxpayers, to help feed, clothe, and shelter  monsters  like this in prison ? when we can just rid the world of these things by killing them.  yes you may claim this is not a useful deterrent, but the less of these there are, the better our society will become and the more we can protect the vulnerable in society ie.  woman alone at night, children, elderly etc.  why do you go into this matter with the set perception that these people are  monsters  ? perhaps if you see them and treat them the same as ordinary people born that way then that might change your view.  but in any case, maybe you are seeing paedophiles as only those people who rape children and do other unthinkable acts but this is just the extreme end.  the truth is that like most other things, its a spectrum.  there are many other paedophiles who do not take it out on children in direct ways like that.  like in any other matter, there are those who are able to control themselves and those who are not.  do not let yourself perceive everyone as a  monster  because you do not hear of the less extreme cases.  the point on tax payers monies paying for prison can be extended to many many other crimes.  especially because even for small crimes, the recurrence rate of committing the crime again after being let out of prison is quite high.  most of your point stands against all of such crimes that put people in jail so unless you are actually fighting over the whole jail system, that it should be abolished and most people just killed off, then i shall not debate over it here as it bears no significance to this problem itself.  likewise as above, that is a major assumption and not all paedophiles are  monsters  as you depict.   #  for instance, let is consider a kid who has been sodomized and beaten nightly by his stepfather.   #  unfortunately, i think your topic is awfully broad to address cleanly.  one problem is that your statement does not leave a lot of room for judgement.  as we have seen when  three strikes  laws are passed, it is not a good thing for justice.  for instance, let is consider a kid who has been sodomized and beaten nightly by his stepfather.  at 0, as is all too common, he abuses a younger kid.  does he really deserve death ? is he unredeemable ? and if the younger child finds a gun and kills his 0 year old abuser, should he be executed as a  child killer  ? not to belittle date rape in any way, but should someone who got trashed at a frat party one time and raped his girlfriend be executed the same as a serial rapist ?  #  a child killer is someone that kills a child.   # does not work that way.  we are not here to guess what you mean.  if you want to make an argument you have to make it clear and concise and say what you mean.  otherwise what is the point ? you said,  rapists, child killers, molesters, pedophiles should all face the death penalty.  rapists are someone who rapes another person.  a child killer is someone that kills a child.  a molester is someone that molests someone else, and depending on your wording for  killers  if you meant child molesters/killers then that is someone who has molested or taken the life of a child.  a pedophile is someone who is attracted to under age people.  that is not a crime .  it is a thought process.  the problem arises when people just throw words around without putting any thought in to it, and just throw everyone under the same umbrella.  most, i would argue in the high 0 percentile of pedophiles never have and never will act on their urges because they know they are wrong.  you more than likely know and associate with people who have pedaphilic tendencies.  you just do not know it because they would not admit it to you since you want to put them to death.  and yet, they are still thrown under the bus, demonized, outcast and told that they are monsters and need to be put to death for something they have no control over.  so you are being redundant.
i know there is a huge moral case against this view, and i have tried to ask myself this: should we treat for madness or punish for badness ? but no matter how rational my reasoning for the against camp is, i ca not seem to convince myself that these people should seek rehabilitation.  why is it fair for us, as taxpayers, to help feed, clothe, and shelter monsters like this in prison ? when we can just rid the world of these things by killing them.  yes you may claim this is not a useful deterrent, but the less of these there are, the better our society will become and the more we can protect the vulnerable in society ie.  woman alone at night, children, elderly etc.  .  using moral means/methods to  cleanse/cure  these people is just a joke.  we spend millions of rehabilitation but not only are the results discouraging for the amount spent, why should these people have a second chance at life, or at most likely killing/capitalising on more vulnerable members of our society ? these people do not only destroy the lives of their victims, but also their families.  these people are morally grotesque and hard, and by committing these vile acts they concede their moral rights.  which is why it is unfair on the victims to use the moral case for these people, as they do not uphold the same principles that protect them, themselves.   #  using moral means/methods to  cleanse/cure  these people is just a joke.   #  trying to help people is a joke ?  # why is fairness an important part of the equation ? does the system actually need to be fair, so far as tax dollars are concerned ? if so, why ? it will cost far more to execute them due to the protections of having due process.  trying to help people is a joke ? your opinion appears disingenuous.  they still have rights.  another part of why people should be able to help and as you put it  a second chance at life  is due to the myriad of reasons why a person may have committed a crime.  people may suffer from mental disorders, they may have made a mistake or various different mistakes, they may have been motivated by various different circumstances.  the point is not that any of these things are excuses.  the point is that these are possible areas where rehabilitation can find success.   #  there is a sense in which having a death penalty runs the risk of reducing your own stature down towards the level of the murderer you are executing.   #  ultimately, the best reason and moral case to remove the death penalty is not because you care that they get either treated or punished, not even because you think society might be safer or better off financially it is what having a death penalty does to  you , the advocate.  there is a sense in which having a death penalty runs the risk of reducing your own stature down towards the level of the murderer you are executing.  it is self destructive and demoralising on an abstract level to be an executioner, and certainly the act destroys your own innocence not as in guilt vs innocent, but innocence as in the way you look at the world .  you see the trope in mythology/literature/the movies/tv the hero has won the battle, and the villain coaxes;  go on, finish me off ! you and i are not so different ! feel the hate !   the villain seeks proof that good does not exist for if everyone is at his level, then this justifies what he is done.  the heroic thing to do is let your emotions die down and  realize the villain is life/death is not even worth the slightest destruction of your own integrity  and walk away.  at this point, the villain either screams in anguish realizing his evil and dies inside or ca not accept it and makes a back stabbing attempt, whereupon the hero kills him, rightly reasoning that the  ethics of emergencies  now applies.  but in non emergency cases, when the villain has been beaten, captured, restrained there is no good reason to risk the integrity of the innocent, including yourself, by being complicit in murder even if it is a just execution.   #  why do you go into this matter with the set perception that these people are  monsters  ?  # but no matter how rational my reasoning for the against camp is, i ca not seem to convince myself that these people should seek rehabilitation.  why is it fair for us, as taxpayers, to help feed, clothe, and shelter  monsters  like this in prison ? when we can just rid the world of these things by killing them.  yes you may claim this is not a useful deterrent, but the less of these there are, the better our society will become and the more we can protect the vulnerable in society ie.  woman alone at night, children, elderly etc.  why do you go into this matter with the set perception that these people are  monsters  ? perhaps if you see them and treat them the same as ordinary people born that way then that might change your view.  but in any case, maybe you are seeing paedophiles as only those people who rape children and do other unthinkable acts but this is just the extreme end.  the truth is that like most other things, its a spectrum.  there are many other paedophiles who do not take it out on children in direct ways like that.  like in any other matter, there are those who are able to control themselves and those who are not.  do not let yourself perceive everyone as a  monster  because you do not hear of the less extreme cases.  the point on tax payers monies paying for prison can be extended to many many other crimes.  especially because even for small crimes, the recurrence rate of committing the crime again after being let out of prison is quite high.  most of your point stands against all of such crimes that put people in jail so unless you are actually fighting over the whole jail system, that it should be abolished and most people just killed off, then i shall not debate over it here as it bears no significance to this problem itself.  likewise as above, that is a major assumption and not all paedophiles are  monsters  as you depict.   #  unfortunately, i think your topic is awfully broad to address cleanly.   #  unfortunately, i think your topic is awfully broad to address cleanly.  one problem is that your statement does not leave a lot of room for judgement.  as we have seen when  three strikes  laws are passed, it is not a good thing for justice.  for instance, let is consider a kid who has been sodomized and beaten nightly by his stepfather.  at 0, as is all too common, he abuses a younger kid.  does he really deserve death ? is he unredeemable ? and if the younger child finds a gun and kills his 0 year old abuser, should he be executed as a  child killer  ? not to belittle date rape in any way, but should someone who got trashed at a frat party one time and raped his girlfriend be executed the same as a serial rapist ?  #  you more than likely know and associate with people who have pedaphilic tendencies.   # does not work that way.  we are not here to guess what you mean.  if you want to make an argument you have to make it clear and concise and say what you mean.  otherwise what is the point ? you said,  rapists, child killers, molesters, pedophiles should all face the death penalty.  rapists are someone who rapes another person.  a child killer is someone that kills a child.  a molester is someone that molests someone else, and depending on your wording for  killers  if you meant child molesters/killers then that is someone who has molested or taken the life of a child.  a pedophile is someone who is attracted to under age people.  that is not a crime .  it is a thought process.  the problem arises when people just throw words around without putting any thought in to it, and just throw everyone under the same umbrella.  most, i would argue in the high 0 percentile of pedophiles never have and never will act on their urges because they know they are wrong.  you more than likely know and associate with people who have pedaphilic tendencies.  you just do not know it because they would not admit it to you since you want to put them to death.  and yet, they are still thrown under the bus, demonized, outcast and told that they are monsters and need to be put to death for something they have no control over.  so you are being redundant.
i understand why starts to use drugs.  heroin, cocaine, lsd, smokes marijuana or other drugs.  because you get an effect you get high.  but i simply ca not see any reasons to smoke a cigarette, other than it is because of peer pressure and thought of not being  cool .  you do not really get high or feel funny, and most people hate the taste of cigarettes when they try it for the first time.  maybe it is to feel more mature or as a form of rebellion against parental authority.  but in my mind it sound as a stupid reasons to smoke, if you are older than 0 y.  if you are a kid and starts smoking, then i understand.  you maybe do not know what the consequences are and would like to try it.  smoking is one of the most difficult addictions to break.  scientists estimate that cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine, heroin, or alcohol.  according to the world health organization, smoking kills more people than any disease in the world.  other than then deadly consequences you will also smell bad, age premature, get wrinkles, get bad teeth and breath and many other things.  with all this information readily available, why do people in their late teens or older starts to smoke ? if it is because of the peer pressure, i would consider it as a weak person.  cmv  #  but i simply ca not see any reasons to smoke a cigarette, other than it is because of peer pressure and thought of not being  cool .   #  you do not really get high or feel funny, and most people hate the taste of cigarettes when they try it for the first time.   # you do not really get high or feel funny, and most people hate the taste of cigarettes when they try it for the first time.  maybe it is to feel more mature or as a form of rebellion against parental authority.  believe it or not, people can just decide to do things without it being the product of peer pressure or the desire to look cool.  i started smoking occasionally when i was 0 and it was for none of the reasons you listed.  yeah, it is stupid and unhealthy but i enjoy doing it when i drink or as a nice break during work.  submitting to an unhealthy habit does not make one weak, its simply a choice made by an individual with free will.   #  and as for the relaxing day, the cigarette can play into that.   #  well, for people like me, i just never smoke pot so it is not an option.  and as for the relaxing day, the cigarette can play into that.  it is like when i am watching tv at my friends house and during the commercial break, we got on the deck for a dart.  there is a social bonding and complicity involved that people on the outside do not get.  i think my smoking has done more for my social life than anything really.   #  people have a lot of information about the harmful effects of cigarettes well before the age of 0.  and even if you did not manage to get any of this information, cigarette packages come with very conspicuous warning labels.   #  people have a lot of information about the harmful effects of cigarettes well before the age of 0.  and even if you did not manage to get any of this information, cigarette packages come with very conspicuous warning labels.  as a result, there is virtually no one who smokes without knowing more or less what the medical risks are.  anyway, when it comes to drug addiction, everybody is weak.  if you use an addictive drug, you will become addicted.  the only protection is never to use those drugs in the first place.  this is true at any age.   #  i wish there was because i enjoy tobacco, but i just cannot control my addiction to it.   #  tobacco is amazing.  if i did not suffer from such easy addiction to it i would smoke/chew.  my problem is that i ca not have just one cigarette/cigar/chew per week.  i ca not even just have one or two per day.  it becomes one before breakfast, one after breakfast, one on the drive to work, one after a cup of coffee at work, one during break at work, one before lunch, one on the way to lunch, one before i eat, one after i eat, one on way back from lunch, one later in afternoon, one before end of the day, one on way home from work, one when i get home, one before dinner, one after dinner, one after desert, one during bathroom shit break, one during commercials, one before bed. one. always one more.  so i stopped cold turkey and i just ca not smoke or use tobacco at all.  there is no moderation in it for me.  i wish there was because i enjoy tobacco, but i just cannot control my addiction to it.   #  cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, world of warcraft, whatever, can become a problematic addiction.   #  people are curious.  sometimes, people want to try something, not because they are weak, but because they are just curious.  sometimes, the things they try, i. e.  cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, world of warcraft, whatever, can become a problematic addiction.  in my opinion, if someone who smokes cigarettes is  weak , so is someone who eats junk food, or drinks alcohol, or does not work out every day, or spends all day on the computer.  different people try and enjoy different things, and sometimes those things are not super great for you, but it is hard to not do something when it is either easy or provides an immediate good feeling.  being healthy, whether it be due to not smoking or whatever, rarely shows it is benefits quickly compared to other habits.  i love the taste of cigarettes and cigars but for some reason, the high is only sometimes present.  i have one occasionally, but i am lucky enough to really, truly, only have one.
let me preface this by saying that i did search for previous cmvs, but the discussions did not hit on the right points for me, so here i am.  for context, the only drug i could be said to indulge in is caffeine from soda and tea, but that is not for the caffeine itself but rather for the sugar and flavors.  i do not like coffee.  i do not smoke or drink or anything else, never have and never plan to.  right, so here is my issue, and i think it is a bit novel in terms of recreational drug use discussions: to alter one is state of mind by the purposeful use of a controlled substance for the explicit purpose of doing so, one must not value one is sense of self.  i have observed that while high/drunk users exhibit and/or report that their emotions, perceptions, thought processes, behavior, and memory are altered, if only temporarily.  beyond the continuous physical form, how else is one to define the self than by those very qualities ? to artificially induce a state beyond that which ought to be naturally possible in this manner, the self becomes unimportant.  to clarify, a recreational drug is like a filter for experiences.  you do not just get high, you get high at a concert, or get drunk at the beach, or listen to the wall high, or stare at the wall high.  i submit that by choosing not to have those experiences in a sober state, one says they would rather not have them at all, and so decides to have them high that is, as a different  self  as defined by those qualities above instead.  on the other side of the coin, sometimes life sucks.  work sucks, people suck, nothing good happens.  i find that it is a mark of perseverance and conviction to get through those times without having to forsake my  self.   however, if life is truly overwhelming for somebody, then the drug use in question is not really recreational.  if they could be diagnosed with clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.  and would rather self medicate with marijuana, for example which has been shown to have positive health benefits , then, i reiterate, i am not counting it as recreational drug use.  so there it is.  i will be happy to clarify further in the comments.  this view of mine is a source of contention between me and my best friend among others, including my parents , so i would love some fresh perspective.  go ahead: cmv !  #  to alter one is state of mind by the purposeful use of a controlled substance for the explicit purpose of doing so, one must not value one is sense of self.   #  but altering your mind is what drives me.   # but altering your mind is what drives me.  i want to learn about physics to alter my mind.  i want to know about this religion because it alters my mind.  i want to get a new idea because it alters my mind.  i need to alter my mind to grow and mature, we should not all be stuck with the mind of a 0 year old.  if it does not alter my mind, i value it less.  a nice wine goes good with a steak, so does that mean that i rather not have a steak without wine ?  #  i do not engage in recreational drug use, but i truly do not care if people around me do.   #  ignoring anything specific to recreational drug use, why are you bothered by what other people are doing ? is it affecting your life in a negative way ? is it hurting you or the people around you ? or is everyone going about their life exactly as they would otherwise ? i do not engage in recreational drug use, but i truly do not care if people around me do.  so long as they are not harming me or the people i care about then it does not matter.   #  of course, i asked him not to because it bothered me, but i would like for it to not so that we could get along better.   #  i do not drink much or use any recreational drugs, so i am in a similar situation.  i am bothered by it sometimes though, but mainly because i sometimes feel disconnected from those around me that do use them.  my best friend is big into marijuana and acid, and i feel that my stance on them similar to op is has kind of split us a bit, because he does not tell me about such a large part of his life.  of course, i asked him not to because it bothered me, but i would like for it to not so that we could get along better.  and besides that, even my friends that drink a lot more than i do bother me sometimes.  no one likes being the mostly sober one with a bunch of drunks, but i also do not want to be the one not going out with them because i do not want to drink much.  so i feel left out on that front as well.   #  i have had to lose friends because of similar situations.   #  i recommend you need new friends.  this is why drug addicts who become sober do not really hang out with their drug addicted friends, anymore.  i have read the same for people who are overweight.  when they decide to lose weight, their overweight friends kind of snarl at them.  you live in a different world, almost, and like you wrote, they ca not share a bunch of it.  they do not share their experiences, a lot their thoughts,  culture,  or whatever.  they want to but, you do not want to hear it.  that is hard to be friends with.  i have had to lose friends because of similar situations.  i know how it is and it is just better that way.  i do not share your opinion, but if someone i knew had your opinions, i would not bother getting to know them.  no offense, but the judgement is kind of closed minded and as mentioned above, your friends ca not share a lot of who they are.  that is not really fair and it is not their fault you feel that way.  i am not trying to judge you, either, i am merely suggesting you find like minded people.   #  beyond the continuous physical form, how else is one to define the self than by those very qualities ?  # beyond the continuous physical form, how else is one to define the self than by those very qualities ? the main issue here is probably your confusion over a person is identity.  like many others have mentioned, those traits you claim to define one is self does keep changing already.  in fact, by trying to get your opinion changed, you also are changing your perception, thought process and memory.  does that mean you do not value your self too ? i would think not.  as such, it is not good to get fixated upon such a notion of an identity in the first place.  if anything, one should see an identity rather as a sort of graph over time.  think of graphs over time, the specific value changes as time progresses, however it remains the same graph with perhaps the same function.  likewise your identity then can be seen as who you have been over your lifetime.  if you liked to drink, then that would be included in that very same identity an identity of a drinker.
let me preface this by saying that i did search for previous cmvs, but the discussions did not hit on the right points for me, so here i am.  for context, the only drug i could be said to indulge in is caffeine from soda and tea, but that is not for the caffeine itself but rather for the sugar and flavors.  i do not like coffee.  i do not smoke or drink or anything else, never have and never plan to.  right, so here is my issue, and i think it is a bit novel in terms of recreational drug use discussions: to alter one is state of mind by the purposeful use of a controlled substance for the explicit purpose of doing so, one must not value one is sense of self.  i have observed that while high/drunk users exhibit and/or report that their emotions, perceptions, thought processes, behavior, and memory are altered, if only temporarily.  beyond the continuous physical form, how else is one to define the self than by those very qualities ? to artificially induce a state beyond that which ought to be naturally possible in this manner, the self becomes unimportant.  to clarify, a recreational drug is like a filter for experiences.  you do not just get high, you get high at a concert, or get drunk at the beach, or listen to the wall high, or stare at the wall high.  i submit that by choosing not to have those experiences in a sober state, one says they would rather not have them at all, and so decides to have them high that is, as a different  self  as defined by those qualities above instead.  on the other side of the coin, sometimes life sucks.  work sucks, people suck, nothing good happens.  i find that it is a mark of perseverance and conviction to get through those times without having to forsake my  self.   however, if life is truly overwhelming for somebody, then the drug use in question is not really recreational.  if they could be diagnosed with clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.  and would rather self medicate with marijuana, for example which has been shown to have positive health benefits , then, i reiterate, i am not counting it as recreational drug use.  so there it is.  i will be happy to clarify further in the comments.  this view of mine is a source of contention between me and my best friend among others, including my parents , so i would love some fresh perspective.  go ahead: cmv !  #  i have observed that while high/drunk users exhibit and/or report that their emotions, perceptions, thought processes, behavior, and memory are altered, if only temporarily.   #  beyond the continuous physical form, how else is one to define the self than by those very qualities ?  # beyond the continuous physical form, how else is one to define the self than by those very qualities ? the main issue here is probably your confusion over a person is identity.  like many others have mentioned, those traits you claim to define one is self does keep changing already.  in fact, by trying to get your opinion changed, you also are changing your perception, thought process and memory.  does that mean you do not value your self too ? i would think not.  as such, it is not good to get fixated upon such a notion of an identity in the first place.  if anything, one should see an identity rather as a sort of graph over time.  think of graphs over time, the specific value changes as time progresses, however it remains the same graph with perhaps the same function.  likewise your identity then can be seen as who you have been over your lifetime.  if you liked to drink, then that would be included in that very same identity an identity of a drinker.   #  or is everyone going about their life exactly as they would otherwise ?  #  ignoring anything specific to recreational drug use, why are you bothered by what other people are doing ? is it affecting your life in a negative way ? is it hurting you or the people around you ? or is everyone going about their life exactly as they would otherwise ? i do not engage in recreational drug use, but i truly do not care if people around me do.  so long as they are not harming me or the people i care about then it does not matter.   #  no one likes being the mostly sober one with a bunch of drunks, but i also do not want to be the one not going out with them because i do not want to drink much.   #  i do not drink much or use any recreational drugs, so i am in a similar situation.  i am bothered by it sometimes though, but mainly because i sometimes feel disconnected from those around me that do use them.  my best friend is big into marijuana and acid, and i feel that my stance on them similar to op is has kind of split us a bit, because he does not tell me about such a large part of his life.  of course, i asked him not to because it bothered me, but i would like for it to not so that we could get along better.  and besides that, even my friends that drink a lot more than i do bother me sometimes.  no one likes being the mostly sober one with a bunch of drunks, but i also do not want to be the one not going out with them because i do not want to drink much.  so i feel left out on that front as well.   #  you live in a different world, almost, and like you wrote, they ca not share a bunch of it.   #  i recommend you need new friends.  this is why drug addicts who become sober do not really hang out with their drug addicted friends, anymore.  i have read the same for people who are overweight.  when they decide to lose weight, their overweight friends kind of snarl at them.  you live in a different world, almost, and like you wrote, they ca not share a bunch of it.  they do not share their experiences, a lot their thoughts,  culture,  or whatever.  they want to but, you do not want to hear it.  that is hard to be friends with.  i have had to lose friends because of similar situations.  i know how it is and it is just better that way.  i do not share your opinion, but if someone i knew had your opinions, i would not bother getting to know them.  no offense, but the judgement is kind of closed minded and as mentioned above, your friends ca not share a lot of who they are.  that is not really fair and it is not their fault you feel that way.  i am not trying to judge you, either, i am merely suggesting you find like minded people.   #  a nice wine goes good with a steak, so does that mean that i rather not have a steak without wine ?  # but altering your mind is what drives me.  i want to learn about physics to alter my mind.  i want to know about this religion because it alters my mind.  i want to get a new idea because it alters my mind.  i need to alter my mind to grow and mature, we should not all be stuck with the mind of a 0 year old.  if it does not alter my mind, i value it less.  a nice wine goes good with a steak, so does that mean that i rather not have a steak without wine ?
let me preface this by saying that i did search for previous cmvs, but the discussions did not hit on the right points for me, so here i am.  for context, the only drug i could be said to indulge in is caffeine from soda and tea, but that is not for the caffeine itself but rather for the sugar and flavors.  i do not like coffee.  i do not smoke or drink or anything else, never have and never plan to.  right, so here is my issue, and i think it is a bit novel in terms of recreational drug use discussions: to alter one is state of mind by the purposeful use of a controlled substance for the explicit purpose of doing so, one must not value one is sense of self.  i have observed that while high/drunk users exhibit and/or report that their emotions, perceptions, thought processes, behavior, and memory are altered, if only temporarily.  beyond the continuous physical form, how else is one to define the self than by those very qualities ? to artificially induce a state beyond that which ought to be naturally possible in this manner, the self becomes unimportant.  to clarify, a recreational drug is like a filter for experiences.  you do not just get high, you get high at a concert, or get drunk at the beach, or listen to the wall high, or stare at the wall high.  i submit that by choosing not to have those experiences in a sober state, one says they would rather not have them at all, and so decides to have them high that is, as a different  self  as defined by those qualities above instead.  on the other side of the coin, sometimes life sucks.  work sucks, people suck, nothing good happens.  i find that it is a mark of perseverance and conviction to get through those times without having to forsake my  self.   however, if life is truly overwhelming for somebody, then the drug use in question is not really recreational.  if they could be diagnosed with clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.  and would rather self medicate with marijuana, for example which has been shown to have positive health benefits , then, i reiterate, i am not counting it as recreational drug use.  so there it is.  i will be happy to clarify further in the comments.  this view of mine is a source of contention between me and my best friend among others, including my parents , so i would love some fresh perspective.  go ahead: cmv !  #  i find that it is a mark of perseverance and conviction to get through those times without having to forsake my  self.    #  why is a self something that should not be forsaken ?  #  .   to artificially induce a state beyond that which ought to be naturally possible in this manner, the self becomes unimportant.  why  should  one value the self ? selves are a dime a dozen and do not appear to be valued by existence, since it brings them into existence by the billions and destroys them by the billions, sometimes very quickly, sometimes after torturing them for a while in horrible circumstances.  why do you assert that the self that  is  is the self that  should be  ? why is a self something that should not be forsaken ? this is a key aspect of your thesis, but it is simply asserted that self as given should be protected.  you have a much larger problem, i think, than drugs when you assert this.  for example, buddhists teach that it is of the utmost important to modify the self through careful introspection and right effort.  they view the self as most people would define it as a misunderstanding of selfless phenomena and think that enshrining self causes suffering.  your argument is less about drugs than about this view of the self.  it is as if you have said  we should not do drugs because it makes the aliens angry.   forget drugs for a moment there is a major aspect of your thesis that you have simply asserted and it requires at least  some  work.   #  or is everyone going about their life exactly as they would otherwise ?  #  ignoring anything specific to recreational drug use, why are you bothered by what other people are doing ? is it affecting your life in a negative way ? is it hurting you or the people around you ? or is everyone going about their life exactly as they would otherwise ? i do not engage in recreational drug use, but i truly do not care if people around me do.  so long as they are not harming me or the people i care about then it does not matter.   #  so i feel left out on that front as well.   #  i do not drink much or use any recreational drugs, so i am in a similar situation.  i am bothered by it sometimes though, but mainly because i sometimes feel disconnected from those around me that do use them.  my best friend is big into marijuana and acid, and i feel that my stance on them similar to op is has kind of split us a bit, because he does not tell me about such a large part of his life.  of course, i asked him not to because it bothered me, but i would like for it to not so that we could get along better.  and besides that, even my friends that drink a lot more than i do bother me sometimes.  no one likes being the mostly sober one with a bunch of drunks, but i also do not want to be the one not going out with them because i do not want to drink much.  so i feel left out on that front as well.   #  i have had to lose friends because of similar situations.   #  i recommend you need new friends.  this is why drug addicts who become sober do not really hang out with their drug addicted friends, anymore.  i have read the same for people who are overweight.  when they decide to lose weight, their overweight friends kind of snarl at them.  you live in a different world, almost, and like you wrote, they ca not share a bunch of it.  they do not share their experiences, a lot their thoughts,  culture,  or whatever.  they want to but, you do not want to hear it.  that is hard to be friends with.  i have had to lose friends because of similar situations.  i know how it is and it is just better that way.  i do not share your opinion, but if someone i knew had your opinions, i would not bother getting to know them.  no offense, but the judgement is kind of closed minded and as mentioned above, your friends ca not share a lot of who they are.  that is not really fair and it is not their fault you feel that way.  i am not trying to judge you, either, i am merely suggesting you find like minded people.   #  i want to learn about physics to alter my mind.   # but altering your mind is what drives me.  i want to learn about physics to alter my mind.  i want to know about this religion because it alters my mind.  i want to get a new idea because it alters my mind.  i need to alter my mind to grow and mature, we should not all be stuck with the mind of a 0 year old.  if it does not alter my mind, i value it less.  a nice wine goes good with a steak, so does that mean that i rather not have a steak without wine ?
let me preface this by saying that i did search for previous cmvs, but the discussions did not hit on the right points for me, so here i am.  for context, the only drug i could be said to indulge in is caffeine from soda and tea, but that is not for the caffeine itself but rather for the sugar and flavors.  i do not like coffee.  i do not smoke or drink or anything else, never have and never plan to.  right, so here is my issue, and i think it is a bit novel in terms of recreational drug use discussions: to alter one is state of mind by the purposeful use of a controlled substance for the explicit purpose of doing so, one must not value one is sense of self.  i have observed that while high/drunk users exhibit and/or report that their emotions, perceptions, thought processes, behavior, and memory are altered, if only temporarily.  beyond the continuous physical form, how else is one to define the self than by those very qualities ? to artificially induce a state beyond that which ought to be naturally possible in this manner, the self becomes unimportant.  to clarify, a recreational drug is like a filter for experiences.  you do not just get high, you get high at a concert, or get drunk at the beach, or listen to the wall high, or stare at the wall high.  i submit that by choosing not to have those experiences in a sober state, one says they would rather not have them at all, and so decides to have them high that is, as a different  self  as defined by those qualities above instead.  on the other side of the coin, sometimes life sucks.  work sucks, people suck, nothing good happens.  i find that it is a mark of perseverance and conviction to get through those times without having to forsake my  self.   however, if life is truly overwhelming for somebody, then the drug use in question is not really recreational.  if they could be diagnosed with clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.  and would rather self medicate with marijuana, for example which has been shown to have positive health benefits , then, i reiterate, i am not counting it as recreational drug use.  so there it is.  i will be happy to clarify further in the comments.  this view of mine is a source of contention between me and my best friend among others, including my parents , so i would love some fresh perspective.  go ahead: cmv !  #  to alter one is state of mind by the purposeful use of a controlled substance for the explicit purpose of doing so, one must not value one is sense of self.   #  literally everything you experience alters your mind in some way.   #  personally, i am not a heavy drug user.  i smoke weed every now and again and sometimes drink, but that is it.  i have nothing against other drugs, but i personally have not had enough interest to try them.  i probably will try psychedelics at some point, but now is not my time for that.  literally everything you experience alters your mind in some way.  why should there be an arbitrary line when it comes to certain types of recreational drug use ? you yourself consume caffeine for purely recreational purposes, despite that not being your primary objective, but you have not made any attempt to justify why caffeine is alright, but other drugs are not.  that being said, i would argue that certain drug use is done because people do value their sense of self.  this is because some people do drugs to gain new experiences and insights about life.  the drugs may become necessary for certain experiences, because they are the only source of the specific chemical interactions that provide the context for them.  if this is true, then being sober is no different.  drugs can provide a context for certain experiences that being sober is insufficient to do.  likewise, being sober can provide a context for certain experiences that using drugs would be inappropriate for.  can drugs be a filter for experiences ? sure, but they can also provide a more heightened, intensified, and involved experience that being sober cannot provide.  those who have certain experiences while on drugs would still want to have them sober, and would still enjoy them sober.  that being said, there is nothing inherently better about having certain experiences sober, so if one can provide a certain context for some experiences by getting high, then what exactly is the problem ? it is arguable that by being sober all the time and refusing the possibility of ever doing recreational drugs, one is living life on the default settings and is refusing to expand and push the boundaries of their experience.   #  is it hurting you or the people around you ?  #  ignoring anything specific to recreational drug use, why are you bothered by what other people are doing ? is it affecting your life in a negative way ? is it hurting you or the people around you ? or is everyone going about their life exactly as they would otherwise ? i do not engage in recreational drug use, but i truly do not care if people around me do.  so long as they are not harming me or the people i care about then it does not matter.   #  of course, i asked him not to because it bothered me, but i would like for it to not so that we could get along better.   #  i do not drink much or use any recreational drugs, so i am in a similar situation.  i am bothered by it sometimes though, but mainly because i sometimes feel disconnected from those around me that do use them.  my best friend is big into marijuana and acid, and i feel that my stance on them similar to op is has kind of split us a bit, because he does not tell me about such a large part of his life.  of course, i asked him not to because it bothered me, but i would like for it to not so that we could get along better.  and besides that, even my friends that drink a lot more than i do bother me sometimes.  no one likes being the mostly sober one with a bunch of drunks, but i also do not want to be the one not going out with them because i do not want to drink much.  so i feel left out on that front as well.   #  i know how it is and it is just better that way.   #  i recommend you need new friends.  this is why drug addicts who become sober do not really hang out with their drug addicted friends, anymore.  i have read the same for people who are overweight.  when they decide to lose weight, their overweight friends kind of snarl at them.  you live in a different world, almost, and like you wrote, they ca not share a bunch of it.  they do not share their experiences, a lot their thoughts,  culture,  or whatever.  they want to but, you do not want to hear it.  that is hard to be friends with.  i have had to lose friends because of similar situations.  i know how it is and it is just better that way.  i do not share your opinion, but if someone i knew had your opinions, i would not bother getting to know them.  no offense, but the judgement is kind of closed minded and as mentioned above, your friends ca not share a lot of who they are.  that is not really fair and it is not their fault you feel that way.  i am not trying to judge you, either, i am merely suggesting you find like minded people.   #  i need to alter my mind to grow and mature, we should not all be stuck with the mind of a 0 year old.   # but altering your mind is what drives me.  i want to learn about physics to alter my mind.  i want to know about this religion because it alters my mind.  i want to get a new idea because it alters my mind.  i need to alter my mind to grow and mature, we should not all be stuck with the mind of a 0 year old.  if it does not alter my mind, i value it less.  a nice wine goes good with a steak, so does that mean that i rather not have a steak without wine ?
let me preface this by saying that i did search for previous cmvs, but the discussions did not hit on the right points for me, so here i am.  for context, the only drug i could be said to indulge in is caffeine from soda and tea, but that is not for the caffeine itself but rather for the sugar and flavors.  i do not like coffee.  i do not smoke or drink or anything else, never have and never plan to.  right, so here is my issue, and i think it is a bit novel in terms of recreational drug use discussions: to alter one is state of mind by the purposeful use of a controlled substance for the explicit purpose of doing so, one must not value one is sense of self.  i have observed that while high/drunk users exhibit and/or report that their emotions, perceptions, thought processes, behavior, and memory are altered, if only temporarily.  beyond the continuous physical form, how else is one to define the self than by those very qualities ? to artificially induce a state beyond that which ought to be naturally possible in this manner, the self becomes unimportant.  to clarify, a recreational drug is like a filter for experiences.  you do not just get high, you get high at a concert, or get drunk at the beach, or listen to the wall high, or stare at the wall high.  i submit that by choosing not to have those experiences in a sober state, one says they would rather not have them at all, and so decides to have them high that is, as a different  self  as defined by those qualities above instead.  on the other side of the coin, sometimes life sucks.  work sucks, people suck, nothing good happens.  i find that it is a mark of perseverance and conviction to get through those times without having to forsake my  self.   however, if life is truly overwhelming for somebody, then the drug use in question is not really recreational.  if they could be diagnosed with clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.  and would rather self medicate with marijuana, for example which has been shown to have positive health benefits , then, i reiterate, i am not counting it as recreational drug use.  so there it is.  i will be happy to clarify further in the comments.  this view of mine is a source of contention between me and my best friend among others, including my parents , so i would love some fresh perspective.  go ahead: cmv !  #  to clarify, a recreational drug is like a filter for experiences.   #  if this is true, then being sober is no different.   #  personally, i am not a heavy drug user.  i smoke weed every now and again and sometimes drink, but that is it.  i have nothing against other drugs, but i personally have not had enough interest to try them.  i probably will try psychedelics at some point, but now is not my time for that.  literally everything you experience alters your mind in some way.  why should there be an arbitrary line when it comes to certain types of recreational drug use ? you yourself consume caffeine for purely recreational purposes, despite that not being your primary objective, but you have not made any attempt to justify why caffeine is alright, but other drugs are not.  that being said, i would argue that certain drug use is done because people do value their sense of self.  this is because some people do drugs to gain new experiences and insights about life.  the drugs may become necessary for certain experiences, because they are the only source of the specific chemical interactions that provide the context for them.  if this is true, then being sober is no different.  drugs can provide a context for certain experiences that being sober is insufficient to do.  likewise, being sober can provide a context for certain experiences that using drugs would be inappropriate for.  can drugs be a filter for experiences ? sure, but they can also provide a more heightened, intensified, and involved experience that being sober cannot provide.  those who have certain experiences while on drugs would still want to have them sober, and would still enjoy them sober.  that being said, there is nothing inherently better about having certain experiences sober, so if one can provide a certain context for some experiences by getting high, then what exactly is the problem ? it is arguable that by being sober all the time and refusing the possibility of ever doing recreational drugs, one is living life on the default settings and is refusing to expand and push the boundaries of their experience.   #  so long as they are not harming me or the people i care about then it does not matter.   #  ignoring anything specific to recreational drug use, why are you bothered by what other people are doing ? is it affecting your life in a negative way ? is it hurting you or the people around you ? or is everyone going about their life exactly as they would otherwise ? i do not engage in recreational drug use, but i truly do not care if people around me do.  so long as they are not harming me or the people i care about then it does not matter.   #  and besides that, even my friends that drink a lot more than i do bother me sometimes.   #  i do not drink much or use any recreational drugs, so i am in a similar situation.  i am bothered by it sometimes though, but mainly because i sometimes feel disconnected from those around me that do use them.  my best friend is big into marijuana and acid, and i feel that my stance on them similar to op is has kind of split us a bit, because he does not tell me about such a large part of his life.  of course, i asked him not to because it bothered me, but i would like for it to not so that we could get along better.  and besides that, even my friends that drink a lot more than i do bother me sometimes.  no one likes being the mostly sober one with a bunch of drunks, but i also do not want to be the one not going out with them because i do not want to drink much.  so i feel left out on that front as well.   #  that is not really fair and it is not their fault you feel that way.   #  i recommend you need new friends.  this is why drug addicts who become sober do not really hang out with their drug addicted friends, anymore.  i have read the same for people who are overweight.  when they decide to lose weight, their overweight friends kind of snarl at them.  you live in a different world, almost, and like you wrote, they ca not share a bunch of it.  they do not share their experiences, a lot their thoughts,  culture,  or whatever.  they want to but, you do not want to hear it.  that is hard to be friends with.  i have had to lose friends because of similar situations.  i know how it is and it is just better that way.  i do not share your opinion, but if someone i knew had your opinions, i would not bother getting to know them.  no offense, but the judgement is kind of closed minded and as mentioned above, your friends ca not share a lot of who they are.  that is not really fair and it is not their fault you feel that way.  i am not trying to judge you, either, i am merely suggesting you find like minded people.   #  i want to learn about physics to alter my mind.   # but altering your mind is what drives me.  i want to learn about physics to alter my mind.  i want to know about this religion because it alters my mind.  i want to get a new idea because it alters my mind.  i need to alter my mind to grow and mature, we should not all be stuck with the mind of a 0 year old.  if it does not alter my mind, i value it less.  a nice wine goes good with a steak, so does that mean that i rather not have a steak without wine ?
sure, sex segregation makes a lot of sense for many sports/games where men might have an advantage due to physiological differences.  but chess is purely mental.  there is no need for strength, speed, endurance or any other physiological parameter that would give men an advantage.  in fact, some women do compete successfully in top flight tournaments with men, something that would be impossible in physical sports.  URL if anything, it seems that  women only  chess events are sexist, because the implication is that women are not as smart as men.  the totality of several posts convinced me that women only events maybe needed  for now  as a kind of a remedial measure for countering many years of men dominance in chess and the fact that currently women are underrepresented in chess.  however, i still believe that an  eventual  goal should be complete sex equality in chess tournaments.   #  the implication is that women are not as smart as men.   #  where did you come up with that idea ?  #  the reason is very simple and straightforward: women suck at chess.  and i am sorry not really if that makes someone butthurt, but its the truth.  elo ratings are undeniable evidence.  someone could make an argument that chess is less popular sport amongst women, and as such there are not as many good female players.  that is of course correct.  but it does not  change the fact that current generation of female players simply ca not compete with men on even terms.  there is no such thing as  amen only  events in chess.  if women wants to compete in regular tournament circuit, she can.  if she wants to compete for fide world championship, she can.  there is literally nothing stopping her, as long as she actually good enough.  so if women do not compete with men, its not because of sexism, its because they lack competence of top male players.  yes, judit polgar plays in male tournaments and she managed to consistently compete with best male players.  what a lot of people do not know, is that she was also ruthlessly drilled in chess by her father since very early age.  unfortunately other female players are nowhere near her level and its far more prestigious to be woman is world champion then mediocre chess player, champion of nothing.  its only natural that most women decide to specialize in women only events.  where did you come up with that idea ? being good at chess does not mean you are smart.  being good at chess just means you are good at chess.  chess grandmaster is not a pinnacle of human intelect.  he is someone who spend 0 0 years learning how to play one board game.  he is basically like a scientist and study of the game is his field.  if chess was a science, grandmasters would have phd is.  you could have iq of 0 and grandmaster would still wipe the floor with you, 0 times out of 0 games.   #  i would guess it is not that there is a men is chess event and a women is chess event, rather there is a tournament event open to everyone and a marketing event for women.   #  i think the motivation for women only events is to encourage women to see chess as a game they can play.  if you have a sport dominated by men it can be difficult to get women interested in it early on.  it is not sexism or anything, it is just a sort of marketing technique for the sport.  you mentioned that women do compete successfully in top flight tournaments with men.  i assume all the top flight tournaments are open to both men and women ? if so, this would be consistent with the marketing idea.  is there any  amen only  events in chess ? i would guess it is not that there is a men is chess event and a women is chess event, rather there is a tournament event open to everyone and a marketing event for women.   #  it is however one of many efforts to level the various playing fields.   # it is an extension of the actual assumption in order to victimize the group who is not being assisted.  in the specific case of women in chess, no one asserts that men are  privileged  in their ability to play chess.  the same is true of women gyms.  men are not  privileged  in their ability to attend average gyms.  the real reason segregated support systems exist are to remove pressures inherent in systems dominated by a class of people.  those could be cultural norms, sexual norms, religious norms, whatever.  is the technique of exclusive organizations perfect and fair ? of course it is not.  it is however one of many efforts to level the various playing fields.   #  in such specific terms, counting the members of the class to establish which class is dominant is fairly black and white.   #  it is not so much considered a  bad thing  as an irrelevant thing.  we are very much allowed to create a mens only chess club but we would probably have trouble drumming up members since most people would not see a point to the exclusion.  be they men, english speakers, athletes, etc.  in such specific terms, counting the members of the class to establish which class is dominant is fairly black and white.  there are, of course, exceptions as you keep pointing out but this is sociology not formal mathematics.  there is no perfect or all encompassing solution.  problems are best approached from multiple directions with multiple strategies to achieve the desired result.   #  i will assume that there are not many male grandmasters who grew up in farc controlled columbia.   # i accept that.  my issue is that the class is too broadly defined.  in professional baseball, for example, it is not so much white men that are dominant, but that men from warm, rich areas of the united states are dominant URL if you want to encourage participation from underrepresented classes, you would be just as well to encourage white men from maine as black men from atlanta.  i do not know enough about the demographics of chess players but i would hazard a guess and say that it is not men generally who are overrepresented, but men who meet much narrower criteria.  i will assume that there are not many male grandmasters who grew up in farc controlled columbia.  the population of male chess masters is likely very different from the population of men, such that it does not make sense to describe men as a dominant class without qualification.  as such it it does not make sense to exclude men from a women is only chess match if the only reason is that men are the dominant group.
in light of the 0,0 minors that have been held near the mexico border, and more recently, by the us government, attempted to be put up in a hotel in upstate ny, i write this cmv.  as someone who is not familiar with the fine details of government spending, i can only speculate that the us federal govt is going to be supporting these 0,0 kids for a very long time, in some way or another.  the average, per year living cost for an inmate in the us is $0,0.  ny bucks that trend and is at around $0,0 per year per inmate.  do not know if that is relevant, but it can be used as some measure of cost.  these kids need education, homes, food, clothes, healthcare, all of which they ca not do on their own.   and we know we ca not/wo not send them back.   why ca not we shuffle around illegal immigrants into other developed countries in order to lessen the strain on the us economy ? illegal immigration is a world wide problem, and should not be localized to one country or another.  yes, other countries have illegal immigrant problems, but some do not, and in most it is not as big of an issue.  if the burden was shared, the drive to correct this global problem would be shared as well.  more funds, more development, more international attention would be focused on these developing counties and just maybe a solution could be found.  cmv.   #  why ca not we shuffle around illegal immigrants into other developed countries in order to lessen the strain on the us economy ?  #  because those other countries wo not agree to it, not being united with the us.   # this is false.  0,0 in the first four months of this year URL your estimates of cost are also for inmates, in a prison context, not for detaining minors.  they do not have the same needs or expenses, so it is really not fair to draw from one to anotehr.  because those other countries wo not agree to it, not being united with the us.  there is barely any consensus to help refugees, let alone expand it further.  count yourself lucky maine has to help texas, arizona, new mexico and california.   #  the way i see it, our government is engaging in human trafficking and passing the cost onto the public.   #  the costs are still large, even for minors coming into the country.  let is see.  0 for 0 months would be 0,0 for this year.  yeah, except the expected number is actually, 0,0 URL so let is go with that.  0,0 is a lot of kids.  they need lunch today and this year we have to pay for their education.  we spend about $0,0 a year for each child attending school.  URL 0,0 x 0,0 is $0,0,0.  that is just for this year, and that would be if they were average kids not requiring special language classes, free lunch, free books and free breakfast.  actually that is for the kids we have, plan for and know they will be enrolling after birth, years before attendance begins.  to put this in perspective, this chart seems to indicate a school is generally about 0 kids.  URL an additional 0,0 kids would be an 0 schools at a cost of $0 to $0 million dollars each.  numbers are all over the place on that one so google references up yourself.  now we are talking about $0 millions in building.  please do not point out that we could lower the cost of construction by importing even more illegal labor as slavery would also cut costs but that does not make it the answer either.  the costs are not minimal ! this would be a very big deal even if the costs were spread out across the entire country and into every neighborhood evenly.  there are also the social costs to other children who will be forced to attend overcrowded classrooms run by overworked adults.  the way i see it, our government is engaging in human trafficking and passing the cost onto the public.   #  yes, we can put 0,0 illegal immigrants into canada, or england, or france, or wherever you suggest putting them, but more of them are still going to come into the country.   #   why do not we take this problem, and shove it somewhere else !   patrick star trying to displace illegal immigrants already in the country does nothing to stop the flood of illegal immigrants still coming into the us every day.  yes, we can put 0,0 illegal immigrants into canada, or england, or france, or wherever you suggest putting them, but more of them are still going to come into the country.  your solution is like washing off a still bleeding wound.  also, what do you suggest we do about illegal immigrants with children who are legal us citizens ? do you suggest splitting them up ?  #  i also know plenty that shuffle their pay checks back home and after a few years head back to their spoils.   #  more will come, yes, but if canada or england or france or wherever has to deal with it, those countries will be more vested in finding a solution to stop the bleeding.  this also is not about the world helping the us with it is problems.  it is about everyone contributing to everyone else.  more heads thinking together to fix the issue.  and finally, if i want to do something risky or illegal i better be aware of, and willing to accept the consequences of my actions.  and so should an illegal immigrant going to a country, regardless of whether they have a baby or not.  it is called personal responsibility.  i have no problem with immigrants, it is passing the cost onto others that i have an issue with.  i know plenty who bust their ass and have families and want to make it here.  but they are here illegally while their kids are not.  those people should be given citizenship.  i also know plenty that shuffle their pay checks back home and after a few years head back to their spoils.  what do we get ? the state gets some tax money from sales tax when they buy things ? companies get cheap labor which in turn results in lower cost of goods for everyone else ? i am not against immigration, or even illegal immigration for that matter, but it does not mean it is not a problem and if there was a global effort to fix it on a world wide level, not only a us level, i think developed and developing countries would see a benefit.   #  oh, and guess what, a thousand hondurans just learned that by sneaking in to the u. s.   #  what are you suggesting, that, for example, japan agree to take in as legal immigrants a bunch of hondurans who slipped across the border to the u. s.  ? because certainly japan is not going to take them in as  illegal  immigrants ! and in exchange does japan get to round up an equal number of undocumented chinese folks and ship them to the u. s.  ? such a scheme is of course absurd, solves nothing and creates more problems.  but if there is no equal exchange, it is just the country with the most illegal immigrants which i assume is the u. s.  pushing them off to other countries, saying  here, you take care of them.  and by the way, they are no longer illegally in your country.   oh, and guess what, a thousand hondurans just learned that by sneaking in to the u. s.  illegally, they stand a good chance of being sent to a third country, but getting legal immigrant status there.  they are on their way !
i can see no reason for owning an suv that the banning of suvs would not remove.  i can see no reason for a city dweller that never drives offroad to own a 0x0.  this excessively large vehicles pose a danger to pedestrians/cyclists larger than that posed by a sedan because of where a person ends up after they are hit.  if a sedan hits a human, the human ends up on the bonnet, if an suv or 0x0 hits a human, the human will go under the vehicle.  these larger vehicles are also both heavier and present an increased frontal area compared to a car, resulting in increased fuel consumption, meaning that greater environmental damage is done by driving one of these beasts.  on top of that, the headlights are often at such a level that to a driver in a sedan, the suv/0x0 is permanently on high beam, making it very dangerous to drive around them at night.  if a person wanted to use a 0x0 for appropriate activities actual offroading , they must simply apply for a permit and take the vehicle offroad at least 0 times per year and document their trips .  any person living in a remote location or on a farm would get an automatic permit that cannot be revoked unless they move .  0x0s should also be blanket banned from being in school zones in countries that have school zones .   #  0x0s should also be blanket banned from being in school zones in countries that have school zones .   #  so if i can only afford one vehicle and i need to use the 0x0 sometimes, i would not be aloud to drive on a road that goes past a school ?  #  what requirements would someone need to be able to give to receive a permit ? would saying they drive on rough roads be enough, or do they need to show the dmv the exact road that they use regularly that they feel requires 0x0 ? what if they only need it occasionally and there would not be a particular road they have in mind that they will need it on ? what if their reason for wanting 0x0 is just because sometimes it snows enough that the extra traction is useful even on the best paved roads ? is a dirt road enough ? or does it need to be a path that happens to be wide enough to take a car on ? or is it necessary that there be no path at all where you are driving ? do you need to be a certain distance out of any incorporated town ? if so, people would need a permit where i go to school even those we sometimes get two feet of snow and if you do not have 0x0 and/or manual transmission you will not get your car out.  so if i can only afford one vehicle and i need to use the 0x0 sometimes, i would not be aloud to drive on a road that goes past a school ? i should mention that i am in the process of shopping for a new car, and one of the features that i find that i 0 need on my new car is 0x0.  also, my dad just got an suv with 0x0 that is smaller and has better gas mileage than the van without 0x0 that he had before.  the suv make a good mid sized vehicle that is not as bad as the van he used to drive but still gives him plenty of seats and cargo space.   #  what should i do about that under your system ?  #  the problem is that you use such a large definition for banning vehicles.  i am currently looking at a truck and ca not even consider getting a car.  part of the path i have to take to work is a dirt path that would bottom out any car driving on it.  what should i do about that under your system ? it is a really nice truck i would not take mudding at all.   #  convince me, i would say, although you do not need to because i am already on your team.   # it has an impact on my quality of life, therefore i have a right to a say in the matter.  and what impact on other people are you considering ? why should  you  get a say in the matter ? why should anyone care what  you , some anonymous guy on reddit, thinks ? my invitation to you is to stop asking the state to solve your supposed problems and do it yourself.  have some self responsibility.  if you want to make a change in the world, you have to do it.  do not ask someone else to do it, because it is not their problem.  it is  your  problem.  start a campaign against suvs.  try convincing your friends not to buy suvs.  convince me, i would say, although you do not need to because i am already on your team.  try convincing other people not to buy suvs.  start a blog.  make youtube videos.  make comments on reddit.  i do not know.  do something yourself instead of asking your mom, the state, to do it.  she has bigger fish to fry.   #  it seems that there may be other solutions to the problems you are raising.   #  should we also limit sedans that get poor fuel economy ? what kind of 0x0 is banned ? there is standard 0x0, all wheel drive, and others i think.  subaru outback and nissan juke are awd, do they get banned, even though they have decent fuel economy ? it seems that there may be other solutions to the problems you are raising.  restricting the type of vehicles people can own may not be necessary.   #  we also had to traverse water, go over unpegged hills much harder than you think , go over rocks, and generally partake in unpleasantries.   #  may i allow myself to say that i have ones a land rover for about 0 years, and in those times, i have used it for: a storage.  suv is have a high carrying capacity which is optimal for carrying that is that would not usually fit in a sedan.  b actual off roading.  i find your solution to off roaders to be counter intuitive and slow.  many people like myself live in areas when you need an suv or a 0 wheeler to do many tasks.  for instance, many times we had to take equipment down to a creek on our property.  in the way on said creek was a 0 degree slope.  a normal family sedan would have flipped.  we also had to traverse water, go over unpegged hills much harder than you think , go over rocks, and generally partake in unpleasantries.  we could not record any of those because that happened on a rather unpredictable basis.  if you are going to campaign against something that you have ignored the uses of, than that is pretty ignorant on your part
this is influenced by the iama submission from the guy who proudly kills fellow human beings in the name of  saving  wildlife.  but really ? how are poachers more morally and ecologically irresponsible than hunters ? hunters have been responsible for the extinction of wildlife in recent memory and in past events of human existence.  hunters, just like poachers, threaten animal for the sake of profit.  anti pouching initiative is hypocrisy in itself.  one, it does not make the existence of mankind better.  two, it does not stop the extinction of various species in wildlife at the hands of human beings.   #  how are poachers more morally and ecologically irresponsible than hunters ?  #  they kill the wrong species, and/or too many animals.   # they kill the wrong species, and/or too many animals.  poachers have no interest in maintaining a healthy population, unlike the groups that set hunting seasons and limits.  how are they making money, or are you using a more nebulous definition of  profit ?   what things are they applying to other people, but not themselves ? how is it hypocrisy ?  #  if you are hunting legally, you are following very carefully structured laws that govern what you can and ca not hunt, how much you can kill, when you can hunt, etc. , and even require you to kill animals in a quick, humane manner.   #  poaching means illegal hunting.  if you are hunting legally, you are following very carefully structured laws that govern what you can and ca not hunt, how much you can kill, when you can hunt, etc. , and even require you to kill animals in a quick, humane manner.  these laws are based on input from wildlife biologists who observe animal populations and decide how animals can be hunted in a way that is ecologically and economically sustainable.  if you are hunting legally, you are not going to drive any animal to extinction or damage the environment.  poachers ignore these laws and kill animals that belong to populations that are too threatened to be hunted sustainably, or do so in ways that are inhumane.  i certainly do not advocate murdering poachers, but i do think they should be punished according to the law.   #  the whitetail would not be the problem, the hogs would.   #  the whitetail would not be the problem, the hogs would.  the group at the lease i visited get surges of 0 0 kills a weekend every 0 0 months.  and thats currently with year round hog hunting.  and op does not realize, that suddenly the prey population booms, the predator populations booms.  when the prey is depleted they resort to interact with humans more frequently.   #  they give a pass to hunters who are not more morally justified than poachers.   # poachers have no interest in maintaining a healthy population, unlike the groups that set hunting seasons and limits.  what deems a species wrong to hunt ? have you surveyed hunters to ask them if they cared about  maintaining  a healthy population ? pyrenean ibex polar bears and grizzly bears are still hunted in the western world.  pro competitive hunters do it for money.  fishermen fish to profit.  how is it hypocrisy ? they give a pass to hunters who are not more morally justified than poachers.  noticed i did not make a case on the basis of legality.  i made one on the case of morality and ecology.   #  if it ca not sustain the losses from hunting.   # if it ca not sustain the losses from hunting.  anecdotally yes, but it does not matter.  the governing body cares about that, and they set the rules.  hunters do not need to care about ecology at all as long as they follow those rules.  british columbia hunters kill grizzly bears at roughly half of the sustainable rate, and alaska and yukon have similar programs in place.  none of these species went extinct as a result of recent hunting pressure.  i have never heard of professional hunting competitions.  most people that make their living from hunting are guides, as well as the rare writer or tv star.  if you are talking about sport fishing then that is just plain wrong.  commercial fishing is completely different than hunting and they should not be directly compared.
this is influenced by the iama submission from the guy who proudly kills fellow human beings in the name of  saving  wildlife.  but really ? how are poachers more morally and ecologically irresponsible than hunters ? hunters have been responsible for the extinction of wildlife in recent memory and in past events of human existence.  hunters, just like poachers, threaten animal for the sake of profit.  anti pouching initiative is hypocrisy in itself.  one, it does not make the existence of mankind better.  two, it does not stop the extinction of various species in wildlife at the hands of human beings.   #  anti pouching initiative is hypocrisy in itself.   #  what things are they applying to other people, but not themselves ?  # they kill the wrong species, and/or too many animals.  poachers have no interest in maintaining a healthy population, unlike the groups that set hunting seasons and limits.  how are they making money, or are you using a more nebulous definition of  profit ?   what things are they applying to other people, but not themselves ? how is it hypocrisy ?  #  if you are hunting legally, you are following very carefully structured laws that govern what you can and ca not hunt, how much you can kill, when you can hunt, etc. , and even require you to kill animals in a quick, humane manner.   #  poaching means illegal hunting.  if you are hunting legally, you are following very carefully structured laws that govern what you can and ca not hunt, how much you can kill, when you can hunt, etc. , and even require you to kill animals in a quick, humane manner.  these laws are based on input from wildlife biologists who observe animal populations and decide how animals can be hunted in a way that is ecologically and economically sustainable.  if you are hunting legally, you are not going to drive any animal to extinction or damage the environment.  poachers ignore these laws and kill animals that belong to populations that are too threatened to be hunted sustainably, or do so in ways that are inhumane.  i certainly do not advocate murdering poachers, but i do think they should be punished according to the law.   #  the group at the lease i visited get surges of 0 0 kills a weekend every 0 0 months.   #  the whitetail would not be the problem, the hogs would.  the group at the lease i visited get surges of 0 0 kills a weekend every 0 0 months.  and thats currently with year round hog hunting.  and op does not realize, that suddenly the prey population booms, the predator populations booms.  when the prey is depleted they resort to interact with humans more frequently.   #  they give a pass to hunters who are not more morally justified than poachers.   # poachers have no interest in maintaining a healthy population, unlike the groups that set hunting seasons and limits.  what deems a species wrong to hunt ? have you surveyed hunters to ask them if they cared about  maintaining  a healthy population ? pyrenean ibex polar bears and grizzly bears are still hunted in the western world.  pro competitive hunters do it for money.  fishermen fish to profit.  how is it hypocrisy ? they give a pass to hunters who are not more morally justified than poachers.  noticed i did not make a case on the basis of legality.  i made one on the case of morality and ecology.   #  the governing body cares about that, and they set the rules.   # if it ca not sustain the losses from hunting.  anecdotally yes, but it does not matter.  the governing body cares about that, and they set the rules.  hunters do not need to care about ecology at all as long as they follow those rules.  british columbia hunters kill grizzly bears at roughly half of the sustainable rate, and alaska and yukon have similar programs in place.  none of these species went extinct as a result of recent hunting pressure.  i have never heard of professional hunting competitions.  most people that make their living from hunting are guides, as well as the rare writer or tv star.  if you are talking about sport fishing then that is just plain wrong.  commercial fishing is completely different than hunting and they should not be directly compared.
this is influenced by the iama submission from the guy who proudly kills fellow human beings in the name of  saving  wildlife.  but really ? how are poachers more morally and ecologically irresponsible than hunters ? hunters have been responsible for the extinction of wildlife in recent memory and in past events of human existence.  hunters, just like poachers, threaten animal for the sake of profit.  anti pouching initiative is hypocrisy in itself.  one, it does not make the existence of mankind better.  two, it does not stop the extinction of various species in wildlife at the hands of human beings.   #  hunters have been responsible for the extinction of wildlife in recent memory and in past events of human existence.   #  hunters, just like poachers, threaten animal for the sake of profit.   #  legally hunted animals are done so in a way that helps the environment.  seasons are constructed in such a way that only overpopulated species are hunted and that only a certain number will be killed.  most experts in wildlife management consider hunting to be one of the most useful tools for managing a species at a population level.  hunters, just like poachers, threaten animal for the sake of profit.  what you are talking about is market hunting.  market hunting is currently illegal in the us and will likely be so for the foreseeable future.  most hunters only kill enough to feed themselves.   #  i certainly do not advocate murdering poachers, but i do think they should be punished according to the law.   #  poaching means illegal hunting.  if you are hunting legally, you are following very carefully structured laws that govern what you can and ca not hunt, how much you can kill, when you can hunt, etc. , and even require you to kill animals in a quick, humane manner.  these laws are based on input from wildlife biologists who observe animal populations and decide how animals can be hunted in a way that is ecologically and economically sustainable.  if you are hunting legally, you are not going to drive any animal to extinction or damage the environment.  poachers ignore these laws and kill animals that belong to populations that are too threatened to be hunted sustainably, or do so in ways that are inhumane.  i certainly do not advocate murdering poachers, but i do think they should be punished according to the law.   #  when the prey is depleted they resort to interact with humans more frequently.   #  the whitetail would not be the problem, the hogs would.  the group at the lease i visited get surges of 0 0 kills a weekend every 0 0 months.  and thats currently with year round hog hunting.  and op does not realize, that suddenly the prey population booms, the predator populations booms.  when the prey is depleted they resort to interact with humans more frequently.   #  noticed i did not make a case on the basis of legality.   # poachers have no interest in maintaining a healthy population, unlike the groups that set hunting seasons and limits.  what deems a species wrong to hunt ? have you surveyed hunters to ask them if they cared about  maintaining  a healthy population ? pyrenean ibex polar bears and grizzly bears are still hunted in the western world.  pro competitive hunters do it for money.  fishermen fish to profit.  how is it hypocrisy ? they give a pass to hunters who are not more morally justified than poachers.  noticed i did not make a case on the basis of legality.  i made one on the case of morality and ecology.   #  most people that make their living from hunting are guides, as well as the rare writer or tv star.   # if it ca not sustain the losses from hunting.  anecdotally yes, but it does not matter.  the governing body cares about that, and they set the rules.  hunters do not need to care about ecology at all as long as they follow those rules.  british columbia hunters kill grizzly bears at roughly half of the sustainable rate, and alaska and yukon have similar programs in place.  none of these species went extinct as a result of recent hunting pressure.  i have never heard of professional hunting competitions.  most people that make their living from hunting are guides, as well as the rare writer or tv star.  if you are talking about sport fishing then that is just plain wrong.  commercial fishing is completely different than hunting and they should not be directly compared.
you hear it all the time: atheist  there is just not enough evidence for me to believe .  well what is this evidence that you are looking for ? you want me to say one day,   yes, i finally found god.  i found him when studying the crystal lattice structure of various elements radon, xenon, and phosphorus, the individual molecules electrons are polarized such that it permeates the higgs field.  using partial derivatives to derive the ginzburg landau equation, we can use this model the superconductivity when the elements are freezed to absolute zero, then translating this to soblev spaces since the electromagnetic field creates a holomorphic form URL as the electron spins in a given element such as radon in these extreme conditions, it spins unilaterally without any resistance to such that it forms hyper magnetic dipole that entangles into a higher dimensional calabi yau manifold URL permeating the hilbert space.  with this being achieved it is theorized that it must be going faster than the speed of light, and one of the theorized particles in the standard model that is capable of doing this is the tachyon URL since the element was superconductive and the individual atoms spun unilaterally to create a hyper magnetic dipole entangled into a higher dimensional manifold, then this electron in 0 dimensions is simultaneously entangled in a calabi yau hyper dimension manifold as a fluid interacting with tachyons.  we consider a ﬂuid described by a parameterized eos euclidean supersymmetry of 0th dimension of the general form p γ − 0 ρ   p0   ωhh   ωh0h0   ωdhh˙ 0 , where p0, ωh, ωh0 and ωdh are free parameters of the model, interacting with a tachyonic ﬁeld with a relativistic lagrangian assumption based on quantum superposition.    is that the type explanation atheist are expecting ? if so, you will never find it, because that is not how god works.  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through  trust , not  enlightenment  ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ?  #  if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ?  #  because atheists do not believe in the existence of a god of any sorts, i doubt any of them are actively trying to find god.   #  but you have just outlined the reasons atheists do not believe in god.  because there is no evidence, apart from the bible, of his existence.  scientific or historical evidence supporting the existence of god would probably change the minds of most atheist on earth.  there is no evidence that the path to god is trust apart from religious text, so this argument is invalid.  because atheists do not believe in the existence of a god of any sorts, i doubt any of them are actively trying to find god.   #  why not believe in thor or zues or muhammad ?  #  who am i supposed to trust when it comes to faith ? since you mention the bible and god i am going to assume you are christian.  why do you trust the bible ? why not believe in thor or zues or muhammad ? christianity is not the oldest religion and not the newest, so what makes you so certain your god is the right god ? we demand evidence because you might be wrong, just as the ancient romans were and the ancient greeks, and the thousands of other religions have been.  the bible is full of stories where people have direct conversations with god or witness miracles and yet he fails to do so in modern times.  the bible is not a book to trust with blind faith, the stories have little verifiable sources and are most likely stories passed down through generations and have been altered or changed over time.  i believe in things for which there is evidence.  science is far more reliable than religion and has advanced humanity far more than religion ever can or will.   #  an entity with no effect on anything is no better than imaginary.   # because in order to accept the fact that faith is necessary, faith must be put into the text to begin with.  this loop of faith is stable once initiated, but many people do not want to get into it.  if god has a tangible effect on the world or anyone is lives, there will be something like this.  perhaps it will be so complex that we wo not see it for thousands of years, but unless god is just sitting on his ass for eternity, he will be doing something, and that something is theoretically detectable.  if that is not how god works, then what is the point ? an entity with no effect on anything is no better than imaginary.   #  but just  trust in the book  is certainly not good enough to prove he does exist.   # do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ? basically.   the book says to take it is word for it, so why do not you ?   because we never just  take anyone is word for it.   we need reasonable evidence for all claims.  god is no different.  note: i am agnostic not an atheist exactly because there is no evidence against a god.  but just  trust in the book  is certainly not good enough to prove he does exist.   #  he says you should give me money, and  just trust me , he is real.   #  i was raised secular and i have been an atheist of the  do not believe in god  variety the entire time.  and here is why i want evidence: i can see no difference between your god, their god, zeus, thor, or general spirituality.  why do i need to trust  religious holy book a  and not trust  religious holy book b  ? how can i tell which religion is right if they are all making identical claims and then simply asking me to trust them.  in the immortal words of homer simpson,  what if we picked the wrong religion and every sunday we are just making god madder and madder ?   i do not accept things without evidence, that is just how i roll.  if you make a claim, i want evidence that supports your claim or else i ca not really trust it.  it is not that i actually expect there to be scientific evidence for god, it is that without evidence, your claim of god is just as likely as this god i just made up off the top of my head.  he says you should give me money, and  just trust me , he is real.
you hear it all the time: atheist  there is just not enough evidence for me to believe .  well what is this evidence that you are looking for ? you want me to say one day,   yes, i finally found god.  i found him when studying the crystal lattice structure of various elements radon, xenon, and phosphorus, the individual molecules electrons are polarized such that it permeates the higgs field.  using partial derivatives to derive the ginzburg landau equation, we can use this model the superconductivity when the elements are freezed to absolute zero, then translating this to soblev spaces since the electromagnetic field creates a holomorphic form URL as the electron spins in a given element such as radon in these extreme conditions, it spins unilaterally without any resistance to such that it forms hyper magnetic dipole that entangles into a higher dimensional calabi yau manifold URL permeating the hilbert space.  with this being achieved it is theorized that it must be going faster than the speed of light, and one of the theorized particles in the standard model that is capable of doing this is the tachyon URL since the element was superconductive and the individual atoms spun unilaterally to create a hyper magnetic dipole entangled into a higher dimensional manifold, then this electron in 0 dimensions is simultaneously entangled in a calabi yau hyper dimension manifold as a fluid interacting with tachyons.  we consider a ﬂuid described by a parameterized eos euclidean supersymmetry of 0th dimension of the general form p γ − 0 ρ   p0   ωhh   ωh0h0   ωdhh˙ 0 , where p0, ωh, ωh0 and ωdh are free parameters of the model, interacting with a tachyonic ﬁeld with a relativistic lagrangian assumption based on quantum superposition.    is that the type explanation atheist are expecting ? if so, you will never find it, because that is not how god works.  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through  trust , not  enlightenment  ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ?  #  if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ?  #  because in order to accept the fact that faith is necessary, faith must be put into the text to begin with.   # because in order to accept the fact that faith is necessary, faith must be put into the text to begin with.  this loop of faith is stable once initiated, but many people do not want to get into it.  if god has a tangible effect on the world or anyone is lives, there will be something like this.  perhaps it will be so complex that we wo not see it for thousands of years, but unless god is just sitting on his ass for eternity, he will be doing something, and that something is theoretically detectable.  if that is not how god works, then what is the point ? an entity with no effect on anything is no better than imaginary.   #  i believe in things for which there is evidence.   #  who am i supposed to trust when it comes to faith ? since you mention the bible and god i am going to assume you are christian.  why do you trust the bible ? why not believe in thor or zues or muhammad ? christianity is not the oldest religion and not the newest, so what makes you so certain your god is the right god ? we demand evidence because you might be wrong, just as the ancient romans were and the ancient greeks, and the thousands of other religions have been.  the bible is full of stories where people have direct conversations with god or witness miracles and yet he fails to do so in modern times.  the bible is not a book to trust with blind faith, the stories have little verifiable sources and are most likely stories passed down through generations and have been altered or changed over time.  i believe in things for which there is evidence.  science is far more reliable than religion and has advanced humanity far more than religion ever can or will.   #  because there is no evidence, apart from the bible, of his existence.   #  but you have just outlined the reasons atheists do not believe in god.  because there is no evidence, apart from the bible, of his existence.  scientific or historical evidence supporting the existence of god would probably change the minds of most atheist on earth.  there is no evidence that the path to god is trust apart from religious text, so this argument is invalid.  because atheists do not believe in the existence of a god of any sorts, i doubt any of them are actively trying to find god.   #  because we never just  take anyone is word for it.    # do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ? basically.   the book says to take it is word for it, so why do not you ?   because we never just  take anyone is word for it.   we need reasonable evidence for all claims.  god is no different.  note: i am agnostic not an atheist exactly because there is no evidence against a god.  but just  trust in the book  is certainly not good enough to prove he does exist.   #  it is not that i actually expect there to be scientific evidence for god, it is that without evidence, your claim of god is just as likely as this god i just made up off the top of my head.   #  i was raised secular and i have been an atheist of the  do not believe in god  variety the entire time.  and here is why i want evidence: i can see no difference between your god, their god, zeus, thor, or general spirituality.  why do i need to trust  religious holy book a  and not trust  religious holy book b  ? how can i tell which religion is right if they are all making identical claims and then simply asking me to trust them.  in the immortal words of homer simpson,  what if we picked the wrong religion and every sunday we are just making god madder and madder ?   i do not accept things without evidence, that is just how i roll.  if you make a claim, i want evidence that supports your claim or else i ca not really trust it.  it is not that i actually expect there to be scientific evidence for god, it is that without evidence, your claim of god is just as likely as this god i just made up off the top of my head.  he says you should give me money, and  just trust me , he is real.
you hear it all the time: atheist  there is just not enough evidence for me to believe .  well what is this evidence that you are looking for ? you want me to say one day,   yes, i finally found god.  i found him when studying the crystal lattice structure of various elements radon, xenon, and phosphorus, the individual molecules electrons are polarized such that it permeates the higgs field.  using partial derivatives to derive the ginzburg landau equation, we can use this model the superconductivity when the elements are freezed to absolute zero, then translating this to soblev spaces since the electromagnetic field creates a holomorphic form URL as the electron spins in a given element such as radon in these extreme conditions, it spins unilaterally without any resistance to such that it forms hyper magnetic dipole that entangles into a higher dimensional calabi yau manifold URL permeating the hilbert space.  with this being achieved it is theorized that it must be going faster than the speed of light, and one of the theorized particles in the standard model that is capable of doing this is the tachyon URL since the element was superconductive and the individual atoms spun unilaterally to create a hyper magnetic dipole entangled into a higher dimensional manifold, then this electron in 0 dimensions is simultaneously entangled in a calabi yau hyper dimension manifold as a fluid interacting with tachyons.  we consider a ﬂuid described by a parameterized eos euclidean supersymmetry of 0th dimension of the general form p γ − 0 ρ   p0   ωhh   ωh0h0   ωdhh˙ 0 , where p0, ωh, ωh0 and ωdh are free parameters of the model, interacting with a tachyonic ﬁeld with a relativistic lagrangian assumption based on quantum superposition.    is that the type explanation atheist are expecting ? if so, you will never find it, because that is not how god works.  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through  trust , not  enlightenment  ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ?  #  if so, you will never find it, because that is not how god works.   #  if god has a tangible effect on the world or anyone is lives, there will be something like this.   # because in order to accept the fact that faith is necessary, faith must be put into the text to begin with.  this loop of faith is stable once initiated, but many people do not want to get into it.  if god has a tangible effect on the world or anyone is lives, there will be something like this.  perhaps it will be so complex that we wo not see it for thousands of years, but unless god is just sitting on his ass for eternity, he will be doing something, and that something is theoretically detectable.  if that is not how god works, then what is the point ? an entity with no effect on anything is no better than imaginary.   #  i believe in things for which there is evidence.   #  who am i supposed to trust when it comes to faith ? since you mention the bible and god i am going to assume you are christian.  why do you trust the bible ? why not believe in thor or zues or muhammad ? christianity is not the oldest religion and not the newest, so what makes you so certain your god is the right god ? we demand evidence because you might be wrong, just as the ancient romans were and the ancient greeks, and the thousands of other religions have been.  the bible is full of stories where people have direct conversations with god or witness miracles and yet he fails to do so in modern times.  the bible is not a book to trust with blind faith, the stories have little verifiable sources and are most likely stories passed down through generations and have been altered or changed over time.  i believe in things for which there is evidence.  science is far more reliable than religion and has advanced humanity far more than religion ever can or will.   #  because atheists do not believe in the existence of a god of any sorts, i doubt any of them are actively trying to find god.   #  but you have just outlined the reasons atheists do not believe in god.  because there is no evidence, apart from the bible, of his existence.  scientific or historical evidence supporting the existence of god would probably change the minds of most atheist on earth.  there is no evidence that the path to god is trust apart from religious text, so this argument is invalid.  because atheists do not believe in the existence of a god of any sorts, i doubt any of them are actively trying to find god.   #  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ?  # do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ? basically.   the book says to take it is word for it, so why do not you ?   because we never just  take anyone is word for it.   we need reasonable evidence for all claims.  god is no different.  note: i am agnostic not an atheist exactly because there is no evidence against a god.  but just  trust in the book  is certainly not good enough to prove he does exist.   #  i was raised secular and i have been an atheist of the  do not believe in god  variety the entire time.   #  i was raised secular and i have been an atheist of the  do not believe in god  variety the entire time.  and here is why i want evidence: i can see no difference between your god, their god, zeus, thor, or general spirituality.  why do i need to trust  religious holy book a  and not trust  religious holy book b  ? how can i tell which religion is right if they are all making identical claims and then simply asking me to trust them.  in the immortal words of homer simpson,  what if we picked the wrong religion and every sunday we are just making god madder and madder ?   i do not accept things without evidence, that is just how i roll.  if you make a claim, i want evidence that supports your claim or else i ca not really trust it.  it is not that i actually expect there to be scientific evidence for god, it is that without evidence, your claim of god is just as likely as this god i just made up off the top of my head.  he says you should give me money, and  just trust me , he is real.
you hear it all the time: atheist  there is just not enough evidence for me to believe .  well what is this evidence that you are looking for ? you want me to say one day,   yes, i finally found god.  i found him when studying the crystal lattice structure of various elements radon, xenon, and phosphorus, the individual molecules electrons are polarized such that it permeates the higgs field.  using partial derivatives to derive the ginzburg landau equation, we can use this model the superconductivity when the elements are freezed to absolute zero, then translating this to soblev spaces since the electromagnetic field creates a holomorphic form URL as the electron spins in a given element such as radon in these extreme conditions, it spins unilaterally without any resistance to such that it forms hyper magnetic dipole that entangles into a higher dimensional calabi yau manifold URL permeating the hilbert space.  with this being achieved it is theorized that it must be going faster than the speed of light, and one of the theorized particles in the standard model that is capable of doing this is the tachyon URL since the element was superconductive and the individual atoms spun unilaterally to create a hyper magnetic dipole entangled into a higher dimensional manifold, then this electron in 0 dimensions is simultaneously entangled in a calabi yau hyper dimension manifold as a fluid interacting with tachyons.  we consider a ﬂuid described by a parameterized eos euclidean supersymmetry of 0th dimension of the general form p γ − 0 ρ   p0   ωhh   ωh0h0   ωdhh˙ 0 , where p0, ωh, ωh0 and ωdh are free parameters of the model, interacting with a tachyonic ﬁeld with a relativistic lagrangian assumption based on quantum superposition.    is that the type explanation atheist are expecting ? if so, you will never find it, because that is not how god works.  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through  trust , not  enlightenment  ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ?  #  if so, you will never find it, because that is not how god works.   #  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ?  # do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ? basically.   the book says to take it is word for it, so why do not you ?   because we never just  take anyone is word for it.   we need reasonable evidence for all claims.  god is no different.  note: i am agnostic not an atheist exactly because there is no evidence against a god.  but just  trust in the book  is certainly not good enough to prove he does exist.   #  christianity is not the oldest religion and not the newest, so what makes you so certain your god is the right god ?  #  who am i supposed to trust when it comes to faith ? since you mention the bible and god i am going to assume you are christian.  why do you trust the bible ? why not believe in thor or zues or muhammad ? christianity is not the oldest religion and not the newest, so what makes you so certain your god is the right god ? we demand evidence because you might be wrong, just as the ancient romans were and the ancient greeks, and the thousands of other religions have been.  the bible is full of stories where people have direct conversations with god or witness miracles and yet he fails to do so in modern times.  the bible is not a book to trust with blind faith, the stories have little verifiable sources and are most likely stories passed down through generations and have been altered or changed over time.  i believe in things for which there is evidence.  science is far more reliable than religion and has advanced humanity far more than religion ever can or will.   #  but you have just outlined the reasons atheists do not believe in god.   #  but you have just outlined the reasons atheists do not believe in god.  because there is no evidence, apart from the bible, of his existence.  scientific or historical evidence supporting the existence of god would probably change the minds of most atheist on earth.  there is no evidence that the path to god is trust apart from religious text, so this argument is invalid.  because atheists do not believe in the existence of a god of any sorts, i doubt any of them are actively trying to find god.   #  an entity with no effect on anything is no better than imaginary.   # because in order to accept the fact that faith is necessary, faith must be put into the text to begin with.  this loop of faith is stable once initiated, but many people do not want to get into it.  if god has a tangible effect on the world or anyone is lives, there will be something like this.  perhaps it will be so complex that we wo not see it for thousands of years, but unless god is just sitting on his ass for eternity, he will be doing something, and that something is theoretically detectable.  if that is not how god works, then what is the point ? an entity with no effect on anything is no better than imaginary.   #  i was raised secular and i have been an atheist of the  do not believe in god  variety the entire time.   #  i was raised secular and i have been an atheist of the  do not believe in god  variety the entire time.  and here is why i want evidence: i can see no difference between your god, their god, zeus, thor, or general spirituality.  why do i need to trust  religious holy book a  and not trust  religious holy book b  ? how can i tell which religion is right if they are all making identical claims and then simply asking me to trust them.  in the immortal words of homer simpson,  what if we picked the wrong religion and every sunday we are just making god madder and madder ?   i do not accept things without evidence, that is just how i roll.  if you make a claim, i want evidence that supports your claim or else i ca not really trust it.  it is not that i actually expect there to be scientific evidence for god, it is that without evidence, your claim of god is just as likely as this god i just made up off the top of my head.  he says you should give me money, and  just trust me , he is real.
you hear it all the time: atheist  there is just not enough evidence for me to believe .  well what is this evidence that you are looking for ? you want me to say one day,   yes, i finally found god.  i found him when studying the crystal lattice structure of various elements radon, xenon, and phosphorus, the individual molecules electrons are polarized such that it permeates the higgs field.  using partial derivatives to derive the ginzburg landau equation, we can use this model the superconductivity when the elements are freezed to absolute zero, then translating this to soblev spaces since the electromagnetic field creates a holomorphic form URL as the electron spins in a given element such as radon in these extreme conditions, it spins unilaterally without any resistance to such that it forms hyper magnetic dipole that entangles into a higher dimensional calabi yau manifold URL permeating the hilbert space.  with this being achieved it is theorized that it must be going faster than the speed of light, and one of the theorized particles in the standard model that is capable of doing this is the tachyon URL since the element was superconductive and the individual atoms spun unilaterally to create a hyper magnetic dipole entangled into a higher dimensional manifold, then this electron in 0 dimensions is simultaneously entangled in a calabi yau hyper dimension manifold as a fluid interacting with tachyons.  we consider a ﬂuid described by a parameterized eos euclidean supersymmetry of 0th dimension of the general form p γ − 0 ρ   p0   ωhh   ωh0h0   ωdhh˙ 0 , where p0, ωh, ωh0 and ωdh are free parameters of the model, interacting with a tachyonic ﬁeld with a relativistic lagrangian assumption based on quantum superposition.    is that the type explanation atheist are expecting ? if so, you will never find it, because that is not how god works.  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through  trust , not  enlightenment  ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ?  #  if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ?  #  equals     reworded   why would one group of people say that knowledge requires evidence when another group of people say knowledge does not require evidence ?  # equals     reworded   why would one group of people say that knowledge requires evidence when another group of people say knowledge does not require evidence ? which group of people to believe ? and the answer ultimately is neither.  both are second hand sources they could be lying, or mistaken or deluded, or trying to trick you ultimately you only have  your own  evidence as a first hand source of what to believe of not to believe.  what  you  experience is the first hand source material  for you  that trumps all other sources.  would god want you to deny or dismiss the evidence of your own senses ? would god who endowed you with the powers of judgement and reason want you to believe every word in a text or every statement by an authoritative figure by blindly suspending that judgement and reason ? if there is a god, then he must be logical and rational.  would not it be silly to create a world, then give man sensors to see and touch evidence and a brain to comprehend the evidence of the world and himself and then say  but for believing in  me , you must  stop  using the method for which i endowed you to know what exists and what is true and what is real .  no, a true god would see this as us suspending our gifts and deluding ourselves.  a true god would want us to acknowledge what we know as fact and what we do not know as fact.  he would want us to be  honest  with ourselves.   #  i believe in things for which there is evidence.   #  who am i supposed to trust when it comes to faith ? since you mention the bible and god i am going to assume you are christian.  why do you trust the bible ? why not believe in thor or zues or muhammad ? christianity is not the oldest religion and not the newest, so what makes you so certain your god is the right god ? we demand evidence because you might be wrong, just as the ancient romans were and the ancient greeks, and the thousands of other religions have been.  the bible is full of stories where people have direct conversations with god or witness miracles and yet he fails to do so in modern times.  the bible is not a book to trust with blind faith, the stories have little verifiable sources and are most likely stories passed down through generations and have been altered or changed over time.  i believe in things for which there is evidence.  science is far more reliable than religion and has advanced humanity far more than religion ever can or will.   #  because atheists do not believe in the existence of a god of any sorts, i doubt any of them are actively trying to find god.   #  but you have just outlined the reasons atheists do not believe in god.  because there is no evidence, apart from the bible, of his existence.  scientific or historical evidence supporting the existence of god would probably change the minds of most atheist on earth.  there is no evidence that the path to god is trust apart from religious text, so this argument is invalid.  because atheists do not believe in the existence of a god of any sorts, i doubt any of them are actively trying to find god.   #  if that is not how god works, then what is the point ?  # because in order to accept the fact that faith is necessary, faith must be put into the text to begin with.  this loop of faith is stable once initiated, but many people do not want to get into it.  if god has a tangible effect on the world or anyone is lives, there will be something like this.  perhaps it will be so complex that we wo not see it for thousands of years, but unless god is just sitting on his ass for eternity, he will be doing something, and that something is theoretically detectable.  if that is not how god works, then what is the point ? an entity with no effect on anything is no better than imaginary.   #  because we never just  take anyone is word for it.    # do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ? basically.   the book says to take it is word for it, so why do not you ?   because we never just  take anyone is word for it.   we need reasonable evidence for all claims.  god is no different.  note: i am agnostic not an atheist exactly because there is no evidence against a god.  but just  trust in the book  is certainly not good enough to prove he does exist.
you hear it all the time: atheist  there is just not enough evidence for me to believe .  well what is this evidence that you are looking for ? you want me to say one day,   yes, i finally found god.  i found him when studying the crystal lattice structure of various elements radon, xenon, and phosphorus, the individual molecules electrons are polarized such that it permeates the higgs field.  using partial derivatives to derive the ginzburg landau equation, we can use this model the superconductivity when the elements are freezed to absolute zero, then translating this to soblev spaces since the electromagnetic field creates a holomorphic form URL as the electron spins in a given element such as radon in these extreme conditions, it spins unilaterally without any resistance to such that it forms hyper magnetic dipole that entangles into a higher dimensional calabi yau manifold URL permeating the hilbert space.  with this being achieved it is theorized that it must be going faster than the speed of light, and one of the theorized particles in the standard model that is capable of doing this is the tachyon URL since the element was superconductive and the individual atoms spun unilaterally to create a hyper magnetic dipole entangled into a higher dimensional manifold, then this electron in 0 dimensions is simultaneously entangled in a calabi yau hyper dimension manifold as a fluid interacting with tachyons.  we consider a ﬂuid described by a parameterized eos euclidean supersymmetry of 0th dimension of the general form p γ − 0 ρ   p0   ωhh   ωh0h0   ωdhh˙ 0 , where p0, ωh, ωh0 and ωdh are free parameters of the model, interacting with a tachyonic ﬁeld with a relativistic lagrangian assumption based on quantum superposition.    is that the type explanation atheist are expecting ? if so, you will never find it, because that is not how god works.  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through  trust , not  enlightenment  ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ?  #  if so, you will never find it, because that is not how god works.   #  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ?  #  let me start by saying, that evidence need not be scientific.  the question you posed by  atheist persondude  does not specify that.  it seems that it is often assumed that only scientific evidence will do and to be fair it would be the best kind to show that something existed.  in fact, i would go so far to say you have some kind of evidence good or bad for everything you believe.  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ? to be clear, you are suggesting blind trust, not just regular everyday trust, correct ? let is ensure we are not equivocating by talking about trust and how we define it.  i will define my usage of trust by examples: i trust my family because i have evidence that they will back me up.  i trust my friends because they are there when i need them.  i trust my co workers because they continuously and repeatedly perform their duties in a reliable manner.  most importantly i can directly experience that they exist, i can bring them to other people, take videos with them, call them and let other people talk to them.  you cannot do this with any god.  the trust you are talking about is not evidence based.  i am sure you agree that the trust that i am talking about is.  so, basically you are asking us to believe without a reason if we use faith in the way i understand you are putting forward.  why would we ? is there anything you believe based on nothing ? surely you agree that we need at least  some  evidence to believe anything, you do not believe based on nothing right ? you have a bible, or a vision, or someone tells you something in a convincing way.  if you might agree that to believe something you need evidence, then why not the best available evidence that is potentially available to everyone ?  #  since you mention the bible and god i am going to assume you are christian.   #  who am i supposed to trust when it comes to faith ? since you mention the bible and god i am going to assume you are christian.  why do you trust the bible ? why not believe in thor or zues or muhammad ? christianity is not the oldest religion and not the newest, so what makes you so certain your god is the right god ? we demand evidence because you might be wrong, just as the ancient romans were and the ancient greeks, and the thousands of other religions have been.  the bible is full of stories where people have direct conversations with god or witness miracles and yet he fails to do so in modern times.  the bible is not a book to trust with blind faith, the stories have little verifiable sources and are most likely stories passed down through generations and have been altered or changed over time.  i believe in things for which there is evidence.  science is far more reliable than religion and has advanced humanity far more than religion ever can or will.   #  because atheists do not believe in the existence of a god of any sorts, i doubt any of them are actively trying to find god.   #  but you have just outlined the reasons atheists do not believe in god.  because there is no evidence, apart from the bible, of his existence.  scientific or historical evidence supporting the existence of god would probably change the minds of most atheist on earth.  there is no evidence that the path to god is trust apart from religious text, so this argument is invalid.  because atheists do not believe in the existence of a god of any sorts, i doubt any of them are actively trying to find god.   #  this loop of faith is stable once initiated, but many people do not want to get into it.   # because in order to accept the fact that faith is necessary, faith must be put into the text to begin with.  this loop of faith is stable once initiated, but many people do not want to get into it.  if god has a tangible effect on the world or anyone is lives, there will be something like this.  perhaps it will be so complex that we wo not see it for thousands of years, but unless god is just sitting on his ass for eternity, he will be doing something, and that something is theoretically detectable.  if that is not how god works, then what is the point ? an entity with no effect on anything is no better than imaginary.   #  do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ?  # do not religious text say that the path to god, is through trust, not enlightenment ? if so, why would the atheist think the way to finding god should be through enlightenment scientific empirical evidence when the text specifically say the path to god is through trust/faith ? basically.   the book says to take it is word for it, so why do not you ?   because we never just  take anyone is word for it.   we need reasonable evidence for all claims.  god is no different.  note: i am agnostic not an atheist exactly because there is no evidence against a god.  but just  trust in the book  is certainly not good enough to prove he does exist.
i guess this could apply to all religions but my only experiences with proselytizing have been with christians so i will limit to them to keep it simply.  note: i am including jehovah is witnesses and mormons as christians for this cmv, if you do not define them that way that is fine.  i am just doing it for simplicity, i do not care to debate semantics.  the act of approaching a compete stranger and telling them that their deeply held beliefs are wrong is incredibly arrogant and selfish.  these are examples of some of the most invasive times a christian has harassed me: in shinjuku station, the busiest and most crowded train station in the world, when i was carrying 0 heavy suitcases after a 0 hour flight.  as i was returning home from the funeral of my best friend.  during a holocaust remembrance ceremony at my university.  immediately following a service inside my family is synagogue at my home during the first dinner i had with my girlfriend i had not seen for 0 months.  i find all these times extremely rude and completely without any respect for me, my life, or my time whatsoever.  but i also find it rude to be approached in daily life, even if i do not have some huge event going on in my life.  some possible counter arguments:  but they mean well.  they really believe they are saving your soul.   so ? if a multi level marketer genuinely believes he is introducing me to a great new business opportunity it is considered rude to harass me.  if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.  why is religion any different ? furthermore the implicit assumption is that my beliefs are not real or as strongly held as the proselytizer is.  this is extremely arrogant and just shows how their mentality has no respect for others.  obviously every single adult in a western country has heard of jesus already, and has had the opportunity to convert.  i declined that opportunity.   freedom of speech they can say whatever they want  i am not talking about laws, i am talking about common courtesy and respect for other people.  i have every right to walk around saying racist things or belching but that does not mean its socially acceptable or polite.  anyway cmv  #  if a multi level marketer genuinely believes he is introducing me to a great new business opportunity it is considered rude to harass me.   #  if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.   # if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.  why is religion any different ? these are all bad analogies.  and this is coming from a vegetarian atheist who heavily supports kicking our addiction to oil.  the fact is, those that truly believe what they are saying do not see it as anything so minor.  they see it as saving you from an eternity of unending, unimaginable torture.  a better analogy is this: if you saw someone getting into a car that had a bomb wired to it, would it be rude to try to convince them not to start the car ? if you were at a bar, and you saw someone slip something into someone else is drink, would it be rude to try to convince them not to drink it ? the answer is, simply, no.  but even these analogies are weak.  even a painful death is nothing compared to a literal eternity of hellfire and agony.  the fact is, we do not consider those other situations rude because the stakes are so high.  and here, they see the stakes as even higher.  now, i personally believe that most people do not sincerely believe that the unsaved are going to burn forever.  i think that the idea of that seems fundamentally unjust, and people compensate by ignoring it or coming up with a justification for it.  but, of those who sincerely believe, there are two types, as far as i can see.  horrific sadists, who enjoy the idea of eternal torment, and those who devote their lives to trying to convert others because, if you believed such a horrible fate was just around the corner for most, how could you spend your life doing anything but ? so, i do not consider it rude.  i consider it annoying, sure.  i do not share their view, and i think that they are wrong.  but i understand where they are coming from, and that makes all the difference.   #  this method of telling people they are inferior not only gives the non believer more reasons to stay the hell away from church, but it also gives the christian this insane, smug  i am improving the community  feeling.   #  i think you might believe that christians disagree with you.  many do, but many are also taught that that level of effort is a terrible way to convert people and is ruining the reputation of christianity, making it harder to save people.  for instance, there is a local church in my area that made  you need jesus  cards and hand them out to people who do not seem to meet their standard.  this method of telling people they are inferior not only gives the non believer more reasons to stay the hell away from church, but it also gives the christian this insane, smug  i am improving the community  feeling.  they are not helping people.  they are not putting energy or effort into the community.  they are just being asshats.  in another local church, they started classes on relationship advice, parenting, and financial peace.  they do not just feed the homeless, they bring in professional photographers and extra clothing to dress people up who ca not afford it and give them something that no one else will take the time to give them.  they work on people is lawns in the local neighborhood because tgey have enough volunteers to do so.  this church is doing everything they can to put real time and effort into the community to convert people, not just dropping in and pissing people off and saying  well, too bad, guess they are going to hell.  not mah fault, bitches.   i do not want to change your view that those people are rude.  i want to change your view, and other christians  views, that that is how christianity works.   #  actually, just as his analogies were bad, i find yours to be as well.   #  actually, just as his analogies were bad, i find yours to be as well.  his analogies are something we know is bad, although he may think its good.  we know for a fact that multi level marketing schemes are a scam that ultimately collapses.  your analogies are something that we know is good.  saving someone from a bomb or getting duped ca not go wrong.  however, religion is something that we just do not know the answer to.  phrasing analogies in such way is highly bias towards your argument.  now, i am not in any way trying to say that a god exist or not, but simply that an analogy that does not assume a side would be much better.   #  but from the point of view of someone who is convinced of their religion, the analogy is correct.   #  but from the point of view of someone who is convinced of their religion, the analogy is correct.  i would agree with you that from an objective standpoint on the issue, the analogies are not accurate.  but from the theist is viewpoint, they are.  from an objective standpoint, you could fix the analogies by making a small change that the person who saw the bomb / saw the thing go into the drink may have just thought they saw those things.  they are known to suffer from hallucinations and delusions, and are highly paranoid about such things.  so it is highly likely, in our scenario, that the person thinks they saw a bomb / the drink being drugged, while in reality, neither such thing happened.  does that change anything ? from their viewpoint, they are still convinced of what they saw.  they still see it as vitally important to warn others about it.  from their perspective, it is real.  i do not think trying to stop someone from starting a car you think is wired to a bomb is rude.  i do not think it is rude if there really is a bomb, and i do not think it is rude if there is not a bomb, so long as the person truly believes that one is there.  i do not think you can say  well, it turned out you were wrong, so actually you were retroactively rude all along .  again, do keep in mind that i am an atheist i am not arguing for any gods, i am arguing in favor of seeing things from such a person is perspective  #  but hundreds of people are evacuating the building ie the legacy of millions upon billions of christians throughout the ages and assuming what he said is true but you do not see tangible evidence.   #  i said if it were true then it would not be rude.  that skips the debate about whether it is true or not or whether there is evidence for it or not.  that is a separate debate.  let is say you ca not see the danger.  like the guy says there is a bomb or something.  you do not see it and you hear no sirens.  there is no evidence of it.  but hundreds of people are evacuating the building ie the legacy of millions upon billions of christians throughout the ages and assuming what he said is true but you do not see tangible evidence.  at that point, any rudeness you might perceive is purely your own interpretation of the events surrounding you.  it is not his inherent rudeness or poor behavior.  another example; a man runs down the sidewalk and shoves you to the ground as he runs past you.  you perceive it as rude.  but in reality, he is running to save a life.  any rudeness you perceive is not in context of what is actually happening.
i guess this could apply to all religions but my only experiences with proselytizing have been with christians so i will limit to them to keep it simply.  note: i am including jehovah is witnesses and mormons as christians for this cmv, if you do not define them that way that is fine.  i am just doing it for simplicity, i do not care to debate semantics.  the act of approaching a compete stranger and telling them that their deeply held beliefs are wrong is incredibly arrogant and selfish.  these are examples of some of the most invasive times a christian has harassed me: in shinjuku station, the busiest and most crowded train station in the world, when i was carrying 0 heavy suitcases after a 0 hour flight.  as i was returning home from the funeral of my best friend.  during a holocaust remembrance ceremony at my university.  immediately following a service inside my family is synagogue at my home during the first dinner i had with my girlfriend i had not seen for 0 months.  i find all these times extremely rude and completely without any respect for me, my life, or my time whatsoever.  but i also find it rude to be approached in daily life, even if i do not have some huge event going on in my life.  some possible counter arguments:  but they mean well.  they really believe they are saving your soul.   so ? if a multi level marketer genuinely believes he is introducing me to a great new business opportunity it is considered rude to harass me.  if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.  why is religion any different ? furthermore the implicit assumption is that my beliefs are not real or as strongly held as the proselytizer is.  this is extremely arrogant and just shows how their mentality has no respect for others.  obviously every single adult in a western country has heard of jesus already, and has had the opportunity to convert.  i declined that opportunity.   freedom of speech they can say whatever they want  i am not talking about laws, i am talking about common courtesy and respect for other people.  i have every right to walk around saying racist things or belching but that does not mean its socially acceptable or polite.  anyway cmv  #  as i was returning home from the funeral of my best friend.   #  how in the hell would they know that ?  #  you quoted some examples about times they have bothered you, how in the world are they supposed to know where you have been ? when you got off that flight, maybe they did not see your bags, maybe they thought you were on a spiritual trip which millions of people do .  it is also a place of travel.  how in the hell would they know that ? they see someone crying or sad they try to help, many people turn to faith in times of crisis.  poor timing i will agree and i wo not defend this, but i will say that thousands of jehovah is witnesses and christians were killed in the holocaust, so it is not like they were just like  a jew gathering time to harass people .  but think of it from their pov.   these poor souls have not accepted jesus, they are good people, maybe if they read up about us, they will join us  it was rude, but their intentions were pure.  again, how the hell would they know that at 0 fake street, some guy who has not seen his girlfriend needs to be harassed ? they did not know ! cut them a little slack on that one.  if a multi level marketer genuinely believes he is introducing me to a great new business opportunity it is considered rude to harass me that is for financial gain, the people who want to get more christians do not get paid, they do not even get a candy bar or anything, they just get the good feeling of knowing that in their mind at least they saved a person from burning in hell.  they just are suggesting a new way of thinking.  sometimes it is about thinking about it at the right time.  if you are a drunk or you see that your life is not as fulfilling as you wish, some people will turn to religion, it is not a bad thing.  lastly, they honestly do not mean to bother you, most of the time if you are not interested they will leave.   #  they do not just feed the homeless, they bring in professional photographers and extra clothing to dress people up who ca not afford it and give them something that no one else will take the time to give them.   #  i think you might believe that christians disagree with you.  many do, but many are also taught that that level of effort is a terrible way to convert people and is ruining the reputation of christianity, making it harder to save people.  for instance, there is a local church in my area that made  you need jesus  cards and hand them out to people who do not seem to meet their standard.  this method of telling people they are inferior not only gives the non believer more reasons to stay the hell away from church, but it also gives the christian this insane, smug  i am improving the community  feeling.  they are not helping people.  they are not putting energy or effort into the community.  they are just being asshats.  in another local church, they started classes on relationship advice, parenting, and financial peace.  they do not just feed the homeless, they bring in professional photographers and extra clothing to dress people up who ca not afford it and give them something that no one else will take the time to give them.  they work on people is lawns in the local neighborhood because tgey have enough volunteers to do so.  this church is doing everything they can to put real time and effort into the community to convert people, not just dropping in and pissing people off and saying  well, too bad, guess they are going to hell.  not mah fault, bitches.   i do not want to change your view that those people are rude.  i want to change your view, and other christians  views, that that is how christianity works.   #  a better analogy is this: if you saw someone getting into a car that had a bomb wired to it, would it be rude to try to convince them not to start the car ?  # if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.  why is religion any different ? these are all bad analogies.  and this is coming from a vegetarian atheist who heavily supports kicking our addiction to oil.  the fact is, those that truly believe what they are saying do not see it as anything so minor.  they see it as saving you from an eternity of unending, unimaginable torture.  a better analogy is this: if you saw someone getting into a car that had a bomb wired to it, would it be rude to try to convince them not to start the car ? if you were at a bar, and you saw someone slip something into someone else is drink, would it be rude to try to convince them not to drink it ? the answer is, simply, no.  but even these analogies are weak.  even a painful death is nothing compared to a literal eternity of hellfire and agony.  the fact is, we do not consider those other situations rude because the stakes are so high.  and here, they see the stakes as even higher.  now, i personally believe that most people do not sincerely believe that the unsaved are going to burn forever.  i think that the idea of that seems fundamentally unjust, and people compensate by ignoring it or coming up with a justification for it.  but, of those who sincerely believe, there are two types, as far as i can see.  horrific sadists, who enjoy the idea of eternal torment, and those who devote their lives to trying to convert others because, if you believed such a horrible fate was just around the corner for most, how could you spend your life doing anything but ? so, i do not consider it rude.  i consider it annoying, sure.  i do not share their view, and i think that they are wrong.  but i understand where they are coming from, and that makes all the difference.   #  his analogies are something we know is bad, although he may think its good.   #  actually, just as his analogies were bad, i find yours to be as well.  his analogies are something we know is bad, although he may think its good.  we know for a fact that multi level marketing schemes are a scam that ultimately collapses.  your analogies are something that we know is good.  saving someone from a bomb or getting duped ca not go wrong.  however, religion is something that we just do not know the answer to.  phrasing analogies in such way is highly bias towards your argument.  now, i am not in any way trying to say that a god exist or not, but simply that an analogy that does not assume a side would be much better.   #  again, do keep in mind that i am an atheist i am not arguing for any gods, i am arguing in favor of seeing things from such a person is perspective  #  but from the point of view of someone who is convinced of their religion, the analogy is correct.  i would agree with you that from an objective standpoint on the issue, the analogies are not accurate.  but from the theist is viewpoint, they are.  from an objective standpoint, you could fix the analogies by making a small change that the person who saw the bomb / saw the thing go into the drink may have just thought they saw those things.  they are known to suffer from hallucinations and delusions, and are highly paranoid about such things.  so it is highly likely, in our scenario, that the person thinks they saw a bomb / the drink being drugged, while in reality, neither such thing happened.  does that change anything ? from their viewpoint, they are still convinced of what they saw.  they still see it as vitally important to warn others about it.  from their perspective, it is real.  i do not think trying to stop someone from starting a car you think is wired to a bomb is rude.  i do not think it is rude if there really is a bomb, and i do not think it is rude if there is not a bomb, so long as the person truly believes that one is there.  i do not think you can say  well, it turned out you were wrong, so actually you were retroactively rude all along .  again, do keep in mind that i am an atheist i am not arguing for any gods, i am arguing in favor of seeing things from such a person is perspective
i guess this could apply to all religions but my only experiences with proselytizing have been with christians so i will limit to them to keep it simply.  note: i am including jehovah is witnesses and mormons as christians for this cmv, if you do not define them that way that is fine.  i am just doing it for simplicity, i do not care to debate semantics.  the act of approaching a compete stranger and telling them that their deeply held beliefs are wrong is incredibly arrogant and selfish.  these are examples of some of the most invasive times a christian has harassed me: in shinjuku station, the busiest and most crowded train station in the world, when i was carrying 0 heavy suitcases after a 0 hour flight.  as i was returning home from the funeral of my best friend.  during a holocaust remembrance ceremony at my university.  immediately following a service inside my family is synagogue at my home during the first dinner i had with my girlfriend i had not seen for 0 months.  i find all these times extremely rude and completely without any respect for me, my life, or my time whatsoever.  but i also find it rude to be approached in daily life, even if i do not have some huge event going on in my life.  some possible counter arguments:  but they mean well.  they really believe they are saving your soul.   so ? if a multi level marketer genuinely believes he is introducing me to a great new business opportunity it is considered rude to harass me.  if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.  why is religion any different ? furthermore the implicit assumption is that my beliefs are not real or as strongly held as the proselytizer is.  this is extremely arrogant and just shows how their mentality has no respect for others.  obviously every single adult in a western country has heard of jesus already, and has had the opportunity to convert.  i declined that opportunity.   freedom of speech they can say whatever they want  i am not talking about laws, i am talking about common courtesy and respect for other people.  i have every right to walk around saying racist things or belching but that does not mean its socially acceptable or polite.  anyway cmv  #  during a holocaust remembrance ceremony at my university.   #  poor timing i will agree and i wo not defend this, but i will say that thousands of jehovah is witnesses and christians were killed in the holocaust, so it is not like they were just like  a jew gathering time to harass people .   #  you quoted some examples about times they have bothered you, how in the world are they supposed to know where you have been ? when you got off that flight, maybe they did not see your bags, maybe they thought you were on a spiritual trip which millions of people do .  it is also a place of travel.  how in the hell would they know that ? they see someone crying or sad they try to help, many people turn to faith in times of crisis.  poor timing i will agree and i wo not defend this, but i will say that thousands of jehovah is witnesses and christians were killed in the holocaust, so it is not like they were just like  a jew gathering time to harass people .  but think of it from their pov.   these poor souls have not accepted jesus, they are good people, maybe if they read up about us, they will join us  it was rude, but their intentions were pure.  again, how the hell would they know that at 0 fake street, some guy who has not seen his girlfriend needs to be harassed ? they did not know ! cut them a little slack on that one.  if a multi level marketer genuinely believes he is introducing me to a great new business opportunity it is considered rude to harass me that is for financial gain, the people who want to get more christians do not get paid, they do not even get a candy bar or anything, they just get the good feeling of knowing that in their mind at least they saved a person from burning in hell.  they just are suggesting a new way of thinking.  sometimes it is about thinking about it at the right time.  if you are a drunk or you see that your life is not as fulfilling as you wish, some people will turn to religion, it is not a bad thing.  lastly, they honestly do not mean to bother you, most of the time if you are not interested they will leave.   #  i think you might believe that christians disagree with you.   #  i think you might believe that christians disagree with you.  many do, but many are also taught that that level of effort is a terrible way to convert people and is ruining the reputation of christianity, making it harder to save people.  for instance, there is a local church in my area that made  you need jesus  cards and hand them out to people who do not seem to meet their standard.  this method of telling people they are inferior not only gives the non believer more reasons to stay the hell away from church, but it also gives the christian this insane, smug  i am improving the community  feeling.  they are not helping people.  they are not putting energy or effort into the community.  they are just being asshats.  in another local church, they started classes on relationship advice, parenting, and financial peace.  they do not just feed the homeless, they bring in professional photographers and extra clothing to dress people up who ca not afford it and give them something that no one else will take the time to give them.  they work on people is lawns in the local neighborhood because tgey have enough volunteers to do so.  this church is doing everything they can to put real time and effort into the community to convert people, not just dropping in and pissing people off and saying  well, too bad, guess they are going to hell.  not mah fault, bitches.   i do not want to change your view that those people are rude.  i want to change your view, and other christians  views, that that is how christianity works.   #  but i understand where they are coming from, and that makes all the difference.   # if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.  why is religion any different ? these are all bad analogies.  and this is coming from a vegetarian atheist who heavily supports kicking our addiction to oil.  the fact is, those that truly believe what they are saying do not see it as anything so minor.  they see it as saving you from an eternity of unending, unimaginable torture.  a better analogy is this: if you saw someone getting into a car that had a bomb wired to it, would it be rude to try to convince them not to start the car ? if you were at a bar, and you saw someone slip something into someone else is drink, would it be rude to try to convince them not to drink it ? the answer is, simply, no.  but even these analogies are weak.  even a painful death is nothing compared to a literal eternity of hellfire and agony.  the fact is, we do not consider those other situations rude because the stakes are so high.  and here, they see the stakes as even higher.  now, i personally believe that most people do not sincerely believe that the unsaved are going to burn forever.  i think that the idea of that seems fundamentally unjust, and people compensate by ignoring it or coming up with a justification for it.  but, of those who sincerely believe, there are two types, as far as i can see.  horrific sadists, who enjoy the idea of eternal torment, and those who devote their lives to trying to convert others because, if you believed such a horrible fate was just around the corner for most, how could you spend your life doing anything but ? so, i do not consider it rude.  i consider it annoying, sure.  i do not share their view, and i think that they are wrong.  but i understand where they are coming from, and that makes all the difference.   #  your analogies are something that we know is good.   #  actually, just as his analogies were bad, i find yours to be as well.  his analogies are something we know is bad, although he may think its good.  we know for a fact that multi level marketing schemes are a scam that ultimately collapses.  your analogies are something that we know is good.  saving someone from a bomb or getting duped ca not go wrong.  however, religion is something that we just do not know the answer to.  phrasing analogies in such way is highly bias towards your argument.  now, i am not in any way trying to say that a god exist or not, but simply that an analogy that does not assume a side would be much better.   #  i would agree with you that from an objective standpoint on the issue, the analogies are not accurate.   #  but from the point of view of someone who is convinced of their religion, the analogy is correct.  i would agree with you that from an objective standpoint on the issue, the analogies are not accurate.  but from the theist is viewpoint, they are.  from an objective standpoint, you could fix the analogies by making a small change that the person who saw the bomb / saw the thing go into the drink may have just thought they saw those things.  they are known to suffer from hallucinations and delusions, and are highly paranoid about such things.  so it is highly likely, in our scenario, that the person thinks they saw a bomb / the drink being drugged, while in reality, neither such thing happened.  does that change anything ? from their viewpoint, they are still convinced of what they saw.  they still see it as vitally important to warn others about it.  from their perspective, it is real.  i do not think trying to stop someone from starting a car you think is wired to a bomb is rude.  i do not think it is rude if there really is a bomb, and i do not think it is rude if there is not a bomb, so long as the person truly believes that one is there.  i do not think you can say  well, it turned out you were wrong, so actually you were retroactively rude all along .  again, do keep in mind that i am an atheist i am not arguing for any gods, i am arguing in favor of seeing things from such a person is perspective
i guess this could apply to all religions but my only experiences with proselytizing have been with christians so i will limit to them to keep it simply.  note: i am including jehovah is witnesses and mormons as christians for this cmv, if you do not define them that way that is fine.  i am just doing it for simplicity, i do not care to debate semantics.  the act of approaching a compete stranger and telling them that their deeply held beliefs are wrong is incredibly arrogant and selfish.  these are examples of some of the most invasive times a christian has harassed me: in shinjuku station, the busiest and most crowded train station in the world, when i was carrying 0 heavy suitcases after a 0 hour flight.  as i was returning home from the funeral of my best friend.  during a holocaust remembrance ceremony at my university.  immediately following a service inside my family is synagogue at my home during the first dinner i had with my girlfriend i had not seen for 0 months.  i find all these times extremely rude and completely without any respect for me, my life, or my time whatsoever.  but i also find it rude to be approached in daily life, even if i do not have some huge event going on in my life.  some possible counter arguments:  but they mean well.  they really believe they are saving your soul.   so ? if a multi level marketer genuinely believes he is introducing me to a great new business opportunity it is considered rude to harass me.  if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.  why is religion any different ? furthermore the implicit assumption is that my beliefs are not real or as strongly held as the proselytizer is.  this is extremely arrogant and just shows how their mentality has no respect for others.  obviously every single adult in a western country has heard of jesus already, and has had the opportunity to convert.  i declined that opportunity.   freedom of speech they can say whatever they want  i am not talking about laws, i am talking about common courtesy and respect for other people.  i have every right to walk around saying racist things or belching but that does not mean its socially acceptable or polite.  anyway cmv  #  at my home during the first dinner i had with my girlfriend i had not seen for 0 months.   #  again, how the hell would they know that at 0 fake street, some guy who has not seen his girlfriend needs to be harassed ?  #  you quoted some examples about times they have bothered you, how in the world are they supposed to know where you have been ? when you got off that flight, maybe they did not see your bags, maybe they thought you were on a spiritual trip which millions of people do .  it is also a place of travel.  how in the hell would they know that ? they see someone crying or sad they try to help, many people turn to faith in times of crisis.  poor timing i will agree and i wo not defend this, but i will say that thousands of jehovah is witnesses and christians were killed in the holocaust, so it is not like they were just like  a jew gathering time to harass people .  but think of it from their pov.   these poor souls have not accepted jesus, they are good people, maybe if they read up about us, they will join us  it was rude, but their intentions were pure.  again, how the hell would they know that at 0 fake street, some guy who has not seen his girlfriend needs to be harassed ? they did not know ! cut them a little slack on that one.  if a multi level marketer genuinely believes he is introducing me to a great new business opportunity it is considered rude to harass me that is for financial gain, the people who want to get more christians do not get paid, they do not even get a candy bar or anything, they just get the good feeling of knowing that in their mind at least they saved a person from burning in hell.  they just are suggesting a new way of thinking.  sometimes it is about thinking about it at the right time.  if you are a drunk or you see that your life is not as fulfilling as you wish, some people will turn to religion, it is not a bad thing.  lastly, they honestly do not mean to bother you, most of the time if you are not interested they will leave.   #  they do not just feed the homeless, they bring in professional photographers and extra clothing to dress people up who ca not afford it and give them something that no one else will take the time to give them.   #  i think you might believe that christians disagree with you.  many do, but many are also taught that that level of effort is a terrible way to convert people and is ruining the reputation of christianity, making it harder to save people.  for instance, there is a local church in my area that made  you need jesus  cards and hand them out to people who do not seem to meet their standard.  this method of telling people they are inferior not only gives the non believer more reasons to stay the hell away from church, but it also gives the christian this insane, smug  i am improving the community  feeling.  they are not helping people.  they are not putting energy or effort into the community.  they are just being asshats.  in another local church, they started classes on relationship advice, parenting, and financial peace.  they do not just feed the homeless, they bring in professional photographers and extra clothing to dress people up who ca not afford it and give them something that no one else will take the time to give them.  they work on people is lawns in the local neighborhood because tgey have enough volunteers to do so.  this church is doing everything they can to put real time and effort into the community to convert people, not just dropping in and pissing people off and saying  well, too bad, guess they are going to hell.  not mah fault, bitches.   i do not want to change your view that those people are rude.  i want to change your view, and other christians  views, that that is how christianity works.   #  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.   # if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.  why is religion any different ? these are all bad analogies.  and this is coming from a vegetarian atheist who heavily supports kicking our addiction to oil.  the fact is, those that truly believe what they are saying do not see it as anything so minor.  they see it as saving you from an eternity of unending, unimaginable torture.  a better analogy is this: if you saw someone getting into a car that had a bomb wired to it, would it be rude to try to convince them not to start the car ? if you were at a bar, and you saw someone slip something into someone else is drink, would it be rude to try to convince them not to drink it ? the answer is, simply, no.  but even these analogies are weak.  even a painful death is nothing compared to a literal eternity of hellfire and agony.  the fact is, we do not consider those other situations rude because the stakes are so high.  and here, they see the stakes as even higher.  now, i personally believe that most people do not sincerely believe that the unsaved are going to burn forever.  i think that the idea of that seems fundamentally unjust, and people compensate by ignoring it or coming up with a justification for it.  but, of those who sincerely believe, there are two types, as far as i can see.  horrific sadists, who enjoy the idea of eternal torment, and those who devote their lives to trying to convert others because, if you believed such a horrible fate was just around the corner for most, how could you spend your life doing anything but ? so, i do not consider it rude.  i consider it annoying, sure.  i do not share their view, and i think that they are wrong.  but i understand where they are coming from, and that makes all the difference.   #  however, religion is something that we just do not know the answer to.   #  actually, just as his analogies were bad, i find yours to be as well.  his analogies are something we know is bad, although he may think its good.  we know for a fact that multi level marketing schemes are a scam that ultimately collapses.  your analogies are something that we know is good.  saving someone from a bomb or getting duped ca not go wrong.  however, religion is something that we just do not know the answer to.  phrasing analogies in such way is highly bias towards your argument.  now, i am not in any way trying to say that a god exist or not, but simply that an analogy that does not assume a side would be much better.   #  so it is highly likely, in our scenario, that the person thinks they saw a bomb / the drink being drugged, while in reality, neither such thing happened.   #  but from the point of view of someone who is convinced of their religion, the analogy is correct.  i would agree with you that from an objective standpoint on the issue, the analogies are not accurate.  but from the theist is viewpoint, they are.  from an objective standpoint, you could fix the analogies by making a small change that the person who saw the bomb / saw the thing go into the drink may have just thought they saw those things.  they are known to suffer from hallucinations and delusions, and are highly paranoid about such things.  so it is highly likely, in our scenario, that the person thinks they saw a bomb / the drink being drugged, while in reality, neither such thing happened.  does that change anything ? from their viewpoint, they are still convinced of what they saw.  they still see it as vitally important to warn others about it.  from their perspective, it is real.  i do not think trying to stop someone from starting a car you think is wired to a bomb is rude.  i do not think it is rude if there really is a bomb, and i do not think it is rude if there is not a bomb, so long as the person truly believes that one is there.  i do not think you can say  well, it turned out you were wrong, so actually you were retroactively rude all along .  again, do keep in mind that i am an atheist i am not arguing for any gods, i am arguing in favor of seeing things from such a person is perspective
i guess this could apply to all religions but my only experiences with proselytizing have been with christians so i will limit to them to keep it simply.  note: i am including jehovah is witnesses and mormons as christians for this cmv, if you do not define them that way that is fine.  i am just doing it for simplicity, i do not care to debate semantics.  the act of approaching a compete stranger and telling them that their deeply held beliefs are wrong is incredibly arrogant and selfish.  these are examples of some of the most invasive times a christian has harassed me: in shinjuku station, the busiest and most crowded train station in the world, when i was carrying 0 heavy suitcases after a 0 hour flight.  as i was returning home from the funeral of my best friend.  during a holocaust remembrance ceremony at my university.  immediately following a service inside my family is synagogue at my home during the first dinner i had with my girlfriend i had not seen for 0 months.  i find all these times extremely rude and completely without any respect for me, my life, or my time whatsoever.  but i also find it rude to be approached in daily life, even if i do not have some huge event going on in my life.  some possible counter arguments:  but they mean well.  they really believe they are saving your soul.   so ? if a multi level marketer genuinely believes he is introducing me to a great new business opportunity it is considered rude to harass me.  if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.  why is religion any different ? furthermore the implicit assumption is that my beliefs are not real or as strongly held as the proselytizer is.  this is extremely arrogant and just shows how their mentality has no respect for others.  obviously every single adult in a western country has heard of jesus already, and has had the opportunity to convert.  i declined that opportunity.   freedom of speech they can say whatever they want  i am not talking about laws, i am talking about common courtesy and respect for other people.  i have every right to walk around saying racist things or belching but that does not mean its socially acceptable or polite.  anyway cmv  #  obviously every single adult in a western country has heard of jesus already, and has had the opportunity to convert.   #  sometimes it is about thinking about it at the right time.   #  you quoted some examples about times they have bothered you, how in the world are they supposed to know where you have been ? when you got off that flight, maybe they did not see your bags, maybe they thought you were on a spiritual trip which millions of people do .  it is also a place of travel.  how in the hell would they know that ? they see someone crying or sad they try to help, many people turn to faith in times of crisis.  poor timing i will agree and i wo not defend this, but i will say that thousands of jehovah is witnesses and christians were killed in the holocaust, so it is not like they were just like  a jew gathering time to harass people .  but think of it from their pov.   these poor souls have not accepted jesus, they are good people, maybe if they read up about us, they will join us  it was rude, but their intentions were pure.  again, how the hell would they know that at 0 fake street, some guy who has not seen his girlfriend needs to be harassed ? they did not know ! cut them a little slack on that one.  if a multi level marketer genuinely believes he is introducing me to a great new business opportunity it is considered rude to harass me that is for financial gain, the people who want to get more christians do not get paid, they do not even get a candy bar or anything, they just get the good feeling of knowing that in their mind at least they saved a person from burning in hell.  they just are suggesting a new way of thinking.  sometimes it is about thinking about it at the right time.  if you are a drunk or you see that your life is not as fulfilling as you wish, some people will turn to religion, it is not a bad thing.  lastly, they honestly do not mean to bother you, most of the time if you are not interested they will leave.   #  i do not want to change your view that those people are rude.   #  i think you might believe that christians disagree with you.  many do, but many are also taught that that level of effort is a terrible way to convert people and is ruining the reputation of christianity, making it harder to save people.  for instance, there is a local church in my area that made  you need jesus  cards and hand them out to people who do not seem to meet their standard.  this method of telling people they are inferior not only gives the non believer more reasons to stay the hell away from church, but it also gives the christian this insane, smug  i am improving the community  feeling.  they are not helping people.  they are not putting energy or effort into the community.  they are just being asshats.  in another local church, they started classes on relationship advice, parenting, and financial peace.  they do not just feed the homeless, they bring in professional photographers and extra clothing to dress people up who ca not afford it and give them something that no one else will take the time to give them.  they work on people is lawns in the local neighborhood because tgey have enough volunteers to do so.  this church is doing everything they can to put real time and effort into the community to convert people, not just dropping in and pissing people off and saying  well, too bad, guess they are going to hell.  not mah fault, bitches.   i do not want to change your view that those people are rude.  i want to change your view, and other christians  views, that that is how christianity works.   #  the fact is, we do not consider those other situations rude because the stakes are so high.   # if i believe that eating meat is unethical it is not socially acceptable for me harangue people in the meat section of a super market.  if i believe suvs damage the environment is is considered rude for me to walk up to random suv drivers and start criticizing them.  why is religion any different ? these are all bad analogies.  and this is coming from a vegetarian atheist who heavily supports kicking our addiction to oil.  the fact is, those that truly believe what they are saying do not see it as anything so minor.  they see it as saving you from an eternity of unending, unimaginable torture.  a better analogy is this: if you saw someone getting into a car that had a bomb wired to it, would it be rude to try to convince them not to start the car ? if you were at a bar, and you saw someone slip something into someone else is drink, would it be rude to try to convince them not to drink it ? the answer is, simply, no.  but even these analogies are weak.  even a painful death is nothing compared to a literal eternity of hellfire and agony.  the fact is, we do not consider those other situations rude because the stakes are so high.  and here, they see the stakes as even higher.  now, i personally believe that most people do not sincerely believe that the unsaved are going to burn forever.  i think that the idea of that seems fundamentally unjust, and people compensate by ignoring it or coming up with a justification for it.  but, of those who sincerely believe, there are two types, as far as i can see.  horrific sadists, who enjoy the idea of eternal torment, and those who devote their lives to trying to convert others because, if you believed such a horrible fate was just around the corner for most, how could you spend your life doing anything but ? so, i do not consider it rude.  i consider it annoying, sure.  i do not share their view, and i think that they are wrong.  but i understand where they are coming from, and that makes all the difference.   #  his analogies are something we know is bad, although he may think its good.   #  actually, just as his analogies were bad, i find yours to be as well.  his analogies are something we know is bad, although he may think its good.  we know for a fact that multi level marketing schemes are a scam that ultimately collapses.  your analogies are something that we know is good.  saving someone from a bomb or getting duped ca not go wrong.  however, religion is something that we just do not know the answer to.  phrasing analogies in such way is highly bias towards your argument.  now, i am not in any way trying to say that a god exist or not, but simply that an analogy that does not assume a side would be much better.   #  they are known to suffer from hallucinations and delusions, and are highly paranoid about such things.   #  but from the point of view of someone who is convinced of their religion, the analogy is correct.  i would agree with you that from an objective standpoint on the issue, the analogies are not accurate.  but from the theist is viewpoint, they are.  from an objective standpoint, you could fix the analogies by making a small change that the person who saw the bomb / saw the thing go into the drink may have just thought they saw those things.  they are known to suffer from hallucinations and delusions, and are highly paranoid about such things.  so it is highly likely, in our scenario, that the person thinks they saw a bomb / the drink being drugged, while in reality, neither such thing happened.  does that change anything ? from their viewpoint, they are still convinced of what they saw.  they still see it as vitally important to warn others about it.  from their perspective, it is real.  i do not think trying to stop someone from starting a car you think is wired to a bomb is rude.  i do not think it is rude if there really is a bomb, and i do not think it is rude if there is not a bomb, so long as the person truly believes that one is there.  i do not think you can say  well, it turned out you were wrong, so actually you were retroactively rude all along .  again, do keep in mind that i am an atheist i am not arguing for any gods, i am arguing in favor of seeing things from such a person is perspective
it seems like tattoos started to dramatically increase in popularity somewhere near the late 0s.  i think they are vain and ugly and a sign of a culture becoming increasingly superficial.  i do not see a bird on your chest and think it is some deep statement about the cosmos.  i see nothing but an obvious affectation.  i think future generations will be able to see this more clearly.  i think eventually tattoos will be seen as something dated, like bellbottoms or tie dye shirts.  our kids will look back on this era and cringe and older folks will essentially have permanent scars of this era is version of a jheri curl.  i think of professional athletes and musicians.  in the 0s rockers had long hair and rappers had lots of gold but tattoos were not really mainstream.  i mean i am old enough to remember when the red hot chili peppers seemed kind of crazy with all their tattoos but by today is standards they seem very tame.  as far as athletes compare magic johnson and michael jordan to modern athletes like lebron james or david beckham.  this seems like a generational thing and i feel like the trend has probably already reached it is climax.  no offense but when someone shows me a tattoo of their daughter on their bicep i do not think to myself that their daughter is going to become very special person.  i think that this person wants the world to know that they a have a daughter and b must be a great person because they successfully reproduced and care about said offspring.  i do not know how else to express my opinion here but i believe tattoos are an affectation and eventually the fad will die down and future generations will see it as something dated.  they will see these affectations being flaunted in such an obvious way as to be cringeworthy.  cmv  #  no offense but when someone shows me a tattoo of their daughter on their bicep i do not think to myself that their daughter is going to become very special person.   #  i think that this person wants the world to know that they a have a daughter and b must be a great person because they successfully reproduced and care about said offspring.   #  i am not the op so i ca not say what the op intended to say, but that is not the way i read the post.  their beef seems to be that tattoos are suddenly popular and are a superficial aesthetic fad that will be seen as dated and embarrassing in the future, not that they have lost their meaning.  for example: but like.  what makes a person  interesting  anyway ? is a tattoo commemorating a person is mother less interesting than a tattoo commemorating a person is experience ? i think that this person wants the world to know that they a have a daughter and b must be a great person because they successfully reproduced and care about said offspring.  this to me is a strange interpretation of a tattoo of a person is child.  when i see a person with a tattoo of their child, i do not think that they only got the tattoo because they want to brag about how awesome of a parent they are.  although i personally would not get my potential children is faces tattooed on me, my interpretation is that their child means a lot to them, to the point where they want to commemorate that importance with a tattoo.  anecdotally, i have met many people whose tattoos hold deep meanings for them.  i have also met people who have tattoos for aesthetic purposes only.  i do not think tattoos need to have a deep meaning to be legitimate, and i do not have any empirical data that proves that one mindset is more prevalent than the other, so i ca not say if  meaningless  tattoos are actually the majority.  and unless you speak with a person who has a tattoo and they are willing to share the meaning of the tattoo, which some people are not because it is private information they do not want to share with a nosy stranger , you will never know if it has some sort of meaning beyond  it looks cool  or not, and you ca not assume based on the subject of the tattoo whether it is meaningful or not appearances are deceptive.   #  some people try to commemorate important events in their lives. thus having a permanent reminder of their brush with death, or their wedding.   #  so, i used to hold a similar belief about piercings and tattoos.  then i met my now wife.  and to this day i have no intention of ever getting a tattoo, but i understand that my position,  this the body i have , is just as valid as the tattoo position,  this is the body i want .  if you dig into this argument, there are a lot of ways that it is ridiculous.  i do not think it takes much work to get from  tattoos are superficial  to  exercise is a waste of time .  or to  art is a waste of canvas .  tattoos are largely about two things: self expression, and attractiveness.  some people get tattoos to commemorate their love for their children.  it is a symbolic means of taking their children with them everywhere.  some people try to commemorate important events in their lives. thus having a permanent reminder of their brush with death, or their wedding.  it is simply a different medium.  if you can understand the value of books. then you should be able to understand the value of tattoos.  they take transient moments and ideas and immortalize them.  other people just find them attractive.  a great example is the miami heat basketball player chis  birdman  anderson.  he loves birds and finds them very attractive so he has colorful tattoos all over his body to achieve his standard of beauty better.  if you can understand looking in the mirror and saying, i need to lose 0 pounds, then it should be perfectly understandable for you to understand a person looking at themselves and saying i would be more attractive if i had something floral on my shoulder.  the point is that it does not have to have value or meaning to you for it to have value or meaning to them.  some people look at themselves as blank canvases. others want to be more like what they find attractive.  tattoos, like clothing, is just another medium for achieving those goals.   #  in many cases, he would ask the current collaborator about whom to visit next.    #  oh, sorry, yeah.  he is famous for contributing to multitudes of mathematics papers, living with the coauthors for the brief period it took him to write.  if wikipedia is a satisfactory source, it has this to say:  possessions meant little to erdős; most of his belongings would fit in a suitcase, as dictated by his itinerant lifestyle.  awards and other earnings were generally donated to people in need and various worthy causes.  he spent most of his life as a vagabond, traveling between scientific conferences and the homes of colleagues all over the world.  he would typically show up at a colleague is doorstep and announce  my brain is open , staying long enough to collaborate on a few papers before moving on a few days later.  in many cases, he would ask the current collaborator about whom to visit next.    #  now, you and i can discuss which is an idea worth expressing  to us , but the only point that matters to the tattoo is whether the reason is compelling  to them .   # some are nice, some are art.  most people and their tattoos ? nope.  . to you.  your opinion about my expression does not invalidate my feelings or my choice to express those feelings.  that is the key.  the core view expressed, and your argument in support of that claim amount to absolute self centrism. a rejection of self interest and consequentialism.  what i mean is this.  every choice and every action has motivation.  the motive. the reason. may not be particularly deep, but everything has a motivation.  in one case, a person might seek a tattoo because  this is a reminder that intolerance is everywhere and it will burn into my flesh the importance of loving my neighbor. and when others see it, they will have to wrestle with their tolerance .  . in another case, it might be  if i get a tattoo maybe bobby will talk to me .  now, you and i can discuss which is an idea worth expressing  to us , but the only point that matters to the tattoo is whether the reason is compelling  to them .  so any argument that suggests all tattoos are superficial because some of them are. is tantamount to suggesting that ballet is inherently superficial because of dancing in night clubs is all about being an attractive sex partner.   #  i was refering to  tattoos can be the result of a long and thoughtful process .   # i was refering to  tattoos can be the result of a long and thoughtful process .  most people do not put too much time in to it.  what i mean is this.  can you reformulate ? i do not get the point your trying to make.  the motive. the reason.  may not be particularly deep , but everything has a motivation.  that is the point i was making.  now, you and i can discuss which is an idea worth expressing to us, but the only point that matters to the tattoo is whether the reason is compelling to them.  that is your argument to claim tattoos are not shallow ? because for them it has this 0 minute  deep  meaning ? getting a long life message on your body, to invoke a short lived reaction from another person is not shallow ? wow.  i am going to bleach my eyes right now.  there is a point to make that dancing in night clubs is superficial i think it is , it is not a counter argument to claim many tattoos are not superficial.
it seems like tattoos started to dramatically increase in popularity somewhere near the late 0s.  i think they are vain and ugly and a sign of a culture becoming increasingly superficial.  i do not see a bird on your chest and think it is some deep statement about the cosmos.  i see nothing but an obvious affectation.  i think future generations will be able to see this more clearly.  i think eventually tattoos will be seen as something dated, like bellbottoms or tie dye shirts.  our kids will look back on this era and cringe and older folks will essentially have permanent scars of this era is version of a jheri curl.  i think of professional athletes and musicians.  in the 0s rockers had long hair and rappers had lots of gold but tattoos were not really mainstream.  i mean i am old enough to remember when the red hot chili peppers seemed kind of crazy with all their tattoos but by today is standards they seem very tame.  as far as athletes compare magic johnson and michael jordan to modern athletes like lebron james or david beckham.  this seems like a generational thing and i feel like the trend has probably already reached it is climax.  no offense but when someone shows me a tattoo of their daughter on their bicep i do not think to myself that their daughter is going to become very special person.  i think that this person wants the world to know that they a have a daughter and b must be a great person because they successfully reproduced and care about said offspring.  i do not know how else to express my opinion here but i believe tattoos are an affectation and eventually the fad will die down and future generations will see it as something dated.  they will see these affectations being flaunted in such an obvious way as to be cringeworthy.  cmv  #  no offense but when someone shows me a tattoo of their daughter on their bicep i do not think to myself that their daughter is going to become very special person.   #  i think that this person wants the world to know that they a have a daughter and b must be a great person because they successfully reproduced and care about said offspring.   #  i am kind of confused about your actual view given your prompt and your responses.  are you saying that you find pirates and indigenous people interesting because they are not what you see every day, so their tattoos must have more value ? or are you suggesting that their tattoos must inherently have had a reason for being made because of their lifestyles ? if that is the case, then are gang members teardrop tattoos  displaying valid forms of expression for you ? how are pirates any different from modern criminals, who are  often heavily tattooed.  and i do not have any evidence, but my parents both grew up partially in african villages and i am fairly certain that people edit: removed would, changed to got got tattoos for the fuck of it there without any western influence.  i think that this person wants the world to know that they a have a daughter and b must be a great person because they successfully reproduced and care about said offspring.  if you are saying that you find tattoos to be a form of superficial exhibitionism, i ca not disagree with you, but so is anything in the louvre, by that logic.  could not you say exactly the same thing about a painting or a sculpture ? i think you can argue that having  visible ,  loud  tattoos or having a certain, identifiable  style  of tattoo could be fads that may look stupid in a few years, and i would not disagree with you.  but you did not specify that in your original post.   #  i do not think it takes much work to get from  tattoos are superficial  to  exercise is a waste of time .   #  so, i used to hold a similar belief about piercings and tattoos.  then i met my now wife.  and to this day i have no intention of ever getting a tattoo, but i understand that my position,  this the body i have , is just as valid as the tattoo position,  this is the body i want .  if you dig into this argument, there are a lot of ways that it is ridiculous.  i do not think it takes much work to get from  tattoos are superficial  to  exercise is a waste of time .  or to  art is a waste of canvas .  tattoos are largely about two things: self expression, and attractiveness.  some people get tattoos to commemorate their love for their children.  it is a symbolic means of taking their children with them everywhere.  some people try to commemorate important events in their lives. thus having a permanent reminder of their brush with death, or their wedding.  it is simply a different medium.  if you can understand the value of books. then you should be able to understand the value of tattoos.  they take transient moments and ideas and immortalize them.  other people just find them attractive.  a great example is the miami heat basketball player chis  birdman  anderson.  he loves birds and finds them very attractive so he has colorful tattoos all over his body to achieve his standard of beauty better.  if you can understand looking in the mirror and saying, i need to lose 0 pounds, then it should be perfectly understandable for you to understand a person looking at themselves and saying i would be more attractive if i had something floral on my shoulder.  the point is that it does not have to have value or meaning to you for it to have value or meaning to them.  some people look at themselves as blank canvases. others want to be more like what they find attractive.  tattoos, like clothing, is just another medium for achieving those goals.   #  awards and other earnings were generally donated to people in need and various worthy causes.   #  oh, sorry, yeah.  he is famous for contributing to multitudes of mathematics papers, living with the coauthors for the brief period it took him to write.  if wikipedia is a satisfactory source, it has this to say:  possessions meant little to erdős; most of his belongings would fit in a suitcase, as dictated by his itinerant lifestyle.  awards and other earnings were generally donated to people in need and various worthy causes.  he spent most of his life as a vagabond, traveling between scientific conferences and the homes of colleagues all over the world.  he would typically show up at a colleague is doorstep and announce  my brain is open , staying long enough to collaborate on a few papers before moving on a few days later.  in many cases, he would ask the current collaborator about whom to visit next.    #  now, you and i can discuss which is an idea worth expressing  to us , but the only point that matters to the tattoo is whether the reason is compelling  to them .   # some are nice, some are art.  most people and their tattoos ? nope.  . to you.  your opinion about my expression does not invalidate my feelings or my choice to express those feelings.  that is the key.  the core view expressed, and your argument in support of that claim amount to absolute self centrism. a rejection of self interest and consequentialism.  what i mean is this.  every choice and every action has motivation.  the motive. the reason. may not be particularly deep, but everything has a motivation.  in one case, a person might seek a tattoo because  this is a reminder that intolerance is everywhere and it will burn into my flesh the importance of loving my neighbor. and when others see it, they will have to wrestle with their tolerance .  . in another case, it might be  if i get a tattoo maybe bobby will talk to me .  now, you and i can discuss which is an idea worth expressing  to us , but the only point that matters to the tattoo is whether the reason is compelling  to them .  so any argument that suggests all tattoos are superficial because some of them are. is tantamount to suggesting that ballet is inherently superficial because of dancing in night clubs is all about being an attractive sex partner.   #  i am going to bleach my eyes right now.   # i was refering to  tattoos can be the result of a long and thoughtful process .  most people do not put too much time in to it.  what i mean is this.  can you reformulate ? i do not get the point your trying to make.  the motive. the reason.  may not be particularly deep , but everything has a motivation.  that is the point i was making.  now, you and i can discuss which is an idea worth expressing to us, but the only point that matters to the tattoo is whether the reason is compelling to them.  that is your argument to claim tattoos are not shallow ? because for them it has this 0 minute  deep  meaning ? getting a long life message on your body, to invoke a short lived reaction from another person is not shallow ? wow.  i am going to bleach my eyes right now.  there is a point to make that dancing in night clubs is superficial i think it is , it is not a counter argument to claim many tattoos are not superficial.
i will start by saying i do support progressive taxation.  as a relatively high earner i know i have benefitted from public schools, subsidized post secondary, legal framework, etc.  i might not draw the same benefits as others, but on the whole i am better off than in say ghana.  that said, i cannot morally support a framework that would see the top marginal tax rate exceed 0 of a salary.  i ca not see a reason why, ever, the government is more entitled to that 0 marginal dollar, than i, the generator of that $0.  i know property and sales taxes and service fees increase my tax burden, but for the purpose of this cmv i am just referring to income taxes.   #  that said, i cannot morally support a framework that would see the top marginal tax rate exceed 0 of a salary.   #  i ca not see a reason why, ever, the government is more entitled to that 0 marginal dollar, than i, the generator of that $0.   # i ca not see a reason why, ever, the government is more entitled to that 0 marginal dollar, than i, the generator of that $0.  why ? you only earned that dollar because of the infrastructure maintained by the government.  if there were some reason that government infrastructure became expensive enough, would not you owe that dollar.  it is just like how an employee gets less money than his work generated, far more than the product was sold for.   #  that is, the thing the bitcoin fans do not understand is that, of all the transactions you engage in, there is exactly one that can only be paid in us dollars.   #  the idea that taxes  finance  government spending is a contradiction.  since all say us dollars come from the government, it would be impossible for the government to tax in dollars if it had not already issued them, because then what would it be collecting ? that is, public spending  precedes  and  enables  taxation, and as a somewhat trivial extension public deficits are the norm rather than some strange financial sin.  what taxes do is reduce non government purchasing power, and more importantly they generate demand for dollars.  that is, the thing the bitcoin fans do not understand is that, of all the transactions you engage in, there is exactly one that can only be paid in us dollars.  the fact that taxes come due and must be paid in dollars ensures that there is demand for dollars.  there is a third function of taxes, which is, they impose costs on certain activities.  a tax on cigarettes increases the cost of smoking, which may or may not ! reduce people is tendency to smoke.  but taxes only  pay for  infrastructure or education or law enforcement or whatever else in the sense that they give the currency value, so that the government is capable of say getting police officers to show up for work in exchange for dollars.  so all that being said, progressives income taxes are strictly a matter of social policy.  the question is, do we want to  add costs  to very high incomes ? some people say  no  for the practical reason that the very wealthy have a lot of latitude in setting tax law, and can essentially write exemptions for themselves.  other people say  yes,  from  robin hood  inspired feelings of justice.  if there is a reason to support sharply progressive income taxes, it is because income inequality is bad, and no ceo  creates  billions of dollars of wealth where  wealth  is defined in real goods rather than nominal money terms.  certainly, though, choosing a 0 cutoff as the moral event horizon is just arbitrary, and the only reasonable argument against such a tax is pragmatic rather than moral.   #  i think this indicates there is some vagueness is whether all of the money you own is  morally yours  or not.   #  the biggest issue i have is that the amount you receive is correctly reflective of what you  earnt .  part of any wage is determined by market forces, infrastructure, timing, perceived value and so on  as well as  individual effort and contribution.  what you receive as wages/income does not necessarily correlate one to one with the value of your productivity or hard work.  i think this indicates there is some vagueness is whether all of the money you own is  morally yours  or not.  so when someone says,  i should not have to pay 0 of  my  money  i wonder whether all of the money is really morally theirs, or if maybe it  is  fair that some go to a government instrument to work  for the people .  the opposite to this argument, of course, is that monetary income precisely matches what one is morally owed for their economic participation, without error, which is a concept that i find strange.  now, it could be that the margin of error indicates one  should pay less  than 0, and i could argue for or against that here but i am not going to.  i just want you to think about the statement you made:   why, ever, the government is more entitled to that 0 marginal dollar,  than i, the generator of that $0.   #  as an aside, it is an empitical fact that the wealthy are far more able to avoid the effects of income tax that the middle classes and the poor.   #  first, let is establish the basis of your morality.  why  should the government not be allowed to raise taxes above 0 ? what is the moral basis of taxation in the first place, and by what right does a government set the tax ? these are  very  difficult questions to answer.  if someone claims to have a definitive answer, they are wrong or deluding themselves.  one might take a utilitarian perspective.  in that view, the role of the govenment is to minimise the collective misery of its citizens.  therefore it redistributes wealth and provides essential services and security.  in this view, if the government has to tax a small proportion of its citizens at a high rate, so be it.  as an aside, it is an empitical fact that the wealthy are far more able to avoid the effects of income tax that the middle classes and the poor.  part of the reason for this is that increases in their wealth come from capital gains, not income.   #  the real problem is not that people could be taxed at 0; the real problem is that the income from the whole economy is distributed so unevenly that we have to consider such uneven tax rates.   #  0 is an arbitrary limit.  why should there be a limit ? there is no limit on money you can earn either, after all.  the question is whether you can still live a satisfying life after taxes.  even with marginal tax rates towards 0 and without additional services by the government, that would still be true for top earners who would be subjected to it.  it is not a matter of entitlement, it is a matter of funding and organization.  the real problem is not that people could be taxed at 0; the real problem is that the income from the whole economy is distributed so unevenly that we have to consider such uneven tax rates.  in other words, solve income inequality and you will prevent that question from ever being raised.
as a devout catholic, i subscribe to the thomistic perspective on natural law, that is, that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.  i also subscribe to the notion that marriage is meant to be a reflection on christ and the church, that is, a bridegroom christ and a bride the church .  however, i find issue with the notion that there is a correlation between homosexuality and prior abuse as a child/lack of a male role model/overbearing mother, etc. , which is the mantra repeated by certain groups within the roman catholic church.  in my opinion, the notion that any of the above could inherently contribute to homosexuality later in life has been discredited and discarded by modern psychology/psychiatry; and is therefore not a reliable correlation.  i must also mention that there is a very good chance that i may get back together with my partner of one year, whom i broke up with because i embraced the mainline perspective on homosexuality as espoused by the roman catholic church.  in light of all this, i implore you to change my view, as i desire to be both true to myself, and true to my church.   #  i subscribe to the thomistic perspective on natural law, that is, that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.   #  what you are describing is the so called  perverted faculty  argument of natural law.   # what you are describing is the so called  perverted faculty  argument of natural law.  it is a huge appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy to claim that something is good because it is in line with an alleged  natural purpose , or  as nature intended .  and conversely it is equally fallacious to claim that something is bad just because it goes against this assumed purpose.  what if i use my ears to hold up a pair of glasses instead of for hearing , or use my eyes to verify my identity instead of for seeing , etc.  ? or if i use the same motions usually used for walking and running, to power a bicycle ? are they immoral uses of my organs because they are not their intended purposes ? also, if you start off with a definition of sexual acts as being  those activities that potentially lead to procreation  or similar wording , you essentially define homosexual acts as not actually being sexual acts.  consequently, they can have their own specific purpose, like bonding between two persons who love each other.  the catholic church has changed its teachings before e. g.  slavery in official canon law , so i would not be surprised if they do this again with homosexuality, once the majority of society has progressed sufficiently.   #  radiation made my uterus unable to carry a child to term.   #  my ovaries were surgically removed due to cancer.  radiation made my uterus unable to carry a child to term.  i absolutely cannot become pregnant.  if i were to have a natural and healthy pregnancy, that would be an actual, verifiable miracle.  if sex is only for procreation, then i should be forbidden from having sex.  because a covenant of marriage is sex, i should be forbidden to marry.  my emotions and a desire for companionship are irrelevant.  because i had cancer at a young age, i should be doomed to a lonely life devoid of any type of physically or emotionally intimate companionship.  this religious doctrine makes me sub human and rejects my basic needs.  if someone wants to choose to believe some abusive dogma where we are supposed to feel guilty to be alive, where i, as a cancer survivor, am expected to  accept god is will  and reject intimate relationships, then i guess they can just go and believe that.  however, someone with such a belief should seriously question why making sure people suffer is an important part of their beliefs.  is this  really  about  god  or is it  really  about something else ?  #  jesus has previously sided with an adulterous woman who had sinned.   #  a miracle is exactly the suspension of such general rules set by god.  he generally also  likes  the general conditions that fish and wine do not multiply in the hands of man, liquid water is not walkable and virgins do not become pregnant.  op is argument is about purpose and morality.  if you want to reduce this argument to god  does not like  homosexual sex anyway, we would be done arguing.  it is an entirely different argument.  all i am saying is that once you allow broad exceptions for the infertile straight group because a miracle  might potentially, spontaneously  happen, the debate moves away from fulfilling purposes.  it is just special pleading.  jesus has previously sided with an adulterous woman who had sinned.  who is to say that this god  wo not  ever miraculously make a man pregnant ? miracles are by definition unpredictable.   #  indeed, the church has always changed its teaching to keep the underlying and eternal truth the same.   #  the teaching of the catholic church represents a particular point of view from a particular era.  although it is true that the church is conservative that does not mean it is unchanging that is why there have been so many church councils etc.  in other words the church is teaching on gay relationships represents the church is particular understanding of homosexuality from some point in the past.  moreover it represents a particular attempt to articulate their understanding of god.  it does not represent god itself.  indeed, the church has always changed its teaching to keep the underlying and eternal truth the same.  so, when you say you want to be true to your church, do you want to be true to a very specific incarnation of it which dates from a time before homosexuality was understood in the way you so eloquently describe ; or do you want to be true to its underlying message of peace and compassion ? also remember that if the church is teaching has changed eg switching to the vernacular a  major  point at the time then it is because some people have pushed it forward.  the reason you can hear mass in english now is because some people pushed for it even when the body of the church thought it went against their teaching.   #  anything you can do to not contribute to that is greatly appreciated.   # we we are good on people.  we do not really need more people anymore.  0 billion today, 0 in the next 0 years.  its cool.  anything you can do to not contribute to that is greatly appreciated.  also.  being gay just makes sense.  date a guy your height and weight and bam.  doubled your wardrobe.  also also.  we are talking about god here right ? god, who shaped the planets, invented gravity, and does everything.  he is busy, running the universe and all ? so why the fuck does he care where your penis goes ? also also also.  is it more fair to a be in a relationship with a woman you will never love or find sexually attractive, b be alone, eventually hating yourself and others more and more, c bum a dude.
as a devout catholic, i subscribe to the thomistic perspective on natural law, that is, that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.  i also subscribe to the notion that marriage is meant to be a reflection on christ and the church, that is, a bridegroom christ and a bride the church .  however, i find issue with the notion that there is a correlation between homosexuality and prior abuse as a child/lack of a male role model/overbearing mother, etc. , which is the mantra repeated by certain groups within the roman catholic church.  in my opinion, the notion that any of the above could inherently contribute to homosexuality later in life has been discredited and discarded by modern psychology/psychiatry; and is therefore not a reliable correlation.  i must also mention that there is a very good chance that i may get back together with my partner of one year, whom i broke up with because i embraced the mainline perspective on homosexuality as espoused by the roman catholic church.  in light of all this, i implore you to change my view, as i desire to be both true to myself, and true to my church.   #  that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.   #  i do not follow the logic behind this at all.   # i do not follow the logic behind this at all.  sure, procreation between members of the same sex is not possible, but that does not imply anything about how people should use sexual interactions for strictly pleasure purposes.  having sex with one that is the same gender as you is typically done strictly for pleasure and intimacy purposes.  it is not at all about procreation.  to be honest, i am not all too familiar with catholic doctrine.  dies it state that sexual pleasure wrong ? if so, why is having sex for pleasure purposes wrong ? as an atheist, i ca not really see anything wrong with sexual pleasure, assuming that there is consent between all parties involved with it, and, assuming consent has been established, i do not see why any distinction between the content of the sexual pleasure in terms of morality.  i would argue that sexual pleasure can actually be good for a person.   #  because i had cancer at a young age, i should be doomed to a lonely life devoid of any type of physically or emotionally intimate companionship.   #  my ovaries were surgically removed due to cancer.  radiation made my uterus unable to carry a child to term.  i absolutely cannot become pregnant.  if i were to have a natural and healthy pregnancy, that would be an actual, verifiable miracle.  if sex is only for procreation, then i should be forbidden from having sex.  because a covenant of marriage is sex, i should be forbidden to marry.  my emotions and a desire for companionship are irrelevant.  because i had cancer at a young age, i should be doomed to a lonely life devoid of any type of physically or emotionally intimate companionship.  this religious doctrine makes me sub human and rejects my basic needs.  if someone wants to choose to believe some abusive dogma where we are supposed to feel guilty to be alive, where i, as a cancer survivor, am expected to  accept god is will  and reject intimate relationships, then i guess they can just go and believe that.  however, someone with such a belief should seriously question why making sure people suffer is an important part of their beliefs.  is this  really  about  god  or is it  really  about something else ?  #  who is to say that this god  wo not  ever miraculously make a man pregnant ?  #  a miracle is exactly the suspension of such general rules set by god.  he generally also  likes  the general conditions that fish and wine do not multiply in the hands of man, liquid water is not walkable and virgins do not become pregnant.  op is argument is about purpose and morality.  if you want to reduce this argument to god  does not like  homosexual sex anyway, we would be done arguing.  it is an entirely different argument.  all i am saying is that once you allow broad exceptions for the infertile straight group because a miracle  might potentially, spontaneously  happen, the debate moves away from fulfilling purposes.  it is just special pleading.  jesus has previously sided with an adulterous woman who had sinned.  who is to say that this god  wo not  ever miraculously make a man pregnant ? miracles are by definition unpredictable.   #  the catholic church has changed its teachings before e. g.   # what you are describing is the so called  perverted faculty  argument of natural law.  it is a huge appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy to claim that something is good because it is in line with an alleged  natural purpose , or  as nature intended .  and conversely it is equally fallacious to claim that something is bad just because it goes against this assumed purpose.  what if i use my ears to hold up a pair of glasses instead of for hearing , or use my eyes to verify my identity instead of for seeing , etc.  ? or if i use the same motions usually used for walking and running, to power a bicycle ? are they immoral uses of my organs because they are not their intended purposes ? also, if you start off with a definition of sexual acts as being  those activities that potentially lead to procreation  or similar wording , you essentially define homosexual acts as not actually being sexual acts.  consequently, they can have their own specific purpose, like bonding between two persons who love each other.  the catholic church has changed its teachings before e. g.  slavery in official canon law , so i would not be surprised if they do this again with homosexuality, once the majority of society has progressed sufficiently.   #  moreover it represents a particular attempt to articulate their understanding of god.   #  the teaching of the catholic church represents a particular point of view from a particular era.  although it is true that the church is conservative that does not mean it is unchanging that is why there have been so many church councils etc.  in other words the church is teaching on gay relationships represents the church is particular understanding of homosexuality from some point in the past.  moreover it represents a particular attempt to articulate their understanding of god.  it does not represent god itself.  indeed, the church has always changed its teaching to keep the underlying and eternal truth the same.  so, when you say you want to be true to your church, do you want to be true to a very specific incarnation of it which dates from a time before homosexuality was understood in the way you so eloquently describe ; or do you want to be true to its underlying message of peace and compassion ? also remember that if the church is teaching has changed eg switching to the vernacular a  major  point at the time then it is because some people have pushed it forward.  the reason you can hear mass in english now is because some people pushed for it even when the body of the church thought it went against their teaching.
as a devout catholic, i subscribe to the thomistic perspective on natural law, that is, that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.  i also subscribe to the notion that marriage is meant to be a reflection on christ and the church, that is, a bridegroom christ and a bride the church .  however, i find issue with the notion that there is a correlation between homosexuality and prior abuse as a child/lack of a male role model/overbearing mother, etc. , which is the mantra repeated by certain groups within the roman catholic church.  in my opinion, the notion that any of the above could inherently contribute to homosexuality later in life has been discredited and discarded by modern psychology/psychiatry; and is therefore not a reliable correlation.  i must also mention that there is a very good chance that i may get back together with my partner of one year, whom i broke up with because i embraced the mainline perspective on homosexuality as espoused by the roman catholic church.  in light of all this, i implore you to change my view, as i desire to be both true to myself, and true to my church.   #  i subscribe to the thomistic perspective on natural law, that is, that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.   #  we are not going to solve this here.   # we are not going to solve this here.  but natural law is not a good ethical argument, as it is application has in other cases been unethical it is been used as a justification of slavery, the subjugation of women, etc.  .  there is also an element of hypocrisy here: if the church got rid of every gay member.  well, let is just say there would suddenly be a lot of vacant positions, including those in the hierarchy.  the best argument ? every major religion discourages an emphasis on the physical, because such an emphasis distracts from an emphasis on the spiritual.  that is inarguable.  but everything else is just social engineering, a freezing of cultural norms from the time the texts were written, etc.  i challenge you to produce a single statement from the new testament in which jesus condemns someone who is gay.  i know that does not solve your problem, since you have to deal with the church, as it is.  but in spite of what some say, the church changes all the time.  it is in the process of changing now.  things will get better.  i just hope they get better, faster.   #  because i had cancer at a young age, i should be doomed to a lonely life devoid of any type of physically or emotionally intimate companionship.   #  my ovaries were surgically removed due to cancer.  radiation made my uterus unable to carry a child to term.  i absolutely cannot become pregnant.  if i were to have a natural and healthy pregnancy, that would be an actual, verifiable miracle.  if sex is only for procreation, then i should be forbidden from having sex.  because a covenant of marriage is sex, i should be forbidden to marry.  my emotions and a desire for companionship are irrelevant.  because i had cancer at a young age, i should be doomed to a lonely life devoid of any type of physically or emotionally intimate companionship.  this religious doctrine makes me sub human and rejects my basic needs.  if someone wants to choose to believe some abusive dogma where we are supposed to feel guilty to be alive, where i, as a cancer survivor, am expected to  accept god is will  and reject intimate relationships, then i guess they can just go and believe that.  however, someone with such a belief should seriously question why making sure people suffer is an important part of their beliefs.  is this  really  about  god  or is it  really  about something else ?  #  a miracle is exactly the suspension of such general rules set by god.   #  a miracle is exactly the suspension of such general rules set by god.  he generally also  likes  the general conditions that fish and wine do not multiply in the hands of man, liquid water is not walkable and virgins do not become pregnant.  op is argument is about purpose and morality.  if you want to reduce this argument to god  does not like  homosexual sex anyway, we would be done arguing.  it is an entirely different argument.  all i am saying is that once you allow broad exceptions for the infertile straight group because a miracle  might potentially, spontaneously  happen, the debate moves away from fulfilling purposes.  it is just special pleading.  jesus has previously sided with an adulterous woman who had sinned.  who is to say that this god  wo not  ever miraculously make a man pregnant ? miracles are by definition unpredictable.   #  what if i use my ears to hold up a pair of glasses instead of for hearing , or use my eyes to verify my identity instead of for seeing , etc.   # what you are describing is the so called  perverted faculty  argument of natural law.  it is a huge appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy to claim that something is good because it is in line with an alleged  natural purpose , or  as nature intended .  and conversely it is equally fallacious to claim that something is bad just because it goes against this assumed purpose.  what if i use my ears to hold up a pair of glasses instead of for hearing , or use my eyes to verify my identity instead of for seeing , etc.  ? or if i use the same motions usually used for walking and running, to power a bicycle ? are they immoral uses of my organs because they are not their intended purposes ? also, if you start off with a definition of sexual acts as being  those activities that potentially lead to procreation  or similar wording , you essentially define homosexual acts as not actually being sexual acts.  consequently, they can have their own specific purpose, like bonding between two persons who love each other.  the catholic church has changed its teachings before e. g.  slavery in official canon law , so i would not be surprised if they do this again with homosexuality, once the majority of society has progressed sufficiently.   #  indeed, the church has always changed its teaching to keep the underlying and eternal truth the same.   #  the teaching of the catholic church represents a particular point of view from a particular era.  although it is true that the church is conservative that does not mean it is unchanging that is why there have been so many church councils etc.  in other words the church is teaching on gay relationships represents the church is particular understanding of homosexuality from some point in the past.  moreover it represents a particular attempt to articulate their understanding of god.  it does not represent god itself.  indeed, the church has always changed its teaching to keep the underlying and eternal truth the same.  so, when you say you want to be true to your church, do you want to be true to a very specific incarnation of it which dates from a time before homosexuality was understood in the way you so eloquently describe ; or do you want to be true to its underlying message of peace and compassion ? also remember that if the church is teaching has changed eg switching to the vernacular a  major  point at the time then it is because some people have pushed it forward.  the reason you can hear mass in english now is because some people pushed for it even when the body of the church thought it went against their teaching.
as a devout catholic, i subscribe to the thomistic perspective on natural law, that is, that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.  i also subscribe to the notion that marriage is meant to be a reflection on christ and the church, that is, a bridegroom christ and a bride the church .  however, i find issue with the notion that there is a correlation between homosexuality and prior abuse as a child/lack of a male role model/overbearing mother, etc. , which is the mantra repeated by certain groups within the roman catholic church.  in my opinion, the notion that any of the above could inherently contribute to homosexuality later in life has been discredited and discarded by modern psychology/psychiatry; and is therefore not a reliable correlation.  i must also mention that there is a very good chance that i may get back together with my partner of one year, whom i broke up with because i embraced the mainline perspective on homosexuality as espoused by the roman catholic church.  in light of all this, i implore you to change my view, as i desire to be both true to myself, and true to my church.   #  as a devout catholic, i subscribe to the thomistic perspective on natural law, that is, that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.   #  it seems to me you are conflating a lot of things in this one statement.   # it seems to me you are conflating a lot of things in this one statement.  homosexuality encompasses more than just sex.  it is both a romantic and sexual attraction to members of the same sex.  by not acknowledging the romantic part you debase homosexuality to just a sexual urge.  which it is not.  in fact homosexuality mirrors heterosexuality.  a homosexual relationship encompasses, love, friendship, romance, non sexual intimacy and yes sex.  the mechanics of sex might be different and the relationship dynamic might be different only in the sense that because it is two people of the same gender that classic western gender roles have less influence.  which creates the need for a new not learned dynamic.  so, there really is not that much difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship.  yes they cannot have children together.  but does that not debase the sanctity of marriage itself if you reduce it solely to that ? which is what the catholic church is doing in my opinion.  sexuality in a heterosexual relationship is not solely a function of procreation.  it helps to bond.  it provides pleasure and relief, etc.  the same goes for homosexual relationships.   #  if sex is only for procreation, then i should be forbidden from having sex.   #  my ovaries were surgically removed due to cancer.  radiation made my uterus unable to carry a child to term.  i absolutely cannot become pregnant.  if i were to have a natural and healthy pregnancy, that would be an actual, verifiable miracle.  if sex is only for procreation, then i should be forbidden from having sex.  because a covenant of marriage is sex, i should be forbidden to marry.  my emotions and a desire for companionship are irrelevant.  because i had cancer at a young age, i should be doomed to a lonely life devoid of any type of physically or emotionally intimate companionship.  this religious doctrine makes me sub human and rejects my basic needs.  if someone wants to choose to believe some abusive dogma where we are supposed to feel guilty to be alive, where i, as a cancer survivor, am expected to  accept god is will  and reject intimate relationships, then i guess they can just go and believe that.  however, someone with such a belief should seriously question why making sure people suffer is an important part of their beliefs.  is this  really  about  god  or is it  really  about something else ?  #  if you want to reduce this argument to god  does not like  homosexual sex anyway, we would be done arguing.   #  a miracle is exactly the suspension of such general rules set by god.  he generally also  likes  the general conditions that fish and wine do not multiply in the hands of man, liquid water is not walkable and virgins do not become pregnant.  op is argument is about purpose and morality.  if you want to reduce this argument to god  does not like  homosexual sex anyway, we would be done arguing.  it is an entirely different argument.  all i am saying is that once you allow broad exceptions for the infertile straight group because a miracle  might potentially, spontaneously  happen, the debate moves away from fulfilling purposes.  it is just special pleading.  jesus has previously sided with an adulterous woman who had sinned.  who is to say that this god  wo not  ever miraculously make a man pregnant ? miracles are by definition unpredictable.   #  what you are describing is the so called  perverted faculty  argument of natural law.   # what you are describing is the so called  perverted faculty  argument of natural law.  it is a huge appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy to claim that something is good because it is in line with an alleged  natural purpose , or  as nature intended .  and conversely it is equally fallacious to claim that something is bad just because it goes against this assumed purpose.  what if i use my ears to hold up a pair of glasses instead of for hearing , or use my eyes to verify my identity instead of for seeing , etc.  ? or if i use the same motions usually used for walking and running, to power a bicycle ? are they immoral uses of my organs because they are not their intended purposes ? also, if you start off with a definition of sexual acts as being  those activities that potentially lead to procreation  or similar wording , you essentially define homosexual acts as not actually being sexual acts.  consequently, they can have their own specific purpose, like bonding between two persons who love each other.  the catholic church has changed its teachings before e. g.  slavery in official canon law , so i would not be surprised if they do this again with homosexuality, once the majority of society has progressed sufficiently.   #  moreover it represents a particular attempt to articulate their understanding of god.   #  the teaching of the catholic church represents a particular point of view from a particular era.  although it is true that the church is conservative that does not mean it is unchanging that is why there have been so many church councils etc.  in other words the church is teaching on gay relationships represents the church is particular understanding of homosexuality from some point in the past.  moreover it represents a particular attempt to articulate their understanding of god.  it does not represent god itself.  indeed, the church has always changed its teaching to keep the underlying and eternal truth the same.  so, when you say you want to be true to your church, do you want to be true to a very specific incarnation of it which dates from a time before homosexuality was understood in the way you so eloquently describe ; or do you want to be true to its underlying message of peace and compassion ? also remember that if the church is teaching has changed eg switching to the vernacular a  major  point at the time then it is because some people have pushed it forward.  the reason you can hear mass in english now is because some people pushed for it even when the body of the church thought it went against their teaching.
as a devout catholic, i subscribe to the thomistic perspective on natural law, that is, that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.  i also subscribe to the notion that marriage is meant to be a reflection on christ and the church, that is, a bridegroom christ and a bride the church .  however, i find issue with the notion that there is a correlation between homosexuality and prior abuse as a child/lack of a male role model/overbearing mother, etc. , which is the mantra repeated by certain groups within the roman catholic church.  in my opinion, the notion that any of the above could inherently contribute to homosexuality later in life has been discredited and discarded by modern psychology/psychiatry; and is therefore not a reliable correlation.  i must also mention that there is a very good chance that i may get back together with my partner of one year, whom i broke up with because i embraced the mainline perspective on homosexuality as espoused by the roman catholic church.  in light of all this, i implore you to change my view, as i desire to be both true to myself, and true to my church.   #  i also subscribe to the notion that marriage is meant to be a reflection on christ and the church, that is, a bridegroom christ and a bride the church .   #  i would like to address this point in particular.   # i would like to address this point in particular.  it is true that the new testament uses heterosexual marriage as a metaphor for christ is relationship with the church, but then so what ? god is completely beyond human comprehension, so we are forced to use a rich variety of metaphors and poetic language to describe  him.   for example, god is not really a biological male, a biological father, a political king, etc.  etc.  the bible uses these metaphors because they were meaningful to their original audience god is  the master,  because we should obey him like slaves obey their masters; god is a shepherd, because he gives us guidance and protection.  but while these metaphors were/are meaningful, they do not require us to actually and especially not exclusively believe in the imagery that the metaphor employs.  obviously, our society has moved past kings and slavery, and for most of us agrarian metaphors have lost their meaning.  so for the same reason that god can be described as a king and yet we reject monarchy as a form of government, our real world marriages need not reflect the metaphorical marriages of biblical imagery.   #  this religious doctrine makes me sub human and rejects my basic needs.   #  my ovaries were surgically removed due to cancer.  radiation made my uterus unable to carry a child to term.  i absolutely cannot become pregnant.  if i were to have a natural and healthy pregnancy, that would be an actual, verifiable miracle.  if sex is only for procreation, then i should be forbidden from having sex.  because a covenant of marriage is sex, i should be forbidden to marry.  my emotions and a desire for companionship are irrelevant.  because i had cancer at a young age, i should be doomed to a lonely life devoid of any type of physically or emotionally intimate companionship.  this religious doctrine makes me sub human and rejects my basic needs.  if someone wants to choose to believe some abusive dogma where we are supposed to feel guilty to be alive, where i, as a cancer survivor, am expected to  accept god is will  and reject intimate relationships, then i guess they can just go and believe that.  however, someone with such a belief should seriously question why making sure people suffer is an important part of their beliefs.  is this  really  about  god  or is it  really  about something else ?  #  who is to say that this god  wo not  ever miraculously make a man pregnant ?  #  a miracle is exactly the suspension of such general rules set by god.  he generally also  likes  the general conditions that fish and wine do not multiply in the hands of man, liquid water is not walkable and virgins do not become pregnant.  op is argument is about purpose and morality.  if you want to reduce this argument to god  does not like  homosexual sex anyway, we would be done arguing.  it is an entirely different argument.  all i am saying is that once you allow broad exceptions for the infertile straight group because a miracle  might potentially, spontaneously  happen, the debate moves away from fulfilling purposes.  it is just special pleading.  jesus has previously sided with an adulterous woman who had sinned.  who is to say that this god  wo not  ever miraculously make a man pregnant ? miracles are by definition unpredictable.   #  it is a huge appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy to claim that something is good because it is in line with an alleged  natural purpose , or  as nature intended .   # what you are describing is the so called  perverted faculty  argument of natural law.  it is a huge appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy to claim that something is good because it is in line with an alleged  natural purpose , or  as nature intended .  and conversely it is equally fallacious to claim that something is bad just because it goes against this assumed purpose.  what if i use my ears to hold up a pair of glasses instead of for hearing , or use my eyes to verify my identity instead of for seeing , etc.  ? or if i use the same motions usually used for walking and running, to power a bicycle ? are they immoral uses of my organs because they are not their intended purposes ? also, if you start off with a definition of sexual acts as being  those activities that potentially lead to procreation  or similar wording , you essentially define homosexual acts as not actually being sexual acts.  consequently, they can have their own specific purpose, like bonding between two persons who love each other.  the catholic church has changed its teachings before e. g.  slavery in official canon law , so i would not be surprised if they do this again with homosexuality, once the majority of society has progressed sufficiently.   #  moreover it represents a particular attempt to articulate their understanding of god.   #  the teaching of the catholic church represents a particular point of view from a particular era.  although it is true that the church is conservative that does not mean it is unchanging that is why there have been so many church councils etc.  in other words the church is teaching on gay relationships represents the church is particular understanding of homosexuality from some point in the past.  moreover it represents a particular attempt to articulate their understanding of god.  it does not represent god itself.  indeed, the church has always changed its teaching to keep the underlying and eternal truth the same.  so, when you say you want to be true to your church, do you want to be true to a very specific incarnation of it which dates from a time before homosexuality was understood in the way you so eloquently describe ; or do you want to be true to its underlying message of peace and compassion ? also remember that if the church is teaching has changed eg switching to the vernacular a  major  point at the time then it is because some people have pushed it forward.  the reason you can hear mass in english now is because some people pushed for it even when the body of the church thought it went against their teaching.
as a devout catholic, i subscribe to the thomistic perspective on natural law, that is, that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.  i also subscribe to the notion that marriage is meant to be a reflection on christ and the church, that is, a bridegroom christ and a bride the church .  however, i find issue with the notion that there is a correlation between homosexuality and prior abuse as a child/lack of a male role model/overbearing mother, etc. , which is the mantra repeated by certain groups within the roman catholic church.  in my opinion, the notion that any of the above could inherently contribute to homosexuality later in life has been discredited and discarded by modern psychology/psychiatry; and is therefore not a reliable correlation.  i must also mention that there is a very good chance that i may get back together with my partner of one year, whom i broke up with because i embraced the mainline perspective on homosexuality as espoused by the roman catholic church.  in light of all this, i implore you to change my view, as i desire to be both true to myself, and true to my church.   #  as a devout catholic, i subscribe to the thomistic perspective on natural law, that is, that homosexuality is wrong based on the fact that procreation between members of the same sex is impossible, and therefore should be discouraged.   #  i would recommend looking up the church is current views on this.   # i would recommend looking up the church is current views on this.  here URL is their entire system of beliefs, and here URL is the specific part regarding homosexuality:   homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.  it has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.  its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.  basing itself on sacred scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that  homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.   they are contrary to the natural law.  they close the sexual act to the gift of life.  they do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  under no circumstances can they be approved.  breaking it down point by point:   basing itself on sacred scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that  homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.   this is background information, telling the history of the church is beliefs.  it has no weight on its own and only serves as framing for the next arguments.  this URL is the natural law that that statement refers to.  it is universal in all humans and covers things such as  murder is bad  and other fundamental aspects of morality.  there is not a universal taboo against homosexuality, and i will cover the other arguments against it below.  this is exactly as immoral as using any form of birth control.  i disagree, and i believe that modern psychology agrees with me.  this result is based on false premises, as shown above.  there are only two real points here, the rest is just repeating their conclusion based on those points.  closing the sexual act to the gift of life is exactly as bad as birth control, and the lack of a genuine relationship is simply false.  if you are okay with people using birth control and think that homosexual relations are genuine, then you should be fine with homosexual acts.   #  is this  really  about  god  or is it  really  about something else ?  #  my ovaries were surgically removed due to cancer.  radiation made my uterus unable to carry a child to term.  i absolutely cannot become pregnant.  if i were to have a natural and healthy pregnancy, that would be an actual, verifiable miracle.  if sex is only for procreation, then i should be forbidden from having sex.  because a covenant of marriage is sex, i should be forbidden to marry.  my emotions and a desire for companionship are irrelevant.  because i had cancer at a young age, i should be doomed to a lonely life devoid of any type of physically or emotionally intimate companionship.  this religious doctrine makes me sub human and rejects my basic needs.  if someone wants to choose to believe some abusive dogma where we are supposed to feel guilty to be alive, where i, as a cancer survivor, am expected to  accept god is will  and reject intimate relationships, then i guess they can just go and believe that.  however, someone with such a belief should seriously question why making sure people suffer is an important part of their beliefs.  is this  really  about  god  or is it  really  about something else ?  #  who is to say that this god  wo not  ever miraculously make a man pregnant ?  #  a miracle is exactly the suspension of such general rules set by god.  he generally also  likes  the general conditions that fish and wine do not multiply in the hands of man, liquid water is not walkable and virgins do not become pregnant.  op is argument is about purpose and morality.  if you want to reduce this argument to god  does not like  homosexual sex anyway, we would be done arguing.  it is an entirely different argument.  all i am saying is that once you allow broad exceptions for the infertile straight group because a miracle  might potentially, spontaneously  happen, the debate moves away from fulfilling purposes.  it is just special pleading.  jesus has previously sided with an adulterous woman who had sinned.  who is to say that this god  wo not  ever miraculously make a man pregnant ? miracles are by definition unpredictable.   #  also, if you start off with a definition of sexual acts as being  those activities that potentially lead to procreation  or similar wording , you essentially define homosexual acts as not actually being sexual acts.   # what you are describing is the so called  perverted faculty  argument of natural law.  it is a huge appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy to claim that something is good because it is in line with an alleged  natural purpose , or  as nature intended .  and conversely it is equally fallacious to claim that something is bad just because it goes against this assumed purpose.  what if i use my ears to hold up a pair of glasses instead of for hearing , or use my eyes to verify my identity instead of for seeing , etc.  ? or if i use the same motions usually used for walking and running, to power a bicycle ? are they immoral uses of my organs because they are not their intended purposes ? also, if you start off with a definition of sexual acts as being  those activities that potentially lead to procreation  or similar wording , you essentially define homosexual acts as not actually being sexual acts.  consequently, they can have their own specific purpose, like bonding between two persons who love each other.  the catholic church has changed its teachings before e. g.  slavery in official canon law , so i would not be surprised if they do this again with homosexuality, once the majority of society has progressed sufficiently.   #  moreover it represents a particular attempt to articulate their understanding of god.   #  the teaching of the catholic church represents a particular point of view from a particular era.  although it is true that the church is conservative that does not mean it is unchanging that is why there have been so many church councils etc.  in other words the church is teaching on gay relationships represents the church is particular understanding of homosexuality from some point in the past.  moreover it represents a particular attempt to articulate their understanding of god.  it does not represent god itself.  indeed, the church has always changed its teaching to keep the underlying and eternal truth the same.  so, when you say you want to be true to your church, do you want to be true to a very specific incarnation of it which dates from a time before homosexuality was understood in the way you so eloquently describe ; or do you want to be true to its underlying message of peace and compassion ? also remember that if the church is teaching has changed eg switching to the vernacular a  major  point at the time then it is because some people have pushed it forward.  the reason you can hear mass in english now is because some people pushed for it even when the body of the church thought it went against their teaching.
while i understand why a team name like  redskins  is a bigoted name, i do not understand why people get offended over something so inconsequential.  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.  we live in a society where politicians and people on social media feign outrage, or are actually outraged and offended over every misstatement or slip of the tongue.  if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.  it is rumored that george h. w.  bush said that atheists ca not be patriots.  i do not find a comment like that offensive, i just think he is ignorant for saying it.  i understand finding racial profiling or stop and frisk offensive, policies that actually impact your life that are sanctioned by the state.  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   #  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   #  in the case of bush, he is a pretty important social figure who can influence the perspective of a lot of people.   #  i need more information, why is the term redskins so  inconsequential  ? is it because it has no relevance to you ? silencing outrage/offense is how things get out of hand.  by not letting people voice their dissent, you are quelling differing opinions and saying people is feelings are illegitimate.  do not let your small worldview and scope dictate how society should run.  in the case of bush, he is a pretty important social figure who can influence the perspective of a lot of people.  it certainly makes sense to be offended and challenge his perspective so that his wide influence does not spread on the stance of atheists being unpatriotic.  if it went completely unchallenged by atheists because they didnt want to act too easily offended the consequence is that statement starts to ring more true since no one challenged it.  however, i think your apathy of the consequence or possible not even realizing the consequence is the issue at hand.  what you desire is wide spread apathy.  i do not think that is a wise solution.   #  it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.   #  playing the devils advocate here, because i do not think your argument is very good, because it can be applied to either side of many arguments about what is pc.   we should censor the n word because saying it damages our society.  i know this because i am offended personally by it.    we should censor interracial couples from television because they damage our society.  i know this because i am personally offended by it.   now of course, one of those sounds right and one sounds wrong, but that is only because of your own personal biases.  your biases probably fall in line with those of the majority of society, and are likely not bad biases to have, but my point still stands.  for this reason, i do not think you should censor speech that you do not agree with.  at the same time, one should not contribute to speech you do not agree with.  those who are offended by the  redskins  should boycott the nfl.  businesses do not care about people, they care about money.  but much of the movement against the redskins, and similar movements, support passing laws to discriminate against those who use speech they disagree with, and getting the government involved.  like denying the redskins their trademark URL and incase it has not already been quoted 0  times in this thread, stephen fry:  it is now very common to hear people say,  i am rather offended by that.   as if that gives them certain rights.  it is actually nothing more.  than a whine.   i find that offensive.   it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.   i am offended by that.   well, so fucking what.    #  everyone should have a right to complain and stop things that cause them suffering.   #  the two examples you use are not the same.  the word  nigger  can be an oppressive word.  the word can cause suffering as it can be a form of bullying.  the word  bitch  is another example of oppressive language.  think about it, what is a bitch ? a crazy woman.  how often do you hear,  all women be bitches  or that a woman ca not be president b/c they will just bitch in office.  these are harmful stereotypes that limit what we expect from women.  it is all about limiting what causes suffering.  everyone should have a right to complain and stop things that cause them suffering.  the interracial couple example you use is causing suffering where ? who is causing the suffering ? this is not just hocus pocus games of language and personality.  we have only begun to crack the area of scientifically assessing suffering and morality.  take a look at this short and slightly humorous ted talk if you are curious to learn more.  URL  #  i mean,  dick  is an insult to men, right ?  #  you are right.  i will never say any word as an insult ever again.  i mean,  dick  is an insult to men, right ?  all men are dicks.   yep i have heard that.  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.  /s yeah.  i get that i should not say the n word or other racial slurs, because those are inherently offensive to a certain demographic.  however, arguing that people should not use an insult because it is gendered is a very different thing.  these insults are not inherently defined as insulting to all people of one gender, and to compare them to racial slurs is ignorant and ridiculous.  again, this is exactly what i was talking about.  hitler thought that jews caused suffering for the aryan race.  good job endorsing genocide.  who is causing the suffering ? well, the person who would say that would clearly believe the interracial couple are causing their suffering.   #  if we do not want a bigoted society, we should respond to bigoted language with outrage, public shaming, etc.   #  this is a cogent statement of something that a few people have been suggesting.  a few points: 0.  op has  not  stated that  offence should not be a basis for legal action  or  offence should not be the measure of justified response for any statement.   op is saying  people are offended by a bigoted team name, and they should not be.   that is what i am responding to.  0.  i have  not  stated that we should censor speech we do not agree with, or speech that offends people.  0.  there is a categorical difference between offense caused by racial slurs   interracial couples if you ask an interracial couple if they are offended by interracial couples on television, they will say  no.   if you ask a native american if they are offended by the term  redskin,  responses vary, but many will say  yes.   as i stated, the problem with bigoted speech is not that it is personally offensive to anybody.  any speech that deviates from social convention is going to offend someone; that is just social pressure to conform.  the problem with bigoted speech is that it reinforces cultural values of bigotry.  deciding what values we want to perpetuate in society varies a great deal between people   eras, but the perpetuation of those values absolutely depends on the use   response to language that bears some relation to those values.  if we do not want a bigoted society, we should respond to bigoted language with outrage, public shaming, etc.  yes, this same rationale can be applied in the other direction if someone wanted a bigoted society.  that is not the point.  the point is that op is argument:  something that reinforces cultural stereotypes of hatred   aversion to native americans should not have prompted such outrage  is misguided, because it assumes the outrage is due to people being overly sensitive about what names they are called, rather than how the tacit endorsement of a bigoted team name would reinforce cultural values of bigotry.  you can argue about how far we should go to endorse egalitarianism, up to and beyond censorship, but you cannot argue the effect that use of language has on culture.
while i understand why a team name like  redskins  is a bigoted name, i do not understand why people get offended over something so inconsequential.  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.  we live in a society where politicians and people on social media feign outrage, or are actually outraged and offended over every misstatement or slip of the tongue.  if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.  it is rumored that george h. w.  bush said that atheists ca not be patriots.  i do not find a comment like that offensive, i just think he is ignorant for saying it.  i understand finding racial profiling or stop and frisk offensive, policies that actually impact your life that are sanctioned by the state.  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   #  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.   #  you were probably not bullied in school for being pale, black, muslim, or gay.   # you were probably not bullied in school for being pale, black, muslim, or gay.  stereotyping muslims has lead to a great deal of discrimination.  apparently they are all terrorist towel heads that hate america.  while you are not personally affected, the victims of stereotype are.  if we portray the irish as being drunk and violent, then it becomes a subconscious factor in how people make decisions.  do you want to hire a possibly drunk and violent person ? if you want to give nuclear launch codes to someone, do you give it to a muslim american or a white christian from texas ? does the public portrayal of these two groups differentiate them in your mind ? if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.  it is rumored that george h. w.  bush said that atheists ca not be patriots.  i do not find a comment like that offensive, i just think he is ignorant for saying it.  we get offended when people spread embarrassing or untrue information about us.  i am offended by the president saying atheists cannot be patriots.  he is ignorant, and that comment is inappropriate for a person in his position and completely unwarranted.  my offense comes from the notion that he ought to not say that.  to let it go unaddressed lends credence to the statement.   #  those who are offended by the  redskins  should boycott the nfl.   #  playing the devils advocate here, because i do not think your argument is very good, because it can be applied to either side of many arguments about what is pc.   we should censor the n word because saying it damages our society.  i know this because i am offended personally by it.    we should censor interracial couples from television because they damage our society.  i know this because i am personally offended by it.   now of course, one of those sounds right and one sounds wrong, but that is only because of your own personal biases.  your biases probably fall in line with those of the majority of society, and are likely not bad biases to have, but my point still stands.  for this reason, i do not think you should censor speech that you do not agree with.  at the same time, one should not contribute to speech you do not agree with.  those who are offended by the  redskins  should boycott the nfl.  businesses do not care about people, they care about money.  but much of the movement against the redskins, and similar movements, support passing laws to discriminate against those who use speech they disagree with, and getting the government involved.  like denying the redskins their trademark URL and incase it has not already been quoted 0  times in this thread, stephen fry:  it is now very common to hear people say,  i am rather offended by that.   as if that gives them certain rights.  it is actually nothing more.  than a whine.   i find that offensive.   it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.   i am offended by that.   well, so fucking what.    #  these are harmful stereotypes that limit what we expect from women.   #  the two examples you use are not the same.  the word  nigger  can be an oppressive word.  the word can cause suffering as it can be a form of bullying.  the word  bitch  is another example of oppressive language.  think about it, what is a bitch ? a crazy woman.  how often do you hear,  all women be bitches  or that a woman ca not be president b/c they will just bitch in office.  these are harmful stereotypes that limit what we expect from women.  it is all about limiting what causes suffering.  everyone should have a right to complain and stop things that cause them suffering.  the interracial couple example you use is causing suffering where ? who is causing the suffering ? this is not just hocus pocus games of language and personality.  we have only begun to crack the area of scientifically assessing suffering and morality.  take a look at this short and slightly humorous ted talk if you are curious to learn more.  URL  #  again, this is exactly what i was talking about.   #  you are right.  i will never say any word as an insult ever again.  i mean,  dick  is an insult to men, right ?  all men are dicks.   yep i have heard that.  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.  /s yeah.  i get that i should not say the n word or other racial slurs, because those are inherently offensive to a certain demographic.  however, arguing that people should not use an insult because it is gendered is a very different thing.  these insults are not inherently defined as insulting to all people of one gender, and to compare them to racial slurs is ignorant and ridiculous.  again, this is exactly what i was talking about.  hitler thought that jews caused suffering for the aryan race.  good job endorsing genocide.  who is causing the suffering ? well, the person who would say that would clearly believe the interracial couple are causing their suffering.   #  0.  i have  not  stated that we should censor speech we do not agree with, or speech that offends people.   #  this is a cogent statement of something that a few people have been suggesting.  a few points: 0.  op has  not  stated that  offence should not be a basis for legal action  or  offence should not be the measure of justified response for any statement.   op is saying  people are offended by a bigoted team name, and they should not be.   that is what i am responding to.  0.  i have  not  stated that we should censor speech we do not agree with, or speech that offends people.  0.  there is a categorical difference between offense caused by racial slurs   interracial couples if you ask an interracial couple if they are offended by interracial couples on television, they will say  no.   if you ask a native american if they are offended by the term  redskin,  responses vary, but many will say  yes.   as i stated, the problem with bigoted speech is not that it is personally offensive to anybody.  any speech that deviates from social convention is going to offend someone; that is just social pressure to conform.  the problem with bigoted speech is that it reinforces cultural values of bigotry.  deciding what values we want to perpetuate in society varies a great deal between people   eras, but the perpetuation of those values absolutely depends on the use   response to language that bears some relation to those values.  if we do not want a bigoted society, we should respond to bigoted language with outrage, public shaming, etc.  yes, this same rationale can be applied in the other direction if someone wanted a bigoted society.  that is not the point.  the point is that op is argument:  something that reinforces cultural stereotypes of hatred   aversion to native americans should not have prompted such outrage  is misguided, because it assumes the outrage is due to people being overly sensitive about what names they are called, rather than how the tacit endorsement of a bigoted team name would reinforce cultural values of bigotry.  you can argue about how far we should go to endorse egalitarianism, up to and beyond censorship, but you cannot argue the effect that use of language has on culture.
while i understand why a team name like  redskins  is a bigoted name, i do not understand why people get offended over something so inconsequential.  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.  we live in a society where politicians and people on social media feign outrage, or are actually outraged and offended over every misstatement or slip of the tongue.  if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.  it is rumored that george h. w.  bush said that atheists ca not be patriots.  i do not find a comment like that offensive, i just think he is ignorant for saying it.  i understand finding racial profiling or stop and frisk offensive, policies that actually impact your life that are sanctioned by the state.  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   #  we live in a society where politicians and people on social media feign outrage, or are actually outraged and offended over every misstatement or slip of the tongue.   #  if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.   # you were probably not bullied in school for being pale, black, muslim, or gay.  stereotyping muslims has lead to a great deal of discrimination.  apparently they are all terrorist towel heads that hate america.  while you are not personally affected, the victims of stereotype are.  if we portray the irish as being drunk and violent, then it becomes a subconscious factor in how people make decisions.  do you want to hire a possibly drunk and violent person ? if you want to give nuclear launch codes to someone, do you give it to a muslim american or a white christian from texas ? does the public portrayal of these two groups differentiate them in your mind ? if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.  it is rumored that george h. w.  bush said that atheists ca not be patriots.  i do not find a comment like that offensive, i just think he is ignorant for saying it.  we get offended when people spread embarrassing or untrue information about us.  i am offended by the president saying atheists cannot be patriots.  he is ignorant, and that comment is inappropriate for a person in his position and completely unwarranted.  my offense comes from the notion that he ought to not say that.  to let it go unaddressed lends credence to the statement.   #  i know this because i am personally offended by it.    #  playing the devils advocate here, because i do not think your argument is very good, because it can be applied to either side of many arguments about what is pc.   we should censor the n word because saying it damages our society.  i know this because i am offended personally by it.    we should censor interracial couples from television because they damage our society.  i know this because i am personally offended by it.   now of course, one of those sounds right and one sounds wrong, but that is only because of your own personal biases.  your biases probably fall in line with those of the majority of society, and are likely not bad biases to have, but my point still stands.  for this reason, i do not think you should censor speech that you do not agree with.  at the same time, one should not contribute to speech you do not agree with.  those who are offended by the  redskins  should boycott the nfl.  businesses do not care about people, they care about money.  but much of the movement against the redskins, and similar movements, support passing laws to discriminate against those who use speech they disagree with, and getting the government involved.  like denying the redskins their trademark URL and incase it has not already been quoted 0  times in this thread, stephen fry:  it is now very common to hear people say,  i am rather offended by that.   as if that gives them certain rights.  it is actually nothing more.  than a whine.   i find that offensive.   it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.   i am offended by that.   well, so fucking what.    #  how often do you hear,  all women be bitches  or that a woman ca not be president b/c they will just bitch in office.   #  the two examples you use are not the same.  the word  nigger  can be an oppressive word.  the word can cause suffering as it can be a form of bullying.  the word  bitch  is another example of oppressive language.  think about it, what is a bitch ? a crazy woman.  how often do you hear,  all women be bitches  or that a woman ca not be president b/c they will just bitch in office.  these are harmful stereotypes that limit what we expect from women.  it is all about limiting what causes suffering.  everyone should have a right to complain and stop things that cause them suffering.  the interracial couple example you use is causing suffering where ? who is causing the suffering ? this is not just hocus pocus games of language and personality.  we have only begun to crack the area of scientifically assessing suffering and morality.  take a look at this short and slightly humorous ted talk if you are curious to learn more.  URL  #  hitler thought that jews caused suffering for the aryan race.   #  you are right.  i will never say any word as an insult ever again.  i mean,  dick  is an insult to men, right ?  all men are dicks.   yep i have heard that.  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.  /s yeah.  i get that i should not say the n word or other racial slurs, because those are inherently offensive to a certain demographic.  however, arguing that people should not use an insult because it is gendered is a very different thing.  these insults are not inherently defined as insulting to all people of one gender, and to compare them to racial slurs is ignorant and ridiculous.  again, this is exactly what i was talking about.  hitler thought that jews caused suffering for the aryan race.  good job endorsing genocide.  who is causing the suffering ? well, the person who would say that would clearly believe the interracial couple are causing their suffering.   #  you can argue about how far we should go to endorse egalitarianism, up to and beyond censorship, but you cannot argue the effect that use of language has on culture.   #  this is a cogent statement of something that a few people have been suggesting.  a few points: 0.  op has  not  stated that  offence should not be a basis for legal action  or  offence should not be the measure of justified response for any statement.   op is saying  people are offended by a bigoted team name, and they should not be.   that is what i am responding to.  0.  i have  not  stated that we should censor speech we do not agree with, or speech that offends people.  0.  there is a categorical difference between offense caused by racial slurs   interracial couples if you ask an interracial couple if they are offended by interracial couples on television, they will say  no.   if you ask a native american if they are offended by the term  redskin,  responses vary, but many will say  yes.   as i stated, the problem with bigoted speech is not that it is personally offensive to anybody.  any speech that deviates from social convention is going to offend someone; that is just social pressure to conform.  the problem with bigoted speech is that it reinforces cultural values of bigotry.  deciding what values we want to perpetuate in society varies a great deal between people   eras, but the perpetuation of those values absolutely depends on the use   response to language that bears some relation to those values.  if we do not want a bigoted society, we should respond to bigoted language with outrage, public shaming, etc.  yes, this same rationale can be applied in the other direction if someone wanted a bigoted society.  that is not the point.  the point is that op is argument:  something that reinforces cultural stereotypes of hatred   aversion to native americans should not have prompted such outrage  is misguided, because it assumes the outrage is due to people being overly sensitive about what names they are called, rather than how the tacit endorsement of a bigoted team name would reinforce cultural values of bigotry.  you can argue about how far we should go to endorse egalitarianism, up to and beyond censorship, but you cannot argue the effect that use of language has on culture.
while i understand why a team name like  redskins  is a bigoted name, i do not understand why people get offended over something so inconsequential.  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.  we live in a society where politicians and people on social media feign outrage, or are actually outraged and offended over every misstatement or slip of the tongue.  if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.  it is rumored that george h. w.  bush said that atheists ca not be patriots.  i do not find a comment like that offensive, i just think he is ignorant for saying it.  i understand finding racial profiling or stop and frisk offensive, policies that actually impact your life that are sanctioned by the state.  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   #  while i understand why a team name like  redskins  is a bigoted name, i do not understand why people get offended over something so inconsequential.   #  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.   # if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.  if you understand why the name is bigoted, why do not you understand why people would be offended ? would you understand why people would be offended if the name of the team was the  niggers  and their mascot was a golliwogg stereotype ? keep in mind here,  understanding why someone else is offended  by the name is different from  you yourself personally being offended  by the name.  it is possible to understand why someone else feels a certain way without also feeling that way yourself.  for example, if i punch someone in the face, they will feel pain.  i can understand why that person would be feeling that way without myself experiencing the same pain in the face from being punched by me.  keep in mind here, believing that other people  ought not to be offended  by the name is also not the same as  not understanding why they feel that way.  i do not think my girlfriend  ought to be upset  when i say something innocuous that sets her off because she is hormonal, but i do  understand why innocuous things can set her off when she is hormonal .   #  i know this because i am offended personally by it.    #  playing the devils advocate here, because i do not think your argument is very good, because it can be applied to either side of many arguments about what is pc.   we should censor the n word because saying it damages our society.  i know this because i am offended personally by it.    we should censor interracial couples from television because they damage our society.  i know this because i am personally offended by it.   now of course, one of those sounds right and one sounds wrong, but that is only because of your own personal biases.  your biases probably fall in line with those of the majority of society, and are likely not bad biases to have, but my point still stands.  for this reason, i do not think you should censor speech that you do not agree with.  at the same time, one should not contribute to speech you do not agree with.  those who are offended by the  redskins  should boycott the nfl.  businesses do not care about people, they care about money.  but much of the movement against the redskins, and similar movements, support passing laws to discriminate against those who use speech they disagree with, and getting the government involved.  like denying the redskins their trademark URL and incase it has not already been quoted 0  times in this thread, stephen fry:  it is now very common to hear people say,  i am rather offended by that.   as if that gives them certain rights.  it is actually nothing more.  than a whine.   i find that offensive.   it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.   i am offended by that.   well, so fucking what.    #  everyone should have a right to complain and stop things that cause them suffering.   #  the two examples you use are not the same.  the word  nigger  can be an oppressive word.  the word can cause suffering as it can be a form of bullying.  the word  bitch  is another example of oppressive language.  think about it, what is a bitch ? a crazy woman.  how often do you hear,  all women be bitches  or that a woman ca not be president b/c they will just bitch in office.  these are harmful stereotypes that limit what we expect from women.  it is all about limiting what causes suffering.  everyone should have a right to complain and stop things that cause them suffering.  the interracial couple example you use is causing suffering where ? who is causing the suffering ? this is not just hocus pocus games of language and personality.  we have only begun to crack the area of scientifically assessing suffering and morality.  take a look at this short and slightly humorous ted talk if you are curious to learn more.  URL  #  i get that i should not say the n word or other racial slurs, because those are inherently offensive to a certain demographic.   #  you are right.  i will never say any word as an insult ever again.  i mean,  dick  is an insult to men, right ?  all men are dicks.   yep i have heard that.  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.  /s yeah.  i get that i should not say the n word or other racial slurs, because those are inherently offensive to a certain demographic.  however, arguing that people should not use an insult because it is gendered is a very different thing.  these insults are not inherently defined as insulting to all people of one gender, and to compare them to racial slurs is ignorant and ridiculous.  again, this is exactly what i was talking about.  hitler thought that jews caused suffering for the aryan race.  good job endorsing genocide.  who is causing the suffering ? well, the person who would say that would clearly believe the interracial couple are causing their suffering.   #  yes, this same rationale can be applied in the other direction if someone wanted a bigoted society.   #  this is a cogent statement of something that a few people have been suggesting.  a few points: 0.  op has  not  stated that  offence should not be a basis for legal action  or  offence should not be the measure of justified response for any statement.   op is saying  people are offended by a bigoted team name, and they should not be.   that is what i am responding to.  0.  i have  not  stated that we should censor speech we do not agree with, or speech that offends people.  0.  there is a categorical difference between offense caused by racial slurs   interracial couples if you ask an interracial couple if they are offended by interracial couples on television, they will say  no.   if you ask a native american if they are offended by the term  redskin,  responses vary, but many will say  yes.   as i stated, the problem with bigoted speech is not that it is personally offensive to anybody.  any speech that deviates from social convention is going to offend someone; that is just social pressure to conform.  the problem with bigoted speech is that it reinforces cultural values of bigotry.  deciding what values we want to perpetuate in society varies a great deal between people   eras, but the perpetuation of those values absolutely depends on the use   response to language that bears some relation to those values.  if we do not want a bigoted society, we should respond to bigoted language with outrage, public shaming, etc.  yes, this same rationale can be applied in the other direction if someone wanted a bigoted society.  that is not the point.  the point is that op is argument:  something that reinforces cultural stereotypes of hatred   aversion to native americans should not have prompted such outrage  is misguided, because it assumes the outrage is due to people being overly sensitive about what names they are called, rather than how the tacit endorsement of a bigoted team name would reinforce cultural values of bigotry.  you can argue about how far we should go to endorse egalitarianism, up to and beyond censorship, but you cannot argue the effect that use of language has on culture.
while i understand why a team name like  redskins  is a bigoted name, i do not understand why people get offended over something so inconsequential.  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.  we live in a society where politicians and people on social media feign outrage, or are actually outraged and offended over every misstatement or slip of the tongue.  if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.  it is rumored that george h. w.  bush said that atheists ca not be patriots.  i do not find a comment like that offensive, i just think he is ignorant for saying it.  i understand finding racial profiling or stop and frisk offensive, policies that actually impact your life that are sanctioned by the state.  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   #  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.   #  and yet you do realize that there would be people who would be offended by that, right ?  # and yet you do realize that there would be people who would be offended by that, right ? and we live in a society where an honest statement of offense is often met by a feigned counter reaction that is itself outraged.  why not ? what should offend me ? i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.  there is different weights to different opinions.  you like strawberry ice cream, and hate chocolate ? whatever.  you can eat what you like.  you think those who like chocolate ice cream are morons ? then you are making a statement about others, and it gets weighed differently.   #  your biases probably fall in line with those of the majority of society, and are likely not bad biases to have, but my point still stands.   #  playing the devils advocate here, because i do not think your argument is very good, because it can be applied to either side of many arguments about what is pc.   we should censor the n word because saying it damages our society.  i know this because i am offended personally by it.    we should censor interracial couples from television because they damage our society.  i know this because i am personally offended by it.   now of course, one of those sounds right and one sounds wrong, but that is only because of your own personal biases.  your biases probably fall in line with those of the majority of society, and are likely not bad biases to have, but my point still stands.  for this reason, i do not think you should censor speech that you do not agree with.  at the same time, one should not contribute to speech you do not agree with.  those who are offended by the  redskins  should boycott the nfl.  businesses do not care about people, they care about money.  but much of the movement against the redskins, and similar movements, support passing laws to discriminate against those who use speech they disagree with, and getting the government involved.  like denying the redskins their trademark URL and incase it has not already been quoted 0  times in this thread, stephen fry:  it is now very common to hear people say,  i am rather offended by that.   as if that gives them certain rights.  it is actually nothing more.  than a whine.   i find that offensive.   it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.   i am offended by that.   well, so fucking what.    #  the word can cause suffering as it can be a form of bullying.   #  the two examples you use are not the same.  the word  nigger  can be an oppressive word.  the word can cause suffering as it can be a form of bullying.  the word  bitch  is another example of oppressive language.  think about it, what is a bitch ? a crazy woman.  how often do you hear,  all women be bitches  or that a woman ca not be president b/c they will just bitch in office.  these are harmful stereotypes that limit what we expect from women.  it is all about limiting what causes suffering.  everyone should have a right to complain and stop things that cause them suffering.  the interracial couple example you use is causing suffering where ? who is causing the suffering ? this is not just hocus pocus games of language and personality.  we have only begun to crack the area of scientifically assessing suffering and morality.  take a look at this short and slightly humorous ted talk if you are curious to learn more.  URL  #  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.   #  you are right.  i will never say any word as an insult ever again.  i mean,  dick  is an insult to men, right ?  all men are dicks.   yep i have heard that.  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.  /s yeah.  i get that i should not say the n word or other racial slurs, because those are inherently offensive to a certain demographic.  however, arguing that people should not use an insult because it is gendered is a very different thing.  these insults are not inherently defined as insulting to all people of one gender, and to compare them to racial slurs is ignorant and ridiculous.  again, this is exactly what i was talking about.  hitler thought that jews caused suffering for the aryan race.  good job endorsing genocide.  who is causing the suffering ? well, the person who would say that would clearly believe the interracial couple are causing their suffering.   #  any speech that deviates from social convention is going to offend someone; that is just social pressure to conform.   #  this is a cogent statement of something that a few people have been suggesting.  a few points: 0.  op has  not  stated that  offence should not be a basis for legal action  or  offence should not be the measure of justified response for any statement.   op is saying  people are offended by a bigoted team name, and they should not be.   that is what i am responding to.  0.  i have  not  stated that we should censor speech we do not agree with, or speech that offends people.  0.  there is a categorical difference between offense caused by racial slurs   interracial couples if you ask an interracial couple if they are offended by interracial couples on television, they will say  no.   if you ask a native american if they are offended by the term  redskin,  responses vary, but many will say  yes.   as i stated, the problem with bigoted speech is not that it is personally offensive to anybody.  any speech that deviates from social convention is going to offend someone; that is just social pressure to conform.  the problem with bigoted speech is that it reinforces cultural values of bigotry.  deciding what values we want to perpetuate in society varies a great deal between people   eras, but the perpetuation of those values absolutely depends on the use   response to language that bears some relation to those values.  if we do not want a bigoted society, we should respond to bigoted language with outrage, public shaming, etc.  yes, this same rationale can be applied in the other direction if someone wanted a bigoted society.  that is not the point.  the point is that op is argument:  something that reinforces cultural stereotypes of hatred   aversion to native americans should not have prompted such outrage  is misguided, because it assumes the outrage is due to people being overly sensitive about what names they are called, rather than how the tacit endorsement of a bigoted team name would reinforce cultural values of bigotry.  you can argue about how far we should go to endorse egalitarianism, up to and beyond censorship, but you cannot argue the effect that use of language has on culture.
while i understand why a team name like  redskins  is a bigoted name, i do not understand why people get offended over something so inconsequential.  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.  we live in a society where politicians and people on social media feign outrage, or are actually outraged and offended over every misstatement or slip of the tongue.  if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.  it is rumored that george h. w.  bush said that atheists ca not be patriots.  i do not find a comment like that offensive, i just think he is ignorant for saying it.  i understand finding racial profiling or stop and frisk offensive, policies that actually impact your life that are sanctioned by the state.  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   #  we live in a society where politicians and people on social media feign outrage, or are actually outraged and offended over every misstatement or slip of the tongue.   #  and we live in a society where an honest statement of offense is often met by a feigned counter reaction that is itself outraged.   # and yet you do realize that there would be people who would be offended by that, right ? and we live in a society where an honest statement of offense is often met by a feigned counter reaction that is itself outraged.  why not ? what should offend me ? i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.  there is different weights to different opinions.  you like strawberry ice cream, and hate chocolate ? whatever.  you can eat what you like.  you think those who like chocolate ice cream are morons ? then you are making a statement about others, and it gets weighed differently.   #   we should censor interracial couples from television because they damage our society.   #  playing the devils advocate here, because i do not think your argument is very good, because it can be applied to either side of many arguments about what is pc.   we should censor the n word because saying it damages our society.  i know this because i am offended personally by it.    we should censor interracial couples from television because they damage our society.  i know this because i am personally offended by it.   now of course, one of those sounds right and one sounds wrong, but that is only because of your own personal biases.  your biases probably fall in line with those of the majority of society, and are likely not bad biases to have, but my point still stands.  for this reason, i do not think you should censor speech that you do not agree with.  at the same time, one should not contribute to speech you do not agree with.  those who are offended by the  redskins  should boycott the nfl.  businesses do not care about people, they care about money.  but much of the movement against the redskins, and similar movements, support passing laws to discriminate against those who use speech they disagree with, and getting the government involved.  like denying the redskins their trademark URL and incase it has not already been quoted 0  times in this thread, stephen fry:  it is now very common to hear people say,  i am rather offended by that.   as if that gives them certain rights.  it is actually nothing more.  than a whine.   i find that offensive.   it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.   i am offended by that.   well, so fucking what.    #  we have only begun to crack the area of scientifically assessing suffering and morality.   #  the two examples you use are not the same.  the word  nigger  can be an oppressive word.  the word can cause suffering as it can be a form of bullying.  the word  bitch  is another example of oppressive language.  think about it, what is a bitch ? a crazy woman.  how often do you hear,  all women be bitches  or that a woman ca not be president b/c they will just bitch in office.  these are harmful stereotypes that limit what we expect from women.  it is all about limiting what causes suffering.  everyone should have a right to complain and stop things that cause them suffering.  the interracial couple example you use is causing suffering where ? who is causing the suffering ? this is not just hocus pocus games of language and personality.  we have only begun to crack the area of scientifically assessing suffering and morality.  take a look at this short and slightly humorous ted talk if you are curious to learn more.  URL  #  again, this is exactly what i was talking about.   #  you are right.  i will never say any word as an insult ever again.  i mean,  dick  is an insult to men, right ?  all men are dicks.   yep i have heard that.  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.  /s yeah.  i get that i should not say the n word or other racial slurs, because those are inherently offensive to a certain demographic.  however, arguing that people should not use an insult because it is gendered is a very different thing.  these insults are not inherently defined as insulting to all people of one gender, and to compare them to racial slurs is ignorant and ridiculous.  again, this is exactly what i was talking about.  hitler thought that jews caused suffering for the aryan race.  good job endorsing genocide.  who is causing the suffering ? well, the person who would say that would clearly believe the interracial couple are causing their suffering.   #  deciding what values we want to perpetuate in society varies a great deal between people   eras, but the perpetuation of those values absolutely depends on the use   response to language that bears some relation to those values.   #  this is a cogent statement of something that a few people have been suggesting.  a few points: 0.  op has  not  stated that  offence should not be a basis for legal action  or  offence should not be the measure of justified response for any statement.   op is saying  people are offended by a bigoted team name, and they should not be.   that is what i am responding to.  0.  i have  not  stated that we should censor speech we do not agree with, or speech that offends people.  0.  there is a categorical difference between offense caused by racial slurs   interracial couples if you ask an interracial couple if they are offended by interracial couples on television, they will say  no.   if you ask a native american if they are offended by the term  redskin,  responses vary, but many will say  yes.   as i stated, the problem with bigoted speech is not that it is personally offensive to anybody.  any speech that deviates from social convention is going to offend someone; that is just social pressure to conform.  the problem with bigoted speech is that it reinforces cultural values of bigotry.  deciding what values we want to perpetuate in society varies a great deal between people   eras, but the perpetuation of those values absolutely depends on the use   response to language that bears some relation to those values.  if we do not want a bigoted society, we should respond to bigoted language with outrage, public shaming, etc.  yes, this same rationale can be applied in the other direction if someone wanted a bigoted society.  that is not the point.  the point is that op is argument:  something that reinforces cultural stereotypes of hatred   aversion to native americans should not have prompted such outrage  is misguided, because it assumes the outrage is due to people being overly sensitive about what names they are called, rather than how the tacit endorsement of a bigoted team name would reinforce cultural values of bigotry.  you can argue about how far we should go to endorse egalitarianism, up to and beyond censorship, but you cannot argue the effect that use of language has on culture.
while i understand why a team name like  redskins  is a bigoted name, i do not understand why people get offended over something so inconsequential.  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.  we live in a society where politicians and people on social media feign outrage, or are actually outraged and offended over every misstatement or slip of the tongue.  if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.  it is rumored that george h. w.  bush said that atheists ca not be patriots.  i do not find a comment like that offensive, i just think he is ignorant for saying it.  i understand finding racial profiling or stop and frisk offensive, policies that actually impact your life that are sanctioned by the state.  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   #  i understand finding racial profiling or stop and frisk offensive, policies that actually impact your life that are sanctioned by the state.   #  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   # and yet you do realize that there would be people who would be offended by that, right ? and we live in a society where an honest statement of offense is often met by a feigned counter reaction that is itself outraged.  why not ? what should offend me ? i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.  there is different weights to different opinions.  you like strawberry ice cream, and hate chocolate ? whatever.  you can eat what you like.  you think those who like chocolate ice cream are morons ? then you are making a statement about others, and it gets weighed differently.   #   we should censor the n word because saying it damages our society.   #  playing the devils advocate here, because i do not think your argument is very good, because it can be applied to either side of many arguments about what is pc.   we should censor the n word because saying it damages our society.  i know this because i am offended personally by it.    we should censor interracial couples from television because they damage our society.  i know this because i am personally offended by it.   now of course, one of those sounds right and one sounds wrong, but that is only because of your own personal biases.  your biases probably fall in line with those of the majority of society, and are likely not bad biases to have, but my point still stands.  for this reason, i do not think you should censor speech that you do not agree with.  at the same time, one should not contribute to speech you do not agree with.  those who are offended by the  redskins  should boycott the nfl.  businesses do not care about people, they care about money.  but much of the movement against the redskins, and similar movements, support passing laws to discriminate against those who use speech they disagree with, and getting the government involved.  like denying the redskins their trademark URL and incase it has not already been quoted 0  times in this thread, stephen fry:  it is now very common to hear people say,  i am rather offended by that.   as if that gives them certain rights.  it is actually nothing more.  than a whine.   i find that offensive.   it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.   i am offended by that.   well, so fucking what.    #  this is not just hocus pocus games of language and personality.   #  the two examples you use are not the same.  the word  nigger  can be an oppressive word.  the word can cause suffering as it can be a form of bullying.  the word  bitch  is another example of oppressive language.  think about it, what is a bitch ? a crazy woman.  how often do you hear,  all women be bitches  or that a woman ca not be president b/c they will just bitch in office.  these are harmful stereotypes that limit what we expect from women.  it is all about limiting what causes suffering.  everyone should have a right to complain and stop things that cause them suffering.  the interracial couple example you use is causing suffering where ? who is causing the suffering ? this is not just hocus pocus games of language and personality.  we have only begun to crack the area of scientifically assessing suffering and morality.  take a look at this short and slightly humorous ted talk if you are curious to learn more.  URL  #  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.   #  you are right.  i will never say any word as an insult ever again.  i mean,  dick  is an insult to men, right ?  all men are dicks.   yep i have heard that.  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.  /s yeah.  i get that i should not say the n word or other racial slurs, because those are inherently offensive to a certain demographic.  however, arguing that people should not use an insult because it is gendered is a very different thing.  these insults are not inherently defined as insulting to all people of one gender, and to compare them to racial slurs is ignorant and ridiculous.  again, this is exactly what i was talking about.  hitler thought that jews caused suffering for the aryan race.  good job endorsing genocide.  who is causing the suffering ? well, the person who would say that would clearly believe the interracial couple are causing their suffering.   #  0.  there is a categorical difference between offense caused by racial slurs   interracial couples if you ask an interracial couple if they are offended by interracial couples on television, they will say  no.    #  this is a cogent statement of something that a few people have been suggesting.  a few points: 0.  op has  not  stated that  offence should not be a basis for legal action  or  offence should not be the measure of justified response for any statement.   op is saying  people are offended by a bigoted team name, and they should not be.   that is what i am responding to.  0.  i have  not  stated that we should censor speech we do not agree with, or speech that offends people.  0.  there is a categorical difference between offense caused by racial slurs   interracial couples if you ask an interracial couple if they are offended by interracial couples on television, they will say  no.   if you ask a native american if they are offended by the term  redskin,  responses vary, but many will say  yes.   as i stated, the problem with bigoted speech is not that it is personally offensive to anybody.  any speech that deviates from social convention is going to offend someone; that is just social pressure to conform.  the problem with bigoted speech is that it reinforces cultural values of bigotry.  deciding what values we want to perpetuate in society varies a great deal between people   eras, but the perpetuation of those values absolutely depends on the use   response to language that bears some relation to those values.  if we do not want a bigoted society, we should respond to bigoted language with outrage, public shaming, etc.  yes, this same rationale can be applied in the other direction if someone wanted a bigoted society.  that is not the point.  the point is that op is argument:  something that reinforces cultural stereotypes of hatred   aversion to native americans should not have prompted such outrage  is misguided, because it assumes the outrage is due to people being overly sensitive about what names they are called, rather than how the tacit endorsement of a bigoted team name would reinforce cultural values of bigotry.  you can argue about how far we should go to endorse egalitarianism, up to and beyond censorship, but you cannot argue the effect that use of language has on culture.
while i understand why a team name like  redskins  is a bigoted name, i do not understand why people get offended over something so inconsequential.  if notre dame changed it is name to the  drunken fighting irish , i would not be personally offended, i would just think the people who ran the organization were morons.  we live in a society where politicians and people on social media feign outrage, or are actually outraged and offended over every misstatement or slip of the tongue.  if someone says something bigoted, ignorant, or stupid, it should not personally offend you.  it is rumored that george h. w.  bush said that atheists ca not be patriots.  i do not find a comment like that offensive, i just think he is ignorant for saying it.  i understand finding racial profiling or stop and frisk offensive, policies that actually impact your life that are sanctioned by the state.  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   #  i understand finding racial profiling or stop and frisk offensive, policies that actually impact your life that are sanctioned by the state.   #  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.   #  i would not say we, as a society  are too easily offended.   when something is said that is could be offensive i. e.  team named the  redskins , with i learned yesterday was slang for native american scalps , i will defend their right to say these things to all corners of the earth.  but having the right to say such things does not mean you have a right to eschew the consequences of your speech.  this right also means, someone somewhere will offend you with their speech.  and if they offend enough people, they will face consequences of their own.  i do not understand being offended by one person is opinion.  except in the case of the redskins, it is not just  one person is opinion  it is the name of part of an american cultural institution the nfl .  i do not personally think the nfl and the teams should be held in such high regard, nor celebrated as they are.  but the truth of the matter is that a large portion of the population does find them important.  and one of their teams is using a term that is racially insensitive and hurtful to a segment of the population, with the tacit endorsement of those who support this cultural institution.  that means they will face consequences from those who are on receiving end of the insult albeit historical.   #  businesses do not care about people, they care about money.   #  playing the devils advocate here, because i do not think your argument is very good, because it can be applied to either side of many arguments about what is pc.   we should censor the n word because saying it damages our society.  i know this because i am offended personally by it.    we should censor interracial couples from television because they damage our society.  i know this because i am personally offended by it.   now of course, one of those sounds right and one sounds wrong, but that is only because of your own personal biases.  your biases probably fall in line with those of the majority of society, and are likely not bad biases to have, but my point still stands.  for this reason, i do not think you should censor speech that you do not agree with.  at the same time, one should not contribute to speech you do not agree with.  those who are offended by the  redskins  should boycott the nfl.  businesses do not care about people, they care about money.  but much of the movement against the redskins, and similar movements, support passing laws to discriminate against those who use speech they disagree with, and getting the government involved.  like denying the redskins their trademark URL and incase it has not already been quoted 0  times in this thread, stephen fry:  it is now very common to hear people say,  i am rather offended by that.   as if that gives them certain rights.  it is actually nothing more.  than a whine.   i find that offensive.   it has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.   i am offended by that.   well, so fucking what.    #  the word can cause suffering as it can be a form of bullying.   #  the two examples you use are not the same.  the word  nigger  can be an oppressive word.  the word can cause suffering as it can be a form of bullying.  the word  bitch  is another example of oppressive language.  think about it, what is a bitch ? a crazy woman.  how often do you hear,  all women be bitches  or that a woman ca not be president b/c they will just bitch in office.  these are harmful stereotypes that limit what we expect from women.  it is all about limiting what causes suffering.  everyone should have a right to complain and stop things that cause them suffering.  the interracial couple example you use is causing suffering where ? who is causing the suffering ? this is not just hocus pocus games of language and personality.  we have only begun to crack the area of scientifically assessing suffering and morality.  take a look at this short and slightly humorous ted talk if you are curious to learn more.  URL  #  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.   #  you are right.  i will never say any word as an insult ever again.  i mean,  dick  is an insult to men, right ?  all men are dicks.   yep i have heard that.  so, all uses of the word dick are misandrist, not to mention it is a microaggression, implying penises are worth less than vaginas.  /s yeah.  i get that i should not say the n word or other racial slurs, because those are inherently offensive to a certain demographic.  however, arguing that people should not use an insult because it is gendered is a very different thing.  these insults are not inherently defined as insulting to all people of one gender, and to compare them to racial slurs is ignorant and ridiculous.  again, this is exactly what i was talking about.  hitler thought that jews caused suffering for the aryan race.  good job endorsing genocide.  who is causing the suffering ? well, the person who would say that would clearly believe the interracial couple are causing their suffering.   #  the problem with bigoted speech is that it reinforces cultural values of bigotry.   #  this is a cogent statement of something that a few people have been suggesting.  a few points: 0.  op has  not  stated that  offence should not be a basis for legal action  or  offence should not be the measure of justified response for any statement.   op is saying  people are offended by a bigoted team name, and they should not be.   that is what i am responding to.  0.  i have  not  stated that we should censor speech we do not agree with, or speech that offends people.  0.  there is a categorical difference between offense caused by racial slurs   interracial couples if you ask an interracial couple if they are offended by interracial couples on television, they will say  no.   if you ask a native american if they are offended by the term  redskin,  responses vary, but many will say  yes.   as i stated, the problem with bigoted speech is not that it is personally offensive to anybody.  any speech that deviates from social convention is going to offend someone; that is just social pressure to conform.  the problem with bigoted speech is that it reinforces cultural values of bigotry.  deciding what values we want to perpetuate in society varies a great deal between people   eras, but the perpetuation of those values absolutely depends on the use   response to language that bears some relation to those values.  if we do not want a bigoted society, we should respond to bigoted language with outrage, public shaming, etc.  yes, this same rationale can be applied in the other direction if someone wanted a bigoted society.  that is not the point.  the point is that op is argument:  something that reinforces cultural stereotypes of hatred   aversion to native americans should not have prompted such outrage  is misguided, because it assumes the outrage is due to people being overly sensitive about what names they are called, rather than how the tacit endorsement of a bigoted team name would reinforce cultural values of bigotry.  you can argue about how far we should go to endorse egalitarianism, up to and beyond censorship, but you cannot argue the effect that use of language has on culture.
well, im struggling with the school, work and the motivation.  everyone keep saying, you should stop gaming so much.  the games like world of warcraft, guild wars 0 and so on.  that i have to start study and make the money so i can life.  but hey, what about this ? most of mmorpg games thats coming in future will be much better then what i have played before.  they will be so immersive that the reality world will feel so bland.  why ca not i just fuck the world and ask for the social welfare payment and play every days some good mmorpg games huh ? buy the bad ass pc, that i can play different games on ultra settings and buy a some most comfortable computer chair.  try to change my view that i should not be thinking this way.   #  why ca not i just fuck the world and ask for the social welfare payment and play every days some good mmorpg games huh ?  #  assuming you are american.  what exactly do you think a  social welfare payment  is ?  # assuming you are american.  what exactly do you think a  social welfare payment  is ? you can get unemployment income, but you have to have worked for a period of time, you have to keep looking for work, and it is temporary.  you can get disability, but you have to have tried to work and have a legitimate disability.  you can get supplemental income, but you have to have a good reason for not working and have a work history.  you are under the impression that the government just hands out money to lazy people, and that is not at all the case.  any life you will get with government income will be very humble; you will live in low income housing and not be able to afford nice things like bad ass pcs.  it is pretty miserable.   #  i am not sure how you can miss the relevance of the answer.   #  american english  is a specific dialect that is distinguishable from other dialects used in europe.  for example, in the uk you would probably say  arse  instead of  ass .  the question  why ca not i.   is answered with  because it is illegal .  i am not sure how you can miss the relevance of the answer.  do you have anything to add to the discussion, or do you just enjoy failing at pedantry ?  #  whoa, you are reaching a level of ridiculous i was not prepared to deal with.   #  whoa, you are reaching a level of ridiculous i was not prepared to deal with.  first, this is a website made for everyone, it was made in america but it was not made solely for america.  english is a very wide spread language and he could be from any number of countries, and with american culture influencing a large number of media using american slang does not mean one is from america.  and he did not mention living in another country, but he also did not mention living in america.  you have exactly one supposed piece of evidence he is american, which is that he used the word bad ass.  that is hardly any evidence at all.  you should definitely consider that this person could be from another country.  furthermore i did not  fault  you for anything i was trying to explain how you could have misinterpreted what op was saying.  please, do not do this defensive act to anyone you care about in you life.  you make assumptions based on nothing, all i did was point them out, without hostility.  if i have done anything inappropriate to this discussion, aside from engaging you in this ridiculous argument, please point out what i said.   #  no, i cannot prove it with 0 certainty.   # i made a reasonable assumption that the op was american.  i made a reasonable case on which i based my assumption.  i gave the op a reasonable answer based on reasonable assumptions.  why hang on to the slight possibility that the op is not in america ? it is established that i made an assumption.  no, i cannot prove it with 0 certainty.  you only keep raising the small possibility i am wrong, but wo not attempt to tell me why i should not have assumed what i did.  there is certainly a high probability that i am right, and that is sufficient to make the assumption.  had the op corrected me, i would have changed my answer to be more applicable.  however, i think it is silly to entertain your idea as a real possibility, specifically:   a young german came to an american centered site   wrote post that sounded awfully american and correctly used american slang   assumed everybody would know they were from germany   had an argument that sounded exactly like a common misconception about american welfare   did not correct one of the first responses, which assumed they were in america why is it so important to keep pointing out the possibility that i am wrong ? the only reason i can figure is that you are intentionally tolling me or extremely pedantic.  i will edit my original post to make you happy.   #  0.  he knows almost nothing about american welfare.   #  that is a pretty unusual interpretation.  i see the situation differently.  0.  japanese username.  0.  broken english sounds like an oriental accent.  read it aloud.  the grammatical errors are not that of a fluent native english speaker.   buy the    is a common asian misspelling.  0.  the lifestyle he advocates is a common japanese idea called  otaku.   essentially, it means becoming obsessed with something and devoting inordinate energy into it.  0.   bad ass ,  can life , and  start the study  are really, really common foreign colloquialisms.  0.  he knows almost nothing about american welfare.  considering this, it is unreasonable to assume he is an american.
well, im struggling with the school, work and the motivation.  everyone keep saying, you should stop gaming so much.  the games like world of warcraft, guild wars 0 and so on.  that i have to start study and make the money so i can life.  but hey, what about this ? most of mmorpg games thats coming in future will be much better then what i have played before.  they will be so immersive that the reality world will feel so bland.  why ca not i just fuck the world and ask for the social welfare payment and play every days some good mmorpg games huh ? buy the bad ass pc, that i can play different games on ultra settings and buy a some most comfortable computer chair.  try to change my view that i should not be thinking this way.   #  most of mmorpg games thats coming in future will be much better then what i have played before.   #  they will be so immersive that the reality world will feel so bland.   # they will be so immersive that the reality world will feel so bland.  why do you assume this ? i do not think i have found any games today that are so much better than civilization or tetris.  they have got better graphics, but i do not get any more enjoyment or immersion out of them than i did when civilization or tetris were new.  less, if anything.  if you are satisfied with games today, that is great you can probably be almost as satisfied when you are older.  but do not expect the newer games to give you more satisfaction than you are getting now.   #  any life you will get with government income will be very humble; you will live in low income housing and not be able to afford nice things like bad ass pcs.   # assuming you are american.  what exactly do you think a  social welfare payment  is ? you can get unemployment income, but you have to have worked for a period of time, you have to keep looking for work, and it is temporary.  you can get disability, but you have to have tried to work and have a legitimate disability.  you can get supplemental income, but you have to have a good reason for not working and have a work history.  you are under the impression that the government just hands out money to lazy people, and that is not at all the case.  any life you will get with government income will be very humble; you will live in low income housing and not be able to afford nice things like bad ass pcs.  it is pretty miserable.   #   american english  is a specific dialect that is distinguishable from other dialects used in europe.   #  american english  is a specific dialect that is distinguishable from other dialects used in europe.  for example, in the uk you would probably say  arse  instead of  ass .  the question  why ca not i.   is answered with  because it is illegal .  i am not sure how you can miss the relevance of the answer.  do you have anything to add to the discussion, or do you just enjoy failing at pedantry ?  #  if i have done anything inappropriate to this discussion, aside from engaging you in this ridiculous argument, please point out what i said.   #  whoa, you are reaching a level of ridiculous i was not prepared to deal with.  first, this is a website made for everyone, it was made in america but it was not made solely for america.  english is a very wide spread language and he could be from any number of countries, and with american culture influencing a large number of media using american slang does not mean one is from america.  and he did not mention living in another country, but he also did not mention living in america.  you have exactly one supposed piece of evidence he is american, which is that he used the word bad ass.  that is hardly any evidence at all.  you should definitely consider that this person could be from another country.  furthermore i did not  fault  you for anything i was trying to explain how you could have misinterpreted what op was saying.  please, do not do this defensive act to anyone you care about in you life.  you make assumptions based on nothing, all i did was point them out, without hostility.  if i have done anything inappropriate to this discussion, aside from engaging you in this ridiculous argument, please point out what i said.   #  i made a reasonable case on which i based my assumption.   # i made a reasonable assumption that the op was american.  i made a reasonable case on which i based my assumption.  i gave the op a reasonable answer based on reasonable assumptions.  why hang on to the slight possibility that the op is not in america ? it is established that i made an assumption.  no, i cannot prove it with 0 certainty.  you only keep raising the small possibility i am wrong, but wo not attempt to tell me why i should not have assumed what i did.  there is certainly a high probability that i am right, and that is sufficient to make the assumption.  had the op corrected me, i would have changed my answer to be more applicable.  however, i think it is silly to entertain your idea as a real possibility, specifically:   a young german came to an american centered site   wrote post that sounded awfully american and correctly used american slang   assumed everybody would know they were from germany   had an argument that sounded exactly like a common misconception about american welfare   did not correct one of the first responses, which assumed they were in america why is it so important to keep pointing out the possibility that i am wrong ? the only reason i can figure is that you are intentionally tolling me or extremely pedantic.  i will edit my original post to make you happy.
i am going to start by saying you should always treat them as they wish, if they want to be called and treated as a certain gender i believe they have the right to ask and i see no reason why not to treat them as they desire.  but in my head they will never be the gender they are saying they are, in my mind they will stay their original gender or be somewhere in between.  i also feel that this would stop me from being romanticly interested them and i think as long as i am respectful in my rejection there is no reason that i should be ashamed of doing so.  i have read similar cmv is in the past but they all seem to deal only with dating with a lot of replys saying that since they are now the other gender it shouldnt matter.  but i believe that the view that they are not, as long as there is never any loss of respect, is ok, please cmv.   #  i also feel that this would stop me from being romanticly interested them and i think as long as i am respectful in my rejection there is no reason that i should be ashamed of doing so.   #  people bring this up all the time, and i always picture some guy sitting around just rejecting woman after woman because they are trans .   # why ? their original gender is the one they are now saying it is.  it was only because society wanted them to embrace the one they thought they were born as that they hid it.  people bring this up all the time, and i always picture some guy sitting around just rejecting woman after woman because they are trans .  how often does this come up that you feel like you need to broadcast to the world that you would not date a trans woman ? i mean, you can reject another human on a romantic level for whatever reason you please.  why not just say it is a different reason ? it is like those people who  insist  on framing their attraction as race based  i would never date a black woman !   .  i just do not understand why people feel the need to say this kind of stuff.  what if you met a trans  woman and she was attractive to you and you hit it off really well ? you never know what the future holds, so you should be open to potential new experiences.  if you want to respect trans  people, just consider them to be the gender they are presenting as.  it is what everyone does for you.   #  i have no particular  desire  to date a trans person, but if the person i fall for is trans, i doubt it will be an issue for long.   #  i think your view would change if you knew one or more transgender people very well.  my first friend who transitioned, i really never thought i would think of him as a guy.  i knew him when he was presenting female.  i screwed up the pronouns for about a year afterwards they would just very occasionally slip .  however, the more i was around him, the more i saw the man.  eventually the woman disappeared.  i would not consider my friend to be a woman anymore; the whole notion is absurd.  also romantically, i find i have a kind of barrier with some trans people but i think that is a romantic barrier with the specific people i have met; i. e.  it is not because they are trans.  i have no particular  desire  to date a trans person, but if the person i fall for is trans, i doubt it will be an issue for long.  there is nothing wrong with thinking something in your head but being polite enough to treat people respectfully i agree that respect is in your actions.  i do not think you can help what you think; you need to be convinced to change what you have known your whole life.  this is why i say that knowing some trans people would probably be the fastest, most effective way to change your view.  you would not be able to control it, but you would realise one day that you no longer think of your friend as their original gender.   #  do you have that view for anything besides gender ?  #  it will be difficult to change your view on this with what you have said since you really have not said  why  you believe what you do.  so, why do you think you have that view ? what exactly does  gender  mean, in your opinion ? how does it differ from sex ? why ca not it be changed ? from what you have said so far it seems like you are just of the opinion that  if you are originally a certain way, then you are always that way no matter how much you change or how different you become .  do you have that view for anything besides gender ? or is that a special case for you ?  #  i see what i know of her past laid out before her when i think of her identity.   # and i do not really get why its wrong for me to do so.  eh, i do the same thing.  when i meet other trans people, whether they are just beginning or well into transition, i see them as. well, trans people.  just like when i see my grandmother, i see an old woman who used to be young.  i see what i know of her past laid out before her when i think of her identity.  i met a transwoman last week and, while i thought of her as a woman, she was definitely in my mind a  trans  woman. i could not pretend that i did not know she had been born male.  similarly, i know that when other people see me, i  am  different than other guys my age, just like every other guy my age is different from each other in some way.  for someone to look at me and say  you are no different than any other male  is nice if meant nicely, which it typically is but not accurate.   #  because while the difference to outsiders is not noticeable, you know that you are not  actually  respecting them when you ignore their wishes internally.   # i personaly have views on what gender roles i should have with the person i am dating and i feel that i have a right to date or not date based on how i think they would do in that role.  and i would of course never tell the transgendered person why i would not want to date them, i have never had to tell someone why i was not interested, a no usually works but if asked i would say a diffrent reason.  that is my point.  though why do you think trans  women would not fit the gender roles you want them to fit ? people could at times think i look like a boy, as long as they treat me like a girl when they find out that is what i call myself then i do not really care what they thought/think.  because while the difference to outsiders is not noticeable, you know that you are not  actually  respecting them when you ignore their wishes internally.  i am saying something more along the lines of,  instead of just showing to the outside world that you respect them why ca not you actually respect them ?
i am going to start by saying you should always treat them as they wish, if they want to be called and treated as a certain gender i believe they have the right to ask and i see no reason why not to treat them as they desire.  but in my head they will never be the gender they are saying they are, in my mind they will stay their original gender or be somewhere in between.  i also feel that this would stop me from being romanticly interested them and i think as long as i am respectful in my rejection there is no reason that i should be ashamed of doing so.  i have read similar cmv is in the past but they all seem to deal only with dating with a lot of replys saying that since they are now the other gender it shouldnt matter.  but i believe that the view that they are not, as long as there is never any loss of respect, is ok, please cmv.   #  but i believe that the view that they are not, as long as there is never any loss of respect, is ok, please cmv.   #  if you want to respect trans  people, just consider them to be the gender they are presenting as.   # why ? their original gender is the one they are now saying it is.  it was only because society wanted them to embrace the one they thought they were born as that they hid it.  people bring this up all the time, and i always picture some guy sitting around just rejecting woman after woman because they are trans .  how often does this come up that you feel like you need to broadcast to the world that you would not date a trans woman ? i mean, you can reject another human on a romantic level for whatever reason you please.  why not just say it is a different reason ? it is like those people who  insist  on framing their attraction as race based  i would never date a black woman !   .  i just do not understand why people feel the need to say this kind of stuff.  what if you met a trans  woman and she was attractive to you and you hit it off really well ? you never know what the future holds, so you should be open to potential new experiences.  if you want to respect trans  people, just consider them to be the gender they are presenting as.  it is what everyone does for you.   #  you would not be able to control it, but you would realise one day that you no longer think of your friend as their original gender.   #  i think your view would change if you knew one or more transgender people very well.  my first friend who transitioned, i really never thought i would think of him as a guy.  i knew him when he was presenting female.  i screwed up the pronouns for about a year afterwards they would just very occasionally slip .  however, the more i was around him, the more i saw the man.  eventually the woman disappeared.  i would not consider my friend to be a woman anymore; the whole notion is absurd.  also romantically, i find i have a kind of barrier with some trans people but i think that is a romantic barrier with the specific people i have met; i. e.  it is not because they are trans.  i have no particular  desire  to date a trans person, but if the person i fall for is trans, i doubt it will be an issue for long.  there is nothing wrong with thinking something in your head but being polite enough to treat people respectfully i agree that respect is in your actions.  i do not think you can help what you think; you need to be convinced to change what you have known your whole life.  this is why i say that knowing some trans people would probably be the fastest, most effective way to change your view.  you would not be able to control it, but you would realise one day that you no longer think of your friend as their original gender.   #  or is that a special case for you ?  #  it will be difficult to change your view on this with what you have said since you really have not said  why  you believe what you do.  so, why do you think you have that view ? what exactly does  gender  mean, in your opinion ? how does it differ from sex ? why ca not it be changed ? from what you have said so far it seems like you are just of the opinion that  if you are originally a certain way, then you are always that way no matter how much you change or how different you become .  do you have that view for anything besides gender ? or is that a special case for you ?  #  and i do not really get why its wrong for me to do so.   # and i do not really get why its wrong for me to do so.  eh, i do the same thing.  when i meet other trans people, whether they are just beginning or well into transition, i see them as. well, trans people.  just like when i see my grandmother, i see an old woman who used to be young.  i see what i know of her past laid out before her when i think of her identity.  i met a transwoman last week and, while i thought of her as a woman, she was definitely in my mind a  trans  woman. i could not pretend that i did not know she had been born male.  similarly, i know that when other people see me, i  am  different than other guys my age, just like every other guy my age is different from each other in some way.  for someone to look at me and say  you are no different than any other male  is nice if meant nicely, which it typically is but not accurate.   #  because while the difference to outsiders is not noticeable, you know that you are not  actually  respecting them when you ignore their wishes internally.   # i personaly have views on what gender roles i should have with the person i am dating and i feel that i have a right to date or not date based on how i think they would do in that role.  and i would of course never tell the transgendered person why i would not want to date them, i have never had to tell someone why i was not interested, a no usually works but if asked i would say a diffrent reason.  that is my point.  though why do you think trans  women would not fit the gender roles you want them to fit ? people could at times think i look like a boy, as long as they treat me like a girl when they find out that is what i call myself then i do not really care what they thought/think.  because while the difference to outsiders is not noticeable, you know that you are not  actually  respecting them when you ignore their wishes internally.  i am saying something more along the lines of,  instead of just showing to the outside world that you respect them why ca not you actually respect them ?
neuroscientists have studied the brain extensively and not found anything resembling a  center of consciousness  in the brain which actually causes our consciousness.  this begs the question: external source of consciousness or internal source of consciousness ? we could just as easily be a host for consciousness which has an external source, as we could be just a random accidental chemical self awareness.  just because fiddling with the brain fiddles with perception does not mean that our consciousness is sourced in the brain for the same reason that breaking your speakers does not mean the livestream you are watching went silent.  so we really have no scientific reason to believe that we will just go to sleep and never wake up, but it philosophically makes sense in a universe with so many cyclical systems that we are just reborn.  you do not have to believe in rebirth but there is no scientific basis for either external or internal consciousness and no scientific basis for the belief that death is just a black abyss.   #  neuroscientists have studied the brain extensively and not found anything resembling a  center of consciousness  in the brain which actually causes our consciousness.   #  there is not a center of consciousness; consciousness is the continuous activity of the brain.   # there is not a center of consciousness; consciousness is the continuous activity of the brain.  we have are pretty good at determining who is conscious based off of brain activity alone.  no we could not.  there is absolutely nothing to suggest an external source of consciousness.  there is tons of evidence that supports all thoughts, emotions, and awareness exists as processes in the brain.  this makes no sense.  if i fiddle with my speakers and then measure the current going to the speakers i can clearly identify that the  livestream  still exists despite the speakers not working.  this is just like we can use ekg, mri, and fmri to see brain activity even when there is no movement or speech.  please go into depth with your philosophical argument.  we are  reborn  in the sense that our constituent parts disperse and can get integrated into other forms of life or random matter.  the fact that some of your carbon atoms may end up in a flower does not mean you get reborn into a flower.  our body is constantly discarding itself and integrating new matter until we die.  yes there is.  we perceive things exclusively through brain activity.  if you do not have brain activity, you are not perceiving anything.  it is not blackness or nothingness; it is just nothing.  you are not floating around being aware of your situation.  it is exactly like the time before you were born.   #  you can believe whatever you want, but do not say science cannot be used to disprove the theory, instead say that you are uninterested in the type of theory science is willing to discuss.   #  you misunderstand what science is.  science is the process of coming up with falsifiable, predictive theories, then trying our best to see if we can prove them wrong.  a scientific theory is never proven, but if it cannot be disproven after trying many things, it becomes more and more accepted.  your theory cannot be scientifically disproven, because it is not a scientific theory; it cannot be tested, and makes no predictions that are meaningful.  science does not say the theory is therefore false, it says it is non scientific.  you can believe whatever you want, but do not say science cannot be used to disprove the theory, instead say that you are uninterested in the type of theory science is willing to discuss.   #  therefore, unless a hypothesis is in some way testable, it has no place in science.   #  because you assume that there are only two options when we do not know that for sure.  it is entirely possible that the truth is a scenario that we have failed to consider, or possibly are not even able to comprehend.  so, when we test one hypothesis, evidence not supporting it does not necessarily support a different hypothesis.  each hypothesis must be able to be tested on its own.  if evidence supporting two seemingly contradictory hypothesizes emerge and this has happened with other hypothesizes in the past then that is evidence that the truth is more complex than we previously assumed.  but, if we only test one hypothesis, we do not actually learn much about the greater array of possibilities.  therefore, unless a hypothesis is in some way testable, it has no place in science.   #  i pose to you that the entire universe in contained within a giant ever expanding teapot.   #  my problem with all the hypotheses of external consciousness is that, in the end, they all exactly mimic the data we would expect to see for internal consciousness.  direct changes to the brain have influences on the consciousness.  damaging the brain damages the consciousness.  there is no testable hypothesis given for trying to isolate the consciousness or observe the link to the external source.  i pose to you that the entire universe in contained within a giant ever expanding teapot.  my teapotiverse looks exactly like the universe as we understand it, and there is no way to observe the teapot, directly or indirectly.  would you lend any credence to the teapotiverse, or dismiss it as being an unecessary and unprovable addition to our understanding of our universe ?  #  but none of that even begins to answer the question  why do i know that i exist ?  #  i understand what you are getting at, but occam is razor is a guideline, not a hard rule.  0 years ago, the theory of relativity as an explanation for gravity would have been incomprehensible and required a spectacular number of assumptions, and i am sure there would have been a much simpler explanation that occam is razor would have preferred at the time.  and yet relativity seems to be the truth of the matter.  i am not suggesting that we throw occam is razor out the window, but i am suggesting that,  well that would require more assumptions than this other explanation  is not a reason to completely dismiss something as a possibility.  the problem with awareness is that it can not be measured.  perception can be measured, sure.  brain activity can be measured.  but none of that even begins to answer the question  why do i know that i exist ?  .  personally, i think that it is entirely possible that awareness lies outside the realm of science, that is to say that it is something that can not be quantified or measured, and so it is something that is incapable of being rationalized through the scientific method.  and so i think that the conclusion that awareness, while existing, can not be discussed scientifically is a perfectly logical conclusion to come to.
neuroscientists have studied the brain extensively and not found anything resembling a  center of consciousness  in the brain which actually causes our consciousness.  this begs the question: external source of consciousness or internal source of consciousness ? we could just as easily be a host for consciousness which has an external source, as we could be just a random accidental chemical self awareness.  just because fiddling with the brain fiddles with perception does not mean that our consciousness is sourced in the brain for the same reason that breaking your speakers does not mean the livestream you are watching went silent.  so we really have no scientific reason to believe that we will just go to sleep and never wake up, but it philosophically makes sense in a universe with so many cyclical systems that we are just reborn.  you do not have to believe in rebirth but there is no scientific basis for either external or internal consciousness and no scientific basis for the belief that death is just a black abyss.   #  it philosophically makes sense in a universe with so many cyclical systems that we are just reborn.   #  please go into depth with your philosophical argument.   # there is not a center of consciousness; consciousness is the continuous activity of the brain.  we have are pretty good at determining who is conscious based off of brain activity alone.  no we could not.  there is absolutely nothing to suggest an external source of consciousness.  there is tons of evidence that supports all thoughts, emotions, and awareness exists as processes in the brain.  this makes no sense.  if i fiddle with my speakers and then measure the current going to the speakers i can clearly identify that the  livestream  still exists despite the speakers not working.  this is just like we can use ekg, mri, and fmri to see brain activity even when there is no movement or speech.  please go into depth with your philosophical argument.  we are  reborn  in the sense that our constituent parts disperse and can get integrated into other forms of life or random matter.  the fact that some of your carbon atoms may end up in a flower does not mean you get reborn into a flower.  our body is constantly discarding itself and integrating new matter until we die.  yes there is.  we perceive things exclusively through brain activity.  if you do not have brain activity, you are not perceiving anything.  it is not blackness or nothingness; it is just nothing.  you are not floating around being aware of your situation.  it is exactly like the time before you were born.   #  science does not say the theory is therefore false, it says it is non scientific.   #  you misunderstand what science is.  science is the process of coming up with falsifiable, predictive theories, then trying our best to see if we can prove them wrong.  a scientific theory is never proven, but if it cannot be disproven after trying many things, it becomes more and more accepted.  your theory cannot be scientifically disproven, because it is not a scientific theory; it cannot be tested, and makes no predictions that are meaningful.  science does not say the theory is therefore false, it says it is non scientific.  you can believe whatever you want, but do not say science cannot be used to disprove the theory, instead say that you are uninterested in the type of theory science is willing to discuss.   #  therefore, unless a hypothesis is in some way testable, it has no place in science.   #  because you assume that there are only two options when we do not know that for sure.  it is entirely possible that the truth is a scenario that we have failed to consider, or possibly are not even able to comprehend.  so, when we test one hypothesis, evidence not supporting it does not necessarily support a different hypothesis.  each hypothesis must be able to be tested on its own.  if evidence supporting two seemingly contradictory hypothesizes emerge and this has happened with other hypothesizes in the past then that is evidence that the truth is more complex than we previously assumed.  but, if we only test one hypothesis, we do not actually learn much about the greater array of possibilities.  therefore, unless a hypothesis is in some way testable, it has no place in science.   #  my problem with all the hypotheses of external consciousness is that, in the end, they all exactly mimic the data we would expect to see for internal consciousness.   #  my problem with all the hypotheses of external consciousness is that, in the end, they all exactly mimic the data we would expect to see for internal consciousness.  direct changes to the brain have influences on the consciousness.  damaging the brain damages the consciousness.  there is no testable hypothesis given for trying to isolate the consciousness or observe the link to the external source.  i pose to you that the entire universe in contained within a giant ever expanding teapot.  my teapotiverse looks exactly like the universe as we understand it, and there is no way to observe the teapot, directly or indirectly.  would you lend any credence to the teapotiverse, or dismiss it as being an unecessary and unprovable addition to our understanding of our universe ?  #  i understand what you are getting at, but occam is razor is a guideline, not a hard rule.   #  i understand what you are getting at, but occam is razor is a guideline, not a hard rule.  0 years ago, the theory of relativity as an explanation for gravity would have been incomprehensible and required a spectacular number of assumptions, and i am sure there would have been a much simpler explanation that occam is razor would have preferred at the time.  and yet relativity seems to be the truth of the matter.  i am not suggesting that we throw occam is razor out the window, but i am suggesting that,  well that would require more assumptions than this other explanation  is not a reason to completely dismiss something as a possibility.  the problem with awareness is that it can not be measured.  perception can be measured, sure.  brain activity can be measured.  but none of that even begins to answer the question  why do i know that i exist ?  .  personally, i think that it is entirely possible that awareness lies outside the realm of science, that is to say that it is something that can not be quantified or measured, and so it is something that is incapable of being rationalized through the scientific method.  and so i think that the conclusion that awareness, while existing, can not be discussed scientifically is a perfectly logical conclusion to come to.
neuroscientists have studied the brain extensively and not found anything resembling a  center of consciousness  in the brain which actually causes our consciousness.  this begs the question: external source of consciousness or internal source of consciousness ? we could just as easily be a host for consciousness which has an external source, as we could be just a random accidental chemical self awareness.  just because fiddling with the brain fiddles with perception does not mean that our consciousness is sourced in the brain for the same reason that breaking your speakers does not mean the livestream you are watching went silent.  so we really have no scientific reason to believe that we will just go to sleep and never wake up, but it philosophically makes sense in a universe with so many cyclical systems that we are just reborn.  you do not have to believe in rebirth but there is no scientific basis for either external or internal consciousness and no scientific basis for the belief that death is just a black abyss.   #  neuroscientists have studied the brain extensively and not found anything resembling a  center of consciousness  in the brain which actually causes our consciousness.   #  why does such a place need to exist ?  # why does such a place need to exist ? why ca not consciousness be each individual part of the brain working together ? look at it like a computer.  where in the computer does the desktop come from ? the desktop is not created in a specific chip on the motherboard, its an accumulation of the cpu, ram, hard drive, and video card working together.   #  a scientific theory is never proven, but if it cannot be disproven after trying many things, it becomes more and more accepted.   #  you misunderstand what science is.  science is the process of coming up with falsifiable, predictive theories, then trying our best to see if we can prove them wrong.  a scientific theory is never proven, but if it cannot be disproven after trying many things, it becomes more and more accepted.  your theory cannot be scientifically disproven, because it is not a scientific theory; it cannot be tested, and makes no predictions that are meaningful.  science does not say the theory is therefore false, it says it is non scientific.  you can believe whatever you want, but do not say science cannot be used to disprove the theory, instead say that you are uninterested in the type of theory science is willing to discuss.   #  each hypothesis must be able to be tested on its own.   #  because you assume that there are only two options when we do not know that for sure.  it is entirely possible that the truth is a scenario that we have failed to consider, or possibly are not even able to comprehend.  so, when we test one hypothesis, evidence not supporting it does not necessarily support a different hypothesis.  each hypothesis must be able to be tested on its own.  if evidence supporting two seemingly contradictory hypothesizes emerge and this has happened with other hypothesizes in the past then that is evidence that the truth is more complex than we previously assumed.  but, if we only test one hypothesis, we do not actually learn much about the greater array of possibilities.  therefore, unless a hypothesis is in some way testable, it has no place in science.   #  would you lend any credence to the teapotiverse, or dismiss it as being an unecessary and unprovable addition to our understanding of our universe ?  #  my problem with all the hypotheses of external consciousness is that, in the end, they all exactly mimic the data we would expect to see for internal consciousness.  direct changes to the brain have influences on the consciousness.  damaging the brain damages the consciousness.  there is no testable hypothesis given for trying to isolate the consciousness or observe the link to the external source.  i pose to you that the entire universe in contained within a giant ever expanding teapot.  my teapotiverse looks exactly like the universe as we understand it, and there is no way to observe the teapot, directly or indirectly.  would you lend any credence to the teapotiverse, or dismiss it as being an unecessary and unprovable addition to our understanding of our universe ?  #  and yet relativity seems to be the truth of the matter.   #  i understand what you are getting at, but occam is razor is a guideline, not a hard rule.  0 years ago, the theory of relativity as an explanation for gravity would have been incomprehensible and required a spectacular number of assumptions, and i am sure there would have been a much simpler explanation that occam is razor would have preferred at the time.  and yet relativity seems to be the truth of the matter.  i am not suggesting that we throw occam is razor out the window, but i am suggesting that,  well that would require more assumptions than this other explanation  is not a reason to completely dismiss something as a possibility.  the problem with awareness is that it can not be measured.  perception can be measured, sure.  brain activity can be measured.  but none of that even begins to answer the question  why do i know that i exist ?  .  personally, i think that it is entirely possible that awareness lies outside the realm of science, that is to say that it is something that can not be quantified or measured, and so it is something that is incapable of being rationalized through the scientific method.  and so i think that the conclusion that awareness, while existing, can not be discussed scientifically is a perfectly logical conclusion to come to.
the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders dsm is one of the most important resources for diagnosing mental disorders, and is utilised around the world by psychiatrists and psychologists alike.  dsm 0 defines  delusional disorder  as a psychiatric illness, which is characterised by at least 0 month of delusions but no other psychotic symptoms.  there are a number of other criteria though i am unsure if i can reproduce them here verbatim.  in general, the other criteria include mostly unimpaired functioning, no obviously bizarre behaviour, no major manic or depressive episodes, no substance abuse, and no other identified mental disorder.  the evidence for the efficacy of vaccinations is overwhelming and the benefits far outweigh the potential risks.  thus, a person who holds an anti vaccination belief is delusional, and may be diagnosed as having delusional disorder.  because their anti vaccination stance presents a risk to themselves via contracting disease or others either via spreading disease, or preventing their children from being vaccinated , then this is grounds for involuntary admission and treatment in a psychiatric facility.  cmv ! 0.  delusional disorder: URL 0.  criteria for involuntary admission vic, australia URL note that criteria for involuntary admission scheduling varies between states and countries but generally includes risk of harm to self, or to others.  a.  the presence of one or more delusions with a duration of 0 month or longer.  b.  criterion a for schizophrenia has never been met hallucinations, if present, are not prominent and are related to the delusional theme .  c.  apart from the impact of the delusion s or its ramifications, functioning is not markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously bizarre or odd.  d.  if manic or major depressive episodes have occurred, these have been brief relative to the duration of the delusional periods.  e.  the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition and is not better explained by another mental disorder, such as bdd or ocd.  as found here URL  #  the evidence for the efficacy of vaccinations is overwhelming and the benefits far outweigh the potential risks.   #  by the same reasoning, we should involuntarily commit to mental hospitals drivers who do not use their seatbelts or require other passengers to do so.   #  wow.  your view relies heavily on a  there is only one truth  perspective.  it would be nice indeed if there was only one truth about all kinds of things.  the fact is humans are fallible, even in large groups.  a mere disagreement with the majority does not make someone delusional.  by the same reasoning, we should involuntarily commit to mental hospitals drivers who do not use their seatbelts or require other passengers to do so.  that is what happens when you judge rationality on a  there is only one truth  perspective.  in fact, rationality involves each person making their own choices on risks and benefits.  would i ever be a professional race car driver ? not a chance in the world, and neither would most people.  that does not mean professional race car drivers are all delusional.   #  a person may not be well informed regarding the evidence for vaccinations, and as such, there would be no delusion.   #  i think a good way to respond to this is to first present the definition of a delusion from the apa is dsm: delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.  my personal view is irrelevant in this context.  the cmv statement is that there is an overwhelming amount of  evidence  regarding the efficacy of vaccinations and their ability to reduce risk and severity of disease.  a person may not be well informed regarding the evidence for vaccinations, and as such, there would be no delusion.  another person, however, that has considered the  evidence  and maintains a  fixed belief   despite conflicting evidence  may have a delusion.  it is not my evidence.  it is the evidence of thousands of research papers, meta analyses, systematic reviews, and years of research.   #  the real cause for the increase in autism spectrum diagnoses is that in the last 0 years, the  threshold  for when a child was considered autistic has been drastically lowered.   # this is  imperative  to understanding what is going on here.  autism spectrum disorders just happen to manifest around the same time that most toddlers get their vaccine rounds.  there has been at least one study URL that has compared the number of vaccinations given to a child in their first 0 years, and considered frequency of vaccinations, and found nothing.  to writ:   when we compared those roughly 0 children with asd and the roughly 0 children who did not have asd, we found their antigen exposure, however measured, were the same,  said destefano.  there was no association between antigenic exposure and the development of autism.   the real cause for the increase in autism spectrum diagnoses is that in the last 0 years, the  threshold  for when a child was considered autistic has been drastically lowered.  what we used to call a kid who was  quiet  or  strange  we now understand as autism.  regardless of the degree, these all start to show signs around this time.   #  and at the point that they refuse all evidence to the contrary of that claim, it becomes a delusion.   #  except that it is delusional.  it is not meant as a derogatory term, it is just that they are not seeing a clear picture of the world.  you have no recourse but to trust me when i say that my heart goes out to parents of children with autism, but when there are overwhelming heaps of evidence against any sort of assertion that autism is caused by vaccines.  it is willful ignorance at best.  and at the point that they refuse all evidence to the contrary of that claim, it becomes a delusion.  it just does, by definition.  as a point of reference: i am not a medical professional or a scientist.  i have a degree in animation, i work in tech support, and i describe myself as an amateur/intermediate hacker.  i do a lot of reading, though, and a lot of thinking.  i took a minute to weigh in on these things at first, but the number of studies done which followed the standards of rigor and peer review, coupled with the flaky adherence to rigor and the conflict of interests in papers published for the opposing side.  it was clear to me that there is just not a significant correlation between the boolean  vaccinated y/n ?   and the boolean  autism y/n ?    #  i am part of the medical industry and i can tell you, i am not out to get you.   #  actually, you made the debate about vaccination and mental illness by stating   the baby is never the same again, the baby is left brain damaged and the devastated parents are told that it was  just a coincidence  and  nothing to do with the vaccination  as i said before, i am really glad you are here and i would genuinely like to hear your perspective.  i have provided you with an accepted definition of delusional disorder and provided the criteria used for diagnosis.  so far you have contributed an anecdotal story with a vague ending of  baby is left brain damaged  and the age old perception that some agenda is being pushed and the pharmaceutical and medical industries are to get you.  i am part of the medical industry and i can tell you, i am not out to get you.  i want to help you, but you are not obliged to accept that help.  this is about understanding why some people hold anti vaccination views and how that can be managed, given it has been proven time and time again that vaccines reduce contraction and spread of serious disease.
the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders dsm is one of the most important resources for diagnosing mental disorders, and is utilised around the world by psychiatrists and psychologists alike.  dsm 0 defines  delusional disorder  as a psychiatric illness, which is characterised by at least 0 month of delusions but no other psychotic symptoms.  there are a number of other criteria though i am unsure if i can reproduce them here verbatim.  in general, the other criteria include mostly unimpaired functioning, no obviously bizarre behaviour, no major manic or depressive episodes, no substance abuse, and no other identified mental disorder.  the evidence for the efficacy of vaccinations is overwhelming and the benefits far outweigh the potential risks.  thus, a person who holds an anti vaccination belief is delusional, and may be diagnosed as having delusional disorder.  because their anti vaccination stance presents a risk to themselves via contracting disease or others either via spreading disease, or preventing their children from being vaccinated , then this is grounds for involuntary admission and treatment in a psychiatric facility.  cmv ! 0.  delusional disorder: URL 0.  criteria for involuntary admission vic, australia URL note that criteria for involuntary admission scheduling varies between states and countries but generally includes risk of harm to self, or to others.  a.  the presence of one or more delusions with a duration of 0 month or longer.  b.  criterion a for schizophrenia has never been met hallucinations, if present, are not prominent and are related to the delusional theme .  c.  apart from the impact of the delusion s or its ramifications, functioning is not markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously bizarre or odd.  d.  if manic or major depressive episodes have occurred, these have been brief relative to the duration of the delusional periods.  e.  the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition and is not better explained by another mental disorder, such as bdd or ocd.  as found here URL  #  note that criteria for involuntary admission scheduling varies between states and countries but generally includes risk of harm to self, or to others.   #  the harm has to be direct, not simply the possibility of harm by neglecting one is health.   # the harm has to be direct, not simply the possibility of harm by neglecting one is health.  to use anti vaccination as a reason for involuntary commitment would set a dangerous precedent possibly leading to doctors being able to commit anyone who rejected a medical procedure.  thus, a person who holds an anti vaccination belief is delusional, and may be diagnosed as having delusional disorder.  because their anti vaccination stance presents a risk to themselves via contracting disease or others either via spreading disease, or preventing their children from being vaccinated , then this is grounds for involuntary admission and treatment in a psychiatric facility.  evidence existing does not equal evidence being readily available to the person or the individual being able to understand the evidence.  being stupid and/or ignorant is not the same thing as being delusional.   #  i think a good way to respond to this is to first present the definition of a delusion from the apa is dsm: delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.   #  i think a good way to respond to this is to first present the definition of a delusion from the apa is dsm: delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.  my personal view is irrelevant in this context.  the cmv statement is that there is an overwhelming amount of  evidence  regarding the efficacy of vaccinations and their ability to reduce risk and severity of disease.  a person may not be well informed regarding the evidence for vaccinations, and as such, there would be no delusion.  another person, however, that has considered the  evidence  and maintains a  fixed belief   despite conflicting evidence  may have a delusion.  it is not my evidence.  it is the evidence of thousands of research papers, meta analyses, systematic reviews, and years of research.   #  there has been at least one study URL that has compared the number of vaccinations given to a child in their first 0 years, and considered frequency of vaccinations, and found nothing.   # this is  imperative  to understanding what is going on here.  autism spectrum disorders just happen to manifest around the same time that most toddlers get their vaccine rounds.  there has been at least one study URL that has compared the number of vaccinations given to a child in their first 0 years, and considered frequency of vaccinations, and found nothing.  to writ:   when we compared those roughly 0 children with asd and the roughly 0 children who did not have asd, we found their antigen exposure, however measured, were the same,  said destefano.  there was no association between antigenic exposure and the development of autism.   the real cause for the increase in autism spectrum diagnoses is that in the last 0 years, the  threshold  for when a child was considered autistic has been drastically lowered.  what we used to call a kid who was  quiet  or  strange  we now understand as autism.  regardless of the degree, these all start to show signs around this time.   #  i have a degree in animation, i work in tech support, and i describe myself as an amateur/intermediate hacker.   #  except that it is delusional.  it is not meant as a derogatory term, it is just that they are not seeing a clear picture of the world.  you have no recourse but to trust me when i say that my heart goes out to parents of children with autism, but when there are overwhelming heaps of evidence against any sort of assertion that autism is caused by vaccines.  it is willful ignorance at best.  and at the point that they refuse all evidence to the contrary of that claim, it becomes a delusion.  it just does, by definition.  as a point of reference: i am not a medical professional or a scientist.  i have a degree in animation, i work in tech support, and i describe myself as an amateur/intermediate hacker.  i do a lot of reading, though, and a lot of thinking.  i took a minute to weigh in on these things at first, but the number of studies done which followed the standards of rigor and peer review, coupled with the flaky adherence to rigor and the conflict of interests in papers published for the opposing side.  it was clear to me that there is just not a significant correlation between the boolean  vaccinated y/n ?   and the boolean  autism y/n ?    #  so far you have contributed an anecdotal story with a vague ending of  baby is left brain damaged  and the age old perception that some agenda is being pushed and the pharmaceutical and medical industries are to get you.   #  actually, you made the debate about vaccination and mental illness by stating   the baby is never the same again, the baby is left brain damaged and the devastated parents are told that it was  just a coincidence  and  nothing to do with the vaccination  as i said before, i am really glad you are here and i would genuinely like to hear your perspective.  i have provided you with an accepted definition of delusional disorder and provided the criteria used for diagnosis.  so far you have contributed an anecdotal story with a vague ending of  baby is left brain damaged  and the age old perception that some agenda is being pushed and the pharmaceutical and medical industries are to get you.  i am part of the medical industry and i can tell you, i am not out to get you.  i want to help you, but you are not obliged to accept that help.  this is about understanding why some people hold anti vaccination views and how that can be managed, given it has been proven time and time again that vaccines reduce contraction and spread of serious disease.
the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders dsm is one of the most important resources for diagnosing mental disorders, and is utilised around the world by psychiatrists and psychologists alike.  dsm 0 defines  delusional disorder  as a psychiatric illness, which is characterised by at least 0 month of delusions but no other psychotic symptoms.  there are a number of other criteria though i am unsure if i can reproduce them here verbatim.  in general, the other criteria include mostly unimpaired functioning, no obviously bizarre behaviour, no major manic or depressive episodes, no substance abuse, and no other identified mental disorder.  the evidence for the efficacy of vaccinations is overwhelming and the benefits far outweigh the potential risks.  thus, a person who holds an anti vaccination belief is delusional, and may be diagnosed as having delusional disorder.  because their anti vaccination stance presents a risk to themselves via contracting disease or others either via spreading disease, or preventing their children from being vaccinated , then this is grounds for involuntary admission and treatment in a psychiatric facility.  cmv ! 0.  delusional disorder: URL 0.  criteria for involuntary admission vic, australia URL note that criteria for involuntary admission scheduling varies between states and countries but generally includes risk of harm to self, or to others.  a.  the presence of one or more delusions with a duration of 0 month or longer.  b.  criterion a for schizophrenia has never been met hallucinations, if present, are not prominent and are related to the delusional theme .  c.  apart from the impact of the delusion s or its ramifications, functioning is not markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously bizarre or odd.  d.  if manic or major depressive episodes have occurred, these have been brief relative to the duration of the delusional periods.  e.  the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition and is not better explained by another mental disorder, such as bdd or ocd.  as found here URL  #  the evidence for the efficacy of vaccinations is overwhelming and the benefits far outweigh the potential risks.   #  thus, a person who holds an anti vaccination belief is delusional, and may be diagnosed as having delusional disorder.   # the harm has to be direct, not simply the possibility of harm by neglecting one is health.  to use anti vaccination as a reason for involuntary commitment would set a dangerous precedent possibly leading to doctors being able to commit anyone who rejected a medical procedure.  thus, a person who holds an anti vaccination belief is delusional, and may be diagnosed as having delusional disorder.  because their anti vaccination stance presents a risk to themselves via contracting disease or others either via spreading disease, or preventing their children from being vaccinated , then this is grounds for involuntary admission and treatment in a psychiatric facility.  evidence existing does not equal evidence being readily available to the person or the individual being able to understand the evidence.  being stupid and/or ignorant is not the same thing as being delusional.   #  my personal view is irrelevant in this context.   #  i think a good way to respond to this is to first present the definition of a delusion from the apa is dsm: delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.  my personal view is irrelevant in this context.  the cmv statement is that there is an overwhelming amount of  evidence  regarding the efficacy of vaccinations and their ability to reduce risk and severity of disease.  a person may not be well informed regarding the evidence for vaccinations, and as such, there would be no delusion.  another person, however, that has considered the  evidence  and maintains a  fixed belief   despite conflicting evidence  may have a delusion.  it is not my evidence.  it is the evidence of thousands of research papers, meta analyses, systematic reviews, and years of research.   #  this is  imperative  to understanding what is going on here.   # this is  imperative  to understanding what is going on here.  autism spectrum disorders just happen to manifest around the same time that most toddlers get their vaccine rounds.  there has been at least one study URL that has compared the number of vaccinations given to a child in their first 0 years, and considered frequency of vaccinations, and found nothing.  to writ:   when we compared those roughly 0 children with asd and the roughly 0 children who did not have asd, we found their antigen exposure, however measured, were the same,  said destefano.  there was no association between antigenic exposure and the development of autism.   the real cause for the increase in autism spectrum diagnoses is that in the last 0 years, the  threshold  for when a child was considered autistic has been drastically lowered.  what we used to call a kid who was  quiet  or  strange  we now understand as autism.  regardless of the degree, these all start to show signs around this time.   #  i have a degree in animation, i work in tech support, and i describe myself as an amateur/intermediate hacker.   #  except that it is delusional.  it is not meant as a derogatory term, it is just that they are not seeing a clear picture of the world.  you have no recourse but to trust me when i say that my heart goes out to parents of children with autism, but when there are overwhelming heaps of evidence against any sort of assertion that autism is caused by vaccines.  it is willful ignorance at best.  and at the point that they refuse all evidence to the contrary of that claim, it becomes a delusion.  it just does, by definition.  as a point of reference: i am not a medical professional or a scientist.  i have a degree in animation, i work in tech support, and i describe myself as an amateur/intermediate hacker.  i do a lot of reading, though, and a lot of thinking.  i took a minute to weigh in on these things at first, but the number of studies done which followed the standards of rigor and peer review, coupled with the flaky adherence to rigor and the conflict of interests in papers published for the opposing side.  it was clear to me that there is just not a significant correlation between the boolean  vaccinated y/n ?   and the boolean  autism y/n ?    #  i am part of the medical industry and i can tell you, i am not out to get you.   #  actually, you made the debate about vaccination and mental illness by stating   the baby is never the same again, the baby is left brain damaged and the devastated parents are told that it was  just a coincidence  and  nothing to do with the vaccination  as i said before, i am really glad you are here and i would genuinely like to hear your perspective.  i have provided you with an accepted definition of delusional disorder and provided the criteria used for diagnosis.  so far you have contributed an anecdotal story with a vague ending of  baby is left brain damaged  and the age old perception that some agenda is being pushed and the pharmaceutical and medical industries are to get you.  i am part of the medical industry and i can tell you, i am not out to get you.  i want to help you, but you are not obliged to accept that help.  this is about understanding why some people hold anti vaccination views and how that can be managed, given it has been proven time and time again that vaccines reduce contraction and spread of serious disease.
this is an issue that i have been concerned about for a long time.  essentially by providing a surface cover of cats and click bait, reddit allows extreme, racist and other damaging content to thrive.  i guess linked to this is that i feel that reddit suffers from a political/social disengagement that is diminishing society.  this is manifest in simplifying issues, clear heroes and villains, racism, sexism and other objectionable qualities.  this would be mitigated, i would hope by general reddit users investigating deeper levels of comments and downvoting appropriately.  except that this is often not what happens.  most reddit users skim comments at best and do not bother to read low enough or read down voted threads.  this is why we find comments such as this one: very racist URL receiving gold and votes but towards the bottom relatively speaking of a front page post.  cmv that reddit, whilst appearing as open minded and progressive, is actually quite disturbingly racist and regressive.   #  most reddit users skim comments at best and do not bother to read low enough or read down voted threads.   #  see, i read this and go  ah, only the trolls and the extremists go through  eleven thousand  comments to find this racist gem.   #  first off, reddit is not a homogenous community with a common ideology.  see, i read this and go  ah, only the trolls and the extremists go through  eleven thousand  comments to find this racist gem.  the rest of us do not make it down that far to downvote it.   essentially it is the self selected survey issue.  people who care most fervently are most likely to go out of their way to respond.  i would not have expected to see that comment not downvoted to fuck all, so i would be lucky to make it past the first 0 or so replies.  then again, i am not subbed videos to begin with.  you look at that and assume that because people are not running all the way down the page, they are tacitly approving of the racism that they do not know is there.  further, you are damning everyone who did not click into the comments to begin with for something they could not have been aware of.   #  should we assume all canadians are whining and annoying twats just because justin bieber exists ?  #  it takes one idiot to post a racist comment.  it only takes one idiot with money burn to give a comment gold.  this does not mean the aggregate feels the same.  how many racist and regressive comments does it take to taint the entire site ? one ? two ? a thousand ? 0 ? 0 ? i am wondering where you draw the line, and what your justification for it is.  over generalization is a dangerous thing.  should we assume all canadians are whining and annoying twats just because justin bieber exists ? do we assume all russians are corrupt homophobic cockbags just because putin is putin ? and so on.   #  that is rather like dismissing the entire internet community as being a bunch of racists and sexists because of the existence of communities that allow or cater to that sort of behavior.   #  the thing about reddit is that i can ignore those subs.  the ones i frequent do not have the problem.  when someone does say something racist, or sexist, or bigoted they end up getting smacked down by the big dick of downvotes, and the mods tend to run in with their own peenersmackers for the coup d etat.  exception might be this sub, because it attracts a lot of controversy, but the mods still seem to jump on the offensive stuff quickly.  as i said earlier, reddit is not a homogeneous community.  op is trying to paint all of reddit because of the really popular subs attract shitty people and trolls.  that is rather like dismissing the entire internet community as being a bunch of racists and sexists because of the existence of communities that allow or cater to that sort of behavior.  0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? where is the limit ? the limit for me is pretty near zero, which is why i adjusted my subs to fit my interests, and left some that were toxic communities.   #  i think you are having a problem due to the fallacy of composition.   #  i think you are having a problem due to the fallacy of composition.  reddit is a collection of users.  some are progressive, some not.  generally we would think that if a subset of the population contains more of a specific attribute than average, it is that.  reddit has a much higher percentage of progressives than the general population, and a higher percentage of libertarians.  it has a lower percentage of older people and conservatives.  so we call it progressive and libertarian, and not old or conservative.  this does not imply that no older people and no conservatives are members.   #  second, considering one of the supposedly segregated schools might be ahead of the other, so arbitrarily mixing the schools would result in all kinds of chaos.   #  that would just be an impractical to the point of ruining school systems.  firstly, any small town that has no black people probably wo not have more than one school district or school.  second, considering one of the supposedly segregated schools might be ahead of the other, so arbitrarily mixing the schools would result in all kinds of chaos.  finally, it is just very impractical to have everyone drive twice as far every day to go to schools to get rid of  segregation .  also, i would not consider a school segregated just because it is in a district of predominantly black/white people.  any one could move in and out of the school district.
i think at some point of time, all of us have thought about our mortality.  some more than others and while some are barely affected and accept death as natural and inevitable, i get the feeling that i am one of the few that simply cannot accept this.  it is too much for me.  death is scary.  the thought of my consciousness fading into a deep, never ending sleep just terrifies me.  i find myself unable to sleep at night as constantly remind myself of my death.  to quote arya stark one of my favourite moments of game of thrones  nothing is not better or worse than anything; nothing is just nothing.   i recently read about cryogenic freezing and interestingly enough, a fellow redditor once sought funds on reddit to freeze her brain in hopes that future technology could revive her consciousness.  here is the reddit link URL i find myself questioning why are not there more people trying cryogenic freezing ? is it because they do not know of it ? i think i would do anything to graspe even a tiny hope of a resurrection.  so what are your thoughts ? if you do not agree, why ? change my view.   #  the thought of my consciousness fading into a deep, never ending sleep just terrifies me.   #  this happens to you  every day  when you fall asleep.   # this happens to you  every day  when you fall asleep.  for an even more authentic experience, think general anaesthesia.  you fall asleep, you wake up, and you have just skipped all the hours in between.  if death is like that, then it is not scary.  it is relaxing, and then it is nothing, a lot like sleep.  you will fancy the idea more if you suffer for a year or so to the point, and way beyond the point, where you just want it to stop.  that is what changed my mind about wanting immortality.  even if it means nonexistence, i became completely comfortable with death.  then again, my experience also caused me to look into afterlife questions, and find this URL and this URL what i expected was some vague, wishy washy new age crap, but what is actually there is a rather concise analysis of reports about the spirit world obtained from people in a deep state of hypnosis.  newton is findings have since been confirmed by other hypnotists, producing consistent reports from people who had never heard of newton is work, from varying religious and cultural backgrounds.  if the spirit world is an illusion, then at the very least, this work suggests that everyone shares the same consistent illusion, and a substantially different one than what most religions teach.   #  maybe they will figure out a safe way to do it before you die, but i am not sure how likely it is to happen.   #  i do not think we are actually capable of successfully cryogenicly freezing a person.  by that i mean we can freeze a person, but we destroy their cells in the process at least that is what penn and teller bullshit said, if i remember correctly .  so there would be no way to successfully bring you back to life in the future.  maybe they will figure out a safe way to do it before you die, but i am not sure how likely it is to happen.  maybe you should look at things like this: death is unavoidable.  being happy is not.  you have a limited amount of time on this earth and instead of stressing about dying one day you should just not think about it and live the best life you can.   #  further, you would likely have very few resources from all those years of being frozen and the complicated medical processes involved in restoring you.   #  why would we bother bringing you back ? who is going to pay the bills to keep you frozen ? how long do you expect your cells to last in the frozen state it wo not be forever, they still take small amounts of damage and ca not heal ? you are betting on this technology being realized within a fairly short time.  resource scarcity will not have been resolved by this point, but any meaningful skills you possessed would likely be obsolete.  further, you would likely have very few resources from all those years of being frozen and the complicated medical processes involved in restoring you.  welcome to the future, where you get to sleep in a plastic shipping box under a transport tube, collecting used fusion rods to recycle in order to buy food.   #  if we ca not get post scarcity in that time frame, humanity is dead anyways.   # this only makes sense if you are already assuming that the cells wo not last more than a  fairly short time .  with plant seeds surviving being preserved for 0,0 years in no special conditions, i think we can manage to keep human cells in good condition in specially designed containers and with specially designed antifreeze for 0 0 years.  if we ca not get post scarcity in that time frame, humanity is dead anyways.  either you have some kind of nanotechnology which can repair human brain tissue, and therefore with minor modification any organic molecular machine, or you can scan human brains and store them in computers, where they can be run and analysed.  it is post scarcity, so why not honour the contract ? alcor is price includes a fund which should be enough to pay the bills from interest.  it really is not that expensive to keep a well insulated fridge cold.   #  prices can change drastically, and not always for the better.   # the argument that revival will not be an issue is based on optimistic and  specific  predictions of future technological advance and continued stability in the region.  this is an incredibly significant gamble.  if we ca not get post scarcity in that time frame, humanity is dead anyways.  post scarcity is a socio economic dream we have been chasing for a long time utopia cast in a capitalist form.  we have made a couple of small steps in that direction over the past 0 years, but no where near enough to reliably expect resolution within the next few centuries.  additionally, sources of significant resistance to this direction are driving the current social and economic paradigms.  we may reach post scarcity, but it is a long ways off and we will see at least one major collapse on the way necessary to remove resistant sources .  i am working under the assumption that either the social environment will be destabilized fast route, unreliable or cryonics will time out in terms of data fidelity very slow route before we arrive at such a state.  it really is not that expensive to keep a well insulated fridge cold.  prices can change drastically, and not always for the better.  also, over the years the freezer system and insulation need to be replaced.  high availability of these things is currently possible, but in a resource shortage where the freezer is not abandoned, you will likely still see accidental partial thaws and the dramatic damage entailed.
i think at some point of time, all of us have thought about our mortality.  some more than others and while some are barely affected and accept death as natural and inevitable, i get the feeling that i am one of the few that simply cannot accept this.  it is too much for me.  death is scary.  the thought of my consciousness fading into a deep, never ending sleep just terrifies me.  i find myself unable to sleep at night as constantly remind myself of my death.  to quote arya stark one of my favourite moments of game of thrones  nothing is not better or worse than anything; nothing is just nothing.   i recently read about cryogenic freezing and interestingly enough, a fellow redditor once sought funds on reddit to freeze her brain in hopes that future technology could revive her consciousness.  here is the reddit link URL i find myself questioning why are not there more people trying cryogenic freezing ? is it because they do not know of it ? i think i would do anything to graspe even a tiny hope of a resurrection.  so what are your thoughts ? if you do not agree, why ? change my view.   #  the thought of my consciousness fading into a deep, never ending sleep just terrifies me.   #  you have no reason to believe this is what happens after death.   # you have no reason to believe this is what happens after death.  there is no proof of this.  it is not  the most likely explanation  we simply do not know.  it is like being afraid of the dark because you are scared there is monsters.  i cant turn on the light all i can tell you is there is no reason to be afraid and no reason to assume there is monsters.   #  i do not think we are actually capable of successfully cryogenicly freezing a person.   #  i do not think we are actually capable of successfully cryogenicly freezing a person.  by that i mean we can freeze a person, but we destroy their cells in the process at least that is what penn and teller bullshit said, if i remember correctly .  so there would be no way to successfully bring you back to life in the future.  maybe they will figure out a safe way to do it before you die, but i am not sure how likely it is to happen.  maybe you should look at things like this: death is unavoidable.  being happy is not.  you have a limited amount of time on this earth and instead of stressing about dying one day you should just not think about it and live the best life you can.   #  welcome to the future, where you get to sleep in a plastic shipping box under a transport tube, collecting used fusion rods to recycle in order to buy food.   #  why would we bother bringing you back ? who is going to pay the bills to keep you frozen ? how long do you expect your cells to last in the frozen state it wo not be forever, they still take small amounts of damage and ca not heal ? you are betting on this technology being realized within a fairly short time.  resource scarcity will not have been resolved by this point, but any meaningful skills you possessed would likely be obsolete.  further, you would likely have very few resources from all those years of being frozen and the complicated medical processes involved in restoring you.  welcome to the future, where you get to sleep in a plastic shipping box under a transport tube, collecting used fusion rods to recycle in order to buy food.   #  it is post scarcity, so why not honour the contract ?  # this only makes sense if you are already assuming that the cells wo not last more than a  fairly short time .  with plant seeds surviving being preserved for 0,0 years in no special conditions, i think we can manage to keep human cells in good condition in specially designed containers and with specially designed antifreeze for 0 0 years.  if we ca not get post scarcity in that time frame, humanity is dead anyways.  either you have some kind of nanotechnology which can repair human brain tissue, and therefore with minor modification any organic molecular machine, or you can scan human brains and store them in computers, where they can be run and analysed.  it is post scarcity, so why not honour the contract ? alcor is price includes a fund which should be enough to pay the bills from interest.  it really is not that expensive to keep a well insulated fridge cold.   #  i am working under the assumption that either the social environment will be destabilized fast route, unreliable or cryonics will time out in terms of data fidelity very slow route before we arrive at such a state.   # the argument that revival will not be an issue is based on optimistic and  specific  predictions of future technological advance and continued stability in the region.  this is an incredibly significant gamble.  if we ca not get post scarcity in that time frame, humanity is dead anyways.  post scarcity is a socio economic dream we have been chasing for a long time utopia cast in a capitalist form.  we have made a couple of small steps in that direction over the past 0 years, but no where near enough to reliably expect resolution within the next few centuries.  additionally, sources of significant resistance to this direction are driving the current social and economic paradigms.  we may reach post scarcity, but it is a long ways off and we will see at least one major collapse on the way necessary to remove resistant sources .  i am working under the assumption that either the social environment will be destabilized fast route, unreliable or cryonics will time out in terms of data fidelity very slow route before we arrive at such a state.  it really is not that expensive to keep a well insulated fridge cold.  prices can change drastically, and not always for the better.  also, over the years the freezer system and insulation need to be replaced.  high availability of these things is currently possible, but in a resource shortage where the freezer is not abandoned, you will likely still see accidental partial thaws and the dramatic damage entailed.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.   #  not every high school student knows for sure.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.   #  i am saying this as someone who was never challenged in high school and eventually had a rude awakening in the real world when i had to actually work hard at things.   #  school is not really about the topics that you learn.  i retained like 0 of what i learned in college and i just left 0 months ago.  the point is more about how to tackle challenges.  how do you organize your time ? what study methods work the best ? it is about analyzing a situation and coming up with the best approach.  i would say pretty much everyone has something that they are shitty at.  it is figuring out how to work with what you have.  i am saying this as someone who was never challenged in high school and eventually had a rude awakening in the real world when i had to actually work hard at things.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.   #  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.   #  not every high school student knows for sure.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  it is figuring out how to work with what you have.   #  school is not really about the topics that you learn.  i retained like 0 of what i learned in college and i just left 0 months ago.  the point is more about how to tackle challenges.  how do you organize your time ? what study methods work the best ? it is about analyzing a situation and coming up with the best approach.  i would say pretty much everyone has something that they are shitty at.  it is figuring out how to work with what you have.  i am saying this as someone who was never challenged in high school and eventually had a rude awakening in the real world when i had to actually work hard at things.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.   #  my strengths lie in literature and english.   # my strengths lie in literature and english.  i am going to be a scientist, which means my required writing expertise is in producing bland academic papers.  i am not going to be a novelist, journalist, or anything of the sort.  would you agree that i should not have to take classes in english and literature ? god forbid a difficult subject took you down a notch.  school is not there to make you feel smart.  it is not there to validate notions of your own intelligence.  many people struggle with different topics, the point is to overcome them.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  if you enjoy learning, that is great, but the purpose of school is not to have fun, and your enjoyment of school is irrelevant.  school is also not there to teach you things you already understand or could easily understand, it is to push the limits of your mind.  struggle is a part of school that most people have to deal with.   #  until they took the class and became interested.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.   #  god forbid a difficult subject took you down a notch.   # my strengths lie in literature and english.  i am going to be a scientist, which means my required writing expertise is in producing bland academic papers.  i am not going to be a novelist, journalist, or anything of the sort.  would you agree that i should not have to take classes in english and literature ? god forbid a difficult subject took you down a notch.  school is not there to make you feel smart.  it is not there to validate notions of your own intelligence.  many people struggle with different topics, the point is to overcome them.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  if you enjoy learning, that is great, but the purpose of school is not to have fun, and your enjoyment of school is irrelevant.  school is also not there to teach you things you already understand or could easily understand, it is to push the limits of your mind.  struggle is a part of school that most people have to deal with.   #  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.   #  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.   # my strengths lie in literature and english.  i am going to be a scientist, which means my required writing expertise is in producing bland academic papers.  i am not going to be a novelist, journalist, or anything of the sort.  would you agree that i should not have to take classes in english and literature ? god forbid a difficult subject took you down a notch.  school is not there to make you feel smart.  it is not there to validate notions of your own intelligence.  many people struggle with different topics, the point is to overcome them.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  if you enjoy learning, that is great, but the purpose of school is not to have fun, and your enjoyment of school is irrelevant.  school is also not there to teach you things you already understand or could easily understand, it is to push the limits of your mind.  struggle is a part of school that most people have to deal with.   #  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.   #  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  can you think of a time where you may be going at a high speed and might need to understand momentum ? this is how you estimate braking distance while driving.  you might need chemistry to know that some things are flammable, and some things are not.  if you have a propane tank, chemistry tells you not to let it get too hot or ignite.  there are also household substances which should not be combined.  chemistry is absolutely useful in everyday life.  it sucks that you did not do well in chemistry.  however, there is overwhelming benefit to exposing children to information.  many students struggle with math, but you ca not function in life without math.   #  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.   #  it sucks that you did not do well in chemistry.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  can you think of a time where you may be going at a high speed and might need to understand momentum ? this is how you estimate braking distance while driving.  you might need chemistry to know that some things are flammable, and some things are not.  if you have a propane tank, chemistry tells you not to let it get too hot or ignite.  there are also household substances which should not be combined.  chemistry is absolutely useful in everyday life.  it sucks that you did not do well in chemistry.  however, there is overwhelming benefit to exposing children to information.  many students struggle with math, but you ca not function in life without math.   #  until they took the class and became interested.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  are the building blocks for all educational courses.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.   #  sorry, skip, but school is not supposed to be fun.   #  i felt the same.  it was not until i was 0 that i started to gain an interest in astronomy.  and in order to do any of that beyond backyard observing as in professionally you need a good solid understanding of physics, which i did not have, because i thought the classes were not for me way back when.  you never know what you will want later in life.  schools are designed to give younger people a wide variety of knowledge so that down the road they have more options available to them.  sorry, skip, but school is not supposed to be fun.   #  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.   #  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.   # i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  but you have given one example of one lesson in chemistry.  what about others ? chemistry is not limited to that particular teaching, it need not be taught in a chemistry class at all.  what if your teacher was teaching you things not to mix ? what if your teacher was getting you to understand how some things could be dangerous when combined ?  #  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.   #  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.   # i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  but you have given one example of one lesson in chemistry.  what about others ? chemistry is not limited to that particular teaching, it need not be taught in a chemistry class at all.  what if your teacher was teaching you things not to mix ? what if your teacher was getting you to understand how some things could be dangerous when combined ?  #  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.   #  they wo not, but school in general especially college and high school is not about teaching you how to solve  a  problem, but how to solve many problems by relating them to things you already know.   # they wo not, but school in general especially college and high school is not about teaching you how to solve  a  problem, but how to solve many problems by relating them to things you already know.  in life you will be required to convert units, i do not think examples are needed.  there is a formula to convert from x : z, and you can relate that problem to this one you know how to solve.  it is about building all these reference points you can use to tackle other issues.  the harder the reference problems, the easier real life problems become.  i do not mean this to sound rude at all, but at 0 you likely do not actually know what your strengths are yet.  you likely have not been exposed enough, or pushed hard enough, few people are.  in my experience very few people went to college saying i am going to get xxx degree, and then graduated with it.  the pride you feel when you accomplish something difficult, is much more valuable.  this is a very dangerous mindset for society.  important discoveries are rarely made by people who think just like everyone else.  when you go to work at a company, you want someone who fits the culture, but you want someone with a different skill set that complements the existing team.  it is likely you experienced a bad teacher.  other students succeeded due to their learning styles matching the instructer, but it just did not work for you and likely many others .  if possible, please approach physics with an open mind.  it may seem very similar now, but physics and chemistry are quite different.  a lot of people said they hate math, but love physics, as physics is a more direct application of math.  maybe it will work for you, maybe not, but avoid getting trapped into only being interested in what you were good at, otherwise when you are 0 you wo not be good at anything you were not good at when you were 0.   #  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ?  # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  my strengths lie in literature and english.   #  i do not mean this to sound rude at all, but at 0 you likely do not actually know what your strengths are yet.   # they wo not, but school in general especially college and high school is not about teaching you how to solve  a  problem, but how to solve many problems by relating them to things you already know.  in life you will be required to convert units, i do not think examples are needed.  there is a formula to convert from x : z, and you can relate that problem to this one you know how to solve.  it is about building all these reference points you can use to tackle other issues.  the harder the reference problems, the easier real life problems become.  i do not mean this to sound rude at all, but at 0 you likely do not actually know what your strengths are yet.  you likely have not been exposed enough, or pushed hard enough, few people are.  in my experience very few people went to college saying i am going to get xxx degree, and then graduated with it.  the pride you feel when you accomplish something difficult, is much more valuable.  this is a very dangerous mindset for society.  important discoveries are rarely made by people who think just like everyone else.  when you go to work at a company, you want someone who fits the culture, but you want someone with a different skill set that complements the existing team.  it is likely you experienced a bad teacher.  other students succeeded due to their learning styles matching the instructer, but it just did not work for you and likely many others .  if possible, please approach physics with an open mind.  it may seem very similar now, but physics and chemistry are quite different.  a lot of people said they hate math, but love physics, as physics is a more direct application of math.  maybe it will work for you, maybe not, but avoid getting trapped into only being interested in what you were good at, otherwise when you are 0 you wo not be good at anything you were not good at when you were 0.   #  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ?  # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.   #  this is a very dangerous mindset for society.   # they wo not, but school in general especially college and high school is not about teaching you how to solve  a  problem, but how to solve many problems by relating them to things you already know.  in life you will be required to convert units, i do not think examples are needed.  there is a formula to convert from x : z, and you can relate that problem to this one you know how to solve.  it is about building all these reference points you can use to tackle other issues.  the harder the reference problems, the easier real life problems become.  i do not mean this to sound rude at all, but at 0 you likely do not actually know what your strengths are yet.  you likely have not been exposed enough, or pushed hard enough, few people are.  in my experience very few people went to college saying i am going to get xxx degree, and then graduated with it.  the pride you feel when you accomplish something difficult, is much more valuable.  this is a very dangerous mindset for society.  important discoveries are rarely made by people who think just like everyone else.  when you go to work at a company, you want someone who fits the culture, but you want someone with a different skill set that complements the existing team.  it is likely you experienced a bad teacher.  other students succeeded due to their learning styles matching the instructer, but it just did not work for you and likely many others .  if possible, please approach physics with an open mind.  it may seem very similar now, but physics and chemistry are quite different.  a lot of people said they hate math, but love physics, as physics is a more direct application of math.  maybe it will work for you, maybe not, but avoid getting trapped into only being interested in what you were good at, otherwise when you are 0 you wo not be good at anything you were not good at when you were 0.   #  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ?  # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.   #  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  this is how i often felt in high school english classes.  i thought for sure i would go into the sciences and therefore would never need anything i learned in english class.  should we then not make english mandatory as well ? the only way to learn new things is to be exposed to things you do not understand.  how can you every understand it if you never participate in it and how can you know you will never have an interest in it if you never attempt to understand it ?  #  you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.   #  the only way to learn new things is to be exposed to things you do not understand.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  this is how i often felt in high school english classes.  i thought for sure i would go into the sciences and therefore would never need anything i learned in english class.  should we then not make english mandatory as well ? the only way to learn new things is to be exposed to things you do not understand.  how can you every understand it if you never participate in it and how can you know you will never have an interest in it if you never attempt to understand it ?  #  not every high school student knows for sure.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
i will just start off with this: i may be biased because i am sixteen.  hear me out, though.  i took my first year of chemistry last year and it was the most stressful class i have ever taken.  i did not understand a thing and, no matter how many times it was explained to me, i was still clueless.  i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to convert moles of oxygen into grams.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  my strengths lie in literature and english.  i also believe that making students participate in things they do not understand, nor have no interest in ever understanding, is harmful to the self esteem of students, for this was the first year of my life i have ever truly questioned my intelligence.  i remember my teacher is disappointment as he handed back my tests, and feeling as if i had not only failed him, but the school and myself.  chemistry has stressed me out to the point where just looking at the assignment made me have an anxiety attack, and if what the older classes are saying is true, i ca not even imagine what physics will do to damage me next year.  i believe that the only students who should have to take chemistry and physics are the ones who are interested in it and will most likely excel in it.  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.  change my view and, if possible, help me understand chemistry and physics.   #  school is no longer fun for me, and i believe i would enjoy it much more if i participated in subjects i could understand.   #  everyone, at some point, has to take some class that sucks ass for them and will be very difficult for them.   #  honors chemistry freshman year of high school was probably my hardest high school class, and i have zero desire to be a chemist.  the point of these classes is not to give you practical knowledge.  it is to exercise your brain and develop it further.  it is for force you to think differently than your normally do unless of course, you already do think like a chemist or physicist .  that being said, chemistry is pretty much everywhere in life, so having some knowledge of it does have some practical benefits.  for example, suppose you are moving into a new neighborhood.  one thing that you might want to know is the water quality in the region.  in order to understand this, some knowledge of chemistry will come in handy.  knowing some basic chemistry will also help you make more informed decisions about your diet and health.  even if no practical knowledge could be provided from chemistry, it still has educational value due to the problem solving nature of the course.  life will throw problems at you, and it is better to be equipped with a more well rounded skill set of thinking and reasoning in order to deal with life is problems.  everyone, at some point, has to take some class that sucks ass for them and will be very difficult for them.  that is just life.  the point of school is not for your enjoyment.  it is to give you a well rounded education.  it is very rare that anyone goes through school having an easy time understanding every subject they are presented with and when it does happen, either the school is way too easy or the student has a very high aptitude of intelligence.  some classes are going to take much more work to master than others, and that is going to be different for different types of students.   #  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.   # not every high school student knows for sure.  there are plenty of kids who did not know they had an interest in chemistry, or physics, etc.  until they took the class and became interested.  the point of requiring these classes is to expose kids to new things.  high school is free, so why not try these subjects out ? you will never get a chance to learn chemistry for free in your life.  there are plenty of kids out there who feel that they have no need for the skills you learn in high school english, and would much rather take more science classes in a field that they want to go into.  just because you, personally, do not like chemistry does not mean that it should just be done away with as a required class.   #  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  i am just a bit older than op but i can feel where he is coming from.  i knew that for 0 certain, that i would never become anything to do with chemistry.  i am highly artistic and have an eye for graphic design, i was taking tafe classes in graphic design, my whole school life was mostly arts classes to further graphic design.  why they think every kid who is like myself career path already set out has to do chemistry is stupid and a bad way of teaching.  however, for people who do not know what they want to do with their life and are not actively looking, classes like chemistry not physics since physics is a very major class and requires a lot of maths knowledge, chemistry is a lot easier to understand at a base level, i found so at least.  should be taught for teens to experiment with career choices.  also, classes like english and math need to be mandatory, i support that.  everyone needs to know basic and have learned advanced math and english.  event if they forget parts of it, it is a great to know for basic life.   #  are the building blocks for all educational courses.   #  you are correct that you will probably never have to convert moles to grams or anything of the sort, barring some sort of trivia question.  the same could be said about an engineer and history or linguistics though.  chemistry, math, physics, literature, etc.  are the building blocks for all educational courses.  from your high school, you can go into any field with it.  and since the school is not designed for you, but for all students, all students take all the courses.  plus, what most people think they want to do at 0 does not end up happening.  you may enter your college career and decide that you actually do not like literature studies for your career.  maybe you find you enjoy teaching where you could end up teaching math and science .  or you could go into business and end up at a tech company.  knowing basic chemistry and physics could very easily help you in your future, even if you do not intend for it to.  and trust me, the chemistry and physics you are learning are basic.  they are the equivalent of reading  to kill a mockingbird  or  romeo and juliet .  learning about reactions like the creation of rust or various mathematical equations to study statistics are helpful to everyone.   #  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.   # i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a chemist, nor do i plan on becoming a mathematician.  geography: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask how an ox bow lake is forme.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a geologist, nor do i plan on becoming a meteoroligist a language: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to demonstrate use of german inverted sentence structures.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a translator, nor do i plan on travelling to germany.  music: i cannot think of a single moment in my life where someone will ask me to identify the tempo of a piece of music.  i cannot think of a time when any of this will become useful to me.  i do not plan on being a musician, nor do i plan on becoming a music critic.  the same can be said of most subjects but these subjects are made mandatory in order to give students a wide range of areas where they can gain a basic understanding of a topic and find out whether it is something that interests them enough that they might like to continue their education in that subject and maybe even pursue a career in that field or that it does not interest them, like chemistry in your case.
throughout the debate with the washington redskins i keep hearing the argument that a teamed named the washington redskins is the equivalent of having a team named the detroit n s.  this to me is illogical: first off when has anyone every heard the word redskin outside of talking about the professional football team ? has anyone used the word redskin out of hate ? i am not sure as to whether or not it is a racist term but i am going to assume it is.  however, redskin is not similar at all to using the n word just simply on how the word is used in context.  cmv  #  first off when has anyone every heard the word redskin outside of talking about the professional football team ?  #  has anyone used the word redskin out of hate ?  # has anyone used the word redskin out of hate ? this book URL has some good examples of historical usage, and yes, in many of these examples it is used out of hate.   his mother was a half breed creek, with all the propensities of the redskins to fire water and  itching palms.    so they are drunk and thieving.   an  you two dirty, cutthroat, redskin thieves, you can get out of town as fast as ye know how, or i will have ye jugged.   it is an interesting read.   #  how can you consider the name braves to be offensive ?  #  how can you consider the name braves to be offensive ? it is a celebration of a warrior class as originated in that region.  no one is upset by the idea of vikings, or knights, that is the equivalent to the name braves.  or what about the name chiefs ? the haudenosaunee nation iroquois nation uses the chief as their mascot, why is it not ok for people to celebrate the history of their nation and their regions, even if they are not of that heritage.  are you offended when non irish persons celebrate st.  patricks day ?  #  if they went around in fat suits and mcdonalds bags it would become offensive.   # i am not offended by any team name.  however, i can see how others may find it offensive.  it is not just the name, but everything that goes along with it.  this includes merchandising and behavior of the fans.  if a group called themselves the  americans , i would not be offended.  if they went around in fat suits and mcdonalds bags it would become offensive.  patricks day ? what does this have to do with anything ? the problem is not solved if all the redskins players were native american.  i am slightly offended by the  stupid man  trope that is popular in sitcoms, even if the actor is actually a man.  i am not offended enough to do anything about it, but i still do not appreciate men being portrayed as stupid.   #  what do you gain by ignoring the wishes of another person ?  # i think we are better off when we try to not be offensive.  political correctness in general is not what i support, but the name does not serve a unique purpose that a less offensive name cannot.  they consider black offensive.  way to gaslight.  i see the same thing with mental handicaps.  retarded is a descriptive term, and only got a bad connotation after people used it as an insult.  then we moved on to  mentally challenged  which also turned into an insult.  whatever name we use will eventually be used as an insult.  nobody wants to be insulted, so we should not use terms that insult them.  i am fine with addressing someone however they want to be addressed.  if they feel a certain term has a negative connotation or is insulting, why not be a nice guy and stop using it ? what do you gain by ignoring the wishes of another person ?  #  that is because it is a caricature of the idea of an american.   # that is because it is a caricature of the idea of an american.  braves, on the other hand, were warriors.  this is why the indians, and their chief wahoo  are  considered offensive, because they are caricatures of a race.  braves are no more a caricature than vikings, or anything else.  as for the materialism, that is just how american society is, it is not logical to be offended by something that is not limited towards how it is directed at one group.  yes it is, because it clearly exemplifies the fact that the people who you are claiming should be offended, are not.  it is like the idea of an all black team being called the negros or something similar.  you would never see an all black team call themselves that, so if it is not ok in their culture, it is not ok in any other culture either.  differently, if you see many native groups calling themselves the chiefs, or the braves, it must thereby be assumed that these groups do  not  find these terms to be offensive in any way.
the first time i heard the term  reverse racism,  i was extremely confused. is not racism racism, no matter who is perpetrating it ? but the truth is, no, in general discrimination when done by the  majority  is a major offense, while discrimination when done by the  minority  is not looked at twice.  this is true even in cases where the  majority  group i. e.  white people, straight people, etc.  is the statistical minority.  could we have a  white entertainment network  ?  whitepeoplemeet. com  ?  ivory  magazine ? no, of course not.  these things would be called out as racist before they ever made their way to the general public the same goes for sexuality. would society look kindly on an organization that promotes the needs and viewpoints of the heterosexual community ? of course not.  but the lgbt community ? well yeah, that is perfectly fine.  i think that no matter which group you belong to, if you discriminate against or isolate yourself from other groups, it is equally wrong and should not be considered any different if you are part of a  minority  group.   #  i think that no matter which group you belong to, if you discriminate against or isolate yourself from other groups, it is equally wrong and should not be considered any different if you are part of a  minority  group.   #  if you think that is what is going on, it is my opinion that you have a vastly misguided understanding of what is actually being done.   #  whitepeoplemeet. com  ?  ivory  magazine ? bet and ebony, among others, were created to tap into a subset of the population that was not well represented by the extant media.   ivory magazine  would just be another cosmo.  wen ? most tv networks already focus disproportionately on a white audience, and when they do have nonwhite characters they tend to be fairly whitewashed.  same goes for lgbt  characters on tv or in movies.  when is the last time you say a gay character or a transgendered character who was not either an overdone stereotype or a running joke ? similarly, there is not a widespread hiring bias against men.  the overwhelming majority of rape victims are not men.  there is not a strong movement in politics to deny straight people the right to marry, adopt, or receive the same basic services as everyone else.  white people are not being arrested for the same crimes at a disproportionately high rate, sentenced at a disproportionately high rate.  yes, there are some instances of discriminatory practices, but proportionally it is rather like a multimillionaire complaining about his taxes being too high.  right, okay, meanwhile everyone the people who could live for ten years on your annual income are dealing with real problems.  put another way, nobody is crusading to make straight white males a minority, we are trying to make everyone else an equal part of a society that already disproportionately caters to one subset of the population.  if you think that is what is going on, it is my opinion that you have a vastly misguided understanding of what is actually being done.   #  because all the other networks that are not explicitly targeted at minorities are already discriminatory.   # i do not follow.  please explain in further detail how announcing that you target your content at black americans is discriminating.  let is go back to what i actually typed.  wen ? most tv networks already focus disproportionately on a white audience, and when they do have nonwhite characters they tend to be fairly whitewashed.  so why do i think a white entertainment tv would be discriminatory ? because all the other networks that are not explicitly targeted at minorities are already discriminatory.  twofold.  first off, the  white rights  and  straight rights  movements are always, always, always linked to hate groups.  i mean i will put my nickel down on it every time.  secondly, as i mentioned above, there is not really any white rights or straight rights causes to fight for.  inevitably, the things they do want to fight against are laws passed to protect minorities from discrimination, or grant minorities rights that have been previously denied.  in media, there is not a need for media catering specifically to the dominant subcultures, because the majority of media already does.  same goes for the legal system.   #  however, that does not mean they are equal levels of harm, and with limited resources we should prioritize stopping andre over stopping the other person.   #  firstly, majority/minority is not really the best way to look at it.  women are not a minority, white south africans only make up about 0 of the population of sa, etc.  it is more about political and social power.  actions done by those with power can cause far more damage than actions done by those without.  for an eli0 type analogy, andre the giant can punch people in the face and it is assault.  a weaker person can punch people in the face and it is assault.  however, that does not mean they are equal levels of harm, and with limited resources we should prioritize stopping andre over stopping the other person.  yes, racism is bad, but it is a matter of degree and prioritization.   #  their purpose is not to exclude other people, it is to be a place where black people can meet/be entertained.   #  i do not think you realize why  black entertainment networks  and blackpeoplemeet. com exist.  their purpose is not to exclude other people, it is to be a place where black people can meet/be entertained.  there does not need to be a  whitepeoplemeet. com  because every single other dating site is basically that.  the purpose of black history month is to promote all of the successes and failures of african americans, which often get overshadowed by the history of white people.  black history gets one month out of the year, the 0 other months are basically white history month.  same is true of minority sexualities.  tell me, what specific needs to heterosexual people have that do not apply to lgbt people ? they do not have a unique and specific viewpoint that needs expressing, their viewpoint is the default in all of society.  you know, because they form 0 of the country.  homosexuals, on the other hand, are an extremely tiny % of the population that has a lot of unique needs and concerns, as well as a lot of hatred and bigoty directed at them.  in other words, they have valid reasons to form organizations that are only concerned with lgbt people.  straight people do not have that.   #  later on they do compare averages of responses by race, but they never use white users as a baseline.   #  the  should be  reply rate is based on compatibility percentage, which correlates with the likelihood of reply, as shown in the included chart.  URL it just so happens that they are equal for white users.  later on they do compare averages of responses by race, but they never use white users as a baseline.  the square charts showing preference through color  do  compare response rates of black users to other black users, as well as every other race combination.  black users generally to not show a preference to other black users.  black women are responded to less than other women by every race including their own.  this does not make a lot of sense.  why should a site, explicitly set up to cater a group that other sites do not, be all inclusive ?
view changed.  please read edit.   first and foremost i want to define  felon  as someone who has actually committed a felony.  i do not want this conversation to become about the failings of the justice system.  for the purposes of this cmv, i just want to be clear that we are debating whether or not people who have been removed from society for committing heinous crimes should be granted the right to vote.  my argument is really quite simple.  we have removed these people from society specifically because they have committed crimes that are highly destructive of society in general.  i hope we can generally all agree that people who destroy lives and threaten society should not be allowed to live among those of us who obey the law and contribute positively to society.  if these men and women are so dangerous that they must be kept separate from the rest of society, then how does it follow that they should still be allowed to contribute in one of the most important functions of society voting ? to keep it simple, i am not going to cite an in depth analysis of the occurrence of mental illness in inmates.  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.   also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   it seems outrageous to me that people who have no regard for the rights of others should be allowed direct involvement in a practice that affects laws and policy.  if we can agree that laws are based on commonly accepted standards of morality and that morality is based on empathy, then people who have proven their lack of empathy through their own criminality should  almost by definition  not be given the right to vote.   #  if these men and women are so dangerous that they must be kept separate from the rest of society, then how does it follow that they should still be allowed to contribute in one of the most important functions of society voting ?  #  because they are people who are affected by policy changes.   # because they are people who are affected by policy changes.  by not allowing them to have an impact, you create a class of citizens that have  no one advocating for them at all .  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.  also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   mentally ill people still have the right to vote.  or are you saying they should not ? this part of your post was interesting to me, because it looks like you have no regard for the rights of felons.  the right to vote should not be a privilege, because all you gain by disenfranchising a population is a lack of representation  of  that population.  it is not making society any better to keep these people from voting.  so should people have to prove they are capable of empathy before being allowed to vote ? why only focus on the people we catch ?  #  are you going to pretend that a lifetime ban is somehow appropriate, but that society itself can tolerate them in the general population ?  #  removing people is right to vote is a perilous act, because every disenfranchisement destroys the legitimacy of a representative government.  and you are assuming that there is a correlation between being convicted of a felony and lacking empathy.  but there are people who commit crimes, including those classified as felonies, out of ignorance, despair, and even gullibility.  what about them ? and what about the mentally disturbed who are so clever that they do not get caught, that they even get into office ? if you are so concerned about this lack of empathy, why not screen for them ? as it happens, i recall a story about a group of scientists who created a device that would let them do something like that to the mass population, the politicians who learned of it were almost gleeful about the opportunity.  they could finally find all those who resisted their rule.  and what are you going to do when they are released ? are you going to pretend that a lifetime ban is somehow appropriate, but that society itself can tolerate them in the general population ? or are you going to keep even more people confined for life ?  #  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.   # plenty of people advocate for the rights of prisoners.  the aclu is one example.  or are you saying they should not ? my reference to mentally ill people was specifically in regards to criminals with aspd and psychopathy.  i did not say, nor do i believe, that  all  mentally ill people should be barred from voting.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  mostly just for ease of argument.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.   #  very few individuals are in charge of the actual law making.   # the aclu is one example.  that is true, but they cannot advocate for themselves, likewise no politician stands to gain voters by being on the side of prisoners.  quite the opposite, in fact.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  so you have no regard for one of their rights then.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.  we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.  very few individuals are in charge of the actual law making.  these prisoners would not be writing legislation, they would be electing representatives that have a vested interested in, well,  representing  them.   #  this was a copy/paste from one of my other posts; sorry for the redundancy if you already read it earlier.   #  i changed my view and added an edit to the op.  thanks for the feedback; i still want to take the time to respond.  my revised position is that criminals who test positive for aspd or psychopathy should be barred from voting.  honestly, i am contemplating revising my position again to include all members of society, and further, to restrict psychopaths from entering public office.  it might sound drastic, but realistically it would not be that difficult.  maybe there is a better way, but when a society does nothing to protect itself from psychopaths, you end up with years of meaningless, unproductive war, the prison and military industrial complexes, police brutality, government spying, corporate bailouts, and essentially a ruling class that gives no shits except for themselves.  this was a copy/paste from one of my other posts; sorry for the redundancy if you already read it earlier.  it sounds to me that you are a pretty empathetic guy.  i understand where you are coming from, and the desire to allow everyone the right to participate in the system.  however, when you are empathetic towards someone who has no empathy,  to the point where you are unable to guard yourself against them  you only open yourself up for exploitation and abuse.
view changed.  please read edit.   first and foremost i want to define  felon  as someone who has actually committed a felony.  i do not want this conversation to become about the failings of the justice system.  for the purposes of this cmv, i just want to be clear that we are debating whether or not people who have been removed from society for committing heinous crimes should be granted the right to vote.  my argument is really quite simple.  we have removed these people from society specifically because they have committed crimes that are highly destructive of society in general.  i hope we can generally all agree that people who destroy lives and threaten society should not be allowed to live among those of us who obey the law and contribute positively to society.  if these men and women are so dangerous that they must be kept separate from the rest of society, then how does it follow that they should still be allowed to contribute in one of the most important functions of society voting ? to keep it simple, i am not going to cite an in depth analysis of the occurrence of mental illness in inmates.  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.   also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   it seems outrageous to me that people who have no regard for the rights of others should be allowed direct involvement in a practice that affects laws and policy.  if we can agree that laws are based on commonly accepted standards of morality and that morality is based on empathy, then people who have proven their lack of empathy through their own criminality should  almost by definition  not be given the right to vote.   #  to keep it simple, i am not going to cite an in depth analysis of the occurrence of mental illness in inmates.   #  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.   # because they are people who are affected by policy changes.  by not allowing them to have an impact, you create a class of citizens that have  no one advocating for them at all .  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.  also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   mentally ill people still have the right to vote.  or are you saying they should not ? this part of your post was interesting to me, because it looks like you have no regard for the rights of felons.  the right to vote should not be a privilege, because all you gain by disenfranchising a population is a lack of representation  of  that population.  it is not making society any better to keep these people from voting.  so should people have to prove they are capable of empathy before being allowed to vote ? why only focus on the people we catch ?  #  if you are so concerned about this lack of empathy, why not screen for them ?  #  removing people is right to vote is a perilous act, because every disenfranchisement destroys the legitimacy of a representative government.  and you are assuming that there is a correlation between being convicted of a felony and lacking empathy.  but there are people who commit crimes, including those classified as felonies, out of ignorance, despair, and even gullibility.  what about them ? and what about the mentally disturbed who are so clever that they do not get caught, that they even get into office ? if you are so concerned about this lack of empathy, why not screen for them ? as it happens, i recall a story about a group of scientists who created a device that would let them do something like that to the mass population, the politicians who learned of it were almost gleeful about the opportunity.  they could finally find all those who resisted their rule.  and what are you going to do when they are released ? are you going to pretend that a lifetime ban is somehow appropriate, but that society itself can tolerate them in the general population ? or are you going to keep even more people confined for life ?  #  i did not say, nor do i believe, that  all  mentally ill people should be barred from voting.   # plenty of people advocate for the rights of prisoners.  the aclu is one example.  or are you saying they should not ? my reference to mentally ill people was specifically in regards to criminals with aspd and psychopathy.  i did not say, nor do i believe, that  all  mentally ill people should be barred from voting.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  mostly just for ease of argument.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.   #  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.   # the aclu is one example.  that is true, but they cannot advocate for themselves, likewise no politician stands to gain voters by being on the side of prisoners.  quite the opposite, in fact.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  so you have no regard for one of their rights then.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.  we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.  very few individuals are in charge of the actual law making.  these prisoners would not be writing legislation, they would be electing representatives that have a vested interested in, well,  representing  them.   #  this was a copy/paste from one of my other posts; sorry for the redundancy if you already read it earlier.   #  i changed my view and added an edit to the op.  thanks for the feedback; i still want to take the time to respond.  my revised position is that criminals who test positive for aspd or psychopathy should be barred from voting.  honestly, i am contemplating revising my position again to include all members of society, and further, to restrict psychopaths from entering public office.  it might sound drastic, but realistically it would not be that difficult.  maybe there is a better way, but when a society does nothing to protect itself from psychopaths, you end up with years of meaningless, unproductive war, the prison and military industrial complexes, police brutality, government spying, corporate bailouts, and essentially a ruling class that gives no shits except for themselves.  this was a copy/paste from one of my other posts; sorry for the redundancy if you already read it earlier.  it sounds to me that you are a pretty empathetic guy.  i understand where you are coming from, and the desire to allow everyone the right to participate in the system.  however, when you are empathetic towards someone who has no empathy,  to the point where you are unable to guard yourself against them  you only open yourself up for exploitation and abuse.
view changed.  please read edit.   first and foremost i want to define  felon  as someone who has actually committed a felony.  i do not want this conversation to become about the failings of the justice system.  for the purposes of this cmv, i just want to be clear that we are debating whether or not people who have been removed from society for committing heinous crimes should be granted the right to vote.  my argument is really quite simple.  we have removed these people from society specifically because they have committed crimes that are highly destructive of society in general.  i hope we can generally all agree that people who destroy lives and threaten society should not be allowed to live among those of us who obey the law and contribute positively to society.  if these men and women are so dangerous that they must be kept separate from the rest of society, then how does it follow that they should still be allowed to contribute in one of the most important functions of society voting ? to keep it simple, i am not going to cite an in depth analysis of the occurrence of mental illness in inmates.  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.   also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   it seems outrageous to me that people who have no regard for the rights of others should be allowed direct involvement in a practice that affects laws and policy.  if we can agree that laws are based on commonly accepted standards of morality and that morality is based on empathy, then people who have proven their lack of empathy through their own criminality should  almost by definition  not be given the right to vote.   #  it seems outrageous to me that people who have no regard for the rights of others should be allowed direct involvement in a practice that affects laws and policy.   #  this part of your post was interesting to me, because it looks like you have no regard for the rights of felons.   # because they are people who are affected by policy changes.  by not allowing them to have an impact, you create a class of citizens that have  no one advocating for them at all .  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.  also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   mentally ill people still have the right to vote.  or are you saying they should not ? this part of your post was interesting to me, because it looks like you have no regard for the rights of felons.  the right to vote should not be a privilege, because all you gain by disenfranchising a population is a lack of representation  of  that population.  it is not making society any better to keep these people from voting.  so should people have to prove they are capable of empathy before being allowed to vote ? why only focus on the people we catch ?  #  or are you going to keep even more people confined for life ?  #  removing people is right to vote is a perilous act, because every disenfranchisement destroys the legitimacy of a representative government.  and you are assuming that there is a correlation between being convicted of a felony and lacking empathy.  but there are people who commit crimes, including those classified as felonies, out of ignorance, despair, and even gullibility.  what about them ? and what about the mentally disturbed who are so clever that they do not get caught, that they even get into office ? if you are so concerned about this lack of empathy, why not screen for them ? as it happens, i recall a story about a group of scientists who created a device that would let them do something like that to the mass population, the politicians who learned of it were almost gleeful about the opportunity.  they could finally find all those who resisted their rule.  and what are you going to do when they are released ? are you going to pretend that a lifetime ban is somehow appropriate, but that society itself can tolerate them in the general population ? or are you going to keep even more people confined for life ?  #  i did not say, nor do i believe, that  all  mentally ill people should be barred from voting.   # plenty of people advocate for the rights of prisoners.  the aclu is one example.  or are you saying they should not ? my reference to mentally ill people was specifically in regards to criminals with aspd and psychopathy.  i did not say, nor do i believe, that  all  mentally ill people should be barred from voting.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  mostly just for ease of argument.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.   #  very few individuals are in charge of the actual law making.   # the aclu is one example.  that is true, but they cannot advocate for themselves, likewise no politician stands to gain voters by being on the side of prisoners.  quite the opposite, in fact.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  so you have no regard for one of their rights then.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.  we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.  very few individuals are in charge of the actual law making.  these prisoners would not be writing legislation, they would be electing representatives that have a vested interested in, well,  representing  them.   #  it sounds to me that you are a pretty empathetic guy.   #  i changed my view and added an edit to the op.  thanks for the feedback; i still want to take the time to respond.  my revised position is that criminals who test positive for aspd or psychopathy should be barred from voting.  honestly, i am contemplating revising my position again to include all members of society, and further, to restrict psychopaths from entering public office.  it might sound drastic, but realistically it would not be that difficult.  maybe there is a better way, but when a society does nothing to protect itself from psychopaths, you end up with years of meaningless, unproductive war, the prison and military industrial complexes, police brutality, government spying, corporate bailouts, and essentially a ruling class that gives no shits except for themselves.  this was a copy/paste from one of my other posts; sorry for the redundancy if you already read it earlier.  it sounds to me that you are a pretty empathetic guy.  i understand where you are coming from, and the desire to allow everyone the right to participate in the system.  however, when you are empathetic towards someone who has no empathy,  to the point where you are unable to guard yourself against them  you only open yourself up for exploitation and abuse.
view changed.  please read edit.   first and foremost i want to define  felon  as someone who has actually committed a felony.  i do not want this conversation to become about the failings of the justice system.  for the purposes of this cmv, i just want to be clear that we are debating whether or not people who have been removed from society for committing heinous crimes should be granted the right to vote.  my argument is really quite simple.  we have removed these people from society specifically because they have committed crimes that are highly destructive of society in general.  i hope we can generally all agree that people who destroy lives and threaten society should not be allowed to live among those of us who obey the law and contribute positively to society.  if these men and women are so dangerous that they must be kept separate from the rest of society, then how does it follow that they should still be allowed to contribute in one of the most important functions of society voting ? to keep it simple, i am not going to cite an in depth analysis of the occurrence of mental illness in inmates.  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.   also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   it seems outrageous to me that people who have no regard for the rights of others should be allowed direct involvement in a practice that affects laws and policy.  if we can agree that laws are based on commonly accepted standards of morality and that morality is based on empathy, then people who have proven their lack of empathy through their own criminality should  almost by definition  not be given the right to vote.   #  if we can agree that laws are based on commonly accepted standards of morality and that morality is based on empathy, then people who have proven their lack of empathy through their own criminality should  almost by definition  not be given the right to vote.   #  so should people have to prove they are capable of empathy before being allowed to vote ?  # because they are people who are affected by policy changes.  by not allowing them to have an impact, you create a class of citizens that have  no one advocating for them at all .  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.  also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   mentally ill people still have the right to vote.  or are you saying they should not ? this part of your post was interesting to me, because it looks like you have no regard for the rights of felons.  the right to vote should not be a privilege, because all you gain by disenfranchising a population is a lack of representation  of  that population.  it is not making society any better to keep these people from voting.  so should people have to prove they are capable of empathy before being allowed to vote ? why only focus on the people we catch ?  #  and what are you going to do when they are released ?  #  removing people is right to vote is a perilous act, because every disenfranchisement destroys the legitimacy of a representative government.  and you are assuming that there is a correlation between being convicted of a felony and lacking empathy.  but there are people who commit crimes, including those classified as felonies, out of ignorance, despair, and even gullibility.  what about them ? and what about the mentally disturbed who are so clever that they do not get caught, that they even get into office ? if you are so concerned about this lack of empathy, why not screen for them ? as it happens, i recall a story about a group of scientists who created a device that would let them do something like that to the mass population, the politicians who learned of it were almost gleeful about the opportunity.  they could finally find all those who resisted their rule.  and what are you going to do when they are released ? are you going to pretend that a lifetime ban is somehow appropriate, but that society itself can tolerate them in the general population ? or are you going to keep even more people confined for life ?  #  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ?  # plenty of people advocate for the rights of prisoners.  the aclu is one example.  or are you saying they should not ? my reference to mentally ill people was specifically in regards to criminals with aspd and psychopathy.  i did not say, nor do i believe, that  all  mentally ill people should be barred from voting.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  mostly just for ease of argument.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.   #  so you have no regard for one of their rights then.   # the aclu is one example.  that is true, but they cannot advocate for themselves, likewise no politician stands to gain voters by being on the side of prisoners.  quite the opposite, in fact.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  so you have no regard for one of their rights then.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.  we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.  very few individuals are in charge of the actual law making.  these prisoners would not be writing legislation, they would be electing representatives that have a vested interested in, well,  representing  them.   #  honestly, i am contemplating revising my position again to include all members of society, and further, to restrict psychopaths from entering public office.   #  i changed my view and added an edit to the op.  thanks for the feedback; i still want to take the time to respond.  my revised position is that criminals who test positive for aspd or psychopathy should be barred from voting.  honestly, i am contemplating revising my position again to include all members of society, and further, to restrict psychopaths from entering public office.  it might sound drastic, but realistically it would not be that difficult.  maybe there is a better way, but when a society does nothing to protect itself from psychopaths, you end up with years of meaningless, unproductive war, the prison and military industrial complexes, police brutality, government spying, corporate bailouts, and essentially a ruling class that gives no shits except for themselves.  this was a copy/paste from one of my other posts; sorry for the redundancy if you already read it earlier.  it sounds to me that you are a pretty empathetic guy.  i understand where you are coming from, and the desire to allow everyone the right to participate in the system.  however, when you are empathetic towards someone who has no empathy,  to the point where you are unable to guard yourself against them  you only open yourself up for exploitation and abuse.
view changed.  please read edit.   first and foremost i want to define  felon  as someone who has actually committed a felony.  i do not want this conversation to become about the failings of the justice system.  for the purposes of this cmv, i just want to be clear that we are debating whether or not people who have been removed from society for committing heinous crimes should be granted the right to vote.  my argument is really quite simple.  we have removed these people from society specifically because they have committed crimes that are highly destructive of society in general.  i hope we can generally all agree that people who destroy lives and threaten society should not be allowed to live among those of us who obey the law and contribute positively to society.  if these men and women are so dangerous that they must be kept separate from the rest of society, then how does it follow that they should still be allowed to contribute in one of the most important functions of society voting ? to keep it simple, i am not going to cite an in depth analysis of the occurrence of mental illness in inmates.  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.   also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   it seems outrageous to me that people who have no regard for the rights of others should be allowed direct involvement in a practice that affects laws and policy.  if we can agree that laws are based on commonly accepted standards of morality and that morality is based on empathy, then people who have proven their lack of empathy through their own criminality should  almost by definition  not be given the right to vote.   #  we have removed these people from society specifically because they have committed crimes that are highly destructive of society in general.   #  this is divorced from the  actual  definition of felony, as used in our legal systems.   # no we are not.  we are debating whether people convicted of a felony should have a right to vote.  this is divorced from the  actual  definition of felony, as used in our legal systems.  often, it means a serious crime generally.  in the us, it is a crime that could have more than a 0 year sentence.  could , not  will .  so a judge might decide that an individual is particular case  is not  very serious, and it wo not fit this criteria.  really calls into question the objectiveness of the designation.  it certainly does not reflect your own idealism.  the most common us felonies are drug offenses, arson, forgery, fraud, and property offenses.  i categorically disagree with you when it comes to drug offenses.  to a lesser extent, i find fraud and property offenses to be debatable.  however, you should really take note of what is  not  in this list.  assault, rape, murder, and those things  are not the most common  felonies.  your thinking is not targeting rapists and murderers.  inmates, not felons.  that is a selection bias.  inmates with longer sentences are more likely to be selected for the survey, if we are taking a random sample  of people currently in prison .  this is somewhat of a betrayal of your own premise, because the right to vote is only a topic for those who are already  out  of prison.  this group has the reverse bias those with lighter sentences, who served their time early, and stayed out of prison, are more heavily represented in the population of felons who are living in society.  the subset who are  trying to vote  are subject to an even greater bias, with the most repentant and productive of them turning out to the polls.  your numbers are not speaking for that group.  and we come back to drug offenders.  for felonies, these are more  likely  to be dealers, but users are also stuck with felony charges.  the law is only concerned with what quantity and material they are caught with.  it does not have to be proved beyond a doubt that they are dealing.  so your statements are awfully bold, applied to drug users and dealers, who are the main group you are talking about.  should their crimes be felonies in the first place ? maybe not.  but as long as they are, it is a label that is not useful for what you are using it for.   #  they could finally find all those who resisted their rule.   #  removing people is right to vote is a perilous act, because every disenfranchisement destroys the legitimacy of a representative government.  and you are assuming that there is a correlation between being convicted of a felony and lacking empathy.  but there are people who commit crimes, including those classified as felonies, out of ignorance, despair, and even gullibility.  what about them ? and what about the mentally disturbed who are so clever that they do not get caught, that they even get into office ? if you are so concerned about this lack of empathy, why not screen for them ? as it happens, i recall a story about a group of scientists who created a device that would let them do something like that to the mass population, the politicians who learned of it were almost gleeful about the opportunity.  they could finally find all those who resisted their rule.  and what are you going to do when they are released ? are you going to pretend that a lifetime ban is somehow appropriate, but that society itself can tolerate them in the general population ? or are you going to keep even more people confined for life ?  #  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.   # because they are people who are affected by policy changes.  by not allowing them to have an impact, you create a class of citizens that have  no one advocating for them at all .  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.  also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   mentally ill people still have the right to vote.  or are you saying they should not ? this part of your post was interesting to me, because it looks like you have no regard for the rights of felons.  the right to vote should not be a privilege, because all you gain by disenfranchising a population is a lack of representation  of  that population.  it is not making society any better to keep these people from voting.  so should people have to prove they are capable of empathy before being allowed to vote ? why only focus on the people we catch ?  #  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.   # plenty of people advocate for the rights of prisoners.  the aclu is one example.  or are you saying they should not ? my reference to mentally ill people was specifically in regards to criminals with aspd and psychopathy.  i did not say, nor do i believe, that  all  mentally ill people should be barred from voting.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  mostly just for ease of argument.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.   #  that is true, but they cannot advocate for themselves, likewise no politician stands to gain voters by being on the side of prisoners.   # the aclu is one example.  that is true, but they cannot advocate for themselves, likewise no politician stands to gain voters by being on the side of prisoners.  quite the opposite, in fact.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  so you have no regard for one of their rights then.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.  we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.  very few individuals are in charge of the actual law making.  these prisoners would not be writing legislation, they would be electing representatives that have a vested interested in, well,  representing  them.
view changed.  please read edit.   first and foremost i want to define  felon  as someone who has actually committed a felony.  i do not want this conversation to become about the failings of the justice system.  for the purposes of this cmv, i just want to be clear that we are debating whether or not people who have been removed from society for committing heinous crimes should be granted the right to vote.  my argument is really quite simple.  we have removed these people from society specifically because they have committed crimes that are highly destructive of society in general.  i hope we can generally all agree that people who destroy lives and threaten society should not be allowed to live among those of us who obey the law and contribute positively to society.  if these men and women are so dangerous that they must be kept separate from the rest of society, then how does it follow that they should still be allowed to contribute in one of the most important functions of society voting ? to keep it simple, i am not going to cite an in depth analysis of the occurrence of mental illness in inmates.  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.   also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   it seems outrageous to me that people who have no regard for the rights of others should be allowed direct involvement in a practice that affects laws and policy.  if we can agree that laws are based on commonly accepted standards of morality and that morality is based on empathy, then people who have proven their lack of empathy through their own criminality should  almost by definition  not be given the right to vote.   #  i hope we can generally all agree that people who destroy lives and threaten society should not be allowed to live among those of us who obey the law and contribute positively to society.   #  the most common us felonies are drug offenses, arson, forgery, fraud, and property offenses.   # no we are not.  we are debating whether people convicted of a felony should have a right to vote.  this is divorced from the  actual  definition of felony, as used in our legal systems.  often, it means a serious crime generally.  in the us, it is a crime that could have more than a 0 year sentence.  could , not  will .  so a judge might decide that an individual is particular case  is not  very serious, and it wo not fit this criteria.  really calls into question the objectiveness of the designation.  it certainly does not reflect your own idealism.  the most common us felonies are drug offenses, arson, forgery, fraud, and property offenses.  i categorically disagree with you when it comes to drug offenses.  to a lesser extent, i find fraud and property offenses to be debatable.  however, you should really take note of what is  not  in this list.  assault, rape, murder, and those things  are not the most common  felonies.  your thinking is not targeting rapists and murderers.  inmates, not felons.  that is a selection bias.  inmates with longer sentences are more likely to be selected for the survey, if we are taking a random sample  of people currently in prison .  this is somewhat of a betrayal of your own premise, because the right to vote is only a topic for those who are already  out  of prison.  this group has the reverse bias those with lighter sentences, who served their time early, and stayed out of prison, are more heavily represented in the population of felons who are living in society.  the subset who are  trying to vote  are subject to an even greater bias, with the most repentant and productive of them turning out to the polls.  your numbers are not speaking for that group.  and we come back to drug offenders.  for felonies, these are more  likely  to be dealers, but users are also stuck with felony charges.  the law is only concerned with what quantity and material they are caught with.  it does not have to be proved beyond a doubt that they are dealing.  so your statements are awfully bold, applied to drug users and dealers, who are the main group you are talking about.  should their crimes be felonies in the first place ? maybe not.  but as long as they are, it is a label that is not useful for what you are using it for.   #  or are you going to keep even more people confined for life ?  #  removing people is right to vote is a perilous act, because every disenfranchisement destroys the legitimacy of a representative government.  and you are assuming that there is a correlation between being convicted of a felony and lacking empathy.  but there are people who commit crimes, including those classified as felonies, out of ignorance, despair, and even gullibility.  what about them ? and what about the mentally disturbed who are so clever that they do not get caught, that they even get into office ? if you are so concerned about this lack of empathy, why not screen for them ? as it happens, i recall a story about a group of scientists who created a device that would let them do something like that to the mass population, the politicians who learned of it were almost gleeful about the opportunity.  they could finally find all those who resisted their rule.  and what are you going to do when they are released ? are you going to pretend that a lifetime ban is somehow appropriate, but that society itself can tolerate them in the general population ? or are you going to keep even more people confined for life ?  #  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.   # because they are people who are affected by policy changes.  by not allowing them to have an impact, you create a class of citizens that have  no one advocating for them at all .  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.  also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   mentally ill people still have the right to vote.  or are you saying they should not ? this part of your post was interesting to me, because it looks like you have no regard for the rights of felons.  the right to vote should not be a privilege, because all you gain by disenfranchising a population is a lack of representation  of  that population.  it is not making society any better to keep these people from voting.  so should people have to prove they are capable of empathy before being allowed to vote ? why only focus on the people we catch ?  #  my reference to mentally ill people was specifically in regards to criminals with aspd and psychopathy.   # plenty of people advocate for the rights of prisoners.  the aclu is one example.  or are you saying they should not ? my reference to mentally ill people was specifically in regards to criminals with aspd and psychopathy.  i did not say, nor do i believe, that  all  mentally ill people should be barred from voting.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  mostly just for ease of argument.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.   #  so you have no regard for one of their rights then.   # the aclu is one example.  that is true, but they cannot advocate for themselves, likewise no politician stands to gain voters by being on the side of prisoners.  quite the opposite, in fact.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  so you have no regard for one of their rights then.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.  we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.  very few individuals are in charge of the actual law making.  these prisoners would not be writing legislation, they would be electing representatives that have a vested interested in, well,  representing  them.
view changed.  please read edit.   first and foremost i want to define  felon  as someone who has actually committed a felony.  i do not want this conversation to become about the failings of the justice system.  for the purposes of this cmv, i just want to be clear that we are debating whether or not people who have been removed from society for committing heinous crimes should be granted the right to vote.  my argument is really quite simple.  we have removed these people from society specifically because they have committed crimes that are highly destructive of society in general.  i hope we can generally all agree that people who destroy lives and threaten society should not be allowed to live among those of us who obey the law and contribute positively to society.  if these men and women are so dangerous that they must be kept separate from the rest of society, then how does it follow that they should still be allowed to contribute in one of the most important functions of society voting ? to keep it simple, i am not going to cite an in depth analysis of the occurrence of mental illness in inmates.  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.   also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   it seems outrageous to me that people who have no regard for the rights of others should be allowed direct involvement in a practice that affects laws and policy.  if we can agree that laws are based on commonly accepted standards of morality and that morality is based on empathy, then people who have proven their lack of empathy through their own criminality should  almost by definition  not be given the right to vote.   #  it seems outrageous to me that people who have no regard for the rights of others should be allowed direct involvement in a practice that affects laws and policy.   #  and we come back to drug offenders.   # no we are not.  we are debating whether people convicted of a felony should have a right to vote.  this is divorced from the  actual  definition of felony, as used in our legal systems.  often, it means a serious crime generally.  in the us, it is a crime that could have more than a 0 year sentence.  could , not  will .  so a judge might decide that an individual is particular case  is not  very serious, and it wo not fit this criteria.  really calls into question the objectiveness of the designation.  it certainly does not reflect your own idealism.  the most common us felonies are drug offenses, arson, forgery, fraud, and property offenses.  i categorically disagree with you when it comes to drug offenses.  to a lesser extent, i find fraud and property offenses to be debatable.  however, you should really take note of what is  not  in this list.  assault, rape, murder, and those things  are not the most common  felonies.  your thinking is not targeting rapists and murderers.  inmates, not felons.  that is a selection bias.  inmates with longer sentences are more likely to be selected for the survey, if we are taking a random sample  of people currently in prison .  this is somewhat of a betrayal of your own premise, because the right to vote is only a topic for those who are already  out  of prison.  this group has the reverse bias those with lighter sentences, who served their time early, and stayed out of prison, are more heavily represented in the population of felons who are living in society.  the subset who are  trying to vote  are subject to an even greater bias, with the most repentant and productive of them turning out to the polls.  your numbers are not speaking for that group.  and we come back to drug offenders.  for felonies, these are more  likely  to be dealers, but users are also stuck with felony charges.  the law is only concerned with what quantity and material they are caught with.  it does not have to be proved beyond a doubt that they are dealing.  so your statements are awfully bold, applied to drug users and dealers, who are the main group you are talking about.  should their crimes be felonies in the first place ? maybe not.  but as long as they are, it is a label that is not useful for what you are using it for.   #  and what are you going to do when they are released ?  #  removing people is right to vote is a perilous act, because every disenfranchisement destroys the legitimacy of a representative government.  and you are assuming that there is a correlation between being convicted of a felony and lacking empathy.  but there are people who commit crimes, including those classified as felonies, out of ignorance, despair, and even gullibility.  what about them ? and what about the mentally disturbed who are so clever that they do not get caught, that they even get into office ? if you are so concerned about this lack of empathy, why not screen for them ? as it happens, i recall a story about a group of scientists who created a device that would let them do something like that to the mass population, the politicians who learned of it were almost gleeful about the opportunity.  they could finally find all those who resisted their rule.  and what are you going to do when they are released ? are you going to pretend that a lifetime ban is somehow appropriate, but that society itself can tolerate them in the general population ? or are you going to keep even more people confined for life ?  #  by not allowing them to have an impact, you create a class of citizens that have  no one advocating for them at all .   # because they are people who are affected by policy changes.  by not allowing them to have an impact, you create a class of citizens that have  no one advocating for them at all .  the hare psychopathy checklist rates 0 0 of criminals as having antisocial personality disorder.  this is a diagnosis that falls just below all out psychopathy  a diagnosis that 0 of prison inmates carry.  from wikipedia:  antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others.  also from wiki,  psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.   mentally ill people still have the right to vote.  or are you saying they should not ? this part of your post was interesting to me, because it looks like you have no regard for the rights of felons.  the right to vote should not be a privilege, because all you gain by disenfranchising a population is a lack of representation  of  that population.  it is not making society any better to keep these people from voting.  so should people have to prove they are capable of empathy before being allowed to vote ? why only focus on the people we catch ?  #  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.   # plenty of people advocate for the rights of prisoners.  the aclu is one example.  or are you saying they should not ? my reference to mentally ill people was specifically in regards to criminals with aspd and psychopathy.  i did not say, nor do i believe, that  all  mentally ill people should be barred from voting.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  mostly just for ease of argument.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.   #  so you have no regard for one of their rights then.   # the aclu is one example.  that is true, but they cannot advocate for themselves, likewise no politician stands to gain voters by being on the side of prisoners.  quite the opposite, in fact.  being against their right to vote does not mean i am against all of their rights.  so you have no regard for one of their rights then.  broadening the argument too far does not really facilitate constructive debate on either side.  i suppose it would be possible to test the entire population for psychopathy, and bar their right to vote based on testing positive.  would i be in favor of that ? probably.  do you really believe that an individual who lacks empathy, who has no respect or regard for the rights or well being of others, should maintain the ability to affect laws and policy ? law making requires a high degree of selflessness, the ability to put the well being of others above your own selfish desires.  we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one.  very few individuals are in charge of the actual law making.  these prisoners would not be writing legislation, they would be electing representatives that have a vested interested in, well,  representing  them.
the more i think about it, the more i think it would be a better system to only allow education people to vote say, for example, those education up until 0 in your respective countries i am in the uk so this would be education to sixth form or uk college level .  this would mean that the people voting were more likely to understand what they were actually voting on and will be making more informed choices that would help the country as a whole.  to take a current uk example, hs0 a high speed railway track from london to the north .  uninformed people will base their decision on things like  oh, i want a fast train, our trains are so slow and unreliable  despite the uk rail system actually being very efficient and reliable it is just misinformation for the most part and perception by the media that trains are bad over here which people seem to just accept without their own experience or research backing up.  whereas an educated person is more likely to look at the more advanced reasons for having or not having this track such as the economic and environmental impacts.  i researched the topic for a full year as part of my a level economics and business class and am still reluctant to say a definitive yes/no yet people who have no knowledge on the topic or people that just do not care about it in general still vote on matter that influence its development whether or not this is beneficial to the country.  not allowing uneducated people to vote would also reduce the influence of racism and other popular yet often incorrect opinions.  this is the main selling point of ukip at the moment, they feed on the high levels of racism in the uk towards immigration and the eu and all of their policies involve some sort of white british supremacy whether or not it is beneficial to the country or even if the party itself believes it to be beneficial, purely because they know that it will gain them votes from people who are more racist than they are education.  i a not trying to discredit ukip here either, i believe some of their policies are actually very good however others they are implementing purely as attention grabbing racism which serves no purpose to the country and is only there as marketing to get them votes a tactic which i would argue is less likely should the uk only allow education people to vote.  this policy would also have the advantage of encouraging people to pursue education young people will see a direct benefit of education, once they pass they immediately gain the right to vote, raising the overall education level of the country in question in the first place assuming education to 0 is not compulsory in the respective country .  sorry about the uk specific examples but these are all i know personally, this question is still a worldwide one.  can somebody explain why such a policy may be good or bad ? i understand there are some issues with it still but there are undeniably issues even with current systems no system would be perfect and i suggest that an educated only voting system would have fewer issues than a full population vote.   #  whereas an educated person is more likely to look at the more advanced reasons for having or not having this track such as the economic and environmental impacts.   #  no one does that amount of research on issues.   # no one does that amount of research on issues.  you only did the research because you were required to as part of your class.  someone in chemistry would not have been forced to do that research.  someone with a fulltime job would not do that research, even with a college level education.  but if the majority of citizens want racist/xenophobic policies, who is to say state should not enforce it ? who is the state suppose to represent, everyone or this select few ? spend £0,0 !   also, the poor would be less likely to vote.   #  necessity dictates that this happens to some extent hence under 0 is, and extremely handicapped individuals ca not vote , but your proposal moves this disenfranchises a majority of the population only 0 take a levels which i believe 0th form ?  #  let is look at this from an ethical/philosophical viewpoint, and from a practical viewpoint.  firstly, the ethical objection.  by putting a limit of any sort on political engagement, you are disenfranchising a segment of the population.  necessity dictates that this happens to some extent hence under 0 is, and extremely handicapped individuals ca not vote , but your proposal moves this disenfranchises a majority of the population only 0 take a levels which i believe 0th form ? source URL to disenfranchise such a large proportion of the population reeks of elitism/classism.  it also removes any claim/appearance to democratic government which if you look at any dictatorship, is considered important enough to spend money faking elections for .  this brings me to the first of the practical objections.  such a policy will disproportionately affect people from lower socio economic backgrounds.  in fact, 0 of the difference in results can be explained by socio economic background in the uk source URL thus, your policy is likely to further entrench power and wealth as political candidates pander to the voting populace in the hands of those who already have it.  not to mention quite likely raising crime etc, as already disenfranchised people are further marginalised.  another practical objection which you may find pertinent, is why choose 0th form ? the same logic you apply to that can also be made to limit it to those with an undergraduate degree, and then a masters, phd etc.  ultimately it ends with the single most educated person being entrusted with all decisions.  not exactly a nice democracy.  yes this is a slippery slope argument, but find the reason why you say it wont/should not be applied further, and you have a reason to argue why it should not be applied at all.  finally, what evidence do you have that more educated people are going to make more informed decisions ? there is no guarantee of such a thing.  a admittedly quick search of google and academic literature shows nothing supporting this claim.   #  maybe we make it known that certain schools could see an increase in funding if they screen in some pro fabs teachers.   #  it seems like you are trying to solve the problem of uneducated voters by removing their ability to vote, rather than providing more incentive for voters to become educated.  that seems incredibly backwards to me, on top of the potential for misuse.  let is say the fabs my personal political party are worried about the youth vote in future elections.  whoops, we just increased the cost of attaining the required education.  maybe we put in some administrators that will nudge the education our way a bit, tampering with the bias of the curriculum a bit.  maybe we make it known that certain schools could see an increase in funding if they screen in some pro fabs teachers.  thing is, education can very much determine how you vote.  right out of highschool, i would have been waving the tea party banner hard.  they are pretty close to being the american version of ukip, but a bit less overtly racist.  my teachers were very right wing, religious, and the way that teacher presented the class changed how we as a class interpreted the information.  linking voting rights to education sets a dangerous avenue for voter manipulation.   #  if not everyone can vote, it is not democracy.   #  the beautiful thing about democracy is that it is for everyone.  not just the educated, rich and smart.  if there is to be put limitations on who gets to vote, who is gonna decide those limitations ? my guess would be people already sitting on the power.  so people already sitting on the power are taking away the right to vote of those who they do not feel like should vote.  should a atheist government then get to say that religious people ca not vote ? what about people under 0 in iq ? if not everyone can vote, it is not democracy.   #  indeed, if you take the example of rich people: everyone knows that being rich whatever the definition is is better for you, brings a lot of advantages.   #  people vote for their own advantage.  limiting the voting population to any group would just make the world a better place for this group.  it can sure be argued that it would also push people to become  educated  whatever the definition would be , but it would probably not be enough.  indeed, if you take the example of rich people: everyone knows that being rich whatever the definition is is better for you, brings a lot of advantages.  however, not so many people become  rich .  btw, if you apply the same logic and wanted a wealthy country, you immediately see that only giving  rich  people the right to vote would not be an efficient way to make the country richer.  last very, very interesting point on the subject: check the googles ; about the power of collective wisdom experiments.  basically, you put 0 candies in a jar, and ask 0 people how many candies are in the jar.  none of them will probably find the right number, but the collective average you will get is pretty close to 0.  maybe i wonder the same wisdom prevails when selecting one guy or girl among a group of wanna be elected :
the more i think about it, the more i think it would be a better system to only allow education people to vote say, for example, those education up until 0 in your respective countries i am in the uk so this would be education to sixth form or uk college level .  this would mean that the people voting were more likely to understand what they were actually voting on and will be making more informed choices that would help the country as a whole.  to take a current uk example, hs0 a high speed railway track from london to the north .  uninformed people will base their decision on things like  oh, i want a fast train, our trains are so slow and unreliable  despite the uk rail system actually being very efficient and reliable it is just misinformation for the most part and perception by the media that trains are bad over here which people seem to just accept without their own experience or research backing up.  whereas an educated person is more likely to look at the more advanced reasons for having or not having this track such as the economic and environmental impacts.  i researched the topic for a full year as part of my a level economics and business class and am still reluctant to say a definitive yes/no yet people who have no knowledge on the topic or people that just do not care about it in general still vote on matter that influence its development whether or not this is beneficial to the country.  not allowing uneducated people to vote would also reduce the influence of racism and other popular yet often incorrect opinions.  this is the main selling point of ukip at the moment, they feed on the high levels of racism in the uk towards immigration and the eu and all of their policies involve some sort of white british supremacy whether or not it is beneficial to the country or even if the party itself believes it to be beneficial, purely because they know that it will gain them votes from people who are more racist than they are education.  i a not trying to discredit ukip here either, i believe some of their policies are actually very good however others they are implementing purely as attention grabbing racism which serves no purpose to the country and is only there as marketing to get them votes a tactic which i would argue is less likely should the uk only allow education people to vote.  this policy would also have the advantage of encouraging people to pursue education young people will see a direct benefit of education, once they pass they immediately gain the right to vote, raising the overall education level of the country in question in the first place assuming education to 0 is not compulsory in the respective country .  sorry about the uk specific examples but these are all i know personally, this question is still a worldwide one.  can somebody explain why such a policy may be good or bad ? i understand there are some issues with it still but there are undeniably issues even with current systems no system would be perfect and i suggest that an educated only voting system would have fewer issues than a full population vote.   #  not allowing uneducated people to vote would also reduce the influence of racism and other popular yet often incorrect opinions.   #  but if the majority of citizens want racist/xenophobic policies, who is to say state should not enforce it ?  # no one does that amount of research on issues.  you only did the research because you were required to as part of your class.  someone in chemistry would not have been forced to do that research.  someone with a fulltime job would not do that research, even with a college level education.  but if the majority of citizens want racist/xenophobic policies, who is to say state should not enforce it ? who is the state suppose to represent, everyone or this select few ? spend £0,0 !   also, the poor would be less likely to vote.   #  not to mention quite likely raising crime etc, as already disenfranchised people are further marginalised.   #  let is look at this from an ethical/philosophical viewpoint, and from a practical viewpoint.  firstly, the ethical objection.  by putting a limit of any sort on political engagement, you are disenfranchising a segment of the population.  necessity dictates that this happens to some extent hence under 0 is, and extremely handicapped individuals ca not vote , but your proposal moves this disenfranchises a majority of the population only 0 take a levels which i believe 0th form ? source URL to disenfranchise such a large proportion of the population reeks of elitism/classism.  it also removes any claim/appearance to democratic government which if you look at any dictatorship, is considered important enough to spend money faking elections for .  this brings me to the first of the practical objections.  such a policy will disproportionately affect people from lower socio economic backgrounds.  in fact, 0 of the difference in results can be explained by socio economic background in the uk source URL thus, your policy is likely to further entrench power and wealth as political candidates pander to the voting populace in the hands of those who already have it.  not to mention quite likely raising crime etc, as already disenfranchised people are further marginalised.  another practical objection which you may find pertinent, is why choose 0th form ? the same logic you apply to that can also be made to limit it to those with an undergraduate degree, and then a masters, phd etc.  ultimately it ends with the single most educated person being entrusted with all decisions.  not exactly a nice democracy.  yes this is a slippery slope argument, but find the reason why you say it wont/should not be applied further, and you have a reason to argue why it should not be applied at all.  finally, what evidence do you have that more educated people are going to make more informed decisions ? there is no guarantee of such a thing.  a admittedly quick search of google and academic literature shows nothing supporting this claim.   #  my teachers were very right wing, religious, and the way that teacher presented the class changed how we as a class interpreted the information.   #  it seems like you are trying to solve the problem of uneducated voters by removing their ability to vote, rather than providing more incentive for voters to become educated.  that seems incredibly backwards to me, on top of the potential for misuse.  let is say the fabs my personal political party are worried about the youth vote in future elections.  whoops, we just increased the cost of attaining the required education.  maybe we put in some administrators that will nudge the education our way a bit, tampering with the bias of the curriculum a bit.  maybe we make it known that certain schools could see an increase in funding if they screen in some pro fabs teachers.  thing is, education can very much determine how you vote.  right out of highschool, i would have been waving the tea party banner hard.  they are pretty close to being the american version of ukip, but a bit less overtly racist.  my teachers were very right wing, religious, and the way that teacher presented the class changed how we as a class interpreted the information.  linking voting rights to education sets a dangerous avenue for voter manipulation.   #  my guess would be people already sitting on the power.   #  the beautiful thing about democracy is that it is for everyone.  not just the educated, rich and smart.  if there is to be put limitations on who gets to vote, who is gonna decide those limitations ? my guess would be people already sitting on the power.  so people already sitting on the power are taking away the right to vote of those who they do not feel like should vote.  should a atheist government then get to say that religious people ca not vote ? what about people under 0 in iq ? if not everyone can vote, it is not democracy.   #  last very, very interesting point on the subject: check the googles ; about the power of collective wisdom experiments.  basically, you put 0 candies in a jar, and ask 0 people how many candies are in the jar.   #  people vote for their own advantage.  limiting the voting population to any group would just make the world a better place for this group.  it can sure be argued that it would also push people to become  educated  whatever the definition would be , but it would probably not be enough.  indeed, if you take the example of rich people: everyone knows that being rich whatever the definition is is better for you, brings a lot of advantages.  however, not so many people become  rich .  btw, if you apply the same logic and wanted a wealthy country, you immediately see that only giving  rich  people the right to vote would not be an efficient way to make the country richer.  last very, very interesting point on the subject: check the googles ; about the power of collective wisdom experiments.  basically, you put 0 candies in a jar, and ask 0 people how many candies are in the jar.  none of them will probably find the right number, but the collective average you will get is pretty close to 0.  maybe i wonder the same wisdom prevails when selecting one guy or girl among a group of wanna be elected :
this is partially because although i am only 0, i have complete pedophilic tendencies to people aged about 0 0.  i am not sick, and i have felt this way since i was a kid and i saw the boy in e. t.  i am also bi/gay if that makes any difference .  i am a normal person.  i get good grades, hope to go to college, live a normal life.  do not get me wrong, child abuse is terrible and i have read countless stories of people is lives destroyed because of child molesters.  those are the sick people.  but it is the people who are just pedophiles that do not act on their thoughts and never, they are normal people.   #  but it is the people who are just pedophiles that do not act on their thoughts and never, they are normal people.   #  being a pedophile brings an inherent danger of acting on your desire.   # it is normal for a 0 year old to be attracted to people in that age range.  if you were older, you would be an ephebophile.  pedophiles are attracted to children that are younger and not physically mature.  many 0 0 year old kids can appear physically mature.  being a pedophile brings an inherent danger of acting on your desire.  pedophiles do not have mutual relationships with children, they manipulate children into a relationship.  two homosexuals choose each other while pedophiles choose their victim.  there is no way for a child to properly understand and consent to a relationship with a pedophile.   #  this is not their fault and does not mean they are bad people.   #  pedophiles are unfortunately sick.  they have a sexual orientation that they can never fulfill because to fulfill it would be rape.  because of this they must remain abstinent for their entire lives.  this is not something i would wish on anyone.  i do think the way society treats pedophiles is dangerous.  instead of pretending they do not exist we should help them by allowing them to take drugs to lower their libido and make their lives easier.  but they are still sick.  they essentially have a mental illness.  this is not their fault and does not mean they are bad people.  but they are sick and need help/treatment.   #  moving forward, what are you going to do about it ?  #  so regarding your recent edit:  anyone who is my age or close to my age and up at all is completely repulsive to me sexually.  and my feelings towards young people are not normal feelings.  i am attracted to young for the same reason pedophiles are attracted to young people.  a more accurate age range would probably be 0 0.  i would still argue that you are too young to have a firm diagnosis particularly a self diagnosis of pedophila, particularly given the age range you are describing, and at your age i still think it is normal not to be attracted to people who are older than you.  but let is assume that you do have a sexual attraction to people who are of an age range that will make them, in a very short time, entirely inappropriate as objects of desire.  moving forward, what are you going to do about it ? i agree with your premise that we need to treat people who have pedophilia but who are not child rapists with understanding; i advise you to google  dan savage gold star pedophiles  and to read his columns and listen to his podcasts where he talks about people who suffer from pedophilia but who have made a conscious decision never to harm a child.  you will get information about how you can deal with such feelings and where you can turn for help.  i do not think there is anything else that anyone here can really tell you besides that.   #  i am simply saying in those cases where someone is highly internally conflicted, it could be reasonable to call it a  sickness  of some sort.   #  whenever i hear someone talking about pedophiles in a derogatory manner, i try to correct them.  the issue is not with pedophilia, but child molestation.  many pedophiles are not child molesters, and many child molesters are not pedophiles.  the two things are certainly related though in the same sense that heterosexual rape and a heterosexual orientation are related.  that said, i am not sure i agree with your conclusion that pedophiles are not sick humans.  though, i guess it depends what you mean by  sick .  for some pedophiles, their attractions may cause them no minor amount of distress.  that they are attracted to certain humans, but are unable to satisfy their desires in that way without violating their own moral codes can cause stress and unhappiness.  i think the argument can be made that when a sexual orientation causes stress not because of society is view of it, but because of the conflicting feelings it creates within oneself, that it may be appropriate to call it a mental illness.  if someone has come to terms with their orientation, and has found ways to deal with it such as viewing drawn pornography , my argument does not apply.  i am simply saying in those cases where someone is highly internally conflicted, it could be reasonable to call it a  sickness  of some sort.   #  unless you announce you are a pedophile, nobody could possibly know your internal thought processes.   # i would argue that these people are not treated any differently than normal people.  unless you announce you are a pedophile, nobody could possibly know your internal thought processes.  homosexuals are encouraged to be open about their sexuality because it enables them to form relationships.  if we both agree that pedophilia is a desire to do something bad, perhaps that is best kept a secret.  i am happy that people with murderous impulses are restraining them, but it is something that should be stopped and they should seek help.  if a pedophile wants to molest children, that is an impulse that ought to be removed.  they are sick because it is a condition that detrimentally affects their lives.
as it might be important to some, i am not catholic, i am not anti abortion.  human fetus is a stage in the life of a human being.  there is absolutely no reason to use the word potential.  same goes for embryo.  sure, it has relatively high mortality, so did newborns in the past and so do newborns in underdeveloped countries now.  we also know that newborn is not a blank slate, everything experienced in prenatal stage counts.  some interaction with the environment in embryonal and fetal stage can have life lasting consequences for the individual.  there are actual laws concerning informed consent, requiring the information that abortion is a termination of  a whole, separate, unique, living human being .  as a last point, what else, if not a human ? maybe we could find a distinction between  human organism  and  human or human being .  but that is playing with words and their meaning.  it is like saying 00 does not equal 0, because when you say 0, you actually mean 0.  some really silly arguments, hopefully we will not have to deal with those:   start a debate with saying fetus is a potentially  fully grown  human being.  loose some words, end with  potential human being .    call fetus a potential human.  back it up with arguments about personhood.    cancer is human adjective .  that means fetus is human adjective , but not a human noun .  thanks in advance for your views.   #  human fetus is a stage in the life of a human being.   #  there is absolutely no reason to use the word potential.   # there is absolutely no reason to use the word potential.  sperm is also a stage in our lives.  are sperm humans ? even a fertilized egg may not be human molar pregnancies .  human is a label we give to fully developed beings outside of the womb.  we actually do not know this.  there is evidence that lasting memories and identity do not start for form until 0 and a half years.  do you remember your early childhood ? nobody does.  maybe we could find a distinction between human organism and human or human being.  the terms are  human fetus  and  human infant .  technically, a fetus is a potential infant.  this is like a caterpillar is a potential butterfly.  we do not call them butterflies until they come out of the cocoon.   #  but if i suffer brain damage, and my personality changes, i would consider myself a different person.   #  personally, i consider myself my  mind .  if my body is changed say, for example, i lose an arm i am not suddenly a different person.  but if i suffer brain damage, and my personality changes, i would consider myself a different person.  likewise, if my body died but my mind survived somehow, i would still exist.  if my brain died, but my body was kept alive, i do not exist.  my body is my most important tool.  it is how i interact with the world.  but it is not me.  i am my thoughts.  my experiences.  my personality.  at some point in it is development, a fetus does not have thoughts, experiences, or a personality in that sense.  it begins to develop these, certainly.  it has the genetic makeup which forms the basis for a large part of these things, certainly.  but it does not have the consciousness that is what it means to be.  if nothing goes wrong in the development.  it will develop these things.  but it does not have them.  it only has the potential to develop these things.  therefore, it is, as far as i am able to determine, a potential human.   #  if you look at the cell, you will see that it is alive and undergoing  normal  cellular processes.   #  there is a nice clean scientific definition for a human being homo sapiens , and a fetus most certainly fulfills that.  to say that a fetus, even from the first minutes of fertilization to make the zygote, is not human is pretty indefensible.  if you look at the cell, you will see that it is alive and undergoing  normal  cellular processes.  it will go on to divide.  if you look at the dna of the cell, it is not the same as the mother barring parthenogenesis , and thus is a genetically different organism.  it is not genetically different than it will be as an adult.  it is alive, and genetically human.  therefore, it is not  potentially  human.  it  is  human.  op does not make any statement about whether or not abortion should be legal or if a fetus should have equal protection under the law.  op is merely pointing out the scientific reality that a fetus is in fact a human life, and not just because religion says so.  personally, i agree with op is view.  i think abortion should be legal before a certain point in development, but i think this argument that a fetus does not really count as a human being just serves to help people sleep at night.  that idea just is not consistent with reality.  i got a little off topic here, but oh well.  whether or not a fetus is a  person  as is discussed below is another more abstract matter, but i wo not steal anymore of /u/benincognito is thunder.   #  would that make that chimpanzee or that elephant a human ?  #  let me emphasize what words you used:   .  a different  person  .   personality  changes .  a different  person  .  my  personality  .   a personality  in that sense .  therefore .  a potential  human .  do we have two words human, person with the same meaning ? one of the problematic aspects of your line of thought is that some consider certain animals persons.  well, they certainly have personalities and sometimes even better mental capacity then one who was neglected as a child.  there are also numerous attempts to give them legal personhood.  would that make that chimpanzee or that elephant a human ?  #  and, furthermore, not everyone will use your same definition.   #  i do not consider animals  persons , because to me,  person  implies  human .  i do not think you can be a person without being human, and i do not think you can be human without being a person.  there may be some distinctions between the two, true, but, let me try to explain how i see it.  for the record, i consider conscious animals  beings  which is a more general term which would also encompass all  persons .  it is analogous to  animal  and  human .  human is to animal as person is to being.  meaning, humans are a subset of animals, while persons are a subset of beings.  that is just the definitions that i have found useful for organizing the world, however.  if you propose other definitions, we could work with those as well.  but we are discussing concepts here.  and what is important, as far as i can tell, is the concept that you are trying to get across.  you could certainly define  human  in such a way as to make a fetus a human, not a potential human, but the fundamental problem with that is you have not changed reality.  you have simply defined your argument to be correct.  and, furthermore, not everyone will use your same definition.  the fact of the matter is that when people say that fetuses are potential humans, the concept that they are going for is that they are not fully realized beings in the sense that they will be when they develop further.  and, when you understand the concept they are trying to get across, rather than trying to muck things up with semantics and word games, you understand that they are making a legitimate point.  and thus, the sentence  a fetus is a potential human  does then make sense, when you understand how they are using and defining the words for the concept they are trying to convey.  to put it simply, what you seem to be trying to do is argue that under your definitions, it does not make sense, and thus, it does not make sense in general.  but when people say such things, they are using definitions that differ from your own, and using those definitions, they are conveying an understandable concept.  so it makes sense.
as it might be important to some, i am not catholic, i am not anti abortion.  human fetus is a stage in the life of a human being.  there is absolutely no reason to use the word potential.  same goes for embryo.  sure, it has relatively high mortality, so did newborns in the past and so do newborns in underdeveloped countries now.  we also know that newborn is not a blank slate, everything experienced in prenatal stage counts.  some interaction with the environment in embryonal and fetal stage can have life lasting consequences for the individual.  there are actual laws concerning informed consent, requiring the information that abortion is a termination of  a whole, separate, unique, living human being .  as a last point, what else, if not a human ? maybe we could find a distinction between  human organism  and  human or human being .  but that is playing with words and their meaning.  it is like saying 00 does not equal 0, because when you say 0, you actually mean 0.  some really silly arguments, hopefully we will not have to deal with those:   start a debate with saying fetus is a potentially  fully grown  human being.  loose some words, end with  potential human being .    call fetus a potential human.  back it up with arguments about personhood.    cancer is human adjective .  that means fetus is human adjective , but not a human noun .  thanks in advance for your views.   #  as a last point, what else, if not a human ?  #  maybe we could find a distinction between human organism and human or human being.   # there is absolutely no reason to use the word potential.  sperm is also a stage in our lives.  are sperm humans ? even a fertilized egg may not be human molar pregnancies .  human is a label we give to fully developed beings outside of the womb.  we actually do not know this.  there is evidence that lasting memories and identity do not start for form until 0 and a half years.  do you remember your early childhood ? nobody does.  maybe we could find a distinction between human organism and human or human being.  the terms are  human fetus  and  human infant .  technically, a fetus is a potential infant.  this is like a caterpillar is a potential butterfly.  we do not call them butterflies until they come out of the cocoon.   #  if nothing goes wrong in the development.  it will develop these things.   #  personally, i consider myself my  mind .  if my body is changed say, for example, i lose an arm i am not suddenly a different person.  but if i suffer brain damage, and my personality changes, i would consider myself a different person.  likewise, if my body died but my mind survived somehow, i would still exist.  if my brain died, but my body was kept alive, i do not exist.  my body is my most important tool.  it is how i interact with the world.  but it is not me.  i am my thoughts.  my experiences.  my personality.  at some point in it is development, a fetus does not have thoughts, experiences, or a personality in that sense.  it begins to develop these, certainly.  it has the genetic makeup which forms the basis for a large part of these things, certainly.  but it does not have the consciousness that is what it means to be.  if nothing goes wrong in the development.  it will develop these things.  but it does not have them.  it only has the potential to develop these things.  therefore, it is, as far as i am able to determine, a potential human.   #  op does not make any statement about whether or not abortion should be legal or if a fetus should have equal protection under the law.   #  there is a nice clean scientific definition for a human being homo sapiens , and a fetus most certainly fulfills that.  to say that a fetus, even from the first minutes of fertilization to make the zygote, is not human is pretty indefensible.  if you look at the cell, you will see that it is alive and undergoing  normal  cellular processes.  it will go on to divide.  if you look at the dna of the cell, it is not the same as the mother barring parthenogenesis , and thus is a genetically different organism.  it is not genetically different than it will be as an adult.  it is alive, and genetically human.  therefore, it is not  potentially  human.  it  is  human.  op does not make any statement about whether or not abortion should be legal or if a fetus should have equal protection under the law.  op is merely pointing out the scientific reality that a fetus is in fact a human life, and not just because religion says so.  personally, i agree with op is view.  i think abortion should be legal before a certain point in development, but i think this argument that a fetus does not really count as a human being just serves to help people sleep at night.  that idea just is not consistent with reality.  i got a little off topic here, but oh well.  whether or not a fetus is a  person  as is discussed below is another more abstract matter, but i wo not steal anymore of /u/benincognito is thunder.   #  there are also numerous attempts to give them legal personhood.   #  let me emphasize what words you used:   .  a different  person  .   personality  changes .  a different  person  .  my  personality  .   a personality  in that sense .  therefore .  a potential  human .  do we have two words human, person with the same meaning ? one of the problematic aspects of your line of thought is that some consider certain animals persons.  well, they certainly have personalities and sometimes even better mental capacity then one who was neglected as a child.  there are also numerous attempts to give them legal personhood.  would that make that chimpanzee or that elephant a human ?  #  there may be some distinctions between the two, true, but, let me try to explain how i see it.   #  i do not consider animals  persons , because to me,  person  implies  human .  i do not think you can be a person without being human, and i do not think you can be human without being a person.  there may be some distinctions between the two, true, but, let me try to explain how i see it.  for the record, i consider conscious animals  beings  which is a more general term which would also encompass all  persons .  it is analogous to  animal  and  human .  human is to animal as person is to being.  meaning, humans are a subset of animals, while persons are a subset of beings.  that is just the definitions that i have found useful for organizing the world, however.  if you propose other definitions, we could work with those as well.  but we are discussing concepts here.  and what is important, as far as i can tell, is the concept that you are trying to get across.  you could certainly define  human  in such a way as to make a fetus a human, not a potential human, but the fundamental problem with that is you have not changed reality.  you have simply defined your argument to be correct.  and, furthermore, not everyone will use your same definition.  the fact of the matter is that when people say that fetuses are potential humans, the concept that they are going for is that they are not fully realized beings in the sense that they will be when they develop further.  and, when you understand the concept they are trying to get across, rather than trying to muck things up with semantics and word games, you understand that they are making a legitimate point.  and thus, the sentence  a fetus is a potential human  does then make sense, when you understand how they are using and defining the words for the concept they are trying to convey.  to put it simply, what you seem to be trying to do is argue that under your definitions, it does not make sense, and thus, it does not make sense in general.  but when people say such things, they are using definitions that differ from your own, and using those definitions, they are conveying an understandable concept.  so it makes sense.
i think it is quite literally brainwashing teenagers in schools that cannabis use is so wrong.  it frustrates me seeing these partnership and drugfree. org classifying marijuana in the same category as cocaine and heroin and all these dangerous drugs.  especially hearing all these un backed up and completely ridiculous so called  statistics.   such as that  it is proven that if you use cannabis as a kid, your salary will be lower than if you do not.   or the whole gateway drug thing.  a stop the drug war website debunks the myth of the gateway drug well.  there have been many research papers backing this up.  i also believe that the claim that it could be so addictive that if you do it you will be doing it for the rest of your life.  cannabis has no addictive properties whatsoever.  the myth that it is addictive stems from people who use it so much it becomes a habit.  much like coffee can be a habit or  theoretically any other substance .  the difference between a coffee habit and a marijuana habit though is that withdrawal from coffee can lead to headaches, while withdrawal from cannabis has absolutely no drawbacks.  your body can  not  get addicted.  you ca not even compare cannabis to alcohol, which  is  a legal substance.  it is a hundred times safer to smoke a joint than it is to drink a beer.  alcohol the next day gives you a hangover, potentially ruining your day.  while cannabis lets you wake up feeling refreshed and happy.  cannabis also mellows you out, makes you more relaxed and heightens the imagination and improves creativity.  if you have a problem with anger, pot is usually a good drug to reduce it.  it is even being prescribed as a medicine, all alcohol does is make you do bad decisions.  tl;dr the lie that teachers and adults tell teenagers that marijuana is a gateway/dangerous drug is morally wrong, even being classified as a form of brainwashing, and should therefore be treated as such.   #  cannabis also mellows you out, makes you more relaxed and heightens the imagination and improves creativity.   #  you have a really bias view almost as bad as the bias that anti weed programs have.   # we learned about the cons of alcohol use alongside marijuana use.  i do not think its morally wrong to say weed is a dangerous drug.  it does have side effects and while the current method of teaching students about it is ineffective, i think students should definitely learn about the cons of it.  i am not sure if i would advocate for schools to teach  pro weed , but i think schools should definitely go over the cons of the drug.  you can get addicted to lots of things.  i have definitely seen people in my high school drop out and become drug dealers because they became so dependent on weed that they made it their first priority.  you have a really bias view almost as bad as the bias that anti weed programs have.  when i tried weed it made me extremely paranoid and anxious.  that is just what i experienced though i think children should definitely learn that stuff like that can happen as a result of cannabis use.   #  pot, on the other hand, does not create that kind of physical addiction.   # sure.  but there is an important difference between something which is  physically addictive  and something which creates  dependence .  alcohol, heroin, meth, caffeine: these drugs change the chemistry of the body in such a way that your body becomes  physically reliant  on them and, if they are no longer available, your body suffers physical symptoms.  some of these are worse than others the physical symptoms of caffeine withdrawal are comparatively minor, the physical symptoms of withdrawing from the others can be fatal .  pot, on the other hand, does not create that kind of physical addiction.  it  can  create dependence, but dependence is substantially less problematic than physical addiction.  part of the problem with discussing this is that all of the things which create physical addiction  also  tend to create psychological dependence, making it hard to avoid conflating the two.   #  all that being said, i believe it is more harmful to lie to kids with made up facts, but i still believe that teens should be urged to refrain from marijuana rather than a neutral or positive stance on it .   #  the problem with telling people there are no harmful long term side effects is that there has not been enough research to determine this, one way or another.  cannabis clearly effects the mind and could very well be detrimental to the development of teenage minds.  this concept should be familiar since studies have shown a difference between the brains of those who abused alcohol in adolescence and those who have not.  URL the recent harvard study that made headlines reported differences between the brains of those who had started smoking in their mid teens and those that had not.  now, they have no way of knowing if this is caused by cannabis or if someone is likely to smoke because of this difference, but this study provides the basis for further research.  URL as it is legalized, doctors and researchers will have more data to figure out the trends.  think of the harmful stuff we now know about cigarettes and how we were ignorant of those side effects for decades.  but that is my point.  we need more research before we know if there are long term effects, especially when it comes to adolescents.  all that being said, i believe it is more harmful to lie to kids with made up facts, but i still believe that teens should be urged to refrain from marijuana rather than a neutral or positive stance on it .  even colorado has a 0 age requirement, which for the record, i am all for.   #  i used to be heavily dependent on marijuana.   # can you show me where on this site it classifies them as the same category as cocaine and heroin ? i ca not find it.  i think you are confusing them with the federal classifications.  URL if these  programs  are factually telling students what classification they are in, i would hardly call that brainwashing.  now, do not get me wrong, the federal government classifying marijuana as a schedule i drug is complete bullshit, but that is common knowledge.  studies do show this, so that kind of throws this statement in the trash.  i have been through multiple drug programs.  i guarantee you no program or school will tell you this.  this is a complete and extremely exaggerated strawman arguement.  then you have never been through a marijuana withdrawal.  i used to be heavily dependent on marijuana.  symptoms of  withdrawal  from it include lack of sleep, loss of appetite, irritation, etc.  do not believe me ? here is a link for you.  URL or just browse /r/leaves and you will clearly see that there are withdrawl symptoms.  the last paragraph is just embarrassing and i wo not bother to address anything you said in there.  use google to find the negative effects of using marijuana.  disclaimer: i am not against marijuana at all, i think it should be legalized and regulated like alcohol, but pretending it is this magical plant with no bad effects is just plain and simply childish.   #  URL but when we sit our kids down and give them the universal lesson on not smoking tobacco, we do not tell them that.   #  i only have a little bit of time but i agree brainwashing is bad.  i believe we should tell the truth, but the scary truth.  even i do not believe in sitting them down to see  reefer madness  and having them write essays about how weed will kill you, because it wo not.  but we need to teach them the truth, because they will figure it out eventually.  we do not teach kids the positive sides of smoking tobacco ! after all  nicotine found in cigarettes reduces psychiatric, cognitive, sensory, and physical effects of schizophrenia, and also provides relief of common side effects from antipsychotic drugs.  URL but when we sit our kids down and give them the universal lesson on not smoking tobacco, we do not tell them that.  we should give kids the negative truth, but the honest truth.
i think it is quite literally brainwashing teenagers in schools that cannabis use is so wrong.  it frustrates me seeing these partnership and drugfree. org classifying marijuana in the same category as cocaine and heroin and all these dangerous drugs.  especially hearing all these un backed up and completely ridiculous so called  statistics.   such as that  it is proven that if you use cannabis as a kid, your salary will be lower than if you do not.   or the whole gateway drug thing.  a stop the drug war website debunks the myth of the gateway drug well.  there have been many research papers backing this up.  i also believe that the claim that it could be so addictive that if you do it you will be doing it for the rest of your life.  cannabis has no addictive properties whatsoever.  the myth that it is addictive stems from people who use it so much it becomes a habit.  much like coffee can be a habit or  theoretically any other substance .  the difference between a coffee habit and a marijuana habit though is that withdrawal from coffee can lead to headaches, while withdrawal from cannabis has absolutely no drawbacks.  your body can  not  get addicted.  you ca not even compare cannabis to alcohol, which  is  a legal substance.  it is a hundred times safer to smoke a joint than it is to drink a beer.  alcohol the next day gives you a hangover, potentially ruining your day.  while cannabis lets you wake up feeling refreshed and happy.  cannabis also mellows you out, makes you more relaxed and heightens the imagination and improves creativity.  if you have a problem with anger, pot is usually a good drug to reduce it.  it is even being prescribed as a medicine, all alcohol does is make you do bad decisions.  tl;dr the lie that teachers and adults tell teenagers that marijuana is a gateway/dangerous drug is morally wrong, even being classified as a form of brainwashing, and should therefore be treated as such.   #  it frustrates me seeing these partnership and drugfree. org classifying marijuana in the same category as cocaine and heroin and all these dangerous drugs.   #  can you show me where on this site it classifies them as the same category as cocaine and heroin ?  # can you show me where on this site it classifies them as the same category as cocaine and heroin ? i ca not find it.  i think you are confusing them with the federal classifications.  URL if these  programs  are factually telling students what classification they are in, i would hardly call that brainwashing.  now, do not get me wrong, the federal government classifying marijuana as a schedule i drug is complete bullshit, but that is common knowledge.  studies do show this, so that kind of throws this statement in the trash.  i have been through multiple drug programs.  i guarantee you no program or school will tell you this.  this is a complete and extremely exaggerated strawman arguement.  then you have never been through a marijuana withdrawal.  i used to be heavily dependent on marijuana.  symptoms of  withdrawal  from it include lack of sleep, loss of appetite, irritation, etc.  do not believe me ? here is a link for you.  URL or just browse /r/leaves and you will clearly see that there are withdrawl symptoms.  the last paragraph is just embarrassing and i wo not bother to address anything you said in there.  use google to find the negative effects of using marijuana.  disclaimer: i am not against marijuana at all, i think it should be legalized and regulated like alcohol, but pretending it is this magical plant with no bad effects is just plain and simply childish.   #  we learned about the cons of alcohol use alongside marijuana use.   # we learned about the cons of alcohol use alongside marijuana use.  i do not think its morally wrong to say weed is a dangerous drug.  it does have side effects and while the current method of teaching students about it is ineffective, i think students should definitely learn about the cons of it.  i am not sure if i would advocate for schools to teach  pro weed , but i think schools should definitely go over the cons of the drug.  you can get addicted to lots of things.  i have definitely seen people in my high school drop out and become drug dealers because they became so dependent on weed that they made it their first priority.  you have a really bias view almost as bad as the bias that anti weed programs have.  when i tried weed it made me extremely paranoid and anxious.  that is just what i experienced though i think children should definitely learn that stuff like that can happen as a result of cannabis use.   #  pot, on the other hand, does not create that kind of physical addiction.   # sure.  but there is an important difference between something which is  physically addictive  and something which creates  dependence .  alcohol, heroin, meth, caffeine: these drugs change the chemistry of the body in such a way that your body becomes  physically reliant  on them and, if they are no longer available, your body suffers physical symptoms.  some of these are worse than others the physical symptoms of caffeine withdrawal are comparatively minor, the physical symptoms of withdrawing from the others can be fatal .  pot, on the other hand, does not create that kind of physical addiction.  it  can  create dependence, but dependence is substantially less problematic than physical addiction.  part of the problem with discussing this is that all of the things which create physical addiction  also  tend to create psychological dependence, making it hard to avoid conflating the two.   #  even colorado has a 0 age requirement, which for the record, i am all for.   #  the problem with telling people there are no harmful long term side effects is that there has not been enough research to determine this, one way or another.  cannabis clearly effects the mind and could very well be detrimental to the development of teenage minds.  this concept should be familiar since studies have shown a difference between the brains of those who abused alcohol in adolescence and those who have not.  URL the recent harvard study that made headlines reported differences between the brains of those who had started smoking in their mid teens and those that had not.  now, they have no way of knowing if this is caused by cannabis or if someone is likely to smoke because of this difference, but this study provides the basis for further research.  URL as it is legalized, doctors and researchers will have more data to figure out the trends.  think of the harmful stuff we now know about cigarettes and how we were ignorant of those side effects for decades.  but that is my point.  we need more research before we know if there are long term effects, especially when it comes to adolescents.  all that being said, i believe it is more harmful to lie to kids with made up facts, but i still believe that teens should be urged to refrain from marijuana rather than a neutral or positive stance on it .  even colorado has a 0 age requirement, which for the record, i am all for.   #  i believe we should tell the truth, but the scary truth.   #  i only have a little bit of time but i agree brainwashing is bad.  i believe we should tell the truth, but the scary truth.  even i do not believe in sitting them down to see  reefer madness  and having them write essays about how weed will kill you, because it wo not.  but we need to teach them the truth, because they will figure it out eventually.  we do not teach kids the positive sides of smoking tobacco ! after all  nicotine found in cigarettes reduces psychiatric, cognitive, sensory, and physical effects of schizophrenia, and also provides relief of common side effects from antipsychotic drugs.  URL but when we sit our kids down and give them the universal lesson on not smoking tobacco, we do not tell them that.  we should give kids the negative truth, but the honest truth.
i think it is quite literally brainwashing teenagers in schools that cannabis use is so wrong.  it frustrates me seeing these partnership and drugfree. org classifying marijuana in the same category as cocaine and heroin and all these dangerous drugs.  especially hearing all these un backed up and completely ridiculous so called  statistics.   such as that  it is proven that if you use cannabis as a kid, your salary will be lower than if you do not.   or the whole gateway drug thing.  a stop the drug war website debunks the myth of the gateway drug well.  there have been many research papers backing this up.  i also believe that the claim that it could be so addictive that if you do it you will be doing it for the rest of your life.  cannabis has no addictive properties whatsoever.  the myth that it is addictive stems from people who use it so much it becomes a habit.  much like coffee can be a habit or  theoretically any other substance .  the difference between a coffee habit and a marijuana habit though is that withdrawal from coffee can lead to headaches, while withdrawal from cannabis has absolutely no drawbacks.  your body can  not  get addicted.  you ca not even compare cannabis to alcohol, which  is  a legal substance.  it is a hundred times safer to smoke a joint than it is to drink a beer.  alcohol the next day gives you a hangover, potentially ruining your day.  while cannabis lets you wake up feeling refreshed and happy.  cannabis also mellows you out, makes you more relaxed and heightens the imagination and improves creativity.  if you have a problem with anger, pot is usually a good drug to reduce it.  it is even being prescribed as a medicine, all alcohol does is make you do bad decisions.  tl;dr the lie that teachers and adults tell teenagers that marijuana is a gateway/dangerous drug is morally wrong, even being classified as a form of brainwashing, and should therefore be treated as such.   #  such as that  it is proven that if you use cannabis as a kid, your salary will be lower than if you do not.    #  studies do show this, so that kind of throws this statement in the trash.   # can you show me where on this site it classifies them as the same category as cocaine and heroin ? i ca not find it.  i think you are confusing them with the federal classifications.  URL if these  programs  are factually telling students what classification they are in, i would hardly call that brainwashing.  now, do not get me wrong, the federal government classifying marijuana as a schedule i drug is complete bullshit, but that is common knowledge.  studies do show this, so that kind of throws this statement in the trash.  i have been through multiple drug programs.  i guarantee you no program or school will tell you this.  this is a complete and extremely exaggerated strawman arguement.  then you have never been through a marijuana withdrawal.  i used to be heavily dependent on marijuana.  symptoms of  withdrawal  from it include lack of sleep, loss of appetite, irritation, etc.  do not believe me ? here is a link for you.  URL or just browse /r/leaves and you will clearly see that there are withdrawl symptoms.  the last paragraph is just embarrassing and i wo not bother to address anything you said in there.  use google to find the negative effects of using marijuana.  disclaimer: i am not against marijuana at all, i think it should be legalized and regulated like alcohol, but pretending it is this magical plant with no bad effects is just plain and simply childish.   #  when i tried weed it made me extremely paranoid and anxious.   # we learned about the cons of alcohol use alongside marijuana use.  i do not think its morally wrong to say weed is a dangerous drug.  it does have side effects and while the current method of teaching students about it is ineffective, i think students should definitely learn about the cons of it.  i am not sure if i would advocate for schools to teach  pro weed , but i think schools should definitely go over the cons of the drug.  you can get addicted to lots of things.  i have definitely seen people in my high school drop out and become drug dealers because they became so dependent on weed that they made it their first priority.  you have a really bias view almost as bad as the bias that anti weed programs have.  when i tried weed it made me extremely paranoid and anxious.  that is just what i experienced though i think children should definitely learn that stuff like that can happen as a result of cannabis use.   #  part of the problem with discussing this is that all of the things which create physical addiction  also  tend to create psychological dependence, making it hard to avoid conflating the two.   # sure.  but there is an important difference between something which is  physically addictive  and something which creates  dependence .  alcohol, heroin, meth, caffeine: these drugs change the chemistry of the body in such a way that your body becomes  physically reliant  on them and, if they are no longer available, your body suffers physical symptoms.  some of these are worse than others the physical symptoms of caffeine withdrawal are comparatively minor, the physical symptoms of withdrawing from the others can be fatal .  pot, on the other hand, does not create that kind of physical addiction.  it  can  create dependence, but dependence is substantially less problematic than physical addiction.  part of the problem with discussing this is that all of the things which create physical addiction  also  tend to create psychological dependence, making it hard to avoid conflating the two.   #  think of the harmful stuff we now know about cigarettes and how we were ignorant of those side effects for decades.   #  the problem with telling people there are no harmful long term side effects is that there has not been enough research to determine this, one way or another.  cannabis clearly effects the mind and could very well be detrimental to the development of teenage minds.  this concept should be familiar since studies have shown a difference between the brains of those who abused alcohol in adolescence and those who have not.  URL the recent harvard study that made headlines reported differences between the brains of those who had started smoking in their mid teens and those that had not.  now, they have no way of knowing if this is caused by cannabis or if someone is likely to smoke because of this difference, but this study provides the basis for further research.  URL as it is legalized, doctors and researchers will have more data to figure out the trends.  think of the harmful stuff we now know about cigarettes and how we were ignorant of those side effects for decades.  but that is my point.  we need more research before we know if there are long term effects, especially when it comes to adolescents.  all that being said, i believe it is more harmful to lie to kids with made up facts, but i still believe that teens should be urged to refrain from marijuana rather than a neutral or positive stance on it .  even colorado has a 0 age requirement, which for the record, i am all for.   #  we should give kids the negative truth, but the honest truth.   #  i only have a little bit of time but i agree brainwashing is bad.  i believe we should tell the truth, but the scary truth.  even i do not believe in sitting them down to see  reefer madness  and having them write essays about how weed will kill you, because it wo not.  but we need to teach them the truth, because they will figure it out eventually.  we do not teach kids the positive sides of smoking tobacco ! after all  nicotine found in cigarettes reduces psychiatric, cognitive, sensory, and physical effects of schizophrenia, and also provides relief of common side effects from antipsychotic drugs.  URL but when we sit our kids down and give them the universal lesson on not smoking tobacco, we do not tell them that.  we should give kids the negative truth, but the honest truth.
i think it is quite literally brainwashing teenagers in schools that cannabis use is so wrong.  it frustrates me seeing these partnership and drugfree. org classifying marijuana in the same category as cocaine and heroin and all these dangerous drugs.  especially hearing all these un backed up and completely ridiculous so called  statistics.   such as that  it is proven that if you use cannabis as a kid, your salary will be lower than if you do not.   or the whole gateway drug thing.  a stop the drug war website debunks the myth of the gateway drug well.  there have been many research papers backing this up.  i also believe that the claim that it could be so addictive that if you do it you will be doing it for the rest of your life.  cannabis has no addictive properties whatsoever.  the myth that it is addictive stems from people who use it so much it becomes a habit.  much like coffee can be a habit or  theoretically any other substance .  the difference between a coffee habit and a marijuana habit though is that withdrawal from coffee can lead to headaches, while withdrawal from cannabis has absolutely no drawbacks.  your body can  not  get addicted.  you ca not even compare cannabis to alcohol, which  is  a legal substance.  it is a hundred times safer to smoke a joint than it is to drink a beer.  alcohol the next day gives you a hangover, potentially ruining your day.  while cannabis lets you wake up feeling refreshed and happy.  cannabis also mellows you out, makes you more relaxed and heightens the imagination and improves creativity.  if you have a problem with anger, pot is usually a good drug to reduce it.  it is even being prescribed as a medicine, all alcohol does is make you do bad decisions.  tl;dr the lie that teachers and adults tell teenagers that marijuana is a gateway/dangerous drug is morally wrong, even being classified as a form of brainwashing, and should therefore be treated as such.   #  i also believe that the claim that it could be so addictive that if you do it you will be doing it for the rest of your life.   #  i have been through multiple drug programs.   # can you show me where on this site it classifies them as the same category as cocaine and heroin ? i ca not find it.  i think you are confusing them with the federal classifications.  URL if these  programs  are factually telling students what classification they are in, i would hardly call that brainwashing.  now, do not get me wrong, the federal government classifying marijuana as a schedule i drug is complete bullshit, but that is common knowledge.  studies do show this, so that kind of throws this statement in the trash.  i have been through multiple drug programs.  i guarantee you no program or school will tell you this.  this is a complete and extremely exaggerated strawman arguement.  then you have never been through a marijuana withdrawal.  i used to be heavily dependent on marijuana.  symptoms of  withdrawal  from it include lack of sleep, loss of appetite, irritation, etc.  do not believe me ? here is a link for you.  URL or just browse /r/leaves and you will clearly see that there are withdrawl symptoms.  the last paragraph is just embarrassing and i wo not bother to address anything you said in there.  use google to find the negative effects of using marijuana.  disclaimer: i am not against marijuana at all, i think it should be legalized and regulated like alcohol, but pretending it is this magical plant with no bad effects is just plain and simply childish.   #  that is just what i experienced though i think children should definitely learn that stuff like that can happen as a result of cannabis use.   # we learned about the cons of alcohol use alongside marijuana use.  i do not think its morally wrong to say weed is a dangerous drug.  it does have side effects and while the current method of teaching students about it is ineffective, i think students should definitely learn about the cons of it.  i am not sure if i would advocate for schools to teach  pro weed , but i think schools should definitely go over the cons of the drug.  you can get addicted to lots of things.  i have definitely seen people in my high school drop out and become drug dealers because they became so dependent on weed that they made it their first priority.  you have a really bias view almost as bad as the bias that anti weed programs have.  when i tried weed it made me extremely paranoid and anxious.  that is just what i experienced though i think children should definitely learn that stuff like that can happen as a result of cannabis use.   #  some of these are worse than others the physical symptoms of caffeine withdrawal are comparatively minor, the physical symptoms of withdrawing from the others can be fatal .   # sure.  but there is an important difference between something which is  physically addictive  and something which creates  dependence .  alcohol, heroin, meth, caffeine: these drugs change the chemistry of the body in such a way that your body becomes  physically reliant  on them and, if they are no longer available, your body suffers physical symptoms.  some of these are worse than others the physical symptoms of caffeine withdrawal are comparatively minor, the physical symptoms of withdrawing from the others can be fatal .  pot, on the other hand, does not create that kind of physical addiction.  it  can  create dependence, but dependence is substantially less problematic than physical addiction.  part of the problem with discussing this is that all of the things which create physical addiction  also  tend to create psychological dependence, making it hard to avoid conflating the two.   #  cannabis clearly effects the mind and could very well be detrimental to the development of teenage minds.   #  the problem with telling people there are no harmful long term side effects is that there has not been enough research to determine this, one way or another.  cannabis clearly effects the mind and could very well be detrimental to the development of teenage minds.  this concept should be familiar since studies have shown a difference between the brains of those who abused alcohol in adolescence and those who have not.  URL the recent harvard study that made headlines reported differences between the brains of those who had started smoking in their mid teens and those that had not.  now, they have no way of knowing if this is caused by cannabis or if someone is likely to smoke because of this difference, but this study provides the basis for further research.  URL as it is legalized, doctors and researchers will have more data to figure out the trends.  think of the harmful stuff we now know about cigarettes and how we were ignorant of those side effects for decades.  but that is my point.  we need more research before we know if there are long term effects, especially when it comes to adolescents.  all that being said, i believe it is more harmful to lie to kids with made up facts, but i still believe that teens should be urged to refrain from marijuana rather than a neutral or positive stance on it .  even colorado has a 0 age requirement, which for the record, i am all for.   #  i believe we should tell the truth, but the scary truth.   #  i only have a little bit of time but i agree brainwashing is bad.  i believe we should tell the truth, but the scary truth.  even i do not believe in sitting them down to see  reefer madness  and having them write essays about how weed will kill you, because it wo not.  but we need to teach them the truth, because they will figure it out eventually.  we do not teach kids the positive sides of smoking tobacco ! after all  nicotine found in cigarettes reduces psychiatric, cognitive, sensory, and physical effects of schizophrenia, and also provides relief of common side effects from antipsychotic drugs.  URL but when we sit our kids down and give them the universal lesson on not smoking tobacco, we do not tell them that.  we should give kids the negative truth, but the honest truth.
i think it is quite literally brainwashing teenagers in schools that cannabis use is so wrong.  it frustrates me seeing these partnership and drugfree. org classifying marijuana in the same category as cocaine and heroin and all these dangerous drugs.  especially hearing all these un backed up and completely ridiculous so called  statistics.   such as that  it is proven that if you use cannabis as a kid, your salary will be lower than if you do not.   or the whole gateway drug thing.  a stop the drug war website debunks the myth of the gateway drug well.  there have been many research papers backing this up.  i also believe that the claim that it could be so addictive that if you do it you will be doing it for the rest of your life.  cannabis has no addictive properties whatsoever.  the myth that it is addictive stems from people who use it so much it becomes a habit.  much like coffee can be a habit or  theoretically any other substance .  the difference between a coffee habit and a marijuana habit though is that withdrawal from coffee can lead to headaches, while withdrawal from cannabis has absolutely no drawbacks.  your body can  not  get addicted.  you ca not even compare cannabis to alcohol, which  is  a legal substance.  it is a hundred times safer to smoke a joint than it is to drink a beer.  alcohol the next day gives you a hangover, potentially ruining your day.  while cannabis lets you wake up feeling refreshed and happy.  cannabis also mellows you out, makes you more relaxed and heightens the imagination and improves creativity.  if you have a problem with anger, pot is usually a good drug to reduce it.  it is even being prescribed as a medicine, all alcohol does is make you do bad decisions.  tl;dr the lie that teachers and adults tell teenagers that marijuana is a gateway/dangerous drug is morally wrong, even being classified as a form of brainwashing, and should therefore be treated as such.   #  while withdrawal from cannabis has absolutely no drawbacks.   #  then you have never been through a marijuana withdrawal.   # can you show me where on this site it classifies them as the same category as cocaine and heroin ? i ca not find it.  i think you are confusing them with the federal classifications.  URL if these  programs  are factually telling students what classification they are in, i would hardly call that brainwashing.  now, do not get me wrong, the federal government classifying marijuana as a schedule i drug is complete bullshit, but that is common knowledge.  studies do show this, so that kind of throws this statement in the trash.  i have been through multiple drug programs.  i guarantee you no program or school will tell you this.  this is a complete and extremely exaggerated strawman arguement.  then you have never been through a marijuana withdrawal.  i used to be heavily dependent on marijuana.  symptoms of  withdrawal  from it include lack of sleep, loss of appetite, irritation, etc.  do not believe me ? here is a link for you.  URL or just browse /r/leaves and you will clearly see that there are withdrawl symptoms.  the last paragraph is just embarrassing and i wo not bother to address anything you said in there.  use google to find the negative effects of using marijuana.  disclaimer: i am not against marijuana at all, i think it should be legalized and regulated like alcohol, but pretending it is this magical plant with no bad effects is just plain and simply childish.   #  i have definitely seen people in my high school drop out and become drug dealers because they became so dependent on weed that they made it their first priority.   # we learned about the cons of alcohol use alongside marijuana use.  i do not think its morally wrong to say weed is a dangerous drug.  it does have side effects and while the current method of teaching students about it is ineffective, i think students should definitely learn about the cons of it.  i am not sure if i would advocate for schools to teach  pro weed , but i think schools should definitely go over the cons of the drug.  you can get addicted to lots of things.  i have definitely seen people in my high school drop out and become drug dealers because they became so dependent on weed that they made it their first priority.  you have a really bias view almost as bad as the bias that anti weed programs have.  when i tried weed it made me extremely paranoid and anxious.  that is just what i experienced though i think children should definitely learn that stuff like that can happen as a result of cannabis use.   #  some of these are worse than others the physical symptoms of caffeine withdrawal are comparatively minor, the physical symptoms of withdrawing from the others can be fatal .   # sure.  but there is an important difference between something which is  physically addictive  and something which creates  dependence .  alcohol, heroin, meth, caffeine: these drugs change the chemistry of the body in such a way that your body becomes  physically reliant  on them and, if they are no longer available, your body suffers physical symptoms.  some of these are worse than others the physical symptoms of caffeine withdrawal are comparatively minor, the physical symptoms of withdrawing from the others can be fatal .  pot, on the other hand, does not create that kind of physical addiction.  it  can  create dependence, but dependence is substantially less problematic than physical addiction.  part of the problem with discussing this is that all of the things which create physical addiction  also  tend to create psychological dependence, making it hard to avoid conflating the two.   #  the problem with telling people there are no harmful long term side effects is that there has not been enough research to determine this, one way or another.   #  the problem with telling people there are no harmful long term side effects is that there has not been enough research to determine this, one way or another.  cannabis clearly effects the mind and could very well be detrimental to the development of teenage minds.  this concept should be familiar since studies have shown a difference between the brains of those who abused alcohol in adolescence and those who have not.  URL the recent harvard study that made headlines reported differences between the brains of those who had started smoking in their mid teens and those that had not.  now, they have no way of knowing if this is caused by cannabis or if someone is likely to smoke because of this difference, but this study provides the basis for further research.  URL as it is legalized, doctors and researchers will have more data to figure out the trends.  think of the harmful stuff we now know about cigarettes and how we were ignorant of those side effects for decades.  but that is my point.  we need more research before we know if there are long term effects, especially when it comes to adolescents.  all that being said, i believe it is more harmful to lie to kids with made up facts, but i still believe that teens should be urged to refrain from marijuana rather than a neutral or positive stance on it .  even colorado has a 0 age requirement, which for the record, i am all for.   #  we do not teach kids the positive sides of smoking tobacco !  #  i only have a little bit of time but i agree brainwashing is bad.  i believe we should tell the truth, but the scary truth.  even i do not believe in sitting them down to see  reefer madness  and having them write essays about how weed will kill you, because it wo not.  but we need to teach them the truth, because they will figure it out eventually.  we do not teach kids the positive sides of smoking tobacco ! after all  nicotine found in cigarettes reduces psychiatric, cognitive, sensory, and physical effects of schizophrenia, and also provides relief of common side effects from antipsychotic drugs.  URL but when we sit our kids down and give them the universal lesson on not smoking tobacco, we do not tell them that.  we should give kids the negative truth, but the honest truth.
i believe this because of 0 reasons; first, i think that it ruins culture and heritage.  with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.  people originally from x claiming they are from y with little y heritage.  it angers me a little when country y is my country.  the second reason being a little more critical.  if people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country.  the movement of people  usually  tends to be from ledc to medc.  having seen a lot of said movement to my country, i see a lot of changed communities and honestly speaking degradation in quality of life.  this view may be a little strong, but i volunteered it so you could cmv.  i have intentionally not mentioned specific countries for the sake of the argument  #  with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.   #  cultures change from both internal like technology and external forces like migration .   # cultures change from both internal like technology and external forces like migration .  cultures rise and fall this is nothing new.  cultures also change from external forces of technology, philosophy, entertainment etc.  if you wish to preserve your local culture from external forces then you will need to cut all access to these influences would you be happy to do so ? if you are prepared to become this insular to preserve your culture, how do you propose to prevent cultural shifts from internal forces ? further the mixing of cultures can bring many benefits cuisine, arts, philosophy etc to all concerned.  it seems disingenuous to note only what you perceive as negative influences.  can you honestly say that your culture has not changed significantly since the start of last century ? even in the last 0 years ?  #  the short term burden is outweighed by the long term beneficial returns.   #  however, a larger population is good for a country, unless it is vastly overpopulated.  the short term burden is outweighed by the long term beneficial returns.  a larger population equals to a larger economy.  a larger economy can make deals beneficial to them, making the economy and country stronger, which becomes a benefit to everyone in the long term.  although older immigrants will not change and continue to be a dragon, the younger immigrants as well as the children of older immigrants become more in tuned to the culture of the country and become more like the host country than the origin country.  although many will continue to slip through the cracks, many also wo not.  those who do not will cover for those who do.   #  as an immigrant myself, i identify myself with whichever culture i most closely exemplify.   #  should we similarly stop people from moving out of the ghetto and into nice neighborhoods, because it ruins the quality of life in these neighborhoods ? do not mean to come off as attacking, but is not this essentially the argument you are making when you pose that question ? also is your issue with people seeking upward mobility or with people is cultural identity ? as an immigrant myself, i identify myself with whichever culture i most closely exemplify.  in some things that is the country i came from; in others it is the country i came to.  we identify with labels to allow others to be able to get a better idea who we are, why should not i use labels from the culture i live in just because i was not born into it ?  #  i would be careful uttering the same arguments made by nativists for the past century.   # with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.  people originally from x claiming they are from y with little y heritage.  it angers me a little when country y is my country.  so people should be forced to perpetuate a culture they may not agree or identify with.  if people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country.  the movement of people usually tends to be from ledc to medc.  having seen a lot of said movement to my country, i see a lot of changed communities and honestly speaking degradation in quality of life.  this view may be a little strong, but i volunteered it so you could cmv.  really ? i would be careful uttering the same arguments made by nativists for the past century.  they were wrong then, why should now be any different.  furthermore, i would ask why nationality should be held in higher esteem than ethnic or tribal loyalties.  nationalism is a fairly new phenomenon and one that has had disastrous consequences.   #  i also appreciate and appropriate traditions from several different countries.   # your op was that you should not be allowed to change your nationality, not that immigrants should not be able to retain their nationality.  and how are they imposing, by simply expressing their cultural heritage ? do my decorations of shamrocks and private parade on the 0th or march really impose on you ? respect does not equal blind allegiance.  i respect the country i reside in.  i also appreciate and appropriate traditions from several different countries.  i fail to see how this is contradictory.  it just seems odd to promote the view of these artificial constructs known as states as if they have some inherent culture that we must preserve.  almost no state has a definite culture but rather they tend to be pastiches of several cultures originating from within and beyond their borders.
i believe this because of 0 reasons; first, i think that it ruins culture and heritage.  with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.  people originally from x claiming they are from y with little y heritage.  it angers me a little when country y is my country.  the second reason being a little more critical.  if people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country.  the movement of people  usually  tends to be from ledc to medc.  having seen a lot of said movement to my country, i see a lot of changed communities and honestly speaking degradation in quality of life.  this view may be a little strong, but i volunteered it so you could cmv.  i have intentionally not mentioned specific countries for the sake of the argument  #  first, i think that it ruins culture and heritage.   #  with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.   # with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.  people originally from x claiming they are from y with little y heritage.  it angers me a little when country y is my country.  so people should be forced to perpetuate a culture they may not agree or identify with.  if people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country.  the movement of people usually tends to be from ledc to medc.  having seen a lot of said movement to my country, i see a lot of changed communities and honestly speaking degradation in quality of life.  this view may be a little strong, but i volunteered it so you could cmv.  really ? i would be careful uttering the same arguments made by nativists for the past century.  they were wrong then, why should now be any different.  furthermore, i would ask why nationality should be held in higher esteem than ethnic or tribal loyalties.  nationalism is a fairly new phenomenon and one that has had disastrous consequences.   #  the short term burden is outweighed by the long term beneficial returns.   #  however, a larger population is good for a country, unless it is vastly overpopulated.  the short term burden is outweighed by the long term beneficial returns.  a larger population equals to a larger economy.  a larger economy can make deals beneficial to them, making the economy and country stronger, which becomes a benefit to everyone in the long term.  although older immigrants will not change and continue to be a dragon, the younger immigrants as well as the children of older immigrants become more in tuned to the culture of the country and become more like the host country than the origin country.  although many will continue to slip through the cracks, many also wo not.  those who do not will cover for those who do.   #  also is your issue with people seeking upward mobility or with people is cultural identity ?  #  should we similarly stop people from moving out of the ghetto and into nice neighborhoods, because it ruins the quality of life in these neighborhoods ? do not mean to come off as attacking, but is not this essentially the argument you are making when you pose that question ? also is your issue with people seeking upward mobility or with people is cultural identity ? as an immigrant myself, i identify myself with whichever culture i most closely exemplify.  in some things that is the country i came from; in others it is the country i came to.  we identify with labels to allow others to be able to get a better idea who we are, why should not i use labels from the culture i live in just because i was not born into it ?  #  can you honestly say that your culture has not changed significantly since the start of last century ?  # cultures change from both internal like technology and external forces like migration .  cultures rise and fall this is nothing new.  cultures also change from external forces of technology, philosophy, entertainment etc.  if you wish to preserve your local culture from external forces then you will need to cut all access to these influences would you be happy to do so ? if you are prepared to become this insular to preserve your culture, how do you propose to prevent cultural shifts from internal forces ? further the mixing of cultures can bring many benefits cuisine, arts, philosophy etc to all concerned.  it seems disingenuous to note only what you perceive as negative influences.  can you honestly say that your culture has not changed significantly since the start of last century ? even in the last 0 years ?  #  do my decorations of shamrocks and private parade on the 0th or march really impose on you ?  # your op was that you should not be allowed to change your nationality, not that immigrants should not be able to retain their nationality.  and how are they imposing, by simply expressing their cultural heritage ? do my decorations of shamrocks and private parade on the 0th or march really impose on you ? respect does not equal blind allegiance.  i respect the country i reside in.  i also appreciate and appropriate traditions from several different countries.  i fail to see how this is contradictory.  it just seems odd to promote the view of these artificial constructs known as states as if they have some inherent culture that we must preserve.  almost no state has a definite culture but rather they tend to be pastiches of several cultures originating from within and beyond their borders.
i believe this because of 0 reasons; first, i think that it ruins culture and heritage.  with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.  people originally from x claiming they are from y with little y heritage.  it angers me a little when country y is my country.  the second reason being a little more critical.  if people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country.  the movement of people  usually  tends to be from ledc to medc.  having seen a lot of said movement to my country, i see a lot of changed communities and honestly speaking degradation in quality of life.  this view may be a little strong, but i volunteered it so you could cmv.  i have intentionally not mentioned specific countries for the sake of the argument  #  the second reason being a little more critical.   #  if people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country.   # with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.  people originally from x claiming they are from y with little y heritage.  it angers me a little when country y is my country.  so people should be forced to perpetuate a culture they may not agree or identify with.  if people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country.  the movement of people usually tends to be from ledc to medc.  having seen a lot of said movement to my country, i see a lot of changed communities and honestly speaking degradation in quality of life.  this view may be a little strong, but i volunteered it so you could cmv.  really ? i would be careful uttering the same arguments made by nativists for the past century.  they were wrong then, why should now be any different.  furthermore, i would ask why nationality should be held in higher esteem than ethnic or tribal loyalties.  nationalism is a fairly new phenomenon and one that has had disastrous consequences.   #  the short term burden is outweighed by the long term beneficial returns.   #  however, a larger population is good for a country, unless it is vastly overpopulated.  the short term burden is outweighed by the long term beneficial returns.  a larger population equals to a larger economy.  a larger economy can make deals beneficial to them, making the economy and country stronger, which becomes a benefit to everyone in the long term.  although older immigrants will not change and continue to be a dragon, the younger immigrants as well as the children of older immigrants become more in tuned to the culture of the country and become more like the host country than the origin country.  although many will continue to slip through the cracks, many also wo not.  those who do not will cover for those who do.   #  do not mean to come off as attacking, but is not this essentially the argument you are making when you pose that question ?  #  should we similarly stop people from moving out of the ghetto and into nice neighborhoods, because it ruins the quality of life in these neighborhoods ? do not mean to come off as attacking, but is not this essentially the argument you are making when you pose that question ? also is your issue with people seeking upward mobility or with people is cultural identity ? as an immigrant myself, i identify myself with whichever culture i most closely exemplify.  in some things that is the country i came from; in others it is the country i came to.  we identify with labels to allow others to be able to get a better idea who we are, why should not i use labels from the culture i live in just because i was not born into it ?  #  can you honestly say that your culture has not changed significantly since the start of last century ?  # cultures change from both internal like technology and external forces like migration .  cultures rise and fall this is nothing new.  cultures also change from external forces of technology, philosophy, entertainment etc.  if you wish to preserve your local culture from external forces then you will need to cut all access to these influences would you be happy to do so ? if you are prepared to become this insular to preserve your culture, how do you propose to prevent cultural shifts from internal forces ? further the mixing of cultures can bring many benefits cuisine, arts, philosophy etc to all concerned.  it seems disingenuous to note only what you perceive as negative influences.  can you honestly say that your culture has not changed significantly since the start of last century ? even in the last 0 years ?  #  i also appreciate and appropriate traditions from several different countries.   # your op was that you should not be allowed to change your nationality, not that immigrants should not be able to retain their nationality.  and how are they imposing, by simply expressing their cultural heritage ? do my decorations of shamrocks and private parade on the 0th or march really impose on you ? respect does not equal blind allegiance.  i respect the country i reside in.  i also appreciate and appropriate traditions from several different countries.  i fail to see how this is contradictory.  it just seems odd to promote the view of these artificial constructs known as states as if they have some inherent culture that we must preserve.  almost no state has a definite culture but rather they tend to be pastiches of several cultures originating from within and beyond their borders.
i believe this because of 0 reasons; first, i think that it ruins culture and heritage.  with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.  people originally from x claiming they are from y with little y heritage.  it angers me a little when country y is my country.  the second reason being a little more critical.  if people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country.  the movement of people  usually  tends to be from ledc to medc.  having seen a lot of said movement to my country, i see a lot of changed communities and honestly speaking degradation in quality of life.  this view may be a little strong, but i volunteered it so you could cmv.  i have intentionally not mentioned specific countries for the sake of the argument  #  first, i think that it ruins culture and heritage.   #  with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.   # with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.  people originally from x claiming they are from y with little y heritage.  it angers me a little when country y is my country.  why is the mixing of cultures a bad thing ? it is just another barrier breaking down.   #  those who do not will cover for those who do.   #  however, a larger population is good for a country, unless it is vastly overpopulated.  the short term burden is outweighed by the long term beneficial returns.  a larger population equals to a larger economy.  a larger economy can make deals beneficial to them, making the economy and country stronger, which becomes a benefit to everyone in the long term.  although older immigrants will not change and continue to be a dragon, the younger immigrants as well as the children of older immigrants become more in tuned to the culture of the country and become more like the host country than the origin country.  although many will continue to slip through the cracks, many also wo not.  those who do not will cover for those who do.   #  as an immigrant myself, i identify myself with whichever culture i most closely exemplify.   #  should we similarly stop people from moving out of the ghetto and into nice neighborhoods, because it ruins the quality of life in these neighborhoods ? do not mean to come off as attacking, but is not this essentially the argument you are making when you pose that question ? also is your issue with people seeking upward mobility or with people is cultural identity ? as an immigrant myself, i identify myself with whichever culture i most closely exemplify.  in some things that is the country i came from; in others it is the country i came to.  we identify with labels to allow others to be able to get a better idea who we are, why should not i use labels from the culture i live in just because i was not born into it ?  #  cultures rise and fall this is nothing new.   # cultures change from both internal like technology and external forces like migration .  cultures rise and fall this is nothing new.  cultures also change from external forces of technology, philosophy, entertainment etc.  if you wish to preserve your local culture from external forces then you will need to cut all access to these influences would you be happy to do so ? if you are prepared to become this insular to preserve your culture, how do you propose to prevent cultural shifts from internal forces ? further the mixing of cultures can bring many benefits cuisine, arts, philosophy etc to all concerned.  it seems disingenuous to note only what you perceive as negative influences.  can you honestly say that your culture has not changed significantly since the start of last century ? even in the last 0 years ?  #  i would be careful uttering the same arguments made by nativists for the past century.   # with the world becoming more and more of a melting pot, cultures seem to be disintegrating.  people originally from x claiming they are from y with little y heritage.  it angers me a little when country y is my country.  so people should be forced to perpetuate a culture they may not agree or identify with.  if people are allowed to have different nationalities, more often than not its to move to said country.  the movement of people usually tends to be from ledc to medc.  having seen a lot of said movement to my country, i see a lot of changed communities and honestly speaking degradation in quality of life.  this view may be a little strong, but i volunteered it so you could cmv.  really ? i would be careful uttering the same arguments made by nativists for the past century.  they were wrong then, why should now be any different.  furthermore, i would ask why nationality should be held in higher esteem than ethnic or tribal loyalties.  nationalism is a fairly new phenomenon and one that has had disastrous consequences.
i know that there is a lot of debate as to whether the redskins  should  change their name in the deep moral sense .  no matter which side of that debate you come down on however, it seems to me that there is no good reason to keep the name.  right now, it is controversial has been for a long time , and turns some non zero amount of people off.  on the other hand if they change the name they get rid of those headaches, get to sell a ton of merchandise with the old name to people who want to get it before it disappears, and get to sell a ton of merchandise to people who buy stuff with the new name.  the only reason not to change the name is stubbornness.  i know that branding is important, but it is not like people in the area are going to start rooting for teams in another city just because they changed the name.   #  right now, it is controversial has been for a long time , and turns some non zero amount of people off.   #  some atheists are offended by the saints.   #  i have plenty of feelings on this but first i will attack a few of your points.  some atheists are offended by the saints.  the fighting irish logo is a caricature of a drunken irishman, and some people do not like that either.  a large number of people are offended by gay marriage.  should we get rid of that ? no.  that is a terrible reason.  you are also now wrong about the merchandizing:   on the other hand if they change the name they get rid of those headaches, get to sell a ton of merchandise with the old name to people who want to get it before it disappears, and get to sell a ton of merchandise to people who buy stuff with the new name.  see this article: URL now other people can profit of the redskins name.  although that kind of supports changing the name, i just want to point that out.  also, here is an article i think everyone who cares about this issue should read.  its a little old, but still good.  URL i guess this article sums up my opinion really well.   #  he also wears a redskins hat pretty much every day.   #  i told a buddy at work the same is also my immediate supervisor about the issue.  he is a native american.  he also wears a redskins hat pretty much every day.  he was pretty butthurt to hear that the name might go away.  what about his feelings ? he approves, and embraces the name and associated iconography on it is cultural and historical merits.  he is native, and he is unhappy with the direction things may be going.  why are his opinions less valid ? and yes, he actually would stop buying redskins merchandise if they changed the name.   #  which is how a lot of people are using that data.   #  i am saying it is not uncommon for people to self identify as native american when really they are quite removed from that ethnicity.  so you could easily end up with a bunch of mainly white people or people who can pass as white claiming they do not care about the name while  real  native americans the ones to whom the slur would actually be directed do have a problem with the name.  this is especially poignant as a large portion of native americans live in poverty and may not have been available to take a phone survey.  plus, keep in mind there are over 0 million native americans in the us.  a survey of about 0 is nowhere near enough to say  0 of all native americans are ok with the name !   which is how a lot of people are using that data.   #  goddard found that the first use of the word  redskin  came in 0, in negotiations between the piankashaws and col.   #  just because someone says a word is historically insulting does not make it so.  it is historically documented that the word came about as a simple color designation, just as white is for caucasians according to smithsonian historian ives goddard, early historical records indicate that  redskin  was used as a self identifier by native americans to differentiate between the two races.  goddard found that the first use of the word  redskin  came in 0, in negotiations between the piankashaws and col.  john wilkins.  throughout the 0s, the word was frequently used by native americans as they negotiated with the french and later the americans.  the phrase gained widespread usage among whites when james fenimore cooper used it in his 0 novel the pioneers.  in the book, cooper has a dying indian character lament,  there will soon be no red skin in the country.   i will take a historians word over someones father in law any day of the week  #  this is a non issue with the heavy majority.   #  when you say community and concerted effort, what types of numbers are you talking about ? the last time this was challenged and the trademark was in limbo, the accepted poll had over 0 not offended by the name.  it is difficult to get ten out of ten people to agree on anything so i am pretty sure they are the outlier.  what is going on right now a small group is making a lot of noise.  to use some of the earlier comparisons, i am sure more than one of out ten atheists do not approve of the saints, or people of irish descent do not appreciate the notre dame mascot.  another point to remember, some native american groups protested fsu is logo, even after the seminole nation tribunal gave their full support.  this is a non issue with the heavy majority.
in my mind, being overweight is equatable to being a smoker.  my argument does not include those overweight because of medical conditions, i am merely referring to those who are overweight or obese because of lifestyle decisions.  i came to this belief after reflecting on the astoundingly different ways society treats smokers and the obese.  for example, its considered completely okay and even praised for somebody to be disgusted by smoking, but if somebody is disgusted by the overweight then they are an asshole.   how they parallel each other  both stem from bad decision making and both can be cured from better decision making.  in either case, it can be very hard to change your habits, and we should sympathize with this.  science has shown both overeating and smoking to have a profoundly negative effect on overall health.   how they do not parallel each other  the only way in which i see a difference between a smoker and an obese person is that the smoker can harm others with second hand smoke.  i would not be writing this cmv if i thought this is where the difference in most peoples opinions comes from.  i do not get the feeling people are disgusted by smoking because it can harm those around the smoker, though that certainly does not help, i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as pleasurable whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   why the current mindset is harmful  imagine if, in droves, viral add campaigns and videos and slogans were devoted to tell children that smoking is okay, or even that its a beautiful thing.  wouldnt there be public outrage ? in the same vein, is there not being a disservice done to the current generation as they are being told that any bodytype and weight is okay and beautiful ? are we not, in either case, making it seem like bad life choices are permissible ? so my view is, essentially: being overweight is equatable to being a smoker, and regardless of how exactly each of these life choices are treated  they should be treated the same.  cmv ! :  #  i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as pleasurable whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   #  rather:   i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as  necessary for life  whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   # except, obese people must eat.  this means that they cannot go cold turkey for any significant periods of time.  every single act of eating is therefore a balancing act, the likes of which smokers do not have to try.  while eaters can temporarily replace eating with other habits, there is nothing they can use to permanently replace eating.  along the same lines, nearly everyone in their world eats three times a day and eating is a social event.  if you refuse to eat you have often insulted the host.  i have tried fasting in the past and have been told that i am insane.  you will often be viewed as having an active eating disorder if you choose to forgo food.  these differences are absolutely at the core of why these two situations differ.  rather:   i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as  necessary for life  whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   #  cigarettes did not get banned in bars and public spaces because they are harmful to the user.   #  i think you are caught up in the reddit reaction engine if you think that a large section of the population agrees that  any bodytype and weight is okay .  literally the opposite is happening.  michelle obama, one of the most visible public figures in the country, has made her entire public image around anti childhood obesity.  anti obesity campaigns and awareness of the health issues overweight people face are getting to the levels which tobacco smoke is current: basically everyone knows that being overweight is unhealthy.  the differences in societal attitudes toward being overweight and being a smoker, while multitude, can be summed up in these three ways: 0.  being overweight hurts only yourself.  that is huge.  cigarettes did not get banned in bars and public spaces because they are harmful to the user.  0.  many, many more people are overweight than are smokers.  it is harder for the public to condemn something that is massively more common than smoking, especially when it does not hurt anyone else point 0 .  0.  everyone eats.  it is not like every person has to smoke a single nicotine cigarette every day, and we only look down on those who smoke a pack.  but everyone  does  have to eat, and only  some  become overweight.  so people can relate to overweight people easier and therefore sympathize more readily because everyone is eaten a little too much at thanksgiving, or everyone is had that 0 pounds they have been meaning to lose point 0 .   #  sneering at a smoker wo not break their addiction.   #  i am going to flip this on you and see what you think.  i will agree entirely with your premise that both are states, being obese and being a smoker, are inherently bad for you.  the gap in your argument, and it is a vital one, is that you go from,  it is bad for you, thus frowning upon these behaviors is reasonable.   this assumes that the responsibility of both of these states rests entirely with the individual.  but this is not so.  by this i mean that both obesity and smoking are stratified by income level: URL URL therefore, your advocating for what at times amounts to nothing more than public shaming is not addressing the issue and just causing them to feel even worse about themselves.  the way to treat obesity and smoking is not by sneering at them, but to address the underlying issue of lack of education, lack of resources, poor support structure, and so on.  sneering at a fat person wo not give them the money to buy healthier foods, nor will it give them the understanding to purchase the right foods.  sneering at a smoker wo not break their addiction.   #  statistically, the number of people who lose major amounts of weight without surgery more than 0 and keep it off for even a single year is less than 0.   #  society is extremely harsh on the overweight and obese.  yes, there are a few  fat acceptance  campaigns on tumblr, and there are specialty magazines that feature plus size models, but out in the real world, obese people are regularly mocked and shunned.  overweight children report high levels of bullying.  overweight adults are rated as being less attractive, less intelligent, less capable of self control, and less successful.  they are essentially dehumanized.  i do not see what is wrong with people trying to change that perception.  shame does not help anyone lose weight .  in fact, it can make it worse weight gain is a symptom of some common types of depression and anxiety.  i do not think smokers should be targets for public humiliation, either, since smoking can also be tied to mental illness.  ultimately, though, quitting smoking and losing a significant amount of weight are nothing at all alike.  someone can quit smoking cold turkey although it is difficult , and immediately cease being a smoker.  or they can gradually taper their cigarette consumption over a period of weeks using well studied medications.  or they can switch to a safer alternative like e cigs.  there is no way to go from  fat  to  thin  overnight, or even over a few weeks.  even at  maximum safe levels of weight loss  which virtually no one can sustain for more than a few weeks , it takes a year to lose 0 pounds.  there is no better tasting, calorie free alternative to food sugarfree products can only be eaten in moderation, or they cause digestive problems.  medications for weight loss are considered  effective  if they produce an average 0 change in weight, which is barely even noticeable.  statistically, the number of people who lose major amounts of weight without surgery more than 0 and keep it off for even a single year is less than 0.  once the body creates a fat cell, its life span is almost 0 years you do not lose fat cells, you shrink them, so lost weight can come back with frightening speed.  i do not think 0 % of fat people are just lazy hambeasts who ca not stop eating burgers.  there are serious physiological and psychological factors at work, so it makes sense to treat obesity as a medical condition, not a moral failing.   #  if i want to lose weight, i absolutely can not avoid food.   # i agree, but the difference is that in the case of obesity, many times the decision being made is being made by the parents of the obese party, not the obese party themselves.  very rarely does someone start smoking at age 0, but there is an entire industry around giving cheap but unhealthy food to 0 year olds either that or the entire happy meal industry is aimed at bronies or something.  also, smoking is not vital to survival.  eating is.  our stomachs are dumb, and that is hard to combat; what i mean by this is that when you gain weight, your body acclimates to the level of food it takes to maintain that weight, and so if you try to eat less of the same foods, you will find yourself hungry very often.  your reptile brain interprets  hunger  as  holy shit i am starving find some food .  if you want to quit smoking, you can avoid cigarettes.  it is not easy, but it is doable.  if i want to lose weight, i absolutely can not avoid food.  in america, it is nigh impossible to avoid food i should not eat if i want to lose weight.
in my mind, being overweight is equatable to being a smoker.  my argument does not include those overweight because of medical conditions, i am merely referring to those who are overweight or obese because of lifestyle decisions.  i came to this belief after reflecting on the astoundingly different ways society treats smokers and the obese.  for example, its considered completely okay and even praised for somebody to be disgusted by smoking, but if somebody is disgusted by the overweight then they are an asshole.   how they parallel each other  both stem from bad decision making and both can be cured from better decision making.  in either case, it can be very hard to change your habits, and we should sympathize with this.  science has shown both overeating and smoking to have a profoundly negative effect on overall health.   how they do not parallel each other  the only way in which i see a difference between a smoker and an obese person is that the smoker can harm others with second hand smoke.  i would not be writing this cmv if i thought this is where the difference in most peoples opinions comes from.  i do not get the feeling people are disgusted by smoking because it can harm those around the smoker, though that certainly does not help, i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as pleasurable whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   why the current mindset is harmful  imagine if, in droves, viral add campaigns and videos and slogans were devoted to tell children that smoking is okay, or even that its a beautiful thing.  wouldnt there be public outrage ? in the same vein, is there not being a disservice done to the current generation as they are being told that any bodytype and weight is okay and beautiful ? are we not, in either case, making it seem like bad life choices are permissible ? so my view is, essentially: being overweight is equatable to being a smoker, and regardless of how exactly each of these life choices are treated  they should be treated the same.  cmv ! :  #  both stem from bad decision making and both can be cured from better decision making.   #  i agree, but the difference is that in the case of obesity, many times the decision being made is being made by the parents of the obese party, not the obese party themselves.   # i agree, but the difference is that in the case of obesity, many times the decision being made is being made by the parents of the obese party, not the obese party themselves.  very rarely does someone start smoking at age 0, but there is an entire industry around giving cheap but unhealthy food to 0 year olds either that or the entire happy meal industry is aimed at bronies or something.  also, smoking is not vital to survival.  eating is.  our stomachs are dumb, and that is hard to combat; what i mean by this is that when you gain weight, your body acclimates to the level of food it takes to maintain that weight, and so if you try to eat less of the same foods, you will find yourself hungry very often.  your reptile brain interprets  hunger  as  holy shit i am starving find some food .  if you want to quit smoking, you can avoid cigarettes.  it is not easy, but it is doable.  if i want to lose weight, i absolutely can not avoid food.  in america, it is nigh impossible to avoid food i should not eat if i want to lose weight.   #  so people can relate to overweight people easier and therefore sympathize more readily because everyone is eaten a little too much at thanksgiving, or everyone is had that 0 pounds they have been meaning to lose point 0 .   #  i think you are caught up in the reddit reaction engine if you think that a large section of the population agrees that  any bodytype and weight is okay .  literally the opposite is happening.  michelle obama, one of the most visible public figures in the country, has made her entire public image around anti childhood obesity.  anti obesity campaigns and awareness of the health issues overweight people face are getting to the levels which tobacco smoke is current: basically everyone knows that being overweight is unhealthy.  the differences in societal attitudes toward being overweight and being a smoker, while multitude, can be summed up in these three ways: 0.  being overweight hurts only yourself.  that is huge.  cigarettes did not get banned in bars and public spaces because they are harmful to the user.  0.  many, many more people are overweight than are smokers.  it is harder for the public to condemn something that is massively more common than smoking, especially when it does not hurt anyone else point 0 .  0.  everyone eats.  it is not like every person has to smoke a single nicotine cigarette every day, and we only look down on those who smoke a pack.  but everyone  does  have to eat, and only  some  become overweight.  so people can relate to overweight people easier and therefore sympathize more readily because everyone is eaten a little too much at thanksgiving, or everyone is had that 0 pounds they have been meaning to lose point 0 .   #  i will agree entirely with your premise that both are states, being obese and being a smoker, are inherently bad for you.   #  i am going to flip this on you and see what you think.  i will agree entirely with your premise that both are states, being obese and being a smoker, are inherently bad for you.  the gap in your argument, and it is a vital one, is that you go from,  it is bad for you, thus frowning upon these behaviors is reasonable.   this assumes that the responsibility of both of these states rests entirely with the individual.  but this is not so.  by this i mean that both obesity and smoking are stratified by income level: URL URL therefore, your advocating for what at times amounts to nothing more than public shaming is not addressing the issue and just causing them to feel even worse about themselves.  the way to treat obesity and smoking is not by sneering at them, but to address the underlying issue of lack of education, lack of resources, poor support structure, and so on.  sneering at a fat person wo not give them the money to buy healthier foods, nor will it give them the understanding to purchase the right foods.  sneering at a smoker wo not break their addiction.   #  every single act of eating is therefore a balancing act, the likes of which smokers do not have to try.   # except, obese people must eat.  this means that they cannot go cold turkey for any significant periods of time.  every single act of eating is therefore a balancing act, the likes of which smokers do not have to try.  while eaters can temporarily replace eating with other habits, there is nothing they can use to permanently replace eating.  along the same lines, nearly everyone in their world eats three times a day and eating is a social event.  if you refuse to eat you have often insulted the host.  i have tried fasting in the past and have been told that i am insane.  you will often be viewed as having an active eating disorder if you choose to forgo food.  these differences are absolutely at the core of why these two situations differ.  rather:   i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as  necessary for life  whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   #  statistically, the number of people who lose major amounts of weight without surgery more than 0 and keep it off for even a single year is less than 0.   #  society is extremely harsh on the overweight and obese.  yes, there are a few  fat acceptance  campaigns on tumblr, and there are specialty magazines that feature plus size models, but out in the real world, obese people are regularly mocked and shunned.  overweight children report high levels of bullying.  overweight adults are rated as being less attractive, less intelligent, less capable of self control, and less successful.  they are essentially dehumanized.  i do not see what is wrong with people trying to change that perception.  shame does not help anyone lose weight .  in fact, it can make it worse weight gain is a symptom of some common types of depression and anxiety.  i do not think smokers should be targets for public humiliation, either, since smoking can also be tied to mental illness.  ultimately, though, quitting smoking and losing a significant amount of weight are nothing at all alike.  someone can quit smoking cold turkey although it is difficult , and immediately cease being a smoker.  or they can gradually taper their cigarette consumption over a period of weeks using well studied medications.  or they can switch to a safer alternative like e cigs.  there is no way to go from  fat  to  thin  overnight, or even over a few weeks.  even at  maximum safe levels of weight loss  which virtually no one can sustain for more than a few weeks , it takes a year to lose 0 pounds.  there is no better tasting, calorie free alternative to food sugarfree products can only be eaten in moderation, or they cause digestive problems.  medications for weight loss are considered  effective  if they produce an average 0 change in weight, which is barely even noticeable.  statistically, the number of people who lose major amounts of weight without surgery more than 0 and keep it off for even a single year is less than 0.  once the body creates a fat cell, its life span is almost 0 years you do not lose fat cells, you shrink them, so lost weight can come back with frightening speed.  i do not think 0 % of fat people are just lazy hambeasts who ca not stop eating burgers.  there are serious physiological and psychological factors at work, so it makes sense to treat obesity as a medical condition, not a moral failing.
in my mind, being overweight is equatable to being a smoker.  my argument does not include those overweight because of medical conditions, i am merely referring to those who are overweight or obese because of lifestyle decisions.  i came to this belief after reflecting on the astoundingly different ways society treats smokers and the obese.  for example, its considered completely okay and even praised for somebody to be disgusted by smoking, but if somebody is disgusted by the overweight then they are an asshole.   how they parallel each other  both stem from bad decision making and both can be cured from better decision making.  in either case, it can be very hard to change your habits, and we should sympathize with this.  science has shown both overeating and smoking to have a profoundly negative effect on overall health.   how they do not parallel each other  the only way in which i see a difference between a smoker and an obese person is that the smoker can harm others with second hand smoke.  i would not be writing this cmv if i thought this is where the difference in most peoples opinions comes from.  i do not get the feeling people are disgusted by smoking because it can harm those around the smoker, though that certainly does not help, i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as pleasurable whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   why the current mindset is harmful  imagine if, in droves, viral add campaigns and videos and slogans were devoted to tell children that smoking is okay, or even that its a beautiful thing.  wouldnt there be public outrage ? in the same vein, is there not being a disservice done to the current generation as they are being told that any bodytype and weight is okay and beautiful ? are we not, in either case, making it seem like bad life choices are permissible ? so my view is, essentially: being overweight is equatable to being a smoker, and regardless of how exactly each of these life choices are treated  they should be treated the same.  cmv ! :  #  both stem from bad decision making and both can be cured from better decision making.   #  quitting smoking can be hard, but also simple: throw away all the tobacco, do not buy any more.   # quitting smoking can be hard, but also simple: throw away all the tobacco, do not buy any more.  mentally it can suck, a lot, but it is a  simple  procedure.  with eating it is also hard, perhaps not harder, but in any case  more complicated .  one can just cut all smoking, but one cannot or rather, should not cut all eating.  and adipose tissue secretes hunger hormones, to keep body fat stable.  it is a  constant struggle  where you  need  to keep a cold head and strictly control your food input.  wouldnt there be public outrage ? are we not, in either case, making it seem like bad life choices are permissible ? there is a difference between  action  and  consequence .  saying  smoking is cool  would be equivalent to  eating a lot of junk food is cool .   campaigns against body shaming  would be equivalent to  do not hate on people who are bald from the chemo for their lung cancer  this comparison is very exaggerate, but i hope you get what i mean .   #  anti obesity campaigns and awareness of the health issues overweight people face are getting to the levels which tobacco smoke is current: basically everyone knows that being overweight is unhealthy.   #  i think you are caught up in the reddit reaction engine if you think that a large section of the population agrees that  any bodytype and weight is okay .  literally the opposite is happening.  michelle obama, one of the most visible public figures in the country, has made her entire public image around anti childhood obesity.  anti obesity campaigns and awareness of the health issues overweight people face are getting to the levels which tobacco smoke is current: basically everyone knows that being overweight is unhealthy.  the differences in societal attitudes toward being overweight and being a smoker, while multitude, can be summed up in these three ways: 0.  being overweight hurts only yourself.  that is huge.  cigarettes did not get banned in bars and public spaces because they are harmful to the user.  0.  many, many more people are overweight than are smokers.  it is harder for the public to condemn something that is massively more common than smoking, especially when it does not hurt anyone else point 0 .  0.  everyone eats.  it is not like every person has to smoke a single nicotine cigarette every day, and we only look down on those who smoke a pack.  but everyone  does  have to eat, and only  some  become overweight.  so people can relate to overweight people easier and therefore sympathize more readily because everyone is eaten a little too much at thanksgiving, or everyone is had that 0 pounds they have been meaning to lose point 0 .   #  this assumes that the responsibility of both of these states rests entirely with the individual.   #  i am going to flip this on you and see what you think.  i will agree entirely with your premise that both are states, being obese and being a smoker, are inherently bad for you.  the gap in your argument, and it is a vital one, is that you go from,  it is bad for you, thus frowning upon these behaviors is reasonable.   this assumes that the responsibility of both of these states rests entirely with the individual.  but this is not so.  by this i mean that both obesity and smoking are stratified by income level: URL URL therefore, your advocating for what at times amounts to nothing more than public shaming is not addressing the issue and just causing them to feel even worse about themselves.  the way to treat obesity and smoking is not by sneering at them, but to address the underlying issue of lack of education, lack of resources, poor support structure, and so on.  sneering at a fat person wo not give them the money to buy healthier foods, nor will it give them the understanding to purchase the right foods.  sneering at a smoker wo not break their addiction.   #  every single act of eating is therefore a balancing act, the likes of which smokers do not have to try.   # except, obese people must eat.  this means that they cannot go cold turkey for any significant periods of time.  every single act of eating is therefore a balancing act, the likes of which smokers do not have to try.  while eaters can temporarily replace eating with other habits, there is nothing they can use to permanently replace eating.  along the same lines, nearly everyone in their world eats three times a day and eating is a social event.  if you refuse to eat you have often insulted the host.  i have tried fasting in the past and have been told that i am insane.  you will often be viewed as having an active eating disorder if you choose to forgo food.  these differences are absolutely at the core of why these two situations differ.  rather:   i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as  necessary for life  whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   #  once the body creates a fat cell, its life span is almost 0 years you do not lose fat cells, you shrink them, so lost weight can come back with frightening speed.   #  society is extremely harsh on the overweight and obese.  yes, there are a few  fat acceptance  campaigns on tumblr, and there are specialty magazines that feature plus size models, but out in the real world, obese people are regularly mocked and shunned.  overweight children report high levels of bullying.  overweight adults are rated as being less attractive, less intelligent, less capable of self control, and less successful.  they are essentially dehumanized.  i do not see what is wrong with people trying to change that perception.  shame does not help anyone lose weight .  in fact, it can make it worse weight gain is a symptom of some common types of depression and anxiety.  i do not think smokers should be targets for public humiliation, either, since smoking can also be tied to mental illness.  ultimately, though, quitting smoking and losing a significant amount of weight are nothing at all alike.  someone can quit smoking cold turkey although it is difficult , and immediately cease being a smoker.  or they can gradually taper their cigarette consumption over a period of weeks using well studied medications.  or they can switch to a safer alternative like e cigs.  there is no way to go from  fat  to  thin  overnight, or even over a few weeks.  even at  maximum safe levels of weight loss  which virtually no one can sustain for more than a few weeks , it takes a year to lose 0 pounds.  there is no better tasting, calorie free alternative to food sugarfree products can only be eaten in moderation, or they cause digestive problems.  medications for weight loss are considered  effective  if they produce an average 0 change in weight, which is barely even noticeable.  statistically, the number of people who lose major amounts of weight without surgery more than 0 and keep it off for even a single year is less than 0.  once the body creates a fat cell, its life span is almost 0 years you do not lose fat cells, you shrink them, so lost weight can come back with frightening speed.  i do not think 0 % of fat people are just lazy hambeasts who ca not stop eating burgers.  there are serious physiological and psychological factors at work, so it makes sense to treat obesity as a medical condition, not a moral failing.
in my mind, being overweight is equatable to being a smoker.  my argument does not include those overweight because of medical conditions, i am merely referring to those who are overweight or obese because of lifestyle decisions.  i came to this belief after reflecting on the astoundingly different ways society treats smokers and the obese.  for example, its considered completely okay and even praised for somebody to be disgusted by smoking, but if somebody is disgusted by the overweight then they are an asshole.   how they parallel each other  both stem from bad decision making and both can be cured from better decision making.  in either case, it can be very hard to change your habits, and we should sympathize with this.  science has shown both overeating and smoking to have a profoundly negative effect on overall health.   how they do not parallel each other  the only way in which i see a difference between a smoker and an obese person is that the smoker can harm others with second hand smoke.  i would not be writing this cmv if i thought this is where the difference in most peoples opinions comes from.  i do not get the feeling people are disgusted by smoking because it can harm those around the smoker, though that certainly does not help, i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as pleasurable whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   why the current mindset is harmful  imagine if, in droves, viral add campaigns and videos and slogans were devoted to tell children that smoking is okay, or even that its a beautiful thing.  wouldnt there be public outrage ? in the same vein, is there not being a disservice done to the current generation as they are being told that any bodytype and weight is okay and beautiful ? are we not, in either case, making it seem like bad life choices are permissible ? so my view is, essentially: being overweight is equatable to being a smoker, and regardless of how exactly each of these life choices are treated  they should be treated the same.  cmv ! :  #  in the same vein, is there not being a disservice done to the current generation as they are being told that any bodytype and weight is okay and beautiful ?  #  are we not, in either case, making it seem like bad life choices are permissible ?  # quitting smoking can be hard, but also simple: throw away all the tobacco, do not buy any more.  mentally it can suck, a lot, but it is a  simple  procedure.  with eating it is also hard, perhaps not harder, but in any case  more complicated .  one can just cut all smoking, but one cannot or rather, should not cut all eating.  and adipose tissue secretes hunger hormones, to keep body fat stable.  it is a  constant struggle  where you  need  to keep a cold head and strictly control your food input.  wouldnt there be public outrage ? are we not, in either case, making it seem like bad life choices are permissible ? there is a difference between  action  and  consequence .  saying  smoking is cool  would be equivalent to  eating a lot of junk food is cool .   campaigns against body shaming  would be equivalent to  do not hate on people who are bald from the chemo for their lung cancer  this comparison is very exaggerate, but i hope you get what i mean .   #  it is not like every person has to smoke a single nicotine cigarette every day, and we only look down on those who smoke a pack.   #  i think you are caught up in the reddit reaction engine if you think that a large section of the population agrees that  any bodytype and weight is okay .  literally the opposite is happening.  michelle obama, one of the most visible public figures in the country, has made her entire public image around anti childhood obesity.  anti obesity campaigns and awareness of the health issues overweight people face are getting to the levels which tobacco smoke is current: basically everyone knows that being overweight is unhealthy.  the differences in societal attitudes toward being overweight and being a smoker, while multitude, can be summed up in these three ways: 0.  being overweight hurts only yourself.  that is huge.  cigarettes did not get banned in bars and public spaces because they are harmful to the user.  0.  many, many more people are overweight than are smokers.  it is harder for the public to condemn something that is massively more common than smoking, especially when it does not hurt anyone else point 0 .  0.  everyone eats.  it is not like every person has to smoke a single nicotine cigarette every day, and we only look down on those who smoke a pack.  but everyone  does  have to eat, and only  some  become overweight.  so people can relate to overweight people easier and therefore sympathize more readily because everyone is eaten a little too much at thanksgiving, or everyone is had that 0 pounds they have been meaning to lose point 0 .   #  sneering at a fat person wo not give them the money to buy healthier foods, nor will it give them the understanding to purchase the right foods.   #  i am going to flip this on you and see what you think.  i will agree entirely with your premise that both are states, being obese and being a smoker, are inherently bad for you.  the gap in your argument, and it is a vital one, is that you go from,  it is bad for you, thus frowning upon these behaviors is reasonable.   this assumes that the responsibility of both of these states rests entirely with the individual.  but this is not so.  by this i mean that both obesity and smoking are stratified by income level: URL URL therefore, your advocating for what at times amounts to nothing more than public shaming is not addressing the issue and just causing them to feel even worse about themselves.  the way to treat obesity and smoking is not by sneering at them, but to address the underlying issue of lack of education, lack of resources, poor support structure, and so on.  sneering at a fat person wo not give them the money to buy healthier foods, nor will it give them the understanding to purchase the right foods.  sneering at a smoker wo not break their addiction.   #  i have tried fasting in the past and have been told that i am insane.   # except, obese people must eat.  this means that they cannot go cold turkey for any significant periods of time.  every single act of eating is therefore a balancing act, the likes of which smokers do not have to try.  while eaters can temporarily replace eating with other habits, there is nothing they can use to permanently replace eating.  along the same lines, nearly everyone in their world eats three times a day and eating is a social event.  if you refuse to eat you have often insulted the host.  i have tried fasting in the past and have been told that i am insane.  you will often be viewed as having an active eating disorder if you choose to forgo food.  these differences are absolutely at the core of why these two situations differ.  rather:   i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as  necessary for life  whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   #  there is no better tasting, calorie free alternative to food sugarfree products can only be eaten in moderation, or they cause digestive problems.   #  society is extremely harsh on the overweight and obese.  yes, there are a few  fat acceptance  campaigns on tumblr, and there are specialty magazines that feature plus size models, but out in the real world, obese people are regularly mocked and shunned.  overweight children report high levels of bullying.  overweight adults are rated as being less attractive, less intelligent, less capable of self control, and less successful.  they are essentially dehumanized.  i do not see what is wrong with people trying to change that perception.  shame does not help anyone lose weight .  in fact, it can make it worse weight gain is a symptom of some common types of depression and anxiety.  i do not think smokers should be targets for public humiliation, either, since smoking can also be tied to mental illness.  ultimately, though, quitting smoking and losing a significant amount of weight are nothing at all alike.  someone can quit smoking cold turkey although it is difficult , and immediately cease being a smoker.  or they can gradually taper their cigarette consumption over a period of weeks using well studied medications.  or they can switch to a safer alternative like e cigs.  there is no way to go from  fat  to  thin  overnight, or even over a few weeks.  even at  maximum safe levels of weight loss  which virtually no one can sustain for more than a few weeks , it takes a year to lose 0 pounds.  there is no better tasting, calorie free alternative to food sugarfree products can only be eaten in moderation, or they cause digestive problems.  medications for weight loss are considered  effective  if they produce an average 0 change in weight, which is barely even noticeable.  statistically, the number of people who lose major amounts of weight without surgery more than 0 and keep it off for even a single year is less than 0.  once the body creates a fat cell, its life span is almost 0 years you do not lose fat cells, you shrink them, so lost weight can come back with frightening speed.  i do not think 0 % of fat people are just lazy hambeasts who ca not stop eating burgers.  there are serious physiological and psychological factors at work, so it makes sense to treat obesity as a medical condition, not a moral failing.
in my mind, being overweight is equatable to being a smoker.  my argument does not include those overweight because of medical conditions, i am merely referring to those who are overweight or obese because of lifestyle decisions.  i came to this belief after reflecting on the astoundingly different ways society treats smokers and the obese.  for example, its considered completely okay and even praised for somebody to be disgusted by smoking, but if somebody is disgusted by the overweight then they are an asshole.   how they parallel each other  both stem from bad decision making and both can be cured from better decision making.  in either case, it can be very hard to change your habits, and we should sympathize with this.  science has shown both overeating and smoking to have a profoundly negative effect on overall health.   how they do not parallel each other  the only way in which i see a difference between a smoker and an obese person is that the smoker can harm others with second hand smoke.  i would not be writing this cmv if i thought this is where the difference in most peoples opinions comes from.  i do not get the feeling people are disgusted by smoking because it can harm those around the smoker, though that certainly does not help, i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as pleasurable whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   why the current mindset is harmful  imagine if, in droves, viral add campaigns and videos and slogans were devoted to tell children that smoking is okay, or even that its a beautiful thing.  wouldnt there be public outrage ? in the same vein, is there not being a disservice done to the current generation as they are being told that any bodytype and weight is okay and beautiful ? are we not, in either case, making it seem like bad life choices are permissible ? so my view is, essentially: being overweight is equatable to being a smoker, and regardless of how exactly each of these life choices are treated  they should be treated the same.  cmv ! :  #  my argument does not include those overweight because of medical conditions, i am merely referring to those who are overweight or obese because of lifestyle decisions.   #  then you are excluding a lot of people who are obese.   # then you are excluding a lot of people who are obese.  not that it is strictly a medical condition for these people, but some people just plain have it worse than others.  you would think i would be obese from how often i spend sitting and how sparsely i exercise, but nope, i am practically a rail.  it may have something to do with the fact that both my parents have hyperactive thyroids, but either way, i admit that it is a little unfair that i do not get the same derision for my  lifestyle.   wouldnt there be public outrage ? i do not think that is what  fat activism  is really about.  it is more along the lines of  be happy with who you are.   it is not like fat people do not know that obesity is unhealthy, it is that internalizing everyone is hateful remarks about their weight is counterproductive.  in fact, i believe that, paradoxically, encouraging self esteem among overweight people is the best way to get them to change.  if they do not feel like unattractive failures every time they step out of the house, they would be more comfortable exercising in the same sense that you would feel more comfortable tightrope walking if there is a net below you.  smoking, on the other hand, is more of a nervous habit.  i am sure it is very hard to quit, but it does not usually involve major changes in your behavior that may not even be compatible with how you want to live many obese people are obese because they have no time to exercise and not enough money for healthy food.  smokers do not have these excuses.   #  it is not like every person has to smoke a single nicotine cigarette every day, and we only look down on those who smoke a pack.   #  i think you are caught up in the reddit reaction engine if you think that a large section of the population agrees that  any bodytype and weight is okay .  literally the opposite is happening.  michelle obama, one of the most visible public figures in the country, has made her entire public image around anti childhood obesity.  anti obesity campaigns and awareness of the health issues overweight people face are getting to the levels which tobacco smoke is current: basically everyone knows that being overweight is unhealthy.  the differences in societal attitudes toward being overweight and being a smoker, while multitude, can be summed up in these three ways: 0.  being overweight hurts only yourself.  that is huge.  cigarettes did not get banned in bars and public spaces because they are harmful to the user.  0.  many, many more people are overweight than are smokers.  it is harder for the public to condemn something that is massively more common than smoking, especially when it does not hurt anyone else point 0 .  0.  everyone eats.  it is not like every person has to smoke a single nicotine cigarette every day, and we only look down on those who smoke a pack.  but everyone  does  have to eat, and only  some  become overweight.  so people can relate to overweight people easier and therefore sympathize more readily because everyone is eaten a little too much at thanksgiving, or everyone is had that 0 pounds they have been meaning to lose point 0 .   #  the gap in your argument, and it is a vital one, is that you go from,  it is bad for you, thus frowning upon these behaviors is reasonable.    #  i am going to flip this on you and see what you think.  i will agree entirely with your premise that both are states, being obese and being a smoker, are inherently bad for you.  the gap in your argument, and it is a vital one, is that you go from,  it is bad for you, thus frowning upon these behaviors is reasonable.   this assumes that the responsibility of both of these states rests entirely with the individual.  but this is not so.  by this i mean that both obesity and smoking are stratified by income level: URL URL therefore, your advocating for what at times amounts to nothing more than public shaming is not addressing the issue and just causing them to feel even worse about themselves.  the way to treat obesity and smoking is not by sneering at them, but to address the underlying issue of lack of education, lack of resources, poor support structure, and so on.  sneering at a fat person wo not give them the money to buy healthier foods, nor will it give them the understanding to purchase the right foods.  sneering at a smoker wo not break their addiction.   #  while eaters can temporarily replace eating with other habits, there is nothing they can use to permanently replace eating.   # except, obese people must eat.  this means that they cannot go cold turkey for any significant periods of time.  every single act of eating is therefore a balancing act, the likes of which smokers do not have to try.  while eaters can temporarily replace eating with other habits, there is nothing they can use to permanently replace eating.  along the same lines, nearly everyone in their world eats three times a day and eating is a social event.  if you refuse to eat you have often insulted the host.  i have tried fasting in the past and have been told that i am insane.  you will often be viewed as having an active eating disorder if you choose to forgo food.  these differences are absolutely at the core of why these two situations differ.  rather:   i think the difference is mostly visceral, and stems from the fact that eating food is viewed by most as  necessary for life  whereas a non smoker is unable to understand the craving of a smoker.   #  yes, there are a few  fat acceptance  campaigns on tumblr, and there are specialty magazines that feature plus size models, but out in the real world, obese people are regularly mocked and shunned.   #  society is extremely harsh on the overweight and obese.  yes, there are a few  fat acceptance  campaigns on tumblr, and there are specialty magazines that feature plus size models, but out in the real world, obese people are regularly mocked and shunned.  overweight children report high levels of bullying.  overweight adults are rated as being less attractive, less intelligent, less capable of self control, and less successful.  they are essentially dehumanized.  i do not see what is wrong with people trying to change that perception.  shame does not help anyone lose weight .  in fact, it can make it worse weight gain is a symptom of some common types of depression and anxiety.  i do not think smokers should be targets for public humiliation, either, since smoking can also be tied to mental illness.  ultimately, though, quitting smoking and losing a significant amount of weight are nothing at all alike.  someone can quit smoking cold turkey although it is difficult , and immediately cease being a smoker.  or they can gradually taper their cigarette consumption over a period of weeks using well studied medications.  or they can switch to a safer alternative like e cigs.  there is no way to go from  fat  to  thin  overnight, or even over a few weeks.  even at  maximum safe levels of weight loss  which virtually no one can sustain for more than a few weeks , it takes a year to lose 0 pounds.  there is no better tasting, calorie free alternative to food sugarfree products can only be eaten in moderation, or they cause digestive problems.  medications for weight loss are considered  effective  if they produce an average 0 change in weight, which is barely even noticeable.  statistically, the number of people who lose major amounts of weight without surgery more than 0 and keep it off for even a single year is less than 0.  once the body creates a fat cell, its life span is almost 0 years you do not lose fat cells, you shrink them, so lost weight can come back with frightening speed.  i do not think 0 % of fat people are just lazy hambeasts who ca not stop eating burgers.  there are serious physiological and psychological factors at work, so it makes sense to treat obesity as a medical condition, not a moral failing.
with their latest update, the reddit team have gotten rid of the ability for users to see how many upvotes and downvotes a comment has.  especially on your own posts, it is useful to be able to see the ratio of the two to know if your post was simply unnoticed or actually unpopular/controversial.  in situations where you are having a discussion/argument with someone, it is good to be able to see if they are petty enough to downvote all your comments.  when you have made a new post, it is nice to follow the exact process of its rise or failure in exact detail.  simply seeing ? | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen, while not much of a real probably it just gets on my nerves when i look for the numbers and see the blank question marks.  i ca not see any benefits beyond the vague excuses made in the announcement, and i was completely happy with how reddit worked before the changes.  so, convince me that this change is a good thing !  #  when you have made a new post, it is nice to follow the exact process of its rise or failure in exact detail.   #  the problem is, this number had long been fuzzed, and not exact at all.   # the problem is, this number had long been fuzzed, and not exact at all.  that is, the total karma count was mostly accurate, but the individual up/down votes were very iffy, there primarily because users wanted to see  something , whether that was based on real data or not.  as the announcement explained, this often led to users thinking plenty of people were downvoting them, when there were no or very few downvotes in reality.  | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen, while not much of a real probably it just gets on my nerves when i look for the numbers and see the blank question marks.  the   ? | ?   is not a reddit feature, it is an incompatibility between the new update and the unofficial res extension, which will be fixed soon URL non res users do not see any bizarre question marks.  i have got the uppers/downers part of res disabled, so i see this URL not very obtrusive or annoying at all, simple and just as importantly accurate.   #  ca not really maintain that kind of impact by just switching to multiple different types of upvotes and downvotes.   #  well, that is really missing the point of the  interest  metric talked about in themality is parent post.   insightful, funny, troll, ect  really becomes a popularity contest after a time to get the most coveted rating.  posts with high interest, even if negative, are posts that are interesting, and it trains people to ignore trolls rather than give them downvote attention.  the obvious thrust of the change is about both maintaining the fuzzy math, and negating the impact of downvotes as a disagreement tool hence the reworking of the  controversial  metric sorting being a highly noted item in the original post .  ca not really maintain that kind of impact by just switching to multiple different types of upvotes and downvotes.  honestly i think they really should just get rid of karma altogether because it gives poor incentives for cheap content.   #  showing 0 does not give that insight of the actual ratio.   #  0/0, 0/0 and 0/0 are big differences though.  the first is a small but unanimous like.  even though it is only a few people who upvoted,  0 people downvoted .  the latter two are 0 and 0 upvote to downvote ratio respectively.  that is a big difference compared to the 0/0.  showing 0 does not give that insight of the actual ratio.   #  the easiest way to think about it is that every time there was a vote, there was a small chance that the system would apply the vote,  plus  two fictional votes one up, one down .   #  the fuzzing was proportional to the vote totals.  that 0|0 post was probably 0|0, but  might  have been 0|0 or or 0|0.  it was  never  going to be 0|0.  that 0|0 post was going to be somewhere in the 0|0 to 0|0 range, but again, never going to be 0|0 or 0|0.  and so on.  the easiest way to think about it is that every time there was a vote, there was a small chance that the system would apply the vote,  plus  two fictional votes one up, one down .  for very popular posts, you will accumulate a lot of fictional votes, making every popular post look falsely controversial.  eg, a post that got 0|0 upvotes might look more like 0|0, leading to comments about  man, how could anyone downvote this ? !   .  but every bit of info i have indicates that poopwithexcitement is wrong; 0|0 and 0|0 were not just as likely to show up.  the fuzzing for smaller subreddits was much smaller than that.   #  i have no idea how it worked exactly, but it is highly consistent with the idea that the  fuzz  is proportionate to the vote totals.   #  no.  but the mechanism of fuzzing has been explained a few times   experiments made it very clear.  example: small subreddit.  i post a comment.  my girlfriend notices my comment and upvotes me.  it is  possible  0 0 other people have voted, but maybe not.  the totals i am going to see are, invariably, 0|0, 0|0, 0|0, 0|0, maybe even 0|0, something like that.  and if i cross check totals from my account, from my girlfriends computer, from my phone, etc. , the numbers bounce around a bit, but they all agree: my comment is 0 0 net karma, with less than a half dozen votes.  never never never do you randomly see 0|0 just randomly appear in a small subreddit; when you do see vote totals like that, it builds up slowly and roughly in proportion to the traffic a thread is getting.  conversely, if you look at bestof or popular threads in big subreddits, you see that popular comments converge to a 0/0 ratio.  and again, if you reload, change computers, log out, etc. , the numbers bounce around, but they stick to that ratio.  i have no idea how it worked exactly, but it is highly consistent with the idea that the  fuzz  is proportionate to the vote totals.  conversely, it is highly inconsistent with the idea that it just applies a  static  amount of fuzz to all posts.  small traffic subreddits routinely see a fuzz of, at most, 0 0 votes, while high traffic ones see a fuzz that is, at a minimum, thousands of votes.  whether the fuzz follows a linear or gaussian distribution, is proportional to votes or total views, whether they fuzz the upvotes and then pick a downvote number to match or fuzz both in opposite directions. i dunno.  but it was easy to find examples of, eg, a worldnews post at 0|0 when it is likely that no more than a couple hundred downvotes were legitimate, and a small subreddit post at 0|0, where  maybe  one pair of votes at most is fuzz.
with their latest update, the reddit team have gotten rid of the ability for users to see how many upvotes and downvotes a comment has.  especially on your own posts, it is useful to be able to see the ratio of the two to know if your post was simply unnoticed or actually unpopular/controversial.  in situations where you are having a discussion/argument with someone, it is good to be able to see if they are petty enough to downvote all your comments.  when you have made a new post, it is nice to follow the exact process of its rise or failure in exact detail.  simply seeing ? | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen, while not much of a real probably it just gets on my nerves when i look for the numbers and see the blank question marks.  i ca not see any benefits beyond the vague excuses made in the announcement, and i was completely happy with how reddit worked before the changes.  so, convince me that this change is a good thing !  #  especially on your own posts, it is useful to be able to see the ratio of the two to know if your post was simply unnoticed or actually unpopular/controversial.   #  i do not disagree with this statement, but in my experience these comments are not the majority.   #  i believe the reason why the admins implemented this idea is that reddit is getting too meta.  we are discussing way too much about our karma, the upvotes we give and the downvotes we receive.  we redditors spend too much time talking about reddit rather than the actual topics of the thread.  this has a very bad effect on our discussions.  many people comment  in order to get upvotes , and their contribution may not be as useful as we would want to, because they tend to pander the hivemind and to reply with puns and jokes.  by removing the net upvotes/downvotes, the admins   i believe   are trying to create an environment where people is silent reaction that is, votes without explanatory comments do not influence or just influence less the commenters  behaviour.  this would let people stop commenting to appease the hivemind, and start commenting just to voice their own opinion.  people say that they want to get some feedback from their posts and comments.  i understand that feeling, but what we should aim for is a discussion where this desire is way less important that the act of commenting  per se .  i mean: now i am not commenting because i want my opinion to be heard it probably wo not and that is fine , but because i think my opinion is relevant to the discussion, and i believe its value is bigger than my desire to get feedback   in other words, i want this comment to be written by someone more than i want to get upvotes.  is not that how we should behave, by the way ? should not we feel free to comment regardless of other people is reactions ? i do not disagree with this statement, but in my experience these comments are not the majority.  i can discern which comments of mine got a positive or negative net score, so that i know if they were good or bad.  i can look back at my comment history and get an overall feeling of what comments are well received by the community.  you cannot reasonably assume that the downvotes come from a specific user.  and even if you can for some particular reason e. g.  if there are only 0 people in the thread , i ca not see how this piece of knowledge can be useful to the discussion itself.  is it that important to know whether the opponent downvoted you ? would you change your behaviour because of that ? it is nice, but as i said, you should be interested more in the quality of your comment than in the responses it gets.  the mere upvotes/downvotes will not give you a good perception of that quality   those numbers themselves are fuzzed, and, let is be honest, some redditors upvote and downvote for no particular reasons.  for that reason, replies are a much better way to get an idea of how good our comments are.  so the number of votes is not that interesting to analyse.  actually, being too focused on that feedback is detrimental to your contributions, because you will start commenting according to the hivemind is reaction.  | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen as others wrote, this is a res thing.  the admins are not responsible of that ? | ? thing   actually you are, because  you  decided to keep that res module on.   #  is not a reddit feature, it is an incompatibility between the new update and the unofficial res extension, which will be fixed soon URL non res users do not see any bizarre question marks.   # the problem is, this number had long been fuzzed, and not exact at all.  that is, the total karma count was mostly accurate, but the individual up/down votes were very iffy, there primarily because users wanted to see  something , whether that was based on real data or not.  as the announcement explained, this often led to users thinking plenty of people were downvoting them, when there were no or very few downvotes in reality.  | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen, while not much of a real probably it just gets on my nerves when i look for the numbers and see the blank question marks.  the   ? | ?   is not a reddit feature, it is an incompatibility between the new update and the unofficial res extension, which will be fixed soon URL non res users do not see any bizarre question marks.  i have got the uppers/downers part of res disabled, so i see this URL not very obtrusive or annoying at all, simple and just as importantly accurate.   #   insightful, funny, troll, ect  really becomes a popularity contest after a time to get the most coveted rating.   #  well, that is really missing the point of the  interest  metric talked about in themality is parent post.   insightful, funny, troll, ect  really becomes a popularity contest after a time to get the most coveted rating.  posts with high interest, even if negative, are posts that are interesting, and it trains people to ignore trolls rather than give them downvote attention.  the obvious thrust of the change is about both maintaining the fuzzy math, and negating the impact of downvotes as a disagreement tool hence the reworking of the  controversial  metric sorting being a highly noted item in the original post .  ca not really maintain that kind of impact by just switching to multiple different types of upvotes and downvotes.  honestly i think they really should just get rid of karma altogether because it gives poor incentives for cheap content.   #  0/0, 0/0 and 0/0 are big differences though.   #  0/0, 0/0 and 0/0 are big differences though.  the first is a small but unanimous like.  even though it is only a few people who upvoted,  0 people downvoted .  the latter two are 0 and 0 upvote to downvote ratio respectively.  that is a big difference compared to the 0/0.  showing 0 does not give that insight of the actual ratio.   #  that 0|0 post was probably 0|0, but  might  have been 0|0 or or 0|0.   #  the fuzzing was proportional to the vote totals.  that 0|0 post was probably 0|0, but  might  have been 0|0 or or 0|0.  it was  never  going to be 0|0.  that 0|0 post was going to be somewhere in the 0|0 to 0|0 range, but again, never going to be 0|0 or 0|0.  and so on.  the easiest way to think about it is that every time there was a vote, there was a small chance that the system would apply the vote,  plus  two fictional votes one up, one down .  for very popular posts, you will accumulate a lot of fictional votes, making every popular post look falsely controversial.  eg, a post that got 0|0 upvotes might look more like 0|0, leading to comments about  man, how could anyone downvote this ? !   .  but every bit of info i have indicates that poopwithexcitement is wrong; 0|0 and 0|0 were not just as likely to show up.  the fuzzing for smaller subreddits was much smaller than that.
with their latest update, the reddit team have gotten rid of the ability for users to see how many upvotes and downvotes a comment has.  especially on your own posts, it is useful to be able to see the ratio of the two to know if your post was simply unnoticed or actually unpopular/controversial.  in situations where you are having a discussion/argument with someone, it is good to be able to see if they are petty enough to downvote all your comments.  when you have made a new post, it is nice to follow the exact process of its rise or failure in exact detail.  simply seeing ? | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen, while not much of a real probably it just gets on my nerves when i look for the numbers and see the blank question marks.  i ca not see any benefits beyond the vague excuses made in the announcement, and i was completely happy with how reddit worked before the changes.  so, convince me that this change is a good thing !  #  in situations where you are having a discussion/argument with someone, it is good to be able to see if they are petty enough to downvote all your comments.   #  you cannot reasonably assume that the downvotes come from a specific user.   #  i believe the reason why the admins implemented this idea is that reddit is getting too meta.  we are discussing way too much about our karma, the upvotes we give and the downvotes we receive.  we redditors spend too much time talking about reddit rather than the actual topics of the thread.  this has a very bad effect on our discussions.  many people comment  in order to get upvotes , and their contribution may not be as useful as we would want to, because they tend to pander the hivemind and to reply with puns and jokes.  by removing the net upvotes/downvotes, the admins   i believe   are trying to create an environment where people is silent reaction that is, votes without explanatory comments do not influence or just influence less the commenters  behaviour.  this would let people stop commenting to appease the hivemind, and start commenting just to voice their own opinion.  people say that they want to get some feedback from their posts and comments.  i understand that feeling, but what we should aim for is a discussion where this desire is way less important that the act of commenting  per se .  i mean: now i am not commenting because i want my opinion to be heard it probably wo not and that is fine , but because i think my opinion is relevant to the discussion, and i believe its value is bigger than my desire to get feedback   in other words, i want this comment to be written by someone more than i want to get upvotes.  is not that how we should behave, by the way ? should not we feel free to comment regardless of other people is reactions ? i do not disagree with this statement, but in my experience these comments are not the majority.  i can discern which comments of mine got a positive or negative net score, so that i know if they were good or bad.  i can look back at my comment history and get an overall feeling of what comments are well received by the community.  you cannot reasonably assume that the downvotes come from a specific user.  and even if you can for some particular reason e. g.  if there are only 0 people in the thread , i ca not see how this piece of knowledge can be useful to the discussion itself.  is it that important to know whether the opponent downvoted you ? would you change your behaviour because of that ? it is nice, but as i said, you should be interested more in the quality of your comment than in the responses it gets.  the mere upvotes/downvotes will not give you a good perception of that quality   those numbers themselves are fuzzed, and, let is be honest, some redditors upvote and downvote for no particular reasons.  for that reason, replies are a much better way to get an idea of how good our comments are.  so the number of votes is not that interesting to analyse.  actually, being too focused on that feedback is detrimental to your contributions, because you will start commenting according to the hivemind is reaction.  | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen as others wrote, this is a res thing.  the admins are not responsible of that ? | ? thing   actually you are, because  you  decided to keep that res module on.   #  is not a reddit feature, it is an incompatibility between the new update and the unofficial res extension, which will be fixed soon URL non res users do not see any bizarre question marks.   # the problem is, this number had long been fuzzed, and not exact at all.  that is, the total karma count was mostly accurate, but the individual up/down votes were very iffy, there primarily because users wanted to see  something , whether that was based on real data or not.  as the announcement explained, this often led to users thinking plenty of people were downvoting them, when there were no or very few downvotes in reality.  | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen, while not much of a real probably it just gets on my nerves when i look for the numbers and see the blank question marks.  the   ? | ?   is not a reddit feature, it is an incompatibility between the new update and the unofficial res extension, which will be fixed soon URL non res users do not see any bizarre question marks.  i have got the uppers/downers part of res disabled, so i see this URL not very obtrusive or annoying at all, simple and just as importantly accurate.   #   insightful, funny, troll, ect  really becomes a popularity contest after a time to get the most coveted rating.   #  well, that is really missing the point of the  interest  metric talked about in themality is parent post.   insightful, funny, troll, ect  really becomes a popularity contest after a time to get the most coveted rating.  posts with high interest, even if negative, are posts that are interesting, and it trains people to ignore trolls rather than give them downvote attention.  the obvious thrust of the change is about both maintaining the fuzzy math, and negating the impact of downvotes as a disagreement tool hence the reworking of the  controversial  metric sorting being a highly noted item in the original post .  ca not really maintain that kind of impact by just switching to multiple different types of upvotes and downvotes.  honestly i think they really should just get rid of karma altogether because it gives poor incentives for cheap content.   #  0/0, 0/0 and 0/0 are big differences though.   #  0/0, 0/0 and 0/0 are big differences though.  the first is a small but unanimous like.  even though it is only a few people who upvoted,  0 people downvoted .  the latter two are 0 and 0 upvote to downvote ratio respectively.  that is a big difference compared to the 0/0.  showing 0 does not give that insight of the actual ratio.   #  the easiest way to think about it is that every time there was a vote, there was a small chance that the system would apply the vote,  plus  two fictional votes one up, one down .   #  the fuzzing was proportional to the vote totals.  that 0|0 post was probably 0|0, but  might  have been 0|0 or or 0|0.  it was  never  going to be 0|0.  that 0|0 post was going to be somewhere in the 0|0 to 0|0 range, but again, never going to be 0|0 or 0|0.  and so on.  the easiest way to think about it is that every time there was a vote, there was a small chance that the system would apply the vote,  plus  two fictional votes one up, one down .  for very popular posts, you will accumulate a lot of fictional votes, making every popular post look falsely controversial.  eg, a post that got 0|0 upvotes might look more like 0|0, leading to comments about  man, how could anyone downvote this ? !   .  but every bit of info i have indicates that poopwithexcitement is wrong; 0|0 and 0|0 were not just as likely to show up.  the fuzzing for smaller subreddits was much smaller than that.
with their latest update, the reddit team have gotten rid of the ability for users to see how many upvotes and downvotes a comment has.  especially on your own posts, it is useful to be able to see the ratio of the two to know if your post was simply unnoticed or actually unpopular/controversial.  in situations where you are having a discussion/argument with someone, it is good to be able to see if they are petty enough to downvote all your comments.  when you have made a new post, it is nice to follow the exact process of its rise or failure in exact detail.  simply seeing ? | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen, while not much of a real probably it just gets on my nerves when i look for the numbers and see the blank question marks.  i ca not see any benefits beyond the vague excuses made in the announcement, and i was completely happy with how reddit worked before the changes.  so, convince me that this change is a good thing !  #  when you have made a new post, it is nice to follow the exact process of its rise or failure in exact detail.   #  it is nice, but as i said, you should be interested more in the quality of your comment than in the responses it gets.   #  i believe the reason why the admins implemented this idea is that reddit is getting too meta.  we are discussing way too much about our karma, the upvotes we give and the downvotes we receive.  we redditors spend too much time talking about reddit rather than the actual topics of the thread.  this has a very bad effect on our discussions.  many people comment  in order to get upvotes , and their contribution may not be as useful as we would want to, because they tend to pander the hivemind and to reply with puns and jokes.  by removing the net upvotes/downvotes, the admins   i believe   are trying to create an environment where people is silent reaction that is, votes without explanatory comments do not influence or just influence less the commenters  behaviour.  this would let people stop commenting to appease the hivemind, and start commenting just to voice their own opinion.  people say that they want to get some feedback from their posts and comments.  i understand that feeling, but what we should aim for is a discussion where this desire is way less important that the act of commenting  per se .  i mean: now i am not commenting because i want my opinion to be heard it probably wo not and that is fine , but because i think my opinion is relevant to the discussion, and i believe its value is bigger than my desire to get feedback   in other words, i want this comment to be written by someone more than i want to get upvotes.  is not that how we should behave, by the way ? should not we feel free to comment regardless of other people is reactions ? i do not disagree with this statement, but in my experience these comments are not the majority.  i can discern which comments of mine got a positive or negative net score, so that i know if they were good or bad.  i can look back at my comment history and get an overall feeling of what comments are well received by the community.  you cannot reasonably assume that the downvotes come from a specific user.  and even if you can for some particular reason e. g.  if there are only 0 people in the thread , i ca not see how this piece of knowledge can be useful to the discussion itself.  is it that important to know whether the opponent downvoted you ? would you change your behaviour because of that ? it is nice, but as i said, you should be interested more in the quality of your comment than in the responses it gets.  the mere upvotes/downvotes will not give you a good perception of that quality   those numbers themselves are fuzzed, and, let is be honest, some redditors upvote and downvote for no particular reasons.  for that reason, replies are a much better way to get an idea of how good our comments are.  so the number of votes is not that interesting to analyse.  actually, being too focused on that feedback is detrimental to your contributions, because you will start commenting according to the hivemind is reaction.  | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen as others wrote, this is a res thing.  the admins are not responsible of that ? | ? thing   actually you are, because  you  decided to keep that res module on.   #  as the announcement explained, this often led to users thinking plenty of people were downvoting them, when there were no or very few downvotes in reality.   # the problem is, this number had long been fuzzed, and not exact at all.  that is, the total karma count was mostly accurate, but the individual up/down votes were very iffy, there primarily because users wanted to see  something , whether that was based on real data or not.  as the announcement explained, this often led to users thinking plenty of people were downvoting them, when there were no or very few downvotes in reality.  | ? is irksome in the same way as having spots of dirt on your glasses or frost around the edges of your windscreen, while not much of a real probably it just gets on my nerves when i look for the numbers and see the blank question marks.  the   ? | ?   is not a reddit feature, it is an incompatibility between the new update and the unofficial res extension, which will be fixed soon URL non res users do not see any bizarre question marks.  i have got the uppers/downers part of res disabled, so i see this URL not very obtrusive or annoying at all, simple and just as importantly accurate.   #  the obvious thrust of the change is about both maintaining the fuzzy math, and negating the impact of downvotes as a disagreement tool hence the reworking of the  controversial  metric sorting being a highly noted item in the original post .   #  well, that is really missing the point of the  interest  metric talked about in themality is parent post.   insightful, funny, troll, ect  really becomes a popularity contest after a time to get the most coveted rating.  posts with high interest, even if negative, are posts that are interesting, and it trains people to ignore trolls rather than give them downvote attention.  the obvious thrust of the change is about both maintaining the fuzzy math, and negating the impact of downvotes as a disagreement tool hence the reworking of the  controversial  metric sorting being a highly noted item in the original post .  ca not really maintain that kind of impact by just switching to multiple different types of upvotes and downvotes.  honestly i think they really should just get rid of karma altogether because it gives poor incentives for cheap content.   #  0/0, 0/0 and 0/0 are big differences though.   #  0/0, 0/0 and 0/0 are big differences though.  the first is a small but unanimous like.  even though it is only a few people who upvoted,  0 people downvoted .  the latter two are 0 and 0 upvote to downvote ratio respectively.  that is a big difference compared to the 0/0.  showing 0 does not give that insight of the actual ratio.   #  eg, a post that got 0|0 upvotes might look more like 0|0, leading to comments about  man, how could anyone downvote this ?  #  the fuzzing was proportional to the vote totals.  that 0|0 post was probably 0|0, but  might  have been 0|0 or or 0|0.  it was  never  going to be 0|0.  that 0|0 post was going to be somewhere in the 0|0 to 0|0 range, but again, never going to be 0|0 or 0|0.  and so on.  the easiest way to think about it is that every time there was a vote, there was a small chance that the system would apply the vote,  plus  two fictional votes one up, one down .  for very popular posts, you will accumulate a lot of fictional votes, making every popular post look falsely controversial.  eg, a post that got 0|0 upvotes might look more like 0|0, leading to comments about  man, how could anyone downvote this ? !   .  but every bit of info i have indicates that poopwithexcitement is wrong; 0|0 and 0|0 were not just as likely to show up.  the fuzzing for smaller subreddits was much smaller than that.
everything in this series is such common knowledge, even before the original carl sagan version, almost everything in this series was already scientific fact many decades ago.  do we really need shows like this to educate people about reality ? who on earth does not know this stuff ? it is basic knowledge about our existence.  if you do not know the things that are explained in this series, you are somewhat ignorant about your place here on earth.  who does not know how the universe came into existence, who does not know about evolution, who does not know about atoms, who does not know about how the sun works, who ca not name the planets in our solar system, who does not know the solar system is part of the milky way, who does not know the milky way is just one of the billions of galaxies in the universe ? all these things are explained in  cosmos  as if they are recent scientific revelations that people should know about.  i somewhat feel insulted when ndt explains things in this series.  it is as if he is talking to 0 year olds or adults with mental shortcomings.  are there really people out there who do not know this stuff ?  #  i somewhat feel insulted when ndt explains things in this series.   #  it is as if he is talking to 0 year olds or adults with mental shortcomings.   # as you will see from the link people who self reported as  not too/not at all familiar  with evolution were significantly more likely to believe in some manner of recent creationism.  part of the reason that number is so high is that people who wish to argue against evolution do so by making inaccurate claims about the process or about what people who ascribe the diversity of species to evolution believe.  cosmos  goal was to try to build, from the ground up, the basic process and to dispel misinformation, which is rampant.  if your audience is likely to be skeptical of the idea of evolution, you do not do that by talking about the latest advances in biology, you do it by explaining, bit by bit, basic principles.  it is as if he is talking to 0 year olds or adults with mental shortcomings.  are there really people out there who do not know this stuff ? you are missing the goal of the show.  they are not trying to show you recent advances in cosmology, biology and physics.  they are trying to provide a basis that makes sense to the general public.  science education is suffering and is underfunded, and cosmos is trying to do what it can to counteract that and give people who otherwise  had not  seen the evidence for things you consider basic a way to grasp what we know and how we know it.  and for kids, seeing something like cosmos might kindle a love of science; i went into the sciences mostly because my parents bought me a lot of really basic science books when i was a kid and i watched shows that explained science on a level i could understand it when i was eight.  making science seem cool means more of those kids grow up wanting to go into scientific careers, which means we grow the pool of potential scientists and the quality of the science we turn out as a society.   #  the only thing you personally were supposed to get out of it was entertainment.   # in a word ? yes.  the point of the show was not to educate you, who apparently already trusts the scientific method and knows how our universe works.  it is not even supposed to be  educational  really.  it was made to generate interest and questions from those who are not already as informed as you.  it is made for the people who have been indoctrinated into creationism and other science denying beliefs, in the hopes that they begin to question things.  it is for the younger people in the audience, not for education but for interest, so that in a decade they will pursue technical fields.  the only thing you personally were supposed to get out of it was entertainment.  it was not made for you.   #  in addition to this, the show does a good job narrating the lives of many of the great scientific minds of the past.   #  much of the knowledge in the show has been known for a long time, but one of the things it does quite well is to put it all in perspective.  in the first episode, he puts the life of the universe into scale as a single calender year.  in that time frame, human have been alive for less than 0 hours, and history starting with the invention of writing started less than 0 seconds ago.  this sort of perspective is something that i would posit that the vast majority of people do not know, even if they do know that the universe is 0 billion years ago.  in addition to this, the show does a good job narrating the lives of many of the great scientific minds of the past.  sure, i could go find a biography of that person and learn all the same facts, but these details are hardly common knowledge some of the scientists i had not even heard of .  most of the details shown in the show are not common knowledge, and even if you were to ask people who have a passing interest in this stuff, they still would not know exact times and figures.  off the top of my head, i ca not tell you exactly how many solar masses a star needs in order to tell if it will turn into a neutron star, or a white dwarf, or a black hole.  i know that those are probable paths in the lifespan of a star, but i do not know the details.  by watching the show i can still expand my knowledge.  i actually had not heard of a hypernova URL before i watched the episode on star life cycles, and i consider myself to know more than the average person about astrophysics.   #  some of the stuff they actually taught was wrong  seasons are related to how far we are to the sun  .   # who on earth does not know this stuff ? it is basic knowledge about our existence.  yes, as a country we are scientifically illiterate URL when i was in elementary school, most of my teachers did not care much about science outside of naming the planets or constellations.  some of the stuff they actually taught was wrong  seasons are related to how far we are to the sun  .  in high school, my biology teacher refused to teach evolution because he did not believe in it.  now that schools have gone through various forms of curriculum alignment, this hopefully does not happen quite as much.  moreover, even if you did learn all the facts you mentioned, if you do not use it then you will likely forget most of it in your 0 is.  next time there is a yahoo article on creationism or evolution, i invite you to go read the comment section and take a drink every time you read someone dismiss evolution as  just a theory  or make comments like  if evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys .  see how long until you are drunk.   #  i am gonna guess that you live in a relatively academically inclined environment.   #  i am gonna guess that you live in a relatively academically inclined environment.  i am an engineering student and so most of the year i hang out in a bubble of people who understand science pretty deeply.  more advanced scientific concepts are just common knowledge because it is fresh in our minds.  so i tend to assume the general public is not as aware but probably pretty aware of basic scientific concepts.  i also work in the army reserves and i realize this is not the case.  there is a buddy of mine who absolutely loves carl sagan and the new cosmos.  he appreciates them because they made science accessible as he never received a decent scientific education.  he is not a dumb guy and neither are the people i work with.  but a good number did not go to university and did not really feel engaged in high school or have since dumped most of the knowledge .  so shows like cosmos keep them up to speed and can greatly increase the reception of science in the general public.  also, i enjoy the series as a refresher on some of these concepts and as a way to learn how to teach scientific concepts as i feel it is important work.
everything in this series is such common knowledge, even before the original carl sagan version, almost everything in this series was already scientific fact many decades ago.  do we really need shows like this to educate people about reality ? who on earth does not know this stuff ? it is basic knowledge about our existence.  if you do not know the things that are explained in this series, you are somewhat ignorant about your place here on earth.  who does not know how the universe came into existence, who does not know about evolution, who does not know about atoms, who does not know about how the sun works, who ca not name the planets in our solar system, who does not know the solar system is part of the milky way, who does not know the milky way is just one of the billions of galaxies in the universe ? all these things are explained in  cosmos  as if they are recent scientific revelations that people should know about.  i somewhat feel insulted when ndt explains things in this series.  it is as if he is talking to 0 year olds or adults with mental shortcomings.  are there really people out there who do not know this stuff ?  #  do we really need shows like this to educate people about reality ?  #  who on earth does not know this stuff ?  # who on earth does not know this stuff ? it is basic knowledge about our existence.  yes, as a country we are scientifically illiterate URL when i was in elementary school, most of my teachers did not care much about science outside of naming the planets or constellations.  some of the stuff they actually taught was wrong  seasons are related to how far we are to the sun  .  in high school, my biology teacher refused to teach evolution because he did not believe in it.  now that schools have gone through various forms of curriculum alignment, this hopefully does not happen quite as much.  moreover, even if you did learn all the facts you mentioned, if you do not use it then you will likely forget most of it in your 0 is.  next time there is a yahoo article on creationism or evolution, i invite you to go read the comment section and take a drink every time you read someone dismiss evolution as  just a theory  or make comments like  if evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys .  see how long until you are drunk.   #  the point of the show was not to educate you, who apparently already trusts the scientific method and knows how our universe works.   # in a word ? yes.  the point of the show was not to educate you, who apparently already trusts the scientific method and knows how our universe works.  it is not even supposed to be  educational  really.  it was made to generate interest and questions from those who are not already as informed as you.  it is made for the people who have been indoctrinated into creationism and other science denying beliefs, in the hopes that they begin to question things.  it is for the younger people in the audience, not for education but for interest, so that in a decade they will pursue technical fields.  the only thing you personally were supposed to get out of it was entertainment.  it was not made for you.   #  sure, i could go find a biography of that person and learn all the same facts, but these details are hardly common knowledge some of the scientists i had not even heard of .   #  much of the knowledge in the show has been known for a long time, but one of the things it does quite well is to put it all in perspective.  in the first episode, he puts the life of the universe into scale as a single calender year.  in that time frame, human have been alive for less than 0 hours, and history starting with the invention of writing started less than 0 seconds ago.  this sort of perspective is something that i would posit that the vast majority of people do not know, even if they do know that the universe is 0 billion years ago.  in addition to this, the show does a good job narrating the lives of many of the great scientific minds of the past.  sure, i could go find a biography of that person and learn all the same facts, but these details are hardly common knowledge some of the scientists i had not even heard of .  most of the details shown in the show are not common knowledge, and even if you were to ask people who have a passing interest in this stuff, they still would not know exact times and figures.  off the top of my head, i ca not tell you exactly how many solar masses a star needs in order to tell if it will turn into a neutron star, or a white dwarf, or a black hole.  i know that those are probable paths in the lifespan of a star, but i do not know the details.  by watching the show i can still expand my knowledge.  i actually had not heard of a hypernova URL before i watched the episode on star life cycles, and i consider myself to know more than the average person about astrophysics.   #  making science seem cool means more of those kids grow up wanting to go into scientific careers, which means we grow the pool of potential scientists and the quality of the science we turn out as a society.   # as you will see from the link people who self reported as  not too/not at all familiar  with evolution were significantly more likely to believe in some manner of recent creationism.  part of the reason that number is so high is that people who wish to argue against evolution do so by making inaccurate claims about the process or about what people who ascribe the diversity of species to evolution believe.  cosmos  goal was to try to build, from the ground up, the basic process and to dispel misinformation, which is rampant.  if your audience is likely to be skeptical of the idea of evolution, you do not do that by talking about the latest advances in biology, you do it by explaining, bit by bit, basic principles.  it is as if he is talking to 0 year olds or adults with mental shortcomings.  are there really people out there who do not know this stuff ? you are missing the goal of the show.  they are not trying to show you recent advances in cosmology, biology and physics.  they are trying to provide a basis that makes sense to the general public.  science education is suffering and is underfunded, and cosmos is trying to do what it can to counteract that and give people who otherwise  had not  seen the evidence for things you consider basic a way to grasp what we know and how we know it.  and for kids, seeing something like cosmos might kindle a love of science; i went into the sciences mostly because my parents bought me a lot of really basic science books when i was a kid and i watched shows that explained science on a level i could understand it when i was eight.  making science seem cool means more of those kids grow up wanting to go into scientific careers, which means we grow the pool of potential scientists and the quality of the science we turn out as a society.   #  i also work in the army reserves and i realize this is not the case.   #  i am gonna guess that you live in a relatively academically inclined environment.  i am an engineering student and so most of the year i hang out in a bubble of people who understand science pretty deeply.  more advanced scientific concepts are just common knowledge because it is fresh in our minds.  so i tend to assume the general public is not as aware but probably pretty aware of basic scientific concepts.  i also work in the army reserves and i realize this is not the case.  there is a buddy of mine who absolutely loves carl sagan and the new cosmos.  he appreciates them because they made science accessible as he never received a decent scientific education.  he is not a dumb guy and neither are the people i work with.  but a good number did not go to university and did not really feel engaged in high school or have since dumped most of the knowledge .  so shows like cosmos keep them up to speed and can greatly increase the reception of science in the general public.  also, i enjoy the series as a refresher on some of these concepts and as a way to learn how to teach scientific concepts as i feel it is important work.
when most people hear the phrase  deutschland über alles  it evokes powerful images, not many of them good.  it is viewed as an expression of superiority, of  betterness  that people associate with the nazis.  indeed, the nazis encouraged such feelings.  along with the allies in their wartime propaganda.  but that is not what it means.  it is not saying  germany should rule over all  or  germany is better than all  or  german people are better than others .  that is not at all what it means and could scarcely be further from the truth.  deutschlandlied is a song of unity, peace, and brotherhood from the very first stanza.  it is important to understand its origins: it was written in 0, some thirty years prior to the unification of the german empire under prussian auspices, and nearly a hundred before the nazis came to power.  it was written as a liberal, democratic, progressive song for the vormärz movement, who sought unity of the disparate german states.  deutschland über alles is a phrase that means,  put unity above your petty regional squabbles.  put brotherhood above your differences.  put the ideal of a united nation above your loyalty to a small town or collection thereof .  it is a song that emphasizes and encourages these values that very few would find fault with, i believe.  in contrast to the anthems of many other nations, deutschlandlied is a comparatively peaceful song.  unlike the american anthem, there is no talk of rockets  red glare or bombs bursting in air; no words about scattering one is enemies, foes, and assassins as in god save the queen; not even close to the constant martial rhetoric of la marseillaise.  and yet, deutschlandlied, among all these, is viewed as the odious one.  as the one closest to the sourest parts of humanity.  i believe it is the opposite, and that the true meaning of deutschlandlied should be reclaimed and proclaimed.  change my view.   #  deutschlandlied is a song of unity, peace, and brotherhood from the very first stanza.   #  it is important to understand its origins: it was written in 0, some thirty years prior to the unification of the german empire under prussian auspices, and nearly a hundred before the nazis came to power.   # it is important to understand its origins: it was written in 0, some thirty years prior to the unification of the german empire under prussian auspices, and nearly a hundred before the nazis came to power.  it was written as a liberal, democratic, progressive song for the vormärz movement, who sought unity of the disparate german states.  the first stanza does not make sense ever since the dream of a grossdeutscheland died when prussia purposely excluded austria from becoming part of the german empire.  i ca not imagine an austrian would feel comfortable hearing the first stanza because the first stanza, taken to its logical conclusion, extols the virtues of austrians and other european countries with a substantial german population becoming part of germany because by german, they mean german the ethnicity not german the nationality.  likewise, the  von der maas bis an die memel  line references germans living in poland during the 0th century, who were expelled from poland in 0 for obvious reasons.  so, that line, and by extension, the entire stanza, is actually a point of shame for germans, for right wingers, because  greater germany  lost territory, and for left wingers, because of nazis.  i mean, the actual song is very good, probably my second favorite national anthem after god save the queen, but the references are so antiquated and out of date.  at this point, you might as well sing  gott erhalte franz den kaiser  because even though the song is hyping some austrian emperor, at least those lyrics are not associated with nazis.   #  and whether that is actually literally true or not, and whether it was intended or not, it is the core narrative of world war ii, so it is inevitably going to be viewed that way by large numbers of people.   #  my main objection to that line is that, even if we take your interpretation, it is about nationalism: the nation is more important than x .  in your case, you have interpreted x as  petty squabbles , but it can just as easily be read as the nation being more important than any other identity that germans have.  this is the core ill that led to nazism.  racism and scapegoating are all fine and good, but without nationalism, national socialism is nothing.  and whether that is actually literally true or not, and whether it was intended or not, it is the core narrative of world war ii, so it is inevitably going to be viewed that way by large numbers of people.   #  for example, in star spangled banner: o thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand between their loved home and the war is desolation.   #  it is explicit in many anthems, not just the german.  for example, in star spangled banner: o thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand between their loved home and the war is desolation.  blest with vict ry and peace, may the heav n rescued land praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation ! which reads to me as saying that america is blessed by god and exceptional beyond all others.  in the russian anthem: be glorious, our free motherland, age old union of fraternal peoples, ancestor given wisdom of the people ! be glorious, our country ! we are proud of you ! from the southern seas to the polar lands spread are our forests and fields.  you are unique in the world, one of a kind   this native land protected by god ! again, explicit nationalism and exceptionalism.  swedish anthem: thou ancient, thou free, thou mountainous north thou quiet, thou joyful and fair ! i greet thee, most beautiful land upon earth, thy sun, thy sky, thy meadows green.  thou art enthroned upon memories of great olden days, when honoured thy name flew across the earth, i know that thou art and wilt remain what thou wast, yes, i want to live, i want to die in the north.  i forever want to serve thee, my beloved country, loyalty until death i want to swear thee, thy right i will protect with mind and with hand, thy banner, the heroes carry high.  with god i shall fight for home and for hearth, for sweden, the beloved native soil.  i trade thee not, for anything in a world no, i want to live, i want to die in the north ! explicist nationalism, exceptionalism, martialism.  i guarantee there are more; i picked these as diverse counter examples.   #  no matter your ethnic background if you are a german citizen, you are equally german.   #  i am reading ian kershaw is biography on hitler at the moment.  actually hitler was more a pan german ethnocentrist than a nationalist.  your race and ethnicity mattered more.  hence how to him a german jew was less german than an austrian to him.  the label national socialist came about due to there being a seperate volk movement with national in their party name and thinking it would attract more members.  the spirit of germany over all, is one of inclusion.  no matter your ethnic background if you are a german citizen, you are equally german.  much like  e plurabis unum  in the states.   #  i will usually write  a man should  with it in general meaning a person should.   #  maybe it is because i am arguably nationalistic.  i do not think america is perfect or perhaps even the best country, that is irrelevant.  i believe it is a matter of loyalty, may my country be right but my country right or wrong.  so that is probably coloring how i see it.  man/mankind was the gender neutral phrase.  i will usually write  a man should  with it in general meaning a person should.  so you have to factor that it.  as for german women, german wine and german song.  it to me is mildly sexist at most, but more seems to says germany is beautiful, pleasant with morally upright women.  standard anthem fair.  the nazis appropriated images to serve as propaganda.  especially german cultural ones, from mythology to fredrick the great.  hitler saw hims there with fredrick, bismarck, so he is going to empasize those things to connect himself with that.
first off, this includes spoilers, like loads of them.  like all the spoilers.  okay, here we go ! if your a geek and a fan of the last films then do not see this one.  i mean within the first 0 0 minutes of the film i had 0 massive problems with it that were not fixed throughout the rest of the play time.  you remember at the end of the wolverine when logan loses his metal claws and regrows the cool as fuck bone claws ? well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all ! the worst part is that in the past he has the bone claws ! you remember the end of x0 when magneto loses his powers from the  cure  ? he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given ! my view here has been changed ! thank you, now try and change my view on the rest of the points you remember when professor x dies in x0 ? he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.  he moved his conciseness over to a new host who was brain dead so he would have looked different, he would not have looked the same.  this is all within the first 0 minutes and there are only more stupid plot holes throughout the film.  beast invents a cure in the 0 is which means there being a cure in x0 would not have been a big thing at all, at least to him and professor x.  this also happens before the future is changed so it is not the new timeline, its cannon to the old one.  i hated this film, i mean even on its own it feels horrible.  there is no real beginning, middle or ending to it so it feels like it is just dragging on forever.  i at least enjoyed the other bad x men films even if they fucked up the cannon a bit but this one was unenjoyable and fucked up the cannon worse than any film before it.  this film is a mess, a horrible fucking mess that no one should see.   #  you remember at the end of the wolverine when logan loses his metal claws and regrows the cool as fuck bone claws ?  #  well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all !  # well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all ! the worst part is that in the past he has the bone claws ! this is your complaint ? wolverine is bone claws from his second spin off ? i mean, what did you want a line from magneto like  good thing i gave you your claws back.   i think it is pretty clear that some amount of time has passed since the wolverine.  in that period of time, he got metal claws back.  he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given ! you remember the after credits scene where he was using his power to move the chess piece ? the cure was not permanent.  he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.  he moved his conciseness over to a new host who was brain dead so he would have looked different, he would not have looked the same.  he had a twin who was totally brain dead that he kept with moria.  he transferred his consciousness into that body and that is why he looks the same.  it looks to me like you are just nitpicking things that within a few minutes of googling would have been solved.  that is not a cure because a cure implies that it is fixed forever.  chemotherapy does not cure cancer.  the arc of the story is pretty easy to establish the future is fucked, wolverine is consciousness goes back in time, he meets up with the people he is supposed to meet up with, does stuff to fix the future, and is successful.  there was pretty clearly an end.   #  he had a twin, that he failed to mention to any of his closest friends or anything ?  # in that period of time, he got metal claws back.  but how ? i ca not spell the metal so wo not try.  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.  this makes him getting his metal claws back a big deal and not something to just be forgotten.  he transferred his consciousness into that body and that is why he looks the same.  he had a twin, that he failed to mention to any of his closest friends or anything ? or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.  that is not a cure because a cure implies that it is fixed forever.  what was it you said about the cure not being permeant earlier ? one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.  there was pretty clearly an end.  there was an end thank god but it did not flow well for a film.  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.   #  or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.   # i ca not spell the metal so wo not try.  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.  this makes him getting his metal claws back a big deal and not something to just be forgotten.  magneto can manipulate adamantium.  or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.  we have seen fewer than ten hours of professor x is life.  we do not know what he did or did not say to people.  besides, it was his plan b so maybe he thought it was better to keep it a secret.  and maybe it is just a typical comic book retcon because they were not a fan of x0.  one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.  i called it a cure for the sake of brevity.  it was clearly not a cure since it did not permanently depower magneto.  come on man, do not be pedantic here.  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.  the film flowed quite well, i always knew what the characters were doing and why, and there was a clear arc.  i do not really know how to convince you of this other than spelling it out.   #  xavier is new body was explained in the film that he lost his old one in.   #  they were shown in the films, as has been cited above.  all of the  cures  and changes that the characters have experienced in each movie have been explained  in that movie.  magneto obviously had his powers back in the after credits scene of x0 after losing them.  xavier is new body was explained in the film that he lost his old one in.  none of these explanations require that a comic book or website be consulted.   #  i find stan lee to be an annoying stuck up attention seeking prick, but that is a different subject entirely.   #  he bends them a little, he does not break them, change there shape or anything near reforming them.  i am a comic book fan but i dislike marvel comics, i like dc, darkhouse and a few others in terms of comics.  i find stan lee to be an annoying stuck up attention seeking prick, but that is a different subject entirely.  bob kane invented batman almost single handily and he did not feel the need to stick his mug so obviously into each film he has anything to do with.  i like cameos but they should be subtle, like peter jackson and his kids in each lord of the rings film.  not taking up and ruining an entire fight scene like in the amazing spider man 0.
first off, this includes spoilers, like loads of them.  like all the spoilers.  okay, here we go ! if your a geek and a fan of the last films then do not see this one.  i mean within the first 0 0 minutes of the film i had 0 massive problems with it that were not fixed throughout the rest of the play time.  you remember at the end of the wolverine when logan loses his metal claws and regrows the cool as fuck bone claws ? well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all ! the worst part is that in the past he has the bone claws ! you remember the end of x0 when magneto loses his powers from the  cure  ? he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given ! my view here has been changed ! thank you, now try and change my view on the rest of the points you remember when professor x dies in x0 ? he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.  he moved his conciseness over to a new host who was brain dead so he would have looked different, he would not have looked the same.  this is all within the first 0 minutes and there are only more stupid plot holes throughout the film.  beast invents a cure in the 0 is which means there being a cure in x0 would not have been a big thing at all, at least to him and professor x.  this also happens before the future is changed so it is not the new timeline, its cannon to the old one.  i hated this film, i mean even on its own it feels horrible.  there is no real beginning, middle or ending to it so it feels like it is just dragging on forever.  i at least enjoyed the other bad x men films even if they fucked up the cannon a bit but this one was unenjoyable and fucked up the cannon worse than any film before it.  this film is a mess, a horrible fucking mess that no one should see.   #  you remember the end of x0 when magneto loses his powers from the  cure  ?  #  he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given !  # well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all ! the worst part is that in the past he has the bone claws ! this is your complaint ? wolverine is bone claws from his second spin off ? i mean, what did you want a line from magneto like  good thing i gave you your claws back.   i think it is pretty clear that some amount of time has passed since the wolverine.  in that period of time, he got metal claws back.  he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given ! you remember the after credits scene where he was using his power to move the chess piece ? the cure was not permanent.  he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.  he moved his conciseness over to a new host who was brain dead so he would have looked different, he would not have looked the same.  he had a twin who was totally brain dead that he kept with moria.  he transferred his consciousness into that body and that is why he looks the same.  it looks to me like you are just nitpicking things that within a few minutes of googling would have been solved.  that is not a cure because a cure implies that it is fixed forever.  chemotherapy does not cure cancer.  the arc of the story is pretty easy to establish the future is fucked, wolverine is consciousness goes back in time, he meets up with the people he is supposed to meet up with, does stuff to fix the future, and is successful.  there was pretty clearly an end.   #  one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.   # in that period of time, he got metal claws back.  but how ? i ca not spell the metal so wo not try.  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.  this makes him getting his metal claws back a big deal and not something to just be forgotten.  he transferred his consciousness into that body and that is why he looks the same.  he had a twin, that he failed to mention to any of his closest friends or anything ? or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.  that is not a cure because a cure implies that it is fixed forever.  what was it you said about the cure not being permeant earlier ? one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.  there was pretty clearly an end.  there was an end thank god but it did not flow well for a film.  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.   #  i do not really know how to convince you of this other than spelling it out.   # i ca not spell the metal so wo not try.  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.  this makes him getting his metal claws back a big deal and not something to just be forgotten.  magneto can manipulate adamantium.  or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.  we have seen fewer than ten hours of professor x is life.  we do not know what he did or did not say to people.  besides, it was his plan b so maybe he thought it was better to keep it a secret.  and maybe it is just a typical comic book retcon because they were not a fan of x0.  one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.  i called it a cure for the sake of brevity.  it was clearly not a cure since it did not permanently depower magneto.  come on man, do not be pedantic here.  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.  the film flowed quite well, i always knew what the characters were doing and why, and there was a clear arc.  i do not really know how to convince you of this other than spelling it out.   #  xavier is new body was explained in the film that he lost his old one in.   #  they were shown in the films, as has been cited above.  all of the  cures  and changes that the characters have experienced in each movie have been explained  in that movie.  magneto obviously had his powers back in the after credits scene of x0 after losing them.  xavier is new body was explained in the film that he lost his old one in.  none of these explanations require that a comic book or website be consulted.   #  he bends them a little, he does not break them, change there shape or anything near reforming them.   #  he bends them a little, he does not break them, change there shape or anything near reforming them.  i am a comic book fan but i dislike marvel comics, i like dc, darkhouse and a few others in terms of comics.  i find stan lee to be an annoying stuck up attention seeking prick, but that is a different subject entirely.  bob kane invented batman almost single handily and he did not feel the need to stick his mug so obviously into each film he has anything to do with.  i like cameos but they should be subtle, like peter jackson and his kids in each lord of the rings film.  not taking up and ruining an entire fight scene like in the amazing spider man 0.
first off, this includes spoilers, like loads of them.  like all the spoilers.  okay, here we go ! if your a geek and a fan of the last films then do not see this one.  i mean within the first 0 0 minutes of the film i had 0 massive problems with it that were not fixed throughout the rest of the play time.  you remember at the end of the wolverine when logan loses his metal claws and regrows the cool as fuck bone claws ? well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all ! the worst part is that in the past he has the bone claws ! you remember the end of x0 when magneto loses his powers from the  cure  ? he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given ! my view here has been changed ! thank you, now try and change my view on the rest of the points you remember when professor x dies in x0 ? he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.  he moved his conciseness over to a new host who was brain dead so he would have looked different, he would not have looked the same.  this is all within the first 0 minutes and there are only more stupid plot holes throughout the film.  beast invents a cure in the 0 is which means there being a cure in x0 would not have been a big thing at all, at least to him and professor x.  this also happens before the future is changed so it is not the new timeline, its cannon to the old one.  i hated this film, i mean even on its own it feels horrible.  there is no real beginning, middle or ending to it so it feels like it is just dragging on forever.  i at least enjoyed the other bad x men films even if they fucked up the cannon a bit but this one was unenjoyable and fucked up the cannon worse than any film before it.  this film is a mess, a horrible fucking mess that no one should see.   #  you remember when professor x dies in x0 ?  #  he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.   # well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all ! the worst part is that in the past he has the bone claws ! this is your complaint ? wolverine is bone claws from his second spin off ? i mean, what did you want a line from magneto like  good thing i gave you your claws back.   i think it is pretty clear that some amount of time has passed since the wolverine.  in that period of time, he got metal claws back.  he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given ! you remember the after credits scene where he was using his power to move the chess piece ? the cure was not permanent.  he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.  he moved his conciseness over to a new host who was brain dead so he would have looked different, he would not have looked the same.  he had a twin who was totally brain dead that he kept with moria.  he transferred his consciousness into that body and that is why he looks the same.  it looks to me like you are just nitpicking things that within a few minutes of googling would have been solved.  that is not a cure because a cure implies that it is fixed forever.  chemotherapy does not cure cancer.  the arc of the story is pretty easy to establish the future is fucked, wolverine is consciousness goes back in time, he meets up with the people he is supposed to meet up with, does stuff to fix the future, and is successful.  there was pretty clearly an end.   #  what was it you said about the cure not being permeant earlier ?  # in that period of time, he got metal claws back.  but how ? i ca not spell the metal so wo not try.  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.  this makes him getting his metal claws back a big deal and not something to just be forgotten.  he transferred his consciousness into that body and that is why he looks the same.  he had a twin, that he failed to mention to any of his closest friends or anything ? or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.  that is not a cure because a cure implies that it is fixed forever.  what was it you said about the cure not being permeant earlier ? one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.  there was pretty clearly an end.  there was an end thank god but it did not flow well for a film.  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.   #  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.   # i ca not spell the metal so wo not try.  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.  this makes him getting his metal claws back a big deal and not something to just be forgotten.  magneto can manipulate adamantium.  or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.  we have seen fewer than ten hours of professor x is life.  we do not know what he did or did not say to people.  besides, it was his plan b so maybe he thought it was better to keep it a secret.  and maybe it is just a typical comic book retcon because they were not a fan of x0.  one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.  i called it a cure for the sake of brevity.  it was clearly not a cure since it did not permanently depower magneto.  come on man, do not be pedantic here.  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.  the film flowed quite well, i always knew what the characters were doing and why, and there was a clear arc.  i do not really know how to convince you of this other than spelling it out.   #  xavier is new body was explained in the film that he lost his old one in.   #  they were shown in the films, as has been cited above.  all of the  cures  and changes that the characters have experienced in each movie have been explained  in that movie.  magneto obviously had his powers back in the after credits scene of x0 after losing them.  xavier is new body was explained in the film that he lost his old one in.  none of these explanations require that a comic book or website be consulted.   #  not taking up and ruining an entire fight scene like in the amazing spider man 0.   #  he bends them a little, he does not break them, change there shape or anything near reforming them.  i am a comic book fan but i dislike marvel comics, i like dc, darkhouse and a few others in terms of comics.  i find stan lee to be an annoying stuck up attention seeking prick, but that is a different subject entirely.  bob kane invented batman almost single handily and he did not feel the need to stick his mug so obviously into each film he has anything to do with.  i like cameos but they should be subtle, like peter jackson and his kids in each lord of the rings film.  not taking up and ruining an entire fight scene like in the amazing spider man 0.
first off, this includes spoilers, like loads of them.  like all the spoilers.  okay, here we go ! if your a geek and a fan of the last films then do not see this one.  i mean within the first 0 0 minutes of the film i had 0 massive problems with it that were not fixed throughout the rest of the play time.  you remember at the end of the wolverine when logan loses his metal claws and regrows the cool as fuck bone claws ? well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all ! the worst part is that in the past he has the bone claws ! you remember the end of x0 when magneto loses his powers from the  cure  ? he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given ! my view here has been changed ! thank you, now try and change my view on the rest of the points you remember when professor x dies in x0 ? he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.  he moved his conciseness over to a new host who was brain dead so he would have looked different, he would not have looked the same.  this is all within the first 0 minutes and there are only more stupid plot holes throughout the film.  beast invents a cure in the 0 is which means there being a cure in x0 would not have been a big thing at all, at least to him and professor x.  this also happens before the future is changed so it is not the new timeline, its cannon to the old one.  i hated this film, i mean even on its own it feels horrible.  there is no real beginning, middle or ending to it so it feels like it is just dragging on forever.  i at least enjoyed the other bad x men films even if they fucked up the cannon a bit but this one was unenjoyable and fucked up the cannon worse than any film before it.  this film is a mess, a horrible fucking mess that no one should see.   #  there is no real beginning, middle or ending to it so it feels like it is just dragging on forever.   #  the arc of the story is pretty easy to establish the future is fucked, wolverine is consciousness goes back in time, he meets up with the people he is supposed to meet up with, does stuff to fix the future, and is successful.   # well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all ! the worst part is that in the past he has the bone claws ! this is your complaint ? wolverine is bone claws from his second spin off ? i mean, what did you want a line from magneto like  good thing i gave you your claws back.   i think it is pretty clear that some amount of time has passed since the wolverine.  in that period of time, he got metal claws back.  he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given ! you remember the after credits scene where he was using his power to move the chess piece ? the cure was not permanent.  he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.  he moved his conciseness over to a new host who was brain dead so he would have looked different, he would not have looked the same.  he had a twin who was totally brain dead that he kept with moria.  he transferred his consciousness into that body and that is why he looks the same.  it looks to me like you are just nitpicking things that within a few minutes of googling would have been solved.  that is not a cure because a cure implies that it is fixed forever.  chemotherapy does not cure cancer.  the arc of the story is pretty easy to establish the future is fucked, wolverine is consciousness goes back in time, he meets up with the people he is supposed to meet up with, does stuff to fix the future, and is successful.  there was pretty clearly an end.   #  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.   # in that period of time, he got metal claws back.  but how ? i ca not spell the metal so wo not try.  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.  this makes him getting his metal claws back a big deal and not something to just be forgotten.  he transferred his consciousness into that body and that is why he looks the same.  he had a twin, that he failed to mention to any of his closest friends or anything ? or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.  that is not a cure because a cure implies that it is fixed forever.  what was it you said about the cure not being permeant earlier ? one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.  there was pretty clearly an end.  there was an end thank god but it did not flow well for a film.  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.   #  besides, it was his plan b so maybe he thought it was better to keep it a secret.   # i ca not spell the metal so wo not try.  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.  this makes him getting his metal claws back a big deal and not something to just be forgotten.  magneto can manipulate adamantium.  or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.  we have seen fewer than ten hours of professor x is life.  we do not know what he did or did not say to people.  besides, it was his plan b so maybe he thought it was better to keep it a secret.  and maybe it is just a typical comic book retcon because they were not a fan of x0.  one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.  i called it a cure for the sake of brevity.  it was clearly not a cure since it did not permanently depower magneto.  come on man, do not be pedantic here.  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.  the film flowed quite well, i always knew what the characters were doing and why, and there was a clear arc.  i do not really know how to convince you of this other than spelling it out.   #  all of the  cures  and changes that the characters have experienced in each movie have been explained  in that movie.   #  they were shown in the films, as has been cited above.  all of the  cures  and changes that the characters have experienced in each movie have been explained  in that movie.  magneto obviously had his powers back in the after credits scene of x0 after losing them.  xavier is new body was explained in the film that he lost his old one in.  none of these explanations require that a comic book or website be consulted.   #  bob kane invented batman almost single handily and he did not feel the need to stick his mug so obviously into each film he has anything to do with.   #  he bends them a little, he does not break them, change there shape or anything near reforming them.  i am a comic book fan but i dislike marvel comics, i like dc, darkhouse and a few others in terms of comics.  i find stan lee to be an annoying stuck up attention seeking prick, but that is a different subject entirely.  bob kane invented batman almost single handily and he did not feel the need to stick his mug so obviously into each film he has anything to do with.  i like cameos but they should be subtle, like peter jackson and his kids in each lord of the rings film.  not taking up and ruining an entire fight scene like in the amazing spider man 0.
first off, this includes spoilers, like loads of them.  like all the spoilers.  okay, here we go ! if your a geek and a fan of the last films then do not see this one.  i mean within the first 0 0 minutes of the film i had 0 massive problems with it that were not fixed throughout the rest of the play time.  you remember at the end of the wolverine when logan loses his metal claws and regrows the cool as fuck bone claws ? well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all ! the worst part is that in the past he has the bone claws ! you remember the end of x0 when magneto loses his powers from the  cure  ? he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given ! my view here has been changed ! thank you, now try and change my view on the rest of the points you remember when professor x dies in x0 ? he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.  he moved his conciseness over to a new host who was brain dead so he would have looked different, he would not have looked the same.  this is all within the first 0 minutes and there are only more stupid plot holes throughout the film.  beast invents a cure in the 0 is which means there being a cure in x0 would not have been a big thing at all, at least to him and professor x.  this also happens before the future is changed so it is not the new timeline, its cannon to the old one.  i hated this film, i mean even on its own it feels horrible.  there is no real beginning, middle or ending to it so it feels like it is just dragging on forever.  i at least enjoyed the other bad x men films even if they fucked up the cannon a bit but this one was unenjoyable and fucked up the cannon worse than any film before it.  this film is a mess, a horrible fucking mess that no one should see.   #  this film is a mess, a horrible fucking mess that no one should see.   #  it is not that much of a mess.   # how did screw up the canon.  it just did what first class should have done in the first place, rebooted the whole franchise.  i guarantee you that you wo not here any references to the old movies.  it is not that much of a mess.  the movie is pretty easy to follow just as long as you do not focus too much on the timeline which has never made since after x0.   #  wolverine is bone claws from his second spin off ?  # well this film does not, he has his metal claws in the future with no reason given, at all ! the worst part is that in the past he has the bone claws ! this is your complaint ? wolverine is bone claws from his second spin off ? i mean, what did you want a line from magneto like  good thing i gave you your claws back.   i think it is pretty clear that some amount of time has passed since the wolverine.  in that period of time, he got metal claws back.  he is now more powerful than ever with no reason given ! you remember the after credits scene where he was using his power to move the chess piece ? the cure was not permanent.  he is back with no reason given, and do not say it was explained at the end of x0 after the credits as it was not.  he moved his conciseness over to a new host who was brain dead so he would have looked different, he would not have looked the same.  he had a twin who was totally brain dead that he kept with moria.  he transferred his consciousness into that body and that is why he looks the same.  it looks to me like you are just nitpicking things that within a few minutes of googling would have been solved.  that is not a cure because a cure implies that it is fixed forever.  chemotherapy does not cure cancer.  the arc of the story is pretty easy to establish the future is fucked, wolverine is consciousness goes back in time, he meets up with the people he is supposed to meet up with, does stuff to fix the future, and is successful.  there was pretty clearly an end.   #  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.   # in that period of time, he got metal claws back.  but how ? i ca not spell the metal so wo not try.  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.  this makes him getting his metal claws back a big deal and not something to just be forgotten.  he transferred his consciousness into that body and that is why he looks the same.  he had a twin, that he failed to mention to any of his closest friends or anything ? or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.  that is not a cure because a cure implies that it is fixed forever.  what was it you said about the cure not being permeant earlier ? one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.  there was pretty clearly an end.  there was an end thank god but it did not flow well for a film.  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.   #  it was clearly not a cure since it did not permanently depower magneto.   # i ca not spell the metal so wo not try.  the metal used ca not be melted or damaged in anyway when it dries and the last liquid supply of it was destroyed in x0.  this makes him getting his metal claws back a big deal and not something to just be forgotten.  magneto can manipulate adamantium.  or even mention in the new film, i like my answers to be in the film i am seeing instead of some lazy second hand thought they made up after.  we have seen fewer than ten hours of professor x is life.  we do not know what he did or did not say to people.  besides, it was his plan b so maybe he thought it was better to keep it a secret.  and maybe it is just a typical comic book retcon because they were not a fan of x0.  one of these is a plot flaw by your own logic, pick which one.  i called it a cure for the sake of brevity.  it was clearly not a cure since it did not permanently depower magneto.  come on man, do not be pedantic here.  i like my films to be around 0:0 0:0 hours long and feel about 0:0 to 0:0.  this felt much, much, much longer.  the film flowed quite well, i always knew what the characters were doing and why, and there was a clear arc.  i do not really know how to convince you of this other than spelling it out.   #  magneto obviously had his powers back in the after credits scene of x0 after losing them.   #  they were shown in the films, as has been cited above.  all of the  cures  and changes that the characters have experienced in each movie have been explained  in that movie.  magneto obviously had his powers back in the after credits scene of x0 after losing them.  xavier is new body was explained in the film that he lost his old one in.  none of these explanations require that a comic book or website be consulted.
i am only doing two drafts of this so let is see how well my thoughts crystallize: when people try to enumerate the benefits of religion one often hears this argument.   some people are always going to need religion to get by, let them have it.   it is meant to be a kind sentiment, but it seems to me like code for the very viewpoint it is claiming to criticize.   dumb people need fairy stories because they are afraid of death.   my argument against religion is that its good qualities can all be found elsewhere.  if someone is raised without religious indoctrination they will still find a way to cope with existential terror, people do it all the time.  folks is folks all over.   #   dumb people need fairy stories because they are afraid of death.    #  0.  fear and intelligence are largely unrelated quantities.   # 0.  fear and intelligence are largely unrelated quantities.  0.  just because some do not inherently value belief does not mean belief is inherently without value for everyone.  0.  if people need a certain belief religious or otherwise to make their life livable and worth it, then what qualifies critics to tell them otherwise ? people believe things for many reasons, and  nobody  believes everything in their life solely for reasons that are proven by hard science.  my argument for religion is that good qualities can be found within it arguably, that is its saving grace .  personally, i do not have faith.  however, i do not begrudge people is right to believe as they wish i want that right for myself too .  it is not up to me to decide for others what is right for them unless they are my responsibility  0 that is pure hubris imo.  the more important quality to me than whether a person has faith or not is whether they are a good person or not.  they can be that with or without religion.  0 i am interested in offering my niece and nephew alternative viewpoints to the ones they might otherwise be exposed to.  whilst i encourage a particular set of cognitive tools for learning and assessing ie.  logic, rationality, science, etc.  i am not there to make them atheists.  they have to make their own decisions.   #  people make decisions based on the things they believe are true.   #  people make decisions based on the things they believe are true.  if someone believes in something that is not true then it is a moral and social good to educate them.  nobody wants false hope or to believe things that are not true.  a simple example is people who believe that vaccination is harmful, they are wrong and their delusion is actively harmful to themselves and other people.  or those who buy all sorts of snake oil to cure their cancer out of desperation.   #  secondly, the assumption that we are taking about something harmful.   #  i think theres two basic issues with that.  for one, it implies a basis of knowledge that is simply not given.  i know for a fact that vaccination does not cause autism, i can provide scientific evidence to prove that claim.  hence, i  know  the truth.  with religion the issue here is that in order to get to the same position proof would be required that god does not exist.  however, all we can currently say is that we have not found evidence to the contrary.  based on how far we have come so far in terms of research, understanding the universe and so on it is perfectly possible that something pops up that proves that god actually exists.  dependant on your own beliefs you may or may not consider that likely, however, purely factually speaking it is not impossible at this given time.  secondly, the assumption that we are taking about something harmful.  if we are comparing it to vaccination, for example, theres a clear harm that is caused through not vaccinating: the risk of catching a perfectly avoidable illness.  what however is the risk of a person finding solace in a belief that life does not end with death and that they will get to see their loved ones again once more ? if its what makes them happy then i do not see anything wrong with it.  there is of course the issue of keeping states secular.  however, to achieve that i would argue that the reasonable course of action is to ensure a secular state in said states constitution as opposed to just getting rid of religion.   #  additionally, they cease to deal with their grief and merely absolve themselves of the need to deal with their loss.   #  for the record we are assuming these things are false as that is a part of the topic of this cmv, implicit in the argument  some people are always going to need religion to get by, let them have it.   is that it does not matter if the religion is false only that it is comforting.  i object to that argument on the basis that it does matter if something is true and because it is arrogant and elitist, treating other humans as children that need their fantasies pandered to in order to salve their egos, comfort them or otherwise maintain their equilibrium.  we can say with a certainty equivalent to your certainty that vaccines do not cause autism that many religious concepts and ideas are false.  young earth creationism as an example.  if its what makes them happy then i do not see anything wrong with it.  they are wrong, that in itself  is  a problem.  additionally, they cease to deal with their grief and merely absolve themselves of the need to deal with their loss.  that is unhealthy.  it also leads to them being easy prey for the likes of psychics, priests and ministers that seek their money or obedience in exchange of bland platitudes and vague barnum statements.  or to wasting their time and money in futile efforts in churches and other forms of cults.  if it makes someone happy to believe in magic and elves and that santa is real, i do not consider it a virtue to stay silent and play along with their delusion.  i do not accept that religion is a special form of delusion that needs protecting from argument or evidence.   #  in reality, it is more often the case that people are just having an honest discussion about worldviews, and theists fall back on  well, religion can be a comfort, regardless of whether or not it is true.    #  i think this is a really great point.  when people talk about the atheists vs.  theists debate, a lot of people often assume that atheists are out there berating religious people who are just trying to get by.  in reality, it is more often the case that people are just having an honest discussion about worldviews, and theists fall back on  well, religion can be a comfort, regardless of whether or not it is true.   atheists do not see that as a legitimate argument, and when they point that out, they get the  why are you trying to bully someone who is obviously grieving ?   they are not, they are just trying to make a valid point.
i am only doing two drafts of this so let is see how well my thoughts crystallize: when people try to enumerate the benefits of religion one often hears this argument.   some people are always going to need religion to get by, let them have it.   it is meant to be a kind sentiment, but it seems to me like code for the very viewpoint it is claiming to criticize.   dumb people need fairy stories because they are afraid of death.   my argument against religion is that its good qualities can all be found elsewhere.  if someone is raised without religious indoctrination they will still find a way to cope with existential terror, people do it all the time.  folks is folks all over.   #  my argument against religion is that its good qualities can all be found elsewhere.   #  my argument for religion is that good qualities can be found within it arguably, that is its saving grace .   # 0.  fear and intelligence are largely unrelated quantities.  0.  just because some do not inherently value belief does not mean belief is inherently without value for everyone.  0.  if people need a certain belief religious or otherwise to make their life livable and worth it, then what qualifies critics to tell them otherwise ? people believe things for many reasons, and  nobody  believes everything in their life solely for reasons that are proven by hard science.  my argument for religion is that good qualities can be found within it arguably, that is its saving grace .  personally, i do not have faith.  however, i do not begrudge people is right to believe as they wish i want that right for myself too .  it is not up to me to decide for others what is right for them unless they are my responsibility  0 that is pure hubris imo.  the more important quality to me than whether a person has faith or not is whether they are a good person or not.  they can be that with or without religion.  0 i am interested in offering my niece and nephew alternative viewpoints to the ones they might otherwise be exposed to.  whilst i encourage a particular set of cognitive tools for learning and assessing ie.  logic, rationality, science, etc.  i am not there to make them atheists.  they have to make their own decisions.   #  or those who buy all sorts of snake oil to cure their cancer out of desperation.   #  people make decisions based on the things they believe are true.  if someone believes in something that is not true then it is a moral and social good to educate them.  nobody wants false hope or to believe things that are not true.  a simple example is people who believe that vaccination is harmful, they are wrong and their delusion is actively harmful to themselves and other people.  or those who buy all sorts of snake oil to cure their cancer out of desperation.   #  i think theres two basic issues with that.   #  i think theres two basic issues with that.  for one, it implies a basis of knowledge that is simply not given.  i know for a fact that vaccination does not cause autism, i can provide scientific evidence to prove that claim.  hence, i  know  the truth.  with religion the issue here is that in order to get to the same position proof would be required that god does not exist.  however, all we can currently say is that we have not found evidence to the contrary.  based on how far we have come so far in terms of research, understanding the universe and so on it is perfectly possible that something pops up that proves that god actually exists.  dependant on your own beliefs you may or may not consider that likely, however, purely factually speaking it is not impossible at this given time.  secondly, the assumption that we are taking about something harmful.  if we are comparing it to vaccination, for example, theres a clear harm that is caused through not vaccinating: the risk of catching a perfectly avoidable illness.  what however is the risk of a person finding solace in a belief that life does not end with death and that they will get to see their loved ones again once more ? if its what makes them happy then i do not see anything wrong with it.  there is of course the issue of keeping states secular.  however, to achieve that i would argue that the reasonable course of action is to ensure a secular state in said states constitution as opposed to just getting rid of religion.   #  for the record we are assuming these things are false as that is a part of the topic of this cmv, implicit in the argument  some people are always going to need religion to get by, let them have it.    #  for the record we are assuming these things are false as that is a part of the topic of this cmv, implicit in the argument  some people are always going to need religion to get by, let them have it.   is that it does not matter if the religion is false only that it is comforting.  i object to that argument on the basis that it does matter if something is true and because it is arrogant and elitist, treating other humans as children that need their fantasies pandered to in order to salve their egos, comfort them or otherwise maintain their equilibrium.  we can say with a certainty equivalent to your certainty that vaccines do not cause autism that many religious concepts and ideas are false.  young earth creationism as an example.  if its what makes them happy then i do not see anything wrong with it.  they are wrong, that in itself  is  a problem.  additionally, they cease to deal with their grief and merely absolve themselves of the need to deal with their loss.  that is unhealthy.  it also leads to them being easy prey for the likes of psychics, priests and ministers that seek their money or obedience in exchange of bland platitudes and vague barnum statements.  or to wasting their time and money in futile efforts in churches and other forms of cults.  if it makes someone happy to believe in magic and elves and that santa is real, i do not consider it a virtue to stay silent and play along with their delusion.  i do not accept that religion is a special form of delusion that needs protecting from argument or evidence.   #  atheists do not see that as a legitimate argument, and when they point that out, they get the  why are you trying to bully someone who is obviously grieving ?    #  i think this is a really great point.  when people talk about the atheists vs.  theists debate, a lot of people often assume that atheists are out there berating religious people who are just trying to get by.  in reality, it is more often the case that people are just having an honest discussion about worldviews, and theists fall back on  well, religion can be a comfort, regardless of whether or not it is true.   atheists do not see that as a legitimate argument, and when they point that out, they get the  why are you trying to bully someone who is obviously grieving ?   they are not, they are just trying to make a valid point.
first off i need to define a few things.  when i say  significantly more , i mean nearly double or more, not something small like 0 more.  and when i say conservative politicians, i mean the ones that put themselves out in the media, since of course there are 0 is of conservatives in local government that almost never get any media attention.  same thing with liberals.  and for pundits, that should but obvious as i mean talk radio/fox news vs msnbc/npr/huffpo/dailykos.  as for why i believe this, i am a heavy consumer of politics so i listen to a lot of talk radio/internet news/fact checkers and consume a lot of articles.  and it seems day after day i hear/come across conservative politicians and pundits that lie and mislead and lots of articles/rebuttals of their lies.  and it is not just my anecdotal evidence, but reports have looked into this and indeed have found this to be true.  URL URL URL  #  it seems day after day i hear/come across conservative politicians and pundits that lie and mislead and lots of articles/rebuttals of their lies.   #  all this does is strengthen my assertion of your confirmation bias and confirmation seeking behaviour.   # npr, for being pretty neutral, leans more left on the american scale and if i had to guess, your internet browsing is probably pretty left biased as well.  the best evidence for your personal cvonfirmation bias is that you have linked 0 decidedly liberal news source and a decidedly left biased article from politico.  note this quote directly from politifact:  politifact rates the factual accuracy of specific claims; we do not seek to measure which party tells more falsehoods.  and yet politico ran an overeditorialized headline anyway, when it would have been simple to contact pf for an editorial quote.  nope.  lazy journalism won out anyway.  your third link is about audience being informed, but they utilize a poll on a single area of a single state, rather than a national poll.  that is piss poor methodology for measuring national anything.  all this does is strengthen my assertion of your confirmation bias and confirmation seeking behaviour.  my old man is a glenn beck/rush limbaugh fundie, and he says the same shit. about leftward politicians, because he is in an echochamber of confirmation if the story you are reading is anything but a copypasta from the original source, it has been editorialized and spun.  0 guarantee.  the source reporting may be editorialized as well, which is why you never immediately trust a source.  this goes triple for science news reporting.  christ it goes triple for science news reporting.  tl:dr you are going to need better evidence, because right now you have just demonstrated that you are likely living in a confirmation bubble.   #  as someone who lives in central florida, i can tell you first hand that politifact is questionable at best when it comes to political neutrality.   #  i am certainly no fan of fox news, but it is hard to take your view seriously with the sources you cite.  your view basically boils down to:   according to liberals , conservative politicians and pundits lie/mislead significantly more than liberal politicians and pundits.   the forbes article which manages to misspell the name of the university whose poll they are referencing , provides no link to the poll, so there is no way to judge how accurate it is.  huffington post and politico are both left leaning to say the least.  as someone who lives in central florida, i can tell you first hand that politifact is questionable at best when it comes to political neutrality.  there are plenty of legitimate sources out there that demonstrate the   truthiness URL or lack thereof of the right.   nbsp;  #  granted, i am not sure what any of this has to do with /u/fa hayek living in central florida.   #  politifact has to determine what statements truths, lies, and in betweens are worth researching and writing pages for and placing on their site.  while i do agree that their objectivity in fact checking such statements is generally pretty accurate and free of bias, there is no possible way for them to  pick  statements to fact check without any influence of bias.  several of their quotes are submitted by users, so even if the fact checkers themselves are not biased, it is entirely possible for them to be picking from a sample that credits one political group over the other due to the people submitting them.  granted, i am not sure what any of this has to do with /u/fa hayek living in central florida.  i do like politifact is service in fact checking, but i would not use it to make any kind of general ideas about any parties, organizations, or even people.  unfortunately, people like op take studies like the one mentioned by politico as definitive evidence that conservatives lie more.   #  i could not find any research or studies objectively measuring politifact is selection bias.   # let me do some googling to see if i can find a reliable source indicating selection bias.  . okay, i am back.  i could not find any research or studies objectively measuring politifact is selection bias.  honesty, i am not sure if it is even possible, how a study of it would even work i see that you had a conversation with ghotier on that, so i will read up on that soon .  at most, there was an explanation on politifactbias. com indicating the reasoning that the ratings skew favoring liberals is proof of bias:  we note that politifact is stories appear to damage republicans far more often than democrats despite the fact that pf tends to choose about as many stories dealing with republicans as for democrats.  if the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what politifact lists as its selection criteria URL but i do not really think that reasoning is sound.  what their website  does  indicate, however, is issues with their ratings.  this study URL shows a bias in the percentage of  pants on fire  ratings vs.  false ratings.  this study URL shows the amount of times they incorrectly calculated percent error, and when it favored which parties.   #  this comment overall is the strongest case i have seen yet that is there is a genuine left wing bias, and i really like the looking at math errors as a metric.   # false ratings.  that is strong but not persuasive evidence of bias, but does make me update in the general direction that there is a left wing bias at work here.  it seems from that there is a slight push their leftwards but they acknowledge that in at least one year 0 the balance was the other direction.  i would find this argument persuasive if they showed that statements which were erroneous in similar fashions got pants on fire for one group when they often got just false for the other.  that is actually a much more interesting metric, and does show a weak left leaning bias people are more likely to check their math when it does not agree with what they want to be true .  but the sample size is small.  in 0 cases a wrong calculation helped a democrat and in 0 it helped a republican.  this comment overall is the strongest case i have seen yet that is there is a genuine left wing bias, and i really like the looking at math errors as a metric.  it is a clever method which is only hampered by the small sample size.  based on this data i have tentatively updated to conclude that politifact likely does have a genuine left wing bias.  have a   0;.
the right to be married is currently denied to most gay people in the word.  that is a cause worth fighting for and a problem that needs rectifying.  however, what exactly is there for transgendered people to fight for ? it is already legal for people who want to to undergo hormone treatment and surgery to change their identity as much as scientifically possible.  i have a few gay friends that resent the lgbt acronym and transgendered peoples   uninvited  inclusion with the gay movement.  they feel that the transgendered movement belittles and muddles what is a serious political issue today.  i understand that transgendered people wish for societal acceptance want want their voices heard, but co opting the gay platform is a cheap and selfish way to accomplish this.   #  i have a few gay friends that resent the lgbt acronym and transgendered peoples   uninvited  inclusion with the gay movement.   #  they feel that the transgendered movement belittles and muddles what is a serious political issue today.   # they feel that the transgendered movement belittles and muddles what is a serious political issue today.  i understand that transgendered people wish for societal acceptance want want their voices heard, but co opting the gay platform is a cheap and selfish way to accomplish this.  i can tell you now that you should not defer to your gay friends on this issue unless you yourself have researched in depth the history of inner conflict of the lgbt community, beyond just the divide between the lgb portion and the t portion.  i wonder how many of your gay friends know that the hrc, one of most important pro gay groups in the struggle for gay rights, made a calculated decision not to include helping trans people because it might hurt the gay cause.  i wonder if they know that trans people have been by our side fighting our fights for gay equality.  i wonder if they know that openly trans people in the us military still can be discharged in a post dadt military, as briefly explained in this article URL it has made no logical sense to me when gay people claim that trans people co opt or ride on the coattails of the gay community when you see how many gay people hold that opinion.  many gay people do not know many trans people personally and do not understand their issues and their experiences.  one thing i learned recently is that in the state of oklahoma, for trans people to change their gender on their legal documents, they need a court order to do so, but actually getting a judge to sign a court order for this process is not as simple as requesting a judge for the order, wait a while, and then the judge will sign off on the order.  judges, at least in the state of oklahoma, do not seem to find it to be an issue that warrants the signing of a court order.  trans people, just like gay people since gay people have more legal issues on our radar than just marriage equality , have yet to be established as a legally protected class in the us, so they legally can be denied service, employment, and housing in certain scenarios both groups are legally protected on the federal level and in some states .   #  i do not know a lot about sexual re assignment, but it seems to me that it would not be returning a person to a prior state, just something new.   #  oh, i see this is a popular point.  i just said this to someone else, but i will reply to you as well.  i am an insurance professional and within insurance is the concept of indemnity, which put simply is that insurance exist to return someone to a financial condition prior to loss.  otherwise, insurance basically becomes gambling.  i do not know a lot about sexual re assignment, but it seems to me that it would not be returning a person to a prior state, just something new.  that is likely why it is not covered by insurance.  indemnity is really important to the concept of insurance and not a line you really want the world of insurance regulation to start crossing.  i am not sure if that is why its not covered or not, but it jumps out at me when i see that.  i am not against trans movement or anything, i frankly do not know much about it, but that point is important to what i do know.   #  i would be very surprised if medical insurance was strictly for returning people to  prior states.    #  indemnity does not apply here, i do not think.  correct me if i am wrong you are the expert , but there are many surgerical and medical procedures that are curative and do not return someone to a state prior to loss.  for example, breast reduction, or any other plastic surgery to correct an inherent trait.  i guess you could argue that it returns them to a state of smaller breasts i. e. , prior to puberty , but what about prosethetic limbs or coclear implants ? are those not covered by insurance ? what about treatments for diseases one is born with ? i would be very surprised if medical insurance was strictly for returning people to  prior states.    #  well, the breast issue, that can cause people back problems.   #  well, the breast issue, that can cause people back problems.  so the insurance company would look at it like,  we could fix your back problems so the problem is going to continue to exist, so we need to correct the root of the problem , hence justifying it.  treatments born with i believe falls under that pre existing conditions fight.  the government pretty much forced the insurance companies to do that and in exchange the insurance companies said then  everyone  has to be insured, and they were right due to  moral hazard .  now, if insurance companies have already been forced to break the concept of indemnity due to pre existing conditions something i disagree with and my wife is a type i diabetic , then i guess they should go ahead and include this as well.  i am not sure its insurance companies that are  for returning people to prior states  as much as the people that wrote the insurance regulation in most states.  it exists because insurance would become gambling without it.   #  if they are covered, would be interesting to know the justification.   #  i do not know, that is a good question.  if they are covered, would be interesting to know the justification.  i am not a professional in health insurance, moreso in property insurance though i do hold a license to sell medical insurance, i never have.  i would guess the insurance company is happy to justify it as it will save them money when they are not paying for pregnancy and childcare costs.  if they do and that is why, would not be right.  of course, the trans issue should/could be the same if approached by them not having to pay mental healthcare costs if such treatment is not sought and paid for.
i believe that in 0 or even 0 years, air travel will largely cease to exist, and because of this, the u. s.  needs to start building a high speed rail network now, in order to meet transportation needs within the country.  seems far fetched at first, except for 0 very simple fact: planes need fuel, literally tons of it, simply to function.  there is a finite supply of fuel, and it is being depleted rapidly.  no fuel, no functioning, no flying.  i have not sat down to crunch the numbers, but my guess is that the supply 0 or 0 years from now will be so low, it will basically be commandeered for military uses only; use for general public transportation and business travel will become cost prohibitive.  i also feel this will have a butterfly effect, and many aspects of our lives will change, some more drastically than others: business travel will largely cease to exist except for the most important needs the internet infrastructure will improve think fibre optic , as there will be a need for reliable, dependable, high quality videoconferencing many airports will likely be converted into train stations, while others will be used for other purposes, or torn down etc.  ultimately, i do not believe a high speed rail network will actually happen, especially since our current infrastructure has been neglected for so long to begin with.  it will probably even lead to a shift in world superpowers, with china taking the lead.  cmv  #  seems far fetched at first, except for 0 very simple fact: planes need fuel, literally tons of it, simply to function.   #  there is a finite supply of fuel, and it is being depleted rapidly.   # there is a finite supply of fuel, and it is being depleted rapidly.  no fuel, no functioning, no flying.  are your trains running by magic ? presumably they are using some source of  fuel  too are not they ? things do not usually move on their own.  and if you mean fossil fuels, what makes you think that we will still be using them in 0 0 years ? we need a more immediate solution to our dependance on fossil fuels  right now .  i do not see why we will have to continue using it.  so since we drastically need to solve the fuel issue as soon as possible, why do we need high speed rail in lieu of air travel ?  #  in 0 to 0 years we are likely to develop the technology to store it safely.   #  assuming a catastrophic rise in oil prices that make jet a powered aircraft too expensive to fly, in fifty to a hundred years we could power jet aircraft many different ways.  a few that i am aware of are:   hydrogen produced in non fossil power stations on earth.  in 0 to 0 years we are likely to develop the technology to store it safely.  using mirrors or solar powered microwave transmitters in earth orbit to superheat air or water in the plane is wings, providing thrust.  the satellites would track the aircraft, and a laser aimed at a reflector on the wing would instantly cut off the power transmission if the beam deviated from target.  the aircraft would have enough battery or reserve fuel to fly through intermittent outages and make emergency landings.  similar beams could also originate from the ground/floating platforms and track the aircraft in stages, just like cell phone towers do.  we would likely see a mix of both kinds.  we can switch cargo flights to robot piloted launch n glide systems cargo and robots do not care if you accelerate at 0 gs, so it would be like throwing a really big paper airplane with magnetic linear accelerators .  that would reserve more fuel for slower accelerating passenger flights.  biofuels, such as ethanol.  a drop in travel in general thanks to telecommuting, teleconferencing, telemetry, remote surgery and other technologies getting cheaper and better, postponing the fuel crisis another 0 to 0 years.  high temperature superconductors and other ways of generating massive magnetic fields for use in practical magnetohydrodynamic engines URL there are so many things on the table, and upgrading the rail network in the us is so expensive, that whoever invests the money to build that network is literally betting trillions against a few million brains working on alternatives.  however, what is more likely is that the remaining fuel supplies assuming we do not discover any new reserves in the future will be stretched out as we replace other systems with ones that do not drink oil.  every electric car being charged by solar, nuclear, and other renewables is a few thousand gallons per year that can now keep planes in the air a little longer.  the displacement of oil usage could easily stretch jet a reserves out to the point where technology we ca not even think of today is commonplace.   #  there is no hard cap unlike fossil fuels .   #  nevertheless, biofules are essentially unlimited.  we can build multi level farms for plants, we can farm mushrooms in caves underground, we can grow algea on ocean surface.  we can bio/genetic engineer hyper efficient plants and fungi.  there is no hard cap unlike fossil fuels .  and the farming, bio technology will only get better in the next 0 0 years.  the environment may or may not be hurt, but that is neither here nor there.  the point is your assumption that we will run out of fuels in 0 or 0 years is completely unfounded.  we have the technology to generate fuel for much, much longer than that.  at what cost ? i do not know, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.  p. s.  we can also use hydrogen as fuel.  hydrogen can be acquired from ocean water by electrolysis for virtually endless supply.   #  already all the  easy  sources of fossil fuels are running out.   #  biofuels are not essentially unlimited.  they have much the same restrictions as food.  land, energy, irrigation, pest control, r d, harvesting, refining, transportation and then some.  asking when we will have fuel trouble is missing the point.  at some, not too distant point in the future it will be energetically infeasible to get to many deposits.  already all the  easy  sources of fossil fuels are running out.  and in the meantime it is prudent to prepare for that eventuality.  that is all.   free  hydrogen is almost never available and we need to extract it from fossil fuels or using electrolysis.   #  sure biofuels have limits, but those limits are a lot less firm than limits on fossil fuels.   #  you missed my point.  with fossil fuels running out there will be incentive to come up with efficient uses of other fuels: bio fuels, hydrogen etc.  these are technologies we are already have in infancy stages .  it is very naive to say that in 0 0 years when fossil run out we will just give up.  that is no how things work: when there is a need technologies get improved.  sure biofuels have limits, but those limits are a lot less firm than limits on fossil fuels.  we will definitely not run out of bio fuels in 0 0 years.
i believe that in 0 or even 0 years, air travel will largely cease to exist, and because of this, the u. s.  needs to start building a high speed rail network now, in order to meet transportation needs within the country.  seems far fetched at first, except for 0 very simple fact: planes need fuel, literally tons of it, simply to function.  there is a finite supply of fuel, and it is being depleted rapidly.  no fuel, no functioning, no flying.  i have not sat down to crunch the numbers, but my guess is that the supply 0 or 0 years from now will be so low, it will basically be commandeered for military uses only; use for general public transportation and business travel will become cost prohibitive.  i also feel this will have a butterfly effect, and many aspects of our lives will change, some more drastically than others: business travel will largely cease to exist except for the most important needs the internet infrastructure will improve think fibre optic , as there will be a need for reliable, dependable, high quality videoconferencing many airports will likely be converted into train stations, while others will be used for other purposes, or torn down etc.  ultimately, i do not believe a high speed rail network will actually happen, especially since our current infrastructure has been neglected for so long to begin with.  it will probably even lead to a shift in world superpowers, with china taking the lead.  cmv  #  seems far fetched at first, except for 0 very simple fact: planes need fuel, literally tons of it, simply to function.   #  there is a finite supply of fuel, and it is being depleted rapidly.   # there is a finite supply of fuel, and it is being depleted rapidly.  no fuel, no functioning, no flying.  there are other ways to power a plane.  we can use hydrogen fuel cells, or use a series of solar collectors on the ground that shoot a laser or microwave at the plane to power it.  there are many other ways that i wo not take the time to mention, but fuel is not a problem.   #  the satellites would track the aircraft, and a laser aimed at a reflector on the wing would instantly cut off the power transmission if the beam deviated from target.   #  assuming a catastrophic rise in oil prices that make jet a powered aircraft too expensive to fly, in fifty to a hundred years we could power jet aircraft many different ways.  a few that i am aware of are:   hydrogen produced in non fossil power stations on earth.  in 0 to 0 years we are likely to develop the technology to store it safely.  using mirrors or solar powered microwave transmitters in earth orbit to superheat air or water in the plane is wings, providing thrust.  the satellites would track the aircraft, and a laser aimed at a reflector on the wing would instantly cut off the power transmission if the beam deviated from target.  the aircraft would have enough battery or reserve fuel to fly through intermittent outages and make emergency landings.  similar beams could also originate from the ground/floating platforms and track the aircraft in stages, just like cell phone towers do.  we would likely see a mix of both kinds.  we can switch cargo flights to robot piloted launch n glide systems cargo and robots do not care if you accelerate at 0 gs, so it would be like throwing a really big paper airplane with magnetic linear accelerators .  that would reserve more fuel for slower accelerating passenger flights.  biofuels, such as ethanol.  a drop in travel in general thanks to telecommuting, teleconferencing, telemetry, remote surgery and other technologies getting cheaper and better, postponing the fuel crisis another 0 to 0 years.  high temperature superconductors and other ways of generating massive magnetic fields for use in practical magnetohydrodynamic engines URL there are so many things on the table, and upgrading the rail network in the us is so expensive, that whoever invests the money to build that network is literally betting trillions against a few million brains working on alternatives.  however, what is more likely is that the remaining fuel supplies assuming we do not discover any new reserves in the future will be stretched out as we replace other systems with ones that do not drink oil.  every electric car being charged by solar, nuclear, and other renewables is a few thousand gallons per year that can now keep planes in the air a little longer.  the displacement of oil usage could easily stretch jet a reserves out to the point where technology we ca not even think of today is commonplace.   #  we can bio/genetic engineer hyper efficient plants and fungi.   #  nevertheless, biofules are essentially unlimited.  we can build multi level farms for plants, we can farm mushrooms in caves underground, we can grow algea on ocean surface.  we can bio/genetic engineer hyper efficient plants and fungi.  there is no hard cap unlike fossil fuels .  and the farming, bio technology will only get better in the next 0 0 years.  the environment may or may not be hurt, but that is neither here nor there.  the point is your assumption that we will run out of fuels in 0 or 0 years is completely unfounded.  we have the technology to generate fuel for much, much longer than that.  at what cost ? i do not know, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.  p. s.  we can also use hydrogen as fuel.  hydrogen can be acquired from ocean water by electrolysis for virtually endless supply.   #  they have much the same restrictions as food.   #  biofuels are not essentially unlimited.  they have much the same restrictions as food.  land, energy, irrigation, pest control, r d, harvesting, refining, transportation and then some.  asking when we will have fuel trouble is missing the point.  at some, not too distant point in the future it will be energetically infeasible to get to many deposits.  already all the  easy  sources of fossil fuels are running out.  and in the meantime it is prudent to prepare for that eventuality.  that is all.   free  hydrogen is almost never available and we need to extract it from fossil fuels or using electrolysis.   #  that is no how things work: when there is a need technologies get improved.   #  you missed my point.  with fossil fuels running out there will be incentive to come up with efficient uses of other fuels: bio fuels, hydrogen etc.  these are technologies we are already have in infancy stages .  it is very naive to say that in 0 0 years when fossil run out we will just give up.  that is no how things work: when there is a need technologies get improved.  sure biofuels have limits, but those limits are a lot less firm than limits on fossil fuels.  we will definitely not run out of bio fuels in 0 0 years.
i believe that in 0 or even 0 years, air travel will largely cease to exist, and because of this, the u. s.  needs to start building a high speed rail network now, in order to meet transportation needs within the country.  seems far fetched at first, except for 0 very simple fact: planes need fuel, literally tons of it, simply to function.  there is a finite supply of fuel, and it is being depleted rapidly.  no fuel, no functioning, no flying.  i have not sat down to crunch the numbers, but my guess is that the supply 0 or 0 years from now will be so low, it will basically be commandeered for military uses only; use for general public transportation and business travel will become cost prohibitive.  i also feel this will have a butterfly effect, and many aspects of our lives will change, some more drastically than others: business travel will largely cease to exist except for the most important needs the internet infrastructure will improve think fibre optic , as there will be a need for reliable, dependable, high quality videoconferencing many airports will likely be converted into train stations, while others will be used for other purposes, or torn down etc.  ultimately, i do not believe a high speed rail network will actually happen, especially since our current infrastructure has been neglected for so long to begin with.  it will probably even lead to a shift in world superpowers, with china taking the lead.  cmv  #  planes need fuel, literally tons of it, simply to function.   #  there is a finite supply of fuel, and it is being depleted rapidly.   # there is a finite supply of fuel, and it is being depleted rapidly.  no fuel, no functioning, no flying.  who says we ca not developed new types of fuel ? maybe fossil fuels will run out in 0 to 0 years, but that does not mean that we wo not find other ways of producing the energy needed for flight.  we are already working on synthesizing sustainable versions of fossil fuels using crops and microorganisms.  plus, who can tell what other tech we will have in 0 to 0 years.  maybe by that time we will have perfected nuclear power to the point that each plane can have its own little reactor.   #  similar beams could also originate from the ground/floating platforms and track the aircraft in stages, just like cell phone towers do.   #  assuming a catastrophic rise in oil prices that make jet a powered aircraft too expensive to fly, in fifty to a hundred years we could power jet aircraft many different ways.  a few that i am aware of are:   hydrogen produced in non fossil power stations on earth.  in 0 to 0 years we are likely to develop the technology to store it safely.  using mirrors or solar powered microwave transmitters in earth orbit to superheat air or water in the plane is wings, providing thrust.  the satellites would track the aircraft, and a laser aimed at a reflector on the wing would instantly cut off the power transmission if the beam deviated from target.  the aircraft would have enough battery or reserve fuel to fly through intermittent outages and make emergency landings.  similar beams could also originate from the ground/floating platforms and track the aircraft in stages, just like cell phone towers do.  we would likely see a mix of both kinds.  we can switch cargo flights to robot piloted launch n glide systems cargo and robots do not care if you accelerate at 0 gs, so it would be like throwing a really big paper airplane with magnetic linear accelerators .  that would reserve more fuel for slower accelerating passenger flights.  biofuels, such as ethanol.  a drop in travel in general thanks to telecommuting, teleconferencing, telemetry, remote surgery and other technologies getting cheaper and better, postponing the fuel crisis another 0 to 0 years.  high temperature superconductors and other ways of generating massive magnetic fields for use in practical magnetohydrodynamic engines URL there are so many things on the table, and upgrading the rail network in the us is so expensive, that whoever invests the money to build that network is literally betting trillions against a few million brains working on alternatives.  however, what is more likely is that the remaining fuel supplies assuming we do not discover any new reserves in the future will be stretched out as we replace other systems with ones that do not drink oil.  every electric car being charged by solar, nuclear, and other renewables is a few thousand gallons per year that can now keep planes in the air a little longer.  the displacement of oil usage could easily stretch jet a reserves out to the point where technology we ca not even think of today is commonplace.   #  we have the technology to generate fuel for much, much longer than that.   #  nevertheless, biofules are essentially unlimited.  we can build multi level farms for plants, we can farm mushrooms in caves underground, we can grow algea on ocean surface.  we can bio/genetic engineer hyper efficient plants and fungi.  there is no hard cap unlike fossil fuels .  and the farming, bio technology will only get better in the next 0 0 years.  the environment may or may not be hurt, but that is neither here nor there.  the point is your assumption that we will run out of fuels in 0 or 0 years is completely unfounded.  we have the technology to generate fuel for much, much longer than that.  at what cost ? i do not know, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.  p. s.  we can also use hydrogen as fuel.  hydrogen can be acquired from ocean water by electrolysis for virtually endless supply.   #  and in the meantime it is prudent to prepare for that eventuality.   #  biofuels are not essentially unlimited.  they have much the same restrictions as food.  land, energy, irrigation, pest control, r d, harvesting, refining, transportation and then some.  asking when we will have fuel trouble is missing the point.  at some, not too distant point in the future it will be energetically infeasible to get to many deposits.  already all the  easy  sources of fossil fuels are running out.  and in the meantime it is prudent to prepare for that eventuality.  that is all.   free  hydrogen is almost never available and we need to extract it from fossil fuels or using electrolysis.   #  with fossil fuels running out there will be incentive to come up with efficient uses of other fuels: bio fuels, hydrogen etc.  these are technologies we are already have in infancy stages .   #  you missed my point.  with fossil fuels running out there will be incentive to come up with efficient uses of other fuels: bio fuels, hydrogen etc.  these are technologies we are already have in infancy stages .  it is very naive to say that in 0 0 years when fossil run out we will just give up.  that is no how things work: when there is a need technologies get improved.  sure biofuels have limits, but those limits are a lot less firm than limits on fossil fuels.  we will definitely not run out of bio fuels in 0 0 years.
note: i am not  pro pageant,  and would certainly never force my child partake in them.  complaints on reddit about the evils of child beauty pageants are not at all difficult to come by.  every  what is something that is legal but should not  askreddit thread is typically headed by this sentiment.  from what i have seen, beauty pageants take on a  cutesy  vibe, not a sexual one.  none of the kids seem to be in any immediate danger, and of course every law in place to protect kids still applies.  also, prohibition on these pageants would either be lax to the point of uselessness, so stringent that they become a slippery slope and will be enforced in other areas.  in conclusion, the kids seem to be in no danger, it falls under freedom of speech, and parents supporting their daughter in pageants is no different than supporting their son playing football.   #  from what i have seen, beauty pageants take on a  cutesy  vibe, not a sexual one.   #  none of the kids seem to be in any immediate danger, and of course every law in place to protect kids still applies.   # none of the kids seem to be in any immediate danger, and of course every law in place to protect kids still applies.  do i think some girls like doing this ? yes.  do i think a lot of pageant moms are essentially child abusers who sexualize their children to relive days when they were still young and pretty ? yes.  plus these things are like a buffet for pedophiles.  i think your views are ridiculously naive, but i do not necessarily disagree with you are assertion that they should not be banned.  you ca not enforce a law on something as subjective as someone is intentions.   #  you cannot molest your child or abuse them.   #  property is a bundle of rights, not absolute freedom of use.  try burning your house down to find out.  parents retain property rights of many of the liabilities of their children when still minors.  this does not equate to all rights.  you cannot molest your child or abuse them.  you cannot deny them medical care in cases .   #  when a mexican woman gains citizenship for her child.   #  when a poor mother who is pregnant has all her expenses paid for during the pregnancy in order to provide a healthy environment that she could have never afforded on her own.  when a chinese woman is given money to put her daughter up for adoption.  when a mexican woman gains citizenship for her child.  but more importantly although the law forbids outright paying for a child, it happens anyway under the radar, from the hands of the adopter directly to the hands of the pregnant woman.  the money is not said to pay for the child, but it would have never changed hands without the promise of giving the child over.   #  this is not a pageant of little kids dressed as cartoon characters or woodland creatures not furries ; they are dressed to look like adults.   # i think many people are opposed to the sexualized pageants.  putting on makeup and revealing clothes are a sexualization of children.  this is not a pageant of little kids dressed as cartoon characters or woodland creatures not furries ; they are dressed to look like adults.  makeup alone is sexualization.  lipstick and blush exist to emulate natural responses to attract a potential sexual partner.  this is why makeup is attractive.  small children generally have great skin and do not require any concealing makeup.  can you defend this point ? we set an age floor on beauty pageants, and use community standards like with pornography to determine if something is really a beauty pageant.  we insulate children from this type of vanity for a reason.  parents sexualizing their children to be paraded around for awards is not artistic and does not convey an idea.  not everything you do is free speech.  football players are not sexualized.  also, there is no financial incentive for a parent of a football playing child.   #  i certainly do not agree with this as a parenting point, but they have the freedom to instill their values in their children.   # if makeup and lipstick is truly sexualiztion, then i believe that is still okay for kids in that case.  it is not bodily revealing, only enhancing the already exposed skin.  if it is okay for a 0 year old girl going on a date who is still a child in the government is eyes to wear makeup, than it should be okay for an 0 year old.  it is also perfectly fine for a young girl to wear a two piece swimsuit at public beaches and pools and is not ever considered as sexualization.  these things just do not seem explicitly sexual to me.  we set an age floor on beauty pageants, and use community standards like with pornography to determine if something is really a beauty pageant.  i guess i had not really researched this point.  i was not aware of the already existing stipulations on the pageants.  we insulate children from this type of vanity for a reason.  it may in your eyes, but the parents of these kids say that being beautiful is a valuable characteristic.  i certainly do not agree with this as a parenting point, but they have the freedom to instill their values in their children.  remember, my point is not that these pageants are morally correct, but that they should not be  illegal.  parents sexualizing their children to be paraded around for awards is not artistic and does not convey an idea.  not everything you do is free speech.  you are right,  freedom of speech  is not the correct terminology here.  i meant freedom of expression, as said in the title.  also, there is no financial incentive for a parent of a football playing child.  we clearly disagree on the extent of the sexualization of the pageants.  while football players are not sexualized, they are idolized for their athletic strength and endurance.  the prioritizing of strength over intellect and social skills can also hurt a child is mentality.  and on the subject of the lack of financial incentive in football, i have one word: scholarships.
a lot of people think it is inevitable that hillary clinton will be our next president.  jeb bush has thrown his name into the ring.  and i have heard rumors of michelle obama running for office, putting her on a similar trajectory to hillary.  i think this is a terrible thing for several reasons: 0 america should not be a monarchy or an oligarchy.  a lot of people love to complain about how a few rich and powerful people run the country karl rove, the nra, the koch brothers, etc if you are a liberal; unions, george soros, etc, if you are conservative , but then go and vote for people from political families in primaries.  i find this  very  hypocritical.  0 people vote for the name, not the views of the person.  it is easy for someone to say:  things were good when clinton or bush was president, i will vote for another one.   i think a lot of more casual people who show up to vote once every 0 years and do not stay informed, which is most of the electorate, is very likely to do this.  0 i think this is an easy work around for the spirit of the 0nd amendment, and i think that is wrong.  i think if president hillary clinton went on a diplomatic trip to europe, bill would probably tag along and have influence that he really ought not have as a past president.  this was not a problem with the bushes, but i think a lot of that was because george h. w.  bush was old and not energetic.  i do not know if i would go as far to propose any amendments or take legal recourse, but in regards to this disappointing trend we are seeing unfold, i think this is a terrible idea.  i was born in 0, and it is looking very possible that i might see a president bush or clinton for 0 of my first 0 years.  that is  wrong  and i feel that it is a horrible thing for the country.  please cmv.   #  people vote for the name, not the views of the person.   #  it is easy for someone to say:  things were good when clinton or bush was president, i will vote for another one.    # a lot of people love to complain about how a few rich and powerful people run the country karl rove, the nra, the koch brothers, etc if you are a liberal; unions, george soros, etc, if you are conservative , but then go and vote for people from political families in primaries.  i find this very hypocritical.  so all we need to do to avoid an oligarchy is not elect people from the same families ? i had no idea it was so easy.  it is easy for someone to say:  things were good when clinton or bush was president, i will vote for another one.   i think a lot of more casual people who show up to vote once every 0 years and do not stay informed, which is most of the electorate, is very likely to do this.  do you have a source for this or is it just conjecture ? i think if president hillary clinton went on a diplomatic trip to europe, bill would probably tag along and have influence that he really ought not have as a past president.  this was not a problem with the bushes, but i think a lot of that was because george h. w.  bush was old and not energetic.  you are just grasping at straws here.  bill already has as much influence on current affairs as he wants he is a former president.  i was born in 0, and it is looking very possible that i might see a president bush or clinton for 0 of my first 0 years.  that is wrong and i feel that it is a horrible thing for the country.  please cmv.  you just  feel that it is wrong  without any real explanations of the consequences.  john adams was our second president, and his son was our 0th john quincy adams .  and i do not think any kind of precedent was set then and i doubt it will be set now.   #  he is still judging people for things that they have no control over.   #  he is still judging people for things that they have no control over.  he is willing to go so far as to consider legislation to prevent people from running just because they are related to someone else who the people voted for.  if the people want it, why does  he  get to overrule the people ? besides, how far would he take it ? would he have prevented john quincy adams from being allowed to offer his services to the country ? how about franklin roosevelt ? when it comes down to it, why not base a person is merit on their actual abilities, instead of perceived abilities ?  #  there was no one, in a country of 0 million people, that should have been in his place ?  # well, that is exactly the point of all this.  instead of actually judging people based on their qualifications it ends up that people related to previous office holders get preference and  name recognition  over a newcomer, even if the newcomer is better for the job.  does anyone seriously still think that george w.  bush would have gotten anywhere near the presidency if his last name was not bush ? there was no one, in a country of 0 million people, that should have been in his place ? that was not shut out of consideration because of the weight of the bush name ? i think we make out better on the trade as a society if we loose the tiny pool of office holders relatives in exchange for eliminating the whole  ability to rule by association and not ability  thing.  that opens the process up to be able to judge on ability rather then family.   #  a president that was possibly one of the most popular presidents in history ?  # except that by limiting people due to circumstances out of their control, it is making it impossible.  again, the op is mentioning possible legislation.  if the people want them, they will vote for them.  that is the fundamental principle of our government, whether it works out for the best or not.  not every turnout for every vote is going to be good for our people, but it is good that every vote have a turnout.  i think any supporter of fdr would disagree with you.  the man is highly regarded amongst the vast majority of americans as one of if not the best president we have ever had, but you would not have let him serve because he shared a last name with a  fifth  cousin who was elected president of the united states ? a president that was possibly one of the most popular presidents in history ?  #  your point of  if the people want them, they will vote for them.    #  i think you are being intentionally obtuse.  as to you your first point, it does not make it impossible, it makes it impossible for an extremely small amount of people.  your point of  if the people want them, they will vote for them.   ignores all the realities of the  popularity contest  component of the elections which in my opinion we should do everything we can to destroy .  yeah, if they want them they will vote for them.   them  being the people they are presented with.  why should someone get a leg up into the  them  pool just because of their name ? it is something that happens a lot especially recently, and needs to be addressed.  as for the fdr thing, 0 out of 0.  those odds work for me.  i also take issue with the fifth cousin thing, as most people would not consider anything past second cousins  related  for our purposes.
a lot of people think it is inevitable that hillary clinton will be our next president.  jeb bush has thrown his name into the ring.  and i have heard rumors of michelle obama running for office, putting her on a similar trajectory to hillary.  i think this is a terrible thing for several reasons: 0 america should not be a monarchy or an oligarchy.  a lot of people love to complain about how a few rich and powerful people run the country karl rove, the nra, the koch brothers, etc if you are a liberal; unions, george soros, etc, if you are conservative , but then go and vote for people from political families in primaries.  i find this  very  hypocritical.  0 people vote for the name, not the views of the person.  it is easy for someone to say:  things were good when clinton or bush was president, i will vote for another one.   i think a lot of more casual people who show up to vote once every 0 years and do not stay informed, which is most of the electorate, is very likely to do this.  0 i think this is an easy work around for the spirit of the 0nd amendment, and i think that is wrong.  i think if president hillary clinton went on a diplomatic trip to europe, bill would probably tag along and have influence that he really ought not have as a past president.  this was not a problem with the bushes, but i think a lot of that was because george h. w.  bush was old and not energetic.  i do not know if i would go as far to propose any amendments or take legal recourse, but in regards to this disappointing trend we are seeing unfold, i think this is a terrible idea.  i was born in 0, and it is looking very possible that i might see a president bush or clinton for 0 of my first 0 years.  that is  wrong  and i feel that it is a horrible thing for the country.  please cmv.   #  i think this is an easy work around for the spirit of the 0nd amendment, and i think that is wrong.   #  i think if president hillary clinton went on a diplomatic trip to europe, bill would probably tag along and have influence that he really ought not have as a past president.   # a lot of people love to complain about how a few rich and powerful people run the country karl rove, the nra, the koch brothers, etc if you are a liberal; unions, george soros, etc, if you are conservative , but then go and vote for people from political families in primaries.  i find this very hypocritical.  so all we need to do to avoid an oligarchy is not elect people from the same families ? i had no idea it was so easy.  it is easy for someone to say:  things were good when clinton or bush was president, i will vote for another one.   i think a lot of more casual people who show up to vote once every 0 years and do not stay informed, which is most of the electorate, is very likely to do this.  do you have a source for this or is it just conjecture ? i think if president hillary clinton went on a diplomatic trip to europe, bill would probably tag along and have influence that he really ought not have as a past president.  this was not a problem with the bushes, but i think a lot of that was because george h. w.  bush was old and not energetic.  you are just grasping at straws here.  bill already has as much influence on current affairs as he wants he is a former president.  i was born in 0, and it is looking very possible that i might see a president bush or clinton for 0 of my first 0 years.  that is wrong and i feel that it is a horrible thing for the country.  please cmv.  you just  feel that it is wrong  without any real explanations of the consequences.  john adams was our second president, and his son was our 0th john quincy adams .  and i do not think any kind of precedent was set then and i doubt it will be set now.   #  he is still judging people for things that they have no control over.   #  he is still judging people for things that they have no control over.  he is willing to go so far as to consider legislation to prevent people from running just because they are related to someone else who the people voted for.  if the people want it, why does  he  get to overrule the people ? besides, how far would he take it ? would he have prevented john quincy adams from being allowed to offer his services to the country ? how about franklin roosevelt ? when it comes down to it, why not base a person is merit on their actual abilities, instead of perceived abilities ?  #  i think we make out better on the trade as a society if we loose the tiny pool of office holders relatives in exchange for eliminating the whole  ability to rule by association and not ability  thing.   # well, that is exactly the point of all this.  instead of actually judging people based on their qualifications it ends up that people related to previous office holders get preference and  name recognition  over a newcomer, even if the newcomer is better for the job.  does anyone seriously still think that george w.  bush would have gotten anywhere near the presidency if his last name was not bush ? there was no one, in a country of 0 million people, that should have been in his place ? that was not shut out of consideration because of the weight of the bush name ? i think we make out better on the trade as a society if we loose the tiny pool of office holders relatives in exchange for eliminating the whole  ability to rule by association and not ability  thing.  that opens the process up to be able to judge on ability rather then family.   #  except that by limiting people due to circumstances out of their control, it is making it impossible.   # except that by limiting people due to circumstances out of their control, it is making it impossible.  again, the op is mentioning possible legislation.  if the people want them, they will vote for them.  that is the fundamental principle of our government, whether it works out for the best or not.  not every turnout for every vote is going to be good for our people, but it is good that every vote have a turnout.  i think any supporter of fdr would disagree with you.  the man is highly regarded amongst the vast majority of americans as one of if not the best president we have ever had, but you would not have let him serve because he shared a last name with a  fifth  cousin who was elected president of the united states ? a president that was possibly one of the most popular presidents in history ?  #  as to you your first point, it does not make it impossible, it makes it impossible for an extremely small amount of people.   #  i think you are being intentionally obtuse.  as to you your first point, it does not make it impossible, it makes it impossible for an extremely small amount of people.  your point of  if the people want them, they will vote for them.   ignores all the realities of the  popularity contest  component of the elections which in my opinion we should do everything we can to destroy .  yeah, if they want them they will vote for them.   them  being the people they are presented with.  why should someone get a leg up into the  them  pool just because of their name ? it is something that happens a lot especially recently, and needs to be addressed.  as for the fdr thing, 0 out of 0.  those odds work for me.  i also take issue with the fifth cousin thing, as most people would not consider anything past second cousins  related  for our purposes.
a lot of people think it is inevitable that hillary clinton will be our next president.  jeb bush has thrown his name into the ring.  and i have heard rumors of michelle obama running for office, putting her on a similar trajectory to hillary.  i think this is a terrible thing for several reasons: 0 america should not be a monarchy or an oligarchy.  a lot of people love to complain about how a few rich and powerful people run the country karl rove, the nra, the koch brothers, etc if you are a liberal; unions, george soros, etc, if you are conservative , but then go and vote for people from political families in primaries.  i find this  very  hypocritical.  0 people vote for the name, not the views of the person.  it is easy for someone to say:  things were good when clinton or bush was president, i will vote for another one.   i think a lot of more casual people who show up to vote once every 0 years and do not stay informed, which is most of the electorate, is very likely to do this.  0 i think this is an easy work around for the spirit of the 0nd amendment, and i think that is wrong.  i think if president hillary clinton went on a diplomatic trip to europe, bill would probably tag along and have influence that he really ought not have as a past president.  this was not a problem with the bushes, but i think a lot of that was because george h. w.  bush was old and not energetic.  i do not know if i would go as far to propose any amendments or take legal recourse, but in regards to this disappointing trend we are seeing unfold, i think this is a terrible idea.  i was born in 0, and it is looking very possible that i might see a president bush or clinton for 0 of my first 0 years.  that is  wrong  and i feel that it is a horrible thing for the country.  please cmv.   #  i do not know if i would go as far to propose any amendments or take legal recourse, but in regards to this disappointing trend we are seeing unfold, i think this is a terrible idea.   #  i was born in 0, and it is looking very possible that i might see a president bush or clinton for 0 of my first 0 years.   # a lot of people love to complain about how a few rich and powerful people run the country karl rove, the nra, the koch brothers, etc if you are a liberal; unions, george soros, etc, if you are conservative , but then go and vote for people from political families in primaries.  i find this very hypocritical.  so all we need to do to avoid an oligarchy is not elect people from the same families ? i had no idea it was so easy.  it is easy for someone to say:  things were good when clinton or bush was president, i will vote for another one.   i think a lot of more casual people who show up to vote once every 0 years and do not stay informed, which is most of the electorate, is very likely to do this.  do you have a source for this or is it just conjecture ? i think if president hillary clinton went on a diplomatic trip to europe, bill would probably tag along and have influence that he really ought not have as a past president.  this was not a problem with the bushes, but i think a lot of that was because george h. w.  bush was old and not energetic.  you are just grasping at straws here.  bill already has as much influence on current affairs as he wants he is a former president.  i was born in 0, and it is looking very possible that i might see a president bush or clinton for 0 of my first 0 years.  that is wrong and i feel that it is a horrible thing for the country.  please cmv.  you just  feel that it is wrong  without any real explanations of the consequences.  john adams was our second president, and his son was our 0th john quincy adams .  and i do not think any kind of precedent was set then and i doubt it will be set now.   #  would he have prevented john quincy adams from being allowed to offer his services to the country ?  #  he is still judging people for things that they have no control over.  he is willing to go so far as to consider legislation to prevent people from running just because they are related to someone else who the people voted for.  if the people want it, why does  he  get to overrule the people ? besides, how far would he take it ? would he have prevented john quincy adams from being allowed to offer his services to the country ? how about franklin roosevelt ? when it comes down to it, why not base a person is merit on their actual abilities, instead of perceived abilities ?  #  well, that is exactly the point of all this.   # well, that is exactly the point of all this.  instead of actually judging people based on their qualifications it ends up that people related to previous office holders get preference and  name recognition  over a newcomer, even if the newcomer is better for the job.  does anyone seriously still think that george w.  bush would have gotten anywhere near the presidency if his last name was not bush ? there was no one, in a country of 0 million people, that should have been in his place ? that was not shut out of consideration because of the weight of the bush name ? i think we make out better on the trade as a society if we loose the tiny pool of office holders relatives in exchange for eliminating the whole  ability to rule by association and not ability  thing.  that opens the process up to be able to judge on ability rather then family.   #  not every turnout for every vote is going to be good for our people, but it is good that every vote have a turnout.   # except that by limiting people due to circumstances out of their control, it is making it impossible.  again, the op is mentioning possible legislation.  if the people want them, they will vote for them.  that is the fundamental principle of our government, whether it works out for the best or not.  not every turnout for every vote is going to be good for our people, but it is good that every vote have a turnout.  i think any supporter of fdr would disagree with you.  the man is highly regarded amongst the vast majority of americans as one of if not the best president we have ever had, but you would not have let him serve because he shared a last name with a  fifth  cousin who was elected president of the united states ? a president that was possibly one of the most popular presidents in history ?  #  your point of  if the people want them, they will vote for them.    #  i think you are being intentionally obtuse.  as to you your first point, it does not make it impossible, it makes it impossible for an extremely small amount of people.  your point of  if the people want them, they will vote for them.   ignores all the realities of the  popularity contest  component of the elections which in my opinion we should do everything we can to destroy .  yeah, if they want them they will vote for them.   them  being the people they are presented with.  why should someone get a leg up into the  them  pool just because of their name ? it is something that happens a lot especially recently, and needs to be addressed.  as for the fdr thing, 0 out of 0.  those odds work for me.  i also take issue with the fifth cousin thing, as most people would not consider anything past second cousins  related  for our purposes.
first, let me say that i am not a huge soccer fan, but i do enjoy watching the world cup when it comes around every four years go italy ! .  one thing that i never understood was how the sport kept track of time.  for those who do not know, even when play  stops , the clock continues to run.  then once the time clock has expired, they add on extra time based on the amount of time that the game was halted for throughout that half.  for the life of me, i can not think of a single positive for doing it this way.  a video on reddit was posted today here URL shows a goalie yelling at and probably scaring the shit out of lol a ball boy in order to give him the ball back quickly because his team was down and the time was running out.  another famous video here URL shows a ball boy jumping on the ball and covering it with his body i am assuming he did this in order to attempt to waste time for the other team, helping his team out , and a player kicked him in order to get the ball out from underneath him.  things like this would easily be avoided if time stopped once the ball went out of play.  there is also the possibility of the refs arbitrarily choosing to round the extra time up or down in order to help out a team that they support.  some might say that they want to keep the game on schedule, and i would say that this could easily be done by restricting the amount of time that players are allowed to keep the ball out of bounds.  give them 0 seconds to throw/kick the ball to continue play just an example, if 0 seconds does not work, change it to something that does .  for the life of me, i cannot think of a single reason why the current system is better than my proposed system, so i leave it to you, cmv !  #  there is also the possibility of the refs arbitrarily choosing to round the extra time up or down in order to help out a team that they support.   #  referees are not allowed to referee a match in which they have a vested interest.   #  the thing is that football is just too fast to be able to have a stop clock system.  it is not like in other sports where players can get a drink and take a breather when the ball goes out of play because it goes straight back in.  imagine a throw in, the ball might go out of play for 0 seconds before it is back in play.  it is just not feasible to stop the clock for such a short amount of time.  by the time the clock is stopped it is back in play again.  referees are not allowed to referee a match in which they have a vested interest.  for example, an english referee cannot referee a game in which england are playing.  nor can he referee in a game in which the club team he supports is playing or his hometown.   #  i was a ref for my local club is junior teams for a while, and i can tell you that it would be a pain in the ass trying to continuously start and re start a stop watch.   #  the current way is easier.  you just let the game run though, and when it ends you say  oh, that was about 0 minuets  and keep playing.  i was a ref for my local club is junior teams for a while, and i can tell you that it would be a pain in the ass trying to continuously start and re start a stop watch.  and, as you said, there is a schedule to keep.  this may seem like less of a concern with professional games, but nearly all football federations are conservative in that they want to keep refereeing the game on a professional level the same as it is in normal life.  this is one of the best things about football: it is approachable.  i ca not think of a sport that has so few complicated rules and can be so easily played in so many situations and by so many people.  the refereeing of a professional game of football is done entirely by the four people on and by the field; no re plays, fancy technologies or anything; just those four guys, some stopwatches and a big 0 segment led display.   #  as i was typing this, i also realised that depending on how a stop in play was conceived, sometimes the clock does run .   #  almost all other sports that i can think of have a much larger delay between starting the play again.  hockey: you have to wait for the puck to be dropped.  football: you have to wait for the offense/defense to line up which can takr a fair bit of time.  as i was typing this, i also realised that depending on how a stop in play was conceived, sometimes the clock does run .  and actually basketball stops the time.  i just realised this too.  in most cases with stoppages of play in soccer, the players can start the play as quickly as theyd like.  it could become very fast paved for the ref trying to ensure he started and stopped the time, increasing the odds of maybe not starting the time when you meant to.  i feel that if they stopped the clock then corporations would end up weasling their way into having commercial breaks.  the game also does not always end at exactly the time that is forecasted.  this allows teams to finish an attack if theres an opportunity.  im not sure how exactly i feel about that but im just saying it to make a point that time of the game isnt rigidly followed.   #  but as far as the process of starting a watch, thats really easy.   #  honestly, coming from watching other sports with clock management, it is the first thing i noticed.  you probably do not think its bad because thats just how it is always been.  lots of my american friends who watch a lot of soccer also think it is weird.  we have just seen both sides.  but as far as the process of starting a watch, thats really easy.  basketball and american football are constantly starting and stopping, with little margin for error, and they manage fine.  its literally 0 buttons.  if you can blow a whistle you can press a button too.   #  you could do all of those things during the throw in while holding the stopwatch in your hand.   #  you could do all of those things during the throw in while holding the stopwatch in your hand.  watch for all of them, and once the ball is thrown in successfully and without foul, press down on the button and then let go.  i honestly do not mean this in a rude way, but have you ever used a stopwatch before ? 0 press for on, 0 press for off.  i do not think it is really possible to accidentally press down on the button twice without realising what you did, and being able to very quickly fix the mistake.
i am an american, but i do not see why americans in general seem to be so against other countries growing in size and power.  what is the problem if we are one of a dozen powerful countries in the world, but no longer  the  most powerful one ? there are many smaller countries on earth that enjoy a much higher quality of life than the us, like switzerland, australia, and some scandinavian countries, among others.  if we were no longer a superpower, we would not have to spend billions of dollars being be the policeman for other countries and trying and often failing to spread democracy elsewhere.  we could then keep more focus on our own internal affairs, and spend that money on our own citizens where it is needed.  such as on education, healthcare, innovation, etc.  please let me know if i am missing out on some important aspect of the situation that i had not previously thought of.   #  if we were no longer a superpower, we would not have to spend billions of dollars being be the policeman for other countries and trying and often failing to spread democracy elsewhere.   #  we could then keep more focus on our own internal affairs, and spend that money on our own citizens where it is needed.   # america is known and understood.  we do not know what will happen when another superpower can force their agenda.  if russia were in charge, the world would be a much different place.  we could then keep more focus on our own internal affairs, and spend that money on our own citizens where it is needed.  such as on education, healthcare, innovation, etc.  this is not altruism, it is 0 for our own interests.  do not listen to the talking points of commentators on radio and tv.  america is not the world police.  our military engagements around the world are specifically to further our agenda.  the situation in the middle east has a huge effect on our economy and safety.  if we do not try to stabilize these countries or otherwise turn them on our side , it will come back to bite us in the future.   #  non proliferation benefits all nations under the halo.   #  pax americana.  the world is ordered around a singular hierarchy which encourages peace and stability.  us alliance creates common markets for all world participants dollars and a combination of military and economic force creates the leverage that the west uses to suppress all manner of things in the liberal tradition nuclear proliferation, war, genocide, piracy, human trafficking, etc.  .  other nation states benefit from the stability of the us system.  the us navy deters all piracy in international shipping lanes.  non proliferation benefits all nations under the halo.  the us cannot maintain the same level of wealth without enforcing a favorable international environment to trade in.  if the forward presence of the us were repealed, those markets and our influence recedes.  we do not necessarily keep any savings once withdrawn, we lose singular control over systemic terms and they do not necessarily continue in our favor.  another nation could determine the interest rates of our currency, setting banking policy that over takes anything the federal reserve might decide on.  the terms of our debt could be reevaluated without the benefit of controlling the markets that it floats in.  currency will inflate/deflate.  gas becomes expensive, loans unobtainable.  the degree is relative, but it is less ours to decide.  beholden to other states for shared resources, they could leverage against our policy choices so that we adopt items that we may otherwise disagree with: relinquishing free speech refugees to chinese authorities or adopting disruptive environmental policies maybe the midwest ca not go fuel efficient without significantly increasing food costs.  we might find ourselves unable to regulate import/export balances, subservient to trade agreements.  tldr; he who controls the spice, controls the universe.   #  the us economy, meanwhile, has such a large domestic market that they need us workers to do low paying jobs.   #  the us may have worse quality of life than some countries, but adding up every single country with a better quality of life than the us and that total comes out to less than the population of the us.  a big country cannot be as wealthy per capita as nations such as monaco or liechtenstein.  the nations with living standards higher than the us are all dependant upon having a small population that is supported by the efforts of the poorer people in other nearby countries.  for instance, sweden can be rich because the poor people are all in poland doing unskilled manufacturing that sweden can purchase.  it is a mutually beneficial exchange, but the high quality of life in sweden is still dependant on somewhere else doing the low paying jobs that sweden needs done.  the us economy, meanwhile, has such a large domestic market that they need us workers to do low paying jobs.  if the us fell from it is status as global superpower, they will be replaced by china.  china is, quite frankly, a corrupt tyrannical single party regime.  if china was the global superpower and held influence over what is currently nato, i would be risking myself by even holding this discussion.  furthermore, us spending on military is the entire reason europe can be lax when it comes to military and spend money on their own citizens.  you have seen what happens to non nato countries bordering russia.  without us supporting nato, every country in europe would need far higher military spending to counter russia.   #  the ussr and china have killed their own people by the tens of millions and are oppressive to this day.   #  the u. s.  reign as superpower has been one of the most peaceful and prosperous times in world history.  i wo not defend all of our actions, but i will say we have done a lot better than just about every other major power has throughout history.  britain enslaved half the world, france tried to conquer all of europe, as did germany.  the ussr and china have killed their own people by the tens of millions and are oppressive to this day.  it would be in our best interest to scale down our military and focus on domestic growth but it is in the world is best interest for america to remain strong.   #  0,0  americans should not have to die for japan is crimes.   #  so it is ok to kill hundreds of thousands of people with conventional weapons but not with atomic weapons ? japan sided with nazi germany, committed genocide in china, sneak attacked the u. s.  then, we ask them to surrender tell them we are about to hit them with a weapon of mass destruction; they do not surrender.  we hit them once, they do not surrender.  you wanted tens of thousands of americans to die along with countless japanese ? 0,0  americans should not have to die for japan is crimes.
i am a 0 year old college student and she is 0, well educated with a career as a social worker.  she is married to a guy who travels frequently and has two daughters.  i have never met any of her family and i do not intend to.  it started when i posted an ad on craigslist looking for sexual encounters, and she responded asking if i would have a threesome with her and another man, so i knew from the beginning she had been cheating.  eventually she lost interest in him and began to see me exclusively.  despite this, she insists she is happy with her husband and has no desire to divorce.  i believe this is all simply mid life crisis and she is not getting enough attention from her husband.  i do not think marital problems, however significant, make cheating justified.  however, it is not my responsibility to be her marriage counselor.  she is much older than i and she is responsible for her own decisions.  i know that, if i were her husband and found out which is unlikely since we are very careful i would be absolutely devastated, but i would not act like the faceless guy who she had an affair with was all to blame.  i am sure a lot of people would think i am terrible for this, but i believe this anger is misplaced.  can anyone demonstrate otherwise ?  #  i would be absolutely devastated, but i would not act like the faceless guy who she had an affair with was all to blame.   #  i think he is if he knew full well that the person he was having sex with was married with children.   #  i think you kind of have a dangerous mentality  its their conscious decision to make so i am not to blame  but you are also making the conscious decision to aid in the ruining of someone is life.  that woman is husband, god forbid he finds out, will be devastated.  how long have they been married ? you say they had two kids together imagine what this could possibly due to their marriage.  she might be horrible, but you are equally responsible.  let is take another example using your logic.  someone decides they want to kill themselves but they do not have the guts to pull the trigger so they give you a gun.  instead of trying to help them you say  welp they are an adult and they decided to end their life so i have no reason to even attempt to help them.  i am not morally wrong for ending someone is life because they made the decision to end it .  the major reason however that points as to why you are also in the wrong is the fact that you know she is married.  if you did not know, you would not be in the wrong because you simply had a sexual encounter with someone.  but the fact that you willingly are having sex with a married woman who you know full well is married is morally wrong.  i think he is if he knew full well that the person he was having sex with was married with children.   #  op is not breaking the marriage, the marriage is at this point broken and was when she decided she will cheat.   #  her marriage really is between her and her husband.  by enabling her to cheat with him, he is hardly making a difference she would cheat with someone else like she was already, and finally even just the intent to cheat, whether it is prevented by outside forces or not, is enough in my opinion.  if i am with someone, i do not care how others act, i do not want to not be cheated on because of lack of opportunity but rather lack of desire.  now since him ending the affair does not change a thing about the fact she cheats and wants to cheat on her husband, he is not making the situation worse or better.  if you expect him to just leave her, he is making no difference for her or her husband.  only real argument could be that as someone who knows she is cheating he needs to take the responsibility of informing her husband because cheating is horrible.  but i disagree with that too he has no connection or loyalty towards him and has some towards her.  he does not know what is happening between them and it would not be his place to do something without having enough information on possible consequences for everyone who will be affected.  still, most of us can probably say it would be good if the husband found out so he can get divorced way preferable to her just going back to normal and him never knowing , and even that chance is increased as long as she keeps cheating.  op is not breaking the marriage, the marriage is at this point broken and was when she decided she will cheat.  op has no moral obligations in this case or unrealistic expectations.  he has his relationship with this woman and her husband has another.  she is the one making choices.  why does he need to respect this marriage that one of the spouses definitely is not respecting ? marriages break, many marriages should break, and there is no reason to think that keeping them together under all cost is important or other people is obligation.  he is not hurting anyone.   #  i am not morally wrong for ending someone is life because they made the decision to end it .   # i disagree with this.  she had been cheating before i met her, and i have no reason to think she would stop if i ceased contact.  i do not think the physical act really matters beyond the risk of pregnancy or stds, of which there is none here.  it is not like everything was just fine when she was only  looking  at other men in a sexual light, and then it instantly became a risk to the family when my peg went in her slot.  i am not morally wrong for ending someone is life because they made the decision to end it .  well i do support medically assisted suicide, which, like this affair, is a consciously thought out decision and not just an impulse.  i would assume the latter if someone randomly handed me a gun and told me to end them, so i would not do it in that case, but i also would not drop everything to make them not be suicidal anymore.  so it is wrong because i know she is married, and because i know she is married, it is wrong.  seems like circular reasoning.   #  but i know how some users in this subreddit love to just give names of fallacies without going against the point made.   # she had been cheating before i met her, and i have no reason to think she would stop if i ceased contact.  so is it okay to help someone commit a crime or commit a cruel act if you have reason to believe that they have no intention of stopping ? that does not take away from the fact that you personally are making the decision to aid in a horrible act.  seems like circular reasoning.  not really circular reasoning imo its just restating the same thing.  i was simply saying that the fact that you 0 knew that she was married means its wrong for you to do.  but i know how some users in this subreddit love to just give names of fallacies without going against the point made.   #  i think it is wrong, too for her and her alone.   # the way i see it is our decision is really only  horrible  if we fail and she gets caught.  if i confessed to her husband, the potential consequences become actual, but if i continue the affair or cease contact knowing that she may just continue cheating they remain potential consequences.  so i do not really see the difference there.  i understand, but just saying that it is wrong wo not change my view.  i think it is wrong, too for her and her alone.  as long as she is making the decision to cheat, my individual involvement does not really matter.
japanese got reparations from the concentration camps, and i believe slavery and jim crow is just as bad.  i actually have family members who had suffered through jim crow.  because of slavery, black people were treated as second class citizens up until quite recently.  i personally believe that is why many african americans are in very bad areas right now.  in many ways, i believe the effects of slavery are still around.  words such as  nigger  originated from slavery and are still present today.  personally, i believe detroit would be much more developed if black people received checks from the government.  cmv  #  i believe detroit would be much more developed if black people received checks from the government.   #  how many black people in detroit already receive checks from the government from welfare programs ?  #  the problem is that it would be impossible to figure out what black people are direct descendants of slaves.  how would the government go about this when there probably are not many written records of this ? aside from that, the only japanese people who received reparations were the ones who were actually sent to internment camps.  there are not any black people still living who were slaves, so it does not make sense to offer reparations to people who were not slaves in the first place.  also, there have already been programs like affirmative action which have been put in place to try to solve the problems that were caused by racism and slavery.  how many black people in detroit already receive checks from the government from welfare programs ?  #  here URL is a page about the special difficulties involved, but it also shows all the ways in which good records were kept.   #  this is not a good argument for why  not  to have reparations.  you are just saying that it would be difficult to enact.  regarding your points, though, tracing slave ancestry is not as  impossible  as you think.  here URL is a page about the special difficulties involved, but it also shows all the ways in which good records were kept.  and just think about it: if a black person can trace back their history in america to any point before 0, they had slave ancestors.  true, some black people during this time were not slaves, but so many others were that it is nearly impossible to not have a single great great great great great grandparent who was not a slave.  mayflower descendants number in the millions URL all from an original group of 0 people.  also, the idea that you can only receive reparations if you lived through the event is a moot point.  they are inheriting the reparations their ancestors should have gotten.  i doubt many people are against the idea of allowing inheritances.  native americans receive reparations from the government URL we do the same thing with archaeology look up nagpra , for the physical remains of native american ancestors.  welfare is not reparations.  welfare exists in a society to provide temporary assistance to help citizens until they can provide for themselves.  perhaps most telling that welfare is not reparations are the numbers: the majority of recipients of welfare are, and have been, white URL reparations, if you read the article about native american reparations is not just throwing money at people.  it is much more nuanced.  reparations are an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and a path to fixing them.  if you are at all familiar with the massive failure of the reconstruction, and the growth of jim crow, and the government programs that existed to target black families URL and tie those to issues nowadays, it becomes more clear that the united states has failed black people.  i am not saying i have answers or anything, but i do not think the issue is not as black and white ha ! as you believe it is.   #  japanese people who were sent to internment camps were given reparations because they personally were sent to these camps.   #  reparations are given to people who were personally affected by a negative policy.  japanese people who were sent to internment camps were given reparations because they personally were sent to these camps.  native americans were given reparations because of government policies and actions which negatively affected the.  how many black people are alive today who are former slaves ? none, which is why they have not received reparations and instead have had the opportunity to benefit from programs like affirmative action.   #  the group representing 0 of the population is also using 0 of welfare resources.   #  this is no longer true.  at least according to recent data since january 0st 0, black people now receive more welfare than white people by 0.  getting down to numbers i do find it concerning.  talking numbers 0 of the us population is white 0 census or about 0 million people.  now, about 0 of the us population is black, or about 0 million people.  let is say both are equal recipients of welfare what is one percentage point, right ? at 0 of the whole pie.  the group representing 0 of the population is using 0 of welfare resources.  the group representing 0 of the population is also using 0 of welfare resources.  there is something very wrong with that picture.   #  for the past 0 months, apparently black people have surpassed white people in receiving welfare.   #  i guess you are technically right.  for the past 0 months, apparently black people have surpassed white people in receiving welfare.  although, 0 months of nearly equivalent receipt does not overwrite the entire history of white people receiving the majority of welfare.  i am not totally sure what your argument is, so i will elaborate.  there is something wrong with that picture.  however, the dominant narrative in our society claims that we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.  while this is true to some extent, think about the overwhelming evidence that where you come from by in large dictates one is outcomes in our society.  in regards to race, i think the whole idea of the welfare queen URL is where the fear of the abuse of welfare comes from.  not that many people want to be on welfare there are a lot of restrictions in order to qualify, and the societal stigma makes government welfare programs generally undesirable to need to rely on.
the fight for same sex marriage often invokes imagery that attempts to assimilate same sex couples with opposite sex couples.  for example: studies evaluating the happiness of a child between the two parent sets, the portrayal of same sex couples in media think: modern family .  i think that focusing on equating same sex and opposite sex couples effectively destroys a unique culture that cannot be compared to the cultures of cisgendered heterosexuals.  by fighting for  marriage equality  people are truly fighting for the destruction of a culture.  such culture has its own unique jargons, histories, familial structures, and belief systems.  this culture exists within the bounds of other cultures and should be celebrated and certainly not shunned.  however, if queer people are equated with the heterosexual and cisgendered populations, this culture is lost.  for example, one can observe the history of native americans.  while these tribes potentially benefited from being assimilated being able to communicate with a now dominant population and without even going into all the terrible things that happened for this to come to be.  their cultures are effectively lost.  their histories have slowed significantly, some even halting.  their native languages are lost, and those that still have speakers today are approaching moribundity as children refuse to learn them in favor of the dominant languages around them.  note: i am not attempting to equate these assimilations, but rather point out that they are similar in their causes and effects  i do not wish to debate the nuances of marriage advantages vs.  disadvantages  because this has been argued time and time again.  rather i want to be convinced that in having marriage equality mankind would not be losing the rich and unique culture that is queer culture.   #  however, if queer people are equated with the heterosexual and cisgendered populations, this culture is lost.   #  and assuming that you are right regarding assimilation, do you think that regardless of the fact that many gays and lesbians freely want to give up this culture, they should:   be forced to retain it, against their will ?  # that is just a tad hyperbolic, do not you think ? even if part of the culture is lost, how is that  dangerous  ? and assuming that you are right regarding assimilation, do you think that regardless of the fact that many gays and lesbians freely want to give up this culture, they should:   be forced to retain it, against their will ? be denied equality for the sake of retaining their own culture ? did giving women equal rights to men not also get rid of a  unique  culture, where women were subjugated and had no voting rights ? should we have kept a misogynist culture like that of mad men, because it is unique ? i am sure they also had their own  unique jargons, histories, familial structures, and belief systems.    #  how exactly will the culture be lost simply because i have a marriage certificate ?  #  i am gay and want to get married and raise kids, not because i want to assimilate into heterosexual culture or whatever, but because it is what i want.  i want a husband and a family when i am older, i do not want to go to bed alone every night, or watch my friends settle down and raise kids from a disconnected distance, i want a family of my own and something to give my life a purpose when i am older.  i believe i can have a family and still live a  queer lifestyle  as much or as little as i please.  how exactly will the culture be lost simply because i have a marriage certificate ? will cam be any less fabulous now he and mitch are married ? i doubt it ! you say queer culture will be lost with equal marriage as if queer culture is based solely on marriage or lack thereof , when this is obviously not the case.  queer culture existed long before our relationships were recognized and will continue to exist now that our relationships are recognized.   #  people can shift in and out of culture.   #  i think a unique thing about queer culture compared to the other cultures you mentioned is that it is completely unnecessary to pass on the culture from parent to child.  it is passed on peer to peer, group to group.  there is always going to be a new batch of 0 year old queer kids ready to face the world and some of them will want to follow a different path than their parents.  it does not really matter if there are some camerons and mitchells out there raising kids in a cute suburban house with the full benefits of marriage.  native americans lost their culture because white people killed a bunch of them and make them all move to little cordoned off zones out west.  what does queer culture even mean ? gay bars ? pride parade ? lesbians playing softball ? you have not even defined what it is you think is being lost.  and why would getting married destroy people is cultural opportunities ? frat culture is still alive and well, and it totally does not match with the happy marriage good parents model you are talking about.  but we let frat boys graduate college and be monogamous and the culture is fine.  people can shift in and out of culture.   #  queer people do not naturally create our offspring although some do, such as bisexual people who may have sex with a friend to create their own offspring and raise it in their own way .   #  i defined queer culture rather generally.  but you do bring up some very good points.  queer culture is not one that is passed through generations, but through peers.  but this is in fact one of the qualities that make queer culture unique.  queer people do not naturally create our offspring although some do, such as bisexual people who may have sex with a friend to create their own offspring and raise it in their own way .  in fact, some people step outside their reservations about sex simply to do just this.  it is not just gay bars, pride parades, etc.  it is a shared history, a society born through secrecy out of fear of adversity.  the stonewall, harvey milk, the aids epidemic.  it is a unique language.  cryptic signals to find one another amidst fear and a dangerous majority  the hanky code  for example .  jargon relevant only to queer people  gold star   bear   twink   lipstick lesbian   butch lesbian  etc.  it is a community, often referred to as  gay ghettos.   gay bars, pride parades, queer art scenes.  the castro.  boystown.  chelsea.  it consists of unique familial configurations.  as described above, or those who live together and form families without a marriage certificate and without acceptance by an institution or majority and despite adversity.  polygamy.  it also consists of unique belief systems.  such as the many who must find themselves when born into christian households.  also polygamy found the queer people have crafted a unique and depending on your view beautiful community and culture.   #  hippies can stay hippies when they are married with kids, punk rockers can drop the baby at a sitters when they want to rock out.   #  but none of that has to go away because people get married.  you can be a lipstick lesbian and a soccer mom, or a bear who is married to his partner but still lives in chelsea.  you can be polygamous and get married ! you can have three kids with your partner and pack them up to grandma is a couple times a year and go to pride parade and watch your partner have sex with other people.  it is not like a marriage certificate is going to make you forget about harvey milk.  hippies can stay hippies when they are married with kids, punk rockers can drop the baby at a sitters when they want to rock out.  are you saying queer culture can only exist through adversity ? what do you want to do, stop making things better for queer people ? are you going to be bummed if there is no murder of a trans person in 0 because there will be nothing to rally behind ? if there is no new std that kills thousands and terrifies everyone, gay culture dies ?
the fight for same sex marriage often invokes imagery that attempts to assimilate same sex couples with opposite sex couples.  for example: studies evaluating the happiness of a child between the two parent sets, the portrayal of same sex couples in media think: modern family .  i think that focusing on equating same sex and opposite sex couples effectively destroys a unique culture that cannot be compared to the cultures of cisgendered heterosexuals.  by fighting for  marriage equality  people are truly fighting for the destruction of a culture.  such culture has its own unique jargons, histories, familial structures, and belief systems.  this culture exists within the bounds of other cultures and should be celebrated and certainly not shunned.  however, if queer people are equated with the heterosexual and cisgendered populations, this culture is lost.  for example, one can observe the history of native americans.  while these tribes potentially benefited from being assimilated being able to communicate with a now dominant population and without even going into all the terrible things that happened for this to come to be.  their cultures are effectively lost.  their histories have slowed significantly, some even halting.  their native languages are lost, and those that still have speakers today are approaching moribundity as children refuse to learn them in favor of the dominant languages around them.  note: i am not attempting to equate these assimilations, but rather point out that they are similar in their causes and effects  i do not wish to debate the nuances of marriage advantages vs.  disadvantages  because this has been argued time and time again.  rather i want to be convinced that in having marriage equality mankind would not be losing the rich and unique culture that is queer culture.   #  rather i want to be convinced that in having marriage equality mankind would not be losing the rich and unique culture that is queer culture.   #  did giving women equal rights to men not also get rid of a  unique  culture, where women were subjugated and had no voting rights ?  # that is just a tad hyperbolic, do not you think ? even if part of the culture is lost, how is that  dangerous  ? and assuming that you are right regarding assimilation, do you think that regardless of the fact that many gays and lesbians freely want to give up this culture, they should:   be forced to retain it, against their will ? be denied equality for the sake of retaining their own culture ? did giving women equal rights to men not also get rid of a  unique  culture, where women were subjugated and had no voting rights ? should we have kept a misogynist culture like that of mad men, because it is unique ? i am sure they also had their own  unique jargons, histories, familial structures, and belief systems.    #  you say queer culture will be lost with equal marriage as if queer culture is based solely on marriage or lack thereof , when this is obviously not the case.   #  i am gay and want to get married and raise kids, not because i want to assimilate into heterosexual culture or whatever, but because it is what i want.  i want a husband and a family when i am older, i do not want to go to bed alone every night, or watch my friends settle down and raise kids from a disconnected distance, i want a family of my own and something to give my life a purpose when i am older.  i believe i can have a family and still live a  queer lifestyle  as much or as little as i please.  how exactly will the culture be lost simply because i have a marriage certificate ? will cam be any less fabulous now he and mitch are married ? i doubt it ! you say queer culture will be lost with equal marriage as if queer culture is based solely on marriage or lack thereof , when this is obviously not the case.  queer culture existed long before our relationships were recognized and will continue to exist now that our relationships are recognized.   #  and why would getting married destroy people is cultural opportunities ?  #  i think a unique thing about queer culture compared to the other cultures you mentioned is that it is completely unnecessary to pass on the culture from parent to child.  it is passed on peer to peer, group to group.  there is always going to be a new batch of 0 year old queer kids ready to face the world and some of them will want to follow a different path than their parents.  it does not really matter if there are some camerons and mitchells out there raising kids in a cute suburban house with the full benefits of marriage.  native americans lost their culture because white people killed a bunch of them and make them all move to little cordoned off zones out west.  what does queer culture even mean ? gay bars ? pride parade ? lesbians playing softball ? you have not even defined what it is you think is being lost.  and why would getting married destroy people is cultural opportunities ? frat culture is still alive and well, and it totally does not match with the happy marriage good parents model you are talking about.  but we let frat boys graduate college and be monogamous and the culture is fine.  people can shift in and out of culture.   #  but you do bring up some very good points.   #  i defined queer culture rather generally.  but you do bring up some very good points.  queer culture is not one that is passed through generations, but through peers.  but this is in fact one of the qualities that make queer culture unique.  queer people do not naturally create our offspring although some do, such as bisexual people who may have sex with a friend to create their own offspring and raise it in their own way .  in fact, some people step outside their reservations about sex simply to do just this.  it is not just gay bars, pride parades, etc.  it is a shared history, a society born through secrecy out of fear of adversity.  the stonewall, harvey milk, the aids epidemic.  it is a unique language.  cryptic signals to find one another amidst fear and a dangerous majority  the hanky code  for example .  jargon relevant only to queer people  gold star   bear   twink   lipstick lesbian   butch lesbian  etc.  it is a community, often referred to as  gay ghettos.   gay bars, pride parades, queer art scenes.  the castro.  boystown.  chelsea.  it consists of unique familial configurations.  as described above, or those who live together and form families without a marriage certificate and without acceptance by an institution or majority and despite adversity.  polygamy.  it also consists of unique belief systems.  such as the many who must find themselves when born into christian households.  also polygamy found the queer people have crafted a unique and depending on your view beautiful community and culture.   #  it is not like a marriage certificate is going to make you forget about harvey milk.   #  but none of that has to go away because people get married.  you can be a lipstick lesbian and a soccer mom, or a bear who is married to his partner but still lives in chelsea.  you can be polygamous and get married ! you can have three kids with your partner and pack them up to grandma is a couple times a year and go to pride parade and watch your partner have sex with other people.  it is not like a marriage certificate is going to make you forget about harvey milk.  hippies can stay hippies when they are married with kids, punk rockers can drop the baby at a sitters when they want to rock out.  are you saying queer culture can only exist through adversity ? what do you want to do, stop making things better for queer people ? are you going to be bummed if there is no murder of a trans person in 0 because there will be nothing to rally behind ? if there is no new std that kills thousands and terrifies everyone, gay culture dies ?
not only does luxottica dominate the market horizontally, buying up brands such as oakley, ray ban, and other designer brands, but they also integrate vertically as well, owning the largest chains such as sunglass hut and lenscrafters and pearlevision.  they also own the divisions of sunglass sales at chains like target.  all in all, they have an  0% share of the global brands,  a number which is regressive because the more stores they operate the more they can sell their own brands and, as i will describe later, buy others.  they also own eyemed, which insures the customers that they acquire to further control every facet of the market and drown out the competition.  they did not build most of these brands; rather, they undercut them until they had no choice but to be bought out by the luxottica behemoth.  that is not how the free market should work.  all of these brands, stores, etc.  provide an illusion of choice, which further misleads the customer.  the branding is totally separate, and luxottica itself tries very hard to keep its own identity low profile as evidenced by the 0 minutes segment URL and by the fact that you probably have not heard of them.  they are all the same thing, made in the same factories, sold by the same corporation.  consequently, they can artificially inflate their prices in markets where there is literally no other choice.  in ones  with  other choices, they have oftentimes the premium brands and such an established network of manufacturing and shipping that they can keep costs low and maximize their margins to undercut competition.  so, to change my view you can either 0 convince me that my facts and figures are  totally  wrong and even 0 of the brands is too large, let alone the 0 that is the case , 0 convince me that 0 of the brands  is not  too large, 0 convince me that somehow they are not and will not abuse their status as a monopoly, or 0 figure out another way to do it.  why is this legal ? sure, they are incorporated in italy, but they do much of their business in the us and they are listed on the nyse.  and italy has its own laws as well.  and, most importantly, why is the company named to sound like a porn ? this makes xfinity look like a good idea.   #  that is not how the free market should work.   #  if luxottica is not using force or coercion i. e.   # if luxottica is not using force or coercion i. e.  the state to achieve their ends, then that is exactly how the free market should work.  when and if they try to raise their prices, a smaller competitor will undercut them.  if not, then there is enough of a demand for their product and no one is getting screwed over.  if everyone is benefiting from their products, what is the problem ? if this is a free market monopoly, i see nothing wrong with it.  in fact, i  do  have a choice.  i bought a pair from target because i do not want to spend $0 on oakleys.  and i am a happy customer. with a choice.   #  so they may have a dominant presence in the branded, lux part of the industry; however, they do not occupy a monopoly position in the market as a whole.   #  from the article:  luxottica dominates spectacle frames and sunglasses, commanding value shares of 0 and 0, respectively, in 0.  essilor, on the other hand, led spectacle lenses with a share of nearly 0 in 0.    value share  is normally defined as the % share of money a company makes in a market respective to all the money made in the market.  so luxottica does dominate the market, but they still only account for 0 of sunglasses sales by value .  to address your original post, i do not think they have a monopoly under any reasonable understanding of the word.  as other people have mentioned, this probably has a great deal to do with the large number of cheap unbranded or minor brand sunglasses that get sold.  for example, if you buy sunglasses in a tourist shop on vacation, buy them from a gas station on a long drive, etc.  you are not buying luxottica.  so they may have a dominant presence in the branded, lux part of the industry; however, they do not occupy a monopoly position in the market as a whole.  what is important about this is that it makes it very unlikely that they are able to exercise much monopoly power.  people can buy commodity sunglasses at low prices, which is pretty much the opposite of what you would expect in a monopoly.  now you can argue that they are being anti competitive by buying most of the high end boutique sunglasses stores and only stocking their own brands; however, i do not think this is properly described as a monopoly.   #  if you want to sub divide markets, fine, but that was not your original cmv prompt.   #  are you still not able to read the article, or did you just not choose to ? i will quote it here:  luxottica, which owns multiple brands such as oakley and ray ban, as well as retailers such as lenscrafters, pearle vision and sunglass hut, emerged as the leader of the us eyewear market in 0, with a value share of nearly 0, while essilor remained a close second, with a value share of more than 0.  luxottica dominates spectacle frames and sunglasses, commanding value shares of 0 and 0 , respectively, in 0.  essilor, on the other hand, led spectacle lenses with a share of nearly 0 in 0.   so i do not know what you are talking about.  they have a 0 value share of the sunglasses market.  if you want to sub divide markets, fine, but that was not your original cmv prompt.  please rephrase what your view is, because it does not sound like it is that luxottica has a monopoly of the sunglasses market this is clearly not true.   #  the high end sunglasses market functions in exactly the same way.   # 0 of a market can dominate when the market is fractured.  it sounds like they are engaged in anti competitive tactics; however, they are not a monopoly.  also, it is very hard to figure out what the  natural  price would be in a luxury end of a market.  there is no monopoly pricing in the market as a whole because there is no monopoly over the market.  luxury pricing is its own thing companies set prices based on what they can convince people the goods are worth and higher prices can actual lead to more demand.  think about handbags there are tons of handbags sold every day.  only a small fraction are sold at the extreme luxury end of the handbag market e. g.  louis vuitton , and those bags are sold at exorbitant prices that have nothing to do with their production cost.  this is not because anyone has a monopoly over the handbag market, but because they are luxury goods.  the high end sunglasses market functions in exactly the same way.  in these markets, prices are not a function of production costs, because each brand basically operates within its own tiny monopoly.  prices are high because luxottica and others have convinced people that sunglasses are a viable luxury item, and branding creates monopolized sub markets.  for example, the oakley brand can charge premium prices because 0 people expect to pay premium prices; and 0 you can only buy oakley glasses from oakley, so they can charge whatever the brand is  worth  to consumers.  here is an article about luxottica and luxury pricing: URL in conclusion: if your view is that luxottica has a monopoly in sunglasses as it says in your title , it looks like we have changed your view.  if your view is that luxottica engages in questionable anti competitive behavior or confuses customers, you are to some degree undoubtedly correct, but you had examples before you came in here, so there is no real point to doing a cmv.   #  in addition, for handbags, if coach suddenly decided to price their bags  fairly,  people would be under the impression that they are lower quality because there is such strong competition.   #  you have not changed my view; there is no consensus on what share of the market constitutes a monopoly, and because luxottica has all of the defined characteristics of a monopoly price maker, artificially raises prices substantially to create demand as you mentioned notably with ray ban , controls all levels of the industry from design/production to retail, has largest share in market, undercuts and threatens to drown all competition if they refuse to cooperate, etc.  .  so no, i really do not think you have changed my view at all perhaps on a semantic level, but not a substantive one.  regarding the handbags analogy, the handbag industry has done the same thing they acknowledge that people are willing to pay a lot.  in that instance it is an oligopoly the manufacturers collude and charge substantially more than their production costs because it benefits the entire industry.  it is basic game theory.  for sunglasses, luxottica is the only company responsible for doing what many companies did together in the handbag industry.  in addition, for handbags, if coach suddenly decided to price their bags  fairly,  people would be under the impression that they are lower quality because there is such strong competition.  if luxottica did this, the rest of the industry would simply follow suit and people would not think twice because luxottica owns so many brands and has such a large share of the market and sunglasses are clearly way overpriced for what they are while handbags are at least a bit more reasonable in that regard in the eyes of the consumer .
not only does luxottica dominate the market horizontally, buying up brands such as oakley, ray ban, and other designer brands, but they also integrate vertically as well, owning the largest chains such as sunglass hut and lenscrafters and pearlevision.  they also own the divisions of sunglass sales at chains like target.  all in all, they have an  0% share of the global brands,  a number which is regressive because the more stores they operate the more they can sell their own brands and, as i will describe later, buy others.  they also own eyemed, which insures the customers that they acquire to further control every facet of the market and drown out the competition.  they did not build most of these brands; rather, they undercut them until they had no choice but to be bought out by the luxottica behemoth.  that is not how the free market should work.  all of these brands, stores, etc.  provide an illusion of choice, which further misleads the customer.  the branding is totally separate, and luxottica itself tries very hard to keep its own identity low profile as evidenced by the 0 minutes segment URL and by the fact that you probably have not heard of them.  they are all the same thing, made in the same factories, sold by the same corporation.  consequently, they can artificially inflate their prices in markets where there is literally no other choice.  in ones  with  other choices, they have oftentimes the premium brands and such an established network of manufacturing and shipping that they can keep costs low and maximize their margins to undercut competition.  so, to change my view you can either 0 convince me that my facts and figures are  totally  wrong and even 0 of the brands is too large, let alone the 0 that is the case , 0 convince me that 0 of the brands  is not  too large, 0 convince me that somehow they are not and will not abuse their status as a monopoly, or 0 figure out another way to do it.  why is this legal ? sure, they are incorporated in italy, but they do much of their business in the us and they are listed on the nyse.  and italy has its own laws as well.  and, most importantly, why is the company named to sound like a porn ? this makes xfinity look like a good idea.   #  consequently, they can artificially inflate their prices in markets where there is literally no other choice.   #  in the 0 minutes segment the biggest competitors are walmart and costco.   # does not seem to me they are trying very hard.  in the 0 minutes segment the biggest competitors are walmart and costco.  almost everyone has one of those nearby.  i am actually surprised that internet/china is not listed as a competitor.  luxottica does not have a monopoly, other companies can make the glass frames.  nothing is stopping them.  they have retail locations and brand names, these do not make a monopoly.  the expensive prices are for those who want the brand name and details.  that is not unethical to charge them for it.   #  so they may have a dominant presence in the branded, lux part of the industry; however, they do not occupy a monopoly position in the market as a whole.   #  from the article:  luxottica dominates spectacle frames and sunglasses, commanding value shares of 0 and 0, respectively, in 0.  essilor, on the other hand, led spectacle lenses with a share of nearly 0 in 0.    value share  is normally defined as the % share of money a company makes in a market respective to all the money made in the market.  so luxottica does dominate the market, but they still only account for 0 of sunglasses sales by value .  to address your original post, i do not think they have a monopoly under any reasonable understanding of the word.  as other people have mentioned, this probably has a great deal to do with the large number of cheap unbranded or minor brand sunglasses that get sold.  for example, if you buy sunglasses in a tourist shop on vacation, buy them from a gas station on a long drive, etc.  you are not buying luxottica.  so they may have a dominant presence in the branded, lux part of the industry; however, they do not occupy a monopoly position in the market as a whole.  what is important about this is that it makes it very unlikely that they are able to exercise much monopoly power.  people can buy commodity sunglasses at low prices, which is pretty much the opposite of what you would expect in a monopoly.  now you can argue that they are being anti competitive by buying most of the high end boutique sunglasses stores and only stocking their own brands; however, i do not think this is properly described as a monopoly.   #  they have a 0 value share of the sunglasses market.   #  are you still not able to read the article, or did you just not choose to ? i will quote it here:  luxottica, which owns multiple brands such as oakley and ray ban, as well as retailers such as lenscrafters, pearle vision and sunglass hut, emerged as the leader of the us eyewear market in 0, with a value share of nearly 0, while essilor remained a close second, with a value share of more than 0.  luxottica dominates spectacle frames and sunglasses, commanding value shares of 0 and 0 , respectively, in 0.  essilor, on the other hand, led spectacle lenses with a share of nearly 0 in 0.   so i do not know what you are talking about.  they have a 0 value share of the sunglasses market.  if you want to sub divide markets, fine, but that was not your original cmv prompt.  please rephrase what your view is, because it does not sound like it is that luxottica has a monopoly of the sunglasses market this is clearly not true.   #  0 of a market can dominate when the market is fractured.   # 0 of a market can dominate when the market is fractured.  it sounds like they are engaged in anti competitive tactics; however, they are not a monopoly.  also, it is very hard to figure out what the  natural  price would be in a luxury end of a market.  there is no monopoly pricing in the market as a whole because there is no monopoly over the market.  luxury pricing is its own thing companies set prices based on what they can convince people the goods are worth and higher prices can actual lead to more demand.  think about handbags there are tons of handbags sold every day.  only a small fraction are sold at the extreme luxury end of the handbag market e. g.  louis vuitton , and those bags are sold at exorbitant prices that have nothing to do with their production cost.  this is not because anyone has a monopoly over the handbag market, but because they are luxury goods.  the high end sunglasses market functions in exactly the same way.  in these markets, prices are not a function of production costs, because each brand basically operates within its own tiny monopoly.  prices are high because luxottica and others have convinced people that sunglasses are a viable luxury item, and branding creates monopolized sub markets.  for example, the oakley brand can charge premium prices because 0 people expect to pay premium prices; and 0 you can only buy oakley glasses from oakley, so they can charge whatever the brand is  worth  to consumers.  here is an article about luxottica and luxury pricing: URL in conclusion: if your view is that luxottica has a monopoly in sunglasses as it says in your title , it looks like we have changed your view.  if your view is that luxottica engages in questionable anti competitive behavior or confuses customers, you are to some degree undoubtedly correct, but you had examples before you came in here, so there is no real point to doing a cmv.   #  so no, i really do not think you have changed my view at all perhaps on a semantic level, but not a substantive one.   #  you have not changed my view; there is no consensus on what share of the market constitutes a monopoly, and because luxottica has all of the defined characteristics of a monopoly price maker, artificially raises prices substantially to create demand as you mentioned notably with ray ban , controls all levels of the industry from design/production to retail, has largest share in market, undercuts and threatens to drown all competition if they refuse to cooperate, etc.  .  so no, i really do not think you have changed my view at all perhaps on a semantic level, but not a substantive one.  regarding the handbags analogy, the handbag industry has done the same thing they acknowledge that people are willing to pay a lot.  in that instance it is an oligopoly the manufacturers collude and charge substantially more than their production costs because it benefits the entire industry.  it is basic game theory.  for sunglasses, luxottica is the only company responsible for doing what many companies did together in the handbag industry.  in addition, for handbags, if coach suddenly decided to price their bags  fairly,  people would be under the impression that they are lower quality because there is such strong competition.  if luxottica did this, the rest of the industry would simply follow suit and people would not think twice because luxottica owns so many brands and has such a large share of the market and sunglasses are clearly way overpriced for what they are while handbags are at least a bit more reasonable in that regard in the eyes of the consumer .
my dad is an anthropologist so i am fairly  well traveled .  every time i travel mostly to europe someone tells me that they do not understand how americans can spend their whole life in one country, how silly it is that we do not go see the world.  like it is some kind of easy choice.  the only countries that touch the usa are canada and mexico.  canada is very similar to the us, imho, though it is fun to travel and see the minor differences.  mexico is a whole different world, and not one that i really enjoyed.  if you want to travel somewhere else, you have to fly, which gets very expensive very fast.  also, sometimes i feel like many europeans really do not understand how large the usa is.  i drove from dusseldorf to amsterdam just to go to a party.  then a bunch of friends met me in mons, belgium to check out a festival that was going on.  it is about a 0 hour drive total, and i hit 0 countries.  right now i live in miami, if i drove north for 0 hours i would hit jacksonville.  i would not even leave my state.  it is a 0 hour drive for me if i want to go to mexico.  that would be just to get to the border.  it would take 0 hours to get to canada.  tl;dr i think that many europeans do not understand how hard it is to travel from the usa and see the world.   #  i feel like many europeans really do not understand how large the usa is.   #  i believe you americans often underestimate the size of europe in relation to the us.   # i believe you americans often underestimate the size of europe in relation to the us.  yes, the us is quite larger and is only one country, whereas europe has a bunch of them , but europe is not  that  smaller.  here is a comparison of the two of them, at scale and with the right projection URL you can see that the distance between portugal and the baltics is comparable to the distance between california and the great lakes.  and if we go all the way to western russia which  is  part of europe , the distance is almost comparable to the west coast east coast distance in the us.  the problem is, when most americans think about  travelling  in europe, they think distances like germany the netherlands or italy france or the uk belgium.  that is like if i went to the us and said,  well, i drove by car from new york to philadelphia and it was not  that  far !   yeah, of course it is not.  but if i go from new york to, i do not know, albuquerque or from lisbon to tallinn, of course it is  damn  far.   #  i doubt most mexicans can afford to travel the world but europeans do not judge them because they know it would be financially impossible.   #  it may be demonstrably true that europeans can experience more cultures and benefit from it.  but that does not make sense to judge americans for not doing the same thing.  i doubt most mexicans can afford to travel the world but europeans do not judge them because they know it would be financially impossible.  the only reason they do judge americans is due to a false sense that we are all rich and can afford these trips.  most americans simply cannot.  but many many do.  if be curious to see stats of europeans in the states vs americans in europe.  that would give the best idea of how fair it is to say americans should travel more.   #  as to cost, lets do a spot of research.   #  i think there is a fairly wide gulf between the necessity for americans to cross an ocean for cultural travel versus eurasians.  you could encounter the vast majority, in fact almost all of human cultures without crossing the atlantic or pacific if you live in eurasia.  as to cost, lets do a spot of research.  i can find flights to europe from the west coast for less than $0.  add in costs for hostels and rail passes, and you can easily wander all over europe for two weeks for well less than $0,0.  granted, not everyone could afford to do that sort of thing yearly, but everyone could afford to do it once.   #  then there is the cost of food and shelter and local transport not to mention entry to any sites you may wish to visit.   #  the point is not that everyone has to experience america.  the point is that it is costly to travel so far hence why many people never get to do it.  and the cost is no where near as small as you are making it out.  first you have to pick vacation time or unpaid time.  time constraints mean you may only get two weeks and 0 0 days will just be a series of plane rides.  then there is the cost of food and shelter and local transport not to mention entry to any sites you may wish to visit.  it adds up fast.  plus the exchange rate is not favorable to americans.  i have been to europe and plan to return next year.  i am not putting it down.  i am enamored with travel.  i budgeted 0k originally and quickly realized it was unrealistic and upped it to 0k.  when all was said and done if spent closer to 0k.  and that is ok because i can afford it but not everyone can.  then consider the people who have started a family.  lugging children around europe is not necessarily worth it and way more costly.  that means 0 years of little to no travel and the.  you have to pay for college.  life costs a lot of money.  many people just cannot justify the cost of a short and glossed over europe trip when seeing the states or caribbean or someplace closer is more manageable.  oh and the language barrier means many americans will have a hard time even planning such a trip let alone doing it.  especially of you are not in your twenties it becomes harder and harder to have a first trip overseas.  you can talk about how cheap it  can  be but that requires a lot of sacrifices and it is time consuming to nickel and dime your way across the continent.  many americans live paycheck to paycheck.  even your fantasy 0k trip is a pipe dream for millions of americans.  again i am not trying to discourage people from going if encourage it.  but i am realistic and many if not most americans simply cannot afford to go or cannot justify the cost compared to cheaper and better local options.   #  when all was said and done if spent closer to 0k.   # i am not putting it down.  i am enamored with travel.  i budgeted 0k originally and quickly realized it was unrealistic and upped it to 0k.  when all was said and done if spent closer to 0k.  and that is ok because i can afford it but not everyone can.  there is a difference between what you would have to spend, and what you might choose to.  you certainly can backpack across europe for a couple weeks for less than $0,0.  you can make do with only english in europe so long as you are humble about it and at least learn to say  i ca not speak  local language   in the local language.  kids can be left with grandparents or other friends/family for a couple weeks.
young earth creationism holds that the creation of the world as described in the book of genesis is literal, historical truth, and that all of history has been recorded in one fashion or another, maintaining that pre biblical times did not exist.  this is in contrast to almost all observable evidence.  in order for a literal interpretation of genesis to be correct, at least one of the following must be true:   humanity is understanding of science, particularly of biology and physics, are hopelessly incorrect on almost every level.  despite this, humanity is flawed understanding of science still produces reliable, reproduceable data.    god intentionally engineered the whole of creation to be utterly misleading when confronted with rational investigation.  all of this was done as an implicit test of faith.  it is implicit because the bible never mentions any scientific topic as flawed, meaning that this grand charade was created without a specific directive from god on how humanity should interpret it.    the devil has altered the whole of reality to reflect the above.  this interpretation makes the devil vastly more powerful than any interpretation i have seen.  the alternative is to reconcile science and theology by simply acknowledging that god gave a figurative account of creation because he was speaking to humans who lacked even rudimentary understanding of science, for whom complex topics like evolution and celestial mechanics would require thousands of years of discovery to even begin to comprehend.   note the title of this post.   i am asking posters to reconcile young earth creationism with the observable world from a  strictly theological viewpoint.   i am not interested in arguments that take the tack of god being an invented figure and the bible being fictional, because these are not viewpoints that are relevant to the conversation.   #  complex topics like evolution and celestial mechanics would require thousands of years of discovery to even begin to comprehend.   #  evolution is not any more difficult to explain than a six day creation, god could have eli0 the story of change over time.   # evolution is not any more difficult to explain than a six day creation, god could have eli0 the story of change over time.  not on every level, just evolution and deep time.  evolution has been artificially overlaid over science, you could eliminate it altogether and have no less understanding of biology or physics.  the actual reliable, repeatable experiments have zero need for evolution to make sense of it, and more often challenge evolution imo.  how does evolution or deep time help us understand electronics, or the science of flight, or how biology works today ? if you saw the nye/ham debate, you will remember ham brought forth a number of phd educated creationists who were contributing valuable work to the body of science, unhindered by a lack of belief in evolution.  do you dispute their work ?  #  create box shaped mountains, straight rivers, infant animals, plant seeds, and wait a few years for them to start turning into an ecosystem ?  #  i think the omphalos hypothesis that god intentionally created earth to look 0 demonstratably old , does not necessarily mean a test of faith or intent to mislead.  the hypothesis is name itself means  navel , and it refers to the idea that if adam had a navel that implied a history of once having been a fetus, then likewise, the layers of rocks, the photons from distant stars, the curve of rivers, etc, were all arranged in a way to imitate age.  after all, the ancient writers and readers of genesis themselves might not have had scientific knowledge about radiation and atoms, but they did know how a human grows, or a tree grows, and they did not feel it deceptive that god would create the first ones while skipping their youth.  they knew where babies naturallycome from, but adam did not come from there.  likewise, we might know where planets  naturally  come from, but ours did not in fact come from there anyways.  what else would god have done ? create box shaped mountains, straight rivers, infant animals, plant seeds, and wait a few years for them to start turning into an ecosystem ? once you presuppose that god is interested in suddenly creating a functional world by hand, following the rules of what would have happened naturally makes as much sense as anything else.   #  one interpretation is that genesis 0 is not an account of physical/material creation.   # one interpretation is that genesis 0 is not an account of physical/material creation.  this is actually the interpretation which i agree with.  genesis 0 is an account of functional creation.  assigning purpose/function by god.  if you are interested in this christian creation story, i would recommend reading  the lost world of genesis one  by john h.  walton.  he explains that ancient cultures were not concerned about the material existence of something, they were concerned about the function.  for example, in our western world eyes, a chair is created when the pieces are all assembled and we can see that the chair physically exists.  in many ancient cultures  perception that chair is not created until someone sits in it i. e.  until it is actually fulfilling its purpose .  this interpretation takes genesis 0 very literally and does not mean the world was created 0,0 years ago.  the world was created millions of years ago, but god did not put it into its intended function until the time of functional creation which is told in genesis 0.  this may be something you disagree with and you may ask  well then what is the earth is intended function/purpose ?   but that is a different discussion.  my point is that, depending on the interpretation, genesis 0 does not say the world is 0,0 years old, even if it is taken literally.   #  its telling the story of god turning on that computer for the first time to begin using it for its intended purpose: playing solitaire and browsing reddit.   # this is not at all what i am saying.  i am saying that many ancient cultures  literally  meant  assigning purpose/function  when they discussed creation.  our culture automatically thinks of material creation, it is silly to assume that genesis was written directly to us in a society thousands of years later.  its important to try put yourself in the intended audience is perspective.  the lost world of genesis one  argues that when the people of this ancient culture read  in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth,  they would interpret it to literally mean that god assigned purpose to an earth he had already brought into material existence.  an analogy of this interpretation would be a computer.  god may have put the physical pieces of the computer together, but genesis 0 is not talking about that.  its telling the story of god turning on that computer for the first time to begin using it for its intended purpose: playing solitaire and browsing reddit.   #  from that point, the equations of the laws of physics worked backwards and forwards to make time.   #  i am not a christian, but a fan of speculative fiction who finds religion interesting in that lens.  genesis records the origin of the universe.  not necessarily the furthest back you can see with science.  if i give you the function y x0 and say,  at the origin, y 0  i am not lying, even though you can look back further than that and say  at x 0, y 0  rainbows only start happening  after  noah and the flood.  before that, physics clearly worked differently.  em radiation followed different rules.  it was at that point that god set the laws of physics more or less in stone.  from that point, the equations of the laws of physics worked backwards and forwards to make time.  as stated in the bible, this was done as a sign from god.  causality is then t shaped.  0 days   the flood   the past and the future.
young earth creationism holds that the creation of the world as described in the book of genesis is literal, historical truth, and that all of history has been recorded in one fashion or another, maintaining that pre biblical times did not exist.  this is in contrast to almost all observable evidence.  in order for a literal interpretation of genesis to be correct, at least one of the following must be true:   humanity is understanding of science, particularly of biology and physics, are hopelessly incorrect on almost every level.  despite this, humanity is flawed understanding of science still produces reliable, reproduceable data.    god intentionally engineered the whole of creation to be utterly misleading when confronted with rational investigation.  all of this was done as an implicit test of faith.  it is implicit because the bible never mentions any scientific topic as flawed, meaning that this grand charade was created without a specific directive from god on how humanity should interpret it.    the devil has altered the whole of reality to reflect the above.  this interpretation makes the devil vastly more powerful than any interpretation i have seen.  the alternative is to reconcile science and theology by simply acknowledging that god gave a figurative account of creation because he was speaking to humans who lacked even rudimentary understanding of science, for whom complex topics like evolution and celestial mechanics would require thousands of years of discovery to even begin to comprehend.   note the title of this post.   i am asking posters to reconcile young earth creationism with the observable world from a  strictly theological viewpoint.   i am not interested in arguments that take the tack of god being an invented figure and the bible being fictional, because these are not viewpoints that are relevant to the conversation.   #  humanity is understanding of science, particularly of biology and physics, are hopelessly incorrect on almost every level.   #  not on every level, just evolution and deep time.   # evolution is not any more difficult to explain than a six day creation, god could have eli0 the story of change over time.  not on every level, just evolution and deep time.  evolution has been artificially overlaid over science, you could eliminate it altogether and have no less understanding of biology or physics.  the actual reliable, repeatable experiments have zero need for evolution to make sense of it, and more often challenge evolution imo.  how does evolution or deep time help us understand electronics, or the science of flight, or how biology works today ? if you saw the nye/ham debate, you will remember ham brought forth a number of phd educated creationists who were contributing valuable work to the body of science, unhindered by a lack of belief in evolution.  do you dispute their work ?  #  they knew where babies naturallycome from, but adam did not come from there.   #  i think the omphalos hypothesis that god intentionally created earth to look 0 demonstratably old , does not necessarily mean a test of faith or intent to mislead.  the hypothesis is name itself means  navel , and it refers to the idea that if adam had a navel that implied a history of once having been a fetus, then likewise, the layers of rocks, the photons from distant stars, the curve of rivers, etc, were all arranged in a way to imitate age.  after all, the ancient writers and readers of genesis themselves might not have had scientific knowledge about radiation and atoms, but they did know how a human grows, or a tree grows, and they did not feel it deceptive that god would create the first ones while skipping their youth.  they knew where babies naturallycome from, but adam did not come from there.  likewise, we might know where planets  naturally  come from, but ours did not in fact come from there anyways.  what else would god have done ? create box shaped mountains, straight rivers, infant animals, plant seeds, and wait a few years for them to start turning into an ecosystem ? once you presuppose that god is interested in suddenly creating a functional world by hand, following the rules of what would have happened naturally makes as much sense as anything else.   #  if you are interested in this christian creation story, i would recommend reading  the lost world of genesis one  by john h.  walton.   # one interpretation is that genesis 0 is not an account of physical/material creation.  this is actually the interpretation which i agree with.  genesis 0 is an account of functional creation.  assigning purpose/function by god.  if you are interested in this christian creation story, i would recommend reading  the lost world of genesis one  by john h.  walton.  he explains that ancient cultures were not concerned about the material existence of something, they were concerned about the function.  for example, in our western world eyes, a chair is created when the pieces are all assembled and we can see that the chair physically exists.  in many ancient cultures  perception that chair is not created until someone sits in it i. e.  until it is actually fulfilling its purpose .  this interpretation takes genesis 0 very literally and does not mean the world was created 0,0 years ago.  the world was created millions of years ago, but god did not put it into its intended function until the time of functional creation which is told in genesis 0.  this may be something you disagree with and you may ask  well then what is the earth is intended function/purpose ?   but that is a different discussion.  my point is that, depending on the interpretation, genesis 0 does not say the world is 0,0 years old, even if it is taken literally.   #  its telling the story of god turning on that computer for the first time to begin using it for its intended purpose: playing solitaire and browsing reddit.   # this is not at all what i am saying.  i am saying that many ancient cultures  literally  meant  assigning purpose/function  when they discussed creation.  our culture automatically thinks of material creation, it is silly to assume that genesis was written directly to us in a society thousands of years later.  its important to try put yourself in the intended audience is perspective.  the lost world of genesis one  argues that when the people of this ancient culture read  in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth,  they would interpret it to literally mean that god assigned purpose to an earth he had already brought into material existence.  an analogy of this interpretation would be a computer.  god may have put the physical pieces of the computer together, but genesis 0 is not talking about that.  its telling the story of god turning on that computer for the first time to begin using it for its intended purpose: playing solitaire and browsing reddit.   #  i am not a christian, but a fan of speculative fiction who finds religion interesting in that lens.   #  i am not a christian, but a fan of speculative fiction who finds religion interesting in that lens.  genesis records the origin of the universe.  not necessarily the furthest back you can see with science.  if i give you the function y x0 and say,  at the origin, y 0  i am not lying, even though you can look back further than that and say  at x 0, y 0  rainbows only start happening  after  noah and the flood.  before that, physics clearly worked differently.  em radiation followed different rules.  it was at that point that god set the laws of physics more or less in stone.  from that point, the equations of the laws of physics worked backwards and forwards to make time.  as stated in the bible, this was done as a sign from god.  causality is then t shaped.  0 days   the flood   the past and the future.
muslims seem to cause more than their fair share of the world is problems.  it seems like i turn on the news and see the most horrific stories.  someone committed a horrible terror atrocity ? they were a muslim.  some 0 year old girl has been forced into a marriage she did not want ? the people responsible were muslims.  a militant group is murdering innocent civilians and trying to enforce a backwards, sexist legal system ? you guessed it, muslims.  i have heard arguments against my view based on socio economic conditions, political climate, etc.  but these arguments can only go so far.  for example, a lot of these people either moved to, or were born in, western countries and had all of the advantages those countries had to offer, but still chose to go to the middle east to become terrorists, or force their daughter in to a marriage she does not want, or blow themselves up on a train.  i seems like the only thing these people have in common is the fact that they are muslims.  which leads me to the conclusion that the islamic faith, at least to some extent, encourages people to be violent, sexist and cruel.   #  a militant group is murdering innocent civilians and trying to enforce a backwards, sexist legal system ?  #  you just described the salem witch trials URL which were carried out by puritanical christians.   #  timothy mcveigh URL james holmes URL joran van der sloot URL eric harris and dylan klebold URL a bunch of mostly christian bombings of abortion clinics, and murders of clinic doctors URL these were just the prominent examples i could conjure off the top of my head.  i am sure i could find others.  yup, it is totally a problem unique to islam.  you just described the salem witch trials URL which were carried out by puritanical christians.  or the spanish inquisition URL for that matter.   #  URL islamic  extremism  is a logical outcome of muhammad is original teachings.   #  islam comes up as a frequent topic on this sub.  i would suggest looking at these threads to see if any of them address your belief.  i believe mainstream islam is barbaric by any objective definition of the word and should be called out, rather than be coddled, by the left.  the reason being mainstream islam condones murder for people who leave their faith.  URL i believe that some parts of islam are extremely dangerous and should be questioned/examined vigorously.  URL christianity is fine, but the modern world would be a be a better place without islam.  URL i believe, political and economic factors aside, islam is fundamentally a religion that teaches violence.  URL i feel that islam is, on the whole evil, and that many muslims in britain should be deported.  URL i believe islam is evil; far worse than christianity.  URL i believe that in islam, violence is seen as an acceptable means of expression.  URL islamic  extremism  is a logical outcome of muhammad is original teachings.  URL  #   freedom is a fundamentally violent, and is flawed as a concept.   #  i see you referenced literally nothing about islam, but a lot about western media and your own perception of arab culture without any examples.  i could say the same thing about freedom.   freedom is a fundamentally violent, and is flawed as a concept.  every day you turn on the news and hear about someone murdering someone else, or robbing someone, or voting for the wrong person.  if everyone was mind controlled and had no free will, none of that would happen !    #  as a pretty big liberal myself, this is the one topic me and the rest of my liberal friends disagree on.   #  the 0th 0th centuries were when the catholics and christians were doing the damage, you are correct.  but right now, it is the muslims.  that is kind of ops point.  a few american nutcases does not dispute his claim in the slightest.  as a pretty big liberal myself, this is the one topic me and the rest of my liberal friends disagree on.  we do not have to be tolerant of everyone is religions because it is the right thing to do, or because we  ca not discriminate , etc. we can use our eyes and see for ourselves.  since we are into comparing numbers, would you like to compare the number of muslim suicide bombers in history as compared to the buddhist ones ? be objective here and there is really no disputing that islam is much more dangerous at this point in time than any other religion.   #  for a non us example, how about the lord is resistance army URL led by joseph kony, under the banner of christian fundamentalism, whose entire modus operandi is conscripting child soldiers to go fight and die for god ?  #  wow, when you have to resort to comparing to buddhism to make your point, you are grasping at straws.  literally every other major religion is going to have a worse record than buddhists.  it is not just  a few american nutcases , there have been some 0 mass shootings in america over the past 0 years and with a hand full of exceptions, they have been white, christian males.  for a non us example, how about the lord is resistance army URL led by joseph kony, under the banner of christian fundamentalism, whose entire modus operandi is conscripting child soldiers to go fight and die for god ? but we do not have to look that far from home, do we ? you conveniently failed to address the dozens of bombings of abortion clinics in the us.  here, let is just list some of the more prominent christian terrorist groups in the us: the covenant, the sword, and the arm of the lord; URL army of god; URL montana freemen URL and of course, the ku klux klan URL that is another thing to bring up: virtually every american based white power group has some link to christianity or calls itself a christian group based on christian values.  though, of course almost every church denounces them.  kind of like how mainstream muslims denounce the extremists in islam.  funny, how that goes.  let is not forget foreign organizations like the true ira, the national liberation front of tripura, and anti balaka christian militants in the central african republic.  all of these groups were active in the last 0 years, and there have been continuous flare ups throughout history.  but you are right, this is clearly just a problem with islam, despite the fact that  if it were  i would expect to see world war 0, considering how there are a billion muslims world wide and in places like america, they have access to guns just like the rest of the population.  but that is not the case.  we have some isolated terrorist incidents from muslim extremist/fundamentalist groups, but that is not any different from any other religion is extremist/fundamentalist groups.
so i am strongly for gay marriage.  i have homosexual friends and wish them nothing but the best.  however, i feel like gay people adopting is wrong.  this is mainly because the mother/father relationships in a family are vey important for the child is upbringing.  a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  i dunno.  i know i am being ignorant, but i really disagree with a kid having two same sex parents.  pease, cmv.   #  this is mainly because the mother/father relationships in a family are vey important for the child is upbringing.   #  a mother has a role, and a father has a role.   # a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  you are grasping here and trying to peg a role to a gender for no real reason.  two fathers can bottle feed a child, and there are plenty of fathers who teach their girls about sex, puberty, and all the things that come with it.  why would being a male prevent you from having knowledge about periods or looking it up and explaining it to your daughter ? what exactly did your father do that if he did not have a penis he would not have been able to impact in your life ? there are plenty of same sex studies that have shown that children raised in same sex households perform just as well in terms of intellect and emotional development.  here is one you can peruse: URL read the interim report  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  0.  kids bully kids all the time.  if not for this, it will be for something else.  0.  you do not turn gay by living with a gay couple.  if you truly believe this i am not sure if anyone is going to cyv.  i would like to ask two questions though.  0.  hypothetically, a gay couple is looking to adopt a child from a group home.  would you say that a loving, supportive same sex family is going to be worse for a child is life than a life in a group home or bouncing between foster families ? 0.  there are plenty of shitty parents out there of a  typical  male female orientation.  they raise their kids poorly, maybe abuse them, or maybe they just dress them in out of fashion clothes and their kids get picked on for it.  why is this any better than a same sex couple who for the sake of this argument is raising their kid amazingly well in a great household and not to mention fabulous, trendy clothing, duh .   #  my first question would be whether or not you believe single parents should be allowed to adopt ?  #  my first question would be whether or not you believe single parents should be allowed to adopt ? your arguments would also apply to them as well.  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.  i do the cooking and cleaning in my relationship.  in my parents  marriage, the cooking is split equally.  i know other couples in which the female is the strong protector and handyman.  gender influences roles, but definitely does not determine them.  also, as for breastfeeding, an adoptive mother and more often than people realize, biological mothers ca not breastfeed either.  however, a father could teach a daughter about periods, just not from personal perspective.  there are plenty of professors out there who teach subjects that they have no personal experience with just fine.  being bullied for having same sex parents ? if a kid is going to bully someone, they will find a reason.  the reason usually does not come first.  it will be because the kid is too fat, or too thin, or too short, or too poor, or dresses oddly, or have a speech impediment.  actually, all of those are more likely reasons to be bullied because they are much more clear an obvious to the bully.   #  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.   #  traditional gender roles like you outlined in your post are declining.  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.  mothers work full time jobs, dads stay at home to make dinner and do the chores.  it does not make them any less of a family.  single parent households do not follow the formula either.  it is taking your argument to the extreme, but would you like it if children were taken from single parents and put up for adoption because they do not fall into the nuclear family model ? these kids want to be adopted, or fostered, or whatever the word is.  it is healthier for them than being in care or an orphanage or whatever else.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.  what is most important for the wellbeing and growth of children is the stability of a home, not the gender of the parents.  as for whether two mothers could have  shaped  you in the same way as your father has it is impossible to say, except i would point out that if your father had been some other man, he likely would not have shaped you in the same way, either.  what is important is not whether you are  shaped  in one particular way, whatever it is, but whether you grow up in a psychologically healthy environment in which your needs are provided for and you are able to self actualize.  and that is not even getting into the benefits of being adopted vs.  living in an orphanage or on the streets, which ought to be obvious enough.   #  my dad was raised by two women his mother and her twin sister and he found role models in teachers and friends parents.   #  well it takes a village to raise a child.  just because two women have adopted a boy does not mean that boy wo not be guided through life.  my dad was raised by two women his mother and her twin sister and he found role models in teachers and friends parents.  while this was not true for him, other kids will have access to grandparents for help and advice.  i am gay, and i hope to adopt one day.  if i were to end up with a girl i would lean heavily on my mother and her sisters for advice.  this is no different from a single parent using their resources.
so i am strongly for gay marriage.  i have homosexual friends and wish them nothing but the best.  however, i feel like gay people adopting is wrong.  this is mainly because the mother/father relationships in a family are vey important for the child is upbringing.  a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  i dunno.  i know i am being ignorant, but i really disagree with a kid having two same sex parents.  pease, cmv.   #  or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.   #  you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding about gay people, i hope you find some more information about the subject and get educated.   # you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding about gay people, i hope you find some more information about the subject and get educated.  you ca not be pressured into being gay and being gay is not a lifestyle.  why do you think this is objectively better this way ? would it be terrible if a woman raised you and you gained difference insights and learned different skills ? just because you happened to be shaped by these experiences how do you know if your life turned out differently without a father how do you know this would be a bad thing ? also, do not you think there is something to be said about you as an individual and what your unique abilities and strengths and weaknesses are ? if you happened to be raised by two mothers how different would you be really ?  #  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.   #  my first question would be whether or not you believe single parents should be allowed to adopt ? your arguments would also apply to them as well.  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.  i do the cooking and cleaning in my relationship.  in my parents  marriage, the cooking is split equally.  i know other couples in which the female is the strong protector and handyman.  gender influences roles, but definitely does not determine them.  also, as for breastfeeding, an adoptive mother and more often than people realize, biological mothers ca not breastfeed either.  however, a father could teach a daughter about periods, just not from personal perspective.  there are plenty of professors out there who teach subjects that they have no personal experience with just fine.  being bullied for having same sex parents ? if a kid is going to bully someone, they will find a reason.  the reason usually does not come first.  it will be because the kid is too fat, or too thin, or too short, or too poor, or dresses oddly, or have a speech impediment.  actually, all of those are more likely reasons to be bullied because they are much more clear an obvious to the bully.   #  it is healthier for them than being in care or an orphanage or whatever else.   #  traditional gender roles like you outlined in your post are declining.  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.  mothers work full time jobs, dads stay at home to make dinner and do the chores.  it does not make them any less of a family.  single parent households do not follow the formula either.  it is taking your argument to the extreme, but would you like it if children were taken from single parents and put up for adoption because they do not fall into the nuclear family model ? these kids want to be adopted, or fostered, or whatever the word is.  it is healthier for them than being in care or an orphanage or whatever else.   #  and that is not even getting into the benefits of being adopted vs.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.  what is most important for the wellbeing and growth of children is the stability of a home, not the gender of the parents.  as for whether two mothers could have  shaped  you in the same way as your father has it is impossible to say, except i would point out that if your father had been some other man, he likely would not have shaped you in the same way, either.  what is important is not whether you are  shaped  in one particular way, whatever it is, but whether you grow up in a psychologically healthy environment in which your needs are provided for and you are able to self actualize.  and that is not even getting into the benefits of being adopted vs.  living in an orphanage or on the streets, which ought to be obvious enough.   #  if you truly believe this i am not sure if anyone is going to cyv.   # a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  you are grasping here and trying to peg a role to a gender for no real reason.  two fathers can bottle feed a child, and there are plenty of fathers who teach their girls about sex, puberty, and all the things that come with it.  why would being a male prevent you from having knowledge about periods or looking it up and explaining it to your daughter ? what exactly did your father do that if he did not have a penis he would not have been able to impact in your life ? there are plenty of same sex studies that have shown that children raised in same sex households perform just as well in terms of intellect and emotional development.  here is one you can peruse: URL read the interim report  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  0.  kids bully kids all the time.  if not for this, it will be for something else.  0.  you do not turn gay by living with a gay couple.  if you truly believe this i am not sure if anyone is going to cyv.  i would like to ask two questions though.  0.  hypothetically, a gay couple is looking to adopt a child from a group home.  would you say that a loving, supportive same sex family is going to be worse for a child is life than a life in a group home or bouncing between foster families ? 0.  there are plenty of shitty parents out there of a  typical  male female orientation.  they raise their kids poorly, maybe abuse them, or maybe they just dress them in out of fashion clothes and their kids get picked on for it.  why is this any better than a same sex couple who for the sake of this argument is raising their kid amazingly well in a great household and not to mention fabulous, trendy clothing, duh .
so i am strongly for gay marriage.  i have homosexual friends and wish them nothing but the best.  however, i feel like gay people adopting is wrong.  this is mainly because the mother/father relationships in a family are vey important for the child is upbringing.  a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  i dunno.  i know i am being ignorant, but i really disagree with a kid having two same sex parents.  pease, cmv.   #  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.   #  why do you think this is objectively better this way ?  # you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding about gay people, i hope you find some more information about the subject and get educated.  you ca not be pressured into being gay and being gay is not a lifestyle.  why do you think this is objectively better this way ? would it be terrible if a woman raised you and you gained difference insights and learned different skills ? just because you happened to be shaped by these experiences how do you know if your life turned out differently without a father how do you know this would be a bad thing ? also, do not you think there is something to be said about you as an individual and what your unique abilities and strengths and weaknesses are ? if you happened to be raised by two mothers how different would you be really ?  #  if a kid is going to bully someone, they will find a reason.   #  my first question would be whether or not you believe single parents should be allowed to adopt ? your arguments would also apply to them as well.  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.  i do the cooking and cleaning in my relationship.  in my parents  marriage, the cooking is split equally.  i know other couples in which the female is the strong protector and handyman.  gender influences roles, but definitely does not determine them.  also, as for breastfeeding, an adoptive mother and more often than people realize, biological mothers ca not breastfeed either.  however, a father could teach a daughter about periods, just not from personal perspective.  there are plenty of professors out there who teach subjects that they have no personal experience with just fine.  being bullied for having same sex parents ? if a kid is going to bully someone, they will find a reason.  the reason usually does not come first.  it will be because the kid is too fat, or too thin, or too short, or too poor, or dresses oddly, or have a speech impediment.  actually, all of those are more likely reasons to be bullied because they are much more clear an obvious to the bully.   #  these kids want to be adopted, or fostered, or whatever the word is.   #  traditional gender roles like you outlined in your post are declining.  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.  mothers work full time jobs, dads stay at home to make dinner and do the chores.  it does not make them any less of a family.  single parent households do not follow the formula either.  it is taking your argument to the extreme, but would you like it if children were taken from single parents and put up for adoption because they do not fall into the nuclear family model ? these kids want to be adopted, or fostered, or whatever the word is.  it is healthier for them than being in care or an orphanage or whatever else.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.  what is most important for the wellbeing and growth of children is the stability of a home, not the gender of the parents.  as for whether two mothers could have  shaped  you in the same way as your father has it is impossible to say, except i would point out that if your father had been some other man, he likely would not have shaped you in the same way, either.  what is important is not whether you are  shaped  in one particular way, whatever it is, but whether you grow up in a psychologically healthy environment in which your needs are provided for and you are able to self actualize.  and that is not even getting into the benefits of being adopted vs.  living in an orphanage or on the streets, which ought to be obvious enough.   #  0.  you do not turn gay by living with a gay couple.   # a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  you are grasping here and trying to peg a role to a gender for no real reason.  two fathers can bottle feed a child, and there are plenty of fathers who teach their girls about sex, puberty, and all the things that come with it.  why would being a male prevent you from having knowledge about periods or looking it up and explaining it to your daughter ? what exactly did your father do that if he did not have a penis he would not have been able to impact in your life ? there are plenty of same sex studies that have shown that children raised in same sex households perform just as well in terms of intellect and emotional development.  here is one you can peruse: URL read the interim report  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  0.  kids bully kids all the time.  if not for this, it will be for something else.  0.  you do not turn gay by living with a gay couple.  if you truly believe this i am not sure if anyone is going to cyv.  i would like to ask two questions though.  0.  hypothetically, a gay couple is looking to adopt a child from a group home.  would you say that a loving, supportive same sex family is going to be worse for a child is life than a life in a group home or bouncing between foster families ? 0.  there are plenty of shitty parents out there of a  typical  male female orientation.  they raise their kids poorly, maybe abuse them, or maybe they just dress them in out of fashion clothes and their kids get picked on for it.  why is this any better than a same sex couple who for the sake of this argument is raising their kid amazingly well in a great household and not to mention fabulous, trendy clothing, duh .
so i am strongly for gay marriage.  i have homosexual friends and wish them nothing but the best.  however, i feel like gay people adopting is wrong.  this is mainly because the mother/father relationships in a family are vey important for the child is upbringing.  a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  i dunno.  i know i am being ignorant, but i really disagree with a kid having two same sex parents.  pease, cmv.   #  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.   #  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.   # two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  none of us can address this, not knowing you.  but how do you know you would not be better, similar, or about anybody else ? you will rarely find an adopted child, even a baby, being breastfed by their adopted parents.  i would not say never, but i would imagine it is so rare as to be non consequential.  and teaching a girl about a period ? why not ? is it impossible for a man to have any information or knowledge about the process ? i guess all the male gynecologists and obstetricians do not exist in your world.  bullying in school can also happen with the parents being interracial, the parents not being a common religion, or being disabled.  bullying is wrong.  it is not a reasoning to not do something.  and pressure ? yeah, parents pressure children to do lots of things.  so what singles this out ?  #  gender influences roles, but definitely does not determine them.   #  my first question would be whether or not you believe single parents should be allowed to adopt ? your arguments would also apply to them as well.  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.  i do the cooking and cleaning in my relationship.  in my parents  marriage, the cooking is split equally.  i know other couples in which the female is the strong protector and handyman.  gender influences roles, but definitely does not determine them.  also, as for breastfeeding, an adoptive mother and more often than people realize, biological mothers ca not breastfeed either.  however, a father could teach a daughter about periods, just not from personal perspective.  there are plenty of professors out there who teach subjects that they have no personal experience with just fine.  being bullied for having same sex parents ? if a kid is going to bully someone, they will find a reason.  the reason usually does not come first.  it will be because the kid is too fat, or too thin, or too short, or too poor, or dresses oddly, or have a speech impediment.  actually, all of those are more likely reasons to be bullied because they are much more clear an obvious to the bully.   #  it does not make them any less of a family.   #  traditional gender roles like you outlined in your post are declining.  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.  mothers work full time jobs, dads stay at home to make dinner and do the chores.  it does not make them any less of a family.  single parent households do not follow the formula either.  it is taking your argument to the extreme, but would you like it if children were taken from single parents and put up for adoption because they do not fall into the nuclear family model ? these kids want to be adopted, or fostered, or whatever the word is.  it is healthier for them than being in care or an orphanage or whatever else.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.  what is most important for the wellbeing and growth of children is the stability of a home, not the gender of the parents.  as for whether two mothers could have  shaped  you in the same way as your father has it is impossible to say, except i would point out that if your father had been some other man, he likely would not have shaped you in the same way, either.  what is important is not whether you are  shaped  in one particular way, whatever it is, but whether you grow up in a psychologically healthy environment in which your needs are provided for and you are able to self actualize.  and that is not even getting into the benefits of being adopted vs.  living in an orphanage or on the streets, which ought to be obvious enough.   #  if you truly believe this i am not sure if anyone is going to cyv.   # a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  you are grasping here and trying to peg a role to a gender for no real reason.  two fathers can bottle feed a child, and there are plenty of fathers who teach their girls about sex, puberty, and all the things that come with it.  why would being a male prevent you from having knowledge about periods or looking it up and explaining it to your daughter ? what exactly did your father do that if he did not have a penis he would not have been able to impact in your life ? there are plenty of same sex studies that have shown that children raised in same sex households perform just as well in terms of intellect and emotional development.  here is one you can peruse: URL read the interim report  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  0.  kids bully kids all the time.  if not for this, it will be for something else.  0.  you do not turn gay by living with a gay couple.  if you truly believe this i am not sure if anyone is going to cyv.  i would like to ask two questions though.  0.  hypothetically, a gay couple is looking to adopt a child from a group home.  would you say that a loving, supportive same sex family is going to be worse for a child is life than a life in a group home or bouncing between foster families ? 0.  there are plenty of shitty parents out there of a  typical  male female orientation.  they raise their kids poorly, maybe abuse them, or maybe they just dress them in out of fashion clothes and their kids get picked on for it.  why is this any better than a same sex couple who for the sake of this argument is raising their kid amazingly well in a great household and not to mention fabulous, trendy clothing, duh .
so i am strongly for gay marriage.  i have homosexual friends and wish them nothing but the best.  however, i feel like gay people adopting is wrong.  this is mainly because the mother/father relationships in a family are vey important for the child is upbringing.  a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  i dunno.  i know i am being ignorant, but i really disagree with a kid having two same sex parents.  pease, cmv.   #  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.   #  you will rarely find an adopted child, even a baby, being breastfed by their adopted parents.   # two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  none of us can address this, not knowing you.  but how do you know you would not be better, similar, or about anybody else ? you will rarely find an adopted child, even a baby, being breastfed by their adopted parents.  i would not say never, but i would imagine it is so rare as to be non consequential.  and teaching a girl about a period ? why not ? is it impossible for a man to have any information or knowledge about the process ? i guess all the male gynecologists and obstetricians do not exist in your world.  bullying in school can also happen with the parents being interracial, the parents not being a common religion, or being disabled.  bullying is wrong.  it is not a reasoning to not do something.  and pressure ? yeah, parents pressure children to do lots of things.  so what singles this out ?  #  in my parents  marriage, the cooking is split equally.   #  my first question would be whether or not you believe single parents should be allowed to adopt ? your arguments would also apply to them as well.  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.  i do the cooking and cleaning in my relationship.  in my parents  marriage, the cooking is split equally.  i know other couples in which the female is the strong protector and handyman.  gender influences roles, but definitely does not determine them.  also, as for breastfeeding, an adoptive mother and more often than people realize, biological mothers ca not breastfeed either.  however, a father could teach a daughter about periods, just not from personal perspective.  there are plenty of professors out there who teach subjects that they have no personal experience with just fine.  being bullied for having same sex parents ? if a kid is going to bully someone, they will find a reason.  the reason usually does not come first.  it will be because the kid is too fat, or too thin, or too short, or too poor, or dresses oddly, or have a speech impediment.  actually, all of those are more likely reasons to be bullied because they are much more clear an obvious to the bully.   #  these kids want to be adopted, or fostered, or whatever the word is.   #  traditional gender roles like you outlined in your post are declining.  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.  mothers work full time jobs, dads stay at home to make dinner and do the chores.  it does not make them any less of a family.  single parent households do not follow the formula either.  it is taking your argument to the extreme, but would you like it if children were taken from single parents and put up for adoption because they do not fall into the nuclear family model ? these kids want to be adopted, or fostered, or whatever the word is.  it is healthier for them than being in care or an orphanage or whatever else.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.  what is most important for the wellbeing and growth of children is the stability of a home, not the gender of the parents.  as for whether two mothers could have  shaped  you in the same way as your father has it is impossible to say, except i would point out that if your father had been some other man, he likely would not have shaped you in the same way, either.  what is important is not whether you are  shaped  in one particular way, whatever it is, but whether you grow up in a psychologically healthy environment in which your needs are provided for and you are able to self actualize.  and that is not even getting into the benefits of being adopted vs.  living in an orphanage or on the streets, which ought to be obvious enough.   #  they raise their kids poorly, maybe abuse them, or maybe they just dress them in out of fashion clothes and their kids get picked on for it.   # a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  you are grasping here and trying to peg a role to a gender for no real reason.  two fathers can bottle feed a child, and there are plenty of fathers who teach their girls about sex, puberty, and all the things that come with it.  why would being a male prevent you from having knowledge about periods or looking it up and explaining it to your daughter ? what exactly did your father do that if he did not have a penis he would not have been able to impact in your life ? there are plenty of same sex studies that have shown that children raised in same sex households perform just as well in terms of intellect and emotional development.  here is one you can peruse: URL read the interim report  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  0.  kids bully kids all the time.  if not for this, it will be for something else.  0.  you do not turn gay by living with a gay couple.  if you truly believe this i am not sure if anyone is going to cyv.  i would like to ask two questions though.  0.  hypothetically, a gay couple is looking to adopt a child from a group home.  would you say that a loving, supportive same sex family is going to be worse for a child is life than a life in a group home or bouncing between foster families ? 0.  there are plenty of shitty parents out there of a  typical  male female orientation.  they raise their kids poorly, maybe abuse them, or maybe they just dress them in out of fashion clothes and their kids get picked on for it.  why is this any better than a same sex couple who for the sake of this argument is raising their kid amazingly well in a great household and not to mention fabulous, trendy clothing, duh .
so i am strongly for gay marriage.  i have homosexual friends and wish them nothing but the best.  however, i feel like gay people adopting is wrong.  this is mainly because the mother/father relationships in a family are vey important for the child is upbringing.  a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  i dunno.  i know i am being ignorant, but i really disagree with a kid having two same sex parents.  pease, cmv.   #  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.   #  bullying in school can also happen with the parents being interracial, the parents not being a common religion, or being disabled.   # two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  none of us can address this, not knowing you.  but how do you know you would not be better, similar, or about anybody else ? you will rarely find an adopted child, even a baby, being breastfed by their adopted parents.  i would not say never, but i would imagine it is so rare as to be non consequential.  and teaching a girl about a period ? why not ? is it impossible for a man to have any information or knowledge about the process ? i guess all the male gynecologists and obstetricians do not exist in your world.  bullying in school can also happen with the parents being interracial, the parents not being a common religion, or being disabled.  bullying is wrong.  it is not a reasoning to not do something.  and pressure ? yeah, parents pressure children to do lots of things.  so what singles this out ?  #  my first question would be whether or not you believe single parents should be allowed to adopt ?  #  my first question would be whether or not you believe single parents should be allowed to adopt ? your arguments would also apply to them as well.  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.  i do the cooking and cleaning in my relationship.  in my parents  marriage, the cooking is split equally.  i know other couples in which the female is the strong protector and handyman.  gender influences roles, but definitely does not determine them.  also, as for breastfeeding, an adoptive mother and more often than people realize, biological mothers ca not breastfeed either.  however, a father could teach a daughter about periods, just not from personal perspective.  there are plenty of professors out there who teach subjects that they have no personal experience with just fine.  being bullied for having same sex parents ? if a kid is going to bully someone, they will find a reason.  the reason usually does not come first.  it will be because the kid is too fat, or too thin, or too short, or too poor, or dresses oddly, or have a speech impediment.  actually, all of those are more likely reasons to be bullied because they are much more clear an obvious to the bully.   #  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.   #  traditional gender roles like you outlined in your post are declining.  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.  mothers work full time jobs, dads stay at home to make dinner and do the chores.  it does not make them any less of a family.  single parent households do not follow the formula either.  it is taking your argument to the extreme, but would you like it if children were taken from single parents and put up for adoption because they do not fall into the nuclear family model ? these kids want to be adopted, or fostered, or whatever the word is.  it is healthier for them than being in care or an orphanage or whatever else.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.  what is most important for the wellbeing and growth of children is the stability of a home, not the gender of the parents.  as for whether two mothers could have  shaped  you in the same way as your father has it is impossible to say, except i would point out that if your father had been some other man, he likely would not have shaped you in the same way, either.  what is important is not whether you are  shaped  in one particular way, whatever it is, but whether you grow up in a psychologically healthy environment in which your needs are provided for and you are able to self actualize.  and that is not even getting into the benefits of being adopted vs.  living in an orphanage or on the streets, which ought to be obvious enough.   #  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.   # a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  you are grasping here and trying to peg a role to a gender for no real reason.  two fathers can bottle feed a child, and there are plenty of fathers who teach their girls about sex, puberty, and all the things that come with it.  why would being a male prevent you from having knowledge about periods or looking it up and explaining it to your daughter ? what exactly did your father do that if he did not have a penis he would not have been able to impact in your life ? there are plenty of same sex studies that have shown that children raised in same sex households perform just as well in terms of intellect and emotional development.  here is one you can peruse: URL read the interim report  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  0.  kids bully kids all the time.  if not for this, it will be for something else.  0.  you do not turn gay by living with a gay couple.  if you truly believe this i am not sure if anyone is going to cyv.  i would like to ask two questions though.  0.  hypothetically, a gay couple is looking to adopt a child from a group home.  would you say that a loving, supportive same sex family is going to be worse for a child is life than a life in a group home or bouncing between foster families ? 0.  there are plenty of shitty parents out there of a  typical  male female orientation.  they raise their kids poorly, maybe abuse them, or maybe they just dress them in out of fashion clothes and their kids get picked on for it.  why is this any better than a same sex couple who for the sake of this argument is raising their kid amazingly well in a great household and not to mention fabulous, trendy clothing, duh .
so i am strongly for gay marriage.  i have homosexual friends and wish them nothing but the best.  however, i feel like gay people adopting is wrong.  this is mainly because the mother/father relationships in a family are vey important for the child is upbringing.  a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  i dunno.  i know i am being ignorant, but i really disagree with a kid having two same sex parents.  pease, cmv.   #  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.   #  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.   # two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  you do not know because it did not happen to you.  different is not worse, it is just different.  many, many mothers do not breastfeed either.  of course they can.  bullies are bullies, they will always find a reason to do what they need to do.   #  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.   #  my first question would be whether or not you believe single parents should be allowed to adopt ? your arguments would also apply to them as well.  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.  i do the cooking and cleaning in my relationship.  in my parents  marriage, the cooking is split equally.  i know other couples in which the female is the strong protector and handyman.  gender influences roles, but definitely does not determine them.  also, as for breastfeeding, an adoptive mother and more often than people realize, biological mothers ca not breastfeed either.  however, a father could teach a daughter about periods, just not from personal perspective.  there are plenty of professors out there who teach subjects that they have no personal experience with just fine.  being bullied for having same sex parents ? if a kid is going to bully someone, they will find a reason.  the reason usually does not come first.  it will be because the kid is too fat, or too thin, or too short, or too poor, or dresses oddly, or have a speech impediment.  actually, all of those are more likely reasons to be bullied because they are much more clear an obvious to the bully.   #  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.   #  traditional gender roles like you outlined in your post are declining.  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.  mothers work full time jobs, dads stay at home to make dinner and do the chores.  it does not make them any less of a family.  single parent households do not follow the formula either.  it is taking your argument to the extreme, but would you like it if children were taken from single parents and put up for adoption because they do not fall into the nuclear family model ? these kids want to be adopted, or fostered, or whatever the word is.  it is healthier for them than being in care or an orphanage or whatever else.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.  what is most important for the wellbeing and growth of children is the stability of a home, not the gender of the parents.  as for whether two mothers could have  shaped  you in the same way as your father has it is impossible to say, except i would point out that if your father had been some other man, he likely would not have shaped you in the same way, either.  what is important is not whether you are  shaped  in one particular way, whatever it is, but whether you grow up in a psychologically healthy environment in which your needs are provided for and you are able to self actualize.  and that is not even getting into the benefits of being adopted vs.  living in an orphanage or on the streets, which ought to be obvious enough.   #  why would being a male prevent you from having knowledge about periods or looking it up and explaining it to your daughter ?  # a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  you are grasping here and trying to peg a role to a gender for no real reason.  two fathers can bottle feed a child, and there are plenty of fathers who teach their girls about sex, puberty, and all the things that come with it.  why would being a male prevent you from having knowledge about periods or looking it up and explaining it to your daughter ? what exactly did your father do that if he did not have a penis he would not have been able to impact in your life ? there are plenty of same sex studies that have shown that children raised in same sex households perform just as well in terms of intellect and emotional development.  here is one you can peruse: URL read the interim report  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  0.  kids bully kids all the time.  if not for this, it will be for something else.  0.  you do not turn gay by living with a gay couple.  if you truly believe this i am not sure if anyone is going to cyv.  i would like to ask two questions though.  0.  hypothetically, a gay couple is looking to adopt a child from a group home.  would you say that a loving, supportive same sex family is going to be worse for a child is life than a life in a group home or bouncing between foster families ? 0.  there are plenty of shitty parents out there of a  typical  male female orientation.  they raise their kids poorly, maybe abuse them, or maybe they just dress them in out of fashion clothes and their kids get picked on for it.  why is this any better than a same sex couple who for the sake of this argument is raising their kid amazingly well in a great household and not to mention fabulous, trendy clothing, duh .
so i am strongly for gay marriage.  i have homosexual friends and wish them nothing but the best.  however, i feel like gay people adopting is wrong.  this is mainly because the mother/father relationships in a family are vey important for the child is upbringing.  a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  i dunno.  i know i am being ignorant, but i really disagree with a kid having two same sex parents.  pease, cmv.   #  this is mainly because the mother/father relationships in a family are vey important for the child is upbringing.   #  a mother has a role, and a father has a role.   # a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  so a heterosexual couple should not adopt if the woman works ? and many couples whether two males or two females can cover different topics.  my mother taught me about irrigation, farming, meat quality etc.  also women ca not breastfeed willy nilly.  the body requires a specific series of hormones brought on by pregnancy so no couple could breastfeed an adopted baby unless they just had a different baby.  and as a man i taught most of my female friends about birth control and knew more about periods than they did in high school.  as for bullying it depends on the areas and other people.  gays are a lot more accepted now and who knows where the future will go.  as for being pressured i find gays are a lot less likely to pressure people to live a lifestyle like them because a lot of them were forced to do just that as kids by religious parents.   #  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.   #  my first question would be whether or not you believe single parents should be allowed to adopt ? your arguments would also apply to them as well.  but looking further into it, even in traditional heterosexual marriages, the male and female do not always take on the same roles.  i do the cooking and cleaning in my relationship.  in my parents  marriage, the cooking is split equally.  i know other couples in which the female is the strong protector and handyman.  gender influences roles, but definitely does not determine them.  also, as for breastfeeding, an adoptive mother and more often than people realize, biological mothers ca not breastfeed either.  however, a father could teach a daughter about periods, just not from personal perspective.  there are plenty of professors out there who teach subjects that they have no personal experience with just fine.  being bullied for having same sex parents ? if a kid is going to bully someone, they will find a reason.  the reason usually does not come first.  it will be because the kid is too fat, or too thin, or too short, or too poor, or dresses oddly, or have a speech impediment.  actually, all of those are more likely reasons to be bullied because they are much more clear an obvious to the bully.   #  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.   #  traditional gender roles like you outlined in your post are declining.  your father may have raised you to hunt and fix cars, while your mother stayed home to cook and clean, but that just is not necessarily the case anymore.  mothers work full time jobs, dads stay at home to make dinner and do the chores.  it does not make them any less of a family.  single parent households do not follow the formula either.  it is taking your argument to the extreme, but would you like it if children were taken from single parents and put up for adoption because they do not fall into the nuclear family model ? these kids want to be adopted, or fostered, or whatever the word is.  it is healthier for them than being in care or an orphanage or whatever else.   #  living in an orphanage or on the streets, which ought to be obvious enough.   #  there is a strong consensus in the scientific community that there is no discernable difference between children growing up in  traditional  households and those raised in lgbt households.  what is most important for the wellbeing and growth of children is the stability of a home, not the gender of the parents.  as for whether two mothers could have  shaped  you in the same way as your father has it is impossible to say, except i would point out that if your father had been some other man, he likely would not have shaped you in the same way, either.  what is important is not whether you are  shaped  in one particular way, whatever it is, but whether you grow up in a psychologically healthy environment in which your needs are provided for and you are able to self actualize.  and that is not even getting into the benefits of being adopted vs.  living in an orphanage or on the streets, which ought to be obvious enough.   #  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.   # a mother has a role, and a father has a role.  for me, my relationship with my father is what shaped me to who i am today.  two mothers could not have nearly that kind of impact on me.  similarly, two fathers ca not breastfeed a baby or teach girls about periods.  you are grasping here and trying to peg a role to a gender for no real reason.  two fathers can bottle feed a child, and there are plenty of fathers who teach their girls about sex, puberty, and all the things that come with it.  why would being a male prevent you from having knowledge about periods or looking it up and explaining it to your daughter ? what exactly did your father do that if he did not have a penis he would not have been able to impact in your life ? there are plenty of same sex studies that have shown that children raised in same sex households perform just as well in terms of intellect and emotional development.  here is one you can peruse: URL read the interim report  on top of that, having two same sex parents could cause a kid to be bullied in school or maybe even be pressured into living a similar lifestyle.  0.  kids bully kids all the time.  if not for this, it will be for something else.  0.  you do not turn gay by living with a gay couple.  if you truly believe this i am not sure if anyone is going to cyv.  i would like to ask two questions though.  0.  hypothetically, a gay couple is looking to adopt a child from a group home.  would you say that a loving, supportive same sex family is going to be worse for a child is life than a life in a group home or bouncing between foster families ? 0.  there are plenty of shitty parents out there of a  typical  male female orientation.  they raise their kids poorly, maybe abuse them, or maybe they just dress them in out of fashion clothes and their kids get picked on for it.  why is this any better than a same sex couple who for the sake of this argument is raising their kid amazingly well in a great household and not to mention fabulous, trendy clothing, duh .
why is sex with someone else a cheating standard ? the answer i get from people is  because you are breaking the trust .  and i understand that, but why is sexual exclusivity part of the general trust agreeement ? other people tell me  because its better when you love the person .  but that does not make it wrong, does it ? other people say  because it is the only thing that separates a friend from a lover .  well if your difference between a friend and a lover is the sex, you either have the most awesome friendships ever or very crappy relationships.  i looked up if there was any psychological research to back sexual jealousy as innate and could not find anything.  if any, i found this ted talk URL from a guy who claims, to sum it up quickly, that humans used sex as a bonding tool and there was no sexual jealousy before, and that only with the invention of agriculture we started to treat women as property and forced monogamy to ensure that our kids would be in fact our kids.  so it seems to me that men invented sexual jealousy to be sure who your kids are, and since then we have hung on to this manmade  principle .  cmv !  #  why is sexual exclusivity part of the general trust agreeement ?  #  because, in the case of my so and i, we wanted monogamy to be a part of that.   # because, in the case of my so and i, we wanted monogamy to be a part of that.  it is important to both of us.  we like having sex without a condom and not worrying about diseases.  without a monogamous relationship, that is impossible.  even without that as a concern, hearing  hold on, i need to shower before we have sex.  i slept with another guy this morning.   is just gross.  even without being jealous.  when we have children, i would like to know that they are mine.  i do not feel like getting a dna test should be necessary to know that.  monogamy is a kind of gauge of trustworthiness.  if 0 months into our relationship, one of us had been unfaithful, the relationship would not have lasted.  not strictly because of jealously, but because the other person would think  if i ca not even trust them not to fuck other people, how much can i really trust them ?    #  even the pdf that you linked to acknowledges this point !  #  because you are saying that sexual jealousy is evolutionary, supposedly in humans because that is what op is topic is about, but the fact is that 0.  there is no conclusive evidence that sexual jealousy universally evolved in humans and 0.  you used gorillas and baboons as examples to support your point but they are less related to humans than bonobos and chimps, which both have very promiscuous females.  even the pdf that you linked to acknowledges this point ! in fact, it goes directly against your two points because the whole thing is not a general primer on the evolution of jealousy but rather making the argument that jealousy is not different between men and women.  from your link:  the research discussed here, however, suggests that robust sex differences in jealousy over infidelity probably do not exist.  it seems more likely that natural selection shaped fairly general jealousy mechanisms designed to operate across a variety of interpersonal contexts.  what sex differences do exist seem likely to reflect differences in cognitive judgments rather than sexually dimorphic hardwired structures.  it also contains an entire section dedicated to pointing out that we do not know exactly what kind of selection pressures pleistocene humans were facing, and that a lot of surveys done on jealousy are performed on present day college students so not a very great sample.  also, if there  is  any evolutionary basis to sexual jealousy at all in humans, it is evidently easily offset by cultural norms, which is why there are plenty of societies that practice polygamy URL of various sorts.  one well known example is the the montagnais naskapi indians.  there was one account, when they were confronted by jesuit missionaries, one man is reply was  you french people love only your own children, but we love all the children of our tribe.   source URL  #  an infant might value its own livelihood over other infants, but that does not automatically mean it will become an adult who is jealous over their partner being with someone else those are two different situations.   #  you are moving the goalposts, and also not understanding the context of that quote.  you might need to go back and read your own pdf that you linked.   general jealousy mechanisms  means jealousy  in general , but not necessarily pertaining to  sexual  jealousy, which is specifically what op is bringing up.  the sentence was regarding the fact that babies exhibit some form of jealousy when another child is being taken care of instead of itself.  that is not evidence towards your two original points:  for men   making sure that his mate carries his children has an obvious evolutionary advantage.  nor does it go against op is topic of  sexual  jealousy.  an infant might value its own livelihood over other infants, but that does not automatically mean it will become an adult who is jealous over their partner being with someone else those are two different situations.  the whole section in the article is saying that sexual jealousy is not sexually dimorphic and not  hardwired.    #  in a tribe, or a society, it is more beneficial that every member of the tribe is involved.   # and caring of independent of whose offspring is beneficial for the species.  in a tribe, or a society, it is more beneficial that every member of the tribe is involved.  if not, murder would be an acceptable practice and in some cultures, honour is an acceptable reason for murder .  there are a huge amount of animals, closely related, and not, that practice monogamy, or not.  that is not why it is, or not, manmade.   #  that is not why it is, or not, manmade.   # why not both ? a man can care for all offspring of the tribe thus making sure his species survive, while also making sure his own genes gets passed down.  that seems to be the optimal evolutionary strategy.  see above.  that is not why it is, or not, manmade.  if behavior x is present in many, many species of animals, and behavior x confirms evolutionary advantage to many, many species of animals it is very difficult to argue that behavior x is manmade.  p. s.  the post is not about  monogamy,  it is about  sexual jealousy.   one is not required for other.
furthermore, i do not believe in a strict dichotomy between introverts and extroverts.  i believe people may have more introverted tendencies, but to fully identify as an introvert only serves to be self limiting in social situations.  perhaps this belief contributes to my belief that no additional precautions or care need to be taken when dealing with supposedly introverted people in social situations.  i have seen people who call themselves introverts complaining about being talked to by extroverts and being  forced to talk  by being asked questions.  i feel that in a social situation it is completely normal to try to talk to everyone in the group and try to hear from everybody.  i do not think we should have to put on kid gloves to deal with people who do not like to deal with people.  i think this does not apply to people who may be autistic because their reason for possibly not liking social situations is because of a disorder and so i have more sympathy for them.   #  i have seen people who call themselves introverts complaining about being talked to by extroverts and being  forced to talk  by being asked questions.   #  there is a difference between being asked questions and being continuously asked questions after giving responses that clearly signal a desire to not participate in the current discussion.   # there is a difference between being asked questions and being continuously asked questions after giving responses that clearly signal a desire to not participate in the current discussion.  in the first case, the complainer has no good grounds for complaint, in the second, discourteous behavior is being rightly complained about.  note that this is not  special care;  this kind of respect for someone is expressed wish should be extended to anyone when it is so easily fulfilled.  the particular situation will simply come up more with those who are more introverted, and introverts are less common in social situations primarily because they have less need of them.  with regards to the introvert extrovert continuum: this not only exists but the associated behaviors will manifest situationally in everyone.  in other words, sometimes the most extreme introvert will be extremely outgoing.  the difference is that this is taxing for them to maintain and they will eventually  need  to be left alone to recharge.  similarly, sometimes the most extreme extrovert will wish to be alone with their thoughts, they just ca not stay there without starting to feel very lonely.  all data i have ever seen on this continuum suggests either a standard distribution or a bimodal that is fairly close to a standard distribution.  the number of introverts who are impacted by the social bias towards extroverts is small because only a minority of introverts are unable to secure enough alone time to recharge.  this provides the illusion of a small minority of introverts in an extroverted world, as far as extroverts can see things.   #  it is very easy for me to  adapt  my personality to fit a given conversation, simply because i have got so much practice talking to so many different types of people.   #  i would only argue that  special care  should be taken when dealing with  anyone , introvert or not.  part of social interaction is reading the person with whom you are talking, and being sensitive to their personality.  you try to avoid rude jokes around people you know are not going to like it, you try to not yell around people who get freaked out by that kind of thing, and you do not force awkwardness onto someone who does not like it.  i do not think it is  kid gloves  so much as just being aware of the situation and acting accordingly.  extroverts have the advantage here because we are so used to engaging with people.  it is very easy for me to  adapt  my personality to fit a given conversation, simply because i have got so much practice talking to so many different types of people.   #  the answer will reflect the additional time spent on it, but an answer extracted prematurely will be noncommittal or evasive.   #  an introvert usually desires time to think about the answer to a question after it is posed.  the answer will reflect the additional time spent on it, but an answer extracted prematurely will be noncommittal or evasive.  by contrast, extroverts rarely utilize extra time extended to them unless additional complexity is demonstrated, preferring to answer and move on.  in order to properly exercise the different potentials expressed, you will need to utilize different approaches.  an strong extrovert would be just as impacted by an expectation of deeper analysis as a strong introvert would be by an expectation of a prompt response.  both need to be challenged by throwing them a few curve balls aimed at their weakness, but both also need an exercise of their potential through questions that play to their strengths.   #  if i wanted to talk about meaningless bullshit, i would.   #  why should they have to  make an attempt to be a bigger part of the social atmosphere  if it makes them uncomfortable ? and who said work is social by nature ? to me personally, i just do not like being forced to have small talk based interactions with acquaintances.  if i wanted to talk about meaningless bullshit, i would.  but i do not, so it does bother me when someone insists on making me talk more than i would like.  i am just naturally quiet; let me be.   #  you are a shining example of someone with introverted tendencies not forcing everyone around you to tread lightly.   #  well if you are being friendly and generally polite and you are capable of keeping up a friendly rapport through small talk with customers, it does not seem like you are forcing your peers to act with precaution.  you seem to be more of an example of what i am saying should be the case.  where you claim to be introverted, yes ? but you are capable of acting in a way that is socially acceptable in the setting you are in ? you do not force coworkers to treat you differently because you hate being around people ? you are a shining example of someone with introverted tendencies not forcing everyone around you to tread lightly.
professional athletes are paid waaaay too much money for what they do.  for instance, nba players make tens of millions of dollars a year for what ? because they can throw a ball into a hoop.  do not get me wrong, i understand they are good at what they do. i am not undermining their skill level or anything, but the basic concept remains the same.  these guys are not slaving away in a lab somewhere trying to develop a cure for a disease, they are not developing new technology, and they are not furthering the development of our country/world.  so why do they make multi millions not counting endorsements, etc . i honestly do not understand it.   but op, they sacrifice so much  so do people in the military, law enforcement, scientists someone please explain this to me  #  for instance, nba players make tens of millions of dollars a year for what ?  #  because they can throw a ball into a hoop.   # because they can throw a ball into a hoop.  they make tens of millions of dollars because they are part of an organization which produces an incredible amount of money.  the players are the face of the game.  they are the main attraction.  their pay is representative of their value to the league and in doing so further the amount of money the league and it is business partners earn.   #  or that an platypus is a lizard because it lays eggs.   #  that is about as logical as calling a bat a bird because it has wings.  or that an platypus is a lizard because it lays eggs.  different things, in this case cultures, can exhibit similar traits.  sometimes diverged from a primary source, sometimes converged from a variety of sources.  and often influenced by each other, but not always.   #  there are plenty of things in capitalism that can be fixed, but destroying completely is not the answer.   #  lost me there man.  explain how you get people to work harder if they do not get paid more.  sure, some people will do their job just because they like it, but why would i be a pharmacist at walgreens when the cashiers make the same amount as me ? there are plenty of health professionals who love their job and love helping people, there would definitely be alot less if the janitorial staff made the same amount they do.  there are plenty of things in capitalism that can be fixed, but destroying completely is not the answer.  i just could not see myself continuing through school if people with g. e. ds are garaunteed to make to same as me.   #  even though he pays his players ridiculous sums, he is making  more  than me !  #  if i own a team, i want the best players to play for my team.  that is how i make my money.  to use a hypothetical scenario with made up numbers, let is say my team is successful and by owning it, i pull in two hundred million dollars in a year, maybe i only think the players  deserve  a million bucks or less .  so maybe i only pay them only a small sum each, and then go and pocket a couple hundred million for myself.  but then my opponent, who is less successful and only makes a hundred million a year, might decide to make less money for himself and offer 0 million to some of my star players.  the players ditch my team and work for him.  now his team is amazing and makes three hundred million the next season.  meanwhile, my team tanks in popularity due to the lack of the best players and is pulling in less than a hundred million in ticket sales.  even though he pays his players ridiculous sums, he is making  more  than me ! i want to get back into the action, so i stop caring about the fact that i might be giving them 0 million for throwing a ball around and suck it up and offer competitive salaries to the players so that i can field an elite roster and bring back revenue to my team.  eventually, the wages for the players settle on what they are  worth  financially to the owners, which is a function of total revenue made by the team, not any kind of innate sense of what they  deserve .   #  you just think your entertainment is special rather than the entertainment that jocks watch.   #  we have had this discussion lots of times.  it is entertainment.  your teacher offers a valuable service to 0 people a year.  michael jordan and derek jeter offer a little something to 0,0,0  people every year.  if your teacher got $0 for each student and the athlete got 0 cents of advertising revenue from each person, of course the athlete is still going to be famous.  when you consume entertainment, you support them.  if you watch movies, tv or video games, you are giving money to millionaires who are not engineers, teachers or military either.  you just think your entertainment is special rather than the entertainment that jocks watch.
professional athletes are paid waaaay too much money for what they do.  for instance, nba players make tens of millions of dollars a year for what ? because they can throw a ball into a hoop.  do not get me wrong, i understand they are good at what they do. i am not undermining their skill level or anything, but the basic concept remains the same.  these guys are not slaving away in a lab somewhere trying to develop a cure for a disease, they are not developing new technology, and they are not furthering the development of our country/world.  so why do they make multi millions not counting endorsements, etc . i honestly do not understand it.   but op, they sacrifice so much  so do people in the military, law enforcement, scientists someone please explain this to me  #  these guys are not slaving away in a lab somewhere trying to develop a cure for a disease, they are not developing new technology, and they are not furthering the development of our country/world.   #  so why do they make multi millions not counting endorsements, etc . i honestly do not understand it.   # so why do they make multi millions not counting endorsements, etc . i honestly do not understand it.  this seems to be the core of your view.  you do not believe that professional athletes are contributing to the betterment of humanity.  however, professional athletes are making plenty of contributions to medicine and the economy.  concussions in the nfl have increased the awareness and science of concussions in all walks of life.  construction workers and kids who play school football are safer now that helmets have been improved to better prevent head injuries.  doctors now better understand the side effects and treatment of concussions of accident victims.  methods for detecting concussions are constantly being developed and improved.  after junior seau is death scientists studied his brain in an effort to understand the long term effects of concussions.  URL if that is not a contribution to medicine than i do not know what is.  the kevin everett spinal injury is a good example.  URL here is a man who was severely injured playing in the nfl and was able to regain the use of his limbs possibly due to an experimental treatment.  his recovery was basically an experiment on the use of cold therapy on spinal injuries that contributed to the knowledge of the medical community.  the value of the players is the reason sports medicine has advanced so much recently.  tommy john surgery URL was named after a major league pitcher who was the first to get the surgery.  people who injure themselves on the job or working out are now able to get a surgery to restore the full function of their arms.  the surgery would not be available if not for the value of tommy john as a major league pitcher.  leaving behind the medical advances that professional sports have facilitated, lets examine the economic impact of professional sports.  professional sports venues tend to revitalize run down urban areas.  URL nationals park, for example, has greatly improved a seedy area of washington, dc.  URL people are not flocking to these stadiums to admire the architecture, they are going to see the players.   #  different things, in this case cultures, can exhibit similar traits.   #  that is about as logical as calling a bat a bird because it has wings.  or that an platypus is a lizard because it lays eggs.  different things, in this case cultures, can exhibit similar traits.  sometimes diverged from a primary source, sometimes converged from a variety of sources.  and often influenced by each other, but not always.   #  i just could not see myself continuing through school if people with g. e. ds are garaunteed to make to same as me.   #  lost me there man.  explain how you get people to work harder if they do not get paid more.  sure, some people will do their job just because they like it, but why would i be a pharmacist at walgreens when the cashiers make the same amount as me ? there are plenty of health professionals who love their job and love helping people, there would definitely be alot less if the janitorial staff made the same amount they do.  there are plenty of things in capitalism that can be fixed, but destroying completely is not the answer.  i just could not see myself continuing through school if people with g. e. ds are garaunteed to make to same as me.   #  now his team is amazing and makes three hundred million the next season.   #  if i own a team, i want the best players to play for my team.  that is how i make my money.  to use a hypothetical scenario with made up numbers, let is say my team is successful and by owning it, i pull in two hundred million dollars in a year, maybe i only think the players  deserve  a million bucks or less .  so maybe i only pay them only a small sum each, and then go and pocket a couple hundred million for myself.  but then my opponent, who is less successful and only makes a hundred million a year, might decide to make less money for himself and offer 0 million to some of my star players.  the players ditch my team and work for him.  now his team is amazing and makes three hundred million the next season.  meanwhile, my team tanks in popularity due to the lack of the best players and is pulling in less than a hundred million in ticket sales.  even though he pays his players ridiculous sums, he is making  more  than me ! i want to get back into the action, so i stop caring about the fact that i might be giving them 0 million for throwing a ball around and suck it up and offer competitive salaries to the players so that i can field an elite roster and bring back revenue to my team.  eventually, the wages for the players settle on what they are  worth  financially to the owners, which is a function of total revenue made by the team, not any kind of innate sense of what they  deserve .   #  if your teacher got $0 for each student and the athlete got 0 cents of advertising revenue from each person, of course the athlete is still going to be famous.   #  we have had this discussion lots of times.  it is entertainment.  your teacher offers a valuable service to 0 people a year.  michael jordan and derek jeter offer a little something to 0,0,0  people every year.  if your teacher got $0 for each student and the athlete got 0 cents of advertising revenue from each person, of course the athlete is still going to be famous.  when you consume entertainment, you support them.  if you watch movies, tv or video games, you are giving money to millionaires who are not engineers, teachers or military either.  you just think your entertainment is special rather than the entertainment that jocks watch.
often i meet someone and it seems like he/she is someone who i should respect, someone i agree with and so on.  but after some time i see him/her with cigarette and it just ruins all my respect suddenly goes away.  i think smoking is intentional self harm and therefore everyone who smokes is kind off stupid.  i ca not see any reason for a rational person to smoke.  i am a lifetime non smoker and but i do not mind being in the same room with smokers for a short time.  some of my friends are smokers, but i ca not resist reproaching them their addiction.  change my view !  #  i think smoking is intentional self harm and therefore everyone who smokes is kind off stupid.   #  i ca not see any reason for a rational person to smoke.   # i ca not see any reason for a rational person to smoke.  the majority of people who smoke today know they are harming themselves.  they are also doing something which they believe is providing something positive effect.  the question them becomes a matter how how that person believes the risk to balance out between the negative and positive.  plus, you have addiction which defies rational thought.  whether or not their use of tobacco makes sense to you or is rational.  it does not really matter.  you are judging.  what good does it do you ? what good does it do them ?  #  your body becomes physically dependent on it, and chances are it is psychologically ingrained in their system as well.   #  there are a few reasons that you should not view people as lesser now that you know they smoke.  first off, smoking can be enjoyable.  sure, it is not healthy and they know that as well.  going to mcdonalds is not the healthiest thing either, downing that bag of chips is not healthy, sitting all day in your office chair is pretty bad for your health as well.  yet we do those things because we want to.  some people think the enjoyment is worth the negative parts of smoking, and some do not.  but it is completely their choice to decide whether it is worth it or not.  secondly, not everyone who smokes does it voluntarily.  nicotine is about as addictive as heroin.  URL these people know they are harming themselves and desperately want to quit, but if you have ever been addicted, you would know that it is not easy to  just  stop.  your body becomes physically dependent on it, and chances are it is psychologically ingrained in their system as well.  to call them  istupid  is quite offensive, because tons of people are genetically more inclined to be addicted.  it is not just all in your head.  lastly, smoking does not impair your other functions.  they are just as capable as you are, and there is no real reason to view them as inferior.  and viewing them as inferior for the sole reason that they smoke is silly, because it is not always voluntarily, and it may just be their lifestyle choice.  perhaps you ca not see why someone would smoke, but they definitely do.  different strokes for different people.   #  if he smoke is and is mindful of the impact it has on people surrounding him, i would say it is something worthy of respect.   #  most people indulge in one form of self harm or another, it does not necessarily make us worst persons.  you should not let those kind of things warp your perception; i do not think their good indicators of a person is value.  i would say a better indicator would be how someone acts in relation with their habits.  if he smoke is and is mindful of the impact it has on people surrounding him, i would say it is something worthy of respect.  if he light is up in your kitchen and blows smoke in your face. not so much.   #  i smoke about once or twice a month.   #  just to give some perspective, i am a smoker that has no interest in quitting.  i smoke about once or twice a month.  i really like the flavor of tobacco, and admire the work that goes into farming and curing it.  i may be addicted, because nicotine can remain in your system for a long time, but i do not plan to quit.  i am otherwise a very health conscious person.   #  i am simultaneously aware of and ignoring the consequences.   #  you are view is a very fundamental misunderstanding of how the mind works.  it is very much possible to hold highly rational views on one subject whilst simultaneously holding irrational views on another subject.  there are people who study cutting edge physics and mathematics who are very good at their job, but also believe that if there is three black rolls in a row they should bet on red.  the workings of the mind are complicated.  there are plenty of scientists, politicians, academics, authors, and artists that smoke with iq is that make you look like a third grader making fart sounds.  i am a smoker because i do not view smoking rationally.  i can read about emphysema or cancer all day and i wo not make the connection.  i am simultaneously aware of and ignoring the consequences.  but the thing is that it is isolated.  my irrational views on smoking do not cross over into other areas, it does not influence my thinking on economics or astronomy.  people have flaws, and  losing respect  of someone because a personal health flaw is just silly.  if you were to subtract all the works science,art etc that were done by people with some irrational habit or belief you would end up with a few novels about rabbits and a guide to build cabins.
often i meet someone and it seems like he/she is someone who i should respect, someone i agree with and so on.  but after some time i see him/her with cigarette and it just ruins all my respect suddenly goes away.  i think smoking is intentional self harm and therefore everyone who smokes is kind off stupid.  i ca not see any reason for a rational person to smoke.  i am a lifetime non smoker and but i do not mind being in the same room with smokers for a short time.  some of my friends are smokers, but i ca not resist reproaching them their addiction.  change my view !  #  i think smoking is intentional self harm and therefore everyone who smokes is kind off stupid.   #  so if someone attempts to commit suicide, or has suicidal ideation resulting in self harm, would you label them as  stupid  and shun them ?  # so if someone attempts to commit suicide, or has suicidal ideation resulting in self harm, would you label them as  stupid  and shun them ? if you genuinely believe that smoking is intentional self harm, then perhaps it should motivate you to befriend them and help them.  the demonization of smokers, especially in the us, has worked to some extent in reducing smoking but it has also hurt plenty of smokers.  demonizing them will not make many quit; it may even exacerbate underlying issues that led them to smoke in the first place.  smoking is much more popular among individuals with mental disorders than the general population.  it is something to think about.  i know that i would prefer to be supportive to individuals who are harming themselves or contemplating doing so, rather than labeling them as stupid and shunning them.   #  to call them  istupid  is quite offensive, because tons of people are genetically more inclined to be addicted.   #  there are a few reasons that you should not view people as lesser now that you know they smoke.  first off, smoking can be enjoyable.  sure, it is not healthy and they know that as well.  going to mcdonalds is not the healthiest thing either, downing that bag of chips is not healthy, sitting all day in your office chair is pretty bad for your health as well.  yet we do those things because we want to.  some people think the enjoyment is worth the negative parts of smoking, and some do not.  but it is completely their choice to decide whether it is worth it or not.  secondly, not everyone who smokes does it voluntarily.  nicotine is about as addictive as heroin.  URL these people know they are harming themselves and desperately want to quit, but if you have ever been addicted, you would know that it is not easy to  just  stop.  your body becomes physically dependent on it, and chances are it is psychologically ingrained in their system as well.  to call them  istupid  is quite offensive, because tons of people are genetically more inclined to be addicted.  it is not just all in your head.  lastly, smoking does not impair your other functions.  they are just as capable as you are, and there is no real reason to view them as inferior.  and viewing them as inferior for the sole reason that they smoke is silly, because it is not always voluntarily, and it may just be their lifestyle choice.  perhaps you ca not see why someone would smoke, but they definitely do.  different strokes for different people.   #  i would say a better indicator would be how someone acts in relation with their habits.   #  most people indulge in one form of self harm or another, it does not necessarily make us worst persons.  you should not let those kind of things warp your perception; i do not think their good indicators of a person is value.  i would say a better indicator would be how someone acts in relation with their habits.  if he smoke is and is mindful of the impact it has on people surrounding him, i would say it is something worthy of respect.  if he light is up in your kitchen and blows smoke in your face. not so much.   #  i smoke about once or twice a month.   #  just to give some perspective, i am a smoker that has no interest in quitting.  i smoke about once or twice a month.  i really like the flavor of tobacco, and admire the work that goes into farming and curing it.  i may be addicted, because nicotine can remain in your system for a long time, but i do not plan to quit.  i am otherwise a very health conscious person.   #  if you were to subtract all the works science,art etc that were done by people with some irrational habit or belief you would end up with a few novels about rabbits and a guide to build cabins.   #  you are view is a very fundamental misunderstanding of how the mind works.  it is very much possible to hold highly rational views on one subject whilst simultaneously holding irrational views on another subject.  there are people who study cutting edge physics and mathematics who are very good at their job, but also believe that if there is three black rolls in a row they should bet on red.  the workings of the mind are complicated.  there are plenty of scientists, politicians, academics, authors, and artists that smoke with iq is that make you look like a third grader making fart sounds.  i am a smoker because i do not view smoking rationally.  i can read about emphysema or cancer all day and i wo not make the connection.  i am simultaneously aware of and ignoring the consequences.  but the thing is that it is isolated.  my irrational views on smoking do not cross over into other areas, it does not influence my thinking on economics or astronomy.  people have flaws, and  losing respect  of someone because a personal health flaw is just silly.  if you were to subtract all the works science,art etc that were done by people with some irrational habit or belief you would end up with a few novels about rabbits and a guide to build cabins.
often i meet someone and it seems like he/she is someone who i should respect, someone i agree with and so on.  but after some time i see him/her with cigarette and it just ruins all my respect suddenly goes away.  i think smoking is intentional self harm and therefore everyone who smokes is kind off stupid.  i ca not see any reason for a rational person to smoke.  i am a lifetime non smoker and but i do not mind being in the same room with smokers for a short time.  some of my friends are smokers, but i ca not resist reproaching them their addiction.  change my view !  #  i ca not see any reason for a rational person to smoke.   #  no, as someone who does not smoke, you probably ca not.   #  let me offer a rebuttal about something similiar and how i feel about it: often i meet someone and it seems like he/she is someone who i should respect, someone i agree with and so on.  but after some time i see him/her with a beer and it just ruins all my respect suddenly goes away.  i think drinking is intentional self harm and therefore everyone who drinks is kind off stupid.  i ca not see any reason for a rational person to drink.  i am a lifetime non drinker and but i do not mind being in the same room with drinkers for a short time.  some of my friends are drinkers, but i ca not resist reproaching them for their addiction.  now, barring the fact that i can make this argument for anything i disagree with, ad infinitum, why do you relate smoking and respect ? do you relate respect to those who drink as well ? how about those with differing political beliefs ? no, as someone who does not smoke, you probably ca not.  as a smoker, i can tell you that it helps calm my nerves when i am stressed.  ignoring the harm it might potentially do to my body a decade or more from now, i can take 0 to 0 minutes to smoke by myself and deal with my problems.  afterwards, i can go back to the task at hand with a more clear head.  in this instance, the benefits outweigh the risk.  i believe as a human being i have a right to do with my body as i see fit, and if that means using a stimulant to help deal with stress, then i will do just that.  as for your edit, no, realistically speaking smokers are not harming those around them.  it will take me a decade minimum to develop significant health issues.  if i blow a whole pack of smoke in your face, you are in the clear.  this misconception comes from bad parents who smoke in their house and around their kids, those children are the only people other than the smoker who can receive significant harm, and you ca not blame that on smokers as a whole at least without also blaming all people who enjoy a beer the same as you would blame a drunk driver .   #  yet we do those things because we want to.   #  there are a few reasons that you should not view people as lesser now that you know they smoke.  first off, smoking can be enjoyable.  sure, it is not healthy and they know that as well.  going to mcdonalds is not the healthiest thing either, downing that bag of chips is not healthy, sitting all day in your office chair is pretty bad for your health as well.  yet we do those things because we want to.  some people think the enjoyment is worth the negative parts of smoking, and some do not.  but it is completely their choice to decide whether it is worth it or not.  secondly, not everyone who smokes does it voluntarily.  nicotine is about as addictive as heroin.  URL these people know they are harming themselves and desperately want to quit, but if you have ever been addicted, you would know that it is not easy to  just  stop.  your body becomes physically dependent on it, and chances are it is psychologically ingrained in their system as well.  to call them  istupid  is quite offensive, because tons of people are genetically more inclined to be addicted.  it is not just all in your head.  lastly, smoking does not impair your other functions.  they are just as capable as you are, and there is no real reason to view them as inferior.  and viewing them as inferior for the sole reason that they smoke is silly, because it is not always voluntarily, and it may just be their lifestyle choice.  perhaps you ca not see why someone would smoke, but they definitely do.  different strokes for different people.   #  you should not let those kind of things warp your perception; i do not think their good indicators of a person is value.   #  most people indulge in one form of self harm or another, it does not necessarily make us worst persons.  you should not let those kind of things warp your perception; i do not think their good indicators of a person is value.  i would say a better indicator would be how someone acts in relation with their habits.  if he smoke is and is mindful of the impact it has on people surrounding him, i would say it is something worthy of respect.  if he light is up in your kitchen and blows smoke in your face. not so much.   #  i really like the flavor of tobacco, and admire the work that goes into farming and curing it.   #  just to give some perspective, i am a smoker that has no interest in quitting.  i smoke about once or twice a month.  i really like the flavor of tobacco, and admire the work that goes into farming and curing it.  i may be addicted, because nicotine can remain in your system for a long time, but i do not plan to quit.  i am otherwise a very health conscious person.   #  people have flaws, and  losing respect  of someone because a personal health flaw is just silly.   #  you are view is a very fundamental misunderstanding of how the mind works.  it is very much possible to hold highly rational views on one subject whilst simultaneously holding irrational views on another subject.  there are people who study cutting edge physics and mathematics who are very good at their job, but also believe that if there is three black rolls in a row they should bet on red.  the workings of the mind are complicated.  there are plenty of scientists, politicians, academics, authors, and artists that smoke with iq is that make you look like a third grader making fart sounds.  i am a smoker because i do not view smoking rationally.  i can read about emphysema or cancer all day and i wo not make the connection.  i am simultaneously aware of and ignoring the consequences.  but the thing is that it is isolated.  my irrational views on smoking do not cross over into other areas, it does not influence my thinking on economics or astronomy.  people have flaws, and  losing respect  of someone because a personal health flaw is just silly.  if you were to subtract all the works science,art etc that were done by people with some irrational habit or belief you would end up with a few novels about rabbits and a guide to build cabins.
so a discussion on sexism and video games, everyone put down your guns and pitchforks for a moment.  fairly often when the mass media/blogosphere decides to talk about video games in a context not related to turning children into mass murdering psychopaths, there is a concern over the lack of female characters in video games.  the bbc for example cites a study saying only 0 of characters are female URL a lot of times this is chalked up to sexism on the part of either developers or consumers themselves.  i wont be naive and say there are not significant levels of it in both groups, however i think this fact is neither: 0 particularly alarming 0 necessarily as skewed as it may appear, and that some gap in sexes is in fact appropriate.  now before you go  taranaki, you chavenist paternalistic pig !   let me explain.  i love female characters, especially kick ass ones both in games and other media.  mikasa ackerman, fem shep, emily blunt is  rita  from edge of tomorrow.  awesome.  so why the lack of concern, and in fact seeming endorsement of a gender gap ? i think its not alarming because look at the games that are currently most popular.  first are the ubiquitous shooting games.  now i am in no way intending to belittle anyones contributions through history, nor are there not exceptions to the rule, but in history 0  of the people going around clubbing   stabbing   shooting   bombing   fighter piloting have been men.  so when so many games are wwii, modern warfare, future war less so i do not find it all suprising nor even particularly wrong that the characters are all men.  in fact it seems to be a bit insulting to just shoehorn women into omaha beach or fictional iraqistan for the sake of meeting a quota.  nor do i think it is particularly damning that most adventure games, which typically involve running around hacking people to death with swords assassin is creed, the witcher, god of war have men doing it.  its been the way humans have operated through most of history again with exceptions to prove the rule , and i do not think it is particularly shameful that a game developer decides to have the main characters be men.   it would be like showing concern over racism that most all the characters in a game set in fantasy medeival england are white with no asians or indians .  now every once in awhile maybe a game will have a female main character doing these kind of games.  that is fantastic.  but i do not think its necessarily a sign of sexism that a good deal less than 0 of games pursue this kind of  rarer scenario , any more than it would be a sign of racism that a good deal of game is main characters were not indian when fighting in fantasy settings modeling 0th century england.  with so many games involved in meating out death and murder which historically has vastly skewed toward one sex over another, and a large number of games involving sports, i think people who see few reletively few females in videogames and decide that is maliciously  inappropriate , are missing the bigger picture why there are fewer women than men and why that isnt malicious at all.  am i wrong in this ? should women be expected to be and developers held to account to provide games that equally prevalent in men throughout games ? cmv  tldr: with so many modern games focused on killing, i do not think its particularly sexist that game designers choose main characters who are of the sex that have been predominantly doing the killing over human history.  badass women certainly existed, but were a general anomaly.  i believe that a natural non sexist gap in male vs female character prevalence should thus not be surprising or necessarily bad to anyone .   #  tldr: with so many modern games focused on killing, i do not think its particularly sexist that game designers choose main characters who are of the sex that have been predominantly doing the killing over human history.   #  badass women certainly existed, but were a general anomaly.   #  i kind of agree with you, in that i do not see any problem with any individual game being very very male heavy.  however, i do not think that means there is no problem present.  i like to use the bechdel test URL or for a more mind bendy one bmi URL as analogies.  i believe that any one instance of male dominated game or movie with no three dimensional female characters or someone with an above average bmi does not imply that that instance is sexist or sexist or fat , necessarily.  however, i think that a large collection of these points, averaged over the entire data set, does.  is it a problem that a given movie does not have two women talking to each other about not men ? not necessarily.  maybe it is just a movie about men.  is it a problem if someone has a bmi above 0 ? not necessarily.  they could just be muscular, or tall, or whatever.  is it a problem that a given video game has only male characters ? not necessarily; there were no front line female soldiers on d day.  on the other hand, is it a problem if  every  movie or  most  movies do not have three dimension female characters ? is it a problem if, overall, your entire society has a high bmi ? is it a problem if, across all popular mainstream video games, they are all male dominated ? i am happy with saying  yes .  i feel like this nuanced point of view of  individual instances are not bad per se but they combine into something that is not good  is underrepresented in these discussions.  badass women certainly existed, but were a general anomaly.  i believe that a natural non sexist gap in male vs female character prevalence should thus not be surprising or necessarily bad to anyone.  tldr: maybe it is not particularly sexist that, with so many modern games focused on killing, designers choose main characters who are of the sex that have een predominantly doing the killing over human history.  however, maybe it  is  sexist that so many games get made about male dominated activities such as killing in the first place  opinion: i am somewhat of the opinion that, we can either sit around here talking about a problem, or we can just fuckin  fix it.  and just fuckin  fix it, in this context, means making more video games with female characters in them.  the software industry has one of the lowest barriers to entry of any creative industry, period, and so if this was seriously a problem, you would expect people to make video games that fix it.  i believe that the fact that you  do not  see that many socially conscious games tells me that most people do not actually care about this issue, and that it is really a small group that cares about it.  to that end, i feel like blaming video games for being sexist is like blaming the disease on the symptom.  in my mind, game makers are making the games that sell to the demographics they target.  they target adolescent males because they have a shitload of free time and are willing to drop money on it.  so, following this chain, i assert that video games are not sexist so much as adolescent video game playing males are sexist.  and  that  is a different and much harder problem entirely  #  and again, who ever markets themselves as offering the authentic white male experience ?  #  your incorrect assumptions about race aside URL what is historically accurate in the mind of the consumer collective and entertainment industry is usually a half truth or just completely wrong.  claiming some belief in maintaining reality rings as kind of disingenuous to me.  people do not actually want real, they want what they believe is real.  your words read more like we should allow revisionist historical views continue since that is what is socially easy.  do you want a truly historically accurate experience or what you think is historically accurate ? can you tell the difference or did you even think to draw that line ? women and asians and africans existed just as long as europeans have and the cultures often intermingled in one form or another.  that being said, when is the last time a video game company marketed their company is model as portraying actual history as opposed to some kind of fantasy version ? most games are made up scenarios, they are complete fabrication so you can do whatever you want with them.  so then why ca not i play a black person or a woman ? what exactly is so outrageous or more reality breaking about playing someone who is not a white man ? and again, who ever markets themselves as offering the authentic white male experience ? unless that is the product they are promising there is actually nothing in their way of breaking the mold other than their prejudice and bias.   #  so then why ca not i play a black person or a woman ?  #  you asked some questions so i am going to try and comment on a few of them.  so then why ca not i play a black person or a woman ? hey true enough.  and fair question.  answer is, you can easily play as a black person or a woman in a story that is about a black person or a woman.  or better yet, play games where there is character customization that way you can do whatever you want.  was not that easy and fun ? nothing of course, unless.  well the story is about a white man.  then it might break the story a wee bit, because the story may actually happen to be about a white man.  usually anyone who has written a story/game/movie/book about a white man.  they usually want the audience to know who their character is, rather than leaving them as an un described amorphous grey blob.  this is my problem with you people.  you sit there and whine  how dare someone create art that is not tailored to what i want.   you do not care about the artists vision, you do not care about the artistic integrity of the piece, you do not even care about the rest of the audience.  no one goes to the lourve and says  there are too many paintings of white women in here, slap a moustace and some black skin on the mona lisa because i do not feel like i am personally represented in this piece of art work that was not made with my feelings in mind because god forbid anyone create their own vision without consulting me personally.    #  i can easily see its technical merits and historical importance in terms of the modern blockbuster and why it got popular, does not mean i have to like its message or what it represents.   #  if you are not particularly invested in conversations about representation, then you do not have to engage.  your responses kind of miss the point i ca not exactly go play a black tomb raider if i wanted so your intent does not seem like you want to change my view or engage me in a meaningful conversation about diversity.  though if you are just going to complain about people complaining, do not you find that hypocritical ? people are free to make what they want, that does not free it from criticism.  also artistic merits and social implications of a work while intertwined does not mean those elements are exclusively good together or bad together.  look at birth of a nation.  one of the most important films in us history is a kkk propaganda film.  it is part of our national archive.  i can easily see its technical merits and historical importance in terms of the modern blockbuster and why it got popular, does not mean i have to like its message or what it represents.  games ca not really make any aspirations for artistic merit if the community and industry ca not accept criticism on a societal level.  all works are subjected to the whims of the audience.  those pieces at the louvre are no different other than the time period they came from where the audience was much much smaller people who could afford art and to be fair, many if not the majority of those pieces were not even necessarily  popular  during their own times other than being glorified selfies or just what survived through time.  finally, it is not as if people do not talk about the social value of art and what its depictions represent.  like say revolution or the disenfranchised rising against an unjust monarchy which is pretty common in certain periods of french art .  gaming is a modern form of art, it has to exist in the context of modern criticism which includes depictions of disenfranchised groups.  it is not as if this criticism takes away from games as an art form, enhances it really.   #  my largest problem with it however is that the only solution i ever see people put forward is, restricting the free will of artists to create what they want how they want.   #  i fully aware of arguments for representation in art, and i get it.  my largest problem with it however is that the only solution i ever see people put forward is, restricting the free will of artists to create what they want how they want.  no one encouraging minority artists to create more, no one voting with their money for minority artists who have already created the content.  it always seems easier to demand things of others, or society as a whole, rather than supporting members of the community that are trying the direct approach.  i do not have a solution, and i am not even going to try to find one because i ca not fix society.  i believe criticism and diversity is great for the community, and is making the community a better place.  the entitlement of people who criticize a work movie/book/videogame based solely on one factor, the color of certain characters skin or their gender without addressing any other merits the piece may have is what bothers me.  tens, hundreds, or thousands of hours of a persons hard work come to fruition, and the first thing they hear about is how sexist/racist it is for not being a story other than the one they created.  this artist owes you nothing.  they owe society nothing.  when the only criticism brought forth is, in essence,  why did not you just make something else ?  , how can it not be considered absolutely ridiculous ? i am not a fan of shutting out someones views or perspectives, minority or otherwise, so it surprises me that critical feminist groups and the like are so ready to silence the voices of creators.
it appears to me that there is little to no difference between robbery by private individuals and taxation by the state.  both involve the coercive attainment of my private property for means which i may or may not support.  sure, one may appear more violent, but they are in essence the same thing.  if you refuse to give the homeless man your wallet, you get stabbed, beaten, etc.  if you refuse to give the tax man your money, you get locked away in a prison.  taxes are a form of robbery and a society based around free association trade would be the most ethical.  now, i am not saying we should not share with the less fortunate, only that we ought not to be forced to.  similarly, if you sell a product that the government determines insufficient but the consumer determines satisfactory, the government prevails over the consumer.  why ? unless fraud or force is involved, the consumer has the ability to simply not purchase a product why do we need a middle man to argue on what they determine is the consumer is behalf ?  #  sure, one may appear more violent, but they are in essence the same thing.   #  if you refuse to give the homeless man your wallet, you get stabbed, beaten, etc.   # if you refuse to give the homeless man your wallet, you get stabbed, beaten, etc.  if you refuse to give the tax man your money, you get locked away in a prison.  so, in both cases, you are assuming that you have some right to property that transcends the state.  you are assuming that there is some fundamental moral quality of ownership that describes your relationship to that wallet.  but that requires justification.  why do you get to have that wallet and not the homeless man ? now, here is the important part: your justification of ownership ca not be legal.  the government says the wallet is yours, but the government also says that your tax money belongs to it.  in order for both the homeless man and the tax man is actions to be wrong, that right has to exist outside the government.  now, you rejected locke is social contract elsewhere in this thread, but you seem to be accepting his idea of a natural right to property in the state of nature.  of course, his argument for such a right basically boils down to  because god said so , so i think you should definitely examine why you think the right to private property exists.  your private property is that which you reserve for your own use or to trade with others.  it is a claim that others should not use this thing.  of course, the claim of ownership has no meaning if others do not recognize its validity.  you can claim ownership of something all you want, but that does not make it yours if i do not accept your argument for why.  we are just two dudes i assume arguing over what belongs to whom.  we might just walk away, and we might settle it with our fists, who knows ? the problem thus becomes clear.  private property cannot, in any meaningful sense, exist without some form of government.  without a set of rules over who gets what and when, an individuals claim to ownership is nothing more than a claim.  the government is the manifestation of those rules.  it cannot steal because it defines what belongs to whom.  by taking something, it changes that things owner by definition.   #  since you use them, it is just that you pay for them.   #  the difference between taxation and robbery is that a robber has no responsibility to you; he runs away, and you probably never see him again.  the government, on the other hand, is supposed to provide you services; that is their whole point.  and they need money to finance those services.  since you use them, it is just that you pay for them.  the number or nature or cost may be up for debate, but no taxes means no services means effectively no government.  unless, of course, you find a different way to finance the government.   #  if i do not use a government function or support the use of that particular function, i am not rewarded by a tax break.   #  in that case, one must first justify my obligation to the government, and of course the government is need to exist.  i do not buy into locke is social contract for a number of reasons.  most importantly, i did not agree to any contract with the government saying that they can take my tax money so long as they plow my roads / imprison my enemies / imprison my brothers and sisters.  if i do not use a government function or support the use of that particular function, i am not rewarded by a tax break.  i cannot opt out of this  contract.    #  since the bulk of the people here prefer government to anarchy, and government derives its legitimacy from the people, we have a government.   #  what about the services you do use ? and the services that, even if you do not use them, still need to be maintained for the common good ? for instance, you probably would not be too happy to see the quality of fire service if only people who ever called the fire department had to support it entirely.  as to your obligation to the government, it is simple; pay for the services you use and that are at your disposal.  as to need to exist, it is self evident.  if you want to try anarchy, there are plenty of places in the world to take it for a spin.  since the bulk of the people here prefer government to anarchy, and government derives its legitimacy from the people, we have a government.   #  if i chose not to and accidentally burnt my house down, no fire agency would be obligated to come help me.   # i would be happy to form some sort of free association agreement with the government concerning functions of theirs i do use, except that most government functions like utilities, for example are monopolies held by the government.  of course, there are exceptions, such as education, but my tax dollars still pay public school teachers.  for instance, you probably would not be too happy to see the quality of fire service if only people who ever called the fire department had to support it entirely.  if fire services were privatized, i would only have to pay dues to a fire service if i chose to.  if i chose not to and accidentally burnt my house down, no fire agency would be obligated to come help me.  therefore it is in my best interest to invest in a fire agency that i feel represents my needs.  as to need to exist, it is self evident.  if you want to try anarchy, there are plenty of places in the world to take it for a spin.  since the bulk of the people here prefer government to anarchy, and government derives its legitimacy from the people, we have a government.  well, yes, i am an anarchist i suppose.  the idea that the government derives its legitimacy from the people seems rather fishy to me.  suppose there is a city in which 0 of the citizens are white an 0 are black.  now, these whiteys are all racist bastards, so they all support the idea of making the 0 black folk do all the heavy labor.  is this a legitimate system because most of the citizens support it ? surely not.  hence the phrase  tyranny of the 0.
ive approached 0 girls ive liked so far and been rejected every time so my record is 0 rejection.  whats to make me believe it wont always be 0 ? because evidence says it will i have approached 0 girls in my life, all 0 have resulted in rejection.  from this i can conclude that the next 0 also will reject me hence there not being a point in approaching any more.  even if there is a girl somewhere out there that is interested in me, the chances of her being single and within age range dwindles it down to close to 0 rejection so anytime i see an attractive girl walking around college i remember this 0 rejection rate and stay far far away  #  ive approached 0 girls ive liked so far and been rejected every time so my record is 0 rejection.   #  whats to make me believe it wont always be 0 ?  # whats to make me believe it wont always be 0 ? until i was reciprocated i unsuccessfully approached like, what, six girls ? and those are just the ones with explicit solicitations while i was romantically interested .  i tried paying a lot of attention, paying less attention, following stereotypes… and the thing that worked was, as stereotypical as it sounds,  being myself .  though it took me a while to figure out who i was.  if i had to bet, i would bet you will fail your next three times.  i would also bet that the next time you see a crow, it will be black.  and the next time you see a swan, it will be white.  but there are white crows URL and black swans URL check out the problem of induction URL for why your rational justification is not valid.  and even if your chances were astronomically low with the current state of affairs, that does not mean you should give up.  do not act as if it only depends on a good chance raining from the sky.  look at your life, and see if you have something to change.  besides, you act as if rejection were something intrinsically bad.  it is not.  after each crisis in my life romantic, existential or otherwise , i have learned something about either the world, or myself.   #  how much benefit do you gain from having a girlfriend ?  #  four is too small of a sample size.  it is not uncommon for a coin to come up tails 0 times in a row, and that is a 0 chance.  also, the chance does not need to be very good for it to still be a worthwhile gamble.  how much effort and discomfort does asking cost you ? how much benefit do you gain from having a girlfriend ? i would still go for a 0 or even 0 chance because the costs are that much smaller than the benefits.   #  imagine you are a herpetologist searching for rattlesnakes.   #  the point is that the answer may not always be no.  you are saying the answer is always no based on too small a sample.  imagine you are a herpetologist searching for rattlesnakes.  you go out to joshua tree national park.  it is 0,0 acres in size.  you move 0 rocks, and find no rattlesnakes.  do you conclude that rattlesnakes do not live there ? this is what you are saying except what you are saying is more ridiculous.  you have polled 0 women on the planet.   #  or b check your car, in the kitchen, on the recliner, in the bathroom, in your closet, under your bed, and everywhere else you can think of.   #  it is too soon to say that.  as an analogy, let is say that you lost your wallet somewhere in your house.  you check your couch, nightstand, coffee table, and next to your computer, but still do not find it.  do you: a stop looking.  the answer was always no, so there is no point.  or b check your car, in the kitchen, on the recliner, in the bathroom, in your closet, under your bed, and everywhere else you can think of.  there is a point where it makes sense to give up or change strategies but it is far too soon for you to reach that conclusion.   #  finding a partner is something that happens, you can be open to the possibility in your life of meeting someone, but do not go throughout your day with the specific intent to find a girl and hook up.   #  i am sure there are girls out there who will go out with you.  it is all in your own attitude and approach.  also, what is the context that you are approaching them in ? people do not often want to deal with being approached romantically just because they are in a grocery store buying dish soap and wheaties.  in a club or at a party, you might have better luck, because people go there to meet and interact others.  do something interesting and fun for your own enjoyment, and then try to invite a date.  it is harder do just ask  do you want to go out with me sometime ?   versus  hey i am going to the motorcycle races / salsa dancing / jet skiing / to a concert / to the art museum in the city, would you like to come along ?   make it something interesting, perhaps new to her, not just dinner and a movie.  be a gentleman.  surprising many men, scientists have now determined that women are people, too, and respond favorably to being treated that way.  find a hobby or social club that interests you, and you will have a good chance of meeting someone with common interests.  common interests give you something to talk about, and the possibility of shared activity.  one of the biggest turn offs for anyone, is having a whiff of desperation about you.  finding a partner is something that happens, you can be open to the possibility in your life of meeting someone, but do not go throughout your day with the specific intent to find a girl and hook up.  that is kind of creepy to most women.  just because a girl goes on a date with you, does not make her your girlfriend.  you will be able to tell after a few shared dates or activities if she is interested in you.  another way to make a girl more comfortable on first dates is to double date.  if you have a male friend, either ask the girl you like and a friend of hers out, or perhaps your male friend already has a girlfriend he can bring.  either way, it can be reassuring to be out in a group and not one on one, particularly if she can bring her friend.
ive approached 0 girls ive liked so far and been rejected every time so my record is 0 rejection.  whats to make me believe it wont always be 0 ? because evidence says it will i have approached 0 girls in my life, all 0 have resulted in rejection.  from this i can conclude that the next 0 also will reject me hence there not being a point in approaching any more.  even if there is a girl somewhere out there that is interested in me, the chances of her being single and within age range dwindles it down to close to 0 rejection so anytime i see an attractive girl walking around college i remember this 0 rejection rate and stay far far away  #  from this i can conclude that the next 0 also will reject me hence there not being a point in approaching any more.   #  if i had to bet, i would bet you will fail your next three times.   # whats to make me believe it wont always be 0 ? until i was reciprocated i unsuccessfully approached like, what, six girls ? and those are just the ones with explicit solicitations while i was romantically interested .  i tried paying a lot of attention, paying less attention, following stereotypes… and the thing that worked was, as stereotypical as it sounds,  being myself .  though it took me a while to figure out who i was.  if i had to bet, i would bet you will fail your next three times.  i would also bet that the next time you see a crow, it will be black.  and the next time you see a swan, it will be white.  but there are white crows URL and black swans URL check out the problem of induction URL for why your rational justification is not valid.  and even if your chances were astronomically low with the current state of affairs, that does not mean you should give up.  do not act as if it only depends on a good chance raining from the sky.  look at your life, and see if you have something to change.  besides, you act as if rejection were something intrinsically bad.  it is not.  after each crisis in my life romantic, existential or otherwise , i have learned something about either the world, or myself.   #  how much benefit do you gain from having a girlfriend ?  #  four is too small of a sample size.  it is not uncommon for a coin to come up tails 0 times in a row, and that is a 0 chance.  also, the chance does not need to be very good for it to still be a worthwhile gamble.  how much effort and discomfort does asking cost you ? how much benefit do you gain from having a girlfriend ? i would still go for a 0 or even 0 chance because the costs are that much smaller than the benefits.   #  this is what you are saying except what you are saying is more ridiculous.   #  the point is that the answer may not always be no.  you are saying the answer is always no based on too small a sample.  imagine you are a herpetologist searching for rattlesnakes.  you go out to joshua tree national park.  it is 0,0 acres in size.  you move 0 rocks, and find no rattlesnakes.  do you conclude that rattlesnakes do not live there ? this is what you are saying except what you are saying is more ridiculous.  you have polled 0 women on the planet.   #  the answer was always no, so there is no point.   #  it is too soon to say that.  as an analogy, let is say that you lost your wallet somewhere in your house.  you check your couch, nightstand, coffee table, and next to your computer, but still do not find it.  do you: a stop looking.  the answer was always no, so there is no point.  or b check your car, in the kitchen, on the recliner, in the bathroom, in your closet, under your bed, and everywhere else you can think of.  there is a point where it makes sense to give up or change strategies but it is far too soon for you to reach that conclusion.   #  finding a partner is something that happens, you can be open to the possibility in your life of meeting someone, but do not go throughout your day with the specific intent to find a girl and hook up.   #  i am sure there are girls out there who will go out with you.  it is all in your own attitude and approach.  also, what is the context that you are approaching them in ? people do not often want to deal with being approached romantically just because they are in a grocery store buying dish soap and wheaties.  in a club or at a party, you might have better luck, because people go there to meet and interact others.  do something interesting and fun for your own enjoyment, and then try to invite a date.  it is harder do just ask  do you want to go out with me sometime ?   versus  hey i am going to the motorcycle races / salsa dancing / jet skiing / to a concert / to the art museum in the city, would you like to come along ?   make it something interesting, perhaps new to her, not just dinner and a movie.  be a gentleman.  surprising many men, scientists have now determined that women are people, too, and respond favorably to being treated that way.  find a hobby or social club that interests you, and you will have a good chance of meeting someone with common interests.  common interests give you something to talk about, and the possibility of shared activity.  one of the biggest turn offs for anyone, is having a whiff of desperation about you.  finding a partner is something that happens, you can be open to the possibility in your life of meeting someone, but do not go throughout your day with the specific intent to find a girl and hook up.  that is kind of creepy to most women.  just because a girl goes on a date with you, does not make her your girlfriend.  you will be able to tell after a few shared dates or activities if she is interested in you.  another way to make a girl more comfortable on first dates is to double date.  if you have a male friend, either ask the girl you like and a friend of hers out, or perhaps your male friend already has a girlfriend he can bring.  either way, it can be reassuring to be out in a group and not one on one, particularly if she can bring her friend.
here is my scenario and the reasons i think putting money into my 0k to pay for a vehicle is a good decision .   reasons    higher rate of return then a standard savings account   loan payments are made back to myself instead of a bank or dealer   money is pulled out of my check pre tax   i have flexibility with my loan payment ammount   cash up front gives me leverage to negotiate a better price on the purchase.    relatively safe investment compared to some others available to me.   the details  we are wanting to purchase a vehicle next year as our 0 mazda tribute will be rounding 0k miles.  me and my wife are both in our mid 0 is and have around 0k in each of our 0k is accounts each of us contribute about 0 of our bi weekly checks to our 0k.  i have earned about $0 this year so far with my standard contribution.  we are allowed to take a loan out on the 0k up to half its value.   the plan  i want to use the 0k as our savings account.  increase our 0k contributions to around 0 0 and use this surplus savings and returns to buy or place a down payment on the new vehicle.   #  cash up front gives me leverage to negotiate a better price on the purchase.   #  make sure this is actually true for your area.   #  i ca not recall all the details of a 0k and i do not know all of your finances or the car finances, so i am making big assumptions here.  you can never return the money, so are you better off ? make sure this is actually true for your area.  as i understand it, financing brings in money for the dealership, so if you do not do car financing, you are not as profitable to the dealership.  they get the money right away if you pay all cash or if you are financing.   #  do the phone dance before you get off your butt.   # comparison shopping for cars and not being set on one type is probably your best friend here.  the best way to get a good deal is to shop at multiple dealers with multiple car companies and tell them that xyz offered you this, in order to get them to offer you a better deal.  do the phone dance before you get off your butt.  a car is a horrible investment.  it only loses value.  you should get the cheapest car that gets you from point a to point b reliably if you are talking about investment value.  also check out this site URL for other potential problems with your plan.   #  most people do not save enough for retirement in the first place.   #  removing money from a 0k early incurs huge 0 fees and you have to pay taxes on the money.  a retirement account should only be used for retirement.  most people do not save enough for retirement in the first place.  that is what it is designed to do and all the perks of a 0k were designed to help that long term goal, not to help with short term saving.  when you take a loan against your 0k you remove that money is earning power from your account.  you are taxed on it.  it should be an absolute last resort against disaster, not a starting strategy for a major purchase.  it is basically cutting an arm off your 0k.  do not put more in than your company matche.  save the excess elsewhere where it is more accessible there are better more affordable less destructive ways to save up for/finance a car.   #  like you said the pay back the loan with money they paid taxes on.   #  like you said the pay back the loan with money they paid taxes on.  they are putting taxed money into their 0k.  when they remove the money at retirement they are taxed.  so the taxed money they repaid the loan with is taxed again to withdraw it.  they paid taxes twice on the same money.   #  but having the extra 0,0 earn 0 a year in the account for say 0 years gets me a return of 0,0.  which is a profit of 0k.   #  correct, i would be double taxed on the loan amount.  after repayment i will also be earning yearly returns on that money that otherwise would not have been in my 0k.  so say the loan amount is $0,0 the additional tax would cost me $0 in extra taxes, not a small amount i agree.  but having the extra 0,0 earn 0 a year in the account for say 0 years gets me a return of 0,0.  which is a profit of 0k.  maybe someone could check my math because i am sure by no means an expert.
disclaimer: i am currently studying economics and mandarin, so it is safe to say i am not a  dae le stem xd  guy.  0  subjects such as gender/specific culture studies, economics and sociology etc.  are completely ideological.   your academic worth is decided by how closely your opinions reflect the approved view.  this manifests itself differently in each country.  for example, in france, leftist economists such as piketty will be far more successful in academia.  in all regions, the subject matter is often dangerously unscientific.  even semi scientific disciplines such as linguistics are marred by ideologic cancer.  0  some subjects are intellectually worthless and/or bullshit factories.   the sokal hoax en. wikipedia. org/wiki/sokal affair is a good example of this.  basically, nothing of cultural or practical value is produced.  sadly, philosophy often falls victim to sterile debates of this sort are humans animals ? what is art ? the intellectual purity of mathematics and physics cannot be surpassed.  0  many problems outlined by philosophy can only be solved by modern science.   neurologists, empiricists, inventors can give actual solutions instead of spending their time making assumptions or formulating unverifiable hypotheses.  there is no potential limit to what science can accomplish.  it is entirely possible that conundrums such as free will can and will be solved soon.  there is nothing a philosopher can do that a scientist ca not.  in fact, the best philosophers tend to be scientists.  science is the only thing that has reliably brought solutions thus far.  even things such as large scale democracy are only the result of increased wealth caused by tech.  the only long term changes brought upon humanity were the result of tech.  0  the best students gravitate towards stem  the humanities tend to attract bad students because the subjects are much easier and more open to interpretation, whereas in science rigor and hard work cannot be escaped.  i remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities.  they had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.  that is why humanities in college are a joke.  0  people good at the humanities do not need to study them.   without art, culture etc.  life would not be worth living.  a world with only engineers would be a nightmare.  however you would have to be naive to think that studiying humanities in college makes you talented.  great writers do not emerge because of shitty creative writing classes in college or english lit.  great painters do not need art history.  great thinkers manage on their own.  their talent is far beyond what can be taught in school.  the production of culture is rarely the result of punctilious study.  so far these are the conlusions i have come to.  obviously being in stem does not make you a genius, but the basic point is that a humanities degree is much more likely to be worthless, both practically and intellectually.  it is more likely that a given student gravitated towards humanities out of laziness instead of interest.  culture is amazing but is almost never the result of traditional humanities teaching.  tl;dr i am bitter about my educational choices thanks for reading.   #  the intellectual purity of mathematics and physics cannot be surpassed.   #  funny, grigori perelman URL would diagree    i ca not say i am outraged.   # are completely ideological.  for economics, it matters if you are right or not, monetarily.  no gender or ideological here.  is archeology stem ? because minimum gender/ideology issues there.  funny, grigori perelman URL would diagree    i ca not say i am outraged.  other people do worse.  of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest.  but almost all of them are conformists.  they are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest.   philosophy answers  why , science cannot answer this.  handling ambiguity, which happens in the real world, is better handled by those who have not learned to rely on quantitative data.  why does this make stem superior ?  #  a liberal arts major is not necessary in society this moment in terms of their use to society, which can be seen by the lack of demand and low wages for such majors.   #  the water diamond paradox talks about this use value of goods.  water is necessary for survival, where as diamond is a luxury.  yet water is cheaper than diamond by a very large degree.  however, the market does send signals through these price mechanisms.  a liberal arts major is not necessary in society this moment in terms of their use to society, which can be seen by the lack of demand and low wages for such majors.  while on the contrary, stem majors are.  but that was not my point when i said let the market decide whose worth what.  i am saying instead of letting us use our value judgement the combined will of the people in the market will determine whether liberal arts or social sciences are really important to the society.   #  i see at least one of these stems are the best threads a month.   # i remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities.  they had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.  that is why humanities in college are a joke.  do you have any source for this besides  i remember in high school.   ? your high school experience is not a valid argument.  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.  that is not true.  most great writers in the 0th and 0st century have a background or significant formal training in writing.  i see at least one of these stems are the best threads a month.  but i have never seen one going the other way.  this leads me to think stem people are really insecure and/or arrogant.   #  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.   # but i have never seen one going the other way.  this leads me to think stem people are really insecure and/or arrogant.  i am not stem at all.  in fact, it is the first thing i wrote.  i put in that disclaimer specifically because i knew somebody would work in an ad hominem like you did, putting into question the moral fibre of every stem person.  your high school experience is not a valid argument.  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.  dude, it is not possible to spend one day on reddit without quickly learning everything about fallacies.  it is one of the most frequently used concepts on this site.  i know my anecdotes are not valid.  however i would be prepared to wager huge sums of money that the lessons they have given me are correct: namely that the best do stem.  it is not possible to do well in stem without thinking a lot.  that is not the case for humanities.   #  but i have also met stem students with repugnant views on militarism, the working class, and gender.   #  stem students design bombs, humanities and social science 0 students determine whether/when they will be dropped.  no scientific formula can determine the latter.  likewise, stem students design life saving technologies, but humanities and social science students determine whether people will get them, and design the social structures that make that research possible.  humanities and the social sciences are not totally objective because of the nature of their subject matter.  societies cannot be put in a lab, but the fact that a subject matter is harder to study is not a reason to not throw it to the side.  progress  is  made on philosophical and political questions i. e.  the enlightenment.  i do not think the sokal hoax does not do as much for you as you think.  sokal deliberately picked a journal that does not use peer review and sent an article with a monstrous 0 page bibliography and 0 page of footnotes.  the editors asked him informally to change the form of the article and cut down on the end matter, and sokal refused.  the only reason the admittedly bad editors did not scrap the article entirely was because they were so excited that he was a leading scientist attempting in bad faith, as it turns out to bridge the gap.  they sat on the article for a while until an issue on science came out.  i love and have immense respect for science, but uncritical approaches towards it that do not take into account political and philosophical concerns, can produce horrendous results.  see: scientific racism/sexism, phrenology, eugenics, etc.  further, sociological studies on science see bruno latour show that the process of making scientific discoveries is saturated with non objectivity.  i am sorry you have met humanities students who were not up your intellectual standards, i have too.  but i have also met stem students with repugnant views on militarism, the working class, and gender.  however, i do not think that this is generalizable to an entire field of study.  0 notice i say  humanities and social sciences , not just humanities like in your post.  the two are overlapping but distinct and should not be conflated.  economics is not in the humanities.
disclaimer: i am currently studying economics and mandarin, so it is safe to say i am not a  dae le stem xd  guy.  0  subjects such as gender/specific culture studies, economics and sociology etc.  are completely ideological.   your academic worth is decided by how closely your opinions reflect the approved view.  this manifests itself differently in each country.  for example, in france, leftist economists such as piketty will be far more successful in academia.  in all regions, the subject matter is often dangerously unscientific.  even semi scientific disciplines such as linguistics are marred by ideologic cancer.  0  some subjects are intellectually worthless and/or bullshit factories.   the sokal hoax en. wikipedia. org/wiki/sokal affair is a good example of this.  basically, nothing of cultural or practical value is produced.  sadly, philosophy often falls victim to sterile debates of this sort are humans animals ? what is art ? the intellectual purity of mathematics and physics cannot be surpassed.  0  many problems outlined by philosophy can only be solved by modern science.   neurologists, empiricists, inventors can give actual solutions instead of spending their time making assumptions or formulating unverifiable hypotheses.  there is no potential limit to what science can accomplish.  it is entirely possible that conundrums such as free will can and will be solved soon.  there is nothing a philosopher can do that a scientist ca not.  in fact, the best philosophers tend to be scientists.  science is the only thing that has reliably brought solutions thus far.  even things such as large scale democracy are only the result of increased wealth caused by tech.  the only long term changes brought upon humanity were the result of tech.  0  the best students gravitate towards stem  the humanities tend to attract bad students because the subjects are much easier and more open to interpretation, whereas in science rigor and hard work cannot be escaped.  i remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities.  they had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.  that is why humanities in college are a joke.  0  people good at the humanities do not need to study them.   without art, culture etc.  life would not be worth living.  a world with only engineers would be a nightmare.  however you would have to be naive to think that studiying humanities in college makes you talented.  great writers do not emerge because of shitty creative writing classes in college or english lit.  great painters do not need art history.  great thinkers manage on their own.  their talent is far beyond what can be taught in school.  the production of culture is rarely the result of punctilious study.  so far these are the conlusions i have come to.  obviously being in stem does not make you a genius, but the basic point is that a humanities degree is much more likely to be worthless, both practically and intellectually.  it is more likely that a given student gravitated towards humanities out of laziness instead of interest.  culture is amazing but is almost never the result of traditional humanities teaching.  tl;dr i am bitter about my educational choices thanks for reading.   #  there is nothing a philosopher can do that a scientist ca not.   #  philosophy answers  why , science cannot answer this.   # are completely ideological.  for economics, it matters if you are right or not, monetarily.  no gender or ideological here.  is archeology stem ? because minimum gender/ideology issues there.  funny, grigori perelman URL would diagree    i ca not say i am outraged.  other people do worse.  of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest.  but almost all of them are conformists.  they are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest.   philosophy answers  why , science cannot answer this.  handling ambiguity, which happens in the real world, is better handled by those who have not learned to rely on quantitative data.  why does this make stem superior ?  #  however, the market does send signals through these price mechanisms.   #  the water diamond paradox talks about this use value of goods.  water is necessary for survival, where as diamond is a luxury.  yet water is cheaper than diamond by a very large degree.  however, the market does send signals through these price mechanisms.  a liberal arts major is not necessary in society this moment in terms of their use to society, which can be seen by the lack of demand and low wages for such majors.  while on the contrary, stem majors are.  but that was not my point when i said let the market decide whose worth what.  i am saying instead of letting us use our value judgement the combined will of the people in the market will determine whether liberal arts or social sciences are really important to the society.   #  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.   # i remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities.  they had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.  that is why humanities in college are a joke.  do you have any source for this besides  i remember in high school.   ? your high school experience is not a valid argument.  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.  that is not true.  most great writers in the 0th and 0st century have a background or significant formal training in writing.  i see at least one of these stems are the best threads a month.  but i have never seen one going the other way.  this leads me to think stem people are really insecure and/or arrogant.   #  but i have never seen one going the other way.   # but i have never seen one going the other way.  this leads me to think stem people are really insecure and/or arrogant.  i am not stem at all.  in fact, it is the first thing i wrote.  i put in that disclaimer specifically because i knew somebody would work in an ad hominem like you did, putting into question the moral fibre of every stem person.  your high school experience is not a valid argument.  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.  dude, it is not possible to spend one day on reddit without quickly learning everything about fallacies.  it is one of the most frequently used concepts on this site.  i know my anecdotes are not valid.  however i would be prepared to wager huge sums of money that the lessons they have given me are correct: namely that the best do stem.  it is not possible to do well in stem without thinking a lot.  that is not the case for humanities.   #  i do not think the sokal hoax does not do as much for you as you think.   #  stem students design bombs, humanities and social science 0 students determine whether/when they will be dropped.  no scientific formula can determine the latter.  likewise, stem students design life saving technologies, but humanities and social science students determine whether people will get them, and design the social structures that make that research possible.  humanities and the social sciences are not totally objective because of the nature of their subject matter.  societies cannot be put in a lab, but the fact that a subject matter is harder to study is not a reason to not throw it to the side.  progress  is  made on philosophical and political questions i. e.  the enlightenment.  i do not think the sokal hoax does not do as much for you as you think.  sokal deliberately picked a journal that does not use peer review and sent an article with a monstrous 0 page bibliography and 0 page of footnotes.  the editors asked him informally to change the form of the article and cut down on the end matter, and sokal refused.  the only reason the admittedly bad editors did not scrap the article entirely was because they were so excited that he was a leading scientist attempting in bad faith, as it turns out to bridge the gap.  they sat on the article for a while until an issue on science came out.  i love and have immense respect for science, but uncritical approaches towards it that do not take into account political and philosophical concerns, can produce horrendous results.  see: scientific racism/sexism, phrenology, eugenics, etc.  further, sociological studies on science see bruno latour show that the process of making scientific discoveries is saturated with non objectivity.  i am sorry you have met humanities students who were not up your intellectual standards, i have too.  but i have also met stem students with repugnant views on militarism, the working class, and gender.  however, i do not think that this is generalizable to an entire field of study.  0 notice i say  humanities and social sciences , not just humanities like in your post.  the two are overlapping but distinct and should not be conflated.  economics is not in the humanities.
disclaimer: i am currently studying economics and mandarin, so it is safe to say i am not a  dae le stem xd  guy.  0  subjects such as gender/specific culture studies, economics and sociology etc.  are completely ideological.   your academic worth is decided by how closely your opinions reflect the approved view.  this manifests itself differently in each country.  for example, in france, leftist economists such as piketty will be far more successful in academia.  in all regions, the subject matter is often dangerously unscientific.  even semi scientific disciplines such as linguistics are marred by ideologic cancer.  0  some subjects are intellectually worthless and/or bullshit factories.   the sokal hoax en. wikipedia. org/wiki/sokal affair is a good example of this.  basically, nothing of cultural or practical value is produced.  sadly, philosophy often falls victim to sterile debates of this sort are humans animals ? what is art ? the intellectual purity of mathematics and physics cannot be surpassed.  0  many problems outlined by philosophy can only be solved by modern science.   neurologists, empiricists, inventors can give actual solutions instead of spending their time making assumptions or formulating unverifiable hypotheses.  there is no potential limit to what science can accomplish.  it is entirely possible that conundrums such as free will can and will be solved soon.  there is nothing a philosopher can do that a scientist ca not.  in fact, the best philosophers tend to be scientists.  science is the only thing that has reliably brought solutions thus far.  even things such as large scale democracy are only the result of increased wealth caused by tech.  the only long term changes brought upon humanity were the result of tech.  0  the best students gravitate towards stem  the humanities tend to attract bad students because the subjects are much easier and more open to interpretation, whereas in science rigor and hard work cannot be escaped.  i remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities.  they had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.  that is why humanities in college are a joke.  0  people good at the humanities do not need to study them.   without art, culture etc.  life would not be worth living.  a world with only engineers would be a nightmare.  however you would have to be naive to think that studiying humanities in college makes you talented.  great writers do not emerge because of shitty creative writing classes in college or english lit.  great painters do not need art history.  great thinkers manage on their own.  their talent is far beyond what can be taught in school.  the production of culture is rarely the result of punctilious study.  so far these are the conlusions i have come to.  obviously being in stem does not make you a genius, but the basic point is that a humanities degree is much more likely to be worthless, both practically and intellectually.  it is more likely that a given student gravitated towards humanities out of laziness instead of interest.  culture is amazing but is almost never the result of traditional humanities teaching.  tl;dr i am bitter about my educational choices thanks for reading.   #  nothing of cultural or practical value is produced.   #  tell me how practical the properties of the monster group URL are for my everyday life.   # are completely ideological.  and physics is not ? how many different interpretations of quantum mechanics URL are there again ? tell me how practical the properties of the monster group URL are for my everyday life.  last time i checked, our universe has 0 spatial dimensions, unlike monster is 0,0 dimensions.  tell me how modern science is going to solve the problem of induction, i would love to know.  that is like saying  there is nothing a geologist can do that a structural engineer ca not.  people have different disciplines for a reason.  because knowledge is so vast that humans just do not have the life span or mental capacity to study every single subject ever.  the best we can do is gain some core general knowledge, specialize, and then hope for the best.  actually, i would say the best students are those that engage in interdisciplinary studies.  tell me why i am wrong and why your particular definition of  best  is the best one.  oh, and only use science, no philosophy or art allowed.  that means you are not allowed to use logic or rhetoric.  good luck !  #  i am saying instead of letting us use our value judgement the combined will of the people in the market will determine whether liberal arts or social sciences are really important to the society.   #  the water diamond paradox talks about this use value of goods.  water is necessary for survival, where as diamond is a luxury.  yet water is cheaper than diamond by a very large degree.  however, the market does send signals through these price mechanisms.  a liberal arts major is not necessary in society this moment in terms of their use to society, which can be seen by the lack of demand and low wages for such majors.  while on the contrary, stem majors are.  but that was not my point when i said let the market decide whose worth what.  i am saying instead of letting us use our value judgement the combined will of the people in the market will determine whether liberal arts or social sciences are really important to the society.   #  that is why humanities in college are a joke.   # i remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities.  they had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.  that is why humanities in college are a joke.  do you have any source for this besides  i remember in high school.   ? your high school experience is not a valid argument.  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.  that is not true.  most great writers in the 0th and 0st century have a background or significant formal training in writing.  i see at least one of these stems are the best threads a month.  but i have never seen one going the other way.  this leads me to think stem people are really insecure and/or arrogant.   #  i put in that disclaimer specifically because i knew somebody would work in an ad hominem like you did, putting into question the moral fibre of every stem person.   # but i have never seen one going the other way.  this leads me to think stem people are really insecure and/or arrogant.  i am not stem at all.  in fact, it is the first thing i wrote.  i put in that disclaimer specifically because i knew somebody would work in an ad hominem like you did, putting into question the moral fibre of every stem person.  your high school experience is not a valid argument.  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.  dude, it is not possible to spend one day on reddit without quickly learning everything about fallacies.  it is one of the most frequently used concepts on this site.  i know my anecdotes are not valid.  however i would be prepared to wager huge sums of money that the lessons they have given me are correct: namely that the best do stem.  it is not possible to do well in stem without thinking a lot.  that is not the case for humanities.   #  philosophy answers  why , science cannot answer this.   # are completely ideological.  for economics, it matters if you are right or not, monetarily.  no gender or ideological here.  is archeology stem ? because minimum gender/ideology issues there.  funny, grigori perelman URL would diagree    i ca not say i am outraged.  other people do worse.  of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest.  but almost all of them are conformists.  they are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest.   philosophy answers  why , science cannot answer this.  handling ambiguity, which happens in the real world, is better handled by those who have not learned to rely on quantitative data.  why does this make stem superior ?
disclaimer: i am currently studying economics and mandarin, so it is safe to say i am not a  dae le stem xd  guy.  0  subjects such as gender/specific culture studies, economics and sociology etc.  are completely ideological.   your academic worth is decided by how closely your opinions reflect the approved view.  this manifests itself differently in each country.  for example, in france, leftist economists such as piketty will be far more successful in academia.  in all regions, the subject matter is often dangerously unscientific.  even semi scientific disciplines such as linguistics are marred by ideologic cancer.  0  some subjects are intellectually worthless and/or bullshit factories.   the sokal hoax en. wikipedia. org/wiki/sokal affair is a good example of this.  basically, nothing of cultural or practical value is produced.  sadly, philosophy often falls victim to sterile debates of this sort are humans animals ? what is art ? the intellectual purity of mathematics and physics cannot be surpassed.  0  many problems outlined by philosophy can only be solved by modern science.   neurologists, empiricists, inventors can give actual solutions instead of spending their time making assumptions or formulating unverifiable hypotheses.  there is no potential limit to what science can accomplish.  it is entirely possible that conundrums such as free will can and will be solved soon.  there is nothing a philosopher can do that a scientist ca not.  in fact, the best philosophers tend to be scientists.  science is the only thing that has reliably brought solutions thus far.  even things such as large scale democracy are only the result of increased wealth caused by tech.  the only long term changes brought upon humanity were the result of tech.  0  the best students gravitate towards stem  the humanities tend to attract bad students because the subjects are much easier and more open to interpretation, whereas in science rigor and hard work cannot be escaped.  i remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities.  they had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.  that is why humanities in college are a joke.  0  people good at the humanities do not need to study them.   without art, culture etc.  life would not be worth living.  a world with only engineers would be a nightmare.  however you would have to be naive to think that studiying humanities in college makes you talented.  great writers do not emerge because of shitty creative writing classes in college or english lit.  great painters do not need art history.  great thinkers manage on their own.  their talent is far beyond what can be taught in school.  the production of culture is rarely the result of punctilious study.  so far these are the conlusions i have come to.  obviously being in stem does not make you a genius, but the basic point is that a humanities degree is much more likely to be worthless, both practically and intellectually.  it is more likely that a given student gravitated towards humanities out of laziness instead of interest.  culture is amazing but is almost never the result of traditional humanities teaching.  tl;dr i am bitter about my educational choices thanks for reading.   #  many problems outlined by philosophy can only be solved by modern science.   #  tell me how modern science is going to solve the problem of induction, i would love to know.   # are completely ideological.  and physics is not ? how many different interpretations of quantum mechanics URL are there again ? tell me how practical the properties of the monster group URL are for my everyday life.  last time i checked, our universe has 0 spatial dimensions, unlike monster is 0,0 dimensions.  tell me how modern science is going to solve the problem of induction, i would love to know.  that is like saying  there is nothing a geologist can do that a structural engineer ca not.  people have different disciplines for a reason.  because knowledge is so vast that humans just do not have the life span or mental capacity to study every single subject ever.  the best we can do is gain some core general knowledge, specialize, and then hope for the best.  actually, i would say the best students are those that engage in interdisciplinary studies.  tell me why i am wrong and why your particular definition of  best  is the best one.  oh, and only use science, no philosophy or art allowed.  that means you are not allowed to use logic or rhetoric.  good luck !  #  however, the market does send signals through these price mechanisms.   #  the water diamond paradox talks about this use value of goods.  water is necessary for survival, where as diamond is a luxury.  yet water is cheaper than diamond by a very large degree.  however, the market does send signals through these price mechanisms.  a liberal arts major is not necessary in society this moment in terms of their use to society, which can be seen by the lack of demand and low wages for such majors.  while on the contrary, stem majors are.  but that was not my point when i said let the market decide whose worth what.  i am saying instead of letting us use our value judgement the combined will of the people in the market will determine whether liberal arts or social sciences are really important to the society.   #  your high school experience is not a valid argument.   # i remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities.  they had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.  that is why humanities in college are a joke.  do you have any source for this besides  i remember in high school.   ? your high school experience is not a valid argument.  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.  that is not true.  most great writers in the 0th and 0st century have a background or significant formal training in writing.  i see at least one of these stems are the best threads a month.  but i have never seen one going the other way.  this leads me to think stem people are really insecure and/or arrogant.   #  dude, it is not possible to spend one day on reddit without quickly learning everything about fallacies.   # but i have never seen one going the other way.  this leads me to think stem people are really insecure and/or arrogant.  i am not stem at all.  in fact, it is the first thing i wrote.  i put in that disclaimer specifically because i knew somebody would work in an ad hominem like you did, putting into question the moral fibre of every stem person.  your high school experience is not a valid argument.  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.  dude, it is not possible to spend one day on reddit without quickly learning everything about fallacies.  it is one of the most frequently used concepts on this site.  i know my anecdotes are not valid.  however i would be prepared to wager huge sums of money that the lessons they have given me are correct: namely that the best do stem.  it is not possible to do well in stem without thinking a lot.  that is not the case for humanities.   #  handling ambiguity, which happens in the real world, is better handled by those who have not learned to rely on quantitative data.   # are completely ideological.  for economics, it matters if you are right or not, monetarily.  no gender or ideological here.  is archeology stem ? because minimum gender/ideology issues there.  funny, grigori perelman URL would diagree    i ca not say i am outraged.  other people do worse.  of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest.  but almost all of them are conformists.  they are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest.   philosophy answers  why , science cannot answer this.  handling ambiguity, which happens in the real world, is better handled by those who have not learned to rely on quantitative data.  why does this make stem superior ?
disclaimer: i am currently studying economics and mandarin, so it is safe to say i am not a  dae le stem xd  guy.  0  subjects such as gender/specific culture studies, economics and sociology etc.  are completely ideological.   your academic worth is decided by how closely your opinions reflect the approved view.  this manifests itself differently in each country.  for example, in france, leftist economists such as piketty will be far more successful in academia.  in all regions, the subject matter is often dangerously unscientific.  even semi scientific disciplines such as linguistics are marred by ideologic cancer.  0  some subjects are intellectually worthless and/or bullshit factories.   the sokal hoax en. wikipedia. org/wiki/sokal affair is a good example of this.  basically, nothing of cultural or practical value is produced.  sadly, philosophy often falls victim to sterile debates of this sort are humans animals ? what is art ? the intellectual purity of mathematics and physics cannot be surpassed.  0  many problems outlined by philosophy can only be solved by modern science.   neurologists, empiricists, inventors can give actual solutions instead of spending their time making assumptions or formulating unverifiable hypotheses.  there is no potential limit to what science can accomplish.  it is entirely possible that conundrums such as free will can and will be solved soon.  there is nothing a philosopher can do that a scientist ca not.  in fact, the best philosophers tend to be scientists.  science is the only thing that has reliably brought solutions thus far.  even things such as large scale democracy are only the result of increased wealth caused by tech.  the only long term changes brought upon humanity were the result of tech.  0  the best students gravitate towards stem  the humanities tend to attract bad students because the subjects are much easier and more open to interpretation, whereas in science rigor and hard work cannot be escaped.  i remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities.  they had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.  that is why humanities in college are a joke.  0  people good at the humanities do not need to study them.   without art, culture etc.  life would not be worth living.  a world with only engineers would be a nightmare.  however you would have to be naive to think that studiying humanities in college makes you talented.  great writers do not emerge because of shitty creative writing classes in college or english lit.  great painters do not need art history.  great thinkers manage on their own.  their talent is far beyond what can be taught in school.  the production of culture is rarely the result of punctilious study.  so far these are the conlusions i have come to.  obviously being in stem does not make you a genius, but the basic point is that a humanities degree is much more likely to be worthless, both practically and intellectually.  it is more likely that a given student gravitated towards humanities out of laziness instead of interest.  culture is amazing but is almost never the result of traditional humanities teaching.  tl;dr i am bitter about my educational choices thanks for reading.   #  there is nothing a philosopher can do that a scientist ca not.   #  that is like saying  there is nothing a geologist can do that a structural engineer ca not.   # are completely ideological.  and physics is not ? how many different interpretations of quantum mechanics URL are there again ? tell me how practical the properties of the monster group URL are for my everyday life.  last time i checked, our universe has 0 spatial dimensions, unlike monster is 0,0 dimensions.  tell me how modern science is going to solve the problem of induction, i would love to know.  that is like saying  there is nothing a geologist can do that a structural engineer ca not.  people have different disciplines for a reason.  because knowledge is so vast that humans just do not have the life span or mental capacity to study every single subject ever.  the best we can do is gain some core general knowledge, specialize, and then hope for the best.  actually, i would say the best students are those that engage in interdisciplinary studies.  tell me why i am wrong and why your particular definition of  best  is the best one.  oh, and only use science, no philosophy or art allowed.  that means you are not allowed to use logic or rhetoric.  good luck !  #  i am saying instead of letting us use our value judgement the combined will of the people in the market will determine whether liberal arts or social sciences are really important to the society.   #  the water diamond paradox talks about this use value of goods.  water is necessary for survival, where as diamond is a luxury.  yet water is cheaper than diamond by a very large degree.  however, the market does send signals through these price mechanisms.  a liberal arts major is not necessary in society this moment in terms of their use to society, which can be seen by the lack of demand and low wages for such majors.  while on the contrary, stem majors are.  but that was not my point when i said let the market decide whose worth what.  i am saying instead of letting us use our value judgement the combined will of the people in the market will determine whether liberal arts or social sciences are really important to the society.   #  but i have never seen one going the other way.   # i remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities.  they had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.  there are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value.  that is why humanities in college are a joke.  do you have any source for this besides  i remember in high school.   ? your high school experience is not a valid argument.  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.  that is not true.  most great writers in the 0th and 0st century have a background or significant formal training in writing.  i see at least one of these stems are the best threads a month.  but i have never seen one going the other way.  this leads me to think stem people are really insecure and/or arrogant.   #  in fact, it is the first thing i wrote.   # but i have never seen one going the other way.  this leads me to think stem people are really insecure and/or arrogant.  i am not stem at all.  in fact, it is the first thing i wrote.  i put in that disclaimer specifically because i knew somebody would work in an ad hominem like you did, putting into question the moral fibre of every stem person.  your high school experience is not a valid argument.  if you had studied more about logical fallacies in  inferior  subjects like philosophy you would know that.  dude, it is not possible to spend one day on reddit without quickly learning everything about fallacies.  it is one of the most frequently used concepts on this site.  i know my anecdotes are not valid.  however i would be prepared to wager huge sums of money that the lessons they have given me are correct: namely that the best do stem.  it is not possible to do well in stem without thinking a lot.  that is not the case for humanities.   #  philosophy answers  why , science cannot answer this.   # are completely ideological.  for economics, it matters if you are right or not, monetarily.  no gender or ideological here.  is archeology stem ? because minimum gender/ideology issues there.  funny, grigori perelman URL would diagree    i ca not say i am outraged.  other people do worse.  of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest.  but almost all of them are conformists.  they are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest.   philosophy answers  why , science cannot answer this.  handling ambiguity, which happens in the real world, is better handled by those who have not learned to rely on quantitative data.  why does this make stem superior ?
it is difficult to understand why the scientific community has not publicly embraced this concept and why it is not currently being taught in school, at least at the introductory college level.  why should we not incorporate this information into all basic science and philosophy classes ? surely, this knowledge is far more significant and revolutionary than many other prominent and controversial discoveries, such as evolution.  the lack of free will can be derived from first principles, can be deduced from philosophy. or from physics. or from chemistry. or even simply neurobiology.  all of science is predicated on the assumption that free will is impossible, yet it is not taught at any institution.  furthermore, many phd level scientists still adamantly believe in free will and are openly hostile and defensive when confronted with the evidence.   #  the lack of free will can be derived from first principles, can be deduced from philosophy. or from physics. or from chemistry. or even simply neurobiology.   #  that is 0 x no is in a row.   # firstly, that is not really the common man is definition of free will current or historical , that is a only a commonly thought  implication  of free will.  and i would hazard a guess it is due to the modern scientific age idea that suggested the universe was reducible to a newtonian billiard ball model where causation was  atoms up  and current events could be traced back as caused by previous events .  historically, the question was whether or not your  will  was  free  or not to determine your fate i. e.  your future.  because if the god/s knew the future, man was animal only.  for some it appeared that the god/s had given man that freedom, for he was  unlike the other animals  and could build and grow and progress, and succeed or fail based on individual will.  for others, it appeared that the god/s directed their future because they felt powerless in the face of nature, and the fortune and misfortune that rained down upon them.  determinism/fatalism/predeterminism has thus historically been the bastion of those who rationalize away personal ownership for past actions or inactions, or future ones whether it is by a  if god wills it , or  inshallah , or  genes/atoms/hormones/parents/environment made me do it !   .  the idea of free will is in contrast to the idea of the  futility  of human will  you want to teach kids that their choices and actions are futile ? the common man does not have an acknowledged definition, but he does have an understanding of what it is and means it is the sensation  i am doing this ! i choose this it is me i am the cause, not something else, and it is up to me to choose a or b .  the implicit/subconscious conceptual definition he is working from whether he believes in free will or not, is  free will means  i  am the cause of a choice and action, rather than something which is not i .  sometimes, he will recognize that an explicit conscious choice was caused by him, other times he realizes in hindsight he acted unconsciously and rationally pinpoints the cause as reacting automatically to this or that sensation or emotion or some other stimuli trigger.  science will never teach that  man is choices and actions are futile .  and science has not proved that free will does not exist, or even defined what is  i .  what  knowledge ? your knowledge that free will does not exist is a  belief , based on your  philosophical  beliefs on how  cause and effect  works.  the principle that  is  more significant than other discoveries such as evolution is  causality .  can  you  state what the law is ? if your personal understanding of cause and effect is as per the  newtonian billiard ball  model ? such an understanding contradicts and  outlaws the existence  of not just free will but tiny  quantum objects  and the existence of the  universe  itself ! science  has not  translated what it implicitly understands about causality into formal laws.  that is the job of philosophy, of definitions and concepts.  that is 0 x no is in a row.  in any case, science is predicated on the assumption that  that which exists  is  knowable  and that we have it within our power to discover it.   #  all assume that the processes that occur in the brain are entirely physical, follow the laws of physics that apply everywhere else in the universe, are and entirely predictable with the exclusion of qm effects .   #  that is an interesting question.  since  free will  is commonly understood to mean one can do that which cannot be done, it is in some sense an absurd question to ask.  you are essentially asking to me to provide an experiment where we could test if a triangle could have four sides.  if you are trying to present a counterargument against my original post, akin to  provide me with what science we could actually teach or abandon your position,  i would suggest the argument from philosophy can easily be translated into one of science.  0.  if free will were to exist, the biology/chemistry/physics/ that occur in the brain would have to differ in a special way from the biology/chemistry/physics from all other objects in existence that do not have free will.  the fields of neurobiology, psychology, sociology, biochemistry, etc.  all assume that the processes that occur in the brain are entirely physical, follow the laws of physics that apply everywhere else in the universe, are and entirely predictable with the exclusion of qm effects .  all scientific progress in these fields rests on this assumption and have yet to be violated.  experiments which shows this is not the case could challenge this particular argument.  0.  experiments in neurobiology show that the decision making process occurs before the conscious decision making process occurs.  again, even if this were not the case, it would not provide evidence for free will.  however, since it is the case, it is strong evidence the conscious notion of free will in indeed an illusion.   #  separately, while we assume as scientists that the principles behind brain chemistry/physics does not differ from the chemistry/physics elsewhere, we do not actually have evidence of that.   # are you talking about cartesian dualism rather than free will here ? separately, while we assume as scientists that the principles behind brain chemistry/physics does not differ from the chemistry/physics elsewhere, we do not actually have evidence of that.  we are still at the stage where we have to take  in vitro  experiments with a huge grain of salt before generalizing to  in vivo .  this does not negate free will at all you become aware of anything after you do it rather than simultaneously.  all it shows is that thought is not instantaneous.   #   absence of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of absence.    #   are you talking about cartesian dualism rather than free will here ?   could you clarify what you mean ? i believe that some people that cling to free will invoke cartesian dualism, but i am afraid i do not understand your question.  i myself am specifically referring to free will.   separately, while we assume as scientists that the principles behind brain chemistry/physics does not differ from the chemistry/physics elsewhere, we do not actually have evidence of that.  we are still at the stage where we have to take  in vitro  experiments with a huge grain of salt before generalizing to  in vivo .   actually, we have quite a lot of evidence for it.  we certainly have no evidence to the contrary.  there is no implicit reason to assume the laws of universe only apply outside our heads, and as i mentioned, all fields that relate to this study rely on this assumption being true.   absence of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of absence.    no, they show that some portions of the decision making process they are unsure which portions occur before one becomes aware that one has undergone the decisionmaking process.  this does not negate free will at all you become aware of anything after you do it rather than simultaneously.  all it shows is that thought is not instantaneous.   i hesitate to use this line of reasoning precisely because.  of this.  even if thoughts were instantaneous, it would in no way provide evidence of free will.  the fact that there is a demonstrable lag does demonstrate that, in principle, your decisions are entirely predictable by a third party while you have yet to consciouslynmake a decision.  for some people and only some , this is sufficient to undermine their definition of free will.   #  but without the dualism, i do not see why free will ca not be a property of complexity rather than a new set of physics/chemistry rules.   # could you clarify what you mean ? i believe that some people that cling to free will invoke cartesian dualism, but i am afraid i do not understand your question.  i myself am specifically referring to free will.  i do not see why a human mind with free will would need different physics/chemistry than a human celiac plexus without it.  i just do not see any connection there.  if you were talking about cartesian dualism, we would need different physics/chemistry, since a non phyical  soul  would be making decisions that then affect the neurons whereas no  soul  makes decisions for the celiac plexus.  but without the dualism, i do not see why free will ca not be a property of complexity rather than a new set of physics/chemistry rules.  predict is the wrong word since you made the decision already; you just have not noticed it yet.  so because of the delay in processing, you can consciously decide something and then there is a delay before you are consciously aware that you decided it.  this is true with or without free will.
it is difficult to understand why the scientific community has not publicly embraced this concept and why it is not currently being taught in school, at least at the introductory college level.  why should we not incorporate this information into all basic science and philosophy classes ? surely, this knowledge is far more significant and revolutionary than many other prominent and controversial discoveries, such as evolution.  the lack of free will can be derived from first principles, can be deduced from philosophy. or from physics. or from chemistry. or even simply neurobiology.  all of science is predicated on the assumption that free will is impossible, yet it is not taught at any institution.  furthermore, many phd level scientists still adamantly believe in free will and are openly hostile and defensive when confronted with the evidence.   #  surely, this knowledge is far more significant and revolutionary than many other prominent and controversial discoveries, such as evolution.   #  evolution teaches us to expect that organisms will be genetically similar, so that we can look for and exploit similarities.   # evolution teaches us to expect that organisms will be genetically similar, so that we can look for and exploit similarities.  i watched a talk a few days ago about how a class of chemicals disrupted the formation of a certain protein in mouse cells, and this might eventually lead to a malaria treatment in humans, because we have nearly the same protein.  this kind of generalization is only afforded by evolution and it is enormous.  every time we use a petri dish and not an actual human, we are relying on what it has taught us.  evolution teaches us that almost all species of pathogens will eventually become resistant to medications we throw at them.  it makes testable predictions about the future of human health, and warns us what will occur if we do not use our time and pills wisely.  there are humanity ending scenarios that depend on how we deal with the evolution of bacteria.  the question of free will ? it concerns only brains, a sliver of biological phenomena.  it makes no testable predictions, because even if you live in a deterministic universe, you  could  have observed a mind acting like you actually did observe.  because a human with free will and a human without free will could have acted in exactly the same way, the entire idea ca not be tested and the question is not at all empirical.  again, the entire of human history could look the same whether there was free will or not.  this is not science.  as a statistician, my models always contain a component to capture and quantify unexplained variation.  this contains things like measurement error, accidental violations of experiment protocol, random effects for individual specific influences that i ca not quantify.  if you want to say that one of those bits of unexplained variation is free will, there is absolutely no problem in doing so.  i can capture and quantify it.  i can do science from start to finish, come up with a p value, and at no point do i need to explain unexplained variation, much less insist that free will is not somewhere in there.   #  0.  experiments in neurobiology show that the decision making process occurs before the conscious decision making process occurs.   #  that is an interesting question.  since  free will  is commonly understood to mean one can do that which cannot be done, it is in some sense an absurd question to ask.  you are essentially asking to me to provide an experiment where we could test if a triangle could have four sides.  if you are trying to present a counterargument against my original post, akin to  provide me with what science we could actually teach or abandon your position,  i would suggest the argument from philosophy can easily be translated into one of science.  0.  if free will were to exist, the biology/chemistry/physics/ that occur in the brain would have to differ in a special way from the biology/chemistry/physics from all other objects in existence that do not have free will.  the fields of neurobiology, psychology, sociology, biochemistry, etc.  all assume that the processes that occur in the brain are entirely physical, follow the laws of physics that apply everywhere else in the universe, are and entirely predictable with the exclusion of qm effects .  all scientific progress in these fields rests on this assumption and have yet to be violated.  experiments which shows this is not the case could challenge this particular argument.  0.  experiments in neurobiology show that the decision making process occurs before the conscious decision making process occurs.  again, even if this were not the case, it would not provide evidence for free will.  however, since it is the case, it is strong evidence the conscious notion of free will in indeed an illusion.   #  separately, while we assume as scientists that the principles behind brain chemistry/physics does not differ from the chemistry/physics elsewhere, we do not actually have evidence of that.   # are you talking about cartesian dualism rather than free will here ? separately, while we assume as scientists that the principles behind brain chemistry/physics does not differ from the chemistry/physics elsewhere, we do not actually have evidence of that.  we are still at the stage where we have to take  in vitro  experiments with a huge grain of salt before generalizing to  in vivo .  this does not negate free will at all you become aware of anything after you do it rather than simultaneously.  all it shows is that thought is not instantaneous.   #   separately, while we assume as scientists that the principles behind brain chemistry/physics does not differ from the chemistry/physics elsewhere, we do not actually have evidence of that.   #   are you talking about cartesian dualism rather than free will here ?   could you clarify what you mean ? i believe that some people that cling to free will invoke cartesian dualism, but i am afraid i do not understand your question.  i myself am specifically referring to free will.   separately, while we assume as scientists that the principles behind brain chemistry/physics does not differ from the chemistry/physics elsewhere, we do not actually have evidence of that.  we are still at the stage where we have to take  in vitro  experiments with a huge grain of salt before generalizing to  in vivo .   actually, we have quite a lot of evidence for it.  we certainly have no evidence to the contrary.  there is no implicit reason to assume the laws of universe only apply outside our heads, and as i mentioned, all fields that relate to this study rely on this assumption being true.   absence of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of absence.    no, they show that some portions of the decision making process they are unsure which portions occur before one becomes aware that one has undergone the decisionmaking process.  this does not negate free will at all you become aware of anything after you do it rather than simultaneously.  all it shows is that thought is not instantaneous.   i hesitate to use this line of reasoning precisely because.  of this.  even if thoughts were instantaneous, it would in no way provide evidence of free will.  the fact that there is a demonstrable lag does demonstrate that, in principle, your decisions are entirely predictable by a third party while you have yet to consciouslynmake a decision.  for some people and only some , this is sufficient to undermine their definition of free will.   #  predict is the wrong word since you made the decision already; you just have not noticed it yet.   # could you clarify what you mean ? i believe that some people that cling to free will invoke cartesian dualism, but i am afraid i do not understand your question.  i myself am specifically referring to free will.  i do not see why a human mind with free will would need different physics/chemistry than a human celiac plexus without it.  i just do not see any connection there.  if you were talking about cartesian dualism, we would need different physics/chemistry, since a non phyical  soul  would be making decisions that then affect the neurons whereas no  soul  makes decisions for the celiac plexus.  but without the dualism, i do not see why free will ca not be a property of complexity rather than a new set of physics/chemistry rules.  predict is the wrong word since you made the decision already; you just have not noticed it yet.  so because of the delay in processing, you can consciously decide something and then there is a delay before you are consciously aware that you decided it.  this is true with or without free will.
it is difficult to understand why the scientific community has not publicly embraced this concept and why it is not currently being taught in school, at least at the introductory college level.  why should we not incorporate this information into all basic science and philosophy classes ? surely, this knowledge is far more significant and revolutionary than many other prominent and controversial discoveries, such as evolution.  the lack of free will can be derived from first principles, can be deduced from philosophy. or from physics. or from chemistry. or even simply neurobiology.  all of science is predicated on the assumption that free will is impossible, yet it is not taught at any institution.  furthermore, many phd level scientists still adamantly believe in free will and are openly hostile and defensive when confronted with the evidence.   #  all of science is predicated on the assumption that free will is impossible, yet it is not taught at any institution.   #  as a statistician, my models always contain a component to capture and quantify unexplained variation.   # evolution teaches us to expect that organisms will be genetically similar, so that we can look for and exploit similarities.  i watched a talk a few days ago about how a class of chemicals disrupted the formation of a certain protein in mouse cells, and this might eventually lead to a malaria treatment in humans, because we have nearly the same protein.  this kind of generalization is only afforded by evolution and it is enormous.  every time we use a petri dish and not an actual human, we are relying on what it has taught us.  evolution teaches us that almost all species of pathogens will eventually become resistant to medications we throw at them.  it makes testable predictions about the future of human health, and warns us what will occur if we do not use our time and pills wisely.  there are humanity ending scenarios that depend on how we deal with the evolution of bacteria.  the question of free will ? it concerns only brains, a sliver of biological phenomena.  it makes no testable predictions, because even if you live in a deterministic universe, you  could  have observed a mind acting like you actually did observe.  because a human with free will and a human without free will could have acted in exactly the same way, the entire idea ca not be tested and the question is not at all empirical.  again, the entire of human history could look the same whether there was free will or not.  this is not science.  as a statistician, my models always contain a component to capture and quantify unexplained variation.  this contains things like measurement error, accidental violations of experiment protocol, random effects for individual specific influences that i ca not quantify.  if you want to say that one of those bits of unexplained variation is free will, there is absolutely no problem in doing so.  i can capture and quantify it.  i can do science from start to finish, come up with a p value, and at no point do i need to explain unexplained variation, much less insist that free will is not somewhere in there.   #  again, even if this were not the case, it would not provide evidence for free will.   #  that is an interesting question.  since  free will  is commonly understood to mean one can do that which cannot be done, it is in some sense an absurd question to ask.  you are essentially asking to me to provide an experiment where we could test if a triangle could have four sides.  if you are trying to present a counterargument against my original post, akin to  provide me with what science we could actually teach or abandon your position,  i would suggest the argument from philosophy can easily be translated into one of science.  0.  if free will were to exist, the biology/chemistry/physics/ that occur in the brain would have to differ in a special way from the biology/chemistry/physics from all other objects in existence that do not have free will.  the fields of neurobiology, psychology, sociology, biochemistry, etc.  all assume that the processes that occur in the brain are entirely physical, follow the laws of physics that apply everywhere else in the universe, are and entirely predictable with the exclusion of qm effects .  all scientific progress in these fields rests on this assumption and have yet to be violated.  experiments which shows this is not the case could challenge this particular argument.  0.  experiments in neurobiology show that the decision making process occurs before the conscious decision making process occurs.  again, even if this were not the case, it would not provide evidence for free will.  however, since it is the case, it is strong evidence the conscious notion of free will in indeed an illusion.   #  this does not negate free will at all you become aware of anything after you do it rather than simultaneously.   # are you talking about cartesian dualism rather than free will here ? separately, while we assume as scientists that the principles behind brain chemistry/physics does not differ from the chemistry/physics elsewhere, we do not actually have evidence of that.  we are still at the stage where we have to take  in vitro  experiments with a huge grain of salt before generalizing to  in vivo .  this does not negate free will at all you become aware of anything after you do it rather than simultaneously.  all it shows is that thought is not instantaneous.   #  i hesitate to use this line of reasoning precisely because.   #   are you talking about cartesian dualism rather than free will here ?   could you clarify what you mean ? i believe that some people that cling to free will invoke cartesian dualism, but i am afraid i do not understand your question.  i myself am specifically referring to free will.   separately, while we assume as scientists that the principles behind brain chemistry/physics does not differ from the chemistry/physics elsewhere, we do not actually have evidence of that.  we are still at the stage where we have to take  in vitro  experiments with a huge grain of salt before generalizing to  in vivo .   actually, we have quite a lot of evidence for it.  we certainly have no evidence to the contrary.  there is no implicit reason to assume the laws of universe only apply outside our heads, and as i mentioned, all fields that relate to this study rely on this assumption being true.   absence of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of absence.    no, they show that some portions of the decision making process they are unsure which portions occur before one becomes aware that one has undergone the decisionmaking process.  this does not negate free will at all you become aware of anything after you do it rather than simultaneously.  all it shows is that thought is not instantaneous.   i hesitate to use this line of reasoning precisely because.  of this.  even if thoughts were instantaneous, it would in no way provide evidence of free will.  the fact that there is a demonstrable lag does demonstrate that, in principle, your decisions are entirely predictable by a third party while you have yet to consciouslynmake a decision.  for some people and only some , this is sufficient to undermine their definition of free will.   #  so because of the delay in processing, you can consciously decide something and then there is a delay before you are consciously aware that you decided it.   # could you clarify what you mean ? i believe that some people that cling to free will invoke cartesian dualism, but i am afraid i do not understand your question.  i myself am specifically referring to free will.  i do not see why a human mind with free will would need different physics/chemistry than a human celiac plexus without it.  i just do not see any connection there.  if you were talking about cartesian dualism, we would need different physics/chemistry, since a non phyical  soul  would be making decisions that then affect the neurons whereas no  soul  makes decisions for the celiac plexus.  but without the dualism, i do not see why free will ca not be a property of complexity rather than a new set of physics/chemistry rules.  predict is the wrong word since you made the decision already; you just have not noticed it yet.  so because of the delay in processing, you can consciously decide something and then there is a delay before you are consciously aware that you decided it.  this is true with or without free will.
that is, that would the best thing to realize snowden is ideals.  with all of the world watching, how could the us government do anything to him ? say he does have to go to court when he steps on us lands, and say he does get sentenced, punished, whatever.  would not this simply mean the country goes into revolt, with much support from the rest of the world ? the majority of americans URL think he did the right thing, with even bigger percentages in the rest of the world russia URL great britain URL europe URL hong kong URL in other words, i think it would be true to say that the majority of the world think snowden did the right thing.  snowden does not want the people to accept what the government does to them, and many clear thinking people all around the world do not, so why should he not make the next move ?  #  with all of the world watching, how could the us government do anything to him ?  #  say he does have to go to court when he steps on us lands, and say he does get sentenced, punished, whatever.   # say he does have to go to court when he steps on us lands, and say he does get sentenced, punished, whatever.  would not this simply mean the country goes into revolt, with much support from the rest of the world ? disagree with his sentence ? maybe.  revolt ? no.  the survey you cited says that 0 of people polled think that snowden did the right thing.  the country would not go into revolt, only a small portion of that 0 would.  now this is purely anecdotal, but i can tell you that most people i know with some knowledge about this situation would probably agree that snowden did the right thing, but at the same time most of those people probably would not revolt if he were to be sent to jail.  they may disagree with the decision, but that is about it.  also, the articles that you cited do not necessarily show larger percentages from the rest of the world.  the figure from russia was 0, and the article about hong kong is from last year before he went to russia when he was still in hong kong.  the europe figures also do not represent citizens as a whole, but rather are opinions about it security professionals about security topics rather than citizens as a whole about snowden himself.  tldr: not enough people would care nearly enough to revolt.   #  that is not a court of law, it is a guilty stamp and a guaranteed trip to federal solitary.   #  the point of trial is to make the accusers publicly prove their accusation with evidence, enough to convince a jury that he committed the crime.  he does not have to admit to anything, he can plead the 0th to any question that may incriminate him.  the issue is that in a public trial, the proceedings are subject to public scrutiny and become a matter of record.  because of this, there is a fair chance he might be found not guilty by way of lack of evidence.  or the bigger risk and what the prosecutors are afraid of the jury might find him not guilty because they feel the law was wrong URL and snowden did a public service in breaking it.  in the court that snowden would end up currently, there is a near zero chance of him walking out into public.  he would be tried by judges, with secret evidence he ca not view much less challenge , on charges he  does not have to be guilty of to be sentenced , with his lawyers forbidden from offering any defense or arguments in his favor.  that is not a court of law, it is a guilty stamp and a guaranteed trip to federal solitary.  it is not justice, it is a lifetime political imprisonment with no appeals.   #  and let is be honest here, even it it does make their job harder they also get paid to figure out a better more lawful way to do it.   #  the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,  papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and  no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause , supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  just because it is metadata does not mean it is not prying into peoples  papers.  unreasonable searches.  upon probable cause.   i did not provide because i thought it would be obvious what i was referring to.  i do understand the intelligence agency perspective on this issue.  it has actively helped them fight terrorism, but there should be a middle ground.  or at the very least show some proof of how doing this has helped or what snowden did has made it worse.  if the secrets already out and affecting their information gathering then why not just reveal how ? and let is be honest here, even it it does make their job harder they also get paid to figure out a better more lawful way to do it.  honest typo or inslut ?  #  should snowden release us strategies for spying on foreign powers ?  #  that is not true.  he complained to people in higher positions in the nsa, but he never actually attempted to become a legally defined whistleblower.  should the nsa be invading the privacy of us citizens ? not at all.  should snowden release us strategies for spying on foreign powers ? not at all.  spying strategies are top secret and are a necessity to have.  by telling countries how the us spies on them, we put our national security at risk.  those countries now have a general idea on how the us will attempt to retain their information.  spying on our friends is just as important, if not more important, than our enemies.  we share large amounts of classified information with these countries, and we need to know whether or not we can trust them.  we already know we ca not trust our enemies.  this man gave classified information about how we spy on other countries to our enemies.  you believe that the domestic spying actions he exposed makes up for that, i suppose.  in that case, does a woman showing her chest to a police officer get her out of the speeding ticket ? it should not.  no matter what, that woman, just like snowden, broke the law.  what things they do before/after does not matter.  the law was broken.  someone who breaks the law, like espionage and treason, is not patriot.  they are despicable criminals to our society and government in general.   #  when they are being used against american citizens, yes.   # he complained to people in higher positions in the nsa, but he never actually attempted to become a legally defined whistleblower.  when you are threatened by an organization that makes disinformation and manufacturing discredit, this is like saying  he did not do what it took to get the corrupt mayor to investigate the chief of police .  you are forgetting that character assassination and counterintelligence is one of the nsa is most skillfully wielded tools.  you do not snitch on the mob to the don just because the law says you have to.  not at all.  agreed.  when they are being used against american citizens, yes.  yes they should.  if the nsa does not want people to disclose their methods, then they need to not use them against the american people.  the moment the nsa spies on us, their tactics should be subject to scrutiny.  seeing as there is no check or balance on what they chose to do, exposure became a moral imperative greater then the damage that disclosure would do to our foreign intelligence efforts.  i would not support snowden if he disclosed legal programs that spied solely on foreign nationals friendly or otherwise .  the nsa created the situation, snowden performed a highly patriotic duty.  you believe that the domestic spying actions he exposed makes up for that, i suppose.  i very much do think the domestic spying actions he exposed made up for any damage he may have done to our spying program.  it would be different were the abuses not so incredibly overreaching, but they were.  we ca not choose what actions we will allow to be done to us  for our protection  if we do not know what they are.  it should not.  no matter what, that woman, just like snowden, broke the law.  what things they do before/after does not matter.  the law was broken.  someone who breaks the law, like espionage and treason, is not patriot.  they are despicable criminals to our society and government in general.  this is not a black and white issue and your failure to understand scale and seriousness is harming your argument.  i assume you think that watergate was a bad thing, then ? also, the nsa broke the law by spying domestically.  snowden simply exposed it to public scrutiny.  you ca not attack him without attacking the reasons he chose to break the laws in the first place.
that is, that would the best thing to realize snowden is ideals.  with all of the world watching, how could the us government do anything to him ? say he does have to go to court when he steps on us lands, and say he does get sentenced, punished, whatever.  would not this simply mean the country goes into revolt, with much support from the rest of the world ? the majority of americans URL think he did the right thing, with even bigger percentages in the rest of the world russia URL great britain URL europe URL hong kong URL in other words, i think it would be true to say that the majority of the world think snowden did the right thing.  snowden does not want the people to accept what the government does to them, and many clear thinking people all around the world do not, so why should he not make the next move ?  #  i think it would be true to say that the majority of the world think snowden did the right thing.   #  if this is true, why could not snowden find a way to fly to south america when he was stuck in russia with expired passport ?  # if this is true, why could not snowden find a way to fly to south america when he was stuck in russia with expired passport ? every country along the way, even neutral austria, was ready to ground any suspicious plane to apprehend him.  more importantly, it does not even matter what the rest of the world or even americans think.  snowden clearly broke us laws, and once in us jurisdiction he will be promptly convicted unless a deal can be reached beforehand.  the us authorities seem unwilling to offer any kind of deal for fear of encouraging future snowdens, hence the current stalemate.  there are 0 million prisoners in the us, one more wo not cause us to go into revolt.   #  the issue is that in a public trial, the proceedings are subject to public scrutiny and become a matter of record.   #  the point of trial is to make the accusers publicly prove their accusation with evidence, enough to convince a jury that he committed the crime.  he does not have to admit to anything, he can plead the 0th to any question that may incriminate him.  the issue is that in a public trial, the proceedings are subject to public scrutiny and become a matter of record.  because of this, there is a fair chance he might be found not guilty by way of lack of evidence.  or the bigger risk and what the prosecutors are afraid of the jury might find him not guilty because they feel the law was wrong URL and snowden did a public service in breaking it.  in the court that snowden would end up currently, there is a near zero chance of him walking out into public.  he would be tried by judges, with secret evidence he ca not view much less challenge , on charges he  does not have to be guilty of to be sentenced , with his lawyers forbidden from offering any defense or arguments in his favor.  that is not a court of law, it is a guilty stamp and a guaranteed trip to federal solitary.  it is not justice, it is a lifetime political imprisonment with no appeals.   #  or at the very least show some proof of how doing this has helped or what snowden did has made it worse.   #  the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,  papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and  no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause , supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  just because it is metadata does not mean it is not prying into peoples  papers.  unreasonable searches.  upon probable cause.   i did not provide because i thought it would be obvious what i was referring to.  i do understand the intelligence agency perspective on this issue.  it has actively helped them fight terrorism, but there should be a middle ground.  or at the very least show some proof of how doing this has helped or what snowden did has made it worse.  if the secrets already out and affecting their information gathering then why not just reveal how ? and let is be honest here, even it it does make their job harder they also get paid to figure out a better more lawful way to do it.  honest typo or inslut ?  #  should the nsa be invading the privacy of us citizens ?  #  that is not true.  he complained to people in higher positions in the nsa, but he never actually attempted to become a legally defined whistleblower.  should the nsa be invading the privacy of us citizens ? not at all.  should snowden release us strategies for spying on foreign powers ? not at all.  spying strategies are top secret and are a necessity to have.  by telling countries how the us spies on them, we put our national security at risk.  those countries now have a general idea on how the us will attempt to retain their information.  spying on our friends is just as important, if not more important, than our enemies.  we share large amounts of classified information with these countries, and we need to know whether or not we can trust them.  we already know we ca not trust our enemies.  this man gave classified information about how we spy on other countries to our enemies.  you believe that the domestic spying actions he exposed makes up for that, i suppose.  in that case, does a woman showing her chest to a police officer get her out of the speeding ticket ? it should not.  no matter what, that woman, just like snowden, broke the law.  what things they do before/after does not matter.  the law was broken.  someone who breaks the law, like espionage and treason, is not patriot.  they are despicable criminals to our society and government in general.   #  the moment the nsa spies on us, their tactics should be subject to scrutiny.   # he complained to people in higher positions in the nsa, but he never actually attempted to become a legally defined whistleblower.  when you are threatened by an organization that makes disinformation and manufacturing discredit, this is like saying  he did not do what it took to get the corrupt mayor to investigate the chief of police .  you are forgetting that character assassination and counterintelligence is one of the nsa is most skillfully wielded tools.  you do not snitch on the mob to the don just because the law says you have to.  not at all.  agreed.  when they are being used against american citizens, yes.  yes they should.  if the nsa does not want people to disclose their methods, then they need to not use them against the american people.  the moment the nsa spies on us, their tactics should be subject to scrutiny.  seeing as there is no check or balance on what they chose to do, exposure became a moral imperative greater then the damage that disclosure would do to our foreign intelligence efforts.  i would not support snowden if he disclosed legal programs that spied solely on foreign nationals friendly or otherwise .  the nsa created the situation, snowden performed a highly patriotic duty.  you believe that the domestic spying actions he exposed makes up for that, i suppose.  i very much do think the domestic spying actions he exposed made up for any damage he may have done to our spying program.  it would be different were the abuses not so incredibly overreaching, but they were.  we ca not choose what actions we will allow to be done to us  for our protection  if we do not know what they are.  it should not.  no matter what, that woman, just like snowden, broke the law.  what things they do before/after does not matter.  the law was broken.  someone who breaks the law, like espionage and treason, is not patriot.  they are despicable criminals to our society and government in general.  this is not a black and white issue and your failure to understand scale and seriousness is harming your argument.  i assume you think that watergate was a bad thing, then ? also, the nsa broke the law by spying domestically.  snowden simply exposed it to public scrutiny.  you ca not attack him without attacking the reasons he chose to break the laws in the first place.
disclaimer; this is not saying that democracy or capitalism or inheritance are fundamentally bad; just that, in certain configurations, monarchy would be better.  think about the average person.  what is their relation to royalty, if they live in a monarchy ? they probably wo not meet them, and if they do it will be a passing thing.  the monarch makes all the rules and takes some of the peasants stuff so they can maintain their lavish lifestyle and military and so forth.  the monarch protects the people so they can keep making more stuff to take.  one day, the monarch will die, and their kid takes over the family business of being monarch.  now consider capitalism, unchecked.  it is all fine and well to say  well, this is america.  anyone can make it !   and, without a doubt, there have been a lot of success stories.  but they are the extremely rare exception, not the rule.  anyone that says persistence and hard work are all it takes to succeed is kidding themselves.  rich parents pass their wealth and advantage on to their children.  better schools, a better quality of life than other people, the ability to survive longer on the parents dime so they can take unpaid internships to get better training to get better jobs, everything a rich parent does can set their child up to become richer and more powerful still.  as their wealth, and thus power, grows, they influence policy.  soon, they are lobbying to elect politicians and influence public opinion, altering foreign policy.  see where this is headed ? effectively, monarchy.  capitalism teaches us that accumulation of wealth is the ultimate goal.  wealth, being variable but finite, must therefore be transferred or kept from someone else in order to get it; therefore, it tends to concentrate.  and  the rich get richer , as they say; wealth accumulates and concentrates more and more, until you have fewer and fewer people making policy and controlling land, money, etc.  the logical terminus is a single family controlling everything; effectively, monarchy.  so how is this worse ? because they got there albeit slowly on the idea that profit is of paramount importance.  at the very least, some historical monarchs believed that their job was to care for and protect the people.  they felt an obligation to them.  but a family, or even a dozen families, that effectively control a country because they care only about profit would have no such sense of loyalty.  you might easily say  well, capitalism allows for competition.  we can get rid of bad companies, or families, by competition, or just not buy their stuff .  well, not really.  first, how many people actually know which companies own what, which families control what ? not many.  for another, competition becomes impractical after a point; try starting an isp, or a car company, or a petrochemical company.  not buying stuff ? that is more valid.  the people can collectively rise up and overthrow those with unjust power.  of course, we can do the same in a monarchy; it is called revolution.   #  because they got there albeit slowly on the idea that profit is of paramount importance.   #  at the very least, some historical monarchs believed that their job was to care for and protect the people.   # at the very least, some historical monarchs believed that their job was to care for and protect the people.  they felt an obligation to them.  but a family, or even a dozen families, that effectively control a country because they care only about profit would have no such sense of loyalty.  this is a point famously made by marx in the communist manifesto URL specifically, the paragraph following this:   the bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.  this, according to marx, is actually a  good  thing.  the lack of façade makes it easier to understand what is  really  going on, and act on it.  if you consider what system is better  statically , well, there is not much of a point: a system will be subverted if it fails.   #  these are all left up to chance in a monarchy, in a democracy, governments at al levels are run by elected officials that are accountable to their population.   #  this cmv is comparing apples and oranges.  capitalism is the economic structure, monarchy is a political structure.  whoever the monarch is, they have to decide how the economy is structured.  it could be capitalism, socialism, or feudalism.  if the monarch chooses a capitalist structure, then you would have the same problems as before.  socialism could be better but probably wo not and then there is feudalism, which has all the problems you outlined with capitalism, but with inequality written into the law, no labor protection, and 0 chance of social mobility unless you have an unusually beautiful daughter .  also you said  what is their relation to royalty, if they live in a monarchy ? they probably wo not meet them, and if they do it will be a passing thing.  while they might not meet the monarch him/herself, the monarchy needs some presence of government at the local level.  this could be appointing an elected official, or more likely, appointing a relative or a friend of another noble house.  these people can be benevolent or vicious.  if they are held accountable, the people can remove them if necessary.  if not, then they can run rampant.  these are all left up to chance in a monarchy, in a democracy, governments at al levels are run by elected officials that are accountable to their population.   #  but the bulk of monarchies around the world are constitutional monarchies where the monarch is more symbolic than anything.   # a monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual the monarch .  that does not mean the monarch always has absolute power over everything.  sometimes that is true those are called absolute monarchies.  but there are also monarchies where the monarch is discretion is formally limited formally, such as constitutional monarchies.  in these cases which is the most common form of monarchy these days , the monarch has few if any actual power they do not set public policy or choose political leaders.  a monarch in constitutional monarchies are often referred to as  a sovereign who reigns but does not rule.   so no, they do not have control over everything.  what you are thinking of absolute monarchies really have not been prevalent for quite some time.  there are some still around, such as brunei, qatar, oman, saudi arabia, etc.  but the bulk of monarchies around the world are constitutional monarchies where the monarch is more symbolic than anything.  URL URL URL  #  but they come from, to me, a reasonable source, and those are the ones i am going to use.   #  for the purposes of this cmv, i have been using the following: monarchy; a from of government with a monarch at the head.  a monarch; a sovereign head of state.  sovereign; a supreme ruler, possessing supreme or ultimate power.  for what it is worth, you would not be the first to object to those definitions.  but they come from, to me, a reasonable source, and those are the ones i am going to use.  if a sovereign  reigns but does not rule , if they have no or even limited power, they do not fit this definition of a sovereign.   #  monarchs have to have at least some sense of loyalty to the people; otherwise, they do not last.   #  when i say they could enact such legislation, i thought you simply meant capitalism.  i still think that unchecked capitalism is not compatible with monarchy; no sane monarch would allow such a challenge to their power.  in a democracy, overthrowing the government not only requires at least half the populace there have been armed political revolutions with rather fewer than that , but it also disposes of the politicians; not necessarily the richest people, or the heads of industry.  monarchs have to have at least some sense of loyalty to the people; otherwise, they do not last.  see the revolution thing.  it is easy to rise up against an individual; it is next to impossible to rise up against obscure heads of industry.  why ? because capitalism, in its purest form, teaches that getting money and other wealth is the highest goal.  therefore, in the purest sense, a capitalist would be more than happy to damage the people to serve his or her profits.
disclaimer; this is not saying that democracy or capitalism or inheritance are fundamentally bad; just that, in certain configurations, monarchy would be better.  think about the average person.  what is their relation to royalty, if they live in a monarchy ? they probably wo not meet them, and if they do it will be a passing thing.  the monarch makes all the rules and takes some of the peasants stuff so they can maintain their lavish lifestyle and military and so forth.  the monarch protects the people so they can keep making more stuff to take.  one day, the monarch will die, and their kid takes over the family business of being monarch.  now consider capitalism, unchecked.  it is all fine and well to say  well, this is america.  anyone can make it !   and, without a doubt, there have been a lot of success stories.  but they are the extremely rare exception, not the rule.  anyone that says persistence and hard work are all it takes to succeed is kidding themselves.  rich parents pass their wealth and advantage on to their children.  better schools, a better quality of life than other people, the ability to survive longer on the parents dime so they can take unpaid internships to get better training to get better jobs, everything a rich parent does can set their child up to become richer and more powerful still.  as their wealth, and thus power, grows, they influence policy.  soon, they are lobbying to elect politicians and influence public opinion, altering foreign policy.  see where this is headed ? effectively, monarchy.  capitalism teaches us that accumulation of wealth is the ultimate goal.  wealth, being variable but finite, must therefore be transferred or kept from someone else in order to get it; therefore, it tends to concentrate.  and  the rich get richer , as they say; wealth accumulates and concentrates more and more, until you have fewer and fewer people making policy and controlling land, money, etc.  the logical terminus is a single family controlling everything; effectively, monarchy.  so how is this worse ? because they got there albeit slowly on the idea that profit is of paramount importance.  at the very least, some historical monarchs believed that their job was to care for and protect the people.  they felt an obligation to them.  but a family, or even a dozen families, that effectively control a country because they care only about profit would have no such sense of loyalty.  you might easily say  well, capitalism allows for competition.  we can get rid of bad companies, or families, by competition, or just not buy their stuff .  well, not really.  first, how many people actually know which companies own what, which families control what ? not many.  for another, competition becomes impractical after a point; try starting an isp, or a car company, or a petrochemical company.  not buying stuff ? that is more valid.  the people can collectively rise up and overthrow those with unjust power.  of course, we can do the same in a monarchy; it is called revolution.   #  as their wealth, and thus power, grows, they influence policy.   #  soon, they are lobbying to elect politicians and influence public opinion, altering foreign policy.   # soon, they are lobbying to elect politicians and influence public opinion, altering foreign policy.  see where this is headed ? do you believe that this is something that this is a mechanism which is the purpose of capitalism, or something that just ends up happening ? is it possible that this happens because capitalism is  not  unchecked ? there are many laws that are anti capitalist in nature, which allow the powerful and wealthy to consolidate more power and wealth.  for example, governments subsidizing industries, limited liability shield laws, etc.  these are things that may cause the cycle of events that you have outlined, but they are also things that are done to  check  capitalism.  what do you think would happen if we did not have these laws which favoured others ? capitalism teaches us that accumulation of wealth is the ultimate goal.  wealth, being variable but finite, must therefore be transferred or kept from someone else in order to get it; therefore, it tends to concentrate.  i am not sure where you are making this claim from, especially the last part, where you state it tends to concentrate.  can you clarify this for me ? well, i think that those are hard to start because they are expensive, and most people do not have that kind of money.  even if they did, they might not have that ambition.  and sometimes, this is caused because of certain economies of scales or legal obstacles to enter the market.  what should be done, then ? of course, we can do the same in a monarchy; it is called revolution.  how would this be accomplished ?  #  these are all left up to chance in a monarchy, in a democracy, governments at al levels are run by elected officials that are accountable to their population.   #  this cmv is comparing apples and oranges.  capitalism is the economic structure, monarchy is a political structure.  whoever the monarch is, they have to decide how the economy is structured.  it could be capitalism, socialism, or feudalism.  if the monarch chooses a capitalist structure, then you would have the same problems as before.  socialism could be better but probably wo not and then there is feudalism, which has all the problems you outlined with capitalism, but with inequality written into the law, no labor protection, and 0 chance of social mobility unless you have an unusually beautiful daughter .  also you said  what is their relation to royalty, if they live in a monarchy ? they probably wo not meet them, and if they do it will be a passing thing.  while they might not meet the monarch him/herself, the monarchy needs some presence of government at the local level.  this could be appointing an elected official, or more likely, appointing a relative or a friend of another noble house.  these people can be benevolent or vicious.  if they are held accountable, the people can remove them if necessary.  if not, then they can run rampant.  these are all left up to chance in a monarchy, in a democracy, governments at al levels are run by elected officials that are accountable to their population.   #  there are some still around, such as brunei, qatar, oman, saudi arabia, etc.   # a monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual the monarch .  that does not mean the monarch always has absolute power over everything.  sometimes that is true those are called absolute monarchies.  but there are also monarchies where the monarch is discretion is formally limited formally, such as constitutional monarchies.  in these cases which is the most common form of monarchy these days , the monarch has few if any actual power they do not set public policy or choose political leaders.  a monarch in constitutional monarchies are often referred to as  a sovereign who reigns but does not rule.   so no, they do not have control over everything.  what you are thinking of absolute monarchies really have not been prevalent for quite some time.  there are some still around, such as brunei, qatar, oman, saudi arabia, etc.  but the bulk of monarchies around the world are constitutional monarchies where the monarch is more symbolic than anything.  URL URL URL  #  for the purposes of this cmv, i have been using the following: monarchy; a from of government with a monarch at the head.   #  for the purposes of this cmv, i have been using the following: monarchy; a from of government with a monarch at the head.  a monarch; a sovereign head of state.  sovereign; a supreme ruler, possessing supreme or ultimate power.  for what it is worth, you would not be the first to object to those definitions.  but they come from, to me, a reasonable source, and those are the ones i am going to use.  if a sovereign  reigns but does not rule , if they have no or even limited power, they do not fit this definition of a sovereign.   #  therefore, in the purest sense, a capitalist would be more than happy to damage the people to serve his or her profits.   #  when i say they could enact such legislation, i thought you simply meant capitalism.  i still think that unchecked capitalism is not compatible with monarchy; no sane monarch would allow such a challenge to their power.  in a democracy, overthrowing the government not only requires at least half the populace there have been armed political revolutions with rather fewer than that , but it also disposes of the politicians; not necessarily the richest people, or the heads of industry.  monarchs have to have at least some sense of loyalty to the people; otherwise, they do not last.  see the revolution thing.  it is easy to rise up against an individual; it is next to impossible to rise up against obscure heads of industry.  why ? because capitalism, in its purest form, teaches that getting money and other wealth is the highest goal.  therefore, in the purest sense, a capitalist would be more than happy to damage the people to serve his or her profits.
disclaimer; this is not saying that democracy or capitalism or inheritance are fundamentally bad; just that, in certain configurations, monarchy would be better.  think about the average person.  what is their relation to royalty, if they live in a monarchy ? they probably wo not meet them, and if they do it will be a passing thing.  the monarch makes all the rules and takes some of the peasants stuff so they can maintain their lavish lifestyle and military and so forth.  the monarch protects the people so they can keep making more stuff to take.  one day, the monarch will die, and their kid takes over the family business of being monarch.  now consider capitalism, unchecked.  it is all fine and well to say  well, this is america.  anyone can make it !   and, without a doubt, there have been a lot of success stories.  but they are the extremely rare exception, not the rule.  anyone that says persistence and hard work are all it takes to succeed is kidding themselves.  rich parents pass their wealth and advantage on to their children.  better schools, a better quality of life than other people, the ability to survive longer on the parents dime so they can take unpaid internships to get better training to get better jobs, everything a rich parent does can set their child up to become richer and more powerful still.  as their wealth, and thus power, grows, they influence policy.  soon, they are lobbying to elect politicians and influence public opinion, altering foreign policy.  see where this is headed ? effectively, monarchy.  capitalism teaches us that accumulation of wealth is the ultimate goal.  wealth, being variable but finite, must therefore be transferred or kept from someone else in order to get it; therefore, it tends to concentrate.  and  the rich get richer , as they say; wealth accumulates and concentrates more and more, until you have fewer and fewer people making policy and controlling land, money, etc.  the logical terminus is a single family controlling everything; effectively, monarchy.  so how is this worse ? because they got there albeit slowly on the idea that profit is of paramount importance.  at the very least, some historical monarchs believed that their job was to care for and protect the people.  they felt an obligation to them.  but a family, or even a dozen families, that effectively control a country because they care only about profit would have no such sense of loyalty.  you might easily say  well, capitalism allows for competition.  we can get rid of bad companies, or families, by competition, or just not buy their stuff .  well, not really.  first, how many people actually know which companies own what, which families control what ? not many.  for another, competition becomes impractical after a point; try starting an isp, or a car company, or a petrochemical company.  not buying stuff ? that is more valid.  the people can collectively rise up and overthrow those with unjust power.  of course, we can do the same in a monarchy; it is called revolution.   #  for another, competition becomes impractical after a point; try starting an isp, or a car company, or a petrochemical company.   #  well, i think that those are hard to start because they are expensive, and most people do not have that kind of money.   # soon, they are lobbying to elect politicians and influence public opinion, altering foreign policy.  see where this is headed ? do you believe that this is something that this is a mechanism which is the purpose of capitalism, or something that just ends up happening ? is it possible that this happens because capitalism is  not  unchecked ? there are many laws that are anti capitalist in nature, which allow the powerful and wealthy to consolidate more power and wealth.  for example, governments subsidizing industries, limited liability shield laws, etc.  these are things that may cause the cycle of events that you have outlined, but they are also things that are done to  check  capitalism.  what do you think would happen if we did not have these laws which favoured others ? capitalism teaches us that accumulation of wealth is the ultimate goal.  wealth, being variable but finite, must therefore be transferred or kept from someone else in order to get it; therefore, it tends to concentrate.  i am not sure where you are making this claim from, especially the last part, where you state it tends to concentrate.  can you clarify this for me ? well, i think that those are hard to start because they are expensive, and most people do not have that kind of money.  even if they did, they might not have that ambition.  and sometimes, this is caused because of certain economies of scales or legal obstacles to enter the market.  what should be done, then ? of course, we can do the same in a monarchy; it is called revolution.  how would this be accomplished ?  #  while they might not meet the monarch him/herself, the monarchy needs some presence of government at the local level.   #  this cmv is comparing apples and oranges.  capitalism is the economic structure, monarchy is a political structure.  whoever the monarch is, they have to decide how the economy is structured.  it could be capitalism, socialism, or feudalism.  if the monarch chooses a capitalist structure, then you would have the same problems as before.  socialism could be better but probably wo not and then there is feudalism, which has all the problems you outlined with capitalism, but with inequality written into the law, no labor protection, and 0 chance of social mobility unless you have an unusually beautiful daughter .  also you said  what is their relation to royalty, if they live in a monarchy ? they probably wo not meet them, and if they do it will be a passing thing.  while they might not meet the monarch him/herself, the monarchy needs some presence of government at the local level.  this could be appointing an elected official, or more likely, appointing a relative or a friend of another noble house.  these people can be benevolent or vicious.  if they are held accountable, the people can remove them if necessary.  if not, then they can run rampant.  these are all left up to chance in a monarchy, in a democracy, governments at al levels are run by elected officials that are accountable to their population.   #  a monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual the monarch .   # a monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual the monarch .  that does not mean the monarch always has absolute power over everything.  sometimes that is true those are called absolute monarchies.  but there are also monarchies where the monarch is discretion is formally limited formally, such as constitutional monarchies.  in these cases which is the most common form of monarchy these days , the monarch has few if any actual power they do not set public policy or choose political leaders.  a monarch in constitutional monarchies are often referred to as  a sovereign who reigns but does not rule.   so no, they do not have control over everything.  what you are thinking of absolute monarchies really have not been prevalent for quite some time.  there are some still around, such as brunei, qatar, oman, saudi arabia, etc.  but the bulk of monarchies around the world are constitutional monarchies where the monarch is more symbolic than anything.  URL URL URL  #  sovereign; a supreme ruler, possessing supreme or ultimate power.   #  for the purposes of this cmv, i have been using the following: monarchy; a from of government with a monarch at the head.  a monarch; a sovereign head of state.  sovereign; a supreme ruler, possessing supreme or ultimate power.  for what it is worth, you would not be the first to object to those definitions.  but they come from, to me, a reasonable source, and those are the ones i am going to use.  if a sovereign  reigns but does not rule , if they have no or even limited power, they do not fit this definition of a sovereign.   #  it is easy to rise up against an individual; it is next to impossible to rise up against obscure heads of industry.   #  when i say they could enact such legislation, i thought you simply meant capitalism.  i still think that unchecked capitalism is not compatible with monarchy; no sane monarch would allow such a challenge to their power.  in a democracy, overthrowing the government not only requires at least half the populace there have been armed political revolutions with rather fewer than that , but it also disposes of the politicians; not necessarily the richest people, or the heads of industry.  monarchs have to have at least some sense of loyalty to the people; otherwise, they do not last.  see the revolution thing.  it is easy to rise up against an individual; it is next to impossible to rise up against obscure heads of industry.  why ? because capitalism, in its purest form, teaches that getting money and other wealth is the highest goal.  therefore, in the purest sense, a capitalist would be more than happy to damage the people to serve his or her profits.
disclaimer; this is not saying that democracy or capitalism or inheritance are fundamentally bad; just that, in certain configurations, monarchy would be better.  think about the average person.  what is their relation to royalty, if they live in a monarchy ? they probably wo not meet them, and if they do it will be a passing thing.  the monarch makes all the rules and takes some of the peasants stuff so they can maintain their lavish lifestyle and military and so forth.  the monarch protects the people so they can keep making more stuff to take.  one day, the monarch will die, and their kid takes over the family business of being monarch.  now consider capitalism, unchecked.  it is all fine and well to say  well, this is america.  anyone can make it !   and, without a doubt, there have been a lot of success stories.  but they are the extremely rare exception, not the rule.  anyone that says persistence and hard work are all it takes to succeed is kidding themselves.  rich parents pass their wealth and advantage on to their children.  better schools, a better quality of life than other people, the ability to survive longer on the parents dime so they can take unpaid internships to get better training to get better jobs, everything a rich parent does can set their child up to become richer and more powerful still.  as their wealth, and thus power, grows, they influence policy.  soon, they are lobbying to elect politicians and influence public opinion, altering foreign policy.  see where this is headed ? effectively, monarchy.  capitalism teaches us that accumulation of wealth is the ultimate goal.  wealth, being variable but finite, must therefore be transferred or kept from someone else in order to get it; therefore, it tends to concentrate.  and  the rich get richer , as they say; wealth accumulates and concentrates more and more, until you have fewer and fewer people making policy and controlling land, money, etc.  the logical terminus is a single family controlling everything; effectively, monarchy.  so how is this worse ? because they got there albeit slowly on the idea that profit is of paramount importance.  at the very least, some historical monarchs believed that their job was to care for and protect the people.  they felt an obligation to them.  but a family, or even a dozen families, that effectively control a country because they care only about profit would have no such sense of loyalty.  you might easily say  well, capitalism allows for competition.  we can get rid of bad companies, or families, by competition, or just not buy their stuff .  well, not really.  first, how many people actually know which companies own what, which families control what ? not many.  for another, competition becomes impractical after a point; try starting an isp, or a car company, or a petrochemical company.  not buying stuff ? that is more valid.  the people can collectively rise up and overthrow those with unjust power.  of course, we can do the same in a monarchy; it is called revolution.   #  the people can collectively rise up and overthrow those with unjust power.   #  of course, we can do the same in a monarchy; it is called revolution.   # soon, they are lobbying to elect politicians and influence public opinion, altering foreign policy.  see where this is headed ? do you believe that this is something that this is a mechanism which is the purpose of capitalism, or something that just ends up happening ? is it possible that this happens because capitalism is  not  unchecked ? there are many laws that are anti capitalist in nature, which allow the powerful and wealthy to consolidate more power and wealth.  for example, governments subsidizing industries, limited liability shield laws, etc.  these are things that may cause the cycle of events that you have outlined, but they are also things that are done to  check  capitalism.  what do you think would happen if we did not have these laws which favoured others ? capitalism teaches us that accumulation of wealth is the ultimate goal.  wealth, being variable but finite, must therefore be transferred or kept from someone else in order to get it; therefore, it tends to concentrate.  i am not sure where you are making this claim from, especially the last part, where you state it tends to concentrate.  can you clarify this for me ? well, i think that those are hard to start because they are expensive, and most people do not have that kind of money.  even if they did, they might not have that ambition.  and sometimes, this is caused because of certain economies of scales or legal obstacles to enter the market.  what should be done, then ? of course, we can do the same in a monarchy; it is called revolution.  how would this be accomplished ?  #  capitalism is the economic structure, monarchy is a political structure.   #  this cmv is comparing apples and oranges.  capitalism is the economic structure, monarchy is a political structure.  whoever the monarch is, they have to decide how the economy is structured.  it could be capitalism, socialism, or feudalism.  if the monarch chooses a capitalist structure, then you would have the same problems as before.  socialism could be better but probably wo not and then there is feudalism, which has all the problems you outlined with capitalism, but with inequality written into the law, no labor protection, and 0 chance of social mobility unless you have an unusually beautiful daughter .  also you said  what is their relation to royalty, if they live in a monarchy ? they probably wo not meet them, and if they do it will be a passing thing.  while they might not meet the monarch him/herself, the monarchy needs some presence of government at the local level.  this could be appointing an elected official, or more likely, appointing a relative or a friend of another noble house.  these people can be benevolent or vicious.  if they are held accountable, the people can remove them if necessary.  if not, then they can run rampant.  these are all left up to chance in a monarchy, in a democracy, governments at al levels are run by elected officials that are accountable to their population.   #  so no, they do not have control over everything.   # a monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual the monarch .  that does not mean the monarch always has absolute power over everything.  sometimes that is true those are called absolute monarchies.  but there are also monarchies where the monarch is discretion is formally limited formally, such as constitutional monarchies.  in these cases which is the most common form of monarchy these days , the monarch has few if any actual power they do not set public policy or choose political leaders.  a monarch in constitutional monarchies are often referred to as  a sovereign who reigns but does not rule.   so no, they do not have control over everything.  what you are thinking of absolute monarchies really have not been prevalent for quite some time.  there are some still around, such as brunei, qatar, oman, saudi arabia, etc.  but the bulk of monarchies around the world are constitutional monarchies where the monarch is more symbolic than anything.  URL URL URL  #  for the purposes of this cmv, i have been using the following: monarchy; a from of government with a monarch at the head.   #  for the purposes of this cmv, i have been using the following: monarchy; a from of government with a monarch at the head.  a monarch; a sovereign head of state.  sovereign; a supreme ruler, possessing supreme or ultimate power.  for what it is worth, you would not be the first to object to those definitions.  but they come from, to me, a reasonable source, and those are the ones i am going to use.  if a sovereign  reigns but does not rule , if they have no or even limited power, they do not fit this definition of a sovereign.   #  therefore, in the purest sense, a capitalist would be more than happy to damage the people to serve his or her profits.   #  when i say they could enact such legislation, i thought you simply meant capitalism.  i still think that unchecked capitalism is not compatible with monarchy; no sane monarch would allow such a challenge to their power.  in a democracy, overthrowing the government not only requires at least half the populace there have been armed political revolutions with rather fewer than that , but it also disposes of the politicians; not necessarily the richest people, or the heads of industry.  monarchs have to have at least some sense of loyalty to the people; otherwise, they do not last.  see the revolution thing.  it is easy to rise up against an individual; it is next to impossible to rise up against obscure heads of industry.  why ? because capitalism, in its purest form, teaches that getting money and other wealth is the highest goal.  therefore, in the purest sense, a capitalist would be more than happy to damage the people to serve his or her profits.
contains spoilers for the last of us i believe that joel, in lying about ellie is surgery and saving her from the lobotomy in spite of possibly robbing the world of an antidote or cure for the plague joel did the right thing.  in classic thought experiments, it is often acceptable to sacrifice one life for the lives of many, depending on the specific experiment.  but when it comes to actively killing one life in exchange for many, it is usually considered unacceptable.  murder is always wrong.  further, based on the voice recorders that joel found throughout the hospital, it did not seem like ellie is surgery would result in a sure fire cure anyway.  so gambling with a person a life without even guaranteeing the safety of others, is even less desirable.  lastly, joel is love for ellie by the end of the story equaled his love for sarah, effectively making ellie his daughter.  i believe a father is first priority in that situation, is the well being of his daughter.  quite possibly, in that apocalyptic world, even above the lives of all mankind.  change my view  #  so gambling with a person a life without even guaranteeing the safety of others, is even less desirable.   #  if we are going to start talking gambling, let is analyze how many risks are involved with him saving ellie.   #  one major problem is not only how joel lies to ellie, but the fact that he never even gave ellie the choice.  if you pay attention to what ellie says in the game, it is heavily implied that she would willingly sacrifice herself for humanity if given the choice.  joel said to marlene that  it ai not for you to decide.   while it was immoral for marlene to do it without first getting ellie is consent, joel does not recognize the hypocrisy of that statement.  joel is not in the position to decide for ellie either.  why not wait for ellie to wake up and let her decide what she wants ? it is very clear marlene was willing to compromise.  but ellie is choice does not matter to him because he selfishly wants his own happiness.  if we are going to start talking gambling, let is analyze how many risks are involved with him saving ellie.  you are right, there is no guarantee that the surgery would work but there is also no guarantee that joel could keep ellie safe.  even marlene pointed that out.  what if he killed all those fireflies, rescued ellie, and then got killed on his way out of the surgery room ? that would make the deaths of all the people he murdered completely pointless.  assuming you kill the bare minimum of people to get to that point when playing the game, you still end up killing 0 fireflies.  to rephrase your statement: is murdering two people to try and save ellie without even guaranteeing her safety desirable ? so then that is means joel is decision was wrong since he had to murder several people to get up to that point.  if you want to argue those deaths were justifiable to save a life, then i could also argue that killing ellie is justifiable due to the amount of lives the cure would save.  quite possibly, in that apocalyptic world, even above the lives of all mankind.  firstly, just because he has a fatherly instinct to protect ellie it does not make his decision right.  but even if it did, what about the other fireflies ? if you are saying that doing something for the well being of your family makes it right then the fireflies are even more in the right than joel.  you do not think they all have families as well ? do not you think that some of their primary reasons for joining the fireflies was to ensure the well being of their families ? i completely understand why joel made the decision he did, but that does not mean i think his decision was the right one.   #  her choice and her autonomy were completely ignored, and she was lied to like a child.   #  he did the wrong thing because he broke ellie is trust, which will potentially destroy their relationship for the rest of their lives.  the ending is meant to suggest ellie has her doubts about joel is story.  he is lying to this girl that he allegedly loves.  that is the problem.  i think joel clings to ellie irrationally to fill a hole in his heart he has carried since the death of sarah.  he lies and manipulates ellie for his own happiness.  you can argue that ellie is life is saved and she is therefore happy too but she very well might have sacrificed herself if it were her choice.  remember, in the dlc, her best friend is ravaged by the infection and ellie is presumably forced to kill her.  she may very well have sacrificed everything to stop that from happening to another person.  her choice and her autonomy were completely ignored, and she was lied to like a child.   #  you might be the type of person who thinks white lies are never okay, but i believe in this case it is perfectly justified.   # if ellie was his actual daughter, technically it would also be for his own happiness.  you might say that the harshness of the environment they are in and the actions as well as emotions ellie presents proves she is mature enough, but i would disagree, it is still a fact that her brain is still developing, and joel is the closest person to a guardian, so him making such a choice is justified.  imagine today if we were to kill a child today in order to cure cancer, i would imagine much outcry from the public.  although admittedly, many would probably agree but there would be no question if the parents refused such a path.  ellie is very clearly exerting survivors guilt, and at such a young age with a developing brain, there is really no reason to put any extra pressure on her like that.  you might be the type of person who thinks white lies are never okay, but i believe in this case it is perfectly justified.   #  there was an episode of growing pains where dr seaver explained this clearly and concisely.   #  he did not break her trust.  she did not know he lied to her.  sometimes in a relationship, you ca not always tell the truth.  there was an episode of growing pains where dr seaver explained this clearly and concisely.  he alluded to a time when a drunk friend of his hit on maggie at a party.  maggie lied about that incident but dr seaver knew about it because the drunk friend blabbed it to him in the parking lot.  in that case, dr seaver explained, you do not always need to tell the truth as it does not always serve a purpose.  i think this growing pains life lesson can be applied to joel and ellie  #  this is a lie about a life or death situation.   #  this is a lie about a life or death situation.  something that means the world to ellie.  yes,  what she wo not know wo not hurt her  but the ambiguity of the ending suggests that ellie  suspects that joel is lying.  one day she might find out.  either way it might change her feelings towards him forever.  this reminds me more of the ending of the godfather, which is interesting because i never thought about how similar it is to the ending of the last of us before.  in both the godfather and last of us, the story ends with the main character lying to a loved one about murdering someone murdering a whole hospital full of people, in joel is case .  in the godfather, it is meant to illustrate how the protagonist, michael, has finally  gone to the dark side.   he even lies to his wife now ! i think last of us is more ambiguous, as i said, but we can read it that way.  joel did a selfish thing killing all of those people just so that he can have his own little happiness with ellie.  and he thinks ellie is not going to find out.  but she might.  and that is what is going to destroy that happiness in the end.
contains spoilers for the last of us i believe that joel, in lying about ellie is surgery and saving her from the lobotomy in spite of possibly robbing the world of an antidote or cure for the plague joel did the right thing.  in classic thought experiments, it is often acceptable to sacrifice one life for the lives of many, depending on the specific experiment.  but when it comes to actively killing one life in exchange for many, it is usually considered unacceptable.  murder is always wrong.  further, based on the voice recorders that joel found throughout the hospital, it did not seem like ellie is surgery would result in a sure fire cure anyway.  so gambling with a person a life without even guaranteeing the safety of others, is even less desirable.  lastly, joel is love for ellie by the end of the story equaled his love for sarah, effectively making ellie his daughter.  i believe a father is first priority in that situation, is the well being of his daughter.  quite possibly, in that apocalyptic world, even above the lives of all mankind.  change my view  #  a father is first priority in that situation, is the well being of his daughter.   #  quite possibly, in that apocalyptic world, even above the lives of all mankind.   #  one major problem is not only how joel lies to ellie, but the fact that he never even gave ellie the choice.  if you pay attention to what ellie says in the game, it is heavily implied that she would willingly sacrifice herself for humanity if given the choice.  joel said to marlene that  it ai not for you to decide.   while it was immoral for marlene to do it without first getting ellie is consent, joel does not recognize the hypocrisy of that statement.  joel is not in the position to decide for ellie either.  why not wait for ellie to wake up and let her decide what she wants ? it is very clear marlene was willing to compromise.  but ellie is choice does not matter to him because he selfishly wants his own happiness.  if we are going to start talking gambling, let is analyze how many risks are involved with him saving ellie.  you are right, there is no guarantee that the surgery would work but there is also no guarantee that joel could keep ellie safe.  even marlene pointed that out.  what if he killed all those fireflies, rescued ellie, and then got killed on his way out of the surgery room ? that would make the deaths of all the people he murdered completely pointless.  assuming you kill the bare minimum of people to get to that point when playing the game, you still end up killing 0 fireflies.  to rephrase your statement: is murdering two people to try and save ellie without even guaranteeing her safety desirable ? so then that is means joel is decision was wrong since he had to murder several people to get up to that point.  if you want to argue those deaths were justifiable to save a life, then i could also argue that killing ellie is justifiable due to the amount of lives the cure would save.  quite possibly, in that apocalyptic world, even above the lives of all mankind.  firstly, just because he has a fatherly instinct to protect ellie it does not make his decision right.  but even if it did, what about the other fireflies ? if you are saying that doing something for the well being of your family makes it right then the fireflies are even more in the right than joel.  you do not think they all have families as well ? do not you think that some of their primary reasons for joining the fireflies was to ensure the well being of their families ? i completely understand why joel made the decision he did, but that does not mean i think his decision was the right one.   #  her choice and her autonomy were completely ignored, and she was lied to like a child.   #  he did the wrong thing because he broke ellie is trust, which will potentially destroy their relationship for the rest of their lives.  the ending is meant to suggest ellie has her doubts about joel is story.  he is lying to this girl that he allegedly loves.  that is the problem.  i think joel clings to ellie irrationally to fill a hole in his heart he has carried since the death of sarah.  he lies and manipulates ellie for his own happiness.  you can argue that ellie is life is saved and she is therefore happy too but she very well might have sacrificed herself if it were her choice.  remember, in the dlc, her best friend is ravaged by the infection and ellie is presumably forced to kill her.  she may very well have sacrificed everything to stop that from happening to another person.  her choice and her autonomy were completely ignored, and she was lied to like a child.   #  ellie is very clearly exerting survivors guilt, and at such a young age with a developing brain, there is really no reason to put any extra pressure on her like that.   # if ellie was his actual daughter, technically it would also be for his own happiness.  you might say that the harshness of the environment they are in and the actions as well as emotions ellie presents proves she is mature enough, but i would disagree, it is still a fact that her brain is still developing, and joel is the closest person to a guardian, so him making such a choice is justified.  imagine today if we were to kill a child today in order to cure cancer, i would imagine much outcry from the public.  although admittedly, many would probably agree but there would be no question if the parents refused such a path.  ellie is very clearly exerting survivors guilt, and at such a young age with a developing brain, there is really no reason to put any extra pressure on her like that.  you might be the type of person who thinks white lies are never okay, but i believe in this case it is perfectly justified.   #  maggie lied about that incident but dr seaver knew about it because the drunk friend blabbed it to him in the parking lot.   #  he did not break her trust.  she did not know he lied to her.  sometimes in a relationship, you ca not always tell the truth.  there was an episode of growing pains where dr seaver explained this clearly and concisely.  he alluded to a time when a drunk friend of his hit on maggie at a party.  maggie lied about that incident but dr seaver knew about it because the drunk friend blabbed it to him in the parking lot.  in that case, dr seaver explained, you do not always need to tell the truth as it does not always serve a purpose.  i think this growing pains life lesson can be applied to joel and ellie  #  in the godfather, it is meant to illustrate how the protagonist, michael, has finally  gone to the dark side.    #  this is a lie about a life or death situation.  something that means the world to ellie.  yes,  what she wo not know wo not hurt her  but the ambiguity of the ending suggests that ellie  suspects that joel is lying.  one day she might find out.  either way it might change her feelings towards him forever.  this reminds me more of the ending of the godfather, which is interesting because i never thought about how similar it is to the ending of the last of us before.  in both the godfather and last of us, the story ends with the main character lying to a loved one about murdering someone murdering a whole hospital full of people, in joel is case .  in the godfather, it is meant to illustrate how the protagonist, michael, has finally  gone to the dark side.   he even lies to his wife now ! i think last of us is more ambiguous, as i said, but we can read it that way.  joel did a selfish thing killing all of those people just so that he can have his own little happiness with ellie.  and he thinks ellie is not going to find out.  but she might.  and that is what is going to destroy that happiness in the end.
while many people think it is honorable to name a child after someone the parents knew/know, i think it is very selfish of the parents.  the child is not that person.  i believe that the purpose of a name is to be a unique identify device, and that giving a child a name that belongs to someone else, either within the family or close to the family, defeats this purpose.  i am someone who is named after a deceased family member.  my grandmother has dementia so this has become a very strong emotional burden on me.  having to explain to her that the person i am named for died quite a significantly long time ago every time i talk to her is not very fun and is putting a stain on our relationship.  i feel like kids should get their own name and be there own person.  cmv.   #  my grandmother has dementia so this has become a very strong emotional burden on me.   #  having to explain to her that the person i am named for died quite a significantly long time ago every time i talk to her is not very fun and is putting a stain on our relationship.   # having to explain to her that the person i am named for died quite a significantly long time ago every time i talk to her is not very fun and is putting a stain on our relationship.  the exact same thing happens to me, but my grandmother fathers side never knew the person i was named after grandfather, mothers side .  she just always thinks that i am her son, who died many years ago.  eventually i just stopped trying to correct her.  it is not easy, but i do not think it really has much to do with your name.  it would happen to some extent regardless.  dealing with dementia and alzheimers is tough, believe me, i know.  but do not take it too personally.  she is not doing it on purpose.   #  all repeated names, have some referent, eventually, in someone before.   #  do not all names which are not uniquely new to history fail to give their recipients unique identities ? i know your position is more about being named after specific people, but i do not think that affects the argument too much.  all repeated names, have some referent, eventually, in someone before.  i am named after a hindu god but i do not feel pressured to act god like as a result in the least.  fwiw im sorry about your grandma, that sounds tough.  but i think a loved one suffering from dementia would be an emotional burden no matter what.   #  i really think that your view of names as unique identifiers has been molded largely by your experience with your grandmother, for which i am sorry to hear, dementia sucks.   #  in my large family, my father and his brothers all named one of their sons after themselves, usually the oldest myself included .  to distinguish between sons and fathers in conversation we just use the adjectives  big  and  little  for quick reference.  in no way have i ever felt that sharing a name with my father has forced me into a preconceived notion of a person.  despite the shared identity, i am my own person and my name is just a part of my history.  for example, my middle name, although different from my father is, is shared with my grandfather.  therefore my full name actually reflects a history of previous men in my family, and i have kinda learned to appreciate it.  honestly, i see no reason for a name to be used exclusively as a unique identifier.  names are used for many purposes in different cultures including reflecting family history, preserving religious traditions, preserving a sense of lineage, etc.  i really think that your view of names as unique identifiers has been molded largely by your experience with your grandmother, for which i am sorry to hear, dementia sucks.  but otherwise, people like myself with recycled names, are often unaffected by this shared identity and in some cases are proud to bear recent history of our families in our names.   #  at family events and reunions, i have always been introduced as such.   #  i think your love and sense of tradition in regards to your family history is beautiful, and is something i have never felt towards my own name.  i have her exact name, so i am literally the jr.  at family events and reunions, i have always been introduced as such.  i am the only person in my family named after someone, so it is like  amy thing .  my sister is introduced as the star gymnast, my cousin as the amazing musician, but no matter what i do, all i have ever been branded as is the girl named after her.  i think it is lovely that people who are named after people are proud, but i find it very hard to feel proud when the only thing my family has ever really told me about my namesake is that they are dead.  i think i might have more emotional resentment towards my family is attitude of my name, rather than the name itself.   #  alright, i now see the harm of your situation.   #  alright, i now see the harm of your situation.  i can definitely understand your resentment for being forced to identify with the memory of a deceased family member for whom you have little connection.  at this point all i can argue is that using recycled names can go both ways.  i do not believe that parents are selfish for naming their children after themselves or others in the family, but i would agree that they should use caution, especially when the people who the child is being named after are outside their direct lineage.  i also think the family is attitude is a large factor in whether reusing names turns out good or bad.  i am 0 of 0 people in my family who share names with their fathers and really this was not even planned, so my family is very casual about it.  your family seems much more serious about preserving a relatives memory through you, which i would agree is unfair.  the child will have to live with the memory of the person for the rest of their lives, and i see now that this can be both a positive and negative thing.
while many people think it is honorable to name a child after someone the parents knew/know, i think it is very selfish of the parents.  the child is not that person.  i believe that the purpose of a name is to be a unique identify device, and that giving a child a name that belongs to someone else, either within the family or close to the family, defeats this purpose.  i am someone who is named after a deceased family member.  my grandmother has dementia so this has become a very strong emotional burden on me.  having to explain to her that the person i am named for died quite a significantly long time ago every time i talk to her is not very fun and is putting a stain on our relationship.  i feel like kids should get their own name and be there own person.  cmv.   #  i am someone who is named after a deceased family member.   #  my grandmother has dementia so this has become a very strong emotional burden on me.   # the child is not that person.  why ? the majority of children do not resent being named after that person.  parents ca not see the future and have to guess what would be the best choice for their child.  do you think it is reasonable for them to have assumed you would have this reaction ? whether they are religious figures, family relatives, names of flowers or virtues, etc.  many societies have named children after something.  most children are given a surname which is identical to all their immediate family members as well as those on their father is side.  my grandmother has dementia so this has become a very strong emotional burden on me.  having to explain to her that the person i am named for died quite a significantly long time ago every time i talk to her is not very fun and is putting a stain on our relationship.  chances are this would happen anyway.  i had a grandfather who also suffered with dementia and he thought i was my father whose name i do not share .  also, just some advice.  if you do not want to be associated with said person, you are free to give yourself a nickname.   #  do not all names which are not uniquely new to history fail to give their recipients unique identities ?  #  do not all names which are not uniquely new to history fail to give their recipients unique identities ? i know your position is more about being named after specific people, but i do not think that affects the argument too much.  all repeated names, have some referent, eventually, in someone before.  i am named after a hindu god but i do not feel pressured to act god like as a result in the least.  fwiw im sorry about your grandma, that sounds tough.  but i think a loved one suffering from dementia would be an emotional burden no matter what.   #  honestly, i see no reason for a name to be used exclusively as a unique identifier.   #  in my large family, my father and his brothers all named one of their sons after themselves, usually the oldest myself included .  to distinguish between sons and fathers in conversation we just use the adjectives  big  and  little  for quick reference.  in no way have i ever felt that sharing a name with my father has forced me into a preconceived notion of a person.  despite the shared identity, i am my own person and my name is just a part of my history.  for example, my middle name, although different from my father is, is shared with my grandfather.  therefore my full name actually reflects a history of previous men in my family, and i have kinda learned to appreciate it.  honestly, i see no reason for a name to be used exclusively as a unique identifier.  names are used for many purposes in different cultures including reflecting family history, preserving religious traditions, preserving a sense of lineage, etc.  i really think that your view of names as unique identifiers has been molded largely by your experience with your grandmother, for which i am sorry to hear, dementia sucks.  but otherwise, people like myself with recycled names, are often unaffected by this shared identity and in some cases are proud to bear recent history of our families in our names.   #  i am the only person in my family named after someone, so it is like  amy thing .   #  i think your love and sense of tradition in regards to your family history is beautiful, and is something i have never felt towards my own name.  i have her exact name, so i am literally the jr.  at family events and reunions, i have always been introduced as such.  i am the only person in my family named after someone, so it is like  amy thing .  my sister is introduced as the star gymnast, my cousin as the amazing musician, but no matter what i do, all i have ever been branded as is the girl named after her.  i think it is lovely that people who are named after people are proud, but i find it very hard to feel proud when the only thing my family has ever really told me about my namesake is that they are dead.  i think i might have more emotional resentment towards my family is attitude of my name, rather than the name itself.   #  at this point all i can argue is that using recycled names can go both ways.   #  alright, i now see the harm of your situation.  i can definitely understand your resentment for being forced to identify with the memory of a deceased family member for whom you have little connection.  at this point all i can argue is that using recycled names can go both ways.  i do not believe that parents are selfish for naming their children after themselves or others in the family, but i would agree that they should use caution, especially when the people who the child is being named after are outside their direct lineage.  i also think the family is attitude is a large factor in whether reusing names turns out good or bad.  i am 0 of 0 people in my family who share names with their fathers and really this was not even planned, so my family is very casual about it.  your family seems much more serious about preserving a relatives memory through you, which i would agree is unfair.  the child will have to live with the memory of the person for the rest of their lives, and i see now that this can be both a positive and negative thing.
the schools are teaching kids learned helplessness.  it only causes the true victims of the school to suffer at the hands of administration.  the current  stop bullying  campaign is propaganda to keep kids from recognizing themselves as autonomous beings and is a key reason why there are more school shootings.  when you back an animal into a corner, it will strike with full force.  that is what the school system and laws in place do.  i also believe the laws in place are turning kids into people who ca not solve problems on their own.   #  i also believe the laws in place are turning kids into people who ca not solve problems on their own.   #  do you have the same opinion of the calculator ?  # do you have the same opinion of the calculator ? seriously, a zero tolerance policy is a societal advancement.  teaching kids that violence in society has significant consequences is logical and practical, because assault is illegal.  it is that simple.  that you believe anti bullying policies will have downstream negative effects is speculative: you ca not know with any certainty whether this will be a good or bad thing 0 years from now.  i am not anti violence, per sé: i believe in the necessity of a warrior culture.  but i also believe there are many, many people for whom violence is a repellent course of action, and wo not take it under any circumstance.  these people are not going to learn to defend themselves, nor should they be required to.   #  if you are late on rent, your landlord does not get to shake you down and if he does not fix your apartment, your buddies do not lay in wait to attack him.   #  what do you think causes bullying ? what makes someone a victim ? do you think that if the stereotypical skinny gay nerd with mild autism takes a class in karate, he will suddenly be able to keep the linebacker and his buddies, who are twice his weight, from stuffing him in a locker ? or are they just going to really kick the shit of of him if he lands a blow ? as for the campaign, the view taken by administrations used to be  boys will be boys , turning a blind eye to the abuse the victims were suffering.  does that help the victims learn better in school ? does it help the bullies learn socially acceptable behavior ? as adults, often the best way to solve a problem is through the authorities.  if you are late on rent, your landlord does not get to shake you down and if he does not fix your apartment, your buddies do not lay in wait to attack him.  in the real world, violence is not an acceptable way to  solve problems on your own  why should it be for kids ?  #  i wanted to fight back, and it took all of my willpower to stop myself from punching the bully in the face.   #  in middle school i was a skinny nerd and i was bullied all the time.  i wanted to fight back, and it took all of my willpower to stop myself from punching the bully in the face.  the reason why i was forced to stop myself is because i knew that if i fought back i would get into trouble, while the bully would get away scott free.  one time i did fight back, and guess what happened.  i got into trouble while the bully got away scott free.  teachers always tell you to report bullying, and so i reported it.  but they did nothing, and eventually they got tired of be always bothering them about my problems, and so i was reprimanded and sent to the office for being annoying.  none of the bullies ever got into any trouble.  the worst part was that the school made me see a psychiatrist who told me to just ignore it.   #  i do not think turning a blind eye is the best response either.   #  what causes bullying ? there are too many factors that do to say one thing causes it.  what matters more is that it happens and people kids or adults ca not do shit about it.  i do not think turning a blind eye is the best response either.  however, nothing in the current anti bullying campaign covers self defense.  as far as your example, give that kid a video camera or a knife and nothing happens.   #  yes, everyone can catch and kill their own food, but sometimes it is better to have dedicated farmers so that people can specialize.   #  if you replace  kids  with  adults  and  stop bullying campaign  with  police response,  why does your argument not immediately imply that adults should learn to defend themselves from criminals and that we are turning them soft by having a group of people who are dedicated to protecting them ? unless you believe there  should not  be a criminal justice system, many of the arguments you will use to justify a police force can be used to justify a system that protects children from bullies.  e. g.  they lack the resources and training to do it themselves, and it is an inefficient, ineffective waste of time and resources to hope that everyone is eventually as efficacious as a centralized response.  yes, everyone can catch and kill their own food, but sometimes it is better to have dedicated farmers so that people can specialize.  your argument is transparently ideological, not empirical.  if you are interested in reality rather than ideology, there are studies that demonstrate the approach tends to work on average.  e. g.  : a school based intervention program designed to stop bullying in norwegian schools is detailed, a program that markedly reduced bully/victim problems and antisocial behavior and improved school order and discipline.  URL
states control who can occupy their territory.  people can enter their territory through immigration or birth.  states can set restrictions on who can enter their territory and impose minimum earned income.  canada requires three years minimum earned income, URL since most residents enter through birth having these restriction just on immigrants is not completely effective.  children who grow up in poverty do not do well, URL the causes are both a result of lack of resources and poor genetics from parents who lack the ability to earn an adequate income.  that is why the requirement would be earned income.  those who get pregnant without the three years minimum income would be subject to forced abortions.  those discovered after birth would be deported.  a deleted comment had a good name for this law: no child born in poverty act.   #  those who get pregnant without the three years minimum income would be subject to forced abortions.   #  on a pure gut level, i have to disagree with this sentence because i believe in a woman is right to choose: forced abortions are just as bad as making abortion illegal if not more so .   # on a pure gut level, i have to disagree with this sentence because i believe in a woman is right to choose: forced abortions are just as bad as making abortion illegal if not more so .  i am sure i am not the only one.  if you go a little deeper on that path, you have to consider whether or not people have the right of family planning in general.  if the government is able to control who has children, would they also be allowed to force some people to have children who would not normally ? can they limit the number of children ? would allowing this open up the possibility for the government to mandate abortion or reproduction based on other factors besides income, such as criminal history or genetic factors ?  #  without knowing the causes you are unlikely to solve the problem.   #  without knowing the causes you are unlikely to solve the problem.  the main cause of poverty is poor parents, URL   growing up in poverty can dramatically affect a child is life chances.  at every stage of schooling, the poorest children do worse than their better off classmates.  the gap in development starts to emerge between children as early as age 0 months.  the most cost effective method to break the cycle of poverty is to prevent poor parents from having children.  with increased automation the need for labor is declining reducing further the need for poor workers.   #  you have state laws that are discarded by the people, via courts or elections that determine or effect state laws.   #  they can only attempt to enforce rights.  you still have people who do things that are against state laws and are not punished.  you have state laws that are discarded by the people, via courts or elections that determine or effect state laws.  you have restrictions on state laws, what can and cannot be implemented as a state law.  so the state cannot arbitrarily choose which rights to enforce or restrict.  so given these reasons, saying that  rights are fiction  does not reflect reality, not a defense of the immorality of your proposal or even support something like earning a fictional right of reproduction by monetary savings.   #  again, the intent  does not matter , you are taking freedoms and that is  wrong , and this  will happen  in america if such a policy is implemented.   #  china is also just rife with other human rights violations, income inequality, and other horrible things.  their forced abortions are also causing more crime, since people are aborting baby girls and there are less women for the men to marry, a leading cause of crime.  so, yeah, beat income inequality by driving everyone into poverty is technically a solution, but not a good one imo.  also, what /u/sloggz said is spot on: the government in china does not have guns like america does.  i know my home, as does my significant other, and we both own guns and know how to use them.  they might succeed in killing us, but damned if we wo not take some of them down first.  again, the intent  does not matter , you are taking freedoms and that is  wrong , and this  will happen  in america if such a policy is implemented.  is  this  what you want to happen ? tons of dead families and cops ? because it is what  will happen  #  and i am not trying to be confrontational but i mean, seriously, look at current events and how touchy abortion is right now, and tell me again how this would not make people angry.   # are you ignorant of current events ? there are people  right now  bombing abortion clinics because they think abortion is immoral  even when voluntary , and you are saying these same people would become docile if the government  forced abortions  ? that is a level of willful ignorance that takes effort, mate.  and i am not trying to be confrontational but i mean, seriously, look at current events and how touchy abortion is right now, and tell me again how this would not make people angry.  would that be better ? why are you hellbent on creating more criminals ? if i am losing my citizenship, at best i am just going to start stealing ids to remain in the country, at worst i will do the same as the forced abortion: start killing anyone who tries to take my property.  either way, this all seems way worse than having a few children being poor.  and, by the way, let is take a moment and look at  poor  poor is not something that can be eradicated.  no matter what you do, you are not getting rid of poverty.  this is a simple law of economics and logic: if any group of people have income that is different, then one of those people will have the least income out of everyone else.  if you mandate that all children come from households making, say, $0,0/year or more, then if your theory that these kids will grow up to not be poor holds true, in a generation $0,0/year wo not be enough to support a household.  you are just creating unnecessary inflation and population shrinkage.
science has contradicted the bible on several occasions.  for example that the word 0 billion years old, which specifically contradicts what the bible says 0,0 years old .  more liberal christians will often say that the bible is not supposed to be taken literally, however i see this answer as a pretty desperate attempt for christians to cling onto their faith.  if we are not taking the bible literally, then why believe jesus ever rose from the dead or that he is in fact the son of god ? how on earth am i supposed to have faith in a book which is not clear and filled with ambiguities ? i am not for one moment saying that the bible is not a great piece of literature and i agree that it was way ahead of its time.  however i do not see how it can be a valid axiom for my beliefs when it is  not meant to be taken literally  and has blatant misconceptions in it.   #  for example that the word 0 billion years old, which specifically contradicts what the bible says 0,0 years old .   #  god is omnipotent, therefore he must have the ability to manipulate time.   # god is omnipotent, therefore he must have the ability to manipulate time.  if we are not taking the bible literally, then why believe jesus ever rose from the dead or that he is in fact the son of god ? the lord has many reasons and purposes for his actions, his reasons will be unknown to us during our time in this dimension referring to the two possible afterlives, as separate dimension .  as christians we have to follow on faith, have trust in the lord, and let him be the shepard of our lives.  it can be difficult at times in a society ran by proof and evidence, but we must stand strong so we can honor the lord above.   #  see, the bible is an  anthology  a collection of different kinds of books.   #  while some christians attempt to treat the entire bible as a single genre type, it does not follow that the whole bible must therefore be treated that way.  see, the bible is an  anthology  a collection of different kinds of books.  some are poetry, some are legal code, some are historical accounts, some are  epics,  some are personal letters, etc.  a christian can easily take the gospels as  detailed documentaries,  genesis as  epic mythology,  the book of job as a  fable,  exodus as a dramatization  based on actual events,  and so forth.  treating the entire bible as one solid documentary is a completely arbitrary decision.   #  if leviticus does not apply to christians, why is it so commonly used by christians including christian leaders as an excuse to condemn homosexuality ?  # let me lay out my issue in more simple terms because i am finding it difficult to understand the issue others are having with it: we are discussing the book leviticus.  0 some people, mainly  liberal christians , do not believe the book leviticus applies any longer.  0 as pointed out, for some christians the reason for view 0 is the idea that those laws were meant for jews, or the jewish tribes of that time, rather than for christians 0 as a result of holding views 0 and 0 these liberal christians do not follow any of the laws in leviticus, including those about condemning homosexual acts.  so, i think this is pretty clear.  regardless of whether you agree with the logic of those people, we can agree that some people hold views 0 and 0 giving them the resulting philosophy 0.  after all this was pointed out, someone else responded with a comment saying   the book of leviticus is used by christians to condemn all sorts of things primarily homosexuality .  if leviticus does not apply to christians, why is it so commonly used by christians including christian leaders as an excuse to condemn homosexuality ? the obvious answer to this question is that the christians using it condemn homosexuality are not the christians who hold views 0 and 0 so they do not view the rules as outdated.  so i have a hard time understanding why these people were brought up or why we are discussing them now.  these people might cherry pick their views and they might be bigoted but what does that have to do with points 0, 0, and 0 which were the original topic of conversation.   #  a rebirth in the world of money changers, the only people jesus expressed physical violence towards.   #  because most public leaders do not actually represent any significant portion of the public.  religious leaders or politicians .  same shit, different details.  why do you think we celebrate the birth of the son  isun  on dec.  0th, the first day that it begins to rise after a 0 day minimum following the winter solstice ? why does jesus call himself the bright and morning star, a title also used for lucifer ? do you know that this is venus and rises in the morning before the sun ? why does judas kiss jesus ? did you know that the  fall  starts when the sun moves through scorpio ? a create whose sting of death leaves a mark looking like a kiss the kiss of death ? why were the people who built the christian symbology so interested in the bringing of light ? what do you think they meant by the light ? why do they give a fuck about this astrology stuff ? why do you think the western media has started referring to the group taking over iraq/syria as isis islamic state of iraq and syria when that is not even it is name ? why are the saudis and the usa funding these people ? why did obama ask congress to intervene on their behalf in syria ? why has the iraqi government been in a stand down against them ? do you know that isis is the goddess of rebirth ? what happens when isis disrupts me oil supplies ? what happens when the us goes into a deep depression from spiking energy prices in an environment of the fed having no policy options to stimulate the economy we are already doing qe and 0 rates ? you have to redo the monetary system in these situations, like we did back during the world wars.  a rebirth in the world of money changers, the only people jesus expressed physical violence towards.  it is not good enough to throw your hands up like op and say spell it out for me; you need to read, you need to educate yourself, you need to think.   #  to assign different perspectives to different sections is still just a way to cling to a faith despite inadequacies of the bible.   #  it still does not validate the  cherry picking  as a viable interpretation of the bible.  the bible is a book that is the sole basis of an entire faith.  to assign different perspectives to different sections is still just a way to cling to a faith despite inadequacies of the bible.  if someone follows that method of interpretation it still brings you back to the core problem.  why do you believe in the christian god ? the bible itself ca not be proof of itself and when you have to take so much of the book with a grain of salt for it to make sense it strengthens the skeptics position.
science has contradicted the bible on several occasions.  for example that the word 0 billion years old, which specifically contradicts what the bible says 0,0 years old .  more liberal christians will often say that the bible is not supposed to be taken literally, however i see this answer as a pretty desperate attempt for christians to cling onto their faith.  if we are not taking the bible literally, then why believe jesus ever rose from the dead or that he is in fact the son of god ? how on earth am i supposed to have faith in a book which is not clear and filled with ambiguities ? i am not for one moment saying that the bible is not a great piece of literature and i agree that it was way ahead of its time.  however i do not see how it can be a valid axiom for my beliefs when it is  not meant to be taken literally  and has blatant misconceptions in it.   #  more liberal christians will often say that the bible is not supposed to be taken literally, however i see this answer as a pretty desperate attempt for christians to cling onto their faith.   #  if we are not taking the bible literally, then why believe jesus ever rose from the dead or that he is in fact the son of god ?  # god is omnipotent, therefore he must have the ability to manipulate time.  if we are not taking the bible literally, then why believe jesus ever rose from the dead or that he is in fact the son of god ? the lord has many reasons and purposes for his actions, his reasons will be unknown to us during our time in this dimension referring to the two possible afterlives, as separate dimension .  as christians we have to follow on faith, have trust in the lord, and let him be the shepard of our lives.  it can be difficult at times in a society ran by proof and evidence, but we must stand strong so we can honor the lord above.   #  some are poetry, some are legal code, some are historical accounts, some are  epics,  some are personal letters, etc.   #  while some christians attempt to treat the entire bible as a single genre type, it does not follow that the whole bible must therefore be treated that way.  see, the bible is an  anthology  a collection of different kinds of books.  some are poetry, some are legal code, some are historical accounts, some are  epics,  some are personal letters, etc.  a christian can easily take the gospels as  detailed documentaries,  genesis as  epic mythology,  the book of job as a  fable,  exodus as a dramatization  based on actual events,  and so forth.  treating the entire bible as one solid documentary is a completely arbitrary decision.   #  if leviticus does not apply to christians, why is it so commonly used by christians including christian leaders as an excuse to condemn homosexuality ?  # let me lay out my issue in more simple terms because i am finding it difficult to understand the issue others are having with it: we are discussing the book leviticus.  0 some people, mainly  liberal christians , do not believe the book leviticus applies any longer.  0 as pointed out, for some christians the reason for view 0 is the idea that those laws were meant for jews, or the jewish tribes of that time, rather than for christians 0 as a result of holding views 0 and 0 these liberal christians do not follow any of the laws in leviticus, including those about condemning homosexual acts.  so, i think this is pretty clear.  regardless of whether you agree with the logic of those people, we can agree that some people hold views 0 and 0 giving them the resulting philosophy 0.  after all this was pointed out, someone else responded with a comment saying   the book of leviticus is used by christians to condemn all sorts of things primarily homosexuality .  if leviticus does not apply to christians, why is it so commonly used by christians including christian leaders as an excuse to condemn homosexuality ? the obvious answer to this question is that the christians using it condemn homosexuality are not the christians who hold views 0 and 0 so they do not view the rules as outdated.  so i have a hard time understanding why these people were brought up or why we are discussing them now.  these people might cherry pick their views and they might be bigoted but what does that have to do with points 0, 0, and 0 which were the original topic of conversation.   #  why did obama ask congress to intervene on their behalf in syria ?  #  because most public leaders do not actually represent any significant portion of the public.  religious leaders or politicians .  same shit, different details.  why do you think we celebrate the birth of the son  isun  on dec.  0th, the first day that it begins to rise after a 0 day minimum following the winter solstice ? why does jesus call himself the bright and morning star, a title also used for lucifer ? do you know that this is venus and rises in the morning before the sun ? why does judas kiss jesus ? did you know that the  fall  starts when the sun moves through scorpio ? a create whose sting of death leaves a mark looking like a kiss the kiss of death ? why were the people who built the christian symbology so interested in the bringing of light ? what do you think they meant by the light ? why do they give a fuck about this astrology stuff ? why do you think the western media has started referring to the group taking over iraq/syria as isis islamic state of iraq and syria when that is not even it is name ? why are the saudis and the usa funding these people ? why did obama ask congress to intervene on their behalf in syria ? why has the iraqi government been in a stand down against them ? do you know that isis is the goddess of rebirth ? what happens when isis disrupts me oil supplies ? what happens when the us goes into a deep depression from spiking energy prices in an environment of the fed having no policy options to stimulate the economy we are already doing qe and 0 rates ? you have to redo the monetary system in these situations, like we did back during the world wars.  a rebirth in the world of money changers, the only people jesus expressed physical violence towards.  it is not good enough to throw your hands up like op and say spell it out for me; you need to read, you need to educate yourself, you need to think.   #  the bible is a book that is the sole basis of an entire faith.   #  it still does not validate the  cherry picking  as a viable interpretation of the bible.  the bible is a book that is the sole basis of an entire faith.  to assign different perspectives to different sections is still just a way to cling to a faith despite inadequacies of the bible.  if someone follows that method of interpretation it still brings you back to the core problem.  why do you believe in the christian god ? the bible itself ca not be proof of itself and when you have to take so much of the book with a grain of salt for it to make sense it strengthens the skeptics position.
science has contradicted the bible on several occasions.  for example that the word 0 billion years old, which specifically contradicts what the bible says 0,0 years old .  more liberal christians will often say that the bible is not supposed to be taken literally, however i see this answer as a pretty desperate attempt for christians to cling onto their faith.  if we are not taking the bible literally, then why believe jesus ever rose from the dead or that he is in fact the son of god ? how on earth am i supposed to have faith in a book which is not clear and filled with ambiguities ? i am not for one moment saying that the bible is not a great piece of literature and i agree that it was way ahead of its time.  however i do not see how it can be a valid axiom for my beliefs when it is  not meant to be taken literally  and has blatant misconceptions in it.   #  science has contradicted the bible on several occasions.   #  for example that the word 0 billion years old, which specifically contradicts what the bible says 0,0 years old .   # for example that the word 0 billion years old, which specifically contradicts what the bible says 0,0 years old .  this is a pretty outdated view, and honestly, when people use this argument against the validity of the bible, it makes me wonder how knowledgeable they are on the subject.  most people agree that the bible does not say the earth is  0,0 years old.   in general people who thoroughly study the bible believers and nonbelievers alike understand that it never speaks of the age if the earth at any point.  many christians believe that genesis 0 is very literal, but that does not mean the earth is 0,0 years old as you are assuming.  the first verse of the bible could have taken place millions of years before the following passage.  another interpretation is that genesis 0 is not an account of physical/material creation.  this is actually the interpretation which i agree with.  genesis 0 is an account of functional creation.  assigning purpose/function by god.  if you are interested in this christian creation story, i would recommend reading  the lost world of genesis one  by john walton.  he explains that ancient cultures were not concerned about the material existence of something, they were concerned about the function.  for example, in our western world eyes, a chair is created when the pieces are all assembled and we can see that the chair physically exists.  in many ancient cultures  perception that chair is not created until someone sits in it i. e.  until it is actually used for its purpose .  this interpretation takes genesis 0 very literally and does not mean the world was created 0,0 years ago.  the world was created millions of years ago, but god did not put it into its intended function until the time of functional creation which is told in genesis 0.  this may be something you disagree with and you may ask  well then what is the earth is intended function/purpose ?   but that is a different discussion.  my point is that genesis 0 does not say the world is 0,0 years old, even if it is taken literally.   #  a christian can easily take the gospels as  detailed documentaries,  genesis as  epic mythology,  the book of job as a  fable,  exodus as a dramatization  based on actual events,  and so forth.   #  while some christians attempt to treat the entire bible as a single genre type, it does not follow that the whole bible must therefore be treated that way.  see, the bible is an  anthology  a collection of different kinds of books.  some are poetry, some are legal code, some are historical accounts, some are  epics,  some are personal letters, etc.  a christian can easily take the gospels as  detailed documentaries,  genesis as  epic mythology,  the book of job as a  fable,  exodus as a dramatization  based on actual events,  and so forth.  treating the entire bible as one solid documentary is a completely arbitrary decision.   #  the obvious answer to this question is that the christians using it condemn homosexuality are not the christians who hold views 0 and 0 so they do not view the rules as outdated.   # let me lay out my issue in more simple terms because i am finding it difficult to understand the issue others are having with it: we are discussing the book leviticus.  0 some people, mainly  liberal christians , do not believe the book leviticus applies any longer.  0 as pointed out, for some christians the reason for view 0 is the idea that those laws were meant for jews, or the jewish tribes of that time, rather than for christians 0 as a result of holding views 0 and 0 these liberal christians do not follow any of the laws in leviticus, including those about condemning homosexual acts.  so, i think this is pretty clear.  regardless of whether you agree with the logic of those people, we can agree that some people hold views 0 and 0 giving them the resulting philosophy 0.  after all this was pointed out, someone else responded with a comment saying   the book of leviticus is used by christians to condemn all sorts of things primarily homosexuality .  if leviticus does not apply to christians, why is it so commonly used by christians including christian leaders as an excuse to condemn homosexuality ? the obvious answer to this question is that the christians using it condemn homosexuality are not the christians who hold views 0 and 0 so they do not view the rules as outdated.  so i have a hard time understanding why these people were brought up or why we are discussing them now.  these people might cherry pick their views and they might be bigoted but what does that have to do with points 0, 0, and 0 which were the original topic of conversation.   #  why does jesus call himself the bright and morning star, a title also used for lucifer ?  #  because most public leaders do not actually represent any significant portion of the public.  religious leaders or politicians .  same shit, different details.  why do you think we celebrate the birth of the son  isun  on dec.  0th, the first day that it begins to rise after a 0 day minimum following the winter solstice ? why does jesus call himself the bright and morning star, a title also used for lucifer ? do you know that this is venus and rises in the morning before the sun ? why does judas kiss jesus ? did you know that the  fall  starts when the sun moves through scorpio ? a create whose sting of death leaves a mark looking like a kiss the kiss of death ? why were the people who built the christian symbology so interested in the bringing of light ? what do you think they meant by the light ? why do they give a fuck about this astrology stuff ? why do you think the western media has started referring to the group taking over iraq/syria as isis islamic state of iraq and syria when that is not even it is name ? why are the saudis and the usa funding these people ? why did obama ask congress to intervene on their behalf in syria ? why has the iraqi government been in a stand down against them ? do you know that isis is the goddess of rebirth ? what happens when isis disrupts me oil supplies ? what happens when the us goes into a deep depression from spiking energy prices in an environment of the fed having no policy options to stimulate the economy we are already doing qe and 0 rates ? you have to redo the monetary system in these situations, like we did back during the world wars.  a rebirth in the world of money changers, the only people jesus expressed physical violence towards.  it is not good enough to throw your hands up like op and say spell it out for me; you need to read, you need to educate yourself, you need to think.   #  it still does not validate the  cherry picking  as a viable interpretation of the bible.   #  it still does not validate the  cherry picking  as a viable interpretation of the bible.  the bible is a book that is the sole basis of an entire faith.  to assign different perspectives to different sections is still just a way to cling to a faith despite inadequacies of the bible.  if someone follows that method of interpretation it still brings you back to the core problem.  why do you believe in the christian god ? the bible itself ca not be proof of itself and when you have to take so much of the book with a grain of salt for it to make sense it strengthens the skeptics position.
science has contradicted the bible on several occasions.  for example that the word 0 billion years old, which specifically contradicts what the bible says 0,0 years old .  more liberal christians will often say that the bible is not supposed to be taken literally, however i see this answer as a pretty desperate attempt for christians to cling onto their faith.  if we are not taking the bible literally, then why believe jesus ever rose from the dead or that he is in fact the son of god ? how on earth am i supposed to have faith in a book which is not clear and filled with ambiguities ? i am not for one moment saying that the bible is not a great piece of literature and i agree that it was way ahead of its time.  however i do not see how it can be a valid axiom for my beliefs when it is  not meant to be taken literally  and has blatant misconceptions in it.   #  more liberal christians will often say that the bible is not supposed to be taken literally, however i see this answer as a pretty desperate attempt for christians to cling onto their faith.   #  many christians believe that genesis 0 is very literal, but that does not mean the earth is 0,0 years old as you are assuming.   # for example that the word 0 billion years old, which specifically contradicts what the bible says 0,0 years old .  this is a pretty outdated view, and honestly, when people use this argument against the validity of the bible, it makes me wonder how knowledgeable they are on the subject.  most people agree that the bible does not say the earth is  0,0 years old.   in general people who thoroughly study the bible believers and nonbelievers alike understand that it never speaks of the age if the earth at any point.  many christians believe that genesis 0 is very literal, but that does not mean the earth is 0,0 years old as you are assuming.  the first verse of the bible could have taken place millions of years before the following passage.  another interpretation is that genesis 0 is not an account of physical/material creation.  this is actually the interpretation which i agree with.  genesis 0 is an account of functional creation.  assigning purpose/function by god.  if you are interested in this christian creation story, i would recommend reading  the lost world of genesis one  by john walton.  he explains that ancient cultures were not concerned about the material existence of something, they were concerned about the function.  for example, in our western world eyes, a chair is created when the pieces are all assembled and we can see that the chair physically exists.  in many ancient cultures  perception that chair is not created until someone sits in it i. e.  until it is actually used for its purpose .  this interpretation takes genesis 0 very literally and does not mean the world was created 0,0 years ago.  the world was created millions of years ago, but god did not put it into its intended function until the time of functional creation which is told in genesis 0.  this may be something you disagree with and you may ask  well then what is the earth is intended function/purpose ?   but that is a different discussion.  my point is that genesis 0 does not say the world is 0,0 years old, even if it is taken literally.   #  some are poetry, some are legal code, some are historical accounts, some are  epics,  some are personal letters, etc.   #  while some christians attempt to treat the entire bible as a single genre type, it does not follow that the whole bible must therefore be treated that way.  see, the bible is an  anthology  a collection of different kinds of books.  some are poetry, some are legal code, some are historical accounts, some are  epics,  some are personal letters, etc.  a christian can easily take the gospels as  detailed documentaries,  genesis as  epic mythology,  the book of job as a  fable,  exodus as a dramatization  based on actual events,  and so forth.  treating the entire bible as one solid documentary is a completely arbitrary decision.   #  0 some people, mainly  liberal christians , do not believe the book leviticus applies any longer.   # let me lay out my issue in more simple terms because i am finding it difficult to understand the issue others are having with it: we are discussing the book leviticus.  0 some people, mainly  liberal christians , do not believe the book leviticus applies any longer.  0 as pointed out, for some christians the reason for view 0 is the idea that those laws were meant for jews, or the jewish tribes of that time, rather than for christians 0 as a result of holding views 0 and 0 these liberal christians do not follow any of the laws in leviticus, including those about condemning homosexual acts.  so, i think this is pretty clear.  regardless of whether you agree with the logic of those people, we can agree that some people hold views 0 and 0 giving them the resulting philosophy 0.  after all this was pointed out, someone else responded with a comment saying   the book of leviticus is used by christians to condemn all sorts of things primarily homosexuality .  if leviticus does not apply to christians, why is it so commonly used by christians including christian leaders as an excuse to condemn homosexuality ? the obvious answer to this question is that the christians using it condemn homosexuality are not the christians who hold views 0 and 0 so they do not view the rules as outdated.  so i have a hard time understanding why these people were brought up or why we are discussing them now.  these people might cherry pick their views and they might be bigoted but what does that have to do with points 0, 0, and 0 which were the original topic of conversation.   #  what do you think they meant by the light ?  #  because most public leaders do not actually represent any significant portion of the public.  religious leaders or politicians .  same shit, different details.  why do you think we celebrate the birth of the son  isun  on dec.  0th, the first day that it begins to rise after a 0 day minimum following the winter solstice ? why does jesus call himself the bright and morning star, a title also used for lucifer ? do you know that this is venus and rises in the morning before the sun ? why does judas kiss jesus ? did you know that the  fall  starts when the sun moves through scorpio ? a create whose sting of death leaves a mark looking like a kiss the kiss of death ? why were the people who built the christian symbology so interested in the bringing of light ? what do you think they meant by the light ? why do they give a fuck about this astrology stuff ? why do you think the western media has started referring to the group taking over iraq/syria as isis islamic state of iraq and syria when that is not even it is name ? why are the saudis and the usa funding these people ? why did obama ask congress to intervene on their behalf in syria ? why has the iraqi government been in a stand down against them ? do you know that isis is the goddess of rebirth ? what happens when isis disrupts me oil supplies ? what happens when the us goes into a deep depression from spiking energy prices in an environment of the fed having no policy options to stimulate the economy we are already doing qe and 0 rates ? you have to redo the monetary system in these situations, like we did back during the world wars.  a rebirth in the world of money changers, the only people jesus expressed physical violence towards.  it is not good enough to throw your hands up like op and say spell it out for me; you need to read, you need to educate yourself, you need to think.   #  the bible itself ca not be proof of itself and when you have to take so much of the book with a grain of salt for it to make sense it strengthens the skeptics position.   #  it still does not validate the  cherry picking  as a viable interpretation of the bible.  the bible is a book that is the sole basis of an entire faith.  to assign different perspectives to different sections is still just a way to cling to a faith despite inadequacies of the bible.  if someone follows that method of interpretation it still brings you back to the core problem.  why do you believe in the christian god ? the bible itself ca not be proof of itself and when you have to take so much of the book with a grain of salt for it to make sense it strengthens the skeptics position.
science has contradicted the bible on several occasions.  for example that the word 0 billion years old, which specifically contradicts what the bible says 0,0 years old .  more liberal christians will often say that the bible is not supposed to be taken literally, however i see this answer as a pretty desperate attempt for christians to cling onto their faith.  if we are not taking the bible literally, then why believe jesus ever rose from the dead or that he is in fact the son of god ? how on earth am i supposed to have faith in a book which is not clear and filled with ambiguities ? i am not for one moment saying that the bible is not a great piece of literature and i agree that it was way ahead of its time.  however i do not see how it can be a valid axiom for my beliefs when it is  not meant to be taken literally  and has blatant misconceptions in it.   #  however i do not see how it can be a valid axiom for my beliefs when it is  not meant to be taken literally  and has blatant misconceptions in it.   #  unfortunately, this is not a fair argument.   # unfortunately, this is not a fair argument.  as a general rule, few religions have had a single book they consider literal truth.  further, the religion from which christianity originated judeism does not take their part of the bible literally.  the idea that the bible is complete and infallible is newish.  young christianity did have some infallibility claims, but they were not about the bible as much as communication from the pope in rome.  considering all that, why does christianity need this magic limitation of  do not believe in your faith unless the bible can be taken literally  ? are you suggesting that a canonical reason not to believe all non christian faiths is the lack of a literal holy book ? not a christian, but whether or not the bible can be taken as literal is such a  weird  thing to concern yourself with.   #  a christian can easily take the gospels as  detailed documentaries,  genesis as  epic mythology,  the book of job as a  fable,  exodus as a dramatization  based on actual events,  and so forth.   #  while some christians attempt to treat the entire bible as a single genre type, it does not follow that the whole bible must therefore be treated that way.  see, the bible is an  anthology  a collection of different kinds of books.  some are poetry, some are legal code, some are historical accounts, some are  epics,  some are personal letters, etc.  a christian can easily take the gospels as  detailed documentaries,  genesis as  epic mythology,  the book of job as a  fable,  exodus as a dramatization  based on actual events,  and so forth.  treating the entire bible as one solid documentary is a completely arbitrary decision.   #  if leviticus does not apply to christians, why is it so commonly used by christians including christian leaders as an excuse to condemn homosexuality ?  # let me lay out my issue in more simple terms because i am finding it difficult to understand the issue others are having with it: we are discussing the book leviticus.  0 some people, mainly  liberal christians , do not believe the book leviticus applies any longer.  0 as pointed out, for some christians the reason for view 0 is the idea that those laws were meant for jews, or the jewish tribes of that time, rather than for christians 0 as a result of holding views 0 and 0 these liberal christians do not follow any of the laws in leviticus, including those about condemning homosexual acts.  so, i think this is pretty clear.  regardless of whether you agree with the logic of those people, we can agree that some people hold views 0 and 0 giving them the resulting philosophy 0.  after all this was pointed out, someone else responded with a comment saying   the book of leviticus is used by christians to condemn all sorts of things primarily homosexuality .  if leviticus does not apply to christians, why is it so commonly used by christians including christian leaders as an excuse to condemn homosexuality ? the obvious answer to this question is that the christians using it condemn homosexuality are not the christians who hold views 0 and 0 so they do not view the rules as outdated.  so i have a hard time understanding why these people were brought up or why we are discussing them now.  these people might cherry pick their views and they might be bigoted but what does that have to do with points 0, 0, and 0 which were the original topic of conversation.   #  do you know that isis is the goddess of rebirth ?  #  because most public leaders do not actually represent any significant portion of the public.  religious leaders or politicians .  same shit, different details.  why do you think we celebrate the birth of the son  isun  on dec.  0th, the first day that it begins to rise after a 0 day minimum following the winter solstice ? why does jesus call himself the bright and morning star, a title also used for lucifer ? do you know that this is venus and rises in the morning before the sun ? why does judas kiss jesus ? did you know that the  fall  starts when the sun moves through scorpio ? a create whose sting of death leaves a mark looking like a kiss the kiss of death ? why were the people who built the christian symbology so interested in the bringing of light ? what do you think they meant by the light ? why do they give a fuck about this astrology stuff ? why do you think the western media has started referring to the group taking over iraq/syria as isis islamic state of iraq and syria when that is not even it is name ? why are the saudis and the usa funding these people ? why did obama ask congress to intervene on their behalf in syria ? why has the iraqi government been in a stand down against them ? do you know that isis is the goddess of rebirth ? what happens when isis disrupts me oil supplies ? what happens when the us goes into a deep depression from spiking energy prices in an environment of the fed having no policy options to stimulate the economy we are already doing qe and 0 rates ? you have to redo the monetary system in these situations, like we did back during the world wars.  a rebirth in the world of money changers, the only people jesus expressed physical violence towards.  it is not good enough to throw your hands up like op and say spell it out for me; you need to read, you need to educate yourself, you need to think.   #  the bible is a book that is the sole basis of an entire faith.   #  it still does not validate the  cherry picking  as a viable interpretation of the bible.  the bible is a book that is the sole basis of an entire faith.  to assign different perspectives to different sections is still just a way to cling to a faith despite inadequacies of the bible.  if someone follows that method of interpretation it still brings you back to the core problem.  why do you believe in the christian god ? the bible itself ca not be proof of itself and when you have to take so much of the book with a grain of salt for it to make sense it strengthens the skeptics position.
sure, there are individuals who hold prejudiced views, or commit sex crimes.  but those problems should be addressed at an individual level, as they already are.  society is not standing up and saying rapists should not be arrested, or openly declaring sexism to be acceptable.  the kind of systematic, sexist, rape cultured, patriarchal society that a lot of feminists talk about simply does not exist, in my opinion, in western countries, i feel like these people go around looking for something to be offended by, pick up on the actions of a few individuals and then extrapolate that to include every man ever.  if we want to tackle gender inequality, we should be targeting countries like india, or saudi arabia, where inequality quite clearly exists at a national level, rather than inventing a problem in western countries because you feel the need to be a victim and/ or crusader.   #  i feel like these people go around looking for something to be offended by, pick up on the actions of a few individuals and then extrapolate that to include every man ever.   #  this seems like a strawman argument unless you are only thinking about the craziest tumblr feminists.   # if there is a charity dedicated to helping the american mentally ill, should they instead focus on starving african children because their need is greater ? if you want to donate some money to the british heart foundation because heart problems run in your family, would you appreciate someone coming up to you and telling you to target less fortunate countries instead and stop being selfish by donating to a first world charity ? people have a right to campaign for whatever issues they so please, provided they are not doing it by attacking others  issues.  if american women are more interested in the rights of american women, so what ? same with men, race, sexuality there is nothing wrong with being interested in issues which concern you directly and it is pretty much part of human nature to do so.  as for the body of your argument, since you say that women have achieved  equality  i am going to assume that you believe no gender issues exist in modern western society.  here is URL an article about rape rates in the us.  the question is, when someone is raped, is it helpful just to shrug and say  rapists are rapists, that is just life  or to examine the social climate that could lead to these rape rates ? the other side of the coin is male issues.  should issues like child custody for fathers in the west be shoved aside in favour of other issues ? if a guy wants to campaign to see his kids more, is it fair for someone to tell him to shut up and support women in saudi arabia instead ? if a man is raped and told to man up and not be pathetic, should he not campaign for better treatment by society ? if a woman is raped and told she was dressed like a slut and asking for it, should she not be allowed to protest that treatment ? someone else will be able to do a much better job of it.  by i will say that as a society we have some intensely fucked up perspectives on both genders.  with things like steubenville URL and the us news throwing a pity party for the poor rapists whose lives have been ruined, and plenty of people scoffing at the idea that a man could ever not want sex, it seems hard to claim that there is no unhealthy attitudes to this shit here.  this seems like a strawman argument unless you are only thinking about the craziest tumblr feminists.  i know there  are  women who claim that every man is literally a rapist, just as there  are  men that think every woman is a disgusting slut who needs to be eradicated, but that does not mean that the entire movement is invalid because some nutters have used it as a platform.  the bottom line is that the importance of these issues may vary from person to person, but everyone has a right to focus on whatever issues they want to.  it seems difficult to claim that these cultural attitudes do not exist, so i am saying that just because you do not find them that important does not mean that other people are not allowed to campaign for them.   #  i agree that it is best to focus on the countries that most need it.   #  i agree that it is best to focus on the countries that most need it.  but if men and women in western countries still do not get paid the same amount of money for the exact same work, how can you call that equality ? also if 0/0 sex assault crimes are made by men towards women, how could you say men and women are equal in that matter ? sure, problems should be faced on an individual level and you should never blame all men for these types of crimes, but you cannot ignore the fact in 0/0 cases, it is a man doing the assault towards a woman.  someone on here made this comparison before, you are drivning in traffic and all cars are either green or yellow.  it is shown that green cars are the cause of crashes 0/0 times.  would you handle this by checking all crashes on an individual level or would you also investigate why in 0/0 crashes the cars who causes it are green ? i agree with that there are people who are just looking for something to get offended by and put their focus in the absolute wrong places.  people like the ones on /r/tumblrinaction who hates all men and ignore the real problems.  and we have come a long way in the western countries, the equality level gets better in many places all the time and it is more important to focus on the worst problems in other parts of the world.  but just because they have it worse, does that mean we do not have any problems in the western countries with equality and do not need feminism ? no.  there are still a long way to go, heck it was not even 0 years ago that women got to vote where i live in sweden and now already we have reached perfect equality ? i think not.  we have sexist and racist parties in our government and not equal pay for equal work even in the western countries.  just because you do not experience it like i do not either does not mean it does not exists here too, maybe just not in the same scale.  i hope you can read my english, not my first language.  :  #  there is still an inequality in favor of men in the western world.   #  as u/angadar as pointed out above, you wo not be able to make up the difference by including  made to penetrate.   the point of the cmv, here, is to show that there are significant economic and social disparities between the sexes in the favor of men.  only 0 of women in fortune 0 companies are women.  one in thirteen murder victims URL are the girlfriends or wives of their murderers.  women earn less money from men, even if you adjust for leave and human capital investments.  there has never been a female president or vice president in the us.  0 of the prime ministers and presidents URL in the countries represented in the un are women.  there is still an inequality in favor of men in the western world.  you do not even need statistics to see this.  look around you.  all the things men make fun of women for taking too long to get ready, having to wait in lines for bathrooms, being afraid to go out at night, being afraid somebody is going to yell at them because they are walking down the street those things have costs, economic and psychological, that women have to pay.  i happen to think that it is unjust that women have to pay these costs, others do not.  what matters to this thread, though, is that those costs are there.   #  for instance, male victims of domestic violence are marginalized and discriminated against both by the legal system as well as society normal citizens at large.   # read my words again, which are figures from the cdc is fact sheet:  0 of women and 0 of men reported experiencing sexual violence in the past 0 months.  yes.  for instance, 0 of workplace deaths are male.  over 0 of prisoners are male.  the majority of homeless are male, as are the majority of educational dropouts.  men are treated worse in all aspects of the legal system simply for being male, which is unfortunately merely a manifestation of social treatment.  for instance, male victims of domestic violence are marginalized and discriminated against both by the legal system as well as society normal citizens at large.  but hey, you can focus on the fact that most ceos are male as proof of inequality and  psychological costs   #  moreover, women are targeted for these sorts of harassment more often than men.   #  you are right.  men are treated more harshly as victims of domestic violence.  they are treated harshly because they are men, and our gender schema for men does not easily allow them to appear vulnerable.  it is a terrible thing, and people should rightly advocate against it.  there is also a bias against former convicts, who are mostly men, and i think people should work to undermine that bias.  but that does not make the the sexual abuse of or domestic violence against women any better.  women are routinely targeted for harassment in their homes, in the workplace, and on the street, simply because they are women.  moreover, women are targeted for these sorts of harassment more often than men.  you should look at the other statistics on that cdc page, statistics that are not only found on the fact sheet.  women are stalked more than men, 0 in 0 men have reported that they were raped and 0 in 0 women have reported that they were raped in their lifetime and, despite your objections about anagadar is wording, including made to penetrate ca not make up that difference , women are more likely than men to be injured in an assault.  we could play statistics tennis all day.  i have no doubt that you have multiple other studies in mind that refute the findings of the studies i am concerned with and i am sure you realize that i am equipped with studies that refute those studies.  we could go on and on.  that is why i asked you to think about the women around you earlier.  women that you and i know are hurt because they are women.  women face double binds women are told to be sexy and they are told to not be sexy, they are told to be aggressive in negotiations and they are told not to be aggressive in negotiations, they are told to care about their kids, instead of their career, and they are told to care about their career, instead of their kids simply because they are women.  these double binds have  psychological costs,  and i am sorry if you do not think those are worthwhile is not a man being  marginalized and discriminated against  for being abused a psychological cost ? , but i think they are.  i think they add real insult to the economic cost injury.
in hindsight, i do believe that the war in afghanistan is a failure.  we could literally blow up every remaining terrorist, and we still would have lost the war.  because given the trillions of dollars we have spent in afghanistan, the thousands of american lives we have lost, how much the economy has tanked because of it, and the freedoms that we have lost as a result of the ongoing fear of terrorism, i ca not possibly see how we emerge out of this bloodbath being the victor.  this is what al qaeda wanted.  i read an interesting statistic about how for every dollar that terrorists spent on their operations, the us spent 0 million.  i believe that, seeing that their most effective tool at killing us has been a bomb made out of household cleaners.  someone please tell me how the terrorists have not won ? spoilers for anyone who watches homeland, the second season ends with abu nazir, the head honcho of al qaeda, dying and the viewer is left with the impression that america won.  except.  nope ! it was all a ploy to bomb the cia headquarters.  at the end, the main character, nicholas brody, has this to say:  it does not matter that you got nazir.  abu nazir would have died a thousand deaths for this one moment.   abu nazir himself says:  our struggle spans across centuries.  across generations.  death cannot stop us.   i do believe this explains the ideology of al qaeda.  that that death and destruction of al qaeda does not matter as long as the united states suffers.  and boy have we suffered.  change my view.   #  we could literally blow up every remaining terrorist, and we still would have lost the war.   #  doing that is harder than it sounds.   # doing that is harder than it sounds.  killing all terrorists just creates sympathizers, that eventually turn into terrorists.  it is more difficult than just killing them off.  but there really is not that much of an option in a  war  situation.  it reminds me of a clip of a little boy watching a convoy passing, and in the middle of it, he bombs it and runs away.  was he a  trained  terrorist.  no.  he may have attacked from many reasons.  from seeing an force that is residing in his home country.  a force that killed a close relative.  his only sense of  justice  that was taught to him.  imagine all, or even 0 being  home  because they never enlisted.  how bad would the job outlook be then ? the economy sucks not just because of the  war on terror .  before you read into it, i am not saying  keep them over there to save the economy .  what is your opinion on how to react ? learn nothing, and continue with lax security on airlines as if nothing happened ?  #  they are in the business of arming our future enemies and business is good.   #  the united states already armed them during the soviet invasion.  so if you want a source ask the pentagon for the receipt.  they are in the business of arming our future enemies and business is good.  i am mean hell, the weapons we provided the iraqis are already falling into the hands of isil.  see the pattern ? do you really think they are so short sighted that they keep making the same mistakes or is this policy ?  #  i see no reason to think this would have stopped, and al qaeda would have been in a better position to execute these attacks.   #  i think two considerations should temper your cmv.  first, much of the suffering that the us is experiencing is because of an unrelated and unjustified war in iraq.  we stretched ourselves to thin and lost sight of the reason for being a war in the first place.  second, afghanistan served as a base of operations for people who had conducted a massive attack on our country.  it provided the terrorists the ability to organize, gain funding, and execute attacks.  while we can never defeat terrorism entirely, taking out that terrorist run government was a valid reason to go to war.  if we had not gone into iraq, and had focused our resources on afghanistan, i believe we would have achieved the best result.  leaving the terrorists with a base of operations in afghanistan would have been the worst option.  attacks would have continued, and likely intensified, because getting the us to harm themselves is only one way to make the us suffer.  attacks on the lives, safety, and economy of the us are also very effective.  i see no reason to think this would have stopped, and al qaeda would have been in a better position to execute these attacks.   #  making the usa spend an extra point or two of gdp on war was not one of their objectives.   # i read an interesting statistic about how for every dollar that terrorists spent on their operations, the us spent 0 million.  i believe that, seeing that their most effective tool at killing us has been a bomb made out of household cleaners.  someone please tell me how the terrorists have not won ? al qaeda did not win because they did not achieve any of their objectives.  they wanted to remove us influence in the middle east and establish a sunni caliphate.  instead the radical sunni taliban group was overthrown and replaced with a moderate democratic government.  additionally saddam, a sunni dictator was overthrown and replaced with a democratic shia government.  in no sense did they achieve any goals.  making the usa spend an extra point or two of gdp on war was not one of their objectives.   #  looks like it is just a rock to me.    #  first: no, that was never bin laden is objective.  you have bought into the  they hate us for our freedoms  nonsense.  iirc, al qaeda had some very specific beefs with the us, and the goal was actually to wake up the us citizenry, get us to rise up against our government, and hopefully get us to stop fucking around in the middle east.  he pretty much failed on all counts.  and second: this tells us absolutely nothing:   how many successful attacks on american soil have there been since 0/0 ?  this rock is a charm.  protects you from tigers.    how do you know it works ? looks like it is just a rock to me.    well, you do not see any tigers around here, do you ?   unless we know what the expected outcome is, and know that it is different than it would have been if we did nothing, we are not really doing better than that tiger proof rock.  how many terrorist attacks have there been, period ? 0/0 certainly was not the first or the last terrorist attack on us soil.  i do not agree with op, i think there are a few common sense things that we did, like properly securing the cockpit doors to planes.  but we also went insane with security screening that, if we are honest,  still  does not protect against the original problem.  if you really wanted to get a box cutter onto a plane, you probably could.  as bruce schneier says,  we ca not keep weapons out of prisons; we ca not possibly expect to keep them out of airports.   URL and yet, i also do not think another attack similar to 0/0 is feasible, even if we did absolutely nothing.  before 0/0, if terrorists hijacked your plane, it was assumed that your best chance for survival was to cooperate with them, give them what they want, hope they land somewhere and release the hostages you .  after 0/0, we know there is a good chance we are all dead anyway, but not without a fight.  URL so even if we do not  do  anything different, just knowing that 0/0 happened is enough to prevent another 0/0.
that does not make a person a shitty human being.  that just makes them a.  human being.  if a lion were to chase away hyenas who were hunting a deer and it chooses not to share its spoils, despite having more than enough food to survive, does that make the lion a shitty lion ? likewise if i were to find a wallet with $0 in it, why should i return it when it would be far more profitable for me to keep the $0 dollars ? why should i give a homeless person food or money ? just because some mystic/prophet from thousands of years ago claimed that i will be rewarded after life for being selfless ? of course i will be friendly towards family and acquaintances because these social connections benefit me in the long run, but when it comes to sacrificing myself to save a bus full of children or donating to charity, then no thanks.  i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.  because i believe that i will be rewarded just the same after life as any other living organism that has ever existed, then i will most likely be evil and selfish when it benefits me rather than good and selfless.   #  likewise if i were to find a wallet with $0 in it, why should i return it when it would be far more profitable for me to keep the $0 dollars ?  #  because you are taking $0 from someone who owned that money and worked for it.   #  it is not a complicated of a thing.  morality has an explanation.  being a  good person  has a positive impact on other human beings.  this is a flawed analogy.  the lion has no concept of morality and lives in an environment where death from starvation is a real concept.  the lion  is  blameless.  a selfish human knows better and does not need to worry about starvation for the sake of the discussion we will use a typical first world person as an example .  because you are taking $0 from someone who owned that money and worked for it.  there is a victim here and you know that.  because they are a human being who is struggling to get by.  you are giving them just because some mystic/prophet from thousands of years ago claimed that i will be rewarded after life for being selfless ? i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.  i am not a psychiatrist, but this sounds like sociopathic tendencies.  when you steal you are harming another individual.  picture someone stealing from you and how that would make you feel.  now try to imagine you causing that distress to someone else when you steal.  sure, you can do that.  but you can also get a good feeling from being a  good person.   and aside from that, you can adapt your worldview to realize that there are other people besides yourself, and their happiness is worth as much if not more than yours.  it kind of sounds like you are a sociopath.  i do not mean that as an insult or anything, but it really sounds like you are having trouble empathizing with others.  as for why you should do good things, i will put it this way: has anyone ever done anything for you that made you happy ? bonus points if it was a random act of kindness.  now imagine them asking you why they should have done it.   #  the reason i do not partake in crimes or otherwise being a bad person is because of guilt.   #  this is my exact mentality.  i am not religious and do not affiliate with any religions so i do not know what to think of the afterlife.  i want to believe there is a heaven or something similar but i do not think you gain or lose entrance based on your actions.  the reason i do not partake in crimes or otherwise being a bad person is because of guilt.  i would feel terrible knowing i killed someone is child or stole from someone even if they were rich.  i was raised by good parents to be a good person.  seeing others in pain for whatever reason hurts me.  and if i was the cause of that pain, it would hurt me even more.   #  if i do not make an impact, then i might as well have never existed.   #  i only have a short time on this earth, and i can either make an impact or not.  if i do not make an impact, then i might as well have never existed.  if i choose to make an impact, then i have to options: to have that impact be net positive, or net negative.  a net positive impact has the potential to set up subsequent generations to make further improvements making my contribution a small but key part of a much larger construction.  a net negative impact ceases to have further direct effects shortly after i am gone.  therefore, to have my life have the most possible meaning, i must strive to improve the world as much as i can.   #  some action being good or bad is not about  who  benefits.   #  you are still basing your ideas of good and bad on a religious ethical system ! ex catholic i presume ? and this system of ethics selfish evil, selfless good is wrong.  first it is helpful to recognize that there is a good selfish and bad selfish doing something or achieving some goal/end for your own benefit is a good thing and  highly moral  if done in the right way.  some action being good or bad is not about  who  benefits.  it is about  how  you or someone else benefits and whether that benefit leads to healthy  self growth  or unhealthy  self destruction .  you should not be thinking of it as  taking versus giving .  the difference between good and bad is  earning versus stealing ,  trading voluntarily versus involuntary coercion ,  learning versus cheating .  each can be done for your  own profit  as the motive but one leads to healthy growth and most often enriches those around you.  the other leads to not growing or self harm and is often at other is expense.  consider some dictator such as pol pot versus, say, the entrepreneur elon musk.  how a hundred million is acquired is very different, and their ability to enjoy and value that money is very different.  the cheap joy/pride of a thief is mere possession of money is  qualitatively poles apart  to the earned joy/pride of the person who caused it is value to exist ! there  is  natural reward/punishment, but it is while you are still alive, and it results as the effects of your actions on  your mental capacity to value .  ever seen  clear and present danger  where moral/principled jack ryan is making passionate love to his wife and it cuts to the amoral/unprincipled columbian drug dealer bored of his blowjob ? it contrasts nicely the difference in quality between the mental states of the two opposite men.  jack feels alive, the druglord feels dead inside so the sex and his life, are meaningless.   #  i think moral behavior is largely a consequence of socialization and community.   #  i think for most people, divine reward or punishment is not the motivating force behind their moral behavior.  i think moral behavior is largely a consequence of socialization and community.  in order to reap the rewards of joining a community, your actions and efforts have to benefit the community somehow, or at the very least, not disrupt it.  the punishment for helping yourself at the expense of the community by stealing, for example, is to risk being exiled from the community.  granted, there is no supernatural of divine reward for being good, but that does not matter.  most people are moral because they are inherently pro social and enjoy belonging to a community.
that does not make a person a shitty human being.  that just makes them a.  human being.  if a lion were to chase away hyenas who were hunting a deer and it chooses not to share its spoils, despite having more than enough food to survive, does that make the lion a shitty lion ? likewise if i were to find a wallet with $0 in it, why should i return it when it would be far more profitable for me to keep the $0 dollars ? why should i give a homeless person food or money ? just because some mystic/prophet from thousands of years ago claimed that i will be rewarded after life for being selfless ? of course i will be friendly towards family and acquaintances because these social connections benefit me in the long run, but when it comes to sacrificing myself to save a bus full of children or donating to charity, then no thanks.  i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.  because i believe that i will be rewarded just the same after life as any other living organism that has ever existed, then i will most likely be evil and selfish when it benefits me rather than good and selfless.   #  why should i give a homeless person food or money ?  #  because they are a human being who is struggling to get by.   #  it is not a complicated of a thing.  morality has an explanation.  being a  good person  has a positive impact on other human beings.  this is a flawed analogy.  the lion has no concept of morality and lives in an environment where death from starvation is a real concept.  the lion  is  blameless.  a selfish human knows better and does not need to worry about starvation for the sake of the discussion we will use a typical first world person as an example .  because you are taking $0 from someone who owned that money and worked for it.  there is a victim here and you know that.  because they are a human being who is struggling to get by.  you are giving them just because some mystic/prophet from thousands of years ago claimed that i will be rewarded after life for being selfless ? i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.  i am not a psychiatrist, but this sounds like sociopathic tendencies.  when you steal you are harming another individual.  picture someone stealing from you and how that would make you feel.  now try to imagine you causing that distress to someone else when you steal.  sure, you can do that.  but you can also get a good feeling from being a  good person.   and aside from that, you can adapt your worldview to realize that there are other people besides yourself, and their happiness is worth as much if not more than yours.  it kind of sounds like you are a sociopath.  i do not mean that as an insult or anything, but it really sounds like you are having trouble empathizing with others.  as for why you should do good things, i will put it this way: has anyone ever done anything for you that made you happy ? bonus points if it was a random act of kindness.  now imagine them asking you why they should have done it.   #  i am not religious and do not affiliate with any religions so i do not know what to think of the afterlife.   #  this is my exact mentality.  i am not religious and do not affiliate with any religions so i do not know what to think of the afterlife.  i want to believe there is a heaven or something similar but i do not think you gain or lose entrance based on your actions.  the reason i do not partake in crimes or otherwise being a bad person is because of guilt.  i would feel terrible knowing i killed someone is child or stole from someone even if they were rich.  i was raised by good parents to be a good person.  seeing others in pain for whatever reason hurts me.  and if i was the cause of that pain, it would hurt me even more.   #  i only have a short time on this earth, and i can either make an impact or not.   #  i only have a short time on this earth, and i can either make an impact or not.  if i do not make an impact, then i might as well have never existed.  if i choose to make an impact, then i have to options: to have that impact be net positive, or net negative.  a net positive impact has the potential to set up subsequent generations to make further improvements making my contribution a small but key part of a much larger construction.  a net negative impact ceases to have further direct effects shortly after i am gone.  therefore, to have my life have the most possible meaning, i must strive to improve the world as much as i can.   #  you should not be thinking of it as  taking versus giving .   #  you are still basing your ideas of good and bad on a religious ethical system ! ex catholic i presume ? and this system of ethics selfish evil, selfless good is wrong.  first it is helpful to recognize that there is a good selfish and bad selfish doing something or achieving some goal/end for your own benefit is a good thing and  highly moral  if done in the right way.  some action being good or bad is not about  who  benefits.  it is about  how  you or someone else benefits and whether that benefit leads to healthy  self growth  or unhealthy  self destruction .  you should not be thinking of it as  taking versus giving .  the difference between good and bad is  earning versus stealing ,  trading voluntarily versus involuntary coercion ,  learning versus cheating .  each can be done for your  own profit  as the motive but one leads to healthy growth and most often enriches those around you.  the other leads to not growing or self harm and is often at other is expense.  consider some dictator such as pol pot versus, say, the entrepreneur elon musk.  how a hundred million is acquired is very different, and their ability to enjoy and value that money is very different.  the cheap joy/pride of a thief is mere possession of money is  qualitatively poles apart  to the earned joy/pride of the person who caused it is value to exist ! there  is  natural reward/punishment, but it is while you are still alive, and it results as the effects of your actions on  your mental capacity to value .  ever seen  clear and present danger  where moral/principled jack ryan is making passionate love to his wife and it cuts to the amoral/unprincipled columbian drug dealer bored of his blowjob ? it contrasts nicely the difference in quality between the mental states of the two opposite men.  jack feels alive, the druglord feels dead inside so the sex and his life, are meaningless.   #  granted, there is no supernatural of divine reward for being good, but that does not matter.   #  i think for most people, divine reward or punishment is not the motivating force behind their moral behavior.  i think moral behavior is largely a consequence of socialization and community.  in order to reap the rewards of joining a community, your actions and efforts have to benefit the community somehow, or at the very least, not disrupt it.  the punishment for helping yourself at the expense of the community by stealing, for example, is to risk being exiled from the community.  granted, there is no supernatural of divine reward for being good, but that does not matter.  most people are moral because they are inherently pro social and enjoy belonging to a community.
that does not make a person a shitty human being.  that just makes them a.  human being.  if a lion were to chase away hyenas who were hunting a deer and it chooses not to share its spoils, despite having more than enough food to survive, does that make the lion a shitty lion ? likewise if i were to find a wallet with $0 in it, why should i return it when it would be far more profitable for me to keep the $0 dollars ? why should i give a homeless person food or money ? just because some mystic/prophet from thousands of years ago claimed that i will be rewarded after life for being selfless ? of course i will be friendly towards family and acquaintances because these social connections benefit me in the long run, but when it comes to sacrificing myself to save a bus full of children or donating to charity, then no thanks.  i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.  because i believe that i will be rewarded just the same after life as any other living organism that has ever existed, then i will most likely be evil and selfish when it benefits me rather than good and selfless.   #  of course i will be friendly towards family and acquaintances because these social connections benefit me in the long run, but when it comes to sacrificing myself to save a bus full of children or donating to charity, then no thanks.   #  i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.   #  it is not a complicated of a thing.  morality has an explanation.  being a  good person  has a positive impact on other human beings.  this is a flawed analogy.  the lion has no concept of morality and lives in an environment where death from starvation is a real concept.  the lion  is  blameless.  a selfish human knows better and does not need to worry about starvation for the sake of the discussion we will use a typical first world person as an example .  because you are taking $0 from someone who owned that money and worked for it.  there is a victim here and you know that.  because they are a human being who is struggling to get by.  you are giving them just because some mystic/prophet from thousands of years ago claimed that i will be rewarded after life for being selfless ? i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.  i am not a psychiatrist, but this sounds like sociopathic tendencies.  when you steal you are harming another individual.  picture someone stealing from you and how that would make you feel.  now try to imagine you causing that distress to someone else when you steal.  sure, you can do that.  but you can also get a good feeling from being a  good person.   and aside from that, you can adapt your worldview to realize that there are other people besides yourself, and their happiness is worth as much if not more than yours.  it kind of sounds like you are a sociopath.  i do not mean that as an insult or anything, but it really sounds like you are having trouble empathizing with others.  as for why you should do good things, i will put it this way: has anyone ever done anything for you that made you happy ? bonus points if it was a random act of kindness.  now imagine them asking you why they should have done it.   #  and if i was the cause of that pain, it would hurt me even more.   #  this is my exact mentality.  i am not religious and do not affiliate with any religions so i do not know what to think of the afterlife.  i want to believe there is a heaven or something similar but i do not think you gain or lose entrance based on your actions.  the reason i do not partake in crimes or otherwise being a bad person is because of guilt.  i would feel terrible knowing i killed someone is child or stole from someone even if they were rich.  i was raised by good parents to be a good person.  seeing others in pain for whatever reason hurts me.  and if i was the cause of that pain, it would hurt me even more.   #  if i do not make an impact, then i might as well have never existed.   #  i only have a short time on this earth, and i can either make an impact or not.  if i do not make an impact, then i might as well have never existed.  if i choose to make an impact, then i have to options: to have that impact be net positive, or net negative.  a net positive impact has the potential to set up subsequent generations to make further improvements making my contribution a small but key part of a much larger construction.  a net negative impact ceases to have further direct effects shortly after i am gone.  therefore, to have my life have the most possible meaning, i must strive to improve the world as much as i can.   #  each can be done for your  own profit  as the motive but one leads to healthy growth and most often enriches those around you.   #  you are still basing your ideas of good and bad on a religious ethical system ! ex catholic i presume ? and this system of ethics selfish evil, selfless good is wrong.  first it is helpful to recognize that there is a good selfish and bad selfish doing something or achieving some goal/end for your own benefit is a good thing and  highly moral  if done in the right way.  some action being good or bad is not about  who  benefits.  it is about  how  you or someone else benefits and whether that benefit leads to healthy  self growth  or unhealthy  self destruction .  you should not be thinking of it as  taking versus giving .  the difference between good and bad is  earning versus stealing ,  trading voluntarily versus involuntary coercion ,  learning versus cheating .  each can be done for your  own profit  as the motive but one leads to healthy growth and most often enriches those around you.  the other leads to not growing or self harm and is often at other is expense.  consider some dictator such as pol pot versus, say, the entrepreneur elon musk.  how a hundred million is acquired is very different, and their ability to enjoy and value that money is very different.  the cheap joy/pride of a thief is mere possession of money is  qualitatively poles apart  to the earned joy/pride of the person who caused it is value to exist ! there  is  natural reward/punishment, but it is while you are still alive, and it results as the effects of your actions on  your mental capacity to value .  ever seen  clear and present danger  where moral/principled jack ryan is making passionate love to his wife and it cuts to the amoral/unprincipled columbian drug dealer bored of his blowjob ? it contrasts nicely the difference in quality between the mental states of the two opposite men.  jack feels alive, the druglord feels dead inside so the sex and his life, are meaningless.   #  in order to reap the rewards of joining a community, your actions and efforts have to benefit the community somehow, or at the very least, not disrupt it.   #  i think for most people, divine reward or punishment is not the motivating force behind their moral behavior.  i think moral behavior is largely a consequence of socialization and community.  in order to reap the rewards of joining a community, your actions and efforts have to benefit the community somehow, or at the very least, not disrupt it.  the punishment for helping yourself at the expense of the community by stealing, for example, is to risk being exiled from the community.  granted, there is no supernatural of divine reward for being good, but that does not matter.  most people are moral because they are inherently pro social and enjoy belonging to a community.
that does not make a person a shitty human being.  that just makes them a.  human being.  if a lion were to chase away hyenas who were hunting a deer and it chooses not to share its spoils, despite having more than enough food to survive, does that make the lion a shitty lion ? likewise if i were to find a wallet with $0 in it, why should i return it when it would be far more profitable for me to keep the $0 dollars ? why should i give a homeless person food or money ? just because some mystic/prophet from thousands of years ago claimed that i will be rewarded after life for being selfless ? of course i will be friendly towards family and acquaintances because these social connections benefit me in the long run, but when it comes to sacrificing myself to save a bus full of children or donating to charity, then no thanks.  i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.  because i believe that i will be rewarded just the same after life as any other living organism that has ever existed, then i will most likely be evil and selfish when it benefits me rather than good and selfless.   #  if a lion were to chase away hyenas who were hunting a deer and it chooses not to share its spoils, despite having more than enough food to survive, does that make the lion a shitty lion ?  #  well, i do not know what the hell that deer was doing in the savannah in the first place, but you can pretty much rest assured that the lioness will drag that deer carcass back to her pride.   #  what is a  good  person ? i am no philosophy guy here, but i do not think that question has really ever been answered.  but, you know, despite not knowing what the hell  good  is and what it is not, there are clearly social behaviors that are fundamentally intertwined with our fitness as a species.  well, i do not know what the hell that deer was doing in the savannah in the first place, but you can pretty much rest assured that the lioness will drag that deer carcass back to her pride.  that is pretty much how prides operate, and sharing in the spoils of the hunt is necessary for the survival of the group.  is a lioness a shitty lion if she  does not  share the deer with her pride ? probably.  to do otherwise would be a inherent violation of her duties to her pride; and, if she were to remain a member of the pride afterwards, her decision not to share the deer would be inherently selfish.  since, you know, she clearly benefits from being a member of the pride while at the same time refusing to contribute to the welfare of the pride.   #  seeing others in pain for whatever reason hurts me.   #  this is my exact mentality.  i am not religious and do not affiliate with any religions so i do not know what to think of the afterlife.  i want to believe there is a heaven or something similar but i do not think you gain or lose entrance based on your actions.  the reason i do not partake in crimes or otherwise being a bad person is because of guilt.  i would feel terrible knowing i killed someone is child or stole from someone even if they were rich.  i was raised by good parents to be a good person.  seeing others in pain for whatever reason hurts me.  and if i was the cause of that pain, it would hurt me even more.   #  a net negative impact ceases to have further direct effects shortly after i am gone.   #  i only have a short time on this earth, and i can either make an impact or not.  if i do not make an impact, then i might as well have never existed.  if i choose to make an impact, then i have to options: to have that impact be net positive, or net negative.  a net positive impact has the potential to set up subsequent generations to make further improvements making my contribution a small but key part of a much larger construction.  a net negative impact ceases to have further direct effects shortly after i am gone.  therefore, to have my life have the most possible meaning, i must strive to improve the world as much as i can.   #  it contrasts nicely the difference in quality between the mental states of the two opposite men.   #  you are still basing your ideas of good and bad on a religious ethical system ! ex catholic i presume ? and this system of ethics selfish evil, selfless good is wrong.  first it is helpful to recognize that there is a good selfish and bad selfish doing something or achieving some goal/end for your own benefit is a good thing and  highly moral  if done in the right way.  some action being good or bad is not about  who  benefits.  it is about  how  you or someone else benefits and whether that benefit leads to healthy  self growth  or unhealthy  self destruction .  you should not be thinking of it as  taking versus giving .  the difference between good and bad is  earning versus stealing ,  trading voluntarily versus involuntary coercion ,  learning versus cheating .  each can be done for your  own profit  as the motive but one leads to healthy growth and most often enriches those around you.  the other leads to not growing or self harm and is often at other is expense.  consider some dictator such as pol pot versus, say, the entrepreneur elon musk.  how a hundred million is acquired is very different, and their ability to enjoy and value that money is very different.  the cheap joy/pride of a thief is mere possession of money is  qualitatively poles apart  to the earned joy/pride of the person who caused it is value to exist ! there  is  natural reward/punishment, but it is while you are still alive, and it results as the effects of your actions on  your mental capacity to value .  ever seen  clear and present danger  where moral/principled jack ryan is making passionate love to his wife and it cuts to the amoral/unprincipled columbian drug dealer bored of his blowjob ? it contrasts nicely the difference in quality between the mental states of the two opposite men.  jack feels alive, the druglord feels dead inside so the sex and his life, are meaningless.   #  i think for most people, divine reward or punishment is not the motivating force behind their moral behavior.   #  i think for most people, divine reward or punishment is not the motivating force behind their moral behavior.  i think moral behavior is largely a consequence of socialization and community.  in order to reap the rewards of joining a community, your actions and efforts have to benefit the community somehow, or at the very least, not disrupt it.  the punishment for helping yourself at the expense of the community by stealing, for example, is to risk being exiled from the community.  granted, there is no supernatural of divine reward for being good, but that does not matter.  most people are moral because they are inherently pro social and enjoy belonging to a community.
that does not make a person a shitty human being.  that just makes them a.  human being.  if a lion were to chase away hyenas who were hunting a deer and it chooses not to share its spoils, despite having more than enough food to survive, does that make the lion a shitty lion ? likewise if i were to find a wallet with $0 in it, why should i return it when it would be far more profitable for me to keep the $0 dollars ? why should i give a homeless person food or money ? just because some mystic/prophet from thousands of years ago claimed that i will be rewarded after life for being selfless ? of course i will be friendly towards family and acquaintances because these social connections benefit me in the long run, but when it comes to sacrificing myself to save a bus full of children or donating to charity, then no thanks.  i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.  because i believe that i will be rewarded just the same after life as any other living organism that has ever existed, then i will most likely be evil and selfish when it benefits me rather than good and selfless.   #  that does not make a person a shitty human being.   #  i will not associate with an amoral person.   # i will not associate with an amoral person.  they are a threat to me and mine.  they are a shitty person by my standards.  because it is not yours.  if you do not respect the idea of property, then you should be fine with sharing everything you have.  if you are opportunistic, you will get bitten on the ass for that, sooner or later.  stealing things has a cost attached to it.  do not steal unless you are willing to pay that price.  the assumption that selfishness is the optimal strategy is a testable assertion.  do you really think there is nothing to be gained outside your own family and people you already know ? neither act is compulsory.  you do not have to be a sociopath to avoid either of those things.  spoken like a true criminal.  everyone behind bars believed exactly the same thing and they were all wrong.  people are not nearly as smart as they think they are.  they get caught all the time.  i believe that life stops at death, and that there is nothing after.  i would rather be good mostly anyway than evil because it is more advantageous for me in life.  your idea of evil is a very short term strategy and i am in it for the long game.  i get opportunities you never will, simply because those opportunities require the trust of people you think you are smart enough to fool but you are not .   #  i was raised by good parents to be a good person.   #  this is my exact mentality.  i am not religious and do not affiliate with any religions so i do not know what to think of the afterlife.  i want to believe there is a heaven or something similar but i do not think you gain or lose entrance based on your actions.  the reason i do not partake in crimes or otherwise being a bad person is because of guilt.  i would feel terrible knowing i killed someone is child or stole from someone even if they were rich.  i was raised by good parents to be a good person.  seeing others in pain for whatever reason hurts me.  and if i was the cause of that pain, it would hurt me even more.   #  i only have a short time on this earth, and i can either make an impact or not.   #  i only have a short time on this earth, and i can either make an impact or not.  if i do not make an impact, then i might as well have never existed.  if i choose to make an impact, then i have to options: to have that impact be net positive, or net negative.  a net positive impact has the potential to set up subsequent generations to make further improvements making my contribution a small but key part of a much larger construction.  a net negative impact ceases to have further direct effects shortly after i am gone.  therefore, to have my life have the most possible meaning, i must strive to improve the world as much as i can.   #  each can be done for your  own profit  as the motive but one leads to healthy growth and most often enriches those around you.   #  you are still basing your ideas of good and bad on a religious ethical system ! ex catholic i presume ? and this system of ethics selfish evil, selfless good is wrong.  first it is helpful to recognize that there is a good selfish and bad selfish doing something or achieving some goal/end for your own benefit is a good thing and  highly moral  if done in the right way.  some action being good or bad is not about  who  benefits.  it is about  how  you or someone else benefits and whether that benefit leads to healthy  self growth  or unhealthy  self destruction .  you should not be thinking of it as  taking versus giving .  the difference between good and bad is  earning versus stealing ,  trading voluntarily versus involuntary coercion ,  learning versus cheating .  each can be done for your  own profit  as the motive but one leads to healthy growth and most often enriches those around you.  the other leads to not growing or self harm and is often at other is expense.  consider some dictator such as pol pot versus, say, the entrepreneur elon musk.  how a hundred million is acquired is very different, and their ability to enjoy and value that money is very different.  the cheap joy/pride of a thief is mere possession of money is  qualitatively poles apart  to the earned joy/pride of the person who caused it is value to exist ! there  is  natural reward/punishment, but it is while you are still alive, and it results as the effects of your actions on  your mental capacity to value .  ever seen  clear and present danger  where moral/principled jack ryan is making passionate love to his wife and it cuts to the amoral/unprincipled columbian drug dealer bored of his blowjob ? it contrasts nicely the difference in quality between the mental states of the two opposite men.  jack feels alive, the druglord feels dead inside so the sex and his life, are meaningless.   #  most people are moral because they are inherently pro social and enjoy belonging to a community.   #  i think for most people, divine reward or punishment is not the motivating force behind their moral behavior.  i think moral behavior is largely a consequence of socialization and community.  in order to reap the rewards of joining a community, your actions and efforts have to benefit the community somehow, or at the very least, not disrupt it.  the punishment for helping yourself at the expense of the community by stealing, for example, is to risk being exiled from the community.  granted, there is no supernatural of divine reward for being good, but that does not matter.  most people are moral because they are inherently pro social and enjoy belonging to a community.
that does not make a person a shitty human being.  that just makes them a.  human being.  if a lion were to chase away hyenas who were hunting a deer and it chooses not to share its spoils, despite having more than enough food to survive, does that make the lion a shitty lion ? likewise if i were to find a wallet with $0 in it, why should i return it when it would be far more profitable for me to keep the $0 dollars ? why should i give a homeless person food or money ? just because some mystic/prophet from thousands of years ago claimed that i will be rewarded after life for being selfless ? of course i will be friendly towards family and acquaintances because these social connections benefit me in the long run, but when it comes to sacrificing myself to save a bus full of children or donating to charity, then no thanks.  i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.  because i believe that i will be rewarded just the same after life as any other living organism that has ever existed, then i will most likely be evil and selfish when it benefits me rather than good and selfless.   #  why should i give a homeless person food or money ?  #  the assumption that selfishness is the optimal strategy is a testable assertion.   # i will not associate with an amoral person.  they are a threat to me and mine.  they are a shitty person by my standards.  because it is not yours.  if you do not respect the idea of property, then you should be fine with sharing everything you have.  if you are opportunistic, you will get bitten on the ass for that, sooner or later.  stealing things has a cost attached to it.  do not steal unless you are willing to pay that price.  the assumption that selfishness is the optimal strategy is a testable assertion.  do you really think there is nothing to be gained outside your own family and people you already know ? neither act is compulsory.  you do not have to be a sociopath to avoid either of those things.  spoken like a true criminal.  everyone behind bars believed exactly the same thing and they were all wrong.  people are not nearly as smart as they think they are.  they get caught all the time.  i believe that life stops at death, and that there is nothing after.  i would rather be good mostly anyway than evil because it is more advantageous for me in life.  your idea of evil is a very short term strategy and i am in it for the long game.  i get opportunities you never will, simply because those opportunities require the trust of people you think you are smart enough to fool but you are not .   #  i want to believe there is a heaven or something similar but i do not think you gain or lose entrance based on your actions.   #  this is my exact mentality.  i am not religious and do not affiliate with any religions so i do not know what to think of the afterlife.  i want to believe there is a heaven or something similar but i do not think you gain or lose entrance based on your actions.  the reason i do not partake in crimes or otherwise being a bad person is because of guilt.  i would feel terrible knowing i killed someone is child or stole from someone even if they were rich.  i was raised by good parents to be a good person.  seeing others in pain for whatever reason hurts me.  and if i was the cause of that pain, it would hurt me even more.   #  if i do not make an impact, then i might as well have never existed.   #  i only have a short time on this earth, and i can either make an impact or not.  if i do not make an impact, then i might as well have never existed.  if i choose to make an impact, then i have to options: to have that impact be net positive, or net negative.  a net positive impact has the potential to set up subsequent generations to make further improvements making my contribution a small but key part of a much larger construction.  a net negative impact ceases to have further direct effects shortly after i am gone.  therefore, to have my life have the most possible meaning, i must strive to improve the world as much as i can.   #  the other leads to not growing or self harm and is often at other is expense.   #  you are still basing your ideas of good and bad on a religious ethical system ! ex catholic i presume ? and this system of ethics selfish evil, selfless good is wrong.  first it is helpful to recognize that there is a good selfish and bad selfish doing something or achieving some goal/end for your own benefit is a good thing and  highly moral  if done in the right way.  some action being good or bad is not about  who  benefits.  it is about  how  you or someone else benefits and whether that benefit leads to healthy  self growth  or unhealthy  self destruction .  you should not be thinking of it as  taking versus giving .  the difference between good and bad is  earning versus stealing ,  trading voluntarily versus involuntary coercion ,  learning versus cheating .  each can be done for your  own profit  as the motive but one leads to healthy growth and most often enriches those around you.  the other leads to not growing or self harm and is often at other is expense.  consider some dictator such as pol pot versus, say, the entrepreneur elon musk.  how a hundred million is acquired is very different, and their ability to enjoy and value that money is very different.  the cheap joy/pride of a thief is mere possession of money is  qualitatively poles apart  to the earned joy/pride of the person who caused it is value to exist ! there  is  natural reward/punishment, but it is while you are still alive, and it results as the effects of your actions on  your mental capacity to value .  ever seen  clear and present danger  where moral/principled jack ryan is making passionate love to his wife and it cuts to the amoral/unprincipled columbian drug dealer bored of his blowjob ? it contrasts nicely the difference in quality between the mental states of the two opposite men.  jack feels alive, the druglord feels dead inside so the sex and his life, are meaningless.   #  most people are moral because they are inherently pro social and enjoy belonging to a community.   #  i think for most people, divine reward or punishment is not the motivating force behind their moral behavior.  i think moral behavior is largely a consequence of socialization and community.  in order to reap the rewards of joining a community, your actions and efforts have to benefit the community somehow, or at the very least, not disrupt it.  the punishment for helping yourself at the expense of the community by stealing, for example, is to risk being exiled from the community.  granted, there is no supernatural of divine reward for being good, but that does not matter.  most people are moral because they are inherently pro social and enjoy belonging to a community.
that does not make a person a shitty human being.  that just makes them a.  human being.  if a lion were to chase away hyenas who were hunting a deer and it chooses not to share its spoils, despite having more than enough food to survive, does that make the lion a shitty lion ? likewise if i were to find a wallet with $0 in it, why should i return it when it would be far more profitable for me to keep the $0 dollars ? why should i give a homeless person food or money ? just because some mystic/prophet from thousands of years ago claimed that i will be rewarded after life for being selfless ? of course i will be friendly towards family and acquaintances because these social connections benefit me in the long run, but when it comes to sacrificing myself to save a bus full of children or donating to charity, then no thanks.  i will also gladly steal from strangers if i know that i am guaranteed to get away with it.  because i believe that i will be rewarded just the same after life as any other living organism that has ever existed, then i will most likely be evil and selfish when it benefits me rather than good and selfless.   #  because i believe that i will be rewarded just the same after life as any other living organism that has ever existed, then i will most likely be evil and selfish when it benefits me rather than good and selfless.   #  i believe that life stops at death, and that there is nothing after.   # i will not associate with an amoral person.  they are a threat to me and mine.  they are a shitty person by my standards.  because it is not yours.  if you do not respect the idea of property, then you should be fine with sharing everything you have.  if you are opportunistic, you will get bitten on the ass for that, sooner or later.  stealing things has a cost attached to it.  do not steal unless you are willing to pay that price.  the assumption that selfishness is the optimal strategy is a testable assertion.  do you really think there is nothing to be gained outside your own family and people you already know ? neither act is compulsory.  you do not have to be a sociopath to avoid either of those things.  spoken like a true criminal.  everyone behind bars believed exactly the same thing and they were all wrong.  people are not nearly as smart as they think they are.  they get caught all the time.  i believe that life stops at death, and that there is nothing after.  i would rather be good mostly anyway than evil because it is more advantageous for me in life.  your idea of evil is a very short term strategy and i am in it for the long game.  i get opportunities you never will, simply because those opportunities require the trust of people you think you are smart enough to fool but you are not .   #  and if i was the cause of that pain, it would hurt me even more.   #  this is my exact mentality.  i am not religious and do not affiliate with any religions so i do not know what to think of the afterlife.  i want to believe there is a heaven or something similar but i do not think you gain or lose entrance based on your actions.  the reason i do not partake in crimes or otherwise being a bad person is because of guilt.  i would feel terrible knowing i killed someone is child or stole from someone even if they were rich.  i was raised by good parents to be a good person.  seeing others in pain for whatever reason hurts me.  and if i was the cause of that pain, it would hurt me even more.   #  i only have a short time on this earth, and i can either make an impact or not.   #  i only have a short time on this earth, and i can either make an impact or not.  if i do not make an impact, then i might as well have never existed.  if i choose to make an impact, then i have to options: to have that impact be net positive, or net negative.  a net positive impact has the potential to set up subsequent generations to make further improvements making my contribution a small but key part of a much larger construction.  a net negative impact ceases to have further direct effects shortly after i am gone.  therefore, to have my life have the most possible meaning, i must strive to improve the world as much as i can.   #  you are still basing your ideas of good and bad on a religious ethical system !  #  you are still basing your ideas of good and bad on a religious ethical system ! ex catholic i presume ? and this system of ethics selfish evil, selfless good is wrong.  first it is helpful to recognize that there is a good selfish and bad selfish doing something or achieving some goal/end for your own benefit is a good thing and  highly moral  if done in the right way.  some action being good or bad is not about  who  benefits.  it is about  how  you or someone else benefits and whether that benefit leads to healthy  self growth  or unhealthy  self destruction .  you should not be thinking of it as  taking versus giving .  the difference between good and bad is  earning versus stealing ,  trading voluntarily versus involuntary coercion ,  learning versus cheating .  each can be done for your  own profit  as the motive but one leads to healthy growth and most often enriches those around you.  the other leads to not growing or self harm and is often at other is expense.  consider some dictator such as pol pot versus, say, the entrepreneur elon musk.  how a hundred million is acquired is very different, and their ability to enjoy and value that money is very different.  the cheap joy/pride of a thief is mere possession of money is  qualitatively poles apart  to the earned joy/pride of the person who caused it is value to exist ! there  is  natural reward/punishment, but it is while you are still alive, and it results as the effects of your actions on  your mental capacity to value .  ever seen  clear and present danger  where moral/principled jack ryan is making passionate love to his wife and it cuts to the amoral/unprincipled columbian drug dealer bored of his blowjob ? it contrasts nicely the difference in quality between the mental states of the two opposite men.  jack feels alive, the druglord feels dead inside so the sex and his life, are meaningless.   #  i think for most people, divine reward or punishment is not the motivating force behind their moral behavior.   #  i think for most people, divine reward or punishment is not the motivating force behind their moral behavior.  i think moral behavior is largely a consequence of socialization and community.  in order to reap the rewards of joining a community, your actions and efforts have to benefit the community somehow, or at the very least, not disrupt it.  the punishment for helping yourself at the expense of the community by stealing, for example, is to risk being exiled from the community.  granted, there is no supernatural of divine reward for being good, but that does not matter.  most people are moral because they are inherently pro social and enjoy belonging to a community.
as genomic editing technology becomes ever more efficient and targeted, it is only a short matter of time before it can/will be used to modify humans.  editing adult will probably be beyond the technological barrier for quite some time, but editing embryos will probably be relatively simple.  i believe something that my friends found rather unacceptable:  i believe that it should not only be acceptable for parents to modify their children, but they are morally obligated to do so.   disease: the easiest case for this is disease.  we know scores of genetic variants that make you more susceptible to everything from cancer to diabetes to heart disease.  this technology would effectively end familial cancers such as brca0/0 related breast cancer .  if you could cure your child ahead of time from these diseases, i feel you are compelled to as a parent.  think of it like a genetic vaccine.  we think it is unimaginable for a person to not get a vaccine especially if they already do not believe the autism/vaccine nonsense , and this would be a genetic comparison.  non disease: but i would go farther to even argue that non disease traits should be altered by parents to give children better outcomes.  this may not be a moral imperative as disease is, but i for one would do it every time.  if i could make my child smarter, faster, clear skinned, better vision, taller, etc.  why would you not give your child the best of all possible lives ? some caveats: 0.  this is assuming affordability, efficacy, and no side effects.  0.  i do not consider an embryo a person yet.  0.  i do not consider reduction of genetic diversity a real problem.  most disease variants do not cause a significant side benefit like sickle cell that modern tech does not already have a much better solution to.  maybe these are not blessing though ? maybe there are a host of factors i have not considered ? cmv  #  but i would go farther to even argue that non disease traits should be altered by parents to give children better outcomes.   #  this may not be a moral imperative as disease is, but i for one would do it every time.   # this may not be a moral imperative as disease is, but i for one would do it every time.  if i could make my child smarter, faster, clear skinned, better vision, taller, etc.  why would you not give your child the best of all possible lives ? i would not want that for me or my kids.  you know those parents who always wanted to be a great musician or a great athelete, so they pressure their kid to spend hours in practice ? and even if the kid turns out successful as a programmer or something, the parent is still disappointed that they did not get the star qb son they wanted ? now imagine that the parent paid a large sum of money to genetically engineer the kid to be a perfect doctor or football player or whatever.  that is an awful lot of pressure and expectations to put on a person you have not even met.  the poor kid has to become a super star because you have set him up so that an average life is a failure for him.  why not let the kid be his own person ? speaking personally, if someone came to me today and offered to  augment  my genes, i absolutely not want it.  so why assume that my kids would ? that is good for you, but much like people who ignore global warming, the problem does not disappear because you do not understand it.  history tells us time after time after time that reduction in the genetic diversity of a species leads to extinction.   #  it is not an achievement anymore than saying in the real world that you can walk downstairs in the morning for breakfast.   #  the point is that humanity requires struggle and stress in order to appreciate its achievements.  if everybody is attractive and good at everything, nobody will feel attractive and good at everything.  have you ever known someone with depression ? or someone who is just plain unhappy with their life ? plenty of people can feel sad and unhappy despite being attractive, young and living in a great house with a loving family in a first world country.  they get told that they are being selfish quite a lot.  that there is people in india or africa who are starving so what do you have to whine about.  but because in their neighbourhood the way they live is the norm, it does not make them happy.  it just  is .  so they can still feel crap despite all that great stuff they have compared to the vast majority of the world is population.  if everyone around you was healthy, strong and amazingly attractive, you would not feel happy about those things.  they would just be the norm, the average, and other things would get you down.  if everyone can run a marathon without a struggle, a marathon is not impressive and nobody cares if you can do it.  it is not an achievement anymore than saying in the real world that you can walk downstairs in the morning for breakfast.  years ago, people would have loved all the medical advancements we enjoy now, but in modern times they are expected and nobody cares about them and finds other things to be unsatisfied with.  if you imagine genetic modification as something that you could take now, as an adult, i can see why it is tempting.  but in a society where it is the norm for babies, they would not be happier with it anymore than people are happier with all the wonderful things they have today, because they would not know or expect any different.   #  i am completely happy with the person i am today.   #  i am completely happy with the person i am today.  also, when it comes to improving myself, i enjoy the journey just as much as the results.  learning new things is fun, going to lift weights or take a run is fun, practicing an instrument is fun.  if i just go into my genetic code to improve all these things, it is like cheat codes on a game.  where is the fun in that ? ok, maybe it is fun for a while, but only because i know i can go back to the normal game if i want also, to make this more applicable to the example of modifying your kids, i should clarify something.  if you accept the man is offer, he chooses how you will be augmented, you are not getting a say in the matter.   #  for now i will assume you are like a lot of reddit and against the practice on infants.   #  there is no sense of achievement.  life is not not about being good, it is about improving.  if i just jack up my cardiovascular system, i have not achieved a damn thing.  i would rather work my way to a 0 minute mile than take a shortcut to a 0 minute mile.  we already have gene therapy lol.  sure, but you are kidding yourself if you do not think this is a massive step that would be unpopular with a lot of people.  sidebar, how do you feel about circumcision ? for now i will assume you are like a lot of reddit and against the practice on infants.  this makes me wonder how it is wrong to perform a small bodily modification on an infant, but somehow ok to alter every aspect of your child before they are born.   #  life is not not about being good, it is about improving.   # life is not not about being good, it is about improving.  if i just jack up my cardiovascular system, i have not achieved a damn thing.  i would rather work my way to a 0 minute mile than take a shortcut to a 0 minute mile.  this is like saying if everyone is chained to a 0 lb weight we should not cut it off because then it would not be a challenge to reach a 0 minute mile.  you are limiting yourself.  even if you are on steroids you still have to work your butt off.  it is just that you reach your goal faster and can set your sights higher.  you are limiting yourself.  i disagree, if there were a way to prevent horrible genetic diseases i think most people would want to take it.
as genomic editing technology becomes ever more efficient and targeted, it is only a short matter of time before it can/will be used to modify humans.  editing adult will probably be beyond the technological barrier for quite some time, but editing embryos will probably be relatively simple.  i believe something that my friends found rather unacceptable:  i believe that it should not only be acceptable for parents to modify their children, but they are morally obligated to do so.   disease: the easiest case for this is disease.  we know scores of genetic variants that make you more susceptible to everything from cancer to diabetes to heart disease.  this technology would effectively end familial cancers such as brca0/0 related breast cancer .  if you could cure your child ahead of time from these diseases, i feel you are compelled to as a parent.  think of it like a genetic vaccine.  we think it is unimaginable for a person to not get a vaccine especially if they already do not believe the autism/vaccine nonsense , and this would be a genetic comparison.  non disease: but i would go farther to even argue that non disease traits should be altered by parents to give children better outcomes.  this may not be a moral imperative as disease is, but i for one would do it every time.  if i could make my child smarter, faster, clear skinned, better vision, taller, etc.  why would you not give your child the best of all possible lives ? some caveats: 0.  this is assuming affordability, efficacy, and no side effects.  0.  i do not consider an embryo a person yet.  0.  i do not consider reduction of genetic diversity a real problem.  most disease variants do not cause a significant side benefit like sickle cell that modern tech does not already have a much better solution to.  maybe these are not blessing though ? maybe there are a host of factors i have not considered ? cmv  #  i do not consider reduction of genetic diversity a real problem.   #  that is good for you, but much like people who ignore global warming, the problem does not disappear because you do not understand it.   # this may not be a moral imperative as disease is, but i for one would do it every time.  if i could make my child smarter, faster, clear skinned, better vision, taller, etc.  why would you not give your child the best of all possible lives ? i would not want that for me or my kids.  you know those parents who always wanted to be a great musician or a great athelete, so they pressure their kid to spend hours in practice ? and even if the kid turns out successful as a programmer or something, the parent is still disappointed that they did not get the star qb son they wanted ? now imagine that the parent paid a large sum of money to genetically engineer the kid to be a perfect doctor or football player or whatever.  that is an awful lot of pressure and expectations to put on a person you have not even met.  the poor kid has to become a super star because you have set him up so that an average life is a failure for him.  why not let the kid be his own person ? speaking personally, if someone came to me today and offered to  augment  my genes, i absolutely not want it.  so why assume that my kids would ? that is good for you, but much like people who ignore global warming, the problem does not disappear because you do not understand it.  history tells us time after time after time that reduction in the genetic diversity of a species leads to extinction.   #  it is not an achievement anymore than saying in the real world that you can walk downstairs in the morning for breakfast.   #  the point is that humanity requires struggle and stress in order to appreciate its achievements.  if everybody is attractive and good at everything, nobody will feel attractive and good at everything.  have you ever known someone with depression ? or someone who is just plain unhappy with their life ? plenty of people can feel sad and unhappy despite being attractive, young and living in a great house with a loving family in a first world country.  they get told that they are being selfish quite a lot.  that there is people in india or africa who are starving so what do you have to whine about.  but because in their neighbourhood the way they live is the norm, it does not make them happy.  it just  is .  so they can still feel crap despite all that great stuff they have compared to the vast majority of the world is population.  if everyone around you was healthy, strong and amazingly attractive, you would not feel happy about those things.  they would just be the norm, the average, and other things would get you down.  if everyone can run a marathon without a struggle, a marathon is not impressive and nobody cares if you can do it.  it is not an achievement anymore than saying in the real world that you can walk downstairs in the morning for breakfast.  years ago, people would have loved all the medical advancements we enjoy now, but in modern times they are expected and nobody cares about them and finds other things to be unsatisfied with.  if you imagine genetic modification as something that you could take now, as an adult, i can see why it is tempting.  but in a society where it is the norm for babies, they would not be happier with it anymore than people are happier with all the wonderful things they have today, because they would not know or expect any different.   #  if i just go into my genetic code to improve all these things, it is like cheat codes on a game.   #  i am completely happy with the person i am today.  also, when it comes to improving myself, i enjoy the journey just as much as the results.  learning new things is fun, going to lift weights or take a run is fun, practicing an instrument is fun.  if i just go into my genetic code to improve all these things, it is like cheat codes on a game.  where is the fun in that ? ok, maybe it is fun for a while, but only because i know i can go back to the normal game if i want also, to make this more applicable to the example of modifying your kids, i should clarify something.  if you accept the man is offer, he chooses how you will be augmented, you are not getting a say in the matter.   #  sure, but you are kidding yourself if you do not think this is a massive step that would be unpopular with a lot of people.   #  there is no sense of achievement.  life is not not about being good, it is about improving.  if i just jack up my cardiovascular system, i have not achieved a damn thing.  i would rather work my way to a 0 minute mile than take a shortcut to a 0 minute mile.  we already have gene therapy lol.  sure, but you are kidding yourself if you do not think this is a massive step that would be unpopular with a lot of people.  sidebar, how do you feel about circumcision ? for now i will assume you are like a lot of reddit and against the practice on infants.  this makes me wonder how it is wrong to perform a small bodily modification on an infant, but somehow ok to alter every aspect of your child before they are born.   #  life is not not about being good, it is about improving.   # life is not not about being good, it is about improving.  if i just jack up my cardiovascular system, i have not achieved a damn thing.  i would rather work my way to a 0 minute mile than take a shortcut to a 0 minute mile.  this is like saying if everyone is chained to a 0 lb weight we should not cut it off because then it would not be a challenge to reach a 0 minute mile.  you are limiting yourself.  even if you are on steroids you still have to work your butt off.  it is just that you reach your goal faster and can set your sights higher.  you are limiting yourself.  i disagree, if there were a way to prevent horrible genetic diseases i think most people would want to take it.
note: i live in the united states, where prescriptions are currently required for oral contraceptives.  i believe that oral contraceptives should be sold over the counter in pharmacies, without the need of a prescription.  most birth control is basically the same exact thing as plan b but in a lower dosage.  plan b is extremely easy to purchase and requires no prescription unless you are under 0 .  why should regular daily pill birth control be any different ? it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.  i would argue that birth control is one of the most commonly improperly used prescription drugs.  and i think this is specifically because it requires a prescription.  it is important to stay on schedule with daily pills.  if a week is worth of pills are missed, the body is cycle and the drug is cycle will be out if sync.  one of the main reasons several days like this would be missed is because of the requirement for a prescription.  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ? what if you do not have time to the doctor ? what if your doctor does not have any upcoming appointments available ? this will throw off the woman is body and could be completely avoided if it was available otc.  not to mention, there are other otc drugs that could be much more harmful to someone if improperly used e. g.  sudafed, dextromethorphan, pain relievers, diet pills .  why should birth control not be an otc drug ? change my view.   #  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ?  #  what if you do not have time to the doctor ?  #  is not bc prescription because it is more than just bc and calling it that is more of a misnomer technically.  bc is essentially hormone therapy, unlike plan b which is only taken for a short duration once bc is taken consistently, that can potentially have various long term negative effects.  it goes beyond simple bc, and can be used for purposes outside of bc that i would imagine would be best having those regular meetings with a doctor.  as well if im not mistaken different pills have different levels of hormones, estrogen and such.  i would imagine speaking with a trained physician would be rather important to discern which is right for you, and taking possibly the wrong kind could cause dangerous complications.  which taking the wrong kind of drugs out of ignorance is different then doing it to abuse the drug  why should regular daily pill birth control be any different ? it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.  it is but it is also taken consistently so would not that compound the risk ? especially since our bodies are constantly changing and striking a balance with our hormones, estrogen etc is a delicate process when attempting to influence them ? what if you do not have time to the doctor ? what if your doctor does not have any upcoming appointments available ? this will throw off the woman is body and could be completely avoided if it was available otc.  this does not seem like a good excuse, they are on a pretty set schedule and they are the only one taking it.  it is not like a bottle of aspirin that multiple people can use and so it is possible to run out of and not know it.  you are the only one taking it so you are going to see yourself getting low, you are going to know exactly how many more days you have left, i ca not imagine it being a surprise.  lacking personal responsibility to schedule an appropriate appointment when getting low.  i imagine that is the difference between otc drugs that can be dangerous and the pill.  current otc drugs are not meant to be taken for such long expanses of time.  they are their to treat something temporarily which if it persists i imagine calls for a doctor visit.  the pill is hormone therapy and is meant to be taken for long periods of time.  i imagine having a trained physician monitoring and approving your use to be extremely important for something you will be using for such a long period of time.  though honestly, i do not think anyone is qualified to change your view on this beyond actually talking to a trained physician  #  my gyn thought maybe it was a reaction to some inert ingredient.   #  the only real downside to otc hormonal birth control is that certain people have a huge increased risk of strokes.  it is really important to understand those risk factors.  i wish i was not on my phone.  i would post some links.  years ago i switched pills to a generic and almost immediately started having horrible headaches.  my gyn thought maybe it was a reaction to some inert ingredient.  switched me back.  still had horrible headaches.  sent me in for a full set of tests and it turned out i had cluster headaches which are god awful and in the migraine family.  in the end it was not a stroke but it could have been.  he was really concerned because i do not smoke.  so long story short.  the difference with plan b is that it is a couple doses and it can still screw up your cycle but it is not long term use of the hormones.  i wish i could agree with you but this is enough of a risk that now that my younger sister is approaching 0 and she has smoked for years.  her doctor is requesting/finally allowing her to get a tubal and go off the pill.  she adamantly does not want kids.  even ended a long relationship with a guy who decided he might want them when she was in her early 0s.   #  while this is true, it is also true for other forms of medication already approved for otc sale.   #  while this is true, it is also true for other forms of medication already approved for otc sale.  for example, taking more than 0 mg of acetaminophen or less in conjunction with alcohol can cause liver failure, kidney damage, coma, and death; it already causes thousands of hospitalizations a year URL i would ask whether the risks are comparable to those that are already approved for otc use this might also imply that acetaminophen is too dangerous, of course .  i think a more compelling argument is the education aspect.  many, many women take monthly birth control incorrectly or do not understand how it works even after being counseled on it by a doctor and/or pharmacist.  for example, pills with just progestins must be taken at the  exact  same time every day or they are not effective, but this is a source of many pregnancies that occur while women are on the pill.  same with antibiotics or the dangers of missing the first pill after the placebo week.  i think drug companies and even doctors fear that patients will misuse pills more often if they do not have to be counseled by a physician to get them, leading to liability issues for drug companies, and more health problems for women.   #  viox and other cox 0 selective inhibitors were shown to cause heart problems in certain people, and it is mostly related to the de equilibrating effects that leaving cox 0 and killing cox 0 has.   #  the heart problems associated with ibuprofen are pretty limited.  viox and other cox 0 selective inhibitors were shown to cause heart problems in certain people, and it is mostly related to the de equilibrating effects that leaving cox 0 and killing cox 0 has.  semi selective cox 0 inhibitors like meloxicam have not even been shown to really have that effect, though time will tell.  i am sure it is possible though.  the worst effects most people will get with ibuprofen overdose is stomach ulcers usually.  of course, too much of anything can cause problems ! either way, nice talking to you !  #  this is studied and taken into account by approval processes for medications.   #  the difference here is that in the example you present with tylenol acetaminophen it is in a case of excessive dosing, where as with the birth control it is while taking the proper dose.  further, acetaminophen is a special case when it comes to it is approval process, due to being grandfathered in.  i highly doubt it would make it in our current system.  look at both the massive recalls that happened five years or so back along with the new dosing requirements for opiod acetaminophen combo medications, decreasing the possible acetaminophen content from anywhere up to 0mg a pill down to a max of 0 mg.  your second paragraph speaks to the ability of people to maintain the prescribed advised on the box dosing for a medication.  this is studied and taken into account by approval processes for medications.  in fact, this is more or less the sole reason that lipitor, one of the biggest drugs around, was not able to  flip the switch  and go otc when it is patent ran out.
note: i live in the united states, where prescriptions are currently required for oral contraceptives.  i believe that oral contraceptives should be sold over the counter in pharmacies, without the need of a prescription.  most birth control is basically the same exact thing as plan b but in a lower dosage.  plan b is extremely easy to purchase and requires no prescription unless you are under 0 .  why should regular daily pill birth control be any different ? it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.  i would argue that birth control is one of the most commonly improperly used prescription drugs.  and i think this is specifically because it requires a prescription.  it is important to stay on schedule with daily pills.  if a week is worth of pills are missed, the body is cycle and the drug is cycle will be out if sync.  one of the main reasons several days like this would be missed is because of the requirement for a prescription.  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ? what if you do not have time to the doctor ? what if your doctor does not have any upcoming appointments available ? this will throw off the woman is body and could be completely avoided if it was available otc.  not to mention, there are other otc drugs that could be much more harmful to someone if improperly used e. g.  sudafed, dextromethorphan, pain relievers, diet pills .  why should birth control not be an otc drug ? change my view.   #  why should regular daily pill birth control be any different ?  #  it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.   # yes.  plan b is a one time use of high dose progestagen designed to prevent establishment of a pregnancy by its negative feedback onto the hypothalamo pituitary unit to down regulate the hormone that is maintaining the corpus luteum or to prevent ovulation via the same mechanism.  oral hormonal birth control pills bcp is a routine regimen and consists of a wide variety of compositions: progestagen only, progestagen and estranes of varying doses, progestagen and estranes of titrating doses, corticosteroids with progestogenic effects, and etc.  it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.  the worst case scenarios are blood clots, primarily from estrogens, but some synthetic progestogens increase risk for blood clot.  blood clot in the heart heart attack.  blood clot in lung pulmonary embolism drowning in air .  blood clot in brain stroke.  from this factor alone combined with the not my liability / sue everything culture we live in makes it a necessity that individuals who are taking medications that can cause a risk to life or limb should be routinely evaluated by a medical professional.  many lifestyle factors or physiologic and/or genetic conditions puts individuals at a predisposition for increased risk of blood clots reinforcing the guidance and routine evaluation by a medical professional.  then there are lesser risks to life and limb, like different degrees of bleeding.  there are possible androgenic masculinity or hirsutism or emotional effects of taking bcp, which everyone reacts differently, again reinforcing the necessity of guidance of a medical professional who can find the appropriate hormone and dosing regimen.  lower dose does not correlate with smaller risk of danger.  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ? most pharmacies, will refill a script, if the individual does not make it a habit to run out of refills.  if the individual is poor at planning and habitually misses doses or scheduling appointments or refilling scripts, there are other alternatives: depo provera injections, mirena iud, nuvaring, nexplanon/implanon subdermal implant, and etc.  make time or consider one of the longer term options listed above.  see another doctor or mid level practitioner or clinic.  sudafed, dextromethorphan, pain relievers, diet pills .  these are not meant to be used chronically but for symptomatic relief, not too far from plan b is intended use.  many otc drugs were grandfathered into the otc market prior to higher regulatory standards by the fda  why should birth control not be an otc drug ? change my view.  the milieu of unwanted side effects and ultimately the risks of loss of life or limb necessitates the need for routine evaluation and adjustments by a medical professional.   #  it is really important to understand those risk factors.   #  the only real downside to otc hormonal birth control is that certain people have a huge increased risk of strokes.  it is really important to understand those risk factors.  i wish i was not on my phone.  i would post some links.  years ago i switched pills to a generic and almost immediately started having horrible headaches.  my gyn thought maybe it was a reaction to some inert ingredient.  switched me back.  still had horrible headaches.  sent me in for a full set of tests and it turned out i had cluster headaches which are god awful and in the migraine family.  in the end it was not a stroke but it could have been.  he was really concerned because i do not smoke.  so long story short.  the difference with plan b is that it is a couple doses and it can still screw up your cycle but it is not long term use of the hormones.  i wish i could agree with you but this is enough of a risk that now that my younger sister is approaching 0 and she has smoked for years.  her doctor is requesting/finally allowing her to get a tubal and go off the pill.  she adamantly does not want kids.  even ended a long relationship with a guy who decided he might want them when she was in her early 0s.   #  many, many women take monthly birth control incorrectly or do not understand how it works even after being counseled on it by a doctor and/or pharmacist.   #  while this is true, it is also true for other forms of medication already approved for otc sale.  for example, taking more than 0 mg of acetaminophen or less in conjunction with alcohol can cause liver failure, kidney damage, coma, and death; it already causes thousands of hospitalizations a year URL i would ask whether the risks are comparable to those that are already approved for otc use this might also imply that acetaminophen is too dangerous, of course .  i think a more compelling argument is the education aspect.  many, many women take monthly birth control incorrectly or do not understand how it works even after being counseled on it by a doctor and/or pharmacist.  for example, pills with just progestins must be taken at the  exact  same time every day or they are not effective, but this is a source of many pregnancies that occur while women are on the pill.  same with antibiotics or the dangers of missing the first pill after the placebo week.  i think drug companies and even doctors fear that patients will misuse pills more often if they do not have to be counseled by a physician to get them, leading to liability issues for drug companies, and more health problems for women.   #  viox and other cox 0 selective inhibitors were shown to cause heart problems in certain people, and it is mostly related to the de equilibrating effects that leaving cox 0 and killing cox 0 has.   #  the heart problems associated with ibuprofen are pretty limited.  viox and other cox 0 selective inhibitors were shown to cause heart problems in certain people, and it is mostly related to the de equilibrating effects that leaving cox 0 and killing cox 0 has.  semi selective cox 0 inhibitors like meloxicam have not even been shown to really have that effect, though time will tell.  i am sure it is possible though.  the worst effects most people will get with ibuprofen overdose is stomach ulcers usually.  of course, too much of anything can cause problems ! either way, nice talking to you !  #  the difference here is that in the example you present with tylenol acetaminophen it is in a case of excessive dosing, where as with the birth control it is while taking the proper dose.   #  the difference here is that in the example you present with tylenol acetaminophen it is in a case of excessive dosing, where as with the birth control it is while taking the proper dose.  further, acetaminophen is a special case when it comes to it is approval process, due to being grandfathered in.  i highly doubt it would make it in our current system.  look at both the massive recalls that happened five years or so back along with the new dosing requirements for opiod acetaminophen combo medications, decreasing the possible acetaminophen content from anywhere up to 0mg a pill down to a max of 0 mg.  your second paragraph speaks to the ability of people to maintain the prescribed advised on the box dosing for a medication.  this is studied and taken into account by approval processes for medications.  in fact, this is more or less the sole reason that lipitor, one of the biggest drugs around, was not able to  flip the switch  and go otc when it is patent ran out.
note: i live in the united states, where prescriptions are currently required for oral contraceptives.  i believe that oral contraceptives should be sold over the counter in pharmacies, without the need of a prescription.  most birth control is basically the same exact thing as plan b but in a lower dosage.  plan b is extremely easy to purchase and requires no prescription unless you are under 0 .  why should regular daily pill birth control be any different ? it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.  i would argue that birth control is one of the most commonly improperly used prescription drugs.  and i think this is specifically because it requires a prescription.  it is important to stay on schedule with daily pills.  if a week is worth of pills are missed, the body is cycle and the drug is cycle will be out if sync.  one of the main reasons several days like this would be missed is because of the requirement for a prescription.  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ? what if you do not have time to the doctor ? what if your doctor does not have any upcoming appointments available ? this will throw off the woman is body and could be completely avoided if it was available otc.  not to mention, there are other otc drugs that could be much more harmful to someone if improperly used e. g.  sudafed, dextromethorphan, pain relievers, diet pills .  why should birth control not be an otc drug ? change my view.   #  one of the main reasons several days like this would be missed is because of the requirement for a prescription.   #  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ?  # yes.  plan b is a one time use of high dose progestagen designed to prevent establishment of a pregnancy by its negative feedback onto the hypothalamo pituitary unit to down regulate the hormone that is maintaining the corpus luteum or to prevent ovulation via the same mechanism.  oral hormonal birth control pills bcp is a routine regimen and consists of a wide variety of compositions: progestagen only, progestagen and estranes of varying doses, progestagen and estranes of titrating doses, corticosteroids with progestogenic effects, and etc.  it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.  the worst case scenarios are blood clots, primarily from estrogens, but some synthetic progestogens increase risk for blood clot.  blood clot in the heart heart attack.  blood clot in lung pulmonary embolism drowning in air .  blood clot in brain stroke.  from this factor alone combined with the not my liability / sue everything culture we live in makes it a necessity that individuals who are taking medications that can cause a risk to life or limb should be routinely evaluated by a medical professional.  many lifestyle factors or physiologic and/or genetic conditions puts individuals at a predisposition for increased risk of blood clots reinforcing the guidance and routine evaluation by a medical professional.  then there are lesser risks to life and limb, like different degrees of bleeding.  there are possible androgenic masculinity or hirsutism or emotional effects of taking bcp, which everyone reacts differently, again reinforcing the necessity of guidance of a medical professional who can find the appropriate hormone and dosing regimen.  lower dose does not correlate with smaller risk of danger.  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ? most pharmacies, will refill a script, if the individual does not make it a habit to run out of refills.  if the individual is poor at planning and habitually misses doses or scheduling appointments or refilling scripts, there are other alternatives: depo provera injections, mirena iud, nuvaring, nexplanon/implanon subdermal implant, and etc.  make time or consider one of the longer term options listed above.  see another doctor or mid level practitioner or clinic.  sudafed, dextromethorphan, pain relievers, diet pills .  these are not meant to be used chronically but for symptomatic relief, not too far from plan b is intended use.  many otc drugs were grandfathered into the otc market prior to higher regulatory standards by the fda  why should birth control not be an otc drug ? change my view.  the milieu of unwanted side effects and ultimately the risks of loss of life or limb necessitates the need for routine evaluation and adjustments by a medical professional.   #  my gyn thought maybe it was a reaction to some inert ingredient.   #  the only real downside to otc hormonal birth control is that certain people have a huge increased risk of strokes.  it is really important to understand those risk factors.  i wish i was not on my phone.  i would post some links.  years ago i switched pills to a generic and almost immediately started having horrible headaches.  my gyn thought maybe it was a reaction to some inert ingredient.  switched me back.  still had horrible headaches.  sent me in for a full set of tests and it turned out i had cluster headaches which are god awful and in the migraine family.  in the end it was not a stroke but it could have been.  he was really concerned because i do not smoke.  so long story short.  the difference with plan b is that it is a couple doses and it can still screw up your cycle but it is not long term use of the hormones.  i wish i could agree with you but this is enough of a risk that now that my younger sister is approaching 0 and she has smoked for years.  her doctor is requesting/finally allowing her to get a tubal and go off the pill.  she adamantly does not want kids.  even ended a long relationship with a guy who decided he might want them when she was in her early 0s.   #  same with antibiotics or the dangers of missing the first pill after the placebo week.   #  while this is true, it is also true for other forms of medication already approved for otc sale.  for example, taking more than 0 mg of acetaminophen or less in conjunction with alcohol can cause liver failure, kidney damage, coma, and death; it already causes thousands of hospitalizations a year URL i would ask whether the risks are comparable to those that are already approved for otc use this might also imply that acetaminophen is too dangerous, of course .  i think a more compelling argument is the education aspect.  many, many women take monthly birth control incorrectly or do not understand how it works even after being counseled on it by a doctor and/or pharmacist.  for example, pills with just progestins must be taken at the  exact  same time every day or they are not effective, but this is a source of many pregnancies that occur while women are on the pill.  same with antibiotics or the dangers of missing the first pill after the placebo week.  i think drug companies and even doctors fear that patients will misuse pills more often if they do not have to be counseled by a physician to get them, leading to liability issues for drug companies, and more health problems for women.   #  of course, too much of anything can cause problems !  #  the heart problems associated with ibuprofen are pretty limited.  viox and other cox 0 selective inhibitors were shown to cause heart problems in certain people, and it is mostly related to the de equilibrating effects that leaving cox 0 and killing cox 0 has.  semi selective cox 0 inhibitors like meloxicam have not even been shown to really have that effect, though time will tell.  i am sure it is possible though.  the worst effects most people will get with ibuprofen overdose is stomach ulcers usually.  of course, too much of anything can cause problems ! either way, nice talking to you !  #  further, acetaminophen is a special case when it comes to it is approval process, due to being grandfathered in.   #  the difference here is that in the example you present with tylenol acetaminophen it is in a case of excessive dosing, where as with the birth control it is while taking the proper dose.  further, acetaminophen is a special case when it comes to it is approval process, due to being grandfathered in.  i highly doubt it would make it in our current system.  look at both the massive recalls that happened five years or so back along with the new dosing requirements for opiod acetaminophen combo medications, decreasing the possible acetaminophen content from anywhere up to 0mg a pill down to a max of 0 mg.  your second paragraph speaks to the ability of people to maintain the prescribed advised on the box dosing for a medication.  this is studied and taken into account by approval processes for medications.  in fact, this is more or less the sole reason that lipitor, one of the biggest drugs around, was not able to  flip the switch  and go otc when it is patent ran out.
note: i live in the united states, where prescriptions are currently required for oral contraceptives.  i believe that oral contraceptives should be sold over the counter in pharmacies, without the need of a prescription.  most birth control is basically the same exact thing as plan b but in a lower dosage.  plan b is extremely easy to purchase and requires no prescription unless you are under 0 .  why should regular daily pill birth control be any different ? it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.  i would argue that birth control is one of the most commonly improperly used prescription drugs.  and i think this is specifically because it requires a prescription.  it is important to stay on schedule with daily pills.  if a week is worth of pills are missed, the body is cycle and the drug is cycle will be out if sync.  one of the main reasons several days like this would be missed is because of the requirement for a prescription.  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ? what if you do not have time to the doctor ? what if your doctor does not have any upcoming appointments available ? this will throw off the woman is body and could be completely avoided if it was available otc.  not to mention, there are other otc drugs that could be much more harmful to someone if improperly used e. g.  sudafed, dextromethorphan, pain relievers, diet pills .  why should birth control not be an otc drug ? change my view.   #  what if you do not have time to the doctor ?  #  make time or consider one of the longer term options listed above.   # yes.  plan b is a one time use of high dose progestagen designed to prevent establishment of a pregnancy by its negative feedback onto the hypothalamo pituitary unit to down regulate the hormone that is maintaining the corpus luteum or to prevent ovulation via the same mechanism.  oral hormonal birth control pills bcp is a routine regimen and consists of a wide variety of compositions: progestagen only, progestagen and estranes of varying doses, progestagen and estranes of titrating doses, corticosteroids with progestogenic effects, and etc.  it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.  the worst case scenarios are blood clots, primarily from estrogens, but some synthetic progestogens increase risk for blood clot.  blood clot in the heart heart attack.  blood clot in lung pulmonary embolism drowning in air .  blood clot in brain stroke.  from this factor alone combined with the not my liability / sue everything culture we live in makes it a necessity that individuals who are taking medications that can cause a risk to life or limb should be routinely evaluated by a medical professional.  many lifestyle factors or physiologic and/or genetic conditions puts individuals at a predisposition for increased risk of blood clots reinforcing the guidance and routine evaluation by a medical professional.  then there are lesser risks to life and limb, like different degrees of bleeding.  there are possible androgenic masculinity or hirsutism or emotional effects of taking bcp, which everyone reacts differently, again reinforcing the necessity of guidance of a medical professional who can find the appropriate hormone and dosing regimen.  lower dose does not correlate with smaller risk of danger.  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ? most pharmacies, will refill a script, if the individual does not make it a habit to run out of refills.  if the individual is poor at planning and habitually misses doses or scheduling appointments or refilling scripts, there are other alternatives: depo provera injections, mirena iud, nuvaring, nexplanon/implanon subdermal implant, and etc.  make time or consider one of the longer term options listed above.  see another doctor or mid level practitioner or clinic.  sudafed, dextromethorphan, pain relievers, diet pills .  these are not meant to be used chronically but for symptomatic relief, not too far from plan b is intended use.  many otc drugs were grandfathered into the otc market prior to higher regulatory standards by the fda  why should birth control not be an otc drug ? change my view.  the milieu of unwanted side effects and ultimately the risks of loss of life or limb necessitates the need for routine evaluation and adjustments by a medical professional.   #  he was really concerned because i do not smoke.   #  the only real downside to otc hormonal birth control is that certain people have a huge increased risk of strokes.  it is really important to understand those risk factors.  i wish i was not on my phone.  i would post some links.  years ago i switched pills to a generic and almost immediately started having horrible headaches.  my gyn thought maybe it was a reaction to some inert ingredient.  switched me back.  still had horrible headaches.  sent me in for a full set of tests and it turned out i had cluster headaches which are god awful and in the migraine family.  in the end it was not a stroke but it could have been.  he was really concerned because i do not smoke.  so long story short.  the difference with plan b is that it is a couple doses and it can still screw up your cycle but it is not long term use of the hormones.  i wish i could agree with you but this is enough of a risk that now that my younger sister is approaching 0 and she has smoked for years.  her doctor is requesting/finally allowing her to get a tubal and go off the pill.  she adamantly does not want kids.  even ended a long relationship with a guy who decided he might want them when she was in her early 0s.   #  many, many women take monthly birth control incorrectly or do not understand how it works even after being counseled on it by a doctor and/or pharmacist.   #  while this is true, it is also true for other forms of medication already approved for otc sale.  for example, taking more than 0 mg of acetaminophen or less in conjunction with alcohol can cause liver failure, kidney damage, coma, and death; it already causes thousands of hospitalizations a year URL i would ask whether the risks are comparable to those that are already approved for otc use this might also imply that acetaminophen is too dangerous, of course .  i think a more compelling argument is the education aspect.  many, many women take monthly birth control incorrectly or do not understand how it works even after being counseled on it by a doctor and/or pharmacist.  for example, pills with just progestins must be taken at the  exact  same time every day or they are not effective, but this is a source of many pregnancies that occur while women are on the pill.  same with antibiotics or the dangers of missing the first pill after the placebo week.  i think drug companies and even doctors fear that patients will misuse pills more often if they do not have to be counseled by a physician to get them, leading to liability issues for drug companies, and more health problems for women.   #  the heart problems associated with ibuprofen are pretty limited.   #  the heart problems associated with ibuprofen are pretty limited.  viox and other cox 0 selective inhibitors were shown to cause heart problems in certain people, and it is mostly related to the de equilibrating effects that leaving cox 0 and killing cox 0 has.  semi selective cox 0 inhibitors like meloxicam have not even been shown to really have that effect, though time will tell.  i am sure it is possible though.  the worst effects most people will get with ibuprofen overdose is stomach ulcers usually.  of course, too much of anything can cause problems ! either way, nice talking to you !  #  in fact, this is more or less the sole reason that lipitor, one of the biggest drugs around, was not able to  flip the switch  and go otc when it is patent ran out.   #  the difference here is that in the example you present with tylenol acetaminophen it is in a case of excessive dosing, where as with the birth control it is while taking the proper dose.  further, acetaminophen is a special case when it comes to it is approval process, due to being grandfathered in.  i highly doubt it would make it in our current system.  look at both the massive recalls that happened five years or so back along with the new dosing requirements for opiod acetaminophen combo medications, decreasing the possible acetaminophen content from anywhere up to 0mg a pill down to a max of 0 mg.  your second paragraph speaks to the ability of people to maintain the prescribed advised on the box dosing for a medication.  this is studied and taken into account by approval processes for medications.  in fact, this is more or less the sole reason that lipitor, one of the biggest drugs around, was not able to  flip the switch  and go otc when it is patent ran out.
note: i live in the united states, where prescriptions are currently required for oral contraceptives.  i believe that oral contraceptives should be sold over the counter in pharmacies, without the need of a prescription.  most birth control is basically the same exact thing as plan b but in a lower dosage.  plan b is extremely easy to purchase and requires no prescription unless you are under 0 .  why should regular daily pill birth control be any different ? it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.  i would argue that birth control is one of the most commonly improperly used prescription drugs.  and i think this is specifically because it requires a prescription.  it is important to stay on schedule with daily pills.  if a week is worth of pills are missed, the body is cycle and the drug is cycle will be out if sync.  one of the main reasons several days like this would be missed is because of the requirement for a prescription.  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ? what if you do not have time to the doctor ? what if your doctor does not have any upcoming appointments available ? this will throw off the woman is body and could be completely avoided if it was available otc.  not to mention, there are other otc drugs that could be much more harmful to someone if improperly used e. g.  sudafed, dextromethorphan, pain relievers, diet pills .  why should birth control not be an otc drug ? change my view.   #  what if your doctor does not have any upcoming appointments available ?  #  see another doctor or mid level practitioner or clinic.   # yes.  plan b is a one time use of high dose progestagen designed to prevent establishment of a pregnancy by its negative feedback onto the hypothalamo pituitary unit to down regulate the hormone that is maintaining the corpus luteum or to prevent ovulation via the same mechanism.  oral hormonal birth control pills bcp is a routine regimen and consists of a wide variety of compositions: progestagen only, progestagen and estranes of varying doses, progestagen and estranes of titrating doses, corticosteroids with progestogenic effects, and etc.  it is in a much lower dosage, so poses an even smaller risk of danger.  the worst case scenarios are blood clots, primarily from estrogens, but some synthetic progestogens increase risk for blood clot.  blood clot in the heart heart attack.  blood clot in lung pulmonary embolism drowning in air .  blood clot in brain stroke.  from this factor alone combined with the not my liability / sue everything culture we live in makes it a necessity that individuals who are taking medications that can cause a risk to life or limb should be routinely evaluated by a medical professional.  many lifestyle factors or physiologic and/or genetic conditions puts individuals at a predisposition for increased risk of blood clots reinforcing the guidance and routine evaluation by a medical professional.  then there are lesser risks to life and limb, like different degrees of bleeding.  there are possible androgenic masculinity or hirsutism or emotional effects of taking bcp, which everyone reacts differently, again reinforcing the necessity of guidance of a medical professional who can find the appropriate hormone and dosing regimen.  lower dose does not correlate with smaller risk of danger.  what if you did not realize you were out of refills ? most pharmacies, will refill a script, if the individual does not make it a habit to run out of refills.  if the individual is poor at planning and habitually misses doses or scheduling appointments or refilling scripts, there are other alternatives: depo provera injections, mirena iud, nuvaring, nexplanon/implanon subdermal implant, and etc.  make time or consider one of the longer term options listed above.  see another doctor or mid level practitioner or clinic.  sudafed, dextromethorphan, pain relievers, diet pills .  these are not meant to be used chronically but for symptomatic relief, not too far from plan b is intended use.  many otc drugs were grandfathered into the otc market prior to higher regulatory standards by the fda  why should birth control not be an otc drug ? change my view.  the milieu of unwanted side effects and ultimately the risks of loss of life or limb necessitates the need for routine evaluation and adjustments by a medical professional.   #  my gyn thought maybe it was a reaction to some inert ingredient.   #  the only real downside to otc hormonal birth control is that certain people have a huge increased risk of strokes.  it is really important to understand those risk factors.  i wish i was not on my phone.  i would post some links.  years ago i switched pills to a generic and almost immediately started having horrible headaches.  my gyn thought maybe it was a reaction to some inert ingredient.  switched me back.  still had horrible headaches.  sent me in for a full set of tests and it turned out i had cluster headaches which are god awful and in the migraine family.  in the end it was not a stroke but it could have been.  he was really concerned because i do not smoke.  so long story short.  the difference with plan b is that it is a couple doses and it can still screw up your cycle but it is not long term use of the hormones.  i wish i could agree with you but this is enough of a risk that now that my younger sister is approaching 0 and she has smoked for years.  her doctor is requesting/finally allowing her to get a tubal and go off the pill.  she adamantly does not want kids.  even ended a long relationship with a guy who decided he might want them when she was in her early 0s.   #  while this is true, it is also true for other forms of medication already approved for otc sale.   #  while this is true, it is also true for other forms of medication already approved for otc sale.  for example, taking more than 0 mg of acetaminophen or less in conjunction with alcohol can cause liver failure, kidney damage, coma, and death; it already causes thousands of hospitalizations a year URL i would ask whether the risks are comparable to those that are already approved for otc use this might also imply that acetaminophen is too dangerous, of course .  i think a more compelling argument is the education aspect.  many, many women take monthly birth control incorrectly or do not understand how it works even after being counseled on it by a doctor and/or pharmacist.  for example, pills with just progestins must be taken at the  exact  same time every day or they are not effective, but this is a source of many pregnancies that occur while women are on the pill.  same with antibiotics or the dangers of missing the first pill after the placebo week.  i think drug companies and even doctors fear that patients will misuse pills more often if they do not have to be counseled by a physician to get them, leading to liability issues for drug companies, and more health problems for women.   #  the heart problems associated with ibuprofen are pretty limited.   #  the heart problems associated with ibuprofen are pretty limited.  viox and other cox 0 selective inhibitors were shown to cause heart problems in certain people, and it is mostly related to the de equilibrating effects that leaving cox 0 and killing cox 0 has.  semi selective cox 0 inhibitors like meloxicam have not even been shown to really have that effect, though time will tell.  i am sure it is possible though.  the worst effects most people will get with ibuprofen overdose is stomach ulcers usually.  of course, too much of anything can cause problems ! either way, nice talking to you !  #  your second paragraph speaks to the ability of people to maintain the prescribed advised on the box dosing for a medication.   #  the difference here is that in the example you present with tylenol acetaminophen it is in a case of excessive dosing, where as with the birth control it is while taking the proper dose.  further, acetaminophen is a special case when it comes to it is approval process, due to being grandfathered in.  i highly doubt it would make it in our current system.  look at both the massive recalls that happened five years or so back along with the new dosing requirements for opiod acetaminophen combo medications, decreasing the possible acetaminophen content from anywhere up to 0mg a pill down to a max of 0 mg.  your second paragraph speaks to the ability of people to maintain the prescribed advised on the box dosing for a medication.  this is studied and taken into account by approval processes for medications.  in fact, this is more or less the sole reason that lipitor, one of the biggest drugs around, was not able to  flip the switch  and go otc when it is patent ran out.
i am self employed and make a six figure income.  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis.  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.  clearly, i have been very blessed financially and i absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level more on this later , taxes are simply theft.  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.  i often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a  tax cheat  and they should be ashamed, etc, etc.  i am curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff by force if necessary , and they demand that you tell them exactly what you have got so they can decide how much to take.  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ? so what is the proper level of taxation ? i am not sure maybe zero, at least for taxes you ca not really choose to pay , but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 0 regardless of income level and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it would not be immoral to skirt those rules and try to change them obviously , would it ? but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.  from a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world which i have seen up close , to the nsa spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid programs i am not a fan of, particularly at the federal level .  yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research.  but come on, those things are like 0 of the budget.  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ? despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  at that point i will either leave the us or break the law by cheating on my taxes.  and i wo not feel the least bit guilty.  cmv.  multiple people have made the argument that because i choose to live in society, i must live by its rules.  while i think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, i see the point.  and yes, i could choose to leave.  but i do not, so maybe that is enough of an argument that i feel the taxes i pay are worth living in this society.  i will ponder this more.  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  thanks for the discussion !  #  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.   #  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.   # i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i am not sure what any of this has to do with the question of whether not paying taxes is immoral or not.  to me the fact that you have likely benefited from tax dollars in each of the life experiences you have described, is an indication that lawful taxation is a good thing.  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ? if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ? it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i would not go that far, personally.  being dishonest and cheating on taxes is something i consider to be immoral.  i do not believe that necessarily makes a person themselves immoral, though.  it could be, if you believe that breaking the law under any circumstance is immoral.  i do not think you are making a fair comparison.  what you just described is more akin to paying homage to a king or group of elites.  modern taxation in the us if far from a group of people collecting money for their own personal gain.  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ? i do not agree with every single thing when it comes to how government revenues are spent.  i still respect and agree with the general system of taxation.  is your disagreement with the manner in which taxes are used even representative of an inherent problem with taxation or is it about something else ? i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   #  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.   # people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ? if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ? or at least tax activities that people can choose to partake in ? no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   #  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.   #  its called the fair tax.  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.  we currently have a federally imposed production tax, which i think is bad for a couple of reasons reasons.  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.  we acknowledged this as truth with sin taxes like cigarettes and booze and carbon taxes, but for some reason a large part of the population rejects the notion that the same reasoning applies to production.  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.  a consumption tax also has the benefit of being good for the environment, as it would presumably lead to the increase the sales of used goods which are not taxed , and reduce the consumption of raw materials.   #  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.   # i doubt that taxing, as i would call it, bad behavior is a going to fly with most people and is b going to be able to provide enough revenue to make up the short fall from the absence of income tax.  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.  while i do not disagree with the idea of taxing things which are harmful to society, i think that attempting to displace the absence of income tax revenues with tax revenues from the externalities you mentioned is largely going to shift the tax burden in a regressive manner.  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.  also, i just do not think the argument against taxing things in which people need makes a whole lot of sense.  why tax food ? why tax municipal water ? why tax clothing ? why tax medicine ? why tax property ? why tax transportation ? if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.  we need to tax many different things and i do not think it is unreasonable to tax income.  it might not be fair but so what ? and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.   #  how would any of your arguments be different if we taxed something other than income ?  #  how would any of your arguments be different if we taxed something other than income ? why would not taxing things you buy just be the government taking your stuff ? even more, your customers would be taxed on their interactions with you, why would not it be the government stealing your business away ? if you do not want to pay as much in taxes then do not make as much money or give a bunch of it away.  you  choose  to make a ridiculous amount of taxable income as much as you choose to buy or not buy some luxury.
i am self employed and make a six figure income.  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis.  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.  clearly, i have been very blessed financially and i absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level more on this later , taxes are simply theft.  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.  i often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a  tax cheat  and they should be ashamed, etc, etc.  i am curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff by force if necessary , and they demand that you tell them exactly what you have got so they can decide how much to take.  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ? so what is the proper level of taxation ? i am not sure maybe zero, at least for taxes you ca not really choose to pay , but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 0 regardless of income level and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it would not be immoral to skirt those rules and try to change them obviously , would it ? but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.  from a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world which i have seen up close , to the nsa spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid programs i am not a fan of, particularly at the federal level .  yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research.  but come on, those things are like 0 of the budget.  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ? despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  at that point i will either leave the us or break the law by cheating on my taxes.  and i wo not feel the least bit guilty.  cmv.  multiple people have made the argument that because i choose to live in society, i must live by its rules.  while i think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, i see the point.  and yes, i could choose to leave.  but i do not, so maybe that is enough of an argument that i feel the taxes i pay are worth living in this society.  i will ponder this more.  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  thanks for the discussion !  #  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.   #  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ?  # i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i am not sure what any of this has to do with the question of whether not paying taxes is immoral or not.  to me the fact that you have likely benefited from tax dollars in each of the life experiences you have described, is an indication that lawful taxation is a good thing.  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ? if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ? it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i would not go that far, personally.  being dishonest and cheating on taxes is something i consider to be immoral.  i do not believe that necessarily makes a person themselves immoral, though.  it could be, if you believe that breaking the law under any circumstance is immoral.  i do not think you are making a fair comparison.  what you just described is more akin to paying homage to a king or group of elites.  modern taxation in the us if far from a group of people collecting money for their own personal gain.  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ? i do not agree with every single thing when it comes to how government revenues are spent.  i still respect and agree with the general system of taxation.  is your disagreement with the manner in which taxes are used even representative of an inherent problem with taxation or is it about something else ? i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   #  if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ?  # people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ? if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ? or at least tax activities that people can choose to partake in ? no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   #  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.   #  its called the fair tax.  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.  we currently have a federally imposed production tax, which i think is bad for a couple of reasons reasons.  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.  we acknowledged this as truth with sin taxes like cigarettes and booze and carbon taxes, but for some reason a large part of the population rejects the notion that the same reasoning applies to production.  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.  a consumption tax also has the benefit of being good for the environment, as it would presumably lead to the increase the sales of used goods which are not taxed , and reduce the consumption of raw materials.   #  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.   # i doubt that taxing, as i would call it, bad behavior is a going to fly with most people and is b going to be able to provide enough revenue to make up the short fall from the absence of income tax.  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.  while i do not disagree with the idea of taxing things which are harmful to society, i think that attempting to displace the absence of income tax revenues with tax revenues from the externalities you mentioned is largely going to shift the tax burden in a regressive manner.  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.  also, i just do not think the argument against taxing things in which people need makes a whole lot of sense.  why tax food ? why tax municipal water ? why tax clothing ? why tax medicine ? why tax property ? why tax transportation ? if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.  we need to tax many different things and i do not think it is unreasonable to tax income.  it might not be fair but so what ? and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.   #  even more, your customers would be taxed on their interactions with you, why would not it be the government stealing your business away ?  #  how would any of your arguments be different if we taxed something other than income ? why would not taxing things you buy just be the government taking your stuff ? even more, your customers would be taxed on their interactions with you, why would not it be the government stealing your business away ? if you do not want to pay as much in taxes then do not make as much money or give a bunch of it away.  you  choose  to make a ridiculous amount of taxable income as much as you choose to buy or not buy some luxury.
i am self employed and make a six figure income.  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis.  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.  clearly, i have been very blessed financially and i absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level more on this later , taxes are simply theft.  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.  i often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a  tax cheat  and they should be ashamed, etc, etc.  i am curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff by force if necessary , and they demand that you tell them exactly what you have got so they can decide how much to take.  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ? so what is the proper level of taxation ? i am not sure maybe zero, at least for taxes you ca not really choose to pay , but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 0 regardless of income level and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it would not be immoral to skirt those rules and try to change them obviously , would it ? but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.  from a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world which i have seen up close , to the nsa spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid programs i am not a fan of, particularly at the federal level .  yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research.  but come on, those things are like 0 of the budget.  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ? despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  at that point i will either leave the us or break the law by cheating on my taxes.  and i wo not feel the least bit guilty.  cmv.  multiple people have made the argument that because i choose to live in society, i must live by its rules.  while i think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, i see the point.  and yes, i could choose to leave.  but i do not, so maybe that is enough of an argument that i feel the taxes i pay are worth living in this society.  i will ponder this more.  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  thanks for the discussion !  #  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.   #  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ?  # i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i am not sure what any of this has to do with the question of whether not paying taxes is immoral or not.  to me the fact that you have likely benefited from tax dollars in each of the life experiences you have described, is an indication that lawful taxation is a good thing.  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ? if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ? it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i would not go that far, personally.  being dishonest and cheating on taxes is something i consider to be immoral.  i do not believe that necessarily makes a person themselves immoral, though.  it could be, if you believe that breaking the law under any circumstance is immoral.  i do not think you are making a fair comparison.  what you just described is more akin to paying homage to a king or group of elites.  modern taxation in the us if far from a group of people collecting money for their own personal gain.  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ? i do not agree with every single thing when it comes to how government revenues are spent.  i still respect and agree with the general system of taxation.  is your disagreement with the manner in which taxes are used even representative of an inherent problem with taxation or is it about something else ? i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   #  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ?  # people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ? if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ? or at least tax activities that people can choose to partake in ? no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   #  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.   #  its called the fair tax.  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.  we currently have a federally imposed production tax, which i think is bad for a couple of reasons reasons.  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.  we acknowledged this as truth with sin taxes like cigarettes and booze and carbon taxes, but for some reason a large part of the population rejects the notion that the same reasoning applies to production.  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.  a consumption tax also has the benefit of being good for the environment, as it would presumably lead to the increase the sales of used goods which are not taxed , and reduce the consumption of raw materials.   #  and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.   # i doubt that taxing, as i would call it, bad behavior is a going to fly with most people and is b going to be able to provide enough revenue to make up the short fall from the absence of income tax.  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.  while i do not disagree with the idea of taxing things which are harmful to society, i think that attempting to displace the absence of income tax revenues with tax revenues from the externalities you mentioned is largely going to shift the tax burden in a regressive manner.  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.  also, i just do not think the argument against taxing things in which people need makes a whole lot of sense.  why tax food ? why tax municipal water ? why tax clothing ? why tax medicine ? why tax property ? why tax transportation ? if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.  we need to tax many different things and i do not think it is unreasonable to tax income.  it might not be fair but so what ? and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.   #  how would any of your arguments be different if we taxed something other than income ?  #  how would any of your arguments be different if we taxed something other than income ? why would not taxing things you buy just be the government taking your stuff ? even more, your customers would be taxed on their interactions with you, why would not it be the government stealing your business away ? if you do not want to pay as much in taxes then do not make as much money or give a bunch of it away.  you  choose  to make a ridiculous amount of taxable income as much as you choose to buy or not buy some luxury.
i am self employed and make a six figure income.  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis.  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.  clearly, i have been very blessed financially and i absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level more on this later , taxes are simply theft.  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.  i often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a  tax cheat  and they should be ashamed, etc, etc.  i am curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff by force if necessary , and they demand that you tell them exactly what you have got so they can decide how much to take.  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ? so what is the proper level of taxation ? i am not sure maybe zero, at least for taxes you ca not really choose to pay , but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 0 regardless of income level and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it would not be immoral to skirt those rules and try to change them obviously , would it ? but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.  from a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world which i have seen up close , to the nsa spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid programs i am not a fan of, particularly at the federal level .  yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research.  but come on, those things are like 0 of the budget.  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ? despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  at that point i will either leave the us or break the law by cheating on my taxes.  and i wo not feel the least bit guilty.  cmv.  multiple people have made the argument that because i choose to live in society, i must live by its rules.  while i think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, i see the point.  and yes, i could choose to leave.  but i do not, so maybe that is enough of an argument that i feel the taxes i pay are worth living in this society.  i will ponder this more.  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  thanks for the discussion !  #  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ?  #  i would not go that far, personally.   # i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i am not sure what any of this has to do with the question of whether not paying taxes is immoral or not.  to me the fact that you have likely benefited from tax dollars in each of the life experiences you have described, is an indication that lawful taxation is a good thing.  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ? if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ? it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i would not go that far, personally.  being dishonest and cheating on taxes is something i consider to be immoral.  i do not believe that necessarily makes a person themselves immoral, though.  it could be, if you believe that breaking the law under any circumstance is immoral.  i do not think you are making a fair comparison.  what you just described is more akin to paying homage to a king or group of elites.  modern taxation in the us if far from a group of people collecting money for their own personal gain.  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ? i do not agree with every single thing when it comes to how government revenues are spent.  i still respect and agree with the general system of taxation.  is your disagreement with the manner in which taxes are used even representative of an inherent problem with taxation or is it about something else ? i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   #  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ?  # people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ? if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ? or at least tax activities that people can choose to partake in ? no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   #  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.   #  its called the fair tax.  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.  we currently have a federally imposed production tax, which i think is bad for a couple of reasons reasons.  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.  we acknowledged this as truth with sin taxes like cigarettes and booze and carbon taxes, but for some reason a large part of the population rejects the notion that the same reasoning applies to production.  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.  a consumption tax also has the benefit of being good for the environment, as it would presumably lead to the increase the sales of used goods which are not taxed , and reduce the consumption of raw materials.   #  if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.   # i doubt that taxing, as i would call it, bad behavior is a going to fly with most people and is b going to be able to provide enough revenue to make up the short fall from the absence of income tax.  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.  while i do not disagree with the idea of taxing things which are harmful to society, i think that attempting to displace the absence of income tax revenues with tax revenues from the externalities you mentioned is largely going to shift the tax burden in a regressive manner.  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.  also, i just do not think the argument against taxing things in which people need makes a whole lot of sense.  why tax food ? why tax municipal water ? why tax clothing ? why tax medicine ? why tax property ? why tax transportation ? if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.  we need to tax many different things and i do not think it is unreasonable to tax income.  it might not be fair but so what ? and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.   #  how would any of your arguments be different if we taxed something other than income ?  #  how would any of your arguments be different if we taxed something other than income ? why would not taxing things you buy just be the government taking your stuff ? even more, your customers would be taxed on their interactions with you, why would not it be the government stealing your business away ? if you do not want to pay as much in taxes then do not make as much money or give a bunch of it away.  you  choose  to make a ridiculous amount of taxable income as much as you choose to buy or not buy some luxury.
i am self employed and make a six figure income.  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis.  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.  clearly, i have been very blessed financially and i absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level more on this later , taxes are simply theft.  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.  i often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a  tax cheat  and they should be ashamed, etc, etc.  i am curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff by force if necessary , and they demand that you tell them exactly what you have got so they can decide how much to take.  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ? so what is the proper level of taxation ? i am not sure maybe zero, at least for taxes you ca not really choose to pay , but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 0 regardless of income level and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it would not be immoral to skirt those rules and try to change them obviously , would it ? but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.  from a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world which i have seen up close , to the nsa spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid programs i am not a fan of, particularly at the federal level .  yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research.  but come on, those things are like 0 of the budget.  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ? despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  at that point i will either leave the us or break the law by cheating on my taxes.  and i wo not feel the least bit guilty.  cmv.  multiple people have made the argument that because i choose to live in society, i must live by its rules.  while i think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, i see the point.  and yes, i could choose to leave.  but i do not, so maybe that is enough of an argument that i feel the taxes i pay are worth living in this society.  i will ponder this more.  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  thanks for the discussion !  #  but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.   #  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ?  # i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i am not sure what any of this has to do with the question of whether not paying taxes is immoral or not.  to me the fact that you have likely benefited from tax dollars in each of the life experiences you have described, is an indication that lawful taxation is a good thing.  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ? if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ? it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i would not go that far, personally.  being dishonest and cheating on taxes is something i consider to be immoral.  i do not believe that necessarily makes a person themselves immoral, though.  it could be, if you believe that breaking the law under any circumstance is immoral.  i do not think you are making a fair comparison.  what you just described is more akin to paying homage to a king or group of elites.  modern taxation in the us if far from a group of people collecting money for their own personal gain.  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ? i do not agree with every single thing when it comes to how government revenues are spent.  i still respect and agree with the general system of taxation.  is your disagreement with the manner in which taxes are used even representative of an inherent problem with taxation or is it about something else ? i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   #  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.   # people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ? if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ? or at least tax activities that people can choose to partake in ? no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   #  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.   #  its called the fair tax.  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.  we currently have a federally imposed production tax, which i think is bad for a couple of reasons reasons.  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.  we acknowledged this as truth with sin taxes like cigarettes and booze and carbon taxes, but for some reason a large part of the population rejects the notion that the same reasoning applies to production.  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.  a consumption tax also has the benefit of being good for the environment, as it would presumably lead to the increase the sales of used goods which are not taxed , and reduce the consumption of raw materials.   #  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.   # i doubt that taxing, as i would call it, bad behavior is a going to fly with most people and is b going to be able to provide enough revenue to make up the short fall from the absence of income tax.  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.  while i do not disagree with the idea of taxing things which are harmful to society, i think that attempting to displace the absence of income tax revenues with tax revenues from the externalities you mentioned is largely going to shift the tax burden in a regressive manner.  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.  also, i just do not think the argument against taxing things in which people need makes a whole lot of sense.  why tax food ? why tax municipal water ? why tax clothing ? why tax medicine ? why tax property ? why tax transportation ? if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.  we need to tax many different things and i do not think it is unreasonable to tax income.  it might not be fair but so what ? and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.   #  you  choose  to make a ridiculous amount of taxable income as much as you choose to buy or not buy some luxury.   #  how would any of your arguments be different if we taxed something other than income ? why would not taxing things you buy just be the government taking your stuff ? even more, your customers would be taxed on their interactions with you, why would not it be the government stealing your business away ? if you do not want to pay as much in taxes then do not make as much money or give a bunch of it away.  you  choose  to make a ridiculous amount of taxable income as much as you choose to buy or not buy some luxury.
i am self employed and make a six figure income.  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis.  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.  clearly, i have been very blessed financially and i absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level more on this later , taxes are simply theft.  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.  i often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a  tax cheat  and they should be ashamed, etc, etc.  i am curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff by force if necessary , and they demand that you tell them exactly what you have got so they can decide how much to take.  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ? so what is the proper level of taxation ? i am not sure maybe zero, at least for taxes you ca not really choose to pay , but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 0 regardless of income level and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it would not be immoral to skirt those rules and try to change them obviously , would it ? but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.  from a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world which i have seen up close , to the nsa spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid programs i am not a fan of, particularly at the federal level .  yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research.  but come on, those things are like 0 of the budget.  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ? despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  at that point i will either leave the us or break the law by cheating on my taxes.  and i wo not feel the least bit guilty.  cmv.  multiple people have made the argument that because i choose to live in society, i must live by its rules.  while i think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, i see the point.  and yes, i could choose to leave.  but i do not, so maybe that is enough of an argument that i feel the taxes i pay are worth living in this society.  i will ponder this more.  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  thanks for the discussion !  #  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ?  #  i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.   # i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i am not sure what any of this has to do with the question of whether not paying taxes is immoral or not.  to me the fact that you have likely benefited from tax dollars in each of the life experiences you have described, is an indication that lawful taxation is a good thing.  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ? if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ? it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i would not go that far, personally.  being dishonest and cheating on taxes is something i consider to be immoral.  i do not believe that necessarily makes a person themselves immoral, though.  it could be, if you believe that breaking the law under any circumstance is immoral.  i do not think you are making a fair comparison.  what you just described is more akin to paying homage to a king or group of elites.  modern taxation in the us if far from a group of people collecting money for their own personal gain.  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ? i do not agree with every single thing when it comes to how government revenues are spent.  i still respect and agree with the general system of taxation.  is your disagreement with the manner in which taxes are used even representative of an inherent problem with taxation or is it about something else ? i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   #  no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   # people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ? if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ? or at least tax activities that people can choose to partake in ? no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   #  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.   #  its called the fair tax.  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.  we currently have a federally imposed production tax, which i think is bad for a couple of reasons reasons.  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.  we acknowledged this as truth with sin taxes like cigarettes and booze and carbon taxes, but for some reason a large part of the population rejects the notion that the same reasoning applies to production.  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.  a consumption tax also has the benefit of being good for the environment, as it would presumably lead to the increase the sales of used goods which are not taxed , and reduce the consumption of raw materials.   #  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.   # i doubt that taxing, as i would call it, bad behavior is a going to fly with most people and is b going to be able to provide enough revenue to make up the short fall from the absence of income tax.  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.  while i do not disagree with the idea of taxing things which are harmful to society, i think that attempting to displace the absence of income tax revenues with tax revenues from the externalities you mentioned is largely going to shift the tax burden in a regressive manner.  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.  also, i just do not think the argument against taxing things in which people need makes a whole lot of sense.  why tax food ? why tax municipal water ? why tax clothing ? why tax medicine ? why tax property ? why tax transportation ? if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.  we need to tax many different things and i do not think it is unreasonable to tax income.  it might not be fair but so what ? and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.   #  you  choose  to make a ridiculous amount of taxable income as much as you choose to buy or not buy some luxury.   #  how would any of your arguments be different if we taxed something other than income ? why would not taxing things you buy just be the government taking your stuff ? even more, your customers would be taxed on their interactions with you, why would not it be the government stealing your business away ? if you do not want to pay as much in taxes then do not make as much money or give a bunch of it away.  you  choose  to make a ridiculous amount of taxable income as much as you choose to buy or not buy some luxury.
i am self employed and make a six figure income.  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis.  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.  clearly, i have been very blessed financially and i absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level more on this later , taxes are simply theft.  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.  i often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a  tax cheat  and they should be ashamed, etc, etc.  i am curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff by force if necessary , and they demand that you tell them exactly what you have got so they can decide how much to take.  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ? so what is the proper level of taxation ? i am not sure maybe zero, at least for taxes you ca not really choose to pay , but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 0 regardless of income level and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it would not be immoral to skirt those rules and try to change them obviously , would it ? but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.  from a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world which i have seen up close , to the nsa spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid programs i am not a fan of, particularly at the federal level .  yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research.  but come on, those things are like 0 of the budget.  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ? despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  at that point i will either leave the us or break the law by cheating on my taxes.  and i wo not feel the least bit guilty.  cmv.  multiple people have made the argument that because i choose to live in society, i must live by its rules.  while i think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, i see the point.  and yes, i could choose to leave.  but i do not, so maybe that is enough of an argument that i feel the taxes i pay are worth living in this society.  i will ponder this more.  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  thanks for the discussion !  #  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.   #  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.   #  well almost everything breaks down at some point when you go to the extremes.  the key is finding the balance.  in regards to your edit in the description, definitely it is a relatively valid basis to consider that because you have not chosen to leave it shows that society must be providing something of value in return.  imagine what it would be like to live somewhere where there is no society forcing you to pay taxes, sounds great not to be able to pay taxes but then again without society you likely wo not have anything to pay taxes on.  even if you could build something, you would not have anyone to make money from and you would not have the infrastructure to access potential customers in a society.  so because you choose to benefit from others in society, you agree that you should abide by the rules that they come up with, including the taxes you should pay.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  taxing is not punishment or discouraging activity.  no rich person is going to decide to be poor because taxes are discouraging him.  this is where the extremes come in and finding a balance, because at some point you could go to an extreme and tax someone so much that there would be a disincentive to having higher income if higher income is also connected to harder/more time consuming work for essentially no extra rewards.  that is not the current climate though, not even close.  taxing is not a negative value being placed on you, its simply taking a portion of a reward.  this is why it works.  if you taxed something that provided no reward, no one would do it because it would make that activity provide a negative value.  it is why you do not tax those who make very low income, because it becomes very close to turning the little reward into a negative value to the point where they would rather not work.   #  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.   # i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i am not sure what any of this has to do with the question of whether not paying taxes is immoral or not.  to me the fact that you have likely benefited from tax dollars in each of the life experiences you have described, is an indication that lawful taxation is a good thing.  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ? if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ? it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i would not go that far, personally.  being dishonest and cheating on taxes is something i consider to be immoral.  i do not believe that necessarily makes a person themselves immoral, though.  it could be, if you believe that breaking the law under any circumstance is immoral.  i do not think you are making a fair comparison.  what you just described is more akin to paying homage to a king or group of elites.  modern taxation in the us if far from a group of people collecting money for their own personal gain.  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ? i do not agree with every single thing when it comes to how government revenues are spent.  i still respect and agree with the general system of taxation.  is your disagreement with the manner in which taxes are used even representative of an inherent problem with taxation or is it about something else ? i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   #  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.   # people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ? if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ? or at least tax activities that people can choose to partake in ? no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   #  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.   #  its called the fair tax.  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.  we currently have a federally imposed production tax, which i think is bad for a couple of reasons reasons.  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.  we acknowledged this as truth with sin taxes like cigarettes and booze and carbon taxes, but for some reason a large part of the population rejects the notion that the same reasoning applies to production.  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.  a consumption tax also has the benefit of being good for the environment, as it would presumably lead to the increase the sales of used goods which are not taxed , and reduce the consumption of raw materials.   #  and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.   # i doubt that taxing, as i would call it, bad behavior is a going to fly with most people and is b going to be able to provide enough revenue to make up the short fall from the absence of income tax.  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.  while i do not disagree with the idea of taxing things which are harmful to society, i think that attempting to displace the absence of income tax revenues with tax revenues from the externalities you mentioned is largely going to shift the tax burden in a regressive manner.  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.  also, i just do not think the argument against taxing things in which people need makes a whole lot of sense.  why tax food ? why tax municipal water ? why tax clothing ? why tax medicine ? why tax property ? why tax transportation ? if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.  we need to tax many different things and i do not think it is unreasonable to tax income.  it might not be fair but so what ? and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.
i am self employed and make a six figure income.  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis.  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.  clearly, i have been very blessed financially and i absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level more on this later , taxes are simply theft.  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.  i often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a  tax cheat  and they should be ashamed, etc, etc.  i am curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff by force if necessary , and they demand that you tell them exactly what you have got so they can decide how much to take.  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ? so what is the proper level of taxation ? i am not sure maybe zero, at least for taxes you ca not really choose to pay , but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 0 regardless of income level and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it would not be immoral to skirt those rules and try to change them obviously , would it ? but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.  from a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world which i have seen up close , to the nsa spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid programs i am not a fan of, particularly at the federal level .  yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research.  but come on, those things are like 0 of the budget.  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ? despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  at that point i will either leave the us or break the law by cheating on my taxes.  and i wo not feel the least bit guilty.  cmv.  multiple people have made the argument that because i choose to live in society, i must live by its rules.  while i think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, i see the point.  and yes, i could choose to leave.  but i do not, so maybe that is enough of an argument that i feel the taxes i pay are worth living in this society.  i will ponder this more.  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  thanks for the discussion !  #  despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.   #  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.   # nearly 0 of the federal budget goes to things like medicare and social security.  after that, the largest chunk of the money is spent on defense, which has directly paid your salary as you were in the military and likely paid for your college if you went under the gi bill.  a good amount of the dod budget is spent on r d which both stimulates the economy and the technological level of the nation the internet started as a darpa research project .  this is all ignoring the primary purpose of the defense budget which is to protect the nation from invasion and protect our national interests abroad.  you might argue that the military has been misapplied in recent years, but you have to admit that there is also legitimate use of the military such as hunting down al qaeda and coast guard rescue divers.  after this, individual chunks of money spent tend to be small, but they are mostly on important things.  education, nasa, the fdic, food stamps, and many other small programs URL the vast majority of the money spent by the federal government is to a net benefit to the nation.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  i see so problem using every loophole available in the laws as they are written.  many of those were purposefully put in place to encourage certain types of behavior.  however, i do not think your motivation to follow them should be to avoid getting caught.  society functions as it does because we have laws that everyone agrees to follow.  when people decide that they do not follow the ones they do not like society breaks down.  how would it be fair to people who are still following the tax laws if you ignore them ? people would never be able to become successful while following the rules if there are people breaking the rules to get ahead.  good luck with that.  the us has some of the lowest taxes of any developed country.   #  it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.   # i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i am not sure what any of this has to do with the question of whether not paying taxes is immoral or not.  to me the fact that you have likely benefited from tax dollars in each of the life experiences you have described, is an indication that lawful taxation is a good thing.  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ? if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ? it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i would not go that far, personally.  being dishonest and cheating on taxes is something i consider to be immoral.  i do not believe that necessarily makes a person themselves immoral, though.  it could be, if you believe that breaking the law under any circumstance is immoral.  i do not think you are making a fair comparison.  what you just described is more akin to paying homage to a king or group of elites.  modern taxation in the us if far from a group of people collecting money for their own personal gain.  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ? i do not agree with every single thing when it comes to how government revenues are spent.  i still respect and agree with the general system of taxation.  is your disagreement with the manner in which taxes are used even representative of an inherent problem with taxation or is it about something else ? i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   #  if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ?  # people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ? if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ? or at least tax activities that people can choose to partake in ? no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   #  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.   #  its called the fair tax.  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.  we currently have a federally imposed production tax, which i think is bad for a couple of reasons reasons.  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.  we acknowledged this as truth with sin taxes like cigarettes and booze and carbon taxes, but for some reason a large part of the population rejects the notion that the same reasoning applies to production.  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.  a consumption tax also has the benefit of being good for the environment, as it would presumably lead to the increase the sales of used goods which are not taxed , and reduce the consumption of raw materials.   #  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.   # i doubt that taxing, as i would call it, bad behavior is a going to fly with most people and is b going to be able to provide enough revenue to make up the short fall from the absence of income tax.  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.  while i do not disagree with the idea of taxing things which are harmful to society, i think that attempting to displace the absence of income tax revenues with tax revenues from the externalities you mentioned is largely going to shift the tax burden in a regressive manner.  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.  also, i just do not think the argument against taxing things in which people need makes a whole lot of sense.  why tax food ? why tax municipal water ? why tax clothing ? why tax medicine ? why tax property ? why tax transportation ? if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.  we need to tax many different things and i do not think it is unreasonable to tax income.  it might not be fair but so what ? and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.
i am self employed and make a six figure income.  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis.  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.  clearly, i have been very blessed financially and i absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level more on this later , taxes are simply theft.  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.  i often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a  tax cheat  and they should be ashamed, etc, etc.  i am curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff by force if necessary , and they demand that you tell them exactly what you have got so they can decide how much to take.  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ? so what is the proper level of taxation ? i am not sure maybe zero, at least for taxes you ca not really choose to pay , but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 0 regardless of income level and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it would not be immoral to skirt those rules and try to change them obviously , would it ? but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.  from a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world which i have seen up close , to the nsa spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid programs i am not a fan of, particularly at the federal level .  yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research.  but come on, those things are like 0 of the budget.  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ? despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  at that point i will either leave the us or break the law by cheating on my taxes.  and i wo not feel the least bit guilty.  cmv.  multiple people have made the argument that because i choose to live in society, i must live by its rules.  while i think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, i see the point.  and yes, i could choose to leave.  but i do not, so maybe that is enough of an argument that i feel the taxes i pay are worth living in this society.  i will ponder this more.  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  thanks for the discussion !  #  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ?  #  i think what you are not realizing is that you are a part of this group of people just as much as anyone else.   # using the us dollar is a choice you make.  you started a business knowing full well what the tax implications of that were.  you cannot go into a steak restaurant, eat a steak, then claim they want to steal $0 from you.  the us dollar has value, that value is not just built on your input alone.  that value comes from the people behind it, the citizens and tax payers of the u. s.  so, if you want to profit from the value the us dollar carries you are going to have to comply with the terms you and i have agreed upon.  you not paying the taxes you agreed to pay is theft.  this is just a straw man argument.  you ca not raise moral objections to what the steak restaurant owner does with his money after you have already eaten your steak and use that as justification for a refusal to pay.  i think what you are not realizing is that you are a part of this group of people just as much as anyone else.  if you do not like what your elected officials are doing then work to elect different ones.  or hell, maybe run for an office yourself.  or, as you say, if you do not like taking advantage of the u. s.  economy then you can always leave it.  if, what you do not like, is this that this group is able to make decisions you do not agree with then you have a problem with democracy.  arguably, you have more of a say in this group than others because you have money and own a business.  good, those tax incentives are there for you.  you should use them without guilt.  as for any  loop holes  well those are our fault, if they are a problem we will work to close them.   #  if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.   # i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i am not sure what any of this has to do with the question of whether not paying taxes is immoral or not.  to me the fact that you have likely benefited from tax dollars in each of the life experiences you have described, is an indication that lawful taxation is a good thing.  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ? if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ? it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i would not go that far, personally.  being dishonest and cheating on taxes is something i consider to be immoral.  i do not believe that necessarily makes a person themselves immoral, though.  it could be, if you believe that breaking the law under any circumstance is immoral.  i do not think you are making a fair comparison.  what you just described is more akin to paying homage to a king or group of elites.  modern taxation in the us if far from a group of people collecting money for their own personal gain.  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ? i do not agree with every single thing when it comes to how government revenues are spent.  i still respect and agree with the general system of taxation.  is your disagreement with the manner in which taxes are used even representative of an inherent problem with taxation or is it about something else ? i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   #  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.   # people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ? if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ? or at least tax activities that people can choose to partake in ? no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   #  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.   #  its called the fair tax.  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.  we currently have a federally imposed production tax, which i think is bad for a couple of reasons reasons.  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.  we acknowledged this as truth with sin taxes like cigarettes and booze and carbon taxes, but for some reason a large part of the population rejects the notion that the same reasoning applies to production.  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.  a consumption tax also has the benefit of being good for the environment, as it would presumably lead to the increase the sales of used goods which are not taxed , and reduce the consumption of raw materials.   #  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.   # i doubt that taxing, as i would call it, bad behavior is a going to fly with most people and is b going to be able to provide enough revenue to make up the short fall from the absence of income tax.  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.  while i do not disagree with the idea of taxing things which are harmful to society, i think that attempting to displace the absence of income tax revenues with tax revenues from the externalities you mentioned is largely going to shift the tax burden in a regressive manner.  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.  also, i just do not think the argument against taxing things in which people need makes a whole lot of sense.  why tax food ? why tax municipal water ? why tax clothing ? why tax medicine ? why tax property ? why tax transportation ? if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.  we need to tax many different things and i do not think it is unreasonable to tax income.  it might not be fair but so what ? and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.
i am self employed and make a six figure income.  however, i have worked my ass off for many years to get here.  i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i find taxes to be extremely frustrating on a ideological basis.  i currently pay more in taxes than the average us family makes in a year.  clearly, i have been very blessed financially and i absolutely want to give back to society and to help others with that blessing, but beyond a certain level more on this later , taxes are simply theft.  they are simply one group taking money from another group because they can.  i often hear a lot of moralizing about how someone is a  tax cheat  and they should be ashamed, etc, etc.  i am curious as to how we got to this point where merely being born and making a living means that a large group of people can get together, decide to come and take your stuff by force if necessary , and they demand that you tell them exactly what you have got so they can decide how much to take.  and if you do not participate fully, you are an immoral person ? so what is the proper level of taxation ? i am not sure maybe zero, at least for taxes you ca not really choose to pay , but surely we can agree that if government officials were taxing all of us at 0 regardless of income level and then using that money to buy themselves mansions, it would not be immoral to skirt those rules and try to change them obviously , would it ? but looking at the federal budget in the us, a huge portion of the things my taxes go to are things i absolutely do not agree with.  from a huge military conducting stupid adventures all over the world which i have seen up close , to the nsa spying on us all, to social security, medicare, medicaid programs i am not a fan of, particularly at the federal level .  yes, money goes to build roads and inspect meat and clean energy and space research.  but come on, those things are like 0 of the budget.  why should i feel morally obligated to give my money to these people to do mostly terrible things because a group of people decided that i should ? despite all of this, i am meticulous about paying my taxes, because i fear the consequences of getting caught.  however, i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.  the risks of getting caught are the only thing that keep me honest here, and there is definitely a level of taxation where the cost of paying everything is too high.  at that point i will either leave the us or break the law by cheating on my taxes.  and i wo not feel the least bit guilty.  cmv.  multiple people have made the argument that because i choose to live in society, i must live by its rules.  while i think this can be taken too far by using it to justify horrible laws, i see the point.  and yes, i could choose to leave.  but i do not, so maybe that is enough of an argument that i feel the taxes i pay are worth living in this society.  i will ponder this more.  i also want to clarify that i am not against all taxes, but i find income taxes particularly problematic.  it is like taxing intelligence or hard work or compassion, or anything else that we want more of in society.  we should tax things we want less of.  but i digress.  thanks for the discussion !  #  i do absolutely exploit every single tax incentive that i can find to not pay one single penny more than i have to.   #  good, those tax incentives are there for you.   # using the us dollar is a choice you make.  you started a business knowing full well what the tax implications of that were.  you cannot go into a steak restaurant, eat a steak, then claim they want to steal $0 from you.  the us dollar has value, that value is not just built on your input alone.  that value comes from the people behind it, the citizens and tax payers of the u. s.  so, if you want to profit from the value the us dollar carries you are going to have to comply with the terms you and i have agreed upon.  you not paying the taxes you agreed to pay is theft.  this is just a straw man argument.  you ca not raise moral objections to what the steak restaurant owner does with his money after you have already eaten your steak and use that as justification for a refusal to pay.  i think what you are not realizing is that you are a part of this group of people just as much as anyone else.  if you do not like what your elected officials are doing then work to elect different ones.  or hell, maybe run for an office yourself.  or, as you say, if you do not like taking advantage of the u. s.  economy then you can always leave it.  if, what you do not like, is this that this group is able to make decisions you do not agree with then you have a problem with democracy.  arguably, you have more of a say in this group than others because you have money and own a business.  good, those tax incentives are there for you.  you should use them without guilt.  as for any  loop holes  well those are our fault, if they are a problem we will work to close them.   #  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   # i served in the military out of high school, attended a cheap state school first in my family to graduate college , and have been self employed for the last seven years.  i am not sure what any of this has to do with the question of whether not paying taxes is immoral or not.  to me the fact that you have likely benefited from tax dollars in each of the life experiences you have described, is an indication that lawful taxation is a good thing.  is that not to be expected given our progressive tax system ? if you are paying more than the median income in taxes then you are earning  far  more than the median income.  is this not simply part of the concept of  any  taxation ? it is the manner in which society has operated for a  very  long time.  people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i would not go that far, personally.  being dishonest and cheating on taxes is something i consider to be immoral.  i do not believe that necessarily makes a person themselves immoral, though.  it could be, if you believe that breaking the law under any circumstance is immoral.  i do not think you are making a fair comparison.  what you just described is more akin to paying homage to a king or group of elites.  modern taxation in the us if far from a group of people collecting money for their own personal gain.  so you are saying that you would not voluntarily give away money if you did not agree with how that money was being spent ? i do not agree with every single thing when it comes to how government revenues are spent.  i still respect and agree with the general system of taxation.  is your disagreement with the manner in which taxes are used even representative of an inherent problem with taxation or is it about something else ? i do not think you need to feel morally obligated to give money to those people.  i believe you should feel morally obligated to pay taxes, in large part because your success in life would not have happened without others having their wealth redistributed to your benefit.   #  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.   # people are not going to voluntarily give money away in order to support society.  it has to be done under the rule of law, i. e.  forcibly.  i disagree with a number of things you have said though i respect the tone, so thanks , but this most strongly.  why must we tax income, which is basically just someone trying to make a living, and which is good for society overall ? if we must tax, why not tax things that have externalities that are bad for society ? or at least tax activities that people can choose to partake in ? no one can really choose whether they want to make a living.   #  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.   #  its called the fair tax.  URL taxation can be levied many different ways, but they ultimately come down to two things; consumption and production.  we currently have a federally imposed production tax, which i think is bad for a couple of reasons reasons.  first, its a direct tax on your labor, and while i do not subscribe to the taxation is theft/slavery ideology, there is some merit to the idea that 0 taxation of production can be equated to slavery argument.  it is generally accepted that taxation provides a disincentive for whatever it is levied against, and in this case it is a disincentive towards productive behavior.  we acknowledged this as truth with sin taxes like cigarettes and booze and carbon taxes, but for some reason a large part of the population rejects the notion that the same reasoning applies to production.  second, a tax on productivity provides a disincentive to save money, and actively makes it more difficult to do so.  in a consumption tax there is a direct incentive to save money which is good for all involved.  a consumption tax also has the benefit of being good for the environment, as it would presumably lead to the increase the sales of used goods which are not taxed , and reduce the consumption of raw materials.   #  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.   # i doubt that taxing, as i would call it, bad behavior is a going to fly with most people and is b going to be able to provide enough revenue to make up the short fall from the absence of income tax.  i do not support regressive taxation, so you and i probably wo not agree on this point.  while i do not disagree with the idea of taxing things which are harmful to society, i think that attempting to displace the absence of income tax revenues with tax revenues from the externalities you mentioned is largely going to shift the tax burden in a regressive manner.  i do not believe that we absolutely must tax income.  i also do not think we have a system in place that is going to be able to replace the absence of income tax revenues.  especially not when such a large proportion of the population does not want  any  new taxes.  also, i just do not think the argument against taxing things in which people need makes a whole lot of sense.  why tax food ? why tax municipal water ? why tax clothing ? why tax medicine ? why tax property ? why tax transportation ? if we go down that road and follow it all the way we would not tax much of anything.  we need to tax many different things and i do not think it is unreasonable to tax income.  it might not be fair but so what ? and if we are going to more heavily tax things which are bad for society, we are gonna run into some big political problems.  fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, pollution, energy extraction.  all sorts of stuff that undoubtedly has benefits to society but also has a whole slew of negatives and is arguably more negative than positive.
it is no secret that there are a lot of people in the world who dislike the united states.  there are many reasons that are given, but the one i hear most often is that they consider that the people from the united stated are  arrogant .  it is my belief that it is not really the arrogance that bothers them, but the fact that whenever america puts its mind to something, it completely dominates.  i think that soccer is a great release valve for the rest of the world.  they have a competition where all of the teams are more or less on equal footing, and the united states sends a team of scrubs who are basically there to get waled on.  other countries get to emerge victorious, and nobody from the u. s.  really cares.  it is a win for everyone.  i have been reading several tenuously sourced posts about how soccer is becoming more and more popular in the united states.  i think that it would be a huge mistake if it ever came to pass.  if the united stated actually took the game seriously and sent a team of our best athletes they would just win every time and ruin the enjoyment for everyone else.  i do not necessarily want any to try to change my view about whether or not the u. s.  team would always win.  i would like to see if you can change my view that it is better that the u. s.  just stays out of the whole thing, and lets the rest of the world have something that they can be proud of.   #  i think that soccer is a great release valve for the rest of the world.   #  they have a competition where all of the teams are more or less on equal footing , and  the united states sends a team of scrubs who are basically there to get waled on .   #  we do not consistently dominate in any olympic sport besides basketball, though we are very competitive in many sports.  we are not extremely competitive at soccer, though we have been getting better.  you do not seem to understand that soccer is a huge sport in the us, just not as big as many other sports.  they have a competition where all of the teams are more or less on equal footing , and  the united states sends a team of scrubs who are basically there to get waled on .  other countries get to emerge victorious, and  nobody from the u. s.  really cares .  it is a win for everyone.  you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.  none of this is true.  us is not bottom of the barrel in soccer, either.  URL here is the seeding for this years world cup.  the us is a respectable 0 seed, only 0 spots behind england and 0 spots ahead of france.  basically i do not really care about your view on whether the us should just  stay out of the whole thing like they do already .  your entire premise is wrong.  the us is very much committed to soccer as a sport, and has a decent soccer team that performs decently on the world stage.  it also has a national professional league.  there are a lot of people who care about soccer in the us, and that number is growing; soccer gets coverage on espn, world cup makes major headlines, etc.  nothing that you have said has any grounding in the real world besides your first sentence about many non americans citing american arrogance as a reason they dislike america or americans, which you then proceed to proudly display in spades.   #  your entire argument is based around  america is always fantastic and would trounce everyone else, and if that were to happen everyone else would get all grumpy and lose interest.    #  i might as well say  it is good that america plays sports like american football or baseball so that the rest of the world wo not be constantly beating them.   sounds pretty stupid, right ? all you have really recognised is that different countries have different popular sports, but you have phrased it in such a profoundly arrogant way that it really belongs in /r/shitamericanssay .  it is exactly this kind of attitude that makes the rest of the world criticise the us.  so how am i meant to change your mind.  what is in that last paragraph especially ? your entire argument is based around  america is always fantastic and would trounce everyone else, and if that were to happen everyone else would get all grumpy and lose interest.   but then you say that you wo not entertain arguments that try to show that america would not be guaranteed a win every time.  so, what would make a good response ?  #  any country putting in serious effort can expect to win some but not all of the games, the individual battles.   #  like i say, they won battles.  overall i am not sure.  both sides contributed huge amounts to science and technology which i find much more interesting than the political aspect.  if you rather simplistically set the bar for winning the space race as a man on the moon then american won that, but what about all the stuff that came before it ? both sides won some things, both sides lost other things.  but a sporting competition is exactly the same.  any country putting in serious effort can expect to win some but not all of the games, the individual battles.  in the same way that america did not win every battle of the space race you wo not win every game.  if you lose, you lose.  man up and accept that nobody wins 0 of the time.   #  if we want to play, then play no one will be pissed if we lose, and if we win they will try harder  #  0.  we ca not buy a better national team it is not a free agency system, it is based on citizenship.  0.  when you say  if we took it seriously , what does that really mean ? a huge number of american kids play soccer.  they just do not play it well.  we can pour tons of money into development leagues, but at least the current american teaching methods for soccer favor drills over the brilliant organic playmaking that you see from the best players today.  0.  let is see, the us has been committed 0 to the war on drugs and the war on terrorism how well have we succeeded there ? 0.  why stay out ? if we want to play, then play no one will be pissed if we lose, and if we win they will try harder  #  my point about the politicians is not that they would be above it, it is that they would need to justify it to voters.   #  bear in mind that the best players are already making damn good money on their professional teams.  how much would someone realistically pay to get messi to join the us team for a once every 0 year event ? how much would they  have  to pay to get a player of his calibre ? my point about the politicians is not that they would be above it, it is that they would need to justify it to voters.  its would be one thing to say that a foreign player who has been playing for an american team for a decade wants to expedite his citizenship.  but to boldly let messi skip the line so he could play for the us when he is barely set foot on american soil ? i do not think so.
it is no secret that there are a lot of people in the world who dislike the united states.  there are many reasons that are given, but the one i hear most often is that they consider that the people from the united stated are  arrogant .  it is my belief that it is not really the arrogance that bothers them, but the fact that whenever america puts its mind to something, it completely dominates.  i think that soccer is a great release valve for the rest of the world.  they have a competition where all of the teams are more or less on equal footing, and the united states sends a team of scrubs who are basically there to get waled on.  other countries get to emerge victorious, and nobody from the u. s.  really cares.  it is a win for everyone.  i have been reading several tenuously sourced posts about how soccer is becoming more and more popular in the united states.  i think that it would be a huge mistake if it ever came to pass.  if the united stated actually took the game seriously and sent a team of our best athletes they would just win every time and ruin the enjoyment for everyone else.  i do not necessarily want any to try to change my view about whether or not the u. s.  team would always win.  i would like to see if you can change my view that it is better that the u. s.  just stays out of the whole thing, and lets the rest of the world have something that they can be proud of.   #  i hear most often is that they consider that the people from the united stated are  arrogant .   #  it is my belief that it is not really the arrogance that bothers them, but the fact that whenever america puts its mind to something, it completely dominates.   # it is my belief that it is not really the arrogance that bothers them, but the fact that whenever america puts its mind to something, it completely dominates.  you are sadly mistaken.  the rest of the world is not reeling in pain from the 0 dream team.  people are angry at the us for reasons such as: 0 thinking they are the best at things which they are not the best at.  e. g.  healthcare 0 having a distorted view of their own history e. g.  the view that america single handedly won wwii .  0 being largely ignorant/isolationist of what goes on beyond their borders.  0 their foreign policy.  just watch this: URL   they have a competition where all of the teams are more or less on equal footing, and the united states sends a team of scrubs who are basically there to get waled on.  the us made it to the world cup.  that is more than 0 teams.  it is frankly insulting to those player to call them scrubs to get waled on.  team would always win.  i would like to see if you can change my view that it is better that the u. s.  just stays out of the whole thing, and lets the rest of the world have something that they can be proud of.  i would cite example 0.  the us is reputation is hurt far more by belittling the one sport the rest of the world cares about, then by winning at it.   #  your entire argument is based around  america is always fantastic and would trounce everyone else, and if that were to happen everyone else would get all grumpy and lose interest.    #  i might as well say  it is good that america plays sports like american football or baseball so that the rest of the world wo not be constantly beating them.   sounds pretty stupid, right ? all you have really recognised is that different countries have different popular sports, but you have phrased it in such a profoundly arrogant way that it really belongs in /r/shitamericanssay .  it is exactly this kind of attitude that makes the rest of the world criticise the us.  so how am i meant to change your mind.  what is in that last paragraph especially ? your entire argument is based around  america is always fantastic and would trounce everyone else, and if that were to happen everyone else would get all grumpy and lose interest.   but then you say that you wo not entertain arguments that try to show that america would not be guaranteed a win every time.  so, what would make a good response ?  #  but a sporting competition is exactly the same.   #  like i say, they won battles.  overall i am not sure.  both sides contributed huge amounts to science and technology which i find much more interesting than the political aspect.  if you rather simplistically set the bar for winning the space race as a man on the moon then american won that, but what about all the stuff that came before it ? both sides won some things, both sides lost other things.  but a sporting competition is exactly the same.  any country putting in serious effort can expect to win some but not all of the games, the individual battles.  in the same way that america did not win every battle of the space race you wo not win every game.  if you lose, you lose.  man up and accept that nobody wins 0 of the time.   #  if we want to play, then play no one will be pissed if we lose, and if we win they will try harder  #  0.  we ca not buy a better national team it is not a free agency system, it is based on citizenship.  0.  when you say  if we took it seriously , what does that really mean ? a huge number of american kids play soccer.  they just do not play it well.  we can pour tons of money into development leagues, but at least the current american teaching methods for soccer favor drills over the brilliant organic playmaking that you see from the best players today.  0.  let is see, the us has been committed 0 to the war on drugs and the war on terrorism how well have we succeeded there ? 0.  why stay out ? if we want to play, then play no one will be pissed if we lose, and if we win they will try harder  #  bear in mind that the best players are already making damn good money on their professional teams.   #  bear in mind that the best players are already making damn good money on their professional teams.  how much would someone realistically pay to get messi to join the us team for a once every 0 year event ? how much would they  have  to pay to get a player of his calibre ? my point about the politicians is not that they would be above it, it is that they would need to justify it to voters.  its would be one thing to say that a foreign player who has been playing for an american team for a decade wants to expedite his citizenship.  but to boldly let messi skip the line so he could play for the us when he is barely set foot on american soil ? i do not think so.
this could even apply to animal and pet burials.  i personally do not believe that humanity should use these methods.  i believe we should, like all creatures, strive for balance in nature and i believe using a casket provides a metaphorical and literal wall between us and that balance in nature.  we are the only creatures that use such methods.  other animals may bury their dead but never in such a manner that we use.  as humans i know we do things other animals do not, not all of them are good for the environment or for ourselves but i do not believe all of those are correct either.  we are meant to decompose and provide nourishment to the earth around us.  death is life.  so much of you returns to the earth and is used for the growth of other life.  you become recycled.  animals will eat you, micro organisms break you down.  caskets and coffins and cremation prevent this, and can even release harmful pollutants into the environment.  the archaic belief in people returning to life, and even the belief that dead would feel insulted if not  properly respected  is outdated and a fallacy.  what is dead is dead.  what is dead may never die. because it is already dead and it does not care.  you can still respect your loved ones by burying them and get that closure, but you do not need a box to do it.  as a caveat, i believe the practices of mummification and body preservation fit within my argument, but i consider it more a demonstration of scientific and medical knowledge.  an education in how the body handles death.   #  the archaic belief in people returning to life, and even the belief that dead would feel insulted if not  properly respected  is outdated and a fallacy.   #  you could also say the same about  natural balance  and spiritual natural connections.   # very often natural populations of animals get out of control and can destroy an environment.  they only do what they need to survive, and often it has less environmental impact than our actions.  some caskets will biodegrade.  why throw out all caskets instead of advocating a certain type ? you could also say the same about  natural balance  and spiritual natural connections.  the environment is constantly shifting and adjusting and there is no good reason to put a stamp on our current situation and claim it to be a  proper  balance.   #  the only solution to your problem is direct burial or just leave bodies in a dump somewhere.   # 0 URL of species that have ever existed are now extinct.  the fact the vast majority of species do not survive disproves any sort of balance between creatures and nature.  it is a form of reverence and respect.  if you want to talk about natural balance, why do not you consider the pollution and waste caused by the process of cremation ? do you believe animals spontaneously combust upon dying ? cremation does not enable decomposition, it creates ash.  decomposition does not result in ash.  the only solution to your problem is direct burial or just leave bodies in a dump somewhere.   #  all other animals just shit where they are when they want to !  #  should we also shit in public ? why do we need to put walls around ourselves when we use a toilet ? why do we even spend money on a toilet, why not just shit in a hole ? all other animals just shit where they are when they want to ! the walls of a cubicle are a metaphorical and literal wall between humanity and nature ! all you have done is list a bunch of reasons why coffins are not necessary, but no arguments as to the benefits of not using them you say they are expensive but that is only an argument against expensive coffins .  if you are against doing things that are not necessary then coffins are only the tip of the ice berg ! i am sure you do many unnecessary things everyday to increase the comfort of your life.  for some people, one of those unnecessary but comforting things is burying their loved one in a coffin.   #  which is something dies, it decomposes and life grows on it.   #  you can respect them just as easily by burying them without a casket.  i understand not wanting to look at them, but a fear of death should not prevent nature from occurring the way it is supposed to.  which is something dies, it decomposes and life grows on it.  no life has the ability to grow while the body decomposes faster than the container its in.  and by the time the container is broken through, many of the nutrients and potential growth is gone.   #  i know we dress them in a good outfit, do makeup, let them look good while we say goodbye.   #  sorry you lost your father.  i know we dress them in a good outfit, do makeup, let them look good while we say goodbye.  we want to remember them as they were.  we want to give the dead the same comfort they had in life thats why we buried them with favorite outfits or toys, or wealth if you were a pharaoh.  i do not think the dead find comfort in tiny lock boxes, and while i understand its a comfort for the living i think theres a better way to deal with it.  i personally would be happy knowing my dead body was providing nourishment for life.  the same as being an organ donor.
all teachers know the difficulty of managing a classroom of kids.  coming up with lessons and activities is the easy part of teaching, but herding 0 0 year olds in an attempt to elicit cooperation from them can be one of the most aggravating tasks imaginable.  there is often no perfect solution.  some common issues: 0.  getting angry frequently causes a weakening of the student teacher relationship.  0.  being too lenient causes your class to become uncontrollable over time.  0.  removing students from the classroom hurts their chances for learning and success.  0.  spending time in class scolding misbehavior is detrimental to the well behaved students.  0.  the worst students do not care about the withholding of rewards and are not bothered by detentions either.  in light of these problems, i believe i have thought of a a solution that addresses all of them.  i think it would be great if teachers could  kill  students who are misbehaving, at which point they would re spawn back in their homeroom class or some other set location right before the class where they  died  begins.  the  killing  would not be painful.  the teacher would simply shoot lasers out of their eyes or something along those lines that would instantaneously vaporize the student.  that would serve the purpose of immediately removing the disruption in one reality; meanwhile that student would reappear in an alternate reality that is otherwise completely identical to the one in which they just left and where that same class is about to begin.  if they misbehave again, the process can be repeated ad infinitum.  this process of discipline would have several advantages.  0.  no anger or shame.  the students know the rule: behave or get vaporized.  there is no scolding or yelling to cause hurt feelings.  there is no embarrassment for the student because his/her peers in the new reality do not know what happened; for them it is like going to class for the first time.  only the student who had to do a re spawn is aware of any punishment having occurred.  0.  it is a rigid punishment that encourages good behavior and thus helps manage classroom behavior.  students are not getting away with bad behavior.  0.  students are removed from the class in one reality and so not able to cause any more disruptions, but still must attend the full class in another reality, and so are not missing any material.  0.  no time is wasted scolding.  the student in the first reality is immediately removed, and teaching can continue right away with the students who are behaving.  0.  this is a punishment that students with severe behavioral problems ca not shrug off ! they are literally stuck in a groundhog day like cycle of repetition until they can manage to behave themselves.  there is no getting out of it.  there is only one possible solution: good behavior.  everything else leads to an endless cycle of repeating the same class over and over.  point 0 is my favorite aspect of this idea.  for the sake of closing all loose ends, lets say that at the end of the school day, all of the alternate realities merge, so that there are not any realities where parents permanently lose their children.  that would not be cool.  so, i think this is a great idea, but maybe there is something i am missing.  for example, maybe there is some way that this would be psychologically damaging to the children, or some other reason why it would not produce the results i want.  cmv !  #  this is a punishment that students with severe behavioral problems ca not shrug off !  #  they are literally stuck in a groundhog day like cycle of repetition until they can manage to behave themselves.   #  i do not see how this is a view that you want changed.  you are allowing sci fi based resolutions to any potential problems that would arise.  killing the child would hurt him/her physically ? laser eyes that kill instantly and painlessly.  parents struck by grief at the loss of their children ? transport children to an alternate dimension and then bring them back at the end of the day.  what is stopping you from coming up with an equally impossible solution to any imaginable problem anyone could come up with ? they are literally stuck in a groundhog day like cycle of repetition until they can manage to behave themselves.  there is no getting out of it.  there is only one possible solution: good behavior.  everything else leads to an endless cycle of repeating the same class over and over.  so the students who refuse to behave have to start the class over in the alternate dimension ? does their age also reset ? do they retain their memories from before they died ? could not they just take advantage of this system to have fun and do whatever they want until they get tired of it, like in the movie groundhog day ? is there any cost involved in spawning a new alternate universe ? if so, who pays for it ?  #  so imagine i screw up a couple of times and get sent back each time.   #  if the children have memory of the time that they have spent in class, this could be torture.  i know that when i was that age, i would probably rate a  vaporizing  every five minutes or so and i was stubborn as a mule.  so imagine i screw up a couple of times and get sent back each time.  now imagine i have spent 0 odd hours in classes and i am just about at the end of the day and i screw up again.  now it is 0 more.  now i am just pissed off and i start doing whatever floats my boat i would have done this .  after the 0th send back, my eyes are bloodshot and i am nodding off every few seconds; i need constant juicebox sugar just to keep moving.  nobody has yet corrected my problem or noted that i am displaying persistent behavioral problems.  all those in authority only perceive their day.  at what point is this just a maddening loop of repetitive hell that leaves me a sobbing wreck incapable of coherent thought ?  #  resets to the point that they re spawn from.   #  first, everything physical about the child involving age, need for food, need for sleep, etc.  resets to the point that they re spawn from.  just like in a video game.  their physical being is exactly as it was at that moment.  i do not think it is asking too much for a kid to not throw things, tease another student, or yell for no reason during a 0 minute class.  it might take a few tries for some students, but it should not be impossible for anyone, and i say this as a kid that went through the conventional education system with adhd.   #  there is going to be serious problems with this approach.   #  there is going to be serious problems with this approach.  for one thing, the brain is an organ, and changing that one organ alone will lead to serious mismatches and physical problems.  over time, the constant rewiring would lead to neurological problems.  the problem is, the punishment actually increases the chance of problems.  a lot of the time, we kids do stupid things just because we are bored and tired.  if we sit through the  same material again , we will have no need to actually listen to the lesson, making us  more bored and more likely to cause trouble .  the more times this cycle repeats, the more likely the student is to continue causing problems.  finally, this system could be seriously abused.  a student could sit through the lecture once, deliberately cause trouble, and be able to do all the material perfectly.   #  what this does not teach is actually dealing with consequences.   #  what this does not teach is actually dealing with consequences.  if ! student loses their shit and slugs timmy the cripple int he face, ! student gets vaporized and respawns, but ! student has only learned that there is no lasting consequence for him when he fucks up.  if i, ont he other hand, lose my cool because the woman who works next to em has been clearing her through every 0 minutes yes literally two minutes at 0db yes i have a sound meter on my phone and i yell at her for the long list of neurotic behaviors and pet idiocies i have had to put up with for the last six months, the consequences of that are forever.  i will either lose my job, or more likely, go to hr mediation shame deal with boss and other coworkers shame and will suffer consequences for performance review punishment, long term as well as getting assigned the shitty shifts.  because i learned growing up that misbehavior results in punishment, i can restrain my mighty pimp hand.  i do not lose my cool when other people make me mad.  i learned and benefited from that learning.  this would be torture.  only the student who had to do a re spawn is aware of any punishment having occurred.  not true.  anyone else in that  new reality  who has been  respawned  knows exactly what happened.  the most frightening thing is that this could be used to enforce the most 0 ish conformist society one could imagine.  if we had this technology, our resources would be far better spent by putting children into essentially a pseudolucid dreamlike state to compress time and allow a student to spend much more  time  in this dreamstate studying.  imagine you spend 0 hours in the thinktank and get 0 hours worth of studying done, tailored to you with a tutor tailored to you.  you now have an extra 0 hours in the day, in addition to the time you are not spending on homework, and you get to spend that socializing yes, socializing is an important part of growing up, you do not have to be a social butterfly but you will learn how to function in society and pursuing other hobbies.
all teachers know the difficulty of managing a classroom of kids.  coming up with lessons and activities is the easy part of teaching, but herding 0 0 year olds in an attempt to elicit cooperation from them can be one of the most aggravating tasks imaginable.  there is often no perfect solution.  some common issues: 0.  getting angry frequently causes a weakening of the student teacher relationship.  0.  being too lenient causes your class to become uncontrollable over time.  0.  removing students from the classroom hurts their chances for learning and success.  0.  spending time in class scolding misbehavior is detrimental to the well behaved students.  0.  the worst students do not care about the withholding of rewards and are not bothered by detentions either.  in light of these problems, i believe i have thought of a a solution that addresses all of them.  i think it would be great if teachers could  kill  students who are misbehaving, at which point they would re spawn back in their homeroom class or some other set location right before the class where they  died  begins.  the  killing  would not be painful.  the teacher would simply shoot lasers out of their eyes or something along those lines that would instantaneously vaporize the student.  that would serve the purpose of immediately removing the disruption in one reality; meanwhile that student would reappear in an alternate reality that is otherwise completely identical to the one in which they just left and where that same class is about to begin.  if they misbehave again, the process can be repeated ad infinitum.  this process of discipline would have several advantages.  0.  no anger or shame.  the students know the rule: behave or get vaporized.  there is no scolding or yelling to cause hurt feelings.  there is no embarrassment for the student because his/her peers in the new reality do not know what happened; for them it is like going to class for the first time.  only the student who had to do a re spawn is aware of any punishment having occurred.  0.  it is a rigid punishment that encourages good behavior and thus helps manage classroom behavior.  students are not getting away with bad behavior.  0.  students are removed from the class in one reality and so not able to cause any more disruptions, but still must attend the full class in another reality, and so are not missing any material.  0.  no time is wasted scolding.  the student in the first reality is immediately removed, and teaching can continue right away with the students who are behaving.  0.  this is a punishment that students with severe behavioral problems ca not shrug off ! they are literally stuck in a groundhog day like cycle of repetition until they can manage to behave themselves.  there is no getting out of it.  there is only one possible solution: good behavior.  everything else leads to an endless cycle of repeating the same class over and over.  point 0 is my favorite aspect of this idea.  for the sake of closing all loose ends, lets say that at the end of the school day, all of the alternate realities merge, so that there are not any realities where parents permanently lose their children.  that would not be cool.  so, i think this is a great idea, but maybe there is something i am missing.  for example, maybe there is some way that this would be psychologically damaging to the children, or some other reason why it would not produce the results i want.  cmv !  #  there is no embarrassment for the student because his/her peers in the new reality do not know what happened; for them it is like going to class for the first time.   #  only the student who had to do a re spawn is aware of any punishment having occurred.   #  what this does not teach is actually dealing with consequences.  if ! student loses their shit and slugs timmy the cripple int he face, ! student gets vaporized and respawns, but ! student has only learned that there is no lasting consequence for him when he fucks up.  if i, ont he other hand, lose my cool because the woman who works next to em has been clearing her through every 0 minutes yes literally two minutes at 0db yes i have a sound meter on my phone and i yell at her for the long list of neurotic behaviors and pet idiocies i have had to put up with for the last six months, the consequences of that are forever.  i will either lose my job, or more likely, go to hr mediation shame deal with boss and other coworkers shame and will suffer consequences for performance review punishment, long term as well as getting assigned the shitty shifts.  because i learned growing up that misbehavior results in punishment, i can restrain my mighty pimp hand.  i do not lose my cool when other people make me mad.  i learned and benefited from that learning.  this would be torture.  only the student who had to do a re spawn is aware of any punishment having occurred.  not true.  anyone else in that  new reality  who has been  respawned  knows exactly what happened.  the most frightening thing is that this could be used to enforce the most 0 ish conformist society one could imagine.  if we had this technology, our resources would be far better spent by putting children into essentially a pseudolucid dreamlike state to compress time and allow a student to spend much more  time  in this dreamstate studying.  imagine you spend 0 hours in the thinktank and get 0 hours worth of studying done, tailored to you with a tutor tailored to you.  you now have an extra 0 hours in the day, in addition to the time you are not spending on homework, and you get to spend that socializing yes, socializing is an important part of growing up, you do not have to be a social butterfly but you will learn how to function in society and pursuing other hobbies.   #  nobody has yet corrected my problem or noted that i am displaying persistent behavioral problems.   #  if the children have memory of the time that they have spent in class, this could be torture.  i know that when i was that age, i would probably rate a  vaporizing  every five minutes or so and i was stubborn as a mule.  so imagine i screw up a couple of times and get sent back each time.  now imagine i have spent 0 odd hours in classes and i am just about at the end of the day and i screw up again.  now it is 0 more.  now i am just pissed off and i start doing whatever floats my boat i would have done this .  after the 0th send back, my eyes are bloodshot and i am nodding off every few seconds; i need constant juicebox sugar just to keep moving.  nobody has yet corrected my problem or noted that i am displaying persistent behavioral problems.  all those in authority only perceive their day.  at what point is this just a maddening loop of repetitive hell that leaves me a sobbing wreck incapable of coherent thought ?  #  their physical being is exactly as it was at that moment.   #  first, everything physical about the child involving age, need for food, need for sleep, etc.  resets to the point that they re spawn from.  just like in a video game.  their physical being is exactly as it was at that moment.  i do not think it is asking too much for a kid to not throw things, tease another student, or yell for no reason during a 0 minute class.  it might take a few tries for some students, but it should not be impossible for anyone, and i say this as a kid that went through the conventional education system with adhd.   #  over time, the constant rewiring would lead to neurological problems.   #  there is going to be serious problems with this approach.  for one thing, the brain is an organ, and changing that one organ alone will lead to serious mismatches and physical problems.  over time, the constant rewiring would lead to neurological problems.  the problem is, the punishment actually increases the chance of problems.  a lot of the time, we kids do stupid things just because we are bored and tired.  if we sit through the  same material again , we will have no need to actually listen to the lesson, making us  more bored and more likely to cause trouble .  the more times this cycle repeats, the more likely the student is to continue causing problems.  finally, this system could be seriously abused.  a student could sit through the lecture once, deliberately cause trouble, and be able to do all the material perfectly.   #  parents struck by grief at the loss of their children ?  #  i do not see how this is a view that you want changed.  you are allowing sci fi based resolutions to any potential problems that would arise.  killing the child would hurt him/her physically ? laser eyes that kill instantly and painlessly.  parents struck by grief at the loss of their children ? transport children to an alternate dimension and then bring them back at the end of the day.  what is stopping you from coming up with an equally impossible solution to any imaginable problem anyone could come up with ? they are literally stuck in a groundhog day like cycle of repetition until they can manage to behave themselves.  there is no getting out of it.  there is only one possible solution: good behavior.  everything else leads to an endless cycle of repeating the same class over and over.  so the students who refuse to behave have to start the class over in the alternate dimension ? does their age also reset ? do they retain their memories from before they died ? could not they just take advantage of this system to have fun and do whatever they want until they get tired of it, like in the movie groundhog day ? is there any cost involved in spawning a new alternate universe ? if so, who pays for it ?
based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.  it is kind of sad and pathetic that so many people keep choosing to enter relationships with the hopeful intent that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.   #  you should be in a relationship for the journey and not the destination.   # you should be in a relationship for the journey and not the destination.  i have been in long term relationships that did not work out, but they still added value to my life.  usually, the benefit you get from being in the relationship far outweighs the temporary pain from a possible breakup.  why bother getting a job when you will either be fired, laid off, or have to retire at some point ? it is because you get a benefit while you have it.  you are trading time and money for companionship and reciprocated affection.  if you are happy being alone, i suppose it is fine.  i suspect you wo not be though.   #  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.   #  not always the case.  my grandparents were together for 0 years before my grandfather died.  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.  my point is not really that you are wrong.  just that you are not right.  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.  a little yoda ish.  but you have to get out and live life.  being in a relatinoship is fun and rewarding and powerful lifechanging and growth inspiring, even if it ends badly.  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ? you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.  sometimes you have to make decisions based on the desired outcome and work for that outcome.  that is not just relationships, that is life in general.   #  friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.   #  and i am saying that you are cutting out a huge part of living life.  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ? friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ? that is not very honest of you.  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.   #  i do not think that you are necessarily wrong.  in fact, in most cases, you are right.  i have had relationships that i wish i had never had.  really crappy relationships that had good parts, but were negative over all.  and i have had really short relationships that didnt work out, but were amazing and i treasure the moments i had with those women.  generally speaking, yes relationships end and they often hurt when they do.  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.  being in a really amazing relationship now has me a little biased on this topic.  if it was in my power, i would want you to experience what i am right now with my wife.  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.  that being said, i do not think everyone is the same.  my best friend is single.  and i think he probably always will be.  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.  he does other things instead: competetive video games, writing, learning languages and instruments.  its just who he is and what he likes.  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.  but its a little harsh to tell others that their relationships are pointless.  life is too short to do what others want.  and its way to short to not take risks for things that make you happy, even if they may make you sad down the road.  even so, its your life, not mine.   #  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.   #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.  i will help you out when you need it, and you will help me when i need it.  relationships end all the time.  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.  it seems like you are the type to stay within yourself.  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?
based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.  it is kind of sad and pathetic that so many people keep choosing to enter relationships with the hopeful intent that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.   #  usually, the benefit you get from being in the relationship far outweighs the temporary pain from a possible breakup.   # you should be in a relationship for the journey and not the destination.  i have been in long term relationships that did not work out, but they still added value to my life.  usually, the benefit you get from being in the relationship far outweighs the temporary pain from a possible breakup.  why bother getting a job when you will either be fired, laid off, or have to retire at some point ? it is because you get a benefit while you have it.  you are trading time and money for companionship and reciprocated affection.  if you are happy being alone, i suppose it is fine.  i suspect you wo not be though.   #  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.   #  not always the case.  my grandparents were together for 0 years before my grandfather died.  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.  my point is not really that you are wrong.  just that you are not right.  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.  a little yoda ish.  but you have to get out and live life.  being in a relatinoship is fun and rewarding and powerful lifechanging and growth inspiring, even if it ends badly.  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ? you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.  sometimes you have to make decisions based on the desired outcome and work for that outcome.  that is not just relationships, that is life in general.   #  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  and i am saying that you are cutting out a huge part of living life.  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ? friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ? that is not very honest of you.  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.   #  i do not think that you are necessarily wrong.  in fact, in most cases, you are right.  i have had relationships that i wish i had never had.  really crappy relationships that had good parts, but were negative over all.  and i have had really short relationships that didnt work out, but were amazing and i treasure the moments i had with those women.  generally speaking, yes relationships end and they often hurt when they do.  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.  being in a really amazing relationship now has me a little biased on this topic.  if it was in my power, i would want you to experience what i am right now with my wife.  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.  that being said, i do not think everyone is the same.  my best friend is single.  and i think he probably always will be.  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.  he does other things instead: competetive video games, writing, learning languages and instruments.  its just who he is and what he likes.  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.  but its a little harsh to tell others that their relationships are pointless.  life is too short to do what others want.  and its way to short to not take risks for things that make you happy, even if they may make you sad down the road.  even so, its your life, not mine.   #  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.   #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.  i will help you out when you need it, and you will help me when i need it.  relationships end all the time.  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.  it seems like you are the type to stay within yourself.  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?
based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.  it is kind of sad and pathetic that so many people keep choosing to enter relationships with the hopeful intent that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  you are trading time and money for companionship and reciprocated affection.   # you should be in a relationship for the journey and not the destination.  i have been in long term relationships that did not work out, but they still added value to my life.  usually, the benefit you get from being in the relationship far outweighs the temporary pain from a possible breakup.  why bother getting a job when you will either be fired, laid off, or have to retire at some point ? it is because you get a benefit while you have it.  you are trading time and money for companionship and reciprocated affection.  if you are happy being alone, i suppose it is fine.  i suspect you wo not be though.   #  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ?  #  not always the case.  my grandparents were together for 0 years before my grandfather died.  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.  my point is not really that you are wrong.  just that you are not right.  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.  a little yoda ish.  but you have to get out and live life.  being in a relatinoship is fun and rewarding and powerful lifechanging and growth inspiring, even if it ends badly.  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ? you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.  sometimes you have to make decisions based on the desired outcome and work for that outcome.  that is not just relationships, that is life in general.   #  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ?  #  and i am saying that you are cutting out a huge part of living life.  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ? friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ? that is not very honest of you.  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  its just who he is and what he likes.   #  i do not think that you are necessarily wrong.  in fact, in most cases, you are right.  i have had relationships that i wish i had never had.  really crappy relationships that had good parts, but were negative over all.  and i have had really short relationships that didnt work out, but were amazing and i treasure the moments i had with those women.  generally speaking, yes relationships end and they often hurt when they do.  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.  being in a really amazing relationship now has me a little biased on this topic.  if it was in my power, i would want you to experience what i am right now with my wife.  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.  that being said, i do not think everyone is the same.  my best friend is single.  and i think he probably always will be.  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.  he does other things instead: competetive video games, writing, learning languages and instruments.  its just who he is and what he likes.  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.  but its a little harsh to tell others that their relationships are pointless.  life is too short to do what others want.  and its way to short to not take risks for things that make you happy, even if they may make you sad down the road.  even so, its your life, not mine.   #  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?  #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.  i will help you out when you need it, and you will help me when i need it.  relationships end all the time.  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.  it seems like you are the type to stay within yourself.  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?
based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.  it is kind of sad and pathetic that so many people keep choosing to enter relationships with the hopeful intent that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.   #  that only happens if you are not happy alone.   # in the end, nothing works out.  you die.  it is the ultimate failure.  that only happens if you are not happy alone.  just let it happen  #  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ?  #  not always the case.  my grandparents were together for 0 years before my grandfather died.  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.  my point is not really that you are wrong.  just that you are not right.  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.  a little yoda ish.  but you have to get out and live life.  being in a relatinoship is fun and rewarding and powerful lifechanging and growth inspiring, even if it ends badly.  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ? you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.  sometimes you have to make decisions based on the desired outcome and work for that outcome.  that is not just relationships, that is life in general.   #  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ?  #  and i am saying that you are cutting out a huge part of living life.  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ? friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ? that is not very honest of you.  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.   #  i do not think that you are necessarily wrong.  in fact, in most cases, you are right.  i have had relationships that i wish i had never had.  really crappy relationships that had good parts, but were negative over all.  and i have had really short relationships that didnt work out, but were amazing and i treasure the moments i had with those women.  generally speaking, yes relationships end and they often hurt when they do.  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.  being in a really amazing relationship now has me a little biased on this topic.  if it was in my power, i would want you to experience what i am right now with my wife.  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.  that being said, i do not think everyone is the same.  my best friend is single.  and i think he probably always will be.  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.  he does other things instead: competetive video games, writing, learning languages and instruments.  its just who he is and what he likes.  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.  but its a little harsh to tell others that their relationships are pointless.  life is too short to do what others want.  and its way to short to not take risks for things that make you happy, even if they may make you sad down the road.  even so, its your life, not mine.   #  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.   #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.  i will help you out when you need it, and you will help me when i need it.  relationships end all the time.  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.  it seems like you are the type to stay within yourself.  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?
based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.  it is kind of sad and pathetic that so many people keep choosing to enter relationships with the hopeful intent that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.   #  you do not need to relate to someone to have get sexual intercourse.   # if people just wanted sexual pleasure they would not get married and have kids.  it is about having people that love you in your life, or spend there whole lives with one person.  very few things can compare to being loved, and a  college degree  is not one of them although it is very important .  why are you so afraid of stuff going wrong ? shit happens in life, and you get over it.  and finding a person that loves you back as much as you love them is worth a 0 heartbreaks.  you do not need to relate to someone to have get sexual intercourse.  there is more than enough sluts for that.  if you are trying to relate to someone, you do not just want sexual inter course.  that is why people take things slow when they truly love someone.  your the only one that is responsible for your life.  those who think they  can  and those who think they  ca not , are both usually right.  live your life they way you want.  but we both know you want to be in a relationship, but you are afraid things will not go the way you want them to.  regardless, no relationship is ever pointless whether it is your friends, family, or significant others.   #  my point is not really that you are wrong.   #  not always the case.  my grandparents were together for 0 years before my grandfather died.  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.  my point is not really that you are wrong.  just that you are not right.  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.  a little yoda ish.  but you have to get out and live life.  being in a relatinoship is fun and rewarding and powerful lifechanging and growth inspiring, even if it ends badly.  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ? you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.  sometimes you have to make decisions based on the desired outcome and work for that outcome.  that is not just relationships, that is life in general.   #  friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.   #  and i am saying that you are cutting out a huge part of living life.  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ? friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ? that is not very honest of you.  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.   #  i do not think that you are necessarily wrong.  in fact, in most cases, you are right.  i have had relationships that i wish i had never had.  really crappy relationships that had good parts, but were negative over all.  and i have had really short relationships that didnt work out, but were amazing and i treasure the moments i had with those women.  generally speaking, yes relationships end and they often hurt when they do.  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.  being in a really amazing relationship now has me a little biased on this topic.  if it was in my power, i would want you to experience what i am right now with my wife.  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.  that being said, i do not think everyone is the same.  my best friend is single.  and i think he probably always will be.  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.  he does other things instead: competetive video games, writing, learning languages and instruments.  its just who he is and what he likes.  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.  but its a little harsh to tell others that their relationships are pointless.  life is too short to do what others want.  and its way to short to not take risks for things that make you happy, even if they may make you sad down the road.  even so, its your life, not mine.   #  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.   #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.  i will help you out when you need it, and you will help me when i need it.  relationships end all the time.  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.  it seems like you are the type to stay within yourself.  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?
based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.  it is kind of sad and pathetic that so many people keep choosing to enter relationships with the hopeful intent that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.   #  your the only one that is responsible for your life.   # if people just wanted sexual pleasure they would not get married and have kids.  it is about having people that love you in your life, or spend there whole lives with one person.  very few things can compare to being loved, and a  college degree  is not one of them although it is very important .  why are you so afraid of stuff going wrong ? shit happens in life, and you get over it.  and finding a person that loves you back as much as you love them is worth a 0 heartbreaks.  you do not need to relate to someone to have get sexual intercourse.  there is more than enough sluts for that.  if you are trying to relate to someone, you do not just want sexual inter course.  that is why people take things slow when they truly love someone.  your the only one that is responsible for your life.  those who think they  can  and those who think they  ca not , are both usually right.  live your life they way you want.  but we both know you want to be in a relationship, but you are afraid things will not go the way you want them to.  regardless, no relationship is ever pointless whether it is your friends, family, or significant others.   #  you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.   #  not always the case.  my grandparents were together for 0 years before my grandfather died.  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.  my point is not really that you are wrong.  just that you are not right.  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.  a little yoda ish.  but you have to get out and live life.  being in a relatinoship is fun and rewarding and powerful lifechanging and growth inspiring, even if it ends badly.  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ? you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.  sometimes you have to make decisions based on the desired outcome and work for that outcome.  that is not just relationships, that is life in general.   #  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ?  #  and i am saying that you are cutting out a huge part of living life.  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ? friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ? that is not very honest of you.  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.   #  i do not think that you are necessarily wrong.  in fact, in most cases, you are right.  i have had relationships that i wish i had never had.  really crappy relationships that had good parts, but were negative over all.  and i have had really short relationships that didnt work out, but were amazing and i treasure the moments i had with those women.  generally speaking, yes relationships end and they often hurt when they do.  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.  being in a really amazing relationship now has me a little biased on this topic.  if it was in my power, i would want you to experience what i am right now with my wife.  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.  that being said, i do not think everyone is the same.  my best friend is single.  and i think he probably always will be.  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.  he does other things instead: competetive video games, writing, learning languages and instruments.  its just who he is and what he likes.  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.  but its a little harsh to tell others that their relationships are pointless.  life is too short to do what others want.  and its way to short to not take risks for things that make you happy, even if they may make you sad down the road.  even so, its your life, not mine.   #  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.   #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.  i will help you out when you need it, and you will help me when i need it.  relationships end all the time.  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.  it seems like you are the type to stay within yourself.  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?
based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.  it is kind of sad and pathetic that so many people keep choosing to enter relationships with the hopeful intent that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  live your life they way you want.   # if people just wanted sexual pleasure they would not get married and have kids.  it is about having people that love you in your life, or spend there whole lives with one person.  very few things can compare to being loved, and a  college degree  is not one of them although it is very important .  why are you so afraid of stuff going wrong ? shit happens in life, and you get over it.  and finding a person that loves you back as much as you love them is worth a 0 heartbreaks.  you do not need to relate to someone to have get sexual intercourse.  there is more than enough sluts for that.  if you are trying to relate to someone, you do not just want sexual inter course.  that is why people take things slow when they truly love someone.  your the only one that is responsible for your life.  those who think they  can  and those who think they  ca not , are both usually right.  live your life they way you want.  but we both know you want to be in a relationship, but you are afraid things will not go the way you want them to.  regardless, no relationship is ever pointless whether it is your friends, family, or significant others.   #  my point is not really that you are wrong.   #  not always the case.  my grandparents were together for 0 years before my grandfather died.  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.  my point is not really that you are wrong.  just that you are not right.  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.  a little yoda ish.  but you have to get out and live life.  being in a relatinoship is fun and rewarding and powerful lifechanging and growth inspiring, even if it ends badly.  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ? you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.  sometimes you have to make decisions based on the desired outcome and work for that outcome.  that is not just relationships, that is life in general.   #  friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.   #  and i am saying that you are cutting out a huge part of living life.  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ? friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ? that is not very honest of you.  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  life is too short to do what others want.   #  i do not think that you are necessarily wrong.  in fact, in most cases, you are right.  i have had relationships that i wish i had never had.  really crappy relationships that had good parts, but were negative over all.  and i have had really short relationships that didnt work out, but were amazing and i treasure the moments i had with those women.  generally speaking, yes relationships end and they often hurt when they do.  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.  being in a really amazing relationship now has me a little biased on this topic.  if it was in my power, i would want you to experience what i am right now with my wife.  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.  that being said, i do not think everyone is the same.  my best friend is single.  and i think he probably always will be.  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.  he does other things instead: competetive video games, writing, learning languages and instruments.  its just who he is and what he likes.  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.  but its a little harsh to tell others that their relationships are pointless.  life is too short to do what others want.  and its way to short to not take risks for things that make you happy, even if they may make you sad down the road.  even so, its your life, not mine.   #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.   #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.  i will help you out when you need it, and you will help me when i need it.  relationships end all the time.  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.  it seems like you are the type to stay within yourself.  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?
based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.  it is kind of sad and pathetic that so many people keep choosing to enter relationships with the hopeful intent that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.   #  how did you come to that conclusion ?  # how did you come to that conclusion ? sexual pleasure is not exclusive to relationships, right ? you say that the majority of people are only in relationships for sexual pleasure, but do you really believe that a relationship can survive on sex alone ? can you truly say you are 0 sure of anything ? would you not need to be able to predict the future in order to be 0 sure  of  the future ? surely you have had things in your life that have not worked out as you wanted them to, right ? were you not also emotionally comprised to an extent in at least some of those situations ? my point is that you are attempting to single out interpersonal relationships as being different from, ostensibly, everything you do in life.  how can you be so sure they are any different ? especially since you have never been in a relationship.  is not is possible that there is something that you simply do not understand because you have not experienced it ?  #  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.   #  not always the case.  my grandparents were together for 0 years before my grandfather died.  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.  my point is not really that you are wrong.  just that you are not right.  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.  a little yoda ish.  but you have to get out and live life.  being in a relatinoship is fun and rewarding and powerful lifechanging and growth inspiring, even if it ends badly.  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ? you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.  sometimes you have to make decisions based on the desired outcome and work for that outcome.  that is not just relationships, that is life in general.   #  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ?  #  and i am saying that you are cutting out a huge part of living life.  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ? friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ? that is not very honest of you.  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.   #  i do not think that you are necessarily wrong.  in fact, in most cases, you are right.  i have had relationships that i wish i had never had.  really crappy relationships that had good parts, but were negative over all.  and i have had really short relationships that didnt work out, but were amazing and i treasure the moments i had with those women.  generally speaking, yes relationships end and they often hurt when they do.  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.  being in a really amazing relationship now has me a little biased on this topic.  if it was in my power, i would want you to experience what i am right now with my wife.  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.  that being said, i do not think everyone is the same.  my best friend is single.  and i think he probably always will be.  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.  he does other things instead: competetive video games, writing, learning languages and instruments.  its just who he is and what he likes.  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.  but its a little harsh to tell others that their relationships are pointless.  life is too short to do what others want.  and its way to short to not take risks for things that make you happy, even if they may make you sad down the road.  even so, its your life, not mine.   #  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.   #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.  i will help you out when you need it, and you will help me when i need it.  relationships end all the time.  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.  it seems like you are the type to stay within yourself.  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?
based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.  it is kind of sad and pathetic that so many people keep choosing to enter relationships with the hopeful intent that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.   #  can you truly say you are 0 sure of anything ?  # how did you come to that conclusion ? sexual pleasure is not exclusive to relationships, right ? you say that the majority of people are only in relationships for sexual pleasure, but do you really believe that a relationship can survive on sex alone ? can you truly say you are 0 sure of anything ? would you not need to be able to predict the future in order to be 0 sure  of  the future ? surely you have had things in your life that have not worked out as you wanted them to, right ? were you not also emotionally comprised to an extent in at least some of those situations ? my point is that you are attempting to single out interpersonal relationships as being different from, ostensibly, everything you do in life.  how can you be so sure they are any different ? especially since you have never been in a relationship.  is not is possible that there is something that you simply do not understand because you have not experienced it ?  #  my point is not really that you are wrong.   #  not always the case.  my grandparents were together for 0 years before my grandfather died.  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.  my point is not really that you are wrong.  just that you are not right.  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.  a little yoda ish.  but you have to get out and live life.  being in a relatinoship is fun and rewarding and powerful lifechanging and growth inspiring, even if it ends badly.  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ? you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.  sometimes you have to make decisions based on the desired outcome and work for that outcome.  that is not just relationships, that is life in general.   #  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ?  #  and i am saying that you are cutting out a huge part of living life.  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ? friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ? that is not very honest of you.  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  and i think he probably always will be.   #  i do not think that you are necessarily wrong.  in fact, in most cases, you are right.  i have had relationships that i wish i had never had.  really crappy relationships that had good parts, but were negative over all.  and i have had really short relationships that didnt work out, but were amazing and i treasure the moments i had with those women.  generally speaking, yes relationships end and they often hurt when they do.  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.  being in a really amazing relationship now has me a little biased on this topic.  if it was in my power, i would want you to experience what i am right now with my wife.  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.  that being said, i do not think everyone is the same.  my best friend is single.  and i think he probably always will be.  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.  he does other things instead: competetive video games, writing, learning languages and instruments.  its just who he is and what he likes.  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.  but its a little harsh to tell others that their relationships are pointless.  life is too short to do what others want.  and its way to short to not take risks for things that make you happy, even if they may make you sad down the road.  even so, its your life, not mine.   #  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.   #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.  i will help you out when you need it, and you will help me when i need it.  relationships end all the time.  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.  it seems like you are the type to stay within yourself.  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?
based upon what i have seen from my friends and the statistics regarding marriage, it seems almost pointless to be in a relationship.  granted, the majority of people who are in them are only in it for sexual pleasure, but other than that, it is a waste of time.  why would i ever want to invest in something that i am not 0 will work out in the end, not to mention becoming emotionally compromised if a break up were to occur.  it is kind of sad and pathetic that so many people keep choosing to enter relationships with the hopeful intent that they can relate to someone on a sexual level.  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.  i am going to save a lot of time and money by not being in one.   #  i may never have been in a relationship nor plan to be in one, but maybe it is just my destiny not to be in one.   #  especially since you have never been in a relationship.   # how did you come to that conclusion ? sexual pleasure is not exclusive to relationships, right ? you say that the majority of people are only in relationships for sexual pleasure, but do you really believe that a relationship can survive on sex alone ? can you truly say you are 0 sure of anything ? would you not need to be able to predict the future in order to be 0 sure  of  the future ? surely you have had things in your life that have not worked out as you wanted them to, right ? were you not also emotionally comprised to an extent in at least some of those situations ? my point is that you are attempting to single out interpersonal relationships as being different from, ostensibly, everything you do in life.  how can you be so sure they are any different ? especially since you have never been in a relationship.  is not is possible that there is something that you simply do not understand because you have not experienced it ?  #  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.   #  not always the case.  my grandparents were together for 0 years before my grandfather died.  my parents have been together for 0 and my wife is parents for 0.  most people do not even stay in jobs that long or have cars that long.  my point is not really that you are wrong.  just that you are not right.  life is not about trying to protect yourself from everythign that can go wrong.  this is going to sound a little.  odd, maybe.  a little yoda ish.  but you have to get out and live life.  being in a relatinoship is fun and rewarding and powerful lifechanging and growth inspiring, even if it ends badly.  you ca not discount a whole experience based just on the end.  if you ride a rollercoaster and the whole trip is amazing and you put your arms in the air and scream and laugh and do a loop, but then throw up at the end, is the whole experience bad ? you ca not always make decisions based on the final outcome.  sometimes you have to make decisions based on the desired outcome and work for that outcome.  that is not just relationships, that is life in general.   #  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.   #  and i am saying that you are cutting out a huge part of living life.  why is it just romantic relationships that you have a gripe with ? friendships can be just as traumatizing and just as rewarding.  but you are okay with openning yourself up to a friend, but not a lover ? that is not very honest of you.  and if you arent willing to do anything in the realm of relationships friends or lovers or whatever than i would say you arent really living.  but, we may just have different definitions of living.   #  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.   #  i do not think that you are necessarily wrong.  in fact, in most cases, you are right.  i have had relationships that i wish i had never had.  really crappy relationships that had good parts, but were negative over all.  and i have had really short relationships that didnt work out, but were amazing and i treasure the moments i had with those women.  generally speaking, yes relationships end and they often hurt when they do.  thats why you have to be careful who you pick and work to make things work.  i do not think that the spirit of your cmv is really wrong.  i think pointless is a strong word and you are getting hammered for that.  being in a really amazing relationship now has me a little biased on this topic.  if it was in my power, i would want you to experience what i am right now with my wife.  i ca not really do that, but i can try and push you towards it.  that being said, i do not think everyone is the same.  my best friend is single.  and i think he probably always will be.  he does not have any issues with the ladies, but he does not actively seek relationships.  he does other things instead: competetive video games, writing, learning languages and instruments.  its just who he is and what he likes.  if you do not want a relatinoship, than no one can or should tell you that you have to have one.  but its a little harsh to tell others that their relationships are pointless.  life is too short to do what others want.  and its way to short to not take risks for things that make you happy, even if they may make you sad down the road.  even so, its your life, not mine.   #  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?  #  then i ca not really come close to changing your view.  i mean, most relationships, be they friendships or romantic relationship have at their essence a state of teamwork.  i will help you out when you need it, and you will help me when i need it.  relationships end all the time.  not just because of break ups or falling outs, but often just location.  it does not mean that they are pointless for the times they exist.  it seems like you do not have much experience with that.  it seems like you are the type to stay within yourself.  if that works for you fine, but who is going to help you when you move ?
this is a kind of fantasy more than anything, being brought up with all the luxuries i could ever want and never having to worry about food or money i understand it stems from my naivety.  my current opinion is that if i ever find my self in a situation where life sucks and there is not a  willight at the end of the tunnel , rather than continue to gruel through it joylessly or kill myself, the best thing to do would be to live  free .  gather all the money i have and use it to buy supplies and maybe some basic gear, then try to live as comfortably as possibly whatever the situation i find myself in.  i have heard of alexander supertramp URL and yes i know he died in just 0 months.  perhaps a more planned approach such as taking survival courses prior to leaving, buying hunting gear, having a few thousand dollars available, making contacts online and using the internet to make connections with people, could be more  productive .  of course this would be extremely dangerous, but i would rather die young than live to 0 working in a wallmart somewhere and barely getting by.  i honestly believe that the journey, experimenting with different paths of lives perhaps buddhism something i do not think you can really do without rejecting consumerism , hell even in christianity does it tell you that  if you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me jesus .   i am doing quite fine right now and i am talking about this as a  last resort  situation.  are there things have i not taken into account ? genuinly interested in other peoples opinions here.   #  i would rather die young than live to 0 working in a wallmart somewhere and barely getting by.   #  it is important to remember that these are not the only two choices in life.   # it is important to remember that these are not the only two choices in life.  also it is important to remember that people who barely get by are not condemned to always barely getting by.  i can remember making two dinners off a box of kraft macaroni and cheese.  macaroni one night, and cheese soup the next.  and it was not kraft, it was the cheap brand.  i think of those as good times too.  i highly recommend that you go camping in any wilderness area for a week.  i do it every fall/winter, and i love it.  i am likely to spend 0 0 nights in the wilderness every november/december.  where i camp it would take me most of a day to reach civilization by canoe.  i gotta tell you that if it were not for clif bars it would be far less pleasant.  i also recommend you read this book URL it is not a great work of literature, but it is a fairly good depiction of day to day life on a subsistence farm.   #  you do not have to hunt / scavenge / beg your meals.   #  abandoning all of your material possessions and accepting a life of voluntary destitution probably is not as fun as  into the wild  makes it look.  stop for a minute and think of all the comforts of modern civilization that you currently enjoy: you can afford regular medical and dental visits.  when you do get sick, you are guaranteed a safe and comfortable place to stay while you recover.  you do not have to hunt / scavenge / beg your meals.  you hopefully take a hot shower almost every single day.  when your clothes wear out, you can buy new ones.  you can spend time with your close friends and family members whenever you want.  members of the sex to which you are attracted do not think you are a gross homeless person.  and on and on.  there are worse fates than being  stuck in a dead end monotonous job.   no matter how much you hate your 0 0, what you do on your own time is up to you.  it may be that suffering at work is worth the ability to travel further than you can hitchhike and afford to pursue other interests.   #  there is a reason that people who are stuck in dead end jobs use the word  stuck  to describe that situation.   #  hmm.  i do not know if i would describe someone with a few thousand dollars in the bank as  living outside the bounds of society.   but maybe you could strike some kind of compromise.  it might be a good idea to actually plan it out.  maybe take a year off after college or something.  there is a reason that people who are stuck in dead end jobs use the word  stuck  to describe that situation.  if you ever get to that point, you may not have the freedom to just leave everything behind for an extended period of time.   #  as someone who has had to live on 0k in the past, good luck.   #  as someone who has had to live on 0k in the past, good luck.  you do not get to save money when you are making minimum wage.  0k would be barely enough to cover basic living expenses, even if you had no debt and were willing to live in a bad neighborhood.  you may also be supporting someone at that point.  crazier things have happened.  if you really want to do it, i would say do it while you are still young and relatively unencumbered.   #  you will have down days, but you will also have up days for the rest of your life.   #  while that is certainly one option, consider that there are other options available that do not require you to sacrifice all of the comforts and securities you have accumulated so far.  consider simply changing jobs.  this will give you an opportunity to learn a new skill and meet new people.  do not get into the trap of thinking a new job has to pay as much as or more than the old one.  if you are considering giving up all of your worldly possessions, you should be able to consider giving only some of it up.  get a new job, any job.  if it offers less money, move into a smaller place.  sell some of your possessions.  it sounds like possessions are not important anyway, so no great loss.  the real win here is learning a new skill and meeting new people.  if it does not work out there, move on again.  also, it does not necessarily have to be in the same location where you are.  sell everything, pack up some basic clothes and supplies and move to a new city.  i know people who have done this and it worked out great for them even though they did not stay because they eventually became disillusioned with their new home and moved on.  but at least they were happy and excited for a while.  this brings me to my final point.  do not get caught up in the idea that there is something called a perfect job and a perfect soul mate.  all jobs are dead end jobs and all relationships end.  nobody in life finds these things and then lives effortlessly and happily ever after.  what really happens is that you eventually choose to be happy no matter your circumstances.  granted, it can be easy or challenging, but you choose to find joy and peace in whatever it is your doing, wherever it is you are and with whoever you are with.  you will have down days, but you will also have up days for the rest of your life.  good luck with whatever you choose.
not a christian afterlife, to be clear.  i mean any continuation of my soul after the death of my body.  people tend to believe that they have a scientific reason to believe there was nothing before their birth and nothing will follow their death.  this is not true.  science has no basic theory for what happens, we just do not know, so you are not basing your beliefs on science, you are just not believing anything at all which to me is a massive disservice to yourself and your growth as a person.  i have no reason to believe that my consciousness is a product of my brain rather than just facilitated by it or channeled through it.  i can use logic and apply the dynamics of the physical universe to say that maybe i am part of a bigger cycle, just like the water which consists of most of my body, and perhaps i will be reborn.  even big fancy scientific facts usually arent facts URL so in the end you should just make up your own minds about some things.   #  people tend to believe that they have a scientific reason to believe there was nothing before their birth and nothing will follow their death.   #  i am not sure i understand what you are saying.   # i am not sure i understand what you are saying.  you are saying that people believe they did not have a consciousness before birth and wo not have one after death ? is almost all fostered if not directly controlled by the brain.  if the brain ceases to exist how can any of the things the brain does continue ? science does not necessarily need a theory as to what happens after or before birth.  we can logically figure it out.  you are ignoring a whole lot about psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience if it is true that you have  no  reason to believe the consciousness is a product of the brain.  i am not sure you have demonstrated any sort of evidence to suggest that you have a reason for believing this over anything alternate belief.   #  it is no good claiming that, someday, someone will disprove them.   #  ahem.   theories , as the layman understand them, is not accurate.  what they so casually dismiss with that word actually has a far stricter scientific definition.  for example, care to take on darwin is theory of evolution ? it still stands to this day.  ref.  national geographic, in recent years.  if a theory stands long enough, we bestow it with the title of law.  for example, newton is laws of gravitation.  now found to be slightly inaccurate at high energies/velocities.  see einstein.  but still holds for conventional calculations.  how about the laws of thermodynamics ? care to apply your argument against those ? it is no good claiming that, someday, someone will disprove them.  if you had any university level science education, you would realize it.  you havent  got a shred of hope.   #  thus, we have scientific reason to believe that rocks, plants, and dead humans with decomposed non functioning brains are not conscious.   #  well we look for signs of consciousness and see what common things those signs come from.  from everything we know, that common thing from which consciousness arises is the brain.  thus, we have scientific reason to believe that rocks, plants, and dead humans with decomposed non functioning brains are not conscious.  does science offer proof that the brain does not merely  channel  some metaphysical consciousness that comes from somewhere else ? no, but science uses ockam is razor to drop that unnecessary addition.  we depend on that to come to conclusions about everything in science.  we claim that the alignment and density of atoms in a liquid substance is what causes it to be liquid, because we look into the details of all liquids compared to all non liquids and that is what we see.  of course, we do not have proof that this does not merely  facilitate or channel  some metaphysical liquidity that comes from some unknown place outside the universe.  but we do not entertain that unnecessary complication.  it is the same way with consciousness coming from living brains.  the only difference is that with consciousness, you want to believe it is something else, whereas you feel no motivation to invent new explanations of liquidity.   #  we have a reason to believe that liquid is liquid and can explain it atomically, we have no knowledge of this kind to do with consciousness.   # there is no centre of consciousness in the brain, there is no scientific reasoning for it is occurrence, all we know is that the brain  allows  consciousness it is a mystery where it arises from.  we depend on that to come to conclusions about everything in science.  you make just as many assumptions through your view as i do through mine occams razor isnt applicable.  i do not see what your liquidity analogy has to do with my view.  we have a reason to believe that liquid is liquid and can explain it atomically, we have no knowledge of this kind to do with consciousness.   #  this means that, despite whatever lack of understanding we have of exactly the way it works,  it appears exactly as if brains generate consciousness .   # i stated that all signs of consciousness come from brains.  as far as i can tell, you do not disagree with that.  this means that, despite whatever lack of understanding we have of exactly the way it works,  it appears exactly as if brains generate consciousness .  one possibility is that it is as it appears.  another possibility is that it merely appears that way, but really they just happen to  allow  some extra physical thing to generate consciousness into the physical world  through  the brain.  this sounds like a perfect example of how ockham is razor is used in science.  by looking at the atoms of things that are liquid and things that are not, and taking note of the differences at the atomic level.  if someone had an emotional attachment to the idea that liquidity is actually caused by something else, could not they claim that we only notice atomic structures that are  associated  with liquidity, and that maybe those atomic structures only  allow  liquidity to occur, and it is actually a mystery where the liquidity ultimately arises from ? that is philosophically possible, and we do not have proof that it is wrong.  the only reason we accept that the atomic structure is sufficient is due to ockham is razor.
not a christian afterlife, to be clear.  i mean any continuation of my soul after the death of my body.  people tend to believe that they have a scientific reason to believe there was nothing before their birth and nothing will follow their death.  this is not true.  science has no basic theory for what happens, we just do not know, so you are not basing your beliefs on science, you are just not believing anything at all which to me is a massive disservice to yourself and your growth as a person.  i have no reason to believe that my consciousness is a product of my brain rather than just facilitated by it or channeled through it.  i can use logic and apply the dynamics of the physical universe to say that maybe i am part of a bigger cycle, just like the water which consists of most of my body, and perhaps i will be reborn.  even big fancy scientific facts usually arent facts URL so in the end you should just make up your own minds about some things.   #  i have no reason to believe that my consciousness is a product of my brain rather than just facilitated by it or channeled through it.   #  you are ignoring a whole lot about psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience if it is true that you have  no  reason to believe the consciousness is a product of the brain.   # i am not sure i understand what you are saying.  you are saying that people believe they did not have a consciousness before birth and wo not have one after death ? is almost all fostered if not directly controlled by the brain.  if the brain ceases to exist how can any of the things the brain does continue ? science does not necessarily need a theory as to what happens after or before birth.  we can logically figure it out.  you are ignoring a whole lot about psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience if it is true that you have  no  reason to believe the consciousness is a product of the brain.  i am not sure you have demonstrated any sort of evidence to suggest that you have a reason for believing this over anything alternate belief.   #   theories , as the layman understand them, is not accurate.   #  ahem.   theories , as the layman understand them, is not accurate.  what they so casually dismiss with that word actually has a far stricter scientific definition.  for example, care to take on darwin is theory of evolution ? it still stands to this day.  ref.  national geographic, in recent years.  if a theory stands long enough, we bestow it with the title of law.  for example, newton is laws of gravitation.  now found to be slightly inaccurate at high energies/velocities.  see einstein.  but still holds for conventional calculations.  how about the laws of thermodynamics ? care to apply your argument against those ? it is no good claiming that, someday, someone will disprove them.  if you had any university level science education, you would realize it.  you havent  got a shred of hope.   #  the only difference is that with consciousness, you want to believe it is something else, whereas you feel no motivation to invent new explanations of liquidity.   #  well we look for signs of consciousness and see what common things those signs come from.  from everything we know, that common thing from which consciousness arises is the brain.  thus, we have scientific reason to believe that rocks, plants, and dead humans with decomposed non functioning brains are not conscious.  does science offer proof that the brain does not merely  channel  some metaphysical consciousness that comes from somewhere else ? no, but science uses ockam is razor to drop that unnecessary addition.  we depend on that to come to conclusions about everything in science.  we claim that the alignment and density of atoms in a liquid substance is what causes it to be liquid, because we look into the details of all liquids compared to all non liquids and that is what we see.  of course, we do not have proof that this does not merely  facilitate or channel  some metaphysical liquidity that comes from some unknown place outside the universe.  but we do not entertain that unnecessary complication.  it is the same way with consciousness coming from living brains.  the only difference is that with consciousness, you want to believe it is something else, whereas you feel no motivation to invent new explanations of liquidity.   #  there is no centre of consciousness in the brain, there is no scientific reasoning for it is occurrence, all we know is that the brain  allows  consciousness it is a mystery where it arises from.   # there is no centre of consciousness in the brain, there is no scientific reasoning for it is occurrence, all we know is that the brain  allows  consciousness it is a mystery where it arises from.  we depend on that to come to conclusions about everything in science.  you make just as many assumptions through your view as i do through mine occams razor isnt applicable.  i do not see what your liquidity analogy has to do with my view.  we have a reason to believe that liquid is liquid and can explain it atomically, we have no knowledge of this kind to do with consciousness.   #  one possibility is that it is as it appears.   # i stated that all signs of consciousness come from brains.  as far as i can tell, you do not disagree with that.  this means that, despite whatever lack of understanding we have of exactly the way it works,  it appears exactly as if brains generate consciousness .  one possibility is that it is as it appears.  another possibility is that it merely appears that way, but really they just happen to  allow  some extra physical thing to generate consciousness into the physical world  through  the brain.  this sounds like a perfect example of how ockham is razor is used in science.  by looking at the atoms of things that are liquid and things that are not, and taking note of the differences at the atomic level.  if someone had an emotional attachment to the idea that liquidity is actually caused by something else, could not they claim that we only notice atomic structures that are  associated  with liquidity, and that maybe those atomic structures only  allow  liquidity to occur, and it is actually a mystery where the liquidity ultimately arises from ? that is philosophically possible, and we do not have proof that it is wrong.  the only reason we accept that the atomic structure is sufficient is due to ockham is razor.
in icona pop is  i love it,  the narrator repeatedly asserts that she does not care.  frankly, i do not buy it.  the first thing to figure out is, what specifically is the narrator saying she does not care about ? well, the lyrics indicate a recent or imminent break up  you are so damn hard to please / we gotta kill this switch  with a slightly older partner of indeterminate gender  you are from the 0 is / but i am a 0 is bitch  .  the narrator clearly cares about this development:  i threw your shit into a bag and pushed it down the stairs.   this clearly evinces a non neutral attitude toward the former significant other, and the very fact that the narrator is saying all this, and giving reasons for the breakup  you are on a different road, i am in the milky way / you want me down on earth, but i am up in space  , makes me think the narrator definitely cares about what happens with respect to the relationship.  alternatively, is the narrator simply saying that she does not care about the consequences of some of the outlandish acts that she is committing ? this might be suggested by  i crashed my car into the bridge / i watched, i let it burn.   even here, i would argue that the narrator does actually care about the consequences of her actions just not the consequences that most people would be thinking about when their car is totaled.  in short, the car itself is an acceptable loss, but the narrator seems to have desired for the car crash to communicate something to her significant other presumably, displeasure with the state of the relationship.  the same can be said about the narrator packing up her partner is things and casting them down a staircase.  after all, the song is in the second person, so this is all being said to the former significant other.  so the most that can be said is that the narrator does not care about the loss of her vehicle but that seems awfully narrow for a song where a prominent refrain is  i do not care.   thus, i think that despite the narrator is assertions, she does, in fact, care, at least in all of the important senses.   #  the narrator clearly cares about this development:  i threw your shit into a bag and pushed it down the stairs.    #  this clearly evinces a non neutral attitude toward the former significant other i think that is about as neutral as one can get with getting rid of clothes.   # this clearly evinces a non neutral attitude toward the former significant other i think that is about as neutral as one can get with getting rid of clothes.  she has to remove them from her posession somehow, you see, because why should she have their stuff taking up your space ? if she was really mad she could burn/destroy it all and if she wanted him back she could politely give it to him or something.  just putting them in a bag and throwing it down the stairs is as neutral as you can get.  no time wasted.  i am assuming the song is directed at the guy by the usage of  you  throughout it.  that said, she is merely giving an explanation as to why she is leaving she is not being vehement about it or anything.  even here, i would argue that the narrator does actually care about the consequences of her actions just not the consequences that most people would be thinking about when their car is totaled.  according to an interview URL she has not actually crashed her car into a bridge.  therefore she is saying it just to emphasis how much she does not care.   #  if she was really mad she could burn/destroy it all and if she wanted him back she could politely give it to him or something.   # she has to remove them from her posession somehow, you see, because why should she have their stuff taking up your space ? if she was really mad she could burn/destroy it all and if she wanted him back she could politely give it to him or something.  just putting them in a bag and throwing it down the stairs is as neutral as you can get.  no time wasted.  i disagree here, neutral would be politely giving them back.  for example, you act neutrally towards a bus boy but you would not shove your dirty plates in his face.   #  the fastest least troublesome way to remove them is throwing them out of your apartment.   #  giving them politely back means you care about what they think of you/ how others may perceive you.  although it does not require much work, to meet up you have to arrange a time and coordinate.  just throwing it down the stairs cuts out that time.  it is self centered and will be seen as being rude, but it is just not caring.  your bus boy example is flawed in that you do not have to do anything to get rid of your dishes, they will go away by themselves the bus boy boy cleaning after you go .  the guy is possessions, on the other hand, wo not go away by themselves.  the fastest least troublesome way to remove them is throwing them out of your apartment.   #  you are saying they  care enough  even though the first part of your statement recognizes the simplicity throwing brings.   #  the heavy usage of  neutral  as opposed to  not caring  is becoming a bit confusing.  i thought i could use it as a synonym because  not caring  is annoying to say, but at this point it is best to keep them seperate.  doing something because you do not care does not follow what is socially acceptable because  you do not care ! you are saying they  care enough  even though the first part of your statement recognizes the simplicity throwing brings.  instead of  care enough to ignore normal social protocol  why not  appreciates the easiness of throwing enough to ignore normal social protocol ?    #  what is in question is whether or not s/he cares about their former partner.   #  caring or not caring is dependent on what you care/do not care about.  i think it is natural to assume that the speaker cares about not being a dick.  what is in question is whether or not s/he cares about their former partner.  judging by the fact that the break up is the subject of the song then the line is not about the easiness of of throwing things down stairs.  the more logical interpretation is that the speaker is still hurt from the break up and throwing the suitcase down the stairs is cathartic.
in icona pop is  i love it,  the narrator repeatedly asserts that she does not care.  frankly, i do not buy it.  the first thing to figure out is, what specifically is the narrator saying she does not care about ? well, the lyrics indicate a recent or imminent break up  you are so damn hard to please / we gotta kill this switch  with a slightly older partner of indeterminate gender  you are from the 0 is / but i am a 0 is bitch  .  the narrator clearly cares about this development:  i threw your shit into a bag and pushed it down the stairs.   this clearly evinces a non neutral attitude toward the former significant other, and the very fact that the narrator is saying all this, and giving reasons for the breakup  you are on a different road, i am in the milky way / you want me down on earth, but i am up in space  , makes me think the narrator definitely cares about what happens with respect to the relationship.  alternatively, is the narrator simply saying that she does not care about the consequences of some of the outlandish acts that she is committing ? this might be suggested by  i crashed my car into the bridge / i watched, i let it burn.   even here, i would argue that the narrator does actually care about the consequences of her actions just not the consequences that most people would be thinking about when their car is totaled.  in short, the car itself is an acceptable loss, but the narrator seems to have desired for the car crash to communicate something to her significant other presumably, displeasure with the state of the relationship.  the same can be said about the narrator packing up her partner is things and casting them down a staircase.  after all, the song is in the second person, so this is all being said to the former significant other.  so the most that can be said is that the narrator does not care about the loss of her vehicle but that seems awfully narrow for a song where a prominent refrain is  i do not care.   thus, i think that despite the narrator is assertions, she does, in fact, care, at least in all of the important senses.   #   i crashed my car into the bridge / i watched, i let it burn.    #  even here, i would argue that the narrator does actually care about the consequences of her actions just not the consequences that most people would be thinking about when their car is totaled.   # this clearly evinces a non neutral attitude toward the former significant other i think that is about as neutral as one can get with getting rid of clothes.  she has to remove them from her posession somehow, you see, because why should she have their stuff taking up your space ? if she was really mad she could burn/destroy it all and if she wanted him back she could politely give it to him or something.  just putting them in a bag and throwing it down the stairs is as neutral as you can get.  no time wasted.  i am assuming the song is directed at the guy by the usage of  you  throughout it.  that said, she is merely giving an explanation as to why she is leaving she is not being vehement about it or anything.  even here, i would argue that the narrator does actually care about the consequences of her actions just not the consequences that most people would be thinking about when their car is totaled.  according to an interview URL she has not actually crashed her car into a bridge.  therefore she is saying it just to emphasis how much she does not care.   #  just putting them in a bag and throwing it down the stairs is as neutral as you can get.   # she has to remove them from her posession somehow, you see, because why should she have their stuff taking up your space ? if she was really mad she could burn/destroy it all and if she wanted him back she could politely give it to him or something.  just putting them in a bag and throwing it down the stairs is as neutral as you can get.  no time wasted.  i disagree here, neutral would be politely giving them back.  for example, you act neutrally towards a bus boy but you would not shove your dirty plates in his face.   #  your bus boy example is flawed in that you do not have to do anything to get rid of your dishes, they will go away by themselves the bus boy boy cleaning after you go .   #  giving them politely back means you care about what they think of you/ how others may perceive you.  although it does not require much work, to meet up you have to arrange a time and coordinate.  just throwing it down the stairs cuts out that time.  it is self centered and will be seen as being rude, but it is just not caring.  your bus boy example is flawed in that you do not have to do anything to get rid of your dishes, they will go away by themselves the bus boy boy cleaning after you go .  the guy is possessions, on the other hand, wo not go away by themselves.  the fastest least troublesome way to remove them is throwing them out of your apartment.   #  you are saying they  care enough  even though the first part of your statement recognizes the simplicity throwing brings.   #  the heavy usage of  neutral  as opposed to  not caring  is becoming a bit confusing.  i thought i could use it as a synonym because  not caring  is annoying to say, but at this point it is best to keep them seperate.  doing something because you do not care does not follow what is socially acceptable because  you do not care ! you are saying they  care enough  even though the first part of your statement recognizes the simplicity throwing brings.  instead of  care enough to ignore normal social protocol  why not  appreciates the easiness of throwing enough to ignore normal social protocol ?    #  the more logical interpretation is that the speaker is still hurt from the break up and throwing the suitcase down the stairs is cathartic.   #  caring or not caring is dependent on what you care/do not care about.  i think it is natural to assume that the speaker cares about not being a dick.  what is in question is whether or not s/he cares about their former partner.  judging by the fact that the break up is the subject of the song then the line is not about the easiness of of throwing things down stairs.  the more logical interpretation is that the speaker is still hurt from the break up and throwing the suitcase down the stairs is cathartic.
in icona pop is  i love it,  the narrator repeatedly asserts that she does not care.  frankly, i do not buy it.  the first thing to figure out is, what specifically is the narrator saying she does not care about ? well, the lyrics indicate a recent or imminent break up  you are so damn hard to please / we gotta kill this switch  with a slightly older partner of indeterminate gender  you are from the 0 is / but i am a 0 is bitch  .  the narrator clearly cares about this development:  i threw your shit into a bag and pushed it down the stairs.   this clearly evinces a non neutral attitude toward the former significant other, and the very fact that the narrator is saying all this, and giving reasons for the breakup  you are on a different road, i am in the milky way / you want me down on earth, but i am up in space  , makes me think the narrator definitely cares about what happens with respect to the relationship.  alternatively, is the narrator simply saying that she does not care about the consequences of some of the outlandish acts that she is committing ? this might be suggested by  i crashed my car into the bridge / i watched, i let it burn.   even here, i would argue that the narrator does actually care about the consequences of her actions just not the consequences that most people would be thinking about when their car is totaled.  in short, the car itself is an acceptable loss, but the narrator seems to have desired for the car crash to communicate something to her significant other presumably, displeasure with the state of the relationship.  the same can be said about the narrator packing up her partner is things and casting them down a staircase.  after all, the song is in the second person, so this is all being said to the former significant other.  so the most that can be said is that the narrator does not care about the loss of her vehicle but that seems awfully narrow for a song where a prominent refrain is  i do not care.   thus, i think that despite the narrator is assertions, she does, in fact, care, at least in all of the important senses.   #  even here, i would argue that the narrator does actually care about the consequences of her actions just not the consequences that most people would be thinking about when their car is totaled.   #  is there any reason to believe that she is not referring exclusively to the fact that she does not care about her car ?  #  the trouble here is that the key phrase is ambiguous:  i do not care  can mean  i do not care about anything at all,  but that is not necessarily or even usually what is meant by it.  is there any reason to believe that she is not referring exclusively to the fact that she does not care about her car ? given the context, that seems much more likely to me.  that is true of most of the song, but not necessarily the refrain.  since your entire thesis seems to depend on this point, i think you may want to reconsider it.   #  i am assuming the song is directed at the guy by the usage of  you  throughout it.   # this clearly evinces a non neutral attitude toward the former significant other i think that is about as neutral as one can get with getting rid of clothes.  she has to remove them from her posession somehow, you see, because why should she have their stuff taking up your space ? if she was really mad she could burn/destroy it all and if she wanted him back she could politely give it to him or something.  just putting them in a bag and throwing it down the stairs is as neutral as you can get.  no time wasted.  i am assuming the song is directed at the guy by the usage of  you  throughout it.  that said, she is merely giving an explanation as to why she is leaving she is not being vehement about it or anything.  even here, i would argue that the narrator does actually care about the consequences of her actions just not the consequences that most people would be thinking about when their car is totaled.  according to an interview URL she has not actually crashed her car into a bridge.  therefore she is saying it just to emphasis how much she does not care.   #  she has to remove them from her posession somehow, you see, because why should she have their stuff taking up your space ?  # she has to remove them from her posession somehow, you see, because why should she have their stuff taking up your space ? if she was really mad she could burn/destroy it all and if she wanted him back she could politely give it to him or something.  just putting them in a bag and throwing it down the stairs is as neutral as you can get.  no time wasted.  i disagree here, neutral would be politely giving them back.  for example, you act neutrally towards a bus boy but you would not shove your dirty plates in his face.   #  just throwing it down the stairs cuts out that time.   #  giving them politely back means you care about what they think of you/ how others may perceive you.  although it does not require much work, to meet up you have to arrange a time and coordinate.  just throwing it down the stairs cuts out that time.  it is self centered and will be seen as being rude, but it is just not caring.  your bus boy example is flawed in that you do not have to do anything to get rid of your dishes, they will go away by themselves the bus boy boy cleaning after you go .  the guy is possessions, on the other hand, wo not go away by themselves.  the fastest least troublesome way to remove them is throwing them out of your apartment.   #  doing something because you do not care does not follow what is socially acceptable because  you do not care !  #  the heavy usage of  neutral  as opposed to  not caring  is becoming a bit confusing.  i thought i could use it as a synonym because  not caring  is annoying to say, but at this point it is best to keep them seperate.  doing something because you do not care does not follow what is socially acceptable because  you do not care ! you are saying they  care enough  even though the first part of your statement recognizes the simplicity throwing brings.  instead of  care enough to ignore normal social protocol  why not  appreciates the easiness of throwing enough to ignore normal social protocol ?
in icona pop is  i love it,  the narrator repeatedly asserts that she does not care.  frankly, i do not buy it.  the first thing to figure out is, what specifically is the narrator saying she does not care about ? well, the lyrics indicate a recent or imminent break up  you are so damn hard to please / we gotta kill this switch  with a slightly older partner of indeterminate gender  you are from the 0 is / but i am a 0 is bitch  .  the narrator clearly cares about this development:  i threw your shit into a bag and pushed it down the stairs.   this clearly evinces a non neutral attitude toward the former significant other, and the very fact that the narrator is saying all this, and giving reasons for the breakup  you are on a different road, i am in the milky way / you want me down on earth, but i am up in space  , makes me think the narrator definitely cares about what happens with respect to the relationship.  alternatively, is the narrator simply saying that she does not care about the consequences of some of the outlandish acts that she is committing ? this might be suggested by  i crashed my car into the bridge / i watched, i let it burn.   even here, i would argue that the narrator does actually care about the consequences of her actions just not the consequences that most people would be thinking about when their car is totaled.  in short, the car itself is an acceptable loss, but the narrator seems to have desired for the car crash to communicate something to her significant other presumably, displeasure with the state of the relationship.  the same can be said about the narrator packing up her partner is things and casting them down a staircase.  after all, the song is in the second person, so this is all being said to the former significant other.  so the most that can be said is that the narrator does not care about the loss of her vehicle but that seems awfully narrow for a song where a prominent refrain is  i do not care.   thus, i think that despite the narrator is assertions, she does, in fact, care, at least in all of the important senses.   #  after all, the song is in the second person, so this is all being said to the former significant other.   #  that is true of most of the song, but not necessarily the refrain.   #  the trouble here is that the key phrase is ambiguous:  i do not care  can mean  i do not care about anything at all,  but that is not necessarily or even usually what is meant by it.  is there any reason to believe that she is not referring exclusively to the fact that she does not care about her car ? given the context, that seems much more likely to me.  that is true of most of the song, but not necessarily the refrain.  since your entire thesis seems to depend on this point, i think you may want to reconsider it.   #  if she was really mad she could burn/destroy it all and if she wanted him back she could politely give it to him or something.   # this clearly evinces a non neutral attitude toward the former significant other i think that is about as neutral as one can get with getting rid of clothes.  she has to remove them from her posession somehow, you see, because why should she have their stuff taking up your space ? if she was really mad she could burn/destroy it all and if she wanted him back she could politely give it to him or something.  just putting them in a bag and throwing it down the stairs is as neutral as you can get.  no time wasted.  i am assuming the song is directed at the guy by the usage of  you  throughout it.  that said, she is merely giving an explanation as to why she is leaving she is not being vehement about it or anything.  even here, i would argue that the narrator does actually care about the consequences of her actions just not the consequences that most people would be thinking about when their car is totaled.  according to an interview URL she has not actually crashed her car into a bridge.  therefore she is saying it just to emphasis how much she does not care.   #  she has to remove them from her posession somehow, you see, because why should she have their stuff taking up your space ?  # she has to remove them from her posession somehow, you see, because why should she have their stuff taking up your space ? if she was really mad she could burn/destroy it all and if she wanted him back she could politely give it to him or something.  just putting them in a bag and throwing it down the stairs is as neutral as you can get.  no time wasted.  i disagree here, neutral would be politely giving them back.  for example, you act neutrally towards a bus boy but you would not shove your dirty plates in his face.   #  the guy is possessions, on the other hand, wo not go away by themselves.   #  giving them politely back means you care about what they think of you/ how others may perceive you.  although it does not require much work, to meet up you have to arrange a time and coordinate.  just throwing it down the stairs cuts out that time.  it is self centered and will be seen as being rude, but it is just not caring.  your bus boy example is flawed in that you do not have to do anything to get rid of your dishes, they will go away by themselves the bus boy boy cleaning after you go .  the guy is possessions, on the other hand, wo not go away by themselves.  the fastest least troublesome way to remove them is throwing them out of your apartment.   #  instead of  care enough to ignore normal social protocol  why not  appreciates the easiness of throwing enough to ignore normal social protocol ?    #  the heavy usage of  neutral  as opposed to  not caring  is becoming a bit confusing.  i thought i could use it as a synonym because  not caring  is annoying to say, but at this point it is best to keep them seperate.  doing something because you do not care does not follow what is socially acceptable because  you do not care ! you are saying they  care enough  even though the first part of your statement recognizes the simplicity throwing brings.  instead of  care enough to ignore normal social protocol  why not  appreciates the easiness of throwing enough to ignore normal social protocol ?
i will preface this by saying i do not know a ton about soccer.  i like watching fifa games with friends but i am very oblivious to the nuances and finer points of the game.  as an american, there is a whole laundry list of problems and criticisms we have with football.  personally, tie resolution is what really bothers me.  and to top it off, this method of tie breaking is used in tournaments, where the soul purpose is to decide the best  team  in the league/world.  i understand that football is a low scoring game and that goals can be rare.  putting that aside, it almost seems disgraceful that the game can be decided by basically playing a mini game.  i believe you should win the game, by winning  the actual game , not a side game that only involves one player from each opposing team.  i do not understand how anyone could be satisfied with a victory or loss through the shootout.  i do not understand why there ca not be an nhl playoffs style overtime, where the first goal in the overtime wins the whole thing.  if player fatigue is an issue, create separate play periods with rest time inbetween.  at worst, just schedule a rematch the next day, anything to actually give me a definitive conclusion.  i need to feel like the team that won played better football in the match, not a better shootout.   #  if player fatigue is an issue, create separate play periods with rest time inbetween.   #  there are rest periods, but a soccer team is only allowed 0 substitutions over the course of the entire game.   # then i assume you also have issues with the overtime structure for the regular season for the nhl and the nfl.  why should an nhl team be allowed to play a mini game to determine who goes to the playoffs ? why should an nfl game end in a tie instead of determining a winner ? also, i should point out, in soccer there is only a shootout in a deciding game elimination/knockout games.  otherwise they just end it in a tie.  brazil croatia could end their game today at 0 0, for example.  there are rest periods, but a soccer team is only allowed 0 substitutions over the course of the entire game.  unlike other sports that allow regular substitutions or, in the case of mlb, there is minimal physical activity.  the fatigue part is really the key point as to why they cannot play into infinity.  there is no way this is better, or logistically feasible.  no one wants to wait an extra day for the conclusion of an event, and it can potentially conflict with the next scheduled soccer match or events going on at the stadium.  this alternative is much worse.  also, a shootout does provide a  definitive conclusion , just not in the manner that you would like.  you could argue that a tie does not provide a definitive conclusion, but after a penalty shootout in soccer there is a clear  winner  and clear  loser.    #  0.  have you ever played 0 minutes of soccer ?  # now i believe fifa made away with this in the early 0 for a few reasons 0.  teams would play defensively as to stop their opponent from winning.  if you have two teams that are 0 defense oriented, what a boring game that would be, eh ? 0.  have you ever played 0 minutes of soccer ? fifa regulations only allow 0 substitutions.  not to mention 0 minutes of soccer in a hot climate ? it is hard.  hell, it is super tough for the last 0 minutes in normal time.  prolonging a game unnecessesarily will not bring out the best in both teams.  personally, i do not think you can measure how good a team is when they are playing for 0 minutes in a 0 defense oriented positioning.  soccer, you are going to have at least 0 players from each team that have been on the pitch for those full 0 minutes.  it just does not work like that.  especially in the world cup where you are going to have games going on in the stadiums are certain times plus travel time.  soccer players are not invincible.  asking them to play 0 minutes and then the next day play another 0 minutes is a hell of a lot.  not to mention teams have pretty strict schedules, especially during championchips and league games.  i know where you are coming from becaues i, too, wanted the golden goal or silver goal to be the rule, but player fatigue is just too much of a concern, and lets face it, when players are fatigued, they are not going to play their best, and the team as a whole is going to play defense, which makes from a pretty boring game.   #  if you have two teams that are 0 defense oriented, what a boring game that would be, eh ?  #    thanks for the informative post, definitely changed the way i was thinking about this.  i guess my main issue is that i underestimated how big of an issue player fatigue is.  but for the sake of discussion, i think this:  teams would play defensively as to stop their opponent from winning.  if you have two teams that are 0 defense oriented, what a boring game that would be, eh ? just reverts back to the shortcomings that arise when ties are an option.  i do not think it is good when a team is actively not trying to win by putting all of their effort into not losing.  that is a whole other issue though.  i just think it is completely absurd for a team to win the world cup on a shootout.  i can understand the need for penalty shootouts in a regular league setting, but i think there should be some sort of exception made for the final round of the tournament, when you are literally deciding the best team in the world.  if you will excuse my ignorance for a moment because i will admit i do not really know exactly how tired these players get, but i do not have a problem with teams being tired and not at their best at the end of a match.  fatigue has always been a part of sports and the legendary teams and players are the ones who can rise above unbelievable fatigue to win the game.  seeing players give everything they have for victory beats out high quality play for me, that is what i love about sports personally.   #  suddenly, these players have to play for 0 minutes instead of their normal 0.  and if golden goal is the rule, they may have to spend another good amount of time on top of that.   # yeah, but who is going to stop them ? you ca not really put a shot clock like in basketball in a soccer match.  if you ca not win, the next best thing is to not lose.  the last thing that you do want to do is lose.  and believe it or not, i kind of agree with you.  i would love to see penalties go away, but the problem is that there is no good alternative at least not an alternative that i have heard about.  and i sort of agree, however the vast majority of games played end at 0ish minutes.  it is only really closer to the final matches in the league where you will see overtime added on.  suddenly, these players have to play for 0 minutes instead of their normal 0.  and if golden goal is the rule, they may have to spend another good amount of time on top of that.  yes, soccer is an endurance sport.  for the most part, but playing for 0  minutes on a pitch with 0  degree f weather with only three substitutions is alot to ask for, no matter the person.  also, thank you for my first delta !  #  note fifa are looking at giving each team an extra substitution if it gets to extra time to liven the match up  #  to understand how tired footballers can get i would watch this URL watch the players off the ball.  there all holding their legs, and someone is even on the floor.  this is a normal game in the 0th minute.  given this is not normal circumstances, but you can see how tiring it can get when your chasing the ball trying to play attacking football for long periods of time.  most mid fielders will run about 0 0 miles a game, that is insane alone, then imagine doing that in studded boots in grass while changing direction all the time.  im not sure if you have, but unless you have played on a full sized grass pitch, it is very hard to understand what commentators mean by  his legs have gone , but once you have it is very easy.  your suddenly jogging instead of running, staying put, instead of making a runs, letting players go instead of chasing them down or passing the ball on sideways instead of trying to beat the man.  i do not like it being decided on penalties either, however i think it is better than it being decided on amateurish football, because no one can be bothered to run.  note fifa are looking at giving each team an extra substitution if it gets to extra time to liven the match up
i will preface this by saying i do not know a ton about soccer.  i like watching fifa games with friends but i am very oblivious to the nuances and finer points of the game.  as an american, there is a whole laundry list of problems and criticisms we have with football.  personally, tie resolution is what really bothers me.  and to top it off, this method of tie breaking is used in tournaments, where the soul purpose is to decide the best  team  in the league/world.  i understand that football is a low scoring game and that goals can be rare.  putting that aside, it almost seems disgraceful that the game can be decided by basically playing a mini game.  i believe you should win the game, by winning  the actual game , not a side game that only involves one player from each opposing team.  i do not understand how anyone could be satisfied with a victory or loss through the shootout.  i do not understand why there ca not be an nhl playoffs style overtime, where the first goal in the overtime wins the whole thing.  if player fatigue is an issue, create separate play periods with rest time inbetween.  at worst, just schedule a rematch the next day, anything to actually give me a definitive conclusion.  i need to feel like the team that won played better football in the match, not a better shootout.   #  at worst, just schedule a rematch the next day, anything to actually give me a definitive conclusion.   #  there is no way this is better, or logistically feasible.   # then i assume you also have issues with the overtime structure for the regular season for the nhl and the nfl.  why should an nhl team be allowed to play a mini game to determine who goes to the playoffs ? why should an nfl game end in a tie instead of determining a winner ? also, i should point out, in soccer there is only a shootout in a deciding game elimination/knockout games.  otherwise they just end it in a tie.  brazil croatia could end their game today at 0 0, for example.  there are rest periods, but a soccer team is only allowed 0 substitutions over the course of the entire game.  unlike other sports that allow regular substitutions or, in the case of mlb, there is minimal physical activity.  the fatigue part is really the key point as to why they cannot play into infinity.  there is no way this is better, or logistically feasible.  no one wants to wait an extra day for the conclusion of an event, and it can potentially conflict with the next scheduled soccer match or events going on at the stadium.  this alternative is much worse.  also, a shootout does provide a  definitive conclusion , just not in the manner that you would like.  you could argue that a tie does not provide a definitive conclusion, but after a penalty shootout in soccer there is a clear  winner  and clear  loser.    #  prolonging a game unnecessesarily will not bring out the best in both teams.   # now i believe fifa made away with this in the early 0 for a few reasons 0.  teams would play defensively as to stop their opponent from winning.  if you have two teams that are 0 defense oriented, what a boring game that would be, eh ? 0.  have you ever played 0 minutes of soccer ? fifa regulations only allow 0 substitutions.  not to mention 0 minutes of soccer in a hot climate ? it is hard.  hell, it is super tough for the last 0 minutes in normal time.  prolonging a game unnecessesarily will not bring out the best in both teams.  personally, i do not think you can measure how good a team is when they are playing for 0 minutes in a 0 defense oriented positioning.  soccer, you are going to have at least 0 players from each team that have been on the pitch for those full 0 minutes.  it just does not work like that.  especially in the world cup where you are going to have games going on in the stadiums are certain times plus travel time.  soccer players are not invincible.  asking them to play 0 minutes and then the next day play another 0 minutes is a hell of a lot.  not to mention teams have pretty strict schedules, especially during championchips and league games.  i know where you are coming from becaues i, too, wanted the golden goal or silver goal to be the rule, but player fatigue is just too much of a concern, and lets face it, when players are fatigued, they are not going to play their best, and the team as a whole is going to play defense, which makes from a pretty boring game.   #  if you have two teams that are 0 defense oriented, what a boring game that would be, eh ?  #    thanks for the informative post, definitely changed the way i was thinking about this.  i guess my main issue is that i underestimated how big of an issue player fatigue is.  but for the sake of discussion, i think this:  teams would play defensively as to stop their opponent from winning.  if you have two teams that are 0 defense oriented, what a boring game that would be, eh ? just reverts back to the shortcomings that arise when ties are an option.  i do not think it is good when a team is actively not trying to win by putting all of their effort into not losing.  that is a whole other issue though.  i just think it is completely absurd for a team to win the world cup on a shootout.  i can understand the need for penalty shootouts in a regular league setting, but i think there should be some sort of exception made for the final round of the tournament, when you are literally deciding the best team in the world.  if you will excuse my ignorance for a moment because i will admit i do not really know exactly how tired these players get, but i do not have a problem with teams being tired and not at their best at the end of a match.  fatigue has always been a part of sports and the legendary teams and players are the ones who can rise above unbelievable fatigue to win the game.  seeing players give everything they have for victory beats out high quality play for me, that is what i love about sports personally.   #  yes, soccer is an endurance sport.  for the most part, but playing for 0  minutes on a pitch with 0  degree f weather with only three substitutions is alot to ask for, no matter the person.   # yeah, but who is going to stop them ? you ca not really put a shot clock like in basketball in a soccer match.  if you ca not win, the next best thing is to not lose.  the last thing that you do want to do is lose.  and believe it or not, i kind of agree with you.  i would love to see penalties go away, but the problem is that there is no good alternative at least not an alternative that i have heard about.  and i sort of agree, however the vast majority of games played end at 0ish minutes.  it is only really closer to the final matches in the league where you will see overtime added on.  suddenly, these players have to play for 0 minutes instead of their normal 0.  and if golden goal is the rule, they may have to spend another good amount of time on top of that.  yes, soccer is an endurance sport.  for the most part, but playing for 0  minutes on a pitch with 0  degree f weather with only three substitutions is alot to ask for, no matter the person.  also, thank you for my first delta !  #  to understand how tired footballers can get i would watch this URL watch the players off the ball.   #  to understand how tired footballers can get i would watch this URL watch the players off the ball.  there all holding their legs, and someone is even on the floor.  this is a normal game in the 0th minute.  given this is not normal circumstances, but you can see how tiring it can get when your chasing the ball trying to play attacking football for long periods of time.  most mid fielders will run about 0 0 miles a game, that is insane alone, then imagine doing that in studded boots in grass while changing direction all the time.  im not sure if you have, but unless you have played on a full sized grass pitch, it is very hard to understand what commentators mean by  his legs have gone , but once you have it is very easy.  your suddenly jogging instead of running, staying put, instead of making a runs, letting players go instead of chasing them down or passing the ball on sideways instead of trying to beat the man.  i do not like it being decided on penalties either, however i think it is better than it being decided on amateurish football, because no one can be bothered to run.  note fifa are looking at giving each team an extra substitution if it gets to extra time to liven the match up
this might be a poorly titled post so bear with me.  my view is that the london cabbies have a point, uber is unfairly screwing them.  i am not saying uber is inherently bad or that cabs are always a great experience.  i am saying it seems pretty obvious uber and similar programs offer an unfair advantage that cabs on their own cannot make up.  they have to pay licensing fees, taxes and are governed by laws like having to pick up disabled people.  uber is not offering a better product but exploiting loopholes in the law.  but that is not the problem.  i wish all the best to uber and their drivers and i hope cab drivers in the cities where ride sharing apps had caught on earlier.  the problem is, i think, is that this explains a lot about people and why income inequality is growing.  if people are offered a choice of supporting an industry that allows workers to unionize, have standards and training safety, contribute to the tax base, monetary protections for consumers and transparent laws that protect against discrimination at the cost of more money and bureaucracy or supporting an industry that makes the makes essentially entrepreneurs, does not offer the same protections to consumers, with less bureaucracy at a lower price, people will take the lower price with less hassle each time.  that is not to say big business and governments have no role but those roles are driven by a desire for ease and comfort with a cheaper price on the part of average individuals.  consumer choices are the chief driver of income inequality and you need to look no further than london is cabs.   #  they have to pay licensing fees, taxes and are governed by laws like having to pick up disabled people.   #  this is the crux of our discussion.   #  firstly, just let me say that your title and thesis is perfectly clear to me.  your view is multifaceted, but you did a good job expressing it succinctly, so that now i can get straight to attacking it.  this is the crux of our discussion.  you have been making the point that our status quo benefits taxi drivers by giving them stable jobs.  however, we all agree that it is a double edged sword.  live by the regulations, die by the regulations.  cons: bureaucratic requirements like medallions, licenseing, fulfilling certain times of availability pro: ability to unionize, higher value of services, more job security i would make the point, however, that regulation only  ultimately  has value is those regulations themselves are providing value to society.  why ? same reason that paying people to dig a hole and fill it back up is a bad idea.  if we only wanted  stimulus , it would be more efficient to just hand people checks.  in the us, at least, we occasionally do this gwb, circa around 0, 0 tax rebate .  we should expect that our taxi drivers are doing something more than just spinning their wheels.  so we should examine the value of those regulations to society.  is it a good thing that taxi drivers pick up disabled people ? yes.  however, what does the regulation say ? regulations have targeted giving better coverage of a city, to reduce the minimum time required to get a taxi, to enable mobility of disabled people.  this, in turn, increases the prices you pay for taxis at times when there is denser and more predictable demand.  but wait, was not the goal to provide mobility to disabled people ? this method is extremely indirect, and it also has very adverse unintended consequences.  consider that higher rates for taxis cause more people to drive drunk.  so perhaps we reduced the wait for a wealthy disabled person to get somewhere, but we caused more deaths due to alcohol related accidents, because the market could not respond in an agile way to that demand for rides.  but your main thesis is about inequality.  on the  production  side, you have a point.  problem is that inequality is about the production  and  consumption side.  if you can get by spending less money, this is just as good as making more money probably better, given taxes .  this is central the narratives about how hard it is for people in low wage jobs to live.  shelter and transportation are the  real  budget breakers in their lives.  taxi regulations increase the cost of transportation, and uber lowers it.  it is really hard to get around this basic fact.  your pro regulation standpoint relies on added value from the regulations.  however, poor people consume the lowest quality forms of transportation.  so while regulations boosts the status of the lower middle class taxi drivers, it has an  extremely  negative effect on the status of the truly lower class workers.  the flexibility of services like uber will allow  consumer  cooperation, which can reduce costs, which can help lift them out of poverty.  taxi drivers are an extremely small part of our economy, but an open market for rides would touch a huge number of people.   #  , the business model that eliminates driver rider transactions is  superior  imo, of course .   # from my experience in atlanta, uber x and black car has provided significantly better service than taxis.  i know the prices  can  be higher, but i am referring to etiquette, cleanliness, convenience, etc.  i will even go so far as to say that given everything else being equal i. e.  price, same nasty car, lateness, method of hailing, etc.  , the business model that eliminates driver rider transactions is  superior  imo, of course .  i cannot begin to describe the  rage  that grows within when i am asked if i have cash instead of a credit card i have even been denied rides from drivers that have the credit card capabilities .  i am fully aware that drivers are financially benefiting from cash transactions in comparison to credit card transactions.  i understand this is why they prefer it and will sometimes push for it.  but .  i am a paying customer and i should  never  be harassed by my form of payment if it is accepted obviously this means the taxi is equipped with a card machine or the driver utilizes a service like square .  it is a major failure to continuously allow this sort of tension to exist.  either instruct drivers to shut up or modify the business model.  in closing, i would like to reiterate that my opinions on the matter are largely shaped by my experiences in atlanta and d. c.   #  the licenses, fees and all that are means to exclude competition, so they can secure higher revenue for themselves.   #  if you look at who benefits, the cabs do.  the licenses, fees and all that are means to exclude competition, so they can secure higher revenue for themselves.  cab licenses are limited, and can be worth more than a million each.  i think you are on the wrong side of the argument.  taxis are protected and get the higher revenue, because of that protection.  it is obviously a favorable position, for the cabs, if their competition is fined in bankruptcy for not having the right paperwork, property confiscated, or even incarcerated for non compliance.  where consumers have the most choice, profit margins are lowest, or absent all together.  since the rise of capitalism and industrialism over the past several hundred years, income inequality has flattened.   #  if there is some flaw in human nature, how do you think the government can fix it without being subject to those same flaws ?  #  i am saying, protectionism is a source of inequality.  by means of protections, some poeple have higher wages, but other people have zero wages.  that creates more inequality, not less.  it might be fine to have a pro waste attitude, but most of us ca not afford inefficiencies.  maybe you can afford to pay $0 for a routine task that can be done profitably and safely for $0.  but when the $0 option is the only legal option, and all others are violations, the single mother getting to work, is going to have to spend and waste more time walking and taking the bus, when she could have been earning or raising her children, because she ca not afford the fare with unfair protections.  if there is some flaw in human nature, how do you think the government can fix it without being subject to those same flaws ? are they not human ?  #  so, in the single mother is case, why not up the mom is child support to account for cab fees ?  #  you are complaining that people do not have the money to pay for inefficiencies.  then you propose the solution of making yet another market a race to the bottom competition which leaves workers with no protection and low incomes.  that.  does not.  work.  the single mother will still have the same non necessities income ca not have people living comfortably off welfare , and the efficiency will get swallowed whole by the national debt, as bailouts or tax breaks for the rich turn out a loss ten thousand times greater than subsidising some taxicabs.  so, in the single mother is case, why not up the mom is child support to account for cab fees ? or bus fees ? if you can trust your government not to be pants on head retarded, then it can and will resolve the problems it created in previous legislation through human error, by having functional feedback systems for example in the form of interest groups .  human error is not a sign to give up forever.  it is either a calculated risk, or a point to re evaluate whether the parameters have changed and alter your behaviour to fit.  if you as a society value both well paid cab drivers and the poor having access to taxis, you write legislation to account for both.  you do not just give up and lower taxes which, at the very least, disproportionately benefits those richer than cab drivers and single moms .
this might be a poorly titled post so bear with me.  my view is that the london cabbies have a point, uber is unfairly screwing them.  i am not saying uber is inherently bad or that cabs are always a great experience.  i am saying it seems pretty obvious uber and similar programs offer an unfair advantage that cabs on their own cannot make up.  they have to pay licensing fees, taxes and are governed by laws like having to pick up disabled people.  uber is not offering a better product but exploiting loopholes in the law.  but that is not the problem.  i wish all the best to uber and their drivers and i hope cab drivers in the cities where ride sharing apps had caught on earlier.  the problem is, i think, is that this explains a lot about people and why income inequality is growing.  if people are offered a choice of supporting an industry that allows workers to unionize, have standards and training safety, contribute to the tax base, monetary protections for consumers and transparent laws that protect against discrimination at the cost of more money and bureaucracy or supporting an industry that makes the makes essentially entrepreneurs, does not offer the same protections to consumers, with less bureaucracy at a lower price, people will take the lower price with less hassle each time.  that is not to say big business and governments have no role but those roles are driven by a desire for ease and comfort with a cheaper price on the part of average individuals.  consumer choices are the chief driver of income inequality and you need to look no further than london is cabs.   #  they have to pay licensing fees, taxes and are governed by laws like having to pick up disabled people.   #  then would not the easier and more efficient solution be to get rid of those laws ?  # then would not the easier and more efficient solution be to get rid of those laws ? you make it sound as if uber is doing the screwing when it sounds like all of this is entirely the fault of ridiculous and clearly necessary as evidenced by the success lyft and uber laws and regulations.  laws and regulations that were put in place and lobbied for by those same taxi companies in the first place.  it all sounds a little too ironic.  and i fully support free market solutions like uber and lyft when it comes to destroying/ending an inefficient and ancient system like the taxi monopolies.  serves them right.  if your ideas ca not make it in the market without using force and coercion, they deserve to fail.   #  i understand this is why they prefer it and will sometimes push for it.   # from my experience in atlanta, uber x and black car has provided significantly better service than taxis.  i know the prices  can  be higher, but i am referring to etiquette, cleanliness, convenience, etc.  i will even go so far as to say that given everything else being equal i. e.  price, same nasty car, lateness, method of hailing, etc.  , the business model that eliminates driver rider transactions is  superior  imo, of course .  i cannot begin to describe the  rage  that grows within when i am asked if i have cash instead of a credit card i have even been denied rides from drivers that have the credit card capabilities .  i am fully aware that drivers are financially benefiting from cash transactions in comparison to credit card transactions.  i understand this is why they prefer it and will sometimes push for it.  but .  i am a paying customer and i should  never  be harassed by my form of payment if it is accepted obviously this means the taxi is equipped with a card machine or the driver utilizes a service like square .  it is a major failure to continuously allow this sort of tension to exist.  either instruct drivers to shut up or modify the business model.  in closing, i would like to reiterate that my opinions on the matter are largely shaped by my experiences in atlanta and d. c.   #  i think you are on the wrong side of the argument.   #  if you look at who benefits, the cabs do.  the licenses, fees and all that are means to exclude competition, so they can secure higher revenue for themselves.  cab licenses are limited, and can be worth more than a million each.  i think you are on the wrong side of the argument.  taxis are protected and get the higher revenue, because of that protection.  it is obviously a favorable position, for the cabs, if their competition is fined in bankruptcy for not having the right paperwork, property confiscated, or even incarcerated for non compliance.  where consumers have the most choice, profit margins are lowest, or absent all together.  since the rise of capitalism and industrialism over the past several hundred years, income inequality has flattened.   #  it might be fine to have a pro waste attitude, but most of us ca not afford inefficiencies.   #  i am saying, protectionism is a source of inequality.  by means of protections, some poeple have higher wages, but other people have zero wages.  that creates more inequality, not less.  it might be fine to have a pro waste attitude, but most of us ca not afford inefficiencies.  maybe you can afford to pay $0 for a routine task that can be done profitably and safely for $0.  but when the $0 option is the only legal option, and all others are violations, the single mother getting to work, is going to have to spend and waste more time walking and taking the bus, when she could have been earning or raising her children, because she ca not afford the fare with unfair protections.  if there is some flaw in human nature, how do you think the government can fix it without being subject to those same flaws ? are they not human ?  #  if you as a society value both well paid cab drivers and the poor having access to taxis, you write legislation to account for both.   #  you are complaining that people do not have the money to pay for inefficiencies.  then you propose the solution of making yet another market a race to the bottom competition which leaves workers with no protection and low incomes.  that.  does not.  work.  the single mother will still have the same non necessities income ca not have people living comfortably off welfare , and the efficiency will get swallowed whole by the national debt, as bailouts or tax breaks for the rich turn out a loss ten thousand times greater than subsidising some taxicabs.  so, in the single mother is case, why not up the mom is child support to account for cab fees ? or bus fees ? if you can trust your government not to be pants on head retarded, then it can and will resolve the problems it created in previous legislation through human error, by having functional feedback systems for example in the form of interest groups .  human error is not a sign to give up forever.  it is either a calculated risk, or a point to re evaluate whether the parameters have changed and alter your behaviour to fit.  if you as a society value both well paid cab drivers and the poor having access to taxis, you write legislation to account for both.  you do not just give up and lower taxes which, at the very least, disproportionately benefits those richer than cab drivers and single moms .
with smash 0 quickly on the way and with the footage that was leaked thanks to the smash invitational, i think it is a good time for nintendo to think about what direction they want to take the game in during these last few months of development.  now then, let is take a look here and analyze who, at the moment, makes up the majority of nintendo is market share.  if you analyze the list of best selling games on the wii including wii sports, mario kart wii, wii sports resort, new super mario bros.  wii and of course wiifit, you will see a trend: these are all games that were either created for casual players, or very casual entries in an existing series.  for instance, mario kart wii is easily less difficult than double dash, and certainly less than mario kart ds.  yet, when you compare the units sold with ds hitting 0 million versus the wii version which sold 0 million, it is clear who the winner here is.  so, one thing is clear here: nintendo has managed to tap into the far larger, pick up and play casual gamer market.  this is their major audience, currently, and it is earned them a large amount of money.  now, much of the hate being directed towards smash 0 is that it is not  competitive  enough.  combos are hard/impossible to link, the physics are too slow and there is no l cancelling, wavedashing or other related high level techniques that can be used.  however, nintendo is current market is casual, not competitive.  we have already seen through the gamecube to wii transition that many, many more games are sold when they are catered towards the casual, not competitive, market.  furthermore, entries in a series that get simplified and made easier for casual players ex: brawl, mario kart wii frankly just sell more.  so, from a business standpoint, why should nintendo listen to all these naysayers ? and why should the company care at all that a group of people who ultimately represent a tiny fraction of their current playerbase dislike the direction that the games are going, when the majority of the players do not care ?  #  if you analyze the list of best selling games on the wii including wii sports, mario kart wii, wii sports resort, new super mario bros.   #  wii and of course wiifit, you will see a trend: these are all games that were either created for casual players, or very casual entries in an existing series.   # wii and of course wiifit, you will see a trend: these are all games that were either created for casual players, or very casual entries in an existing series.  i think this right here is actually reason enough to make smash bros a competitive game.  nintendo mostly loses out on the hardcore gamers because they are a casual console.  however smash has been a favorite of the hardcore gamers since melee.  without a highly competitive game there is a decent marketshare that wo not come to the system at all.  so, for a sacrifice of a bit on the sales of the game for not being as casual as it could be you would be able to sell a substantial amount of new consoles because without that there would be no reason for the hardcores to even own a wiiu.  since it is nintendo themselves that put out both the game and the console sometimes it is worth sacrificing a bit of the sales of the game to stimulate the entire console.  especially when you look at the fact that once you have brought those extra people to the console it is more likely for them to pick up additional games as they have already gotten over the initial cost of the machine.   #  again, i have not been following along on the specific complaints or what they are requesting, but the underlying reasons for nintendo to put more effort into balancing this game and making it competitive are definitely there.   #  i have not actually looked into or heard the complaints about people wanting what they have seen changed, but that is completely irrelevant to my point.  you are arguing against making the new smash a competitive game versus a casual game.  there is a lot of reason for nintendo to want to make smash into a competitive game which i listed above.  now as for mechanics themselves, balance is everything when it comes to competitive games.  if one character is leagues better than all the other characters competitive play will become dull and boring as everyone will play that one character.  very small changes can easily tip the scales towards one character dominating or just being completely unplayable.  again, i have not been following along on the specific complaints or what they are requesting, but the underlying reasons for nintendo to put more effort into balancing this game and making it competitive are definitely there.   #  from what i have read i think that nintendo has put huge effort into balance.   #  i think you are actually misunderstanding what is important for a competitive game.  perfect balance is actually not the main factor imo.  what is most important is: 0 the ability to make meaningful decisions 0 the game is sufficiently deep to allow reading your opponent.  these are the things that competitive people look for in a game and as long as they exist imbalances can be worked around.  in dota you are allowed bans, in mele some characters suck but no one is unarguably the best, in starcraft0 maps were changed.  all of these games are competitive with imperfect balance.  from what i have read i think that nintendo has put huge effort into balance.  i have also read people who worry they have put a huge effort into stamping out the things that make the game competitive.   #  how long would you still play the game when you can only be one of these 0 characters and you know you will be playing against the same 0 characters as your team on the other side every game ?  #  actually i would argue that character balance is indeed the most important part of the game.  map balance is different because it is not as forefront, but even in the example of starcraft, would the game be as much fun if the protoss were so powerful that nobody could stop them ? or if there were no way of defending yourself from a zerg rush ? you need to have the ability to counter strategies and if one strategy is so unbalanced to the front that it ca not be stopped you see a tremendous drop in players.  we see this a lot in magic: the gathering, since it changes so much and so fast.  if you end up with a strategy that ca not be beaten and there is only one option of a good deck to play you see tournament numbers drop faster than a stock market crash.  at that point something has to change to make rebalance the format.  even with r d working as hard as they can to maintain the balance of a new set with the old cards sometimes things slip through and things have to be changed to keep them from getting too lopsided.  sure in dota some characters suck and those just do not get played.  but if there were 0 characters that were unarguably the best team in the game you would see every game with those same 0 characters.  any time you played someone else you get destroyed and so you only have those 0 choices to play as.  how long would you still play the game when you can only be one of these 0 characters and you know you will be playing against the same 0 characters as your team on the other side every game ? balance is extremely important.  the bottom end does not matter for balance but there needs to be a decent selection of balanced options at the top end.   #  teams try to get an edge by forcing their opponents into situations the team has practiced but the opponents have not.   #  well it is difucult because i agree with a very large portion of your comment but still ultimately disagree.  the problem is that you are talking about extereme cases of imbalance and i am talking about lower levels of imbalance.  i would argue that in extreme cases of imbalance the game fails as both a casual and a competitive title.  and that because of that the distinguishing features between casual and competitive games must be something different.  take mario party for example.  that is a perfectly balanced game, yet is obviously not competitive.  it is also difficult because you are right.  to some extent balance is required for the meaningful decisions and reading your opponent that i mentioned to exist at all.  as you mentioned you need a range of options to make a meaningful decision.  however past a certain threshold, making those options perfectly balanced does not make the game more competitive, and a game that is not competitive wo not necessarily be made so by making things more balanced remember my mario party example .  having imbalances should even facilitate the complexity of the game at the highest level because it prevents the game from being a rock paper scissors randomization tester.  imbalances can put a much more complex risk reward system in place.  and it is interesting that you used dota as an example because while i would agree that some heroes are just not as good, almost every hero gets picked at some point because of the way the imbalanced decision making i was describing works.  to be fair and counter my own point they are not solely picked because of the abstract decision making.  teams try to get an edge by forcing their opponents into situations the team has practiced but the opponents have not.  sorry i wrote such a long reply.  i got invested because this has been really interesting.
with smash 0 quickly on the way and with the footage that was leaked thanks to the smash invitational, i think it is a good time for nintendo to think about what direction they want to take the game in during these last few months of development.  now then, let is take a look here and analyze who, at the moment, makes up the majority of nintendo is market share.  if you analyze the list of best selling games on the wii including wii sports, mario kart wii, wii sports resort, new super mario bros.  wii and of course wiifit, you will see a trend: these are all games that were either created for casual players, or very casual entries in an existing series.  for instance, mario kart wii is easily less difficult than double dash, and certainly less than mario kart ds.  yet, when you compare the units sold with ds hitting 0 million versus the wii version which sold 0 million, it is clear who the winner here is.  so, one thing is clear here: nintendo has managed to tap into the far larger, pick up and play casual gamer market.  this is their major audience, currently, and it is earned them a large amount of money.  now, much of the hate being directed towards smash 0 is that it is not  competitive  enough.  combos are hard/impossible to link, the physics are too slow and there is no l cancelling, wavedashing or other related high level techniques that can be used.  however, nintendo is current market is casual, not competitive.  we have already seen through the gamecube to wii transition that many, many more games are sold when they are catered towards the casual, not competitive, market.  furthermore, entries in a series that get simplified and made easier for casual players ex: brawl, mario kart wii frankly just sell more.  so, from a business standpoint, why should nintendo listen to all these naysayers ? and why should the company care at all that a group of people who ultimately represent a tiny fraction of their current playerbase dislike the direction that the games are going, when the majority of the players do not care ?  #  combos are hard/impossible to link, the physics are too slow and there is no l cancelling, wavedashing or other related high level techniques that can be used.   #  wavedashing is not a high level technique.   # wavedashing is not a high level technique.  it is a glitch.  it is just a glitch that casual players have not learned to exploit yet.  it destroys game balance, though it destroys it in a way that allows competitive play.  but in general, these issues of combos, glitches, and slow physics are fairly silly complaints, because the game was not really designed to accommodate them.  you are really  supposed  to use the rest of the game is mechanics to play it.  they are not features for high level players.  kicking ass is a feature for high level players.  however, it would definitely be nice for the game to be more fair at times, to allow for competitive play even though most people who play it do not do so competitively.  i do not see how that would hurt the game or sales thereof.  the fact is that super smash brothers is a  very  good franchise, and a diversity of people enjoy it for different purposes.  having more random feature less arenas, for example, is good for anyone who likes fairness, whether they are tournament players or casual ones.   #  without a highly competitive game there is a decent marketshare that wo not come to the system at all.   # wii and of course wiifit, you will see a trend: these are all games that were either created for casual players, or very casual entries in an existing series.  i think this right here is actually reason enough to make smash bros a competitive game.  nintendo mostly loses out on the hardcore gamers because they are a casual console.  however smash has been a favorite of the hardcore gamers since melee.  without a highly competitive game there is a decent marketshare that wo not come to the system at all.  so, for a sacrifice of a bit on the sales of the game for not being as casual as it could be you would be able to sell a substantial amount of new consoles because without that there would be no reason for the hardcores to even own a wiiu.  since it is nintendo themselves that put out both the game and the console sometimes it is worth sacrificing a bit of the sales of the game to stimulate the entire console.  especially when you look at the fact that once you have brought those extra people to the console it is more likely for them to pick up additional games as they have already gotten over the initial cost of the machine.   #  if one character is leagues better than all the other characters competitive play will become dull and boring as everyone will play that one character.   #  i have not actually looked into or heard the complaints about people wanting what they have seen changed, but that is completely irrelevant to my point.  you are arguing against making the new smash a competitive game versus a casual game.  there is a lot of reason for nintendo to want to make smash into a competitive game which i listed above.  now as for mechanics themselves, balance is everything when it comes to competitive games.  if one character is leagues better than all the other characters competitive play will become dull and boring as everyone will play that one character.  very small changes can easily tip the scales towards one character dominating or just being completely unplayable.  again, i have not been following along on the specific complaints or what they are requesting, but the underlying reasons for nintendo to put more effort into balancing this game and making it competitive are definitely there.   #  from what i have read i think that nintendo has put huge effort into balance.   #  i think you are actually misunderstanding what is important for a competitive game.  perfect balance is actually not the main factor imo.  what is most important is: 0 the ability to make meaningful decisions 0 the game is sufficiently deep to allow reading your opponent.  these are the things that competitive people look for in a game and as long as they exist imbalances can be worked around.  in dota you are allowed bans, in mele some characters suck but no one is unarguably the best, in starcraft0 maps were changed.  all of these games are competitive with imperfect balance.  from what i have read i think that nintendo has put huge effort into balance.  i have also read people who worry they have put a huge effort into stamping out the things that make the game competitive.   #  even with r d working as hard as they can to maintain the balance of a new set with the old cards sometimes things slip through and things have to be changed to keep them from getting too lopsided.   #  actually i would argue that character balance is indeed the most important part of the game.  map balance is different because it is not as forefront, but even in the example of starcraft, would the game be as much fun if the protoss were so powerful that nobody could stop them ? or if there were no way of defending yourself from a zerg rush ? you need to have the ability to counter strategies and if one strategy is so unbalanced to the front that it ca not be stopped you see a tremendous drop in players.  we see this a lot in magic: the gathering, since it changes so much and so fast.  if you end up with a strategy that ca not be beaten and there is only one option of a good deck to play you see tournament numbers drop faster than a stock market crash.  at that point something has to change to make rebalance the format.  even with r d working as hard as they can to maintain the balance of a new set with the old cards sometimes things slip through and things have to be changed to keep them from getting too lopsided.  sure in dota some characters suck and those just do not get played.  but if there were 0 characters that were unarguably the best team in the game you would see every game with those same 0 characters.  any time you played someone else you get destroyed and so you only have those 0 choices to play as.  how long would you still play the game when you can only be one of these 0 characters and you know you will be playing against the same 0 characters as your team on the other side every game ? balance is extremely important.  the bottom end does not matter for balance but there needs to be a decent selection of balanced options at the top end.
the value i ascribe to life centers on the sentience of the organism in question, and its aversion to death.  in other words, absent other factors i. e.  its impact on other people, the environment, etc.  , i think that painlessly killing something is fine so long as the organism in question is not attached on an intellectual/emotional level to its life.  as a result, i ascribe no particular value to the life of a non sentient organism like a bacteria, which is why i have no problem using bleach to clean a toilet bowl that is teaming with bacteria.  i took a developmental biology class recently and the professor said that the first glimmers of consciousness are thought to arise around 0 weeks.  for the purposes of this discussion, let is assume this is accurate.  prior to the 0 week mark, the fetus has no consciousness and therefore no sentience.  that means that its life has no more value than that of the bacteria in the toilet bowl, and killing it is equally inconsequential on a moral level.  please keep in mind that i referring neither to the emotional consequences that having an abortion may have on the mother, the father, or anyone else, nor to the legal aspects of abortion i am only interested in the moral dimension.  in order to change my view, you will have to convince me of one of the following points: 0 life has value beyond the sentience of the organism in question, and therefore the fetus and/or embryo of a human should not be killed.  0 life that has the potential to become sentient e. g.  a human fetus/embryo is more valuable than life that does not e. g.  bacteria .   #  0 life that has the potential to become sentient e. g.   #  a human fetus/embryo is more valuable than life that does not e. g.   #  consciousness is that important ? let is kill coma patients.  they are expensive to keep alive.  they are unaware of what is happening to them.  a human fetus/embryo is more valuable than life that does not e. g.  bacteria .  how do you need convincing of this ? the potential for sentience and feelings and experiences and effects on society is the important factor that makes human life valuable.   #  is killing a newborn morally equivalent to killing a cow ?  #  quick question: a newborn baby or 0 week fetus does not have much of a consciousness in fact probably less than a chicken or cow and certainly not a fully human consciousness.  is killing a newborn morally equivalent to killing a cow ? if this is what you meant by the note, then i do not see how it is beyond the scope of the cmv.  the cmv is all about basing the value of an organism on its present level of consciousness.  you cant really just say  there is an obvious reductio to this criteria but i am going to ignore it .   #  that is why i drew the line at no consciousness at all vs.   #  that is right, no suffering is involved i said  painlessly killing  because i think that pain changes the issue considerably.  0 i consider the two morally equivalent because when you harm an organism, you are harming it in its present state, not in its potential future state or in its past state that future state never actually existed to be harmed, and the past state is no longer in existence, so it cannot be harmed.  0 i think i answer this in the answer to 0.  i also do not think that this amounts to extending abortion outside of the womb.  just because i say that it is worse to kill a 0 year old who loves life than it is to kill a newborn that does not know what life is does not mean that it is ok to kill the newborn just that it is better.  that is why i drew the line at no consciousness at all vs.  no consciousness: the level of sentience of a being with no consciousness is clear none , whereas that of a being with a degree of consciousness is harder to measure.  keep asking questions ! they make me think, which is the point of this post.   #  from a rational perspective, killing an infant is less reprehensible than killing an adult.   # this is the source of your disgust, an instinct.  this instinct does not usually manifest until birth of the target, though humans will occasionally extend this through imagination.  we can also use rationalization to suppress it.  from a rational perspective, killing an infant is less reprehensible than killing an adult.  from an instinctive perspective, that view is flipped.  what this amounts to is that the harm to others from the death in question works as an equalizing lever.   #  sorry, but you are flipping rationality on its head and you have provided absolutely no argument to back up your claim that  from a rational perspective, killing an infant is less reprehensible than killing an adult.    #  sorry, but you are flipping rationality on its head and you have provided absolutely no argument to back up your claim that  from a rational perspective, killing an infant is less reprehensible than killing an adult.   at least you are admitting that there are different gradations of reprehensible  an admission that completely nullifies your sniper analogy, that was an attempt to place infanticide and killing an adult on the same grounds of moral reprehensibility.  you ca not use an analogy to claim they are equal and then go on to argue that killing an adult is more reprehensible.  since we agree that we can discern acts as being more reprehensible or less reprehensible based on who the victim is, let is stand rationality back on its two feet, shall we ? the purpose of morality is twofold: one, to promote positive, virtuous behavior and interactions, and two, to defend ourselves from exploitation and abuse.  it therefore becomes requisite to apply the highest degree of moral defense to those who are least capable of self defense or who lack the most agency/ability to be complicit.  an adult murdering another adult bad; a fully functional adult murdering a cripple terrible; an adult murdering a child about as monstrous as it gets.  you have claimed that our instincts are irrational.  i do not know, wanting to protect our children because the perpetuation of our species depends on their survival seems like a pretty fucking rational argument to me.  it is rational before you even apply the philosophical reasons of morality.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.   #  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ?  # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ?  # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ?  #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.   #  URL this is besides the point though, hitler invaded poland after he had already been given the czech republic and austria.   # i think you need to do more research.  URL this is besides the point though, hitler invaded poland after he had already been given the czech republic and austria.  he did this knowing that france and great britain had promised poland protection.  he knew full well what invasion would mean.  he invaded in 0.  to say that  he did not want war  this is what started wwii as we know it, not the holocaust.  to say that he  only wanted a route to the sea  is really naive and frankly ridiculous, he already had one URL hitler did not need poland, he wanted poland for because in mein kamph he promised germany the entirety of eastern europe, which was one of the major tennents of mein kamph URL signaling his intentions well before any pact between poland and britain was accorded.  by the time he actually did invade poland he knew exactly what that would happen.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.   #  i think you need to do more research.   # i think you need to do more research.  URL this is besides the point though, hitler invaded poland after he had already been given the czech republic and austria.  he did this knowing that france and great britain had promised poland protection.  he knew full well what invasion would mean.  he invaded in 0.  to say that  he did not want war  this is what started wwii as we know it, not the holocaust.  to say that he  only wanted a route to the sea  is really naive and frankly ridiculous, he already had one URL hitler did not need poland, he wanted poland for because in mein kamph he promised germany the entirety of eastern europe, which was one of the major tennents of mein kamph URL signaling his intentions well before any pact between poland and britain was accorded.  by the time he actually did invade poland he knew exactly what that would happen.   #  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ?  # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.   #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .   #  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee.   # poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee.  the fact they then invaded and occupied half of poland does not dissuade you from this thinking ? what about the fact that hitler only claimed to want the sudetenland from czechoslovakia in 0, as some germans a minority lived there ? he quite quickly took the rest of czechoslovakia after he would been given the sudetenland.  appeasement failed, because hitler went back on agreements he made, and kept taking.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  you think decolonisation was a bad thing ? do you know anything about the abuses of empire ? it is a very positive outcome of the war, that britain lost her colonies, that france lost her colonies, that germany did not become a new empire in itself.  imperialism ended due to the war, and i for one believe that was a very positive effect.  i believe the holocaust has been effectively answered above.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  let is assume you are right, just for a second.  let is assume hitler did not want war with the west.  hitler still wanted war with the east.  0 million soviet people would still have died because of hitler is desire for lebensraum.  countless people would still have suffered, regardless of his desire for war with the west.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.  the worst diplomatic blunder, was attempting to appease hitler.  the munich conference, chopping up czechoslovakia and putting it on a platter for hitler was the worst diplomatic blunder leading to war.  appeasement never would have worked, and you are blaming western leaders for trying to stop a belligerent tyrant in europe.   #  the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ?  # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ?  # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ?  #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.   #  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.   # poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee.  the fact they then invaded and occupied half of poland does not dissuade you from this thinking ? what about the fact that hitler only claimed to want the sudetenland from czechoslovakia in 0, as some germans a minority lived there ? he quite quickly took the rest of czechoslovakia after he would been given the sudetenland.  appeasement failed, because hitler went back on agreements he made, and kept taking.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  you think decolonisation was a bad thing ? do you know anything about the abuses of empire ? it is a very positive outcome of the war, that britain lost her colonies, that france lost her colonies, that germany did not become a new empire in itself.  imperialism ended due to the war, and i for one believe that was a very positive effect.  i believe the holocaust has been effectively answered above.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  let is assume you are right, just for a second.  let is assume hitler did not want war with the west.  hitler still wanted war with the east.  0 million soviet people would still have died because of hitler is desire for lebensraum.  countless people would still have suffered, regardless of his desire for war with the west.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.  the worst diplomatic blunder, was attempting to appease hitler.  the munich conference, chopping up czechoslovakia and putting it on a platter for hitler was the worst diplomatic blunder leading to war.  appeasement never would have worked, and you are blaming western leaders for trying to stop a belligerent tyrant in europe.   #  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ?  # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.   # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.   #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.   #  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ?  # poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee.  the fact they then invaded and occupied half of poland does not dissuade you from this thinking ? what about the fact that hitler only claimed to want the sudetenland from czechoslovakia in 0, as some germans a minority lived there ? he quite quickly took the rest of czechoslovakia after he would been given the sudetenland.  appeasement failed, because hitler went back on agreements he made, and kept taking.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  you think decolonisation was a bad thing ? do you know anything about the abuses of empire ? it is a very positive outcome of the war, that britain lost her colonies, that france lost her colonies, that germany did not become a new empire in itself.  imperialism ended due to the war, and i for one believe that was a very positive effect.  i believe the holocaust has been effectively answered above.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  let is assume you are right, just for a second.  let is assume hitler did not want war with the west.  hitler still wanted war with the east.  0 million soviet people would still have died because of hitler is desire for lebensraum.  countless people would still have suffered, regardless of his desire for war with the west.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.  the worst diplomatic blunder, was attempting to appease hitler.  the munich conference, chopping up czechoslovakia and putting it on a platter for hitler was the worst diplomatic blunder leading to war.  appeasement never would have worked, and you are blaming western leaders for trying to stop a belligerent tyrant in europe.   #  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ?  # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ?  # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.   #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.   #  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   # poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee.  the fact they then invaded and occupied half of poland does not dissuade you from this thinking ? what about the fact that hitler only claimed to want the sudetenland from czechoslovakia in 0, as some germans a minority lived there ? he quite quickly took the rest of czechoslovakia after he would been given the sudetenland.  appeasement failed, because hitler went back on agreements he made, and kept taking.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  you think decolonisation was a bad thing ? do you know anything about the abuses of empire ? it is a very positive outcome of the war, that britain lost her colonies, that france lost her colonies, that germany did not become a new empire in itself.  imperialism ended due to the war, and i for one believe that was a very positive effect.  i believe the holocaust has been effectively answered above.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  let is assume you are right, just for a second.  let is assume hitler did not want war with the west.  hitler still wanted war with the east.  0 million soviet people would still have died because of hitler is desire for lebensraum.  countless people would still have suffered, regardless of his desire for war with the west.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.  the worst diplomatic blunder, was attempting to appease hitler.  the munich conference, chopping up czechoslovakia and putting it on a platter for hitler was the worst diplomatic blunder leading to war.  appeasement never would have worked, and you are blaming western leaders for trying to stop a belligerent tyrant in europe.   #  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ?  # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ?  # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.   #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .   #  how familiar are you with the concept of  lebensraum  ?  # how familiar are you with the concept of  lebensraum  ? wwii did not start just because those poor germans wanted the danzig corridor.  hitler had been gobbling up neighboring countries even after saying that he would not do so.  he did not stop at austria, he did not stop at czechoslovakia, and it was pretty clear that he would not stop at danzig.  hitler is  explicit  goal was to carve up eastern europe into a colonial empire, to turn germany into a self sufficient superpower that could go toe to toe against france, britain and specially the us.  if he did not want a war with them it was not because of a deep love for peace, but because it would be a distraction from the war of conquest he intended to unleash upon eastern europe.  it is disingenuous as hell to pretend that the blame for the war can be laid upon  diplomatic blunders .  the nazis were always aiming for war, their long term plans were built upon the conquest of new lands through military force.  their callous disregard for international agreement and the sovereignty of other states meant that war became necessary as a matter of self preservation, not to say anything about balance of power.   #  you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ?  # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.   # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.   #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.   #  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.   #  i will be pulling quotes directly from the second world war, martin gilbert URL for reasons as to why wwii was inevitable simply because hitler took power in germany.  the book is a fascinating and horrifying experience.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  the systemic killings of the polish, jews, and other undesirables occurred immediately from when hitler invaded poland.  meeting in secret, three assessors would then decide whether the patient should live or die.  that same day, one such day of rejoicing for the poles, the germans took 0 poles from a labour camp near gdynia to a prison yard in the town of wejherowo.  there, they were ordered to dig a series of deep pits.  divided into groups, the first was taken to the edge of the pit and shot, the others being forced to watch.  .  throughout german occupied poland, such atrocities were becoming commonplace.  on november 0th, in the resort spa of ciechocinek, a group of fifty polish officers, now prisoners of war, had been led through the streets of the town with their hands above their heads.  all were subsequently shot.  0 nalewki street, had been executed as a reprisal for the death of a polish policeman, killed by a jew who lived at the same address.  on december 0 0 thirty one poles were shot in warsaw, six of them jews.  it was alleged that they had been involved in  acts of sabotage .   there is no strength left to cry,  chaim kaplan wrote in his diary,  isteady and continued weeping finally leads to silence.  at first there is screaming; then wailing; and at last a bottomless sigh that does not even leave an echo.   they were then taken out in groups of ten and shot.  the last ten were reprieved; they had to dig the graves of those who had been murdered.  all of that was taken from 0 pages of a 0  page book.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  the invasion plans for france were being drafted before he invaded poland.  he wanted all of europe and russia.  however he did not plan to try to invade england until after they had declared war on him.  also, including the usa into that group is rather crazy considering how fervently neutral the us tried to be.  tl:dr/ summary world war ii was inevitable because of the atrocities that occurred almost immediately after germany had taken over poland.  the holocaust may not have started until 0 in earnest, but organized genocide began in 0.   #  the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ?  # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ?  # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.   #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.   #  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ?  #  i will be pulling quotes directly from the second world war, martin gilbert URL for reasons as to why wwii was inevitable simply because hitler took power in germany.  the book is a fascinating and horrifying experience.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  the systemic killings of the polish, jews, and other undesirables occurred immediately from when hitler invaded poland.  meeting in secret, three assessors would then decide whether the patient should live or die.  that same day, one such day of rejoicing for the poles, the germans took 0 poles from a labour camp near gdynia to a prison yard in the town of wejherowo.  there, they were ordered to dig a series of deep pits.  divided into groups, the first was taken to the edge of the pit and shot, the others being forced to watch.  .  throughout german occupied poland, such atrocities were becoming commonplace.  on november 0th, in the resort spa of ciechocinek, a group of fifty polish officers, now prisoners of war, had been led through the streets of the town with their hands above their heads.  all were subsequently shot.  0 nalewki street, had been executed as a reprisal for the death of a polish policeman, killed by a jew who lived at the same address.  on december 0 0 thirty one poles were shot in warsaw, six of them jews.  it was alleged that they had been involved in  acts of sabotage .   there is no strength left to cry,  chaim kaplan wrote in his diary,  isteady and continued weeping finally leads to silence.  at first there is screaming; then wailing; and at last a bottomless sigh that does not even leave an echo.   they were then taken out in groups of ten and shot.  the last ten were reprieved; they had to dig the graves of those who had been murdered.  all of that was taken from 0 pages of a 0  page book.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  the invasion plans for france were being drafted before he invaded poland.  he wanted all of europe and russia.  however he did not plan to try to invade england until after they had declared war on him.  also, including the usa into that group is rather crazy considering how fervently neutral the us tried to be.  tl:dr/ summary world war ii was inevitable because of the atrocities that occurred almost immediately after germany had taken over poland.  the holocaust may not have started until 0 in earnest, but organized genocide began in 0.   #  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.   # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ?  #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.   #  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   # the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.  why only speak of the european theater ? what about the japanese empire ? what sort of diplomacy blunder happened there that caused them to attack the republic of china, the british empire, the united states of america, and the commonwealth of australia to name a few ? i was not a world war until december 0.   #  the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.   #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.
disclaimer: hitler was an evil man who committed genocide  germany invaded poland to gain a route to the sea danzig .  poland would have given up the path to the sea if britain did not give them the war guarantee URL in 0, two months after hitler is rise to power, winston churchill himself made a statement in parliament: here you have one of the protagonists of the 0s and 0s laying the framework for peace 0 years before he took part in the destruction of the british empire and the death of 0 million people by ignoring his own advice.  the west lost the world and the united kingdom lost its empire because of ww0.  other countries lost their colonies as well, but the british empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.  the holocaust did not start until 0.  that is two years after the beginning of the war.  cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war hitler is plan was one of mass deportation.  two years into the war he began resorting to genocide.  ww0 was not a war against jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the jews were more intense because of the war.  hitler had no intention of invading westward until britain declared war on germany.  why would they have built the german equivalent of the maginot line the westwall if he intended to invade westward ? hitler did not want a war with britain, france, or the usa.  0 million people were killed in ww0 because of diplomatic blunders.  the most disastrous of which was britain is war guarantee to poland.   #  the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.   #  its not like the people who originally inhabited these parts of the world were affected well by colonialism.   # its not like the people who originally inhabited these parts of the world were affected well by colonialism.  if anyone argues that what ensued after the liberation of nations was worse than colonial rule, they should understand how much a nation changes when a foreign state has decided to  iset up shop .  so when you say  iset back  most of the third world, i think thats a great thing.  a countries independence is important.  to not have a larger nation profit from your national resources the wealth generally flows to the colonizer is great.  also heres a list of great things to come out of world war 0: penicillin, has probably saved more lives than people killed in the war.  radar and sonar, pretty much everything we know about the ocean is because of world war 0, our understanding of the ocean could save our planet one day.  the start of fuel cell technology.  synthetic rubber.  this list goes on  #  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   # you really ca not compare the killing 0 jews to the killing of 0 million jews.  the kristallnacht happened 0 years before the holocaust began and it was a movement led by private citizens.  it was a not government sanctioned genocide.  there were strong strong anti semitic policies/sentiments in nazi germany in 0 but there were no ghettos or death camps.  the invasion that happened  after  britain declared war on germany ? the reason for the push into those countries was to prevent an anglo franco occupation of norway and denmark.  in other words: it was a defensive move by germany that was only necessary because of british aggression.  maybe.  either way britain had no real reason to declare war.   #  certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.   # do you have any evidence to suggest this is true ? hitler explicitly stated that the german empire needed to expand to austria, czechoslovakia, and poland, at least.  hitler would not have simply been content to remain in germany he needed more land for the aryan race.  so you are arguing that colonialism was good for the 0rd world ? certainly an interesting position to take and one that most people would disagree with.  but what about eastward ? it is convenient how you completely ignore the soviet union.  do you truly think that a creeping fascist state and a creeping communist state could have coexisted ? especially when both wanted the land in between them and the animosity between the two was widely known ? all in all it is pretty outrageous that you blame great britain for the war and apparently for causing the escalation of the holocaust ? ! when they were not the aggressor and when it is pretty clear that the ussr and germany were on a collision course regardless of what happened in the west.   #  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.   #  are not you forgetting some major things.  hitler all ready asked for more land we gave it to him.  this was supposed to keep the peace.  and, it did.  for awhile.  and, now when he wants parts of poland we just give it to him ? why do we think that this second offer of land for peace wont  be greeted by new request for more land.  belgium for instance to get around the maginot line.  we gave him land for peace the first two times, why would not he ask for a 0rd and a 0th.  also, let is not forget the fact that germany is military was readying itself at a high level.  do you think these troops, tanks and planes were just there to play defense ? we have not even talked about the other side of things:japan.  are we just to forget about all if their pacific conquests.  pretend those never happened.  lastly, these are hitler is own words regarding the jews from mein kampf and so he the jew advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven stormer back to lucifer.  germany is today the next great war aim of bolshevism.  it requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent.  adolf hitler mein kampf these were hitlers thoughts on jews in 0.  the crystal night was in 0.  things were not good for the jews in germany far before the official start the war.
title pretty much says it.  i am admittedly not an expert in international relations, so i am curious to hear the other sides of this argument.  the way i see it with my limited knowledge of how nato works, is that member countries contribute to nato in the form of various commitments in exchange for the protection of other nato countries.  why would we give that protection away for free ? would it not undermine the agreements that make nato a desirable alliance for member countries ? would not standing by and letting ukraine burn make formal protection agreements a more desirable commodity, thereby strengthening the u. s.  is hand ? please cmv.   #  why would we give that protection away for free ?  #  because it is in the geopolitical interests of nato.   # because it is in the geopolitical interests of nato.  if russia decided to invade some small island in the pacific ocean, nato would not do anything because it does not make any sense.  if russia were to occupy the ukraine, it would upset the current political balance in eastern europe something that nato does not want.  if, for example, russia were to try to occupy mexico, i am sure you could see how it would be in the best interests of the us to not let that happen even if we are  giving away  that protection  for free.    is hand ? strengthening their hand for what ? it is not like there is some international court the us can go to and say  look ! we held up our end of the agreement !   also, i do not see how protecting the ukraine is undermining any agreements nato has made, anywhere.  read its quasi mission statement: URL that link also shows you all current and pat nato missions the first 0 shown ? afghanistan and kosovo; non nato states.   #  URL basically, the us, russia and britain all agreed to recognize ukraine is sovereignty, and promise not to use force, or threaten to use force against ukraine.   #  one thing to keep in mind is the us is involvement in the budapest memorandums.  URL basically, the us, russia and britain all agreed to recognize ukraine is sovereignty, and promise not to use force, or threaten to use force against ukraine.  russia is clearly violating that treaty right now.  if the us stands by right now, and watches ukraine burn, sure some countries will run under a nato like umbrella, but not all countries.  if the us does not defend ukraine and uphold this nuclear non proliferation treaty, none of the other non proliferation treaties will hold any water.  countries will either rush into nato, or aggressively pursue their own nuclear armament programs.  i would rather uphold these treaties, and live in a world with fewer small nations with nuclear capabilities, especially small unstable former soviet satellite nations.   #  if a country is prone to be attacked or the us interests in the country are not highly important, does it make any sense to bind the us to defend the place ?  #  being in nato means you have to respond to incidents involving attacks on member states.  however, the us still has key strategic allies, for a variety of reasons, where a mutual defense treaty is not desirable.  if a country is prone to be attacked or the us interests in the country are not highly important, does it make any sense to bind the us to defend the place ? this is why the us has nato but still chooses to protect other areas.  it will absolutely defend it is closest allies but wishes to have the option to respond to events depending on how they develop.   #  it is a big mess that we cannot get to the actual truth besides of knowing that at the end of the day it is for the benefit of certain individuals / group of individuals.   #  world politics.  we are only being given a distorted snippet from what is really going on.  i think there are oil issues, dominance issues and most importantly ukraine is imminent entry into the west, be it through joining eu, nato or whatever they are just organisations but the core is the same.  also the fact that russia has the balls to stand up against the west and do what they want and the west is kind of  wtf ? if they standing up maybe they got some power  russian has been slowly slowly improving since the wars in my view at least.  also the fact that ukraine has russia have a deep seated overlapping history.  it is a big mess that we cannot get to the actual truth besides of knowing that at the end of the day it is for the benefit of certain individuals / group of individuals.   #  and i am not sure how that impacts op is view, either.   #  okay.  then i agree with you that there could be a comparison between germany annexing austria/czech and russia annexing the ukraine the actual act of annexing, not any hypothetical response or lackthereof.  and i am not sure how that impacts op is view, either.  i am not sure where you see me justifying any of the annexations.  the view op presented to be changed deals with nato defending a country that is not part of nato.  i am really not sure how germany annexing austria/czech matters at all to that argument.
i love technology, seriously.  i can video chat, play games or watch movies with family and friends hundreds or thousands of miles away; i can fly across country to see someone get married and return all in a weekend; i have access to an incredible amount of information and have lights to read at night; and 0st century medicine is fantastic.  although i am a healthy person, if i were born a hundred years ago, or on a different continent, i would have been deaf by age 0, and then dead.  technology can be grand, i appreciate the benefits.  the darker side is that technological conveniences are often less necessary.  rather than increasing what we can accomplish, reduce the amount of effort required at the cost of individuality, health, or the ability to function in a less pampering environment.  what we need in life to be comfortable or happy is not absolute, but is relative to our ability to endure.  too much technological convenience becomes a dependence, makes you weaker mentally and physically, and less capable than you otherwise would have been.  a personal example: i tried biking to work a few years ago, it did not work, because it sucked.  i started again two months ago and stuck with it.  it was not hard after all, i just was not used to it.  i was just too accustomed to the comfort of a motorcycle or car.  now, i am accustomed to more discomfort, and will also have ice cream for dessert.  cars are great and i will use it next weekend, but i feel my life has improved now that i can avoid the extra convenience, when it is not necessary.   #  the darker side is that technological conveniences are often less necessary.   #  rather than increasing what we can accomplish, reduce the amount of effort required at the cost of individuality, health, or the ability to function in a less pampering environment.   # rather than increasing what we can accomplish, reduce the amount of effort required at the cost of individuality, health, or the ability to function in a less pampering environment.  how does technology usage hurt my individuality in any meaningful way ? as far as health goes, go to the gym or eat better food.  technology has far from diminished your health, if anything it has vastly improved it.  you have completely lost the ability to function in a technology free environment, as have i.  fortunately, the chances of ever being in that environment are astronomically low.  as far as  less pampered,  you are going to define your terms better and then estimate the odds of that environment occurring.  i started again two months ago and stuck with it.  it was not hard after all, i just was not used to it.  i was just too accustomed to the comfort of a motorcycle or car.  now, i am accustomed to more discomfort, and will also have ice cream for dessert.  cars are great and i will use it next weekend, but i feel my life has improved now that i can avoid the extra convenience, when it is not necessary.  has your life improved because of being inconvenienced or because you enjoy the exercise/money savings of biking.  if it is honestly just the inconvenience that you enjoy then it sounds like you are suffering from a version of masochism.   #  i agree that reducing effort increases capability, but that is not always relevant case when we have a specific task to do.   #  yeah, there is definitely a spectrum.  car is the least effort, bicycle in the middle, and walking as the most effort.  i see car as viable, but excessive.  bicycle as viable.  walking as not viable, due to requiring too much time/effort/danger.  i agree that reducing effort increases capability, but that is not always relevant case when we have a specific task to do.  both bicycle and car are viable for my particular circumstance, and the reduced effort of a car in that particular case does not allow me to do more, unless the distance increased.  i see benefits from using the technology that is viable, and that also requires more effort.  if my distance were less, then perhaps i would walk/run.  if it were more, i might suck it up, or get an electric motor for the hills.  i do not see reducing effort to the lowest possible level as providing any benefit, other than transient comfort.   #  but if i become accustomed to using that tool and lose my ability to function without it, i see that choice of tool as poor.   #  okay, how about this, if i can do more, then i see that option as beneficial.  but if i become accustomed to using that tool and lose my ability to function without it, i see that choice of tool as poor.  a calculator is great if i am an accountant because i can be more accurate and faster, and i already understand the concepts, and can already function without a calculator, although slowly and less accurately.  a calculator is probably a less beneficial choice to a student doing math homework if the calculator allow the student the ability to do the work, but also prevents the student from learning.  using a tool in this case is hurtful in the long term, although it is convenient in the short term.  i see use as excessive if using the tool reduces my ability to function without it, or replaces my ability to function without it.   have i become dependent upon this tool, so much that i now use it to perform tasks that i would not have needed it before ?    #  i do not think that is simply my personal preferences.   #  personal preference ? i see a delineation, but i am doing a poor job of explaining it.  or, it is not there, because i am biased.  the calculator itself absolutely is not inherently preventing anyone from learning math, but it can be used in a way that solves the math problems, but does not require that the calculator user has any understanding of the concepts.  the calculator should be used to expand the understanding and capability of the user, rather than as a replacement for understanding, or in the case of other objects, in lieu of knowledge, or ability, or perseverance, or tolerance, or physical ability.  that is not just personal preference, a technological disadvantage can greatly assist learning and growth.  the math classes i remember only allowed calculators to perform functions once we learned to do without.  learning to ride a low powered motorcycle fast requires learning to maintain speed in corners safely, while a high powered motorcycle  could  simply corner poorly, and make up the time in a straight line with faster acceleration.  nothing inherent about these tools prevents learning, it is all in how it is used.  if used as a crutch, these options reduce your abilities to function without them.  i do not think that is simply my personal preferences.   #  the bicycle example is a great one for be because i bike a lot.   #  but there is little difference.  any tool that could be used to do  amore  could also be used and probably is used to do something for strictly  willess  work.  and i am not sure that is bad.  the bicycle example is a great one for be because i bike a lot.  so you might think that me biking to work is great because it would be a little too far to realistically walk.  but what about the store a few blocks away ? i could plan ahead and just walk it, but why would i ? i would rather just bike it and save the time.  and, in doing so, have not i done more ? i have spent less time doing one thing and more doing something more important to me; is not that the point of any tool ?
i love technology, seriously.  i can video chat, play games or watch movies with family and friends hundreds or thousands of miles away; i can fly across country to see someone get married and return all in a weekend; i have access to an incredible amount of information and have lights to read at night; and 0st century medicine is fantastic.  although i am a healthy person, if i were born a hundred years ago, or on a different continent, i would have been deaf by age 0, and then dead.  technology can be grand, i appreciate the benefits.  the darker side is that technological conveniences are often less necessary.  rather than increasing what we can accomplish, reduce the amount of effort required at the cost of individuality, health, or the ability to function in a less pampering environment.  what we need in life to be comfortable or happy is not absolute, but is relative to our ability to endure.  too much technological convenience becomes a dependence, makes you weaker mentally and physically, and less capable than you otherwise would have been.  a personal example: i tried biking to work a few years ago, it did not work, because it sucked.  i started again two months ago and stuck with it.  it was not hard after all, i just was not used to it.  i was just too accustomed to the comfort of a motorcycle or car.  now, i am accustomed to more discomfort, and will also have ice cream for dessert.  cars are great and i will use it next weekend, but i feel my life has improved now that i can avoid the extra convenience, when it is not necessary.   #  a personal example: i tried biking to work a few years ago, it did not work, because it sucked.   #  i started again two months ago and stuck with it.   # rather than increasing what we can accomplish, reduce the amount of effort required at the cost of individuality, health, or the ability to function in a less pampering environment.  how does technology usage hurt my individuality in any meaningful way ? as far as health goes, go to the gym or eat better food.  technology has far from diminished your health, if anything it has vastly improved it.  you have completely lost the ability to function in a technology free environment, as have i.  fortunately, the chances of ever being in that environment are astronomically low.  as far as  less pampered,  you are going to define your terms better and then estimate the odds of that environment occurring.  i started again two months ago and stuck with it.  it was not hard after all, i just was not used to it.  i was just too accustomed to the comfort of a motorcycle or car.  now, i am accustomed to more discomfort, and will also have ice cream for dessert.  cars are great and i will use it next weekend, but i feel my life has improved now that i can avoid the extra convenience, when it is not necessary.  has your life improved because of being inconvenienced or because you enjoy the exercise/money savings of biking.  if it is honestly just the inconvenience that you enjoy then it sounds like you are suffering from a version of masochism.   #  i agree that reducing effort increases capability, but that is not always relevant case when we have a specific task to do.   #  yeah, there is definitely a spectrum.  car is the least effort, bicycle in the middle, and walking as the most effort.  i see car as viable, but excessive.  bicycle as viable.  walking as not viable, due to requiring too much time/effort/danger.  i agree that reducing effort increases capability, but that is not always relevant case when we have a specific task to do.  both bicycle and car are viable for my particular circumstance, and the reduced effort of a car in that particular case does not allow me to do more, unless the distance increased.  i see benefits from using the technology that is viable, and that also requires more effort.  if my distance were less, then perhaps i would walk/run.  if it were more, i might suck it up, or get an electric motor for the hills.  i do not see reducing effort to the lowest possible level as providing any benefit, other than transient comfort.   #   have i become dependent upon this tool, so much that i now use it to perform tasks that i would not have needed it before ?    #  okay, how about this, if i can do more, then i see that option as beneficial.  but if i become accustomed to using that tool and lose my ability to function without it, i see that choice of tool as poor.  a calculator is great if i am an accountant because i can be more accurate and faster, and i already understand the concepts, and can already function without a calculator, although slowly and less accurately.  a calculator is probably a less beneficial choice to a student doing math homework if the calculator allow the student the ability to do the work, but also prevents the student from learning.  using a tool in this case is hurtful in the long term, although it is convenient in the short term.  i see use as excessive if using the tool reduces my ability to function without it, or replaces my ability to function without it.   have i become dependent upon this tool, so much that i now use it to perform tasks that i would not have needed it before ?    #  the calculator itself absolutely is not inherently preventing anyone from learning math, but it can be used in a way that solves the math problems, but does not require that the calculator user has any understanding of the concepts.   #  personal preference ? i see a delineation, but i am doing a poor job of explaining it.  or, it is not there, because i am biased.  the calculator itself absolutely is not inherently preventing anyone from learning math, but it can be used in a way that solves the math problems, but does not require that the calculator user has any understanding of the concepts.  the calculator should be used to expand the understanding and capability of the user, rather than as a replacement for understanding, or in the case of other objects, in lieu of knowledge, or ability, or perseverance, or tolerance, or physical ability.  that is not just personal preference, a technological disadvantage can greatly assist learning and growth.  the math classes i remember only allowed calculators to perform functions once we learned to do without.  learning to ride a low powered motorcycle fast requires learning to maintain speed in corners safely, while a high powered motorcycle  could  simply corner poorly, and make up the time in a straight line with faster acceleration.  nothing inherent about these tools prevents learning, it is all in how it is used.  if used as a crutch, these options reduce your abilities to function without them.  i do not think that is simply my personal preferences.   #  i could plan ahead and just walk it, but why would i ?  #  but there is little difference.  any tool that could be used to do  amore  could also be used and probably is used to do something for strictly  willess  work.  and i am not sure that is bad.  the bicycle example is a great one for be because i bike a lot.  so you might think that me biking to work is great because it would be a little too far to realistically walk.  but what about the store a few blocks away ? i could plan ahead and just walk it, but why would i ? i would rather just bike it and save the time.  and, in doing so, have not i done more ? i have spent less time doing one thing and more doing something more important to me; is not that the point of any tool ?
i love technology, seriously.  i can video chat, play games or watch movies with family and friends hundreds or thousands of miles away; i can fly across country to see someone get married and return all in a weekend; i have access to an incredible amount of information and have lights to read at night; and 0st century medicine is fantastic.  although i am a healthy person, if i were born a hundred years ago, or on a different continent, i would have been deaf by age 0, and then dead.  technology can be grand, i appreciate the benefits.  the darker side is that technological conveniences are often less necessary.  rather than increasing what we can accomplish, reduce the amount of effort required at the cost of individuality, health, or the ability to function in a less pampering environment.  what we need in life to be comfortable or happy is not absolute, but is relative to our ability to endure.  too much technological convenience becomes a dependence, makes you weaker mentally and physically, and less capable than you otherwise would have been.  a personal example: i tried biking to work a few years ago, it did not work, because it sucked.  i started again two months ago and stuck with it.  it was not hard after all, i just was not used to it.  i was just too accustomed to the comfort of a motorcycle or car.  now, i am accustomed to more discomfort, and will also have ice cream for dessert.  cars are great and i will use it next weekend, but i feel my life has improved now that i can avoid the extra convenience, when it is not necessary.   #  too much technological convenience becomes a dependence, makes you weaker mentally and physically, and less capable than you otherwise would have been.   #  now it is true you may get accustomed to your bike.   #  i do not think this  problem  lies with the newer   better technologies, but rather with our relationship with them.  reduce the amount of effort required , at the cost of individuality, health, or the ability to function in a less pampering environment.  let is say you are paid to hand out newspapers and you usually take your route by foot.  you manage to get 0 newspapers out on your average day.  you are given a bike, letting you travel faster.  now you can deliver more newspapers in the same time, thus increasing your capabilities or, however, you could also choose to keep delivering 0 newspapers, albeit at a faster time.  in the above example, it was  you  who choose to whether to enhance your capability, or lower your inconvenience.  ultimately, i think this is true for all technologies, in that we collectively decide whether or not to go the extra mile or not.  conservatively speaking, it is better not to.  now it is true you may get accustomed to your bike.  you may choose to walk again, but then, it will be far harder to compare your walking standards with your biking standards, even if you walk just as fast as your peak.  how have you become  weaker mentally and physically, and less capable  than yourself, before you got the bike ?  #  i see benefits from using the technology that is viable, and that also requires more effort.   #  yeah, there is definitely a spectrum.  car is the least effort, bicycle in the middle, and walking as the most effort.  i see car as viable, but excessive.  bicycle as viable.  walking as not viable, due to requiring too much time/effort/danger.  i agree that reducing effort increases capability, but that is not always relevant case when we have a specific task to do.  both bicycle and car are viable for my particular circumstance, and the reduced effort of a car in that particular case does not allow me to do more, unless the distance increased.  i see benefits from using the technology that is viable, and that also requires more effort.  if my distance were less, then perhaps i would walk/run.  if it were more, i might suck it up, or get an electric motor for the hills.  i do not see reducing effort to the lowest possible level as providing any benefit, other than transient comfort.   #  but if i become accustomed to using that tool and lose my ability to function without it, i see that choice of tool as poor.   #  okay, how about this, if i can do more, then i see that option as beneficial.  but if i become accustomed to using that tool and lose my ability to function without it, i see that choice of tool as poor.  a calculator is great if i am an accountant because i can be more accurate and faster, and i already understand the concepts, and can already function without a calculator, although slowly and less accurately.  a calculator is probably a less beneficial choice to a student doing math homework if the calculator allow the student the ability to do the work, but also prevents the student from learning.  using a tool in this case is hurtful in the long term, although it is convenient in the short term.  i see use as excessive if using the tool reduces my ability to function without it, or replaces my ability to function without it.   have i become dependent upon this tool, so much that i now use it to perform tasks that i would not have needed it before ?    #  i see a delineation, but i am doing a poor job of explaining it.   #  personal preference ? i see a delineation, but i am doing a poor job of explaining it.  or, it is not there, because i am biased.  the calculator itself absolutely is not inherently preventing anyone from learning math, but it can be used in a way that solves the math problems, but does not require that the calculator user has any understanding of the concepts.  the calculator should be used to expand the understanding and capability of the user, rather than as a replacement for understanding, or in the case of other objects, in lieu of knowledge, or ability, or perseverance, or tolerance, or physical ability.  that is not just personal preference, a technological disadvantage can greatly assist learning and growth.  the math classes i remember only allowed calculators to perform functions once we learned to do without.  learning to ride a low powered motorcycle fast requires learning to maintain speed in corners safely, while a high powered motorcycle  could  simply corner poorly, and make up the time in a straight line with faster acceleration.  nothing inherent about these tools prevents learning, it is all in how it is used.  if used as a crutch, these options reduce your abilities to function without them.  i do not think that is simply my personal preferences.   #  i would rather just bike it and save the time.   #  but there is little difference.  any tool that could be used to do  amore  could also be used and probably is used to do something for strictly  willess  work.  and i am not sure that is bad.  the bicycle example is a great one for be because i bike a lot.  so you might think that me biking to work is great because it would be a little too far to realistically walk.  but what about the store a few blocks away ? i could plan ahead and just walk it, but why would i ? i would rather just bike it and save the time.  and, in doing so, have not i done more ? i have spent less time doing one thing and more doing something more important to me; is not that the point of any tool ?
it is ridiculous to ascribe rights to animals based on the knowledge we know so far.  moral rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, and in order to fit within this framework, a species must at the very least generally be able to understand what morality is to be given either moral rights or responsibilities.  until a species is shown to understand those concepts, it makes no sense to place them within a moral framework.  just as a venus flytrap should not be jailed for killing a fly, or a cat be told it knows better than killing a bird and not eating it, or a lion be taken to trial for killing a baby, it makes no sense to give them innate legal or moral rights.  as murray rothbard said:  there is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that  we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them.   the fact that animals can obviously not petition for their  rights  is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings.  and if it be protested that babies ca not petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not.   furthermore, arguments for animal rights appeal only to emotion or are terribly inconsistent.  people tend to be mostly protective of animals which have neotenous features and remind us of our young.  making an argument solely based on intelligence or pointing out things like limited object permanence in dogs or rudimentary non conceptual communication in apes and not understanding of morality would place severely retarded people, babies or people whose brain functions are almost completely gone much lower on a moral spectrum, even though they are members of a species which can generally understand the basic concepts of morality.  making an argument based on the ability to experience pain would exclude those rare humans who cannot feel pain, and does not make as much sense as the ability to understand rights.  even plants act in instinctual self preservation.  making an argument simply because they are alive should include plants and bacteria in lifeforms needing moral protection.  shall we start centers against bacterial cruelty ? that said, there are good reasons to avoid cruelty to animals, even sometimes moral reasons, such as that it has been linked to hurting other humans, but i think the people who would avoid eating animals at all because of animal cruelty are silly and those would save their pet over a drowning stranger are morally reprehensible.  that said, maybe there is something i am missing, some logical argument i have not heard before.  thoughts ?  #  making an argument simply because they are alive should include plants and bacteria in lifeforms needing moral protection.   #  it comes down to, in my opinion, that yes, it is about things that are living.   # it comes down to, in my opinion, that yes, it is about things that are living.  however, first and foremost is our own survival.  it is not possible to not kill anything that is living and remain healthy.  because of that, it becomes choosing the lesser of all evils.  if you were to kick a dog as hard as you can, and kick an apple as hard as you can, i think you would feel more bad about kicking the dog.  even if you would not, you would feel more  something  about kicking the dog even just because the dog is responding to you kicking it.  following that analogy, even though it would be optimal to not harm any bacteria or plants too, we simply have to eat some things, and therefore, based on emotions and observation, the lesser of the evils is to exempt animals from things that should be eaten.  we can not only see the pain in animals, we can empathize.  plants and bacteria we can prove they respond, but often not as visibly, and certainly do not evoke as much empathy.   #  in some ways, it can be a pretty consistent philosophy if you apply it to animals.   #  in my view, morals tend to be a relative thing depending on context.  that being said, i usually imagine that the people who believe in animal rights tend to do so through a tenet of  do not be a dick.   in some ways, it can be a pretty consistent philosophy if you apply it to animals.  they can clearly feel pain and many animals display levels of emotional complexity.  animals ca not petition for their rights because we are the ones setting the standard.  if an elephant tries to make a break for freedom from a zoo, we put it down instead of letting it advocate for its freedom.  it is not exactly a great analogy and is basically saying  because we animals ca not be human, they are not beholden to protection from cruel behavior.   we as humans wield immense power and authority over our world.  that we use that power to subjugate and commit unnecessary atrocities to another living thing could be read as morally unacceptable.  those with power should wield it responsibly.  there are animal rights believers who eat meat but believe we should not treat livestock animals the way we do and i do not think it is the most unreasonable stance .  admittedly, though, i am a little unclear on why you are opposed to people treating animals with respect ? certainly there are extremists but in my experience the run of the mill animal rights stance is we should not be unnecessarily cruel to animals.  to address your point, not all animals are going to be able to communicate with us or demonstrate emotional complexity but there are certainly species that do elephants, dolphins, apes, even dogs .  in fact, many animals are demonstrably smarter than children under the age of 0 0 years old depending on your source .  given that, there is surely some level of gray area to be acknowledged here.  still, before i can say anything more, i just kind of need an abridged version of why you ultimately feel i should always prioritize people over animals.  as a sidenote, i can say this much: my friends  dogs would mean more to me than a stranger.  relationships and connections do not exist inside some sort of emotional and circumstantial vacuum.  those dogs have a relationship with me and communicate when they want to eat, play, go out, or relax.  i have an emotional investment over them more than a stranger.  likewise, i am going to save my friend over a random dog.   #  animals can communicate on a very rudimentary level.   #  i do not think it is really a great analogy to compare a stone a non sentient being to animals.  animals can communicate on a very rudimentary level.  they can express like and dislike.  would it help to show that animals do have a value system ? crows and ravens, chimpanzees, gray parrots, elephants, and even dogs can all communicate with us on some basic level.  that ability shows that they are sentient beings, not tools or objects or plants.  they feel and think not like you or i but they do .  given that situation, i think there is something to be said for humane treatment.  that is what i view animal rights as being.  also to address you other point, people do save animals in danger.  firefighters rescue pets all the time, good samaritans rescue animals in danger.  some animals have even saved people google stories about whales and dolphins saving drowning people or dogs saving their owners .  animals might have their own moral systems apart from us in their own societies, just as we do theirs but the moment we interact with animals, they enter our moral sphere.  we, as the more powerful beings, have a onus to be judicious with that power if we are to claim any sense morality.  slavery used a similar model.  people of a different race that could not communicate due to language and were deemed inferior could be treated as poorly as we pleased.  they were seen as lesser, existed apart from  civilized  society and because they could not communicate, there was no reason to heed their pain naturally the justifications evolved as those assertions proved false .   #  why are cats treated better than chickens or cows ?  # firefighters rescue pets all the time, good samaritans rescue animals in danger.  some animals have even saved people google stories about whales and dolphins saving drowning people or dogs saving their owners .  well, you said it yourself, whatever  rights  they may have only comes into play because of our interaction with them.  we typically do not care about the lives of worms or ants, for example.  of course with slaves, we can easily show that they are also human, but that ca not work with animals.  therefore whatever  rights  we may give them are not really rights, they are arbitrary judgments based on our feelings.  why are cats treated better than chickens or cows ? surely, they they can be bred for food is not a reason we should treat them worse than any other animal, right ? and what about mosquitoes ? does our compassion extend only to mammals and birds ?  #  i think you and op are kind of missing my point.   #  i mean animals as a whole are a pretty broad category compared to just the one species of humans.  different animals have different levels of cognitive functions so there are varying levels of how we regard them.  humans as a species is a specific thing but in your context, what honestly constitutes us as humans ? if apes and elephants could communicate with us fully as opposed to the rudimentary methods we have now , are they still not entitled to some level of respect ? i think you and op are kind of missing my point.  animal rights is not really using the argument that animals are our equals so we should treat them better, it is that we are the more powerful species so we should wield that power responsibly.  the fact they are animals does not really remove them from our sphere of moral judgment because our actions and motivations still fall under that scrutiny.  if i torture an animal, regardless of species, for fun, most people would not think that as morally just or good.
i am by no means an expert on judaism or islam.  but i was raised christian, and i understand that all three religions have a similar creation myth.  central to this creation myth is man is special place in the universe.  god created man in his image, and all of the universe is essentially created for man.  one prominent religious argument is that the universe is finely tuned for human life.  if life was found on another planet it would deal a serious blow to any claims that humans have a special place in the universe or that the universe is finely tuned for just human life.  in addition to these arguments, it would be a huge blow to the credibility of the bible, since there is no mention of alien life outside of the holy trinity,devil, angels, etc if you consider those aliens .  finding extraterrestrial life would confirm that man is somewhat insignificant in comparison to the universe, and we could move on from these ancient semitic religions into a new age of understanding our place in the universe.   #  in addition to these arguments, it would be a huge blow to the credibility of the bible, since there is no mention of alien life outside of the holy trinity,devil, angels, etc if you consider those aliens .   #  the bible does not mention black holes either, or galaxies, or a million other things.   #  do you mean intelligent life, or just living organisms ? in any case, nicholas of cusa, URL a medieval catholic philosopher and scholar who hypothesized about life on other worlds.  life, as it exists on earth in the form of men, animals and plants, is to be found, let us suppose in a high form in the solar and stellar regions.  rather than think that so many stars and parts of the heavens are uninhabited and that this earth of ours alone is peopled   and that with beings perhaps of an inferior type   we will suppose that in every region there are inhabitants, differing in nature by rank and all owing their origin to god, who is the center and circumference of all stellar regions.  de docta ignorantia  his talk never ruffled any feathers amongst theologians who thought such talk would destroy the faith.  contrary, he was a well respected clergyman who was later made a cardinal.  the bible does not mention black holes either, or galaxies, or a million other things.  it not commenting on other life does not mean the existence of other life would destroy it is credibility.  i am not aware of any actual biblical claim to that, any verse that states such a thing.  i know it says man was created in gods image, but not of it saying we hold a special, sacred place in the universe.  and even if it does, just us holding a special and unique place in creation does not mean an alien race could not do the same.   #  to say it with saint francis, if we consider earthly creatures as  brother  and  sister,  why cannot we also speak of an  extraterrestrial brother ?  #  from an interview with the director of the vatican observatory:  lor: but genesis speaks of the earth, of animals, of man and of woman.  does this exclude the possibility of the existence of other worlds or living beings in the universe ? astronomers hold that the universe was formed by 0 billion galaxies, each of them is composed of 0 billion stars.  many of these, or almost all, could have some planets.  how could it not be left out that life developed elsewhere ? there is a branch of astronomy, astrobiology that precisely studies this aspect and has made much progress in recent years.  examining the light spectrums that come from stars and planets, soon it will be possible to single out elements of their atmosphere the so called biomakers and understand if conditions exist for the birth and development of life.  for the rest, life forms could exist in theory, even without oxygen or hydrogen.  until now we have had no proof.  but certainly in a universe so big this hypothesis cannot be excluded.  as a multiplicity of creatures exist on earth, so there could be other beings, also intelligent, created by god.  this does not contrast with our faith because we cannot put limits on the creative freedom of god.  to say it with saint francis, if we consider earthly creatures as  brother  and  sister,  why cannot we also speak of an  extraterrestrial brother ? it would therefore be a part of creation.   #  most people, myself included, do not believe so although i am sure you could find many who ignorantly claim otherwise .   #  it is most certainly not a cop out.  the nature of god is vast, infinite, incomprehensible.  does being made in the image of god mean he has two legs, two arms, two eyes and a nose ? most people, myself included, do not believe so although i am sure you could find many who ignorantly claim otherwise .  in my belief, to be made in the image of god means that we were granted creativity, the ability to create art, to be granted a superior intellect.   #  as a parallel argument, you could say that the evidence that snakes cannot talk proves the book of genesis false, which is a  fatal blow  to any religion that believes in the old testament.   #  the idea that a  fatal blow  can even exist for a religion demonstrates a flawed understanding of what religion is, imo.  as a parallel argument, you could say that the evidence that snakes cannot talk proves the book of genesis false, which is a  fatal blow  to any religion that believes in the old testament.  clearly, many people are religious despite the lack of talking animals in the world.  where is the disconnect ? often, religion just exists as a means of humility and virtue for people, and it is not necessary that the claims all be literally true.  obviously, fundamentalists do believe in biblical literalism.  but never underestimate their ability to just believe anything they want to.  if they deny that evolution exists, surely they can deny the evidence for life on other planets, right ?  #  somehow you assume it means that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, in spite of the fact that the original audience of genesis would understand neither intelligent life nor the concept of a universe.   #  i agree with you that  man is special place in the universe  is  central to christian religion .  but you have a very narrow view of what  man is special place in the universe  means.  somehow you assume it means that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, in spite of the fact that the original audience of genesis would understand neither intelligent life nor the concept of a universe.  and your argument allows for no other interpretations of what the concept might involve.  there are plenty of other interpretations.  just to list a few possibilities for the doctrine:   that our planet is uniquely suited for life in a way that perhaps not all lifeforms enjoy   that our planet receives prophets and messages from god and others do not   that our life is the oldest or first intelligent life   that god is concerned with our welfare in a way that has unique elements relative to his concern for other lifeforms which may merit their own unique set of concerns   that humans possess some unique quality that other lifeforms do not, there are many possibilities here   that god has a unique plan for salvation for our planet and there may be other plans for other planets.  or perhaps the beings on the other planets are unfallen and do not need to be saved to begin with.  that god intended for us to understand our unique place relative to the rest of the earthly kingdom e. g. , the way the original audience would have understood it far from being a problem for christianity, the religion recognizes quite a few more extraterrestial lifeforms than scientists do.  angels, demons, and cherubim, just to start with, and of course god himself.  the fact of extraterrestrial intelligent life has been doctrine for thousands of years now.
i am by no means an expert on judaism or islam.  but i was raised christian, and i understand that all three religions have a similar creation myth.  central to this creation myth is man is special place in the universe.  god created man in his image, and all of the universe is essentially created for man.  one prominent religious argument is that the universe is finely tuned for human life.  if life was found on another planet it would deal a serious blow to any claims that humans have a special place in the universe or that the universe is finely tuned for just human life.  in addition to these arguments, it would be a huge blow to the credibility of the bible, since there is no mention of alien life outside of the holy trinity,devil, angels, etc if you consider those aliens .  finding extraterrestrial life would confirm that man is somewhat insignificant in comparison to the universe, and we could move on from these ancient semitic religions into a new age of understanding our place in the universe.   #  if life was found on another planet it would deal a serious blow to any claims that humans have a special place in the universe or that the universe is finely tuned for just human life.   #  i am not aware of any actual biblical claim to that, any verse that states such a thing.   #  do you mean intelligent life, or just living organisms ? in any case, nicholas of cusa, URL a medieval catholic philosopher and scholar who hypothesized about life on other worlds.  life, as it exists on earth in the form of men, animals and plants, is to be found, let us suppose in a high form in the solar and stellar regions.  rather than think that so many stars and parts of the heavens are uninhabited and that this earth of ours alone is peopled   and that with beings perhaps of an inferior type   we will suppose that in every region there are inhabitants, differing in nature by rank and all owing their origin to god, who is the center and circumference of all stellar regions.  de docta ignorantia  his talk never ruffled any feathers amongst theologians who thought such talk would destroy the faith.  contrary, he was a well respected clergyman who was later made a cardinal.  the bible does not mention black holes either, or galaxies, or a million other things.  it not commenting on other life does not mean the existence of other life would destroy it is credibility.  i am not aware of any actual biblical claim to that, any verse that states such a thing.  i know it says man was created in gods image, but not of it saying we hold a special, sacred place in the universe.  and even if it does, just us holding a special and unique place in creation does not mean an alien race could not do the same.   #  as a multiplicity of creatures exist on earth, so there could be other beings, also intelligent, created by god.   #  from an interview with the director of the vatican observatory:  lor: but genesis speaks of the earth, of animals, of man and of woman.  does this exclude the possibility of the existence of other worlds or living beings in the universe ? astronomers hold that the universe was formed by 0 billion galaxies, each of them is composed of 0 billion stars.  many of these, or almost all, could have some planets.  how could it not be left out that life developed elsewhere ? there is a branch of astronomy, astrobiology that precisely studies this aspect and has made much progress in recent years.  examining the light spectrums that come from stars and planets, soon it will be possible to single out elements of their atmosphere the so called biomakers and understand if conditions exist for the birth and development of life.  for the rest, life forms could exist in theory, even without oxygen or hydrogen.  until now we have had no proof.  but certainly in a universe so big this hypothesis cannot be excluded.  as a multiplicity of creatures exist on earth, so there could be other beings, also intelligent, created by god.  this does not contrast with our faith because we cannot put limits on the creative freedom of god.  to say it with saint francis, if we consider earthly creatures as  brother  and  sister,  why cannot we also speak of an  extraterrestrial brother ? it would therefore be a part of creation.   #  the nature of god is vast, infinite, incomprehensible.   #  it is most certainly not a cop out.  the nature of god is vast, infinite, incomprehensible.  does being made in the image of god mean he has two legs, two arms, two eyes and a nose ? most people, myself included, do not believe so although i am sure you could find many who ignorantly claim otherwise .  in my belief, to be made in the image of god means that we were granted creativity, the ability to create art, to be granted a superior intellect.   #  if they deny that evolution exists, surely they can deny the evidence for life on other planets, right ?  #  the idea that a  fatal blow  can even exist for a religion demonstrates a flawed understanding of what religion is, imo.  as a parallel argument, you could say that the evidence that snakes cannot talk proves the book of genesis false, which is a  fatal blow  to any religion that believes in the old testament.  clearly, many people are religious despite the lack of talking animals in the world.  where is the disconnect ? often, religion just exists as a means of humility and virtue for people, and it is not necessary that the claims all be literally true.  obviously, fundamentalists do believe in biblical literalism.  but never underestimate their ability to just believe anything they want to.  if they deny that evolution exists, surely they can deny the evidence for life on other planets, right ?  #  and your argument allows for no other interpretations of what the concept might involve.   #  i agree with you that  man is special place in the universe  is  central to christian religion .  but you have a very narrow view of what  man is special place in the universe  means.  somehow you assume it means that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, in spite of the fact that the original audience of genesis would understand neither intelligent life nor the concept of a universe.  and your argument allows for no other interpretations of what the concept might involve.  there are plenty of other interpretations.  just to list a few possibilities for the doctrine:   that our planet is uniquely suited for life in a way that perhaps not all lifeforms enjoy   that our planet receives prophets and messages from god and others do not   that our life is the oldest or first intelligent life   that god is concerned with our welfare in a way that has unique elements relative to his concern for other lifeforms which may merit their own unique set of concerns   that humans possess some unique quality that other lifeforms do not, there are many possibilities here   that god has a unique plan for salvation for our planet and there may be other plans for other planets.  or perhaps the beings on the other planets are unfallen and do not need to be saved to begin with.  that god intended for us to understand our unique place relative to the rest of the earthly kingdom e. g. , the way the original audience would have understood it far from being a problem for christianity, the religion recognizes quite a few more extraterrestial lifeforms than scientists do.  angels, demons, and cherubim, just to start with, and of course god himself.  the fact of extraterrestrial intelligent life has been doctrine for thousands of years now.
just a warning, there are a few spoilers from the netflix show in this discussion.  if you have not seen seasons 0 and 0 of house of cards, this cmv is not for you.  frank underwood will make a great president and is an incredibly effective politician, which in the frame of modern day american politics, is sorely needed.  despite people is view of him as a murderer which he is, but his motives in that is a different discussion , within the political sphere, he is great for the following reasons: 0.  he actually executes his power effectively and efficiently; his part in reshuffling the democratic leadership in season 0 episode 0 and his use of parliamentary procedures to achieve entitlement reform both show how effective he is at executing his constitutional power.  0.  he is willing to work with people whose opinions do not match his own, both within his own party and across the aisle.  he made it clear in season 0 that he would be willing to work with republicans something most modern day democrats refuse to do when he reshuffles the dem leaders in the aforementioned episode, and again in the entitlement episode.  he clearly had a well working rapport with the republican senate majority leader along with other republicans that went along with his charade in that season 0 episode.  within his own party, his dealing with donald blythe shows he is willing to work with people who do not share his views.  0.  his first act in office as president literally moments after swearing in is solving the diplomatic crisis with china while also disposing of the thorn in his side, xander feng.  0.  he rebuilt a bridge he had burned in season 0 at the end of season 0 with him saying he would appoint michael kern as treasury secretary.  his ability to schmooze and win over people is definitely going to help him in the long run, as opposed to the abrasive style that his protege jackie sharp is seen employing.  for all of these reasons, francis will be an incredibly effective leader within the frame of house of cards, something that will overshadow his previous transgressions.   #  0.  his first act in office as president literally moments after swearing in is solving the diplomatic crisis with china while also disposing of the thorn in his side, xander feng.   #  did not frank manufacture the diplomatic crisis in the first place ?  #  frank is a psychopath.  do you think a psychopath would really make a great president ? you have pointed out how effective and efficient he is i completely agree but you have missed out his motive.  everything he does is to further himself in some manner.  that is why he has no allegiance to either party or anyone; he will work with anyone that furthers his ambition and goals.  someone that is willing to manipulate, coerce, intimidate, and kill just to further themselves does not make a great president.  did not frank manufacture the diplomatic crisis in the first place ?  #  maybe he murdered 0 people on his way to the top.   #  well, let is look at it objectively.  yes, he is a murderer and a psychopath.  but he is also very smart, and is concerned with public image, as this effects his legacy, since he wants to be remembered above all.  he is forceful and intelligent enough to get the things that he wants during his presidency, which, due to his concern with public opinion, will probably be for the best of the people.  maybe he murdered 0 people on his way to the top.  but what if he completely ends drone strikes which americans are against , saving thousands of lives ? what if he avoids unpopular wars at all costs, saving thousands more, instead of being a warmonger whose dirty laundry we simply do not get to see ?  #  and yet there is no guarantee that these dark secrets will never come out.   #  does not his legacy include murdering people to become president ? do you think that that is what he really wants to be remembered for ? and yet there is no guarantee that these dark secrets will never come out.  every risk he takes of this sort is a liability to his legacy.  and note that his current mo is to be devious, immoral and destructive in order to cement his legacy, so even if he is never found out, there is no way to guarantee that he will do goods things without engaging in destructive or immoral means, so securing his legacy is definitely not reason enough to ensure he will be a good president.  note also that it is quite possible, given his mo, to create some sort of crisis in order to resolve it himself again, securing his legacy is insufficient to outweigh the immoral things he is done in the past.  finally, as we know that it is a tv show, we can pretty much guarantee that in the third season he will have to conduct some morally questionable business, or it would not be worth making a third season.  that particular perspective might be cheating a little bit, but it is worth noting.   #  so even then, his skeletons are irrelevant at this point due to him tying up all the loose ends.   #  that legacy for murdering people is a moot point only he and the audience know what he is done.  everyone else who has an inkling of knowledge is either dead stamper and zoey or in jail lucas .  rachel is the only loose end, and even then she does not really know enough to truly challenge francis.  she only knows about her dealings with stamper and russo, and she is under the impression russo committed suicide.  so even then, his skeletons are irrelevant at this point due to him tying up all the loose ends.   #  as per pushing policy and actually getting things done, francis is good for the country in the realm of hoc i believe so far .   #  i am not really discussing the murders those are not part of what i am trying to argue.  as far as they are concerned, they wo not come to light as far as i understand.  lucas is in jail, janine does not give a shit anymore, and stamper is dead.  the only loose end left is rachel, and even then she only knows russo committed suicide, not that francis killed her.  i am talking purely from a political standpoint threats and bribery are nothing new in the american political sphere.  also, i do not think francis outright bribed anyone.  focusing purely on the negative aspects is another discussion, as i had noted in my original argument.  as per pushing policy and actually getting things done, francis is good for the country in the realm of hoc i believe so far .
in the us, i can turn cable tv on at 0pm and watch rotting corpses, murder, bombs, cadavers, and many other violent crimes.  and yet one tit, and the world goes mad insert janet jackson superbowl video the human body is an amazing thing.  it can be extremely diverse in appearance, but it is a beautiful thing that our society has somehow vilified to the point where it is more distasteful than the other things i mentioned.  in general, i believe the usa restricts nudity so much that it has actually become a detriment to our society.  we view almost all nudity as pornography, and limit it as all  adult content .  but this does not benefit anyone in anyway.  i think this has created several surprisingly negative side effects.  completely natural and normal things such as breast feeding and children being nude while playing/at the beach become sexualized and perverse.  young teenagers over sexualize nudity due to the rather complete restriction on it, which has now swung rather far the other way with the extent of internet pornagraphy.  the problem is that porn is typically the first and only area where young adults see nude bodies which further sexualizes and makes nudity  wrong .  it also increases body shame and embarrassment for two reasons; the first of which is that the only comparison many people have for what is  attractive/normal  is the rather skewed world of pornagraphy, and that we have chosen to eliminate normal forms of nudity public showers/baths/saunas which i believe directly leads to people not feeling comfortable in their own naked bodies.  this lack of comfort more easily leads to shame and self consciousness which has a host of other issues attached to it.  change my view.   #  young teenagers over sexualize nudity due to the rather complete restriction on it, which has now swung rather far the other way with the extent of internet pornagraphy.   #  while this seems sound, i do not think it is actually true.   #  the issue of violence on tv and that of nudity on tv are separate issues; one does not justify the other.  thus, you should at the very least argue for why nudity should be shown on its own, and not start off by pointing to things you deem  amore distasteful  already being shown.  europeans are just as attracted to nudity as americans it shows in their advertising, just as it does in ours .  the aversion to natural things, breast feeding and children playing in the nude, are arguably less because of a fear of offending others, and more of a fear of having a creeper come by i. e.  those who do not undertake these  natural  acts are those who do not want to be exposed in public.  look at new york for instance, where it is perfectly legal for women to go topless.  .  while this seems sound, i do not think it is actually true.  i am pretty sure all teenagers at least males love nudity.  this is unsound because unrealistic ideas on attractiveness are everywhere, not just in porn movies, advertisements, etc .  allowing nudity on tv would not help at all here, since tv has the same requirements as porn.  moreover, i would argue that the introduction of homemade porn, which is very rapidly growing and depicts realistic bodies, people, and sexual performance, is actually very beneficial for these reasons.   #  it is just as dumb in europe, and a lot of people resent all of the blatant sexual objectification.   #  more nudity in the media does not magically solve the problems you mentioned, though.  in much of europe, where nudity and overt sexuality is common in advertising, and in japan, where public bathing is common, there is still a huge amount of body shaming.  europeans and japanese do not have broader standards for attractiveness and normality.  if anything, the pressure to be thin and perfect is probably  more  intense than in the us.  europe and japan still have social hangups over sex.  sexual violence still exists.  objectification of women still exists and in some cases, it is a whole lot worse .  there are widespread public concerns about pornography and pedophilia.  it is not as if the us is puritanical and the rest of the world is a paradise of sexual liberty and open mindedness and acceptance and appreciation for the human body.  there are some europeans who feel that there is too much sex in advertising not because sex is something inherently bad or shameful, but because sex is used as a blatant, pointless way to sell crap.  you know how lots of americans ridicule those abercrombie and fitch ads URL that are so focused on sex appeal and image that they barely even show the clothes they are trying to sell ? it is just as dumb in europe, and a lot of people resent all of the blatant sexual objectification.  look, a headless naked woman selling.  purses ? URL this nsfw perfume ad was banned in italy and i do not want to know what it smells like URL there is nothing wrong with using sexy advertising to sell clothes, but when your idea of subtlety is shoving a bottle of perfume up a disembodied woman is vagina, it just gets.  tacky.  sexist.  gross.   #  do you think ants look at their ant hill and think.   hey, maybe we should just live in a little hole in the country.   #   natural  is a constructed division between what our species does and what our species does not do.  humans do it ?  unnatural .  it is circular reasoning, rooted in our self appointed privileged position as demi gods, favored by a creator to be partly spiritual rather than completely mundane beings.  it is nonsense, if you ask me.  we are animals.  do you think ants look at their ant hill and think.   hey, maybe we should just live in a little hole in the country.  you know, get back to nature ?   hell no ! stripping leaves, raiding, and building ant hills  is  the ants nature.  and for us, finding innovative ways to protect and feed ourselves is in  our  nature.  everything we do, even if it is stupid and kills off a chunk of us, is natural.  what is arguably not natural for a human ? living naked and alone in the woods, like an ant off his hill.   #  you know why they have so few fat people ?  # you know why they have so few fat people ? because besides a better diet, fat people are seen as disgusting.  i am not so sure about that.  i lived there for a while never notice anything like that.  also, sumo wrestlers are highly regarded over there, so i do not think they are particularly disgusted by fat people, at least not more than anywhere else at least.  then again, you may know something i do not, but i just did not get that impression from the time i lived there.  i really just think it is the better diet and perhaps there is a genetic component.   #  fashion and celebrities have more influence on the mainstream ideal of  perfection  than porn does.   #  i have been to europe a few times and while i do not think the advertisements are  as  photoshopped on average, they are definitely tweaked with a couple of exceptions european ads for american apparel seem to have an intentionally bad,  amateur porn shot in somebody is basement with an old polaroid camera  hipster aesthetic .  fashion and celebrities have more influence on the mainstream ideal of  perfection  than porn does.  go into any convenience store from london to ljubljana and you will see the same photoshopped fashion magazines that you can buy in the us.  oh, but in europe, sometimes they will come packaged with free lingerie size xs only .  in japan, the photoshop is 0x stronger than anything you will see in the us.  a girl can go to a photo kiosk in any mall and have her image auto photoshopped for the  celebrity from uncanny valley  look: thinner, paler, smoother and with bigger eyes.  and while certain aspects of nudity public bathing, nude children, sexy swimsuit photo spreads in manga magazines that are marketed to middle school boys are okay, soooo many people are absolutely puritanical to a degree that would shock americans about female sexuality.  sexualized public nudity even a nip slip is not okay.  in the us, there is considerable variety in what is considered attractive.  it is actually  possible  to buy clothing in larger sizes.  plastic surgery still has something of a social stigma attached to it.  people in the us react with horror at the idea of children getting plastic surgery to be more beautiful, while that is totally acceptable in korea, brazil or ukraine places with very different attitudes towards nudity and sexuality .
in the us, i can turn cable tv on at 0pm and watch rotting corpses, murder, bombs, cadavers, and many other violent crimes.  and yet one tit, and the world goes mad insert janet jackson superbowl video the human body is an amazing thing.  it can be extremely diverse in appearance, but it is a beautiful thing that our society has somehow vilified to the point where it is more distasteful than the other things i mentioned.  in general, i believe the usa restricts nudity so much that it has actually become a detriment to our society.  we view almost all nudity as pornography, and limit it as all  adult content .  but this does not benefit anyone in anyway.  i think this has created several surprisingly negative side effects.  completely natural and normal things such as breast feeding and children being nude while playing/at the beach become sexualized and perverse.  young teenagers over sexualize nudity due to the rather complete restriction on it, which has now swung rather far the other way with the extent of internet pornagraphy.  the problem is that porn is typically the first and only area where young adults see nude bodies which further sexualizes and makes nudity  wrong .  it also increases body shame and embarrassment for two reasons; the first of which is that the only comparison many people have for what is  attractive/normal  is the rather skewed world of pornagraphy, and that we have chosen to eliminate normal forms of nudity public showers/baths/saunas which i believe directly leads to people not feeling comfortable in their own naked bodies.  this lack of comfort more easily leads to shame and self consciousness which has a host of other issues attached to it.  change my view.   #  watch rotting corpses, murder, bombs, cadavers, and many other violent crimes.   #  simulated violence, people freak out when you air actual bodies, you cant do the same with nudity, its either all or nothing.   # simulated violence, people freak out when you air actual bodies, you cant do the same with nudity, its either all or nothing.  speaking of all or nothing, revealing swimwear is very common in advertisement, and few people get upset about that.  the problem is that porn is typically the first and only area where young adults see nude bodies which further sexualizes and makes nudity  wrong .  almost all of these kids will have sex at some point, but few will kill.  therefore getting exaggerated images of sex and nudity will lead to poor self esteem.  already a thing, but this would be an argument for more conservative styles, not less people already no about nudity, cause they themselves do not always wear clothes, and have the internet to look up anything.  what would happen.  in your mind, if nudity was more common ? i would argue nothing at all.  it would be just like porn, but more pervasive and prevalent at an earlier age  #  more nudity in the media does not magically solve the problems you mentioned, though.   #  more nudity in the media does not magically solve the problems you mentioned, though.  in much of europe, where nudity and overt sexuality is common in advertising, and in japan, where public bathing is common, there is still a huge amount of body shaming.  europeans and japanese do not have broader standards for attractiveness and normality.  if anything, the pressure to be thin and perfect is probably  more  intense than in the us.  europe and japan still have social hangups over sex.  sexual violence still exists.  objectification of women still exists and in some cases, it is a whole lot worse .  there are widespread public concerns about pornography and pedophilia.  it is not as if the us is puritanical and the rest of the world is a paradise of sexual liberty and open mindedness and acceptance and appreciation for the human body.  there are some europeans who feel that there is too much sex in advertising not because sex is something inherently bad or shameful, but because sex is used as a blatant, pointless way to sell crap.  you know how lots of americans ridicule those abercrombie and fitch ads URL that are so focused on sex appeal and image that they barely even show the clothes they are trying to sell ? it is just as dumb in europe, and a lot of people resent all of the blatant sexual objectification.  look, a headless naked woman selling.  purses ? URL this nsfw perfume ad was banned in italy and i do not want to know what it smells like URL there is nothing wrong with using sexy advertising to sell clothes, but when your idea of subtlety is shoving a bottle of perfume up a disembodied woman is vagina, it just gets.  tacky.  sexist.  gross.   #   natural  is a constructed division between what our species does and what our species does not do.   #   natural  is a constructed division between what our species does and what our species does not do.  humans do it ?  unnatural .  it is circular reasoning, rooted in our self appointed privileged position as demi gods, favored by a creator to be partly spiritual rather than completely mundane beings.  it is nonsense, if you ask me.  we are animals.  do you think ants look at their ant hill and think.   hey, maybe we should just live in a little hole in the country.  you know, get back to nature ?   hell no ! stripping leaves, raiding, and building ant hills  is  the ants nature.  and for us, finding innovative ways to protect and feed ourselves is in  our  nature.  everything we do, even if it is stupid and kills off a chunk of us, is natural.  what is arguably not natural for a human ? living naked and alone in the woods, like an ant off his hill.   #  i really just think it is the better diet and perhaps there is a genetic component.   # you know why they have so few fat people ? because besides a better diet, fat people are seen as disgusting.  i am not so sure about that.  i lived there for a while never notice anything like that.  also, sumo wrestlers are highly regarded over there, so i do not think they are particularly disgusted by fat people, at least not more than anywhere else at least.  then again, you may know something i do not, but i just did not get that impression from the time i lived there.  i really just think it is the better diet and perhaps there is a genetic component.   #  fashion and celebrities have more influence on the mainstream ideal of  perfection  than porn does.   #  i have been to europe a few times and while i do not think the advertisements are  as  photoshopped on average, they are definitely tweaked with a couple of exceptions european ads for american apparel seem to have an intentionally bad,  amateur porn shot in somebody is basement with an old polaroid camera  hipster aesthetic .  fashion and celebrities have more influence on the mainstream ideal of  perfection  than porn does.  go into any convenience store from london to ljubljana and you will see the same photoshopped fashion magazines that you can buy in the us.  oh, but in europe, sometimes they will come packaged with free lingerie size xs only .  in japan, the photoshop is 0x stronger than anything you will see in the us.  a girl can go to a photo kiosk in any mall and have her image auto photoshopped for the  celebrity from uncanny valley  look: thinner, paler, smoother and with bigger eyes.  and while certain aspects of nudity public bathing, nude children, sexy swimsuit photo spreads in manga magazines that are marketed to middle school boys are okay, soooo many people are absolutely puritanical to a degree that would shock americans about female sexuality.  sexualized public nudity even a nip slip is not okay.  in the us, there is considerable variety in what is considered attractive.  it is actually  possible  to buy clothing in larger sizes.  plastic surgery still has something of a social stigma attached to it.  people in the us react with horror at the idea of children getting plastic surgery to be more beautiful, while that is totally acceptable in korea, brazil or ukraine places with very different attitudes towards nudity and sexuality .
in the us, i can turn cable tv on at 0pm and watch rotting corpses, murder, bombs, cadavers, and many other violent crimes.  and yet one tit, and the world goes mad insert janet jackson superbowl video the human body is an amazing thing.  it can be extremely diverse in appearance, but it is a beautiful thing that our society has somehow vilified to the point where it is more distasteful than the other things i mentioned.  in general, i believe the usa restricts nudity so much that it has actually become a detriment to our society.  we view almost all nudity as pornography, and limit it as all  adult content .  but this does not benefit anyone in anyway.  i think this has created several surprisingly negative side effects.  completely natural and normal things such as breast feeding and children being nude while playing/at the beach become sexualized and perverse.  young teenagers over sexualize nudity due to the rather complete restriction on it, which has now swung rather far the other way with the extent of internet pornagraphy.  the problem is that porn is typically the first and only area where young adults see nude bodies which further sexualizes and makes nudity  wrong .  it also increases body shame and embarrassment for two reasons; the first of which is that the only comparison many people have for what is  attractive/normal  is the rather skewed world of pornagraphy, and that we have chosen to eliminate normal forms of nudity public showers/baths/saunas which i believe directly leads to people not feeling comfortable in their own naked bodies.  this lack of comfort more easily leads to shame and self consciousness which has a host of other issues attached to it.  change my view.   #  young teenagers over sexualize nudity due to the rather complete restriction on it, which has now swung rather far the other way with the extent of internet pornagraphy.   #  the problem is that porn is typically the first and only area where young adults see nude bodies which further sexualizes and makes nudity  wrong .   # simulated violence, people freak out when you air actual bodies, you cant do the same with nudity, its either all or nothing.  speaking of all or nothing, revealing swimwear is very common in advertisement, and few people get upset about that.  the problem is that porn is typically the first and only area where young adults see nude bodies which further sexualizes and makes nudity  wrong .  almost all of these kids will have sex at some point, but few will kill.  therefore getting exaggerated images of sex and nudity will lead to poor self esteem.  already a thing, but this would be an argument for more conservative styles, not less people already no about nudity, cause they themselves do not always wear clothes, and have the internet to look up anything.  what would happen.  in your mind, if nudity was more common ? i would argue nothing at all.  it would be just like porn, but more pervasive and prevalent at an earlier age  #  europeans and japanese do not have broader standards for attractiveness and normality.  if anything, the pressure to be thin and perfect is probably  more  intense than in the us.   #  more nudity in the media does not magically solve the problems you mentioned, though.  in much of europe, where nudity and overt sexuality is common in advertising, and in japan, where public bathing is common, there is still a huge amount of body shaming.  europeans and japanese do not have broader standards for attractiveness and normality.  if anything, the pressure to be thin and perfect is probably  more  intense than in the us.  europe and japan still have social hangups over sex.  sexual violence still exists.  objectification of women still exists and in some cases, it is a whole lot worse .  there are widespread public concerns about pornography and pedophilia.  it is not as if the us is puritanical and the rest of the world is a paradise of sexual liberty and open mindedness and acceptance and appreciation for the human body.  there are some europeans who feel that there is too much sex in advertising not because sex is something inherently bad or shameful, but because sex is used as a blatant, pointless way to sell crap.  you know how lots of americans ridicule those abercrombie and fitch ads URL that are so focused on sex appeal and image that they barely even show the clothes they are trying to sell ? it is just as dumb in europe, and a lot of people resent all of the blatant sexual objectification.  look, a headless naked woman selling.  purses ? URL this nsfw perfume ad was banned in italy and i do not want to know what it smells like URL there is nothing wrong with using sexy advertising to sell clothes, but when your idea of subtlety is shoving a bottle of perfume up a disembodied woman is vagina, it just gets.  tacky.  sexist.  gross.   #  it is circular reasoning, rooted in our self appointed privileged position as demi gods, favored by a creator to be partly spiritual rather than completely mundane beings.   #   natural  is a constructed division between what our species does and what our species does not do.  humans do it ?  unnatural .  it is circular reasoning, rooted in our self appointed privileged position as demi gods, favored by a creator to be partly spiritual rather than completely mundane beings.  it is nonsense, if you ask me.  we are animals.  do you think ants look at their ant hill and think.   hey, maybe we should just live in a little hole in the country.  you know, get back to nature ?   hell no ! stripping leaves, raiding, and building ant hills  is  the ants nature.  and for us, finding innovative ways to protect and feed ourselves is in  our  nature.  everything we do, even if it is stupid and kills off a chunk of us, is natural.  what is arguably not natural for a human ? living naked and alone in the woods, like an ant off his hill.   #  i lived there for a while never notice anything like that.   # you know why they have so few fat people ? because besides a better diet, fat people are seen as disgusting.  i am not so sure about that.  i lived there for a while never notice anything like that.  also, sumo wrestlers are highly regarded over there, so i do not think they are particularly disgusted by fat people, at least not more than anywhere else at least.  then again, you may know something i do not, but i just did not get that impression from the time i lived there.  i really just think it is the better diet and perhaps there is a genetic component.   #  in japan, the photoshop is 0x stronger than anything you will see in the us.   #  i have been to europe a few times and while i do not think the advertisements are  as  photoshopped on average, they are definitely tweaked with a couple of exceptions european ads for american apparel seem to have an intentionally bad,  amateur porn shot in somebody is basement with an old polaroid camera  hipster aesthetic .  fashion and celebrities have more influence on the mainstream ideal of  perfection  than porn does.  go into any convenience store from london to ljubljana and you will see the same photoshopped fashion magazines that you can buy in the us.  oh, but in europe, sometimes they will come packaged with free lingerie size xs only .  in japan, the photoshop is 0x stronger than anything you will see in the us.  a girl can go to a photo kiosk in any mall and have her image auto photoshopped for the  celebrity from uncanny valley  look: thinner, paler, smoother and with bigger eyes.  and while certain aspects of nudity public bathing, nude children, sexy swimsuit photo spreads in manga magazines that are marketed to middle school boys are okay, soooo many people are absolutely puritanical to a degree that would shock americans about female sexuality.  sexualized public nudity even a nip slip is not okay.  in the us, there is considerable variety in what is considered attractive.  it is actually  possible  to buy clothing in larger sizes.  plastic surgery still has something of a social stigma attached to it.  people in the us react with horror at the idea of children getting plastic surgery to be more beautiful, while that is totally acceptable in korea, brazil or ukraine places with very different attitudes towards nudity and sexuality .
in the us, i can turn cable tv on at 0pm and watch rotting corpses, murder, bombs, cadavers, and many other violent crimes.  and yet one tit, and the world goes mad insert janet jackson superbowl video the human body is an amazing thing.  it can be extremely diverse in appearance, but it is a beautiful thing that our society has somehow vilified to the point where it is more distasteful than the other things i mentioned.  in general, i believe the usa restricts nudity so much that it has actually become a detriment to our society.  we view almost all nudity as pornography, and limit it as all  adult content .  but this does not benefit anyone in anyway.  i think this has created several surprisingly negative side effects.  completely natural and normal things such as breast feeding and children being nude while playing/at the beach become sexualized and perverse.  young teenagers over sexualize nudity due to the rather complete restriction on it, which has now swung rather far the other way with the extent of internet pornagraphy.  the problem is that porn is typically the first and only area where young adults see nude bodies which further sexualizes and makes nudity  wrong .  it also increases body shame and embarrassment for two reasons; the first of which is that the only comparison many people have for what is  attractive/normal  is the rather skewed world of pornagraphy, and that we have chosen to eliminate normal forms of nudity public showers/baths/saunas which i believe directly leads to people not feeling comfortable in their own naked bodies.  this lack of comfort more easily leads to shame and self consciousness which has a host of other issues attached to it.  change my view.   #  in the us, i can turn cable tv on at 0pm and watch rotting corpses, murder, bombs, cadavers, and many other violent crimes.   #  and yet one tit, and the world goes mad insert janet jackson superbowl video the human body is an amazing thing.   #  no complaint on the puritan thing, they were the 0st ones here on the mayflower, and it is hard to argue against it.  my debate is that it causes real problems.  and yet one tit, and the world goes mad insert janet jackson superbowl video the human body is an amazing thing.  it can be extremely diverse in appearance, but it is a beautiful thing that our society has somehow vilified to the point where it is more distasteful than the other things i mentioned.  apples v.  oranges.  you ca not really compare something on cable to something on national television like the superbowl.  if those things you mentioned were on the superbowl they would be equally distasteful.  really ? where ? i do not think this is the case at all.  the men is locker room is a nude fest and has been since the ymca in grade school.  so porn makes people not like the way they look ? i hear girls complaining about their hair more than anything else.  what in porn makes a girl not like her hair ? how does porn make girls with straight hair curl it, and girls with curly hair straighten it ? there are not too many rural folks that uptight about all these  issues  where i live.   #  you know how lots of americans ridicule those abercrombie and fitch ads URL that are so focused on sex appeal and image that they barely even show the clothes they are trying to sell ?  #  more nudity in the media does not magically solve the problems you mentioned, though.  in much of europe, where nudity and overt sexuality is common in advertising, and in japan, where public bathing is common, there is still a huge amount of body shaming.  europeans and japanese do not have broader standards for attractiveness and normality.  if anything, the pressure to be thin and perfect is probably  more  intense than in the us.  europe and japan still have social hangups over sex.  sexual violence still exists.  objectification of women still exists and in some cases, it is a whole lot worse .  there are widespread public concerns about pornography and pedophilia.  it is not as if the us is puritanical and the rest of the world is a paradise of sexual liberty and open mindedness and acceptance and appreciation for the human body.  there are some europeans who feel that there is too much sex in advertising not because sex is something inherently bad or shameful, but because sex is used as a blatant, pointless way to sell crap.  you know how lots of americans ridicule those abercrombie and fitch ads URL that are so focused on sex appeal and image that they barely even show the clothes they are trying to sell ? it is just as dumb in europe, and a lot of people resent all of the blatant sexual objectification.  look, a headless naked woman selling.  purses ? URL this nsfw perfume ad was banned in italy and i do not want to know what it smells like URL there is nothing wrong with using sexy advertising to sell clothes, but when your idea of subtlety is shoving a bottle of perfume up a disembodied woman is vagina, it just gets.  tacky.  sexist.  gross.   #  do you think ants look at their ant hill and think.   hey, maybe we should just live in a little hole in the country.   #   natural  is a constructed division between what our species does and what our species does not do.  humans do it ?  unnatural .  it is circular reasoning, rooted in our self appointed privileged position as demi gods, favored by a creator to be partly spiritual rather than completely mundane beings.  it is nonsense, if you ask me.  we are animals.  do you think ants look at their ant hill and think.   hey, maybe we should just live in a little hole in the country.  you know, get back to nature ?   hell no ! stripping leaves, raiding, and building ant hills  is  the ants nature.  and for us, finding innovative ways to protect and feed ourselves is in  our  nature.  everything we do, even if it is stupid and kills off a chunk of us, is natural.  what is arguably not natural for a human ? living naked and alone in the woods, like an ant off his hill.   #  i lived there for a while never notice anything like that.   # you know why they have so few fat people ? because besides a better diet, fat people are seen as disgusting.  i am not so sure about that.  i lived there for a while never notice anything like that.  also, sumo wrestlers are highly regarded over there, so i do not think they are particularly disgusted by fat people, at least not more than anywhere else at least.  then again, you may know something i do not, but i just did not get that impression from the time i lived there.  i really just think it is the better diet and perhaps there is a genetic component.   #  it is actually  possible  to buy clothing in larger sizes.   #  i have been to europe a few times and while i do not think the advertisements are  as  photoshopped on average, they are definitely tweaked with a couple of exceptions european ads for american apparel seem to have an intentionally bad,  amateur porn shot in somebody is basement with an old polaroid camera  hipster aesthetic .  fashion and celebrities have more influence on the mainstream ideal of  perfection  than porn does.  go into any convenience store from london to ljubljana and you will see the same photoshopped fashion magazines that you can buy in the us.  oh, but in europe, sometimes they will come packaged with free lingerie size xs only .  in japan, the photoshop is 0x stronger than anything you will see in the us.  a girl can go to a photo kiosk in any mall and have her image auto photoshopped for the  celebrity from uncanny valley  look: thinner, paler, smoother and with bigger eyes.  and while certain aspects of nudity public bathing, nude children, sexy swimsuit photo spreads in manga magazines that are marketed to middle school boys are okay, soooo many people are absolutely puritanical to a degree that would shock americans about female sexuality.  sexualized public nudity even a nip slip is not okay.  in the us, there is considerable variety in what is considered attractive.  it is actually  possible  to buy clothing in larger sizes.  plastic surgery still has something of a social stigma attached to it.  people in the us react with horror at the idea of children getting plastic surgery to be more beautiful, while that is totally acceptable in korea, brazil or ukraine places with very different attitudes towards nudity and sexuality .
in the us, i can turn cable tv on at 0pm and watch rotting corpses, murder, bombs, cadavers, and many other violent crimes.  and yet one tit, and the world goes mad insert janet jackson superbowl video the human body is an amazing thing.  it can be extremely diverse in appearance, but it is a beautiful thing that our society has somehow vilified to the point where it is more distasteful than the other things i mentioned.  in general, i believe the usa restricts nudity so much that it has actually become a detriment to our society.  we view almost all nudity as pornography, and limit it as all  adult content .  but this does not benefit anyone in anyway.  i think this has created several surprisingly negative side effects.  completely natural and normal things such as breast feeding and children being nude while playing/at the beach become sexualized and perverse.  young teenagers over sexualize nudity due to the rather complete restriction on it, which has now swung rather far the other way with the extent of internet pornagraphy.  the problem is that porn is typically the first and only area where young adults see nude bodies which further sexualizes and makes nudity  wrong .  it also increases body shame and embarrassment for two reasons; the first of which is that the only comparison many people have for what is  attractive/normal  is the rather skewed world of pornagraphy, and that we have chosen to eliminate normal forms of nudity public showers/baths/saunas which i believe directly leads to people not feeling comfortable in their own naked bodies.  this lack of comfort more easily leads to shame and self consciousness which has a host of other issues attached to it.  change my view.   #  which i believe directly leads to people not feeling comfortable in their own naked bodies.   #  so porn makes people not like the way they look ?  #  no complaint on the puritan thing, they were the 0st ones here on the mayflower, and it is hard to argue against it.  my debate is that it causes real problems.  and yet one tit, and the world goes mad insert janet jackson superbowl video the human body is an amazing thing.  it can be extremely diverse in appearance, but it is a beautiful thing that our society has somehow vilified to the point where it is more distasteful than the other things i mentioned.  apples v.  oranges.  you ca not really compare something on cable to something on national television like the superbowl.  if those things you mentioned were on the superbowl they would be equally distasteful.  really ? where ? i do not think this is the case at all.  the men is locker room is a nude fest and has been since the ymca in grade school.  so porn makes people not like the way they look ? i hear girls complaining about their hair more than anything else.  what in porn makes a girl not like her hair ? how does porn make girls with straight hair curl it, and girls with curly hair straighten it ? there are not too many rural folks that uptight about all these  issues  where i live.   #  it is just as dumb in europe, and a lot of people resent all of the blatant sexual objectification.   #  more nudity in the media does not magically solve the problems you mentioned, though.  in much of europe, where nudity and overt sexuality is common in advertising, and in japan, where public bathing is common, there is still a huge amount of body shaming.  europeans and japanese do not have broader standards for attractiveness and normality.  if anything, the pressure to be thin and perfect is probably  more  intense than in the us.  europe and japan still have social hangups over sex.  sexual violence still exists.  objectification of women still exists and in some cases, it is a whole lot worse .  there are widespread public concerns about pornography and pedophilia.  it is not as if the us is puritanical and the rest of the world is a paradise of sexual liberty and open mindedness and acceptance and appreciation for the human body.  there are some europeans who feel that there is too much sex in advertising not because sex is something inherently bad or shameful, but because sex is used as a blatant, pointless way to sell crap.  you know how lots of americans ridicule those abercrombie and fitch ads URL that are so focused on sex appeal and image that they barely even show the clothes they are trying to sell ? it is just as dumb in europe, and a lot of people resent all of the blatant sexual objectification.  look, a headless naked woman selling.  purses ? URL this nsfw perfume ad was banned in italy and i do not want to know what it smells like URL there is nothing wrong with using sexy advertising to sell clothes, but when your idea of subtlety is shoving a bottle of perfume up a disembodied woman is vagina, it just gets.  tacky.  sexist.  gross.   #   natural  is a constructed division between what our species does and what our species does not do.   #   natural  is a constructed division between what our species does and what our species does not do.  humans do it ?  unnatural .  it is circular reasoning, rooted in our self appointed privileged position as demi gods, favored by a creator to be partly spiritual rather than completely mundane beings.  it is nonsense, if you ask me.  we are animals.  do you think ants look at their ant hill and think.   hey, maybe we should just live in a little hole in the country.  you know, get back to nature ?   hell no ! stripping leaves, raiding, and building ant hills  is  the ants nature.  and for us, finding innovative ways to protect and feed ourselves is in  our  nature.  everything we do, even if it is stupid and kills off a chunk of us, is natural.  what is arguably not natural for a human ? living naked and alone in the woods, like an ant off his hill.   #  you know why they have so few fat people ?  # you know why they have so few fat people ? because besides a better diet, fat people are seen as disgusting.  i am not so sure about that.  i lived there for a while never notice anything like that.  also, sumo wrestlers are highly regarded over there, so i do not think they are particularly disgusted by fat people, at least not more than anywhere else at least.  then again, you may know something i do not, but i just did not get that impression from the time i lived there.  i really just think it is the better diet and perhaps there is a genetic component.   #  it is actually  possible  to buy clothing in larger sizes.   #  i have been to europe a few times and while i do not think the advertisements are  as  photoshopped on average, they are definitely tweaked with a couple of exceptions european ads for american apparel seem to have an intentionally bad,  amateur porn shot in somebody is basement with an old polaroid camera  hipster aesthetic .  fashion and celebrities have more influence on the mainstream ideal of  perfection  than porn does.  go into any convenience store from london to ljubljana and you will see the same photoshopped fashion magazines that you can buy in the us.  oh, but in europe, sometimes they will come packaged with free lingerie size xs only .  in japan, the photoshop is 0x stronger than anything you will see in the us.  a girl can go to a photo kiosk in any mall and have her image auto photoshopped for the  celebrity from uncanny valley  look: thinner, paler, smoother and with bigger eyes.  and while certain aspects of nudity public bathing, nude children, sexy swimsuit photo spreads in manga magazines that are marketed to middle school boys are okay, soooo many people are absolutely puritanical to a degree that would shock americans about female sexuality.  sexualized public nudity even a nip slip is not okay.  in the us, there is considerable variety in what is considered attractive.  it is actually  possible  to buy clothing in larger sizes.  plastic surgery still has something of a social stigma attached to it.  people in the us react with horror at the idea of children getting plastic surgery to be more beautiful, while that is totally acceptable in korea, brazil or ukraine places with very different attitudes towards nudity and sexuality .
cmw: i think that men as a group are objectively superior to women as a group .  subject i hold this view for a reason.  it is not an unfounded reason either.  we start this off with two assumptions.  0.  women and men are mentally equal.  both sexes exist as persons, and are people with equal mental powers.  0.  men are physically superior too women.  so most people consider these two assumptions true.  the mental and the physical is what makes us people, there are no other objective factors that make you, you.  while men might be stronger than women physically, women might be more flexible, or have some other physical traits.  i think men are superior physically you can try to change my view on this too even considering such factors that i am aware of .  so if both assumption 0 and 0 are true.  men are superior to women.  equal mentally but men are superior physically, therefore superior on the whole.  lets give these things a numerical value where higher is better.  the mental is 0 for both sexes.  the physical is 0 for women and 0 for men arbitrary number, can be anything above 0 .  women are 00 0.  men are 00 0 0 is a higher number than 0.  so here we have three ways for you to change my view that i can see there might be more .  0.  convince me that women are superior mentally to men.  0.  convince me that women are equal or greater physically to men.  0.  convince me that there are other factors the mental/physical that make people people and women are superior in that/those field s .  remember that i am talking about entire groups here on average, not one person versus another.  and might i add that i do not think men and women should be socially unequal.   #  the mental and the physical is what makes us people, there are no other objective factors that make you, you.   #  on the contrary, there are several other factors in what makes people people beyond iq and raw physical strength.   #  the first error is using metrics of superiority that are arbitrary.  now, if we are going to measure something as gauzy as  superiority,  we are going to have to get arbitrary, of course, but the main issue is the metrics are chosen by men/a man and thus are inherently more likely to support the concept of male superiority.  for instance, notice how  limited  the chosen metrics are   iq and raw physical strength.  we will get into this later.  another error is that of thinking that entire categories of people are naturally superior to entire other categories, when regarding women and men this is a sexist assumption no matter which sex  wins,  because all members of a group will never be superior or inferior to all members of another group, at least regarding the sexes.  but we will buy into that just for the sake of discussion here, because i like the idea of examining the first error above.  a third error is in thinking that such differences are due to nature and not nurture.  on the contrary, there are several other factors in what makes people people beyond iq and raw physical strength.  for instance, one might argue that the ability to make people is of supreme importance above all else and what makes a person a person.  or that managing emotional situations and relationships is most important.  or that the ability to live longest is incredibly important.  or that having a good memory is most important.  or being better at getting an education is most important.  or being better at handling pain is most important.  eh, i am not in the mood to try and change views.  i am really not a fan of trying to change misogynistic viewpoints, because in my experience they are not malleable and it winds up a waste of time.  but in any case, i have offered some thoughts to chew on, and the public might appreciate it.   #  you say men should not be treated like they are superior by society, so what is the point of saying they are superior ?  #  hmmm.  despite your last statement, it seems like your user name might be relevant ? as others have pointed out, you do not really give enough basis for your criteria to really change them.  i think that in areas like beauty women are generally considered superior.  women have a higher pain tolerance.  women live longer.  men are more likely to be color blind or have hemophilia.  without knowing more about what goes into each category, it is hard to know what you took into account and what you might be missing.  as the end of the day, so what ? you say men should not be treated like they are superior by society, so what is the point of saying they are superior ? it is like saying chocolate is your favorite flavor it may be true, but it does not matter.  finally, is it really even okay to talk about humans this way ? for example, say you had an identical twin.  you are equal in every way, until one day he falls from a tree and permanently injures his leg.  is it okay for your parents to use your math and say,  mysogyny man is our superior child  ?  #  you seem to be putting more emphasis on one then the other but give no reason for it it is arbitrary.   #  i do not like the fact that you are making sweeping generalizations some women, after all, are stronger then some men but you are obviously aware that you are making such generalizations, and realize that they do not always apply, so i will go with you here.  while we are making generalizations, women have stereotypically and on average displayed a greater ability to empathize with other people.  this, following your rules of logic about generalizations/stereotypes, is one area they have traditionally been better in.  there are a ton of other areas in which the same would apply to organization and analytics, for example .  i do not think it is fair that you claim to take flexibility into consideration for the  physically superior category  but then still say that men are physically superior.  i think you need to break down the categories.  men are stronger, women are more flexible.  those are both physical characteristics.  you seem to be putting more emphasis on one then the other but give no reason for it it is arbitrary.  so by that standard i could definitely make claims about women being mentally superior since i value empathy, organization and analytics over.  not even sure where men would be better then women mentally but that would just be my opinion on what mental powers are more important then others.  in general, you need to be more specific about these categories and state why you think one specific category is more important then the other.  but really.  what is the point of making this claim ? even if physical strength is more important then other physical attributes it does not even apply to all men or all women.  so why bother ? why not just evaluate everyone on their individual merit ? seems to me like you are just picking a fight maybe i am wrong in that.  i mean no disrespect.  i just do not see the point in this cmv .   #  purely in strength vs flexibility i can hardly think of any scenarios outside of specific competition where average strength but high flexibility would be preferable to high strength but average flexibility.   # . it is arbitrary no it is not.  take sports for an example.  as far as i am aware there is no sport, in the entire world, that is female top heavy.  not even including ones where flexibility is more important than strength.  men have more fast twitch muscles and the only thing that women can even compete with men in are endurance sports, and even there they are top male heavy.  ergo men are physically superior.  there is nothing arbitrary about it.  purely in strength vs flexibility i can hardly think of any scenarios outside of specific competition where average strength but high flexibility would be preferable to high strength but average flexibility.  men tend to do better in maths, and women in language.  most iq test studies give men 0 0 iq points on women, but it is equalized if you account for social standing poverty/location .  things that are not intelligence are culturally biased, and can not objectively be used to measure mental prowess.  mentally i consider men and women equal for these reasons.  now i have done so.  currently there is a post on the front page about the marxist value of a brittney spears song, and another about a fictional cross not belonging in a fictional museum.  people can talk about whatever view they wish here, and should not have to explain why they wish to talk about said view.  if you need an arbitrary reason, i enjoy writing, reading, logical discussion and using my brain.   #  since you already seem to understand that some women are physically superior then some men etc.   # a soldier has to crawl through air ducts to infiltrate an enemy base.  even if that were true source please , my point was about empathy.  not all mental powers are about intelligence empathy is an important part of being human too and it is a mental power.  if you do not use your mental powers, they will fade and your iq score will lower.  when women are not encouraged to participate in intellectual areas, their iqs fade.  everything  has cultural context even physical ability ! which is why i am saying there is no real point to this cmv.  thanks.  i am not saying you do not have a right to post this cmv or that you did something wrong after all, you are asking people to cyv .  i am merely asking why do you want to talk about this ? what is it going to do for you ? if someone changes your view, does that mean you will stop assuming men are better then women when you meet individuals ? since you already seem to understand that some women are physically superior then some men etc.  then what impact will it have on your life and how you interact with people ? obviously it is a personal question about your motivations, but i think it is important in understanding your point which i do not really get because you have no answered this question .  thanks for the reply !
i read a cmv that said that basically said that instead of legalizing gay marriage, the government should just stay out of all marriage URL which made me ask, why the government was even involved in marriage in the first place.  i understand why someone would incorporate religion to their marriage, but why the government for reasons other than tax breaks and laws that allow for a simpler financial life.  so why would the government want to ease your financial life when you fall deeply in love with someone else ? i ca not come up with a reason other than that it is their way of investing in you to reproduce to create the next generation of workers.  to me, this seems wrong.   #  which made me ask, why the government was even involved in marriage in the first place.   #  because contract enforcements are a business of the government.   # because contract enforcements are a business of the government.  because it is beneficial for the government for you to live a stable and happy life that does not create expenses and burdens for the rest of us.  it is the same reason the government works to give you clean air, reduces noises, provides transportation avenues, and supports public education.  or even allows corporations and businesses.  yes, they do exist at the government is behest.  why ? to make the wheels of interactivity turn a little easier.  the real question would be, why is religion trying to get control of marriage ?  #  whether most people use the benefits for that purpose is another matter entirely.   #  my father has extensively studied marriage and divorce law and there is a lot to be said about this subject.  he could do better than me, but he is not a redditor.  marriage operates legally as a joining of two people for almost all purposes.  obviously, they can be tried for crimes separately and such, but rights such as ownership of property and the right to make medical decisions for the other person when necessary are strong binding forces.  this gets extremely confusing.  if you read this article URL you will notice that a great many of the responsibilities within are designed to make other laws make sense, to give spouses as much legal weight as each other when making most meaningful decisions in an economic or health related sense .  for instance, joint adoption rights involves a ton of specific details.  to address your question, based on the legally joined nature of two people, it makes sense from a legal perspective to help those people be economically stable.  it is easier to get unemployment benefits if you are married, because the government  anticipates  that you may have kids and recognizes that the family unit ought to be more stable for that purpose.  you pay less taxes because the government is trying to compensate for the cost of children, which is ever increasing.  as soon as you factor in that there are going to be dependents who  ca not pay for themselves , what the government is really doing is subsidizing the cost or anticipated cost, in the cases of couples without kids of those who ca not pay for themselves yet.  this is done in an effort to improve family quality of life, especially for children.  it is not a discriminatory practice and it is, in many cases, economically necessary for people.  so yes, the government invests somewhat unequally in those who have or are likely to have kids.  to me, this is a morally upright practice, because it allows people to have to worry less about the cost of children.  imagine wanting a child desperately, for biological and lifestyle reasons, but being economically unable to justify it to yourself.  note also the timing of disbursed benefits.  the government does not give  massive  tax breaks or exemptions to married couples without kids.  they are smaller.  the biggest benefits come with children.  i would argue, as my father would, that the economic marriage benefits are meant to allow married couples to more easily prime themselves for the initial costs of children, most notably hospital bills from births.  whether most people use the benefits for that purpose is another matter entirely.  i hope i have adequately addressed this matter.  i tried to bring up diversified arguments but i understand there are naturally going to be gaps, or perhaps i did not adequately answer part of your question.  i hope i did.   #  in the past reproduction was important but today the government does not really care.   #  marriage does not ease your financial life.  for many people there is marriage tax penalty URL in fact.  and when it comes to things such as welfare benefits a single mom can often get a lot more money than a married mom if their boyfriend/husband has a job.  government is involved with marriage for the same reason civil unions for gay couples were pushed as an alternative.  it is is a method of legally combining income/wealth and decisions.  government likes that it creates an easily determined non blood connection.  but if you want to assume that the government is trying to encourage marriage then the reason today is far more about stability than about reproduction.  in the past reproduction was important but today the government does not really care.  we do not need high birth rates.  what we do want though is stability and marriage provides this.  facts are pretty clear that married people are financially and medically healthier in general.  stability does that for people and marriage provides stability.  it is not a solution for everything but on average married citizens are better for the government than unmarried citizens.   #  the progressive tax system would be disincentivizing specialization.   #  do you likewise think that the marriage penalty is the government is way of telling you not to reproduce ? the fundamental goal of treating a married couple as a couple rather than as two individuals is not to incentivize or disincentivize marriage.  it ends up doing so, and this is deeply problematic, but it is not the goal.  fundamentally, one person living alone must do all the work to make money and must also do all the housework/childcare/etc herself.  if she marries, she might split everything with her wife in this case they will have similar tax treatment whether they marry or not, unless they are poor or rich, in which case they will face a penalty.  however, they might not choose that arrangement.  they might instead have one wife focus on housework/childcare, while the other specializes in career.  now that she does not have to do housework or childcare, she can easily spend 0 hours in the office and make great money to support the family.  this kind of specialization is pretty common, but if there were no special marriage treatment, there would be an issue: the taxes on $0k income is more than double the taxes for $0k.  the progressive tax system would be disincentivizing specialization.  so the goal is to make the tax treatment of two women making $0k collectively the same treatment if one makes all $0k as if they each make $0k.  tldr: the goal of the marriage benefit/penalty is to equalize the tax treatment of two households making the same amount of money regardless of whether it is one spouse working full time or two spouses working part time.  the government does not do it quite right, but that is the goal.   #  in fact, just to survive, many spouses let their spouses commit crimes against them and police now have laws to prosecute spouses when the abused spouse refuses presumably because of fear of easy reprisal .   # humans tend to form romantic couples and these are and should be viewed as economic units.  consider a stay at home mom whose husband makes a lot of money.  if the government does not recognize this as an economic unit, then it views the woman as basically indigent and gives her unnecessary financial support.  recognizing the household as a household makes her life  more  difficult, since she is not getting unemployment benefits.  there are also necessary legal protections.  we recognize that couples tend to work differently than other groups of humans.  for example, if someone steals my car i am likely to press charges.  i will never see this person again and can safely return to my home.  suppose it is my husband, with whom i share a home.  what are my choices now ? in fact, just to survive, many spouses let their spouses commit crimes against them and police now have laws to prosecute spouses when the abused spouse refuses presumably because of fear of easy reprisal .  this is why we have to be able to recognize domestic units, so that we can talk about the special legal difficulties of these close, romantic relationships.  we have to be able to recognize these units because we need to know what to do with them when they split up.  two people living in the same apartment have not expressed an intention to support each other financially, so when they split we do not think we ought to redistribute their wealth.  in long lasting romantic relationships in which resources have been shared for quite some time ? this is important in terms of sickness and death, when the government needs to know who is making the decisions for someone in a coma.  there needs to a default and, if romantic partners are not recognized as the default, chaos will ensue.  this is one of the major reasons lgbt people want recognition marriage allows us to act in the place of our spouse in a lot of legal, financial questions.  there are lots of reasons we would want to recognize these relationships legally and i would argue that doing so does not make everything easier.
i read a cmv that said that basically said that instead of legalizing gay marriage, the government should just stay out of all marriage URL which made me ask, why the government was even involved in marriage in the first place.  i understand why someone would incorporate religion to their marriage, but why the government for reasons other than tax breaks and laws that allow for a simpler financial life.  so why would the government want to ease your financial life when you fall deeply in love with someone else ? i ca not come up with a reason other than that it is their way of investing in you to reproduce to create the next generation of workers.  to me, this seems wrong.   #  so why would the government want to ease your financial life when you fall deeply in love with someone else ?  #  because it is beneficial for the government for you to live a stable and happy life that does not create expenses and burdens for the rest of us.   # because contract enforcements are a business of the government.  because it is beneficial for the government for you to live a stable and happy life that does not create expenses and burdens for the rest of us.  it is the same reason the government works to give you clean air, reduces noises, provides transportation avenues, and supports public education.  or even allows corporations and businesses.  yes, they do exist at the government is behest.  why ? to make the wheels of interactivity turn a little easier.  the real question would be, why is religion trying to get control of marriage ?  #  so yes, the government invests somewhat unequally in those who have or are likely to have kids.   #  my father has extensively studied marriage and divorce law and there is a lot to be said about this subject.  he could do better than me, but he is not a redditor.  marriage operates legally as a joining of two people for almost all purposes.  obviously, they can be tried for crimes separately and such, but rights such as ownership of property and the right to make medical decisions for the other person when necessary are strong binding forces.  this gets extremely confusing.  if you read this article URL you will notice that a great many of the responsibilities within are designed to make other laws make sense, to give spouses as much legal weight as each other when making most meaningful decisions in an economic or health related sense .  for instance, joint adoption rights involves a ton of specific details.  to address your question, based on the legally joined nature of two people, it makes sense from a legal perspective to help those people be economically stable.  it is easier to get unemployment benefits if you are married, because the government  anticipates  that you may have kids and recognizes that the family unit ought to be more stable for that purpose.  you pay less taxes because the government is trying to compensate for the cost of children, which is ever increasing.  as soon as you factor in that there are going to be dependents who  ca not pay for themselves , what the government is really doing is subsidizing the cost or anticipated cost, in the cases of couples without kids of those who ca not pay for themselves yet.  this is done in an effort to improve family quality of life, especially for children.  it is not a discriminatory practice and it is, in many cases, economically necessary for people.  so yes, the government invests somewhat unequally in those who have or are likely to have kids.  to me, this is a morally upright practice, because it allows people to have to worry less about the cost of children.  imagine wanting a child desperately, for biological and lifestyle reasons, but being economically unable to justify it to yourself.  note also the timing of disbursed benefits.  the government does not give  massive  tax breaks or exemptions to married couples without kids.  they are smaller.  the biggest benefits come with children.  i would argue, as my father would, that the economic marriage benefits are meant to allow married couples to more easily prime themselves for the initial costs of children, most notably hospital bills from births.  whether most people use the benefits for that purpose is another matter entirely.  i hope i have adequately addressed this matter.  i tried to bring up diversified arguments but i understand there are naturally going to be gaps, or perhaps i did not adequately answer part of your question.  i hope i did.   #  government likes that it creates an easily determined non blood connection.   #  marriage does not ease your financial life.  for many people there is marriage tax penalty URL in fact.  and when it comes to things such as welfare benefits a single mom can often get a lot more money than a married mom if their boyfriend/husband has a job.  government is involved with marriage for the same reason civil unions for gay couples were pushed as an alternative.  it is is a method of legally combining income/wealth and decisions.  government likes that it creates an easily determined non blood connection.  but if you want to assume that the government is trying to encourage marriage then the reason today is far more about stability than about reproduction.  in the past reproduction was important but today the government does not really care.  we do not need high birth rates.  what we do want though is stability and marriage provides this.  facts are pretty clear that married people are financially and medically healthier in general.  stability does that for people and marriage provides stability.  it is not a solution for everything but on average married citizens are better for the government than unmarried citizens.   #  this kind of specialization is pretty common, but if there were no special marriage treatment, there would be an issue: the taxes on $0k income is more than double the taxes for $0k.   #  do you likewise think that the marriage penalty is the government is way of telling you not to reproduce ? the fundamental goal of treating a married couple as a couple rather than as two individuals is not to incentivize or disincentivize marriage.  it ends up doing so, and this is deeply problematic, but it is not the goal.  fundamentally, one person living alone must do all the work to make money and must also do all the housework/childcare/etc herself.  if she marries, she might split everything with her wife in this case they will have similar tax treatment whether they marry or not, unless they are poor or rich, in which case they will face a penalty.  however, they might not choose that arrangement.  they might instead have one wife focus on housework/childcare, while the other specializes in career.  now that she does not have to do housework or childcare, she can easily spend 0 hours in the office and make great money to support the family.  this kind of specialization is pretty common, but if there were no special marriage treatment, there would be an issue: the taxes on $0k income is more than double the taxes for $0k.  the progressive tax system would be disincentivizing specialization.  so the goal is to make the tax treatment of two women making $0k collectively the same treatment if one makes all $0k as if they each make $0k.  tldr: the goal of the marriage benefit/penalty is to equalize the tax treatment of two households making the same amount of money regardless of whether it is one spouse working full time or two spouses working part time.  the government does not do it quite right, but that is the goal.   #  if the government does not recognize this as an economic unit, then it views the woman as basically indigent and gives her unnecessary financial support.   # humans tend to form romantic couples and these are and should be viewed as economic units.  consider a stay at home mom whose husband makes a lot of money.  if the government does not recognize this as an economic unit, then it views the woman as basically indigent and gives her unnecessary financial support.  recognizing the household as a household makes her life  more  difficult, since she is not getting unemployment benefits.  there are also necessary legal protections.  we recognize that couples tend to work differently than other groups of humans.  for example, if someone steals my car i am likely to press charges.  i will never see this person again and can safely return to my home.  suppose it is my husband, with whom i share a home.  what are my choices now ? in fact, just to survive, many spouses let their spouses commit crimes against them and police now have laws to prosecute spouses when the abused spouse refuses presumably because of fear of easy reprisal .  this is why we have to be able to recognize domestic units, so that we can talk about the special legal difficulties of these close, romantic relationships.  we have to be able to recognize these units because we need to know what to do with them when they split up.  two people living in the same apartment have not expressed an intention to support each other financially, so when they split we do not think we ought to redistribute their wealth.  in long lasting romantic relationships in which resources have been shared for quite some time ? this is important in terms of sickness and death, when the government needs to know who is making the decisions for someone in a coma.  there needs to a default and, if romantic partners are not recognized as the default, chaos will ensue.  this is one of the major reasons lgbt people want recognition marriage allows us to act in the place of our spouse in a lot of legal, financial questions.  there are lots of reasons we would want to recognize these relationships legally and i would argue that doing so does not make everything easier.
i read a cmv that said that basically said that instead of legalizing gay marriage, the government should just stay out of all marriage URL which made me ask, why the government was even involved in marriage in the first place.  i understand why someone would incorporate religion to their marriage, but why the government for reasons other than tax breaks and laws that allow for a simpler financial life.  so why would the government want to ease your financial life when you fall deeply in love with someone else ? i ca not come up with a reason other than that it is their way of investing in you to reproduce to create the next generation of workers.  to me, this seems wrong.   #  i ca not come up with a reason other than that it is their way of investing in you to reproduce to create the next generation of workers.   #  humans tend to form romantic couples and these are and should be viewed as economic units.   # humans tend to form romantic couples and these are and should be viewed as economic units.  consider a stay at home mom whose husband makes a lot of money.  if the government does not recognize this as an economic unit, then it views the woman as basically indigent and gives her unnecessary financial support.  recognizing the household as a household makes her life  more  difficult, since she is not getting unemployment benefits.  there are also necessary legal protections.  we recognize that couples tend to work differently than other groups of humans.  for example, if someone steals my car i am likely to press charges.  i will never see this person again and can safely return to my home.  suppose it is my husband, with whom i share a home.  what are my choices now ? in fact, just to survive, many spouses let their spouses commit crimes against them and police now have laws to prosecute spouses when the abused spouse refuses presumably because of fear of easy reprisal .  this is why we have to be able to recognize domestic units, so that we can talk about the special legal difficulties of these close, romantic relationships.  we have to be able to recognize these units because we need to know what to do with them when they split up.  two people living in the same apartment have not expressed an intention to support each other financially, so when they split we do not think we ought to redistribute their wealth.  in long lasting romantic relationships in which resources have been shared for quite some time ? this is important in terms of sickness and death, when the government needs to know who is making the decisions for someone in a coma.  there needs to a default and, if romantic partners are not recognized as the default, chaos will ensue.  this is one of the major reasons lgbt people want recognition marriage allows us to act in the place of our spouse in a lot of legal, financial questions.  there are lots of reasons we would want to recognize these relationships legally and i would argue that doing so does not make everything easier.   #  i would argue, as my father would, that the economic marriage benefits are meant to allow married couples to more easily prime themselves for the initial costs of children, most notably hospital bills from births.   #  my father has extensively studied marriage and divorce law and there is a lot to be said about this subject.  he could do better than me, but he is not a redditor.  marriage operates legally as a joining of two people for almost all purposes.  obviously, they can be tried for crimes separately and such, but rights such as ownership of property and the right to make medical decisions for the other person when necessary are strong binding forces.  this gets extremely confusing.  if you read this article URL you will notice that a great many of the responsibilities within are designed to make other laws make sense, to give spouses as much legal weight as each other when making most meaningful decisions in an economic or health related sense .  for instance, joint adoption rights involves a ton of specific details.  to address your question, based on the legally joined nature of two people, it makes sense from a legal perspective to help those people be economically stable.  it is easier to get unemployment benefits if you are married, because the government  anticipates  that you may have kids and recognizes that the family unit ought to be more stable for that purpose.  you pay less taxes because the government is trying to compensate for the cost of children, which is ever increasing.  as soon as you factor in that there are going to be dependents who  ca not pay for themselves , what the government is really doing is subsidizing the cost or anticipated cost, in the cases of couples without kids of those who ca not pay for themselves yet.  this is done in an effort to improve family quality of life, especially for children.  it is not a discriminatory practice and it is, in many cases, economically necessary for people.  so yes, the government invests somewhat unequally in those who have or are likely to have kids.  to me, this is a morally upright practice, because it allows people to have to worry less about the cost of children.  imagine wanting a child desperately, for biological and lifestyle reasons, but being economically unable to justify it to yourself.  note also the timing of disbursed benefits.  the government does not give  massive  tax breaks or exemptions to married couples without kids.  they are smaller.  the biggest benefits come with children.  i would argue, as my father would, that the economic marriage benefits are meant to allow married couples to more easily prime themselves for the initial costs of children, most notably hospital bills from births.  whether most people use the benefits for that purpose is another matter entirely.  i hope i have adequately addressed this matter.  i tried to bring up diversified arguments but i understand there are naturally going to be gaps, or perhaps i did not adequately answer part of your question.  i hope i did.   #  but if you want to assume that the government is trying to encourage marriage then the reason today is far more about stability than about reproduction.   #  marriage does not ease your financial life.  for many people there is marriage tax penalty URL in fact.  and when it comes to things such as welfare benefits a single mom can often get a lot more money than a married mom if their boyfriend/husband has a job.  government is involved with marriage for the same reason civil unions for gay couples were pushed as an alternative.  it is is a method of legally combining income/wealth and decisions.  government likes that it creates an easily determined non blood connection.  but if you want to assume that the government is trying to encourage marriage then the reason today is far more about stability than about reproduction.  in the past reproduction was important but today the government does not really care.  we do not need high birth rates.  what we do want though is stability and marriage provides this.  facts are pretty clear that married people are financially and medically healthier in general.  stability does that for people and marriage provides stability.  it is not a solution for everything but on average married citizens are better for the government than unmarried citizens.   #  fundamentally, one person living alone must do all the work to make money and must also do all the housework/childcare/etc herself.   #  do you likewise think that the marriage penalty is the government is way of telling you not to reproduce ? the fundamental goal of treating a married couple as a couple rather than as two individuals is not to incentivize or disincentivize marriage.  it ends up doing so, and this is deeply problematic, but it is not the goal.  fundamentally, one person living alone must do all the work to make money and must also do all the housework/childcare/etc herself.  if she marries, she might split everything with her wife in this case they will have similar tax treatment whether they marry or not, unless they are poor or rich, in which case they will face a penalty.  however, they might not choose that arrangement.  they might instead have one wife focus on housework/childcare, while the other specializes in career.  now that she does not have to do housework or childcare, she can easily spend 0 hours in the office and make great money to support the family.  this kind of specialization is pretty common, but if there were no special marriage treatment, there would be an issue: the taxes on $0k income is more than double the taxes for $0k.  the progressive tax system would be disincentivizing specialization.  so the goal is to make the tax treatment of two women making $0k collectively the same treatment if one makes all $0k as if they each make $0k.  tldr: the goal of the marriage benefit/penalty is to equalize the tax treatment of two households making the same amount of money regardless of whether it is one spouse working full time or two spouses working part time.  the government does not do it quite right, but that is the goal.   #  because contract enforcements are a business of the government.   # because contract enforcements are a business of the government.  because it is beneficial for the government for you to live a stable and happy life that does not create expenses and burdens for the rest of us.  it is the same reason the government works to give you clean air, reduces noises, provides transportation avenues, and supports public education.  or even allows corporations and businesses.  yes, they do exist at the government is behest.  why ? to make the wheels of interactivity turn a little easier.  the real question would be, why is religion trying to get control of marriage ?
note: my knowledge here is based primarily on the recent films and videogames.   gotham is a cesspool of corruption, violence and greed.  criminals permeate every level of society, business and politics and manipulate it all for their benefit.  even the police force is filled with nothing but self serving, crooked cops looking for extra money to look the other way.  jim gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop  the only good cop  in a city wide department.  mobsters and petty criminals walk freely without fear of retribution due to the corruption.  there was hope when it came to their political and criminal saviour, harvey dent.  but he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.  the city is plagued by psychotic villains who steal and kill constantly, who seem to manipulate or break their way out of prison with fearful ease.  no matter how the forces of gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.  the people of gotham are also apathetic to any of these issues.  when gotham is taken over by bane they turn on each other, ransacking higher end properties and throwing people out on the street.  when the city is under a bomb threat they curse their neighbours for the escape to safety before them; unlike metropolis where, faced with a hugely destructive machine, people stayed behind to help save their fellow man.  gotham citizens are as selfish as criminals above them, and given half the opportunity they would succumb to corruption themselves.  but not only is gotham full of criminals, apathy or ignorance, but it is also constantly threatened by people wishing to destroy it.  shady organisations, activists, you name it, all want gotham destroyed.  with such an outside influence constantly barraging the city, i do not think it is possible to keep its defences.  however, i do agree that the city has its hopeful points.  there are many charitable organisations to help children such as the thomas and martha wayne foundation and there is this strange batman that is trying to sort out the city, but i do not believe that is enough.  one man ca not take down a criminal organisation, and it is not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in gotham.  gotham is doomed.  change my view.   #  one man ca not take down a criminal organisation, and it is not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in gotham.   #  as you may know, there was a spot of trouble in arkham city, when the mayor, bruce wayne, jack ryder, and vicki vale, and others were taken by criminal elements.   # as you may know, there was a spot of trouble in arkham city, when the mayor, bruce wayne, jack ryder, and vicki vale, and others were taken by criminal elements.  the batman showed up shortly after ryder and wayne were taken into arkham city, and he took out the following criminals  before dawn : two face, the riddler, victor zsasz, bane, clayface, solomon grundy, deadshot, mad hatter, black mask, calendar man, mister hammer and sickle, deathstroke, the penguin, mr.  freeze, ra is al ghul, dr.  hugo strange, harley quinn, and the joker.  not bad for  one night is work .   #  another sign of how kind hearted and principled the people of gotham are, despite this plague of supervillains they refuse to pass the death penalty.   #  this is a hazard of spending all your time watching batman and commissioner gordon interact with the worst people in gotham, who are also far more competent criminals than anything real life police encounter.  we just do not get to see as much of the good people of gotham, but we know they exist, batman is protecting them.  we also know that this is a vibrant city because of the architecture, there is a surprising variety, suggesting that the architects and construction firms are busy, something that is not true in a dying city.  there is also a great deal of wealth in gotham, suggesting many vibrant businesses, including, of course, wayne enterprises, which is so profitable bruce wayne can pretty much ignore it.  and there is a high level of technology and industry, which unfortunately we only see when batman or one of the supervillains is using it, but must have many peaceful uses.  in fact, most of the true evils of gotham can be traced to a small number of supervillains they have to be supervillains because the vast majority of gotham is citizens are good people at heart.  a dying city has much more mundane evils, no supervillains required.  it is true that the police force is overwhelmed by these supervillains, but that is something other cities do not have to encounter.  if commissioner gordon did not have to deal with supervillains, he could clean up the department, he is the commissioner, after all.  but no, every time he is about to get started, another maniacal genius with unlimited resources pops up out of nowhere.  still, he is clearly a competent guy, it is really not fair to blame him, let alone all of gotham.  another sign of how kind hearted and principled the people of gotham are, despite this plague of supervillains they refuse to pass the death penalty.  in fact, there are times where they actually accept the joker is or two face is insanity pleas, which surely would not fly in u. s.  courts.   #  you have got slum lords with  literally hundreds of illegal violations going back decades  who still being issued new building permits.   #  lets compare gotham to brooklyn.  da hynes let the imf rapist go free, then he raped again.  he left a legacy 0 convictions that have to be reviewed.  prostitutes were involved in false statements.  public money went to his failed re election campaign.  you have got slum lords with  literally hundreds of illegal violations going back decades  who still being issued new building permits.  so, just like brooklyn it might be the prosecution, not the criminal catcher.  i liked dent.  do not get me wrong.  but. the batman is not the final word on justice   crime prevention.  he can only react to the whim of the people.  he ca not systemically  change  anything.  the batman keeps the streets safe.  but city hall is beyond even  his  reach.  wayne for mayor 0.   #  plus, he is got washington is ear, with wayne enterprises.   #  if so, they are probably like bloomberg is daughter or romney is wife so insufferably sheltered   out of touch, they are just too awkward to quote in print.  wayne is like jfk or gwb the voters do not mind a playboy, as long as they can get results.  we already know he can hold his liquor better than that infamous gentleman from toronto.  plus, he is got washington is ear, with wayne enterprises.  he obviously knows how to work the system   milk funding.  it would be nice if he focused on local crime, not just far off war machines.   #  is it better to do nothing and let the criminals win or should you at least try regardless of your belief in victory ?  #  we can view this from the other side as well.  is it better to do nothing and let the criminals win or should you at least try regardless of your belief in victory ? even if batman is not able to take out every single criminal and they keep coming back, he is a symbol of hope.  this symbol resonates with people, not because he is a hero with superpowers but because he is an ordinary man that takes upon himself to fight for what he believes is right.  this stream of light in the otherwise total darkness is what gives the people of the city the courage to endure their lives.
note: my knowledge here is based primarily on the recent films and videogames.   gotham is a cesspool of corruption, violence and greed.  criminals permeate every level of society, business and politics and manipulate it all for their benefit.  even the police force is filled with nothing but self serving, crooked cops looking for extra money to look the other way.  jim gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop  the only good cop  in a city wide department.  mobsters and petty criminals walk freely without fear of retribution due to the corruption.  there was hope when it came to their political and criminal saviour, harvey dent.  but he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.  the city is plagued by psychotic villains who steal and kill constantly, who seem to manipulate or break their way out of prison with fearful ease.  no matter how the forces of gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.  the people of gotham are also apathetic to any of these issues.  when gotham is taken over by bane they turn on each other, ransacking higher end properties and throwing people out on the street.  when the city is under a bomb threat they curse their neighbours for the escape to safety before them; unlike metropolis where, faced with a hugely destructive machine, people stayed behind to help save their fellow man.  gotham citizens are as selfish as criminals above them, and given half the opportunity they would succumb to corruption themselves.  but not only is gotham full of criminals, apathy or ignorance, but it is also constantly threatened by people wishing to destroy it.  shady organisations, activists, you name it, all want gotham destroyed.  with such an outside influence constantly barraging the city, i do not think it is possible to keep its defences.  however, i do agree that the city has its hopeful points.  there are many charitable organisations to help children such as the thomas and martha wayne foundation and there is this strange batman that is trying to sort out the city, but i do not believe that is enough.  one man ca not take down a criminal organisation, and it is not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in gotham.  gotham is doomed.  change my view.   #  note: my knowledge here is based primarily on the recent films and videogames.   #  that is going to reflect one of the problems with a discussion of a fictional entity which has many interpretations. it is not consistent in portrayal at all.   # that is going to reflect one of the problems with a discussion of a fictional entity which has many interpretations. it is not consistent in portrayal at all.  so pardon me if i diverge somewhat from yours.  jim gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop the only good cop in a city wide department.  nothing more than the self serving egotism of an idealist.  jim gordon is not the only decent cop in gcpd.  he may want to think so, it fits his persecution complex, but that is just his own failings coming to bear.  but he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.  harvey dent had existing issues with his mental health.  blaming them on gotham is just a cop out.  no matter how the forces of gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.  this seems to be a worldwide problem, not just for gotham.  star city, central city, they all have their plagues.  even shining metropolis has its share of such.  i think it has something to do the endless and the abnegation by destruction of his duties.  i give you a different story.  even fear does not destroy the people of gotham URL   one man ca not take down a criminal organisation, and it is not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in gotham.  unfortunately, this bat man vigilante is an unknown.  who is he ? he seems to have a lot of resources, and appears all over the place, so much that i wonder if he is in fact one man.  i think it is more likely he is either a fabrication or a host of individuals acting under a banner.  a league of bat men as it were, seeking to bring justice to gotham.  questionable to be sure, and perhaps outright illegal, but it is very hard to believe one man could do it.   #  a dying city has much more mundane evils, no supervillains required.   #  this is a hazard of spending all your time watching batman and commissioner gordon interact with the worst people in gotham, who are also far more competent criminals than anything real life police encounter.  we just do not get to see as much of the good people of gotham, but we know they exist, batman is protecting them.  we also know that this is a vibrant city because of the architecture, there is a surprising variety, suggesting that the architects and construction firms are busy, something that is not true in a dying city.  there is also a great deal of wealth in gotham, suggesting many vibrant businesses, including, of course, wayne enterprises, which is so profitable bruce wayne can pretty much ignore it.  and there is a high level of technology and industry, which unfortunately we only see when batman or one of the supervillains is using it, but must have many peaceful uses.  in fact, most of the true evils of gotham can be traced to a small number of supervillains they have to be supervillains because the vast majority of gotham is citizens are good people at heart.  a dying city has much more mundane evils, no supervillains required.  it is true that the police force is overwhelmed by these supervillains, but that is something other cities do not have to encounter.  if commissioner gordon did not have to deal with supervillains, he could clean up the department, he is the commissioner, after all.  but no, every time he is about to get started, another maniacal genius with unlimited resources pops up out of nowhere.  still, he is clearly a competent guy, it is really not fair to blame him, let alone all of gotham.  another sign of how kind hearted and principled the people of gotham are, despite this plague of supervillains they refuse to pass the death penalty.  in fact, there are times where they actually accept the joker is or two face is insanity pleas, which surely would not fly in u. s.  courts.   #  public money went to his failed re election campaign.   #  lets compare gotham to brooklyn.  da hynes let the imf rapist go free, then he raped again.  he left a legacy 0 convictions that have to be reviewed.  prostitutes were involved in false statements.  public money went to his failed re election campaign.  you have got slum lords with  literally hundreds of illegal violations going back decades  who still being issued new building permits.  so, just like brooklyn it might be the prosecution, not the criminal catcher.  i liked dent.  do not get me wrong.  but. the batman is not the final word on justice   crime prevention.  he can only react to the whim of the people.  he ca not systemically  change  anything.  the batman keeps the streets safe.  but city hall is beyond even  his  reach.  wayne for mayor 0.   #  he obviously knows how to work the system   milk funding.   #  if so, they are probably like bloomberg is daughter or romney is wife so insufferably sheltered   out of touch, they are just too awkward to quote in print.  wayne is like jfk or gwb the voters do not mind a playboy, as long as they can get results.  we already know he can hold his liquor better than that infamous gentleman from toronto.  plus, he is got washington is ear, with wayne enterprises.  he obviously knows how to work the system   milk funding.  it would be nice if he focused on local crime, not just far off war machines.   #  is it better to do nothing and let the criminals win or should you at least try regardless of your belief in victory ?  #  we can view this from the other side as well.  is it better to do nothing and let the criminals win or should you at least try regardless of your belief in victory ? even if batman is not able to take out every single criminal and they keep coming back, he is a symbol of hope.  this symbol resonates with people, not because he is a hero with superpowers but because he is an ordinary man that takes upon himself to fight for what he believes is right.  this stream of light in the otherwise total darkness is what gives the people of the city the courage to endure their lives.
note: my knowledge here is based primarily on the recent films and videogames.   gotham is a cesspool of corruption, violence and greed.  criminals permeate every level of society, business and politics and manipulate it all for their benefit.  even the police force is filled with nothing but self serving, crooked cops looking for extra money to look the other way.  jim gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop  the only good cop  in a city wide department.  mobsters and petty criminals walk freely without fear of retribution due to the corruption.  there was hope when it came to their political and criminal saviour, harvey dent.  but he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.  the city is plagued by psychotic villains who steal and kill constantly, who seem to manipulate or break their way out of prison with fearful ease.  no matter how the forces of gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.  the people of gotham are also apathetic to any of these issues.  when gotham is taken over by bane they turn on each other, ransacking higher end properties and throwing people out on the street.  when the city is under a bomb threat they curse their neighbours for the escape to safety before them; unlike metropolis where, faced with a hugely destructive machine, people stayed behind to help save their fellow man.  gotham citizens are as selfish as criminals above them, and given half the opportunity they would succumb to corruption themselves.  but not only is gotham full of criminals, apathy or ignorance, but it is also constantly threatened by people wishing to destroy it.  shady organisations, activists, you name it, all want gotham destroyed.  with such an outside influence constantly barraging the city, i do not think it is possible to keep its defences.  however, i do agree that the city has its hopeful points.  there are many charitable organisations to help children such as the thomas and martha wayne foundation and there is this strange batman that is trying to sort out the city, but i do not believe that is enough.  one man ca not take down a criminal organisation, and it is not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in gotham.  gotham is doomed.  change my view.   #  even the police force is filled with nothing but self serving, crooked cops looking for extra money to look the other way.   #  jim gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop the only good cop in a city wide department.   # that is going to reflect one of the problems with a discussion of a fictional entity which has many interpretations. it is not consistent in portrayal at all.  so pardon me if i diverge somewhat from yours.  jim gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop the only good cop in a city wide department.  nothing more than the self serving egotism of an idealist.  jim gordon is not the only decent cop in gcpd.  he may want to think so, it fits his persecution complex, but that is just his own failings coming to bear.  but he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.  harvey dent had existing issues with his mental health.  blaming them on gotham is just a cop out.  no matter how the forces of gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.  this seems to be a worldwide problem, not just for gotham.  star city, central city, they all have their plagues.  even shining metropolis has its share of such.  i think it has something to do the endless and the abnegation by destruction of his duties.  i give you a different story.  even fear does not destroy the people of gotham URL   one man ca not take down a criminal organisation, and it is not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in gotham.  unfortunately, this bat man vigilante is an unknown.  who is he ? he seems to have a lot of resources, and appears all over the place, so much that i wonder if he is in fact one man.  i think it is more likely he is either a fabrication or a host of individuals acting under a banner.  a league of bat men as it were, seeking to bring justice to gotham.  questionable to be sure, and perhaps outright illegal, but it is very hard to believe one man could do it.   #  if commissioner gordon did not have to deal with supervillains, he could clean up the department, he is the commissioner, after all.   #  this is a hazard of spending all your time watching batman and commissioner gordon interact with the worst people in gotham, who are also far more competent criminals than anything real life police encounter.  we just do not get to see as much of the good people of gotham, but we know they exist, batman is protecting them.  we also know that this is a vibrant city because of the architecture, there is a surprising variety, suggesting that the architects and construction firms are busy, something that is not true in a dying city.  there is also a great deal of wealth in gotham, suggesting many vibrant businesses, including, of course, wayne enterprises, which is so profitable bruce wayne can pretty much ignore it.  and there is a high level of technology and industry, which unfortunately we only see when batman or one of the supervillains is using it, but must have many peaceful uses.  in fact, most of the true evils of gotham can be traced to a small number of supervillains they have to be supervillains because the vast majority of gotham is citizens are good people at heart.  a dying city has much more mundane evils, no supervillains required.  it is true that the police force is overwhelmed by these supervillains, but that is something other cities do not have to encounter.  if commissioner gordon did not have to deal with supervillains, he could clean up the department, he is the commissioner, after all.  but no, every time he is about to get started, another maniacal genius with unlimited resources pops up out of nowhere.  still, he is clearly a competent guy, it is really not fair to blame him, let alone all of gotham.  another sign of how kind hearted and principled the people of gotham are, despite this plague of supervillains they refuse to pass the death penalty.  in fact, there are times where they actually accept the joker is or two face is insanity pleas, which surely would not fly in u. s.  courts.   #  so, just like brooklyn it might be the prosecution, not the criminal catcher.   #  lets compare gotham to brooklyn.  da hynes let the imf rapist go free, then he raped again.  he left a legacy 0 convictions that have to be reviewed.  prostitutes were involved in false statements.  public money went to his failed re election campaign.  you have got slum lords with  literally hundreds of illegal violations going back decades  who still being issued new building permits.  so, just like brooklyn it might be the prosecution, not the criminal catcher.  i liked dent.  do not get me wrong.  but. the batman is not the final word on justice   crime prevention.  he can only react to the whim of the people.  he ca not systemically  change  anything.  the batman keeps the streets safe.  but city hall is beyond even  his  reach.  wayne for mayor 0.   #  plus, he is got washington is ear, with wayne enterprises.   #  if so, they are probably like bloomberg is daughter or romney is wife so insufferably sheltered   out of touch, they are just too awkward to quote in print.  wayne is like jfk or gwb the voters do not mind a playboy, as long as they can get results.  we already know he can hold his liquor better than that infamous gentleman from toronto.  plus, he is got washington is ear, with wayne enterprises.  he obviously knows how to work the system   milk funding.  it would be nice if he focused on local crime, not just far off war machines.   #  we can view this from the other side as well.   #  we can view this from the other side as well.  is it better to do nothing and let the criminals win or should you at least try regardless of your belief in victory ? even if batman is not able to take out every single criminal and they keep coming back, he is a symbol of hope.  this symbol resonates with people, not because he is a hero with superpowers but because he is an ordinary man that takes upon himself to fight for what he believes is right.  this stream of light in the otherwise total darkness is what gives the people of the city the courage to endure their lives.
note: my knowledge here is based primarily on the recent films and videogames.   gotham is a cesspool of corruption, violence and greed.  criminals permeate every level of society, business and politics and manipulate it all for their benefit.  even the police force is filled with nothing but self serving, crooked cops looking for extra money to look the other way.  jim gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop  the only good cop  in a city wide department.  mobsters and petty criminals walk freely without fear of retribution due to the corruption.  there was hope when it came to their political and criminal saviour, harvey dent.  but he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.  the city is plagued by psychotic villains who steal and kill constantly, who seem to manipulate or break their way out of prison with fearful ease.  no matter how the forces of gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.  the people of gotham are also apathetic to any of these issues.  when gotham is taken over by bane they turn on each other, ransacking higher end properties and throwing people out on the street.  when the city is under a bomb threat they curse their neighbours for the escape to safety before them; unlike metropolis where, faced with a hugely destructive machine, people stayed behind to help save their fellow man.  gotham citizens are as selfish as criminals above them, and given half the opportunity they would succumb to corruption themselves.  but not only is gotham full of criminals, apathy or ignorance, but it is also constantly threatened by people wishing to destroy it.  shady organisations, activists, you name it, all want gotham destroyed.  with such an outside influence constantly barraging the city, i do not think it is possible to keep its defences.  however, i do agree that the city has its hopeful points.  there are many charitable organisations to help children such as the thomas and martha wayne foundation and there is this strange batman that is trying to sort out the city, but i do not believe that is enough.  one man ca not take down a criminal organisation, and it is not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in gotham.  gotham is doomed.  change my view.   #  there was hope when it came to their political and criminal saviour, harvey dent.   #  but he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.   # that is going to reflect one of the problems with a discussion of a fictional entity which has many interpretations. it is not consistent in portrayal at all.  so pardon me if i diverge somewhat from yours.  jim gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop the only good cop in a city wide department.  nothing more than the self serving egotism of an idealist.  jim gordon is not the only decent cop in gcpd.  he may want to think so, it fits his persecution complex, but that is just his own failings coming to bear.  but he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.  harvey dent had existing issues with his mental health.  blaming them on gotham is just a cop out.  no matter how the forces of gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.  this seems to be a worldwide problem, not just for gotham.  star city, central city, they all have their plagues.  even shining metropolis has its share of such.  i think it has something to do the endless and the abnegation by destruction of his duties.  i give you a different story.  even fear does not destroy the people of gotham URL   one man ca not take down a criminal organisation, and it is not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in gotham.  unfortunately, this bat man vigilante is an unknown.  who is he ? he seems to have a lot of resources, and appears all over the place, so much that i wonder if he is in fact one man.  i think it is more likely he is either a fabrication or a host of individuals acting under a banner.  a league of bat men as it were, seeking to bring justice to gotham.  questionable to be sure, and perhaps outright illegal, but it is very hard to believe one man could do it.   #  but no, every time he is about to get started, another maniacal genius with unlimited resources pops up out of nowhere.   #  this is a hazard of spending all your time watching batman and commissioner gordon interact with the worst people in gotham, who are also far more competent criminals than anything real life police encounter.  we just do not get to see as much of the good people of gotham, but we know they exist, batman is protecting them.  we also know that this is a vibrant city because of the architecture, there is a surprising variety, suggesting that the architects and construction firms are busy, something that is not true in a dying city.  there is also a great deal of wealth in gotham, suggesting many vibrant businesses, including, of course, wayne enterprises, which is so profitable bruce wayne can pretty much ignore it.  and there is a high level of technology and industry, which unfortunately we only see when batman or one of the supervillains is using it, but must have many peaceful uses.  in fact, most of the true evils of gotham can be traced to a small number of supervillains they have to be supervillains because the vast majority of gotham is citizens are good people at heart.  a dying city has much more mundane evils, no supervillains required.  it is true that the police force is overwhelmed by these supervillains, but that is something other cities do not have to encounter.  if commissioner gordon did not have to deal with supervillains, he could clean up the department, he is the commissioner, after all.  but no, every time he is about to get started, another maniacal genius with unlimited resources pops up out of nowhere.  still, he is clearly a competent guy, it is really not fair to blame him, let alone all of gotham.  another sign of how kind hearted and principled the people of gotham are, despite this plague of supervillains they refuse to pass the death penalty.  in fact, there are times where they actually accept the joker is or two face is insanity pleas, which surely would not fly in u. s.  courts.   #  he can only react to the whim of the people.   #  lets compare gotham to brooklyn.  da hynes let the imf rapist go free, then he raped again.  he left a legacy 0 convictions that have to be reviewed.  prostitutes were involved in false statements.  public money went to his failed re election campaign.  you have got slum lords with  literally hundreds of illegal violations going back decades  who still being issued new building permits.  so, just like brooklyn it might be the prosecution, not the criminal catcher.  i liked dent.  do not get me wrong.  but. the batman is not the final word on justice   crime prevention.  he can only react to the whim of the people.  he ca not systemically  change  anything.  the batman keeps the streets safe.  but city hall is beyond even  his  reach.  wayne for mayor 0.   #  wayne is like jfk or gwb the voters do not mind a playboy, as long as they can get results.   #  if so, they are probably like bloomberg is daughter or romney is wife so insufferably sheltered   out of touch, they are just too awkward to quote in print.  wayne is like jfk or gwb the voters do not mind a playboy, as long as they can get results.  we already know he can hold his liquor better than that infamous gentleman from toronto.  plus, he is got washington is ear, with wayne enterprises.  he obviously knows how to work the system   milk funding.  it would be nice if he focused on local crime, not just far off war machines.   #  is it better to do nothing and let the criminals win or should you at least try regardless of your belief in victory ?  #  we can view this from the other side as well.  is it better to do nothing and let the criminals win or should you at least try regardless of your belief in victory ? even if batman is not able to take out every single criminal and they keep coming back, he is a symbol of hope.  this symbol resonates with people, not because he is a hero with superpowers but because he is an ordinary man that takes upon himself to fight for what he believes is right.  this stream of light in the otherwise total darkness is what gives the people of the city the courage to endure their lives.
note: my knowledge here is based primarily on the recent films and videogames.   gotham is a cesspool of corruption, violence and greed.  criminals permeate every level of society, business and politics and manipulate it all for their benefit.  even the police force is filled with nothing but self serving, crooked cops looking for extra money to look the other way.  jim gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop  the only good cop  in a city wide department.  mobsters and petty criminals walk freely without fear of retribution due to the corruption.  there was hope when it came to their political and criminal saviour, harvey dent.  but he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.  the city is plagued by psychotic villains who steal and kill constantly, who seem to manipulate or break their way out of prison with fearful ease.  no matter how the forces of gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.  the people of gotham are also apathetic to any of these issues.  when gotham is taken over by bane they turn on each other, ransacking higher end properties and throwing people out on the street.  when the city is under a bomb threat they curse their neighbours for the escape to safety before them; unlike metropolis where, faced with a hugely destructive machine, people stayed behind to help save their fellow man.  gotham citizens are as selfish as criminals above them, and given half the opportunity they would succumb to corruption themselves.  but not only is gotham full of criminals, apathy or ignorance, but it is also constantly threatened by people wishing to destroy it.  shady organisations, activists, you name it, all want gotham destroyed.  with such an outside influence constantly barraging the city, i do not think it is possible to keep its defences.  however, i do agree that the city has its hopeful points.  there are many charitable organisations to help children such as the thomas and martha wayne foundation and there is this strange batman that is trying to sort out the city, but i do not believe that is enough.  one man ca not take down a criminal organisation, and it is not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in gotham.  gotham is doomed.  change my view.   #  the city is plagued by psychotic villains who steal and kill constantly, who seem to manipulate or break their way out of prison with fearful ease.   #  no matter how the forces of gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.   # that is going to reflect one of the problems with a discussion of a fictional entity which has many interpretations. it is not consistent in portrayal at all.  so pardon me if i diverge somewhat from yours.  jim gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop the only good cop in a city wide department.  nothing more than the self serving egotism of an idealist.  jim gordon is not the only decent cop in gcpd.  he may want to think so, it fits his persecution complex, but that is just his own failings coming to bear.  but he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.  harvey dent had existing issues with his mental health.  blaming them on gotham is just a cop out.  no matter how the forces of gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.  this seems to be a worldwide problem, not just for gotham.  star city, central city, they all have their plagues.  even shining metropolis has its share of such.  i think it has something to do the endless and the abnegation by destruction of his duties.  i give you a different story.  even fear does not destroy the people of gotham URL   one man ca not take down a criminal organisation, and it is not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in gotham.  unfortunately, this bat man vigilante is an unknown.  who is he ? he seems to have a lot of resources, and appears all over the place, so much that i wonder if he is in fact one man.  i think it is more likely he is either a fabrication or a host of individuals acting under a banner.  a league of bat men as it were, seeking to bring justice to gotham.  questionable to be sure, and perhaps outright illegal, but it is very hard to believe one man could do it.   #  it is true that the police force is overwhelmed by these supervillains, but that is something other cities do not have to encounter.   #  this is a hazard of spending all your time watching batman and commissioner gordon interact with the worst people in gotham, who are also far more competent criminals than anything real life police encounter.  we just do not get to see as much of the good people of gotham, but we know they exist, batman is protecting them.  we also know that this is a vibrant city because of the architecture, there is a surprising variety, suggesting that the architects and construction firms are busy, something that is not true in a dying city.  there is also a great deal of wealth in gotham, suggesting many vibrant businesses, including, of course, wayne enterprises, which is so profitable bruce wayne can pretty much ignore it.  and there is a high level of technology and industry, which unfortunately we only see when batman or one of the supervillains is using it, but must have many peaceful uses.  in fact, most of the true evils of gotham can be traced to a small number of supervillains they have to be supervillains because the vast majority of gotham is citizens are good people at heart.  a dying city has much more mundane evils, no supervillains required.  it is true that the police force is overwhelmed by these supervillains, but that is something other cities do not have to encounter.  if commissioner gordon did not have to deal with supervillains, he could clean up the department, he is the commissioner, after all.  but no, every time he is about to get started, another maniacal genius with unlimited resources pops up out of nowhere.  still, he is clearly a competent guy, it is really not fair to blame him, let alone all of gotham.  another sign of how kind hearted and principled the people of gotham are, despite this plague of supervillains they refuse to pass the death penalty.  in fact, there are times where they actually accept the joker is or two face is insanity pleas, which surely would not fly in u. s.  courts.   #  he can only react to the whim of the people.   #  lets compare gotham to brooklyn.  da hynes let the imf rapist go free, then he raped again.  he left a legacy 0 convictions that have to be reviewed.  prostitutes were involved in false statements.  public money went to his failed re election campaign.  you have got slum lords with  literally hundreds of illegal violations going back decades  who still being issued new building permits.  so, just like brooklyn it might be the prosecution, not the criminal catcher.  i liked dent.  do not get me wrong.  but. the batman is not the final word on justice   crime prevention.  he can only react to the whim of the people.  he ca not systemically  change  anything.  the batman keeps the streets safe.  but city hall is beyond even  his  reach.  wayne for mayor 0.   #  we already know he can hold his liquor better than that infamous gentleman from toronto.   #  if so, they are probably like bloomberg is daughter or romney is wife so insufferably sheltered   out of touch, they are just too awkward to quote in print.  wayne is like jfk or gwb the voters do not mind a playboy, as long as they can get results.  we already know he can hold his liquor better than that infamous gentleman from toronto.  plus, he is got washington is ear, with wayne enterprises.  he obviously knows how to work the system   milk funding.  it would be nice if he focused on local crime, not just far off war machines.   #  this symbol resonates with people, not because he is a hero with superpowers but because he is an ordinary man that takes upon himself to fight for what he believes is right.   #  we can view this from the other side as well.  is it better to do nothing and let the criminals win or should you at least try regardless of your belief in victory ? even if batman is not able to take out every single criminal and they keep coming back, he is a symbol of hope.  this symbol resonates with people, not because he is a hero with superpowers but because he is an ordinary man that takes upon himself to fight for what he believes is right.  this stream of light in the otherwise total darkness is what gives the people of the city the courage to endure their lives.
this is not referring to depression because of a terminal illness, but specifically about clinical depression prompting suicidal urges for years.  decades even.  i do not view suicide as a choice it is a fight or flight response.  some people cope others do not.  also my philosophy on the value of life undoubtedly skews my stance.  i do not believe that anyone has an objective, inherent value and that disallowing someone to end their life promotes their suffering for the comfort of society being uncomfortable with death.  however, temporary bouts of suicidal behavior should be treated but at a certain point it becomes so chronic that pain overshadows pleasure.  when someone has suffered for years with suicide but have held off because of guilt from family they are literally tortured into accepting life rather than be allowed to bow out peacefully.   #  they are literally tortured into accepting life rather than be allowed to bow out peacefully.   #  here is a paradox: if they are allowed to do it earlier, the chances of a curable patient doing it is higher.   # here is a paradox: if they are allowed to do it earlier, the chances of a curable patient doing it is higher.  if they are forced to do it later, they undergo more pain.  how can you tell exactly when a person reaches the  point it becomes so chronic that pain overshadows pleasure  ? what if, we found a better cure within the next 0 years of death ? have we caused needless suffering for the deceased friends   family, in addition to the guilt of the possibility of saving the patient, had they waited ?  #  like i said i do not view it as a choice, it is simply a pain avoidance response no different than pulling your hand off a hot stove.   #  at what point does pain override pleasure ? the moment they  choose  to commit suicide.  like i said i do not view it as a choice, it is simply a pain avoidance response no different than pulling your hand off a hot stove.  the  choice  comes from people rationalizing their pain and society is expectation to deal with it.  as pointed down below do people that jump from a burning building really choose that fate ? i would say no, at least it is not a choice that has any relevant meaning.  it is a reaction to pain or expectation thereof.   #  i do not believe that just because a person cannot be helped does not mean they ca not have an improvement in their quality of life.   #  i agree that every person cannot be helped.  i do not believe that just because a person cannot be helped does not mean they ca not have an improvement in their quality of life.  an improvement meaning a significant improvement all the way to remission of suicidal thoughts and beyond to a remission of depression.  to my understanding fight of flight is still moderated by executive functioning, so i do not really by that specific argument that there is not a choice.  i do think that some people are so detached from reality that they have no effective choice when considering ending their own life, though.  that is rather ironic.  suicide is by it is very nature violent.   #  but since then, i am always cheerful, always smiling, my eyes are always twinkling, and my heart is always light, like there is a happy balloon inside.   #  okay, reason i asked is because i wanted to share what happened to me.  i could have written your post myself, a few years ago.  i had also done everything i could to fix depression.  i started being depressed around 0.  by 0 it was dreadful.  by 0, every day it took all my willpower not to stab or harm myself, and the pain was unbearable.  every little thing i did caused a meltdown, like doing dishes, or going for a walk.  or just breathing.  i did not want to kill myself because i knew how much it would hurt my family guilt .  then in 0 i accidentally stumbled on something that literally made me super cheerful overnight.  i can go into detail if needed but as i know no one will believe me, i will only post it if asked.  but since then, i am always cheerful, always smiling, my eyes are always twinkling, and my heart is always light, like there is a happy balloon inside.  no matter what bad thing happens or what bad news i hear, i am always cheerful.  so does this mean i was better off gone ? i did not think i could be helped, because i would tried everything.  but i made it, even if it was by complete accident.  there was a solution out there, but i had not found it yet.  i could have killed myself, and i would have never found out.  years ago i would have said some people, including myself, are really better off gone so they do not have to live in unbearable pain.  but today, i ca not say that, because i know i am better off here, cheerful, and savoring every minute i am alive.  as for other people, it is for them to decide if they are capable of deciding , or just put up with it until either they kill themselves, their life expires naturally, or something works out for them like it did for me.   #  just to be clear again brain fart , you are saying if there is a cure, then they are not better off gone ?  #  just to be clear again brain fart , you are saying if there is a cure, then they are not better off gone ? and if there is not a cure, then they are better off gone ? just wondering how my first hand experience i shared fits into your cmv.  i am not sure i understand what exactly you want cmv would.  do you want to change your view to believe that these people really are not better off gone ? if that is the case, then my example should fit the bill.  or do you want to change your view that euthanasia should be legal for those who want it ? just trying to understand what view you are trying to change, exactly.
i have heard awesome things about the future of child rearing.   designer babies  have parents choose how the baby will become, hopefully by the time i am a parent which is hopefully at the end of this decade.  0.  the dnas responsible for any congenital defect and any defect triggered later on, like a food allergy, seasonal allergy, etc.  will be either removed or edited to only be beneficial for the child.  0.  i would like to upgrade its dna to augment his/her intelligence so heavily, his/her iq will be at least 0.  0.  i hope to tweak/upgrade his/her dna to make our kid a star athlete.  i even hope for our kid to not only win in the olympics, but also be a super soldier should s/he choose to join the armed forces.  0.  i wonder whether there is a  charitable predisposition gene  so i can make our designer child a living retirement fund part of his/her income once grown, would support our retirement if even in the future world of clinical immortality, we are somehow still allowed to retire.  i would hope s/he is also a living college fund in order to finance their little siblings  college educations.  but if they are  all   designed  to be geniuses, there would hopefully be no need to; geniuses often get full ride scholarships ! 0.  if some criminals and deviants are somehow  born evil,  we would fix any gene responsible for a criminal is disposition.  we would make them the most wonderful people you have ever met somewhat like another  mother teresa  or  father terence,  or whoever the male equivalent of mother teresa was.  0.  they would be edited to grow to 0 0  tall, a height we hope is tall enough to command a lot of respect and favors in life ! have you ever seen a tall homeless person ? neither have i.  0.  their dna would be edited to become the most beautiful people many have ever seen ! they could become models if uninterested in anything else.  i read about a  facial beauty symmetry scale  where a lower score on that scale is better.  i would want their symmetry to rate at 0.  i would imagine their bodies would turn lots of heads.  0.  even though periodic medical maintenance will keep us living indefinitely, they would be genetically predisposed to have extra strong immune systems that will clean out toxins responsible for the effects of aging more effectively than our naturally gened ones do.  that is in case they somehow no longer have access to anti aging treatments.  0.  their dna would be programmed to be a  lift on our lives,  rather than the  drag  that a lot of us are to this day.  they would endear countless people and make us feel better to be around them.  also, stress would not damage them in any way; they would deftly handle stressful events in the best possible relieving way.  in fact, they would help us destress when they do not have stressful issues to deal with on their own.  i think they would be perpetually cheerful, too.  they would be like angels sent straight from heaven to make our world a much better place than us naturally gened beings do.   and that is why i want my kids to be  designer kids.    my reasonings should have convinced you to decide that designer babies are okay too, but if you  still  want to change my view, then go right ahead.    i also want my own dna edited, somehow, so that i can be a better person by an epic leap overnight.   #  i hope to tweak/upgrade his/her dna to make our kid a star athlete.   #  in an era of designer genetics, your kid will be competing against other  star  athletes and will probably just be normal.   # in an era of designer genetics, your kid will be competing against other  star  athletes and will probably just be normal.  do you also support performance enhancing drugs ? which will be lost among the sea of other tall people.  a certain type of beauty will become the designer standard, and they will merely blend in with the rest of the population.  this will probably increase the likelihood of diseases where your immune system attacks healthy parts of your body.  not everything can be improved with no consequences.  at this point, would they even be  your  kids ? at some point they will become so genetically dissimilar that it would not be right to claim them as coming from you.  it is likely that we would become so advanced with our genetic manipulation, that you simply purchase pre manufactured genetic material.  it will be more effort to modify your dna to fit the standard, than to just copy the standard with a variety of options .  what will become of our society when our achievements are not our own ? the success you have in life will be determined by the financial ability of your parents to purchase the best design.  rich people will still want to be special, so the best genes will be prohibitively expensive while the rest of us get lesser genes.  now we have a new race of rich people with better genes, and normal people with normal genes.  there is no longer class mobility because your genetic disadvantage will make it impossible.  the  best  of us will live privileged lives, while the  normal  people will be the working class.  at least with our natural system we have a chance of inheriting the good genes.  when our genetic fate is determined by money, then money determines your attractiveness, health, and ability.  we will no longer inherit the good genes because the designers wo not put the  good  stuff in there to be passed on even if it were recessive .  if you look into farming, companies like monsanto make genetically designed plants that do not reproduce.  if we get designed babies, who is to say they will be able to reproduce ? why would the companies that offer this service hurt their business model by allowing two  designed  babies to reproduce naturally ? if we can design babies, reproduction becomes too risky and tantamount to child endangerment.  now our children are locked up by the companies that produce them.   #  what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ?  #  0.  i hope designing a future child through dna editation will be possible by the year of hindsight.  URL 0.  how much might they cost ? what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ? i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ? i hope the cost would get trivial by then.  even if still expensive, that would be so in the united states.  no problem; i would go overseas to get it done.  it would be like medical tourism URL  #  going in and  editing  dna is a much more complicated process and not currently possible, much less affordable.   # what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ? i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ? i hope the cost would get trivial by then.  the dna sequencing you are referring to is the process of reading someone is dna.  going in and  editing  dna is a much more complicated process and not currently possible, much less affordable.   #  i do not think that this is as simple as you are making it seem.   #  i do not think that this is as simple as you are making it seem.  first of all, the only thing on the list of things which we project to accomplish which is even related to genetics is that we will have identified the genetic causes of all diseases.  identifying these causes and effectively altering dna to avoid these diseases are two very different things.  in terms of the costs, i believe that you are way off as well.  first of all, medical tourism has to do with relatively simple procedures.  creating your own  designer baby  is in no way a simple procedure.  once  designer babies  are actually able to be created, there will probably only be a handful of doctors in the world who can effectively achieve this at first.  when there are only a handful of people who have the ability to do something that everyone would potentially want, the price of this service goes way up.  it is simple supply and demand.  also, dna sequencing and actively altering dna in humans before birth are two completely different things.   #  what film is an  optimistica  about designer people ?  #  gattaca is a  pessimistica.   what film is an  optimistica  about designer people ? i learned  in vitro /test tubing is not the same as growing the baby in an artificial womb URL sometime last year.  if i need for a surrogacy to happen like if i ca not get a wife, so i raise a child with a robotic nanny URL then i need a guarantee, a contract, that a surrogate mother wo not change her mind and keep the baby.  that surrogate mother can feel free to visit us at anytime.  that will be my act of altruism for her.  and hey, maybe the attachment will allow us to marry if she is still single.  the surrogate mother would be east asian; they are my preference for women.
i have heard awesome things about the future of child rearing.   designer babies  have parents choose how the baby will become, hopefully by the time i am a parent which is hopefully at the end of this decade.  0.  the dnas responsible for any congenital defect and any defect triggered later on, like a food allergy, seasonal allergy, etc.  will be either removed or edited to only be beneficial for the child.  0.  i would like to upgrade its dna to augment his/her intelligence so heavily, his/her iq will be at least 0.  0.  i hope to tweak/upgrade his/her dna to make our kid a star athlete.  i even hope for our kid to not only win in the olympics, but also be a super soldier should s/he choose to join the armed forces.  0.  i wonder whether there is a  charitable predisposition gene  so i can make our designer child a living retirement fund part of his/her income once grown, would support our retirement if even in the future world of clinical immortality, we are somehow still allowed to retire.  i would hope s/he is also a living college fund in order to finance their little siblings  college educations.  but if they are  all   designed  to be geniuses, there would hopefully be no need to; geniuses often get full ride scholarships ! 0.  if some criminals and deviants are somehow  born evil,  we would fix any gene responsible for a criminal is disposition.  we would make them the most wonderful people you have ever met somewhat like another  mother teresa  or  father terence,  or whoever the male equivalent of mother teresa was.  0.  they would be edited to grow to 0 0  tall, a height we hope is tall enough to command a lot of respect and favors in life ! have you ever seen a tall homeless person ? neither have i.  0.  their dna would be edited to become the most beautiful people many have ever seen ! they could become models if uninterested in anything else.  i read about a  facial beauty symmetry scale  where a lower score on that scale is better.  i would want their symmetry to rate at 0.  i would imagine their bodies would turn lots of heads.  0.  even though periodic medical maintenance will keep us living indefinitely, they would be genetically predisposed to have extra strong immune systems that will clean out toxins responsible for the effects of aging more effectively than our naturally gened ones do.  that is in case they somehow no longer have access to anti aging treatments.  0.  their dna would be programmed to be a  lift on our lives,  rather than the  drag  that a lot of us are to this day.  they would endear countless people and make us feel better to be around them.  also, stress would not damage them in any way; they would deftly handle stressful events in the best possible relieving way.  in fact, they would help us destress when they do not have stressful issues to deal with on their own.  i think they would be perpetually cheerful, too.  they would be like angels sent straight from heaven to make our world a much better place than us naturally gened beings do.   and that is why i want my kids to be  designer kids.    my reasonings should have convinced you to decide that designer babies are okay too, but if you  still  want to change my view, then go right ahead.    i also want my own dna edited, somehow, so that i can be a better person by an epic leap overnight.   #  they would be edited to grow to 0 0  tall, a height we hope is tall enough to command a lot of respect and favors in life !  #  which will be lost among the sea of other tall people.   # in an era of designer genetics, your kid will be competing against other  star  athletes and will probably just be normal.  do you also support performance enhancing drugs ? which will be lost among the sea of other tall people.  a certain type of beauty will become the designer standard, and they will merely blend in with the rest of the population.  this will probably increase the likelihood of diseases where your immune system attacks healthy parts of your body.  not everything can be improved with no consequences.  at this point, would they even be  your  kids ? at some point they will become so genetically dissimilar that it would not be right to claim them as coming from you.  it is likely that we would become so advanced with our genetic manipulation, that you simply purchase pre manufactured genetic material.  it will be more effort to modify your dna to fit the standard, than to just copy the standard with a variety of options .  what will become of our society when our achievements are not our own ? the success you have in life will be determined by the financial ability of your parents to purchase the best design.  rich people will still want to be special, so the best genes will be prohibitively expensive while the rest of us get lesser genes.  now we have a new race of rich people with better genes, and normal people with normal genes.  there is no longer class mobility because your genetic disadvantage will make it impossible.  the  best  of us will live privileged lives, while the  normal  people will be the working class.  at least with our natural system we have a chance of inheriting the good genes.  when our genetic fate is determined by money, then money determines your attractiveness, health, and ability.  we will no longer inherit the good genes because the designers wo not put the  good  stuff in there to be passed on even if it were recessive .  if you look into farming, companies like monsanto make genetically designed plants that do not reproduce.  if we get designed babies, who is to say they will be able to reproduce ? why would the companies that offer this service hurt their business model by allowing two  designed  babies to reproduce naturally ? if we can design babies, reproduction becomes too risky and tantamount to child endangerment.  now our children are locked up by the companies that produce them.   #  no problem; i would go overseas to get it done.   #  0.  i hope designing a future child through dna editation will be possible by the year of hindsight.  URL 0.  how much might they cost ? what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ? i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ? i hope the cost would get trivial by then.  even if still expensive, that would be so in the united states.  no problem; i would go overseas to get it done.  it would be like medical tourism URL  #  i hope the cost would get trivial by then.   # what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ? i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ? i hope the cost would get trivial by then.  the dna sequencing you are referring to is the process of reading someone is dna.  going in and  editing  dna is a much more complicated process and not currently possible, much less affordable.   #  i do not think that this is as simple as you are making it seem.   #  i do not think that this is as simple as you are making it seem.  first of all, the only thing on the list of things which we project to accomplish which is even related to genetics is that we will have identified the genetic causes of all diseases.  identifying these causes and effectively altering dna to avoid these diseases are two very different things.  in terms of the costs, i believe that you are way off as well.  first of all, medical tourism has to do with relatively simple procedures.  creating your own  designer baby  is in no way a simple procedure.  once  designer babies  are actually able to be created, there will probably only be a handful of doctors in the world who can effectively achieve this at first.  when there are only a handful of people who have the ability to do something that everyone would potentially want, the price of this service goes way up.  it is simple supply and demand.  also, dna sequencing and actively altering dna in humans before birth are two completely different things.   #  i learned  in vitro /test tubing is not the same as growing the baby in an artificial womb URL sometime last year.   #  gattaca is a  pessimistica.   what film is an  optimistica  about designer people ? i learned  in vitro /test tubing is not the same as growing the baby in an artificial womb URL sometime last year.  if i need for a surrogacy to happen like if i ca not get a wife, so i raise a child with a robotic nanny URL then i need a guarantee, a contract, that a surrogate mother wo not change her mind and keep the baby.  that surrogate mother can feel free to visit us at anytime.  that will be my act of altruism for her.  and hey, maybe the attachment will allow us to marry if she is still single.  the surrogate mother would be east asian; they are my preference for women.
i have heard awesome things about the future of child rearing.   designer babies  have parents choose how the baby will become, hopefully by the time i am a parent which is hopefully at the end of this decade.  0.  the dnas responsible for any congenital defect and any defect triggered later on, like a food allergy, seasonal allergy, etc.  will be either removed or edited to only be beneficial for the child.  0.  i would like to upgrade its dna to augment his/her intelligence so heavily, his/her iq will be at least 0.  0.  i hope to tweak/upgrade his/her dna to make our kid a star athlete.  i even hope for our kid to not only win in the olympics, but also be a super soldier should s/he choose to join the armed forces.  0.  i wonder whether there is a  charitable predisposition gene  so i can make our designer child a living retirement fund part of his/her income once grown, would support our retirement if even in the future world of clinical immortality, we are somehow still allowed to retire.  i would hope s/he is also a living college fund in order to finance their little siblings  college educations.  but if they are  all   designed  to be geniuses, there would hopefully be no need to; geniuses often get full ride scholarships ! 0.  if some criminals and deviants are somehow  born evil,  we would fix any gene responsible for a criminal is disposition.  we would make them the most wonderful people you have ever met somewhat like another  mother teresa  or  father terence,  or whoever the male equivalent of mother teresa was.  0.  they would be edited to grow to 0 0  tall, a height we hope is tall enough to command a lot of respect and favors in life ! have you ever seen a tall homeless person ? neither have i.  0.  their dna would be edited to become the most beautiful people many have ever seen ! they could become models if uninterested in anything else.  i read about a  facial beauty symmetry scale  where a lower score on that scale is better.  i would want their symmetry to rate at 0.  i would imagine their bodies would turn lots of heads.  0.  even though periodic medical maintenance will keep us living indefinitely, they would be genetically predisposed to have extra strong immune systems that will clean out toxins responsible for the effects of aging more effectively than our naturally gened ones do.  that is in case they somehow no longer have access to anti aging treatments.  0.  their dna would be programmed to be a  lift on our lives,  rather than the  drag  that a lot of us are to this day.  they would endear countless people and make us feel better to be around them.  also, stress would not damage them in any way; they would deftly handle stressful events in the best possible relieving way.  in fact, they would help us destress when they do not have stressful issues to deal with on their own.  i think they would be perpetually cheerful, too.  they would be like angels sent straight from heaven to make our world a much better place than us naturally gened beings do.   and that is why i want my kids to be  designer kids.    my reasonings should have convinced you to decide that designer babies are okay too, but if you  still  want to change my view, then go right ahead.    i also want my own dna edited, somehow, so that i can be a better person by an epic leap overnight.   #  their dna would be edited to become the most beautiful people many have ever seen !  #  a certain type of beauty will become the designer standard, and they will merely blend in with the rest of the population.   # in an era of designer genetics, your kid will be competing against other  star  athletes and will probably just be normal.  do you also support performance enhancing drugs ? which will be lost among the sea of other tall people.  a certain type of beauty will become the designer standard, and they will merely blend in with the rest of the population.  this will probably increase the likelihood of diseases where your immune system attacks healthy parts of your body.  not everything can be improved with no consequences.  at this point, would they even be  your  kids ? at some point they will become so genetically dissimilar that it would not be right to claim them as coming from you.  it is likely that we would become so advanced with our genetic manipulation, that you simply purchase pre manufactured genetic material.  it will be more effort to modify your dna to fit the standard, than to just copy the standard with a variety of options .  what will become of our society when our achievements are not our own ? the success you have in life will be determined by the financial ability of your parents to purchase the best design.  rich people will still want to be special, so the best genes will be prohibitively expensive while the rest of us get lesser genes.  now we have a new race of rich people with better genes, and normal people with normal genes.  there is no longer class mobility because your genetic disadvantage will make it impossible.  the  best  of us will live privileged lives, while the  normal  people will be the working class.  at least with our natural system we have a chance of inheriting the good genes.  when our genetic fate is determined by money, then money determines your attractiveness, health, and ability.  we will no longer inherit the good genes because the designers wo not put the  good  stuff in there to be passed on even if it were recessive .  if you look into farming, companies like monsanto make genetically designed plants that do not reproduce.  if we get designed babies, who is to say they will be able to reproduce ? why would the companies that offer this service hurt their business model by allowing two  designed  babies to reproduce naturally ? if we can design babies, reproduction becomes too risky and tantamount to child endangerment.  now our children are locked up by the companies that produce them.   #  no problem; i would go overseas to get it done.   #  0.  i hope designing a future child through dna editation will be possible by the year of hindsight.  URL 0.  how much might they cost ? what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ? i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ? i hope the cost would get trivial by then.  even if still expensive, that would be so in the united states.  no problem; i would go overseas to get it done.  it would be like medical tourism URL  #  i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ?  # what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ? i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ? i hope the cost would get trivial by then.  the dna sequencing you are referring to is the process of reading someone is dna.  going in and  editing  dna is a much more complicated process and not currently possible, much less affordable.   #  i do not think that this is as simple as you are making it seem.   #  i do not think that this is as simple as you are making it seem.  first of all, the only thing on the list of things which we project to accomplish which is even related to genetics is that we will have identified the genetic causes of all diseases.  identifying these causes and effectively altering dna to avoid these diseases are two very different things.  in terms of the costs, i believe that you are way off as well.  first of all, medical tourism has to do with relatively simple procedures.  creating your own  designer baby  is in no way a simple procedure.  once  designer babies  are actually able to be created, there will probably only be a handful of doctors in the world who can effectively achieve this at first.  when there are only a handful of people who have the ability to do something that everyone would potentially want, the price of this service goes way up.  it is simple supply and demand.  also, dna sequencing and actively altering dna in humans before birth are two completely different things.   #  that surrogate mother can feel free to visit us at anytime.   #  gattaca is a  pessimistica.   what film is an  optimistica  about designer people ? i learned  in vitro /test tubing is not the same as growing the baby in an artificial womb URL sometime last year.  if i need for a surrogacy to happen like if i ca not get a wife, so i raise a child with a robotic nanny URL then i need a guarantee, a contract, that a surrogate mother wo not change her mind and keep the baby.  that surrogate mother can feel free to visit us at anytime.  that will be my act of altruism for her.  and hey, maybe the attachment will allow us to marry if she is still single.  the surrogate mother would be east asian; they are my preference for women.
i have heard awesome things about the future of child rearing.   designer babies  have parents choose how the baby will become, hopefully by the time i am a parent which is hopefully at the end of this decade.  0.  the dnas responsible for any congenital defect and any defect triggered later on, like a food allergy, seasonal allergy, etc.  will be either removed or edited to only be beneficial for the child.  0.  i would like to upgrade its dna to augment his/her intelligence so heavily, his/her iq will be at least 0.  0.  i hope to tweak/upgrade his/her dna to make our kid a star athlete.  i even hope for our kid to not only win in the olympics, but also be a super soldier should s/he choose to join the armed forces.  0.  i wonder whether there is a  charitable predisposition gene  so i can make our designer child a living retirement fund part of his/her income once grown, would support our retirement if even in the future world of clinical immortality, we are somehow still allowed to retire.  i would hope s/he is also a living college fund in order to finance their little siblings  college educations.  but if they are  all   designed  to be geniuses, there would hopefully be no need to; geniuses often get full ride scholarships ! 0.  if some criminals and deviants are somehow  born evil,  we would fix any gene responsible for a criminal is disposition.  we would make them the most wonderful people you have ever met somewhat like another  mother teresa  or  father terence,  or whoever the male equivalent of mother teresa was.  0.  they would be edited to grow to 0 0  tall, a height we hope is tall enough to command a lot of respect and favors in life ! have you ever seen a tall homeless person ? neither have i.  0.  their dna would be edited to become the most beautiful people many have ever seen ! they could become models if uninterested in anything else.  i read about a  facial beauty symmetry scale  where a lower score on that scale is better.  i would want their symmetry to rate at 0.  i would imagine their bodies would turn lots of heads.  0.  even though periodic medical maintenance will keep us living indefinitely, they would be genetically predisposed to have extra strong immune systems that will clean out toxins responsible for the effects of aging more effectively than our naturally gened ones do.  that is in case they somehow no longer have access to anti aging treatments.  0.  their dna would be programmed to be a  lift on our lives,  rather than the  drag  that a lot of us are to this day.  they would endear countless people and make us feel better to be around them.  also, stress would not damage them in any way; they would deftly handle stressful events in the best possible relieving way.  in fact, they would help us destress when they do not have stressful issues to deal with on their own.  i think they would be perpetually cheerful, too.  they would be like angels sent straight from heaven to make our world a much better place than us naturally gened beings do.   and that is why i want my kids to be  designer kids.    my reasonings should have convinced you to decide that designer babies are okay too, but if you  still  want to change my view, then go right ahead.    i also want my own dna edited, somehow, so that i can be a better person by an epic leap overnight.   #  even though periodic medical maintenance will keep us living indefinitely, they would be genetically predisposed to have extra strong immune systems that will clean out toxins responsible for the effects of aging more effectively than our naturally gened ones do.   #  this will probably increase the likelihood of diseases where your immune system attacks healthy parts of your body.   # in an era of designer genetics, your kid will be competing against other  star  athletes and will probably just be normal.  do you also support performance enhancing drugs ? which will be lost among the sea of other tall people.  a certain type of beauty will become the designer standard, and they will merely blend in with the rest of the population.  this will probably increase the likelihood of diseases where your immune system attacks healthy parts of your body.  not everything can be improved with no consequences.  at this point, would they even be  your  kids ? at some point they will become so genetically dissimilar that it would not be right to claim them as coming from you.  it is likely that we would become so advanced with our genetic manipulation, that you simply purchase pre manufactured genetic material.  it will be more effort to modify your dna to fit the standard, than to just copy the standard with a variety of options .  what will become of our society when our achievements are not our own ? the success you have in life will be determined by the financial ability of your parents to purchase the best design.  rich people will still want to be special, so the best genes will be prohibitively expensive while the rest of us get lesser genes.  now we have a new race of rich people with better genes, and normal people with normal genes.  there is no longer class mobility because your genetic disadvantage will make it impossible.  the  best  of us will live privileged lives, while the  normal  people will be the working class.  at least with our natural system we have a chance of inheriting the good genes.  when our genetic fate is determined by money, then money determines your attractiveness, health, and ability.  we will no longer inherit the good genes because the designers wo not put the  good  stuff in there to be passed on even if it were recessive .  if you look into farming, companies like monsanto make genetically designed plants that do not reproduce.  if we get designed babies, who is to say they will be able to reproduce ? why would the companies that offer this service hurt their business model by allowing two  designed  babies to reproduce naturally ? if we can design babies, reproduction becomes too risky and tantamount to child endangerment.  now our children are locked up by the companies that produce them.   #  0.  i hope designing a future child through dna editation will be possible by the year of hindsight.   #  0.  i hope designing a future child through dna editation will be possible by the year of hindsight.  URL 0.  how much might they cost ? what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ? i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ? i hope the cost would get trivial by then.  even if still expensive, that would be so in the united states.  no problem; i would go overseas to get it done.  it would be like medical tourism URL  #  what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ?  # what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ? i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ? i hope the cost would get trivial by then.  the dna sequencing you are referring to is the process of reading someone is dna.  going in and  editing  dna is a much more complicated process and not currently possible, much less affordable.   #  when there are only a handful of people who have the ability to do something that everyone would potentially want, the price of this service goes way up.   #  i do not think that this is as simple as you are making it seem.  first of all, the only thing on the list of things which we project to accomplish which is even related to genetics is that we will have identified the genetic causes of all diseases.  identifying these causes and effectively altering dna to avoid these diseases are two very different things.  in terms of the costs, i believe that you are way off as well.  first of all, medical tourism has to do with relatively simple procedures.  creating your own  designer baby  is in no way a simple procedure.  once  designer babies  are actually able to be created, there will probably only be a handful of doctors in the world who can effectively achieve this at first.  when there are only a handful of people who have the ability to do something that everyone would potentially want, the price of this service goes way up.  it is simple supply and demand.  also, dna sequencing and actively altering dna in humans before birth are two completely different things.   #  that surrogate mother can feel free to visit us at anytime.   #  gattaca is a  pessimistica.   what film is an  optimistica  about designer people ? i learned  in vitro /test tubing is not the same as growing the baby in an artificial womb URL sometime last year.  if i need for a surrogacy to happen like if i ca not get a wife, so i raise a child with a robotic nanny URL then i need a guarantee, a contract, that a surrogate mother wo not change her mind and keep the baby.  that surrogate mother can feel free to visit us at anytime.  that will be my act of altruism for her.  and hey, maybe the attachment will allow us to marry if she is still single.  the surrogate mother would be east asian; they are my preference for women.
i have heard awesome things about the future of child rearing.   designer babies  have parents choose how the baby will become, hopefully by the time i am a parent which is hopefully at the end of this decade.  0.  the dnas responsible for any congenital defect and any defect triggered later on, like a food allergy, seasonal allergy, etc.  will be either removed or edited to only be beneficial for the child.  0.  i would like to upgrade its dna to augment his/her intelligence so heavily, his/her iq will be at least 0.  0.  i hope to tweak/upgrade his/her dna to make our kid a star athlete.  i even hope for our kid to not only win in the olympics, but also be a super soldier should s/he choose to join the armed forces.  0.  i wonder whether there is a  charitable predisposition gene  so i can make our designer child a living retirement fund part of his/her income once grown, would support our retirement if even in the future world of clinical immortality, we are somehow still allowed to retire.  i would hope s/he is also a living college fund in order to finance their little siblings  college educations.  but if they are  all   designed  to be geniuses, there would hopefully be no need to; geniuses often get full ride scholarships ! 0.  if some criminals and deviants are somehow  born evil,  we would fix any gene responsible for a criminal is disposition.  we would make them the most wonderful people you have ever met somewhat like another  mother teresa  or  father terence,  or whoever the male equivalent of mother teresa was.  0.  they would be edited to grow to 0 0  tall, a height we hope is tall enough to command a lot of respect and favors in life ! have you ever seen a tall homeless person ? neither have i.  0.  their dna would be edited to become the most beautiful people many have ever seen ! they could become models if uninterested in anything else.  i read about a  facial beauty symmetry scale  where a lower score on that scale is better.  i would want their symmetry to rate at 0.  i would imagine their bodies would turn lots of heads.  0.  even though periodic medical maintenance will keep us living indefinitely, they would be genetically predisposed to have extra strong immune systems that will clean out toxins responsible for the effects of aging more effectively than our naturally gened ones do.  that is in case they somehow no longer have access to anti aging treatments.  0.  their dna would be programmed to be a  lift on our lives,  rather than the  drag  that a lot of us are to this day.  they would endear countless people and make us feel better to be around them.  also, stress would not damage them in any way; they would deftly handle stressful events in the best possible relieving way.  in fact, they would help us destress when they do not have stressful issues to deal with on their own.  i think they would be perpetually cheerful, too.  they would be like angels sent straight from heaven to make our world a much better place than us naturally gened beings do.   and that is why i want my kids to be  designer kids.    my reasonings should have convinced you to decide that designer babies are okay too, but if you  still  want to change my view, then go right ahead.    i also want my own dna edited, somehow, so that i can be a better person by an epic leap overnight.   #  they would be like angels sent straight from heaven to make our world a much better place than us naturally gened beings do.   #  at this point, would they even be  your  kids ?  # in an era of designer genetics, your kid will be competing against other  star  athletes and will probably just be normal.  do you also support performance enhancing drugs ? which will be lost among the sea of other tall people.  a certain type of beauty will become the designer standard, and they will merely blend in with the rest of the population.  this will probably increase the likelihood of diseases where your immune system attacks healthy parts of your body.  not everything can be improved with no consequences.  at this point, would they even be  your  kids ? at some point they will become so genetically dissimilar that it would not be right to claim them as coming from you.  it is likely that we would become so advanced with our genetic manipulation, that you simply purchase pre manufactured genetic material.  it will be more effort to modify your dna to fit the standard, than to just copy the standard with a variety of options .  what will become of our society when our achievements are not our own ? the success you have in life will be determined by the financial ability of your parents to purchase the best design.  rich people will still want to be special, so the best genes will be prohibitively expensive while the rest of us get lesser genes.  now we have a new race of rich people with better genes, and normal people with normal genes.  there is no longer class mobility because your genetic disadvantage will make it impossible.  the  best  of us will live privileged lives, while the  normal  people will be the working class.  at least with our natural system we have a chance of inheriting the good genes.  when our genetic fate is determined by money, then money determines your attractiveness, health, and ability.  we will no longer inherit the good genes because the designers wo not put the  good  stuff in there to be passed on even if it were recessive .  if you look into farming, companies like monsanto make genetically designed plants that do not reproduce.  if we get designed babies, who is to say they will be able to reproduce ? why would the companies that offer this service hurt their business model by allowing two  designed  babies to reproduce naturally ? if we can design babies, reproduction becomes too risky and tantamount to child endangerment.  now our children are locked up by the companies that produce them.   #  even if still expensive, that would be so in the united states.   #  0.  i hope designing a future child through dna editation will be possible by the year of hindsight.  URL 0.  how much might they cost ? what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ? i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ? i hope the cost would get trivial by then.  even if still expensive, that would be so in the united states.  no problem; i would go overseas to get it done.  it would be like medical tourism URL  #  going in and  editing  dna is a much more complicated process and not currently possible, much less affordable.   # what subreddit would i ask to get pricing conjectures ? i hear dna sequencing had already hit the $0k mark recently or was it 0k ? i hope the cost would get trivial by then.  the dna sequencing you are referring to is the process of reading someone is dna.  going in and  editing  dna is a much more complicated process and not currently possible, much less affordable.   #  first of all, medical tourism has to do with relatively simple procedures.   #  i do not think that this is as simple as you are making it seem.  first of all, the only thing on the list of things which we project to accomplish which is even related to genetics is that we will have identified the genetic causes of all diseases.  identifying these causes and effectively altering dna to avoid these diseases are two very different things.  in terms of the costs, i believe that you are way off as well.  first of all, medical tourism has to do with relatively simple procedures.  creating your own  designer baby  is in no way a simple procedure.  once  designer babies  are actually able to be created, there will probably only be a handful of doctors in the world who can effectively achieve this at first.  when there are only a handful of people who have the ability to do something that everyone would potentially want, the price of this service goes way up.  it is simple supply and demand.  also, dna sequencing and actively altering dna in humans before birth are two completely different things.   #  and hey, maybe the attachment will allow us to marry if she is still single.   #  gattaca is a  pessimistica.   what film is an  optimistica  about designer people ? i learned  in vitro /test tubing is not the same as growing the baby in an artificial womb URL sometime last year.  if i need for a surrogacy to happen like if i ca not get a wife, so i raise a child with a robotic nanny URL then i need a guarantee, a contract, that a surrogate mother wo not change her mind and keep the baby.  that surrogate mother can feel free to visit us at anytime.  that will be my act of altruism for her.  and hey, maybe the attachment will allow us to marry if she is still single.  the surrogate mother would be east asian; they are my preference for women.
okay, so back when i was in secondary school, there was a kid with severe mental disabilities who was integrated into the student population.  at the time of the following, he was about 0, and i was 0.  so, the story does not involve me, but instead a couple of guys i knew: they used to spend a lot of time with him, playing with him and making jokes at his expense.  but he was never offended; he did not have the capacity to understand the jokes.  however, he did know that these were older kids, who were popular, too.  and they were spending time with him and having a great time doing so.  in short, this was a positive experience for all involved imo: the  bullies  had some laughs, and he was paid attention.  of course, when the school authorities got wind of this, they did not see it my way.  they strictly prohibited my peers from any dealings with the boy.  and so, instead of being paid attention, he was left to wander around on his own all lunchtime.   it is my view currently that some mentally disabled children cannot possibly hope to have normal friendships/relationships with other kids; this would not be mutually beneficial, because the disabled kid does not have the social skills with which to maintain a friendship.  however, they can offer comedic value it is undeniable that some people find disabilities very funny.  therefore, i do not see how anybody is harmed by a relationship based on the following exchange: the disabled person provides himself as comedy, while the  audience , in return, pay him attention and make him feel special.   ok, so that is my view.  change it !  #  this would not be mutually beneficial, because the disabled kid does not have the social skills with which to maintain a friendship.   #  actually, in the example you have given, it sounds like your normative peers were the ones lacking in the social skills for maintaining friendships.   # actually, in the example you have given, it sounds like your normative peers were the ones lacking in the social skills for maintaining friendships.  friends do not make jokes at their friends  expense when their friend does not have the capacity to understand the joke.  if the person ca not comprehend the joke, then they ca not give any feedback on whether they find it funny too and  go along  with it, or if they are bothered by it.  a person who cannot comprehend the joke being made at their expense is being bullied, not befriended.  your peers were being jerks, not friends.  the mentally disabled kid was, in your account, behaving like a real friend, while the normative kids were being bullies and displayed a lack of social ability.  tldr: the mentally disabled kid is social skills   the normative kids  social skills  #  lets say your boss at work has been giving you  very important  assignments that are just busywork, and everyone is laughing behind your back.   #  i would invite you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is, unknown to them, being made fun of.  lets say your boss at work has been giving you  very important  assignments that are just busywork, and everyone is laughing behind your back.  or someone is going on dates with you so they can joke about it with their friends after.  once you find these things out, presumably it would hurt you.  likewise, in the case of a personal with mental handicaps, just because they do not realize they are being made fun of at the time does not mean they wo not figure it out or be informed of it eventually.  and at that point, just like you or i, it can be extremely painful or even permanently damaging to find out or figure out the truth.  further, there is not necessarily a dichotomy between  being made fun of  and  having nobody to interact with.   there was a kid with down is at my school who was, frankly, extremely popular.  he was nice, he was fun, he had a good sense of humor, and people legitimately enjoyed spending time with him.  the case you gave is very unfortunate, but it does not make it okay in the general sense to have fun at the expense of someone who does not understand through handicap, naivete, or just rose colored glasses made of hope .  whether one should again, regardless of handicap choose social ridicule over isolation is a different point, though i would argue at no point does that make what the ridiculing party is doing  okay.    #  that was going to be my top level reply to op, actually whether they would support cheating on their so.   #  that was going to be my top level reply to op, actually whether they would support cheating on their so.  personally unrelated to this cmv i think the moral harm in cheating is not the potential emotional pain, but the violation of a contract.  so in that sense, no, i am not okay with cheating.  back on topic, however, i read the op is position as  if they will never find out .  this is obviously unrealistic for cheating, but it is seemed plausible for mental disabilities if, say, they are incapable of processing certain social phenomenon .  then again, i have no medical expertise, so this may be inaccurate, but this was why i challenged /u/account0 is argument.   #  he wanders around all day, always really happy, always riding his bicycle around.   # nor did i claim it to be optimal.  however, i still maintain that it was mutually beneficial, and that it was superior to a counterfactual in which they had no relationship of any sort.  i do not disagree, but why ca not there be a friendship ? there is this middle aged guy in our town, who everyone knows is.  special .  he wanders around all day, always really happy, always riding his bicycle around.  i see him all the time and in 0 years he has no idea what my name is his guesses are never close , though he recognizes me.  everyone in town looks after him his elderly parents run a business downtown .  he is great.  i agree some people make fun of him and he has no idea, and it is better than no contact, but it is really not hard to be nice to the guy.  sometimes he is a tad annoying, but i know he cannot help it.  last year on his birthday some of the guys in town took him to a strip club and paid for him all night.  he had one of the best times he has ever had, unfortunately he wo not shut up about it, and still cannot remember those guys  names.  all i am saying is being friendly is not difficult.   #  if it is funny to some people to find someone with some disabilities funny, how does that affect people with different disabilities ?  #  if it is funny to some people to find someone with some disabilities funny, how does that affect people with different disabilities ? in your example the disabled person in question could not understand he was being mocked and thus it was all ok.  but the idea of  they do not understand so it is ok  can affect people with disabilities who may be seen as not understanding, especially those with appearance or voice problems.  if someone disabled seemed to not understand the mocking/bullying but did, would not this be very difficult for them ? how are kids to know the difference, especially early on ?
i recently had a fight with a friend and i want to know what reddit things about this.  she said that i live my life wanting the best and money.  i know i am motivated by money.  is this wrong ? i have delved into philosophy to try and figure out money.  tolstoy really motivated me when he highlighted the meanings to life and came to faith.  i however am not religious in the traditional sense and do not see why money cannot be a motivation for my life.  furthermore, i was especially motivated by ayn rand.  i ascribe to a very similar belief system as galt and others.  if you have not read the book then it is about individualism and seeking ones own fortune.  i know that is really basic but the easiest way to summarize the idea i have lead my life by doing what i want and doing what i enjoy.  i look after myself and do not keep many friends.  i know i am motivated by money and i do not see a problem by it.  however, i feel that many people i have met do not agree with me.  these people will tell me that i am self centered, cold and only care about getting rich.  i do not want to get rich, i want money because i see this as a motivation and as a competition point in the world.  so change my view or tell me about why i am wrong to be motivated only by money.  background: i am 0 and in my final year of university with political science and philosophy.  i have paid my entire way through university without my parent is help or debt because of my motivations.   #  however, i feel that many people i have met do not agree with me.   #  these people will tell me that i am self centered, cold and only care about getting rich.   # is this wrong ? no.  many people, including me, are motivated by money and just experiencing the best life has to offer.  these people will tell me that i am self centered, cold and only care about getting rich.  do not listen to losers.  people hate seeing others succeed, and will try to bring you down for wanting to live an awesome life, so they can justify there own situation.  but it is not good for money to be the only thing you care about.  you should never be cheap with your friends and family.  having money can never compare to having people that love you.  but this does not mean that you ca not love both money, and be a good friend.  there is more to life than money health, love, knowledge , but money is still a pretty big factor.  i am not sure if philosophy and political science are the best majors if you want to make a lot of money.  i do not know, maybe you have a plan, or those are just side interests and you have a business.  just my advice.  computer science and engineering are the highest paying fields without grad school .  that is awesome.  my goal is also to pay of my college debt as quickly as possible.   #  he was designed by rand for the express purpose of presenting a highly idealized product of her philosophy.   # i ascribe to a very similar belief system as galt and others.  keep in mind that john galt is not a real person.  he was designed by rand for the express purpose of presenting a highly idealized product of her philosophy.  treating him as evidence that her views are valuable and ethically sound basically amounts to begging the question.  you should also know that for the most part, rand is not taken at all seriously by professional philosophers.  that seems kind of arbitrary.  would you say that you have chosen money over other eligible sources of positive motivation ? if so, what is it that is so great about money ? it seems to me that what you really want is  happiness , and it is not obvious that having more money than other people is the best way to become happy.  if your pursuit of wealth prevents you from enjoying some of the non monetary pleasures that life has to offer, it may very well have the opposite effect.   #  in my experience, it has a very low success rate.   #  let me ask you this: why are you here ? to me, it is obvious that you were motivated to submit this post by the fact that you care about your friend is opinion of you, even if you maybe would not admit that to her face.  you want to be a good person in the eyes of the people who matter to you.  how important is that desire to you ? would you be willing to publicly humiliate yourself in exchange for a cash prize ? would you break a promise to a friend if the price was right ? maybe it is not really money you want.  maybe you want the prestige that is supposed to come with it.  but there are many ways to earn the respect and admiration of your peers, and the single minded pursuit of material wealth is arguably not a very good one.  in my experience, it has a very low success rate.  becoming active in your community, supporting a cause you believe in, going out of your way to help people who are in need these are all excellent alternatives that you should consider.  i think you should spend some time working out why it is that you desire money in the first place, and then ask yourself if you still think you do not have access to any better sources of happiness.  and please stop hanging out with ayn rand.  she is a really bad influence.   #  if it makes you happy though, then go for it.   #  well sure, why not ? personally, i am not driven by money.  not even close.  i even hate when people criticize my future goals based on money.  if it makes you happy though, then go for it.  just make sure you experience other things so you know what there is outside of money.  maybe you will find something else to motivate you, or maybe you will realize that money is what you want.  also keep in mind you are only 0.  you will be changing so much over the next few years it is not even funny.  just relax, and do what makes you happy.   #  can you appreciate all of life is non monetary pleasures while pursuing great wealth ?  # but can you ? many times in life there is a choice between one thing or another.  in economics it is called the opportunity cost, which means that the cost of the choice you gave up should be included when calculating the choice you made.  can you appreciate all of life is non monetary pleasures while pursuing great wealth ? many people find this extremely difficult.  you spend all of your time in university studying to get strait a is and miss many other opportunities for enjoyment.  you want to work hard and impress your boss to get the promotion, but that means giving up on time at home with your wife and your kids.  often you will have to make the choice between pursuing long term wealth and short term non monetary pleasures.  the trick is to find a balance.  if you focus to much on the short term, you will have nothing later.  but if you keep putting off the people around you, eventually you will find that you spent your whole life putting off having fun, and that you have 0 million dollars but nothing to show for it.
i recently had a fight with a friend and i want to know what reddit things about this.  she said that i live my life wanting the best and money.  i know i am motivated by money.  is this wrong ? i have delved into philosophy to try and figure out money.  tolstoy really motivated me when he highlighted the meanings to life and came to faith.  i however am not religious in the traditional sense and do not see why money cannot be a motivation for my life.  furthermore, i was especially motivated by ayn rand.  i ascribe to a very similar belief system as galt and others.  if you have not read the book then it is about individualism and seeking ones own fortune.  i know that is really basic but the easiest way to summarize the idea i have lead my life by doing what i want and doing what i enjoy.  i look after myself and do not keep many friends.  i know i am motivated by money and i do not see a problem by it.  however, i feel that many people i have met do not agree with me.  these people will tell me that i am self centered, cold and only care about getting rich.  i do not want to get rich, i want money because i see this as a motivation and as a competition point in the world.  so change my view or tell me about why i am wrong to be motivated only by money.  background: i am 0 and in my final year of university with political science and philosophy.  i have paid my entire way through university without my parent is help or debt because of my motivations.   #  i am 0 and in my final year of university with political science and philosophy.   #  i am not sure if philosophy and political science are the best majors if you want to make a lot of money.   # is this wrong ? no.  many people, including me, are motivated by money and just experiencing the best life has to offer.  these people will tell me that i am self centered, cold and only care about getting rich.  do not listen to losers.  people hate seeing others succeed, and will try to bring you down for wanting to live an awesome life, so they can justify there own situation.  but it is not good for money to be the only thing you care about.  you should never be cheap with your friends and family.  having money can never compare to having people that love you.  but this does not mean that you ca not love both money, and be a good friend.  there is more to life than money health, love, knowledge , but money is still a pretty big factor.  i am not sure if philosophy and political science are the best majors if you want to make a lot of money.  i do not know, maybe you have a plan, or those are just side interests and you have a business.  just my advice.  computer science and engineering are the highest paying fields without grad school .  that is awesome.  my goal is also to pay of my college debt as quickly as possible.   #  you should also know that for the most part, rand is not taken at all seriously by professional philosophers.   # i ascribe to a very similar belief system as galt and others.  keep in mind that john galt is not a real person.  he was designed by rand for the express purpose of presenting a highly idealized product of her philosophy.  treating him as evidence that her views are valuable and ethically sound basically amounts to begging the question.  you should also know that for the most part, rand is not taken at all seriously by professional philosophers.  that seems kind of arbitrary.  would you say that you have chosen money over other eligible sources of positive motivation ? if so, what is it that is so great about money ? it seems to me that what you really want is  happiness , and it is not obvious that having more money than other people is the best way to become happy.  if your pursuit of wealth prevents you from enjoying some of the non monetary pleasures that life has to offer, it may very well have the opposite effect.   #  you want to be a good person in the eyes of the people who matter to you.   #  let me ask you this: why are you here ? to me, it is obvious that you were motivated to submit this post by the fact that you care about your friend is opinion of you, even if you maybe would not admit that to her face.  you want to be a good person in the eyes of the people who matter to you.  how important is that desire to you ? would you be willing to publicly humiliate yourself in exchange for a cash prize ? would you break a promise to a friend if the price was right ? maybe it is not really money you want.  maybe you want the prestige that is supposed to come with it.  but there are many ways to earn the respect and admiration of your peers, and the single minded pursuit of material wealth is arguably not a very good one.  in my experience, it has a very low success rate.  becoming active in your community, supporting a cause you believe in, going out of your way to help people who are in need these are all excellent alternatives that you should consider.  i think you should spend some time working out why it is that you desire money in the first place, and then ask yourself if you still think you do not have access to any better sources of happiness.  and please stop hanging out with ayn rand.  she is a really bad influence.   #  also keep in mind you are only 0.  you will be changing so much over the next few years it is not even funny.   #  well sure, why not ? personally, i am not driven by money.  not even close.  i even hate when people criticize my future goals based on money.  if it makes you happy though, then go for it.  just make sure you experience other things so you know what there is outside of money.  maybe you will find something else to motivate you, or maybe you will realize that money is what you want.  also keep in mind you are only 0.  you will be changing so much over the next few years it is not even funny.  just relax, and do what makes you happy.   #  in economics it is called the opportunity cost, which means that the cost of the choice you gave up should be included when calculating the choice you made.   # but can you ? many times in life there is a choice between one thing or another.  in economics it is called the opportunity cost, which means that the cost of the choice you gave up should be included when calculating the choice you made.  can you appreciate all of life is non monetary pleasures while pursuing great wealth ? many people find this extremely difficult.  you spend all of your time in university studying to get strait a is and miss many other opportunities for enjoyment.  you want to work hard and impress your boss to get the promotion, but that means giving up on time at home with your wife and your kids.  often you will have to make the choice between pursuing long term wealth and short term non monetary pleasures.  the trick is to find a balance.  if you focus to much on the short term, you will have nothing later.  but if you keep putting off the people around you, eventually you will find that you spent your whole life putting off having fun, and that you have 0 million dollars but nothing to show for it.
i believe that the current driving age, 0, is too low and that teenagers at that age are a danger on the road.  teenagers are notorious for poor decision making and the rise in texting related accidents proves that teens are unable to consistently operate a car safely.  i think raising the driving age would make driving safer overall and would also discourage teenagers from participating in illegal activities such as underage drinking and illegal drug use.  cars accidents happen all too often and keeping kids off the road will make things safer for them and for the adults that need to use cars.  change my view.   #  texting related accidents proves that teens are unable to consistently operate a car safely.   #  teens are not the only ones texting and driving, i can guarantee that.   # teens are not the only ones texting and driving, i can guarantee that.  how ? i do not see a correlation.  teenagers will just ride their bicycles to their drug dealers, or to parties, or get rides from older friends.  not being able to drive will not decrease drug use.  teenagers, need vehicles too.  not just adults.  sports, school, jobs, running errands, etc.  adults are not the only ones with responsibilities.  the point is, not all teenagers are dangerous behind the wheel.  you just hear about all the bad accidents, etc.  you never hear on the news:  0 year old successfully drove to work today, and did not get in an accident !   somebody else pointed out, that it is not necessarily being so young, rather lack of experience.  raising the driving age to 0 would only make 0 year olds inexperienced, and people will then be asking to raise it to 0 etc.   #  that argument would hold up if we assume kids will follow the rules you lay out for them and understand the consequences of all their actions.   #  that argument would hold up if we assume kids will follow the rules you lay out for them and understand the consequences of all their actions.  it is a demonstrably false assumption, however utopian, at the very liberal best.  raising the driving age helps to achieve the goal that the driver to be has accumulated more life experience, has hopefully learned more about driving reading the theory books, practicing with a responsible adult, etc.  and overall matured more both as a person and as a driver before they go out on their own.  i fully agree that experience is a key factor in being a good driver you are by no means a good driver simply because you are 0, or simply because you have passed a driver is test.  but asserting  more experience better driver, therefore we should start as soon as possible  dismisses factors like maturity and responsibility both legal and the personal sense of it .   #  by the time i was 0 or 0 i had matured enough to take it easy behind the wheel.   #  i think teens should be able to drive with their parents and parents only until the age of 0.  this would eliminate the problem of inexperience.  i got my license 0 years ago before there were many restrictions.  none of my friends belonged on the road at that age, including me.  i do not even want to know how many times we came close to death or killing/injuring others.  dozens.  by the time i was 0 or 0 i had matured enough to take it easy behind the wheel.  i understand that it is different for everyone, though.   #  moreover each person matures at very different rates.   #  everyone has dozens of close calls on the road.  it is the fact that you are throwing a couple of tons of metal around at speeds higher than our brains are used to dealing with in conditions that are less than ideal.  moreover each person matures at very different rates.  so, while it might be a good idea to exclude some individuals from driving until they are older you are also unnecessarily preventing people who can drive adequately as well.  where is that break even point where more people are harmed than helped ?  #  and yet 0 of the teenagers at my school drove a car everywhere they needed to go.   #  when i was a teenager, i lived in lake stevens, wa, a small town 0 miles north of seattle.  in no way a thriving metropolis.  most students were within 0km from the high school easily reachable by bike and one could circle the entire 0 miles of the lake in an hour by bicycle.  we also had buses that went from our city center to the city center of the next town over and made many stops in between.  you could even get to seattle by bus via transfer.  everything else was walkable.  and yet 0 of the teenagers at my school drove a car everywhere they needed to go.  why ? 0.  it was not considered cool to take the school bus obviously .  0.  only  weirdos  took the city bus.  0.  having one is own car was a status symbol within the school community.  0.  it was awesome to be independent.  anyway, you are wrong that it is impossible to get anywhere without a car in america.  there are plenty of towns just like the one i grew up in.  and people underestimate how efficient bicycles are as modes of transportation.  just ask the europeans.  but now i am completely misrepresenting my viewpoint, because i actually think that teenagers should be free to drive independently within city limits of small towns.  once speeds reach excess of 0 mph and highways or back roads start to get involved is where i think the line should be drawn.  not sure if that is a realistic regulation to make though.  i am just thinking out loud.
i believe that the current driving age, 0, is too low and that teenagers at that age are a danger on the road.  teenagers are notorious for poor decision making and the rise in texting related accidents proves that teens are unable to consistently operate a car safely.  i think raising the driving age would make driving safer overall and would also discourage teenagers from participating in illegal activities such as underage drinking and illegal drug use.  cars accidents happen all too often and keeping kids off the road will make things safer for them and for the adults that need to use cars.  change my view.   #  i believe that the current driving age, 0, is too low and that teenagers at that age are a danger on the road.   #  i have been driving since age 0, i disagree.   # i have been driving since age 0, i disagree.  i was 0 the 0st time i was in an accident.  there are better ways to prevent texting and driving than limiting the age of the driver.  more laws, and less freedom is not a good answer for some simple security.  i have no idea how driving a car causes drinking and illegal drug use.  my first illegal drug was nicotine at age 0.  you are making a lot of generalizations.  i started working at age 0 on a horseradish farm so i could save to buy a car .  if you are going to prevent people who have jobs 0 is also the age for that , from diving to their job, then you should also be calling to raise the minimum working age to 0.  i think you live in an urban area, as little of these issues occur so badly in the rural area in which i live.  i ca not understand how country folks have to give up rights/privileges so city folks can feel safer ?  #  but asserting  more experience better driver, therefore we should start as soon as possible  dismisses factors like maturity and responsibility both legal and the personal sense of it .   #  that argument would hold up if we assume kids will follow the rules you lay out for them and understand the consequences of all their actions.  it is a demonstrably false assumption, however utopian, at the very liberal best.  raising the driving age helps to achieve the goal that the driver to be has accumulated more life experience, has hopefully learned more about driving reading the theory books, practicing with a responsible adult, etc.  and overall matured more both as a person and as a driver before they go out on their own.  i fully agree that experience is a key factor in being a good driver you are by no means a good driver simply because you are 0, or simply because you have passed a driver is test.  but asserting  more experience better driver, therefore we should start as soon as possible  dismisses factors like maturity and responsibility both legal and the personal sense of it .   #  i understand that it is different for everyone, though.   #  i think teens should be able to drive with their parents and parents only until the age of 0.  this would eliminate the problem of inexperience.  i got my license 0 years ago before there were many restrictions.  none of my friends belonged on the road at that age, including me.  i do not even want to know how many times we came close to death or killing/injuring others.  dozens.  by the time i was 0 or 0 i had matured enough to take it easy behind the wheel.  i understand that it is different for everyone, though.   #  so, while it might be a good idea to exclude some individuals from driving until they are older you are also unnecessarily preventing people who can drive adequately as well.   #  everyone has dozens of close calls on the road.  it is the fact that you are throwing a couple of tons of metal around at speeds higher than our brains are used to dealing with in conditions that are less than ideal.  moreover each person matures at very different rates.  so, while it might be a good idea to exclude some individuals from driving until they are older you are also unnecessarily preventing people who can drive adequately as well.  where is that break even point where more people are harmed than helped ?  #  you could even get to seattle by bus via transfer.   #  when i was a teenager, i lived in lake stevens, wa, a small town 0 miles north of seattle.  in no way a thriving metropolis.  most students were within 0km from the high school easily reachable by bike and one could circle the entire 0 miles of the lake in an hour by bicycle.  we also had buses that went from our city center to the city center of the next town over and made many stops in between.  you could even get to seattle by bus via transfer.  everything else was walkable.  and yet 0 of the teenagers at my school drove a car everywhere they needed to go.  why ? 0.  it was not considered cool to take the school bus obviously .  0.  only  weirdos  took the city bus.  0.  having one is own car was a status symbol within the school community.  0.  it was awesome to be independent.  anyway, you are wrong that it is impossible to get anywhere without a car in america.  there are plenty of towns just like the one i grew up in.  and people underestimate how efficient bicycles are as modes of transportation.  just ask the europeans.  but now i am completely misrepresenting my viewpoint, because i actually think that teenagers should be free to drive independently within city limits of small towns.  once speeds reach excess of 0 mph and highways or back roads start to get involved is where i think the line should be drawn.  not sure if that is a realistic regulation to make though.  i am just thinking out loud.
i believe that the current driving age, 0, is too low and that teenagers at that age are a danger on the road.  teenagers are notorious for poor decision making and the rise in texting related accidents proves that teens are unable to consistently operate a car safely.  i think raising the driving age would make driving safer overall and would also discourage teenagers from participating in illegal activities such as underage drinking and illegal drug use.  cars accidents happen all too often and keeping kids off the road will make things safer for them and for the adults that need to use cars.  change my view.   #  teenagers are notorious for poor decision making and the rise in texting related accidents proves that teens are unable to consistently operate a car safely.   #  there are better ways to prevent texting and driving than limiting the age of the driver.   # i have been driving since age 0, i disagree.  i was 0 the 0st time i was in an accident.  there are better ways to prevent texting and driving than limiting the age of the driver.  more laws, and less freedom is not a good answer for some simple security.  i have no idea how driving a car causes drinking and illegal drug use.  my first illegal drug was nicotine at age 0.  you are making a lot of generalizations.  i started working at age 0 on a horseradish farm so i could save to buy a car .  if you are going to prevent people who have jobs 0 is also the age for that , from diving to their job, then you should also be calling to raise the minimum working age to 0.  i think you live in an urban area, as little of these issues occur so badly in the rural area in which i live.  i ca not understand how country folks have to give up rights/privileges so city folks can feel safer ?  #  raising the driving age helps to achieve the goal that the driver to be has accumulated more life experience, has hopefully learned more about driving reading the theory books, practicing with a responsible adult, etc.   #  that argument would hold up if we assume kids will follow the rules you lay out for them and understand the consequences of all their actions.  it is a demonstrably false assumption, however utopian, at the very liberal best.  raising the driving age helps to achieve the goal that the driver to be has accumulated more life experience, has hopefully learned more about driving reading the theory books, practicing with a responsible adult, etc.  and overall matured more both as a person and as a driver before they go out on their own.  i fully agree that experience is a key factor in being a good driver you are by no means a good driver simply because you are 0, or simply because you have passed a driver is test.  but asserting  more experience better driver, therefore we should start as soon as possible  dismisses factors like maturity and responsibility both legal and the personal sense of it .   #  i understand that it is different for everyone, though.   #  i think teens should be able to drive with their parents and parents only until the age of 0.  this would eliminate the problem of inexperience.  i got my license 0 years ago before there were many restrictions.  none of my friends belonged on the road at that age, including me.  i do not even want to know how many times we came close to death or killing/injuring others.  dozens.  by the time i was 0 or 0 i had matured enough to take it easy behind the wheel.  i understand that it is different for everyone, though.   #  everyone has dozens of close calls on the road.   #  everyone has dozens of close calls on the road.  it is the fact that you are throwing a couple of tons of metal around at speeds higher than our brains are used to dealing with in conditions that are less than ideal.  moreover each person matures at very different rates.  so, while it might be a good idea to exclude some individuals from driving until they are older you are also unnecessarily preventing people who can drive adequately as well.  where is that break even point where more people are harmed than helped ?  #  0.  it was not considered cool to take the school bus obviously .   #  when i was a teenager, i lived in lake stevens, wa, a small town 0 miles north of seattle.  in no way a thriving metropolis.  most students were within 0km from the high school easily reachable by bike and one could circle the entire 0 miles of the lake in an hour by bicycle.  we also had buses that went from our city center to the city center of the next town over and made many stops in between.  you could even get to seattle by bus via transfer.  everything else was walkable.  and yet 0 of the teenagers at my school drove a car everywhere they needed to go.  why ? 0.  it was not considered cool to take the school bus obviously .  0.  only  weirdos  took the city bus.  0.  having one is own car was a status symbol within the school community.  0.  it was awesome to be independent.  anyway, you are wrong that it is impossible to get anywhere without a car in america.  there are plenty of towns just like the one i grew up in.  and people underestimate how efficient bicycles are as modes of transportation.  just ask the europeans.  but now i am completely misrepresenting my viewpoint, because i actually think that teenagers should be free to drive independently within city limits of small towns.  once speeds reach excess of 0 mph and highways or back roads start to get involved is where i think the line should be drawn.  not sure if that is a realistic regulation to make though.  i am just thinking out loud.
i believe that the current driving age, 0, is too low and that teenagers at that age are a danger on the road.  teenagers are notorious for poor decision making and the rise in texting related accidents proves that teens are unable to consistently operate a car safely.  i think raising the driving age would make driving safer overall and would also discourage teenagers from participating in illegal activities such as underage drinking and illegal drug use.  cars accidents happen all too often and keeping kids off the road will make things safer for them and for the adults that need to use cars.  change my view.   #  i think raising the driving age would make driving safer overall and would also discourage teenagers from participating in illegal activities such as underage drinking and illegal drug use.   #  i have no idea how driving a car causes drinking and illegal drug use.   # i have been driving since age 0, i disagree.  i was 0 the 0st time i was in an accident.  there are better ways to prevent texting and driving than limiting the age of the driver.  more laws, and less freedom is not a good answer for some simple security.  i have no idea how driving a car causes drinking and illegal drug use.  my first illegal drug was nicotine at age 0.  you are making a lot of generalizations.  i started working at age 0 on a horseradish farm so i could save to buy a car .  if you are going to prevent people who have jobs 0 is also the age for that , from diving to their job, then you should also be calling to raise the minimum working age to 0.  i think you live in an urban area, as little of these issues occur so badly in the rural area in which i live.  i ca not understand how country folks have to give up rights/privileges so city folks can feel safer ?  #  but asserting  more experience better driver, therefore we should start as soon as possible  dismisses factors like maturity and responsibility both legal and the personal sense of it .   #  that argument would hold up if we assume kids will follow the rules you lay out for them and understand the consequences of all their actions.  it is a demonstrably false assumption, however utopian, at the very liberal best.  raising the driving age helps to achieve the goal that the driver to be has accumulated more life experience, has hopefully learned more about driving reading the theory books, practicing with a responsible adult, etc.  and overall matured more both as a person and as a driver before they go out on their own.  i fully agree that experience is a key factor in being a good driver you are by no means a good driver simply because you are 0, or simply because you have passed a driver is test.  but asserting  more experience better driver, therefore we should start as soon as possible  dismisses factors like maturity and responsibility both legal and the personal sense of it .   #  i think teens should be able to drive with their parents and parents only until the age of 0.  this would eliminate the problem of inexperience.   #  i think teens should be able to drive with their parents and parents only until the age of 0.  this would eliminate the problem of inexperience.  i got my license 0 years ago before there were many restrictions.  none of my friends belonged on the road at that age, including me.  i do not even want to know how many times we came close to death or killing/injuring others.  dozens.  by the time i was 0 or 0 i had matured enough to take it easy behind the wheel.  i understand that it is different for everyone, though.   #  where is that break even point where more people are harmed than helped ?  #  everyone has dozens of close calls on the road.  it is the fact that you are throwing a couple of tons of metal around at speeds higher than our brains are used to dealing with in conditions that are less than ideal.  moreover each person matures at very different rates.  so, while it might be a good idea to exclude some individuals from driving until they are older you are also unnecessarily preventing people who can drive adequately as well.  where is that break even point where more people are harmed than helped ?  #  0.  it was not considered cool to take the school bus obviously .   #  when i was a teenager, i lived in lake stevens, wa, a small town 0 miles north of seattle.  in no way a thriving metropolis.  most students were within 0km from the high school easily reachable by bike and one could circle the entire 0 miles of the lake in an hour by bicycle.  we also had buses that went from our city center to the city center of the next town over and made many stops in between.  you could even get to seattle by bus via transfer.  everything else was walkable.  and yet 0 of the teenagers at my school drove a car everywhere they needed to go.  why ? 0.  it was not considered cool to take the school bus obviously .  0.  only  weirdos  took the city bus.  0.  having one is own car was a status symbol within the school community.  0.  it was awesome to be independent.  anyway, you are wrong that it is impossible to get anywhere without a car in america.  there are plenty of towns just like the one i grew up in.  and people underestimate how efficient bicycles are as modes of transportation.  just ask the europeans.  but now i am completely misrepresenting my viewpoint, because i actually think that teenagers should be free to drive independently within city limits of small towns.  once speeds reach excess of 0 mph and highways or back roads start to get involved is where i think the line should be drawn.  not sure if that is a realistic regulation to make though.  i am just thinking out loud.
i believe that the current driving age, 0, is too low and that teenagers at that age are a danger on the road.  teenagers are notorious for poor decision making and the rise in texting related accidents proves that teens are unable to consistently operate a car safely.  i think raising the driving age would make driving safer overall and would also discourage teenagers from participating in illegal activities such as underage drinking and illegal drug use.  cars accidents happen all too often and keeping kids off the road will make things safer for them and for the adults that need to use cars.  change my view.   #  cars accidents happen all too often and keeping kids off the road will make things safer for them and for the adults that need to use cars.   #  i started working at age 0 on a horseradish farm so i could save to buy a car .   # i have been driving since age 0, i disagree.  i was 0 the 0st time i was in an accident.  there are better ways to prevent texting and driving than limiting the age of the driver.  more laws, and less freedom is not a good answer for some simple security.  i have no idea how driving a car causes drinking and illegal drug use.  my first illegal drug was nicotine at age 0.  you are making a lot of generalizations.  i started working at age 0 on a horseradish farm so i could save to buy a car .  if you are going to prevent people who have jobs 0 is also the age for that , from diving to their job, then you should also be calling to raise the minimum working age to 0.  i think you live in an urban area, as little of these issues occur so badly in the rural area in which i live.  i ca not understand how country folks have to give up rights/privileges so city folks can feel safer ?  #  and overall matured more both as a person and as a driver before they go out on their own.   #  that argument would hold up if we assume kids will follow the rules you lay out for them and understand the consequences of all their actions.  it is a demonstrably false assumption, however utopian, at the very liberal best.  raising the driving age helps to achieve the goal that the driver to be has accumulated more life experience, has hopefully learned more about driving reading the theory books, practicing with a responsible adult, etc.  and overall matured more both as a person and as a driver before they go out on their own.  i fully agree that experience is a key factor in being a good driver you are by no means a good driver simply because you are 0, or simply because you have passed a driver is test.  but asserting  more experience better driver, therefore we should start as soon as possible  dismisses factors like maturity and responsibility both legal and the personal sense of it .   #  i do not even want to know how many times we came close to death or killing/injuring others.   #  i think teens should be able to drive with their parents and parents only until the age of 0.  this would eliminate the problem of inexperience.  i got my license 0 years ago before there were many restrictions.  none of my friends belonged on the road at that age, including me.  i do not even want to know how many times we came close to death or killing/injuring others.  dozens.  by the time i was 0 or 0 i had matured enough to take it easy behind the wheel.  i understand that it is different for everyone, though.   #  so, while it might be a good idea to exclude some individuals from driving until they are older you are also unnecessarily preventing people who can drive adequately as well.   #  everyone has dozens of close calls on the road.  it is the fact that you are throwing a couple of tons of metal around at speeds higher than our brains are used to dealing with in conditions that are less than ideal.  moreover each person matures at very different rates.  so, while it might be a good idea to exclude some individuals from driving until they are older you are also unnecessarily preventing people who can drive adequately as well.  where is that break even point where more people are harmed than helped ?  #  most students were within 0km from the high school easily reachable by bike and one could circle the entire 0 miles of the lake in an hour by bicycle.   #  when i was a teenager, i lived in lake stevens, wa, a small town 0 miles north of seattle.  in no way a thriving metropolis.  most students were within 0km from the high school easily reachable by bike and one could circle the entire 0 miles of the lake in an hour by bicycle.  we also had buses that went from our city center to the city center of the next town over and made many stops in between.  you could even get to seattle by bus via transfer.  everything else was walkable.  and yet 0 of the teenagers at my school drove a car everywhere they needed to go.  why ? 0.  it was not considered cool to take the school bus obviously .  0.  only  weirdos  took the city bus.  0.  having one is own car was a status symbol within the school community.  0.  it was awesome to be independent.  anyway, you are wrong that it is impossible to get anywhere without a car in america.  there are plenty of towns just like the one i grew up in.  and people underestimate how efficient bicycles are as modes of transportation.  just ask the europeans.  but now i am completely misrepresenting my viewpoint, because i actually think that teenagers should be free to drive independently within city limits of small towns.  once speeds reach excess of 0 mph and highways or back roads start to get involved is where i think the line should be drawn.  not sure if that is a realistic regulation to make though.  i am just thinking out loud.
i believe that the current driving age, 0, is too low and that teenagers at that age are a danger on the road.  teenagers are notorious for poor decision making and the rise in texting related accidents proves that teens are unable to consistently operate a car safely.  i think raising the driving age would make driving safer overall and would also discourage teenagers from participating in illegal activities such as underage drinking and illegal drug use.  cars accidents happen all too often and keeping kids off the road will make things safer for them and for the adults that need to use cars.  change my view.   #  and would also discourage teenagers from participating in illegal activities such as underage drinking and illegal drug use.   #  teens will do this whether or not they have vehicles, so it is important that they learn the consequences of doing these and then driving sooner rather than later.   #  before giving my reasons, i would like to counter a couple of your points:   and the rise in texting related accidents proves that teens are unable to consistently operate a car safely.  it is not just teens.  teens learn this from their parents in some cases, and many adults do it too.  here is a good site URL showing some stats related to both.  teens will do this whether or not they have vehicles, so it is important that they learn the consequences of doing these and then driving sooner rather than later.  get them driving before they start using these substances and they will likely have a better appreciation for how much harder and dangerous driving would be under the influence.  anyways, there are a couple simple reasons i believe the driving age is fine at 0, and actually is fine for people to start driving even earlier.  where i grew up you get your learners license at the age of 0 and that allowed me and many others years of practicing driving under parental supervision before even graduating high school.  my first reason is that alcohol is still illegal to buy when you are 0, meaning that when you are learning to drive at the age of 0 you are still in high school, and while there is the temptation of of buying alcohol, obtaining it is much more difficult than in a couple of years at 0 when buying alcohol is legal, or i guess 0 if you are in the us.  the second reason is for most people you are still living with your parents, so there is someone that you are accountable to, as you are likely driving one of their vehicles, and they are also someone to learn from.  when you are an adult you are doing things all on your own, so not having a trusted adult around to help you along can mean you will learn more bad habits.  of course not all adults are good drivers, but most parents should have some good driving advice to pass on to their kids.  lastly, the longer you keep someone from driving, the longer it takes for them to become a good driver.  you wo not become one overnight.  practice makes permanent, so by learning from parents and other good role models and practicing a lot you will have better adjusted and overall better drivers when they become adults.   #  it is a demonstrably false assumption, however utopian, at the very liberal best.   #  that argument would hold up if we assume kids will follow the rules you lay out for them and understand the consequences of all their actions.  it is a demonstrably false assumption, however utopian, at the very liberal best.  raising the driving age helps to achieve the goal that the driver to be has accumulated more life experience, has hopefully learned more about driving reading the theory books, practicing with a responsible adult, etc.  and overall matured more both as a person and as a driver before they go out on their own.  i fully agree that experience is a key factor in being a good driver you are by no means a good driver simply because you are 0, or simply because you have passed a driver is test.  but asserting  more experience better driver, therefore we should start as soon as possible  dismisses factors like maturity and responsibility both legal and the personal sense of it .   #  i think teens should be able to drive with their parents and parents only until the age of 0.  this would eliminate the problem of inexperience.   #  i think teens should be able to drive with their parents and parents only until the age of 0.  this would eliminate the problem of inexperience.  i got my license 0 years ago before there were many restrictions.  none of my friends belonged on the road at that age, including me.  i do not even want to know how many times we came close to death or killing/injuring others.  dozens.  by the time i was 0 or 0 i had matured enough to take it easy behind the wheel.  i understand that it is different for everyone, though.   #  where is that break even point where more people are harmed than helped ?  #  everyone has dozens of close calls on the road.  it is the fact that you are throwing a couple of tons of metal around at speeds higher than our brains are used to dealing with in conditions that are less than ideal.  moreover each person matures at very different rates.  so, while it might be a good idea to exclude some individuals from driving until they are older you are also unnecessarily preventing people who can drive adequately as well.  where is that break even point where more people are harmed than helped ?  #  not sure if that is a realistic regulation to make though.   #  when i was a teenager, i lived in lake stevens, wa, a small town 0 miles north of seattle.  in no way a thriving metropolis.  most students were within 0km from the high school easily reachable by bike and one could circle the entire 0 miles of the lake in an hour by bicycle.  we also had buses that went from our city center to the city center of the next town over and made many stops in between.  you could even get to seattle by bus via transfer.  everything else was walkable.  and yet 0 of the teenagers at my school drove a car everywhere they needed to go.  why ? 0.  it was not considered cool to take the school bus obviously .  0.  only  weirdos  took the city bus.  0.  having one is own car was a status symbol within the school community.  0.  it was awesome to be independent.  anyway, you are wrong that it is impossible to get anywhere without a car in america.  there are plenty of towns just like the one i grew up in.  and people underestimate how efficient bicycles are as modes of transportation.  just ask the europeans.  but now i am completely misrepresenting my viewpoint, because i actually think that teenagers should be free to drive independently within city limits of small towns.  once speeds reach excess of 0 mph and highways or back roads start to get involved is where i think the line should be drawn.  not sure if that is a realistic regulation to make though.  i am just thinking out loud.
do not get me wrong, i personally think that net neutrality is a great thing and like the internet how it is.  but i do not think that anyone necessarily has a right to enforce corporations to sell a particular service to the public.  to me, the argument comes down basically to wether or not internet is a public utility, like electricity, water and telephone service; or is internet just a widely used private service, like google, for example.  while some would baselessly argue that the internet was a product of public endeavour and government research obama and al gore, for example, yet in terms of actual facts, the internet was a product of university research and private investment.  sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  now, since it is so widespread and massively used by the public, they want to label it a public utility, and let the public control a private industry.  to me, this is no different than if people hypothetically decided since everyone uses google, and it can be nearly impossible to efficiently navigate the web without it, it is a public utility too; does the public have a right to stop google from letting entities pay more to allow their results to show up higher on the search page ? google developed a superior technology and on top of that allows the public to use their service for free.  should not they decide what service they provide, not the public ? or if a particular restaurant chain became so huge that nearly everyone used the service, should the public be allowed to stop them from making changes to the services they provide ? i do not think so, because the public did not create the service, so they should not control it.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? change my view.  tl;dr: net neutrality is nice, but i do not think the public truly has a right to control private companies.   #  should the public be allowed to stop them from making changes to the services they provide ?  #  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .   #  explain why you think that the telephone is a public utility as opposed to the internet ? additionally for the  restaurant chain  argument.  imagine that there is now only one place in town you can get food, there are  literally no other options.  the same is true of every town in america, but perhaps there 0 or 0 major chains in the us, but they all decided to not work near each other, so while yes there is not one single super food store each individually realistically only has access to one.  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .  now by your argument the public ca not do anything about this and the quality of life will drop drastically.  obviously there would have to be an intervention to prevent people from starving because the  monopoly  can set prices however they want with no reason to decrease prices.  this is what is going on with the internet, and net neutrality does not even address this issue.  all it does, if we want to use the food analogy again, is ensure that everyone has equal access to the food.  no one can pay to ensure they get all the food they want while others go malnourished because they do not have enough money to pay a premium to get better access to the food which they still will also have to buy.  now you might say that the analogy ca not apply, we need food to live not the internet, but while electricity also is not a direct requirement to living it would be hard to argue that you would be able to function in modern society without it.  the same is becoming true of the internet.  a lot of the actual details of net neutrality were lost with the analogy so i suggest you watch this for a good background again not too deep on the specifics, but it will give a solid starting point for our conversation : URL  #  it was first regulated, then broken up by the government.   #  well, the public certainly has a right to  regulate  private companies.  if you want to call that  control,  then the public certainly has a right to control private companies.  at least according to well established laws and legal precedents in the united states.  i would prefer not to get into libertarian arguments to the contrary, because we would get into much broader issues than net neutrality.  a relevant precedent is what happened to the bell telephone company URL bell started out as a private provider of telephone services  in fact, the inventor of the telephone  and swelled into an anticompetitive monopoly.  it was first regulated, then broken up by the government.  i mention this because you seem to concede that telephone service is a  public utility  worthy of government regulation, and its history could hardly be more similar to the internet today.  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.  it is fine if  everyone  is using a product or service.  as long as they have the option to choose another service, the market can self regulate.  for the internet, we have a decreasing number of players controlling more and more infrastructure, stifling consumer choice, and putting a stranglehold on what has become a vital service in today is world.  if there were one company that owned all the restaurants in the country and somehow put up significant barriers to new restaurants opening, the government might possibly intervene, just as they did with bell, microsoft, and various other monopolies throughout history.   #  no one is forcing the public to buy the car, and in a free market a competitor could just make a similar yet safer product, right ?  #  well said.  regarding op, one could make a similar argument about car safety standards what right does the public have to force a private company to make their product adhere to certain standards ? no one is forcing the public to buy the car, and in a free market a competitor could just make a similar yet safer product, right ? well there is a barrier to entry when it comes to competition, especially if you are going up against a major telecommunications or automotive corporation.  additionally, the government has a duty to look out for consumers and not simply wait for the market to correct itself.  the basic idea is that government has a responsibility to regulate for the sake of the public, as well as keeping markets open and not dominated by a monopoly.  there is a precedent for regulating industries to better serve the public and keep markets free.  in the instance of net neutrality, isps thrived for years even with net neutrality in effect, so it cannot be argued that continuing the regulation would be a detriment to the industry.   #  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   # i understand the justification for some regulation, but i think the level of control net neutrality implies is a little extreme.  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ? i ca not think of a solution that would involve less market tampering than placing regulatory controls on the industry.  i am largely libertarian leaning myself but the fact of the matter is it is well established that the government has the power to regulate/control private businesses.  the only way that is  at all  debatable is from a philosophical point of view that ignores history.  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   #  i think it is important to note that companies do not have any  rights  in a moral sense at all.   #  i think it is important to note that companies do not have any  rights  in a moral sense at all.  they are fictitious entities made of paper.  from an ethical standpoint, any legal rights we give to companies are proxies for saying that we want to recognize the right of people who work in and built those companies to fairly enjoy the results of their labor.  that being said, is not there a point at which the interests of the public do outweigh the ability of a ceo to make slightly more money ? we are not shutting down isps, or taking them over; we are not even going to do anything that is likely to cost anyone jobs, overall, since net neutrality is hardly going kill the internet.  do we really violate any  person is  rights by making the internet a public service ?
do not get me wrong, i personally think that net neutrality is a great thing and like the internet how it is.  but i do not think that anyone necessarily has a right to enforce corporations to sell a particular service to the public.  to me, the argument comes down basically to wether or not internet is a public utility, like electricity, water and telephone service; or is internet just a widely used private service, like google, for example.  while some would baselessly argue that the internet was a product of public endeavour and government research obama and al gore, for example, yet in terms of actual facts, the internet was a product of university research and private investment.  sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  now, since it is so widespread and massively used by the public, they want to label it a public utility, and let the public control a private industry.  to me, this is no different than if people hypothetically decided since everyone uses google, and it can be nearly impossible to efficiently navigate the web without it, it is a public utility too; does the public have a right to stop google from letting entities pay more to allow their results to show up higher on the search page ? google developed a superior technology and on top of that allows the public to use their service for free.  should not they decide what service they provide, not the public ? or if a particular restaurant chain became so huge that nearly everyone used the service, should the public be allowed to stop them from making changes to the services they provide ? i do not think so, because the public did not create the service, so they should not control it.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? change my view.  tl;dr: net neutrality is nice, but i do not think the public truly has a right to control private companies.   #  should not they decide what service they provide, not the public ?  #  no, google is not a supreme autocrat, no.   # we do not.  if a corporation does not want to sell a product or service, who is to make them ? but when a corporation is in a business, where they are using the public right of way, then the public, as a property owner itself, as well as a property right protector, then they have the right to set conditions on it.  so for example, if you want patent protection, or trademark protection, or copyright protection, then the public can say what terms it will be done.  you have the reasoning wrong.  it is now since private industries are trying to capture it, the public is reacting with a sense of distaste and aversion to it.  you must have missed the recent ruling in the eu regarding the right to vanish.  no, they do not.  they allow the public to use the service while charging for the valuable eyeballs of the public to people willing to pay in order to get something from that public.  no, google is not a supreme autocrat, no.  restaurants are regulated already, under numerous legal provisions.  health codes, fire codes, and other safety standards, disability accommodations, and even operating hours.  the public does have the right to controlling itself though, right ? yes, you should.  because failing to keep it open will have a terrible impact upon society.  thus letting google or anybody else co opt it would be worse for the public, and since google, nor anybody else, has not been given the right to such control, the rest of us can speak out against them.  and should it reach a point where action is necessary, act.  or do you think google is our supreme lord and master ? those companies are demanding stuff from the public.  does the public not have the right to reciprocity ?  #  at least according to well established laws and legal precedents in the united states.   #  well, the public certainly has a right to  regulate  private companies.  if you want to call that  control,  then the public certainly has a right to control private companies.  at least according to well established laws and legal precedents in the united states.  i would prefer not to get into libertarian arguments to the contrary, because we would get into much broader issues than net neutrality.  a relevant precedent is what happened to the bell telephone company URL bell started out as a private provider of telephone services  in fact, the inventor of the telephone  and swelled into an anticompetitive monopoly.  it was first regulated, then broken up by the government.  i mention this because you seem to concede that telephone service is a  public utility  worthy of government regulation, and its history could hardly be more similar to the internet today.  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.  it is fine if  everyone  is using a product or service.  as long as they have the option to choose another service, the market can self regulate.  for the internet, we have a decreasing number of players controlling more and more infrastructure, stifling consumer choice, and putting a stranglehold on what has become a vital service in today is world.  if there were one company that owned all the restaurants in the country and somehow put up significant barriers to new restaurants opening, the government might possibly intervene, just as they did with bell, microsoft, and various other monopolies throughout history.   #  regarding op, one could make a similar argument about car safety standards what right does the public have to force a private company to make their product adhere to certain standards ?  #  well said.  regarding op, one could make a similar argument about car safety standards what right does the public have to force a private company to make their product adhere to certain standards ? no one is forcing the public to buy the car, and in a free market a competitor could just make a similar yet safer product, right ? well there is a barrier to entry when it comes to competition, especially if you are going up against a major telecommunications or automotive corporation.  additionally, the government has a duty to look out for consumers and not simply wait for the market to correct itself.  the basic idea is that government has a responsibility to regulate for the sake of the public, as well as keeping markets open and not dominated by a monopoly.  there is a precedent for regulating industries to better serve the public and keep markets free.  in the instance of net neutrality, isps thrived for years even with net neutrality in effect, so it cannot be argued that continuing the regulation would be a detriment to the industry.   #  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   # i understand the justification for some regulation, but i think the level of control net neutrality implies is a little extreme.  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ? i ca not think of a solution that would involve less market tampering than placing regulatory controls on the industry.  i am largely libertarian leaning myself but the fact of the matter is it is well established that the government has the power to regulate/control private businesses.  the only way that is  at all  debatable is from a philosophical point of view that ignores history.  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   #  the same is becoming true of the internet.   #  explain why you think that the telephone is a public utility as opposed to the internet ? additionally for the  restaurant chain  argument.  imagine that there is now only one place in town you can get food, there are  literally no other options.  the same is true of every town in america, but perhaps there 0 or 0 major chains in the us, but they all decided to not work near each other, so while yes there is not one single super food store each individually realistically only has access to one.  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .  now by your argument the public ca not do anything about this and the quality of life will drop drastically.  obviously there would have to be an intervention to prevent people from starving because the  monopoly  can set prices however they want with no reason to decrease prices.  this is what is going on with the internet, and net neutrality does not even address this issue.  all it does, if we want to use the food analogy again, is ensure that everyone has equal access to the food.  no one can pay to ensure they get all the food they want while others go malnourished because they do not have enough money to pay a premium to get better access to the food which they still will also have to buy.  now you might say that the analogy ca not apply, we need food to live not the internet, but while electricity also is not a direct requirement to living it would be hard to argue that you would be able to function in modern society without it.  the same is becoming true of the internet.  a lot of the actual details of net neutrality were lost with the analogy so i suggest you watch this for a good background again not too deep on the specifics, but it will give a solid starting point for our conversation : URL
do not get me wrong, i personally think that net neutrality is a great thing and like the internet how it is.  but i do not think that anyone necessarily has a right to enforce corporations to sell a particular service to the public.  to me, the argument comes down basically to wether or not internet is a public utility, like electricity, water and telephone service; or is internet just a widely used private service, like google, for example.  while some would baselessly argue that the internet was a product of public endeavour and government research obama and al gore, for example, yet in terms of actual facts, the internet was a product of university research and private investment.  sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  now, since it is so widespread and massively used by the public, they want to label it a public utility, and let the public control a private industry.  to me, this is no different than if people hypothetically decided since everyone uses google, and it can be nearly impossible to efficiently navigate the web without it, it is a public utility too; does the public have a right to stop google from letting entities pay more to allow their results to show up higher on the search page ? google developed a superior technology and on top of that allows the public to use their service for free.  should not they decide what service they provide, not the public ? or if a particular restaurant chain became so huge that nearly everyone used the service, should the public be allowed to stop them from making changes to the services they provide ? i do not think so, because the public did not create the service, so they should not control it.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? change my view.  tl;dr: net neutrality is nice, but i do not think the public truly has a right to control private companies.   #  or if a particular restaurant chain became so huge that nearly everyone used the service, should the public be allowed to stop them from making changes to the services they provide ?  #  restaurants are regulated already, under numerous legal provisions.   # we do not.  if a corporation does not want to sell a product or service, who is to make them ? but when a corporation is in a business, where they are using the public right of way, then the public, as a property owner itself, as well as a property right protector, then they have the right to set conditions on it.  so for example, if you want patent protection, or trademark protection, or copyright protection, then the public can say what terms it will be done.  you have the reasoning wrong.  it is now since private industries are trying to capture it, the public is reacting with a sense of distaste and aversion to it.  you must have missed the recent ruling in the eu regarding the right to vanish.  no, they do not.  they allow the public to use the service while charging for the valuable eyeballs of the public to people willing to pay in order to get something from that public.  no, google is not a supreme autocrat, no.  restaurants are regulated already, under numerous legal provisions.  health codes, fire codes, and other safety standards, disability accommodations, and even operating hours.  the public does have the right to controlling itself though, right ? yes, you should.  because failing to keep it open will have a terrible impact upon society.  thus letting google or anybody else co opt it would be worse for the public, and since google, nor anybody else, has not been given the right to such control, the rest of us can speak out against them.  and should it reach a point where action is necessary, act.  or do you think google is our supreme lord and master ? those companies are demanding stuff from the public.  does the public not have the right to reciprocity ?  #  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.   #  well, the public certainly has a right to  regulate  private companies.  if you want to call that  control,  then the public certainly has a right to control private companies.  at least according to well established laws and legal precedents in the united states.  i would prefer not to get into libertarian arguments to the contrary, because we would get into much broader issues than net neutrality.  a relevant precedent is what happened to the bell telephone company URL bell started out as a private provider of telephone services  in fact, the inventor of the telephone  and swelled into an anticompetitive monopoly.  it was first regulated, then broken up by the government.  i mention this because you seem to concede that telephone service is a  public utility  worthy of government regulation, and its history could hardly be more similar to the internet today.  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.  it is fine if  everyone  is using a product or service.  as long as they have the option to choose another service, the market can self regulate.  for the internet, we have a decreasing number of players controlling more and more infrastructure, stifling consumer choice, and putting a stranglehold on what has become a vital service in today is world.  if there were one company that owned all the restaurants in the country and somehow put up significant barriers to new restaurants opening, the government might possibly intervene, just as they did with bell, microsoft, and various other monopolies throughout history.   #  the basic idea is that government has a responsibility to regulate for the sake of the public, as well as keeping markets open and not dominated by a monopoly.   #  well said.  regarding op, one could make a similar argument about car safety standards what right does the public have to force a private company to make their product adhere to certain standards ? no one is forcing the public to buy the car, and in a free market a competitor could just make a similar yet safer product, right ? well there is a barrier to entry when it comes to competition, especially if you are going up against a major telecommunications or automotive corporation.  additionally, the government has a duty to look out for consumers and not simply wait for the market to correct itself.  the basic idea is that government has a responsibility to regulate for the sake of the public, as well as keeping markets open and not dominated by a monopoly.  there is a precedent for regulating industries to better serve the public and keep markets free.  in the instance of net neutrality, isps thrived for years even with net neutrality in effect, so it cannot be argued that continuing the regulation would be a detriment to the industry.   #  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ?  # i understand the justification for some regulation, but i think the level of control net neutrality implies is a little extreme.  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ? i ca not think of a solution that would involve less market tampering than placing regulatory controls on the industry.  i am largely libertarian leaning myself but the fact of the matter is it is well established that the government has the power to regulate/control private businesses.  the only way that is  at all  debatable is from a philosophical point of view that ignores history.  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   #  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .   #  explain why you think that the telephone is a public utility as opposed to the internet ? additionally for the  restaurant chain  argument.  imagine that there is now only one place in town you can get food, there are  literally no other options.  the same is true of every town in america, but perhaps there 0 or 0 major chains in the us, but they all decided to not work near each other, so while yes there is not one single super food store each individually realistically only has access to one.  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .  now by your argument the public ca not do anything about this and the quality of life will drop drastically.  obviously there would have to be an intervention to prevent people from starving because the  monopoly  can set prices however they want with no reason to decrease prices.  this is what is going on with the internet, and net neutrality does not even address this issue.  all it does, if we want to use the food analogy again, is ensure that everyone has equal access to the food.  no one can pay to ensure they get all the food they want while others go malnourished because they do not have enough money to pay a premium to get better access to the food which they still will also have to buy.  now you might say that the analogy ca not apply, we need food to live not the internet, but while electricity also is not a direct requirement to living it would be hard to argue that you would be able to function in modern society without it.  the same is becoming true of the internet.  a lot of the actual details of net neutrality were lost with the analogy so i suggest you watch this for a good background again not too deep on the specifics, but it will give a solid starting point for our conversation : URL
do not get me wrong, i personally think that net neutrality is a great thing and like the internet how it is.  but i do not think that anyone necessarily has a right to enforce corporations to sell a particular service to the public.  to me, the argument comes down basically to wether or not internet is a public utility, like electricity, water and telephone service; or is internet just a widely used private service, like google, for example.  while some would baselessly argue that the internet was a product of public endeavour and government research obama and al gore, for example, yet in terms of actual facts, the internet was a product of university research and private investment.  sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  now, since it is so widespread and massively used by the public, they want to label it a public utility, and let the public control a private industry.  to me, this is no different than if people hypothetically decided since everyone uses google, and it can be nearly impossible to efficiently navigate the web without it, it is a public utility too; does the public have a right to stop google from letting entities pay more to allow their results to show up higher on the search page ? google developed a superior technology and on top of that allows the public to use their service for free.  should not they decide what service they provide, not the public ? or if a particular restaurant chain became so huge that nearly everyone used the service, should the public be allowed to stop them from making changes to the services they provide ? i do not think so, because the public did not create the service, so they should not control it.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? change my view.  tl;dr: net neutrality is nice, but i do not think the public truly has a right to control private companies.   #  i do not think so, because the public did not create the service, so they should not control it.   #  the public does have the right to controlling itself though, right ?  # we do not.  if a corporation does not want to sell a product or service, who is to make them ? but when a corporation is in a business, where they are using the public right of way, then the public, as a property owner itself, as well as a property right protector, then they have the right to set conditions on it.  so for example, if you want patent protection, or trademark protection, or copyright protection, then the public can say what terms it will be done.  you have the reasoning wrong.  it is now since private industries are trying to capture it, the public is reacting with a sense of distaste and aversion to it.  you must have missed the recent ruling in the eu regarding the right to vanish.  no, they do not.  they allow the public to use the service while charging for the valuable eyeballs of the public to people willing to pay in order to get something from that public.  no, google is not a supreme autocrat, no.  restaurants are regulated already, under numerous legal provisions.  health codes, fire codes, and other safety standards, disability accommodations, and even operating hours.  the public does have the right to controlling itself though, right ? yes, you should.  because failing to keep it open will have a terrible impact upon society.  thus letting google or anybody else co opt it would be worse for the public, and since google, nor anybody else, has not been given the right to such control, the rest of us can speak out against them.  and should it reach a point where action is necessary, act.  or do you think google is our supreme lord and master ? those companies are demanding stuff from the public.  does the public not have the right to reciprocity ?  #  a relevant precedent is what happened to the bell telephone company URL bell started out as a private provider of telephone services  in fact, the inventor of the telephone  and swelled into an anticompetitive monopoly.   #  well, the public certainly has a right to  regulate  private companies.  if you want to call that  control,  then the public certainly has a right to control private companies.  at least according to well established laws and legal precedents in the united states.  i would prefer not to get into libertarian arguments to the contrary, because we would get into much broader issues than net neutrality.  a relevant precedent is what happened to the bell telephone company URL bell started out as a private provider of telephone services  in fact, the inventor of the telephone  and swelled into an anticompetitive monopoly.  it was first regulated, then broken up by the government.  i mention this because you seem to concede that telephone service is a  public utility  worthy of government regulation, and its history could hardly be more similar to the internet today.  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.  it is fine if  everyone  is using a product or service.  as long as they have the option to choose another service, the market can self regulate.  for the internet, we have a decreasing number of players controlling more and more infrastructure, stifling consumer choice, and putting a stranglehold on what has become a vital service in today is world.  if there were one company that owned all the restaurants in the country and somehow put up significant barriers to new restaurants opening, the government might possibly intervene, just as they did with bell, microsoft, and various other monopolies throughout history.   #  well there is a barrier to entry when it comes to competition, especially if you are going up against a major telecommunications or automotive corporation.   #  well said.  regarding op, one could make a similar argument about car safety standards what right does the public have to force a private company to make their product adhere to certain standards ? no one is forcing the public to buy the car, and in a free market a competitor could just make a similar yet safer product, right ? well there is a barrier to entry when it comes to competition, especially if you are going up against a major telecommunications or automotive corporation.  additionally, the government has a duty to look out for consumers and not simply wait for the market to correct itself.  the basic idea is that government has a responsibility to regulate for the sake of the public, as well as keeping markets open and not dominated by a monopoly.  there is a precedent for regulating industries to better serve the public and keep markets free.  in the instance of net neutrality, isps thrived for years even with net neutrality in effect, so it cannot be argued that continuing the regulation would be a detriment to the industry.   #  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ?  # i understand the justification for some regulation, but i think the level of control net neutrality implies is a little extreme.  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ? i ca not think of a solution that would involve less market tampering than placing regulatory controls on the industry.  i am largely libertarian leaning myself but the fact of the matter is it is well established that the government has the power to regulate/control private businesses.  the only way that is  at all  debatable is from a philosophical point of view that ignores history.  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   #  explain why you think that the telephone is a public utility as opposed to the internet ?  #  explain why you think that the telephone is a public utility as opposed to the internet ? additionally for the  restaurant chain  argument.  imagine that there is now only one place in town you can get food, there are  literally no other options.  the same is true of every town in america, but perhaps there 0 or 0 major chains in the us, but they all decided to not work near each other, so while yes there is not one single super food store each individually realistically only has access to one.  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .  now by your argument the public ca not do anything about this and the quality of life will drop drastically.  obviously there would have to be an intervention to prevent people from starving because the  monopoly  can set prices however they want with no reason to decrease prices.  this is what is going on with the internet, and net neutrality does not even address this issue.  all it does, if we want to use the food analogy again, is ensure that everyone has equal access to the food.  no one can pay to ensure they get all the food they want while others go malnourished because they do not have enough money to pay a premium to get better access to the food which they still will also have to buy.  now you might say that the analogy ca not apply, we need food to live not the internet, but while electricity also is not a direct requirement to living it would be hard to argue that you would be able to function in modern society without it.  the same is becoming true of the internet.  a lot of the actual details of net neutrality were lost with the analogy so i suggest you watch this for a good background again not too deep on the specifics, but it will give a solid starting point for our conversation : URL
do not get me wrong, i personally think that net neutrality is a great thing and like the internet how it is.  but i do not think that anyone necessarily has a right to enforce corporations to sell a particular service to the public.  to me, the argument comes down basically to wether or not internet is a public utility, like electricity, water and telephone service; or is internet just a widely used private service, like google, for example.  while some would baselessly argue that the internet was a product of public endeavour and government research obama and al gore, for example, yet in terms of actual facts, the internet was a product of university research and private investment.  sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  now, since it is so widespread and massively used by the public, they want to label it a public utility, and let the public control a private industry.  to me, this is no different than if people hypothetically decided since everyone uses google, and it can be nearly impossible to efficiently navigate the web without it, it is a public utility too; does the public have a right to stop google from letting entities pay more to allow their results to show up higher on the search page ? google developed a superior technology and on top of that allows the public to use their service for free.  should not they decide what service they provide, not the public ? or if a particular restaurant chain became so huge that nearly everyone used the service, should the public be allowed to stop them from making changes to the services they provide ? i do not think so, because the public did not create the service, so they should not control it.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? change my view.  tl;dr: net neutrality is nice, but i do not think the public truly has a right to control private companies.   #  tl;dr: net neutrality is nice, but i do not think the public truly has a right to control private companies.   #  those companies are demanding stuff from the public.   # we do not.  if a corporation does not want to sell a product or service, who is to make them ? but when a corporation is in a business, where they are using the public right of way, then the public, as a property owner itself, as well as a property right protector, then they have the right to set conditions on it.  so for example, if you want patent protection, or trademark protection, or copyright protection, then the public can say what terms it will be done.  you have the reasoning wrong.  it is now since private industries are trying to capture it, the public is reacting with a sense of distaste and aversion to it.  you must have missed the recent ruling in the eu regarding the right to vanish.  no, they do not.  they allow the public to use the service while charging for the valuable eyeballs of the public to people willing to pay in order to get something from that public.  no, google is not a supreme autocrat, no.  restaurants are regulated already, under numerous legal provisions.  health codes, fire codes, and other safety standards, disability accommodations, and even operating hours.  the public does have the right to controlling itself though, right ? yes, you should.  because failing to keep it open will have a terrible impact upon society.  thus letting google or anybody else co opt it would be worse for the public, and since google, nor anybody else, has not been given the right to such control, the rest of us can speak out against them.  and should it reach a point where action is necessary, act.  or do you think google is our supreme lord and master ? those companies are demanding stuff from the public.  does the public not have the right to reciprocity ?  #  if you want to call that  control,  then the public certainly has a right to control private companies.   #  well, the public certainly has a right to  regulate  private companies.  if you want to call that  control,  then the public certainly has a right to control private companies.  at least according to well established laws and legal precedents in the united states.  i would prefer not to get into libertarian arguments to the contrary, because we would get into much broader issues than net neutrality.  a relevant precedent is what happened to the bell telephone company URL bell started out as a private provider of telephone services  in fact, the inventor of the telephone  and swelled into an anticompetitive monopoly.  it was first regulated, then broken up by the government.  i mention this because you seem to concede that telephone service is a  public utility  worthy of government regulation, and its history could hardly be more similar to the internet today.  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.  it is fine if  everyone  is using a product or service.  as long as they have the option to choose another service, the market can self regulate.  for the internet, we have a decreasing number of players controlling more and more infrastructure, stifling consumer choice, and putting a stranglehold on what has become a vital service in today is world.  if there were one company that owned all the restaurants in the country and somehow put up significant barriers to new restaurants opening, the government might possibly intervene, just as they did with bell, microsoft, and various other monopolies throughout history.   #  in the instance of net neutrality, isps thrived for years even with net neutrality in effect, so it cannot be argued that continuing the regulation would be a detriment to the industry.   #  well said.  regarding op, one could make a similar argument about car safety standards what right does the public have to force a private company to make their product adhere to certain standards ? no one is forcing the public to buy the car, and in a free market a competitor could just make a similar yet safer product, right ? well there is a barrier to entry when it comes to competition, especially if you are going up against a major telecommunications or automotive corporation.  additionally, the government has a duty to look out for consumers and not simply wait for the market to correct itself.  the basic idea is that government has a responsibility to regulate for the sake of the public, as well as keeping markets open and not dominated by a monopoly.  there is a precedent for regulating industries to better serve the public and keep markets free.  in the instance of net neutrality, isps thrived for years even with net neutrality in effect, so it cannot be argued that continuing the regulation would be a detriment to the industry.   #  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ?  # i understand the justification for some regulation, but i think the level of control net neutrality implies is a little extreme.  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ? i ca not think of a solution that would involve less market tampering than placing regulatory controls on the industry.  i am largely libertarian leaning myself but the fact of the matter is it is well established that the government has the power to regulate/control private businesses.  the only way that is  at all  debatable is from a philosophical point of view that ignores history.  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   #  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .   #  explain why you think that the telephone is a public utility as opposed to the internet ? additionally for the  restaurant chain  argument.  imagine that there is now only one place in town you can get food, there are  literally no other options.  the same is true of every town in america, but perhaps there 0 or 0 major chains in the us, but they all decided to not work near each other, so while yes there is not one single super food store each individually realistically only has access to one.  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .  now by your argument the public ca not do anything about this and the quality of life will drop drastically.  obviously there would have to be an intervention to prevent people from starving because the  monopoly  can set prices however they want with no reason to decrease prices.  this is what is going on with the internet, and net neutrality does not even address this issue.  all it does, if we want to use the food analogy again, is ensure that everyone has equal access to the food.  no one can pay to ensure they get all the food they want while others go malnourished because they do not have enough money to pay a premium to get better access to the food which they still will also have to buy.  now you might say that the analogy ca not apply, we need food to live not the internet, but while electricity also is not a direct requirement to living it would be hard to argue that you would be able to function in modern society without it.  the same is becoming true of the internet.  a lot of the actual details of net neutrality were lost with the analogy so i suggest you watch this for a good background again not too deep on the specifics, but it will give a solid starting point for our conversation : URL
do not get me wrong, i personally think that net neutrality is a great thing and like the internet how it is.  but i do not think that anyone necessarily has a right to enforce corporations to sell a particular service to the public.  to me, the argument comes down basically to wether or not internet is a public utility, like electricity, water and telephone service; or is internet just a widely used private service, like google, for example.  while some would baselessly argue that the internet was a product of public endeavour and government research obama and al gore, for example, yet in terms of actual facts, the internet was a product of university research and private investment.  sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  now, since it is so widespread and massively used by the public, they want to label it a public utility, and let the public control a private industry.  to me, this is no different than if people hypothetically decided since everyone uses google, and it can be nearly impossible to efficiently navigate the web without it, it is a public utility too; does the public have a right to stop google from letting entities pay more to allow their results to show up higher on the search page ? google developed a superior technology and on top of that allows the public to use their service for free.  should not they decide what service they provide, not the public ? or if a particular restaurant chain became so huge that nearly everyone used the service, should the public be allowed to stop them from making changes to the services they provide ? i do not think so, because the public did not create the service, so they should not control it.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? change my view.  tl;dr: net neutrality is nice, but i do not think the public truly has a right to control private companies.   #  while some would baselessly argue that the internet was a product of public endeavour and government research obama and al gore, for example, yet in terms of actual facts, the internet was a product of university research and private investment.   #  sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.   # sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  well, you are just flat out wrong there, a little conversation with vint cerf if you are going to discuss the internet you should know who he is shows that government gets the credit URL the credit for the internet and tcp/ip which runs it goes to vint cerf and bob kahn working in the arpa project which was funded and run by the government.  in fact, the government attempted to sell off the research project to a bunch of private companies which all declined to buy it.  so claiming that the government only  helped  but was not responsible for the creation of the internet is just plain false.  which shoots a hole in your base premise that the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  it also shoots a hole in your argument when most of the network building that private companies of done for the internet came from grants and funds from the government to help them build out the networks.  it was not until companies like aol started to see a profit that any private investment and control happened to the industry.  actually monopoly concerns have caused google to have to prove that companies cannot do that which is why all the paid advertisements are not part of the actual results.  in addition it would be bad for business if companies could pay to alter the search results.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? well, i have already shown that the public  did  create the service, but importantly we are not talking about something that nearly everyone  uses  we are talking about something that nearly everyone  relies upon  in a very important way.  people nowadays rely on internet access to do their jobs, find new jobs, do homework and other schoolwork, etc.  it is very much as important or more important to everyone is lives as telephone service, so why do we not regulate it as we do telephones ?  #  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.   #  well, the public certainly has a right to  regulate  private companies.  if you want to call that  control,  then the public certainly has a right to control private companies.  at least according to well established laws and legal precedents in the united states.  i would prefer not to get into libertarian arguments to the contrary, because we would get into much broader issues than net neutrality.  a relevant precedent is what happened to the bell telephone company URL bell started out as a private provider of telephone services  in fact, the inventor of the telephone  and swelled into an anticompetitive monopoly.  it was first regulated, then broken up by the government.  i mention this because you seem to concede that telephone service is a  public utility  worthy of government regulation, and its history could hardly be more similar to the internet today.  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.  it is fine if  everyone  is using a product or service.  as long as they have the option to choose another service, the market can self regulate.  for the internet, we have a decreasing number of players controlling more and more infrastructure, stifling consumer choice, and putting a stranglehold on what has become a vital service in today is world.  if there were one company that owned all the restaurants in the country and somehow put up significant barriers to new restaurants opening, the government might possibly intervene, just as they did with bell, microsoft, and various other monopolies throughout history.   #  regarding op, one could make a similar argument about car safety standards what right does the public have to force a private company to make their product adhere to certain standards ?  #  well said.  regarding op, one could make a similar argument about car safety standards what right does the public have to force a private company to make their product adhere to certain standards ? no one is forcing the public to buy the car, and in a free market a competitor could just make a similar yet safer product, right ? well there is a barrier to entry when it comes to competition, especially if you are going up against a major telecommunications or automotive corporation.  additionally, the government has a duty to look out for consumers and not simply wait for the market to correct itself.  the basic idea is that government has a responsibility to regulate for the sake of the public, as well as keeping markets open and not dominated by a monopoly.  there is a precedent for regulating industries to better serve the public and keep markets free.  in the instance of net neutrality, isps thrived for years even with net neutrality in effect, so it cannot be argued that continuing the regulation would be a detriment to the industry.   #  i am largely libertarian leaning myself but the fact of the matter is it is well established that the government has the power to regulate/control private businesses.   # i understand the justification for some regulation, but i think the level of control net neutrality implies is a little extreme.  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ? i ca not think of a solution that would involve less market tampering than placing regulatory controls on the industry.  i am largely libertarian leaning myself but the fact of the matter is it is well established that the government has the power to regulate/control private businesses.  the only way that is  at all  debatable is from a philosophical point of view that ignores history.  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   #  imagine that there is now only one place in town you can get food, there are  literally no other options.   #  explain why you think that the telephone is a public utility as opposed to the internet ? additionally for the  restaurant chain  argument.  imagine that there is now only one place in town you can get food, there are  literally no other options.  the same is true of every town in america, but perhaps there 0 or 0 major chains in the us, but they all decided to not work near each other, so while yes there is not one single super food store each individually realistically only has access to one.  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .  now by your argument the public ca not do anything about this and the quality of life will drop drastically.  obviously there would have to be an intervention to prevent people from starving because the  monopoly  can set prices however they want with no reason to decrease prices.  this is what is going on with the internet, and net neutrality does not even address this issue.  all it does, if we want to use the food analogy again, is ensure that everyone has equal access to the food.  no one can pay to ensure they get all the food they want while others go malnourished because they do not have enough money to pay a premium to get better access to the food which they still will also have to buy.  now you might say that the analogy ca not apply, we need food to live not the internet, but while electricity also is not a direct requirement to living it would be hard to argue that you would be able to function in modern society without it.  the same is becoming true of the internet.  a lot of the actual details of net neutrality were lost with the analogy so i suggest you watch this for a good background again not too deep on the specifics, but it will give a solid starting point for our conversation : URL
do not get me wrong, i personally think that net neutrality is a great thing and like the internet how it is.  but i do not think that anyone necessarily has a right to enforce corporations to sell a particular service to the public.  to me, the argument comes down basically to wether or not internet is a public utility, like electricity, water and telephone service; or is internet just a widely used private service, like google, for example.  while some would baselessly argue that the internet was a product of public endeavour and government research obama and al gore, for example, yet in terms of actual facts, the internet was a product of university research and private investment.  sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  now, since it is so widespread and massively used by the public, they want to label it a public utility, and let the public control a private industry.  to me, this is no different than if people hypothetically decided since everyone uses google, and it can be nearly impossible to efficiently navigate the web without it, it is a public utility too; does the public have a right to stop google from letting entities pay more to allow their results to show up higher on the search page ? google developed a superior technology and on top of that allows the public to use their service for free.  should not they decide what service they provide, not the public ? or if a particular restaurant chain became so huge that nearly everyone used the service, should the public be allowed to stop them from making changes to the services they provide ? i do not think so, because the public did not create the service, so they should not control it.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? change my view.  tl;dr: net neutrality is nice, but i do not think the public truly has a right to control private companies.   #  does the public have a right to stop google from letting entities pay more to allow their results to show up higher on the search page ?  #  actually monopoly concerns have caused google to have to prove that companies cannot do that which is why all the paid advertisements are not part of the actual results.   # sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  well, you are just flat out wrong there, a little conversation with vint cerf if you are going to discuss the internet you should know who he is shows that government gets the credit URL the credit for the internet and tcp/ip which runs it goes to vint cerf and bob kahn working in the arpa project which was funded and run by the government.  in fact, the government attempted to sell off the research project to a bunch of private companies which all declined to buy it.  so claiming that the government only  helped  but was not responsible for the creation of the internet is just plain false.  which shoots a hole in your base premise that the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  it also shoots a hole in your argument when most of the network building that private companies of done for the internet came from grants and funds from the government to help them build out the networks.  it was not until companies like aol started to see a profit that any private investment and control happened to the industry.  actually monopoly concerns have caused google to have to prove that companies cannot do that which is why all the paid advertisements are not part of the actual results.  in addition it would be bad for business if companies could pay to alter the search results.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? well, i have already shown that the public  did  create the service, but importantly we are not talking about something that nearly everyone  uses  we are talking about something that nearly everyone  relies upon  in a very important way.  people nowadays rely on internet access to do their jobs, find new jobs, do homework and other schoolwork, etc.  it is very much as important or more important to everyone is lives as telephone service, so why do we not regulate it as we do telephones ?  #  well, the public certainly has a right to  regulate  private companies.   #  well, the public certainly has a right to  regulate  private companies.  if you want to call that  control,  then the public certainly has a right to control private companies.  at least according to well established laws and legal precedents in the united states.  i would prefer not to get into libertarian arguments to the contrary, because we would get into much broader issues than net neutrality.  a relevant precedent is what happened to the bell telephone company URL bell started out as a private provider of telephone services  in fact, the inventor of the telephone  and swelled into an anticompetitive monopoly.  it was first regulated, then broken up by the government.  i mention this because you seem to concede that telephone service is a  public utility  worthy of government regulation, and its history could hardly be more similar to the internet today.  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.  it is fine if  everyone  is using a product or service.  as long as they have the option to choose another service, the market can self regulate.  for the internet, we have a decreasing number of players controlling more and more infrastructure, stifling consumer choice, and putting a stranglehold on what has become a vital service in today is world.  if there were one company that owned all the restaurants in the country and somehow put up significant barriers to new restaurants opening, the government might possibly intervene, just as they did with bell, microsoft, and various other monopolies throughout history.   #  no one is forcing the public to buy the car, and in a free market a competitor could just make a similar yet safer product, right ?  #  well said.  regarding op, one could make a similar argument about car safety standards what right does the public have to force a private company to make their product adhere to certain standards ? no one is forcing the public to buy the car, and in a free market a competitor could just make a similar yet safer product, right ? well there is a barrier to entry when it comes to competition, especially if you are going up against a major telecommunications or automotive corporation.  additionally, the government has a duty to look out for consumers and not simply wait for the market to correct itself.  the basic idea is that government has a responsibility to regulate for the sake of the public, as well as keeping markets open and not dominated by a monopoly.  there is a precedent for regulating industries to better serve the public and keep markets free.  in the instance of net neutrality, isps thrived for years even with net neutrality in effect, so it cannot be argued that continuing the regulation would be a detriment to the industry.   #  i understand the justification for some regulation, but i think the level of control net neutrality implies is a little extreme.   # i understand the justification for some regulation, but i think the level of control net neutrality implies is a little extreme.  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ? i ca not think of a solution that would involve less market tampering than placing regulatory controls on the industry.  i am largely libertarian leaning myself but the fact of the matter is it is well established that the government has the power to regulate/control private businesses.  the only way that is  at all  debatable is from a philosophical point of view that ignores history.  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   #  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .   #  explain why you think that the telephone is a public utility as opposed to the internet ? additionally for the  restaurant chain  argument.  imagine that there is now only one place in town you can get food, there are  literally no other options.  the same is true of every town in america, but perhaps there 0 or 0 major chains in the us, but they all decided to not work near each other, so while yes there is not one single super food store each individually realistically only has access to one.  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .  now by your argument the public ca not do anything about this and the quality of life will drop drastically.  obviously there would have to be an intervention to prevent people from starving because the  monopoly  can set prices however they want with no reason to decrease prices.  this is what is going on with the internet, and net neutrality does not even address this issue.  all it does, if we want to use the food analogy again, is ensure that everyone has equal access to the food.  no one can pay to ensure they get all the food they want while others go malnourished because they do not have enough money to pay a premium to get better access to the food which they still will also have to buy.  now you might say that the analogy ca not apply, we need food to live not the internet, but while electricity also is not a direct requirement to living it would be hard to argue that you would be able to function in modern society without it.  the same is becoming true of the internet.  a lot of the actual details of net neutrality were lost with the analogy so i suggest you watch this for a good background again not too deep on the specifics, but it will give a solid starting point for our conversation : URL
do not get me wrong, i personally think that net neutrality is a great thing and like the internet how it is.  but i do not think that anyone necessarily has a right to enforce corporations to sell a particular service to the public.  to me, the argument comes down basically to wether or not internet is a public utility, like electricity, water and telephone service; or is internet just a widely used private service, like google, for example.  while some would baselessly argue that the internet was a product of public endeavour and government research obama and al gore, for example, yet in terms of actual facts, the internet was a product of university research and private investment.  sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  now, since it is so widespread and massively used by the public, they want to label it a public utility, and let the public control a private industry.  to me, this is no different than if people hypothetically decided since everyone uses google, and it can be nearly impossible to efficiently navigate the web without it, it is a public utility too; does the public have a right to stop google from letting entities pay more to allow their results to show up higher on the search page ? google developed a superior technology and on top of that allows the public to use their service for free.  should not they decide what service they provide, not the public ? or if a particular restaurant chain became so huge that nearly everyone used the service, should the public be allowed to stop them from making changes to the services they provide ? i do not think so, because the public did not create the service, so they should not control it.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? change my view.  tl;dr: net neutrality is nice, but i do not think the public truly has a right to control private companies.   #  i do not think so, because the public did not create the service, so they should not control it.   #  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ?  # sure the government helped, but they were not responsible.  well, you are just flat out wrong there, a little conversation with vint cerf if you are going to discuss the internet you should know who he is shows that government gets the credit URL the credit for the internet and tcp/ip which runs it goes to vint cerf and bob kahn working in the arpa project which was funded and run by the government.  in fact, the government attempted to sell off the research project to a bunch of private companies which all declined to buy it.  so claiming that the government only  helped  but was not responsible for the creation of the internet is just plain false.  which shoots a hole in your base premise that the internet is a private industry that came from private research and private investment.  it also shoots a hole in your argument when most of the network building that private companies of done for the internet came from grants and funds from the government to help them build out the networks.  it was not until companies like aol started to see a profit that any private investment and control happened to the industry.  actually monopoly concerns have caused google to have to prove that companies cannot do that which is why all the paid advertisements are not part of the actual results.  in addition it would be bad for business if companies could pay to alter the search results.  i like the open web too, but do i have a right to it ? well, i have already shown that the public  did  create the service, but importantly we are not talking about something that nearly everyone  uses  we are talking about something that nearly everyone  relies upon  in a very important way.  people nowadays rely on internet access to do their jobs, find new jobs, do homework and other schoolwork, etc.  it is very much as important or more important to everyone is lives as telephone service, so why do we not regulate it as we do telephones ?  #  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.   #  well, the public certainly has a right to  regulate  private companies.  if you want to call that  control,  then the public certainly has a right to control private companies.  at least according to well established laws and legal precedents in the united states.  i would prefer not to get into libertarian arguments to the contrary, because we would get into much broader issues than net neutrality.  a relevant precedent is what happened to the bell telephone company URL bell started out as a private provider of telephone services  in fact, the inventor of the telephone  and swelled into an anticompetitive monopoly.  it was first regulated, then broken up by the government.  i mention this because you seem to concede that telephone service is a  public utility  worthy of government regulation, and its history could hardly be more similar to the internet today.  your google and restaurant analogies are flawed in this situation because a chief government interest in the net neutrality issue is the lack of consumer choice.  it is fine if  everyone  is using a product or service.  as long as they have the option to choose another service, the market can self regulate.  for the internet, we have a decreasing number of players controlling more and more infrastructure, stifling consumer choice, and putting a stranglehold on what has become a vital service in today is world.  if there were one company that owned all the restaurants in the country and somehow put up significant barriers to new restaurants opening, the government might possibly intervene, just as they did with bell, microsoft, and various other monopolies throughout history.   #  the basic idea is that government has a responsibility to regulate for the sake of the public, as well as keeping markets open and not dominated by a monopoly.   #  well said.  regarding op, one could make a similar argument about car safety standards what right does the public have to force a private company to make their product adhere to certain standards ? no one is forcing the public to buy the car, and in a free market a competitor could just make a similar yet safer product, right ? well there is a barrier to entry when it comes to competition, especially if you are going up against a major telecommunications or automotive corporation.  additionally, the government has a duty to look out for consumers and not simply wait for the market to correct itself.  the basic idea is that government has a responsibility to regulate for the sake of the public, as well as keeping markets open and not dominated by a monopoly.  there is a precedent for regulating industries to better serve the public and keep markets free.  in the instance of net neutrality, isps thrived for years even with net neutrality in effect, so it cannot be argued that continuing the regulation would be a detriment to the industry.   #  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   # i understand the justification for some regulation, but i think the level of control net neutrality implies is a little extreme.  how would you suggest the government enable other companies to compete with comcast, or microsoft, or bell telephone ? i ca not think of a solution that would involve less market tampering than placing regulatory controls on the industry.  i am largely libertarian leaning myself but the fact of the matter is it is well established that the government has the power to regulate/control private businesses.  the only way that is  at all  debatable is from a philosophical point of view that ignores history.  the existing precedent on telephone monopolies well establishes the right of the government to control, or break up, monopolistic communications carriers, private or no.   #  imagine that there is now only one place in town you can get food, there are  literally no other options.   #  explain why you think that the telephone is a public utility as opposed to the internet ? additionally for the  restaurant chain  argument.  imagine that there is now only one place in town you can get food, there are  literally no other options.  the same is true of every town in america, but perhaps there 0 or 0 major chains in the us, but they all decided to not work near each other, so while yes there is not one single super food store each individually realistically only has access to one.  say the food store in your town decided to raise prices by say 0 every year just a random number .  now by your argument the public ca not do anything about this and the quality of life will drop drastically.  obviously there would have to be an intervention to prevent people from starving because the  monopoly  can set prices however they want with no reason to decrease prices.  this is what is going on with the internet, and net neutrality does not even address this issue.  all it does, if we want to use the food analogy again, is ensure that everyone has equal access to the food.  no one can pay to ensure they get all the food they want while others go malnourished because they do not have enough money to pay a premium to get better access to the food which they still will also have to buy.  now you might say that the analogy ca not apply, we need food to live not the internet, but while electricity also is not a direct requirement to living it would be hard to argue that you would be able to function in modern society without it.  the same is becoming true of the internet.  a lot of the actual details of net neutrality were lost with the analogy so i suggest you watch this for a good background again not too deep on the specifics, but it will give a solid starting point for our conversation : URL
i honestly have a problem with the whole  rape culture  thing.  we live in a safer time than ever before.  the odds of being a victim of a violent crime of any time are lower than they have ever been.  on the flip side though, with the power of the internet we have the ability to hear about every single violent crime that takes place on earth at any given moment.  mostly with the idea that we have to  teach boys not to rape .  as if rape is something that is hard coded into the y chromosome.  just imagine this conversation: father: before you go to that party tonight, be sure you do not rape anyone ! son: sure thing pop ! i always forget that rape is wrong ! thanks for the reminder !  #  mostly with the idea that we have to  teach boys not to rape .   #  as if rape is something that is hard coded into the y chromosome.   # as if rape is something that is hard coded into the y chromosome.  i think that misses the point rape culture is not about what is hard coded into the male identity; rather, it is a movement against a cultural landscape that implicitly teaches boys and men that they are entitled to sex from women.   teach boys not to rape  is not there because otherwise, grown from a petri dish in an isolated environment, boys will definitely turn into rape fiends it is because if we do not explicitly address it, the existing cultural message is ambiguous on the issue at best and rape friendly at worst.  stubenville is a good example.  the fact that so much of the outcry was over the damage done to the lives of the accused tells us that our society does not expect to punish young men for that kind of behaviour.  if they had stolen cars and crashed into someone, it would still be a tragedy that their lives were disrupted, but society at large would say they got what they deserved.  examples like those  implicitly  carry the message that rape and sexual assault are things that a boy can get away with.  but when that is combined with the pop culture attitude where girls  pretend not to want it  and boys are the ones who have to get them to give it up, you have a bad recipe there.  quite a lot of sexual assault happens because people are afraid to go against what appears to be mainstream behaviour.  it is very nuanced, of course, which is why it is contentious, and catchy taglines like  teach boys not to rape  are going to get some spotlight.  but the long and the short of it is that a lot of people do not even know what constitutes rape, and there needs to be a conversation about consent with everyone.   #  it is exemplified by the fact that the default standard of consent for most people is  well, they did not say  no,  so it was ok.    #  there are two different questions here.  i think you are misunderstanding what is meant by that.  there was a survey done a while back that found that if you do not make it obvious that you are asking about rape, people will admit that they have/do rape.  URL this indicates that there is a disjoint between their actions, and how they think of their actions.  it is the difference between  have you ever assaulted someone  and  have you ever touched someone without previously gaining their consent;  they are the same question, but people will say  no  to the first, and  yes  to the second  in the same survey.  so there is a real, legitimate purpose behind teaching people not to rape, because there are a lot of people who genuinely do not understand that some of the actions they might think are perhaps morally grey are, in fact, rape.  rape culture is a social paradigm where the concept of rape is not uniformly despised and vilified the same way that murder is, for example.  it is exemplified by the fact that the default standard of consent for most people is  well, they did not say  no,  so it was ok.   it is the default assumption that person a is entitled to the sexuality of person b, anything from grabbing someone is ass/breast/crotch, to grabbing their head and pulling it towards your sexual/sexualized body parts, to moving their clothing so as to expose sexual/sexualized bodyparts.  it is people thinking that asking someone to go have sex with you over and over again, ignoring their  no is  of various levels of force until they say  yes  is acceptable.  it is thinking that the stalker ish behavior seen in the movie  say anything  and the pieces of trash books  twilight  is  romantic.   rape culture is the idea that sexuality is something to be claimed, and it permeates american society down to its core.  are these things used by some people to hurt men, by people who would be  clearly  acknowledged as misogynists if the genders were reversed ? yes.  are the ideas  only  for that purpose ? as a male victim of repeated sexual harassment and sexual assault, i can tell you categorically that they are not.   #  but i would avoid defining rape culture in terms of  uniform vilification  because it is shaky ground.   # there is no such thing as a social behaviour that is regarded in a uniform pattern by all elements of a society.  i am not entirely opposed to the assertion that something like rape culture exists in western societies.  women do have to live in a climate of fear in many social situations simply because certain kinds of men are present.  but i would avoid defining rape culture in terms of  uniform vilification  because it is shaky ground.  murder, for example, is routinely condoned in many cases by plenty of citizens; many times someone will state the victim  deserved what they got  or  had it coming .   #  if a girl is naked in your bed but does not want to consummate your relationship, no amount of sweet cajoling gives you entitlement to sex.   #  simple assault is just that: touching someone without consent.  rape is sex without consent.  i do not know what it is with the internet lately because it seems like i see this hair splitting and semantic bullshit about consent while being drunk or female on male rape every day.  the thing we need to educate men on is where the line is.  rape is almost never a violent crime committed by a stranger like a mugging as it is usually portrayed.  rape is almost always committed by an acquaintance or boyfriend.  if a girl is naked in your bed but does not want to consummate your relationship, no amount of sweet cajoling gives you entitlement to sex.   #  that is why, i am assuming, there is such a big disparity in the answers.   #  the problem i have with what you said is just that no one has ever explicitly asked me consent for sex, and i never have either; it was implied by my body language and theirs as well.  so i would say i never have raped someone, but i would say i have touched someone without previously gaining their consent.  however, i never gave my consent to them either in these situations, so did we both consensually rape each other ? serious question, because this is where my confusion begins with this example.  also, sex does not happen in a vacuum, so why pretend it does ? rarely, if ever, does either party say  would you like to have sex now ? would you like to do x now ?   because, in reality, that just is not how sex works.  you do things and try things, and if you get resistance or a nonverbal physical cue to something, you stop and try something else assuming all other parts of the sex are consensual, obviously .  so saying that  touching someone without previously gaining their consent  is rather vague, and i would say open to a lot of misinterpretation.  if you include nonverbal clues as consent, then this obviously changes a lot of things, but i am assuming most people would read it as  literally, have you ever touched another person in any way without explicitly asking for their permission first ?  , which most people would say they have; my friends poke me or put their arm around me daily because we do that, they never ask for permission.  that is why, i am assuming, there is such a big disparity in the answers.
i feel like there are two types of people in the world: those who love summer and those who hate it.  i am 0 on the hate side.  sticky hot weather thick humid air which makes you feel like you are suffocating sweat the attitude which comes along with summer which makes everyone want to strip: not so appealing for the body conscious people.  for me, there is no advantages for summer that cannot be countered: want a tan ? use a tanning bed/fake tan want vitamin d ? take supplements want to show off your body ? go on holiday to the beach  #  i feel like there are two types of people in the world: those who love summer and those who hate it.   #  i am 0 on the hate side.   # i am 0 on the hate side.  sticky hot weather thick humid air which makes you feel like you are suffocating sweat the attitude which comes along with summer which makes everyone want to strip: not so appealing for the body conscious people.  you may hate summer in your region which i am guessing is in a temperate region in the northern or southern hemisphere .  in some places it just denotes the difference between the wet season and the dry season.  you speak of the humidity, so you do not live in an arid environment.  you should move somewhere closer to which pole you are already closest too, experience a real winter.  0.  riding a bicycle or motorcycle in comfort.  0.  going swimming outside.  0.  i like to fish, and not on top of ice.  some salt water species are only around in the summer.  0.  bird watching is rather hard when many of the birds are gone during the winter.  0.  baseball 0.  going outside.   #  considering it is winter, and not everyone has a house, for many winter is a time of cold uncomfortable evenings.   # considering it is winter, and not everyone has a house, for many winter is a time of cold uncomfortable evenings.  school hours do not change, and students now have less hours of light to spend outside.  as for work, your hours certainly do not typically change with the seasons.  now you have to work 0 0 and come home to a dark sky after a slow, snowy drive home.  then there is those who do not celebrate and those who do but do not really get  brought together.   during the summer, you do your own thing like always.  but during winter and christmas, you have to talk to/be around family members and in laws you may not like.  have you ever been christmas shopping ? no.  just no.  eh, nothing here.  either way, this competition still manifests, though in the form of presents and cards ! i am guessing you are a girl, then.  unless i am totally not with it and i, a guy, should be shaving my legs.  either way, this only means that winter gives you more chances to slack on personal hygiene.  in that sense, winter is unhealthy, to be contrasted to the  slim down or get shamed  summer.  not pleasant.  no.  all my nope.  shoveling the driveway because you get called in anyway, figuring out how to get the little kids supervised because you have to work but their day care/school is closed.  snow is evil.  also, slower driving and more accidents is not fun.   #  they are what they are, changing them takes long term effort and commitment and wo not happen twice a year according to the season.   #  but.  it does not ? you can be as healthy or unhealthy as you like all year round.  in fact generally speaking, building a  beach body  after slacking off all winter is not only physically impossible but very  unhealthy : bodies do not work like that.  they are what they are, changing them takes long term effort and commitment and wo not happen twice a year according to the season.  it is an entirely unhealthy and unattainable ideal pushed by magazines.  people who care about what they look like in a swimsuit care about what they look like in winter woolies too and coats are thicker but they are not magical and people who care about being healthy have to care about it all year round.  as for hygiene, well, you should definitely be hygienic all year round, so i see your point even less: it is not even as if it is socially acceptable to quit showering in the winter.   #  considering you are more inclined to do this during the summer, that is where that logic comes from.   #  it is not really a matter of  you should try to be healthy/work on a good body year round.   if you do not need to work your body and you do not, that is obviously  more unhealthy  than the opposite.  if you even attempt to work on your body by working out/dieting/etc. , it is healthier than not.  considering you are more inclined to do this during the summer, that is where that logic comes from.  as for the hygiene bit, i kinda forget where i was going with that, so let is just drop that.   #  actually, i think  you are  missing  my  point: i realise that lots of people chase the unattainable ideal of a  beach body  but this just makes them feel bad about themselves, it does not actually motivate them to improve their health.   #  actually, i think  you are  missing  my  point: i realise that lots of people chase the unattainable ideal of a  beach body  but this just makes them feel bad about themselves, it does not actually motivate them to improve their health.  i know many,  many  people who fret about their bodies as summer creeps along and none that have managed to lose weight as a result.  and the people i know who  have  managed to so have achieved that by consistent effort that  transcends  seasons this is something that takes a change of  lifestyle , not a last minute act of despair.  so this statement,  it is the fact that you would try to do so something definitively more healthy than not doing so.   is something i absolutely disagree with.  trying without a realistic idea of how to achieve the result can actually be incredibly harmful, not to mention convince the individual, after they inevitably fail, that nothing can be done anyway.
personal story here purely for context, tldr at the bottom  this is something that is extremely personal and hits close to home.  i was chubby/fat for pretty much entire life until university, when i met a friend who happened to be your typical gym douche and.  turned it all around.  he was very much into fat shaming and had no mercy towards people who say  i ca not lose weight.   and i told him on quite a few occasions that it is honestly hard for people to lose weight and all sorts of crap about metabolic rate and how some people is bodies  want  to be a certain size.  well since he is also an amateur bodybuilder, he was bulking at the time.  and one day, he lamented his abs disappearing and hitting almost 0kg.  i had no abs, and i was almost 0kg, i actually had a very similar shape to him at that stage.  and of course, he went on to talk about how it does not matter since after he cut down to 0kg, it will all be worth it.  and i thought, well fuck, i might as well give it a shot no ? if i just copied him, how badly can it go wrong ? lo and behold, i dropped 0kg in time for summer, i felt better than i ever had before, for the first time i felt like i was truly fulfilling my body is potential.  i have even been hit on a number of times after that, damn ! and here is where everything went downhill.  i more or less hopped on the fate shaming bandwagon.  i think the problem was that losing weight once i had the right tools and mindset was ridiculously easy.  and it is easy to turn around say  look at these pathetic people complaining about it being hard, hah !   i see fat people trying to wear nice clothes and laugh silently at how futile it is.  i see them in the gym and feel queasy about how weak they are.  i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.  i almost always catch myself though and remind myself of where i had been, and not to be an asshole because there are lots of people who are where i was.  but it gets harder and harder with time.  the more i hear fat people talk about  but my genetics.  ,  my metabolism.  ,  i have a thyroid condition.  ,  i ate salad for two months but.  , or such excuses, it makes me mad with rage.  and then there is the times when i hear  but i do not want to look so bulky and disgusting with muscles  or  running makes my ankles/calves hurt !   i honestly want to punch these people in the face.  just bringing it up makes my blood boil so i think i will stop myself here.  i do not want to turn into a completely apathetic asshole and completely demonise fat people, but the more time that pass, the more i seem to be ok with that.  the more time that pass, the more i see fat people who talk about their health as abominations akin to corrupt politicians talk about idealisms, the less i see them as people, the more i wish they would just give up going outside.  this is definitely not a healthy train of thought and it terrifies me that i can think this way, i need to change but i ca not help being disgusted/disenchanted/disturbed by fat.   tldr:  please convince me to not hate fat people.   #  i see them in the gym and feel queasy about how weak they are.   #  i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.   # i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.  op is not disgusted with fat excuses, op literally said he is physically sick seeing them trying to get better.  he has a mental illness, and is just as much contributing to the problem as people who make excuses for being overweight.  first and foremost, there are valid medical reasons for being a little overweight or heavy.  there will never be a valid excuse for being 0  pounds unless almost all of that weight is solid muscle.  that being said, people like op are not helping the obesity problem, only hurting it.   #  lots of us talk about various things that worked for us.   #  misinformation does not come solely from overweight people.  lots of us talk about various things that worked for us.  i mean hell, i worked out for 0 months doing only cardio and p0x without any real diet regimen and lost a bunch of weight.  that wo not work for everyone, neither will keto, or atkins, or whatever else people do.  but it works for some people and because of that it really ca not be considered misinformation.  again, i was not saying that being overweight is okay.  regardless, there will always be people who are overweight and making them feel disgusted with themselves is not the best motivator for them to correct the problem.  giving them excuses and saying that its okay for someone to be 0 lbs is not good either.  you compared it to drugs while its not perfect, someone who is a drug addict will continue to do drugs until they get help.  shaming and casting out a drug addict often only fuels their addiction or makes them reach deeper for ways to get a fix same thing often happens to obese people.  i can tell you this from experience.   #  however programs that help you loose weight are not always healthful and it seems that people love to try shortcuts.   #  i agree that a compassionate approach is a better approach.  however programs that help you loose weight are not always healthful and it seems that people love to try shortcuts.  which temporarily help but are not sustainable and they will balloon right back up.  the diet examples you used are not healthfull or sustainable.  what about somebody 0 0lbs over weight ? it is medically agreed that it is damaging to your health.  would you agree that this should be approached in a similar way ?  #  why should you obsess and rage over somebody else is lifestyle if it does not interfere with yours ?  # why should you obsess and rage over somebody else is lifestyle if it does not interfere with yours ? and guess what ? being overweight and being an alcoholic are the same.  they are the results of bad coping.  they used food as a comfort to relieve themselves of the pain of the real world.  there is nothing glorious about being fat or an alcoholic.  there is nothing even remotely attractive about it.  and furthermore, have you even looked at the hate and insanity the fat acceptance movement promotes ? they are a hate group, dressed up in a self righteous garb of compassion for their fellow fatties while spewing hatred for anyone who presents even the slightest counterpoint and the legions of evidence that disprove every ridiculous notion the fa movement can produce.  being gay is not a choice.  being white is not a choice.  being female is not a choice.  being fat is more than a choice, it is a method perpetuating a delusion and much like the alcoholic, if you see a loved who is destroying themselves because they are too afraid to face life, i would be ashamed of you if you did not step up to help them face their fears instead of feeding their face.   #  and also keep in mind that like any mental disorder or issue, the manifestation and intensity of those issues vary from person to person.   #  you do realize that an addiction is just as much a mental issue as it is a physical one, right ? and also keep in mind that like any mental disorder or issue, the manifestation and intensity of those issues vary from person to person.  some alcoholics would never raise a hand in violence against another while drunk whereas others may punch walls thinking they are hitting a person.  a fat person may not present the same outward symptoms as a drunk, but the facts remain unchanged:   it is a choice.  it is a choice to remain in that or otherwise change.  it is an addiction.  just because the nature of addiction is effects vary does not remove the basis of my original statement.
personal story here purely for context, tldr at the bottom  this is something that is extremely personal and hits close to home.  i was chubby/fat for pretty much entire life until university, when i met a friend who happened to be your typical gym douche and.  turned it all around.  he was very much into fat shaming and had no mercy towards people who say  i ca not lose weight.   and i told him on quite a few occasions that it is honestly hard for people to lose weight and all sorts of crap about metabolic rate and how some people is bodies  want  to be a certain size.  well since he is also an amateur bodybuilder, he was bulking at the time.  and one day, he lamented his abs disappearing and hitting almost 0kg.  i had no abs, and i was almost 0kg, i actually had a very similar shape to him at that stage.  and of course, he went on to talk about how it does not matter since after he cut down to 0kg, it will all be worth it.  and i thought, well fuck, i might as well give it a shot no ? if i just copied him, how badly can it go wrong ? lo and behold, i dropped 0kg in time for summer, i felt better than i ever had before, for the first time i felt like i was truly fulfilling my body is potential.  i have even been hit on a number of times after that, damn ! and here is where everything went downhill.  i more or less hopped on the fate shaming bandwagon.  i think the problem was that losing weight once i had the right tools and mindset was ridiculously easy.  and it is easy to turn around say  look at these pathetic people complaining about it being hard, hah !   i see fat people trying to wear nice clothes and laugh silently at how futile it is.  i see them in the gym and feel queasy about how weak they are.  i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.  i almost always catch myself though and remind myself of where i had been, and not to be an asshole because there are lots of people who are where i was.  but it gets harder and harder with time.  the more i hear fat people talk about  but my genetics.  ,  my metabolism.  ,  i have a thyroid condition.  ,  i ate salad for two months but.  , or such excuses, it makes me mad with rage.  and then there is the times when i hear  but i do not want to look so bulky and disgusting with muscles  or  running makes my ankles/calves hurt !   i honestly want to punch these people in the face.  just bringing it up makes my blood boil so i think i will stop myself here.  i do not want to turn into a completely apathetic asshole and completely demonise fat people, but the more time that pass, the more i seem to be ok with that.  the more time that pass, the more i see fat people who talk about their health as abominations akin to corrupt politicians talk about idealisms, the less i see them as people, the more i wish they would just give up going outside.  this is definitely not a healthy train of thought and it terrifies me that i can think this way, i need to change but i ca not help being disgusted/disenchanted/disturbed by fat.   tldr:  please convince me to not hate fat people.   #  i see fat people trying to wear nice clothes and laugh silently at how futile it is.   #  i see them in the gym and feel queasy about how weak they are.   #  some people argue they support fat shaming because they believe it will encourage people to lose weight.  that does not seem to be the case with you, at all.  i see them in the gym and feel queasy about how weak they are.  i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.  you hate fat people even if they are making a conscious effort to improve, to be healthier, and to lose weight.  it is good that you are self aware.  you already know all the logical arguments for why your hatred towards fat people is unhealthy, and frankly irrational, so there is nothing anyone can say that you do not already know.  what i will say is that i think you get angry at fat people because you take their problems too personally.  in your subconscious, they emulate you when you were fat so fat people remind you of your perceived failures in life.  i am just grasping at straws, i am not a psychologist or anything.  it just baffles me that anyone would get emotional at other people is choices, even though they do not affect you in any way.  my philosophy is to mind my own business.  i have my problems, and they have theirs.  i am in your situation, sort of.  i was chubby and now i am fit.  i do not hate fat people, i just feel sorry for them.  but overall, i just do not care about them that much.  hating fat strangers is not something i like to do.  what if the fat guy is 0 times smarter than me and 0 times richer ? i would feel like an idiot.  sometimes my fat friends like being fat, and there are people with fat fetishes so i do not have a problem with it if they are happy.  if they are not happy about their weight, i would give them words of encouragement and some advice on how to lose weight.  i never force my opinion on people.   #  that being said, people like op are not helping the obesity problem, only hurting it.   # i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.  op is not disgusted with fat excuses, op literally said he is physically sick seeing them trying to get better.  he has a mental illness, and is just as much contributing to the problem as people who make excuses for being overweight.  first and foremost, there are valid medical reasons for being a little overweight or heavy.  there will never be a valid excuse for being 0  pounds unless almost all of that weight is solid muscle.  that being said, people like op are not helping the obesity problem, only hurting it.   #  regardless, there will always be people who are overweight and making them feel disgusted with themselves is not the best motivator for them to correct the problem.   #  misinformation does not come solely from overweight people.  lots of us talk about various things that worked for us.  i mean hell, i worked out for 0 months doing only cardio and p0x without any real diet regimen and lost a bunch of weight.  that wo not work for everyone, neither will keto, or atkins, or whatever else people do.  but it works for some people and because of that it really ca not be considered misinformation.  again, i was not saying that being overweight is okay.  regardless, there will always be people who are overweight and making them feel disgusted with themselves is not the best motivator for them to correct the problem.  giving them excuses and saying that its okay for someone to be 0 lbs is not good either.  you compared it to drugs while its not perfect, someone who is a drug addict will continue to do drugs until they get help.  shaming and casting out a drug addict often only fuels their addiction or makes them reach deeper for ways to get a fix same thing often happens to obese people.  i can tell you this from experience.   #  however programs that help you loose weight are not always healthful and it seems that people love to try shortcuts.   #  i agree that a compassionate approach is a better approach.  however programs that help you loose weight are not always healthful and it seems that people love to try shortcuts.  which temporarily help but are not sustainable and they will balloon right back up.  the diet examples you used are not healthfull or sustainable.  what about somebody 0 0lbs over weight ? it is medically agreed that it is damaging to your health.  would you agree that this should be approached in a similar way ?  #  there is nothing glorious about being fat or an alcoholic.   # why should you obsess and rage over somebody else is lifestyle if it does not interfere with yours ? and guess what ? being overweight and being an alcoholic are the same.  they are the results of bad coping.  they used food as a comfort to relieve themselves of the pain of the real world.  there is nothing glorious about being fat or an alcoholic.  there is nothing even remotely attractive about it.  and furthermore, have you even looked at the hate and insanity the fat acceptance movement promotes ? they are a hate group, dressed up in a self righteous garb of compassion for their fellow fatties while spewing hatred for anyone who presents even the slightest counterpoint and the legions of evidence that disprove every ridiculous notion the fa movement can produce.  being gay is not a choice.  being white is not a choice.  being female is not a choice.  being fat is more than a choice, it is a method perpetuating a delusion and much like the alcoholic, if you see a loved who is destroying themselves because they are too afraid to face life, i would be ashamed of you if you did not step up to help them face their fears instead of feeding their face.
personal story here purely for context, tldr at the bottom  this is something that is extremely personal and hits close to home.  i was chubby/fat for pretty much entire life until university, when i met a friend who happened to be your typical gym douche and.  turned it all around.  he was very much into fat shaming and had no mercy towards people who say  i ca not lose weight.   and i told him on quite a few occasions that it is honestly hard for people to lose weight and all sorts of crap about metabolic rate and how some people is bodies  want  to be a certain size.  well since he is also an amateur bodybuilder, he was bulking at the time.  and one day, he lamented his abs disappearing and hitting almost 0kg.  i had no abs, and i was almost 0kg, i actually had a very similar shape to him at that stage.  and of course, he went on to talk about how it does not matter since after he cut down to 0kg, it will all be worth it.  and i thought, well fuck, i might as well give it a shot no ? if i just copied him, how badly can it go wrong ? lo and behold, i dropped 0kg in time for summer, i felt better than i ever had before, for the first time i felt like i was truly fulfilling my body is potential.  i have even been hit on a number of times after that, damn ! and here is where everything went downhill.  i more or less hopped on the fate shaming bandwagon.  i think the problem was that losing weight once i had the right tools and mindset was ridiculously easy.  and it is easy to turn around say  look at these pathetic people complaining about it being hard, hah !   i see fat people trying to wear nice clothes and laugh silently at how futile it is.  i see them in the gym and feel queasy about how weak they are.  i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.  i almost always catch myself though and remind myself of where i had been, and not to be an asshole because there are lots of people who are where i was.  but it gets harder and harder with time.  the more i hear fat people talk about  but my genetics.  ,  my metabolism.  ,  i have a thyroid condition.  ,  i ate salad for two months but.  , or such excuses, it makes me mad with rage.  and then there is the times when i hear  but i do not want to look so bulky and disgusting with muscles  or  running makes my ankles/calves hurt !   i honestly want to punch these people in the face.  just bringing it up makes my blood boil so i think i will stop myself here.  i do not want to turn into a completely apathetic asshole and completely demonise fat people, but the more time that pass, the more i seem to be ok with that.  the more time that pass, the more i see fat people who talk about their health as abominations akin to corrupt politicians talk about idealisms, the less i see them as people, the more i wish they would just give up going outside.  this is definitely not a healthy train of thought and it terrifies me that i can think this way, i need to change but i ca not help being disgusted/disenchanted/disturbed by fat.   tldr:  please convince me to not hate fat people.   #  this is definitely not a healthy train of thought and it terrifies me that i can think this way, i need to change but i ca not help being disgusted/disenchanted/disturbed by fat.   #  it is good that you are self aware.   #  some people argue they support fat shaming because they believe it will encourage people to lose weight.  that does not seem to be the case with you, at all.  i see them in the gym and feel queasy about how weak they are.  i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.  you hate fat people even if they are making a conscious effort to improve, to be healthier, and to lose weight.  it is good that you are self aware.  you already know all the logical arguments for why your hatred towards fat people is unhealthy, and frankly irrational, so there is nothing anyone can say that you do not already know.  what i will say is that i think you get angry at fat people because you take their problems too personally.  in your subconscious, they emulate you when you were fat so fat people remind you of your perceived failures in life.  i am just grasping at straws, i am not a psychologist or anything.  it just baffles me that anyone would get emotional at other people is choices, even though they do not affect you in any way.  my philosophy is to mind my own business.  i have my problems, and they have theirs.  i am in your situation, sort of.  i was chubby and now i am fit.  i do not hate fat people, i just feel sorry for them.  but overall, i just do not care about them that much.  hating fat strangers is not something i like to do.  what if the fat guy is 0 times smarter than me and 0 times richer ? i would feel like an idiot.  sometimes my fat friends like being fat, and there are people with fat fetishes so i do not have a problem with it if they are happy.  if they are not happy about their weight, i would give them words of encouragement and some advice on how to lose weight.  i never force my opinion on people.   #  first and foremost, there are valid medical reasons for being a little overweight or heavy.   # i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.  op is not disgusted with fat excuses, op literally said he is physically sick seeing them trying to get better.  he has a mental illness, and is just as much contributing to the problem as people who make excuses for being overweight.  first and foremost, there are valid medical reasons for being a little overweight or heavy.  there will never be a valid excuse for being 0  pounds unless almost all of that weight is solid muscle.  that being said, people like op are not helping the obesity problem, only hurting it.   #  lots of us talk about various things that worked for us.   #  misinformation does not come solely from overweight people.  lots of us talk about various things that worked for us.  i mean hell, i worked out for 0 months doing only cardio and p0x without any real diet regimen and lost a bunch of weight.  that wo not work for everyone, neither will keto, or atkins, or whatever else people do.  but it works for some people and because of that it really ca not be considered misinformation.  again, i was not saying that being overweight is okay.  regardless, there will always be people who are overweight and making them feel disgusted with themselves is not the best motivator for them to correct the problem.  giving them excuses and saying that its okay for someone to be 0 lbs is not good either.  you compared it to drugs while its not perfect, someone who is a drug addict will continue to do drugs until they get help.  shaming and casting out a drug addict often only fuels their addiction or makes them reach deeper for ways to get a fix same thing often happens to obese people.  i can tell you this from experience.   #  would you agree that this should be approached in a similar way ?  #  i agree that a compassionate approach is a better approach.  however programs that help you loose weight are not always healthful and it seems that people love to try shortcuts.  which temporarily help but are not sustainable and they will balloon right back up.  the diet examples you used are not healthfull or sustainable.  what about somebody 0 0lbs over weight ? it is medically agreed that it is damaging to your health.  would you agree that this should be approached in a similar way ?  #  being overweight and being an alcoholic are the same.   # why should you obsess and rage over somebody else is lifestyle if it does not interfere with yours ? and guess what ? being overweight and being an alcoholic are the same.  they are the results of bad coping.  they used food as a comfort to relieve themselves of the pain of the real world.  there is nothing glorious about being fat or an alcoholic.  there is nothing even remotely attractive about it.  and furthermore, have you even looked at the hate and insanity the fat acceptance movement promotes ? they are a hate group, dressed up in a self righteous garb of compassion for their fellow fatties while spewing hatred for anyone who presents even the slightest counterpoint and the legions of evidence that disprove every ridiculous notion the fa movement can produce.  being gay is not a choice.  being white is not a choice.  being female is not a choice.  being fat is more than a choice, it is a method perpetuating a delusion and much like the alcoholic, if you see a loved who is destroying themselves because they are too afraid to face life, i would be ashamed of you if you did not step up to help them face their fears instead of feeding their face.
personal story here purely for context, tldr at the bottom  this is something that is extremely personal and hits close to home.  i was chubby/fat for pretty much entire life until university, when i met a friend who happened to be your typical gym douche and.  turned it all around.  he was very much into fat shaming and had no mercy towards people who say  i ca not lose weight.   and i told him on quite a few occasions that it is honestly hard for people to lose weight and all sorts of crap about metabolic rate and how some people is bodies  want  to be a certain size.  well since he is also an amateur bodybuilder, he was bulking at the time.  and one day, he lamented his abs disappearing and hitting almost 0kg.  i had no abs, and i was almost 0kg, i actually had a very similar shape to him at that stage.  and of course, he went on to talk about how it does not matter since after he cut down to 0kg, it will all be worth it.  and i thought, well fuck, i might as well give it a shot no ? if i just copied him, how badly can it go wrong ? lo and behold, i dropped 0kg in time for summer, i felt better than i ever had before, for the first time i felt like i was truly fulfilling my body is potential.  i have even been hit on a number of times after that, damn ! and here is where everything went downhill.  i more or less hopped on the fate shaming bandwagon.  i think the problem was that losing weight once i had the right tools and mindset was ridiculously easy.  and it is easy to turn around say  look at these pathetic people complaining about it being hard, hah !   i see fat people trying to wear nice clothes and laugh silently at how futile it is.  i see them in the gym and feel queasy about how weak they are.  i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.  i almost always catch myself though and remind myself of where i had been, and not to be an asshole because there are lots of people who are where i was.  but it gets harder and harder with time.  the more i hear fat people talk about  but my genetics.  ,  my metabolism.  ,  i have a thyroid condition.  ,  i ate salad for two months but.  , or such excuses, it makes me mad with rage.  and then there is the times when i hear  but i do not want to look so bulky and disgusting with muscles  or  running makes my ankles/calves hurt !   i honestly want to punch these people in the face.  just bringing it up makes my blood boil so i think i will stop myself here.  i do not want to turn into a completely apathetic asshole and completely demonise fat people, but the more time that pass, the more i seem to be ok with that.  the more time that pass, the more i see fat people who talk about their health as abominations akin to corrupt politicians talk about idealisms, the less i see them as people, the more i wish they would just give up going outside.  this is definitely not a healthy train of thought and it terrifies me that i can think this way, i need to change but i ca not help being disgusted/disenchanted/disturbed by fat.   tldr:  please convince me to not hate fat people.   #  he was very much into fat shaming and had no mercy towards people who say  i ca not lose weight.    #  was he wholly negative about it like you are, or was he simply disinterested in excuses and otherwise encouraging towards people who  wanted  to work to get in shape ?  #  so is this about how fat shaming might be dangerous or how you hate fat people ? because they are two different conversations.  this:  i honestly want to punch these people in the face.  just bringing it up makes my blood boil so i think i will stop myself here.  suggests the latter, and it really just sounds like you are projecting concerns about yourself onto others.  i have been a gym rat most of my life but i have a friend who shed about 0 pounds and she is downright merciless on herself in a way i have never experienced because she lost the weight and frets all the time about  keeping it off.  it sounds like you are doing something similar but taking it out on others.  was he wholly negative about it like you are, or was he simply disinterested in excuses and otherwise encouraging towards people who  wanted  to work to get in shape ? because how many people are motivated by any kind of shitty  fuck you  attitude, really ? if your friend was a body builder and you just copied him, that presumably means at one point you were the fat guy at the gym, the same people you laugh at for being weak.  if you genuinely believe fat shaming is dangerous, then you should put a premium on cultivating a productive and constructive gym atmosphere, encouraging people to come back and ensuring they do not r u n n o f t because the already fit people are assholes.  and to the extent that you are projecting and, from my armchair, i really think you are you should really just thrust that onto yourself instead of using other people as an outlet for your self esteem issues.  you will never resolve them if you continue acting like everybody else is the problem, which is sort of ironic because that same attitude it is the bedrock of the anti fat shaming movement.   #  he has a mental illness, and is just as much contributing to the problem as people who make excuses for being overweight.   # i see fat people talk about food/exercise/healthy living and i want to shoot myself.  op is not disgusted with fat excuses, op literally said he is physically sick seeing them trying to get better.  he has a mental illness, and is just as much contributing to the problem as people who make excuses for being overweight.  first and foremost, there are valid medical reasons for being a little overweight or heavy.  there will never be a valid excuse for being 0  pounds unless almost all of that weight is solid muscle.  that being said, people like op are not helping the obesity problem, only hurting it.   #  shaming and casting out a drug addict often only fuels their addiction or makes them reach deeper for ways to get a fix same thing often happens to obese people.   #  misinformation does not come solely from overweight people.  lots of us talk about various things that worked for us.  i mean hell, i worked out for 0 months doing only cardio and p0x without any real diet regimen and lost a bunch of weight.  that wo not work for everyone, neither will keto, or atkins, or whatever else people do.  but it works for some people and because of that it really ca not be considered misinformation.  again, i was not saying that being overweight is okay.  regardless, there will always be people who are overweight and making them feel disgusted with themselves is not the best motivator for them to correct the problem.  giving them excuses and saying that its okay for someone to be 0 lbs is not good either.  you compared it to drugs while its not perfect, someone who is a drug addict will continue to do drugs until they get help.  shaming and casting out a drug addict often only fuels their addiction or makes them reach deeper for ways to get a fix same thing often happens to obese people.  i can tell you this from experience.   #  it is medically agreed that it is damaging to your health.   #  i agree that a compassionate approach is a better approach.  however programs that help you loose weight are not always healthful and it seems that people love to try shortcuts.  which temporarily help but are not sustainable and they will balloon right back up.  the diet examples you used are not healthfull or sustainable.  what about somebody 0 0lbs over weight ? it is medically agreed that it is damaging to your health.  would you agree that this should be approached in a similar way ?  #  and furthermore, have you even looked at the hate and insanity the fat acceptance movement promotes ?  # why should you obsess and rage over somebody else is lifestyle if it does not interfere with yours ? and guess what ? being overweight and being an alcoholic are the same.  they are the results of bad coping.  they used food as a comfort to relieve themselves of the pain of the real world.  there is nothing glorious about being fat or an alcoholic.  there is nothing even remotely attractive about it.  and furthermore, have you even looked at the hate and insanity the fat acceptance movement promotes ? they are a hate group, dressed up in a self righteous garb of compassion for their fellow fatties while spewing hatred for anyone who presents even the slightest counterpoint and the legions of evidence that disprove every ridiculous notion the fa movement can produce.  being gay is not a choice.  being white is not a choice.  being female is not a choice.  being fat is more than a choice, it is a method perpetuating a delusion and much like the alcoholic, if you see a loved who is destroying themselves because they are too afraid to face life, i would be ashamed of you if you did not step up to help them face their fears instead of feeding their face.
i am 0, female, and a virgin if that is important.  i believe that casual sex is wrong not because i am religious i am not, and i am pretty conflicted about it as my posting history will show .  i am against it because i feel that the sexual act is healthy only if it is pleasurable, intimate and consensual.  sex between two people who are not in an existing romantic relationship that is how i define casual sex may be pleasurable and consensual, but it is definitely not intimate.  in addition, the fact that sexual activity can lead humans to form emotional bonds with each other can lead to dangerous consequences unhappiness and a lack of fulfillment if people sleep with others whose personalities they may not be able to accept.  if we were emotionless creatures, i would have no problems with casual sex.  but the truth is that most humans are unable to separate their minds from their bodies.  in addition, there are several disadvantages to casual sex.  firstly, you never know if the random person at a nightclub is  clean .  protection can be used, but honestly, no form of protection is 0 effective.  secondly, it is unproductive and time wasting, and can lead to other even more unproductive and costly behaviors like binge drinking and internet addiction browsing hookup sites .  sex by itself is not unproductive or a waste of time because of the intimacy factor, as explained previously , but meaningless sex is.  thirdly, casual sex is a form of risk taking behavior.  when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling.  the  thrill  of unknown partners can easily manifest itself in other vices.  right now, the world is completely fine with casual sex apart from conservatives and religious people .  it is considered fine to have friends with benefits or even to pick up random strangers and sleep with them.  this is parasitic in my opinion and should not be encouraged by the media/by our actions and words.   #  i am against it because i feel that the sexual act is healthy only if it is pleasurable, intimate and consensual.   #  you may feel this way, but the people who have casual sex clearly do not.   # you may feel this way, but the people who have casual sex clearly do not.  what makes you think that you are right and they are wrong ? you have merely stated this opinion as fact  in addition, the fact that sexual activity can lead humans to form emotional bonds with each other can lead to dangerous consequences unhappiness and a lack of fulfillment if people sleep with others whose personalities they may not be able to accept.  if we were emotionless creatures, i would have no problems with casual sex.  but the truth is that most humans are unable to separate their minds from their bodies.  this is also not necessarily true.  the emotional weight different people ascribe to sex differs, some are perfectly capable of having casual sex without forming emotional bonds.  why should they abstain from it when they want to ? protection can be used, but honestly, no form of protection is 0 effective.  this is, admittedly, a risk, but with correct usage the failure rate of condoms is pretty low.  combined with the already low risk of their partner having an std, some may consider it worth it.  besides, in a friends with benefit style relationship, people presumably trust their partner to tell them if they have an std, making this a much smaller risk  secondly, it is unproductive and time wasting, and can lead to other even more unproductive and costly behaviors like binge drinking and internet addiction browsing hookup sites .  sex by itself is not unproductive or a waste of time because of the intimacy factor, as explained previously , but meaningless sex is.  people gain pleasure from meaningless sex.  people value pleasure.  it is hardly time wasted when you enjoyed it.  everyone does unproductive things because they enjoy them, are you opposed to all of that too ? and it is perfectly possible to indulge in casual sex without developing bad habits.  that is not an argument against the concept of casual sex, that is just an argument against people doing it poorly.  when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling.  the  thrill  of unknown partners can easily manifest itself in other vices.  there is nothing wrong with risk taking in and of itself.  i risk my life every day when i cross the road.  there are many scenarios when risk taking is sensible, like making an investment with a potentially massive payoff.  besides, the kind of person who enjoys risk taking like the thrill of unknown partners will likely be attracted to other forms of risk taking regardless, even if they stop indulging in casual sex, simply because they enjoy risk taking  #  why should not a pair of people who are sexually compatible and the best of friends not have sex if they both consent, but both recognize that, as long term relationship prospects, they would not work out ?  #  why is that form of intimacy any better or worse ? why should not a pair of people who are sexually compatible and the best of friends not have sex if they both consent, but both recognize that, as long term relationship prospects, they would not work out ? i realize that you have likely not lived with roommates other than your parents/siblings and also that i might be wrong about that , but i had this situation with a friend who i moved in with briefly.  i say briefly, because we got on each other is last nerves, and decided it would be best if we parted ways.  we got back together later, and even started having casual sex again, but never went beyond friends with benefits, because we both had little niggling habits that got on each others  nerves, but it was not an issue when we did not have to live with it.  sometimes you can love a person deeply, and they can love you, but you just ca not live together compatibly without hating each other.   #  for example, i feel that sex is not an essential part of life, and hence can be delayed until a relationship is found.   #  your response has helped me to realise why there is so much conflict in this thread.  it seems that the importance every person places on sex is varied.  for example, i feel that sex is not an essential part of life, and hence can be delayed until a relationship is found.  some people, however, feel that sex should be happening most of the time, and so they are fine with substituting casual sex for relationship sex.  thank you for your opinion and though it has not changed mine, it has certainly helped me to see why people might vehemently disagree with me.   #  if time invested leads to future pleasure, that time was not necessarily wasted i like reading.   #  if time invested leads to future pleasure, that time was not necessarily wasted i like reading.  i may go shopping to buy a book which i will enjoy reading.  i gain no utility from reading the book other than pleasure.  by the logic you are using here, i am wasting that time shopping, as i dislike shopping.  is this seriously the view you are arguing for ?  #  spending time looking for hookups can better hone your social skills.   # what makes you think that this is the case for most people who engage in casual sex ? spending time looking for hookups can better hone your social skills.  it  is  a form of self improvement.  you will be better at talking to people in general.  casual sex is also a form of self improvement.  sex is a skill like everything else, you only get better with practice.  there are a lot of fairly socially acceptable things you can do that help you relax which are less productive than chasing tail.  should we discourage people doing things that they find relaxing if they are  not productive  ?
i am 0, female, and a virgin if that is important.  i believe that casual sex is wrong not because i am religious i am not, and i am pretty conflicted about it as my posting history will show .  i am against it because i feel that the sexual act is healthy only if it is pleasurable, intimate and consensual.  sex between two people who are not in an existing romantic relationship that is how i define casual sex may be pleasurable and consensual, but it is definitely not intimate.  in addition, the fact that sexual activity can lead humans to form emotional bonds with each other can lead to dangerous consequences unhappiness and a lack of fulfillment if people sleep with others whose personalities they may not be able to accept.  if we were emotionless creatures, i would have no problems with casual sex.  but the truth is that most humans are unable to separate their minds from their bodies.  in addition, there are several disadvantages to casual sex.  firstly, you never know if the random person at a nightclub is  clean .  protection can be used, but honestly, no form of protection is 0 effective.  secondly, it is unproductive and time wasting, and can lead to other even more unproductive and costly behaviors like binge drinking and internet addiction browsing hookup sites .  sex by itself is not unproductive or a waste of time because of the intimacy factor, as explained previously , but meaningless sex is.  thirdly, casual sex is a form of risk taking behavior.  when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling.  the  thrill  of unknown partners can easily manifest itself in other vices.  right now, the world is completely fine with casual sex apart from conservatives and religious people .  it is considered fine to have friends with benefits or even to pick up random strangers and sleep with them.  this is parasitic in my opinion and should not be encouraged by the media/by our actions and words.   #  firstly, you never know if the random person at a nightclub is  clean .   #  protection can be used, but honestly, no form of protection is 0 effective.   # you may feel this way, but the people who have casual sex clearly do not.  what makes you think that you are right and they are wrong ? you have merely stated this opinion as fact  in addition, the fact that sexual activity can lead humans to form emotional bonds with each other can lead to dangerous consequences unhappiness and a lack of fulfillment if people sleep with others whose personalities they may not be able to accept.  if we were emotionless creatures, i would have no problems with casual sex.  but the truth is that most humans are unable to separate their minds from their bodies.  this is also not necessarily true.  the emotional weight different people ascribe to sex differs, some are perfectly capable of having casual sex without forming emotional bonds.  why should they abstain from it when they want to ? protection can be used, but honestly, no form of protection is 0 effective.  this is, admittedly, a risk, but with correct usage the failure rate of condoms is pretty low.  combined with the already low risk of their partner having an std, some may consider it worth it.  besides, in a friends with benefit style relationship, people presumably trust their partner to tell them if they have an std, making this a much smaller risk  secondly, it is unproductive and time wasting, and can lead to other even more unproductive and costly behaviors like binge drinking and internet addiction browsing hookup sites .  sex by itself is not unproductive or a waste of time because of the intimacy factor, as explained previously , but meaningless sex is.  people gain pleasure from meaningless sex.  people value pleasure.  it is hardly time wasted when you enjoyed it.  everyone does unproductive things because they enjoy them, are you opposed to all of that too ? and it is perfectly possible to indulge in casual sex without developing bad habits.  that is not an argument against the concept of casual sex, that is just an argument against people doing it poorly.  when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling.  the  thrill  of unknown partners can easily manifest itself in other vices.  there is nothing wrong with risk taking in and of itself.  i risk my life every day when i cross the road.  there are many scenarios when risk taking is sensible, like making an investment with a potentially massive payoff.  besides, the kind of person who enjoys risk taking like the thrill of unknown partners will likely be attracted to other forms of risk taking regardless, even if they stop indulging in casual sex, simply because they enjoy risk taking  #  why is that form of intimacy any better or worse ?  #  why is that form of intimacy any better or worse ? why should not a pair of people who are sexually compatible and the best of friends not have sex if they both consent, but both recognize that, as long term relationship prospects, they would not work out ? i realize that you have likely not lived with roommates other than your parents/siblings and also that i might be wrong about that , but i had this situation with a friend who i moved in with briefly.  i say briefly, because we got on each other is last nerves, and decided it would be best if we parted ways.  we got back together later, and even started having casual sex again, but never went beyond friends with benefits, because we both had little niggling habits that got on each others  nerves, but it was not an issue when we did not have to live with it.  sometimes you can love a person deeply, and they can love you, but you just ca not live together compatibly without hating each other.   #  some people, however, feel that sex should be happening most of the time, and so they are fine with substituting casual sex for relationship sex.   #  your response has helped me to realise why there is so much conflict in this thread.  it seems that the importance every person places on sex is varied.  for example, i feel that sex is not an essential part of life, and hence can be delayed until a relationship is found.  some people, however, feel that sex should be happening most of the time, and so they are fine with substituting casual sex for relationship sex.  thank you for your opinion and though it has not changed mine, it has certainly helped me to see why people might vehemently disagree with me.   #  if time invested leads to future pleasure, that time was not necessarily wasted i like reading.   #  if time invested leads to future pleasure, that time was not necessarily wasted i like reading.  i may go shopping to buy a book which i will enjoy reading.  i gain no utility from reading the book other than pleasure.  by the logic you are using here, i am wasting that time shopping, as i dislike shopping.  is this seriously the view you are arguing for ?  #  casual sex is also a form of self improvement.   # what makes you think that this is the case for most people who engage in casual sex ? spending time looking for hookups can better hone your social skills.  it  is  a form of self improvement.  you will be better at talking to people in general.  casual sex is also a form of self improvement.  sex is a skill like everything else, you only get better with practice.  there are a lot of fairly socially acceptable things you can do that help you relax which are less productive than chasing tail.  should we discourage people doing things that they find relaxing if they are  not productive  ?
i am 0, female, and a virgin if that is important.  i believe that casual sex is wrong not because i am religious i am not, and i am pretty conflicted about it as my posting history will show .  i am against it because i feel that the sexual act is healthy only if it is pleasurable, intimate and consensual.  sex between two people who are not in an existing romantic relationship that is how i define casual sex may be pleasurable and consensual, but it is definitely not intimate.  in addition, the fact that sexual activity can lead humans to form emotional bonds with each other can lead to dangerous consequences unhappiness and a lack of fulfillment if people sleep with others whose personalities they may not be able to accept.  if we were emotionless creatures, i would have no problems with casual sex.  but the truth is that most humans are unable to separate their minds from their bodies.  in addition, there are several disadvantages to casual sex.  firstly, you never know if the random person at a nightclub is  clean .  protection can be used, but honestly, no form of protection is 0 effective.  secondly, it is unproductive and time wasting, and can lead to other even more unproductive and costly behaviors like binge drinking and internet addiction browsing hookup sites .  sex by itself is not unproductive or a waste of time because of the intimacy factor, as explained previously , but meaningless sex is.  thirdly, casual sex is a form of risk taking behavior.  when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling.  the  thrill  of unknown partners can easily manifest itself in other vices.  right now, the world is completely fine with casual sex apart from conservatives and religious people .  it is considered fine to have friends with benefits or even to pick up random strangers and sleep with them.  this is parasitic in my opinion and should not be encouraged by the media/by our actions and words.   #  thirdly, casual sex is a form of risk taking behavior.   #  when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling.   # you may feel this way, but the people who have casual sex clearly do not.  what makes you think that you are right and they are wrong ? you have merely stated this opinion as fact  in addition, the fact that sexual activity can lead humans to form emotional bonds with each other can lead to dangerous consequences unhappiness and a lack of fulfillment if people sleep with others whose personalities they may not be able to accept.  if we were emotionless creatures, i would have no problems with casual sex.  but the truth is that most humans are unable to separate their minds from their bodies.  this is also not necessarily true.  the emotional weight different people ascribe to sex differs, some are perfectly capable of having casual sex without forming emotional bonds.  why should they abstain from it when they want to ? protection can be used, but honestly, no form of protection is 0 effective.  this is, admittedly, a risk, but with correct usage the failure rate of condoms is pretty low.  combined with the already low risk of their partner having an std, some may consider it worth it.  besides, in a friends with benefit style relationship, people presumably trust their partner to tell them if they have an std, making this a much smaller risk  secondly, it is unproductive and time wasting, and can lead to other even more unproductive and costly behaviors like binge drinking and internet addiction browsing hookup sites .  sex by itself is not unproductive or a waste of time because of the intimacy factor, as explained previously , but meaningless sex is.  people gain pleasure from meaningless sex.  people value pleasure.  it is hardly time wasted when you enjoyed it.  everyone does unproductive things because they enjoy them, are you opposed to all of that too ? and it is perfectly possible to indulge in casual sex without developing bad habits.  that is not an argument against the concept of casual sex, that is just an argument against people doing it poorly.  when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling.  the  thrill  of unknown partners can easily manifest itself in other vices.  there is nothing wrong with risk taking in and of itself.  i risk my life every day when i cross the road.  there are many scenarios when risk taking is sensible, like making an investment with a potentially massive payoff.  besides, the kind of person who enjoys risk taking like the thrill of unknown partners will likely be attracted to other forms of risk taking regardless, even if they stop indulging in casual sex, simply because they enjoy risk taking  #  i say briefly, because we got on each other is last nerves, and decided it would be best if we parted ways.   #  why is that form of intimacy any better or worse ? why should not a pair of people who are sexually compatible and the best of friends not have sex if they both consent, but both recognize that, as long term relationship prospects, they would not work out ? i realize that you have likely not lived with roommates other than your parents/siblings and also that i might be wrong about that , but i had this situation with a friend who i moved in with briefly.  i say briefly, because we got on each other is last nerves, and decided it would be best if we parted ways.  we got back together later, and even started having casual sex again, but never went beyond friends with benefits, because we both had little niggling habits that got on each others  nerves, but it was not an issue when we did not have to live with it.  sometimes you can love a person deeply, and they can love you, but you just ca not live together compatibly without hating each other.   #  for example, i feel that sex is not an essential part of life, and hence can be delayed until a relationship is found.   #  your response has helped me to realise why there is so much conflict in this thread.  it seems that the importance every person places on sex is varied.  for example, i feel that sex is not an essential part of life, and hence can be delayed until a relationship is found.  some people, however, feel that sex should be happening most of the time, and so they are fine with substituting casual sex for relationship sex.  thank you for your opinion and though it has not changed mine, it has certainly helped me to see why people might vehemently disagree with me.   #  i gain no utility from reading the book other than pleasure.   #  if time invested leads to future pleasure, that time was not necessarily wasted i like reading.  i may go shopping to buy a book which i will enjoy reading.  i gain no utility from reading the book other than pleasure.  by the logic you are using here, i am wasting that time shopping, as i dislike shopping.  is this seriously the view you are arguing for ?  #  sex is a skill like everything else, you only get better with practice.   # what makes you think that this is the case for most people who engage in casual sex ? spending time looking for hookups can better hone your social skills.  it  is  a form of self improvement.  you will be better at talking to people in general.  casual sex is also a form of self improvement.  sex is a skill like everything else, you only get better with practice.  there are a lot of fairly socially acceptable things you can do that help you relax which are less productive than chasing tail.  should we discourage people doing things that they find relaxing if they are  not productive  ?
i am 0, female, and a virgin if that is important.  i believe that casual sex is wrong not because i am religious i am not, and i am pretty conflicted about it as my posting history will show .  i am against it because i feel that the sexual act is healthy only if it is pleasurable, intimate and consensual.  sex between two people who are not in an existing romantic relationship that is how i define casual sex may be pleasurable and consensual, but it is definitely not intimate.  in addition, the fact that sexual activity can lead humans to form emotional bonds with each other can lead to dangerous consequences unhappiness and a lack of fulfillment if people sleep with others whose personalities they may not be able to accept.  if we were emotionless creatures, i would have no problems with casual sex.  but the truth is that most humans are unable to separate their minds from their bodies.  in addition, there are several disadvantages to casual sex.  firstly, you never know if the random person at a nightclub is  clean .  protection can be used, but honestly, no form of protection is 0 effective.  secondly, it is unproductive and time wasting, and can lead to other even more unproductive and costly behaviors like binge drinking and internet addiction browsing hookup sites .  sex by itself is not unproductive or a waste of time because of the intimacy factor, as explained previously , but meaningless sex is.  thirdly, casual sex is a form of risk taking behavior.  when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling.  the  thrill  of unknown partners can easily manifest itself in other vices.  right now, the world is completely fine with casual sex apart from conservatives and religious people .  it is considered fine to have friends with benefits or even to pick up random strangers and sleep with them.  this is parasitic in my opinion and should not be encouraged by the media/by our actions and words.   #  i am 0, female, and a virgin if that is important.   #  with all due respect to you and to the time you put into this, i want to say that the only thing that is gonna help you understand is a little more time.   # with all due respect to you and to the time you put into this, i want to say that the only thing that is gonna help you understand is a little more time.  i know this is cmv, but i feel like a bunch of people trying to convince a 0 year old virgin girl that casual sex is  good  is not really productive either.  not everyone turns out to be a horndog like some of us.  however, op, maybe you have heard of sigmund freud in some current classes.  i would just encourage you to look at what he had to say about sex, and maybe you wo not look at it in such a bad light.  according to him, sex is one of our five basic human needs, and i would have to agree with him in that regard.  a big difference.  op, honestly, no more than a year ago, you had to have your parents drop you off at the movie theater for your dates considering you did not have your drivers license yet.  do not you think you should hold off on condemning a very common act that the majority of all adults partake in until you have experienced life a little more ?  #  why is that form of intimacy any better or worse ?  #  why is that form of intimacy any better or worse ? why should not a pair of people who are sexually compatible and the best of friends not have sex if they both consent, but both recognize that, as long term relationship prospects, they would not work out ? i realize that you have likely not lived with roommates other than your parents/siblings and also that i might be wrong about that , but i had this situation with a friend who i moved in with briefly.  i say briefly, because we got on each other is last nerves, and decided it would be best if we parted ways.  we got back together later, and even started having casual sex again, but never went beyond friends with benefits, because we both had little niggling habits that got on each others  nerves, but it was not an issue when we did not have to live with it.  sometimes you can love a person deeply, and they can love you, but you just ca not live together compatibly without hating each other.   #  thank you for your opinion and though it has not changed mine, it has certainly helped me to see why people might vehemently disagree with me.   #  your response has helped me to realise why there is so much conflict in this thread.  it seems that the importance every person places on sex is varied.  for example, i feel that sex is not an essential part of life, and hence can be delayed until a relationship is found.  some people, however, feel that sex should be happening most of the time, and so they are fine with substituting casual sex for relationship sex.  thank you for your opinion and though it has not changed mine, it has certainly helped me to see why people might vehemently disagree with me.   #  is this seriously the view you are arguing for ?  #  if time invested leads to future pleasure, that time was not necessarily wasted i like reading.  i may go shopping to buy a book which i will enjoy reading.  i gain no utility from reading the book other than pleasure.  by the logic you are using here, i am wasting that time shopping, as i dislike shopping.  is this seriously the view you are arguing for ?  #  what makes you think that this is the case for most people who engage in casual sex ?  # what makes you think that this is the case for most people who engage in casual sex ? spending time looking for hookups can better hone your social skills.  it  is  a form of self improvement.  you will be better at talking to people in general.  casual sex is also a form of self improvement.  sex is a skill like everything else, you only get better with practice.  there are a lot of fairly socially acceptable things you can do that help you relax which are less productive than chasing tail.  should we discourage people doing things that they find relaxing if they are  not productive  ?
i am 0, female, and a virgin if that is important.  i believe that casual sex is wrong not because i am religious i am not, and i am pretty conflicted about it as my posting history will show .  i am against it because i feel that the sexual act is healthy only if it is pleasurable, intimate and consensual.  sex between two people who are not in an existing romantic relationship that is how i define casual sex may be pleasurable and consensual, but it is definitely not intimate.  in addition, the fact that sexual activity can lead humans to form emotional bonds with each other can lead to dangerous consequences unhappiness and a lack of fulfillment if people sleep with others whose personalities they may not be able to accept.  if we were emotionless creatures, i would have no problems with casual sex.  but the truth is that most humans are unable to separate their minds from their bodies.  in addition, there are several disadvantages to casual sex.  firstly, you never know if the random person at a nightclub is  clean .  protection can be used, but honestly, no form of protection is 0 effective.  secondly, it is unproductive and time wasting, and can lead to other even more unproductive and costly behaviors like binge drinking and internet addiction browsing hookup sites .  sex by itself is not unproductive or a waste of time because of the intimacy factor, as explained previously , but meaningless sex is.  thirdly, casual sex is a form of risk taking behavior.  when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling.  the  thrill  of unknown partners can easily manifest itself in other vices.  right now, the world is completely fine with casual sex apart from conservatives and religious people .  it is considered fine to have friends with benefits or even to pick up random strangers and sleep with them.  this is parasitic in my opinion and should not be encouraged by the media/by our actions and words.   #  casual sex is a form of risk taking behavior.   #  when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling skiing is risk taking behavior.   # sex can be many different things to many different people.  can you show that sex that is not intimate causes harm ? if you ca not how is it unhealthy ? when we condone one aspect of risk taking behavior, such as casual sex, we also condone other forms of risk taking behavior, such as drugs and gambling skiing is risk taking behavior.  people die skiing all the time.  is skiing a gate way to heroin use ?  #  i say briefly, because we got on each other is last nerves, and decided it would be best if we parted ways.   #  why is that form of intimacy any better or worse ? why should not a pair of people who are sexually compatible and the best of friends not have sex if they both consent, but both recognize that, as long term relationship prospects, they would not work out ? i realize that you have likely not lived with roommates other than your parents/siblings and also that i might be wrong about that , but i had this situation with a friend who i moved in with briefly.  i say briefly, because we got on each other is last nerves, and decided it would be best if we parted ways.  we got back together later, and even started having casual sex again, but never went beyond friends with benefits, because we both had little niggling habits that got on each others  nerves, but it was not an issue when we did not have to live with it.  sometimes you can love a person deeply, and they can love you, but you just ca not live together compatibly without hating each other.   #  your response has helped me to realise why there is so much conflict in this thread.   #  your response has helped me to realise why there is so much conflict in this thread.  it seems that the importance every person places on sex is varied.  for example, i feel that sex is not an essential part of life, and hence can be delayed until a relationship is found.  some people, however, feel that sex should be happening most of the time, and so they are fine with substituting casual sex for relationship sex.  thank you for your opinion and though it has not changed mine, it has certainly helped me to see why people might vehemently disagree with me.   #  is this seriously the view you are arguing for ?  #  if time invested leads to future pleasure, that time was not necessarily wasted i like reading.  i may go shopping to buy a book which i will enjoy reading.  i gain no utility from reading the book other than pleasure.  by the logic you are using here, i am wasting that time shopping, as i dislike shopping.  is this seriously the view you are arguing for ?  #  you will be better at talking to people in general.   # what makes you think that this is the case for most people who engage in casual sex ? spending time looking for hookups can better hone your social skills.  it  is  a form of self improvement.  you will be better at talking to people in general.  casual sex is also a form of self improvement.  sex is a skill like everything else, you only get better with practice.  there are a lot of fairly socially acceptable things you can do that help you relax which are less productive than chasing tail.  should we discourage people doing things that they find relaxing if they are  not productive  ?
i am going to get pretty abstract here, so bear with me.  if we start with the assumptions that there are no greater beings which dictate the purpose of life or human existence, and that the most powerful paradigm is the one which provides the most personal happiness while minimizing contradictions, then it seems that a complete amorality is the strongest secular position.  i will use a simple example to explain why i think so: a man is faced with the choice: whether or not to gain $0,0,0 and bring about the instant death of a random person he does not know.  a moral man would be at a serious dilemma.  he must choose between what he believes to be right protecting human life and his selfish desires to acquire money and in turn power/happiness.  the man must sacrifice either his own happiness or his moral principle at this juncture.  an amoral man would not be at a loss; he would not think twice about taking the money and would overall be happier with himself for doing so than the moral man.  these points of cognitive dissonance are a serious hindrance to an individual is happiness.  no one likes the feeling of choosing between one good thing and another.  the person would prefer, whether he knows it or not, to receive one without knowledge of the other.  barry schwartz talked about this in his book the paradox of choice.  in the same respect, an amoral man is happier with his life and his decisions than a moral man, who frets over the best way to go about doing things and must worry about both his own selfish interests and his moral principles.  i have come to believe this wholeheartedly, but it seems to contradict with almost everyone is point of view, and i am not confident enough to assume i am right and seemingly the world is wrong.  i do not ruthlessly pursue my own interests and in fact, many people would consider me a good person.  i often enjoy helping people i respect and care for, even at great cost to myself, and my circumstances allow me to live more comfortably within the bounds of the law than i would if i were to become a criminal.  however, i do not hold any moral principles.  my only principle is to maximize my own enjoyment of life, and if someone were to offer me the hypothetical $0,0,0 briefcase, without fear of the legal consequences, i would probably take 0,0 and sleep like a baby afterwards.  i do not see how adding morality to the equation of human existence provides more happiness for the individual; to me, it seems to lead to contradiction.  a person is beliefs should serve him or her, not the other way around.   #  a man is faced with the choice: whether or not to gain $0,0,0 and bring about the instant death of a random person he does not know.   #  a moral man would be at a serious dilemma.   #  complete morality is the strongest secular position.  a moral man would be at a serious dilemma.  not at all.  if the basis of one is morality is one is own integrity, then it is the easiest choice in the world: you do not push the button.  the old religious maxime:  for what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul ?   is true for every human.  and the moral atheist does well to appropriate it.  no, he  does  what he believes to be right protecting his integrity and  this is  his selfish desire to protect his integrity .  he only desires money and happiness  if he is earned it .  it is a logical impossibility for the logical man to derive happiness at the expense of his integrity.  the moral atheist need  never sacrifice his higher value to a lesser one .  because the integrity of his soul/mind  is of greater value to him than  money, he ca not be  bought off .  the unearned does not bring him happiness.  after all, why should he care about money he did not earn ? how would that serve him ? he is not the  cause  of it.  he knows that if he accepts it and spends it, he does not rationally  own  the goods he is purchased, he therefore has no  moral right  to those goods, so what enjoyment is to be had from them ? none.  yes, the amoral man would steal/kill.  and the truly moral man would not just as quickly.  the amoral man is  happiness  would be an  illusion  because he is deluded himself in believing he can rightfully  own , and therefore enjoy, stolen goods.  this delusion can only be supported by self deception.  self deception necessarily involves a mental act of self destruction, a  disintegration  of one is integrity.  and the integrity of one is self is the very thing  from which the capacity for happiness  arises and is a property of.  in other words, acts of continuous self betrayal are acts of mental suicide.  before you counter that ignorance is bliss, and happiness is happiness, consider the difference between the happiness of, say, a jolly farmer who works and plays hard versus the happiness of the heroin junkie squatting on a warehouse mattress oblivious to the world but on a high.  ever read oscar wilde is   the picture of dorian gray  ? it follows through on the premise of the amoral man.   #  there are three issues i see with your point of view.   #  there are three issues i see with your point of view.  the first, and more simple to argue, is that you can often derive more satisfaction in your life by being moral.  as you alluded to in your post, you often help others and enjoy the sensation you get from doing so.  often, one can gain more personal enjoyment from being moral than one would from being amoral, simply from their own self verification of  doing the right thing .  for example, if i gave a beggar a coin on the street, i would probably gain much more from the satisfaction of helping him than i would from being amoral and keeping the coin for myself.  some could argue that there are no moral actions made for the benefit of others, and that all actions are performed in selfishness, but this is another argument.  secondly, morality and moral decisions are often not a conscious choice.  they are dictated by unconscious feelings taught from a young age, and even if you make an effort to be amoral you often regret your decision and your self conscious moral mind fills you with doubt.  it is often not possible to be amoral even through choice, since you have a pre built notion of morality.  lastly, as others have stated, if everyone was amoral the world might end up a much less enjoyable place.  perhaps the fear of others being amoral keeps those around us from being amoral themselves, as certainly they would want to help from a moral person.  you could argue that by being moral, you are encouraging others to be moral, just so they will be kind to you which is also a selfish reason.   #  for one reason or another, one child may learn to take pleasure in helping others, while another child will receive no positive response for such an action and will therefore construct a moral paradigm that is void of such behavior.   #    0; thanks for your reply.  i do not know that you have changed my view per se, but you have certainly helped me understand  why  i hold such a view and why my view probably cannot be changed, and it lies in the second point you brought up: that moral decisions are often not a conscious choice.  i happily concede your first point, that morality can provide personal satisfaction that outweighs amorality in some circumstances.  it makes sense that some people will help others at cost to themselves and for no tangible benefit because they get a positive emotional response from doing so.  it also explains why some will agree with me about my amoral paradigm while others will vehemently disagree; there is an underlying variable that cannot be accounted for through logic.  the fundamental problem is that, as you said, people have different unconscious feelings that correspond to a morality.  for one reason or another, one child may learn to take pleasure in helping others, while another child will receive no positive response for such an action and will therefore construct a moral paradigm that is void of such behavior.  while i may agree or disagree about the merits of either stance for myself, my original assertion that the amoral stance is superior must be false because it relies on the false assumption that a person can consciously determine their morality.   #  it is interesting to consider a world where people might be void of a moral conscious, and act amorally.   #  no problem, it is an interesting topic.  i think you have some good points on morality in general.  it is interesting to consider a world where people might be void of a moral conscious, and act amorally.  i am not sure how it would turn out.  it might end up similar to what we have now, if it turns out the most amoral thing to do could be to be moral.  i have no idea, but it is interesting.  there are whole schools of thought and philosophy dedicated to this stuff, i think this is barely the surface.  but it is fascinating no doubt, i am glad you brought up the discussion :  #  if everyone were open and honest about their motives, no one would be caught off guard.   #  like i said, i would prefer to be in a world where people care about each other.  on that, i think we agree.  however, we probably disagree in that i do not think that world could ever exist.  humans are smart and selfish.  there will never come a day when at least one person wo not choose to look after themselves instead of others.  that can never be a reality.  in a perfect world, it would only take one individual to ruin it for everyone.  in contrast, i believe the antithesis of this a world where everyone was selfish would be preferable to reality.  if everyone were open and honest about their motives, no one would be caught off guard.  it would not be any more cruel than the world we live in, only more openly so.  in our current circumstances, people victimize others and hide behind their moral justifications.  good people are punished for their devotion to people who do not reciprocate.  i would prefer an honest and harsh world to the dishonest and harsh one we live in today.
i am going to get pretty abstract here, so bear with me.  if we start with the assumptions that there are no greater beings which dictate the purpose of life or human existence, and that the most powerful paradigm is the one which provides the most personal happiness while minimizing contradictions, then it seems that a complete amorality is the strongest secular position.  i will use a simple example to explain why i think so: a man is faced with the choice: whether or not to gain $0,0,0 and bring about the instant death of a random person he does not know.  a moral man would be at a serious dilemma.  he must choose between what he believes to be right protecting human life and his selfish desires to acquire money and in turn power/happiness.  the man must sacrifice either his own happiness or his moral principle at this juncture.  an amoral man would not be at a loss; he would not think twice about taking the money and would overall be happier with himself for doing so than the moral man.  these points of cognitive dissonance are a serious hindrance to an individual is happiness.  no one likes the feeling of choosing between one good thing and another.  the person would prefer, whether he knows it or not, to receive one without knowledge of the other.  barry schwartz talked about this in his book the paradox of choice.  in the same respect, an amoral man is happier with his life and his decisions than a moral man, who frets over the best way to go about doing things and must worry about both his own selfish interests and his moral principles.  i have come to believe this wholeheartedly, but it seems to contradict with almost everyone is point of view, and i am not confident enough to assume i am right and seemingly the world is wrong.  i do not ruthlessly pursue my own interests and in fact, many people would consider me a good person.  i often enjoy helping people i respect and care for, even at great cost to myself, and my circumstances allow me to live more comfortably within the bounds of the law than i would if i were to become a criminal.  however, i do not hold any moral principles.  my only principle is to maximize my own enjoyment of life, and if someone were to offer me the hypothetical $0,0,0 briefcase, without fear of the legal consequences, i would probably take 0,0 and sleep like a baby afterwards.  i do not see how adding morality to the equation of human existence provides more happiness for the individual; to me, it seems to lead to contradiction.  a person is beliefs should serve him or her, not the other way around.   #  he must choose between what he believes to be right protecting human life and his selfish desires to acquire money and in turn power/happiness.   #  no, he  does  what he believes to be right protecting his integrity and  this is  his selfish desire to protect his integrity .   #  complete morality is the strongest secular position.  a moral man would be at a serious dilemma.  not at all.  if the basis of one is morality is one is own integrity, then it is the easiest choice in the world: you do not push the button.  the old religious maxime:  for what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul ?   is true for every human.  and the moral atheist does well to appropriate it.  no, he  does  what he believes to be right protecting his integrity and  this is  his selfish desire to protect his integrity .  he only desires money and happiness  if he is earned it .  it is a logical impossibility for the logical man to derive happiness at the expense of his integrity.  the moral atheist need  never sacrifice his higher value to a lesser one .  because the integrity of his soul/mind  is of greater value to him than  money, he ca not be  bought off .  the unearned does not bring him happiness.  after all, why should he care about money he did not earn ? how would that serve him ? he is not the  cause  of it.  he knows that if he accepts it and spends it, he does not rationally  own  the goods he is purchased, he therefore has no  moral right  to those goods, so what enjoyment is to be had from them ? none.  yes, the amoral man would steal/kill.  and the truly moral man would not just as quickly.  the amoral man is  happiness  would be an  illusion  because he is deluded himself in believing he can rightfully  own , and therefore enjoy, stolen goods.  this delusion can only be supported by self deception.  self deception necessarily involves a mental act of self destruction, a  disintegration  of one is integrity.  and the integrity of one is self is the very thing  from which the capacity for happiness  arises and is a property of.  in other words, acts of continuous self betrayal are acts of mental suicide.  before you counter that ignorance is bliss, and happiness is happiness, consider the difference between the happiness of, say, a jolly farmer who works and plays hard versus the happiness of the heroin junkie squatting on a warehouse mattress oblivious to the world but on a high.  ever read oscar wilde is   the picture of dorian gray  ? it follows through on the premise of the amoral man.   #  for example, if i gave a beggar a coin on the street, i would probably gain much more from the satisfaction of helping him than i would from being amoral and keeping the coin for myself.   #  there are three issues i see with your point of view.  the first, and more simple to argue, is that you can often derive more satisfaction in your life by being moral.  as you alluded to in your post, you often help others and enjoy the sensation you get from doing so.  often, one can gain more personal enjoyment from being moral than one would from being amoral, simply from their own self verification of  doing the right thing .  for example, if i gave a beggar a coin on the street, i would probably gain much more from the satisfaction of helping him than i would from being amoral and keeping the coin for myself.  some could argue that there are no moral actions made for the benefit of others, and that all actions are performed in selfishness, but this is another argument.  secondly, morality and moral decisions are often not a conscious choice.  they are dictated by unconscious feelings taught from a young age, and even if you make an effort to be amoral you often regret your decision and your self conscious moral mind fills you with doubt.  it is often not possible to be amoral even through choice, since you have a pre built notion of morality.  lastly, as others have stated, if everyone was amoral the world might end up a much less enjoyable place.  perhaps the fear of others being amoral keeps those around us from being amoral themselves, as certainly they would want to help from a moral person.  you could argue that by being moral, you are encouraging others to be moral, just so they will be kind to you which is also a selfish reason.   #  it also explains why some will agree with me about my amoral paradigm while others will vehemently disagree; there is an underlying variable that cannot be accounted for through logic.   #    0; thanks for your reply.  i do not know that you have changed my view per se, but you have certainly helped me understand  why  i hold such a view and why my view probably cannot be changed, and it lies in the second point you brought up: that moral decisions are often not a conscious choice.  i happily concede your first point, that morality can provide personal satisfaction that outweighs amorality in some circumstances.  it makes sense that some people will help others at cost to themselves and for no tangible benefit because they get a positive emotional response from doing so.  it also explains why some will agree with me about my amoral paradigm while others will vehemently disagree; there is an underlying variable that cannot be accounted for through logic.  the fundamental problem is that, as you said, people have different unconscious feelings that correspond to a morality.  for one reason or another, one child may learn to take pleasure in helping others, while another child will receive no positive response for such an action and will therefore construct a moral paradigm that is void of such behavior.  while i may agree or disagree about the merits of either stance for myself, my original assertion that the amoral stance is superior must be false because it relies on the false assumption that a person can consciously determine their morality.   #  it might end up similar to what we have now, if it turns out the most amoral thing to do could be to be moral.   #  no problem, it is an interesting topic.  i think you have some good points on morality in general.  it is interesting to consider a world where people might be void of a moral conscious, and act amorally.  i am not sure how it would turn out.  it might end up similar to what we have now, if it turns out the most amoral thing to do could be to be moral.  i have no idea, but it is interesting.  there are whole schools of thought and philosophy dedicated to this stuff, i think this is barely the surface.  but it is fascinating no doubt, i am glad you brought up the discussion :  #  i would prefer an honest and harsh world to the dishonest and harsh one we live in today.   #  like i said, i would prefer to be in a world where people care about each other.  on that, i think we agree.  however, we probably disagree in that i do not think that world could ever exist.  humans are smart and selfish.  there will never come a day when at least one person wo not choose to look after themselves instead of others.  that can never be a reality.  in a perfect world, it would only take one individual to ruin it for everyone.  in contrast, i believe the antithesis of this a world where everyone was selfish would be preferable to reality.  if everyone were open and honest about their motives, no one would be caught off guard.  it would not be any more cruel than the world we live in, only more openly so.  in our current circumstances, people victimize others and hide behind their moral justifications.  good people are punished for their devotion to people who do not reciprocate.  i would prefer an honest and harsh world to the dishonest and harsh one we live in today.
i am going to get pretty abstract here, so bear with me.  if we start with the assumptions that there are no greater beings which dictate the purpose of life or human existence, and that the most powerful paradigm is the one which provides the most personal happiness while minimizing contradictions, then it seems that a complete amorality is the strongest secular position.  i will use a simple example to explain why i think so: a man is faced with the choice: whether or not to gain $0,0,0 and bring about the instant death of a random person he does not know.  a moral man would be at a serious dilemma.  he must choose between what he believes to be right protecting human life and his selfish desires to acquire money and in turn power/happiness.  the man must sacrifice either his own happiness or his moral principle at this juncture.  an amoral man would not be at a loss; he would not think twice about taking the money and would overall be happier with himself for doing so than the moral man.  these points of cognitive dissonance are a serious hindrance to an individual is happiness.  no one likes the feeling of choosing between one good thing and another.  the person would prefer, whether he knows it or not, to receive one without knowledge of the other.  barry schwartz talked about this in his book the paradox of choice.  in the same respect, an amoral man is happier with his life and his decisions than a moral man, who frets over the best way to go about doing things and must worry about both his own selfish interests and his moral principles.  i have come to believe this wholeheartedly, but it seems to contradict with almost everyone is point of view, and i am not confident enough to assume i am right and seemingly the world is wrong.  i do not ruthlessly pursue my own interests and in fact, many people would consider me a good person.  i often enjoy helping people i respect and care for, even at great cost to myself, and my circumstances allow me to live more comfortably within the bounds of the law than i would if i were to become a criminal.  however, i do not hold any moral principles.  my only principle is to maximize my own enjoyment of life, and if someone were to offer me the hypothetical $0,0,0 briefcase, without fear of the legal consequences, i would probably take 0,0 and sleep like a baby afterwards.  i do not see how adding morality to the equation of human existence provides more happiness for the individual; to me, it seems to lead to contradiction.  a person is beliefs should serve him or her, not the other way around.   #  the man must sacrifice either his own happiness or his moral principle at this juncture.   #  it is a logical impossibility for the logical man to derive happiness at the expense of his integrity.   #  complete morality is the strongest secular position.  a moral man would be at a serious dilemma.  not at all.  if the basis of one is morality is one is own integrity, then it is the easiest choice in the world: you do not push the button.  the old religious maxime:  for what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul ?   is true for every human.  and the moral atheist does well to appropriate it.  no, he  does  what he believes to be right protecting his integrity and  this is  his selfish desire to protect his integrity .  he only desires money and happiness  if he is earned it .  it is a logical impossibility for the logical man to derive happiness at the expense of his integrity.  the moral atheist need  never sacrifice his higher value to a lesser one .  because the integrity of his soul/mind  is of greater value to him than  money, he ca not be  bought off .  the unearned does not bring him happiness.  after all, why should he care about money he did not earn ? how would that serve him ? he is not the  cause  of it.  he knows that if he accepts it and spends it, he does not rationally  own  the goods he is purchased, he therefore has no  moral right  to those goods, so what enjoyment is to be had from them ? none.  yes, the amoral man would steal/kill.  and the truly moral man would not just as quickly.  the amoral man is  happiness  would be an  illusion  because he is deluded himself in believing he can rightfully  own , and therefore enjoy, stolen goods.  this delusion can only be supported by self deception.  self deception necessarily involves a mental act of self destruction, a  disintegration  of one is integrity.  and the integrity of one is self is the very thing  from which the capacity for happiness  arises and is a property of.  in other words, acts of continuous self betrayal are acts of mental suicide.  before you counter that ignorance is bliss, and happiness is happiness, consider the difference between the happiness of, say, a jolly farmer who works and plays hard versus the happiness of the heroin junkie squatting on a warehouse mattress oblivious to the world but on a high.  ever read oscar wilde is   the picture of dorian gray  ? it follows through on the premise of the amoral man.   #  as you alluded to in your post, you often help others and enjoy the sensation you get from doing so.   #  there are three issues i see with your point of view.  the first, and more simple to argue, is that you can often derive more satisfaction in your life by being moral.  as you alluded to in your post, you often help others and enjoy the sensation you get from doing so.  often, one can gain more personal enjoyment from being moral than one would from being amoral, simply from their own self verification of  doing the right thing .  for example, if i gave a beggar a coin on the street, i would probably gain much more from the satisfaction of helping him than i would from being amoral and keeping the coin for myself.  some could argue that there are no moral actions made for the benefit of others, and that all actions are performed in selfishness, but this is another argument.  secondly, morality and moral decisions are often not a conscious choice.  they are dictated by unconscious feelings taught from a young age, and even if you make an effort to be amoral you often regret your decision and your self conscious moral mind fills you with doubt.  it is often not possible to be amoral even through choice, since you have a pre built notion of morality.  lastly, as others have stated, if everyone was amoral the world might end up a much less enjoyable place.  perhaps the fear of others being amoral keeps those around us from being amoral themselves, as certainly they would want to help from a moral person.  you could argue that by being moral, you are encouraging others to be moral, just so they will be kind to you which is also a selfish reason.   #  it also explains why some will agree with me about my amoral paradigm while others will vehemently disagree; there is an underlying variable that cannot be accounted for through logic.   #    0; thanks for your reply.  i do not know that you have changed my view per se, but you have certainly helped me understand  why  i hold such a view and why my view probably cannot be changed, and it lies in the second point you brought up: that moral decisions are often not a conscious choice.  i happily concede your first point, that morality can provide personal satisfaction that outweighs amorality in some circumstances.  it makes sense that some people will help others at cost to themselves and for no tangible benefit because they get a positive emotional response from doing so.  it also explains why some will agree with me about my amoral paradigm while others will vehemently disagree; there is an underlying variable that cannot be accounted for through logic.  the fundamental problem is that, as you said, people have different unconscious feelings that correspond to a morality.  for one reason or another, one child may learn to take pleasure in helping others, while another child will receive no positive response for such an action and will therefore construct a moral paradigm that is void of such behavior.  while i may agree or disagree about the merits of either stance for myself, my original assertion that the amoral stance is superior must be false because it relies on the false assumption that a person can consciously determine their morality.   #  i am not sure how it would turn out.   #  no problem, it is an interesting topic.  i think you have some good points on morality in general.  it is interesting to consider a world where people might be void of a moral conscious, and act amorally.  i am not sure how it would turn out.  it might end up similar to what we have now, if it turns out the most amoral thing to do could be to be moral.  i have no idea, but it is interesting.  there are whole schools of thought and philosophy dedicated to this stuff, i think this is barely the surface.  but it is fascinating no doubt, i am glad you brought up the discussion :  #  in our current circumstances, people victimize others and hide behind their moral justifications.   #  like i said, i would prefer to be in a world where people care about each other.  on that, i think we agree.  however, we probably disagree in that i do not think that world could ever exist.  humans are smart and selfish.  there will never come a day when at least one person wo not choose to look after themselves instead of others.  that can never be a reality.  in a perfect world, it would only take one individual to ruin it for everyone.  in contrast, i believe the antithesis of this a world where everyone was selfish would be preferable to reality.  if everyone were open and honest about their motives, no one would be caught off guard.  it would not be any more cruel than the world we live in, only more openly so.  in our current circumstances, people victimize others and hide behind their moral justifications.  good people are punished for their devotion to people who do not reciprocate.  i would prefer an honest and harsh world to the dishonest and harsh one we live in today.
title is fairly self explanatory.  the latest front page post of the sticker that says  guns do not kill people, people with god kill people  has led me to write this cmv.  i am not a religious man, so i do not feel this is a biased cmv.  i feel saying  gun is do not kill people, people with god kill people  is equal to a religious person saying  guns do not kill people, people  without  god kill people .  i feel /r/atheism is an extreme side of atheism, and is as evil as an extreme religious sect.  it harbours hatred towards a particular group of people; people who hold a different life view than their own.  change my view.   #  i feel /r/atheism is an extreme side of atheism, and is as evil as an extreme religious sect.   #  it harbours hatred towards a particular group of people; people who hold a different life view than their own.   #  op is view is a bit ridiculous and not well supported at all.  it harbours hatred towards a particular group of people; people who hold a different life view than their own.  as evil as an extreme religious sect ? really.  please cmv that a few unsightly posts on r/atheism are not equal to the evil of suicide bombings or death by stoning for apostasy.   #  it is all a meta jerk in a way.   #  i think it may be needed.  yeah it is a hateful group, but it really helped me when i first left christianity.  that anger is something natural for people weening themselves off of something.  christianity can be rage worthy, but i graduated from that.  i was subscribed to /r/trueatheism for a while, but i left that too.  /r/atheism and anything anti christian is usually a circle jerk on reddit, but i think even that has its place.  now we have the anti/r/atheism circle jerk and the  point the finger at the circle jerk  circle jerk.  it is all a meta jerk in a way.  jerking it, metaphorically, is fun though, i guess, and maybe that is what reddit is about.  just do not always be an ass.  sometimes you need the laugh though.   #  i do not feel like an angry phase is abnormal or unjustified.   #  for the most part i felt the same as you, but i ca not deny that there was a little anger or maybe it would be better to call it resentment toward the people who raised/brainwashed me into it in the first place.  and i do not think that was unreasonable.  i eventually got over all that by realizing that they were raised into it, too.  they were no more at fault for their indoctrination than i was, and were just doing what they were taught was right, and were thus not deserving of all the blame i had heaped on them early on in my deconversion process.  i do not feel like an angry phase is abnormal or unjustified.  but i also do not think it is needed, which is where i and /u/kiwifuel seem to disagree.  i do not feel like the angry phase of my deconversion was helpful or constructive in any way.  the constructive part was when i moved past it.  and thus i do not see /r/atheism, with all its angry circle jerking as a good or constructive place, regardless of deconversion phase.  then again, different people have different needs.  perhaps the content of /r/atheism is helpful to someone somewhere.  i just do not see how.   #  the worst of it is that many homosexuals have been raise into that and buy it wholeheartedly.   #  i understand, having been a catholic.  i do not think it is healthy or conducive to anything good.  some religions have historical artifacts that do make a lot of sense in their original context, like how pig meat and shrimp would indeed be a bad idea without modern refrigeration, hygiene and parasite control.  how procreation would be valuable in small tribes.  how any form of promiscuity is a much worse idea without modern medicine, hygiene and std protection.  i just think there are things we should move past.  honestly, the comparison to pedophilia only highlights how extreme the view is.  i also do understand that some people do have these feelings, but we are then comparing a situation in which the consummation is mutually desired to one in which it is exploitative and harmful.  it becomes even more jarring when you see the double standards where someone can invite their friends to an all you can eat buffet while ignoring the starving homeless on the street, then get smashed, tell collections of lies and still think they are completely validated to say the gays are affronting god for doing nasty gay things, despite the religion itself telling people to watch out for their sins before bashing others for them.  that is not even mentioning the many fornicators, adulterers and even thiefs that do not face such a systematic rejection.  it does not help that the bible often considers sinful thoughts, especially sexually sinful thoughts, a sin by itself.  the worst of it is that many homosexuals have been raise into that and buy it wholeheartedly.  it eats into them that even if they are attracted and legitimately, find mutual love and would not harm anyone, the absolute being who made them that way would hate them for just being intimate.  how cruel it is to make someone believe in something like this ? it often leads to self denial and closeted homosexual men trying to live as if they were heterosexual, frustrated at  best  and at worst as dishonest self loathing adulterers.  there is nothing really stopping homosexuals who believe in it leading life as celibates, but it is really toxic to demand it as the only right way.   #  so, while the catholic church does not necessarily condemn homosexuality, it condemns so called homosexual behavior sex.   #  i think i can speak for op here source: catholic high school education w/ a  sexuality and dating  class .  the catholic church is actually very supporting towards gay people.  i do not agree with this philosophy, but they only deem homosexuality  unnatural  and  going against god is plan,  not hellworthy.  so a gay person can be a member of the catholic church/community.  however , the catholic church advocates chastity if you are homosexual.  in the same way that if you are a pedophile, that is sad, but do not act on it, so goes the catholic church on homosexuality.  so, while the catholic church does not necessarily condemn homosexuality, it condemns so called homosexual behavior sex.  they mean sex.
title is fairly self explanatory.  the latest front page post of the sticker that says  guns do not kill people, people with god kill people  has led me to write this cmv.  i am not a religious man, so i do not feel this is a biased cmv.  i feel saying  gun is do not kill people, people with god kill people  is equal to a religious person saying  guns do not kill people, people  without  god kill people .  i feel /r/atheism is an extreme side of atheism, and is as evil as an extreme religious sect.  it harbours hatred towards a particular group of people; people who hold a different life view than their own.  change my view.   #  it harbours hatred towards a particular group of people; people who hold a different life view than their own.   #  no, the hatred comes from that different life view that is determined on imposing said view on the rest of us.   #  what is embracing atheism ? what is embracing a lack of a belief ? that gets tired and boring real quick.  do you not get the point of the former ? people have and do kill in the name of their religion and their god s , and also a million other pointless reasons.  those who are atheists do not kill because they are atheists, they kill because of a million other reasons.  get the difference ? good people do good things, bad people do bad things.  it takes religion to get good people to do bad things.  paraphrased from steven weinberg URL disagree ? no, the hatred comes from that different life view that is determined on imposing said view on the rest of us.  are you not aware of laws not allowing gays to marry, or constant threat of implementing a law to deny women to choose the option of abortion ? r/atheism is a safe haven.  leave it alone.  we are powerless, and do not even have the desire to impose on others, as long as you do not define fighting religious oppression as imposing on others.   #  i was subscribed to /r/trueatheism for a while, but i left that too.   #  i think it may be needed.  yeah it is a hateful group, but it really helped me when i first left christianity.  that anger is something natural for people weening themselves off of something.  christianity can be rage worthy, but i graduated from that.  i was subscribed to /r/trueatheism for a while, but i left that too.  /r/atheism and anything anti christian is usually a circle jerk on reddit, but i think even that has its place.  now we have the anti/r/atheism circle jerk and the  point the finger at the circle jerk  circle jerk.  it is all a meta jerk in a way.  jerking it, metaphorically, is fun though, i guess, and maybe that is what reddit is about.  just do not always be an ass.  sometimes you need the laugh though.   #  but i also do not think it is needed, which is where i and /u/kiwifuel seem to disagree.   #  for the most part i felt the same as you, but i ca not deny that there was a little anger or maybe it would be better to call it resentment toward the people who raised/brainwashed me into it in the first place.  and i do not think that was unreasonable.  i eventually got over all that by realizing that they were raised into it, too.  they were no more at fault for their indoctrination than i was, and were just doing what they were taught was right, and were thus not deserving of all the blame i had heaped on them early on in my deconversion process.  i do not feel like an angry phase is abnormal or unjustified.  but i also do not think it is needed, which is where i and /u/kiwifuel seem to disagree.  i do not feel like the angry phase of my deconversion was helpful or constructive in any way.  the constructive part was when i moved past it.  and thus i do not see /r/atheism, with all its angry circle jerking as a good or constructive place, regardless of deconversion phase.  then again, different people have different needs.  perhaps the content of /r/atheism is helpful to someone somewhere.  i just do not see how.   #  how cruel it is to make someone believe in something like this ?  #  i understand, having been a catholic.  i do not think it is healthy or conducive to anything good.  some religions have historical artifacts that do make a lot of sense in their original context, like how pig meat and shrimp would indeed be a bad idea without modern refrigeration, hygiene and parasite control.  how procreation would be valuable in small tribes.  how any form of promiscuity is a much worse idea without modern medicine, hygiene and std protection.  i just think there are things we should move past.  honestly, the comparison to pedophilia only highlights how extreme the view is.  i also do understand that some people do have these feelings, but we are then comparing a situation in which the consummation is mutually desired to one in which it is exploitative and harmful.  it becomes even more jarring when you see the double standards where someone can invite their friends to an all you can eat buffet while ignoring the starving homeless on the street, then get smashed, tell collections of lies and still think they are completely validated to say the gays are affronting god for doing nasty gay things, despite the religion itself telling people to watch out for their sins before bashing others for them.  that is not even mentioning the many fornicators, adulterers and even thiefs that do not face such a systematic rejection.  it does not help that the bible often considers sinful thoughts, especially sexually sinful thoughts, a sin by itself.  the worst of it is that many homosexuals have been raise into that and buy it wholeheartedly.  it eats into them that even if they are attracted and legitimately, find mutual love and would not harm anyone, the absolute being who made them that way would hate them for just being intimate.  how cruel it is to make someone believe in something like this ? it often leads to self denial and closeted homosexual men trying to live as if they were heterosexual, frustrated at  best  and at worst as dishonest self loathing adulterers.  there is nothing really stopping homosexuals who believe in it leading life as celibates, but it is really toxic to demand it as the only right way.   #  i do not agree with this philosophy, but they only deem homosexuality  unnatural  and  going against god is plan,  not hellworthy.   #  i think i can speak for op here source: catholic high school education w/ a  sexuality and dating  class .  the catholic church is actually very supporting towards gay people.  i do not agree with this philosophy, but they only deem homosexuality  unnatural  and  going against god is plan,  not hellworthy.  so a gay person can be a member of the catholic church/community.  however , the catholic church advocates chastity if you are homosexual.  in the same way that if you are a pedophile, that is sad, but do not act on it, so goes the catholic church on homosexuality.  so, while the catholic church does not necessarily condemn homosexuality, it condemns so called homosexual behavior sex.  they mean sex.
i am a  feminist  broadly speaking .  i believe in gender equality, though i prefer to call myself a social egalitarian.  however, i do not believe that the lack of female ceos is an indicator of gender inequality.  this argument one of the main  calling cards  of feminists is bullshit.  there are roughly 0 0 ceos in america.  ceos make up an infinitesimal amount of the population.  they are an extreme minority.  they are so exceptional that breaking them up into  male v.  female  or  black v.  white,  etc.  is to engage in data manipulation.  the  patriarchy  probably exists, but this argument does not hold water.  also, the ceo argument reflects, in my opinion, the lack of direction of the feminist movement.  yes, there are more male ceos than female ceos.  but what does that mean for feminists ? what exactly do the feminists want ? half of the ceos to be women ? or is it  equal opportunity  for all women ? even if half of those 0 ceos were women, what next ? how will the feminists use this enormous political influence ? lobby congress for feminist reforms ? what would those reforms be ? all of these questions illuminate this lack of direction.  it is troubling that someone like me, a person who pretty much agrees with the feminist cause, has to ask these questions.   #  there are roughly 0 0 ceos in america.   #  ceos make up an infinitesimal amount of the population.   # ceos make up an infinitesimal amount of the population.  so do senators and congressmen.  most influential positions are a very small number of the population.  the small number is not a very good basis for dismissing their importance when we are considering the power, influence and prestige that flows from these positions.  that just means it is concentrated, not irrelevant.  we are talking about people who effectively  amake the rules,  so that is why we care about representation in business, politics, etc.  the bigger question is  why are they predominantly male ?   it can range from explicit prohibitions not usually the case today to institutional ones to self selecting ones e. g, are men simply more inclined to pursue these positions ? the right answer, i suspect, is a little bit of institutional, a little bit of self selecting.  to the extent it is self selecting, we might want to inquire as to why men are more inclined to pursue these positions.  if the answer toes a line where women have to spend more time than not dealing with domestic concerns because the familial responsibilities divided down that line, then yeah, we might want to know why it skews that way.  does not mean it is wrong; families should be able to divvy up responsibility in whatever way suits them best, but it is worth inquiring.  maybe they made that split because it just seemed implicitly right due to traditional gender assumptions and no one was really thinking about that.  presumably some meaningful opportunity for advancement.  it is hard to say because  feminist  is not a card carrying party with a platform, so it is reading between the lines based on what some amorphous group of people might think.  this opportunity can mean any number of things.  my guess is that it is the sort of thing that wo not occur until 0 girls are socialized in a way that results in characteristics associated with business and political leaders, including the boldness to pursue those routes; 0 businesses looking kinder upon employees with familial obligations i think this would be beneficial for both potential fathers and mothers, since family oriented men are undoubtedly viewed as less hardworking than those who spend more time with the firm , and; 0 all people being raised with the basic understanding that men are not  ipso facto  better leaders, and maintaining awareness of the tendency to think this when we start selecting these leaders.  i do not think there is a lot of deliberate maliciousness behind this disparity so much as people operating on common assumptions, whether that means a latent belief that this guy is better suited for advancement, but ultimately only because he is a guy.  or that a woman would like to move up the ladder, but she is the person usually on point at home after work, and she opts out because it is too much to balance.   #  i particularly recommend ned block is paper URL if you are interested in seeing why the science behind these claims is demonstrably false.   #  it is certainly true  that  men tend to have higher aggregate scores than women in a wide variety of tests.  however, the genetic explanation you propose for  why  this disparity occurs is almost certainly wrong.  furthermore, your claim that these bell curve results show that there are substantial differences in the innate capabilities of men and women is also almost certainly wrong.  a person is genotype is rarely translated directly in a simplistic 0 to 0 fashion into the phenotypes they display.  there are few if any individual genes that code for individual traits in an unadulterated way.  this is because there is a tremendous amount of interplay between genes and their environment.  within the body, processes such as methylation URL determine which genes are  turned on  and can be expressed.  within a society, epigenetic factors that are wholly unrelated to genes also determine the way that genes are expressed.  for example URL two rats that are genetically identical will produce radically different phenotypes if one is licked by its mother and the other is not.  trying to explain high level traits such as intelligence with genetics alone is very tricky.  the reason i am responding so strongly to your post is that your seemingly innocuous misunderstandings about how genetics works are very pernicious and dangerous.  these sorts of pseudo scientific claims are all too common and are used to hide oppressive policies and views under the guise of scientific rigor.  if you are interested in how this is played out in the past i recommend looking at the discussion sparked by richard herrnstein and charles murray is book the bell curve which claims that the difference between the iq scores of black americans and white americans can be chalked up to genetics .  i particularly recommend ned block is paper URL if you are interested in seeing why the science behind these claims is demonstrably false.  and i recommend stephen jay gould is review URL if your are interested in the racist effects of such claims.   #  dismissing the stereotypical tumblr crazy feminist a infinitesimal part of all feminists anyways , i think i understand where you are coming from though.   #  well, i identify as a feminist.  i have a lot of male friends, feminist and non feminist and also a boyfriend that i engage with without being apathetic, dismissive, hostile, and unreasonable, even when discussing feminism.  may i ask what kind of opinions you would say are extreme feminist views ? i do agree there can be some hostility in the community, but i have most  angry feminist  that can discuss calmly with people of a different opinion if the other one have done some reading about the subject, holds an open mind and most of all, listen without dismissing when women are telling them about how they perceive the society.  but yeah, there are some crazy ones with extreme views, as there is in all groups of people.  dismissing the stereotypical tumblr crazy feminist a infinitesimal part of all feminists anyways , i think i understand where you are coming from though.  many feminist dislikes when men tries to challenge their views with the the same arguments they have heard a thousand times, and often want men to listen instead of mansplaining it yeah. it is a word, google it the issues they have experienced themselves.  i am not excusing hostile behavior, i am just saying i can understand why some find feminist hostile and why some feminist sometimes act hostile.   #  i realize in retrospect i should have specified that i do not mean the general sense of the word feminists.   #  i realize in retrospect i should have specified that i do not mean the general sense of the word feminists.  i meant to reference what most people would call radical feminists.  in my opinion, these are the only feminists who are still active and actually attempting for social change.  feminists who do condemn the radical feminist movement, i did not mean to include them.  i do sometimes associate myself with the feminist movement, however, as of late, that is becoming more and more difficult to countenance, as i do not feel welcome.   #  it takes 0 years in the working world to become a ceo.   #  the disparity in the number of male ceos versus female ceos absolutely indicates gender inequality, just not in the way you are thinking.  it does not indicate gender inequality today.  it takes 0 years in the working world to become a ceo.  the gender inequality that it is indicating is that which existed 0 years ago.  at the time very few women were allowed to advance and obtain the opportunities necessary to eventually reach the pinnacle of success in the business world.  the fact that women outnumber men at universities is a sign of much, much greater equality today and so, i predict, that in 0 years you will see that greater equality reflected in the ranks of the ceos of that time.  tl;dr  the ceo disparity is a very clear sign of inequality the inequality that existed 0 years ago when these people were starting out in the working world.
as much as i must admit my animosity towards those that would decry science as being an endeavour tarnished by the fact that it is largely conducted by white males, and other post colonial, postmodernist critiques not to mention the butchering of thomas kuhn is work , i must also confess my dismay with my stem colleagues who snarl with contempt at the valuable and enlightening studies of analytic philosophy, cognitive psychology, sociology so long as it is not some extreme structuralist nonsense etc.  the features that seem to be the basis of the divide between  soft  and  hard  science are; 0.  a reliance on statistical and probabilistic models in  soft  science, whereas there is generally more concrete and directly observable evidence in  hard  science.  0.   soft  science is generally at a higher level of abstraction than  hard sciences , with physics being at the bedrock of all science, ascending from there in turn: chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology, sociology etc.  i wish to argue against these distinctions in turn.  firstly, in quantum physics, many probabilistic and statistical models are necessitated because of the uncertainty principle.  if this distinction is valid, then quantum physics is a soft science.  secondly, even before physics we have postulates, axioms and first principles, which is properly the domain of philosophy and mathematics.  i am arguing that maths, philosphy and the assorted sciences are continuous, rather than discrete in any meaningful sense.  there really is no  soft science  or  hard science , only good science, bad science and pseudo science.  appeals to the difficulty of learning or conducting the science say nothing about its worthwhileness, its likelihood of providing nontrivial information about the world, or its usefulness.  to state otherwise is fallacious.   #  there really is no  soft science  or  hard science , only good science, bad science and pseudo science.   #  we cannot rely on the correctness of our reasoning and i would claim that the modern scientific method is so successful, because it aims to minimize that reliance.   # we cannot rely on the correctness of our reasoning and i would claim that the modern scientific method is so successful, because it aims to minimize that reliance.  do you disagree that in  hard sciences  like particle physics it is possible to minimize that reliance much further than in fields that are only accessible to  soft sciences  like sociology ? this does not mean that  hard sciences  are necessarily more important than  soft sciences .  reliability of information is not everything.  it might be much more useful to have a well educated guess about  x  than to know precise details about  y .   #  i mean to analogise physics with hardware, and programming languages with cognitive psychological science.   #  well, as i stated in my op, i do not think the distinction really exists, but it is more of a convention.  i think when people hear  hard science , they think of particle accelerators, people in lab coats with safety goggles, and any deviation therefrom as being  soft science .  i do not think the so called soft sciences run contra to purely mechanistic and deterministic accounts of processes in the world.  as i said to another commenter, one could understand the function of a computer program at a hardware level  in principle , but a lot of the time it is much easier and more useful to resort to an abstract system, like a high level programming language to understand how programs work.  sure, there are accounts of how a program works at the level of the electron, and that is  harder  for sure, but it is not very useful or worthwhile.  i mean to analogise physics with hardware, and programming languages with cognitive psychological science.   #  physics, math, chemistry and biology enable us to study psychological science.   #  hardware enables us to build software.  in your analogy software design is not a hard science because we are not doing research into software design.  it is more of a creative thing with math behind it.  building microsoft word is not a hard science.  we are not doing research when we build something in software.  we are applying what we can do with hardware but we are taking the hardware for granted and using it to build something creatively.  physics, math, chemistry and biology enable us to study psychological science.  psychsci is not a hard science ever because we are taking our hard sciences for granted and using them to creatively make observations of psychology.  if you are going to say that software design is a hard science because hardware is a hard science, then you are saying that psychology is a hard science because you need a solid understanding of all physics, chemistry, biology, and math that works behind the scenes.   #  in biology and chemistry, this is certainly possible, we can observe molecules and cells, we can work from the ground up to create our theories.   #  i will have to disagree with /u/bruinbruin.  research is most definitely involved when building something in software, as it is when doing any sort of engineering, as one is researching what does and does not work.  you have to be creative, but creativity has nothing to do with hard or soft science.  creativity is heavily involved in making genius discoveries in hard sciences, as well as soft sciences.  with that being said, your analogy breaks down.  we fully understand the hardware of a computer, as well as the software.  it might be helpful to think of the distinction between  hard  and  soft  sciences as the ability to define a true fundamental unit.  in biology and chemistry, this is certainly possible, we can observe molecules and cells, we can work from the ground up to create our theories.  we can still abstract, like we do in software design, so we do not have to always deal with the fundamentals, but at some point someone had to provide the connection.  in terms of computer science, it was actually developed before a computer was built, but that was because previously it was based in mathematics, the  hardest  science, so to speak, because it is irrefutable, with axioms as fundamental units.  neuroscience is a hard science because the fundamental unit is the neuron and brain waves.   #  more complex concepts were made by adding the results of lots of different neurones together.   #  robert did not really represent their research well.  they found that there was some upwards progression in neurones from a line to a corner to a square say.  more complex concepts were made by adding the results of lots of different neurones together.  there is a separate debate over exactly to what degree concepts with many complex aspects like a face produced by a summing up of many neurones as described above are encoded by several neurons or singular ones.  for some reason he conflated these two separate concepts to push his love of emergent phenomenon.  reductionism is not really challenged by the idea of a concept being encoded over a group of neurones.
i was challenged by someone to post here, so i am.  i do not believe in anthropogenic global warming.  please do not use silly insults like  climate change denier  or anything similar when responding.  let is be adults.  rule 0 in convincing someone of your position should be to  never  insult them.  just scientifically prove that they are wrong.  also, please refrain from appeals to authority.  if you say  other people say so  or give me the.  let is just say flawed  consensus  argument, that is not an argument.  i want to be proven that agw is real, if it is, as i assume it is not.  i used to be on the fence, leaning toward believing in it, through the 0 is into the 0s, because that is what smart people and the media said so i assumed it to be true.  but in the last ten years i have done plenty of research on the matter and it seems like the silliest thing i have ever heard.  and i keep getting new, totally absurd predictions about what is definitely going to happen if we do not take action now on  anthropogenic changing of the globally warming climate,  or whatever you are calling it nowadays, then we will all die or something.  all of these predictions are insane and are proven such when their time comes to pass.  all claims i have ever seen that  more or less of x is caused by man !   are easily debunked with even a tiny bit of research.  the corruption and duplicity in the pro agw camp is replete and nauseating.  the theory of agw is also the most arrogant thing i have ever heard.  sure, we  pollute  the planet a lot, and i reduce, reuse, recycle far more than just about anyone i know and want an electric car, etc.  but we do not change the climate.  period.  have at it.  tell me why i am wrong.  thanks in advance.   #  the corruption and duplicity in the pro agw camp is replete and nauseating.   #  even if this were true it is 0 irrelevant to whether climate change is real.   # if you read the science then there is as you know a pretty damn near complete consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real.  if you read crackpot blogs, the story will be somewhat different.  what are all these myriad predictions that you refer to ? again, are they coming from climate scientists or bloggers ? even if this were true it is 0 irrelevant to whether climate change is real.  so why not a change on a larger scale ?  #  currently the oceans are warming at pretty decent rate, URL which explains a lot of the so called  hiatus .   #  easy to read: URL a little harder: URL wikipedia: URL a little more complicated: URL URL the period towards the far left labeled c is the carboniferous period.  while temperatures have sort of leveled out over the past decade, the atmosphere is still gaining energy.  URL this extra energy URL does not necessarily manifest itself as surface temperature increases, as it can be distributed throughout the earth is entire climate system.  currently the oceans are warming at pretty decent rate, URL which explains a lot of the so called  hiatus .  you can expect a lot of that heat to come back out in the following decades, as ocean heat storage is a short term phenomenon.   #  by changing the air in this way, we increase the greenhouse gas effect, which causes the planet to warm.   #  if you understand the greenhouse gas effect, then you believe in climate change.  when the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increases, the atmosphere retains more of the sun is electromagnetic energy, thereby warming the planet.  this is just the physics of how light interacts with various molecules.  burning fossil fuels, which is done by humans, emits carbon dioxide into the air.  this is just the basic chemistry of a combustion reaction.  we burn an incredible amount of fossil fuels and so we release an incredible amount of carbon dioxide into the air.  by changing the air in this way, we increase the greenhouse gas effect, which causes the planet to warm.  what aspect of this are you skeptical about ?  #  i am not trying to be rude, but you do not believe in man made climate change because you have a weak understanding of how science works.   #  ok i saw your post below about your pie charts.  i am not trying to be rude, but you do not believe in man made climate change because you have a weak understanding of how science works.  nothing people tell you in this thread will change your view until you are willing to question your basic assumptions.  put briefly, you are only thinking about which factors affect the climate, not which factors are presently subject to significant change.  for example, you say the sun has a major effect on climate.  this is true, but the sun is energy output has not drastically changed in the last century, a period of time in which we have seen substantially increased average temperatures and polar ice melt.  given that the climate has changed a great deal recently i think you accept this fact, just not the cause of the change , it is most reasonable to believe that the cause of this is a climate affecting factor in this case, carbon dioxide levels which has also changed a great deal recently.  so, even if carbon dioxide levels are not the most powerful force that affects climate, it can still have a very appreciable and severe effect.  but you probably wo not believe me that the sun is energy output has not changed meaningfully in the last century, since i could only show this by pointing to the work of others who have measured this.  since you are unwilling to be convinced by the work of experts, the only way for your mind to be changed will be for you to spend many years coming to understand various scientific methods and principles and then conducting your own experiments.   #  however, we had a grand solar maximum in the late 0th century URL we know what the impact of a grand solar minimum can be on global temperatures.   # this is true, but the sun is energy output has not drastically changed in the last century, a period of time in which we have seen substantially increased average temperatures and polar ice melt.  you are failing to mention the ice gains in anctartica.  how do those gains validate your position ? the sun is output varies with about 0.  this seeming lack of variability is often mentioned as solid evidence of no link between the sun and late 0th century warming.  however, we had a grand solar maximum in the late 0th century URL we know what the impact of a grand solar minimum can be on global temperatures.  remember: a grand solar minimum does not exceed the 0 variability.  why can a grand solar minimum cool the planet while at the same time a grand solar maximum is purported to not be able to warm the planet ?
i was challenged by someone to post here, so i am.  i do not believe in anthropogenic global warming.  please do not use silly insults like  climate change denier  or anything similar when responding.  let is be adults.  rule 0 in convincing someone of your position should be to  never  insult them.  just scientifically prove that they are wrong.  also, please refrain from appeals to authority.  if you say  other people say so  or give me the.  let is just say flawed  consensus  argument, that is not an argument.  i want to be proven that agw is real, if it is, as i assume it is not.  i used to be on the fence, leaning toward believing in it, through the 0 is into the 0s, because that is what smart people and the media said so i assumed it to be true.  but in the last ten years i have done plenty of research on the matter and it seems like the silliest thing i have ever heard.  and i keep getting new, totally absurd predictions about what is definitely going to happen if we do not take action now on  anthropogenic changing of the globally warming climate,  or whatever you are calling it nowadays, then we will all die or something.  all of these predictions are insane and are proven such when their time comes to pass.  all claims i have ever seen that  more or less of x is caused by man !   are easily debunked with even a tiny bit of research.  the corruption and duplicity in the pro agw camp is replete and nauseating.  the theory of agw is also the most arrogant thing i have ever heard.  sure, we  pollute  the planet a lot, and i reduce, reuse, recycle far more than just about anyone i know and want an electric car, etc.  but we do not change the climate.  period.  have at it.  tell me why i am wrong.  thanks in advance.   #  all of these predictions are insane and are proven such when their time comes to pass.   #  you will need to identify them in particular for the rest of us to grasp which ones you are talking about.   # you will need to identify them in particular for the rest of us to grasp which ones you are talking about.  kinda hard to challenge research you have not presented, and it is very unscientific on your part.  are easily debunked with even a tiny bit of research.  again, which claims would those be ? claiming that x amounts of lead in the ocean and the air. that is not debunkable.  that is actually provable, and can be observed to have fallen since leaded gasoline was restricted.  but sure, maybe you read something that is nonsense somewhere.  ok, so what ? do you think that is surprising or relevant ? i  but we do not change the climate do not and ca not are two different things.  which are you asking about ? why do you claim that is their motivation ? maybe they want to save the world and its economy.  which will require change, but what economy is static anyway ? heck, there are concepts in economics that laud such activity in the first place ! but hey, maybe you should follow your own advice, about not insulting people ? you do realize it is insulting to ascribe to others such a negative motivation, as well as some of your other descriptions.  wow.  how does this surprise you ? go cut down a tree.  bam you just controlled nature.  cut down more trees, and further changes.  build a roof.  bam, you are controlling nature.  put on some clothes ? controlling nature.  want to work on a larger scale ? try some satellite imagery, the impact of human activity is easy to observe.  humans have been controlling nature for a while.  the desert of maine.  the dust bowl.  mesopotamia.  china is river valleys.  sure, why not ? never put a roof over your head ? turned on an ac ? heck, it is easily demonstrable what impact a volcanic eruption will have on climate, human beings could replicate the effect if desired, and you can see the reports of what happened after 0/0 or the icelandic volcano eruptions when many flights are grounded.   #  while temperatures have sort of leveled out over the past decade, the atmosphere is still gaining energy.   #  easy to read: URL a little harder: URL wikipedia: URL a little more complicated: URL URL the period towards the far left labeled c is the carboniferous period.  while temperatures have sort of leveled out over the past decade, the atmosphere is still gaining energy.  URL this extra energy URL does not necessarily manifest itself as surface temperature increases, as it can be distributed throughout the earth is entire climate system.  currently the oceans are warming at pretty decent rate, URL which explains a lot of the so called  hiatus .  you can expect a lot of that heat to come back out in the following decades, as ocean heat storage is a short term phenomenon.   #  this is just the physics of how light interacts with various molecules.   #  if you understand the greenhouse gas effect, then you believe in climate change.  when the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increases, the atmosphere retains more of the sun is electromagnetic energy, thereby warming the planet.  this is just the physics of how light interacts with various molecules.  burning fossil fuels, which is done by humans, emits carbon dioxide into the air.  this is just the basic chemistry of a combustion reaction.  we burn an incredible amount of fossil fuels and so we release an incredible amount of carbon dioxide into the air.  by changing the air in this way, we increase the greenhouse gas effect, which causes the planet to warm.  what aspect of this are you skeptical about ?  #  for example, you say the sun has a major effect on climate.   #  ok i saw your post below about your pie charts.  i am not trying to be rude, but you do not believe in man made climate change because you have a weak understanding of how science works.  nothing people tell you in this thread will change your view until you are willing to question your basic assumptions.  put briefly, you are only thinking about which factors affect the climate, not which factors are presently subject to significant change.  for example, you say the sun has a major effect on climate.  this is true, but the sun is energy output has not drastically changed in the last century, a period of time in which we have seen substantially increased average temperatures and polar ice melt.  given that the climate has changed a great deal recently i think you accept this fact, just not the cause of the change , it is most reasonable to believe that the cause of this is a climate affecting factor in this case, carbon dioxide levels which has also changed a great deal recently.  so, even if carbon dioxide levels are not the most powerful force that affects climate, it can still have a very appreciable and severe effect.  but you probably wo not believe me that the sun is energy output has not changed meaningfully in the last century, since i could only show this by pointing to the work of others who have measured this.  since you are unwilling to be convinced by the work of experts, the only way for your mind to be changed will be for you to spend many years coming to understand various scientific methods and principles and then conducting your own experiments.   #  you are failing to mention the ice gains in anctartica.   # this is true, but the sun is energy output has not drastically changed in the last century, a period of time in which we have seen substantially increased average temperatures and polar ice melt.  you are failing to mention the ice gains in anctartica.  how do those gains validate your position ? the sun is output varies with about 0.  this seeming lack of variability is often mentioned as solid evidence of no link between the sun and late 0th century warming.  however, we had a grand solar maximum in the late 0th century URL we know what the impact of a grand solar minimum can be on global temperatures.  remember: a grand solar minimum does not exceed the 0 variability.  why can a grand solar minimum cool the planet while at the same time a grand solar maximum is purported to not be able to warm the planet ?
i was challenged by someone to post here, so i am.  i do not believe in anthropogenic global warming.  please do not use silly insults like  climate change denier  or anything similar when responding.  let is be adults.  rule 0 in convincing someone of your position should be to  never  insult them.  just scientifically prove that they are wrong.  also, please refrain from appeals to authority.  if you say  other people say so  or give me the.  let is just say flawed  consensus  argument, that is not an argument.  i want to be proven that agw is real, if it is, as i assume it is not.  i used to be on the fence, leaning toward believing in it, through the 0 is into the 0s, because that is what smart people and the media said so i assumed it to be true.  but in the last ten years i have done plenty of research on the matter and it seems like the silliest thing i have ever heard.  and i keep getting new, totally absurd predictions about what is definitely going to happen if we do not take action now on  anthropogenic changing of the globally warming climate,  or whatever you are calling it nowadays, then we will all die or something.  all of these predictions are insane and are proven such when their time comes to pass.  all claims i have ever seen that  more or less of x is caused by man !   are easily debunked with even a tiny bit of research.  the corruption and duplicity in the pro agw camp is replete and nauseating.  the theory of agw is also the most arrogant thing i have ever heard.  sure, we  pollute  the planet a lot, and i reduce, reuse, recycle far more than just about anyone i know and want an electric car, etc.  but we do not change the climate.  period.  have at it.  tell me why i am wrong.  thanks in advance.   #  all claims i have ever seen that  more or less of x is caused by man !    #  are easily debunked with even a tiny bit of research.   # you will need to identify them in particular for the rest of us to grasp which ones you are talking about.  kinda hard to challenge research you have not presented, and it is very unscientific on your part.  are easily debunked with even a tiny bit of research.  again, which claims would those be ? claiming that x amounts of lead in the ocean and the air. that is not debunkable.  that is actually provable, and can be observed to have fallen since leaded gasoline was restricted.  but sure, maybe you read something that is nonsense somewhere.  ok, so what ? do you think that is surprising or relevant ? i  but we do not change the climate do not and ca not are two different things.  which are you asking about ? why do you claim that is their motivation ? maybe they want to save the world and its economy.  which will require change, but what economy is static anyway ? heck, there are concepts in economics that laud such activity in the first place ! but hey, maybe you should follow your own advice, about not insulting people ? you do realize it is insulting to ascribe to others such a negative motivation, as well as some of your other descriptions.  wow.  how does this surprise you ? go cut down a tree.  bam you just controlled nature.  cut down more trees, and further changes.  build a roof.  bam, you are controlling nature.  put on some clothes ? controlling nature.  want to work on a larger scale ? try some satellite imagery, the impact of human activity is easy to observe.  humans have been controlling nature for a while.  the desert of maine.  the dust bowl.  mesopotamia.  china is river valleys.  sure, why not ? never put a roof over your head ? turned on an ac ? heck, it is easily demonstrable what impact a volcanic eruption will have on climate, human beings could replicate the effect if desired, and you can see the reports of what happened after 0/0 or the icelandic volcano eruptions when many flights are grounded.   #  currently the oceans are warming at pretty decent rate, URL which explains a lot of the so called  hiatus .   #  easy to read: URL a little harder: URL wikipedia: URL a little more complicated: URL URL the period towards the far left labeled c is the carboniferous period.  while temperatures have sort of leveled out over the past decade, the atmosphere is still gaining energy.  URL this extra energy URL does not necessarily manifest itself as surface temperature increases, as it can be distributed throughout the earth is entire climate system.  currently the oceans are warming at pretty decent rate, URL which explains a lot of the so called  hiatus .  you can expect a lot of that heat to come back out in the following decades, as ocean heat storage is a short term phenomenon.   #  burning fossil fuels, which is done by humans, emits carbon dioxide into the air.   #  if you understand the greenhouse gas effect, then you believe in climate change.  when the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increases, the atmosphere retains more of the sun is electromagnetic energy, thereby warming the planet.  this is just the physics of how light interacts with various molecules.  burning fossil fuels, which is done by humans, emits carbon dioxide into the air.  this is just the basic chemistry of a combustion reaction.  we burn an incredible amount of fossil fuels and so we release an incredible amount of carbon dioxide into the air.  by changing the air in this way, we increase the greenhouse gas effect, which causes the planet to warm.  what aspect of this are you skeptical about ?  #  this is true, but the sun is energy output has not drastically changed in the last century, a period of time in which we have seen substantially increased average temperatures and polar ice melt.   #  ok i saw your post below about your pie charts.  i am not trying to be rude, but you do not believe in man made climate change because you have a weak understanding of how science works.  nothing people tell you in this thread will change your view until you are willing to question your basic assumptions.  put briefly, you are only thinking about which factors affect the climate, not which factors are presently subject to significant change.  for example, you say the sun has a major effect on climate.  this is true, but the sun is energy output has not drastically changed in the last century, a period of time in which we have seen substantially increased average temperatures and polar ice melt.  given that the climate has changed a great deal recently i think you accept this fact, just not the cause of the change , it is most reasonable to believe that the cause of this is a climate affecting factor in this case, carbon dioxide levels which has also changed a great deal recently.  so, even if carbon dioxide levels are not the most powerful force that affects climate, it can still have a very appreciable and severe effect.  but you probably wo not believe me that the sun is energy output has not changed meaningfully in the last century, since i could only show this by pointing to the work of others who have measured this.  since you are unwilling to be convinced by the work of experts, the only way for your mind to be changed will be for you to spend many years coming to understand various scientific methods and principles and then conducting your own experiments.   #  however, we had a grand solar maximum in the late 0th century URL we know what the impact of a grand solar minimum can be on global temperatures.   # this is true, but the sun is energy output has not drastically changed in the last century, a period of time in which we have seen substantially increased average temperatures and polar ice melt.  you are failing to mention the ice gains in anctartica.  how do those gains validate your position ? the sun is output varies with about 0.  this seeming lack of variability is often mentioned as solid evidence of no link between the sun and late 0th century warming.  however, we had a grand solar maximum in the late 0th century URL we know what the impact of a grand solar minimum can be on global temperatures.  remember: a grand solar minimum does not exceed the 0 variability.  why can a grand solar minimum cool the planet while at the same time a grand solar maximum is purported to not be able to warm the planet ?
nintendo fell under a surprising amount of heat for their recent  life simulator  game tomodachi life, because they allowed people to get married, but not same sex couples.  in my opinion, he fact that this was controversial is somewhat ridiculous: this is a game which sole purpose is to be silly.  you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  one aspect of the game is that characters can get married and have a child, which is a mix of the two characters faces.  there is a work around that allows same sex marriages, which is to make a male character a female or vise versa.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  now, this is a silly handheld game, which will likely be played mostly by children.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children, i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  and it affects the gameplay itself: if two of the characters get married, i want to see the ridiculous offspring of my roommate and jennifer lawrence for example.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  this whole issue strikes me as one that is getting brought up by people who wo not play the game, but are offended they were not included.  i ca not make a female character in madden, not can i make a black character in animal crossing, why did this become such a hot topic ? i am completely accepting of gay couples, and would not have complained if they had been included/will be included in the game, but it is so silly to get upset with a children is game company for staying out of a hotly debated topic.   #  but it is so silly to get upset with a children is game company for staying out of a hotly debated topic.   #  i do not think it is very respectful for an assumedly straight person to be deciding what is or is not  silly  for gay people to get upset over.   #  gay people just want to be and feel  normal .  i do not think it is an irrational or unreasonable thing to fight for.  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.  i do not think it is very respectful for an assumedly straight person to be deciding what is or is not  silly  for gay people to get upset over.  if you have never been gay then you do not know what it is like and so you have nothing to base your judgements on.   #  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.    # unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game is design, and such a significant development change ca not be accomplished with a post ship patch.  at nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy.  we are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone.  we pledge that if we create a next installment in the tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.  source URL they were not apologizing for failing to include gay marriage.  they were apologizing for  disappointing  people.  it sounds like pr speak, but it is an important distinction.  nintendo never intended to make social commentary URL but by accidentally allowing gay marriage and then removing the bug slash feature, they did.  as much as i love them, nintendo is a conservative, japanese, family oriented corporation that only wants to sell games.  they had to apologize to maintain their neutrality in the matter.  they were not looking to be the next chic fil a URL they were not looking to stir the pot.  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.   by apologizing and vaguely suggesting that the next game will be  more inclusive,  they fail to establish either support or disapproval of gay marriage and attempt only to deflect the controversy by kicking the ball down the field.  they had to apologize for the sake of their bottom line.   #  or imagine you are a young child raised by same sex parents.   #  imagine if you are a gay child, nowhere near done coming to terms with your sexuality that you hardly understand.  you think you are attracted to individuals of the same sex, but that idea is mocked by your classmates, disrespected online, argued in the news, and now it is not supported by your new videogame.  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.  or imagine you are a young child raised by same sex parents.  they got you a videogame, but you ca not find a way to simulate your situation at home.  that could make you feel alienated and confused.   are daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy not normal ? what is wrong with my home life ?    #  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.   #  this is important.  for a while when i was growing up, i thought i was the only gay person.  it really has had a lasting effect on me.  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.  if someone had just told me that some people are gay and some are not, my life would have been easier.  and i would not have had to fill in the gaps without all the information i needed.   #  but to be fair to nintendo, american gay teens are not the target audience.   #  but to be fair to nintendo, american gay teens are not the target audience.  this game is made for  japanese  fans primarily and america is the secondary market.  that means that they are going to primarily do things in the game that appeal to  japanese  families, and even then only to the majority.  if japan is not down with gay marriage, and japan is the primary audience in the minds of the developers, than it is not reasonable to include stuff that will actively offend your target audience, get the game rated too mature in japan to be legally sold in japanese game shops, or getting adults to refuse to buy the game for their kids.  this was, essentially a  business decision , one that was designed to maximize sales in japan.  the 0 of the world population that is gay is not going to get the game enough sales to make up for the loss of millions of other people who would be offended or pissed off by this decision.  just as a quick example, had gay marriage been a known feature of skyrim, it would have been hugely controversial.  millions of people would be offended, potentially stores in entire regions of the us would refuse to stock the game on shelves.  it would be a rehash of  hot coffee  meaning that once the feature is out there, the game is unsellable for mainstream outlets.  that essentially killed sales in the us.  no company is going to do that .
nintendo fell under a surprising amount of heat for their recent  life simulator  game tomodachi life, because they allowed people to get married, but not same sex couples.  in my opinion, he fact that this was controversial is somewhat ridiculous: this is a game which sole purpose is to be silly.  you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  one aspect of the game is that characters can get married and have a child, which is a mix of the two characters faces.  there is a work around that allows same sex marriages, which is to make a male character a female or vise versa.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  now, this is a silly handheld game, which will likely be played mostly by children.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children, i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  and it affects the gameplay itself: if two of the characters get married, i want to see the ridiculous offspring of my roommate and jennifer lawrence for example.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  this whole issue strikes me as one that is getting brought up by people who wo not play the game, but are offended they were not included.  i ca not make a female character in madden, not can i make a black character in animal crossing, why did this become such a hot topic ? i am completely accepting of gay couples, and would not have complained if they had been included/will be included in the game, but it is so silly to get upset with a children is game company for staying out of a hotly debated topic.   #  there is a work around that allows same sex marriages, which is to make a male character a female or vise versa.   #  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.   #  the purpose of this game is to simulate a kind of life you want clearly romantic relationships are big parts of most people is lives.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  i have not played the game myself, so i will take your word for it, but even if that is true it is besides the point.  i do not want to marry a girl who looks like a boy, i want to marry a boy.  this is either an argument to have no romance at all in the game, or both same and opposite sex relationships.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  uh, pretty sure this could be as easily done with same sex couples.  sure, it is not realistic, but it is, as you say, a  silly handheld game  and we do not necessarily need to stick to reality if that feature is so desired.  for your final paragraph, those two examples i am completely for.  women in madden would be amazing, and i see legitimate reason to not have a simple  skin color  slider in animal crossing, especially since the game is all about customization.  and why is it silly to be upset at children is games for not including same sex couples ? let me tell you that it sucks growing up as a gay child when every single romance option available to me is straight.  especially in more rural areas, you can definitely feel completely alone in the world at times; i ca not say representation in games would completely change that, but it would definitely help.   #  they were not looking to be the next chic fil a URL they were not looking to stir the pot.   # unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game is design, and such a significant development change ca not be accomplished with a post ship patch.  at nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy.  we are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone.  we pledge that if we create a next installment in the tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.  source URL they were not apologizing for failing to include gay marriage.  they were apologizing for  disappointing  people.  it sounds like pr speak, but it is an important distinction.  nintendo never intended to make social commentary URL but by accidentally allowing gay marriage and then removing the bug slash feature, they did.  as much as i love them, nintendo is a conservative, japanese, family oriented corporation that only wants to sell games.  they had to apologize to maintain their neutrality in the matter.  they were not looking to be the next chic fil a URL they were not looking to stir the pot.  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.   by apologizing and vaguely suggesting that the next game will be  more inclusive,  they fail to establish either support or disapproval of gay marriage and attempt only to deflect the controversy by kicking the ball down the field.  they had to apologize for the sake of their bottom line.   #  gay people just want to be and feel  normal .   #  gay people just want to be and feel  normal .  i do not think it is an irrational or unreasonable thing to fight for.  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.  i do not think it is very respectful for an assumedly straight person to be deciding what is or is not  silly  for gay people to get upset over.  if you have never been gay then you do not know what it is like and so you have nothing to base your judgements on.   #  imagine if you are a gay child, nowhere near done coming to terms with your sexuality that you hardly understand.   #  imagine if you are a gay child, nowhere near done coming to terms with your sexuality that you hardly understand.  you think you are attracted to individuals of the same sex, but that idea is mocked by your classmates, disrespected online, argued in the news, and now it is not supported by your new videogame.  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.  or imagine you are a young child raised by same sex parents.  they got you a videogame, but you ca not find a way to simulate your situation at home.  that could make you feel alienated and confused.   are daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy not normal ? what is wrong with my home life ?    #  it really has had a lasting effect on me.   #  this is important.  for a while when i was growing up, i thought i was the only gay person.  it really has had a lasting effect on me.  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.  if someone had just told me that some people are gay and some are not, my life would have been easier.  and i would not have had to fill in the gaps without all the information i needed.
nintendo fell under a surprising amount of heat for their recent  life simulator  game tomodachi life, because they allowed people to get married, but not same sex couples.  in my opinion, he fact that this was controversial is somewhat ridiculous: this is a game which sole purpose is to be silly.  you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  one aspect of the game is that characters can get married and have a child, which is a mix of the two characters faces.  there is a work around that allows same sex marriages, which is to make a male character a female or vise versa.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  now, this is a silly handheld game, which will likely be played mostly by children.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children, i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  and it affects the gameplay itself: if two of the characters get married, i want to see the ridiculous offspring of my roommate and jennifer lawrence for example.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  this whole issue strikes me as one that is getting brought up by people who wo not play the game, but are offended they were not included.  i ca not make a female character in madden, not can i make a black character in animal crossing, why did this become such a hot topic ? i am completely accepting of gay couples, and would not have complained if they had been included/will be included in the game, but it is so silly to get upset with a children is game company for staying out of a hotly debated topic.   #  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children, i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.   #  this is either an argument to have no romance at all in the game, or both same and opposite sex relationships.   #  the purpose of this game is to simulate a kind of life you want clearly romantic relationships are big parts of most people is lives.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  i have not played the game myself, so i will take your word for it, but even if that is true it is besides the point.  i do not want to marry a girl who looks like a boy, i want to marry a boy.  this is either an argument to have no romance at all in the game, or both same and opposite sex relationships.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  uh, pretty sure this could be as easily done with same sex couples.  sure, it is not realistic, but it is, as you say, a  silly handheld game  and we do not necessarily need to stick to reality if that feature is so desired.  for your final paragraph, those two examples i am completely for.  women in madden would be amazing, and i see legitimate reason to not have a simple  skin color  slider in animal crossing, especially since the game is all about customization.  and why is it silly to be upset at children is games for not including same sex couples ? let me tell you that it sucks growing up as a gay child when every single romance option available to me is straight.  especially in more rural areas, you can definitely feel completely alone in the world at times; i ca not say representation in games would completely change that, but it would definitely help.   #  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.    # unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game is design, and such a significant development change ca not be accomplished with a post ship patch.  at nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy.  we are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone.  we pledge that if we create a next installment in the tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.  source URL they were not apologizing for failing to include gay marriage.  they were apologizing for  disappointing  people.  it sounds like pr speak, but it is an important distinction.  nintendo never intended to make social commentary URL but by accidentally allowing gay marriage and then removing the bug slash feature, they did.  as much as i love them, nintendo is a conservative, japanese, family oriented corporation that only wants to sell games.  they had to apologize to maintain their neutrality in the matter.  they were not looking to be the next chic fil a URL they were not looking to stir the pot.  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.   by apologizing and vaguely suggesting that the next game will be  more inclusive,  they fail to establish either support or disapproval of gay marriage and attempt only to deflect the controversy by kicking the ball down the field.  they had to apologize for the sake of their bottom line.   #  gay people just want to be and feel  normal .   #  gay people just want to be and feel  normal .  i do not think it is an irrational or unreasonable thing to fight for.  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.  i do not think it is very respectful for an assumedly straight person to be deciding what is or is not  silly  for gay people to get upset over.  if you have never been gay then you do not know what it is like and so you have nothing to base your judgements on.   #  imagine if you are a gay child, nowhere near done coming to terms with your sexuality that you hardly understand.   #  imagine if you are a gay child, nowhere near done coming to terms with your sexuality that you hardly understand.  you think you are attracted to individuals of the same sex, but that idea is mocked by your classmates, disrespected online, argued in the news, and now it is not supported by your new videogame.  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.  or imagine you are a young child raised by same sex parents.  they got you a videogame, but you ca not find a way to simulate your situation at home.  that could make you feel alienated and confused.   are daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy not normal ? what is wrong with my home life ?    #  if someone had just told me that some people are gay and some are not, my life would have been easier.   #  this is important.  for a while when i was growing up, i thought i was the only gay person.  it really has had a lasting effect on me.  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.  if someone had just told me that some people are gay and some are not, my life would have been easier.  and i would not have had to fill in the gaps without all the information i needed.
nintendo fell under a surprising amount of heat for their recent  life simulator  game tomodachi life, because they allowed people to get married, but not same sex couples.  in my opinion, he fact that this was controversial is somewhat ridiculous: this is a game which sole purpose is to be silly.  you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  one aspect of the game is that characters can get married and have a child, which is a mix of the two characters faces.  there is a work around that allows same sex marriages, which is to make a male character a female or vise versa.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  now, this is a silly handheld game, which will likely be played mostly by children.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children, i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  and it affects the gameplay itself: if two of the characters get married, i want to see the ridiculous offspring of my roommate and jennifer lawrence for example.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  this whole issue strikes me as one that is getting brought up by people who wo not play the game, but are offended they were not included.  i ca not make a female character in madden, not can i make a black character in animal crossing, why did this become such a hot topic ? i am completely accepting of gay couples, and would not have complained if they had been included/will be included in the game, but it is so silly to get upset with a children is game company for staying out of a hotly debated topic.   #  and it affects the gameplay itself: if two of the characters get married, i want to see the ridiculous offspring of my roommate and jennifer lawrence for example.   #  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .   #  the purpose of this game is to simulate a kind of life you want clearly romantic relationships are big parts of most people is lives.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  i have not played the game myself, so i will take your word for it, but even if that is true it is besides the point.  i do not want to marry a girl who looks like a boy, i want to marry a boy.  this is either an argument to have no romance at all in the game, or both same and opposite sex relationships.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  uh, pretty sure this could be as easily done with same sex couples.  sure, it is not realistic, but it is, as you say, a  silly handheld game  and we do not necessarily need to stick to reality if that feature is so desired.  for your final paragraph, those two examples i am completely for.  women in madden would be amazing, and i see legitimate reason to not have a simple  skin color  slider in animal crossing, especially since the game is all about customization.  and why is it silly to be upset at children is games for not including same sex couples ? let me tell you that it sucks growing up as a gay child when every single romance option available to me is straight.  especially in more rural areas, you can definitely feel completely alone in the world at times; i ca not say representation in games would completely change that, but it would definitely help.   #  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.    # unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game is design, and such a significant development change ca not be accomplished with a post ship patch.  at nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy.  we are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone.  we pledge that if we create a next installment in the tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.  source URL they were not apologizing for failing to include gay marriage.  they were apologizing for  disappointing  people.  it sounds like pr speak, but it is an important distinction.  nintendo never intended to make social commentary URL but by accidentally allowing gay marriage and then removing the bug slash feature, they did.  as much as i love them, nintendo is a conservative, japanese, family oriented corporation that only wants to sell games.  they had to apologize to maintain their neutrality in the matter.  they were not looking to be the next chic fil a URL they were not looking to stir the pot.  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.   by apologizing and vaguely suggesting that the next game will be  more inclusive,  they fail to establish either support or disapproval of gay marriage and attempt only to deflect the controversy by kicking the ball down the field.  they had to apologize for the sake of their bottom line.   #  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.   #  gay people just want to be and feel  normal .  i do not think it is an irrational or unreasonable thing to fight for.  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.  i do not think it is very respectful for an assumedly straight person to be deciding what is or is not  silly  for gay people to get upset over.  if you have never been gay then you do not know what it is like and so you have nothing to base your judgements on.   #  they got you a videogame, but you ca not find a way to simulate your situation at home.   #  imagine if you are a gay child, nowhere near done coming to terms with your sexuality that you hardly understand.  you think you are attracted to individuals of the same sex, but that idea is mocked by your classmates, disrespected online, argued in the news, and now it is not supported by your new videogame.  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.  or imagine you are a young child raised by same sex parents.  they got you a videogame, but you ca not find a way to simulate your situation at home.  that could make you feel alienated and confused.   are daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy not normal ? what is wrong with my home life ?    #  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.   #  this is important.  for a while when i was growing up, i thought i was the only gay person.  it really has had a lasting effect on me.  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.  if someone had just told me that some people are gay and some are not, my life would have been easier.  and i would not have had to fill in the gaps without all the information i needed.
nintendo fell under a surprising amount of heat for their recent  life simulator  game tomodachi life, because they allowed people to get married, but not same sex couples.  in my opinion, he fact that this was controversial is somewhat ridiculous: this is a game which sole purpose is to be silly.  you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  one aspect of the game is that characters can get married and have a child, which is a mix of the two characters faces.  there is a work around that allows same sex marriages, which is to make a male character a female or vise versa.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  now, this is a silly handheld game, which will likely be played mostly by children.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children, i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  and it affects the gameplay itself: if two of the characters get married, i want to see the ridiculous offspring of my roommate and jennifer lawrence for example.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  this whole issue strikes me as one that is getting brought up by people who wo not play the game, but are offended they were not included.  i ca not make a female character in madden, not can i make a black character in animal crossing, why did this become such a hot topic ? i am completely accepting of gay couples, and would not have complained if they had been included/will be included in the game, but it is so silly to get upset with a children is game company for staying out of a hotly debated topic.   #  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .   #  and this element is not present in real life gay marriages as well, so it would be weird to include it in same sex marriages.   #  it is true that this game is aimed at children, but that is exactly why it is important to include the possibility of same sex marriages.  in a modern, western society we accept homosexuals and give them the possibility to marry, because we view all those couples as equal.  by not including same sex marriage in the game, nintendo is not relaying this message.  they are not necessarily saying that they disapprove of same sex marriage, but they are implying that same sex marriage is abnormal.  and that implication will be taught to or  absorbed  by the kids that are playing.  nintendo would greatly contribute to a more progressive society by allowing same sex marriage in tomodachi life, by showing kids that love can exist between two of the same genders.  and this element is not present in real life gay marriages as well, so it would be weird to include it in same sex marriages.  the game is not supposed to be social commentary, ofcourse, but it still will influence this generation is children, and it would be wise to include these messages.   #  they had to apologize for the sake of their bottom line.   # unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game is design, and such a significant development change ca not be accomplished with a post ship patch.  at nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy.  we are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone.  we pledge that if we create a next installment in the tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.  source URL they were not apologizing for failing to include gay marriage.  they were apologizing for  disappointing  people.  it sounds like pr speak, but it is an important distinction.  nintendo never intended to make social commentary URL but by accidentally allowing gay marriage and then removing the bug slash feature, they did.  as much as i love them, nintendo is a conservative, japanese, family oriented corporation that only wants to sell games.  they had to apologize to maintain their neutrality in the matter.  they were not looking to be the next chic fil a URL they were not looking to stir the pot.  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.   by apologizing and vaguely suggesting that the next game will be  more inclusive,  they fail to establish either support or disapproval of gay marriage and attempt only to deflect the controversy by kicking the ball down the field.  they had to apologize for the sake of their bottom line.   #  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.   #  gay people just want to be and feel  normal .  i do not think it is an irrational or unreasonable thing to fight for.  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.  i do not think it is very respectful for an assumedly straight person to be deciding what is or is not  silly  for gay people to get upset over.  if you have never been gay then you do not know what it is like and so you have nothing to base your judgements on.   #  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.   #  imagine if you are a gay child, nowhere near done coming to terms with your sexuality that you hardly understand.  you think you are attracted to individuals of the same sex, but that idea is mocked by your classmates, disrespected online, argued in the news, and now it is not supported by your new videogame.  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.  or imagine you are a young child raised by same sex parents.  they got you a videogame, but you ca not find a way to simulate your situation at home.  that could make you feel alienated and confused.   are daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy not normal ? what is wrong with my home life ?    #  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.   #  this is important.  for a while when i was growing up, i thought i was the only gay person.  it really has had a lasting effect on me.  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.  if someone had just told me that some people are gay and some are not, my life would have been easier.  and i would not have had to fill in the gaps without all the information i needed.
nintendo fell under a surprising amount of heat for their recent  life simulator  game tomodachi life, because they allowed people to get married, but not same sex couples.  in my opinion, he fact that this was controversial is somewhat ridiculous: this is a game which sole purpose is to be silly.  you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  one aspect of the game is that characters can get married and have a child, which is a mix of the two characters faces.  there is a work around that allows same sex marriages, which is to make a male character a female or vise versa.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  now, this is a silly handheld game, which will likely be played mostly by children.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children, i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  and it affects the gameplay itself: if two of the characters get married, i want to see the ridiculous offspring of my roommate and jennifer lawrence for example.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  this whole issue strikes me as one that is getting brought up by people who wo not play the game, but are offended they were not included.  i ca not make a female character in madden, not can i make a black character in animal crossing, why did this become such a hot topic ? i am completely accepting of gay couples, and would not have complained if they had been included/will be included in the game, but it is so silly to get upset with a children is game company for staying out of a hotly debated topic.   #  this is a game which sole purpose is to be silly.   #  you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.   # you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  while i am not as upset about this as others are, i do think it is a detriment to the game from a gameplay perspective.  there is a tonne of silly scenarios that could arise if they included gay marriage.  for example, i ca not marry mii versions of joseph stalin and vladimir lenin, which is a damn shame.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  you could just have children for gay couples as well and have it be part of the silliness.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children,  i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  would not it be a good idea to reinforce that being gay is okay and normal so that it is easier for children when that time of their life does come ?  #  at nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy.   # unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game is design, and such a significant development change ca not be accomplished with a post ship patch.  at nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy.  we are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone.  we pledge that if we create a next installment in the tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.  source URL they were not apologizing for failing to include gay marriage.  they were apologizing for  disappointing  people.  it sounds like pr speak, but it is an important distinction.  nintendo never intended to make social commentary URL but by accidentally allowing gay marriage and then removing the bug slash feature, they did.  as much as i love them, nintendo is a conservative, japanese, family oriented corporation that only wants to sell games.  they had to apologize to maintain their neutrality in the matter.  they were not looking to be the next chic fil a URL they were not looking to stir the pot.  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.   by apologizing and vaguely suggesting that the next game will be  more inclusive,  they fail to establish either support or disapproval of gay marriage and attempt only to deflect the controversy by kicking the ball down the field.  they had to apologize for the sake of their bottom line.   #  if you have never been gay then you do not know what it is like and so you have nothing to base your judgements on.   #  gay people just want to be and feel  normal .  i do not think it is an irrational or unreasonable thing to fight for.  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.  i do not think it is very respectful for an assumedly straight person to be deciding what is or is not  silly  for gay people to get upset over.  if you have never been gay then you do not know what it is like and so you have nothing to base your judgements on.   #  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.   #  imagine if you are a gay child, nowhere near done coming to terms with your sexuality that you hardly understand.  you think you are attracted to individuals of the same sex, but that idea is mocked by your classmates, disrespected online, argued in the news, and now it is not supported by your new videogame.  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.  or imagine you are a young child raised by same sex parents.  they got you a videogame, but you ca not find a way to simulate your situation at home.  that could make you feel alienated and confused.   are daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy not normal ? what is wrong with my home life ?    #  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.   #  this is important.  for a while when i was growing up, i thought i was the only gay person.  it really has had a lasting effect on me.  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.  if someone had just told me that some people are gay and some are not, my life would have been easier.  and i would not have had to fill in the gaps without all the information i needed.
nintendo fell under a surprising amount of heat for their recent  life simulator  game tomodachi life, because they allowed people to get married, but not same sex couples.  in my opinion, he fact that this was controversial is somewhat ridiculous: this is a game which sole purpose is to be silly.  you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  one aspect of the game is that characters can get married and have a child, which is a mix of the two characters faces.  there is a work around that allows same sex marriages, which is to make a male character a female or vise versa.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  now, this is a silly handheld game, which will likely be played mostly by children.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children, i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  and it affects the gameplay itself: if two of the characters get married, i want to see the ridiculous offspring of my roommate and jennifer lawrence for example.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  this whole issue strikes me as one that is getting brought up by people who wo not play the game, but are offended they were not included.  i ca not make a female character in madden, not can i make a black character in animal crossing, why did this become such a hot topic ? i am completely accepting of gay couples, and would not have complained if they had been included/will be included in the game, but it is so silly to get upset with a children is game company for staying out of a hotly debated topic.   #  if two of the characters get married, i want to see the ridiculous offspring of my roommate and jennifer lawrence for example.   #  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .   # you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  while i am not as upset about this as others are, i do think it is a detriment to the game from a gameplay perspective.  there is a tonne of silly scenarios that could arise if they included gay marriage.  for example, i ca not marry mii versions of joseph stalin and vladimir lenin, which is a damn shame.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  you could just have children for gay couples as well and have it be part of the silliness.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children,  i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  would not it be a good idea to reinforce that being gay is okay and normal so that it is easier for children when that time of their life does come ?  #  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.    # unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game is design, and such a significant development change ca not be accomplished with a post ship patch.  at nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy.  we are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone.  we pledge that if we create a next installment in the tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.  source URL they were not apologizing for failing to include gay marriage.  they were apologizing for  disappointing  people.  it sounds like pr speak, but it is an important distinction.  nintendo never intended to make social commentary URL but by accidentally allowing gay marriage and then removing the bug slash feature, they did.  as much as i love them, nintendo is a conservative, japanese, family oriented corporation that only wants to sell games.  they had to apologize to maintain their neutrality in the matter.  they were not looking to be the next chic fil a URL they were not looking to stir the pot.  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.   by apologizing and vaguely suggesting that the next game will be  more inclusive,  they fail to establish either support or disapproval of gay marriage and attempt only to deflect the controversy by kicking the ball down the field.  they had to apologize for the sake of their bottom line.   #  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.   #  gay people just want to be and feel  normal .  i do not think it is an irrational or unreasonable thing to fight for.  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.  i do not think it is very respectful for an assumedly straight person to be deciding what is or is not  silly  for gay people to get upset over.  if you have never been gay then you do not know what it is like and so you have nothing to base your judgements on.   #  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.   #  imagine if you are a gay child, nowhere near done coming to terms with your sexuality that you hardly understand.  you think you are attracted to individuals of the same sex, but that idea is mocked by your classmates, disrespected online, argued in the news, and now it is not supported by your new videogame.  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.  or imagine you are a young child raised by same sex parents.  they got you a videogame, but you ca not find a way to simulate your situation at home.  that could make you feel alienated and confused.   are daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy not normal ? what is wrong with my home life ?    #  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.   #  this is important.  for a while when i was growing up, i thought i was the only gay person.  it really has had a lasting effect on me.  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.  if someone had just told me that some people are gay and some are not, my life would have been easier.  and i would not have had to fill in the gaps without all the information i needed.
nintendo fell under a surprising amount of heat for their recent  life simulator  game tomodachi life, because they allowed people to get married, but not same sex couples.  in my opinion, he fact that this was controversial is somewhat ridiculous: this is a game which sole purpose is to be silly.  you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  one aspect of the game is that characters can get married and have a child, which is a mix of the two characters faces.  there is a work around that allows same sex marriages, which is to make a male character a female or vise versa.  you are not restricted whatsoever to physical appearance, which allows quasi same sex relationships.  now, this is a silly handheld game, which will likely be played mostly by children.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children, i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  and it affects the gameplay itself: if two of the characters get married, i want to see the ridiculous offspring of my roommate and jennifer lawrence for example.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  this whole issue strikes me as one that is getting brought up by people who wo not play the game, but are offended they were not included.  i ca not make a female character in madden, not can i make a black character in animal crossing, why did this become such a hot topic ? i am completely accepting of gay couples, and would not have complained if they had been included/will be included in the game, but it is so silly to get upset with a children is game company for staying out of a hotly debated topic.   #  now, this is a silly handheld game, which will likely be played mostly by children.   #  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children,  i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.   # you can make your friends/celebrities/fictional characters, and watch them interact with one another.  while i am not as upset about this as others are, i do think it is a detriment to the game from a gameplay perspective.  there is a tonne of silly scenarios that could arise if they included gay marriage.  for example, i ca not marry mii versions of joseph stalin and vladimir lenin, which is a damn shame.  this element would be lost with the addition of same sex marriages small factor, but still .  you could just have children for gay couples as well and have it be part of the silliness.  since their target audience is, in my opinion, children,  i ca not imagine the majority of them have decided whether they are gay or straight.  would not it be a good idea to reinforce that being gay is okay and normal so that it is easier for children when that time of their life does come ?  #  as much as i love them, nintendo is a conservative, japanese, family oriented corporation that only wants to sell games.   # unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game is design, and such a significant development change ca not be accomplished with a post ship patch.  at nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy.  we are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone.  we pledge that if we create a next installment in the tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.  source URL they were not apologizing for failing to include gay marriage.  they were apologizing for  disappointing  people.  it sounds like pr speak, but it is an important distinction.  nintendo never intended to make social commentary URL but by accidentally allowing gay marriage and then removing the bug slash feature, they did.  as much as i love them, nintendo is a conservative, japanese, family oriented corporation that only wants to sell games.  they had to apologize to maintain their neutrality in the matter.  they were not looking to be the next chic fil a URL they were not looking to stir the pot.  as the cliched japanese proverb goes,  the nail that sticks out gets hammered first.   by apologizing and vaguely suggesting that the next game will be  more inclusive,  they fail to establish either support or disapproval of gay marriage and attempt only to deflect the controversy by kicking the ball down the field.  they had to apologize for the sake of their bottom line.   #  i do not think it is an irrational or unreasonable thing to fight for.   #  gay people just want to be and feel  normal .  i do not think it is an irrational or unreasonable thing to fight for.  having their relationship included in a dumb game for kids is a small part of a bigger goal that goal being having gay relationships be completely unremarkable.  i do not think it is very respectful for an assumedly straight person to be deciding what is or is not  silly  for gay people to get upset over.  if you have never been gay then you do not know what it is like and so you have nothing to base your judgements on.   #   are daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy not normal ?  #  imagine if you are a gay child, nowhere near done coming to terms with your sexuality that you hardly understand.  you think you are attracted to individuals of the same sex, but that idea is mocked by your classmates, disrespected online, argued in the news, and now it is not supported by your new videogame.  if you as a gay child saw your sexual orientation validated in a videogame it could provide a great deal of comfort.  or imagine you are a young child raised by same sex parents.  they got you a videogame, but you ca not find a way to simulate your situation at home.  that could make you feel alienated and confused.   are daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy not normal ? what is wrong with my home life ?    #  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.   #  this is important.  for a while when i was growing up, i thought i was the only gay person.  it really has had a lasting effect on me.  growing up i believed that the only way i would ever find love would be to trick a girl into loving me so much, she would not care when she found out i was in fact a girl myself.  even though i know that is not the case, i still have a fear of never finding love as who i am.  if someone had just told me that some people are gay and some are not, my life would have been easier.  and i would not have had to fill in the gaps without all the information i needed.
truck drivers and taxi drivers are compensated for their driving which is considered work.  driving yourself to work is not significantly different from the perspective of how much work is done than a taxi driver driving a person from one location to another or a truck driver driving a truck and its contents from one location to another.  also, ceo is and other business people write off all work related travel expenses and require compensation for such, if they are not outright given a vehicle for their trouble.  it follow, of course, from that for hundreds if not thousands of years employers have been stealing work from their employees, and that theft by employers from their employees is a standard, encouraged, yet highly immoral practice.  it follows further, of course, that if this theft were disallowed by law, the amount of time, fuel, and other material would be drastically reduced, and that businesses would choose radically different locations.  it follows then that the practice of making employees pay for their employers transportation costs, out of sheer thankfulness for having a job at all, is one of the core unspoken values of human society.  it follows then, of course, that should carbon dioxide emissions radically alter the environment of the planet beyond habitability, that this unspoken theft at the core of society, will be largely to blame.  it follows therefore that this moral concept qualifies as a big deal.  change my view.   #  it follows further, of course, that if this theft were disallowed by law, the amount of time, fuel, and other material would be drastically reduced, and that businesses would choose radically different locations.   #  businesses already want to work near where their employees are, because their employees will pick a closer place to work.   #  if employers had to pay for transportation costs they would just pay a smaller salary overall, and it would even out.  this would not happen for people earning min wage, but then that is basically an argument for raising min wage.  but if we were gonna do one or the other, why not do min wage instead of paying transportation costs ? as for ceos and businesspeople, they get compensated for travel beyond normal day to day stuff, which is not the same.  a businessperson is flight somewhere is compensated, but their drive to work is not.  businesses already want to work near where their employees are, because their employees will pick a closer place to work.  the amount of fuel, etc would not go down because people would use less efficient means of travel.  i walk to work, but i would take a taxi if it were free.  same with lots of people taking the subway.  and the employees at my work live in a broad enough area that there is no incentive for them to relocate to make it easier for me, since it would make them further away from others.   #  ceo is and other business people are not compensated for travel from home to work, only travel from work to another location for work related purposes.   #  truck drivers and taxi drivers are not compensated for driving from home to work where the work vehicles are .  ceo is and other business people are not compensated for travel from home to work, only travel from work to another location for work related purposes.  they might get as bonus, usage of a company car, but thats all/any usage and not home to work specifically.  if it was required, you limit people who happen to live close to an employer to get hired, rather than how qualified are you or how much salary you want.  a criteria to being hired might be  are you willing to move your family closer to work ?   its not illegal to not hire someone based on where they live.  if it was required, then you would see deductions for travel from employee is salary, either overtly or covertly.  its not illegal to have this sort of deduction based on location, if its an legitimate expense.   #  get rid of the  theft  via your own actions.   # a truck driver gets up in the morning, goes on a public bus/subway to get to the location where the 0 wheeler is located.  he is not working how is he making deliveries on a public bus ? and he is not compensated for this travel.  its generally part of the package, so its not theft any more than a salary for any employee is.  get rid of the  theft  via your own actions.  employers legally require employees to pay for things as part of employment, e. g.  uniforms, and this would be part of it.   #  this is what you agreed to when you accepted employment at your work.   # ok, i understand where you are coming from now.  if i recall correctly, there was a similar legal case where a person was normally coming into work sick with a hangover.  now the employee is argument was that the employer could not tell him what to do on his time off, i. e.  do not get drunk as it was his time.  the court ruled that it was his time but he had a responsibility to be on time and ready for work, even if it meant dictating his actions during off hours time.  the same thing applies here, you are responsible to get to work from home.  this is what you agreed to when you accepted employment at your work.  you might find it a scam or unfair, but really, its a well known issue and needs to be factored into your decision to accept employment, just as everyone does.  if you want to legally require employers to pay, they will but then it will overtly or covertly lower wages for whatever reason will get deducted from your pay and will eventually you will still pay for it.   #  in a fair legal system, all work would be compensated for.   #  if does factor into my employment decisions now, but that is only because i have been pressured into accepting a contract i do not deem fair.  i do not see how me being drunk at night compares to me driving or riding to work, one lessens my capacity the other is a necessary condition for me to even do the work at all.  in a fair legal system, all work would be compensated for.  we are not in that system and our system is not even close to fair, so i do not see it as any example to compare to how the world should be.  it is true that the employer, if held by law to pay for all of the employees  work, that they would try to weasel out of it any way they could using other forms of stealing.  if i am hired at 0/hr and i have a 0 minute commute both ways, they would, by your estimate, pay me 0 dollars an hour and then that would balance out to the same cost for the employer overall.  but what if 0/hr were the minimum wage or if there were an actual living wage that were much higher , sure they would try to pay the worker for less hours, but they would run into other laws to prevent them from doing this.  it is only where the wages were already pretty high that they could shift these costs around, and the people i am most concerned about are the ones that are in poverty, getting the minimum wage, as stealing from people who are in poverty is the lowest of the low, even if it is is technically legal.  so i hold that they can by law be required to pay for it and that their weaseling could by law and enforcement thereof be kept to a minimum.  if there is, however, no rule of law, and the economic pressures are such that the employer can really do whatever they want, i. e.  rape their employees without any fear of it being reported as it often is with undocumented workers in our system , then that would highlight even more injustice, and would still be a worthwhile law for that purpose.
we have all heard that rhetoric that people are our equals and should be treated as such.  i try to go about my daily life with that in mind, and treat everyone as my equal regardless of situation or status.  i know intellectually and have seen personally that different people have different strengths: some are funny, some are brilliant, some are very social, some are creative.  but if i look at certain individuals as a whole, i ca not help but feel that some people are better than others.  i have two friends: one is confident, reasonably successful, attractive, has great social skills, and was a football player in high school.  the other is withdrawn, spends much of his time at home playing video games note i am not saying that is a negative in and of itself, but it is all he does , and working a dead end job.  the feedback i get from these friends is different too.  one friend is generally negative when talking about a girl who is interested in me he says  you ca not do much better.   and he is occasionally made fun of my lack of a dating life.  the other friend is positive, and encourages me to  go for it.   different scenarios but they are examples of recurring patterns.  i am defining better here as how well equipped i am to be successful in achieving my goals in life.  which varies from person to person, but i think most people benefit from being relatively healthy, making enough money to live somewhat comfortably, and maintaining their personal appearance.  people who are actively seeking happiness are, in my book, better than those who are not.  logically i know that if i focus on my own self improvement i will become a better me if i work out regularly i am better than i was before i worked out.  if i educate myself and become smarter, i am a better me than before.  so if there is someone just like me, let is say a twin, with similar goals but who does not take these steps, are not they worse than me ? and if that is true, then why ca not someone who is a little more different be a little better or worse ? emotionally i feel like i am wrong, but intellectually it seems right to me, and my personal experiences with people who seem better or worse to me have backed it up.  i think really i am hoping someone will be able to reframe this concept for me in a way that makes sense to me.   #  i am defining better here as how well equipped i am to be successful in achieving my goals in life.   #  by that definition, obviously some people are better than others.   # by that definition, obviously some people are better than others.  of all the people whose goal is to become a navy seal, some succeed and others do not.  of all the people whose goal is to survive cancer, some succeed and others do not.  but that is a bad definition.  to treat others as equals is to say that even though you may be smarter, funnier, prettier, and stronger than someone else, you are still both human beings.  you both have souls equally precious to your creator if you believe in him or statuses equally precious to society if you do not believe .  either way, your worth as a human being is not contingent on making the money you want to make, solving the problems you want to solve, or being as healthy as you wish you were.  it is inherent simply in being a human being.   #  you can value strength, but a strong ox is still less valuable than a human being.   #  yes, but that is the most important thing.  you can value kindness, but a dog can be kind and still we would value a human being more.  you can value strength, but a strong ox is still less valuable than a human being.  etc.  the mere fact that someone is a human being means you should treat them as equally valuable to every other human being, just by virtue of that shared humanity.  even if you do not believe this to be true, it is what people mean by it.  nobody who talks about equality means that everyone is equally smart, equally kind, etc.   #  but you are just showing why an embryo is treated specially and not that a skin cell might one day.   # with very few but key advances, they could be used to change an embryo is nucleic dna but not its mitochondria.  we are nowhere near mitochondrial transplants in human embryos.  but you are just showing why an embryo is treated specially and not that a skin cell might one day.  it is the criteria everyone uses.  if you want to create an alternative, go ahead shockosopher peter singer will be your bogeyman , but you ca not deny the millenia of moral thought and development performed using species membership as the criteria.  abandon it and you are back at square one trying to figure out why if ? slavery is immoral.   #  i will freely admit of my scientific ignorance on the matter, but do you really think that there is more worth protecting in 0 day old embryos than in houseflies ?  #  i do not think peter singer takes pleasure in his controversy, but bears it wearily as a result of the iron clad consistency he should be rightly proud of and his contemporaries should aspire to emulate.  i will freely admit of my scientific ignorance on the matter, but do you really think that there is more worth protecting in 0 day old embryos than in houseflies ? given what we know of neural complexity and the capacity for suffering, we have more cause to value the latter more than the former.  and i would counter that the more noble ethical traditions, like those found in buddhism and jainism, do single out sentience as being perhaps the most relevant moral characteristic.  it should be noted, since you appeal to tradition and lineage, that these are some of the oldest and arguably most sophisticated considering religiousity and time period schools of thought on ethical matters.   #  this is true of the us as well, despite all the people who despise the word socialist without fully understanding what it means.   #  socialism does not equal communism.  if you live in a country with exceptionally high taxes, say, 0, that provides free healthcare, education through college, and so on, there is still an incentive for me to work harder.  if i make an extra $0,0 this year i get to keep $0,0 but if i make an extra $0 i keep $0.  it is not communism where everything is provided for you, including a job and nothing is owned by you.  economically speaking capitalism and communism are the two ends of the spectrum and socialism is closer to the middle.  the longer a capitalist or communist country is around, generally they shift towards socialism.  this is true of the us as well, despite all the people who despise the word socialist without fully understanding what it means.
i think that stem science, technology, engineering, mathematics is the most important when becoming a better person to contribute to society.  i believe that everything else is less important and nothing can top what stem can provide to the world.  i think this because everything i have ever heard about stem has been nothing but beneficial to the world.  where we discover new ways to combat cancer, or defeat disease.  i am not saying other topics are unimportant but they are far less important to the point where we do not need to focus so highly on them anymore.  i realize that some people will say  oh, you do not want to be uncultured !   but culture surrounds in all different types and forms.  stem is a culture in which i love to immerse myself and discover all the vivid and magical details of which this universe has to offer me.  digging inside your own brain for  creativity  is great and all, but it is not what people should be funded for or do with the entirety of their life.  cmv, reddit.   #  i think that stem science, technology, engineering, mathematics is the most important when becoming a better person to contribute to society.   #  take a look at this list URL and notice the ratio of engineers and mathmaticians to artists and cultural leaders.   # take a look at this list URL and notice the ratio of engineers and mathmaticians to artists and cultural leaders.  imagine what the world would be like without each of those people.  stem is not the only thing in the world people should learn.  not everything.  more deaths have been caused by engineers than by artists.  military science was built on the backs of scientists and engineers who could build a better cannon and a better bomb.  these advancements, however, got us to space.  you ca not deal in absolutes like that it does not help your argument.  but culture surrounds in all different types and forms.  you might need to explain this a little bit more.  but  this .  oh lord,  this .  i never understood the animosity between the  stem  coursework and the  arts .  they shut themselves off needlessly from each other as if art ca not exist in a world of science, and science has no place in a world of art.  i could say the exact same thing about why i write.  i write because i love to immerse myself and discover all the vivid and magical details of which this universe has to offer me.  art is a reflection of where we are, science can paint a direction of where we are going.  engineering tells us how we will get there and culture gives us a reason to be there.  i do not want to live in a world without scientific advancement.  but a world without scientific advancement would mean nothing without having some reason to advance further.  watch this URL we got there because of the culmination of hundreds thousands of years of scientific advancement.  but that moment also informs our culture as well.  we retell the story so that our children may know what it meant to be able to stand there.  there are movies and books detailing every second of that moment  because  we ca not forget.  its not enough just to have the archive, we need to tell the story.  man is a storytelling animal.  the first interactions that made us human were not tool making: it was the telling and passing down of the story.  knowledge means nothing without the ability to pass it on.  our technological advancement is  intrinsically tied  to our culture.  the first technological manuals was early scripture, the first medical texts were books like the talmud.  we developed the smelting of iron because we discovered that the glaze we put on pots, glaze that was purely aesthetic in nature, condensed into beads of metal when heated too much.  casting techniques were developed because we wanted to make more complicated forms.  a mixture of science and art.  the world has grown but the two are still intrinsically linked.  would we have ever thought to go to the moon if we had not imagined going first ?  #  i have shown that that is false thus changing their view, which is the entire point of this subreddit.   #  my point is this is cmv, op is view was that stem has done nothing but good things for the world.  i have shown that that is false thus changing their view, which is the entire point of this subreddit.  humanities contribute a lot.  basically all of the early scientists and mathematicians considered themselves philosophers.  philosophy is the basis of logic without which we would not have any science.  economics provided game theory, anthropology provided us with information on ancient cultures and cultures that are different from our own.  sociology aims to make our lives better by advising on policy.  political science helps us understand and avoid falling into dictatorships, history does the same.  the fine arts are even more important, essentially anything you look at including this website is affected by art.  art gives us books, movies, tv shows, etc.  the humanities influence our daily lives just as much as stem.   #  and while those jobs do tend to be important/prestigious in ways that influence the world.  they are hardly the only important jobs.   #  only 0 of jobs are stem jobs.  and while those jobs do tend to be important/prestigious in ways that influence the world.  they are hardly the only important jobs.  the world would be in a lot more trouble if all the truck drivers or restaurant staff disappeared than if all of the cancer researchers disappeared.  moreover, a lot of the non stem subjects in school help to make a person is stem knowledge more useful.  you could be the most brilliant scientist in the world, but if you ca not communicate any of your discoveries effectively, who cares ? and while it is awesome that you really like the culture around stem.  monoculture is as bad for society as it is for agriculture.   #  stem encompasses vehicles, gasoline, energy, food, refrigeration, transportation, medicine, computers, paper, electricity, construction, the  internet , reddit, and infinitely more.   #  it is not just cancer researchers involved in stem.  stem encompasses vehicles, gasoline, energy, food, refrigeration, transportation, medicine, computers, paper, electricity, construction, the  internet , reddit, and infinitely more.  i feel like you are suggesting that stem will stunt one is ability to communicate effectively.  i believe that what you are forgetting is that we all took english classes in high school, and most universities require some writing class of their students, regardless of majors.  as such, it does not require a degree in classic greek mythology to write about your work.   #  if that is the case, then hold your horses.   #  my apologies.  i assumed op believes that as far as college goes, non stem subjects are irrelevant.  if that is the case, then hold your horses.  : we should have some focus in non stem subjects, yes, but those sorts of studies should be left at the door once one goes into higher education.  as for non technical jobs, i strongly disagree that a technical major would be as unnecessary as a non technical major.  be reminded that engineers  solve problems .  liberal arts majors complain about them.  as such, i argue that anyone studying a technical subject is better equipped to solving problems than a humanities major.
i think that stem science, technology, engineering, mathematics is the most important when becoming a better person to contribute to society.  i believe that everything else is less important and nothing can top what stem can provide to the world.  i think this because everything i have ever heard about stem has been nothing but beneficial to the world.  where we discover new ways to combat cancer, or defeat disease.  i am not saying other topics are unimportant but they are far less important to the point where we do not need to focus so highly on them anymore.  i realize that some people will say  oh, you do not want to be uncultured !   but culture surrounds in all different types and forms.  stem is a culture in which i love to immerse myself and discover all the vivid and magical details of which this universe has to offer me.  digging inside your own brain for  creativity  is great and all, but it is not what people should be funded for or do with the entirety of their life.  cmv, reddit.   #  i realize that some people will say  oh, you do not want to be uncultured !    #  but culture surrounds in all different types and forms.   # take a look at this list URL and notice the ratio of engineers and mathmaticians to artists and cultural leaders.  imagine what the world would be like without each of those people.  stem is not the only thing in the world people should learn.  not everything.  more deaths have been caused by engineers than by artists.  military science was built on the backs of scientists and engineers who could build a better cannon and a better bomb.  these advancements, however, got us to space.  you ca not deal in absolutes like that it does not help your argument.  but culture surrounds in all different types and forms.  you might need to explain this a little bit more.  but  this .  oh lord,  this .  i never understood the animosity between the  stem  coursework and the  arts .  they shut themselves off needlessly from each other as if art ca not exist in a world of science, and science has no place in a world of art.  i could say the exact same thing about why i write.  i write because i love to immerse myself and discover all the vivid and magical details of which this universe has to offer me.  art is a reflection of where we are, science can paint a direction of where we are going.  engineering tells us how we will get there and culture gives us a reason to be there.  i do not want to live in a world without scientific advancement.  but a world without scientific advancement would mean nothing without having some reason to advance further.  watch this URL we got there because of the culmination of hundreds thousands of years of scientific advancement.  but that moment also informs our culture as well.  we retell the story so that our children may know what it meant to be able to stand there.  there are movies and books detailing every second of that moment  because  we ca not forget.  its not enough just to have the archive, we need to tell the story.  man is a storytelling animal.  the first interactions that made us human were not tool making: it was the telling and passing down of the story.  knowledge means nothing without the ability to pass it on.  our technological advancement is  intrinsically tied  to our culture.  the first technological manuals was early scripture, the first medical texts were books like the talmud.  we developed the smelting of iron because we discovered that the glaze we put on pots, glaze that was purely aesthetic in nature, condensed into beads of metal when heated too much.  casting techniques were developed because we wanted to make more complicated forms.  a mixture of science and art.  the world has grown but the two are still intrinsically linked.  would we have ever thought to go to the moon if we had not imagined going first ?  #  political science helps us understand and avoid falling into dictatorships, history does the same.   #  my point is this is cmv, op is view was that stem has done nothing but good things for the world.  i have shown that that is false thus changing their view, which is the entire point of this subreddit.  humanities contribute a lot.  basically all of the early scientists and mathematicians considered themselves philosophers.  philosophy is the basis of logic without which we would not have any science.  economics provided game theory, anthropology provided us with information on ancient cultures and cultures that are different from our own.  sociology aims to make our lives better by advising on policy.  political science helps us understand and avoid falling into dictatorships, history does the same.  the fine arts are even more important, essentially anything you look at including this website is affected by art.  art gives us books, movies, tv shows, etc.  the humanities influence our daily lives just as much as stem.   #  and while those jobs do tend to be important/prestigious in ways that influence the world.  they are hardly the only important jobs.   #  only 0 of jobs are stem jobs.  and while those jobs do tend to be important/prestigious in ways that influence the world.  they are hardly the only important jobs.  the world would be in a lot more trouble if all the truck drivers or restaurant staff disappeared than if all of the cancer researchers disappeared.  moreover, a lot of the non stem subjects in school help to make a person is stem knowledge more useful.  you could be the most brilliant scientist in the world, but if you ca not communicate any of your discoveries effectively, who cares ? and while it is awesome that you really like the culture around stem.  monoculture is as bad for society as it is for agriculture.   #  it is not just cancer researchers involved in stem.   #  it is not just cancer researchers involved in stem.  stem encompasses vehicles, gasoline, energy, food, refrigeration, transportation, medicine, computers, paper, electricity, construction, the  internet , reddit, and infinitely more.  i feel like you are suggesting that stem will stunt one is ability to communicate effectively.  i believe that what you are forgetting is that we all took english classes in high school, and most universities require some writing class of their students, regardless of majors.  as such, it does not require a degree in classic greek mythology to write about your work.   #  i assumed op believes that as far as college goes, non stem subjects are irrelevant.   #  my apologies.  i assumed op believes that as far as college goes, non stem subjects are irrelevant.  if that is the case, then hold your horses.  : we should have some focus in non stem subjects, yes, but those sorts of studies should be left at the door once one goes into higher education.  as for non technical jobs, i strongly disagree that a technical major would be as unnecessary as a non technical major.  be reminded that engineers  solve problems .  liberal arts majors complain about them.  as such, i argue that anyone studying a technical subject is better equipped to solving problems than a humanities major.
during the news cycle about the isla vista shootings, one thing that was often said though i ca not seem to find the reddit posts about it, not even those i saw in srs was that the fact that the murderer was a rich and rather good looking guy who was a virgin at 0 was proof that the redpill is/neckbeards  idea that what you need to get laid is have money and looks was flushed down the toilet, and that it is a myriad of factors, each person their own world, that contributed to attraction.  while i am not arguing that it is looks and money that attracts people or not, i will point out the following.  /r0k/ usually has posts about the matter, and people did go there trying to  make them see reason  with this same argument.  but i have found that in general, what they argue is their problem, and what i say is the problem the general socially awkward, old, virgin men have is not their lacks of looks, money or hygiene, but the fact that they failed to socialize early on in life.  they point out that the fact that they have no friends at all, and have not for a long time, ostracized them from the normal social growth a normal human being has during his/her teens and early 0s.  because of this, they are unable to mingle and interact with people on a peer to peer basis here i am purposely excluding  out of pity  cases .  they come out as strange, weird, creepy because they lack the knowledge about how to behave in social venues properly, how to interact with people their same age accordingly and, above all, their condition becomes painfully obvious.  it is easy to spot a  neckbeard / foreveralone / robot  or whatever, even if they do not meet the physical stereotype, because they are the ones that do not talk much about themselves because they do not do anything one can consider  fun  , they seldom talk about going out because they do not , they do not know about any night place or cool club or bar, do not know about drinks, they do not talk about sex even in the more tongue in cheek, casual way.  their ostracism becomes obvious.  if one were to talk with one for a certain length of time, friendless background would come up eventually since one of the things one talks about when meeting someone is what they do for fun, for instance .  their lack of social experiences would come up eventually too.  and if they are men, and are currently in a bar or other  more social  place, their inexperience with women and flirting would also become obvious.  all this will conspire against their inclusion.  people will feel uncomfortable next to someone like that, or at least feel sorry for him instead of seeing him like a peer.  thus it becomes a vicious circle, that unlike looks or money, they do not have a chance changing it since they ca not travel back in time to socialize properly, at the right time .  this one quote regarding  counter proof  to their beliefs i could find:     i am far from handsome, i work at fucking wal mart, and i am a fat dork who likes my little pony, and never played a single organized sport.  but gasp i have had shifty eyesthesex it is almost like making sure your partners are comfortable, willing, and feel safe around you as a person and actually being a decent person goes a long way huh ? because despite what le reddit thinks, women are not shallow robots with secret sex manuals URL note this one also comes with the unfounded belief that  women do not care about looks, only evil men do !   i have not met, found or heard of someone who has been able to make that  comeback  under those circumstances, and i doubt i will.   #  they point out that the fact that they have no friends at all, and have not for a long time, ostracized them from the normal social growth a normal human being has during his/her teens and early 0s.   #  because of this, they are unable to mingle and interact with people on a peer to peer basis here i am purposely excluding  out of pity  cases .   # that is not the redpill/neckbeads idea at all.  they idea is that you need to be very confident and assertive to the point where most people think you are an asshole.  looks and money actually do not mean anything, but money certainly helps.  money is a symbol of how well you are doing in the world, it shows you have gotten out there and fought your way to success.  when your parents just give you money, nobody finds the impressive.  because of this, they are unable to mingle and interact with people on a peer to peer basis here i am purposely excluding  out of pity  cases .  they come out as strange, weird, creepy because they lack the knowledge about how to behave in social venues properly, how to interact with people their same age accordingly and, above all, their condition becomes painfully obvious.  learning to behave in social situations is not hard.  it is something you could do in a couple months of practice.  seriously, it is not that hard to talk to people.  the issue is that people like this have social anxiety.  social anxiety makes is extremely difficult to talk to people and practice these social skills.  that is where the issue for neckbeards comes in.  anxiety is a complicated subject, people can have anxiety disorders for many reasons.  it is absurd to chalk it down to one thing or one experience, it is not.   #  i mean, you are right in principle, but i think it is really hard to catch up when you fall behind.   #  i mean, you are right in principle, but i think it is really hard to catch up when you fall behind.  until i was maybe even 0ish i am late 0s now , i was really awkward in many social situations and especially with women, and i think it mostly stemmed from being socially awkward in 0th grade, believe it or not.  i think without all the weird baggage of 0 0th grade, i would already have been fine in college, but once you fall behind, you keep falling behind barring some miracle.  like, in high school everybody mostly learned how to talk to members of the opposite sex.  i did not, so when i got to college i really, really could not even have a normal conversation with girls or even really look at them.  that made it difficult to talk to guys, too, because of the fear that the conversation might turn to girls at some point, especially when people started getting girlfriends, so i stopped being social with everybody.  in my early twenties, despite having a great active life with lots of activities things i really loved doing, not that weird shit where you do stuff with the hopes that it will somehow fix your social life , i was now hopelessly behind in knowing how to socialize.  i had not socialized reasonably in a decade by that time.  how do you talk to people who are starting to get married and have totally platonic good friends of the opposite sex and friends with kids if you personally still ca not interact with girls or guys if the conversation turns to relationships or women on even a 0th grade level ? ten years later and now i am 0 years behind.  at 0 you ca not interact with people at a 0 year old level because you do not have any experience.  you ca not interact with them at a junior high level because they are 0 years old and now you are just pathetic.  anyway, i mostly agree with the op.  i was naturally outgoing and interesting and a nice guy by the time i was in my early twenties, but i was totally screwed by having failed to learn how to socialize 0 years earlier.  it look another 0 years of being a basically normal guy to catch all the way back up.  i have a friend who is probably in his late 0 is now who was around 0 when i was just getting out of college met him at work; we were snowboarding buddies, etc.  .  super nice guy, totally confident, really nice, genuine guy.  slightly quirky, but not neckbeard style.  lots of interests, sports, adventure.  if you want to go the materialistic route, tons of money, great house, all self made, tall, not ugly.  dude never dated.  i asked him about it once and he was quite candid about it and said something like  did not learn how to talk to women when he was younger and now it was too late.   what 0 year old woman is going to put up with a guy who does not know anything ? he is getting married this year, but that setback when he was younger set him back like 0 0 years.   #  it gets harder and harder the further behind you fall.   #  yeah, you are right.  i am just saying that talking to women or just people in general when you are socially awkward is difficult.  talking to people when you are socially awkward and are also 0 years behind the learning curve on how to talk to people is even more difficult.  it gets harder and harder the further behind you fall.  this guy, my friend, had plenty of platonic female friends.  really nice, smart guy, self confident, and just simply never learned the steps of how to initiate an intimate relationship, or respond to or read any cues, etc.  i am just agreeing with op.  it is a positive feedback loop; if you are the kind of socially awkward or shy person that has a hard time being social when you are 0, what are the chances you will be brave enough to be social when you have the added pressure of being socially stupid, or 0 years behind the curve ? when i was in my twenties, i was interesting and had a really full life.  i would get invited to parties or hang out with people at the bar and simply not know how to interact.  what the hell was i supposed to talk about ? the weather ? sportball ? it was really difficult, as i basically had no socialization foundation.   #  and if they are men, and are currently in a bar or other  more social  place, their inexperience with women and flirting would also become obvious.   #  no.  my point is that due to this:   it is easy to spot a  neckbeard / foreveralone / robot  or whatever, even if they do not meet the physical stereotype, because they are the ones that do not talk much about themselves because they do not do anything one can consider  fun  , they seldom talk about going out because they do not , they do not know about any night place or cool club or bar, do not know about drinks, they do not talk about sex even in the more tongue in cheek, casual way.  their ostracism becomes obvious.  if one were to talk with one for a certain length of time, friendless background would come up eventually since one of the things one talks about when meeting someone is what they do for fun, for instance .  their lack of social experiences would come up eventually too.  and if they are men, and are currently in a bar or other  more social  place, their inexperience with women and flirting would also become obvious.  all this will conspire against their inclusion.  people will feel uncomfortable next to someone like that, or at least feel sorry for him instead of seeing him like a peer.  thus it becomes a vicious circle, that unlike looks or money, they do not have a chance changing it since they ca not travel back in time to socialize properly, at the right time .  it becomes impossible, because their own ostracism stigmatizes them.   #  sure, it might be hard to build relationships with old contacts from highschool who thought of you as  creepy  or  weird,  but you can start fresh with new people in a new place of work or class.   #  i just do not agree with this is at all.  sure, it might be hard to build relationships with old contacts from highschool who thought of you as  creepy  or  weird,  but you can start fresh with new people in a new place of work or class.  obviously, people might notice that that person might be a bit shy or awkward, but most  adults  i know do not instantly judge and categorize people, then avoid them.  in my experience, just being a pleasant person, even if you do not say much, helps build report with people over a relatively period of time.  i am saying someone can go from shut in, shut down intravert from life of the party social butterfly over night, but someone can make dramatic improvements in their social interractions with a bit of effort and practice.
with all the secrecy surrounding this issue we ca not know 0.  my view is that based on currently available evidence it is more than 0 likely that the leaks caused no significant harm to national security interests.  it seems that any borderline competent terrorist would know that the us is trying to spy on them through any means necessary.  when the national security people say that this caused massive damage but do not point to any specifics this feels like standard 0/0 fear mongering.  i see how this harmed diplomatic relations and other things, but national security does not seem to have been affected.  cmv !  #  it seems that any borderline competent terrorist would know that the us is trying to spy on them through any means necessary.   #  yes, but they do not know how.   #  just out of curiosity, what  currently available evidence  are you referring to ? now onto my point.  it is not that the terrorist or whoever knows or does not know there is surveillance being conducted against them.  where the larger problem lies, is the disclosure of  how  the intelligence is being collected.  when a target figures out how someone is collecting intelligence on them, it allows them to make changes to avoid it which then renders the technique less effective if not useless.  yes, but they do not know how.  are they being monitored by a hidden camera ? drone ? the guy sitting in the cafe on the corner ? has the agency discovered/exploited the new number for the sim card he put in his phone yesterday ? when you disclose how it makes it easy to focus your countermeasure efforts.  instead of having to avoid tails or sweep for bugs as often you put more effort into switch phones and avoiding/encrypting key words in conversation.  this leads to reduced collection capabilities, and reduced intel thereby weakening security.   #  they may assume the us is spying on them, but they do not know  how , and if they do not know how, then they ca not very well circumvent us intelligence or mitigate its harm.   # clearly.  but what they do not know is  how , which means the enemy has to operate under inherent uncertainty.  they may assume the us is spying on them, but they do not know  how , and if they do not know how, then they ca not very well circumvent us intelligence or mitigate its harm.  think of it like a football game.  american  football.  whenever a team is on defense, it is obviously aware that the offense is going to try and score by any means possible.  they just do not know what strategy the offense is going play.  now, imagine if the defense had the offensive team is playbook, or a whistleblowing assistant coach got on the pa system and announced whatever play the offense was gonna make.  that would probably not bode well for the offense, right ? pardon my admittedly horrible knowledge of the game.  but, i hope i made my point.   #  obviously, any movie mobster is gonna operate under the  assumption  that his phone is bugged, but he ca not no for sure until its too late.   #  yeah, but they did not know  how  the us was spying on their communications and the extent of its capabilities.  it was an unknown and,  at the very least , that  unknown  would create an aura of uncertainty.  it is like a one of those generic mafia films, where the mobsters can never be sure whether or not their phones are tapped or their homes are bugged.  it creates a certain level of paranoia.  i mean, did the cops bust your jewelry heist  cuz they tapped your phone ? was it just poor planning ? was there a mole ? obviously, any movie mobster is gonna operate under the  assumption  that his phone is bugged, but he ca not no for sure until its too late.  unless he has a mole or something.  but, you know, whatever.   #  well, obviously the us does not have a very contentious relationship with germany.   #  why ? well, obviously the us does not have a very contentious relationship with germany.  however, both the us and germany, despite being allies i think , will inherently put their national interests ahead of the interests of another country.  so, when the us and germany are negotiating the terms of some treaty or whatever, it is in the best interests of the united states to understand the priorities and motivations of the other party.  failure to do so would put the us at an inherent disadvantage and would be completely irresponsible.  on that note, do you remember when it was revealed that the us was spying on brazil ? remember how brazil made a huge stink about it ? well, as it turns out, brazil was spying on us government officials at the  exact same time  that the us was spying on brazilian government officials.  URL  #  the us spied on china telecom in order to gain information on the chinese military, because apparently chinese soldiers have not heard about loose lips and sunken ships.   #  as i have said, i am pretty sure every country conducts espionage to the furthest extent of its abilities.  what evidence is there that the us spied on petrobras for  economic reasons  ? sure, i would be first in line to call shenanigans if the us was passing along intelligence on foreign companies to their us based competitors.  i mean, that would probably be a violation of at a dozen international laws and treaties.  however, the us most likely spied on petrobras for other, slightly more palatable reasons.  first, the brazilian government, being the majority shareholder, controls the company is finances and global operations.  being that petrobras is largely owned by a foreign government that has both a rocky relationship with the us  and  relatively cozy relationships with our geopolitical foes,  and  being that petrobras is, like, one of the biggest oil producers in the world, i would imagine that it might be in the us  national interests to know what the company is up to.  the chinese are accused of corporate espionage.  the us spied on china telecom in order to gain information on the chinese military, because apparently chinese soldiers have not heard about loose lips and sunken ships.  URL
with all the secrecy surrounding this issue we ca not know 0.  my view is that based on currently available evidence it is more than 0 likely that the leaks caused no significant harm to national security interests.  it seems that any borderline competent terrorist would know that the us is trying to spy on them through any means necessary.  when the national security people say that this caused massive damage but do not point to any specifics this feels like standard 0/0 fear mongering.  i see how this harmed diplomatic relations and other things, but national security does not seem to have been affected.  cmv !  #  with all the secrecy surrounding this issue we ca not know 0.   #  my view is that based on currently available evidence it is more than 0 likely that the leaks caused no significant harm to national security interests.   # my view is that based on currently available evidence it is more than 0 likely that the leaks caused no significant harm to national security interests.  from your first few sentences, you have presented that you have no grounds to justify your opinion.  you said we ca not know 0.  that means from whatever evidence you are basing your stance on, you are confirming that it is incomplete information.  for all you know, you could know 0 of the story.  you could know the whole picture.  you could also very well know less than 0 and you could only know the trivial details.  any reason beyond what you know could be the reason that snowden is actions were  harmful to national security .  if i was designing an aircraft, more specifically a blimp and i did not have complete knowledge of the safety of certain elements, i would see no reason why i should choose helium over hydrogen as hydrogen is lighter and i believe hydrogen might also be cheaper as helium supply is limited.  the knowledge of hydrogen being flammable is out there, but it is a secret hidden for various reasons.  i make my blimp, fill it with hydrogen and nothing goes wrong.  was not having this knowledge what made my blimp flight go off safely ? no.  it being safe was a matter of chance.  it was still dangerous, whether i had the knowledge or not and whether the blimp blew up or not.  did it give me a better state of mind into convincing myself it was safe because of ignorance ? it sure did.   #  now, imagine if the defense had the offensive team is playbook, or a whistleblowing assistant coach got on the pa system and announced whatever play the offense was gonna make.   # clearly.  but what they do not know is  how , which means the enemy has to operate under inherent uncertainty.  they may assume the us is spying on them, but they do not know  how , and if they do not know how, then they ca not very well circumvent us intelligence or mitigate its harm.  think of it like a football game.  american  football.  whenever a team is on defense, it is obviously aware that the offense is going to try and score by any means possible.  they just do not know what strategy the offense is going play.  now, imagine if the defense had the offensive team is playbook, or a whistleblowing assistant coach got on the pa system and announced whatever play the offense was gonna make.  that would probably not bode well for the offense, right ? pardon my admittedly horrible knowledge of the game.  but, i hope i made my point.   #  i mean, did the cops bust your jewelry heist  cuz they tapped your phone ?  #  yeah, but they did not know  how  the us was spying on their communications and the extent of its capabilities.  it was an unknown and,  at the very least , that  unknown  would create an aura of uncertainty.  it is like a one of those generic mafia films, where the mobsters can never be sure whether or not their phones are tapped or their homes are bugged.  it creates a certain level of paranoia.  i mean, did the cops bust your jewelry heist  cuz they tapped your phone ? was it just poor planning ? was there a mole ? obviously, any movie mobster is gonna operate under the  assumption  that his phone is bugged, but he ca not no for sure until its too late.  unless he has a mole or something.  but, you know, whatever.   #  remember how brazil made a huge stink about it ?  #  why ? well, obviously the us does not have a very contentious relationship with germany.  however, both the us and germany, despite being allies i think , will inherently put their national interests ahead of the interests of another country.  so, when the us and germany are negotiating the terms of some treaty or whatever, it is in the best interests of the united states to understand the priorities and motivations of the other party.  failure to do so would put the us at an inherent disadvantage and would be completely irresponsible.  on that note, do you remember when it was revealed that the us was spying on brazil ? remember how brazil made a huge stink about it ? well, as it turns out, brazil was spying on us government officials at the  exact same time  that the us was spying on brazilian government officials.  URL  #  sure, i would be first in line to call shenanigans if the us was passing along intelligence on foreign companies to their us based competitors.   #  as i have said, i am pretty sure every country conducts espionage to the furthest extent of its abilities.  what evidence is there that the us spied on petrobras for  economic reasons  ? sure, i would be first in line to call shenanigans if the us was passing along intelligence on foreign companies to their us based competitors.  i mean, that would probably be a violation of at a dozen international laws and treaties.  however, the us most likely spied on petrobras for other, slightly more palatable reasons.  first, the brazilian government, being the majority shareholder, controls the company is finances and global operations.  being that petrobras is largely owned by a foreign government that has both a rocky relationship with the us  and  relatively cozy relationships with our geopolitical foes,  and  being that petrobras is, like, one of the biggest oil producers in the world, i would imagine that it might be in the us  national interests to know what the company is up to.  the chinese are accused of corporate espionage.  the us spied on china telecom in order to gain information on the chinese military, because apparently chinese soldiers have not heard about loose lips and sunken ships.  URL
when does a spoiler stop being a spoiler ? anyway, spoilers ahead.  it has been a while since reading 0, but i saw someone post a thread where everyone was talking about how the book had a really depressing ending, but when i finished reading it i felt kind of happy.  throughout the whole book we feel sorry for winston is circumstances, that he has to live under complete domination by the party and he understands that they are changing history and suppressing his individuality.  he seems constantly depressed, when he first sees julia he is paranoid she is part of the thought police and he says he hates her, when really he has no reason to.  in the end he learns to love big brother and is finally happy, his last moment is one of complete bliss.  after the struggle of the whole book it is nice that the protagonist we have grown attached to has eventually found peace and is no longer scared.  i understand why some people find it depressing, as the party are not overthrown and the totalitarians that oppress the people win.  but it was foolish to think that winston could have really changed the situation, and in his circumstance it is surely better to follow the party and be happy than struggle towards an unreachable goal and be depressed.  ignorance is strength cmv.   #  but it was foolish to think that winston could have really changed the situation, and in his circumstance it is surely better to follow the party and be happy than struggle towards an unreachable goal and be depressed.   #  and this in itself is exactly why the ending was so depressing.   #  i really do not believe that you are serious, but i will bite anyway.  winston  loved big brother  at the end of 0 because he had been tortured and psychologically damaged to the point that he was no longer capable of forming rational thoughts.  the word  love  is perhaps misappropriated in this sense, because what winston was suffering from at this stage was more like an advanced stockholm syndrome, whereby his own capability for free thinking and intelligence was crushed, such that he could be brainwashed into feeling allegiance to the state and have all other pleasures in life the ability to think for himself, a sense of individual identity, his love for julia forcibly destroyed.  does that sound like a happy ending to you ? and this in itself is exactly why the ending was so depressing.  winston is tragic because he was the only sane man left among the party, and one of the last few that appeared to be capable of reasoned thought.  his powerlessness to do anything about the systematic evil of big brother and the futility of trying to make the world a better place were some of the themes in 0 that made it such a soul destroying book.   #  i would contend it is probably one of the unhappiest endings in all literature.   #  smith had humanity, he began discovering it with julia during their love affair.  he began experiencing highs and lows of emotion that define the human existence and he reveled in them; in the book he talks about realizing how dirty the apartment is that they use to have sex in, how good it feels to see julia writhing around and the both of them sweaty and smelly from sex.  he is going through the process of developing a humanity through experiences that he never had before when he gets picked up and brainwashed again.  the end is of smith as an empty husk of a human being, no strong memories of his experience remain and whatever humanity he gained from his experiments with julia beaten out of him psychologically and physically.  he is now an automaton again but after having had the experience of real, genuine life in a raw form that most people around him could not experience or even understand.  for one brief moment there was a spark of humanity in a world that seems like it does not remember how to actually be human from what we can see anymore.  raw emotional experience flares up and then is smashed by the iron hand of the state back into nothingness.  if smith had died, even at the hands of ministry of love, he would have died defiant; holding onto his humanity to the last breath and valuing it even above his own life.  but instead he has to live to see that life crushed out of him and finds himself back in the general population again, swilling shitty gin and staring off into space.  i would contend it is probably one of the unhappiest endings in all literature.   #  he was aware of the lies around him, he was aware of the injustice of the system and he hated it, what is more he was helpless and alone.   #  well, i agree with him on this one.  his life prior to the events that led to him being detained by the party was a miserable one.  he was aware of the lies around him, he was aware of the injustice of the system and he hated it, what is more he was helpless and alone.  in the end he leant to embrace the party and, even if he still  knew  everything, he did not want to change it.  people are saying 0 does not have a happy ending because the book is ending did not live up to their ideals of standing up to an opressive government and dying a hero.  the thing is, it is not  our  story, it is not our life, it is smith is and he died content to say the least as opposed to miserable .   #  even the us, a democracy, start a lot of them.   # unless you are fredric nietzsche himself, the whole book was a how to book albeit taken to absurd extremes; also, i invoke death of the author .  we all went though rebellious phases as teenagers.  0 was a book about reconciling the self with society.  we can nitpick all the things wrong with society, but grow to accept them as we mature.  as an example of his edginess; winston and julia had sex just to spite the party.  we can point out all the things wrong with any given totalitarian society but in reality all the things we hate in them are exaggerated features of our own society.  0 minute hate ? just look at any demagogue is scape goating tactics, ie.  welfare queens, illegal immigrants etc.  arbitrarily enforced rules that exist only to measure loyalty of members of any given corporate body URL anyone who is ever worked anywhere will know this one quite well.  relevant line in the book said  if you kept the small rules you could break the big ones .  speaking of which: hypocritical politicians, the inner party.  a never ending war ? there will always be some war somewhere in the world.  even the us, a democracy, start a lot of them.  never ending spying through use of electronic devices ? : nsa and the five eyes.   #  the fact that a novel is set in a totalitarian society does not mean that it is only relevant to people in totalitarian societies.   # 0 was a book about reconciling the self with society.  we can nitpick all the things wrong with society, but grow to accept them as we mature.  while i do not agree with any of your introductory premises nietzsche ? death of the author ? perhaps i just find it incomprehensible , i will not go into that, but rather take your interpretation seriously  from within .  as an alternative to your interpretation of the book as a history of reconciliation, could we not instead view it as a criticism of the more or less inevitable  resignation  that comes with adulthood, of the hopeless recognition of what we come to perceive as the inevitability of the status quo ? the book would then be lauding the rebelliousness of youth, and the ending a dirge to its eventual demise following the  realisation  that there is nothing we can do to change what is wrong in the world.  .  is not the whole point of any dystopian novel to exaggerate themes current in our own society in order to raise awareness about them today ? the fact that a novel is set in a totalitarian society does not mean that it is only relevant to people in totalitarian societies.  i would rather view it as an intended way of pointing out the totalitarian tendencies of the current state of things, in an effort to encourage people to combat these very tendencies.
when does a spoiler stop being a spoiler ? anyway, spoilers ahead.  it has been a while since reading 0, but i saw someone post a thread where everyone was talking about how the book had a really depressing ending, but when i finished reading it i felt kind of happy.  throughout the whole book we feel sorry for winston is circumstances, that he has to live under complete domination by the party and he understands that they are changing history and suppressing his individuality.  he seems constantly depressed, when he first sees julia he is paranoid she is part of the thought police and he says he hates her, when really he has no reason to.  in the end he learns to love big brother and is finally happy, his last moment is one of complete bliss.  after the struggle of the whole book it is nice that the protagonist we have grown attached to has eventually found peace and is no longer scared.  i understand why some people find it depressing, as the party are not overthrown and the totalitarians that oppress the people win.  but it was foolish to think that winston could have really changed the situation, and in his circumstance it is surely better to follow the party and be happy than struggle towards an unreachable goal and be depressed.  ignorance is strength cmv.   #  in the end he learns to love big brother and is finally happy, his last moment is one of complete bliss.   #  he has not  willearned  to love big brother.   # he has not  willearned  to love big brother.  he is been forced to.  i think what you are missing here is the level of violation that has occurred.  winston smith has not made a choice he is been ground down, broken, and now the party has even violated his mind, changing what he believes on a fundamental level.  he has been, quite literally, mindraped.   #  but instead he has to live to see that life crushed out of him and finds himself back in the general population again, swilling shitty gin and staring off into space.   #  smith had humanity, he began discovering it with julia during their love affair.  he began experiencing highs and lows of emotion that define the human existence and he reveled in them; in the book he talks about realizing how dirty the apartment is that they use to have sex in, how good it feels to see julia writhing around and the both of them sweaty and smelly from sex.  he is going through the process of developing a humanity through experiences that he never had before when he gets picked up and brainwashed again.  the end is of smith as an empty husk of a human being, no strong memories of his experience remain and whatever humanity he gained from his experiments with julia beaten out of him psychologically and physically.  he is now an automaton again but after having had the experience of real, genuine life in a raw form that most people around him could not experience or even understand.  for one brief moment there was a spark of humanity in a world that seems like it does not remember how to actually be human from what we can see anymore.  raw emotional experience flares up and then is smashed by the iron hand of the state back into nothingness.  if smith had died, even at the hands of ministry of love, he would have died defiant; holding onto his humanity to the last breath and valuing it even above his own life.  but instead he has to live to see that life crushed out of him and finds himself back in the general population again, swilling shitty gin and staring off into space.  i would contend it is probably one of the unhappiest endings in all literature.   #  in the end he leant to embrace the party and, even if he still  knew  everything, he did not want to change it.   #  well, i agree with him on this one.  his life prior to the events that led to him being detained by the party was a miserable one.  he was aware of the lies around him, he was aware of the injustice of the system and he hated it, what is more he was helpless and alone.  in the end he leant to embrace the party and, even if he still  knew  everything, he did not want to change it.  people are saying 0 does not have a happy ending because the book is ending did not live up to their ideals of standing up to an opressive government and dying a hero.  the thing is, it is not  our  story, it is not our life, it is smith is and he died content to say the least as opposed to miserable .   #  arbitrarily enforced rules that exist only to measure loyalty of members of any given corporate body URL anyone who is ever worked anywhere will know this one quite well.   # unless you are fredric nietzsche himself, the whole book was a how to book albeit taken to absurd extremes; also, i invoke death of the author .  we all went though rebellious phases as teenagers.  0 was a book about reconciling the self with society.  we can nitpick all the things wrong with society, but grow to accept them as we mature.  as an example of his edginess; winston and julia had sex just to spite the party.  we can point out all the things wrong with any given totalitarian society but in reality all the things we hate in them are exaggerated features of our own society.  0 minute hate ? just look at any demagogue is scape goating tactics, ie.  welfare queens, illegal immigrants etc.  arbitrarily enforced rules that exist only to measure loyalty of members of any given corporate body URL anyone who is ever worked anywhere will know this one quite well.  relevant line in the book said  if you kept the small rules you could break the big ones .  speaking of which: hypocritical politicians, the inner party.  a never ending war ? there will always be some war somewhere in the world.  even the us, a democracy, start a lot of them.  never ending spying through use of electronic devices ? : nsa and the five eyes.   #  the fact that a novel is set in a totalitarian society does not mean that it is only relevant to people in totalitarian societies.   # 0 was a book about reconciling the self with society.  we can nitpick all the things wrong with society, but grow to accept them as we mature.  while i do not agree with any of your introductory premises nietzsche ? death of the author ? perhaps i just find it incomprehensible , i will not go into that, but rather take your interpretation seriously  from within .  as an alternative to your interpretation of the book as a history of reconciliation, could we not instead view it as a criticism of the more or less inevitable  resignation  that comes with adulthood, of the hopeless recognition of what we come to perceive as the inevitability of the status quo ? the book would then be lauding the rebelliousness of youth, and the ending a dirge to its eventual demise following the  realisation  that there is nothing we can do to change what is wrong in the world.  .  is not the whole point of any dystopian novel to exaggerate themes current in our own society in order to raise awareness about them today ? the fact that a novel is set in a totalitarian society does not mean that it is only relevant to people in totalitarian societies.  i would rather view it as an intended way of pointing out the totalitarian tendencies of the current state of things, in an effort to encourage people to combat these very tendencies.
URL michael wilborn of pti lashed out at klinsmann is remarks telling him to  get the hell out of america  and accused him of trying to change american sports.  he also called him gutless for saying usa is not going to win the world cup, following up by saying he  has not won anything  so who is he to talk.  wilborn in the very essence of noting that jürgen has not won anything only reinforces jürgen is point.  if you have not done it in the past, then the future is bleak.  this is his mentality.  us soccer is in the middle of a transition/revolution/identity crisis which is mandatory, in my opinion, to take usa to a different level on a global scale.  americans fetishize players in order to keep the masses obsessing over the nostalgia attached with players.  in the case of kobe bryant, the lakers paid him 0m not because of what he will do in the next two years.  they paid him because laker nation likes him.  at the expense of the future of the franchise, we now get to enjoy kobe playing 0 minutes a game for the next two years, with no championship in sight.  fair weather fans are common in the us, and these fans are emotionally and mentally not built for soccer.  patience and faith that many red sox and lions fans can relate to, is truly what bonds you to a club or franchise.  regardless of trophies or accolades, your loyalty is tested ultimately when your team is at it is lowest.  americans are having a hard time swallowing our pride when acknowledging where we are as a nation in the world of soccer.  the xenophobic comments made by wilborn were uncalled for, and as someone who is met and lives near jürgen for years now, he is as about as california as it gets.  the new york times wrote an article in which the comments originated in, and it was well written if anyone else would like to have a quick read: URL  #  in the case of kobe bryant, the lakers paid him 0m not because of what he will do in the next two years.   #  they paid him because laker nation likes him they paid him because they are a business and he makes them far more money than he costs them, even with that exorbitant salary.   # who ? are you suggesting that there is a group of americans who fetishize players in order to control  the masses  ? is not it much more likely that, as in other countries, people idolize sports stars because they are highly visible, successful, and entertaining ? pirlo is a god in italy, but i would not say he is been  fetishized  by some italian cabal; he is just the guy who won the country glory, so they love him.  they paid him because laker nation likes him they paid him because they are a business and he makes them far more money than he costs them, even with that exorbitant salary.  simple decision.  saying fair weather fans are not  built for soccer  does not really make sense, considering you can be a fair weather fan of a soccer team lots of new dortmund supporters last year, in america and in europe .  wilbon is comments are idiotic, and they are being treated accordingly by american soccer fans.  his knowledge of the sport is piss poor, but his entire job is to gin up controversy and get people talking about him and his show.  judging from the reactions i have seen, his latest comments were very, very successful at accomplishing that goal.  more than anything, though, i am wondering why you think hero worship/support for aging stars is somehow unique to america.  we see it all over the world, all the time why do you think america is different ?  #  they will gain experience and even challenge in the future.   #  no one is saying it wo not make money for the lakers franchise.  we are talking about winning, and that is not at the forefront of the lakers front office.  agreed that it is for profit, and not for a championship.  now in international soccer, you do not get paid really for representing your country.  it is more of an honor.  donovan being cut makes sense in this regard because all a national team can do is win.  the ussf will profit from any fallout, on top of i think mls etc.  the reason he brought up kobe was to contrast him with landon.  nothing to do with the lakers.  landon not going is heartbreaking for many including myself, but it is for the benefit of future players.  they will gain experience and even challenge in the future.  people expect landon because of the name.  the same way kobe was voted into the all star team.  if kobe went to houston ? , someone else would stay home, and that is unfair to the youth.  the idolizing of landon can correlate with how the fan bases in america see sports stars, regardless of age.  their legendary status ousts rational thinking, and it is how us fans are okay with our front offices paying jeter and the mamba exuberant amounts of money, without any actual ambitions of winning a championship.   #  and that is the mentality of every other nfl team as well with the exception of maybe a couple, like the cowboys with jerry jones driving the clown car.   #  this only really happens in the mlb and nba.  you will be hard pressed to find a player in the nfl get a new contract off of past successes.  the seats are going to be filled at nfl games regardless of if one player is on the team or not.  so i would just say he is wrong because he is using kobe as an example of what all us sports franchises do, and that is basically opposite of what, say, the new england patriots do.  if you ca not help the team, you are gone.  and that is the mentality of every other nfl team as well with the exception of maybe a couple, like the cowboys with jerry jones driving the clown car.   #  granted, i am happy i get to see more of him here in socal, but i am not convinced this is the recipe for success i was looking for.   #  i suppose you are right in saying it is not exclusive to america.  but it is a common theme here.  in europe, soccer clubs splash the cash on young players who will deliver.  here, it is frequently shown that some pay for players based on what they have already done.  beckham, jeter, kobe, etc.  the money is not for the success of the team, but for profit.  the lakers are not a feeder club, so it is surprising to me that they would do such a move.  granted, i am happy i get to see more of him here in socal, but i am not convinced this is the recipe for success i was looking for.  because you want your team it win every year does not make you fair weather.  needless to say, i am disappointed with the lakers organization, but i am not dropping them for the fucking clippers or anything.   #  i am an american, a huge us soccer fan, and i have read the article you are referencing here.   #  i am an american, a huge us soccer fan, and i have read the article you are referencing here.  i feel like you do not really understand the context of the article though; klinsmann referenced kobe bryant, but he is actually talking about landon donovan not making the world cup team.  and in landon donovan is case, you agree or disagree with the decision to leave him off the team.  however, he is a far cry from where kobe bryant is in his career right now.  donovan is approximately the same as the last 0 world cup golden ball winners, and is a similar age to many americans on this year is team, including clint dempsey, damarcus beasley, chris wondolowski, and brad davis.  he has no significant history of injuries.  you wrote in your title about catering  towards aging sports stars based on past achievements as opposed to the future of the team,  however you skipped one important tense, the present of the team.  many us soccer fans feel that donovan can help the team right now, whereas some players who are going to the world cup will only be good players in the future.  you can agree or disagree with that analysis, but i think you have misinterpreted a lot of people is feelings about the situation and the article.
URL michael wilborn of pti lashed out at klinsmann is remarks telling him to  get the hell out of america  and accused him of trying to change american sports.  he also called him gutless for saying usa is not going to win the world cup, following up by saying he  has not won anything  so who is he to talk.  wilborn in the very essence of noting that jürgen has not won anything only reinforces jürgen is point.  if you have not done it in the past, then the future is bleak.  this is his mentality.  us soccer is in the middle of a transition/revolution/identity crisis which is mandatory, in my opinion, to take usa to a different level on a global scale.  americans fetishize players in order to keep the masses obsessing over the nostalgia attached with players.  in the case of kobe bryant, the lakers paid him 0m not because of what he will do in the next two years.  they paid him because laker nation likes him.  at the expense of the future of the franchise, we now get to enjoy kobe playing 0 minutes a game for the next two years, with no championship in sight.  fair weather fans are common in the us, and these fans are emotionally and mentally not built for soccer.  patience and faith that many red sox and lions fans can relate to, is truly what bonds you to a club or franchise.  regardless of trophies or accolades, your loyalty is tested ultimately when your team is at it is lowest.  americans are having a hard time swallowing our pride when acknowledging where we are as a nation in the world of soccer.  the xenophobic comments made by wilborn were uncalled for, and as someone who is met and lives near jürgen for years now, he is as about as california as it gets.  the new york times wrote an article in which the comments originated in, and it was well written if anyone else would like to have a quick read: URL  #  americans fetishize players in order to keep the masses obsessing over the nostalgia attached with players.   #  americans as in the public in general, aka the masses ?  # americans as in the public in general, aka the masses ? in other words the masses are forcing the masses to do something ? and is not obsessing over players the same as  fetishizing players  ? what is the point of watching sports ? to enjoy it ? but is not that exactly what they are giving them when  they paid him because laker nation likes him.   ? so we want to have a championship or else we are suffering ? is not that being a fairweather fan about ? only one team in a league can win a championship a year, so every other team is fan is suffering and not worthy of a team is loyalty ? really ? there are long streaks of losing in the us of popular clubs URL and college football is insanely huge but people do not switch loyalties because their team does not win.  so why is klinsmann complaining ?  #  their legendary status ousts rational thinking, and it is how us fans are okay with our front offices paying jeter and the mamba exuberant amounts of money, without any actual ambitions of winning a championship.   #  no one is saying it wo not make money for the lakers franchise.  we are talking about winning, and that is not at the forefront of the lakers front office.  agreed that it is for profit, and not for a championship.  now in international soccer, you do not get paid really for representing your country.  it is more of an honor.  donovan being cut makes sense in this regard because all a national team can do is win.  the ussf will profit from any fallout, on top of i think mls etc.  the reason he brought up kobe was to contrast him with landon.  nothing to do with the lakers.  landon not going is heartbreaking for many including myself, but it is for the benefit of future players.  they will gain experience and even challenge in the future.  people expect landon because of the name.  the same way kobe was voted into the all star team.  if kobe went to houston ? , someone else would stay home, and that is unfair to the youth.  the idolizing of landon can correlate with how the fan bases in america see sports stars, regardless of age.  their legendary status ousts rational thinking, and it is how us fans are okay with our front offices paying jeter and the mamba exuberant amounts of money, without any actual ambitions of winning a championship.   #  you will be hard pressed to find a player in the nfl get a new contract off of past successes.   #  this only really happens in the mlb and nba.  you will be hard pressed to find a player in the nfl get a new contract off of past successes.  the seats are going to be filled at nfl games regardless of if one player is on the team or not.  so i would just say he is wrong because he is using kobe as an example of what all us sports franchises do, and that is basically opposite of what, say, the new england patriots do.  if you ca not help the team, you are gone.  and that is the mentality of every other nfl team as well with the exception of maybe a couple, like the cowboys with jerry jones driving the clown car.   #  judging from the reactions i have seen, his latest comments were very, very successful at accomplishing that goal.   # who ? are you suggesting that there is a group of americans who fetishize players in order to control  the masses  ? is not it much more likely that, as in other countries, people idolize sports stars because they are highly visible, successful, and entertaining ? pirlo is a god in italy, but i would not say he is been  fetishized  by some italian cabal; he is just the guy who won the country glory, so they love him.  they paid him because laker nation likes him they paid him because they are a business and he makes them far more money than he costs them, even with that exorbitant salary.  simple decision.  saying fair weather fans are not  built for soccer  does not really make sense, considering you can be a fair weather fan of a soccer team lots of new dortmund supporters last year, in america and in europe .  wilbon is comments are idiotic, and they are being treated accordingly by american soccer fans.  his knowledge of the sport is piss poor, but his entire job is to gin up controversy and get people talking about him and his show.  judging from the reactions i have seen, his latest comments were very, very successful at accomplishing that goal.  more than anything, though, i am wondering why you think hero worship/support for aging stars is somehow unique to america.  we see it all over the world, all the time why do you think america is different ?  #  the money is not for the success of the team, but for profit.   #  i suppose you are right in saying it is not exclusive to america.  but it is a common theme here.  in europe, soccer clubs splash the cash on young players who will deliver.  here, it is frequently shown that some pay for players based on what they have already done.  beckham, jeter, kobe, etc.  the money is not for the success of the team, but for profit.  the lakers are not a feeder club, so it is surprising to me that they would do such a move.  granted, i am happy i get to see more of him here in socal, but i am not convinced this is the recipe for success i was looking for.  because you want your team it win every year does not make you fair weather.  needless to say, i am disappointed with the lakers organization, but i am not dropping them for the fucking clippers or anything.
URL michael wilborn of pti lashed out at klinsmann is remarks telling him to  get the hell out of america  and accused him of trying to change american sports.  he also called him gutless for saying usa is not going to win the world cup, following up by saying he  has not won anything  so who is he to talk.  wilborn in the very essence of noting that jürgen has not won anything only reinforces jürgen is point.  if you have not done it in the past, then the future is bleak.  this is his mentality.  us soccer is in the middle of a transition/revolution/identity crisis which is mandatory, in my opinion, to take usa to a different level on a global scale.  americans fetishize players in order to keep the masses obsessing over the nostalgia attached with players.  in the case of kobe bryant, the lakers paid him 0m not because of what he will do in the next two years.  they paid him because laker nation likes him.  at the expense of the future of the franchise, we now get to enjoy kobe playing 0 minutes a game for the next two years, with no championship in sight.  fair weather fans are common in the us, and these fans are emotionally and mentally not built for soccer.  patience and faith that many red sox and lions fans can relate to, is truly what bonds you to a club or franchise.  regardless of trophies or accolades, your loyalty is tested ultimately when your team is at it is lowest.  americans are having a hard time swallowing our pride when acknowledging where we are as a nation in the world of soccer.  the xenophobic comments made by wilborn were uncalled for, and as someone who is met and lives near jürgen for years now, he is as about as california as it gets.  the new york times wrote an article in which the comments originated in, and it was well written if anyone else would like to have a quick read: URL  #  at the expense of the future of the franchise, we now get to enjoy kobe playing 0 minutes a game for the next two years, with no championship in sight.   #  so we want to have a championship or else we are suffering ?  # americans as in the public in general, aka the masses ? in other words the masses are forcing the masses to do something ? and is not obsessing over players the same as  fetishizing players  ? what is the point of watching sports ? to enjoy it ? but is not that exactly what they are giving them when  they paid him because laker nation likes him.   ? so we want to have a championship or else we are suffering ? is not that being a fairweather fan about ? only one team in a league can win a championship a year, so every other team is fan is suffering and not worthy of a team is loyalty ? really ? there are long streaks of losing in the us of popular clubs URL and college football is insanely huge but people do not switch loyalties because their team does not win.  so why is klinsmann complaining ?  #  now in international soccer, you do not get paid really for representing your country.   #  no one is saying it wo not make money for the lakers franchise.  we are talking about winning, and that is not at the forefront of the lakers front office.  agreed that it is for profit, and not for a championship.  now in international soccer, you do not get paid really for representing your country.  it is more of an honor.  donovan being cut makes sense in this regard because all a national team can do is win.  the ussf will profit from any fallout, on top of i think mls etc.  the reason he brought up kobe was to contrast him with landon.  nothing to do with the lakers.  landon not going is heartbreaking for many including myself, but it is for the benefit of future players.  they will gain experience and even challenge in the future.  people expect landon because of the name.  the same way kobe was voted into the all star team.  if kobe went to houston ? , someone else would stay home, and that is unfair to the youth.  the idolizing of landon can correlate with how the fan bases in america see sports stars, regardless of age.  their legendary status ousts rational thinking, and it is how us fans are okay with our front offices paying jeter and the mamba exuberant amounts of money, without any actual ambitions of winning a championship.   #  so i would just say he is wrong because he is using kobe as an example of what all us sports franchises do, and that is basically opposite of what, say, the new england patriots do.   #  this only really happens in the mlb and nba.  you will be hard pressed to find a player in the nfl get a new contract off of past successes.  the seats are going to be filled at nfl games regardless of if one player is on the team or not.  so i would just say he is wrong because he is using kobe as an example of what all us sports franchises do, and that is basically opposite of what, say, the new england patriots do.  if you ca not help the team, you are gone.  and that is the mentality of every other nfl team as well with the exception of maybe a couple, like the cowboys with jerry jones driving the clown car.   #  judging from the reactions i have seen, his latest comments were very, very successful at accomplishing that goal.   # who ? are you suggesting that there is a group of americans who fetishize players in order to control  the masses  ? is not it much more likely that, as in other countries, people idolize sports stars because they are highly visible, successful, and entertaining ? pirlo is a god in italy, but i would not say he is been  fetishized  by some italian cabal; he is just the guy who won the country glory, so they love him.  they paid him because laker nation likes him they paid him because they are a business and he makes them far more money than he costs them, even with that exorbitant salary.  simple decision.  saying fair weather fans are not  built for soccer  does not really make sense, considering you can be a fair weather fan of a soccer team lots of new dortmund supporters last year, in america and in europe .  wilbon is comments are idiotic, and they are being treated accordingly by american soccer fans.  his knowledge of the sport is piss poor, but his entire job is to gin up controversy and get people talking about him and his show.  judging from the reactions i have seen, his latest comments were very, very successful at accomplishing that goal.  more than anything, though, i am wondering why you think hero worship/support for aging stars is somehow unique to america.  we see it all over the world, all the time why do you think america is different ?  #  the lakers are not a feeder club, so it is surprising to me that they would do such a move.   #  i suppose you are right in saying it is not exclusive to america.  but it is a common theme here.  in europe, soccer clubs splash the cash on young players who will deliver.  here, it is frequently shown that some pay for players based on what they have already done.  beckham, jeter, kobe, etc.  the money is not for the success of the team, but for profit.  the lakers are not a feeder club, so it is surprising to me that they would do such a move.  granted, i am happy i get to see more of him here in socal, but i am not convinced this is the recipe for success i was looking for.  because you want your team it win every year does not make you fair weather.  needless to say, i am disappointed with the lakers organization, but i am not dropping them for the fucking clippers or anything.
title says it all, waffles   pancakes.  they are better on so many levels.  texture you want soft waffles ? done.  you want em crispier ? done.  you want crispy pancakes ? how  bout some  well, they are not  actually  burnt, just really brown  pancakes ? winner waffles.  practicality waffles are the perfect transportation mechanism for toppings.  all of those little squares are perfect to grab and hold butter syrup, fruit, nutella, whipped cream, or whatever delicious food you put on top.  pancakes ? good luck just smearing stuff around and having it fall off.  winner waffles.  belgian waffle maker URL  nuff said.  built in cutting lines waffles are like the graph paper of breakfast pastries.  all those lines make sure your cuts are nice and even.  pancakes ? good luck having it not end up like this URL q. e. d.  waffles   pancake.   #  all of those little squares are perfect to grab and hold butter syrup, fruit, nutella, whipped cream, or whatever delicious food you put on top.   #  this sounds like it would be in true, but unfortunately, it is not.   # this sounds like it would be in true, but unfortunately, it is not.  all those little squares do is prevent you from getting syrup evenly distributed over your waffle, and if you want to try to do so, you would have to put enough syrup on them to make yourself sick.  also, trying to spread anything on them is a giant fucking pain in the ass.  i like my waffles and pancakes with peanut butter, and it fucking sucks trying to spread peanut butter on a waffle.  your example uses nutella, which i could not even imagine using, with it already being harder to spread.  it also has the same problem as syrup, but personally, i like a lot of peanut butter so it is not a problem for me, but some people like a nice thin layer.  pancakes are also superior in that they do not require their own kitchen appliance to make that is just going to take up more cabinet space, until you get the wild hair up your ass 0 or 0 times a year to drag the motherfucker out.  only to realize, yet again, that it makes a giant fucking mess that you are going to have to clean up, and even if you do prefer waffles, it would only be a minor preference and, clearly, not worth the time, effort, or money spent on the appliance.  you also have a lot more control over how you wanna make your pancake.  want a thin, slightly crispy pancake ? easy.  want a big thick, sexy god of a pancake ? easy.  want mini pancakes ? easy.  waffles do not got shit on pancakes, nigger.   #  while you sit in an ivory kitchen nook bathed in granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances, i will dine on the fruits of my own labor, in solidarity with the stack of flap jacks on my plate.   #  waffles are the chain linked fences of the bourgeoisie.  whose counter top is so vacant and uncluttered as to support a belgian waffle maker ? certainly not those of us suffering the unwashed masses of last night is dinner plates.  no, waffles are a symptom of class decadence and privilege, a perversion of the pancake, the flap jack, and the crepe those most filling and nurturing of the battered breakfast items, salts of the earth.  while you sit in an ivory kitchen nook bathed in granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances, i will dine on the fruits of my own labor, in solidarity with the stack of flap jacks on my plate.  free to make dollops of any size without worrying that they will spill out of society is mold.  and it tastes, it tastes like freedom.   #  this is neither the time nor the place for your quasi socialist musings.   #  this is neither the time nor the place for your quasi socialist musings.  however, before the plague that is,  waffles are the chain linked fences of the bourgeoisie,  becomes the battle cry of those degenerates who would see the waffle toppled from the menus of humble, triumph of the hardworking man establishments such as denny is or ihop, i feel that your statements must be addressed.  waffles are indeed perfection.  they are the perfection that we, of the simple, industrious lower classes, can attain through diligence in our work and attentiveness to our family lives.  perhaps one day, if we make it far enough, if we put in enough hours, if we do good by our friends and neighbors, we can put waffles on the breakfast plates of our children or our children is children.  the waffle is not a symbol of oppression, fear, or hate.  no.  it is a symbol of the struggle to be better, to work our way up in the world, to make our lives what we want them to be: filled with textured breakfast pastries.   #  creativity: you can make pancakes in different shapes.   #  those are only some of the criteria upon which people can judge.  here are some others: cost: generally, everyone with a kitchen has a frying pan.  you do not have to spend extra money for a one use only device.  ease of making for a group of people: unless you have multiple waffle irons, you can make pancakes for six much faster than waffles, and nobody gets the cold pancake.  creativity: you can make pancakes in different shapes.  with waffles, you are stuck with the shape of the waffle maker.  so waffles are not superior in every category, qed.   #  especially when that would always leave me with left over batter ?  # you do not have to spend extra money for a one use only device.  my christmas present from my mom last year was a waffle iron, i did not pay a single cent for it.  and, i know that she got it for me on some black friday sale, and i have seen around my line of waffle iron for like. $0.  in a well stocked kitchen, that is a drop in the bucket.  the problem with a circle, containing small circles is that there is a lot of wasted space.  do you just eat waffles/pancakes by themselves ? i do not.  having the waffle iron that cooks both sides evenly in one go, and is done, allows me to focus on bacon, eggs, maybe the sausage gravy that i am making, so that way i can not only serve a full, delicious breakfast, but a warm one.  this is a general point for both waffles and pancakes, but really, that is not a difficult problem.  put the first of whatever you are making on a plate, get a  really  long sheet of foil, and cover that.  just keep adding your waffles/cakes on top of it, and they will do a really good job of keeping each other warm enough.  with waffles, you are stuck with the shape of the waffle maker.  am i making an art piece for just myself to eat ? then why would i go through the hassle of making the pancake batter ? especially when that would always leave me with left over batter ? am i making it for everyone ? then why go through that trouble, when i have mouths to feed ? and especially when that will make it difficult for me to gauge how much batter i will need for all those people ? i beg to differ.  ;d
so i am a huge fan of breaking bad and the sopranos.  recently i decided to watch the wire because i heard it is the best show ever.  i have made it to season 0 episode 0.  i cannot think of one interesting thing that happened in all of season 0 besides cop being shot and landing in the hospital.  so far season 0 has been one of the most boring things i have ever watched.  i literally cannot tell one episode from another and nothing feels worth watching.  it is drudgery to make it through an entire episode.  i have a difficult time even remembering some of the characters names because they are so interchangeable and bland.  i am starting to feel like this show is the emperor is new clothes.  people say its a great show because it is recognized as a great show and people do not want to seem stupid or uncultured.  i will admit the frank depiction of homosexuality was not done in the time the wire was new and it deserves points for showing that the way it does.  anyway why do people like this show ? how can people say with a straight face it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as the sopranos or breaking bad ?  #  i cannot think of one interesting thing that happened in all of season 0 besides cop being shot and landing in the hospital.   #  do you at least appreciate how realistic all the characters are ?  # do you at least appreciate how realistic all the characters are ? do you notice how there really are not good guys or bad guys in this show ? what about the idea that the police have to fight their own bosses just to be able to arrest the criminals ? do not think of them as episodes of a tv show.  they are chapters in a visual novel.  i did not know the reputation of the show when i started watching it.  i was told that it was a great show but not much else.  i came to the feeling that this was the best show i would ever watched by myself.  i came to that conclusion because i think it is the best explanation ever given about why america is a broken country.  it is the great gatsby of our generation.  i never watched the sopranos, but i consider breaking bad to be one of the most overrated shows ever made.  it was only ever alright to me.  every character but walter white is a trope, and the story becomes very predictable about midway through season 0.  the only good thing about breaking bad was the acting.  no one will remember breaking bad ten years from now, but people will still watch the wire.  the wire is ultimately a very clear expression of what it meant to be a poor american in the first decade of the 0st century.  it is not so much about entertainment as art.  war and peace is also famously boring for a lot of people, but it is still a masterpiece that deserves the attention it gets more than a century after it was written.  there are similar reasons for the popularity of jane austen and charles dickens.  tl;dr:  the wire is the great american novel, and each episode is a chapter.  if you do not like novels, do not keep watching the wire.   #   the wire  to me is brilliant because it is incredibly realistic and breaks from a lot of traditional hollywood/television crime show tropes.   #  note: i have never seen  the sopranos.    the wire  to me is brilliant because it is incredibly realistic and breaks from a lot of traditional hollywood/television crime show tropes.  as great as  breaking bad  is, it still has a number of  conventional  dramatic devices background music, flashy and stylistic cinematographic gestures, cliffhanger endings, character archetypes, flashbacks and flashforwards.   the wire  has almost none of those things, it is an ensemble show that focuses equally on a rotating and ever growing group of characters, it deals with real issues albeit sometimes in a satirical manner , has a documentary style, realistic dialogue, and no background score unless it is playing from a radio or stereo with some exceptions .  it gives up contrived hollywood dramatic tropes and cliffhanger devices and creates suspense by giving you realistic, relatable human characters in an environment influenced by real world baltimore.  it also, if you notice, does not like exposition, backstory, or flashbacks it treats the audience as intelligent and drops criminal investigation lingo without explaining it.  what you are perceiving as  blandness  in the characters is realism.  it is a show more about fighting the law and the bureaucracy in order to enact real change.  the  bad guy  is society, and everyone is a victim of it.  there are no heroes and villains, everyone is a victim of circumstance and their own human foibles.  like it or not,  breaking bad  is hollywood.  sure, it offers more depth than the standard tv fare, but walter white is a hollywood anti hero against hollywood villains in an amped up hollywood style.   the wire  is something more, something original, and it has not been done so well before or since.  just talking about it makes me want to watch it again.   #  but i personally, subjectively, whatever, value things that break conventions and strive for originality and realism.   #  exactly, that is subjective.  and i agree with you and i wo not knock  breaking bad,  it is a great show.  but i personally, subjectively, whatever, value things that break conventions and strive for originality and realism.  and by the way, it is not enough to merely break conventions.   the wire  does so skillfully.  it is still a well written and well acted show with gripping characters and plots.  it does not break conventions to the point that it ceases to be a tv drama.  it merely does away with tired cop show cliches and tropes and takes on an ambitious project of capturing an entire city of characters rather than a traditional character drama like  breaking bad.    #  and amazingly, to me, because my entire perception of drug business comes from rap music it shows up drug lords to be nothing more than a slightly more violent beurecracy.   # when it is done well it works.  and breaking bad was one of the best.  i appreciate your honesty that you value entertainment over everything else.  but this also means the wire may not be for you.  the shows main producer/ writer was a journalist and this shows in the attention to detail and actual process of how investigation and corruption occur.  the characters are, to me, brilliant believeable people and this is essential to communicating how the world works.  but they come across as bland because the tight controls their respective organisations place on them.  with the police we see how career competition and hierarchy means good objectives are undercut by department politics.  and amazingly, to me, because my entire perception of drug business comes from rap music it shows up drug lords to be nothing more than a slightly more violent beurecracy.  it also looked atvthe lives of the addicts, wretched and depressing stories rap and breaking bad ignore because it strips the dealer of any glamour.  the drabness is intentional, because all characters are dehumanized by the institutions that control them .  i like show too because it shows how the process of corruption perpetuates itself the mayor complains about fake crime stats, then in the end asks the police to make fake stats for him.  bit the delivery of all this is dry, remote, and schematic.  it lets the viewer connect the dots.  and if you do not like that approach, i cantvchange your tastes.  but it still might be worth watching for you so you get some idea if how drug trade actuually changes city life, as opposed to a glamoyrised version of it  #  but because of its realism we can take what it says seriously, and we can be impressed and surprised by the chances it takes in breaking narrative and stylistic conventions.   # also, i keep seeing you guys refer to the  realism , and i assume that means lack of special effects along with the lack of main protagonist that you mentioned, and i would also like to know why that is grounds for calling it one of the best shows ever.  it is a fictional story anyway, so why is making it so raw such a good thing ? it is about breaking conventions.  i appreciate a show or any piece of art really that challenges the norm and takes chances.  it takes a lot of balls to introduce a character as a protagonist and then push him to the side.  the realism opens up a lot of questions about the real life baltimore, about the war on drugs, politics, the culture of the time, and the way we see people.  many of the actors on  the wire  are not real actors but actual baltimore gangbangers and drug dealers.  this is not to say  the wire  does not have exciting scenes, drama, action, and tour de force acting.  it is enjoyable in that regard.  but because of its realism we can take what it says seriously, and we can be impressed and surprised by the chances it takes in breaking narrative and stylistic conventions.
so i am a huge fan of breaking bad and the sopranos.  recently i decided to watch the wire because i heard it is the best show ever.  i have made it to season 0 episode 0.  i cannot think of one interesting thing that happened in all of season 0 besides cop being shot and landing in the hospital.  so far season 0 has been one of the most boring things i have ever watched.  i literally cannot tell one episode from another and nothing feels worth watching.  it is drudgery to make it through an entire episode.  i have a difficult time even remembering some of the characters names because they are so interchangeable and bland.  i am starting to feel like this show is the emperor is new clothes.  people say its a great show because it is recognized as a great show and people do not want to seem stupid or uncultured.  i will admit the frank depiction of homosexuality was not done in the time the wire was new and it deserves points for showing that the way it does.  anyway why do people like this show ? how can people say with a straight face it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as the sopranos or breaking bad ?  #  i literally cannot tell one episode from another and nothing feels worth watching.   #  do not think of them as episodes of a tv show.   # do you at least appreciate how realistic all the characters are ? do you notice how there really are not good guys or bad guys in this show ? what about the idea that the police have to fight their own bosses just to be able to arrest the criminals ? do not think of them as episodes of a tv show.  they are chapters in a visual novel.  i did not know the reputation of the show when i started watching it.  i was told that it was a great show but not much else.  i came to the feeling that this was the best show i would ever watched by myself.  i came to that conclusion because i think it is the best explanation ever given about why america is a broken country.  it is the great gatsby of our generation.  i never watched the sopranos, but i consider breaking bad to be one of the most overrated shows ever made.  it was only ever alright to me.  every character but walter white is a trope, and the story becomes very predictable about midway through season 0.  the only good thing about breaking bad was the acting.  no one will remember breaking bad ten years from now, but people will still watch the wire.  the wire is ultimately a very clear expression of what it meant to be a poor american in the first decade of the 0st century.  it is not so much about entertainment as art.  war and peace is also famously boring for a lot of people, but it is still a masterpiece that deserves the attention it gets more than a century after it was written.  there are similar reasons for the popularity of jane austen and charles dickens.  tl;dr:  the wire is the great american novel, and each episode is a chapter.  if you do not like novels, do not keep watching the wire.   #  sure, it offers more depth than the standard tv fare, but walter white is a hollywood anti hero against hollywood villains in an amped up hollywood style.   #  note: i have never seen  the sopranos.    the wire  to me is brilliant because it is incredibly realistic and breaks from a lot of traditional hollywood/television crime show tropes.  as great as  breaking bad  is, it still has a number of  conventional  dramatic devices background music, flashy and stylistic cinematographic gestures, cliffhanger endings, character archetypes, flashbacks and flashforwards.   the wire  has almost none of those things, it is an ensemble show that focuses equally on a rotating and ever growing group of characters, it deals with real issues albeit sometimes in a satirical manner , has a documentary style, realistic dialogue, and no background score unless it is playing from a radio or stereo with some exceptions .  it gives up contrived hollywood dramatic tropes and cliffhanger devices and creates suspense by giving you realistic, relatable human characters in an environment influenced by real world baltimore.  it also, if you notice, does not like exposition, backstory, or flashbacks it treats the audience as intelligent and drops criminal investigation lingo without explaining it.  what you are perceiving as  blandness  in the characters is realism.  it is a show more about fighting the law and the bureaucracy in order to enact real change.  the  bad guy  is society, and everyone is a victim of it.  there are no heroes and villains, everyone is a victim of circumstance and their own human foibles.  like it or not,  breaking bad  is hollywood.  sure, it offers more depth than the standard tv fare, but walter white is a hollywood anti hero against hollywood villains in an amped up hollywood style.   the wire  is something more, something original, and it has not been done so well before or since.  just talking about it makes me want to watch it again.   #  and by the way, it is not enough to merely break conventions.   #  exactly, that is subjective.  and i agree with you and i wo not knock  breaking bad,  it is a great show.  but i personally, subjectively, whatever, value things that break conventions and strive for originality and realism.  and by the way, it is not enough to merely break conventions.   the wire  does so skillfully.  it is still a well written and well acted show with gripping characters and plots.  it does not break conventions to the point that it ceases to be a tv drama.  it merely does away with tired cop show cliches and tropes and takes on an ambitious project of capturing an entire city of characters rather than a traditional character drama like  breaking bad.    #  it also looked atvthe lives of the addicts, wretched and depressing stories rap and breaking bad ignore because it strips the dealer of any glamour.   # when it is done well it works.  and breaking bad was one of the best.  i appreciate your honesty that you value entertainment over everything else.  but this also means the wire may not be for you.  the shows main producer/ writer was a journalist and this shows in the attention to detail and actual process of how investigation and corruption occur.  the characters are, to me, brilliant believeable people and this is essential to communicating how the world works.  but they come across as bland because the tight controls their respective organisations place on them.  with the police we see how career competition and hierarchy means good objectives are undercut by department politics.  and amazingly, to me, because my entire perception of drug business comes from rap music it shows up drug lords to be nothing more than a slightly more violent beurecracy.  it also looked atvthe lives of the addicts, wretched and depressing stories rap and breaking bad ignore because it strips the dealer of any glamour.  the drabness is intentional, because all characters are dehumanized by the institutions that control them .  i like show too because it shows how the process of corruption perpetuates itself the mayor complains about fake crime stats, then in the end asks the police to make fake stats for him.  bit the delivery of all this is dry, remote, and schematic.  it lets the viewer connect the dots.  and if you do not like that approach, i cantvchange your tastes.  but it still might be worth watching for you so you get some idea if how drug trade actuually changes city life, as opposed to a glamoyrised version of it  #  it takes a lot of balls to introduce a character as a protagonist and then push him to the side.   # also, i keep seeing you guys refer to the  realism , and i assume that means lack of special effects along with the lack of main protagonist that you mentioned, and i would also like to know why that is grounds for calling it one of the best shows ever.  it is a fictional story anyway, so why is making it so raw such a good thing ? it is about breaking conventions.  i appreciate a show or any piece of art really that challenges the norm and takes chances.  it takes a lot of balls to introduce a character as a protagonist and then push him to the side.  the realism opens up a lot of questions about the real life baltimore, about the war on drugs, politics, the culture of the time, and the way we see people.  many of the actors on  the wire  are not real actors but actual baltimore gangbangers and drug dealers.  this is not to say  the wire  does not have exciting scenes, drama, action, and tour de force acting.  it is enjoyable in that regard.  but because of its realism we can take what it says seriously, and we can be impressed and surprised by the chances it takes in breaking narrative and stylistic conventions.
so i am a huge fan of breaking bad and the sopranos.  recently i decided to watch the wire because i heard it is the best show ever.  i have made it to season 0 episode 0.  i cannot think of one interesting thing that happened in all of season 0 besides cop being shot and landing in the hospital.  so far season 0 has been one of the most boring things i have ever watched.  i literally cannot tell one episode from another and nothing feels worth watching.  it is drudgery to make it through an entire episode.  i have a difficult time even remembering some of the characters names because they are so interchangeable and bland.  i am starting to feel like this show is the emperor is new clothes.  people say its a great show because it is recognized as a great show and people do not want to seem stupid or uncultured.  i will admit the frank depiction of homosexuality was not done in the time the wire was new and it deserves points for showing that the way it does.  anyway why do people like this show ? how can people say with a straight face it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as the sopranos or breaking bad ?  #  people say its a great show because it is recognized as a great show and people do not want to seem stupid or uncultured.   #  i did not know the reputation of the show when i started watching it.   # do you at least appreciate how realistic all the characters are ? do you notice how there really are not good guys or bad guys in this show ? what about the idea that the police have to fight their own bosses just to be able to arrest the criminals ? do not think of them as episodes of a tv show.  they are chapters in a visual novel.  i did not know the reputation of the show when i started watching it.  i was told that it was a great show but not much else.  i came to the feeling that this was the best show i would ever watched by myself.  i came to that conclusion because i think it is the best explanation ever given about why america is a broken country.  it is the great gatsby of our generation.  i never watched the sopranos, but i consider breaking bad to be one of the most overrated shows ever made.  it was only ever alright to me.  every character but walter white is a trope, and the story becomes very predictable about midway through season 0.  the only good thing about breaking bad was the acting.  no one will remember breaking bad ten years from now, but people will still watch the wire.  the wire is ultimately a very clear expression of what it meant to be a poor american in the first decade of the 0st century.  it is not so much about entertainment as art.  war and peace is also famously boring for a lot of people, but it is still a masterpiece that deserves the attention it gets more than a century after it was written.  there are similar reasons for the popularity of jane austen and charles dickens.  tl;dr:  the wire is the great american novel, and each episode is a chapter.  if you do not like novels, do not keep watching the wire.   #  sure, it offers more depth than the standard tv fare, but walter white is a hollywood anti hero against hollywood villains in an amped up hollywood style.   #  note: i have never seen  the sopranos.    the wire  to me is brilliant because it is incredibly realistic and breaks from a lot of traditional hollywood/television crime show tropes.  as great as  breaking bad  is, it still has a number of  conventional  dramatic devices background music, flashy and stylistic cinematographic gestures, cliffhanger endings, character archetypes, flashbacks and flashforwards.   the wire  has almost none of those things, it is an ensemble show that focuses equally on a rotating and ever growing group of characters, it deals with real issues albeit sometimes in a satirical manner , has a documentary style, realistic dialogue, and no background score unless it is playing from a radio or stereo with some exceptions .  it gives up contrived hollywood dramatic tropes and cliffhanger devices and creates suspense by giving you realistic, relatable human characters in an environment influenced by real world baltimore.  it also, if you notice, does not like exposition, backstory, or flashbacks it treats the audience as intelligent and drops criminal investigation lingo without explaining it.  what you are perceiving as  blandness  in the characters is realism.  it is a show more about fighting the law and the bureaucracy in order to enact real change.  the  bad guy  is society, and everyone is a victim of it.  there are no heroes and villains, everyone is a victim of circumstance and their own human foibles.  like it or not,  breaking bad  is hollywood.  sure, it offers more depth than the standard tv fare, but walter white is a hollywood anti hero against hollywood villains in an amped up hollywood style.   the wire  is something more, something original, and it has not been done so well before or since.  just talking about it makes me want to watch it again.   #  it does not break conventions to the point that it ceases to be a tv drama.   #  exactly, that is subjective.  and i agree with you and i wo not knock  breaking bad,  it is a great show.  but i personally, subjectively, whatever, value things that break conventions and strive for originality and realism.  and by the way, it is not enough to merely break conventions.   the wire  does so skillfully.  it is still a well written and well acted show with gripping characters and plots.  it does not break conventions to the point that it ceases to be a tv drama.  it merely does away with tired cop show cliches and tropes and takes on an ambitious project of capturing an entire city of characters rather than a traditional character drama like  breaking bad.    #  i like show too because it shows how the process of corruption perpetuates itself the mayor complains about fake crime stats, then in the end asks the police to make fake stats for him.   # when it is done well it works.  and breaking bad was one of the best.  i appreciate your honesty that you value entertainment over everything else.  but this also means the wire may not be for you.  the shows main producer/ writer was a journalist and this shows in the attention to detail and actual process of how investigation and corruption occur.  the characters are, to me, brilliant believeable people and this is essential to communicating how the world works.  but they come across as bland because the tight controls their respective organisations place on them.  with the police we see how career competition and hierarchy means good objectives are undercut by department politics.  and amazingly, to me, because my entire perception of drug business comes from rap music it shows up drug lords to be nothing more than a slightly more violent beurecracy.  it also looked atvthe lives of the addicts, wretched and depressing stories rap and breaking bad ignore because it strips the dealer of any glamour.  the drabness is intentional, because all characters are dehumanized by the institutions that control them .  i like show too because it shows how the process of corruption perpetuates itself the mayor complains about fake crime stats, then in the end asks the police to make fake stats for him.  bit the delivery of all this is dry, remote, and schematic.  it lets the viewer connect the dots.  and if you do not like that approach, i cantvchange your tastes.  but it still might be worth watching for you so you get some idea if how drug trade actuually changes city life, as opposed to a glamoyrised version of it  #  this is not to say  the wire  does not have exciting scenes, drama, action, and tour de force acting.   # also, i keep seeing you guys refer to the  realism , and i assume that means lack of special effects along with the lack of main protagonist that you mentioned, and i would also like to know why that is grounds for calling it one of the best shows ever.  it is a fictional story anyway, so why is making it so raw such a good thing ? it is about breaking conventions.  i appreciate a show or any piece of art really that challenges the norm and takes chances.  it takes a lot of balls to introduce a character as a protagonist and then push him to the side.  the realism opens up a lot of questions about the real life baltimore, about the war on drugs, politics, the culture of the time, and the way we see people.  many of the actors on  the wire  are not real actors but actual baltimore gangbangers and drug dealers.  this is not to say  the wire  does not have exciting scenes, drama, action, and tour de force acting.  it is enjoyable in that regard.  but because of its realism we can take what it says seriously, and we can be impressed and surprised by the chances it takes in breaking narrative and stylistic conventions.
so i am a huge fan of breaking bad and the sopranos.  recently i decided to watch the wire because i heard it is the best show ever.  i have made it to season 0 episode 0.  i cannot think of one interesting thing that happened in all of season 0 besides cop being shot and landing in the hospital.  so far season 0 has been one of the most boring things i have ever watched.  i literally cannot tell one episode from another and nothing feels worth watching.  it is drudgery to make it through an entire episode.  i have a difficult time even remembering some of the characters names because they are so interchangeable and bland.  i am starting to feel like this show is the emperor is new clothes.  people say its a great show because it is recognized as a great show and people do not want to seem stupid or uncultured.  i will admit the frank depiction of homosexuality was not done in the time the wire was new and it deserves points for showing that the way it does.  anyway why do people like this show ? how can people say with a straight face it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as the sopranos or breaking bad ?  #  how can people say with a straight face it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as the sopranos or breaking bad ?  #  i never watched the sopranos, but i consider breaking bad to be one of the most overrated shows ever made.   # do you at least appreciate how realistic all the characters are ? do you notice how there really are not good guys or bad guys in this show ? what about the idea that the police have to fight their own bosses just to be able to arrest the criminals ? do not think of them as episodes of a tv show.  they are chapters in a visual novel.  i did not know the reputation of the show when i started watching it.  i was told that it was a great show but not much else.  i came to the feeling that this was the best show i would ever watched by myself.  i came to that conclusion because i think it is the best explanation ever given about why america is a broken country.  it is the great gatsby of our generation.  i never watched the sopranos, but i consider breaking bad to be one of the most overrated shows ever made.  it was only ever alright to me.  every character but walter white is a trope, and the story becomes very predictable about midway through season 0.  the only good thing about breaking bad was the acting.  no one will remember breaking bad ten years from now, but people will still watch the wire.  the wire is ultimately a very clear expression of what it meant to be a poor american in the first decade of the 0st century.  it is not so much about entertainment as art.  war and peace is also famously boring for a lot of people, but it is still a masterpiece that deserves the attention it gets more than a century after it was written.  there are similar reasons for the popularity of jane austen and charles dickens.  tl;dr:  the wire is the great american novel, and each episode is a chapter.  if you do not like novels, do not keep watching the wire.   #   the wire  is something more, something original, and it has not been done so well before or since.   #  note: i have never seen  the sopranos.    the wire  to me is brilliant because it is incredibly realistic and breaks from a lot of traditional hollywood/television crime show tropes.  as great as  breaking bad  is, it still has a number of  conventional  dramatic devices background music, flashy and stylistic cinematographic gestures, cliffhanger endings, character archetypes, flashbacks and flashforwards.   the wire  has almost none of those things, it is an ensemble show that focuses equally on a rotating and ever growing group of characters, it deals with real issues albeit sometimes in a satirical manner , has a documentary style, realistic dialogue, and no background score unless it is playing from a radio or stereo with some exceptions .  it gives up contrived hollywood dramatic tropes and cliffhanger devices and creates suspense by giving you realistic, relatable human characters in an environment influenced by real world baltimore.  it also, if you notice, does not like exposition, backstory, or flashbacks it treats the audience as intelligent and drops criminal investigation lingo without explaining it.  what you are perceiving as  blandness  in the characters is realism.  it is a show more about fighting the law and the bureaucracy in order to enact real change.  the  bad guy  is society, and everyone is a victim of it.  there are no heroes and villains, everyone is a victim of circumstance and their own human foibles.  like it or not,  breaking bad  is hollywood.  sure, it offers more depth than the standard tv fare, but walter white is a hollywood anti hero against hollywood villains in an amped up hollywood style.   the wire  is something more, something original, and it has not been done so well before or since.  just talking about it makes me want to watch it again.   #  and by the way, it is not enough to merely break conventions.   #  exactly, that is subjective.  and i agree with you and i wo not knock  breaking bad,  it is a great show.  but i personally, subjectively, whatever, value things that break conventions and strive for originality and realism.  and by the way, it is not enough to merely break conventions.   the wire  does so skillfully.  it is still a well written and well acted show with gripping characters and plots.  it does not break conventions to the point that it ceases to be a tv drama.  it merely does away with tired cop show cliches and tropes and takes on an ambitious project of capturing an entire city of characters rather than a traditional character drama like  breaking bad.    #  it lets the viewer connect the dots.  and if you do not like that approach, i cantvchange your tastes.   # when it is done well it works.  and breaking bad was one of the best.  i appreciate your honesty that you value entertainment over everything else.  but this also means the wire may not be for you.  the shows main producer/ writer was a journalist and this shows in the attention to detail and actual process of how investigation and corruption occur.  the characters are, to me, brilliant believeable people and this is essential to communicating how the world works.  but they come across as bland because the tight controls their respective organisations place on them.  with the police we see how career competition and hierarchy means good objectives are undercut by department politics.  and amazingly, to me, because my entire perception of drug business comes from rap music it shows up drug lords to be nothing more than a slightly more violent beurecracy.  it also looked atvthe lives of the addicts, wretched and depressing stories rap and breaking bad ignore because it strips the dealer of any glamour.  the drabness is intentional, because all characters are dehumanized by the institutions that control them .  i like show too because it shows how the process of corruption perpetuates itself the mayor complains about fake crime stats, then in the end asks the police to make fake stats for him.  bit the delivery of all this is dry, remote, and schematic.  it lets the viewer connect the dots.  and if you do not like that approach, i cantvchange your tastes.  but it still might be worth watching for you so you get some idea if how drug trade actuually changes city life, as opposed to a glamoyrised version of it  #  it takes a lot of balls to introduce a character as a protagonist and then push him to the side.   # also, i keep seeing you guys refer to the  realism , and i assume that means lack of special effects along with the lack of main protagonist that you mentioned, and i would also like to know why that is grounds for calling it one of the best shows ever.  it is a fictional story anyway, so why is making it so raw such a good thing ? it is about breaking conventions.  i appreciate a show or any piece of art really that challenges the norm and takes chances.  it takes a lot of balls to introduce a character as a protagonist and then push him to the side.  the realism opens up a lot of questions about the real life baltimore, about the war on drugs, politics, the culture of the time, and the way we see people.  many of the actors on  the wire  are not real actors but actual baltimore gangbangers and drug dealers.  this is not to say  the wire  does not have exciting scenes, drama, action, and tour de force acting.  it is enjoyable in that regard.  but because of its realism we can take what it says seriously, and we can be impressed and surprised by the chances it takes in breaking narrative and stylistic conventions.
i think self driving cars are really cool and interesting technologically, but they also carry a lot of dangers.  i am sure that in the far future maybe in 0, or 0 years there will be machines with really advanced ai artificial intelligence , but right now this is not the case: you cannot simply use a software on your pc to do your office work instead of you, write your school assignment, or even chat with you convincingly for a longer time see: turing test, computers still cannot really pass it well .  of course, there are relatively good software ais for computer games, e. g.  shooter or strategy games although they can be quite stupid sometime or good chess playing ais.  but these are pretty much  closed environments : not too many unexpected things can happen in an online counter strike match or in a chess game.  ►  now driving is much more an automatic task than speaking with someone the latter requires a lot of creativity , but on the road also a lot of things can happen:  people often drive stupidly, there can be unexpected objects or even people on the road e. g.  drunken people try to cross the traffic , wild animals, and so on.  it also requires a lot of creativity to handle these situations, and if you or a machines makes a bad decision, it can lead to road deaths.  yeah, human drivers also cause many accidents on the road; but i think it will be a long time until self driving cars or realistic chat robots will be ready to do tasks done now by humans.  ► also, these computers can be  hacked  or  infected by viruses , this could be also the source of  deadly accidents , or even  intentional murders  ! imagine that you go out for a drive on a sunny weekend day and suddenly your car speeds up to 0 mph and drives into a bunch of people.   if a terrorist group wants to murder a politician or businessman this would be the perfect tool for that.   some related links: URL URL URL URL URL  #  i think self driving cars are really cool and interesting technologically, but they also carry a lot of dangers.   #  they carry no dangers at all as far as i can see.   # they carry no dangers at all as far as i can see.  accidents happen because of human error, those errors are mostly 0 driving to fast for conditions, and 0 not paying attention.  a self driving car will never perform either of these, nor any of the other reasons accidents occur.  i actually predict that a self driving car will  never  be the cause of an accident.  i am certain they will be involved in several incidents over the induction of the technology and already admittedly have 0 , but those incidents will be human error, not machine.  i do not see where it will be possible for them to be the cause of a collision.  the only reason a self driving car will crash is if a sensor fails, and i suspect that in the event of sensor failure there will be specific protocols to bring the vehicle to a safe and controlled stop.  when you are traveling at the speed limit, and at safe distance, and paying attention, and have the ability to react quickly and apply the breaks.  it is nearly impossible to collide with anything.  humans, in america, rarely travel at or below the speed limit, constantly follow too closely, and are prone to not paying attention; coupled with abhorrent training programs and  sign and drive  license qualifications and that is why there are so many traffic accidents in america.  further more, think of all the wonderful things that can happen with a population of self driving cars.  they can all communicate with each other, so when a piece of debris is in the road, all the cars coming up on that spot will know exactly where it is and how best to avoid it,  while  simultaneously coordinating with all the other cars around to efficiently merge into other traffic lanes and keep the flow of traffic moving unimpeded; and notifying the appropriate authority of the exact location of the problem in an efficient and timely manor.  traffic jams will completely disappear as they are also caused by inefficient human actions.  i was a professional driver for 0 years and i love driving, and will miss it dearly, but i can not wait for the day when self driving cars are mandatory so the idiots on the road that cause all the problems are removed.   #  they replace up to twelve years of daily pills.   #  that is not really related to sysiphean is argument.  it is definitely easier to take  one  pill than to have someone put a device in your uterus.  but iuds do not replace a single pill.  they replace up to twelve years of daily pills.  that is more than 0k pills.  plus worrying about taking them every day, renewing prescriptions, all of that for years.  i think from that comparison, it is more a matter of preference in terms of which is easier.  and there is no question which is more effective by a wide margin.   #  it was also really, really expensive to operate.   # i mean, it flew really  fast  which was great, but it was pretty terrible at every other aspect of aviation.  it was  extremely  loud, horrible inefficient in terms of fuel, and passengers experienced intense vibrations throughout the flight.  it was also really, really expensive to operate.  anyway, these things can be accepted since it was the first supersonic passenger plane, but i would not go so far as to say it was this technological masterpiece.  i mean, a normal boeing 0 flies at about mach 0.  the concord upped it to just a hair above mach 0, but at the cost of using 0 times the fuel and making 0 times the noise.  it was not worth the 0 increase in speed  #  0 they cited low passenger numbers following the 0 july 0 crash, the slump in air travel following the september 0, 0 attacks, and rising maintenance costs.   #  on 0 april 0, air france and british airways simultaneously announced that they would retire concorde later that year.  0 they cited low passenger numbers following the 0 july 0 crash, the slump in air travel following the september 0, 0 attacks, and rising maintenance costs.  although concorde was technologically advanced when introduced in the 0s, 0 years later, its analogue cockpit was dated.  there had been little commercial pressure to upgrade concorde due to a lack of competing aircraft, unlike other airliners of the same era such as the boeing 0.  0 by its retirement, it was the last aircraft in british airways  fleet that had a flight engineer; other aircraft, such as the modernised 0 0, had eliminated the role.  0 on 0 april 0, virgin atlantic founder sir richard branson announced that the company was interested in purchasing british airways  concorde fleet for their nominal original price of £0 us$0 in april 0 each.  0 0 british airways dismissed the idea, prompting virgin to increase their offer to £0 million each.  0 0 branson claimed that when ba was privatised, a clause in the agreement required them to allow another british airline to operate concorde if ba ceased to do so, but the government denied the existence of such a clause.  0 in october 0, branson wrote in the economist that his final offer was  over £0 million  and that he had intended to operate the fleet  for many years to come .  0 the chances for keeping concorde in service were stifled by airbus is lack of support for continued maintenance.  0 0 n 0 it has been suggested that concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of concorde that the airlines could make more profit carrying first class passengers subsonically.  0 a lack of commitment to concorde from director of engineering alan macdonald was cited as having undermined ba is resolve to continue operating concorde.  a 0  year plane with analog systems and too expensive to maintain was perfect ?  #  even copper iuds are still more than 0 times more effective than the pill.   #  several of my non american friends and one ex use them.  iuds with progestogen have a . 0 failure rate with typical use, compared to a 0 failure rate of the pill.  that is 0 times more effective.  even copper iuds are still more than 0 times more effective than the pill.  only implants or surgical sterilization are more, or even comparably effective.  there is no need to remember pills, travel with them or get them renewed.  are you referring to side effects ? hormonal birth control has the largest number of potential side effects.  you may have had a bad experience, but that would make you a statistical outlier.
i work with children in an afterschool program for disadvantaged youth.  most of my kids are about 0.  i never imagined i would like working with children, because i believed they would not be logical enough for me to enjoy talking to that sounds incredibly snobby, but really, we all like conversations to more or less make sense .  after spending a few months in the classroom, mostly helping kids with homework, i started to feel that most of the disadvantaged, poverty ridden kids were quite a bit smarter and more logical than i was.  most of our kids are english language learners.  i often found myself describing common words to them, and they would rephrase it back until we reached the point of clearly talking about the same thing because i do not speak their language .  i tried to describe a boat once:  a boat floats in the ocean or rivers, and can carry people and things.  it can have sails or paddles to move.   the child i was speaking to then asked if logs were a kind of boat.  i said they were not, realizing they did fall into my definition.  i explained boats were man made, and she told me logs were too they are cut down trees .  this went on for some time, and i did eventually convey what a boat was, and she was able to explain it far better than i did although unfortunately i do not remember her wording .  this type of thing happens all the time, and not just with defining words.  i am  smart;  high iq, good grades in school, high sat score, blah blah, but  average  kids outsmart me all the time.  i think people assume kids are not very logical because kids often reach incorrect conclusions, but those conclusions make a lot of sense if you have the knowledge level of a child.  for example, a friend commented to me how she knew a guy who set a field on fire as a young kid.  he wanted to make a campfire in a grassy field.  he drew a circle with a stick in the dirt, and built his fire, assuming the circle would contain the fire.  of course, it did not, because there was grass on both sides of the circle.  it burned the whole field.  silly kid ! except, not from his perspective.  he saw his parents make campfires lots of times before.  they always drew a circle around the fire area and explained to him that he must not stand inside the circle, but outside it he was safe from its reach.  sometimes they cleared away plants near the circle, but not always because sometimes it was already clear, but he would not know this was why .  their campfires never spread.  naturally, he assumed the thing they always did prevented the thing that never happened, not the thing they only sometimes did.  if you did not know how fire worked or what was flammable and he would probably never seen grass burn , the hypothesis that the circle somehow prevented the fire from spreading is not too crazy.  what hypothesis makes more sense, given the knowledge he had ? this is just one example, but i do not feel the need to waste your time with more.  i think kids are pretty smart and reasonable thinkers, even if their brains are far from fully developed.  we usually think they are not, because we do not understand their perspectives well.  cmv !  #  but  average  kids outsmart me all the time.   #  well, knowledge can make you complacent and some adults might have been actually more curious and sceptical in their childhood.   # well, knowledge can make you complacent and some adults might have been actually more curious and sceptical in their childhood.  i would claim that in the 0s/0s it is mostly lack of motivation, because you have other stuff to worry about and that it is to some extent even culturally expected to not scrutinize everything.  define  pretty smart .  let there be a complicated logic puzzle that a person can solve in their adulthood in 0 0 hours.  it does not require any specific knowledge and the person did not practice such types of logic puzzles in any way.  do you claim that the person would have been able to solve that puzzle in the same amount of time as a child ?  #  there is no reason to believe a line in the dirt has magical fire stopping properties, correlation equals causation, etc.   #  in your fire example, it is logical from a kid is perspective but it is illogical in every other respect.  what is intrinsic about drawing a line that stops a fire ? you said  he thought a line  somehow  must stop it.   that  somehow  is a flawed bit of logic.  there is no reason to believe a line in the dirt has magical fire stopping properties, correlation equals causation, etc.  it is logic, but it is poor logic, so it certainly does not demonstrate that kids are more logical than us.  as for your word definition situation, that is not amazing logic, that is merely responding to your inadequate definition of  boat.   good logic would be understanding what a boat was from your initial description.   well,  good logic would say,  a log could carry people but it would not be particularly good at it.  it does not have sails or paddles.  also it is man made but not for that purpose.    #  even though i have been taking it nearly every time i get anything more than a mild headache, so i have no idea if perhaps my moderate to severe headaches simply take about 0 minutes to go away.   #  do adults do better ? particularly in the fire example, i mean.  i feel like a lot of what we do is rule governed without actually considering why it works.  we thought drilling holes in people is skulls treated mental illness and that leeches were a great medical treatment and yes, i know leeches are still workable to drain blood in specific circumstances, but no one uses them for fevers and colds .  there was never any evidence for this other than  people do this and get better,  post hoc ergo propter hoc, yay logic ! i do not know why advil works, but i believe it makes my headaches better.  i would still believe this even if a study revealed advil does not work.  i would say  but it works on me, even if on average it does not work.   even though i have been taking it nearly every time i get anything more than a mild headache, so i have no idea if perhaps my moderate to severe headaches simply take about 0 minutes to go away.  my point with the word definition was not so much that the child had it on lock; it was that i was not doing any better, and most people probably would not either just from my observations of many others doing the same sort of thing, and struggling similarly .  admittedly, it is not a strong example.  i do not think i conveyed what i meant to with it.   #  what you are arguing is that they are not illogical, and that in fact they are more logical than adults.   #  what you are arguing is that they are not illogical, and that in fact they are more logical than adults.  i do not think you have demonstrated that.  what you have demonstrated, i think, is that they attempt to  apply  logic more than adults, but that logic is not very sound, which still makes them illogical.  i do not deny that adults are just as guilty.  take prayer for example.  in my opinion, it is unreasonable and illogical to assume that because you prayed for something, and it happened, that your prayer had an effect on that.  it is following a train of logic, and a lot of people believe it, but how could it logically be true if both teams in a football game pray and only one wins ? or santa claus.  a lot of kids believe in santa claus.  they do not know any better, because logically to them, they think whatever a parent tells them is true.  but santa defies all of their previous expectations about how the world works.  how can a reindeer fly ? how can a man move so quickly ? how do the elves build playstations and xboxes in their toy factory and package it just like in the store ? if they were actually good at logic i think they would figure it out, but they do not.   #  so when we define things, it is always useful to remember that someone that does not know what you are talking about may get an entirely different idea based on how you are defining.   #  i would like to add on to that statement about  boat  being an inadequate definition, which probably does not get at why the kid considered a log, a boat.  the simple fact is that you are explaining something in a form that seems sufficient to you, but ignores your preconceptions as to what it is.  definitions are everything.  taking from my experience in computer science, think of a set.  you would never consider an empty set or a set of 0 object fitting the defintion, but you could depending on how you define set.  think about explaining shapes.  one might easily say that it is illogical to consider a square a separate shape, after all, it is just a special rectangle.  as a categorization system, it is fairly weird to have squares as a separate shape when equilateral triangles are still triangles.  it is just an arbitrary choice we made at some point that was never changed.  so when we define things, it is always useful to remember that someone that does not know what you are talking about may get an entirely different idea based on how you are defining.  this has less to do with being a child and more to do with being a blank slate, unexposed to societal preconceptions.  because of this, they are forced to consider things based solely on what little information they have.
in short, i see it as furthering the class divide.  children, and i lose that term extremely loosely, who come from better off families that have health insurance and can afford to pay the family policy rate are subsidized by this rule.  meanwhile their peers who come from less well to do families do not have the opportunity to have cheap/free healthcare like this.  it is one thing to let a 0 year old be on his parent is policy, but it is way different to let a 0 year old do the same.  by that time you are on your own and competing in the world.  staying on your parents policy gives you an unfair advantage.  and yes, i know that there are dozens of other factors that stop kids from different classes from competing on a level playing field.  i just do not think a law should have been enacted that enables that unfairness to extended and facilitated so easily.   #  children, and i lose that term extremely loosely, who come from better off families that have health insurance and can afford to pay the family policy rate are subsidized by this rule.   #  meanwhile their peers who come from less well to do families do not have the opportunity to have cheap/free healthcare like this.   # meanwhile their peers who come from less well to do families do not have the opportunity to have cheap/free healthcare like this.  there is a hole in your logic.  children of well to do families usually have an easier time finding a good job with good benefits.  children of lower income families often lack the connections to get in above entry level.  being on a family plan allows you extra time to get more education and find a better job.  what is the unfair advantage ? if you have a job with benefits and are competing in the world, you will have your own health insurance.   #  yes, it is not a perfect plan, but if you are going to stick with a market based health care plan, you have to find ways to combat those who are the most price adverse, and avoid buying health insurance.   #  extending coverage and allowing children to stay on their parent is healthcare plans was not designed to level the playing field; it was designed to balance the risk pool.  the short and skinny of it is health insurance providers need younger healthy kids to be paying in for a service that they will use occasionally, in order to balance out the older, less healthy individuals who are using health care at a higher frequency.  one of the problems is that some people in this 0 0 year old bracket do not see the value in owning health insurance.  these  young invincibles  will opt out of buying health insurance because  nothing bad will happen to me , and that extra cash has plenty of other places to go.  so how do you convince young adults who think healthcare is a waste of money ? offer them the same  free  healthcare they have had growing up by keeping them on their parent is plan.  yes, it is not a perfect plan, but if you are going to stick with a market based health care plan, you have to find ways to combat those who are the most price adverse, and avoid buying health insurance.  failing to pay for healthcare provided when it is actually needed drives up the cost for all of us.   #  this allows me to take this contracting job, which pays well enough to move out etc.   # as for dependent vs.  non dependent, i am just going off of the irs is definition.  my contracting company does not offer a plan with catastrophic insurance, which coincidentally is the only insurance i care for.  i ride my bike to commute, and i would love to know if a car runs a red light and wrecks me i am covered.  my employers do not offer such care.  so i pay my parents for my premium costs.  this allows me to take this contracting job, which pays well enough to move out etc.  while i hunt through this shitty market for a job with decent benefits.   #  when you start lumping 0 year olds, who are significantly more expensive to insure, with 0 year olds who are very cheap, you wind up with higher premiums and more expensive family policies.   #  i am pretty ambivalent to that aspect of the law; however, there is one aspect to it that i do find alarming.  traditionally, dependent coverage has been cheap because children are so low risk to insure wellness exams and vaccinations are very cheap .  the risk profile of an 0 0 year old is significantly higher, especially when you factor in maternity coverage.  when you start lumping 0 year olds, who are significantly more expensive to insure, with 0 year olds who are very cheap, you wind up with higher premiums and more expensive family policies.  when coupled with the aca that defines  affordability  based on individual coverage, you create all kinds of perverse incentives for employers to stop covering and at least stop subsidizing premiums of dependents.   #  seems like it is only a win for poorer folks.   #  i am not sure how this is not actually more of an advantage to poorer people.  according to obamacare,  everyone , including that poor kids parents, is required to have insurance.  everyone has access to those lower rates, but who is more advantaged by that ? rich 0 year olds and their parents are  more  likely to have previously been able to afford separate insurance for themselves.  the poor 0 year olds would have previously been going with  no  insurance because they could not afford it.  now they have access to their parents insurance at a reduced rate.  before obamacare: rich kids got insurance, poor kids could not afford it.  after obamacare: rich kids still get insurance though less expensively from their parents, and poor kids actually get it affordably enough from their parents.  seems like it is only a win for poorer folks.
i think sex ed in america has the same problem as most issues: it is too extreme.  people advocate either teaching abstinence only until you are married under all circumstances or handing out free condoms and birth control and telling kids to go at it because it is their right and it is fun.  personally, i think any responsible organization ought to inform students of reproductive health issues and explain how you can contract an std or get pregnant.  however, i feel like the risks of sex as a teenager far outweigh the rewards.  obviously, sexual exploration is a healthy and normal thing, and from experience, it can be quite fun.  however, i do not believe that the average high school student has the maturity to weigh this against the multitude of consequences of their behavior.  sure, there is birth control, abortion, and methods of protecting yourself from disease, but they are not 0 effective.  furthermore, birth control, condoms, etc.  are only effective when used properly and responsibly.  what did you do completely responsibly when you were 0 ? lastly, i think everyone always ignores the emotional consequences of sexual activity and how it can go wrong.  i just think if you weigh things logically, the risks outweigh the rewards of young people having sex, and that should be imparted to them.  cmv please.   #  people advocate either teaching abstinence only until you are married under all circumstances or handing out free condoms and birth control and telling kids to go at it because it is their right and it is fun.   #  have you taken a sex ed course in america somewhere other than the south ?  # have you taken a sex ed course in america somewhere other than the south ? i know abstinence only exists, but no program simply  hands out free condoms and birth control and tells kids to go at it .  i took sex ed in washington state and we learned all about the reproductive anatomy and the risks associated with sex.  we were even taught that abstinence is the only way to be 0 safe, but then taught the ways to have safe sex since they know some are going to do it.  we learned all of these things.  you know what ? you are right.  but not teaching them how to have safe sex when they are going to do it anyway is a good way to make the consequences worse.  teaching abstinence has historically never resulted in a class of students who were 0 abstinent.  it just resulted in a class of students who knew nothing about safe sex.  are only effective when used properly and responsibly.  exactly, so why not teach teenagers how to use them responsibly ? are you really pro abstinence but then reminding us that birth control is only effective when people know how to use it ? you just changed your own view.   #  i am not saying that sex is bad, or that god will smite me with lightning bolts if i dare disagree.   #  before you criticize the  terrible  education we get in  the south  why do not you look at school rankings ? here is a nice link: URL and here is another link that shows we do marginally better in teen pregnancy than washington state: URL before you decide to judge me on a geographical stereotype why do not you look at numbers.  we have excellent colleges like uva and w m too.  but apparently we are backwards.  you spent several hundred words agreeing with me, but then bristled at my conclusions.  also i do not propose abstinence only.  i do not know why you said i did, because you quoted my post saying i propose the opposite.  i am not saying that sex is bad, or that god will smite me with lightning bolts if i dare disagree.  i am just saying that risks outweigh rewards, and that kids might be swayed by a logical representation of this.   #  and both of those schools are in the more liberal areas of va.   #  to be fair, va could be two completely different states as far as culture goes.  the northern half is much more liberal than the south which is much more conservative.  and both of those schools are in the more liberal areas of va.  but anyway, as you have already pointed out teenagers make bad decisions.  and they are notoriously bad at weighing how in the moment decision effect long term outcomes.  this is why we at least should give them all options to protect themselves.   #  considering the fact that using birth control and a condom makes sex about as risky as driving a car.   # considering the fact that using birth control and a condom makes sex about as risky as driving a car.  what you are saying is to me like saying the risks involved with driving a car far outweigh the rewards.  it just sounds silly.  are only effective when used properly and responsibly.  this does not at weight to the argument that sex ed is bad.  the bottom line is that kids are going to have sex whether or not you tell them how to do it safely.  you will avoid more unwanted pregnancy and stds by teaching kids how to avoid them rather than just telling them to have sex which the majority of teenagers will pay no attention to .   #  not all of my friends are having sex or misusing contraceptives and very few if any side affects exist that i have seen.   #  educating teenagers about abstinence does not prevent them from having sex, in fact it makes sex more dangerous, as many misconceptions are created by confused and curious teenagers if they are not properly educated.  i realise that you understand this in your argument to some extent, however the fact is that telling kids they should not have sex has never and will never work, so there must be other methods to explore if you want kids to not have sex.  secondly, i can speak as a hs student that you would be surprised by how mature we can be.  you probably see kids around your neighbourhood getting into trouble and doing what all kids do, but do not underestimate how grown up we can act sometimes, especially if we are fully educated on such matters as safe sex.  just the other day my friend got one of those contraceptive implants in her arm because she recently became sexually active with her boyfriend.  i go to a very left wing type school that teaches children about condoms and other contraceptives, and the fact is that it works.  not all of my friends are having sex or misusing contraceptives and very few if any side affects exist that i have seen.  i think the key is that if we underestimate how mature teenagers can be, sure there are teenagers that get up to some stupid shit and act like little children, but are adults really  that  much better ? so how about we teach kids about safe sex, accept that there is no moral and effective way of preventing them from having sex and accept that like adults some will fuck it up, but that is the best we can do.
i think sex ed in america has the same problem as most issues: it is too extreme.  people advocate either teaching abstinence only until you are married under all circumstances or handing out free condoms and birth control and telling kids to go at it because it is their right and it is fun.  personally, i think any responsible organization ought to inform students of reproductive health issues and explain how you can contract an std or get pregnant.  however, i feel like the risks of sex as a teenager far outweigh the rewards.  obviously, sexual exploration is a healthy and normal thing, and from experience, it can be quite fun.  however, i do not believe that the average high school student has the maturity to weigh this against the multitude of consequences of their behavior.  sure, there is birth control, abortion, and methods of protecting yourself from disease, but they are not 0 effective.  furthermore, birth control, condoms, etc.  are only effective when used properly and responsibly.  what did you do completely responsibly when you were 0 ? lastly, i think everyone always ignores the emotional consequences of sexual activity and how it can go wrong.  i just think if you weigh things logically, the risks outweigh the rewards of young people having sex, and that should be imparted to them.  cmv please.   #  however, i feel like the risks of sex as a teenager far outweigh the rewards.   #  considering the fact that using birth control and a condom makes sex about as risky as driving a car.   # considering the fact that using birth control and a condom makes sex about as risky as driving a car.  what you are saying is to me like saying the risks involved with driving a car far outweigh the rewards.  it just sounds silly.  are only effective when used properly and responsibly.  this does not at weight to the argument that sex ed is bad.  the bottom line is that kids are going to have sex whether or not you tell them how to do it safely.  you will avoid more unwanted pregnancy and stds by teaching kids how to avoid them rather than just telling them to have sex which the majority of teenagers will pay no attention to .   #  exactly, so why not teach teenagers how to use them responsibly ?  # have you taken a sex ed course in america somewhere other than the south ? i know abstinence only exists, but no program simply  hands out free condoms and birth control and tells kids to go at it .  i took sex ed in washington state and we learned all about the reproductive anatomy and the risks associated with sex.  we were even taught that abstinence is the only way to be 0 safe, but then taught the ways to have safe sex since they know some are going to do it.  we learned all of these things.  you know what ? you are right.  but not teaching them how to have safe sex when they are going to do it anyway is a good way to make the consequences worse.  teaching abstinence has historically never resulted in a class of students who were 0 abstinent.  it just resulted in a class of students who knew nothing about safe sex.  are only effective when used properly and responsibly.  exactly, so why not teach teenagers how to use them responsibly ? are you really pro abstinence but then reminding us that birth control is only effective when people know how to use it ? you just changed your own view.   #  before you criticize the  terrible  education we get in  the south  why do not you look at school rankings ?  #  before you criticize the  terrible  education we get in  the south  why do not you look at school rankings ? here is a nice link: URL and here is another link that shows we do marginally better in teen pregnancy than washington state: URL before you decide to judge me on a geographical stereotype why do not you look at numbers.  we have excellent colleges like uva and w m too.  but apparently we are backwards.  you spent several hundred words agreeing with me, but then bristled at my conclusions.  also i do not propose abstinence only.  i do not know why you said i did, because you quoted my post saying i propose the opposite.  i am not saying that sex is bad, or that god will smite me with lightning bolts if i dare disagree.  i am just saying that risks outweigh rewards, and that kids might be swayed by a logical representation of this.   #  and they are notoriously bad at weighing how in the moment decision effect long term outcomes.   #  to be fair, va could be two completely different states as far as culture goes.  the northern half is much more liberal than the south which is much more conservative.  and both of those schools are in the more liberal areas of va.  but anyway, as you have already pointed out teenagers make bad decisions.  and they are notoriously bad at weighing how in the moment decision effect long term outcomes.  this is why we at least should give them all options to protect themselves.   #  i think the key is that if we underestimate how mature teenagers can be, sure there are teenagers that get up to some stupid shit and act like little children, but are adults really  that  much better ?  #  educating teenagers about abstinence does not prevent them from having sex, in fact it makes sex more dangerous, as many misconceptions are created by confused and curious teenagers if they are not properly educated.  i realise that you understand this in your argument to some extent, however the fact is that telling kids they should not have sex has never and will never work, so there must be other methods to explore if you want kids to not have sex.  secondly, i can speak as a hs student that you would be surprised by how mature we can be.  you probably see kids around your neighbourhood getting into trouble and doing what all kids do, but do not underestimate how grown up we can act sometimes, especially if we are fully educated on such matters as safe sex.  just the other day my friend got one of those contraceptive implants in her arm because she recently became sexually active with her boyfriend.  i go to a very left wing type school that teaches children about condoms and other contraceptives, and the fact is that it works.  not all of my friends are having sex or misusing contraceptives and very few if any side affects exist that i have seen.  i think the key is that if we underestimate how mature teenagers can be, sure there are teenagers that get up to some stupid shit and act like little children, but are adults really  that  much better ? so how about we teach kids about safe sex, accept that there is no moral and effective way of preventing them from having sex and accept that like adults some will fuck it up, but that is the best we can do.
i think sex ed in america has the same problem as most issues: it is too extreme.  people advocate either teaching abstinence only until you are married under all circumstances or handing out free condoms and birth control and telling kids to go at it because it is their right and it is fun.  personally, i think any responsible organization ought to inform students of reproductive health issues and explain how you can contract an std or get pregnant.  however, i feel like the risks of sex as a teenager far outweigh the rewards.  obviously, sexual exploration is a healthy and normal thing, and from experience, it can be quite fun.  however, i do not believe that the average high school student has the maturity to weigh this against the multitude of consequences of their behavior.  sure, there is birth control, abortion, and methods of protecting yourself from disease, but they are not 0 effective.  furthermore, birth control, condoms, etc.  are only effective when used properly and responsibly.  what did you do completely responsibly when you were 0 ? lastly, i think everyone always ignores the emotional consequences of sexual activity and how it can go wrong.  i just think if you weigh things logically, the risks outweigh the rewards of young people having sex, and that should be imparted to them.  cmv please.   #  lastly, i think everyone always ignores the emotional consequences of sexual activity and how it can go wrong.   #  i think you are overestimating the consequences.   # i think you are overestimating the consequences.  i lost my virginity at 0 and afterwards i thought:  well we have got that over with… what was the big deal ?  .  i think the overwhelming attention that the concept of virginity gets especially in the us is not helping at all.  movies about high school boys obsessively trying to lose their virginity before going to college, girls being told to  isave themselves  until marriage, and in the most extreme cases those creepy  purity balls .  let is just teach kids that sex is natural and their virginity does not mean anything special, but that when they start having sex it should be in a responsible way.  the current situation of obsession   taboo is not a good recipe.   #  exactly, so why not teach teenagers how to use them responsibly ?  # have you taken a sex ed course in america somewhere other than the south ? i know abstinence only exists, but no program simply  hands out free condoms and birth control and tells kids to go at it .  i took sex ed in washington state and we learned all about the reproductive anatomy and the risks associated with sex.  we were even taught that abstinence is the only way to be 0 safe, but then taught the ways to have safe sex since they know some are going to do it.  we learned all of these things.  you know what ? you are right.  but not teaching them how to have safe sex when they are going to do it anyway is a good way to make the consequences worse.  teaching abstinence has historically never resulted in a class of students who were 0 abstinent.  it just resulted in a class of students who knew nothing about safe sex.  are only effective when used properly and responsibly.  exactly, so why not teach teenagers how to use them responsibly ? are you really pro abstinence but then reminding us that birth control is only effective when people know how to use it ? you just changed your own view.   #  we have excellent colleges like uva and w m too.   #  before you criticize the  terrible  education we get in  the south  why do not you look at school rankings ? here is a nice link: URL and here is another link that shows we do marginally better in teen pregnancy than washington state: URL before you decide to judge me on a geographical stereotype why do not you look at numbers.  we have excellent colleges like uva and w m too.  but apparently we are backwards.  you spent several hundred words agreeing with me, but then bristled at my conclusions.  also i do not propose abstinence only.  i do not know why you said i did, because you quoted my post saying i propose the opposite.  i am not saying that sex is bad, or that god will smite me with lightning bolts if i dare disagree.  i am just saying that risks outweigh rewards, and that kids might be swayed by a logical representation of this.   #  to be fair, va could be two completely different states as far as culture goes.   #  to be fair, va could be two completely different states as far as culture goes.  the northern half is much more liberal than the south which is much more conservative.  and both of those schools are in the more liberal areas of va.  but anyway, as you have already pointed out teenagers make bad decisions.  and they are notoriously bad at weighing how in the moment decision effect long term outcomes.  this is why we at least should give them all options to protect themselves.   #  considering the fact that using birth control and a condom makes sex about as risky as driving a car.   # considering the fact that using birth control and a condom makes sex about as risky as driving a car.  what you are saying is to me like saying the risks involved with driving a car far outweigh the rewards.  it just sounds silly.  are only effective when used properly and responsibly.  this does not at weight to the argument that sex ed is bad.  the bottom line is that kids are going to have sex whether or not you tell them how to do it safely.  you will avoid more unwanted pregnancy and stds by teaching kids how to avoid them rather than just telling them to have sex which the majority of teenagers will pay no attention to .
let me elaborate more.  i do not think anyone ever  asks to be raped .  but i think if you dress like a whore you increase your chances.  so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances.  women are always saying that they should not be treated like sexual objects yet they constantly dressing in a way that makes men or maybe just me see them as objects.  i am not saying dressing  nicer  clothes will stop rape, but it could not hurt.  this is my current view.  i am not stubborn so i want people to change my mind.  i just have not been convinced.  my comeback is always,  why put yourself in that position .   i do not want to get mugged, so i better avoid that alley .  thanks.   #  but i think if you dress like a whore you increase your chances.   #  so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances.   # so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances.  muslim women with only their eyes visible get raped relatively often.  also there has never been a study done, that i know of, that showed a good correlation between  slutieness  and getting raped.  a much stronger correlation is intoxication.   i do not want to get mugged, so i better avoid that alley .  thanks.  again how you dress is not putting yourself in the situation.  if you really want something to credit its usually alcohol.   #  so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances this is actually not true.   #  there is been a few threads on this topic recently, have you tried doing a search ? here is two similar threads from the past few days: URL URL   but i think if you dress like a whore you increase your chances.  so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances this is actually not true.  if you look at the responses to one of my comments in the linked threads, someone provide a source that contradicts this claim.  the vast majority of rape occurs between people who know each other, and rapists are less likely to go after women who appear confident and women who are dressed up tend to show more confidence.  dressing down can make one look more insecure, which makes them a better target  #  can anyone find the actual source article, as that would probably go a lot further to answering op is question ?  #  the reference in question states  while people perceive dress to have an impact on who is assaulted, studies of rapists suggest that victim attire is not a significant factor .  the source appears to be a law journal which quotes an article that is not easily retrievable.  my question would be why it states  suggest.   not something stronger like  studies of rapists show that victim attire is not a significant factor .  it almost feels like the author is playing word games to support their view with out actually committing to anything yeah lawyers actually do this .  can anyone find the actual source article, as that would probably go a lot further to answering op is question ?  #  if i am looking for sex and  asking for it , i am not asking to be raped.   # i think the issue is not that women do not want to be treated as sexual objects.  it is that we do not want to be raped and then told it is because of what we wore.  i am a woman.  say i wear a dress to the club that barely covers my ass and tits.  maybe i just like to show off my body, maybe i am looking for sex consensual, btw that night, maybe my friends dress slutty and i feel a peer pressure to dress just as slutty.  who knows, you do not know every motivation.  if i am looking for sex and  asking for it , i am not asking to be raped.  i am asking for guys interested to maybe talk to me first ? if i am interested as well, maybe we will have sex.  if i say no, it is a no and it does not matter how sexy i am dressed anymore it was a no, you are not interesting me.  basically, if a women gets raped and she was wearing slutty clothes, sure it might have contributed.  but does it mean she went out that night wanting to have sex ? does it mean the guy is any less of a terrible person ? nope.  in fact, it means the guy is scummy and an embarrassment to all males everywhere.  tldr: if women want to dress sexy, it should not change their  rapeablility  and should definitely not be called out as the reason they got raped.  they got raped because a man decided to rape them.   #  are women who get acquainted with men asking for it ?  #  what is  dressing like a whore  ? in the victorian period, showing any cleavage was outrageous and provocative.  in saudi arabi, wearing a hijab is basically enforced.  your view amounts to saying  women should obey all cultural constraints imposed on them and deserve any consequences when they do not.   should people always minimize risk of violence being committed against them ? are people who do not do everything in their power  asking for it  ? most rapes are committed amongst people who know each other.  are women who get acquainted with men asking for it ? alaska is the state with the highest per capita incidence of rape.  are all women who choose to live in alaska asking for it ? you are much more likely to die if you ride a motorcycle instead of driving.  if someone dies in a motorcycle accident, were they asking for it ? should we try to make roads safer for motorcyclists and educate the public about driving safely around motorcycles, or should we tell people to stop riding motorcycles ? rape has steadily declined in the us in the last few decades while women is dress, arguably, has become more liberal.  of all the things we can do to prevent rape, telling women to dress a certain way is not only victim blaming, it is shitty advice.
let me elaborate more.  i do not think anyone ever  asks to be raped .  but i think if you dress like a whore you increase your chances.  so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances.  women are always saying that they should not be treated like sexual objects yet they constantly dressing in a way that makes men or maybe just me see them as objects.  i am not saying dressing  nicer  clothes will stop rape, but it could not hurt.  this is my current view.  i am not stubborn so i want people to change my mind.  i just have not been convinced.  my comeback is always,  why put yourself in that position .   i do not want to get mugged, so i better avoid that alley .  thanks.   #  my comeback is always,  why put yourself in that position .   #   i do not want to get mugged, so i better avoid that alley .   # so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances.  muslim women with only their eyes visible get raped relatively often.  also there has never been a study done, that i know of, that showed a good correlation between  slutieness  and getting raped.  a much stronger correlation is intoxication.   i do not want to get mugged, so i better avoid that alley .  thanks.  again how you dress is not putting yourself in the situation.  if you really want something to credit its usually alcohol.   #  the vast majority of rape occurs between people who know each other, and rapists are less likely to go after women who appear confident and women who are dressed up tend to show more confidence.   #  there is been a few threads on this topic recently, have you tried doing a search ? here is two similar threads from the past few days: URL URL   but i think if you dress like a whore you increase your chances.  so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances this is actually not true.  if you look at the responses to one of my comments in the linked threads, someone provide a source that contradicts this claim.  the vast majority of rape occurs between people who know each other, and rapists are less likely to go after women who appear confident and women who are dressed up tend to show more confidence.  dressing down can make one look more insecure, which makes them a better target  #  the source appears to be a law journal which quotes an article that is not easily retrievable.   #  the reference in question states  while people perceive dress to have an impact on who is assaulted, studies of rapists suggest that victim attire is not a significant factor .  the source appears to be a law journal which quotes an article that is not easily retrievable.  my question would be why it states  suggest.   not something stronger like  studies of rapists show that victim attire is not a significant factor .  it almost feels like the author is playing word games to support their view with out actually committing to anything yeah lawyers actually do this .  can anyone find the actual source article, as that would probably go a lot further to answering op is question ?  #  i think the issue is not that women do not want to be treated as sexual objects.   # i think the issue is not that women do not want to be treated as sexual objects.  it is that we do not want to be raped and then told it is because of what we wore.  i am a woman.  say i wear a dress to the club that barely covers my ass and tits.  maybe i just like to show off my body, maybe i am looking for sex consensual, btw that night, maybe my friends dress slutty and i feel a peer pressure to dress just as slutty.  who knows, you do not know every motivation.  if i am looking for sex and  asking for it , i am not asking to be raped.  i am asking for guys interested to maybe talk to me first ? if i am interested as well, maybe we will have sex.  if i say no, it is a no and it does not matter how sexy i am dressed anymore it was a no, you are not interesting me.  basically, if a women gets raped and she was wearing slutty clothes, sure it might have contributed.  but does it mean she went out that night wanting to have sex ? does it mean the guy is any less of a terrible person ? nope.  in fact, it means the guy is scummy and an embarrassment to all males everywhere.  tldr: if women want to dress sexy, it should not change their  rapeablility  and should definitely not be called out as the reason they got raped.  they got raped because a man decided to rape them.   #  are women who get acquainted with men asking for it ?  #  what is  dressing like a whore  ? in the victorian period, showing any cleavage was outrageous and provocative.  in saudi arabi, wearing a hijab is basically enforced.  your view amounts to saying  women should obey all cultural constraints imposed on them and deserve any consequences when they do not.   should people always minimize risk of violence being committed against them ? are people who do not do everything in their power  asking for it  ? most rapes are committed amongst people who know each other.  are women who get acquainted with men asking for it ? alaska is the state with the highest per capita incidence of rape.  are all women who choose to live in alaska asking for it ? you are much more likely to die if you ride a motorcycle instead of driving.  if someone dies in a motorcycle accident, were they asking for it ? should we try to make roads safer for motorcyclists and educate the public about driving safely around motorcycles, or should we tell people to stop riding motorcycles ? rape has steadily declined in the us in the last few decades while women is dress, arguably, has become more liberal.  of all the things we can do to prevent rape, telling women to dress a certain way is not only victim blaming, it is shitty advice.
let me elaborate more.  i do not think anyone ever  asks to be raped .  but i think if you dress like a whore you increase your chances.  so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances.  women are always saying that they should not be treated like sexual objects yet they constantly dressing in a way that makes men or maybe just me see them as objects.  i am not saying dressing  nicer  clothes will stop rape, but it could not hurt.  this is my current view.  i am not stubborn so i want people to change my mind.  i just have not been convinced.  my comeback is always,  why put yourself in that position .   i do not want to get mugged, so i better avoid that alley .  thanks.   #  women are always saying that they should not be treated like sexual objects yet they constantly dressing in a way that makes men or maybe just me see them as objects.   #  i think the issue is not that women do not want to be treated as sexual objects.   # i think the issue is not that women do not want to be treated as sexual objects.  it is that we do not want to be raped and then told it is because of what we wore.  i am a woman.  say i wear a dress to the club that barely covers my ass and tits.  maybe i just like to show off my body, maybe i am looking for sex consensual, btw that night, maybe my friends dress slutty and i feel a peer pressure to dress just as slutty.  who knows, you do not know every motivation.  if i am looking for sex and  asking for it , i am not asking to be raped.  i am asking for guys interested to maybe talk to me first ? if i am interested as well, maybe we will have sex.  if i say no, it is a no and it does not matter how sexy i am dressed anymore it was a no, you are not interesting me.  basically, if a women gets raped and she was wearing slutty clothes, sure it might have contributed.  but does it mean she went out that night wanting to have sex ? does it mean the guy is any less of a terrible person ? nope.  in fact, it means the guy is scummy and an embarrassment to all males everywhere.  tldr: if women want to dress sexy, it should not change their  rapeablility  and should definitely not be called out as the reason they got raped.  they got raped because a man decided to rape them.   #  the vast majority of rape occurs between people who know each other, and rapists are less likely to go after women who appear confident and women who are dressed up tend to show more confidence.   #  there is been a few threads on this topic recently, have you tried doing a search ? here is two similar threads from the past few days: URL URL   but i think if you dress like a whore you increase your chances.  so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances this is actually not true.  if you look at the responses to one of my comments in the linked threads, someone provide a source that contradicts this claim.  the vast majority of rape occurs between people who know each other, and rapists are less likely to go after women who appear confident and women who are dressed up tend to show more confidence.  dressing down can make one look more insecure, which makes them a better target  #  can anyone find the actual source article, as that would probably go a lot further to answering op is question ?  #  the reference in question states  while people perceive dress to have an impact on who is assaulted, studies of rapists suggest that victim attire is not a significant factor .  the source appears to be a law journal which quotes an article that is not easily retrievable.  my question would be why it states  suggest.   not something stronger like  studies of rapists show that victim attire is not a significant factor .  it almost feels like the author is playing word games to support their view with out actually committing to anything yeah lawyers actually do this .  can anyone find the actual source article, as that would probably go a lot further to answering op is question ?  #  again how you dress is not putting yourself in the situation.   # so, if you dressed more conservative you reduce that chances.  muslim women with only their eyes visible get raped relatively often.  also there has never been a study done, that i know of, that showed a good correlation between  slutieness  and getting raped.  a much stronger correlation is intoxication.   i do not want to get mugged, so i better avoid that alley .  thanks.  again how you dress is not putting yourself in the situation.  if you really want something to credit its usually alcohol.   #  rape has steadily declined in the us in the last few decades while women is dress, arguably, has become more liberal.   #  what is  dressing like a whore  ? in the victorian period, showing any cleavage was outrageous and provocative.  in saudi arabi, wearing a hijab is basically enforced.  your view amounts to saying  women should obey all cultural constraints imposed on them and deserve any consequences when they do not.   should people always minimize risk of violence being committed against them ? are people who do not do everything in their power  asking for it  ? most rapes are committed amongst people who know each other.  are women who get acquainted with men asking for it ? alaska is the state with the highest per capita incidence of rape.  are all women who choose to live in alaska asking for it ? you are much more likely to die if you ride a motorcycle instead of driving.  if someone dies in a motorcycle accident, were they asking for it ? should we try to make roads safer for motorcyclists and educate the public about driving safely around motorcycles, or should we tell people to stop riding motorcycles ? rape has steadily declined in the us in the last few decades while women is dress, arguably, has become more liberal.  of all the things we can do to prevent rape, telling women to dress a certain way is not only victim blaming, it is shitty advice.
according to subreddits like /r/lostgeneration, the baby boomer generation is to blame for many things: the decline of unions, wages, benefits, and working conditions.  the rise of tuition costs.  on the flipside, they tend to lionize the so called  greatest generation  as if they had somehow set up a utopian society in the 0 is which was really only utopian for white, anglo saxon, protestant men and pretty shitty for everybody else and the baby boomers screwed it all up.  i think this rage is misplaced.  the generation known as the  baby boomers  are generally considered to be those who were born in a span of 0 years from 0 the end of world war ii to 0 the introduction of the oral contraceptive, i. e.   the pill  .  so, basically, today is 0 0 year olds.  the majority of anti baby boomer rage is directed at ronald reagan, despite the fact that he was born in 0 and thus nowhere near qualified to be considered a  baby boomer .  his vice president, george h. w.  bush, was born in 0.  given that most of congress is made up by those of advanced age, i fail to see how anyone can make the argument that the baby boomers had any kind of policy making power in the 0 is.  none of the policies reagan introduced can therefore possibly be blamed on the baby boomer generation.  we have only had three boomer presidents: bill clinton, george w.  bush, and barack obama.  though bush is policies are often cited as examples of boomer excess, nothing he did was really unique to his generation.  and there are just as many boomer politicians on the other side wanting a restoration of certain policies and laws.  i think what we are really seeing is a generational gap in which the world my generation the millenials is experiencing is not the same world our parents the boomers experienced.  the problem is that many boomers are still under the assumption that the world still operates the way it did up until the 0 is and 0 is.  that is where the disconnect and frustration comes, because the set of instructions the boomers gave us for life was written for a different world.  but are the boomers really responsible for changing that world ? i say no.  no because the world always changes.  world war ii destroyed the world is manufacturing base, leaving the us as largely the lone supplier of goods to the world.  this made us very, very rich and prosperous.  as other country is rebuilt their industries, we began to have more competition.  more specifically, the japanese caught us with our pants down by implementing the production methods honed by gilbreth, taylor, and others and eventually surpassing our quality.  additionally, automation has limited the need for manual labor jobs, causing a shift in the requirements for education.  all of these things would likely have happened with or without the baby boomers, and if they need to be blamed for anything, it is probably holding their children up to the same standard despite not realizing their children do not have the tools to live the same life they did.   #  we have only had three boomer presidents: bill clinton, george w.  bush, and barack obama.   #  though bush is policies are often cited as examples of boomer excess, nothing he did was really unique to his generation.   # his vice president, george h. w.  bush, was born in 0.  given that most of congress is made up by those of advanced age, i fail to see how anyone can make the argument that the baby boomers had any kind of policy making power in the 0 is.  none of the policies reagan introduced can therefore possibly be blamed on the baby boomer generation.  you make a good point and its worth clearing this up.  baby boomers almost crippled our economy i am aware of the generalization here, just bear with me  because  they did not question the policies of these men.  they just followed blindly until our economy got gutted and we entered into a massive recession.  though bush is policies are often cited as examples of boomer excess, nothing he did was really unique to his generation.  and there are just as many boomer politicians on the other side wanting a restoration of certain policies and laws.  this is not about presidents, this is about ceos, lobbyists, and congressmen.  each one of those presidents has made horrible decisions in office but the policy decisions that led to the 0 collapse were made by the policy makers.  these policy makers were not just the followers of reagen, they were not just republicans.  democrats fucked up too, and did so often.  we are the second generation in a row to be expected not to do as well as our parents.  we will earn less money have a lower standard of living and will remain in debt for over half of our lives.  damn right we are not experiencing the same world as the boomers.  that is where the disconnect and frustration comes, because the set of instructions the boomers gave us for life was written for a different world.  you are exactly right ! the problem is that they not only expect us to operate as if the world was still in the 0s, they make policy like it was.  that is  the issue and boy is it a doozy.  i say no.  no because the world always changes.  yes the world changes.  but the boomers have, by and large, failed to adapt.  they are leaving us in the lurch with mountains of debt and a broken economy all because they could not bother to admit that the social and economic policies developed 0 years ago  do not work  in this day and age.  and maybe it is just a matter of waiting it out but i do not think we can afford to wait.  again, i completely agree.  this has less to do with the boomers, but is still something they have failed to react to.  unions  exist  because manufacture became more efficient.  gutting the unions has left us with no system to deal with an automated workforce.   #  and then claim the answer is our personal moral failings are responsible.   #  a president does not represent the generation they were born in, they represent the generation that elects them into office.  reagan represented the boomer worldview.  now as for assigning blame, the millennial criticisms of the boomers is corrective.  the boomers say  why ca not you work hard and be successful like i was ?   and then claim the answer is our personal moral failings are responsible.  that young people do not want to work hard anymore due to participation trophies or some other bullshit.  they say this URL about us, and this URL about us.  they look at our generation is problems and say  it is all your fault  or  you are too entitled.   we are exactly the same as the boomer generation was when they were our age.  the world is different.  they refuse to recognize that because that means it is their responsibility to help instead of wanting lower taxes and better medicare benefits.   #  not that a real quote would not be hard to come across, but it does not really help your case as much when you use tv clips instead of actual information.   # the boomers say  why ca not you work hard and be successful like i was ?   and then claim the answer is our personal moral failings are responsible.  that young people do not want to work hard anymore due to participation trophies or some other bullshit.  this has been a statement made forever.  the previous generation, will always, to some extent, think the new one is either too hedonistic or lazy or entitled or what have you.  it is really nothing new.  do not take it too personally.  we will most likely be doing the same thing when we get their age.  they look at our generation is problems and say  it is all your fault  or  you are too entitled.   not that a real quote would not be hard to come across, but it does not really help your case as much when you use tv clips instead of actual information.  the world is different.  they refuse to recognize that because that means it is their responsibility to help instead of wanting lower taxes and better medicare benefits.  wanting better medicare is wrong now ? we wo not be young forever.  you may need medicare one day too.  additionally, while lower taxes were a staple of many recent conservative administrations, tax hikes have also been a real feature.  you ca not just judge an entire generation on one part of history and ignore the rest.  tax hikes took place under bush sr.  and clinton.  even reagan raised taxes 0 times after his cut in 0.   #  this means that right now the rate of boomers entering retirement is not the same as the rate of millennial entering the workforce, so the millennial/genx is burden is increasing in order to provide for them.   # we wo not be young forever.  you may need medicare one day too.  well the issues with medicare and baby boomers are   healthcare in u. s.  is very expensive, and 0 of the government is budget $0 billion went to medicare alone.  consider 0 of the budget also goes to social security, so you have over a third of the budget going to support retired or disabled citizens.  source URL   the baby boomers are called that because they were the product of a population boom.  the birth rates sharply decreased after.  this means that right now the rate of boomers entering retirement is not the same as the rate of millennial entering the workforce, so the millennial/genx is burden is increasing in order to provide for them.  these issues were not intentionally caused by the boomers, but they are certainly causing strain on later generations and the economic stress is an easy source of antipathy.   #  the problem is the desire, the  demand  for both.   # we wo not be young forever.  you may need medicare one day too.  the problem is not wanting better medicare, nor is the problem with wanting lower taxes.  the problem is the desire, the  demand  for both.   i want all the things, and i refuse to pay for them.   when you do that in the real world, you get your shit repossessed.  when you do that through the government, you put your children and grandchildren in debt.  you know, the same ones being dismissed and derided as useless.
according to subreddits like /r/lostgeneration, the baby boomer generation is to blame for many things: the decline of unions, wages, benefits, and working conditions.  the rise of tuition costs.  on the flipside, they tend to lionize the so called  greatest generation  as if they had somehow set up a utopian society in the 0 is which was really only utopian for white, anglo saxon, protestant men and pretty shitty for everybody else and the baby boomers screwed it all up.  i think this rage is misplaced.  the generation known as the  baby boomers  are generally considered to be those who were born in a span of 0 years from 0 the end of world war ii to 0 the introduction of the oral contraceptive, i. e.   the pill  .  so, basically, today is 0 0 year olds.  the majority of anti baby boomer rage is directed at ronald reagan, despite the fact that he was born in 0 and thus nowhere near qualified to be considered a  baby boomer .  his vice president, george h. w.  bush, was born in 0.  given that most of congress is made up by those of advanced age, i fail to see how anyone can make the argument that the baby boomers had any kind of policy making power in the 0 is.  none of the policies reagan introduced can therefore possibly be blamed on the baby boomer generation.  we have only had three boomer presidents: bill clinton, george w.  bush, and barack obama.  though bush is policies are often cited as examples of boomer excess, nothing he did was really unique to his generation.  and there are just as many boomer politicians on the other side wanting a restoration of certain policies and laws.  i think what we are really seeing is a generational gap in which the world my generation the millenials is experiencing is not the same world our parents the boomers experienced.  the problem is that many boomers are still under the assumption that the world still operates the way it did up until the 0 is and 0 is.  that is where the disconnect and frustration comes, because the set of instructions the boomers gave us for life was written for a different world.  but are the boomers really responsible for changing that world ? i say no.  no because the world always changes.  world war ii destroyed the world is manufacturing base, leaving the us as largely the lone supplier of goods to the world.  this made us very, very rich and prosperous.  as other country is rebuilt their industries, we began to have more competition.  more specifically, the japanese caught us with our pants down by implementing the production methods honed by gilbreth, taylor, and others and eventually surpassing our quality.  additionally, automation has limited the need for manual labor jobs, causing a shift in the requirements for education.  all of these things would likely have happened with or without the baby boomers, and if they need to be blamed for anything, it is probably holding their children up to the same standard despite not realizing their children do not have the tools to live the same life they did.   #  i think what we are really seeing is a generational gap in which the world my generation the millenials is experiencing is not the same world our parents the boomers experienced.   #  we are the second generation in a row to be expected not to do as well as our parents.   # his vice president, george h. w.  bush, was born in 0.  given that most of congress is made up by those of advanced age, i fail to see how anyone can make the argument that the baby boomers had any kind of policy making power in the 0 is.  none of the policies reagan introduced can therefore possibly be blamed on the baby boomer generation.  you make a good point and its worth clearing this up.  baby boomers almost crippled our economy i am aware of the generalization here, just bear with me  because  they did not question the policies of these men.  they just followed blindly until our economy got gutted and we entered into a massive recession.  though bush is policies are often cited as examples of boomer excess, nothing he did was really unique to his generation.  and there are just as many boomer politicians on the other side wanting a restoration of certain policies and laws.  this is not about presidents, this is about ceos, lobbyists, and congressmen.  each one of those presidents has made horrible decisions in office but the policy decisions that led to the 0 collapse were made by the policy makers.  these policy makers were not just the followers of reagen, they were not just republicans.  democrats fucked up too, and did so often.  we are the second generation in a row to be expected not to do as well as our parents.  we will earn less money have a lower standard of living and will remain in debt for over half of our lives.  damn right we are not experiencing the same world as the boomers.  that is where the disconnect and frustration comes, because the set of instructions the boomers gave us for life was written for a different world.  you are exactly right ! the problem is that they not only expect us to operate as if the world was still in the 0s, they make policy like it was.  that is  the issue and boy is it a doozy.  i say no.  no because the world always changes.  yes the world changes.  but the boomers have, by and large, failed to adapt.  they are leaving us in the lurch with mountains of debt and a broken economy all because they could not bother to admit that the social and economic policies developed 0 years ago  do not work  in this day and age.  and maybe it is just a matter of waiting it out but i do not think we can afford to wait.  again, i completely agree.  this has less to do with the boomers, but is still something they have failed to react to.  unions  exist  because manufacture became more efficient.  gutting the unions has left us with no system to deal with an automated workforce.   #  they refuse to recognize that because that means it is their responsibility to help instead of wanting lower taxes and better medicare benefits.   #  a president does not represent the generation they were born in, they represent the generation that elects them into office.  reagan represented the boomer worldview.  now as for assigning blame, the millennial criticisms of the boomers is corrective.  the boomers say  why ca not you work hard and be successful like i was ?   and then claim the answer is our personal moral failings are responsible.  that young people do not want to work hard anymore due to participation trophies or some other bullshit.  they say this URL about us, and this URL about us.  they look at our generation is problems and say  it is all your fault  or  you are too entitled.   we are exactly the same as the boomer generation was when they were our age.  the world is different.  they refuse to recognize that because that means it is their responsibility to help instead of wanting lower taxes and better medicare benefits.   #  you ca not just judge an entire generation on one part of history and ignore the rest.   # the boomers say  why ca not you work hard and be successful like i was ?   and then claim the answer is our personal moral failings are responsible.  that young people do not want to work hard anymore due to participation trophies or some other bullshit.  this has been a statement made forever.  the previous generation, will always, to some extent, think the new one is either too hedonistic or lazy or entitled or what have you.  it is really nothing new.  do not take it too personally.  we will most likely be doing the same thing when we get their age.  they look at our generation is problems and say  it is all your fault  or  you are too entitled.   not that a real quote would not be hard to come across, but it does not really help your case as much when you use tv clips instead of actual information.  the world is different.  they refuse to recognize that because that means it is their responsibility to help instead of wanting lower taxes and better medicare benefits.  wanting better medicare is wrong now ? we wo not be young forever.  you may need medicare one day too.  additionally, while lower taxes were a staple of many recent conservative administrations, tax hikes have also been a real feature.  you ca not just judge an entire generation on one part of history and ignore the rest.  tax hikes took place under bush sr.  and clinton.  even reagan raised taxes 0 times after his cut in 0.   #  well the issues with medicare and baby boomers are   healthcare in u. s.   # we wo not be young forever.  you may need medicare one day too.  well the issues with medicare and baby boomers are   healthcare in u. s.  is very expensive, and 0 of the government is budget $0 billion went to medicare alone.  consider 0 of the budget also goes to social security, so you have over a third of the budget going to support retired or disabled citizens.  source URL   the baby boomers are called that because they were the product of a population boom.  the birth rates sharply decreased after.  this means that right now the rate of boomers entering retirement is not the same as the rate of millennial entering the workforce, so the millennial/genx is burden is increasing in order to provide for them.  these issues were not intentionally caused by the boomers, but they are certainly causing strain on later generations and the economic stress is an easy source of antipathy.   #  you know, the same ones being dismissed and derided as useless.   # we wo not be young forever.  you may need medicare one day too.  the problem is not wanting better medicare, nor is the problem with wanting lower taxes.  the problem is the desire, the  demand  for both.   i want all the things, and i refuse to pay for them.   when you do that in the real world, you get your shit repossessed.  when you do that through the government, you put your children and grandchildren in debt.  you know, the same ones being dismissed and derided as useless.
according to subreddits like /r/lostgeneration, the baby boomer generation is to blame for many things: the decline of unions, wages, benefits, and working conditions.  the rise of tuition costs.  on the flipside, they tend to lionize the so called  greatest generation  as if they had somehow set up a utopian society in the 0 is which was really only utopian for white, anglo saxon, protestant men and pretty shitty for everybody else and the baby boomers screwed it all up.  i think this rage is misplaced.  the generation known as the  baby boomers  are generally considered to be those who were born in a span of 0 years from 0 the end of world war ii to 0 the introduction of the oral contraceptive, i. e.   the pill  .  so, basically, today is 0 0 year olds.  the majority of anti baby boomer rage is directed at ronald reagan, despite the fact that he was born in 0 and thus nowhere near qualified to be considered a  baby boomer .  his vice president, george h. w.  bush, was born in 0.  given that most of congress is made up by those of advanced age, i fail to see how anyone can make the argument that the baby boomers had any kind of policy making power in the 0 is.  none of the policies reagan introduced can therefore possibly be blamed on the baby boomer generation.  we have only had three boomer presidents: bill clinton, george w.  bush, and barack obama.  though bush is policies are often cited as examples of boomer excess, nothing he did was really unique to his generation.  and there are just as many boomer politicians on the other side wanting a restoration of certain policies and laws.  i think what we are really seeing is a generational gap in which the world my generation the millenials is experiencing is not the same world our parents the boomers experienced.  the problem is that many boomers are still under the assumption that the world still operates the way it did up until the 0 is and 0 is.  that is where the disconnect and frustration comes, because the set of instructions the boomers gave us for life was written for a different world.  but are the boomers really responsible for changing that world ? i say no.  no because the world always changes.  world war ii destroyed the world is manufacturing base, leaving the us as largely the lone supplier of goods to the world.  this made us very, very rich and prosperous.  as other country is rebuilt their industries, we began to have more competition.  more specifically, the japanese caught us with our pants down by implementing the production methods honed by gilbreth, taylor, and others and eventually surpassing our quality.  additionally, automation has limited the need for manual labor jobs, causing a shift in the requirements for education.  all of these things would likely have happened with or without the baby boomers, and if they need to be blamed for anything, it is probably holding their children up to the same standard despite not realizing their children do not have the tools to live the same life they did.   #  the problem is that many boomers are still under the assumption that the world still operates the way it did up until the 0 is and 0 is.   #  that is where the disconnect and frustration comes, because the set of instructions the boomers gave us for life was written for a different world.   # his vice president, george h. w.  bush, was born in 0.  given that most of congress is made up by those of advanced age, i fail to see how anyone can make the argument that the baby boomers had any kind of policy making power in the 0 is.  none of the policies reagan introduced can therefore possibly be blamed on the baby boomer generation.  you make a good point and its worth clearing this up.  baby boomers almost crippled our economy i am aware of the generalization here, just bear with me  because  they did not question the policies of these men.  they just followed blindly until our economy got gutted and we entered into a massive recession.  though bush is policies are often cited as examples of boomer excess, nothing he did was really unique to his generation.  and there are just as many boomer politicians on the other side wanting a restoration of certain policies and laws.  this is not about presidents, this is about ceos, lobbyists, and congressmen.  each one of those presidents has made horrible decisions in office but the policy decisions that led to the 0 collapse were made by the policy makers.  these policy makers were not just the followers of reagen, they were not just republicans.  democrats fucked up too, and did so often.  we are the second generation in a row to be expected not to do as well as our parents.  we will earn less money have a lower standard of living and will remain in debt for over half of our lives.  damn right we are not experiencing the same world as the boomers.  that is where the disconnect and frustration comes, because the set of instructions the boomers gave us for life was written for a different world.  you are exactly right ! the problem is that they not only expect us to operate as if the world was still in the 0s, they make policy like it was.  that is  the issue and boy is it a doozy.  i say no.  no because the world always changes.  yes the world changes.  but the boomers have, by and large, failed to adapt.  they are leaving us in the lurch with mountains of debt and a broken economy all because they could not bother to admit that the social and economic policies developed 0 years ago  do not work  in this day and age.  and maybe it is just a matter of waiting it out but i do not think we can afford to wait.  again, i completely agree.  this has less to do with the boomers, but is still something they have failed to react to.  unions  exist  because manufacture became more efficient.  gutting the unions has left us with no system to deal with an automated workforce.   #  they say this URL about us, and this URL about us.   #  a president does not represent the generation they were born in, they represent the generation that elects them into office.  reagan represented the boomer worldview.  now as for assigning blame, the millennial criticisms of the boomers is corrective.  the boomers say  why ca not you work hard and be successful like i was ?   and then claim the answer is our personal moral failings are responsible.  that young people do not want to work hard anymore due to participation trophies or some other bullshit.  they say this URL about us, and this URL about us.  they look at our generation is problems and say  it is all your fault  or  you are too entitled.   we are exactly the same as the boomer generation was when they were our age.  the world is different.  they refuse to recognize that because that means it is their responsibility to help instead of wanting lower taxes and better medicare benefits.   #  we will most likely be doing the same thing when we get their age.   # the boomers say  why ca not you work hard and be successful like i was ?   and then claim the answer is our personal moral failings are responsible.  that young people do not want to work hard anymore due to participation trophies or some other bullshit.  this has been a statement made forever.  the previous generation, will always, to some extent, think the new one is either too hedonistic or lazy or entitled or what have you.  it is really nothing new.  do not take it too personally.  we will most likely be doing the same thing when we get their age.  they look at our generation is problems and say  it is all your fault  or  you are too entitled.   not that a real quote would not be hard to come across, but it does not really help your case as much when you use tv clips instead of actual information.  the world is different.  they refuse to recognize that because that means it is their responsibility to help instead of wanting lower taxes and better medicare benefits.  wanting better medicare is wrong now ? we wo not be young forever.  you may need medicare one day too.  additionally, while lower taxes were a staple of many recent conservative administrations, tax hikes have also been a real feature.  you ca not just judge an entire generation on one part of history and ignore the rest.  tax hikes took place under bush sr.  and clinton.  even reagan raised taxes 0 times after his cut in 0.   #  these issues were not intentionally caused by the boomers, but they are certainly causing strain on later generations and the economic stress is an easy source of antipathy.   # we wo not be young forever.  you may need medicare one day too.  well the issues with medicare and baby boomers are   healthcare in u. s.  is very expensive, and 0 of the government is budget $0 billion went to medicare alone.  consider 0 of the budget also goes to social security, so you have over a third of the budget going to support retired or disabled citizens.  source URL   the baby boomers are called that because they were the product of a population boom.  the birth rates sharply decreased after.  this means that right now the rate of boomers entering retirement is not the same as the rate of millennial entering the workforce, so the millennial/genx is burden is increasing in order to provide for them.  these issues were not intentionally caused by the boomers, but they are certainly causing strain on later generations and the economic stress is an easy source of antipathy.   #  the problem is the desire, the  demand  for both.   # we wo not be young forever.  you may need medicare one day too.  the problem is not wanting better medicare, nor is the problem with wanting lower taxes.  the problem is the desire, the  demand  for both.   i want all the things, and i refuse to pay for them.   when you do that in the real world, you get your shit repossessed.  when you do that through the government, you put your children and grandchildren in debt.  you know, the same ones being dismissed and derided as useless.
i will start with this: i do not understand depression.  i know a couple people with diagnosed depression, and they laugh and have fun and vocally commend their lives as awesome in a moment of joy or good happenings.  meaning i have seen them happy, and it sure looks genuine.  so why do they want to kill themselves ? why the want to waste and squander life ? is it a constant struggle that is pushed down to smile ? is it a scheduled feeling it is 0pm, time to be sad and want to kill myself ? is it a feeling that rears in an acute intensity when you are not ready for it, making you just want to stop the pain ? personally, i feel like it is just people being dramatic.  these people i know with it have very fortunate lives, and despite that, continue to feel depressed and occasionally suicidal or maybe constantly, i am not telepathic .  i want to respect the disease.  but i just do not understand it enough to do so.  cmv  #  so why do they want to kill themselves ?  #  why the want to waste and squander life ?  #  depression is something that is very hard to explain to people who have not experienced it.  it is a word that means many different things to many different people.  andrew solomon put it quite eloquently:  i always say that the opposite of depression is not happiness but vitality, and that depression has to do with finding all of life totally overwhelming.  it is a poverty of the english language that we only have that one word, depression, that is used to describe how a little kid feels when it rains on the day of his birthday, and it is also used to describe the feeling people experience in the moments before they kill themselves.  but clinical depression really has to do with the feeling that you ca not do anything, that everything is unbelievably difficult, that life is completely terrifying, and a feeling of this free floating despair, which is overpowering and horrifying.   source URL   personally, i feel like it is just people being dramatic.  to someone who is depressed, the parts of the brain responsible for the experience of anxiety, sadness, fatigue, and many other negative emotions have broken and become dysfunctional.  it is as real an issue as a broken bone, only instead of a bone breaking, it is the emotional circuitry of the brain that breaks.  instead of feeling fear and anxiety in response to something threatening, you feel fear and anxiety  all the time  without ever knowing what it is you are afraid of.  people with objectively good lives can still become depressed.  it is not always an explicitly reactive condition.  it can strike people for no apparent reason whatsoever.  why the want to waste and squander life ? depression is particularly insidious in that it can set up negative feedback loops.  one of the most common symptoms of depression is a perpetual feeling of exhaustion and decreased motivation.  depressed people struggle to keep up with their work, they sometimes find interacting with people absolutely exhausting.  this hurts their careers and their relationships, which in turn makes them more depressed, thus reducing their motivation even further.  it is a self feeding process that can send people into staggering levels of dysfunction.  if you hang around r/depression URL for a while you will run into stories where people do not shower for weeks, or where people stop eating food for extended periods of time because they ca not summon the energy to do such things.  getting out of bed becomes too much work.  taking out the trash becomes too much work.  answering emails becomes too much work.  living in such a state tends to push everyone else away leaving the depressed person isolated.  if this persists for months or years, it is not all that surprising that life itself just becomes too difficult and too humiliating.   #  i realize that, like me, there is an imbalance going on that simply does not let them be as they would like.   #  i do not have clinical depression, but i do have a neurological disorder that i think works as an apt analogy in this situation.  i have tourette is syndrome.  it does not manifest itself in the stereotypical way in which the media often presents it i. e. , swearing and yelling URL but it does  force  me to repeatedly engage in some pretty annoying tics.  they are small, physical things that would not be extremely obvious to strangers or even friends, but they are there.  here is the thing about my tics: they are not completely involuntarily.  most of the time, i am performing them consciously; i know what i am doing; i do not want to do it, but i still do it.  why ? because i feel like i have to.  it is like an itch, and if i do not scratch it, it will gnaw away at the back of my mind.  i suppose it is kind of like ocd, but rather than the urge being invoked by some external source, it is constantly inside of me, demanding i do these things.  from an outside perspective, i would not expect someone to understand it.  i could easily see someone asking,  why do not you just stop ? take control ! use some willpower.   and i can, sort of.  but not all of the time.  can you imagine being itchy all of the time, every day, and forcing yourself to never scratch ? it would take more energy to remain focused, and more focus on the itch itself, than it would take to just scratch it once in a while.  i am saying all of this to try and convey the nature of a disorder.  it is  dis order  of the body, whether neurological, chemical, or whatever physiological forces normally keep us in check.  obviously i ca not just will myself to be normal, because if that were possible for my brain, i would do it.  now, depression has far different mechanisms than tourette is and manifests itself in a far different way, but i empathize with those who suffer from clinical depression.  i realize that, like me, there is an imbalance going on that simply does not let them be as they would like.  people with depression can be depressed for no true reason, and it is not their fault.  worse yet, they ca not just will themselves to be happy.  if they could, they would not have clinical depression, would they ? think about what people actually are: we are just a self aware representation of our brains.  and if there is something influencing our brains to react in a certain way, there is not much we can do to counteract that, because  we are our bodies.  i do not expect you to understand how other people think, because you are not them.  half the time, we barely understand all the emotions and underlying forces that makes us who we, ourselves, are.  how could we presume to know each other even more intimately than we know ourselves ? hell no people with depression are not ungrateful; they are  depressed .  for reasons they might not even know and reasons they probably cannot control.  respect that.   #  this why there needs to be more awareness of mental disorders and the like people practically ignore their validity.   #  thanks.  i think these things are certainly more understandable when you can relate it to something or someone you know a bit more personally.  i mean, obviously there will be people who are indeed drama kings/queens, but legit clinical depression is not just a decision on the person is part; it is internal biological forces, working against someone is own best interest.  it is kind of scary to think how the mind is just an extension of the body.  and if the body can get sick without our intent, so too can the mind.  this why there needs to be more awareness of mental disorders and the like people practically ignore their validity.   #  hyperbole and a half did a pair URL of comics that encapsulate how depression feels URL pretty well.   #  hyperbole and a half did a pair URL of comics that encapsulate how depression feels URL pretty well.  as many others have said: it is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain that causes irrational thoughts.  it is not something that can be controlled.  for some people it is triggered by different things, and for some it is random, for others it is constant.  it is variable.  for me, it was always night time, when nobody else was around i was alone with my thoughts and insecurities and had nobody to sound these things off of to tell me  that is absurd, you are wrong about how horrible you are because of reason  , and so that pessimism got to me on a pretty deep level.  as someone else said: if you want to be sociable with that sort of thing going on in your head, you just do not say it and you put on masks.  i understand not understanding a mental disorder.  they are not discussed, people hide them as if they are shameful.  there is still a strong cultural taboo from a time when people would ship their mentally ill relatives off to an institution and then pretend that they never existed.  science has a better understanding now than it did, but culturally it is still just not talked about.   #  you ca not  just snap out  of true depression any more than you can  just snap out  of having a broken leg.   #  you ca not  just snap out  of true depression any more than you can  just snap out  of having a broken leg.  bore are  physical  conditions.  depression is not self pity and it is not broken expectations and it is not sadness it is something  physically  wrong with the brain.  just because there is no gushing blood does not mean that it is somehow psychosomatic or not real.  this is a  physiological  problem.  on a more subjective note, author david foster wallace had some of the most poignant and accurate descriptions of the realities of depression i have ever run across.  here is a pdf of the short story  the depressed person  URL and here is an excerpt from his novel  infinite jest :  the so called  psychotically depressed  person who tries to kill herself does not do so out of quote  hopelessness  or any abstract conviction that life is assets and debits do not square.  and surely not because death seems suddenly appealing.  the person in whom its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high rise.  make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows.  their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i. e.  the fear of falling remains a constant.  the variable here is the other terror, the fire is flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors.  it is not desiring the fall; it is terror of the flames.  yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling  wouldo not !   and  hang on !  , can understand the jump.  not really.  you would have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.  that is not a matter of being  overly dramatic and ungrateful.
sup reddit, first off, i am an american and will always consider the usa my home, but i have lived in europe now for an extended period of time.  the length of my stay has allowed me to remove myself from american social culture enough to take a step back and view it with a less personal and move objective point of view.  i personally feel that there is a major amount of over sensitivity when it comes to people voicing their beliefs about certain social issues.  if i really have to slap a label on myself, i would considered myself socially progressive.  i have the utmost support for homosexuals, transgender people, ect.  i think social programs are wonderful and whole heartedly support people who dedicate their lives to make the lives of others better.  that being said, while still in the states i felt that i had to look both way before i would open my mouth so i would not be chewed out by someone who might be offended.  i have never gone out of my way to offend someone, but it all honesty it was hard not to.  i never use words such as fa ot, ni er, any other racial slur, or  gay  in a derogatory way .  with all efforts to educate myself on topics such as obamacare, transgender, along with other major social topics in the us, there was always someone to  put me in my place  because of how much i offended them.  i fail to see how using the word bitch equates to promoting rape culture, how not understanding although asking questions and trying to learn what its like to be someone who is transgender makes makes ignorant and arrogant, and how if i do not agree 0 with what obama says and does that i am racist and hate poor people.  numerous times i have seen others in both public and online platforms being called names and harassed for a simple lack of understanding of these social issues.  i think the line of what constitutes political correctness has been drawn too far or close ? idk and that people need to take a step back and relax  #  i am an american and will always consider the usa my home, but i have lived in europe now for an extended period of time.   #  the length of my stay has allowed me to remove myself from american social culture enough to take a step back and view it with a less personal and move objective point of view.   # the length of my stay has allowed me to remove myself from american social culture enough to take a step back and view it with a less personal and move objective point of view.  i personally feel that there is a major amount of over sensitivity when it comes to people voicing their beliefs about certain social issues.  i am an american who lived in europe admittedly for a short time , and i would agree that americans are more interested in politically correctness/ not offending someone.  however, americans are a diverse group of mostly immigrants, our racist past occurred mostly on our land towards fellow americans rather than in distant colonies, and we are way more into friendliness and apparent niceness than most european countries.  the civil rights movement occurred only 0 years ago, well within living memory of many of our citizens, and the lgbt rights movement is fighting for things that have already been achieved in parts of europe.  we have a larger percentage of minorities that we consider to be equally american, our movements towards equal rights are both more recent and ongoing, and we are more concerned with being superficially nice.  i believe the first two indicate that being  pc  is a natural outcome of our demographics and history that simply is not as present in the more homogeneous countries of europe, and more necessary as it applies to a much larger group of people.  americans are also borderline obsessed with patriotism, even more so after 0/0, and while i do not personally feel this a positive trait i would argue that condemning those who question the government or its leaders are not being being personally sensitive, rather they believe that american is the best country in the world, that america is uniquely hated  for our freedom , and that americans should unconditionally support our government.  we also have a greater percentage of our population in the military in active combat that most european countries or at least the unshakeable perception that we do .  i think this falls under a distinctly different value set than most of the pc language policing as it is more concerned with a unified front than it is the respect for individual feelings.  as our government does not ensure the same quality of life as many european countries do, i think we are more concerned with racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and so forth because we depend more on public opinion to ensure a decent quality of life.  minorities demanding respect and equal treatment are not just concerned with their feelings, but their ability to get a job and receive fair wages as well as not being targeted by the police.  as our ability to participate in society has a much larger affect on the quality of life, our desire to ensure society treats minorities with respect is far greater.  i do not believe that attacking people for statements that are not pc is particularly useful, but i think for the aforementioned reasons being pc is more important to americans for more real world outcomes than merely being offended.   #  donald sterling has made a career from being a racist.   #  it is kind of like how it goes in politics in the sense that you have to swing  really   really  far to one side in order to get a little slack from the other at all.  similar to racism, etc, if people  do not  become overly p. c.  about it, it will be very hard to eradicate it in places that it needs to be.  donald sterling has made a career from being a racist.  the reports out there on all the different things he has done are ridiculous.  for the last 0  years, he has been protected by david stern and the nba, and it was not until people all across the country started shaming him and athletes threatened to boycott that commish silver banned him for life.  you can bet your life savings that if there had been no outcry over this tape, there would have been no action taken.  just like there was not any taken the time before.  and the time before that.  and so on.   #  people almost universally do not like being yelled at or blamed for things.   #  i hear you about getting slack from the other side, and i agree.  do you think this can hurt you as well ? i am not making a  wo not someone think of the majority  argument here, but rather talking about things on an almost subconscious level.  people almost universally do not like being yelled at or blamed for things.  do you think more extreme activist tactics sometimes cause enough stress in an otherwise fairly moderate individual to make them resentful or even hateful.  i am more purposing then stating an absolute; it makes sense in many ways.   we are in this together  type of unity rhetoric, as you point out, does not always work.  i do think that the  fuck you and yours  way of doing it sometimes also fails, but in different ways.   #  if someone does something nice for me and i say  thank you, you are a saint,  and someone near by is offended because their religions does not have saints, am i in the wrong ?  #  i understand and agree with that, but at what point should one draw the line and not care when others may or may not be offended.  if someone does something nice for me and i say  thank you, you are a saint,  and someone near by is offended because their religions does not have saints, am i in the wrong ? although words like bitch can be used in derogatory ways, it is pretty universally used by both men and women in american society.  by saying that using it equates to supporting rape culture seems a bit ridiculous.  if you have your child circumcised, do you support genital mutilation ?  #  sure you used the term  saint  in a positive manner, but if someone was offended by it then maybe you should consider using a different term next time.   #  in terms of the example that you gave about calling someone a saint, i would not necessarily say that this is a black and white situation where you would be either right or wrong.  sure you used the term  saint  in a positive manner, but if someone was offended by it then maybe you should consider using a different term next time.  it is not that you were necessarily wrong in using the term  saint  in the way you used it, it is more that we should all consider how certain things that we say could potentially offend others.  the same goes for  bitch .  yes bitch is a term which has recently taken on a somewhat less offensive meaning in american society than before, but that does not mean that some people are not going to be offended by the use of this term in a derogatory way.  sure most people using the word  bitch  probably are not meaning to be offensive, but that does not mean that some people wo not feel offended by it.  the offensiveness of a term is based on whether someone feels offended by it.  this ca not be determined by the person using the term since they are not the one who feels offended, even if they mean no offense in using the term in a certain way.
sup reddit, first off, i am an american and will always consider the usa my home, but i have lived in europe now for an extended period of time.  the length of my stay has allowed me to remove myself from american social culture enough to take a step back and view it with a less personal and move objective point of view.  i personally feel that there is a major amount of over sensitivity when it comes to people voicing their beliefs about certain social issues.  if i really have to slap a label on myself, i would considered myself socially progressive.  i have the utmost support for homosexuals, transgender people, ect.  i think social programs are wonderful and whole heartedly support people who dedicate their lives to make the lives of others better.  that being said, while still in the states i felt that i had to look both way before i would open my mouth so i would not be chewed out by someone who might be offended.  i have never gone out of my way to offend someone, but it all honesty it was hard not to.  i never use words such as fa ot, ni er, any other racial slur, or  gay  in a derogatory way .  with all efforts to educate myself on topics such as obamacare, transgender, along with other major social topics in the us, there was always someone to  put me in my place  because of how much i offended them.  i fail to see how using the word bitch equates to promoting rape culture, how not understanding although asking questions and trying to learn what its like to be someone who is transgender makes makes ignorant and arrogant, and how if i do not agree 0 with what obama says and does that i am racist and hate poor people.  numerous times i have seen others in both public and online platforms being called names and harassed for a simple lack of understanding of these social issues.  i think the line of what constitutes political correctness has been drawn too far or close ? idk and that people need to take a step back and relax  #  with all efforts to educate myself on topics such as obamacare, transgender, along with other major social topics in the us, there was always someone to  put me in my place  because of how much i offended them.   #  this makes it seem like some of your problems arise from your personal experiences, which not having seen, the rest of us ca not really ascertain them very much.   # this makes it seem like some of your problems arise from your personal experiences, which not having seen, the rest of us ca not really ascertain them very much.  however, can i ask if you if perhaps you could consider that some of your  questions  were presented in an offensive manner ? i have seen some politician make some inflammatory statement or another, then attempt to defend it by claiming they were  just wondering if.   to walk it back without what they said.  for example, the obama birther nonsense.  think about how many people were just  wondering  if it was legitimate or some such.  and then they claimed to be victims because of that, and because they do not 0 agree with obama, it is such a shame, they are the ones who get attacked and called racist.   #  just like there was not any taken the time before.   #  it is kind of like how it goes in politics in the sense that you have to swing  really   really  far to one side in order to get a little slack from the other at all.  similar to racism, etc, if people  do not  become overly p. c.  about it, it will be very hard to eradicate it in places that it needs to be.  donald sterling has made a career from being a racist.  the reports out there on all the different things he has done are ridiculous.  for the last 0  years, he has been protected by david stern and the nba, and it was not until people all across the country started shaming him and athletes threatened to boycott that commish silver banned him for life.  you can bet your life savings that if there had been no outcry over this tape, there would have been no action taken.  just like there was not any taken the time before.  and the time before that.  and so on.   #   we are in this together  type of unity rhetoric, as you point out, does not always work.   #  i hear you about getting slack from the other side, and i agree.  do you think this can hurt you as well ? i am not making a  wo not someone think of the majority  argument here, but rather talking about things on an almost subconscious level.  people almost universally do not like being yelled at or blamed for things.  do you think more extreme activist tactics sometimes cause enough stress in an otherwise fairly moderate individual to make them resentful or even hateful.  i am more purposing then stating an absolute; it makes sense in many ways.   we are in this together  type of unity rhetoric, as you point out, does not always work.  i do think that the  fuck you and yours  way of doing it sometimes also fails, but in different ways.   #  if someone does something nice for me and i say  thank you, you are a saint,  and someone near by is offended because their religions does not have saints, am i in the wrong ?  #  i understand and agree with that, but at what point should one draw the line and not care when others may or may not be offended.  if someone does something nice for me and i say  thank you, you are a saint,  and someone near by is offended because their religions does not have saints, am i in the wrong ? although words like bitch can be used in derogatory ways, it is pretty universally used by both men and women in american society.  by saying that using it equates to supporting rape culture seems a bit ridiculous.  if you have your child circumcised, do you support genital mutilation ?  #  this ca not be determined by the person using the term since they are not the one who feels offended, even if they mean no offense in using the term in a certain way.   #  in terms of the example that you gave about calling someone a saint, i would not necessarily say that this is a black and white situation where you would be either right or wrong.  sure you used the term  saint  in a positive manner, but if someone was offended by it then maybe you should consider using a different term next time.  it is not that you were necessarily wrong in using the term  saint  in the way you used it, it is more that we should all consider how certain things that we say could potentially offend others.  the same goes for  bitch .  yes bitch is a term which has recently taken on a somewhat less offensive meaning in american society than before, but that does not mean that some people are not going to be offended by the use of this term in a derogatory way.  sure most people using the word  bitch  probably are not meaning to be offensive, but that does not mean that some people wo not feel offended by it.  the offensiveness of a term is based on whether someone feels offended by it.  this ca not be determined by the person using the term since they are not the one who feels offended, even if they mean no offense in using the term in a certain way.
i work for a medium sized service company, and see people who  suck up  to our bosses receiving raises and promotions, and being groomed for higher positions.  some individuals do not do much work at all, but when middle management comes to supervise, these people act absurdly happy to see them and are eager to agree with all of the managers  ideas.  to me, this seems hypocritical and unethical.  meanwhile, i have been working at this job for a year now i am the 0th most senior employee out of 0 there is a lot of turnover and have put my heart into developing the craft, doing it faster and more efficiently every day, and delivering the best possible product to our guests.  but if a manager comes around, i pretty much treat them the same way as i would any other human being.  i care about them, but i am never going to kiss someone is ass or agree to do something that seems backwards, or just ethically wrong, without at least asking why.  my managers overlook how much i help the company and how loyal i am to them, and basically treat me like a delinquent because, to them, i  talk back  too much.  i feel like i deserve a lot more respect than that, considering that i am the very lowest paid employee, and at the same time one of the most effective.   #  to me, this seems hypocritical and unethical.   #  there are positions where you do actual work, and then there are positions where you manage workers and have to play politics.   # there are positions where you do actual work, and then there are positions where you manage workers and have to play politics.  if you want to have a managerial position, then  sucking up  is what gets the job done.  if you are not likable by the other people and departments you depend on, you will not be an effective manager.  so you are doing a great job in your current position.  why would anybody want to move you out of a position in which you are providing a real benefit ? there is no ethical implication here.  some jobs require kissing ass, diplomacy, and other types of persuasion to get results.  you are not cut out for that type of job, but you should not crap all over the people who are.  instead of blaming others, you ought to look inwardly and take the advice of your manager.  there are ways to provide criticism and push back without  talking back  or appearing defiant.  you are lacking good communication skills and those are just as important as technical ability.  work on your communication skills and you might be promoted into a position that requires more communication and collaboration.   #  part of working at a firm means working well with others, being personable, and willing to communicate.   #  working hard and connecting with your boss are not mutually exclusive.  i would not put a substantial amount of stock in personal observations of one employee who considers himself to be a disproportionately hard worker when it comes to grading those he works with.  nothing personal; it is just easy to think we work harder than everybody else because it is us and we are well aware of the large efforts we put into things.  moreover, i think it is unfair to count this as  pandering.   part of working at a firm means working well with others, being personable, and willing to communicate.  people who dialogue with the boss are probably standing out not only by having simply spoken up, but by illustrating that they can handle the people aspect of a job including people they work with if your firm is not client based as much as the technical and practical aspect.   #  in my job, there are objective ways of comparing employees, based the time it takes them to complete specific tasks and the quality of product.   #  in my job, there are objective ways of comparing employees, based the time it takes them to complete specific tasks and the quality of product.  and based on almost anything measurable, i am much, much better than some people who have been promoted.  i am not un personable, either, i am just frustrated about not being acknowledged or understood.  i see it as pandering because some individuals act much more happy to see people who can reward them, than they actually are.  they are manipulating the bosses, and the bosses are rewarding them for the flattery.  is that just me being paranoid ?   0; tomorrow i will try to be as gracious as i possibly can within reason .  it is just hard to balance and not feel like i am compromising my own values.   #  this just means your good at what you do.   #  this just means your good at what you do.  maybe do not worry about being replaced by a machine but the old  if it ai not broke do not fix it  mentality will keep you locked in.  were i in your shoes, i would start quitely looking for another job as you feel under appreciated.  if you find a good one, that makes you an offer, go to your current boss and let them know what it would take to keep you.  if they give you a fair deal, it is up to you as to whither or not to stay  #  bosses and managers did not get to where they are through schmoozing and pandering, which only gets you so far.   #  many obviously not all ! bosses and managers did not get to where they are through schmoozing and pandering, which only gets you so far.  i think you are underestimating bosses  ability to judge employees.  they know who will be most beneficial to promote in their company, as they know their company often better than anyone else.  you are also underestimating your coworkers.  you cannot judge them as  not doing much work at all  unless you have real examples and you can counter that with  i never slack off at work .  personality, in many jobs, is more important than raw ability.  many of my past bosses would happily hire someone with a friendly,  pandering  personality and average work quality over a  delinquent  who  talks back  and has above average work quality.  especially in offices, people like to reward people who make work tolerable and fun.  what is actually wrong with that ?
i work for a medium sized service company, and see people who  suck up  to our bosses receiving raises and promotions, and being groomed for higher positions.  some individuals do not do much work at all, but when middle management comes to supervise, these people act absurdly happy to see them and are eager to agree with all of the managers  ideas.  to me, this seems hypocritical and unethical.  meanwhile, i have been working at this job for a year now i am the 0th most senior employee out of 0 there is a lot of turnover and have put my heart into developing the craft, doing it faster and more efficiently every day, and delivering the best possible product to our guests.  but if a manager comes around, i pretty much treat them the same way as i would any other human being.  i care about them, but i am never going to kiss someone is ass or agree to do something that seems backwards, or just ethically wrong, without at least asking why.  my managers overlook how much i help the company and how loyal i am to them, and basically treat me like a delinquent because, to them, i  talk back  too much.  i feel like i deserve a lot more respect than that, considering that i am the very lowest paid employee, and at the same time one of the most effective.   #  my managers overlook how much i help the company and how loyal i am to them, and basically treat me like a delinquent because, to them, i  talk back  too much.   #  instead of blaming others, you ought to look inwardly and take the advice of your manager.   # there are positions where you do actual work, and then there are positions where you manage workers and have to play politics.  if you want to have a managerial position, then  sucking up  is what gets the job done.  if you are not likable by the other people and departments you depend on, you will not be an effective manager.  so you are doing a great job in your current position.  why would anybody want to move you out of a position in which you are providing a real benefit ? there is no ethical implication here.  some jobs require kissing ass, diplomacy, and other types of persuasion to get results.  you are not cut out for that type of job, but you should not crap all over the people who are.  instead of blaming others, you ought to look inwardly and take the advice of your manager.  there are ways to provide criticism and push back without  talking back  or appearing defiant.  you are lacking good communication skills and those are just as important as technical ability.  work on your communication skills and you might be promoted into a position that requires more communication and collaboration.   #  nothing personal; it is just easy to think we work harder than everybody else because it is us and we are well aware of the large efforts we put into things.   #  working hard and connecting with your boss are not mutually exclusive.  i would not put a substantial amount of stock in personal observations of one employee who considers himself to be a disproportionately hard worker when it comes to grading those he works with.  nothing personal; it is just easy to think we work harder than everybody else because it is us and we are well aware of the large efforts we put into things.  moreover, i think it is unfair to count this as  pandering.   part of working at a firm means working well with others, being personable, and willing to communicate.  people who dialogue with the boss are probably standing out not only by having simply spoken up, but by illustrating that they can handle the people aspect of a job including people they work with if your firm is not client based as much as the technical and practical aspect.   #  it is just hard to balance and not feel like i am compromising my own values.   #  in my job, there are objective ways of comparing employees, based the time it takes them to complete specific tasks and the quality of product.  and based on almost anything measurable, i am much, much better than some people who have been promoted.  i am not un personable, either, i am just frustrated about not being acknowledged or understood.  i see it as pandering because some individuals act much more happy to see people who can reward them, than they actually are.  they are manipulating the bosses, and the bosses are rewarding them for the flattery.  is that just me being paranoid ?   0; tomorrow i will try to be as gracious as i possibly can within reason .  it is just hard to balance and not feel like i am compromising my own values.   #  were i in your shoes, i would start quitely looking for another job as you feel under appreciated.   #  this just means your good at what you do.  maybe do not worry about being replaced by a machine but the old  if it ai not broke do not fix it  mentality will keep you locked in.  were i in your shoes, i would start quitely looking for another job as you feel under appreciated.  if you find a good one, that makes you an offer, go to your current boss and let them know what it would take to keep you.  if they give you a fair deal, it is up to you as to whither or not to stay  #  i think you are underestimating bosses  ability to judge employees.   #  many obviously not all ! bosses and managers did not get to where they are through schmoozing and pandering, which only gets you so far.  i think you are underestimating bosses  ability to judge employees.  they know who will be most beneficial to promote in their company, as they know their company often better than anyone else.  you are also underestimating your coworkers.  you cannot judge them as  not doing much work at all  unless you have real examples and you can counter that with  i never slack off at work .  personality, in many jobs, is more important than raw ability.  many of my past bosses would happily hire someone with a friendly,  pandering  personality and average work quality over a  delinquent  who  talks back  and has above average work quality.  especially in offices, people like to reward people who make work tolerable and fun.  what is actually wrong with that ?
spoilers ahoy.  be warned.  book and show.  the war was already over.  robb stark had no chance of winning the war as soon moat cailan was captured.  his supply lines were gone, his army was going to be forced to forage, and was going to starve to death.  that does not even count the fact lannister tyrell forces would outnumber.  some people claim he never lost a battle, does not mean he is a good strategist, just that tywin decided to bleed robb out of the war.  and most of the victories robb has were with him outnumbering his opponents.  not to mention the fact robb had winterfell for like a year, before it burned to the ground do not give it someone else fault for this, it is his home he should be able to defend it or find people who can .  robb stark was a terrible leader.  he failed to gain any allies.  he could not get support for stannis, renly or balon.  why because he wanted to be king in the north.  eddard, the person he fighting this war to avenge, did not even want that, he backed stannis.  he willing gives over the only hostage he has that might detter ironborn aggression.  then he honor kills lord karstark losing half his army.  robb stark was not honorable in the slightest.  remember when i mentioned moat cailan ? the second his home land was under attack, robb should have sued for peace with lannisters or at least try to make peace with stannis , and gone back up north to rout the ironborn.  for all his do the honourable thing talk, he does not defend his subjects well.  not to mention he uproots the entire population of the north right before winter.  so now not only is population being pillaged, they are going to starve in the winter, even if robb wins, you think he would know winter is coming given that is his family is words.  he also has a bad case of double standards.  his mother removes the most critical asset robb had in the war, and he essentially slaps her on the wrist for it.  additionally, his marriage.  book or show, his marriage shows a complete double standard to him and his men.  robb has his wife with him, while on this journey and battle, none of his common soldiers get that, they are all forced to be alone.  so given the facts, you are in a losing war, you leader is incompetent and unhonorable, who would not betray him ? the leader was not performing the needs of the people so, much like eddard did, roose decided to remove a mad king.  and thank the gods for it.  now, there is a hope that the north will be free from the ironborn raiders, and might be able to feed itself in the coming winter.   #  he also has a bad case of double standards.   #  his mother removes the most critical asset robb had in the war, and he essentially slaps her on the wrist for it his mother was also the reason the riverlands sided with robb, and his only shot at potentially getting the vale.   # his mother removes the most critical asset robb had in the war, and he essentially slaps her on the wrist for it his mother was also the reason the riverlands sided with robb, and his only shot at potentially getting the vale.  had she been harshly punished, the tullys would not have looked kindly upon it.  plus, she is  his mother.  robb received accusations of kinslaying for having his distant relative rickard karstark executed; killing his own mother would be an absolute abomination.  the leader was not performing the needs of the people so, much like eddard did, roose decided to remove a mad king.  and thank the gods for it.  now, there is a hope that the north will be free from the ironborn raiders, and might be able to feed itself in the coming winter.  if the boy king had been the solitary victim of a poisoned chalice or crossbow bolt to the eye, it might have actually come as a relief some of the northerners and riverlanders.  they would have probably cut a deal with tywin.  he was not an unreasonable man, and gave amnesty to the tyrells and stormlanders who changed allegiance after renly is assassination.  to quote the man himself:  when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire.  when they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet.  elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you.  tywin lannister what made the red wedding tactically brilliant but strategically foolish was the blatancy of the betrayal, violation of guest right, and murder of countless other northern and riverlander nobles.  it was not just robb; thousands of common soldiers and multiple tullys, manderlys, mormons, flints, blackwoods, and so on were slaughtered while under the protection of the freys at the orders of the lannisters/iron throne.  for dozens if not hundreds of families, it was no longer a matter of duty to a distant liege lord in winterfell.  it was now a personal blood feud.  reconciliation was made impossible; with the red wedding the most likely post war outcome degenerated from  reconstruction era south  to  northern ireland on steroids.   three heads of house stark rickard, brandon, and eddard had been killed at the orders of the iron throne in the last twenty years alone, with members of other northern and riverlander houses royce, mallister, etc executed alongside them as well.  the red wedding made that four.  the preexisting cultural and religious rift between the north and south was turned into a gaping chasm; any rule of the iron throne in the north would now be viewed as hostile foreign occupation.   #  the north would be better run by craster than by ramsay bolton.   # had he captured those, he would be in a position to negotiate a favorable peace for the north, whether with himself as king in the north or warden of the north.  it relies entirely on trade with the south.  and joffrey had revealed his intention of doubling taxes on the north without a care for the lives it might cost.  the north was guaranteed to starve in the winter if robb went home.  and replace that king with himself soon to be succeeded by his bastard ramsay ? sealing that succession by marrying ramsay to arya ? the north would be better run by craster than by ramsay bolton.   #  but  this guy needs me  is hardly a justification to murder him.   # in the books, he had a different one: he would attack moat cailin from two sides, and march north.  that is not a bad plan.  but the book plan is hardly an end game best case scenario he took back a piece of his kingdom.  if he keeps marching north he has to leave troops he does not have behind to guard against the ironborn or just accept that the whole west coast is vulnerable.  but  this guy needs me  is hardly a justification to murder him.  the justification was that the freys had risked everything by joining his rebellion based solely on an oath he took and later broke.  the freys had a chance to get back the goodwill with papa lannister that robb had cost them, so they took it.  and of course roose had been unhappy with the.  creative.  policies robb had been implementing, up to and including the execution of rickard.  but the point i was getting at is that robb only  appeared  to have a chance at achieving his endgame because the freys/boltons kept up the ruse.  had they decided not to murder him and instead just go home/fight him, he was still completely out of the fight.   #  and he had not broken any oaths; he did something that looked like it might conflict with something his mother had promised.   # if he keeps marching north he has to leave troops he does not have behind to guard against the ironborn or just accept that the whole west coast is vulnerable.  i feel like you are forgetting about howland reed.  howland knows the marshes around moat cailin quite well, and with his assistance what do you think robb has been having him do all this time robb can easily retake moat cailin.  meanwhile, if tywin tried to take it from the south as robb would have appeared to do, all his forces would be slaughtered.  if robb sent enough troops north to retake it, the ironborn are opportunists and would not invade further.  on the other hand, if he did that then his men might be totally unwilling to venture south, and he would be forced to fight a defensive war rather than retaking the initiative.  i ca not tell you all his plans, but his moves were far from dumb.  there is a reason he won every battle.  the freys owed him their allegiance as his vassals.  and he had not broken any oaths; he did something that looked like it might conflict with something his mother had promised.  even if he had broken an oath, it still does not justify murder or worse the violation of hopitality.  i mean, it is certainly true that robb needed the frey men to win at that point.  so if walder frey had simply kept his troops home, struck u and suggested robb surrender to tywin is mercy, that would have been far better than the red wedding.  it would have been a more minor betrayal and it would have resulted in better consequences for almost everyone.   #  meanwhile, if tywin tried to take it from the south as robb would have appeared to do, all his forces would be slaughtered.   # howland knows the marshes around moat cailin quite well, and with his assistance what do you think robb has been having him do all this time robb can easily retake moat cailin.  meanwhile, if tywin tried to take it from the south as robb would have appeared to do, all his forces would be slaughtered.  unless the southern force sailed up the uncontested east coast.  and anyway, even if he managed to retake all of the north without a drop of his own blood, his position would still be infinitely weaker than it was at the onset of conflict.  on the other hand, if he did that then his men might be totally unwilling to venture south, and he would be forced to fight a defensive war rather than retaking the initiative.  i ca not tell you all his plans, but his moves were far from dumb.  there is a reason he won every battle.  but robb does not have nearly enough men to defend both the west coast from ironborn raids, the south from land invasion, and the east from sea invasion let alone maintain an offensive.  this was all well and good when there was a major conflict in the south, but that was no longer the case.  the freys owed him their allegiance as his vassals.  and to whom did robb owe his allegiance ? he ca not pull loyalty when he has abandoned his own king.  if anything, the freys and boltons were on the right side here.  even if he had broken an oath, it still does not justify murder or worse the violation of hopitality.  he accepted a marriage contract, which admittedly is different from an oath.  regardless he showed that he valued his hormones over his honor, except when honor demanded he execute an ally and debatably become a kinslayer in the process .  he lost no battles but managed to cut his forces in half through his own ineptitude.  /r/dreadfort our blades are sharp !
spoilers ahoy.  be warned.  book and show.  the war was already over.  robb stark had no chance of winning the war as soon moat cailan was captured.  his supply lines were gone, his army was going to be forced to forage, and was going to starve to death.  that does not even count the fact lannister tyrell forces would outnumber.  some people claim he never lost a battle, does not mean he is a good strategist, just that tywin decided to bleed robb out of the war.  and most of the victories robb has were with him outnumbering his opponents.  not to mention the fact robb had winterfell for like a year, before it burned to the ground do not give it someone else fault for this, it is his home he should be able to defend it or find people who can .  robb stark was a terrible leader.  he failed to gain any allies.  he could not get support for stannis, renly or balon.  why because he wanted to be king in the north.  eddard, the person he fighting this war to avenge, did not even want that, he backed stannis.  he willing gives over the only hostage he has that might detter ironborn aggression.  then he honor kills lord karstark losing half his army.  robb stark was not honorable in the slightest.  remember when i mentioned moat cailan ? the second his home land was under attack, robb should have sued for peace with lannisters or at least try to make peace with stannis , and gone back up north to rout the ironborn.  for all his do the honourable thing talk, he does not defend his subjects well.  not to mention he uproots the entire population of the north right before winter.  so now not only is population being pillaged, they are going to starve in the winter, even if robb wins, you think he would know winter is coming given that is his family is words.  he also has a bad case of double standards.  his mother removes the most critical asset robb had in the war, and he essentially slaps her on the wrist for it.  additionally, his marriage.  book or show, his marriage shows a complete double standard to him and his men.  robb has his wife with him, while on this journey and battle, none of his common soldiers get that, they are all forced to be alone.  so given the facts, you are in a losing war, you leader is incompetent and unhonorable, who would not betray him ? the leader was not performing the needs of the people so, much like eddard did, roose decided to remove a mad king.  and thank the gods for it.  now, there is a hope that the north will be free from the ironborn raiders, and might be able to feed itself in the coming winter.   #  so given the facts, you are in a losing war, you leader is incompetent and unhonorable, who would not betray him ?  #  the leader was not performing the needs of the people so, much like eddard did, roose decided to remove a mad king.   # his mother removes the most critical asset robb had in the war, and he essentially slaps her on the wrist for it his mother was also the reason the riverlands sided with robb, and his only shot at potentially getting the vale.  had she been harshly punished, the tullys would not have looked kindly upon it.  plus, she is  his mother.  robb received accusations of kinslaying for having his distant relative rickard karstark executed; killing his own mother would be an absolute abomination.  the leader was not performing the needs of the people so, much like eddard did, roose decided to remove a mad king.  and thank the gods for it.  now, there is a hope that the north will be free from the ironborn raiders, and might be able to feed itself in the coming winter.  if the boy king had been the solitary victim of a poisoned chalice or crossbow bolt to the eye, it might have actually come as a relief some of the northerners and riverlanders.  they would have probably cut a deal with tywin.  he was not an unreasonable man, and gave amnesty to the tyrells and stormlanders who changed allegiance after renly is assassination.  to quote the man himself:  when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire.  when they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet.  elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you.  tywin lannister what made the red wedding tactically brilliant but strategically foolish was the blatancy of the betrayal, violation of guest right, and murder of countless other northern and riverlander nobles.  it was not just robb; thousands of common soldiers and multiple tullys, manderlys, mormons, flints, blackwoods, and so on were slaughtered while under the protection of the freys at the orders of the lannisters/iron throne.  for dozens if not hundreds of families, it was no longer a matter of duty to a distant liege lord in winterfell.  it was now a personal blood feud.  reconciliation was made impossible; with the red wedding the most likely post war outcome degenerated from  reconstruction era south  to  northern ireland on steroids.   three heads of house stark rickard, brandon, and eddard had been killed at the orders of the iron throne in the last twenty years alone, with members of other northern and riverlander houses royce, mallister, etc executed alongside them as well.  the red wedding made that four.  the preexisting cultural and religious rift between the north and south was turned into a gaping chasm; any rule of the iron throne in the north would now be viewed as hostile foreign occupation.   #  sealing that succession by marrying ramsay to arya ?  # had he captured those, he would be in a position to negotiate a favorable peace for the north, whether with himself as king in the north or warden of the north.  it relies entirely on trade with the south.  and joffrey had revealed his intention of doubling taxes on the north without a care for the lives it might cost.  the north was guaranteed to starve in the winter if robb went home.  and replace that king with himself soon to be succeeded by his bastard ramsay ? sealing that succession by marrying ramsay to arya ? the north would be better run by craster than by ramsay bolton.   #  the freys had a chance to get back the goodwill with papa lannister that robb had cost them, so they took it.   # in the books, he had a different one: he would attack moat cailin from two sides, and march north.  that is not a bad plan.  but the book plan is hardly an end game best case scenario he took back a piece of his kingdom.  if he keeps marching north he has to leave troops he does not have behind to guard against the ironborn or just accept that the whole west coast is vulnerable.  but  this guy needs me  is hardly a justification to murder him.  the justification was that the freys had risked everything by joining his rebellion based solely on an oath he took and later broke.  the freys had a chance to get back the goodwill with papa lannister that robb had cost them, so they took it.  and of course roose had been unhappy with the.  creative.  policies robb had been implementing, up to and including the execution of rickard.  but the point i was getting at is that robb only  appeared  to have a chance at achieving his endgame because the freys/boltons kept up the ruse.  had they decided not to murder him and instead just go home/fight him, he was still completely out of the fight.   #  if he keeps marching north he has to leave troops he does not have behind to guard against the ironborn or just accept that the whole west coast is vulnerable.   # if he keeps marching north he has to leave troops he does not have behind to guard against the ironborn or just accept that the whole west coast is vulnerable.  i feel like you are forgetting about howland reed.  howland knows the marshes around moat cailin quite well, and with his assistance what do you think robb has been having him do all this time robb can easily retake moat cailin.  meanwhile, if tywin tried to take it from the south as robb would have appeared to do, all his forces would be slaughtered.  if robb sent enough troops north to retake it, the ironborn are opportunists and would not invade further.  on the other hand, if he did that then his men might be totally unwilling to venture south, and he would be forced to fight a defensive war rather than retaking the initiative.  i ca not tell you all his plans, but his moves were far from dumb.  there is a reason he won every battle.  the freys owed him their allegiance as his vassals.  and he had not broken any oaths; he did something that looked like it might conflict with something his mother had promised.  even if he had broken an oath, it still does not justify murder or worse the violation of hopitality.  i mean, it is certainly true that robb needed the frey men to win at that point.  so if walder frey had simply kept his troops home, struck u and suggested robb surrender to tywin is mercy, that would have been far better than the red wedding.  it would have been a more minor betrayal and it would have resulted in better consequences for almost everyone.   #  and anyway, even if he managed to retake all of the north without a drop of his own blood, his position would still be infinitely weaker than it was at the onset of conflict.   # howland knows the marshes around moat cailin quite well, and with his assistance what do you think robb has been having him do all this time robb can easily retake moat cailin.  meanwhile, if tywin tried to take it from the south as robb would have appeared to do, all his forces would be slaughtered.  unless the southern force sailed up the uncontested east coast.  and anyway, even if he managed to retake all of the north without a drop of his own blood, his position would still be infinitely weaker than it was at the onset of conflict.  on the other hand, if he did that then his men might be totally unwilling to venture south, and he would be forced to fight a defensive war rather than retaking the initiative.  i ca not tell you all his plans, but his moves were far from dumb.  there is a reason he won every battle.  but robb does not have nearly enough men to defend both the west coast from ironborn raids, the south from land invasion, and the east from sea invasion let alone maintain an offensive.  this was all well and good when there was a major conflict in the south, but that was no longer the case.  the freys owed him their allegiance as his vassals.  and to whom did robb owe his allegiance ? he ca not pull loyalty when he has abandoned his own king.  if anything, the freys and boltons were on the right side here.  even if he had broken an oath, it still does not justify murder or worse the violation of hopitality.  he accepted a marriage contract, which admittedly is different from an oath.  regardless he showed that he valued his hormones over his honor, except when honor demanded he execute an ally and debatably become a kinslayer in the process .  he lost no battles but managed to cut his forces in half through his own ineptitude.  /r/dreadfort our blades are sharp !
spoilers ahoy.  be warned.  book and show.  the war was already over.  robb stark had no chance of winning the war as soon moat cailan was captured.  his supply lines were gone, his army was going to be forced to forage, and was going to starve to death.  that does not even count the fact lannister tyrell forces would outnumber.  some people claim he never lost a battle, does not mean he is a good strategist, just that tywin decided to bleed robb out of the war.  and most of the victories robb has were with him outnumbering his opponents.  not to mention the fact robb had winterfell for like a year, before it burned to the ground do not give it someone else fault for this, it is his home he should be able to defend it or find people who can .  robb stark was a terrible leader.  he failed to gain any allies.  he could not get support for stannis, renly or balon.  why because he wanted to be king in the north.  eddard, the person he fighting this war to avenge, did not even want that, he backed stannis.  he willing gives over the only hostage he has that might detter ironborn aggression.  then he honor kills lord karstark losing half his army.  robb stark was not honorable in the slightest.  remember when i mentioned moat cailan ? the second his home land was under attack, robb should have sued for peace with lannisters or at least try to make peace with stannis , and gone back up north to rout the ironborn.  for all his do the honourable thing talk, he does not defend his subjects well.  not to mention he uproots the entire population of the north right before winter.  so now not only is population being pillaged, they are going to starve in the winter, even if robb wins, you think he would know winter is coming given that is his family is words.  he also has a bad case of double standards.  his mother removes the most critical asset robb had in the war, and he essentially slaps her on the wrist for it.  additionally, his marriage.  book or show, his marriage shows a complete double standard to him and his men.  robb has his wife with him, while on this journey and battle, none of his common soldiers get that, they are all forced to be alone.  so given the facts, you are in a losing war, you leader is incompetent and unhonorable, who would not betray him ? the leader was not performing the needs of the people so, much like eddard did, roose decided to remove a mad king.  and thank the gods for it.  now, there is a hope that the north will be free from the ironborn raiders, and might be able to feed itself in the coming winter.   #  eddard, the person he fighting this war to avenge, did not even want that, he backed stannis.   #  of course eddard, being dead, was not able to communicate this.   #  some corrections:  robb stark was a terrible leader.  he failed to gain any allies.  he could not get support for stannis, renly or balon.  he actually did get renly is support, but he died shortly afterwards.  of course eddard, being dead, was not able to communicate this.  the leader was not performing the needs of the people so, much like eddard did, roose decided to remove a mad king.  and thank the gods for it.  now, there is a hope that the north will be free from the ironborn raiders, and might be able to feed itself in the coming winter.  methinks calling him  mad  is a bit of an overreach.  naive, yes.  foolish, yes.   #  sealing that succession by marrying ramsay to arya ?  # had he captured those, he would be in a position to negotiate a favorable peace for the north, whether with himself as king in the north or warden of the north.  it relies entirely on trade with the south.  and joffrey had revealed his intention of doubling taxes on the north without a care for the lives it might cost.  the north was guaranteed to starve in the winter if robb went home.  and replace that king with himself soon to be succeeded by his bastard ramsay ? sealing that succession by marrying ramsay to arya ? the north would be better run by craster than by ramsay bolton.   #  but the book plan is hardly an end game best case scenario he took back a piece of his kingdom.   # in the books, he had a different one: he would attack moat cailin from two sides, and march north.  that is not a bad plan.  but the book plan is hardly an end game best case scenario he took back a piece of his kingdom.  if he keeps marching north he has to leave troops he does not have behind to guard against the ironborn or just accept that the whole west coast is vulnerable.  but  this guy needs me  is hardly a justification to murder him.  the justification was that the freys had risked everything by joining his rebellion based solely on an oath he took and later broke.  the freys had a chance to get back the goodwill with papa lannister that robb had cost them, so they took it.  and of course roose had been unhappy with the.  creative.  policies robb had been implementing, up to and including the execution of rickard.  but the point i was getting at is that robb only  appeared  to have a chance at achieving his endgame because the freys/boltons kept up the ruse.  had they decided not to murder him and instead just go home/fight him, he was still completely out of the fight.   #  i mean, it is certainly true that robb needed the frey men to win at that point.   # if he keeps marching north he has to leave troops he does not have behind to guard against the ironborn or just accept that the whole west coast is vulnerable.  i feel like you are forgetting about howland reed.  howland knows the marshes around moat cailin quite well, and with his assistance what do you think robb has been having him do all this time robb can easily retake moat cailin.  meanwhile, if tywin tried to take it from the south as robb would have appeared to do, all his forces would be slaughtered.  if robb sent enough troops north to retake it, the ironborn are opportunists and would not invade further.  on the other hand, if he did that then his men might be totally unwilling to venture south, and he would be forced to fight a defensive war rather than retaking the initiative.  i ca not tell you all his plans, but his moves were far from dumb.  there is a reason he won every battle.  the freys owed him their allegiance as his vassals.  and he had not broken any oaths; he did something that looked like it might conflict with something his mother had promised.  even if he had broken an oath, it still does not justify murder or worse the violation of hopitality.  i mean, it is certainly true that robb needed the frey men to win at that point.  so if walder frey had simply kept his troops home, struck u and suggested robb surrender to tywin is mercy, that would have been far better than the red wedding.  it would have been a more minor betrayal and it would have resulted in better consequences for almost everyone.   #  even if he had broken an oath, it still does not justify murder or worse the violation of hopitality.   # howland knows the marshes around moat cailin quite well, and with his assistance what do you think robb has been having him do all this time robb can easily retake moat cailin.  meanwhile, if tywin tried to take it from the south as robb would have appeared to do, all his forces would be slaughtered.  unless the southern force sailed up the uncontested east coast.  and anyway, even if he managed to retake all of the north without a drop of his own blood, his position would still be infinitely weaker than it was at the onset of conflict.  on the other hand, if he did that then his men might be totally unwilling to venture south, and he would be forced to fight a defensive war rather than retaking the initiative.  i ca not tell you all his plans, but his moves were far from dumb.  there is a reason he won every battle.  but robb does not have nearly enough men to defend both the west coast from ironborn raids, the south from land invasion, and the east from sea invasion let alone maintain an offensive.  this was all well and good when there was a major conflict in the south, but that was no longer the case.  the freys owed him their allegiance as his vassals.  and to whom did robb owe his allegiance ? he ca not pull loyalty when he has abandoned his own king.  if anything, the freys and boltons were on the right side here.  even if he had broken an oath, it still does not justify murder or worse the violation of hopitality.  he accepted a marriage contract, which admittedly is different from an oath.  regardless he showed that he valued his hormones over his honor, except when honor demanded he execute an ally and debatably become a kinslayer in the process .  he lost no battles but managed to cut his forces in half through his own ineptitude.  /r/dreadfort our blades are sharp !
spoilers ahoy.  be warned.  book and show.  the war was already over.  robb stark had no chance of winning the war as soon moat cailan was captured.  his supply lines were gone, his army was going to be forced to forage, and was going to starve to death.  that does not even count the fact lannister tyrell forces would outnumber.  some people claim he never lost a battle, does not mean he is a good strategist, just that tywin decided to bleed robb out of the war.  and most of the victories robb has were with him outnumbering his opponents.  not to mention the fact robb had winterfell for like a year, before it burned to the ground do not give it someone else fault for this, it is his home he should be able to defend it or find people who can .  robb stark was a terrible leader.  he failed to gain any allies.  he could not get support for stannis, renly or balon.  why because he wanted to be king in the north.  eddard, the person he fighting this war to avenge, did not even want that, he backed stannis.  he willing gives over the only hostage he has that might detter ironborn aggression.  then he honor kills lord karstark losing half his army.  robb stark was not honorable in the slightest.  remember when i mentioned moat cailan ? the second his home land was under attack, robb should have sued for peace with lannisters or at least try to make peace with stannis , and gone back up north to rout the ironborn.  for all his do the honourable thing talk, he does not defend his subjects well.  not to mention he uproots the entire population of the north right before winter.  so now not only is population being pillaged, they are going to starve in the winter, even if robb wins, you think he would know winter is coming given that is his family is words.  he also has a bad case of double standards.  his mother removes the most critical asset robb had in the war, and he essentially slaps her on the wrist for it.  additionally, his marriage.  book or show, his marriage shows a complete double standard to him and his men.  robb has his wife with him, while on this journey and battle, none of his common soldiers get that, they are all forced to be alone.  so given the facts, you are in a losing war, you leader is incompetent and unhonorable, who would not betray him ? the leader was not performing the needs of the people so, much like eddard did, roose decided to remove a mad king.  and thank the gods for it.  now, there is a hope that the north will be free from the ironborn raiders, and might be able to feed itself in the coming winter.   #  so given the facts, you are in a losing war, you leader is incompetent and unhonorable, who would not betray him ?  #  the leader was not performing the needs of the people so, much like eddard did, roose decided to remove a mad king.   #  some corrections:  robb stark was a terrible leader.  he failed to gain any allies.  he could not get support for stannis, renly or balon.  he actually did get renly is support, but he died shortly afterwards.  of course eddard, being dead, was not able to communicate this.  the leader was not performing the needs of the people so, much like eddard did, roose decided to remove a mad king.  and thank the gods for it.  now, there is a hope that the north will be free from the ironborn raiders, and might be able to feed itself in the coming winter.  methinks calling him  mad  is a bit of an overreach.  naive, yes.  foolish, yes.   #  and joffrey had revealed his intention of doubling taxes on the north without a care for the lives it might cost.   # had he captured those, he would be in a position to negotiate a favorable peace for the north, whether with himself as king in the north or warden of the north.  it relies entirely on trade with the south.  and joffrey had revealed his intention of doubling taxes on the north without a care for the lives it might cost.  the north was guaranteed to starve in the winter if robb went home.  and replace that king with himself soon to be succeeded by his bastard ramsay ? sealing that succession by marrying ramsay to arya ? the north would be better run by craster than by ramsay bolton.   #  if he keeps marching north he has to leave troops he does not have behind to guard against the ironborn or just accept that the whole west coast is vulnerable.   # in the books, he had a different one: he would attack moat cailin from two sides, and march north.  that is not a bad plan.  but the book plan is hardly an end game best case scenario he took back a piece of his kingdom.  if he keeps marching north he has to leave troops he does not have behind to guard against the ironborn or just accept that the whole west coast is vulnerable.  but  this guy needs me  is hardly a justification to murder him.  the justification was that the freys had risked everything by joining his rebellion based solely on an oath he took and later broke.  the freys had a chance to get back the goodwill with papa lannister that robb had cost them, so they took it.  and of course roose had been unhappy with the.  creative.  policies robb had been implementing, up to and including the execution of rickard.  but the point i was getting at is that robb only  appeared  to have a chance at achieving his endgame because the freys/boltons kept up the ruse.  had they decided not to murder him and instead just go home/fight him, he was still completely out of the fight.   #  and he had not broken any oaths; he did something that looked like it might conflict with something his mother had promised.   # if he keeps marching north he has to leave troops he does not have behind to guard against the ironborn or just accept that the whole west coast is vulnerable.  i feel like you are forgetting about howland reed.  howland knows the marshes around moat cailin quite well, and with his assistance what do you think robb has been having him do all this time robb can easily retake moat cailin.  meanwhile, if tywin tried to take it from the south as robb would have appeared to do, all his forces would be slaughtered.  if robb sent enough troops north to retake it, the ironborn are opportunists and would not invade further.  on the other hand, if he did that then his men might be totally unwilling to venture south, and he would be forced to fight a defensive war rather than retaking the initiative.  i ca not tell you all his plans, but his moves were far from dumb.  there is a reason he won every battle.  the freys owed him their allegiance as his vassals.  and he had not broken any oaths; he did something that looked like it might conflict with something his mother had promised.  even if he had broken an oath, it still does not justify murder or worse the violation of hopitality.  i mean, it is certainly true that robb needed the frey men to win at that point.  so if walder frey had simply kept his troops home, struck u and suggested robb surrender to tywin is mercy, that would have been far better than the red wedding.  it would have been a more minor betrayal and it would have resulted in better consequences for almost everyone.   #  if anything, the freys and boltons were on the right side here.   # howland knows the marshes around moat cailin quite well, and with his assistance what do you think robb has been having him do all this time robb can easily retake moat cailin.  meanwhile, if tywin tried to take it from the south as robb would have appeared to do, all his forces would be slaughtered.  unless the southern force sailed up the uncontested east coast.  and anyway, even if he managed to retake all of the north without a drop of his own blood, his position would still be infinitely weaker than it was at the onset of conflict.  on the other hand, if he did that then his men might be totally unwilling to venture south, and he would be forced to fight a defensive war rather than retaking the initiative.  i ca not tell you all his plans, but his moves were far from dumb.  there is a reason he won every battle.  but robb does not have nearly enough men to defend both the west coast from ironborn raids, the south from land invasion, and the east from sea invasion let alone maintain an offensive.  this was all well and good when there was a major conflict in the south, but that was no longer the case.  the freys owed him their allegiance as his vassals.  and to whom did robb owe his allegiance ? he ca not pull loyalty when he has abandoned his own king.  if anything, the freys and boltons were on the right side here.  even if he had broken an oath, it still does not justify murder or worse the violation of hopitality.  he accepted a marriage contract, which admittedly is different from an oath.  regardless he showed that he valued his hormones over his honor, except when honor demanded he execute an ally and debatably become a kinslayer in the process .  he lost no battles but managed to cut his forces in half through his own ineptitude.  /r/dreadfort our blades are sharp !
i really think if you have money to give to charity you should think carefully about where you donate it.  i think URL or similar is a good place to start.  i think cures for cancer are a waste of money.  most people who get cancer do so because they lived unhealthy lives.  the money donated to cure them would be better spent allowing those people to access healthier life styles, rather than pumping unhealthy people them full of drugs.  i have read this URL which seems to refute my view.  but this article URL does state that 0 of cancer deaths are caused by environmental factors.  given that according to giving what we can thinks that £0 or so can save a human life, and that most cancer drugs cost that to extend the life of someone suffering from the disease for less than a month normally i think they are a waste of money.  it would be more effective to spend that money elsewhere, either directly savings lives or helping promote healthier lifestyles.  i have gotta admit i am pulling the £0 figure out of my ass.   #  most people who get cancer do so because they lived unhealthy lives.   #  cancer is an inevitability URL of living a long time.   # cancer is an inevitability URL of living a long time.  you ca not outrun cancer through healthy lifestyle choices any more than you can avoid death.  do you have a citation on  less than a month  ? the article you have linked to also states that we only know how to prevent one third of cancers, which indicates that the majority of cancers could not be attributed to unhealthy life styles at least not in way we understand or could alter .  additionally, nearly every article i have read shows that we are actually far better at treating cancer, as  the overall 0 year relative survival rate for childhood cancer has improved markedly over the past 0 decades, from 0 for cases diagnosed from 0 to 0 to 0 for diagnoses during 0 to 0, due to new and improved treatments.   URL that does not sound like merely extending life for a month, nor does it make sense that children should be faulted for an  unhealthy lifestyle .  one of the best ways to treat cancer is to catch it early.  if it is clear to people that treating it early will save their life, rather than claiming that by the time they already have cancer it is basically too late, is both untrue for most cancers nor is it productive towards people is general health.   #  everyone, until we get a better cure, will eventually get cancer in their lifetime if something else does not kill them first.   #  looseleaf hits it on the head.  everyone, until we get a better cure, will eventually get cancer in their lifetime if something else does not kill them first.  cancer is literally the mutation of the cells caused by a ridiculous number of environmental factors and obviously for some people, genetic.  so they ca not  be healthier , op .  using the computer ? cancer risk.  flying in planes ? cancer risk.  getting an x ray ? cancer risk.  really everything we do could be last straw that gives us cancer.  if anything, cancer is one of the only diseases worth studying extensively since it would be relevant to literally everyone like i said, assuming they do not die before they get cancer .  and since we are living longer and longer lives, without a cure to cancer.  more and more people will be getting to the point where they must suffer with it.   #  in my lifetime alone, aids has gone from being a death sentence to a manageable virus in the west, at least .   #  i was going to say something about research, but you beat me to it.  despite the apparent ease of preventing people from starving and the amount of efforts that have gone into it, we still have not stopped it.  we ca not just spend the money on food: we also have to address corrupt governments, societal inequalities, and make a sustainable system.  i do not think it is as easy or straight forward as you are making it out to be, and a lot of those resources will burned up before they ever reach the people who need it.  if we effectively feed the world is poor and stop easily preventable deaths, we will just end up with more people who will live long enough to suffer from cancer.  people tend to focus on the issues that are most prevalent where they live, but considering that improving cancer treatments will help people from all walks of life in all areas of the world, it is hardly a myopic issue to address.  in my lifetime alone, aids has gone from being a death sentence to a manageable virus in the west, at least .  this is not an abstract concept for me: i lost someone very dear to me who, had they contracted aids 0 months later, would likely still be alive.  when it comes to people close to you and nearly everyone knows people who have had cancer , we tend not to think in terms of efficiencies, but seek to ease the suffering we personally witness.  in the case of cancer, that requires a lot of research that may not dollar for dollar have the greatest short term impact, but in the long term could save or improve an enormous number of lives.  i find that to be extremely valuable.   #  but, when it comes down to it, people are going to do what they want to do in the end.   #  this hit a little close to my own heart, i am going to weigh in on this and please do not read any of this as snark.  i am 0 years old, i just had a baby in september, i have never smoked, i never did any drugs, i have lived a fairly healthy life running, biking, hiking etc and just a month ago i found out i have thyroid cancer.  i am a bit hurt that you think that trying to help find a cure/prevention so that i can actually live my life a waste of money.  my cousin passed away, 0 years ago, at 0 years old from complications due to leukemia treatment.  he served 0 years in iraq, went mountain climbing, never did drugs, did not smoke was going to school to be an engineer, was very active and healthy.  yet, he is gone at a young age due to cancer.  what kind of healthier lifestyles are you wanting to promote ? gyms advertise all the time, doctors preach about the benefits of getting out and exercising.  they are constantly harping on people not to smoke, drink less, treat your body well.  but, when it comes down to it, people are going to do what they want to do in the end.  donating money to more cost effective activities, like promoting a healthy lifestyle, to me, seems like a waste of money.  now, about the link to the poverty website, i agree that this is also a problem, millions of people die due to starvation simply because they do not have access to healthy food, water, and medicine.  but to say that their lives are more deserving of help, because they live in poverty, does not seem right.  how can you judge who is worthy of having their lives made better or not ? am i not worthy of getting medical treatment, or utilizing the medical discoveries that are happening because people are kind enough to donate to cancer research ? my life has less value because i got the genetic make up to cause my cells to go cancerous ?  #  you and other posters who i will respond to in a second have changed my view on that.   #  the nonsense i have started my post with about cancer being a lifestyle disease is wrong, my total total bad.  i have always assumed that people who got it who were not smokers or just very old were very rare outliers sic ? , virtually like people who are born with two heads or somethings.  you and other posters who i will respond to in a second have changed my view on that.    0; i am not sure how to respond to the rest of your post.  to me this is a debate removed far far from reality and much more a way for me to relax than something emotionally charged.  i bloody hate talking across the internet about sensitive stuff, i am not particularly sensitive at the best of times when i can see when i have taken things to far, so i am going to try to be sensitive in my response once i have actually figured it out.  no matter what i say, i love you as much as i love the rest of the human race and every stranger and what not out there and i do not want you to think that i am saying your life is without value or less valuable than anybody else is.
i am not one to delve into politics, but i fully believe that there should be no party system.  the election is corrupt enough as it is: ballot rigging, states getting screwed florida/george w bush , the ludicrous electoral college, large monetary donations to enable certain campaigns, filibusters, logrolling, etc.  the position of power in this nation has blinded man so much that we have begun to lose the original function of government.  this is incredibly criminogenic and unfair.  the biggest issue is the voters.  voters are not educated enough about what they are voting on.  as all this corruption hinders the true intentions or integrity of a candidate, voters just vote with their party.  i do not think anyone should register as a republican or a democrat, because this sort of binds you to that party despite the actual motives or beliefs of a candidate in your party.  if there are no parties, people will be forced to vote on the candidates.  all candidates should be represented equally and their true character/morals/beliefs/goals should be fully disclosed to the public unbiasedly.  the party system creates bias.  please change my view !  #  i do not think anyone should register as a republican or a democrat, because this sort of binds you to that party despite the actual motives or beliefs of a candidate in your party.   #  look, this is what everyone  loves  to say, but the fact remains that the ideals of most republicans line up with each other more so than they do with any d , as do the beliefs of democrats as well.   # look, this is what everyone  loves  to say, but the fact remains that the ideals of most republicans line up with each other more so than they do with any d , as do the beliefs of democrats as well.  but that is not true all the time, so let is say i am wrong in a few instances, which i surely am depending on the state, district, etc.  you will be still be very hard pressed to find a democrat that leans more to the right than their republican opponent, and vise versa.  it just does not happen.  sure, maybe we have a person running as a d who leans more to the middle than i would like, but the person running as the r in that area would only be that much more right leaning.  you wo not find a republican running on a pro choice platform against a democrat running on a pro life one.  there are obviously many more examples, but i think you get the idea.  with a party system, people who identify with that party are in a position to put pressure on their fellow candidates to make certain decisions that they would not had gone through with otherwise if they were in a no party situation.   #  however, if you looked further into the goals and character of each candidate, you may find that your views align more with the other candidate.   #  i am not blaming those issues on the two party system and i am not proposing a way to fix them.  i am saying that there is enough corruption as it is and this blinds voters.  the two party system creates a huge bias in voters and they already have enough of an issue picking a fair candidate.  when you are not sure who to vote for, of course you are going to vote for the person who is associated with the same party as you.  however, if you looked further into the goals and character of each candidate, you may find that your views align more with the other candidate.  again, the two party system creates bias and there should be no bias in voting.   #  andrew nepolitano and john stossel are two libertarian leaning tv personalities.   #  i think most people would like a reduced role of political parties in the us but there is no practical way of doing this under the current system.  first of all let is look at what political parties are.  they are groups of people that have similar political beliefs that have banded together to ensure that candidates they like are on ballots.  i know modern political parties are a little more than this but at their most basic level this is what they are.  how do you plan to eliminate political parties without limiting the right of people to freely associate with one another ? the electoral college was created precisely because the founders believed the populous was uneducated.  however, voters have never been more educated about politics than they are today.  you can turn on fox news, cnn, msnbc, rush limbaugh, bill o rielly, rachel maddow, etc.  and get a plethora of different views on the same issues.  even smaller political ideologies are fairly well represented in the media.  andrew nepolitano and john stossel are two libertarian leaning tv personalities.  this is not to mention the multitudes of political websites.  i do not think you are giving the public very much credit when it comes to being educated.  i think a lot of people vote republican or democrat because they believe they are voting for the lesser of two evils, not because they are uneducated.  the main cause of this is the us voting system which is a  first past the post  system that inevitably leads to a two party system because the winner needs to have a majority not plurality of electoral votes.  i am a registered republican but have never voted for a republican presidential candidate.   #  so, we have democrats who are pro choice, support same sex marriages, and are pro government regulation, and republicans who are pro life and pro economic freedom, and do not support same sex marriages.   # it just does not happen.  sure, maybe we have a person running as a d who leans more to the middle than i would like, but the person running as the r in that area would only be that much more right leaning.  there are obviously many more examples, but i think you get the idea.  i think this is actually a great argument against the party system.  i do not live in the usa, so i am not really sure about what republicans and democrats actually believe, but from what i have heard, democrats tend to support more govrenment regulation in economy, and republicans less government regulation in economy.  so, we have democrats who are pro choice, support same sex marriages, and are pro government regulation, and republicans who are pro life and pro economic freedom, and do not support same sex marriages.  however, why should it be limited like that ? there is nothing illogical about being pro life, supporting same sex marriages, and supporting more government regulations of economy.  or literally any other combination of these issues, because they are unrelated to each other.  however, a party system only legitimizes two of the possible combinations, and people who disagree with both end up having to vote for the lesser evil.   #  if i understand you correctly, you are saying that because parties exist, people just vote for a candidate based on their party affiliation rather than their character and morals ?  #  if i understand you correctly, you are saying that because parties exist, people just vote for a candidate based on their party affiliation rather than their character and morals ? that may be somewhat true for the general election, but it is not the case in the primaries.  in the primaries, people basically vote within the party on which candidate should run in the general election.  you ca not just  vote with the party  in a primary like this, since you are voting between candidates of the same party.  also, how do you plan to do this: all candidates should be represented equally and their true character/morals/beliefs/goals should be fully disclosed to the public unbiasedly better than we already do ?
i am not one to delve into politics, but i fully believe that there should be no party system.  the election is corrupt enough as it is: ballot rigging, states getting screwed florida/george w bush , the ludicrous electoral college, large monetary donations to enable certain campaigns, filibusters, logrolling, etc.  the position of power in this nation has blinded man so much that we have begun to lose the original function of government.  this is incredibly criminogenic and unfair.  the biggest issue is the voters.  voters are not educated enough about what they are voting on.  as all this corruption hinders the true intentions or integrity of a candidate, voters just vote with their party.  i do not think anyone should register as a republican or a democrat, because this sort of binds you to that party despite the actual motives or beliefs of a candidate in your party.  if there are no parties, people will be forced to vote on the candidates.  all candidates should be represented equally and their true character/morals/beliefs/goals should be fully disclosed to the public unbiasedly.  the party system creates bias.  please change my view !  #  i do not think anyone should register as a republican or a democrat, because this sort of binds you to that party despite the actual motives or beliefs of a candidate in your party.   #  are you saying we should ban the right to free association.   # are you saying we should ban the right to free association.  while i agree with your position in theory.  i do not think it would have any reasonable effect on any national election i think most people new which party romney was on .  as far as state elections go it would likely lead to worse outcomes.  you assume people will bother to educate themselves if they ca not simply vote straight ticket.  historically, it is far more likely to assume that they simply wo not vote for that position and thus, leading to a small minority determining the outcome of those elections.   #  however, if you looked further into the goals and character of each candidate, you may find that your views align more with the other candidate.   #  i am not blaming those issues on the two party system and i am not proposing a way to fix them.  i am saying that there is enough corruption as it is and this blinds voters.  the two party system creates a huge bias in voters and they already have enough of an issue picking a fair candidate.  when you are not sure who to vote for, of course you are going to vote for the person who is associated with the same party as you.  however, if you looked further into the goals and character of each candidate, you may find that your views align more with the other candidate.  again, the two party system creates bias and there should be no bias in voting.   #  however, voters have never been more educated about politics than they are today.   #  i think most people would like a reduced role of political parties in the us but there is no practical way of doing this under the current system.  first of all let is look at what political parties are.  they are groups of people that have similar political beliefs that have banded together to ensure that candidates they like are on ballots.  i know modern political parties are a little more than this but at their most basic level this is what they are.  how do you plan to eliminate political parties without limiting the right of people to freely associate with one another ? the electoral college was created precisely because the founders believed the populous was uneducated.  however, voters have never been more educated about politics than they are today.  you can turn on fox news, cnn, msnbc, rush limbaugh, bill o rielly, rachel maddow, etc.  and get a plethora of different views on the same issues.  even smaller political ideologies are fairly well represented in the media.  andrew nepolitano and john stossel are two libertarian leaning tv personalities.  this is not to mention the multitudes of political websites.  i do not think you are giving the public very much credit when it comes to being educated.  i think a lot of people vote republican or democrat because they believe they are voting for the lesser of two evils, not because they are uneducated.  the main cause of this is the us voting system which is a  first past the post  system that inevitably leads to a two party system because the winner needs to have a majority not plurality of electoral votes.  i am a registered republican but have never voted for a republican presidential candidate.   #  you wo not find a republican running on a pro choice platform against a democrat running on a pro life one.   # look, this is what everyone  loves  to say, but the fact remains that the ideals of most republicans line up with each other more so than they do with any d , as do the beliefs of democrats as well.  but that is not true all the time, so let is say i am wrong in a few instances, which i surely am depending on the state, district, etc.  you will be still be very hard pressed to find a democrat that leans more to the right than their republican opponent, and vise versa.  it just does not happen.  sure, maybe we have a person running as a d who leans more to the middle than i would like, but the person running as the r in that area would only be that much more right leaning.  you wo not find a republican running on a pro choice platform against a democrat running on a pro life one.  there are obviously many more examples, but i think you get the idea.  with a party system, people who identify with that party are in a position to put pressure on their fellow candidates to make certain decisions that they would not had gone through with otherwise if they were in a no party situation.   #  so, we have democrats who are pro choice, support same sex marriages, and are pro government regulation, and republicans who are pro life and pro economic freedom, and do not support same sex marriages.   # it just does not happen.  sure, maybe we have a person running as a d who leans more to the middle than i would like, but the person running as the r in that area would only be that much more right leaning.  there are obviously many more examples, but i think you get the idea.  i think this is actually a great argument against the party system.  i do not live in the usa, so i am not really sure about what republicans and democrats actually believe, but from what i have heard, democrats tend to support more govrenment regulation in economy, and republicans less government regulation in economy.  so, we have democrats who are pro choice, support same sex marriages, and are pro government regulation, and republicans who are pro life and pro economic freedom, and do not support same sex marriages.  however, why should it be limited like that ? there is nothing illogical about being pro life, supporting same sex marriages, and supporting more government regulations of economy.  or literally any other combination of these issues, because they are unrelated to each other.  however, a party system only legitimizes two of the possible combinations, and people who disagree with both end up having to vote for the lesser evil.
URL i saw the above link on my facebook feed and it got me thinking.  while i do not agree with the baker is views, i ca not help but think that perhaps the baker should have the right to refuse service if he has a moral issue with the request, regardless of the legitimacy of the moral stance.  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ? would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.   #  we do not live in this sort of society.   # we do not live in this sort of society.  a baker can refuse service to people  for most reasons .  we as a people have determined that some of these reasons race, gender, age, and now sexual orientation are not valid because these traits are intrinsic to the person and discriminating on such things is detrimental to society.  in this case it is society via government which is enforcing this.  while the market may stamp out many business due to their bigotry that does not change the fact that in many cases such businesses will be able to limp on creating a situation where patrons of certain classes will always be wondering whether or not they are going to get served or turned away simply because of their identity.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  there is no such thing as a  gay wedding cake .  frankly, there are not even wedding cakes.  there are just cakes and the gay people who buy them for whatever purpose they want.  if you sell cakes but refuse to sell one to a gay couple you are discriminating against them purely based on orientation.  would the law force them to make a cake in that case ? potentially based on protections against religious discrimination.  the difference is that bigamy/polygamy is a crime that does not necessarily require you to actually get married simply living together as common law spouses is sufficient.  a gay couple can legally hold themselves out to the community as married they simply wo not be recognized by the government.   #  you know what else is illegal in colorado ?  #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.  you know what else is illegal in colorado ? discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.  the colorado anti discrimination act states:  places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person is sexual orientation, including transgender status.  yes, it is a private business.  but businesses have to have licenses to operate.  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.  they have to pay minimum wages.  they have to submit to inspections.  they have to do a bunch of things that the owners would rather not do.  business are run with the permission of the state.  to own a business means you get to run it your way within the parameters of what is legal.  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.  they do not get goods and services because i disapprove of them .   #  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.   #  if the baker is willing to sell the gay couple a generic not gay themed cake, then he is not refusing service based on their sexual orientation, he is refusing to create a cake based on his religious view of the content desired on the cake.  from the article:   aclu attorney amanda goad, who heads up the organization is lbgt group, heralded the ruling.  religious freedom is a constitutional right.  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.  but the baker did not refuse service.  i am vehemently against discrimination, support gay marriage, and i think what the baker is doing is  wrong  from my personal moral perspective.  however, religious freedom is a natural right URL there is obviously a tension because religious rights are not absolute; you do not get to sacrifice your children ritually or even yourself because of religious beliefs.  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.  if you refuse service to someone because of  who they are , you are breaking the law in colorado, and religion is not a defense.  if you are refusing to offer a product that conflicts with your religious beliefs, but are willing to serve anyone who does want your products, then you are protected by the first amendment, and morally in the right due to natural laws.  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.   #  issue 0: religious beliefs may be absolutely protected, but religious conduct can still be regulated for the protection of society.  you touch on this with your sacrifice example, but stop too soon.  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.  the bakery offers a product wedding cake , and someone wants it for the same reason anyone else does wedding , but they are denied because of who they are gay couple .  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.  to avoid the conflict, the bakery must grant or deny wedding cakes across the board.  this point is illustrated by a fact omitted by the linked article one of the women who was denied there were multiple couples called back to ask for a wedding cake for a ceremony between two dogs.  she was offered service and quoted a price.  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.  state laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable such as anti discrimination laws but which incidentally burden religious freedom do not implicate first amendment rights.  federal constitutional challenges to such laws are reviewed on rational basis does the law rationally relate to a legitimate government purpose ? state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.  the first amendment provides no protection here.  dog article: URL  #  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.   #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.  0 0 .  that was a case on speech and association, which are similarly revered rights, but the rationale holds true and actually places the interest well above legitimate like i said, practically untouchable .  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.  v.  united states, 0 u. s.  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.  col.  ct.  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.  mccready v.  hoffius, 0 mich.  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.
URL i saw the above link on my facebook feed and it got me thinking.  while i do not agree with the baker is views, i ca not help but think that perhaps the baker should have the right to refuse service if he has a moral issue with the request, regardless of the legitimacy of the moral stance.  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ? would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.   #  in this case it is society via government which is enforcing this.   # we do not live in this sort of society.  a baker can refuse service to people  for most reasons .  we as a people have determined that some of these reasons race, gender, age, and now sexual orientation are not valid because these traits are intrinsic to the person and discriminating on such things is detrimental to society.  in this case it is society via government which is enforcing this.  while the market may stamp out many business due to their bigotry that does not change the fact that in many cases such businesses will be able to limp on creating a situation where patrons of certain classes will always be wondering whether or not they are going to get served or turned away simply because of their identity.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  there is no such thing as a  gay wedding cake .  frankly, there are not even wedding cakes.  there are just cakes and the gay people who buy them for whatever purpose they want.  if you sell cakes but refuse to sell one to a gay couple you are discriminating against them purely based on orientation.  would the law force them to make a cake in that case ? potentially based on protections against religious discrimination.  the difference is that bigamy/polygamy is a crime that does not necessarily require you to actually get married simply living together as common law spouses is sufficient.  a gay couple can legally hold themselves out to the community as married they simply wo not be recognized by the government.   #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.   #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.  you know what else is illegal in colorado ? discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.  the colorado anti discrimination act states:  places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person is sexual orientation, including transgender status.  yes, it is a private business.  but businesses have to have licenses to operate.  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.  they have to pay minimum wages.  they have to submit to inspections.  they have to do a bunch of things that the owners would rather not do.  business are run with the permission of the state.  to own a business means you get to run it your way within the parameters of what is legal.  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.  they do not get goods and services because i disapprove of them .   #  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.   #  if the baker is willing to sell the gay couple a generic not gay themed cake, then he is not refusing service based on their sexual orientation, he is refusing to create a cake based on his religious view of the content desired on the cake.  from the article:   aclu attorney amanda goad, who heads up the organization is lbgt group, heralded the ruling.  religious freedom is a constitutional right.  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.  but the baker did not refuse service.  i am vehemently against discrimination, support gay marriage, and i think what the baker is doing is  wrong  from my personal moral perspective.  however, religious freedom is a natural right URL there is obviously a tension because religious rights are not absolute; you do not get to sacrifice your children ritually or even yourself because of religious beliefs.  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.  if you refuse service to someone because of  who they are , you are breaking the law in colorado, and religion is not a defense.  if you are refusing to offer a product that conflicts with your religious beliefs, but are willing to serve anyone who does want your products, then you are protected by the first amendment, and morally in the right due to natural laws.  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  she was offered service and quoted a price.   #  issue 0: religious beliefs may be absolutely protected, but religious conduct can still be regulated for the protection of society.  you touch on this with your sacrifice example, but stop too soon.  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.  the bakery offers a product wedding cake , and someone wants it for the same reason anyone else does wedding , but they are denied because of who they are gay couple .  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.  to avoid the conflict, the bakery must grant or deny wedding cakes across the board.  this point is illustrated by a fact omitted by the linked article one of the women who was denied there were multiple couples called back to ask for a wedding cake for a ceremony between two dogs.  she was offered service and quoted a price.  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.  state laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable such as anti discrimination laws but which incidentally burden religious freedom do not implicate first amendment rights.  federal constitutional challenges to such laws are reviewed on rational basis does the law rationally relate to a legitimate government purpose ? state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.  the first amendment provides no protection here.  dog article: URL  #  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.   #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.  0 0 .  that was a case on speech and association, which are similarly revered rights, but the rationale holds true and actually places the interest well above legitimate like i said, practically untouchable .  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.  v.  united states, 0 u. s.  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.  col.  ct.  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.  mccready v.  hoffius, 0 mich.  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.
URL i saw the above link on my facebook feed and it got me thinking.  while i do not agree with the baker is views, i ca not help but think that perhaps the baker should have the right to refuse service if he has a moral issue with the request, regardless of the legitimacy of the moral stance.  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ? would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.   #  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.   # we do not live in this sort of society.  a baker can refuse service to people  for most reasons .  we as a people have determined that some of these reasons race, gender, age, and now sexual orientation are not valid because these traits are intrinsic to the person and discriminating on such things is detrimental to society.  in this case it is society via government which is enforcing this.  while the market may stamp out many business due to their bigotry that does not change the fact that in many cases such businesses will be able to limp on creating a situation where patrons of certain classes will always be wondering whether or not they are going to get served or turned away simply because of their identity.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  there is no such thing as a  gay wedding cake .  frankly, there are not even wedding cakes.  there are just cakes and the gay people who buy them for whatever purpose they want.  if you sell cakes but refuse to sell one to a gay couple you are discriminating against them purely based on orientation.  would the law force them to make a cake in that case ? potentially based on protections against religious discrimination.  the difference is that bigamy/polygamy is a crime that does not necessarily require you to actually get married simply living together as common law spouses is sufficient.  a gay couple can legally hold themselves out to the community as married they simply wo not be recognized by the government.   #  discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.   #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.  you know what else is illegal in colorado ? discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.  the colorado anti discrimination act states:  places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person is sexual orientation, including transgender status.  yes, it is a private business.  but businesses have to have licenses to operate.  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.  they have to pay minimum wages.  they have to submit to inspections.  they have to do a bunch of things that the owners would rather not do.  business are run with the permission of the state.  to own a business means you get to run it your way within the parameters of what is legal.  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.  they do not get goods and services because i disapprove of them .   #  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.   #  if the baker is willing to sell the gay couple a generic not gay themed cake, then he is not refusing service based on their sexual orientation, he is refusing to create a cake based on his religious view of the content desired on the cake.  from the article:   aclu attorney amanda goad, who heads up the organization is lbgt group, heralded the ruling.  religious freedom is a constitutional right.  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.  but the baker did not refuse service.  i am vehemently against discrimination, support gay marriage, and i think what the baker is doing is  wrong  from my personal moral perspective.  however, religious freedom is a natural right URL there is obviously a tension because religious rights are not absolute; you do not get to sacrifice your children ritually or even yourself because of religious beliefs.  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.  if you refuse service to someone because of  who they are , you are breaking the law in colorado, and religion is not a defense.  if you are refusing to offer a product that conflicts with your religious beliefs, but are willing to serve anyone who does want your products, then you are protected by the first amendment, and morally in the right due to natural laws.  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.   #  issue 0: religious beliefs may be absolutely protected, but religious conduct can still be regulated for the protection of society.  you touch on this with your sacrifice example, but stop too soon.  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.  the bakery offers a product wedding cake , and someone wants it for the same reason anyone else does wedding , but they are denied because of who they are gay couple .  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.  to avoid the conflict, the bakery must grant or deny wedding cakes across the board.  this point is illustrated by a fact omitted by the linked article one of the women who was denied there were multiple couples called back to ask for a wedding cake for a ceremony between two dogs.  she was offered service and quoted a price.  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.  state laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable such as anti discrimination laws but which incidentally burden religious freedom do not implicate first amendment rights.  federal constitutional challenges to such laws are reviewed on rational basis does the law rationally relate to a legitimate government purpose ? state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.  the first amendment provides no protection here.  dog article: URL  #  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.   #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.  0 0 .  that was a case on speech and association, which are similarly revered rights, but the rationale holds true and actually places the interest well above legitimate like i said, practically untouchable .  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.  v.  united states, 0 u. s.  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.  col.  ct.  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.  mccready v.  hoffius, 0 mich.  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.
URL i saw the above link on my facebook feed and it got me thinking.  while i do not agree with the baker is views, i ca not help but think that perhaps the baker should have the right to refuse service if he has a moral issue with the request, regardless of the legitimacy of the moral stance.  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ? would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ?  #  would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  # we do not live in this sort of society.  a baker can refuse service to people  for most reasons .  we as a people have determined that some of these reasons race, gender, age, and now sexual orientation are not valid because these traits are intrinsic to the person and discriminating on such things is detrimental to society.  in this case it is society via government which is enforcing this.  while the market may stamp out many business due to their bigotry that does not change the fact that in many cases such businesses will be able to limp on creating a situation where patrons of certain classes will always be wondering whether or not they are going to get served or turned away simply because of their identity.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  there is no such thing as a  gay wedding cake .  frankly, there are not even wedding cakes.  there are just cakes and the gay people who buy them for whatever purpose they want.  if you sell cakes but refuse to sell one to a gay couple you are discriminating against them purely based on orientation.  would the law force them to make a cake in that case ? potentially based on protections against religious discrimination.  the difference is that bigamy/polygamy is a crime that does not necessarily require you to actually get married simply living together as common law spouses is sufficient.  a gay couple can legally hold themselves out to the community as married they simply wo not be recognized by the government.   #  business are run with the permission of the state.   #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.  you know what else is illegal in colorado ? discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.  the colorado anti discrimination act states:  places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person is sexual orientation, including transgender status.  yes, it is a private business.  but businesses have to have licenses to operate.  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.  they have to pay minimum wages.  they have to submit to inspections.  they have to do a bunch of things that the owners would rather not do.  business are run with the permission of the state.  to own a business means you get to run it your way within the parameters of what is legal.  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.  they do not get goods and services because i disapprove of them .   #  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  if the baker is willing to sell the gay couple a generic not gay themed cake, then he is not refusing service based on their sexual orientation, he is refusing to create a cake based on his religious view of the content desired on the cake.  from the article:   aclu attorney amanda goad, who heads up the organization is lbgt group, heralded the ruling.  religious freedom is a constitutional right.  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.  but the baker did not refuse service.  i am vehemently against discrimination, support gay marriage, and i think what the baker is doing is  wrong  from my personal moral perspective.  however, religious freedom is a natural right URL there is obviously a tension because religious rights are not absolute; you do not get to sacrifice your children ritually or even yourself because of religious beliefs.  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.  if you refuse service to someone because of  who they are , you are breaking the law in colorado, and religion is not a defense.  if you are refusing to offer a product that conflicts with your religious beliefs, but are willing to serve anyone who does want your products, then you are protected by the first amendment, and morally in the right due to natural laws.  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.   #  issue 0: religious beliefs may be absolutely protected, but religious conduct can still be regulated for the protection of society.  you touch on this with your sacrifice example, but stop too soon.  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.  the bakery offers a product wedding cake , and someone wants it for the same reason anyone else does wedding , but they are denied because of who they are gay couple .  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.  to avoid the conflict, the bakery must grant or deny wedding cakes across the board.  this point is illustrated by a fact omitted by the linked article one of the women who was denied there were multiple couples called back to ask for a wedding cake for a ceremony between two dogs.  she was offered service and quoted a price.  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.  state laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable such as anti discrimination laws but which incidentally burden religious freedom do not implicate first amendment rights.  federal constitutional challenges to such laws are reviewed on rational basis does the law rationally relate to a legitimate government purpose ? state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.  the first amendment provides no protection here.  dog article: URL  #  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.   #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.  0 0 .  that was a case on speech and association, which are similarly revered rights, but the rationale holds true and actually places the interest well above legitimate like i said, practically untouchable .  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.  v.  united states, 0 u. s.  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.  col.  ct.  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.  mccready v.  hoffius, 0 mich.  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.
URL i saw the above link on my facebook feed and it got me thinking.  while i do not agree with the baker is views, i ca not help but think that perhaps the baker should have the right to refuse service if he has a moral issue with the request, regardless of the legitimacy of the moral stance.  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ? would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.   #  you mean like the strong arming we did with race and gender ?  # it is not a moral issue.  they were not being asked to bake a cake with dead babies, they were being asked to do the exact same thing they do for other people.  you mean like the strong arming we did with race and gender ? it seems to have worked out well.  the more you force people to be together, the more you understand them and see them as equals.  you start habits and behaviors by forcing the habit or behavior until it becomes natural.  it is not illegal, it is just not legally recognized.  a swat team will not come in and arrest the wedding party.  this is the same as an unmarried couple celebrating their anniversary.   #  you know what else is illegal in colorado ?  #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.  you know what else is illegal in colorado ? discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.  the colorado anti discrimination act states:  places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person is sexual orientation, including transgender status.  yes, it is a private business.  but businesses have to have licenses to operate.  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.  they have to pay minimum wages.  they have to submit to inspections.  they have to do a bunch of things that the owners would rather not do.  business are run with the permission of the state.  to own a business means you get to run it your way within the parameters of what is legal.  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.  they do not get goods and services because i disapprove of them .   #  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.   #  if the baker is willing to sell the gay couple a generic not gay themed cake, then he is not refusing service based on their sexual orientation, he is refusing to create a cake based on his religious view of the content desired on the cake.  from the article:   aclu attorney amanda goad, who heads up the organization is lbgt group, heralded the ruling.  religious freedom is a constitutional right.  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.  but the baker did not refuse service.  i am vehemently against discrimination, support gay marriage, and i think what the baker is doing is  wrong  from my personal moral perspective.  however, religious freedom is a natural right URL there is obviously a tension because religious rights are not absolute; you do not get to sacrifice your children ritually or even yourself because of religious beliefs.  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.  if you refuse service to someone because of  who they are , you are breaking the law in colorado, and religion is not a defense.  if you are refusing to offer a product that conflicts with your religious beliefs, but are willing to serve anyone who does want your products, then you are protected by the first amendment, and morally in the right due to natural laws.  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.   #  issue 0: religious beliefs may be absolutely protected, but religious conduct can still be regulated for the protection of society.  you touch on this with your sacrifice example, but stop too soon.  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.  the bakery offers a product wedding cake , and someone wants it for the same reason anyone else does wedding , but they are denied because of who they are gay couple .  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.  to avoid the conflict, the bakery must grant or deny wedding cakes across the board.  this point is illustrated by a fact omitted by the linked article one of the women who was denied there were multiple couples called back to ask for a wedding cake for a ceremony between two dogs.  she was offered service and quoted a price.  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.  state laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable such as anti discrimination laws but which incidentally burden religious freedom do not implicate first amendment rights.  federal constitutional challenges to such laws are reviewed on rational basis does the law rationally relate to a legitimate government purpose ? state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.  the first amendment provides no protection here.  dog article: URL  #  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.   #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.  0 0 .  that was a case on speech and association, which are similarly revered rights, but the rationale holds true and actually places the interest well above legitimate like i said, practically untouchable .  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.  v.  united states, 0 u. s.  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.  col.  ct.  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.  mccready v.  hoffius, 0 mich.  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.
URL i saw the above link on my facebook feed and it got me thinking.  while i do not agree with the baker is views, i ca not help but think that perhaps the baker should have the right to refuse service if he has a moral issue with the request, regardless of the legitimacy of the moral stance.  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ? would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.   #  it is not illegal, it is just not legally recognized.   # it is not a moral issue.  they were not being asked to bake a cake with dead babies, they were being asked to do the exact same thing they do for other people.  you mean like the strong arming we did with race and gender ? it seems to have worked out well.  the more you force people to be together, the more you understand them and see them as equals.  you start habits and behaviors by forcing the habit or behavior until it becomes natural.  it is not illegal, it is just not legally recognized.  a swat team will not come in and arrest the wedding party.  this is the same as an unmarried couple celebrating their anniversary.   #  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.   #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.  you know what else is illegal in colorado ? discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.  the colorado anti discrimination act states:  places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person is sexual orientation, including transgender status.  yes, it is a private business.  but businesses have to have licenses to operate.  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.  they have to pay minimum wages.  they have to submit to inspections.  they have to do a bunch of things that the owners would rather not do.  business are run with the permission of the state.  to own a business means you get to run it your way within the parameters of what is legal.  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.  they do not get goods and services because i disapprove of them .   #  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.   #  if the baker is willing to sell the gay couple a generic not gay themed cake, then he is not refusing service based on their sexual orientation, he is refusing to create a cake based on his religious view of the content desired on the cake.  from the article:   aclu attorney amanda goad, who heads up the organization is lbgt group, heralded the ruling.  religious freedom is a constitutional right.  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.  but the baker did not refuse service.  i am vehemently against discrimination, support gay marriage, and i think what the baker is doing is  wrong  from my personal moral perspective.  however, religious freedom is a natural right URL there is obviously a tension because religious rights are not absolute; you do not get to sacrifice your children ritually or even yourself because of religious beliefs.  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.  if you refuse service to someone because of  who they are , you are breaking the law in colorado, and religion is not a defense.  if you are refusing to offer a product that conflicts with your religious beliefs, but are willing to serve anyone who does want your products, then you are protected by the first amendment, and morally in the right due to natural laws.  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.   #  issue 0: religious beliefs may be absolutely protected, but religious conduct can still be regulated for the protection of society.  you touch on this with your sacrifice example, but stop too soon.  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.  the bakery offers a product wedding cake , and someone wants it for the same reason anyone else does wedding , but they are denied because of who they are gay couple .  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.  to avoid the conflict, the bakery must grant or deny wedding cakes across the board.  this point is illustrated by a fact omitted by the linked article one of the women who was denied there were multiple couples called back to ask for a wedding cake for a ceremony between two dogs.  she was offered service and quoted a price.  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.  state laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable such as anti discrimination laws but which incidentally burden religious freedom do not implicate first amendment rights.  federal constitutional challenges to such laws are reviewed on rational basis does the law rationally relate to a legitimate government purpose ? state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.  the first amendment provides no protection here.  dog article: URL  #  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.   #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.  0 0 .  that was a case on speech and association, which are similarly revered rights, but the rationale holds true and actually places the interest well above legitimate like i said, practically untouchable .  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.  v.  united states, 0 u. s.  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.  col.  ct.  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.  mccready v.  hoffius, 0 mich.  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.
URL i saw the above link on my facebook feed and it got me thinking.  while i do not agree with the baker is views, i ca not help but think that perhaps the baker should have the right to refuse service if he has a moral issue with the request, regardless of the legitimacy of the moral stance.  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ? would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  not as the law is currently constituted, no.   # not as the law is currently constituted, no.  the state in question had a law which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  making a cake for an opposite sex wedding, but not for a same sex wedding, is discriminating based on the sexual orientation or the gender of the participants in the wedding.  it therefore violated state law.  there is no similar prohibition which would apply to polygamy.  even if there  were  such a thing as  polyamorous orientation , no state in the country currently prohibits discrimination based on it.  we have lived in that society since the early 0s, when the federal government and most states passed laws which made it illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.  over time, additional categories have been added.  some states have added sexual orientation.  overall , the net effect of the anti discrimination laws has been positive.  modern race relations are far from perfect, but they are a damn lot better than they were in 0, and the prohibition of discrimination is a big part of that.  i understand that sexual orientation and race are not the same thing, but if you are arguing that it is bad to legally force businesses to engage in relationships, then you have to take the race discrimination laws into account.   #  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.   #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.  you know what else is illegal in colorado ? discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.  the colorado anti discrimination act states:  places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person is sexual orientation, including transgender status.  yes, it is a private business.  but businesses have to have licenses to operate.  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.  they have to pay minimum wages.  they have to submit to inspections.  they have to do a bunch of things that the owners would rather not do.  business are run with the permission of the state.  to own a business means you get to run it your way within the parameters of what is legal.  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.  they do not get goods and services because i disapprove of them .   #  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.   #  if the baker is willing to sell the gay couple a generic not gay themed cake, then he is not refusing service based on their sexual orientation, he is refusing to create a cake based on his religious view of the content desired on the cake.  from the article:   aclu attorney amanda goad, who heads up the organization is lbgt group, heralded the ruling.  religious freedom is a constitutional right.  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.  but the baker did not refuse service.  i am vehemently against discrimination, support gay marriage, and i think what the baker is doing is  wrong  from my personal moral perspective.  however, religious freedom is a natural right URL there is obviously a tension because religious rights are not absolute; you do not get to sacrifice your children ritually or even yourself because of religious beliefs.  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.  if you refuse service to someone because of  who they are , you are breaking the law in colorado, and religion is not a defense.  if you are refusing to offer a product that conflicts with your religious beliefs, but are willing to serve anyone who does want your products, then you are protected by the first amendment, and morally in the right due to natural laws.  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.   #  issue 0: religious beliefs may be absolutely protected, but religious conduct can still be regulated for the protection of society.  you touch on this with your sacrifice example, but stop too soon.  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.  the bakery offers a product wedding cake , and someone wants it for the same reason anyone else does wedding , but they are denied because of who they are gay couple .  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.  to avoid the conflict, the bakery must grant or deny wedding cakes across the board.  this point is illustrated by a fact omitted by the linked article one of the women who was denied there were multiple couples called back to ask for a wedding cake for a ceremony between two dogs.  she was offered service and quoted a price.  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.  state laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable such as anti discrimination laws but which incidentally burden religious freedom do not implicate first amendment rights.  federal constitutional challenges to such laws are reviewed on rational basis does the law rationally relate to a legitimate government purpose ? state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.  the first amendment provides no protection here.  dog article: URL  #  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.   #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.  0 0 .  that was a case on speech and association, which are similarly revered rights, but the rationale holds true and actually places the interest well above legitimate like i said, practically untouchable .  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.  v.  united states, 0 u. s.  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.  col.  ct.  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.  mccready v.  hoffius, 0 mich.  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.
URL i saw the above link on my facebook feed and it got me thinking.  while i do not agree with the baker is views, i ca not help but think that perhaps the baker should have the right to refuse service if he has a moral issue with the request, regardless of the legitimacy of the moral stance.  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ? would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.   #  we have lived in that society since the early 0s, when the federal government and most states passed laws which made it illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.   # not as the law is currently constituted, no.  the state in question had a law which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  making a cake for an opposite sex wedding, but not for a same sex wedding, is discriminating based on the sexual orientation or the gender of the participants in the wedding.  it therefore violated state law.  there is no similar prohibition which would apply to polygamy.  even if there  were  such a thing as  polyamorous orientation , no state in the country currently prohibits discrimination based on it.  we have lived in that society since the early 0s, when the federal government and most states passed laws which made it illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.  over time, additional categories have been added.  some states have added sexual orientation.  overall , the net effect of the anti discrimination laws has been positive.  modern race relations are far from perfect, but they are a damn lot better than they were in 0, and the prohibition of discrimination is a big part of that.  i understand that sexual orientation and race are not the same thing, but if you are arguing that it is bad to legally force businesses to engage in relationships, then you have to take the race discrimination laws into account.   #  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.   #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.  you know what else is illegal in colorado ? discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.  the colorado anti discrimination act states:  places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person is sexual orientation, including transgender status.  yes, it is a private business.  but businesses have to have licenses to operate.  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.  they have to pay minimum wages.  they have to submit to inspections.  they have to do a bunch of things that the owners would rather not do.  business are run with the permission of the state.  to own a business means you get to run it your way within the parameters of what is legal.  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.  they do not get goods and services because i disapprove of them .   #  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  if the baker is willing to sell the gay couple a generic not gay themed cake, then he is not refusing service based on their sexual orientation, he is refusing to create a cake based on his religious view of the content desired on the cake.  from the article:   aclu attorney amanda goad, who heads up the organization is lbgt group, heralded the ruling.  religious freedom is a constitutional right.  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.  but the baker did not refuse service.  i am vehemently against discrimination, support gay marriage, and i think what the baker is doing is  wrong  from my personal moral perspective.  however, religious freedom is a natural right URL there is obviously a tension because religious rights are not absolute; you do not get to sacrifice your children ritually or even yourself because of religious beliefs.  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.  if you refuse service to someone because of  who they are , you are breaking the law in colorado, and religion is not a defense.  if you are refusing to offer a product that conflicts with your religious beliefs, but are willing to serve anyone who does want your products, then you are protected by the first amendment, and morally in the right due to natural laws.  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.   #  issue 0: religious beliefs may be absolutely protected, but religious conduct can still be regulated for the protection of society.  you touch on this with your sacrifice example, but stop too soon.  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.  the bakery offers a product wedding cake , and someone wants it for the same reason anyone else does wedding , but they are denied because of who they are gay couple .  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.  to avoid the conflict, the bakery must grant or deny wedding cakes across the board.  this point is illustrated by a fact omitted by the linked article one of the women who was denied there were multiple couples called back to ask for a wedding cake for a ceremony between two dogs.  she was offered service and quoted a price.  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.  state laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable such as anti discrimination laws but which incidentally burden religious freedom do not implicate first amendment rights.  federal constitutional challenges to such laws are reviewed on rational basis does the law rationally relate to a legitimate government purpose ? state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.  the first amendment provides no protection here.  dog article: URL  #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.   #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.  0 0 .  that was a case on speech and association, which are similarly revered rights, but the rationale holds true and actually places the interest well above legitimate like i said, practically untouchable .  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.  v.  united states, 0 u. s.  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.  col.  ct.  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.  mccready v.  hoffius, 0 mich.  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.
URL i saw the above link on my facebook feed and it got me thinking.  while i do not agree with the baker is views, i ca not help but think that perhaps the baker should have the right to refuse service if he has a moral issue with the request, regardless of the legitimacy of the moral stance.  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ? would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.   #  this is not what is happening as a business owner can refuse service for almost any reason other than the very few specified by federal, state, and local laws gender, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc.   # should a pharmacy, grocery store, or doctor be allowed to refuse to serve a gay person because they are gay or serve a black person because they are black ? this is not what is happening as a business owner can refuse service for almost any reason other than the very few specified by federal, state, and local laws gender, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc.  .  i do not see why this matters.  a wedding does not have to be legally recognized to still be called a wedding.  plenty of gay couples have had weddings in places where they are not legally recognized, it is not illegal.  perhaps they were getting married in a church.  perhaps they were having a private ceremony.  the bottom line is the business owner agreed to abide by federal, state, and local laws when they applied for a business license.  one such law specified that it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  additionally, if the business wants to benefit from all of the services offered by the public that are paid for by the taxpayers, that business should serve all those taxpayers.   #  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.   #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.  you know what else is illegal in colorado ? discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.  the colorado anti discrimination act states:  places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person is sexual orientation, including transgender status.  yes, it is a private business.  but businesses have to have licenses to operate.  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.  they have to pay minimum wages.  they have to submit to inspections.  they have to do a bunch of things that the owners would rather not do.  business are run with the permission of the state.  to own a business means you get to run it your way within the parameters of what is legal.  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.  they do not get goods and services because i disapprove of them .   #  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.   #  if the baker is willing to sell the gay couple a generic not gay themed cake, then he is not refusing service based on their sexual orientation, he is refusing to create a cake based on his religious view of the content desired on the cake.  from the article:   aclu attorney amanda goad, who heads up the organization is lbgt group, heralded the ruling.  religious freedom is a constitutional right.  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.  but the baker did not refuse service.  i am vehemently against discrimination, support gay marriage, and i think what the baker is doing is  wrong  from my personal moral perspective.  however, religious freedom is a natural right URL there is obviously a tension because religious rights are not absolute; you do not get to sacrifice your children ritually or even yourself because of religious beliefs.  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.  if you refuse service to someone because of  who they are , you are breaking the law in colorado, and religion is not a defense.  if you are refusing to offer a product that conflicts with your religious beliefs, but are willing to serve anyone who does want your products, then you are protected by the first amendment, and morally in the right due to natural laws.  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  she was offered service and quoted a price.   #  issue 0: religious beliefs may be absolutely protected, but religious conduct can still be regulated for the protection of society.  you touch on this with your sacrifice example, but stop too soon.  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.  the bakery offers a product wedding cake , and someone wants it for the same reason anyone else does wedding , but they are denied because of who they are gay couple .  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.  to avoid the conflict, the bakery must grant or deny wedding cakes across the board.  this point is illustrated by a fact omitted by the linked article one of the women who was denied there were multiple couples called back to ask for a wedding cake for a ceremony between two dogs.  she was offered service and quoted a price.  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.  state laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable such as anti discrimination laws but which incidentally burden religious freedom do not implicate first amendment rights.  federal constitutional challenges to such laws are reviewed on rational basis does the law rationally relate to a legitimate government purpose ? state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.  the first amendment provides no protection here.  dog article: URL  #  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.   #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.  0 0 .  that was a case on speech and association, which are similarly revered rights, but the rationale holds true and actually places the interest well above legitimate like i said, practically untouchable .  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.  v.  united states, 0 u. s.  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.  col.  ct.  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.  mccready v.  hoffius, 0 mich.  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.
URL i saw the above link on my facebook feed and it got me thinking.  while i do not agree with the baker is views, i ca not help but think that perhaps the baker should have the right to refuse service if he has a moral issue with the request, regardless of the legitimacy of the moral stance.  i would argue that it is not healthy to live in a society where businesses must be legally forced to engage in relationships with anybody that walks through the door.  he owns his own business and it should be society via patronage that dictates whether or not a baker like this can be prosperous in a changing society.  by strong arming people into toleration i believe it only serves to polarize the issue of homosexual acceptance and drive people further from a middle ground.  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.  also, i think it is an important distinction that the baker did not refuse service to all homosexuals, but rather for this specific instance of a wedding cake.  what if a baker refused to make a cake for a polygamous marriage ? would the law force them to make a cake in that case ?  #  moreover, same sex marriage is illegal in the state where this took place.   #  i do not see why this matters.   # should a pharmacy, grocery store, or doctor be allowed to refuse to serve a gay person because they are gay or serve a black person because they are black ? this is not what is happening as a business owner can refuse service for almost any reason other than the very few specified by federal, state, and local laws gender, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc.  .  i do not see why this matters.  a wedding does not have to be legally recognized to still be called a wedding.  plenty of gay couples have had weddings in places where they are not legally recognized, it is not illegal.  perhaps they were getting married in a church.  perhaps they were having a private ceremony.  the bottom line is the business owner agreed to abide by federal, state, and local laws when they applied for a business license.  one such law specified that it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  additionally, if the business wants to benefit from all of the services offered by the public that are paid for by the taxpayers, that business should serve all those taxpayers.   #  discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.   #  you make the point that same sex marriage is illegal in colorado.  you know what else is illegal in colorado ? discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.  the colorado anti discrimination act states:  places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person is sexual orientation, including transgender status.  yes, it is a private business.  but businesses have to have licenses to operate.  there is nowhere in the united states that a business can legally operate where an owner can just run a business in any way they please.  that all have to follow laws that they do not like.  they have to pay minimum wages.  they have to submit to inspections.  they have to do a bunch of things that the owners would rather not do.  business are run with the permission of the state.  to own a business means you get to run it your way within the parameters of what is legal.  what you do not get to do is say  i will offer goods and services to the general public, with the exception of  this  group of people.  they do not get goods and services because i disapprove of them .   #  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  if the baker is willing to sell the gay couple a generic not gay themed cake, then he is not refusing service based on their sexual orientation, he is refusing to create a cake based on his religious view of the content desired on the cake.  from the article:   aclu attorney amanda goad, who heads up the organization is lbgt group, heralded the ruling.  religious freedom is a constitutional right.  refusing to sell someone something because they are gay should not be defensible.  but the baker did not refuse service.  i am vehemently against discrimination, support gay marriage, and i think what the baker is doing is  wrong  from my personal moral perspective.  however, religious freedom is a natural right URL there is obviously a tension because religious rights are not absolute; you do not get to sacrifice your children ritually or even yourself because of religious beliefs.  and in this case, i think the line of the law being construed exactly as written is the right line.  if you refuse service to someone because of  who they are , you are breaking the law in colorado, and religion is not a defense.  if you are refusing to offer a product that conflicts with your religious beliefs, but are willing to serve anyone who does want your products, then you are protected by the first amendment, and morally in the right due to natural laws.  even as an atheist, and about as socially liberal as they come, i think this was the wrong call.  his religious rights trump the right to a particular custom cake, even though they do not trump a right to be served in general.   #  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.   #  issue 0: religious beliefs may be absolutely protected, but religious conduct can still be regulated for the protection of society.  you touch on this with your sacrifice example, but stop too soon.  the refusal of service for who the customers are and what they want cannot be logically separated.  the bakery offers a product wedding cake , and someone wants it for the same reason anyone else does wedding , but they are denied because of who they are gay couple .  it is only upon discovery of their sexual orientation that they are denied service.  to avoid the conflict, the bakery must grant or deny wedding cakes across the board.  this point is illustrated by a fact omitted by the linked article one of the women who was denied there were multiple couples called back to ask for a wedding cake for a ceremony between two dogs.  she was offered service and quoted a price.  the difference is not the product, nor the purpose, but the person or dog benefiting from the service.  issue 0: in such instances of discrimination, the first amendment does not provide the protection that you assert it does.  state laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable such as anti discrimination laws but which incidentally burden religious freedom do not implicate first amendment rights.  federal constitutional challenges to such laws are reviewed on rational basis does the law rationally relate to a legitimate government purpose ? state governments have a definite interest that is practically untouchable in eliminating discrimination, and banning businesses from discriminating clearly relates to not to mention accomplishes that purpose.  the first amendment provides no protection here.  dog article: URL  #  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.   #  let is see.  for a legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination, the best articulation is probably roberts v.  united states jaycees, 0 u. s.  0 0 .  that was a case on speech and association, which are similarly revered rights, but the rationale holds true and actually places the interest well above legitimate like i said, practically untouchable .  c ommitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services…plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.  a cts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to prevent wholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit.  for specific application of this rationale to religion, i would suggest the following: bob jones univ.  v.  united states, 0 u. s.  0 0 : christian university could not base racially discriminatory policies on religious beliefs.  gay rights coalition of georgetown university law center v.  georgetown university, 0 a. 0d 0 dist.  col.  ct.  app 0 : catholic university could not base denial of benefits to  gay student organizations  on religious beliefs.  mccready v.  hoffius, 0 mich.  0 0 : landlord could not base refusal to rent to an unmarried couple on religious beliefs.
it is my view that philosophy is useless endeavor.  the human mind is fallible, therefore it can not be used in isolation to determine any fundamental truths outside of  i think therefore i am .  however, it can be used to conduct scientific experiments which determine truths about how the world actually works, and as a result science should be taught and philosophy excluded.  now i realize that this argument leaves out ethical philosophy, since human behavior can not be understood purely through science, so i guess that one could stay.  but all the other types: epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics should be removed from educational curriculum.   #  the human mind is fallible, therefore it can not be used in isolation to determine any fundamental truths outside of  i think therefore i am .   #  however, it can be used to conduct scientific experiments which determine truths about how the world actually works, and as a result science should be taught and philosophy excluded.   # however, it can be used to conduct scientific experiments which determine truths about how the world actually works, and as a result science should be taught and philosophy excluded.  philosophy has more in common with mathematics than science.  it is not about exploring the world, it is about exploring logic.  philosophy deals with statements which cannot be unambigiously represented, which we therefore express in natural language.  if you do not learn to define words in a useful way, it will impede your ability to reason about anything that is empirically inaccessible.  the same applies to our own mind, on which you rely when you come up with hypotheses and interpret experimental outcomes.  the modern scientific method is so effective, because it minimizes the reliance on the correctness of our reasoning, but it cannot completely eliminate that reliance.   #  any measure you have on your own ignorance of philosophy 0 runs into the limitation that this measure is built from ignorance.   #  your understanding of philosophy it is not the same of the whole of philosophy.  surely you can understand the difference between a belief and reality.  you have in yourself a representation of what philosophy is about, what good is for, etc, but you have not actually sat down and read every single book about philosophy, and even if you had, that does not mean you understood it.  your knowledge of philosophy, and a lot other things, is incomplete.  how incomplete ? how can you, yourself, measure 0 how incomplete your knowledge of philosophy is ? any measure you have on your own ignorance of philosophy 0 runs into the limitation that this measure is built from ignorance.  it really hard to know what you do not know , if you think about it.  stuff like this is explored by philosophy, but it is obvious that you have not sat down and read nor understood even the basics 0 i do not mean a numeric measure, approximate measures count, something like  i know little/something/much about philosophy  0 or anything else.   #  we have no experimental way of proving a lot of the  theoretical science  out there just as we have no way of proving philosophical arguments besides our intuitive logic.   #  as a scientist that took a lot of undergraduate philosophy classes; i disagree wholeheartedly.  science at its very core is fundamentally philosophy.  logical deductions based on observational facts.  now, you could argue that the divergence between the two is that science is falsifiable while philosophy is not and you would have a bit of a point, but consider mathematics, economics, and high level physics.  we have no experimental way of proving a lot of the  theoretical science  out there just as we have no way of proving philosophical arguments besides our intuitive logic.  it gets even more complicated proving anything when you add in the statistics of experimental design and deal with multiple comparisons and arbitrarily picked hypothesis testing.  this is especially true in the biological and medical fields because of the pressure of publications.  on a more personal note, i think philosophy should actually be taught in grade school all the way up through high school.  why ? because it teaches people to think critically and to love thinking for themselves.  you learn the logic of the western world and start to see that there is not a clear right or wrong, but many shades of gray.  philosophy has had a large impact on my life to this point and bubbles up into my life studying science all the time.  it is taught me how to argue, understand arguments, and write more concisely something desperately needed in the sciences.  .  furthermore, i would not be the person i am today had i not read existentialist and ethical philosophy like a mad man during college.  it liberated me at a desperate point in my life and allowed me to challenge myself and those around me to be the best we can be.   #  most of the people i know who we are studying the sciences we are required to take at least one philosophy class about ethics.   # how much exposure do you have to philosophy ? because this is one aspect of one field of philosophy metaphysics and is a pretty bad representation of philosophy as a whole, though it does seem to be a good representation of an introduction to philosophy class.  a much larger, much more relevant field of philosophy is ethics.  most of the people i know who we are studying the sciences we are required to take at least one philosophy class about ethics.  because while experimentation and observation are excellent ways of deducing the nature of reality much better than just thinking about it, in my opinion they are not very good at determining what is  ethical  or not.  is it ethical to clone humans ? ethical to augment human brains ? ethical to test makeup on animals ? these are all philosophical questions.  there is also logic and deductive systems.  on cmv and elsewhere on reddit you will see loads of people talking about  valid arguments  and  fallacies  and all kinds of argumentative jargon that comes straight from the field of philosophy.  the logical reasoning that allows you to  do  science is expressed in philosophy, and that is one of the reasons  i think therefore i am  is a good introduction to it, because it is trying to introduce you to skepticism which makes scientific thinking possible.   #  it is like talking about evolution without mentioning carbon dating, fossil record or genetic inheritance.   # actually the cartesian mantra has been discredited for a while.  what you have just done is philosophy.  epistemology, to be precise.  it may not be a great attempt, or very well argued, or of good quality in general, but it is a philosophical statement.  if all philosophical statements can be disregarded, then your previous statement about only paying attention to empirically verifiable statements can be disregarded as well.  it is pretty hard to do ethics without those, you know.  it is like talking about evolution without mentioning carbon dating, fossil record or genetic inheritance.  science without any philosophy backing it up is  literally  meaningless.
it is my view that philosophy is useless endeavor.  the human mind is fallible, therefore it can not be used in isolation to determine any fundamental truths outside of  i think therefore i am .  however, it can be used to conduct scientific experiments which determine truths about how the world actually works, and as a result science should be taught and philosophy excluded.  now i realize that this argument leaves out ethical philosophy, since human behavior can not be understood purely through science, so i guess that one could stay.  but all the other types: epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics should be removed from educational curriculum.   #  now i realize that this argument leaves out ethical philosophy, since human behavior can not be understood purely through science, so i guess that one could stay.   #  the same applies to our own mind, on which you rely when you come up with hypotheses and interpret experimental outcomes.   # however, it can be used to conduct scientific experiments which determine truths about how the world actually works, and as a result science should be taught and philosophy excluded.  philosophy has more in common with mathematics than science.  it is not about exploring the world, it is about exploring logic.  philosophy deals with statements which cannot be unambigiously represented, which we therefore express in natural language.  if you do not learn to define words in a useful way, it will impede your ability to reason about anything that is empirically inaccessible.  the same applies to our own mind, on which you rely when you come up with hypotheses and interpret experimental outcomes.  the modern scientific method is so effective, because it minimizes the reliance on the correctness of our reasoning, but it cannot completely eliminate that reliance.   #  surely you can understand the difference between a belief and reality.   #  your understanding of philosophy it is not the same of the whole of philosophy.  surely you can understand the difference between a belief and reality.  you have in yourself a representation of what philosophy is about, what good is for, etc, but you have not actually sat down and read every single book about philosophy, and even if you had, that does not mean you understood it.  your knowledge of philosophy, and a lot other things, is incomplete.  how incomplete ? how can you, yourself, measure 0 how incomplete your knowledge of philosophy is ? any measure you have on your own ignorance of philosophy 0 runs into the limitation that this measure is built from ignorance.  it really hard to know what you do not know , if you think about it.  stuff like this is explored by philosophy, but it is obvious that you have not sat down and read nor understood even the basics 0 i do not mean a numeric measure, approximate measures count, something like  i know little/something/much about philosophy  0 or anything else.   #  this is especially true in the biological and medical fields because of the pressure of publications.   #  as a scientist that took a lot of undergraduate philosophy classes; i disagree wholeheartedly.  science at its very core is fundamentally philosophy.  logical deductions based on observational facts.  now, you could argue that the divergence between the two is that science is falsifiable while philosophy is not and you would have a bit of a point, but consider mathematics, economics, and high level physics.  we have no experimental way of proving a lot of the  theoretical science  out there just as we have no way of proving philosophical arguments besides our intuitive logic.  it gets even more complicated proving anything when you add in the statistics of experimental design and deal with multiple comparisons and arbitrarily picked hypothesis testing.  this is especially true in the biological and medical fields because of the pressure of publications.  on a more personal note, i think philosophy should actually be taught in grade school all the way up through high school.  why ? because it teaches people to think critically and to love thinking for themselves.  you learn the logic of the western world and start to see that there is not a clear right or wrong, but many shades of gray.  philosophy has had a large impact on my life to this point and bubbles up into my life studying science all the time.  it is taught me how to argue, understand arguments, and write more concisely something desperately needed in the sciences.  .  furthermore, i would not be the person i am today had i not read existentialist and ethical philosophy like a mad man during college.  it liberated me at a desperate point in my life and allowed me to challenge myself and those around me to be the best we can be.   #  a much larger, much more relevant field of philosophy is ethics.   # how much exposure do you have to philosophy ? because this is one aspect of one field of philosophy metaphysics and is a pretty bad representation of philosophy as a whole, though it does seem to be a good representation of an introduction to philosophy class.  a much larger, much more relevant field of philosophy is ethics.  most of the people i know who we are studying the sciences we are required to take at least one philosophy class about ethics.  because while experimentation and observation are excellent ways of deducing the nature of reality much better than just thinking about it, in my opinion they are not very good at determining what is  ethical  or not.  is it ethical to clone humans ? ethical to augment human brains ? ethical to test makeup on animals ? these are all philosophical questions.  there is also logic and deductive systems.  on cmv and elsewhere on reddit you will see loads of people talking about  valid arguments  and  fallacies  and all kinds of argumentative jargon that comes straight from the field of philosophy.  the logical reasoning that allows you to  do  science is expressed in philosophy, and that is one of the reasons  i think therefore i am  is a good introduction to it, because it is trying to introduce you to skepticism which makes scientific thinking possible.   #  it is pretty hard to do ethics without those, you know.   # actually the cartesian mantra has been discredited for a while.  what you have just done is philosophy.  epistemology, to be precise.  it may not be a great attempt, or very well argued, or of good quality in general, but it is a philosophical statement.  if all philosophical statements can be disregarded, then your previous statement about only paying attention to empirically verifiable statements can be disregarded as well.  it is pretty hard to do ethics without those, you know.  it is like talking about evolution without mentioning carbon dating, fossil record or genetic inheritance.  science without any philosophy backing it up is  literally  meaningless.
it is my view that philosophy is useless endeavor.  the human mind is fallible, therefore it can not be used in isolation to determine any fundamental truths outside of  i think therefore i am .  however, it can be used to conduct scientific experiments which determine truths about how the world actually works, and as a result science should be taught and philosophy excluded.  now i realize that this argument leaves out ethical philosophy, since human behavior can not be understood purely through science, so i guess that one could stay.  but all the other types: epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics should be removed from educational curriculum.   #  it is my view that philosophy is useless endeavor.   #  the human mind is fallible, therefore it can not be used in isolation to determine any fundamental truths outside of  i think therefore i am .   # the human mind is fallible, therefore it can not be used in isolation to determine any fundamental truths outside of  i think therefore i am .  this alone has been used as grounds for philosophical investigations, though.  as i am sure you know, descartes set out to build an entire philosophical system around  i think, therefore i am.   even if i grant that philosophy can only prove this, it does not follow that it is impossible to do philosophy.  one may even argue that some contemporary phenomenologists can trace there projects back to a cogito type initial position.  as others have said, this here is itself a substantive philosophical position: scientific realism.  furthermore, it is a position i feel no need to accept.  why should i view science as truth conducive, rather than merely adequate for explaining experimental data ? surely, the most successful scientific theories have proven to be literally false.  yet, they are paradigms of scientific excellence.  ex.  newtonian physics, pre genetic darwinian evolution  now i realize that this argument leaves out ethical philosophy, since human behavior can not be understood purely through science, so i guess that one could stay.  but all the other types: epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics should be removed from educational curriculum.  it seems like no one need change your view on philosophy, then.  ethics is a branch of philosophy.  if ethics is useful, then at least some kind of philosophy is useful.  the claim,  philosophy is useless and should not be studies , is literally false.  your position is self defeating, even in the op.   #  any measure you have on your own ignorance of philosophy 0 runs into the limitation that this measure is built from ignorance.   #  your understanding of philosophy it is not the same of the whole of philosophy.  surely you can understand the difference between a belief and reality.  you have in yourself a representation of what philosophy is about, what good is for, etc, but you have not actually sat down and read every single book about philosophy, and even if you had, that does not mean you understood it.  your knowledge of philosophy, and a lot other things, is incomplete.  how incomplete ? how can you, yourself, measure 0 how incomplete your knowledge of philosophy is ? any measure you have on your own ignorance of philosophy 0 runs into the limitation that this measure is built from ignorance.  it really hard to know what you do not know , if you think about it.  stuff like this is explored by philosophy, but it is obvious that you have not sat down and read nor understood even the basics 0 i do not mean a numeric measure, approximate measures count, something like  i know little/something/much about philosophy  0 or anything else.   #  philosophy has had a large impact on my life to this point and bubbles up into my life studying science all the time.   #  as a scientist that took a lot of undergraduate philosophy classes; i disagree wholeheartedly.  science at its very core is fundamentally philosophy.  logical deductions based on observational facts.  now, you could argue that the divergence between the two is that science is falsifiable while philosophy is not and you would have a bit of a point, but consider mathematics, economics, and high level physics.  we have no experimental way of proving a lot of the  theoretical science  out there just as we have no way of proving philosophical arguments besides our intuitive logic.  it gets even more complicated proving anything when you add in the statistics of experimental design and deal with multiple comparisons and arbitrarily picked hypothesis testing.  this is especially true in the biological and medical fields because of the pressure of publications.  on a more personal note, i think philosophy should actually be taught in grade school all the way up through high school.  why ? because it teaches people to think critically and to love thinking for themselves.  you learn the logic of the western world and start to see that there is not a clear right or wrong, but many shades of gray.  philosophy has had a large impact on my life to this point and bubbles up into my life studying science all the time.  it is taught me how to argue, understand arguments, and write more concisely something desperately needed in the sciences.  .  furthermore, i would not be the person i am today had i not read existentialist and ethical philosophy like a mad man during college.  it liberated me at a desperate point in my life and allowed me to challenge myself and those around me to be the best we can be.   #  on cmv and elsewhere on reddit you will see loads of people talking about  valid arguments  and  fallacies  and all kinds of argumentative jargon that comes straight from the field of philosophy.   # how much exposure do you have to philosophy ? because this is one aspect of one field of philosophy metaphysics and is a pretty bad representation of philosophy as a whole, though it does seem to be a good representation of an introduction to philosophy class.  a much larger, much more relevant field of philosophy is ethics.  most of the people i know who we are studying the sciences we are required to take at least one philosophy class about ethics.  because while experimentation and observation are excellent ways of deducing the nature of reality much better than just thinking about it, in my opinion they are not very good at determining what is  ethical  or not.  is it ethical to clone humans ? ethical to augment human brains ? ethical to test makeup on animals ? these are all philosophical questions.  there is also logic and deductive systems.  on cmv and elsewhere on reddit you will see loads of people talking about  valid arguments  and  fallacies  and all kinds of argumentative jargon that comes straight from the field of philosophy.  the logical reasoning that allows you to  do  science is expressed in philosophy, and that is one of the reasons  i think therefore i am  is a good introduction to it, because it is trying to introduce you to skepticism which makes scientific thinking possible.   #  if all philosophical statements can be disregarded, then your previous statement about only paying attention to empirically verifiable statements can be disregarded as well.   # actually the cartesian mantra has been discredited for a while.  what you have just done is philosophy.  epistemology, to be precise.  it may not be a great attempt, or very well argued, or of good quality in general, but it is a philosophical statement.  if all philosophical statements can be disregarded, then your previous statement about only paying attention to empirically verifiable statements can be disregarded as well.  it is pretty hard to do ethics without those, you know.  it is like talking about evolution without mentioning carbon dating, fossil record or genetic inheritance.  science without any philosophy backing it up is  literally  meaningless.
it is my view that philosophy is useless endeavor.  the human mind is fallible, therefore it can not be used in isolation to determine any fundamental truths outside of  i think therefore i am .  however, it can be used to conduct scientific experiments which determine truths about how the world actually works, and as a result science should be taught and philosophy excluded.  now i realize that this argument leaves out ethical philosophy, since human behavior can not be understood purely through science, so i guess that one could stay.  but all the other types: epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics should be removed from educational curriculum.   #  however, it can be used to conduct scientific experiments which determine truths about how the world actually works, and as a result science should be taught and philosophy excluded.   #  as others have said, this here is itself a substantive philosophical position: scientific realism.   # the human mind is fallible, therefore it can not be used in isolation to determine any fundamental truths outside of  i think therefore i am .  this alone has been used as grounds for philosophical investigations, though.  as i am sure you know, descartes set out to build an entire philosophical system around  i think, therefore i am.   even if i grant that philosophy can only prove this, it does not follow that it is impossible to do philosophy.  one may even argue that some contemporary phenomenologists can trace there projects back to a cogito type initial position.  as others have said, this here is itself a substantive philosophical position: scientific realism.  furthermore, it is a position i feel no need to accept.  why should i view science as truth conducive, rather than merely adequate for explaining experimental data ? surely, the most successful scientific theories have proven to be literally false.  yet, they are paradigms of scientific excellence.  ex.  newtonian physics, pre genetic darwinian evolution  now i realize that this argument leaves out ethical philosophy, since human behavior can not be understood purely through science, so i guess that one could stay.  but all the other types: epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics should be removed from educational curriculum.  it seems like no one need change your view on philosophy, then.  ethics is a branch of philosophy.  if ethics is useful, then at least some kind of philosophy is useful.  the claim,  philosophy is useless and should not be studies , is literally false.  your position is self defeating, even in the op.   #  your understanding of philosophy it is not the same of the whole of philosophy.   #  your understanding of philosophy it is not the same of the whole of philosophy.  surely you can understand the difference between a belief and reality.  you have in yourself a representation of what philosophy is about, what good is for, etc, but you have not actually sat down and read every single book about philosophy, and even if you had, that does not mean you understood it.  your knowledge of philosophy, and a lot other things, is incomplete.  how incomplete ? how can you, yourself, measure 0 how incomplete your knowledge of philosophy is ? any measure you have on your own ignorance of philosophy 0 runs into the limitation that this measure is built from ignorance.  it really hard to know what you do not know , if you think about it.  stuff like this is explored by philosophy, but it is obvious that you have not sat down and read nor understood even the basics 0 i do not mean a numeric measure, approximate measures count, something like  i know little/something/much about philosophy  0 or anything else.   #  it is taught me how to argue, understand arguments, and write more concisely something desperately needed in the sciences.  .   #  as a scientist that took a lot of undergraduate philosophy classes; i disagree wholeheartedly.  science at its very core is fundamentally philosophy.  logical deductions based on observational facts.  now, you could argue that the divergence between the two is that science is falsifiable while philosophy is not and you would have a bit of a point, but consider mathematics, economics, and high level physics.  we have no experimental way of proving a lot of the  theoretical science  out there just as we have no way of proving philosophical arguments besides our intuitive logic.  it gets even more complicated proving anything when you add in the statistics of experimental design and deal with multiple comparisons and arbitrarily picked hypothesis testing.  this is especially true in the biological and medical fields because of the pressure of publications.  on a more personal note, i think philosophy should actually be taught in grade school all the way up through high school.  why ? because it teaches people to think critically and to love thinking for themselves.  you learn the logic of the western world and start to see that there is not a clear right or wrong, but many shades of gray.  philosophy has had a large impact on my life to this point and bubbles up into my life studying science all the time.  it is taught me how to argue, understand arguments, and write more concisely something desperately needed in the sciences.  .  furthermore, i would not be the person i am today had i not read existentialist and ethical philosophy like a mad man during college.  it liberated me at a desperate point in my life and allowed me to challenge myself and those around me to be the best we can be.   #  because while experimentation and observation are excellent ways of deducing the nature of reality much better than just thinking about it, in my opinion they are not very good at determining what is  ethical  or not.   # how much exposure do you have to philosophy ? because this is one aspect of one field of philosophy metaphysics and is a pretty bad representation of philosophy as a whole, though it does seem to be a good representation of an introduction to philosophy class.  a much larger, much more relevant field of philosophy is ethics.  most of the people i know who we are studying the sciences we are required to take at least one philosophy class about ethics.  because while experimentation and observation are excellent ways of deducing the nature of reality much better than just thinking about it, in my opinion they are not very good at determining what is  ethical  or not.  is it ethical to clone humans ? ethical to augment human brains ? ethical to test makeup on animals ? these are all philosophical questions.  there is also logic and deductive systems.  on cmv and elsewhere on reddit you will see loads of people talking about  valid arguments  and  fallacies  and all kinds of argumentative jargon that comes straight from the field of philosophy.  the logical reasoning that allows you to  do  science is expressed in philosophy, and that is one of the reasons  i think therefore i am  is a good introduction to it, because it is trying to introduce you to skepticism which makes scientific thinking possible.   #  it is pretty hard to do ethics without those, you know.   # actually the cartesian mantra has been discredited for a while.  what you have just done is philosophy.  epistemology, to be precise.  it may not be a great attempt, or very well argued, or of good quality in general, but it is a philosophical statement.  if all philosophical statements can be disregarded, then your previous statement about only paying attention to empirically verifiable statements can be disregarded as well.  it is pretty hard to do ethics without those, you know.  it is like talking about evolution without mentioning carbon dating, fossil record or genetic inheritance.  science without any philosophy backing it up is  literally  meaningless.
it is my view that philosophy is useless endeavor.  the human mind is fallible, therefore it can not be used in isolation to determine any fundamental truths outside of  i think therefore i am .  however, it can be used to conduct scientific experiments which determine truths about how the world actually works, and as a result science should be taught and philosophy excluded.  now i realize that this argument leaves out ethical philosophy, since human behavior can not be understood purely through science, so i guess that one could stay.  but all the other types: epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics should be removed from educational curriculum.   #  however, it can be used to conduct scientific experiments which determine truths about how the world actually works, and as a result science should be taught and philosophy excluded.   #  first of all, the scientific method  is  a part of philosophy, they are interconnected.   # first of all, the scientific method  is  a part of philosophy, they are interconnected.  more importantly, though, there are many areas in which we do not know how to properly apply the scientific method.  keep in mind that scientific disciplines was all nurtured by philosophy.  newton did not make philosophy obsolete as an endeavour, he used it to create a powerful method of examining the physical properties of the world.  although biology certainly shows a smoother and messier transition from aristotle to darwin, schleiden/schwann, etc, it certainly no doubt was an important, perhaps even essential part of basically just creating the scientific fields of psychology and sociology.  and we can see it is still happening today, with cognitive science.  there is no evidence that this wo not continue to happen.  i just want to make the point that  even if  you think that scientific experiments determine the truths about the world, then you cannot disregard philosophy, for without it, we wo not know how to conduct the proper experiments.  i also think that this says something about philosophy which has even more value.  philosophy is great at language.  it can clarify concepts.  it can also apply logical methods in order to examine these concepts.  it is this solid base of conceptual knowledge that makes it simple to conduct experiments.  but it is also useful in cutting edge interdisciplinary research.   #  surely you can understand the difference between a belief and reality.   #  your understanding of philosophy it is not the same of the whole of philosophy.  surely you can understand the difference between a belief and reality.  you have in yourself a representation of what philosophy is about, what good is for, etc, but you have not actually sat down and read every single book about philosophy, and even if you had, that does not mean you understood it.  your knowledge of philosophy, and a lot other things, is incomplete.  how incomplete ? how can you, yourself, measure 0 how incomplete your knowledge of philosophy is ? any measure you have on your own ignorance of philosophy 0 runs into the limitation that this measure is built from ignorance.  it really hard to know what you do not know , if you think about it.  stuff like this is explored by philosophy, but it is obvious that you have not sat down and read nor understood even the basics 0 i do not mean a numeric measure, approximate measures count, something like  i know little/something/much about philosophy  0 or anything else.   #  on a more personal note, i think philosophy should actually be taught in grade school all the way up through high school.   #  as a scientist that took a lot of undergraduate philosophy classes; i disagree wholeheartedly.  science at its very core is fundamentally philosophy.  logical deductions based on observational facts.  now, you could argue that the divergence between the two is that science is falsifiable while philosophy is not and you would have a bit of a point, but consider mathematics, economics, and high level physics.  we have no experimental way of proving a lot of the  theoretical science  out there just as we have no way of proving philosophical arguments besides our intuitive logic.  it gets even more complicated proving anything when you add in the statistics of experimental design and deal with multiple comparisons and arbitrarily picked hypothesis testing.  this is especially true in the biological and medical fields because of the pressure of publications.  on a more personal note, i think philosophy should actually be taught in grade school all the way up through high school.  why ? because it teaches people to think critically and to love thinking for themselves.  you learn the logic of the western world and start to see that there is not a clear right or wrong, but many shades of gray.  philosophy has had a large impact on my life to this point and bubbles up into my life studying science all the time.  it is taught me how to argue, understand arguments, and write more concisely something desperately needed in the sciences.  .  furthermore, i would not be the person i am today had i not read existentialist and ethical philosophy like a mad man during college.  it liberated me at a desperate point in my life and allowed me to challenge myself and those around me to be the best we can be.   #  most of the people i know who we are studying the sciences we are required to take at least one philosophy class about ethics.   # how much exposure do you have to philosophy ? because this is one aspect of one field of philosophy metaphysics and is a pretty bad representation of philosophy as a whole, though it does seem to be a good representation of an introduction to philosophy class.  a much larger, much more relevant field of philosophy is ethics.  most of the people i know who we are studying the sciences we are required to take at least one philosophy class about ethics.  because while experimentation and observation are excellent ways of deducing the nature of reality much better than just thinking about it, in my opinion they are not very good at determining what is  ethical  or not.  is it ethical to clone humans ? ethical to augment human brains ? ethical to test makeup on animals ? these are all philosophical questions.  there is also logic and deductive systems.  on cmv and elsewhere on reddit you will see loads of people talking about  valid arguments  and  fallacies  and all kinds of argumentative jargon that comes straight from the field of philosophy.  the logical reasoning that allows you to  do  science is expressed in philosophy, and that is one of the reasons  i think therefore i am  is a good introduction to it, because it is trying to introduce you to skepticism which makes scientific thinking possible.   #  it is like talking about evolution without mentioning carbon dating, fossil record or genetic inheritance.   # actually the cartesian mantra has been discredited for a while.  what you have just done is philosophy.  epistemology, to be precise.  it may not be a great attempt, or very well argued, or of good quality in general, but it is a philosophical statement.  if all philosophical statements can be disregarded, then your previous statement about only paying attention to empirically verifiable statements can be disregarded as well.  it is pretty hard to do ethics without those, you know.  it is like talking about evolution without mentioning carbon dating, fossil record or genetic inheritance.  science without any philosophy backing it up is  literally  meaningless.
the federal government only needs to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  this means that things such as murder, rape, and theft are illegal because you are infringing on someone else is rights to live, own property, and pursue their dream life.  everything else should be inherently allowed by the federal government.  then, per the constitution, each of the 0 states would have complete democratic freedom to decide on issues such as minimum wage, abortion, gun rights, wage equality, marriage equality, etc etc etc.  basically, everything else.  people could move freely to the states that reflect their personal morals.  states that adopted policies that led to economic depression or social injustice would likely change their policies because people would move out.  so why does the federal government get to control so much ? why do we give them that power ? i am of course speaking of the united states as that is the only country i have lived in, feel free to give opinions/examples using other countries.  change my view.   #  this means that things such as murder, rape, and theft are illegal because you are infringing on someone else is rights to live, own property, and pursue their dream life.   #  except for specific circumstances like crossing state lines or doing these things on federal property they are not under the purview of the federal govt.   # protect from whom ? from businesses ? from states ? from racists ? your terminology is vague.  except for specific circumstances like crossing state lines or doing these things on federal property they are not under the purview of the federal govt.  and nor should they be.  misuse of the word inherent.  the government is not necessarily defined by your terms.  so are you saying the federal govt.  has no business in protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if the violators are state governments ? why ? at significant personal expense.  why do we give them that power ? i think the constitution adequately explains that one.   #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.   #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.  even if texas wants to allow rape, the feds would say no.  if texas wants to allow black tar heroin and prostitutes, the feds have no say.  how am i changing the judicial system ? i mean, big rape and murder cases go to the supreme courts anyway.  does not the federal government already recognize those things as illegal ? it just does not deal with the cases unless the states and appeals courts ca not decide.   #  the only issue the supreme court was concerned about was whether or not his rights were violated when the police questioned him without his attorney present.   # the federal govt.  is not given that authority.  the closest authority they get to that is the 0th amendment which just assures the uniformity of the law.  states are free to legalize different forms of rights violations such as castle doctrine laws .  actually, spousal rape has been legal in the past and is in several states treated at a lower standard than other forms of rape.  the constitution does not grant the congress the right to enforce these views.  you would have to use a specific example to clarity, but most big rape and murder cases stay at the state level.  those that do move higher up are questioning a legal statue not directly related to the matter at hand.  it does not retry the case, and usually it does not question the basic text of the law.  for example, in miranda vs.  arizona neither side argued the legality of the kidnapping statute or whether or not miranda kidnapped the girl.  the only issue the supreme court was concerned about was whether or not his rights were violated when the police questioned him without his attorney present.  in fact, after he won the supreme court case, the state of arizona retried him using other evidence and got him convicted.  it does not deal with matters of fact for the case, but issues with the wording of the law/procedures followed.  if the state court ca not decide based on matters of fact, then its a hung jury and not a matter that goes to an appeals court.   #  while you may think every law is about  willife, liberty, and pursuit of happiness , you are also failing to see the unseen oppression and other liberties you are taking away.   #  minimum wage as it turns out, minimum wages have been known to hurt the unemployed/unskilled workers/poor communities URL i do not think the federal government has any right to impose on the liberty of business owners to pay employees what they want.  state governments should feel free to implement minimum wages, though, and workers will migrate where they are treated better.  abortion i agree ! to some, pro choice is inflicting the unborn child is life/liberty.  to others, the fact that pro life inflicts the mother is life/liberty is more important.  states should be in charge of answering this question, not the federal government.  people can move to states that suit their moral standards.  gun rights i am a huge supporter of gun rights and the 0nd amendment.  however, some are not.  if a state wants to change it is concealed carry laws, for example, why does the federal government get to tell them not to ? wage equality another video for you if you are concerned that states wo not implement wage equality and it will be bad for them: URL if a state wants to attempt policies that enforce wage equality, which is not actually a problem as you can see if you saw the numbers in the video , they should.  if they do not want to, they should not.  we do not need the federal government to help with that.  marriage equality first of all, marriage has nothing to do with the government anyway and it is pretty insulting that i would have to ask permission from the government to marry someone, girl or guy.  however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  while you may think every law is about  willife, liberty, and pursuit of happiness , you are also failing to see the unseen oppression and other liberties you are taking away.  with a forced minimum wage, you oppress the business.  with forced abortion laws, you oppress women or unborn children.  with forced gun laws, you oppress people who want to own guns to protect their families.  with forced wage equality, you are again hurting the business.   #  however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.   # however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  full faith and credit clause is in the constitution.  you might want to read it.  also, you do not need permission from the govt.  to get married.  what you need is permission for the govt.  to recognize your marriage.  the only rights which married couples receive would not exist without the state.  lastly, with all of those, you seem to not care whether a state is violating my rights ? why ? and if a state can violate my rights, then why should not the federal govt.  ?
the federal government only needs to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  this means that things such as murder, rape, and theft are illegal because you are infringing on someone else is rights to live, own property, and pursue their dream life.  everything else should be inherently allowed by the federal government.  then, per the constitution, each of the 0 states would have complete democratic freedom to decide on issues such as minimum wage, abortion, gun rights, wage equality, marriage equality, etc etc etc.  basically, everything else.  people could move freely to the states that reflect their personal morals.  states that adopted policies that led to economic depression or social injustice would likely change their policies because people would move out.  so why does the federal government get to control so much ? why do we give them that power ? i am of course speaking of the united states as that is the only country i have lived in, feel free to give opinions/examples using other countries.  change my view.   #  then, per the constitution, each of the 0 states would have complete democratic freedom to decide on issues such as minimum wage, abortion, gun rights, wage equality, marriage equality, etc etc etc.   #  so are you saying the federal govt.   # protect from whom ? from businesses ? from states ? from racists ? your terminology is vague.  except for specific circumstances like crossing state lines or doing these things on federal property they are not under the purview of the federal govt.  and nor should they be.  misuse of the word inherent.  the government is not necessarily defined by your terms.  so are you saying the federal govt.  has no business in protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if the violators are state governments ? why ? at significant personal expense.  why do we give them that power ? i think the constitution adequately explains that one.   #  if texas wants to allow black tar heroin and prostitutes, the feds have no say.   #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.  even if texas wants to allow rape, the feds would say no.  if texas wants to allow black tar heroin and prostitutes, the feds have no say.  how am i changing the judicial system ? i mean, big rape and murder cases go to the supreme courts anyway.  does not the federal government already recognize those things as illegal ? it just does not deal with the cases unless the states and appeals courts ca not decide.   #  if the state court ca not decide based on matters of fact, then its a hung jury and not a matter that goes to an appeals court.   # the federal govt.  is not given that authority.  the closest authority they get to that is the 0th amendment which just assures the uniformity of the law.  states are free to legalize different forms of rights violations such as castle doctrine laws .  actually, spousal rape has been legal in the past and is in several states treated at a lower standard than other forms of rape.  the constitution does not grant the congress the right to enforce these views.  you would have to use a specific example to clarity, but most big rape and murder cases stay at the state level.  those that do move higher up are questioning a legal statue not directly related to the matter at hand.  it does not retry the case, and usually it does not question the basic text of the law.  for example, in miranda vs.  arizona neither side argued the legality of the kidnapping statute or whether or not miranda kidnapped the girl.  the only issue the supreme court was concerned about was whether or not his rights were violated when the police questioned him without his attorney present.  in fact, after he won the supreme court case, the state of arizona retried him using other evidence and got him convicted.  it does not deal with matters of fact for the case, but issues with the wording of the law/procedures followed.  if the state court ca not decide based on matters of fact, then its a hung jury and not a matter that goes to an appeals court.   #  we do not need the federal government to help with that.   #  minimum wage as it turns out, minimum wages have been known to hurt the unemployed/unskilled workers/poor communities URL i do not think the federal government has any right to impose on the liberty of business owners to pay employees what they want.  state governments should feel free to implement minimum wages, though, and workers will migrate where they are treated better.  abortion i agree ! to some, pro choice is inflicting the unborn child is life/liberty.  to others, the fact that pro life inflicts the mother is life/liberty is more important.  states should be in charge of answering this question, not the federal government.  people can move to states that suit their moral standards.  gun rights i am a huge supporter of gun rights and the 0nd amendment.  however, some are not.  if a state wants to change it is concealed carry laws, for example, why does the federal government get to tell them not to ? wage equality another video for you if you are concerned that states wo not implement wage equality and it will be bad for them: URL if a state wants to attempt policies that enforce wage equality, which is not actually a problem as you can see if you saw the numbers in the video , they should.  if they do not want to, they should not.  we do not need the federal government to help with that.  marriage equality first of all, marriage has nothing to do with the government anyway and it is pretty insulting that i would have to ask permission from the government to marry someone, girl or guy.  however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  while you may think every law is about  willife, liberty, and pursuit of happiness , you are also failing to see the unseen oppression and other liberties you are taking away.  with a forced minimum wage, you oppress the business.  with forced abortion laws, you oppress women or unborn children.  with forced gun laws, you oppress people who want to own guns to protect their families.  with forced wage equality, you are again hurting the business.   #  those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.   # however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  full faith and credit clause is in the constitution.  you might want to read it.  also, you do not need permission from the govt.  to get married.  what you need is permission for the govt.  to recognize your marriage.  the only rights which married couples receive would not exist without the state.  lastly, with all of those, you seem to not care whether a state is violating my rights ? why ? and if a state can violate my rights, then why should not the federal govt.  ?
the federal government only needs to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  this means that things such as murder, rape, and theft are illegal because you are infringing on someone else is rights to live, own property, and pursue their dream life.  everything else should be inherently allowed by the federal government.  then, per the constitution, each of the 0 states would have complete democratic freedom to decide on issues such as minimum wage, abortion, gun rights, wage equality, marriage equality, etc etc etc.  basically, everything else.  people could move freely to the states that reflect their personal morals.  states that adopted policies that led to economic depression or social injustice would likely change their policies because people would move out.  so why does the federal government get to control so much ? why do we give them that power ? i am of course speaking of the united states as that is the only country i have lived in, feel free to give opinions/examples using other countries.  change my view.   #  so why does the federal government get to control so much ?  #  why do we give them that power ?  # protect from whom ? from businesses ? from states ? from racists ? your terminology is vague.  except for specific circumstances like crossing state lines or doing these things on federal property they are not under the purview of the federal govt.  and nor should they be.  misuse of the word inherent.  the government is not necessarily defined by your terms.  so are you saying the federal govt.  has no business in protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if the violators are state governments ? why ? at significant personal expense.  why do we give them that power ? i think the constitution adequately explains that one.   #  if texas wants to allow black tar heroin and prostitutes, the feds have no say.   #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.  even if texas wants to allow rape, the feds would say no.  if texas wants to allow black tar heroin and prostitutes, the feds have no say.  how am i changing the judicial system ? i mean, big rape and murder cases go to the supreme courts anyway.  does not the federal government already recognize those things as illegal ? it just does not deal with the cases unless the states and appeals courts ca not decide.   #  actually, spousal rape has been legal in the past and is in several states treated at a lower standard than other forms of rape.   # the federal govt.  is not given that authority.  the closest authority they get to that is the 0th amendment which just assures the uniformity of the law.  states are free to legalize different forms of rights violations such as castle doctrine laws .  actually, spousal rape has been legal in the past and is in several states treated at a lower standard than other forms of rape.  the constitution does not grant the congress the right to enforce these views.  you would have to use a specific example to clarity, but most big rape and murder cases stay at the state level.  those that do move higher up are questioning a legal statue not directly related to the matter at hand.  it does not retry the case, and usually it does not question the basic text of the law.  for example, in miranda vs.  arizona neither side argued the legality of the kidnapping statute or whether or not miranda kidnapped the girl.  the only issue the supreme court was concerned about was whether or not his rights were violated when the police questioned him without his attorney present.  in fact, after he won the supreme court case, the state of arizona retried him using other evidence and got him convicted.  it does not deal with matters of fact for the case, but issues with the wording of the law/procedures followed.  if the state court ca not decide based on matters of fact, then its a hung jury and not a matter that goes to an appeals court.   #  with a forced minimum wage, you oppress the business.   #  minimum wage as it turns out, minimum wages have been known to hurt the unemployed/unskilled workers/poor communities URL i do not think the federal government has any right to impose on the liberty of business owners to pay employees what they want.  state governments should feel free to implement minimum wages, though, and workers will migrate where they are treated better.  abortion i agree ! to some, pro choice is inflicting the unborn child is life/liberty.  to others, the fact that pro life inflicts the mother is life/liberty is more important.  states should be in charge of answering this question, not the federal government.  people can move to states that suit their moral standards.  gun rights i am a huge supporter of gun rights and the 0nd amendment.  however, some are not.  if a state wants to change it is concealed carry laws, for example, why does the federal government get to tell them not to ? wage equality another video for you if you are concerned that states wo not implement wage equality and it will be bad for them: URL if a state wants to attempt policies that enforce wage equality, which is not actually a problem as you can see if you saw the numbers in the video , they should.  if they do not want to, they should not.  we do not need the federal government to help with that.  marriage equality first of all, marriage has nothing to do with the government anyway and it is pretty insulting that i would have to ask permission from the government to marry someone, girl or guy.  however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  while you may think every law is about  willife, liberty, and pursuit of happiness , you are also failing to see the unseen oppression and other liberties you are taking away.  with a forced minimum wage, you oppress the business.  with forced abortion laws, you oppress women or unborn children.  with forced gun laws, you oppress people who want to own guns to protect their families.  with forced wage equality, you are again hurting the business.   #  those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.   # however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  full faith and credit clause is in the constitution.  you might want to read it.  also, you do not need permission from the govt.  to get married.  what you need is permission for the govt.  to recognize your marriage.  the only rights which married couples receive would not exist without the state.  lastly, with all of those, you seem to not care whether a state is violating my rights ? why ? and if a state can violate my rights, then why should not the federal govt.  ?
the federal government only needs to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  this means that things such as murder, rape, and theft are illegal because you are infringing on someone else is rights to live, own property, and pursue their dream life.  everything else should be inherently allowed by the federal government.  then, per the constitution, each of the 0 states would have complete democratic freedom to decide on issues such as minimum wage, abortion, gun rights, wage equality, marriage equality, etc etc etc.  basically, everything else.  people could move freely to the states that reflect their personal morals.  states that adopted policies that led to economic depression or social injustice would likely change their policies because people would move out.  so why does the federal government get to control so much ? why do we give them that power ? i am of course speaking of the united states as that is the only country i have lived in, feel free to give opinions/examples using other countries.  change my view.   #  the federal government only needs to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   #  that is not what the constitution says.   # that is not what the constitution says.  the preamble says that the federal government was formed to  in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity  URL as such, the federal government has the power to address all of those issues.  under your argument that the federal government should only be concerned about human rights would mean that these issues should only be taken care of by the federal government and the states should take care of things like infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and things like that.  do you know how much it costs to move to a new state ? different places have different property values, so depending on where you live, you might not make enough money selling your current house to buy a new one wherever you want to live.  depending on how far you move, there is a cost associated with moving your things.  it can cost $0 just to move a single person from coast to coast.  how much more do you think it can cost to transport all of your things your car, your clothing, your picture frames, your books, etc.  ? then there is the matter of finding work.  most people end up living wherever they find a job.  for most people that means they do not leave their local area because it is easier to interview for a job when you can easily get to the interview spot.  most people who move to a different area do so because they found a good job that suits them there.  the economic status of one place has always affected those around it, and the effects of globalization have only made it so that the effect of the economy in one place only has a greater affect in others.  a stock market crash in new york will not just make new york destitute, but every place that does business in or with new york, which is most of the world and the entirety of the us.  why do we give them that power ? the federal government of the us is an attempt to coordinate the efforts and interests of over 0 million people, and so has the power of over 0 million people.   #  i mean, big rape and murder cases go to the supreme courts anyway.  does not the federal government already recognize those things as illegal ?  #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.  even if texas wants to allow rape, the feds would say no.  if texas wants to allow black tar heroin and prostitutes, the feds have no say.  how am i changing the judicial system ? i mean, big rape and murder cases go to the supreme courts anyway.  does not the federal government already recognize those things as illegal ? it just does not deal with the cases unless the states and appeals courts ca not decide.   #  the only issue the supreme court was concerned about was whether or not his rights were violated when the police questioned him without his attorney present.   # the federal govt.  is not given that authority.  the closest authority they get to that is the 0th amendment which just assures the uniformity of the law.  states are free to legalize different forms of rights violations such as castle doctrine laws .  actually, spousal rape has been legal in the past and is in several states treated at a lower standard than other forms of rape.  the constitution does not grant the congress the right to enforce these views.  you would have to use a specific example to clarity, but most big rape and murder cases stay at the state level.  those that do move higher up are questioning a legal statue not directly related to the matter at hand.  it does not retry the case, and usually it does not question the basic text of the law.  for example, in miranda vs.  arizona neither side argued the legality of the kidnapping statute or whether or not miranda kidnapped the girl.  the only issue the supreme court was concerned about was whether or not his rights were violated when the police questioned him without his attorney present.  in fact, after he won the supreme court case, the state of arizona retried him using other evidence and got him convicted.  it does not deal with matters of fact for the case, but issues with the wording of the law/procedures followed.  if the state court ca not decide based on matters of fact, then its a hung jury and not a matter that goes to an appeals court.   #  to some, pro choice is inflicting the unborn child is life/liberty.   #  minimum wage as it turns out, minimum wages have been known to hurt the unemployed/unskilled workers/poor communities URL i do not think the federal government has any right to impose on the liberty of business owners to pay employees what they want.  state governments should feel free to implement minimum wages, though, and workers will migrate where they are treated better.  abortion i agree ! to some, pro choice is inflicting the unborn child is life/liberty.  to others, the fact that pro life inflicts the mother is life/liberty is more important.  states should be in charge of answering this question, not the federal government.  people can move to states that suit their moral standards.  gun rights i am a huge supporter of gun rights and the 0nd amendment.  however, some are not.  if a state wants to change it is concealed carry laws, for example, why does the federal government get to tell them not to ? wage equality another video for you if you are concerned that states wo not implement wage equality and it will be bad for them: URL if a state wants to attempt policies that enforce wage equality, which is not actually a problem as you can see if you saw the numbers in the video , they should.  if they do not want to, they should not.  we do not need the federal government to help with that.  marriage equality first of all, marriage has nothing to do with the government anyway and it is pretty insulting that i would have to ask permission from the government to marry someone, girl or guy.  however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  while you may think every law is about  willife, liberty, and pursuit of happiness , you are also failing to see the unseen oppression and other liberties you are taking away.  with a forced minimum wage, you oppress the business.  with forced abortion laws, you oppress women or unborn children.  with forced gun laws, you oppress people who want to own guns to protect their families.  with forced wage equality, you are again hurting the business.   #  full faith and credit clause is in the constitution.   # however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  full faith and credit clause is in the constitution.  you might want to read it.  also, you do not need permission from the govt.  to get married.  what you need is permission for the govt.  to recognize your marriage.  the only rights which married couples receive would not exist without the state.  lastly, with all of those, you seem to not care whether a state is violating my rights ? why ? and if a state can violate my rights, then why should not the federal govt.  ?
the federal government only needs to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  this means that things such as murder, rape, and theft are illegal because you are infringing on someone else is rights to live, own property, and pursue their dream life.  everything else should be inherently allowed by the federal government.  then, per the constitution, each of the 0 states would have complete democratic freedom to decide on issues such as minimum wage, abortion, gun rights, wage equality, marriage equality, etc etc etc.  basically, everything else.  people could move freely to the states that reflect their personal morals.  states that adopted policies that led to economic depression or social injustice would likely change their policies because people would move out.  so why does the federal government get to control so much ? why do we give them that power ? i am of course speaking of the united states as that is the only country i have lived in, feel free to give opinions/examples using other countries.  change my view.   #  states that adopted policies that led to economic depression or social injustice would likely change their policies because people would move out.   #  do you know how much it costs to move to a new state ?  # that is not what the constitution says.  the preamble says that the federal government was formed to  in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity  URL as such, the federal government has the power to address all of those issues.  under your argument that the federal government should only be concerned about human rights would mean that these issues should only be taken care of by the federal government and the states should take care of things like infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and things like that.  do you know how much it costs to move to a new state ? different places have different property values, so depending on where you live, you might not make enough money selling your current house to buy a new one wherever you want to live.  depending on how far you move, there is a cost associated with moving your things.  it can cost $0 just to move a single person from coast to coast.  how much more do you think it can cost to transport all of your things your car, your clothing, your picture frames, your books, etc.  ? then there is the matter of finding work.  most people end up living wherever they find a job.  for most people that means they do not leave their local area because it is easier to interview for a job when you can easily get to the interview spot.  most people who move to a different area do so because they found a good job that suits them there.  the economic status of one place has always affected those around it, and the effects of globalization have only made it so that the effect of the economy in one place only has a greater affect in others.  a stock market crash in new york will not just make new york destitute, but every place that does business in or with new york, which is most of the world and the entirety of the us.  why do we give them that power ? the federal government of the us is an attempt to coordinate the efforts and interests of over 0 million people, and so has the power of over 0 million people.   #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.   #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.  even if texas wants to allow rape, the feds would say no.  if texas wants to allow black tar heroin and prostitutes, the feds have no say.  how am i changing the judicial system ? i mean, big rape and murder cases go to the supreme courts anyway.  does not the federal government already recognize those things as illegal ? it just does not deal with the cases unless the states and appeals courts ca not decide.   #  those that do move higher up are questioning a legal statue not directly related to the matter at hand.   # the federal govt.  is not given that authority.  the closest authority they get to that is the 0th amendment which just assures the uniformity of the law.  states are free to legalize different forms of rights violations such as castle doctrine laws .  actually, spousal rape has been legal in the past and is in several states treated at a lower standard than other forms of rape.  the constitution does not grant the congress the right to enforce these views.  you would have to use a specific example to clarity, but most big rape and murder cases stay at the state level.  those that do move higher up are questioning a legal statue not directly related to the matter at hand.  it does not retry the case, and usually it does not question the basic text of the law.  for example, in miranda vs.  arizona neither side argued the legality of the kidnapping statute or whether or not miranda kidnapped the girl.  the only issue the supreme court was concerned about was whether or not his rights were violated when the police questioned him without his attorney present.  in fact, after he won the supreme court case, the state of arizona retried him using other evidence and got him convicted.  it does not deal with matters of fact for the case, but issues with the wording of the law/procedures followed.  if the state court ca not decide based on matters of fact, then its a hung jury and not a matter that goes to an appeals court.   #  those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.   #  minimum wage as it turns out, minimum wages have been known to hurt the unemployed/unskilled workers/poor communities URL i do not think the federal government has any right to impose on the liberty of business owners to pay employees what they want.  state governments should feel free to implement minimum wages, though, and workers will migrate where they are treated better.  abortion i agree ! to some, pro choice is inflicting the unborn child is life/liberty.  to others, the fact that pro life inflicts the mother is life/liberty is more important.  states should be in charge of answering this question, not the federal government.  people can move to states that suit their moral standards.  gun rights i am a huge supporter of gun rights and the 0nd amendment.  however, some are not.  if a state wants to change it is concealed carry laws, for example, why does the federal government get to tell them not to ? wage equality another video for you if you are concerned that states wo not implement wage equality and it will be bad for them: URL if a state wants to attempt policies that enforce wage equality, which is not actually a problem as you can see if you saw the numbers in the video , they should.  if they do not want to, they should not.  we do not need the federal government to help with that.  marriage equality first of all, marriage has nothing to do with the government anyway and it is pretty insulting that i would have to ask permission from the government to marry someone, girl or guy.  however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  while you may think every law is about  willife, liberty, and pursuit of happiness , you are also failing to see the unseen oppression and other liberties you are taking away.  with a forced minimum wage, you oppress the business.  with forced abortion laws, you oppress women or unborn children.  with forced gun laws, you oppress people who want to own guns to protect their families.  with forced wage equality, you are again hurting the business.   #  the only rights which married couples receive would not exist without the state.   # however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  full faith and credit clause is in the constitution.  you might want to read it.  also, you do not need permission from the govt.  to get married.  what you need is permission for the govt.  to recognize your marriage.  the only rights which married couples receive would not exist without the state.  lastly, with all of those, you seem to not care whether a state is violating my rights ? why ? and if a state can violate my rights, then why should not the federal govt.  ?
the federal government only needs to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  this means that things such as murder, rape, and theft are illegal because you are infringing on someone else is rights to live, own property, and pursue their dream life.  everything else should be inherently allowed by the federal government.  then, per the constitution, each of the 0 states would have complete democratic freedom to decide on issues such as minimum wage, abortion, gun rights, wage equality, marriage equality, etc etc etc.  basically, everything else.  people could move freely to the states that reflect their personal morals.  states that adopted policies that led to economic depression or social injustice would likely change their policies because people would move out.  so why does the federal government get to control so much ? why do we give them that power ? i am of course speaking of the united states as that is the only country i have lived in, feel free to give opinions/examples using other countries.  change my view.   #  so why does the federal government get to control so much ?  #  why do we give them that power ?  # that is not what the constitution says.  the preamble says that the federal government was formed to  in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity  URL as such, the federal government has the power to address all of those issues.  under your argument that the federal government should only be concerned about human rights would mean that these issues should only be taken care of by the federal government and the states should take care of things like infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and things like that.  do you know how much it costs to move to a new state ? different places have different property values, so depending on where you live, you might not make enough money selling your current house to buy a new one wherever you want to live.  depending on how far you move, there is a cost associated with moving your things.  it can cost $0 just to move a single person from coast to coast.  how much more do you think it can cost to transport all of your things your car, your clothing, your picture frames, your books, etc.  ? then there is the matter of finding work.  most people end up living wherever they find a job.  for most people that means they do not leave their local area because it is easier to interview for a job when you can easily get to the interview spot.  most people who move to a different area do so because they found a good job that suits them there.  the economic status of one place has always affected those around it, and the effects of globalization have only made it so that the effect of the economy in one place only has a greater affect in others.  a stock market crash in new york will not just make new york destitute, but every place that does business in or with new york, which is most of the world and the entirety of the us.  why do we give them that power ? the federal government of the us is an attempt to coordinate the efforts and interests of over 0 million people, and so has the power of over 0 million people.   #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.   #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.  even if texas wants to allow rape, the feds would say no.  if texas wants to allow black tar heroin and prostitutes, the feds have no say.  how am i changing the judicial system ? i mean, big rape and murder cases go to the supreme courts anyway.  does not the federal government already recognize those things as illegal ? it just does not deal with the cases unless the states and appeals courts ca not decide.   #  if the state court ca not decide based on matters of fact, then its a hung jury and not a matter that goes to an appeals court.   # the federal govt.  is not given that authority.  the closest authority they get to that is the 0th amendment which just assures the uniformity of the law.  states are free to legalize different forms of rights violations such as castle doctrine laws .  actually, spousal rape has been legal in the past and is in several states treated at a lower standard than other forms of rape.  the constitution does not grant the congress the right to enforce these views.  you would have to use a specific example to clarity, but most big rape and murder cases stay at the state level.  those that do move higher up are questioning a legal statue not directly related to the matter at hand.  it does not retry the case, and usually it does not question the basic text of the law.  for example, in miranda vs.  arizona neither side argued the legality of the kidnapping statute or whether or not miranda kidnapped the girl.  the only issue the supreme court was concerned about was whether or not his rights were violated when the police questioned him without his attorney present.  in fact, after he won the supreme court case, the state of arizona retried him using other evidence and got him convicted.  it does not deal with matters of fact for the case, but issues with the wording of the law/procedures followed.  if the state court ca not decide based on matters of fact, then its a hung jury and not a matter that goes to an appeals court.   #  people can move to states that suit their moral standards.   #  minimum wage as it turns out, minimum wages have been known to hurt the unemployed/unskilled workers/poor communities URL i do not think the federal government has any right to impose on the liberty of business owners to pay employees what they want.  state governments should feel free to implement minimum wages, though, and workers will migrate where they are treated better.  abortion i agree ! to some, pro choice is inflicting the unborn child is life/liberty.  to others, the fact that pro life inflicts the mother is life/liberty is more important.  states should be in charge of answering this question, not the federal government.  people can move to states that suit their moral standards.  gun rights i am a huge supporter of gun rights and the 0nd amendment.  however, some are not.  if a state wants to change it is concealed carry laws, for example, why does the federal government get to tell them not to ? wage equality another video for you if you are concerned that states wo not implement wage equality and it will be bad for them: URL if a state wants to attempt policies that enforce wage equality, which is not actually a problem as you can see if you saw the numbers in the video , they should.  if they do not want to, they should not.  we do not need the federal government to help with that.  marriage equality first of all, marriage has nothing to do with the government anyway and it is pretty insulting that i would have to ask permission from the government to marry someone, girl or guy.  however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  while you may think every law is about  willife, liberty, and pursuit of happiness , you are also failing to see the unseen oppression and other liberties you are taking away.  with a forced minimum wage, you oppress the business.  with forced abortion laws, you oppress women or unborn children.  with forced gun laws, you oppress people who want to own guns to protect their families.  with forced wage equality, you are again hurting the business.   #  those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.   # however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  full faith and credit clause is in the constitution.  you might want to read it.  also, you do not need permission from the govt.  to get married.  what you need is permission for the govt.  to recognize your marriage.  the only rights which married couples receive would not exist without the state.  lastly, with all of those, you seem to not care whether a state is violating my rights ? why ? and if a state can violate my rights, then why should not the federal govt.  ?
the federal government only needs to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  this means that things such as murder, rape, and theft are illegal because you are infringing on someone else is rights to live, own property, and pursue their dream life.  everything else should be inherently allowed by the federal government.  then, per the constitution, each of the 0 states would have complete democratic freedom to decide on issues such as minimum wage, abortion, gun rights, wage equality, marriage equality, etc etc etc.  basically, everything else.  people could move freely to the states that reflect their personal morals.  states that adopted policies that led to economic depression or social injustice would likely change their policies because people would move out.  so why does the federal government get to control so much ? why do we give them that power ? i am of course speaking of the united states as that is the only country i have lived in, feel free to give opinions/examples using other countries.  change my view.   #  so why does the federal government get to control so much ?  #  why do we give them that power ?  # why do we give them that power ? going from what you said above: minimum wage ? arguments of effectiveness aside, i would say it fits squarely in the ability to pursue happiness.  same with wage equality.  abortion ? related to human rights in all sorts of fashion.  marriage equality ? back to pursuit of happiness, with the added responsibility of interstate action.  otherwise i ca not move around freely, but will be restricted to those states that would honor the existing relationship i have.  i ca not even travel freely on vacation.  gun rights ? also within the federal purview, especially when it comes to tracking across the whole country, but also with imports and exports.  in any case, i wonder why you think that going to a state government is somehow better.  do you trust them more ? why ? do you think there have not been corruptions in state governments ? much of that abetted by a federal government refusing to do its job, and that has caused a great deal of suffering, and no, people could not just move out of it.  it is not quite that simple when it comes to human interaction.  and do not even suggest city and county governments.  heck, you want to know some of the most screwed up people ? neighborhood associations.  and no, so far it does not look like individual sovereignty works out better either.   #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.   #  states should not be allowed to change their views towards murder, rape, theft, and other crimes against the human right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.  even if texas wants to allow rape, the feds would say no.  if texas wants to allow black tar heroin and prostitutes, the feds have no say.  how am i changing the judicial system ? i mean, big rape and murder cases go to the supreme courts anyway.  does not the federal government already recognize those things as illegal ? it just does not deal with the cases unless the states and appeals courts ca not decide.   #  the constitution does not grant the congress the right to enforce these views.   # the federal govt.  is not given that authority.  the closest authority they get to that is the 0th amendment which just assures the uniformity of the law.  states are free to legalize different forms of rights violations such as castle doctrine laws .  actually, spousal rape has been legal in the past and is in several states treated at a lower standard than other forms of rape.  the constitution does not grant the congress the right to enforce these views.  you would have to use a specific example to clarity, but most big rape and murder cases stay at the state level.  those that do move higher up are questioning a legal statue not directly related to the matter at hand.  it does not retry the case, and usually it does not question the basic text of the law.  for example, in miranda vs.  arizona neither side argued the legality of the kidnapping statute or whether or not miranda kidnapped the girl.  the only issue the supreme court was concerned about was whether or not his rights were violated when the police questioned him without his attorney present.  in fact, after he won the supreme court case, the state of arizona retried him using other evidence and got him convicted.  it does not deal with matters of fact for the case, but issues with the wording of the law/procedures followed.  if the state court ca not decide based on matters of fact, then its a hung jury and not a matter that goes to an appeals court.   #  marriage equality first of all, marriage has nothing to do with the government anyway and it is pretty insulting that i would have to ask permission from the government to marry someone, girl or guy.   #  minimum wage as it turns out, minimum wages have been known to hurt the unemployed/unskilled workers/poor communities URL i do not think the federal government has any right to impose on the liberty of business owners to pay employees what they want.  state governments should feel free to implement minimum wages, though, and workers will migrate where they are treated better.  abortion i agree ! to some, pro choice is inflicting the unborn child is life/liberty.  to others, the fact that pro life inflicts the mother is life/liberty is more important.  states should be in charge of answering this question, not the federal government.  people can move to states that suit their moral standards.  gun rights i am a huge supporter of gun rights and the 0nd amendment.  however, some are not.  if a state wants to change it is concealed carry laws, for example, why does the federal government get to tell them not to ? wage equality another video for you if you are concerned that states wo not implement wage equality and it will be bad for them: URL if a state wants to attempt policies that enforce wage equality, which is not actually a problem as you can see if you saw the numbers in the video , they should.  if they do not want to, they should not.  we do not need the federal government to help with that.  marriage equality first of all, marriage has nothing to do with the government anyway and it is pretty insulting that i would have to ask permission from the government to marry someone, girl or guy.  however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  while you may think every law is about  willife, liberty, and pursuit of happiness , you are also failing to see the unseen oppression and other liberties you are taking away.  with a forced minimum wage, you oppress the business.  with forced abortion laws, you oppress women or unborn children.  with forced gun laws, you oppress people who want to own guns to protect their families.  with forced wage equality, you are again hurting the business.   #  also, you do not need permission from the govt.   # however, i respect states rights to ban some people from getting married if that is what the majority decides.  why would you live in a state that oppresses you anyway ? those states would end up failing if they did not eventually change their social policies.  full faith and credit clause is in the constitution.  you might want to read it.  also, you do not need permission from the govt.  to get married.  what you need is permission for the govt.  to recognize your marriage.  the only rights which married couples receive would not exist without the state.  lastly, with all of those, you seem to not care whether a state is violating my rights ? why ? and if a state can violate my rights, then why should not the federal govt.  ?
i have a problem with the outrage over russia is annexation of the crimea.  the government of the united states and ukraine have both denounced russia is actions as against  international law .  when was it decided that countries could not try to change their borders through force ? land has changed hands over and over again throughout history, and the current geopolitical situation is just an arbitrary snapshot.  i think that if a country desires to change their borders through force, and it is within their interests to do so, then they should go for it.  if another country or the global community has a problem with that then they can resist them through force.  but to argue that everyone should just keep the status quo in perpetuity seems extremely arbitrary to me.  it seems very hypocritical for the united states to claim that we should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine after hundreds of years of displacing its indigenous population and territorial expansion.   #  the government of the united states and ukraine have both denounced russia is actions as against  international law .   #  well for one they attacked ukraine with soldiers who did not show heir flag.   # well for one they attacked ukraine with soldiers who did not show heir flag.  that is mega illegal.  do not think of it necessarily as a moral thing.  think of it as a mexican standoff.  after wwii everyone realized the threat one country can pose which violates the universal truce among all nations without due cause.  thus, we view an attack on one as an attack on all of us and have made laws condemning it.   #  but then who policies the definition of competition for resources ?  #  so, since expansion of the third reich was in germany is national interest, according to your logic, world war ii was a  necessary  war.  you might object that german expansion was not strictly about  competition for resources.   but then who policies the definition of competition for resources ? human behavior, and by extension the behavior of nations, does not lend itself to neat categorization.  country a might invade country b not only to grab for country b is natural resources, but also to disseminate its social or economic paradigm.  international law why the quotes, by the way ? international law is not hypothetical exists because sovereign nations have agreed to a system of line drawing that avoids the impossible task of policing what is or is not, in terms of legitimizing aggression, a  sufficient national interest.    #  but it is perfectly reasonable to think i might have to go to war for my country.   #  you are reading too much into my comment.  i never said i had a unique claim to ownership of property.  i am part of a social contract with the united states so i most likely wo not have to fight off armed thugs trying to steal my house.  but it is perfectly reasonable to think i might have to go to war for my country.  that is how the contract works and there are different rules.   #  do you recognize that russia actively participates in the un and that this imposes social contract esque obligations on them ?  #  i am not reading too much in, i am applying your view consistently to a different set of circumstances.  if you do not take international convention seriously, why should anyone take the conventions that protect your rights seriously ? you say you are  part of a social contract , well so is russia.  they have a permanent seat on the un security council and others have cited that group is guidelines on justified aggression which you have inexplicably ignored for going on two hours; along with the  might makes right  question .  they pretty much prohibit unprovoked aggression of the type that is being condemned.  so there is a need for you to answer some fundamental questions that about the underpinnings of your view:   do you assert that might makes right ? should international relations be entirely competitive and devoid of ethical principle ? do you recognize that russia actively participates in the un and that this imposes social contract esque obligations on them ? if not, why are they immune to that authority and why do you feel the social contract between the american government and its people is somehow more binding in an ethical or logical sense ?  #  you are responding to the question  is it ok to murder  with  whether a murder happens is up to the murderer and the victim .   #  you did not answer a single question posed.  0 ok, i understand that might will decide outcome, but that is not what you said.  your position is:  cmv: countries should be able to change their borders by military force that is the ethical position that it is okay or that i should view it as acceptable.  you are responding to the question  is it ok to murder  with  whether a murder happens is up to the murderer and the victim .  that does not address the question.  you need to differentiate the  is  from the  ought .  0 i asked whether we should incorporate ethics into our foreign policy decisions, you responded with  international relations are complicated .  that does not address the question.  0 so would you say that if i saw you do something wrong remember the is/ought difference i should only be allowed to disapprove and tell you so if i am willing to physically stop you ?
i have a problem with the outrage over russia is annexation of the crimea.  the government of the united states and ukraine have both denounced russia is actions as against  international law .  when was it decided that countries could not try to change their borders through force ? land has changed hands over and over again throughout history, and the current geopolitical situation is just an arbitrary snapshot.  i think that if a country desires to change their borders through force, and it is within their interests to do so, then they should go for it.  if another country or the global community has a problem with that then they can resist them through force.  but to argue that everyone should just keep the status quo in perpetuity seems extremely arbitrary to me.  it seems very hypocritical for the united states to claim that we should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine after hundreds of years of displacing its indigenous population and territorial expansion.   #  when was it decided that countries could not try to change their borders through force ?  #  do not think of it necessarily as a moral thing.   # well for one they attacked ukraine with soldiers who did not show heir flag.  that is mega illegal.  do not think of it necessarily as a moral thing.  think of it as a mexican standoff.  after wwii everyone realized the threat one country can pose which violates the universal truce among all nations without due cause.  thus, we view an attack on one as an attack on all of us and have made laws condemning it.   #  country a might invade country b not only to grab for country b is natural resources, but also to disseminate its social or economic paradigm.   #  so, since expansion of the third reich was in germany is national interest, according to your logic, world war ii was a  necessary  war.  you might object that german expansion was not strictly about  competition for resources.   but then who policies the definition of competition for resources ? human behavior, and by extension the behavior of nations, does not lend itself to neat categorization.  country a might invade country b not only to grab for country b is natural resources, but also to disseminate its social or economic paradigm.  international law why the quotes, by the way ? international law is not hypothetical exists because sovereign nations have agreed to a system of line drawing that avoids the impossible task of policing what is or is not, in terms of legitimizing aggression, a  sufficient national interest.    #  but it is perfectly reasonable to think i might have to go to war for my country.   #  you are reading too much into my comment.  i never said i had a unique claim to ownership of property.  i am part of a social contract with the united states so i most likely wo not have to fight off armed thugs trying to steal my house.  but it is perfectly reasonable to think i might have to go to war for my country.  that is how the contract works and there are different rules.   #  if you do not take international convention seriously, why should anyone take the conventions that protect your rights seriously ?  #  i am not reading too much in, i am applying your view consistently to a different set of circumstances.  if you do not take international convention seriously, why should anyone take the conventions that protect your rights seriously ? you say you are  part of a social contract , well so is russia.  they have a permanent seat on the un security council and others have cited that group is guidelines on justified aggression which you have inexplicably ignored for going on two hours; along with the  might makes right  question .  they pretty much prohibit unprovoked aggression of the type that is being condemned.  so there is a need for you to answer some fundamental questions that about the underpinnings of your view:   do you assert that might makes right ? should international relations be entirely competitive and devoid of ethical principle ? do you recognize that russia actively participates in the un and that this imposes social contract esque obligations on them ? if not, why are they immune to that authority and why do you feel the social contract between the american government and its people is somehow more binding in an ethical or logical sense ?  #  0 ok, i understand that might will decide outcome, but that is not what you said.   #  you did not answer a single question posed.  0 ok, i understand that might will decide outcome, but that is not what you said.  your position is:  cmv: countries should be able to change their borders by military force that is the ethical position that it is okay or that i should view it as acceptable.  you are responding to the question  is it ok to murder  with  whether a murder happens is up to the murderer and the victim .  that does not address the question.  you need to differentiate the  is  from the  ought .  0 i asked whether we should incorporate ethics into our foreign policy decisions, you responded with  international relations are complicated .  that does not address the question.  0 so would you say that if i saw you do something wrong remember the is/ought difference i should only be allowed to disapprove and tell you so if i am willing to physically stop you ?
trading with countries that violate human rights seems like a crime to me.  if you trade with them, you are showing them that you either a.  support what they are doing or b.  do not care about what they are doing enough to try and stop it.  it seems criminal to turn a blind eye to countries who employ child labour or pay extremely low wages and continue trading with them.  also, to those who argue that trading with them would be the best way to help them improve their human rights, are not there other ways simply talking and would not not trading help them clean up their act more ? i wonder why they wo not trade with us, they say because we treat our citizens poorly, alright let is fix it also, from a purely business standpoint, why would one trade with a country that has poor human rights records ? if they are undeveloped what benefits do you gain ? other than china of course, you should try and help them, but trading with them implies that you are supporting the goods that they make even though you know that their policies are criminal.  on an individual level, people do not buy clothes from companies which employ child labour, so from a moral standpoint, why should developed countries trade with countries which have a lack of freedom, justice, and equality ? you do not gain anything business wise, and it is wrong morally wise.  the question was raised because my friend and i were having a debate, and i could never understand how one could possibly support trading with countries that violate human rights.  thank you for your time.   #  why would one trade with a country that has poor human rights records ?  #  if they are undeveloped what benefits do you gain ?  # 0 everyone has the right to education.  education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.  even this one ? think about it.  if a nation is too poor to offer free education to its children, then surely a way for a country to raise money necessary for this is by exporting and trading with the first world.  if they are undeveloped what benefits do you gain ? other than china i assume by this you mean that you consider it ok to trade with china, even though they are  underdeveloped , as you put it.  well, china has multiple human rights violations, so the benefits you can hope to gain by buying goods from china is supporting a nation with criminal policies.   #  if it remains that way, the people will suffer even longer.   #  but leaving a country to develop by itself with no outside influence would not help it at all.  without trade, a country could not develop its economy well enough, leaving its people to suffer.  said country might not be developed now, but if no one helps its economy, said country will remain poor, and undeveloped.  if it remains that way, the people will suffer even longer.  also, if you help develop it, there is a high chance that the country will mature and develop human rights.  there are very little developed countries that do not have human rights, but many undeveloped or developing countries do not have human rights.  so we are left to assume that developing into a developed country will most likely give it human rights.  but if jt never develops without help or trade from wealthier countries, it will sit undeveloped and continue to remain that way.  trading also by itself does not mean supporting their policies.  i can trade with people without necessarily supporting their religious beliefs or lifestyles.  i can still disagree with them, but which will hurt them more ? not helping them by leaving them alone, or getting the help they need to get better.  it is like saying you should not associate or help drug addicts with what they need and just leave them to help themselves.  that is even more cruel.  not trading with a country because it does not have human rights is punishing the already suffering citizens for what the government does.  if you trade with them, there is a high chance that they will develop and get better, but a very low chance that they will improve themselves if you leave them alone.   #  yet you still feel it ok to trade with them.   #  sorry, what exactly is your view ? you talk about how countries that violate human rights have criminal policies, and as such, we should not trade with them, out of protest.  i completely respected that.  until you posted the comment above.  you cannot make the moral argument selectively.  by that, i mean that you cannot say it is ok for china to violate human rights, but still trade with them, just because it is beneficial for us.  your argument falls down.  yes, but china has a lack of freedom.  china has a lack of justice.  china has a lack of equality.  yet you still feel it ok to trade with them.   #  this guy is leading the way; this is the guy you want to trade with and point to him as an example of good practice.   #  imagine you are a farmer in sudan growing a crop that is exported to another country.  you follow all the human rights rules and regulations of typical developed countries but your government does something like torturing prisoners or something.  should this farmer be punished for the actions of his government ? he may not have voted for them at all, know them at all, heard of them at all, but yet he will be punished.  this guy is leading the way; this is the guy you want to trade with and point to him as an example of good practice.  a real world example would be: should developed countries stop trading with the us because the government/military tortured prisoners ? waterboarding  #  but at the same time, we have taken away any impetus they might have to make change.   #  you are sounding a lot like the abolitionists in britian in the 0s.  one of the main arguments in britain for ending the trans atlantic slave trade was to show britain is  nobility : they did not use slaves, but the uncivilized indians and africans, they sure did.  and when the slave trade ended, do you know what happened ? they stopped trading slaves, and started trading palm oil and other goods.  but the palm oil was still made by slaves in india and africa.  the only result was that britain was able to pat themselves on the back because they were able to  eradicate  slavery.  so if we stop trading with countries because they engage in human rights abuses, we do the same thing.  we can pat ourselves on the back and say look, those uncivilized cambodians keep arresting protesters, good thing we do not trade with them.  but at the same time, we have taken away any impetus they might have to make change.  and also, migration is very fluid in a lot of the world, so what happens is that we move out of cambodia into vietnam which is better.  but then: all the cambodians cross over the border without proper paper work and try to get jobs.  wanting to maintain the same pay structure, vietnam sets up special economic zones, and the cambodians go work there, and they get abused.  and now, cambodians are still getting abused, only the money is not even going to cambodia now, and the workers are at even more of a risk of further abuse.
trading with countries that violate human rights seems like a crime to me.  if you trade with them, you are showing them that you either a.  support what they are doing or b.  do not care about what they are doing enough to try and stop it.  it seems criminal to turn a blind eye to countries who employ child labour or pay extremely low wages and continue trading with them.  also, to those who argue that trading with them would be the best way to help them improve their human rights, are not there other ways simply talking and would not not trading help them clean up their act more ? i wonder why they wo not trade with us, they say because we treat our citizens poorly, alright let is fix it also, from a purely business standpoint, why would one trade with a country that has poor human rights records ? if they are undeveloped what benefits do you gain ? other than china of course, you should try and help them, but trading with them implies that you are supporting the goods that they make even though you know that their policies are criminal.  on an individual level, people do not buy clothes from companies which employ child labour, so from a moral standpoint, why should developed countries trade with countries which have a lack of freedom, justice, and equality ? you do not gain anything business wise, and it is wrong morally wise.  the question was raised because my friend and i were having a debate, and i could never understand how one could possibly support trading with countries that violate human rights.  thank you for your time.   #  why should developed countries trade with countries which have a lack of freedom, justice, and equality ?  #  yes, but china has a lack of freedom.   #  sorry, what exactly is your view ? you talk about how countries that violate human rights have criminal policies, and as such, we should not trade with them, out of protest.  i completely respected that.  until you posted the comment above.  you cannot make the moral argument selectively.  by that, i mean that you cannot say it is ok for china to violate human rights, but still trade with them, just because it is beneficial for us.  your argument falls down.  yes, but china has a lack of freedom.  china has a lack of justice.  china has a lack of equality.  yet you still feel it ok to trade with them.   #  if you trade with them, there is a high chance that they will develop and get better, but a very low chance that they will improve themselves if you leave them alone.   #  but leaving a country to develop by itself with no outside influence would not help it at all.  without trade, a country could not develop its economy well enough, leaving its people to suffer.  said country might not be developed now, but if no one helps its economy, said country will remain poor, and undeveloped.  if it remains that way, the people will suffer even longer.  also, if you help develop it, there is a high chance that the country will mature and develop human rights.  there are very little developed countries that do not have human rights, but many undeveloped or developing countries do not have human rights.  so we are left to assume that developing into a developed country will most likely give it human rights.  but if jt never develops without help or trade from wealthier countries, it will sit undeveloped and continue to remain that way.  trading also by itself does not mean supporting their policies.  i can trade with people without necessarily supporting their religious beliefs or lifestyles.  i can still disagree with them, but which will hurt them more ? not helping them by leaving them alone, or getting the help they need to get better.  it is like saying you should not associate or help drug addicts with what they need and just leave them to help themselves.  that is even more cruel.  not trading with a country because it does not have human rights is punishing the already suffering citizens for what the government does.  if you trade with them, there is a high chance that they will develop and get better, but a very low chance that they will improve themselves if you leave them alone.   #  if they are undeveloped what benefits do you gain ?  # 0 everyone has the right to education.  education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.  even this one ? think about it.  if a nation is too poor to offer free education to its children, then surely a way for a country to raise money necessary for this is by exporting and trading with the first world.  if they are undeveloped what benefits do you gain ? other than china i assume by this you mean that you consider it ok to trade with china, even though they are  underdeveloped , as you put it.  well, china has multiple human rights violations, so the benefits you can hope to gain by buying goods from china is supporting a nation with criminal policies.   #  he may not have voted for them at all, know them at all, heard of them at all, but yet he will be punished.   #  imagine you are a farmer in sudan growing a crop that is exported to another country.  you follow all the human rights rules and regulations of typical developed countries but your government does something like torturing prisoners or something.  should this farmer be punished for the actions of his government ? he may not have voted for them at all, know them at all, heard of them at all, but yet he will be punished.  this guy is leading the way; this is the guy you want to trade with and point to him as an example of good practice.  a real world example would be: should developed countries stop trading with the us because the government/military tortured prisoners ? waterboarding  #  and also, migration is very fluid in a lot of the world, so what happens is that we move out of cambodia into vietnam which is better.   #  you are sounding a lot like the abolitionists in britian in the 0s.  one of the main arguments in britain for ending the trans atlantic slave trade was to show britain is  nobility : they did not use slaves, but the uncivilized indians and africans, they sure did.  and when the slave trade ended, do you know what happened ? they stopped trading slaves, and started trading palm oil and other goods.  but the palm oil was still made by slaves in india and africa.  the only result was that britain was able to pat themselves on the back because they were able to  eradicate  slavery.  so if we stop trading with countries because they engage in human rights abuses, we do the same thing.  we can pat ourselves on the back and say look, those uncivilized cambodians keep arresting protesters, good thing we do not trade with them.  but at the same time, we have taken away any impetus they might have to make change.  and also, migration is very fluid in a lot of the world, so what happens is that we move out of cambodia into vietnam which is better.  but then: all the cambodians cross over the border without proper paper work and try to get jobs.  wanting to maintain the same pay structure, vietnam sets up special economic zones, and the cambodians go work there, and they get abused.  and now, cambodians are still getting abused, only the money is not even going to cambodia now, and the workers are at even more of a risk of further abuse.
whenever there is a post or video that shows someone, normally a burglar, being shot by a homeowner the response in the comments is normally at best:  it sucks that someone died, but they forfeited their lives the moment they broke into the house .  at worse and quite often this attitude can lose the first part of the sentence and end up, if not exactly celebrating the death then at least saying it was no bad thing.  while it is important to acknowledge that reddit is not one entity and so has a varied opinion it seems that the top voted comment is consistently of this view and so can be extrapolated to present a majority opinion.  if we want further proof the popularity of justice porn, which brings with it the same views and attitudes to the people being beaten up or otherwise hurt.  my problem with this is this take on human relationships is it revolves around the idea that the people who commit crimes or act immorally deserve punishment.  it is sometimes acknowledged that the punishment is disproportionate, but i would go even further and say the idea of punishment does not make much sense.  the people who rob and steal do so because of factors outside their control: namely social factors and to a lesser extent their genetics.  crime is tightly linked to inequality and poverty, it comes about when a society is failing its people.  this is not even an argument that people might be stealing not out of greed but of necessity, although that might be the case, but that even if they  are  stealing out of greed it is only because society tells them that is right.  never in the comment sections is there mention of trying to improve the lives of people, which would almost certainly prevent the situation in the first place.  it is this view that allows for the terrible prison system in the us.  reddit likes to talk about the drug war being the root of the problem which i agree is  an  issue, just not  the  issue but often overlooks the aim of the prison system in america.  the american prison system is there to punish those who commit crimes, with the idea of  justice being served  at the heart.  the aim of prisons should be to rehabilitate instead of punish.  it is only in the most extreme cases, where rehabilitation is simply not possible, that a prison should act as nothing but a way to keep the very dangerous separate from the general populace.  it is the attitude towards punishment and the idea that people deserve what they get that allows for the death penalty in america, which to me is immoral beyond words.  if we take the news and reddit to give an accurate view of america then it appears that the american people are far more concerned with their own rights than they are with helping others.  the arguments surrounding possible gun control are always based around the rights of the people.  few people want to talk about how to reduce inequality, improve mental health care or improve education.  when there is greater talk about what rights the people should have, as in negative freedom, over what responsibilities the people and state have to one another, as in positive freedom, you get the results seen in america.   #  at worse and quite often this attitude can lose the first part of the sentence and end up, if not exactly celebrating the death then at least saying it was no bad thing.   #  i would much rather celebrate a homeowner successfully defending his home than hear about a successful burglary.   # i would much rather celebrate a homeowner successfully defending his home than hear about a successful burglary.  burglaries often end up with people getting injured, raped, or even killed.  it is a great thing when people stand up for themselves.  it is not that we do not value human life, it is that we value the lives of the innocent over the lives of criminals.  when it comes down to an innocent person vs a criminal, i will always hope for the criminal to die.  by performing the crime they take on a risk, and i do not have the same amount of sympathy when the odds do not work out in their favor.  we can go to great lengths to blame their genetics or upbringing, but we are not programmed robots and have some personal responsibility for our actions.   #  they have free will and they know right from wrong.   #  your argument is incredibly patronizing to poor people.  you speak of them like they are children.  they have free will and they know right from wrong.  most disadvantaged people manage to be disadvantaged and not hurt others or steal their property.  disregarding that you suggest that people turn to crime  only because society tells them that is right.   this line makes no sense at all, given the rest of what you wrote.  you advocate shifting culpability from the criminal to society and removing criminal punishments, yet it is the ones who want to shoot burglars that are sending criminals mixed messages ?  #  this is an absolutely horrible argument and exactly what this guy is speaking against.   #  this is an absolutely horrible argument and exactly what this guy is speaking against.  children are human.  adults are human.  we are all human.  we are machines subject to complex variables that are clearly confusing you.  if all of america was poor, crime and violence would skyrocket.  how do you deny the nature of a person is environment in how they turn out ? if you beat a dog enough, it tends to become violent.  if you beat a human enough, it does not matter what kind of mental strength you think they have in some sort of metaphysical universe, that person will react to the abuse.  it is never a positive reaction.   #  however the massive connection between poverty and crime does indicate that poverty has an effect on people and their willingness to commit certain crimes.   #  i think everyone is in the boat.  we are all products of our environment, i was born to middle class parents, who were originally working class.  i have picked up my views from them.  rich and poor alike have little say over their surroundings.  i agree that most of the working class are able to function morally.  however the massive connection between poverty and crime does indicate that poverty has an effect on people and their willingness to commit certain crimes.  poverty introduces a higher risk of mental health issues, child abuse, exposure to crime, more likely to drop out of school etc etc.  while people may have free will it is their environments that determine what they do with that free will.  actually my main problem with talking to people is that i defend the  strong .  whether it is the robbers or rapists, to the ceo is of enron to even hitler i tend to go down the same argument.  it tends to make me less than popular but it seems the logical path.  i am not entirely sure what that least paragraph means.  i do not think i talked about mixed messages at any point.  i also do not think i said society tells them that what they are doing is right.  people can commit crime in the knowledge that what they are doing is wrong.  society allows for situations where values are warped, where people feel the need the steal, where people have impaired judgement, where people are uneducated on moral matters.   #  i think the causality travels in both directions, here.   # which is why we empathize with the poor and seek to improve their circumstances.  the stance you are taking requires there to be no free will at all.  for no punishment to be doled out, the perpetrator must not have had  any  control over their actions.  i think the causality travels in both directions, here.  poverty may leads to stupid choices, but the inverse is true as well.  i do not think i talked about mixed messages at any point.  i also do not think i said society tells them that what they are doing is right i was directly quoting you:  even if they are stealing out of greed it is only because society tells them that is right.   this is simply the human condition.  maybe we will figure out a way to overcome this someday, but i do not think it will be as easy as legislating your wishlist of ideas.  in the meantime, society needs a system for dealing with those who harm others.
whenever there is a post or video that shows someone, normally a burglar, being shot by a homeowner the response in the comments is normally at best:  it sucks that someone died, but they forfeited their lives the moment they broke into the house .  at worse and quite often this attitude can lose the first part of the sentence and end up, if not exactly celebrating the death then at least saying it was no bad thing.  while it is important to acknowledge that reddit is not one entity and so has a varied opinion it seems that the top voted comment is consistently of this view and so can be extrapolated to present a majority opinion.  if we want further proof the popularity of justice porn, which brings with it the same views and attitudes to the people being beaten up or otherwise hurt.  my problem with this is this take on human relationships is it revolves around the idea that the people who commit crimes or act immorally deserve punishment.  it is sometimes acknowledged that the punishment is disproportionate, but i would go even further and say the idea of punishment does not make much sense.  the people who rob and steal do so because of factors outside their control: namely social factors and to a lesser extent their genetics.  crime is tightly linked to inequality and poverty, it comes about when a society is failing its people.  this is not even an argument that people might be stealing not out of greed but of necessity, although that might be the case, but that even if they  are  stealing out of greed it is only because society tells them that is right.  never in the comment sections is there mention of trying to improve the lives of people, which would almost certainly prevent the situation in the first place.  it is this view that allows for the terrible prison system in the us.  reddit likes to talk about the drug war being the root of the problem which i agree is  an  issue, just not  the  issue but often overlooks the aim of the prison system in america.  the american prison system is there to punish those who commit crimes, with the idea of  justice being served  at the heart.  the aim of prisons should be to rehabilitate instead of punish.  it is only in the most extreme cases, where rehabilitation is simply not possible, that a prison should act as nothing but a way to keep the very dangerous separate from the general populace.  it is the attitude towards punishment and the idea that people deserve what they get that allows for the death penalty in america, which to me is immoral beyond words.  if we take the news and reddit to give an accurate view of america then it appears that the american people are far more concerned with their own rights than they are with helping others.  the arguments surrounding possible gun control are always based around the rights of the people.  few people want to talk about how to reduce inequality, improve mental health care or improve education.  when there is greater talk about what rights the people should have, as in negative freedom, over what responsibilities the people and state have to one another, as in positive freedom, you get the results seen in america.   #  whenever there is a post or video that shows someone, normally a burglar, being shot by a homeowner the response in the comments is normally at best:  it sucks that someone died, but they forfeited their lives the moment they broke into the house .   #  at worse and quite often this attitude can lose the first part of the sentence and end up, if not exactly celebrating the death then at least saying it was no bad thing.   # at worse and quite often this attitude can lose the first part of the sentence and end up, if not exactly celebrating the death then at least saying it was no bad thing.  i take it you have never been a victim of burglary or armed robbery.  people have the right to defend themselves from reasonable threats, and someone forcibly entering your home and refusing to leave or acting threatening in any way is a reasonable threat to your safety.  using lethal force is completely justified.  the alternative is you have the uk where nobody can defend themselves and burglars simply walk into homes and because they are big and strong they get whatever they want, while the homeowners ca not use a weapon because  that would be escalating violence.   seriously, fuck the uk.  shitty place.   #  your argument is incredibly patronizing to poor people.   #  your argument is incredibly patronizing to poor people.  you speak of them like they are children.  they have free will and they know right from wrong.  most disadvantaged people manage to be disadvantaged and not hurt others or steal their property.  disregarding that you suggest that people turn to crime  only because society tells them that is right.   this line makes no sense at all, given the rest of what you wrote.  you advocate shifting culpability from the criminal to society and removing criminal punishments, yet it is the ones who want to shoot burglars that are sending criminals mixed messages ?  #  we are machines subject to complex variables that are clearly confusing you.   #  this is an absolutely horrible argument and exactly what this guy is speaking against.  children are human.  adults are human.  we are all human.  we are machines subject to complex variables that are clearly confusing you.  if all of america was poor, crime and violence would skyrocket.  how do you deny the nature of a person is environment in how they turn out ? if you beat a dog enough, it tends to become violent.  if you beat a human enough, it does not matter what kind of mental strength you think they have in some sort of metaphysical universe, that person will react to the abuse.  it is never a positive reaction.   #  people can commit crime in the knowledge that what they are doing is wrong.   #  i think everyone is in the boat.  we are all products of our environment, i was born to middle class parents, who were originally working class.  i have picked up my views from them.  rich and poor alike have little say over their surroundings.  i agree that most of the working class are able to function morally.  however the massive connection between poverty and crime does indicate that poverty has an effect on people and their willingness to commit certain crimes.  poverty introduces a higher risk of mental health issues, child abuse, exposure to crime, more likely to drop out of school etc etc.  while people may have free will it is their environments that determine what they do with that free will.  actually my main problem with talking to people is that i defend the  strong .  whether it is the robbers or rapists, to the ceo is of enron to even hitler i tend to go down the same argument.  it tends to make me less than popular but it seems the logical path.  i am not entirely sure what that least paragraph means.  i do not think i talked about mixed messages at any point.  i also do not think i said society tells them that what they are doing is right.  people can commit crime in the knowledge that what they are doing is wrong.  society allows for situations where values are warped, where people feel the need the steal, where people have impaired judgement, where people are uneducated on moral matters.   #  i think the causality travels in both directions, here.   # which is why we empathize with the poor and seek to improve their circumstances.  the stance you are taking requires there to be no free will at all.  for no punishment to be doled out, the perpetrator must not have had  any  control over their actions.  i think the causality travels in both directions, here.  poverty may leads to stupid choices, but the inverse is true as well.  i do not think i talked about mixed messages at any point.  i also do not think i said society tells them that what they are doing is right i was directly quoting you:  even if they are stealing out of greed it is only because society tells them that is right.   this is simply the human condition.  maybe we will figure out a way to overcome this someday, but i do not think it will be as easy as legislating your wishlist of ideas.  in the meantime, society needs a system for dealing with those who harm others.
people from english speaking countries like to say that english is a very difficult language to master.  i do not think that is true.  as with every language on this planet, it is hard to speak perfect english.  it is however really easy to attain a medium proficiency, as opposed to other more complex languages.  english has a lot of words and some tricky grammar but that is about it.  latin languages have conjugations, slavic languages have conjugations and declensions.  english has neither, nor does it have gendered nouns and adjectives, or a wide array of tenses.   #  latin languages have conjugations, slavic languages have conjugations and declensions.   #  declensions are not a difficult concept if your native language has them, the same way indefinite and definite articles are not difficult if your native language has them.   #  what is your native language ? found later in the comments that your native language is french, i ask because you ca not call a language easy or difficult to learn without knowing a person is native language or other languages they speak proficiently.  russian is a fairly easy language to learn if you speak ukrainian or a different eastern slavic language.  french is easy to learn if your native language is spanish.  but it is not easy for a russian speaker to learn spanish or a spanish speaker to learn russian.  declensions are not a difficult concept if your native language has them, the same way indefinite and definite articles are not difficult if your native language has them.  however, declensions are concrete and you only need to follow a fixed pattern, whereas definite/indefinite articles only have a general pattern and still need to be  felt  out.  very frequently their native language has little in common in english 0 a lot of people learn english to speak it in a professional setting.  this is difficult to do in any foreign language.  0 there are many different dialects and accents in english.  the vocabulary taught in a british english course varies significantly from the vocabulary taught in an american english course.  while a esl student might understand people with a standard british accent, they may still have trouble understanding a scottish, cockney, australian or american accent.  things most non native speakers have trouble with:  0 english is riddled with exceptions to the rules in terms of spelling, conjugations, and pronunciation, etc.  0 english has several sounds that are hard for speakers of most languages.  most notably the  th  sounds in  the  and  these.   in a lot of languages these noises are considered a speech impediment.  similar to how in spain speaking with a lisp is correct, but english speakers see lisping as speech impediment.  0 english uses phrasal verbs a lot.  for example  back up, back someone up, back down, back out, back in, back it, put back, cut back on, call back literal and figuratively , get something back, get back return , get back at, get back on, get back to, get back into, get back with,  not only sound incredibly similar but have very different meanings.   #  there is not really a consistent set of rules on how to pronounce different spellings because those spellings could come from french, german, latin, or other european languages.   #  the primary issue with english is that it is sort of a bastard language.  there is not really a consistent set of rules on how to pronounce different spellings because those spellings could come from french, german, latin, or other european languages.  in the u. s. , you even have influence from native american languages.  however, i will admit that english is a very forgiving language.  i took several years of mandarin, and in that language using incorrect intonation on a word can completely change the meaning.  meanwhile, americans somehow manage to communicate with the irish.  essentially, english is a language that is relatively easy to learn and use at a basic level, but incredibly difficult to master because of its multilingual roots.   #  granted, the gap between spelling and real pronunciation which also depends on your accent of course is a large one.   # as far as i know, the only words taken from native american languages are ones to describe natural phenomena e. g.  mocassins, caribou etc.  and there was no influence on grammar.  granted, the gap between spelling and real pronunciation which also depends on your accent of course is a large one.  this is not as much due to the  bastardization  borrowing from other languages of english but the history of rapid development and change of the language without spelling reform.  it seems that most of the words whose spellings do not align with their pronunciation are the oldest english i am talking anglo saxon words.  words like  night ,  bought ,  bough , etc.  give us an insight into their pronunciation in the distant past and their relation to other words from our family english is a germanic language despite any mongrelization because of its origins .  this only speaks to the written aspect of english though, which does not a language make.  there are still many languages in the world without a writing system albeit very small, possibly endangered languages .  and granted the universality of english spelling plays a big role in its international use, making its spelling inseparable in many cases from its practical usage.  english is lack of grammatical cases, genders, complex verb declensions etc.  make grammar appear easy compared to and depending on your native language.  but english does make up for this morphological simplification older english did use cases, more complex declensions etc.  with a more complicated syntax and usage of modal verbs, prepositions, articles etc.   i would have had to have had a wood saw had i seen the wood which i would have liked to have sawn.    #  russian is purely slavic and is way, way more difficult than english.   # multilingual roots have nothing to do with it.  russian is purely slavic and is way, way more difficult than english.  no comparison really.  this statement is not entirely true.  currently russian is being bombarded with a bunch of american loan words.  and it has tons of borrowed words from french like этаж, пальто, from when the aristocracy would speak french more than russian.  russian pronunciation is a lot more consistent and easier than english, but i would not say it is way more difficult to learn than english.  russian has a lot of verbs that have particular uses, especially verbs of motion.  but compared to the strict word order, tenses, an aspects, and articles from a russian pov present in english, i do not think you can call english easier.  what is your native language ? if your native language is english, or something with a similar structure to english, then yes english is not too difficult to speak proficiently.  if it is not a romance or germanic language, then english can be incredibly difficult to learn.  and if you spend years learning british english, you might find americans still have trouble understanding you.   #  what i was saying, is you ca not say russian is definitively harder to learn than english.   #  i never claimed russian was an easy language to learn.  you ca not really claim any foreign language is easy to learn, but it certainly is not easy if your native language is english or non slavic .  if you want to look at wikipedia, the english grammar page also looks intimidating URL and i do speak russian.  i started taking russian as a college student and currently speak it with a high level of proficiency.  trust me, i know the pain of learning declensions, how to count, verbs of motion, and those evil gerunds/participles.  what i was saying, is you ca not say russian is definitively harder to learn than english.  especially if your native language differs a lot from your target language.
first and foremost,  slutty  is the wrong word to use here.  it is just the best word i could think of to put in the post title without needing to have 0 lines of continued title text in the post.  what i mean by the title post is pretty simple.  every time i see a woman protesting without wearing any clothes, and holding a sign that says something along the lines of  i am still not  asking  for it  is arguing against an argument that is not being mode.  of course, there are some seriously horrendous people out there that think women who wear revealing clothing deserve whatever happens to them, but the general counter argument or point of caution lobbied towards women is not one of blame, but of wariness.  i have never encountered a rational individual who thinks that any woman ever did anything to deserve to be raped, but i firmly believe that women should not wear tube tops and booty shorts to a rave and then walk back to their car at 0 in the morning through a park.  we live in a world where bad things happen.  there are steps we can take to try to keep those bad things from happening, but it does not always work.  we see and hear about plenty of people who were wearing normal clothing, acting in a normal way and were in a normal part of town but were still victims of rape or violence.  this cautionary argument is not one that is being made towards them.  the analogy has been made a thousand times, but i have never seen a valid counter argument to it which is why i am here , but i worked in new york two years ago.  i wore a suit and tie every day to work.  if i were to then leave work and try to walk through harlem at about 0 in the morning, it might be a reasonable assumption that i have made a poor choice.  now, if someone comes up and holds a gun to me and demands everything in my pockets, my choice to go to harlem in a suit and tie in no way provoked that action, or am i in any way to blame for the crime.  however, i did make a poor decision.  yes, robbery and rape are in a completely different universe when it comes to crime, but the same caution that is advised seems to be considered sexist, or met with immediate ridicule when it is made to women.  i believe that women who are concerned about the prospect of being raped should be more cautious about the decisions they make, yet somehow that makes me an idiot or an asshole, though i have never seen a valid reason as to why.  it isnot the only argument, it is an argument.   #  what i mean by the title post is pretty simple.   #  every time i see a woman protesting without wearing any clothes, and holding a sign that says something along the lines of  i am still not asking for it  is arguing against an argument that is not being mode yes it is.   # every time i see a woman protesting without wearing any clothes, and holding a sign that says something along the lines of  i am still not asking for it  is arguing against an argument that is not being mode yes it is.  it is made all the time.  there are tons of people out there who think women who wear skimpy clothes have it coming, or who will lose sympathy if they find out she was wearing anything but the most conservative clothing.  which is extra ridiculous because it is not women who dress like the stereotypical slut who are being raped at the highest frequency.  women who look insecure and who dress down are most at risk of being raped.  not the women who display confidence by dressing more provocatively.  and either way, the  vast  majority of rape does not occur when to dressed scandalously in public.  it happens between people who know each other.  friends, spouses, dates, friends of friends, acquaintances.  the only safety advice you can give to someone is  do not hang out with people , which is clearly not tenable advice.  the difference between your analogy and rape is that your scenario does not parallel how rape goes in the real world.  by and large the largest risk of rape a woman has comes from the people she knows and surrounds herself with, not from random rapists on the street.  now what  is  reasonable is to teach young men and women how to recognize a shady situation and how to be a better judge of character and to leave situations they are not comfortable in and who they can go to for help.  almost all after the fact advice is bad though.  it does more harm than good, and reinforces blame on the victim.  the question should never be  what did she do wrong ?   because that puts the focus on the failure of the victim, who in many cases did nothing wrong.  the question should be  how can we prevent this in the future , but this is almost never how the question is framed, and it changes the nature of the discussion substantially despite asking a very similar question.   #  a long sleeved sweater will not suddenly give you magical anti rape super powers.   #  acting  slutty  is legal.  rape is illegal.  wearing  slutty  clothing is legal.  rape is illegal.  i do not know where you are from, but in the us we, meaning both men and women, have a constitutional right to freedom of expression.  and telling people not to dress  slutty  will not prevent rape.  if a rapist wants to rape someone they will.  a pair of sweatpants will not protect you.  a long sleeved sweater will not suddenly give you magical anti rape super powers.  there is no outfit that will prevent rape.  clothing will do absolutely nothing to protect you from someone intent on harming you.  i highly recommend you check out the no more campaign URL and listen to the spoken word piece by steven connell for pave called  what was she wearing  URL both are great resources for what victim blaming looks and sounds like, and how it is harmful to everyone.   #  please take a look at the links i provided.   #  but we do not blame them once they become victims.  a defense attorney does not stand in court and say,  you took the candy, kid.  tough luck.  this is your fault.   and, to add to that, someone can still be kidnapped even if they say no to candy and do everything they were told to do.  if someone wants to harm you they will.  clothing cannot prevent rape.  but since you seem so convinced it can, please tell me what company manufacturers this magical rape repellant clothing ? how much does it retail for ? what stores can i buy it in ? when did come out on the market ? please take a look at the links i provided.  the no more campaign is really an excellent one.  if you are a fan of law   order you will see most of the cast participated.   #  i really do not see how you can blame something that is inanimate.   #  they are just blaming  slutty  clothes then ? i really do not see how you can blame something that is inanimate.  blaming someone is attire for other people is actions is ridiculous.  i gave some good links he could check out.  the no more campaign is a good resource for someone asking questions like this.  in fact some of the videos are very close to what was said by the op.  the joyful heart foundation is another excellent resource they helped out with the no more campaign .  and if the op really wants to read up on it then they can check out a lot of the organizations/committees listed here URL the point is clothing cannot prevent rape.  clothing cannot cause rape.  the only person to blame for rape is the rapist.  if they are intent on hurting someone they will do it.   #  to coldly imply that they are in any shape or form to blame for a crime someone did to them is unthinkable in my book.   #  wow.  you just assume i am a feminist.  maybe i am just a decent human being who feels people should not be blamed for other people is crimes.  rape is illegal.  full stop.  wearing  slutty  clothing is not illegal in the us.  i do not blame the victim of any crimes, and never said as such.  i blame criminals for their own criminal behavior.  you are welcome to look at the many links i provided you.  blaming the victim of rape for what the rapist did is not only unethical, but illogical.  if a rapist is going to hurt someone, they are going to find a way to do it.  clothing cannot make a normal human being commit a crime.  and, yes, the us is a free country.  we have constitutional rights, such as freedom of expression.  and, ironically, you are enjoying at this very moment freedom of speech by sharing your view points on a public forum.  the constitution was created for a reason.  and i may not agree with your opinion, but you have every right to share it, and i would not want you censored.  you may want to deny someone their right to expression, but i for one am i strong supporter of civil liberties.  i gave you several links to look through.  i would also recommend maybe getting out from behind the keyboard and volunteering with actual human beings.  remember we are talking about people here.  victims of a horrendous crime.  to coldly imply that they are in any shape or form to blame for a crime someone did to them is unthinkable in my book.  have a good day, and i think our conversation ends here.  i made my comment, gave you some information.  if you do not want to read it, it is a free country, but the fact that you did not even try speaks volumes to me.
first and foremost,  slutty  is the wrong word to use here.  it is just the best word i could think of to put in the post title without needing to have 0 lines of continued title text in the post.  what i mean by the title post is pretty simple.  every time i see a woman protesting without wearing any clothes, and holding a sign that says something along the lines of  i am still not  asking  for it  is arguing against an argument that is not being mode.  of course, there are some seriously horrendous people out there that think women who wear revealing clothing deserve whatever happens to them, but the general counter argument or point of caution lobbied towards women is not one of blame, but of wariness.  i have never encountered a rational individual who thinks that any woman ever did anything to deserve to be raped, but i firmly believe that women should not wear tube tops and booty shorts to a rave and then walk back to their car at 0 in the morning through a park.  we live in a world where bad things happen.  there are steps we can take to try to keep those bad things from happening, but it does not always work.  we see and hear about plenty of people who were wearing normal clothing, acting in a normal way and were in a normal part of town but were still victims of rape or violence.  this cautionary argument is not one that is being made towards them.  the analogy has been made a thousand times, but i have never seen a valid counter argument to it which is why i am here , but i worked in new york two years ago.  i wore a suit and tie every day to work.  if i were to then leave work and try to walk through harlem at about 0 in the morning, it might be a reasonable assumption that i have made a poor choice.  now, if someone comes up and holds a gun to me and demands everything in my pockets, my choice to go to harlem in a suit and tie in no way provoked that action, or am i in any way to blame for the crime.  however, i did make a poor decision.  yes, robbery and rape are in a completely different universe when it comes to crime, but the same caution that is advised seems to be considered sexist, or met with immediate ridicule when it is made to women.  i believe that women who are concerned about the prospect of being raped should be more cautious about the decisions they make, yet somehow that makes me an idiot or an asshole, though i have never seen a valid reason as to why.  it isnot the only argument, it is an argument.   #  the analogy has been made a thousand times, but i have never seen a valid counter argument to it which is why i am here , but i worked in new york two years ago.   #  i wore a suit and tie every day to work.   # i wore a suit and tie every day to work.  if i were to then leave work and try to walk through harlem at about 0 in the morning, it might be a reasonable assumption that i have made a poor choice.  the implication is that by walking around in a suit, you are essentially advertising that you are not from the neighborhood and that you likely have money.  you are an easy target for a crime as you are likely to have valuables, you do not look likely to fight back, you wo not know anyone so you could not id them, and so forth.  this is a poor analogy with dressing provocatively as a woman is not showing anything that makes her more rape able that one could not assume she had showing wealth in poor area demonstrates you possess something that most people do not, showing thigh skin does not .  the things that make a woman appear provocative to someone interested in consensual sex are not necessarily going to be the same things that make a woman look like a target for rape for someone who wants to exert power over a stranger.  most rapists do not remember what their victims were wearing, and  a federal commission on crime of violence study found that only 0 of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part of the victim URL in murder cases 0 involved such behavior as simple as a glance .   as roughly a third of normal people believe that dressing or acting seductively invites rape, it is clear our conceptions of how rapists choose victims and how rapists actually choose their victims are extremely divergent.  secondly, wearing a suit on wall street is safer than looking like a stereotypical tourist because you would blend right in.  many of the promiscuous clothing items that people mention, such as booty shorts, mini skirts, and low cut tops, are also worn by plenty of other women in most of nyc.  if provocative clothing does not make you stand out, it is unlikely to increase your visibility as potential victim.  last and most importantly, the analogy requires that you have other, safer neighborhoods with which you could traverse for it to be a poor choice.  the rape statistics indicate that there are no safe neighborhoods for women, and walking home in a bad neighborhood at 0 am carries  less  risk for rape though perhaps a great risk for other crime than staying at an acquaintance is or intimate partner is place.  if your choices are to prevent 0/0 of rape by making yourself vulnerable to 0/0, which is the poor choice ?  #  it happens between people who know each other.   # every time i see a woman protesting without wearing any clothes, and holding a sign that says something along the lines of  i am still not asking for it  is arguing against an argument that is not being mode yes it is.  it is made all the time.  there are tons of people out there who think women who wear skimpy clothes have it coming, or who will lose sympathy if they find out she was wearing anything but the most conservative clothing.  which is extra ridiculous because it is not women who dress like the stereotypical slut who are being raped at the highest frequency.  women who look insecure and who dress down are most at risk of being raped.  not the women who display confidence by dressing more provocatively.  and either way, the  vast  majority of rape does not occur when to dressed scandalously in public.  it happens between people who know each other.  friends, spouses, dates, friends of friends, acquaintances.  the only safety advice you can give to someone is  do not hang out with people , which is clearly not tenable advice.  the difference between your analogy and rape is that your scenario does not parallel how rape goes in the real world.  by and large the largest risk of rape a woman has comes from the people she knows and surrounds herself with, not from random rapists on the street.  now what  is  reasonable is to teach young men and women how to recognize a shady situation and how to be a better judge of character and to leave situations they are not comfortable in and who they can go to for help.  almost all after the fact advice is bad though.  it does more harm than good, and reinforces blame on the victim.  the question should never be  what did she do wrong ?   because that puts the focus on the failure of the victim, who in many cases did nothing wrong.  the question should be  how can we prevent this in the future , but this is almost never how the question is framed, and it changes the nature of the discussion substantially despite asking a very similar question.   #  if a rapist wants to rape someone they will.   #  acting  slutty  is legal.  rape is illegal.  wearing  slutty  clothing is legal.  rape is illegal.  i do not know where you are from, but in the us we, meaning both men and women, have a constitutional right to freedom of expression.  and telling people not to dress  slutty  will not prevent rape.  if a rapist wants to rape someone they will.  a pair of sweatpants will not protect you.  a long sleeved sweater will not suddenly give you magical anti rape super powers.  there is no outfit that will prevent rape.  clothing will do absolutely nothing to protect you from someone intent on harming you.  i highly recommend you check out the no more campaign URL and listen to the spoken word piece by steven connell for pave called  what was she wearing  URL both are great resources for what victim blaming looks and sounds like, and how it is harmful to everyone.   #  but since you seem so convinced it can, please tell me what company manufacturers this magical rape repellant clothing ?  #  but we do not blame them once they become victims.  a defense attorney does not stand in court and say,  you took the candy, kid.  tough luck.  this is your fault.   and, to add to that, someone can still be kidnapped even if they say no to candy and do everything they were told to do.  if someone wants to harm you they will.  clothing cannot prevent rape.  but since you seem so convinced it can, please tell me what company manufacturers this magical rape repellant clothing ? how much does it retail for ? what stores can i buy it in ? when did come out on the market ? please take a look at the links i provided.  the no more campaign is really an excellent one.  if you are a fan of law   order you will see most of the cast participated.   #  i really do not see how you can blame something that is inanimate.   #  they are just blaming  slutty  clothes then ? i really do not see how you can blame something that is inanimate.  blaming someone is attire for other people is actions is ridiculous.  i gave some good links he could check out.  the no more campaign is a good resource for someone asking questions like this.  in fact some of the videos are very close to what was said by the op.  the joyful heart foundation is another excellent resource they helped out with the no more campaign .  and if the op really wants to read up on it then they can check out a lot of the organizations/committees listed here URL the point is clothing cannot prevent rape.  clothing cannot cause rape.  the only person to blame for rape is the rapist.  if they are intent on hurting someone they will do it.
first and foremost,  slutty  is the wrong word to use here.  it is just the best word i could think of to put in the post title without needing to have 0 lines of continued title text in the post.  what i mean by the title post is pretty simple.  every time i see a woman protesting without wearing any clothes, and holding a sign that says something along the lines of  i am still not  asking  for it  is arguing against an argument that is not being mode.  of course, there are some seriously horrendous people out there that think women who wear revealing clothing deserve whatever happens to them, but the general counter argument or point of caution lobbied towards women is not one of blame, but of wariness.  i have never encountered a rational individual who thinks that any woman ever did anything to deserve to be raped, but i firmly believe that women should not wear tube tops and booty shorts to a rave and then walk back to their car at 0 in the morning through a park.  we live in a world where bad things happen.  there are steps we can take to try to keep those bad things from happening, but it does not always work.  we see and hear about plenty of people who were wearing normal clothing, acting in a normal way and were in a normal part of town but were still victims of rape or violence.  this cautionary argument is not one that is being made towards them.  the analogy has been made a thousand times, but i have never seen a valid counter argument to it which is why i am here , but i worked in new york two years ago.  i wore a suit and tie every day to work.  if i were to then leave work and try to walk through harlem at about 0 in the morning, it might be a reasonable assumption that i have made a poor choice.  now, if someone comes up and holds a gun to me and demands everything in my pockets, my choice to go to harlem in a suit and tie in no way provoked that action, or am i in any way to blame for the crime.  however, i did make a poor decision.  yes, robbery and rape are in a completely different universe when it comes to crime, but the same caution that is advised seems to be considered sexist, or met with immediate ridicule when it is made to women.  i believe that women who are concerned about the prospect of being raped should be more cautious about the decisions they make, yet somehow that makes me an idiot or an asshole, though i have never seen a valid reason as to why.  it isnot the only argument, it is an argument.   #  the general counter argument or point of caution lobbied towards women is not one of blame, but of wariness.   #  the thing is, statistics do not really support the point of wariness.   # the thing is, statistics do not really support the point of wariness.  to elaborate: victims of rape are extremely likely to know their attackers, and 0/0 rapes happen inside the victim is own home.  most rapes happen between the hours of 0pm and midnight, and the least occur between midnight and 0am.  URL the reality of rape is that it is not usually the result of  walking back from a rave at 0am .  given this reality, wariness is not appropriate, and is a deflection from the very real problems in society regarding attitudes towards victims of sexual assault.   #  and either way, the  vast  majority of rape does not occur when to dressed scandalously in public.   # every time i see a woman protesting without wearing any clothes, and holding a sign that says something along the lines of  i am still not asking for it  is arguing against an argument that is not being mode yes it is.  it is made all the time.  there are tons of people out there who think women who wear skimpy clothes have it coming, or who will lose sympathy if they find out she was wearing anything but the most conservative clothing.  which is extra ridiculous because it is not women who dress like the stereotypical slut who are being raped at the highest frequency.  women who look insecure and who dress down are most at risk of being raped.  not the women who display confidence by dressing more provocatively.  and either way, the  vast  majority of rape does not occur when to dressed scandalously in public.  it happens between people who know each other.  friends, spouses, dates, friends of friends, acquaintances.  the only safety advice you can give to someone is  do not hang out with people , which is clearly not tenable advice.  the difference between your analogy and rape is that your scenario does not parallel how rape goes in the real world.  by and large the largest risk of rape a woman has comes from the people she knows and surrounds herself with, not from random rapists on the street.  now what  is  reasonable is to teach young men and women how to recognize a shady situation and how to be a better judge of character and to leave situations they are not comfortable in and who they can go to for help.  almost all after the fact advice is bad though.  it does more harm than good, and reinforces blame on the victim.  the question should never be  what did she do wrong ?   because that puts the focus on the failure of the victim, who in many cases did nothing wrong.  the question should be  how can we prevent this in the future , but this is almost never how the question is framed, and it changes the nature of the discussion substantially despite asking a very similar question.   #  if a rapist wants to rape someone they will.   #  acting  slutty  is legal.  rape is illegal.  wearing  slutty  clothing is legal.  rape is illegal.  i do not know where you are from, but in the us we, meaning both men and women, have a constitutional right to freedom of expression.  and telling people not to dress  slutty  will not prevent rape.  if a rapist wants to rape someone they will.  a pair of sweatpants will not protect you.  a long sleeved sweater will not suddenly give you magical anti rape super powers.  there is no outfit that will prevent rape.  clothing will do absolutely nothing to protect you from someone intent on harming you.  i highly recommend you check out the no more campaign URL and listen to the spoken word piece by steven connell for pave called  what was she wearing  URL both are great resources for what victim blaming looks and sounds like, and how it is harmful to everyone.   #  if someone wants to harm you they will.   #  but we do not blame them once they become victims.  a defense attorney does not stand in court and say,  you took the candy, kid.  tough luck.  this is your fault.   and, to add to that, someone can still be kidnapped even if they say no to candy and do everything they were told to do.  if someone wants to harm you they will.  clothing cannot prevent rape.  but since you seem so convinced it can, please tell me what company manufacturers this magical rape repellant clothing ? how much does it retail for ? what stores can i buy it in ? when did come out on the market ? please take a look at the links i provided.  the no more campaign is really an excellent one.  if you are a fan of law   order you will see most of the cast participated.   #  if they are intent on hurting someone they will do it.   #  they are just blaming  slutty  clothes then ? i really do not see how you can blame something that is inanimate.  blaming someone is attire for other people is actions is ridiculous.  i gave some good links he could check out.  the no more campaign is a good resource for someone asking questions like this.  in fact some of the videos are very close to what was said by the op.  the joyful heart foundation is another excellent resource they helped out with the no more campaign .  and if the op really wants to read up on it then they can check out a lot of the organizations/committees listed here URL the point is clothing cannot prevent rape.  clothing cannot cause rape.  the only person to blame for rape is the rapist.  if they are intent on hurting someone they will do it.
i feel that humanities education ie english class provides no real benefit to students.  i am taking mandatory english classes right now and can say that the curriculum in high school is exactly the same throughout grades 0 0, so it might as well be one year.  i have also noticed that while english is apparently the most essential course all 0 years are mandatory and it is required on university applications the marking is completely arbitrary.  the rubrics just say does well/does poorly, with the mark left completely up to the teacher is discretion.  this makes the mark completely dependent on the teacher is mood rather that the student is performance i can also confirm that different teachers give very different marks for the same type of work .  this makes any evaluation a joke.  most of the arguments i have seen in favor of requiring these classes are tautological you need to take this course because you will need to take similar courses later or are based around assertions that are obviously false you could not tell what you were reading before you took english is there any reason at all to keep these courses in the curriculum, let alone mandatory ?  #  i have also noticed that while english is apparently the most essential course all 0 years are mandatory and it is required on university applications the marking is completely arbitrary.   #  the rubrics just say does well/does poorly, with the mark left completely up to the teacher is discretion.   #  you may not think so now but look back on your writing after a few years or so.  you might be amazed by how much progress you have made.  but as for your points:  i am taking mandatory english classes right now and can say that the curriculum in high school is exactly the same throughout grades 0 0, so it might as well be one year.  that is a shame if that is how your school is run but i do not really think it is a reason to completely remove compulsory english education.  doing so would be simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  in my high school, freshman year was american literature 0 to kill a mockingbird, of mice and men, etc.  .  sophomore year was american literature 0 the scarlet letter, the great gatsby, etc.  .  junior year was british literature beowulf, morte d arthur, macbeth, canterbury tales, etc.  .  senior year was studying for the ap english exam.  for me, it was a very diverse offering of literature from different time periods and places.  change the program.  do not get rid of it.  the rubrics just say does well/does poorly, with the mark left completely up to the teacher is discretion.  this makes the mark completely dependent on the teacher is mood rather that the student is performance.  yeah, english grading will be on the subjective side.  i have been on the receiving end of that subjectivity numerous times in high school and it frustrated me to no end.  but you know what ? it made me all the better for it.  learning how to write to your audience is an incredibly useful trait.  reading and writing more helps students become better writers.   #  although i enjoyed most of these very much, i really do not use any of that in everyday life.   #  if that is really the purpose of literature classes, high school teachers do a really bad job of teaching it.  for me that type of instruction stopped in 0th grade.  0th to 0th grade were mostly reading great historical pieces of literature.  although i enjoyed most of these very much, i really do not use any of that in everyday life.  i think the real purpose of high school classes is to help you think more critically on issues: see my answer to op.   #  i always had pretty good essay writing skills.   #  i always had pretty good essay writing skills.  obviously these were graded based on rubrics that included punctuation, grammar, etc.  however, i really think that to say that teaching those things was the purpose of english classes is missing the point.  most of those things were taught in middle school and although we were still held accountable for writing proper english, i think the focus of english classes in high school is or at least is supposed to be the critical thinking aspect.  if i were to add something to my response from earlier, i would say that there is a communication aspect that we learn in english classes as well.  however, i think this is more about communicating the message than about punctuation and capitalization.   #  i do not see what your experience has to do with anything.   #  ok, well, first, good for you, i guess.  i do not see what your experience has to do with anything.  you have probably never met anyone who did not have to take 0 years of english/language classes.  if you have met someone who has taken 0 years of classes but is still a good communicator then, again, congratulations, that person is not the norm.  english classes do not get writing assignments because the teacher has a visceral desire to know what his/her students think of huckleberry finn or because the teacher loves poetry written by 0 year olds.  the ability to understand what an author intends, what their intentions mean, what they did not necessarily mean but what the reader can infer, and the ability of a reader to express those thoughts clearly are all things that one can learn from an english class without ever explicitly being taught communication skills.  those are all valuable communications skills whether you plan on studying 0th century british literature for a career or you plan on reading memo is in a cubicle for the rest of your life.   #  as for marking, just because it is subjective does not mean it is arbitrary.   #  yes, yes there is.  everything you do in life is based around communicating with other human beings.  assuming english is your native language, that is going to be your primary means of communication.   english  as a subject is about teaching you to critically receive information and skillfully express information.  the more functional you are at this, the more functional you will be in society.  i do not know what country you are in or what english curriculum you have, but that is really the purpose of english courses in school, to train you in the art of communication.  as for marking, just because it is subjective does not mean it is arbitrary.  yes, poor marking can be the result of teacher preferences or moods, but good marking will indeed have a rubric of some kind.  it may still be subjective, compared to hard sciences, but there clearly are differences between good analysis of written works and bad analysis, between well polished essays and speeches, and poorly executed ones.
i feel that humanities education ie english class provides no real benefit to students.  i am taking mandatory english classes right now and can say that the curriculum in high school is exactly the same throughout grades 0 0, so it might as well be one year.  i have also noticed that while english is apparently the most essential course all 0 years are mandatory and it is required on university applications the marking is completely arbitrary.  the rubrics just say does well/does poorly, with the mark left completely up to the teacher is discretion.  this makes the mark completely dependent on the teacher is mood rather that the student is performance i can also confirm that different teachers give very different marks for the same type of work .  this makes any evaluation a joke.  most of the arguments i have seen in favor of requiring these classes are tautological you need to take this course because you will need to take similar courses later or are based around assertions that are obviously false you could not tell what you were reading before you took english is there any reason at all to keep these courses in the curriculum, let alone mandatory ?  #  is there any reason at all to keep these courses in the curriculum, let alone mandatory ?  #  reading and writing more helps students become better writers.   #  you may not think so now but look back on your writing after a few years or so.  you might be amazed by how much progress you have made.  but as for your points:  i am taking mandatory english classes right now and can say that the curriculum in high school is exactly the same throughout grades 0 0, so it might as well be one year.  that is a shame if that is how your school is run but i do not really think it is a reason to completely remove compulsory english education.  doing so would be simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  in my high school, freshman year was american literature 0 to kill a mockingbird, of mice and men, etc.  .  sophomore year was american literature 0 the scarlet letter, the great gatsby, etc.  .  junior year was british literature beowulf, morte d arthur, macbeth, canterbury tales, etc.  .  senior year was studying for the ap english exam.  for me, it was a very diverse offering of literature from different time periods and places.  change the program.  do not get rid of it.  the rubrics just say does well/does poorly, with the mark left completely up to the teacher is discretion.  this makes the mark completely dependent on the teacher is mood rather that the student is performance.  yeah, english grading will be on the subjective side.  i have been on the receiving end of that subjectivity numerous times in high school and it frustrated me to no end.  but you know what ? it made me all the better for it.  learning how to write to your audience is an incredibly useful trait.  reading and writing more helps students become better writers.   #  for me that type of instruction stopped in 0th grade.   #  if that is really the purpose of literature classes, high school teachers do a really bad job of teaching it.  for me that type of instruction stopped in 0th grade.  0th to 0th grade were mostly reading great historical pieces of literature.  although i enjoyed most of these very much, i really do not use any of that in everyday life.  i think the real purpose of high school classes is to help you think more critically on issues: see my answer to op.   #  if i were to add something to my response from earlier, i would say that there is a communication aspect that we learn in english classes as well.   #  i always had pretty good essay writing skills.  obviously these were graded based on rubrics that included punctuation, grammar, etc.  however, i really think that to say that teaching those things was the purpose of english classes is missing the point.  most of those things were taught in middle school and although we were still held accountable for writing proper english, i think the focus of english classes in high school is or at least is supposed to be the critical thinking aspect.  if i were to add something to my response from earlier, i would say that there is a communication aspect that we learn in english classes as well.  however, i think this is more about communicating the message than about punctuation and capitalization.   #  those are all valuable communications skills whether you plan on studying 0th century british literature for a career or you plan on reading memo is in a cubicle for the rest of your life.   #  ok, well, first, good for you, i guess.  i do not see what your experience has to do with anything.  you have probably never met anyone who did not have to take 0 years of english/language classes.  if you have met someone who has taken 0 years of classes but is still a good communicator then, again, congratulations, that person is not the norm.  english classes do not get writing assignments because the teacher has a visceral desire to know what his/her students think of huckleberry finn or because the teacher loves poetry written by 0 year olds.  the ability to understand what an author intends, what their intentions mean, what they did not necessarily mean but what the reader can infer, and the ability of a reader to express those thoughts clearly are all things that one can learn from an english class without ever explicitly being taught communication skills.  those are all valuable communications skills whether you plan on studying 0th century british literature for a career or you plan on reading memo is in a cubicle for the rest of your life.   #  assuming english is your native language, that is going to be your primary means of communication.   #  yes, yes there is.  everything you do in life is based around communicating with other human beings.  assuming english is your native language, that is going to be your primary means of communication.   english  as a subject is about teaching you to critically receive information and skillfully express information.  the more functional you are at this, the more functional you will be in society.  i do not know what country you are in or what english curriculum you have, but that is really the purpose of english courses in school, to train you in the art of communication.  as for marking, just because it is subjective does not mean it is arbitrary.  yes, poor marking can be the result of teacher preferences or moods, but good marking will indeed have a rubric of some kind.  it may still be subjective, compared to hard sciences, but there clearly are differences between good analysis of written works and bad analysis, between well polished essays and speeches, and poorly executed ones.
nobody should take a drug they do not understand the effects of, and removing drug stigma is the first step to increasing peoples education on the subject.    nobody should be judged differently to a drinker for preferring lsd or mdma.  addictive drugs should be considered more akin to tobacco: definitely a bad habit to start, and generally not worth trying at all.    everybody should be able to seek help for addiction without worrying about criminal charges.    everybody should be able to buy govt approved, pure drugs and know what they are taking.    everyone knows the war on drugs is a failure.  its fine if you do not think people should be able to do drugs but you cant say your solution is prohibition but i know i guy who can get me some pot who knows a guy who can get me some acid who knows a guy who can get me some meth.  squares would not believe how easy it actually is to buy hard drugs.   #  nobody should take a drug they do not understand the effects of, and removing drug stigma is the first step to increasing peoples education on the subject.   #  nobody should, but people do, especially young kids.   # nobody should, but people do, especially young kids.  drug education, especially with the internet is not hard to come by.  addictive drugs should be considered more akin to tobacco: definitely a bad habit to start, and generally not worth trying at all.  this is basically the case already, just not law.  i agree with this.  this is already the case.  how could rehab centers operate if its patients were in danger of being arrested merely by walking through the doors ? how would you facilitate this ? where does the money come from and how do we take down the drug cartels ? its fine if you do not think people should be able to do drugs but you cant say your solution is prohibition but i know i guy who can get me some pot who knows a guy who can get me some acid who knows a guy who can get me some meth.  legalizing drugs would still be a part of the war on drugs because it would necessitate a hostile takeover of drug cartels and manufacturers.   #  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  junkies do not have a community college diploma in civics.   # if you look for it, which dumb people the people who actually need info do not do.  if there was no stigma parents would teach their kids about it and we would learn about it in school.  i agree with this.  it is the case in your and my social circles but since 0 people upvoted a cmv saying that drugs are bad and so is alcohol i think we are in the minority.  how could rehab centers operate if its patients were in danger of being arrested merely by walking through the doors ? junkies do not have a community college diploma in civics.  most simply assume seeking help is dangerous and do not do it.  where does the money come from and how do we take down the drug cartels ? you wouldnt actually need a govt agency checking each individual pill or tab, just have the fda set standards for it and if you sell an impure product you get sued.  where would what money come from ? why do we need to take down the cartels ? why ? they would just stop selling drugs.  they make more from mining and logging already.   #  and if the purity is set needlessly high on top of an insane  moral  tax ?  #  and if the purity is set needlessly high on top of an insane  moral  tax ? and a black market forms an the state fills up prisons with non violent  offenders  ? what if the regulations actually make the product worse ? and the black market version is safer ? high purity actually is really dangerous in some drugs, and it kinda makes it more addictive as you can have uneven does without realizing it.  you kinda suggesting a bandaid solution, when the root cause is the state interfering with nonvoilent people, while your suggesting a reduction of it, it still will be there.   #  you ca not really do jack shit on it.   #  the entire reason people take acid is to trip so it is pointless to take sub psychedelic doses of it.  nobody does it and society should view drugs based on how people actually use them.  have you ever taken acid ? you ca not really do jack shit on it.  people freak out just being in public or talking with someone that they are not completely comfortable with.  you cannot focus, communicate effectively, control emotions, etc.  it is an incredibly intense experience and equating it with smoking pot or having some drinks is like saying getting shot is the same as getting hit by a paintball.
nobody should take a drug they do not understand the effects of, and removing drug stigma is the first step to increasing peoples education on the subject.    nobody should be judged differently to a drinker for preferring lsd or mdma.  addictive drugs should be considered more akin to tobacco: definitely a bad habit to start, and generally not worth trying at all.    everybody should be able to seek help for addiction without worrying about criminal charges.    everybody should be able to buy govt approved, pure drugs and know what they are taking.    everyone knows the war on drugs is a failure.  its fine if you do not think people should be able to do drugs but you cant say your solution is prohibition but i know i guy who can get me some pot who knows a guy who can get me some acid who knows a guy who can get me some meth.  squares would not believe how easy it actually is to buy hard drugs.   #  nobody should be judged differently to a drinker for preferring lsd or mdma.   #  addictive drugs should be considered more akin to tobacco: definitely a bad habit to start, and generally not worth trying at all.   # nobody should, but people do, especially young kids.  drug education, especially with the internet is not hard to come by.  addictive drugs should be considered more akin to tobacco: definitely a bad habit to start, and generally not worth trying at all.  this is basically the case already, just not law.  i agree with this.  this is already the case.  how could rehab centers operate if its patients were in danger of being arrested merely by walking through the doors ? how would you facilitate this ? where does the money come from and how do we take down the drug cartels ? its fine if you do not think people should be able to do drugs but you cant say your solution is prohibition but i know i guy who can get me some pot who knows a guy who can get me some acid who knows a guy who can get me some meth.  legalizing drugs would still be a part of the war on drugs because it would necessitate a hostile takeover of drug cartels and manufacturers.   #  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  how could rehab centers operate if its patients were in danger of being arrested merely by walking through the doors ?  # if you look for it, which dumb people the people who actually need info do not do.  if there was no stigma parents would teach their kids about it and we would learn about it in school.  i agree with this.  it is the case in your and my social circles but since 0 people upvoted a cmv saying that drugs are bad and so is alcohol i think we are in the minority.  how could rehab centers operate if its patients were in danger of being arrested merely by walking through the doors ? junkies do not have a community college diploma in civics.  most simply assume seeking help is dangerous and do not do it.  where does the money come from and how do we take down the drug cartels ? you wouldnt actually need a govt agency checking each individual pill or tab, just have the fda set standards for it and if you sell an impure product you get sued.  where would what money come from ? why do we need to take down the cartels ? why ? they would just stop selling drugs.  they make more from mining and logging already.   #  and if the purity is set needlessly high on top of an insane  moral  tax ?  #  and if the purity is set needlessly high on top of an insane  moral  tax ? and a black market forms an the state fills up prisons with non violent  offenders  ? what if the regulations actually make the product worse ? and the black market version is safer ? high purity actually is really dangerous in some drugs, and it kinda makes it more addictive as you can have uneven does without realizing it.  you kinda suggesting a bandaid solution, when the root cause is the state interfering with nonvoilent people, while your suggesting a reduction of it, it still will be there.   #  it is an incredibly intense experience and equating it with smoking pot or having some drinks is like saying getting shot is the same as getting hit by a paintball.   #  the entire reason people take acid is to trip so it is pointless to take sub psychedelic doses of it.  nobody does it and society should view drugs based on how people actually use them.  have you ever taken acid ? you ca not really do jack shit on it.  people freak out just being in public or talking with someone that they are not completely comfortable with.  you cannot focus, communicate effectively, control emotions, etc.  it is an incredibly intense experience and equating it with smoking pot or having some drinks is like saying getting shot is the same as getting hit by a paintball.
from what i understand, the christian god is all powerful and all knowing.  and yet suffering, disease, genocide, etc.  exist.  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.   #  philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.    # philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.   the classic restatement is that god cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient because a god having all three of these qualities would not allow so much evil to exist in the world.  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.  one classic answer is that we have no context by which to judge god or the relative  goodness  of the world.  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.  this is probably the most solid answer that i am aware of; however, it kind of hoses the idea of god is omnibenevolence in the first place.  if he is  good  but it is not a good that we can understand, why would we call him good at all ?  #  why would not i just give it to her ?  #  put it this way sometimes when my one year old daughter wants something she ca not have, like candy, she cries.  now i know she ca not have this candy because it would be bad for her, and giving her everything she wants would spoil her, but from her perspective i am making her suffer needlessly.  why would not i just give it to her ? i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.  i will just have to let her  suffer .  i think the problem of evil is like this.  there is suffering all over our world, and we ca not understand why it would be allowed to happen.  but maybe it is for our spiritual growth.  maybe suffering makes us purer.  maybe there is some other reason that we will just never be able to understand.  or, if that is not the case, maybe god is not all powerful.  he is powerful enough to create this planet, but not quite powerful enough to make it free from evil.  to me, that is still pretty amazing and worthy of worship.  even if it is not a perfect world, it is a pretty amazing one worthy of praise.  anyways, as far as i know, those are the only possible answers to the problem of evil.   #  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.   #  you cannot please your daughter because you are not omnipotent; you cannot make the thing she wants candy somehow be the thing that is best for her.  an omnipotent being could make what we desire good for us, or it could make us desire only things which are good for us.  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.  there you will see the innocent suffer, and if that is deliberate, and if there is a god, one of these things is true:   he knows about it and could stop it but chooses not to.  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.  he does not know about it.  none of these is compatible with an all powerful, all knowing, loving god.   #  to simply conjure up a healthy candy for the daughter is wish is only to satisfy a desire rather than to really satisfy the daughter is choice.   # he knows about it but is unable to stop it because god have previously granted humankind free will.  to interfere beyond what god have done so already is to diminish the gift of free will.  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.  to simply conjure up a healthy candy for the daughter is wish is only to satisfy a desire rather than to really satisfy the daughter is choice.  omnipotent does not mean knowing that everything will happen this way.  it can mean to know of all possibilities entirely, including those dictated by man is free will.  an audience at a basketball free throw will know of multiple possible outcomes, that the ball will go nothing but net, that the ball can slip out of the hand, that the ball will bounce off the rim, etc.  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.  hope my explanation can help clarify some.  i am a little sleep deprived so it may not be completely coherent.   #  any type of god would have to be held accountable for these things.   #  but then is he all knowing ? did he know all this would happen when he set things in motion ? could not he have  tweaked the knobs  at all to avoid suffering ? if he created all life then that includes parasites and all other nasty creatures.  he made us dependent on food that he knew would be scarce at times.  he made us fragile and gave us pain receptors and negative emotions.  any type of god would have to be held accountable for these things.
from what i understand, the christian god is all powerful and all knowing.  and yet suffering, disease, genocide, etc.  exist.  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.   #  if i want to find out whether my friend is reliable enough to feed my cat, i imagine what i think he will do, running a rough simulation of him in my mind.   # if i want to find out whether my friend is reliable enough to feed my cat, i imagine what i think he will do, running a rough simulation of him in my mind.  if i imagined a perfect simulation of what he would do, i would know for sure what he would do but the perfect simulation would be indistinguishable from him.  from the simulated friend is perspective i actually made him live through that time and feed or not feed my cat.  there would effectively be fewer kinds of people; existence itself would be more uniform.  as one of those people who can do wrong, i think it is better to exist and have the chance to do right than to not exist and have the safety of doing neither.   #  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.   # philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.   the classic restatement is that god cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient because a god having all three of these qualities would not allow so much evil to exist in the world.  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.  one classic answer is that we have no context by which to judge god or the relative  goodness  of the world.  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.  this is probably the most solid answer that i am aware of; however, it kind of hoses the idea of god is omnibenevolence in the first place.  if he is  good  but it is not a good that we can understand, why would we call him good at all ?  #  i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.   #  put it this way sometimes when my one year old daughter wants something she ca not have, like candy, she cries.  now i know she ca not have this candy because it would be bad for her, and giving her everything she wants would spoil her, but from her perspective i am making her suffer needlessly.  why would not i just give it to her ? i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.  i will just have to let her  suffer .  i think the problem of evil is like this.  there is suffering all over our world, and we ca not understand why it would be allowed to happen.  but maybe it is for our spiritual growth.  maybe suffering makes us purer.  maybe there is some other reason that we will just never be able to understand.  or, if that is not the case, maybe god is not all powerful.  he is powerful enough to create this planet, but not quite powerful enough to make it free from evil.  to me, that is still pretty amazing and worthy of worship.  even if it is not a perfect world, it is a pretty amazing one worthy of praise.  anyways, as far as i know, those are the only possible answers to the problem of evil.   #  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.   #  you cannot please your daughter because you are not omnipotent; you cannot make the thing she wants candy somehow be the thing that is best for her.  an omnipotent being could make what we desire good for us, or it could make us desire only things which are good for us.  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.  there you will see the innocent suffer, and if that is deliberate, and if there is a god, one of these things is true:   he knows about it and could stop it but chooses not to.  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.  he does not know about it.  none of these is compatible with an all powerful, all knowing, loving god.   #  omnipotent does not mean knowing that everything will happen this way.   # he knows about it but is unable to stop it because god have previously granted humankind free will.  to interfere beyond what god have done so already is to diminish the gift of free will.  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.  to simply conjure up a healthy candy for the daughter is wish is only to satisfy a desire rather than to really satisfy the daughter is choice.  omnipotent does not mean knowing that everything will happen this way.  it can mean to know of all possibilities entirely, including those dictated by man is free will.  an audience at a basketball free throw will know of multiple possible outcomes, that the ball will go nothing but net, that the ball can slip out of the hand, that the ball will bounce off the rim, etc.  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.  hope my explanation can help clarify some.  i am a little sleep deprived so it may not be completely coherent.
from what i understand, the christian god is all powerful and all knowing.  and yet suffering, disease, genocide, etc.  exist.  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.   #  if you have seen men in black 0, you will understand this point.   # if you have seen men in black 0, you will understand this point.  if not, bear with me.  god does not know just exactly how your life will turn out in one direction, but in all of them.  since you have free will, your life is always made of choices, and will end up different through each choice you make.  so, see god is all knowingness like griffin from mib0 he does not see just one outcome, he sees  all  of them.  therefore, god is tests are not only a test of faith but a test of your willingness to listen to and follow him.   #  philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.    # philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.   the classic restatement is that god cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient because a god having all three of these qualities would not allow so much evil to exist in the world.  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.  one classic answer is that we have no context by which to judge god or the relative  goodness  of the world.  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.  this is probably the most solid answer that i am aware of; however, it kind of hoses the idea of god is omnibenevolence in the first place.  if he is  good  but it is not a good that we can understand, why would we call him good at all ?  #  maybe there is some other reason that we will just never be able to understand.   #  put it this way sometimes when my one year old daughter wants something she ca not have, like candy, she cries.  now i know she ca not have this candy because it would be bad for her, and giving her everything she wants would spoil her, but from her perspective i am making her suffer needlessly.  why would not i just give it to her ? i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.  i will just have to let her  suffer .  i think the problem of evil is like this.  there is suffering all over our world, and we ca not understand why it would be allowed to happen.  but maybe it is for our spiritual growth.  maybe suffering makes us purer.  maybe there is some other reason that we will just never be able to understand.  or, if that is not the case, maybe god is not all powerful.  he is powerful enough to create this planet, but not quite powerful enough to make it free from evil.  to me, that is still pretty amazing and worthy of worship.  even if it is not a perfect world, it is a pretty amazing one worthy of praise.  anyways, as far as i know, those are the only possible answers to the problem of evil.   #  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.   #  you cannot please your daughter because you are not omnipotent; you cannot make the thing she wants candy somehow be the thing that is best for her.  an omnipotent being could make what we desire good for us, or it could make us desire only things which are good for us.  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.  there you will see the innocent suffer, and if that is deliberate, and if there is a god, one of these things is true:   he knows about it and could stop it but chooses not to.  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.  he does not know about it.  none of these is compatible with an all powerful, all knowing, loving god.   #  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.   # he knows about it but is unable to stop it because god have previously granted humankind free will.  to interfere beyond what god have done so already is to diminish the gift of free will.  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.  to simply conjure up a healthy candy for the daughter is wish is only to satisfy a desire rather than to really satisfy the daughter is choice.  omnipotent does not mean knowing that everything will happen this way.  it can mean to know of all possibilities entirely, including those dictated by man is free will.  an audience at a basketball free throw will know of multiple possible outcomes, that the ball will go nothing but net, that the ball can slip out of the hand, that the ball will bounce off the rim, etc.  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.  hope my explanation can help clarify some.  i am a little sleep deprived so it may not be completely coherent.
from what i understand, the christian god is all powerful and all knowing.  and yet suffering, disease, genocide, etc.  exist.  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  this presupposes that you know what is right and what is wrong.   # this presupposes that you know what is right and what is wrong.  cs lewis has a relevant quote:  my argument against god was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.  but how had i got this idea of just and unjust ? a man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.  what was i comparing this universe with when i called it unjust ? also, the problem of evil is brought up.  i am a fan of plantinga is free will defense URL  #  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.   # philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.   the classic restatement is that god cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient because a god having all three of these qualities would not allow so much evil to exist in the world.  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.  one classic answer is that we have no context by which to judge god or the relative  goodness  of the world.  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.  this is probably the most solid answer that i am aware of; however, it kind of hoses the idea of god is omnibenevolence in the first place.  if he is  good  but it is not a good that we can understand, why would we call him good at all ?  #  i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.   #  put it this way sometimes when my one year old daughter wants something she ca not have, like candy, she cries.  now i know she ca not have this candy because it would be bad for her, and giving her everything she wants would spoil her, but from her perspective i am making her suffer needlessly.  why would not i just give it to her ? i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.  i will just have to let her  suffer .  i think the problem of evil is like this.  there is suffering all over our world, and we ca not understand why it would be allowed to happen.  but maybe it is for our spiritual growth.  maybe suffering makes us purer.  maybe there is some other reason that we will just never be able to understand.  or, if that is not the case, maybe god is not all powerful.  he is powerful enough to create this planet, but not quite powerful enough to make it free from evil.  to me, that is still pretty amazing and worthy of worship.  even if it is not a perfect world, it is a pretty amazing one worthy of praise.  anyways, as far as i know, those are the only possible answers to the problem of evil.   #  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.   #  you cannot please your daughter because you are not omnipotent; you cannot make the thing she wants candy somehow be the thing that is best for her.  an omnipotent being could make what we desire good for us, or it could make us desire only things which are good for us.  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.  there you will see the innocent suffer, and if that is deliberate, and if there is a god, one of these things is true:   he knows about it and could stop it but chooses not to.  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.  he does not know about it.  none of these is compatible with an all powerful, all knowing, loving god.   #  to interfere beyond what god have done so already is to diminish the gift of free will.   # he knows about it but is unable to stop it because god have previously granted humankind free will.  to interfere beyond what god have done so already is to diminish the gift of free will.  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.  to simply conjure up a healthy candy for the daughter is wish is only to satisfy a desire rather than to really satisfy the daughter is choice.  omnipotent does not mean knowing that everything will happen this way.  it can mean to know of all possibilities entirely, including those dictated by man is free will.  an audience at a basketball free throw will know of multiple possible outcomes, that the ball will go nothing but net, that the ball can slip out of the hand, that the ball will bounce off the rim, etc.  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.  hope my explanation can help clarify some.  i am a little sleep deprived so it may not be completely coherent.
from what i understand, the christian god is all powerful and all knowing.  and yet suffering, disease, genocide, etc.  exist.  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.   #  if you read the book of genesis, you will see that he even performed some of these things noah is ark anyone ?  # agree.  exist.  agree.  but that  yet  makes no logical connection to your previous sentence.  if you read the book of genesis, you will see that he even performed some of these things noah is ark anyone ? there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  you are linking these phrases, i do not see the connection.  how about god gave you reason, gave you choice, gave you freedom, and you decide what to do with it ? or i could conclude that god is so awesome, he gave us critical thinking and reason to do whatever we wanted, instead of just creating lemmings that follow the same pattern.  disclaimer: i am agnostic, i am kind of playing devils advocate here.   #  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.   # philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.   the classic restatement is that god cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient because a god having all three of these qualities would not allow so much evil to exist in the world.  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.  one classic answer is that we have no context by which to judge god or the relative  goodness  of the world.  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.  this is probably the most solid answer that i am aware of; however, it kind of hoses the idea of god is omnibenevolence in the first place.  if he is  good  but it is not a good that we can understand, why would we call him good at all ?  #  even if it is not a perfect world, it is a pretty amazing one worthy of praise.   #  put it this way sometimes when my one year old daughter wants something she ca not have, like candy, she cries.  now i know she ca not have this candy because it would be bad for her, and giving her everything she wants would spoil her, but from her perspective i am making her suffer needlessly.  why would not i just give it to her ? i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.  i will just have to let her  suffer .  i think the problem of evil is like this.  there is suffering all over our world, and we ca not understand why it would be allowed to happen.  but maybe it is for our spiritual growth.  maybe suffering makes us purer.  maybe there is some other reason that we will just never be able to understand.  or, if that is not the case, maybe god is not all powerful.  he is powerful enough to create this planet, but not quite powerful enough to make it free from evil.  to me, that is still pretty amazing and worthy of worship.  even if it is not a perfect world, it is a pretty amazing one worthy of praise.  anyways, as far as i know, those are the only possible answers to the problem of evil.   #  you cannot please your daughter because you are not omnipotent; you cannot make the thing she wants candy somehow be the thing that is best for her.   #  you cannot please your daughter because you are not omnipotent; you cannot make the thing she wants candy somehow be the thing that is best for her.  an omnipotent being could make what we desire good for us, or it could make us desire only things which are good for us.  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.  there you will see the innocent suffer, and if that is deliberate, and if there is a god, one of these things is true:   he knows about it and could stop it but chooses not to.  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.  he does not know about it.  none of these is compatible with an all powerful, all knowing, loving god.   #  an audience at a basketball free throw will know of multiple possible outcomes, that the ball will go nothing but net, that the ball can slip out of the hand, that the ball will bounce off the rim, etc.   # he knows about it but is unable to stop it because god have previously granted humankind free will.  to interfere beyond what god have done so already is to diminish the gift of free will.  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.  to simply conjure up a healthy candy for the daughter is wish is only to satisfy a desire rather than to really satisfy the daughter is choice.  omnipotent does not mean knowing that everything will happen this way.  it can mean to know of all possibilities entirely, including those dictated by man is free will.  an audience at a basketball free throw will know of multiple possible outcomes, that the ball will go nothing but net, that the ball can slip out of the hand, that the ball will bounce off the rim, etc.  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.  hope my explanation can help clarify some.  i am a little sleep deprived so it may not be completely coherent.
from what i understand, the christian god is all powerful and all knowing.  and yet suffering, disease, genocide, etc.  exist.  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.   #  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.   # agree.  exist.  agree.  but that  yet  makes no logical connection to your previous sentence.  if you read the book of genesis, you will see that he even performed some of these things noah is ark anyone ? there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  you are linking these phrases, i do not see the connection.  how about god gave you reason, gave you choice, gave you freedom, and you decide what to do with it ? or i could conclude that god is so awesome, he gave us critical thinking and reason to do whatever we wanted, instead of just creating lemmings that follow the same pattern.  disclaimer: i am agnostic, i am kind of playing devils advocate here.   #  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.   # philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.   the classic restatement is that god cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient because a god having all three of these qualities would not allow so much evil to exist in the world.  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.  one classic answer is that we have no context by which to judge god or the relative  goodness  of the world.  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.  this is probably the most solid answer that i am aware of; however, it kind of hoses the idea of god is omnibenevolence in the first place.  if he is  good  but it is not a good that we can understand, why would we call him good at all ?  #  i think the problem of evil is like this.   #  put it this way sometimes when my one year old daughter wants something she ca not have, like candy, she cries.  now i know she ca not have this candy because it would be bad for her, and giving her everything she wants would spoil her, but from her perspective i am making her suffer needlessly.  why would not i just give it to her ? i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.  i will just have to let her  suffer .  i think the problem of evil is like this.  there is suffering all over our world, and we ca not understand why it would be allowed to happen.  but maybe it is for our spiritual growth.  maybe suffering makes us purer.  maybe there is some other reason that we will just never be able to understand.  or, if that is not the case, maybe god is not all powerful.  he is powerful enough to create this planet, but not quite powerful enough to make it free from evil.  to me, that is still pretty amazing and worthy of worship.  even if it is not a perfect world, it is a pretty amazing one worthy of praise.  anyways, as far as i know, those are the only possible answers to the problem of evil.   #  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.   #  you cannot please your daughter because you are not omnipotent; you cannot make the thing she wants candy somehow be the thing that is best for her.  an omnipotent being could make what we desire good for us, or it could make us desire only things which are good for us.  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.  there you will see the innocent suffer, and if that is deliberate, and if there is a god, one of these things is true:   he knows about it and could stop it but chooses not to.  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.  he does not know about it.  none of these is compatible with an all powerful, all knowing, loving god.   #  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.   # he knows about it but is unable to stop it because god have previously granted humankind free will.  to interfere beyond what god have done so already is to diminish the gift of free will.  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.  to simply conjure up a healthy candy for the daughter is wish is only to satisfy a desire rather than to really satisfy the daughter is choice.  omnipotent does not mean knowing that everything will happen this way.  it can mean to know of all possibilities entirely, including those dictated by man is free will.  an audience at a basketball free throw will know of multiple possible outcomes, that the ball will go nothing but net, that the ball can slip out of the hand, that the ball will bounce off the rim, etc.  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.  hope my explanation can help clarify some.  i am a little sleep deprived so it may not be completely coherent.
from what i understand, the christian god is all powerful and all knowing.  and yet suffering, disease, genocide, etc.  exist.  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.   #  how about god gave you reason, gave you choice, gave you freedom, and you decide what to do with it ?  # agree.  exist.  agree.  but that  yet  makes no logical connection to your previous sentence.  if you read the book of genesis, you will see that he even performed some of these things noah is ark anyone ? there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  you are linking these phrases, i do not see the connection.  how about god gave you reason, gave you choice, gave you freedom, and you decide what to do with it ? or i could conclude that god is so awesome, he gave us critical thinking and reason to do whatever we wanted, instead of just creating lemmings that follow the same pattern.  disclaimer: i am agnostic, i am kind of playing devils advocate here.   #  one classic answer is that we have no context by which to judge god or the relative  goodness  of the world.   # philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.   the classic restatement is that god cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient because a god having all three of these qualities would not allow so much evil to exist in the world.  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.  one classic answer is that we have no context by which to judge god or the relative  goodness  of the world.  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.  this is probably the most solid answer that i am aware of; however, it kind of hoses the idea of god is omnibenevolence in the first place.  if he is  good  but it is not a good that we can understand, why would we call him good at all ?  #  i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.   #  put it this way sometimes when my one year old daughter wants something she ca not have, like candy, she cries.  now i know she ca not have this candy because it would be bad for her, and giving her everything she wants would spoil her, but from her perspective i am making her suffer needlessly.  why would not i just give it to her ? i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.  i will just have to let her  suffer .  i think the problem of evil is like this.  there is suffering all over our world, and we ca not understand why it would be allowed to happen.  but maybe it is for our spiritual growth.  maybe suffering makes us purer.  maybe there is some other reason that we will just never be able to understand.  or, if that is not the case, maybe god is not all powerful.  he is powerful enough to create this planet, but not quite powerful enough to make it free from evil.  to me, that is still pretty amazing and worthy of worship.  even if it is not a perfect world, it is a pretty amazing one worthy of praise.  anyways, as far as i know, those are the only possible answers to the problem of evil.   #  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.   #  you cannot please your daughter because you are not omnipotent; you cannot make the thing she wants candy somehow be the thing that is best for her.  an omnipotent being could make what we desire good for us, or it could make us desire only things which are good for us.  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.  there you will see the innocent suffer, and if that is deliberate, and if there is a god, one of these things is true:   he knows about it and could stop it but chooses not to.  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.  he does not know about it.  none of these is compatible with an all powerful, all knowing, loving god.   #  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.   # he knows about it but is unable to stop it because god have previously granted humankind free will.  to interfere beyond what god have done so already is to diminish the gift of free will.  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.  to simply conjure up a healthy candy for the daughter is wish is only to satisfy a desire rather than to really satisfy the daughter is choice.  omnipotent does not mean knowing that everything will happen this way.  it can mean to know of all possibilities entirely, including those dictated by man is free will.  an audience at a basketball free throw will know of multiple possible outcomes, that the ball will go nothing but net, that the ball can slip out of the hand, that the ball will bounce off the rim, etc.  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.  hope my explanation can help clarify some.  i am a little sleep deprived so it may not be completely coherent.
from what i understand, the christian god is all powerful and all knowing.  and yet suffering, disease, genocide, etc.  exist.  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  or i could conclude that god is so awesome, he gave us critical thinking and reason to do whatever we wanted, instead of just creating lemmings that follow the same pattern.   # agree.  exist.  agree.  but that  yet  makes no logical connection to your previous sentence.  if you read the book of genesis, you will see that he even performed some of these things noah is ark anyone ? there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  you are linking these phrases, i do not see the connection.  how about god gave you reason, gave you choice, gave you freedom, and you decide what to do with it ? or i could conclude that god is so awesome, he gave us critical thinking and reason to do whatever we wanted, instead of just creating lemmings that follow the same pattern.  disclaimer: i am agnostic, i am kind of playing devils advocate here.   #  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.   # philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.   the classic restatement is that god cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient because a god having all three of these qualities would not allow so much evil to exist in the world.  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.  one classic answer is that we have no context by which to judge god or the relative  goodness  of the world.  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.  this is probably the most solid answer that i am aware of; however, it kind of hoses the idea of god is omnibenevolence in the first place.  if he is  good  but it is not a good that we can understand, why would we call him good at all ?  #  or, if that is not the case, maybe god is not all powerful.   #  put it this way sometimes when my one year old daughter wants something she ca not have, like candy, she cries.  now i know she ca not have this candy because it would be bad for her, and giving her everything she wants would spoil her, but from her perspective i am making her suffer needlessly.  why would not i just give it to her ? i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.  i will just have to let her  suffer .  i think the problem of evil is like this.  there is suffering all over our world, and we ca not understand why it would be allowed to happen.  but maybe it is for our spiritual growth.  maybe suffering makes us purer.  maybe there is some other reason that we will just never be able to understand.  or, if that is not the case, maybe god is not all powerful.  he is powerful enough to create this planet, but not quite powerful enough to make it free from evil.  to me, that is still pretty amazing and worthy of worship.  even if it is not a perfect world, it is a pretty amazing one worthy of praise.  anyways, as far as i know, those are the only possible answers to the problem of evil.   #  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.   #  you cannot please your daughter because you are not omnipotent; you cannot make the thing she wants candy somehow be the thing that is best for her.  an omnipotent being could make what we desire good for us, or it could make us desire only things which are good for us.  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.  there you will see the innocent suffer, and if that is deliberate, and if there is a god, one of these things is true:   he knows about it and could stop it but chooses not to.  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.  he does not know about it.  none of these is compatible with an all powerful, all knowing, loving god.   #  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.   # he knows about it but is unable to stop it because god have previously granted humankind free will.  to interfere beyond what god have done so already is to diminish the gift of free will.  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.  to simply conjure up a healthy candy for the daughter is wish is only to satisfy a desire rather than to really satisfy the daughter is choice.  omnipotent does not mean knowing that everything will happen this way.  it can mean to know of all possibilities entirely, including those dictated by man is free will.  an audience at a basketball free throw will know of multiple possible outcomes, that the ball will go nothing but net, that the ball can slip out of the hand, that the ball will bounce off the rim, etc.  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.  hope my explanation can help clarify some.  i am a little sleep deprived so it may not be completely coherent.
from what i understand, the christian god is all powerful and all knowing.  and yet suffering, disease, genocide, etc.  exist.  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.  there is no reason to test humans since god is all knowing.  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.  i can only conclude that there either is no god, or that there is a god not worthy of admiration and praise.   #  also god made everything as it is so there is no reason for anyone to behave other than how god intended, else he would have made them different.   #  if god had put the world together in its perfect place, everything working together to bring happiness and peace to all of mankind, what would be the point of existence ?  # exist.  the existence of these phenomena would require an all powerful god to permit them.  therefore, god must permit these hardships for some reason.  a finite, irrational being has arguably no possibility of ever understanding the reasons in the mind of a god.  it is possible that suffering is simply not the same to us as it is to him.  that the evil in the world is really just our development.  if god had put the world together in its perfect place, everything working together to bring happiness and peace to all of mankind, what would be the point of existence ? without free will, without struggle and conflict, what would we do ? necessity is the mother of invention.  not just in terms of technology, but in terms of social and cultural constructs.  without that necessity, why would we bother doing anything, except indulging in extreme hedonism ? if the people did not struggle to find food, why would agriculture have developed, and subsequently society ? why would we have gathered at all, if not for mutual benefit ?  #  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.   # philosophers refer to this as the  problem of evil.   the classic restatement is that god cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient because a god having all three of these qualities would not allow so much evil to exist in the world.  unfortunately there has never been a perfectly satisfactory answer to this problem.  one classic answer is that we have no context by which to judge god or the relative  goodness  of the world.  god is the only one with a universal perspective, so he may have an excellent reason for all of this that we just do not comprehend.  we ca not judge god is actions or reasoning because we lack infinite perspective.  this is probably the most solid answer that i am aware of; however, it kind of hoses the idea of god is omnibenevolence in the first place.  if he is  good  but it is not a good that we can understand, why would we call him good at all ?  #  put it this way sometimes when my one year old daughter wants something she ca not have, like candy, she cries.   #  put it this way sometimes when my one year old daughter wants something she ca not have, like candy, she cries.  now i know she ca not have this candy because it would be bad for her, and giving her everything she wants would spoil her, but from her perspective i am making her suffer needlessly.  why would not i just give it to her ? i have good reasons for it, but i would never be able to explain them because she would never understand.  i will just have to let her  suffer .  i think the problem of evil is like this.  there is suffering all over our world, and we ca not understand why it would be allowed to happen.  but maybe it is for our spiritual growth.  maybe suffering makes us purer.  maybe there is some other reason that we will just never be able to understand.  or, if that is not the case, maybe god is not all powerful.  he is powerful enough to create this planet, but not quite powerful enough to make it free from evil.  to me, that is still pretty amazing and worthy of worship.  even if it is not a perfect world, it is a pretty amazing one worthy of praise.  anyways, as far as i know, those are the only possible answers to the problem of evil.   #  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.   #  you cannot please your daughter because you are not omnipotent; you cannot make the thing she wants candy somehow be the thing that is best for her.  an omnipotent being could make what we desire good for us, or it could make us desire only things which are good for us.  aside from this, whatever the  higher  goal might be, an omnipotent being could simply make that goal happen, without requiring any other being to suffer.  the best argument i know of against the existence of any omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god is a quick trip to any hospital is terminal ward for children.  there you will see the innocent suffer, and if that is deliberate, and if there is a god, one of these things is true:   he knows about it and could stop it but chooses not to.  he knows about it but is unable to stop it.  he does not know about it.  none of these is compatible with an all powerful, all knowing, loving god.   #  i am a little sleep deprived so it may not be completely coherent.   # he knows about it but is unable to stop it because god have previously granted humankind free will.  to interfere beyond what god have done so already is to diminish the gift of free will.  an all powerful god ca not exactly go back on his previous promise/gift that easily simply by the virtue of god being all powerful.  to simply conjure up a healthy candy for the daughter is wish is only to satisfy a desire rather than to really satisfy the daughter is choice.  omnipotent does not mean knowing that everything will happen this way.  it can mean to know of all possibilities entirely, including those dictated by man is free will.  an audience at a basketball free throw will know of multiple possible outcomes, that the ball will go nothing but net, that the ball can slip out of the hand, that the ball will bounce off the rim, etc.  the audience already knows these possibilities without dictating the basketball shooter is action as pre destiny.  hope my explanation can help clarify some.  i am a little sleep deprived so it may not be completely coherent.
the human mind is highly susceptible to being influenced by colors, images and words.  a skilled ad man and marketer could make people crave a literal bag of shit if they were so inclined by utilizing a variety of propaganda and psychological techniques that triggers the release of dopamine in the human brain.  these techniques have been used to great effect in the past century to peddle all kinds of harmful products to the public, including cigarettes, alcohol, and sugary processed foods that have led to an influx in childhood obesity, adult obesity, cancer, heart disease, etc.  the chronic diseases caused by these products are not only a threat to public health, but they also threaten the healthcare system as a growing population of sick people who cannot afford care thrust the burden upon the healthy population to pay up.  i feel that if parents and children were not assaulted by all sorts of psychological triggers as they walked down a grocery store aisle or turned on a tv set, they may never have become addicted to these harmful products in the first place.  or better yet, if they are permitted to advertise, they must insert warnings into their slogans and branding.  an example for sprite:  image is nothing.  thirst is everything.  obey your thirst, get diabetes !    #  the human mind is highly susceptible to being influenced by colors, images and words.   #  it also has reasoning capabilities, something people seem to use less and less.   # it also has reasoning capabilities, something people seem to use less and less.  it is not the fault of the people who market products that people do not give a shit about there health.  and do not try to say that people think eating mcdonalds everyday is healthy.  this is common sense which every consumer is supposed to have.  if they do not have this common sense, they really should not be trusted with spending money at all.  i actually read somewhere that the effects marketing has on the healthcare system is very insignificant in comparison to the other factors that contribute to the high price of health care.  but i ca not find the article.  regardless, i do not believe healthcare paid by taxes should be meant for people who do not care about there health.  similar to people who do drugs, they should have to pay for whatever consequences get.  and if they ca not, they better find someone to willingly pay for them.  i have very little sympathy for people who choose not to care about there health, and then have to face the consequences.   assaulted  ? yes, the evil corporations shove fast food down the throats of helpless families.  i think they should be forced to provide information about there product ingredients, calories .  but if a person chooses to ignore that, than it is there problem.  it seems like nobody wants to responsible for shit anymore.  everybody is just a  victim  of there environment.  as if healthy people did not see that marketing.  there slogan is there is.  as long as they do not promise anything false, than it is fine.  there product should have nutritional information, and that is enough.  it is difficult enough to get a business going with marketing, but putting marketing limits would really hurt the small businesses whose brands are not yet known.   #  potentially harmful means a lot of different things.   #  potentially harmful means a lot of different things.  for a segment of the population, peanuts are potentially harmful.  shall we add them to the list ? my niece has celiac disease.  shall we add bread to the list as well ? also, people have craved sugar long before there were marketers.  sugar, in moderation, is not harmful for me.  no one is forcing people to buy and consume massive amounts of these products.  by shifting the blame from the consumer to the marketer you create an environment where people are not responsible for their actions.  when i walk into a store, i am not a robot.  what i put in my cart is up to me.   #  nearly all the subjects then said they preferred the coke.   #  as absurd as it sounds, scientific research tends to support that effective advertising is mind control.  see:   read montague, director of the human neuroimaging lab at baylor college of medicine, has now provided proof that branding plays with our brains.  last year he decided to repeat the pepsi challenge, but scan the activity of the brain at the same time.  using a non invasive technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging fmri , the scans reveal which parts of the brain are active in real time.  on the scan images the ventral putamen, one of the brain is reward centers, had a response that was five times stronger than for people who preferred coke.  nearly all the subjects then said they preferred the coke.  moreover, different parts of the brain fired as well, especially the medial prefrontal cortex, an area associated with thinking and judging.  without a doubt the subjects were letting their experience of the coke brand influence their preferences.  the medial prefrontal cortex is a part of the brain known to be involved in our sense of self.  it fires in response to something an image, name or concept that resonates with who we are.  something clicks, and we are more likely to buy.  it is nothing more than sugared, carbonated water.  it has no value whatsoever, outside of the expert marketing that has convinced millions that coca cola is something they should consume.   #  that is the only really meaningful metric you can use to determine value.   # see: i know what branding is and what it aims to do, but that is still not mind control.  that is just positive reinforcement.  it is hardly something worth legislating.  besides, it would be impossible to separate  willegitimate  freedom of expression with advertising, and given the choice between the two, freedom of expression is way more important.  it is not worth curtailing because some companies figured out how to make you have a favorable opinion of their foods.  it is tasty.  obviously.  things have value because people want them.  that is the only really meaningful metric you can use to determine value.  people who are buying coke do not buy it because someone told them to.  they may buy it it as a consequence of being advertised to, but they are buying it because it tastes good to them.   #  no one is forcing me to buy anything i do not want.   #  marketing and product placement does not make us robots.  we still have a choice as to what we place in our carts.  if it a reasonable price and i want something to drink i will buy it.  if it is not i wo not.  no one is forcing me to buy anything i do not want.  and healthy foods are all relative.  apple juice is sugar water, but that is healthy ? dark chocolate has been proven to have some health effects in moderation, but that is seen as junk food.
the human mind is highly susceptible to being influenced by colors, images and words.  a skilled ad man and marketer could make people crave a literal bag of shit if they were so inclined by utilizing a variety of propaganda and psychological techniques that triggers the release of dopamine in the human brain.  these techniques have been used to great effect in the past century to peddle all kinds of harmful products to the public, including cigarettes, alcohol, and sugary processed foods that have led to an influx in childhood obesity, adult obesity, cancer, heart disease, etc.  the chronic diseases caused by these products are not only a threat to public health, but they also threaten the healthcare system as a growing population of sick people who cannot afford care thrust the burden upon the healthy population to pay up.  i feel that if parents and children were not assaulted by all sorts of psychological triggers as they walked down a grocery store aisle or turned on a tv set, they may never have become addicted to these harmful products in the first place.  or better yet, if they are permitted to advertise, they must insert warnings into their slogans and branding.  an example for sprite:  image is nothing.  thirst is everything.  obey your thirst, get diabetes !    #  these techniques have been used to great effect in the past century to peddle all kinds of harmful products to the public, including cigarettes, alcohol, and sugary processed foods that have led to an influx in childhood obesity, adult obesity, cancer, heart disease, etc.   #  it is not the fault of the people who market products that people do not give a shit about there health.   # it also has reasoning capabilities, something people seem to use less and less.  it is not the fault of the people who market products that people do not give a shit about there health.  and do not try to say that people think eating mcdonalds everyday is healthy.  this is common sense which every consumer is supposed to have.  if they do not have this common sense, they really should not be trusted with spending money at all.  i actually read somewhere that the effects marketing has on the healthcare system is very insignificant in comparison to the other factors that contribute to the high price of health care.  but i ca not find the article.  regardless, i do not believe healthcare paid by taxes should be meant for people who do not care about there health.  similar to people who do drugs, they should have to pay for whatever consequences get.  and if they ca not, they better find someone to willingly pay for them.  i have very little sympathy for people who choose not to care about there health, and then have to face the consequences.   assaulted  ? yes, the evil corporations shove fast food down the throats of helpless families.  i think they should be forced to provide information about there product ingredients, calories .  but if a person chooses to ignore that, than it is there problem.  it seems like nobody wants to responsible for shit anymore.  everybody is just a  victim  of there environment.  as if healthy people did not see that marketing.  there slogan is there is.  as long as they do not promise anything false, than it is fine.  there product should have nutritional information, and that is enough.  it is difficult enough to get a business going with marketing, but putting marketing limits would really hurt the small businesses whose brands are not yet known.   #  for a segment of the population, peanuts are potentially harmful.   #  potentially harmful means a lot of different things.  for a segment of the population, peanuts are potentially harmful.  shall we add them to the list ? my niece has celiac disease.  shall we add bread to the list as well ? also, people have craved sugar long before there were marketers.  sugar, in moderation, is not harmful for me.  no one is forcing people to buy and consume massive amounts of these products.  by shifting the blame from the consumer to the marketer you create an environment where people are not responsible for their actions.  when i walk into a store, i am not a robot.  what i put in my cart is up to me.   #  the medial prefrontal cortex is a part of the brain known to be involved in our sense of self.   #  as absurd as it sounds, scientific research tends to support that effective advertising is mind control.  see:   read montague, director of the human neuroimaging lab at baylor college of medicine, has now provided proof that branding plays with our brains.  last year he decided to repeat the pepsi challenge, but scan the activity of the brain at the same time.  using a non invasive technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging fmri , the scans reveal which parts of the brain are active in real time.  on the scan images the ventral putamen, one of the brain is reward centers, had a response that was five times stronger than for people who preferred coke.  nearly all the subjects then said they preferred the coke.  moreover, different parts of the brain fired as well, especially the medial prefrontal cortex, an area associated with thinking and judging.  without a doubt the subjects were letting their experience of the coke brand influence their preferences.  the medial prefrontal cortex is a part of the brain known to be involved in our sense of self.  it fires in response to something an image, name or concept that resonates with who we are.  something clicks, and we are more likely to buy.  it is nothing more than sugared, carbonated water.  it has no value whatsoever, outside of the expert marketing that has convinced millions that coca cola is something they should consume.   #  people who are buying coke do not buy it because someone told them to.   # see: i know what branding is and what it aims to do, but that is still not mind control.  that is just positive reinforcement.  it is hardly something worth legislating.  besides, it would be impossible to separate  willegitimate  freedom of expression with advertising, and given the choice between the two, freedom of expression is way more important.  it is not worth curtailing because some companies figured out how to make you have a favorable opinion of their foods.  it is tasty.  obviously.  things have value because people want them.  that is the only really meaningful metric you can use to determine value.  people who are buying coke do not buy it because someone told them to.  they may buy it it as a consequence of being advertised to, but they are buying it because it tastes good to them.   #  if it a reasonable price and i want something to drink i will buy it.   #  marketing and product placement does not make us robots.  we still have a choice as to what we place in our carts.  if it a reasonable price and i want something to drink i will buy it.  if it is not i wo not.  no one is forcing me to buy anything i do not want.  and healthy foods are all relative.  apple juice is sugar water, but that is healthy ? dark chocolate has been proven to have some health effects in moderation, but that is seen as junk food.
the human mind is highly susceptible to being influenced by colors, images and words.  a skilled ad man and marketer could make people crave a literal bag of shit if they were so inclined by utilizing a variety of propaganda and psychological techniques that triggers the release of dopamine in the human brain.  these techniques have been used to great effect in the past century to peddle all kinds of harmful products to the public, including cigarettes, alcohol, and sugary processed foods that have led to an influx in childhood obesity, adult obesity, cancer, heart disease, etc.  the chronic diseases caused by these products are not only a threat to public health, but they also threaten the healthcare system as a growing population of sick people who cannot afford care thrust the burden upon the healthy population to pay up.  i feel that if parents and children were not assaulted by all sorts of psychological triggers as they walked down a grocery store aisle or turned on a tv set, they may never have become addicted to these harmful products in the first place.  or better yet, if they are permitted to advertise, they must insert warnings into their slogans and branding.  an example for sprite:  image is nothing.  thirst is everything.  obey your thirst, get diabetes !    #  the chronic diseases caused by these products are not only a threat to public health, but they also threaten the healthcare system as a growing population of sick people who cannot afford care thrust the burden upon the healthy population to pay up.   #  i actually read somewhere that the effects marketing has on the healthcare system is very insignificant in comparison to the other factors that contribute to the high price of health care.   # it also has reasoning capabilities, something people seem to use less and less.  it is not the fault of the people who market products that people do not give a shit about there health.  and do not try to say that people think eating mcdonalds everyday is healthy.  this is common sense which every consumer is supposed to have.  if they do not have this common sense, they really should not be trusted with spending money at all.  i actually read somewhere that the effects marketing has on the healthcare system is very insignificant in comparison to the other factors that contribute to the high price of health care.  but i ca not find the article.  regardless, i do not believe healthcare paid by taxes should be meant for people who do not care about there health.  similar to people who do drugs, they should have to pay for whatever consequences get.  and if they ca not, they better find someone to willingly pay for them.  i have very little sympathy for people who choose not to care about there health, and then have to face the consequences.   assaulted  ? yes, the evil corporations shove fast food down the throats of helpless families.  i think they should be forced to provide information about there product ingredients, calories .  but if a person chooses to ignore that, than it is there problem.  it seems like nobody wants to responsible for shit anymore.  everybody is just a  victim  of there environment.  as if healthy people did not see that marketing.  there slogan is there is.  as long as they do not promise anything false, than it is fine.  there product should have nutritional information, and that is enough.  it is difficult enough to get a business going with marketing, but putting marketing limits would really hurt the small businesses whose brands are not yet known.   #  for a segment of the population, peanuts are potentially harmful.   #  potentially harmful means a lot of different things.  for a segment of the population, peanuts are potentially harmful.  shall we add them to the list ? my niece has celiac disease.  shall we add bread to the list as well ? also, people have craved sugar long before there were marketers.  sugar, in moderation, is not harmful for me.  no one is forcing people to buy and consume massive amounts of these products.  by shifting the blame from the consumer to the marketer you create an environment where people are not responsible for their actions.  when i walk into a store, i am not a robot.  what i put in my cart is up to me.   #  it fires in response to something an image, name or concept that resonates with who we are.   #  as absurd as it sounds, scientific research tends to support that effective advertising is mind control.  see:   read montague, director of the human neuroimaging lab at baylor college of medicine, has now provided proof that branding plays with our brains.  last year he decided to repeat the pepsi challenge, but scan the activity of the brain at the same time.  using a non invasive technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging fmri , the scans reveal which parts of the brain are active in real time.  on the scan images the ventral putamen, one of the brain is reward centers, had a response that was five times stronger than for people who preferred coke.  nearly all the subjects then said they preferred the coke.  moreover, different parts of the brain fired as well, especially the medial prefrontal cortex, an area associated with thinking and judging.  without a doubt the subjects were letting their experience of the coke brand influence their preferences.  the medial prefrontal cortex is a part of the brain known to be involved in our sense of self.  it fires in response to something an image, name or concept that resonates with who we are.  something clicks, and we are more likely to buy.  it is nothing more than sugared, carbonated water.  it has no value whatsoever, outside of the expert marketing that has convinced millions that coca cola is something they should consume.   #  see: i know what branding is and what it aims to do, but that is still not mind control.   # see: i know what branding is and what it aims to do, but that is still not mind control.  that is just positive reinforcement.  it is hardly something worth legislating.  besides, it would be impossible to separate  willegitimate  freedom of expression with advertising, and given the choice between the two, freedom of expression is way more important.  it is not worth curtailing because some companies figured out how to make you have a favorable opinion of their foods.  it is tasty.  obviously.  things have value because people want them.  that is the only really meaningful metric you can use to determine value.  people who are buying coke do not buy it because someone told them to.  they may buy it it as a consequence of being advertised to, but they are buying it because it tastes good to them.   #  marketing and product placement does not make us robots.   #  marketing and product placement does not make us robots.  we still have a choice as to what we place in our carts.  if it a reasonable price and i want something to drink i will buy it.  if it is not i wo not.  no one is forcing me to buy anything i do not want.  and healthy foods are all relative.  apple juice is sugar water, but that is healthy ? dark chocolate has been proven to have some health effects in moderation, but that is seen as junk food.
when someone is raised in a suburb, they are not exposed to the other cultures someone in an urban area sees and learns about everyday.  your perspective never changes, because there really is not anything you see capable of changing it just the same white picket fences and mom mobiles everyday.  growing up is about learning to become a functioning member of society, and a huge part of that is being able to interact with people who are not quite like you.  the other thing about growing up in a suburb that can be bad for a kid is boredom.  in an urban area assuming it is reasonably safe , you always have something to do.  seriously, the possibilities are practically endless.  a suburban minor, however, does not have this luxury, and has just as much free time, but way less things to do.  when someone is constantly bored, they learn to just be bored.  they can deal with their boredom with lots of activities, but after a school day, it seems far more likely for an adolescent to do non productive things, like watch tv, or get high.  i am not saying you should never enjoy yourself, but it seems dangerous to be doing non productive things for fun with all that free time of yours.  alright, you win reddit people, view changed.  see comments for details on my changed view.   #  when someone is raised in a suburb, they are not exposed to the other cultures someone in an urban area sees and learns about everyday.   #  why do you think urban areas are more diverse ?  # why do you think urban areas are more diverse ? in my experience urban areas may seem diverse at first, but if you look at neighborhoods individually, you will see that they are very segregated.  many cities will often have a latino neighborhood, a black neighborhood, and a white neighborhood.  here is URL the top 0 most diverse cities and neighborhoods in the us.  0 out of the 0 most diverse neighborhoods are suburban neighborhoods.  i would agree with this.  i grew up in the suburbs and while it was fun as a younger kid lots of places to play and explore , the lack of mobility makes it hard when you are in middle and high school.  when i was in high school i wish i had grown up in the city because i wanted the freedom to go where i wanted without relying on parents.  but after moving to an urban area, i can understand why many parents would choose the suburbs.  suburbs are usually cheaper, schools are usually better, and driving is usually easier for parents to transport kids and groceries.  i think from a young adults perspective, urban areas seem great.  but from a parents perspective, urban areas usually have more negatives than positives.   #  coffee shops can serve as a meet up spot for teens.   # teens buy things believe it or not, and they may just go to stores to shop around.  coffee shops can serve as a meet up spot for teens.  restaurants do not have to be fine dining, a local diner or burger joint can be used by teens.  teens go to movies.  teens and kids use parks just to walk around and hang out, but also to ride bikes, skate, and play sports.  not all concert venues are 0 .  museums may not be an every day thing, but believe it or not i went on a few dates to the art museum as a teen.  most suburban schools go to museums as field trips as well.  the key difference is how accessible they are.  a short walk or bike ride on pedestrian friendly streets is more accessible and safer than driving or walking a longer distance on the more auto centric roads usually found in the suburbs.  field trips are not really relevant since op is talking about things that can be done during free time outside of school.   #  a short walk or bike ride on pedestrian friendly streets is more accessible and safer than driving or walking a longer distance on the more auto centric roads usually found in the suburbs.   # teens who live in suburbs generally go to malls to either buy things or to shop around.  most suburban restaurants are not fine dining but rather are local diners, burger joints, pizza places, etc.  which can be used by teens.  most suburbs have movie theaters.  most suburbs have parks.  you are right, but most concert venues which are not 0  are generally larger ones which are not always located in the city in the first place.  of the three largest concert venues that i live near, 0 of them are located in the suburbs.  most concert venues in urban environments are either 0  or 0 .  if the only argument for museums is for dating purposes then you could argue that most suburbs are close enough to museums that teens living in the suburbs can still go to them occasionally.  a short walk or bike ride on pedestrian friendly streets is more accessible and safer than driving or walking a longer distance on the more auto centric roads usually found in the suburbs.  the times in which teens are using these things generally allows them to walk or ride a bike to them.  if they are using them after school then most suburban schools are located centrally in the town, meaning that they are generally within walking distance or biking distance of these things.  if they are using them on the weekends then they can generally have their parents drive them or they can drive themselves once they are old enough.   #  how about a more affordable and roomier house.   #  urban kids also have easier and more diverse access to drugs and alcohol and those other  unproductive  things you seem to be complaining about.  how about riding your bike on the street where few cars pass and there is are no pedestrians to be in the way ? how about swimming pools.  how about climbing trees and exploring streams.  i am not anti urban life but there absolutely are things people in less densely.  populated areas have that cities do not.  you are also only seeing this as a function of what the child gets in terms of distractions.  how about a more affordable and roomier house.  suburban parents can provide more for their children for lower cost.  in a dense city a family of three may be cramped into a rented apartment that has such high rent you cannot save for emergencies.  in a suburb that same paycheck might go toward a mortgage on a four bed room and a savings fund.   #  i have no doubt suburban kids are on lots of drugs.   #  i knew a girl in college from nyc who claimed cocaine was just what you do there.  every party gathering or time spent socially meant coke.  none of us suburban kids had every even been exposed to the possibility of coke.  i have no doubt suburban kids are on lots of drugs.  but that in and of itself is not enough to claim the suburbs are the worst place to raise a kid.  i have been to cities.  there really is not that much to do that people do not do anywhere else.  i doubt very much urban kids are visiting museums and interesting historic sites regularly.  they see movies and hang out like everyone everywhere.
let is say that he continues with the plan to move the jews to madagascar or does nothing at all to them.  he conquered a lot more land than napoleon or rome and in a shorter amount of time.  he brought great empires like russia, france and uk almost or to their knees.  something that the germans of the previous generation wished they could do during wwi.  he made germany rise from the ashes like a phoenix and get revenge for versailles.  he also planned the autobahn which is a modern architectural masterpiece.  i believe that if it were not for the horrors of genocide germans would be a lot more proud of their history.   #  i believe that if it were not for the horrors of genocide germans would be a lot more proud of their history.   #  you are not likely to get much resistance on this point.   # you are not likely to get much resistance on this point.  if a person or group did not do things that make them ashamed of their history.  they would not be ashamed of their history.  honestly, i doubt that it is the holocaust that is keeping people from remembering hitler in a favorable light.  conquers throughout history have caused magnitudes more death and suffering of innocent people and yet we do not revile them.  however, the people alive in and around that time sure as hell did though.  when genghis khan was ravaging europe the people affected thought that he was anti christ and the start of the apocalypse.  the holocaust is going to be an event remembered thought history, but as time goes on and people become more disconnected from the actual events they wont care as much for the people who died, like how we care about the  0 million  people genghis killed, and will look at hitlers accomplishments as a conqueror, a leader, and a military strategist.  historians will gloss over the the topic like,  yeah yeah he was a terrible person and killed millions of people blah blah blah, but a more interesting topic is the incredible political skills he demonstrated during his rise to power.    #  some of what you say is true hitler did not invent or even green light any plans for the autobahn but you are actually buying into some of the modern mythology about the guy.   #  not quite.  some of what you say is true hitler did not invent or even green light any plans for the autobahn but you are actually buying into some of the modern mythology about the guy.  he was really good at speaking.  he was not really much good at anything else.  he was not a general and militarily he cost germany more victories than he provided.  huge difference with napolean right there.  secondly, you have got to remember why he was waging his wars.  it was not simply to create some vast empire it was to create a vast empire by killing everybody on the land it wanted or enslaving them.  not just the jews but the slavs now we are talking about hundreds of millions and everybody who did not look  right .  then there was the social programming.  napolean is viewed in some quarters as  great  because he was something of a romantic figure.  he intended to introduce certain progressive policies and modernize government to a greater or lesser extent in countries his army occupied.  hitler is plan was to kill everybody in the way and brainwash everybody else who was waiting in the meantime.  what did hitler actually accomplish ? what was his legacy ? he did not invent the autobahn.  he did not invent the volkwagen nor did he even deliver any of the cars that he would forced people to pay for through salary deductions.  nazi efficiency was grossly overstated.  in fact, they were exceptionally disorganized despite having everything signed in triplicate.  no grand monuments were built.  not much of anything was actually accomplished under hitler is tenure.  there was the economic turnaround but the nazis should not get any credit for any of it.  firstly, the entire world was stuck in the great depression.  secondly, currency stabilization was low on the nazi priority list.  it was only a matter of how politically expedient it was.  so long as the nazis were not in power , the more inflation , the better.  once they took power they did not magically fix everything.  in fact, they just fudged the numbers so that people actually believed that things were going great.  during the war the economics of it all were thrown in the air anyway.  part of the plan.  so basically, hitler was not a great man in any sense of the word.  he really was little more than the incarnation of german feeling at the time.  he did not actually do anything of long lasting value unless you think that we needed drastic reductions of certain populations and complete destruction of europe.   #  what hitler did was not comparable, his conquest basically failed.   #  you say this as though ghengis khan is  not  vilified for his murderous actions.  the very last paragraph of his intro on wikipedia:   vilified throughout most of history for the brutality of his campaigns , genghis khan is also credited with bringing the silk road under one cohesive political environment.  this increased communication and trade from northeast asia to muslim southwest asia and christian europe, thus expanding the horizons of all three cultural areas.  vilified, but he also contributed a great deal to the expansion of asia.  what hitler did was not comparable, his conquest basically failed.  i highly, highly disagree with your view that history only considers hitler evil because it happened recently.  creating extermination camps is much different from what khan did in the name of conquest.   #  the only one that even can be said to have caused even comparable amounts of deaths is ghengis khan and he certainly did not cause  magnitudes  more death.   # like who ? the only one that even can be said to have caused even comparable amounts of deaths is ghengis khan and he certainly did not cause  magnitudes  more death.  it seems like you are comparing gk is total death total to just a subset of hitler is total.  hitler did not just kill six million jews.  this was a war started by hitler and lead to the deaths of tens of millions of europeans.  i also find the idea that historians will eventually gloss over all those deaths and talk about his political skills to be very unlikely.  i do not think its time that detracts from our sense of evils as much as it is space.  the japanese killed boatloads of mainland asians and we never hear about them even though it occurred just as long ago as the holocaust.  the emphasis on hitler is not just that he did really bad stuff fairly recently but he also did them in the west.  i am sure that the chinese have a fairly fresh memory of gk.   #  so my point is that there was no alterneative in which the holocaust would not be linked to the war or there would be no war at all.   #  you ca not take the holocaust out of the equation, though.  even if the jews were deported to madagaskar.  the island could nt have sustained that many people we are talking about 0million people here , so the holocaust would have taken in one way or another.  if you take the jew policies out of hitler is policy altogether, there would not have been a war most probably because hitlers policy revolved around a race based ideology.  so my point is that there was no alterneative in which the holocaust would not be linked to the war or there would be no war at all.
as humans we were always concerned about what was going on around us.  we tried to search for causes of actions and consequences of other actions.  we tried to predict and reverse engineer everything we could.  today we assume that most things follow rules.  atoms form bonds in a certain way and apparently do not do anything at random.  as we know the human body is made up out of a huge load of molecules, made out of even more atoms, all behaving in a known and predictable way.  all these atoms interact with each other in more complicated ways since we have to calculate all there single behaviours together.  the whole body is just a huge chain reactions of atoms forming and leaving bonds.  eventhough you are able to react to things in a complicated way it still is nothing else than a huge chain reaction.  even your brain, the center of the  you  is still only a bunch of atoms doing what ever atoms do.  this means that eventhough we are not at the moment able to percisely predict the whole behaviour of a human to every possible impulse we in theory were able to do this, given enough calculationpower and information.  this is true for every human being, so every human is just like a very inteligent machine, doing what nature tells him to do.  and because of that you aswell as me and anyone else only follows a pattern, each his own, individual way, interacting with all the other patterns but still as ruled by nature as the most fundamental parts of our existence, also called  fate  by some esoteric humans.   #  eventhough you are able to react to things in a complicated way it still is nothing else than a huge chain reaction.   #  even your brain, the center of the  you  is still only a bunch of atoms doing what ever atoms do.   # even your brain, the center of the  you  is still only a bunch of atoms doing what ever atoms do.  yes, as far as we know our mind relies strictly on deterministic processes.  to make such precise predictions, you would have to create an almost identical copy of our mind.  a sentient machine is not limited to following orders.  from our point of view, the past is set in stone, but the future is not.  only we and identical copies of us can determine our future.   #  that is to say: there is x probability that z particle will be observed at energy level 0 at time  t  and y probability it will be at level 0 at this same time.   #  i hate to strain the topic even further, but it is my understanding that there is no actual  proof  quantum mechanical behaviors are actual  properties  attributed to matter, merely our observations of them.  that is to say: there is x probability that z particle will be observed at energy level 0 at time  t  and y probability it will be at level 0 at this same time.  this is not to say that the particle is at both places at once or neither place until observed, but for the sake of the mathematics and empirical observations we treat it as such, and from this we can determine more properties.  i will admit, i am not a nuclear physicist.  take this information for what it is worth.  as a philosopher, i am dubious anytime physicists start arguing in my field.  some points they raise are valid, and many of them are extremely intelligent people.  but i have seen many make fallacious and ill thought out sweeping generalizations that could be defeated by a 0st year logic student.  from a practical standpoint, i do not believe we will ever have an empirically defined answer to the question of fate or determinism if quantum mechanics is the true method of particle behavior.  that in and of itself makes me twitch; partly because it defies my own common sense presuppositions, and partly because i have my own reasons for thinking qm is not a part of a true g. u. t.  theory.  ymmv  #  it all looks random, at the deepest possible level.   #  indeed, one of my favorite lectures from feynman was the q. e. d.  one URL this is part 0/0, starting around 0:0 , where he says paraphrasing : look, i do not like the way it seems the universe is random either, but that is the way nature is.  if you do not like it, leave ! go to a universe with simpler, more philosophically pleasing, laws.  the only way we have ever been able to make sense of how  anything  works is to add up all of the chances of all the things that might possibly happen to a particle, and then observe that the result follows those probabilities.  it all looks random, at the deepest possible level.  we do not know why nature is that way, but it is.  there is a mathematical theorem called bell is theorem that shows that there can be no local i. e.  not outside the distance light could travel in a vacuum  hidden variables  that can explain why particles behave the way they do.  it is really randomness all the way down.  the only reason it looks deterministic is statistical: basically the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem save us here, because there are so many random events that they even out to something mostly predictable, except for very contrived experiments.  it is vastly worth watching this entire series URL if you have any interest at all in understanding how nature works, told by the greatest story teller ever, in terms that anyone can understand unless they refuse : .   #  forgive me because i do not know that much about it, but are you basically saying that nothing ever is random, not even coin flips ?  #  the problem with this is that there are so many variables that i do not agree it would ever be possible to calculate exactly what will happen at any given time.  it is not just human behavior you would have to account for, but random chance.  let is say that someone is playing russian roulette.  you could argue that if he spins the barrel, pulls the trigger and dies, then it was fated because it could not have happened any other way.  his biology led to him spinning the barrel in the particular way that led to it killing him.  forgive me because i do not know that much about it, but are you basically saying that nothing ever is random, not even coin flips ? or poker games ?  #  i think that op means  fate  as meaning that events will unfold in a certain way no matter what.   #  i think that op means  fate  as meaning that events will unfold in a certain way no matter what.  we just do not know what that way is.  i do not think that op means that some force actually consciously determined what the future will be.  determinism generally just means that the events that take place in the universe are like billiard balls on a pool table.  the big bang, or something before it was the cue stick that started the billiard balls in their directions.  how they will then bounce off the walls and each other was determined by the initial velocity and direction of the cue stick and the structure of the pool table.  there is nothing undetermined about where the billiard balls will go on the table.  each ball has a fate, in a sense, that was determined from the very start of the game.
as humans we were always concerned about what was going on around us.  we tried to search for causes of actions and consequences of other actions.  we tried to predict and reverse engineer everything we could.  today we assume that most things follow rules.  atoms form bonds in a certain way and apparently do not do anything at random.  as we know the human body is made up out of a huge load of molecules, made out of even more atoms, all behaving in a known and predictable way.  all these atoms interact with each other in more complicated ways since we have to calculate all there single behaviours together.  the whole body is just a huge chain reactions of atoms forming and leaving bonds.  eventhough you are able to react to things in a complicated way it still is nothing else than a huge chain reaction.  even your brain, the center of the  you  is still only a bunch of atoms doing what ever atoms do.  this means that eventhough we are not at the moment able to percisely predict the whole behaviour of a human to every possible impulse we in theory were able to do this, given enough calculationpower and information.  this is true for every human being, so every human is just like a very inteligent machine, doing what nature tells him to do.  and because of that you aswell as me and anyone else only follows a pattern, each his own, individual way, interacting with all the other patterns but still as ruled by nature as the most fundamental parts of our existence, also called  fate  by some esoteric humans.   #  this means that eventhough we are not at the moment able to percisely predict the whole behaviour of a human to every possible impulse we in theory were able to do this, given enough calculationpower and information.   #  to make such precise predictions, you would have to create an almost identical copy of our mind.   # even your brain, the center of the  you  is still only a bunch of atoms doing what ever atoms do.  yes, as far as we know our mind relies strictly on deterministic processes.  to make such precise predictions, you would have to create an almost identical copy of our mind.  a sentient machine is not limited to following orders.  from our point of view, the past is set in stone, but the future is not.  only we and identical copies of us can determine our future.   #  from a practical standpoint, i do not believe we will ever have an empirically defined answer to the question of fate or determinism if quantum mechanics is the true method of particle behavior.   #  i hate to strain the topic even further, but it is my understanding that there is no actual  proof  quantum mechanical behaviors are actual  properties  attributed to matter, merely our observations of them.  that is to say: there is x probability that z particle will be observed at energy level 0 at time  t  and y probability it will be at level 0 at this same time.  this is not to say that the particle is at both places at once or neither place until observed, but for the sake of the mathematics and empirical observations we treat it as such, and from this we can determine more properties.  i will admit, i am not a nuclear physicist.  take this information for what it is worth.  as a philosopher, i am dubious anytime physicists start arguing in my field.  some points they raise are valid, and many of them are extremely intelligent people.  but i have seen many make fallacious and ill thought out sweeping generalizations that could be defeated by a 0st year logic student.  from a practical standpoint, i do not believe we will ever have an empirically defined answer to the question of fate or determinism if quantum mechanics is the true method of particle behavior.  that in and of itself makes me twitch; partly because it defies my own common sense presuppositions, and partly because i have my own reasons for thinking qm is not a part of a true g. u. t.  theory.  ymmv  #  it is vastly worth watching this entire series URL if you have any interest at all in understanding how nature works, told by the greatest story teller ever, in terms that anyone can understand unless they refuse : .   #  indeed, one of my favorite lectures from feynman was the q. e. d.  one URL this is part 0/0, starting around 0:0 , where he says paraphrasing : look, i do not like the way it seems the universe is random either, but that is the way nature is.  if you do not like it, leave ! go to a universe with simpler, more philosophically pleasing, laws.  the only way we have ever been able to make sense of how  anything  works is to add up all of the chances of all the things that might possibly happen to a particle, and then observe that the result follows those probabilities.  it all looks random, at the deepest possible level.  we do not know why nature is that way, but it is.  there is a mathematical theorem called bell is theorem that shows that there can be no local i. e.  not outside the distance light could travel in a vacuum  hidden variables  that can explain why particles behave the way they do.  it is really randomness all the way down.  the only reason it looks deterministic is statistical: basically the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem save us here, because there are so many random events that they even out to something mostly predictable, except for very contrived experiments.  it is vastly worth watching this entire series URL if you have any interest at all in understanding how nature works, told by the greatest story teller ever, in terms that anyone can understand unless they refuse : .   #  his biology led to him spinning the barrel in the particular way that led to it killing him.   #  the problem with this is that there are so many variables that i do not agree it would ever be possible to calculate exactly what will happen at any given time.  it is not just human behavior you would have to account for, but random chance.  let is say that someone is playing russian roulette.  you could argue that if he spins the barrel, pulls the trigger and dies, then it was fated because it could not have happened any other way.  his biology led to him spinning the barrel in the particular way that led to it killing him.  forgive me because i do not know that much about it, but are you basically saying that nothing ever is random, not even coin flips ? or poker games ?  #  there is nothing undetermined about where the billiard balls will go on the table.   #  i think that op means  fate  as meaning that events will unfold in a certain way no matter what.  we just do not know what that way is.  i do not think that op means that some force actually consciously determined what the future will be.  determinism generally just means that the events that take place in the universe are like billiard balls on a pool table.  the big bang, or something before it was the cue stick that started the billiard balls in their directions.  how they will then bounce off the walls and each other was determined by the initial velocity and direction of the cue stick and the structure of the pool table.  there is nothing undetermined about where the billiard balls will go on the table.  each ball has a fate, in a sense, that was determined from the very start of the game.
as humans we were always concerned about what was going on around us.  we tried to search for causes of actions and consequences of other actions.  we tried to predict and reverse engineer everything we could.  today we assume that most things follow rules.  atoms form bonds in a certain way and apparently do not do anything at random.  as we know the human body is made up out of a huge load of molecules, made out of even more atoms, all behaving in a known and predictable way.  all these atoms interact with each other in more complicated ways since we have to calculate all there single behaviours together.  the whole body is just a huge chain reactions of atoms forming and leaving bonds.  eventhough you are able to react to things in a complicated way it still is nothing else than a huge chain reaction.  even your brain, the center of the  you  is still only a bunch of atoms doing what ever atoms do.  this means that eventhough we are not at the moment able to percisely predict the whole behaviour of a human to every possible impulse we in theory were able to do this, given enough calculationpower and information.  this is true for every human being, so every human is just like a very inteligent machine, doing what nature tells him to do.  and because of that you aswell as me and anyone else only follows a pattern, each his own, individual way, interacting with all the other patterns but still as ruled by nature as the most fundamental parts of our existence, also called  fate  by some esoteric humans.   #  this is true for every human being, so every human is just like a very inteligent machine, doing what nature tells him to do.   #  a sentient machine is not limited to following orders.   # even your brain, the center of the  you  is still only a bunch of atoms doing what ever atoms do.  yes, as far as we know our mind relies strictly on deterministic processes.  to make such precise predictions, you would have to create an almost identical copy of our mind.  a sentient machine is not limited to following orders.  from our point of view, the past is set in stone, but the future is not.  only we and identical copies of us can determine our future.   #  i will admit, i am not a nuclear physicist.   #  i hate to strain the topic even further, but it is my understanding that there is no actual  proof  quantum mechanical behaviors are actual  properties  attributed to matter, merely our observations of them.  that is to say: there is x probability that z particle will be observed at energy level 0 at time  t  and y probability it will be at level 0 at this same time.  this is not to say that the particle is at both places at once or neither place until observed, but for the sake of the mathematics and empirical observations we treat it as such, and from this we can determine more properties.  i will admit, i am not a nuclear physicist.  take this information for what it is worth.  as a philosopher, i am dubious anytime physicists start arguing in my field.  some points they raise are valid, and many of them are extremely intelligent people.  but i have seen many make fallacious and ill thought out sweeping generalizations that could be defeated by a 0st year logic student.  from a practical standpoint, i do not believe we will ever have an empirically defined answer to the question of fate or determinism if quantum mechanics is the true method of particle behavior.  that in and of itself makes me twitch; partly because it defies my own common sense presuppositions, and partly because i have my own reasons for thinking qm is not a part of a true g. u. t.  theory.  ymmv  #  not outside the distance light could travel in a vacuum  hidden variables  that can explain why particles behave the way they do.   #  indeed, one of my favorite lectures from feynman was the q. e. d.  one URL this is part 0/0, starting around 0:0 , where he says paraphrasing : look, i do not like the way it seems the universe is random either, but that is the way nature is.  if you do not like it, leave ! go to a universe with simpler, more philosophically pleasing, laws.  the only way we have ever been able to make sense of how  anything  works is to add up all of the chances of all the things that might possibly happen to a particle, and then observe that the result follows those probabilities.  it all looks random, at the deepest possible level.  we do not know why nature is that way, but it is.  there is a mathematical theorem called bell is theorem that shows that there can be no local i. e.  not outside the distance light could travel in a vacuum  hidden variables  that can explain why particles behave the way they do.  it is really randomness all the way down.  the only reason it looks deterministic is statistical: basically the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem save us here, because there are so many random events that they even out to something mostly predictable, except for very contrived experiments.  it is vastly worth watching this entire series URL if you have any interest at all in understanding how nature works, told by the greatest story teller ever, in terms that anyone can understand unless they refuse : .   #  forgive me because i do not know that much about it, but are you basically saying that nothing ever is random, not even coin flips ?  #  the problem with this is that there are so many variables that i do not agree it would ever be possible to calculate exactly what will happen at any given time.  it is not just human behavior you would have to account for, but random chance.  let is say that someone is playing russian roulette.  you could argue that if he spins the barrel, pulls the trigger and dies, then it was fated because it could not have happened any other way.  his biology led to him spinning the barrel in the particular way that led to it killing him.  forgive me because i do not know that much about it, but are you basically saying that nothing ever is random, not even coin flips ? or poker games ?  #  there is nothing undetermined about where the billiard balls will go on the table.   #  i think that op means  fate  as meaning that events will unfold in a certain way no matter what.  we just do not know what that way is.  i do not think that op means that some force actually consciously determined what the future will be.  determinism generally just means that the events that take place in the universe are like billiard balls on a pool table.  the big bang, or something before it was the cue stick that started the billiard balls in their directions.  how they will then bounce off the walls and each other was determined by the initial velocity and direction of the cue stick and the structure of the pool table.  there is nothing undetermined about where the billiard balls will go on the table.  each ball has a fate, in a sense, that was determined from the very start of the game.
arguing about this salon. com article: the 0 year old virgin: life without sex is only torturous if you let it be URL there is a fark. com thread URL about it, and i agree with these comments: there is something wrong about you if you are a 0 year old virgin:     yes, yes there is.  that you ca not connect with another human being sexually after 0/0 of your life points to massive issues in your ability to choose a mate and seal the deal.  spend some money on therapy or write another blog article about how being a mommies boy is also just fine.      he seems to be throwing a lot of blame around in that article and dwelling on past heartbreaks/embarrassments.  i have known women who were comic groupies yes, they exist, i was surprised as anyone and he is not wrong in his initial statement that it should be near impossible for any halfway decent comic who regularly performs to avoid getting laid.      and i say that if you do not have that by 0, you are kind of farked as a person.  in a perfect world, you should be looking to get therapy as to why.      sad     i was going to write a reflective, insightful post and then it occurred to me that all that really needs to be said here is  what a huge dork.       yeah i guess what they do not know wo not hurt them.  seems an awful waste to spend that much time alone.      thing is there are girls for guys like him not the comic groupie part, but rather the nerdy, pudgy, pasty white guy with a sense of humor .  all you need is a minute amount of confidence to just go with the situation, and if he is truly a comic, then he has to have some confidence in there somewhere.  he does sound like his own worst enemy     there is nothing wrong with being a 0 year old virgin, but occam is razor says if you did not choose to be such, there is probably something wrong with you.  think about it.  how many people do you know are virgins at that age ? the cdc put it at 0 of all males between ages 0 0.  just how different would these guys be to some regular folk ? how strange would it be if you found out the guy you are dating never had sex ? it brings a lot of unpleasant questions about that person is character.  people in general do not want to be around strange people, and that would even work to hinder his chances to lose it by being ostracized which makes it a catch 0 .  all in all, it points out the immaturity of the person, and just how underdeveloped he is.  i also do not think you should  fuck what other people think of you .  that is juvenile.  we live in a society, and we are expected to belong, contribute and integrate with it.  this attitude is anti social.   #  it brings a lot of unpleasant questions about that person is character.   #  people in general do not want to be around strange people, and that would even work to hinder his chances to lose it by being ostracized which makes it a catch 0 .   # people in general do not want to be around strange people, and that would even work to hinder his chances to lose it by being ostracized which makes it a catch 0 .  all in all, it points out the immaturity of the person, and just how underdeveloped he is.  what kind of society do you live in where the status of a person is virginity is known and effects their typical social situations ? you have no idea who around you might be such a person unless they tell you.  where did the cdc get those numbers ? were they self reported ? how many men who are older virgins could be living among us like someone who has had sex at least once in their life ? does it really matter ? that is juvenile.  we live in a society, and we are expected to belong, contribute and integrate with it.  this attitude is anti social.  when society is judging you for something as asinine as this it is acceptable, and nowhere near antisocial, to eschew typical   integration.   i am also not a fan of your implication that virgins do not contribute to society.  basically you have done nothing but demonstrate a prejudice against a group of people, and have not demonstrated what specifically is  wrong  with these people or why i should care about them being a part of society.   #  what if they had sex once 0 years ago ?  #  i have not read the details of the article or the person is situation so i wo not speak to that.  i am merely going to address your points and the quotes you highlighted.  it seems pretty ass backwards to say that someone is social worth is indicated by the fact of whether they had sex at all.  people are more than whether or not they have had sex hell, i would say sex is inconsequential to other human endeavors.  i think this is a pretty harmful view that a man is value is determined by having sex at least once.  what if they had sex once 0 years ago ? does that change everything about the person is character, even though they have had an incredibly long dry spell ? to you it seems that it must change something about them, but i do not see how it informs you at all about the person.  things like this happen for many reasons.  some people do not put a high value on sex.  some people have been harmed before and might have a damaged view on intercourse.  others may want to wait for the right person to have sex with because they place even more value on it than others.  it does not mean that they are weird, or bad, or anything.  they are simply a person that has not had sex yet.   #  it is normal for every single living thing on the planet to have sex or reproduce .   #  it is because we are inherently social and sexual beings.  every living creature on the planet is programmed to reproduce and by some measures it is their sole purpose, but that is a bit heavy so if someone is incapable of fulfilling their genetic imperative, they are 0 a failure of human nature.  you ask why are people who have sex considered normal ? because it is normal to have sex.  it is normal for every single living thing on the planet to have sex or reproduce .  if a person is not able to have sex with someone, it means they are socially inept, do not care about their appearance, have no confidence, probably carry an immense amount of emotional baggage, and or lack the conscience required to discipline themselves and achieve an important goal because their egos are bruised.  but would you suggest that these things are not in fact measures of someone is character ? bear in mind i am not pulling these things out of thin air, all of these applied to me once.  which brings us to another reason why the 0 year old virgin has a damaged character, he is unwilling to accept his own failures constantly moving the goalposts, defiantly asking  what is  normal  anyhow ?  , creating excuses for why he has not gotten something he desperately wants on a daily basis.   #  but when i say we are programmed to reproduce, let is just say that having sex and reproducing are the same in terms of biological mechanisms that encourage us to seek out and enjoy sex, regardless of our preferences.   #  you are splitting hairs.  i hope we can all understand that there are subtleties to human sexuality, that homosexuals exist, and that some people have little or no sex drive.  but when i say we are programmed to reproduce, let is just say that having sex and reproducing are the same in terms of biological mechanisms that encourage us to seek out and enjoy sex, regardless of our preferences.  and that the existence of gay and asexual people hold no sway in the scope of this argument considering 0 gay people have sex and 0 the people in question are by no means necessarily asexual.  we are talking about 0 year old virgins who have definitely wanted sex.  i also crossed out the  human  in human nature, because human nature brings up a whole slew of philosophical bullshit.  for the sake of this argument let is all admit that nearly 0 of us have physical, chemical, biological urges to fuck.  that is what i meant by nature.   #  bearing in mind that not having sex in and of itself is not a character flaw, much in the way that not all people are dtf every minute of every day.   #  if not having sex for the entirety of your life is altogether  torturous  then that should be a clear enough indication that it is a problem in your life, or in op is terms that something is  wrong  with you.  if a person would rather lie and convince themselves they do not really want something instead of working tirelessly to improve themselves physically, socially and mentally to achieve something they want, then they are either lazy, delusional, or both.  i am glad you posed that in the form of a question, because americans do not consider virgins worthless freaks at all, rather, we hold them accountable for their character flaws.  bearing in mind that not having sex in and of itself is not a character flaw, much in the way that not all people are dtf every minute of every day.  it is when it is a chronic issue for them and they waste their life away doing mental gymnastics to  accept  themselves instead of  recognizing  themselves and working to make personal improvements.
arguing about this salon. com article: the 0 year old virgin: life without sex is only torturous if you let it be URL there is a fark. com thread URL about it, and i agree with these comments: there is something wrong about you if you are a 0 year old virgin:     yes, yes there is.  that you ca not connect with another human being sexually after 0/0 of your life points to massive issues in your ability to choose a mate and seal the deal.  spend some money on therapy or write another blog article about how being a mommies boy is also just fine.      he seems to be throwing a lot of blame around in that article and dwelling on past heartbreaks/embarrassments.  i have known women who were comic groupies yes, they exist, i was surprised as anyone and he is not wrong in his initial statement that it should be near impossible for any halfway decent comic who regularly performs to avoid getting laid.      and i say that if you do not have that by 0, you are kind of farked as a person.  in a perfect world, you should be looking to get therapy as to why.      sad     i was going to write a reflective, insightful post and then it occurred to me that all that really needs to be said here is  what a huge dork.       yeah i guess what they do not know wo not hurt them.  seems an awful waste to spend that much time alone.      thing is there are girls for guys like him not the comic groupie part, but rather the nerdy, pudgy, pasty white guy with a sense of humor .  all you need is a minute amount of confidence to just go with the situation, and if he is truly a comic, then he has to have some confidence in there somewhere.  he does sound like his own worst enemy     there is nothing wrong with being a 0 year old virgin, but occam is razor says if you did not choose to be such, there is probably something wrong with you.  think about it.  how many people do you know are virgins at that age ? the cdc put it at 0 of all males between ages 0 0.  just how different would these guys be to some regular folk ? how strange would it be if you found out the guy you are dating never had sex ? it brings a lot of unpleasant questions about that person is character.  people in general do not want to be around strange people, and that would even work to hinder his chances to lose it by being ostracized which makes it a catch 0 .  all in all, it points out the immaturity of the person, and just how underdeveloped he is.  i also do not think you should  fuck what other people think of you .  that is juvenile.  we live in a society, and we are expected to belong, contribute and integrate with it.  this attitude is anti social.   #  it brings a lot of unpleasant questions about that person is character.   #  people in general do not want to be around strange people, and that would even work to hinder his chances to lose it by being ostracized which makes it a catch 0 .   # people in general do not want to be around strange people, and that would even work to hinder his chances to lose it by being ostracized which makes it a catch 0 .  all in all, it points out the immaturity of the person, and just how underdeveloped he is.  replace usa with a traditional country and  virgin  by  slut .  it is the same in a traditional country where one is character is brought into question if they had sex before marriage, or are not married and with kids by a certain age.  so, yes, the society making judgements about a person regarding their sexual and marital history is an oppressive society, something that should not be considered  normal .  you have said it yourself, such ostracization would lead to a catch 0 situation.  all the more reason why someone should not be virgin shamed or slut shamed.  of course, wanting to get laid and not getting is a failure just like many other failures in life such as not getting your dream job, dropping out of school or college, not losing weight/gaining muscles, ending up in prison, getting paralyzed etc, but it is a  personal  failure, and not a failure of responsibility to the society as your post implies.   #  some people do not put a high value on sex.   #  i have not read the details of the article or the person is situation so i wo not speak to that.  i am merely going to address your points and the quotes you highlighted.  it seems pretty ass backwards to say that someone is social worth is indicated by the fact of whether they had sex at all.  people are more than whether or not they have had sex hell, i would say sex is inconsequential to other human endeavors.  i think this is a pretty harmful view that a man is value is determined by having sex at least once.  what if they had sex once 0 years ago ? does that change everything about the person is character, even though they have had an incredibly long dry spell ? to you it seems that it must change something about them, but i do not see how it informs you at all about the person.  things like this happen for many reasons.  some people do not put a high value on sex.  some people have been harmed before and might have a damaged view on intercourse.  others may want to wait for the right person to have sex with because they place even more value on it than others.  it does not mean that they are weird, or bad, or anything.  they are simply a person that has not had sex yet.   #  bear in mind i am not pulling these things out of thin air, all of these applied to me once.   #  it is because we are inherently social and sexual beings.  every living creature on the planet is programmed to reproduce and by some measures it is their sole purpose, but that is a bit heavy so if someone is incapable of fulfilling their genetic imperative, they are 0 a failure of human nature.  you ask why are people who have sex considered normal ? because it is normal to have sex.  it is normal for every single living thing on the planet to have sex or reproduce .  if a person is not able to have sex with someone, it means they are socially inept, do not care about their appearance, have no confidence, probably carry an immense amount of emotional baggage, and or lack the conscience required to discipline themselves and achieve an important goal because their egos are bruised.  but would you suggest that these things are not in fact measures of someone is character ? bear in mind i am not pulling these things out of thin air, all of these applied to me once.  which brings us to another reason why the 0 year old virgin has a damaged character, he is unwilling to accept his own failures constantly moving the goalposts, defiantly asking  what is  normal  anyhow ?  , creating excuses for why he has not gotten something he desperately wants on a daily basis.   #  but when i say we are programmed to reproduce, let is just say that having sex and reproducing are the same in terms of biological mechanisms that encourage us to seek out and enjoy sex, regardless of our preferences.   #  you are splitting hairs.  i hope we can all understand that there are subtleties to human sexuality, that homosexuals exist, and that some people have little or no sex drive.  but when i say we are programmed to reproduce, let is just say that having sex and reproducing are the same in terms of biological mechanisms that encourage us to seek out and enjoy sex, regardless of our preferences.  and that the existence of gay and asexual people hold no sway in the scope of this argument considering 0 gay people have sex and 0 the people in question are by no means necessarily asexual.  we are talking about 0 year old virgins who have definitely wanted sex.  i also crossed out the  human  in human nature, because human nature brings up a whole slew of philosophical bullshit.  for the sake of this argument let is all admit that nearly 0 of us have physical, chemical, biological urges to fuck.  that is what i meant by nature.   #  i am glad you posed that in the form of a question, because americans do not consider virgins worthless freaks at all, rather, we hold them accountable for their character flaws.   #  if not having sex for the entirety of your life is altogether  torturous  then that should be a clear enough indication that it is a problem in your life, or in op is terms that something is  wrong  with you.  if a person would rather lie and convince themselves they do not really want something instead of working tirelessly to improve themselves physically, socially and mentally to achieve something they want, then they are either lazy, delusional, or both.  i am glad you posed that in the form of a question, because americans do not consider virgins worthless freaks at all, rather, we hold them accountable for their character flaws.  bearing in mind that not having sex in and of itself is not a character flaw, much in the way that not all people are dtf every minute of every day.  it is when it is a chronic issue for them and they waste their life away doing mental gymnastics to  accept  themselves instead of  recognizing  themselves and working to make personal improvements.
arguing about this salon. com article: the 0 year old virgin: life without sex is only torturous if you let it be URL there is a fark. com thread URL about it, and i agree with these comments: there is something wrong about you if you are a 0 year old virgin:     yes, yes there is.  that you ca not connect with another human being sexually after 0/0 of your life points to massive issues in your ability to choose a mate and seal the deal.  spend some money on therapy or write another blog article about how being a mommies boy is also just fine.      he seems to be throwing a lot of blame around in that article and dwelling on past heartbreaks/embarrassments.  i have known women who were comic groupies yes, they exist, i was surprised as anyone and he is not wrong in his initial statement that it should be near impossible for any halfway decent comic who regularly performs to avoid getting laid.      and i say that if you do not have that by 0, you are kind of farked as a person.  in a perfect world, you should be looking to get therapy as to why.      sad     i was going to write a reflective, insightful post and then it occurred to me that all that really needs to be said here is  what a huge dork.       yeah i guess what they do not know wo not hurt them.  seems an awful waste to spend that much time alone.      thing is there are girls for guys like him not the comic groupie part, but rather the nerdy, pudgy, pasty white guy with a sense of humor .  all you need is a minute amount of confidence to just go with the situation, and if he is truly a comic, then he has to have some confidence in there somewhere.  he does sound like his own worst enemy     there is nothing wrong with being a 0 year old virgin, but occam is razor says if you did not choose to be such, there is probably something wrong with you.  think about it.  how many people do you know are virgins at that age ? the cdc put it at 0 of all males between ages 0 0.  just how different would these guys be to some regular folk ? how strange would it be if you found out the guy you are dating never had sex ? it brings a lot of unpleasant questions about that person is character.  people in general do not want to be around strange people, and that would even work to hinder his chances to lose it by being ostracized which makes it a catch 0 .  all in all, it points out the immaturity of the person, and just how underdeveloped he is.  i also do not think you should  fuck what other people think of you .  that is juvenile.  we live in a society, and we are expected to belong, contribute and integrate with it.  this attitude is anti social.   #  yeah i guess what they do not know wo not hurt them.   #  seems an awful waste to spend that much time alone.   # that you ca not connect with another human being sexually after 0/0 of your life points to massive issues in your ability to choose a mate and seal the deal.  so the only way to connect with someone is having sex with them ? he is talking himself out of closing the deal.  there are plenty of parallels between sales and picking someone up, and one of the basic rules of sales is  know when to shut the hell up .  maybe he is not interested enough to actively search ? very insightful, thanks.  seems an awful waste to spend that much time alone.  yeah, how dare people enjoy different things or having different priorities ! how can someone not like spending every minutiae of their life being on crowded parties and having one night stands ? he does sound like his own worst enemy  be confident  ? gee what a great advice.  hey, you, bulimic, stop throwing up, i think it will help with your eating disorder.  how many people do you know are virgins at that age ? the cdc put it at 0 of all males between ages 0 0.  just how different would these guys be to some regular folk ? how strange would it be if you found out the guy you are dating never had sex ? so uncommon equals bad ? how does virginity equal immaturity or underdevelopment ? that is juvenile.  we live in a society, and we are expected to belong, contribute and integrate with it.  this attitude is anti social.  first of all, you probably meant  asocial .  second of all, you should not automatically agree or do something because it is accepted.  i find pressuring yourself to lose your virginity as soon as possible to fit in way more pathetic than being a virgin in your thirties.   #  i think this is a pretty harmful view that a man is value is determined by having sex at least once.   #  i have not read the details of the article or the person is situation so i wo not speak to that.  i am merely going to address your points and the quotes you highlighted.  it seems pretty ass backwards to say that someone is social worth is indicated by the fact of whether they had sex at all.  people are more than whether or not they have had sex hell, i would say sex is inconsequential to other human endeavors.  i think this is a pretty harmful view that a man is value is determined by having sex at least once.  what if they had sex once 0 years ago ? does that change everything about the person is character, even though they have had an incredibly long dry spell ? to you it seems that it must change something about them, but i do not see how it informs you at all about the person.  things like this happen for many reasons.  some people do not put a high value on sex.  some people have been harmed before and might have a damaged view on intercourse.  others may want to wait for the right person to have sex with because they place even more value on it than others.  it does not mean that they are weird, or bad, or anything.  they are simply a person that has not had sex yet.   #  it is normal for every single living thing on the planet to have sex or reproduce .   #  it is because we are inherently social and sexual beings.  every living creature on the planet is programmed to reproduce and by some measures it is their sole purpose, but that is a bit heavy so if someone is incapable of fulfilling their genetic imperative, they are 0 a failure of human nature.  you ask why are people who have sex considered normal ? because it is normal to have sex.  it is normal for every single living thing on the planet to have sex or reproduce .  if a person is not able to have sex with someone, it means they are socially inept, do not care about their appearance, have no confidence, probably carry an immense amount of emotional baggage, and or lack the conscience required to discipline themselves and achieve an important goal because their egos are bruised.  but would you suggest that these things are not in fact measures of someone is character ? bear in mind i am not pulling these things out of thin air, all of these applied to me once.  which brings us to another reason why the 0 year old virgin has a damaged character, he is unwilling to accept his own failures constantly moving the goalposts, defiantly asking  what is  normal  anyhow ?  , creating excuses for why he has not gotten something he desperately wants on a daily basis.   #  we are talking about 0 year old virgins who have definitely wanted sex.   #  you are splitting hairs.  i hope we can all understand that there are subtleties to human sexuality, that homosexuals exist, and that some people have little or no sex drive.  but when i say we are programmed to reproduce, let is just say that having sex and reproducing are the same in terms of biological mechanisms that encourage us to seek out and enjoy sex, regardless of our preferences.  and that the existence of gay and asexual people hold no sway in the scope of this argument considering 0 gay people have sex and 0 the people in question are by no means necessarily asexual.  we are talking about 0 year old virgins who have definitely wanted sex.  i also crossed out the  human  in human nature, because human nature brings up a whole slew of philosophical bullshit.  for the sake of this argument let is all admit that nearly 0 of us have physical, chemical, biological urges to fuck.  that is what i meant by nature.   #  if not having sex for the entirety of your life is altogether  torturous  then that should be a clear enough indication that it is a problem in your life, or in op is terms that something is  wrong  with you.   #  if not having sex for the entirety of your life is altogether  torturous  then that should be a clear enough indication that it is a problem in your life, or in op is terms that something is  wrong  with you.  if a person would rather lie and convince themselves they do not really want something instead of working tirelessly to improve themselves physically, socially and mentally to achieve something they want, then they are either lazy, delusional, or both.  i am glad you posed that in the form of a question, because americans do not consider virgins worthless freaks at all, rather, we hold them accountable for their character flaws.  bearing in mind that not having sex in and of itself is not a character flaw, much in the way that not all people are dtf every minute of every day.  it is when it is a chronic issue for them and they waste their life away doing mental gymnastics to  accept  themselves instead of  recognizing  themselves and working to make personal improvements.
arguing about this salon. com article: the 0 year old virgin: life without sex is only torturous if you let it be URL there is a fark. com thread URL about it, and i agree with these comments: there is something wrong about you if you are a 0 year old virgin:     yes, yes there is.  that you ca not connect with another human being sexually after 0/0 of your life points to massive issues in your ability to choose a mate and seal the deal.  spend some money on therapy or write another blog article about how being a mommies boy is also just fine.      he seems to be throwing a lot of blame around in that article and dwelling on past heartbreaks/embarrassments.  i have known women who were comic groupies yes, they exist, i was surprised as anyone and he is not wrong in his initial statement that it should be near impossible for any halfway decent comic who regularly performs to avoid getting laid.      and i say that if you do not have that by 0, you are kind of farked as a person.  in a perfect world, you should be looking to get therapy as to why.      sad     i was going to write a reflective, insightful post and then it occurred to me that all that really needs to be said here is  what a huge dork.       yeah i guess what they do not know wo not hurt them.  seems an awful waste to spend that much time alone.      thing is there are girls for guys like him not the comic groupie part, but rather the nerdy, pudgy, pasty white guy with a sense of humor .  all you need is a minute amount of confidence to just go with the situation, and if he is truly a comic, then he has to have some confidence in there somewhere.  he does sound like his own worst enemy     there is nothing wrong with being a 0 year old virgin, but occam is razor says if you did not choose to be such, there is probably something wrong with you.  think about it.  how many people do you know are virgins at that age ? the cdc put it at 0 of all males between ages 0 0.  just how different would these guys be to some regular folk ? how strange would it be if you found out the guy you are dating never had sex ? it brings a lot of unpleasant questions about that person is character.  people in general do not want to be around strange people, and that would even work to hinder his chances to lose it by being ostracized which makes it a catch 0 .  all in all, it points out the immaturity of the person, and just how underdeveloped he is.  i also do not think you should  fuck what other people think of you .  that is juvenile.  we live in a society, and we are expected to belong, contribute and integrate with it.  this attitude is anti social.   #  all you need is a minute amount of confidence to just go with the situation, and if he is truly a comic, then he has to have some confidence in there somewhere.   #  he does sound like his own worst enemy  be confident  ?  # that you ca not connect with another human being sexually after 0/0 of your life points to massive issues in your ability to choose a mate and seal the deal.  so the only way to connect with someone is having sex with them ? he is talking himself out of closing the deal.  there are plenty of parallels between sales and picking someone up, and one of the basic rules of sales is  know when to shut the hell up .  maybe he is not interested enough to actively search ? very insightful, thanks.  seems an awful waste to spend that much time alone.  yeah, how dare people enjoy different things or having different priorities ! how can someone not like spending every minutiae of their life being on crowded parties and having one night stands ? he does sound like his own worst enemy  be confident  ? gee what a great advice.  hey, you, bulimic, stop throwing up, i think it will help with your eating disorder.  how many people do you know are virgins at that age ? the cdc put it at 0 of all males between ages 0 0.  just how different would these guys be to some regular folk ? how strange would it be if you found out the guy you are dating never had sex ? so uncommon equals bad ? how does virginity equal immaturity or underdevelopment ? that is juvenile.  we live in a society, and we are expected to belong, contribute and integrate with it.  this attitude is anti social.  first of all, you probably meant  asocial .  second of all, you should not automatically agree or do something because it is accepted.  i find pressuring yourself to lose your virginity as soon as possible to fit in way more pathetic than being a virgin in your thirties.   #  does that change everything about the person is character, even though they have had an incredibly long dry spell ?  #  i have not read the details of the article or the person is situation so i wo not speak to that.  i am merely going to address your points and the quotes you highlighted.  it seems pretty ass backwards to say that someone is social worth is indicated by the fact of whether they had sex at all.  people are more than whether or not they have had sex hell, i would say sex is inconsequential to other human endeavors.  i think this is a pretty harmful view that a man is value is determined by having sex at least once.  what if they had sex once 0 years ago ? does that change everything about the person is character, even though they have had an incredibly long dry spell ? to you it seems that it must change something about them, but i do not see how it informs you at all about the person.  things like this happen for many reasons.  some people do not put a high value on sex.  some people have been harmed before and might have a damaged view on intercourse.  others may want to wait for the right person to have sex with because they place even more value on it than others.  it does not mean that they are weird, or bad, or anything.  they are simply a person that has not had sex yet.   #  which brings us to another reason why the 0 year old virgin has a damaged character, he is unwilling to accept his own failures constantly moving the goalposts, defiantly asking  what is  normal  anyhow ?  #  it is because we are inherently social and sexual beings.  every living creature on the planet is programmed to reproduce and by some measures it is their sole purpose, but that is a bit heavy so if someone is incapable of fulfilling their genetic imperative, they are 0 a failure of human nature.  you ask why are people who have sex considered normal ? because it is normal to have sex.  it is normal for every single living thing on the planet to have sex or reproduce .  if a person is not able to have sex with someone, it means they are socially inept, do not care about their appearance, have no confidence, probably carry an immense amount of emotional baggage, and or lack the conscience required to discipline themselves and achieve an important goal because their egos are bruised.  but would you suggest that these things are not in fact measures of someone is character ? bear in mind i am not pulling these things out of thin air, all of these applied to me once.  which brings us to another reason why the 0 year old virgin has a damaged character, he is unwilling to accept his own failures constantly moving the goalposts, defiantly asking  what is  normal  anyhow ?  , creating excuses for why he has not gotten something he desperately wants on a daily basis.   #  and that the existence of gay and asexual people hold no sway in the scope of this argument considering 0 gay people have sex and 0 the people in question are by no means necessarily asexual.   #  you are splitting hairs.  i hope we can all understand that there are subtleties to human sexuality, that homosexuals exist, and that some people have little or no sex drive.  but when i say we are programmed to reproduce, let is just say that having sex and reproducing are the same in terms of biological mechanisms that encourage us to seek out and enjoy sex, regardless of our preferences.  and that the existence of gay and asexual people hold no sway in the scope of this argument considering 0 gay people have sex and 0 the people in question are by no means necessarily asexual.  we are talking about 0 year old virgins who have definitely wanted sex.  i also crossed out the  human  in human nature, because human nature brings up a whole slew of philosophical bullshit.  for the sake of this argument let is all admit that nearly 0 of us have physical, chemical, biological urges to fuck.  that is what i meant by nature.   #  if a person would rather lie and convince themselves they do not really want something instead of working tirelessly to improve themselves physically, socially and mentally to achieve something they want, then they are either lazy, delusional, or both.   #  if not having sex for the entirety of your life is altogether  torturous  then that should be a clear enough indication that it is a problem in your life, or in op is terms that something is  wrong  with you.  if a person would rather lie and convince themselves they do not really want something instead of working tirelessly to improve themselves physically, socially and mentally to achieve something they want, then they are either lazy, delusional, or both.  i am glad you posed that in the form of a question, because americans do not consider virgins worthless freaks at all, rather, we hold them accountable for their character flaws.  bearing in mind that not having sex in and of itself is not a character flaw, much in the way that not all people are dtf every minute of every day.  it is when it is a chronic issue for them and they waste their life away doing mental gymnastics to  accept  themselves instead of  recognizing  themselves and working to make personal improvements.
arguing about this salon. com article: the 0 year old virgin: life without sex is only torturous if you let it be URL there is a fark. com thread URL about it, and i agree with these comments: there is something wrong about you if you are a 0 year old virgin:     yes, yes there is.  that you ca not connect with another human being sexually after 0/0 of your life points to massive issues in your ability to choose a mate and seal the deal.  spend some money on therapy or write another blog article about how being a mommies boy is also just fine.      he seems to be throwing a lot of blame around in that article and dwelling on past heartbreaks/embarrassments.  i have known women who were comic groupies yes, they exist, i was surprised as anyone and he is not wrong in his initial statement that it should be near impossible for any halfway decent comic who regularly performs to avoid getting laid.      and i say that if you do not have that by 0, you are kind of farked as a person.  in a perfect world, you should be looking to get therapy as to why.      sad     i was going to write a reflective, insightful post and then it occurred to me that all that really needs to be said here is  what a huge dork.       yeah i guess what they do not know wo not hurt them.  seems an awful waste to spend that much time alone.      thing is there are girls for guys like him not the comic groupie part, but rather the nerdy, pudgy, pasty white guy with a sense of humor .  all you need is a minute amount of confidence to just go with the situation, and if he is truly a comic, then he has to have some confidence in there somewhere.  he does sound like his own worst enemy     there is nothing wrong with being a 0 year old virgin, but occam is razor says if you did not choose to be such, there is probably something wrong with you.  think about it.  how many people do you know are virgins at that age ? the cdc put it at 0 of all males between ages 0 0.  just how different would these guys be to some regular folk ? how strange would it be if you found out the guy you are dating never had sex ? it brings a lot of unpleasant questions about that person is character.  people in general do not want to be around strange people, and that would even work to hinder his chances to lose it by being ostracized which makes it a catch 0 .  all in all, it points out the immaturity of the person, and just how underdeveloped he is.  i also do not think you should  fuck what other people think of you .  that is juvenile.  we live in a society, and we are expected to belong, contribute and integrate with it.  this attitude is anti social.   #  all in all, it points out the immaturity of the person, and just how underdeveloped he is.   #  how does virginity equal immaturity or underdevelopment ?  # that you ca not connect with another human being sexually after 0/0 of your life points to massive issues in your ability to choose a mate and seal the deal.  so the only way to connect with someone is having sex with them ? he is talking himself out of closing the deal.  there are plenty of parallels between sales and picking someone up, and one of the basic rules of sales is  know when to shut the hell up .  maybe he is not interested enough to actively search ? very insightful, thanks.  seems an awful waste to spend that much time alone.  yeah, how dare people enjoy different things or having different priorities ! how can someone not like spending every minutiae of their life being on crowded parties and having one night stands ? he does sound like his own worst enemy  be confident  ? gee what a great advice.  hey, you, bulimic, stop throwing up, i think it will help with your eating disorder.  how many people do you know are virgins at that age ? the cdc put it at 0 of all males between ages 0 0.  just how different would these guys be to some regular folk ? how strange would it be if you found out the guy you are dating never had sex ? so uncommon equals bad ? how does virginity equal immaturity or underdevelopment ? that is juvenile.  we live in a society, and we are expected to belong, contribute and integrate with it.  this attitude is anti social.  first of all, you probably meant  asocial .  second of all, you should not automatically agree or do something because it is accepted.  i find pressuring yourself to lose your virginity as soon as possible to fit in way more pathetic than being a virgin in your thirties.   #  some people have been harmed before and might have a damaged view on intercourse.   #  i have not read the details of the article or the person is situation so i wo not speak to that.  i am merely going to address your points and the quotes you highlighted.  it seems pretty ass backwards to say that someone is social worth is indicated by the fact of whether they had sex at all.  people are more than whether or not they have had sex hell, i would say sex is inconsequential to other human endeavors.  i think this is a pretty harmful view that a man is value is determined by having sex at least once.  what if they had sex once 0 years ago ? does that change everything about the person is character, even though they have had an incredibly long dry spell ? to you it seems that it must change something about them, but i do not see how it informs you at all about the person.  things like this happen for many reasons.  some people do not put a high value on sex.  some people have been harmed before and might have a damaged view on intercourse.  others may want to wait for the right person to have sex with because they place even more value on it than others.  it does not mean that they are weird, or bad, or anything.  they are simply a person that has not had sex yet.   #  you ask why are people who have sex considered normal ?  #  it is because we are inherently social and sexual beings.  every living creature on the planet is programmed to reproduce and by some measures it is their sole purpose, but that is a bit heavy so if someone is incapable of fulfilling their genetic imperative, they are 0 a failure of human nature.  you ask why are people who have sex considered normal ? because it is normal to have sex.  it is normal for every single living thing on the planet to have sex or reproduce .  if a person is not able to have sex with someone, it means they are socially inept, do not care about their appearance, have no confidence, probably carry an immense amount of emotional baggage, and or lack the conscience required to discipline themselves and achieve an important goal because their egos are bruised.  but would you suggest that these things are not in fact measures of someone is character ? bear in mind i am not pulling these things out of thin air, all of these applied to me once.  which brings us to another reason why the 0 year old virgin has a damaged character, he is unwilling to accept his own failures constantly moving the goalposts, defiantly asking  what is  normal  anyhow ?  , creating excuses for why he has not gotten something he desperately wants on a daily basis.   #  and that the existence of gay and asexual people hold no sway in the scope of this argument considering 0 gay people have sex and 0 the people in question are by no means necessarily asexual.   #  you are splitting hairs.  i hope we can all understand that there are subtleties to human sexuality, that homosexuals exist, and that some people have little or no sex drive.  but when i say we are programmed to reproduce, let is just say that having sex and reproducing are the same in terms of biological mechanisms that encourage us to seek out and enjoy sex, regardless of our preferences.  and that the existence of gay and asexual people hold no sway in the scope of this argument considering 0 gay people have sex and 0 the people in question are by no means necessarily asexual.  we are talking about 0 year old virgins who have definitely wanted sex.  i also crossed out the  human  in human nature, because human nature brings up a whole slew of philosophical bullshit.  for the sake of this argument let is all admit that nearly 0 of us have physical, chemical, biological urges to fuck.  that is what i meant by nature.   #  bearing in mind that not having sex in and of itself is not a character flaw, much in the way that not all people are dtf every minute of every day.   #  if not having sex for the entirety of your life is altogether  torturous  then that should be a clear enough indication that it is a problem in your life, or in op is terms that something is  wrong  with you.  if a person would rather lie and convince themselves they do not really want something instead of working tirelessly to improve themselves physically, socially and mentally to achieve something they want, then they are either lazy, delusional, or both.  i am glad you posed that in the form of a question, because americans do not consider virgins worthless freaks at all, rather, we hold them accountable for their character flaws.  bearing in mind that not having sex in and of itself is not a character flaw, much in the way that not all people are dtf every minute of every day.  it is when it is a chronic issue for them and they waste their life away doing mental gymnastics to  accept  themselves instead of  recognizing  themselves and working to make personal improvements.
it is the most common topic in high school debating, and usually it is far easier for the side arguing it should not be banned; it does not address the real problem, it raises good money through taxes and people will still smoke see alcohol prohibition .  indeed it often seems like an exercise in understanding why even though smoking is reviled, it needs to be legal.  so i feel like an idiot for believing that if smoking were to be banned, there would be a rapid drop off in usage.  while some criminals will profit from getting into the illegal cigarette business, it seems like the majority of smokers are law abiding citizens who otherwise have no involvement in the criminal world.  many people addicted to smoking are older and have families; would a mother really begin associating with criminals just to continue something she knows is a destructive habit she is been meaning to quit anyway.  on the flipside, how far a length would people go to obtain a drug that gives a mild buzz, especially if you ca not do it with your friends in public.  whatever purpose young people seek from smoking seems to come just as easily from energy drinks.  i would think that, if it has the same accessibility as marijuana and ecstasy, which are statistically safer drugs as far as overall health effects, people would seek out those other drugs.  with banning smoking comes a decline in the social factors that contribute to the continued transition to addiction.  smoke breaks at work, going out the back of the bar for a smoke and a quiet chat, making a friend with a lighter.  society will find a way to achieve all those things, and gone will be the cross purposes of smoking.  sure, those who are already addicted to smoking will continue to smoke, and it will be criminals profiting instead of small business and government.  but this would be a small portion of smokers.  also on the government point, is it really ethical for our government to be profiting from something so destructive ? it is good that taxes are used to discourage smoking, but i am not sure if it works all that well for something so addictive, nor will it be easy for the government to give up.  i have been up against people with those arguments in debates and trounced them every time.  but those are my views, and i never quite understand why they are so silly.  i did not make this topic to argue whether smoking is a good thing or not.  i do not want to change that view.  nor do i want to argue whether it is someone is right to smoke or not; that is an issue for another thread and comes under a similar umbrella to other drugs.  what i am seeking to change is my view that given smoking is bad, banning it is the best move for public health, rather than the commonly accepted status quo of disincentives like taxes, warnings, plain packaging, advertising bans and other measures.   #  so i feel like an idiot for believing that if smoking were to be banned, there would be a rapid drop off in usage.   #  while some criminals will profit from getting into the illegal cigarette business, it seems like the majority of smokers are law abiding citizens who otherwise have no involvement in the criminal world.   #  while i completely agree with /u/settrah, i am going to take a different approach.  while some criminals will profit from getting into the illegal cigarette business, it seems like the majority of smokers are law abiding citizens who otherwise have no involvement in the criminal world.  many people addicted to smoking are older and have families; would a mother really begin associating with criminals just to continue something she knows is a destructive habit she is been meaning to quit anyway.  for reference, i am using the acs website URL as my source.  tobacco is already a widely used drug, much more than most current controlled substances act drugs.  tobacco is one of the most addictive drugs on the market, consistant with cocaine and heroin.  it is also much more readily available, so people use the drug much more frequently.  for your idea that people will just stop:   about 0 of smokers say they want to quit and about half try to quit each year, but only 0 to 0 succeed without help.  there is also a strong emotional psychological dependence; this is what leads to relapse after quitting.  the smoker may link smoking with social activities and many other activities, too.  smokers also may use tobacco to help manage unpleasant feelings and emotions, which can become a problem for some smokers when they try to quit.  all of these factors make smoking a hard habit to break.  researchers recently reviewed 0 different studies of people who were trying to quit using the substance they were addicted to.  they focused on the people in the studies who did not get any medicines to help them quit.  many of these people had other kinds of support for quitting, such as behavioral therapy, so success rates may have been higher than if they would had no help at all.  about 0 were able to quit drinking, and more than 0 were able to quit opiates or cocaine, but only 0 were able to quit smoking.  taking a highly addictive, completely legal, widely used substance and declaring it illegal will just make millions of americans into overnight criminals.  also, you ca not even begin to imagine the economic damage caused by lost tax revenue from tobacco sales and the loss of jobs in tobacco country  #  lost tax revenue would take a shit on the economy.   #  since there is a huge user base of highly addicted smokers nicotine is often  the  most addictive substance in studies, sometimes second after heroin , the only effect such a law would have would be the instant creation of a huge black market.  since our societies all over the world have had a 0 success in curbing the black markets of other illegal drugs, there is not really any chance we would contain this one either.  so, people would not stop smoking.  the life of a smoker would just suck even more and yet not enough to quit, trust me .  cigarettes would become more expensive, have less quality control.  smokers would have to smoke at home only, which would give them terrible withdrawal symptoms during the day and probably ruin their productivity as well as making them highly irritable.  the black market would lead to more gang violence, as it always does.  lost tax revenue would take a shit on the economy.  it would just be awful in every way.   #  the price of tobacco would decrease instead of skyrocketing as with normal prohibition, minimizing the incentive of the black market drug dealers to produce and sell tobacco.   #  what if we did not prohibit the sale of tobacco, just the consumption of said tobacco.  you do not decrease the supply of tobacco and at the same time decreasing the demand for tobacco.  the price of tobacco would decrease instead of skyrocketing as with normal prohibition, minimizing the incentive of the black market drug dealers to produce and sell tobacco.  allowing the tobacco companies to continue selling would not force tobacco production and selling to the cartels, a big contribution to the violence in prohibition.  we have already seen this to a certain extent with all the laws prohibiting smoking in many public places.  smoking has become viewed as a contemptible activity, smokers now must huddle in defensive groups to the side of doors, and smoking has consistently decreased nationally URL  #  but my main point: what a lot of people seem to forget is that laws like these will make the lives of smokers really really shitty they are people too you know ?  #  i think the decrease in smoking is due to young people not starting, not smokers quitting.  this trend i think is hard to reverse at this point because it is so well known today how bad smoking is and advertising for smoking has become illegal.  i do not think we need to do much more.  and i am not convinced that making consumption illegal would make things change faster.  for teens making it illegal might just make it even more cool and rebellious, especially if the supply stays the same.  but my main point: what a lot of people seem to forget is that laws like these will make the lives of smokers really really shitty they are people too you know ? even if they made a terrible decision .  when a drug is as addictive as nicotine and when an addict of said drug need their fix every 0 hours or so, then banning that drug will make the users life a nightmare if they have a job.  they will be more or less constantly in withdrawal.  other than completely ruining the mental health of this group of people, i think we would also see a noticeable drop in productivity, as they would frankly just start sucking at their jobs.   #  it was a spectacular failure, but they did it.   #  that is not true at all.  the government was able to ban alcohol in the 0s.  it was a spectacular failure, but they did it.  prohibition did not fail because it was morally wrong, or because the government was unable to enforce alcohol as it was sold before prohibition came into effect.  they were just unable to stop all the other things that popped up.  those things are considerations when considering smoking as a public health issue.  what would the 0st century tobacco equivalent of speakeasies be ? personal freedoms and liberties are not relevant.
it is the most common topic in high school debating, and usually it is far easier for the side arguing it should not be banned; it does not address the real problem, it raises good money through taxes and people will still smoke see alcohol prohibition .  indeed it often seems like an exercise in understanding why even though smoking is reviled, it needs to be legal.  so i feel like an idiot for believing that if smoking were to be banned, there would be a rapid drop off in usage.  while some criminals will profit from getting into the illegal cigarette business, it seems like the majority of smokers are law abiding citizens who otherwise have no involvement in the criminal world.  many people addicted to smoking are older and have families; would a mother really begin associating with criminals just to continue something she knows is a destructive habit she is been meaning to quit anyway.  on the flipside, how far a length would people go to obtain a drug that gives a mild buzz, especially if you ca not do it with your friends in public.  whatever purpose young people seek from smoking seems to come just as easily from energy drinks.  i would think that, if it has the same accessibility as marijuana and ecstasy, which are statistically safer drugs as far as overall health effects, people would seek out those other drugs.  with banning smoking comes a decline in the social factors that contribute to the continued transition to addiction.  smoke breaks at work, going out the back of the bar for a smoke and a quiet chat, making a friend with a lighter.  society will find a way to achieve all those things, and gone will be the cross purposes of smoking.  sure, those who are already addicted to smoking will continue to smoke, and it will be criminals profiting instead of small business and government.  but this would be a small portion of smokers.  also on the government point, is it really ethical for our government to be profiting from something so destructive ? it is good that taxes are used to discourage smoking, but i am not sure if it works all that well for something so addictive, nor will it be easy for the government to give up.  i have been up against people with those arguments in debates and trounced them every time.  but those are my views, and i never quite understand why they are so silly.  i did not make this topic to argue whether smoking is a good thing or not.  i do not want to change that view.  nor do i want to argue whether it is someone is right to smoke or not; that is an issue for another thread and comes under a similar umbrella to other drugs.  what i am seeking to change is my view that given smoking is bad, banning it is the best move for public health, rather than the commonly accepted status quo of disincentives like taxes, warnings, plain packaging, advertising bans and other measures.   #  i have been up against people with those arguments in debates and trounced them every time.   #  but those are my views, and i never quite understand why they are so silly.   # but those are my views, and i never quite understand why they are so silly.  reading through this, i suspect the reason is that you are unwilling to take your argument beyond the hypothetical.  and for that reason it would seem that you only think you trounce people in those arguments.  if you refuse to look beyond the  strictly  public health argument, at the criminal, logistical, dare i even say moral arguments, then there is no debate.  banning smoking  would  reduce the number of smokers, no doubt.  but you have to acknowledge that it would create x,y and z problems, and that you believe those problems would be outweighed by the benefit to public health.   #  since our societies all over the world have had a 0 success in curbing the black markets of other illegal drugs, there is not really any chance we would contain this one either.   #  since there is a huge user base of highly addicted smokers nicotine is often  the  most addictive substance in studies, sometimes second after heroin , the only effect such a law would have would be the instant creation of a huge black market.  since our societies all over the world have had a 0 success in curbing the black markets of other illegal drugs, there is not really any chance we would contain this one either.  so, people would not stop smoking.  the life of a smoker would just suck even more and yet not enough to quit, trust me .  cigarettes would become more expensive, have less quality control.  smokers would have to smoke at home only, which would give them terrible withdrawal symptoms during the day and probably ruin their productivity as well as making them highly irritable.  the black market would lead to more gang violence, as it always does.  lost tax revenue would take a shit on the economy.  it would just be awful in every way.   #  what if we did not prohibit the sale of tobacco, just the consumption of said tobacco.   #  what if we did not prohibit the sale of tobacco, just the consumption of said tobacco.  you do not decrease the supply of tobacco and at the same time decreasing the demand for tobacco.  the price of tobacco would decrease instead of skyrocketing as with normal prohibition, minimizing the incentive of the black market drug dealers to produce and sell tobacco.  allowing the tobacco companies to continue selling would not force tobacco production and selling to the cartels, a big contribution to the violence in prohibition.  we have already seen this to a certain extent with all the laws prohibiting smoking in many public places.  smoking has become viewed as a contemptible activity, smokers now must huddle in defensive groups to the side of doors, and smoking has consistently decreased nationally URL  #  and i am not convinced that making consumption illegal would make things change faster.   #  i think the decrease in smoking is due to young people not starting, not smokers quitting.  this trend i think is hard to reverse at this point because it is so well known today how bad smoking is and advertising for smoking has become illegal.  i do not think we need to do much more.  and i am not convinced that making consumption illegal would make things change faster.  for teens making it illegal might just make it even more cool and rebellious, especially if the supply stays the same.  but my main point: what a lot of people seem to forget is that laws like these will make the lives of smokers really really shitty they are people too you know ? even if they made a terrible decision .  when a drug is as addictive as nicotine and when an addict of said drug need their fix every 0 hours or so, then banning that drug will make the users life a nightmare if they have a job.  they will be more or less constantly in withdrawal.  other than completely ruining the mental health of this group of people, i think we would also see a noticeable drop in productivity, as they would frankly just start sucking at their jobs.   #  it was a spectacular failure, but they did it.   #  that is not true at all.  the government was able to ban alcohol in the 0s.  it was a spectacular failure, but they did it.  prohibition did not fail because it was morally wrong, or because the government was unable to enforce alcohol as it was sold before prohibition came into effect.  they were just unable to stop all the other things that popped up.  those things are considerations when considering smoking as a public health issue.  what would the 0st century tobacco equivalent of speakeasies be ? personal freedoms and liberties are not relevant.
whether it is a misconception or not, there is a common idea that for men perhaps for women as well, but moreso for men , sex and love are rewards for being a good person.  it is everywhere in our culture, from the hero who  gets the girl , to the sitcom husband who has to sleep on the couch when he is naughty, and gets to share a bed again when he is good.  the common advice given by women to be more attractive overlaps with  be a better person , and even redpill ideology is about being  high value .  the converse of this is when sex is had, a person often thinks they have done something good to earn it.  what does it therefore say when a  bad  person has sex or a loving wife ? it is a validation of the person is behaviour.  sometimes it can even be directly linked; see the stereotype of mafiosos having beautiful wives and affairs with even more beautiful women, or the idea that power, confidence and  bad boys  are considered sexy in many contexts and by many people.  a person never exists in a vacuum, and while they ultimately hold responsibility for their own actions, the factors that lead to those actions must also be taken into account.  much like bad parenting is scrutinized, or children are told to avoid other children for being  bad influences , a woman who knowingly validates a man is criminal lifestyle is a bad influence and it is ok, and not at all bigoted.  also, the saying of  those who do not stop bullies are as bad as them  rings true here.  the women who have sex with and love a man are independent, free thinking people in their lives who have opportunities to observe and judge someone is behaviour.  failure to do so is negligent.   #  what does it therefore say when a  bad  person has sex or a loving wife ?  #  it is a validation of the person is behaviour.   # it is a validation of the person is behaviour.  no, it is a validation of the person as a person.  if you are married to someone, the mother of someone, etc, you do not love them  because of what they do .  you love them  because of who they are .  every human being in the world has value, whether they commit crimes or not and practically everyone in the us is a criminal of some kind .  no matter what you do, you have value.  it is super immature.   #  it is between the people involved in a relationship, not part of some system to reward good behavior.   #  sex is not a reward for anything.  it is a much more individual, personal thing then that.  sex non procreative at least is a way of bonding with someone you care about.  it is between the people involved in a relationship, not part of some system to reward good behavior.  now, on to the other point.  morality is also a very relative thing.  there are a few things most people will agree are immoral, such as murder, but things get fuzzy after that.  the kind of criminal that would be seen as attractive and a bad boy is probably a very mild criminal committing fairly victimless crimes.  drug dealing or petty theft against a company lets say.  hell, many of them are not even real criminals but are more kinda assholish and independent minded.  not really anything that would make their partner feel threatened.  therefore, they really see no reason not to date them.   #  as long as it is consensual, i believe it is none of societies business.   #  true, there are people in my life i would rather not sleep with.  there are plenty i would though.  my main point is that who you find attractive is a deeply personal choice.  as long as it is consensual, i believe it is none of societies business.  and for me, sex is a very emotional bonding experience, that matters more to me then the physical pleasure aspect.  this is just me, everyone will be different.   #  for proof this is true, look at the phenomenon of  nice guys  and the  friendzone .   #  well, for a time society burned people because it was though they were witches.  just because an idea is widely believed does not make it true or right.  the idea of sex with a women being a reward for being good is fairly misogynistic.  and it is not just my personal view, people choose who they have sex with based on attraction to that person either physically or mentally.  for proof this is true, look at the phenomenon of  nice guys  and the  friendzone .  people who try to win sex with someone who is not interested using kindness.  such people are viewed quite negatively, despised in some cases.  tells you how people view that idea.   #  they can, and often are, ignorant, backwards, and hateful ideas.   #  i am not trying to pin anything on you.  i just disagree.    the idea that being a better person makes you more sexually attractive this might be true for some people, others might find it to be a turn off.  my point is that sexual attraction, while influenced by cultural ideas, is a very personal decision and is not always logical.  they are a group of people is personal opinions held up by threat and use of force.  they can, and often are, ignorant, backwards, and hateful ideas.  you are saying it is morally reprehensible because social rules, but i am saying social rules are not guaranteed to be moral and challenging them is fine by my book.
whether it is a misconception or not, there is a common idea that for men perhaps for women as well, but moreso for men , sex and love are rewards for being a good person.  it is everywhere in our culture, from the hero who  gets the girl , to the sitcom husband who has to sleep on the couch when he is naughty, and gets to share a bed again when he is good.  the common advice given by women to be more attractive overlaps with  be a better person , and even redpill ideology is about being  high value .  the converse of this is when sex is had, a person often thinks they have done something good to earn it.  what does it therefore say when a  bad  person has sex or a loving wife ? it is a validation of the person is behaviour.  sometimes it can even be directly linked; see the stereotype of mafiosos having beautiful wives and affairs with even more beautiful women, or the idea that power, confidence and  bad boys  are considered sexy in many contexts and by many people.  a person never exists in a vacuum, and while they ultimately hold responsibility for their own actions, the factors that lead to those actions must also be taken into account.  much like bad parenting is scrutinized, or children are told to avoid other children for being  bad influences , a woman who knowingly validates a man is criminal lifestyle is a bad influence and it is ok, and not at all bigoted.  also, the saying of  those who do not stop bullies are as bad as them  rings true here.  the women who have sex with and love a man are independent, free thinking people in their lives who have opportunities to observe and judge someone is behaviour.  failure to do so is negligent.   #  there is a common idea that for men perhaps for women as well, but moreso for men , sex and love are rewards for being a good person.   #  i have literally  never  heard the idea that sex is a reward for being a good person.   # i have literally  never  heard the idea that sex is a reward for being a good person.  when the hero gets the girl in movies, sex is usually not involved.  jumping immediately to intercourse is a hasty generalization on your part.  also, king of queens is not a good example either.  lastly, i saw you just referred to someone who  breaks the law on a regular basis  to be a  mafia type criminal .  which is funny.  because i partake in marijuana use on a daily basis.  where do i sign up for the mafia ?  #  it is a much more individual, personal thing then that.   #  sex is not a reward for anything.  it is a much more individual, personal thing then that.  sex non procreative at least is a way of bonding with someone you care about.  it is between the people involved in a relationship, not part of some system to reward good behavior.  now, on to the other point.  morality is also a very relative thing.  there are a few things most people will agree are immoral, such as murder, but things get fuzzy after that.  the kind of criminal that would be seen as attractive and a bad boy is probably a very mild criminal committing fairly victimless crimes.  drug dealing or petty theft against a company lets say.  hell, many of them are not even real criminals but are more kinda assholish and independent minded.  not really anything that would make their partner feel threatened.  therefore, they really see no reason not to date them.   #  and for me, sex is a very emotional bonding experience, that matters more to me then the physical pleasure aspect.   #  true, there are people in my life i would rather not sleep with.  there are plenty i would though.  my main point is that who you find attractive is a deeply personal choice.  as long as it is consensual, i believe it is none of societies business.  and for me, sex is a very emotional bonding experience, that matters more to me then the physical pleasure aspect.  this is just me, everyone will be different.   #  just because an idea is widely believed does not make it true or right.   #  well, for a time society burned people because it was though they were witches.  just because an idea is widely believed does not make it true or right.  the idea of sex with a women being a reward for being good is fairly misogynistic.  and it is not just my personal view, people choose who they have sex with based on attraction to that person either physically or mentally.  for proof this is true, look at the phenomenon of  nice guys  and the  friendzone .  people who try to win sex with someone who is not interested using kindness.  such people are viewed quite negatively, despised in some cases.  tells you how people view that idea.   #  i am not trying to pin anything on you.   #  i am not trying to pin anything on you.  i just disagree.    the idea that being a better person makes you more sexually attractive this might be true for some people, others might find it to be a turn off.  my point is that sexual attraction, while influenced by cultural ideas, is a very personal decision and is not always logical.  they are a group of people is personal opinions held up by threat and use of force.  they can, and often are, ignorant, backwards, and hateful ideas.  you are saying it is morally reprehensible because social rules, but i am saying social rules are not guaranteed to be moral and challenging them is fine by my book.
purchasing something new is always something to look forward to.  whether it is clothes, or a new phone, or anything that you have been looking forward to, finally clicking confirm purchase is immensely satisfying.  this, of course, leads to your product being shipped from some warehouse to your door.  you are often given a tracking number, so that you can follow your package across the world, step by step.  but in truth, that ruins the experience.  the anticipation of the package is a huge part of the enjoyment of the entire enterprise.  when will it arrive ? today ? or the next day ? there is a great calvin and hobbes comic about this exact concept the stress and emotion we give to the day is mail.  but when we utilize the tracking number, the magic is lost.  the unpredictability vanishes.  we are reminded of the depressing fact that no, we do not actually make anything in this company any more, and even the necessary shipping facilities stateside are not in our town part of the reason it and its economy suck so much.  but when we ignore the tracking number, we say no to structure and the tyranny of knowing.  we revive the magical qualities of our wait for the mail.  will my shirts be shipped in two packages or one ? will the arrive on different days ? where did they come from ? our lack of answers to these eternal questions catalyzes creativity and inspires imagination.  join me, as i wait for my most recent online orders, and say no to tracking numbers.  join the renaissance.   this was as much a writing exercise as a cmv, so feel free to critique from both perspectives.   #  but in truth, that ruins the experience.   #  the anticipation of the package is a huge part of the enjoyment of the entire enterprise.   # the anticipation of the package is a huge part of the enjoyment of the entire enterprise.  for me, this is hardly part of the fun, even if it is a personal delivery and not something you need for your livelihood.  getting a delivery can actually be quite stressful, especially when delivery services are unreliable and basically incompetent.  they will fail to deliver multiple times.  they will post a  sorry, we tried to deliver but you were out !   card through the door without even attempting to deliver the package you know this, because you were actually home at the time .  they will put your package in your recycling bin, or throw it over the fence into wet grass without informing you.  recently i built a new pc, and was waiting on several deliveries of various parts.  i needed to test the parts asap in case they needed to be sent back, but in order to test them i required other parts to arrive first.  overall, it took about a month to have all of the parts successfully delivered, despite having ordered them all at the same time.  this was a nightmare, and anything which could give me any kind of insight into the status of my packages could only have been a good thing.  the unpredictability vanishes.  not at all ! instead, you get to wonder why your package has been sat in a remote depot for three days without moving.  or why it has just performed a circuit of all of the local depots without any attempt at delivery.  usually i find the tracking to be poor anyway, so it does not remove the unpredictability.  except sometimes you will receive an alert that delivery will be attempted today this can actually be very practical, as you may have an opportunity to ensure that somebody is at home to receive it.   #  i can estimate how long it will take for my items to be found in a chinese warehouse, shipped to a regional facility, flown to la or somewhere on the west coast, and so on.   #  but see, this is not ignorance.  as a mildly intelligent person, i know roughly how long it will take.  i can estimate how long it will take for my items to be found in a chinese warehouse, shipped to a regional facility, flown to la or somewhere on the west coast, and so on.  i also know when i ordered my items, and whether or not i live in a remote area.  also, i know whether there is extreme weather the could complicate things.  these are all small things i know that make my anticipation influenced by facts not entirely blind but not blanketed with information to the extent that the childish magic is gone.   #  it all depends on your finances, needs, and personal taste.   #  if you just mean for a personal purchase, i have amazon prime and do two day free shipping all the time.  i never have to track my package because i already know when it will arrive: in two days.  no surprise there.  this only applies in the specific scenario in which one it is not a business or necessary purchase and two you did not select a specific timeframe for shipping.  there are uses for tracking packages, and two day/one day shipping options negate both the surprise element and the need for tracking.  it all depends on your finances, needs, and personal taste.   #  it is like a kid counting the days left until christmas.   #  i suppose tracking numbers do take some of the suspense and excitement away, but i think it gets replaced with a different kind of excitement.  now, i know how much longer i have to wait before i get to enjoy the awesome thing i just ordered online.  it is like a kid counting the days left until christmas.  you know you have just got to get through another day or two and then you and your goodies will be united at last.  letting the excitement build because i do not know when exactly my package will arrive is great, but so is knowing that i will be able to rip into that box at around 0:0 on thursday.   #  we do not get excited over every successive paycheck, so why should we over this package ?  #  is that new feeling really comparable to what it is replacing ? it is the surprise that counts.  you know what you are getting we are not kids awaiting christmas anymore , and now you know when you are going to get it.  what is the surprise ? what is to enjoy.  every two weeks, you probably get a paycheck automatically deposited in your bank account.  it does not change you know how much you make and when it arrives does not change, thanks to the magic of computers, and there is little excitement there.  tracking a package is like tracking a paycheck.  there is no suspense in the contents, and there is no suspense in when it is going to arrive.  we do not get excited over every successive paycheck, so why should we over this package ?
i do not give a second thought when i freely download music from popular artists that already make millions of dollars from their concert, endorsements and record sales.  to me, buying a $0 song or $0 album on itunes wo not make any difference in their already successful career anyway and plus, most of that money goes to the record company not the individual artist in the first place.  let me give you an example, jayz is a highly successful hip hop artist.  having sold many copies of his own personal albums, started his own record and clothing label, he is already worth $0 million dollars according to forbes.  would me buying a few of his songs for $0 on itunes really make a dent in his already highly successful life ? i would not think so.  this argument also applies to many other successful artists today such as eminem, kayne west, the beatles, michael jackson, led zeppelin, elton john, lady gaga, drake and so on.  all these artists are already loaded to the roof with money ! however, i do try to buy music from indie labels, groups or bands to help support them because i know that the artist in question is still at the beginning stages of their career and are not yet highly successful.   #  from popular artists that already make millions of dollars from their concert, endorsements and record sales.   #  you can probably cross  record sales  off that list.   # you can probably cross  record sales  off that list.  decades ago that would have been accurate, but today direct music sales are a pretty small chunk of the overall revenue.  this is because millions of people, like you, decided that it did not make sense to pay $0 for music that was a click away on your computer.  i agree that you should not mind pirating music, but i disagree with your reasoning:  they are making plenty of money .  regardless of how much they are making, your piracy is still a cut into that revenue.  the real reason you should not mind is because the issue is far bigger than you.  if you were to stop pirating all music, that would not affect the millions of other pirates out there.  it was inevitable with the digital age.  the industry is living, and constantly evolves and adapts with the times this is not really that different.  so whether you care about being a music  thief  or not, the industry will find ways to deal with people like you hopefully ways that do not involve million dollar lawsuits.   #  if target buys a shirt for $0, and sells it to me for $0 but i steal it instead they lose $0.   #  the two situations are not quite equatable, though.  if target buys a shirt for $0, and sells it to me for $0 but i steal it instead they lose $0.  the $0 they spent on that shirt is gone, in addition to the $0 in potential sales.  if i pirate an album that costs $0, it cost the producers of that album.  0 cents.  nothing.  they do not lose a dime in real money, only in potential money.  nothing is being stolen, just copied.  this makes the two situations actually pretty different.   #  what gives target the right to sell a t shirt for $0, when it cost them $0 ?  #  what gives target the right to sell a t shirt for $0, when it cost them $0 ? would not it still be stealing if you left $0 on the shelf from which you took the shirt ? target has not lost money, right ? wrong, they lost a potential sale because they can only now sell 0 shirts at a $0 profit each rather than 0 shirts, so they lost $0.  that loss is assumed to the point that it can be deducted from their gross income amount for tax purposes.  why does having 0 in cost make stealing any more ok ? even though it can never be zero, it is either paying for the overhead required to make the record or taking away profits the creators/producers/promoters, etc stood to rightfully gain by releasing a quality product  #  if they sell 0 copy, their sale price is, well, 0 million dollars.   #  assumed profits are very different with a physical good and a digital good.  let is say i very casually make youtube videos.  like, one every two or three weeks.  for whatever hypothetical videos these are, i would need some kind of editing software.  due to the fact i do not make these videos often, i would not ever buy, say, sony vegas, which costs several hundred dollars.  but i might be inclined to pirate it.  sony never actually lost a sale on me.  i would never actually buy vegas.  there is no potential sale lost here.  if i do not pirate it, sony gets $0.  if i do pirate it, sony still gets $0.  it also costs them nothing either way.  sony can produce an infinite number of copies of sony vegas, just due to how software works.  there is no limit to how many copies you can make once you have made the first one.  however, with a physical good such as a shirt, that is different.  i am not only depriving target of their money, but i am depriving them of a shirt they can sell to  someone else .  if sony could only let 0,0 copies of sony vegas exist in the world at any time, yes, pirating it would be a huge issue.  but that is not the case.  in addition, whether sony sells 0 copies and has 0 million pirated, or sells 0 million copies and has 0 pirated.  they already spent the exact same amount of money.  pirating a copy of vegas does not, in any way, increase the cost of producing it.  that cost is already gone.  ignore piracy as a whole, even let is say writing the software cost them 0 million dollars.  if they sell 0 copy, their sale price is, well, 0 million dollars.  if they sell 0 million copies, their sale price is 0 dollars.  this is a calculated risk all media and software companies have to assume.  as a result, if they sell 0 million copies and have 0 million pirated.  the sale price per copy is still 0 dollars.  physical goods, which are limited, and software and media, which can be replicated infinitely at no cost, cannot possibly be equated.  in any way.   #  there is a risk to any merchant selling a product regarding theft, the impact may be different but it is disingenuous to claim that theft is not factored into price considerations.   #  software cannot be duplicated infinite times, you will run out of raw materials required to store copies on hard drives and other things, plus, there is still overhead costs inherent in replicating software, you need electricity which must be paid for.  even if the cost is extremely small there still is no such thing as a free lunch.  you being  inclined  to do something does not swing the morality pendulum at all.  there is a risk to any merchant selling a product regarding theft, the impact may be different but it is disingenuous to claim that theft is not factored into price considerations.  besides, sony could limit the number of copies in existence although in a different way than a t shirt maker.  which is a different way than a diamond miner/wholesaler.  the nature of the product affects the way its marketed, software is not its own special classification.  sony could, ostensibly release its vegas software to certain locations where you had to physically go and use a dedicated terminal to use for a fee, it would be up to sony to decide how many of those terminals it would implement which would be an effective limit.  your analogy about the sale price is nonsense, prices are set before total sales are known and the person/department at sony would be fired if they simply broke even on a product.  if you are going to pirate, pirate, the risks are dwarfed by the gains, i concede that.  but spare me the argument that you have a right to use something, anything, whose creator decided to sell and you did not feel like or were not able to purchase.
ending scene in question spoilers, obviously URL so in this scene, we see people having a big ol  jamboree, grilling barbeque, selling treats and drinking beer, generally fucking around in between killing zombies, and hanging some zombies from a tree and harassing them before killing them.  the lead character barbara then criticizes the scene by stating  they are us.  we are them and they are us.   i think this is a rather stupid reaction both by the character and the screenwriter, as we should be so lucky that that is how people react in a zombie apocalypse.  the redneck is reactions are as follows: they band together, they organize to confront the very real and very deadly threat facing them, they maintain a generally positive attitude and allow community and group affirming activities.  by comparison, her whole group proceeded to fight and scream at each other throughout the whole night, completely fail at mounting an effective defense or escape, and ended up killing each other/getting eaten until she was the only one left.  the main criticism here also seems to be that they were harassing or torturing the zombies before killing them.  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  the zombie is utterly indifferent if it gets shot, it just wants to eat you and everyone you know.  there is zero humanity to be found, so it does not matter if the rednecks are playing with their quarry before killing it.  it is not human, it is not animal, it is not even alive.  it is less wrong than stepping on a venomous spider.  lastly, and most hypocritically, she kills the character harry when she finds him alive in the house.  harry was a prick and caused most of the problems the group faced, but she still murdered him in cold blood and used the cover of the zombie apocalypse to get away with it.  please, change my view on this turd of an ending.   #  the main criticism here also seems to be that they were harassing or torturing the zombies before killing them.   #  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.   # this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  how do you feel about people desecrating human remains ? if it is okay to torture a zombie, which used to be a living, breathing, human, is it also okay to shoot, throw rocks at, and basically destroy a body ? if that is fine, what about a person with a degenerative mental disorder ? if a person were violently aggressive and showed no signs of feeling pain, would it be okay to torture them, hanging them from a tree and shooting them ? as a society, we regard the remains of a human as still being that human.  to torture / desecrate a zombie, a dead body, or a person with a violent mental disability is cruel.  her point is that the people who are getting their kicks off of torturing zombies, rather than just humanely putting them down, are giving in to their baser instincts; a need for violence, revenge, or simply a cheap thrill.  i do not think she is being hypocritical when she says this.  i feel she is including her group from the night before, and possibly herself, in her comment.  there is no indication given by her that she thinks anyone she is met, herself included, are above the statement.  her killing harry is a prime example of giving in to baser instincts, in this case vengeance, instead of being more  human .   #  they hold no regard to their integrity and will even damage themselves in pursuit of the living.   #  i will somewhat acknowledge the desecration of a corpse part, but i do not think the mentally handicapped argument holds water.  with that you are dealing with something that is unquestionably alive, and even if it is not showing outward signs of pain it is still being irreperably harmed and still has essential rights.  it can be stopped, it can be restrained, it can be treated, and it can be done with less violent force.  the only way to remove the threat of a zombie is to kill it.  so yes, doing it to a retarded person is barbaric, but doing it to a violent corpse is not.  the dead however are just that dead.  they hold no regard to their integrity and will even damage themselves in pursuit of the living.  it is dangerous and irresponsible to allow it to continue to exist for any period of time, and nothing short of complete destruction of the brain will stop it.  and no matter how necessary it is or respectfully you try to do it, a clean single shot to the head is going to disrespect that body pretty severely.   #  hell, maybe they are  alive  in the same way an alien species might be alive and we just have not discovered how it works yet.   #  my main problem with what the rural folk were doing is that they were being completely barbaric.  now i have not seen the movie except for the scene you linked, but i wonder.  is there any evidence to suggest that these rural folk had to deal with the exact same situations as the main characters ? maybe by location of where they were and what they do for sport gave them a far easier and less stressful situation to deal with.  after all, urban locations are probably far worse for a zombie apocalypse.  so yes, they maintain a positive attitude, but is it possible that they can have this  generally positive  attitude because they did not see the horrors that other people saw ? at least to the same extent ? again, it could just be the circumstances.  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  my problem here is not with concern for the zombies, but for the humanity of the rural folk committing these acts.  i do not think there is any humanity to be found in that camp, whether it is from the zombies or the rural folk.  i disagree here.  even if we agree that the zombies are truly dead, playing with them is still sadistic.  they are still doing an inherently violent and immoral act for no purpose other than entertainment.  truly, it is possible that what they are doing is dangerous because they are making themselves more prone to infection by doing things like fighting them when they should just kill them.  of course, this is assuming that we will never in this movie universe find any reason to classify the zombies as  alive  in some way or another.  hell, maybe they are  alive  in the same way an alien species might be alive and we just have not discovered how it works yet.  even so, i still find the desecration of the corpses disgusting.  again, i have not seen the movie though now i want to so please feel free to correct any points i may have gotten wrong.  i just wanted to put a different view on the ending to help put it in perspective.   #  petty bickering and violent power struggles lead to the death of everyone.   #  i do not think barbara was necessarily criticizing the rednecks.  she was instead musing that humans are disorganized, violent and destructive and the zombies are a mirror for that.  she just saw the breakdown of her own little group leading to the deaths of all her friends.  in the end, her group of friends all died because they were unable to come together and resolve their differences to survive the night.  petty bickering and violent power struggles lead to the death of everyone.  as she thinks about her night is experience and sees the humans stupidly fucking around with potentially dangerous zombies, she realizes that humans are dumb, scared animals and not much different than the zombies.  people seem to misinterpret this scene thinking that she is criticizing just the rednecks or that she is somehow offended by them torturing zombies.  i do not think the moral is so much  do not hurt zombies,  but  hmmm, we are really just a pack disorganized stupid animals.  we are not much better at working together than these zombies.    #  as you point out the zombies are indifferent and only want to eat everyone.   #   they are us.  we are them and they are us.   to me, this is not criticism against how they are treating the zombies per se.  as you point out, the zombies do not feel pain, they are dead.  as you point out the zombies are indifferent and only want to eat everyone.  there is zero humanity in them.  they just follow their instincts.  and in a way this is what the rednecks are representing.  there is nothing to be gained by torturing the zombies.  it is simply entertainment.  the rednecks are indifferent to progressing humanity and just digress into their instincts of entertainment.  in another way it is also a comment about her own actions.  her line was not to anyone, so it could be assumed it is also a self reflection.  she realized that her own actions represented her digressing into indifference and base instincts.  so to me the  they are us.  we are them and they are us.   line is not meant to elevate the humanity of the zombies, but to point out the lowering of the humanity of her and the rednecks.
ending scene in question spoilers, obviously URL so in this scene, we see people having a big ol  jamboree, grilling barbeque, selling treats and drinking beer, generally fucking around in between killing zombies, and hanging some zombies from a tree and harassing them before killing them.  the lead character barbara then criticizes the scene by stating  they are us.  we are them and they are us.   i think this is a rather stupid reaction both by the character and the screenwriter, as we should be so lucky that that is how people react in a zombie apocalypse.  the redneck is reactions are as follows: they band together, they organize to confront the very real and very deadly threat facing them, they maintain a generally positive attitude and allow community and group affirming activities.  by comparison, her whole group proceeded to fight and scream at each other throughout the whole night, completely fail at mounting an effective defense or escape, and ended up killing each other/getting eaten until she was the only one left.  the main criticism here also seems to be that they were harassing or torturing the zombies before killing them.  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  the zombie is utterly indifferent if it gets shot, it just wants to eat you and everyone you know.  there is zero humanity to be found, so it does not matter if the rednecks are playing with their quarry before killing it.  it is not human, it is not animal, it is not even alive.  it is less wrong than stepping on a venomous spider.  lastly, and most hypocritically, she kills the character harry when she finds him alive in the house.  harry was a prick and caused most of the problems the group faced, but she still murdered him in cold blood and used the cover of the zombie apocalypse to get away with it.  please, change my view on this turd of an ending.   #  the redneck is reactions are as follows: they band together, they organize to confront the very real and very deadly threat facing them, they maintain a generally positive attitude and allow community and group affirming activities.   #  now i have not seen the movie except for the scene you linked, but i wonder.   #  my main problem with what the rural folk were doing is that they were being completely barbaric.  now i have not seen the movie except for the scene you linked, but i wonder.  is there any evidence to suggest that these rural folk had to deal with the exact same situations as the main characters ? maybe by location of where they were and what they do for sport gave them a far easier and less stressful situation to deal with.  after all, urban locations are probably far worse for a zombie apocalypse.  so yes, they maintain a positive attitude, but is it possible that they can have this  generally positive  attitude because they did not see the horrors that other people saw ? at least to the same extent ? again, it could just be the circumstances.  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  my problem here is not with concern for the zombies, but for the humanity of the rural folk committing these acts.  i do not think there is any humanity to be found in that camp, whether it is from the zombies or the rural folk.  i disagree here.  even if we agree that the zombies are truly dead, playing with them is still sadistic.  they are still doing an inherently violent and immoral act for no purpose other than entertainment.  truly, it is possible that what they are doing is dangerous because they are making themselves more prone to infection by doing things like fighting them when they should just kill them.  of course, this is assuming that we will never in this movie universe find any reason to classify the zombies as  alive  in some way or another.  hell, maybe they are  alive  in the same way an alien species might be alive and we just have not discovered how it works yet.  even so, i still find the desecration of the corpses disgusting.  again, i have not seen the movie though now i want to so please feel free to correct any points i may have gotten wrong.  i just wanted to put a different view on the ending to help put it in perspective.   #  her killing harry is a prime example of giving in to baser instincts, in this case vengeance, instead of being more  human .   # this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  how do you feel about people desecrating human remains ? if it is okay to torture a zombie, which used to be a living, breathing, human, is it also okay to shoot, throw rocks at, and basically destroy a body ? if that is fine, what about a person with a degenerative mental disorder ? if a person were violently aggressive and showed no signs of feeling pain, would it be okay to torture them, hanging them from a tree and shooting them ? as a society, we regard the remains of a human as still being that human.  to torture / desecrate a zombie, a dead body, or a person with a violent mental disability is cruel.  her point is that the people who are getting their kicks off of torturing zombies, rather than just humanely putting them down, are giving in to their baser instincts; a need for violence, revenge, or simply a cheap thrill.  i do not think she is being hypocritical when she says this.  i feel she is including her group from the night before, and possibly herself, in her comment.  there is no indication given by her that she thinks anyone she is met, herself included, are above the statement.  her killing harry is a prime example of giving in to baser instincts, in this case vengeance, instead of being more  human .   #  with that you are dealing with something that is unquestionably alive, and even if it is not showing outward signs of pain it is still being irreperably harmed and still has essential rights.   #  i will somewhat acknowledge the desecration of a corpse part, but i do not think the mentally handicapped argument holds water.  with that you are dealing with something that is unquestionably alive, and even if it is not showing outward signs of pain it is still being irreperably harmed and still has essential rights.  it can be stopped, it can be restrained, it can be treated, and it can be done with less violent force.  the only way to remove the threat of a zombie is to kill it.  so yes, doing it to a retarded person is barbaric, but doing it to a violent corpse is not.  the dead however are just that dead.  they hold no regard to their integrity and will even damage themselves in pursuit of the living.  it is dangerous and irresponsible to allow it to continue to exist for any period of time, and nothing short of complete destruction of the brain will stop it.  and no matter how necessary it is or respectfully you try to do it, a clean single shot to the head is going to disrespect that body pretty severely.   #  she just saw the breakdown of her own little group leading to the deaths of all her friends.   #  i do not think barbara was necessarily criticizing the rednecks.  she was instead musing that humans are disorganized, violent and destructive and the zombies are a mirror for that.  she just saw the breakdown of her own little group leading to the deaths of all her friends.  in the end, her group of friends all died because they were unable to come together and resolve their differences to survive the night.  petty bickering and violent power struggles lead to the death of everyone.  as she thinks about her night is experience and sees the humans stupidly fucking around with potentially dangerous zombies, she realizes that humans are dumb, scared animals and not much different than the zombies.  people seem to misinterpret this scene thinking that she is criticizing just the rednecks or that she is somehow offended by them torturing zombies.  i do not think the moral is so much  do not hurt zombies,  but  hmmm, we are really just a pack disorganized stupid animals.  we are not much better at working together than these zombies.    #  there is nothing to be gained by torturing the zombies.   #   they are us.  we are them and they are us.   to me, this is not criticism against how they are treating the zombies per se.  as you point out, the zombies do not feel pain, they are dead.  as you point out the zombies are indifferent and only want to eat everyone.  there is zero humanity in them.  they just follow their instincts.  and in a way this is what the rednecks are representing.  there is nothing to be gained by torturing the zombies.  it is simply entertainment.  the rednecks are indifferent to progressing humanity and just digress into their instincts of entertainment.  in another way it is also a comment about her own actions.  her line was not to anyone, so it could be assumed it is also a self reflection.  she realized that her own actions represented her digressing into indifference and base instincts.  so to me the  they are us.  we are them and they are us.   line is not meant to elevate the humanity of the zombies, but to point out the lowering of the humanity of her and the rednecks.
ending scene in question spoilers, obviously URL so in this scene, we see people having a big ol  jamboree, grilling barbeque, selling treats and drinking beer, generally fucking around in between killing zombies, and hanging some zombies from a tree and harassing them before killing them.  the lead character barbara then criticizes the scene by stating  they are us.  we are them and they are us.   i think this is a rather stupid reaction both by the character and the screenwriter, as we should be so lucky that that is how people react in a zombie apocalypse.  the redneck is reactions are as follows: they band together, they organize to confront the very real and very deadly threat facing them, they maintain a generally positive attitude and allow community and group affirming activities.  by comparison, her whole group proceeded to fight and scream at each other throughout the whole night, completely fail at mounting an effective defense or escape, and ended up killing each other/getting eaten until she was the only one left.  the main criticism here also seems to be that they were harassing or torturing the zombies before killing them.  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  the zombie is utterly indifferent if it gets shot, it just wants to eat you and everyone you know.  there is zero humanity to be found, so it does not matter if the rednecks are playing with their quarry before killing it.  it is not human, it is not animal, it is not even alive.  it is less wrong than stepping on a venomous spider.  lastly, and most hypocritically, she kills the character harry when she finds him alive in the house.  harry was a prick and caused most of the problems the group faced, but she still murdered him in cold blood and used the cover of the zombie apocalypse to get away with it.  please, change my view on this turd of an ending.   #  by comparison, her whole group proceeded to fight and scream at each other throughout the whole night, completely fail at mounting an effective defense or escape, and ended up killing each other/getting eaten until she was the only one left.   #  again, it could just be the circumstances.   #  my main problem with what the rural folk were doing is that they were being completely barbaric.  now i have not seen the movie except for the scene you linked, but i wonder.  is there any evidence to suggest that these rural folk had to deal with the exact same situations as the main characters ? maybe by location of where they were and what they do for sport gave them a far easier and less stressful situation to deal with.  after all, urban locations are probably far worse for a zombie apocalypse.  so yes, they maintain a positive attitude, but is it possible that they can have this  generally positive  attitude because they did not see the horrors that other people saw ? at least to the same extent ? again, it could just be the circumstances.  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  my problem here is not with concern for the zombies, but for the humanity of the rural folk committing these acts.  i do not think there is any humanity to be found in that camp, whether it is from the zombies or the rural folk.  i disagree here.  even if we agree that the zombies are truly dead, playing with them is still sadistic.  they are still doing an inherently violent and immoral act for no purpose other than entertainment.  truly, it is possible that what they are doing is dangerous because they are making themselves more prone to infection by doing things like fighting them when they should just kill them.  of course, this is assuming that we will never in this movie universe find any reason to classify the zombies as  alive  in some way or another.  hell, maybe they are  alive  in the same way an alien species might be alive and we just have not discovered how it works yet.  even so, i still find the desecration of the corpses disgusting.  again, i have not seen the movie though now i want to so please feel free to correct any points i may have gotten wrong.  i just wanted to put a different view on the ending to help put it in perspective.   #  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.   # this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  how do you feel about people desecrating human remains ? if it is okay to torture a zombie, which used to be a living, breathing, human, is it also okay to shoot, throw rocks at, and basically destroy a body ? if that is fine, what about a person with a degenerative mental disorder ? if a person were violently aggressive and showed no signs of feeling pain, would it be okay to torture them, hanging them from a tree and shooting them ? as a society, we regard the remains of a human as still being that human.  to torture / desecrate a zombie, a dead body, or a person with a violent mental disability is cruel.  her point is that the people who are getting their kicks off of torturing zombies, rather than just humanely putting them down, are giving in to their baser instincts; a need for violence, revenge, or simply a cheap thrill.  i do not think she is being hypocritical when she says this.  i feel she is including her group from the night before, and possibly herself, in her comment.  there is no indication given by her that she thinks anyone she is met, herself included, are above the statement.  her killing harry is a prime example of giving in to baser instincts, in this case vengeance, instead of being more  human .   #  with that you are dealing with something that is unquestionably alive, and even if it is not showing outward signs of pain it is still being irreperably harmed and still has essential rights.   #  i will somewhat acknowledge the desecration of a corpse part, but i do not think the mentally handicapped argument holds water.  with that you are dealing with something that is unquestionably alive, and even if it is not showing outward signs of pain it is still being irreperably harmed and still has essential rights.  it can be stopped, it can be restrained, it can be treated, and it can be done with less violent force.  the only way to remove the threat of a zombie is to kill it.  so yes, doing it to a retarded person is barbaric, but doing it to a violent corpse is not.  the dead however are just that dead.  they hold no regard to their integrity and will even damage themselves in pursuit of the living.  it is dangerous and irresponsible to allow it to continue to exist for any period of time, and nothing short of complete destruction of the brain will stop it.  and no matter how necessary it is or respectfully you try to do it, a clean single shot to the head is going to disrespect that body pretty severely.   #  i do not think barbara was necessarily criticizing the rednecks.   #  i do not think barbara was necessarily criticizing the rednecks.  she was instead musing that humans are disorganized, violent and destructive and the zombies are a mirror for that.  she just saw the breakdown of her own little group leading to the deaths of all her friends.  in the end, her group of friends all died because they were unable to come together and resolve their differences to survive the night.  petty bickering and violent power struggles lead to the death of everyone.  as she thinks about her night is experience and sees the humans stupidly fucking around with potentially dangerous zombies, she realizes that humans are dumb, scared animals and not much different than the zombies.  people seem to misinterpret this scene thinking that she is criticizing just the rednecks or that she is somehow offended by them torturing zombies.  i do not think the moral is so much  do not hurt zombies,  but  hmmm, we are really just a pack disorganized stupid animals.  we are not much better at working together than these zombies.    #  as you point out the zombies are indifferent and only want to eat everyone.   #   they are us.  we are them and they are us.   to me, this is not criticism against how they are treating the zombies per se.  as you point out, the zombies do not feel pain, they are dead.  as you point out the zombies are indifferent and only want to eat everyone.  there is zero humanity in them.  they just follow their instincts.  and in a way this is what the rednecks are representing.  there is nothing to be gained by torturing the zombies.  it is simply entertainment.  the rednecks are indifferent to progressing humanity and just digress into their instincts of entertainment.  in another way it is also a comment about her own actions.  her line was not to anyone, so it could be assumed it is also a self reflection.  she realized that her own actions represented her digressing into indifference and base instincts.  so to me the  they are us.  we are them and they are us.   line is not meant to elevate the humanity of the zombies, but to point out the lowering of the humanity of her and the rednecks.
ending scene in question spoilers, obviously URL so in this scene, we see people having a big ol  jamboree, grilling barbeque, selling treats and drinking beer, generally fucking around in between killing zombies, and hanging some zombies from a tree and harassing them before killing them.  the lead character barbara then criticizes the scene by stating  they are us.  we are them and they are us.   i think this is a rather stupid reaction both by the character and the screenwriter, as we should be so lucky that that is how people react in a zombie apocalypse.  the redneck is reactions are as follows: they band together, they organize to confront the very real and very deadly threat facing them, they maintain a generally positive attitude and allow community and group affirming activities.  by comparison, her whole group proceeded to fight and scream at each other throughout the whole night, completely fail at mounting an effective defense or escape, and ended up killing each other/getting eaten until she was the only one left.  the main criticism here also seems to be that they were harassing or torturing the zombies before killing them.  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  the zombie is utterly indifferent if it gets shot, it just wants to eat you and everyone you know.  there is zero humanity to be found, so it does not matter if the rednecks are playing with their quarry before killing it.  it is not human, it is not animal, it is not even alive.  it is less wrong than stepping on a venomous spider.  lastly, and most hypocritically, she kills the character harry when she finds him alive in the house.  harry was a prick and caused most of the problems the group faced, but she still murdered him in cold blood and used the cover of the zombie apocalypse to get away with it.  please, change my view on this turd of an ending.   #  the main criticism here also seems to be that they were harassing or torturing the zombies before killing them.   #  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.   #  my main problem with what the rural folk were doing is that they were being completely barbaric.  now i have not seen the movie except for the scene you linked, but i wonder.  is there any evidence to suggest that these rural folk had to deal with the exact same situations as the main characters ? maybe by location of where they were and what they do for sport gave them a far easier and less stressful situation to deal with.  after all, urban locations are probably far worse for a zombie apocalypse.  so yes, they maintain a positive attitude, but is it possible that they can have this  generally positive  attitude because they did not see the horrors that other people saw ? at least to the same extent ? again, it could just be the circumstances.  this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  my problem here is not with concern for the zombies, but for the humanity of the rural folk committing these acts.  i do not think there is any humanity to be found in that camp, whether it is from the zombies or the rural folk.  i disagree here.  even if we agree that the zombies are truly dead, playing with them is still sadistic.  they are still doing an inherently violent and immoral act for no purpose other than entertainment.  truly, it is possible that what they are doing is dangerous because they are making themselves more prone to infection by doing things like fighting them when they should just kill them.  of course, this is assuming that we will never in this movie universe find any reason to classify the zombies as  alive  in some way or another.  hell, maybe they are  alive  in the same way an alien species might be alive and we just have not discovered how it works yet.  even so, i still find the desecration of the corpses disgusting.  again, i have not seen the movie though now i want to so please feel free to correct any points i may have gotten wrong.  i just wanted to put a different view on the ending to help put it in perspective.   #  if a person were violently aggressive and showed no signs of feeling pain, would it be okay to torture them, hanging them from a tree and shooting them ?  # this is dumb as well, as the movie already established that they are immune to pain, and completely one hundred percent no bones about it dead.  how do you feel about people desecrating human remains ? if it is okay to torture a zombie, which used to be a living, breathing, human, is it also okay to shoot, throw rocks at, and basically destroy a body ? if that is fine, what about a person with a degenerative mental disorder ? if a person were violently aggressive and showed no signs of feeling pain, would it be okay to torture them, hanging them from a tree and shooting them ? as a society, we regard the remains of a human as still being that human.  to torture / desecrate a zombie, a dead body, or a person with a violent mental disability is cruel.  her point is that the people who are getting their kicks off of torturing zombies, rather than just humanely putting them down, are giving in to their baser instincts; a need for violence, revenge, or simply a cheap thrill.  i do not think she is being hypocritical when she says this.  i feel she is including her group from the night before, and possibly herself, in her comment.  there is no indication given by her that she thinks anyone she is met, herself included, are above the statement.  her killing harry is a prime example of giving in to baser instincts, in this case vengeance, instead of being more  human .   #  and no matter how necessary it is or respectfully you try to do it, a clean single shot to the head is going to disrespect that body pretty severely.   #  i will somewhat acknowledge the desecration of a corpse part, but i do not think the mentally handicapped argument holds water.  with that you are dealing with something that is unquestionably alive, and even if it is not showing outward signs of pain it is still being irreperably harmed and still has essential rights.  it can be stopped, it can be restrained, it can be treated, and it can be done with less violent force.  the only way to remove the threat of a zombie is to kill it.  so yes, doing it to a retarded person is barbaric, but doing it to a violent corpse is not.  the dead however are just that dead.  they hold no regard to their integrity and will even damage themselves in pursuit of the living.  it is dangerous and irresponsible to allow it to continue to exist for any period of time, and nothing short of complete destruction of the brain will stop it.  and no matter how necessary it is or respectfully you try to do it, a clean single shot to the head is going to disrespect that body pretty severely.   #  as she thinks about her night is experience and sees the humans stupidly fucking around with potentially dangerous zombies, she realizes that humans are dumb, scared animals and not much different than the zombies.   #  i do not think barbara was necessarily criticizing the rednecks.  she was instead musing that humans are disorganized, violent and destructive and the zombies are a mirror for that.  she just saw the breakdown of her own little group leading to the deaths of all her friends.  in the end, her group of friends all died because they were unable to come together and resolve their differences to survive the night.  petty bickering and violent power struggles lead to the death of everyone.  as she thinks about her night is experience and sees the humans stupidly fucking around with potentially dangerous zombies, she realizes that humans are dumb, scared animals and not much different than the zombies.  people seem to misinterpret this scene thinking that she is criticizing just the rednecks or that she is somehow offended by them torturing zombies.  i do not think the moral is so much  do not hurt zombies,  but  hmmm, we are really just a pack disorganized stupid animals.  we are not much better at working together than these zombies.    #  as you point out the zombies are indifferent and only want to eat everyone.   #   they are us.  we are them and they are us.   to me, this is not criticism against how they are treating the zombies per se.  as you point out, the zombies do not feel pain, they are dead.  as you point out the zombies are indifferent and only want to eat everyone.  there is zero humanity in them.  they just follow their instincts.  and in a way this is what the rednecks are representing.  there is nothing to be gained by torturing the zombies.  it is simply entertainment.  the rednecks are indifferent to progressing humanity and just digress into their instincts of entertainment.  in another way it is also a comment about her own actions.  her line was not to anyone, so it could be assumed it is also a self reflection.  she realized that her own actions represented her digressing into indifference and base instincts.  so to me the  they are us.  we are them and they are us.   line is not meant to elevate the humanity of the zombies, but to point out the lowering of the humanity of her and the rednecks.
i believe that our mind consciousness, memories, personality and whatnot emerges from the physical structure of our body, particularly the nervous system.  creating an identical replica of the latter should be enough to recreate ourselves.  i also believe that in some time our technology will be able to create replicas of people in a computer, thus uploading the mind of existing persons to some digital media, allowing human beings to turn into virtual being singularities, basically .  assuming that actually is feasible, i really ca not wait for it to happen.  getting rid of our mortal bodies and becoming pure data has no drawbacks: we would defeat the laws of physics including pain and death , we would be able to easily control our bodies and our minds as much as we want regulating pleasure, happiness, becoming smarter, erasing memories and whatever , we would even be able to choose to die if we wish so, or to move ourselves to different media, including back to a biological human body.  of course it might happen that this technology gets misused by somebody who detains power, or something else goes wrong, but let is pretend it wo not happen: i am more interested in the moral, ethical and philosophical issues rather than in practical ones.  most of my acquaintances seem to dislike a lot the idea of uploading themselves, but imo they are some kinds of bigots who ca not let go of some values that have no real meaning outside of their culture: values such as the uniqueness and the history of material things.  please change my mind ! no pun intended.    if you guys care about practical issues, we should create a new post about it probably /r/futurology is a better place for that .  here i would like to assume that all the issues that might arise will be overcome, and everything will be technically perfect.   #  of course it might happen that this technology gets misused by somebody who detains power, or something else goes wrong, but let is pretend it wo not happen: i am more interested in the moral, ethical and philosophical issues rather than in practical ones.   #  the possibility of misuse should concern you.   # the possibility of misuse should concern you.  once you are digitized, you can be replicated by whoever has access to your data.  this might go badly.  if pleasure could be induced much more efficiently, then so could pain.  it could arise that there are a multitude of copies of you, all of them experiencing torment because you opened the door.  this is a real ethical problem.  such risks should be avoided.   #  even assuming that your mind is something uploadable, it would be a separate being from you, no matter how similar it is patterns of thought.   #  does having a son mean the same thing as living two lifetimes ? no ? how about a genetically identical clone son ? no ? how about one who shares most of your views and values ? all of them ? at what point of similarity does a copy mean the same thing as continuity of existence ? i contend that it never does.  imagine you step into a cloning machine, one  you  steps in, two step out.  brains and bodies perfectly replicated.  let is say i take one clone aside, and give it a backrub.  does the other feel it ? no.  let is say i take that one into another room and tell it a funny joke.  does the other clone laugh ? no.  the experiences of a copy are not felt by the original, no matter the fidelity of the copy.  two identical entities are not one entity.  even assuming that your mind is something uploadable, it would be a separate being from you, no matter how similar it is patterns of thought.  the  you  which experiences a continuity of thought and input will not live on in the computer, only a copy.  and in some philosophical sense, we can argue about the distinctness of such a copy, but  you  will not experience life inside the computer.   you  will simply die as all other humans always have, so, what you are saying is that you ca not wait until you die knowing that a computer is similar to your thought patterns.  i do not feel particularly negative about  uploading  myself, it might be neat to have a copy of me continue.  but i do not fool myself into believing it would be  ame  continuing in the computer.   #  one issue i think i have with the conception of the self that you seemed to be propounding is that there is no real momentary self.   #  i need to re read some parfit.  so, assuming that it would be unethical to cause harm to another conscious entity, do you think it would be unethical for a masochist to cause harm to his own very near future self ? slicing into his arm would cause the pain to be experienced in the future, after all.  one issue i think i have with the conception of the self that you seemed to be propounding is that there is no real momentary self.  our mental faculties are not all synchronized the awareness of one of our experiences is not coterminous with that of all others even if they are initiated at the same time.  and they happen largely independent of each other.  the self is not a singular entity that we can take a coherent snapshot of.  i am aware that that last paragraph does not explain what i mean very well, but hopefully you get the gist of it.  on the other hand, it is late no excuse, i know and it might be nonsense.   #  what if my entire body is gradually replaced over several years ?  #  i am failing to see where op began touching upon the topic of identity in his original post.  nevertheless, you are definitely making value judgments based on your concept of identity:   if i did that while you were awake, would you happily step into the suicide machine ? no, a copy is not you.  let is observe the sorites paradox: if you continuously remove individual grains from a heap of sand, at what point does it turn into a non heap ? clearly, this thought experiment does not illustrate anything about the objective, universal truth about heaps, but about the arbitrariness of the human concept  heap .  it is impossible to create a definition of  heap  that distinctly includes all heaps and excludes all non heaps.  same thing with the concept of identity, a. k. a.   i ,  me ,  you  or  copy .  if you disassemble all atoms in my body and reassemble a set of identical atoms 0 seconds later, is it a copy ? how about 0 nanoseconds ? what if only some undefined percentage of my body is replaced ? what if my entire body is gradually replaced over several years ? is there a distinct difference from the sorites paradox above, or is  identity  also an arbitrary human concept with an  intuition  rather than a  definition  ? in this light, i fail to see what difference it makes whether i am a  copy  or not.   #  at that point, the copy is no longer you.   #  you are assuming the existence of an identity that is seperate from the physical structure of your nervous system here.  your examples all assume a copy being available at the same time as you, but this is not what op meant.  in your examples you share a past with your copy, but the present is different one is giving the backrub, one is recieving etc.  the second the two have different experiences, they become a seperate person.  at that point, the copy is no longer you.  both you and your clone will claim to be /u/cavemonster, but due to the different experiences they will be different people.  however, as long as there is never more than one version alive at the same time, op s logic holds.
i believe that our mind consciousness, memories, personality and whatnot emerges from the physical structure of our body, particularly the nervous system.  creating an identical replica of the latter should be enough to recreate ourselves.  i also believe that in some time our technology will be able to create replicas of people in a computer, thus uploading the mind of existing persons to some digital media, allowing human beings to turn into virtual being singularities, basically .  assuming that actually is feasible, i really ca not wait for it to happen.  getting rid of our mortal bodies and becoming pure data has no drawbacks: we would defeat the laws of physics including pain and death , we would be able to easily control our bodies and our minds as much as we want regulating pleasure, happiness, becoming smarter, erasing memories and whatever , we would even be able to choose to die if we wish so, or to move ourselves to different media, including back to a biological human body.  of course it might happen that this technology gets misused by somebody who detains power, or something else goes wrong, but let is pretend it wo not happen: i am more interested in the moral, ethical and philosophical issues rather than in practical ones.  most of my acquaintances seem to dislike a lot the idea of uploading themselves, but imo they are some kinds of bigots who ca not let go of some values that have no real meaning outside of their culture: values such as the uniqueness and the history of material things.  please change my mind ! no pun intended.    if you guys care about practical issues, we should create a new post about it probably /r/futurology is a better place for that .  here i would like to assume that all the issues that might arise will be overcome, and everything will be technically perfect.   #  i am more interested in the moral, ethical and philosophical issues rather than in practical ones.   #  and that is what i tired to give you.  how are you, you.   # i would like to have this power, although i would also be afraid of becoming somebody who is not me; i am sure there will be a way to handle this.  no, i am not arguing that seeking to change yourself in ways that you think would be beneficial, is bad.  you could instantly become someone who is not you.  you seem to want this but are afraid of it.  what if the  way to handle this  was someone else gets to decide  your settings  ? and that is what i tired to give you.  how are you, you.   #  let is say i take that one into another room and tell it a funny joke.   #  does having a son mean the same thing as living two lifetimes ? no ? how about a genetically identical clone son ? no ? how about one who shares most of your views and values ? all of them ? at what point of similarity does a copy mean the same thing as continuity of existence ? i contend that it never does.  imagine you step into a cloning machine, one  you  steps in, two step out.  brains and bodies perfectly replicated.  let is say i take one clone aside, and give it a backrub.  does the other feel it ? no.  let is say i take that one into another room and tell it a funny joke.  does the other clone laugh ? no.  the experiences of a copy are not felt by the original, no matter the fidelity of the copy.  two identical entities are not one entity.  even assuming that your mind is something uploadable, it would be a separate being from you, no matter how similar it is patterns of thought.  the  you  which experiences a continuity of thought and input will not live on in the computer, only a copy.  and in some philosophical sense, we can argue about the distinctness of such a copy, but  you  will not experience life inside the computer.   you  will simply die as all other humans always have, so, what you are saying is that you ca not wait until you die knowing that a computer is similar to your thought patterns.  i do not feel particularly negative about  uploading  myself, it might be neat to have a copy of me continue.  but i do not fool myself into believing it would be  ame  continuing in the computer.   #  our mental faculties are not all synchronized the awareness of one of our experiences is not coterminous with that of all others even if they are initiated at the same time.   #  i need to re read some parfit.  so, assuming that it would be unethical to cause harm to another conscious entity, do you think it would be unethical for a masochist to cause harm to his own very near future self ? slicing into his arm would cause the pain to be experienced in the future, after all.  one issue i think i have with the conception of the self that you seemed to be propounding is that there is no real momentary self.  our mental faculties are not all synchronized the awareness of one of our experiences is not coterminous with that of all others even if they are initiated at the same time.  and they happen largely independent of each other.  the self is not a singular entity that we can take a coherent snapshot of.  i am aware that that last paragraph does not explain what i mean very well, but hopefully you get the gist of it.  on the other hand, it is late no excuse, i know and it might be nonsense.   #  in this light, i fail to see what difference it makes whether i am a  copy  or not.   #  i am failing to see where op began touching upon the topic of identity in his original post.  nevertheless, you are definitely making value judgments based on your concept of identity:   if i did that while you were awake, would you happily step into the suicide machine ? no, a copy is not you.  let is observe the sorites paradox: if you continuously remove individual grains from a heap of sand, at what point does it turn into a non heap ? clearly, this thought experiment does not illustrate anything about the objective, universal truth about heaps, but about the arbitrariness of the human concept  heap .  it is impossible to create a definition of  heap  that distinctly includes all heaps and excludes all non heaps.  same thing with the concept of identity, a. k. a.   i ,  me ,  you  or  copy .  if you disassemble all atoms in my body and reassemble a set of identical atoms 0 seconds later, is it a copy ? how about 0 nanoseconds ? what if only some undefined percentage of my body is replaced ? what if my entire body is gradually replaced over several years ? is there a distinct difference from the sorites paradox above, or is  identity  also an arbitrary human concept with an  intuition  rather than a  definition  ? in this light, i fail to see what difference it makes whether i am a  copy  or not.   #  however, as long as there is never more than one version alive at the same time, op s logic holds.   #  you are assuming the existence of an identity that is seperate from the physical structure of your nervous system here.  your examples all assume a copy being available at the same time as you, but this is not what op meant.  in your examples you share a past with your copy, but the present is different one is giving the backrub, one is recieving etc.  the second the two have different experiences, they become a seperate person.  at that point, the copy is no longer you.  both you and your clone will claim to be /u/cavemonster, but due to the different experiences they will be different people.  however, as long as there is never more than one version alive at the same time, op s logic holds.
first, to explain why polygamy more specifically, polygyny, because polyandry is not reproductively beneficial to any party, incredibly uncommon in human societies, and not beginning to catch on in our society is bad for society.  in a polygamous society, there is not someone for everyone: if 0 of men practice polygamy, the other 0 will live a life devoid of intimacy.  each man who has more than one wife deprives another man of the opportunity to fulfill his evolutionary purpose, and, in doing so, more or less condemns him to a life of frustration and unhappiness, because he is so instinctually driven to reproduce that he is unlikely to find happiness without success in this area of life.  the second part of my argument is that our society, since the dawn of the sexual revolution and the rise of a culture of casual sex, is beginning to tend towards a sort of  polygamy lite .  first, take bateman is principle there is greater variance in the reproductive success of men than women women do not really have to compete for sex itself, only for sex with better partners.  men will tend to either have 0 to 0 partners or far more than that 0  ? i do not have a specific number whereas women will generally have around the same amount, higher than the average for the beta males, but lower than the average for the alphas.  it stands to reason, then, that women tend to go for the same, high status men, who are completely okay with doing as many of these women as possible.  women are naturally hypergamous look for high status men while men are naturally polygamous look for as many women as possible .  now, let me explain why polygamy and by extension, polygamy lite is bad for society only for the losers in a polygamous society.  the reason this is bad for society as a whole is that sexually unsuccessful males have a strong tendency to not accept being condemned to genetic extinction, and instead tend to act out and cause problems for society such as mass shootings a la eliot rodger and rape.  most suicide bombers from the polygamous muslim society are, in fact, poor single men who would be unlikely to otherwise find a mate.  it is easy to see why the prospect of 0 virgins in heaven would be so appealing to such men.  i would honestly appreciate if someone could change my view here.  this is the conclusion i have reached from my recent studies of evolutionary psychology, and it disturbs me on a deep and personal level.  i do not want to be that guy who is critical of the sexual revolution.   #  sexually unsuccessful males have a strong tendency to not accept being condemned to genetic extinction, and instead tend to act out and cause problems for society such as mass shootings a la eliot rodger and rape.   #  even if this was true, the way to solve it would not be dictating how many partners one person gets to have.   #  i am monogamous and i would have a few issues with the idea of polyamory if it were ever suggested to me.  obviously, if others are happy with it and it works for them, then that is great.  however, the reasons why i do not find polyamory appealing are personal, they have to do mostly with feelings and not evolution.  even if this was true, the way to solve it would not be dictating how many partners one person gets to have.  many if not most rape victims who get pregnant from the rape get an abortion.  people who would resort to shooting others would achieve nothing in preventing genetic extinction.  this is a societal issue and only what society as a whole decides to approve as morally right or not morally wrong gets accepted.  arguments like instinct do not go anywhere with society nowadays.  if a lot of people starts choosing the polyamory life style, it is only a matter of time before it becomes usual.  actually, if the situation is open and every person involved in the relationship is aware and ok with the terms, i think that is accepted by most people anyway.  also, i am a bit uncomfortable with the argument that sexually unsuccessful males could become dangerous.  that does not mean that they should be  given  a sexual partner just to keep their cool.  people are presented with several lifestyle options and will go for the one that suits them best, without hurting or interfering with other is lives.  one argument in favour of polyamory was that people involved wanted to explore their sexuality with other partners without having to lie about it and resort to cheating which they are against.  one might agree with this view or not, but even then, the reasons people choose polyamory are not related to evolution and still, to one extent, to what they believe to be right and wrong.   #  people may date couples or form group relationships.   #  i am non monogamous myself and i have a few problems with this post.  first of all polygamy, at least in america is illegal and most polyamorous people are not really interested in multiple  marriages  polygamy at all.  polyamory simply means multiple romantic relationships, it has nothing to do with marriage.  actually most people in the poly community have a real problem with polygamy because as it is most commonly practiced it is sexist and born out of religious oppression rather then choice, communication and desire.  if you want to talk about polyamory then your argument about it making things unfair for guys is unrealistic.  in non monogamous relationships there is no  taken .  just because a woman already has a male partner does not mean she ca not date another guy.  she is still open to date as many men or women as she wants.  if anything monogamy is more limiting to someone is opportunities since being in a relationship prevents others from being in a relationship with you.  polyamory does not limit this at all.  your argument completely simplifies how polyamory works.  you seem to assume all people are straight.  the poly community is incredibly diverse and there are a lot of queer, trans and kinky people in the community who date multiple people for a variety of reasons.  it is very common for people to have partners of different genders or for someone to seek out a new partner to explore a specific kink that their other partner/s are not into.  a large number of asexuals are polyamorous.  people may date couples or form group relationships.  your view is way too hetero normative to show what polyamory is like.   #  your assumption here is also that, if a woman ca not be with the man she wants because of monogamy, she will settle for someone that she would not want to sleep with instead.   # additionally, in a polygamous society, a group could include more than one of both sexes, thus solving this problem in a way monogamy ca not.  your assumption here is also that, if a woman ca not be with the man she wants because of monogamy, she will settle for someone that she would not want to sleep with instead.  the woman could just as easily choose to remain single, which would also prevent the hypothetical man of meeting all of his needs in life; does this mean, by extension, if polygamy is bad for society, that remaining single and choosing to not marry someone is just as bad ? most suicide bombers from the polygamous muslim society are, in fact, poor single men who would be unlikely to otherwise find a mate.  do you have any statistical information showing that a larger than chance group of males who are criminals are both sexually unsatisfied as well as committing crimes because they are sexually unsatisfied ? it seems like a huge leap to go from  some criminals are not sexually satisfied  to  dissatisfaction with sex life causes people to commit crimes .   #  one of my girlfriends is a sex therapist and, according to her, younger women under 0 or so are increasingly likely to have multiple partners.   #  firstly, as a disclaimer, i have a dog in this fight, as it were.  this depends on where you are and who you ask.  one of my girlfriends is a sex therapist and, according to her, younger women under 0 or so are increasingly likely to have multiple partners.  the information may be slightly biased, because she herself has a husband and another boyfriend besides me.  my primary girlfriend also has another boyfriend.  i understand that it is not necessarily reproductively beneficial, but for a lot of people, sex is not wholly about reproductive benefits.  both of the girlfriends have sex because it is fun and it is exceedingly difficult and impractical in the modern world to get just one person whose schedule and needs allow them to fulfill your needs at a time that meshes with your schedule even a good amount of the time.  sex does not have to be about having babies for our primal reproductive drive to be satisfied.  people who are having any sorts of sex, even if it is two condoms with spermicide and the pill, are reaping the health benefits of getting laid, not least of which is getting that primal need filled.   #  after all, they are only weakening the gene pool.   # if we want really want society to fulfill it is evolutionary purpose let is allow children born with defects or treatable diseases die off.  after all, they are only weakening the gene pool.  also as someone else said, men are getting picked for physical, social, or economic reasons.  why would women who only want to further societies evolution go after  losers  who ca not provide as much to them.  i do not have a specific number whereas women will generally have around the same amount, higher than the average for the beta males, but lower than the average for the alphas.  citation needed men is number of sexual partners varies much more than that and being  alpha  or  beta  are not the deciding factors.  the idea that all men want to sleep with as many women as possible is dated and sexist.  reasons for the amount of partners can depend on world views religion, disease, romance personality, appearance, social standing etc.  why should all men be having the same amount of sex ? women also vary just as much as men when it comes to partners and for many of the same reasons.  men are not doing these things because they ca not get laid.  these things happen because they are mentally disturbed.  if the government had a program where if you have not been laid in a year that they will get you a hooker for the night do you think all these tragedies would stop or at least be reduced ? no, that is absurd.  nobody is entitled to a relationship or sex.  if they are not getting what they want they need to look at themselves and see what they need to change to make them desirable.  none of the arguments you have given show how being non monogamous is bad for society.
first, to explain why polygamy more specifically, polygyny, because polyandry is not reproductively beneficial to any party, incredibly uncommon in human societies, and not beginning to catch on in our society is bad for society.  in a polygamous society, there is not someone for everyone: if 0 of men practice polygamy, the other 0 will live a life devoid of intimacy.  each man who has more than one wife deprives another man of the opportunity to fulfill his evolutionary purpose, and, in doing so, more or less condemns him to a life of frustration and unhappiness, because he is so instinctually driven to reproduce that he is unlikely to find happiness without success in this area of life.  the second part of my argument is that our society, since the dawn of the sexual revolution and the rise of a culture of casual sex, is beginning to tend towards a sort of  polygamy lite .  first, take bateman is principle there is greater variance in the reproductive success of men than women women do not really have to compete for sex itself, only for sex with better partners.  men will tend to either have 0 to 0 partners or far more than that 0  ? i do not have a specific number whereas women will generally have around the same amount, higher than the average for the beta males, but lower than the average for the alphas.  it stands to reason, then, that women tend to go for the same, high status men, who are completely okay with doing as many of these women as possible.  women are naturally hypergamous look for high status men while men are naturally polygamous look for as many women as possible .  now, let me explain why polygamy and by extension, polygamy lite is bad for society only for the losers in a polygamous society.  the reason this is bad for society as a whole is that sexually unsuccessful males have a strong tendency to not accept being condemned to genetic extinction, and instead tend to act out and cause problems for society such as mass shootings a la eliot rodger and rape.  most suicide bombers from the polygamous muslim society are, in fact, poor single men who would be unlikely to otherwise find a mate.  it is easy to see why the prospect of 0 virgins in heaven would be so appealing to such men.  i would honestly appreciate if someone could change my view here.  this is the conclusion i have reached from my recent studies of evolutionary psychology, and it disturbs me on a deep and personal level.  i do not want to be that guy who is critical of the sexual revolution.   #  men will tend to either have 0 to 0 partners or far more than that 0  ?  #  i do not have a specific number whereas women will generally have around the same amount, higher than the average for the beta males, but lower than the average for the alphas.   # if we want really want society to fulfill it is evolutionary purpose let is allow children born with defects or treatable diseases die off.  after all, they are only weakening the gene pool.  also as someone else said, men are getting picked for physical, social, or economic reasons.  why would women who only want to further societies evolution go after  losers  who ca not provide as much to them.  i do not have a specific number whereas women will generally have around the same amount, higher than the average for the beta males, but lower than the average for the alphas.  citation needed men is number of sexual partners varies much more than that and being  alpha  or  beta  are not the deciding factors.  the idea that all men want to sleep with as many women as possible is dated and sexist.  reasons for the amount of partners can depend on world views religion, disease, romance personality, appearance, social standing etc.  why should all men be having the same amount of sex ? women also vary just as much as men when it comes to partners and for many of the same reasons.  men are not doing these things because they ca not get laid.  these things happen because they are mentally disturbed.  if the government had a program where if you have not been laid in a year that they will get you a hooker for the night do you think all these tragedies would stop or at least be reduced ? no, that is absurd.  nobody is entitled to a relationship or sex.  if they are not getting what they want they need to look at themselves and see what they need to change to make them desirable.  none of the arguments you have given show how being non monogamous is bad for society.   #  she is still open to date as many men or women as she wants.   #  i am non monogamous myself and i have a few problems with this post.  first of all polygamy, at least in america is illegal and most polyamorous people are not really interested in multiple  marriages  polygamy at all.  polyamory simply means multiple romantic relationships, it has nothing to do with marriage.  actually most people in the poly community have a real problem with polygamy because as it is most commonly practiced it is sexist and born out of religious oppression rather then choice, communication and desire.  if you want to talk about polyamory then your argument about it making things unfair for guys is unrealistic.  in non monogamous relationships there is no  taken .  just because a woman already has a male partner does not mean she ca not date another guy.  she is still open to date as many men or women as she wants.  if anything monogamy is more limiting to someone is opportunities since being in a relationship prevents others from being in a relationship with you.  polyamory does not limit this at all.  your argument completely simplifies how polyamory works.  you seem to assume all people are straight.  the poly community is incredibly diverse and there are a lot of queer, trans and kinky people in the community who date multiple people for a variety of reasons.  it is very common for people to have partners of different genders or for someone to seek out a new partner to explore a specific kink that their other partner/s are not into.  a large number of asexuals are polyamorous.  people may date couples or form group relationships.  your view is way too hetero normative to show what polyamory is like.   #  do you have any statistical information showing that a larger than chance group of males who are criminals are both sexually unsatisfied as well as committing crimes because they are sexually unsatisfied ?  # additionally, in a polygamous society, a group could include more than one of both sexes, thus solving this problem in a way monogamy ca not.  your assumption here is also that, if a woman ca not be with the man she wants because of monogamy, she will settle for someone that she would not want to sleep with instead.  the woman could just as easily choose to remain single, which would also prevent the hypothetical man of meeting all of his needs in life; does this mean, by extension, if polygamy is bad for society, that remaining single and choosing to not marry someone is just as bad ? most suicide bombers from the polygamous muslim society are, in fact, poor single men who would be unlikely to otherwise find a mate.  do you have any statistical information showing that a larger than chance group of males who are criminals are both sexually unsatisfied as well as committing crimes because they are sexually unsatisfied ? it seems like a huge leap to go from  some criminals are not sexually satisfied  to  dissatisfaction with sex life causes people to commit crimes .   #  people are presented with several lifestyle options and will go for the one that suits them best, without hurting or interfering with other is lives.   #  i am monogamous and i would have a few issues with the idea of polyamory if it were ever suggested to me.  obviously, if others are happy with it and it works for them, then that is great.  however, the reasons why i do not find polyamory appealing are personal, they have to do mostly with feelings and not evolution.  even if this was true, the way to solve it would not be dictating how many partners one person gets to have.  many if not most rape victims who get pregnant from the rape get an abortion.  people who would resort to shooting others would achieve nothing in preventing genetic extinction.  this is a societal issue and only what society as a whole decides to approve as morally right or not morally wrong gets accepted.  arguments like instinct do not go anywhere with society nowadays.  if a lot of people starts choosing the polyamory life style, it is only a matter of time before it becomes usual.  actually, if the situation is open and every person involved in the relationship is aware and ok with the terms, i think that is accepted by most people anyway.  also, i am a bit uncomfortable with the argument that sexually unsuccessful males could become dangerous.  that does not mean that they should be  given  a sexual partner just to keep their cool.  people are presented with several lifestyle options and will go for the one that suits them best, without hurting or interfering with other is lives.  one argument in favour of polyamory was that people involved wanted to explore their sexuality with other partners without having to lie about it and resort to cheating which they are against.  one might agree with this view or not, but even then, the reasons people choose polyamory are not related to evolution and still, to one extent, to what they believe to be right and wrong.   #  one of my girlfriends is a sex therapist and, according to her, younger women under 0 or so are increasingly likely to have multiple partners.   #  firstly, as a disclaimer, i have a dog in this fight, as it were.  this depends on where you are and who you ask.  one of my girlfriends is a sex therapist and, according to her, younger women under 0 or so are increasingly likely to have multiple partners.  the information may be slightly biased, because she herself has a husband and another boyfriend besides me.  my primary girlfriend also has another boyfriend.  i understand that it is not necessarily reproductively beneficial, but for a lot of people, sex is not wholly about reproductive benefits.  both of the girlfriends have sex because it is fun and it is exceedingly difficult and impractical in the modern world to get just one person whose schedule and needs allow them to fulfill your needs at a time that meshes with your schedule even a good amount of the time.  sex does not have to be about having babies for our primal reproductive drive to be satisfied.  people who are having any sorts of sex, even if it is two condoms with spermicide and the pill, are reaping the health benefits of getting laid, not least of which is getting that primal need filled.
i think the japanese need to protect themselves a lot better against china.  the chinese are becoming stronger both in their economy and military, and i am sure they have plenty of generals just aching for payback from all the atrocities commited by the japanese in ww0.  and the japanese wo not even acknoledge the genocide in the same way germany does with the holocaust, that is just rubbing salt in the wound.  on the other side, i know japan is being protected by american forces, but how much can they trust on the us ? would the us go to war with china over japan ? or south korea for that matter i think it wo not happen, and in a tight spot, they would just choose to abandon those allies.   #  i am sure they have plenty of generals just aching for payback from all the atrocities commited by the japanese in ww0.   #  their feelings do not factor into it.   # in europe you had two competing ideologies having just vanquished a common enemy.  the genocide sites were within people is control who had every reason to preserve those sites to vilify their enemy the nazis .  there was also no one to objected because the narrative of the war had isolated the german people from the nazi party.  however in asia china would have four more years of civil war ending in two chinas, that wanted to destroy each other.  the anti japanese sentiment is part of a strategy to ease tension between china and taiwan.  japan has acknowledged the genocide several times.  they do not like it being brought up all the time.  but it is popular in china and south korea to blame japan for stuff and a fight over some monument or text book can distract from actual issues.  much like in the us gay marriage or illegal immigration would get brought up when nothing convenient to complain about was around.  their feelings do not factor into it.  going to war with japan is more trouble than it is worth for china.  more seriously the us has shone a high willingness to go to war on the slightest provocation.  combined with anti chinese sentiment, large military spending lobbies, and for profit contractors the us is ready to go to war at all times.  the us has never broken a mutual protection treaty.  a world in which china occupies japan is a fundamentally different one from the world america wants.  no two countries either with nuclear weapons or protected by a country with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war.  if china conquers japan and south korea, then they would threaten alaska, hawaii and australia i know not part of the us but think of the kangaroos .  right now there is zero risk of a chinese invasion of the us, because china wo not exactly pass japan on it is way to acquire more territory.  even if the us does not actually care about japan, if the us does not keep it is word in asia then there is nothing stopping russia from going into europe.   #  in the best case scenario for japan, the us and the rest of the united nations would defend japan until china gave up, which could end up costing both sides massive amounts of money unnecessarily.   #  do you really think that  payback  for a war that ended 0 years ago is one of china is highest priorities at the moment ? none of their current military or political leaders were older than children during that time, most of them probably were not even alive yet.  now, if japan still posed some sort of threat to china then they would definitely have cause to fear japan and possibly preemptively attack them so that they do not get attacked first, but japan currently has no offensive military power whatsoever.  china has practically nothing to gain from attacking japan, and a whole lot to lose.  in the best case scenario for japan, the us and the rest of the united nations would defend japan until china gave up, which could end up costing both sides massive amounts of money unnecessarily.  in the worst case scenario for japan, china would attack and occupy the country, gaining them a small amount of land and a relatively average economy at the price of completely losing the trust of almost every nation in the world.  despite past conflicts and complications, japan and the us and pretty good allies right now and i am fairly certain that these 0 countries trust each other more than either one trusts china.  also, in order for japan to arm itself for a war it would have to revise its very own constitution which prevents it from having a standing army or waging war.   #  manufacturing will shift to india and africa, and china will have to start smuggling things in.   #  no, the aristocrats enjoy being some of the richest people on the planet.  being the wealthiest person in china, does not mean much if you ca not do everything all the other rich people are doing.  the mechanisms of global trade do not allow for a smaller country, even china, to produce better products than the world market.  if china starts a war they will lose access to that world market.  manufacturing will shift to india and africa, and china will have to start smuggling things in.  the chinese elites went to school at harvard and yale, they understand all this.  so no war.   #  so, it seems to me that even if you could come up with stronger reasons that china might have to invade japan, the japanese government is weakest move would be to try to fight back directly.   #  ok, lets assume that in the future china begins to plan an invasion of japan which would be incredibly stupid of them to do as i laid out in my first response .  do you really think japan is best course of action would be to throw out article 0 of their constitution and start building an army ? not only would this lose the trust that they have built with western nations over the last 0 years, it would be a costly and futile attempt at defending themselves.  any army that japan could build in a few years would be nothing more than an annoyance for the growing chinese economy and military that you mentioned in your post.  rather than coming to some sort of agreement or just being occupied and dominated, japan would be expending an enormous amount of money and manpower to end up with the same result anyways.  so, it seems to me that even if you could come up with stronger reasons that china might have to invade japan, the japanese government is weakest move would be to try to fight back directly.  a smarter, safer course of action for japan would be to rally the united nations to stand by them while engaging in public diplomacy with china to expose to the world how irrational and power hungry they are being and how they should be stopped at all costs before it is too late and they are trying to take over all of asia just like germany did with europe in the 0s/0s.   #  japan and china do have a tense relationship, but that is not really because of wwii in fact, wwii is why the current government came into power, without it china would not be a communist state .   #  one thing should be noted about china, especially the peoples republic of china, they do not invade countries, like, ever.  it is apart of their culture and tradition, and ignoring tibet which china believes is and always will be a part of china china has never occupied a foreign country.  sure they have had some involvement in vietnam and korea, but they claim that they were just supporting the communist regimes which they were .  japan and china do have a tense relationship, but that is not really because of wwii in fact, wwii is why the current government came into power, without it china would not be a communist state .  and just because japan is denying their atrocities in the war has little to do with the tension, after all china do some terrible things and deny it.  however it would take something very dramatic for china to declare war on japan i. e something involving korea, something which is  possible  but unlikely to result in war .  finally, japan is very well defended against china in many ways, mainly diplomatically.  they have america and many other western nations on their side, if china was to attack japan, one of two things would happen in the next few weeks 0 a diplomatic solution 0 wwiii, peace is far more likely and japan know it.  also japan has an impressive navy, impressive army and impressive counter measures to an attack.  japan is in no way vulnerable to an attack from china.
i think the japanese need to protect themselves a lot better against china.  the chinese are becoming stronger both in their economy and military, and i am sure they have plenty of generals just aching for payback from all the atrocities commited by the japanese in ww0.  and the japanese wo not even acknoledge the genocide in the same way germany does with the holocaust, that is just rubbing salt in the wound.  on the other side, i know japan is being protected by american forces, but how much can they trust on the us ? would the us go to war with china over japan ? or south korea for that matter i think it wo not happen, and in a tight spot, they would just choose to abandon those allies.   #  and the japanese wo not even acknoledge the genocide in the same way germany does with the holocaust, that is just rubbing salt in the wound.   #  it is been like that for 0 years.   # uh, what ? ! does the us, uk, russia, or france have generals still aching for payback ? does any country have generals that can even remember wwii ? hint: no .  it is been like that for 0 years.  if anything the  salt in the wound  is much less extreme than it was, say, 0 years ago when it was still a fresh wound.  so the only two reasons you give that china would want to go to war with japan are reasons that have existed for 0 years and have been waning significantly over those 0 years.  you are going to need much better reasoning than that.   #  none of their current military or political leaders were older than children during that time, most of them probably were not even alive yet.   #  do you really think that  payback  for a war that ended 0 years ago is one of china is highest priorities at the moment ? none of their current military or political leaders were older than children during that time, most of them probably were not even alive yet.  now, if japan still posed some sort of threat to china then they would definitely have cause to fear japan and possibly preemptively attack them so that they do not get attacked first, but japan currently has no offensive military power whatsoever.  china has practically nothing to gain from attacking japan, and a whole lot to lose.  in the best case scenario for japan, the us and the rest of the united nations would defend japan until china gave up, which could end up costing both sides massive amounts of money unnecessarily.  in the worst case scenario for japan, china would attack and occupy the country, gaining them a small amount of land and a relatively average economy at the price of completely losing the trust of almost every nation in the world.  despite past conflicts and complications, japan and the us and pretty good allies right now and i am fairly certain that these 0 countries trust each other more than either one trusts china.  also, in order for japan to arm itself for a war it would have to revise its very own constitution which prevents it from having a standing army or waging war.   #  the mechanisms of global trade do not allow for a smaller country, even china, to produce better products than the world market.   #  no, the aristocrats enjoy being some of the richest people on the planet.  being the wealthiest person in china, does not mean much if you ca not do everything all the other rich people are doing.  the mechanisms of global trade do not allow for a smaller country, even china, to produce better products than the world market.  if china starts a war they will lose access to that world market.  manufacturing will shift to india and africa, and china will have to start smuggling things in.  the chinese elites went to school at harvard and yale, they understand all this.  so no war.   #  do you really think japan is best course of action would be to throw out article 0 of their constitution and start building an army ?  #  ok, lets assume that in the future china begins to plan an invasion of japan which would be incredibly stupid of them to do as i laid out in my first response .  do you really think japan is best course of action would be to throw out article 0 of their constitution and start building an army ? not only would this lose the trust that they have built with western nations over the last 0 years, it would be a costly and futile attempt at defending themselves.  any army that japan could build in a few years would be nothing more than an annoyance for the growing chinese economy and military that you mentioned in your post.  rather than coming to some sort of agreement or just being occupied and dominated, japan would be expending an enormous amount of money and manpower to end up with the same result anyways.  so, it seems to me that even if you could come up with stronger reasons that china might have to invade japan, the japanese government is weakest move would be to try to fight back directly.  a smarter, safer course of action for japan would be to rally the united nations to stand by them while engaging in public diplomacy with china to expose to the world how irrational and power hungry they are being and how they should be stopped at all costs before it is too late and they are trying to take over all of asia just like germany did with europe in the 0s/0s.   #  the us has never broken a mutual protection treaty.   # in europe you had two competing ideologies having just vanquished a common enemy.  the genocide sites were within people is control who had every reason to preserve those sites to vilify their enemy the nazis .  there was also no one to objected because the narrative of the war had isolated the german people from the nazi party.  however in asia china would have four more years of civil war ending in two chinas, that wanted to destroy each other.  the anti japanese sentiment is part of a strategy to ease tension between china and taiwan.  japan has acknowledged the genocide several times.  they do not like it being brought up all the time.  but it is popular in china and south korea to blame japan for stuff and a fight over some monument or text book can distract from actual issues.  much like in the us gay marriage or illegal immigration would get brought up when nothing convenient to complain about was around.  their feelings do not factor into it.  going to war with japan is more trouble than it is worth for china.  more seriously the us has shone a high willingness to go to war on the slightest provocation.  combined with anti chinese sentiment, large military spending lobbies, and for profit contractors the us is ready to go to war at all times.  the us has never broken a mutual protection treaty.  a world in which china occupies japan is a fundamentally different one from the world america wants.  no two countries either with nuclear weapons or protected by a country with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war.  if china conquers japan and south korea, then they would threaten alaska, hawaii and australia i know not part of the us but think of the kangaroos .  right now there is zero risk of a chinese invasion of the us, because china wo not exactly pass japan on it is way to acquire more territory.  even if the us does not actually care about japan, if the us does not keep it is word in asia then there is nothing stopping russia from going into europe.
i do not believe that minimum wage should be a living wage.  i hold this view because it is my belief that money trades hands when the service/goods someone is providing exceeds the value of x dollars the buyer is offering.  it is absurd to me that the government has passed legislation that dictates how much i value service/goods.  because of those beliefs, it seems wrong to me that someone should be given a living wage for sup par work, or work that someone does not value at a specific living standard.  for example, let is say i own a large grocery store.  at the front of my store, i have a greeter.  the person i have hired as a greeter is unskilled, has no degree, bare minimal education, and i do not have the resources to train him.  however, he has a friendly attitude and i think it might be nice for people to be greeted when they come in to my store.  saying  hi, welcome to heycallme megamart !   does not take special skills, does not require a degree, requires minimal communication skills and does not require training.  my new employee is doing work that nearly anyone could do.  therefore, i do not value his work at anything above $0 if even that.  why should i have to pay this employee what is considered to be a living wage ?  #  why should i have to pay this employee what is considered to be a living wage ?  #  to try and establish something, i do not believe in the concept of the  worth  of labour because it impossible to determine.   # to try and establish something, i do not believe in the concept of the  worth  of labour because it impossible to determine.  the value of a service is the minimum amount someone will pay to get the service they want, since the employers must seek profit as their first priority.  why is being a greeter worth 0 dollars an hour ? how did you come up with that number ? why not 0 ? if the cost of living is not your concern, then 0 should be fine, right ? if someone will work for 0, awesome ! and then, do not offer raises.  it is not like being a greeter gets any harder.  over time cost of living rises, the food costs in your own store go up, and inflation increases.  that 0 bucks an hour has effectively gone down while your profits just increase.  sort of like what is happening all over the us.  now, as an employer, this is a very sweet deal.  but there are consequences.  the most immediate one is labour unrest.  at some point, your staff will no longer be able to afford food and will refuse to work until you increase wages.  but there are indirect consequences as well.  people who ca not make a living wage will live far below the poverty line.  more poverty means more people will steal from you.  more poverty means you have to move to a gated community, and drive through a dangerous slum to get to work.  workers in poverty are more likely to get into drugs, have unexpected pregnancies, or get horribly sick with no health insurance to cover them.  and more poverty means  fewer customers  as people ca not afford to buy your top shelf products.  hell, it means the city your business operates in becomes a shittier city to live in.  if we look at this at a national level, this is why minimum wage exists, and why it should be a living wage.  hell, how the hell else would you set minimum wage ? at the value of okay pocket money for a teenager ? minimum wage was originally set at a living wage, but has simply stagnated over the years.  tl;dr minimum wage should be a living wage because it helps the economy, and because value for service is an arbitrary amount.   #  i do not support slavery and please do not insinuate that i do.   #  that is an awesome ad hominem if i ever saw one.  i do not support slavery and please do not insinuate that i do.  it is quite insulting.  now moving on to your not attack on me part.  who should give them the basic labor job ? based on the hypothetical job seeker, they do not have skills that the market values at $0/hour.  if this job seeker does not bring sufficient value to the table to justify an employer paying them the required amount, what should happen ? do you recommend that a company be forced to hire people ?  #  i recommend, though, that if it does hire people, it be forced to pay them like people who need to survive.   #  ad hominem ? hardly.  i am attacking your statements, not you.  who should give them the basic labor job ? someone that needs laborers.  if the job is worth doing, it is worth being paid a living wage for; otherwise, as i have said, the employer is condemning the person to living on the dole, living as a criminal, or not living at all.  they are expecting society to take up the slack in the form of welfare , the person to die slowly, or they are creating a criminal; none of which i consider acceptable.  do i recommend that a company be forced to hire people ? no.  i recommend, though, that if it does hire people, it be forced to pay them like people who need to survive.   #  as long as working is beneficial most people will still do it.   # well the argument though isnt should there be a min wage but should it be a  living wage .  as long as working is beneficial most people will still do it.  i think another general issue is what is meant by a living wage ? i think we can both agree that its unreasonable to expect a person to be able to support anyone but themselves on a 0/week  living wage .  should they need a roommate in general probably but this may very by region to afford rent ? what sort of food expense is reasonable ? how much money if any should they have left over ?  #  i make enough to support my family but my wife still substitute teaches for both something to do plus we enjoy the extra money.   # i never mentioned anything about people working for less than minimum wage.  we are discussing whether or not minimum wage should be a living wage not whether or not people should be or have to be working for less than minimum wage.  if it requires full time labor, it should pay enough to support the human doing said labor; otherwise, the person either starves to death slowly, or the taxpayers pick up the slack, subsidizing a business too cheap to pay their workers enough to live off of.  what if it does not require full time labor ? what if the person does not need to make enough to support themselves on ? i make enough to support my family but my wife still substitute teaches for both something to do plus we enjoy the extra money.  the benefit of substitute teaching is that while the pay is far less than a living wage it is a job that is very flexible.  i imagine if it was a job that required a minimum wage there would be far less substitute teachers and the flexibility would be greatly decreased.
i do not believe that minimum wage should be a living wage.  i hold this view because it is my belief that money trades hands when the service/goods someone is providing exceeds the value of x dollars the buyer is offering.  it is absurd to me that the government has passed legislation that dictates how much i value service/goods.  because of those beliefs, it seems wrong to me that someone should be given a living wage for sup par work, or work that someone does not value at a specific living standard.  for example, let is say i own a large grocery store.  at the front of my store, i have a greeter.  the person i have hired as a greeter is unskilled, has no degree, bare minimal education, and i do not have the resources to train him.  however, he has a friendly attitude and i think it might be nice for people to be greeted when they come in to my store.  saying  hi, welcome to heycallme megamart !   does not take special skills, does not require a degree, requires minimal communication skills and does not require training.  my new employee is doing work that nearly anyone could do.  therefore, i do not value his work at anything above $0 if even that.  why should i have to pay this employee what is considered to be a living wage ?  #  the service/goods someone is providing exceeds the value of x dollars the buyer is offering.   #  you have no clue the value an individual provides to the income of the company.   # you pay them based on the supply and demand of capable workers.  this is the economy you are in.  the government sets a wage floor so you cannot pass on the costs of maintaining your workers on the rest of us through welfare .  this is the democracy you live in.  you have no clue the value an individual provides to the income of the company.  all the worker is contributions are intermingled.   #  i do not support slavery and please do not insinuate that i do.   #  that is an awesome ad hominem if i ever saw one.  i do not support slavery and please do not insinuate that i do.  it is quite insulting.  now moving on to your not attack on me part.  who should give them the basic labor job ? based on the hypothetical job seeker, they do not have skills that the market values at $0/hour.  if this job seeker does not bring sufficient value to the table to justify an employer paying them the required amount, what should happen ? do you recommend that a company be forced to hire people ?  #  if the job is worth doing, it is worth being paid a living wage for; otherwise, as i have said, the employer is condemning the person to living on the dole, living as a criminal, or not living at all.   #  ad hominem ? hardly.  i am attacking your statements, not you.  who should give them the basic labor job ? someone that needs laborers.  if the job is worth doing, it is worth being paid a living wage for; otherwise, as i have said, the employer is condemning the person to living on the dole, living as a criminal, or not living at all.  they are expecting society to take up the slack in the form of welfare , the person to die slowly, or they are creating a criminal; none of which i consider acceptable.  do i recommend that a company be forced to hire people ? no.  i recommend, though, that if it does hire people, it be forced to pay them like people who need to survive.   #  i think another general issue is what is meant by a living wage ?  # well the argument though isnt should there be a min wage but should it be a  living wage .  as long as working is beneficial most people will still do it.  i think another general issue is what is meant by a living wage ? i think we can both agree that its unreasonable to expect a person to be able to support anyone but themselves on a 0/week  living wage .  should they need a roommate in general probably but this may very by region to afford rent ? what sort of food expense is reasonable ? how much money if any should they have left over ?  #  i make enough to support my family but my wife still substitute teaches for both something to do plus we enjoy the extra money.   # i never mentioned anything about people working for less than minimum wage.  we are discussing whether or not minimum wage should be a living wage not whether or not people should be or have to be working for less than minimum wage.  if it requires full time labor, it should pay enough to support the human doing said labor; otherwise, the person either starves to death slowly, or the taxpayers pick up the slack, subsidizing a business too cheap to pay their workers enough to live off of.  what if it does not require full time labor ? what if the person does not need to make enough to support themselves on ? i make enough to support my family but my wife still substitute teaches for both something to do plus we enjoy the extra money.  the benefit of substitute teaching is that while the pay is far less than a living wage it is a job that is very flexible.  i imagine if it was a job that required a minimum wage there would be far less substitute teachers and the flexibility would be greatly decreased.
i do not believe that minimum wage should be a living wage.  i hold this view because it is my belief that money trades hands when the service/goods someone is providing exceeds the value of x dollars the buyer is offering.  it is absurd to me that the government has passed legislation that dictates how much i value service/goods.  because of those beliefs, it seems wrong to me that someone should be given a living wage for sup par work, or work that someone does not value at a specific living standard.  for example, let is say i own a large grocery store.  at the front of my store, i have a greeter.  the person i have hired as a greeter is unskilled, has no degree, bare minimal education, and i do not have the resources to train him.  however, he has a friendly attitude and i think it might be nice for people to be greeted when they come in to my store.  saying  hi, welcome to heycallme megamart !   does not take special skills, does not require a degree, requires minimal communication skills and does not require training.  my new employee is doing work that nearly anyone could do.  therefore, i do not value his work at anything above $0 if even that.  why should i have to pay this employee what is considered to be a living wage ?  #  my new employee is doing work that nearly anyone could do.   #  therefore, i do not value his work at anything above $0 if even that.   # therefore, i do not value his work at anything above $0 if even that.  if you do not value that work at the price you are legally required to pay for it, then leave that position empty.  most minimum wage positions are valued far higher than their wage, but competition between workers has driven the market value of their labour way down below this figure.  that is why they remain after minimum wage increases.  the social benefits of this increase far outweigh the cost to businesses.   #  if this job seeker does not bring sufficient value to the table to justify an employer paying them the required amount, what should happen ?  #  that is an awesome ad hominem if i ever saw one.  i do not support slavery and please do not insinuate that i do.  it is quite insulting.  now moving on to your not attack on me part.  who should give them the basic labor job ? based on the hypothetical job seeker, they do not have skills that the market values at $0/hour.  if this job seeker does not bring sufficient value to the table to justify an employer paying them the required amount, what should happen ? do you recommend that a company be forced to hire people ?  #  they are expecting society to take up the slack in the form of welfare , the person to die slowly, or they are creating a criminal; none of which i consider acceptable.   #  ad hominem ? hardly.  i am attacking your statements, not you.  who should give them the basic labor job ? someone that needs laborers.  if the job is worth doing, it is worth being paid a living wage for; otherwise, as i have said, the employer is condemning the person to living on the dole, living as a criminal, or not living at all.  they are expecting society to take up the slack in the form of welfare , the person to die slowly, or they are creating a criminal; none of which i consider acceptable.  do i recommend that a company be forced to hire people ? no.  i recommend, though, that if it does hire people, it be forced to pay them like people who need to survive.   #  how much money if any should they have left over ?  # well the argument though isnt should there be a min wage but should it be a  living wage .  as long as working is beneficial most people will still do it.  i think another general issue is what is meant by a living wage ? i think we can both agree that its unreasonable to expect a person to be able to support anyone but themselves on a 0/week  living wage .  should they need a roommate in general probably but this may very by region to afford rent ? what sort of food expense is reasonable ? how much money if any should they have left over ?  #  what if it does not require full time labor ?  # i never mentioned anything about people working for less than minimum wage.  we are discussing whether or not minimum wage should be a living wage not whether or not people should be or have to be working for less than minimum wage.  if it requires full time labor, it should pay enough to support the human doing said labor; otherwise, the person either starves to death slowly, or the taxpayers pick up the slack, subsidizing a business too cheap to pay their workers enough to live off of.  what if it does not require full time labor ? what if the person does not need to make enough to support themselves on ? i make enough to support my family but my wife still substitute teaches for both something to do plus we enjoy the extra money.  the benefit of substitute teaching is that while the pay is far less than a living wage it is a job that is very flexible.  i imagine if it was a job that required a minimum wage there would be far less substitute teachers and the flexibility would be greatly decreased.
it is often appropriate to refer to individuals by honorifics such as  doctor,   your honor,  or  captain.   in certain situations it is considered disrespectful to not refer to a person by their honorifics\titles.  however, it is my position that nobility never deserves to be referred to by their honorifics/titles king, queen, majesty, prince, ect.  .  why ? 0 nobility is completely unearned.  nobility is something passed down through family lines.  a doctor earns their title, a duke does not.  0 the system of nobility is historically oppressive.  individuals who are nobles today have a lot of wealth based on a historical system in which a very small % of the population had unfair power over the rest of society.  these two reasons remove all obligation to refer to nobility by their honorifics in any social context.   #  the system of nobility is historically oppressive.   #  individuals who are nobles today have a lot of wealth based on a historical system in which a very small % of the population had unfair power over the rest of society.   # nobility is something passed down through family lines.  a doctor earns their title, a duke does not.  that nobility still comes with large responsibilities and they are obligated to undertake.  individuals who are nobles today have a lot of wealth based on a historical system in which a very small % of the population had unfair power over the rest of society.  this is true for all rich people.   individuals who are rich today have a lot of wealth based on a historical system in which a very small % of the population had unfair power over the rest of society.    #  i do have principles, but they do not require 0 honesty at all times.   #  if i were to address the pope as  your holiness  it would not be because i think he is actually holy, it would just be a courtesy.  it would be as another comment astutely noted actively insulting for me to omit a customary title.  it costs me nothing to use it.  courtesy is a very inexpensive social lubricant.  i am not obligated to convert to catholicism, just because i use his official title when talking to the pope not that i am ever likely to be in that situation .  i do not go through life confronting everyone and provoking arguments because of my principles.  i do have principles, but they do not require 0 honesty at all times.  i do not think the pope is holy, but i would call him your holiness, and i do not think that queen elizabeth ii is necessarily majestic, but i would still call her your majesty, as protocol requires, because it is the polite thing to do.  i believe in politeness.   #  i do not really know if the pope would choose to make an issue of it, but i doubt that he would be willing to speak to me.   #  if i were to meet the pope and ask him, so tell me frankie, how is it going ? that would be a provocation.  i do not really know if the pope would choose to make an issue of it, but i doubt that he would be willing to speak to me.  not that i have any need to speak to him, of course, but if i am not speaking to him, then the issue of how i address him will not arise.  and yes, i would extend the same courtesy to the leader of any religious group, no matter how small or how far out on the fringe.  why should i care ? what does it cost me to address someone by the title that they prefer ? i am willing to play their game.  that does not mean i will join their cult or donate money to them, but it costs me nothing to use the form of address that they want.   #  if i were talking to an old style communist who wanted to be called comrade, i would call him that, and it would not be an endorsement of communism.   #  for me, this is not an exercise in critical thinking, i do not automatically endorse the monarchy if i call a monarch  your highness  i am just being polite.  if i were talking to an old style communist who wanted to be called comrade, i would call him that, and it would not be an endorsement of communism.  we can afford to indulge people.  what matters is, if there is ever a referendum on the monarchy and i do live in canada, which is formally ruled by the british monarch but only in a ceremonial sense i will vote against it.  that is when my opinion of the monarchy will be relevant.  but if i am simply meeting the monarch, that is not the time to be discourteous in order to make known my opinion of the monarchy.  i do not believe in the divine right of kings or queens, and i do not believe that royal blood makes someone better than me, but it does not make someone worse than me, either.  i like to be courteous to everyone.   #  imagine that i had inherited wealth built off slavery of blacks, and to this day i insisted all black people call me master.   #  you are right, it does not make them better or worse.  however, if you acknowledge their title, you contradict yourself by implying they are better than you.  nobility comes with the implication of high social status.  acknowledging their title also acknowledges the system of nobility that was built on oppression, a system that leaves the heirs wealthy and more privileged than the rest of us to this day.  allow me to make an analogy.  imagine that i had inherited wealth built off slavery of blacks, and to this day i insisted all black people call me master.  same thing.
it is often appropriate to refer to individuals by honorifics such as  doctor,   your honor,  or  captain.   in certain situations it is considered disrespectful to not refer to a person by their honorifics\titles.  however, it is my position that nobility never deserves to be referred to by their honorifics/titles king, queen, majesty, prince, ect.  .  why ? 0 nobility is completely unearned.  nobility is something passed down through family lines.  a doctor earns their title, a duke does not.  0 the system of nobility is historically oppressive.  individuals who are nobles today have a lot of wealth based on a historical system in which a very small % of the population had unfair power over the rest of society.  these two reasons remove all obligation to refer to nobility by their honorifics in any social context.   #  the system of nobility is historically oppressive.   #  individuals who are nobles today have a lot of wealth based on a historical system in which a very small % of the population had unfair power over the rest of society.   # nobility is something passed down through family lines.  a doctor earns their title, a duke does not.  you forget that kings and queens have often been considered  worthy  by god.  they do not need to have earned your respect, because god dictates who should be is worthy and who is not.  similar to how you refer to a priest as  father , you should refer to a higher religious authority, such as a king, as  your majesty .  individuals who are nobles today have a lot of wealth based on a historical system in which a very small % of the population had unfair power over the rest of society.  with power, often came the responsibility to protect your people.  there have been many great kings and queens throughout history who have led there people to prosperity.  they earned the respect of the people through there actions, and therefore earned there  honorifics .   #  that nobility still comes with large responsibilities and they are obligated to undertake.   # nobility is something passed down through family lines.  a doctor earns their title, a duke does not.  that nobility still comes with large responsibilities and they are obligated to undertake.  individuals who are nobles today have a lot of wealth based on a historical system in which a very small % of the population had unfair power over the rest of society.  this is true for all rich people.   individuals who are rich today have a lot of wealth based on a historical system in which a very small % of the population had unfair power over the rest of society.    #  i do have principles, but they do not require 0 honesty at all times.   #  if i were to address the pope as  your holiness  it would not be because i think he is actually holy, it would just be a courtesy.  it would be as another comment astutely noted actively insulting for me to omit a customary title.  it costs me nothing to use it.  courtesy is a very inexpensive social lubricant.  i am not obligated to convert to catholicism, just because i use his official title when talking to the pope not that i am ever likely to be in that situation .  i do not go through life confronting everyone and provoking arguments because of my principles.  i do have principles, but they do not require 0 honesty at all times.  i do not think the pope is holy, but i would call him your holiness, and i do not think that queen elizabeth ii is necessarily majestic, but i would still call her your majesty, as protocol requires, because it is the polite thing to do.  i believe in politeness.   #  not that i have any need to speak to him, of course, but if i am not speaking to him, then the issue of how i address him will not arise.   #  if i were to meet the pope and ask him, so tell me frankie, how is it going ? that would be a provocation.  i do not really know if the pope would choose to make an issue of it, but i doubt that he would be willing to speak to me.  not that i have any need to speak to him, of course, but if i am not speaking to him, then the issue of how i address him will not arise.  and yes, i would extend the same courtesy to the leader of any religious group, no matter how small or how far out on the fringe.  why should i care ? what does it cost me to address someone by the title that they prefer ? i am willing to play their game.  that does not mean i will join their cult or donate money to them, but it costs me nothing to use the form of address that they want.   #  what matters is, if there is ever a referendum on the monarchy and i do live in canada, which is formally ruled by the british monarch but only in a ceremonial sense i will vote against it.   #  for me, this is not an exercise in critical thinking, i do not automatically endorse the monarchy if i call a monarch  your highness  i am just being polite.  if i were talking to an old style communist who wanted to be called comrade, i would call him that, and it would not be an endorsement of communism.  we can afford to indulge people.  what matters is, if there is ever a referendum on the monarchy and i do live in canada, which is formally ruled by the british monarch but only in a ceremonial sense i will vote against it.  that is when my opinion of the monarchy will be relevant.  but if i am simply meeting the monarch, that is not the time to be discourteous in order to make known my opinion of the monarchy.  i do not believe in the divine right of kings or queens, and i do not believe that royal blood makes someone better than me, but it does not make someone worse than me, either.  i like to be courteous to everyone.
i am completely unswayed and unmoved by tv ads we can include internet video ads and radio ads in this also .  i think that the constant barrage of advertisements is ridiculous since a company could never annoy me into buying their products.  i believe that only children and unintelligent people could ever be swayed by these ads.   an important point  is that i find this last sentence i wrote to be mean, and probably incorrect, which is why i am here.  my decisions on what to buy and where to shop are based on local convenience, word of mouth, and experience.  i may buy a coke, for example, but it is not because i have seen a lot of coke ads.  i have never watched or listened to an advert, then gone and bought something as a result.  in fact, the advertisements often reinforce themselves negatively on me, meaning that i am so annoyed by the constant yammering from a particular company that i choose not to buy from them on principle.   there is one caveat , which is that seeing an ad  once  might be valuable so that i can be aware of a company is existence.  oftentimes this happens through word of mouth or seeing an actual storefront, but sometimes a commercial does the trick.  a commercial on the radio for a specific fast approaching event, for example, would also fall into this category.  in other words, i have already heard of coke and pepsi, and no amount of advertisements from these two companies is going to make me want to buy their products more than i would if i had only seen their ads once; in fact, i may buy them less.  many advertisements we see are for insurance, beer and soft drinks, and medication.  i have chosen an example from each that i have noticed.  0.  i have seen so, so,  so  many commercials for different car insurance companies.  however, nothing any of these companies say about their rates being lower or their service being better has ever convinced me to switch, or even consider changing my insurance.  when it was time to get car insurance, i searched for all the car insurance companies i could find on google, then compared quotes.  i considered every company evenly, regardless of how many adverts of theirs i had seen.  0.  i will never, ever drink budweiser, coors, or miller simply because i find their constant tv war over which of the three is the best so ridiculous that i have permanently crossed them off my list.  i think it is ridiculous that we are all made to sit and watch these companies fight it out.  i believe, again probably rudely, that anybody who sees a bud light commercial and then wants to go drink bud light is sort of dumb.  0.  many prescription medication commercials start off with an attempt to relate to the viewer is suffering.  i find this disingenuous, especially with regards to the elderly.  further, i am not a medical doctor, and i would never try to tell my doctor what medicine he should be prescribing me.  instead, i would tell her my symptoms, and let her do her job.   #  i have never watched or listened to an advert, then gone and bought something as a result.   #  you do not need to do that for advertising to work.   # you do not need to do that for advertising to work.  it needs to effect you when you are weak.  so you are inviting people over and want to have a good time with them.  what pop do you get ? some brand you never heard of or coke ? noticed that you can list of bud, coors and miller off the top of your head what happened to heineken ? .  now you are in a restaurant in a social event and the waitress asks you what drink you want and everyone is ordering an alcoholic drink.  quick, what do you order ? well, you can list bud, coors and miller right off the top of your head.  for drug treatment, its for recognizing that there is a treatment for your problem.  maybe your doctor is not fixing it to your satisfaction, maybe its something over the counter and not doctor worthy like hair loss .  in any case, its information you store away for when you are weak and it pops up.   #  i ca not say my whole view is changed, but at least that makes some sense.   #  i feel like a tool for saying this, but i actually bought heineken today.  why did i buy it ? by age 0, i had heard of it for sure, probably seen adults drinking it, so i decided to try it.  i thought it was okay, so it went on my beer list.  commercials never entered into it.  however , your point in paragraph 0 is very strong.  you are saying that people might resort to buying something everyone else has heard of if it is like a gift ? that makes sense.  i ca not say my whole view is changed, but at least that makes some sense.     #  i may be biased but i do not think ads are nescisarraly bad, they simply promote a product.   #  it is all ads.  all of it.  i know because it is my job, i design them.  every storefront, every bit of packaging, every mention in a show, every share on social media, every mention in a song, every time you see it in a photo, every placement in a store, sometimes even seeing people on the street using the product, etc all of it was thought up and planned out to make you buy one thing over another.  i used to work in a company that had huge fake stores in which they would decide how to beat lay out everything to promote some products over another.  everywhere you go you are being sold somthing, to claim that you are completely immune to it is something i find hard to believe.  this does not mean you are weak it means that you live in the modern world.  i may be biased but i do not think ads are nescisarraly bad, they simply promote a product.  there is not much difference between them and when a person talks about their accomplishments to a prospective partner.  they are putting their best qualities forward in order to sway the other person into choosing them instead of another partner, if that person is swayed does that make them weak or unintelligent ?  #  think of times you have met very smart people from countries with religious governments i have met articulate doctors who will suddenly tell me that fags are going to hell, despite their awareness that homosexuality is genetic.   #  unfortunately, conditioning is far more powerful than intelligence.  think of times you have met very smart people from countries with religious governments i have met articulate doctors who will suddenly tell me that fags are going to hell, despite their awareness that homosexuality is genetic.  like you, i think it is all annoying rubbish, and i have never consciously chosen to buy something based on an ad.  but i do have doubts about whether anyone can claim to be above the influence of marketing.  ads are only the mist explicit form if promotion in our society think about ads dressed up as articles in newspapers, bias paid for in tv where there is no actual direct plug, plus the same insinuating messages rubbed into our unconscious sometimes hundreds of times a day.  marketing knows the weaknesses of the human brain, and the best of it is designed often with the aid of neuroscience and psychology to shamelessly exploit them.  the most effective of it is not as crude as  buy coke it makes you sexy ! it is cheap !    #  a few other redditors seem to have noticed this.   #  option c buy is a possibility for me too, but what i am saying is that the ad would not have caused it.  i get that not all ads are negative in fact, most are probably positive.  however, i do not think that this matters.  i guess they might be charming, like a person who is persuasive might be charming, but i just do not get how an intelligent person can bet swept away to spend $0k on a car because of a charming advertisement.  a few other redditors seem to have noticed this.  i think i wrote it incorrectly.  i do not think intelligent adults should be as moved to  decide to make a purchase rather than not because of an advertisement .
hello, this may sound harsh but please allow me to be blunt.  let is face it, the world is pretty populated.  and the increasing population is affecting the other ecosystems.  so i think it is a win win if all couples are required to be tested and licensed before allowing to have a kids.  it would be a standard bar to past, just like a driving license , making sure the parents are physically and mentally capable of taking care of their kids .  benefits: 0.  it increases the quality of life for the kids, since you know these people are ready and sensible enough to have kids.  ex, not drug addicts, not carrying harmful diseases 0.  good population control.  a lot less harsh than one child policy and still will have the effect of population control.  0.  it is said that population growth in developed countries are starting to slow down.  but population growth is still increasing at an alarming rate in developing countries.  and as the result, there are a lot of starving children because the parents simply are not capable of feeding them.  and having tons of children also means taking up even more resources on the already depleted land.  a hypothetical solution: with today is technology maybe it is possible to put a human safe birth control in the drinking water ? and when the couple received the license, they can take a pill to reverse the effect and have baby ? thank you for reading.  i am open to hearing different opinions.   #  a hypothetical solution: with today is technology maybe it is possible to put a human safe birth control in the drinking water ?  #  and when the couple received the license, they can take a pill to reverse the effect and have baby ?  #  what are the standards ? it is easy to talk about eugenics in the abstract, ideological sense.  it is much trickier to set, and logically defend, whatever arbitrary line in the sand you want to draw for parenthood rights.  with a driving test, we can just put you in a car and evaluate how you drive.  it is simple, fair ish , and highly relevant to the task.  how do you do this for parenting ? do you take a page from elementary school and give them an egg to keep safe ? i do not buy for a second that you can come up with an interview or standard test that can tell you with any degree of certainty if someone will be a good parent.  and when the couple received the license, they can take a pill to reverse the effect and have baby ? have you ever seen the conspiracy theories around fluoride in water ? there is nothing there and people are still upset.  people get mad as hell about the nsa reading our personal info, or the prospect of cameras watching us everywhere.  can you imagine the outcry if the government was actually using the drinking water to goddamn sterilize us ? forget 0, forget the illuminati, forget any story or real world example of an out of control, overbearing government.  none of them even come close to touching this suggestion.  and that is all assuming that this program is carried out with the best of intentions.  think about the absolutely insane amount of power that comes with being the person in charge of who can and ca not reproduce.  i ca not imagine a better way to squash dissent than just preventing the dissenters from making any more of themselves.  is there really a government or organization or person in the world that you trust with that much power ?  #  and a horrible climate problem for ppl without air conditioning.   #  yup, that much power is horrible to even consider.  maybe not water, scientist most likely will have better solution.  but without population control, would not it be even worse if: from experts  projections human population will reach over 0 billion by 0 meaning we will be using up even more resources on earth.  destroying possibly even more wildlife and environment.  this destruction will speed up because if the prey dies, the predators will have to go too.  basically we may be left with an all human planet without any other wildlife.  and a horrible climate problem for ppl without air conditioning.   #  see the thing about 0 billion is that most estimates say earth can support 0 0 billion humans.   #  see the thing about 0 billion is that most estimates say earth can support 0 0 billion humans.  considering that it is also a reasonably popular theory that humans cap out at about 0 billion with some small fluctuations the way most species do when they hit carrying capacity , i do not see the need for draconian intervention.  even if humanity started today in a concerted effort to eradicate all other species, we could not come close to this.  this is the same type of fear mongering that was exploited after 0/0 to take away rights.  yes, climate change is bad, yes we are exploiting the planet.  we should probably continue to work on being more sustainable and less greedy.  but there is absolutely no evidence that we are all going to die unless we surrender our reproductive rights.  by the way, you have conveniently sidestepped the implementation issue.  in addition to the other requirements, i am now curious what percentage of humans you wish to stop from reproducing in any given generation.  how many people need to be sterilized to halt overpopulation, and how well do you think the results of your  parenting test  will line up with that goal ?  #  i did not mention  parenting test  my hypothetical idea is the water, i said i am open to suggestions.   # yes we can absolutely come very close.  so many have already gone extinct as we speak.  i urge you to google the extinct animals, here is one for starters.   URL  but there is absolutely no evidence that we are all going to die unless we surrender our reproductive rights.  how am i suggesting that we are gonna die, if i said we are gonna be left with an all human planet.  they need to pass just a basic test, making sure they are mentally and physically capable.  i did not mention  parenting test  my hypothetical idea is the water, i said i am open to suggestions.  so i am not completely stuck on that concept because i do not know the answer.  if i do, i wo not be here.   #  at that rate, we would need 0 years to exterminate everything.   #  URL i in no way intend to downplay the severity of the extinction crisis, but an all human planet is utterly ludicrous.  when we say crisis, we are talking at most a tenth of a percent of the species on earth dying in a given year.  at that rate, we would need 0 years to exterminate everything.  and do not forget, the species that live are only going to be hardier.  towards the end, we will be trying to exterminate species like cockroaches and rats that are damn near invincible.  if we were capable of driving these pest species to extinction, you can be sure we would have done it by now.  not to mention that we would probably drive ourselves extinct while trying this due to lack of food or, eventually, oxygen no plants before we managed to kill everything else.  they need to pass just a basic test, making sure they are mentally and physically capable.  i did not mention  parenting test  ok, well if you are going to solve overpopulation, a lot of people need to fail this test.  so it ca not be that basic or it is useless.  i am not attacking the water idea at all, i get that was just an example.
hello, this may sound harsh but please allow me to be blunt.  let is face it, the world is pretty populated.  and the increasing population is affecting the other ecosystems.  so i think it is a win win if all couples are required to be tested and licensed before allowing to have a kids.  it would be a standard bar to past, just like a driving license , making sure the parents are physically and mentally capable of taking care of their kids .  benefits: 0.  it increases the quality of life for the kids, since you know these people are ready and sensible enough to have kids.  ex, not drug addicts, not carrying harmful diseases 0.  good population control.  a lot less harsh than one child policy and still will have the effect of population control.  0.  it is said that population growth in developed countries are starting to slow down.  but population growth is still increasing at an alarming rate in developing countries.  and as the result, there are a lot of starving children because the parents simply are not capable of feeding them.  and having tons of children also means taking up even more resources on the already depleted land.  a hypothetical solution: with today is technology maybe it is possible to put a human safe birth control in the drinking water ? and when the couple received the license, they can take a pill to reverse the effect and have baby ? thank you for reading.  i am open to hearing different opinions.   #  a hypothetical solution: with today is technology maybe it is possible to put a human safe birth control in the drinking water ?  #  and when the couple received the license, they can take a pill to reverse the effect and have baby ?  # and when the couple received the license, they can take a pill to reverse the effect and have baby ? whatever goes in the drinking water also goes in rivers, lakes, streams, etc.  you would sterilize any species whose reproductive system functioned in a similar enough manner as ours.  at a minimum this means the extinction of all gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc that are not in captive breeding programs.  we are already seeing species of amphibians and fish in bodies of water near urban areas experience increased malformations, spontaneous abortions, hormonal problems, and similarly dangerous health issues from exposure to the current levels of human birth control and xenoestrogens building up in the environment.  if enough birth control is being dumped in the water supply to sterilze a nation of millions, it will wreak absolute havoc on the environment and cause widespread extinctions.   #  there is nothing there and people are still upset.   #  what are the standards ? it is easy to talk about eugenics in the abstract, ideological sense.  it is much trickier to set, and logically defend, whatever arbitrary line in the sand you want to draw for parenthood rights.  with a driving test, we can just put you in a car and evaluate how you drive.  it is simple, fair ish , and highly relevant to the task.  how do you do this for parenting ? do you take a page from elementary school and give them an egg to keep safe ? i do not buy for a second that you can come up with an interview or standard test that can tell you with any degree of certainty if someone will be a good parent.  and when the couple received the license, they can take a pill to reverse the effect and have baby ? have you ever seen the conspiracy theories around fluoride in water ? there is nothing there and people are still upset.  people get mad as hell about the nsa reading our personal info, or the prospect of cameras watching us everywhere.  can you imagine the outcry if the government was actually using the drinking water to goddamn sterilize us ? forget 0, forget the illuminati, forget any story or real world example of an out of control, overbearing government.  none of them even come close to touching this suggestion.  and that is all assuming that this program is carried out with the best of intentions.  think about the absolutely insane amount of power that comes with being the person in charge of who can and ca not reproduce.  i ca not imagine a better way to squash dissent than just preventing the dissenters from making any more of themselves.  is there really a government or organization or person in the world that you trust with that much power ?  #  but without population control, would not it be even worse if: from experts  projections human population will reach over 0 billion by 0 meaning we will be using up even more resources on earth.   #  yup, that much power is horrible to even consider.  maybe not water, scientist most likely will have better solution.  but without population control, would not it be even worse if: from experts  projections human population will reach over 0 billion by 0 meaning we will be using up even more resources on earth.  destroying possibly even more wildlife and environment.  this destruction will speed up because if the prey dies, the predators will have to go too.  basically we may be left with an all human planet without any other wildlife.  and a horrible climate problem for ppl without air conditioning.   #  this is the same type of fear mongering that was exploited after 0/0 to take away rights.   #  see the thing about 0 billion is that most estimates say earth can support 0 0 billion humans.  considering that it is also a reasonably popular theory that humans cap out at about 0 billion with some small fluctuations the way most species do when they hit carrying capacity , i do not see the need for draconian intervention.  even if humanity started today in a concerted effort to eradicate all other species, we could not come close to this.  this is the same type of fear mongering that was exploited after 0/0 to take away rights.  yes, climate change is bad, yes we are exploiting the planet.  we should probably continue to work on being more sustainable and less greedy.  but there is absolutely no evidence that we are all going to die unless we surrender our reproductive rights.  by the way, you have conveniently sidestepped the implementation issue.  in addition to the other requirements, i am now curious what percentage of humans you wish to stop from reproducing in any given generation.  how many people need to be sterilized to halt overpopulation, and how well do you think the results of your  parenting test  will line up with that goal ?  #  i did not mention  parenting test  my hypothetical idea is the water, i said i am open to suggestions.   # yes we can absolutely come very close.  so many have already gone extinct as we speak.  i urge you to google the extinct animals, here is one for starters.   URL  but there is absolutely no evidence that we are all going to die unless we surrender our reproductive rights.  how am i suggesting that we are gonna die, if i said we are gonna be left with an all human planet.  they need to pass just a basic test, making sure they are mentally and physically capable.  i did not mention  parenting test  my hypothetical idea is the water, i said i am open to suggestions.  so i am not completely stuck on that concept because i do not know the answer.  if i do, i wo not be here.
while browsing reddit i saw, mostly on femenist subreddits, lots of people believing that people before 0, 0 or even 0 ca not have consensual sex, especially with someone who is older than they are.  even though i support femenism, i think their views are false and ageist.  0 there is no evidence that people do not have any sex desire before they are x years old.  at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.  every guy in my class admitted that has at least once watched a porn movie.  some guys openly said that they want to have sex with someone, even if someone is much older than they are.  girls are generally less open about this stuff, but i do not think there is that much of difference.  i am not saying that every boy/girl want to have sex with every other boy/girl, but that there are people bellow age of consent who would greatly enjoy having sex, even with someone much older than they are.  0 projecting your experience to everybody is a logical mistake.  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.  sadly, when people discus age of consent, they usually forget about that.  also, it is ageist to believe that age equals maturity.  0 not every adult using their  age advantage  to force teenagers to have sex with them.  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.  how to deal with those people should be explained in sex ed.  classes.  0 different people have different sexual preferences.  i for, example, absolutely not attracted by boys of my age, but love strong and mature grown up guys.  another big fetish i have is crossdressing.  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.  note that i am not being pro pedo, like many posts here, i am just tired of people of my age being unfairly discriminated against.  please change my view.   #  there is no evidence that people do not have any sex desire before they are x years old.   #  at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.   # at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.  every guy in my class admitted that has at least once watched a porn movie.  some guys openly said that they want to have sex with someone, even if someone is much older than they are.  girls are generally less open about this stuff, but i do not think there is that much of difference adults were all at one time kids.  everyone is aware that most people who have hit puberty want to have sex, even though some adults might deny knowing it.  to that end, it is idiotic to mandate that two fifteen year old kids ca not have sex with each other, but this is not the argument here.  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.  sadly, when people discus age of consent, they usually forget about that.  consent laws are not about one experience.  consent laws are predicated on the mean.  what we think the average 0 year old is capable of.  there might be a 0 year old who is mature enough to be in a relationship with a 0 year old, but they are few and far between.  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.  this is the grist of the argument.  i would argue that every adult 0  who has sex with a kid 0 is using their age advantage, mainly because they are mentally not on the same playing field as the kid.  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.  kids also have huge issues looking at issues long term and doing risk assessment.  because of this, it is easier for adults to coerce kids into making bad choices.  kids just have not developed the ability to think about consequences like they should e. g.  do i trust this person enough to not wear a condom ? .  ages of majority are not about everyone, there are 0 year olds who are much less emotionally mature than 0 year olds.  the were designed to cast a large net.  i for, example, absolutely not attracted by boys of my age, but love strong and mature grown up guys.  and when you are older, you can date older guys.  when i was 0, i wanted to drive and felt like i could.  it does not mean i was actually mature enough to drive.  another big fetish i have is crossdressing.  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.  no one is stopping you from crossdressing.   #  it seems like lot of people believe that after person is older than age of consent, they start to be manipulative towards their younger partners.   # it seems like lot of people believe that after person is older than age of consent, they start to be manipulative towards their younger partners.  like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.  i would argue that every adult 0  who has sex with a kid 0 is using their age advantage, mainly because they are mentally not on the same playing field as the kid.  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.  for same reason we could prohibit mentally disabled people from having sex with non mentally disabled adults, because they can be manipulated.  we could prohibit people from dating someone much smarter than they are, because too, it could lead to them being manipulated.  there are better ways to prevent manipulation and abuse, for example they could actually try to teach kids something important at school, like how not to get into abusive relationship.  it does not mean i was actually mature enough to drive.  sex does not put that many people in danger, and can be taught much easier than it.  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.   #  like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.   # like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.  i guess i do not really understand what you mean when you say  much older .  i would say a 0 year old is much older than a 0 year old but i would say a 0 year old is much older than a 0 year old.  kids can not biologically make good decisions.  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.  the whole idea of consent laws is to protect the child.  sex is much more complicated than driving because it involves emotions rather than reflexes.  sex is physical, emotional, and societal.   #  as a crude analogy imagine if there was a drug which had terrible effects on 0 of the population like their arms fell off, and it was banned.   #  there are 0 separate issues here.  one whether the law should allow sex with 0 y/o and whether the law should allow op, a 0 year old to have sex with those over the age of consent.  there is a world of difference between the two.  as a crude analogy imagine if there was a drug which had terrible effects on 0 of the population like their arms fell off, and it was banned.  however for a tiny minority it just gets them high.  should a member of this minority have access to the drug ? and is the person supplying it being ethical in doing so ? and should they receive legal protection ?  #  it may seem rough now, but enjoy being young and do not hurry to grow up, because eventually you will have to.   # there is actually some scientific evidence that supports this.  the part of your brain that governs the ability to put off immediate satisfaction in lieu of greater satisfaction later is not fully developed until your 0s.  this is the orbitofrontal cortex, and if you want more info, look up phineas gage i would provide links, but i am on mobile .  on a more human side, you are young, looking for intimacy, and have faith in people.  however, a vital part of life is making and learning to deal with small mistakes before making big ones, and getting involved with people too far removed from your own age group exposes you to more danger than you might realize.  it may seem rough now, but enjoy being young and do not hurry to grow up, because eventually you will have to.
while browsing reddit i saw, mostly on femenist subreddits, lots of people believing that people before 0, 0 or even 0 ca not have consensual sex, especially with someone who is older than they are.  even though i support femenism, i think their views are false and ageist.  0 there is no evidence that people do not have any sex desire before they are x years old.  at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.  every guy in my class admitted that has at least once watched a porn movie.  some guys openly said that they want to have sex with someone, even if someone is much older than they are.  girls are generally less open about this stuff, but i do not think there is that much of difference.  i am not saying that every boy/girl want to have sex with every other boy/girl, but that there are people bellow age of consent who would greatly enjoy having sex, even with someone much older than they are.  0 projecting your experience to everybody is a logical mistake.  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.  sadly, when people discus age of consent, they usually forget about that.  also, it is ageist to believe that age equals maturity.  0 not every adult using their  age advantage  to force teenagers to have sex with them.  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.  how to deal with those people should be explained in sex ed.  classes.  0 different people have different sexual preferences.  i for, example, absolutely not attracted by boys of my age, but love strong and mature grown up guys.  another big fetish i have is crossdressing.  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.  note that i am not being pro pedo, like many posts here, i am just tired of people of my age being unfairly discriminated against.  please change my view.   #  projecting your experience to everybody is a logical mistake.   #  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.   # at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.  every guy in my class admitted that has at least once watched a porn movie.  some guys openly said that they want to have sex with someone, even if someone is much older than they are.  girls are generally less open about this stuff, but i do not think there is that much of difference adults were all at one time kids.  everyone is aware that most people who have hit puberty want to have sex, even though some adults might deny knowing it.  to that end, it is idiotic to mandate that two fifteen year old kids ca not have sex with each other, but this is not the argument here.  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.  sadly, when people discus age of consent, they usually forget about that.  consent laws are not about one experience.  consent laws are predicated on the mean.  what we think the average 0 year old is capable of.  there might be a 0 year old who is mature enough to be in a relationship with a 0 year old, but they are few and far between.  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.  this is the grist of the argument.  i would argue that every adult 0  who has sex with a kid 0 is using their age advantage, mainly because they are mentally not on the same playing field as the kid.  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.  kids also have huge issues looking at issues long term and doing risk assessment.  because of this, it is easier for adults to coerce kids into making bad choices.  kids just have not developed the ability to think about consequences like they should e. g.  do i trust this person enough to not wear a condom ? .  ages of majority are not about everyone, there are 0 year olds who are much less emotionally mature than 0 year olds.  the were designed to cast a large net.  i for, example, absolutely not attracted by boys of my age, but love strong and mature grown up guys.  and when you are older, you can date older guys.  when i was 0, i wanted to drive and felt like i could.  it does not mean i was actually mature enough to drive.  another big fetish i have is crossdressing.  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.  no one is stopping you from crossdressing.   #  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.   # it seems like lot of people believe that after person is older than age of consent, they start to be manipulative towards their younger partners.  like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.  i would argue that every adult 0  who has sex with a kid 0 is using their age advantage, mainly because they are mentally not on the same playing field as the kid.  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.  for same reason we could prohibit mentally disabled people from having sex with non mentally disabled adults, because they can be manipulated.  we could prohibit people from dating someone much smarter than they are, because too, it could lead to them being manipulated.  there are better ways to prevent manipulation and abuse, for example they could actually try to teach kids something important at school, like how not to get into abusive relationship.  it does not mean i was actually mature enough to drive.  sex does not put that many people in danger, and can be taught much easier than it.  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.   #  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.   # like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.  i guess i do not really understand what you mean when you say  much older .  i would say a 0 year old is much older than a 0 year old but i would say a 0 year old is much older than a 0 year old.  kids can not biologically make good decisions.  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.  the whole idea of consent laws is to protect the child.  sex is much more complicated than driving because it involves emotions rather than reflexes.  sex is physical, emotional, and societal.   #  there is a world of difference between the two.   #  there are 0 separate issues here.  one whether the law should allow sex with 0 y/o and whether the law should allow op, a 0 year old to have sex with those over the age of consent.  there is a world of difference between the two.  as a crude analogy imagine if there was a drug which had terrible effects on 0 of the population like their arms fell off, and it was banned.  however for a tiny minority it just gets them high.  should a member of this minority have access to the drug ? and is the person supplying it being ethical in doing so ? and should they receive legal protection ?  #  there is actually some scientific evidence that supports this.   # there is actually some scientific evidence that supports this.  the part of your brain that governs the ability to put off immediate satisfaction in lieu of greater satisfaction later is not fully developed until your 0s.  this is the orbitofrontal cortex, and if you want more info, look up phineas gage i would provide links, but i am on mobile .  on a more human side, you are young, looking for intimacy, and have faith in people.  however, a vital part of life is making and learning to deal with small mistakes before making big ones, and getting involved with people too far removed from your own age group exposes you to more danger than you might realize.  it may seem rough now, but enjoy being young and do not hurry to grow up, because eventually you will have to.
while browsing reddit i saw, mostly on femenist subreddits, lots of people believing that people before 0, 0 or even 0 ca not have consensual sex, especially with someone who is older than they are.  even though i support femenism, i think their views are false and ageist.  0 there is no evidence that people do not have any sex desire before they are x years old.  at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.  every guy in my class admitted that has at least once watched a porn movie.  some guys openly said that they want to have sex with someone, even if someone is much older than they are.  girls are generally less open about this stuff, but i do not think there is that much of difference.  i am not saying that every boy/girl want to have sex with every other boy/girl, but that there are people bellow age of consent who would greatly enjoy having sex, even with someone much older than they are.  0 projecting your experience to everybody is a logical mistake.  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.  sadly, when people discus age of consent, they usually forget about that.  also, it is ageist to believe that age equals maturity.  0 not every adult using their  age advantage  to force teenagers to have sex with them.  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.  how to deal with those people should be explained in sex ed.  classes.  0 different people have different sexual preferences.  i for, example, absolutely not attracted by boys of my age, but love strong and mature grown up guys.  another big fetish i have is crossdressing.  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.  note that i am not being pro pedo, like many posts here, i am just tired of people of my age being unfairly discriminated against.  please change my view.   #  not every adult using their  age advantage  to force teenagers to have sex with them.   #  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.   # at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.  every guy in my class admitted that has at least once watched a porn movie.  some guys openly said that they want to have sex with someone, even if someone is much older than they are.  girls are generally less open about this stuff, but i do not think there is that much of difference adults were all at one time kids.  everyone is aware that most people who have hit puberty want to have sex, even though some adults might deny knowing it.  to that end, it is idiotic to mandate that two fifteen year old kids ca not have sex with each other, but this is not the argument here.  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.  sadly, when people discus age of consent, they usually forget about that.  consent laws are not about one experience.  consent laws are predicated on the mean.  what we think the average 0 year old is capable of.  there might be a 0 year old who is mature enough to be in a relationship with a 0 year old, but they are few and far between.  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.  this is the grist of the argument.  i would argue that every adult 0  who has sex with a kid 0 is using their age advantage, mainly because they are mentally not on the same playing field as the kid.  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.  kids also have huge issues looking at issues long term and doing risk assessment.  because of this, it is easier for adults to coerce kids into making bad choices.  kids just have not developed the ability to think about consequences like they should e. g.  do i trust this person enough to not wear a condom ? .  ages of majority are not about everyone, there are 0 year olds who are much less emotionally mature than 0 year olds.  the were designed to cast a large net.  i for, example, absolutely not attracted by boys of my age, but love strong and mature grown up guys.  and when you are older, you can date older guys.  when i was 0, i wanted to drive and felt like i could.  it does not mean i was actually mature enough to drive.  another big fetish i have is crossdressing.  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.  no one is stopping you from crossdressing.   #  for same reason we could prohibit mentally disabled people from having sex with non mentally disabled adults, because they can be manipulated.   # it seems like lot of people believe that after person is older than age of consent, they start to be manipulative towards their younger partners.  like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.  i would argue that every adult 0  who has sex with a kid 0 is using their age advantage, mainly because they are mentally not on the same playing field as the kid.  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.  for same reason we could prohibit mentally disabled people from having sex with non mentally disabled adults, because they can be manipulated.  we could prohibit people from dating someone much smarter than they are, because too, it could lead to them being manipulated.  there are better ways to prevent manipulation and abuse, for example they could actually try to teach kids something important at school, like how not to get into abusive relationship.  it does not mean i was actually mature enough to drive.  sex does not put that many people in danger, and can be taught much easier than it.  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.   #  like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.   # like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.  i guess i do not really understand what you mean when you say  much older .  i would say a 0 year old is much older than a 0 year old but i would say a 0 year old is much older than a 0 year old.  kids can not biologically make good decisions.  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.  the whole idea of consent laws is to protect the child.  sex is much more complicated than driving because it involves emotions rather than reflexes.  sex is physical, emotional, and societal.   #  and is the person supplying it being ethical in doing so ?  #  there are 0 separate issues here.  one whether the law should allow sex with 0 y/o and whether the law should allow op, a 0 year old to have sex with those over the age of consent.  there is a world of difference between the two.  as a crude analogy imagine if there was a drug which had terrible effects on 0 of the population like their arms fell off, and it was banned.  however for a tiny minority it just gets them high.  should a member of this minority have access to the drug ? and is the person supplying it being ethical in doing so ? and should they receive legal protection ?  #  it may seem rough now, but enjoy being young and do not hurry to grow up, because eventually you will have to.   # there is actually some scientific evidence that supports this.  the part of your brain that governs the ability to put off immediate satisfaction in lieu of greater satisfaction later is not fully developed until your 0s.  this is the orbitofrontal cortex, and if you want more info, look up phineas gage i would provide links, but i am on mobile .  on a more human side, you are young, looking for intimacy, and have faith in people.  however, a vital part of life is making and learning to deal with small mistakes before making big ones, and getting involved with people too far removed from your own age group exposes you to more danger than you might realize.  it may seem rough now, but enjoy being young and do not hurry to grow up, because eventually you will have to.
while browsing reddit i saw, mostly on femenist subreddits, lots of people believing that people before 0, 0 or even 0 ca not have consensual sex, especially with someone who is older than they are.  even though i support femenism, i think their views are false and ageist.  0 there is no evidence that people do not have any sex desire before they are x years old.  at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.  every guy in my class admitted that has at least once watched a porn movie.  some guys openly said that they want to have sex with someone, even if someone is much older than they are.  girls are generally less open about this stuff, but i do not think there is that much of difference.  i am not saying that every boy/girl want to have sex with every other boy/girl, but that there are people bellow age of consent who would greatly enjoy having sex, even with someone much older than they are.  0 projecting your experience to everybody is a logical mistake.  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.  sadly, when people discus age of consent, they usually forget about that.  also, it is ageist to believe that age equals maturity.  0 not every adult using their  age advantage  to force teenagers to have sex with them.  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.  how to deal with those people should be explained in sex ed.  classes.  0 different people have different sexual preferences.  i for, example, absolutely not attracted by boys of my age, but love strong and mature grown up guys.  another big fetish i have is crossdressing.  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.  note that i am not being pro pedo, like many posts here, i am just tired of people of my age being unfairly discriminated against.  please change my view.   #  it is ageist to believe that age equals maturity.   #  there is actually some scientific evidence that supports this.   # there is actually some scientific evidence that supports this.  the part of your brain that governs the ability to put off immediate satisfaction in lieu of greater satisfaction later is not fully developed until your 0s.  this is the orbitofrontal cortex, and if you want more info, look up phineas gage i would provide links, but i am on mobile .  on a more human side, you are young, looking for intimacy, and have faith in people.  however, a vital part of life is making and learning to deal with small mistakes before making big ones, and getting involved with people too far removed from your own age group exposes you to more danger than you might realize.  it may seem rough now, but enjoy being young and do not hurry to grow up, because eventually you will have to.   #  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.   # at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.  every guy in my class admitted that has at least once watched a porn movie.  some guys openly said that they want to have sex with someone, even if someone is much older than they are.  girls are generally less open about this stuff, but i do not think there is that much of difference adults were all at one time kids.  everyone is aware that most people who have hit puberty want to have sex, even though some adults might deny knowing it.  to that end, it is idiotic to mandate that two fifteen year old kids ca not have sex with each other, but this is not the argument here.  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.  sadly, when people discus age of consent, they usually forget about that.  consent laws are not about one experience.  consent laws are predicated on the mean.  what we think the average 0 year old is capable of.  there might be a 0 year old who is mature enough to be in a relationship with a 0 year old, but they are few and far between.  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.  this is the grist of the argument.  i would argue that every adult 0  who has sex with a kid 0 is using their age advantage, mainly because they are mentally not on the same playing field as the kid.  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.  kids also have huge issues looking at issues long term and doing risk assessment.  because of this, it is easier for adults to coerce kids into making bad choices.  kids just have not developed the ability to think about consequences like they should e. g.  do i trust this person enough to not wear a condom ? .  ages of majority are not about everyone, there are 0 year olds who are much less emotionally mature than 0 year olds.  the were designed to cast a large net.  i for, example, absolutely not attracted by boys of my age, but love strong and mature grown up guys.  and when you are older, you can date older guys.  when i was 0, i wanted to drive and felt like i could.  it does not mean i was actually mature enough to drive.  another big fetish i have is crossdressing.  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.  no one is stopping you from crossdressing.   #  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.   # it seems like lot of people believe that after person is older than age of consent, they start to be manipulative towards their younger partners.  like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.  i would argue that every adult 0  who has sex with a kid 0 is using their age advantage, mainly because they are mentally not on the same playing field as the kid.  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.  for same reason we could prohibit mentally disabled people from having sex with non mentally disabled adults, because they can be manipulated.  we could prohibit people from dating someone much smarter than they are, because too, it could lead to them being manipulated.  there are better ways to prevent manipulation and abuse, for example they could actually try to teach kids something important at school, like how not to get into abusive relationship.  it does not mean i was actually mature enough to drive.  sex does not put that many people in danger, and can be taught much easier than it.  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.   #  i guess i do not really understand what you mean when you say  much older .   # like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.  i guess i do not really understand what you mean when you say  much older .  i would say a 0 year old is much older than a 0 year old but i would say a 0 year old is much older than a 0 year old.  kids can not biologically make good decisions.  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.  the whole idea of consent laws is to protect the child.  sex is much more complicated than driving because it involves emotions rather than reflexes.  sex is physical, emotional, and societal.   #  however for a tiny minority it just gets them high.   #  there are 0 separate issues here.  one whether the law should allow sex with 0 y/o and whether the law should allow op, a 0 year old to have sex with those over the age of consent.  there is a world of difference between the two.  as a crude analogy imagine if there was a drug which had terrible effects on 0 of the population like their arms fell off, and it was banned.  however for a tiny minority it just gets them high.  should a member of this minority have access to the drug ? and is the person supplying it being ethical in doing so ? and should they receive legal protection ?
while browsing reddit i saw, mostly on femenist subreddits, lots of people believing that people before 0, 0 or even 0 ca not have consensual sex, especially with someone who is older than they are.  even though i support femenism, i think their views are false and ageist.  0 there is no evidence that people do not have any sex desire before they are x years old.  at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.  every guy in my class admitted that has at least once watched a porn movie.  some guys openly said that they want to have sex with someone, even if someone is much older than they are.  girls are generally less open about this stuff, but i do not think there is that much of difference.  i am not saying that every boy/girl want to have sex with every other boy/girl, but that there are people bellow age of consent who would greatly enjoy having sex, even with someone much older than they are.  0 projecting your experience to everybody is a logical mistake.  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.  sadly, when people discus age of consent, they usually forget about that.  also, it is ageist to believe that age equals maturity.  0 not every adult using their  age advantage  to force teenagers to have sex with them.  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.  how to deal with those people should be explained in sex ed.  classes.  0 different people have different sexual preferences.  i for, example, absolutely not attracted by boys of my age, but love strong and mature grown up guys.  another big fetish i have is crossdressing.  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.  note that i am not being pro pedo, like many posts here, i am just tired of people of my age being unfairly discriminated against.  please change my view.   #  lots of people believing that people before 0, 0 or even 0 ca not have consensual sex, especially with someone who is older than they are.   #  this seems like a straw man argument here.   # this seems like a straw man argument here.  very few people honestly think this, and no one is going to make a rational argument for it.  the legal age to consent to sex in most states is 0, so for people to make a case that you have to be older than 0  before it can even be consensual is just silly imo.  as for your other point though, the human brain is not even done fully developing around age 0.  as a 0 year old, i wanted to sleep with tons of people.  older, younger, did not matter.  so i can see where you are at.  but being 0 now, i can tell you that the people around my age and older who date people still around the high school age range do not do it just because they like younger people.  they could find those in college too.  they do it because they know the younger person will  always  defer to them with almost any question.   take it from me, i have been there.   , etc.  if you wonder why many young girls are usually into males of an older age though, it is because the brain connections of a female develop faster than that of a male.  URL  #  ages of majority are not about everyone, there are 0 year olds who are much less emotionally mature than 0 year olds.   # at the same time, amount of evidence for opposite is too large too be ignored.  every guy in my class admitted that has at least once watched a porn movie.  some guys openly said that they want to have sex with someone, even if someone is much older than they are.  girls are generally less open about this stuff, but i do not think there is that much of difference adults were all at one time kids.  everyone is aware that most people who have hit puberty want to have sex, even though some adults might deny knowing it.  to that end, it is idiotic to mandate that two fifteen year old kids ca not have sex with each other, but this is not the argument here.  if you could not consent before you were x years, that is fine, but every person is different.  sadly, when people discus age of consent, they usually forget about that.  consent laws are not about one experience.  consent laws are predicated on the mean.  what we think the average 0 year old is capable of.  there might be a 0 year old who is mature enough to be in a relationship with a 0 year old, but they are few and far between.  and being over 0 year old does not mean you are safe from manipulative or abusive sex partners.  this is the grist of the argument.  i would argue that every adult 0  who has sex with a kid 0 is using their age advantage, mainly because they are mentally not on the same playing field as the kid.  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.  kids also have huge issues looking at issues long term and doing risk assessment.  because of this, it is easier for adults to coerce kids into making bad choices.  kids just have not developed the ability to think about consequences like they should e. g.  do i trust this person enough to not wear a condom ? .  ages of majority are not about everyone, there are 0 year olds who are much less emotionally mature than 0 year olds.  the were designed to cast a large net.  i for, example, absolutely not attracted by boys of my age, but love strong and mature grown up guys.  and when you are older, you can date older guys.  when i was 0, i wanted to drive and felt like i could.  it does not mean i was actually mature enough to drive.  another big fetish i have is crossdressing.  i would love to be able to have sex dressed as girl before hormones make me masculine, but my government knows better.  no one is stopping you from crossdressing.   #  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.   # it seems like lot of people believe that after person is older than age of consent, they start to be manipulative towards their younger partners.  like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.  i would argue that every adult 0  who has sex with a kid 0 is using their age advantage, mainly because they are mentally not on the same playing field as the kid.  kids do not fully develop the mental faculties they will until they are much older.  for same reason we could prohibit mentally disabled people from having sex with non mentally disabled adults, because they can be manipulated.  we could prohibit people from dating someone much smarter than they are, because too, it could lead to them being manipulated.  there are better ways to prevent manipulation and abuse, for example they could actually try to teach kids something important at school, like how not to get into abusive relationship.  it does not mean i was actually mature enough to drive.  sex does not put that many people in danger, and can be taught much easier than it.  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.   #  like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.   # like, nobody is forbidding sex between 0 and 0 years old, but if they both are one year older it suddenly starts being wrong.  even if they spend that year in amazing relationship.  i guess i do not really understand what you mean when you say  much older .  i would say a 0 year old is much older than a 0 year old but i would say a 0 year old is much older than a 0 year old.  kids can not biologically make good decisions.  if people actually tried to teach it, of course.  the whole idea of consent laws is to protect the child.  sex is much more complicated than driving because it involves emotions rather than reflexes.  sex is physical, emotional, and societal.   #  there is a world of difference between the two.   #  there are 0 separate issues here.  one whether the law should allow sex with 0 y/o and whether the law should allow op, a 0 year old to have sex with those over the age of consent.  there is a world of difference between the two.  as a crude analogy imagine if there was a drug which had terrible effects on 0 of the population like their arms fell off, and it was banned.  however for a tiny minority it just gets them high.  should a member of this minority have access to the drug ? and is the person supplying it being ethical in doing so ? and should they receive legal protection ?
i regularly cycle, both for the total hell or it and also to get around, especially over shorter distances.  in the 0 or so years i have been riding, i have never worn a helmet for anything other than those few occasions where it has been totally mandatory.  now there is been repeated calls for cycle helmets to be made compulsory in the uk, and a petition drew 0 signatures.  yet i have never seen any totally compelling reason why this should be the case.  with the exception of expensive helmets costing fairly good sums of money, most helmets are little better than glorified takeaway cups made from polystyrene which are almost definitely not going to be of any use in real life collisions, which typically average 0mph against the 0mph which the helmet tests use as a standard.  i would rather see the money that would be used to implement such a ridiculous law used to build a proper network of cycle paths which would allow cyclists to ride in relative safety.  that would be to me a far better use of the money.  so, cmv !  #  in the 0 or so years i have been riding, i have never worn a helmet for anything other than those few occasions where it has been totally mandatory.   #  have you ever been in an accident ?  # have you ever been in an accident ? have you ever had an accident in which your head has collided with anything ? helmets are not for everyday, safe riding, they are for when shit goes down.  you are not always riding 0 mph, though.  in cases where you are in heavy traffic where, coincidentally, you are more likely to get into an accident you will be going slower.  even if you generally go faster than this, protection during the times you ride slowly is better than no protection.   #  according to this study URL conducted in 0 there was no significant difference between low cost purchased at walmart for between $0 and $0 and expensive ones in the $0 $0 range .   #  according to this study URL conducted in 0 there was no significant difference between low cost purchased at walmart for between $0 and $0 and expensive ones in the $0 $0 range .  the 0 mph standard was discontinued in 0 in north america and any helmet that is listed for sale in north america should be useful in the relevant range of accidents.  the cpsc american consumer protection agency that handles bicycle and motorcycle helmet standards indicates that there is an 0 drop in head injury after the new standards were instituted.  i would also like to see more bicycle paths to get bicyclists out of car traffic, but even after that there would still be relatively easily preventable injury that represent a drain on the resources of the national health service.  the cost of implementing mandatory helmets would definitely be balanced by some savings on that front.   #  uh, they mandate people wear seatbelts and that cars have airbags and other safety measures so i am not sure i see your point.   #  uh, they mandate people wear seatbelts and that cars have airbags and other safety measures so i am not sure i see your point.  there are also plenty of restrictions on who, where and when you can drink alcohol.  if you are asking,  why is not it always a helmet ?   or  why these measures and not others,  i guess it is sort of arbitrary, up to legislation and who decided what and at what time.  a bike does not have a seatbelt, so you substitute for a helmet.  the point is that there are other laws that are designed strictly to keep yourself and others safe.  the law is not 0 logical but i think there is quite a bit of logic in this particular case.   #  despite this, few argue that compulsory walking and driving helmets are essential for safety.   # summary: URL   the most extensive study of the real world effects of mhls on injury rates was by australian researcher, dr dorothy robinson from the university of new england, who found  enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries .  evidence that wearing a helmet will provide some protection from a knock to the head, the benefit is small   mhls change people is behaviour and perception of risk.  some cyclists take more risks while riding with a helmet than they would without, while studies have shown that some motorists drive closer to helmeted cyclists, than unhelmeted ones.  this tendency for individuals to react to a perceived increase in safety by taking more risk is known as risk compensation.  helmet laws severely reduce the number of cyclists on the road, leading to increased risk among those who remain through reduced safety in numbers   mandatory helmets are still a major factor deterring people from riding.  cycling is generally a safe activity, the health benefits outweighing the risks from traffic accidents by a large margin.  british research suggests life years gained through cycling outweigh years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of 0:0.  a recent study of users of barcelona is public bike hire scheme puts this ratio at 0:0.    mhls are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are inconsistent.  pedestrians and car occupants are each responsible for more hospital patient days for head injuries than cyclists.  despite this, few argue that compulsory walking and driving helmets are essential for safety.  tl;dr mandatory helmet laws mhl do not increase the safety for cyclists especially when compared to the benefits cyclists get from being more health.  these laws are bad for every country that has them  #  there is not a millennial tradition of using cars without seat belts, and they reduce dramatically fatalities.   # if you want to ban those things, go ahead and do it.  you already know how banning alcohol went back in the day.  taxes are being raised on cigarettes all the time and there has been so much regulation on it.  but again, you are gleefully ignoring the  balancing act  and the  traditions and history  part of all of this.  there is not a millennial tradition of using cars without seat belts, and they reduce dramatically fatalities.  if you do not agree with this kind of regulation then you can go to places like mexico where i live and see how awesome zero regulation is.
i regularly cycle, both for the total hell or it and also to get around, especially over shorter distances.  in the 0 or so years i have been riding, i have never worn a helmet for anything other than those few occasions where it has been totally mandatory.  now there is been repeated calls for cycle helmets to be made compulsory in the uk, and a petition drew 0 signatures.  yet i have never seen any totally compelling reason why this should be the case.  with the exception of expensive helmets costing fairly good sums of money, most helmets are little better than glorified takeaway cups made from polystyrene which are almost definitely not going to be of any use in real life collisions, which typically average 0mph against the 0mph which the helmet tests use as a standard.  i would rather see the money that would be used to implement such a ridiculous law used to build a proper network of cycle paths which would allow cyclists to ride in relative safety.  that would be to me a far better use of the money.  so, cmv !  #  which are almost definitely not going to be of any use in real life collisions, which typically average 0mph against the 0mph which the helmet tests use as a standard.   #  you are not always riding 0 mph, though.   # have you ever been in an accident ? have you ever had an accident in which your head has collided with anything ? helmets are not for everyday, safe riding, they are for when shit goes down.  you are not always riding 0 mph, though.  in cases where you are in heavy traffic where, coincidentally, you are more likely to get into an accident you will be going slower.  even if you generally go faster than this, protection during the times you ride slowly is better than no protection.   #  according to this study URL conducted in 0 there was no significant difference between low cost purchased at walmart for between $0 and $0 and expensive ones in the $0 $0 range .   #  according to this study URL conducted in 0 there was no significant difference between low cost purchased at walmart for between $0 and $0 and expensive ones in the $0 $0 range .  the 0 mph standard was discontinued in 0 in north america and any helmet that is listed for sale in north america should be useful in the relevant range of accidents.  the cpsc american consumer protection agency that handles bicycle and motorcycle helmet standards indicates that there is an 0 drop in head injury after the new standards were instituted.  i would also like to see more bicycle paths to get bicyclists out of car traffic, but even after that there would still be relatively easily preventable injury that represent a drain on the resources of the national health service.  the cost of implementing mandatory helmets would definitely be balanced by some savings on that front.   #  the law is not 0 logical but i think there is quite a bit of logic in this particular case.   #  uh, they mandate people wear seatbelts and that cars have airbags and other safety measures so i am not sure i see your point.  there are also plenty of restrictions on who, where and when you can drink alcohol.  if you are asking,  why is not it always a helmet ?   or  why these measures and not others,  i guess it is sort of arbitrary, up to legislation and who decided what and at what time.  a bike does not have a seatbelt, so you substitute for a helmet.  the point is that there are other laws that are designed strictly to keep yourself and others safe.  the law is not 0 logical but i think there is quite a bit of logic in this particular case.   #  evidence that wearing a helmet will provide some protection from a knock to the head, the benefit is small   mhls change people is behaviour and perception of risk.   # summary: URL   the most extensive study of the real world effects of mhls on injury rates was by australian researcher, dr dorothy robinson from the university of new england, who found  enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries .  evidence that wearing a helmet will provide some protection from a knock to the head, the benefit is small   mhls change people is behaviour and perception of risk.  some cyclists take more risks while riding with a helmet than they would without, while studies have shown that some motorists drive closer to helmeted cyclists, than unhelmeted ones.  this tendency for individuals to react to a perceived increase in safety by taking more risk is known as risk compensation.  helmet laws severely reduce the number of cyclists on the road, leading to increased risk among those who remain through reduced safety in numbers   mandatory helmets are still a major factor deterring people from riding.  cycling is generally a safe activity, the health benefits outweighing the risks from traffic accidents by a large margin.  british research suggests life years gained through cycling outweigh years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of 0:0.  a recent study of users of barcelona is public bike hire scheme puts this ratio at 0:0.    mhls are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are inconsistent.  pedestrians and car occupants are each responsible for more hospital patient days for head injuries than cyclists.  despite this, few argue that compulsory walking and driving helmets are essential for safety.  tl;dr mandatory helmet laws mhl do not increase the safety for cyclists especially when compared to the benefits cyclists get from being more health.  these laws are bad for every country that has them  #  but again, you are gleefully ignoring the  balancing act  and the  traditions and history  part of all of this.   # if you want to ban those things, go ahead and do it.  you already know how banning alcohol went back in the day.  taxes are being raised on cigarettes all the time and there has been so much regulation on it.  but again, you are gleefully ignoring the  balancing act  and the  traditions and history  part of all of this.  there is not a millennial tradition of using cars without seat belts, and they reduce dramatically fatalities.  if you do not agree with this kind of regulation then you can go to places like mexico where i live and see how awesome zero regulation is.
gender dysphoria is real.  i get it.  trans people attempt to fix this through surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy.  that is the choice of an individual, and i can respect anyone is decision to do whatever they choose to do to their body.  i do not think the trans struggle is on the same level as that of homosexuals and racial minorities.  if you get extensive body modifications then struggle to afford the hormones you need to feel like whatever gender you swapped to, i have little sympathy.  i feel like my lack of sympathy stems from the  i feel like i should have been male/female  argument.  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ? can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? can people  feel  like they should be gay but are not,  feel  like they should be an elephant but are not,  feel  like they should be a phd but are not ? i struggle to understand the notion.  change my view please ! i think this is the best reply in the discussion and has changed my view because i realize i was misinformed about the basic definition of gender, and about the amount of discrimination levied against trans people.   #  i do not think the trans struggle is on the same level as that of homosexuals and racial minorities.   #  what do these minorities struggle with that trans people do not ?  # what do these minorities struggle with that trans people do not ? the transgender struggle is not just about affording hormones and surgery.  there are some who never undergo hormone replacement therapy.  i think the social aspect of the struggle is much more important.  society might be getting less homophobic than it used to be, but it is still very transphobic.  transgender people who choose to transition may struggle with the issue of passing as their target gender in a social context, how people will perceive them, whether or not they will be fired from their job if they come out, whether or not they will one day find a significant other who finds them attractive, etc.  it becomes a choice between living with the gender dysphoria or living with the not so simple task of getting society to accept you as your target gender.   #  if you tell me your name is bill and i insist on calling you william, i am an asshole.   #  i will freely admit that i do not really  get  transgenderism.  it is not part of my life and i do not quite understand the feeling of one is body being wrongly matched.  what is more important is that i do not need to understand this in order to support any transgendered person is bodily autonomy.  i understand that their trans status is important to them.  they are expending extraordinary effort over this, and that is not something one does over a trifling complaint.  thus, i understand that medical treatment for gender dysphoria/gender reassignment is a need and not a luxury.  thus, i respect another human is bodily autonomy.  i respect pronouns and names of all people, not just trans people.  if you tell me your name is bill and i insist on calling you william, i am an asshole.  similarly, if you tell me you are a woman named joanne and i insist that you are a man named rick, i am an asshole.  so, let is not be assholes, right ? so, if everyone is personal and bodily autonomy is being respected, we are at a great place and there is no plight.  however, that is not where we are at.  trans people are being prevented from transition, subjected to dangerous and deadly circumstances such as the case of transgendered people who are incarcerated , and generally being disrespected and marginalized.  thus, there is a plight, it is worthy of a crusade, and all people should support transgendered rights.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.  it seems as if you have decided that transgender transitioning is some sort of self destructive choice, made by weak or ill people.  far from it.  mental and emotional health are absolutely the main issues here.  trans people who are not able to do so in a healthy, supportive atmosphere are far more likely to commit suicide than the average person.  not transitioning is the far more potentially destructive choice for a transgendered person.   #  addiction is a mental/emotional health issue, not a weakness.   #  addiction is a mental/emotional health issue, not a weakness.  i have not seen any studies on what happens when you deny addicts something to be addicted to, but i imagine it would result in a significant increase in suicide rates.  addicts do have it a bit easier in that they can usually meet their needs through physical exertion, television, internet, and other extremely common and cheap outlets.  pill addiction has some serious risks involved, but not all addictions do.  i am addicted to cannabis, whose only risks are social and economic, which is about on par with transsexuality  #  i am not even sure i would enjoy this post gender world so many trans activists are preaching for.   #  there is one specific point i take issue with here.  i do not care if i am shoved into a gender role or not, but if you are going to tell me to fit my gender, it is gotta be the right gender.  i am not even sure i would enjoy this post gender world so many trans activists are preaching for.  i put a lot of stock into my identity as a woman.  i like being a woman, i like feeling like a woman, and i like when people validate that identity by referring to me as  ma am  or saying  ladies  when i am having dinner with my mom.  i do not care that it is my hair that is causing them to gender me correctly because of the stereotype that women have long hair and men do not.  all i care about is being validated, just like every other person on this planet.
gender dysphoria is real.  i get it.  trans people attempt to fix this through surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy.  that is the choice of an individual, and i can respect anyone is decision to do whatever they choose to do to their body.  i do not think the trans struggle is on the same level as that of homosexuals and racial minorities.  if you get extensive body modifications then struggle to afford the hormones you need to feel like whatever gender you swapped to, i have little sympathy.  i feel like my lack of sympathy stems from the  i feel like i should have been male/female  argument.  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ? can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? can people  feel  like they should be gay but are not,  feel  like they should be an elephant but are not,  feel  like they should be a phd but are not ? i struggle to understand the notion.  change my view please ! i think this is the best reply in the discussion and has changed my view because i realize i was misinformed about the basic definition of gender, and about the amount of discrimination levied against trans people.   #  can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ?  #  how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ?  # how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? but they never do change their state of mind.  if someone transitions from male to female it is not that they felt like a guy and decided to try changing to a girl, they always felt like a girl.  they just get surgery/treatment so their body matches.  there was an article about lana wachowski is transition from male to female where she talked about how when she was in school the boys and girls would have separate queues for lunch and she would have trouble knowing which one she should join because even though she was a  boy  she felt like she should be joining the girls queue.  people do not decide to be trans any more than people decide if they are gay or straight.  they are just born that way.  it is not how they  feel  they should be it is about how they feel they  are .   #  what is more important is that i do not need to understand this in order to support any transgendered person is bodily autonomy.   #  i will freely admit that i do not really  get  transgenderism.  it is not part of my life and i do not quite understand the feeling of one is body being wrongly matched.  what is more important is that i do not need to understand this in order to support any transgendered person is bodily autonomy.  i understand that their trans status is important to them.  they are expending extraordinary effort over this, and that is not something one does over a trifling complaint.  thus, i understand that medical treatment for gender dysphoria/gender reassignment is a need and not a luxury.  thus, i respect another human is bodily autonomy.  i respect pronouns and names of all people, not just trans people.  if you tell me your name is bill and i insist on calling you william, i am an asshole.  similarly, if you tell me you are a woman named joanne and i insist that you are a man named rick, i am an asshole.  so, let is not be assholes, right ? so, if everyone is personal and bodily autonomy is being respected, we are at a great place and there is no plight.  however, that is not where we are at.  trans people are being prevented from transition, subjected to dangerous and deadly circumstances such as the case of transgendered people who are incarcerated , and generally being disrespected and marginalized.  thus, there is a plight, it is worthy of a crusade, and all people should support transgendered rights.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.  it seems as if you have decided that transgender transitioning is some sort of self destructive choice, made by weak or ill people.  far from it.  mental and emotional health are absolutely the main issues here.  trans people who are not able to do so in a healthy, supportive atmosphere are far more likely to commit suicide than the average person.  not transitioning is the far more potentially destructive choice for a transgendered person.   #  i have not seen any studies on what happens when you deny addicts something to be addicted to, but i imagine it would result in a significant increase in suicide rates.   #  addiction is a mental/emotional health issue, not a weakness.  i have not seen any studies on what happens when you deny addicts something to be addicted to, but i imagine it would result in a significant increase in suicide rates.  addicts do have it a bit easier in that they can usually meet their needs through physical exertion, television, internet, and other extremely common and cheap outlets.  pill addiction has some serious risks involved, but not all addictions do.  i am addicted to cannabis, whose only risks are social and economic, which is about on par with transsexuality  #  i put a lot of stock into my identity as a woman.   #  there is one specific point i take issue with here.  i do not care if i am shoved into a gender role or not, but if you are going to tell me to fit my gender, it is gotta be the right gender.  i am not even sure i would enjoy this post gender world so many trans activists are preaching for.  i put a lot of stock into my identity as a woman.  i like being a woman, i like feeling like a woman, and i like when people validate that identity by referring to me as  ma am  or saying  ladies  when i am having dinner with my mom.  i do not care that it is my hair that is causing them to gender me correctly because of the stereotype that women have long hair and men do not.  all i care about is being validated, just like every other person on this planet.
gender dysphoria is real.  i get it.  trans people attempt to fix this through surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy.  that is the choice of an individual, and i can respect anyone is decision to do whatever they choose to do to their body.  i do not think the trans struggle is on the same level as that of homosexuals and racial minorities.  if you get extensive body modifications then struggle to afford the hormones you need to feel like whatever gender you swapped to, i have little sympathy.  i feel like my lack of sympathy stems from the  i feel like i should have been male/female  argument.  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ? can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? can people  feel  like they should be gay but are not,  feel  like they should be an elephant but are not,  feel  like they should be a phd but are not ? i struggle to understand the notion.  change my view please ! i think this is the best reply in the discussion and has changed my view because i realize i was misinformed about the basic definition of gender, and about the amount of discrimination levied against trans people.   #  trans people attempt to fix this through surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy.   #  whilst it is radical surgery, it is not mutilation.   # whilst it is radical surgery, it is not mutilation.  can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? does there need to be a universal standard ? i only objectively know what my own experience of identity is.  i can talk to people about it in an attempt to compare, but i can never truly know if how i feel is how others feel.  i know that i have a gender identity that is entirely separate from my body and how others see me.  i am not trans, my mental concept of my gender happens to match my body is gender.  if my dick fell off tomorrow, i would still be male you are more than just your body.  i am gay.  i know how much anguish that has caused me due to my sexual orientation not matching my gender which is a bit taboo to say it that way, but that is the reality .  sure, things are getting better for gay people all the time, however, we are in the very early days of exactly the same kind of fight for acceptance for trans people.  i only have the slightest idea what it must be like for them.  i do not find it acceptable to let people suffer with if something as simple as changing my attitude will help them even if only to some degree .  it is worse.  they simply do not deserve the amount of shit they get for something that is entirely out of their control.  on all the metrics we have for quality of life trans people perform worse.  suicide, drug abuse, poverty, prostitution, mental illness, joblessness, social isolation, etc.  why should we stand by and let people suffer when there are things that we can do about it ?  #  trans people are being prevented from transition, subjected to dangerous and deadly circumstances such as the case of transgendered people who are incarcerated , and generally being disrespected and marginalized.   #  i will freely admit that i do not really  get  transgenderism.  it is not part of my life and i do not quite understand the feeling of one is body being wrongly matched.  what is more important is that i do not need to understand this in order to support any transgendered person is bodily autonomy.  i understand that their trans status is important to them.  they are expending extraordinary effort over this, and that is not something one does over a trifling complaint.  thus, i understand that medical treatment for gender dysphoria/gender reassignment is a need and not a luxury.  thus, i respect another human is bodily autonomy.  i respect pronouns and names of all people, not just trans people.  if you tell me your name is bill and i insist on calling you william, i am an asshole.  similarly, if you tell me you are a woman named joanne and i insist that you are a man named rick, i am an asshole.  so, let is not be assholes, right ? so, if everyone is personal and bodily autonomy is being respected, we are at a great place and there is no plight.  however, that is not where we are at.  trans people are being prevented from transition, subjected to dangerous and deadly circumstances such as the case of transgendered people who are incarcerated , and generally being disrespected and marginalized.  thus, there is a plight, it is worthy of a crusade, and all people should support transgendered rights.   #  it seems as if you have decided that transgender transitioning is some sort of self destructive choice, made by weak or ill people.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.  it seems as if you have decided that transgender transitioning is some sort of self destructive choice, made by weak or ill people.  far from it.  mental and emotional health are absolutely the main issues here.  trans people who are not able to do so in a healthy, supportive atmosphere are far more likely to commit suicide than the average person.  not transitioning is the far more potentially destructive choice for a transgendered person.   #  i am addicted to cannabis, whose only risks are social and economic, which is about on par with transsexuality  #  addiction is a mental/emotional health issue, not a weakness.  i have not seen any studies on what happens when you deny addicts something to be addicted to, but i imagine it would result in a significant increase in suicide rates.  addicts do have it a bit easier in that they can usually meet their needs through physical exertion, television, internet, and other extremely common and cheap outlets.  pill addiction has some serious risks involved, but not all addictions do.  i am addicted to cannabis, whose only risks are social and economic, which is about on par with transsexuality  #  i do not care that it is my hair that is causing them to gender me correctly because of the stereotype that women have long hair and men do not.   #  there is one specific point i take issue with here.  i do not care if i am shoved into a gender role or not, but if you are going to tell me to fit my gender, it is gotta be the right gender.  i am not even sure i would enjoy this post gender world so many trans activists are preaching for.  i put a lot of stock into my identity as a woman.  i like being a woman, i like feeling like a woman, and i like when people validate that identity by referring to me as  ma am  or saying  ladies  when i am having dinner with my mom.  i do not care that it is my hair that is causing them to gender me correctly because of the stereotype that women have long hair and men do not.  all i care about is being validated, just like every other person on this planet.
gender dysphoria is real.  i get it.  trans people attempt to fix this through surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy.  that is the choice of an individual, and i can respect anyone is decision to do whatever they choose to do to their body.  i do not think the trans struggle is on the same level as that of homosexuals and racial minorities.  if you get extensive body modifications then struggle to afford the hormones you need to feel like whatever gender you swapped to, i have little sympathy.  i feel like my lack of sympathy stems from the  i feel like i should have been male/female  argument.  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ? can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? can people  feel  like they should be gay but are not,  feel  like they should be an elephant but are not,  feel  like they should be a phd but are not ? i struggle to understand the notion.  change my view please ! i think this is the best reply in the discussion and has changed my view because i realize i was misinformed about the basic definition of gender, and about the amount of discrimination levied against trans people.   #  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ?  #  can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ?  # whilst it is radical surgery, it is not mutilation.  can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? does there need to be a universal standard ? i only objectively know what my own experience of identity is.  i can talk to people about it in an attempt to compare, but i can never truly know if how i feel is how others feel.  i know that i have a gender identity that is entirely separate from my body and how others see me.  i am not trans, my mental concept of my gender happens to match my body is gender.  if my dick fell off tomorrow, i would still be male you are more than just your body.  i am gay.  i know how much anguish that has caused me due to my sexual orientation not matching my gender which is a bit taboo to say it that way, but that is the reality .  sure, things are getting better for gay people all the time, however, we are in the very early days of exactly the same kind of fight for acceptance for trans people.  i only have the slightest idea what it must be like for them.  i do not find it acceptable to let people suffer with if something as simple as changing my attitude will help them even if only to some degree .  it is worse.  they simply do not deserve the amount of shit they get for something that is entirely out of their control.  on all the metrics we have for quality of life trans people perform worse.  suicide, drug abuse, poverty, prostitution, mental illness, joblessness, social isolation, etc.  why should we stand by and let people suffer when there are things that we can do about it ?  #  i understand that their trans status is important to them.   #  i will freely admit that i do not really  get  transgenderism.  it is not part of my life and i do not quite understand the feeling of one is body being wrongly matched.  what is more important is that i do not need to understand this in order to support any transgendered person is bodily autonomy.  i understand that their trans status is important to them.  they are expending extraordinary effort over this, and that is not something one does over a trifling complaint.  thus, i understand that medical treatment for gender dysphoria/gender reassignment is a need and not a luxury.  thus, i respect another human is bodily autonomy.  i respect pronouns and names of all people, not just trans people.  if you tell me your name is bill and i insist on calling you william, i am an asshole.  similarly, if you tell me you are a woman named joanne and i insist that you are a man named rick, i am an asshole.  so, let is not be assholes, right ? so, if everyone is personal and bodily autonomy is being respected, we are at a great place and there is no plight.  however, that is not where we are at.  trans people are being prevented from transition, subjected to dangerous and deadly circumstances such as the case of transgendered people who are incarcerated , and generally being disrespected and marginalized.  thus, there is a plight, it is worthy of a crusade, and all people should support transgendered rights.   #  not transitioning is the far more potentially destructive choice for a transgendered person.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.  it seems as if you have decided that transgender transitioning is some sort of self destructive choice, made by weak or ill people.  far from it.  mental and emotional health are absolutely the main issues here.  trans people who are not able to do so in a healthy, supportive atmosphere are far more likely to commit suicide than the average person.  not transitioning is the far more potentially destructive choice for a transgendered person.   #  addicts do have it a bit easier in that they can usually meet their needs through physical exertion, television, internet, and other extremely common and cheap outlets.   #  addiction is a mental/emotional health issue, not a weakness.  i have not seen any studies on what happens when you deny addicts something to be addicted to, but i imagine it would result in a significant increase in suicide rates.  addicts do have it a bit easier in that they can usually meet their needs through physical exertion, television, internet, and other extremely common and cheap outlets.  pill addiction has some serious risks involved, but not all addictions do.  i am addicted to cannabis, whose only risks are social and economic, which is about on par with transsexuality  #  all i care about is being validated, just like every other person on this planet.   #  there is one specific point i take issue with here.  i do not care if i am shoved into a gender role or not, but if you are going to tell me to fit my gender, it is gotta be the right gender.  i am not even sure i would enjoy this post gender world so many trans activists are preaching for.  i put a lot of stock into my identity as a woman.  i like being a woman, i like feeling like a woman, and i like when people validate that identity by referring to me as  ma am  or saying  ladies  when i am having dinner with my mom.  i do not care that it is my hair that is causing them to gender me correctly because of the stereotype that women have long hair and men do not.  all i care about is being validated, just like every other person on this planet.
gender dysphoria is real.  i get it.  trans people attempt to fix this through surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy.  that is the choice of an individual, and i can respect anyone is decision to do whatever they choose to do to their body.  i do not think the trans struggle is on the same level as that of homosexuals and racial minorities.  if you get extensive body modifications then struggle to afford the hormones you need to feel like whatever gender you swapped to, i have little sympathy.  i feel like my lack of sympathy stems from the  i feel like i should have been male/female  argument.  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ? can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? can people  feel  like they should be gay but are not,  feel  like they should be an elephant but are not,  feel  like they should be a phd but are not ? i struggle to understand the notion.  change my view please ! i think this is the best reply in the discussion and has changed my view because i realize i was misinformed about the basic definition of gender, and about the amount of discrimination levied against trans people.   #  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ?  #  can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ?  # can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? it is not exactly about  the feels  per se.  male and female brains are hormonally and structurally different.  it is possible to examine a brain without knowing the sex of the body, and determine objectively no  feels  involved whether that brain is male or female.  in the case of a person with gender dysphoria, they literally have a physically female brain in a male body or vice versa ; essentially, it is a physical birth defect.  their feelings of being in the wrong body are a  result  of their brain being hard wired wrong for their body; the feelings are not the root cause of the issue, but rather a symptom.  so, this is a genuine ailment that is as much physical as it is mental not that being a mental issue makes it less valid; mental health issues are  very much  real health issues .  the next question is what to do about it.  no amount of psychiatric therapy will cure a physical condition.  there is currently no way to  re wire  the brain to match the body.  however, there  is  currently a highly effective way to reconfigure the body to match the brain, and this has proven  highly  effective at eliminating the associated gender dysphoria.  tl;dr: it is more of a physical birth defect than a mental issue, and the only effective treatment that currently exists is sex change surgery.   #  it is not part of my life and i do not quite understand the feeling of one is body being wrongly matched.   #  i will freely admit that i do not really  get  transgenderism.  it is not part of my life and i do not quite understand the feeling of one is body being wrongly matched.  what is more important is that i do not need to understand this in order to support any transgendered person is bodily autonomy.  i understand that their trans status is important to them.  they are expending extraordinary effort over this, and that is not something one does over a trifling complaint.  thus, i understand that medical treatment for gender dysphoria/gender reassignment is a need and not a luxury.  thus, i respect another human is bodily autonomy.  i respect pronouns and names of all people, not just trans people.  if you tell me your name is bill and i insist on calling you william, i am an asshole.  similarly, if you tell me you are a woman named joanne and i insist that you are a man named rick, i am an asshole.  so, let is not be assholes, right ? so, if everyone is personal and bodily autonomy is being respected, we are at a great place and there is no plight.  however, that is not where we are at.  trans people are being prevented from transition, subjected to dangerous and deadly circumstances such as the case of transgendered people who are incarcerated , and generally being disrespected and marginalized.  thus, there is a plight, it is worthy of a crusade, and all people should support transgendered rights.   #  it seems as if you have decided that transgender transitioning is some sort of self destructive choice, made by weak or ill people.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.  it seems as if you have decided that transgender transitioning is some sort of self destructive choice, made by weak or ill people.  far from it.  mental and emotional health are absolutely the main issues here.  trans people who are not able to do so in a healthy, supportive atmosphere are far more likely to commit suicide than the average person.  not transitioning is the far more potentially destructive choice for a transgendered person.   #  i am addicted to cannabis, whose only risks are social and economic, which is about on par with transsexuality  #  addiction is a mental/emotional health issue, not a weakness.  i have not seen any studies on what happens when you deny addicts something to be addicted to, but i imagine it would result in a significant increase in suicide rates.  addicts do have it a bit easier in that they can usually meet their needs through physical exertion, television, internet, and other extremely common and cheap outlets.  pill addiction has some serious risks involved, but not all addictions do.  i am addicted to cannabis, whose only risks are social and economic, which is about on par with transsexuality  #  i like being a woman, i like feeling like a woman, and i like when people validate that identity by referring to me as  ma am  or saying  ladies  when i am having dinner with my mom.   #  there is one specific point i take issue with here.  i do not care if i am shoved into a gender role or not, but if you are going to tell me to fit my gender, it is gotta be the right gender.  i am not even sure i would enjoy this post gender world so many trans activists are preaching for.  i put a lot of stock into my identity as a woman.  i like being a woman, i like feeling like a woman, and i like when people validate that identity by referring to me as  ma am  or saying  ladies  when i am having dinner with my mom.  i do not care that it is my hair that is causing them to gender me correctly because of the stereotype that women have long hair and men do not.  all i care about is being validated, just like every other person on this planet.
gender dysphoria is real.  i get it.  trans people attempt to fix this through surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy.  that is the choice of an individual, and i can respect anyone is decision to do whatever they choose to do to their body.  i do not think the trans struggle is on the same level as that of homosexuals and racial minorities.  if you get extensive body modifications then struggle to afford the hormones you need to feel like whatever gender you swapped to, i have little sympathy.  i feel like my lack of sympathy stems from the  i feel like i should have been male/female  argument.  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ? can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? can people  feel  like they should be gay but are not,  feel  like they should be an elephant but are not,  feel  like they should be a phd but are not ? i struggle to understand the notion.  change my view please ! i think this is the best reply in the discussion and has changed my view because i realize i was misinformed about the basic definition of gender, and about the amount of discrimination levied against trans people.   #  can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ?  #  the problem with this is that you are arguing that something does not exist just because you have not experienced it.   # the problem with this is that you are arguing that something does not exist just because you have not experienced it.  just because you do not know what it feels like to feel like you belong to a different gender does not mean that it does not exist, and that other people do not know what it feels like.  i have known a few trans people, and usually while they are still the gender they were assigned at birth, their lives are pretty bad.  especially in school, where kids are mean anyways, lots of trans people commit suicide because they are mercilessly mocked.  so i guess the point here is that, even if you do not believe that someone can truly feel like they were assigned the wrong gender, you should still feel sympathy because these people believe it and have very real, negative experiences because of it.   #  i respect pronouns and names of all people, not just trans people.   #  i will freely admit that i do not really  get  transgenderism.  it is not part of my life and i do not quite understand the feeling of one is body being wrongly matched.  what is more important is that i do not need to understand this in order to support any transgendered person is bodily autonomy.  i understand that their trans status is important to them.  they are expending extraordinary effort over this, and that is not something one does over a trifling complaint.  thus, i understand that medical treatment for gender dysphoria/gender reassignment is a need and not a luxury.  thus, i respect another human is bodily autonomy.  i respect pronouns and names of all people, not just trans people.  if you tell me your name is bill and i insist on calling you william, i am an asshole.  similarly, if you tell me you are a woman named joanne and i insist that you are a man named rick, i am an asshole.  so, let is not be assholes, right ? so, if everyone is personal and bodily autonomy is being respected, we are at a great place and there is no plight.  however, that is not where we are at.  trans people are being prevented from transition, subjected to dangerous and deadly circumstances such as the case of transgendered people who are incarcerated , and generally being disrespected and marginalized.  thus, there is a plight, it is worthy of a crusade, and all people should support transgendered rights.   #  trans people who are not able to do so in a healthy, supportive atmosphere are far more likely to commit suicide than the average person.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.  it seems as if you have decided that transgender transitioning is some sort of self destructive choice, made by weak or ill people.  far from it.  mental and emotional health are absolutely the main issues here.  trans people who are not able to do so in a healthy, supportive atmosphere are far more likely to commit suicide than the average person.  not transitioning is the far more potentially destructive choice for a transgendered person.   #  i have not seen any studies on what happens when you deny addicts something to be addicted to, but i imagine it would result in a significant increase in suicide rates.   #  addiction is a mental/emotional health issue, not a weakness.  i have not seen any studies on what happens when you deny addicts something to be addicted to, but i imagine it would result in a significant increase in suicide rates.  addicts do have it a bit easier in that they can usually meet their needs through physical exertion, television, internet, and other extremely common and cheap outlets.  pill addiction has some serious risks involved, but not all addictions do.  i am addicted to cannabis, whose only risks are social and economic, which is about on par with transsexuality  #  all i care about is being validated, just like every other person on this planet.   #  there is one specific point i take issue with here.  i do not care if i am shoved into a gender role or not, but if you are going to tell me to fit my gender, it is gotta be the right gender.  i am not even sure i would enjoy this post gender world so many trans activists are preaching for.  i put a lot of stock into my identity as a woman.  i like being a woman, i like feeling like a woman, and i like when people validate that identity by referring to me as  ma am  or saying  ladies  when i am having dinner with my mom.  i do not care that it is my hair that is causing them to gender me correctly because of the stereotype that women have long hair and men do not.  all i care about is being validated, just like every other person on this planet.
gender dysphoria is real.  i get it.  trans people attempt to fix this through surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy.  that is the choice of an individual, and i can respect anyone is decision to do whatever they choose to do to their body.  i do not think the trans struggle is on the same level as that of homosexuals and racial minorities.  if you get extensive body modifications then struggle to afford the hormones you need to feel like whatever gender you swapped to, i have little sympathy.  i feel like my lack of sympathy stems from the  i feel like i should have been male/female  argument.  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ? can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? can people  feel  like they should be gay but are not,  feel  like they should be an elephant but are not,  feel  like they should be a phd but are not ? i struggle to understand the notion.  change my view please ! i think this is the best reply in the discussion and has changed my view because i realize i was misinformed about the basic definition of gender, and about the amount of discrimination levied against trans people.   #  if you get extensive body modifications then struggle to afford the hormones you need to feel like whatever gender you swapped to, i have little sympathy.   #  that is only one of the many issues, most people start with hormone replacement therapy, then surgery following a long time in hrt, there are even those who elect not to undergo surgery.   # that is only one of the many issues, most people start with hormone replacement therapy, then surgery following a long time in hrt, there are even those who elect not to undergo surgery.  but, even if someone did struggle to afford it, why would you not feel sympathy ? would you feel similarly towards someone suffering clinical depression who is unable to afford anti depressants ? is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ? can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? can people  feel  like they should be gay but are not,  feel  like they should be an elephant but are not,  feel  like they should be a phd but are not ? i struggle to understand the notion.  it is very difficult to explain.  i am going to assume you are male, forgive me if i am wrong.  say you wake up tomorrow, go to your bathroom and a woman is face is looking back at you.  it does not feel right, it should be a man is face, but yet you look in the mirror and there is no mistaking it.  you go to work/school/college and everyone calls you by a female name, again, you feel like this is not right, but who are you to argue, they are clearly addressing a woman.  it just feels wrong, you believe yourself to be a man, but you are constantly treated as a woman, and it just does not feel right.  also, this URL might also be worth reading, trans people actually have different brain structures compared to cis people.  it is not even simply a matter of  feeling , there is actually a demonstrable difference, maybe not 0 perfect, but it is there.   #  so, if everyone is personal and bodily autonomy is being respected, we are at a great place and there is no plight.   #  i will freely admit that i do not really  get  transgenderism.  it is not part of my life and i do not quite understand the feeling of one is body being wrongly matched.  what is more important is that i do not need to understand this in order to support any transgendered person is bodily autonomy.  i understand that their trans status is important to them.  they are expending extraordinary effort over this, and that is not something one does over a trifling complaint.  thus, i understand that medical treatment for gender dysphoria/gender reassignment is a need and not a luxury.  thus, i respect another human is bodily autonomy.  i respect pronouns and names of all people, not just trans people.  if you tell me your name is bill and i insist on calling you william, i am an asshole.  similarly, if you tell me you are a woman named joanne and i insist that you are a man named rick, i am an asshole.  so, let is not be assholes, right ? so, if everyone is personal and bodily autonomy is being respected, we are at a great place and there is no plight.  however, that is not where we are at.  trans people are being prevented from transition, subjected to dangerous and deadly circumstances such as the case of transgendered people who are incarcerated , and generally being disrespected and marginalized.  thus, there is a plight, it is worthy of a crusade, and all people should support transgendered rights.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.  it seems as if you have decided that transgender transitioning is some sort of self destructive choice, made by weak or ill people.  far from it.  mental and emotional health are absolutely the main issues here.  trans people who are not able to do so in a healthy, supportive atmosphere are far more likely to commit suicide than the average person.  not transitioning is the far more potentially destructive choice for a transgendered person.   #  pill addiction has some serious risks involved, but not all addictions do.   #  addiction is a mental/emotional health issue, not a weakness.  i have not seen any studies on what happens when you deny addicts something to be addicted to, but i imagine it would result in a significant increase in suicide rates.  addicts do have it a bit easier in that they can usually meet their needs through physical exertion, television, internet, and other extremely common and cheap outlets.  pill addiction has some serious risks involved, but not all addictions do.  i am addicted to cannabis, whose only risks are social and economic, which is about on par with transsexuality  #  i do not care if i am shoved into a gender role or not, but if you are going to tell me to fit my gender, it is gotta be the right gender.   #  there is one specific point i take issue with here.  i do not care if i am shoved into a gender role or not, but if you are going to tell me to fit my gender, it is gotta be the right gender.  i am not even sure i would enjoy this post gender world so many trans activists are preaching for.  i put a lot of stock into my identity as a woman.  i like being a woman, i like feeling like a woman, and i like when people validate that identity by referring to me as  ma am  or saying  ladies  when i am having dinner with my mom.  i do not care that it is my hair that is causing them to gender me correctly because of the stereotype that women have long hair and men do not.  all i care about is being validated, just like every other person on this planet.
gender dysphoria is real.  i get it.  trans people attempt to fix this through surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy.  that is the choice of an individual, and i can respect anyone is decision to do whatever they choose to do to their body.  i do not think the trans struggle is on the same level as that of homosexuals and racial minorities.  if you get extensive body modifications then struggle to afford the hormones you need to feel like whatever gender you swapped to, i have little sympathy.  i feel like my lack of sympathy stems from the  i feel like i should have been male/female  argument.  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ? can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? can people  feel  like they should be gay but are not,  feel  like they should be an elephant but are not,  feel  like they should be a phd but are not ? i struggle to understand the notion.  change my view please ! i think this is the best reply in the discussion and has changed my view because i realize i was misinformed about the basic definition of gender, and about the amount of discrimination levied against trans people.   #  i feel like my lack of sympathy stems from the  i feel like i should have been male/female  argument.   #  is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ?  # that is only one of the many issues, most people start with hormone replacement therapy, then surgery following a long time in hrt, there are even those who elect not to undergo surgery.  but, even if someone did struggle to afford it, why would you not feel sympathy ? would you feel similarly towards someone suffering clinical depression who is unable to afford anti depressants ? is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female ? can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind ? how can anyone  feel  like they should be something other than what they are ? can people  feel  like they should be gay but are not,  feel  like they should be an elephant but are not,  feel  like they should be a phd but are not ? i struggle to understand the notion.  it is very difficult to explain.  i am going to assume you are male, forgive me if i am wrong.  say you wake up tomorrow, go to your bathroom and a woman is face is looking back at you.  it does not feel right, it should be a man is face, but yet you look in the mirror and there is no mistaking it.  you go to work/school/college and everyone calls you by a female name, again, you feel like this is not right, but who are you to argue, they are clearly addressing a woman.  it just feels wrong, you believe yourself to be a man, but you are constantly treated as a woman, and it just does not feel right.  also, this URL might also be worth reading, trans people actually have different brain structures compared to cis people.  it is not even simply a matter of  feeling , there is actually a demonstrable difference, maybe not 0 perfect, but it is there.   #  so, if everyone is personal and bodily autonomy is being respected, we are at a great place and there is no plight.   #  i will freely admit that i do not really  get  transgenderism.  it is not part of my life and i do not quite understand the feeling of one is body being wrongly matched.  what is more important is that i do not need to understand this in order to support any transgendered person is bodily autonomy.  i understand that their trans status is important to them.  they are expending extraordinary effort over this, and that is not something one does over a trifling complaint.  thus, i understand that medical treatment for gender dysphoria/gender reassignment is a need and not a luxury.  thus, i respect another human is bodily autonomy.  i respect pronouns and names of all people, not just trans people.  if you tell me your name is bill and i insist on calling you william, i am an asshole.  similarly, if you tell me you are a woman named joanne and i insist that you are a man named rick, i am an asshole.  so, let is not be assholes, right ? so, if everyone is personal and bodily autonomy is being respected, we are at a great place and there is no plight.  however, that is not where we are at.  trans people are being prevented from transition, subjected to dangerous and deadly circumstances such as the case of transgendered people who are incarcerated , and generally being disrespected and marginalized.  thus, there is a plight, it is worthy of a crusade, and all people should support transgendered rights.   #  trans people who are not able to do so in a healthy, supportive atmosphere are far more likely to commit suicide than the average person.   #  i ca not buy your comparison of gender identity to pill addiction.  it seems as if you have decided that transgender transitioning is some sort of self destructive choice, made by weak or ill people.  far from it.  mental and emotional health are absolutely the main issues here.  trans people who are not able to do so in a healthy, supportive atmosphere are far more likely to commit suicide than the average person.  not transitioning is the far more potentially destructive choice for a transgendered person.   #  addicts do have it a bit easier in that they can usually meet their needs through physical exertion, television, internet, and other extremely common and cheap outlets.   #  addiction is a mental/emotional health issue, not a weakness.  i have not seen any studies on what happens when you deny addicts something to be addicted to, but i imagine it would result in a significant increase in suicide rates.  addicts do have it a bit easier in that they can usually meet their needs through physical exertion, television, internet, and other extremely common and cheap outlets.  pill addiction has some serious risks involved, but not all addictions do.  i am addicted to cannabis, whose only risks are social and economic, which is about on par with transsexuality  #  i am not even sure i would enjoy this post gender world so many trans activists are preaching for.   #  there is one specific point i take issue with here.  i do not care if i am shoved into a gender role or not, but if you are going to tell me to fit my gender, it is gotta be the right gender.  i am not even sure i would enjoy this post gender world so many trans activists are preaching for.  i put a lot of stock into my identity as a woman.  i like being a woman, i like feeling like a woman, and i like when people validate that identity by referring to me as  ma am  or saying  ladies  when i am having dinner with my mom.  i do not care that it is my hair that is causing them to gender me correctly because of the stereotype that women have long hair and men do not.  all i care about is being validated, just like every other person on this planet.
as i move up in society corporate jobs,education etc.  , i have noticed more white people speaking in black ebonics to me.  i am sure most of its fun and games, because in america white people make fun of other white people and other races all the time archer, trailer park boys, reno 0, etc.  as do black people, we are all people, but i guess when white people do it, it makes me self conscious.  do i sound like i just got out the  hood or plantation ? lol i am pretty sure i could not have even gotten an interview if i spoke like lil  montrell up the street haha.  a lot of my friends say women do it to flirt, or be cool.  is this the case ? i am not trying to make anyone feel guilty, just probing into the psyche of american minds.  i am just not sure how to respond, other than join in the fun of poking fun at stereotypes or just going introverted and running away like napolean dynamite.  please cmv  #  i am pretty sure i could not have even gotten an interview if i spoke like lil  montrell up the street haha.   #  speaking as a hiring manager, op is completely correct.   # speaking as a hiring manager, op is completely correct.  if i called a potential candidate and he answered the phone with   isup, nigga ? aw, yea homslice.  i am down for some motherfuckin job intervias.  wen choo wan me to be there ? does i gots to wear a suit ?  , i would not schedule that appointment.  in my observations, i have noticed that what a lot of people think of as  black culture  and actual black culture are as different as apples and oranges.  when most people think black culture, they are actually thinking about prison or street culture.  actual black culture is just that, a culture.  unless you are a flaming racist, you would never see a black person acting in concurrence with actual black culture and think  man, that nigger is just out of prison.   on the other hand, my hypothetical  lil  montrell  is the kind of person who inspires even the most egalitarian thinkers to mentally go  oh, no.  a nigger.  fucking hell.  .  so, yeah.  speak like a professional adult, get treated like a professional adult.  answer the phone with  sup, nigga ?   and you go in my trash bin.   #  they may not even realize they do it.   #  0.  ebonics is not tied to the color of your skin, it is just a dialect.  just because someone is white or white looking does not mean they could not grow up speaking ebonics.  0.  even if they did not, unless it is otherwise obvious that it is intended to mock you, it is probably not meant that way any more than jokingly using scottish words is meant to mock scottish people.  0.  as others have mentioned, many people unconsciously adapt their accent to the accent of the person they are talking to and many southern us accents sound quite close to ebonics to begin with.  they may not even realize they do it.   #  save the best ones in a cheatsheet for review before you encounter that person again.   #  ebonics is an american cultural phenomenon.  it has no racial requirement, even though it is developed in the camaraderie of the american black experience.  so, as with any other culture, anyone can choose to be a part.  i am not sure there is any value to be had in generalizing the behavior you are talking about.  listen closely to the individual s you experience this with.  is one of them intentionally making a mockery of you or someone else ? is another of them attempting to endear themselves by building a cultural bridge in perhaps a way that is just socially inept ? or maybe they would prefer to speak this way and see an opportunity to give it a shot because they are comfortable in your presence ? as far as real racism goes, the term you are looking for is micro inequity URL if you watch yourself and others for these little reveals of prejudices, you will begin to see them pretty often: classism, misogyny, racism, ageism, etc.  the next step is figuring out how to gracefully bring attention to them.  humor is usually the most disarming way to do this.  in your spare time, try to come up with quick, funny, nonthreatening lines you can use to chide someone for this behavior.  make sure to always smile and laugh, or it will feel like straight up criticism to them.  save the best ones in a cheatsheet for review before you encounter that person again.  you will feel as though you took some control of the situation and you might even get them to reflect on their behavior but do not let yourself care too much if they do or not .   #  language is all about the communication of ideas.   #  i am from white bread middle class america.  i could not even begin to attempt to talk like that.  but honestly i am kind of jealous of people that can.  i understand how its a full dialect.  language is all about the communication of ideas.  so just because it does not fit academia does not make it not language.  i feel the same about anyone able to slide into heavy accent type things too.  irish romania etc.  i was in speech therapy.  i could barely talk in one dialect.  my family moved from the north us to texas when i was a kid.  my parents eventually adapted to the yall and aints and so on.  because it made sense and was what everyone around them was saying.  i remember a college class on human development that talked about this, how african americans are able to code switch.  and one black girl was offended, because she assumed everyone did that.  i do not.  i use the same vocab/grammar/dialect with my family, my friend, my teachers, etc.  but i have encountered other white people that can do that code switch.  they grew up in more  ghetto  areas.  and i just stare awkwardly when they try and talk to me like that.  i do not have a specific point, but i do not see those people as using that dialect as a spoof or mocking.  just the preferred one when dealing casually.  because its more what they are used to.   #  i assume some of it may be trying to reflexively  speak your language .   #  i doubt the majority of those people are trying to mock you.  i assume some of it may be trying to reflexively  speak your language .  it would certainly seem to be a sign of prejudice, especially if you do not talk using the mannerisms they are mimicking, but prejudice is not necessarily a sign of ill will, they just may not have much exposure to black people outside of stereotypes in media.  additionally, people have a tendency to mimic each other in order to create better understanding and foster camaraderie.  for example, i once spent about a day hanging out with a couple of australians who came to visit a friend of mine.  i have never left the usa, or spent any time with australians before them, but i found myself slipping into a slight australian accent while talking with them, totally unintentionally.
affirmative action is purpose is to level the playing field and give each student a chance at college, no matter the student is background.  basing this giving on skin color, while providing a change to a perhaps disadvantaged historical stereotype, does not accomplish affirmative action is purpose.  skin color is a gift, not earned or chosen by a person, but given at birth by parents.  why should this unearned, pre decided trait determine the scholarship a student receives ? i believe that all scholarships should be merit based, and while many are, some schools that have to fill  race quotas  to  diversify the campus  in the process, ignore more qualified students in favor of the correctly colored one.  the intent behind the affirmative action is certainly well meaning, aimed at helping needy students.  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.   #  affirmative action is purpose is to level the playing field and give each student a chance at college, no matter the student is background.   #  why do you think this is the purpose of affirmative action ?  # why do you think this is the purpose of affirmative action ? its purpose is to give historically disadvantaged kids a better shot at getting in.  who is historically disadvantaged ? racial minorities like hispanic and black people.  because that unearned, pre decided trait determined that this person will go through life at a disadvantage when compared to the majority race.  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.  you have not highlighted any actual harm, can you specify exactly who is harmed and how ?  #  the dictionary interprets the word  token  in the following manner:  a symbol, indication, evidence, as a token of friendship, a keepsake.   # this is the method known as  tokenism .  the dictionary interprets the word  token  in the following manner:  a symbol, indication, evidence, as a token of friendship, a keepsake.  a piece of metal used in place of a coin, as for paying carfare on conveyances operated by those who sell the tokens.  a sign, a mark, and emblem, memorial, omen.  it meant that negroes could be handed the glitter of metal symbolizing the true coin, and authorizing a short term trip towards democracy.  but he who sells you the token instead of the coin always retains the power to revoke its worth, and to command you to get off the bus before you have reached your destination.  tokenism is a promise to pay.  democracy, in its finest sense, is payment.  martin luther king jr.   #  think of it this way; 0 years ago it would have been very difficult for a black person to have the same educational and employment opportunities as a white person.   #  do you really think that hundreds of years of persecution on a large group of people can be fixed in only a few decades ? systematic discrimination may be at an all time low, but that does not mean that people of certain races still are not disadvantaged.  it all stems from discrimination in the past or even still in the present .  think of it this way; 0 years ago it would have been very difficult for a black person to have the same educational and employment opportunities as a white person.  this means that the white person had a better chance at putting their children in a better economic situation.  this continues for generations in that white families are in better economic situations than black families because the people before them had better educational and employment opportunities.  if your family is rich, it is easier for you to stay rich, and if your family is poor, it is very difficult for them to move up.   #  justice is giving our clients a chance to make a positive difference in the world to make up for the negative difference they have already made.   #  let me repost one of the most convincing arguments i have read, courtesy of /u/stoicsmile: you are describing one of the biggest hurdles our society faces today.  we are obsessed with what people  deserve  when the numbers suggest that what people  deserve  is not really best for everybody.  i think at the root of this problem is the confusion of revenge and justice.  revenge is reciprocated negativity.  justice is reciprocated positivity.  i work with felons coming out of prisons my job is to keep them out of prison, which is best for everybody.  these are mostly people who have lived their lives hurting other people in some way.  and we give them free services and pay businesses to hire them.  our  felon  clients have a 0 employment rate in a city that is struggling to keep average people working.  do my clients  deserve  that edge in the job market ? absolutely not ! they have spent their lives doing the wrong thing, and we give them an advantage over people that have spent their lives doing the right thing.  but employing felons creates jobs, saves taxes, saves lives, prevents crime, and in the end, both the felon and the average joe are better because of it.  revenge would be making our clients find their own way, which would probably end them up back in prison.  justice is giving our clients a chance to make a positive difference in the world to make up for the negative difference they have already made.  affirmative action works on similar principle i am not suggesting that minorities have a negative impact on our society like felons do, but if we focus on what  works  instead of what someone  deserves , the end result is a better society for everyone.   #  when we quash this environment we can change the rules.   #  i am a woman in an engineering firm, and the culture at my firm is extremely white male oriented.  i am the type of person who grows confidence from trailblazing, but many do not.  the men at my work struggle with more women and minorities in their workplace.  they balk at having to edit their conversations to be more friendly toward minorities, they balk at taking sexually explicit pictures and calendars down, they say the most awful things to me, and i have already had one man fired for sexual harassment, and many of my other coworkers have approached me asking what he did to judge if i was overreacting.  my point, is the work environment is hostile to women and other minorities.  a tiny percentage would possibly get hired, stay for a few months until the bullying and nasty behavior would be too much and search for another job asap if these people did not have to change their behavior.  and this environment of bigoted, nasty behavior would exist in this bubble and make the entire tiny town remain among their own kind.  now, every minority they lose is a big strike against them.  they are forced to make the work environment a pleasant place for everyone.  and the more they hire the better.  i agree, affirmative action has some issues, and in a workplace where this behavior is not prevalent, it is unfair to white males.  but this environment still exists.  when we quash this environment we can change the rules.
affirmative action is purpose is to level the playing field and give each student a chance at college, no matter the student is background.  basing this giving on skin color, while providing a change to a perhaps disadvantaged historical stereotype, does not accomplish affirmative action is purpose.  skin color is a gift, not earned or chosen by a person, but given at birth by parents.  why should this unearned, pre decided trait determine the scholarship a student receives ? i believe that all scholarships should be merit based, and while many are, some schools that have to fill  race quotas  to  diversify the campus  in the process, ignore more qualified students in favor of the correctly colored one.  the intent behind the affirmative action is certainly well meaning, aimed at helping needy students.  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.   #  why should this unearned, pre decided trait determine the scholarship a student receives ?  #  because that unearned, pre decided trait determined that this person will go through life at a disadvantage when compared to the majority race.   # why do you think this is the purpose of affirmative action ? its purpose is to give historically disadvantaged kids a better shot at getting in.  who is historically disadvantaged ? racial minorities like hispanic and black people.  because that unearned, pre decided trait determined that this person will go through life at a disadvantage when compared to the majority race.  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.  you have not highlighted any actual harm, can you specify exactly who is harmed and how ?  #  a sign, a mark, and emblem, memorial, omen.   # this is the method known as  tokenism .  the dictionary interprets the word  token  in the following manner:  a symbol, indication, evidence, as a token of friendship, a keepsake.  a piece of metal used in place of a coin, as for paying carfare on conveyances operated by those who sell the tokens.  a sign, a mark, and emblem, memorial, omen.  it meant that negroes could be handed the glitter of metal symbolizing the true coin, and authorizing a short term trip towards democracy.  but he who sells you the token instead of the coin always retains the power to revoke its worth, and to command you to get off the bus before you have reached your destination.  tokenism is a promise to pay.  democracy, in its finest sense, is payment.  martin luther king jr.   #  think of it this way; 0 years ago it would have been very difficult for a black person to have the same educational and employment opportunities as a white person.   #  do you really think that hundreds of years of persecution on a large group of people can be fixed in only a few decades ? systematic discrimination may be at an all time low, but that does not mean that people of certain races still are not disadvantaged.  it all stems from discrimination in the past or even still in the present .  think of it this way; 0 years ago it would have been very difficult for a black person to have the same educational and employment opportunities as a white person.  this means that the white person had a better chance at putting their children in a better economic situation.  this continues for generations in that white families are in better economic situations than black families because the people before them had better educational and employment opportunities.  if your family is rich, it is easier for you to stay rich, and if your family is poor, it is very difficult for them to move up.   #  i think at the root of this problem is the confusion of revenge and justice.   #  let me repost one of the most convincing arguments i have read, courtesy of /u/stoicsmile: you are describing one of the biggest hurdles our society faces today.  we are obsessed with what people  deserve  when the numbers suggest that what people  deserve  is not really best for everybody.  i think at the root of this problem is the confusion of revenge and justice.  revenge is reciprocated negativity.  justice is reciprocated positivity.  i work with felons coming out of prisons my job is to keep them out of prison, which is best for everybody.  these are mostly people who have lived their lives hurting other people in some way.  and we give them free services and pay businesses to hire them.  our  felon  clients have a 0 employment rate in a city that is struggling to keep average people working.  do my clients  deserve  that edge in the job market ? absolutely not ! they have spent their lives doing the wrong thing, and we give them an advantage over people that have spent their lives doing the right thing.  but employing felons creates jobs, saves taxes, saves lives, prevents crime, and in the end, both the felon and the average joe are better because of it.  revenge would be making our clients find their own way, which would probably end them up back in prison.  justice is giving our clients a chance to make a positive difference in the world to make up for the negative difference they have already made.  affirmative action works on similar principle i am not suggesting that minorities have a negative impact on our society like felons do, but if we focus on what  works  instead of what someone  deserves , the end result is a better society for everyone.   #  a tiny percentage would possibly get hired, stay for a few months until the bullying and nasty behavior would be too much and search for another job asap if these people did not have to change their behavior.   #  i am a woman in an engineering firm, and the culture at my firm is extremely white male oriented.  i am the type of person who grows confidence from trailblazing, but many do not.  the men at my work struggle with more women and minorities in their workplace.  they balk at having to edit their conversations to be more friendly toward minorities, they balk at taking sexually explicit pictures and calendars down, they say the most awful things to me, and i have already had one man fired for sexual harassment, and many of my other coworkers have approached me asking what he did to judge if i was overreacting.  my point, is the work environment is hostile to women and other minorities.  a tiny percentage would possibly get hired, stay for a few months until the bullying and nasty behavior would be too much and search for another job asap if these people did not have to change their behavior.  and this environment of bigoted, nasty behavior would exist in this bubble and make the entire tiny town remain among their own kind.  now, every minority they lose is a big strike against them.  they are forced to make the work environment a pleasant place for everyone.  and the more they hire the better.  i agree, affirmative action has some issues, and in a workplace where this behavior is not prevalent, it is unfair to white males.  but this environment still exists.  when we quash this environment we can change the rules.
affirmative action is purpose is to level the playing field and give each student a chance at college, no matter the student is background.  basing this giving on skin color, while providing a change to a perhaps disadvantaged historical stereotype, does not accomplish affirmative action is purpose.  skin color is a gift, not earned or chosen by a person, but given at birth by parents.  why should this unearned, pre decided trait determine the scholarship a student receives ? i believe that all scholarships should be merit based, and while many are, some schools that have to fill  race quotas  to  diversify the campus  in the process, ignore more qualified students in favor of the correctly colored one.  the intent behind the affirmative action is certainly well meaning, aimed at helping needy students.  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.   #  the intent behind the affirmative action is certainly well meaning, aimed at helping needy students.   #  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.   # why do you think this is the purpose of affirmative action ? its purpose is to give historically disadvantaged kids a better shot at getting in.  who is historically disadvantaged ? racial minorities like hispanic and black people.  because that unearned, pre decided trait determined that this person will go through life at a disadvantage when compared to the majority race.  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.  you have not highlighted any actual harm, can you specify exactly who is harmed and how ?  #  it meant that negroes could be handed the glitter of metal symbolizing the true coin, and authorizing a short term trip towards democracy.   # this is the method known as  tokenism .  the dictionary interprets the word  token  in the following manner:  a symbol, indication, evidence, as a token of friendship, a keepsake.  a piece of metal used in place of a coin, as for paying carfare on conveyances operated by those who sell the tokens.  a sign, a mark, and emblem, memorial, omen.  it meant that negroes could be handed the glitter of metal symbolizing the true coin, and authorizing a short term trip towards democracy.  but he who sells you the token instead of the coin always retains the power to revoke its worth, and to command you to get off the bus before you have reached your destination.  tokenism is a promise to pay.  democracy, in its finest sense, is payment.  martin luther king jr.   #  it all stems from discrimination in the past or even still in the present .   #  do you really think that hundreds of years of persecution on a large group of people can be fixed in only a few decades ? systematic discrimination may be at an all time low, but that does not mean that people of certain races still are not disadvantaged.  it all stems from discrimination in the past or even still in the present .  think of it this way; 0 years ago it would have been very difficult for a black person to have the same educational and employment opportunities as a white person.  this means that the white person had a better chance at putting their children in a better economic situation.  this continues for generations in that white families are in better economic situations than black families because the people before them had better educational and employment opportunities.  if your family is rich, it is easier for you to stay rich, and if your family is poor, it is very difficult for them to move up.   #  let me repost one of the most convincing arguments i have read, courtesy of /u/stoicsmile: you are describing one of the biggest hurdles our society faces today.   #  let me repost one of the most convincing arguments i have read, courtesy of /u/stoicsmile: you are describing one of the biggest hurdles our society faces today.  we are obsessed with what people  deserve  when the numbers suggest that what people  deserve  is not really best for everybody.  i think at the root of this problem is the confusion of revenge and justice.  revenge is reciprocated negativity.  justice is reciprocated positivity.  i work with felons coming out of prisons my job is to keep them out of prison, which is best for everybody.  these are mostly people who have lived their lives hurting other people in some way.  and we give them free services and pay businesses to hire them.  our  felon  clients have a 0 employment rate in a city that is struggling to keep average people working.  do my clients  deserve  that edge in the job market ? absolutely not ! they have spent their lives doing the wrong thing, and we give them an advantage over people that have spent their lives doing the right thing.  but employing felons creates jobs, saves taxes, saves lives, prevents crime, and in the end, both the felon and the average joe are better because of it.  revenge would be making our clients find their own way, which would probably end them up back in prison.  justice is giving our clients a chance to make a positive difference in the world to make up for the negative difference they have already made.  affirmative action works on similar principle i am not suggesting that minorities have a negative impact on our society like felons do, but if we focus on what  works  instead of what someone  deserves , the end result is a better society for everyone.   #  and this environment of bigoted, nasty behavior would exist in this bubble and make the entire tiny town remain among their own kind.   #  i am a woman in an engineering firm, and the culture at my firm is extremely white male oriented.  i am the type of person who grows confidence from trailblazing, but many do not.  the men at my work struggle with more women and minorities in their workplace.  they balk at having to edit their conversations to be more friendly toward minorities, they balk at taking sexually explicit pictures and calendars down, they say the most awful things to me, and i have already had one man fired for sexual harassment, and many of my other coworkers have approached me asking what he did to judge if i was overreacting.  my point, is the work environment is hostile to women and other minorities.  a tiny percentage would possibly get hired, stay for a few months until the bullying and nasty behavior would be too much and search for another job asap if these people did not have to change their behavior.  and this environment of bigoted, nasty behavior would exist in this bubble and make the entire tiny town remain among their own kind.  now, every minority they lose is a big strike against them.  they are forced to make the work environment a pleasant place for everyone.  and the more they hire the better.  i agree, affirmative action has some issues, and in a workplace where this behavior is not prevalent, it is unfair to white males.  but this environment still exists.  when we quash this environment we can change the rules.
affirmative action is purpose is to level the playing field and give each student a chance at college, no matter the student is background.  basing this giving on skin color, while providing a change to a perhaps disadvantaged historical stereotype, does not accomplish affirmative action is purpose.  skin color is a gift, not earned or chosen by a person, but given at birth by parents.  why should this unearned, pre decided trait determine the scholarship a student receives ? i believe that all scholarships should be merit based, and while many are, some schools that have to fill  race quotas  to  diversify the campus  in the process, ignore more qualified students in favor of the correctly colored one.  the intent behind the affirmative action is certainly well meaning, aimed at helping needy students.  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.   #  affirmative action is purpose is to level the playing field and give each student a chance at college, no matter the student is background.   #  a good affirmative action policy based on things like race or gender should be temporary and the purpose should not be to level the playing field directly.   # a good affirmative action policy based on things like race or gender should be temporary and the purpose should not be to level the playing field directly.  the goal should be to change expectations.  if you know people with certain traits yourself, your expectations wo not be solely shaped by prejudice.  if you are used to see people with certain traits in power and those traits prove to be irrelevant, you wo not expect those traits to be a problem.  would you support preferential treatment of poorer applicants, or do you think it should be only about their qualification ? if you do support it, how would you propose to measure a person is wealth ?  #  you have not highlighted any actual harm, can you specify exactly who is harmed and how ?  # why do you think this is the purpose of affirmative action ? its purpose is to give historically disadvantaged kids a better shot at getting in.  who is historically disadvantaged ? racial minorities like hispanic and black people.  because that unearned, pre decided trait determined that this person will go through life at a disadvantage when compared to the majority race.  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.  you have not highlighted any actual harm, can you specify exactly who is harmed and how ?  #  but he who sells you the token instead of the coin always retains the power to revoke its worth, and to command you to get off the bus before you have reached your destination.   # this is the method known as  tokenism .  the dictionary interprets the word  token  in the following manner:  a symbol, indication, evidence, as a token of friendship, a keepsake.  a piece of metal used in place of a coin, as for paying carfare on conveyances operated by those who sell the tokens.  a sign, a mark, and emblem, memorial, omen.  it meant that negroes could be handed the glitter of metal symbolizing the true coin, and authorizing a short term trip towards democracy.  but he who sells you the token instead of the coin always retains the power to revoke its worth, and to command you to get off the bus before you have reached your destination.  tokenism is a promise to pay.  democracy, in its finest sense, is payment.  martin luther king jr.   #  if your family is rich, it is easier for you to stay rich, and if your family is poor, it is very difficult for them to move up.   #  do you really think that hundreds of years of persecution on a large group of people can be fixed in only a few decades ? systematic discrimination may be at an all time low, but that does not mean that people of certain races still are not disadvantaged.  it all stems from discrimination in the past or even still in the present .  think of it this way; 0 years ago it would have been very difficult for a black person to have the same educational and employment opportunities as a white person.  this means that the white person had a better chance at putting their children in a better economic situation.  this continues for generations in that white families are in better economic situations than black families because the people before them had better educational and employment opportunities.  if your family is rich, it is easier for you to stay rich, and if your family is poor, it is very difficult for them to move up.   #  these are mostly people who have lived their lives hurting other people in some way.   #  let me repost one of the most convincing arguments i have read, courtesy of /u/stoicsmile: you are describing one of the biggest hurdles our society faces today.  we are obsessed with what people  deserve  when the numbers suggest that what people  deserve  is not really best for everybody.  i think at the root of this problem is the confusion of revenge and justice.  revenge is reciprocated negativity.  justice is reciprocated positivity.  i work with felons coming out of prisons my job is to keep them out of prison, which is best for everybody.  these are mostly people who have lived their lives hurting other people in some way.  and we give them free services and pay businesses to hire them.  our  felon  clients have a 0 employment rate in a city that is struggling to keep average people working.  do my clients  deserve  that edge in the job market ? absolutely not ! they have spent their lives doing the wrong thing, and we give them an advantage over people that have spent their lives doing the right thing.  but employing felons creates jobs, saves taxes, saves lives, prevents crime, and in the end, both the felon and the average joe are better because of it.  revenge would be making our clients find their own way, which would probably end them up back in prison.  justice is giving our clients a chance to make a positive difference in the world to make up for the negative difference they have already made.  affirmative action works on similar principle i am not suggesting that minorities have a negative impact on our society like felons do, but if we focus on what  works  instead of what someone  deserves , the end result is a better society for everyone.
affirmative action is purpose is to level the playing field and give each student a chance at college, no matter the student is background.  basing this giving on skin color, while providing a change to a perhaps disadvantaged historical stereotype, does not accomplish affirmative action is purpose.  skin color is a gift, not earned or chosen by a person, but given at birth by parents.  why should this unearned, pre decided trait determine the scholarship a student receives ? i believe that all scholarships should be merit based, and while many are, some schools that have to fill  race quotas  to  diversify the campus  in the process, ignore more qualified students in favor of the correctly colored one.  the intent behind the affirmative action is certainly well meaning, aimed at helping needy students.  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.   #  i believe that all scholarships should be merit based, and while many are, some schools that have to fill  race quotas  to  diversify the campus  in the process, ignore more qualified students in favor of the correctly colored one.   #  would you support preferential treatment of poorer applicants, or do you think it should be only about their qualification ?  # a good affirmative action policy based on things like race or gender should be temporary and the purpose should not be to level the playing field directly.  the goal should be to change expectations.  if you know people with certain traits yourself, your expectations wo not be solely shaped by prejudice.  if you are used to see people with certain traits in power and those traits prove to be irrelevant, you wo not expect those traits to be a problem.  would you support preferential treatment of poorer applicants, or do you think it should be only about their qualification ? if you do support it, how would you propose to measure a person is wealth ?  #  you have not highlighted any actual harm, can you specify exactly who is harmed and how ?  # why do you think this is the purpose of affirmative action ? its purpose is to give historically disadvantaged kids a better shot at getting in.  who is historically disadvantaged ? racial minorities like hispanic and black people.  because that unearned, pre decided trait determined that this person will go through life at a disadvantage when compared to the majority race.  however, the blanket label of race as a signal of need harms all students, regardless of color.  you have not highlighted any actual harm, can you specify exactly who is harmed and how ?  #  the dictionary interprets the word  token  in the following manner:  a symbol, indication, evidence, as a token of friendship, a keepsake.   # this is the method known as  tokenism .  the dictionary interprets the word  token  in the following manner:  a symbol, indication, evidence, as a token of friendship, a keepsake.  a piece of metal used in place of a coin, as for paying carfare on conveyances operated by those who sell the tokens.  a sign, a mark, and emblem, memorial, omen.  it meant that negroes could be handed the glitter of metal symbolizing the true coin, and authorizing a short term trip towards democracy.  but he who sells you the token instead of the coin always retains the power to revoke its worth, and to command you to get off the bus before you have reached your destination.  tokenism is a promise to pay.  democracy, in its finest sense, is payment.  martin luther king jr.   #  think of it this way; 0 years ago it would have been very difficult for a black person to have the same educational and employment opportunities as a white person.   #  do you really think that hundreds of years of persecution on a large group of people can be fixed in only a few decades ? systematic discrimination may be at an all time low, but that does not mean that people of certain races still are not disadvantaged.  it all stems from discrimination in the past or even still in the present .  think of it this way; 0 years ago it would have been very difficult for a black person to have the same educational and employment opportunities as a white person.  this means that the white person had a better chance at putting their children in a better economic situation.  this continues for generations in that white families are in better economic situations than black families because the people before them had better educational and employment opportunities.  if your family is rich, it is easier for you to stay rich, and if your family is poor, it is very difficult for them to move up.   #  revenge would be making our clients find their own way, which would probably end them up back in prison.   #  let me repost one of the most convincing arguments i have read, courtesy of /u/stoicsmile: you are describing one of the biggest hurdles our society faces today.  we are obsessed with what people  deserve  when the numbers suggest that what people  deserve  is not really best for everybody.  i think at the root of this problem is the confusion of revenge and justice.  revenge is reciprocated negativity.  justice is reciprocated positivity.  i work with felons coming out of prisons my job is to keep them out of prison, which is best for everybody.  these are mostly people who have lived their lives hurting other people in some way.  and we give them free services and pay businesses to hire them.  our  felon  clients have a 0 employment rate in a city that is struggling to keep average people working.  do my clients  deserve  that edge in the job market ? absolutely not ! they have spent their lives doing the wrong thing, and we give them an advantage over people that have spent their lives doing the right thing.  but employing felons creates jobs, saves taxes, saves lives, prevents crime, and in the end, both the felon and the average joe are better because of it.  revenge would be making our clients find their own way, which would probably end them up back in prison.  justice is giving our clients a chance to make a positive difference in the world to make up for the negative difference they have already made.  affirmative action works on similar principle i am not suggesting that minorities have a negative impact on our society like felons do, but if we focus on what  works  instead of what someone  deserves , the end result is a better society for everyone.
inspired by the post where a patron left a note talking about why he does not tip to the server.  i am going under the assumption that boycotting is seen as an effective means of creating change.  it was used extensively in the civil rights movement, many wars, and in today is world with the gay acceptance and marijuana legalization movements.  if you want servers to make a living wage, stop funding the vicious circle.  in america it is always seen as taboo to not tip restaurant servers, even if they do a horrible job you are expected to tip.  i do not see why the customer should be forced to make up for the establishments low wages.  a common reason i hear is that it makes them work harder and serve you better, but this is simply not true for a lot of places.  having a well paying job is reason enough to work hard, and if you tip you only keep things the way they are.  i do tip though ! cmv ! i think the main issue i have is that servers pool their tips usually, so a bad server will still get an equal cut of the money compared to the best server there.   #  if you want servers to make a living wage, stop funding the vicious circle.   #  are you familiar with how tips work ?  # are you familiar with how tips work ? if you do not tip a waiter, you are not harming the employer, you are just harming the waiter.  that is the point of tips to shift financial risk onto the employees.  if everyone in the world stopped tipping tomorrow, the restaurants of the world would not suffer financially at all.  the servers would bear the entire burden of this  boycott  and restaurants would have no incentive to change their compensation practices.  if you want to boycott tipping, then only patronize restaurants that do not accept tips and pay their servers a living wage they are rare but they do exist in the us .   #  that being said, i think you are a fucking liar.   #  yes it does, i worked in a restaurant for six months and the single time our tip share ended up giving everybody slightly under minimum wage, it was corrected for.  any business that does not make the correction can be sued, and can be sued very easily.  if people were being shorted on their checks, there are many easily available methods to pursue legal action, including the little list of methods to pursue legal action that is legally required to be posted in the workplace.  the managers are also required to inform you that this list exists and show you where it is, and this is a federal requirement.  that being said, i think you are a fucking liar.   #  i worked there for a little over a year and never got paid, regardless of my tips.   #  back in 0 i worked at a restaurant that did not pay me.  i worked there for a little over a year and never got paid, regardless of my tips.  could i have sued.  probably.  of course i would have to get a lawyer that would take up the case which cuts into what i would get out of it.  i also would be out of a job in a terrible job market.  it also would probably have gotten in the papers which would making getting a new job even harder.  sure, i could have done that.   #  you can always hit up the department of labor URL and they will shit all over that company.   #  i am assuming you meant that they let you keep tips but did not pay you anything else.  still, they did not even pay you the  tipped employee minimum wage  ? holy  shit  that is fucking frugally greedy.  you do not have to get a lawyer.  you can always hit up the department of labor URL and they will shit all over that company.  it is free, it is their job, and you will get the money you earned as long as you claimed at least some of your tips.  i believe it is well past  too late  in your case, but just for anyone else out there that might be experiencing this or if you run into this again .  reports are anonymous.  unless you are literally the only employee besides the owners, they wo not know it was you, and ca not retaliate either.   #  the main point, though, was that it is not okay to refuse to tip as a form of boycott.   #  i agree the main reason it does not happen much is because people usually make more than minimum wage as a server once they factor in tips.  i do have a small issue with an industry that is predicated on not paying their employees enough to live on, however.  the main point, though, was that it is not okay to refuse to tip as a form of boycott.  servers rely on the customers to directly give them the majority of their pay, so not tipping them is essentially making them work for free.  if you do not like the system you can either make your own food, or get takeout.  that is what i do.
inspired by the post where a patron left a note talking about why he does not tip to the server.  i am going under the assumption that boycotting is seen as an effective means of creating change.  it was used extensively in the civil rights movement, many wars, and in today is world with the gay acceptance and marijuana legalization movements.  if you want servers to make a living wage, stop funding the vicious circle.  in america it is always seen as taboo to not tip restaurant servers, even if they do a horrible job you are expected to tip.  i do not see why the customer should be forced to make up for the establishments low wages.  a common reason i hear is that it makes them work harder and serve you better, but this is simply not true for a lot of places.  having a well paying job is reason enough to work hard, and if you tip you only keep things the way they are.  i do tip though ! cmv ! i think the main issue i have is that servers pool their tips usually, so a bad server will still get an equal cut of the money compared to the best server there.   #  if you want servers to make a living wage, stop funding the vicious circle.   #  with standard tipping, most servers  will  make a living wage.   # with standard tipping, most servers  will  make a living wage.  the idea of  servers make less than minimum wage  is misleading, and it is really frustrating when almost every comment i run into is someone claiming either they, or people they know do not make it.  i can imagine it is even more frustrating to other service industry workers who make less than these servers do.  if i was going hungry, and someone who was being tipped made more than me every week, but was still complaining about making less than everyone, when they clearly did not, i ca not say i would take very kindly to it.  i will copy and paste exactly what /u/ppmd said in these comments so there will be two places people can run into it:   if a server does not make minimum wage over the period of his pay check, the restaurant is obligated by law to bring him up to minimum wage.  if someone can post proof of their paychecks in 0 seperate pay periods for their restaurant, and a ledger showing their hours to back up that they were shafted, i will gladly give gold.  anecdotes are not arguments for anything, but we all have them, and as for mine: my sister has been a waitress since she was 0.  she currently is 0, has 0 kids, and still serves at the outback steakhouse in indianapolis.  my mother was an rn for over 0 years, yet, my sister, even living in a more expensive housing market, is better off than mom ever was.  being a waiter/waitress is one of the most rewarding jobs there is when compared to the other jobs available which require no education.   #  if people were being shorted on their checks, there are many easily available methods to pursue legal action, including the little list of methods to pursue legal action that is legally required to be posted in the workplace.   #  yes it does, i worked in a restaurant for six months and the single time our tip share ended up giving everybody slightly under minimum wage, it was corrected for.  any business that does not make the correction can be sued, and can be sued very easily.  if people were being shorted on their checks, there are many easily available methods to pursue legal action, including the little list of methods to pursue legal action that is legally required to be posted in the workplace.  the managers are also required to inform you that this list exists and show you where it is, and this is a federal requirement.  that being said, i think you are a fucking liar.   #  i also would be out of a job in a terrible job market.   #  back in 0 i worked at a restaurant that did not pay me.  i worked there for a little over a year and never got paid, regardless of my tips.  could i have sued.  probably.  of course i would have to get a lawyer that would take up the case which cuts into what i would get out of it.  i also would be out of a job in a terrible job market.  it also would probably have gotten in the papers which would making getting a new job even harder.  sure, i could have done that.   #  it is free, it is their job, and you will get the money you earned as long as you claimed at least some of your tips.   #  i am assuming you meant that they let you keep tips but did not pay you anything else.  still, they did not even pay you the  tipped employee minimum wage  ? holy  shit  that is fucking frugally greedy.  you do not have to get a lawyer.  you can always hit up the department of labor URL and they will shit all over that company.  it is free, it is their job, and you will get the money you earned as long as you claimed at least some of your tips.  i believe it is well past  too late  in your case, but just for anyone else out there that might be experiencing this or if you run into this again .  reports are anonymous.  unless you are literally the only employee besides the owners, they wo not know it was you, and ca not retaliate either.   #  if you do not like the system you can either make your own food, or get takeout.   #  i agree the main reason it does not happen much is because people usually make more than minimum wage as a server once they factor in tips.  i do have a small issue with an industry that is predicated on not paying their employees enough to live on, however.  the main point, though, was that it is not okay to refuse to tip as a form of boycott.  servers rely on the customers to directly give them the majority of their pay, so not tipping them is essentially making them work for free.  if you do not like the system you can either make your own food, or get takeout.  that is what i do.
inspired by the post where a patron left a note talking about why he does not tip to the server.  i am going under the assumption that boycotting is seen as an effective means of creating change.  it was used extensively in the civil rights movement, many wars, and in today is world with the gay acceptance and marijuana legalization movements.  if you want servers to make a living wage, stop funding the vicious circle.  in america it is always seen as taboo to not tip restaurant servers, even if they do a horrible job you are expected to tip.  i do not see why the customer should be forced to make up for the establishments low wages.  a common reason i hear is that it makes them work harder and serve you better, but this is simply not true for a lot of places.  having a well paying job is reason enough to work hard, and if you tip you only keep things the way they are.  i do tip though ! cmv ! i think the main issue i have is that servers pool their tips usually, so a bad server will still get an equal cut of the money compared to the best server there.   #  i think the main issue i have is that servers pool their tips usually, so a bad server will still get an equal cut of the money compared to the best server there.   #  i have never waited in a restaurant where that was the case.   # i have never waited in a restaurant where that was the case.  a quick poll of my server friends confirms that this is unusual at least where i live.  it is also disliked for exactly the reason you state bad servers benefit and good servers lose out.  furthermore, just to emphasize boycotting is when you refrain from patronizing a business that is causing the problem.  eating out and then refusing to tip is not an effective boycott it is more like  boycotting  pepsi products by stealing them from 0 0.   #  if people were being shorted on their checks, there are many easily available methods to pursue legal action, including the little list of methods to pursue legal action that is legally required to be posted in the workplace.   #  yes it does, i worked in a restaurant for six months and the single time our tip share ended up giving everybody slightly under minimum wage, it was corrected for.  any business that does not make the correction can be sued, and can be sued very easily.  if people were being shorted on their checks, there are many easily available methods to pursue legal action, including the little list of methods to pursue legal action that is legally required to be posted in the workplace.  the managers are also required to inform you that this list exists and show you where it is, and this is a federal requirement.  that being said, i think you are a fucking liar.   #  back in 0 i worked at a restaurant that did not pay me.   #  back in 0 i worked at a restaurant that did not pay me.  i worked there for a little over a year and never got paid, regardless of my tips.  could i have sued.  probably.  of course i would have to get a lawyer that would take up the case which cuts into what i would get out of it.  i also would be out of a job in a terrible job market.  it also would probably have gotten in the papers which would making getting a new job even harder.  sure, i could have done that.   #  i believe it is well past  too late  in your case, but just for anyone else out there that might be experiencing this or if you run into this again .   #  i am assuming you meant that they let you keep tips but did not pay you anything else.  still, they did not even pay you the  tipped employee minimum wage  ? holy  shit  that is fucking frugally greedy.  you do not have to get a lawyer.  you can always hit up the department of labor URL and they will shit all over that company.  it is free, it is their job, and you will get the money you earned as long as you claimed at least some of your tips.  i believe it is well past  too late  in your case, but just for anyone else out there that might be experiencing this or if you run into this again .  reports are anonymous.  unless you are literally the only employee besides the owners, they wo not know it was you, and ca not retaliate either.   #  the main point, though, was that it is not okay to refuse to tip as a form of boycott.   #  i agree the main reason it does not happen much is because people usually make more than minimum wage as a server once they factor in tips.  i do have a small issue with an industry that is predicated on not paying their employees enough to live on, however.  the main point, though, was that it is not okay to refuse to tip as a form of boycott.  servers rely on the customers to directly give them the majority of their pay, so not tipping them is essentially making them work for free.  if you do not like the system you can either make your own food, or get takeout.  that is what i do.
first off, this is an issue i have kinda been on the fence about, simply because i feel like it is an issue that is a way bigger deal than it needs to be, and i ca not help but tell myself there has to be something on one side of this issue that i am just missing.  why not simply label gmo foods so that people stop protesting that they are not labeled ? it seems so self defeating to be stubborn about it if there is nothing to worry about.  maybe a small percentage of consumers will boycott them for a short time until they realize nothing is happening to anyone else.  but other than that, there is no other problem that i can see with it, assuming that said food is indeed safe which i have came to the conclusion it is.  we have surgeon generals warnings on tobacco and alcohol, and while i know those are different from food, it is not like the surgeon general is warning stopped many people from purchasing either one of these items.  from everything i have seen, monsanto is not the monster they were made out to be, but i at least can understand people having an issue with a potential future monopoly on the food industry, and wanting to keep an eye on it.  but monsanto is not really my issue either.  i think my issue stems from a conversation recently where someone who was anti labeling had an argument consisting of these 0 defense points:  it perpetuates a culture of hate and fear.    it is like making every gay person wear a sign that says  faggot  both of these remarks are absolutely idiotic, and i could not even find a rational argument without wanting to tear my hair out.  if anyone has any better reasonings, and i know you guys in this sub do, then please, cmv.  because i am excited to hear some informed povs.   #  why not simply label gmo foods so that people stop protesting that they are not labeled ?  #  this would assume that a label is enough for those campaigning.   # this would assume that a label is enough for those campaigning.  there are advocates of labeling who directly state they see it as a first step towards a ban.  joseph mercola, who donated $0,0 to the washington labeling effort URL said:   personally, i believe gm foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this.  URL he also gave $0,0 to the jackson county ban URL as did some of the other largest donors to the labeling campaign dr.  bronner is soap, organic consumers fund, etc .  they are not simply looking for a label, they want it as a step towards banning or making gmos economically nonviable.  if that does not happen with labeling alone, they are not going  stop protesting  or otherwise stop pushing against them.  to this day people think msg and aspartame give you cancer, vaccinations cause autism, and fluoride in the water causes ever horrible thing under the sun.  there is tons of evidence against these being bad, yet people will still freak out over anecdotes and scant to nonexistent evidence about them.  similarly, any health problems those that eat gmos have unrelated to that fact could be spun as  oh, see, steve got diabetes from all those gmos.   the difference, of course, is that those labels are on products with scientifically proven effects.  a gmo label would be more akin to a label on apples that said  contains formaldehyde,  ruby red grapefruit saying  product of radiation mutagenesis,  or nutmeg saying  hallucinogenic.   these are all true statements, yet will likely scare off consumers and you can bet whatever you like the producers would campaign against them.  in the end, it is forcing a lifestyle label.  kosher consumers buy products that are certified by private companies, and get by just fine even though everything else is not labeled  non kosher,  those that want organic buy voluntarily labeled  organic  products without being troubled by a lack of  not organic  labels, and so on.  if labeling is as cheap as advocates claim, then the certification process would be trivially cheap for companies who want to attract those consumers.  if not, a field of technology and a sector of the economy will be hurt without any provable benefit.   #  labeling has been done in other countries, and it does affect consumer purchasing patterns.   #  there is a few reasons.  the biggest one in my mind is that if gmo is are unsafe, we should not sell them period.  if they are safe, there is no need to post a label.  it is that simple.  we label things that may contain allergens because they can cause real, demonstrable harm.  we label things that may harm pregnant mothers for the same reason.  gmo is have not been demonstrated to be harmful.  adding labeling does actually imply that there is a danger with the foods, because in other cases where we label there is a real danger.  labeling has been done in other countries, and it does affect consumer purchasing patterns.  it is not just a hypothetical issue.  there is already a way to make sure you are not getting gmo food: buy organic.  if it is an issue for you, there already exists a set of products that can be certified to not contain gmo is.  for the rest of the food industry, segregating out gmo and non gmo foods has a non negligible cost along with the costs of updating labels and such , and that cost gets passed on to the consumer.   #  people only care about gmos that a scientist did in a lab, despite being just as safe as conventional breeding.   # if it is an issue for you, there already exists a set of products that can be certified to not contain gmo is.  for the rest of the food industry, segregating out gmo and non gmo foods has a non negligible cost along with the costs of updating labels and such , and that cost gets passed on to the consumer.  chances are, all that organic food is genetically modified.  humans have been changing the genes of plants and animals for a very long time.  wheat ? all genetically modified.  bananas ? genetically modified.  this highlights the silliness of the debate.  people only care about gmos that a scientist did in a lab, despite being just as safe as conventional breeding.   #  cross species gene splicing is definitely a thing, and there is no reason to think that  de novo  sequence splicing will not become fairly common at some point.   # people only care about gmos that a scientist did in a lab, despite being just as safe as conventional breeding.  this is not perfectly true.  by definition, any  gmo  made through cross breeding, can only contain genetic material initially present in one of the sub populations and usually in more than a few individuals to begin with .  lab made gmos, on the other hand,  can  although not necessarily incorporate absolutely any genetic material that their maker saw fit to add.  cross species gene splicing is definitely a thing, and there is no reason to think that  de novo  sequence splicing will not become fairly common at some point.  while i personally do think that there can be benefits from such modifications, i think the whole  genetic lab manipulation of food is just the same as selective cross breeding  argument is disingenuous.  by the same reasoning, any pharmaceutical product could be considered  just like a herbal remedy, but made in a lab , yet the fda makes a very strong difference between the two.   #  the definition of gmos used by activists does not include ruby red grapefruit, which means to me that their claim that non gmos do not include traits that would not occur through cross breeding is nonsense.   #  that has nothing to do with a no true scotsman fallacy.  a no true scotsman would be to make some claim about a class of things, be shown a counterexample to the claim, and then respond by claiming that the counterexample does not belong in that class of things in a way that can be used to rule out basically any counterexample.  it does not just mean that somebody points out a definition.  the definition of gmos used by activists does not include ruby red grapefruit, which means to me that their claim that non gmos do not include traits that would not occur through cross breeding is nonsense.  in a discussion about labeling legislation it makes sense to use the actual definitions that the people supporting the legislation use.  gmos are about as proven safe as anything else we consume.  there have been decades of research on them that have turned up no convincing way that they could cause harm as a general technology .  the sane thing is to assume that they are safe.
first off, this is an issue i have kinda been on the fence about, simply because i feel like it is an issue that is a way bigger deal than it needs to be, and i ca not help but tell myself there has to be something on one side of this issue that i am just missing.  why not simply label gmo foods so that people stop protesting that they are not labeled ? it seems so self defeating to be stubborn about it if there is nothing to worry about.  maybe a small percentage of consumers will boycott them for a short time until they realize nothing is happening to anyone else.  but other than that, there is no other problem that i can see with it, assuming that said food is indeed safe which i have came to the conclusion it is.  we have surgeon generals warnings on tobacco and alcohol, and while i know those are different from food, it is not like the surgeon general is warning stopped many people from purchasing either one of these items.  from everything i have seen, monsanto is not the monster they were made out to be, but i at least can understand people having an issue with a potential future monopoly on the food industry, and wanting to keep an eye on it.  but monsanto is not really my issue either.  i think my issue stems from a conversation recently where someone who was anti labeling had an argument consisting of these 0 defense points:  it perpetuates a culture of hate and fear.    it is like making every gay person wear a sign that says  faggot  both of these remarks are absolutely idiotic, and i could not even find a rational argument without wanting to tear my hair out.  if anyone has any better reasonings, and i know you guys in this sub do, then please, cmv.  because i am excited to hear some informed povs.   #  maybe a small percentage of consumers will boycott them for a short time until they realize nothing is happening to anyone else.   #  to this day people think msg and aspartame give you cancer, vaccinations cause autism, and fluoride in the water causes ever horrible thing under the sun.   # this would assume that a label is enough for those campaigning.  there are advocates of labeling who directly state they see it as a first step towards a ban.  joseph mercola, who donated $0,0 to the washington labeling effort URL said:   personally, i believe gm foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this.  URL he also gave $0,0 to the jackson county ban URL as did some of the other largest donors to the labeling campaign dr.  bronner is soap, organic consumers fund, etc .  they are not simply looking for a label, they want it as a step towards banning or making gmos economically nonviable.  if that does not happen with labeling alone, they are not going  stop protesting  or otherwise stop pushing against them.  to this day people think msg and aspartame give you cancer, vaccinations cause autism, and fluoride in the water causes ever horrible thing under the sun.  there is tons of evidence against these being bad, yet people will still freak out over anecdotes and scant to nonexistent evidence about them.  similarly, any health problems those that eat gmos have unrelated to that fact could be spun as  oh, see, steve got diabetes from all those gmos.   the difference, of course, is that those labels are on products with scientifically proven effects.  a gmo label would be more akin to a label on apples that said  contains formaldehyde,  ruby red grapefruit saying  product of radiation mutagenesis,  or nutmeg saying  hallucinogenic.   these are all true statements, yet will likely scare off consumers and you can bet whatever you like the producers would campaign against them.  in the end, it is forcing a lifestyle label.  kosher consumers buy products that are certified by private companies, and get by just fine even though everything else is not labeled  non kosher,  those that want organic buy voluntarily labeled  organic  products without being troubled by a lack of  not organic  labels, and so on.  if labeling is as cheap as advocates claim, then the certification process would be trivially cheap for companies who want to attract those consumers.  if not, a field of technology and a sector of the economy will be hurt without any provable benefit.   #  we label things that may harm pregnant mothers for the same reason.   #  there is a few reasons.  the biggest one in my mind is that if gmo is are unsafe, we should not sell them period.  if they are safe, there is no need to post a label.  it is that simple.  we label things that may contain allergens because they can cause real, demonstrable harm.  we label things that may harm pregnant mothers for the same reason.  gmo is have not been demonstrated to be harmful.  adding labeling does actually imply that there is a danger with the foods, because in other cases where we label there is a real danger.  labeling has been done in other countries, and it does affect consumer purchasing patterns.  it is not just a hypothetical issue.  there is already a way to make sure you are not getting gmo food: buy organic.  if it is an issue for you, there already exists a set of products that can be certified to not contain gmo is.  for the rest of the food industry, segregating out gmo and non gmo foods has a non negligible cost along with the costs of updating labels and such , and that cost gets passed on to the consumer.   #  chances are, all that organic food is genetically modified.   # if it is an issue for you, there already exists a set of products that can be certified to not contain gmo is.  for the rest of the food industry, segregating out gmo and non gmo foods has a non negligible cost along with the costs of updating labels and such , and that cost gets passed on to the consumer.  chances are, all that organic food is genetically modified.  humans have been changing the genes of plants and animals for a very long time.  wheat ? all genetically modified.  bananas ? genetically modified.  this highlights the silliness of the debate.  people only care about gmos that a scientist did in a lab, despite being just as safe as conventional breeding.   #  by the same reasoning, any pharmaceutical product could be considered  just like a herbal remedy, but made in a lab , yet the fda makes a very strong difference between the two.   # people only care about gmos that a scientist did in a lab, despite being just as safe as conventional breeding.  this is not perfectly true.  by definition, any  gmo  made through cross breeding, can only contain genetic material initially present in one of the sub populations and usually in more than a few individuals to begin with .  lab made gmos, on the other hand,  can  although not necessarily incorporate absolutely any genetic material that their maker saw fit to add.  cross species gene splicing is definitely a thing, and there is no reason to think that  de novo  sequence splicing will not become fairly common at some point.  while i personally do think that there can be benefits from such modifications, i think the whole  genetic lab manipulation of food is just the same as selective cross breeding  argument is disingenuous.  by the same reasoning, any pharmaceutical product could be considered  just like a herbal remedy, but made in a lab , yet the fda makes a very strong difference between the two.   #  the sane thing is to assume that they are safe.   #  that has nothing to do with a no true scotsman fallacy.  a no true scotsman would be to make some claim about a class of things, be shown a counterexample to the claim, and then respond by claiming that the counterexample does not belong in that class of things in a way that can be used to rule out basically any counterexample.  it does not just mean that somebody points out a definition.  the definition of gmos used by activists does not include ruby red grapefruit, which means to me that their claim that non gmos do not include traits that would not occur through cross breeding is nonsense.  in a discussion about labeling legislation it makes sense to use the actual definitions that the people supporting the legislation use.  gmos are about as proven safe as anything else we consume.  there have been decades of research on them that have turned up no convincing way that they could cause harm as a general technology .  the sane thing is to assume that they are safe.
first off, this is an issue i have kinda been on the fence about, simply because i feel like it is an issue that is a way bigger deal than it needs to be, and i ca not help but tell myself there has to be something on one side of this issue that i am just missing.  why not simply label gmo foods so that people stop protesting that they are not labeled ? it seems so self defeating to be stubborn about it if there is nothing to worry about.  maybe a small percentage of consumers will boycott them for a short time until they realize nothing is happening to anyone else.  but other than that, there is no other problem that i can see with it, assuming that said food is indeed safe which i have came to the conclusion it is.  we have surgeon generals warnings on tobacco and alcohol, and while i know those are different from food, it is not like the surgeon general is warning stopped many people from purchasing either one of these items.  from everything i have seen, monsanto is not the monster they were made out to be, but i at least can understand people having an issue with a potential future monopoly on the food industry, and wanting to keep an eye on it.  but monsanto is not really my issue either.  i think my issue stems from a conversation recently where someone who was anti labeling had an argument consisting of these 0 defense points:  it perpetuates a culture of hate and fear.    it is like making every gay person wear a sign that says  faggot  both of these remarks are absolutely idiotic, and i could not even find a rational argument without wanting to tear my hair out.  if anyone has any better reasonings, and i know you guys in this sub do, then please, cmv.  because i am excited to hear some informed povs.   #  we have surgeon generals warnings on tobacco and alcohol, and while i know those are different from food, it is not like the surgeon general is warning stopped many people from purchasing either one of these items.   #  the difference, of course, is that those labels are on products with scientifically proven effects.   # this would assume that a label is enough for those campaigning.  there are advocates of labeling who directly state they see it as a first step towards a ban.  joseph mercola, who donated $0,0 to the washington labeling effort URL said:   personally, i believe gm foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this.  URL he also gave $0,0 to the jackson county ban URL as did some of the other largest donors to the labeling campaign dr.  bronner is soap, organic consumers fund, etc .  they are not simply looking for a label, they want it as a step towards banning or making gmos economically nonviable.  if that does not happen with labeling alone, they are not going  stop protesting  or otherwise stop pushing against them.  to this day people think msg and aspartame give you cancer, vaccinations cause autism, and fluoride in the water causes ever horrible thing under the sun.  there is tons of evidence against these being bad, yet people will still freak out over anecdotes and scant to nonexistent evidence about them.  similarly, any health problems those that eat gmos have unrelated to that fact could be spun as  oh, see, steve got diabetes from all those gmos.   the difference, of course, is that those labels are on products with scientifically proven effects.  a gmo label would be more akin to a label on apples that said  contains formaldehyde,  ruby red grapefruit saying  product of radiation mutagenesis,  or nutmeg saying  hallucinogenic.   these are all true statements, yet will likely scare off consumers and you can bet whatever you like the producers would campaign against them.  in the end, it is forcing a lifestyle label.  kosher consumers buy products that are certified by private companies, and get by just fine even though everything else is not labeled  non kosher,  those that want organic buy voluntarily labeled  organic  products without being troubled by a lack of  not organic  labels, and so on.  if labeling is as cheap as advocates claim, then the certification process would be trivially cheap for companies who want to attract those consumers.  if not, a field of technology and a sector of the economy will be hurt without any provable benefit.   #  if it is an issue for you, there already exists a set of products that can be certified to not contain gmo is.   #  there is a few reasons.  the biggest one in my mind is that if gmo is are unsafe, we should not sell them period.  if they are safe, there is no need to post a label.  it is that simple.  we label things that may contain allergens because they can cause real, demonstrable harm.  we label things that may harm pregnant mothers for the same reason.  gmo is have not been demonstrated to be harmful.  adding labeling does actually imply that there is a danger with the foods, because in other cases where we label there is a real danger.  labeling has been done in other countries, and it does affect consumer purchasing patterns.  it is not just a hypothetical issue.  there is already a way to make sure you are not getting gmo food: buy organic.  if it is an issue for you, there already exists a set of products that can be certified to not contain gmo is.  for the rest of the food industry, segregating out gmo and non gmo foods has a non negligible cost along with the costs of updating labels and such , and that cost gets passed on to the consumer.   #  humans have been changing the genes of plants and animals for a very long time.   # if it is an issue for you, there already exists a set of products that can be certified to not contain gmo is.  for the rest of the food industry, segregating out gmo and non gmo foods has a non negligible cost along with the costs of updating labels and such , and that cost gets passed on to the consumer.  chances are, all that organic food is genetically modified.  humans have been changing the genes of plants and animals for a very long time.  wheat ? all genetically modified.  bananas ? genetically modified.  this highlights the silliness of the debate.  people only care about gmos that a scientist did in a lab, despite being just as safe as conventional breeding.   #  people only care about gmos that a scientist did in a lab, despite being just as safe as conventional breeding.   # people only care about gmos that a scientist did in a lab, despite being just as safe as conventional breeding.  this is not perfectly true.  by definition, any  gmo  made through cross breeding, can only contain genetic material initially present in one of the sub populations and usually in more than a few individuals to begin with .  lab made gmos, on the other hand,  can  although not necessarily incorporate absolutely any genetic material that their maker saw fit to add.  cross species gene splicing is definitely a thing, and there is no reason to think that  de novo  sequence splicing will not become fairly common at some point.  while i personally do think that there can be benefits from such modifications, i think the whole  genetic lab manipulation of food is just the same as selective cross breeding  argument is disingenuous.  by the same reasoning, any pharmaceutical product could be considered  just like a herbal remedy, but made in a lab , yet the fda makes a very strong difference between the two.   #  in a discussion about labeling legislation it makes sense to use the actual definitions that the people supporting the legislation use.   #  that has nothing to do with a no true scotsman fallacy.  a no true scotsman would be to make some claim about a class of things, be shown a counterexample to the claim, and then respond by claiming that the counterexample does not belong in that class of things in a way that can be used to rule out basically any counterexample.  it does not just mean that somebody points out a definition.  the definition of gmos used by activists does not include ruby red grapefruit, which means to me that their claim that non gmos do not include traits that would not occur through cross breeding is nonsense.  in a discussion about labeling legislation it makes sense to use the actual definitions that the people supporting the legislation use.  gmos are about as proven safe as anything else we consume.  there have been decades of research on them that have turned up no convincing way that they could cause harm as a general technology .  the sane thing is to assume that they are safe.
these are two separate but related issues.  i will start with driving first, then move on to banks and petrol stations.   driving  one of the most important things to have whilst in control of a motor vehicle is clear vision.  it seems to me that a niqab limits vision in much the way a full face helmet does, and i certainly would not drive a car in a full face helmet.  the person wearing the niqab seems to have reduced peripheral vision, making it harder for them to avoid a collision.  it seems that it should only be legal to drive if your vision is completely unobstructed.   banks/petrol stations  it is currently illegal for me to walk into a bank or petrol station wearing a full face helmet or other object that obscures my face.  why should religious dress be excepted from these laws ? what is to stop me, a on muslim male, adopting this style of dress for nefarious purposes ? it seems like it would be very easy to conceal weapons and hide my identity whilst i was wearing it.   #  it seems that it should only be legal to drive if your vision is completely unobstructed.   #  so no sunglasses, glasses, baseball caps, or any other hats ?  # so no sunglasses, glasses, baseball caps, or any other hats ? key phrase here is  seems to .  i am not trying to be confrontational, but seriously, look into the facts a little more before formulating an opinion.  for the most part, they lay flat on the face and hardly obstruct your vision at all.  i do not even know where you got the idea that a niqab is as obstructive as a helmet.  although i disagree, i can respect the idea that it should be illegal to drive with any obstructed vision, rather than just banning niqabs.  the reason i disagree is because it would be nearly impossible to define, legally, what would constitute an obstruction of vision.  can you wear nothing on your head and face ? what if you need glasses to see ? what if your allergies are acting up and your eyes are a little swollen ? surely that would obstruct your vision.  if such a law were implemented, it would have to be one of those things that is up to officer discretion.  to me,  officer discretion  just opens the door for profiling and abuse of power.  at a certain point you are just taking away rights rather than actually making the world safer.  i can also sympathize with your view about the banks.  my only reservation is that i think it should not be a legal thing again, rights .  i think it should be solely a company policy thing, but i think the government should uphold the establishment is right to refuse service to masked people.  out of curiosity, where do you live where it is  illegal  to walk into a place with a mask ? i live in the us california , and i am not aware of any law that prohibits such a thing.  obviously, they would probably ask you to take it off or leave, but i am pretty sure it is not illegal here.   #  banks have enough problem with that, if 0 was any indication.   # the evidence is that i cannot legally enter a bank wearing clothing that obscures my face.  it is discrimination to allow other people to do so.  and rastafarians have legal exemptions to smoke weed due to religious reasons, and native americans have a similar thing with peyote.  it is pretty commonplace to allow certain exceptions for a religious belief.  if someone truly believes that they will burn in eternal flames if they do not do a certain thing, then to them it is akin to the highest form of torture to force them to not do that.  and banks also know this.  if any bank in america came out with such a rule, there would be hella blowback.  for starters, they would lose a vast majority of their muslim clients.  the aclu would be filing lawsuits left and right, if that was going on.  so they save themselves the financial problems.  banks have enough problem with that, if 0 was any indication.   #  as for bank and petrol stations, i do not see why you should not be allowed to wear a mask to a bank of a petrol station.   #  there are many different variations of a  niqab  or really one can argue that a  niqab  does not cover the eyes.  i think you are referring more so to a burqa when it comes to driving.  i agree with you that a burqa should definitely not be worn.  but if you are referring to an actual  niqab  which does not cover the eyes, then i do not.  a niqab does not cover the eyes.  as for bank and petrol stations, i do not see why you should not be allowed to wear a mask to a bank of a petrol station.   #  driving: there are many different types of niqab many, the majority i think, do not obstruct peripheral vision the eye opening extends far to the sides of the eyes and is not in the way of anything.   #  driving: there are many different types of niqab many, the majority i think, do not obstruct peripheral vision the eye opening extends far to the sides of the eyes and is not in the way of anything.  banks: on this i am more with you.  but not entirely.  on the bank side, the woman or person wearing some  identity obstructing  religious wear could be asked to remove it momentarily while doing a transaction, or when entering assuming under camera .  seems like a fair enough compromise.  but in reality, if someone wants to pull a bank heist, or blow up a gas station, a niqab or lack therof is not going to be the deciding factor.  making spending time trying to regulate these minute applications of law pretty pointless in my opinion.   #  sunglasses also limit one is field of view, some makes and models more than others.   # sunglasses also limit one is field of view, some makes and models more than others.  and i imagine it would be difficult to differentiate between them.  so.  would you agree that there should be a blanket ban on niqabs and sunglasses while driving ? assuming you are in the us, i am sure you are aware that we have a constitution that guarantees the free practice of religion.  unlike your helmet, a niqab would most likely fall under that protection.
to be clear i do not deny climate change, i do not deny that people might be causing it, i do not deny that it might have big effects on the global ecosystem.  i just do not really care about it.  there is no way climate change can permanently ruin the planet if an asteroid from space with the energy of 0 billion atomic bombs could not do it.  animals die all the time, extinct species are simply replaced by new ones.  there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.  nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the earth has survived.  humans will simply adapt and move on, we are an incredibly resourceful species and have collectively survived or overcome every single challenge posed to us.  we will never see the fruits of the sacrifices we are being asked to make now for climate change.  it makes no sense to sacrifice the quality of our life for what might possibly happen in the future.  once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time.   #  there is no way climate change can permanently ruin the planet if an asteroid from space with the energy of 0 billion atomic bombs could not do it.   #  yes but both can sure as hell kill us all.   # yes but both can sure as hell kill us all.  there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.  nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the earth has survived.  if certain animals go extinct, it could have very bad effects on the ecosystems, therefore harming us.  there is a lot of science to back this up.  extinction is not supposed to be sudden and wide spread, like it is today.  well we are adapting by beginning to care about the climate.  i agree that we should also invest in science and technology for future solutions, but simply putting it off is foolish procrastination.  there is no significant drop in quality in life for recycling or having a carbon tax.   #  nasa predicts that there will be  decreased water resources in many semi arid areas, including western u. s.   #  nasa predicts that there will be  decreased water resources in many semi arid areas, including western u. s.  and mediterranean basin  and  increased incidence of extreme high sea level.   and the national geographic predicts  the oceans to rise between 0 and 0 feet 0 and 0 meters    and swamp many of the cities along the u. s.  east coast.  adapting will be a lot harder with most of major hubs destroyed.  also thousands of species will die and other species will be hurt because the loss of biodiversity and could be more susceptible to becoming extinct because of a single disease.  we will also harm more plants and animals as we try to stay alive adapt to the new world.  but all of those will happen in the future, so its less about you now and more about the people and structures you could save as well as the thousands of innocent animal species you could save if decided to act.   #  sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.   #  bear in mind that said asteroid effectively made the planet unlivable for the vast majority of lifeforms on it; comparing the two, if climate change as an ongoing process kills off 0 percent of life on earth, then it sounds like something we might want to avoid.   humans will simply adapt and move on ; even if you are prepared to ignore all the animal species, not to mention the vast benefits we get from them, we are only so adaptable, and adaptation comes at a price.  would you be willing to watch half of humanity die beneath a merciless sun because you did not want to drive less ? sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.  but is it really worth that extra trip to walmart ?  we will never see the fruits of the sacrifices we are being asked to make now for climate change.  .  even if we agreed on this, we are being asked to make said sacrifices, not for ourselves, bu for our children and their children and so on.   once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time.  .  this is incredibly selfish.  you should consider leaving behind a planet worth inheriting.  your ancestors suffered for your benefit; are you really unwilling to sacrifice for the next generation ?  #  sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.   # sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.  but is it really worth that extra trip to walmart ? yeah.  there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that climate change is heading toward complete global catastrophe.  those that are trying to convince you that it is, are simply performing scare mongering.  relating barren wasteland and half of humanity dying off to driving a car and shopping at walmart is the type of sensationalist bullshit that should be shunned.   #  the  end of the world  rhetoric is seriously getting out of hand.   #  no i do not think that climate change will cause those things.  firstly, its not rapid, climate change is gradual, and real changes will only be notable over the course of several decades if not centuries.  there will be no forced relocation, nor will there be any global catastrophe.  ultimately, its buzz words like  catastrophe  or  forced relocation  or  barren wasteland  that is giving environmentalists a terrible image.  the  end of the world  rhetoric is seriously getting out of hand.
to be clear i do not deny climate change, i do not deny that people might be causing it, i do not deny that it might have big effects on the global ecosystem.  i just do not really care about it.  there is no way climate change can permanently ruin the planet if an asteroid from space with the energy of 0 billion atomic bombs could not do it.  animals die all the time, extinct species are simply replaced by new ones.  there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.  nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the earth has survived.  humans will simply adapt and move on, we are an incredibly resourceful species and have collectively survived or overcome every single challenge posed to us.  we will never see the fruits of the sacrifices we are being asked to make now for climate change.  it makes no sense to sacrifice the quality of our life for what might possibly happen in the future.  once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time.   #  animals die all the time, extinct species are simply replaced by new ones.   #  there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.   # yes but both can sure as hell kill us all.  there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.  nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the earth has survived.  if certain animals go extinct, it could have very bad effects on the ecosystems, therefore harming us.  there is a lot of science to back this up.  extinction is not supposed to be sudden and wide spread, like it is today.  well we are adapting by beginning to care about the climate.  i agree that we should also invest in science and technology for future solutions, but simply putting it off is foolish procrastination.  there is no significant drop in quality in life for recycling or having a carbon tax.   #  and the national geographic predicts  the oceans to rise between 0 and 0 feet 0 and 0 meters    and swamp many of the cities along the u. s.   #  nasa predicts that there will be  decreased water resources in many semi arid areas, including western u. s.  and mediterranean basin  and  increased incidence of extreme high sea level.   and the national geographic predicts  the oceans to rise between 0 and 0 feet 0 and 0 meters    and swamp many of the cities along the u. s.  east coast.  adapting will be a lot harder with most of major hubs destroyed.  also thousands of species will die and other species will be hurt because the loss of biodiversity and could be more susceptible to becoming extinct because of a single disease.  we will also harm more plants and animals as we try to stay alive adapt to the new world.  but all of those will happen in the future, so its less about you now and more about the people and structures you could save as well as the thousands of innocent animal species you could save if decided to act.   #  but is it really worth that extra trip to walmart ?  #  bear in mind that said asteroid effectively made the planet unlivable for the vast majority of lifeforms on it; comparing the two, if climate change as an ongoing process kills off 0 percent of life on earth, then it sounds like something we might want to avoid.   humans will simply adapt and move on ; even if you are prepared to ignore all the animal species, not to mention the vast benefits we get from them, we are only so adaptable, and adaptation comes at a price.  would you be willing to watch half of humanity die beneath a merciless sun because you did not want to drive less ? sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.  but is it really worth that extra trip to walmart ?  we will never see the fruits of the sacrifices we are being asked to make now for climate change.  .  even if we agreed on this, we are being asked to make said sacrifices, not for ourselves, bu for our children and their children and so on.   once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time.  .  this is incredibly selfish.  you should consider leaving behind a planet worth inheriting.  your ancestors suffered for your benefit; are you really unwilling to sacrifice for the next generation ?  #  sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.   # sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.  but is it really worth that extra trip to walmart ? yeah.  there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that climate change is heading toward complete global catastrophe.  those that are trying to convince you that it is, are simply performing scare mongering.  relating barren wasteland and half of humanity dying off to driving a car and shopping at walmart is the type of sensationalist bullshit that should be shunned.   #  ultimately, its buzz words like  catastrophe  or  forced relocation  or  barren wasteland  that is giving environmentalists a terrible image.   #  no i do not think that climate change will cause those things.  firstly, its not rapid, climate change is gradual, and real changes will only be notable over the course of several decades if not centuries.  there will be no forced relocation, nor will there be any global catastrophe.  ultimately, its buzz words like  catastrophe  or  forced relocation  or  barren wasteland  that is giving environmentalists a terrible image.  the  end of the world  rhetoric is seriously getting out of hand.
to be clear i do not deny climate change, i do not deny that people might be causing it, i do not deny that it might have big effects on the global ecosystem.  i just do not really care about it.  there is no way climate change can permanently ruin the planet if an asteroid from space with the energy of 0 billion atomic bombs could not do it.  animals die all the time, extinct species are simply replaced by new ones.  there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.  nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the earth has survived.  humans will simply adapt and move on, we are an incredibly resourceful species and have collectively survived or overcome every single challenge posed to us.  we will never see the fruits of the sacrifices we are being asked to make now for climate change.  it makes no sense to sacrifice the quality of our life for what might possibly happen in the future.  once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time.   #  humans will simply adapt and move on, we are an incredibly resourceful species and have collectively survived or overcome every single challenge posed to us.   #  well we are adapting by beginning to care about the climate.   # yes but both can sure as hell kill us all.  there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.  nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the earth has survived.  if certain animals go extinct, it could have very bad effects on the ecosystems, therefore harming us.  there is a lot of science to back this up.  extinction is not supposed to be sudden and wide spread, like it is today.  well we are adapting by beginning to care about the climate.  i agree that we should also invest in science and technology for future solutions, but simply putting it off is foolish procrastination.  there is no significant drop in quality in life for recycling or having a carbon tax.   #  nasa predicts that there will be  decreased water resources in many semi arid areas, including western u. s.   #  nasa predicts that there will be  decreased water resources in many semi arid areas, including western u. s.  and mediterranean basin  and  increased incidence of extreme high sea level.   and the national geographic predicts  the oceans to rise between 0 and 0 feet 0 and 0 meters    and swamp many of the cities along the u. s.  east coast.  adapting will be a lot harder with most of major hubs destroyed.  also thousands of species will die and other species will be hurt because the loss of biodiversity and could be more susceptible to becoming extinct because of a single disease.  we will also harm more plants and animals as we try to stay alive adapt to the new world.  but all of those will happen in the future, so its less about you now and more about the people and structures you could save as well as the thousands of innocent animal species you could save if decided to act.   #   humans will simply adapt and move on ; even if you are prepared to ignore all the animal species, not to mention the vast benefits we get from them, we are only so adaptable, and adaptation comes at a price.   #  bear in mind that said asteroid effectively made the planet unlivable for the vast majority of lifeforms on it; comparing the two, if climate change as an ongoing process kills off 0 percent of life on earth, then it sounds like something we might want to avoid.   humans will simply adapt and move on ; even if you are prepared to ignore all the animal species, not to mention the vast benefits we get from them, we are only so adaptable, and adaptation comes at a price.  would you be willing to watch half of humanity die beneath a merciless sun because you did not want to drive less ? sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.  but is it really worth that extra trip to walmart ?  we will never see the fruits of the sacrifices we are being asked to make now for climate change.  .  even if we agreed on this, we are being asked to make said sacrifices, not for ourselves, bu for our children and their children and so on.   once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time.  .  this is incredibly selfish.  you should consider leaving behind a planet worth inheriting.  your ancestors suffered for your benefit; are you really unwilling to sacrifice for the next generation ?  #  but is it really worth that extra trip to walmart ?  # sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.  but is it really worth that extra trip to walmart ? yeah.  there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that climate change is heading toward complete global catastrophe.  those that are trying to convince you that it is, are simply performing scare mongering.  relating barren wasteland and half of humanity dying off to driving a car and shopping at walmart is the type of sensationalist bullshit that should be shunned.   #  no i do not think that climate change will cause those things.   #  no i do not think that climate change will cause those things.  firstly, its not rapid, climate change is gradual, and real changes will only be notable over the course of several decades if not centuries.  there will be no forced relocation, nor will there be any global catastrophe.  ultimately, its buzz words like  catastrophe  or  forced relocation  or  barren wasteland  that is giving environmentalists a terrible image.  the  end of the world  rhetoric is seriously getting out of hand.
to be clear i do not deny climate change, i do not deny that people might be causing it, i do not deny that it might have big effects on the global ecosystem.  i just do not really care about it.  there is no way climate change can permanently ruin the planet if an asteroid from space with the energy of 0 billion atomic bombs could not do it.  animals die all the time, extinct species are simply replaced by new ones.  there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.  nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the earth has survived.  humans will simply adapt and move on, we are an incredibly resourceful species and have collectively survived or overcome every single challenge posed to us.  we will never see the fruits of the sacrifices we are being asked to make now for climate change.  it makes no sense to sacrifice the quality of our life for what might possibly happen in the future.  once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time.   #  animals die all the time, extinct species are simply replaced by new ones.   #  there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.   # there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.  nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the earth has survived.  have fun if all the insect pollinators of food crops disappear.  think evolution will provide us with new ones before you starve to death ? or maybe you will get off easy, and we wo not have total crop failures, and instead food prices will just go up 0.   #  there is a lot of science to back this up.   # yes but both can sure as hell kill us all.  there is no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species.  nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the earth has survived.  if certain animals go extinct, it could have very bad effects on the ecosystems, therefore harming us.  there is a lot of science to back this up.  extinction is not supposed to be sudden and wide spread, like it is today.  well we are adapting by beginning to care about the climate.  i agree that we should also invest in science and technology for future solutions, but simply putting it off is foolish procrastination.  there is no significant drop in quality in life for recycling or having a carbon tax.   #  we will also harm more plants and animals as we try to stay alive adapt to the new world.   #  nasa predicts that there will be  decreased water resources in many semi arid areas, including western u. s.  and mediterranean basin  and  increased incidence of extreme high sea level.   and the national geographic predicts  the oceans to rise between 0 and 0 feet 0 and 0 meters    and swamp many of the cities along the u. s.  east coast.  adapting will be a lot harder with most of major hubs destroyed.  also thousands of species will die and other species will be hurt because the loss of biodiversity and could be more susceptible to becoming extinct because of a single disease.  we will also harm more plants and animals as we try to stay alive adapt to the new world.  but all of those will happen in the future, so its less about you now and more about the people and structures you could save as well as the thousands of innocent animal species you could save if decided to act.   #   once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time.  .   #  bear in mind that said asteroid effectively made the planet unlivable for the vast majority of lifeforms on it; comparing the two, if climate change as an ongoing process kills off 0 percent of life on earth, then it sounds like something we might want to avoid.   humans will simply adapt and move on ; even if you are prepared to ignore all the animal species, not to mention the vast benefits we get from them, we are only so adaptable, and adaptation comes at a price.  would you be willing to watch half of humanity die beneath a merciless sun because you did not want to drive less ? sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.  but is it really worth that extra trip to walmart ?  we will never see the fruits of the sacrifices we are being asked to make now for climate change.  .  even if we agreed on this, we are being asked to make said sacrifices, not for ourselves, bu for our children and their children and so on.   once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time.  .  this is incredibly selfish.  you should consider leaving behind a planet worth inheriting.  your ancestors suffered for your benefit; are you really unwilling to sacrifice for the next generation ?  #  relating barren wasteland and half of humanity dying off to driving a car and shopping at walmart is the type of sensationalist bullshit that should be shunned.   # sure, the other half might survive in a barren wasteland of unbearable heat.  but is it really worth that extra trip to walmart ? yeah.  there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that climate change is heading toward complete global catastrophe.  those that are trying to convince you that it is, are simply performing scare mongering.  relating barren wasteland and half of humanity dying off to driving a car and shopping at walmart is the type of sensationalist bullshit that should be shunned.
i believe that when looked at objectively, a dog is a better potential companion in a household as a pet than a cat.  this is not to say that cats provide no enjoyment as a pet, but instead that dogs can be considered superior for a number of reasons.  trainability: dogs can be trained to accomplish a number of highly advanced tasks with relative ease compared to a cat.  as a pack animal they are eager to please the alpha and be accepted and this shows through in their nature.  dogs can be trained to smell cancer, sense danger, lead the blind or disabled, or simply do a number of amusing tricks.  they can be paper/potty trained to the same level or higher than a cat, and can be left outside if need be.  companionship: a dog can be a near constant companion if need be.  they can keep one company both inside and outside the home, join the runner on jogs, help with hobbies such as hunting and fishing, and properly trained present essentially no danger to children.  cats, even when used to human contact, will frequently attack a human without reason as  play .  try rubbing a dog is belly then rubbing a cat is, the dog wo not bite you.  utility: a dog can be a security animal.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  they can be trained to be quiet and subservient when there is no danger as well as loud and territorial when there is.  this is why dogs are common companions to law enforcement.  flexibility: there are functionally far more variations in the sort of dog that one can have compared to the sort of cat one can have.  while there are many different breeds of cat, you have a far smaller range of size, temperament, intelligence, and activity level.  you can get a 0 pound dog or a 0 pound dog, you can even get one of each and they will play nicely together if trained that way.  they are available in every color of the rainbow and from very subdued to very active to suit the lifestyle and preferences of an owner to a tee.  one can have a decorative dog like a toy poodle or a work dog like a german shepherd.  from what i can see, the enjoyment from a cat is largely the same enjoyment one would get from a doll or a stuffed animal.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a dog clearly can.  due to these factors, i believe a dog is an objectively superior pet compared to a cat.  change my view.   #  a dog can be a security animal.   #  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.   #  the biggest benefit of cats is that they require far less maintenance.  all you really need to do with a cat is clean the litter a couple times a week and feed it, and there are automated solutions to both of those.  you also have some misinformation about cats.  young kittens, maybe.  and poorly trained cats, but my cat has never  attacked us in play .  those that do often are no different than dogs jumping or playfully biting.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  unless specifically trained, they really ca not, and the training for security dogs makes for bad pets.  if you train your dog to attack strangers,  enjoy the lawsuit  and watching your dog get put down.  law enforcement dogs are, in general, ruined for life as pets.  their training makes them unsuited for household life.  while not as affectionate, cats certainly do reciprocate emotion.  my cat greets me at the door every afternoon and sits on my lap asking to be pet.  she will cuddle noticeably more when we are sad or stressed.  two other points: behavior: many people neglect to train their cats, which is the cause of much of the behavior issues.  cats are generally self sufficient, but unfortunately this leads people to assume that they do not need training, they do.  safety: a cat is generally a safer pet.  the amount of damage a cat can do if it is scared and attacks a person or child is far less than even a rather small dog.  while housecats have killed, dogs kill dozens each year and gravely injure hundreds more.  of course, proper training is essential, and dogs are not always dangerous.  but they are inherently more dangerous they can do more damage especially around children who may harm the dog unintentionally.  these are all considerations, and whether a cat is better for an individual will depend on what the cat wants.  i am often gone from the house, and work irregular hours and do not have a yard.  a cat is by fa the superior pet for me.  it is a subjective measure.  what you should change about your view is that dogs are objectively better pets.  that is nonsense.   #  i do not like any appeal to  objectivity,  especially when it comes to a human phenomenon.   #  i do not like any appeal to  objectivity,  especially when it comes to a human phenomenon.  the fact that some people dislike dogs and like cats is enough to prove that: a this is a subjective matter.  the truth is not determined by the reality of the external object, but by the subject is preferences.  b there exists subjective preference for cats over dogs, thereby making those cats better pets for those people.  just because you do not understand another person is viewpoint does not make the matter objective.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a cat clearly can.  see what i did there ? a cat lover could make this statement, and you could say literally nothing to refute it.  the entire issue is a matter of personal preference.  tl;dr: they are different animals with different behavioral patterns, and thus will appeal differently to different humans who also have different behavioral patterns .  you cannot extrapolate what is definitively your subjective opinion on which makes a  better pet  to an objective definition, as the decision rule on what makes a  better  pet is entirely up in the air depending on who the person is.   #  this is true to an extent, but they are not something that can be relied upon.   # but most dogs will instinctively protect their owners from harm without any training.  this is true to an extent, but they are not something that can be relied upon.  if a burglar had a treat, your security system is defeated.  true, but dogs also bite more often.  URL even so, the risk of great bodily harm is much greater with a dog.  i am not trying to argue that cats are better pets, but that there are certain considerations that make cats better for some people, refuting the cmv.   #  when i get home, he will  always  be in the same room as me, if not in my lap, for the entire rest of the night.   # i think this is only true because most people who have cats assume that cats are aloof and do not need much attention.  compare that with my cat.  when i start getting ready for bed at night, my cat will follow me around from the bathroom to the bedroom etc, and use the litter box and get a drink of water.  i will get into bed and about 0 minutes later, when he is sure i will have probably stopped rolling around, he jumps into bed and curls up in my legs.  he stays there most of the night.  about 0 minutes before my alarm goes off i sleep horribly he will get up and use the litter box again and then sit in the doorway of the bedroom.  i will get up and go to the kitchen, and he will follow me into the kitchen and sit by me while i give him head rubs as i make breakfast.  he will sit at my feet while i eat.  he will walk me to the door before i leave.  when i get home, he will  always  be in the same room as me, if not in my lap, for the entire rest of the night.  i went for a five day trip last year and when i got back he was vigorously and happily meowing at me, and i could not get the cat more than two inches from me for the entirety of the day.  if i was sitting, he was in my lap, and if i was standing he was rubbing my legs.  this is a cat that i have given attention to since he was a kitten.  i have pet him and talked to him and meowed at him and played with him in other words i have treated him like most people assume you are  supposed  to do with dogs, and very much the opposite of what most people assume you are  supposed  to do with cats.  i believe the difference in behavior between the average dog and the average cat has less to do with how the animals are different and more to do with the assumptions made by their owners.   #  i think it is hard to assess the loyalty of different species.   #  yes, i had edited the post.  i did not notice you were not op on my phone.  of course 0 of dogs would absolutely not care if someone broke into your home.  but if someone broke into my home and tried to hurt me, i am certain my dog would protect me.  which, tbh, is what actually matters.  again, not something i would rely on too much, but this is true.  i am not so sure about this.  for instance, like i said, my cat is extremely affectionate, greets me at the door and sits on my lap when possible.  like dogs, cats have many personalities.  my local humane society has a rating of  constant companion  for cats.  i think it is hard to assess the loyalty of different species.  if you want a companion cat, it is not hard to find.  conversely if you want a cat that can just be left alone for weeks, that is possible too.  i think most people who get cats want those that are more independent, which shapes the perception of the species.  this is similar to dogs.  many dogs are very affectionate and playful.  some dogs like to be left alone and do well as an outdoor dog.
i believe that when looked at objectively, a dog is a better potential companion in a household as a pet than a cat.  this is not to say that cats provide no enjoyment as a pet, but instead that dogs can be considered superior for a number of reasons.  trainability: dogs can be trained to accomplish a number of highly advanced tasks with relative ease compared to a cat.  as a pack animal they are eager to please the alpha and be accepted and this shows through in their nature.  dogs can be trained to smell cancer, sense danger, lead the blind or disabled, or simply do a number of amusing tricks.  they can be paper/potty trained to the same level or higher than a cat, and can be left outside if need be.  companionship: a dog can be a near constant companion if need be.  they can keep one company both inside and outside the home, join the runner on jogs, help with hobbies such as hunting and fishing, and properly trained present essentially no danger to children.  cats, even when used to human contact, will frequently attack a human without reason as  play .  try rubbing a dog is belly then rubbing a cat is, the dog wo not bite you.  utility: a dog can be a security animal.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  they can be trained to be quiet and subservient when there is no danger as well as loud and territorial when there is.  this is why dogs are common companions to law enforcement.  flexibility: there are functionally far more variations in the sort of dog that one can have compared to the sort of cat one can have.  while there are many different breeds of cat, you have a far smaller range of size, temperament, intelligence, and activity level.  you can get a 0 pound dog or a 0 pound dog, you can even get one of each and they will play nicely together if trained that way.  they are available in every color of the rainbow and from very subdued to very active to suit the lifestyle and preferences of an owner to a tee.  one can have a decorative dog like a toy poodle or a work dog like a german shepherd.  from what i can see, the enjoyment from a cat is largely the same enjoyment one would get from a doll or a stuffed animal.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a dog clearly can.  due to these factors, i believe a dog is an objectively superior pet compared to a cat.  change my view.   #  this is why dogs are common companions to law enforcement.   #  law enforcement dogs are, in general, ruined for life as pets.   #  the biggest benefit of cats is that they require far less maintenance.  all you really need to do with a cat is clean the litter a couple times a week and feed it, and there are automated solutions to both of those.  you also have some misinformation about cats.  young kittens, maybe.  and poorly trained cats, but my cat has never  attacked us in play .  those that do often are no different than dogs jumping or playfully biting.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  unless specifically trained, they really ca not, and the training for security dogs makes for bad pets.  if you train your dog to attack strangers,  enjoy the lawsuit  and watching your dog get put down.  law enforcement dogs are, in general, ruined for life as pets.  their training makes them unsuited for household life.  while not as affectionate, cats certainly do reciprocate emotion.  my cat greets me at the door every afternoon and sits on my lap asking to be pet.  she will cuddle noticeably more when we are sad or stressed.  two other points: behavior: many people neglect to train their cats, which is the cause of much of the behavior issues.  cats are generally self sufficient, but unfortunately this leads people to assume that they do not need training, they do.  safety: a cat is generally a safer pet.  the amount of damage a cat can do if it is scared and attacks a person or child is far less than even a rather small dog.  while housecats have killed, dogs kill dozens each year and gravely injure hundreds more.  of course, proper training is essential, and dogs are not always dangerous.  but they are inherently more dangerous they can do more damage especially around children who may harm the dog unintentionally.  these are all considerations, and whether a cat is better for an individual will depend on what the cat wants.  i am often gone from the house, and work irregular hours and do not have a yard.  a cat is by fa the superior pet for me.  it is a subjective measure.  what you should change about your view is that dogs are objectively better pets.  that is nonsense.   #  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a cat clearly can.   #  i do not like any appeal to  objectivity,  especially when it comes to a human phenomenon.  the fact that some people dislike dogs and like cats is enough to prove that: a this is a subjective matter.  the truth is not determined by the reality of the external object, but by the subject is preferences.  b there exists subjective preference for cats over dogs, thereby making those cats better pets for those people.  just because you do not understand another person is viewpoint does not make the matter objective.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a cat clearly can.  see what i did there ? a cat lover could make this statement, and you could say literally nothing to refute it.  the entire issue is a matter of personal preference.  tl;dr: they are different animals with different behavioral patterns, and thus will appeal differently to different humans who also have different behavioral patterns .  you cannot extrapolate what is definitively your subjective opinion on which makes a  better pet  to an objective definition, as the decision rule on what makes a  better  pet is entirely up in the air depending on who the person is.   #  if a burglar had a treat, your security system is defeated.   # but most dogs will instinctively protect their owners from harm without any training.  this is true to an extent, but they are not something that can be relied upon.  if a burglar had a treat, your security system is defeated.  true, but dogs also bite more often.  URL even so, the risk of great bodily harm is much greater with a dog.  i am not trying to argue that cats are better pets, but that there are certain considerations that make cats better for some people, refuting the cmv.   #  i went for a five day trip last year and when i got back he was vigorously and happily meowing at me, and i could not get the cat more than two inches from me for the entirety of the day.   # i think this is only true because most people who have cats assume that cats are aloof and do not need much attention.  compare that with my cat.  when i start getting ready for bed at night, my cat will follow me around from the bathroom to the bedroom etc, and use the litter box and get a drink of water.  i will get into bed and about 0 minutes later, when he is sure i will have probably stopped rolling around, he jumps into bed and curls up in my legs.  he stays there most of the night.  about 0 minutes before my alarm goes off i sleep horribly he will get up and use the litter box again and then sit in the doorway of the bedroom.  i will get up and go to the kitchen, and he will follow me into the kitchen and sit by me while i give him head rubs as i make breakfast.  he will sit at my feet while i eat.  he will walk me to the door before i leave.  when i get home, he will  always  be in the same room as me, if not in my lap, for the entire rest of the night.  i went for a five day trip last year and when i got back he was vigorously and happily meowing at me, and i could not get the cat more than two inches from me for the entirety of the day.  if i was sitting, he was in my lap, and if i was standing he was rubbing my legs.  this is a cat that i have given attention to since he was a kitten.  i have pet him and talked to him and meowed at him and played with him in other words i have treated him like most people assume you are  supposed  to do with dogs, and very much the opposite of what most people assume you are  supposed  to do with cats.  i believe the difference in behavior between the average dog and the average cat has less to do with how the animals are different and more to do with the assumptions made by their owners.   #  my local humane society has a rating of  constant companion  for cats.   #  yes, i had edited the post.  i did not notice you were not op on my phone.  of course 0 of dogs would absolutely not care if someone broke into your home.  but if someone broke into my home and tried to hurt me, i am certain my dog would protect me.  which, tbh, is what actually matters.  again, not something i would rely on too much, but this is true.  i am not so sure about this.  for instance, like i said, my cat is extremely affectionate, greets me at the door and sits on my lap when possible.  like dogs, cats have many personalities.  my local humane society has a rating of  constant companion  for cats.  i think it is hard to assess the loyalty of different species.  if you want a companion cat, it is not hard to find.  conversely if you want a cat that can just be left alone for weeks, that is possible too.  i think most people who get cats want those that are more independent, which shapes the perception of the species.  this is similar to dogs.  many dogs are very affectionate and playful.  some dogs like to be left alone and do well as an outdoor dog.
i believe that when looked at objectively, a dog is a better potential companion in a household as a pet than a cat.  this is not to say that cats provide no enjoyment as a pet, but instead that dogs can be considered superior for a number of reasons.  trainability: dogs can be trained to accomplish a number of highly advanced tasks with relative ease compared to a cat.  as a pack animal they are eager to please the alpha and be accepted and this shows through in their nature.  dogs can be trained to smell cancer, sense danger, lead the blind or disabled, or simply do a number of amusing tricks.  they can be paper/potty trained to the same level or higher than a cat, and can be left outside if need be.  companionship: a dog can be a near constant companion if need be.  they can keep one company both inside and outside the home, join the runner on jogs, help with hobbies such as hunting and fishing, and properly trained present essentially no danger to children.  cats, even when used to human contact, will frequently attack a human without reason as  play .  try rubbing a dog is belly then rubbing a cat is, the dog wo not bite you.  utility: a dog can be a security animal.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  they can be trained to be quiet and subservient when there is no danger as well as loud and territorial when there is.  this is why dogs are common companions to law enforcement.  flexibility: there are functionally far more variations in the sort of dog that one can have compared to the sort of cat one can have.  while there are many different breeds of cat, you have a far smaller range of size, temperament, intelligence, and activity level.  you can get a 0 pound dog or a 0 pound dog, you can even get one of each and they will play nicely together if trained that way.  they are available in every color of the rainbow and from very subdued to very active to suit the lifestyle and preferences of an owner to a tee.  one can have a decorative dog like a toy poodle or a work dog like a german shepherd.  from what i can see, the enjoyment from a cat is largely the same enjoyment one would get from a doll or a stuffed animal.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a dog clearly can.  due to these factors, i believe a dog is an objectively superior pet compared to a cat.  change my view.   #  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a dog clearly can.   #  while not as affectionate, cats certainly do reciprocate emotion.   #  the biggest benefit of cats is that they require far less maintenance.  all you really need to do with a cat is clean the litter a couple times a week and feed it, and there are automated solutions to both of those.  you also have some misinformation about cats.  young kittens, maybe.  and poorly trained cats, but my cat has never  attacked us in play .  those that do often are no different than dogs jumping or playfully biting.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  unless specifically trained, they really ca not, and the training for security dogs makes for bad pets.  if you train your dog to attack strangers,  enjoy the lawsuit  and watching your dog get put down.  law enforcement dogs are, in general, ruined for life as pets.  their training makes them unsuited for household life.  while not as affectionate, cats certainly do reciprocate emotion.  my cat greets me at the door every afternoon and sits on my lap asking to be pet.  she will cuddle noticeably more when we are sad or stressed.  two other points: behavior: many people neglect to train their cats, which is the cause of much of the behavior issues.  cats are generally self sufficient, but unfortunately this leads people to assume that they do not need training, they do.  safety: a cat is generally a safer pet.  the amount of damage a cat can do if it is scared and attacks a person or child is far less than even a rather small dog.  while housecats have killed, dogs kill dozens each year and gravely injure hundreds more.  of course, proper training is essential, and dogs are not always dangerous.  but they are inherently more dangerous they can do more damage especially around children who may harm the dog unintentionally.  these are all considerations, and whether a cat is better for an individual will depend on what the cat wants.  i am often gone from the house, and work irregular hours and do not have a yard.  a cat is by fa the superior pet for me.  it is a subjective measure.  what you should change about your view is that dogs are objectively better pets.  that is nonsense.   #  just because you do not understand another person is viewpoint does not make the matter objective.   #  i do not like any appeal to  objectivity,  especially when it comes to a human phenomenon.  the fact that some people dislike dogs and like cats is enough to prove that: a this is a subjective matter.  the truth is not determined by the reality of the external object, but by the subject is preferences.  b there exists subjective preference for cats over dogs, thereby making those cats better pets for those people.  just because you do not understand another person is viewpoint does not make the matter objective.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a cat clearly can.  see what i did there ? a cat lover could make this statement, and you could say literally nothing to refute it.  the entire issue is a matter of personal preference.  tl;dr: they are different animals with different behavioral patterns, and thus will appeal differently to different humans who also have different behavioral patterns .  you cannot extrapolate what is definitively your subjective opinion on which makes a  better pet  to an objective definition, as the decision rule on what makes a  better  pet is entirely up in the air depending on who the person is.   #  but most dogs will instinctively protect their owners from harm without any training.   # but most dogs will instinctively protect their owners from harm without any training.  this is true to an extent, but they are not something that can be relied upon.  if a burglar had a treat, your security system is defeated.  true, but dogs also bite more often.  URL even so, the risk of great bodily harm is much greater with a dog.  i am not trying to argue that cats are better pets, but that there are certain considerations that make cats better for some people, refuting the cmv.   #  i will get into bed and about 0 minutes later, when he is sure i will have probably stopped rolling around, he jumps into bed and curls up in my legs.   # i think this is only true because most people who have cats assume that cats are aloof and do not need much attention.  compare that with my cat.  when i start getting ready for bed at night, my cat will follow me around from the bathroom to the bedroom etc, and use the litter box and get a drink of water.  i will get into bed and about 0 minutes later, when he is sure i will have probably stopped rolling around, he jumps into bed and curls up in my legs.  he stays there most of the night.  about 0 minutes before my alarm goes off i sleep horribly he will get up and use the litter box again and then sit in the doorway of the bedroom.  i will get up and go to the kitchen, and he will follow me into the kitchen and sit by me while i give him head rubs as i make breakfast.  he will sit at my feet while i eat.  he will walk me to the door before i leave.  when i get home, he will  always  be in the same room as me, if not in my lap, for the entire rest of the night.  i went for a five day trip last year and when i got back he was vigorously and happily meowing at me, and i could not get the cat more than two inches from me for the entirety of the day.  if i was sitting, he was in my lap, and if i was standing he was rubbing my legs.  this is a cat that i have given attention to since he was a kitten.  i have pet him and talked to him and meowed at him and played with him in other words i have treated him like most people assume you are  supposed  to do with dogs, and very much the opposite of what most people assume you are  supposed  to do with cats.  i believe the difference in behavior between the average dog and the average cat has less to do with how the animals are different and more to do with the assumptions made by their owners.   #  if you want a companion cat, it is not hard to find.   #  yes, i had edited the post.  i did not notice you were not op on my phone.  of course 0 of dogs would absolutely not care if someone broke into your home.  but if someone broke into my home and tried to hurt me, i am certain my dog would protect me.  which, tbh, is what actually matters.  again, not something i would rely on too much, but this is true.  i am not so sure about this.  for instance, like i said, my cat is extremely affectionate, greets me at the door and sits on my lap when possible.  like dogs, cats have many personalities.  my local humane society has a rating of  constant companion  for cats.  i think it is hard to assess the loyalty of different species.  if you want a companion cat, it is not hard to find.  conversely if you want a cat that can just be left alone for weeks, that is possible too.  i think most people who get cats want those that are more independent, which shapes the perception of the species.  this is similar to dogs.  many dogs are very affectionate and playful.  some dogs like to be left alone and do well as an outdoor dog.
i believe that when looked at objectively, a dog is a better potential companion in a household as a pet than a cat.  this is not to say that cats provide no enjoyment as a pet, but instead that dogs can be considered superior for a number of reasons.  trainability: dogs can be trained to accomplish a number of highly advanced tasks with relative ease compared to a cat.  as a pack animal they are eager to please the alpha and be accepted and this shows through in their nature.  dogs can be trained to smell cancer, sense danger, lead the blind or disabled, or simply do a number of amusing tricks.  they can be paper/potty trained to the same level or higher than a cat, and can be left outside if need be.  companionship: a dog can be a near constant companion if need be.  they can keep one company both inside and outside the home, join the runner on jogs, help with hobbies such as hunting and fishing, and properly trained present essentially no danger to children.  cats, even when used to human contact, will frequently attack a human without reason as  play .  try rubbing a dog is belly then rubbing a cat is, the dog wo not bite you.  utility: a dog can be a security animal.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  they can be trained to be quiet and subservient when there is no danger as well as loud and territorial when there is.  this is why dogs are common companions to law enforcement.  flexibility: there are functionally far more variations in the sort of dog that one can have compared to the sort of cat one can have.  while there are many different breeds of cat, you have a far smaller range of size, temperament, intelligence, and activity level.  you can get a 0 pound dog or a 0 pound dog, you can even get one of each and they will play nicely together if trained that way.  they are available in every color of the rainbow and from very subdued to very active to suit the lifestyle and preferences of an owner to a tee.  one can have a decorative dog like a toy poodle or a work dog like a german shepherd.  from what i can see, the enjoyment from a cat is largely the same enjoyment one would get from a doll or a stuffed animal.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a dog clearly can.  due to these factors, i believe a dog is an objectively superior pet compared to a cat.  change my view.   #  i believe that when looked at objectively, a dog is a better potential companion in a household as a pet than a cat.   #  you should definitely keep in mind that no household is the same, and each owner may be looking for different things in a pet.   # you should definitely keep in mind that no household is the same, and each owner may be looking for different things in a pet.  if a pet is better than another because it suites an owners preferences, then it is not objectively superior.  it is subjective.  the truth of it the pet being superior is reliant upon the attitudes and preferences of the owner.  it should be clear why many of the examples you cite rely heavily upon such attitudes and preferences.   #  the fact that some people dislike dogs and like cats is enough to prove that: a this is a subjective matter.   #  i do not like any appeal to  objectivity,  especially when it comes to a human phenomenon.  the fact that some people dislike dogs and like cats is enough to prove that: a this is a subjective matter.  the truth is not determined by the reality of the external object, but by the subject is preferences.  b there exists subjective preference for cats over dogs, thereby making those cats better pets for those people.  just because you do not understand another person is viewpoint does not make the matter objective.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a cat clearly can.  see what i did there ? a cat lover could make this statement, and you could say literally nothing to refute it.  the entire issue is a matter of personal preference.  tl;dr: they are different animals with different behavioral patterns, and thus will appeal differently to different humans who also have different behavioral patterns .  you cannot extrapolate what is definitively your subjective opinion on which makes a  better pet  to an objective definition, as the decision rule on what makes a  better  pet is entirely up in the air depending on who the person is.   #  their training makes them unsuited for household life.   #  the biggest benefit of cats is that they require far less maintenance.  all you really need to do with a cat is clean the litter a couple times a week and feed it, and there are automated solutions to both of those.  you also have some misinformation about cats.  young kittens, maybe.  and poorly trained cats, but my cat has never  attacked us in play .  those that do often are no different than dogs jumping or playfully biting.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  unless specifically trained, they really ca not, and the training for security dogs makes for bad pets.  if you train your dog to attack strangers,  enjoy the lawsuit  and watching your dog get put down.  law enforcement dogs are, in general, ruined for life as pets.  their training makes them unsuited for household life.  while not as affectionate, cats certainly do reciprocate emotion.  my cat greets me at the door every afternoon and sits on my lap asking to be pet.  she will cuddle noticeably more when we are sad or stressed.  two other points: behavior: many people neglect to train their cats, which is the cause of much of the behavior issues.  cats are generally self sufficient, but unfortunately this leads people to assume that they do not need training, they do.  safety: a cat is generally a safer pet.  the amount of damage a cat can do if it is scared and attacks a person or child is far less than even a rather small dog.  while housecats have killed, dogs kill dozens each year and gravely injure hundreds more.  of course, proper training is essential, and dogs are not always dangerous.  but they are inherently more dangerous they can do more damage especially around children who may harm the dog unintentionally.  these are all considerations, and whether a cat is better for an individual will depend on what the cat wants.  i am often gone from the house, and work irregular hours and do not have a yard.  a cat is by fa the superior pet for me.  it is a subjective measure.  what you should change about your view is that dogs are objectively better pets.  that is nonsense.   #  URL even so, the risk of great bodily harm is much greater with a dog.   # but most dogs will instinctively protect their owners from harm without any training.  this is true to an extent, but they are not something that can be relied upon.  if a burglar had a treat, your security system is defeated.  true, but dogs also bite more often.  URL even so, the risk of great bodily harm is much greater with a dog.  i am not trying to argue that cats are better pets, but that there are certain considerations that make cats better for some people, refuting the cmv.   #  i went for a five day trip last year and when i got back he was vigorously and happily meowing at me, and i could not get the cat more than two inches from me for the entirety of the day.   # i think this is only true because most people who have cats assume that cats are aloof and do not need much attention.  compare that with my cat.  when i start getting ready for bed at night, my cat will follow me around from the bathroom to the bedroom etc, and use the litter box and get a drink of water.  i will get into bed and about 0 minutes later, when he is sure i will have probably stopped rolling around, he jumps into bed and curls up in my legs.  he stays there most of the night.  about 0 minutes before my alarm goes off i sleep horribly he will get up and use the litter box again and then sit in the doorway of the bedroom.  i will get up and go to the kitchen, and he will follow me into the kitchen and sit by me while i give him head rubs as i make breakfast.  he will sit at my feet while i eat.  he will walk me to the door before i leave.  when i get home, he will  always  be in the same room as me, if not in my lap, for the entire rest of the night.  i went for a five day trip last year and when i got back he was vigorously and happily meowing at me, and i could not get the cat more than two inches from me for the entirety of the day.  if i was sitting, he was in my lap, and if i was standing he was rubbing my legs.  this is a cat that i have given attention to since he was a kitten.  i have pet him and talked to him and meowed at him and played with him in other words i have treated him like most people assume you are  supposed  to do with dogs, and very much the opposite of what most people assume you are  supposed  to do with cats.  i believe the difference in behavior between the average dog and the average cat has less to do with how the animals are different and more to do with the assumptions made by their owners.
i believe that when looked at objectively, a dog is a better potential companion in a household as a pet than a cat.  this is not to say that cats provide no enjoyment as a pet, but instead that dogs can be considered superior for a number of reasons.  trainability: dogs can be trained to accomplish a number of highly advanced tasks with relative ease compared to a cat.  as a pack animal they are eager to please the alpha and be accepted and this shows through in their nature.  dogs can be trained to smell cancer, sense danger, lead the blind or disabled, or simply do a number of amusing tricks.  they can be paper/potty trained to the same level or higher than a cat, and can be left outside if need be.  companionship: a dog can be a near constant companion if need be.  they can keep one company both inside and outside the home, join the runner on jogs, help with hobbies such as hunting and fishing, and properly trained present essentially no danger to children.  cats, even when used to human contact, will frequently attack a human without reason as  play .  try rubbing a dog is belly then rubbing a cat is, the dog wo not bite you.  utility: a dog can be a security animal.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  they can be trained to be quiet and subservient when there is no danger as well as loud and territorial when there is.  this is why dogs are common companions to law enforcement.  flexibility: there are functionally far more variations in the sort of dog that one can have compared to the sort of cat one can have.  while there are many different breeds of cat, you have a far smaller range of size, temperament, intelligence, and activity level.  you can get a 0 pound dog or a 0 pound dog, you can even get one of each and they will play nicely together if trained that way.  they are available in every color of the rainbow and from very subdued to very active to suit the lifestyle and preferences of an owner to a tee.  one can have a decorative dog like a toy poodle or a work dog like a german shepherd.  from what i can see, the enjoyment from a cat is largely the same enjoyment one would get from a doll or a stuffed animal.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a dog clearly can.  due to these factors, i believe a dog is an objectively superior pet compared to a cat.  change my view.   #  dogs can be trained to smell cancer, sense danger, lead the blind or disabled, or simply do a number of amusing tricks.   #  training wise all sorts of animals can be trained to do things.   #  i think it depends on what your needs and objectives are.  personally i prefer cats as a pet because they need less work.  i do not want to have to walk my cat several times a day.  i want to be able to go away for a few days and only have to ask someone to come around once a day to feed my cat rather than stay with it.  i also respect the independence of cats.  my cat can leave anytime she wants to.  she could find another household to feed her or hunt for food, but she chooses to stay with me.  i like that in a pet, it is something i do not really get from dogs.  training wise all sorts of animals can be trained to do things.  rats can be trained to detect tb and landmines.  that does not necessarily make them the best pet.  i think it is much easier and more common to leave cat outside rather than dogs.  this depends on the temperament of the cat, and while many cats may lash out, at least they probably wo not kill the person when they do.   #  a cat lover could make this statement, and you could say literally nothing to refute it.   #  i do not like any appeal to  objectivity,  especially when it comes to a human phenomenon.  the fact that some people dislike dogs and like cats is enough to prove that: a this is a subjective matter.  the truth is not determined by the reality of the external object, but by the subject is preferences.  b there exists subjective preference for cats over dogs, thereby making those cats better pets for those people.  just because you do not understand another person is viewpoint does not make the matter objective.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a cat clearly can.  see what i did there ? a cat lover could make this statement, and you could say literally nothing to refute it.  the entire issue is a matter of personal preference.  tl;dr: they are different animals with different behavioral patterns, and thus will appeal differently to different humans who also have different behavioral patterns .  you cannot extrapolate what is definitively your subjective opinion on which makes a  better pet  to an objective definition, as the decision rule on what makes a  better  pet is entirely up in the air depending on who the person is.   #  while not as affectionate, cats certainly do reciprocate emotion.   #  the biggest benefit of cats is that they require far less maintenance.  all you really need to do with a cat is clean the litter a couple times a week and feed it, and there are automated solutions to both of those.  you also have some misinformation about cats.  young kittens, maybe.  and poorly trained cats, but my cat has never  attacked us in play .  those that do often are no different than dogs jumping or playfully biting.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  unless specifically trained, they really ca not, and the training for security dogs makes for bad pets.  if you train your dog to attack strangers,  enjoy the lawsuit  and watching your dog get put down.  law enforcement dogs are, in general, ruined for life as pets.  their training makes them unsuited for household life.  while not as affectionate, cats certainly do reciprocate emotion.  my cat greets me at the door every afternoon and sits on my lap asking to be pet.  she will cuddle noticeably more when we are sad or stressed.  two other points: behavior: many people neglect to train their cats, which is the cause of much of the behavior issues.  cats are generally self sufficient, but unfortunately this leads people to assume that they do not need training, they do.  safety: a cat is generally a safer pet.  the amount of damage a cat can do if it is scared and attacks a person or child is far less than even a rather small dog.  while housecats have killed, dogs kill dozens each year and gravely injure hundreds more.  of course, proper training is essential, and dogs are not always dangerous.  but they are inherently more dangerous they can do more damage especially around children who may harm the dog unintentionally.  these are all considerations, and whether a cat is better for an individual will depend on what the cat wants.  i am often gone from the house, and work irregular hours and do not have a yard.  a cat is by fa the superior pet for me.  it is a subjective measure.  what you should change about your view is that dogs are objectively better pets.  that is nonsense.   #  URL even so, the risk of great bodily harm is much greater with a dog.   # but most dogs will instinctively protect their owners from harm without any training.  this is true to an extent, but they are not something that can be relied upon.  if a burglar had a treat, your security system is defeated.  true, but dogs also bite more often.  URL even so, the risk of great bodily harm is much greater with a dog.  i am not trying to argue that cats are better pets, but that there are certain considerations that make cats better for some people, refuting the cmv.   #  i think this is only true because most people who have cats assume that cats are aloof and do not need much attention.   # i think this is only true because most people who have cats assume that cats are aloof and do not need much attention.  compare that with my cat.  when i start getting ready for bed at night, my cat will follow me around from the bathroom to the bedroom etc, and use the litter box and get a drink of water.  i will get into bed and about 0 minutes later, when he is sure i will have probably stopped rolling around, he jumps into bed and curls up in my legs.  he stays there most of the night.  about 0 minutes before my alarm goes off i sleep horribly he will get up and use the litter box again and then sit in the doorway of the bedroom.  i will get up and go to the kitchen, and he will follow me into the kitchen and sit by me while i give him head rubs as i make breakfast.  he will sit at my feet while i eat.  he will walk me to the door before i leave.  when i get home, he will  always  be in the same room as me, if not in my lap, for the entire rest of the night.  i went for a five day trip last year and when i got back he was vigorously and happily meowing at me, and i could not get the cat more than two inches from me for the entirety of the day.  if i was sitting, he was in my lap, and if i was standing he was rubbing my legs.  this is a cat that i have given attention to since he was a kitten.  i have pet him and talked to him and meowed at him and played with him in other words i have treated him like most people assume you are  supposed  to do with dogs, and very much the opposite of what most people assume you are  supposed  to do with cats.  i believe the difference in behavior between the average dog and the average cat has less to do with how the animals are different and more to do with the assumptions made by their owners.
i believe that when looked at objectively, a dog is a better potential companion in a household as a pet than a cat.  this is not to say that cats provide no enjoyment as a pet, but instead that dogs can be considered superior for a number of reasons.  trainability: dogs can be trained to accomplish a number of highly advanced tasks with relative ease compared to a cat.  as a pack animal they are eager to please the alpha and be accepted and this shows through in their nature.  dogs can be trained to smell cancer, sense danger, lead the blind or disabled, or simply do a number of amusing tricks.  they can be paper/potty trained to the same level or higher than a cat, and can be left outside if need be.  companionship: a dog can be a near constant companion if need be.  they can keep one company both inside and outside the home, join the runner on jogs, help with hobbies such as hunting and fishing, and properly trained present essentially no danger to children.  cats, even when used to human contact, will frequently attack a human without reason as  play .  try rubbing a dog is belly then rubbing a cat is, the dog wo not bite you.  utility: a dog can be a security animal.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  they can be trained to be quiet and subservient when there is no danger as well as loud and territorial when there is.  this is why dogs are common companions to law enforcement.  flexibility: there are functionally far more variations in the sort of dog that one can have compared to the sort of cat one can have.  while there are many different breeds of cat, you have a far smaller range of size, temperament, intelligence, and activity level.  you can get a 0 pound dog or a 0 pound dog, you can even get one of each and they will play nicely together if trained that way.  they are available in every color of the rainbow and from very subdued to very active to suit the lifestyle and preferences of an owner to a tee.  one can have a decorative dog like a toy poodle or a work dog like a german shepherd.  from what i can see, the enjoyment from a cat is largely the same enjoyment one would get from a doll or a stuffed animal.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a dog clearly can.  due to these factors, i believe a dog is an objectively superior pet compared to a cat.  change my view.   #  can be left outside if need be.   #  i think it is much easier and more common to leave cat outside rather than dogs.   #  i think it depends on what your needs and objectives are.  personally i prefer cats as a pet because they need less work.  i do not want to have to walk my cat several times a day.  i want to be able to go away for a few days and only have to ask someone to come around once a day to feed my cat rather than stay with it.  i also respect the independence of cats.  my cat can leave anytime she wants to.  she could find another household to feed her or hunt for food, but she chooses to stay with me.  i like that in a pet, it is something i do not really get from dogs.  training wise all sorts of animals can be trained to do things.  rats can be trained to detect tb and landmines.  that does not necessarily make them the best pet.  i think it is much easier and more common to leave cat outside rather than dogs.  this depends on the temperament of the cat, and while many cats may lash out, at least they probably wo not kill the person when they do.   #  i do not like any appeal to  objectivity,  especially when it comes to a human phenomenon.   #  i do not like any appeal to  objectivity,  especially when it comes to a human phenomenon.  the fact that some people dislike dogs and like cats is enough to prove that: a this is a subjective matter.  the truth is not determined by the reality of the external object, but by the subject is preferences.  b there exists subjective preference for cats over dogs, thereby making those cats better pets for those people.  just because you do not understand another person is viewpoint does not make the matter objective.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a cat clearly can.  see what i did there ? a cat lover could make this statement, and you could say literally nothing to refute it.  the entire issue is a matter of personal preference.  tl;dr: they are different animals with different behavioral patterns, and thus will appeal differently to different humans who also have different behavioral patterns .  you cannot extrapolate what is definitively your subjective opinion on which makes a  better pet  to an objective definition, as the decision rule on what makes a  better  pet is entirely up in the air depending on who the person is.   #  i am often gone from the house, and work irregular hours and do not have a yard.   #  the biggest benefit of cats is that they require far less maintenance.  all you really need to do with a cat is clean the litter a couple times a week and feed it, and there are automated solutions to both of those.  you also have some misinformation about cats.  young kittens, maybe.  and poorly trained cats, but my cat has never  attacked us in play .  those that do often are no different than dogs jumping or playfully biting.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  unless specifically trained, they really ca not, and the training for security dogs makes for bad pets.  if you train your dog to attack strangers,  enjoy the lawsuit  and watching your dog get put down.  law enforcement dogs are, in general, ruined for life as pets.  their training makes them unsuited for household life.  while not as affectionate, cats certainly do reciprocate emotion.  my cat greets me at the door every afternoon and sits on my lap asking to be pet.  she will cuddle noticeably more when we are sad or stressed.  two other points: behavior: many people neglect to train their cats, which is the cause of much of the behavior issues.  cats are generally self sufficient, but unfortunately this leads people to assume that they do not need training, they do.  safety: a cat is generally a safer pet.  the amount of damage a cat can do if it is scared and attacks a person or child is far less than even a rather small dog.  while housecats have killed, dogs kill dozens each year and gravely injure hundreds more.  of course, proper training is essential, and dogs are not always dangerous.  but they are inherently more dangerous they can do more damage especially around children who may harm the dog unintentionally.  these are all considerations, and whether a cat is better for an individual will depend on what the cat wants.  i am often gone from the house, and work irregular hours and do not have a yard.  a cat is by fa the superior pet for me.  it is a subjective measure.  what you should change about your view is that dogs are objectively better pets.  that is nonsense.   #  if a burglar had a treat, your security system is defeated.   # but most dogs will instinctively protect their owners from harm without any training.  this is true to an extent, but they are not something that can be relied upon.  if a burglar had a treat, your security system is defeated.  true, but dogs also bite more often.  URL even so, the risk of great bodily harm is much greater with a dog.  i am not trying to argue that cats are better pets, but that there are certain considerations that make cats better for some people, refuting the cmv.   #  i went for a five day trip last year and when i got back he was vigorously and happily meowing at me, and i could not get the cat more than two inches from me for the entirety of the day.   # i think this is only true because most people who have cats assume that cats are aloof and do not need much attention.  compare that with my cat.  when i start getting ready for bed at night, my cat will follow me around from the bathroom to the bedroom etc, and use the litter box and get a drink of water.  i will get into bed and about 0 minutes later, when he is sure i will have probably stopped rolling around, he jumps into bed and curls up in my legs.  he stays there most of the night.  about 0 minutes before my alarm goes off i sleep horribly he will get up and use the litter box again and then sit in the doorway of the bedroom.  i will get up and go to the kitchen, and he will follow me into the kitchen and sit by me while i give him head rubs as i make breakfast.  he will sit at my feet while i eat.  he will walk me to the door before i leave.  when i get home, he will  always  be in the same room as me, if not in my lap, for the entire rest of the night.  i went for a five day trip last year and when i got back he was vigorously and happily meowing at me, and i could not get the cat more than two inches from me for the entirety of the day.  if i was sitting, he was in my lap, and if i was standing he was rubbing my legs.  this is a cat that i have given attention to since he was a kitten.  i have pet him and talked to him and meowed at him and played with him in other words i have treated him like most people assume you are  supposed  to do with dogs, and very much the opposite of what most people assume you are  supposed  to do with cats.  i believe the difference in behavior between the average dog and the average cat has less to do with how the animals are different and more to do with the assumptions made by their owners.
i believe that when looked at objectively, a dog is a better potential companion in a household as a pet than a cat.  this is not to say that cats provide no enjoyment as a pet, but instead that dogs can be considered superior for a number of reasons.  trainability: dogs can be trained to accomplish a number of highly advanced tasks with relative ease compared to a cat.  as a pack animal they are eager to please the alpha and be accepted and this shows through in their nature.  dogs can be trained to smell cancer, sense danger, lead the blind or disabled, or simply do a number of amusing tricks.  they can be paper/potty trained to the same level or higher than a cat, and can be left outside if need be.  companionship: a dog can be a near constant companion if need be.  they can keep one company both inside and outside the home, join the runner on jogs, help with hobbies such as hunting and fishing, and properly trained present essentially no danger to children.  cats, even when used to human contact, will frequently attack a human without reason as  play .  try rubbing a dog is belly then rubbing a cat is, the dog wo not bite you.  utility: a dog can be a security animal.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  they can be trained to be quiet and subservient when there is no danger as well as loud and territorial when there is.  this is why dogs are common companions to law enforcement.  flexibility: there are functionally far more variations in the sort of dog that one can have compared to the sort of cat one can have.  while there are many different breeds of cat, you have a far smaller range of size, temperament, intelligence, and activity level.  you can get a 0 pound dog or a 0 pound dog, you can even get one of each and they will play nicely together if trained that way.  they are available in every color of the rainbow and from very subdued to very active to suit the lifestyle and preferences of an owner to a tee.  one can have a decorative dog like a toy poodle or a work dog like a german shepherd.  from what i can see, the enjoyment from a cat is largely the same enjoyment one would get from a doll or a stuffed animal.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a dog clearly can.  due to these factors, i believe a dog is an objectively superior pet compared to a cat.  change my view.   #  cats, even when used to human contact, will frequently attack a human without reason as  play .   #  this depends on the temperament of the cat, and while many cats may lash out, at least they probably wo not kill the person when they do.   #  i think it depends on what your needs and objectives are.  personally i prefer cats as a pet because they need less work.  i do not want to have to walk my cat several times a day.  i want to be able to go away for a few days and only have to ask someone to come around once a day to feed my cat rather than stay with it.  i also respect the independence of cats.  my cat can leave anytime she wants to.  she could find another household to feed her or hunt for food, but she chooses to stay with me.  i like that in a pet, it is something i do not really get from dogs.  training wise all sorts of animals can be trained to do things.  rats can be trained to detect tb and landmines.  that does not necessarily make them the best pet.  i think it is much easier and more common to leave cat outside rather than dogs.  this depends on the temperament of the cat, and while many cats may lash out, at least they probably wo not kill the person when they do.   #  just because you do not understand another person is viewpoint does not make the matter objective.   #  i do not like any appeal to  objectivity,  especially when it comes to a human phenomenon.  the fact that some people dislike dogs and like cats is enough to prove that: a this is a subjective matter.  the truth is not determined by the reality of the external object, but by the subject is preferences.  b there exists subjective preference for cats over dogs, thereby making those cats better pets for those people.  just because you do not understand another person is viewpoint does not make the matter objective.  they are cute, they are cuddly, they are fun to play with, but they cannot reciprocate any humanlike emotion or love to their owner whereas a cat clearly can.  see what i did there ? a cat lover could make this statement, and you could say literally nothing to refute it.  the entire issue is a matter of personal preference.  tl;dr: they are different animals with different behavioral patterns, and thus will appeal differently to different humans who also have different behavioral patterns .  you cannot extrapolate what is definitively your subjective opinion on which makes a  better pet  to an objective definition, as the decision rule on what makes a  better  pet is entirely up in the air depending on who the person is.   #  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.   #  the biggest benefit of cats is that they require far less maintenance.  all you really need to do with a cat is clean the litter a couple times a week and feed it, and there are automated solutions to both of those.  you also have some misinformation about cats.  young kittens, maybe.  and poorly trained cats, but my cat has never  attacked us in play .  those that do often are no different than dogs jumping or playfully biting.  they can tell the difference between a threat and a friend, and can be trained to attack an intruder or alert the owner if a stranger is around.  unless specifically trained, they really ca not, and the training for security dogs makes for bad pets.  if you train your dog to attack strangers,  enjoy the lawsuit  and watching your dog get put down.  law enforcement dogs are, in general, ruined for life as pets.  their training makes them unsuited for household life.  while not as affectionate, cats certainly do reciprocate emotion.  my cat greets me at the door every afternoon and sits on my lap asking to be pet.  she will cuddle noticeably more when we are sad or stressed.  two other points: behavior: many people neglect to train their cats, which is the cause of much of the behavior issues.  cats are generally self sufficient, but unfortunately this leads people to assume that they do not need training, they do.  safety: a cat is generally a safer pet.  the amount of damage a cat can do if it is scared and attacks a person or child is far less than even a rather small dog.  while housecats have killed, dogs kill dozens each year and gravely injure hundreds more.  of course, proper training is essential, and dogs are not always dangerous.  but they are inherently more dangerous they can do more damage especially around children who may harm the dog unintentionally.  these are all considerations, and whether a cat is better for an individual will depend on what the cat wants.  i am often gone from the house, and work irregular hours and do not have a yard.  a cat is by fa the superior pet for me.  it is a subjective measure.  what you should change about your view is that dogs are objectively better pets.  that is nonsense.   #  but most dogs will instinctively protect their owners from harm without any training.   # but most dogs will instinctively protect their owners from harm without any training.  this is true to an extent, but they are not something that can be relied upon.  if a burglar had a treat, your security system is defeated.  true, but dogs also bite more often.  URL even so, the risk of great bodily harm is much greater with a dog.  i am not trying to argue that cats are better pets, but that there are certain considerations that make cats better for some people, refuting the cmv.   #  i will get up and go to the kitchen, and he will follow me into the kitchen and sit by me while i give him head rubs as i make breakfast.   # i think this is only true because most people who have cats assume that cats are aloof and do not need much attention.  compare that with my cat.  when i start getting ready for bed at night, my cat will follow me around from the bathroom to the bedroom etc, and use the litter box and get a drink of water.  i will get into bed and about 0 minutes later, when he is sure i will have probably stopped rolling around, he jumps into bed and curls up in my legs.  he stays there most of the night.  about 0 minutes before my alarm goes off i sleep horribly he will get up and use the litter box again and then sit in the doorway of the bedroom.  i will get up and go to the kitchen, and he will follow me into the kitchen and sit by me while i give him head rubs as i make breakfast.  he will sit at my feet while i eat.  he will walk me to the door before i leave.  when i get home, he will  always  be in the same room as me, if not in my lap, for the entire rest of the night.  i went for a five day trip last year and when i got back he was vigorously and happily meowing at me, and i could not get the cat more than two inches from me for the entirety of the day.  if i was sitting, he was in my lap, and if i was standing he was rubbing my legs.  this is a cat that i have given attention to since he was a kitten.  i have pet him and talked to him and meowed at him and played with him in other words i have treated him like most people assume you are  supposed  to do with dogs, and very much the opposite of what most people assume you are  supposed  to do with cats.  i believe the difference in behavior between the average dog and the average cat has less to do with how the animals are different and more to do with the assumptions made by their owners.
a frequent problem with a lot of criminal tragedies lately that the media loves to continuously circle jerk over, is the motivation of the criminal.  this is especially true, when the criminal elects to end their own life at the end of their line because then there is no way for the country to feel like it is obtained justice.  i do not think this is meaningful or useful.  even in a reasonably accounted for society, there will be some people who ultimately are not built to handle the very pressure of living and no amount of proactive prevention will change that.  yes, there is always something we could do better however, lately it seems that the popular thing to do is disassociate human nature in of itself as a possible cause of the issue.  with sandy hook it was a mistaken facebook like that lead the media and people at large to attack mass effect.  with aurora colorado, it had to be that the person wanted to impersonate bane.  with ucsb it had to be his misogynistic manifesto.  it is simply so impossible for people to accept that the motivation behind the crime is not useful or meaningful.  if the things that were blamed were absent from the picture, in all honestly it could have just as easily been something else entirely.  i am not even blaming mental instability.  some completely sane and bitter people simply want to see the world burn.  some people are terrible.  some people do not require motivation to be evil, and that is all it takes for a tragedy such as these to happen.  that being said, to try to derive anything exceptionally deep or meaningful about society from any of these things i do not think is particularly useful.  these people, are the exceptions, not the rule and we have decided that we do not account for the exceptions because if we did we would be less efficient at accounting for the rule.  there is nothing to be gained or prevented for by pushing political agendas in the light of tragedy in fact it is probably the worst time to do it because emotional investment is at an all time high, and that can be likened to making all too important decisions while drunk which needless to say is never good.  cmv.   #  it is simply so impossible for people to accept that the motivation behind the crime is not useful or meaningful.   #  people seemed to have had no problem accepting that when ted bundy or jeffrey dahmer, or peter sutcliffe did his thing.   # people seemed to have had no problem accepting that when ted bundy or jeffrey dahmer, or peter sutcliffe did his thing.  in almost any field you learn new things from the exceptional edge cases.  people missing half their brain teaches us a lot about the brain.  exploding stars tell us a lot about the non exploding ones.  and the edge phenomena of genetic mutations tells us about genetics.  the extreme cases are where the juicy new bits of knowledge reside.  we know  normal  we see it all the time, it is the extreme cases that show us new things.  or, in the world we live in where political inertia is ever present, perhaps using the motivation and interest from the crime is exactly the right moment to help move along legislation that is sorely needed.  in other words, if you have been wanting to ask her out for a long time and ca not work up the guts, perhaps giving it a go when you are a bit drunk might just be the best move.   #  instead the conclusion is that he thought low of women.   # the time frame for these people is before the internet, the world was much more disconnected then.  the crimes i mentioned all happened well within the last 0 years, and seemingly all of them are instantly rooted in an already muddy political discussion that existed before they happened.  that is to say, that each time one of the crimes i mentioned happened they were all linked to something for the disassociation from normal humanity factor.  a mind is not.  a brain by itself cannot be motivated into shooting something, it has to have developed a mind to have the kind of autonomy required to want to shoot something in the first place.  so yeah, unusual occurrences do work when teaching us about structured ideas, but the mind is not a structured concept, a mind is an infinite regress it is impossible to know everything about.  even with a manifesto, roger could have been a terrible liar.  for all we know we should be celebrating him as a hero for taking a highly thought out and extreme, unethical measure to bring light to an issue he was secretly passionate about.  instead the conclusion is that he thought low of women.  we do not actually know and we never will know and we ca not ever know.  not just because he is dead either but because even if we noted his behavioral patterns, we still could not truly know why he did it.  at best we are left with an educated guess.  this brings me to my next point, which is that none of the incidents i mentioned are necessarily recreations of each other.  since these occurrences we have not had a specific repeat performance with an obvious motivation that was identical to another incident.  so, even if the killers were deciphered to a tee, we still do not have anything to compare them to.  if we did, if this was some weird epidemic of school shootings rooted in sexism, i would pay some credence to the possibility but this is not a regular thing.  it is not even similar to the other two except for the guns.  this sounds like it leads to hasty undesirable and poorly thought out, outcomes.  like when you drink too much and throw up all night because it was a good idea to drink more at the time.   #  it can confuse two completely separate issues, it can get unnecessary legislature passed it can change the way schools operate.   #  there is a limit to the prevention is what i am getting at.  i am not saying that anti bullying campaigns are useless, i am saying that they do not help every bully victim to not go on a spree.  but the person who does go on a spree in light of an anti bullying campaign may not have been motivated by bullying, or revenge.  they may have just desired to be on the news and thought that it was the best way to do it.  what i am saying is, just because there are things that contribute to people shooting, does not actually make it the reason or rhyme as to actually why.  it can confuse two completely separate issues, it can get unnecessary legislature passed it can change the way schools operate.  because we just  have  to know why if they are a human being like  me , they were motivated to hurt other human beings.  we ca not just accept that they had no reason, to do it and that instead, we push concepts upon one another trying to solve a problem that may not even exist.   #  i think both of the things you mentioned are equally useless.   # i think both of the things you mentioned are equally useless.  a person technically needs no reason to grab an automatic weapon and go on a spree.  they could have 0 motivation.  they could write a manifesto to state something, but it could not actually have any bearing on why they did it.  furthermore, they still do not have to want to accomplish anything by murdering others they could just derive sick pleasure from hurting someone.  so then you ask  why would someone need to derive pleasure from hurting others.   however, we realize that pleasure and how we get it is entirely subjective, and so actually trying to figure out an objective basis for motivation of any kind is useless.  even, being bullied does not necessarily constitute a conclusion.  in the mind of someone willing to kill others, the option is as simple as enduring the bullying or telling a teacher.  there does not have to actually be an external factor at play, there can be but there does not have to be and so we ca not come to any conclusion because we ca not know.   #  either they do not have one or they do have one and it is only important to them and so you ca not actually decipher anything about society from it.   # can you cite many cases of spree killers who had no prior mental health issues, created no written or recorded material offering a window into their mindset, and / or demonstrated no deficiency in social development ? these cases do exist i could name a few but they are absolutely the minority.  then their motivation is essentially pointless.  either they do not have one or they do have one and it is only important to them and so you ca not actually decipher anything about society from it.  yes but the behaviors that are being taught are only indicative of someone who is willing to murder, not someone who became violent from video games or is embittered about women.  the objective behavior is not the motivation, the objective behavior is a display of willingness and nothing more.
a frequent problem with a lot of criminal tragedies lately that the media loves to continuously circle jerk over, is the motivation of the criminal.  this is especially true, when the criminal elects to end their own life at the end of their line because then there is no way for the country to feel like it is obtained justice.  i do not think this is meaningful or useful.  even in a reasonably accounted for society, there will be some people who ultimately are not built to handle the very pressure of living and no amount of proactive prevention will change that.  yes, there is always something we could do better however, lately it seems that the popular thing to do is disassociate human nature in of itself as a possible cause of the issue.  with sandy hook it was a mistaken facebook like that lead the media and people at large to attack mass effect.  with aurora colorado, it had to be that the person wanted to impersonate bane.  with ucsb it had to be his misogynistic manifesto.  it is simply so impossible for people to accept that the motivation behind the crime is not useful or meaningful.  if the things that were blamed were absent from the picture, in all honestly it could have just as easily been something else entirely.  i am not even blaming mental instability.  some completely sane and bitter people simply want to see the world burn.  some people are terrible.  some people do not require motivation to be evil, and that is all it takes for a tragedy such as these to happen.  that being said, to try to derive anything exceptionally deep or meaningful about society from any of these things i do not think is particularly useful.  these people, are the exceptions, not the rule and we have decided that we do not account for the exceptions because if we did we would be less efficient at accounting for the rule.  there is nothing to be gained or prevented for by pushing political agendas in the light of tragedy in fact it is probably the worst time to do it because emotional investment is at an all time high, and that can be likened to making all too important decisions while drunk which needless to say is never good.  cmv.   #  that being said, to try to derive anything exceptionally deep or meaningful about society from any of these things i do not think is particularly useful.   #  in almost any field you learn new things from the exceptional edge cases.   # people seemed to have had no problem accepting that when ted bundy or jeffrey dahmer, or peter sutcliffe did his thing.  in almost any field you learn new things from the exceptional edge cases.  people missing half their brain teaches us a lot about the brain.  exploding stars tell us a lot about the non exploding ones.  and the edge phenomena of genetic mutations tells us about genetics.  the extreme cases are where the juicy new bits of knowledge reside.  we know  normal  we see it all the time, it is the extreme cases that show us new things.  or, in the world we live in where political inertia is ever present, perhaps using the motivation and interest from the crime is exactly the right moment to help move along legislation that is sorely needed.  in other words, if you have been wanting to ask her out for a long time and ca not work up the guts, perhaps giving it a go when you are a bit drunk might just be the best move.   #  we do not actually know and we never will know and we ca not ever know.   # the time frame for these people is before the internet, the world was much more disconnected then.  the crimes i mentioned all happened well within the last 0 years, and seemingly all of them are instantly rooted in an already muddy political discussion that existed before they happened.  that is to say, that each time one of the crimes i mentioned happened they were all linked to something for the disassociation from normal humanity factor.  a mind is not.  a brain by itself cannot be motivated into shooting something, it has to have developed a mind to have the kind of autonomy required to want to shoot something in the first place.  so yeah, unusual occurrences do work when teaching us about structured ideas, but the mind is not a structured concept, a mind is an infinite regress it is impossible to know everything about.  even with a manifesto, roger could have been a terrible liar.  for all we know we should be celebrating him as a hero for taking a highly thought out and extreme, unethical measure to bring light to an issue he was secretly passionate about.  instead the conclusion is that he thought low of women.  we do not actually know and we never will know and we ca not ever know.  not just because he is dead either but because even if we noted his behavioral patterns, we still could not truly know why he did it.  at best we are left with an educated guess.  this brings me to my next point, which is that none of the incidents i mentioned are necessarily recreations of each other.  since these occurrences we have not had a specific repeat performance with an obvious motivation that was identical to another incident.  so, even if the killers were deciphered to a tee, we still do not have anything to compare them to.  if we did, if this was some weird epidemic of school shootings rooted in sexism, i would pay some credence to the possibility but this is not a regular thing.  it is not even similar to the other two except for the guns.  this sounds like it leads to hasty undesirable and poorly thought out, outcomes.  like when you drink too much and throw up all night because it was a good idea to drink more at the time.   #  but the person who does go on a spree in light of an anti bullying campaign may not have been motivated by bullying, or revenge.   #  there is a limit to the prevention is what i am getting at.  i am not saying that anti bullying campaigns are useless, i am saying that they do not help every bully victim to not go on a spree.  but the person who does go on a spree in light of an anti bullying campaign may not have been motivated by bullying, or revenge.  they may have just desired to be on the news and thought that it was the best way to do it.  what i am saying is, just because there are things that contribute to people shooting, does not actually make it the reason or rhyme as to actually why.  it can confuse two completely separate issues, it can get unnecessary legislature passed it can change the way schools operate.  because we just  have  to know why if they are a human being like  me , they were motivated to hurt other human beings.  we ca not just accept that they had no reason, to do it and that instead, we push concepts upon one another trying to solve a problem that may not even exist.   #  a person technically needs no reason to grab an automatic weapon and go on a spree.   # i think both of the things you mentioned are equally useless.  a person technically needs no reason to grab an automatic weapon and go on a spree.  they could have 0 motivation.  they could write a manifesto to state something, but it could not actually have any bearing on why they did it.  furthermore, they still do not have to want to accomplish anything by murdering others they could just derive sick pleasure from hurting someone.  so then you ask  why would someone need to derive pleasure from hurting others.   however, we realize that pleasure and how we get it is entirely subjective, and so actually trying to figure out an objective basis for motivation of any kind is useless.  even, being bullied does not necessarily constitute a conclusion.  in the mind of someone willing to kill others, the option is as simple as enduring the bullying or telling a teacher.  there does not have to actually be an external factor at play, there can be but there does not have to be and so we ca not come to any conclusion because we ca not know.   #  the objective behavior is not the motivation, the objective behavior is a display of willingness and nothing more.   # can you cite many cases of spree killers who had no prior mental health issues, created no written or recorded material offering a window into their mindset, and / or demonstrated no deficiency in social development ? these cases do exist i could name a few but they are absolutely the minority.  then their motivation is essentially pointless.  either they do not have one or they do have one and it is only important to them and so you ca not actually decipher anything about society from it.  yes but the behaviors that are being taught are only indicative of someone who is willing to murder, not someone who became violent from video games or is embittered about women.  the objective behavior is not the motivation, the objective behavior is a display of willingness and nothing more.
firstly, i am not a communist, and i am not advocating a trotsky style revolution or a complete upheaval of western democracy.  however, i do feel that a right wing conservative ideology is not capable of combating global poverty, and that a socialist government is the only way forward.  firstly, higher tax rates for large corporations would redistribute wealth in society, without greatly affecting the rich individuals in question.  i also feel more money should be spent on foreign aid, especially in the form of small business support in africa, for example.  finally, in terms of domestic policy, i would support a mansion tax for properties where there are more than 0 bedrooms not in use by current residents.  all of the above policy ideas are left leaning, hence my point that a right wing government could not, and would not implement them.  this is why i argue that socialism is the way forward to destroy poverty.  i currently live in the uk, if that makes a difference.   #  firstly, higher tax rates for large corporations would redistribute wealth in society, without greatly affecting the rich individuals in question.   #  how would you prevent the corporations from simply moving their operations over seas ?  # how would you prevent the corporations from simply moving their operations over seas ? i am all in favor of getting people out of abject poverty.  but i do not think lack of business loans will fix much of the poverty in many african countries.  you have to solve their long history of civil wars and corruption.  you would need to end the tribal conflicts.  what about the small groups of rebels who wage guerilla war on a region ? there is no point is trying to seed small business when there is so much instability.  once you could secure a region and install a leader, your next step would be infrastructure.  there are vast areas with no clean drinking water, no electricity, only primitive dirt roads, no irrigation for crops, and no modern medical care.  this may be an example of how you might be oversimplifying who is or is not wealthy.  until you can outline how you propose to do that, i do not think you can try to convince anyone of your stance.  most houses being built are 0 0 bedrooms in my region of the us .  nobody buys a one bedroom home, unless perhaps those considering a condo in the heart of a popular metropolitan area.  a one or two bedroom home is hard to resell and may be harder to get a mortgage on.  this means retirees are very likely to be in a 0 bedroom and subject to your tax.  it could be an old house that has not been updated in 0 years, a modest cottage, or a rural home in a depressed area.  none of those are what we would call  mansions .  it would make no sense to hit those homeowners with a mansion tax.  and if you are not careful with home taxes, you will drive fixed income retirees into losing their homes.  how do you determine who is or is not wealthy ? is it based on income or assets ? if this is a national policy, how will national criteria take into account big differences in geograhic cost of living ? for example a smaller 0 bedroom house in a nice area in manhatten might cost a million dollars.  the same size house in my town might cost $0,0.  put that house in detroit and it may cost under $0,0.  same goes for wages: $0,0 a year is a rich man is wages in a depressed area of for example west virginia.  in my state the average income is about that.  in san francisco you may not even be able to buy a home in anywhere remotely nice with a $0,0 year salary.  be very careful about creating one ruler to measure poverty and wealth in all places.   #  they would exempt it from being a bedroom if there were a religious shrine of sufficient size.   #  you can bet your ass the law would be written to an annoying amount of specificity.  they would define square footage, furniture and accoutrement that legally would qualify the area as a  bedroom .  they would exempt it from being a bedroom if there were a religious shrine of sufficient size.  they would make distinctions between bedrooms with bathrooms attached and those without.  you get more than 0 or 0 people writing this, and the one sentence the person you responded to would turn into a 0 page law.   #  ge paid taxes, in fact, they overpaid so much one year, they had a smaller liability the next.   #  ge paid taxes, in fact, they overpaid so much one year, they had a smaller liability the next.  besides, ge is a corporation, and those people already pay a flat corporate tax on profit, not a progressive corporate tax.  but, even if ge did not pay tax on corporate profits they did though, effectively billions each year , those people still paid payroll taxes, personal income taxes, and capital gains taxes too.  not to mention the sales taxes generated from their products.  not to mention, if people cherry pick a single year, like after a major financial write down, companies lose money, that cuts into profits, and taxes are reduced also.   #  that would basically destroy the housing market, because nobody would build equity in a house that could be confiscated on a whim.   # if those three empty bedrooms creates a house value of 0 over two bedrooms, then they are paying 0 more property tax.  if they want to keep paying for value they are not using, that is their business.  probably because they ca not afford the five bedroom house.  depriving the first family of their house does not magically help the second family unless you are advocating confiscation.  that would basically destroy the housing market, because nobody would build equity in a house that could be confiscated on a whim.   #  it must be nice for you up on elysium.   #  having a family of seven often means giving up material goods and entertainment opportunities that smaller families have the money for.  their money is tied up in the bigger house and caring for the family.  you may be able to afford the big birthday bash with the new ipad for one kid, but they ca not for five.  so, i would propose a punitive tax on all the goodies you buy and vacations you go on because you could be using that to support a family instead.  it must be nice for you up on elysium.
firstly, i am not a communist, and i am not advocating a trotsky style revolution or a complete upheaval of western democracy.  however, i do feel that a right wing conservative ideology is not capable of combating global poverty, and that a socialist government is the only way forward.  firstly, higher tax rates for large corporations would redistribute wealth in society, without greatly affecting the rich individuals in question.  i also feel more money should be spent on foreign aid, especially in the form of small business support in africa, for example.  finally, in terms of domestic policy, i would support a mansion tax for properties where there are more than 0 bedrooms not in use by current residents.  all of the above policy ideas are left leaning, hence my point that a right wing government could not, and would not implement them.  this is why i argue that socialism is the way forward to destroy poverty.  i currently live in the uk, if that makes a difference.   #  i also feel more money should be spent on foreign aid, especially in the form of small business support in africa, for example.   #  i am all in favor of getting people out of abject poverty.   # how would you prevent the corporations from simply moving their operations over seas ? i am all in favor of getting people out of abject poverty.  but i do not think lack of business loans will fix much of the poverty in many african countries.  you have to solve their long history of civil wars and corruption.  you would need to end the tribal conflicts.  what about the small groups of rebels who wage guerilla war on a region ? there is no point is trying to seed small business when there is so much instability.  once you could secure a region and install a leader, your next step would be infrastructure.  there are vast areas with no clean drinking water, no electricity, only primitive dirt roads, no irrigation for crops, and no modern medical care.  this may be an example of how you might be oversimplifying who is or is not wealthy.  until you can outline how you propose to do that, i do not think you can try to convince anyone of your stance.  most houses being built are 0 0 bedrooms in my region of the us .  nobody buys a one bedroom home, unless perhaps those considering a condo in the heart of a popular metropolitan area.  a one or two bedroom home is hard to resell and may be harder to get a mortgage on.  this means retirees are very likely to be in a 0 bedroom and subject to your tax.  it could be an old house that has not been updated in 0 years, a modest cottage, or a rural home in a depressed area.  none of those are what we would call  mansions .  it would make no sense to hit those homeowners with a mansion tax.  and if you are not careful with home taxes, you will drive fixed income retirees into losing their homes.  how do you determine who is or is not wealthy ? is it based on income or assets ? if this is a national policy, how will national criteria take into account big differences in geograhic cost of living ? for example a smaller 0 bedroom house in a nice area in manhatten might cost a million dollars.  the same size house in my town might cost $0,0.  put that house in detroit and it may cost under $0,0.  same goes for wages: $0,0 a year is a rich man is wages in a depressed area of for example west virginia.  in my state the average income is about that.  in san francisco you may not even be able to buy a home in anywhere remotely nice with a $0,0 year salary.  be very careful about creating one ruler to measure poverty and wealth in all places.   #  you get more than 0 or 0 people writing this, and the one sentence the person you responded to would turn into a 0 page law.   #  you can bet your ass the law would be written to an annoying amount of specificity.  they would define square footage, furniture and accoutrement that legally would qualify the area as a  bedroom .  they would exempt it from being a bedroom if there were a religious shrine of sufficient size.  they would make distinctions between bedrooms with bathrooms attached and those without.  you get more than 0 or 0 people writing this, and the one sentence the person you responded to would turn into a 0 page law.   #  ge paid taxes, in fact, they overpaid so much one year, they had a smaller liability the next.   #  ge paid taxes, in fact, they overpaid so much one year, they had a smaller liability the next.  besides, ge is a corporation, and those people already pay a flat corporate tax on profit, not a progressive corporate tax.  but, even if ge did not pay tax on corporate profits they did though, effectively billions each year , those people still paid payroll taxes, personal income taxes, and capital gains taxes too.  not to mention the sales taxes generated from their products.  not to mention, if people cherry pick a single year, like after a major financial write down, companies lose money, that cuts into profits, and taxes are reduced also.   #  that would basically destroy the housing market, because nobody would build equity in a house that could be confiscated on a whim.   # if those three empty bedrooms creates a house value of 0 over two bedrooms, then they are paying 0 more property tax.  if they want to keep paying for value they are not using, that is their business.  probably because they ca not afford the five bedroom house.  depriving the first family of their house does not magically help the second family unless you are advocating confiscation.  that would basically destroy the housing market, because nobody would build equity in a house that could be confiscated on a whim.   #  it must be nice for you up on elysium.   #  having a family of seven often means giving up material goods and entertainment opportunities that smaller families have the money for.  their money is tied up in the bigger house and caring for the family.  you may be able to afford the big birthday bash with the new ipad for one kid, but they ca not for five.  so, i would propose a punitive tax on all the goodies you buy and vacations you go on because you could be using that to support a family instead.  it must be nice for you up on elysium.
firstly, i am not a communist, and i am not advocating a trotsky style revolution or a complete upheaval of western democracy.  however, i do feel that a right wing conservative ideology is not capable of combating global poverty, and that a socialist government is the only way forward.  firstly, higher tax rates for large corporations would redistribute wealth in society, without greatly affecting the rich individuals in question.  i also feel more money should be spent on foreign aid, especially in the form of small business support in africa, for example.  finally, in terms of domestic policy, i would support a mansion tax for properties where there are more than 0 bedrooms not in use by current residents.  all of the above policy ideas are left leaning, hence my point that a right wing government could not, and would not implement them.  this is why i argue that socialism is the way forward to destroy poverty.  i currently live in the uk, if that makes a difference.   #  finally, in terms of domestic policy, i would support a mansion tax for properties where there are more than 0 bedrooms not in use by current residents.   #  this may be an example of how you might be oversimplifying who is or is not wealthy.   # how would you prevent the corporations from simply moving their operations over seas ? i am all in favor of getting people out of abject poverty.  but i do not think lack of business loans will fix much of the poverty in many african countries.  you have to solve their long history of civil wars and corruption.  you would need to end the tribal conflicts.  what about the small groups of rebels who wage guerilla war on a region ? there is no point is trying to seed small business when there is so much instability.  once you could secure a region and install a leader, your next step would be infrastructure.  there are vast areas with no clean drinking water, no electricity, only primitive dirt roads, no irrigation for crops, and no modern medical care.  this may be an example of how you might be oversimplifying who is or is not wealthy.  until you can outline how you propose to do that, i do not think you can try to convince anyone of your stance.  most houses being built are 0 0 bedrooms in my region of the us .  nobody buys a one bedroom home, unless perhaps those considering a condo in the heart of a popular metropolitan area.  a one or two bedroom home is hard to resell and may be harder to get a mortgage on.  this means retirees are very likely to be in a 0 bedroom and subject to your tax.  it could be an old house that has not been updated in 0 years, a modest cottage, or a rural home in a depressed area.  none of those are what we would call  mansions .  it would make no sense to hit those homeowners with a mansion tax.  and if you are not careful with home taxes, you will drive fixed income retirees into losing their homes.  how do you determine who is or is not wealthy ? is it based on income or assets ? if this is a national policy, how will national criteria take into account big differences in geograhic cost of living ? for example a smaller 0 bedroom house in a nice area in manhatten might cost a million dollars.  the same size house in my town might cost $0,0.  put that house in detroit and it may cost under $0,0.  same goes for wages: $0,0 a year is a rich man is wages in a depressed area of for example west virginia.  in my state the average income is about that.  in san francisco you may not even be able to buy a home in anywhere remotely nice with a $0,0 year salary.  be very careful about creating one ruler to measure poverty and wealth in all places.   #  they would define square footage, furniture and accoutrement that legally would qualify the area as a  bedroom .   #  you can bet your ass the law would be written to an annoying amount of specificity.  they would define square footage, furniture and accoutrement that legally would qualify the area as a  bedroom .  they would exempt it from being a bedroom if there were a religious shrine of sufficient size.  they would make distinctions between bedrooms with bathrooms attached and those without.  you get more than 0 or 0 people writing this, and the one sentence the person you responded to would turn into a 0 page law.   #  ge paid taxes, in fact, they overpaid so much one year, they had a smaller liability the next.   #  ge paid taxes, in fact, they overpaid so much one year, they had a smaller liability the next.  besides, ge is a corporation, and those people already pay a flat corporate tax on profit, not a progressive corporate tax.  but, even if ge did not pay tax on corporate profits they did though, effectively billions each year , those people still paid payroll taxes, personal income taxes, and capital gains taxes too.  not to mention the sales taxes generated from their products.  not to mention, if people cherry pick a single year, like after a major financial write down, companies lose money, that cuts into profits, and taxes are reduced also.   #  if they want to keep paying for value they are not using, that is their business.   # if those three empty bedrooms creates a house value of 0 over two bedrooms, then they are paying 0 more property tax.  if they want to keep paying for value they are not using, that is their business.  probably because they ca not afford the five bedroom house.  depriving the first family of their house does not magically help the second family unless you are advocating confiscation.  that would basically destroy the housing market, because nobody would build equity in a house that could be confiscated on a whim.   #  so, i would propose a punitive tax on all the goodies you buy and vacations you go on because you could be using that to support a family instead.   #  having a family of seven often means giving up material goods and entertainment opportunities that smaller families have the money for.  their money is tied up in the bigger house and caring for the family.  you may be able to afford the big birthday bash with the new ipad for one kid, but they ca not for five.  so, i would propose a punitive tax on all the goodies you buy and vacations you go on because you could be using that to support a family instead.  it must be nice for you up on elysium.
since my last cmv many things have materialized, so i decided to write a new cmv.  the most important thing that materialized was the answer donald sterling is answer URL i posted in /r/nba but it seems they have deleted or hid it some how.  next we have v.  stivano is talk with barbara walter is   dr.  phil: dr.  phil: v.  stiviano: the woman behind the donald sterling scandal may 0, 0 URL i liked this interview a lot.  i do not know if this is here and donald have some sort of clandestine affair.  however, i think she does very well under pressure.  in a lot ways i think she is the perfect mistress, also the perfect assistant.  she explains that she took him middle class shops, and did things with him that were his normal life.  but more importantly she does not appear like gold digger, she feels she earned everything with work.  she improves donald is image, and also she seems very committed to him for some reason.  whenever she talks about donald talks about him very highly, even when she has the opportunity to betray him.  i think you have to respect a person like that.  i find it funny that every lady that i know immediately thinks she was sleeping donald.  donald sterling is confidante v. stiviano speaks out URL this interview is very convincing that stivano cares about donald.  both interviews bring an important questions.  would it wrong for a racist man to hire someone that would help him not be racist ? can someone have redemption ? full interview donald sterling on anderson cooper 0° URL this interview is odd because not entirely surely if donald posturing or not.  since he is been a lawyer for a long time i believe he knows how to lie.  the thing that is a problem here, is i am not sure he can even have sex.  because he so vague about his encounters with v.  stiviano i feel like he is trying maintain his image.  spike lee addresses racist la clippers owner donald sterling URL i think he is right that people shoudl speak about this.  there is separation from activity and thoughts.  i think we thoughts should be protected.  mark cuban on donald sterling racism scandal   future of privacy URL i think mark cuban is take is fair.  i agree also that you ca not legislate morality.  skip and stephen a.  is reaction to mayweather t. i.  brawl URL i added this video because i think it is hilarious that stephen a.  smith says the exact same thing as sterling did in his comments about stiviano.  in fact, the situation between mayweather and ti is similar.  especially, if you believe that sterling is jealousy brought up the comments.  but for some reason it is ok for stephen a.  to talk about race and perception, but not ok for sterling ? the only difference between stephen a smith and sterling is history.  i think that sterling is statements are caustic.  i think it is important to understand when he came from.  he came from the heart of jim crow laws.  he is also jewish, and it is well jews have received there share of racism.  so the comments do not surprise me.  i do not feel that he is wrong for thinking these thoughts.  as long as he is not making racist actions, his comments are about things we may not like, but it is something we must allow.  mainly because, there was a time where anti racist sentiment were vilified as much as donald sterling is comments, and if we did not allow people have their individual thoughts we would never have gotten to where we are today.  so if sterling is ousted it should be on evidence rather than this call.  and based on all the information that has come about, he should keep the clippers.   #  this interview is odd because not entirely surely if donald posturing or not.   #  right, i am sure his ramblings about magic johnson getting  the aids  was total posture.   #  all of this is irrelevant.  not a single time in the entirety of the nba bylaws are the words  due process  mentioned.  as we have heard, a 0 vote from the owners to push him out is the first and last thing needed to do so.  if a dispute still remains, which is likely to happen, the nba bylaws specifically say that the issue will be solved in arbitration, not a courtroom.  think of it like a country club.  if you are a member of this club and you decide to not wear proper attire to formal dinner settings, you can and most likely will be dismissed from the club.  you have no case to make in court for any sort of  wrongful termination .  this is not an issue of someone slipping up one time and being condemned for it.  donald sterling is a career racist as evidenced by the lawsuits that he has been a part of for the better part of his adult life.  he signed a contract.  he broke the contract.  he can be voted out as per nba bylaws.  there is not anything else to say.  right, i am sure his ramblings about magic johnson getting  the aids  was total posture.  very smart move by him.  /sarcasm.  if he were planning things out, he would have at least been correct about the disease magic has, but he did not even know.  i need to also just point out that i am an absolute sports junkie.  i am majoring in sports management, and my tv has  espn  burned into the bottom right corner of my screen; it appears whenever my screen goes white.  could not tell you how many hours i am on this network.  i only say this because i have had sports related posts on cmv before, and they never garner any responses.  this just leads me to believe there are fewer sports fans in this sub than i imagined, so i figure i would speak from the perspective of someone who has more than likely been more emotionally invested in this ordeal than most.  last thing, if you think you  have to respect  a person like v stiviano, you are delusional.  she is absolutely unbearable to listen to.  the ignorance she spews from her mouth is enraging.  cases in point: do you think donald sterling is a racist ? :  no  do you think he will apologize ? :  only god knows  it is an absolute joke.  did you see the stupid ass visor she wore around right after appearing on national tv ? let me repeat that.  the woman wore a full facial visor with the intention of not garnering attention.  how brain dead do you have to be to do this ?  #  there was also potential for players and coaches to walk away from the clippers in the offseason doc rivers, namely .   #  my understanding is that there is a  good of the league  clause that comes with being a member of the nba, whether you are a player, coach, gm, owner, whatever.  there is also a clause in the bylaws that states that a vote of 0/0 of owners can compel a fellow owner to sell their team.  regardless of whether or not sterling intended for his comments to be made public, they were, and as a result those comments had a severe  potential  negative impact on the league.  had adam silver not laid the banhammer on sterling there was going to be a player boycott during the playoffs.  there was also potential for players and coaches to walk away from the clippers in the offseason doc rivers, namely .  seeing as the clips are one of the ascendant teams in the nba, and there was a potential for a huge negative financial impact on the league, there is a pretty clear cut argument to be made that sterling acted contrary to the good of the league.   #  any time you do that, you bind yourself to ideals to uphold the legitimacy of that league, and one of the tenants of the league is to keep it inclusive for fans and players.   #  you seem to be arguing that it is ok to be racist because everyone is racist.  philosophically, that does not fly, and that is the trap that sterling is currently caught in.  an organization like the nba specifically exists because it is a collection of people trying to achieve an ideal that is greater than themselves.  they do not just sit around and say  man, if only some national basketball organization existed, then we could play nation wide games and entertain the masses with this sport.   they go out and make it fucking happen.  any time you do that, you bind yourself to ideals to uphold the legitimacy of that league, and one of the tenants of the league is to keep it inclusive for fans and players.  once the nba starts excluding people, they will lose the favor of the public and cease to operate on the national level like they currently do.  they do not want this ! so whether or not sterling has a right to say whatever bigoted things he wants is not actually the argument as much as you would like it to be.  the actual question is  does the nba feel like keeping him around promotes their brand ?   unless you think right wing political sympathizers are going to pour out of the wood work to support basketball all of a sudden, the answer is clearly  no !   due to that simple fact, sterling is argument has no legs.  as long as he is associated with the nba, the league suffers due to his words.   #  what do you mean when you say  nixon was caught  ?  #  what do you mean when you say  nixon was caught  ? caught doing what ? he taped himself.  what he was caught doing was admitting on tape that he was aware of the felonies that were being committed on behalf of his campaign.  as most of us do not commit felonies, we do not worry about that.  he owned a franchise, not a company.  it has different obligations, one of which is to all other owners, as well as to the parent organization.  he was already a huge liability due to his shady business practices, and this just gave enough momentum for others to say  enough is enough .   #  if i were owner i would be worried about the presidence set if he is ousted based on the tape.   # caught doing what ? he taped himself.  what he was caught doing was admitting on tape that he was aware of the felonies that were being committed on behalf of his campaign.  as most of us do not commit felonies, we do not worry about that.  if i were owner i would be worried about the presidence set if he is ousted based on the tape.  even tiger was caught on tape saying racist things.  it could happen to anyone.  it has different obligations, one of which is to all other owners, as well as to the parent organization.  this is semantics.  he has fiscal responsibility to solve his problems.  if he can do so, he should not lose the team.  not all teams make money.  he is helped his team make money.  that make him a boon for league.  if he craftily takes care of the league problems then he will be fine.
since my last cmv many things have materialized, so i decided to write a new cmv.  the most important thing that materialized was the answer donald sterling is answer URL i posted in /r/nba but it seems they have deleted or hid it some how.  next we have v.  stivano is talk with barbara walter is   dr.  phil: dr.  phil: v.  stiviano: the woman behind the donald sterling scandal may 0, 0 URL i liked this interview a lot.  i do not know if this is here and donald have some sort of clandestine affair.  however, i think she does very well under pressure.  in a lot ways i think she is the perfect mistress, also the perfect assistant.  she explains that she took him middle class shops, and did things with him that were his normal life.  but more importantly she does not appear like gold digger, she feels she earned everything with work.  she improves donald is image, and also she seems very committed to him for some reason.  whenever she talks about donald talks about him very highly, even when she has the opportunity to betray him.  i think you have to respect a person like that.  i find it funny that every lady that i know immediately thinks she was sleeping donald.  donald sterling is confidante v. stiviano speaks out URL this interview is very convincing that stivano cares about donald.  both interviews bring an important questions.  would it wrong for a racist man to hire someone that would help him not be racist ? can someone have redemption ? full interview donald sterling on anderson cooper 0° URL this interview is odd because not entirely surely if donald posturing or not.  since he is been a lawyer for a long time i believe he knows how to lie.  the thing that is a problem here, is i am not sure he can even have sex.  because he so vague about his encounters with v.  stiviano i feel like he is trying maintain his image.  spike lee addresses racist la clippers owner donald sterling URL i think he is right that people shoudl speak about this.  there is separation from activity and thoughts.  i think we thoughts should be protected.  mark cuban on donald sterling racism scandal   future of privacy URL i think mark cuban is take is fair.  i agree also that you ca not legislate morality.  skip and stephen a.  is reaction to mayweather t. i.  brawl URL i added this video because i think it is hilarious that stephen a.  smith says the exact same thing as sterling did in his comments about stiviano.  in fact, the situation between mayweather and ti is similar.  especially, if you believe that sterling is jealousy brought up the comments.  but for some reason it is ok for stephen a.  to talk about race and perception, but not ok for sterling ? the only difference between stephen a smith and sterling is history.  i think that sterling is statements are caustic.  i think it is important to understand when he came from.  he came from the heart of jim crow laws.  he is also jewish, and it is well jews have received there share of racism.  so the comments do not surprise me.  i do not feel that he is wrong for thinking these thoughts.  as long as he is not making racist actions, his comments are about things we may not like, but it is something we must allow.  mainly because, there was a time where anti racist sentiment were vilified as much as donald sterling is comments, and if we did not allow people have their individual thoughts we would never have gotten to where we are today.  so if sterling is ousted it should be on evidence rather than this call.  and based on all the information that has come about, he should keep the clippers.   #  i think it is important to understand when he came from.   #  he came from the heart of jim crow laws.   # he came from the heart of jim crow laws.  this gives us an idea why, but does not excuse his comments nor make them not terrible.  so the comments do not surprise me.  they surprise the hell out of me, and i am jewish.  just no.  you cannot and should not ever use  being jewish  as an excuse to be racist towards others.  just fucking no.  it is not an excuse.  mainly because, there was a time where anti racist sentiment were vilified as much as donald sterling is comments, and if we did not allow people have their individual thoughts we would never got to where we are today.  sterling has taken many actions in the past that people saw as racist, this was simply the straw that broke the camels back and was more public than his other actions.  that is all.  however, racist statements are something that need to be allowed  legally .  by no means do we have to or should we have to allow them publicly without criticism or vilification.  his statements were racist, offensive, and show him to be a bigoted man.  this should not be tolerated by people.  criticising people for their bigoted beliefs is not  preventing them  from having their own individual thoughts.  they are able to have their thoughts and must face the societal consequences for their beliefs.  if they believe they are still in the right, they are free to fight for that and convince others just as people who were anti racism in the past did via the civil rights movement.   #  regardless of whether or not sterling intended for his comments to be made public, they were, and as a result those comments had a severe  potential  negative impact on the league.   #  my understanding is that there is a  good of the league  clause that comes with being a member of the nba, whether you are a player, coach, gm, owner, whatever.  there is also a clause in the bylaws that states that a vote of 0/0 of owners can compel a fellow owner to sell their team.  regardless of whether or not sterling intended for his comments to be made public, they were, and as a result those comments had a severe  potential  negative impact on the league.  had adam silver not laid the banhammer on sterling there was going to be a player boycott during the playoffs.  there was also potential for players and coaches to walk away from the clippers in the offseason doc rivers, namely .  seeing as the clips are one of the ascendant teams in the nba, and there was a potential for a huge negative financial impact on the league, there is a pretty clear cut argument to be made that sterling acted contrary to the good of the league.   #  the actual question is  does the nba feel like keeping him around promotes their brand ?    #  you seem to be arguing that it is ok to be racist because everyone is racist.  philosophically, that does not fly, and that is the trap that sterling is currently caught in.  an organization like the nba specifically exists because it is a collection of people trying to achieve an ideal that is greater than themselves.  they do not just sit around and say  man, if only some national basketball organization existed, then we could play nation wide games and entertain the masses with this sport.   they go out and make it fucking happen.  any time you do that, you bind yourself to ideals to uphold the legitimacy of that league, and one of the tenants of the league is to keep it inclusive for fans and players.  once the nba starts excluding people, they will lose the favor of the public and cease to operate on the national level like they currently do.  they do not want this ! so whether or not sterling has a right to say whatever bigoted things he wants is not actually the argument as much as you would like it to be.  the actual question is  does the nba feel like keeping him around promotes their brand ?   unless you think right wing political sympathizers are going to pour out of the wood work to support basketball all of a sudden, the answer is clearly  no !   due to that simple fact, sterling is argument has no legs.  as long as he is associated with the nba, the league suffers due to his words.   #  what he was caught doing was admitting on tape that he was aware of the felonies that were being committed on behalf of his campaign.   #  what do you mean when you say  nixon was caught  ? caught doing what ? he taped himself.  what he was caught doing was admitting on tape that he was aware of the felonies that were being committed on behalf of his campaign.  as most of us do not commit felonies, we do not worry about that.  he owned a franchise, not a company.  it has different obligations, one of which is to all other owners, as well as to the parent organization.  he was already a huge liability due to his shady business practices, and this just gave enough momentum for others to say  enough is enough .   #  it has different obligations, one of which is to all other owners, as well as to the parent organization.   # caught doing what ? he taped himself.  what he was caught doing was admitting on tape that he was aware of the felonies that were being committed on behalf of his campaign.  as most of us do not commit felonies, we do not worry about that.  if i were owner i would be worried about the presidence set if he is ousted based on the tape.  even tiger was caught on tape saying racist things.  it could happen to anyone.  it has different obligations, one of which is to all other owners, as well as to the parent organization.  this is semantics.  he has fiscal responsibility to solve his problems.  if he can do so, he should not lose the team.  not all teams make money.  he is helped his team make money.  that make him a boon for league.  if he craftily takes care of the league problems then he will be fine.
since my last cmv many things have materialized, so i decided to write a new cmv.  the most important thing that materialized was the answer donald sterling is answer URL i posted in /r/nba but it seems they have deleted or hid it some how.  next we have v.  stivano is talk with barbara walter is   dr.  phil: dr.  phil: v.  stiviano: the woman behind the donald sterling scandal may 0, 0 URL i liked this interview a lot.  i do not know if this is here and donald have some sort of clandestine affair.  however, i think she does very well under pressure.  in a lot ways i think she is the perfect mistress, also the perfect assistant.  she explains that she took him middle class shops, and did things with him that were his normal life.  but more importantly she does not appear like gold digger, she feels she earned everything with work.  she improves donald is image, and also she seems very committed to him for some reason.  whenever she talks about donald talks about him very highly, even when she has the opportunity to betray him.  i think you have to respect a person like that.  i find it funny that every lady that i know immediately thinks she was sleeping donald.  donald sterling is confidante v. stiviano speaks out URL this interview is very convincing that stivano cares about donald.  both interviews bring an important questions.  would it wrong for a racist man to hire someone that would help him not be racist ? can someone have redemption ? full interview donald sterling on anderson cooper 0° URL this interview is odd because not entirely surely if donald posturing or not.  since he is been a lawyer for a long time i believe he knows how to lie.  the thing that is a problem here, is i am not sure he can even have sex.  because he so vague about his encounters with v.  stiviano i feel like he is trying maintain his image.  spike lee addresses racist la clippers owner donald sterling URL i think he is right that people shoudl speak about this.  there is separation from activity and thoughts.  i think we thoughts should be protected.  mark cuban on donald sterling racism scandal   future of privacy URL i think mark cuban is take is fair.  i agree also that you ca not legislate morality.  skip and stephen a.  is reaction to mayweather t. i.  brawl URL i added this video because i think it is hilarious that stephen a.  smith says the exact same thing as sterling did in his comments about stiviano.  in fact, the situation between mayweather and ti is similar.  especially, if you believe that sterling is jealousy brought up the comments.  but for some reason it is ok for stephen a.  to talk about race and perception, but not ok for sterling ? the only difference between stephen a smith and sterling is history.  i think that sterling is statements are caustic.  i think it is important to understand when he came from.  he came from the heart of jim crow laws.  he is also jewish, and it is well jews have received there share of racism.  so the comments do not surprise me.  i do not feel that he is wrong for thinking these thoughts.  as long as he is not making racist actions, his comments are about things we may not like, but it is something we must allow.  mainly because, there was a time where anti racist sentiment were vilified as much as donald sterling is comments, and if we did not allow people have their individual thoughts we would never have gotten to where we are today.  so if sterling is ousted it should be on evidence rather than this call.  and based on all the information that has come about, he should keep the clippers.   #  he is also jewish, and it is well jews have received there share of racism.   #  so the comments do not surprise me.   # he came from the heart of jim crow laws.  this gives us an idea why, but does not excuse his comments nor make them not terrible.  so the comments do not surprise me.  they surprise the hell out of me, and i am jewish.  just no.  you cannot and should not ever use  being jewish  as an excuse to be racist towards others.  just fucking no.  it is not an excuse.  mainly because, there was a time where anti racist sentiment were vilified as much as donald sterling is comments, and if we did not allow people have their individual thoughts we would never got to where we are today.  sterling has taken many actions in the past that people saw as racist, this was simply the straw that broke the camels back and was more public than his other actions.  that is all.  however, racist statements are something that need to be allowed  legally .  by no means do we have to or should we have to allow them publicly without criticism or vilification.  his statements were racist, offensive, and show him to be a bigoted man.  this should not be tolerated by people.  criticising people for their bigoted beliefs is not  preventing them  from having their own individual thoughts.  they are able to have their thoughts and must face the societal consequences for their beliefs.  if they believe they are still in the right, they are free to fight for that and convince others just as people who were anti racism in the past did via the civil rights movement.   #  regardless of whether or not sterling intended for his comments to be made public, they were, and as a result those comments had a severe  potential  negative impact on the league.   #  my understanding is that there is a  good of the league  clause that comes with being a member of the nba, whether you are a player, coach, gm, owner, whatever.  there is also a clause in the bylaws that states that a vote of 0/0 of owners can compel a fellow owner to sell their team.  regardless of whether or not sterling intended for his comments to be made public, they were, and as a result those comments had a severe  potential  negative impact on the league.  had adam silver not laid the banhammer on sterling there was going to be a player boycott during the playoffs.  there was also potential for players and coaches to walk away from the clippers in the offseason doc rivers, namely .  seeing as the clips are one of the ascendant teams in the nba, and there was a potential for a huge negative financial impact on the league, there is a pretty clear cut argument to be made that sterling acted contrary to the good of the league.   #  the actual question is  does the nba feel like keeping him around promotes their brand ?    #  you seem to be arguing that it is ok to be racist because everyone is racist.  philosophically, that does not fly, and that is the trap that sterling is currently caught in.  an organization like the nba specifically exists because it is a collection of people trying to achieve an ideal that is greater than themselves.  they do not just sit around and say  man, if only some national basketball organization existed, then we could play nation wide games and entertain the masses with this sport.   they go out and make it fucking happen.  any time you do that, you bind yourself to ideals to uphold the legitimacy of that league, and one of the tenants of the league is to keep it inclusive for fans and players.  once the nba starts excluding people, they will lose the favor of the public and cease to operate on the national level like they currently do.  they do not want this ! so whether or not sterling has a right to say whatever bigoted things he wants is not actually the argument as much as you would like it to be.  the actual question is  does the nba feel like keeping him around promotes their brand ?   unless you think right wing political sympathizers are going to pour out of the wood work to support basketball all of a sudden, the answer is clearly  no !   due to that simple fact, sterling is argument has no legs.  as long as he is associated with the nba, the league suffers due to his words.   #  what he was caught doing was admitting on tape that he was aware of the felonies that were being committed on behalf of his campaign.   #  what do you mean when you say  nixon was caught  ? caught doing what ? he taped himself.  what he was caught doing was admitting on tape that he was aware of the felonies that were being committed on behalf of his campaign.  as most of us do not commit felonies, we do not worry about that.  he owned a franchise, not a company.  it has different obligations, one of which is to all other owners, as well as to the parent organization.  he was already a huge liability due to his shady business practices, and this just gave enough momentum for others to say  enough is enough .   #  if he craftily takes care of the league problems then he will be fine.   # caught doing what ? he taped himself.  what he was caught doing was admitting on tape that he was aware of the felonies that were being committed on behalf of his campaign.  as most of us do not commit felonies, we do not worry about that.  if i were owner i would be worried about the presidence set if he is ousted based on the tape.  even tiger was caught on tape saying racist things.  it could happen to anyone.  it has different obligations, one of which is to all other owners, as well as to the parent organization.  this is semantics.  he has fiscal responsibility to solve his problems.  if he can do so, he should not lose the team.  not all teams make money.  he is helped his team make money.  that make him a boon for league.  if he craftily takes care of the league problems then he will be fine.
since my last cmv many things have materialized, so i decided to write a new cmv.  the most important thing that materialized was the answer donald sterling is answer URL i posted in /r/nba but it seems they have deleted or hid it some how.  next we have v.  stivano is talk with barbara walter is   dr.  phil: dr.  phil: v.  stiviano: the woman behind the donald sterling scandal may 0, 0 URL i liked this interview a lot.  i do not know if this is here and donald have some sort of clandestine affair.  however, i think she does very well under pressure.  in a lot ways i think she is the perfect mistress, also the perfect assistant.  she explains that she took him middle class shops, and did things with him that were his normal life.  but more importantly she does not appear like gold digger, she feels she earned everything with work.  she improves donald is image, and also she seems very committed to him for some reason.  whenever she talks about donald talks about him very highly, even when she has the opportunity to betray him.  i think you have to respect a person like that.  i find it funny that every lady that i know immediately thinks she was sleeping donald.  donald sterling is confidante v. stiviano speaks out URL this interview is very convincing that stivano cares about donald.  both interviews bring an important questions.  would it wrong for a racist man to hire someone that would help him not be racist ? can someone have redemption ? full interview donald sterling on anderson cooper 0° URL this interview is odd because not entirely surely if donald posturing or not.  since he is been a lawyer for a long time i believe he knows how to lie.  the thing that is a problem here, is i am not sure he can even have sex.  because he so vague about his encounters with v.  stiviano i feel like he is trying maintain his image.  spike lee addresses racist la clippers owner donald sterling URL i think he is right that people shoudl speak about this.  there is separation from activity and thoughts.  i think we thoughts should be protected.  mark cuban on donald sterling racism scandal   future of privacy URL i think mark cuban is take is fair.  i agree also that you ca not legislate morality.  skip and stephen a.  is reaction to mayweather t. i.  brawl URL i added this video because i think it is hilarious that stephen a.  smith says the exact same thing as sterling did in his comments about stiviano.  in fact, the situation between mayweather and ti is similar.  especially, if you believe that sterling is jealousy brought up the comments.  but for some reason it is ok for stephen a.  to talk about race and perception, but not ok for sterling ? the only difference between stephen a smith and sterling is history.  i think that sterling is statements are caustic.  i think it is important to understand when he came from.  he came from the heart of jim crow laws.  he is also jewish, and it is well jews have received there share of racism.  so the comments do not surprise me.  i do not feel that he is wrong for thinking these thoughts.  as long as he is not making racist actions, his comments are about things we may not like, but it is something we must allow.  mainly because, there was a time where anti racist sentiment were vilified as much as donald sterling is comments, and if we did not allow people have their individual thoughts we would never have gotten to where we are today.  so if sterling is ousted it should be on evidence rather than this call.  and based on all the information that has come about, he should keep the clippers.   #  but more importantly she does not appear like gold digger, she feels she earned everything with work.   #  she improves donald is image, and also she seems very committed to him for some reason.   # she improves donald is image, and also she seems very committed to him for some reason.  whenever she talks about donald talks about him very highly, even when she has the opportunity to betray him.  i think you have to respect a person like that.  i find it funny that every lady that i know immediately thinks she was sleeping donald.  i am only trying to change your view that you do not believe she appears to be a gold digger.  she should win an oscar ! please read yungsnuggie is sacred posts.  URL  #  had adam silver not laid the banhammer on sterling there was going to be a player boycott during the playoffs.   #  my understanding is that there is a  good of the league  clause that comes with being a member of the nba, whether you are a player, coach, gm, owner, whatever.  there is also a clause in the bylaws that states that a vote of 0/0 of owners can compel a fellow owner to sell their team.  regardless of whether or not sterling intended for his comments to be made public, they were, and as a result those comments had a severe  potential  negative impact on the league.  had adam silver not laid the banhammer on sterling there was going to be a player boycott during the playoffs.  there was also potential for players and coaches to walk away from the clippers in the offseason doc rivers, namely .  seeing as the clips are one of the ascendant teams in the nba, and there was a potential for a huge negative financial impact on the league, there is a pretty clear cut argument to be made that sterling acted contrary to the good of the league.   #  an organization like the nba specifically exists because it is a collection of people trying to achieve an ideal that is greater than themselves.   #  you seem to be arguing that it is ok to be racist because everyone is racist.  philosophically, that does not fly, and that is the trap that sterling is currently caught in.  an organization like the nba specifically exists because it is a collection of people trying to achieve an ideal that is greater than themselves.  they do not just sit around and say  man, if only some national basketball organization existed, then we could play nation wide games and entertain the masses with this sport.   they go out and make it fucking happen.  any time you do that, you bind yourself to ideals to uphold the legitimacy of that league, and one of the tenants of the league is to keep it inclusive for fans and players.  once the nba starts excluding people, they will lose the favor of the public and cease to operate on the national level like they currently do.  they do not want this ! so whether or not sterling has a right to say whatever bigoted things he wants is not actually the argument as much as you would like it to be.  the actual question is  does the nba feel like keeping him around promotes their brand ?   unless you think right wing political sympathizers are going to pour out of the wood work to support basketball all of a sudden, the answer is clearly  no !   due to that simple fact, sterling is argument has no legs.  as long as he is associated with the nba, the league suffers due to his words.   #  he was already a huge liability due to his shady business practices, and this just gave enough momentum for others to say  enough is enough .   #  what do you mean when you say  nixon was caught  ? caught doing what ? he taped himself.  what he was caught doing was admitting on tape that he was aware of the felonies that were being committed on behalf of his campaign.  as most of us do not commit felonies, we do not worry about that.  he owned a franchise, not a company.  it has different obligations, one of which is to all other owners, as well as to the parent organization.  he was already a huge liability due to his shady business practices, and this just gave enough momentum for others to say  enough is enough .   #  as most of us do not commit felonies, we do not worry about that.   # caught doing what ? he taped himself.  what he was caught doing was admitting on tape that he was aware of the felonies that were being committed on behalf of his campaign.  as most of us do not commit felonies, we do not worry about that.  if i were owner i would be worried about the presidence set if he is ousted based on the tape.  even tiger was caught on tape saying racist things.  it could happen to anyone.  it has different obligations, one of which is to all other owners, as well as to the parent organization.  this is semantics.  he has fiscal responsibility to solve his problems.  if he can do so, he should not lose the team.  not all teams make money.  he is helped his team make money.  that make him a boon for league.  if he craftily takes care of the league problems then he will be fine.
i do not believe economists can predict what the impact of the introduction of a reverse income tax or citizens income would be, and as such all discussions about the policy are meaningless.  the only way to assess if it would work would be to try it out at a national level.  i have been an advocate of the policy for some time as a member of the green party, as it is in the manifesto, and in my gut i feel it works pretty well see link below for details on gp is full economic policy .  URL however i am a real believer in karl poppers theory of knowledge, if you ca not think of a way to falsify a statement then it is meaningless.  i just ca not figure out a way that i could falsify or disprove the need for a citizens income beyond it being introduced and not working.  i do not have enough faith in economists and their ability to model human behaviour, even with the strides that have been made in behavioural economics.  as such i feel all debate around the topic right now is pretty meaningless.  i think that hopefully i am wrong, and that someone can show me a way economists could model for the introduction of such a policy and at least have a rough idea of it is impact.  i have been roped into helping introduce a policy idea to abolish student debt in the uk, but i am stumped in that i did not realise how impossible it is to cost for anything while taking into account the introduction of a citizens income.   #  as such i feel all debate around the topic right now is pretty meaningless.   #  i think that hopefully i am wrong, and that someone can show me a way economists could model for the introduction of such a policy and at least have a rough idea of it is impact.   # i think that hopefully i am wrong, and that someone can show me a way economists could model for the introduction of such a policy and at least have a rough idea of it is impact.  they would need to study the past behavior of higher income earning individuals, profitable corporations and small business response to tax increases or overhead increases in general to discover what how much of a financial incentive will cause them to start to leave the country.  because, this is the weakness in your plan.  someone must pay for it, and if you give the payers enough incentive to leave the country they will.  so the economists will need to try and determine that based on how businesses and individuals responded to past financial incentives.  nafta for example, in 0 gave us manufacturers a huge incentive to move their operations to mexico, and a great many of them did.   #  the uncertainty of a model itself is much harder to estimate than the uncertainty of the data, because each time the model is used to evaluate a system the model is rightness or wrongness can differ by both direction and magnitude.   #  in science and economics uncertainty is something that should be measured for any prediction.  sometimes uncertainty is a product of the quality of the data.  the data itself can be uncertain because the tools used to measure it were uncertain or because you did not get enough data to reliably determine the data is veracity.  in both of these cases, the uncertainty of the data itself and their statistical strength is actually pretty straightforward to measure, if not easy.  data uncertainty is essentially a case of  known known  and  known unknown  sometimes uncertainty is due to the model that is used to make the prediction, like a macroeconomic model is.  the uncertainty of a model itself is much harder to estimate than the uncertainty of the data, because each time the model is used to evaluate a system the model is rightness or wrongness can differ by both direction and magnitude.  usually the model is based on some previous data set, but it is often hard to determine how well the model describes the system until you can measure the system is outcome.  however, over time a model robustness and range of applicability become known better and better.  until then, model uncertainties can often be the results of  unknown unknowns.   op is argument boils down to the following: we have no economic model that can estimate what an inverse income tax would do, because such a model would depend on data that we do not have and nobody has really tried to rigorously test such a model if data does exist.  that is not to say that op is argument is not flawed; we could obtain data with a localize roll out rather than a national one, or from looking at similar situations in other countries.  until we do those things then our data uncertainty and our model uncertainty are undefined, making any such predictions meaningless and valueless, rather than just valueless.  tl;dr: economic uncertainty has nothing to do with being sure or unsure of your predictions and it an actually part of a measurable prediction.  op is saying that the economic uncertainties ca not even be estimated due to lack of data, which makes the specific prediction op is describing essentially impossible.   #  this is what i mean by an event convergence.   #  i would be willing to stipulate that cause  effect always happens, only that that model is missing a vital component in the equation, which is time.  when i say causality does not work, i may not mean that the chain from cause to effect does not exist, only their positions are reversed on the timeline.  the regular interpretation of causality looks like this: a cause  effect   time we will call this regular causality.  but it may also look like this: b effect  cause   time we will call this special causality.  there are examples of special causality happening all the time, only on the quantum level.  at the scale of the sun, or even of a regular human being, things are a lot more complicated and chaotic, and due to interaction of particles, they may cancel each other out.  a human being has 0 x 0 0 atoms in his body, so to count the number of subatomic particles, you will probably have to add a few extra zeroes to that number.  so it is true that a vast majority of the time, you simply ca not tell what is going to happen, because there is only a, regular causality occuring.  but the power of probability also states that every once in a while, the quantum state of a macro object may reach a harmonic state and allow an example of b, or special causality to occur.  once it does, then it means you will have experienced an event that is the effect,  first , and that the cause is still yet to come  in the future .  this means that the odds of the cause happening sometime later is now 0.  you may not know when or where it will happen, but it will definitely happen.  but even then, i suppose there is a chance it wo not happen, but that would require the entire universe to cease to exist to prevent it from happening.  this is what i mean by an event convergence.  effect, then cause.   #  so you do not believe a unified theory exists ?  #  so you do not believe a unified theory exists ? those are obviously not relevant at this scale.  but i was also talking about very rare occurrences where it definitely impacts the macro scale.  they might not happen a trillion times per second, but they might happen once a few years, and when they do hit, they have massive repercussions on reality.  i cannot imagine high energy events which are able to violate traditional causality and descriptions of space time that would not impact hundreds of millions of lives, or cause billions in damage.   #  i agree that we need a theory first before the statement can be verified.   #  i agree that we need a theory first before the statement can be verified.  but we do not need verification to see examples in experimental data.  i guess the difference is, i have seen it, and perhaps you have not.  so the question really is, what are the benefits of a brilliant mind pulling a theory out of nothing, and then presenting it to the rest of the world ? recognition ? wealth ? self masturbation ? in the later stages of einstein is life, he was hit by a lot of remorse for introducing atomic energy to the world.  if that is akin to handing a locked and loaded ak 0 to a ten year old, then giving the world a unified theory would be like handing a 0 year old a backpack nuke with a dead man is trigger.
seeing google is self driving cars blow up on social networking feeds has seemed to gotten lots of people really excited.  i get why they are good in terms of safety and law abidance, but if it cannot be manually driven i do not really see why the point as software failures, malfunctions or whatever would mean you ca not go anywhere.  it seems like google is pumping a fair amount of money into this when there are more important issues.  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.  it just does not seem like something we need.  which mean it can join the pile of unnecessary shit floating on this earth.   #  why the point as software failures, malfunctions or whatever would mean you ca not go anywhere.   #  just like a normal car can malfunction.   # just like a normal car can malfunction.  the pros outweigh the cons.  actually self driving cars will potentially lower emissions by having cars draft one another at distances that human drivers would be able to do.  also, the reason google is pouring money into this project is because it will make them money.  they are not running this as a charity.  there were 0 million crashes in 0 in the us.  these wrecks killed 0,0 people and injured another 0 million.  maybe we do not  need  it, but it will certainly benefit society.   #  would not the software problems add on to the normal automotive ones ?  #  would not the software problems add on to the normal automotive ones ? emissions lowered through drafting seems cool but it does not seem to be the heart of the problem, that being we have a fossil fuel dependant mode of travel.  i understand google is a business but it kind of seems like a google glass kind of deal that i am not so sure is necessary or needed.  safety i understand.  did not realise it was so high in the us.  not really sure i have any rebuttal for that one.  car crashes are pretty horrific.  would not all cars, buses and trucks on the road have to be self driving cars for safety to be vastly improved though ?  #  do you not see the point of creating new computers, movies, planes, drugs, etc.   # yes, but my point was that all cars have their malfunctions.  a slightly higher error rate is worth it when you consider the benefits of autonomous travel.  yes, but it is a start.  it would be a little absurd to set the bar at, forget any solution that does not deal 0 with the problem.  drafting will lower emissions significantly and thus make a contribution towards fixing that problem even if it does not solve it entirely.  ok, first of necessary and needed are the same thing.  secondly, what business produces things that people  need,  most produces things people want or ill benefit from but few produce something that people actually need.  you have set an arbitrary standard that neither google or any other company has measured itself by.  do you not see the point of creating new computers, movies, planes, drugs, etc.  ? preventing 0 million wrecks every year sounds like a good investment.  nope, even just one car with it improves your safety.  the computer is a much safer driver than you, so think about the chances that you will cause a crash and then reduce them to around 0.  also, once this becomes profitable we will quickly see it introduced into the mainstream and then mandated by law.  i do not think a child born today will ever drive a car manually.   #  they could drive at a consistent speed which is better for fuel economy and longevity.   #  the software problems would add onto the normal car problems, but you would also have cars driven correctly.  computers do not have lead feet.  they do not grind the gears, they do not speed up too much and have to slam on the brakes all the time.  they could drive at a consistent speed which is better for fuel economy and longevity.  plus, the software does not have to communicate with the internet, making it easier to make it more robust.  just adding a few self driving cars would do nothing for safety, but with enough the balance would begin to tip.  not only would they avoid causing accidents, but they would also avoid being hit.  computers can watch 0 directions at once a lot better than you can.  so you have reductions on both ends there.   #  it is the fact that people have no clue what is going on, brake when they do not need to, merge randomly, etc that causes traffic to stop.   #  no, there is plenty of capacity for cars if they were constantly moving forward, perfectly spaced, with no unnecessary braking.  it is the fact that people have no clue what is going on, brake when they do not need to, merge randomly, etc that causes traffic to stop.  remember, in a network of self driving cars, they would all be in communication, so there would be nothing unexpected.  everything would be coordinated perfectly.  every car on the road would know when every other car needs to exit, and gaps would be created seamlessly with no delays.  it is this networking capability of a fully automated traffic system that will make the big differences.
seeing google is self driving cars blow up on social networking feeds has seemed to gotten lots of people really excited.  i get why they are good in terms of safety and law abidance, but if it cannot be manually driven i do not really see why the point as software failures, malfunctions or whatever would mean you ca not go anywhere.  it seems like google is pumping a fair amount of money into this when there are more important issues.  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.  it just does not seem like something we need.  which mean it can join the pile of unnecessary shit floating on this earth.   #  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.   #  actually self driving cars will potentially lower emissions by having cars draft one another at distances that human drivers would be able to do.   # just like a normal car can malfunction.  the pros outweigh the cons.  actually self driving cars will potentially lower emissions by having cars draft one another at distances that human drivers would be able to do.  also, the reason google is pouring money into this project is because it will make them money.  they are not running this as a charity.  there were 0 million crashes in 0 in the us.  these wrecks killed 0,0 people and injured another 0 million.  maybe we do not  need  it, but it will certainly benefit society.   #  did not realise it was so high in the us.   #  would not the software problems add on to the normal automotive ones ? emissions lowered through drafting seems cool but it does not seem to be the heart of the problem, that being we have a fossil fuel dependant mode of travel.  i understand google is a business but it kind of seems like a google glass kind of deal that i am not so sure is necessary or needed.  safety i understand.  did not realise it was so high in the us.  not really sure i have any rebuttal for that one.  car crashes are pretty horrific.  would not all cars, buses and trucks on the road have to be self driving cars for safety to be vastly improved though ?  #  nope, even just one car with it improves your safety.   # yes, but my point was that all cars have their malfunctions.  a slightly higher error rate is worth it when you consider the benefits of autonomous travel.  yes, but it is a start.  it would be a little absurd to set the bar at, forget any solution that does not deal 0 with the problem.  drafting will lower emissions significantly and thus make a contribution towards fixing that problem even if it does not solve it entirely.  ok, first of necessary and needed are the same thing.  secondly, what business produces things that people  need,  most produces things people want or ill benefit from but few produce something that people actually need.  you have set an arbitrary standard that neither google or any other company has measured itself by.  do you not see the point of creating new computers, movies, planes, drugs, etc.  ? preventing 0 million wrecks every year sounds like a good investment.  nope, even just one car with it improves your safety.  the computer is a much safer driver than you, so think about the chances that you will cause a crash and then reduce them to around 0.  also, once this becomes profitable we will quickly see it introduced into the mainstream and then mandated by law.  i do not think a child born today will ever drive a car manually.   #  they could drive at a consistent speed which is better for fuel economy and longevity.   #  the software problems would add onto the normal car problems, but you would also have cars driven correctly.  computers do not have lead feet.  they do not grind the gears, they do not speed up too much and have to slam on the brakes all the time.  they could drive at a consistent speed which is better for fuel economy and longevity.  plus, the software does not have to communicate with the internet, making it easier to make it more robust.  just adding a few self driving cars would do nothing for safety, but with enough the balance would begin to tip.  not only would they avoid causing accidents, but they would also avoid being hit.  computers can watch 0 directions at once a lot better than you can.  so you have reductions on both ends there.   #  no, there is plenty of capacity for cars if they were constantly moving forward, perfectly spaced, with no unnecessary braking.   #  no, there is plenty of capacity for cars if they were constantly moving forward, perfectly spaced, with no unnecessary braking.  it is the fact that people have no clue what is going on, brake when they do not need to, merge randomly, etc that causes traffic to stop.  remember, in a network of self driving cars, they would all be in communication, so there would be nothing unexpected.  everything would be coordinated perfectly.  every car on the road would know when every other car needs to exit, and gaps would be created seamlessly with no delays.  it is this networking capability of a fully automated traffic system that will make the big differences.
seeing google is self driving cars blow up on social networking feeds has seemed to gotten lots of people really excited.  i get why they are good in terms of safety and law abidance, but if it cannot be manually driven i do not really see why the point as software failures, malfunctions or whatever would mean you ca not go anywhere.  it seems like google is pumping a fair amount of money into this when there are more important issues.  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.  it just does not seem like something we need.  which mean it can join the pile of unnecessary shit floating on this earth.   #  it just does not seem like something we need.   #  there were 0 million crashes in 0 in the us.   # just like a normal car can malfunction.  the pros outweigh the cons.  actually self driving cars will potentially lower emissions by having cars draft one another at distances that human drivers would be able to do.  also, the reason google is pouring money into this project is because it will make them money.  they are not running this as a charity.  there were 0 million crashes in 0 in the us.  these wrecks killed 0,0 people and injured another 0 million.  maybe we do not  need  it, but it will certainly benefit society.   #  i understand google is a business but it kind of seems like a google glass kind of deal that i am not so sure is necessary or needed.   #  would not the software problems add on to the normal automotive ones ? emissions lowered through drafting seems cool but it does not seem to be the heart of the problem, that being we have a fossil fuel dependant mode of travel.  i understand google is a business but it kind of seems like a google glass kind of deal that i am not so sure is necessary or needed.  safety i understand.  did not realise it was so high in the us.  not really sure i have any rebuttal for that one.  car crashes are pretty horrific.  would not all cars, buses and trucks on the road have to be self driving cars for safety to be vastly improved though ?  #  it would be a little absurd to set the bar at, forget any solution that does not deal 0 with the problem.   # yes, but my point was that all cars have their malfunctions.  a slightly higher error rate is worth it when you consider the benefits of autonomous travel.  yes, but it is a start.  it would be a little absurd to set the bar at, forget any solution that does not deal 0 with the problem.  drafting will lower emissions significantly and thus make a contribution towards fixing that problem even if it does not solve it entirely.  ok, first of necessary and needed are the same thing.  secondly, what business produces things that people  need,  most produces things people want or ill benefit from but few produce something that people actually need.  you have set an arbitrary standard that neither google or any other company has measured itself by.  do you not see the point of creating new computers, movies, planes, drugs, etc.  ? preventing 0 million wrecks every year sounds like a good investment.  nope, even just one car with it improves your safety.  the computer is a much safer driver than you, so think about the chances that you will cause a crash and then reduce them to around 0.  also, once this becomes profitable we will quickly see it introduced into the mainstream and then mandated by law.  i do not think a child born today will ever drive a car manually.   #  plus, the software does not have to communicate with the internet, making it easier to make it more robust.   #  the software problems would add onto the normal car problems, but you would also have cars driven correctly.  computers do not have lead feet.  they do not grind the gears, they do not speed up too much and have to slam on the brakes all the time.  they could drive at a consistent speed which is better for fuel economy and longevity.  plus, the software does not have to communicate with the internet, making it easier to make it more robust.  just adding a few self driving cars would do nothing for safety, but with enough the balance would begin to tip.  not only would they avoid causing accidents, but they would also avoid being hit.  computers can watch 0 directions at once a lot better than you can.  so you have reductions on both ends there.   #  every car on the road would know when every other car needs to exit, and gaps would be created seamlessly with no delays.   #  no, there is plenty of capacity for cars if they were constantly moving forward, perfectly spaced, with no unnecessary braking.  it is the fact that people have no clue what is going on, brake when they do not need to, merge randomly, etc that causes traffic to stop.  remember, in a network of self driving cars, they would all be in communication, so there would be nothing unexpected.  everything would be coordinated perfectly.  every car on the road would know when every other car needs to exit, and gaps would be created seamlessly with no delays.  it is this networking capability of a fully automated traffic system that will make the big differences.
seeing google is self driving cars blow up on social networking feeds has seemed to gotten lots of people really excited.  i get why they are good in terms of safety and law abidance, but if it cannot be manually driven i do not really see why the point as software failures, malfunctions or whatever would mean you ca not go anywhere.  it seems like google is pumping a fair amount of money into this when there are more important issues.  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.  it just does not seem like something we need.  which mean it can join the pile of unnecessary shit floating on this earth.   #  it just does not seem like something we need.   #  yes, but my point was that all cars have their malfunctions.   # yes, but my point was that all cars have their malfunctions.  a slightly higher error rate is worth it when you consider the benefits of autonomous travel.  yes, but it is a start.  it would be a little absurd to set the bar at, forget any solution that does not deal 0 with the problem.  drafting will lower emissions significantly and thus make a contribution towards fixing that problem even if it does not solve it entirely.  ok, first of necessary and needed are the same thing.  secondly, what business produces things that people  need,  most produces things people want or ill benefit from but few produce something that people actually need.  you have set an arbitrary standard that neither google or any other company has measured itself by.  do you not see the point of creating new computers, movies, planes, drugs, etc.  ? preventing 0 million wrecks every year sounds like a good investment.  nope, even just one car with it improves your safety.  the computer is a much safer driver than you, so think about the chances that you will cause a crash and then reduce them to around 0.  also, once this becomes profitable we will quickly see it introduced into the mainstream and then mandated by law.  i do not think a child born today will ever drive a car manually.   #  these wrecks killed 0,0 people and injured another 0 million.   # just like a normal car can malfunction.  the pros outweigh the cons.  actually self driving cars will potentially lower emissions by having cars draft one another at distances that human drivers would be able to do.  also, the reason google is pouring money into this project is because it will make them money.  they are not running this as a charity.  there were 0 million crashes in 0 in the us.  these wrecks killed 0,0 people and injured another 0 million.  maybe we do not  need  it, but it will certainly benefit society.   #  did not realise it was so high in the us.   #  would not the software problems add on to the normal automotive ones ? emissions lowered through drafting seems cool but it does not seem to be the heart of the problem, that being we have a fossil fuel dependant mode of travel.  i understand google is a business but it kind of seems like a google glass kind of deal that i am not so sure is necessary or needed.  safety i understand.  did not realise it was so high in the us.  not really sure i have any rebuttal for that one.  car crashes are pretty horrific.  would not all cars, buses and trucks on the road have to be self driving cars for safety to be vastly improved though ?  #  computers can watch 0 directions at once a lot better than you can.   #  the software problems would add onto the normal car problems, but you would also have cars driven correctly.  computers do not have lead feet.  they do not grind the gears, they do not speed up too much and have to slam on the brakes all the time.  they could drive at a consistent speed which is better for fuel economy and longevity.  plus, the software does not have to communicate with the internet, making it easier to make it more robust.  just adding a few self driving cars would do nothing for safety, but with enough the balance would begin to tip.  not only would they avoid causing accidents, but they would also avoid being hit.  computers can watch 0 directions at once a lot better than you can.  so you have reductions on both ends there.   #  remember, in a network of self driving cars, they would all be in communication, so there would be nothing unexpected.   #  no, there is plenty of capacity for cars if they were constantly moving forward, perfectly spaced, with no unnecessary braking.  it is the fact that people have no clue what is going on, brake when they do not need to, merge randomly, etc that causes traffic to stop.  remember, in a network of self driving cars, they would all be in communication, so there would be nothing unexpected.  everything would be coordinated perfectly.  every car on the road would know when every other car needs to exit, and gaps would be created seamlessly with no delays.  it is this networking capability of a fully automated traffic system that will make the big differences.
seeing google is self driving cars blow up on social networking feeds has seemed to gotten lots of people really excited.  i get why they are good in terms of safety and law abidance, but if it cannot be manually driven i do not really see why the point as software failures, malfunctions or whatever would mean you ca not go anywhere.  it seems like google is pumping a fair amount of money into this when there are more important issues.  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.  it just does not seem like something we need.  which mean it can join the pile of unnecessary shit floating on this earth.   #  if it cannot be manually driven i do not really see why the point as software failures, malfunctions or whatever would mean you ca not go anywhere.   #  just like things on regular cars can malfunction as well to the point that the car ca not be driven.   # just like things on regular cars can malfunction as well to the point that the car ca not be driven.  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.  google is a software company, meaning that the expertise of the company itself is not to create a machine with lower emissions but rather to create software which has various uses.  other car companies are working on creating zero emission cars which one day may be able to use the software that google creates so that we can have zero emitting self driving cars.  saying that google should be working on a zero emission car instead of self driving software is like saying that an electrician should fix your pipes while a plumber rewires your house.  so should all companies that make things that we do not need stop their production of these things ? for example, sharp makes tvs.  we really do not need tvs, so should sharp stop making them ? should bose stop making headphones since we really do not need them ? aside from these points, there are various positives to self driving cars.  once the software is perfected to the point that it is ready for consumers to purchase and its use is widespread, we will most likely see a decrease in car accidents as a result of driver error.  you wo not have to worry about someone falling asleep at the wheel, someone getting road rage, or drunk drivers since cars will be driving themselves.  aside from this, if every car is connected through a computer software, each car can take different routes to the same destinations to lower traffic.  for example, instead of having everyone cram onto a highway during rush hour going in or out of a major city, self driving cars can all determine what the best possible route is for them based on the routes of other self driving cars.   #  actually self driving cars will potentially lower emissions by having cars draft one another at distances that human drivers would be able to do.   # just like a normal car can malfunction.  the pros outweigh the cons.  actually self driving cars will potentially lower emissions by having cars draft one another at distances that human drivers would be able to do.  also, the reason google is pouring money into this project is because it will make them money.  they are not running this as a charity.  there were 0 million crashes in 0 in the us.  these wrecks killed 0,0 people and injured another 0 million.  maybe we do not  need  it, but it will certainly benefit society.   #  i understand google is a business but it kind of seems like a google glass kind of deal that i am not so sure is necessary or needed.   #  would not the software problems add on to the normal automotive ones ? emissions lowered through drafting seems cool but it does not seem to be the heart of the problem, that being we have a fossil fuel dependant mode of travel.  i understand google is a business but it kind of seems like a google glass kind of deal that i am not so sure is necessary or needed.  safety i understand.  did not realise it was so high in the us.  not really sure i have any rebuttal for that one.  car crashes are pretty horrific.  would not all cars, buses and trucks on the road have to be self driving cars for safety to be vastly improved though ?  #  yes, but my point was that all cars have their malfunctions.   # yes, but my point was that all cars have their malfunctions.  a slightly higher error rate is worth it when you consider the benefits of autonomous travel.  yes, but it is a start.  it would be a little absurd to set the bar at, forget any solution that does not deal 0 with the problem.  drafting will lower emissions significantly and thus make a contribution towards fixing that problem even if it does not solve it entirely.  ok, first of necessary and needed are the same thing.  secondly, what business produces things that people  need,  most produces things people want or ill benefit from but few produce something that people actually need.  you have set an arbitrary standard that neither google or any other company has measured itself by.  do you not see the point of creating new computers, movies, planes, drugs, etc.  ? preventing 0 million wrecks every year sounds like a good investment.  nope, even just one car with it improves your safety.  the computer is a much safer driver than you, so think about the chances that you will cause a crash and then reduce them to around 0.  also, once this becomes profitable we will quickly see it introduced into the mainstream and then mandated by law.  i do not think a child born today will ever drive a car manually.   #  plus, the software does not have to communicate with the internet, making it easier to make it more robust.   #  the software problems would add onto the normal car problems, but you would also have cars driven correctly.  computers do not have lead feet.  they do not grind the gears, they do not speed up too much and have to slam on the brakes all the time.  they could drive at a consistent speed which is better for fuel economy and longevity.  plus, the software does not have to communicate with the internet, making it easier to make it more robust.  just adding a few self driving cars would do nothing for safety, but with enough the balance would begin to tip.  not only would they avoid causing accidents, but they would also avoid being hit.  computers can watch 0 directions at once a lot better than you can.  so you have reductions on both ends there.
seeing google is self driving cars blow up on social networking feeds has seemed to gotten lots of people really excited.  i get why they are good in terms of safety and law abidance, but if it cannot be manually driven i do not really see why the point as software failures, malfunctions or whatever would mean you ca not go anywhere.  it seems like google is pumping a fair amount of money into this when there are more important issues.  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.  it just does not seem like something we need.  which mean it can join the pile of unnecessary shit floating on this earth.   #  it seems like google is pumping a fair amount of money into this when there are more important issues.   #  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.   # just like things on regular cars can malfunction as well to the point that the car ca not be driven.  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.  google is a software company, meaning that the expertise of the company itself is not to create a machine with lower emissions but rather to create software which has various uses.  other car companies are working on creating zero emission cars which one day may be able to use the software that google creates so that we can have zero emitting self driving cars.  saying that google should be working on a zero emission car instead of self driving software is like saying that an electrician should fix your pipes while a plumber rewires your house.  so should all companies that make things that we do not need stop their production of these things ? for example, sharp makes tvs.  we really do not need tvs, so should sharp stop making them ? should bose stop making headphones since we really do not need them ? aside from these points, there are various positives to self driving cars.  once the software is perfected to the point that it is ready for consumers to purchase and its use is widespread, we will most likely see a decrease in car accidents as a result of driver error.  you wo not have to worry about someone falling asleep at the wheel, someone getting road rage, or drunk drivers since cars will be driving themselves.  aside from this, if every car is connected through a computer software, each car can take different routes to the same destinations to lower traffic.  for example, instead of having everyone cram onto a highway during rush hour going in or out of a major city, self driving cars can all determine what the best possible route is for them based on the routes of other self driving cars.   #  there were 0 million crashes in 0 in the us.   # just like a normal car can malfunction.  the pros outweigh the cons.  actually self driving cars will potentially lower emissions by having cars draft one another at distances that human drivers would be able to do.  also, the reason google is pouring money into this project is because it will make them money.  they are not running this as a charity.  there were 0 million crashes in 0 in the us.  these wrecks killed 0,0 people and injured another 0 million.  maybe we do not  need  it, but it will certainly benefit society.   #  i understand google is a business but it kind of seems like a google glass kind of deal that i am not so sure is necessary or needed.   #  would not the software problems add on to the normal automotive ones ? emissions lowered through drafting seems cool but it does not seem to be the heart of the problem, that being we have a fossil fuel dependant mode of travel.  i understand google is a business but it kind of seems like a google glass kind of deal that i am not so sure is necessary or needed.  safety i understand.  did not realise it was so high in the us.  not really sure i have any rebuttal for that one.  car crashes are pretty horrific.  would not all cars, buses and trucks on the road have to be self driving cars for safety to be vastly improved though ?  #  yes, but my point was that all cars have their malfunctions.   # yes, but my point was that all cars have their malfunctions.  a slightly higher error rate is worth it when you consider the benefits of autonomous travel.  yes, but it is a start.  it would be a little absurd to set the bar at, forget any solution that does not deal 0 with the problem.  drafting will lower emissions significantly and thus make a contribution towards fixing that problem even if it does not solve it entirely.  ok, first of necessary and needed are the same thing.  secondly, what business produces things that people  need,  most produces things people want or ill benefit from but few produce something that people actually need.  you have set an arbitrary standard that neither google or any other company has measured itself by.  do you not see the point of creating new computers, movies, planes, drugs, etc.  ? preventing 0 million wrecks every year sounds like a good investment.  nope, even just one car with it improves your safety.  the computer is a much safer driver than you, so think about the chances that you will cause a crash and then reduce them to around 0.  also, once this becomes profitable we will quickly see it introduced into the mainstream and then mandated by law.  i do not think a child born today will ever drive a car manually.   #  the software problems would add onto the normal car problems, but you would also have cars driven correctly.   #  the software problems would add onto the normal car problems, but you would also have cars driven correctly.  computers do not have lead feet.  they do not grind the gears, they do not speed up too much and have to slam on the brakes all the time.  they could drive at a consistent speed which is better for fuel economy and longevity.  plus, the software does not have to communicate with the internet, making it easier to make it more robust.  just adding a few self driving cars would do nothing for safety, but with enough the balance would begin to tip.  not only would they avoid causing accidents, but they would also avoid being hit.  computers can watch 0 directions at once a lot better than you can.  so you have reductions on both ends there.
seeing google is self driving cars blow up on social networking feeds has seemed to gotten lots of people really excited.  i get why they are good in terms of safety and law abidance, but if it cannot be manually driven i do not really see why the point as software failures, malfunctions or whatever would mean you ca not go anywhere.  it seems like google is pumping a fair amount of money into this when there are more important issues.  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.  it just does not seem like something we need.  which mean it can join the pile of unnecessary shit floating on this earth.   #  it just does not seem like something we need.   #  so should all companies that make things that we do not need stop their production of these things ?  # just like things on regular cars can malfunction as well to the point that the car ca not be driven.  say if they had focused on inventing a zero carbon emission car or whatever.  google is a software company, meaning that the expertise of the company itself is not to create a machine with lower emissions but rather to create software which has various uses.  other car companies are working on creating zero emission cars which one day may be able to use the software that google creates so that we can have zero emitting self driving cars.  saying that google should be working on a zero emission car instead of self driving software is like saying that an electrician should fix your pipes while a plumber rewires your house.  so should all companies that make things that we do not need stop their production of these things ? for example, sharp makes tvs.  we really do not need tvs, so should sharp stop making them ? should bose stop making headphones since we really do not need them ? aside from these points, there are various positives to self driving cars.  once the software is perfected to the point that it is ready for consumers to purchase and its use is widespread, we will most likely see a decrease in car accidents as a result of driver error.  you wo not have to worry about someone falling asleep at the wheel, someone getting road rage, or drunk drivers since cars will be driving themselves.  aside from this, if every car is connected through a computer software, each car can take different routes to the same destinations to lower traffic.  for example, instead of having everyone cram onto a highway during rush hour going in or out of a major city, self driving cars can all determine what the best possible route is for them based on the routes of other self driving cars.   #  maybe we do not  need  it, but it will certainly benefit society.   # just like a normal car can malfunction.  the pros outweigh the cons.  actually self driving cars will potentially lower emissions by having cars draft one another at distances that human drivers would be able to do.  also, the reason google is pouring money into this project is because it will make them money.  they are not running this as a charity.  there were 0 million crashes in 0 in the us.  these wrecks killed 0,0 people and injured another 0 million.  maybe we do not  need  it, but it will certainly benefit society.   #  not really sure i have any rebuttal for that one.   #  would not the software problems add on to the normal automotive ones ? emissions lowered through drafting seems cool but it does not seem to be the heart of the problem, that being we have a fossil fuel dependant mode of travel.  i understand google is a business but it kind of seems like a google glass kind of deal that i am not so sure is necessary or needed.  safety i understand.  did not realise it was so high in the us.  not really sure i have any rebuttal for that one.  car crashes are pretty horrific.  would not all cars, buses and trucks on the road have to be self driving cars for safety to be vastly improved though ?  #  preventing 0 million wrecks every year sounds like a good investment.   # yes, but my point was that all cars have their malfunctions.  a slightly higher error rate is worth it when you consider the benefits of autonomous travel.  yes, but it is a start.  it would be a little absurd to set the bar at, forget any solution that does not deal 0 with the problem.  drafting will lower emissions significantly and thus make a contribution towards fixing that problem even if it does not solve it entirely.  ok, first of necessary and needed are the same thing.  secondly, what business produces things that people  need,  most produces things people want or ill benefit from but few produce something that people actually need.  you have set an arbitrary standard that neither google or any other company has measured itself by.  do you not see the point of creating new computers, movies, planes, drugs, etc.  ? preventing 0 million wrecks every year sounds like a good investment.  nope, even just one car with it improves your safety.  the computer is a much safer driver than you, so think about the chances that you will cause a crash and then reduce them to around 0.  also, once this becomes profitable we will quickly see it introduced into the mainstream and then mandated by law.  i do not think a child born today will ever drive a car manually.   #  not only would they avoid causing accidents, but they would also avoid being hit.   #  the software problems would add onto the normal car problems, but you would also have cars driven correctly.  computers do not have lead feet.  they do not grind the gears, they do not speed up too much and have to slam on the brakes all the time.  they could drive at a consistent speed which is better for fuel economy and longevity.  plus, the software does not have to communicate with the internet, making it easier to make it more robust.  just adding a few self driving cars would do nothing for safety, but with enough the balance would begin to tip.  not only would they avoid causing accidents, but they would also avoid being hit.  computers can watch 0 directions at once a lot better than you can.  so you have reductions on both ends there.
instead, we should be emphasizing that children should know what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  if i just love the arts and want to go to school for theatre or sculpture or something, but i also wish to make six figures in my life, i should be made aware that i have probably picked the wrong career path.  if there is one thing that mike rowe has shown us it is that a lot of blue collar jobs that many do not want are actually very lucrative financially.  i think people place too much emphasis on job satisfaction.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  which sounds more soul destroying ? going to school for sculpting then having a serving job at 0 hours a week to make ends meet and living just above the poverty line, or learning skills that will provide a decent income and probably give you benefits and vacation time in order to pursue your sculpting passions ? a lot of college students go into less lucrative degrees because they came straight out of high school and do not realize the truth about being an adult with day to day expenses.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.   #  instead, we should be emphasizing that children should know what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.   #  this is exactly what we are telling children when we tell them to follow their dreams.   # this is exactly what we are telling children when we tell them to follow their dreams.  their dreams are what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  then following your dreams would be to figure out the best way to make 0 figures in the art field.  this may be your dream, but not everyone cares about making 0 figures and thus not everyone necessarily dreams of making 0 figures.  many people would be just to find something they enjoy and to be able to make enough money from it to live comfortably.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  but what is wrong with pursuing a career that you actually enjoy ? why ca not a job be both.  a job is something that you devote a great deal of time to.  why would you not want to devote this time to something that you enjoy, or why would not we encourage our children to do just that ? some people would be just fine with the first option you mentioned.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.  and who is to say that they would complete a  more lucrative degree  ? for example, most lucrative degrees certain sciences, engineering, finance, etc.  require at least decent math skills.  if a child is not good at math and does not enjoy it, why should we push them towards a degree and field in which they are required to be able to do high level math ? this is essentially setting children up to fail.   #  if people do not pursue their dreams, then they do not live, they simply survive.   #  you are just opposed to one specific aspect of the  following your dreams  philosophy though.  if people do not pursue their dreams, then they do not live, they simply survive.  i find it a good thing to have something to look forward to.  travelling, learning something new.  have a bucket list.  if i am getting you right, you think that people should just view jobs in particular as a means to an end.  the end still being pursuing one dreams.  so i do not think teaching children to follow their dreams is wrong.  i believe the principle is right and we should teach them that as well as alternative ways to pursue them.   #  you can make a decent living at a nine to five job and have plenty of time and money to ski and the ability to travel to other locations to ski.   #  i am not saying you should nurture the desire for money, i am saying children should recognize their goals and how to accomplish them.  if six figures is important to them, they should learn what they need to to do to make that happen.  i disagree.  if you love to ski and it is your passion, that does not mean you have to work at a ski lodge.  you can make a decent living at a nine to five job and have plenty of time and money to ski and the ability to travel to other locations to ski.  in my personal experience, i have found working in what you love tends to take the joy out of it.   #  i am not as rich as i could be if i went into other fields, but i do not hate my job and i do not hate my life.   #  there is nothing wrong with following your dream as long as you understand what the likely outcome is.  i wanted to be a painter when i was little, so i went to art school for graphic design.  i work 0 hours a week, i make decent money and i am most defiantly above the poverty line.  i am not as rich as i could be if i went into other fields, but i do not hate my job and i do not hate my life.  i would rather be poor than do something i hate  everyday  for the rest of my life.  you talk about choosing your own goals in life, i want a job that i can stand going to everyday, but it is also not my main goal in life.  my main goal in life is to be happy, to spend time with the people that i love, to take days off to just be and to live in a way that when i die my life will be worth more than a bank account.  if you do not want that that is fine, follow your own dream of money.   #  you do not have to like your job in order to find happiness.   #  you do not have to like your job in order to find happiness.  but for some people this is important.  you spend roughly 0/0 of your life working.  it can be soul sucking to spend this much time doing something you hate.  for example helping others has always been important to me.  the few times i have had jobs that do not do this has absolutely sucked.  i have also watched my mom work a job for decades that she hates.  she is miserable, unhappy, and depressed, and it has taken a toll on her health.  and she make good money.
instead, we should be emphasizing that children should know what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  if i just love the arts and want to go to school for theatre or sculpture or something, but i also wish to make six figures in my life, i should be made aware that i have probably picked the wrong career path.  if there is one thing that mike rowe has shown us it is that a lot of blue collar jobs that many do not want are actually very lucrative financially.  i think people place too much emphasis on job satisfaction.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  which sounds more soul destroying ? going to school for sculpting then having a serving job at 0 hours a week to make ends meet and living just above the poverty line, or learning skills that will provide a decent income and probably give you benefits and vacation time in order to pursue your sculpting passions ? a lot of college students go into less lucrative degrees because they came straight out of high school and do not realize the truth about being an adult with day to day expenses.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.   #  if i just love the arts and want to go to school for theatre or sculpture or something, but i also wish to make six figures in my life, i should be made aware that i have probably picked the wrong career path.   #  then following your dreams would be to figure out the best way to make 0 figures in the art field.   # this is exactly what we are telling children when we tell them to follow their dreams.  their dreams are what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  then following your dreams would be to figure out the best way to make 0 figures in the art field.  this may be your dream, but not everyone cares about making 0 figures and thus not everyone necessarily dreams of making 0 figures.  many people would be just to find something they enjoy and to be able to make enough money from it to live comfortably.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  but what is wrong with pursuing a career that you actually enjoy ? why ca not a job be both.  a job is something that you devote a great deal of time to.  why would you not want to devote this time to something that you enjoy, or why would not we encourage our children to do just that ? some people would be just fine with the first option you mentioned.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.  and who is to say that they would complete a  more lucrative degree  ? for example, most lucrative degrees certain sciences, engineering, finance, etc.  require at least decent math skills.  if a child is not good at math and does not enjoy it, why should we push them towards a degree and field in which they are required to be able to do high level math ? this is essentially setting children up to fail.   #  if i am getting you right, you think that people should just view jobs in particular as a means to an end.   #  you are just opposed to one specific aspect of the  following your dreams  philosophy though.  if people do not pursue their dreams, then they do not live, they simply survive.  i find it a good thing to have something to look forward to.  travelling, learning something new.  have a bucket list.  if i am getting you right, you think that people should just view jobs in particular as a means to an end.  the end still being pursuing one dreams.  so i do not think teaching children to follow their dreams is wrong.  i believe the principle is right and we should teach them that as well as alternative ways to pursue them.   #  i am not saying you should nurture the desire for money, i am saying children should recognize their goals and how to accomplish them.   #  i am not saying you should nurture the desire for money, i am saying children should recognize their goals and how to accomplish them.  if six figures is important to them, they should learn what they need to to do to make that happen.  i disagree.  if you love to ski and it is your passion, that does not mean you have to work at a ski lodge.  you can make a decent living at a nine to five job and have plenty of time and money to ski and the ability to travel to other locations to ski.  in my personal experience, i have found working in what you love tends to take the joy out of it.   #  i am not as rich as i could be if i went into other fields, but i do not hate my job and i do not hate my life.   #  there is nothing wrong with following your dream as long as you understand what the likely outcome is.  i wanted to be a painter when i was little, so i went to art school for graphic design.  i work 0 hours a week, i make decent money and i am most defiantly above the poverty line.  i am not as rich as i could be if i went into other fields, but i do not hate my job and i do not hate my life.  i would rather be poor than do something i hate  everyday  for the rest of my life.  you talk about choosing your own goals in life, i want a job that i can stand going to everyday, but it is also not my main goal in life.  my main goal in life is to be happy, to spend time with the people that i love, to take days off to just be and to live in a way that when i die my life will be worth more than a bank account.  if you do not want that that is fine, follow your own dream of money.   #  you do not have to like your job in order to find happiness.   #  you do not have to like your job in order to find happiness.  but for some people this is important.  you spend roughly 0/0 of your life working.  it can be soul sucking to spend this much time doing something you hate.  for example helping others has always been important to me.  the few times i have had jobs that do not do this has absolutely sucked.  i have also watched my mom work a job for decades that she hates.  she is miserable, unhappy, and depressed, and it has taken a toll on her health.  and she make good money.
instead, we should be emphasizing that children should know what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  if i just love the arts and want to go to school for theatre or sculpture or something, but i also wish to make six figures in my life, i should be made aware that i have probably picked the wrong career path.  if there is one thing that mike rowe has shown us it is that a lot of blue collar jobs that many do not want are actually very lucrative financially.  i think people place too much emphasis on job satisfaction.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  which sounds more soul destroying ? going to school for sculpting then having a serving job at 0 hours a week to make ends meet and living just above the poverty line, or learning skills that will provide a decent income and probably give you benefits and vacation time in order to pursue your sculpting passions ? a lot of college students go into less lucrative degrees because they came straight out of high school and do not realize the truth about being an adult with day to day expenses.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.   #  i think people place too much emphasis on job satisfaction.   #  a job is just that, a job.   # this is exactly what we are telling children when we tell them to follow their dreams.  their dreams are what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  then following your dreams would be to figure out the best way to make 0 figures in the art field.  this may be your dream, but not everyone cares about making 0 figures and thus not everyone necessarily dreams of making 0 figures.  many people would be just to find something they enjoy and to be able to make enough money from it to live comfortably.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  but what is wrong with pursuing a career that you actually enjoy ? why ca not a job be both.  a job is something that you devote a great deal of time to.  why would you not want to devote this time to something that you enjoy, or why would not we encourage our children to do just that ? some people would be just fine with the first option you mentioned.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.  and who is to say that they would complete a  more lucrative degree  ? for example, most lucrative degrees certain sciences, engineering, finance, etc.  require at least decent math skills.  if a child is not good at math and does not enjoy it, why should we push them towards a degree and field in which they are required to be able to do high level math ? this is essentially setting children up to fail.   #  i find it a good thing to have something to look forward to.   #  you are just opposed to one specific aspect of the  following your dreams  philosophy though.  if people do not pursue their dreams, then they do not live, they simply survive.  i find it a good thing to have something to look forward to.  travelling, learning something new.  have a bucket list.  if i am getting you right, you think that people should just view jobs in particular as a means to an end.  the end still being pursuing one dreams.  so i do not think teaching children to follow their dreams is wrong.  i believe the principle is right and we should teach them that as well as alternative ways to pursue them.   #  if six figures is important to them, they should learn what they need to to do to make that happen.   #  i am not saying you should nurture the desire for money, i am saying children should recognize their goals and how to accomplish them.  if six figures is important to them, they should learn what they need to to do to make that happen.  i disagree.  if you love to ski and it is your passion, that does not mean you have to work at a ski lodge.  you can make a decent living at a nine to five job and have plenty of time and money to ski and the ability to travel to other locations to ski.  in my personal experience, i have found working in what you love tends to take the joy out of it.   #  if you do not want that that is fine, follow your own dream of money.   #  there is nothing wrong with following your dream as long as you understand what the likely outcome is.  i wanted to be a painter when i was little, so i went to art school for graphic design.  i work 0 hours a week, i make decent money and i am most defiantly above the poverty line.  i am not as rich as i could be if i went into other fields, but i do not hate my job and i do not hate my life.  i would rather be poor than do something i hate  everyday  for the rest of my life.  you talk about choosing your own goals in life, i want a job that i can stand going to everyday, but it is also not my main goal in life.  my main goal in life is to be happy, to spend time with the people that i love, to take days off to just be and to live in a way that when i die my life will be worth more than a bank account.  if you do not want that that is fine, follow your own dream of money.   #  it can be soul sucking to spend this much time doing something you hate.   #  you do not have to like your job in order to find happiness.  but for some people this is important.  you spend roughly 0/0 of your life working.  it can be soul sucking to spend this much time doing something you hate.  for example helping others has always been important to me.  the few times i have had jobs that do not do this has absolutely sucked.  i have also watched my mom work a job for decades that she hates.  she is miserable, unhappy, and depressed, and it has taken a toll on her health.  and she make good money.
instead, we should be emphasizing that children should know what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  if i just love the arts and want to go to school for theatre or sculpture or something, but i also wish to make six figures in my life, i should be made aware that i have probably picked the wrong career path.  if there is one thing that mike rowe has shown us it is that a lot of blue collar jobs that many do not want are actually very lucrative financially.  i think people place too much emphasis on job satisfaction.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  which sounds more soul destroying ? going to school for sculpting then having a serving job at 0 hours a week to make ends meet and living just above the poverty line, or learning skills that will provide a decent income and probably give you benefits and vacation time in order to pursue your sculpting passions ? a lot of college students go into less lucrative degrees because they came straight out of high school and do not realize the truth about being an adult with day to day expenses.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.   #  a lot of college students go into less lucrative degrees because they came straight out of high school and do not realize the truth about being an adult with day to day expenses.   #  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.   # this is exactly what we are telling children when we tell them to follow their dreams.  their dreams are what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  then following your dreams would be to figure out the best way to make 0 figures in the art field.  this may be your dream, but not everyone cares about making 0 figures and thus not everyone necessarily dreams of making 0 figures.  many people would be just to find something they enjoy and to be able to make enough money from it to live comfortably.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  but what is wrong with pursuing a career that you actually enjoy ? why ca not a job be both.  a job is something that you devote a great deal of time to.  why would you not want to devote this time to something that you enjoy, or why would not we encourage our children to do just that ? some people would be just fine with the first option you mentioned.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.  and who is to say that they would complete a  more lucrative degree  ? for example, most lucrative degrees certain sciences, engineering, finance, etc.  require at least decent math skills.  if a child is not good at math and does not enjoy it, why should we push them towards a degree and field in which they are required to be able to do high level math ? this is essentially setting children up to fail.   #  so i do not think teaching children to follow their dreams is wrong.   #  you are just opposed to one specific aspect of the  following your dreams  philosophy though.  if people do not pursue their dreams, then they do not live, they simply survive.  i find it a good thing to have something to look forward to.  travelling, learning something new.  have a bucket list.  if i am getting you right, you think that people should just view jobs in particular as a means to an end.  the end still being pursuing one dreams.  so i do not think teaching children to follow their dreams is wrong.  i believe the principle is right and we should teach them that as well as alternative ways to pursue them.   #  you can make a decent living at a nine to five job and have plenty of time and money to ski and the ability to travel to other locations to ski.   #  i am not saying you should nurture the desire for money, i am saying children should recognize their goals and how to accomplish them.  if six figures is important to them, they should learn what they need to to do to make that happen.  i disagree.  if you love to ski and it is your passion, that does not mean you have to work at a ski lodge.  you can make a decent living at a nine to five job and have plenty of time and money to ski and the ability to travel to other locations to ski.  in my personal experience, i have found working in what you love tends to take the joy out of it.   #  i would rather be poor than do something i hate  everyday  for the rest of my life.   #  there is nothing wrong with following your dream as long as you understand what the likely outcome is.  i wanted to be a painter when i was little, so i went to art school for graphic design.  i work 0 hours a week, i make decent money and i am most defiantly above the poverty line.  i am not as rich as i could be if i went into other fields, but i do not hate my job and i do not hate my life.  i would rather be poor than do something i hate  everyday  for the rest of my life.  you talk about choosing your own goals in life, i want a job that i can stand going to everyday, but it is also not my main goal in life.  my main goal in life is to be happy, to spend time with the people that i love, to take days off to just be and to live in a way that when i die my life will be worth more than a bank account.  if you do not want that that is fine, follow your own dream of money.   #  the few times i have had jobs that do not do this has absolutely sucked.   #  you do not have to like your job in order to find happiness.  but for some people this is important.  you spend roughly 0/0 of your life working.  it can be soul sucking to spend this much time doing something you hate.  for example helping others has always been important to me.  the few times i have had jobs that do not do this has absolutely sucked.  i have also watched my mom work a job for decades that she hates.  she is miserable, unhappy, and depressed, and it has taken a toll on her health.  and she make good money.
instead, we should be emphasizing that children should know what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  if i just love the arts and want to go to school for theatre or sculpture or something, but i also wish to make six figures in my life, i should be made aware that i have probably picked the wrong career path.  if there is one thing that mike rowe has shown us it is that a lot of blue collar jobs that many do not want are actually very lucrative financially.  i think people place too much emphasis on job satisfaction.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  which sounds more soul destroying ? going to school for sculpting then having a serving job at 0 hours a week to make ends meet and living just above the poverty line, or learning skills that will provide a decent income and probably give you benefits and vacation time in order to pursue your sculpting passions ? a lot of college students go into less lucrative degrees because they came straight out of high school and do not realize the truth about being an adult with day to day expenses.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.   #  if i just love the arts and want to go to school for theatre or sculpture or something, but i also wish to make six figures in my life, i should be made aware that i have probably picked the wrong career path.   #  yes but then your dream is not to be artist.   # yes but then your dream is not to be artist.  it is to be a wealthy artist.  and you should follow that.  a dream can be anything, from being an artist to being filthy rich.  a job is just that, a job.  totally agree.  i think making your hobby into a job will 0 make you very little money for the time you spend 0 make you hate your hobby because a job is always going to be more restrictive than a hobby  a lot of college students go into less lucrative degrees because they came straight out of high school and do not realize the truth about being an adult with day to day expenses.  i sort of agree.  i am going to college next year and i plan to major in computer science.  not because i like coding 0 hours a day like a freak, but so i can hopefully create some start up and make good money.  i really ca not understand people who get humanities degrees.  but i guess if that is what they want, they should pursue it.   #  this may be your dream, but not everyone cares about making 0 figures and thus not everyone necessarily dreams of making 0 figures.   # this is exactly what we are telling children when we tell them to follow their dreams.  their dreams are what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  then following your dreams would be to figure out the best way to make 0 figures in the art field.  this may be your dream, but not everyone cares about making 0 figures and thus not everyone necessarily dreams of making 0 figures.  many people would be just to find something they enjoy and to be able to make enough money from it to live comfortably.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  but what is wrong with pursuing a career that you actually enjoy ? why ca not a job be both.  a job is something that you devote a great deal of time to.  why would you not want to devote this time to something that you enjoy, or why would not we encourage our children to do just that ? some people would be just fine with the first option you mentioned.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.  and who is to say that they would complete a  more lucrative degree  ? for example, most lucrative degrees certain sciences, engineering, finance, etc.  require at least decent math skills.  if a child is not good at math and does not enjoy it, why should we push them towards a degree and field in which they are required to be able to do high level math ? this is essentially setting children up to fail.   #  if people do not pursue their dreams, then they do not live, they simply survive.   #  you are just opposed to one specific aspect of the  following your dreams  philosophy though.  if people do not pursue their dreams, then they do not live, they simply survive.  i find it a good thing to have something to look forward to.  travelling, learning something new.  have a bucket list.  if i am getting you right, you think that people should just view jobs in particular as a means to an end.  the end still being pursuing one dreams.  so i do not think teaching children to follow their dreams is wrong.  i believe the principle is right and we should teach them that as well as alternative ways to pursue them.   #  in my personal experience, i have found working in what you love tends to take the joy out of it.   #  i am not saying you should nurture the desire for money, i am saying children should recognize their goals and how to accomplish them.  if six figures is important to them, they should learn what they need to to do to make that happen.  i disagree.  if you love to ski and it is your passion, that does not mean you have to work at a ski lodge.  you can make a decent living at a nine to five job and have plenty of time and money to ski and the ability to travel to other locations to ski.  in my personal experience, i have found working in what you love tends to take the joy out of it.   #  i work 0 hours a week, i make decent money and i am most defiantly above the poverty line.   #  there is nothing wrong with following your dream as long as you understand what the likely outcome is.  i wanted to be a painter when i was little, so i went to art school for graphic design.  i work 0 hours a week, i make decent money and i am most defiantly above the poverty line.  i am not as rich as i could be if i went into other fields, but i do not hate my job and i do not hate my life.  i would rather be poor than do something i hate  everyday  for the rest of my life.  you talk about choosing your own goals in life, i want a job that i can stand going to everyday, but it is also not my main goal in life.  my main goal in life is to be happy, to spend time with the people that i love, to take days off to just be and to live in a way that when i die my life will be worth more than a bank account.  if you do not want that that is fine, follow your own dream of money.
instead, we should be emphasizing that children should know what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  if i just love the arts and want to go to school for theatre or sculpture or something, but i also wish to make six figures in my life, i should be made aware that i have probably picked the wrong career path.  if there is one thing that mike rowe has shown us it is that a lot of blue collar jobs that many do not want are actually very lucrative financially.  i think people place too much emphasis on job satisfaction.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  which sounds more soul destroying ? going to school for sculpting then having a serving job at 0 hours a week to make ends meet and living just above the poverty line, or learning skills that will provide a decent income and probably give you benefits and vacation time in order to pursue your sculpting passions ? a lot of college students go into less lucrative degrees because they came straight out of high school and do not realize the truth about being an adult with day to day expenses.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.   #  i think people place too much emphasis on job satisfaction.   #  a job is just that, a job.   # yes but then your dream is not to be artist.  it is to be a wealthy artist.  and you should follow that.  a dream can be anything, from being an artist to being filthy rich.  a job is just that, a job.  totally agree.  i think making your hobby into a job will 0 make you very little money for the time you spend 0 make you hate your hobby because a job is always going to be more restrictive than a hobby  a lot of college students go into less lucrative degrees because they came straight out of high school and do not realize the truth about being an adult with day to day expenses.  i sort of agree.  i am going to college next year and i plan to major in computer science.  not because i like coding 0 hours a day like a freak, but so i can hopefully create some start up and make good money.  i really ca not understand people who get humanities degrees.  but i guess if that is what they want, they should pursue it.   #  why would you not want to devote this time to something that you enjoy, or why would not we encourage our children to do just that ?  # this is exactly what we are telling children when we tell them to follow their dreams.  their dreams are what they want from life, whether their goals be personal, financial, etc.  then following your dreams would be to figure out the best way to make 0 figures in the art field.  this may be your dream, but not everyone cares about making 0 figures and thus not everyone necessarily dreams of making 0 figures.  many people would be just to find something they enjoy and to be able to make enough money from it to live comfortably.  a job is just that, a job.  you should not have to love it or even like it.  but what is wrong with pursuing a career that you actually enjoy ? why ca not a job be both.  a job is something that you devote a great deal of time to.  why would you not want to devote this time to something that you enjoy, or why would not we encourage our children to do just that ? some people would be just fine with the first option you mentioned.  we should not teach children to follow their dreams, we should teach them how to survive in this world.  and who is to say that they would complete a  more lucrative degree  ? for example, most lucrative degrees certain sciences, engineering, finance, etc.  require at least decent math skills.  if a child is not good at math and does not enjoy it, why should we push them towards a degree and field in which they are required to be able to do high level math ? this is essentially setting children up to fail.   #  so i do not think teaching children to follow their dreams is wrong.   #  you are just opposed to one specific aspect of the  following your dreams  philosophy though.  if people do not pursue their dreams, then they do not live, they simply survive.  i find it a good thing to have something to look forward to.  travelling, learning something new.  have a bucket list.  if i am getting you right, you think that people should just view jobs in particular as a means to an end.  the end still being pursuing one dreams.  so i do not think teaching children to follow their dreams is wrong.  i believe the principle is right and we should teach them that as well as alternative ways to pursue them.   #  if you love to ski and it is your passion, that does not mean you have to work at a ski lodge.   #  i am not saying you should nurture the desire for money, i am saying children should recognize their goals and how to accomplish them.  if six figures is important to them, they should learn what they need to to do to make that happen.  i disagree.  if you love to ski and it is your passion, that does not mean you have to work at a ski lodge.  you can make a decent living at a nine to five job and have plenty of time and money to ski and the ability to travel to other locations to ski.  in my personal experience, i have found working in what you love tends to take the joy out of it.   #  i work 0 hours a week, i make decent money and i am most defiantly above the poverty line.   #  there is nothing wrong with following your dream as long as you understand what the likely outcome is.  i wanted to be a painter when i was little, so i went to art school for graphic design.  i work 0 hours a week, i make decent money and i am most defiantly above the poverty line.  i am not as rich as i could be if i went into other fields, but i do not hate my job and i do not hate my life.  i would rather be poor than do something i hate  everyday  for the rest of my life.  you talk about choosing your own goals in life, i want a job that i can stand going to everyday, but it is also not my main goal in life.  my main goal in life is to be happy, to spend time with the people that i love, to take days off to just be and to live in a way that when i die my life will be worth more than a bank account.  if you do not want that that is fine, follow your own dream of money.
they are always portrayed as being right along side people that have actually done relevant things to contribute to society today.  i think that both culturally and musically they were not that big of a deal.  there are loads of better musicians and many more interesting people.  after all, they did start out as an equivalent to today is boy bands; they were a figure head, something for girls to oogle at.  there are so many conspiracies about the beatles and i do not think there have been the same amount of cover bands for any other band in history besides maybe the dead, but they were great musicians .  i know this explanation is a bit scattered, but it is late.  i mainly wanted to make this because i wanted to get my point across.  i will further explain, in more lengthy detail, in comments.  change my view.   #  there are loads of better musicians and many more interesting people.   #  since this argument is widely subjective this could be made about anyone.   # since this argument is widely subjective this could be made about anyone.  simply being able to name what  you  think is a more talented band does not mean the beatles were not talented and influential.  no, they did not.  first of all, they wrote their own songs.  boy bands rarely if ever write their own music and when they do usually it is usually only one or two that are half decent writers.  the beatles are one of the rare bands where each person can actually write chart toppers ok ringo can be debatable, but at the very least 0/0 could .  each member of the group wrote great songs both with the rest of the band and alone.  just for some quick examples harrison wrote here comes the sun alone, mccartney wrote yesterday alone, and lennon wrote dozens of their hits alone.  secondly, boy bands are successful much more for their looks than their creative talent.  do you really think one direction has enough creative talent to write/perform innovative music that changes the course of music history ? of course not.  they have stylists spend more time on their hair and make up then they actually spend in the studio.  they take more photo shoots than they do takes of music.  the beatles spent the vast majority of their time at their peak in the studio/writing/performing.   #  these days you are lucky to get 0 albums of similar style from a popular band in that amount of time.   #  most people who were not around in the 0 is do not realize how much the beatles accomplished in such a short time.  they were only together for about 0 years.  during that time they completely changed the sound of rock and roll and brought everyone else with them.  just listen to the difference between these two songs released only 0 years apart: i saw her standing there 0 URL helter skelter 0 URL they also released 0 albums in this same 0 year period.  these days you are lucky to get 0 albums of similar style from a popular band in that amount of time.   #  i think buddy holly was far more revolutionary and that the beatles kind of rode on his style.   #  efficiency does not equate to quality, though.  the beatles were not skilled at their instruments, one could master most of their songs on guitar after about six months.  paul is and john is vocals are decent i will give you that, but at the same time, a decent set of pipes is a dime a dozen.  additionally, their lyrics are cliché and not provoking e. g.   let it be, let it roll off your shoulders  belongs on a motivational poster in a school class.  i would, however, consider their rock  n  roll revolution to be worthy of reverence if given more evidence for it.  i think buddy holly was far more revolutionary and that the beatles kind of rode on his style.   #  songs like  call me maybe  and  who let the dogs out  are were incredibly popular when released to the point of being impossible not to have somehow heard in daily life.   #  well number of people is not the only thing that matters when it comes to subjective judgement.  longevity, i would argue, is an even better marker for quality.  songs like  call me maybe  and  who let the dogs out  are were incredibly popular when released to the point of being impossible not to have somehow heard in daily life.  yet when is the last time we have heard either of these hits ? a huge number of beatles hits were incredibly popular at the time of their release and now, 0 years later, are still played enough in the media that a majority of americans would as least know a handful of them.  songs like  hey jude,   get back,   yesterday,   here comes the sun,  and  a day in the life  have never really gone away.   #  take  i want you she is so heavy   for instance.   #  the thing that made the beatles so good was their songwriting.  they added so many layers to their songs that seemingly simple riffs and melodies were morphed into beautifully crafted songs.  take  i want you she is so heavy   for instance.  the outro is a repeat of the same riff used the whole song, but if you listen closely you can hear what sounds like air being blown.  the sound increases for almost 0 minutes, becoming louder and more dissonant as the song continues.  another example and there are many is  a day in the life.   look at the transitions in that song.  they are orchestrated madness building massive tension that is released on the final chord that covers the range of the entire piano.  they were masters of adding undistinguishable, tiny factors to their songs that collectively add up to make the whole brilliant.
this has been wearing on me for a while.  in america, and perhaps elsewhere , there is this culture of believing that all consequences in our lives are the result of our actions, and therefore we deserve absolute credit/blame for all aspects of our lives.  i. e.   i went to business school and worked my way up, therefore those who have not had my level of success are not working hard  or  i did these things to try to put myself in a good position, but i am not in one.  i must not be trying hard enough/i must not deserve to be in a good position.   the fundamental flaw with this philosophy is an over emphasis on the power of our volition over the powerful influences of society.  i am not sure of this is rooted in a fear of lacking control over our lives or some other factor, but the fact of the matter is that our volition has an almost insignificant effect on our lives when compared to circumstance.  your birthplace, your parents, the circumstances of their lives during your upbringing, the actions of others which, though based at least party on volition, are collectively more impactful than one is own , and your overall experiences that you gather throughout life form your knowledge are all influences that are undeniably greater than what you choose to do one day.  they determine what you choose to do everyday.  unfortunately, society does not work in a manner that is conducive to this philosophy.  every day, there are people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple who look down on those beneath them, and every day, there are people on the bottom who are looking up and wondering where they went wrong.  i am not arguing over the amount of social mobility here, merely the attitudes within our culture that it reflects.  as a result of this belief, people fail to realize that they are at a systematic disadvantage, and they are therefore unable to change the game instead of willingly continuing to lose.  tl;dr: meritocracy is a sham, and it dominates our will while it masquerades as a celebration of it.  cmv.   #  unfortunately, society does not work in a manner that is conducive to this philosophy.   #  every day, there are people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple who look down on those beneath them, and every day, there are people on the bottom who are looking up and wondering where they went wrong.   # every day, there are people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple who look down on those beneath them, and every day, there are people on the bottom who are looking up and wondering where they went wrong.  i am not arguing over the amount of social mobility here, merely the attitudes within our culture that it reflects.  that problem is not unique to meritocracy.  it exists in every common alternative.  the most common belief is that your success reflects the will of your creator rather than your own efforts.  but just as meritocracy can be perverted into thinking that success automatically indicates merit, people who believe in divine favor sometimes pervert this into a belief that your success reflects divine favor.  a trivial variation makes this work with karma instead of predestination.  another common alternative is nihilism, the idea that your condition is simply random and irrelevant.  it is just as easy to pervert into the idea that since you have no control over your success, you have no reason to try to change others  luck.  plenty of people believe that society should help the less fortunate and bring up their condition.  this too is quite easily perverted into the belief that government programs are enough, and that no charity is needed or the reverse of the same card: that government programs are inadequate and that charity simply masks the need for the government to help more .  meritocracy can indeed be perverted in just the way you describe, but it is no more prone to such a problem than any other common alternative ideology.   #  the way i like to put it is that no, you cannot draw a 0:0 relationship between working hard and getting a great outcome, or not working hard and ending up with a shitty position in life.   #  absolute  meritocracy is a problem, but the idea of working hard to improve your standing, or recognizing a correlation between the two is very much not.  it is a logical conclusion.  the way i like to put it is that no, you cannot draw a 0:0 relationship between working hard and getting a great outcome, or not working hard and ending up with a shitty position in life.  what you are doing is improving your odds.  other factors in life represent the randomness that you have no control over.  you ca not control what card gets drawn next all the time, but you can sure as hell stack the deck in your favor.  what working hard is doing is replacing more of the spaces on the wheel of fortune wheel with that $0,0 slot.  you still have to spin the wheel, and it still might come up bankrupt, but working hard gave you a better chance of coming up strong.   #  i personally do for the most part, but it is pretty clear that our society does not operate that way.   #  that is entirely false.  if  society  operated under the idea of absolute meritocracy, we would have no social programs of any kind.  no welfare, no medicaid, no need based scholarships, nothing.  we would take that attitude that everyone who is poor should just work harder.  these programs exist for the very reason that we do not believe that as a society.  i personally do for the most part, but it is pretty clear that our society does not operate that way.   #  i was trying to avoid it, but capitalism is inherently meritocratic, and it permiates our culture in every way.   #  sure, we have welfare programs.  we do things to aid those in a poor situation.  but those programs do not pull most people out of poverty.  they just prevent too much unrest from being created.  i was trying to avoid it, but capitalism is inherently meritocratic, and it permiates our culture in every way.  just because we allow some people certain things to live does not change the fact that a set portion of the population is systemically disadvantaged.  you can say that our culture is not  purely  meritocratic, but most aspects that are not are only in place for the sake of its preservation.   #  but i feel that having this advantage obliges me to make life better for others, too.   #  i want some darn consistency.  i want people to be able to have enough to live without having to worry.  the current state of our welfare system is terrible.  it is been turned to patchwork and subsequently gutted since the 0s.  i feel like current programs are almost a slap in the face to people who need them.  and you are right, i do have that advantage, and i appreciate it.  but i feel that having this advantage obliges me to make life better for others, too.  i wish more people felt that way.
this has been wearing on me for a while.  in america, and perhaps elsewhere , there is this culture of believing that all consequences in our lives are the result of our actions, and therefore we deserve absolute credit/blame for all aspects of our lives.  i. e.   i went to business school and worked my way up, therefore those who have not had my level of success are not working hard  or  i did these things to try to put myself in a good position, but i am not in one.  i must not be trying hard enough/i must not deserve to be in a good position.   the fundamental flaw with this philosophy is an over emphasis on the power of our volition over the powerful influences of society.  i am not sure of this is rooted in a fear of lacking control over our lives or some other factor, but the fact of the matter is that our volition has an almost insignificant effect on our lives when compared to circumstance.  your birthplace, your parents, the circumstances of their lives during your upbringing, the actions of others which, though based at least party on volition, are collectively more impactful than one is own , and your overall experiences that you gather throughout life form your knowledge are all influences that are undeniably greater than what you choose to do one day.  they determine what you choose to do everyday.  unfortunately, society does not work in a manner that is conducive to this philosophy.  every day, there are people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple who look down on those beneath them, and every day, there are people on the bottom who are looking up and wondering where they went wrong.  i am not arguing over the amount of social mobility here, merely the attitudes within our culture that it reflects.  as a result of this belief, people fail to realize that they are at a systematic disadvantage, and they are therefore unable to change the game instead of willingly continuing to lose.  tl;dr: meritocracy is a sham, and it dominates our will while it masquerades as a celebration of it.  cmv.   #  unfortunately, society does not work in a manner that is conducive to this philosophy.   #  yes, because we do not live in a meritocracy or even close to one .   #  you ca not really critique a political philosophy based on how people act in a society which is not a meritocracy.  some of your criticisms seem more like a strawman.  a meritocracy says that people should be given reward/power based on ability and contribution.  we do not live in such a world.  a pure meritocracy would allow extreme social mobility, and would not allow allocation of power to a person simply because of birth or circumstance.  yes, because we do not live in a meritocracy or even close to one .  i am not arguing over the amount of social mobility here, merely the attitudes within our culture that it reflects.  which is exactly why we are not in a meritocracy.  in a meritocracy, one would not be given the benefit of their parents.  think plato is republic.  in it, the children are all raised by the community and provided equal opportunity.  the wisest are given power while those exhibiting other abilities are assigned other responsibilities.  that is a pure meritocracy.  while it is not perfect, simply saying  we do not live in a meritocracy so  ameritocracy is a sham   is a very weak criticism.   #  the way i like to put it is that no, you cannot draw a 0:0 relationship between working hard and getting a great outcome, or not working hard and ending up with a shitty position in life.   #  absolute  meritocracy is a problem, but the idea of working hard to improve your standing, or recognizing a correlation between the two is very much not.  it is a logical conclusion.  the way i like to put it is that no, you cannot draw a 0:0 relationship between working hard and getting a great outcome, or not working hard and ending up with a shitty position in life.  what you are doing is improving your odds.  other factors in life represent the randomness that you have no control over.  you ca not control what card gets drawn next all the time, but you can sure as hell stack the deck in your favor.  what working hard is doing is replacing more of the spaces on the wheel of fortune wheel with that $0,0 slot.  you still have to spin the wheel, and it still might come up bankrupt, but working hard gave you a better chance of coming up strong.   #  no welfare, no medicaid, no need based scholarships, nothing.   #  that is entirely false.  if  society  operated under the idea of absolute meritocracy, we would have no social programs of any kind.  no welfare, no medicaid, no need based scholarships, nothing.  we would take that attitude that everyone who is poor should just work harder.  these programs exist for the very reason that we do not believe that as a society.  i personally do for the most part, but it is pretty clear that our society does not operate that way.   #  just because we allow some people certain things to live does not change the fact that a set portion of the population is systemically disadvantaged.   #  sure, we have welfare programs.  we do things to aid those in a poor situation.  but those programs do not pull most people out of poverty.  they just prevent too much unrest from being created.  i was trying to avoid it, but capitalism is inherently meritocratic, and it permiates our culture in every way.  just because we allow some people certain things to live does not change the fact that a set portion of the population is systemically disadvantaged.  you can say that our culture is not  purely  meritocratic, but most aspects that are not are only in place for the sake of its preservation.   #  but i feel that having this advantage obliges me to make life better for others, too.   #  i want some darn consistency.  i want people to be able to have enough to live without having to worry.  the current state of our welfare system is terrible.  it is been turned to patchwork and subsequently gutted since the 0s.  i feel like current programs are almost a slap in the face to people who need them.  and you are right, i do have that advantage, and i appreciate it.  but i feel that having this advantage obliges me to make life better for others, too.  i wish more people felt that way.
this has been wearing on me for a while.  in america, and perhaps elsewhere , there is this culture of believing that all consequences in our lives are the result of our actions, and therefore we deserve absolute credit/blame for all aspects of our lives.  i. e.   i went to business school and worked my way up, therefore those who have not had my level of success are not working hard  or  i did these things to try to put myself in a good position, but i am not in one.  i must not be trying hard enough/i must not deserve to be in a good position.   the fundamental flaw with this philosophy is an over emphasis on the power of our volition over the powerful influences of society.  i am not sure of this is rooted in a fear of lacking control over our lives or some other factor, but the fact of the matter is that our volition has an almost insignificant effect on our lives when compared to circumstance.  your birthplace, your parents, the circumstances of their lives during your upbringing, the actions of others which, though based at least party on volition, are collectively more impactful than one is own , and your overall experiences that you gather throughout life form your knowledge are all influences that are undeniably greater than what you choose to do one day.  they determine what you choose to do everyday.  unfortunately, society does not work in a manner that is conducive to this philosophy.  every day, there are people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple who look down on those beneath them, and every day, there are people on the bottom who are looking up and wondering where they went wrong.  i am not arguing over the amount of social mobility here, merely the attitudes within our culture that it reflects.  as a result of this belief, people fail to realize that they are at a systematic disadvantage, and they are therefore unable to change the game instead of willingly continuing to lose.  tl;dr: meritocracy is a sham, and it dominates our will while it masquerades as a celebration of it.  cmv.   #  every day, there are people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple who look down on those beneath them, and every day, there are people on the bottom who are looking up and wondering where they went wrong.   #  i am not arguing over the amount of social mobility here, merely the attitudes within our culture that it reflects.   #  you ca not really critique a political philosophy based on how people act in a society which is not a meritocracy.  some of your criticisms seem more like a strawman.  a meritocracy says that people should be given reward/power based on ability and contribution.  we do not live in such a world.  a pure meritocracy would allow extreme social mobility, and would not allow allocation of power to a person simply because of birth or circumstance.  yes, because we do not live in a meritocracy or even close to one .  i am not arguing over the amount of social mobility here, merely the attitudes within our culture that it reflects.  which is exactly why we are not in a meritocracy.  in a meritocracy, one would not be given the benefit of their parents.  think plato is republic.  in it, the children are all raised by the community and provided equal opportunity.  the wisest are given power while those exhibiting other abilities are assigned other responsibilities.  that is a pure meritocracy.  while it is not perfect, simply saying  we do not live in a meritocracy so  ameritocracy is a sham   is a very weak criticism.   #  you ca not control what card gets drawn next all the time, but you can sure as hell stack the deck in your favor.   #  absolute  meritocracy is a problem, but the idea of working hard to improve your standing, or recognizing a correlation between the two is very much not.  it is a logical conclusion.  the way i like to put it is that no, you cannot draw a 0:0 relationship between working hard and getting a great outcome, or not working hard and ending up with a shitty position in life.  what you are doing is improving your odds.  other factors in life represent the randomness that you have no control over.  you ca not control what card gets drawn next all the time, but you can sure as hell stack the deck in your favor.  what working hard is doing is replacing more of the spaces on the wheel of fortune wheel with that $0,0 slot.  you still have to spin the wheel, and it still might come up bankrupt, but working hard gave you a better chance of coming up strong.   #  these programs exist for the very reason that we do not believe that as a society.   #  that is entirely false.  if  society  operated under the idea of absolute meritocracy, we would have no social programs of any kind.  no welfare, no medicaid, no need based scholarships, nothing.  we would take that attitude that everyone who is poor should just work harder.  these programs exist for the very reason that we do not believe that as a society.  i personally do for the most part, but it is pretty clear that our society does not operate that way.   #  they just prevent too much unrest from being created.   #  sure, we have welfare programs.  we do things to aid those in a poor situation.  but those programs do not pull most people out of poverty.  they just prevent too much unrest from being created.  i was trying to avoid it, but capitalism is inherently meritocratic, and it permiates our culture in every way.  just because we allow some people certain things to live does not change the fact that a set portion of the population is systemically disadvantaged.  you can say that our culture is not  purely  meritocratic, but most aspects that are not are only in place for the sake of its preservation.   #  the current state of our welfare system is terrible.   #  i want some darn consistency.  i want people to be able to have enough to live without having to worry.  the current state of our welfare system is terrible.  it is been turned to patchwork and subsequently gutted since the 0s.  i feel like current programs are almost a slap in the face to people who need them.  and you are right, i do have that advantage, and i appreciate it.  but i feel that having this advantage obliges me to make life better for others, too.  i wish more people felt that way.
this has been wearing on me for a while.  in america, and perhaps elsewhere , there is this culture of believing that all consequences in our lives are the result of our actions, and therefore we deserve absolute credit/blame for all aspects of our lives.  i. e.   i went to business school and worked my way up, therefore those who have not had my level of success are not working hard  or  i did these things to try to put myself in a good position, but i am not in one.  i must not be trying hard enough/i must not deserve to be in a good position.   the fundamental flaw with this philosophy is an over emphasis on the power of our volition over the powerful influences of society.  i am not sure of this is rooted in a fear of lacking control over our lives or some other factor, but the fact of the matter is that our volition has an almost insignificant effect on our lives when compared to circumstance.  your birthplace, your parents, the circumstances of their lives during your upbringing, the actions of others which, though based at least party on volition, are collectively more impactful than one is own , and your overall experiences that you gather throughout life form your knowledge are all influences that are undeniably greater than what you choose to do one day.  they determine what you choose to do everyday.  unfortunately, society does not work in a manner that is conducive to this philosophy.  every day, there are people who are born on third base and think they hit a triple who look down on those beneath them, and every day, there are people on the bottom who are looking up and wondering where they went wrong.  i am not arguing over the amount of social mobility here, merely the attitudes within our culture that it reflects.  as a result of this belief, people fail to realize that they are at a systematic disadvantage, and they are therefore unable to change the game instead of willingly continuing to lose.  tl;dr: meritocracy is a sham, and it dominates our will while it masquerades as a celebration of it.  cmv.   #  the fundamental flaw with this philosophy is an over emphasis on the power of our volition over the powerful influences of society.   #  have you ever heard the saying  democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones  ?  # have you ever heard the saying  democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones  ? it is essentially the same thing with a culture of meritocracy.  the circumstances of life are indeed unfair, and much of what happens to us in this life we cannot control.  but what is the alternative to working our asses off and trying to improve ourselves ? sitting on the couch and complaining about the hands we have been dealt ? they are your cards and they are the only ones you have got, so you might as well play them.  it is not that you can control everything in your life, or that hard work is a complete guarantee for success, it is that working hard and taking responsibility for the things that you can control in your life is your best and only chance at improving your situation in life.  as a matter of fact, too many people of my generation today want to blame everyone else for their failures in life, when in fact they often fail to see the mistakes they made, their own laziness, etc.  maybe someone is at a disadvantage.  so the fuck what ? giving up because you are disadvantaged gives you a 0 guarantee to go nowhere in life.  you gotta just make the best of the circumstances also, people fundamentally misunderstand luck.  it maybe just be a case of being at the right place in the right time.  but it is more likely to happen if you make the effort to be in more places at more times.   #  absolute  meritocracy is a problem, but the idea of working hard to improve your standing, or recognizing a correlation between the two is very much not.   #  absolute  meritocracy is a problem, but the idea of working hard to improve your standing, or recognizing a correlation between the two is very much not.  it is a logical conclusion.  the way i like to put it is that no, you cannot draw a 0:0 relationship between working hard and getting a great outcome, or not working hard and ending up with a shitty position in life.  what you are doing is improving your odds.  other factors in life represent the randomness that you have no control over.  you ca not control what card gets drawn next all the time, but you can sure as hell stack the deck in your favor.  what working hard is doing is replacing more of the spaces on the wheel of fortune wheel with that $0,0 slot.  you still have to spin the wheel, and it still might come up bankrupt, but working hard gave you a better chance of coming up strong.   #  no welfare, no medicaid, no need based scholarships, nothing.   #  that is entirely false.  if  society  operated under the idea of absolute meritocracy, we would have no social programs of any kind.  no welfare, no medicaid, no need based scholarships, nothing.  we would take that attitude that everyone who is poor should just work harder.  these programs exist for the very reason that we do not believe that as a society.  i personally do for the most part, but it is pretty clear that our society does not operate that way.   #  i was trying to avoid it, but capitalism is inherently meritocratic, and it permiates our culture in every way.   #  sure, we have welfare programs.  we do things to aid those in a poor situation.  but those programs do not pull most people out of poverty.  they just prevent too much unrest from being created.  i was trying to avoid it, but capitalism is inherently meritocratic, and it permiates our culture in every way.  just because we allow some people certain things to live does not change the fact that a set portion of the population is systemically disadvantaged.  you can say that our culture is not  purely  meritocratic, but most aspects that are not are only in place for the sake of its preservation.   #  it is been turned to patchwork and subsequently gutted since the 0s.   #  i want some darn consistency.  i want people to be able to have enough to live without having to worry.  the current state of our welfare system is terrible.  it is been turned to patchwork and subsequently gutted since the 0s.  i feel like current programs are almost a slap in the face to people who need them.  and you are right, i do have that advantage, and i appreciate it.  but i feel that having this advantage obliges me to make life better for others, too.  i wish more people felt that way.
all my life i have been fascinated by economics and money.  i recall spending a lot of time thinking about what qualities a  perfect  money would have, as i see many flaws with the current  candidates  e. g.  gold/dollars/euros/etc.  in particular, i see a neutral and fixed money as being superior and offering many advantages over what we currently use.  as a consequence of this, i belief market forces will push direct more and more resources to bitcoin from the inferior monies in the market place until bitcoin consumes all of their value and becomes a monopolistic global currency.  i have done a lot of fma failure mode analysis on this, and i feel very confident in the conclusion that this is inevitable.  i have invested my life is savings in bitcoin.  change my mind ?  #  in particular, i see a neutral and fixed money as being superior and offering many advantages over what we currently use.   #  do you know what happens if you lose your wallet ?  # gold/dollars/euros/etc.  all of the digital money schemes in the past have failed, and the most successful  digital  currency is the credit card.  why would not the banking system just continue to adapt until all money is processed digitally ? do you know what happens if you lose your wallet ? the bitcoins are gone forever.  it is inevitable that bitcoins will continue to be lost, and eventually we will run against the limit of divisibility with the coins that are still in circulation.  the us dollar is already a widely accepted global standard of money.  national currencies are backed by the country that uses it.  bitcoins have no backing, and if everybody moves to something like litecoin in the future, your bitcoins are worthless.  the us would have to be dissolved for us currency to not be honored.  which is more likely to happen ?  #  also an investment in equities or really anything besides btc is a hedge.   # except that for btc to be the cause of the dollar is collapse wo not most businesses have to have transitioned to btc in the first place ? i mean the dollar is not going to crumble if most major businesses are continuing to use it.  also an investment in equities or really anything besides btc is a hedge.  if you are wrong about bitcoin then you will be protected from some degree of downside risk.  i mean people own stocks and bonds even though stocks have historically out performed bonds over the long term.  the reason they do this is to hedge short term risks should the need to liquidate positions early.  if you believe that the collapse of the usd will be  very disruptive to businesses  then you are envisioning something sudden and traumatic.  in such a scenario why do you believe your absentee property rights will be protected ? if the transition from usd to btc is at all orderly such that a foreigner could retain their property rights and have them respected then your argument regarding equities is much less likely to be valid.   #  in addition it returns to the old gold standard ideal of being limited in supply, and thus beyond rampant inflation and government manipulation.   #  i had to interject here because that did not make any sense.  the movement to fiat from gold was done by government for purely political reasons.  this is because governments gain an  enormous  amount of power in being able to print their own currency, and thus embark on a massive amount of deficit spending and economic manipulation.  fiat was not peacefully left by anyone because it was somehow better than gold, it was a purely political undertaking that went by almost totally unchecked.  if worthless paper backed by nothing was really superior to gold people would have adopted it without the need of government forcing it on them with the threat of throwing you in jail if you did not pay your taxes with their paper.  bitcoin is entirely different because it is the worlds first  grass roots  currency that is being adopted on an individual by individual basis.  this is because it really does hold more value than fiat, as it is effortless and ultra cheep to move and process.  in addition it returns to the old gold standard ideal of being limited in supply, and thus beyond rampant inflation and government manipulation.  it will continue to grow only because governments could not shut it down if they wanted to, and i am pretty sure that once its adoption starts to reach critical mass, the government wo not like relinquishing its hold of the money supply.  this is no surprise, because at the rate of deficit spending practically every western country has, they literally ca not afford to return to sound money.  do not expect it to be a pretty and painless switching of the guard.  of course, this will most likely be 0 0 years from now, if not more.   #  it is an investment  or  a currency, it ca not be both.   #  you  invest  in a currency that you still consider to be a viable currency.  for a currency to be effective, it needs to be used and to circulate, which is antithetical to the idea that people will hold it as an investment.  you are proving your own idea wrong better than anybody else could.  why would anyone use a currency that will be worth more tomorrow than it is today ? it is an investment  or  a currency, it ca not be both.   #  what makes a currency viable, is demand along with good monetary properties .   # this is where i disagree with the vast majority of people even in the bitcion community.  a lot of them try to get bitcoin accepted at retailers and shit.  i do not give a damn about where bitcoin is accepted, or if it is accepted anywhere.  i could care less.  i do not believe acceptance is what makes a currency viable it may have some effect, but certainly not the main one or even close .  what makes a currency viable, is demand along with good monetary properties .  demand is what is important.  i believe that demand will eventually drive acceptance, not the other way around.  consider that right now bitcoin all of it, is only worth about $0 billion dollars.  if i were a merchant, i would not go out of my way to take a bite out of a market the size of the dominican republican.  it is not worth it.  now, when bitcoin is worth $0 billion, i can assure you people will be trying to cut into that market.  demand is what is important.  all bitcoin needs to succeed is for people to horde it.  that is how money evolves it becomes accepted because people know other people want it.
all my life i have been fascinated by economics and money.  i recall spending a lot of time thinking about what qualities a  perfect  money would have, as i see many flaws with the current  candidates  e. g.  gold/dollars/euros/etc.  in particular, i see a neutral and fixed money as being superior and offering many advantages over what we currently use.  as a consequence of this, i belief market forces will push direct more and more resources to bitcoin from the inferior monies in the market place until bitcoin consumes all of their value and becomes a monopolistic global currency.  i have done a lot of fma failure mode analysis on this, and i feel very confident in the conclusion that this is inevitable.  i have invested my life is savings in bitcoin.  change my mind ?  #  i have done a lot of fma failure mode analysis on this, and i feel very confident in the conclusion that this is inevitable.   #  the us dollar is already a widely accepted global standard of money.   # gold/dollars/euros/etc.  all of the digital money schemes in the past have failed, and the most successful  digital  currency is the credit card.  why would not the banking system just continue to adapt until all money is processed digitally ? do you know what happens if you lose your wallet ? the bitcoins are gone forever.  it is inevitable that bitcoins will continue to be lost, and eventually we will run against the limit of divisibility with the coins that are still in circulation.  the us dollar is already a widely accepted global standard of money.  national currencies are backed by the country that uses it.  bitcoins have no backing, and if everybody moves to something like litecoin in the future, your bitcoins are worthless.  the us would have to be dissolved for us currency to not be honored.  which is more likely to happen ?  #  also an investment in equities or really anything besides btc is a hedge.   # except that for btc to be the cause of the dollar is collapse wo not most businesses have to have transitioned to btc in the first place ? i mean the dollar is not going to crumble if most major businesses are continuing to use it.  also an investment in equities or really anything besides btc is a hedge.  if you are wrong about bitcoin then you will be protected from some degree of downside risk.  i mean people own stocks and bonds even though stocks have historically out performed bonds over the long term.  the reason they do this is to hedge short term risks should the need to liquidate positions early.  if you believe that the collapse of the usd will be  very disruptive to businesses  then you are envisioning something sudden and traumatic.  in such a scenario why do you believe your absentee property rights will be protected ? if the transition from usd to btc is at all orderly such that a foreigner could retain their property rights and have them respected then your argument regarding equities is much less likely to be valid.   #  this is no surprise, because at the rate of deficit spending practically every western country has, they literally ca not afford to return to sound money.   #  i had to interject here because that did not make any sense.  the movement to fiat from gold was done by government for purely political reasons.  this is because governments gain an  enormous  amount of power in being able to print their own currency, and thus embark on a massive amount of deficit spending and economic manipulation.  fiat was not peacefully left by anyone because it was somehow better than gold, it was a purely political undertaking that went by almost totally unchecked.  if worthless paper backed by nothing was really superior to gold people would have adopted it without the need of government forcing it on them with the threat of throwing you in jail if you did not pay your taxes with their paper.  bitcoin is entirely different because it is the worlds first  grass roots  currency that is being adopted on an individual by individual basis.  this is because it really does hold more value than fiat, as it is effortless and ultra cheep to move and process.  in addition it returns to the old gold standard ideal of being limited in supply, and thus beyond rampant inflation and government manipulation.  it will continue to grow only because governments could not shut it down if they wanted to, and i am pretty sure that once its adoption starts to reach critical mass, the government wo not like relinquishing its hold of the money supply.  this is no surprise, because at the rate of deficit spending practically every western country has, they literally ca not afford to return to sound money.  do not expect it to be a pretty and painless switching of the guard.  of course, this will most likely be 0 0 years from now, if not more.   #  why would anyone use a currency that will be worth more tomorrow than it is today ?  #  you  invest  in a currency that you still consider to be a viable currency.  for a currency to be effective, it needs to be used and to circulate, which is antithetical to the idea that people will hold it as an investment.  you are proving your own idea wrong better than anybody else could.  why would anyone use a currency that will be worth more tomorrow than it is today ? it is an investment  or  a currency, it ca not be both.   #  consider that right now bitcoin all of it, is only worth about $0 billion dollars.   # this is where i disagree with the vast majority of people even in the bitcion community.  a lot of them try to get bitcoin accepted at retailers and shit.  i do not give a damn about where bitcoin is accepted, or if it is accepted anywhere.  i could care less.  i do not believe acceptance is what makes a currency viable it may have some effect, but certainly not the main one or even close .  what makes a currency viable, is demand along with good monetary properties .  demand is what is important.  i believe that demand will eventually drive acceptance, not the other way around.  consider that right now bitcoin all of it, is only worth about $0 billion dollars.  if i were a merchant, i would not go out of my way to take a bite out of a market the size of the dominican republican.  it is not worth it.  now, when bitcoin is worth $0 billion, i can assure you people will be trying to cut into that market.  demand is what is important.  all bitcoin needs to succeed is for people to horde it.  that is how money evolves it becomes accepted because people know other people want it.
i think my argument is mainly based on the arguments for maintaining the status of the british royal family, but i think it applies to any country.  i have heard many arguments for continuing the practice, from tourism money to engaging in charitable causes and diplomacy to preservation of cultural memory, but i just do not see any of those things as compelling arguments.  tourism will likely not be very affected since the things people come to see palaces, crown jewels, etc will still be around even if the royals have been stripped of their status.  their  celebrity  influence can still remain without acknowledging that they are born with some kind of intrinsic merit that is greater than ordinary citizens.  to me, royals traditionally taking on the role of a diplomat or cultural ambassador is not as worthwhile as someone attaining that role through merit and effort and ability.  as far as keeping this tradition because it is part of a cultural legacy: that point makes the least sense to me.  there are many cultural practices that are considered oppressive or at least unsavory to modern sensibilities.  why preserve relics of a time in history when people were at the whim of powerful, autocratic rulers who believed they had a mandate from god ? this has no place in the modern world.  however, i would like to try and see the merit of having this since a ton of people seem to think it is beneficial, so please cmv.   #  as far as keeping this tradition because it is part of a cultural legacy: that point makes the least sense to me.   #  there are many cultural practices that are considered oppressive or at least unsavory to modern sensibilities.   # there are many cultural practices that are considered oppressive or at least unsavory to modern sensibilities.  why preserve relics of a time in history when people were at the whim of powerful, autocratic rulers who believed they had a mandate from god ? this has no place in the modern world.  maybe because things have changed, people have learned and those less free times in the past, are the examples of what not to do in the future.  some of them are just very rich.  i think you could call the kennedys, vanderbilts, duponts, rockefellers, astors, cabots, bushes, fords, roosevelts, waltons, kochs, mars, hearst, cargills, etc.  american royalty.  they stick to their own, they hereditary keep the family business or politics in the family, and they continue to act like royalty.  i think many of these families do belong in the modern age, and continue to thrive in it.  i have a clarification question s : is this op on about royalty, or is it also about monarchies as well ?  #  feudalism is nothing more than naked violence dressed in tradition an religion.   #  royally inherited lands were confiscated and redistributed to the people many times in history.  for example, the russian revolting, the french revolution, the american revolution, the spanish civil war.  some of the events are considered positive, some negative, but it is not exactly unheard of.  the is a fundamental difference between inherited property gained by free and voluntary interactions in free market and property gained through feudalism.  feudalism is nothing more than naked violence dressed in tradition an religion.  we see nothing wrong with confiscating the property of others who achieved it through violent means, for example taking the property of a gangster and returning it to his victims instead of letting him will it to his son; or returning to jews the property that was stolen by nazis during the holocaust.  btw, i am not op.  i do not think op advocates confiscation.   #  i think you would have a hard time finding a single scrap of worthwhile land anywhere on the globe that was not at one time taken through violence and possession.   #  no, it is not equivalent to that at all.  because we are talking about something that happened generations ago, not something that these people actually did.  and  this was taken through violence and oppression in history and so should be taken away  is a very, very slippery slope.  i think you would have a hard time finding a single scrap of worthwhile land anywhere on the globe that was not at one time taken through violence and possession.  should we take property away from everyone who has benefited from historical violence and oppression ? if not, then what makes the queen different ?  #  just because we ca not correct all the mistakes of the past does not mean we should not correct any.   #  i am american and we have the same problem with land stolen from american indians.  of course trying to go back 0s of years for situations like that is very complicated and messy.  furthermore, as a jew i find israel is justifications for occupying land  because our ancestors lives here  very flimsy.  but i think royalty is a clear cut case of someone who has done nothing to deserve power and wealth taken by force from others.  just because we ca not correct all the mistakes of the past does not mean we should not correct any.   #  versailles is famous not just for the kings that once ruled, but for its many magnificent gardens and rooms.   # i do not think most people care that actual monarchs live somewhere.  people do not care that versailles does not have a king.  really ? i think people do.  versailles is famous not just for the kings that once ruled, but for its many magnificent gardens and rooms.  the louvre in paris is mainly famous for its works of art.  buckingham palace does not have these attractions to fall back on in absence of a queen.
for several reasons:   spanking escalates no one ever goes out to abuse their child unless they are just a monster but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent.    children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ? many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.  at this stage it is very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did.    spanking does not encourage critical thinking: child a:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me  child b:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy explained x will happen.   some objections i get often:    i was spanked and i turned out fine : but if you did not turn out fine, would you know ? and what is  fine  ?    i only spank when it is needed, maybe once or twice if ever.   a new study on spanking, i could find the link if requested, found that when parents do not self report and are monitored, they spank much more than they will admit to.  it is human bias to think we are not as bad as we really are.     kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline !   i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.  spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues.  go ahead reddit, cmv.  good luck.   #  children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ?  #  many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.   # evidence ? many parents of perfectly capable of gentle spanking that is more embarrassing than harmful.  embarrassment is a great disciplinary tool.  children and people in general should feel embarrassed when they do some serious thing wrong.  many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.  at this stage it is very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did.  i agree that spanking should not be applied to those who are to young.  but what about spanking at a later age ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? would you be ok with that ? sure, spanking by itself does not encourage critical thinking.  but, spanking can be a great  reinforcement tool.   when a reason for spanking is explained, that reason has a much higher chance to  sink in  if accompanied by spanking.  another great reasons why spanking is better than other forms of punishment is that spanking is fast.  punishment works best when it is administered immediately after the offence.  if the punishment only follows much later, the lesson has much smaller chance of being learned.  the child learns break this rules face immediate punishment, as opposed to delayed punishment which he/she will have other chance to weasel out of.   #  then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.   # so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ? i only ask because if i had seen someone seriously harm a dog by hitting it on the nose would not that change the extent i am familiar with the practice ? then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.  to avoid that we should draw a distinction between a swat slap on the nose and another degree that would be violent damaging .  one would cause discomfort and one would cause pain.   #  no, i do not differentiate between their capability to understand why they are being spanked and the casuality behind them.   # no, i do not differentiate between their capability to understand why they are being spanked and the casuality behind them.  mostly because there is no difference is there ? they ca not do both at the same time.  i am not refuting they ca not understand the causuality behind the spanking, that was never the point.  the point i make is that the complexity of the casuality of their actions which makes theese actions wrong is far greater than the complexity of their actions leading to them being spanked.  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   #  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.   # and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.  i do not care if my three year old understands the concept of drowning and death, i care that she knows not to go out onto the back patio.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  when kids get older, then yes, absolutely, explain to them why they are not allowed to do certain things, but when they are still young enough to get spanked, it is not important that they understand, only that they comply.   #  and as such it has been proven to be both ineffective and give bad side effects on the child in several studies.   #  what does this have to do with the argument that the following statments are contradictory ? you are digressing from our discussion.  but for the sake of initial question i will address your arguments.  and as such it has been proven to be both ineffective and give bad side effects on the child in several studies.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  a three year old is fully capable of understanding that consequences can be dire, and thus it can be explained to them without the use of fear conditioning.  if compliance is so important then why use spanking, it has been scientifically shown that it is less effective as a means of compliance than other forms of conditioning ?
for several reasons:   spanking escalates no one ever goes out to abuse their child unless they are just a monster but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent.    children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ? many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.  at this stage it is very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did.    spanking does not encourage critical thinking: child a:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me  child b:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy explained x will happen.   some objections i get often:    i was spanked and i turned out fine : but if you did not turn out fine, would you know ? and what is  fine  ?    i only spank when it is needed, maybe once or twice if ever.   a new study on spanking, i could find the link if requested, found that when parents do not self report and are monitored, they spank much more than they will admit to.  it is human bias to think we are not as bad as we really are.     kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline !   i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.  spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues.  go ahead reddit, cmv.  good luck.   #  children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ?  #  many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.   # many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.  at this stage it is very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did.  this is why spanking  works .  spanking is not about retaliation or to engage a dialogue; it is to provide immediate conditioning against engaging in unacceptable behavior.  young children are incapable of understanding the possible consequences of their actions; if an action is one that should not be allowed to repeat, then the steps taken to prevent that action have to be ones that will be immediately understood and internalized.  absolutely.  but going back to the first point, spanking is largely used at stages where critical thinking is not possible.  spanking is used to condition children not to perform a certain action, and is effective without an understanding of why that action is unacceptable.  once a child is able to think critically, then it is absolutely reasonable to hold off on the spanking and give a rational explanation of why certain actions are not an option.  certain actions have natural consequences.  in cases where those natural consequences are not experienced by the child who performed the action, it is good and right that a non natural consequence spanking, in this case be implemented by the parent, so that the child can understand that there is a consequence, even if the one their parent imposes is not linked directly to the natural consequence of their action.  for example, a child might hide his parent is checkbook.  that might result in the parent missing a rent payment and having to pay a late fee.  the child does not experience this natural consequence of his action, so it is up to his parent to provide some sort of punishment to link the child is actions with a negative consequence in his mind.  spanking is one such punishment.  you argue both that children are not responsible for their actions, and so should not be punished, and that they are capable of understanding the abstract logic behind why a certain action is not acceptable.  you simply ca not have it both ways.  children are often incapable of the reasoning required to understand why an action is wrong.  until they are, then, the only way to reinforce that wrongness is through punishment.  it is not about holding a child  responsible  for their actions; it is about having an alternative so that a child does not actually  need  to be directly responsible, while preventing them from being completely shielded from the fact that their actions have consequences.   #  so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ?  # so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ? i only ask because if i had seen someone seriously harm a dog by hitting it on the nose would not that change the extent i am familiar with the practice ? then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.  to avoid that we should draw a distinction between a swat slap on the nose and another degree that would be violent damaging .  one would cause discomfort and one would cause pain.   #  mostly because there is no difference is there ?  # no, i do not differentiate between their capability to understand why they are being spanked and the casuality behind them.  mostly because there is no difference is there ? they ca not do both at the same time.  i am not refuting they ca not understand the causuality behind the spanking, that was never the point.  the point i make is that the complexity of the casuality of their actions which makes theese actions wrong is far greater than the complexity of their actions leading to them being spanked.  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   #  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.   # and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.  i do not care if my three year old understands the concept of drowning and death, i care that she knows not to go out onto the back patio.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  when kids get older, then yes, absolutely, explain to them why they are not allowed to do certain things, but when they are still young enough to get spanked, it is not important that they understand, only that they comply.   #  but for the sake of initial question i will address your arguments.   #  what does this have to do with the argument that the following statments are contradictory ? you are digressing from our discussion.  but for the sake of initial question i will address your arguments.  and as such it has been proven to be both ineffective and give bad side effects on the child in several studies.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  a three year old is fully capable of understanding that consequences can be dire, and thus it can be explained to them without the use of fear conditioning.  if compliance is so important then why use spanking, it has been scientifically shown that it is less effective as a means of compliance than other forms of conditioning ?
for several reasons:   spanking escalates no one ever goes out to abuse their child unless they are just a monster but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent.    children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ? many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.  at this stage it is very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did.    spanking does not encourage critical thinking: child a:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me  child b:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy explained x will happen.   some objections i get often:    i was spanked and i turned out fine : but if you did not turn out fine, would you know ? and what is  fine  ?    i only spank when it is needed, maybe once or twice if ever.   a new study on spanking, i could find the link if requested, found that when parents do not self report and are monitored, they spank much more than they will admit to.  it is human bias to think we are not as bad as we really are.     kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline !   i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.  spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues.  go ahead reddit, cmv.  good luck.   #   kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline !    #  i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.   # i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.  this is not a pro or anti spanking observation.  certainly there are kids for which spanking wo not work.  however, do you know that any type of discipline would work for these kids, or that it is therefore obvious that spanking would not work for other kids.  further, the kids who are the worst behaved are going to be punished the most.  you could replace  spanking  with any form of discipline here and make the exact same statement you are making.  all you are really saying is that poorly behaved kids do not respond to discipline.  there are variety of things that correlate with negative outcomes that we do not outlaw.  being born poor is also linked to all of those things.  should we therefore regulate how much money you need to have to care for children ?  #  then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.   # so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ? i only ask because if i had seen someone seriously harm a dog by hitting it on the nose would not that change the extent i am familiar with the practice ? then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.  to avoid that we should draw a distinction between a swat slap on the nose and another degree that would be violent damaging .  one would cause discomfort and one would cause pain.   #  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   # no, i do not differentiate between their capability to understand why they are being spanked and the casuality behind them.  mostly because there is no difference is there ? they ca not do both at the same time.  i am not refuting they ca not understand the causuality behind the spanking, that was never the point.  the point i make is that the complexity of the casuality of their actions which makes theese actions wrong is far greater than the complexity of their actions leading to them being spanked.  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   #  when kids get older, then yes, absolutely, explain to them why they are not allowed to do certain things, but when they are still young enough to get spanked, it is not important that they understand, only that they comply.   # and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.  i do not care if my three year old understands the concept of drowning and death, i care that she knows not to go out onto the back patio.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  when kids get older, then yes, absolutely, explain to them why they are not allowed to do certain things, but when they are still young enough to get spanked, it is not important that they understand, only that they comply.   #  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.   #  what does this have to do with the argument that the following statments are contradictory ? you are digressing from our discussion.  but for the sake of initial question i will address your arguments.  and as such it has been proven to be both ineffective and give bad side effects on the child in several studies.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  a three year old is fully capable of understanding that consequences can be dire, and thus it can be explained to them without the use of fear conditioning.  if compliance is so important then why use spanking, it has been scientifically shown that it is less effective as a means of compliance than other forms of conditioning ?
for several reasons:   spanking escalates no one ever goes out to abuse their child unless they are just a monster but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent.    children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ? many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.  at this stage it is very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did.    spanking does not encourage critical thinking: child a:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me  child b:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy explained x will happen.   some objections i get often:    i was spanked and i turned out fine : but if you did not turn out fine, would you know ? and what is  fine  ?    i only spank when it is needed, maybe once or twice if ever.   a new study on spanking, i could find the link if requested, found that when parents do not self report and are monitored, they spank much more than they will admit to.  it is human bias to think we are not as bad as we really are.     kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline !   i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.  spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues.  go ahead reddit, cmv.  good luck.   #  spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues.   #  there are variety of things that correlate with negative outcomes that we do not outlaw.   # i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.  this is not a pro or anti spanking observation.  certainly there are kids for which spanking wo not work.  however, do you know that any type of discipline would work for these kids, or that it is therefore obvious that spanking would not work for other kids.  further, the kids who are the worst behaved are going to be punished the most.  you could replace  spanking  with any form of discipline here and make the exact same statement you are making.  all you are really saying is that poorly behaved kids do not respond to discipline.  there are variety of things that correlate with negative outcomes that we do not outlaw.  being born poor is also linked to all of those things.  should we therefore regulate how much money you need to have to care for children ?  #  i only ask because if i had seen someone seriously harm a dog by hitting it on the nose would not that change the extent i am familiar with the practice ?  # so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ? i only ask because if i had seen someone seriously harm a dog by hitting it on the nose would not that change the extent i am familiar with the practice ? then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.  to avoid that we should draw a distinction between a swat slap on the nose and another degree that would be violent damaging .  one would cause discomfort and one would cause pain.   #  i am not refuting they ca not understand the causuality behind the spanking, that was never the point.   # no, i do not differentiate between their capability to understand why they are being spanked and the casuality behind them.  mostly because there is no difference is there ? they ca not do both at the same time.  i am not refuting they ca not understand the causuality behind the spanking, that was never the point.  the point i make is that the complexity of the casuality of their actions which makes theese actions wrong is far greater than the complexity of their actions leading to them being spanked.  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   #  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.   # and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.  i do not care if my three year old understands the concept of drowning and death, i care that she knows not to go out onto the back patio.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  when kids get older, then yes, absolutely, explain to them why they are not allowed to do certain things, but when they are still young enough to get spanked, it is not important that they understand, only that they comply.   #  and as such it has been proven to be both ineffective and give bad side effects on the child in several studies.   #  what does this have to do with the argument that the following statments are contradictory ? you are digressing from our discussion.  but for the sake of initial question i will address your arguments.  and as such it has been proven to be both ineffective and give bad side effects on the child in several studies.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  a three year old is fully capable of understanding that consequences can be dire, and thus it can be explained to them without the use of fear conditioning.  if compliance is so important then why use spanking, it has been scientifically shown that it is less effective as a means of compliance than other forms of conditioning ?
for several reasons:   spanking escalates no one ever goes out to abuse their child unless they are just a monster but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent.    children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ? many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.  at this stage it is very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did.    spanking does not encourage critical thinking: child a:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me  child b:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy explained x will happen.   some objections i get often:    i was spanked and i turned out fine : but if you did not turn out fine, would you know ? and what is  fine  ?    i only spank when it is needed, maybe once or twice if ever.   a new study on spanking, i could find the link if requested, found that when parents do not self report and are monitored, they spank much more than they will admit to.  it is human bias to think we are not as bad as we really are.     kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline !   i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.  spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues.  go ahead reddit, cmv.  good luck.   #  spanking escalates no one ever goes out to abuse their child unless they are just a monster but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent.   #  it it not abuse and it is not about being violent.   # it it not abuse and it is not about being violent.  it is about fear and authority, and subordination.  it escalates into threats.  i was spanked, but only by two people my mother, and her mother , the men in the family did not participate, because they hit too hard.  i always listened to mom and grandma, always.  teen girls have sex, and get pregnant, often not understanding the consequences, yet they are still responsible.  it is the way things are.  i have not seen it, and it did not occur in my pov.  sorry but i do not believe you.  abuse may start early, but discipline does not.  did not you just say children do not have the ability to think critically ? critical thinking is not the goal.  the goal is listening to the parents, and doing what they say, and not talking back.  it is about discipline and respect.  critical thinking comes later in life.  may not be possible due to the contradictions of the op.   #  so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ?  # so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ? i only ask because if i had seen someone seriously harm a dog by hitting it on the nose would not that change the extent i am familiar with the practice ? then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.  to avoid that we should draw a distinction between a swat slap on the nose and another degree that would be violent damaging .  one would cause discomfort and one would cause pain.   #  no, i do not differentiate between their capability to understand why they are being spanked and the casuality behind them.   # no, i do not differentiate between their capability to understand why they are being spanked and the casuality behind them.  mostly because there is no difference is there ? they ca not do both at the same time.  i am not refuting they ca not understand the causuality behind the spanking, that was never the point.  the point i make is that the complexity of the casuality of their actions which makes theese actions wrong is far greater than the complexity of their actions leading to them being spanked.  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   #  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   # and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.  i do not care if my three year old understands the concept of drowning and death, i care that she knows not to go out onto the back patio.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  when kids get older, then yes, absolutely, explain to them why they are not allowed to do certain things, but when they are still young enough to get spanked, it is not important that they understand, only that they comply.   #  what does this have to do with the argument that the following statments are contradictory ?  #  what does this have to do with the argument that the following statments are contradictory ? you are digressing from our discussion.  but for the sake of initial question i will address your arguments.  and as such it has been proven to be both ineffective and give bad side effects on the child in several studies.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  a three year old is fully capable of understanding that consequences can be dire, and thus it can be explained to them without the use of fear conditioning.  if compliance is so important then why use spanking, it has been scientifically shown that it is less effective as a means of compliance than other forms of conditioning ?
for several reasons:   spanking escalates no one ever goes out to abuse their child unless they are just a monster but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent.    children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ? many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.  at this stage it is very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did.    spanking does not encourage critical thinking: child a:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me  child b:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy explained x will happen.   some objections i get often:    i was spanked and i turned out fine : but if you did not turn out fine, would you know ? and what is  fine  ?    i only spank when it is needed, maybe once or twice if ever.   a new study on spanking, i could find the link if requested, found that when parents do not self report and are monitored, they spank much more than they will admit to.  it is human bias to think we are not as bad as we really are.     kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline !   i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.  spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues.  go ahead reddit, cmv.  good luck.   #  children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ?  #  teen girls have sex, and get pregnant, often not understanding the consequences, yet they are still responsible.   # it it not abuse and it is not about being violent.  it is about fear and authority, and subordination.  it escalates into threats.  i was spanked, but only by two people my mother, and her mother , the men in the family did not participate, because they hit too hard.  i always listened to mom and grandma, always.  teen girls have sex, and get pregnant, often not understanding the consequences, yet they are still responsible.  it is the way things are.  i have not seen it, and it did not occur in my pov.  sorry but i do not believe you.  abuse may start early, but discipline does not.  did not you just say children do not have the ability to think critically ? critical thinking is not the goal.  the goal is listening to the parents, and doing what they say, and not talking back.  it is about discipline and respect.  critical thinking comes later in life.  may not be possible due to the contradictions of the op.   #  i only ask because if i had seen someone seriously harm a dog by hitting it on the nose would not that change the extent i am familiar with the practice ?  # so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ? i only ask because if i had seen someone seriously harm a dog by hitting it on the nose would not that change the extent i am familiar with the practice ? then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.  to avoid that we should draw a distinction between a swat slap on the nose and another degree that would be violent damaging .  one would cause discomfort and one would cause pain.   #  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   # no, i do not differentiate between their capability to understand why they are being spanked and the casuality behind them.  mostly because there is no difference is there ? they ca not do both at the same time.  i am not refuting they ca not understand the causuality behind the spanking, that was never the point.  the point i make is that the complexity of the casuality of their actions which makes theese actions wrong is far greater than the complexity of their actions leading to them being spanked.  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   #  i do not care if my three year old understands the concept of drowning and death, i care that she knows not to go out onto the back patio.   # and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.  i do not care if my three year old understands the concept of drowning and death, i care that she knows not to go out onto the back patio.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  when kids get older, then yes, absolutely, explain to them why they are not allowed to do certain things, but when they are still young enough to get spanked, it is not important that they understand, only that they comply.   #  if compliance is so important then why use spanking, it has been scientifically shown that it is less effective as a means of compliance than other forms of conditioning ?  #  what does this have to do with the argument that the following statments are contradictory ? you are digressing from our discussion.  but for the sake of initial question i will address your arguments.  and as such it has been proven to be both ineffective and give bad side effects on the child in several studies.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  a three year old is fully capable of understanding that consequences can be dire, and thus it can be explained to them without the use of fear conditioning.  if compliance is so important then why use spanking, it has been scientifically shown that it is less effective as a means of compliance than other forms of conditioning ?
for several reasons:   spanking escalates no one ever goes out to abuse their child unless they are just a monster but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent.    children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ? many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.  at this stage it is very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did.    spanking does not encourage critical thinking: child a:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me  child b:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy explained x will happen.   some objections i get often:    i was spanked and i turned out fine : but if you did not turn out fine, would you know ? and what is  fine  ?    i only spank when it is needed, maybe once or twice if ever.   a new study on spanking, i could find the link if requested, found that when parents do not self report and are monitored, they spank much more than they will admit to.  it is human bias to think we are not as bad as we really are.     kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline !   i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.  spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues.  go ahead reddit, cmv.  good luck.   #  many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.   #  i have not seen it, and it did not occur in my pov.   # it it not abuse and it is not about being violent.  it is about fear and authority, and subordination.  it escalates into threats.  i was spanked, but only by two people my mother, and her mother , the men in the family did not participate, because they hit too hard.  i always listened to mom and grandma, always.  teen girls have sex, and get pregnant, often not understanding the consequences, yet they are still responsible.  it is the way things are.  i have not seen it, and it did not occur in my pov.  sorry but i do not believe you.  abuse may start early, but discipline does not.  did not you just say children do not have the ability to think critically ? critical thinking is not the goal.  the goal is listening to the parents, and doing what they say, and not talking back.  it is about discipline and respect.  critical thinking comes later in life.  may not be possible due to the contradictions of the op.   #  so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ?  # so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ? i only ask because if i had seen someone seriously harm a dog by hitting it on the nose would not that change the extent i am familiar with the practice ? then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.  to avoid that we should draw a distinction between a swat slap on the nose and another degree that would be violent damaging .  one would cause discomfort and one would cause pain.   #  the point i make is that the complexity of the casuality of their actions which makes theese actions wrong is far greater than the complexity of their actions leading to them being spanked.   # no, i do not differentiate between their capability to understand why they are being spanked and the casuality behind them.  mostly because there is no difference is there ? they ca not do both at the same time.  i am not refuting they ca not understand the causuality behind the spanking, that was never the point.  the point i make is that the complexity of the casuality of their actions which makes theese actions wrong is far greater than the complexity of their actions leading to them being spanked.  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   #  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.   # and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.  i do not care if my three year old understands the concept of drowning and death, i care that she knows not to go out onto the back patio.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  when kids get older, then yes, absolutely, explain to them why they are not allowed to do certain things, but when they are still young enough to get spanked, it is not important that they understand, only that they comply.   #  a three year old is fully capable of understanding that consequences can be dire, and thus it can be explained to them without the use of fear conditioning.   #  what does this have to do with the argument that the following statments are contradictory ? you are digressing from our discussion.  but for the sake of initial question i will address your arguments.  and as such it has been proven to be both ineffective and give bad side effects on the child in several studies.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  a three year old is fully capable of understanding that consequences can be dire, and thus it can be explained to them without the use of fear conditioning.  if compliance is so important then why use spanking, it has been scientifically shown that it is less effective as a means of compliance than other forms of conditioning ?
for several reasons:   spanking escalates no one ever goes out to abuse their child unless they are just a monster but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent.    children are a cognitively disabled part of society: how can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence ? many children are incredibly young less than 0 when they start getting spanked.  at this stage it is very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did.    spanking does not encourage critical thinking: child a:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me  child b:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy explained x will happen.   some objections i get often:    i was spanked and i turned out fine : but if you did not turn out fine, would you know ? and what is  fine  ?    i only spank when it is needed, maybe once or twice if ever.   a new study on spanking, i could find the link if requested, found that when parents do not self report and are monitored, they spank much more than they will admit to.  it is human bias to think we are not as bad as we really are.     kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline !   i would posit that some of the worst behaved children i have met are some of the most spanked.  spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues.  go ahead reddit, cmv.  good luck.   #  spanking does not encourage critical thinking: child a:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me  child b:  i better not do that because daddy/mommy explained x will happen.    #  did not you just say children do not have the ability to think critically ?  # it it not abuse and it is not about being violent.  it is about fear and authority, and subordination.  it escalates into threats.  i was spanked, but only by two people my mother, and her mother , the men in the family did not participate, because they hit too hard.  i always listened to mom and grandma, always.  teen girls have sex, and get pregnant, often not understanding the consequences, yet they are still responsible.  it is the way things are.  i have not seen it, and it did not occur in my pov.  sorry but i do not believe you.  abuse may start early, but discipline does not.  did not you just say children do not have the ability to think critically ? critical thinking is not the goal.  the goal is listening to the parents, and doing what they say, and not talking back.  it is about discipline and respect.  critical thinking comes later in life.  may not be possible due to the contradictions of the op.   #  then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.   # so if spanking was done light enough not to cause pain where does that put it ? i only ask because if i had seen someone seriously harm a dog by hitting it on the nose would not that change the extent i am familiar with the practice ? then we are not arguing if spanking is right or wrong but rather the spanking you have experienced was right or wrong.  to avoid that we should draw a distinction between a swat slap on the nose and another degree that would be violent damaging .  one would cause discomfort and one would cause pain.   #  i am not refuting they ca not understand the causuality behind the spanking, that was never the point.   # no, i do not differentiate between their capability to understand why they are being spanked and the casuality behind them.  mostly because there is no difference is there ? they ca not do both at the same time.  i am not refuting they ca not understand the causuality behind the spanking, that was never the point.  the point i make is that the complexity of the casuality of their actions which makes theese actions wrong is far greater than the complexity of their actions leading to them being spanked.  and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.   #  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.   # and to spank them would rob them of learning this casuality.  you are still missing the larger point: spanking is not about teaching a larger lesson, it is about an immediate action to correct an inappropriate behavior.  i do not care if my three year old understands the concept of drowning and death, i care that she knows not to go out onto the back patio.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  when kids get older, then yes, absolutely, explain to them why they are not allowed to do certain things, but when they are still young enough to get spanked, it is not important that they understand, only that they comply.   #  if compliance is so important then why use spanking, it has been scientifically shown that it is less effective as a means of compliance than other forms of conditioning ?  #  what does this have to do with the argument that the following statments are contradictory ? you are digressing from our discussion.  but for the sake of initial question i will address your arguments.  and as such it has been proven to be both ineffective and give bad side effects on the child in several studies.  i do not care if she grasps the complexities involved in the operation of a motor vehicle, i care that she knows not to play in the street.  a three year old is fully capable of understanding that consequences can be dire, and thus it can be explained to them without the use of fear conditioning.  if compliance is so important then why use spanking, it has been scientifically shown that it is less effective as a means of compliance than other forms of conditioning ?
hey guys.  i am a soon to be 0 year old college student who goes to a prestigious university in the northeast.  i consider myself to be doing well in life so far have a good summer job, good friends, 0 gpa majoring in accounting, go to the gym 0 0 times per week, etc .  at the end of my day, around midnight, when i feel that i am done with everything that i wanted to do for the day, i smoke some weed with my friends or occasionally alone and watch netflix, have stimulating conversations with friends, and just hangout.  i do this close to every night.  i see it as a reward system almost: go to class/work, do all my homework/study, go to the gym, skateboard or play a sport, smoke around midnight or later.  tell me why i should not enjoy myself by smoking at the end of every day.   #  tell me why i should not enjoy myself by smoking at the end of every day.   #  because if you are caught buying, possessing or smoking weed you can face some serious, life altering consequences.   #  alright, so back to the question.  because if you are caught buying, possessing or smoking weed you can face some serious, life altering consequences.  you are taking a huge risk, and in that sense you are doing something  wrong  because you may end up jeopardizing your future.  .  apart from that i see no real problem.  just be careful, do not get caught.   #  but moderation really is key if you want to get something out of it and avoid the downsides.   #  first off your brain is not fully developed yet.  it is usually matured around age 0 0.  before it is, most psychoactive substances including cannabis are not good for it as they upset the development.  this can lead to a drop in mental capacity compared to what you would have had at 0/0 if you would never smoked.  once your brain has matured, most studies seem to show that cannabis leaves no permanent impairment whatsoever.  that is good news right ? except, if you are smoking every day then you never recover from even the short term effects and they become permanent in practice, until you stop.  and even when you stop for daily smokers it often takes many months until you are completely unimpaired again.  last but not least, cannabis is a drug you will enjoy a lot more if you smoke it only occasionally few times per year .  you quickly build tolerance and a drug that used to make you think in new perspectives, engage you intellectually and set loose your creativity now only makes you giggly and content at best, and  normal  at worst meaning when you do not smoke you feel you are functioning less than at normal levels .  smoking cannabis can be a great thing to have in your life.  but moderation really is key if you want to get something out of it and avoid the downsides.  also, you have a very long life ahead of you, with lots of time to smoke.  you  can  wait 0 years for the sake of your brain.  really.  and if staying sober for 0 years seems unbearable to you, then all the more reason to do just that.   #  i find that if i do not have interesting ideas brewing inside my mind it just does not blow up, no matter my lack of tolerance and no matter how dank my weed is.   #  i ca not see someone smoking twice a week without developing tolerance.  that said i will admit  a few times a year  may be a bit restrictive.  but in my opinion that is the way to go if you want the very best earth shattering the universe is unfolding through my brain kind of effect.  it is not only about tolerance but also about feeding your brain with new knowledge and experiences so it has something to work with.  i find that if i do not have interesting ideas brewing inside my mind it just does not blow up, no matter my lack of tolerance and no matter how dank my weed is.  i just go for a bit of a ride instead which is fun but not what i am after.  that is why i would recommend sparse smoking to everyone, or at least to anyone who values the wonders of thought which should be everyone, only some people do not know what they are missing ! .   #  it is pretty common with others i know too.   #  i do not know i have to agree with him.  quit for two years and started again and it was mind blowing.  smoke pretty much every day now and if i go 0 hours or more then i pretty much get the same effect.  it is pretty common with others i know too.  i know people who smoke several blunts a day, those guys probably need to quit for a week or more to get the same feeling, i do not know for sure.   #  and that is aside from the other, milder side effects.   #  hello ! thought i would reply here as my point is also relevant to the prior one raised.  i work in mental health and have seen more than my fair share of drug induced psychosis from cannabis use in young people.  whilst the majority of users do not have this issue, if it does occur, it is really terrifying.  and that is aside from the other, milder side effects.  before the age of 0, i would never suggest cannabis use is ok.  after your brain is fully developed is not as much of a concern to me, and i support legalization for over 0s for pain management at a minimum bit probably recreationally as well.  what you are doing has parallels to drinking when pregnant.  it could be fine and plenty do not have an issue when they do it but it can also have pretty dire consequences.
hey guys.  i am a soon to be 0 year old college student who goes to a prestigious university in the northeast.  i consider myself to be doing well in life so far have a good summer job, good friends, 0 gpa majoring in accounting, go to the gym 0 0 times per week, etc .  at the end of my day, around midnight, when i feel that i am done with everything that i wanted to do for the day, i smoke some weed with my friends or occasionally alone and watch netflix, have stimulating conversations with friends, and just hangout.  i do this close to every night.  i see it as a reward system almost: go to class/work, do all my homework/study, go to the gym, skateboard or play a sport, smoke around midnight or later.  tell me why i should not enjoy myself by smoking at the end of every day.   #  tell me why i should not enjoy myself by smoking at the end of every day.   #  you will develop a habit like this, that habit can turn to addiction.   # you will develop a habit like this, that habit can turn to addiction.  r/leaves can give you an insight of quitters having a very hard time quitting cannabis.  being 0 at college, you are far away from this situation, but you are open to this outcome.  then there is also the issue with smoking itself, you are inhaling a burned plant, do not think it is so different to cigarrettes, it is nearly the same minus the nicotine.  and as others stated, with cannabis being illegal, and considering the togh laws of your country, you are risking more than health.  there is very little wrong with what you are doing, but it is not innocuous.   #  first off your brain is not fully developed yet.   #  first off your brain is not fully developed yet.  it is usually matured around age 0 0.  before it is, most psychoactive substances including cannabis are not good for it as they upset the development.  this can lead to a drop in mental capacity compared to what you would have had at 0/0 if you would never smoked.  once your brain has matured, most studies seem to show that cannabis leaves no permanent impairment whatsoever.  that is good news right ? except, if you are smoking every day then you never recover from even the short term effects and they become permanent in practice, until you stop.  and even when you stop for daily smokers it often takes many months until you are completely unimpaired again.  last but not least, cannabis is a drug you will enjoy a lot more if you smoke it only occasionally few times per year .  you quickly build tolerance and a drug that used to make you think in new perspectives, engage you intellectually and set loose your creativity now only makes you giggly and content at best, and  normal  at worst meaning when you do not smoke you feel you are functioning less than at normal levels .  smoking cannabis can be a great thing to have in your life.  but moderation really is key if you want to get something out of it and avoid the downsides.  also, you have a very long life ahead of you, with lots of time to smoke.  you  can  wait 0 years for the sake of your brain.  really.  and if staying sober for 0 years seems unbearable to you, then all the more reason to do just that.   #  that is why i would recommend sparse smoking to everyone, or at least to anyone who values the wonders of thought which should be everyone, only some people do not know what they are missing !  #  i ca not see someone smoking twice a week without developing tolerance.  that said i will admit  a few times a year  may be a bit restrictive.  but in my opinion that is the way to go if you want the very best earth shattering the universe is unfolding through my brain kind of effect.  it is not only about tolerance but also about feeding your brain with new knowledge and experiences so it has something to work with.  i find that if i do not have interesting ideas brewing inside my mind it just does not blow up, no matter my lack of tolerance and no matter how dank my weed is.  i just go for a bit of a ride instead which is fun but not what i am after.  that is why i would recommend sparse smoking to everyone, or at least to anyone who values the wonders of thought which should be everyone, only some people do not know what they are missing ! .   #  smoke pretty much every day now and if i go 0 hours or more then i pretty much get the same effect.   #  i do not know i have to agree with him.  quit for two years and started again and it was mind blowing.  smoke pretty much every day now and if i go 0 hours or more then i pretty much get the same effect.  it is pretty common with others i know too.  i know people who smoke several blunts a day, those guys probably need to quit for a week or more to get the same feeling, i do not know for sure.   #  i work in mental health and have seen more than my fair share of drug induced psychosis from cannabis use in young people.   #  hello ! thought i would reply here as my point is also relevant to the prior one raised.  i work in mental health and have seen more than my fair share of drug induced psychosis from cannabis use in young people.  whilst the majority of users do not have this issue, if it does occur, it is really terrifying.  and that is aside from the other, milder side effects.  before the age of 0, i would never suggest cannabis use is ok.  after your brain is fully developed is not as much of a concern to me, and i support legalization for over 0s for pain management at a minimum bit probably recreationally as well.  what you are doing has parallels to drinking when pregnant.  it could be fine and plenty do not have an issue when they do it but it can also have pretty dire consequences.
i do not understand the importance of the subculture of poetry: readings/contests, memorizing it, and praising it.  most of it is repetitive: hardship and love.  if you want something philosophical, i feel you should stick to essays.  if you want something artistic, i feel you should stick to art and other craft.  i feel poetry fails to combine these two elements diversely, and most of the poems that are praised only revolve around the two topics stated: love and hardship.  yes, there are very nice and interesting poems that do not fall in between these two spectra, but they are not as well known or as praised.  i have read some good poems, and i do have a few i like, but i do not see the big deal about it.  for instance, why do russians rely heavily in poetry and teaching their kids to memorize them.  what about poetry is so respected ?  #  if you want something philosophical, i feel you should stick to essays.   #  well, just as, say, novels can be philosophical by which i guess i mean address issues relevant to philosophy , poems can be philosophical too, but there is no reason to think that wanting  something philosophical  is the reason that most people read and appreciate poetry.   # well, just as, say, novels can be philosophical by which i guess i mean address issues relevant to philosophy , poems can be philosophical too, but there is no reason to think that wanting  something philosophical  is the reason that most people read and appreciate poetry.  plenty of great poems are not philosophical in the slightest.  poetry is art.  do you think it is not ? or are you using the word  art  to refer exclusively to the visual arts ? if so, what is it that the visual arts give us that poetry ca not ?  #  when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.   #  it seems like your main problem with poetry is the repetition.  it is true, most of poetry is about love and hardship.  so are most paintings, so is most of literature, as is most of television, most of cinema, and most of life.  they are two incredibly powerful, incredibly broad topics that are inextricably linked to humanity, so it makes sense that a lot of art would touch on these topics.  it is not fair to single out poetry alone for going back to this rather deep well.  what other topics do you feel get ignored in most poetry that are not ignored in most of any other medium ? poetry can do in a few stanzas what it takes many essays pages to do.  in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader, while essays are much more explicit about their meaning.  when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  in terms of artistry, no form of prose can compare to poetry.  in terms of use of language and rhythm, poetry blows all forms of prose out of the water.  it is common to see that only very rare sections of prose compare favorably to similar sized samples of poems.  poetry is less diluted than prose.  as far as the rest of art goes, words and pictures/sounds are non overlapping magisteria.  there are things you can express with music that you ca not express as elegantly with words, but there are equally things that you can express with words in ways that you ca not express as skillfully with music.  if an artist wants to use words as their medium without filling hundreds of pages, poetry is a strong choice.  poetry is something that is easy to write and iterate upon.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  it is easy to see in even some great novels parts that could have been improved or expanded by revision that there simply was not time for.  the limited scope of poetry shrinks the time from draft to draft to the point where every syllable of the final work can be polished to perfection.  since poetry is often the pinnacle of elegance of written language, it makes sense that it should be studied.  it is incredibly helpful for students to see their language at its best.  memorizing poems can give students an appreciation for the flow and rhythm of language, which will help improve all of their writing.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.   #  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.   # when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  a very fair point provided and worth considering.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  fair enough.  the same message can be shortened significantly with a poem and be less tedious and time consuming as a novel.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.  at last a response that addresses this !  #  things are always more complicated than a few lines could ever convey.   # in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader.  oddly enough, as someone who occasionally enjoys some poetry, this is what i dislike most about it.  nothing can be reduced down to a few sentences.  therefore, it is often the most dangerous and misleading when someone is able to use the power of language and metaphor to make it temporarily seem as though this was accomplished.  things are always more complicated than a few lines could ever convey.  no matter how insightful or concise.  strongly evocative words, whether they are beloved political speeches or poetry, allow people to be lulled into thinking intuition alone can reach into the darkness and snatch out pure, uncut truth.  sometimes it gets close enough to claim victory, but many other times it has us ramming our heads against the wall.  we will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood.  richard feynman they write to be felt, not understood.  and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.   #  most importantly, some concepts are intensely personal, and will always be best understood by allowing the reader to fill in some of the details for themselves.   # and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.  i think the distinction between feeling and understanding is not as clear cut as you make it sound.  there are certainly cases where feeling allows you to gain a more personal understanding of truth than explanation would.  some concepts are like magic eye illusions, where you can see it more truly by not subjecting every pixel to scrutiny, but by taking a broader look at it.  some concepts are like frogs.  you can learn a lot from dissecting them, but it kills the frog in the process.  most importantly, some concepts are intensely personal, and will always be best understood by allowing the reader to fill in some of the details for themselves.  this does not make the ideas expressed by the poem any less true.  some truths are feelings.  poems are to novels as scatter plots are to line graphs.  we can see the same trend in both, even if the scatterplot makes you connect the dots on your own.  the ratio of meaning expressed to words used is generally much higher in poems than in novels.  there is a certain beauty in economy.
i do not understand the importance of the subculture of poetry: readings/contests, memorizing it, and praising it.  most of it is repetitive: hardship and love.  if you want something philosophical, i feel you should stick to essays.  if you want something artistic, i feel you should stick to art and other craft.  i feel poetry fails to combine these two elements diversely, and most of the poems that are praised only revolve around the two topics stated: love and hardship.  yes, there are very nice and interesting poems that do not fall in between these two spectra, but they are not as well known or as praised.  i have read some good poems, and i do have a few i like, but i do not see the big deal about it.  for instance, why do russians rely heavily in poetry and teaching their kids to memorize them.  what about poetry is so respected ?  #  if you want something philosophical, i feel you should stick to essays.   #  if you want something artistic, i feel you should stick to art and other craft.   # we must not say so.  i conclude now i have no  inner resources, because i am heavy bored.  if your view of poetry is just  hardship and love  i suggest branching out and delving into the huge breadth of work that exists ! if you want something artistic, i feel you should stick to art and other craft.  this is akin to saying  i do not see the big deal about painting.  if you want to represent something visually, i feel you should stick to photography.   poetry is just art with language as the medium.  that is it.  no other restrictions.  now think of how powerful language is.  how many times has someone made you angry or elated or afraid merely with words ? language is the filter through which we experience our world.  and every word in every language drags along with it an etymology, a usage history, cultural connotations, personal connotations,  c.  a good poet considers all of these factors when selecting each individual word of a poem.  and when reading poetry, one is encouraged to contemplate each word and seek out all of the connections between them, no matter how trivial they may seem.  the end result, then, is not something that can be distilled into a thesis statement, but is rather a web of linked ideas that extend far beyond the page and have the potential to encompass every human thought and experience.  and if you do not find that as staggeringly beautiful as i do, then i am afraid i ca not help you.   #  it is not fair to single out poetry alone for going back to this rather deep well.   #  it seems like your main problem with poetry is the repetition.  it is true, most of poetry is about love and hardship.  so are most paintings, so is most of literature, as is most of television, most of cinema, and most of life.  they are two incredibly powerful, incredibly broad topics that are inextricably linked to humanity, so it makes sense that a lot of art would touch on these topics.  it is not fair to single out poetry alone for going back to this rather deep well.  what other topics do you feel get ignored in most poetry that are not ignored in most of any other medium ? poetry can do in a few stanzas what it takes many essays pages to do.  in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader, while essays are much more explicit about their meaning.  when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  in terms of artistry, no form of prose can compare to poetry.  in terms of use of language and rhythm, poetry blows all forms of prose out of the water.  it is common to see that only very rare sections of prose compare favorably to similar sized samples of poems.  poetry is less diluted than prose.  as far as the rest of art goes, words and pictures/sounds are non overlapping magisteria.  there are things you can express with music that you ca not express as elegantly with words, but there are equally things that you can express with words in ways that you ca not express as skillfully with music.  if an artist wants to use words as their medium without filling hundreds of pages, poetry is a strong choice.  poetry is something that is easy to write and iterate upon.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  it is easy to see in even some great novels parts that could have been improved or expanded by revision that there simply was not time for.  the limited scope of poetry shrinks the time from draft to draft to the point where every syllable of the final work can be polished to perfection.  since poetry is often the pinnacle of elegance of written language, it makes sense that it should be studied.  it is incredibly helpful for students to see their language at its best.  memorizing poems can give students an appreciation for the flow and rhythm of language, which will help improve all of their writing.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.   #  the same message can be shortened significantly with a poem and be less tedious and time consuming as a novel.   # when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  a very fair point provided and worth considering.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  fair enough.  the same message can be shortened significantly with a poem and be less tedious and time consuming as a novel.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.  at last a response that addresses this !  #  strongly evocative words, whether they are beloved political speeches or poetry, allow people to be lulled into thinking intuition alone can reach into the darkness and snatch out pure, uncut truth.   # in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader.  oddly enough, as someone who occasionally enjoys some poetry, this is what i dislike most about it.  nothing can be reduced down to a few sentences.  therefore, it is often the most dangerous and misleading when someone is able to use the power of language and metaphor to make it temporarily seem as though this was accomplished.  things are always more complicated than a few lines could ever convey.  no matter how insightful or concise.  strongly evocative words, whether they are beloved political speeches or poetry, allow people to be lulled into thinking intuition alone can reach into the darkness and snatch out pure, uncut truth.  sometimes it gets close enough to claim victory, but many other times it has us ramming our heads against the wall.  we will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood.  richard feynman they write to be felt, not understood.  and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.   #  poems are to novels as scatter plots are to line graphs.   # and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.  i think the distinction between feeling and understanding is not as clear cut as you make it sound.  there are certainly cases where feeling allows you to gain a more personal understanding of truth than explanation would.  some concepts are like magic eye illusions, where you can see it more truly by not subjecting every pixel to scrutiny, but by taking a broader look at it.  some concepts are like frogs.  you can learn a lot from dissecting them, but it kills the frog in the process.  most importantly, some concepts are intensely personal, and will always be best understood by allowing the reader to fill in some of the details for themselves.  this does not make the ideas expressed by the poem any less true.  some truths are feelings.  poems are to novels as scatter plots are to line graphs.  we can see the same trend in both, even if the scatterplot makes you connect the dots on your own.  the ratio of meaning expressed to words used is generally much higher in poems than in novels.  there is a certain beauty in economy.
i do not understand the importance of the subculture of poetry: readings/contests, memorizing it, and praising it.  most of it is repetitive: hardship and love.  if you want something philosophical, i feel you should stick to essays.  if you want something artistic, i feel you should stick to art and other craft.  i feel poetry fails to combine these two elements diversely, and most of the poems that are praised only revolve around the two topics stated: love and hardship.  yes, there are very nice and interesting poems that do not fall in between these two spectra, but they are not as well known or as praised.  i have read some good poems, and i do have a few i like, but i do not see the big deal about it.  for instance, why do russians rely heavily in poetry and teaching their kids to memorize them.  what about poetry is so respected ?  #  most of it is repetitive: hardship and love.   #  this is just displaying an ignorance to the genre.   # this is just displaying an ignorance to the genre.  that is like saying most music is about hardship and love.  sure, if you only listen to country and top 0 that might be the case, but music as a genre is rich and deep and encompasses the entire range of human emotions.  so does poetry.  your argument happens to be erroneous, as anyone who understands poetry specifically or art in general can tell you, and i think it hinges on a lack of understanding about what makes art so worthwhile and amazing.  in short, it is the potential to express the inexpressible, or another way to look at it is to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.  the indication that it has worked, for a particular viewer or audience, is the experience of catharsis in the viewer.  art only works, generally, for people who can in some way relate to the quality that the artist was working to express and who have some at least vague sense of the significance of the technique the artist employed in the process.  poetry uses an innately human medium the written and spoken word to convey that deeper meaning.  it is the art of arranging letters generally words and punctuation on the page in an intentional way to achieve that effect.  you even admit that some poetry has succeeded in reaching you by saying that you  like  it, which makes me wonder how you fail to see its potential.  it is one of the most fundamentally human arts, transcending language and culture, and it makes up an important part of our history, yes, but also of culture today.  song lyrics generally attempt to be poetic and some succeed, as do speeches, ad copy, movie dialogue, and even newspaper headlines.  the old style of poetry being printed on a page, unadorned, has fallen out of vogue in the u. s.  because technology has allowed us to keep innovating and adding even more layers of technique and meaning in those other forms, but it is easy to see why even very old poetry is so important to, as you said, russians it is for the same reason americans will pay for piano lessons for their children or buy them tolkien and dickens and even homer, or play mozart to them, or take them to plays or the thousands of other things they do.  some poetry in its traditional form or one of its newer derivative forms will speak to you as an individual, as you have already experienced, but much of it will not.  some of the levels of meaning and the technique employed will be apparent to you as an individual, most will probably not.  but that has literally nothing to do with the broader cultural importance, or the potential, of the genre.   #  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.   #  it seems like your main problem with poetry is the repetition.  it is true, most of poetry is about love and hardship.  so are most paintings, so is most of literature, as is most of television, most of cinema, and most of life.  they are two incredibly powerful, incredibly broad topics that are inextricably linked to humanity, so it makes sense that a lot of art would touch on these topics.  it is not fair to single out poetry alone for going back to this rather deep well.  what other topics do you feel get ignored in most poetry that are not ignored in most of any other medium ? poetry can do in a few stanzas what it takes many essays pages to do.  in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader, while essays are much more explicit about their meaning.  when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  in terms of artistry, no form of prose can compare to poetry.  in terms of use of language and rhythm, poetry blows all forms of prose out of the water.  it is common to see that only very rare sections of prose compare favorably to similar sized samples of poems.  poetry is less diluted than prose.  as far as the rest of art goes, words and pictures/sounds are non overlapping magisteria.  there are things you can express with music that you ca not express as elegantly with words, but there are equally things that you can express with words in ways that you ca not express as skillfully with music.  if an artist wants to use words as their medium without filling hundreds of pages, poetry is a strong choice.  poetry is something that is easy to write and iterate upon.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  it is easy to see in even some great novels parts that could have been improved or expanded by revision that there simply was not time for.  the limited scope of poetry shrinks the time from draft to draft to the point where every syllable of the final work can be polished to perfection.  since poetry is often the pinnacle of elegance of written language, it makes sense that it should be studied.  it is incredibly helpful for students to see their language at its best.  memorizing poems can give students an appreciation for the flow and rhythm of language, which will help improve all of their writing.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.   #  the same message can be shortened significantly with a poem and be less tedious and time consuming as a novel.   # when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  a very fair point provided and worth considering.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  fair enough.  the same message can be shortened significantly with a poem and be less tedious and time consuming as a novel.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.  at last a response that addresses this !  #  nothing can be reduced down to a few sentences.   # in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader.  oddly enough, as someone who occasionally enjoys some poetry, this is what i dislike most about it.  nothing can be reduced down to a few sentences.  therefore, it is often the most dangerous and misleading when someone is able to use the power of language and metaphor to make it temporarily seem as though this was accomplished.  things are always more complicated than a few lines could ever convey.  no matter how insightful or concise.  strongly evocative words, whether they are beloved political speeches or poetry, allow people to be lulled into thinking intuition alone can reach into the darkness and snatch out pure, uncut truth.  sometimes it gets close enough to claim victory, but many other times it has us ramming our heads against the wall.  we will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood.  richard feynman they write to be felt, not understood.  and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.   #  we can see the same trend in both, even if the scatterplot makes you connect the dots on your own.   # and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.  i think the distinction between feeling and understanding is not as clear cut as you make it sound.  there are certainly cases where feeling allows you to gain a more personal understanding of truth than explanation would.  some concepts are like magic eye illusions, where you can see it more truly by not subjecting every pixel to scrutiny, but by taking a broader look at it.  some concepts are like frogs.  you can learn a lot from dissecting them, but it kills the frog in the process.  most importantly, some concepts are intensely personal, and will always be best understood by allowing the reader to fill in some of the details for themselves.  this does not make the ideas expressed by the poem any less true.  some truths are feelings.  poems are to novels as scatter plots are to line graphs.  we can see the same trend in both, even if the scatterplot makes you connect the dots on your own.  the ratio of meaning expressed to words used is generally much higher in poems than in novels.  there is a certain beauty in economy.
i do not understand the importance of the subculture of poetry: readings/contests, memorizing it, and praising it.  most of it is repetitive: hardship and love.  if you want something philosophical, i feel you should stick to essays.  if you want something artistic, i feel you should stick to art and other craft.  i feel poetry fails to combine these two elements diversely, and most of the poems that are praised only revolve around the two topics stated: love and hardship.  yes, there are very nice and interesting poems that do not fall in between these two spectra, but they are not as well known or as praised.  i have read some good poems, and i do have a few i like, but i do not see the big deal about it.  for instance, why do russians rely heavily in poetry and teaching their kids to memorize them.  what about poetry is so respected ?  #  and most of the poems that are praised only revolve around the two topics stated: love and hardship.   #  what is popular might not fit everyone is taste.   #  poetry is the basis of stories and maybe english.  many stories in history were stored in poem form instead of regular story form because it was more verbal.  today, modern poetry, is where art and aesthetics meets the word.  how words are placed on the page is actually very important.  poetry needs to be more concise and particular than any other form of literature.  if you write a 0k word book, you can probably get away with a ton of shit, errors, lame words, etc and people will consider it a good book.  in a poem you have 0 words to really express yourself.  there is no hiding anywhere in a poem.  ie i am comparing it to modern, comptery, postmodern and concept art.  the thing about that style of art, which is more bizzare and focuses on shapes, etc, is that is meant to inspire and show you something neat when you create something else.  renissance style art is very good, the figures are realistic, shading is crazy, rich colors, etc but its all very bland.  mostly its a picture of a person or a scene.  its fantastic art but it been done, and it does not inspire same way like post modern pieces.  poetry is kinda like that.  what you need to understand about ideas and media in general is they just are not for your consumption but you can  also use them .  really fantstic original idea are born out of copying other things, generally lots of things.  they are not pulled from the void, people get inspired by things they read.  poetry is basically crack in this sense for a writer.  if you write a short story and every page is poetry, you will do great.  you might learn how to use a new word from reading poetry.  the way the words are presented might help you in writing something, a newsletter, a short story, an email, and so on.  what is popular might not fit everyone is taste.  people like these subjects because they very passionate and romantic, but certainly there are many other poems out there as well.  one example: poetry   lyrics   song that makes you millions of dollars.  there is a reason when you read the lyrics of a song its not done as a paragraph but instead of how you present a poem.  personally the way how the page was used in the  book of dead leaves  to create this maddening sense as you read really opened my world about how poetry can influence other things.  i do not really see a need to make poetry anymore but i understand why its influence is great an important.  without lyricism, aesthetics, philosophy in the word you might as well be reading a text book describing events as dryly as possible.   #  in terms of artistry, no form of prose can compare to poetry.   #  it seems like your main problem with poetry is the repetition.  it is true, most of poetry is about love and hardship.  so are most paintings, so is most of literature, as is most of television, most of cinema, and most of life.  they are two incredibly powerful, incredibly broad topics that are inextricably linked to humanity, so it makes sense that a lot of art would touch on these topics.  it is not fair to single out poetry alone for going back to this rather deep well.  what other topics do you feel get ignored in most poetry that are not ignored in most of any other medium ? poetry can do in a few stanzas what it takes many essays pages to do.  in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader, while essays are much more explicit about their meaning.  when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  in terms of artistry, no form of prose can compare to poetry.  in terms of use of language and rhythm, poetry blows all forms of prose out of the water.  it is common to see that only very rare sections of prose compare favorably to similar sized samples of poems.  poetry is less diluted than prose.  as far as the rest of art goes, words and pictures/sounds are non overlapping magisteria.  there are things you can express with music that you ca not express as elegantly with words, but there are equally things that you can express with words in ways that you ca not express as skillfully with music.  if an artist wants to use words as their medium without filling hundreds of pages, poetry is a strong choice.  poetry is something that is easy to write and iterate upon.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  it is easy to see in even some great novels parts that could have been improved or expanded by revision that there simply was not time for.  the limited scope of poetry shrinks the time from draft to draft to the point where every syllable of the final work can be polished to perfection.  since poetry is often the pinnacle of elegance of written language, it makes sense that it should be studied.  it is incredibly helpful for students to see their language at its best.  memorizing poems can give students an appreciation for the flow and rhythm of language, which will help improve all of their writing.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.   #  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.   # when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  a very fair point provided and worth considering.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  fair enough.  the same message can be shortened significantly with a poem and be less tedious and time consuming as a novel.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.  at last a response that addresses this !  #  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.   # in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader.  oddly enough, as someone who occasionally enjoys some poetry, this is what i dislike most about it.  nothing can be reduced down to a few sentences.  therefore, it is often the most dangerous and misleading when someone is able to use the power of language and metaphor to make it temporarily seem as though this was accomplished.  things are always more complicated than a few lines could ever convey.  no matter how insightful or concise.  strongly evocative words, whether they are beloved political speeches or poetry, allow people to be lulled into thinking intuition alone can reach into the darkness and snatch out pure, uncut truth.  sometimes it gets close enough to claim victory, but many other times it has us ramming our heads against the wall.  we will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood.  richard feynman they write to be felt, not understood.  and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.   #  most importantly, some concepts are intensely personal, and will always be best understood by allowing the reader to fill in some of the details for themselves.   # and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.  i think the distinction between feeling and understanding is not as clear cut as you make it sound.  there are certainly cases where feeling allows you to gain a more personal understanding of truth than explanation would.  some concepts are like magic eye illusions, where you can see it more truly by not subjecting every pixel to scrutiny, but by taking a broader look at it.  some concepts are like frogs.  you can learn a lot from dissecting them, but it kills the frog in the process.  most importantly, some concepts are intensely personal, and will always be best understood by allowing the reader to fill in some of the details for themselves.  this does not make the ideas expressed by the poem any less true.  some truths are feelings.  poems are to novels as scatter plots are to line graphs.  we can see the same trend in both, even if the scatterplot makes you connect the dots on your own.  the ratio of meaning expressed to words used is generally much higher in poems than in novels.  there is a certain beauty in economy.
i do not understand the importance of the subculture of poetry: readings/contests, memorizing it, and praising it.  most of it is repetitive: hardship and love.  if you want something philosophical, i feel you should stick to essays.  if you want something artistic, i feel you should stick to art and other craft.  i feel poetry fails to combine these two elements diversely, and most of the poems that are praised only revolve around the two topics stated: love and hardship.  yes, there are very nice and interesting poems that do not fall in between these two spectra, but they are not as well known or as praised.  i have read some good poems, and i do have a few i like, but i do not see the big deal about it.  for instance, why do russians rely heavily in poetry and teaching their kids to memorize them.  what about poetry is so respected ?  #  but i do not see the big deal about it.   #  one example: poetry   lyrics   song that makes you millions of dollars.   #  poetry is the basis of stories and maybe english.  many stories in history were stored in poem form instead of regular story form because it was more verbal.  today, modern poetry, is where art and aesthetics meets the word.  how words are placed on the page is actually very important.  poetry needs to be more concise and particular than any other form of literature.  if you write a 0k word book, you can probably get away with a ton of shit, errors, lame words, etc and people will consider it a good book.  in a poem you have 0 words to really express yourself.  there is no hiding anywhere in a poem.  ie i am comparing it to modern, comptery, postmodern and concept art.  the thing about that style of art, which is more bizzare and focuses on shapes, etc, is that is meant to inspire and show you something neat when you create something else.  renissance style art is very good, the figures are realistic, shading is crazy, rich colors, etc but its all very bland.  mostly its a picture of a person or a scene.  its fantastic art but it been done, and it does not inspire same way like post modern pieces.  poetry is kinda like that.  what you need to understand about ideas and media in general is they just are not for your consumption but you can  also use them .  really fantstic original idea are born out of copying other things, generally lots of things.  they are not pulled from the void, people get inspired by things they read.  poetry is basically crack in this sense for a writer.  if you write a short story and every page is poetry, you will do great.  you might learn how to use a new word from reading poetry.  the way the words are presented might help you in writing something, a newsletter, a short story, an email, and so on.  what is popular might not fit everyone is taste.  people like these subjects because they very passionate and romantic, but certainly there are many other poems out there as well.  one example: poetry   lyrics   song that makes you millions of dollars.  there is a reason when you read the lyrics of a song its not done as a paragraph but instead of how you present a poem.  personally the way how the page was used in the  book of dead leaves  to create this maddening sense as you read really opened my world about how poetry can influence other things.  i do not really see a need to make poetry anymore but i understand why its influence is great an important.  without lyricism, aesthetics, philosophy in the word you might as well be reading a text book describing events as dryly as possible.   #  poetry can do in a few stanzas what it takes many essays pages to do.   #  it seems like your main problem with poetry is the repetition.  it is true, most of poetry is about love and hardship.  so are most paintings, so is most of literature, as is most of television, most of cinema, and most of life.  they are two incredibly powerful, incredibly broad topics that are inextricably linked to humanity, so it makes sense that a lot of art would touch on these topics.  it is not fair to single out poetry alone for going back to this rather deep well.  what other topics do you feel get ignored in most poetry that are not ignored in most of any other medium ? poetry can do in a few stanzas what it takes many essays pages to do.  in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader, while essays are much more explicit about their meaning.  when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  in terms of artistry, no form of prose can compare to poetry.  in terms of use of language and rhythm, poetry blows all forms of prose out of the water.  it is common to see that only very rare sections of prose compare favorably to similar sized samples of poems.  poetry is less diluted than prose.  as far as the rest of art goes, words and pictures/sounds are non overlapping magisteria.  there are things you can express with music that you ca not express as elegantly with words, but there are equally things that you can express with words in ways that you ca not express as skillfully with music.  if an artist wants to use words as their medium without filling hundreds of pages, poetry is a strong choice.  poetry is something that is easy to write and iterate upon.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  it is easy to see in even some great novels parts that could have been improved or expanded by revision that there simply was not time for.  the limited scope of poetry shrinks the time from draft to draft to the point where every syllable of the final work can be polished to perfection.  since poetry is often the pinnacle of elegance of written language, it makes sense that it should be studied.  it is incredibly helpful for students to see their language at its best.  memorizing poems can give students an appreciation for the flow and rhythm of language, which will help improve all of their writing.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.   #  a very fair point provided and worth considering.   # when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  a very fair point provided and worth considering.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  fair enough.  the same message can be shortened significantly with a poem and be less tedious and time consuming as a novel.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.  at last a response that addresses this !  #  sometimes it gets close enough to claim victory, but many other times it has us ramming our heads against the wall.   # in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader.  oddly enough, as someone who occasionally enjoys some poetry, this is what i dislike most about it.  nothing can be reduced down to a few sentences.  therefore, it is often the most dangerous and misleading when someone is able to use the power of language and metaphor to make it temporarily seem as though this was accomplished.  things are always more complicated than a few lines could ever convey.  no matter how insightful or concise.  strongly evocative words, whether they are beloved political speeches or poetry, allow people to be lulled into thinking intuition alone can reach into the darkness and snatch out pure, uncut truth.  sometimes it gets close enough to claim victory, but many other times it has us ramming our heads against the wall.  we will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood.  richard feynman they write to be felt, not understood.  and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.   #  the ratio of meaning expressed to words used is generally much higher in poems than in novels.   # and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.  i think the distinction between feeling and understanding is not as clear cut as you make it sound.  there are certainly cases where feeling allows you to gain a more personal understanding of truth than explanation would.  some concepts are like magic eye illusions, where you can see it more truly by not subjecting every pixel to scrutiny, but by taking a broader look at it.  some concepts are like frogs.  you can learn a lot from dissecting them, but it kills the frog in the process.  most importantly, some concepts are intensely personal, and will always be best understood by allowing the reader to fill in some of the details for themselves.  this does not make the ideas expressed by the poem any less true.  some truths are feelings.  poems are to novels as scatter plots are to line graphs.  we can see the same trend in both, even if the scatterplot makes you connect the dots on your own.  the ratio of meaning expressed to words used is generally much higher in poems than in novels.  there is a certain beauty in economy.
i do not understand the importance of the subculture of poetry: readings/contests, memorizing it, and praising it.  most of it is repetitive: hardship and love.  if you want something philosophical, i feel you should stick to essays.  if you want something artistic, i feel you should stick to art and other craft.  i feel poetry fails to combine these two elements diversely, and most of the poems that are praised only revolve around the two topics stated: love and hardship.  yes, there are very nice and interesting poems that do not fall in between these two spectra, but they are not as well known or as praised.  i have read some good poems, and i do have a few i like, but i do not see the big deal about it.  for instance, why do russians rely heavily in poetry and teaching their kids to memorize them.  what about poetry is so respected ?  #  i feel poetry fails to combine these two elements diversely, and most of the poems that are praised only revolve around the two topics stated: love and hardship.   #  yes, there are very nice and interesting poems that do not fall in between these two spectra, but they are not as well known or as praised.   # yes, there are very nice and interesting poems that do not fall in between these two spectra, but they are not as well known or as praised.  i am going to address this point alone for now.  there are certainly many, many poems that are praised for being about things other than simple love.  just because something is not being repeated in children is classrooms, does not mean they are not respected.  most well respected poems in academia broach a wide array of topics: civil rights, gender identity, metafiction, consciousness etc.  i do agree that simply memorizing poetry does not seem to have much of a benefit that i am aware of, but analyzing, reading, and writing poetry are important to understand aspects of world culture in contexts that are much more lyrical and sometimes more challenging than basic literary or visual contexts.  whether you like it is not really relevant, i suppose, as long as you understand that poetry can be both well respected and not fall into your two categories.   #  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.   #  it seems like your main problem with poetry is the repetition.  it is true, most of poetry is about love and hardship.  so are most paintings, so is most of literature, as is most of television, most of cinema, and most of life.  they are two incredibly powerful, incredibly broad topics that are inextricably linked to humanity, so it makes sense that a lot of art would touch on these topics.  it is not fair to single out poetry alone for going back to this rather deep well.  what other topics do you feel get ignored in most poetry that are not ignored in most of any other medium ? poetry can do in a few stanzas what it takes many essays pages to do.  in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader, while essays are much more explicit about their meaning.  when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  in terms of artistry, no form of prose can compare to poetry.  in terms of use of language and rhythm, poetry blows all forms of prose out of the water.  it is common to see that only very rare sections of prose compare favorably to similar sized samples of poems.  poetry is less diluted than prose.  as far as the rest of art goes, words and pictures/sounds are non overlapping magisteria.  there are things you can express with music that you ca not express as elegantly with words, but there are equally things that you can express with words in ways that you ca not express as skillfully with music.  if an artist wants to use words as their medium without filling hundreds of pages, poetry is a strong choice.  poetry is something that is easy to write and iterate upon.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  it is easy to see in even some great novels parts that could have been improved or expanded by revision that there simply was not time for.  the limited scope of poetry shrinks the time from draft to draft to the point where every syllable of the final work can be polished to perfection.  since poetry is often the pinnacle of elegance of written language, it makes sense that it should be studied.  it is incredibly helpful for students to see their language at its best.  memorizing poems can give students an appreciation for the flow and rhythm of language, which will help improve all of their writing.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.   #  when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.   # when you synthesize your own interpretation of a poem, the message you take away from it ends up being much more personal, and because of this, often stronger.  for example, the message of futility that you take away from shelley is ozymandias conveys in 0 lines what it takes some authors hundreds of pages to get across.  a very fair point provided and worth considering.  if someone writes a novel, it takes ages to even finish the first draft, and ages beyond that to revise.  a poem can be written in an afternoon and improved for the rest of eternity.  fair enough.  the same message can be shortened significantly with a poem and be less tedious and time consuming as a novel.  poetry is not just useful as an art form for the writer and as a dispensary of meaning for the reader, but also as a learning exercise for the student.  at last a response that addresses this !  #  sometimes it gets close enough to claim victory, but many other times it has us ramming our heads against the wall.   # in many poems, the meaning is something that must be constructed by the reader.  oddly enough, as someone who occasionally enjoys some poetry, this is what i dislike most about it.  nothing can be reduced down to a few sentences.  therefore, it is often the most dangerous and misleading when someone is able to use the power of language and metaphor to make it temporarily seem as though this was accomplished.  things are always more complicated than a few lines could ever convey.  no matter how insightful or concise.  strongly evocative words, whether they are beloved political speeches or poetry, allow people to be lulled into thinking intuition alone can reach into the darkness and snatch out pure, uncut truth.  sometimes it gets close enough to claim victory, but many other times it has us ramming our heads against the wall.  we will probably never know in what sense he meant that, for poets do not write to be understood.  richard feynman they write to be felt, not understood.  and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.   #  i think the distinction between feeling and understanding is not as clear cut as you make it sound.   # and that motivation, no matter how alluring, has led us astray many times before.  feeling things is not wrong, but holding those feelings up as a substitute for the real work of discovering truth is.  i think the distinction between feeling and understanding is not as clear cut as you make it sound.  there are certainly cases where feeling allows you to gain a more personal understanding of truth than explanation would.  some concepts are like magic eye illusions, where you can see it more truly by not subjecting every pixel to scrutiny, but by taking a broader look at it.  some concepts are like frogs.  you can learn a lot from dissecting them, but it kills the frog in the process.  most importantly, some concepts are intensely personal, and will always be best understood by allowing the reader to fill in some of the details for themselves.  this does not make the ideas expressed by the poem any less true.  some truths are feelings.  poems are to novels as scatter plots are to line graphs.  we can see the same trend in both, even if the scatterplot makes you connect the dots on your own.  the ratio of meaning expressed to words used is generally much higher in poems than in novels.  there is a certain beauty in economy.
i used to be part of the /r/nofap community and felt good about it.  i had a sense of pride when a day passed without masturbation squeezed in there.  however, i never went longer than 0 weeks without masturbating.  each time i masturbated i felt a sense of dread and depression, knowing i would just masturbate again sometime later.  today i broke my 0 day streak.  i feel depressed and stressed.  this basically confirms how i felt about masturbation in the beginning.  it is bad for you.  you could change my view with study is or from experience yourself.  go ahead and try changing my view.   #  you could change my view with study is or from experience yourself.   #  personal experience: when i hit adolescence, i developed a quick temper and became a roiling ball of frustration.   # personal experience: when i hit adolescence, i developed a quick temper and became a roiling ball of frustration.  when i added regular masturbation to my routine, a lot of those feelings got channeled away into happy orgasms, and my temper settled out.  of course, correlation does not imply causation, and it is possible that my angry adolescent phase was short for other reasons.  but i have more personal experience: when it has been a few days since i have had sex or masturbated, i find that i have got a little bit of an edge of irritation going on.  i get frustrated or angry more easily.  having sex or masturbating generally makes those feelings go away.  i travel through life on a much more even keel when i masturbate regularly.  i am better able to focus on goals and tasks that do not have anything to do with sexy times.  i will note that all this works better if i take the time to enjoy masturbating or having sex.  quickies are okay here and there, but taking time to enjoy things generally tends to lead to calmer, more focused periods after.  i also sleep better, and take more naps.  none of this is scientific.  but i suspect your feelings of depression and shame arise from your attitudes toward masturbation, rather than from harm in the act itself.  it is just solo sex, after all.  i think that a lot more harm comes from trying to control your sex drive for whatever reason: it is much better to incorporate that drive into your routine, enjoy the pleasurable things your body can do, and get on with your life.   #  in the end, though, none of that is true.   #  ok, so there are really only two healthy options here.  either stop doing the thing that makes you feel bad, or stop feeling bad about it.  it is not unhealthy.  there is no physiological difference between cuming in your hand and cuming in a vagina, so unless you have some sort of heart condition you are not hurting yourself in any way.  the only reason not to is because you feel like you are not supposed to hence the guilt .  maybe it is a religious thing and you think jesus is judging you.  maybe you think only lonely perverts masturbate so clearly you are no better than them.  maybe you think if anyone knew they would judge the fuck out of you and so you should be doing the same.  in the end, though, none of that is true.  sure, some people would judge you but some people should fuck off.  if it does not hurt you and it does not hurt anyone else and no one even knows about it anyway, then do what you want and do not worry about what anyone else would think.   #  sounds like your problem is that you think you have a problem and the problem you think you have and the problem you have are different .   #  sounds like your problem is that you think you have a problem and the problem you think you have and the problem you have are different .  masturbation is generally healthy, and a couple times a week prevents prostate and even heart problems.  it is a physical necessity, not like food or sleep, but closer to sunlight.  you are trying to achieve an unhealthy ideal, seeing  every  day you do not fap as a great success.  and i understand the satisfaction, i do nofap months now and then.  but those months are  exceptions , tests i do to myself to check my mental and hormonal balance, as well as my self control.  it  is  satisfying when i accomplish it, but after that, i go  completely  guilt free.  it is bad for you.  tl;dr: what is bad for you is not masturbation, but feeling masturbation is bad.   #  but in general, just cutting out something generally healthy that you have a strong urge to do is not a good idea.   #  okay, that is kind of excessive, but not worse than my teen self i think i got to 0 daily for a while .  and still, that does not mean masturbation is bad.  following my sunlight analogy: the fact that there are people addicted to tanning beds does not mean some sunlight is not healthy.  i recommend you visit /r/sex if you think you do need help.  but in general, just cutting out something generally healthy that you have a strong urge to do is not a good idea.   #  when you just have to do it all the time, that is when it gets bad.   #  i think it is a sweeping generalization to say that masturbation is bad.  i too was a member of /r/nofap but left it because i do not think total abstinence is really the answer.  you could look at masturbation the same way you look at a lot of other things that can be addicting drinking, watching tv, salty foods, smoking weed, video games, etc.  some people would say that these things  per se  are bad.  i do not agree.  i think they are all fine  in moderation.  but in excess, they are bad.  too much drinking leads to alcoholism.  too much tv/video games, and especially weed, leads to laziness.  too much salty food just is not healthy.  too much masturbation desensitizes the penis, and you become very addicted.  when you actually get with a sexual partner, you will probably have a hard time getting it up.  when i masturbate a lot, i also feel pretty out of it during the day.  and i do not like that.  but the big takeway i got from /r/nofap was cutting down on my masturbation.  and it was a good thing.  each time i did masturbate was better, and it became much less of a habit that i had to do before bed.  i also started having more sex because i put more effort toward meeting women.  so, masturbation by itself is not bad for you.  when you just have to do it all the time, that is when it gets bad.  because it is a sign you have become addicted, and then comes the opportunity for you to practice self control.  if you are masturbating excessively more than once per day is too much.  i even think once per day can be too much , make efforts to cut down on it.  0 0 times a week would be a good start.
more and more i see girls of all ages wearing these shorts.  i think those younger than about fifteen or so should not be wearing them.  in my opinion these types of shorts reveal way to much.  it immediately draws attention to the wearers rear and genital area.  we should not sexualize children by allowing them to wear these clothes.  its become so prevalent to see booty shorts on wherever you go, i feel it is expected of girls to wear these clothes.  they are far too many times i have seen a young girl with her ass literally hanging out and she thinks its ok to be dressed like that.  worst is their parent has no issues with it.  the only reason i am not mention boys is because i have yet to see them wearing low cut shorts like i so commonly see with girls.   #  worst is their parent has no issues with it.   #  are you certain they have no problem with it ?  #  is this extremely different than a young girl in a bikini ? is this  more  inappropriate than that ? do you also have a problem with a 0 y/o girl wearing a swimsuit ? are you certain they have no problem with it ? they may have problems with it but at a certain point, you are not going to ground a 0 or 0 year old indefinitely because they are wearing something that, although may be suggestive, is not  overtly  sexual or inappropriate.  again, if that were the case, then parents would never allow their teenager daughters to wear 0 piece swimwear, yoga pants or any number of other legitimately innocuous pieces of clothing.  if i were you, op, i would seriously ask myself who is sexualizing this issue.  the 0 y/o with a  limited  capacity for understanding this subject ? is the  parent  of the child creating an environment to allow their child to be sexualized ? or perhaps,  maybe  part of the reason why there is a sexual connotation here is in the eye of the beholder.  its you and me op, who look at the bottom 0/0 of a 0 y/o is ass cheeks and think  oh my god.  that is a sexual thing   #  these kids are going to be just as sexually minded no matter what they are wearing, so their attire changes very little.   #  i do not disagree that these shorts carry a sexual connotation, but i would object that  we  are not sexualizing children, unless we are talking about a scenario where someone is forcing their child to wear this stuff.  instead, we are taking more of a back seat than we used to, and letting these kids do what they want to do.  it is no secret that kids are more sexual at a younger age these days, and there is some evidence to suggest that that is biological as much as cultural.  i guess the point i am making is that the clothes are the symptom, not the cause.  these kids are going to be just as sexually minded no matter what they are wearing, so their attire changes very little.  i was just as horny at 0 no matter what i or anyone else was wearing.  this just reflects that, but it is not causing it.  as long as we are keeping the kids safe and educated, then i think we are doing our job.  in fact, by being a little more open about someone is natural sexuality which again, is happening no matter what , i think we stand a better chance at keeping kids educated and safe, rather than treating sex as a taboo subject that they need to sneak around about.  that is when things get dangerous.   #  on the other hand, these non sexual entities wear clothes that are  designed  to make them more sexually appealing.   #  i think there is a bit of a double standard here.  on one hand society tells us to view a 0 year old as a non sexual entity.  if i see a developed girl, i am allowed to be attracted to her nobody will give me grief for that.  however, the moment i find out she is 0 i am supposed to erase that attraction and pretend it never happened.  on the other hand, these non sexual entities wear clothes that are  designed  to make them more sexually appealing.   #  just because the government decided to change marriage laws to require the people to be older does not mean that people have become less sexual.   #  no one said that, do not put words in my mouth.  not every law passed by government accurately reflects the feelings of society.  they should, but they do not always.  just because the government decided to change marriage laws to require the people to be older does not mean that people have become less sexual.  that could have been the government enacting a law that society in general did not agree with.  just like my example with marijuana prohibition.  it is not like people started enjoying pot less so the government was like  well we better make it illegal !  .  that is not how it works.   #  by directly banning your kids from wearing short shorts, all you are doing is popping the idea into their head that they are being overly sexual by wearing comfortable clothing in a non sexual context.   #  i seriously doubt most 0 year old girls wear short shorts to express their sexuality.  more likely they are just more comfortable on hot days.  by directly banning your kids from wearing short shorts, all you are doing is popping the idea into their head that they are being overly sexual by wearing comfortable clothing in a non sexual context.  and anyone who actually sees a 0 year old girl wearing short shorts, and immediately objectifies them, is kind of a sick fuck.  also, you say that booty shorts are so common, that girls are almost expected to wear them.  if they are so ordinary, then wo not people become desensitized to them over time as they are integrated into the culture and seen as acceptable clothing ? go back to the 0s, and women were expected to be fully covered.  then the 0s, when women started wearing skirts.  but skirts are not scandalous.  they are normal.  and since booty shorts are now considered the norm, i think it is safe to say they are not scandalous either.
more and more i see girls of all ages wearing these shorts.  i think those younger than about fifteen or so should not be wearing them.  in my opinion these types of shorts reveal way to much.  it immediately draws attention to the wearers rear and genital area.  we should not sexualize children by allowing them to wear these clothes.  its become so prevalent to see booty shorts on wherever you go, i feel it is expected of girls to wear these clothes.  they are far too many times i have seen a young girl with her ass literally hanging out and she thinks its ok to be dressed like that.  worst is their parent has no issues with it.  the only reason i am not mention boys is because i have yet to see them wearing low cut shorts like i so commonly see with girls.   #  in my opinion these types of shorts reveal way to much.   #  it immediately draws attention to the wearers rear and genital area.   # it immediately draws attention to the wearers rear and genital area.  we should not sexualize children by allowing them to wear these clothes.  what i am hearing from you is that seeing girls dressed in this way leads you to associate them with the concept of sex in your mind, and this makes you feel uncomfortable and guilty.  it is perfectly understandable to want to avoid these feelings of sexual guilt, but is telling girls how to dress really the best course ? when you tell a girl that she ca not wear those shorts because they are too sexual, you are really telling her that she is supposed to be responsible for other people is thoughts.  at such an impressionable age, how do you think this will impact her social development ? will worrying about trying to control what is happening in others  minds lead her towards confidence, healthy relationships, and success, or will it instead lead her down the path of blaming herself for her partner is abuse and infidelity ? if she were to be sexually abused, would she keep it a secret because she felt guilty for causing the thoughts that lead to that abuse ? you see, going down this path does not eliminate the sexual guilt you feel; it simply shifts the burden of that guilt onto the girls.  instead of transferring the suffering that you, and many others, are enduring from the appearance of girls, let is just eliminate it.  0.  it is not wrong that seeing girls in revealing clothes makes you think of sex.  we are pattern recognizing machines, and your brain takes these images of hip bones and bottoms and searches though memories for similar shapes.  it finds them filed under women sex and says to you  hey, i know these shapes ! they might mean a chance to spread our genes, so i am gonna go ahead and fire up the genitals just in case.   0.  just because it makes this match does not make you a pedophile.  our brains mis categorize all the time like when you briefly think you recognize someone , and the fact that the mismatch makes you uncomfortable means you are normal and healthy 0.  you do no need to feel guilty for being a human being with a normally functioning brain.   #  i was just as horny at 0 no matter what i or anyone else was wearing.   #  i do not disagree that these shorts carry a sexual connotation, but i would object that  we  are not sexualizing children, unless we are talking about a scenario where someone is forcing their child to wear this stuff.  instead, we are taking more of a back seat than we used to, and letting these kids do what they want to do.  it is no secret that kids are more sexual at a younger age these days, and there is some evidence to suggest that that is biological as much as cultural.  i guess the point i am making is that the clothes are the symptom, not the cause.  these kids are going to be just as sexually minded no matter what they are wearing, so their attire changes very little.  i was just as horny at 0 no matter what i or anyone else was wearing.  this just reflects that, but it is not causing it.  as long as we are keeping the kids safe and educated, then i think we are doing our job.  in fact, by being a little more open about someone is natural sexuality which again, is happening no matter what , i think we stand a better chance at keeping kids educated and safe, rather than treating sex as a taboo subject that they need to sneak around about.  that is when things get dangerous.   #  on the other hand, these non sexual entities wear clothes that are  designed  to make them more sexually appealing.   #  i think there is a bit of a double standard here.  on one hand society tells us to view a 0 year old as a non sexual entity.  if i see a developed girl, i am allowed to be attracted to her nobody will give me grief for that.  however, the moment i find out she is 0 i am supposed to erase that attraction and pretend it never happened.  on the other hand, these non sexual entities wear clothes that are  designed  to make them more sexually appealing.   #  no one said that, do not put words in my mouth.   #  no one said that, do not put words in my mouth.  not every law passed by government accurately reflects the feelings of society.  they should, but they do not always.  just because the government decided to change marriage laws to require the people to be older does not mean that people have become less sexual.  that could have been the government enacting a law that society in general did not agree with.  just like my example with marijuana prohibition.  it is not like people started enjoying pot less so the government was like  well we better make it illegal !  .  that is not how it works.   #  go back to the 0s, and women were expected to be fully covered.   #  i seriously doubt most 0 year old girls wear short shorts to express their sexuality.  more likely they are just more comfortable on hot days.  by directly banning your kids from wearing short shorts, all you are doing is popping the idea into their head that they are being overly sexual by wearing comfortable clothing in a non sexual context.  and anyone who actually sees a 0 year old girl wearing short shorts, and immediately objectifies them, is kind of a sick fuck.  also, you say that booty shorts are so common, that girls are almost expected to wear them.  if they are so ordinary, then wo not people become desensitized to them over time as they are integrated into the culture and seen as acceptable clothing ? go back to the 0s, and women were expected to be fully covered.  then the 0s, when women started wearing skirts.  but skirts are not scandalous.  they are normal.  and since booty shorts are now considered the norm, i think it is safe to say they are not scandalous either.
i think the metric system sucks.  the idea that you can just magic together a new way of measuring and expect it to be better is absurd, imperial measurements are more natural and understandable.  metric is intelligent design, and as such it has all the failings of any other intelligent design.  the imperial system evolved over time and is absolutely wonderful.  the entire metric system is derived originally from the distance from the equator to the north pole using france as a meridian.  any advocates of metric that claim that metric is more accurate are full of it, because that is a very arbitrary number.  the meter is defined as  the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 0 / 0,0,0 of a second.  , and this is a relatively good way to measure a unit of distance.  this does not necessarily mean that the imperial units are inferior.  the yard is exactly 0 feet.  a foot is exactly 0 inches.  an inch is exactly 0 mm.  millimeters are defined based on the meter.  metric fans will now go  a ha ! that means that imperial units are defined by metric ones ! that means metric is better !   unfortunately, due to maths the transitive relation , you would be just as correct to define an inch in terms of light travelled in a vacuum; or in other words,  a b; therefore b a too .  that is right, metric units can just as easily be defined in imperial units.  imperial units are better because you do not need a measuring tool to estimate them, they were evolved to be similar to items that people have readily available in most circumstances.  i like to use the example of metric time when explaining this.  let is keep the day a constant.  one revolution of the earth is 0 deter.  0 days is a kilodeter.  0/0th of a deter could be a centideter.  it all could work just as well as metric, but there would be one flaw: this is in no way relatable to our real experience of time.  you could make the case that this is because we grew up with 0 hours, 0 days, etc, and your argument would be just as sound as someone saying  i grew up with inches and therefore they are better , or vice versa.  i think this entire metric system circle jerk lol what is a furlong lol is silly.  i think metric fans are really just terrible at math.  so, i will just post what i told him on the subject in the op.  imperial is easier to estimate because it is based on real items, which was handy back when people did not have instant access to accurate measurements at all times.  but, wait a tick, we still do not have instant access to accurate measurements at all times.  a foot is about the size of a foot.  a yard is three feet.  an inch is roughly the width of your thumb.  0 of those is about a foot.  a centimeter is roughly a 0 millionth of the distance between the equator and the north pole with a meridian through paris.  one is clearly better.  woah folks ! i had my view changed ! metric is not necessarily better than imperial, but both systems suck because of history ! as such, i believe the best system of measurement should be based on multiples of 0, but instead of using a meter as the basis, we will use the planck length ! good job, magezero  #  a centimeter is roughly a 0 millionth of the distance between the equator and the north pole with a meridian through paris.   #  a centimeter is also a finger is fingernail, if you have bigger hands width.   # it is  intelligent .  you want your cars, your electronic devices, your everything done intelligently.  if it was so flawed, then it would not be used by everyone except two or three countries, the us being the only developed one of them.  and even so, nasa works in metric.  perhaps the military too, but do not quote me on that.  you do not need the units to be based off  real items , just know roughly how much real items measure URL   you could make the case that this is because we grew up with 0 hours, 0 days, etc, and your argument would be just as sound as someone saying  i grew up with inches and therefore they are better , or vice versa.  there is a big difference.  in earth, we have  cycles , and it is extremely useful to have our time units to be cyclical.  the twelves, threes and twenty fours ? in the imperial system are arbitrary.  but the three sixty five in a year is not.  the sixties and twelves in hours/minutes/seconds are justified by easy division in thirds and halves, which is extremely useful, again, due to  understanding time through cycles and repetitions .  if we had no cycles of any kind, then super units for the second would be done away with.  it would be  hectodeter ,  kilos  means  thousand  in greek.  a centimeter is also a finger is fingernail, if you have bigger hands width.  we can give close enough measurements without doing weird acrobatics to get our feet up, or even taking off our shoes.  we do not get out the calculator or ruler every time we need to estimate a measurement.   #  this makes it much easier to convert between very small and very large units, such as millimeters to kilometers all you need to know is how many places to move the decimal.   #  i am not sure i am following most of your logic.  you refute some of the reasons as to why metric is  better , but i do not really see any reasons as for why imperial is actually better other than  it is easier to estimate , which is only true if you are much more familiar with imperial than metric.  i am familiar with both and can estimate the common units of either with about the same accuracy.  your only other argument as to why imperial is better is in the case of time.  which is not something that actually makes sense we do not measure time in the metric system or the imperial system , so you ca not really refute it there because it is a strawman argument at best.  the big advantage of the metric system is that it is based around powers of ten.  this makes it much easier to convert between very small and very large units, such as millimeters to kilometers all you need to know is how many places to move the decimal.  converting inches to miles is considerably more math intensive and more prone to error.   #  but metric conversions amount to  how many hundredths of a meter can i fit into half of a hundred meters ?    # this makes it much easier to convert between very small and very large units, such as millimeters to kilometers why bother converting ? why not just write everything in scientific notation ? at least with imperial, units actually correspond to something sensible at the time they were invented 0 paces, the length of a barleycorn, the length of field, etc.  , so it makes sense to say  how many barleycorns can i fit into a fifth of a field ?   but metric conversions amount to  how many hundredths of a meter can i fit into half of a hundred meters ?   it just seems silly on the face of it.   #  if you want something a bit less anachronistic, we could perhaps go with  how many distances between the sun and the earth i. e.   # a barleycorn is 0/0 of an inch.  in fact, the earliest definition circa 0 of an inch was  three grains of barley, dry and round, placed end to end, lengthwise  URL most units throughout history have been based off of some standardization of some common, easily available thing.  so you see things like forearm length cubit , the length between two outstretched hands fathom , the approximate distance someone could walk in an hour league .  using barleycorns is fairly sensible if you live in an agrarian society where barley is a common crop, much like how measuring small distances in grains of rice might make sense in east asia.  this standardization process happened in metric, too.  they went, for example, from defining a kilogram to be the weight of a cube of water with each side measuring one hundred millionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole to defining it to be the mass of a french platinum/iridium cylinder.  you have two variables to give one number.  a field was actually a standard unit of measurement, although it was given another name: a furlong, because it was one furrow long.  basically, it is the length you can have an oxen team draw a plough in one go.  sure, it is dependent on the currently used technology, but it was very standard at the time it was widely used.  so  how many barleycorns can i fit into a fifth of a field ?   is exactly equivalent to  how many thirds of an inch can i fit into . 0 furlongs .  if you want something a bit less anachronistic, we could perhaps go with  how many distances between the sun and the earth i. e.  au are there in the distance that light travels in a year ?   note that astronomers, too, do not use a single unit, but several convenient ones for different scales parsec, light year, au that require a bit of calculation to convert between.   #  this  convention is best  approach runs aground on the fact that most of the world uses metric, so it is the convention, and imperial the odd one out.   #  your argument is more eloquent than ops but it is still basically the same: we always did it this way, so we should keep on doing it this way.  this  convention is best  approach runs aground on the fact that most of the world uses metric, so it is the convention, and imperial the odd one out.  i am not a mathematician and this argument is won by maths but i find the regularity of metric makes it very easy to use because the base 0 factor is predictable.  whereas imperial compulsively changes terms and measurment lengths do not divide evenly.  yes, both systems are arbitrary, but metric is systematised more cohesively.
first of all i do not believe in an afterlife, so this has nothing to do with expediting people to heaven or anything silly like that.  i believe that death is merely the permanent cessation of consciousness.  i believe that morality should be judged from the point of view of the victim s , but it is important to consider all of the victims.  for example, if you murder someone the person who was murdered is obviously a victim, but so is everyone else who cared about, loved, depended on, or benefited from them.  we will call these secondary victims for the purpose of this discussion.  i believe there can also be tertiary victims, such as the owner of the small shop who sold the murdered man a newspaper and some lottery tickets each morning, he is a tertiary victim because he loses business as a result of the murder, but i am not so concerned about these victims, my point remains the same whether you consider them or not, they only affect how narrow the scenario becomes.  so, even if a man is completely alone in the world, has no loved ones, no one who cares about him or depends on him, such that there would be no secondary victims, it is still almost always immoral to end his life because the act of doing so usually causes momentary fear and pain, which i call suffering, and i am assuming for the sake of this argument that causing suffering is immoral.  but what if it did not ? what if you could murder this person without causing them any fear or any pain whatsoever, without them ever becoming aware that it was happening ? suppose it was possible to sprinkle some dust onto their skin while they were sleeping and it would silently and painlessly kill them without causing them to wake up and there does not exist anyone in the world who would care even slightly about their passing.  is it immoral to do so ? i do not think it is, i think that is amoral because, as stated above, i think morality can only be evaluated from the point of view of the victims, and in this case the only victim has no point of view because they are dead.  if i had caused pain or fear then we can evaluate the morality of those things from the point of view of the victim who suffers from that pain and fear, but we have eliminated that variable from the equation.  we have also eliminated all secondary and tertiary for the sake of argument victims.  the only victim has no point of view to reference in order to evaluate the morality of the act, in which case i am not even sure how meaningful it is to call him a victim.  we, as survivors, as living beings, can imagine that he is a victim because we think that he was robbed of his future, but that future was never guaranteed in the first place, it was and is always an assumption.  if we were omniscient and we knew for a fact that his future from that point forward would be filled with nothing but agony then i would even go so far as to say it was moral to kill him as we did.  conversely, if we were omniscient and we knew for a fact that his future from that point forward would be filled with joy and pleasure then i would entertain the argument that killing him was immoral.  but we do not know these things, we do not know that he was not going to die of a heart attack 0 seconds after we killed him.  even if we reasonably assumed that the mans life would be more or less as it was had we not killed him i still do not think we can use this to assess the morality of the situation because it does not matter to the dead person that he is no longer alive, it ca not, because  he , as a conscious person, no longer exists, he has no point of view to consider.   #  the only victim has no point of view to reference in order to evaluate the morality of the act, in which case i am not even sure how meaningful it is to call him a victim.   #  the victim only has  no point of view  because you deprived him of it.   # the victim only has  no point of view  because you deprived him of it.  the actor must consider the victim is point of view but impose his own evaluation of the two possibilities being chosen.  you know the difference between allowing someone to continue to lead a solitary life and cutting off that life.  so clearly this has to do with what the potential life would have or could have been.  and if there is any possibility for value in that person is life according to how they determine value, which you do not know , it is immoral to kill them.   #  exactly, which is why i assert that the act was amoral or perhaps morally ambiguous is a better term ?  # because we do not know what his potential future life will be like, we do not know if killing this person will have a net positive or negative effect.  exactly, which is why i assert that the act was amoral or perhaps morally ambiguous is a better term ? , rather than immoral net negative effect or moral net positive effect .  is not this immoral in and of itself ? if it is i do not understand how.  who is the victim and how is he is he or she a victim ? a victim is only a victim if they have a point of view that you can reference to determine how they feel about what transpired.  a dead person has no such point of view.  if i had caused him pain before killing him, as is the case with most methods of execution, he would have been a victim while he was experiencing pain.  but not in this hypothetical.  i do not think a victim can be a victim prior to anything happening to him.   #  if you flip the switch, it has a 0 probability of causing somebody to be brutally murdered, and a 0 probability of giving somebody a million bucks.   # , rather than immoral net negative effect or moral net positive effect .  by  reserve judgement  i meant to refrain from killing the guy, not to reserve judgement on the act of killing him.  by killing him, are not you implicitly passing judgement by evaluating the consequences of your action as positive or, at worst, neutral ? if you kill him anyway not knowing what effect this would ultimately have is not this a fairly reckless disregard for morality, and for the consequences of your actions ? morality is fairly loosely defined anyway.  i do not see why we ca not define recklessly taking action which has a significant probability of increasing net suffering as immoral.  say you are presented with a switch.  if you flip the switch, it has a 0 probability of causing somebody to be brutally murdered, and a 0 probability of giving somebody a million bucks.  is it morally neutral to choose to flip the switch ? after all, the actual effect cannot be predicted ahead of time.   #  the value of a life goes beyond the mere sum of a person is experiences; it is a thing that is precious in its own right.   #  it is precisely because we are not omniscient beings that one person does not have the right to make that kind of judgment call with another person is life.  the value of a life goes beyond the mere sum of a person is experiences; it is a thing that is precious in its own right.  it is immoral for the same reason stealing, even when the victim never notices the loss, is wrong: it simply is not yours to take.  allow me to offer another example.  let is say you have a button that, if you press it, will kill everyone in an instant.  they will feel no pain or fear because they will never know it was coming.  no one will be alive to mourn or miss them.  is this also an amoral act ?  #  in that case i think you ought to revisit your code of morals at the level of starting assumptions regarding what you believe gives a life value.   #  in that case i think you ought to revisit your code of morals at the level of starting assumptions regarding what you believe gives a life value.  because according to the system you have now, you would have no basis for condemning any of the following: stealing from someone in such a way that the loss goes unnoticed, raping someone in their sleep such that they never find out let is say you use protection so there is no risk of pregnancy or disease , spying on someone and not getting caught, desecrating a dead body then hiding the evidence.  i am sure you can think of plenty of similar examples yourself.  in each of those cases, like in the one you provided, even when no one is harmed in any noticeable way, there is still a larger principle being violated.  and i think you have forgotten another potential victim in your own scenario: yourself.  you are harmed by the fact that you have taken a life.
this is the article that persuaded me of this point URL but i will go over some of the highlights: mental illness is not a credible explanation   there is zero evidence for the claim that elliot rodger was mentally ill.    rodger left a lucid, coherent explanation of his crimes.  it is not credible to disregard that explanation and offer a different one i. e.  mental illness without supporting evidence.    when we have encountered similar cases of mass, indiscriminate killing in recent years by killers who left lengthy, elaborate, coherent manifestos anders breivik, christopher dorner, dylan klebold and eric harris we have accepted the killer is stated reason more or less at face value.    if rodger had targeted any other group leaving a well thought out manifesto, no one would pin his crimes on mental illness.  for instance, if he created a youtube video about hating black people, and listed all the times black people had been mean to him, and then walked into a black church and murdered 0 people, no one would blame mental illness.  they would rightly blame a violent, dangerous anti black ideology that runs rampant in america.    it is simply not true that only mentally ill people kill.  were the tsarnaev brothers both mentally ill ? were all nineteen 0/0 hijackers mentally ill ? were all 0 american soldiers who raped and massacred hundreds of civilians at my lai in 0 all mentally ill ? it is uncomfortable to confront, but the fact is that people kill all the time, not just because they are ill, but because they are  bad .  maybe  society  makes them that way, but that does not erase their personal responsibility.  nor does it excuse the responsibility of those that enable them.    i hesitate to mention this, but there is zero link between autism reportedly diagnosed in rodger and premeditated murder.  elliot rodger was clearly directly influenced by the  pick up artist  community   read the above article or this summary of the connection URL   rodger subscribed to pick up artist youtube channels, and posted on pick up artist forums notably  puahate  for men who had tried pua tactics and failed with them   he used pua language like  alpha  and  incel    his language  reeks  of frustrated, pick up artist imagery.  just a random sampling of horrifying quotes:   different elements of the pick up artist/men is rights/the red pill community are keen to point out that they are about  self betterment  but even the most cursory look at they are real world motivation shows that self betterment is an afterthought attached hastily to make their core belief system more palatable.    some may draw distinctions between different elements of this community, but it is plain that they all exist on a continuum of misogyny.  in the same way that jim crow gave license and fire to lynch mobs, pua give license to rapists and woman killers.  perhaps there is room for a nuanced world view where segregationists are  less  morally culpable than the actual hangmen of jim crow that may be true.  but the hangmen could not have existed without the segregationists, and what is more, the segregationists knew it.  to quote the first article linked above:  this is not the time, to use the refrain of apologists for bigotry, to play devil is advocate.  the devil has more than enough advocates today.     i am completely comfortable lumping all these groups men is rights, pick up artistry, the red pill, puahate together.  because they all have the same belief at their core: men must dominate women into sexual submission.    mens rights/pick up artistry/the red pill are extremist ideologies that preach about a war between the sexes.  rodger carries this dangerous ideology to it is natural conclusion.  laurie penny summarizes it well in the first article linked above:  #  i am completely comfortable lumping all these groups men is rights, pick up artistry, the red pill, puahate together.   #  because they all have the same belief at their core: men must dominate women into sexual submission.   # because they all have the same belief at their core: men must dominate women into sexual submission.  it is patently untrue that the mrm and pua communities are the same.  URL men is rights has nothing whatsoever to do with dominating women into sexual submission.  men is rights activists are concerned with male issues including but not limited to child custody, alimony, reproductive health and rights, and education.  there is also zero evidence linking elliot rodger to the mrm.   #   punishing people who have wronged me personally  is not a political statement.   # this is not correct.  in rodger is manifesto he mentions visiting his psychiatrist dr.  charles sophy who gave him a prescription for risperidone, an anti psychotic drug.  rodger claims he researched the drug online and did not take it.  this implies at least some degree of  untreated  mental illness.  the manifesto implies he visited his psychiatrist several times and its completely possible though not mentioned in the document that he was on or prescribed other forms of medication.  it is not credible to disregard that explanation and offer a different one i. e.  mental illness without supporting evidence.  the manifesto is lucid, possibly coherent, but definitely not rational.  the level of emotional distress that rodger felt due to his perceived social deficiency did not make any sense.  his reaction is so far outside the norms of how most people behave when faced with such issues that accepting his explanation as sensible and therefore attributing it as the expected logical outcome of certain ideologies does not seem fair.  if you remove the emotionally disturbed individual from the equation this tragedy does not occur.  not really.  in all those cases a degree of mental instability has been supposed and accepted.  breivik is rambling manifesto was clearly the product of a deranged mind however he was not  so  deranged as to no know that his actions were right or wrong.  the same is true for rodger.  rodger was not insane he knew his actions were wrong and is therefore culpable however that minimum baseline does not mean that he was mentally healthy or emotionally stable.  this assumes his manifesto was well thought out which it was not.  it was the lengthy rant of a clearly narcissistic individual with a history of mental health issues had a psychiatrist and prescribed an anti psychotic if you remember .  it is not comparable to timothy mcveigh, for example, who was simply an anti government extremist or various other terrorists acting in a political context.  rodger is manifesto makes it clear that his actions are not borne out of a political ideology but an extreme emotional state where he unjustifiably felt dis empowered and blamed everyone but himself.  were the tsarnaev brothers both mentally ill ? rodger is rambling manifesto does not point to a coherent political message.   punishing people who have wronged me personally  is not a political statement.  he is therefore not comparable to a conventional terrorist.  he is more in line with the sandyhook or aurora shooters than a terrorist.  the man was active on certain pick up oriented boards and used the language of that community liberally in his videos and manifestos.  however to assign direct responsibility to the pua and rp community would require you to show where they openly advocate this sort of violence or any violence at all .  that simply does not seem to be the case.  there is no question that roder has internalized the messages of these communities however the general outcome of this sort of internalization is the creation of an unpleasant misogynist not a spree killer.  to get to the level that rodger was at requires an emotionally disturbed individual and that person can latch onto many ideologies to justify their feelings racism, extreme religious belief, economic/political ideology, etc .   #  like the other guy said, the pick up artist mentality dehumanizes women as merely objects of pleasure, which is why it fits so nicely with the misogynistic narrative that men are inherently better than women.   #  you do not have to be defined as mentally ill in a clinical setting to be mentally ill.  i think you are missing the subtle signs like his delusional, obsessive, and violent demeanor when you say that he was not psychologically disturbed.  stable people do not think that murder would assuage their crippling loneliness.  like the other guy said, the pick up artist mentality dehumanizes women as merely objects of pleasure, which is why it fits so nicely with the misogynistic narrative that men are inherently better than women.  that being said, that does not mean that anyone who arrives to this superficial logical conclusion is justified in killing innocent people.  i dislike the red pill subreddit, but i have never seen anything there that would encourage that end in spreading their troubling philosophy.  the fact that he took it this far is an obvious sign, in my opinion, that he was mentally ill.   #  i do not know how you can say that they do not consider women to be people because most of the rp philosophy i know says to treat women like people and not like something on a pedestal.   #  they do love women, that meet their definition of what a woman is.  not saying that women have to be a certain way, just that rp prefers them to be a certain way they do not say women are not capable of love, they say women love differently than men and do not expect them to love like men.  they liken women to children sure, which is a tenet i do not particularly agree with because in my life i have not seen it to be so.  as far as respect goes i disagree.  i respect women.  i just do not expect them to behave like men.  i do not know how you can say that they do not consider women to be people because most of the rp philosophy i know says to treat women like people and not like something on a pedestal.  rp actually advocates that women are not objects, they are not the same as men, they are what they are; women and to treat them as such.  which by definition makes them people.  i am not saying there is not a lot of anger and resentment coming from those that follow rp but that goes away after you come to terms with the way the world is.  you are making sweeping judgements based on cherry picked things in the philosophy that you do not particularly understand or agree with.   #  they will welcome new members but they are not trying to change society.   # community contributed to but is not  responsible for  his actions due to the vilification and dehumanization of women that they are so fond of.  but why did he end up there in the first place.  what made him seek out trp ? trp is not some social activism group that seeks out members.  they are largely only concerned with their current members.  they will welcome new members but they are not trying to change society.
this is the article that persuaded me of this point URL but i will go over some of the highlights: mental illness is not a credible explanation   there is zero evidence for the claim that elliot rodger was mentally ill.    rodger left a lucid, coherent explanation of his crimes.  it is not credible to disregard that explanation and offer a different one i. e.  mental illness without supporting evidence.    when we have encountered similar cases of mass, indiscriminate killing in recent years by killers who left lengthy, elaborate, coherent manifestos anders breivik, christopher dorner, dylan klebold and eric harris we have accepted the killer is stated reason more or less at face value.    if rodger had targeted any other group leaving a well thought out manifesto, no one would pin his crimes on mental illness.  for instance, if he created a youtube video about hating black people, and listed all the times black people had been mean to him, and then walked into a black church and murdered 0 people, no one would blame mental illness.  they would rightly blame a violent, dangerous anti black ideology that runs rampant in america.    it is simply not true that only mentally ill people kill.  were the tsarnaev brothers both mentally ill ? were all nineteen 0/0 hijackers mentally ill ? were all 0 american soldiers who raped and massacred hundreds of civilians at my lai in 0 all mentally ill ? it is uncomfortable to confront, but the fact is that people kill all the time, not just because they are ill, but because they are  bad .  maybe  society  makes them that way, but that does not erase their personal responsibility.  nor does it excuse the responsibility of those that enable them.    i hesitate to mention this, but there is zero link between autism reportedly diagnosed in rodger and premeditated murder.  elliot rodger was clearly directly influenced by the  pick up artist  community   read the above article or this summary of the connection URL   rodger subscribed to pick up artist youtube channels, and posted on pick up artist forums notably  puahate  for men who had tried pua tactics and failed with them   he used pua language like  alpha  and  incel    his language  reeks  of frustrated, pick up artist imagery.  just a random sampling of horrifying quotes:   different elements of the pick up artist/men is rights/the red pill community are keen to point out that they are about  self betterment  but even the most cursory look at they are real world motivation shows that self betterment is an afterthought attached hastily to make their core belief system more palatable.    some may draw distinctions between different elements of this community, but it is plain that they all exist on a continuum of misogyny.  in the same way that jim crow gave license and fire to lynch mobs, pua give license to rapists and woman killers.  perhaps there is room for a nuanced world view where segregationists are  less  morally culpable than the actual hangmen of jim crow that may be true.  but the hangmen could not have existed without the segregationists, and what is more, the segregationists knew it.  to quote the first article linked above:  this is not the time, to use the refrain of apologists for bigotry, to play devil is advocate.  the devil has more than enough advocates today.     i am completely comfortable lumping all these groups men is rights, pick up artistry, the red pill, puahate together.  because they all have the same belief at their core: men must dominate women into sexual submission.    mens rights/pick up artistry/the red pill are extremist ideologies that preach about a war between the sexes.  rodger carries this dangerous ideology to it is natural conclusion.  laurie penny summarizes it well in the first article linked above:  #  rodger left a lucid, coherent explanation of his crimes.   #  it is not credible to disregard that explanation and offer a different one i. e.   # what kind of evidence is required ? can a person be mentally ill even though there is no diagnosis ? his actions seems fairly consistent with the actions of a psychopath URL do you consider psychopathy to be a mental illness ? i do.  it is not credible to disregard that explanation and offer a different one i. e.  mental illness without supporting evidence.  mental illness and mental retardation are not synonymous.  lucid and coherent explanations have nothing to do with lack of mental illness.  yeah, so.  there is also charles whitman URL who after death was found to have an brain tumor, and recent erratic behavior.  the evidence here goes both ways.  no one else is saying that.  you are saying that.  it is quite a stretch to go from influence to being responsible for a mass murder.  stop with the blame game, its rap music, and video games, and heavy metal and blah blah blah.   #  rodger is manifesto makes it clear that his actions are not borne out of a political ideology but an extreme emotional state where he unjustifiably felt dis empowered and blamed everyone but himself.   # this is not correct.  in rodger is manifesto he mentions visiting his psychiatrist dr.  charles sophy who gave him a prescription for risperidone, an anti psychotic drug.  rodger claims he researched the drug online and did not take it.  this implies at least some degree of  untreated  mental illness.  the manifesto implies he visited his psychiatrist several times and its completely possible though not mentioned in the document that he was on or prescribed other forms of medication.  it is not credible to disregard that explanation and offer a different one i. e.  mental illness without supporting evidence.  the manifesto is lucid, possibly coherent, but definitely not rational.  the level of emotional distress that rodger felt due to his perceived social deficiency did not make any sense.  his reaction is so far outside the norms of how most people behave when faced with such issues that accepting his explanation as sensible and therefore attributing it as the expected logical outcome of certain ideologies does not seem fair.  if you remove the emotionally disturbed individual from the equation this tragedy does not occur.  not really.  in all those cases a degree of mental instability has been supposed and accepted.  breivik is rambling manifesto was clearly the product of a deranged mind however he was not  so  deranged as to no know that his actions were right or wrong.  the same is true for rodger.  rodger was not insane he knew his actions were wrong and is therefore culpable however that minimum baseline does not mean that he was mentally healthy or emotionally stable.  this assumes his manifesto was well thought out which it was not.  it was the lengthy rant of a clearly narcissistic individual with a history of mental health issues had a psychiatrist and prescribed an anti psychotic if you remember .  it is not comparable to timothy mcveigh, for example, who was simply an anti government extremist or various other terrorists acting in a political context.  rodger is manifesto makes it clear that his actions are not borne out of a political ideology but an extreme emotional state where he unjustifiably felt dis empowered and blamed everyone but himself.  were the tsarnaev brothers both mentally ill ? rodger is rambling manifesto does not point to a coherent political message.   punishing people who have wronged me personally  is not a political statement.  he is therefore not comparable to a conventional terrorist.  he is more in line with the sandyhook or aurora shooters than a terrorist.  the man was active on certain pick up oriented boards and used the language of that community liberally in his videos and manifestos.  however to assign direct responsibility to the pua and rp community would require you to show where they openly advocate this sort of violence or any violence at all .  that simply does not seem to be the case.  there is no question that roder has internalized the messages of these communities however the general outcome of this sort of internalization is the creation of an unpleasant misogynist not a spree killer.  to get to the level that rodger was at requires an emotionally disturbed individual and that person can latch onto many ideologies to justify their feelings racism, extreme religious belief, economic/political ideology, etc .   #  like the other guy said, the pick up artist mentality dehumanizes women as merely objects of pleasure, which is why it fits so nicely with the misogynistic narrative that men are inherently better than women.   #  you do not have to be defined as mentally ill in a clinical setting to be mentally ill.  i think you are missing the subtle signs like his delusional, obsessive, and violent demeanor when you say that he was not psychologically disturbed.  stable people do not think that murder would assuage their crippling loneliness.  like the other guy said, the pick up artist mentality dehumanizes women as merely objects of pleasure, which is why it fits so nicely with the misogynistic narrative that men are inherently better than women.  that being said, that does not mean that anyone who arrives to this superficial logical conclusion is justified in killing innocent people.  i dislike the red pill subreddit, but i have never seen anything there that would encourage that end in spreading their troubling philosophy.  the fact that he took it this far is an obvious sign, in my opinion, that he was mentally ill.   #  they liken women to children sure, which is a tenet i do not particularly agree with because in my life i have not seen it to be so.   #  they do love women, that meet their definition of what a woman is.  not saying that women have to be a certain way, just that rp prefers them to be a certain way they do not say women are not capable of love, they say women love differently than men and do not expect them to love like men.  they liken women to children sure, which is a tenet i do not particularly agree with because in my life i have not seen it to be so.  as far as respect goes i disagree.  i respect women.  i just do not expect them to behave like men.  i do not know how you can say that they do not consider women to be people because most of the rp philosophy i know says to treat women like people and not like something on a pedestal.  rp actually advocates that women are not objects, they are not the same as men, they are what they are; women and to treat them as such.  which by definition makes them people.  i am not saying there is not a lot of anger and resentment coming from those that follow rp but that goes away after you come to terms with the way the world is.  you are making sweeping judgements based on cherry picked things in the philosophy that you do not particularly understand or agree with.   #  they will welcome new members but they are not trying to change society.   # community contributed to but is not  responsible for  his actions due to the vilification and dehumanization of women that they are so fond of.  but why did he end up there in the first place.  what made him seek out trp ? trp is not some social activism group that seeks out members.  they are largely only concerned with their current members.  they will welcome new members but they are not trying to change society.
it seems to me that the prevailing american attitude is that it is wrong and unrealistic to expect 0 0 year olds to live adult lives.  i may be mistaken here, as i have never actually been to america and my view is largely informed by discussions on reddit, such as this one URL most countries have an age of majority of 0, whilst only 0 countries have decided upon 0 URL most of the world is youngsters manage just fine with adult life at 0, i ca not think of any plausible reason why american youth would be any different.  i think allowing youngsters to remain in childhood eg financially dependent, not responsible for running their household and life, being bailed out of sticky situations they get themselves into etc.  is harmful to both the young individual and society as a whole.  the youngster fails to learn life skills, and, through an absence of challenging circumstances and general life experience, fails to develop character.  this stuff can be picked up later, but it is great to have it  before  living with a spouse, moving country, or popping out a kid.  further, a sheltered life makes it difficult to appreciate what life is like.  i think that this leads to a diminished level of respect for others and a lessened sense of duty to one is community.  of course i can understand the instinct to want to protect your kids for as long as possible, but i believe that it ultimately does more harm than good.   #  i think allowing youngsters to remain in childhood eg financially dependent, not responsible for running their household and life, being bailed out of sticky situations they get themselves into etc.   #  is harmful to both the young individual and society as a whole.   #  i am not spoiled, my parents just love me.  i moved out at 0 i am currently 0 .  is harmful to both the young individual and society as a whole.  the youngster fails to learn life skills, and, through an absence of challenging circumstances and general life experience, fails to develop character.  if everything is learned the hard way through personal experience, then why the need for school, or education ? you can learn from the examples of others.  it is the reason mammals spend so much time raising their young, instead of laying some fertilized eggs in a hole and walking or swimming away.  i was not ready at 0.  of those from high school that left home at 0, i would say only 0 of them have a degree, or a job/career that is worth talking about.  our economy sucks, the days of graduating from high school and finding an industrial labor job like my grandparents did are way over.  the steel mill is closed, the coal mine is closed, ford moved the plant, other companies moved too.  so i should go to wal mart on $0/hour for life experience ? lol. no thank you.  working at mcdonalds, and living paycheck to paycheck build character. pul lease.  my grandparents made those mistakes in the 0s and swore their kids would have  a better life , all their kids lived at home until they married.  my duty is to my family.  blood is thicker than water.  in the orient whole families live together, the young take care of the elders, and everyone lives most of their lives  at home .   #  you ca not make other parents do it, unfortunately, though that is outside the scope of my argument it is misguided to protect those over 0 from the responsibilities and consequences of adulthood .   #  you ca not make other parents do it, unfortunately, though that is outside the scope of my argument it is misguided to protect those over 0 from the responsibilities and consequences of adulthood .  as far as the 0 issue, well there needs to be some number, and that is necessarily somewhat arbitrary.  i think that virtually all 0 year olds possess sufficient maturity to deal with adult life.  there is no longer anything that they, by virtue of the biological and psychological limitations of childhood/adolescence, rely on their parents for.  i would say that many to most 0 year olds are too naïve to protect themselves, are too impulsive, their intellect is not fully developed, and lack the self awareness needed to cope with adulthood.   #  so you have acknowledged that 0 is at least somewhat arbitrary.   #  so you have acknowledged that 0 is at least somewhat arbitrary.  now, from our discussion we have the following points that we can agree on: any age picked is at least somewhat arbitrary.  people mature at different rates.  you ca not force parents to educate their children in a standardised way that might produce maturity after a certain number of years.  so acknowledging all of this, it is logical that there are people who are not sufficiently mature by 0.  why is misguided to give these people who are not ready the extra time necessary for them to mature sufficiently ? to reference my original comment, it is wasteful to discard people who are potentially useful members of society simply because they are not sufficiently mature after semi arbitrary number of years.   #  as an american i do not get the impression the majority of americans feel at all that 0 0 year olds are children who ca not lead adult lives.   #  pointing out that biologically the 0 0 year old brain is not fully functioning is not equivalent to saying the age group should be sheltered from adult responsibility.  as an american i do not get the impression the majority of americans feel at all that 0 0 year olds are children who ca not lead adult lives.  no.  not true.  now, you said that reddit discussion has formed your opinion of the u. s.  and shared one in particular about foster children and how they age out of the system at 0.  i am not sure if anyone has touched on this.  my family hosted foster children for over 0 years so i have some personal insight about that exact discussion.  disclaimer: i am not trying to be insensitive to any former foster children, but educate hyoo about the reality of the system in the u. s.  most foster care children who have spend a large majority of their lives in the state care system are often dysfunctional.  many foster parents are not very good ones.  that combination in itself is not good.  the reason many people feel that foster children who age out at 0 need extra resources is because they do not have the same building blocks a stable family provides.  foster children who age out of the system are greatly disadvantaged.  i think you may have confused the discussion of foster children as applying to normal everyday children who come from stable homes.  foster children and children from stable homes are two very different groups of young adults with much different dynamics.   #  the issue of delaying adulthood is one that i have been thinking about for quite a while.   #  i completely understand the higher level of need that kids in the system require.  the issue of delaying adulthood is one that i have been thinking about for quite a while.  i see the consequences of it in young members of my own community.  i think that it is more common in the us, but i do not know for sure as all i have to go in is about 0 months worth of redditing.  in that time i have seen countless examples of the most popular viewpoint being that 0yos are not ready for adulthood.  there have been a number of times that i have put forward in discussions that at 0 or over one is parents do not owe you shit and that you are capable of standing on your own feet and being responsible for yourself and your life is direction/circumstances.  each time my opinion has been met with unanimous rejection.  yesterday, i once again witnessed a minor incident in real life that involved some youngsters well over 0 behaving in a terribly immature and inconsiderate way.  it frustrated me that their parents whom, it was revealed, they remain to live with , had with only the best of intentions i am sure allowed their kids to become fully grown whilst still keeping them children.  those boys are i will equipt for adult aspects of life such as work, romantic relationships, child rearing, and conducting oneself in a responsible manner.  further, the people around them have to put up with overgrown little shits.  shortly after that incident i was browsing reddit, and, for the bizzillionth time, saw this attitude that youngsters are not  ready  for adulthood at 0.  my views are not based on one short discussion i saw on reddit.
much like attractiveness, intelligence also lies on a spectrum.  when  intelligence  is marketed as something to aspire for i wonder if it is necessarily any different than  attractiveness  as a quality.  if i choose to associate myself with people i judge more intelligent than me, am i not being  shallow  in a sense.  this is most definitely a problem, and one need only look to very academic cultures like india and china to see what a premium intelligence has.  when such is the case is it necessarily fair to those who do not want to take the effort to appear more intelligent, or are simply content with being  pretty  or  handsome  ? how is dismissing someone who  is not intelligent  any better than dismissing someone who is  not attractive  ? clearly these are both things that matter to people, and they do have impacts on how people live their lives.  i do not know what would be a good way of judging people, and perhaps it is all  shallow , or there really is not a good way to judge people.  one could argue that people can learn more, and get smarter but one can also get more attractive my dressing better, having better social graces, exercising and styling.  it  feels  like somehow intelligence is  better , but i ca not justify why.  and even if this were the case should there be a negative weight attached to people not actively making the world better irrespective of their intelligence ? thanks and cmv  #  i do not know what would be a good way of judging people, and perhaps it is all  shallow , or there really is not a good way to judge people.   #  i do not know if this will fall foul of rule 0, but here goes: temperament.   # i do not know if this will fall foul of rule 0, but here goes: temperament.  i am a very smart person it is all relative though , and i can be very cutting to those that are not nice, but i will never harm someone that is nice regardless of their intelligence .  plenty of people have not had the opportunities i have had, or my parents given how much intelligence is heritable , but imo there is no reasonable reason why anyone ca not be nice.  whilst i tend to associate with those as smart as me or smarter i still count a good temperament as superior to raw intelligence ie.  i have met plenty of clever people that are toxic and need to be pushed down a flight of stairs or to appearance because pretty people can be ugly on the inside .   #  in this case, they know almost nothing about their lecturer, and to pursue anything with them would be shallow  i do not care about your biodome collection biology professor , let is bang  .   #  attraction and being attractive are not, in and of themselves, shallow things.  we call people shallow when they are obsessed with these things, for example the  airhead  not gender specific who cares about nothing but their looks and social status.  this applies to intelligence.  you would consider someone in your university classes shallow if they lusted after the lecturer, based solely on his/her qualifications   two  phds ? hawt.   .  in this case, they know almost nothing about their lecturer, and to pursue anything with them would be shallow  i do not care about your biodome collection biology professor , let is bang  .  on the other hand, you can be attracted to someone for their intelligence, but still appreciate the rest of them.  say that guy who painted a beautiful vista in your art class, that is an attractive feature.  you start there  your painting is amazing, let is talk about it  , and eventually segue into other topics about them  what do you think about historical thing/politics/new technology   .  with that attitude, you are beyond being shallow.  tl;dr it is only shallow when you only care about a small portion of the traits of a person for example, their iq , and ignore or otherwise do not appreciate the rest of the person for who they are.   #  having resources food, clothing, shelter, protection increased the odds of success.   #  nowadays, maybe.  historically that would be a bad choice.  the porsche owner is demonstrating that he can acquire an excess of resources, enough to waste them on unnecessary things conspicuous consumption .  in hunter gatherer days, that would be critical in the reproductive success of your genes through your daughter and her children.  having resources food, clothing, shelter, protection increased the odds of success.  the phd, on the other hand, has not demonstrated he can provide for her offspring and hence successfully spread the copies of your genes .  granted, he has demonstrated he is smart, and if he is a lecturer at a university he possibly has a high status in society and a decent salary compared to, say, a janitor .  these are, of course, the genetic tendencies for women to be attractive to high status and high income males.  the caveat may be that in the modern world, the porsche owner may tend to be demonstrating that he is interest in attracting many women, because he is so overt at his display.  and so he may reduce his overall apparent fitness via the risk that he wo not stick with your daughter and wo not provide resources in the long term for her offspring.  so you may have competing evaluation systems for which is the better option for her.  of course, you are more driven by your cognitive evaluation.  your daughter is more driven by her immediate physiological response, i. e. , attraction, which does not come from a resume.  of course none of that really matters nowadays anyway, but it is still fun looking at where these instincts and evaluations come from.   #  on the other hand if someone is good looking you know they probably go to the gym, eat right, and have good looking parents.   # you would consider someone in your university classes shallow if they lusted after the lecturer, based solely on his/her qualifications  two phds ? hawt.   .  in this case, they know almost nothing about their lecturer, and to pursue anything with them would be shallow.  i would disagree with the fact that you know almost nothing about them.  earning a phd much less two phds would indicate that this person is intelligent and hard working.  they would be well versed in two subjects and are thus probably have a broad interest in understanding the world around them.  its pretty fair to assume they spend a good amount of their free time reading.  and so on.  the assumptions are not absolutely true but they are very likely to be true.  on the other hand if someone is good looking you know they probably go to the gym, eat right, and have good looking parents.  it does seem to tell you a lot less about the person and what it does tell you is more superficial.   #  i was more concerned about the ethics of it, but i will bite.   #  i was more concerned about the ethics of it, but i will bite.  eventually one does talk to people.  people do not just look at each other and end up in bed or in a relationship.  during this intermediate time there are judgements made on other factors.  i was more concerned with  shallow  as a moral judgement than an observational one.  to be even more pedantic we generally judge intelligence by what we hear people saying as opposed to what we see so while one may preceed the other, it is not necessarily pertinent.  however this technical distinction is not something i am interested in.
this viewpoint has most likely hurt me a lot more than it has helped me, so i am hoping someone can change my view here.  i feel that being confident or behaving in a confident way shows that you are sure of your beliefs and actions.  i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  in my experience, i have learned so much more by questioning what i already thought or did as opposed to being certain of myself.  i often find that the most effective means of approaching a situation is to consider as much about it as i can, and tentatively operate on what conclusions i do draw, but constantly questioning those conclusions until either they work for me or no longer hold water.  i think that there is no such thing as overthinking, and that any situation can only ever be improved by careful consideration.  consequently, i see people that display confidence in themselves and their beliefs as almost intentionally maintaining a blissful ignorance.  i do see it as one thing to have a faith, and quite another to be a fanatic, but i do feel that the divide between those may be a question of confidence.  it is also possible to speak with some measure of certainty about your interests and knowledge, but it is usually best, i feel, to be prepared to re examine your perspectives on even fundamental beliefs at any moment.  these perspectives, i do not feel, have served me very well.  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.  i see people rewarded for never once considering the ramifications of their actions or words simply because they convey confidence.  it seems that many use someone is confidence as a measure for how correct or successful they are, when if anything, to me, it conveys only willful ignorance.  what am i missing ? there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so surely it is more correct to assume you are wrong at almost all times.  in short, confidence inhibits learning, while self doubt gives every opportunity for self edification.  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.  so. what are the merits of confidence ? what is wrong with considering carefully a situation before proceeding ? what am i missing ?  #  i feel that being confident or behaving in a confident way shows that you are sure of your beliefs and actions.   #  i also believe that this is reprehensible.   #  confidence is neither a good or bad thing.  unjustified confidence can be dangerous, but it is perfectly fine if there is a rational reason for it.  i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  knowing your own limits and abilities allows you to act with confidence, be it by solving a problem, or seeking additional information.  there is nothing wrong with question your own position if new information becomes available.  i think that there is no such thing as overthinking, and that any situation can only ever be improved by careful consideration.  over thinking can definitely be a problem.  it occurs when you try to analyse something repeatedly, but with no additional information.  it can play on your sense of doubt increasing the feeling of risk and uncertainty without a corresponding rational basis.  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.  i see people rewarded for never once considering the ramifications of their actions or words simply because they convey confidence.  this is the nature of social interaction.  it too is valuable information.  it shows confidence can be used as a tool when required, if you have better information you can often get superior results.  what am i missing ? there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so surely it is more correct to assume you are wrong at almost all times.  depends on the person, but we are often missing at least some information.  that;s why i am usually confident about my statements, but i tend to qualify them, leaving room for the possibility i am wrong.  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.  it can, but it does not have too.  misplaced confidence is the problem.   #  in life, a lack of confidence can be utterly crippling.   #  because without confidence, you waffle over minutia and miss opportunities.  confidence is not about  charging headlong , but about knowing that you have evaluated scenarios, considered data, and made a good decision.  it is about evaluating risk, and making a good risk reward assessment.  you appear to be describing overconfidence.  in life, a lack of confidence can be utterly crippling.  people can see a belief in yourself, and that is contagious.  more importantly, people can see a lack of confidence, and it is even more contagious.  if you are interviewing for a job, or asking that special someone out for a first date, or requesting a loan, the other person will be unlikely to say yes if they see that you are not sure.  there is a reason that we never see the general in movies, motivating the troops before a big battle, stand up and say  we have a pretty solid plan, i think.  it looks like we probably wo not lose, and a pretty decent number of you will survive.   there is a reason why presidential candidates do not give speeches about all the things they will want to do, but how maybe half of that will happen because congress wo not agree.  there is a reason why a man applying for a loan to open a restaurant wo not say  i have a 0 chance of not failing in this endeavor, much higher than the 0 chance of success the industry averages.   to quote rosa parks:  i have learned over the years that when one is mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.   this is what confidence is truly about.   #  i understand that we have emotional responses to confidence, but the mistake, i believe, is to consider those emotions to be correct.   #  i am not claiming that displaying confidence is not useful, simply that it is perhaps morally wrong.  i understand that we have emotional responses to confidence, but the mistake, i believe, is to consider those emotions to be correct.  i also argue that, from my experience, confidence is all about charging headlong.  i have yet to see a functional difference between confidence and overconfidence.  perhaps a different example would help me.  these social interactions you have described seem to prove my point more than disprove it.  that is essentially saying  look how much more effective lying is than telling the truth.   confidence may in fact be that, a lie that you tell either to yourself, or others.  or both.   #  arrogance is having an exaggerated sence of ones own abilities.   #  arrogance is having an exaggerated sence of ones own abilities.  whereas confidence is understanding our skills and abilities but more important the limitations.  example: i am a paramedic, and have been one for a long time.  the concept that  i have seen it all, twice  is very true to my experience and my ability to handle ems situations.  that said, i grasp exactly where my skills end and a doctors begin and do not cross that line simply because i am confidant to that point.  the same could be said for a different types of doctors, or pilots or what ever.  the key to not being arrogant is to be subdued about your ability, and the key to be confident is understanding that you can indeed, handle the problem put in front of you as a professional without having to stop and weigh alternatives at every decision point.   #  i feel that displaying self confidence in a social way is an act of hubris.   #  i made this post because i disagreed with the conventional definition of confidence, particularly self confidence.  i feel that displaying self confidence in a social way is an act of hubris.  but, another commenter pointed out some very useful ways my definition could have some nuance.  it may actually be that at some level, i feel being happy is an act of hubris.  i am beginning to see how my problems may be deeper than a dictionary can solve.
this viewpoint has most likely hurt me a lot more than it has helped me, so i am hoping someone can change my view here.  i feel that being confident or behaving in a confident way shows that you are sure of your beliefs and actions.  i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  in my experience, i have learned so much more by questioning what i already thought or did as opposed to being certain of myself.  i often find that the most effective means of approaching a situation is to consider as much about it as i can, and tentatively operate on what conclusions i do draw, but constantly questioning those conclusions until either they work for me or no longer hold water.  i think that there is no such thing as overthinking, and that any situation can only ever be improved by careful consideration.  consequently, i see people that display confidence in themselves and their beliefs as almost intentionally maintaining a blissful ignorance.  i do see it as one thing to have a faith, and quite another to be a fanatic, but i do feel that the divide between those may be a question of confidence.  it is also possible to speak with some measure of certainty about your interests and knowledge, but it is usually best, i feel, to be prepared to re examine your perspectives on even fundamental beliefs at any moment.  these perspectives, i do not feel, have served me very well.  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.  i see people rewarded for never once considering the ramifications of their actions or words simply because they convey confidence.  it seems that many use someone is confidence as a measure for how correct or successful they are, when if anything, to me, it conveys only willful ignorance.  what am i missing ? there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so surely it is more correct to assume you are wrong at almost all times.  in short, confidence inhibits learning, while self doubt gives every opportunity for self edification.  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.  so. what are the merits of confidence ? what is wrong with considering carefully a situation before proceeding ? what am i missing ?  #  in my experience, i have learned so much more by questioning what i already thought or did as opposed to being certain of myself.   #  there is nothing wrong with question your own position if new information becomes available.   #  confidence is neither a good or bad thing.  unjustified confidence can be dangerous, but it is perfectly fine if there is a rational reason for it.  i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  knowing your own limits and abilities allows you to act with confidence, be it by solving a problem, or seeking additional information.  there is nothing wrong with question your own position if new information becomes available.  i think that there is no such thing as overthinking, and that any situation can only ever be improved by careful consideration.  over thinking can definitely be a problem.  it occurs when you try to analyse something repeatedly, but with no additional information.  it can play on your sense of doubt increasing the feeling of risk and uncertainty without a corresponding rational basis.  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.  i see people rewarded for never once considering the ramifications of their actions or words simply because they convey confidence.  this is the nature of social interaction.  it too is valuable information.  it shows confidence can be used as a tool when required, if you have better information you can often get superior results.  what am i missing ? there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so surely it is more correct to assume you are wrong at almost all times.  depends on the person, but we are often missing at least some information.  that;s why i am usually confident about my statements, but i tend to qualify them, leaving room for the possibility i am wrong.  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.  it can, but it does not have too.  misplaced confidence is the problem.   #  there is a reason why presidential candidates do not give speeches about all the things they will want to do, but how maybe half of that will happen because congress wo not agree.   #  because without confidence, you waffle over minutia and miss opportunities.  confidence is not about  charging headlong , but about knowing that you have evaluated scenarios, considered data, and made a good decision.  it is about evaluating risk, and making a good risk reward assessment.  you appear to be describing overconfidence.  in life, a lack of confidence can be utterly crippling.  people can see a belief in yourself, and that is contagious.  more importantly, people can see a lack of confidence, and it is even more contagious.  if you are interviewing for a job, or asking that special someone out for a first date, or requesting a loan, the other person will be unlikely to say yes if they see that you are not sure.  there is a reason that we never see the general in movies, motivating the troops before a big battle, stand up and say  we have a pretty solid plan, i think.  it looks like we probably wo not lose, and a pretty decent number of you will survive.   there is a reason why presidential candidates do not give speeches about all the things they will want to do, but how maybe half of that will happen because congress wo not agree.  there is a reason why a man applying for a loan to open a restaurant wo not say  i have a 0 chance of not failing in this endeavor, much higher than the 0 chance of success the industry averages.   to quote rosa parks:  i have learned over the years that when one is mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.   this is what confidence is truly about.   #  these social interactions you have described seem to prove my point more than disprove it.   #  i am not claiming that displaying confidence is not useful, simply that it is perhaps morally wrong.  i understand that we have emotional responses to confidence, but the mistake, i believe, is to consider those emotions to be correct.  i also argue that, from my experience, confidence is all about charging headlong.  i have yet to see a functional difference between confidence and overconfidence.  perhaps a different example would help me.  these social interactions you have described seem to prove my point more than disprove it.  that is essentially saying  look how much more effective lying is than telling the truth.   confidence may in fact be that, a lie that you tell either to yourself, or others.  or both.   #  example: i am a paramedic, and have been one for a long time.   #  arrogance is having an exaggerated sence of ones own abilities.  whereas confidence is understanding our skills and abilities but more important the limitations.  example: i am a paramedic, and have been one for a long time.  the concept that  i have seen it all, twice  is very true to my experience and my ability to handle ems situations.  that said, i grasp exactly where my skills end and a doctors begin and do not cross that line simply because i am confidant to that point.  the same could be said for a different types of doctors, or pilots or what ever.  the key to not being arrogant is to be subdued about your ability, and the key to be confident is understanding that you can indeed, handle the problem put in front of you as a professional without having to stop and weigh alternatives at every decision point.   #  it may actually be that at some level, i feel being happy is an act of hubris.   #  i made this post because i disagreed with the conventional definition of confidence, particularly self confidence.  i feel that displaying self confidence in a social way is an act of hubris.  but, another commenter pointed out some very useful ways my definition could have some nuance.  it may actually be that at some level, i feel being happy is an act of hubris.  i am beginning to see how my problems may be deeper than a dictionary can solve.
this viewpoint has most likely hurt me a lot more than it has helped me, so i am hoping someone can change my view here.  i feel that being confident or behaving in a confident way shows that you are sure of your beliefs and actions.  i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  in my experience, i have learned so much more by questioning what i already thought or did as opposed to being certain of myself.  i often find that the most effective means of approaching a situation is to consider as much about it as i can, and tentatively operate on what conclusions i do draw, but constantly questioning those conclusions until either they work for me or no longer hold water.  i think that there is no such thing as overthinking, and that any situation can only ever be improved by careful consideration.  consequently, i see people that display confidence in themselves and their beliefs as almost intentionally maintaining a blissful ignorance.  i do see it as one thing to have a faith, and quite another to be a fanatic, but i do feel that the divide between those may be a question of confidence.  it is also possible to speak with some measure of certainty about your interests and knowledge, but it is usually best, i feel, to be prepared to re examine your perspectives on even fundamental beliefs at any moment.  these perspectives, i do not feel, have served me very well.  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.  i see people rewarded for never once considering the ramifications of their actions or words simply because they convey confidence.  it seems that many use someone is confidence as a measure for how correct or successful they are, when if anything, to me, it conveys only willful ignorance.  what am i missing ? there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so surely it is more correct to assume you are wrong at almost all times.  in short, confidence inhibits learning, while self doubt gives every opportunity for self edification.  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.  so. what are the merits of confidence ? what is wrong with considering carefully a situation before proceeding ? what am i missing ?  #  these perspectives, i do not feel, have served me very well.   #  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.   #  confidence is neither a good or bad thing.  unjustified confidence can be dangerous, but it is perfectly fine if there is a rational reason for it.  i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  knowing your own limits and abilities allows you to act with confidence, be it by solving a problem, or seeking additional information.  there is nothing wrong with question your own position if new information becomes available.  i think that there is no such thing as overthinking, and that any situation can only ever be improved by careful consideration.  over thinking can definitely be a problem.  it occurs when you try to analyse something repeatedly, but with no additional information.  it can play on your sense of doubt increasing the feeling of risk and uncertainty without a corresponding rational basis.  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.  i see people rewarded for never once considering the ramifications of their actions or words simply because they convey confidence.  this is the nature of social interaction.  it too is valuable information.  it shows confidence can be used as a tool when required, if you have better information you can often get superior results.  what am i missing ? there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so surely it is more correct to assume you are wrong at almost all times.  depends on the person, but we are often missing at least some information.  that;s why i am usually confident about my statements, but i tend to qualify them, leaving room for the possibility i am wrong.  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.  it can, but it does not have too.  misplaced confidence is the problem.   #  there is a reason why presidential candidates do not give speeches about all the things they will want to do, but how maybe half of that will happen because congress wo not agree.   #  because without confidence, you waffle over minutia and miss opportunities.  confidence is not about  charging headlong , but about knowing that you have evaluated scenarios, considered data, and made a good decision.  it is about evaluating risk, and making a good risk reward assessment.  you appear to be describing overconfidence.  in life, a lack of confidence can be utterly crippling.  people can see a belief in yourself, and that is contagious.  more importantly, people can see a lack of confidence, and it is even more contagious.  if you are interviewing for a job, or asking that special someone out for a first date, or requesting a loan, the other person will be unlikely to say yes if they see that you are not sure.  there is a reason that we never see the general in movies, motivating the troops before a big battle, stand up and say  we have a pretty solid plan, i think.  it looks like we probably wo not lose, and a pretty decent number of you will survive.   there is a reason why presidential candidates do not give speeches about all the things they will want to do, but how maybe half of that will happen because congress wo not agree.  there is a reason why a man applying for a loan to open a restaurant wo not say  i have a 0 chance of not failing in this endeavor, much higher than the 0 chance of success the industry averages.   to quote rosa parks:  i have learned over the years that when one is mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.   this is what confidence is truly about.   #  confidence may in fact be that, a lie that you tell either to yourself, or others.   #  i am not claiming that displaying confidence is not useful, simply that it is perhaps morally wrong.  i understand that we have emotional responses to confidence, but the mistake, i believe, is to consider those emotions to be correct.  i also argue that, from my experience, confidence is all about charging headlong.  i have yet to see a functional difference between confidence and overconfidence.  perhaps a different example would help me.  these social interactions you have described seem to prove my point more than disprove it.  that is essentially saying  look how much more effective lying is than telling the truth.   confidence may in fact be that, a lie that you tell either to yourself, or others.  or both.   #  that said, i grasp exactly where my skills end and a doctors begin and do not cross that line simply because i am confidant to that point.   #  arrogance is having an exaggerated sence of ones own abilities.  whereas confidence is understanding our skills and abilities but more important the limitations.  example: i am a paramedic, and have been one for a long time.  the concept that  i have seen it all, twice  is very true to my experience and my ability to handle ems situations.  that said, i grasp exactly where my skills end and a doctors begin and do not cross that line simply because i am confidant to that point.  the same could be said for a different types of doctors, or pilots or what ever.  the key to not being arrogant is to be subdued about your ability, and the key to be confident is understanding that you can indeed, handle the problem put in front of you as a professional without having to stop and weigh alternatives at every decision point.   #  it may actually be that at some level, i feel being happy is an act of hubris.   #  i made this post because i disagreed with the conventional definition of confidence, particularly self confidence.  i feel that displaying self confidence in a social way is an act of hubris.  but, another commenter pointed out some very useful ways my definition could have some nuance.  it may actually be that at some level, i feel being happy is an act of hubris.  i am beginning to see how my problems may be deeper than a dictionary can solve.
this viewpoint has most likely hurt me a lot more than it has helped me, so i am hoping someone can change my view here.  i feel that being confident or behaving in a confident way shows that you are sure of your beliefs and actions.  i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  in my experience, i have learned so much more by questioning what i already thought or did as opposed to being certain of myself.  i often find that the most effective means of approaching a situation is to consider as much about it as i can, and tentatively operate on what conclusions i do draw, but constantly questioning those conclusions until either they work for me or no longer hold water.  i think that there is no such thing as overthinking, and that any situation can only ever be improved by careful consideration.  consequently, i see people that display confidence in themselves and their beliefs as almost intentionally maintaining a blissful ignorance.  i do see it as one thing to have a faith, and quite another to be a fanatic, but i do feel that the divide between those may be a question of confidence.  it is also possible to speak with some measure of certainty about your interests and knowledge, but it is usually best, i feel, to be prepared to re examine your perspectives on even fundamental beliefs at any moment.  these perspectives, i do not feel, have served me very well.  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.  i see people rewarded for never once considering the ramifications of their actions or words simply because they convey confidence.  it seems that many use someone is confidence as a measure for how correct or successful they are, when if anything, to me, it conveys only willful ignorance.  what am i missing ? there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so surely it is more correct to assume you are wrong at almost all times.  in short, confidence inhibits learning, while self doubt gives every opportunity for self edification.  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.  so. what are the merits of confidence ? what is wrong with considering carefully a situation before proceeding ? what am i missing ?  #  in short, confidence inhibits learning, while self doubt gives every opportunity for self edification.   #  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.   #  confidence is neither a good or bad thing.  unjustified confidence can be dangerous, but it is perfectly fine if there is a rational reason for it.  i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  knowing your own limits and abilities allows you to act with confidence, be it by solving a problem, or seeking additional information.  there is nothing wrong with question your own position if new information becomes available.  i think that there is no such thing as overthinking, and that any situation can only ever be improved by careful consideration.  over thinking can definitely be a problem.  it occurs when you try to analyse something repeatedly, but with no additional information.  it can play on your sense of doubt increasing the feeling of risk and uncertainty without a corresponding rational basis.  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.  i see people rewarded for never once considering the ramifications of their actions or words simply because they convey confidence.  this is the nature of social interaction.  it too is valuable information.  it shows confidence can be used as a tool when required, if you have better information you can often get superior results.  what am i missing ? there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so surely it is more correct to assume you are wrong at almost all times.  depends on the person, but we are often missing at least some information.  that;s why i am usually confident about my statements, but i tend to qualify them, leaving room for the possibility i am wrong.  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.  it can, but it does not have too.  misplaced confidence is the problem.   #  confidence is not about  charging headlong , but about knowing that you have evaluated scenarios, considered data, and made a good decision.   #  because without confidence, you waffle over minutia and miss opportunities.  confidence is not about  charging headlong , but about knowing that you have evaluated scenarios, considered data, and made a good decision.  it is about evaluating risk, and making a good risk reward assessment.  you appear to be describing overconfidence.  in life, a lack of confidence can be utterly crippling.  people can see a belief in yourself, and that is contagious.  more importantly, people can see a lack of confidence, and it is even more contagious.  if you are interviewing for a job, or asking that special someone out for a first date, or requesting a loan, the other person will be unlikely to say yes if they see that you are not sure.  there is a reason that we never see the general in movies, motivating the troops before a big battle, stand up and say  we have a pretty solid plan, i think.  it looks like we probably wo not lose, and a pretty decent number of you will survive.   there is a reason why presidential candidates do not give speeches about all the things they will want to do, but how maybe half of that will happen because congress wo not agree.  there is a reason why a man applying for a loan to open a restaurant wo not say  i have a 0 chance of not failing in this endeavor, much higher than the 0 chance of success the industry averages.   to quote rosa parks:  i have learned over the years that when one is mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.   this is what confidence is truly about.   #  i have yet to see a functional difference between confidence and overconfidence.   #  i am not claiming that displaying confidence is not useful, simply that it is perhaps morally wrong.  i understand that we have emotional responses to confidence, but the mistake, i believe, is to consider those emotions to be correct.  i also argue that, from my experience, confidence is all about charging headlong.  i have yet to see a functional difference between confidence and overconfidence.  perhaps a different example would help me.  these social interactions you have described seem to prove my point more than disprove it.  that is essentially saying  look how much more effective lying is than telling the truth.   confidence may in fact be that, a lie that you tell either to yourself, or others.  or both.   #  arrogance is having an exaggerated sence of ones own abilities.   #  arrogance is having an exaggerated sence of ones own abilities.  whereas confidence is understanding our skills and abilities but more important the limitations.  example: i am a paramedic, and have been one for a long time.  the concept that  i have seen it all, twice  is very true to my experience and my ability to handle ems situations.  that said, i grasp exactly where my skills end and a doctors begin and do not cross that line simply because i am confidant to that point.  the same could be said for a different types of doctors, or pilots or what ever.  the key to not being arrogant is to be subdued about your ability, and the key to be confident is understanding that you can indeed, handle the problem put in front of you as a professional without having to stop and weigh alternatives at every decision point.   #  it may actually be that at some level, i feel being happy is an act of hubris.   #  i made this post because i disagreed with the conventional definition of confidence, particularly self confidence.  i feel that displaying self confidence in a social way is an act of hubris.  but, another commenter pointed out some very useful ways my definition could have some nuance.  it may actually be that at some level, i feel being happy is an act of hubris.  i am beginning to see how my problems may be deeper than a dictionary can solve.
this viewpoint has most likely hurt me a lot more than it has helped me, so i am hoping someone can change my view here.  i feel that being confident or behaving in a confident way shows that you are sure of your beliefs and actions.  i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  in my experience, i have learned so much more by questioning what i already thought or did as opposed to being certain of myself.  i often find that the most effective means of approaching a situation is to consider as much about it as i can, and tentatively operate on what conclusions i do draw, but constantly questioning those conclusions until either they work for me or no longer hold water.  i think that there is no such thing as overthinking, and that any situation can only ever be improved by careful consideration.  consequently, i see people that display confidence in themselves and their beliefs as almost intentionally maintaining a blissful ignorance.  i do see it as one thing to have a faith, and quite another to be a fanatic, but i do feel that the divide between those may be a question of confidence.  it is also possible to speak with some measure of certainty about your interests and knowledge, but it is usually best, i feel, to be prepared to re examine your perspectives on even fundamental beliefs at any moment.  these perspectives, i do not feel, have served me very well.  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.  i see people rewarded for never once considering the ramifications of their actions or words simply because they convey confidence.  it seems that many use someone is confidence as a measure for how correct or successful they are, when if anything, to me, it conveys only willful ignorance.  what am i missing ? there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so surely it is more correct to assume you are wrong at almost all times.  in short, confidence inhibits learning, while self doubt gives every opportunity for self edification.  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.  so. what are the merits of confidence ? what is wrong with considering carefully a situation before proceeding ? what am i missing ?  #  i feel that being confident or behaving in a confident way shows that you are sure of your beliefs and actions.   #  i also believe that this is reprehensible.   # i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  on the opposite end of the spectrum, there also lies crippling self doubt.  lack of confidence and constant affirmation slows things down considerably to the point where often nothing gets done or the task becomes too tedious.  too much confidence is hubris.  too much doubt is folly.  like all things, it is best to take things in moderation and find a middle road.  just because something to an extreme is bad does not mean it is bad in it is entirety.   #  more importantly, people can see a lack of confidence, and it is even more contagious.   #  because without confidence, you waffle over minutia and miss opportunities.  confidence is not about  charging headlong , but about knowing that you have evaluated scenarios, considered data, and made a good decision.  it is about evaluating risk, and making a good risk reward assessment.  you appear to be describing overconfidence.  in life, a lack of confidence can be utterly crippling.  people can see a belief in yourself, and that is contagious.  more importantly, people can see a lack of confidence, and it is even more contagious.  if you are interviewing for a job, or asking that special someone out for a first date, or requesting a loan, the other person will be unlikely to say yes if they see that you are not sure.  there is a reason that we never see the general in movies, motivating the troops before a big battle, stand up and say  we have a pretty solid plan, i think.  it looks like we probably wo not lose, and a pretty decent number of you will survive.   there is a reason why presidential candidates do not give speeches about all the things they will want to do, but how maybe half of that will happen because congress wo not agree.  there is a reason why a man applying for a loan to open a restaurant wo not say  i have a 0 chance of not failing in this endeavor, much higher than the 0 chance of success the industry averages.   to quote rosa parks:  i have learned over the years that when one is mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.   this is what confidence is truly about.   #  i have yet to see a functional difference between confidence and overconfidence.   #  i am not claiming that displaying confidence is not useful, simply that it is perhaps morally wrong.  i understand that we have emotional responses to confidence, but the mistake, i believe, is to consider those emotions to be correct.  i also argue that, from my experience, confidence is all about charging headlong.  i have yet to see a functional difference between confidence and overconfidence.  perhaps a different example would help me.  these social interactions you have described seem to prove my point more than disprove it.  that is essentially saying  look how much more effective lying is than telling the truth.   confidence may in fact be that, a lie that you tell either to yourself, or others.  or both.   #  that said, i grasp exactly where my skills end and a doctors begin and do not cross that line simply because i am confidant to that point.   #  arrogance is having an exaggerated sence of ones own abilities.  whereas confidence is understanding our skills and abilities but more important the limitations.  example: i am a paramedic, and have been one for a long time.  the concept that  i have seen it all, twice  is very true to my experience and my ability to handle ems situations.  that said, i grasp exactly where my skills end and a doctors begin and do not cross that line simply because i am confidant to that point.  the same could be said for a different types of doctors, or pilots or what ever.  the key to not being arrogant is to be subdued about your ability, and the key to be confident is understanding that you can indeed, handle the problem put in front of you as a professional without having to stop and weigh alternatives at every decision point.   #  i feel that displaying self confidence in a social way is an act of hubris.   #  i made this post because i disagreed with the conventional definition of confidence, particularly self confidence.  i feel that displaying self confidence in a social way is an act of hubris.  but, another commenter pointed out some very useful ways my definition could have some nuance.  it may actually be that at some level, i feel being happy is an act of hubris.  i am beginning to see how my problems may be deeper than a dictionary can solve.
this viewpoint has most likely hurt me a lot more than it has helped me, so i am hoping someone can change my view here.  i feel that being confident or behaving in a confident way shows that you are sure of your beliefs and actions.  i also believe that this is reprehensible.  your ability to learn and be edified, i feel, is directly hindered by self confidence.  in my experience, i have learned so much more by questioning what i already thought or did as opposed to being certain of myself.  i often find that the most effective means of approaching a situation is to consider as much about it as i can, and tentatively operate on what conclusions i do draw, but constantly questioning those conclusions until either they work for me or no longer hold water.  i think that there is no such thing as overthinking, and that any situation can only ever be improved by careful consideration.  consequently, i see people that display confidence in themselves and their beliefs as almost intentionally maintaining a blissful ignorance.  i do see it as one thing to have a faith, and quite another to be a fanatic, but i do feel that the divide between those may be a question of confidence.  it is also possible to speak with some measure of certainty about your interests and knowledge, but it is usually best, i feel, to be prepared to re examine your perspectives on even fundamental beliefs at any moment.  these perspectives, i do not feel, have served me very well.  i find myself despising confident people as they speak with pride about things they have never once questioned.  i see people rewarded for never once considering the ramifications of their actions or words simply because they convey confidence.  it seems that many use someone is confidence as a measure for how correct or successful they are, when if anything, to me, it conveys only willful ignorance.  what am i missing ? there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so surely it is more correct to assume you are wrong at almost all times.  in short, confidence inhibits learning, while self doubt gives every opportunity for self edification.  people who display confidence are often ignorant or at least preventing themselves from learning more, while those that celebrate and reward confidence are actively enabling this primitive behavior.  so. what are the merits of confidence ? what is wrong with considering carefully a situation before proceeding ? what am i missing ?  #  in short, confidence inhibits learning, while self doubt gives every opportunity for self edification.   #  confidence inspires you to find out the ways in which you might be wrong.   # confidence inspires you to find out the ways in which you might be wrong.  if you are curious, but lack the confidence to pursue that which you are curious about.  which is it that is inhibiting your learning ? confidence is trusting yourself to be able to learn.  it does not make you ignorant.  it makes you ready.  the problem with carefully considering a situation before proceeding is that you may get analysis paralysis.  you either do not have enough information, or the information you have is leading you in a circle.  something must be done in order to change that status quo, but without confidence you lack the agency to do make a move.  you go over it in your head and nothing changes.  you must make the change without information.  you must trust yourself and you must want new information.  confidence is readiness to act on information, or feeling.   #  there is a reason why a man applying for a loan to open a restaurant wo not say  i have a 0 chance of not failing in this endeavor, much higher than the 0 chance of success the industry averages.    #  because without confidence, you waffle over minutia and miss opportunities.  confidence is not about  charging headlong , but about knowing that you have evaluated scenarios, considered data, and made a good decision.  it is about evaluating risk, and making a good risk reward assessment.  you appear to be describing overconfidence.  in life, a lack of confidence can be utterly crippling.  people can see a belief in yourself, and that is contagious.  more importantly, people can see a lack of confidence, and it is even more contagious.  if you are interviewing for a job, or asking that special someone out for a first date, or requesting a loan, the other person will be unlikely to say yes if they see that you are not sure.  there is a reason that we never see the general in movies, motivating the troops before a big battle, stand up and say  we have a pretty solid plan, i think.  it looks like we probably wo not lose, and a pretty decent number of you will survive.   there is a reason why presidential candidates do not give speeches about all the things they will want to do, but how maybe half of that will happen because congress wo not agree.  there is a reason why a man applying for a loan to open a restaurant wo not say  i have a 0 chance of not failing in this endeavor, much higher than the 0 chance of success the industry averages.   to quote rosa parks:  i have learned over the years that when one is mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.   this is what confidence is truly about.   #  i am not claiming that displaying confidence is not useful, simply that it is perhaps morally wrong.   #  i am not claiming that displaying confidence is not useful, simply that it is perhaps morally wrong.  i understand that we have emotional responses to confidence, but the mistake, i believe, is to consider those emotions to be correct.  i also argue that, from my experience, confidence is all about charging headlong.  i have yet to see a functional difference between confidence and overconfidence.  perhaps a different example would help me.  these social interactions you have described seem to prove my point more than disprove it.  that is essentially saying  look how much more effective lying is than telling the truth.   confidence may in fact be that, a lie that you tell either to yourself, or others.  or both.   #  whereas confidence is understanding our skills and abilities but more important the limitations.   #  arrogance is having an exaggerated sence of ones own abilities.  whereas confidence is understanding our skills and abilities but more important the limitations.  example: i am a paramedic, and have been one for a long time.  the concept that  i have seen it all, twice  is very true to my experience and my ability to handle ems situations.  that said, i grasp exactly where my skills end and a doctors begin and do not cross that line simply because i am confidant to that point.  the same could be said for a different types of doctors, or pilots or what ever.  the key to not being arrogant is to be subdued about your ability, and the key to be confident is understanding that you can indeed, handle the problem put in front of you as a professional without having to stop and weigh alternatives at every decision point.   #  i am beginning to see how my problems may be deeper than a dictionary can solve.   #  i made this post because i disagreed with the conventional definition of confidence, particularly self confidence.  i feel that displaying self confidence in a social way is an act of hubris.  but, another commenter pointed out some very useful ways my definition could have some nuance.  it may actually be that at some level, i feel being happy is an act of hubris.  i am beginning to see how my problems may be deeper than a dictionary can solve.
i will define art as any presentation of media that is presented for others to experience.  it can be visual, like a painting or photograph, or audio like music or sound effects, written like a story or played like a children is game, or any combination of the above like a movie.  art is anything that is created and experienced.  in this way, you can only ever subjectively appraise its value.  any criteria you use to judge it is worth is completely opinionated and predefined by you.  there is no outside objective predefinitions of what makes art  good  or  bad  that can be used.  for example, any logic based thing can be  objectively bad  because it is illogical, you can have  bad  maths, or  bad  science or even just a  bad  argument.  there is no such thing as being objectively inartistic because you decide the criteria by which it is judged.  art can lack talent whereby the artist fails to create what they intended, or rather what they created fails to give the experience they intended it to.  art can be subjectively  bad  whereby it fails to meet the criteria desired of it by others.  but neither of these things make it  objectively bad  as it can still be appreciated by others under differing criteria.   tl;dr: art is never  objectively bad  because any values you assign to judge it by are completely attributed to your subjectivity.   i will take arguments for different definitions of art, but they would have to be well thought out.  the mere fact that you could argue a different definition of art further proves my point that art is purely subjective, since it is possibly difficult to even settle on an objective definition !  #  for example, any logic based thing can be  objectively bad  because it is illogical, you can have  bad  maths, or  bad  science or even just a  bad  argument.   #  how does one determine good vs bad science ?  # how does one determine good vs bad science ? let is take climate change science as an example.  is the recent ipcc report good or bad science ? would not the answer change depending on if you asked a climate change skeptic or not ? objectively how do you determine who is right ? what i am trying to get at is that any assessment that can be made is always going to rely on a consensus opinion.  there always must be a selection of criteria and those criteria are always going to be open for debate.  if your  objectively good  science is determined by consensus why is it not possible to determine objectively good art by consensus ?  #  that to judge art you must consider the artists  intention when creating it ?  #  to quote myself:  are you arguing that a piece of art is worth is inherently connected to what it was intended for ? that to judge art you must consider the artists  intention when creating it ? we cannot ever truly understand others  intentions, how then do you suppose we judge art when we cannot know a key part of information ? we never knew leonardo da vinci, no one alive today knew him, or even knew anyone who knew him.  even if you had personally known him, it would not mean that you truly understood him, understood his intentions.  yet, his art remains well after he has passed away into dust.  how can we say his art is objectively good or bad since we have no idea of his intentions when creating it ?  #  it kind of makes sense for something to have an objective property that while we can not be entirely sure of it is nature, it does exist and therefore we can speculate as to it is nature.   #  are you saying that although we can never know the creator is intention, the art is still objectively good or bad depending on how it meets it is goal, so while we can never know how objectively good or bad it is, we can speculate on it simply because it is a quality that does exist ? this is the closest to having my view changed on this matter i have come.  it kind of makes sense for something to have an objective property that while we can not be entirely sure of it is nature, it does exist and therefore we can speculate as to it is nature.  i mean, our assumption as to whether it is objectively good or bad is still subjective, but the quality itself is objective.  very interesting.  if this is indeed what you are saying then please elaborate.  otherwise, will at least you made me think !  #  art is purely subjective, but in no way does that make it pointless or meaningless.   #  just because there is value that we can perceive and attribute to something it does not make it objective in nature.  also, and more importantly, just because a value is subjective it does not diminish it is meaning.  to say, for example, i love my wife, does not make her objectively the best wife in all existence.  every man could equally and separately love his wife for many different reasons, but it would not diminish their individual love.  if i love my wife because she is pretty and adventurous, does that mean that she is objectively better than my neighbor is ? he loves his wife because she is considerate and helpful.  can you say one wife is objectively better than the other ? why should you attempt to court any lady when in fact there are many others that you could court ? just because we personally assign greater value to something it does not make that value meaningless.  nor does it make that value universal.  art is purely subjective, but in no way does that make it pointless or meaningless.   #  as soon as you have  better  and  worse  it is a trivial step to  good and  bad.    #  imagine if every single person in the world were shown two things, and told that both were art.  the first one evokes strong and unique feelings in everyone that lays eyes on it, giving them a new perspective on the world.  the second fails to get a single emotional response out of anyone.  the first thing is objectively better art than the second.  as soon as you have  better  and  worse  it is a trivial step to  good and  bad.
i see people all the time talking about scumbag celebrities who do not give away to charities.  pretty much every single celebrity donates a lot of their wealth to charities, etc.  i do not think that having money obligates you to give it away.  if you want to enjoy your wealth, that is your very rightful opinion.  it is what i would do if i were rich.  if you build wealth you deserve to enjoy it.  i would like to see what arguments the people who support this idea have.  do you think that no one deserves to experience superwealth ? do you think that charity work is of more import than i do i do not think it is all that important at all .   #  do you think that no one deserves to experience superwealth ?  #  most people are pretty happy with the way bill gates and warren buffet handle their money even though they are among the richest people in the world, so i do not think the issue is the existence of super rich people.   #  first, i do not think that most people think rich people need to donate  all  or even a majority of their wealth to charities.  do you have examples of this ? lots of times super wealthy people or celebrities are scumbags, but scumbags who donate a lot of money.  most people are pretty happy with the way bill gates and warren buffet handle their money even though they are among the richest people in the world, so i do not think the issue is the existence of super rich people.  the most important aspect that you do not mention is the role charity plays in society.  while no person is obligated to donate any amount of money, charity is absolutely necessary to maintaining civil society.  many social services are funded primarily by charity.  if this charity were to disappear, funding for a lot of these services would need to be made up through higher taxes.  also this statement:  do you think that charity work is of more import than i do i do not think it is all that important at all .  is ludicrous.  in 0, there was over $0 billion dollars donated to charity link URL yet that somehow is not important ? all of the money that went to clothing, shelter, mental health services, physical health services, job training programs, soup kitchens, and on and on and on is not that important ? you are literally talking about saving lives with that money.   #  this engenders lower taxes, which are beneficial to the rich people, in that, at the very least, they can decide where their money goes to which charity etc .   #  the government taxes people and uses this money to redistribute wealth in the from of public works, public services etc.  by donating money to charity, the wealthy are alleviating part of this need and in doing so, reducing the impetus that the government has to tax.  when the poor are taken care of, fewer people feel the need to tax the rich to help the poor, essentially.  this engenders lower taxes, which are beneficial to the rich people, in that, at the very least, they can decide where their money goes to which charity etc .  in addition, they get the positive publicity for doing so.  so as a general action, the rich donating to charity is beneficial to the class of rich people.  so, long story short, its not that the rich are obligated to donate to charity, its just in their best interest to do so.   #  but think of the inverse of it  those who do not build wealth do not deserve to enjoy wealth .   #  the problem here is with  if you build wealth you  deserve  to enjoy it .  now, this, at first glance, might seem reasonable.  but think of the inverse of it  those who do not build wealth do not deserve to enjoy wealth .  this naturally follows, and might seem reasonable at first surely you ca not be lazy and expect to be provided for by the work of others, right ? .  but the thing is that the  ability to create wealth  is largely determined by three things: wealth itself, work, and luck.  money makes interest, interest makes money, money buys capital, capital makes profits.  more money equals more money.  this is obvious, and again not apparently bad.  the same obviously goes for work, and in fact many people consider work to be a morally good action.  but, importantly, work is only a minor factor in this, and wealth ca not explain why some people are wealthy on it is own, that would be circular.  luck, it seems, is the most important factor.  put it this way: if you are born into a wealthy family, your parents might pay for a better education.  they might teach you how to act around other rich people, and how to impress them.  you will learn how to make wealth solely by virtue of your parents wealth, and them being your parents is largely based on luck.  similarly, your ability to work is somewhat based on luck.  you might be born with a disability that stops you from working too hard, too long or at all.  you might not be in the right place to meet someone who later offers you a job, and so on with more scenarios like this.  so your wealth is largely down, indirectly or directly, to luck.  this is not exactly fair, especially when you introduce the idea that your wealth actually partially determines your own  goodness .  for example, if you think giving to charity is good, or that having interests is good, or that learning is good, or that good manners are good, or that being attractive is good, or that admiring art is good, or even that sticking to an ethical code of some sort is good, wealthy people are going to be  better  people.  this, again, seems hugely unfair.   #  yet, we as a society, feel that this is unfair.   #  there are several issues i see with your logic and to be fair, i havent thought through your full writeup to respond to other issues i might identify on a closer look , but i appreciate at least how you thought through your response: a.   the ability to create wealth is largely determined by three things: wealth itself, work, and luck.   a huge portion of creating wealth is sacrifice, opportunity and risk taking.  e. g.  giving up stabilty for a risk at entrepreneurship.  if you can identify anyone who claims to have created wealth without taking a risk, i will show you a liar.  b.   so your wealth is largely down, indirectly or directly, to luck.  this is not exactly fair  if luck isnt enough of a reason to be able to hold on to money, we should have people hang out near casinos so that we just have the winners distribute their winnings to the people who didnt win.  yet, we as a society, feel that this is unfair.  we feel like someone who took a risk should be able to enjoy the reward.  if so, why are they required to give up that reward ? c.  you state,  importantly, work is only a minor factor in this  you cite nothing to back up this statement.  i have a rather difficult time agreeing or disagreeing with you primarily because i do not completely understand what you mean by the word  work .  is it just physical labor or is education work ? i work also the risk taken ? i obviously disagree with your assertion, but i appreciate your thought process !  #  thanks for the critique, you certainly have a point by bringing in the idea of risk.   #  thanks for the critique, you certainly have a point by bringing in the idea of risk.  i will try address some of your points a.  someones ability to take risks is largely determined by wealth, and the outcome generally relies on luck.  it is much easier to be confident in a risky investment if you can afford to lose it.  b.  i think here i should have identified two kinds of luck.  if we gave everyone $0 and someone went to the casino and made $0, someone invested it and made $0, someone else went to the casino and lost it all etc. , this would be down to luck, but i am not saying it is unfair.  here, everyone has entered into their risks willingly.  however, no one chose to risk being born.  if i gave 0 people off the street $0 and then broke someones legs and gave 0 of the people $0 from him, this would not be just or fair.  this is a different kind of  willuck  c: i meant  work  more in the form of physical or mental application.  in a sense, studiousness towards making money.  of course, i can put in long hours at night school and work overtime and make more money by putting in more work, and maybe, eventually, invest and become fairly wealthy.  but to what end ? the fact that someone could potentially become wealthy at great cost does not validate the fact that many are wealthy at very little cost to themselves, but because they have wealthy parents, know wealthy people, received a high quality education etc.
i see people all the time talking about scumbag celebrities who do not give away to charities.  pretty much every single celebrity donates a lot of their wealth to charities, etc.  i do not think that having money obligates you to give it away.  if you want to enjoy your wealth, that is your very rightful opinion.  it is what i would do if i were rich.  if you build wealth you deserve to enjoy it.  i would like to see what arguments the people who support this idea have.  do you think that no one deserves to experience superwealth ? do you think that charity work is of more import than i do i do not think it is all that important at all .   #  it is what i would do if i were rich.   #  if you build wealth you deserve to enjoy it.   # if you build wealth you deserve to enjoy it.  this, i partially agree with.  heres the thing, if you can help someone without putting your life in danger and you do not you are had.  this is something widely agreed on.  applied to this situation, if you do not donate your money, you are bad.  but its not quite that simple which is where  its what i would do if i were rich  comes in .  many of us would do that and its because the effects are obfuscated and/or the blake is so thinly spread out.  we do not always see the immediate effects of us not being charitable making us think we can do little individually , there is diffusion of responsibility making us think someone else will do it and there is jealousy/entitlement why should i help others when i worked for this and why should i do it when nobody else will .  all of these things lead to the conclusion most people arrive at.  now does this mean that not giving is bad ? yes.  does it mean that they are especially heinous ? no, not more than most people.  even still though, there is a difference in the affects of this.  a rich person has plenty of money tool spare and their quality of life lowers very little for the large amount they could donate.  a poor person on the other hand would live a very diminished life in comparison if they gave away the same percentage of their income.  so, are they obligated to give away their money ? yes.  are they the only ones ? no.   #  when the poor are taken care of, fewer people feel the need to tax the rich to help the poor, essentially.   #  the government taxes people and uses this money to redistribute wealth in the from of public works, public services etc.  by donating money to charity, the wealthy are alleviating part of this need and in doing so, reducing the impetus that the government has to tax.  when the poor are taken care of, fewer people feel the need to tax the rich to help the poor, essentially.  this engenders lower taxes, which are beneficial to the rich people, in that, at the very least, they can decide where their money goes to which charity etc .  in addition, they get the positive publicity for doing so.  so as a general action, the rich donating to charity is beneficial to the class of rich people.  so, long story short, its not that the rich are obligated to donate to charity, its just in their best interest to do so.   #  this is obvious, and again not apparently bad.   #  the problem here is with  if you build wealth you  deserve  to enjoy it .  now, this, at first glance, might seem reasonable.  but think of the inverse of it  those who do not build wealth do not deserve to enjoy wealth .  this naturally follows, and might seem reasonable at first surely you ca not be lazy and expect to be provided for by the work of others, right ? .  but the thing is that the  ability to create wealth  is largely determined by three things: wealth itself, work, and luck.  money makes interest, interest makes money, money buys capital, capital makes profits.  more money equals more money.  this is obvious, and again not apparently bad.  the same obviously goes for work, and in fact many people consider work to be a morally good action.  but, importantly, work is only a minor factor in this, and wealth ca not explain why some people are wealthy on it is own, that would be circular.  luck, it seems, is the most important factor.  put it this way: if you are born into a wealthy family, your parents might pay for a better education.  they might teach you how to act around other rich people, and how to impress them.  you will learn how to make wealth solely by virtue of your parents wealth, and them being your parents is largely based on luck.  similarly, your ability to work is somewhat based on luck.  you might be born with a disability that stops you from working too hard, too long or at all.  you might not be in the right place to meet someone who later offers you a job, and so on with more scenarios like this.  so your wealth is largely down, indirectly or directly, to luck.  this is not exactly fair, especially when you introduce the idea that your wealth actually partially determines your own  goodness .  for example, if you think giving to charity is good, or that having interests is good, or that learning is good, or that good manners are good, or that being attractive is good, or that admiring art is good, or even that sticking to an ethical code of some sort is good, wealthy people are going to be  better  people.  this, again, seems hugely unfair.   #  c.  you state,  importantly, work is only a minor factor in this  you cite nothing to back up this statement.   #  there are several issues i see with your logic and to be fair, i havent thought through your full writeup to respond to other issues i might identify on a closer look , but i appreciate at least how you thought through your response: a.   the ability to create wealth is largely determined by three things: wealth itself, work, and luck.   a huge portion of creating wealth is sacrifice, opportunity and risk taking.  e. g.  giving up stabilty for a risk at entrepreneurship.  if you can identify anyone who claims to have created wealth without taking a risk, i will show you a liar.  b.   so your wealth is largely down, indirectly or directly, to luck.  this is not exactly fair  if luck isnt enough of a reason to be able to hold on to money, we should have people hang out near casinos so that we just have the winners distribute their winnings to the people who didnt win.  yet, we as a society, feel that this is unfair.  we feel like someone who took a risk should be able to enjoy the reward.  if so, why are they required to give up that reward ? c.  you state,  importantly, work is only a minor factor in this  you cite nothing to back up this statement.  i have a rather difficult time agreeing or disagreeing with you primarily because i do not completely understand what you mean by the word  work .  is it just physical labor or is education work ? i work also the risk taken ? i obviously disagree with your assertion, but i appreciate your thought process !  #  b.  i think here i should have identified two kinds of luck.   #  thanks for the critique, you certainly have a point by bringing in the idea of risk.  i will try address some of your points a.  someones ability to take risks is largely determined by wealth, and the outcome generally relies on luck.  it is much easier to be confident in a risky investment if you can afford to lose it.  b.  i think here i should have identified two kinds of luck.  if we gave everyone $0 and someone went to the casino and made $0, someone invested it and made $0, someone else went to the casino and lost it all etc. , this would be down to luck, but i am not saying it is unfair.  here, everyone has entered into their risks willingly.  however, no one chose to risk being born.  if i gave 0 people off the street $0 and then broke someones legs and gave 0 of the people $0 from him, this would not be just or fair.  this is a different kind of  willuck  c: i meant  work  more in the form of physical or mental application.  in a sense, studiousness towards making money.  of course, i can put in long hours at night school and work overtime and make more money by putting in more work, and maybe, eventually, invest and become fairly wealthy.  but to what end ? the fact that someone could potentially become wealthy at great cost does not validate the fact that many are wealthy at very little cost to themselves, but because they have wealthy parents, know wealthy people, received a high quality education etc.
i see people all the time talking about scumbag celebrities who do not give away to charities.  pretty much every single celebrity donates a lot of their wealth to charities, etc.  i do not think that having money obligates you to give it away.  if you want to enjoy your wealth, that is your very rightful opinion.  it is what i would do if i were rich.  if you build wealth you deserve to enjoy it.  i would like to see what arguments the people who support this idea have.  do you think that no one deserves to experience superwealth ? do you think that charity work is of more import than i do i do not think it is all that important at all .   #  i do not think that having money obligates you to give it away.   #  if you want to enjoy your wealth, that is your very rightful opinion.   # if you want to enjoy your wealth, that is your very rightful opinion.  it is what i would do if i were rich.  if you build wealth you deserve to enjoy it.  one person could make millions in split seconds, simply by moving their inheritance around.  thousands of people could do high skilled jobs for decades and still not make the same amount of money.  we tolerate such a system, because we ca not really come up with a better system, but we know that it does not properly value the involved skill and effort that comprises a person is work.  is it really that much to ask, that there should not be thousands of people who spend their whole life, just to provide one person with goods and services ? the super wealthy person should understand, that we have no choice, but to give them much more money, than we think they deserve.  we therefore expect that their money should not serve solely their own interests, even though it is technically theirs.   #  so, long story short, its not that the rich are obligated to donate to charity, its just in their best interest to do so.   #  the government taxes people and uses this money to redistribute wealth in the from of public works, public services etc.  by donating money to charity, the wealthy are alleviating part of this need and in doing so, reducing the impetus that the government has to tax.  when the poor are taken care of, fewer people feel the need to tax the rich to help the poor, essentially.  this engenders lower taxes, which are beneficial to the rich people, in that, at the very least, they can decide where their money goes to which charity etc .  in addition, they get the positive publicity for doing so.  so as a general action, the rich donating to charity is beneficial to the class of rich people.  so, long story short, its not that the rich are obligated to donate to charity, its just in their best interest to do so.   #  you will learn how to make wealth solely by virtue of your parents wealth, and them being your parents is largely based on luck.   #  the problem here is with  if you build wealth you  deserve  to enjoy it .  now, this, at first glance, might seem reasonable.  but think of the inverse of it  those who do not build wealth do not deserve to enjoy wealth .  this naturally follows, and might seem reasonable at first surely you ca not be lazy and expect to be provided for by the work of others, right ? .  but the thing is that the  ability to create wealth  is largely determined by three things: wealth itself, work, and luck.  money makes interest, interest makes money, money buys capital, capital makes profits.  more money equals more money.  this is obvious, and again not apparently bad.  the same obviously goes for work, and in fact many people consider work to be a morally good action.  but, importantly, work is only a minor factor in this, and wealth ca not explain why some people are wealthy on it is own, that would be circular.  luck, it seems, is the most important factor.  put it this way: if you are born into a wealthy family, your parents might pay for a better education.  they might teach you how to act around other rich people, and how to impress them.  you will learn how to make wealth solely by virtue of your parents wealth, and them being your parents is largely based on luck.  similarly, your ability to work is somewhat based on luck.  you might be born with a disability that stops you from working too hard, too long or at all.  you might not be in the right place to meet someone who later offers you a job, and so on with more scenarios like this.  so your wealth is largely down, indirectly or directly, to luck.  this is not exactly fair, especially when you introduce the idea that your wealth actually partially determines your own  goodness .  for example, if you think giving to charity is good, or that having interests is good, or that learning is good, or that good manners are good, or that being attractive is good, or that admiring art is good, or even that sticking to an ethical code of some sort is good, wealthy people are going to be  better  people.  this, again, seems hugely unfair.   #  we feel like someone who took a risk should be able to enjoy the reward.   #  there are several issues i see with your logic and to be fair, i havent thought through your full writeup to respond to other issues i might identify on a closer look , but i appreciate at least how you thought through your response: a.   the ability to create wealth is largely determined by three things: wealth itself, work, and luck.   a huge portion of creating wealth is sacrifice, opportunity and risk taking.  e. g.  giving up stabilty for a risk at entrepreneurship.  if you can identify anyone who claims to have created wealth without taking a risk, i will show you a liar.  b.   so your wealth is largely down, indirectly or directly, to luck.  this is not exactly fair  if luck isnt enough of a reason to be able to hold on to money, we should have people hang out near casinos so that we just have the winners distribute their winnings to the people who didnt win.  yet, we as a society, feel that this is unfair.  we feel like someone who took a risk should be able to enjoy the reward.  if so, why are they required to give up that reward ? c.  you state,  importantly, work is only a minor factor in this  you cite nothing to back up this statement.  i have a rather difficult time agreeing or disagreeing with you primarily because i do not completely understand what you mean by the word  work .  is it just physical labor or is education work ? i work also the risk taken ? i obviously disagree with your assertion, but i appreciate your thought process !  #  this is a different kind of  willuck  c: i meant  work  more in the form of physical or mental application.   #  thanks for the critique, you certainly have a point by bringing in the idea of risk.  i will try address some of your points a.  someones ability to take risks is largely determined by wealth, and the outcome generally relies on luck.  it is much easier to be confident in a risky investment if you can afford to lose it.  b.  i think here i should have identified two kinds of luck.  if we gave everyone $0 and someone went to the casino and made $0, someone invested it and made $0, someone else went to the casino and lost it all etc. , this would be down to luck, but i am not saying it is unfair.  here, everyone has entered into their risks willingly.  however, no one chose to risk being born.  if i gave 0 people off the street $0 and then broke someones legs and gave 0 of the people $0 from him, this would not be just or fair.  this is a different kind of  willuck  c: i meant  work  more in the form of physical or mental application.  in a sense, studiousness towards making money.  of course, i can put in long hours at night school and work overtime and make more money by putting in more work, and maybe, eventually, invest and become fairly wealthy.  but to what end ? the fact that someone could potentially become wealthy at great cost does not validate the fact that many are wealthy at very little cost to themselves, but because they have wealthy parents, know wealthy people, received a high quality education etc.
i am a somewhat lonely individual.  you would not recognize my loneliness because i hide it very well.  i able to acclimate myself to a variety of people/environments; my professor actually suggested that i go in as an officer or enlist.  he said it was some of the best memories he had.  i do not really know what else to do with my life.  even after doing charity i feel fairly the same: nothing, really, because i cannot even comprehend the vastness of my insignificance.  so, with that wrapped up, i figure i can spice up my life a little. some adventure, no ? the military sounds alluring.  purpose.  honor yes, some people do not respect you, but let is be real, in the us, you are practically venerated as a walking deity by most; it is taboo not to .  convince me otherwise that this is a bad idea.  i am sure i am not the first to think this, nor would i be the first to do something like this.  i want brotherhood.  solidarity i have never felt and could never be forced to have in the civilian world.  and please no  if you have to ask.   responses.  i want solid reasoning here. and it does not have to be the marines. could be any of the military branches, or even thefrench foreign legion.  cmv  #  so, with that wrapped up, i figure i can spice up my life a little. some adventure, no ?  #  have you talked to a lot of vets ?  # have you talked to a lot of vets ? military service is often romanticized, but most people who have been through the military will you that any experience they had that was not permanently traumatizing was pretty boring.  anything non combat related is essentially grunt work in terrible, inhospitable places.  it is great place to learn some skills and make some money for college, but please do not join because you think it will be fun and exciting.  you essentially agree to surrender any control you have over your life for as long as your enlistment contract states.  you go where the military says and do what they want you to do.  if they think you can fly fighter jets, great.  but if they want you to go to the desert and load cargo onto planes for five years, that is what you do.  if you do not like the people you get stuck with, you are out of luck.  if you do like them, then hope you do not get transferred anywhere else, because then you wo not see them for a while.  what exactly do you want to do ? fight ? work in a support role ? there are a lot of other jobs that have some degree of excitement and solidarity that do not require giving up control over your life, or having to kill people.  have you thought about the peace corps ? non profit development work in third world countries ?  #  i saw a guy get out after four years whose absence was only noticed when they did not have him to throw on 0 hour barracks duty at the last minute.   #  i was a marine, i am gonna have to counsel you not to do it for the reasons you are describing.  i will put it as bluntly as i can: the military is a lot like a sports team.  it values the same things a good sports team values and they ridicule most of the things that a sports team would ridicule.  it is composed of the same kind of people you went to high school with.  if you could not see yourself making a bunch of friends on a football team, do not expect the marines to magically fix that for you.  people might tolerate you because they have to; that does not mean they like you.  there is a risk too.  failure to meet social standards and fit in will bite you in the ass harder than it will anywhere else i have seen.  you will be ostracized first, then you will get to be on all the shitty working parties and stand all the worst watch.  when something good happens, you will be last on the list and nobody will have much sympathy for you.  you are on the bottom of the totem pole and the climb is a bitch.  i saw a guy get out after four years whose absence was only noticed when they did not have him to throw on 0 hour barracks duty at the last minute.  that guy knew his job and was a decent person,  he just did not fit in .  so he was fucked.  the bond that you would share with others would be the result of shared suffering.  there are people i would drive across the country for tomorrow if they need it because we went through the same things together.  i hate some of those same people.  the fact that i am willing to do that and i assume the feeling is reciprocated has no bearing on whether i like or enjoy being around them.  not that simple.  people will be very public and flowery with their praise.  people will thank you for your service without knowing what you did.  people will put yellow ribbon magnets on their bumpers but wo not be able to tell you three important differences between iraq and afghanistan.  restaurants will offer you a free meal. and make sure everyone knows they are doing it.  everyone will kiss our collective asses; usually so that they can be seen doing it and gain some kind of reward for it.  meanwhile, nobody really seems to care about suicide rates that are the result of a truly pathetic attempt at ptsd diagnosis and treatment.  and you will get in just in time for the ritual slash/burn/purge that happens after every war.  be prepared for pay decreases, benefit cuts because that is where you can really save money in the military. not the thrice redundant and wildly overbudget toys .  try going to college afterward.  i do not tell people i was in the military unless i have to, because when i do i am treated as though i must either be a meatheaded idiot child or a ticking time bomb ready to snap into ptsd rampage deathmode.   #  you might be exceptionally motivated and entranced by romanticism of the corps for a bit, but it is a job.   #  eh, i have no direct personal experience with the usmc, but i dated one.  sure, there are definitely nods to brotherhood and solidarity.  i am going to ignore the physical aspects of being a marine and whether or not you are made out for it.  that is neither here nor there.  but at the end of the day, it is a job.  you might be exceptionally motivated and entranced by romanticism of the corps for a bit, but it is a job.  you are going to make friends.  you are going to be stuck with duffs you would never see again.  you have the benefit of training that is the foundation of trust in a hostile situation, and that is cool, but you will still have  co workers  you would rather just not be around.  you will have bosses you will want to deck but ca not.  you will be surrounded by incompetent people just like you would be elsewhere.  my ex and his friends really did not have much nice to say about being in the marines.  if a non marine talked shit they would get pissed, the same way only you are allowed to pick on your sibling but no one else.  but if they were prompted to recount their military experience, they were largely glad to get out.  naturally they were happy to have met each other, but i got the impression that it would not have been enough to make them reenlist if it came to that point.  by all means, there are a number of reasons to enlist in the marines or any other branch.  as far as friendship is concerned, i do not think that is really enough to carry you through.  you are going to really want to evaluate the extent to which you want to commit 0 or so years of your life to the military, including people you might not actually want to be around but have to.   #  but will they give you an honest analysis ?  #  just because your professor, who is not you, had good memories in it, does not mean you will.  and yes, it does sound alluring.  they have a great deal of practice in it.  they know how to sell themselves.  you certainly would not be the first to think like this.  and you wo not be the first, or the last to be disappointed in it.  will you get what you want from the military ? i ca not say you wo not.  but i can say you might not.  the people in the military, whether you go in as an officer or enlist, you may find they are not any better for what you want than what you have already had.  and the recruiters ? yeah, they will get you to believe a lot of things.  but will they give you an honest analysis ? i ca not say that.   #  from what my friend told me, the whole social landscape is constantly changing people retiring, new people coming in, you are getting new assignments.   #  i am not in the military, but i had a very close friend enlist in the airforce about a year ago, and he is been telling me a lot about his experiences, from bmt to tech school, and now his first station at scott afb.  i used to think of the military as  purposeful, honorable, brotherhood, etc.   i even thought about joining the air force jag after graduating from law school.  from what he is told me, there is definitely an element of honor and brotherhood, but it is nothing like the idea the military uses in their commercials, or the feeling you get watching military movies.  in the end, it is just a hierarchy of people who act like people act everywhere.  there are cliques, there are assholes and sometimes those assholes are your commanding officers.  there is a lot of people who bond over alcohol and cutting loose, so if you are not that kind of guy you are going to have a hard time making many more friends than you do now.  and once you have finally made a friend, you might only get 0 months with them before they get their next assignment, or get deployed.  then you are all alone again.  from what my friend told me, the whole social landscape is constantly changing people retiring, new people coming in, you are getting new assignments.  i wo not even get to meet any of his friends when i visit him, because they will all have left to another base.
i think your average red piller is absolutely a misogynistic prick and that most mra people have gone to far as a radical knee jerk reaction to radical feminism, however i think that perhaps society has completed eschewed the difference between the sexes in favor of some sort of ideal we are all the same equality movement.  i believe no matter what everyone deserves a fair shake and discrimination in most corporate workplaces can be construed as sexism.  however, the sexes are not the same, men are better at some things on average strength, speed, spatial reasoning skills, being unifluenced by emotion just as woman are better at others caregiving, emotional empathy, interpersonal communication .  i think it is perfectly fine to discriminate against certain genders for certain roles.  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters, maybe men deserve more thorough screening in child care.  i think the modern idea that everyone is the same just does not hold up.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  maybe i am just angry for being yelled at for holding the door for a random chick but seriously, what is so wrong with different treatment, as long as it is short of malicious discrimination ?  #  however, the sexes are not the same, men are better at some things on average strength, speed, spatial reasoning skills, being unifluenced by emotion just as woman are better at others caregiving, emotional empathy, interpersonal communication .   #  the issue is there is a lot of variation within the sexes even if some of these things are true.   # the issue is there is a lot of variation within the sexes even if some of these things are true.  many of the differences are also environmental rather than genetic.  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters, maybe men deserve more thorough screening in child care.  as long as everyone can meet the requirements, there is not a valid reason for discrimination.  if a woman is capable of frontline fitness requirement, that is fine.  screening for childcare should be on the basis of the level that is required for the safety of the child.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  maybe i am just angry for being yelled at for holding the door for a random chick but seriously, what is so wrong with different treatment, as long as it is short of malicious discrimination ? people are not the same, but like i said variation within the sexes is at least if not greater.  using stereotypes is a terrible way to determine requirements.  the problem with different treatment is there is no way to know if it is warranted just by gender.   #  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.   #  sure, the headline most recently is the woman in front line combat resolution.  i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  i also think on the flip side men complaining about being profiled as rapists and pedos should maybe take a step back and realize that these crimes are not uniformly gender distributed.  i think most of these institutional biases are not removed yet but lots of people are do complain about them quite a bit.  specifically seemly a lot on reddit recently.   #  i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.   # i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  but that is pure speculation.  how do you know that they will negatively affect combat ? most rapists are men but not all men are rapists.  i do not see why half the population should be stereotyped by it is minority.   #  and the fact that your sources is  one in four.   # mind pointing me to it ? furthermore i find that phrasing more than dubious.  unless i can see the question exactly as it was posed, i am not going to perceive it as valid.  i have done more than my fair share of statistical data gathering in my time, and i know firsthand how easy it is to phrase a survey in such a way as to skew the results towards your alternate hypothesis.  and the fact that your sources is  one in four.  com  seems to support my suspicion of bias all the more  #  that is not an accident that is something that can leave you emotionally crippled as well as physically damaged.   #  see, the thing about car accidents is that they are, in fact, accidents.  honestly, the thought of something bad happening to me accidentally is much less frightening.  it does not bother me as much.  it is out of my hands.  it is an accident and they happen.  i am much more bothered by the thought of someone intentionally and maliciously using me.  that is not an accident that is something that can leave you emotionally crippled as well as physically damaged.  i am much more concerned about being at the mercy of a rapist than i am about someone unintentionally harming me in a car accident.
i think your average red piller is absolutely a misogynistic prick and that most mra people have gone to far as a radical knee jerk reaction to radical feminism, however i think that perhaps society has completed eschewed the difference between the sexes in favor of some sort of ideal we are all the same equality movement.  i believe no matter what everyone deserves a fair shake and discrimination in most corporate workplaces can be construed as sexism.  however, the sexes are not the same, men are better at some things on average strength, speed, spatial reasoning skills, being unifluenced by emotion just as woman are better at others caregiving, emotional empathy, interpersonal communication .  i think it is perfectly fine to discriminate against certain genders for certain roles.  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters, maybe men deserve more thorough screening in child care.  i think the modern idea that everyone is the same just does not hold up.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  maybe i am just angry for being yelled at for holding the door for a random chick but seriously, what is so wrong with different treatment, as long as it is short of malicious discrimination ?  #  i think it is perfectly fine to discriminate against certain genders for certain roles.   #  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters, maybe men deserve more thorough screening in child care.   # the issue is there is a lot of variation within the sexes even if some of these things are true.  many of the differences are also environmental rather than genetic.  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters, maybe men deserve more thorough screening in child care.  as long as everyone can meet the requirements, there is not a valid reason for discrimination.  if a woman is capable of frontline fitness requirement, that is fine.  screening for childcare should be on the basis of the level that is required for the safety of the child.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  maybe i am just angry for being yelled at for holding the door for a random chick but seriously, what is so wrong with different treatment, as long as it is short of malicious discrimination ? people are not the same, but like i said variation within the sexes is at least if not greater.  using stereotypes is a terrible way to determine requirements.  the problem with different treatment is there is no way to know if it is warranted just by gender.   #  i think most of these institutional biases are not removed yet but lots of people are do complain about them quite a bit.   #  sure, the headline most recently is the woman in front line combat resolution.  i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  i also think on the flip side men complaining about being profiled as rapists and pedos should maybe take a step back and realize that these crimes are not uniformly gender distributed.  i think most of these institutional biases are not removed yet but lots of people are do complain about them quite a bit.  specifically seemly a lot on reddit recently.   #  i do not see why half the population should be stereotyped by it is minority.   # i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  but that is pure speculation.  how do you know that they will negatively affect combat ? most rapists are men but not all men are rapists.  i do not see why half the population should be stereotyped by it is minority.   #  i have done more than my fair share of statistical data gathering in my time, and i know firsthand how easy it is to phrase a survey in such a way as to skew the results towards your alternate hypothesis.   # mind pointing me to it ? furthermore i find that phrasing more than dubious.  unless i can see the question exactly as it was posed, i am not going to perceive it as valid.  i have done more than my fair share of statistical data gathering in my time, and i know firsthand how easy it is to phrase a survey in such a way as to skew the results towards your alternate hypothesis.  and the fact that your sources is  one in four.  com  seems to support my suspicion of bias all the more  #  see, the thing about car accidents is that they are, in fact, accidents.   #  see, the thing about car accidents is that they are, in fact, accidents.  honestly, the thought of something bad happening to me accidentally is much less frightening.  it does not bother me as much.  it is out of my hands.  it is an accident and they happen.  i am much more bothered by the thought of someone intentionally and maliciously using me.  that is not an accident that is something that can leave you emotionally crippled as well as physically damaged.  i am much more concerned about being at the mercy of a rapist than i am about someone unintentionally harming me in a car accident.
i think your average red piller is absolutely a misogynistic prick and that most mra people have gone to far as a radical knee jerk reaction to radical feminism, however i think that perhaps society has completed eschewed the difference between the sexes in favor of some sort of ideal we are all the same equality movement.  i believe no matter what everyone deserves a fair shake and discrimination in most corporate workplaces can be construed as sexism.  however, the sexes are not the same, men are better at some things on average strength, speed, spatial reasoning skills, being unifluenced by emotion just as woman are better at others caregiving, emotional empathy, interpersonal communication .  i think it is perfectly fine to discriminate against certain genders for certain roles.  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters, maybe men deserve more thorough screening in child care.  i think the modern idea that everyone is the same just does not hold up.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  maybe i am just angry for being yelled at for holding the door for a random chick but seriously, what is so wrong with different treatment, as long as it is short of malicious discrimination ?  #  i think the modern idea that everyone is the same just does not hold up.   #  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.   # the issue is there is a lot of variation within the sexes even if some of these things are true.  many of the differences are also environmental rather than genetic.  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters, maybe men deserve more thorough screening in child care.  as long as everyone can meet the requirements, there is not a valid reason for discrimination.  if a woman is capable of frontline fitness requirement, that is fine.  screening for childcare should be on the basis of the level that is required for the safety of the child.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  maybe i am just angry for being yelled at for holding the door for a random chick but seriously, what is so wrong with different treatment, as long as it is short of malicious discrimination ? people are not the same, but like i said variation within the sexes is at least if not greater.  using stereotypes is a terrible way to determine requirements.  the problem with different treatment is there is no way to know if it is warranted just by gender.   #  i think most of these institutional biases are not removed yet but lots of people are do complain about them quite a bit.   #  sure, the headline most recently is the woman in front line combat resolution.  i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  i also think on the flip side men complaining about being profiled as rapists and pedos should maybe take a step back and realize that these crimes are not uniformly gender distributed.  i think most of these institutional biases are not removed yet but lots of people are do complain about them quite a bit.  specifically seemly a lot on reddit recently.   #  i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.   # i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  but that is pure speculation.  how do you know that they will negatively affect combat ? most rapists are men but not all men are rapists.  i do not see why half the population should be stereotyped by it is minority.   #  com  seems to support my suspicion of bias all the more  # mind pointing me to it ? furthermore i find that phrasing more than dubious.  unless i can see the question exactly as it was posed, i am not going to perceive it as valid.  i have done more than my fair share of statistical data gathering in my time, and i know firsthand how easy it is to phrase a survey in such a way as to skew the results towards your alternate hypothesis.  and the fact that your sources is  one in four.  com  seems to support my suspicion of bias all the more  #  see, the thing about car accidents is that they are, in fact, accidents.   #  see, the thing about car accidents is that they are, in fact, accidents.  honestly, the thought of something bad happening to me accidentally is much less frightening.  it does not bother me as much.  it is out of my hands.  it is an accident and they happen.  i am much more bothered by the thought of someone intentionally and maliciously using me.  that is not an accident that is something that can leave you emotionally crippled as well as physically damaged.  i am much more concerned about being at the mercy of a rapist than i am about someone unintentionally harming me in a car accident.
i think your average red piller is absolutely a misogynistic prick and that most mra people have gone to far as a radical knee jerk reaction to radical feminism, however i think that perhaps society has completed eschewed the difference between the sexes in favor of some sort of ideal we are all the same equality movement.  i believe no matter what everyone deserves a fair shake and discrimination in most corporate workplaces can be construed as sexism.  however, the sexes are not the same, men are better at some things on average strength, speed, spatial reasoning skills, being unifluenced by emotion just as woman are better at others caregiving, emotional empathy, interpersonal communication .  i think it is perfectly fine to discriminate against certain genders for certain roles.  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters, maybe men deserve more thorough screening in child care.  i think the modern idea that everyone is the same just does not hold up.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  maybe i am just angry for being yelled at for holding the door for a random chick but seriously, what is so wrong with different treatment, as long as it is short of malicious discrimination ?  #  i think the modern idea that everyone is the same just does not hold up.   #  i do not think people actually think this.   # i do not think people actually think this.  let is say i own a moving company and am looking for physical movers i ca not be expected to hire woman that are 0 0  and weigh 0lbs.  why ? because they wo not be able to meet the demands of the job.  that being said, if a woman applies who is perfectly suitable for the job let is say she is a former olympic powerlifter , i should not say  well, she is a woman and women are weak.  therefore she ca not do the job.   in this situation, i do not hire someone because they cannot physically perform the job just like i would not hire a paraplegic.  the reason i choose to hire/not hire someone has nothing to do with their gender even though women are generally less strong than men.  it is unfair to disqualify someone from something simply because of their gender or race, or sexual orientation, etc.  it is, however, okay to acknowledge that there are differences between genders.  it is also okay for these differences to shine through like a moving company employing mostly men.  have you actually seen an instance of someone arguing that an individual who is not qualified for a job should be able to do that job for the sake of equality ? i do not really believe the way you define changing gender roles/expectations to be accurate.   #  i also think on the flip side men complaining about being profiled as rapists and pedos should maybe take a step back and realize that these crimes are not uniformly gender distributed.   #  sure, the headline most recently is the woman in front line combat resolution.  i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  i also think on the flip side men complaining about being profiled as rapists and pedos should maybe take a step back and realize that these crimes are not uniformly gender distributed.  i think most of these institutional biases are not removed yet but lots of people are do complain about them quite a bit.  specifically seemly a lot on reddit recently.   #  most rapists are men but not all men are rapists.   # i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  but that is pure speculation.  how do you know that they will negatively affect combat ? most rapists are men but not all men are rapists.  i do not see why half the population should be stereotyped by it is minority.   #  furthermore i find that phrasing more than dubious.   # mind pointing me to it ? furthermore i find that phrasing more than dubious.  unless i can see the question exactly as it was posed, i am not going to perceive it as valid.  i have done more than my fair share of statistical data gathering in my time, and i know firsthand how easy it is to phrase a survey in such a way as to skew the results towards your alternate hypothesis.  and the fact that your sources is  one in four.  com  seems to support my suspicion of bias all the more  #  i am much more concerned about being at the mercy of a rapist than i am about someone unintentionally harming me in a car accident.   #  see, the thing about car accidents is that they are, in fact, accidents.  honestly, the thought of something bad happening to me accidentally is much less frightening.  it does not bother me as much.  it is out of my hands.  it is an accident and they happen.  i am much more bothered by the thought of someone intentionally and maliciously using me.  that is not an accident that is something that can leave you emotionally crippled as well as physically damaged.  i am much more concerned about being at the mercy of a rapist than i am about someone unintentionally harming me in a car accident.
i think your average red piller is absolutely a misogynistic prick and that most mra people have gone to far as a radical knee jerk reaction to radical feminism, however i think that perhaps society has completed eschewed the difference between the sexes in favor of some sort of ideal we are all the same equality movement.  i believe no matter what everyone deserves a fair shake and discrimination in most corporate workplaces can be construed as sexism.  however, the sexes are not the same, men are better at some things on average strength, speed, spatial reasoning skills, being unifluenced by emotion just as woman are better at others caregiving, emotional empathy, interpersonal communication .  i think it is perfectly fine to discriminate against certain genders for certain roles.  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters, maybe men deserve more thorough screening in child care.  i think the modern idea that everyone is the same just does not hold up.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  maybe i am just angry for being yelled at for holding the door for a random chick but seriously, what is so wrong with different treatment, as long as it is short of malicious discrimination ?  #  i think it is perfectly fine to discriminate against certain genders for certain roles.   #  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters should not this be done on an individual level ?  # maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters should not this be done on an individual level ? similar to how men are not  automatically  qualified and admitted into these kinds of jobs just for being men, so should women not be automatically barred for being women.  you can set objective criteria that need to be met by all applicants.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  we do not need to treat everyone  exactly the same  in order to adhere to equality ideals.  maybe you should have a look at the idea of equal opportunity vs.  equality of outcome URL  #  i think most of these institutional biases are not removed yet but lots of people are do complain about them quite a bit.   #  sure, the headline most recently is the woman in front line combat resolution.  i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  i also think on the flip side men complaining about being profiled as rapists and pedos should maybe take a step back and realize that these crimes are not uniformly gender distributed.  i think most of these institutional biases are not removed yet but lots of people are do complain about them quite a bit.  specifically seemly a lot on reddit recently.   #  how do you know that they will negatively affect combat ?  # i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  but that is pure speculation.  how do you know that they will negatively affect combat ? most rapists are men but not all men are rapists.  i do not see why half the population should be stereotyped by it is minority.   #  furthermore i find that phrasing more than dubious.   # mind pointing me to it ? furthermore i find that phrasing more than dubious.  unless i can see the question exactly as it was posed, i am not going to perceive it as valid.  i have done more than my fair share of statistical data gathering in my time, and i know firsthand how easy it is to phrase a survey in such a way as to skew the results towards your alternate hypothesis.  and the fact that your sources is  one in four.  com  seems to support my suspicion of bias all the more  #  i am much more concerned about being at the mercy of a rapist than i am about someone unintentionally harming me in a car accident.   #  see, the thing about car accidents is that they are, in fact, accidents.  honestly, the thought of something bad happening to me accidentally is much less frightening.  it does not bother me as much.  it is out of my hands.  it is an accident and they happen.  i am much more bothered by the thought of someone intentionally and maliciously using me.  that is not an accident that is something that can leave you emotionally crippled as well as physically damaged.  i am much more concerned about being at the mercy of a rapist than i am about someone unintentionally harming me in a car accident.
i think your average red piller is absolutely a misogynistic prick and that most mra people have gone to far as a radical knee jerk reaction to radical feminism, however i think that perhaps society has completed eschewed the difference between the sexes in favor of some sort of ideal we are all the same equality movement.  i believe no matter what everyone deserves a fair shake and discrimination in most corporate workplaces can be construed as sexism.  however, the sexes are not the same, men are better at some things on average strength, speed, spatial reasoning skills, being unifluenced by emotion just as woman are better at others caregiving, emotional empathy, interpersonal communication .  i think it is perfectly fine to discriminate against certain genders for certain roles.  maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters, maybe men deserve more thorough screening in child care.  i think the modern idea that everyone is the same just does not hold up.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  maybe i am just angry for being yelled at for holding the door for a random chick but seriously, what is so wrong with different treatment, as long as it is short of malicious discrimination ?  #  i think the modern idea that everyone is the same just does not hold up.   #  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.   # maybe woman are not as effective as men as front line warfighters should not this be done on an individual level ? similar to how men are not  automatically  qualified and admitted into these kinds of jobs just for being men, so should women not be automatically barred for being women.  you can set objective criteria that need to be met by all applicants.  we are not, we are actually physically different, have different brain chemistry.  why in the world would you treat those to groups the same.  we do not need to treat everyone  exactly the same  in order to adhere to equality ideals.  maybe you should have a look at the idea of equal opportunity vs.  equality of outcome URL  #  i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.   #  sure, the headline most recently is the woman in front line combat resolution.  i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  i also think on the flip side men complaining about being profiled as rapists and pedos should maybe take a step back and realize that these crimes are not uniformly gender distributed.  i think most of these institutional biases are not removed yet but lots of people are do complain about them quite a bit.  specifically seemly a lot on reddit recently.   #  i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.   # i think woman are perfectly validated in serving, and even perform admirably in most roles.  but generally have no place in extreme rules like rangers or navy seals.  mearly based on their physical characteristics.  but that is pure speculation.  how do you know that they will negatively affect combat ? most rapists are men but not all men are rapists.  i do not see why half the population should be stereotyped by it is minority.   #  i have done more than my fair share of statistical data gathering in my time, and i know firsthand how easy it is to phrase a survey in such a way as to skew the results towards your alternate hypothesis.   # mind pointing me to it ? furthermore i find that phrasing more than dubious.  unless i can see the question exactly as it was posed, i am not going to perceive it as valid.  i have done more than my fair share of statistical data gathering in my time, and i know firsthand how easy it is to phrase a survey in such a way as to skew the results towards your alternate hypothesis.  and the fact that your sources is  one in four.  com  seems to support my suspicion of bias all the more  #  i am much more concerned about being at the mercy of a rapist than i am about someone unintentionally harming me in a car accident.   #  see, the thing about car accidents is that they are, in fact, accidents.  honestly, the thought of something bad happening to me accidentally is much less frightening.  it does not bother me as much.  it is out of my hands.  it is an accident and they happen.  i am much more bothered by the thought of someone intentionally and maliciously using me.  that is not an accident that is something that can leave you emotionally crippled as well as physically damaged.  i am much more concerned about being at the mercy of a rapist than i am about someone unintentionally harming me in a car accident.
the desire to wrong others who are  evil  acting in a manner counter to the common good is a product of delusion about the causal mechanisms of human behaviour.  vengefulness, so defined as the belief that: 0.  there are immoral people.  0.  suffering inflicted on immoral people is a good in itself is fundamentally mistaken in that it completely neglects causality.  punishment is obviously useful to  some  extent, and we should not hasten to dispense with it.  it is clear that it inhibits however effectively or otherwise undesirable behaviours.  but suppose you have someone who is a  monster , and ask yourself whether it would be right to punish them without the faintest hope of behavioural change or deterrence of other possible  monsters .  it is morally bankrupt to condone the infliction of pain or suffering in such an instance.  people are not ultimately responsible for their behaviour, because the formative factors of their behaviour were chosen for them, either by other people their parents and society or written in their genetic code, or determined in the prenatal environment.  to say that hitler or stalin could have done otherwise is to say that hitler and stalin could have been completely different people.  vengefulness is a dangerous emotion and generates unsustainable ethical beliefs.  it threatens our concept of the good and confuses our reasoning.   #  but suppose you have someone who is a  monster , and ask yourself whether it would be right to punish them without the faintest hope of behavioural change or deterrence of other possible  monsters .   #  do i agree with punishment for its own sake ?  #  i do not actually agree with your definition of what vengefulness is, but it is your cmv so using your definition for it is totally fair.  do i agree with punishment for its own sake ? no, but i can see the reasons why others might.  social censure is an important part of society.  it is saying  this behaviour is not acceptable .  if it were not then prisons would simply be venues for containment, and the legal system would not hand down purely punitive findings.  causing suffering to another whatever form that takes is key to social censure.  it is putting the needs of society ahead of the individual in question.  i could not disagree more strenuously.  choice exists.  people are responsible because they are agents of free will.  human beings are not mechanistic products of nothing but genes and environment.  natural selection alone accounts for choice because choice aids you in not getting killed.  now, choice might be restricted in practice, but some choice always exists.   #  further, because it is impossible to catch every perpetrator, the risk of being caught must outweigh the possible benefits of committing the crime, which means it must be greater than simple restitution.   #  risk analysis.  you seem to be assuming that revenge is about the individual who committed the infraction.  if that was the case, punishing someone for a one time crime would be pointless.  instead, i believe that revenge is about all the other people who might do the same.  further, because it is impossible to catch every perpetrator, the risk of being caught must outweigh the possible benefits of committing the crime, which means it must be greater than simple restitution.  a 0 chance of being tortured to death would outweigh the benefits of emptying a hundred wallets, even for the most callous criminals.   #  this review URL looked at evidence and trends.   #  i beg to differ.  this review URL looked at evidence and trends.  also wiki says:  research has shown that increasing the severity of a punishment does not have much effect on crime, while increasing the certainty of punishment does have a deterrent effect.   clearly, enhancing the severity of punishment will have little impact on people who do not believe they will be apprehended for their actions.  .  a study by a canadian criminologist paul gendreau brought together the results of 0 different studies of the deterrent effect of imprisonment involving over 0,0 offenders.  the report said:  none of the analyses found imprisonment reduced recidivism.  the recidivism rate for offenders who were imprisoned as opposed to given a community sanction was similar.  in addition, longer sentences were not associated with reduced recidivism.  in fact the opposite was found.  longer sentences were associated with a 0 increase in recidivism.  this finding suggests some support for the theory that prison may serve as a  ischool for crime  for some offenders .  this happens as the fine replaces a previous set of moral or ethical norms, and if it is low enough, it is going to be easier to overcome than the non monetary criticism was.  in other words, putting a price on something previously not on a market changes its perception drastically, and on occasion it can change it contradictory to what a deterrence theory would predict.  references used:   wright, valerie november 0 .   deterrence in criminal justice: evaluating certainty vs.  severity of punishment .  the sentencing project.  retrieved 0 october 0.    martin, jacqueline 0 .  the english legal system 0th ed.  , p.  0.  london: hodder arnold.  isbn 0 0 0 0.    gendreau, p, goggin, c, cullen ft, the effects of prison sentences on recidivism, user report: office of the solicitor general, canada, 0, p0.  shirky, clay 0 .  cognitive surplus: creativity and generosity in a connected age.  penguin.  pp.  0 0.  isbn 0 0 0 0 0.  retrieved 0 october 0.  it is not sound policy that drives harsher sentences.   #  if you want a list of studies that suggest harsher sentencing is generally ineffective, here is a few, though there are many, many more:   imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced ?  # if you had taken the time to review it you would see that it based the opinion on a number of studies.  it was not just some uninformed opinions.  please link to specific studies.  they are also more powerful than individual studies, and have more predictive power.  if you want a list of studies that suggest harsher sentencing is generally ineffective, here is a few, though there are many, many more:   imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced ? URL   deterrence and macro level perceptions of punishment risks is there a  collective wisdom  ? URL   deterrence: a review of the evidence by a criminologist for economists URL   deterrence in the twenty first century URL   building criminal capital vs specific deterrence: the effect of incarceration length on recidivism URL    ex imprisoned homicide offenders: once bitten, twice shy ? the effect of the length of imprisonment on recidivism for homicide offenders URL   the effect of arrest and imprisonment on crime URL   sentence length and recidivism: are longer incarcerations the solution to high rates of reoffending ? URL above is a selection of studies publish since 0.  it is generally accepted the there significant limits to deterrence via sentence length  #  in addition, the favored authors may themselves be biased or paid to produce results that support their overall political, social, or economic goals in ways such as selecting small favorable data sets and not incorporating larger unfavorable data sets.   #  meanwhile other studies that specifically went out and collected their own data to answer this particular question found that longer sentences do clearly deter crime.  the most severe fault in meta analysis 0 often occurs when the person or persons doing the meta analysis have an economic, social, or political agenda such as the passage or defeat of legislation.  people with these types of agendas may be more likely to abuse meta analysis due to personal bias.  for example, researchers favorable to the author is agenda are likely to have their studies cherry picked while those not favorable will be ignored or labeled as  not credible .  in addition, the favored authors may themselves be biased or paid to produce results that support their overall political, social, or economic goals in ways such as selecting small favorable data sets and not incorporating larger unfavorable data sets.  the influence of such biases on the results of a meta analysis is possible because the methodology of meta analysis is highly malleable.  0 URL
i may be a bit biased due to how sluts are viewed in the town i grow up in, but i have really only had close friends that are sluts.  to me and most people i know, being a slut is about seeing what you want and putting out to get it, regardless of what old world religious morals say you should do.  it is about pleasing yourself and others, and just having fun.  virgins and monogamous people are not being true to their primal desires, and it is sad that they are suppressing something that would make them happy.  cmv.   #  virgins and monogamous people are not being true to their primal desires, and it is sad that they are suppressing something that would make them happy.   #  what if it would not make them happy ?  # what if it would not make them happy ? virgins by choice and monogamous people know that sex will not make them happy.  not everyone follows the same desires as  evolutionary desirable.   case in point: homosexuals also a  slut  is not the same as someone polyamorous and that is not helping the  if they slept with a lot of people, they will cheat on you.  stay away.    #  that is taking away their right to consent and saying that an attractive person can have sex with whoever they want because  who would not want that ?    #  you said that you cannot understand why someone would not want to have sex an attractive person.  that means, in your perspective, everyone wants to sex with attractive people.  that means anyone who denies it is kidding themselves and actually wants to hence you cmv .  that is taking away their right to consent and saying that an attractive person can have sex with whoever they want because  who would not want that ?   you did most certainly imply that attractive people ca not rape.   #  i do not have a primal desire and i do not see why it would be good to satisfy primal desires even if i had them just because they are primal.   #  atheist here in a monogamous relationship for over 0 and a half years.  sex is a very small portion of what makes us happy together, and i do not go out seeking more because i have no desire.  sex was never really discussed in my house in a negative or positive manner.  i do not have a primal desire and i do not see why it would be good to satisfy primal desires even if i had them just because they are primal.  on rare occasions, i get incredibly pissed at people for doing incredibly stupid things and i desire to do something to them that would hurt them either physically or emotionally, but i do not.  it is a primal desire to want to do those things, but i am not sating those desires.  is that bad ? it would certainly make me feel good to sate that desire, but i do not.  i do not see myself as damaged or brainwashed because of my upbringing about sex, and even if i were, i am at a point now where sex is far and away the most important thing for me.  in your world where sluts are glorified, would i be the pariah because i choose not to partake because i do not want to ?  #  and if i ca not rely on a person, how can i say they are  the best  ?  #  slut shaming is a bad thing, of course.  people should be able to do whatever suits them sexually so long is they have consent, use some sense, and follow the general rule:  never work with children or animals.   but the best thing ? no.  people who is whole lives revolve around sex are  boring .  they are boring to talk to and boring to be around.  they have nothing i want and have nothing of worth to say.  i try to only associate with people who interest me if i can help it.  furthermore, people make  terrible  decisions when impassioned, sexually most of all.  it is almost a jekyll and hyde type thing.  if a person is under that influence more often, if follows that they would be making a greater number of bad decisions.  and that is fine, they can do whatever they like, but that is not the type of person i would ever want to rely on for anything.  and if i ca not rely on a person, how can i say they are  the best  ?  #  you need a  fix  now and then or you ca not be happy anymore.   #  simple counterargument: pleasing yourself is a very short term approach.  if you kept doing this for a couple of years, could you really stop being like that ? in a sense, it might become like a drug addiction.  you need a  fix  now and then or you ca not be happy anymore.  in a long term approach, you might want to settle down at some point.  many guys who carefully chose their partners all their life might expect their so to show the same behaviour.  which also means, sluts are out of the question for these people.  or in other words, you kicked yourself out of many good options in the future, due to your behaviour right now.  pleasing yourself to the max is not always a good thing in the long term.
our values and interests:  autodidacticism, life long learning, cognitive science, media is impact on global culture from edward bernays forward, read/write culture, copyright reform, the pirate party, identity, social criticism, anti consumerism, anti capitalism, the principia discordia, dadaism, secular humanism and  free thought.    my work:  i independently developed a lecture series, multimedia pieces, a lab and label from which to remaster and issue recordings which never lived beyond their initial analog release, and i manage a lossless archive of 0,0  historically significant recordings and complete discographic libraries of notable composers and musicians.   my focus:  … is on neoclassical compositions, kosmische musik, psybient, downtempo, musique concrete, jazz, ambient, electroacoustic, the canterbury scene, the berlin school, the second viennese school, noise and drone musics, but my library also includes the sounds of early music through the big band foundations of jazz.   my dream:  i would like to operate a number of web radio stations to feature these wonderful recordings, with a special collection of material not available anywhere else.  i approached a local university with my vision to start a not for profit educational music foundation with the mission of increasing community awareness of 0th century sound art and the avant garde.  the head of the library department told me there was  no audience for my work  and that  it was not sustainable or even legally viable in america today.    why we want to leave the us:  appalled by capitalist and consumer culture, i disposed of my radio and television in 0 and have never purchased a newspaper or periodical.  i have effectively eliminated over 0 of advertisements from my web browsing experience, and i walk to the office so i have little exposure to billboards or drive by advertising.  i take an active interest in world news, but have no interest in popular culture.   leaving consumer culture behind:  i gave up shopping in stores over a decade ago, and other than the 0 grocery items i purchase week in and week out, i only purchase antique goods.  a local antique shop provides me with second hand menswear, shoes and accessories so that, internet bill and rent aside , i leave as minimal an imprint on the consumer grid as possible.  please do not think me a pretentious hipster; i simply have no use for or interest in contemporary goods, so i have eliminated the products and their marketplaces from my life.   social alienation from the states:  i have few peers in the states and every survey i take online with a grain of salt, of course , tells me that i have the highest cultural, political and value compatibility with denmark, finland, iceland, norway and sweden.  i am considering moving to sweden, envisioning a utopian culture where education is considered an investment in a society is future, where intellectualism and autodidacticism is valued, where  academic  and  art  music is not limited to the shadows outside of the bright and spangled pop spectrum, and where copyright reform has a voice.  my love, a writer , shares my values and wants to join me in the hope that sweden will be a more promising environment for her authorship and for our future children.   #  i have effectively eliminated over 0 of advertisements from my web browsing experience, and i walk to the office so i have little exposure to billboards or drive by advertising.   #  there are, in fact, just as many advertisments on swedish websites and roads.   #  you remind me of the western otakus who want to move to japan, thinking that everybody there watches anime, listens to k pop and plays videogames on nintendo and sony consoles.  or the harry potter fangirls who think england is all tea, rain, and a posh accent.  the harsh truth is, that your view of sweden and its people is a charicature, not at all accurate with the reality, and that you are stereotyping them; and this stereotype is based on your perception of whatever goes on in sweden, not necessarily the truth.  sweden, nor any of the nordic countries, is the utopia you envision.  they are not anti capitalist nor anti consumerist, sweden has one of the freest markets in europe and hell, they created ikea which is the prime example of mass produced, cheap goods that do not last long.  you can enjoy your music, your art, your education, etc.  just as much in the us than you would in sweden, if not more.  you can easily move to one of the liberal cities in america and experience the hipsterish environment you describe.  a few comments in your description intrigued me:  appalled by capitalist and consumer culture, i disposed of my radio and television in 0 and have never purchased a newspaper or periodical.  there are radios, televisions and newspapers in sweden.  there are, in fact, just as many advertisments on swedish websites and roads.  i praise your interest towards world news; but not doing the same with your own country is very irresponsible behaviour.  i am not american, but the united states has a very enjoyable culture; by that i mean music i like jazz, too , literature such as mark twain, poe, stephen king , science carl sagan, feynman, .  etcetera.   #  sweden, although tolerant of differences as a country, is not tolerate of extremes at all.   #  sweden is not a place where counter culture is considered valuable whereas in the us it is celebrated .  it is not socialist, it is not utopian, it is not notably more intellectual, it respects qualifications from educational systems as much as, if not more than the us and wo not care for any autodidacticism.  in the us, you will be likely seen as cool and unique.  sweden, although tolerant of differences as a country, is not tolerate of extremes at all.  do not confuse taxation and social security with being socialist, sweden is ruthlessly capitalistic and one of the best places in the world to start a business due to an efficient legal system.  your attempt to remove yourself from capitalist culture whatever the fuck that even means and consumer culture again, whatever the fuck that even means has caused you to build yourself an echo chamber while failing to recognize that capitalist and consumerist ideas in the us are the only thing stopping many people from harassing you for your unique lifestyle due to their promotion of uniqueness.   #  you might envision an utopian culture, but you wo not find it.   #  nowhere in your post do you mention trips to any nordic countries.  that might be a good start.  you know, to actually experience rather than take surveys.  i am going to be blunt and honest.  as a finn, i find your description of scandinavian culture slightly cringy.  you might envision an utopian culture, but you wo not find it.  i am not saying it is bad, it just wo not be what you expect.  i study at an university for free and voted for the pirates at the eu election today, but that does not mean that intellectualism or copyright reform are widely held standards of the people.  your idiots might be a bit louder than our idiots, but believe me when i say you wo not escape them.  if you come here hoping for a peoples listening to  neoclassical compositions  instead of lady gaga prepare to be disappointed.  you should also note that every nordic country is consumerist, capitalist and quite western.  billboards and mcdonalds are very much a part of every day life.  the welfare state does not mean socialism.  it just means we are a capitalist nation that taxes more and spends it differently.  i think you would find more like minded people regarding consumer culture in austin or seattle, rather than helsinki, oslo, or stockholm.  all in all, this is just my view as a scandinavian.  you are more than welcome, just leave the utopian visions behind.  here you will find a private and mild mannered culture.  you will also find tax paid healthcare and education.  but what you wont find is a nation that shares your values.  come over, meet some actual swedes or finns or norwegians, and then make up your mind.   #  the swedish democrats are polling at around 0; a party which spokesman is said immigrants are  more prone to violence .   #  sweden is not a utopia.  i am certain that they are perhaps closer to your vision of society than american society but do not for a second imagine that social democracy run wild magically solves every problem in the state.  youth unemployment is higher than the eu average.  the swedish democrats are polling at around 0; a party which spokesman is said immigrants are  more prone to violence .  alcohol is sold in state owned stores.  there is barely any choice and it is extremely expensive.  drug laws are draconian.  you will face cultural and social isolation.  you will have a very hard time fitting in if not speaking the language because their society is very different to american society.  you think swedes give more of a shit about your web radio pipe dream than americans ? you think there is no consumer culture in sweden ? there are billboards; mcdonalds; gap stores just like everywhere else.  ikea is a swedish brand.  h m is swedish.  spotify is headquartered in stockholm.  you will live in a society that is as consumer oriented as the one one you left, do not fool yourself.   #  you have absented yourself from your world and have chosen to dwell solely in the past.   #  it seems to me that you need a time machine, not a trip to europe.  you have absented yourself from your world and have chosen to dwell solely in the past.  i love classical literature, classical music, theater and antiques.  but to some how take the attitude that human exploration and mastery of the arts kept building until 0, at which point everything turned to crap is absurd.  you seem to have a vision of yourself as  above the banalities of the modern world , yet it seems to me that you are standing in front of breath taking, inspiring beauty with your eyes squeezed shut, saying,  nope, not gonna look .  a number of people have advised you to visit sweden before making a decision, which is good advice.  i advise you to visit 0, see the world with an open mind.  we are not all deluded fools there is brilliant work being done in music, art, literature, architecture, film, television.  and you need to see it.
our values and interests:  autodidacticism, life long learning, cognitive science, media is impact on global culture from edward bernays forward, read/write culture, copyright reform, the pirate party, identity, social criticism, anti consumerism, anti capitalism, the principia discordia, dadaism, secular humanism and  free thought.    my work:  i independently developed a lecture series, multimedia pieces, a lab and label from which to remaster and issue recordings which never lived beyond their initial analog release, and i manage a lossless archive of 0,0  historically significant recordings and complete discographic libraries of notable composers and musicians.   my focus:  … is on neoclassical compositions, kosmische musik, psybient, downtempo, musique concrete, jazz, ambient, electroacoustic, the canterbury scene, the berlin school, the second viennese school, noise and drone musics, but my library also includes the sounds of early music through the big band foundations of jazz.   my dream:  i would like to operate a number of web radio stations to feature these wonderful recordings, with a special collection of material not available anywhere else.  i approached a local university with my vision to start a not for profit educational music foundation with the mission of increasing community awareness of 0th century sound art and the avant garde.  the head of the library department told me there was  no audience for my work  and that  it was not sustainable or even legally viable in america today.    why we want to leave the us:  appalled by capitalist and consumer culture, i disposed of my radio and television in 0 and have never purchased a newspaper or periodical.  i have effectively eliminated over 0 of advertisements from my web browsing experience, and i walk to the office so i have little exposure to billboards or drive by advertising.  i take an active interest in world news, but have no interest in popular culture.   leaving consumer culture behind:  i gave up shopping in stores over a decade ago, and other than the 0 grocery items i purchase week in and week out, i only purchase antique goods.  a local antique shop provides me with second hand menswear, shoes and accessories so that, internet bill and rent aside , i leave as minimal an imprint on the consumer grid as possible.  please do not think me a pretentious hipster; i simply have no use for or interest in contemporary goods, so i have eliminated the products and their marketplaces from my life.   social alienation from the states:  i have few peers in the states and every survey i take online with a grain of salt, of course , tells me that i have the highest cultural, political and value compatibility with denmark, finland, iceland, norway and sweden.  i am considering moving to sweden, envisioning a utopian culture where education is considered an investment in a society is future, where intellectualism and autodidacticism is valued, where  academic  and  art  music is not limited to the shadows outside of the bright and spangled pop spectrum, and where copyright reform has a voice.  my love, a writer , shares my values and wants to join me in the hope that sweden will be a more promising environment for her authorship and for our future children.   #  i take an active interest in world news, but have no interest in popular culture.   #  i praise your interest towards world news; but not doing the same with your own country is very irresponsible behaviour.   #  you remind me of the western otakus who want to move to japan, thinking that everybody there watches anime, listens to k pop and plays videogames on nintendo and sony consoles.  or the harry potter fangirls who think england is all tea, rain, and a posh accent.  the harsh truth is, that your view of sweden and its people is a charicature, not at all accurate with the reality, and that you are stereotyping them; and this stereotype is based on your perception of whatever goes on in sweden, not necessarily the truth.  sweden, nor any of the nordic countries, is the utopia you envision.  they are not anti capitalist nor anti consumerist, sweden has one of the freest markets in europe and hell, they created ikea which is the prime example of mass produced, cheap goods that do not last long.  you can enjoy your music, your art, your education, etc.  just as much in the us than you would in sweden, if not more.  you can easily move to one of the liberal cities in america and experience the hipsterish environment you describe.  a few comments in your description intrigued me:  appalled by capitalist and consumer culture, i disposed of my radio and television in 0 and have never purchased a newspaper or periodical.  there are radios, televisions and newspapers in sweden.  there are, in fact, just as many advertisments on swedish websites and roads.  i praise your interest towards world news; but not doing the same with your own country is very irresponsible behaviour.  i am not american, but the united states has a very enjoyable culture; by that i mean music i like jazz, too , literature such as mark twain, poe, stephen king , science carl sagan, feynman, .  etcetera.   #  sweden, although tolerant of differences as a country, is not tolerate of extremes at all.   #  sweden is not a place where counter culture is considered valuable whereas in the us it is celebrated .  it is not socialist, it is not utopian, it is not notably more intellectual, it respects qualifications from educational systems as much as, if not more than the us and wo not care for any autodidacticism.  in the us, you will be likely seen as cool and unique.  sweden, although tolerant of differences as a country, is not tolerate of extremes at all.  do not confuse taxation and social security with being socialist, sweden is ruthlessly capitalistic and one of the best places in the world to start a business due to an efficient legal system.  your attempt to remove yourself from capitalist culture whatever the fuck that even means and consumer culture again, whatever the fuck that even means has caused you to build yourself an echo chamber while failing to recognize that capitalist and consumerist ideas in the us are the only thing stopping many people from harassing you for your unique lifestyle due to their promotion of uniqueness.   #  you should also note that every nordic country is consumerist, capitalist and quite western.   #  nowhere in your post do you mention trips to any nordic countries.  that might be a good start.  you know, to actually experience rather than take surveys.  i am going to be blunt and honest.  as a finn, i find your description of scandinavian culture slightly cringy.  you might envision an utopian culture, but you wo not find it.  i am not saying it is bad, it just wo not be what you expect.  i study at an university for free and voted for the pirates at the eu election today, but that does not mean that intellectualism or copyright reform are widely held standards of the people.  your idiots might be a bit louder than our idiots, but believe me when i say you wo not escape them.  if you come here hoping for a peoples listening to  neoclassical compositions  instead of lady gaga prepare to be disappointed.  you should also note that every nordic country is consumerist, capitalist and quite western.  billboards and mcdonalds are very much a part of every day life.  the welfare state does not mean socialism.  it just means we are a capitalist nation that taxes more and spends it differently.  i think you would find more like minded people regarding consumer culture in austin or seattle, rather than helsinki, oslo, or stockholm.  all in all, this is just my view as a scandinavian.  you are more than welcome, just leave the utopian visions behind.  here you will find a private and mild mannered culture.  you will also find tax paid healthcare and education.  but what you wont find is a nation that shares your values.  come over, meet some actual swedes or finns or norwegians, and then make up your mind.   #  youth unemployment is higher than the eu average.   #  sweden is not a utopia.  i am certain that they are perhaps closer to your vision of society than american society but do not for a second imagine that social democracy run wild magically solves every problem in the state.  youth unemployment is higher than the eu average.  the swedish democrats are polling at around 0; a party which spokesman is said immigrants are  more prone to violence .  alcohol is sold in state owned stores.  there is barely any choice and it is extremely expensive.  drug laws are draconian.  you will face cultural and social isolation.  you will have a very hard time fitting in if not speaking the language because their society is very different to american society.  you think swedes give more of a shit about your web radio pipe dream than americans ? you think there is no consumer culture in sweden ? there are billboards; mcdonalds; gap stores just like everywhere else.  ikea is a swedish brand.  h m is swedish.  spotify is headquartered in stockholm.  you will live in a society that is as consumer oriented as the one one you left, do not fool yourself.   #  it seems to me that you need a time machine, not a trip to europe.   #  it seems to me that you need a time machine, not a trip to europe.  you have absented yourself from your world and have chosen to dwell solely in the past.  i love classical literature, classical music, theater and antiques.  but to some how take the attitude that human exploration and mastery of the arts kept building until 0, at which point everything turned to crap is absurd.  you seem to have a vision of yourself as  above the banalities of the modern world , yet it seems to me that you are standing in front of breath taking, inspiring beauty with your eyes squeezed shut, saying,  nope, not gonna look .  a number of people have advised you to visit sweden before making a decision, which is good advice.  i advise you to visit 0, see the world with an open mind.  we are not all deluded fools there is brilliant work being done in music, art, literature, architecture, film, television.  and you need to see it.
patriarchy is a simple term describing a society in which fathers are the heads of families, men are the heads of tribes and governments, etc; descent is traced through the male line; and so forth.  clearly western society is a traditionally patriarchal one.  that is not the  the patriarchy  i mean.  there is a tendency among some groups tumblr style  social justice warriors , for instance to use the phrase   the  patriarchy  as though there were an all male cabal of world controllers working tirelessly to prevent females from ever becoming enfranchised.  people seem to really believe that this is the case and that vigilance, often militancy, is the only way that the patriarchy will ever be forced to give up so much as a shred of the power they so craftily hoard.  they also almost unitarily seem to believe that this the patriarchy is all white and that they harbour similar hatred toward non white peoples regardless of gender, that they are all straight and harbour similar hatred toward lgbt folks, etc.  i think this is nonsense.  let is imagine that there really is such a thing as the patriarchy, and that it really is a group of white men bent on preventing the enfranchisement of women and of people of colour.  here is a simple question that  ought  to unravel this whole worldview:  why are women, people of colour and homosexuals in the west allowed to vote, intermarry and divorce, own property and run for and hold public office ?   apart from straight, white men voluntarily choosing to grant political enfranchisement and in the case of p. o. c. , actual physical bodily freedom to these groups, how could they possibly have gotten such liberties ? possible answer number one: there truly is a thing similar to the patriarchy, but it is comprised of straight white men who are in no way adamant about the idea of maintaining their grip on power, which is wholly contrary to the generally accepted intensional definition of the term.  possible answer number two: there just is not any such thing as the patriarchy.  cmv.   #  patriarchy is a simple term describing a society in which fathers are the heads of families, men are the heads of tribes and governments, etc; descent is traced through the male line; and so forth.   #  clearly western society is a traditionally patriarchal one.   # clearly western society is a traditionally patriarchal one.  that is not the  the patriarchy  i mean.  therefore, there is a patriarchy.  the end.  people on tumblr are not representative of the feminist movement.  we all know they are mostly teenage, uneducated nutcases.  they are not worth listening to.  they exaggerate the real problem, which you outline in your first paragraph.  you, yourself, are not arguing a strawman.  but you are arguing against people that are.   the patriarchy  as it really exists, particularly in feminist circles, is what you describe in your first paragraph.  and so you acknowledge, at least, that it exists.   #  or do they only represent the movement when they are publishing opinions that square with your interpretation of the core ideology ?  #  there is not  a  patriarchy.  there is patriarchy.  there is not  a  group of men who control everything.  there is a social tradition for men to control everything.  nobody has done more to change that than the men themselves.  they are, unfortunately.  as much as the rest of the movement might not want them to be, they are.  what about jezebel, then, and other mainstream feminist sites ? they are just as deep end a lot of the time.  does jezebel not represent the movement ? or do they only represent the movement when they are publishing opinions that square with your interpretation of the core ideology ?  #  it is not about a group of men that control everything.   # there is patriarchy.  there is not a group of men who control everything.  there is a social tradition for men to control everything.  nobody has done more to change that than the men themselves.  semantics.  do not see how this is relevant.   a patriarchy, patriarchy,  means the same thing: what you have just said.  i think you are reading way too much into it.  i have never met a feminist, or seen a jezebel article, that represents what you are saying it does.  it is not about a group of men that control everything.  it is about a society the society is  the patriarchy,  not the group of men that is problematic.  do you not think patriarchy as a social tradition is wrong ? if you do, you have a feminist viewpoint.  if not, why ?  #  also, we have to be careful to specify whether we are only talking about the us or other parts of the world.   #  i think in the sense that it disadvantages women from attaining the status and power in that respect.  obviously there are female politicians, heads of state, and ceos out there, but it is not the majority.  also, we have to be careful to specify whether we are only talking about the us or other parts of the world.  op mentions the western world, but i think a bigger case for patriarchy causing damage would be found in the middle east and other parts of asia.  i guess the idea is that in a society where more men have power, there is a greater likelihood of bias against women in legislation and decision making.  this idea makes sense and probably does happen, but the extent to which it is oppressive, i could not successfully argue.   #  not counting the president; obama is election was awesome but he is also the first black man in a line otherwise entirely made up of white men.   # what, really ? name the most influential people you can think of in the us.  how long does it take before you get to someone other than a rich white man ? not counting the president; obama is election was awesome but he is also the first black man in a line otherwise entirely made up of white men.  congressmen, ceos, almost all the important people in society are rich white men.  or in other words: yeah there is a group of men who control everything.  it is called congress.
patriarchy is a simple term describing a society in which fathers are the heads of families, men are the heads of tribes and governments, etc; descent is traced through the male line; and so forth.  clearly western society is a traditionally patriarchal one.  that is not the  the patriarchy  i mean.  there is a tendency among some groups tumblr style  social justice warriors , for instance to use the phrase   the  patriarchy  as though there were an all male cabal of world controllers working tirelessly to prevent females from ever becoming enfranchised.  people seem to really believe that this is the case and that vigilance, often militancy, is the only way that the patriarchy will ever be forced to give up so much as a shred of the power they so craftily hoard.  they also almost unitarily seem to believe that this the patriarchy is all white and that they harbour similar hatred toward non white peoples regardless of gender, that they are all straight and harbour similar hatred toward lgbt folks, etc.  i think this is nonsense.  let is imagine that there really is such a thing as the patriarchy, and that it really is a group of white men bent on preventing the enfranchisement of women and of people of colour.  here is a simple question that  ought  to unravel this whole worldview:  why are women, people of colour and homosexuals in the west allowed to vote, intermarry and divorce, own property and run for and hold public office ?   apart from straight, white men voluntarily choosing to grant political enfranchisement and in the case of p. o. c. , actual physical bodily freedom to these groups, how could they possibly have gotten such liberties ? possible answer number one: there truly is a thing similar to the patriarchy, but it is comprised of straight white men who are in no way adamant about the idea of maintaining their grip on power, which is wholly contrary to the generally accepted intensional definition of the term.  possible answer number two: there just is not any such thing as the patriarchy.  cmv.   #  apart from straight, white men voluntarily choosing to grant political enfranchisement and in the case of p. o. c. , actual physical bodily freedom to these groups, how could they possibly have gotten such liberties ?  #  i think the solution is right there.   # i think the solution is right there.  why is one group even able to  grant  agency to other groups ? the patriarchy as you read it is, i think, a little simplistic.  it is not that there is a man sitting in a leather chair, stroking a cat, and wondering how to take the vote away from women.   the patriarchy  is not a person; it is a system where one group actually has the ability to have a say over other groups.  it is not a hard and fast system especially any more , because people rose up and demanded their rights, going so far as to cause unrest in the system in order to be granted those rights.  today is society is far more democratic and multifaceted than even a few generations ago, but the patriarchy as a system is still hugely visible and affects many not all aspects of public life: the distribution of wealth, who can work in what job, etc.   #  and so you acknowledge, at least, that it exists.   # clearly western society is a traditionally patriarchal one.  that is not the  the patriarchy  i mean.  therefore, there is a patriarchy.  the end.  people on tumblr are not representative of the feminist movement.  we all know they are mostly teenage, uneducated nutcases.  they are not worth listening to.  they exaggerate the real problem, which you outline in your first paragraph.  you, yourself, are not arguing a strawman.  but you are arguing against people that are.   the patriarchy  as it really exists, particularly in feminist circles, is what you describe in your first paragraph.  and so you acknowledge, at least, that it exists.   #  nobody has done more to change that than the men themselves.   #  there is not  a  patriarchy.  there is patriarchy.  there is not  a  group of men who control everything.  there is a social tradition for men to control everything.  nobody has done more to change that than the men themselves.  they are, unfortunately.  as much as the rest of the movement might not want them to be, they are.  what about jezebel, then, and other mainstream feminist sites ? they are just as deep end a lot of the time.  does jezebel not represent the movement ? or do they only represent the movement when they are publishing opinions that square with your interpretation of the core ideology ?  #  do you not think patriarchy as a social tradition is wrong ?  # there is patriarchy.  there is not a group of men who control everything.  there is a social tradition for men to control everything.  nobody has done more to change that than the men themselves.  semantics.  do not see how this is relevant.   a patriarchy, patriarchy,  means the same thing: what you have just said.  i think you are reading way too much into it.  i have never met a feminist, or seen a jezebel article, that represents what you are saying it does.  it is not about a group of men that control everything.  it is about a society the society is  the patriarchy,  not the group of men that is problematic.  do you not think patriarchy as a social tradition is wrong ? if you do, you have a feminist viewpoint.  if not, why ?  #  also, we have to be careful to specify whether we are only talking about the us or other parts of the world.   #  i think in the sense that it disadvantages women from attaining the status and power in that respect.  obviously there are female politicians, heads of state, and ceos out there, but it is not the majority.  also, we have to be careful to specify whether we are only talking about the us or other parts of the world.  op mentions the western world, but i think a bigger case for patriarchy causing damage would be found in the middle east and other parts of asia.  i guess the idea is that in a society where more men have power, there is a greater likelihood of bias against women in legislation and decision making.  this idea makes sense and probably does happen, but the extent to which it is oppressive, i could not successfully argue.
i am a christian since i was born and i go to church with my family.  the faith always tells us that there will be eternal life after death and we will reunite with those who have left us in this world.  as i grow up i experience the death of some of my loved ones, even though they are not the closest to me, i still feel really sad about it that they do not seem to exist any more.  i often have thoughts of myself 0 to 0 years from now and that i am lying in my deathbed, wondering what will happen after i die.  the idea of dying and not existing is distant but very real and haunts me at times.  when i look back at my life i feel that i am forced to move on in time towards my death, thus my fear in death.  the fear in afterlife has existed because the idea of eternity seems so strange and uncommon in the world we live in.  please help change my views thanks.   #  the faith always tells us that there will be eternal life after death and we will reunite with those who have left us in this world.   #  i would just like to ask you this: what other things in the world do you put your faith into with no physical evidence that it even exists ?  # i would just like to ask you this: what other things in the world do you put your faith into with no physical evidence that it even exists ? i do not mean this in a rude way, but i want to invoke some thought here, because i assume you do not buy into bigfoot, the loch ness monster, etc, and this is because seeing is believing with virtually  everything  else but religion.  do you think an early onset fear of potentially burning for the rest of time if you are a bad person could be a part of this ? seems like it could be to me.  you have been through science class and everything, so just how logical does it seem that you could live after you die ? put your fears and per conceived notions aside and just consider how incredibly wild it is to even consider such a thing.  people have this way of giving the benefit of the doubt to christianity because hey, we may as well, otherwise we will burn in hell forever, right ? i would not worry too much.  :  #  jesus died at age 0 while being ridiculed, so hey.  christianity is not the caricature that opponents of christianity paint it to be.   #  get a copy of meditations by marcus aurelius and read it often.  you will probably be ridiculed for being a christian in the first place.  but not by me.  jesus died at age 0 while being ridiculed, so hey.  christianity is not the caricature that opponents of christianity paint it to be.  it is likely that most christians fail to understand it fully.  inside christianity, the focus on the afterlife is unhealthy.  in a nutshell, you will certainly die, and you certainly do not have any control over eternity.  what you do have control over is how you live your life, how you treat others, etc.  focus on what is within your control, live an honorable life, and let eternity take care of itself.  and look on the bright side at least you have something fitting to concern yourself with.  elsewhere in this forum people are struggling to determine whether or not it is immoral to have sex with animals.   #  the logic goes you wo not mind after you die, either.   #  i am a bit confused.  are you afraid of an eternal afterlife, e. g.  heaven, or eternal non existence ? if the latter, you are obviously not alone.  many arguments can be given to assuage fear of eternity, like the fact you were non existent for billions of years up to the moment you were born and did not seem to mind.  the logic goes you wo not mind after you die, either.  the difference is that you have had a taste of existence now and giving it up is not easy.  this argument does not make me feel any better.  the argument i would make is that permanent and eternal death  is not  uncommon at all, contrary to your point.  it is around us all the time and is part of the natural cycle of life.  birth, death, and rebirth create cyclical changes in society, culture, commerce and invention.  new generations with fresh perspectives are needed in order for humanity to progress.  this means older generations need to die off so they no longer have their hands on the levers of power.  it also lends value to life.  if we know it is going to end, we are driven to spend it achieving something that makes our time on earth valuable.  this not only helps us, but helps our families, our communities, and the world at large in a small way, at least .  immortality would just lead to entropy.  you have no choice about moving forward into death, but you do have a choice in how you spend that time.  that is where you need to derive your meaning.  if you do it through your faith, that works, too.   #  to put it more clearly, even if you think that infinite life is not a good thing, what finite amount of life is best ?  # if you really believe that, why do not you let someone shoot you right now ? those precious few seconds before they pull the trigger should be so valuable.  why not somehow get rid of all the water we have got sloshing around on our beautiful blue ball, to make the remaining water more valuable ? to put it more clearly, even if you think that infinite life is not a good thing, what finite amount of life is best ? does it just so happen to be the expected lifespan at birth that the first world enjoyed on the day you were born ? what about all the people who lived in times where lifespans were shorter ? what about all the people who have yet to live when lifespans will be longer ? does decreasing infant mortality really devalue the lives of all of us who survive our first five years ? are your healthy days less valuable now that you are not vulnerable to polio, smallpox, tuberculosis, or the black plague ? would you willingly de vaccinate yourself if such a thing existed to get back all the scarcity of healthy years ? and finally. do you really think someone who lived in a universe of immortals would willingly de immortalize themselves for the benefits that you think mortality gives us ?  #  we tend to waste things that are perceived to be in abundance.   #  we tend to waste things that are perceived to be in abundance.  and.  an anecdote applicable to the theist is comment above; i work with two fundamentalist christians.  they regularly make it clear that this life is just temporary, merely something to  get through  until they pass on to their reward in the afterlife.  both are great family men and have comfortable lives.  but at least one often appears miserable and seems eager for death.  i once greeted him with  any day above the dirt is a good day.   and he responded with  or below it.   creepy.  i get the feeling that because of his view of the afterlife, he does not know the precious thing he has right now.
i am a christian since i was born and i go to church with my family.  the faith always tells us that there will be eternal life after death and we will reunite with those who have left us in this world.  as i grow up i experience the death of some of my loved ones, even though they are not the closest to me, i still feel really sad about it that they do not seem to exist any more.  i often have thoughts of myself 0 to 0 years from now and that i am lying in my deathbed, wondering what will happen after i die.  the idea of dying and not existing is distant but very real and haunts me at times.  when i look back at my life i feel that i am forced to move on in time towards my death, thus my fear in death.  the fear in afterlife has existed because the idea of eternity seems so strange and uncommon in the world we live in.  please help change my views thanks.   #  the faith always tells us that there will be eternal life after death and we will reunite with those who have left us in this world.   #  you sound like you are not so convinced.   # you sound like you are not so convinced.  having a crisis of faith is not uncommon nor is it unmanageable.  you are not the only one in your faith that has or does feel the way you do so talk to people about it.  what is the point of going to a church if it is not a community that can help you when you need it ? death is hard to deal with.  period.  if you are stuck in the corporeal world, you must deal with the realities of that.  it does not matter that the person who died is in the afterlife, they are not here anymore.  what they could further contribute to your life is probably over.  in these situations i find it is helpful to look at the person is achievements in life.  good people should not be forgotten, they should be celebrated.  when i look back at my life i feel that i am forced to move on in time towards my death, thus my fear in death.  let is say your worst fear is true: that when you die there is nothing.  well, what are you going to do about it ? i choose to live my life as though there is nothing beyond death because of my own beliefs .  the overriding concern in that instance is what am i going to do with the time i have got ? how am i going to leave the world a better place than when i arrived ? you could be diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow.  how would your life change if you knew you had 0 months to live and 0 0 of them would be in a hospital ? you would stop screwing around and you would make the best of the time you had left.  you may not have cancer, but you do have aging.  none of us really knows what happens after death.  you have to find a way to live that is congruent with your beliefs and values, and if you do that, even if you still feel fear you will also feel fulfilment.  do you really believe that you can possibly comprehend the reality of what an afterlife would entail ? if you believe the god created the entire universe and every amazing thing in it of which we have the tiniest sliver of knowledge of, and it is still mindblowingly amazing then you have to think that somewhere described as paradise would be even more amazing than that.  the core of your issue is that you are trying to quell fear in an eventuality about which nobody has the answers.  it is a mystery.  however, there are things you can do to help yourself:   speak to others about your fear.  especially to those of your faith although, that being said, speaking to those that do not share your faith is often very enlightening too .  live to your beliefs and values.  do what is right in your short life to make the world a better place.  understand that fear is normal, but that you cannot let it paralyze you.  understand the nature of this fear as possibly being a test of your character.  whether from god, or from nature, a challenge has appeared.  you can sucumb to that challenge or you can seek to rise above it.  emotions like fear come and go throughout your life.  they are only emotions, not facts.  whilst emotions can be useful, they can also be misleading.  you have a perfectly good brain to tell you the difference, so listen to it.   #  elsewhere in this forum people are struggling to determine whether or not it is immoral to have sex with animals.   #  get a copy of meditations by marcus aurelius and read it often.  you will probably be ridiculed for being a christian in the first place.  but not by me.  jesus died at age 0 while being ridiculed, so hey.  christianity is not the caricature that opponents of christianity paint it to be.  it is likely that most christians fail to understand it fully.  inside christianity, the focus on the afterlife is unhealthy.  in a nutshell, you will certainly die, and you certainly do not have any control over eternity.  what you do have control over is how you live your life, how you treat others, etc.  focus on what is within your control, live an honorable life, and let eternity take care of itself.  and look on the bright side at least you have something fitting to concern yourself with.  elsewhere in this forum people are struggling to determine whether or not it is immoral to have sex with animals.   #  the logic goes you wo not mind after you die, either.   #  i am a bit confused.  are you afraid of an eternal afterlife, e. g.  heaven, or eternal non existence ? if the latter, you are obviously not alone.  many arguments can be given to assuage fear of eternity, like the fact you were non existent for billions of years up to the moment you were born and did not seem to mind.  the logic goes you wo not mind after you die, either.  the difference is that you have had a taste of existence now and giving it up is not easy.  this argument does not make me feel any better.  the argument i would make is that permanent and eternal death  is not  uncommon at all, contrary to your point.  it is around us all the time and is part of the natural cycle of life.  birth, death, and rebirth create cyclical changes in society, culture, commerce and invention.  new generations with fresh perspectives are needed in order for humanity to progress.  this means older generations need to die off so they no longer have their hands on the levers of power.  it also lends value to life.  if we know it is going to end, we are driven to spend it achieving something that makes our time on earth valuable.  this not only helps us, but helps our families, our communities, and the world at large in a small way, at least .  immortality would just lead to entropy.  you have no choice about moving forward into death, but you do have a choice in how you spend that time.  that is where you need to derive your meaning.  if you do it through your faith, that works, too.   #  what about all the people who lived in times where lifespans were shorter ?  # if you really believe that, why do not you let someone shoot you right now ? those precious few seconds before they pull the trigger should be so valuable.  why not somehow get rid of all the water we have got sloshing around on our beautiful blue ball, to make the remaining water more valuable ? to put it more clearly, even if you think that infinite life is not a good thing, what finite amount of life is best ? does it just so happen to be the expected lifespan at birth that the first world enjoyed on the day you were born ? what about all the people who lived in times where lifespans were shorter ? what about all the people who have yet to live when lifespans will be longer ? does decreasing infant mortality really devalue the lives of all of us who survive our first five years ? are your healthy days less valuable now that you are not vulnerable to polio, smallpox, tuberculosis, or the black plague ? would you willingly de vaccinate yourself if such a thing existed to get back all the scarcity of healthy years ? and finally. do you really think someone who lived in a universe of immortals would willingly de immortalize themselves for the benefits that you think mortality gives us ?  #  creepy.  i get the feeling that because of his view of the afterlife, he does not know the precious thing he has right now.   #  we tend to waste things that are perceived to be in abundance.  and.  an anecdote applicable to the theist is comment above; i work with two fundamentalist christians.  they regularly make it clear that this life is just temporary, merely something to  get through  until they pass on to their reward in the afterlife.  both are great family men and have comfortable lives.  but at least one often appears miserable and seems eager for death.  i once greeted him with  any day above the dirt is a good day.   and he responded with  or below it.   creepy.  i get the feeling that because of his view of the afterlife, he does not know the precious thing he has right now.
i am a christian since i was born and i go to church with my family.  the faith always tells us that there will be eternal life after death and we will reunite with those who have left us in this world.  as i grow up i experience the death of some of my loved ones, even though they are not the closest to me, i still feel really sad about it that they do not seem to exist any more.  i often have thoughts of myself 0 to 0 years from now and that i am lying in my deathbed, wondering what will happen after i die.  the idea of dying and not existing is distant but very real and haunts me at times.  when i look back at my life i feel that i am forced to move on in time towards my death, thus my fear in death.  the fear in afterlife has existed because the idea of eternity seems so strange and uncommon in the world we live in.  please help change my views thanks.   #  the idea of dying and not existing is distant but very real and haunts me at times.   #  when i look back at my life i feel that i am forced to move on in time towards my death, thus my fear in death.   # you sound like you are not so convinced.  having a crisis of faith is not uncommon nor is it unmanageable.  you are not the only one in your faith that has or does feel the way you do so talk to people about it.  what is the point of going to a church if it is not a community that can help you when you need it ? death is hard to deal with.  period.  if you are stuck in the corporeal world, you must deal with the realities of that.  it does not matter that the person who died is in the afterlife, they are not here anymore.  what they could further contribute to your life is probably over.  in these situations i find it is helpful to look at the person is achievements in life.  good people should not be forgotten, they should be celebrated.  when i look back at my life i feel that i am forced to move on in time towards my death, thus my fear in death.  let is say your worst fear is true: that when you die there is nothing.  well, what are you going to do about it ? i choose to live my life as though there is nothing beyond death because of my own beliefs .  the overriding concern in that instance is what am i going to do with the time i have got ? how am i going to leave the world a better place than when i arrived ? you could be diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow.  how would your life change if you knew you had 0 months to live and 0 0 of them would be in a hospital ? you would stop screwing around and you would make the best of the time you had left.  you may not have cancer, but you do have aging.  none of us really knows what happens after death.  you have to find a way to live that is congruent with your beliefs and values, and if you do that, even if you still feel fear you will also feel fulfilment.  do you really believe that you can possibly comprehend the reality of what an afterlife would entail ? if you believe the god created the entire universe and every amazing thing in it of which we have the tiniest sliver of knowledge of, and it is still mindblowingly amazing then you have to think that somewhere described as paradise would be even more amazing than that.  the core of your issue is that you are trying to quell fear in an eventuality about which nobody has the answers.  it is a mystery.  however, there are things you can do to help yourself:   speak to others about your fear.  especially to those of your faith although, that being said, speaking to those that do not share your faith is often very enlightening too .  live to your beliefs and values.  do what is right in your short life to make the world a better place.  understand that fear is normal, but that you cannot let it paralyze you.  understand the nature of this fear as possibly being a test of your character.  whether from god, or from nature, a challenge has appeared.  you can sucumb to that challenge or you can seek to rise above it.  emotions like fear come and go throughout your life.  they are only emotions, not facts.  whilst emotions can be useful, they can also be misleading.  you have a perfectly good brain to tell you the difference, so listen to it.   #  elsewhere in this forum people are struggling to determine whether or not it is immoral to have sex with animals.   #  get a copy of meditations by marcus aurelius and read it often.  you will probably be ridiculed for being a christian in the first place.  but not by me.  jesus died at age 0 while being ridiculed, so hey.  christianity is not the caricature that opponents of christianity paint it to be.  it is likely that most christians fail to understand it fully.  inside christianity, the focus on the afterlife is unhealthy.  in a nutshell, you will certainly die, and you certainly do not have any control over eternity.  what you do have control over is how you live your life, how you treat others, etc.  focus on what is within your control, live an honorable life, and let eternity take care of itself.  and look on the bright side at least you have something fitting to concern yourself with.  elsewhere in this forum people are struggling to determine whether or not it is immoral to have sex with animals.   #  if you do it through your faith, that works, too.   #  i am a bit confused.  are you afraid of an eternal afterlife, e. g.  heaven, or eternal non existence ? if the latter, you are obviously not alone.  many arguments can be given to assuage fear of eternity, like the fact you were non existent for billions of years up to the moment you were born and did not seem to mind.  the logic goes you wo not mind after you die, either.  the difference is that you have had a taste of existence now and giving it up is not easy.  this argument does not make me feel any better.  the argument i would make is that permanent and eternal death  is not  uncommon at all, contrary to your point.  it is around us all the time and is part of the natural cycle of life.  birth, death, and rebirth create cyclical changes in society, culture, commerce and invention.  new generations with fresh perspectives are needed in order for humanity to progress.  this means older generations need to die off so they no longer have their hands on the levers of power.  it also lends value to life.  if we know it is going to end, we are driven to spend it achieving something that makes our time on earth valuable.  this not only helps us, but helps our families, our communities, and the world at large in a small way, at least .  immortality would just lead to entropy.  you have no choice about moving forward into death, but you do have a choice in how you spend that time.  that is where you need to derive your meaning.  if you do it through your faith, that works, too.   #  would you willingly de vaccinate yourself if such a thing existed to get back all the scarcity of healthy years ?  # if you really believe that, why do not you let someone shoot you right now ? those precious few seconds before they pull the trigger should be so valuable.  why not somehow get rid of all the water we have got sloshing around on our beautiful blue ball, to make the remaining water more valuable ? to put it more clearly, even if you think that infinite life is not a good thing, what finite amount of life is best ? does it just so happen to be the expected lifespan at birth that the first world enjoyed on the day you were born ? what about all the people who lived in times where lifespans were shorter ? what about all the people who have yet to live when lifespans will be longer ? does decreasing infant mortality really devalue the lives of all of us who survive our first five years ? are your healthy days less valuable now that you are not vulnerable to polio, smallpox, tuberculosis, or the black plague ? would you willingly de vaccinate yourself if such a thing existed to get back all the scarcity of healthy years ? and finally. do you really think someone who lived in a universe of immortals would willingly de immortalize themselves for the benefits that you think mortality gives us ?  #  i once greeted him with  any day above the dirt is a good day.    #  we tend to waste things that are perceived to be in abundance.  and.  an anecdote applicable to the theist is comment above; i work with two fundamentalist christians.  they regularly make it clear that this life is just temporary, merely something to  get through  until they pass on to their reward in the afterlife.  both are great family men and have comfortable lives.  but at least one often appears miserable and seems eager for death.  i once greeted him with  any day above the dirt is a good day.   and he responded with  or below it.   creepy.  i get the feeling that because of his view of the afterlife, he does not know the precious thing he has right now.
i am a christian since i was born and i go to church with my family.  the faith always tells us that there will be eternal life after death and we will reunite with those who have left us in this world.  as i grow up i experience the death of some of my loved ones, even though they are not the closest to me, i still feel really sad about it that they do not seem to exist any more.  i often have thoughts of myself 0 to 0 years from now and that i am lying in my deathbed, wondering what will happen after i die.  the idea of dying and not existing is distant but very real and haunts me at times.  when i look back at my life i feel that i am forced to move on in time towards my death, thus my fear in death.  the fear in afterlife has existed because the idea of eternity seems so strange and uncommon in the world we live in.  please help change my views thanks.   #  the fear in afterlife has existed because the idea of eternity seems so strange and uncommon in the world we live in.   #  do you really believe that you can possibly comprehend the reality of what an afterlife would entail ?  # you sound like you are not so convinced.  having a crisis of faith is not uncommon nor is it unmanageable.  you are not the only one in your faith that has or does feel the way you do so talk to people about it.  what is the point of going to a church if it is not a community that can help you when you need it ? death is hard to deal with.  period.  if you are stuck in the corporeal world, you must deal with the realities of that.  it does not matter that the person who died is in the afterlife, they are not here anymore.  what they could further contribute to your life is probably over.  in these situations i find it is helpful to look at the person is achievements in life.  good people should not be forgotten, they should be celebrated.  when i look back at my life i feel that i am forced to move on in time towards my death, thus my fear in death.  let is say your worst fear is true: that when you die there is nothing.  well, what are you going to do about it ? i choose to live my life as though there is nothing beyond death because of my own beliefs .  the overriding concern in that instance is what am i going to do with the time i have got ? how am i going to leave the world a better place than when i arrived ? you could be diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow.  how would your life change if you knew you had 0 months to live and 0 0 of them would be in a hospital ? you would stop screwing around and you would make the best of the time you had left.  you may not have cancer, but you do have aging.  none of us really knows what happens after death.  you have to find a way to live that is congruent with your beliefs and values, and if you do that, even if you still feel fear you will also feel fulfilment.  do you really believe that you can possibly comprehend the reality of what an afterlife would entail ? if you believe the god created the entire universe and every amazing thing in it of which we have the tiniest sliver of knowledge of, and it is still mindblowingly amazing then you have to think that somewhere described as paradise would be even more amazing than that.  the core of your issue is that you are trying to quell fear in an eventuality about which nobody has the answers.  it is a mystery.  however, there are things you can do to help yourself:   speak to others about your fear.  especially to those of your faith although, that being said, speaking to those that do not share your faith is often very enlightening too .  live to your beliefs and values.  do what is right in your short life to make the world a better place.  understand that fear is normal, but that you cannot let it paralyze you.  understand the nature of this fear as possibly being a test of your character.  whether from god, or from nature, a challenge has appeared.  you can sucumb to that challenge or you can seek to rise above it.  emotions like fear come and go throughout your life.  they are only emotions, not facts.  whilst emotions can be useful, they can also be misleading.  you have a perfectly good brain to tell you the difference, so listen to it.   #  jesus died at age 0 while being ridiculed, so hey.  christianity is not the caricature that opponents of christianity paint it to be.   #  get a copy of meditations by marcus aurelius and read it often.  you will probably be ridiculed for being a christian in the first place.  but not by me.  jesus died at age 0 while being ridiculed, so hey.  christianity is not the caricature that opponents of christianity paint it to be.  it is likely that most christians fail to understand it fully.  inside christianity, the focus on the afterlife is unhealthy.  in a nutshell, you will certainly die, and you certainly do not have any control over eternity.  what you do have control over is how you live your life, how you treat others, etc.  focus on what is within your control, live an honorable life, and let eternity take care of itself.  and look on the bright side at least you have something fitting to concern yourself with.  elsewhere in this forum people are struggling to determine whether or not it is immoral to have sex with animals.   #  the logic goes you wo not mind after you die, either.   #  i am a bit confused.  are you afraid of an eternal afterlife, e. g.  heaven, or eternal non existence ? if the latter, you are obviously not alone.  many arguments can be given to assuage fear of eternity, like the fact you were non existent for billions of years up to the moment you were born and did not seem to mind.  the logic goes you wo not mind after you die, either.  the difference is that you have had a taste of existence now and giving it up is not easy.  this argument does not make me feel any better.  the argument i would make is that permanent and eternal death  is not  uncommon at all, contrary to your point.  it is around us all the time and is part of the natural cycle of life.  birth, death, and rebirth create cyclical changes in society, culture, commerce and invention.  new generations with fresh perspectives are needed in order for humanity to progress.  this means older generations need to die off so they no longer have their hands on the levers of power.  it also lends value to life.  if we know it is going to end, we are driven to spend it achieving something that makes our time on earth valuable.  this not only helps us, but helps our families, our communities, and the world at large in a small way, at least .  immortality would just lead to entropy.  you have no choice about moving forward into death, but you do have a choice in how you spend that time.  that is where you need to derive your meaning.  if you do it through your faith, that works, too.   #  are your healthy days less valuable now that you are not vulnerable to polio, smallpox, tuberculosis, or the black plague ?  # if you really believe that, why do not you let someone shoot you right now ? those precious few seconds before they pull the trigger should be so valuable.  why not somehow get rid of all the water we have got sloshing around on our beautiful blue ball, to make the remaining water more valuable ? to put it more clearly, even if you think that infinite life is not a good thing, what finite amount of life is best ? does it just so happen to be the expected lifespan at birth that the first world enjoyed on the day you were born ? what about all the people who lived in times where lifespans were shorter ? what about all the people who have yet to live when lifespans will be longer ? does decreasing infant mortality really devalue the lives of all of us who survive our first five years ? are your healthy days less valuable now that you are not vulnerable to polio, smallpox, tuberculosis, or the black plague ? would you willingly de vaccinate yourself if such a thing existed to get back all the scarcity of healthy years ? and finally. do you really think someone who lived in a universe of immortals would willingly de immortalize themselves for the benefits that you think mortality gives us ?  #  we tend to waste things that are perceived to be in abundance.   #  we tend to waste things that are perceived to be in abundance.  and.  an anecdote applicable to the theist is comment above; i work with two fundamentalist christians.  they regularly make it clear that this life is just temporary, merely something to  get through  until they pass on to their reward in the afterlife.  both are great family men and have comfortable lives.  but at least one often appears miserable and seems eager for death.  i once greeted him with  any day above the dirt is a good day.   and he responded with  or below it.   creepy.  i get the feeling that because of his view of the afterlife, he does not know the precious thing he has right now.
loss of palestinian land 0 0 shown here by clicking this line URL israel have been slowly grabbing land and making people in the military guarded ghettos as miserable as possible.  harassing and shooting their kids etc all the time.  they have been quite successful in demonizing their opponents.  most americans think palestinians have deserved their hell, that they are evil despire israel invading their land like cancer since 0 and then desensitized to whole situation.  a good job by israeli propaganda.  pretty similar situation, like population of us would be forced to retreat to an area size of a florida.  israel has been continually attacking their neighbours for more land or cause a weakening mayhem upon them; lebanon, syria, iraq soon iran.  israel have been successful making us they dominate us media, finance, industrial military aspects fight its wars against its opponents, iraq for example.  despite this, people in us think 0/0 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by israeli led us.  despite all this, this long going historical feud between israel and its neighbours seem endless, and population of israel seem small compared to it adversaries.  this ensuring almost perpetual war generating situation in the region.  i think we in the west should not support israels goals, but take control of the situation like a stern and firm father, slap both parties, make them make up and go for two state solution with clearly defined borders and rules to live like a good neighbours do.   #  they have been quite successful in demonizing their opponents.   #  most americans think palestinians have deserved their hell, that they are evil despire israel invading their land like cancer since 0.  .   # most americans think palestinians have deserved their hell, that they are evil despire israel invading their land like cancer since 0.  .  i would argue that a large number of americans now have begun demonising israel, rather than palestine.  the arab israeli war began because of arab aggression.  the six day war began because of arab aggression.  the yom kippur war was a surprise attack on israel, begun due to arab aggression.  i do not believe you have any evidence for this.  the usa has supported israel because they believe israel is a stable democracy in an otherwise unstable authoritarian region, and by and large, it is.  they have not fought israel is wars for them, and iraq was most certainly not israel is war.  there are, first off, a number of issues with the 0 state solution.  that was the aim of the peace conference at the camp david summit in 0, and guess who declined it ? yasser arafat, the palestinian authority.  if you claim a two state system is a possibility, you need to level your blame equally, if not more so, on the refusal of palestinians to accept a two state solution.  beyond this, america is not the stern father in this circumstance, you are discussing sovereign nations.   #  i would like to point out that the iraq war was in no way a war for israel.   #  i would like to point out that the iraq war was in no way a war for israel.  they did not even join the coalition with the us.  iran is and was a much scarier enemy for israel.  a strong iraq was a good counterbalance to iran from israel is perspective.  a weak, destabilized iraq has resulted in iran becoming the unchallenged power in the region among those not allied with the us.  why would israel want that ?  #  equally, arabs do not want a two state solution because they want it all.   #  equally, arabs do not want a two state solution because they want it all.  unlike israel, arabs made multiple statements about pushing jews into the sea, and have actually tried to do so.  anyway the best argument against your position is this: if jews truly wanted  it all  they could have genocided/expelled all arabs from the occupied territories at multiple occasions: say in aftermath of 0 day war or yom kippur war.  because of the fog of war the international community would only offer minor rebukes, by now it would be ancient history, like the turkish genocide of armenians.  yet, israel chose not to do so.  that goes against your premise.  tl:dnr if israel wanted it all, they would have had it all by now.   #  i like how moving the conversation to the fact that you did not kill /u/starfirex when you took over their house diverts attention from the fact that you took over their house.   #  i like how moving the conversation to the fact that you did not kill /u/starfirex when you took over their house diverts attention from the fact that you took over their house.  and that the neighbors only view the situation of you taking over the house as a problem once /u/starfirex starts  whining , which is because you were so merciful as to not kill them.  when you took over their house.  and never mind the fact that you did break a few limbs and rough them up a bit when you came.  because /u/starfirex did not happily move out of the house and into a shed out back.  e: inb0 this used to be your house gangsters terrorized the neighborhood you lived in before returning.  the gangsters are gone, but out of fear of them returning the homeowner is association decided you could have your old house back for free.   #  when you take the beliefs of both groups not religious, but the whole  who deserves the land  debate you will see that the palestinians have a right to defend their country.   #  firstly i would like to see a source that is not an israeli news site.  the truth is that all of palestine is being taken, the palestinians are being forced to live in unfavorable areas, palestinian land is being destroyed, and israel and all the parties involved have a motive to take palestine and give it to the israelis.  although this does not technically classify as a genocide, its still unacceptable.  when you see scenes like this URL or this URL or images of the gaza strip border, its hard to justify any isreali motives.  when you take the beliefs of both groups not religious, but the whole  who deserves the land  debate you will see that the palestinians have a right to defend their country.  besides, the palestineans have agreed to a form of 0 state solution, but the isrealis denied it because they want all of a land that does not belong to them
loss of palestinian land 0 0 shown here by clicking this line URL israel have been slowly grabbing land and making people in the military guarded ghettos as miserable as possible.  harassing and shooting their kids etc all the time.  they have been quite successful in demonizing their opponents.  most americans think palestinians have deserved their hell, that they are evil despire israel invading their land like cancer since 0 and then desensitized to whole situation.  a good job by israeli propaganda.  pretty similar situation, like population of us would be forced to retreat to an area size of a florida.  israel has been continually attacking their neighbours for more land or cause a weakening mayhem upon them; lebanon, syria, iraq soon iran.  israel have been successful making us they dominate us media, finance, industrial military aspects fight its wars against its opponents, iraq for example.  despite this, people in us think 0/0 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by israeli led us.  despite all this, this long going historical feud between israel and its neighbours seem endless, and population of israel seem small compared to it adversaries.  this ensuring almost perpetual war generating situation in the region.  i think we in the west should not support israels goals, but take control of the situation like a stern and firm father, slap both parties, make them make up and go for two state solution with clearly defined borders and rules to live like a good neighbours do.   #  israel has been continually attacking their neighbours for more land or cause a weakening mayhem upon them; lebanon, syria, iraq soon iran.   #  actually the opposite is true, but i doubt you understand.   # evidence ? actually the opposite is true, but i doubt you understand.  despite this, people in us think 0/0 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by israeli led us.  evidence ? i think you should concentrate on forming a legible sentence 0st.  your post was almost unreadable, and makes your view sound extra silly.  this ensuring almost perpetual war generating situation in the region.  huh ? have you ever heard of proof reading ? good  neighbors  do not fire rockets on civilian targets.   #  iran is and was a much scarier enemy for israel.   #  i would like to point out that the iraq war was in no way a war for israel.  they did not even join the coalition with the us.  iran is and was a much scarier enemy for israel.  a strong iraq was a good counterbalance to iran from israel is perspective.  a weak, destabilized iraq has resulted in iran becoming the unchallenged power in the region among those not allied with the us.  why would israel want that ?  #  because of the fog of war the international community would only offer minor rebukes, by now it would be ancient history, like the turkish genocide of armenians.   #  equally, arabs do not want a two state solution because they want it all.  unlike israel, arabs made multiple statements about pushing jews into the sea, and have actually tried to do so.  anyway the best argument against your position is this: if jews truly wanted  it all  they could have genocided/expelled all arabs from the occupied territories at multiple occasions: say in aftermath of 0 day war or yom kippur war.  because of the fog of war the international community would only offer minor rebukes, by now it would be ancient history, like the turkish genocide of armenians.  yet, israel chose not to do so.  that goes against your premise.  tl:dnr if israel wanted it all, they would have had it all by now.   #  the gangsters are gone, but out of fear of them returning the homeowner is association decided you could have your old house back for free.   #  i like how moving the conversation to the fact that you did not kill /u/starfirex when you took over their house diverts attention from the fact that you took over their house.  and that the neighbors only view the situation of you taking over the house as a problem once /u/starfirex starts  whining , which is because you were so merciful as to not kill them.  when you took over their house.  and never mind the fact that you did break a few limbs and rough them up a bit when you came.  because /u/starfirex did not happily move out of the house and into a shed out back.  e: inb0 this used to be your house gangsters terrorized the neighborhood you lived in before returning.  the gangsters are gone, but out of fear of them returning the homeowner is association decided you could have your old house back for free.   #  although this does not technically classify as a genocide, its still unacceptable.   #  firstly i would like to see a source that is not an israeli news site.  the truth is that all of palestine is being taken, the palestinians are being forced to live in unfavorable areas, palestinian land is being destroyed, and israel and all the parties involved have a motive to take palestine and give it to the israelis.  although this does not technically classify as a genocide, its still unacceptable.  when you see scenes like this URL or this URL or images of the gaza strip border, its hard to justify any isreali motives.  when you take the beliefs of both groups not religious, but the whole  who deserves the land  debate you will see that the palestinians have a right to defend their country.  besides, the palestineans have agreed to a form of 0 state solution, but the isrealis denied it because they want all of a land that does not belong to them
loss of palestinian land 0 0 shown here by clicking this line URL israel have been slowly grabbing land and making people in the military guarded ghettos as miserable as possible.  harassing and shooting their kids etc all the time.  they have been quite successful in demonizing their opponents.  most americans think palestinians have deserved their hell, that they are evil despire israel invading their land like cancer since 0 and then desensitized to whole situation.  a good job by israeli propaganda.  pretty similar situation, like population of us would be forced to retreat to an area size of a florida.  israel has been continually attacking their neighbours for more land or cause a weakening mayhem upon them; lebanon, syria, iraq soon iran.  israel have been successful making us they dominate us media, finance, industrial military aspects fight its wars against its opponents, iraq for example.  despite this, people in us think 0/0 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by israeli led us.  despite all this, this long going historical feud between israel and its neighbours seem endless, and population of israel seem small compared to it adversaries.  this ensuring almost perpetual war generating situation in the region.  i think we in the west should not support israels goals, but take control of the situation like a stern and firm father, slap both parties, make them make up and go for two state solution with clearly defined borders and rules to live like a good neighbours do.   #  israel have been successful making us they dominate us media, finance, industrial military aspects fight its wars against its opponents, iraq for example.   #  despite this, people in us think 0/0 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by israeli led us.   # evidence ? actually the opposite is true, but i doubt you understand.  despite this, people in us think 0/0 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by israeli led us.  evidence ? i think you should concentrate on forming a legible sentence 0st.  your post was almost unreadable, and makes your view sound extra silly.  this ensuring almost perpetual war generating situation in the region.  huh ? have you ever heard of proof reading ? good  neighbors  do not fire rockets on civilian targets.   #  a strong iraq was a good counterbalance to iran from israel is perspective.   #  i would like to point out that the iraq war was in no way a war for israel.  they did not even join the coalition with the us.  iran is and was a much scarier enemy for israel.  a strong iraq was a good counterbalance to iran from israel is perspective.  a weak, destabilized iraq has resulted in iran becoming the unchallenged power in the region among those not allied with the us.  why would israel want that ?  #  equally, arabs do not want a two state solution because they want it all.   #  equally, arabs do not want a two state solution because they want it all.  unlike israel, arabs made multiple statements about pushing jews into the sea, and have actually tried to do so.  anyway the best argument against your position is this: if jews truly wanted  it all  they could have genocided/expelled all arabs from the occupied territories at multiple occasions: say in aftermath of 0 day war or yom kippur war.  because of the fog of war the international community would only offer minor rebukes, by now it would be ancient history, like the turkish genocide of armenians.  yet, israel chose not to do so.  that goes against your premise.  tl:dnr if israel wanted it all, they would have had it all by now.   #  and never mind the fact that you did break a few limbs and rough them up a bit when you came.   #  i like how moving the conversation to the fact that you did not kill /u/starfirex when you took over their house diverts attention from the fact that you took over their house.  and that the neighbors only view the situation of you taking over the house as a problem once /u/starfirex starts  whining , which is because you were so merciful as to not kill them.  when you took over their house.  and never mind the fact that you did break a few limbs and rough them up a bit when you came.  because /u/starfirex did not happily move out of the house and into a shed out back.  e: inb0 this used to be your house gangsters terrorized the neighborhood you lived in before returning.  the gangsters are gone, but out of fear of them returning the homeowner is association decided you could have your old house back for free.   #  besides, the palestineans have agreed to a form of 0 state solution, but the isrealis denied it because they want all of a land that does not belong to them  #  firstly i would like to see a source that is not an israeli news site.  the truth is that all of palestine is being taken, the palestinians are being forced to live in unfavorable areas, palestinian land is being destroyed, and israel and all the parties involved have a motive to take palestine and give it to the israelis.  although this does not technically classify as a genocide, its still unacceptable.  when you see scenes like this URL or this URL or images of the gaza strip border, its hard to justify any isreali motives.  when you take the beliefs of both groups not religious, but the whole  who deserves the land  debate you will see that the palestinians have a right to defend their country.  besides, the palestineans have agreed to a form of 0 state solution, but the isrealis denied it because they want all of a land that does not belong to them
loss of palestinian land 0 0 shown here by clicking this line URL israel have been slowly grabbing land and making people in the military guarded ghettos as miserable as possible.  harassing and shooting their kids etc all the time.  they have been quite successful in demonizing their opponents.  most americans think palestinians have deserved their hell, that they are evil despire israel invading their land like cancer since 0 and then desensitized to whole situation.  a good job by israeli propaganda.  pretty similar situation, like population of us would be forced to retreat to an area size of a florida.  israel has been continually attacking their neighbours for more land or cause a weakening mayhem upon them; lebanon, syria, iraq soon iran.  israel have been successful making us they dominate us media, finance, industrial military aspects fight its wars against its opponents, iraq for example.  despite this, people in us think 0/0 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by israeli led us.  despite all this, this long going historical feud between israel and its neighbours seem endless, and population of israel seem small compared to it adversaries.  this ensuring almost perpetual war generating situation in the region.  i think we in the west should not support israels goals, but take control of the situation like a stern and firm father, slap both parties, make them make up and go for two state solution with clearly defined borders and rules to live like a good neighbours do.   #  despite all this, this long going historical feud between israel and its neighbours seem endless, and population of israel seem small compared to it adversaries.   #  this ensuring almost perpetual war generating situation in the region.   # evidence ? actually the opposite is true, but i doubt you understand.  despite this, people in us think 0/0 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by israeli led us.  evidence ? i think you should concentrate on forming a legible sentence 0st.  your post was almost unreadable, and makes your view sound extra silly.  this ensuring almost perpetual war generating situation in the region.  huh ? have you ever heard of proof reading ? good  neighbors  do not fire rockets on civilian targets.   #  a strong iraq was a good counterbalance to iran from israel is perspective.   #  i would like to point out that the iraq war was in no way a war for israel.  they did not even join the coalition with the us.  iran is and was a much scarier enemy for israel.  a strong iraq was a good counterbalance to iran from israel is perspective.  a weak, destabilized iraq has resulted in iran becoming the unchallenged power in the region among those not allied with the us.  why would israel want that ?  #  anyway the best argument against your position is this: if jews truly wanted  it all  they could have genocided/expelled all arabs from the occupied territories at multiple occasions: say in aftermath of 0 day war or yom kippur war.   #  equally, arabs do not want a two state solution because they want it all.  unlike israel, arabs made multiple statements about pushing jews into the sea, and have actually tried to do so.  anyway the best argument against your position is this: if jews truly wanted  it all  they could have genocided/expelled all arabs from the occupied territories at multiple occasions: say in aftermath of 0 day war or yom kippur war.  because of the fog of war the international community would only offer minor rebukes, by now it would be ancient history, like the turkish genocide of armenians.  yet, israel chose not to do so.  that goes against your premise.  tl:dnr if israel wanted it all, they would have had it all by now.   #  the gangsters are gone, but out of fear of them returning the homeowner is association decided you could have your old house back for free.   #  i like how moving the conversation to the fact that you did not kill /u/starfirex when you took over their house diverts attention from the fact that you took over their house.  and that the neighbors only view the situation of you taking over the house as a problem once /u/starfirex starts  whining , which is because you were so merciful as to not kill them.  when you took over their house.  and never mind the fact that you did break a few limbs and rough them up a bit when you came.  because /u/starfirex did not happily move out of the house and into a shed out back.  e: inb0 this used to be your house gangsters terrorized the neighborhood you lived in before returning.  the gangsters are gone, but out of fear of them returning the homeowner is association decided you could have your old house back for free.   #  although this does not technically classify as a genocide, its still unacceptable.   #  firstly i would like to see a source that is not an israeli news site.  the truth is that all of palestine is being taken, the palestinians are being forced to live in unfavorable areas, palestinian land is being destroyed, and israel and all the parties involved have a motive to take palestine and give it to the israelis.  although this does not technically classify as a genocide, its still unacceptable.  when you see scenes like this URL or this URL or images of the gaza strip border, its hard to justify any isreali motives.  when you take the beliefs of both groups not religious, but the whole  who deserves the land  debate you will see that the palestinians have a right to defend their country.  besides, the palestineans have agreed to a form of 0 state solution, but the isrealis denied it because they want all of a land that does not belong to them
loss of palestinian land 0 0 shown here by clicking this line URL israel have been slowly grabbing land and making people in the military guarded ghettos as miserable as possible.  harassing and shooting their kids etc all the time.  they have been quite successful in demonizing their opponents.  most americans think palestinians have deserved their hell, that they are evil despire israel invading their land like cancer since 0 and then desensitized to whole situation.  a good job by israeli propaganda.  pretty similar situation, like population of us would be forced to retreat to an area size of a florida.  israel has been continually attacking their neighbours for more land or cause a weakening mayhem upon them; lebanon, syria, iraq soon iran.  israel have been successful making us they dominate us media, finance, industrial military aspects fight its wars against its opponents, iraq for example.  despite this, people in us think 0/0 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by israeli led us.  despite all this, this long going historical feud between israel and its neighbours seem endless, and population of israel seem small compared to it adversaries.  this ensuring almost perpetual war generating situation in the region.  i think we in the west should not support israels goals, but take control of the situation like a stern and firm father, slap both parties, make them make up and go for two state solution with clearly defined borders and rules to live like a good neighbours do.   #  make them make up and go for two state solution with clearly defined borders and rules to live like a good neighbours do.   #  good  neighbors  do not fire rockets on civilian targets.   # evidence ? actually the opposite is true, but i doubt you understand.  despite this, people in us think 0/0 was totally unfounded terrorist attack without any provocation by israeli led us.  evidence ? i think you should concentrate on forming a legible sentence 0st.  your post was almost unreadable, and makes your view sound extra silly.  this ensuring almost perpetual war generating situation in the region.  huh ? have you ever heard of proof reading ? good  neighbors  do not fire rockets on civilian targets.   #  they did not even join the coalition with the us.   #  i would like to point out that the iraq war was in no way a war for israel.  they did not even join the coalition with the us.  iran is and was a much scarier enemy for israel.  a strong iraq was a good counterbalance to iran from israel is perspective.  a weak, destabilized iraq has resulted in iran becoming the unchallenged power in the region among those not allied with the us.  why would israel want that ?  #  unlike israel, arabs made multiple statements about pushing jews into the sea, and have actually tried to do so.   #  equally, arabs do not want a two state solution because they want it all.  unlike israel, arabs made multiple statements about pushing jews into the sea, and have actually tried to do so.  anyway the best argument against your position is this: if jews truly wanted  it all  they could have genocided/expelled all arabs from the occupied territories at multiple occasions: say in aftermath of 0 day war or yom kippur war.  because of the fog of war the international community would only offer minor rebukes, by now it would be ancient history, like the turkish genocide of armenians.  yet, israel chose not to do so.  that goes against your premise.  tl:dnr if israel wanted it all, they would have had it all by now.   #  i like how moving the conversation to the fact that you did not kill /u/starfirex when you took over their house diverts attention from the fact that you took over their house.   #  i like how moving the conversation to the fact that you did not kill /u/starfirex when you took over their house diverts attention from the fact that you took over their house.  and that the neighbors only view the situation of you taking over the house as a problem once /u/starfirex starts  whining , which is because you were so merciful as to not kill them.  when you took over their house.  and never mind the fact that you did break a few limbs and rough them up a bit when you came.  because /u/starfirex did not happily move out of the house and into a shed out back.  e: inb0 this used to be your house gangsters terrorized the neighborhood you lived in before returning.  the gangsters are gone, but out of fear of them returning the homeowner is association decided you could have your old house back for free.   #  although this does not technically classify as a genocide, its still unacceptable.   #  firstly i would like to see a source that is not an israeli news site.  the truth is that all of palestine is being taken, the palestinians are being forced to live in unfavorable areas, palestinian land is being destroyed, and israel and all the parties involved have a motive to take palestine and give it to the israelis.  although this does not technically classify as a genocide, its still unacceptable.  when you see scenes like this URL or this URL or images of the gaza strip border, its hard to justify any isreali motives.  when you take the beliefs of both groups not religious, but the whole  who deserves the land  debate you will see that the palestinians have a right to defend their country.  besides, the palestineans have agreed to a form of 0 state solution, but the isrealis denied it because they want all of a land that does not belong to them
we do not value an animal is consent.  we constantly go against their clear non consent.  we test on them, we kill them for food, and we even sexually assault them for human benefit.  the artificial insemination of dairy cows would be considered rape if the intent were any different.  but animals do not care about intent; there is no medical necessity to impregnating a cow, and it is not in their best interests like in the case of say.  a cow needing her vagina examined for unusual bleeding or discharge.  developed countries prefer animal welfare over animal rights.  so what then is wrong with bestiality provided we keep the animal in no or little pain, take measures to reduce stress, and provide them with exceptional care ? why does an animal is consent suddenly matter despite the fact we violate their consent for our own benefit all the time ? the only way the consent argument can be strong is if you are arguing from the standpoint we should not exploit animals period.   #  the only way the consent argument can be strong is if you are arguing from the standpoint we should not exploit animals period.   #  there are shades of grey that you are not acknowledging here though.   # there are shades of grey that you are not acknowledging here though.  for example if we are talking about using a mouse for cancer research then there are a lot of people that benefit from that, and many animals could potentially benefit from it too people would love to be able to cure cancer in their pets for example .  on the flip side if you are talking about someone fucking a sheep well that really only benefits that one guy.  another example is that we need to eat to live, and i am not so sure that it would be logistically feasible to feed 0 billion humans without at least some of them eating meat.  you do not need to fuck a sheep to survive or to cure cancer, people just do it to get their rocks off and they could just as easily go beat off.  to bring it back to your point about caring for animals, yes you might need to examine a cow is vagina to provide proper medical care and there is obviously no consent there, which is fine because you are taking care of the cow is health.  the same cannot be said for fucking a cow, that has nothing to do with the cow is health and is completely unnecessary so your argument does not really apply there.  just because we ca not get consent from animals for all the things we use them for and do to them does not mean we should just consider it acceptable to do whatever we want to them.  it comes back to the golden rule; treat them as you would like to be treated if you were in their shoes.  imagine that you had brain damage and essentially had the mental capacity of a sheep, would you want your nurse to just come in and fuck you anytime they wanted or would you prefer that they did not do that ? using animals for research and food without their consent is a complex issue and ethical quandary that involves weighing the harm caused versus the potential to mitigate harm in the future.  using animals as sex toys without their consent is a simple issue of one person using an animal for self gratification that provides no benefit to anyone else and potentially harms the animal.  in the case of the former there are arguments to be made that we can ethically ignore the lack of consent, in the latter not so much.   #  people have always hunted and killed animals; there are millions of hunters alive today.   #  apply the same argument to killing animals.  it goes something like this:  the desire to kill is a strange and mystical thing.  once a hunter has killed a goose or a deer, it may only whet his appetite to kill more.  his next victim may be a human.  thus we should ban the killing of animals, not because we care about the welfare of animals, but because we do not want a person starting down a path which may end with killing humans.   obviously it is a silly argument.  people have always hunted and killed animals; there are millions of hunters alive today.  most of them have not and never will kill a human.  since the argument does not work for killing, what basis is there for claiming it holds up for sex ? how do you distinguish the desire for killing from the desire for sex ?  #  much of what is discussed in cmv can be reduced to debates about morality.   # i very much disagree with this assessment.  much of what is discussed in cmv can be reduced to debates about morality.  all moralities must have some arbitrary basis of axioms.  an example could be  all humans are of equal importance  which leads to morals such as  slavery is wrong  and  murder is wrong .  by definition the arbitrary axioms cannot be chosen by logic but simply must just be chosen.  neither have i.  i would say that the law against bestiality is consistent with our laws against animal cruelty.  people are not allowed to torture animals.  if rape of animals was allowed it would be highly inconsistent with other laws.  on a more subjective level i and many other people find the idea perverse which is likely the real reason for the law as /u/snipawolf suggested.   #  i think our laws are highly inconsistent, especially because beastiality does not necessarily entail cruelty or torture.   # an example could be  all humans are of equal importance  which leads to morals such as  slavery is wrong  and  murder is wrong .  by definition the arbitrary axioms cannot be chosen by logic but simply must just be chosen.  that is not necessarily true, kant conceived a logical system of morality in the categorical imperative.  but you are quite right that most cmv posts comments derive certain opinions from axioms almost everyone can agree on.  the problem with the attempts to change ops opinion is not that they fail to introduce a purely logical explanation for the support of anti beastiality laws but that they fail to derive an acceptable argument from ethical axioms everyone can agree on.  people are not allowed to torture animals.  if rape of animals was allowed it would be highly inconsistent with other laws.  do not we allow animal cruelty for our own pleasure of meat consumption or the pleasure of keeping a pet when we imprison animals and force them to live in unnatural and inhumane circumstances and kill them ? what is the difference of having sex with them for our own pleasure to killing an animal for the pleasure of meat consumption ? i think our laws are highly inconsistent, especially because beastiality does not necessarily entail cruelty or torture.   #  for that reason i think this discussion is over.   # even kant is categorical imperatives are still based on the axiom that universal application of an action ought not to result in a contradiction of the intent of that action.  unnatural and inhumane have arbitrary definitions.  farms are legally required to slaughter in a way which is deemed to be humane by law.  sexual contact with an animal is deemed not to be humane by law.  an arbitrary line has been drawn.  this is the difference between the two.  i do not think that implies an inconsistency.  unfortunately i do not think a better answer is available than that and i predict that this will be wholly unsatisfactory to you.  for that reason i think this discussion is over.
i believe that we need to get rid of guns entirely in the usa and the world, but i will focus on the us because that is my location .  i think that the second amendment has been misinterpreted to allow anyone outside of a  well regulated militia  to own a firearm, so that anyone anywhere in the country is allowed to have one.  i believe that we need to repeal the second amendment and forcibly confiscate and destroy all firearms in american households.  we should be allowed an opportunity to turn them in voluntarily first, of course.  but the only way to end gun violence is to treat guns the way we currently treat marijuana another issue entirely : search and destroy.  when i discuss guns with pro gun people, they tell me that guns are a tool like knives or cars which all happen to be deadly.  and they are right, guns are a tool.  they are a tool designed specifically for killing, unlike the other two.  knives and cars have other uses despite being deadly; guns do not.  the sole purpose is to kill or seriously injure an animal or worse, a person.  guns also allow for the kind of mass violence that we have seen repeatedly in mass shootings.  the number of victims in mass attacks by a lone perpetrator would be orders of magnitude lower if they attacker used almost any other weapon besides a gun.  no other weapon allows for such quick attacks from a distance on multiple targets except for bombs.  and i am not convinced by the self defense argument.  it is true that guns can defend through intimidation, deterring potential attackers.  there is also the occasional case of a successful self defense shooting.  but guns are not defensive against other guns.  if someone pulls a gun on you, pulling your gun is not going to defend anyone.  it is going to start a gunfight.  the only way to end gun violence is to get rid of guns, by force if necessary and ironic .  change my view.   #  there is also the occasional case of a successful self defense shooting.   #  but guns are not defensive against other guns.   # according to cornell is law library URL the definition of a militia in the us is: a the militia of the united states consists of all able bodied males at least 0 years of age and, except as provided in section 0 of title 0, under 0 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the united states and of female citizens of the united states who are members of the national guard.  b the classes of the militia are  0 the organized militia, which consists of the national guard and the naval militia; and 0 the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the national guard or the naval militia.  the definition of  well regulated  at the time that amendment was written is explained at this resource with examples URL as  functioning within expected parameters.   therefore, a  well regulated militia  is a militia that is performing its function ie: being a defensive force for the homeland of the country  they are a tool designed specifically for killing, unlike the other two.  knives and cars have other uses despite being deadly; guns do not.  the sole purpose is to kill or seriously injure an animal or worse, a person.  a gun allows for the proper escalation of force with less risk to the user.  imagine a home invader armed with a knife.  the homeowner has no gun, and has to fight knife with knife.  the criminal has the upper hand.  with a gun, even if the invader has a gun, the playing field is equalized.  but guns are not defensive against other guns.  if someone pulls a gun on you, pulling your gun is not going to defend anyone.  it is going to start a gunfight.  which would you rather have, a gunfight or a mass shooting ? in a gunfight, at least the defenders have a chance at defending themselves.  and even the lowest estimates i have seen for self defense uses of guns have outpaced the murder rate by a factor of 0.  we should be allowed an opportunity to turn them in voluntarily first, of course.  but the only way to end gun violence is to treat guns the way we currently treat marijuana another issue entirely : search and destroy.  this is the rub: if they decided to do this, two problems would arise: one, me and people like me would confront their force with force.  i would die, and i know this, but i would take as many with me as possible.  so would thousands of others.  second, this sets a dangerous precedent.  the bill of rights are all fairly sacred.  if the government is allowed to mobilize the army against the population for this right, what other rights will they go after once this one has been taken ? do not just say that the current administration or whoever wo not abuse the power.  a you do not know that, b this sets precedent for the opposition as well.  so think about the monopoly of force you would be giving this government who has been engaging in global espionage and the system which has, over the last 0 years, been quietly and slowly taking away freedoms via the patriot act and aforementioned prism.  a system that oppresses minorities as a matter of rote, and where police are often on a power trip  even when a good majority of the populace is armed ; guns really do not cause crime.  the old bumper sticker slogan goes  in 0, any englishman could carry a firearm, yet crime was so rare that bobbies rarely carried a gun.  now the uk is disarmed, yet violent crime is so common that the police carry submachine guns.   and that is the naivete at play, that a disarmed populace means less violent crime.  it instead allows the people who have nothing better to do than practice their fighting skills and violent use of non gun weapons ie: criminals to overpower the law abiding citizens, unless the police happens to be around and care.   #  there is nothing you can do to 0 protect the population.   #  in the end this is all moot point.  all these cases are clearly highly isolated.  there is nothing you can do to 0 protect the population.  there will always be someway to kill alot of people.  i have always believed that specific cases of violence mean very little just like a single experimental result means nothing.  if it ca not be reproduced, then no one  should  care.   #  death at the hands of someone else is still dead.   #  well i never said the purpose of guns was to commit crimes.  i said it was to kill.  and you seem to agree with that.  i personally feel like murder and self defense killing are indistinguishable.  death at the hands of someone else is still dead.  the person that you killed in self defense may not have been trying to kill you, but you ended up killing them the case of robbery for instance.  i do not think that is a good outcome.  it is better for you to be robbed than for someone to end up dead.  property does not equal life.  and obviously the cat is out of the bag and knowledge ca not be erased.  guns will be made and continue to exist.  but we tolerate guns too much.  why do not we tolerate bombs or explosives in the same way ? the same casualty potential is there and you can defend your house with small controlled explosive traps.   #  if you rob someone with a grenade, you are going to be pretty sure he is not going to drop it because the guy is likely going to get hit from it as well.   #  bombs tend to be extremely indiscriminate.  you have a child next to a kidnapper, how many people would prefer to use a bomb to take out the kidnapper vs a gun ? also, this indiscriminate nature makes it hard to use it as a deterrence.  if you rob someone with a grenade, you are going to be pretty sure he is not going to drop it because the guy is likely going to get hit from it as well.  that is not true of a gun.  i agree that property does not equal life.  however, for the most part, you do not actually have to shoot the gun to protect both your property and your life.  flashing a weapon is often times enough to remove the threat to your life/property.   #  other studies have shown that conceal carry laws actually increase crime rates ludwig.   #  as other posters have stated, guns do not perpetrate violence.  even in countries with significantly stricter gun laws, incidence rates of violent crimes are not necessarily lower kates, mauser.  would banning firearms redduce murder and suicide ? .  harvard law press 0 .  furthermore, just because you do not have access to guns does not prevent large scale massacres.  in this link ! URL a man kills 0 people in china with just a knife.  not exactly an order of magnitude lower than most shootings.  with regards to self defense, you are assuming a lot about how dumb people are.  real life is not like a movie where you can grab your gun before you get shot in the face.  in general, if someone pulls a gun on you, you do as much as possible to diffuse the situation.  very few people have death wishes.  just to be clear, i have seen this in action.  i think just as with marijuana, it is very important to look at evidence before any sort of policy is set.  is the left wing stance of extremely strict gun control the way to go ? studies have suggested that at best, gun control legislation of the 0s have little effect levitt.  understanding why crime fell in the 0s: four factors that explain the decline and six that do not.  journal of economic perspectives 0 .  on the other hand, do lax gun laws allow for lower crime ? other studies have shown that conceal carry laws actually increase crime rates ludwig.  concealed guncarrying laws and violent crime: evidence from state panel data.  jcpr working papers 0 .  in the end, the amount of violent crime is much more motivated by other aspects such as poverty, drugs, and mental illness.  perhaps those should be more of a focus than guns themselves.
i believe that we need to get rid of guns entirely in the usa and the world, but i will focus on the us because that is my location .  i think that the second amendment has been misinterpreted to allow anyone outside of a  well regulated militia  to own a firearm, so that anyone anywhere in the country is allowed to have one.  i believe that we need to repeal the second amendment and forcibly confiscate and destroy all firearms in american households.  we should be allowed an opportunity to turn them in voluntarily first, of course.  but the only way to end gun violence is to treat guns the way we currently treat marijuana another issue entirely : search and destroy.  when i discuss guns with pro gun people, they tell me that guns are a tool like knives or cars which all happen to be deadly.  and they are right, guns are a tool.  they are a tool designed specifically for killing, unlike the other two.  knives and cars have other uses despite being deadly; guns do not.  the sole purpose is to kill or seriously injure an animal or worse, a person.  guns also allow for the kind of mass violence that we have seen repeatedly in mass shootings.  the number of victims in mass attacks by a lone perpetrator would be orders of magnitude lower if they attacker used almost any other weapon besides a gun.  no other weapon allows for such quick attacks from a distance on multiple targets except for bombs.  and i am not convinced by the self defense argument.  it is true that guns can defend through intimidation, deterring potential attackers.  there is also the occasional case of a successful self defense shooting.  but guns are not defensive against other guns.  if someone pulls a gun on you, pulling your gun is not going to defend anyone.  it is going to start a gunfight.  the only way to end gun violence is to get rid of guns, by force if necessary and ironic .  change my view.   #  i believe that we need to repeal the second amendment and forcibly confiscate and destroy all firearms in american households.   #  we should be allowed an opportunity to turn them in voluntarily first, of course.   # according to cornell is law library URL the definition of a militia in the us is: a the militia of the united states consists of all able bodied males at least 0 years of age and, except as provided in section 0 of title 0, under 0 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the united states and of female citizens of the united states who are members of the national guard.  b the classes of the militia are  0 the organized militia, which consists of the national guard and the naval militia; and 0 the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the national guard or the naval militia.  the definition of  well regulated  at the time that amendment was written is explained at this resource with examples URL as  functioning within expected parameters.   therefore, a  well regulated militia  is a militia that is performing its function ie: being a defensive force for the homeland of the country  they are a tool designed specifically for killing, unlike the other two.  knives and cars have other uses despite being deadly; guns do not.  the sole purpose is to kill or seriously injure an animal or worse, a person.  a gun allows for the proper escalation of force with less risk to the user.  imagine a home invader armed with a knife.  the homeowner has no gun, and has to fight knife with knife.  the criminal has the upper hand.  with a gun, even if the invader has a gun, the playing field is equalized.  but guns are not defensive against other guns.  if someone pulls a gun on you, pulling your gun is not going to defend anyone.  it is going to start a gunfight.  which would you rather have, a gunfight or a mass shooting ? in a gunfight, at least the defenders have a chance at defending themselves.  and even the lowest estimates i have seen for self defense uses of guns have outpaced the murder rate by a factor of 0.  we should be allowed an opportunity to turn them in voluntarily first, of course.  but the only way to end gun violence is to treat guns the way we currently treat marijuana another issue entirely : search and destroy.  this is the rub: if they decided to do this, two problems would arise: one, me and people like me would confront their force with force.  i would die, and i know this, but i would take as many with me as possible.  so would thousands of others.  second, this sets a dangerous precedent.  the bill of rights are all fairly sacred.  if the government is allowed to mobilize the army against the population for this right, what other rights will they go after once this one has been taken ? do not just say that the current administration or whoever wo not abuse the power.  a you do not know that, b this sets precedent for the opposition as well.  so think about the monopoly of force you would be giving this government who has been engaging in global espionage and the system which has, over the last 0 years, been quietly and slowly taking away freedoms via the patriot act and aforementioned prism.  a system that oppresses minorities as a matter of rote, and where police are often on a power trip  even when a good majority of the populace is armed ; guns really do not cause crime.  the old bumper sticker slogan goes  in 0, any englishman could carry a firearm, yet crime was so rare that bobbies rarely carried a gun.  now the uk is disarmed, yet violent crime is so common that the police carry submachine guns.   and that is the naivete at play, that a disarmed populace means less violent crime.  it instead allows the people who have nothing better to do than practice their fighting skills and violent use of non gun weapons ie: criminals to overpower the law abiding citizens, unless the police happens to be around and care.   #  there is nothing you can do to 0 protect the population.   #  in the end this is all moot point.  all these cases are clearly highly isolated.  there is nothing you can do to 0 protect the population.  there will always be someway to kill alot of people.  i have always believed that specific cases of violence mean very little just like a single experimental result means nothing.  if it ca not be reproduced, then no one  should  care.   #  the person that you killed in self defense may not have been trying to kill you, but you ended up killing them the case of robbery for instance.   #  well i never said the purpose of guns was to commit crimes.  i said it was to kill.  and you seem to agree with that.  i personally feel like murder and self defense killing are indistinguishable.  death at the hands of someone else is still dead.  the person that you killed in self defense may not have been trying to kill you, but you ended up killing them the case of robbery for instance.  i do not think that is a good outcome.  it is better for you to be robbed than for someone to end up dead.  property does not equal life.  and obviously the cat is out of the bag and knowledge ca not be erased.  guns will be made and continue to exist.  but we tolerate guns too much.  why do not we tolerate bombs or explosives in the same way ? the same casualty potential is there and you can defend your house with small controlled explosive traps.   #  also, this indiscriminate nature makes it hard to use it as a deterrence.   #  bombs tend to be extremely indiscriminate.  you have a child next to a kidnapper, how many people would prefer to use a bomb to take out the kidnapper vs a gun ? also, this indiscriminate nature makes it hard to use it as a deterrence.  if you rob someone with a grenade, you are going to be pretty sure he is not going to drop it because the guy is likely going to get hit from it as well.  that is not true of a gun.  i agree that property does not equal life.  however, for the most part, you do not actually have to shoot the gun to protect both your property and your life.  flashing a weapon is often times enough to remove the threat to your life/property.   #  real life is not like a movie where you can grab your gun before you get shot in the face.   #  as other posters have stated, guns do not perpetrate violence.  even in countries with significantly stricter gun laws, incidence rates of violent crimes are not necessarily lower kates, mauser.  would banning firearms redduce murder and suicide ? .  harvard law press 0 .  furthermore, just because you do not have access to guns does not prevent large scale massacres.  in this link ! URL a man kills 0 people in china with just a knife.  not exactly an order of magnitude lower than most shootings.  with regards to self defense, you are assuming a lot about how dumb people are.  real life is not like a movie where you can grab your gun before you get shot in the face.  in general, if someone pulls a gun on you, you do as much as possible to diffuse the situation.  very few people have death wishes.  just to be clear, i have seen this in action.  i think just as with marijuana, it is very important to look at evidence before any sort of policy is set.  is the left wing stance of extremely strict gun control the way to go ? studies have suggested that at best, gun control legislation of the 0s have little effect levitt.  understanding why crime fell in the 0s: four factors that explain the decline and six that do not.  journal of economic perspectives 0 .  on the other hand, do lax gun laws allow for lower crime ? other studies have shown that conceal carry laws actually increase crime rates ludwig.  concealed guncarrying laws and violent crime: evidence from state panel data.  jcpr working papers 0 .  in the end, the amount of violent crime is much more motivated by other aspects such as poverty, drugs, and mental illness.  perhaps those should be more of a focus than guns themselves.
chivalry, in some way or another, promotes the idea that men are supposed to provide everything for the inferior woman.  chivalry in a modern sense means: paying for all the meals, picking her up from her apartment and driving her back, and offering his chair or seat to a woman that is standing.  while chivalry is flattering for women, it also reinforces the idea that women should get preferred treatment.  i do not think you can have gender equality and chivalry coexist.  do not get me wrong men should respect women at all times anyways, especially pregnant women.  but the expectation that a guy should pay for every date or even most of them is sexist.  obviously women may try to play the chivalry card on a guy that wants to split the meal, but by encouraging chivalry, a woman is either 0 confirming her status as the weaker gender that the stronger male should provide for, 0 confirming the man is status as a weaker gender that should work for her benefit.   #  i do not think you can have gender equality and chivalry coexist.   #  it never has existed, it is a pipe dream.   # it never has existed, it is a pipe dream.  we are sexually dimorphic, there is no such thing as gender equality.  division of labor is something that allowed our species to survive and thrive.  how so ? i am expecting a kiss or some physical contact from a female, is that sexist ? i do not see why it can only be one of those.  girls like it.  she will also do things i like, for instance wear that awesome little red dress, heels, and make up.  it is give and take, i think you are a approaching this wrong.   #  rules in relationships are so skewed in the beginning it is hard to make heads nor tails of our roles.   #  rules in relationships are so skewed in the beginning it is hard to make heads nor tails of our roles.  people fall into societal norms i. e.  buying a girl dinner and bringing her flowers.  i do not expect that but when it happens i recognize the gesture as heartfelt.  i make dinner for my partner because i am a good cook and i know he enjoys it.  i do not feel like i am required to cook because of gender norms.  he is made me dinner before and i was floored at the caring that went into it.  holding open doors is another weird example.  i personally feel everyone should hold open doors for each other.  it is a little societal nod of kindness.  if my husband drives he will sometimes open my car door to let me in which is sweet but not necessary.  i also get my door opened for me after we arrive somewhere, which is usually because i am dressed up and he wants me to know he notices.  couples work out the dance.  if you hold a door open for me i think,  wow what a respectful guy .  kindness and consideration should not be given because of our  gender  roles.  i will split the check with you whenever you like.  when i dated my husband i wanted to pay for things so they were equal because we were two poor college kids.  he did not owe me and i did not owe him.  i think some men are afraid to declare those relationship boundaries and then become bitter because on date 0 they are still footing the financial burden to date.  speak up and if she is someone reasonable then it should all shake out okay.  if you she is using the chivalry card to manipulate the situation to get what she wants, she might need to have alone time to quietly reflect while you move on to someone who respects gender equality.   #  i suck at cooking, and love to be pampered and love to pamper, too .   #  sure it does promote uneven gender relationships for better or for worse, not emitting judgement .  if i pay for all my date is meals it is, by definition, uneven.  however, most actions that fit within  chivalry  do not promote uneven gender relationships if you just do not label them as such, and they fit within a relationship that, as a whole, is fair, or fulfilling, to both parties.  i pay for the meal in the first couple of dates, but frankly that is because i was the one that asked her out most times, so it only feels right to; and then if the date went well, she will probably pay for something next time.  i open up the door for her not because she is incapable, but just to do something nice, make her smile, so i smile too.  i get her flowers if i really like her.  those are traditional male expectations, but gender norms totally aside, i still like those things, so i still can do them.  if a girl opened up the door for me or got me flowers, i would be floored ! way to go girl.  as such, let me offer another example.  i suck at cooking, and love to be pampered and love to pamper, too .  is it chauvinistic and reinforcing of gender roles the times i have been brought breakfast to bed or been made dinner ? i do not think it is, you just need to look at the actions as doing something nice for the other.  final related example, this is like with the advent of feminism, a girl can perfectly not be a housewife.  but maybe she wants to.  that is great for her.  she is not keeping womanhood down by doing things that would be expected of her in a  patriarchy  when she is not living in one any longer.   #  phrasing the example in this way helps: is it chivalry when a man helps another man ?  #  but i think op is concerned with the fact that  chivalry  refers to expectations of a man specifically because he is interacting with a woman, which at the end of the day can be unfair.  for example: a man carries a heavy picture frame down the street.  no men offer their help, and he gets crushed by it/breaks his neck when he trips.  a woman carries a heavy picture frame down the street.  a man offers to help her out of a sense of chivalry.  she does not trip and die under its weight.  phrasing the example in this way helps: is it chivalry when a man helps another man ? i doubt most people would call it thus: that is simply being a good person.  it is also what you guys are describing, doing things for a person you care about.  there is a difference between that and doing things for a person based on their percieved gender/sex, which is what op is describing.   #  is there some other explanation of why this should be done in a purely men doing things for women paradigm that op is referring to ?  # granted.  does that make it not a problem ? think about it: is not this related to  white knight ing  ? at some level, there is the question as to why someone in this case a guy would expend effort for someone else in this case a gal .  under so called  chivalry,  there is no expectation of reciprocation, as in a friendship/partnership women and men ca not  both  be expected to pick up the tab for dinner , so it must be some other reason.  that brings us to either a  you owe me  model, which i would say is pretty clearly toxic, or a  you would be burdened by life without this  sort of misogyny, or possibly both.  is there some other explanation of why this should be done in a purely men doing things for women paradigm that op is referring to ?
chivalry, in some way or another, promotes the idea that men are supposed to provide everything for the inferior woman.  chivalry in a modern sense means: paying for all the meals, picking her up from her apartment and driving her back, and offering his chair or seat to a woman that is standing.  while chivalry is flattering for women, it also reinforces the idea that women should get preferred treatment.  i do not think you can have gender equality and chivalry coexist.  do not get me wrong men should respect women at all times anyways, especially pregnant women.  but the expectation that a guy should pay for every date or even most of them is sexist.  obviously women may try to play the chivalry card on a guy that wants to split the meal, but by encouraging chivalry, a woman is either 0 confirming her status as the weaker gender that the stronger male should provide for, 0 confirming the man is status as a weaker gender that should work for her benefit.   #  a woman is either 0 confirming her status as the weaker gender that the stronger male should provide for, 0 confirming the man is status as a weaker gender that should work for her benefit.   #  i do not see why it can only be one of those.   # it never has existed, it is a pipe dream.  we are sexually dimorphic, there is no such thing as gender equality.  division of labor is something that allowed our species to survive and thrive.  how so ? i am expecting a kiss or some physical contact from a female, is that sexist ? i do not see why it can only be one of those.  girls like it.  she will also do things i like, for instance wear that awesome little red dress, heels, and make up.  it is give and take, i think you are a approaching this wrong.   #  rules in relationships are so skewed in the beginning it is hard to make heads nor tails of our roles.   #  rules in relationships are so skewed in the beginning it is hard to make heads nor tails of our roles.  people fall into societal norms i. e.  buying a girl dinner and bringing her flowers.  i do not expect that but when it happens i recognize the gesture as heartfelt.  i make dinner for my partner because i am a good cook and i know he enjoys it.  i do not feel like i am required to cook because of gender norms.  he is made me dinner before and i was floored at the caring that went into it.  holding open doors is another weird example.  i personally feel everyone should hold open doors for each other.  it is a little societal nod of kindness.  if my husband drives he will sometimes open my car door to let me in which is sweet but not necessary.  i also get my door opened for me after we arrive somewhere, which is usually because i am dressed up and he wants me to know he notices.  couples work out the dance.  if you hold a door open for me i think,  wow what a respectful guy .  kindness and consideration should not be given because of our  gender  roles.  i will split the check with you whenever you like.  when i dated my husband i wanted to pay for things so they were equal because we were two poor college kids.  he did not owe me and i did not owe him.  i think some men are afraid to declare those relationship boundaries and then become bitter because on date 0 they are still footing the financial burden to date.  speak up and if she is someone reasonable then it should all shake out okay.  if you she is using the chivalry card to manipulate the situation to get what she wants, she might need to have alone time to quietly reflect while you move on to someone who respects gender equality.   #  if a girl opened up the door for me or got me flowers, i would be floored !  #  sure it does promote uneven gender relationships for better or for worse, not emitting judgement .  if i pay for all my date is meals it is, by definition, uneven.  however, most actions that fit within  chivalry  do not promote uneven gender relationships if you just do not label them as such, and they fit within a relationship that, as a whole, is fair, or fulfilling, to both parties.  i pay for the meal in the first couple of dates, but frankly that is because i was the one that asked her out most times, so it only feels right to; and then if the date went well, she will probably pay for something next time.  i open up the door for her not because she is incapable, but just to do something nice, make her smile, so i smile too.  i get her flowers if i really like her.  those are traditional male expectations, but gender norms totally aside, i still like those things, so i still can do them.  if a girl opened up the door for me or got me flowers, i would be floored ! way to go girl.  as such, let me offer another example.  i suck at cooking, and love to be pampered and love to pamper, too .  is it chauvinistic and reinforcing of gender roles the times i have been brought breakfast to bed or been made dinner ? i do not think it is, you just need to look at the actions as doing something nice for the other.  final related example, this is like with the advent of feminism, a girl can perfectly not be a housewife.  but maybe she wants to.  that is great for her.  she is not keeping womanhood down by doing things that would be expected of her in a  patriarchy  when she is not living in one any longer.   #  phrasing the example in this way helps: is it chivalry when a man helps another man ?  #  but i think op is concerned with the fact that  chivalry  refers to expectations of a man specifically because he is interacting with a woman, which at the end of the day can be unfair.  for example: a man carries a heavy picture frame down the street.  no men offer their help, and he gets crushed by it/breaks his neck when he trips.  a woman carries a heavy picture frame down the street.  a man offers to help her out of a sense of chivalry.  she does not trip and die under its weight.  phrasing the example in this way helps: is it chivalry when a man helps another man ? i doubt most people would call it thus: that is simply being a good person.  it is also what you guys are describing, doing things for a person you care about.  there is a difference between that and doing things for a person based on their percieved gender/sex, which is what op is describing.   #  under so called  chivalry,  there is no expectation of reciprocation, as in a friendship/partnership women and men ca not  both  be expected to pick up the tab for dinner , so it must be some other reason.   # granted.  does that make it not a problem ? think about it: is not this related to  white knight ing  ? at some level, there is the question as to why someone in this case a guy would expend effort for someone else in this case a gal .  under so called  chivalry,  there is no expectation of reciprocation, as in a friendship/partnership women and men ca not  both  be expected to pick up the tab for dinner , so it must be some other reason.  that brings us to either a  you owe me  model, which i would say is pretty clearly toxic, or a  you would be burdened by life without this  sort of misogyny, or possibly both.  is there some other explanation of why this should be done in a purely men doing things for women paradigm that op is referring to ?
i do not understand the outcry against mark cuban.  he said if he was walking alone at night he would cross to the other side of the street if he saw a black male in his 0s with a hoodie or a white guy with a face tattoo.  that is basic common sense; it is not racism.  if you cross the street based purely on race that would be racist.  if you were scared of a black man in a suit and tie mugging you, you have issues.  however, most muggings are committed by people who look a certain way and it is smart to avoid them.   #  black male in his 0s with a hoodie or a white guy with a face tattoo.   #  he did not mention anything about age.   # he did not mention anything about age.  all he said was  if i see a black kid in a hoodie, and it is late at night, i am walking to the other side of the street.   just listen to his entire conversation again.  its so painfully obvious that after mentioning the black kid, he realized what he said, and kept cool while making sure to specify that the other guy was indeed white.  it went something like this after mentioning the black kid in a hoodie:  .  oh shit and if on that other side of the street there is.  shakes head, thinking of what to say , a guy that has tattoos all over his face.  white guy.  bald head.  tattoos everywhere.  i am walking back to the other side of the street  the entire conversation was cringeworthy and not thought out beforehand, and that is the issue.  when you just ramble about race and prejudices without really thinking what you are saying, you are doing everyone an injustice.  especially when you are in a spot for your voice to be heard.  it all comes back to one basic point for me. if the argument is that this black kid cuban is referring to is scary to him because of the hoodie, then why mention that he was black ? why not just say:  kid in a hoodie  ? the idea of  everyone has prejudices  and the fact that people like cuban think we need to say it is about as fucking pointless as me saying  everyone farts .   #  he did not intended for people to agree with his examples and say he is right because he just looking out for his own safety.   #  you seem to be one of the few people who actually understand what mark cuban was trying to say.  he did not intended for people to agree with his examples and say he is right because he just looking out for his own safety.  he was speaking honestly about prejudices that he know is wrong and is trying to correct.  it seems most people are saying he is right because they agree with his stereotypes, but the are missing his point.  he was not trying to validate the stereotypes, he was trying to discuss them.   #  it does not bother me or offend me that she might be worried that i am a potential rapist.   #  well that is because most muggings in urban areas are committed by minorities between a certain age and who draft a certain way.  it is just common sense, it is not racist in the any kind of unfair or unreasonable way.  he is not saying we should treat them like criminals or deny them due process, he is saying it is smart to take reasonable precautions.  and as a white male in my 0s, when i go running late at night, sometimes i will cross the street so as not to alarm a woman walking alone.  it does not bother me or offend me that she might be worried that i am a potential rapist.   #  i could keep going, but i think my point is clear.   #  lets take it a step further then.  consider these stereotypes.   if i am walking down the street and i see a gay person, i am crossing the street because i do not want to be hit on.    if i am driving and i see an asian person driving, i am taking a different route because i do not want to get into an accident.    if i walk into a store and i see a jewish person working there, i am leaving because i do not want to get ripped off.    if i am walking down the street and i see an arab person, i am crossing the street because i do not want to get blown up.    if i walk into a restaurant and i see asian people working there, i am leaving because i do not want to eat cat.   i could keep going, but i think my point is clear.  these stereotypes are unreasonable, offensive and just wrong.  it is fine to you want to own up to believing these things, but just because others may think the same way does t make it right.  mark cuban admits his prejudices are wrong, but i think most people miss that point.  they think he is justifying their prejudices.  the only thing that is racist about his comments is he equates a black man in a hoodie to a nazi.  the 0 are no where near comparison, but some people do not feel that way.   #  i have only been robbed at gun point once, and it was by a black person.   #  the stereotype is not wrong.  you are more likely to get mugged by a black person between 0 0 than by any other demographic.  if jewish stores were more likely to be rip offs then i would in fact not shop there.  if asian restaurants actually were likely to serve me cat then i would not eat there.  URL in new york 0 of murderers give or take are white and 0 are black, despite there being a lot more white people in the city than black people.  i have only been robbed at gun point once, and it was by a black person.  white people are responsible for roughly 0 of robberies and black people are responsible for roughly 0/0.  that does not make black people inherently inferior.  obviously poverty and sociological factors are the cause.  that does not change the result though that it is smart to avoid young black males in ny at night.
i do not understand the outcry against mark cuban.  he said if he was walking alone at night he would cross to the other side of the street if he saw a black male in his 0s with a hoodie or a white guy with a face tattoo.  that is basic common sense; it is not racism.  if you cross the street based purely on race that would be racist.  if you were scared of a black man in a suit and tie mugging you, you have issues.  however, most muggings are committed by people who look a certain way and it is smart to avoid them.   #  if you cross the street based purely on race that would be racist.   #  if you were scared of a black man in a suit and tie mugging you, you have issues.   # if you were scared of a black man in a suit and tie mugging you, you have issues.  why is this racist ? on average if you see a black person on the street he is more likely to mug you than a white person.  it is just probability.  you may not consider black people  inherently  inferior, but you may consider a random black person on the street more likely to be violent.   #  he did not intended for people to agree with his examples and say he is right because he just looking out for his own safety.   #  you seem to be one of the few people who actually understand what mark cuban was trying to say.  he did not intended for people to agree with his examples and say he is right because he just looking out for his own safety.  he was speaking honestly about prejudices that he know is wrong and is trying to correct.  it seems most people are saying he is right because they agree with his stereotypes, but the are missing his point.  he was not trying to validate the stereotypes, he was trying to discuss them.   #  well that is because most muggings in urban areas are committed by minorities between a certain age and who draft a certain way.   #  well that is because most muggings in urban areas are committed by minorities between a certain age and who draft a certain way.  it is just common sense, it is not racist in the any kind of unfair or unreasonable way.  he is not saying we should treat them like criminals or deny them due process, he is saying it is smart to take reasonable precautions.  and as a white male in my 0s, when i go running late at night, sometimes i will cross the street so as not to alarm a woman walking alone.  it does not bother me or offend me that she might be worried that i am a potential rapist.   #   if i am walking down the street and i see a gay person, i am crossing the street because i do not want to be hit on.    #  lets take it a step further then.  consider these stereotypes.   if i am walking down the street and i see a gay person, i am crossing the street because i do not want to be hit on.    if i am driving and i see an asian person driving, i am taking a different route because i do not want to get into an accident.    if i walk into a store and i see a jewish person working there, i am leaving because i do not want to get ripped off.    if i am walking down the street and i see an arab person, i am crossing the street because i do not want to get blown up.    if i walk into a restaurant and i see asian people working there, i am leaving because i do not want to eat cat.   i could keep going, but i think my point is clear.  these stereotypes are unreasonable, offensive and just wrong.  it is fine to you want to own up to believing these things, but just because others may think the same way does t make it right.  mark cuban admits his prejudices are wrong, but i think most people miss that point.  they think he is justifying their prejudices.  the only thing that is racist about his comments is he equates a black man in a hoodie to a nazi.  the 0 are no where near comparison, but some people do not feel that way.   #  if asian restaurants actually were likely to serve me cat then i would not eat there.   #  the stereotype is not wrong.  you are more likely to get mugged by a black person between 0 0 than by any other demographic.  if jewish stores were more likely to be rip offs then i would in fact not shop there.  if asian restaurants actually were likely to serve me cat then i would not eat there.  URL in new york 0 of murderers give or take are white and 0 are black, despite there being a lot more white people in the city than black people.  i have only been robbed at gun point once, and it was by a black person.  white people are responsible for roughly 0 of robberies and black people are responsible for roughly 0/0.  that does not make black people inherently inferior.  obviously poverty and sociological factors are the cause.  that does not change the result though that it is smart to avoid young black males in ny at night.
background: many of parties running in this week is eu elections are running on a platform for democratic reform of the eu, including the need for a directly elected president of the eu.  while i agree that change is needed, i believe that an elected president is a terrible idea.  turnout for the 0 eu elections was 0.  if we take the groups of the eu parliament as it stands today and assume that each one submits one candidate, we can realistically expect 0 candidates.  if we assume that the largest group is the epp, with 0/0 meps voters are directly proportional to their number of seats we can expect their candidate to win on 0 of the vote.  i do not believe that 0 of the electorate supporting a candidate grants them the legitimacy needed to hold office.  the eu is an institution which by its very nature will never be 0 united with a common vision.  there is increasing euroscepticism in member states like the uk, france and greece and eurosceptic parties are expected to hold about 0/0 of seats following this week is elections.  a president must be a uniting figure and i do not believe that it is possible for them to unite popular sentiment in their favour with the relatively small levels of support they will have.  even if different voting systems such as stv or av were used anti eu parties would still criticise the president is low level of support.  i think the most successful option would be an elected legislature as it stands today, a nominal figurehead and an executive based on a similar model to the unsc.  the 0 most developed countries in the eu would have a permanent seat on the council and another 0 would be appointed for fixed terms.  the eu will never be a uniting force.  it is better to embrace its weaknesses and play within its existing constraints than it is to try and pretend that it will one day be.   #  i think the most successful option would be an elected legislature as it stands today, a nominal figurehead and an executive based on a similar model to the unsc.   #  the 0 most developed countries in the eu would have a permanent seat on the council and another 0 would be appointed for fixed terms.   # the 0 most developed countries in the eu would have a permanent seat on the council and another 0 would be appointed for fixed terms.  while i agree with you that a president is a bad idea, i have to call you on this point.  the permanent members of the unsc are the single worst thing about it.  or rather, giving them veto powers is.  in a situation where either china, the usa or russia will generally be split on support for some situation, giving these countries veto powers effectively makes the unsc completely impotent.  and yeah, i shifted the goalpost a bit there, sorry take that point with a grain of salt .  in europe, and away from defence matters which, as someone from ireland a staunchly and proudly neutral country i hope never falls under the eu brief , there may be less discrepancy in opinion across the  0 most developed countries , but what you will find is that opinion will vary between those 0 and the smaller states, who will be left out in the cold.  also, what does  0 most developed  even mean ? according to the hdi, those would be the netherlands, germany, ireland, sweden and denmark.  but somehow i get the feeling you were talking about france, germany, the uk, italy and.  maybe spain ? in any case, given the wide differences of opinion, both in the countries themselves and in the way they tend to vote for the current european representatives, giving anybody a permanent presence is a terrible, terrible idea.   #  i do not see how that is a valid argument against elections.   #  i do not see how that is a valid argument against elections.  for many elections the winner gets less than 0 of the vote.  countries like india see this with great regularity.  the point of an election is that somewhere in the middle between the extremes lies a median position that most people would be comfortable with and typically vote for.  even if extreme parties eat up a large percentage of the vote, individually they will be smaller than the moderates, the ones that attempt to serve the greatest number of people.   #  the first is that you seem to be lacking the creativity or political strategy to find common ground.   #  there are two problems with your argument.  the first is that you seem to be lacking the creativity or political strategy to find common ground.  there is great precedent for rich and poor to come together and vote similarly on a cause.  part of the trick is to not pledge full parity or complete inaction but some common ground compromise that lets wages be more, but not fully, equitable.  the second problem is that you are trying to point to the extremes to tell me that there is no middle.  in that vein i would say that your argument is fundamentally flawed.   #  i think you are forgetting the fragile nature of the eu.   # i think you are forgetting the fragile nature of the eu.  member states, because they are still sovereign, can leave whenever they wish.  if a rich country wants to leave because it does not like the president that got elected with romanian votes, it can.  that kind of sentiment is not something that should be encouraged.  until there is a united states of europe, there should never be an elected president.  of course there is a middle.  the epp is a relatively moderate group; their candidate would be relatively moderate.  but if their candidate were elected by the  amiddle eu  countries, the poor and rich ones would have at them.  and because they can leave when they want , this is obviously a problem.   #  i had a long comment typed out and then my computer crashed.   #  i had a long comment typed out and then my computer crashed.  basically it is impossible to compare countries to continents.  the per capita gdp across canadian provinces varies by a factor of 0, at most.  in the eu the factor is almost 0.  the differences there are between provinces are so mild compared to those in the eu.  you never had states occupied by the ussr or the nazis.  you never had ceausescu or mussolini.  yes, one province speaks french but pretty much every eu member state has a different official language.  the differences present within the eu are so much greater than any other union in the world and that is why no president will unite europe as long as it is the european union and not the united states of europe.
i believe race relations in modern day america would be better if the south woulda won the war.  i believe slavery woulda ended very quickly after the war both because it was ending all over the world and because the slaves would only need to get to the north and not all the way to canada, making it economically harder to maintain slaves.  i believe the bitterness of losing the civil war is what bread the continuing racism in the south that we see to this day.  i do not believe the kkk would exist if slavery woulda been abolished economically and not imposed on them by the north.  i also believe the south had the moral high ground in the war.  i believe the north was the aggressor and it can never be morally correct to fight a war if it is not strictly for self defense.  i believe this is especially true in this case with how bloody the civil war was.   #  i also believe the south had the moral high ground in the war.   #  believe the north was the aggressor and it can never be morally correct to fight a war if it is not strictly for self defense.   # i disagree.  no matter what path was taken, there were white men in power that saw their influence diminishing.  whether this happens after victory or defeat, i do not see any reason to believe that they would not create these hate groups to try to maintain their power over the african americans.  believe the north was the aggressor and it can never be morally correct to fight a war if it is not strictly for self defense.  could you go into this in more detail please ? after all, the south did attack the united states federal government to begin the war.   #  the south would hold on to their slaves at any cost.   #  there are several things you are ignoring.  first: the value of slaves represented more than half of the wealth of the south.  this was not the case in the u. k.  or any of the other countries that voluntarily abolished slavery.  it is hard to imagine a country voluntarily signing away a majority of their wealth, especially when a very large portion of their gdp was in newly born slaves.  the south would hold on to their slaves at any cost.  second: it assumes that the south would not expand the institution of slavery.  southerners had repeatedly tried to invade parts of south america in order to impose the institution of slavery there.  this would likely intensify dramatically if the south and north split off, and it is not hard to image a slave empire encompassing multiple continents.  thirdly: the federal government owned a lot of property in the south.  if the south was serious about peaceful secession, they could have offered to buy this property from the federal government.  instead they shelled fort sumter, and seized all federal property in the south.  surely the government has a right to defend it is property from attack.  fourthly: a world in which war can only be morally fought for self defense is one in which france and england do not declare war on germany when germany annexes poland.  germany is free to focus 0 percent of it is efforts on russia.  0 of the population of russia is liquidated in order to provide land for germans to colonize.  the rest are enslaved by germany under general plan ost.  this was germany is actual plan for russia.  it is hard to see how the south is pressured to abolish slavery when the new super power that rules europe and much of asia is a slave empire.   #  the idea of the south invading mexico, possibly causing more bloodshed, and imposing slavery in a place that i believe already abolished it is terrible.   #    this cmv.  if slavery woulda destroyed half the wealth of the south even a natural death woulda been sure to cause the same problems.  of course this is not for certain they would not actually become more prosperous as slavery went away and not been as bitter about it.  but even when this happens some people are going to be losers in the economic reshuffling.  your second point is the one that really got me though.  the idea of the south invading mexico, possibly causing more bloodshed, and imposing slavery in a place that i believe already abolished it is terrible.  this is very interesting and i look forward to reading more about it.  i have not found anywhere describing this yet but i did find an interesting site that gives a possible alternative history if the south won won the war.  i found it interesting.  URL your 0th point is true though it does not change my mind on that particular point.  no state attacking another except for self defense is a principle i believe should not be violated by a state.  i believe regular people are allowed to come to the defense of others who are being attacked but government is power shoudl be reigned in at all times.  but this is another cmv.   #  the term does not explicitly refer to southerners, but if you look into it, you will find that southerners were the ones doing it.   #  you are right in saying that it is surprisingly difficult to find information about expansionist slavers with google, probably because it is really hard to think of good search terms.  i have read a few books that cover the subject, and i will try to round up some better sourcing for you later tonight i am actually moving today, so it is a pain right now , but in the meantime, look at this article, which mentions some of davis is plans.  URL the term filibuster actually used to refer to americans who would go to non american territory, and try to annex it and overthrow the country.  the term does not explicitly refer to southerners, but if you look into it, you will find that southerners were the ones doing it.  here is a man from tennessee who actually did conquer nicaragua.  URL you will note that the first thing he did upon taking power was restoring slavery, which had been previously abolished there.  the south was generally in favor of fillibusters, and the north opposed to them.  if the south was its own country, it could reasonably be expected to let countries like walker is join, since the political forces previously stopping that from happening were all in the north.  you can also make a solid argument that what happened in texas was a more subtle version of this.   #   it can never be morally correct to fight in a war if it is not strictly for self defense.    #  let me try to pick at least one point.   it can never be morally correct to fight in a war if it is not strictly for self defense.   if we had not been attacked in wwii, i believe it still would have been justified to stop the holocaust not self defense on our part .  we were attacked though and a lot of noise was made about us staying out of it until that happened.  bad guys exist, and the people they hurt are not always able to beat them back on their own.  in such cases, when the crimes against another country is people is enough, then the options are to stand by and let it happen, and by inaction condone it; or do something.  this does not address the main point of your post, but is something i feel strongly about.  the idea of slavery falling on its own with less racial animosity is interesting though.  will be curious to see what other people say.  do not know how much i believe it, but it is something i had not considered before.  if i can come up with something on that i will let you know.
this is not a troll post.  but what i am about to say is so fucked up, i thought about stooping down low and making a throwaway account.  god help me.  anyways here goes: i would not say i am against gay marriage, but i think it is okay to be against gay marriage.  and i am gay.  so, a few weeks ago, derrick gordon u of mass basket ball player came out, the first known div 0 college hoop star to do this.  then went on date a 0 year old man and it was rumored that they are dating.  and later derrick gordon himself confirmed it on twitter.  i am not from the east coast, and i do not know derrick personally, in fact i had never heard of him until he came out.  but he has replied to me a couple times on twitter, so there is some type of friendship there.  up until today, i was all for gay marriage because of equality, love, etc.  you have heard all those arguments, wont bore them with you here .  but now i see why people can be against love.  i am completely disgusted and thoroughly offended by this relationship.  this news shook me to my core.  i still do not believe it.  i do not believe i will ever get used to it.  before today, i thought it was bigotry to say two people should not be together.  but upon reading this story, i so strongly want these two to not be together that i am kind of seeing where republicans are coming from when they say someone is love is so abhorrent and should not be allowed.  if you are a person who is disgusted by another person is relationship.  then you and i are in the same boat.  i will not label you a  hateful bigot  for not wanting to people to be together.  the very thought of derrick gordon and gerald mccollough getting married is so repulsive to me.  i struggle to keep my food down just thinking of it.  there has to be some way to prevent this from happening, and i am considering joining the anti gay marriage group.  because i am the government.  the government is made of the people.  and i strongly disapprove of this, and i as a member of my government demand that this savagery be disallowed in law and not affirmed by legal marriage.  i am considering, would it be worth it to remove gay marriage rights from all gays across the country just to prevent this unholy union from even being able to occur ? i am not sure.  i am praying that either this whole thing is a joke, or gerald is rich and derrick gordon is just his sugarbaby/whore, because that is still pretty gross but totally understandable.  we have all been there.  a 0 year old white man lusting after a caramel skinned, 0 0  muscular 0 year old is normal, but the other way around.  inconceivable.  am i jealous that i derrick is really fucking sexy and mad that he is with some old dude instead of me ? absolutely.  in fact, whenever i hear about a young ugly guy with a older man, i am happy for them.  but derrick gordon is hot, so he is not allowed to do this.  i feel as the lgbt community we cannot allow our young hotties to be with older men for free.  tldr: i am a gay man who is almost against gay marriage.  please for the love of god change my view.  i cannot believe i am bigoted against my own damn people.  i just re read what i wrote.  i am a fucked up person, but it is how i feel.  please change my view.   #  a 0 year old white man lusting after a caramel skinned, 0 0  muscular 0 year old is normal, but the other way around.  inconceivable.   #  i have never been a gay man, but i can tell you that it is somewhat normal for women to be attracted to older men.   # i have never been a gay man, but i can tell you that it is somewhat normal for women to be attracted to older men.  i am not saying i want to go sleep with keith richards or something, but there is a reason that people like george clooney are voted  sexiest man alive  and not 0 year old guys.  matt damen was not chosen as a young guy from  goodwill hunting.   he was named  sexiest man alive  when he was almost 0.  denzel washington was 0.  johnny depp was 0.  sean connery was 0 ! to me, it sounds like you are really unhappy about this  specific  relationship.  for whatever reason, you are willing to throw aside your personal convictions in order to prevent these two people from getting married.  when you say you have  some type of friendship  because this guy replied to your twitter well, let is just say that is a bit of a stretch.  i get the impression that maybe you are really into this guy and are just upset/jealous that he is dating someone else.  you need to recognize that all of these are your issue and not a reason to deny legal rights to people based on their sexual orientation.   #  that is ok i suppose, because it does not matter.   #  so this still comes down to the same problem that everyone has against people who do not want homosexual people to have equal rights.  you  personally have a problem with something that  other  people are doing with  their own lives .  something that is  legal  and while it may not be looked highly upon, has not made it so that we have had a push to outlaw heterosexual marriage before.  you might not  approve  of their relationship.  that is ok i suppose, because it does not matter.  it is not your relationship.  but that is not a reason to take away a person is relationship.  the real issue, is that the supreme court has issued 0 times since 0 that marriage is a fundamental right of the people of the united states of america.  someone might say that  yeah, but homosexual people can get married to people of the opposite gender !   but in reality, we all know  that  is not treating them equally under the law.  so are you willing to campaign against people is  fundamental right  to get married just because some famous person is in a relationship that you do not approve of just because of an age difference ?  #  i know there are other women i would be with, if i had not met my wife, but i did, and love her very much.   #  if i am reading this right, you are against their relationship because derrick gordon is hot and gerrald mccollough is rich and not hot; and jealous that derrick is not with you ? two points, firstly, is it likely that derrick would be with you if it were not for his current relationship ? even if it is, it is still his individual decision.  i know there are other women i would be with, if i had not met my wife, but i did, and love her very much.  the second point is if you find it inconcievable that derrick actually loves this guy, or lusts after him just remember that tastes are a funny thing.  i have got a week spot for redheads.  ca not explain it, do not think i will ever understand it.  just the way it is.  maybe he is the same way for this guy.  hope that helps.   #  why do you still support marriage at all then ?  #  people enter different gender relationships that have age gaps.  just check out edna and simon martin, 0 and 0 respectively URL who are married.  why do you still support marriage at all then ? your problem is with age gaps, not marriage equality.  it is a completely separate issue, and people in same gender relationships should not be punished for something that is not their fault and in their power.   #  i am sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is exactly what it is.   #  you are resentful towards young gay men because someone you find attractive is choosing to be in a relationship with someone who you consider to be several levels lower than you.  it is okay to be hurt and upset and feel inferior/rejected.  it is not okay to punish people because they are interested in someone else.  that is deeply controlling, borderline abusive, and entitled behavior.  i am sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is exactly what it is.  it is like if someone had a crush, and their crush started dating someone they do not like.  instead of just being hurt and moving on they decide to sabotage the livelihood of the crush and the crush is family.  disallowing same sex marriage will not stop gay men you like from dating people you do not.  you need to let go and let him be happy.  realize that it does not make you less.
i think that a lot of economists are like glorified fortune tellers.  they know a lot of complex formulas and terminology, but how good are these formulas and terminology at predicting future prices/events ? are these complex formulas really useful, or is it that they are confusing enough for average people not to question them, and to view them as  scientific.   are they actually making accurate predictions, or is it just comforting for companies/governments/investors to think that they can predict the future of the economy.  some economists like fortune tellers make accurate predictions, but when you have so many people trying to predict what will happen in the future, your bound to have at least one of them predict it correctly.  i am not saying that economists ca not predict anything, just that they do not have their predictions down to a science like they claim to.  cmv.   #  i am not saying that economists ca not predict anything, just that they do not have their predictions down to a science like they claim to.   #  you think that economists think that their  iscience  is a hard science.   # you think that economists think that their  iscience  is a hard science.  spoiler alert.  it is not.  you ca not just test a hypothesis, then test it again 0 years later and get the same results.  that is because economics is not such a rigid science as physics/mathematics/etc.  i study econometrics which a mix of economics and applied mathetmatics.  you have to understand that we try to create models to make predictions under certain assumptions so we can get a grip on the future, not try to predict it.  my professors are great in non linear dynamic models so if you could make 0 0 concrete questions you want to ask a university professor i would be honored to ask them.  i feel like you just hate economics for some reason and that you glorify stem.  what field are you in yourself ?  #  they are making educated, well reasoned forays into the future when they make predictions.   # i think you are operating under a faulty assumption.  i have yet to meet an economist who can say with certainty that they can predict the future of an economy.  economists work with models.  models, by their very definition, are limited as they only take in a certain number of variables.  certainly the models will try to be as inclusive as possible but they have their clear and obvious limitations.  using these models, economists can make predictions, estimations, recognize current trends, examine historical trends, etc.  but you will find it hard to come across many economists who will claim they can get their predictions of any industry or economy 0 down to a tee like a science.  they are not fortune tellers.  they are making educated, well reasoned forays into the future when they make predictions.  but they are certainly not going to be perfect like a science and the overwhelming majority of economists would not claim that they are.   #  but that is simply not the world we live in.   #  there actually is a significant consensus on the minimum wage among most economists.  that is, raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment.  it may be a very small amount, to the point where it makes no real difference or it could be huge, and the increase most likely will not be linear, but that is its general principle.  what there is a lack of consensus on is  when  and by  how much  the minimum wage should go up, if at all.  but that is because economic situations differ  significantly  across every time period.  not one time period is exactly like the other.  there are always new variables at play that were never at play before, be it technology, industries, policy, etc.  if economies were static with no new variables introduced, then of course economists would be able to give you certain and exact policy requirements.  but that is simply not the world we live in.  economists can and will offer differing opinions on many events.  but that is the nature of dealing with the present and the future.  is its usefulness restricted ? yes.  economists will be the first to admit that.  but given the sheer size of what we are analyzing and the variables to be considered, it is the best possible option of analytical thinking in this situation.  we live in a country of 0 million people, trillions produced every year, and we interact with almost, if not every, country in the world.  the modeling will  never  be perfect.  but that is ok.  that is the point of a model.  it tries to condense all the chaos and data down into as representative a study as possible.  no one is asking you to take any research as the one and only truth as op seems to be assuming.  but that also does not mean economic modeling is somehow just  glorified fortune telling.    #  we know that if we go too high, unemployment will come about.   #  my own point of clarification from another post.  notice how your survey also introduces a range on how much the minimum wage is being increased.  raising the minimum wage in itself will not definitively have huge increases in unemployment.  depending on the increase, the effects could be negligible.  almost everyone would agree.  so the crux is again, like i have said numerous times, how much is a reasonable raise.  a strong economy can often absorb the disemployment effects that a minimum wage increase can bring about.  card hypothesizes that this may largely be due to the fact that the increase was still well within the range of the equilibrium point where demand and supply meet and therefore had little disemployment effect and instead saw employment expand unhampered.  that is the crux of the issue.  we know that if we go too high, unemployment will come about.  that is the consensus.  what is not the consensus is what is too high ?  #  so while i wo not reject your claim that increasing minimum wage increases unemployment i do reject your claim that there is consensus about the subject.   #  i think op is being too broad and you bring up very good points, but i will neither be able to support nor deny some of them.  it may be a personal bias, but economics seems a lot more entrenched in policythink than other sciences.  there will always be variables at play, of course but that does not get economics off the hook.  what it seems to me however is that economics is great for telling us how to make a particular policy successful, but not necessarily what policy to adopt which may be more related to welfare and other issues.  i do not buy your assessment of minimum wage.  a cursory google does not seem to help very much URL i do not think consensus is the only criterion when determining truth, but its a very good heuristic which often points us in the right direction, and is likely the only tool for those not studying the said subject.  i am not an economist, so i wo not make strong claims but i am someone who is reasonably informed, and like to make my decisions based on evidence.  so while i wo not reject your claim that increasing minimum wage increases unemployment i do reject your claim that there is consensus about the subject.  what is useful here is perhaps a meta analysis of various economic views, and i am not sure where to derive such information from.
there is one man who many call a scientist that tried to define god as nature and beauty around us, to do away with a mostly pointless debate.  albert einstein URL wanted to learn more about the reality that we live in.  the reality our ancestors formed.  electricity which now powers the internet powered life.  that is a beautiful truth about our existence.  if you define that as god, then i do not disagree with you.  it is the almost the only real thing about god, depending on your definition.  there is no white bearded man in the sky watching you.  we have our own consciousness and the rest of the cosmos to take care of us.  i believe in the world around me.  its beauty and wonderfulness.  i believe that one day, my consciousness  electricity will stop flowing and go back to the cosmos that allowed for its existence.  life is god.  you are god.  i am god.  all my other friends who exist at the current moment are god.  the shared consciousness we have created, the internet, is a human invention.  it is also god if you want it to be. ﻿ change my view that the concept of god, as it is known in modern religions, is broken.  there is no defined chained of events controlled by anyone.  in the end, religion became an exit from responsibility and a syndrome of written words being incorrect.  change my view that god should represent the shared human concept of existence for people who claim to be religious, as anything less thought out than that basically implies that the word  god  has no more meaning within the framework of our reality.  for atheists, not believing in  god  means focusing on the ever changing, ever moving world around us.  they believe in the dynamic flow of energy around us, that the static written word we know as history evolves, because humans exist and are alive.   #  there is no defined chained of events controlled by anyone.   #  in the end, religion became an exit from responsibility and a syndrome of written words being incorrect.   # however, if people did apply a bit more critical thinking to the implications of the god you defined, the rift that exists between atheists and theists would be able to get a lot smaller.  that is why i get annoyed when people defend the classical definition of god.  have you explored philosophical defenses of religion ? there are books worth of recent literature that defends the definition i provided.  i guess i am kind of the wrong person to argue for religious beliefs, but the dismiss popular belief in deities as people not thinking critically enough is basically just wrong.  people can still think critically and belief in the divine.  i think here is an appropriate time to contend one of your points.  in the end, religion became an exit from responsibility and a syndrome of written words being incorrect.  this describes calvinist beliefs which is not the most popular.  most religious incarnations put responsibility of ones actions on the individual.  belief in libertarian free will is far more common in religious circles than in atheistic personal experience .  so popular religious beliefs, if they do anything, put  more  blame on the individual, there is no escape from responsibility.  what definition of religion are you using ? i ask because it is important for continuing the conversation.  yeah, it is an important part but it is not the  defining  part of religion.  bringing it back to the original post, popular definitions often include aspects such as divine or transdivine influence.  these aspects are often termed to be  gods  so why exactly should an explicitly  non divine definition of god be used a religious sense ? in other words, you want god to mean  shared concept of existence  but since god is a word that in nearly every instance invokes divine or transdivine sentiments, why should it apply to something like existence or the world around us ?  #  all my other friends who exist at the current moment are god.   #  it is not  misunderstood . the people who claim to believe in a god generally have a very specific definition they are referring to.  it is not just some random word they say.  you are god.  i am god.  all my other friends who exist at the current moment are god.  the shared consciousness we have created, the internet, is a human invention.  it is also god if you want it to be. ﻿  why  ? why are you trying to take a word which refers to deities and apply it to a random hodgepodge of topics ? we could do that with anything, but that does not mean there is a reason to.   this computer is chair, my soup is chair, electricity is chair, you are chair, i am chair.   great.  now what has that gained me to say that ? why not just use the word chair for what we normally use it for, and god for what people normally use it for ? why do you want to change it some arbitrary new thing ?  #  i am just trying to see what would be wrong with improve the christian definition, which is sorely lacking.   #  can you give me a specific example of what people when they say god ? because that is exactly my issue with most religious individuals.  they do not actually spend time trying to define what they believe in.  how is it some arbitrary new thing ? many religions have defined god in terms similar to that before look up buddhism .  i am just trying to see what would be wrong with improve the christian definition, which is sorely lacking.   #  in many beliefs lives in the eternal kindgom of heaven and reveals himself to humans in both revelation and personal experience.   # an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being that created the universe and everything in it.  composed of the father, the holy spirit, and the son this god sent the son down to die for all of humanities sins.  in many beliefs lives in the eternal kindgom of heaven and reveals himself to humans in both revelation and personal experience.  some view him as immaterial still existing mind you, not immaterial as in jsut a concept while others belief in a discrete being.  yes, many do not explicitly define what they mean by god but  most  religious individuals being the hindu traditions and the judeo christian traditions have a belief in a concrete thing with concrete characters.  what you are describing as god is far closer to pantheism where the universe god which is fine i guess as long as you recognize that these definitions of god are  by far  the minority.   #  it implies some sort of describable existence that can impact a world around it.   # it implies some sort of describable existence that can impact a world around it.  that it does.  i do not understand your point.  you appear to have misunderstood.  i am a strong atheist, by  no means  do i believe that the entity described exists, so i guess yeah, it is a definition that i find wanting for evidence.  however, that does not mean that i think the definition is wrong, most people who believe in god hold a definition close to what i described.  this is what  god  is for over 0 billion people christians , take out the son part and you get another billion  muslims and if you take the larger definition you get another couple billion many hindu beliefs .  you asked bluntly  can you give me a specific example of what people mean when they say god ? because that is exactly my issue with most religious individuals.  they do not actually spend time trying to define what they believe in.   so i did.  i gave you a definition that most religious people hold to give or take a couple specific beliefs .  to use an example, i do not think aliens exist and have visited earth.  that being said if someone were to say  i was visited by aliens last night  i would understand what they meant, cognent spelling ? beings from another planet because that is what  alien  means.  replace alien with god and if someone says  i spoke to god last night  0/0 they mean a being broadly as i described in my first point.  just because you do not believe something exist does not mean that the word usage is wrong.
there is one man who many call a scientist that tried to define god as nature and beauty around us, to do away with a mostly pointless debate.  albert einstein URL wanted to learn more about the reality that we live in.  the reality our ancestors formed.  electricity which now powers the internet powered life.  that is a beautiful truth about our existence.  if you define that as god, then i do not disagree with you.  it is the almost the only real thing about god, depending on your definition.  there is no white bearded man in the sky watching you.  we have our own consciousness and the rest of the cosmos to take care of us.  i believe in the world around me.  its beauty and wonderfulness.  i believe that one day, my consciousness  electricity will stop flowing and go back to the cosmos that allowed for its existence.  life is god.  you are god.  i am god.  all my other friends who exist at the current moment are god.  the shared consciousness we have created, the internet, is a human invention.  it is also god if you want it to be. ﻿ change my view that the concept of god, as it is known in modern religions, is broken.  there is no defined chained of events controlled by anyone.  in the end, religion became an exit from responsibility and a syndrome of written words being incorrect.  change my view that god should represent the shared human concept of existence for people who claim to be religious, as anything less thought out than that basically implies that the word  god  has no more meaning within the framework of our reality.  for atheists, not believing in  god  means focusing on the ever changing, ever moving world around us.  they believe in the dynamic flow of energy around us, that the static written word we know as history evolves, because humans exist and are alive.   #  change my view that god should represent the shared human concept of existence for people who claim to be religious, as anything less thought out than that basically implies that the word  god  has no more meaning within the framework of our reality.   #  because this is not the view of the vast majority of people who use the term.   # because this is not the view of the vast majority of people who use the term.  words only have value if there is a shared definition, and thus we need a strong rational behind changing a words term.  thus, we should use a definition for god that includes jesus christ, allah, vishnu, thor, zeus, etc.  the fact that you disagree with modern religions is not a good enough justification to hijack their terminology and reshape it for your own worldview.  instead, you should simply come up with your own term.   #   this computer is chair, my soup is chair, electricity is chair, you are chair, i am chair.    #  it is not  misunderstood . the people who claim to believe in a god generally have a very specific definition they are referring to.  it is not just some random word they say.  you are god.  i am god.  all my other friends who exist at the current moment are god.  the shared consciousness we have created, the internet, is a human invention.  it is also god if you want it to be. ﻿  why  ? why are you trying to take a word which refers to deities and apply it to a random hodgepodge of topics ? we could do that with anything, but that does not mean there is a reason to.   this computer is chair, my soup is chair, electricity is chair, you are chair, i am chair.   great.  now what has that gained me to say that ? why not just use the word chair for what we normally use it for, and god for what people normally use it for ? why do you want to change it some arbitrary new thing ?  #  i am just trying to see what would be wrong with improve the christian definition, which is sorely lacking.   #  can you give me a specific example of what people when they say god ? because that is exactly my issue with most religious individuals.  they do not actually spend time trying to define what they believe in.  how is it some arbitrary new thing ? many religions have defined god in terms similar to that before look up buddhism .  i am just trying to see what would be wrong with improve the christian definition, which is sorely lacking.   #  composed of the father, the holy spirit, and the son this god sent the son down to die for all of humanities sins.   # an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being that created the universe and everything in it.  composed of the father, the holy spirit, and the son this god sent the son down to die for all of humanities sins.  in many beliefs lives in the eternal kindgom of heaven and reveals himself to humans in both revelation and personal experience.  some view him as immaterial still existing mind you, not immaterial as in jsut a concept while others belief in a discrete being.  yes, many do not explicitly define what they mean by god but  most  religious individuals being the hindu traditions and the judeo christian traditions have a belief in a concrete thing with concrete characters.  what you are describing as god is far closer to pantheism where the universe god which is fine i guess as long as you recognize that these definitions of god are  by far  the minority.   #  this is what  god  is for over 0 billion people christians , take out the son part and you get another billion  muslims and if you take the larger definition you get another couple billion many hindu beliefs .   # it implies some sort of describable existence that can impact a world around it.  that it does.  i do not understand your point.  you appear to have misunderstood.  i am a strong atheist, by  no means  do i believe that the entity described exists, so i guess yeah, it is a definition that i find wanting for evidence.  however, that does not mean that i think the definition is wrong, most people who believe in god hold a definition close to what i described.  this is what  god  is for over 0 billion people christians , take out the son part and you get another billion  muslims and if you take the larger definition you get another couple billion many hindu beliefs .  you asked bluntly  can you give me a specific example of what people mean when they say god ? because that is exactly my issue with most religious individuals.  they do not actually spend time trying to define what they believe in.   so i did.  i gave you a definition that most religious people hold to give or take a couple specific beliefs .  to use an example, i do not think aliens exist and have visited earth.  that being said if someone were to say  i was visited by aliens last night  i would understand what they meant, cognent spelling ? beings from another planet because that is what  alien  means.  replace alien with god and if someone says  i spoke to god last night  0/0 they mean a being broadly as i described in my first point.  just because you do not believe something exist does not mean that the word usage is wrong.
a guitarist can play with great skill.  a singer can sing with a staggering range and mellifluous timbre.  but in my opinion neither of these are great  musicians  if they cannot read, understand and interpret musical notation.  i believe in order to be a great musician, it is necessary to be able to read a piece of music and understand its structure and theory.  to be a skilled performer without musical literacy is analogous to a great storyteller who neither read nor write.  he may tell a good story, but he is not a great writer, and not a literary genius.  the root is in  literacy .  cmv ! addendum: where is the bot ? and for having a lot of discussion, what is up with the pile of downvotes ? topic has not been seen here before, and it is fresh topic friday.   #  to be a skilled performer without musical literacy is analogous to a great storyteller who neither read nor write.   #  he may tell a good story, but he is not a great writer, and not a literary genius.   # he may tell a good story, but he is not a great writer, and not a literary genius.  the root is in literacy.  cmv ! but there is nothing that prevents an illiterate man from being a great storyteller.  why do you compare it with writers ? the equivalent of a writer is a composer, not a musician.  topic has not been seen here before, and it is fresh topic friday.  i guess that people downvote you because of the bad analogy.   #  if you are expanding musician to include 0 a deeper understanding of music and 0 the ability to create music, rather than simply reproduce it, then it is only fair to expand storyteller, as well.   #  a few questions: 0 when a great illiterate storyteller has his or her stories written down for distribution, does that make them inelligible to be considered a writer ? 0 why does writer get placed above storyteller in your dynamic here ? i understand that the act of storytelling is more akin to performing a piece of music, but when you equate musician to writer you have lost some context.  a musician is one who  performs  music, by common definition.  if you are expanding musician to include 0 a deeper understanding of music and 0 the ability to create music, rather than simply reproduce it, then it is only fair to expand storyteller, as well.  in that case, i think you are giving immense short shrift to oral traditions.  their stories are every bit as amazing as great literature.   #  i assume you agree that jimmy hendrix is a musician he played the guitar well.   #  i think you are falling a victim to  no real scotsman  fallacy here.  URL musician is by definition any one who is good at playing music.   truly great  is a subjective term.  i assume you agree that jimmy hendrix is a musician he played the guitar well.  many people think that he was  great.   e. g.  rolling stones places him as 0 on the list of  0 greatest guitarists  URL you may disagree greatness is subjective after all all , but it just seems like you are playing the  no true scosttsman game  you say: no great musicians are musically illustrate, i say: what about jimmy hendrix ? many people think that he was a great musician.  then you say: ahh, but he is not truly great.  or that he is not a true musician.   #  whether or not you are a great musician depends on the music you make not the way you make it.   #  whether or not you are a great musician depends on the music you make not the way you make it.  the listener will not be able to tell if the composer knows musical notation or not.  what qualitative difference does knowledge of musical theory and notation have on the music ? also.  how much musical theory must one know to be great ? i would also argue that a dyslexic person can be a wonderful author.  the story is the important part, not the way it is written down.   #  being able to read music is a skill that assists a musician, not a skill that makes one.   #  a lot of people have already mentioned blind artists like ray charles and stevie wonder, which i think is probably the best argument, but i also want to add a little something.  it seems that the point you are trying to make is that a musician must understand music theory to be legitimate, and to understand theory you must be able to read.  i argue that this is incorrect.  i will admit that being able to read music is greatly helpful, but it exists to only notate what you are doing.  you can learn to play an instrument where the notes are, etc , learn chords and scales and how to use them, and you are a actively understanding and using music theory.  i would say that someone who can play an instrument and understands and uses theory is the definition of a musician, not someone who can read music.  being able to read music is a skill that assists a musician, not a skill that makes one.
a guitarist can play with great skill.  a singer can sing with a staggering range and mellifluous timbre.  but in my opinion neither of these are great  musicians  if they cannot read, understand and interpret musical notation.  i believe in order to be a great musician, it is necessary to be able to read a piece of music and understand its structure and theory.  to be a skilled performer without musical literacy is analogous to a great storyteller who neither read nor write.  he may tell a good story, but he is not a great writer, and not a literary genius.  the root is in  literacy .  cmv ! addendum: where is the bot ? and for having a lot of discussion, what is up with the pile of downvotes ? topic has not been seen here before, and it is fresh topic friday.   #  and for having a lot of discussion, what is up with the pile of downvotes ?  #  topic has not been seen here before, and it is fresh topic friday.   # he may tell a good story, but he is not a great writer, and not a literary genius.  the root is in literacy.  cmv ! but there is nothing that prevents an illiterate man from being a great storyteller.  why do you compare it with writers ? the equivalent of a writer is a composer, not a musician.  topic has not been seen here before, and it is fresh topic friday.  i guess that people downvote you because of the bad analogy.   #  in that case, i think you are giving immense short shrift to oral traditions.   #  a few questions: 0 when a great illiterate storyteller has his or her stories written down for distribution, does that make them inelligible to be considered a writer ? 0 why does writer get placed above storyteller in your dynamic here ? i understand that the act of storytelling is more akin to performing a piece of music, but when you equate musician to writer you have lost some context.  a musician is one who  performs  music, by common definition.  if you are expanding musician to include 0 a deeper understanding of music and 0 the ability to create music, rather than simply reproduce it, then it is only fair to expand storyteller, as well.  in that case, i think you are giving immense short shrift to oral traditions.  their stories are every bit as amazing as great literature.   #  i assume you agree that jimmy hendrix is a musician he played the guitar well.   #  i think you are falling a victim to  no real scotsman  fallacy here.  URL musician is by definition any one who is good at playing music.   truly great  is a subjective term.  i assume you agree that jimmy hendrix is a musician he played the guitar well.  many people think that he was  great.   e. g.  rolling stones places him as 0 on the list of  0 greatest guitarists  URL you may disagree greatness is subjective after all all , but it just seems like you are playing the  no true scosttsman game  you say: no great musicians are musically illustrate, i say: what about jimmy hendrix ? many people think that he was a great musician.  then you say: ahh, but he is not truly great.  or that he is not a true musician.   #  also.  how much musical theory must one know to be great ?  #  whether or not you are a great musician depends on the music you make not the way you make it.  the listener will not be able to tell if the composer knows musical notation or not.  what qualitative difference does knowledge of musical theory and notation have on the music ? also.  how much musical theory must one know to be great ? i would also argue that a dyslexic person can be a wonderful author.  the story is the important part, not the way it is written down.   #  you can learn to play an instrument where the notes are, etc , learn chords and scales and how to use them, and you are a actively understanding and using music theory.   #  a lot of people have already mentioned blind artists like ray charles and stevie wonder, which i think is probably the best argument, but i also want to add a little something.  it seems that the point you are trying to make is that a musician must understand music theory to be legitimate, and to understand theory you must be able to read.  i argue that this is incorrect.  i will admit that being able to read music is greatly helpful, but it exists to only notate what you are doing.  you can learn to play an instrument where the notes are, etc , learn chords and scales and how to use them, and you are a actively understanding and using music theory.  i would say that someone who can play an instrument and understands and uses theory is the definition of a musician, not someone who can read music.  being able to read music is a skill that assists a musician, not a skill that makes one.
the theory: cutting taxes on corporations creates jobs and boosts the economy.  basically, the idea is that if a company has more money, it will hire more people, which reduces unemployment and boosts the economy.  my logic thusfar: first, as far as i am aware, there is no evidence that this tactic has ever worked.  with that said, the companies that would get the most money from a tax cut would be the largest ones like walmart, mcdonald is, etc.  for some reason, i doubt that a company like walmart with a $0 billion net profit needs more money to hire people.  most of the tax revenue the federal government would lose in a tax cut would be going to companies like this that do not actually need it.  and we, as taxpayers, would either have to pay for the difference through our own taxes, or take cuts to other services.  but let is look at the other companies that would be saving money through tax cuts; the ones that supposedly would benefit and hire more people.  let is say the economy is stagnant i. e.  neither growing nor shrinking , and demand is flat for those companies.  they have enough employees and resources to meet demand.  now, give them some money to hire more people.  what are their choices for that money ? well, supposedly they can hire a few people, and those few people getting an income will help create demand for products.  the problem is, those people are not going to turn around and spend their entire paycheck on products produced by just that company, so the company is going to get back less than they invested in their workers.  now, supposedly tax cuts across multiple companies will create widespread demand, but as a company, what is the better business decision: wait for demand to increase, then hire people to meet it; or hire people, and risk not having demand rise to meet your now excess production or maybe risk having your excess production become obsolete before it can be sold ? obviously, the better business decision is the first.  unlike the second, it is no risk and guarantees the company saves money, and if every company makes that same decision, then no one will ever get hired, defeating the theory that corporate tax cuts will create jobs.  what is more, if demand is outstripping production, then, assuming the company is actually functioning like any company should, it should be turning a profit, which would allow it to hire more people anyway.  and if demand is so great that they ca not hire enough people to meet it, then they can just resort to other sources of funding, like loans, to expand production.  this has worked for countless companies in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.  in the third situation, where demand is dropping, the company is more likely going to be trimming it is workforce, not wanting to hire more people.  there is a reason why there is no evidence that giving money to corporations works.  it does not directly create demand, and the smart business decision is to wait for demand to increase before investing in increased production.  and even then, as a profitable business, it should have the resources necessary to do so anyway.  i am sure i am missing things, but what ? and are they actually enough to offset the flaws i am currently thinking about ?  #  with that said, the companies that would get the most money from a tax cut would be the largest ones like walmart, mcdonald is, etc.   #  for some reason, i doubt that a company like walmart with a $0 billion net profit needs more money to hire people.   # for some reason, i doubt that a company like walmart with a $0 billion net profit needs more money to hire people.  most of the tax revenue the federal government would lose in a tax cut would be going to companies like this that do not actually need it.  and we, as taxpayers, would either have to pay for the difference through our own taxes, or take cuts to other services.  this seems to be suggesting that a massively profitable company will not be incentivised to hire people if there are tax cuts.  the implicit assumption is that the test for to hire or not to hire is if the company is profitable.  that is not the test.  this would be to assume that the goal of a company is to maximize employment.  if that were the case then every company would hire until they were no longer profitable, and there would be no long term profitable companies.  further: rather than maximizing employment, the goal of a company is generally to maximize profit.  so the test for whether or not to hire another person is whether a new hire will generate more profit.  will the new hire generate more value for the company than his salary ? if yes: hire; if no: do not.  one key part there is  for the company .  taxes do not change how productive the new hire is labor is, but they may effect how much of his productivity the company gets to keep.  consider new hire before tax cut: salary: 0,0 productivity: 0,0 tax liability: 0,0 company net: 0,0 recommendation: do not hire a change in the tax liability can change the  company net  to a positive and switch the recommendation to a do hire.  this is simplified, but it illustrates the point.   #  that paper concludes that about 0 of corporate tax is actually passed onto the workforce in the form of lower wages.   #  just to preface, i am not an economist, i just read some of the literature out there by economics.  politically i am moderate, i just want whatever policy that works to be implemented.  for your main point that there is no evidence, there is actually alot of evidence that reducing the corporate tax rate actually is revenue neutral for the government while increasing investment though not doing anything for employment mertens, ravn.  the dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the us.  american economic review 0 .  furthermore, simulations have shown that outright elimination of the corporate tax will increase investments, wages, and output fehr, kotlikoff et al.  simulating the elimination of the u. s.  corporate income tax.  ncpa 0 .  that being said, that simulation was dependent on other countries not responding in kind, which is a huge assumption.  there is also evidence that the corporate tax hurts labor more than the company arulampalam, devereux et al.  the direct incidence of coporate income tax on wages.  european economic review 0 .  that paper concludes that about 0 of corporate tax is actually passed onto the workforce in the form of lower wages.  so you could argue that the corporate tax should drive investment rather than hold it back as most people do .  the way the corporate tax works is that it only taxes profit.  as such, it is in the company is interest to invest into either more workforce or equipment or research before the end of the year.  the problem with this assumption is that you are basically forcing the company to take a risk.  either lose money on this fiscal year on taxes, or bet the money on the next fiscal year and hope your investments pay off in the form of increased revenue.  if your investments do not pay off, well.  you are shit out of luck.  also, a good company does not just sit on profit.  a stagnant company often goes into decline.  look at yahoo.  for a long time, they did not do anything to grow their brand.  look where they are at now, they lost their huge lead to google.  instead, a good company will create demand, either through advertising coke vs pepsi or find a new source of demand google investing into android .  in this way, the successful companies continue to grow.  remember, investment does not necessarily have to come from just hiring workers.  any form of investment including advertising, r d, buying new equipment helps the consumer economy because jobs are being created, just not in their own company.  as such, reducing the corporate tax allows a company to be more flexible in their investments, rather than forcing them into smaller, yearly investments.   #  it is the  one size fits all  approach of mediocrity.   #  what is good for some, is not good for all.  some businesses may be low on cash, and when the economy is in trouble, a little cash can mean the difference between keeping the lights on, or shutting down forever.  inducing businesses to prematurely reinvest, is a source of malinvestment.  there are times when money is better spent reinvested , and times when money is better saved.  but a uniform tax policy does not take that into account for each individual business circumstances.  it is the  one size fits all  approach of mediocrity.   #  they may use the money for a capital investment to streamline production.   # let is say the economy is stagnant i. e.  neither growing nor shrinking , and demand is flat for those companies.  they have enough employees and resources to meet demand.  now, give them some money to hire more people.  what are their choices for that money ? this assumes that the company that receives the tax break would be the one hiring.  it also explicitly assumes a flat demand curve for some reasons.  there is another mechanism that could lead to further employment without the company that receives a tax break hiring.  they may use the money for a capital investment to streamline production.  regardless of the state of supply and demand there is always some piece of capital that can make production more efficient.  firm abc is profitable and paying taxes.  a lower tax rate will raise the amount of money they keep.  with this extra profit abc can buy a software upgrade from firm xyz.  this sale allows xyz to hire.   #  for the economy as a whole, generally yes, it would be better to let business and investors keep the money, as it will still be spent in the economy, and generally in ways that produce more economic benefits.   #  for the economy as a whole, generally yes, it would be better to let business and investors keep the money, as it will still be spent in the economy, and generally in ways that produce more economic benefits.  for certain parts of the populations, getting free money obviously makes them appear better off.  but, what is less obvious is how much they would not need the free money, if they could have been hired from someone that hand t been taxed.  never forget, the government has to get paid too, and they do not live cheap.  at best, economically, taxing the right pocket, to make the left pocket richer, does not make the economy better.  that is with a free government, no dead weight loss, no economic distortion from redistribution, or the introduction of other inefficiencies and corruptions.  which is to say, never.
the theory: cutting taxes on corporations creates jobs and boosts the economy.  basically, the idea is that if a company has more money, it will hire more people, which reduces unemployment and boosts the economy.  my logic thusfar: first, as far as i am aware, there is no evidence that this tactic has ever worked.  with that said, the companies that would get the most money from a tax cut would be the largest ones like walmart, mcdonald is, etc.  for some reason, i doubt that a company like walmart with a $0 billion net profit needs more money to hire people.  most of the tax revenue the federal government would lose in a tax cut would be going to companies like this that do not actually need it.  and we, as taxpayers, would either have to pay for the difference through our own taxes, or take cuts to other services.  but let is look at the other companies that would be saving money through tax cuts; the ones that supposedly would benefit and hire more people.  let is say the economy is stagnant i. e.  neither growing nor shrinking , and demand is flat for those companies.  they have enough employees and resources to meet demand.  now, give them some money to hire more people.  what are their choices for that money ? well, supposedly they can hire a few people, and those few people getting an income will help create demand for products.  the problem is, those people are not going to turn around and spend their entire paycheck on products produced by just that company, so the company is going to get back less than they invested in their workers.  now, supposedly tax cuts across multiple companies will create widespread demand, but as a company, what is the better business decision: wait for demand to increase, then hire people to meet it; or hire people, and risk not having demand rise to meet your now excess production or maybe risk having your excess production become obsolete before it can be sold ? obviously, the better business decision is the first.  unlike the second, it is no risk and guarantees the company saves money, and if every company makes that same decision, then no one will ever get hired, defeating the theory that corporate tax cuts will create jobs.  what is more, if demand is outstripping production, then, assuming the company is actually functioning like any company should, it should be turning a profit, which would allow it to hire more people anyway.  and if demand is so great that they ca not hire enough people to meet it, then they can just resort to other sources of funding, like loans, to expand production.  this has worked for countless companies in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.  in the third situation, where demand is dropping, the company is more likely going to be trimming it is workforce, not wanting to hire more people.  there is a reason why there is no evidence that giving money to corporations works.  it does not directly create demand, and the smart business decision is to wait for demand to increase before investing in increased production.  and even then, as a profitable business, it should have the resources necessary to do so anyway.  i am sure i am missing things, but what ? and are they actually enough to offset the flaws i am currently thinking about ?  #  the theory: cutting taxes on corporations creates jobs and boosts the economy.   #  basically, the idea is that if a company has more money, it will hire more people, which reduces unemployment and boosts the economy.   # the bigger, more international companies are in the best position to evade taxes or move to a location with lower taxes, so higher corporate taxes largely hurt smaller corporations more than larger ones.  basically, the idea is that if a company has more money, it will hire more people, which reduces unemployment and boosts the economy.  it is not much about having more money or reducing unemployment; it is more about a supply side boost to the economy.  imagine 0 people live on an island.  0 of them is the ruler.  0 of them specializes in fishing.  0 of them specializes in farming.  and 0 of them has to spend time doing something that benefits nobody, as a result of something the ruler dictates.  if the ruler stops dictating that 0 person do something that is not helpful to anyone, then that person can now do something more helpful, such as specializing in making tools to help the farmer and fisher produce and catch more food.  this would be economic growth the people will be better off but it does not increase their nominal incomes or  create jobs .  now consider a rock band in our society.  each person who works in/with that band earns money for it and pays taxes on what they make.  it would be strange to create an additional  band tax  that the band  as a whole  pays in addition to their individual taxes.  that would require each band to spend more time keeping records of the types of things needed to pay those taxes and possibly hire someone to help with that.  and it would require more people to work at the irs to handle this new type of tax.  the jobs and time spent on this extra tax benefit nobody there should be no band tax so that time and jobs can be put toward something actually useful.  a  band tax  in addition to taxing people who work in/with the band is no different from taxing corporations in addition to taxing the people who make money from that corporation.  it requires people to work in accounting and legal at the corporations to deal with the tax, and it requires more people to work at the irs to handle the tax.  and it can lead to the corporation making decisions about where to base certain operations on paying less taxes rather than economic efficiency.  creating corporate taxes as an unnecessary addition to individual taxes is like the ruler on the island who forces someone to spend his time doing something unproductive, where it would be better to let that person do something different.   #  the direct incidence of coporate income tax on wages.   #  just to preface, i am not an economist, i just read some of the literature out there by economics.  politically i am moderate, i just want whatever policy that works to be implemented.  for your main point that there is no evidence, there is actually alot of evidence that reducing the corporate tax rate actually is revenue neutral for the government while increasing investment though not doing anything for employment mertens, ravn.  the dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the us.  american economic review 0 .  furthermore, simulations have shown that outright elimination of the corporate tax will increase investments, wages, and output fehr, kotlikoff et al.  simulating the elimination of the u. s.  corporate income tax.  ncpa 0 .  that being said, that simulation was dependent on other countries not responding in kind, which is a huge assumption.  there is also evidence that the corporate tax hurts labor more than the company arulampalam, devereux et al.  the direct incidence of coporate income tax on wages.  european economic review 0 .  that paper concludes that about 0 of corporate tax is actually passed onto the workforce in the form of lower wages.  so you could argue that the corporate tax should drive investment rather than hold it back as most people do .  the way the corporate tax works is that it only taxes profit.  as such, it is in the company is interest to invest into either more workforce or equipment or research before the end of the year.  the problem with this assumption is that you are basically forcing the company to take a risk.  either lose money on this fiscal year on taxes, or bet the money on the next fiscal year and hope your investments pay off in the form of increased revenue.  if your investments do not pay off, well.  you are shit out of luck.  also, a good company does not just sit on profit.  a stagnant company often goes into decline.  look at yahoo.  for a long time, they did not do anything to grow their brand.  look where they are at now, they lost their huge lead to google.  instead, a good company will create demand, either through advertising coke vs pepsi or find a new source of demand google investing into android .  in this way, the successful companies continue to grow.  remember, investment does not necessarily have to come from just hiring workers.  any form of investment including advertising, r d, buying new equipment helps the consumer economy because jobs are being created, just not in their own company.  as such, reducing the corporate tax allows a company to be more flexible in their investments, rather than forcing them into smaller, yearly investments.   #  there are times when money is better spent reinvested , and times when money is better saved.   #  what is good for some, is not good for all.  some businesses may be low on cash, and when the economy is in trouble, a little cash can mean the difference between keeping the lights on, or shutting down forever.  inducing businesses to prematurely reinvest, is a source of malinvestment.  there are times when money is better spent reinvested , and times when money is better saved.  but a uniform tax policy does not take that into account for each individual business circumstances.  it is the  one size fits all  approach of mediocrity.   #  they have enough employees and resources to meet demand.   # let is say the economy is stagnant i. e.  neither growing nor shrinking , and demand is flat for those companies.  they have enough employees and resources to meet demand.  now, give them some money to hire more people.  what are their choices for that money ? this assumes that the company that receives the tax break would be the one hiring.  it also explicitly assumes a flat demand curve for some reasons.  there is another mechanism that could lead to further employment without the company that receives a tax break hiring.  they may use the money for a capital investment to streamline production.  regardless of the state of supply and demand there is always some piece of capital that can make production more efficient.  firm abc is profitable and paying taxes.  a lower tax rate will raise the amount of money they keep.  with this extra profit abc can buy a software upgrade from firm xyz.  this sale allows xyz to hire.   #  for certain parts of the populations, getting free money obviously makes them appear better off.   #  for the economy as a whole, generally yes, it would be better to let business and investors keep the money, as it will still be spent in the economy, and generally in ways that produce more economic benefits.  for certain parts of the populations, getting free money obviously makes them appear better off.  but, what is less obvious is how much they would not need the free money, if they could have been hired from someone that hand t been taxed.  never forget, the government has to get paid too, and they do not live cheap.  at best, economically, taxing the right pocket, to make the left pocket richer, does not make the economy better.  that is with a free government, no dead weight loss, no economic distortion from redistribution, or the introduction of other inefficiencies and corruptions.  which is to say, never.
the theory: cutting taxes on corporations creates jobs and boosts the economy.  basically, the idea is that if a company has more money, it will hire more people, which reduces unemployment and boosts the economy.  my logic thusfar: first, as far as i am aware, there is no evidence that this tactic has ever worked.  with that said, the companies that would get the most money from a tax cut would be the largest ones like walmart, mcdonald is, etc.  for some reason, i doubt that a company like walmart with a $0 billion net profit needs more money to hire people.  most of the tax revenue the federal government would lose in a tax cut would be going to companies like this that do not actually need it.  and we, as taxpayers, would either have to pay for the difference through our own taxes, or take cuts to other services.  but let is look at the other companies that would be saving money through tax cuts; the ones that supposedly would benefit and hire more people.  let is say the economy is stagnant i. e.  neither growing nor shrinking , and demand is flat for those companies.  they have enough employees and resources to meet demand.  now, give them some money to hire more people.  what are their choices for that money ? well, supposedly they can hire a few people, and those few people getting an income will help create demand for products.  the problem is, those people are not going to turn around and spend their entire paycheck on products produced by just that company, so the company is going to get back less than they invested in their workers.  now, supposedly tax cuts across multiple companies will create widespread demand, but as a company, what is the better business decision: wait for demand to increase, then hire people to meet it; or hire people, and risk not having demand rise to meet your now excess production or maybe risk having your excess production become obsolete before it can be sold ? obviously, the better business decision is the first.  unlike the second, it is no risk and guarantees the company saves money, and if every company makes that same decision, then no one will ever get hired, defeating the theory that corporate tax cuts will create jobs.  what is more, if demand is outstripping production, then, assuming the company is actually functioning like any company should, it should be turning a profit, which would allow it to hire more people anyway.  and if demand is so great that they ca not hire enough people to meet it, then they can just resort to other sources of funding, like loans, to expand production.  this has worked for countless companies in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.  in the third situation, where demand is dropping, the company is more likely going to be trimming it is workforce, not wanting to hire more people.  there is a reason why there is no evidence that giving money to corporations works.  it does not directly create demand, and the smart business decision is to wait for demand to increase before investing in increased production.  and even then, as a profitable business, it should have the resources necessary to do so anyway.  i am sure i am missing things, but what ? and are they actually enough to offset the flaws i am currently thinking about ?  #  the theory: cutting taxes on corporations creates jobs and boosts the economy.   #  basically, the idea is that if a company has more money, it will hire more people, which reduces unemployment and boosts the economy.   # basically, the idea is that if a company has more money, it will hire more people, which reduces unemployment and boosts the economy.  i am from australia, where the government/corporate culture is very different to that of the us.  what i am about to suggest is something that would be considered not that big a deal here companies might grumble about it a bit but would probably cause us companies to riot: legislatively link any tax cuts to job creation/retention.  company wants a tax cut above and beyond what they would normal get then they have to create new positions and keep people in those jobs to sustain those tax cuts.  creating jobs is  rarely  in the interests of a corporation, wages are expensive they will look at any alternative possible first.  there is no point expecting corporations as awful as the us ones to do the ethical and profitable thing for the country, not the company without either forcing them or rewarding them or a combination of the two .  tax cuts can easily be used as incentives with strings .  i view your whole post as more of an indictment of the failure of laissez faire capitalism.  giving companies monies from the public purse with no accountability for it is a recipe for failure if you give money that has to be contingent on deliverables imo.   #  there is also evidence that the corporate tax hurts labor more than the company arulampalam, devereux et al.   #  just to preface, i am not an economist, i just read some of the literature out there by economics.  politically i am moderate, i just want whatever policy that works to be implemented.  for your main point that there is no evidence, there is actually alot of evidence that reducing the corporate tax rate actually is revenue neutral for the government while increasing investment though not doing anything for employment mertens, ravn.  the dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the us.  american economic review 0 .  furthermore, simulations have shown that outright elimination of the corporate tax will increase investments, wages, and output fehr, kotlikoff et al.  simulating the elimination of the u. s.  corporate income tax.  ncpa 0 .  that being said, that simulation was dependent on other countries not responding in kind, which is a huge assumption.  there is also evidence that the corporate tax hurts labor more than the company arulampalam, devereux et al.  the direct incidence of coporate income tax on wages.  european economic review 0 .  that paper concludes that about 0 of corporate tax is actually passed onto the workforce in the form of lower wages.  so you could argue that the corporate tax should drive investment rather than hold it back as most people do .  the way the corporate tax works is that it only taxes profit.  as such, it is in the company is interest to invest into either more workforce or equipment or research before the end of the year.  the problem with this assumption is that you are basically forcing the company to take a risk.  either lose money on this fiscal year on taxes, or bet the money on the next fiscal year and hope your investments pay off in the form of increased revenue.  if your investments do not pay off, well.  you are shit out of luck.  also, a good company does not just sit on profit.  a stagnant company often goes into decline.  look at yahoo.  for a long time, they did not do anything to grow their brand.  look where they are at now, they lost their huge lead to google.  instead, a good company will create demand, either through advertising coke vs pepsi or find a new source of demand google investing into android .  in this way, the successful companies continue to grow.  remember, investment does not necessarily have to come from just hiring workers.  any form of investment including advertising, r d, buying new equipment helps the consumer economy because jobs are being created, just not in their own company.  as such, reducing the corporate tax allows a company to be more flexible in their investments, rather than forcing them into smaller, yearly investments.   #  some businesses may be low on cash, and when the economy is in trouble, a little cash can mean the difference between keeping the lights on, or shutting down forever.   #  what is good for some, is not good for all.  some businesses may be low on cash, and when the economy is in trouble, a little cash can mean the difference between keeping the lights on, or shutting down forever.  inducing businesses to prematurely reinvest, is a source of malinvestment.  there are times when money is better spent reinvested , and times when money is better saved.  but a uniform tax policy does not take that into account for each individual business circumstances.  it is the  one size fits all  approach of mediocrity.   #  they have enough employees and resources to meet demand.   # let is say the economy is stagnant i. e.  neither growing nor shrinking , and demand is flat for those companies.  they have enough employees and resources to meet demand.  now, give them some money to hire more people.  what are their choices for that money ? this assumes that the company that receives the tax break would be the one hiring.  it also explicitly assumes a flat demand curve for some reasons.  there is another mechanism that could lead to further employment without the company that receives a tax break hiring.  they may use the money for a capital investment to streamline production.  regardless of the state of supply and demand there is always some piece of capital that can make production more efficient.  firm abc is profitable and paying taxes.  a lower tax rate will raise the amount of money they keep.  with this extra profit abc can buy a software upgrade from firm xyz.  this sale allows xyz to hire.   #  for certain parts of the populations, getting free money obviously makes them appear better off.   #  for the economy as a whole, generally yes, it would be better to let business and investors keep the money, as it will still be spent in the economy, and generally in ways that produce more economic benefits.  for certain parts of the populations, getting free money obviously makes them appear better off.  but, what is less obvious is how much they would not need the free money, if they could have been hired from someone that hand t been taxed.  never forget, the government has to get paid too, and they do not live cheap.  at best, economically, taxing the right pocket, to make the left pocket richer, does not make the economy better.  that is with a free government, no dead weight loss, no economic distortion from redistribution, or the introduction of other inefficiencies and corruptions.  which is to say, never.
the theory: cutting taxes on corporations creates jobs and boosts the economy.  basically, the idea is that if a company has more money, it will hire more people, which reduces unemployment and boosts the economy.  my logic thusfar: first, as far as i am aware, there is no evidence that this tactic has ever worked.  with that said, the companies that would get the most money from a tax cut would be the largest ones like walmart, mcdonald is, etc.  for some reason, i doubt that a company like walmart with a $0 billion net profit needs more money to hire people.  most of the tax revenue the federal government would lose in a tax cut would be going to companies like this that do not actually need it.  and we, as taxpayers, would either have to pay for the difference through our own taxes, or take cuts to other services.  but let is look at the other companies that would be saving money through tax cuts; the ones that supposedly would benefit and hire more people.  let is say the economy is stagnant i. e.  neither growing nor shrinking , and demand is flat for those companies.  they have enough employees and resources to meet demand.  now, give them some money to hire more people.  what are their choices for that money ? well, supposedly they can hire a few people, and those few people getting an income will help create demand for products.  the problem is, those people are not going to turn around and spend their entire paycheck on products produced by just that company, so the company is going to get back less than they invested in their workers.  now, supposedly tax cuts across multiple companies will create widespread demand, but as a company, what is the better business decision: wait for demand to increase, then hire people to meet it; or hire people, and risk not having demand rise to meet your now excess production or maybe risk having your excess production become obsolete before it can be sold ? obviously, the better business decision is the first.  unlike the second, it is no risk and guarantees the company saves money, and if every company makes that same decision, then no one will ever get hired, defeating the theory that corporate tax cuts will create jobs.  what is more, if demand is outstripping production, then, assuming the company is actually functioning like any company should, it should be turning a profit, which would allow it to hire more people anyway.  and if demand is so great that they ca not hire enough people to meet it, then they can just resort to other sources of funding, like loans, to expand production.  this has worked for countless companies in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.  in the third situation, where demand is dropping, the company is more likely going to be trimming it is workforce, not wanting to hire more people.  there is a reason why there is no evidence that giving money to corporations works.  it does not directly create demand, and the smart business decision is to wait for demand to increase before investing in increased production.  and even then, as a profitable business, it should have the resources necessary to do so anyway.  i am sure i am missing things, but what ? and are they actually enough to offset the flaws i am currently thinking about ?  #  with that said, the companies that would get the most money from a tax cut would be the largest ones like walmart, mcdonald is, etc.   #  no,  they  would not,  their  shareholders and employees would.   #  i am curious why you do not agree with the following very simple historical fact: in the past, when taxes on firms have been lowered or made ineffective , firms have been able to hire more people; that increased hiring increases productivity increases gdp and gni , decreases crime, people do not have to go elsewhere to survive and increases productive capital thus causing a positive externality for the tax cuts.  you can see that simple fact proved by an important time period.  immediately after ww0 to the 0 is.  right after ww0, inflation skyrocketed because the fed kept the interest rate artificially low during ww0.  what that meant is congress could not regulate quickly enough to keep up with inflation.  thus: real minimum wage fell, hard, that caused unemployment to fall, hard, that increased the amount of money people were able to earn thus causing a positive externality.  also, no one complied with the tax code.  never ever look at the historical tax rates; look at tax revenue collected as a portion of gdp to see how no one used to pay taxes.  with that low income tax burden, corporations hired more people including african americans in the 0 is, by the way unemployment among african americans was a low .  no,  they  would not,  their  shareholders and employees would.  the  shareholders  side of it typically means grandma and grandpa is investment fund.  see, this makes sense now, you are not very familiar with what a  tax cut  for corporations means.  who is paying a corporation is tax ? URL  but there are two important issues you need to know about corporation taxes:  first, a corporations  income is double taxed.  when the corporation earns income, it pays a tax up to 0 then when it distributes money by way of dividends from e p currently pegged to the capital gains rate that income is taxed  again .  so up to 0 or more of corporate income is just skimmed right off the top and goes to the federal government.  second, corporations have to pay tons of incidental fees, regulatory costs, and payroll taxes taxation on the payment of employees .  my post could get incredibly long because this is a very large topic.  but i will slow this down to just the following takeaway: in the past, the us government understood the adage of,  tax what you want to destroy.   so states cannot tax the federal government mcculloch v.  maryland , and the federal gov t taxed whisky, taxed child labor, etc.  ;  now the us government is increasing taxes on productive money and job creation.   where is the logic in that ? you also need to know what  productive money  means.  if you earn $0 and put it in a jar under your bed, that money is not  doing anything .  if you take that $0 and invest it and you pay someone to complete a task for you and that task earns you $0, you can then pay that person $0 and keep $0 for yourself.  that is productive money.  corporate taxes destroy productive money you would have to pay the irs both on your corporations income and on the $0 you paid to your employee; thus it would be more profitable for you to just save that $0 under your mattress than to hire someone with it and that employee is now earning $0 instead of $0 .   #  the direct incidence of coporate income tax on wages.   #  just to preface, i am not an economist, i just read some of the literature out there by economics.  politically i am moderate, i just want whatever policy that works to be implemented.  for your main point that there is no evidence, there is actually alot of evidence that reducing the corporate tax rate actually is revenue neutral for the government while increasing investment though not doing anything for employment mertens, ravn.  the dynamic effects of personal and corporate income tax changes in the us.  american economic review 0 .  furthermore, simulations have shown that outright elimination of the corporate tax will increase investments, wages, and output fehr, kotlikoff et al.  simulating the elimination of the u. s.  corporate income tax.  ncpa 0 .  that being said, that simulation was dependent on other countries not responding in kind, which is a huge assumption.  there is also evidence that the corporate tax hurts labor more than the company arulampalam, devereux et al.  the direct incidence of coporate income tax on wages.  european economic review 0 .  that paper concludes that about 0 of corporate tax is actually passed onto the workforce in the form of lower wages.  so you could argue that the corporate tax should drive investment rather than hold it back as most people do .  the way the corporate tax works is that it only taxes profit.  as such, it is in the company is interest to invest into either more workforce or equipment or research before the end of the year.  the problem with this assumption is that you are basically forcing the company to take a risk.  either lose money on this fiscal year on taxes, or bet the money on the next fiscal year and hope your investments pay off in the form of increased revenue.  if your investments do not pay off, well.  you are shit out of luck.  also, a good company does not just sit on profit.  a stagnant company often goes into decline.  look at yahoo.  for a long time, they did not do anything to grow their brand.  look where they are at now, they lost their huge lead to google.  instead, a good company will create demand, either through advertising coke vs pepsi or find a new source of demand google investing into android .  in this way, the successful companies continue to grow.  remember, investment does not necessarily have to come from just hiring workers.  any form of investment including advertising, r d, buying new equipment helps the consumer economy because jobs are being created, just not in their own company.  as such, reducing the corporate tax allows a company to be more flexible in their investments, rather than forcing them into smaller, yearly investments.   #  it is the  one size fits all  approach of mediocrity.   #  what is good for some, is not good for all.  some businesses may be low on cash, and when the economy is in trouble, a little cash can mean the difference between keeping the lights on, or shutting down forever.  inducing businesses to prematurely reinvest, is a source of malinvestment.  there are times when money is better spent reinvested , and times when money is better saved.  but a uniform tax policy does not take that into account for each individual business circumstances.  it is the  one size fits all  approach of mediocrity.   #  neither growing nor shrinking , and demand is flat for those companies.   # let is say the economy is stagnant i. e.  neither growing nor shrinking , and demand is flat for those companies.  they have enough employees and resources to meet demand.  now, give them some money to hire more people.  what are their choices for that money ? this assumes that the company that receives the tax break would be the one hiring.  it also explicitly assumes a flat demand curve for some reasons.  there is another mechanism that could lead to further employment without the company that receives a tax break hiring.  they may use the money for a capital investment to streamline production.  regardless of the state of supply and demand there is always some piece of capital that can make production more efficient.  firm abc is profitable and paying taxes.  a lower tax rate will raise the amount of money they keep.  with this extra profit abc can buy a software upgrade from firm xyz.  this sale allows xyz to hire.   #  for certain parts of the populations, getting free money obviously makes them appear better off.   #  for the economy as a whole, generally yes, it would be better to let business and investors keep the money, as it will still be spent in the economy, and generally in ways that produce more economic benefits.  for certain parts of the populations, getting free money obviously makes them appear better off.  but, what is less obvious is how much they would not need the free money, if they could have been hired from someone that hand t been taxed.  never forget, the government has to get paid too, and they do not live cheap.  at best, economically, taxing the right pocket, to make the left pocket richer, does not make the economy better.  that is with a free government, no dead weight loss, no economic distortion from redistribution, or the introduction of other inefficiencies and corruptions.  which is to say, never.
0 i have never played it before, i have only read about it.  i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  0 i am terrified of trying it myself because i think my level of creativity will be judged, i have heard it is only fun if you are creative.  0 i find bad acting very cringey, and i do not act well so trying out roleplaying/watching other people act badly does not appeal to me.  0 my boyfriend is about to start playing it and you hear lots of horror stories about people starting to talk using only dnd language and getting sucked in.  i do not want to be negative about the game because i see he is very excited about starting it, so i want to know what is exciting about it.  he really only opens up and gets excited when he plays games so the thought that he could be very emotionally invested in it and i wo not be a part of it makes me a bit sad.  plus he is still figuring life out and is not highly commited to many other things.  0 i am not biased against playing games or video games in general, i enjoy them from time to time but dnd seems exceedingly high commitment.  relates to point 0 overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   #  0 i have never played it before, i have only read about it.   #  i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .   #  i play d d occasionally, as do many of my friends.  i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  i do not see why not being able to  win  makes it pointless.  i do not  win  anything when commenting on reddit, but there seems to be a point, or otherwise i would not do it.  : but .  you  can  win, sort of.  as a team, you accomplish things together you defeat enemies, you figure out riddles, etc.  all of these are  winning , in a way.  but .  if everyone is there to have fun, they should not be judging you for your creativity they should be supporting the good and not making an issue of the bad, like people who are friends do.  :   0 my boyfriend is about to start playing it and you hear lots of horror stories about people starting to talk using only dnd language and getting sucked in.  i will admit that sometimes i apply d d language to non d d things i tend to think of people as having d d like alignments, for example.  but that kind of conceptual cross fertilization happens with  anything  you love.  this is a relationship dynamic issue, not a d d issue.  i think it is natural that your boyfriend will be emotionally invested in things that you are not into, and that part of what strengthens relationship is the joy you each bring to the relationship about your lives, and that is built in part on doing things you love .  so i do not think this should make you  sad , it should just be something that your boyfriend enjoys doing.  :   dnd seems exceedingly high commitment.  other than for the person running the game, it really does not have to be.  i have been in games that met one night a month, for example; that is not high commitment at all.   #  most of the people i play with, myself included, are married to people who do not play.   #  0 in any d d campaign, there are going to be short and long term objectives that the players are trying to achieve.  completing those objectives could be construed as  winning.   the primary point, however, is collaborative storytelling.  the dm creates plot hooks, enemies, side characters, and so forth.  the players create the main characters.  but really, does it even matter ? why does recreation need a point beyond recreation ? 0   0 this will vary from group to group.  some groups can get very into the role playing side, some groups do not.  i play in a live game on fridays, and there is very little role play.  we describe what our characters do rather than try to act it out, and nobody gets judged for having a fairly generic character.  i also play in a  play by post  campaign on a web forum.  there is more role play there since most of us are better and more comfortable as writers than as actors.  all depends on the group.  0 i have no idea where this came from.  most of the people i play with, myself included, are married to people who do not play.  we are nerds, certainly, but we do not get sucked in.  it is just a hobby.  all hobbies have their outliers ever met someone who wo not shut up about their workout program, or favorite sports team ? but the vast majority can keep them separate.  i do not ever talk about it to people who are not interested in it.  i only even talk about it with my wife if i have a particularly funny story to tell.  0 the level of commitment required will depend entirely on the group.  my group meets on friday evenings, and it is no big deal if someone ca not make it.  every single one of us would be horrified if someone disregarded a major need of their spouse is just to come play a game.  heck, i have skipped at times simply because i was tired and did not want to leave the house.  nobody raised an eyebrow.   #  for xxx and your concerns will still sound the same.   # it seems that you do not have a problem with dnd here.  you have a problem with your boyfriend being emotionally invested in activity xxx that might be  high commitment.   i can literally substitute any activity hiking, skiing, climbing, dancing, etc.  for xxx and your concerns will still sound the same.  ask yourself these question: why is it a bad thing for your boyfriend to be emotionally invested in some activity he likes ? why would your boyfriend  opening up and getting excited  make you sad ?  #  my brutally honest opinion that has nothing to do with the question at hand.  especially if you truly feel this way.   #  i am going to try something different here, i do not think dnd is the issue.  from a  quick and dirty psycho analysis , i feel like you are a bit insecure about what people think of you and want to quell any associations you do not like that other people would negatively draw back to you.  someone else who enjoys something you do not should have no bearing on whether you feel comfortable or not.  and even further, someone whom you care about should have your total support or at the very least, apathy for their hobbies provided it is harmless to those involved.  i have many friends who play dnd.  it is just a game with numbers and math.  role playing is optional and not always included.  regardless, it is just a tabletop game many people enjoy.  my brutally honest opinion that has nothing to do with the question at hand.  especially if you truly feel this way.  i think you are dating your boyfriend for status rather than companionship.  healthy couples do not have opinions like these.   #  for 0 0 hours every other week, i am able to inhabit the body of an epic hero.   #   overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   i work in a high stress job for 0 hours a week.  on saturday afternoons i get together with friends and my brother and his wife and play dnd.  my wife does not play dnd but she loves theater and regularly acts in plays and musicals for her outlet .  for 0 0 hours every other week, i am able to inhabit the body of an epic hero.  one that does not have to worry about bills.  one that does not have to take crap off anyone.  one who is not shy and introverted.  we win all the time when we play we level, we get magical items, we slay monsters, we cooperate, we tell stories most importantly, we are the stories .  we do not role play in the strictest sense, but we sometimes put on terrible accents, and we try to follow our character is alignment, sometimes doing things that are not  smart  but would be totally  in character.   we laugh at ourselves and each other.  we figure out how to best take down that ogre magi who is the mastermind behind those goblin attacks.  we figure out how to get past a trapped hallway.  we enter gloomy catacombs inhabited by evil undead.  and nothing we do has anything to do with the real world.  for 0 0 hours every other week i do not care who got arrested for a new charge, or who is calling me complaining about something.  i do not have 0 probationers for that short time.  that is what dnd is to me.  if you do not want the game to exist in the people in your life, please just ask yourself why.  the only thing i can gather is that you do not want your boyfriend to participate in a hobby that you are not interested in, or alternatively, do not want him to make a time commitment to something that requires him to be away from you.  correct me if i am wrong.
0 i have never played it before, i have only read about it.  i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  0 i am terrified of trying it myself because i think my level of creativity will be judged, i have heard it is only fun if you are creative.  0 i find bad acting very cringey, and i do not act well so trying out roleplaying/watching other people act badly does not appeal to me.  0 my boyfriend is about to start playing it and you hear lots of horror stories about people starting to talk using only dnd language and getting sucked in.  i do not want to be negative about the game because i see he is very excited about starting it, so i want to know what is exciting about it.  he really only opens up and gets excited when he plays games so the thought that he could be very emotionally invested in it and i wo not be a part of it makes me a bit sad.  plus he is still figuring life out and is not highly commited to many other things.  0 i am not biased against playing games or video games in general, i enjoy them from time to time but dnd seems exceedingly high commitment.  relates to point 0 overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   #  so the thought that he could be very emotionally invested in it and i wo not be a part of it makes me a bit sad.   #  this is a relationship dynamic issue, not a d d issue.   #  i play d d occasionally, as do many of my friends.  i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  i do not see why not being able to  win  makes it pointless.  i do not  win  anything when commenting on reddit, but there seems to be a point, or otherwise i would not do it.  : but .  you  can  win, sort of.  as a team, you accomplish things together you defeat enemies, you figure out riddles, etc.  all of these are  winning , in a way.  but .  if everyone is there to have fun, they should not be judging you for your creativity they should be supporting the good and not making an issue of the bad, like people who are friends do.  :   0 my boyfriend is about to start playing it and you hear lots of horror stories about people starting to talk using only dnd language and getting sucked in.  i will admit that sometimes i apply d d language to non d d things i tend to think of people as having d d like alignments, for example.  but that kind of conceptual cross fertilization happens with  anything  you love.  this is a relationship dynamic issue, not a d d issue.  i think it is natural that your boyfriend will be emotionally invested in things that you are not into, and that part of what strengthens relationship is the joy you each bring to the relationship about your lives, and that is built in part on doing things you love .  so i do not think this should make you  sad , it should just be something that your boyfriend enjoys doing.  :   dnd seems exceedingly high commitment.  other than for the person running the game, it really does not have to be.  i have been in games that met one night a month, for example; that is not high commitment at all.   #  why does recreation need a point beyond recreation ?  #  0 in any d d campaign, there are going to be short and long term objectives that the players are trying to achieve.  completing those objectives could be construed as  winning.   the primary point, however, is collaborative storytelling.  the dm creates plot hooks, enemies, side characters, and so forth.  the players create the main characters.  but really, does it even matter ? why does recreation need a point beyond recreation ? 0   0 this will vary from group to group.  some groups can get very into the role playing side, some groups do not.  i play in a live game on fridays, and there is very little role play.  we describe what our characters do rather than try to act it out, and nobody gets judged for having a fairly generic character.  i also play in a  play by post  campaign on a web forum.  there is more role play there since most of us are better and more comfortable as writers than as actors.  all depends on the group.  0 i have no idea where this came from.  most of the people i play with, myself included, are married to people who do not play.  we are nerds, certainly, but we do not get sucked in.  it is just a hobby.  all hobbies have their outliers ever met someone who wo not shut up about their workout program, or favorite sports team ? but the vast majority can keep them separate.  i do not ever talk about it to people who are not interested in it.  i only even talk about it with my wife if i have a particularly funny story to tell.  0 the level of commitment required will depend entirely on the group.  my group meets on friday evenings, and it is no big deal if someone ca not make it.  every single one of us would be horrified if someone disregarded a major need of their spouse is just to come play a game.  heck, i have skipped at times simply because i was tired and did not want to leave the house.  nobody raised an eyebrow.   #  ask yourself these question: why is it a bad thing for your boyfriend to be emotionally invested in some activity he likes ?  # it seems that you do not have a problem with dnd here.  you have a problem with your boyfriend being emotionally invested in activity xxx that might be  high commitment.   i can literally substitute any activity hiking, skiing, climbing, dancing, etc.  for xxx and your concerns will still sound the same.  ask yourself these question: why is it a bad thing for your boyfriend to be emotionally invested in some activity he likes ? why would your boyfriend  opening up and getting excited  make you sad ?  #  and even further, someone whom you care about should have your total support or at the very least, apathy for their hobbies provided it is harmless to those involved.   #  i am going to try something different here, i do not think dnd is the issue.  from a  quick and dirty psycho analysis , i feel like you are a bit insecure about what people think of you and want to quell any associations you do not like that other people would negatively draw back to you.  someone else who enjoys something you do not should have no bearing on whether you feel comfortable or not.  and even further, someone whom you care about should have your total support or at the very least, apathy for their hobbies provided it is harmless to those involved.  i have many friends who play dnd.  it is just a game with numbers and math.  role playing is optional and not always included.  regardless, it is just a tabletop game many people enjoy.  my brutally honest opinion that has nothing to do with the question at hand.  especially if you truly feel this way.  i think you are dating your boyfriend for status rather than companionship.  healthy couples do not have opinions like these.   #  and nothing we do has anything to do with the real world.   #   overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   i work in a high stress job for 0 hours a week.  on saturday afternoons i get together with friends and my brother and his wife and play dnd.  my wife does not play dnd but she loves theater and regularly acts in plays and musicals for her outlet .  for 0 0 hours every other week, i am able to inhabit the body of an epic hero.  one that does not have to worry about bills.  one that does not have to take crap off anyone.  one who is not shy and introverted.  we win all the time when we play we level, we get magical items, we slay monsters, we cooperate, we tell stories most importantly, we are the stories .  we do not role play in the strictest sense, but we sometimes put on terrible accents, and we try to follow our character is alignment, sometimes doing things that are not  smart  but would be totally  in character.   we laugh at ourselves and each other.  we figure out how to best take down that ogre magi who is the mastermind behind those goblin attacks.  we figure out how to get past a trapped hallway.  we enter gloomy catacombs inhabited by evil undead.  and nothing we do has anything to do with the real world.  for 0 0 hours every other week i do not care who got arrested for a new charge, or who is calling me complaining about something.  i do not have 0 probationers for that short time.  that is what dnd is to me.  if you do not want the game to exist in the people in your life, please just ask yourself why.  the only thing i can gather is that you do not want your boyfriend to participate in a hobby that you are not interested in, or alternatively, do not want him to make a time commitment to something that requires him to be away from you.  correct me if i am wrong.
0 i have never played it before, i have only read about it.  i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  0 i am terrified of trying it myself because i think my level of creativity will be judged, i have heard it is only fun if you are creative.  0 i find bad acting very cringey, and i do not act well so trying out roleplaying/watching other people act badly does not appeal to me.  0 my boyfriend is about to start playing it and you hear lots of horror stories about people starting to talk using only dnd language and getting sucked in.  i do not want to be negative about the game because i see he is very excited about starting it, so i want to know what is exciting about it.  he really only opens up and gets excited when he plays games so the thought that he could be very emotionally invested in it and i wo not be a part of it makes me a bit sad.  plus he is still figuring life out and is not highly commited to many other things.  0 i am not biased against playing games or video games in general, i enjoy them from time to time but dnd seems exceedingly high commitment.  relates to point 0 overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   #  i find bad acting very cringey, and i do not act well so trying out roleplaying/watching other people act badly does not appeal to me.   #  the level of acting varies widely by group, and by individual.   # the level of acting varies widely by group, and by individual.  i tend to act a little bit, but if it is horrible we lampshade it, laugh, and move on.  others just narrate what their characters are doing in the 0rd person.  on a more unrelated level.  every actor who has ever acted, with very few exceptions, has been a bad actor at some point.  it is a skill, and like any other skill, practice makes perfect.   #  completing those objectives could be construed as  winning.    #  0 in any d d campaign, there are going to be short and long term objectives that the players are trying to achieve.  completing those objectives could be construed as  winning.   the primary point, however, is collaborative storytelling.  the dm creates plot hooks, enemies, side characters, and so forth.  the players create the main characters.  but really, does it even matter ? why does recreation need a point beyond recreation ? 0   0 this will vary from group to group.  some groups can get very into the role playing side, some groups do not.  i play in a live game on fridays, and there is very little role play.  we describe what our characters do rather than try to act it out, and nobody gets judged for having a fairly generic character.  i also play in a  play by post  campaign on a web forum.  there is more role play there since most of us are better and more comfortable as writers than as actors.  all depends on the group.  0 i have no idea where this came from.  most of the people i play with, myself included, are married to people who do not play.  we are nerds, certainly, but we do not get sucked in.  it is just a hobby.  all hobbies have their outliers ever met someone who wo not shut up about their workout program, or favorite sports team ? but the vast majority can keep them separate.  i do not ever talk about it to people who are not interested in it.  i only even talk about it with my wife if i have a particularly funny story to tell.  0 the level of commitment required will depend entirely on the group.  my group meets on friday evenings, and it is no big deal if someone ca not make it.  every single one of us would be horrified if someone disregarded a major need of their spouse is just to come play a game.  heck, i have skipped at times simply because i was tired and did not want to leave the house.  nobody raised an eyebrow.   #  for xxx and your concerns will still sound the same.   # it seems that you do not have a problem with dnd here.  you have a problem with your boyfriend being emotionally invested in activity xxx that might be  high commitment.   i can literally substitute any activity hiking, skiing, climbing, dancing, etc.  for xxx and your concerns will still sound the same.  ask yourself these question: why is it a bad thing for your boyfriend to be emotionally invested in some activity he likes ? why would your boyfriend  opening up and getting excited  make you sad ?  #  my brutally honest opinion that has nothing to do with the question at hand.  especially if you truly feel this way.   #  i am going to try something different here, i do not think dnd is the issue.  from a  quick and dirty psycho analysis , i feel like you are a bit insecure about what people think of you and want to quell any associations you do not like that other people would negatively draw back to you.  someone else who enjoys something you do not should have no bearing on whether you feel comfortable or not.  and even further, someone whom you care about should have your total support or at the very least, apathy for their hobbies provided it is harmless to those involved.  i have many friends who play dnd.  it is just a game with numbers and math.  role playing is optional and not always included.  regardless, it is just a tabletop game many people enjoy.  my brutally honest opinion that has nothing to do with the question at hand.  especially if you truly feel this way.  i think you are dating your boyfriend for status rather than companionship.  healthy couples do not have opinions like these.   #  for 0 0 hours every other week i do not care who got arrested for a new charge, or who is calling me complaining about something.   #   overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   i work in a high stress job for 0 hours a week.  on saturday afternoons i get together with friends and my brother and his wife and play dnd.  my wife does not play dnd but she loves theater and regularly acts in plays and musicals for her outlet .  for 0 0 hours every other week, i am able to inhabit the body of an epic hero.  one that does not have to worry about bills.  one that does not have to take crap off anyone.  one who is not shy and introverted.  we win all the time when we play we level, we get magical items, we slay monsters, we cooperate, we tell stories most importantly, we are the stories .  we do not role play in the strictest sense, but we sometimes put on terrible accents, and we try to follow our character is alignment, sometimes doing things that are not  smart  but would be totally  in character.   we laugh at ourselves and each other.  we figure out how to best take down that ogre magi who is the mastermind behind those goblin attacks.  we figure out how to get past a trapped hallway.  we enter gloomy catacombs inhabited by evil undead.  and nothing we do has anything to do with the real world.  for 0 0 hours every other week i do not care who got arrested for a new charge, or who is calling me complaining about something.  i do not have 0 probationers for that short time.  that is what dnd is to me.  if you do not want the game to exist in the people in your life, please just ask yourself why.  the only thing i can gather is that you do not want your boyfriend to participate in a hobby that you are not interested in, or alternatively, do not want him to make a time commitment to something that requires him to be away from you.  correct me if i am wrong.
0 i have never played it before, i have only read about it.  i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  0 i am terrified of trying it myself because i think my level of creativity will be judged, i have heard it is only fun if you are creative.  0 i find bad acting very cringey, and i do not act well so trying out roleplaying/watching other people act badly does not appeal to me.  0 my boyfriend is about to start playing it and you hear lots of horror stories about people starting to talk using only dnd language and getting sucked in.  i do not want to be negative about the game because i see he is very excited about starting it, so i want to know what is exciting about it.  he really only opens up and gets excited when he plays games so the thought that he could be very emotionally invested in it and i wo not be a part of it makes me a bit sad.  plus he is still figuring life out and is not highly commited to many other things.  0 i am not biased against playing games or video games in general, i enjoy them from time to time but dnd seems exceedingly high commitment.  relates to point 0 overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   #  0 i have never played it before, i have only read about it.   #  i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .   # i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  can you  win  at acting or writing ? d d is basically that improv acting and writing rolled into one.  it is basically a more complicated version of running about on a playground pretending to be mighty warriors: you do not have to have a win condition.  that said, you  can  have a win condition in a d d adventure, usually clearing a dungeon or killing a bbeg  big bad evil guy   0 i am terrified of trying it myself because i think my level of creativity will be judged, i have heard it is only fun if you are creative.  it is perfectly easy to play without creativity.  many adventures have pre generated characters for people just like you.  plus, what better way to get started on your creativity than to start trying it ? not every group acts.  i have had players and gms who attempt to act, accents and all, and some who do not.  generally you have a mixture at the table.  there is a difference between saying  i will use my mighty divine powers to cast smite evil on the undead  and  my paladin casts smite evil on the undead for 0d0 damage , though both are acceptable.  i do not want to be negative about the game because i see he is very excited about starting it, so i want to know what is exciting about it.  he really only opens up and gets excited when he plays games so the thought that he could be very emotionally invested in it and i wo not be a part of it makes me a bit sad.  plus he is still figuring life out and is not highly commited to many other things.  most of the people getting  sucked in  are just stories back from the moral panic of the 0s and 0s.  d d was the doom or grand theft auto of its time, but unfortunately some of the stories have stuck with it.  d d not only requires improv skill, but it is also a great way to socialize: for someone with problems committing, if he enjoys it, it can be a great social experience.  relates to point 0 it is, but it is also social.  team sports are high commitment, even amateur leagues, but you play it with other real people who share your interests.  it is a great social exercise.   #  heck, i have skipped at times simply because i was tired and did not want to leave the house.   #  0 in any d d campaign, there are going to be short and long term objectives that the players are trying to achieve.  completing those objectives could be construed as  winning.   the primary point, however, is collaborative storytelling.  the dm creates plot hooks, enemies, side characters, and so forth.  the players create the main characters.  but really, does it even matter ? why does recreation need a point beyond recreation ? 0   0 this will vary from group to group.  some groups can get very into the role playing side, some groups do not.  i play in a live game on fridays, and there is very little role play.  we describe what our characters do rather than try to act it out, and nobody gets judged for having a fairly generic character.  i also play in a  play by post  campaign on a web forum.  there is more role play there since most of us are better and more comfortable as writers than as actors.  all depends on the group.  0 i have no idea where this came from.  most of the people i play with, myself included, are married to people who do not play.  we are nerds, certainly, but we do not get sucked in.  it is just a hobby.  all hobbies have their outliers ever met someone who wo not shut up about their workout program, or favorite sports team ? but the vast majority can keep them separate.  i do not ever talk about it to people who are not interested in it.  i only even talk about it with my wife if i have a particularly funny story to tell.  0 the level of commitment required will depend entirely on the group.  my group meets on friday evenings, and it is no big deal if someone ca not make it.  every single one of us would be horrified if someone disregarded a major need of their spouse is just to come play a game.  heck, i have skipped at times simply because i was tired and did not want to leave the house.  nobody raised an eyebrow.   #  it seems that you do not have a problem with dnd here.   # it seems that you do not have a problem with dnd here.  you have a problem with your boyfriend being emotionally invested in activity xxx that might be  high commitment.   i can literally substitute any activity hiking, skiing, climbing, dancing, etc.  for xxx and your concerns will still sound the same.  ask yourself these question: why is it a bad thing for your boyfriend to be emotionally invested in some activity he likes ? why would your boyfriend  opening up and getting excited  make you sad ?  #  i think you are dating your boyfriend for status rather than companionship.   #  i am going to try something different here, i do not think dnd is the issue.  from a  quick and dirty psycho analysis , i feel like you are a bit insecure about what people think of you and want to quell any associations you do not like that other people would negatively draw back to you.  someone else who enjoys something you do not should have no bearing on whether you feel comfortable or not.  and even further, someone whom you care about should have your total support or at the very least, apathy for their hobbies provided it is harmless to those involved.  i have many friends who play dnd.  it is just a game with numbers and math.  role playing is optional and not always included.  regardless, it is just a tabletop game many people enjoy.  my brutally honest opinion that has nothing to do with the question at hand.  especially if you truly feel this way.  i think you are dating your boyfriend for status rather than companionship.  healthy couples do not have opinions like these.   #  for 0 0 hours every other week, i am able to inhabit the body of an epic hero.   #   overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   i work in a high stress job for 0 hours a week.  on saturday afternoons i get together with friends and my brother and his wife and play dnd.  my wife does not play dnd but she loves theater and regularly acts in plays and musicals for her outlet .  for 0 0 hours every other week, i am able to inhabit the body of an epic hero.  one that does not have to worry about bills.  one that does not have to take crap off anyone.  one who is not shy and introverted.  we win all the time when we play we level, we get magical items, we slay monsters, we cooperate, we tell stories most importantly, we are the stories .  we do not role play in the strictest sense, but we sometimes put on terrible accents, and we try to follow our character is alignment, sometimes doing things that are not  smart  but would be totally  in character.   we laugh at ourselves and each other.  we figure out how to best take down that ogre magi who is the mastermind behind those goblin attacks.  we figure out how to get past a trapped hallway.  we enter gloomy catacombs inhabited by evil undead.  and nothing we do has anything to do with the real world.  for 0 0 hours every other week i do not care who got arrested for a new charge, or who is calling me complaining about something.  i do not have 0 probationers for that short time.  that is what dnd is to me.  if you do not want the game to exist in the people in your life, please just ask yourself why.  the only thing i can gather is that you do not want your boyfriend to participate in a hobby that you are not interested in, or alternatively, do not want him to make a time commitment to something that requires him to be away from you.  correct me if i am wrong.
0 i have never played it before, i have only read about it.  i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  0 i am terrified of trying it myself because i think my level of creativity will be judged, i have heard it is only fun if you are creative.  0 i find bad acting very cringey, and i do not act well so trying out roleplaying/watching other people act badly does not appeal to me.  0 my boyfriend is about to start playing it and you hear lots of horror stories about people starting to talk using only dnd language and getting sucked in.  i do not want to be negative about the game because i see he is very excited about starting it, so i want to know what is exciting about it.  he really only opens up and gets excited when he plays games so the thought that he could be very emotionally invested in it and i wo not be a part of it makes me a bit sad.  plus he is still figuring life out and is not highly commited to many other things.  0 i am not biased against playing games or video games in general, i enjoy them from time to time but dnd seems exceedingly high commitment.  relates to point 0 overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   #  0 my boyfriend is about to start playing it and you hear lots of horror stories about people starting to talk using only dnd language and getting sucked in.   #  i do not want to be negative about the game because i see he is very excited about starting it, so i want to know what is exciting about it.   # i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  can you  win  at acting or writing ? d d is basically that improv acting and writing rolled into one.  it is basically a more complicated version of running about on a playground pretending to be mighty warriors: you do not have to have a win condition.  that said, you  can  have a win condition in a d d adventure, usually clearing a dungeon or killing a bbeg  big bad evil guy   0 i am terrified of trying it myself because i think my level of creativity will be judged, i have heard it is only fun if you are creative.  it is perfectly easy to play without creativity.  many adventures have pre generated characters for people just like you.  plus, what better way to get started on your creativity than to start trying it ? not every group acts.  i have had players and gms who attempt to act, accents and all, and some who do not.  generally you have a mixture at the table.  there is a difference between saying  i will use my mighty divine powers to cast smite evil on the undead  and  my paladin casts smite evil on the undead for 0d0 damage , though both are acceptable.  i do not want to be negative about the game because i see he is very excited about starting it, so i want to know what is exciting about it.  he really only opens up and gets excited when he plays games so the thought that he could be very emotionally invested in it and i wo not be a part of it makes me a bit sad.  plus he is still figuring life out and is not highly commited to many other things.  most of the people getting  sucked in  are just stories back from the moral panic of the 0s and 0s.  d d was the doom or grand theft auto of its time, but unfortunately some of the stories have stuck with it.  d d not only requires improv skill, but it is also a great way to socialize: for someone with problems committing, if he enjoys it, it can be a great social experience.  relates to point 0 it is, but it is also social.  team sports are high commitment, even amateur leagues, but you play it with other real people who share your interests.  it is a great social exercise.   #  some groups can get very into the role playing side, some groups do not.   #  0 in any d d campaign, there are going to be short and long term objectives that the players are trying to achieve.  completing those objectives could be construed as  winning.   the primary point, however, is collaborative storytelling.  the dm creates plot hooks, enemies, side characters, and so forth.  the players create the main characters.  but really, does it even matter ? why does recreation need a point beyond recreation ? 0   0 this will vary from group to group.  some groups can get very into the role playing side, some groups do not.  i play in a live game on fridays, and there is very little role play.  we describe what our characters do rather than try to act it out, and nobody gets judged for having a fairly generic character.  i also play in a  play by post  campaign on a web forum.  there is more role play there since most of us are better and more comfortable as writers than as actors.  all depends on the group.  0 i have no idea where this came from.  most of the people i play with, myself included, are married to people who do not play.  we are nerds, certainly, but we do not get sucked in.  it is just a hobby.  all hobbies have their outliers ever met someone who wo not shut up about their workout program, or favorite sports team ? but the vast majority can keep them separate.  i do not ever talk about it to people who are not interested in it.  i only even talk about it with my wife if i have a particularly funny story to tell.  0 the level of commitment required will depend entirely on the group.  my group meets on friday evenings, and it is no big deal if someone ca not make it.  every single one of us would be horrified if someone disregarded a major need of their spouse is just to come play a game.  heck, i have skipped at times simply because i was tired and did not want to leave the house.  nobody raised an eyebrow.   #  it seems that you do not have a problem with dnd here.   # it seems that you do not have a problem with dnd here.  you have a problem with your boyfriend being emotionally invested in activity xxx that might be  high commitment.   i can literally substitute any activity hiking, skiing, climbing, dancing, etc.  for xxx and your concerns will still sound the same.  ask yourself these question: why is it a bad thing for your boyfriend to be emotionally invested in some activity he likes ? why would your boyfriend  opening up and getting excited  make you sad ?  #  my brutally honest opinion that has nothing to do with the question at hand.  especially if you truly feel this way.   #  i am going to try something different here, i do not think dnd is the issue.  from a  quick and dirty psycho analysis , i feel like you are a bit insecure about what people think of you and want to quell any associations you do not like that other people would negatively draw back to you.  someone else who enjoys something you do not should have no bearing on whether you feel comfortable or not.  and even further, someone whom you care about should have your total support or at the very least, apathy for their hobbies provided it is harmless to those involved.  i have many friends who play dnd.  it is just a game with numbers and math.  role playing is optional and not always included.  regardless, it is just a tabletop game many people enjoy.  my brutally honest opinion that has nothing to do with the question at hand.  especially if you truly feel this way.  i think you are dating your boyfriend for status rather than companionship.  healthy couples do not have opinions like these.   #  for 0 0 hours every other week i do not care who got arrested for a new charge, or who is calling me complaining about something.   #   overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   i work in a high stress job for 0 hours a week.  on saturday afternoons i get together with friends and my brother and his wife and play dnd.  my wife does not play dnd but she loves theater and regularly acts in plays and musicals for her outlet .  for 0 0 hours every other week, i am able to inhabit the body of an epic hero.  one that does not have to worry about bills.  one that does not have to take crap off anyone.  one who is not shy and introverted.  we win all the time when we play we level, we get magical items, we slay monsters, we cooperate, we tell stories most importantly, we are the stories .  we do not role play in the strictest sense, but we sometimes put on terrible accents, and we try to follow our character is alignment, sometimes doing things that are not  smart  but would be totally  in character.   we laugh at ourselves and each other.  we figure out how to best take down that ogre magi who is the mastermind behind those goblin attacks.  we figure out how to get past a trapped hallway.  we enter gloomy catacombs inhabited by evil undead.  and nothing we do has anything to do with the real world.  for 0 0 hours every other week i do not care who got arrested for a new charge, or who is calling me complaining about something.  i do not have 0 probationers for that short time.  that is what dnd is to me.  if you do not want the game to exist in the people in your life, please just ask yourself why.  the only thing i can gather is that you do not want your boyfriend to participate in a hobby that you are not interested in, or alternatively, do not want him to make a time commitment to something that requires him to be away from you.  correct me if i am wrong.
0 i have never played it before, i have only read about it.  i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  0 i am terrified of trying it myself because i think my level of creativity will be judged, i have heard it is only fun if you are creative.  0 i find bad acting very cringey, and i do not act well so trying out roleplaying/watching other people act badly does not appeal to me.  0 my boyfriend is about to start playing it and you hear lots of horror stories about people starting to talk using only dnd language and getting sucked in.  i do not want to be negative about the game because i see he is very excited about starting it, so i want to know what is exciting about it.  he really only opens up and gets excited when he plays games so the thought that he could be very emotionally invested in it and i wo not be a part of it makes me a bit sad.  plus he is still figuring life out and is not highly commited to many other things.  0 i am not biased against playing games or video games in general, i enjoy them from time to time but dnd seems exceedingly high commitment.  relates to point 0 overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   #  0 i am not biased against playing games or video games in general, i enjoy them from time to time but dnd seems exceedingly high commitment.   #  relates to point 0 it is, but it is also social.   # i have read that it is  pointless  because you ca not  win .  can you  win  at acting or writing ? d d is basically that improv acting and writing rolled into one.  it is basically a more complicated version of running about on a playground pretending to be mighty warriors: you do not have to have a win condition.  that said, you  can  have a win condition in a d d adventure, usually clearing a dungeon or killing a bbeg  big bad evil guy   0 i am terrified of trying it myself because i think my level of creativity will be judged, i have heard it is only fun if you are creative.  it is perfectly easy to play without creativity.  many adventures have pre generated characters for people just like you.  plus, what better way to get started on your creativity than to start trying it ? not every group acts.  i have had players and gms who attempt to act, accents and all, and some who do not.  generally you have a mixture at the table.  there is a difference between saying  i will use my mighty divine powers to cast smite evil on the undead  and  my paladin casts smite evil on the undead for 0d0 damage , though both are acceptable.  i do not want to be negative about the game because i see he is very excited about starting it, so i want to know what is exciting about it.  he really only opens up and gets excited when he plays games so the thought that he could be very emotionally invested in it and i wo not be a part of it makes me a bit sad.  plus he is still figuring life out and is not highly commited to many other things.  most of the people getting  sucked in  are just stories back from the moral panic of the 0s and 0s.  d d was the doom or grand theft auto of its time, but unfortunately some of the stories have stuck with it.  d d not only requires improv skill, but it is also a great way to socialize: for someone with problems committing, if he enjoys it, it can be a great social experience.  relates to point 0 it is, but it is also social.  team sports are high commitment, even amateur leagues, but you play it with other real people who share your interests.  it is a great social exercise.   #  0 in any d d campaign, there are going to be short and long term objectives that the players are trying to achieve.   #  0 in any d d campaign, there are going to be short and long term objectives that the players are trying to achieve.  completing those objectives could be construed as  winning.   the primary point, however, is collaborative storytelling.  the dm creates plot hooks, enemies, side characters, and so forth.  the players create the main characters.  but really, does it even matter ? why does recreation need a point beyond recreation ? 0   0 this will vary from group to group.  some groups can get very into the role playing side, some groups do not.  i play in a live game on fridays, and there is very little role play.  we describe what our characters do rather than try to act it out, and nobody gets judged for having a fairly generic character.  i also play in a  play by post  campaign on a web forum.  there is more role play there since most of us are better and more comfortable as writers than as actors.  all depends on the group.  0 i have no idea where this came from.  most of the people i play with, myself included, are married to people who do not play.  we are nerds, certainly, but we do not get sucked in.  it is just a hobby.  all hobbies have their outliers ever met someone who wo not shut up about their workout program, or favorite sports team ? but the vast majority can keep them separate.  i do not ever talk about it to people who are not interested in it.  i only even talk about it with my wife if i have a particularly funny story to tell.  0 the level of commitment required will depend entirely on the group.  my group meets on friday evenings, and it is no big deal if someone ca not make it.  every single one of us would be horrified if someone disregarded a major need of their spouse is just to come play a game.  heck, i have skipped at times simply because i was tired and did not want to leave the house.  nobody raised an eyebrow.   #  why would your boyfriend  opening up and getting excited  make you sad ?  # it seems that you do not have a problem with dnd here.  you have a problem with your boyfriend being emotionally invested in activity xxx that might be  high commitment.   i can literally substitute any activity hiking, skiing, climbing, dancing, etc.  for xxx and your concerns will still sound the same.  ask yourself these question: why is it a bad thing for your boyfriend to be emotionally invested in some activity he likes ? why would your boyfriend  opening up and getting excited  make you sad ?  #  healthy couples do not have opinions like these.   #  i am going to try something different here, i do not think dnd is the issue.  from a  quick and dirty psycho analysis , i feel like you are a bit insecure about what people think of you and want to quell any associations you do not like that other people would negatively draw back to you.  someone else who enjoys something you do not should have no bearing on whether you feel comfortable or not.  and even further, someone whom you care about should have your total support or at the very least, apathy for their hobbies provided it is harmless to those involved.  i have many friends who play dnd.  it is just a game with numbers and math.  role playing is optional and not always included.  regardless, it is just a tabletop game many people enjoy.  my brutally honest opinion that has nothing to do with the question at hand.  especially if you truly feel this way.  i think you are dating your boyfriend for status rather than companionship.  healthy couples do not have opinions like these.   #  we figure out how to get past a trapped hallway.   #   overall i do not want the game to exist in the people in my life but i realize that is a stupid opinion and i know nothing about it.  if someone could please explain in detail why it is enriching/useful, i could hopefully become less negative about it.  thank you.   i work in a high stress job for 0 hours a week.  on saturday afternoons i get together with friends and my brother and his wife and play dnd.  my wife does not play dnd but she loves theater and regularly acts in plays and musicals for her outlet .  for 0 0 hours every other week, i am able to inhabit the body of an epic hero.  one that does not have to worry about bills.  one that does not have to take crap off anyone.  one who is not shy and introverted.  we win all the time when we play we level, we get magical items, we slay monsters, we cooperate, we tell stories most importantly, we are the stories .  we do not role play in the strictest sense, but we sometimes put on terrible accents, and we try to follow our character is alignment, sometimes doing things that are not  smart  but would be totally  in character.   we laugh at ourselves and each other.  we figure out how to best take down that ogre magi who is the mastermind behind those goblin attacks.  we figure out how to get past a trapped hallway.  we enter gloomy catacombs inhabited by evil undead.  and nothing we do has anything to do with the real world.  for 0 0 hours every other week i do not care who got arrested for a new charge, or who is calling me complaining about something.  i do not have 0 probationers for that short time.  that is what dnd is to me.  if you do not want the game to exist in the people in your life, please just ask yourself why.  the only thing i can gather is that you do not want your boyfriend to participate in a hobby that you are not interested in, or alternatively, do not want him to make a time commitment to something that requires him to be away from you.  correct me if i am wrong.
i feel that caffeinated soft drinks are more harmful than e cigarettes, and yet they continue to be sold to and marketed to minors.  caffeine is an addictive substance, and the high fructose corn syrup that is so common in soft drinks can contribute to many long term health problems including tooth decay, obesity, heart disease, liver failure, and diabetes.  there is evidence to show that high fructose corn syrup is also an addictive substance.  and the artificial sweeteners that can be used in its stead also come with their host of problems.  along with all the alarmist news stories about e cigarette use increasing among high school students, i feel that the public should be every bit as outraged by products like mountain dew and coca cola being marketed to children and teenagers. ﻿ the only active substances in the liquid used in an e cigarette are nicotine, propylene glycol, vegetable glycerine and flavour extracts.  propylene glycol and vegetable glycerine are all approved for public consumption by the fda and are commonly used as food additives.  propylene glycol is commonly used in ice cream to keep it from going hard.  the temperatures used in vaporizing the e liquid are only enough to cause a phase change and far too low to cause combustion, which is where most of the harmful chemicals are formed when smoking tobacco.  the only reason why e cigarettes are banned from sale to minors is due to the continuing stigma from the risks of smoking tobacco.  change my view: if we allow the sale of caffeinated soft drinks to minors, we should also allow the sale of e cigarettes.  and if we restrict one, we should then restrict the other.   #  caffeine is an addictive substance, and the high fructose corn syrup that is so common in soft drinks can contribute to many long term health problems including tooth decay, obesity, heart disease, liver failure, and diabetes.   #  i have also heard that soft drinks contain another dangerous chemical: dihydrogen monoxide dhmo !  # i have also heard that soft drinks contain another dangerous chemical: dihydrogen monoxide dhmo ! dhmo may cause severe burns, is fatal if inhaled, accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals, and has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.  prolonged exposure to solid dhmo causes severe tissue damage.  p. s.  seriously, fructose corn syrup is simply sugar and it is not harmful.  nicotine is.  qed  #  plus caffeine free coke distinctly tastes different than regular coke.   #  there is a difference between regulation and doing it the same amount without taking in the same amount of the addictive substance.  plus caffeine free coke distinctly tastes different than regular coke.  in fact all the different versions of coke diet, zero, etc.  have their own distinct taste.  what i am trying to say is that with e cigs it is easier to ween off without going out of your way or changing routines, which is a demotivator to quit in the first place.  if it taste the same you wo not realize the different every time you take a hit.   #  and you started off with a reply giving a segue into non nicotine vapor inhalers.   #  yet you are not describing what the difference is.  and you started off with a reply giving a segue into non nicotine vapor inhalers.  which was pointless because the same applies to soft drinks.  but no, i ca not taste a difference between caffeine free coke and regular coke.  i really ca not.  they taste the same to me.  the different sugar ones are another matter, but then people complain about hfcs versus cane sugar in soft drinks as it is.  and some people complain about bottles versus cans versus fountains.  so non distinctive issue there.  but if you want to read about the differences between nicotine and caffeine, try: URL  #  e cigs are much closer to the sensation of smoking than other solutions like chewing gum and patches and they are a much easier transition than quitting cold turkey.   #  e cigs are much closer to the sensation of smoking than other solutions like chewing gum and patches and they are a much easier transition than quitting cold turkey.  the sensation may not be identical to a cigarette, but in many ways it is better.  in my personal experience as a 0 year moderate smoker, i have been able to completely stop smoking tobacco immediately upon the purchase of an e cigarette.  the subreddit /r/electronic cigarette is full of many long time smokers with similar experiences, and who have also been able to successfully transition their friends and families away from smoking tobacco.  the advantages of an e cigarette over traditional tobacco make the decision to switch a no brainer, imo.  not only is it healthier, it is much cheaper in the long run and it is much more environmentally friendly no more smelly cigarette butts to throw away .  for someone trying to quit nicotine, you can much more easily regulate your dosage by simply purchasing e liquid with lower concentrations of nicotine.  as opposed to cigarettes where you have far less choice in the matter.  URL  #  while the e liquid tastes fine in vapor form, it does not taste good at all when ingested orally.   #  typical e cigarette liquids are sold in bottles of 0 to 0ml and at concentrations of anywhere from zero to 0 mg / ml of nicotine.  0 0 mg / ml is equivalent to a  light  cigarette, while 0 0 mg / ml is about the same as a  regular  and 0 mg / ml is an  extra strength .  the majority of e liquid vendors wo not sell more than 0, but a few will sell up to 0 mg / ml.  you wo not be able to buy any higher concentrations unless you make your own.  therefore, the total amount of nicotine to be found at the highest commonly found dosage of 0 mg / ml in the largest commonly purchaseable format of 0 ml is 0 mg.  you would need to take two entire 0ml bottles in order to achieve a lethal dose at the suggested ld0 of 0 0 mg URL practically speaking, it is extremely difficult to achieve a lethal dose of nicotine solely through vapor inhalation.  most e cigarette tanks only hold about 0 to 0 ml at a time, and it will take you a while to go through a full tank.  you will probably run out of battery long before you get anywhere close to finishing the tank.  achieving a lethal dose from vapor inhalation would require you to finish and refill a full tank about twenty times.  the other possibility is to simply drink the e liquid.  you would have to drink two entire 0ml bottles of high concentration e liquid to get a lethal dose and as many as 0 or 0 bottles at lower concentrations.  however, drinking one would probably get you pretty sick.  while the e liquid tastes fine in vapor form, it does not taste good at all when ingested orally.  i ca not imagine downing an entire bottle would be a pleasant experience.  however unlikely, i will acknowledge that the potential for overdoses are an issue with e cigarettes that are not present with caffeinated soft drinks and award you a delta.
there are drinks that represent the classic cocktails.  i just picked three, but there are more.  these are the drinks that every bartender should know how to make.  they are not that hard.  anyone can be trained to make these drinks in less than an hour.  anyone.  if you ask for these in any random bar in america, it will be a crap shoot.  i have been asked if i wanted biters in my manhattan.  bitters are an essential ingredient.  that would be like asking if i wanted orange juice in a screw driver.  a manhattan without bitters is not a manhattan.  if your place just pours beer i get that, but if you have cocktails on the menu you should know how to make the basics.  i am not to trying to be snobby, but i feel that if people get paid to make drinks they should know their craft.  do i expect everyone to know every drink variant, no.  all bartenders should know the basics just like math teachers should know how to multiply and plumbers should know how to use a wrench.  please, cmv edit words  #  i just picked three, but there are more.   #  these are the drinks that every bartender should know how to make.   # these are the drinks that every bartender should know how to make.  they are not that hard.  anyone can be trained to make these drinks in less than an hour.  i see a contradiction between these statements.  yes, you could train someone to make three random classic mixed drinks in an hour.  however, you cannot train anyone to make  all  the classics in an hour.  nor can you expect them to keep them in memory if they are never actually ordered, and thus never come up.  so, any given establishment would have to not only teach their staff these drinks, but also reteach them constantly as they are inevitably forgotten through disuse.  and for what ? it is not something their clientele is demanding in large part, or their bartenders would likely have learned the drinks.  it would be like requiring all cooks be able to make a roux, even if their restaurant and cuisine does not use it, just for the off chance someone asks for an off menu dish requiring one.  finally,  high quality  versions of these drinks is not something to expect from every establishment.  while  high quality  is subjective, i think one can safely assume a high quality whiskey sour does not use a neon yellow substance from the well, nor a quality manhattan have cheap vermouth opened a year ago.  even if a given bartender knows what goes in these drinks, they might not have the ability to produce one.  i would argue this is not necessarily the fault of the bar, which is serving a clientele that does not request these often, but rather the assumption that every bar be able to produce these drinks regardless of type.   #  i used to live in a college town where there were mixed drinks available, but no one who was not a twat who watched too much mad men ordered one of your  classic cocktails.    #  so what do you mean by cocktails ? if they have manhattans on the menu, then they damn well better be able to make them.  but if they have long islands and whiskey sours, then they may not be that kind of bar.  i used to live in a college town where there were mixed drinks available, but no one who was not a twat who watched too much mad men ordered one of your  classic cocktails.   the point is, it is all very contextual to the bar.  some bars have clientele that want these sorts of drinks, so they would be remiss not to make them.  other bars, most people do not know a thing about that sort of drink and the only ones that try to order them are neckbeards that think it makes them classy.  there is no point in those bartenders knowing how to make gimlets, cosmopolitans, and manhattans because no one asks.  maybe you are just in the wrong bar.   #  that is really the only definitional bit to it.   #  should a chef at a mexican restaurant know how to make classical italian foods ? it is kind of their job.  they should take some pride in their work.  they are not hard to make.  maybe by your definition, if a bar does not serve  the classics  then it is a shitty bar.  if that is the case, then so be it.  i ca not change your personal definition of what is and is not a shitty bar.  however, in my view, bars serve alcoholic drinks.  that is really the only definitional bit to it.  if it is an irish pub where people order beer and the occaisional whiskey mixed drink, or a party bar where people order liquor with soda, or a place with a younger clientele who do not really go for those sorts of drinks, then there is no reason for the bartenders to know them.  i still think you are in the wrong bar.   #  all i am stating is that if you are going to stand behind a bar have behind you all these magical bottles that can make drinks, you should know how to make drinks.   #  where did i state anything about menu choice ? all i am stating is that if you are going to stand behind a bar have behind you all these magical bottles that can make drinks, you should know how to make drinks.  i am not talking about the basil strawberry gimlet.  i am talking about basic drinks.  i am not even saying you need to memorize these drinks.  bar cheat sheets are fine.  i should never get a manhattan missing one third of its ingredients because of bartender ignorance.   #  if you walk into a bar and the bartender does not know how to make a manhattan, it is probably your fault for walking into the wrong bar.   #  i know you did not talk about menu choice.  i did, because you do not seem to understand its importance.  if you walk into a bar and the bartender does not know how to make a manhattan, it is probably your fault for walking into the wrong bar.  what the bar has on its menu and on its shelves describes what it is bartenders can make.  if you see ten types of tequila and you order a manhattan, you are probably the idiot in that situation.  if you see two dozen bottles of well liquor and a list of shots and you order a manhattan, you are probably the idiot in that situation.  if you see a nice wood paneled bar with a few top shelf whiskeys, scotches, and gins, and the bartender ca not make a simple manhattan, then he is the idiot in that situation.  if you like, you can say that anyone who ca not make these 0 classic drinks is not a true bartender or works in a shitty bar.  but odds are you are just in the wrong bar.
there are drinks that represent the classic cocktails.  i just picked three, but there are more.  these are the drinks that every bartender should know how to make.  they are not that hard.  anyone can be trained to make these drinks in less than an hour.  anyone.  if you ask for these in any random bar in america, it will be a crap shoot.  i have been asked if i wanted biters in my manhattan.  bitters are an essential ingredient.  that would be like asking if i wanted orange juice in a screw driver.  a manhattan without bitters is not a manhattan.  if your place just pours beer i get that, but if you have cocktails on the menu you should know how to make the basics.  i am not to trying to be snobby, but i feel that if people get paid to make drinks they should know their craft.  do i expect everyone to know every drink variant, no.  all bartenders should know the basics just like math teachers should know how to multiply and plumbers should know how to use a wrench.  please, cmv edit words  #  do i expect everyone to know every drink variant, no.   #  all bartenders should know the basics just like math teachers should know how to multiply and plumbers should know how to use a wrench.   #  i am going to focus on a specific bit.  all bartenders should know the basics just like math teachers should know how to multiply and plumbers should know how to use a wrench.  you argue that all bartenders should know the  basics  just like all math teachers should know how to multiply and plumbers use a wrench. but i feel like you are kinda of comparing apples to orange.  let is take someone who uses stats.  ask them to do trig/calc and they may have no idea how to do it.  this does not discredit them from what they say about a problem on stats, and vice versa.  you ask someone who knows trig/calc and they may not be able to tell you what a double blind study is or what a p hat or x bar represents.  onto the plumber, a plumber knows how to use a wrench, should, that is more akin to a bartender knowing how to mix a drink, not what kind of drink they can mix.  lastly, do you think that all coders should learn/know fortran ? it is the  basic  programming language, yet i can promise you that most of the apps/programs/games you use are created by people that have no idea how to use fortran.  basically, just because someone ca not use the basic does not mean they ca not do a really good job at what they do know, and to consider them less of x because of it is silly.   #  if they have manhattans on the menu, then they damn well better be able to make them.   #  so what do you mean by cocktails ? if they have manhattans on the menu, then they damn well better be able to make them.  but if they have long islands and whiskey sours, then they may not be that kind of bar.  i used to live in a college town where there were mixed drinks available, but no one who was not a twat who watched too much mad men ordered one of your  classic cocktails.   the point is, it is all very contextual to the bar.  some bars have clientele that want these sorts of drinks, so they would be remiss not to make them.  other bars, most people do not know a thing about that sort of drink and the only ones that try to order them are neckbeards that think it makes them classy.  there is no point in those bartenders knowing how to make gimlets, cosmopolitans, and manhattans because no one asks.  maybe you are just in the wrong bar.   #  i ca not change your personal definition of what is and is not a shitty bar.   #  should a chef at a mexican restaurant know how to make classical italian foods ? it is kind of their job.  they should take some pride in their work.  they are not hard to make.  maybe by your definition, if a bar does not serve  the classics  then it is a shitty bar.  if that is the case, then so be it.  i ca not change your personal definition of what is and is not a shitty bar.  however, in my view, bars serve alcoholic drinks.  that is really the only definitional bit to it.  if it is an irish pub where people order beer and the occaisional whiskey mixed drink, or a party bar where people order liquor with soda, or a place with a younger clientele who do not really go for those sorts of drinks, then there is no reason for the bartenders to know them.  i still think you are in the wrong bar.   #  where did i state anything about menu choice ?  #  where did i state anything about menu choice ? all i am stating is that if you are going to stand behind a bar have behind you all these magical bottles that can make drinks, you should know how to make drinks.  i am not talking about the basil strawberry gimlet.  i am talking about basic drinks.  i am not even saying you need to memorize these drinks.  bar cheat sheets are fine.  i should never get a manhattan missing one third of its ingredients because of bartender ignorance.   #  i know you did not talk about menu choice.   #  i know you did not talk about menu choice.  i did, because you do not seem to understand its importance.  if you walk into a bar and the bartender does not know how to make a manhattan, it is probably your fault for walking into the wrong bar.  what the bar has on its menu and on its shelves describes what it is bartenders can make.  if you see ten types of tequila and you order a manhattan, you are probably the idiot in that situation.  if you see two dozen bottles of well liquor and a list of shots and you order a manhattan, you are probably the idiot in that situation.  if you see a nice wood paneled bar with a few top shelf whiskeys, scotches, and gins, and the bartender ca not make a simple manhattan, then he is the idiot in that situation.  if you like, you can say that anyone who ca not make these 0 classic drinks is not a true bartender or works in a shitty bar.  but odds are you are just in the wrong bar.
there are drinks that represent the classic cocktails.  i just picked three, but there are more.  these are the drinks that every bartender should know how to make.  they are not that hard.  anyone can be trained to make these drinks in less than an hour.  anyone.  if you ask for these in any random bar in america, it will be a crap shoot.  i have been asked if i wanted biters in my manhattan.  bitters are an essential ingredient.  that would be like asking if i wanted orange juice in a screw driver.  a manhattan without bitters is not a manhattan.  if your place just pours beer i get that, but if you have cocktails on the menu you should know how to make the basics.  i am not to trying to be snobby, but i feel that if people get paid to make drinks they should know their craft.  do i expect everyone to know every drink variant, no.  all bartenders should know the basics just like math teachers should know how to multiply and plumbers should know how to use a wrench.  please, cmv edit words  #  anyone can be trained to make these drinks in less than an hour.   #  i can think of a lot of things i could train someone to do reasonably well within an hour, that would arguably help them with their day to day functions if properly applied.   #  let me compare and contrast two bars i have been to/frequented in the past.  one of them catered to a more classy clientele, lots of suits and dresses in the bar, and there were lots of those sorts of cocktails.  i could get a blue motorcycle, zombie, or a whiskey sour.  but if i asked them for a jagerbomb literally just a shot of jagermeister in a cup of red bull , they would give me a blank stare and say  a what ?   the other was a metal club that served so many jagerbombs they had their own cups made so that the shot of jager was held in the middle of the red bull and it mixed as you drank it.  but if you asked for another cocktail, it was a bit of a crapshoot on if they would know it or not.  the thing you are missing is that  the standards   are not actually standard  and because there is a  huge  variant in the clientele from bar to bar, there is no reason why there should be any overlap on what a bartender who works at a classy cocktail bar knows versus a bartender from a metal club, aside from one bartender working at both types of bar in their career.  i can think of a lot of things i could train someone to do reasonably well within an hour, that would arguably help them with their day to day functions if properly applied.  that does not mean that everyone knows them.  no, if you have cocktails on the menu, you should know how to make the cocktails that are on the menu.  anything else is a bonus.  bitters are an essential ingredient.  is it possible that at that bar, a lot of people order manhattans without bitters ? i was asked if i wanted vermouth in a vodka martini at the classier bar once, because i asked the bartender about this a lot of people ask them to hold the vermouth there, or get mad when they add it without telling them.  the bartenders  absolutely  knew that a martini with either gin or vodka has vermouth as an ingredient, but a lot of people in the bar apparently did not like vermouth but were ignorant that it was part of a vodka martini, to the point that the manager told his bar staff to ask for every martini.   #  but if they have long islands and whiskey sours, then they may not be that kind of bar.   #  so what do you mean by cocktails ? if they have manhattans on the menu, then they damn well better be able to make them.  but if they have long islands and whiskey sours, then they may not be that kind of bar.  i used to live in a college town where there were mixed drinks available, but no one who was not a twat who watched too much mad men ordered one of your  classic cocktails.   the point is, it is all very contextual to the bar.  some bars have clientele that want these sorts of drinks, so they would be remiss not to make them.  other bars, most people do not know a thing about that sort of drink and the only ones that try to order them are neckbeards that think it makes them classy.  there is no point in those bartenders knowing how to make gimlets, cosmopolitans, and manhattans because no one asks.  maybe you are just in the wrong bar.   #  maybe by your definition, if a bar does not serve  the classics  then it is a shitty bar.   #  should a chef at a mexican restaurant know how to make classical italian foods ? it is kind of their job.  they should take some pride in their work.  they are not hard to make.  maybe by your definition, if a bar does not serve  the classics  then it is a shitty bar.  if that is the case, then so be it.  i ca not change your personal definition of what is and is not a shitty bar.  however, in my view, bars serve alcoholic drinks.  that is really the only definitional bit to it.  if it is an irish pub where people order beer and the occaisional whiskey mixed drink, or a party bar where people order liquor with soda, or a place with a younger clientele who do not really go for those sorts of drinks, then there is no reason for the bartenders to know them.  i still think you are in the wrong bar.   #  i am not talking about the basil strawberry gimlet.   #  where did i state anything about menu choice ? all i am stating is that if you are going to stand behind a bar have behind you all these magical bottles that can make drinks, you should know how to make drinks.  i am not talking about the basil strawberry gimlet.  i am talking about basic drinks.  i am not even saying you need to memorize these drinks.  bar cheat sheets are fine.  i should never get a manhattan missing one third of its ingredients because of bartender ignorance.   #  if you like, you can say that anyone who ca not make these 0 classic drinks is not a true bartender or works in a shitty bar.   #  i know you did not talk about menu choice.  i did, because you do not seem to understand its importance.  if you walk into a bar and the bartender does not know how to make a manhattan, it is probably your fault for walking into the wrong bar.  what the bar has on its menu and on its shelves describes what it is bartenders can make.  if you see ten types of tequila and you order a manhattan, you are probably the idiot in that situation.  if you see two dozen bottles of well liquor and a list of shots and you order a manhattan, you are probably the idiot in that situation.  if you see a nice wood paneled bar with a few top shelf whiskeys, scotches, and gins, and the bartender ca not make a simple manhattan, then he is the idiot in that situation.  if you like, you can say that anyone who ca not make these 0 classic drinks is not a true bartender or works in a shitty bar.  but odds are you are just in the wrong bar.
there are drinks that represent the classic cocktails.  i just picked three, but there are more.  these are the drinks that every bartender should know how to make.  they are not that hard.  anyone can be trained to make these drinks in less than an hour.  anyone.  if you ask for these in any random bar in america, it will be a crap shoot.  i have been asked if i wanted biters in my manhattan.  bitters are an essential ingredient.  that would be like asking if i wanted orange juice in a screw driver.  a manhattan without bitters is not a manhattan.  if your place just pours beer i get that, but if you have cocktails on the menu you should know how to make the basics.  i am not to trying to be snobby, but i feel that if people get paid to make drinks they should know their craft.  do i expect everyone to know every drink variant, no.  all bartenders should know the basics just like math teachers should know how to multiply and plumbers should know how to use a wrench.  please, cmv edit words  #  you have cocktails on the menu you should know how to make the basics.   #  no, if you have cocktails on the menu, you should know how to make the cocktails that are on the menu.   #  let me compare and contrast two bars i have been to/frequented in the past.  one of them catered to a more classy clientele, lots of suits and dresses in the bar, and there were lots of those sorts of cocktails.  i could get a blue motorcycle, zombie, or a whiskey sour.  but if i asked them for a jagerbomb literally just a shot of jagermeister in a cup of red bull , they would give me a blank stare and say  a what ?   the other was a metal club that served so many jagerbombs they had their own cups made so that the shot of jager was held in the middle of the red bull and it mixed as you drank it.  but if you asked for another cocktail, it was a bit of a crapshoot on if they would know it or not.  the thing you are missing is that  the standards   are not actually standard  and because there is a  huge  variant in the clientele from bar to bar, there is no reason why there should be any overlap on what a bartender who works at a classy cocktail bar knows versus a bartender from a metal club, aside from one bartender working at both types of bar in their career.  i can think of a lot of things i could train someone to do reasonably well within an hour, that would arguably help them with their day to day functions if properly applied.  that does not mean that everyone knows them.  no, if you have cocktails on the menu, you should know how to make the cocktails that are on the menu.  anything else is a bonus.  bitters are an essential ingredient.  is it possible that at that bar, a lot of people order manhattans without bitters ? i was asked if i wanted vermouth in a vodka martini at the classier bar once, because i asked the bartender about this a lot of people ask them to hold the vermouth there, or get mad when they add it without telling them.  the bartenders  absolutely  knew that a martini with either gin or vodka has vermouth as an ingredient, but a lot of people in the bar apparently did not like vermouth but were ignorant that it was part of a vodka martini, to the point that the manager told his bar staff to ask for every martini.   #  there is no point in those bartenders knowing how to make gimlets, cosmopolitans, and manhattans because no one asks.   #  so what do you mean by cocktails ? if they have manhattans on the menu, then they damn well better be able to make them.  but if they have long islands and whiskey sours, then they may not be that kind of bar.  i used to live in a college town where there were mixed drinks available, but no one who was not a twat who watched too much mad men ordered one of your  classic cocktails.   the point is, it is all very contextual to the bar.  some bars have clientele that want these sorts of drinks, so they would be remiss not to make them.  other bars, most people do not know a thing about that sort of drink and the only ones that try to order them are neckbeards that think it makes them classy.  there is no point in those bartenders knowing how to make gimlets, cosmopolitans, and manhattans because no one asks.  maybe you are just in the wrong bar.   #  they should take some pride in their work.   #  should a chef at a mexican restaurant know how to make classical italian foods ? it is kind of their job.  they should take some pride in their work.  they are not hard to make.  maybe by your definition, if a bar does not serve  the classics  then it is a shitty bar.  if that is the case, then so be it.  i ca not change your personal definition of what is and is not a shitty bar.  however, in my view, bars serve alcoholic drinks.  that is really the only definitional bit to it.  if it is an irish pub where people order beer and the occaisional whiskey mixed drink, or a party bar where people order liquor with soda, or a place with a younger clientele who do not really go for those sorts of drinks, then there is no reason for the bartenders to know them.  i still think you are in the wrong bar.   #  all i am stating is that if you are going to stand behind a bar have behind you all these magical bottles that can make drinks, you should know how to make drinks.   #  where did i state anything about menu choice ? all i am stating is that if you are going to stand behind a bar have behind you all these magical bottles that can make drinks, you should know how to make drinks.  i am not talking about the basil strawberry gimlet.  i am talking about basic drinks.  i am not even saying you need to memorize these drinks.  bar cheat sheets are fine.  i should never get a manhattan missing one third of its ingredients because of bartender ignorance.   #  but odds are you are just in the wrong bar.   #  i know you did not talk about menu choice.  i did, because you do not seem to understand its importance.  if you walk into a bar and the bartender does not know how to make a manhattan, it is probably your fault for walking into the wrong bar.  what the bar has on its menu and on its shelves describes what it is bartenders can make.  if you see ten types of tequila and you order a manhattan, you are probably the idiot in that situation.  if you see two dozen bottles of well liquor and a list of shots and you order a manhattan, you are probably the idiot in that situation.  if you see a nice wood paneled bar with a few top shelf whiskeys, scotches, and gins, and the bartender ca not make a simple manhattan, then he is the idiot in that situation.  if you like, you can say that anyone who ca not make these 0 classic drinks is not a true bartender or works in a shitty bar.  but odds are you are just in the wrong bar.
there are drinks that represent the classic cocktails.  i just picked three, but there are more.  these are the drinks that every bartender should know how to make.  they are not that hard.  anyone can be trained to make these drinks in less than an hour.  anyone.  if you ask for these in any random bar in america, it will be a crap shoot.  i have been asked if i wanted biters in my manhattan.  bitters are an essential ingredient.  that would be like asking if i wanted orange juice in a screw driver.  a manhattan without bitters is not a manhattan.  if your place just pours beer i get that, but if you have cocktails on the menu you should know how to make the basics.  i am not to trying to be snobby, but i feel that if people get paid to make drinks they should know their craft.  do i expect everyone to know every drink variant, no.  all bartenders should know the basics just like math teachers should know how to multiply and plumbers should know how to use a wrench.  please, cmv edit words  #  i am not to trying to be snobby, but i feel that if people get paid to make drinks they should know their craft.   #  do i expect everyone to know every drink variant, no.   # do i expect everyone to know every drink variant, no.  all bartenders should know the basics just like math teachers should know how to multiply and plumbers should know how to use a wrench.  is there some official list of  the basics of cocktails  somewhere that i do not know about ?  the basics  is a  subjective term .  obviously, you consider the manhattan to be a classic cocktail.  i am a fruity/girly cocktail kinda guy, and i had to look up what is even in a manhattan.  this means that the things i consider a classic cocktail are different from what you consider a classic cocktail.  bartending is a completely subjective thing.  every bar you walk into is going to have a different drink menu, different clientele, different drink ingredients, and even different variations on drinks that have a well known recipe.  it comes with the territory.  as others have said, a college town nightclub, a smoky old jazz club, and a dirty hole in the wall bar are all classified as  bars .  but you would not you expect them to have the exact same selection of alcohol.  likewise, if you walked into all three of those bars, and said  i would like a manhattan , you would probably get a different reaction in each one.   #  other bars, most people do not know a thing about that sort of drink and the only ones that try to order them are neckbeards that think it makes them classy.   #  so what do you mean by cocktails ? if they have manhattans on the menu, then they damn well better be able to make them.  but if they have long islands and whiskey sours, then they may not be that kind of bar.  i used to live in a college town where there were mixed drinks available, but no one who was not a twat who watched too much mad men ordered one of your  classic cocktails.   the point is, it is all very contextual to the bar.  some bars have clientele that want these sorts of drinks, so they would be remiss not to make them.  other bars, most people do not know a thing about that sort of drink and the only ones that try to order them are neckbeards that think it makes them classy.  there is no point in those bartenders knowing how to make gimlets, cosmopolitans, and manhattans because no one asks.  maybe you are just in the wrong bar.   #  maybe by your definition, if a bar does not serve  the classics  then it is a shitty bar.   #  should a chef at a mexican restaurant know how to make classical italian foods ? it is kind of their job.  they should take some pride in their work.  they are not hard to make.  maybe by your definition, if a bar does not serve  the classics  then it is a shitty bar.  if that is the case, then so be it.  i ca not change your personal definition of what is and is not a shitty bar.  however, in my view, bars serve alcoholic drinks.  that is really the only definitional bit to it.  if it is an irish pub where people order beer and the occaisional whiskey mixed drink, or a party bar where people order liquor with soda, or a place with a younger clientele who do not really go for those sorts of drinks, then there is no reason for the bartenders to know them.  i still think you are in the wrong bar.   #  i am not even saying you need to memorize these drinks.   #  where did i state anything about menu choice ? all i am stating is that if you are going to stand behind a bar have behind you all these magical bottles that can make drinks, you should know how to make drinks.  i am not talking about the basil strawberry gimlet.  i am talking about basic drinks.  i am not even saying you need to memorize these drinks.  bar cheat sheets are fine.  i should never get a manhattan missing one third of its ingredients because of bartender ignorance.   #  but odds are you are just in the wrong bar.   #  i know you did not talk about menu choice.  i did, because you do not seem to understand its importance.  if you walk into a bar and the bartender does not know how to make a manhattan, it is probably your fault for walking into the wrong bar.  what the bar has on its menu and on its shelves describes what it is bartenders can make.  if you see ten types of tequila and you order a manhattan, you are probably the idiot in that situation.  if you see two dozen bottles of well liquor and a list of shots and you order a manhattan, you are probably the idiot in that situation.  if you see a nice wood paneled bar with a few top shelf whiskeys, scotches, and gins, and the bartender ca not make a simple manhattan, then he is the idiot in that situation.  if you like, you can say that anyone who ca not make these 0 classic drinks is not a true bartender or works in a shitty bar.  but odds are you are just in the wrong bar.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.   #  URL   bogart, a heavy smoker and drinker, developed cancer of the esophagus.   # URL   bogart, a heavy smoker and drinker, developed cancer of the esophagus.  he almost never spoke of his failing health and refused to see a doctor until january 0.  a diagnosis was made several weeks later and by then removal of his esophagus, two lymph nodes, and a rib on march 0, 0, was too late to halt the disease, even with chemotherapy.  URL john wayne   then he went into detail about how his habitual six packs of cigarettes a day had resulted in a lung tumor the size of a baseball.  surgeons had no alternative but to remove the entire lung.  duke always had a cigarette cough, and one night, while he was recuperating, he started hacking so violently that his stitches burst.  that alone might have killed him.  but he snapped back.  URL   carson was a heavy smoker for decades and, in the early days of his tenure on tonight, often smoked on camera.  it was reported that as early as the mid 0s, he would repeatedly say,  these things are killing me.   his younger brother recalled that during their last conversation, carson kept saying,  those damn cigarettes.   0  #  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.   #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.   # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.   #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  probably because almost everyone who starts smoking ends up regretting it really badly later in life.   # probably because almost everyone who starts smoking ends up regretting it really badly later in life.  having to struggle with one of the hardest addictions in life only heroin has a bigger addiction potential afaik and that is marginally just because you wanted to be cool during the period of your life that you will care the least about once you grow up is just not a good choice.  just so we are clear.  you will  not  always enjoy smoking.  it will be nice for a few years, maybe even many years.  but eventually you will stop liking it.  but, once you stop liking it, you will  not  be able to stop.  yeah some people do but statistically speaking, most people do not.  it is an extremely difficult addiction.  you will be constantly feeling terrible and stressed as soon as you have not had your cigarette on time.  you might do stupid stuff like get off the subway early just so you can have a cig because you ca not stand it.  you will live with this stress and generally feeling crappy for the rest of your life.  every place where you ca not smoke becomes a marathon to get out and have your fix.  train rides ? flying across half the globe ? oh do not even.  you will feel ashamed because you made a terrible life choice and everyone around you can see it.  you ca not exactly hide your smoking.  many people look down on smokers i am not condoning it but it is the truth .  you will get older and start worrying about lung cancer and other lung diseases.  i could go on forever.  it is just not a good life.  it is probably the single worst decision anyone can make in their life.  i would recommend smoking meth over tobbaco.  meth is almost as addictive as tobbaco, and will probably ruin your life too, but at least it feels nice.  the only purpose of tobbaco is that teenagers think it is cool.  you do not even get high.  worst possible drug to be honest, it gives you nothing and takes everything.   #  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.   #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me !  #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.   #  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.   #  i shall dissect your post line by line.  for reference i am an 0 year old male.  you are.  at least in the netherlands you are allowed legally to smoke  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  but i know so many people who have cancer, they all seem so alive to me.  that is because those who died are already dead .  also, you do not instantly die from smoking, it is a long and probability bound process.  life is cruel in the sense that a lot of heavy smokers live longer than non smokers.  you do not die in a snap, you die slowfully and painfully from throat/lung/bowel cancers etc.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  the problem is, you idealize smoking by only looking at those who are cool when they are smoking.  example URL however, pattinson is already so cool  without  smoking, smoking only makes him cooler.  this URL is also damn sexy, however this URL is what unattractive people look like smoking, even more unattractive.  you are overromanticizing smoking to the point that you do not see the negatives anymore.  now for my personal opinion on smoking.  i really enjoy going outside when it is cold with a hot cup of coffee and light a cigarette.  i also smoke sometimes when i am drinking with my buddies wine/whiskey, i do not drink beer .  sometimes smoking outweights the negatives for not smoking in my case.  just be very cautious to  not  turn it into a  habit .  when you notice you smoke out of habit, it is already too late and you need serious help.  another sexy picture of pattinson smoking / lung cancer URL pattinson smoking / actual lung of a long time smoker URL pattinson smoking / person with lung cancer URL golly this is fun john ham smoking / skin cancer as a result of smoking URL  #  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.   #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.   # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  i made a stupid decision as a teenager !    #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.   #  i am gonna guess this is a bigger part of why you want to start smoking than you are making it out to be.   # i am gonna guess this is a bigger part of why you want to start smoking than you are making it out to be.  friends of yours smoke.  but you are 0 and the people who are your friends now are just your friends now.  that kind of thing can change a lot.  imagine in a few years the position is reversed.  you smoke and a bunch of friends do not, and you want to be like them again.  but you have a really hard time because 0 cigarettes are very addictive and you ca not easily quit, and 0 non smokers are much less accepting of smokers than the other way around.  not smoking keeps your options open.   #  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.   #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.   # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.   #  your sample size is too small and your sample size has not ripened i mean, wait a little bit, they will start getting lung cancer, etc.   # your sample size is too small and your sample size has not ripened i mean, wait a little bit, they will start getting lung cancer, etc.  also, you are not looking deep enough.  every cigarette harms you.  i am not saying that in the way of  having a bag of chips is unhealthy !   i mean, every cigarette has a noticeably damaging effect on your body.  it is not a matter of whether you are  allowed  to smoke; it is a matter of if you do not smoke you will be happier, live longer, food will taste better, you will feel better and many other things.  oh, and smoking causes your boobs to sag.  URL this ptosis effect is much quicker than you might imagine.  by the age of 0, you could have the saggy boobs of a 0 year old mother of 0.  it depends on how much you smoke and your weight, but they will sag and look awful before you are done with college.   #  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.   #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ?  # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.   #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  i think i should be allowed to smoke.   #  sure, people are allowed to make poor decisions with their health.   # sure, people are allowed to make poor decisions with their health.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  these issues are cumulative.  my grandfather smoked for 0 years and then quit.  even still the damage had been done.  for the 0 years i knew him he would choke and wheeze often with fits of emphysema.  he passed away at about 0 years of age, in part because of his complications with smoking.  if you want that experience you could do it with something less horrible for your body, and less addicting.  cloves are a valid option, you will get all the physical sensations minus the nicotine.  this point seems strange.  at what point are you looking at in their life ? again these problems are not present the moment you start smoking, they accumulate over time.  humans are insanely bad at looking at the long term costs and weighing it against the short term gain.  if you still feel that way, then you should probably learn more.  find a lung cancer ward, or find people who had complications with smoking, you will see what sort of damage it can cause.  independent from these points, it smells fucking awful, literally cakes every surface in your home with soot and yellowed nicotine crap, and interrupts your life for you to get your nicotine fix.  tldr; you can get that cool factor other ways, cigs will fuck you up.   #  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.   #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.   # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.   #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.   #  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.   # sure, people are allowed to make poor decisions with their health.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  these issues are cumulative.  my grandfather smoked for 0 years and then quit.  even still the damage had been done.  for the 0 years i knew him he would choke and wheeze often with fits of emphysema.  he passed away at about 0 years of age, in part because of his complications with smoking.  if you want that experience you could do it with something less horrible for your body, and less addicting.  cloves are a valid option, you will get all the physical sensations minus the nicotine.  this point seems strange.  at what point are you looking at in their life ? again these problems are not present the moment you start smoking, they accumulate over time.  humans are insanely bad at looking at the long term costs and weighing it against the short term gain.  if you still feel that way, then you should probably learn more.  find a lung cancer ward, or find people who had complications with smoking, you will see what sort of damage it can cause.  independent from these points, it smells fucking awful, literally cakes every surface in your home with soot and yellowed nicotine crap, and interrupts your life for you to get your nicotine fix.  tldr; you can get that cool factor other ways, cigs will fuck you up.   #  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.   #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.   # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  i made a stupid decision as a teenager !    #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  all those people you know may  seem  fine.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.   #  if you want that experience you could do it with something less horrible for your body, and less addicting.   # sure, people are allowed to make poor decisions with their health.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  these issues are cumulative.  my grandfather smoked for 0 years and then quit.  even still the damage had been done.  for the 0 years i knew him he would choke and wheeze often with fits of emphysema.  he passed away at about 0 years of age, in part because of his complications with smoking.  if you want that experience you could do it with something less horrible for your body, and less addicting.  cloves are a valid option, you will get all the physical sensations minus the nicotine.  this point seems strange.  at what point are you looking at in their life ? again these problems are not present the moment you start smoking, they accumulate over time.  humans are insanely bad at looking at the long term costs and weighing it against the short term gain.  if you still feel that way, then you should probably learn more.  find a lung cancer ward, or find people who had complications with smoking, you will see what sort of damage it can cause.  independent from these points, it smells fucking awful, literally cakes every surface in your home with soot and yellowed nicotine crap, and interrupts your life for you to get your nicotine fix.  tldr; you can get that cool factor other ways, cigs will fuck you up.   #  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.   #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.   # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  i made a stupid decision as a teenager !    #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  if you still feel that way, then you should probably learn more.   # sure, people are allowed to make poor decisions with their health.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  these issues are cumulative.  my grandfather smoked for 0 years and then quit.  even still the damage had been done.  for the 0 years i knew him he would choke and wheeze often with fits of emphysema.  he passed away at about 0 years of age, in part because of his complications with smoking.  if you want that experience you could do it with something less horrible for your body, and less addicting.  cloves are a valid option, you will get all the physical sensations minus the nicotine.  this point seems strange.  at what point are you looking at in their life ? again these problems are not present the moment you start smoking, they accumulate over time.  humans are insanely bad at looking at the long term costs and weighing it against the short term gain.  if you still feel that way, then you should probably learn more.  find a lung cancer ward, or find people who had complications with smoking, you will see what sort of damage it can cause.  independent from these points, it smells fucking awful, literally cakes every surface in your home with soot and yellowed nicotine crap, and interrupts your life for you to get your nicotine fix.  tldr; you can get that cool factor other ways, cigs will fuck you up.   #  how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ?  #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.   #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.   #  you can down a cup of bleach and look fine for a moment.   # you can down a cup of bleach and look fine for a moment.  bad effects take time.  as a 0 year old, 0 months feels like a long time to you right now.  when you get older, 0 years feels like it flies by in a second.  although you know people who smoke, how long have they actually been doing it ? feels like awhile ? well, awhile is really decades.  look at people who have smoked that long and tell me if they seem fine.  at that point, they start looking like those adverts, and having so many health complications and bad smells about them.  but what about the days it gets  too  cold outside or it is raining and you would rather not expose yourself to the elements, yet you have to in order to sate you cravings ? your friends are not going out every couple of minutes because they  choose  to.  your friends are going out because they  have  to.  they go out because if they do not, their entire body makes them feel like shit due to a dependency on a substance.  stay in control of your own life and do not let any other person or substance take it away from you !  #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.   #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.   # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.   #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i am 0, female, and i think i should be allowed to smoke.  i know about lung cancer and what it can do to you, and i have seen all those adverts about bad breath and rotting gums.  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.  i think it would feel awesome to stand outside in the cold with a cigarette or a cigar between my fingers.  all the old hollywood stars smoked as well, male and female, and they did not lose all their teeth.  i do not understand why people are so against smoking these days.   #  but i know so many people who smoke, and they all seem fine to me.   #  medical studies and science trumps your anecdotal evidence, every single time.   #  here is a question that i did not find in a quick scan though the replies ? why do you want to smoke in the first place ? medical studies and science trumps your anecdotal evidence, every single time.  why ? this does not seem like even a small benefit, so why risk your health over something this minor ?  #  how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ?  #  i am 0 and would very much like to go back in time and shout at my 0 year old self for starting smoking.  think of nice things you would like to have.  really think about them in great detail, whether it is holidays or a car or musical instruments or whatever.  think about how you would feel if you could have had these things but instead wasted your cash on cigarettes.  i get through a packet most days, so that is £0 a day, £0 a week, £0 a month, roughly £0 a year.  i could really bloody do with £0 extra a year.  work it out in your own currency and for local fag prices.  it adds up.  moreover, what is that money going on ? how do you like being able to walk/run/cycle places and feel alright ? forget that.  coughing will become a major part of your routine in getting places.  feeling out of breath all the time.  but you ca not stop.  every hour or two, needing to feed the addiction.  having to sit outside at the pub.  having shitty concentration at work if your boss wo not let you have that break you are desperately needing.  smelling awful all the time and do not think people wo not notice i can go on if you need me to.  just trust me on this one.  smoking is really not something you want to be doing.   #  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.   # but that is an excellent point that op seems to miss.  and once you are on them, it is difficult to stop.  op: think about how stupid you were five years ago.  would you trust that person to make a life altering decision ? what will yourself five years from now say about that ?  #  as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  to a lesser degree, yes; but i would say the amount distrust myself from five years prior decreases over time.  you begin to trust your past self more when you start to consider how your decisions will impact yourself in the long term.  as far as decisions like that go, smoking is one of the worst.  for some perspective, smoking stops being  cool  after high school and i am  damn glad  i did not pick it up.  i have friends who did, and it is only a burden to them.  i do not think a single one of them would have picked up a cigarette if they could do it over again.  it also becomes an impediment when they have to take breaks to stand outside in the cold 0 in canada and smoke, and a social liability because it is nearly universally looked upon as dirty and classless and the smell follows them everywhere they go .  you might as well get a tattoo on your forehead saying  look at me ! i made a stupid decision as a teenager !   as an adult, you will find that it is a burden to almost every aspect of your life.   #  all those people you know may  seem  fine.   #  0.  lung cancer and emphysema take a long time to develop.  all those people you know may  seem  fine.  but you do not know if they really are fine or that they will remain fine.  0.  it seems you are attracted to the  cool  imagery associated with smoking more than anything else.  but i will tell you. what may seem cool to you is ridiculous to someone else.  there are a lot of negative traits associated with smokers.  like, that they are  low class , stupid, lazy, and weak willed.  for every potential boyfriend/girlfriend you attract while puffing out there in the cold and rain, there will be six or seven who you will repel.  your tobacco odor will follow you like a dirty aura, believe me.  0.  smoking is an expensive habit.  there are not too many 0 year olds who independently wealthy, but maybe you are different.
i take a pragmatic and pessimistic view when regarding how other people who only know me as a statistic perceive me.  i believe they can only account for me the way an actuary can attempt to render the status of something mathematically with an eye for values and eventually profit.  that is the origination of this line of thinking.  i tend to look at massive scale operations from a serious  how can i make profit off of this  perspective as i believe it is the safest assumption that can be made about people and groups with such a crushing responsibility to fulfill so many needs.  i am directing this thought at mass education as a whole because i dropped out of middle school, then high school, and then college.  i am not someone who dislikes learning.  it was a hilarious and gigantic waste of time to me.  that being said, i very much enjoyed the social aspect of education but i believe that should not be taken into account for this question because i am not attempting to question the benefits of rubbing elbows to either find good comrades for life or nepotism outlets for hard to acquire jobs.  i think many of those effects can be also achieved by jobs that require you to socialize, or by being friendly in the right locales.  like many people who i have met who have similar views i do not find any fault in teachers, many teachers even to this day i find are remarkable to the point that i still get teary eyed thinking about them.  contrary to this cmv i had wonderful teachers.  i want to make the distinction that teaching someone is not managing the education for an entire society and that the practicality of learning something is not what is being questioned here.  i would like to hear arguments for the effectiveness of education in creating people that will produce profit for the community in which pays for their education through their tax dollars.  i would also like to hear views from people have have paid for private education and home schooling.  once again my view on this profit oriented.  as a caveat, i cannot speak to the effectiveness of education outside of the united states.  if you have methods or practices that pertain to outside of the good ol  usa that could serve in transforming the system as a whole to a more profitable practice i would love to hear the methodology.  tl;dr mass education is bullshit.   #  system as a whole to a more profitable practice i would love to hear the methodology.   #  are you saying that education has not benefited society ?  #  education has two main purposes.  the first one is the obvious one, to educate.  and the second one is the less talked about one, which is to evaluate students based on there output, so colleges/employers can separate the capable from the not so capable.  are you saying that education has not benefited society ? that is a very ignorant view point.  i mean just look at your computer.  you think some high school dropout with no education thought of that ? or look into your medicine cabinet, you think people without education created those antibiotics ? human history has been a constant advancement in science and technology.  we are still the same social creatures with our virtues, culture, and morals, but the one thing that has changed, is the knowledge we posses as a species.  is this not enough of a profit to justify an educations system ? and even if we forget about that, we still need a system to evaluate students, so the rest of society can differentiate the capable from the not so capable.  school is the perfect system.  you get assignments you have to complete, and you get evaluated on your output.  the main function really, is to see who can handle the stress, and who can not.   #  so johnny likes rockets, and he spends a month playing kerbal space program every day, and maybe building and launching rockets on his own.   #  the problem is that we need to get away from system of education that tries to make everyone the same into a system that allows individuals to explore and express their differences while continuing to develop skills and knowledge.  education as it is currently in most places in the world is a very top down approach.  some bureaucrats decide on certain facts that everyone needs to know, these facts are written into a test that everyone has to take, and then these facts are communicated to the students through lectures and textbooks, and are simply intended to be memorized and regurgitated.  this is terrible, but this is not how education needs to be necessarily.  we are starting to see a lot of success with various bottom up approaches, where students direct their own learning with teachers as guides rather than instructors.  there are many different ways of doing this, many different flavors, but they have all generally been met with great success.  one example of this type of method is where a teacher presents a problem and leaves the students to work it out on their own.  use of the internet and other resources are encouraged, and maybe a hint is given.  for example, a teacher might say,  see that building over there ? i want you to figure out how high it is.  here is a hint: google trigonometry.  prize for the first group who figures it out.   and then the students get to work, trying to figure out how this can be done.  after a while, one of the students says,  hey teacher, it looks like we need something called a clinometer !    excelent !   says the teacher.   you are making great progress.  here are materials for making one.   students get back to work.  in this way, the teacher plans the lesson and imagines how it might go, but students are left to explore available human knowledge in a more open manner.  another meathod is to let students pick micro subjects that interest them.  so we have a physics class, and students are expected to simply pick a topic with real world applications, and investigate it and make a report after a month.  so johnny likes rockets, and he spends a month playing kerbal space program every day, and maybe building and launching rockets on his own.  at the end of the month, he is expected to make a presentation where he explains all the important equations, drag coefficients etc, and shows that he has gained real and applicable knowledge on this topic.  these kinds of bottom up approaches to education still require an investment.  we still need teachers who guide the students and either design the curriculum or else approve of the self study materials.  but in these systems we encourage students to explore their own interests and develop the imperatively important skill of research, of figuring out how to figure things out.  we do not put on emphasis on memorization, because how often do you really have to memorize things in the real world ? rather we naturally memorize that which we use frequently, and so application of concepts is emphasized.  we also find that when we let kids explore the world around them, and when we provide them with opportunities for movement and hands on activities, we have much fewer incidents of misbehavior and lack of focus/interest.  so education can work.  we just need to rethink education.   #  i am simply making the point that government funded education could be very effective were they to adopt a more effective system.   #  thanks for the delta.  i do not understand your distinction between  education  and  learning  however.  learning is what we pursue through education, they are not separate entities.  i think what you are trying to say is that our current education system does not achieve learning the way it should.  but that is not to say that education, as a whole, is bad, just that our current system is bad.  your post makes the argument against any sort of government supported education.  i am simply making the point that government funded education could be very effective were they to adopt a more effective system.   #  education provides exposure to many aspects of culture drama, physics, books, painting that choosing a  job  would be limiting.   #  while i agree our formalised education is a 0th century hangover.  developed to make workers fit for industrial work, let is not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  it sounds as if you are self motivated, other people need structure to apply themselves.  one of the key components of learning is feedback.  college / university where students of different backgrounds can come together and have debate, defend and test their ideas is quite fantastic.  without exposure to new ideas and challenge of these ideas particularly in the information age in which we live it is easy to isolate yourself intellectually.  education provides exposure to many aspects of culture drama, physics, books, painting that choosing a  job  would be limiting.  although that is heavily dependent on what kind of school you go to.  i personally feel that middle school and the age segregation within it is of huge detriment to our societies.  putting 0 0 year olds together with minimal adult supervision is a stupid idea.  children look up to older children, and more mature kids would create natural role models, rather than the often cruel hierarchy that is formed at that age.   #  this also functions in many ways to separate the good from the bad.   # the first one is the obvious one, to educate.  this is a claim i am contesting.  search engines and the current state of data can do more for a person than any amount of stand and deliver classes can.  additionally, contents value is graded on its real world value by presenting it on social media sites, reducing even further the benefit of classroom structure.  i am not.  i am saying it is current incarnation is not valuable.  it was and has been incredibly valuable right up until the point of google and social media.  you would be surprised what we high school drop outs think of ;  we still need a system to evaluate students the system must be one that people accept, by and large social media has become the arbiter that determines external self worth of someones pursuits.  this also functions in many ways to separate the good from the bad.  distress and eustress can be trained in other ways that are less self serving such as community service, and family oriented activities.
i take a pragmatic and pessimistic view when regarding how other people who only know me as a statistic perceive me.  i believe they can only account for me the way an actuary can attempt to render the status of something mathematically with an eye for values and eventually profit.  that is the origination of this line of thinking.  i tend to look at massive scale operations from a serious  how can i make profit off of this  perspective as i believe it is the safest assumption that can be made about people and groups with such a crushing responsibility to fulfill so many needs.  i am directing this thought at mass education as a whole because i dropped out of middle school, then high school, and then college.  i am not someone who dislikes learning.  it was a hilarious and gigantic waste of time to me.  that being said, i very much enjoyed the social aspect of education but i believe that should not be taken into account for this question because i am not attempting to question the benefits of rubbing elbows to either find good comrades for life or nepotism outlets for hard to acquire jobs.  i think many of those effects can be also achieved by jobs that require you to socialize, or by being friendly in the right locales.  like many people who i have met who have similar views i do not find any fault in teachers, many teachers even to this day i find are remarkable to the point that i still get teary eyed thinking about them.  contrary to this cmv i had wonderful teachers.  i want to make the distinction that teaching someone is not managing the education for an entire society and that the practicality of learning something is not what is being questioned here.  i would like to hear arguments for the effectiveness of education in creating people that will produce profit for the community in which pays for their education through their tax dollars.  i would also like to hear views from people have have paid for private education and home schooling.  once again my view on this profit oriented.  as a caveat, i cannot speak to the effectiveness of education outside of the united states.  if you have methods or practices that pertain to outside of the good ol  usa that could serve in transforming the system as a whole to a more profitable practice i would love to hear the methodology.  tl;dr mass education is bullshit.   #  i take a pragmatic and pessimistic view when regarding how other people who only know me as a statistic perceive me.   #  i believe they can only account for me the way an actuary can attempt to render the status of something mathematically with an eye for values and eventually profit.   # i believe they can only account for me the way an actuary can attempt to render the status of something mathematically with an eye for values and eventually profit.  that is the origination of this line of thinking.  i tend to look at massive scale operations from a serious  how can i make profit off of this  perspective as i believe it is the safest assumption that can be made about people and groups with such a crushing responsibility to fulfill so many needs.  i am directing this thought at mass education as a whole because i dropped out of middle school, then high school, and then college.  i am not someone who dislikes learning.  it was a hilarious and gigantic waste of time to me.  that being said, i very much enjoyed the social aspect of education but i believe that should not be taken into account for this question because i am not attempting to question the benefits of rubbing elbows to either find good comrades for life or nepotism outlets for hard to acquire jobs.  i think many of those effects can be also achieved by jobs that require you to socialize, or by being friendly in the right locales.  like many people who i have met who have similar views i do not find any fault in teachers, many teachers even to this day i find are remarkable to the point that i still get teary eyed thinking about them.  contrary to this cmv i had wonderful teachers.  i want to make the distinction that teaching someone is not managing the education for an entire society and that the practicality of learning something is not what is being questioned here.  i would like to hear arguments for the effectiveness of education in creating people that will produce profit for the community in which pays for their education through their tax dollars.  i would also like to hear views from people have have paid for private education and home schooling.  once again my view on this profit oriented.  as a caveat, i cannot speak to the effectiveness of education outside of the united states.  if you have methods or practices that pertain to outside of the good ol  usa that could serve in transforming the system as a whole to a more profitable practice i would love to hear the methodology.  tl;dr mass education is bullshit.   #  so we have a physics class, and students are expected to simply pick a topic with real world applications, and investigate it and make a report after a month.   #  the problem is that we need to get away from system of education that tries to make everyone the same into a system that allows individuals to explore and express their differences while continuing to develop skills and knowledge.  education as it is currently in most places in the world is a very top down approach.  some bureaucrats decide on certain facts that everyone needs to know, these facts are written into a test that everyone has to take, and then these facts are communicated to the students through lectures and textbooks, and are simply intended to be memorized and regurgitated.  this is terrible, but this is not how education needs to be necessarily.  we are starting to see a lot of success with various bottom up approaches, where students direct their own learning with teachers as guides rather than instructors.  there are many different ways of doing this, many different flavors, but they have all generally been met with great success.  one example of this type of method is where a teacher presents a problem and leaves the students to work it out on their own.  use of the internet and other resources are encouraged, and maybe a hint is given.  for example, a teacher might say,  see that building over there ? i want you to figure out how high it is.  here is a hint: google trigonometry.  prize for the first group who figures it out.   and then the students get to work, trying to figure out how this can be done.  after a while, one of the students says,  hey teacher, it looks like we need something called a clinometer !    excelent !   says the teacher.   you are making great progress.  here are materials for making one.   students get back to work.  in this way, the teacher plans the lesson and imagines how it might go, but students are left to explore available human knowledge in a more open manner.  another meathod is to let students pick micro subjects that interest them.  so we have a physics class, and students are expected to simply pick a topic with real world applications, and investigate it and make a report after a month.  so johnny likes rockets, and he spends a month playing kerbal space program every day, and maybe building and launching rockets on his own.  at the end of the month, he is expected to make a presentation where he explains all the important equations, drag coefficients etc, and shows that he has gained real and applicable knowledge on this topic.  these kinds of bottom up approaches to education still require an investment.  we still need teachers who guide the students and either design the curriculum or else approve of the self study materials.  but in these systems we encourage students to explore their own interests and develop the imperatively important skill of research, of figuring out how to figure things out.  we do not put on emphasis on memorization, because how often do you really have to memorize things in the real world ? rather we naturally memorize that which we use frequently, and so application of concepts is emphasized.  we also find that when we let kids explore the world around them, and when we provide them with opportunities for movement and hands on activities, we have much fewer incidents of misbehavior and lack of focus/interest.  so education can work.  we just need to rethink education.   #  i do not understand your distinction between  education  and  learning  however.   #  thanks for the delta.  i do not understand your distinction between  education  and  learning  however.  learning is what we pursue through education, they are not separate entities.  i think what you are trying to say is that our current education system does not achieve learning the way it should.  but that is not to say that education, as a whole, is bad, just that our current system is bad.  your post makes the argument against any sort of government supported education.  i am simply making the point that government funded education could be very effective were they to adopt a more effective system.   #  without exposure to new ideas and challenge of these ideas particularly in the information age in which we live it is easy to isolate yourself intellectually.   #  while i agree our formalised education is a 0th century hangover.  developed to make workers fit for industrial work, let is not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  it sounds as if you are self motivated, other people need structure to apply themselves.  one of the key components of learning is feedback.  college / university where students of different backgrounds can come together and have debate, defend and test their ideas is quite fantastic.  without exposure to new ideas and challenge of these ideas particularly in the information age in which we live it is easy to isolate yourself intellectually.  education provides exposure to many aspects of culture drama, physics, books, painting that choosing a  job  would be limiting.  although that is heavily dependent on what kind of school you go to.  i personally feel that middle school and the age segregation within it is of huge detriment to our societies.  putting 0 0 year olds together with minimal adult supervision is a stupid idea.  children look up to older children, and more mature kids would create natural role models, rather than the often cruel hierarchy that is formed at that age.   #  the main function really, is to see who can handle the stress, and who can not.   #  education has two main purposes.  the first one is the obvious one, to educate.  and the second one is the less talked about one, which is to evaluate students based on there output, so colleges/employers can separate the capable from the not so capable.  are you saying that education has not benefited society ? that is a very ignorant view point.  i mean just look at your computer.  you think some high school dropout with no education thought of that ? or look into your medicine cabinet, you think people without education created those antibiotics ? human history has been a constant advancement in science and technology.  we are still the same social creatures with our virtues, culture, and morals, but the one thing that has changed, is the knowledge we posses as a species.  is this not enough of a profit to justify an educations system ? and even if we forget about that, we still need a system to evaluate students, so the rest of society can differentiate the capable from the not so capable.  school is the perfect system.  you get assignments you have to complete, and you get evaluated on your output.  the main function really, is to see who can handle the stress, and who can not.
i have been thinking about looking into online dating.  i spend the rest of my time online, so it makes a certain sense, no ? but one thing has been holding me back, and i am not sure if i am right or if i am following a misconception.  the most attractive, interesting, desirable people are not on dating sites because they do not need to be.  someone who leads an interesting life meets people along the way, and someone who is attractive will um, attract others to them self without needing an internet profile.  or to reverse things, the majority people who resort to online dating do so because they have failed to be successful in dating in the real world, and it works because they are matched with people who have had a similar lack of success.  also, people are incentivized to put their best foot and face forward on dating sites, so the physical and mental level of attractiveness offline often does not match up to a person is profile.  long story short, it seems to me like the average person you meet offline will far outstrip the average person you meet online both mentally and physically.   #  also, people are incentivized to put their best foot and face forward on dating sites, so the physical and mental level of attractiveness offline often does not match up to a person is profile.   #  i hear the argument a lot that people is profiles do not match what they actually are, as you put it, they are putting their best foot and face forward.   #  simple statistics, meeting the right person for me was not working by going out, and as a working professional who put in a lot of hours, i did not have enough time for a large enough sample size.  this was a route to failure.  meeting people along the way in an interesting life is nice in theory, but some interesting but driven people are out there developing their careers as well.  or they might just never bump in to you by sheer chance.  0 attracting people does not mean you are attracting the right people.  again it is statistically unlikely.  in fact it is often unwanted attention depending on your level of attractiveness.  personally, i was able to meet and date people off line, but the problem was the amount of time it would take to conclude that this was not the right person.  on line dating provides a pre filter for the people that you do start to spend time with and a quicker way to weed out undesirable through quick conversation.  myself and a few others i know definitely did it for time efficiency.  are there people on there who have not been successful dating by  going out,  of course ! it is a much better way to meet and get to know people for a lot of people.  there are a lot of different types of people out there who have a lot of different types of preferences.  i hear the argument a lot that people is profiles do not match what they actually are, as you put it, they are putting their best foot and face forward.  is this  really  any different than what people do in  real life ?   when you are trying to get a first date or going out on those first few dates are you acting exactly the same as you would in a 0 year old relationship comfortable as just you ? no, you have dressed as nicely as possible, put stuff in your hair, doing your best not to offend, perhaps stepping softly and feeling out in the conversation what the other person likes and dislikes so you do not hit any landmines, in short  putting your best foot forward.   real life incentivizes you just as hard to put your best foot forward.  often enough after dating a girl for a month or so from a real life start you start to pick up on some key things that you did not know or hear right away.  oh, she is actually batshit crazy, thinks she was abducted by aliens, actually has a penis phobia but is attracted to men , insane jealousy of you  looking  at any other women, thinks if you do other activities it means you do not like her as much, etc.  these are all real examples from my time dating women who seemed normal at first when i met them in real life, their best foot was forward, their real life profile got presented over the course of the first few dates instead of a quick read and a few chat messages exchanged to accelerate things.  i may have still dated them, but i could have found out sooner and wasted less time.  long story short, people are people, you meet a different subset of them online.  you will be able to sort through more people more quickly online.  it is not like you are  not  going to date them in real life.  if attractiveness is a concern for you, then there is a profile picture, you can filter your selection down pretty quickly.  you may find more people who are more socially reserved online, but that totally works for a lot of people who  want  less social aspects to their life.  if you do not want someone socially reserved, check their profile and see what they like to do.  i am not sure where you are getting that they will be mentally inferior, this seems to be a bit of an unsupported argument.  source married the woman i found on a dating website.  dated 0 different women for about 0 0 months from the site before meeting my wife to be.   #  if someone perfect was at the bar last night and i was not, that connection will never happen.   #  my friend got me over my distaste for online dating.  she said something like: it is crazy that i am expected to meet someone who i am attracted to and who shares my interests and values and make a good match with just by seeing strangers out, usually at a bar.  i am entirely limited to the places i go and my very local geography.  if someone perfect was at the bar last night and i was not, that connection will never happen.  online you have access to your whole region, not just those few people you are actually in the same room with at any given time.  you can look through profile to see who you are attracted to and from there find matches based on personality and values.  or start with personality matches and then look at pictures and attractiveness.  because the profile is out there for anyone to see you are not limited to chance meetings.  meeting anyone as an adult is hard.  not just dates.  it can be difficult to find people to hang out with if you do not already have a close know group.  and many people move to new cities these days to start a life.  it can mean having no connections.  so a lot of people do not know how to make connections or meet people.  if you are not out doing things with others it is nearly impossible to run into that perfect someone.  so even attractive and otherwise desirable people will turn to online dating because it can work in ways that the real world just does not.  also, as a queer in ohio i would never be able to find someone except maybe at a gay bar if it were not for online dating.  there is just no way to find someone otherwise.   #  how many bars would you have to trawl to be as productive as an hour in tinder ?  #  i do not think people turn to online dating as a last resort.  you are assuming that being on the web is a stigma this is hardly the case.  on the contrary, because the society we are in is web oriented, socializing online has become the norm.  interesting people are online because it is the best way to find other interesting people.  attractive people are online because it is the fastest way to find attractive people.  how many bars would you have to trawl to be as productive as an hour in tinder ? the stigma associated with being on the web no longer applies.  facebook is not limited to  willosers  who ca not find friends in real life.   #  in addition, whatever stigma there once was on online dating is rapidly dissipating.   #  i think its a mistake to assume that most  desirable  people will easily find mates in  the real world .  where do you expect these people to meet ? there are a lot of great people, particularly those on the more introverted side, who just do not have a ton of opportunities to meet potential mates.  in addition, whatever stigma there once was on online dating is rapidly dissipating.  there are a lot of folks trying online dating who could certainly find mates without it quite easily.  but its a great tool for everyone, and takes very little effort to sign up.  set up a safe first meetingplace, and what is the worst that can happen ? a few bad dates ? full disclosure: i met my wife on okcupid.   #  you are arguably much more likely to encounter someone who is a good match.   #  i think you are overlooking a few distinct advantages.  online dating websites are searchable.  for the most part, everyone on a dating website is single or otherwise  available,  and it is possible to easily search  hundreds  of profiles for people your age who live near you, like the things you like, and share your views.  you are arguably much more likely to encounter someone who is a good match.  also, it is easy to find people online who are totally outside your social circle.  if you are like me, you generally do not approach random strangers at bars.  i tend to meet people through other people i already know.  as a general rule, it is much better to date a person with whom you do not have any previous social connections.  it gives you an opportunity to make new friends, and might make it easier to sever ties if things do not work out.  those are not just good reasons for  you  to use online dating websites.  they are also good reasons for lots of otherwise highly eligible people to use them meaning that the  dating pool  probably is not nearly as shallow as you seem to think.  it is not necessarily a last resort anymore.  finally and most compellingly : there is no law against doing both.
most of this is from forbes  writer: joshua steimle  competition:  proponents of net neutrality say the telecoms have too much power.  i agree.  everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and i would like to see more competition.  but if monopolies are bad, why do we trust the u. s.  government, the largest monopoly of all, and a coercive one at that, to take over ? where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed, such as with telephony services.  do you think we would all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system ? i do not like how much power the telecoms have.  but the reason they are big and powerful is not because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it.  government regulations are written by large corporate interests who collude with officials in government.  the battle between government crusaders on a mission to protect the little guy from the corporate behemoth is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike.   privacy:  free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the u. s.  government has been shown in no uncertain terms to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens.  the government will need to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor internet traffic.  once installed, can we trust this government, or any government, to use that access in a benign fashion ? i see any increase in regulation, however well intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society generally in the long term.  for this reason those who rose up against sopa and pipa a few years ago should be equally opposed to net neutrality.   conclusion  with the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price.  it may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative: what we have now.   #  but if monopolies are bad, why do we trust the u. s.   #  government, the largest monopoly of all, and a coercive one at that, to take over ?  #  i am not quite sure you know what net neutrality is.  say you use netflix.  netflix pays their provider to upload the movies, and you pay the isp to download the movies.  your isp also wants to charge netflix for what you download with the threat of slowing down their netflix traffic.  the isp wants to double dip even though you are paying for your connection already.  net neutrality is about forcing an isp to treat all traffic the same regardless of source.  this means they ca not give amazon prime priority over netflix because amazon paid and netflix did not.  this hurts smaller companies that ca not afford to pay all of the isps for preference in addition to paying for their primary internet access.  government, the largest monopoly of all, and a coercive one at that, to take over ? there are parts of the government that are bad, and parts that are good.  would you rather not have the fda regulating medicine ? most of the internet trunks out there were government funded; they ought to have a say in how they are used.  absolutely.  it is because of the government that many people actually have phone service instead of being written off as unprofitable.  now we are stuck in a world with hugely expensive data/text/voice plans because there is no real competition.  europe has a much healthier cellular market.  government regulations are written by large corporate interests who collude with officials in government.  okay smart guy.  if corporate interests are your concern then deregulation is worse than regulation.  who is interests are represented when corporations are fully in control ? this has already been done.  where have you been for the past several years ?  #  yeah, that free market worked out great for consumers.   #  competition  if there had been more regulation, the government would have prevented the consolidation of they cable companies.  it used to be that every city and town picked their cable provider.  if one provided crappy service or high prices, it cold be replaced.  but now that there are only a handful left, and none of them compete, we have the crappy, monopolist  providers  like comcast and time warner.  yeah, that free market worked out great for consumers.  privacy  i do not trust the government, but how much do i trust companies with a profit motive to glean as much information from me as possible ? ahh, the possibilities for targeted marketing when you know your emails, websites you visit, the shows you stream.  at least in its bungling way the government is at least trying to do the right thing.  comcast is trying to make money.  trusting the free market to keep your information safe is a sucker is bet.  conclusion  without regulation, we will get more of the same huge monopolies looking to squeeze more money while providing less service.  what a deal.   #  competition:  if we completely took away regulation, without net neutrality, we would probably see a few more companies enter the competition.   #  competition:  if we completely took away regulation, without net neutrality, we would probably see a few more companies enter the competition.  if comcast/tw will try to get google/netflix to pay for new internet fibers and google/netflix do not pay, they will lose customers.  maybe the customer base that will be willing to switch companies will increase and competition for internet will finally be realized.  passing net neutrality will just have everything stay the way it is now with a government monopoly good luck getting the 0 mbps that google fiber will give from the government.   privacy:  targeted marketing is a benefit imo.  companies love it because they advertise to the customers that will buy their product and i am ok with it because i do not watch commercials with products i would never buy.  the government is potentially harmful.  ever seen 0 ? conclusion:  we have a combination of regulation and free market right now.  with more regulation net neutrality we will have to deal with the same companies and the inefficient government.  with a total free market we will see new companies enter the market especially as more and more people demand faster internet and will be willing to pay for it.  google fiber and 0 mbps will never become country wide with net neutrality.   #  net neutrality was the only way the internet existed.   #  net neutrality was the only way the internet existed.  google netflix and facebook were all developed under net neutrality.  the government did not, as far as i know, install hardware and software in order to enforce it.  i am sure they did for nsa reasons but that was not to do with net neutrality.  it seems like you do not know how net neutrality works.   #  and again, i am fairly certain it was never enforced in that way before.   #  it can function as a reactive process and not a proactive one.  a certain threshold of subra rivers file complaints against comcast because they are finding their youtube is running slower than netflix on the same network.  the service is uneven.  an investigation is then put under way and uncovers what it uncovers.  we do not need every bit sent through every network to be monitored and cross referenced to protect net neutrality.  and again, i am fairly certain it was never enforced in that way before.
most of this is from forbes  writer: joshua steimle  competition:  proponents of net neutrality say the telecoms have too much power.  i agree.  everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and i would like to see more competition.  but if monopolies are bad, why do we trust the u. s.  government, the largest monopoly of all, and a coercive one at that, to take over ? where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed, such as with telephony services.  do you think we would all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system ? i do not like how much power the telecoms have.  but the reason they are big and powerful is not because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it.  government regulations are written by large corporate interests who collude with officials in government.  the battle between government crusaders on a mission to protect the little guy from the corporate behemoth is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike.   privacy:  free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the u. s.  government has been shown in no uncertain terms to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens.  the government will need to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor internet traffic.  once installed, can we trust this government, or any government, to use that access in a benign fashion ? i see any increase in regulation, however well intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society generally in the long term.  for this reason those who rose up against sopa and pipa a few years ago should be equally opposed to net neutrality.   conclusion  with the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price.  it may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative: what we have now.   #  but the reason they are big and powerful is not because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it.   #  government regulations are written by large corporate interests who collude with officials in government.   #  i am not quite sure you know what net neutrality is.  say you use netflix.  netflix pays their provider to upload the movies, and you pay the isp to download the movies.  your isp also wants to charge netflix for what you download with the threat of slowing down their netflix traffic.  the isp wants to double dip even though you are paying for your connection already.  net neutrality is about forcing an isp to treat all traffic the same regardless of source.  this means they ca not give amazon prime priority over netflix because amazon paid and netflix did not.  this hurts smaller companies that ca not afford to pay all of the isps for preference in addition to paying for their primary internet access.  government, the largest monopoly of all, and a coercive one at that, to take over ? there are parts of the government that are bad, and parts that are good.  would you rather not have the fda regulating medicine ? most of the internet trunks out there were government funded; they ought to have a say in how they are used.  absolutely.  it is because of the government that many people actually have phone service instead of being written off as unprofitable.  now we are stuck in a world with hugely expensive data/text/voice plans because there is no real competition.  europe has a much healthier cellular market.  government regulations are written by large corporate interests who collude with officials in government.  okay smart guy.  if corporate interests are your concern then deregulation is worse than regulation.  who is interests are represented when corporations are fully in control ? this has already been done.  where have you been for the past several years ?  #  at least in its bungling way the government is at least trying to do the right thing.   #  competition  if there had been more regulation, the government would have prevented the consolidation of they cable companies.  it used to be that every city and town picked their cable provider.  if one provided crappy service or high prices, it cold be replaced.  but now that there are only a handful left, and none of them compete, we have the crappy, monopolist  providers  like comcast and time warner.  yeah, that free market worked out great for consumers.  privacy  i do not trust the government, but how much do i trust companies with a profit motive to glean as much information from me as possible ? ahh, the possibilities for targeted marketing when you know your emails, websites you visit, the shows you stream.  at least in its bungling way the government is at least trying to do the right thing.  comcast is trying to make money.  trusting the free market to keep your information safe is a sucker is bet.  conclusion  without regulation, we will get more of the same huge monopolies looking to squeeze more money while providing less service.  what a deal.   #  google fiber and 0 mbps will never become country wide with net neutrality.   #  competition:  if we completely took away regulation, without net neutrality, we would probably see a few more companies enter the competition.  if comcast/tw will try to get google/netflix to pay for new internet fibers and google/netflix do not pay, they will lose customers.  maybe the customer base that will be willing to switch companies will increase and competition for internet will finally be realized.  passing net neutrality will just have everything stay the way it is now with a government monopoly good luck getting the 0 mbps that google fiber will give from the government.   privacy:  targeted marketing is a benefit imo.  companies love it because they advertise to the customers that will buy their product and i am ok with it because i do not watch commercials with products i would never buy.  the government is potentially harmful.  ever seen 0 ? conclusion:  we have a combination of regulation and free market right now.  with more regulation net neutrality we will have to deal with the same companies and the inefficient government.  with a total free market we will see new companies enter the market especially as more and more people demand faster internet and will be willing to pay for it.  google fiber and 0 mbps will never become country wide with net neutrality.   #  the government did not, as far as i know, install hardware and software in order to enforce it.   #  net neutrality was the only way the internet existed.  google netflix and facebook were all developed under net neutrality.  the government did not, as far as i know, install hardware and software in order to enforce it.  i am sure they did for nsa reasons but that was not to do with net neutrality.  it seems like you do not know how net neutrality works.   #  we do not need every bit sent through every network to be monitored and cross referenced to protect net neutrality.   #  it can function as a reactive process and not a proactive one.  a certain threshold of subra rivers file complaints against comcast because they are finding their youtube is running slower than netflix on the same network.  the service is uneven.  an investigation is then put under way and uncovers what it uncovers.  we do not need every bit sent through every network to be monitored and cross referenced to protect net neutrality.  and again, i am fairly certain it was never enforced in that way before.
i am strongly convinced that sometime within the next century, industrial society as we know it will either collapse or begin an inevitable and possibly irreversible decline at least for a long period of time .  the result will be something resembling the fall of the roman empire, but on a larger spatial scale most of the earth, if not all of it .  a global warming exists, is snowballing out of control, and very little is being done in terms of future damage control.  notice that i did not say  to stop it : an integral part of my belief is that global warming is past the point of being stopped, and that we are already destined for disastrous consequences.  we are not adequately preparing for these consequences, we are essentially ignoring them.  b wealth inequality is at an all time high, and another great depression looms.  the most powerful economies in the world are controlled by a small subset of insanely rich companies/individuals, which are not concerned with the welfare of the common citizen in a great enough way to be meaningful.  we did not fix the problems that caused the economic crisis beginning 0, and if anything they have become worse, placing more money in the hands of individuals that are too self interested to spend it well.  this leads to my next point.  c dissatisfaction with the status quo amongst the middle and lower classes, especially on the international scale is at an all time high.  i am not talking about the dissatisfaction of  first world problems,  but of the violence exhibited by terrorist organizations boko haram being the most recent and startling example .  the hegemonic economy of the usa and its allies has been in place for too long, holding down smaller and poorer countries to the point where the damage is done.  there is enough hate for the  western world  to destroy it, should the correct opportunity arise.  this also pertains to the most economically suppressed/oppressed in the usa, mexico and canada, drug cartels, street gangs and the like.  d we are overdue for a severe plague.  this point is related to point a: increasing occurence of natural disasters and destruction of infrastructure will lead to an outbreak of an already virulent and drug resistant strain of tb, influenza h0n0, etc.  , or some other disease ebola, malaria .  together, i think these factors present a grim case for continuance of an industrial/scientific global community.  i might also add point e: nuclear war.  i do not think mutually assured destruction is  likely  to play out, but the possibility always exists, at which point we not only face societal collapse but the end of the human race.  so please.  cmv ?  #  we are overdue for a severe plague.   #  i do not think this makes sense.   #  some of these are more problems than others.  there is a decent argument that having nuclear weapons has actually lead to peace, because major powers are afraid of engaging in a direct confrontation.  this is the nuclear peace hypothesis URL and in fact, by many metrics the last sixty years has been one of the most peaceful times in recorded history see steven pinker is  the better angels of our nature  for example .  unfortunately, this may be the mother of all survivorship biases URL if species once they develop nukes do frequently wipe themselves out, the only observes around will note that their species have been very peaceful after the construction of nuclear weapons.  if one is seriously concerned about nuclear weapons, one should also be particularly concerned about events in the last few months: at the end of the cold war, the various former soviet states gave up their nukes in exchange for various promises from russia and the us.  ukraine was one of those.  the lesson that any country thinking of either developing or giving up nuclear weapons must now conclude is that giving up nukes for paper assurances is not a good bargain.  the more recent nuclear states like north korea, india, pakistan and israel must be very aware of this at this point.  i do not think this makes sense.  this sounds a bit like the gambler is fallacy URL moreover, as more and more of the world is explored, the remaining resevoirs for potential new hidden diseases becomes smaller however, there is a potentially relevant issue here that goes in the other direction: modern transport networks allow diseases to travel much faster: in particular, a novel air born disease would have a fun time with airplanes.  even without airplanes, this connected infrastructure makes for serious problems: in many parts of africa, hiv has spread in part via long distance truck drivers URL note that this is actually to some extent the opposite of what you seem to be worried about: here the presence of infrastructure makes disease spread easier.  also, is it that much of a problem ? to some extent, in order to have extreme wealth inequality one needs advanced technology and prosperous societies.  in say a simple tribal culture, the level of difference between the top 0 and the rest wo not be large for the simple reason that there is not much stuff to go around.  similarly, one can imagine a far future culture where the lowest standard of living is close to that of a millionaire now, but the wealthiest people own their own planets.  in that case, the wealth gap would be even larger, but i am not sure it would be a problem or lead to instability.   #  with our medical know how, i would place any bets in the  we will develop a vaccine/solution fairly quickly  column.   #  okay, in my more melancholic hours, i very much feel like you do.  alas, it is a very romantic notion that humanity will hit a  areset  button and start again.  i, for one, believe any change will take a long time and will be gradual.  but let is take it point by point:  a   global warming.  indeed,  if we assume science remains as it is over the next century , we are past the point of no return.  mankind is, nevertheless, a rather inventive species and should things reach the boiling point no pun intended , i firmly believe we will find a solution.  two supporting arguments: some of the most inventive periods in our history came at times of crisis world war ii, as an example.  global warming can develop into such a crisis.  secondly, there are various geo engineering projects proposed URL such as sulfate aerosols, which have a sound scientific backing and could provide an effective  quick fix .  i know it feels wrong to  cheat  our way out of global warming, but there is a strong possibility that exactly this will happen.  b   wealth inequality.  this has been a problem throughout history.  the egyptians had it, the ottomans had it, the russians had it, the english had it and still have it .  it is nothing new.  we perceive it as increasing after a period of relative socialism in the west but, frankly, i do not think the problem is any worse than it was during feudal times.  if the gap becomes too large, a popular movement will restore the equilibrium, like it always has throughout history.  sure, there might be a period of instability, but a return of the dark ages is a rather gloomy prospect.  if anything, we would see changes similar to those in russia and china as they moved away from monarchy towards state capitalism.  c   dissatisfaction with the status quo.  this is a cop out, i think.  sure, the period of western dominance might end, but would this cause a  willarge scale societal collapse  ? that is a bit presumptuous.  there are plenty of other countries in the world whose economies would adapt to new circumstances.  sure, the era of relative prosperity in the west at the expense of the developing world might end, but that still leaves 0 billion people doing the same as or perhaps even better than before.  the west does not equal global society.  as for violence and terrorist organisations.  human history is littered with wars and conflicts.  in fact, we are probably living in times safer than ever before.  there have always been groups of maniacs and there probably always will be.  one of them is yet to cause global disintegration.  d   a global plague.  really, this brings me back to point a .  with our medical know how, i would place any bets in the  we will develop a vaccine/solution fairly quickly  column.  e   nuclear war.  a valid concern.   nuclear shield  would be my answer, as these are quite advanced these days.  at any rate my two cents.   #  as far as nukes go, i would be interested to hear your thoughts on the efficacy of  nuke shield  missile defense systems.   #  first, already got my view changed.  but thanks for your comprehensive response.  the wealth inequality was a bit tacked on, and probably the least of my concerns.  travel infrastructure is one thing to be concerned about when it comes to disease, the other thing being extreme drug resistance.  specifically, strains of extremely drug resistant tb and influenza have been developing worldwide due to incorrect use of antibiotics.  here URL is a study on multi drug resistant potentially plague causing bacteria.  as far as nukes go, i would be interested to hear your thoughts on the efficacy of  nuke shield  missile defense systems.  i will also need to read up more on nuclear peace.  it seems unlikely that nukes could lead to full scale nuclear winter.  call me an optimist, but i do not see it happening.  nuclear winter is in no one is best interest.   #  it is possible that we simply wo not have the energy available to return to current tech levels.   # nuclear winter is not the only problem created by nuclear weapons.  moreover, it is worth noting that one does not necessarily need to have a complete destruction of humanity to have an irrecoverable collapse event.  this has been pointed out by nick bostrom, a philosopher at the future of humanity institute which spends its time thinking about these issues .  he is pointed out that human civilization got to its current status by bootstrapping with easily accessible coal and oil, and most of the technologically easy to access coal and oil is now exhausted as are some other helpful resources, like most peat and large parts of forests.  it is possible that we simply wo not have the energy available to return to current tech levels.  incidentally, if people really are concerned about this sort of thing they can take concrete steps by donating to the future of humanity institute URL  #  look man, you just have to look on the bright side of life.   #  i do not know much about global warming, but i am extremely skeptical that the damage is irreversible.  wealth inequality ? uhh, yeah, it exists, like it always has.  i would like to see you cite a source for it being at an all time high, as that seems extremely unlikely.  everyone and their dog has a different opinion on what caused the recession, so i am not exactly sure what you are alluding to.  dissatisfaction with the status quo ? are you freaking kidding me ? can you name a single point in human history where everyone was cool with the status quo ? i am pretty sure terrorism is down across the board.  oh no, smaller and poorer countries do not like  the western world  ! what are they going to do ? absolutely freaking nothing, because they are small and poor.  what the hell is south america and africa, and maybe parts of asia going to do against europe and the us ? and how do you even know they  hate  us ? you got a source for that ? i would think a poor african villager would rather spend his time surviving than hating some distant land of a distant people that he hears have it better than him.  last i checked, plagues did not happen on timers.  we have made about a million and a half groundbreaking medical discoveries since the last real plague, and i see zero reason why we should be worried about some sudden outbreak coming out of nowhere.  i mean, the cdc does exist for a reason, and to quote cracked:  they tend not to fuck around.  seriously, it is on their business cards !  .  it is kind of sad that nuclear war is the most legitimate concern of yours.  the thing is, nukes are not necessarily a problem, as long as only rational people have them.  right now, there are only two countries that a .  have nukes and b .  are retarded enough to use them.  so yeah, we should keep an eye on iran and north korea, but they have had nukes for years, and they have not used them yet.  look man, you just have to look on the bright side of life.  sure, we will face challenges in the future, but we have overcome much worse, and there is no reason to think that we ca not handle all of the above.
certainly, you can be very clever and have terrible grades, but at the same time it is not smart to do poorly in school, thus limiting your opportunity.  i almost get angry when i hear someone say this.  granted this is a blanket statement, and does not include outside circumstance such as extreme poverty or a disease, but i feel that 0 of the time laziness is to blame.  i have heard the  i know stupid people with good grades  argument and i do not understand that.  even mechanically applied knowledge is still knowledge please change my view !  #  i have heard the  i know stupid people with good grades  argument and i do not understand that.   #  even mechanically applied knowledge is still knowledge we actually had an exercise in one of my education courses on this that comes to mind.   # even mechanically applied knowledge is still knowledge we actually had an exercise in one of my education courses on this that comes to mind.  read the following passage.   grinkle is a pelleous glorp.  it is grokked from drangle and dougle through the process of xarckle.   and now the homework questions.  0.  what is grinkle ? a.  it is a pelleous glorp.  0.  what is grinkle grokked from ? a.  drangle and dougle through the process of xarckle it is entirely possible for someone to get good grades by doing what i have just done, except for an entire class.  it is one thing to recite facts, it is another to be able to actually understand and apply them.  a fair amount of your grades come from just that.  i may be able to find the x intercepts of a given quadratic equation and graph them, but do i really understand what the curve i am graphing means ? it is also entirely possible to be a smart student and get bad grades.  this is a common problem in high school.  students who are smart, but are held back because the teacher does not give them problems that are appropriate for their level of mastery because it would be  unfair  to give them harder problems than the rest of the class.  for example: answer the following 0 math problems 0   0 0 0 0   0 0   0 0 x 0 .  if you had 0 of these problems and i asked you to solve all of them would you want to ? would not you hate every second of it ? that is how smart students feel when a class does not challenge them.  there is no motivation to do homework that is so far beneath them they could do it in their sleep.  test grades alone will not get you good grades in most high schools.   #  it was at a community college because of the lack of finances and time i had available to me.   #  to give you a personal example of what a mirror elaborated on: i went to school for cis.  it was at a community college because of the lack of finances and time i had available to me.  the work at these schools or at least mine were incredibly easy.  i found myself doing much more than the required assignment asked for because i preferred the mental stimulation.  at the same time this could cause me to miss deadlines or miss what was assigned because i felt the approach entailed something much more difficult.  this would cost me my grade at times, but my grade was not important to me.  it was the mental exercise that i was obtaining to actually apply myself in the real world that mattered.  while one may have viewed taking a lower score on that project was a poor choice, to me it was not the least intelligent one.  as for the classmates that did well along side of me, they may have been able to maintain an a, but it was only because of their ability to memorize facts to use on tests.  could they diagnose a failed switch or improperly setup routing protocol on a router in a few moments ? hell no.  this is why many of my classmates do not have job in their field, i would argue.   #  lastly, many schools may have some politics giving out some quota on how many people must fail each class.   #  i am majoring in physics and astronomy at a very good university and i have roughly a 0 gpa, so i am not a slacker who is arguing that my lack of effort does not mean i am dumb.  one problem with using grades as an accurate reflection of intelligence is that the grading system is not the same across universities.  it is perfectly possible for a c at my school to be an a at other schools.  so, would someone who got all a is at an inferior school be smarter than someone who got b is and c is at a very difficult school ? i would argue against that, because grades alone only tell out the amount of effort that one put into a class, relative to the amount of effort that is required for the class.  grading systems can vary even within one school, so it is possible to work harder and still get lower grades than people taking the same class with a different professor who requires less work.  furthermore, if a class is too easy and everyone gets an a, then how could you rank intelligence ? lastly, many schools may have some politics giving out some quota on how many people must fail each class.  so, it is possible for a course grade to be determined partially by school politics, which the students have no control over.   #  as for your  even mechanically applied knowledge is still knowledge  argument, sure.   #  the problem is that grades are not an accurate reflection of course difficulty.  you can spend 0  hours working outside of class in organic chemistry and get a b or physical chemistry, and get a b , and you can spend 0 hours outside of class in introductory microeconomics and get an a.  if you are an elementary education major, some of your courses are going to have 0ish of your grade based on a final project of  make a scrapbook  or  color some stuff  i am seriously not kidding , where you  might  need to spend a whole 0 hours outside of class for the whole semester, but the vast majority of that time is nothing but busywork that a 0 year old child could accomplish with equal results.  since grades are not an accurate representation of course difficulty, you ca not really say that grades are an accurate reflection of intelligence.  someone with a 0 from a top 0 engineering program is  on average  almost certainly more intelligent than someone with a 0 that majored in criminal justice or elementary education.  as for your  even mechanically applied knowledge is still knowledge  argument, sure.  the problem with that is there is a difference between knowledge and intelligence, and one is not necessarily equivalent to the other.   #  reassess these definitions, and the view falls apart e. g. , lazy but smart people get poor grades, so grades do not reflect intelligence among lazy people .   #  there is a  no true scotsman  kind of thing going on in the first paragraph   where a smart person gets good grades, because otherwise he is not truly smart.  grades reflect intelligence, because smart people do not supposedly ruin opportunities for themselves.  if you ruin opportunities, then by this definition you are not smart.  is this your argument ? this seems to support your main view.  in the second paragraph,  laziness  is sufficient to account for  anyone  who does not get good grades using a similar kind of circular reasoning.  if you do not get good grades then you are lazy, and if you are lazy then you are not smart.  this seems to be arguing that grades reflect intelligence, if you are equating laziness with stupidity are you ? because if you are not, then a lazy but still smart person satisfies the argument that grades may not reflect intelligence .  and then in the third paragraph you say that stupid people do in fact get good grades, because even  mechanically applied knowledge is still knowledge.   if by  smart  you mean  having knowledge  .  this seems to support your main view, because by this reasoning stupid people can be thought of as smart because they get good grades.  i presume i am missing something here, because it seems contradictory.  you are not arguing that stupid people are smart, right ? unless i am missing something, the first two paragraphs use circular reasoning involving the definitions of terms.  your definition of  not smart  seems to include any character trait contributing to poor grades   so using this definition the argument that  grades are an accurate reflection of intelligence  is necessarily true.  i do not think anyone but you defines intelligence in this way though, if this is how you are thinking of the problem.  based on what i have read, your view seems to be based on circular reasoning hinging on abnormal definitions of common terms.  reassess these definitions, and the view falls apart e. g. , lazy but smart people get poor grades, so grades do not reflect intelligence among lazy people .
a lot of people argue that religion is a huge cause of most wars and threats to scientific advancement.  i think a factor a lot of people neglect is that behind all of these atrocious acts under the guise of religion are still just people.  evil, twisted people, but still just mortal people.  without religion, evil people would not stop being evil.  there would still be wars, there would still be people who rose to positions of power for their own benefit.  : one thought, there are some isolated cases that can probably be directly linked to an individual is religious views, such as all the headlines you see of parents who reject medicine in favour of faith healing, leading to their children dying.  i feel like the amount of charity people give to the world in the name of their faith more than balances these rare incidents.  i will give out deltas when i get home from mowing, no clue how to do it on mobile.   #  evil, twisted people, but still just mortal people.   #  without religion, evil people would not stop being evil.   # without religion, evil people would not stop being evil.  there would still be wars, there would still but you need religion, or something like religion, namely dogma, to make a good person do bad things.  generally, when people say  religion is bad , they mean dogmatic beliefs are bad.  while true, it is irrelevant to whether religion/dogma is good or bad.  it is a specific example of the tangible results of dogmatic beliefs.  this too is irrelevant, because there is not a  single  tangible, real life benefit that religion and dogmatic beliefs provide that cannot be achieved through purely secular means  #  for example, as a teenager one of my close friends had an extremely religious mother.   #  humanity collectively growing out of religion would not  necessarily  solve anything or make the world a better place.  but it would allow though not guarantee the first step on the road to real progress: for mankind to collectively assess the human condition honestly for the first time, without superstition or pleasant illusions clouding our judgment.  i see this idea all the time that  evil  committed in the name of religion would, without religion, just be committed under some other banner just the same.  but my own life experiences, as a former extremely religious person, tell me otherwise.  because i have known so many situations where people were led to honestly believe they were doing the right thing by following their religious principles but the effect was the opposite of what was intended because their worldview is picture of reality did not match actual reality.  for example, as a teenager one of my close friends had an extremely religious mother.  she had no job and literally spent all day reading the bible and listening to christian talk radio, to the point of neglect of her two children.  she gave almost all of her welfare money to her church is rich pastor, to the point of not being able to put food on the table.  eventually she became convinced that my friend had become demon possessed because of mild teenage rebellion super mild, like listening to avril lavigne and kicked her out of the house to basically live as a homeless person.  this was terrible behavior with terrible outcomes, but the woman honestly thought that she was doing god is perfect will the entire time.  this is just one story of religious beliefs directly causing problems, rather than just being the banner for a problem to exist under.  of course, one anecdote alone does not prove a trend.  but my goal is to make you think about how honestly held religious convictions really can effect people is behavior, rather than  always  just being an excuse for behavior that would happen anyway.   #  she had no job and literally spent all day reading the bible and listening to christian talk radio, to the point of neglect of her two children.   # because i have known so many situations where people were led to honestly believe they were doing the right thing by following their religious principles religion does not turn reasonable people into idiots.  many idiots not all use religion as a justification for there actions.  she had no job and literally spent all day reading the bible and listening to christian talk radio, to the point of neglect of her two children.  she gave almost all of her welfare money to her church is rich pastor, to the point of not being able to put food on the table.  this a prime example of how religion has nothing to do with human behavior.  you think that religious mother would have been a good parent otherwise ? i doubt it.  if a person can be so easily influenced, than they will have problems, regardless of whether religion exists or not.  religion does not turn, otherwise good people, into selfish assholes.  the fact of the matter is that selfish assholes exist, and they will use religon, race, gender, and every other reason on earth to justify there selfishness.  and than we blame those ideas or concepts, isntead of those people.  but you can only be affected by something if you allow it affect you.  and people who allow religion to affect in the ways you describe, would have issues with or without religion.  what religion does do, is provide hope.  when people have been in difficult times, they have often been given hope by religious beliefs.  whether rational or not, hope is hope.  if the people in concentration camps had thought rationally, they would have killed themselves or gone mad.  but concepts such as faith, gave them hope, in there final seconds.   #  the problem is that if demons do not actually exist then kicking your daughter out for being demonically influenced is not a good idea.   #  the point was not that without religion that family would have had no problems.  the point is that without that specific religious teaching the specific consequence of that specific belief would not have taken place.  her actions were not idiotic, they made sense within her belief system.  the problem is that if demons do not actually exist then kicking your daughter out for being demonically influenced is not a good idea.  but she was taught that demons did exist.  and people who allow religion to affect in the ways you describe, would have issues with or without religion.  ok, so religion is fine by me as long as it does not effect anyone.  but it does.  and once you have accepted a belief system you are not always able to look at it from an outside perspective and see how its effecting your life, since your perspective is skewed by those same beliefs.  for example, try telling that woman that she is hurting her family and she can dismiss your concerns as just more demonic influences.  again, she would not have had  that specific issue .  someone walks across a road without paying attention, gets hit by a car, and is seriously injured.  i say that their injury would not have happened without the choice to walk across a road without paying attention.  would you argue  but someone who does not pay attention to where they are going would have issues with or without being hit by a car !   ? when people have been in difficult times, they have often been given hope by religious beliefs.  whether rational or not, hope is hope.  if the people in concentration camps had thought rationally, they would have killed themselves or gone mad.  but concepts such as faith, gave them hope, in there final seconds.  i have hope for humanity to move beyond the need for pleasant falsehoods.   #  suppose a scientist holds dogmatically that the acquisition of knowledge is good above all things, including vivisection and experimenting on children, then the problem is that belief.   # it is certainly possible to commit horrible atrocities in the name of science think vivisection or experimenting on children .  that does little to hinder my argument, and i will tell you why.  if you mean science as the process that we use to discern what is true and what is not true, then it ca not be moral or immoral.  it has no agency.  if you mean science as the body of individuals and institutions that apply the aforementioned process, they can indeed do immoral things in the search of knowledge, but this still does not hinder the argument.  suppose a scientist holds dogmatically that the acquisition of knowledge is good above all things, including vivisection and experimenting on children, then the problem is that belief.  this dogmatic belief was required to get an otherwise ethical scientist to commit unethical deed the reality for scientific processes is that scientists  do not have to believe dogmatically that gaining knowledge is good above all else .  indeed, scientists that do hold that view are not desirable.  that is why we have ethics in the field of scientific research.  religion and dogma does not allow for this because they rely on people swallowing their respective beliefs without question.  if you can get someone to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities  so like op said, the world would not be any better without it.  no, that is not what follows.  what follows is that atrocities based on dogmatic beliefs cease to happen.  that does not include all atrocities, though.
a lot of people argue that religion is a huge cause of most wars and threats to scientific advancement.  i think a factor a lot of people neglect is that behind all of these atrocious acts under the guise of religion are still just people.  evil, twisted people, but still just mortal people.  without religion, evil people would not stop being evil.  there would still be wars, there would still be people who rose to positions of power for their own benefit.  : one thought, there are some isolated cases that can probably be directly linked to an individual is religious views, such as all the headlines you see of parents who reject medicine in favour of faith healing, leading to their children dying.  i feel like the amount of charity people give to the world in the name of their faith more than balances these rare incidents.  i will give out deltas when i get home from mowing, no clue how to do it on mobile.   #  there would still be wars, there would still be people who rose to positions of power for their own benefit.   #  while true, it is irrelevant to whether religion/dogma is good or bad.   # without religion, evil people would not stop being evil.  there would still be wars, there would still but you need religion, or something like religion, namely dogma, to make a good person do bad things.  generally, when people say  religion is bad , they mean dogmatic beliefs are bad.  while true, it is irrelevant to whether religion/dogma is good or bad.  it is a specific example of the tangible results of dogmatic beliefs.  this too is irrelevant, because there is not a  single  tangible, real life benefit that religion and dogmatic beliefs provide that cannot be achieved through purely secular means  #  i see this idea all the time that  evil  committed in the name of religion would, without religion, just be committed under some other banner just the same.   #  humanity collectively growing out of religion would not  necessarily  solve anything or make the world a better place.  but it would allow though not guarantee the first step on the road to real progress: for mankind to collectively assess the human condition honestly for the first time, without superstition or pleasant illusions clouding our judgment.  i see this idea all the time that  evil  committed in the name of religion would, without religion, just be committed under some other banner just the same.  but my own life experiences, as a former extremely religious person, tell me otherwise.  because i have known so many situations where people were led to honestly believe they were doing the right thing by following their religious principles but the effect was the opposite of what was intended because their worldview is picture of reality did not match actual reality.  for example, as a teenager one of my close friends had an extremely religious mother.  she had no job and literally spent all day reading the bible and listening to christian talk radio, to the point of neglect of her two children.  she gave almost all of her welfare money to her church is rich pastor, to the point of not being able to put food on the table.  eventually she became convinced that my friend had become demon possessed because of mild teenage rebellion super mild, like listening to avril lavigne and kicked her out of the house to basically live as a homeless person.  this was terrible behavior with terrible outcomes, but the woman honestly thought that she was doing god is perfect will the entire time.  this is just one story of religious beliefs directly causing problems, rather than just being the banner for a problem to exist under.  of course, one anecdote alone does not prove a trend.  but my goal is to make you think about how honestly held religious convictions really can effect people is behavior, rather than  always  just being an excuse for behavior that would happen anyway.   #  she gave almost all of her welfare money to her church is rich pastor, to the point of not being able to put food on the table.   # because i have known so many situations where people were led to honestly believe they were doing the right thing by following their religious principles religion does not turn reasonable people into idiots.  many idiots not all use religion as a justification for there actions.  she had no job and literally spent all day reading the bible and listening to christian talk radio, to the point of neglect of her two children.  she gave almost all of her welfare money to her church is rich pastor, to the point of not being able to put food on the table.  this a prime example of how religion has nothing to do with human behavior.  you think that religious mother would have been a good parent otherwise ? i doubt it.  if a person can be so easily influenced, than they will have problems, regardless of whether religion exists or not.  religion does not turn, otherwise good people, into selfish assholes.  the fact of the matter is that selfish assholes exist, and they will use religon, race, gender, and every other reason on earth to justify there selfishness.  and than we blame those ideas or concepts, isntead of those people.  but you can only be affected by something if you allow it affect you.  and people who allow religion to affect in the ways you describe, would have issues with or without religion.  what religion does do, is provide hope.  when people have been in difficult times, they have often been given hope by religious beliefs.  whether rational or not, hope is hope.  if the people in concentration camps had thought rationally, they would have killed themselves or gone mad.  but concepts such as faith, gave them hope, in there final seconds.   #  ok, so religion is fine by me as long as it does not effect anyone.   #  the point was not that without religion that family would have had no problems.  the point is that without that specific religious teaching the specific consequence of that specific belief would not have taken place.  her actions were not idiotic, they made sense within her belief system.  the problem is that if demons do not actually exist then kicking your daughter out for being demonically influenced is not a good idea.  but she was taught that demons did exist.  and people who allow religion to affect in the ways you describe, would have issues with or without religion.  ok, so religion is fine by me as long as it does not effect anyone.  but it does.  and once you have accepted a belief system you are not always able to look at it from an outside perspective and see how its effecting your life, since your perspective is skewed by those same beliefs.  for example, try telling that woman that she is hurting her family and she can dismiss your concerns as just more demonic influences.  again, she would not have had  that specific issue .  someone walks across a road without paying attention, gets hit by a car, and is seriously injured.  i say that their injury would not have happened without the choice to walk across a road without paying attention.  would you argue  but someone who does not pay attention to where they are going would have issues with or without being hit by a car !   ? when people have been in difficult times, they have often been given hope by religious beliefs.  whether rational or not, hope is hope.  if the people in concentration camps had thought rationally, they would have killed themselves or gone mad.  but concepts such as faith, gave them hope, in there final seconds.  i have hope for humanity to move beyond the need for pleasant falsehoods.   #  what follows is that atrocities based on dogmatic beliefs cease to happen.   # it is certainly possible to commit horrible atrocities in the name of science think vivisection or experimenting on children .  that does little to hinder my argument, and i will tell you why.  if you mean science as the process that we use to discern what is true and what is not true, then it ca not be moral or immoral.  it has no agency.  if you mean science as the body of individuals and institutions that apply the aforementioned process, they can indeed do immoral things in the search of knowledge, but this still does not hinder the argument.  suppose a scientist holds dogmatically that the acquisition of knowledge is good above all things, including vivisection and experimenting on children, then the problem is that belief.  this dogmatic belief was required to get an otherwise ethical scientist to commit unethical deed the reality for scientific processes is that scientists  do not have to believe dogmatically that gaining knowledge is good above all else .  indeed, scientists that do hold that view are not desirable.  that is why we have ethics in the field of scientific research.  religion and dogma does not allow for this because they rely on people swallowing their respective beliefs without question.  if you can get someone to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities  so like op said, the world would not be any better without it.  no, that is not what follows.  what follows is that atrocities based on dogmatic beliefs cease to happen.  that does not include all atrocities, though.
a lot of people argue that religion is a huge cause of most wars and threats to scientific advancement.  i think a factor a lot of people neglect is that behind all of these atrocious acts under the guise of religion are still just people.  evil, twisted people, but still just mortal people.  without religion, evil people would not stop being evil.  there would still be wars, there would still be people who rose to positions of power for their own benefit.  : one thought, there are some isolated cases that can probably be directly linked to an individual is religious views, such as all the headlines you see of parents who reject medicine in favour of faith healing, leading to their children dying.  i feel like the amount of charity people give to the world in the name of their faith more than balances these rare incidents.  i will give out deltas when i get home from mowing, no clue how to do it on mobile.   #  i feel like the amount of charity people give to the world in the name of their faith more than balances these rare incidents.   #  this too is irrelevant, because there is not a  single  tangible, real life benefit that religion and dogmatic beliefs provide that cannot be achieved through purely secular means  # without religion, evil people would not stop being evil.  there would still be wars, there would still but you need religion, or something like religion, namely dogma, to make a good person do bad things.  generally, when people say  religion is bad , they mean dogmatic beliefs are bad.  while true, it is irrelevant to whether religion/dogma is good or bad.  it is a specific example of the tangible results of dogmatic beliefs.  this too is irrelevant, because there is not a  single  tangible, real life benefit that religion and dogmatic beliefs provide that cannot be achieved through purely secular means  #  this was terrible behavior with terrible outcomes, but the woman honestly thought that she was doing god is perfect will the entire time.   #  humanity collectively growing out of religion would not  necessarily  solve anything or make the world a better place.  but it would allow though not guarantee the first step on the road to real progress: for mankind to collectively assess the human condition honestly for the first time, without superstition or pleasant illusions clouding our judgment.  i see this idea all the time that  evil  committed in the name of religion would, without religion, just be committed under some other banner just the same.  but my own life experiences, as a former extremely religious person, tell me otherwise.  because i have known so many situations where people were led to honestly believe they were doing the right thing by following their religious principles but the effect was the opposite of what was intended because their worldview is picture of reality did not match actual reality.  for example, as a teenager one of my close friends had an extremely religious mother.  she had no job and literally spent all day reading the bible and listening to christian talk radio, to the point of neglect of her two children.  she gave almost all of her welfare money to her church is rich pastor, to the point of not being able to put food on the table.  eventually she became convinced that my friend had become demon possessed because of mild teenage rebellion super mild, like listening to avril lavigne and kicked her out of the house to basically live as a homeless person.  this was terrible behavior with terrible outcomes, but the woman honestly thought that she was doing god is perfect will the entire time.  this is just one story of religious beliefs directly causing problems, rather than just being the banner for a problem to exist under.  of course, one anecdote alone does not prove a trend.  but my goal is to make you think about how honestly held religious convictions really can effect people is behavior, rather than  always  just being an excuse for behavior that would happen anyway.   #  she had no job and literally spent all day reading the bible and listening to christian talk radio, to the point of neglect of her two children.   # because i have known so many situations where people were led to honestly believe they were doing the right thing by following their religious principles religion does not turn reasonable people into idiots.  many idiots not all use religion as a justification for there actions.  she had no job and literally spent all day reading the bible and listening to christian talk radio, to the point of neglect of her two children.  she gave almost all of her welfare money to her church is rich pastor, to the point of not being able to put food on the table.  this a prime example of how religion has nothing to do with human behavior.  you think that religious mother would have been a good parent otherwise ? i doubt it.  if a person can be so easily influenced, than they will have problems, regardless of whether religion exists or not.  religion does not turn, otherwise good people, into selfish assholes.  the fact of the matter is that selfish assholes exist, and they will use religon, race, gender, and every other reason on earth to justify there selfishness.  and than we blame those ideas or concepts, isntead of those people.  but you can only be affected by something if you allow it affect you.  and people who allow religion to affect in the ways you describe, would have issues with or without religion.  what religion does do, is provide hope.  when people have been in difficult times, they have often been given hope by religious beliefs.  whether rational or not, hope is hope.  if the people in concentration camps had thought rationally, they would have killed themselves or gone mad.  but concepts such as faith, gave them hope, in there final seconds.   #  would you argue  but someone who does not pay attention to where they are going would have issues with or without being hit by a car !    #  the point was not that without religion that family would have had no problems.  the point is that without that specific religious teaching the specific consequence of that specific belief would not have taken place.  her actions were not idiotic, they made sense within her belief system.  the problem is that if demons do not actually exist then kicking your daughter out for being demonically influenced is not a good idea.  but she was taught that demons did exist.  and people who allow religion to affect in the ways you describe, would have issues with or without religion.  ok, so religion is fine by me as long as it does not effect anyone.  but it does.  and once you have accepted a belief system you are not always able to look at it from an outside perspective and see how its effecting your life, since your perspective is skewed by those same beliefs.  for example, try telling that woman that she is hurting her family and she can dismiss your concerns as just more demonic influences.  again, she would not have had  that specific issue .  someone walks across a road without paying attention, gets hit by a car, and is seriously injured.  i say that their injury would not have happened without the choice to walk across a road without paying attention.  would you argue  but someone who does not pay attention to where they are going would have issues with or without being hit by a car !   ? when people have been in difficult times, they have often been given hope by religious beliefs.  whether rational or not, hope is hope.  if the people in concentration camps had thought rationally, they would have killed themselves or gone mad.  but concepts such as faith, gave them hope, in there final seconds.  i have hope for humanity to move beyond the need for pleasant falsehoods.   #  what follows is that atrocities based on dogmatic beliefs cease to happen.   # it is certainly possible to commit horrible atrocities in the name of science think vivisection or experimenting on children .  that does little to hinder my argument, and i will tell you why.  if you mean science as the process that we use to discern what is true and what is not true, then it ca not be moral or immoral.  it has no agency.  if you mean science as the body of individuals and institutions that apply the aforementioned process, they can indeed do immoral things in the search of knowledge, but this still does not hinder the argument.  suppose a scientist holds dogmatically that the acquisition of knowledge is good above all things, including vivisection and experimenting on children, then the problem is that belief.  this dogmatic belief was required to get an otherwise ethical scientist to commit unethical deed the reality for scientific processes is that scientists  do not have to believe dogmatically that gaining knowledge is good above all else .  indeed, scientists that do hold that view are not desirable.  that is why we have ethics in the field of scientific research.  religion and dogma does not allow for this because they rely on people swallowing their respective beliefs without question.  if you can get someone to believe absurdities, you can get them to commit atrocities  so like op said, the world would not be any better without it.  no, that is not what follows.  what follows is that atrocities based on dogmatic beliefs cease to happen.  that does not include all atrocities, though.
first, when i say being a mother, i mean any sort of role that is purely responsible for raising a child.  this could be a stay at home dad, foster parent, etc.  i just used the term mother because that is usually the default term.  people always tend to say that being a mother is such a difficult job.  even worse is when people say it is the hardest job in the world.  i strictly disagree.  certainly, being a parent of any type is difficult as you are responsible for raising a child to be a responsible citizen.  any decision you make ultimately has an impact on how they turn out as an adult.  however, it seems that as long as you are able to provide certain basic needs, they will generally end up as functioning adults.  most children just need basic things such as love and stability.  once you are able to provide those things, most of the job is just tedious and time consuming.  eventually everything just falls into a routine.  this is especially true for the pre adolescent ages before they are capable of taking certain responsibilities into their own hands.  as they get older, the role of the parent starts to become less mandatory for their development and can even become harmful to the development of the child if there is too much involvement ex.  helicopter parents .  the actual difficulty just comes from figuring out what kind of strategy you want to utilize to raise your kid.  after you figure that out, everything falls into order.  running the household while watching the kid turns into menial tasks such as cleaning up after them, picking up groceries, making sure they go to bed on time, controlling how much tv they watch, etc.  none of these are particularly difficult, just time consuming.  thus, it is no more difficult than most other jobs that are just as time consuming and menial.  to say that this job is more difficult than say a brain surgeon would be unfair.  a brain surgeon runs the risk of permanently screwing up a person for life with one wrong move of their scalpel.  on top of that, in order to perform such surgery you need to train for years before you are anywhere close to being ready to operate.  where as being a mother just kind of happens and you are able to figure it out along the way.  in the event of children with extra needs, such as those with mental/physical handicaps, this certainly makes the role of being a parent more difficult in the day to day type of life.  however, in the end everything comes down to routine once you figure out a strategy.  in my view, i think one of the hardest parenting scenarios is having a child with extreme depression where there is a risk of suicide or self harm.  in this scenario there is not always much a parent can do because of the child is biological predisposition to their condition, and it can be even harder because their child could end up dead.  while this may be emotionally straining on the parental figure, it still can not justify being a parent as the hardest job in the world, especially since most parents do not have to deal with this scenario.  go ahead, cmv.  i will make sure to award deltas to anyone who successfully does so.   #  the actual difficulty just comes from figuring out what kind of strategy you want to utilize to raise your kid.   #  after you figure that out, everything falls into order.   # after you figure that out, everything falls into order.  no way is this true.  there is never a singular strategy that applies to every situation or every kid.  that is what makes it difficult, it is a constant adjustment to an ever changing person.  i do not think you can say it is the hardest job in the world, but that idea that you come up with a plan and just stick to it is absurd.   #  but if you  do  care, it is very hard to find a job that completely takes over your life and changes it permanently the way that being a parent does.   #  i think you are attacking a straw man.  some things no one means by this statement: 0.  it is the most complicated job.  0.  it is the most difficult job.  0.  it is the most physically exhausting job.  0.  it is the job requiring the most education.  0.  it is the most time consuming job though there is an argument there .  what they mean is that the combined mental, emotional, physical, and time on call toll that it takes on someone is the greatest, and that we are physiologically wired to make it the top priority in our lives oxytocin is a bitch of a chemical, let me tell you .  it is pretty hard to argue about this if you have not been a parent which is not indicated in your post as far as i can tell .  it is exactly because no one is trained for it, and because it is so varied, and challenges come up at the craziest times, and it is a constant, constant, unremitting, never any time off grind of a job that you ca not just quit or take a break from if you get tired of it that makes it  the hardest job  to many people.  sure, some people might find it a breeze.  others might just do a poor job at it and end up with crappy adults, and who cares ? well, not them, obviously.  but if you  do  care, it is very hard to find a job that completely takes over your life and changes it permanently the way that being a parent does.   #  i see how it is kind of a straw man argument, even though some people do genuinely think all five of those points are true.   #    0; i think this is the best response i can get.  i see how it is kind of a straw man argument, even though some people do genuinely think all five of those points are true.  the fact that someone is so invested in their child makes it appear to them that it is the hardest job in the world.  so for them, it may appear to be the hardest job in the world because it does take over their life in a sense.  objectively i do not think it could ever be viewed as the hardest job in the world, but to some people it is their whole life.   #  a lot of this will vary from person to person and child to child but until you are a parent yourself it is very hard to understand what is actually involved.   #  ok, so turn tis around a bit.  what do you think is the hardest job in the world and why ? i work away from home during the week so i am unable to support my wife as much as i would like wit our 0 year old daughter.  so, every single day she has to:   prepare food and because she cares she prepares fresh food   entertain although she is getting more independent she still wants to be played with   educate she needs to learn to talk, read, understand the world around her.  this takes time   if educating or entertaiing involves materials that might be messy then there is the cleaning up   toddlers often get ill as they develop their immune systems, ill adults can be cranky, toddlers more so   based on the above although sleeping patterns become more regular, growth spurts, illness and other things might mean she does not sleep so much which affects your own sleeping patterns   it is  boring , seriously, for an adult it involves little to no mental stimulation and it is a challenge to stay focused, imagine low grade menial work   kids are very, very active.  depending on your own age   fitness it can be tiring running around after them   worry if you care about what you are doing there is a lot of stress to deal with.  is your child ill ? how ill ? are you doing the right things ? it is truly 0/0 it is very rare that you can truly switch off.  even if family or other people help the child is still your responsibility.  a lot of this will vary from person to person and child to child but until you are a parent yourself it is very hard to understand what is actually involved.   #  sure, you can do as little or as much as you want,.   #  firstly, i am not american.  secondly, yes, this situation my wife is in is a matter of personal circumstance and may not reflect the majority or even a sizeable minority, the point i was trying to emphasize is that the job is a very hard one for an individual to take on in line with what the op stated:   first, when i say being a mother, i mean any sort of role that is purely responsible for raising a child.  this could be a stay at home dad, foster parent, etc.  i just used the term mother because that is usually the default term.  it  is  a very difficult job for an individual and arguably is the hardest job.  if you can share that job with your partner and family, friends, hired help then the role itself is much reduced.  much like any job.  if i run an entire company by myself it will be hell on earth, but if i hire people to help out then the job becomes easier.  regardless of what vision you or your culture has of the  perfect  parent assuming you want to give the best to your child it will be difficult.  sure, you can do as little or as much as you want,.  it implies that parents that make or are forced into a different choice do not care.  i am not suggesting that the do not care but it does introduce an extra layer of effort that for whatever reason another person may choose or be forced not to do.
hey guys, i have read through a load of the previous submissions like this but none have really helped me out a lot so here it goes.  my girlfriend is thinking of getting a tattoo and i really do not want her to get one.  i have always seen tattoos as something that ruins your body for no real reason.  every argument i have heard for tattoos i can so far see a con towards it.  for example i do not see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you.  surely if it means something to you it is already with you for life, in your head.  you do not need to be reminded of it every day by seeing it sitting under your skin when you have a better version of it in your head.  in addition all the people i know who have tattoos seem to be either unemployed drop out failure types or have got the tattoo just because it is something they have seen someone famous do and they think it makes them more like them.  finally a lot of people who get tattoos do not get them for reasons to do with themselves but for other people and that is just wrong in my mind.  it is you own body and surely you want to keep it that way.  her tattoo idea is personal, she is an artist and has always been, and she wants to get a pencil on her finger.  she has also talked about getting a tattoo on her waist which i do not even know where to start with as i do not know how she can make it look better than what she already has.  i can see the reasons behind getting a tattoo but when her body is so beautiful already why would she want to ruin it ? any comments would be really helpful as i want to see her side of things but am struggling big time right now.   #  i can see the reasons behind getting a tattoo but when her body is so beautiful already why would she want to ruin it ?  #  beauty is subjective, its beautiful to you ?  # beauty is subjective, its beautiful to you ? but who are you to decide for her.  if you love her, respect her decision.  lets say i think 0  gages on ears are gorgeous, i couldnt understand why people do not have them.  its subjective  #  we only have one life on this earth, and sometimes the act of getting a tattoo is a way of expressing your life and passion.   #  would it help to see pictures of beautiful, classy tattoos ? elegant back design URL flowing lines and flowers URL peacock feather tattoo URL cherry blossoms URL calvin and hobbes comic URL beautiful quote URL quotation marks URL constellation URL flying birds URL origami cranes URL a tattoo can be art.  it can be beautiful.  we only have one life on this earth, and sometimes the act of getting a tattoo is a way of expressing your life and passion.  as the famous quote goes,  life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body.  but rather, to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming.  wow what a ride.    #  but do not think getting a tattoo changes someone.   #  right, but you are just generalizing.  like the guy who says all the colored people he knows are violent and thugs, or all hispanics are lazy and so on.  you know your gf, you should.  you really think a tattoo will make her do drugs ? pick up bad habits ? as far as not liking how it looks, i cant change your mind about that ! i might not like it either haha, its really subjective though.  but id say, support her if she wants a tattoo, but perhaps be honest about the design.  but do not think getting a tattoo changes someone.  yes its true, unemployed people, thugs and others love tattoos, but that is no indication that getting a tattoo will make you a thug or unemployed.  obviously, if you get facial tattoos or inapropriate ones, then yes, you are limiting your options.  but i work at a fortune 0, ive seen directors, managers, and analysts with tattoos.  my last boss, at a law firm had a massive tatoo and he is the wealthiest person ive met.  my only point is, tattoos do not change people, sure they appeal to thugs, but they do not turn you into one.  support your gf !  #  i do not think it will turn her into any of those things.   #  supporting her the whole way through ! i do not think it will turn her into any of those things.  i just do not like the idea that she will be marked for life with this impurity i think.  i understand that i generalized and i know it is not often the right thing.  i do not think everyone who has a tattoo is a thug as it were.  just that it is the same sort of behavior and lack of care or confidence in yourself that leads towards it.  i am hoping that she will listen to me when it comes to designs as if it is here to stay i should probably like it as well.  thanks for the help.  it is really appreciated.   #  that is an honest concern, but at least from my anecdotes as well, people do not see tattoos as a bad thing anymore.   # that is an honest concern, but at least from my anecdotes as well, people do not see tattoos as a bad thing anymore.  at least they pay attention to the context.  if she is artistic, a pencil sounds pretty damn cool if that is her tool of trade.  now if she got a tramp stamp, then yes.  she would look very trashy, or if she got her last name across her neck and so on.  but your concerns are valid ! you care about her.  but remember, many of us do not look down on those things, they are just expressions.
hey guys, i have read through a load of the previous submissions like this but none have really helped me out a lot so here it goes.  my girlfriend is thinking of getting a tattoo and i really do not want her to get one.  i have always seen tattoos as something that ruins your body for no real reason.  every argument i have heard for tattoos i can so far see a con towards it.  for example i do not see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you.  surely if it means something to you it is already with you for life, in your head.  you do not need to be reminded of it every day by seeing it sitting under your skin when you have a better version of it in your head.  in addition all the people i know who have tattoos seem to be either unemployed drop out failure types or have got the tattoo just because it is something they have seen someone famous do and they think it makes them more like them.  finally a lot of people who get tattoos do not get them for reasons to do with themselves but for other people and that is just wrong in my mind.  it is you own body and surely you want to keep it that way.  her tattoo idea is personal, she is an artist and has always been, and she wants to get a pencil on her finger.  she has also talked about getting a tattoo on her waist which i do not even know where to start with as i do not know how she can make it look better than what she already has.  i can see the reasons behind getting a tattoo but when her body is so beautiful already why would she want to ruin it ? any comments would be really helpful as i want to see her side of things but am struggling big time right now.   #  i can see the reasons behind getting a tattoo but when her body is so beautiful already why would she want to ruin it ?  #  because to her she is not ruining it, she is  embellishing  it.   # because to her she is not ruining it, she is  embellishing  it.  if you had a beautiful bedroom that would not make hanging a photo  ruining  the room, would it ? to be harsh for a moment, her getting a tattoo has nothing to do with  you  finding her attractive.  the fact that you think she is beautiful is frankly irrelevant in this.  i think one thing to remember is that your gf with a tattoo is exactly the same person as your gf without a tattoo.  it does not change her personality at all, you should know that.   #  would it help to see pictures of beautiful, classy tattoos ?  #  would it help to see pictures of beautiful, classy tattoos ? elegant back design URL flowing lines and flowers URL peacock feather tattoo URL cherry blossoms URL calvin and hobbes comic URL beautiful quote URL quotation marks URL constellation URL flying birds URL origami cranes URL a tattoo can be art.  it can be beautiful.  we only have one life on this earth, and sometimes the act of getting a tattoo is a way of expressing your life and passion.  as the famous quote goes,  life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body.  but rather, to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming.  wow what a ride.    #  you really think a tattoo will make her do drugs ?  #  right, but you are just generalizing.  like the guy who says all the colored people he knows are violent and thugs, or all hispanics are lazy and so on.  you know your gf, you should.  you really think a tattoo will make her do drugs ? pick up bad habits ? as far as not liking how it looks, i cant change your mind about that ! i might not like it either haha, its really subjective though.  but id say, support her if she wants a tattoo, but perhaps be honest about the design.  but do not think getting a tattoo changes someone.  yes its true, unemployed people, thugs and others love tattoos, but that is no indication that getting a tattoo will make you a thug or unemployed.  obviously, if you get facial tattoos or inapropriate ones, then yes, you are limiting your options.  but i work at a fortune 0, ive seen directors, managers, and analysts with tattoos.  my last boss, at a law firm had a massive tatoo and he is the wealthiest person ive met.  my only point is, tattoos do not change people, sure they appeal to thugs, but they do not turn you into one.  support your gf !  #  i am hoping that she will listen to me when it comes to designs as if it is here to stay i should probably like it as well.   #  supporting her the whole way through ! i do not think it will turn her into any of those things.  i just do not like the idea that she will be marked for life with this impurity i think.  i understand that i generalized and i know it is not often the right thing.  i do not think everyone who has a tattoo is a thug as it were.  just that it is the same sort of behavior and lack of care or confidence in yourself that leads towards it.  i am hoping that she will listen to me when it comes to designs as if it is here to stay i should probably like it as well.  thanks for the help.  it is really appreciated.   #  that is an honest concern, but at least from my anecdotes as well, people do not see tattoos as a bad thing anymore.   # that is an honest concern, but at least from my anecdotes as well, people do not see tattoos as a bad thing anymore.  at least they pay attention to the context.  if she is artistic, a pencil sounds pretty damn cool if that is her tool of trade.  now if she got a tramp stamp, then yes.  she would look very trashy, or if she got her last name across her neck and so on.  but your concerns are valid ! you care about her.  but remember, many of us do not look down on those things, they are just expressions.
hey guys, i have read through a load of the previous submissions like this but none have really helped me out a lot so here it goes.  my girlfriend is thinking of getting a tattoo and i really do not want her to get one.  i have always seen tattoos as something that ruins your body for no real reason.  every argument i have heard for tattoos i can so far see a con towards it.  for example i do not see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you.  surely if it means something to you it is already with you for life, in your head.  you do not need to be reminded of it every day by seeing it sitting under your skin when you have a better version of it in your head.  in addition all the people i know who have tattoos seem to be either unemployed drop out failure types or have got the tattoo just because it is something they have seen someone famous do and they think it makes them more like them.  finally a lot of people who get tattoos do not get them for reasons to do with themselves but for other people and that is just wrong in my mind.  it is you own body and surely you want to keep it that way.  her tattoo idea is personal, she is an artist and has always been, and she wants to get a pencil on her finger.  she has also talked about getting a tattoo on her waist which i do not even know where to start with as i do not know how she can make it look better than what she already has.  i can see the reasons behind getting a tattoo but when her body is so beautiful already why would she want to ruin it ? any comments would be really helpful as i want to see her side of things but am struggling big time right now.   #  for example i do not see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you.   #  surely if it means something to you it is already with you for life, in your head.   # surely if it means something to you it is already with you for life, in your head.  you do not need to be reminded of it every day by seeing it sitting under your skin when you have a better version of it in your head.  i feel as if you could apply this argument to any form of art.  why paint on a canvas ? why bother composing and playing a piano sonata ? why construct monuments ? why photograph a sunset ? why bother expressing yourself in any way at all if the imagery is in your head anyway ? art is oftentimes meant to be shared with other people, and tattoos are just another example of this.  if someone has an image or thought that they feel is important to them, what is wrong with placing it in a location where they can easily display it to themselves and others ?  #  would it help to see pictures of beautiful, classy tattoos ?  #  would it help to see pictures of beautiful, classy tattoos ? elegant back design URL flowing lines and flowers URL peacock feather tattoo URL cherry blossoms URL calvin and hobbes comic URL beautiful quote URL quotation marks URL constellation URL flying birds URL origami cranes URL a tattoo can be art.  it can be beautiful.  we only have one life on this earth, and sometimes the act of getting a tattoo is a way of expressing your life and passion.  as the famous quote goes,  life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body.  but rather, to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming.  wow what a ride.    #  but do not think getting a tattoo changes someone.   #  right, but you are just generalizing.  like the guy who says all the colored people he knows are violent and thugs, or all hispanics are lazy and so on.  you know your gf, you should.  you really think a tattoo will make her do drugs ? pick up bad habits ? as far as not liking how it looks, i cant change your mind about that ! i might not like it either haha, its really subjective though.  but id say, support her if she wants a tattoo, but perhaps be honest about the design.  but do not think getting a tattoo changes someone.  yes its true, unemployed people, thugs and others love tattoos, but that is no indication that getting a tattoo will make you a thug or unemployed.  obviously, if you get facial tattoos or inapropriate ones, then yes, you are limiting your options.  but i work at a fortune 0, ive seen directors, managers, and analysts with tattoos.  my last boss, at a law firm had a massive tatoo and he is the wealthiest person ive met.  my only point is, tattoos do not change people, sure they appeal to thugs, but they do not turn you into one.  support your gf !  #  i do not think everyone who has a tattoo is a thug as it were.   #  supporting her the whole way through ! i do not think it will turn her into any of those things.  i just do not like the idea that she will be marked for life with this impurity i think.  i understand that i generalized and i know it is not often the right thing.  i do not think everyone who has a tattoo is a thug as it were.  just that it is the same sort of behavior and lack of care or confidence in yourself that leads towards it.  i am hoping that she will listen to me when it comes to designs as if it is here to stay i should probably like it as well.  thanks for the help.  it is really appreciated.   #  now if she got a tramp stamp, then yes.  she would look very trashy, or if she got her last name across her neck and so on.   # that is an honest concern, but at least from my anecdotes as well, people do not see tattoos as a bad thing anymore.  at least they pay attention to the context.  if she is artistic, a pencil sounds pretty damn cool if that is her tool of trade.  now if she got a tramp stamp, then yes.  she would look very trashy, or if she got her last name across her neck and so on.  but your concerns are valid ! you care about her.  but remember, many of us do not look down on those things, they are just expressions.
hey guys, i have read through a load of the previous submissions like this but none have really helped me out a lot so here it goes.  my girlfriend is thinking of getting a tattoo and i really do not want her to get one.  i have always seen tattoos as something that ruins your body for no real reason.  every argument i have heard for tattoos i can so far see a con towards it.  for example i do not see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you.  surely if it means something to you it is already with you for life, in your head.  you do not need to be reminded of it every day by seeing it sitting under your skin when you have a better version of it in your head.  in addition all the people i know who have tattoos seem to be either unemployed drop out failure types or have got the tattoo just because it is something they have seen someone famous do and they think it makes them more like them.  finally a lot of people who get tattoos do not get them for reasons to do with themselves but for other people and that is just wrong in my mind.  it is you own body and surely you want to keep it that way.  her tattoo idea is personal, she is an artist and has always been, and she wants to get a pencil on her finger.  she has also talked about getting a tattoo on her waist which i do not even know where to start with as i do not know how she can make it look better than what she already has.  i can see the reasons behind getting a tattoo but when her body is so beautiful already why would she want to ruin it ? any comments would be really helpful as i want to see her side of things but am struggling big time right now.   #  in addition all the people i know who have tattoos seem to be either unemployed drop out failure types or have got the tattoo just because it is something they have seen someone famous do and they think it makes them more like them.   #  every single person that  i  know with tattoos are happily employed and have been for many years.   # for example i do not see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you.  surely if it means something to you it is already with you for life, in your head.  no, actually i do not.  i have a tattoo on my leg of a sketch of scottish thistle drawn by my grandmother.  she is dead 0 years now and the original sketch was lost in a fire.  every single person that  i  know with tattoos are happily employed and have been for many years.  for many people you would not even know they had a tattoo unless they told you.  which they probably do not because they do not really care what you think of them or their tattoos.  as i said i have a sketch done by my grandmother on my leg.  i have worked in the same place for 0 years and nobody here has ever seen it or knows about it at all.  now, if you go and get tattoos on your face, neck, hands, that is a different story.  however, i also know a girl who has several tattoos on her hands who is also well employed, she makes more than i do.  but she works at an art store, not in an office building like me.  i know nobody at all who has a tattoo of something someone famous did.  that is bloody stupid and i agree people should not do that.  again, i am sorry, but you are just wrong.  most people with tattoos that i know at least do not get them to show off to people.  they do not get them to be hip or cool.  they do them because they enjoy the image and it brings  them  pleasure.  many of my friends have tattoos, none of them got them for someone other than themselves.  except maybe my one friend who got a band tattood on his ring finger when he got married because in his line of work he ca not wear jewelry.  in this case he got it for his wife which i think is acceptable.   #  but rather, to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming.  wow what a ride.    #  would it help to see pictures of beautiful, classy tattoos ? elegant back design URL flowing lines and flowers URL peacock feather tattoo URL cherry blossoms URL calvin and hobbes comic URL beautiful quote URL quotation marks URL constellation URL flying birds URL origami cranes URL a tattoo can be art.  it can be beautiful.  we only have one life on this earth, and sometimes the act of getting a tattoo is a way of expressing your life and passion.  as the famous quote goes,  life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body.  but rather, to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming.  wow what a ride.    #  as far as not liking how it looks, i cant change your mind about that !  #  right, but you are just generalizing.  like the guy who says all the colored people he knows are violent and thugs, or all hispanics are lazy and so on.  you know your gf, you should.  you really think a tattoo will make her do drugs ? pick up bad habits ? as far as not liking how it looks, i cant change your mind about that ! i might not like it either haha, its really subjective though.  but id say, support her if she wants a tattoo, but perhaps be honest about the design.  but do not think getting a tattoo changes someone.  yes its true, unemployed people, thugs and others love tattoos, but that is no indication that getting a tattoo will make you a thug or unemployed.  obviously, if you get facial tattoos or inapropriate ones, then yes, you are limiting your options.  but i work at a fortune 0, ive seen directors, managers, and analysts with tattoos.  my last boss, at a law firm had a massive tatoo and he is the wealthiest person ive met.  my only point is, tattoos do not change people, sure they appeal to thugs, but they do not turn you into one.  support your gf !  #  i do not think everyone who has a tattoo is a thug as it were.   #  supporting her the whole way through ! i do not think it will turn her into any of those things.  i just do not like the idea that she will be marked for life with this impurity i think.  i understand that i generalized and i know it is not often the right thing.  i do not think everyone who has a tattoo is a thug as it were.  just that it is the same sort of behavior and lack of care or confidence in yourself that leads towards it.  i am hoping that she will listen to me when it comes to designs as if it is here to stay i should probably like it as well.  thanks for the help.  it is really appreciated.   #  if she is artistic, a pencil sounds pretty damn cool if that is her tool of trade.   # that is an honest concern, but at least from my anecdotes as well, people do not see tattoos as a bad thing anymore.  at least they pay attention to the context.  if she is artistic, a pencil sounds pretty damn cool if that is her tool of trade.  now if she got a tramp stamp, then yes.  she would look very trashy, or if she got her last name across her neck and so on.  but your concerns are valid ! you care about her.  but remember, many of us do not look down on those things, they are just expressions.
hey guys, i have read through a load of the previous submissions like this but none have really helped me out a lot so here it goes.  my girlfriend is thinking of getting a tattoo and i really do not want her to get one.  i have always seen tattoos as something that ruins your body for no real reason.  every argument i have heard for tattoos i can so far see a con towards it.  for example i do not see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you.  surely if it means something to you it is already with you for life, in your head.  you do not need to be reminded of it every day by seeing it sitting under your skin when you have a better version of it in your head.  in addition all the people i know who have tattoos seem to be either unemployed drop out failure types or have got the tattoo just because it is something they have seen someone famous do and they think it makes them more like them.  finally a lot of people who get tattoos do not get them for reasons to do with themselves but for other people and that is just wrong in my mind.  it is you own body and surely you want to keep it that way.  her tattoo idea is personal, she is an artist and has always been, and she wants to get a pencil on her finger.  she has also talked about getting a tattoo on her waist which i do not even know where to start with as i do not know how she can make it look better than what she already has.  i can see the reasons behind getting a tattoo but when her body is so beautiful already why would she want to ruin it ? any comments would be really helpful as i want to see her side of things but am struggling big time right now.   #  finally a lot of people who get tattoos do not get them for reasons to do with themselves but for other people and that is just wrong in my mind.   #  again, i am sorry, but you are just wrong.   # for example i do not see why you would get a tattoo of something because it means something to you.  surely if it means something to you it is already with you for life, in your head.  no, actually i do not.  i have a tattoo on my leg of a sketch of scottish thistle drawn by my grandmother.  she is dead 0 years now and the original sketch was lost in a fire.  every single person that  i  know with tattoos are happily employed and have been for many years.  for many people you would not even know they had a tattoo unless they told you.  which they probably do not because they do not really care what you think of them or their tattoos.  as i said i have a sketch done by my grandmother on my leg.  i have worked in the same place for 0 years and nobody here has ever seen it or knows about it at all.  now, if you go and get tattoos on your face, neck, hands, that is a different story.  however, i also know a girl who has several tattoos on her hands who is also well employed, she makes more than i do.  but she works at an art store, not in an office building like me.  i know nobody at all who has a tattoo of something someone famous did.  that is bloody stupid and i agree people should not do that.  again, i am sorry, but you are just wrong.  most people with tattoos that i know at least do not get them to show off to people.  they do not get them to be hip or cool.  they do them because they enjoy the image and it brings  them  pleasure.  many of my friends have tattoos, none of them got them for someone other than themselves.  except maybe my one friend who got a band tattood on his ring finger when he got married because in his line of work he ca not wear jewelry.  in this case he got it for his wife which i think is acceptable.   #  but rather, to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming.  wow what a ride.    #  would it help to see pictures of beautiful, classy tattoos ? elegant back design URL flowing lines and flowers URL peacock feather tattoo URL cherry blossoms URL calvin and hobbes comic URL beautiful quote URL quotation marks URL constellation URL flying birds URL origami cranes URL a tattoo can be art.  it can be beautiful.  we only have one life on this earth, and sometimes the act of getting a tattoo is a way of expressing your life and passion.  as the famous quote goes,  life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body.  but rather, to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming.  wow what a ride.    #  as far as not liking how it looks, i cant change your mind about that !  #  right, but you are just generalizing.  like the guy who says all the colored people he knows are violent and thugs, or all hispanics are lazy and so on.  you know your gf, you should.  you really think a tattoo will make her do drugs ? pick up bad habits ? as far as not liking how it looks, i cant change your mind about that ! i might not like it either haha, its really subjective though.  but id say, support her if she wants a tattoo, but perhaps be honest about the design.  but do not think getting a tattoo changes someone.  yes its true, unemployed people, thugs and others love tattoos, but that is no indication that getting a tattoo will make you a thug or unemployed.  obviously, if you get facial tattoos or inapropriate ones, then yes, you are limiting your options.  but i work at a fortune 0, ive seen directors, managers, and analysts with tattoos.  my last boss, at a law firm had a massive tatoo and he is the wealthiest person ive met.  my only point is, tattoos do not change people, sure they appeal to thugs, but they do not turn you into one.  support your gf !  #  i just do not like the idea that she will be marked for life with this impurity i think.   #  supporting her the whole way through ! i do not think it will turn her into any of those things.  i just do not like the idea that she will be marked for life with this impurity i think.  i understand that i generalized and i know it is not often the right thing.  i do not think everyone who has a tattoo is a thug as it were.  just that it is the same sort of behavior and lack of care or confidence in yourself that leads towards it.  i am hoping that she will listen to me when it comes to designs as if it is here to stay i should probably like it as well.  thanks for the help.  it is really appreciated.   #  at least they pay attention to the context.   # that is an honest concern, but at least from my anecdotes as well, people do not see tattoos as a bad thing anymore.  at least they pay attention to the context.  if she is artistic, a pencil sounds pretty damn cool if that is her tool of trade.  now if she got a tramp stamp, then yes.  she would look very trashy, or if she got her last name across her neck and so on.  but your concerns are valid ! you care about her.  but remember, many of us do not look down on those things, they are just expressions.
one thing i do not understand is all these people clammering about how btc and other crypto currencies like doge coin and what not will be the future of currency.  this will never happen.  anyone who thinks otherwise is either a deluding themselves or b ignorant.  people make bitcoin seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it is nothing more than a bunch of ones and zeroes.  before you spout off on the evils of fiat currency, at least with real money you can go anywhere and spend it.  with bitcoin you can only spend it at a handful of places jerry rigged to accept bitcoin.  furthermore, to actually get any btc at all you either need to go through sketchy foreign exchanges like mtgox or meet someone with cash in a mcdonalds parking lot and hope you do not get robbed.  to be honest, the only time i can ever imagine btc being useful is for illicit purposes like silkroad and money laundering.  but my biggest problem with bitcoin is this.  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  the people who bought into it at the beginning are all hoarding their coins hoping to strike it rich.  no one is actually spending them on anything.  i would wager over 0 of btc transactions are nothing more than speculation.  there are literally thousands upon thousands of crypto currencies.  why is bitcoin going to be the one that rules the world ? because that is the one most people are betting on because it was the most popular ? i honestly do not get it.  call me a luddite if you want.  but btc is just another fad.   #  people make bitcoin seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it is nothing more than a bunch of ones and zeroes.   #  sure, in much the same thing that everything you experience using any type of digital computer is a bunch of ones and zeros.   #  bitcoin is already being used as a currency in many different places.  while we ca not yet speak to the longevity of the idea, it is already far more than you are claiming.  sure, in much the same thing that everything you experience using any type of digital computer is a bunch of ones and zeros.  regular money itself is a bunch of bits of paper and metal and also, mostly ones and zeros .  what matters is our social understanding of what these things mean and how they can be used.  you can spend bitcoin now at thousands of places.  around the world.  you can have as much wealth as you want or wish, to use now throughout many different places world wide, which is something that most other currencies do not allow you to do.  which is really useful if you are going on a trip spanning multiple countries.  or travelling to another country.  or paying for something without exposing your credit card and personal information.  or supporting an organization like wikileaks despite credit cards refusing to allow you to do so.  or remittance payments from workers to their families.  or allowing anyone to accept and send money from anyone, for a fraction of the cost of current services.  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  as others have pointed out, it is not a ponzi scheme.  if your problem is that people who  get in early  make huge profits, this is no different than what investors do for any organization.  it really is the soul of investment.  now if your concern is the  greater fool  style of investing, where you buy something useless to pass along to a greater fool later on for more money, that does not seem accurate here.  since bitcoin currently lets you do all kinds of different things financially as discussed above .   #  maybe bitcoin itself, which largely pioneered the crypto currency thing, is not going to stick around for too long but nothing in particular prevents the concept being used by a government or other organization to create a reasonably secure digital currency.   #  maybe bitcoin itself, which largely pioneered the crypto currency thing, is not going to stick around for too long but nothing in particular prevents the concept being used by a government or other organization to create a reasonably secure digital currency.  mintchip URL for example; something started by a crown corporation of canada.  the ideas of crypto currency just allow you to make sure nobody is pulling money out of nowhere when doing online transactions.  with physical currency you use holograms and other security features to make it harder to copy than it is worth.  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.   #  i can agree the idea of a digital currency is an interesting one, but we are no where near that point right now.   # with physical currency you use holograms and other security features to make it harder to copy than it is worth.  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.  i can agree the idea of a digital currency is an interesting one, but we are no where near that point right now.  sure with btc there is transparency but what about the situation with mtgox and others ? if someone does access your wallet you are basically never seeing your money again, that is assured.  but at least with an actual bank account you have some hope of recovering your money.   #  there is nothing inherent about the design/characteristics about bitcoins that prevent it.   #  for now not many places accept bitcoin but that is only because vendors are not willing to accept them.  there is nothing inherent about the design/characteristics about bitcoins that prevent it.  back when merchants accepted nothing but gold and silver, the same thing occurred when paper builds were introduced.  at the end of the day currency is just something that represents value.  bitcoin and cryptocurrency may be the future of representing value with something else.   #  the solution is proof of work on the blockchain, and the reason the solution is important is that the solution allows competing entities with conflicting interests to agree upon the order of events.   #  as a mathematician, i can tell you that satoshi solved a long standing problem in mathematics the byzantine general problem that has huge ramifications.  these ramifications have yet to be fully understood.  the solution is proof of work on the blockchain, and the reason the solution is important is that the solution allows competing entities with conflicting interests to agree upon the order of events.  even if it is in no one is interest to tell the truth or to collaborate.  it is astonishing, really.  want completely self enforcing contracts so that, for example, upon your death, no family member can claim your last will and testament was written under duress or while you were under dementia ? it is possible if your will self executes.  want to transfer perhaps all of your wealth to someone across the globe ? it will be there in a few minutes with no fees.  want to have a communistic style system enforced by a corruption proof algorithm ? it may be possible now.  want an anarcho capitalist system ? it may be possible now.  its not about politics.  bitcoin is.  a just plain better way to transfer wealth.
one thing i do not understand is all these people clammering about how btc and other crypto currencies like doge coin and what not will be the future of currency.  this will never happen.  anyone who thinks otherwise is either a deluding themselves or b ignorant.  people make bitcoin seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it is nothing more than a bunch of ones and zeroes.  before you spout off on the evils of fiat currency, at least with real money you can go anywhere and spend it.  with bitcoin you can only spend it at a handful of places jerry rigged to accept bitcoin.  furthermore, to actually get any btc at all you either need to go through sketchy foreign exchanges like mtgox or meet someone with cash in a mcdonalds parking lot and hope you do not get robbed.  to be honest, the only time i can ever imagine btc being useful is for illicit purposes like silkroad and money laundering.  but my biggest problem with bitcoin is this.  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  the people who bought into it at the beginning are all hoarding their coins hoping to strike it rich.  no one is actually spending them on anything.  i would wager over 0 of btc transactions are nothing more than speculation.  there are literally thousands upon thousands of crypto currencies.  why is bitcoin going to be the one that rules the world ? because that is the one most people are betting on because it was the most popular ? i honestly do not get it.  call me a luddite if you want.  but btc is just another fad.   #  with bitcoin you can only spend it at a handful of places jerry rigged to accept bitcoin.   #  you can spend bitcoin now at thousands of places.   #  bitcoin is already being used as a currency in many different places.  while we ca not yet speak to the longevity of the idea, it is already far more than you are claiming.  sure, in much the same thing that everything you experience using any type of digital computer is a bunch of ones and zeros.  regular money itself is a bunch of bits of paper and metal and also, mostly ones and zeros .  what matters is our social understanding of what these things mean and how they can be used.  you can spend bitcoin now at thousands of places.  around the world.  you can have as much wealth as you want or wish, to use now throughout many different places world wide, which is something that most other currencies do not allow you to do.  which is really useful if you are going on a trip spanning multiple countries.  or travelling to another country.  or paying for something without exposing your credit card and personal information.  or supporting an organization like wikileaks despite credit cards refusing to allow you to do so.  or remittance payments from workers to their families.  or allowing anyone to accept and send money from anyone, for a fraction of the cost of current services.  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  as others have pointed out, it is not a ponzi scheme.  if your problem is that people who  get in early  make huge profits, this is no different than what investors do for any organization.  it really is the soul of investment.  now if your concern is the  greater fool  style of investing, where you buy something useless to pass along to a greater fool later on for more money, that does not seem accurate here.  since bitcoin currently lets you do all kinds of different things financially as discussed above .   #  maybe bitcoin itself, which largely pioneered the crypto currency thing, is not going to stick around for too long but nothing in particular prevents the concept being used by a government or other organization to create a reasonably secure digital currency.   #  maybe bitcoin itself, which largely pioneered the crypto currency thing, is not going to stick around for too long but nothing in particular prevents the concept being used by a government or other organization to create a reasonably secure digital currency.  mintchip URL for example; something started by a crown corporation of canada.  the ideas of crypto currency just allow you to make sure nobody is pulling money out of nowhere when doing online transactions.  with physical currency you use holograms and other security features to make it harder to copy than it is worth.  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.   #  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.   # with physical currency you use holograms and other security features to make it harder to copy than it is worth.  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.  i can agree the idea of a digital currency is an interesting one, but we are no where near that point right now.  sure with btc there is transparency but what about the situation with mtgox and others ? if someone does access your wallet you are basically never seeing your money again, that is assured.  but at least with an actual bank account you have some hope of recovering your money.   #  for now not many places accept bitcoin but that is only because vendors are not willing to accept them.   #  for now not many places accept bitcoin but that is only because vendors are not willing to accept them.  there is nothing inherent about the design/characteristics about bitcoins that prevent it.  back when merchants accepted nothing but gold and silver, the same thing occurred when paper builds were introduced.  at the end of the day currency is just something that represents value.  bitcoin and cryptocurrency may be the future of representing value with something else.   #  even if it is in no one is interest to tell the truth or to collaborate.   #  as a mathematician, i can tell you that satoshi solved a long standing problem in mathematics the byzantine general problem that has huge ramifications.  these ramifications have yet to be fully understood.  the solution is proof of work on the blockchain, and the reason the solution is important is that the solution allows competing entities with conflicting interests to agree upon the order of events.  even if it is in no one is interest to tell the truth or to collaborate.  it is astonishing, really.  want completely self enforcing contracts so that, for example, upon your death, no family member can claim your last will and testament was written under duress or while you were under dementia ? it is possible if your will self executes.  want to transfer perhaps all of your wealth to someone across the globe ? it will be there in a few minutes with no fees.  want to have a communistic style system enforced by a corruption proof algorithm ? it may be possible now.  want an anarcho capitalist system ? it may be possible now.  its not about politics.  bitcoin is.  a just plain better way to transfer wealth.
one thing i do not understand is all these people clammering about how btc and other crypto currencies like doge coin and what not will be the future of currency.  this will never happen.  anyone who thinks otherwise is either a deluding themselves or b ignorant.  people make bitcoin seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it is nothing more than a bunch of ones and zeroes.  before you spout off on the evils of fiat currency, at least with real money you can go anywhere and spend it.  with bitcoin you can only spend it at a handful of places jerry rigged to accept bitcoin.  furthermore, to actually get any btc at all you either need to go through sketchy foreign exchanges like mtgox or meet someone with cash in a mcdonalds parking lot and hope you do not get robbed.  to be honest, the only time i can ever imagine btc being useful is for illicit purposes like silkroad and money laundering.  but my biggest problem with bitcoin is this.  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  the people who bought into it at the beginning are all hoarding their coins hoping to strike it rich.  no one is actually spending them on anything.  i would wager over 0 of btc transactions are nothing more than speculation.  there are literally thousands upon thousands of crypto currencies.  why is bitcoin going to be the one that rules the world ? because that is the one most people are betting on because it was the most popular ? i honestly do not get it.  call me a luddite if you want.  but btc is just another fad.   #  but my biggest problem with bitcoin is this.   #  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.   #  bitcoin is already being used as a currency in many different places.  while we ca not yet speak to the longevity of the idea, it is already far more than you are claiming.  sure, in much the same thing that everything you experience using any type of digital computer is a bunch of ones and zeros.  regular money itself is a bunch of bits of paper and metal and also, mostly ones and zeros .  what matters is our social understanding of what these things mean and how they can be used.  you can spend bitcoin now at thousands of places.  around the world.  you can have as much wealth as you want or wish, to use now throughout many different places world wide, which is something that most other currencies do not allow you to do.  which is really useful if you are going on a trip spanning multiple countries.  or travelling to another country.  or paying for something without exposing your credit card and personal information.  or supporting an organization like wikileaks despite credit cards refusing to allow you to do so.  or remittance payments from workers to their families.  or allowing anyone to accept and send money from anyone, for a fraction of the cost of current services.  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  as others have pointed out, it is not a ponzi scheme.  if your problem is that people who  get in early  make huge profits, this is no different than what investors do for any organization.  it really is the soul of investment.  now if your concern is the  greater fool  style of investing, where you buy something useless to pass along to a greater fool later on for more money, that does not seem accurate here.  since bitcoin currently lets you do all kinds of different things financially as discussed above .   #  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.   #  maybe bitcoin itself, which largely pioneered the crypto currency thing, is not going to stick around for too long but nothing in particular prevents the concept being used by a government or other organization to create a reasonably secure digital currency.  mintchip URL for example; something started by a crown corporation of canada.  the ideas of crypto currency just allow you to make sure nobody is pulling money out of nowhere when doing online transactions.  with physical currency you use holograms and other security features to make it harder to copy than it is worth.  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.   #  if someone does access your wallet you are basically never seeing your money again, that is assured.   # with physical currency you use holograms and other security features to make it harder to copy than it is worth.  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.  i can agree the idea of a digital currency is an interesting one, but we are no where near that point right now.  sure with btc there is transparency but what about the situation with mtgox and others ? if someone does access your wallet you are basically never seeing your money again, that is assured.  but at least with an actual bank account you have some hope of recovering your money.   #  back when merchants accepted nothing but gold and silver, the same thing occurred when paper builds were introduced.   #  for now not many places accept bitcoin but that is only because vendors are not willing to accept them.  there is nothing inherent about the design/characteristics about bitcoins that prevent it.  back when merchants accepted nothing but gold and silver, the same thing occurred when paper builds were introduced.  at the end of the day currency is just something that represents value.  bitcoin and cryptocurrency may be the future of representing value with something else.   #  want to have a communistic style system enforced by a corruption proof algorithm ?  #  as a mathematician, i can tell you that satoshi solved a long standing problem in mathematics the byzantine general problem that has huge ramifications.  these ramifications have yet to be fully understood.  the solution is proof of work on the blockchain, and the reason the solution is important is that the solution allows competing entities with conflicting interests to agree upon the order of events.  even if it is in no one is interest to tell the truth or to collaborate.  it is astonishing, really.  want completely self enforcing contracts so that, for example, upon your death, no family member can claim your last will and testament was written under duress or while you were under dementia ? it is possible if your will self executes.  want to transfer perhaps all of your wealth to someone across the globe ? it will be there in a few minutes with no fees.  want to have a communistic style system enforced by a corruption proof algorithm ? it may be possible now.  want an anarcho capitalist system ? it may be possible now.  its not about politics.  bitcoin is.  a just plain better way to transfer wealth.
one thing i do not understand is all these people clammering about how btc and other crypto currencies like doge coin and what not will be the future of currency.  this will never happen.  anyone who thinks otherwise is either a deluding themselves or b ignorant.  people make bitcoin seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it is nothing more than a bunch of ones and zeroes.  before you spout off on the evils of fiat currency, at least with real money you can go anywhere and spend it.  with bitcoin you can only spend it at a handful of places jerry rigged to accept bitcoin.  furthermore, to actually get any btc at all you either need to go through sketchy foreign exchanges like mtgox or meet someone with cash in a mcdonalds parking lot and hope you do not get robbed.  to be honest, the only time i can ever imagine btc being useful is for illicit purposes like silkroad and money laundering.  but my biggest problem with bitcoin is this.  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  the people who bought into it at the beginning are all hoarding their coins hoping to strike it rich.  no one is actually spending them on anything.  i would wager over 0 of btc transactions are nothing more than speculation.  there are literally thousands upon thousands of crypto currencies.  why is bitcoin going to be the one that rules the world ? because that is the one most people are betting on because it was the most popular ? i honestly do not get it.  call me a luddite if you want.  but btc is just another fad.   #  but it is nothing more than a bunch of ones and zeroes.   #  i take it you do not understand the concept, beyond a sentence you might have read somewhere.   # i take it you do not understand the concept, beyond a sentence you might have read somewhere.  you can actually see transactions online, people buying items    it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  do you even know what a ponzi scheme is ? a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors.  the ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors.  this scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors.  there is a set amount of bitcoins that can be mined.  i really do not think you understand what a crypto currency is, or how it functions.  which is why you are so against it, but i makes you.  b ignorant.  i bet you cant tell me where the value is derived from.  for a bitcoin  #  mintchip URL for example; something started by a crown corporation of canada.   #  maybe bitcoin itself, which largely pioneered the crypto currency thing, is not going to stick around for too long but nothing in particular prevents the concept being used by a government or other organization to create a reasonably secure digital currency.  mintchip URL for example; something started by a crown corporation of canada.  the ideas of crypto currency just allow you to make sure nobody is pulling money out of nowhere when doing online transactions.  with physical currency you use holograms and other security features to make it harder to copy than it is worth.  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.   #  if someone does access your wallet you are basically never seeing your money again, that is assured.   # with physical currency you use holograms and other security features to make it harder to copy than it is worth.  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.  i can agree the idea of a digital currency is an interesting one, but we are no where near that point right now.  sure with btc there is transparency but what about the situation with mtgox and others ? if someone does access your wallet you are basically never seeing your money again, that is assured.  but at least with an actual bank account you have some hope of recovering your money.   #  if your problem is that people who  get in early  make huge profits, this is no different than what investors do for any organization.   #  bitcoin is already being used as a currency in many different places.  while we ca not yet speak to the longevity of the idea, it is already far more than you are claiming.  sure, in much the same thing that everything you experience using any type of digital computer is a bunch of ones and zeros.  regular money itself is a bunch of bits of paper and metal and also, mostly ones and zeros .  what matters is our social understanding of what these things mean and how they can be used.  you can spend bitcoin now at thousands of places.  around the world.  you can have as much wealth as you want or wish, to use now throughout many different places world wide, which is something that most other currencies do not allow you to do.  which is really useful if you are going on a trip spanning multiple countries.  or travelling to another country.  or paying for something without exposing your credit card and personal information.  or supporting an organization like wikileaks despite credit cards refusing to allow you to do so.  or remittance payments from workers to their families.  or allowing anyone to accept and send money from anyone, for a fraction of the cost of current services.  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  as others have pointed out, it is not a ponzi scheme.  if your problem is that people who  get in early  make huge profits, this is no different than what investors do for any organization.  it really is the soul of investment.  now if your concern is the  greater fool  style of investing, where you buy something useless to pass along to a greater fool later on for more money, that does not seem accurate here.  since bitcoin currently lets you do all kinds of different things financially as discussed above .   #  back when merchants accepted nothing but gold and silver, the same thing occurred when paper builds were introduced.   #  for now not many places accept bitcoin but that is only because vendors are not willing to accept them.  there is nothing inherent about the design/characteristics about bitcoins that prevent it.  back when merchants accepted nothing but gold and silver, the same thing occurred when paper builds were introduced.  at the end of the day currency is just something that represents value.  bitcoin and cryptocurrency may be the future of representing value with something else.
one thing i do not understand is all these people clammering about how btc and other crypto currencies like doge coin and what not will be the future of currency.  this will never happen.  anyone who thinks otherwise is either a deluding themselves or b ignorant.  people make bitcoin seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it is nothing more than a bunch of ones and zeroes.  before you spout off on the evils of fiat currency, at least with real money you can go anywhere and spend it.  with bitcoin you can only spend it at a handful of places jerry rigged to accept bitcoin.  furthermore, to actually get any btc at all you either need to go through sketchy foreign exchanges like mtgox or meet someone with cash in a mcdonalds parking lot and hope you do not get robbed.  to be honest, the only time i can ever imagine btc being useful is for illicit purposes like silkroad and money laundering.  but my biggest problem with bitcoin is this.  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  the people who bought into it at the beginning are all hoarding their coins hoping to strike it rich.  no one is actually spending them on anything.  i would wager over 0 of btc transactions are nothing more than speculation.  there are literally thousands upon thousands of crypto currencies.  why is bitcoin going to be the one that rules the world ? because that is the one most people are betting on because it was the most popular ? i honestly do not get it.  call me a luddite if you want.  but btc is just another fad.   #  i would wager over 0 of btc transactions are nothing more than speculation.   #  you can actually see transactions online, people buying items    it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.   # i take it you do not understand the concept, beyond a sentence you might have read somewhere.  you can actually see transactions online, people buying items    it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  do you even know what a ponzi scheme is ? a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors.  the ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors.  this scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors.  there is a set amount of bitcoins that can be mined.  i really do not think you understand what a crypto currency is, or how it functions.  which is why you are so against it, but i makes you.  b ignorant.  i bet you cant tell me where the value is derived from.  for a bitcoin  #  the ideas of crypto currency just allow you to make sure nobody is pulling money out of nowhere when doing online transactions.   #  maybe bitcoin itself, which largely pioneered the crypto currency thing, is not going to stick around for too long but nothing in particular prevents the concept being used by a government or other organization to create a reasonably secure digital currency.  mintchip URL for example; something started by a crown corporation of canada.  the ideas of crypto currency just allow you to make sure nobody is pulling money out of nowhere when doing online transactions.  with physical currency you use holograms and other security features to make it harder to copy than it is worth.  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.   #  sure with btc there is transparency but what about the situation with mtgox and others ?  # with physical currency you use holograms and other security features to make it harder to copy than it is worth.  with digital currency you use cryptography to do the same thing.  i can agree the idea of a digital currency is an interesting one, but we are no where near that point right now.  sure with btc there is transparency but what about the situation with mtgox and others ? if someone does access your wallet you are basically never seeing your money again, that is assured.  but at least with an actual bank account you have some hope of recovering your money.   #  or remittance payments from workers to their families.   #  bitcoin is already being used as a currency in many different places.  while we ca not yet speak to the longevity of the idea, it is already far more than you are claiming.  sure, in much the same thing that everything you experience using any type of digital computer is a bunch of ones and zeros.  regular money itself is a bunch of bits of paper and metal and also, mostly ones and zeros .  what matters is our social understanding of what these things mean and how they can be used.  you can spend bitcoin now at thousands of places.  around the world.  you can have as much wealth as you want or wish, to use now throughout many different places world wide, which is something that most other currencies do not allow you to do.  which is really useful if you are going on a trip spanning multiple countries.  or travelling to another country.  or paying for something without exposing your credit card and personal information.  or supporting an organization like wikileaks despite credit cards refusing to allow you to do so.  or remittance payments from workers to their families.  or allowing anyone to accept and send money from anyone, for a fraction of the cost of current services.  it is nothing but a ponzi scheme.  as others have pointed out, it is not a ponzi scheme.  if your problem is that people who  get in early  make huge profits, this is no different than what investors do for any organization.  it really is the soul of investment.  now if your concern is the  greater fool  style of investing, where you buy something useless to pass along to a greater fool later on for more money, that does not seem accurate here.  since bitcoin currently lets you do all kinds of different things financially as discussed above .   #  there is nothing inherent about the design/characteristics about bitcoins that prevent it.   #  for now not many places accept bitcoin but that is only because vendors are not willing to accept them.  there is nothing inherent about the design/characteristics about bitcoins that prevent it.  back when merchants accepted nothing but gold and silver, the same thing occurred when paper builds were introduced.  at the end of the day currency is just something that represents value.  bitcoin and cryptocurrency may be the future of representing value with something else.
for a long time i have tried to understand why i just do not have fun with these types of games and i have finally realized why.  my problem is not so much with the gameplay, but rather the narrative these types of games employ.  i will pick on agricola for my arguments, because it is critically acclaimed, complex, and loved.  the premise of agricola is to  build the best farm .  it is a really stupid premise, because there is no such thing as  the best farm .  not only is  the best farm  a mostly subjective concept, it is not even an activity motivated by competition.  a football game is objective most points win and competitive.  a beauty pageant is subjective and competitive.  a farm is.  well, its a farm.  nobody builds a farm for the purpose of being better than other farms.  people build farms to sustain their livelihoods and generate income.  people choose livestock and crops based on personal preferences, experience, and market values, not objective point values.  how can a game assign point values to personal preferences and habits ? maybe if the game was  make the most profitable farm , i could understand, but it is not.  narratives are incredibly important to good games.  imagine if monopoly had labels like  blue square 0  instead of  boardwalk .  game play is not everything.   #  narratives are incredibly important to good games.   #  imagine if monopoly had labels like  blue square 0  instead of  boardwalk .   # imagine if monopoly had labels like  blue square 0  instead of  boardwalk .  game play is not everything.  what, exactly, is the narrative behind chess, go, hex, checkers, reversi, nine men is morris, poker, blackjack, uno, mahjong, mancala, etc.  ? many of the most successful games in history have no narrative.  i suppose you could claim that games like chess and tafl have a vague  battle  narrative, but most of those do not even have that.   #  in doing so, you can add many more strategies to the game and provide more choices for your players, while still ultimately objectively declaring one player is farm the best.   #  first off, i think there is some confusion in the wording of the argument: do you mean  competitive  narrative as in the theme drive the competition , or do you mean  compelling  narrative as in the narrative exists and drives the concept of the game ? your major paragraphs are on the former, but your conclusion with the boardwalk example seems to be the latter.  for competitive narrative , i would argue that they do.  just in an abstract way.  if you ask  what is the best farm  you will get different answers sure; some might say the most profitable, others the most sustainable, others the one that provides the farmer with the best lifestyle, etc.  it is pretty much impossible to directly compare which farm is  best  in the real world because the values are subjective.  in a board game, you  could  just focus in on one of those areas.   build the most profitable farm .  that is easy, it is competitive, and it would direct competition with your fellow players.  however, this is rather limiting.  a single win condition can lead to repetitive or even just plain algorithmic play.  by abstracting out to victory points, the game can allow you to directly compete with those multiple definitions of  best .  it is as if you could suddenly quantify exactly how much being a contented farmer is worth compared to being wealthy and actually this is studied a lot in real world economics , and thus derive the true  best .  in doing so, you can add many more strategies to the game and provide more choices for your players, while still ultimately objectively declaring one player is farm the best.  for compelling narrative , because this is largely subjective, i can only really offer a counter anecdote: my fiancee really loves these styles of games because the games do not force you too tightly into a specific story line or theme.  for her, the  story  is about how these things develop; the history of the farm agricola , the city puerto rico , or the civilization catan , etc.  basically, the history and story of her little meeple is more compelling to her than a tight theme or story that will remain largely static through replays.   #  well, i guess i do not understand your point.   #  well, i guess i do not understand your point.  if you sit down to play agricola and decide you want to rp a sheep farmer and thus focus mostly on sheep, you are pretty likely to lose whether the game had the abstracted win conditions it has or whether it was simplified to  make the most money  so that all the players were striving to achieve the same direct goal.  side note, i have not actually played agricola so i ca not speak to it in a terribly detailed way.  but it is the same as football, which you use in your op as an example.  if you decide to pretend you are zoolander and never turn left, you are likely to lose.  and, hell, the points in football have no narrative at all; they are just what happens when a ball goes into a net.   #  rowling built an extremely elaborate world and ending it in such an ambiguous way would be boring.   #  you are right about football, i was just using it as an example.  bringing in other types of games is just going to complicate things, so i will stick to board games where there are not variables like physical ability this is all kind of a hard concept to solidify on paper, but i will try to put it a different way.  imagine if jk rowling explained in the books that harry potter killed voldemort because harry is magic.  it is not wrong, it is just arbitrary and lame.  rowling built an extremely elaborate world and ending it in such an ambiguous way would be boring.  this is how i feel during games of catan or agricola.  the games create an elaborate world and then use arbitrary points as a measure of victory.  you do not have  resource x and y , you have  sheep and lumber , so why is the victory condition just  points  ? it is hard to be engaged in a world where i am a farmer competing for  points , the concept does not makes sense in the universe of the game.  i get that this is kind of a petty complaint, but immersion is an important aspect to me.   #  they just have to be fun and unique.   #  if it were about making the most profitable farm, it would be like any other game in which accumulating wealth is the goal.  by defining what  best  farm is, and making that the goal, it creates a unique gaming experience in which the players are forced to carefully consider the structure of their farm outside of merely making more money.  i just do not agree that games have to be realistic, which seems to be what you are advocating.  they just have to be fun and unique.  i mean, yeah, monopoly does not have  blue square 0  but it does have get out of jail free cards, living irons and top hats, and other unrealistic elements.
there have been several stories in the news lately that have provoked outrage over schools expecting students to  gasp  pay for their lunches and vilifying schools for feeding students without the money for a hot lunch a different cold lunch instead.  i feel this is an unfair assessment of the situation, and that it is the parents and not the schools who are at fault.  it is the responsibility of the parent to take care of the basic needs of their child, and adequate food/nutrition is one of those basic needs.  sending the child to school does not absolve them of that responsibility, and does not transfer that responsibility to the school.  the most common argument i have heard is that children are required to go to school, and therefore the school is acting as a  parent  for those eight hours and is responsible for providing for the students  needs during that time.  i do not find that argument reasonable for two reasons.  the first is that the school is not responsible for providing any other consumable goods to the students pencil, paper, clothing, etc.  and it is unreasonable to arbitrarily assign the responsibility of nutrition to them.  secondly, if the child was not at school, the parent would be responsible for providing lunch.  the need for lunch is not caused in any way by the student being in school, and i cannot understand why the parent would be absolved of this responsibility due to a change in venue.  please note, my argument does not include parents who provide lunch for their children by signing up for the free/reduced lunch program, as i feel this adequately fulfilled their responsibility.  please help me, as i ca not help but feel all the people who argue for free lunches for all students are a bit off their rockers.  cmv ?  #  i feel this is an unfair assessment of the situation, and that it is the parents and not the schools who are at fault.   #  it is the responsibility of the parent to take care of the basic needs of their child, and adequate food/nutrition is one of those basic needs.   # it is the responsibility of the parent to take care of the basic needs of their child, and adequate food/nutrition is one of those basic needs.  for the sake of argument, let is say this is true.  now let is say the parents are unable to provide money for lunch for whatever reason .  what solution do you propose ? spend more money to put these kids into foster care ? allow them to starve ? think about life when you are hungry, just  it is around lunch time  hunger, not the kind of hunger a child who only gets to eat at school might be feeling, are you at your best ? do you think such a state normal,  it is lunch and i am hungry  hunger is conductive to learning ? would you be a good student if you were perpetually in that state ? we have already decided that it is the school is responsibility to give then an education.  why ca not we also feed them ?  #  and in fact, schools receive funding specifically for this expense separate from general operating costs through programs like the usda is nslp, reinforcing that this is a separate  food aid  program rather than a general education initiative.   #  school lunch is, for many students in poor families, the only regular meal of the day.  0 URL 0 URL 0 URL assisted / free school lunch can then be seen as a sort of social safety network for children.  you can make the case that this should be covered by a separate assistance program, but there are many advantages to doing it at school: the kids are already there, you can ensure that all the funding goes to the food specifically for the children rather than guardian controlled ebt , and you can regulate nutritional standards.  and in fact, schools receive funding specifically for this expense separate from general operating costs through programs like the usda is nslp, reinforcing that this is a separate  food aid  program rather than a general education initiative.  so, rather than the premise that school lunches are some moral responsibility of the school for  parenting  or what have you, think of them as a convenient way to assist would be malnurished kids.  edit: for clarity, this includes the children of parents who have not signed up for assistance but have still failed to provide a meal or money to the child, see my reply to op below URL  #  a schools function is to educate the youth and more importantly to filter the capable from the not so capable.   #  but is it really the schools job to make sure that kids are well fed ? a schools function is to educate the youth and more importantly to filter the capable from the not so capable.  the money spent on that food, is meant to go towards educating the kids.  we are essentially using tax payer money, to do the responsibility of parents.  and if the parents are poor, than they are most likely getting government help already, so they should have the means to feed there kid.   #  but what if ur parents were poor but not poor enough to get aid ?  #  well i do not know about other schools but i know most of us paid for our lunches.  every so often our parents would get a bill in the mail.  the lunches were not expensive, 0 cents a day, and like you said there were kids who did not have to pay that and got free lunches.  but what if ur parents were poor but not poor enough to get aid ? i knew and know some families now that are in that area.  its nice to know all the kids are well fed at least 0 days a week.  i see what your saying about our tax money should go to education.  but its nice to know our tax money is keeping children well fed instead of a new school bus or something dumb  #  every kid has parents/guardians, who are responsible for them.   # every so often our parents would get a bill in the mail.  the lunches were not expensive, 0 cents a day i think they should charge whatever the lunches cost.  which should be pretty cheap.  somebody else said that.  i do not think anyone should get free lunches.  if you family needs money there are government programs.  a school is not a welfare center.  than they most likely have jobs, and should be making enough to at least put food on the table.  i mean you might not be eating fondue, but cafeteria food should not be an issue for a family who does not qualify for aid.  it is nice to know that, but we ca not just take responsibility for other peoples kids.  every kid has parents/guardians, who are responsible for them.  one part goes towards helping poor families keep food on the table.  the other goes towards educations.  so let is keep it sensible.  personally, as a former hs student, i have seen far to many students who get free lunch, but show little to no signs of poverty.  they wear expensive shoes and clothes, and do not even try at school.  i see no reason why they should be getting tax payer money, especially the parts dedicated to education.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.   #  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.   # again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  0 0.  i suggest having a look at how the definitions vary between dictionaries.  you ca not win an argument by holding up one definition of one dictionary and use this as the single, defining way a word must be interpreted.  language is fluid.  0.  your own link lists as the definition of atheism  a  disbelief  in the existence of deity .  disbelieving URL in turn, does not entail claiming the opposite that no gods exist .  one can hold that there is neither enough evidence to conclude that gods do not exist, nor evidence to conclude that they do.  the only  necessary  part of atheism is the absence of a positive belief in god s .  every additional belief, including there are no gods , is not essential.  we are not telling christians or muslims what their beliefs are, and i think that in turn, believers should also allow atheists  the same courtesy  and not try to tell them what their beliefs are supposed to be.  i recommend checking out websites with definitions by actual atheists, to know what it is that atheists really believe, e. g.  URL URL  #  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.   #  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.   # again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  for clarification, when someone is asked  do you believe in god  and they say  no , you would: 0 describe him as  atheist , as per the merriam webster definition 0a: a disbelief in the existence of deity 0 describe him as  irrational , because admitting  certainty  is an  unreasonable  response to lack of data is this the crux of your position ? assuming this is what you mean, then i would argue that uncertainty/certainty need not merely be a response to  data  it is also a response to  logic .  it is quite reasonable and rational to be certain that logically contradictory identities  can not be .  and is not that the sine qua non of rationality ? that a is a and is not  a and not a  ? are you in essence arguing that being in a state of uncertainty is rational ? just for the god issue ? i presume you would grant the mathematician the right to be certain about his triangles.  why not likewise admit the rationality of the philosopher who is certain that there can not exist an  omnipotent god who can create a rock too heavy for him to lift  ?  #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  a some claim that atheism is the default position.   #  this is nonsense, atheism is lacking a belief in any god.   # this is nonsense, atheism is lacking a belief in any god.  you are not born with knowledge of your specific religion, and you only get to that religion by hearing about it.  this is why it is the default position.  atheism is lacking belief in a god, but not claiming that no god exists.  atheists are merely waiting to be convinced of god is existence.  we can be agnostic in the sense that a god may exist, but atheistic because no current understanding of god is convincing.  gnostic atheism is making a specific claim that no god exists.  once you get exposed to ideas, then you can consider people as  believing  specific ideas are wrong.  atheism itself just says the person does not believe in gods.  there are provable gods out there, but none have been proven.  if you propose a god that operates in accordance with natural law, you ca not prove anything but natural law.  if you propose a god that is deceptive and creates things like a  mature universe , then it is also unprovable.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  religions are often very contradictory.  jews believe in a single god while christians believe in a triune god; these cannot be the same god.  that is just one of many examples of how you ca not argue all or many religions are true.  that is what most atheists do.  we say  i do not know  when it comes to unproven science.  we do hold science as the answer because it has an amazing track record.  if god did exist, then the evidence would be incorporated into our scientific understanding of the world.  if god did exist, he would be natural by definition.  supernatural things do not exist, and the word describes something that violates our understanding of nature.   #  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.   #  atheism is lacking belief in a god, but not claiming that no god exists.   # this is nonsense, atheism is lacking a belief in any god.  you are not born with knowledge of your specific religion, and you only get to that religion by hearing about it.  this is why it is the default position.  atheism is lacking belief in a god, but not claiming that no god exists.  atheists are merely waiting to be convinced of god is existence.  we can be agnostic in the sense that a god may exist, but atheistic because no current understanding of god is convincing.  gnostic atheism is making a specific claim that no god exists.  once you get exposed to ideas, then you can consider people as  believing  specific ideas are wrong.  atheism itself just says the person does not believe in gods.  there are provable gods out there, but none have been proven.  if you propose a god that operates in accordance with natural law, you ca not prove anything but natural law.  if you propose a god that is deceptive and creates things like a  mature universe , then it is also unprovable.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  religions are often very contradictory.  jews believe in a single god while christians believe in a triune god; these cannot be the same god.  that is just one of many examples of how you ca not argue all or many religions are true.  that is what most atheists do.  we say  i do not know  when it comes to unproven science.  we do hold science as the answer because it has an amazing track record.  if god did exist, then the evidence would be incorporated into our scientific understanding of the world.  if god did exist, he would be natural by definition.  supernatural things do not exist, and the word describes something that violates our understanding of nature.   #  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.   #  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.   # this is nonsense, atheism is lacking a belief in any god.  you are not born with knowledge of your specific religion, and you only get to that religion by hearing about it.  this is why it is the default position.  atheism is lacking belief in a god, but not claiming that no god exists.  atheists are merely waiting to be convinced of god is existence.  we can be agnostic in the sense that a god may exist, but atheistic because no current understanding of god is convincing.  gnostic atheism is making a specific claim that no god exists.  once you get exposed to ideas, then you can consider people as  believing  specific ideas are wrong.  atheism itself just says the person does not believe in gods.  there are provable gods out there, but none have been proven.  if you propose a god that operates in accordance with natural law, you ca not prove anything but natural law.  if you propose a god that is deceptive and creates things like a  mature universe , then it is also unprovable.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  religions are often very contradictory.  jews believe in a single god while christians believe in a triune god; these cannot be the same god.  that is just one of many examples of how you ca not argue all or many religions are true.  that is what most atheists do.  we say  i do not know  when it comes to unproven science.  we do hold science as the answer because it has an amazing track record.  if god did exist, then the evidence would be incorporated into our scientific understanding of the world.  if god did exist, he would be natural by definition.  supernatural things do not exist, and the word describes something that violates our understanding of nature.   #  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.   #  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.   #  that is not the topic, the irrationality of atheism is.  there is so much evidence of god that i cannot begin to list it all, but i did mention some in my op.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL .   evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.   #  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.   # that seems disingenuous at best.  that is not something i have said.  i consider empirical evidence to be evidence, your skepticism notwithstanding.  what sort of evidence would you accept ? while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.   #  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.   #  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.   #  you are wrong on many levels and many ways, and my original reply was simply in excess of the word length.  so i will add them as replies here, segregating them into each point.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  i can disagree with them while not providing alternatives.  it is not an error to point out an error with out correcting it.  if your view is from the result of a position which is in error, then simply pointing out the error should be sufficient enough for you to reconsider your view.  at least, if you are honestly skeptical about your own beliefs.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  then you fail to grasp the reason for them.  russel is tea pot is a thought experiment to elucidate why burden of proof is on the one making a claim, and that rejection of a claim is not by necessity a claim itself.  if you cannot grok that, myself or others can go further into detail.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  a position i do agree with you on ! rudeness is inherently subjective, and some may attempt to write something humorous or witty while another may read it just as rude.  when in doubt i believe it is best to assume good faith, however even then engaging something which is just fractally wrong, or worse not even wrong, can become tiresome.  tl;dr  you are definitions are wrong, and from that many of your positions are wrong.  you also take positions which are in conflict with one another.  some of what you have said is just misinformed, some is wrong, and some might cause a bsod upon reading.  more in self replies.  atheism is not inherently rational or irrational, as the reasons for atheism are varied.  to claim that atheism, by necessity is irrational, is wrong, see self replies for addressing.   #  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.   #  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.   #  you are wrong on many levels and many ways, and my original reply was simply in excess of the word length.  so i will add them as replies here, segregating them into each point.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  i can disagree with them while not providing alternatives.  it is not an error to point out an error with out correcting it.  if your view is from the result of a position which is in error, then simply pointing out the error should be sufficient enough for you to reconsider your view.  at least, if you are honestly skeptical about your own beliefs.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  then you fail to grasp the reason for them.  russel is tea pot is a thought experiment to elucidate why burden of proof is on the one making a claim, and that rejection of a claim is not by necessity a claim itself.  if you cannot grok that, myself or others can go further into detail.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  a position i do agree with you on ! rudeness is inherently subjective, and some may attempt to write something humorous or witty while another may read it just as rude.  when in doubt i believe it is best to assume good faith, however even then engaging something which is just fractally wrong, or worse not even wrong, can become tiresome.  tl;dr  you are definitions are wrong, and from that many of your positions are wrong.  you also take positions which are in conflict with one another.  some of what you have said is just misinformed, some is wrong, and some might cause a bsod upon reading.  more in self replies.  atheism is not inherently rational or irrational, as the reasons for atheism are varied.  to claim that atheism, by necessity is irrational, is wrong, see self replies for addressing.   #  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.   #  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.   #  you are wrong on many levels and many ways, and my original reply was simply in excess of the word length.  so i will add them as replies here, segregating them into each point.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  i can disagree with them while not providing alternatives.  it is not an error to point out an error with out correcting it.  if your view is from the result of a position which is in error, then simply pointing out the error should be sufficient enough for you to reconsider your view.  at least, if you are honestly skeptical about your own beliefs.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  then you fail to grasp the reason for them.  russel is tea pot is a thought experiment to elucidate why burden of proof is on the one making a claim, and that rejection of a claim is not by necessity a claim itself.  if you cannot grok that, myself or others can go further into detail.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  a position i do agree with you on ! rudeness is inherently subjective, and some may attempt to write something humorous or witty while another may read it just as rude.  when in doubt i believe it is best to assume good faith, however even then engaging something which is just fractally wrong, or worse not even wrong, can become tiresome.  tl;dr  you are definitions are wrong, and from that many of your positions are wrong.  you also take positions which are in conflict with one another.  some of what you have said is just misinformed, some is wrong, and some might cause a bsod upon reading.  more in self replies.  atheism is not inherently rational or irrational, as the reasons for atheism are varied.  to claim that atheism, by necessity is irrational, is wrong, see self replies for addressing.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  a some claim that atheism is the default position.   #  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.   # this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  climate change denial is the default position.  its a response to a claim, given a situation where no further evidence for the existence of something, in this case climate change, then denial or skepticism is the default position.  rejection of a claim is the default position, by way of something called the null hypothesis URL in the case of climate change there exists evidence that supports the claim, thus further denial is absurd.  however in the absence of evidence, rejection is the default position.  if this was true, then your burden of proof has not been met, as you have just asserted it and not shown it.  but thankfully this is absurd.  the burden of proof is on those which make the claim, if you claim the existence or correlation of something, then the burden falls unto you to provide evidence of it.  a strong criticism of something often carries evidence pointing to a contrary mechanism or correlation however its not required for the null hypothesis.  additionally criticism only needs to reference the original claims to be valid.  addressing errors or flaws or inconsistency in the original claim or position is sufficient to reject the claim, at least until the claim is adjusted to accommodate those criticisms.  some of these criticisms may be claims themselves, saying there exists a critical error in thinking makes it necessary to present the error else the lack of evidence will lead it to be rejected.  this is because the burden of proof is on the person making a claim.  if the criticism is a claim, then yes.  this is absurd.  the claim that ubiquity of religiously is somehow evidence for the validity of those religious claims is inherently contradictory, what about in cases where different religions are in opposition to each others claims.  no singular religion is ubiquitous, and the tenants of some religions are in conflict.  it also totally fails to address alternative explanations to why religiousness might be ubiquitous.  truth is not a popularity contest, and to resort to such a claim is just a bad argument.   #  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.   #  agnosticism, uncertainty, or skepticism can all be aspects of atheism.   # no.  this is incorrect.  this will be a common theme in my criticisms of your positions.  firstly your claim failed to account for the very nuanced relationship between knowledge and belief.  agnosticism, uncertainty, or skepticism can all be aspects of atheism.  a person might be an atheist, that they reject the claim of the existence of a god, yet make no claim to knowing if they are correct or not.  a person can be an atheist because it is a less complex assumption, that a universe with out a god is simpler than a universe with a god, and see no advantage to asserting the existence of one.  notice that this type of atheism makes no claim to knowledge about the existence of a god, just that they find it easier to imagine the lack of something than the existence of something unexplainable.  atheism and agnosticism are not different sides of the same coin, they are different coins being flipped for different questions.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard .  the definition you have provided is bad.  it is just a definition that seems to have been written by a theist with a chip on their shoulder.  the children is definition URL they provide is a better definition, except it references  god  instead of  a god or gods .  its a bad definition, which is why many people reject it.  google is definition URL is better, and i am not certain your claim that the definitions in merriam websters dictionary are  istandard  by any means.  you could have chosen any dictionary to proclaim as the standard, yet you seemingly cherry picked the one dictionary which does not reflect current usage.   #  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.   #  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard .   # no.  this is incorrect.  this will be a common theme in my criticisms of your positions.  firstly your claim failed to account for the very nuanced relationship between knowledge and belief.  agnosticism, uncertainty, or skepticism can all be aspects of atheism.  a person might be an atheist, that they reject the claim of the existence of a god, yet make no claim to knowing if they are correct or not.  a person can be an atheist because it is a less complex assumption, that a universe with out a god is simpler than a universe with a god, and see no advantage to asserting the existence of one.  notice that this type of atheism makes no claim to knowledge about the existence of a god, just that they find it easier to imagine the lack of something than the existence of something unexplainable.  atheism and agnosticism are not different sides of the same coin, they are different coins being flipped for different questions.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard .  the definition you have provided is bad.  it is just a definition that seems to have been written by a theist with a chip on their shoulder.  the children is definition URL they provide is a better definition, except it references  god  instead of  a god or gods .  its a bad definition, which is why many people reject it.  google is definition URL is better, and i am not certain your claim that the definitions in merriam websters dictionary are  istandard  by any means.  you could have chosen any dictionary to proclaim as the standard, yet you seemingly cherry picked the one dictionary which does not reflect current usage.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.   #  for example some define god as the ultimate reality, and others define god as love .   # not a claim inherit to atheism.  not even a claim inherit to the definition you have championed as  istandard  so this is at best irrelevant.  empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  empiricism is not a tenant of atheism however atheism can be caused by empiricism.  atheism does often involve rejecting the claims or views of authorities, namely the claims about the existence of god or gods made by those in positions of power.  however its mostly irrelevant, a person can be an atheist for any set of reasons.  almost all christians are atheists with regards to zeus.  yet i am not sure it follows from their evidence, or lack there of about zeus, but as a direct result of their christan doctrine.  however you are incorrect about part of your description of empiricism.  it does involve making assumptions.  specifically that your experience is a good way to judge or predict things.  it also tends to infer assumptions which are of a provisional nature, that is you assume something usually as a means to test it via an experiment.  this is absurd.  death therefor god ? i would say i cannot follow the logic, except that would imply that it was sensible.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality, and others define god as love .  other define god as non existent.  i fail to see your point here.  every single logic claim to the existence of a god i have ever experienced either:   a snuck in a tautology or it was expressed via an axiom   b did not describe the reality we live in   c was word salad or a non sequitur i am skeptical your claims will be any different.  please present them so that i can evaluate the validity of the claim.  however even if true, and you have the silver bullet, atheism can still be a rational position.  as they had not experienced the argument, or  wouldeath  and thus would have no reason to accept the claim.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.   #  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.   # while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  right, you recognize a pattern, but do you believe in zeus ? not, do you believe that zeus is some sort of mythological theme that exists and might be shared among many human cultures.  no, do you believe in zeus ? because acknowledging a similarity is not the same as belief in the thing.  my guess is that no, you do not believe in zeus, thor, odin, ba al, mithra, gaia, nut, arceus, unicron, r hllor, the crimson king, melkor, sheogorath, grenth, farore, shinnok, khorne, frith, jehovah 0, or asd f the god i just invented, etc.  i feel very confident that you are an atheist in regards to asd f, at least, and probably several other gods, either in fiction, myth, or other.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  all things that can also happen in atheism.  the funny thing is that the very source of definitions you have used, describes agnosticism as non committal, which is not skepticism.  skepticism is rejection of a claim until the evidence can be accessed.  which is not what agnosticism does, it just pretends that because they believe its unknowable, oddly enough a claim which they often express knowledge of, that it is somehow a superior position to rejection of said claim until there is evidence.  if something is unknowable, then there can exist no evidence, thus why be agnostic.  yet you claim there is evidence for some god, so why would agnosticism be superior to atheism.  an atheist might reject the presented evidence, because citing  wouldeath  and  wouldrugs  are really not very compelling or make sense to be honest.  what would an agnostic do ? they have been presented evidence, at that moment they would need to either decide if that evidence is sufficient to sway their belief or concoct some scheme so that they can be non committal in the face of evidence.  this is ignoring the fact that you have chosen bad definitions from the start.  house built on sand and all that.  you go onto to cite truzzi, and there are some interesting points he has made.  however the position he has attempted to establish is replacing the concept of the null hypothesis with indecision.  there is a very good reason why the skeptic takes the position of the rejection of a claim, as opposed to no claim about its validity, because then actions can actually be taken to test the position empirically.  tuzzi is position does not yield further investigation, it takes no position and thus makes no evaluation.  he has attempted to redefine what skeptic means.  as a remark on consistency, this new definition of skepticism is in direct conflict with your source of  istandard  definitions URL its a false dichotomy that a person cannot both take a position about whether or not their claim is true or not while still being skeptical to it.  i am skeptical that you will have your view changed, yet i believe that with out testing it by giving it an honest go i ca not know.   #  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.   #  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.   # while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  right, you recognize a pattern, but do you believe in zeus ? not, do you believe that zeus is some sort of mythological theme that exists and might be shared among many human cultures.  no, do you believe in zeus ? because acknowledging a similarity is not the same as belief in the thing.  my guess is that no, you do not believe in zeus, thor, odin, ba al, mithra, gaia, nut, arceus, unicron, r hllor, the crimson king, melkor, sheogorath, grenth, farore, shinnok, khorne, frith, jehovah 0, or asd f the god i just invented, etc.  i feel very confident that you are an atheist in regards to asd f, at least, and probably several other gods, either in fiction, myth, or other.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  all things that can also happen in atheism.  the funny thing is that the very source of definitions you have used, describes agnosticism as non committal, which is not skepticism.  skepticism is rejection of a claim until the evidence can be accessed.  which is not what agnosticism does, it just pretends that because they believe its unknowable, oddly enough a claim which they often express knowledge of, that it is somehow a superior position to rejection of said claim until there is evidence.  if something is unknowable, then there can exist no evidence, thus why be agnostic.  yet you claim there is evidence for some god, so why would agnosticism be superior to atheism.  an atheist might reject the presented evidence, because citing  wouldeath  and  wouldrugs  are really not very compelling or make sense to be honest.  what would an agnostic do ? they have been presented evidence, at that moment they would need to either decide if that evidence is sufficient to sway their belief or concoct some scheme so that they can be non committal in the face of evidence.  this is ignoring the fact that you have chosen bad definitions from the start.  house built on sand and all that.  you go onto to cite truzzi, and there are some interesting points he has made.  however the position he has attempted to establish is replacing the concept of the null hypothesis with indecision.  there is a very good reason why the skeptic takes the position of the rejection of a claim, as opposed to no claim about its validity, because then actions can actually be taken to test the position empirically.  tuzzi is position does not yield further investigation, it takes no position and thus makes no evaluation.  he has attempted to redefine what skeptic means.  as a remark on consistency, this new definition of skepticism is in direct conflict with your source of  istandard  definitions URL its a false dichotomy that a person cannot both take a position about whether or not their claim is true or not while still being skeptical to it.  i am skeptical that you will have your view changed, yet i believe that with out testing it by giving it an honest go i ca not know.   #  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.   #  that is only evidence about how the human brain is wired.   # it absolutely is.  but we have astounding evidence, so staying in the default position is not reasonable.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  i assume you are familiar with russell is teapot.  saying that there is such teapot is completely irrational.  that is only evidence about how the human brain is wired.  again, only evidence about the brain.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality, and others define god as love.  what proof do you mean, specifically ?  #  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.   #  for example some define god as the ultimate reality, and others define god as love.   # it absolutely is.  but we have astounding evidence, so staying in the default position is not reasonable.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  i assume you are familiar with russell is teapot.  saying that there is such teapot is completely irrational.  that is only evidence about how the human brain is wired.  again, only evidence about the brain.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality, and others define god as love.  what proof do you mean, specifically ?  #  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.   #  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.   #  that is not the topic, the irrationality of atheism is.  there is so much evidence of god that i cannot begin to list it all, but i did mention some in my op.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL .   evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .   #  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  a some claim that atheism is the default position.   #  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.   # this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  people are born lacking a belief in god, and theists are the ones making the claims.  one must be convinced.  the use of atheism as a lack of belief has been around for a long time, and is not a non standard definition.   #  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.   #  a blank slate gives a lot of options, but how about a definition, which is consistent with the typical usage of the word and implies at least some sort of eternal intelligence ?  # i agree.  what if the criticism is that you can never prove nor disprove the claim  god exists  and that it would be therefore irrational to believe in such a claim ? we do not know if it is our mind playing tricks, if it is aliens toying with us, if we are just being stupid, if it is xyz or if it is actually  god .  the claim is not  atheism in the afterlife is irrational .  it has to be provable to us and we are at this particular moment alive.  a blank slate gives a lot of options, but how about a definition, which is consistent with the typical usage of the word and implies at least some sort of eternal intelligence ?  #  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
. and fundamentally unscientific.  to understand this, one must first set aside the false claims of many atheists.  this list is far from exhaustive, and may be added to : a some claim that atheism is the default position.  this is nonsense, and no different that saying climate change denial is the default position.  the default is always going to be closer to agnosticism or ignorance.  in other words absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  criticism carries a burden of proof.  another point of evidence against this position is the ubiquity of spirituality across cultures and time.  b atheism is mutually exclusive with agnosticism.  this one is huge, because as i mention above, agnosticism, uncertainty or skepticism are reasonable responses to lack of evidence.  atheists often dispute that these are separate categories, speaking of hard and soft atheism.  this is an attempt to redefine terms, and is non standard URL c the claim that atheism is not a belief or a doctrine.  again, this involves a non standard redefinition of a word.  URL d the idea that god is unprovable.  this one is especially odd as many religious people agree with it.  i believe this involves a misunderstanding of the concept of empiricism URL empiricism never involves simply accepting the view of authorities, or making assumptions.  it always requires actual observations, experiments and/or experiences.  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL e an argument i have been hearing a lot of lately states that everyone is atheist as everyone denies some god notice the uncapitalised usage, which changes the definition or another.  while this might be true of some religious persons, i am interdenominational.  i see patterns throughout world religions, rooted in natural law, and tend to agree with adi shankara and his concept of brahman.  in sum, agnosticism, skepticism, or simply admitting ignorance is a reasonable response to lack of data.  denial is not more reasonable than fanaticism of faith when evidence is lacking.  evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .  many atheists seem to engage in pseudoskepticism URL truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:   denying, when only doubt has been established   double standards in the application of criticism   the tendency to discredit rather than investigate   presenting insufficient evidence or proof   assuming criticism requires no burden of proof   making unsubstantiated counter claims   counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence   suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim he characterized  true  skepticism as:   acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established   no burden of proof to take an agnostic position   agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness   even handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication   accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing   continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found 0.  disagreeing with webster is dictionary and the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.  if you dislike my sources, provide more and better sources.  all else is subjective and unpersuasive.  0.  talking about unicorns or teapots or such.  this is silly and irrelevant, some sort of bizarre false analogy not worth exploring.  0.  failing to read either the op, or the instructions from the mods at the bottom.  downvoting and rudeness do not change views.  conclusion: after losing aprox.  0 reddit karma points, i have to say my initial asserting has been overwhelmingly confirmed.  right or wrong, intellectual honesty does not seem to be a theme among many of those who were supposedly here to change my view.   #  god is empirically verifiable via prayer, entheogens, meditation, nde is URL and, of course, death.   #  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.   #  that is not the topic, the irrationality of atheism is.  there is so much evidence of god that i cannot begin to list it all, but i did mention some in my op.  god can also be proven via logic if defined correctly.  for example some define god as the ultimate reality URL and others define god as love URL .   evidence of god is frequently achieved be it via ecstatic spiritual experience or logic, innate knowledge or etc , and is likely replicable via proper experimentation a life of prayer and contemplation, love for god   neighbor, yoga / meditation, entheogens, nde is and death, for instance .   #  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.   #  op, you ca not make the claim that  atheism is irrational  and then narrow your definition of atheism  so far  past the normal definition that only irrationality fits in.  and then refuse to listen to people who point out errors in your op because you are  already covered  it, even though you are incorrect.  that is intellectually dishonest and makes this entire post seem like a  nah nah i know i am right suck it atheists  rant.  atheism is no more or less than the lack of belief in a god.  that is  literally  what the word means, and it is what the vast majority of atheists use as a definition when identifying themselves.  agnosticism is a position of knowledge while atheism is a position of belief that is, an agnostic atheist like myself has no  belief  in a god, but does not claim any certainty about the facts.  a  gnostic atheist  is someone who lacks belief and claims to know for certain that their opinion lines up with the facts.  this is incredibly rare among atheism.   #  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.   #  you may not be old enough to realize this, but the definition of atheism you have described is actually relatively new.  it used to be that people who  were not sure  almost always described themselves as  agnostic  not  agnostic atheist  or  agnostic theist,  but  agnostic,  full stop.  the definition you are using here along with all of the ridiculous charts and classification schemes that are so popular nowadays began gaining currency with the rise of the evangelical, politically charged  new atheism  of richard dawkins et al.  in the early 0 is.  my suspicion is that the redefinition was motivated by a desire to rally all non believers under a single banner.  it is worth pointing out that the word  theism  is a back formation.   atheism  came first, because a word was needed to describe people who took the unusual position that there were no gods.  most people are taught to believe in god as soon as they are introduced to the concept, and practically everyone is brought up in a world where belief in god is treated as a sort of default position.  to describe atheism as a genuine  lack  of belief is therefore somewhat disingenuous.  children who have not yet been exposed to any theistic claim can rightly be said to lack belief in that way, but most self described atheists are people who have knowingly taken a minority position with respect to god is existence, and have presumably done so for a good reason.  in other words, being an atheist almost always does involve a belief of some kind.  atheists believe that most people are wrong on the god question, that belief in god ought to require a specific kind of evidence, and that no such evidence is currently available.  those are controversial claims, and they arguably do require justification.   #  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.   #  i am old enough to be aware of that, thanks.  i know that definitions change all the time, but i do not feel it is useful to argue against a term based on an old definition of a word when that definition is no longer the one commonly in use, if that makes sense.  every single person i know who refers to themselves as an atheist does so because they simply lack a belief in god.  that includes myself.  i do not have a problem with any god, i do not call myself an atheist out of some sort of rebellion attempt.  many  atheists i know are actually so because their parents did not introduce them to religion of any kind as children they learned about it only in school, and have never felt any sort of belief that any deity is real.  my position as an atheist requires no belief, actually.  i do not  believe  anything in regards to god or gods, i simply do not have any evidence to persuade me to consider the proposition.  i consider myself a sceptic as well as an atheist, and that scepticism is what tensd me to the opinion not belief, opinion that any positive claim requires justification.   #  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.   # sorry, i guess i was not clear there.  i was raised christian actually.  what i mean to say was that i do not  seriously  consider it as a proposition, if that makes sense.  in the same way that if someone tells me they belief in ghosts, i tell them that i do not seriously consider ghosts as something real without actual evidence.  an opinion is something i have developed based on research and long periods of reflection and thought.  it is something that changes and grows over time based on our lives and the information presented to us.  a belief, to me, is something held regardless of the evidence, something that is held as intrinsically true.  as it is 0am i do not feel i am explaining myself properly here, and would rather take back this comment instead of continue on something that could likely be expressed much better.
hi.  english is not my main language.  with that said, let is begin x i do not understand why some consider having high standars when looking for a partner bad.  why ? because are you not supposed to find the best partner you can ? the one you like the most ? is that not the entire point ? to find someone that you want.  someone that is good enough for you.  and you yourself is the only person who should determine what is good enough for you.  i mean, if the human race was on the brink of exctinction, yeah i guess it would be bad. maybe.   #  someone that is good enough for you.   #  and you yourself is the only person who should determine what is good enough for you.   # and you yourself is the only person who should determine what is good enough for you.  absolutely true ! the big issue, though, is that a lot of people tend to forget that in relationships things go both ways.  it is not just other people who have to be good enough for you, but you that has to be good enough for  them .  having high standards is fine, provided you are realistic about them.  it is not that high standards are inherently bad, but a lot of individuals who bandy them about are simultaneously not living up to their own standards for themselves e. g.   i want someone who is attractive and takes good care of themselves and who is intelligent  meanwhile the person who is saying this takes horrendous care of themselves and is a lazy fuck .  put it this way most people who want a relationship have an ideal in mind.  that is good ! very often, though, that ideal involves some level of hard work and competence on the other person is part.  if you are going to want to be with someone who is put in effort into something, then while it is not necessarily always a requirement it is  better  if you have something to offer or are willing to put in some effort into stuff yourself.  also just because you want a particular type of partner does not make you entitled to getting them.  that is up to  them .  it is not high standards that people are against as much as people having high standards then whining about no one they like wanting them.  that is the real issue, that those things very often especially on the internet go hand in hand.  so are high standards bad ? nah, not always, but when coupled with an entitlement complex and a lack of desire for self improvement, they can be a sign of someone who has an unrealistic view about themselves and what they deserve out of life.   #  i am not saying that having high standards is fundamentally wrong.   #  i have known quite a few people who said  well, i just have high standards, there is nothing wrong with that , who were not willing to live up to similar standards.  guys who were rather overweight who would not look twice at a woman over 0 pounds, girls that demanded a guy with a great, high paying job who themselves had never had any job, that kind of thing.  i am not saying you are like this.  i am simply saying that a lot of people hold others to a standard they are not willing to live up to, and that seems wrong.  i am not saying that having high standards is fundamentally wrong.  i am not even saying it is wrong to end up being with someone way out of your league god knows i did .  it is just wrong to hold someone else to a higher standard than yourself without a bloody good reason;  because i want it  is not a good reason.   #  you ca not blame an overweight guy for not being attracted to a similarly overweight girl.   #  i fail to see how this is hypocritical unless they complain about the other person having standards higher than they can achieve.  people are attracted to what they are attracted to.  you ca not blame an overweight guy for not being attracted to a similarly overweight girl.  he also ca not blame an attractive girl for not being attracted to his overweight self.  i realize that a lot of people actually are hypocritical about this, but i often see this sentiment as saying  if you are fat you have to be attracted to fat people  and i think that is wrong.   #  this is important because if you compromise on certain standards, it will make easier to do so with other things.   #  it depends on two factors:   how you apply that standard to yourself   how that standard is applied to others if you cannot hold yourself to the same standards, lower them, but in a healthy way.  no sense in compromising your healthy for the sake of satisfying your evolved instinctive desire to penetrate or be penetrated.  if you apply those standards selectively to others and not universally, then you need to look at yourself.  ask yourself why you would hold such high standards, only to compromise those standards for the sake of satisfying your pelvic pleasures.  this is important because if you compromise on certain standards, it will make easier to do so with other things.   #  you can have any preferences you like to find yourself the best partner for you: someone good enough in your opinion for you.   #  you can have any preferences you like to find yourself the best partner for you: someone good enough in your opinion for you.  there is nothing wrong with preferences.  the problems generally arise from the attitude one uses to apply those preferences or standards.  if you are rude or disrespectful to another human being because they are not your ideal, for whatever reason, then you have created a problem.  if you bemoan your ordeal of always being stuck single, but you are too picky to give anyone a chance, then you have created a problem.  if you approach someone in person or online but you do not meet their standards and then you feel it is unfair to be judged so harshly, again you have created a problem.  there is no double standard when having very specific preferences.  if you want to be with someone that meets all of your preferences, then you are never allowed to be less than understanding to someone who tells you  thanks, but no thanks.  you do not meet my standards.
i think illegal drugs should stay illegal, and i have not heard a convincing argument otherwise.  this is from the perspective of a uk citizen, but i believe the us system is broadly the same in terms of what substances are illegal, so that is equally applicable.  some substances are illegal for a myriad of reasons, such as being detrimental to health, productivity, other people, and so on.  although it is difficult to pick one specific criterion for what makes a specific illicit drug illegal, i think that overall illicit drugs staying illegal does much less harm to society than if they were legalised.  as to why i think it would be worse for society, please see my refuting points to the arguments i have heard thus e. g. , i think it would be worse for society for the same reason alcohol and tobacco cause problems in society .  here are a summary of some reasons why they should be legal that i have heard, and my refuting points: much worse products are available for consumption; alcohol, tobacco.   so why add another to the mix ? !   it does not affect other people alcohol does and that is legal ! i wo not start fights or piss everywhere when i am high !  when you are smoking marijuana and the smell is blowing through my windows and sticking to my clothes/bedsheets, yeah that is affecting me  if it is regulated that stops the product going to kids  kids still get alcohol/tobacco/knives.   the money goes to  terrorists  when it could go to the government  that is an argument not to do the drugs and fund  the terrorists .   if drugs were legal then the police would have more time to stop other illegal things, and we could save money !  why not make all crimes legal, then the police do not need to exist and we save all the money !   i ca not get addicted to certain drugs like i can to nicotine etc  maybe not physically, but people certainly can have a dependence on illegal drugs that is mental  if you think marijuana/ecstasy/coke should be illegal, you should support prohibition of alcohol etc too !  i think that if alcohol etc had been discovered recently then they would be banned.  however, since so many people partake in it already it would be impossible cf america tried it ! .  i think tobacco one day will become illegal, as it is slowly phased out.   addicts ca not get help if it is illegal !  then we give addicts who want to get help immunity from prosecution  #  i think that if alcohol etc had been discovered recently then they would be banned.   #  however, since so many people partake in it already it would be impossible cf america tried it !  # however, since so many people partake in it already it would be impossible cf america tried it ! .  marijuana has been around for just as long as alcohol, and was once legal in the united states as well.  there are also a lot of people who continue to partake in marijuana use despite it being illegal making it impossible to stop.  based on your logic, this illegal drug should be made legal.   #  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  it is in fact far easier to purchase illegal drugs as a minor than it is to purchase cigarettes or alcohol.   #  people are interested in ending the war on drugs for several reasons   it has cost tax payers enormous amounts of money yet has failed to even stem the flow of drugs or usage rates throughout the entire history of the policy.  ending the flow of drugs is simply impossible given the amount of money people can make of them.  the us ended prohibition on alcohol for that reason and many are beginning to come to same conclusion with drugs.  the revenue collected from the use of these drugs is not going to law abiding citizens and/or important government services like schools but instead funding vast criminal enterprises.  the drug war has real life consequences.  in mexico the government is waging a war against the cartels that has so fared killed up to 0,0 people because they are fighting over control of key smuggling routes into the united states.  look at the war in columbia, largely financed through the production, transportation, and sale of cocaine.  the drug war is responsible for thousands a death a year and i frankly do not think the fact that you think its a bad habit justifies the means taken to stop it.  you live in the uk which as a whole is largely peaceful.  police in the us have actual crimes going on.  people are shot, stabbed, and murdered on a daily basis.  people in the united states want their tax dollars going toward the police actually protecting them from violent criminals, not arresting teenagers with petty amounts of drugs.  regulating the product ensures that users get a safe product.  people have absolutely no idea what their marijuana is grown with, what their cocaine is cut with, or if the molly they just bought is even molly at all.  regulating ensures that users of these drugs will be safer than relying on the kindness of a drug dealer.  regulating a product also ensures that kids do not have easy access to drugs.  you can easily obtain marijuana in the united states once you get into high school.  it is in fact far easier to purchase illegal drugs as a minor than it is to purchase cigarettes or alcohol.  regulating drugs would ensure that the black market is largely unprofitable and would funnel consumers into legal stores where sales could be better monitored and controlled.   #  the safety aspect; are the substances they can be cut with more dangerous than the drug ?  #  is the flow of drugs really that big ? are there any studies that attempt to answer whether legalising all drugs results in an increase in the number of users ? the revenue could stop funding the criminals if users stopped buying the drugs.  this would also mean the smuggling results would not exist and save the lives in mexico/columbia.  maybe this should mean a change in priorities of the police.  from my experience, police do not care about users of drugs in the uk; they will go after organised crime dealers etc , but otherwise stick to more  iserious  crime agree about the relative peacefulness though .  the safety aspect; are the substances they can be cut with more dangerous than the drug ? i suspect as well the dealer will want to keep the stuff  clean  in order to get custom back.  when i was younger i could get hold of alcohol a lot easier than weed.  maybe i mixed in the wrong circles though.  is there any evidence about the  ease  at which kids can obtain these things ? if so, i agree that this would be a good point in regards regulation although if things like cocaine are relatively harmless what is the big deal ? i know with cannabis it has been shown to affect teenage brains etc iirc more than adults  #  from my experience, police do not care about users of drugs in the uk; they will go after organised crime dealers etc , but otherwise stick to more  iserious  crime agree about the relative peacefulness though .   # this would also mean the smuggling results would not exist and save the lives in mexico/columbia.  this is simply impossible.  it is far too disconnected from the end user to ever make a meaningful impact on their behavior.  the drinking age in the united states is 0.  much more difficult to get alcohol in the states than in europe.  from my experience, police do not care about users of drugs in the uk; they will go after organised crime dealers etc , but otherwise stick to more  iserious  crime agree about the relative peacefulness though .  i suspect as well the dealer will want to keep the stuff  clean  in order to get custom back.  your street level dealer is not typically cutting the product.  this happens long before they are even hearing about the stuff.  obviously dealers do not want something too bad or people wont want it or might die would bring heat but very frequently these drugs are cut with dangerous  fillers  to maximize profit.  i have seen a bunch of college kids buy molly to have a good time and ended up just taking straight methamphetamine.  i knew the guy who was selling them and he did not even know.  unless you have a drug testing kit you do not know.  it is scary stuff.
i think illegal drugs should stay illegal, and i have not heard a convincing argument otherwise.  this is from the perspective of a uk citizen, but i believe the us system is broadly the same in terms of what substances are illegal, so that is equally applicable.  some substances are illegal for a myriad of reasons, such as being detrimental to health, productivity, other people, and so on.  although it is difficult to pick one specific criterion for what makes a specific illicit drug illegal, i think that overall illicit drugs staying illegal does much less harm to society than if they were legalised.  as to why i think it would be worse for society, please see my refuting points to the arguments i have heard thus e. g. , i think it would be worse for society for the same reason alcohol and tobacco cause problems in society .  here are a summary of some reasons why they should be legal that i have heard, and my refuting points: much worse products are available for consumption; alcohol, tobacco.   so why add another to the mix ? !   it does not affect other people alcohol does and that is legal ! i wo not start fights or piss everywhere when i am high !  when you are smoking marijuana and the smell is blowing through my windows and sticking to my clothes/bedsheets, yeah that is affecting me  if it is regulated that stops the product going to kids  kids still get alcohol/tobacco/knives.   the money goes to  terrorists  when it could go to the government  that is an argument not to do the drugs and fund  the terrorists .   if drugs were legal then the police would have more time to stop other illegal things, and we could save money !  why not make all crimes legal, then the police do not need to exist and we save all the money !   i ca not get addicted to certain drugs like i can to nicotine etc  maybe not physically, but people certainly can have a dependence on illegal drugs that is mental  if you think marijuana/ecstasy/coke should be illegal, you should support prohibition of alcohol etc too !  i think that if alcohol etc had been discovered recently then they would be banned.  however, since so many people partake in it already it would be impossible cf america tried it ! .  i think tobacco one day will become illegal, as it is slowly phased out.   addicts ca not get help if it is illegal !  then we give addicts who want to get help immunity from prosecution  #  if drugs were legal then the police would have more time to stop other illegal things, and we could save money !  #  why not make all crimes legal, then the police do not need to exist and we save all the money !  # do you really think that people are gonna just stop doing drugs because of that ? they are not, people are always going to do drugs, so it makes more sense to legalize, tax, and regulate them.  then educate people and have them make their own decisions based on the facts.  i grew up in canada 0 drinking age in my province , weed was far easier to get than alcohol, but students managed to get both.  why not make all crimes legal, then the police do not need to exist and we save all the money ! if i light up my crack pipe alone in my basement it affects you far less than if i try to rob you at gunpoint.  the point of this discussion is that drug use is not the same kind of criminal behavior as all the other crimes you are placing it alongside.  ! i guess people were talking about marijuana or mdma when they said much worse products are available, but i mean obviously heroin and methamphetamine are worse for you than a glass of scotch and a cigarette.  either way, i do not envision drug legalization becoming a situation where you and your friends are deciding between a bottle of jack daniels or a gram of meth for your friday night.  i do not feel the non drug users are suddenly gonna start doing tons of drugs if they are made legal.  so its not really adding more bad substances to the mix, its more a question of admitting that people are going to want to do this stuff regardless of legality, so why continue fighting it and spending billions of dollars that can be better spent ?  #  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  the drug war is responsible for thousands a death a year and i frankly do not think the fact that you think its a bad habit justifies the means taken to stop it.   #  people are interested in ending the war on drugs for several reasons   it has cost tax payers enormous amounts of money yet has failed to even stem the flow of drugs or usage rates throughout the entire history of the policy.  ending the flow of drugs is simply impossible given the amount of money people can make of them.  the us ended prohibition on alcohol for that reason and many are beginning to come to same conclusion with drugs.  the revenue collected from the use of these drugs is not going to law abiding citizens and/or important government services like schools but instead funding vast criminal enterprises.  the drug war has real life consequences.  in mexico the government is waging a war against the cartels that has so fared killed up to 0,0 people because they are fighting over control of key smuggling routes into the united states.  look at the war in columbia, largely financed through the production, transportation, and sale of cocaine.  the drug war is responsible for thousands a death a year and i frankly do not think the fact that you think its a bad habit justifies the means taken to stop it.  you live in the uk which as a whole is largely peaceful.  police in the us have actual crimes going on.  people are shot, stabbed, and murdered on a daily basis.  people in the united states want their tax dollars going toward the police actually protecting them from violent criminals, not arresting teenagers with petty amounts of drugs.  regulating the product ensures that users get a safe product.  people have absolutely no idea what their marijuana is grown with, what their cocaine is cut with, or if the molly they just bought is even molly at all.  regulating ensures that users of these drugs will be safer than relying on the kindness of a drug dealer.  regulating a product also ensures that kids do not have easy access to drugs.  you can easily obtain marijuana in the united states once you get into high school.  it is in fact far easier to purchase illegal drugs as a minor than it is to purchase cigarettes or alcohol.  regulating drugs would ensure that the black market is largely unprofitable and would funnel consumers into legal stores where sales could be better monitored and controlled.   #  the revenue could stop funding the criminals if users stopped buying the drugs.   #  is the flow of drugs really that big ? are there any studies that attempt to answer whether legalising all drugs results in an increase in the number of users ? the revenue could stop funding the criminals if users stopped buying the drugs.  this would also mean the smuggling results would not exist and save the lives in mexico/columbia.  maybe this should mean a change in priorities of the police.  from my experience, police do not care about users of drugs in the uk; they will go after organised crime dealers etc , but otherwise stick to more  iserious  crime agree about the relative peacefulness though .  the safety aspect; are the substances they can be cut with more dangerous than the drug ? i suspect as well the dealer will want to keep the stuff  clean  in order to get custom back.  when i was younger i could get hold of alcohol a lot easier than weed.  maybe i mixed in the wrong circles though.  is there any evidence about the  ease  at which kids can obtain these things ? if so, i agree that this would be a good point in regards regulation although if things like cocaine are relatively harmless what is the big deal ? i know with cannabis it has been shown to affect teenage brains etc iirc more than adults  #  obviously dealers do not want something too bad or people wont want it or might die would bring heat but very frequently these drugs are cut with dangerous  fillers  to maximize profit.   # this would also mean the smuggling results would not exist and save the lives in mexico/columbia.  this is simply impossible.  it is far too disconnected from the end user to ever make a meaningful impact on their behavior.  the drinking age in the united states is 0.  much more difficult to get alcohol in the states than in europe.  from my experience, police do not care about users of drugs in the uk; they will go after organised crime dealers etc , but otherwise stick to more  iserious  crime agree about the relative peacefulness though .  i suspect as well the dealer will want to keep the stuff  clean  in order to get custom back.  your street level dealer is not typically cutting the product.  this happens long before they are even hearing about the stuff.  obviously dealers do not want something too bad or people wont want it or might die would bring heat but very frequently these drugs are cut with dangerous  fillers  to maximize profit.  i have seen a bunch of college kids buy molly to have a good time and ended up just taking straight methamphetamine.  i knew the guy who was selling them and he did not even know.  unless you have a drug testing kit you do not know.  it is scary stuff.
i think illegal drugs should stay illegal, and i have not heard a convincing argument otherwise.  this is from the perspective of a uk citizen, but i believe the us system is broadly the same in terms of what substances are illegal, so that is equally applicable.  some substances are illegal for a myriad of reasons, such as being detrimental to health, productivity, other people, and so on.  although it is difficult to pick one specific criterion for what makes a specific illicit drug illegal, i think that overall illicit drugs staying illegal does much less harm to society than if they were legalised.  as to why i think it would be worse for society, please see my refuting points to the arguments i have heard thus e. g. , i think it would be worse for society for the same reason alcohol and tobacco cause problems in society .  here are a summary of some reasons why they should be legal that i have heard, and my refuting points: much worse products are available for consumption; alcohol, tobacco.   so why add another to the mix ? !   it does not affect other people alcohol does and that is legal ! i wo not start fights or piss everywhere when i am high !  when you are smoking marijuana and the smell is blowing through my windows and sticking to my clothes/bedsheets, yeah that is affecting me  if it is regulated that stops the product going to kids  kids still get alcohol/tobacco/knives.   the money goes to  terrorists  when it could go to the government  that is an argument not to do the drugs and fund  the terrorists .   if drugs were legal then the police would have more time to stop other illegal things, and we could save money !  why not make all crimes legal, then the police do not need to exist and we save all the money !   i ca not get addicted to certain drugs like i can to nicotine etc  maybe not physically, but people certainly can have a dependence on illegal drugs that is mental  if you think marijuana/ecstasy/coke should be illegal, you should support prohibition of alcohol etc too !  i think that if alcohol etc had been discovered recently then they would be banned.  however, since so many people partake in it already it would be impossible cf america tried it ! .  i think tobacco one day will become illegal, as it is slowly phased out.   addicts ca not get help if it is illegal !  then we give addicts who want to get help immunity from prosecution  #  it does not affect other people alcohol does and that is legal !  #  we have made the danger to others illegal.   # ! people are doing these drugs anyway.  if they are going to do the drugs, it is better to regulate them so they are safer to use.  when you get drugs illegally, you deal with dangerous people and never know what they have done to the drug.  we have made the danger to others illegal.  it is not legal to drive drunk, why ca not it also be illegal to drive high it already ? there are already people doing these drugs, so legality does not make it safer for others.  how many people sell tobacco on the black market ? you can do drugs without victimizing others or putting them into danger.  the law should handle destruction and victimization, not personal recreation.  police are wasting time and money on casual users when there are better uses for their time.  if it gives you a benefit then go for it ! we also become dependent on people and unhealthy foods, but that should not be regulated.   #  to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  police in the us have actual crimes going on.   #  people are interested in ending the war on drugs for several reasons   it has cost tax payers enormous amounts of money yet has failed to even stem the flow of drugs or usage rates throughout the entire history of the policy.  ending the flow of drugs is simply impossible given the amount of money people can make of them.  the us ended prohibition on alcohol for that reason and many are beginning to come to same conclusion with drugs.  the revenue collected from the use of these drugs is not going to law abiding citizens and/or important government services like schools but instead funding vast criminal enterprises.  the drug war has real life consequences.  in mexico the government is waging a war against the cartels that has so fared killed up to 0,0 people because they are fighting over control of key smuggling routes into the united states.  look at the war in columbia, largely financed through the production, transportation, and sale of cocaine.  the drug war is responsible for thousands a death a year and i frankly do not think the fact that you think its a bad habit justifies the means taken to stop it.  you live in the uk which as a whole is largely peaceful.  police in the us have actual crimes going on.  people are shot, stabbed, and murdered on a daily basis.  people in the united states want their tax dollars going toward the police actually protecting them from violent criminals, not arresting teenagers with petty amounts of drugs.  regulating the product ensures that users get a safe product.  people have absolutely no idea what their marijuana is grown with, what their cocaine is cut with, or if the molly they just bought is even molly at all.  regulating ensures that users of these drugs will be safer than relying on the kindness of a drug dealer.  regulating a product also ensures that kids do not have easy access to drugs.  you can easily obtain marijuana in the united states once you get into high school.  it is in fact far easier to purchase illegal drugs as a minor than it is to purchase cigarettes or alcohol.  regulating drugs would ensure that the black market is largely unprofitable and would funnel consumers into legal stores where sales could be better monitored and controlled.   #  from my experience, police do not care about users of drugs in the uk; they will go after organised crime dealers etc , but otherwise stick to more  iserious  crime agree about the relative peacefulness though .   #  is the flow of drugs really that big ? are there any studies that attempt to answer whether legalising all drugs results in an increase in the number of users ? the revenue could stop funding the criminals if users stopped buying the drugs.  this would also mean the smuggling results would not exist and save the lives in mexico/columbia.  maybe this should mean a change in priorities of the police.  from my experience, police do not care about users of drugs in the uk; they will go after organised crime dealers etc , but otherwise stick to more  iserious  crime agree about the relative peacefulness though .  the safety aspect; are the substances they can be cut with more dangerous than the drug ? i suspect as well the dealer will want to keep the stuff  clean  in order to get custom back.  when i was younger i could get hold of alcohol a lot easier than weed.  maybe i mixed in the wrong circles though.  is there any evidence about the  ease  at which kids can obtain these things ? if so, i agree that this would be a good point in regards regulation although if things like cocaine are relatively harmless what is the big deal ? i know with cannabis it has been shown to affect teenage brains etc iirc more than adults  #  i suspect as well the dealer will want to keep the stuff  clean  in order to get custom back.   # this would also mean the smuggling results would not exist and save the lives in mexico/columbia.  this is simply impossible.  it is far too disconnected from the end user to ever make a meaningful impact on their behavior.  the drinking age in the united states is 0.  much more difficult to get alcohol in the states than in europe.  from my experience, police do not care about users of drugs in the uk; they will go after organised crime dealers etc , but otherwise stick to more  iserious  crime agree about the relative peacefulness though .  i suspect as well the dealer will want to keep the stuff  clean  in order to get custom back.  your street level dealer is not typically cutting the product.  this happens long before they are even hearing about the stuff.  obviously dealers do not want something too bad or people wont want it or might die would bring heat but very frequently these drugs are cut with dangerous  fillers  to maximize profit.  i have seen a bunch of college kids buy molly to have a good time and ended up just taking straight methamphetamine.  i knew the guy who was selling them and he did not even know.  unless you have a drug testing kit you do not know.  it is scary stuff.
i think illegal drugs should stay illegal, and i have not heard a convincing argument otherwise.  this is from the perspective of a uk citizen, but i believe the us system is broadly the same in terms of what substances are illegal, so that is equally applicable.  some substances are illegal for a myriad of reasons, such as being detrimental to health, productivity, other people, and so on.  although it is difficult to pick one specific criterion for what makes a specific illicit drug illegal, i think that overall illicit drugs staying illegal does much less harm to society than if they were legalised.  as to why i think it would be worse for society, please see my refuting points to the arguments i have heard thus e. g. , i think it would be worse for society for the same reason alcohol and tobacco cause problems in society .  here are a summary of some reasons why they should be legal that i have heard, and my refuting points: much worse products are available for consumption; alcohol, tobacco.   so why add another to the mix ? !   it does not affect other people alcohol does and that is legal ! i wo not start fights or piss everywhere when i am high !  when you are smoking marijuana and the smell is blowing through my windows and sticking to my clothes/bedsheets, yeah that is affecting me  if it is regulated that stops the product going to kids  kids still get alcohol/tobacco/knives.   the money goes to  terrorists  when it could go to the government  that is an argument not to do the drugs and fund  the terrorists .   if drugs were legal then the police would have more time to stop other illegal things, and we could save money !  why not make all crimes legal, then the police do not need to exist and we save all the money !   i ca not get addicted to certain drugs like i can to nicotine etc  maybe not physically, but people certainly can have a dependence on illegal drugs that is mental  if you think marijuana/ecstasy/coke should be illegal, you should support prohibition of alcohol etc too !  i think that if alcohol etc had been discovered recently then they would be banned.  however, since so many people partake in it already it would be impossible cf america tried it ! .  i think tobacco one day will become illegal, as it is slowly phased out.   addicts ca not get help if it is illegal !  then we give addicts who want to get help immunity from prosecution  #  why not make all crimes legal, then the police do not need to exist and we save all the money !  #  you can do drugs without victimizing others or putting them into danger.   # ! people are doing these drugs anyway.  if they are going to do the drugs, it is better to regulate them so they are safer to use.  when you get drugs illegally, you deal with dangerous people and never know what they have done to the drug.  we have made the danger to others illegal.  it is not legal to drive drunk, why ca not it also be illegal to drive high it already ? there are already people doing these drugs, so legality does not make it safer for others.  how many people sell tobacco on the black market ? you can do drugs without victimizing others or putting them into danger.  the law should handle destruction and victimization, not personal recreation.  police are wasting time and money on casual users when there are better uses for their time.  if it gives you a benefit then go for it ! we also become dependent on people and unhealthy foods, but that should not be regulated.   #  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.   #  note:  your thread has  not  been removed.  your post is topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit.  similar posts can be found through our wiki page URL or via the search function URL regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  i am a bot /r/automoderator/comments/q0pu/what is automoderator/ , and this action was performed automatically.  please contact the moderators of this subreddit /message/compose ? to %0fr%0fchangemyview if you have any questions or concerns.   #  you can easily obtain marijuana in the united states once you get into high school.   #  people are interested in ending the war on drugs for several reasons   it has cost tax payers enormous amounts of money yet has failed to even stem the flow of drugs or usage rates throughout the entire history of the policy.  ending the flow of drugs is simply impossible given the amount of money people can make of them.  the us ended prohibition on alcohol for that reason and many are beginning to come to same conclusion with drugs.  the revenue collected from the use of these drugs is not going to law abiding citizens and/or important government services like schools but instead funding vast criminal enterprises.  the drug war has real life consequences.  in mexico the government is waging a war against the cartels that has so fared killed up to 0,0 people because they are fighting over control of key smuggling routes into the united states.  look at the war in columbia, largely financed through the production, transportation, and sale of cocaine.  the drug war is responsible for thousands a death a year and i frankly do not think the fact that you think its a bad habit justifies the means taken to stop it.  you live in the uk which as a whole is largely peaceful.  police in the us have actual crimes going on.  people are shot, stabbed, and murdered on a daily basis.  people in the united states want their tax dollars going toward the police actually protecting them from violent criminals, not arresting teenagers with petty amounts of drugs.  regulating the product ensures that users get a safe product.  people have absolutely no idea what their marijuana is grown with, what their cocaine is cut with, or if the molly they just bought is even molly at all.  regulating ensures that users of these drugs will be safer than relying on the kindness of a drug dealer.  regulating a product also ensures that kids do not have easy access to drugs.  you can easily obtain marijuana in the united states once you get into high school.  it is in fact far easier to purchase illegal drugs as a minor than it is to purchase cigarettes or alcohol.  regulating drugs would ensure that the black market is largely unprofitable and would funnel consumers into legal stores where sales could be better monitored and controlled.   #  this would also mean the smuggling results would not exist and save the lives in mexico/columbia.   #  is the flow of drugs really that big ? are there any studies that attempt to answer whether legalising all drugs results in an increase in the number of users ? the revenue could stop funding the criminals if users stopped buying the drugs.  this would also mean the smuggling results would not exist and save the lives in mexico/columbia.  maybe this should mean a change in priorities of the police.  from my experience, police do not care about users of drugs in the uk; they will go after organised crime dealers etc , but otherwise stick to more  iserious  crime agree about the relative peacefulness though .  the safety aspect; are the substances they can be cut with more dangerous than the drug ? i suspect as well the dealer will want to keep the stuff  clean  in order to get custom back.  when i was younger i could get hold of alcohol a lot easier than weed.  maybe i mixed in the wrong circles though.  is there any evidence about the  ease  at which kids can obtain these things ? if so, i agree that this would be a good point in regards regulation although if things like cocaine are relatively harmless what is the big deal ? i know with cannabis it has been shown to affect teenage brains etc iirc more than adults  #  the drinking age in the united states is 0.  much more difficult to get alcohol in the states than in europe.   # this would also mean the smuggling results would not exist and save the lives in mexico/columbia.  this is simply impossible.  it is far too disconnected from the end user to ever make a meaningful impact on their behavior.  the drinking age in the united states is 0.  much more difficult to get alcohol in the states than in europe.  from my experience, police do not care about users of drugs in the uk; they will go after organised crime dealers etc , but otherwise stick to more  iserious  crime agree about the relative peacefulness though .  i suspect as well the dealer will want to keep the stuff  clean  in order to get custom back.  your street level dealer is not typically cutting the product.  this happens long before they are even hearing about the stuff.  obviously dealers do not want something too bad or people wont want it or might die would bring heat but very frequently these drugs are cut with dangerous  fillers  to maximize profit.  i have seen a bunch of college kids buy molly to have a good time and ended up just taking straight methamphetamine.  i knew the guy who was selling them and he did not even know.  unless you have a drug testing kit you do not know.  it is scary stuff.
inspired by this thread: URL i had a pretty infectious thought and having mentioned it to a handful of coworkers, i think it would be utterly electric in us politics this season.  an axe party as in  axe em all !   would support candidates with 0 things: 0 no more than 0 prior terms in the seat they are running for.  self interested, incumbent politicians are the biggest thing currently holding down our legislative houses.  0 signed commitment to support a proportional electoral system with your vote.  anything is better than the current system and we need people dedicated to changing it.  0 signed commitment that you will give up your seat after 0 terms whatever the current requirement of the law may be.  every person i have mentioned this to is highly supportive regardless of political affiliation.  candidates could be democrat or republican, neither of those political affiliations inherently disagree with the 0 principles of the axe party.  voters are sick of long term incumbent politicians who continually value money over the opinion of their constituents.  people feel very disengaged from the current political scene and do not identify with the politicians representing them.  this gives an outlet and encourages political activism.  tell me this would not work.   #  signed commitment to support a proportional electoral system with your vote.   #  anything is better than the current system and we need people dedicated to changing it.   #  are you arguing that this is a good idea, or that it would be a popular idea ? because either way i disagree.  it would not be popular because if the axe party is the only one doing it, it is essentially hamstringing itself, unless politicians of opposing parties are required to play by those same rules.  i would be surprised if you got many politicians to sign up for it, let alone voters.  would this method of changing up the old guard be effective in ridding the house and senate of  self interested, incumbent politicians ? i do not think so, to be honest.  it is a catch 0.  the movement needs momentum to be effective, and it needs momentum to be appealing enough to gain momentum.  either it works, and works strongly enough to enact change, or 0 terms later the political climate has changed and it just about never happened.  anything is better than the current system and we need people dedicated to changing it.  this is where you are wrong.  anarchy and dictatorships would be worse than the current system.  someone correct me if i am wrong on this, but the electoral system pretty much  is  proportional for anything below presidential elections.  the reason we have a house and senate is so states have fair representation vs.  other states massive california has 0 senate votes, and tiny rhode island has 0 senate votes and people are represented equally as well each congressman in the house represents about 0,0 people .  the thing is, people do not want congress to have term limits.  people want  this  congress to have term limits because right now the system is not working.  in general, as long as he is doing a good job, i want my congressman to remain in washington making connections, learning the ropes, and doing what he can to make sure i get the best representation possible.   #  personally, i think you have got a great idea, but that is about as far as it will ever go.  an idea.   # first, your  signed commitments  are not legally binding, so you can forget them as soon as the candidate is elected, because they sure will.  candidates sign pledges all the time now the grover norquist pledge, the  no tax hike  pledge, the clean water pledge, etc.  , and little if anything actually comes from them.  sure, they pay lip service to the pledge, but nothing more.  then when the next election rolls around, there is always some  legitimate  reason why it was the other  party is fault , and they  tried their best to honor their commitment , and if you could just go ahead and make that check out to  jo blow for congress , i promise we will get  em this time.  second, there is simply too much money in owning politicians, and to put it bluntly, their lobbyists can beat up your lobbyists.  money trumps idealism every time.  personally, i think you have got a great idea, but that is about as far as it will ever go.  an idea.   #  if you are not commited to the idea that you signed your name on the paper protesting your commitment about 0 years ago, it is time to go !  #  all of these things fly because we have a disengage voting public.  the whole point of the signed commitments is to get people to have something very simple and straightforward to hold their elected officials  feet to the fire over, also why i like the tagline of  axe  em all !   we have been lied to and had  legitimate  reasons thrown at us over and over every election since forever.  if you are not commited to the idea that you signed your name on the paper protesting your commitment about 0 years ago, it is time to go ! you no longer represent our interests.  let the self interested politicians ride the wave and hang themselves later, as long as we get a motivated voting public, that problem will take care of itself along with all the rest.   #  those are the exact arguments that got tea partiers where they are in place of experienced congressman who were by virtue of not being in the tea party more amenable to compromise.   #  those are the exact arguments that got tea partiers where they are in place of experienced congressman who were by virtue of not being in the tea party more amenable to compromise.  that led directly to the stagnation we see today.  all 0 million americans can demand that their politicians break the stagnation and get things done, but if they all want different things and all want their politicians to be uncompromising. then you have inevitable stagnation.  no.  the next few elections are going to be extraordinarily important for republicans because of the conflict between the tea party types, conventional republicans and the need to transform an aging party.  all of those factors suggest an impending influx of new candidates and hotly contested elections.  i want  people  in those seats who can do that; i do not particularly care whether they are new or not.  based on recent experience, there is no reason at all to believe that new blood would fix the problem.  i think your idea that the  main problem  is long term congressmen is a red herring.  the problem is a lack of compromise and communication between parties, and those who appear to be the worst offenders in this regard are fresh faced tea party republicans running on the  breath of fresh air  platform.  on a deeper level, the problem is the demands of the american people.  we complain about stagnation, but we demand that our politicians never  flip flop  on. anything.  we ca not have it both ways, but it is what we demand.  i do not see how a constant two term recycling program for congressmen would address this problem.   #  i see no reason to think it would.   #  are you under the impression a bill can be passed with  majority rule  ? are you under the impression that a majority of americans are of the same opinion on most issues ? are you under the impression that tea partiers are the only ones being stubborn ? how is the two party system creating the backlash against flip floppers ? how will a three party system magically fix this ? i think you are making the following errors:   you are assuming that this third party would be popular.  apart from anecdotal evidence, you have not explained why.  i find it more likely that people approve of their individual representatives thus, they continue to elect them but dislike those in congress that oppose them.  republicans love their guy but hate chuck schumer.  democrats love their guy but hate john boehner.  most people are content with who they have power over, so unless a third party comes with a more appealing candidate nothing changes.  it would make more sense to offer a diminished anti vote to allow a large number of people throughout the country who disapproved of an entrenched candidate the opportunity to unseat them.  you are assuming that a third party would result in a change in political interaction.  why would this change necessarily cause compromise ? i see no reason to think it would.  if people are still demanding that their politician stick to his guns, he is going to do it or not get reelected for a second term and face ignominy in their home district.  that leads to:   you are assuming that the problems we see are the result of faulty politicians that can be fixed by fixing politicians.  i find it more likely that the country itself is deeply conflicted about many salient issues and is electing politicians that reflect that conflict.  we demand collective compromise of congress but absolute rigidity of congressmen.  we then blame all the congressmen we did not elect for the problem instead of acknowledging how we made it impossible for our guy to compromise.  if that last one is the big problem i think it is , then your third party does nothing to fix it.  you appear to be looking at this as a panacea, but panaceas are never actually panaceas.
it is a private business, and guns make many people uncomfortable.  you can eat elsewhere although it might be difficult because chipotle is great .  you do not need a gun in chipotle, and if you are nervous without it you can just order it to go and go back to your car.  there is just no real reason why someone should be angered about a company not wanting to allow its customers to be intimidated by shows of force.  even if you have a concealed handgun, there still really is not a reason for it.  there is not going to be an uprising against the government in the chipotle, and if there is a shooting or robbery it is not like you would singlehandedly go pulp fiction on them.  the more guns there are in public places, the more gun violence there will be.   #  you do not need a gun in chipotle, and if you are nervous without it you can just order it to go and go back to your car.   #  could you not apply the same logic to those nervous about firearms ?  #  just to be clear, chipotle did not ban weapons.  they are merely asking you to not bring them to their stores.  could you not apply the same logic to those nervous about firearms ? if you are afraid, order it and go back to your car.  in your opinion.  their opinion obviously differs.  outside of the common stated phrase in the ccw community,  concealed is concealed , many people have reasons even the most ardent anti gun people would recognize as a valid reason for it.  i am not sure what you mean by pulp fiction, but ccwers have stopped numerous robberies, so it is not out of the realm of possibility.  this is a false statement.  for example when my state moved from a  may issue  to  shall issue  state, meaning more permits will be issued, the fear was it would turn into the wild wild west.  the problem with that viewpoint ? it is completely unfounded.  studies since that time show little to no change in crime rates since that change was made.  if this statement was true, gun shows and gun shops would have the highest incidences of gun violence in the nation, yet when was the last time you saw an incident of gun violence at a gun shop ? there is a reason you see a lot of gun violence, and violence overall, in gun free zones.   #  and at the point, i would rather deal with consequences of violating a store is no gun policy than needing a gun and not having one.   #  as a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit, i believe these two fuckheads are the ones everyone should be angry with.  URL despite pressure from anti gun groups, chipotle basically said they did not want to take a side and would simply follow local laws.  they had no intention of banning guns from their stores.  that somehow sounded like an invitation to open carry activists to show up at the restaurant with ar 0s slung over their shoulders and start posting pictures to facebook.  and surprise, surprise, chipotle did the same thing starbucks did last year when open carry assholes started holding demonstrations there.  personally, i do not think open carry is a great idea, because it essentially makes you a target.  if people want to do it, i guess they should be allowed to.  but at the same time, they should not be surprised when others freak the fuck out.  all that said, if you are carrying concealed the right way, no one will ever know you have a gun unless you need to use it.  and at the point, i would rather deal with consequences of violating a store is no gun policy than needing a gun and not having one.   #  people wanted starbucks to ban guns inside the stores.   #  i was going to mention starbucks when i started reading your post.  you are right; almost the exact same situation happened there.  people wanted starbucks to ban guns inside the stores.  the ceo, howard schultz, responded by saying  no , he was not going to take a stance on the issue, and starbucks would follow local laws.  gun rights activists were happy.  but then in my opinion , they acted really foolishly.  people started having guns rights meetings there.  people started brandishing weapons at starbucks all over the country.  coffee goers were upset.  starbucks responded by basically saying they would wanted to stay neutral, but they no longer could.  they banned guns in their stores.  that is basically what happened with chipotle now.  i can kind of understand why people get upset about it.  but, at the same time, these establishments originally tried to allow people with permits to carry in their stores.  they just went too over the top with it.  i would  not  feel comfortable going into a restaurant or coffee shop with strangers armed in a way like that photo you shared.  how many people would ? such behavior basically forces these companies to take a stronger stance.   #  hang out with a small group of friends ?  #  i agree, it seems that the activists confuse  not wanting to take a stance  with  please come host all of your meetings here.   i know there are tons of places that pretty much do not want that at all.  hang out with a small group of friends ? sure thing, but bring in 0 to 0 people to take up space, not buy anything, and trash the area is not going to fly.  with that alone they do not even need to bring up the fact that those people would alienate their normal consumer base.   #  similar arguments that people do not need guns at movie theaters, shopping malls, college campuses, military bases, etc.   #  it does not challenge op is conclusion, but i think it provides a different perspective on the way he reached his conclusion.  for example, op states,  you do not need a gun in chipotle.   this is demonstrably false.  violent crimes occur at or near restaurants all the time.  similar arguments that people do not need guns at movie theaters, shopping malls, college campuses, military bases, etc.  are also empirically false.  all of these so called gun free zones have served as targets for spree shooters and other violent criminals.  i was simply trying to add some context to the discussion, but if it is required that i directly point out the ways in which op is wrong, there it is.  people who carry concealed for self defense basically carry everywhere as a matter of habit.  they do not plan out their days deciding where they will and wo not need a gun.  ideally, you should not need a gun anywhere, but bad things can happen in the most unexpected places at the most unexpected times, and that is why some people like to always have a gun handy.  i would rather have a gun and not need it at a thousand different places and a thousand different times than not have a gun and need it at one place and one time.
it is a private business, and guns make many people uncomfortable.  you can eat elsewhere although it might be difficult because chipotle is great .  you do not need a gun in chipotle, and if you are nervous without it you can just order it to go and go back to your car.  there is just no real reason why someone should be angered about a company not wanting to allow its customers to be intimidated by shows of force.  even if you have a concealed handgun, there still really is not a reason for it.  there is not going to be an uprising against the government in the chipotle, and if there is a shooting or robbery it is not like you would singlehandedly go pulp fiction on them.  the more guns there are in public places, the more gun violence there will be.   #  and if there is a shooting or robbery it is not like you would singlehandedly go pulp fiction on them.   #  i am not sure what you mean by pulp fiction, but ccwers have stopped numerous robberies, so it is not out of the realm of possibility.   #  just to be clear, chipotle did not ban weapons.  they are merely asking you to not bring them to their stores.  could you not apply the same logic to those nervous about firearms ? if you are afraid, order it and go back to your car.  in your opinion.  their opinion obviously differs.  outside of the common stated phrase in the ccw community,  concealed is concealed , many people have reasons even the most ardent anti gun people would recognize as a valid reason for it.  i am not sure what you mean by pulp fiction, but ccwers have stopped numerous robberies, so it is not out of the realm of possibility.  this is a false statement.  for example when my state moved from a  may issue  to  shall issue  state, meaning more permits will be issued, the fear was it would turn into the wild wild west.  the problem with that viewpoint ? it is completely unfounded.  studies since that time show little to no change in crime rates since that change was made.  if this statement was true, gun shows and gun shops would have the highest incidences of gun violence in the nation, yet when was the last time you saw an incident of gun violence at a gun shop ? there is a reason you see a lot of gun violence, and violence overall, in gun free zones.   #  and at the point, i would rather deal with consequences of violating a store is no gun policy than needing a gun and not having one.   #  as a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit, i believe these two fuckheads are the ones everyone should be angry with.  URL despite pressure from anti gun groups, chipotle basically said they did not want to take a side and would simply follow local laws.  they had no intention of banning guns from their stores.  that somehow sounded like an invitation to open carry activists to show up at the restaurant with ar 0s slung over their shoulders and start posting pictures to facebook.  and surprise, surprise, chipotle did the same thing starbucks did last year when open carry assholes started holding demonstrations there.  personally, i do not think open carry is a great idea, because it essentially makes you a target.  if people want to do it, i guess they should be allowed to.  but at the same time, they should not be surprised when others freak the fuck out.  all that said, if you are carrying concealed the right way, no one will ever know you have a gun unless you need to use it.  and at the point, i would rather deal with consequences of violating a store is no gun policy than needing a gun and not having one.   #  i was going to mention starbucks when i started reading your post.   #  i was going to mention starbucks when i started reading your post.  you are right; almost the exact same situation happened there.  people wanted starbucks to ban guns inside the stores.  the ceo, howard schultz, responded by saying  no , he was not going to take a stance on the issue, and starbucks would follow local laws.  gun rights activists were happy.  but then in my opinion , they acted really foolishly.  people started having guns rights meetings there.  people started brandishing weapons at starbucks all over the country.  coffee goers were upset.  starbucks responded by basically saying they would wanted to stay neutral, but they no longer could.  they banned guns in their stores.  that is basically what happened with chipotle now.  i can kind of understand why people get upset about it.  but, at the same time, these establishments originally tried to allow people with permits to carry in their stores.  they just went too over the top with it.  i would  not  feel comfortable going into a restaurant or coffee shop with strangers armed in a way like that photo you shared.  how many people would ? such behavior basically forces these companies to take a stronger stance.   #  with that alone they do not even need to bring up the fact that those people would alienate their normal consumer base.   #  i agree, it seems that the activists confuse  not wanting to take a stance  with  please come host all of your meetings here.   i know there are tons of places that pretty much do not want that at all.  hang out with a small group of friends ? sure thing, but bring in 0 to 0 people to take up space, not buy anything, and trash the area is not going to fly.  with that alone they do not even need to bring up the fact that those people would alienate their normal consumer base.   #  it does not challenge op is conclusion, but i think it provides a different perspective on the way he reached his conclusion.   #  it does not challenge op is conclusion, but i think it provides a different perspective on the way he reached his conclusion.  for example, op states,  you do not need a gun in chipotle.   this is demonstrably false.  violent crimes occur at or near restaurants all the time.  similar arguments that people do not need guns at movie theaters, shopping malls, college campuses, military bases, etc.  are also empirically false.  all of these so called gun free zones have served as targets for spree shooters and other violent criminals.  i was simply trying to add some context to the discussion, but if it is required that i directly point out the ways in which op is wrong, there it is.  people who carry concealed for self defense basically carry everywhere as a matter of habit.  they do not plan out their days deciding where they will and wo not need a gun.  ideally, you should not need a gun anywhere, but bad things can happen in the most unexpected places at the most unexpected times, and that is why some people like to always have a gun handy.  i would rather have a gun and not need it at a thousand different places and a thousand different times than not have a gun and need it at one place and one time.
it is a private business, and guns make many people uncomfortable.  you can eat elsewhere although it might be difficult because chipotle is great .  you do not need a gun in chipotle, and if you are nervous without it you can just order it to go and go back to your car.  there is just no real reason why someone should be angered about a company not wanting to allow its customers to be intimidated by shows of force.  even if you have a concealed handgun, there still really is not a reason for it.  there is not going to be an uprising against the government in the chipotle, and if there is a shooting or robbery it is not like you would singlehandedly go pulp fiction on them.  the more guns there are in public places, the more gun violence there will be.   #  even if you have a concealed handgun, there still really is not a reason for it.   #  where do you pull that conclusion from ?  # very well.  dumb people make me uncomfortable.  you do not need a bible in chik fil a.  where do you pull that conclusion from ? who is going to protect me ? the sever with the spoon of justice ? where is that tid bit of fact come from ?  #  and at the point, i would rather deal with consequences of violating a store is no gun policy than needing a gun and not having one.   #  as a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit, i believe these two fuckheads are the ones everyone should be angry with.  URL despite pressure from anti gun groups, chipotle basically said they did not want to take a side and would simply follow local laws.  they had no intention of banning guns from their stores.  that somehow sounded like an invitation to open carry activists to show up at the restaurant with ar 0s slung over their shoulders and start posting pictures to facebook.  and surprise, surprise, chipotle did the same thing starbucks did last year when open carry assholes started holding demonstrations there.  personally, i do not think open carry is a great idea, because it essentially makes you a target.  if people want to do it, i guess they should be allowed to.  but at the same time, they should not be surprised when others freak the fuck out.  all that said, if you are carrying concealed the right way, no one will ever know you have a gun unless you need to use it.  and at the point, i would rather deal with consequences of violating a store is no gun policy than needing a gun and not having one.   #  such behavior basically forces these companies to take a stronger stance.   #  i was going to mention starbucks when i started reading your post.  you are right; almost the exact same situation happened there.  people wanted starbucks to ban guns inside the stores.  the ceo, howard schultz, responded by saying  no , he was not going to take a stance on the issue, and starbucks would follow local laws.  gun rights activists were happy.  but then in my opinion , they acted really foolishly.  people started having guns rights meetings there.  people started brandishing weapons at starbucks all over the country.  coffee goers were upset.  starbucks responded by basically saying they would wanted to stay neutral, but they no longer could.  they banned guns in their stores.  that is basically what happened with chipotle now.  i can kind of understand why people get upset about it.  but, at the same time, these establishments originally tried to allow people with permits to carry in their stores.  they just went too over the top with it.  i would  not  feel comfortable going into a restaurant or coffee shop with strangers armed in a way like that photo you shared.  how many people would ? such behavior basically forces these companies to take a stronger stance.   #  hang out with a small group of friends ?  #  i agree, it seems that the activists confuse  not wanting to take a stance  with  please come host all of your meetings here.   i know there are tons of places that pretty much do not want that at all.  hang out with a small group of friends ? sure thing, but bring in 0 to 0 people to take up space, not buy anything, and trash the area is not going to fly.  with that alone they do not even need to bring up the fact that those people would alienate their normal consumer base.   #  i was simply trying to add some context to the discussion, but if it is required that i directly point out the ways in which op is wrong, there it is.   #  it does not challenge op is conclusion, but i think it provides a different perspective on the way he reached his conclusion.  for example, op states,  you do not need a gun in chipotle.   this is demonstrably false.  violent crimes occur at or near restaurants all the time.  similar arguments that people do not need guns at movie theaters, shopping malls, college campuses, military bases, etc.  are also empirically false.  all of these so called gun free zones have served as targets for spree shooters and other violent criminals.  i was simply trying to add some context to the discussion, but if it is required that i directly point out the ways in which op is wrong, there it is.  people who carry concealed for self defense basically carry everywhere as a matter of habit.  they do not plan out their days deciding where they will and wo not need a gun.  ideally, you should not need a gun anywhere, but bad things can happen in the most unexpected places at the most unexpected times, and that is why some people like to always have a gun handy.  i would rather have a gun and not need it at a thousand different places and a thousand different times than not have a gun and need it at one place and one time.
it is a private business, and guns make many people uncomfortable.  you can eat elsewhere although it might be difficult because chipotle is great .  you do not need a gun in chipotle, and if you are nervous without it you can just order it to go and go back to your car.  there is just no real reason why someone should be angered about a company not wanting to allow its customers to be intimidated by shows of force.  even if you have a concealed handgun, there still really is not a reason for it.  there is not going to be an uprising against the government in the chipotle, and if there is a shooting or robbery it is not like you would singlehandedly go pulp fiction on them.  the more guns there are in public places, the more gun violence there will be.   #  the more guns there are in public places, the more gun violence there will be.   #  where is that tid bit of fact come from ?  # very well.  dumb people make me uncomfortable.  you do not need a bible in chik fil a.  where do you pull that conclusion from ? who is going to protect me ? the sever with the spoon of justice ? where is that tid bit of fact come from ?  #  if people want to do it, i guess they should be allowed to.   #  as a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit, i believe these two fuckheads are the ones everyone should be angry with.  URL despite pressure from anti gun groups, chipotle basically said they did not want to take a side and would simply follow local laws.  they had no intention of banning guns from their stores.  that somehow sounded like an invitation to open carry activists to show up at the restaurant with ar 0s slung over their shoulders and start posting pictures to facebook.  and surprise, surprise, chipotle did the same thing starbucks did last year when open carry assholes started holding demonstrations there.  personally, i do not think open carry is a great idea, because it essentially makes you a target.  if people want to do it, i guess they should be allowed to.  but at the same time, they should not be surprised when others freak the fuck out.  all that said, if you are carrying concealed the right way, no one will ever know you have a gun unless you need to use it.  and at the point, i would rather deal with consequences of violating a store is no gun policy than needing a gun and not having one.   #  i can kind of understand why people get upset about it.  but, at the same time, these establishments originally tried to allow people with permits to carry in their stores.   #  i was going to mention starbucks when i started reading your post.  you are right; almost the exact same situation happened there.  people wanted starbucks to ban guns inside the stores.  the ceo, howard schultz, responded by saying  no , he was not going to take a stance on the issue, and starbucks would follow local laws.  gun rights activists were happy.  but then in my opinion , they acted really foolishly.  people started having guns rights meetings there.  people started brandishing weapons at starbucks all over the country.  coffee goers were upset.  starbucks responded by basically saying they would wanted to stay neutral, but they no longer could.  they banned guns in their stores.  that is basically what happened with chipotle now.  i can kind of understand why people get upset about it.  but, at the same time, these establishments originally tried to allow people with permits to carry in their stores.  they just went too over the top with it.  i would  not  feel comfortable going into a restaurant or coffee shop with strangers armed in a way like that photo you shared.  how many people would ? such behavior basically forces these companies to take a stronger stance.   #  with that alone they do not even need to bring up the fact that those people would alienate their normal consumer base.   #  i agree, it seems that the activists confuse  not wanting to take a stance  with  please come host all of your meetings here.   i know there are tons of places that pretty much do not want that at all.  hang out with a small group of friends ? sure thing, but bring in 0 to 0 people to take up space, not buy anything, and trash the area is not going to fly.  with that alone they do not even need to bring up the fact that those people would alienate their normal consumer base.   #  i was simply trying to add some context to the discussion, but if it is required that i directly point out the ways in which op is wrong, there it is.   #  it does not challenge op is conclusion, but i think it provides a different perspective on the way he reached his conclusion.  for example, op states,  you do not need a gun in chipotle.   this is demonstrably false.  violent crimes occur at or near restaurants all the time.  similar arguments that people do not need guns at movie theaters, shopping malls, college campuses, military bases, etc.  are also empirically false.  all of these so called gun free zones have served as targets for spree shooters and other violent criminals.  i was simply trying to add some context to the discussion, but if it is required that i directly point out the ways in which op is wrong, there it is.  people who carry concealed for self defense basically carry everywhere as a matter of habit.  they do not plan out their days deciding where they will and wo not need a gun.  ideally, you should not need a gun anywhere, but bad things can happen in the most unexpected places at the most unexpected times, and that is why some people like to always have a gun handy.  i would rather have a gun and not need it at a thousand different places and a thousand different times than not have a gun and need it at one place and one time.
it is a private business, and guns make many people uncomfortable.  you can eat elsewhere although it might be difficult because chipotle is great .  you do not need a gun in chipotle, and if you are nervous without it you can just order it to go and go back to your car.  there is just no real reason why someone should be angered about a company not wanting to allow its customers to be intimidated by shows of force.  even if you have a concealed handgun, there still really is not a reason for it.  there is not going to be an uprising against the government in the chipotle, and if there is a shooting or robbery it is not like you would singlehandedly go pulp fiction on them.  the more guns there are in public places, the more gun violence there will be.   #  the more guns there are in public places, the more gun violence there will be.   #  i am going to have to ask for a citation here.   # it is no guarantee of safety, but it gives you a much better chance of defending yourself and the innocent than not having a gun.  it is their right to prohibit firearms in their stores, but we do not have to like it and we do not have to continue to shop there, as daily gun carriers.  i carry my gun everywhere, and if i decide to go to chipotle i am not going to leave my gun at home and i am going to ignore their polite request, and no one will know.  that is just my choice, and i also support the choices of people who decide to boycott chipotle over this decision.  i do not really go to chipotle much anymore anyway.  i do not think it is at all unreasonable to be angry or offended by chipotle is decision to prohibit lawful carriers from dining in their restaurant.  it is their right to make such a policy, and it is the right of individuals to be offended by that policy.  i think it is a bad decision on the part of chipotle and it makes me angry that they would cave to the anti gun people.  i am going to have to ask for a citation here.  this is not supported by the statistics i have seen.  there are many times more lawful carriers than there were 0 years ago, yet the gun homicide rate is down 0 since 0.  URL it is perfectly reasonable to be upset by their policy.  if anything it is their new policy which is unreasonable.  they should have worded it such that it only applied to open carriers, not all lawful gun carriers.  their policy makes their patrons less safe, not more so.   #  personally, i do not think open carry is a great idea, because it essentially makes you a target.   #  as a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit, i believe these two fuckheads are the ones everyone should be angry with.  URL despite pressure from anti gun groups, chipotle basically said they did not want to take a side and would simply follow local laws.  they had no intention of banning guns from their stores.  that somehow sounded like an invitation to open carry activists to show up at the restaurant with ar 0s slung over their shoulders and start posting pictures to facebook.  and surprise, surprise, chipotle did the same thing starbucks did last year when open carry assholes started holding demonstrations there.  personally, i do not think open carry is a great idea, because it essentially makes you a target.  if people want to do it, i guess they should be allowed to.  but at the same time, they should not be surprised when others freak the fuck out.  all that said, if you are carrying concealed the right way, no one will ever know you have a gun unless you need to use it.  and at the point, i would rather deal with consequences of violating a store is no gun policy than needing a gun and not having one.   #  i can kind of understand why people get upset about it.  but, at the same time, these establishments originally tried to allow people with permits to carry in their stores.   #  i was going to mention starbucks when i started reading your post.  you are right; almost the exact same situation happened there.  people wanted starbucks to ban guns inside the stores.  the ceo, howard schultz, responded by saying  no , he was not going to take a stance on the issue, and starbucks would follow local laws.  gun rights activists were happy.  but then in my opinion , they acted really foolishly.  people started having guns rights meetings there.  people started brandishing weapons at starbucks all over the country.  coffee goers were upset.  starbucks responded by basically saying they would wanted to stay neutral, but they no longer could.  they banned guns in their stores.  that is basically what happened with chipotle now.  i can kind of understand why people get upset about it.  but, at the same time, these establishments originally tried to allow people with permits to carry in their stores.  they just went too over the top with it.  i would  not  feel comfortable going into a restaurant or coffee shop with strangers armed in a way like that photo you shared.  how many people would ? such behavior basically forces these companies to take a stronger stance.   #  i know there are tons of places that pretty much do not want that at all.   #  i agree, it seems that the activists confuse  not wanting to take a stance  with  please come host all of your meetings here.   i know there are tons of places that pretty much do not want that at all.  hang out with a small group of friends ? sure thing, but bring in 0 to 0 people to take up space, not buy anything, and trash the area is not going to fly.  with that alone they do not even need to bring up the fact that those people would alienate their normal consumer base.   #  violent crimes occur at or near restaurants all the time.   #  it does not challenge op is conclusion, but i think it provides a different perspective on the way he reached his conclusion.  for example, op states,  you do not need a gun in chipotle.   this is demonstrably false.  violent crimes occur at or near restaurants all the time.  similar arguments that people do not need guns at movie theaters, shopping malls, college campuses, military bases, etc.  are also empirically false.  all of these so called gun free zones have served as targets for spree shooters and other violent criminals.  i was simply trying to add some context to the discussion, but if it is required that i directly point out the ways in which op is wrong, there it is.  people who carry concealed for self defense basically carry everywhere as a matter of habit.  they do not plan out their days deciding where they will and wo not need a gun.  ideally, you should not need a gun anywhere, but bad things can happen in the most unexpected places at the most unexpected times, and that is why some people like to always have a gun handy.  i would rather have a gun and not need it at a thousand different places and a thousand different times than not have a gun and need it at one place and one time.
every place i work the people who seem to progress the fastest are not the most inteligent and hardworking, but the most obedient.  the customers who get the most are not the most loyal or the kindest, but the most ignorant and the most obnoxious.  in all of the companies i have worked at 0 now every single one rewarded not ingenuity to solve a problem, not being loyal or working hard, but who could play the game the best.  i know an obvious retort to this is that the people who were the most intelligent or tried the hardest were not doing what they actually needed to do, but they were.  in every retail job i have worked in 0 , the loudest most obnoxious customers got the free upgrades, free replacements and discount, not those we saw week in week out.  i feel like the reason i hold this view is a matter of perspective that maybe i am missing a piece of the puzzle, i still hold my view because everyone i meet agrees with me, so i came here in the hope that one of you can change my view.   #  every place i work the people who seem to progress the fastest are not the most inteligent and hardworking, but the most obedient.   #  how does rewarding obedience equate to rewarding stupidity ?  # how does rewarding obedience equate to rewarding stupidity ? so the best way to play the game is to be stupid ? not if they wanted to get ahead, apparently.  being loud and obnoxious does not mean you are stupid.  it is a tactic for getting the most out of an establishment because it works.   #  the leader was making him do it slower not because the leader was stupid but because he understand the bigger picture that my friend did not.   # pleasing your boss should never be considered pointless, wrong, or a bad approach.  as a boss i want stuff done the way i want it done.  there is often a reason it is done my way such as it is been tried another way before or there is something you are not aware of that needs to happen.  while it is true there are bosses who simply are unwilling to listen to better ideas they are rare and do not typically last long.  either you have had a really bad string of jobs or you are not understanding the entire situation.  i would guess the latter.  most managers do not want to waste money on pointless tasks.  an example: i have a friend who went on a humanitarian trip to build small homes for the locals.  he was a construction guy so got there and just started busting them out and when he was 0/0ths done he was talked to by the leader and told to stop being so efficient.  the point of the mission trip was to interact with the locals not to build homes.  building homes was a great byproduct but the purpose of the trip was to get to know the locals and vice versa so that in the future they would trust them and allow them to help even more.  the leader was making him do it slower not because the leader was stupid but because he understand the bigger picture that my friend did not.   #  every employee i have ever had that reads this is now rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that i am an authoritarian boss.   #  every employee i have ever had that reads this is now rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that i am an authoritarian boss.  i have my flaws but this is definitely not one of them.  moving on. the boss is there to make sure the work gets done.  they are charged with getting the results needed.  they have the information necessary to get this done.  your job is to do what your boss wants you to do.  whether they are an authoritarian or an easy going or whatever boss in the end what they want more than anything else is for you to make them happy.  hopefully, this means not just doing things but also giving input on how to do things better.   #  another important factor is working directly under someone else.   # in my experience this  really  depends on the job.  i work in an office now but in the past i have worked as a dispatcher for campus security at a my college and as a merit badge counselor at boy scout camps.  working at camps i had a lot of freedom to do my job because i was teaching classes all day long.  i had to hit all of the requirements and keep the kids in class the proper length of time, but outside of that i was free to teach as i pleased.  working as a dispatcher i had zero room for creativity.  there were protocols for every conceivable situation including what to do when we did not know what to do.  my job was simply to answer the phone and do whatever the protocol said to do next based on who was calling and what they said.  working in an office i have quite a bit of freedom by there are people with a lot less freedom in how they should go about their jobs.  it really depends on the position.  typically the less education someone has, the less freedom they will have to do a job.  another important factor is working directly under someone else.  i report to the head of my department but i am not anyone is assistant.  assistants are pretty limited because their entire job is to do the dirty work for the people they are assistants to and to do so in a particular manner.  popular culture likes to place a lot of stock in thinking outside the box, but in reality there are a lot of jobs that are done much better by people simply doing exactly as they are told.  i am not saying that thinking outside the box is useless, just that there are certainly situations where it is a lot less important than simply doing what a superior tells you.   #  this also goes for the employers who get ahead.   #  being rude and obnoxious does not equal being stupid.  an obnoxious customer has apparently learned what you have learned, that   the squeaky wheel get is the grease , while the nice customers did not learn this.  learning about an advantage and using it is generally a sign of intelligence.  this also goes for the employers who get ahead.  if there is a game to be played to get ahead, would not recognising that and then playing said game show intelligence ?
every place i work the people who seem to progress the fastest are not the most inteligent and hardworking, but the most obedient.  the customers who get the most are not the most loyal or the kindest, but the most ignorant and the most obnoxious.  in all of the companies i have worked at 0 now every single one rewarded not ingenuity to solve a problem, not being loyal or working hard, but who could play the game the best.  i know an obvious retort to this is that the people who were the most intelligent or tried the hardest were not doing what they actually needed to do, but they were.  in every retail job i have worked in 0 , the loudest most obnoxious customers got the free upgrades, free replacements and discount, not those we saw week in week out.  i feel like the reason i hold this view is a matter of perspective that maybe i am missing a piece of the puzzle, i still hold my view because everyone i meet agrees with me, so i came here in the hope that one of you can change my view.   #  in all of the companies i have worked at 0 now every single one rewarded not ingenuity to solve a problem, not being loyal or working hard, but who could play the game the best.   #  so the best way to play the game is to be stupid ?  # how does rewarding obedience equate to rewarding stupidity ? so the best way to play the game is to be stupid ? not if they wanted to get ahead, apparently.  being loud and obnoxious does not mean you are stupid.  it is a tactic for getting the most out of an establishment because it works.   #  building homes was a great byproduct but the purpose of the trip was to get to know the locals and vice versa so that in the future they would trust them and allow them to help even more.   # pleasing your boss should never be considered pointless, wrong, or a bad approach.  as a boss i want stuff done the way i want it done.  there is often a reason it is done my way such as it is been tried another way before or there is something you are not aware of that needs to happen.  while it is true there are bosses who simply are unwilling to listen to better ideas they are rare and do not typically last long.  either you have had a really bad string of jobs or you are not understanding the entire situation.  i would guess the latter.  most managers do not want to waste money on pointless tasks.  an example: i have a friend who went on a humanitarian trip to build small homes for the locals.  he was a construction guy so got there and just started busting them out and when he was 0/0ths done he was talked to by the leader and told to stop being so efficient.  the point of the mission trip was to interact with the locals not to build homes.  building homes was a great byproduct but the purpose of the trip was to get to know the locals and vice versa so that in the future they would trust them and allow them to help even more.  the leader was making him do it slower not because the leader was stupid but because he understand the bigger picture that my friend did not.   #  they have the information necessary to get this done.   #  every employee i have ever had that reads this is now rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that i am an authoritarian boss.  i have my flaws but this is definitely not one of them.  moving on. the boss is there to make sure the work gets done.  they are charged with getting the results needed.  they have the information necessary to get this done.  your job is to do what your boss wants you to do.  whether they are an authoritarian or an easy going or whatever boss in the end what they want more than anything else is for you to make them happy.  hopefully, this means not just doing things but also giving input on how to do things better.   #  i had to hit all of the requirements and keep the kids in class the proper length of time, but outside of that i was free to teach as i pleased.   # in my experience this  really  depends on the job.  i work in an office now but in the past i have worked as a dispatcher for campus security at a my college and as a merit badge counselor at boy scout camps.  working at camps i had a lot of freedom to do my job because i was teaching classes all day long.  i had to hit all of the requirements and keep the kids in class the proper length of time, but outside of that i was free to teach as i pleased.  working as a dispatcher i had zero room for creativity.  there were protocols for every conceivable situation including what to do when we did not know what to do.  my job was simply to answer the phone and do whatever the protocol said to do next based on who was calling and what they said.  working in an office i have quite a bit of freedom by there are people with a lot less freedom in how they should go about their jobs.  it really depends on the position.  typically the less education someone has, the less freedom they will have to do a job.  another important factor is working directly under someone else.  i report to the head of my department but i am not anyone is assistant.  assistants are pretty limited because their entire job is to do the dirty work for the people they are assistants to and to do so in a particular manner.  popular culture likes to place a lot of stock in thinking outside the box, but in reality there are a lot of jobs that are done much better by people simply doing exactly as they are told.  i am not saying that thinking outside the box is useless, just that there are certainly situations where it is a lot less important than simply doing what a superior tells you.   #  if there is a game to be played to get ahead, would not recognising that and then playing said game show intelligence ?  #  being rude and obnoxious does not equal being stupid.  an obnoxious customer has apparently learned what you have learned, that   the squeaky wheel get is the grease , while the nice customers did not learn this.  learning about an advantage and using it is generally a sign of intelligence.  this also goes for the employers who get ahead.  if there is a game to be played to get ahead, would not recognising that and then playing said game show intelligence ?
every place i work the people who seem to progress the fastest are not the most inteligent and hardworking, but the most obedient.  the customers who get the most are not the most loyal or the kindest, but the most ignorant and the most obnoxious.  in all of the companies i have worked at 0 now every single one rewarded not ingenuity to solve a problem, not being loyal or working hard, but who could play the game the best.  i know an obvious retort to this is that the people who were the most intelligent or tried the hardest were not doing what they actually needed to do, but they were.  in every retail job i have worked in 0 , the loudest most obnoxious customers got the free upgrades, free replacements and discount, not those we saw week in week out.  i feel like the reason i hold this view is a matter of perspective that maybe i am missing a piece of the puzzle, i still hold my view because everyone i meet agrees with me, so i came here in the hope that one of you can change my view.   #  i know an obvious retort to this is that the people who were the most intelligent or tried the hardest were not doing what they actually needed to do, but they were.   #  not if they wanted to get ahead, apparently.   # how does rewarding obedience equate to rewarding stupidity ? so the best way to play the game is to be stupid ? not if they wanted to get ahead, apparently.  being loud and obnoxious does not mean you are stupid.  it is a tactic for getting the most out of an establishment because it works.   #  there is often a reason it is done my way such as it is been tried another way before or there is something you are not aware of that needs to happen.   # pleasing your boss should never be considered pointless, wrong, or a bad approach.  as a boss i want stuff done the way i want it done.  there is often a reason it is done my way such as it is been tried another way before or there is something you are not aware of that needs to happen.  while it is true there are bosses who simply are unwilling to listen to better ideas they are rare and do not typically last long.  either you have had a really bad string of jobs or you are not understanding the entire situation.  i would guess the latter.  most managers do not want to waste money on pointless tasks.  an example: i have a friend who went on a humanitarian trip to build small homes for the locals.  he was a construction guy so got there and just started busting them out and when he was 0/0ths done he was talked to by the leader and told to stop being so efficient.  the point of the mission trip was to interact with the locals not to build homes.  building homes was a great byproduct but the purpose of the trip was to get to know the locals and vice versa so that in the future they would trust them and allow them to help even more.  the leader was making him do it slower not because the leader was stupid but because he understand the bigger picture that my friend did not.   #  whether they are an authoritarian or an easy going or whatever boss in the end what they want more than anything else is for you to make them happy.   #  every employee i have ever had that reads this is now rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that i am an authoritarian boss.  i have my flaws but this is definitely not one of them.  moving on. the boss is there to make sure the work gets done.  they are charged with getting the results needed.  they have the information necessary to get this done.  your job is to do what your boss wants you to do.  whether they are an authoritarian or an easy going or whatever boss in the end what they want more than anything else is for you to make them happy.  hopefully, this means not just doing things but also giving input on how to do things better.   #  i work in an office now but in the past i have worked as a dispatcher for campus security at a my college and as a merit badge counselor at boy scout camps.   # in my experience this  really  depends on the job.  i work in an office now but in the past i have worked as a dispatcher for campus security at a my college and as a merit badge counselor at boy scout camps.  working at camps i had a lot of freedom to do my job because i was teaching classes all day long.  i had to hit all of the requirements and keep the kids in class the proper length of time, but outside of that i was free to teach as i pleased.  working as a dispatcher i had zero room for creativity.  there were protocols for every conceivable situation including what to do when we did not know what to do.  my job was simply to answer the phone and do whatever the protocol said to do next based on who was calling and what they said.  working in an office i have quite a bit of freedom by there are people with a lot less freedom in how they should go about their jobs.  it really depends on the position.  typically the less education someone has, the less freedom they will have to do a job.  another important factor is working directly under someone else.  i report to the head of my department but i am not anyone is assistant.  assistants are pretty limited because their entire job is to do the dirty work for the people they are assistants to and to do so in a particular manner.  popular culture likes to place a lot of stock in thinking outside the box, but in reality there are a lot of jobs that are done much better by people simply doing exactly as they are told.  i am not saying that thinking outside the box is useless, just that there are certainly situations where it is a lot less important than simply doing what a superior tells you.   #  this also goes for the employers who get ahead.   #  being rude and obnoxious does not equal being stupid.  an obnoxious customer has apparently learned what you have learned, that   the squeaky wheel get is the grease , while the nice customers did not learn this.  learning about an advantage and using it is generally a sign of intelligence.  this also goes for the employers who get ahead.  if there is a game to be played to get ahead, would not recognising that and then playing said game show intelligence ?
every place i work the people who seem to progress the fastest are not the most inteligent and hardworking, but the most obedient.  the customers who get the most are not the most loyal or the kindest, but the most ignorant and the most obnoxious.  in all of the companies i have worked at 0 now every single one rewarded not ingenuity to solve a problem, not being loyal or working hard, but who could play the game the best.  i know an obvious retort to this is that the people who were the most intelligent or tried the hardest were not doing what they actually needed to do, but they were.  in every retail job i have worked in 0 , the loudest most obnoxious customers got the free upgrades, free replacements and discount, not those we saw week in week out.  i feel like the reason i hold this view is a matter of perspective that maybe i am missing a piece of the puzzle, i still hold my view because everyone i meet agrees with me, so i came here in the hope that one of you can change my view.   #  in every retail job i have worked in 0 , the loudest most obnoxious customers got the free upgrades, free replacements and discount, not those we saw week in week out.   #  being loud and obnoxious does not mean you are stupid.   # how does rewarding obedience equate to rewarding stupidity ? so the best way to play the game is to be stupid ? not if they wanted to get ahead, apparently.  being loud and obnoxious does not mean you are stupid.  it is a tactic for getting the most out of an establishment because it works.   #  as a boss i want stuff done the way i want it done.   # pleasing your boss should never be considered pointless, wrong, or a bad approach.  as a boss i want stuff done the way i want it done.  there is often a reason it is done my way such as it is been tried another way before or there is something you are not aware of that needs to happen.  while it is true there are bosses who simply are unwilling to listen to better ideas they are rare and do not typically last long.  either you have had a really bad string of jobs or you are not understanding the entire situation.  i would guess the latter.  most managers do not want to waste money on pointless tasks.  an example: i have a friend who went on a humanitarian trip to build small homes for the locals.  he was a construction guy so got there and just started busting them out and when he was 0/0ths done he was talked to by the leader and told to stop being so efficient.  the point of the mission trip was to interact with the locals not to build homes.  building homes was a great byproduct but the purpose of the trip was to get to know the locals and vice versa so that in the future they would trust them and allow them to help even more.  the leader was making him do it slower not because the leader was stupid but because he understand the bigger picture that my friend did not.   #  your job is to do what your boss wants you to do.   #  every employee i have ever had that reads this is now rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that i am an authoritarian boss.  i have my flaws but this is definitely not one of them.  moving on. the boss is there to make sure the work gets done.  they are charged with getting the results needed.  they have the information necessary to get this done.  your job is to do what your boss wants you to do.  whether they are an authoritarian or an easy going or whatever boss in the end what they want more than anything else is for you to make them happy.  hopefully, this means not just doing things but also giving input on how to do things better.   #  working as a dispatcher i had zero room for creativity.   # in my experience this  really  depends on the job.  i work in an office now but in the past i have worked as a dispatcher for campus security at a my college and as a merit badge counselor at boy scout camps.  working at camps i had a lot of freedom to do my job because i was teaching classes all day long.  i had to hit all of the requirements and keep the kids in class the proper length of time, but outside of that i was free to teach as i pleased.  working as a dispatcher i had zero room for creativity.  there were protocols for every conceivable situation including what to do when we did not know what to do.  my job was simply to answer the phone and do whatever the protocol said to do next based on who was calling and what they said.  working in an office i have quite a bit of freedom by there are people with a lot less freedom in how they should go about their jobs.  it really depends on the position.  typically the less education someone has, the less freedom they will have to do a job.  another important factor is working directly under someone else.  i report to the head of my department but i am not anyone is assistant.  assistants are pretty limited because their entire job is to do the dirty work for the people they are assistants to and to do so in a particular manner.  popular culture likes to place a lot of stock in thinking outside the box, but in reality there are a lot of jobs that are done much better by people simply doing exactly as they are told.  i am not saying that thinking outside the box is useless, just that there are certainly situations where it is a lot less important than simply doing what a superior tells you.   #  an obnoxious customer has apparently learned what you have learned, that   the squeaky wheel get is the grease , while the nice customers did not learn this.   #  being rude and obnoxious does not equal being stupid.  an obnoxious customer has apparently learned what you have learned, that   the squeaky wheel get is the grease , while the nice customers did not learn this.  learning about an advantage and using it is generally a sign of intelligence.  this also goes for the employers who get ahead.  if there is a game to be played to get ahead, would not recognising that and then playing said game show intelligence ?
every place i work the people who seem to progress the fastest are not the most inteligent and hardworking, but the most obedient.  the customers who get the most are not the most loyal or the kindest, but the most ignorant and the most obnoxious.  in all of the companies i have worked at 0 now every single one rewarded not ingenuity to solve a problem, not being loyal or working hard, but who could play the game the best.  i know an obvious retort to this is that the people who were the most intelligent or tried the hardest were not doing what they actually needed to do, but they were.  in every retail job i have worked in 0 , the loudest most obnoxious customers got the free upgrades, free replacements and discount, not those we saw week in week out.  i feel like the reason i hold this view is a matter of perspective that maybe i am missing a piece of the puzzle, i still hold my view because everyone i meet agrees with me, so i came here in the hope that one of you can change my view.   #  every place i work the people who seem to progress the fastest are not the most inteligent and hardworking, but the most obedient.   #  that is probably because those jobs are really intellectually easy jobs that do not actually require people to be all that smart.   #  no one gets rewarded for being stupid.  what you really mean is that you do not rewarded for being smart, which i am sure sounds stupid even to you.  that is probably because those jobs are really intellectually easy jobs that do not actually require people to be all that smart.  you do not need to be smart to flip burgers or fill out spreadsheets or be a cashier.  at this point, as long as you are not stupid as fuck or do retarded shit which is partly based on how obedient you are , you are already good to go.  having above average intelligence is irrelevant at this point.  that is because corporate tells managers that they should cave in the wishes of their customers because  the customer is always right.   customers understand this and use that to their advantage, making customer service a living hell.  the obnoxious customers know  exactly  what they are doing, so hardly them being stupid.  how is that them being stupid ? given a system used to evaluate something, the people who come out on top are always those who understand the system and know how to game it, be it grades, sat scores, promotions, etc.  it is what i said earlier.  they are rewarded for being obnoxious because managers and workers by extension are told by corporate to leave their human dignity at the door and do as they say.  i do not think i have ever seen any employees told an irate customer to go fuck themselves and gtfo the store while i have seen even managers get chewed up by dipshit customers and just taking it like a little bitch.   #  there is often a reason it is done my way such as it is been tried another way before or there is something you are not aware of that needs to happen.   # pleasing your boss should never be considered pointless, wrong, or a bad approach.  as a boss i want stuff done the way i want it done.  there is often a reason it is done my way such as it is been tried another way before or there is something you are not aware of that needs to happen.  while it is true there are bosses who simply are unwilling to listen to better ideas they are rare and do not typically last long.  either you have had a really bad string of jobs or you are not understanding the entire situation.  i would guess the latter.  most managers do not want to waste money on pointless tasks.  an example: i have a friend who went on a humanitarian trip to build small homes for the locals.  he was a construction guy so got there and just started busting them out and when he was 0/0ths done he was talked to by the leader and told to stop being so efficient.  the point of the mission trip was to interact with the locals not to build homes.  building homes was a great byproduct but the purpose of the trip was to get to know the locals and vice versa so that in the future they would trust them and allow them to help even more.  the leader was making him do it slower not because the leader was stupid but because he understand the bigger picture that my friend did not.   #  every employee i have ever had that reads this is now rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that i am an authoritarian boss.   #  every employee i have ever had that reads this is now rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that i am an authoritarian boss.  i have my flaws but this is definitely not one of them.  moving on. the boss is there to make sure the work gets done.  they are charged with getting the results needed.  they have the information necessary to get this done.  your job is to do what your boss wants you to do.  whether they are an authoritarian or an easy going or whatever boss in the end what they want more than anything else is for you to make them happy.  hopefully, this means not just doing things but also giving input on how to do things better.   #  it is a tactic for getting the most out of an establishment because it works.   # how does rewarding obedience equate to rewarding stupidity ? so the best way to play the game is to be stupid ? not if they wanted to get ahead, apparently.  being loud and obnoxious does not mean you are stupid.  it is a tactic for getting the most out of an establishment because it works.   #  i work in an office now but in the past i have worked as a dispatcher for campus security at a my college and as a merit badge counselor at boy scout camps.   # in my experience this  really  depends on the job.  i work in an office now but in the past i have worked as a dispatcher for campus security at a my college and as a merit badge counselor at boy scout camps.  working at camps i had a lot of freedom to do my job because i was teaching classes all day long.  i had to hit all of the requirements and keep the kids in class the proper length of time, but outside of that i was free to teach as i pleased.  working as a dispatcher i had zero room for creativity.  there were protocols for every conceivable situation including what to do when we did not know what to do.  my job was simply to answer the phone and do whatever the protocol said to do next based on who was calling and what they said.  working in an office i have quite a bit of freedom by there are people with a lot less freedom in how they should go about their jobs.  it really depends on the position.  typically the less education someone has, the less freedom they will have to do a job.  another important factor is working directly under someone else.  i report to the head of my department but i am not anyone is assistant.  assistants are pretty limited because their entire job is to do the dirty work for the people they are assistants to and to do so in a particular manner.  popular culture likes to place a lot of stock in thinking outside the box, but in reality there are a lot of jobs that are done much better by people simply doing exactly as they are told.  i am not saying that thinking outside the box is useless, just that there are certainly situations where it is a lot less important than simply doing what a superior tells you.
every place i work the people who seem to progress the fastest are not the most inteligent and hardworking, but the most obedient.  the customers who get the most are not the most loyal or the kindest, but the most ignorant and the most obnoxious.  in all of the companies i have worked at 0 now every single one rewarded not ingenuity to solve a problem, not being loyal or working hard, but who could play the game the best.  i know an obvious retort to this is that the people who were the most intelligent or tried the hardest were not doing what they actually needed to do, but they were.  in every retail job i have worked in 0 , the loudest most obnoxious customers got the free upgrades, free replacements and discount, not those we saw week in week out.  i feel like the reason i hold this view is a matter of perspective that maybe i am missing a piece of the puzzle, i still hold my view because everyone i meet agrees with me, so i came here in the hope that one of you can change my view.   #  the customers who get the most are not the most loyal or the kindest, but the most ignorant and the most obnoxious.   #  that is because corporate tells managers that they should cave in the wishes of their customers because  the customer is always right.    #  no one gets rewarded for being stupid.  what you really mean is that you do not rewarded for being smart, which i am sure sounds stupid even to you.  that is probably because those jobs are really intellectually easy jobs that do not actually require people to be all that smart.  you do not need to be smart to flip burgers or fill out spreadsheets or be a cashier.  at this point, as long as you are not stupid as fuck or do retarded shit which is partly based on how obedient you are , you are already good to go.  having above average intelligence is irrelevant at this point.  that is because corporate tells managers that they should cave in the wishes of their customers because  the customer is always right.   customers understand this and use that to their advantage, making customer service a living hell.  the obnoxious customers know  exactly  what they are doing, so hardly them being stupid.  how is that them being stupid ? given a system used to evaluate something, the people who come out on top are always those who understand the system and know how to game it, be it grades, sat scores, promotions, etc.  it is what i said earlier.  they are rewarded for being obnoxious because managers and workers by extension are told by corporate to leave their human dignity at the door and do as they say.  i do not think i have ever seen any employees told an irate customer to go fuck themselves and gtfo the store while i have seen even managers get chewed up by dipshit customers and just taking it like a little bitch.   #  there is often a reason it is done my way such as it is been tried another way before or there is something you are not aware of that needs to happen.   # pleasing your boss should never be considered pointless, wrong, or a bad approach.  as a boss i want stuff done the way i want it done.  there is often a reason it is done my way such as it is been tried another way before or there is something you are not aware of that needs to happen.  while it is true there are bosses who simply are unwilling to listen to better ideas they are rare and do not typically last long.  either you have had a really bad string of jobs or you are not understanding the entire situation.  i would guess the latter.  most managers do not want to waste money on pointless tasks.  an example: i have a friend who went on a humanitarian trip to build small homes for the locals.  he was a construction guy so got there and just started busting them out and when he was 0/0ths done he was talked to by the leader and told to stop being so efficient.  the point of the mission trip was to interact with the locals not to build homes.  building homes was a great byproduct but the purpose of the trip was to get to know the locals and vice versa so that in the future they would trust them and allow them to help even more.  the leader was making him do it slower not because the leader was stupid but because he understand the bigger picture that my friend did not.   #  your job is to do what your boss wants you to do.   #  every employee i have ever had that reads this is now rolling on the floor laughing at the idea that i am an authoritarian boss.  i have my flaws but this is definitely not one of them.  moving on. the boss is there to make sure the work gets done.  they are charged with getting the results needed.  they have the information necessary to get this done.  your job is to do what your boss wants you to do.  whether they are an authoritarian or an easy going or whatever boss in the end what they want more than anything else is for you to make them happy.  hopefully, this means not just doing things but also giving input on how to do things better.   #  how does rewarding obedience equate to rewarding stupidity ?  # how does rewarding obedience equate to rewarding stupidity ? so the best way to play the game is to be stupid ? not if they wanted to get ahead, apparently.  being loud and obnoxious does not mean you are stupid.  it is a tactic for getting the most out of an establishment because it works.   #  working in an office i have quite a bit of freedom by there are people with a lot less freedom in how they should go about their jobs.   # in my experience this  really  depends on the job.  i work in an office now but in the past i have worked as a dispatcher for campus security at a my college and as a merit badge counselor at boy scout camps.  working at camps i had a lot of freedom to do my job because i was teaching classes all day long.  i had to hit all of the requirements and keep the kids in class the proper length of time, but outside of that i was free to teach as i pleased.  working as a dispatcher i had zero room for creativity.  there were protocols for every conceivable situation including what to do when we did not know what to do.  my job was simply to answer the phone and do whatever the protocol said to do next based on who was calling and what they said.  working in an office i have quite a bit of freedom by there are people with a lot less freedom in how they should go about their jobs.  it really depends on the position.  typically the less education someone has, the less freedom they will have to do a job.  another important factor is working directly under someone else.  i report to the head of my department but i am not anyone is assistant.  assistants are pretty limited because their entire job is to do the dirty work for the people they are assistants to and to do so in a particular manner.  popular culture likes to place a lot of stock in thinking outside the box, but in reality there are a lot of jobs that are done much better by people simply doing exactly as they are told.  i am not saying that thinking outside the box is useless, just that there are certainly situations where it is a lot less important than simply doing what a superior tells you.
as far as i understand, one tenet of mainstream feminism is that there is a distinction between sex and gender.  sex is a biological trait.  as far as i know, the defining biological feature of a female is that it produces relatively large gametes sex cells .  the defining feature of a male is that it produces small gametes.  gender, on the other hand, is culturally defined.  the overwhelming majority of human cultures assign certain gender roles to biological males, and other gender roles to biological females.  an example of a  gender  difference might be that men and women in the western world wear different clothes.  an example of a  isex  defference might be that men have deeper voices and tend to be physically stronger.  however, i do not think the gender/sex dichotomy is as clear as some people would have us believe.  if i were to accept the distinction, i would have to agree that any trait could clearly be classified as  biological  or  cultural .  i think this is an overly reductionist point of view, and that in fact most traits will be influenced by both biology and culture.  in fact, i think biology itself influences culture, and culture influences biology.  the two are intertwined, and it is rarely possible to pick one apart from another.  therefore, i conclude that sex and gender are intertwined, and that it is rarely possible to pick one from the other.  as an example of a trait that from my point of view does not clearly fall into one camp or another, let is take competitiveness or agression, as another example .  men tend to be more agressive than women.  it is less obvious that they are more competitive, but i think a case can be made.  i do not think anyone should claim to  know  how either of these traits are determined.  thus, i think the distinction between sex and gender is a false dichotomy.   #  men tend to be more agressive than women.   #  it is less obvious that they are more competitive, but i think a case can be made.   # it is less obvious that they are more competitive, but i think a case can be made.  i do not think anyone should claim to know how either of these traits are determined most studies done find that there is no proof at all that men are  inherently  more aggressive than women but rather than society ingrains aggressiveness as something men need to perform into them, same for competitiveness.  there is no evidence whatsoever that men are inherently more competitive without the influence of society.  and in fact there have been societies where the gender roles were reversed and women were the more aggressive and competitive group.  there are very few differences that can be linked to biology when it comes to sex, some you pointed out: gametes and voice pitch.  but other than those actual biological sexual characteristics, the traits we commonly associate as masculine and feminine are entirely cultural when it comes to pointing out the differences between men and women.  as such it falls into the gender being culturally defined thing.  they are intertwined a bit in that you find people who identify as female all have similar brain structures transwomen have closer brain structure to ciswomen than to cismen and the same goes for those who identify as male.  however, thats as far as evidence supports.  gender is not equivalent to biological chromosomal definitions what you are referring to as biological sex .   #  rather, they perceive gender as the social construction often coupled with a specific biological sex.   #  i do not think people claim sex and gender are completely independent concepts.  rather, they perceive gender as the social construction often coupled with a specific biological sex.  in short, it is the cultural, learned, aspect is of one is biological sex.  the distinction is often based on perceived difference between genders of different cultures.  while males are biologically quite close across the globe, the particular manifestation of genders vary some societies have three greatly.  what i mean is, we look at a set of characteristics and generally remove those that occur across all cultures from our definition of gender.  i think if you could demonstrate that a vast majority of males across all culture present x characteristic, people might tie x more to biological factors.  on the opposite, specific traits y, which is present only in certain cultures and societies, is most probably learned trough socialization and part of gender.   #  do you mean to suggest that the biological traits we associate with  male  or  female  must influence gendered patterns of social behavior e. g.   # even if sex is not binary, it is very, very polarised.  i am not sure i follow your point here now.  do you mean to suggest that the biological traits we associate with  male  or  female  must influence gendered patterns of social behavior e. g.  testicles tend to mean more testoterone, which tends to encourage aggressive behavior ? fine, but this is totally unrelated to the view you have asked us to change.  many feminists would oppose this statement on precisely the same grounds as what you have been saying: you cannot make a clear distinction between the inately biological and non inate social determinnants of human behavior.  your op is about  the distinction between sex as a biological phenomenon and gender as a social construct.   the only part of your view i am trying to change is your assumption that anyone is actually saying that.  can you give a clear example of someone who is ?  #  but i do not think i can accept the existence of one culture where a situation is reversed as proof that something is  entirely cultural .   # that is a big assertion to make, and if you are going to make a claim like that i think the burden of proof falls on you.  as to how one would decide if something is  entirely cultural  or not, i do not have a good answer.  but i do not think i can accept the existence of one culture where a situation is reversed as proof that something is  entirely cultural .  i am also quite hesitant to accept the neuroscience at face value without reading the paper.  i have worked with some neuroscientists, and they would agree that some work in the field is quite unreliable.  i think there was a case recently where someone put a dead salmon in an mri machine and recurded human like brain activity.   #  i mean, for one thing, we devised the term  erosion  and the term  glaciers  in order to designate two conceptually separate phenomena.   #  just because it can be difficult, empirically/observationally, to disentangle the effects of two forces shaping the same outcome does not mean those forces are indistinct from one another.  scientists may never know with certainty whether erosion or glaciers shaped a certain cliff in a certain way, but would never be retarded enough to say:  i reject the distinction between erosion and glaciers. i think the distinction between erosion and glaciers is a false dichotomy.   why ? because we have evidence that erosion and glaciers are two different things.  i mean, for one thing, we devised the term  erosion  and the term  glaciers  in order to designate two conceptually separate phenomena.  also, we have seen erosion operate independently of glaciers, and vice versa.  we have also seen culture shape male/female roles in ways wholly independent of genetics.  how do we know the effects are wholly independent ? because even if you take two populations of people with identical genes, those populations if culturally distinct can have distinct sex roles.  one obvious example would be native vs.  diaspora populations of developing countries.  even within a single generation, male/female roles can change drastically when people move from, say, africa to the usa.  similarly, there is no evidence that china is mosuo tribe URL is genetically distinct from other surrounding tribes yet the sex roles they practice are very different from what you would see in the rest of china or tibet.  the fact that it can be difficult to discern whether a given trait is shaped by 0 heredity, 0 environment vs.  0 heredity, 0 environment provides no logical justification whatsoever for conflating heredity and environment as indistinct.  if you would prefer to hold a view that is logically justifiable, you should change yours.
i believe this for two primary reasons: 0.  if a small percentage of people are turning out to the polls, it means the majority of the electorate are complacent and satisfied with the status quo, therefore meaning the current government is doing at least a good enough job to make the citizens complacent.  it is when citizens are upset with the current government that they swarm the polling stations and actually care about voting.  0.  if someone is uninformed, i would much rather they not vote than make an uninformed vote.  i think a large proportion of the electorate is uninformed i am from canada and does not bother to take the time to learn about each party and their candidates.  therefore i would rather uninformed people not vote, thereby reducing voter turnout, which as i stated earlier, i think is a good thing.   #  if a small percentage of people are turning out to the polls, it means the majority of the electorate are complacent and satisfied with the status quo, therefore meaning the current government is doing at least a good enough job to make the citizens complacent.   #  it is when citizens are upset with the current government that they swarm the polling stations and actually care about voting.   #  i would like to deal with your first point.  it is when citizens are upset with the current government that they swarm the polling stations and actually care about voting.  one situation where a lot of people may not vote is when the government is doing well and they are fine with the status quo.  another is when there are no appealing options to vote for.  in the united states the two entrenched parties are constantly bickering, getting almost nothing done, and making almost no effort to represent the people.  many people say,  why should i vote ?  .  in that situation, low voter turnout indicates that there is an issue with the system at large.  also if your logic follows that small voting numbers mean that most people are alright with the status quo, could not a small percentage of people alter that status quo ? low voter turnout is hardly good in this situation because it means that the citizens could be put in a compromising position by those who do vote.   #  if one wishes to achieve a representative government of the people then this clearly would be a problem.   #  low turnout signals a lack of political participation amongst the population.  if one wishes to achieve a representative government of the people then this clearly would be a problem.  lack of participation may, as you pointed out, be a sign of complacency and support for the status quo.  it may also show that the political process is no longer supported by the vast majority of people.  if people feel their vote and opinions matter in government why would they take the time to vote ?  #  secondly, it is not about low turnout in the primaries it is about the election being part of a subset.   # first off, your extreme bias is leaking.  this happens in primaries in general not just republican primaries.  please do not make this into a republicans bad, democrats good thing.  secondly, it is not about low turnout in the primaries it is about the election being part of a subset.  i would guess that primaries actually have a higher turnout of active party members than geneals do of registered voters.  if not higher then definitely not less.  primaries cater more towards special interest groups, as you call them, because the groups are bigger among those voters.  for example, tea party voters make a small portion of the general electorate but a large portion of the republican primary.  so promoting ties with the tea party will win you a lot higher percentage of the vote in a republican primary than in a general election.   #  to me, this third reason shows that low voter turnout is not a good thing, and that electoral reform is really in order to ensure that people feel their voice is being heard in the electoral process.   #  i think there is third possible reason for low voter turn out, which is definitely not a good thing.  if people feel like their vote does not count, then they are not likely to go out and make the effort to vote.  i am from america, and our two party system has become so polarized that there is rarely a candidate from one of the major parties that i agree with and would want representing me.  however, these two political parties completely dominate the political system at both the national and state levels. even if i vote for a third party candidate that represents my ideals more closely, the odds of them actually winning the election are next to none.  people may also feel like their vote does not count if they live in an area where their political opinion is different from the majority of other people in that area.  as a republican living in a blue democrat state, i feel it is hardly worth my time to vote because i know my one republican vote does not mean much in a huge pool of democrat votes.  to me, this third reason shows that low voter turnout is not a good thing, and that electoral reform is really in order to ensure that people feel their voice is being heard in the electoral process.   #  having strong opinions are not the same as being informed and actually often lead to the opposite because of confirmation bias and simply ignoring anything that does not fit your opinion.   #  0 that is not how people work.  they tend to participate more in things where they are happy with it and drop out in things where they are not happy.  i would say that low turnout tends to mean people simply are not excited about any candidate.  0 a few minutes on /r/politics, a fox news comments section, or change. org forum will quickly disprove that people who are active in politics are informed.  having strong opinions are not the same as being informed and actually often lead to the opposite because of confirmation bias and simply ignoring anything that does not fit your opinion.  in the end, i can accept that low turnout is not a horrible thing but not that it is good.  elections are supposed to be about choices.  if people do not think either choice is superior or inferior then there is a problem with the current situation.  people should think one candidate is far better than the other.  if they do not it means more of the same which is not a good thing.  unless you think people in a community mostly agree with everything.  and if you think that then you probably need to get out more.  :
i believe this for two primary reasons: 0.  if a small percentage of people are turning out to the polls, it means the majority of the electorate are complacent and satisfied with the status quo, therefore meaning the current government is doing at least a good enough job to make the citizens complacent.  it is when citizens are upset with the current government that they swarm the polling stations and actually care about voting.  0.  if someone is uninformed, i would much rather they not vote than make an uninformed vote.  i think a large proportion of the electorate is uninformed i am from canada and does not bother to take the time to learn about each party and their candidates.  therefore i would rather uninformed people not vote, thereby reducing voter turnout, which as i stated earlier, i think is a good thing.   #  if a small percentage of people are turning out to the polls, it means the majority of the electorate are complacent and satisfied with the status quo, therefore meaning the current government is doing at least a good enough job to make the citizens complacent.   #  it is when citizens are upset with the current government that they swarm the polling stations and actually care about voting.   # it is when citizens are upset with the current government that they swarm the polling stations and actually care about voting.  if that was true, i can follow your logic as follows: government does good job   citizens are satisfied   do not show up voting   only a minority upset with the government actually votes   the government that does a good job loses the election.  that would be very counterproductive.  people should be encouraged to go voting even if they are happy with the stays quo, they can just vote the governing party.  i think a large proportion of the electorate is uninformed i am from canada and does not bother to take the time to learn about each party and their candidates.  therefore i would rather uninformed people not vote, thereby reducing voter turnout, which as i stated earlier, i think is a good thing.  this is more interesting, but i think there should be a pressure of society to get informed and go voting, because having a low voter turnout makes the elections less representative of what the population really want.  one important aspect is that those who do not vote are generally either satisfied or moderate, and if they do not go voting the extreme positions will be strengthened, because those with extreme standpoints will likely show up at every election to push their agenda.  all of these factors weaken a countries democracy in general and may lead to bad choices of policy.   #  in that situation, low voter turnout indicates that there is an issue with the system at large.   #  i would like to deal with your first point.  it is when citizens are upset with the current government that they swarm the polling stations and actually care about voting.  one situation where a lot of people may not vote is when the government is doing well and they are fine with the status quo.  another is when there are no appealing options to vote for.  in the united states the two entrenched parties are constantly bickering, getting almost nothing done, and making almost no effort to represent the people.  many people say,  why should i vote ?  .  in that situation, low voter turnout indicates that there is an issue with the system at large.  also if your logic follows that small voting numbers mean that most people are alright with the status quo, could not a small percentage of people alter that status quo ? low voter turnout is hardly good in this situation because it means that the citizens could be put in a compromising position by those who do vote.   #  low turnout signals a lack of political participation amongst the population.   #  low turnout signals a lack of political participation amongst the population.  if one wishes to achieve a representative government of the people then this clearly would be a problem.  lack of participation may, as you pointed out, be a sign of complacency and support for the status quo.  it may also show that the political process is no longer supported by the vast majority of people.  if people feel their vote and opinions matter in government why would they take the time to vote ?  #  for example, tea party voters make a small portion of the general electorate but a large portion of the republican primary.   # first off, your extreme bias is leaking.  this happens in primaries in general not just republican primaries.  please do not make this into a republicans bad, democrats good thing.  secondly, it is not about low turnout in the primaries it is about the election being part of a subset.  i would guess that primaries actually have a higher turnout of active party members than geneals do of registered voters.  if not higher then definitely not less.  primaries cater more towards special interest groups, as you call them, because the groups are bigger among those voters.  for example, tea party voters make a small portion of the general electorate but a large portion of the republican primary.  so promoting ties with the tea party will win you a lot higher percentage of the vote in a republican primary than in a general election.   #  if people feel like their vote does not count, then they are not likely to go out and make the effort to vote.   #  i think there is third possible reason for low voter turn out, which is definitely not a good thing.  if people feel like their vote does not count, then they are not likely to go out and make the effort to vote.  i am from america, and our two party system has become so polarized that there is rarely a candidate from one of the major parties that i agree with and would want representing me.  however, these two political parties completely dominate the political system at both the national and state levels. even if i vote for a third party candidate that represents my ideals more closely, the odds of them actually winning the election are next to none.  people may also feel like their vote does not count if they live in an area where their political opinion is different from the majority of other people in that area.  as a republican living in a blue democrat state, i feel it is hardly worth my time to vote because i know my one republican vote does not mean much in a huge pool of democrat votes.  to me, this third reason shows that low voter turnout is not a good thing, and that electoral reform is really in order to ensure that people feel their voice is being heard in the electoral process.
i believe this for two primary reasons: 0.  if a small percentage of people are turning out to the polls, it means the majority of the electorate are complacent and satisfied with the status quo, therefore meaning the current government is doing at least a good enough job to make the citizens complacent.  it is when citizens are upset with the current government that they swarm the polling stations and actually care about voting.  0.  if someone is uninformed, i would much rather they not vote than make an uninformed vote.  i think a large proportion of the electorate is uninformed i am from canada and does not bother to take the time to learn about each party and their candidates.  therefore i would rather uninformed people not vote, thereby reducing voter turnout, which as i stated earlier, i think is a good thing.   #  if someone is uninformed, i would much rather they not vote than make an uninformed vote.   #  i think a large proportion of the electorate is uninformed i am from canada and does not bother to take the time to learn about each party and their candidates.   # it is when citizens are upset with the current government that they swarm the polling stations and actually care about voting.  if that was true, i can follow your logic as follows: government does good job   citizens are satisfied   do not show up voting   only a minority upset with the government actually votes   the government that does a good job loses the election.  that would be very counterproductive.  people should be encouraged to go voting even if they are happy with the stays quo, they can just vote the governing party.  i think a large proportion of the electorate is uninformed i am from canada and does not bother to take the time to learn about each party and their candidates.  therefore i would rather uninformed people not vote, thereby reducing voter turnout, which as i stated earlier, i think is a good thing.  this is more interesting, but i think there should be a pressure of society to get informed and go voting, because having a low voter turnout makes the elections less representative of what the population really want.  one important aspect is that those who do not vote are generally either satisfied or moderate, and if they do not go voting the extreme positions will be strengthened, because those with extreme standpoints will likely show up at every election to push their agenda.  all of these factors weaken a countries democracy in general and may lead to bad choices of policy.   #  i would like to deal with your first point.   #  i would like to deal with your first point.  it is when citizens are upset with the current government that they swarm the polling stations and actually care about voting.  one situation where a lot of people may not vote is when the government is doing well and they are fine with the status quo.  another is when there are no appealing options to vote for.  in the united states the two entrenched parties are constantly bickering, getting almost nothing done, and making almost no effort to represent the people.  many people say,  why should i vote ?  .  in that situation, low voter turnout indicates that there is an issue with the system at large.  also if your logic follows that small voting numbers mean that most people are alright with the status quo, could not a small percentage of people alter that status quo ? low voter turnout is hardly good in this situation because it means that the citizens could be put in a compromising position by those who do vote.   #  if people feel their vote and opinions matter in government why would they take the time to vote ?  #  low turnout signals a lack of political participation amongst the population.  if one wishes to achieve a representative government of the people then this clearly would be a problem.  lack of participation may, as you pointed out, be a sign of complacency and support for the status quo.  it may also show that the political process is no longer supported by the vast majority of people.  if people feel their vote and opinions matter in government why would they take the time to vote ?  #  secondly, it is not about low turnout in the primaries it is about the election being part of a subset.   # first off, your extreme bias is leaking.  this happens in primaries in general not just republican primaries.  please do not make this into a republicans bad, democrats good thing.  secondly, it is not about low turnout in the primaries it is about the election being part of a subset.  i would guess that primaries actually have a higher turnout of active party members than geneals do of registered voters.  if not higher then definitely not less.  primaries cater more towards special interest groups, as you call them, because the groups are bigger among those voters.  for example, tea party voters make a small portion of the general electorate but a large portion of the republican primary.  so promoting ties with the tea party will win you a lot higher percentage of the vote in a republican primary than in a general election.   #  i am from america, and our two party system has become so polarized that there is rarely a candidate from one of the major parties that i agree with and would want representing me.   #  i think there is third possible reason for low voter turn out, which is definitely not a good thing.  if people feel like their vote does not count, then they are not likely to go out and make the effort to vote.  i am from america, and our two party system has become so polarized that there is rarely a candidate from one of the major parties that i agree with and would want representing me.  however, these two political parties completely dominate the political system at both the national and state levels. even if i vote for a third party candidate that represents my ideals more closely, the odds of them actually winning the election are next to none.  people may also feel like their vote does not count if they live in an area where their political opinion is different from the majority of other people in that area.  as a republican living in a blue democrat state, i feel it is hardly worth my time to vote because i know my one republican vote does not mean much in a huge pool of democrat votes.  to me, this third reason shows that low voter turnout is not a good thing, and that electoral reform is really in order to ensure that people feel their voice is being heard in the electoral process.
this URL basically sums up my statement.  i feel as though schools hand out too many a grades, and that grade inflation is one of the largest problems with our us education system.  students are coddled and are not prepared for when grades do not exist and their jobs are at stake.  i am a firm believer in not being a helicopter parent, and i believe that the amount of reward for work done in classrooms today is too high.  a longer search on the web might help further my point, but above is what i have found in a short bit of looking.   #  students are coddled and are not prepared for when grades do not exist and their jobs are at stake.   #  are not grades essentially evaluations of performance ?  # are not grades essentially evaluations of performance ? those exist in pretty much every workplace.  of course, a student who receives a grade that indicates greater performance than they actually have will certainly be devastated when a different evaluation gives a more accurate and harsher feedback.  however, is that what is happening here ? we know the percentage of a is has recently risen.  why ? perhaps teachers or districts have provided easier curriculum and homework.  or perhaps educators have improved curriculum with their increased understanding of learning techniques, causing students to just perform better.  until we understand why, we ca not assuredly claim that too many a grade students are unworthy of their evaluations.  there is certainly much, much worse issues.   #  plus what if someone decides they no long want to work in a certain field, then it does not matter what letter they got in another major if they switch what they do completely.   #  what if someone gets a job that does not directly correlate with their major, then does it really matter what letter grade they received in school ? it is going to be really hard maybe impossible to prepare every student for a specific job.  you are not going to find a class in high school or college on how to perfectly paper wrap a mcdonalds burger.  plus what if someone decides they no long want to work in a certain field, then it does not matter what letter they got in another major if they switch what they do completely.  i believe that somethings the real world not classes have to teach you, such a the scrutiny of certain jobs.  also i completely disagree with this argument because of the competitiveness of getting into college.  to look completive when applying to college starting from universities to ivy leagues a large number of aps advanced placement classes should be taken.  this said aps and some honors classes are graded on an ap scale which is created by the college board intended to show completely mastery in a certain class.  therefore making the class one which students have to actually apply themselves in.   #  let is say you are in a math class say calculus 0 .   #  let is say you are in a math class say calculus 0 .  there are 0 students in a class who take a midterm exam which has 0 multiple choice math problems.  of these: 0 get scores in 0 0 range, 0 get scores in 0 0 range, 0 in 0 0 and 0 in 0 0.  grades like these are not impossible in harvard which is ultra competitive.  additionally, these grades are objective there is little rule for subjectivity in math .  should all top 0 students get a ? and if not, are you really willing to say that kids who got 0 should get an a, but kids who got 0 should get a b merely because  there are too many as  ?  #  like let is say you want to be a chef.   #  just because they are not pushing their boundaries does not mean they do not deserve an a.  some classes are just filled with people good at them.  like let is say you want to be a chef.  you are at cooking school.  your next lesson is how to make bread.  everyone in the class makes bread well and it is a useful skill because many restaurants serve bread.  should we tell them to make bread upside down to make them work harder, even though they have all the skills they need ? by the way, i realize the example it not very realistic but it proves my point  #  the  traditional  where the most average student of the class receives a grade of c is one that i do not care for.   #  there are two schools of thought on the matter.  the  traditional  where the most average student of the class receives a grade of c is one that i do not care for.  i say this because the median grade fluctuates based upon the quality of students from class to class, it is unstable.  the  newer  form is the one you do not seem to care for.  in it, the students are graded based on rough compression of the subject matter, by the professor.  i prefer this method as the teacher is the most aware of the subject matter presented, expected to be known, and the understanding of subject matter by the students.  because the teacher is a constant from class to class, the grades are stabilized from year to year.
i am hitting godwins law right away with this one.  in terms of people, estimates put populations of native americans between 0 0 million pre colonization.  today, there are only 0 million.  in terms of land, native american controlled lands today are 0 of us soil.  these alone are evidences of a genocide or extermination on a massive scale.  and yet, andrew jackson is still held in high repute, despite the atrocities of indian removal, which included forcing them walk hundreds of miles, many of them dying in the process, only to steal their land for white settlers.  the number of broken native american treaties would be a ridiculously comical number to try to discover.  i feel that the culture has not adaquately redressed this issue.  we barely think or are influenced by native american culture at all in our daily lives.  the us is an example of a place where you  can  wipe out a culture succesfully, and life continues on without anyone feeling too miffed about it.  the people are gone, their land is gone, and their culture has almost no influence in our daily lives.  my view will be changed if you can provide examples where we as a culture, in certain forums, redress and glorify our native american heritage, and admit the atrocities of men like andrew jackson, instead of praising their  pioneering spirit .  URL  #  the people are gone, their land is gone, and their culture has almost no influence in our daily lives.   #  your assertion that native american culture does not influence our lives speaks of a profound isolation from native culture or a lack of understanding of our history.   # your assertion that native american culture does not influence our lives speaks of a profound isolation from native culture or a lack of understanding of our history.  it may very well be that you have a gap in knowledge related to your educational background, and i ca not speak for the educational establishment of the us as a whole, but native american culture continues to have a rich influence on modern life.  firstly, native american food culture has an incredible influence on our own.  corn is far and away america is largest staple crop, and all parts of it are used in our manufacturing, food, and almost every other industry.  this is much the same as native american utilization of the crop, and corn as we know it today ears with kernels was directly developed by native american cultures.  and a huge number of our foods are influenced by native american preparations.  beef jerky, barbeque, gumbo, tamales, stuffed peppers, bean soups, and a great many squash preparations were all directly developed from native american cooking.  furthermore, native american settlements are popular tourist attractions in several states, especially around areas where the pueblo and related peoples settled.  this is akin to the popularity of the roman baths or stonehenge in england: landmarks created by a culture no longer dominant but still admired.  on a more negative note, you could argue that much of the entire  white man is guilt  genre of plots stems from white settlers  destruction of native american culture.  you know the ones i am talking about: dances with wolves, pocahontas, etc.  not only are there very well known pieces of modern art that address issues of native american culture, but also they often stem from the discomfort that many people feel when they think about what was done to the native populations of the americas.  for what it is worth, some native americans, myself included, try to avoid feelings of bitterness.  we accept that we were conquered and shit on, but we also realize that resentment and false dichotomies like you want your view changed about do not help improve mother earth or humanity as a whole.  the goal has to be to educate and understand rather than demand some definitive redress.  a lot of us draw some parallels with jewish culture because we face many of the same challenges, despite being totally different cultures.  a lot of our modern history has included marginalization and outright genocide, but we are still alive, we are still here, and we can still celebrate our heritage.   #  lets talk about reservations, which were the crappiest pieces of land and restrained nomadic people to a specific area.   #  i am going to have to say what the government did to the native americans does amount to genocide.  here is the un is definition of genocide:   killing members of the group   causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group   deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group the whole group or even part of the group   forcefully transferring children of the group to another group so, killing members of the group is an obvious one.  this happened all over the country, and obviously things like disease were huge.  this happened from colonization to relatively recently in the 0s and 0s.  there were bounties placed on heads of the native people to encourage killing them.  this happened over a long period of time and was systematic.  deliberately inflicting conditions to destroy the group ? lets talk about reservations, which were the crappiest pieces of land and restrained nomadic people to a specific area.  how was food supposed to grow ? expecting nomadic hunters to farm ? and when the land was found to be not shitty ? the government/americans took it.  when custer rounded through the black hills, sd and found gold ? they ignored the treaty that explicitly states that it was tribal land.  it is still an issue in indian country today.  the reservations are often times pretty isolated from traditionally close tribes, i mean look at the different lakota reservations in south dakota.  the split the tribe up to weaken them.  the tribes were also isolated and given subpar and expired food for sustenance.  another issue that fits into this definition is the forced sterilization of american indian women.  that is a pretty clear effort to destroy a group.  not having babies means they cant propagate and continue existing as a people.  oh and forcefully transferring children ? this has to be one of the most obvious ones for anyone who has studied american history.  the entire boarding school movement was based on the saying,  kill the indian, save the man .  the children were taken from their families, forced to cut their hair and dress as white americans did, and beaten if they spoke their native language.  this problem did not entirely go away in modern times either.  children from native populations were usually adopted out to white families well outside their community which usually cut ties to the child is heritage.  there was a piece of legislation passed in 0 called the indian child welfare act icwa to promote the adoption and fostering of native children in native communities.  in south dakota there is controversy over the number of violations of this law because icwa is being bypassed often.  this did not occur over a short period of time like the holocaust did.  this happened over many, many years but the policies and actions of the government clearly fit the definition of genocide as proposed by the united nations.  there are many other incidents that occurred that fit this definition, but i am already writing a wall of text.  there is one documentary that comes to mind about this subject which is  the canary effect , its an interesting watch.   #  but that is a whole other discussion for a different time.   #  it was forced assimilation, it was killing culture and connection to their people.  if that is not a step to destroy a race/culture of people i do not know what is.  i know a few people who went through the boarding schools, my lakota language professor being one.  i could not imagine being there and retaining my sense of self.  there is also a concept related to this called cultural ptsd which is a trauma resulting from this history of systemic abuse.  but that is a whole other discussion for a different time.   #  it is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.   #  but genocide is more than just killing people, that is a very simplistic view of a systemic elimination of a group of people people are strongly tied to a culture for identity .  here is a quote about what else is entailed:   generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.  it is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.  the objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.   it involves yes, obviously killing people, but also dismantling their culture, way of life, language, etc as an attempt to force assimilation.  it is an attempt to destroy a ethnic group.  stop them from having kids, kill a lot of them, force them away from their homelands, separate members of the group, force them to assimilate, and next thing you know the group wont exist anymore.   #  murder requires mens rea criminal intent and some degree of actual accomplishment.   #  the literal definition of genocide is  murder of a people.   murder requires mens rea criminal intent and some degree of actual accomplishment.  there is a reason why history has words like  massacre  to describe wounded knee and other atrocities, or  battle,  or  war,  or even  indian removal.   these events point to a pattern of american brutality, ethnic cleansing, disrespect and treaty breaking, all of which are distinct from genocide.  for you to claim  genocide is genocide  you need to demonstrate that there was an intentional, concerted effort on the part of one or many american leaders to  exterminate  the entire population of native americans, not just remove them, take their land, etc.  that is a tall order with no historical evidence, especially since, as it has been said, the vast majority of extermination that happened was the cause of microbes with no criminal culpability.  that said, america the country has much apologizing to do for its indian policies all the way up through the present day.  i would argue that the reservation system itself is a form of economic and political strangulation.  but that is a discussion for another time.
i am hitting godwins law right away with this one.  in terms of people, estimates put populations of native americans between 0 0 million pre colonization.  today, there are only 0 million.  in terms of land, native american controlled lands today are 0 of us soil.  these alone are evidences of a genocide or extermination on a massive scale.  and yet, andrew jackson is still held in high repute, despite the atrocities of indian removal, which included forcing them walk hundreds of miles, many of them dying in the process, only to steal their land for white settlers.  the number of broken native american treaties would be a ridiculously comical number to try to discover.  i feel that the culture has not adaquately redressed this issue.  we barely think or are influenced by native american culture at all in our daily lives.  the us is an example of a place where you  can  wipe out a culture succesfully, and life continues on without anyone feeling too miffed about it.  the people are gone, their land is gone, and their culture has almost no influence in our daily lives.  my view will be changed if you can provide examples where we as a culture, in certain forums, redress and glorify our native american heritage, and admit the atrocities of men like andrew jackson, instead of praising their  pioneering spirit .  URL  #  my view will be changed if you can provide examples where we as a culture, in certain forums, redress and glorify our native american heritage, and admit the atrocities of men like andrew jackson, instead of praising their  pioneering spirit .   #  it does not seem you wa not your view changed.   # it does not seem you wa not your view changed.  it seems that you more or less want it justified.  but i will try anyways.  you mention loss of land, loss of life, and modern day native populations as evidence of genocide, when in fact they are all the exact opposite of that.  they were treated horribly, betrayed and killed and every other thing you can think of, but if the plan had been to kill all the natives, believe me when i say there would not be 0 million alive today.  sorry pal, but that is the whole world for the entirety of human history.  colonization of north america was just an invasion in slow motion.  some tribes and peoples recognized this and others did not, i do not know how much they could have actually done about anything in the long run but here we are.  in essence north america was conquered, and the natives were defeated.  the conquerors owe nothing to the conquered, period, any concession or comfort they receive is far above and beyond what must be done which is in fact nothing at all.  there are international rules and laws currently in place to prevent things like this happening now, that is about as good as it gets.  native american culture survives to this day, children learn about in school, they observe native american heritage month in november, many states/counties/cities are proud of their connection to native peoples.  there are lists of lists of people/cultures URL that not longer exist for one reason or another.  and i think it is safe to assume that most people have never heard of most of them, their people, culture, none of it.  human rights extending to people who have something that you want, or who are your enemy, is a fairly recent concept.  we have come so very far in such a very short time.  dwelling on the past, and attempting to hold people accountable for the wrongdoings of the long dead will accomplish nothing.   #  in south dakota there is controversy over the number of violations of this law because icwa is being bypassed often.   #  i am going to have to say what the government did to the native americans does amount to genocide.  here is the un is definition of genocide:   killing members of the group   causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group   deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group the whole group or even part of the group   forcefully transferring children of the group to another group so, killing members of the group is an obvious one.  this happened all over the country, and obviously things like disease were huge.  this happened from colonization to relatively recently in the 0s and 0s.  there were bounties placed on heads of the native people to encourage killing them.  this happened over a long period of time and was systematic.  deliberately inflicting conditions to destroy the group ? lets talk about reservations, which were the crappiest pieces of land and restrained nomadic people to a specific area.  how was food supposed to grow ? expecting nomadic hunters to farm ? and when the land was found to be not shitty ? the government/americans took it.  when custer rounded through the black hills, sd and found gold ? they ignored the treaty that explicitly states that it was tribal land.  it is still an issue in indian country today.  the reservations are often times pretty isolated from traditionally close tribes, i mean look at the different lakota reservations in south dakota.  the split the tribe up to weaken them.  the tribes were also isolated and given subpar and expired food for sustenance.  another issue that fits into this definition is the forced sterilization of american indian women.  that is a pretty clear effort to destroy a group.  not having babies means they cant propagate and continue existing as a people.  oh and forcefully transferring children ? this has to be one of the most obvious ones for anyone who has studied american history.  the entire boarding school movement was based on the saying,  kill the indian, save the man .  the children were taken from their families, forced to cut their hair and dress as white americans did, and beaten if they spoke their native language.  this problem did not entirely go away in modern times either.  children from native populations were usually adopted out to white families well outside their community which usually cut ties to the child is heritage.  there was a piece of legislation passed in 0 called the indian child welfare act icwa to promote the adoption and fostering of native children in native communities.  in south dakota there is controversy over the number of violations of this law because icwa is being bypassed often.  this did not occur over a short period of time like the holocaust did.  this happened over many, many years but the policies and actions of the government clearly fit the definition of genocide as proposed by the united nations.  there are many other incidents that occurred that fit this definition, but i am already writing a wall of text.  there is one documentary that comes to mind about this subject which is  the canary effect , its an interesting watch.   #  it was forced assimilation, it was killing culture and connection to their people.   #  it was forced assimilation, it was killing culture and connection to their people.  if that is not a step to destroy a race/culture of people i do not know what is.  i know a few people who went through the boarding schools, my lakota language professor being one.  i could not imagine being there and retaining my sense of self.  there is also a concept related to this called cultural ptsd which is a trauma resulting from this history of systemic abuse.  but that is a whole other discussion for a different time.   #  it involves yes, obviously killing people, but also dismantling their culture, way of life, language, etc as an attempt to force assimilation.   #  but genocide is more than just killing people, that is a very simplistic view of a systemic elimination of a group of people people are strongly tied to a culture for identity .  here is a quote about what else is entailed:   generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.  it is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.  the objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.   it involves yes, obviously killing people, but also dismantling their culture, way of life, language, etc as an attempt to force assimilation.  it is an attempt to destroy a ethnic group.  stop them from having kids, kill a lot of them, force them away from their homelands, separate members of the group, force them to assimilate, and next thing you know the group wont exist anymore.   #  that is a tall order with no historical evidence, especially since, as it has been said, the vast majority of extermination that happened was the cause of microbes with no criminal culpability.   #  the literal definition of genocide is  murder of a people.   murder requires mens rea criminal intent and some degree of actual accomplishment.  there is a reason why history has words like  massacre  to describe wounded knee and other atrocities, or  battle,  or  war,  or even  indian removal.   these events point to a pattern of american brutality, ethnic cleansing, disrespect and treaty breaking, all of which are distinct from genocide.  for you to claim  genocide is genocide  you need to demonstrate that there was an intentional, concerted effort on the part of one or many american leaders to  exterminate  the entire population of native americans, not just remove them, take their land, etc.  that is a tall order with no historical evidence, especially since, as it has been said, the vast majority of extermination that happened was the cause of microbes with no criminal culpability.  that said, america the country has much apologizing to do for its indian policies all the way up through the present day.  i would argue that the reservation system itself is a form of economic and political strangulation.  but that is a discussion for another time.
i am hitting godwins law right away with this one.  in terms of people, estimates put populations of native americans between 0 0 million pre colonization.  today, there are only 0 million.  in terms of land, native american controlled lands today are 0 of us soil.  these alone are evidences of a genocide or extermination on a massive scale.  and yet, andrew jackson is still held in high repute, despite the atrocities of indian removal, which included forcing them walk hundreds of miles, many of them dying in the process, only to steal their land for white settlers.  the number of broken native american treaties would be a ridiculously comical number to try to discover.  i feel that the culture has not adaquately redressed this issue.  we barely think or are influenced by native american culture at all in our daily lives.  the us is an example of a place where you  can  wipe out a culture succesfully, and life continues on without anyone feeling too miffed about it.  the people are gone, their land is gone, and their culture has almost no influence in our daily lives.  my view will be changed if you can provide examples where we as a culture, in certain forums, redress and glorify our native american heritage, and admit the atrocities of men like andrew jackson, instead of praising their  pioneering spirit .  URL  #  i feel that the culture has not adaquately redressed this issue.   #  we barely think or are influenced by native american culture at all in our daily lives.   # we barely think or are influenced by native american culture at all in our daily lives.  the us is an example of a place where you can wipe out a culture succesfully, and life continues on without anyone feeling too miffed about it.  the people are gone, their land is gone, and their culture has almost no influence in our daily lives.  by your own admission, the native americans were not completely wiped out as there are 0 million left alive today.  as far as i am concerned, the colonization of america had very little to do with genocide, but with war over land, something that is not unique to the us at all.  if you really want to shame the country for what it did to get land, then you should at least be consistent and point the finger at other nations that acquired land in the same way.  chances are, they are not to  miffed about it  either and they shouldnt be.  a nation can only stand as long as it can defend itself from invaders, that is their responsibility.  it was the fault of the natives for allowing the colonist population to get so high that caused them to lose their land.  if they had asserted their rights to land from the get go and booted off the first colonist they saw, this never would have occurred.   #  this problem did not entirely go away in modern times either.   #  i am going to have to say what the government did to the native americans does amount to genocide.  here is the un is definition of genocide:   killing members of the group   causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group   deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group the whole group or even part of the group   forcefully transferring children of the group to another group so, killing members of the group is an obvious one.  this happened all over the country, and obviously things like disease were huge.  this happened from colonization to relatively recently in the 0s and 0s.  there were bounties placed on heads of the native people to encourage killing them.  this happened over a long period of time and was systematic.  deliberately inflicting conditions to destroy the group ? lets talk about reservations, which were the crappiest pieces of land and restrained nomadic people to a specific area.  how was food supposed to grow ? expecting nomadic hunters to farm ? and when the land was found to be not shitty ? the government/americans took it.  when custer rounded through the black hills, sd and found gold ? they ignored the treaty that explicitly states that it was tribal land.  it is still an issue in indian country today.  the reservations are often times pretty isolated from traditionally close tribes, i mean look at the different lakota reservations in south dakota.  the split the tribe up to weaken them.  the tribes were also isolated and given subpar and expired food for sustenance.  another issue that fits into this definition is the forced sterilization of american indian women.  that is a pretty clear effort to destroy a group.  not having babies means they cant propagate and continue existing as a people.  oh and forcefully transferring children ? this has to be one of the most obvious ones for anyone who has studied american history.  the entire boarding school movement was based on the saying,  kill the indian, save the man .  the children were taken from their families, forced to cut their hair and dress as white americans did, and beaten if they spoke their native language.  this problem did not entirely go away in modern times either.  children from native populations were usually adopted out to white families well outside their community which usually cut ties to the child is heritage.  there was a piece of legislation passed in 0 called the indian child welfare act icwa to promote the adoption and fostering of native children in native communities.  in south dakota there is controversy over the number of violations of this law because icwa is being bypassed often.  this did not occur over a short period of time like the holocaust did.  this happened over many, many years but the policies and actions of the government clearly fit the definition of genocide as proposed by the united nations.  there are many other incidents that occurred that fit this definition, but i am already writing a wall of text.  there is one documentary that comes to mind about this subject which is  the canary effect , its an interesting watch.   #  there is also a concept related to this called cultural ptsd which is a trauma resulting from this history of systemic abuse.   #  it was forced assimilation, it was killing culture and connection to their people.  if that is not a step to destroy a race/culture of people i do not know what is.  i know a few people who went through the boarding schools, my lakota language professor being one.  i could not imagine being there and retaining my sense of self.  there is also a concept related to this called cultural ptsd which is a trauma resulting from this history of systemic abuse.  but that is a whole other discussion for a different time.   #  but genocide is more than just killing people, that is a very simplistic view of a systemic elimination of a group of people people are strongly tied to a culture for identity .   #  but genocide is more than just killing people, that is a very simplistic view of a systemic elimination of a group of people people are strongly tied to a culture for identity .  here is a quote about what else is entailed:   generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.  it is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.  the objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.   it involves yes, obviously killing people, but also dismantling their culture, way of life, language, etc as an attempt to force assimilation.  it is an attempt to destroy a ethnic group.  stop them from having kids, kill a lot of them, force them away from their homelands, separate members of the group, force them to assimilate, and next thing you know the group wont exist anymore.   #  these events point to a pattern of american brutality, ethnic cleansing, disrespect and treaty breaking, all of which are distinct from genocide.   #  the literal definition of genocide is  murder of a people.   murder requires mens rea criminal intent and some degree of actual accomplishment.  there is a reason why history has words like  massacre  to describe wounded knee and other atrocities, or  battle,  or  war,  or even  indian removal.   these events point to a pattern of american brutality, ethnic cleansing, disrespect and treaty breaking, all of which are distinct from genocide.  for you to claim  genocide is genocide  you need to demonstrate that there was an intentional, concerted effort on the part of one or many american leaders to  exterminate  the entire population of native americans, not just remove them, take their land, etc.  that is a tall order with no historical evidence, especially since, as it has been said, the vast majority of extermination that happened was the cause of microbes with no criminal culpability.  that said, america the country has much apologizing to do for its indian policies all the way up through the present day.  i would argue that the reservation system itself is a form of economic and political strangulation.  but that is a discussion for another time.
alright, first time cmv and i am looking for a deliciously nerdy discussion surrounding the merits of the nostalgia era final fantasy games.  my argument is a three pronged one.  cmv in any one of these three areas and the coveted delta is yours.  story while both games feature science fantasy themes i believe that the character development and depth in 0 is far superior if critically analyzed.  not only are there more characters in 0 each of their arcs is more substantial than cloud, tifa, aerith, or any of 0 is offerings.  for example: shadow is story compared to yuffie is.  celes vs cloud parallels abound, but celes is the more epic character in my eyes.  so cloud loses his love ? celes loses the world .  kefka is the principle example of nihilistic villainy.  sephiroth is brutal with the personal injuries to cloud and co, but nowhere near on kefka is level.  plus, that laugh.  the killing of aerith does not compare to the killing of cyan is wife, child, and friggin country.  graphics here is my argument is weakest point in my eyes.  granted, ff0 was the first in the series to pull off 0d, but at the same time the world of 0 has much more to offer.  0 worlds, in fact, in pixel art at the peak of the form.  this one is more aesthetic, but i will say until that hd remake happens final fantasy 0 has aged better visually: it was not about gimmicks like polygon count, it was about building a world.  you can see squares shift from immersion to spectacle begin here, a step that in my opinion forsake video game is greatest strength the player in favor of the film industry is fare the viewer .  gameplay this one is close, seeing as 0 took much from 0, but i will say 0 simply has more.  more characters, more fighting styles, more strategic depth, more variety and more world to explore.  no motorcycle mini game in 0 though.  admittedly, that was a fun diversion from the meat of 0s gameplay, and commendable.  i counter with the 0 man  team separation fights in 0, where positioning and tactical planning what an rpg is about were king.  tldr: bring on the nerds.  let is have a debate :d.  0 is the lolita to 0 is twilight.   #  i counter with the 0 man  team separation fights in 0, where positioning and tactical planning what an rpg is about were king.   #  positioning is not usually an rpg cornerstone.   #  i am of the opinion that sephiroth is a more developed character.  kefka may make an excellent villain because he only cares about destruction for the sake of destruction, but sephiroth is more compelling and connects with more people because he was not always insane and evil, he was turned by circumstance and tragedy.  as far as battle complexity, i do not know how you can argue for strategic depth in 0.  the materia system allowed a lot more flexibility in party management.  in 0 you basically have a class, and that is it.  you ca not really make sabin not a brawler.  in 0 you have some rigidity, like aeris being worthless as a fighter, but you can to some degree turn any character into a healer/caster/whatever.  you have far less variety in 0 than 0.  0 has more fighting  styles  in that each character has 0 specific ability, but if you equate limit breaks to character specific abilities the variety is equal if not favorable in terms of 0.  0 is an amazing game.  incredible music, great story, great concept.  but artistically superior to 0 ? highly debatable.  positioning is not usually an rpg cornerstone.  also you seem to be forgetting that 0 had full team separation fights as well.  the killing of aeris is completely different than cyan is family.  she is a party member, someone you are used to seeing and using constantly.  the first time you play it and she dies, it is huge.  one of the biggest party member deaths in rpgs during that period, and arguably one of the biggest to date.  losing cyan is family and mass murder is tragic sure, but you do not feel it quite like you feel the death of a party member, or cid is story, or red xiii is back story.  cloud does not just lose his love.  he loses his entire identity.  he literally lose everything over the course of the game.  each character in 0 is arc is more substantial than any of 0 is ? that is where you are blatantly wrong.  if you compare them to vincent sure, they are oceans to his puddle.  but if you do the same in reverse, compare someone like cloud to shadow or mog, the discrepancy is the opposite in favor of 0.   #  it takes little effort to kill kefka in one move, and there is no boss stronger than he is, so there is not a real challenge unless you underlevel on purpose.   #  ff0 is incredibly popular in japan.  they love it.  a lot of people think it is the best game in the series.  i enjoyed ff0 as a kid but never thought it was spectacular as a story.  i do not speak japanese, but i read a blog years ago where someone took the original japanese text and translated it literally into english.  suddenly, all of the hidden depth that made it so popular appeared.  the characters were tragic, fleshed out, motivations became more clear.  dialogue was more realistic.  it is incredible how that game anticipates and arguably invents the popularity of colorful, epic, melodramatic jprgs.  the american localization is impressive for its time but fails to do the game justice.  budget and memory constraints, plus nintendo is desire to market it to children, led to a censored and heavily simplified experience translated by native japanese, not english speakers.  for ff0, ted woolsey basically revolutionized the localization industry.  he was an american himself and knew his way around the language.  he was still limited by censorship and by space, but he was able to take creative liberties and produce a translation that was unprecedented in its warmth and familiarity.  for ff0 though they dropped the ball.  woolsey declined to work on it and instead they brought in a team of japanese people to translate the game.  again, japanese translators lead to a less successful and natural sounding game.  the fact that the game had multiple translators created inconsistencies.  the game is horribly translated, there are errors abound.  i do not think it is personally fair to judge ff0 is story because you have not even really experienced it.  tl;dr you are judging a game with an exceptional english script with an unusually poor one, so ff0 does not really have a fighting chance in terms of story.  the pc port is, to my knowledge, identical to the psone version.  ff0 is, gameplay wise, one of the weakest in the series, by the way.  it is horribly glitched and broken, it is way too easy to become overpowered.  it takes little effort to kill kefka in one move, and there is no boss stronger than he is, so there is not a real challenge unless you underlevel on purpose.  also, rei and gau are broken characters if i recall correctly and are basically unplayable though they are fixed in the gba port .  likewise umaro.  it is also the only ff game in which summon monsters are completely useless.   #  ffvii also has more minigames the gold saucer, snowboarding, motorcycle and fort condor segments beat ff is minigames, which really are limited to mog and some decision making segments.   #  i will look at gameplay and graphics.  while it is true that ffvi has gorgeous pixel art, i have to admit that the prerendered backgrounds of ffvii are spectacular.  the blocky polygon characters used in overworld play may not have aged well, but that is a deliberate choice i see it as an attempt to emulate the blocky sprites from 0d ff in 0d, kind of like 0d dot game heroes.  certainly, the battle models compare quite favourably to ffviii, for instance.  each style has its strengths and weaknesses, although i would say that ffvii is is more daring; that does not make it better though.  as to the feeling of immersion, i would echo the sentiments of many regarding the early portions of the ffvii midgar and when the overworld is finally introduced.  finally, ffvi actually has limited  0d  in the airship sequences.  regarding gameplay, i would say that the individual character commands in ffvi are unique blitzes, rages, swordtech etc , much more so than ffvii where variety is limited to tifa and cait sith is limit breaks.  that being said, the materia system trounces ffvi is espers in flexibility and and depth.  ffvii also has more minigames the gold saucer, snowboarding, motorcycle and fort condor segments beat ff is minigames, which really are limited to mog and some decision making segments.   #  i would argue that shadow is death is equivalent to your points about why aeris  death is so much more effective than the poisoning of doma, as he is part of the party for a good portion of the game.   #  shadow is back story is actually pretty deep, if you do not let him die when you flee the floating continent.  i would argue that shadow is death is equivalent to your points about why aeris  death is so much more effective than the poisoning of doma, as he is part of the party for a good portion of the game.  when you do save him, you can get him back in to your party later on.  sleeping at different inns around the world at that point reveal different portions of his background, before he became the ninja he is, including the small detail that he is actually realm is father no wonder interceptor likes her so much, and why the dog will show up to protect realm in combat even when shadow is not in the party .  the game goes into detail about his history as a robber with a friend who he eventually abandoned out of fear; an event that eventually leads him to abandoning his family and becoming shadow out of guilt.  all of this is told in small cutscenes over the course of the world of ruin, as the dreams that shadow has while he is with your party, which indicates that this history still bothers him in the present.  as for mog, sure, he is roughly equivalent to vincent in this game and does not get a lot of depth, other than the implication that he is the last surviving moogle and that he lost his love during the cataclysm.   #  there is no fantasy there sephiroth killing aerith with a 0ft long sword while she prays for the most powerful white magic spell and we ca not use phoenix down on her is a very  fantasy  style setting .   #  a different angle on aerith is death: she kind of ran off on her own, did not she ? my memory is hazy so i may be wrong in a world where sephiroth seemingly sees all and is light years ahead in terms of strength, we sort of assume.  you should probably stay in a group where if sephiorth attacked, you know, we can phoenix down you.  in a way, she kind of chose to die.  she is killed while praying.  she is fully part of the cause.  it is kind of like how a voluntary soldier knows what he is getting into.  cyan is family are complete civilians, and it is a mother and child, not a powerful magician with an enigmatic background cetra like aerith.  what hit me is the realism of cyan is family is death scene.  it is completely realistic for a family to die during a siege and the father feeling responsible for not being able to protect them.  there is no fantasy there sephiroth killing aerith with a 0ft long sword while she prays for the most powerful white magic spell and we ca not use phoenix down on her is a very  fantasy  style setting .  and then we are treated with cyan pursuing the family on a ghost train.  the fantasy we are treated to in ff0 is cyan is nightmare and grief remaining about his family.  mentally speaking, that is still very realistic.  literally, cyan will go to the depths of hell and back to try to get his family back if he could.  that is what is represented when he gets on that train.
recently, we have seen michael jackson  release  an album of songs that he never wanted to be released.  likewise, tolkien is translation of beowulf has just been published despite his protestations that it is  hardly to my liking .  jackie kennedy is private letters to a priest are even being auctioned off.  i believe that this kind of behavior represents a deeply problematic invasion of the artists  privacy, and should not occur.  if they are unfortunately published, you and i ought to refrain from listening to or reading these works.  in short, i believe the dead have a right to privacy that ought not be violated for merely prurient interest.  scholars and spies may have compelling interests in the material, but most of us do not.   #  scholars and spies may have compelling interests in the material, but most of us do not.   #  fans of michael jackson and tolkien would disagree.   # fans of michael jackson and tolkien would disagree.  i believe the artist has a choice of who makes those decisions after their death.  there is no other practical way of doing this.  you are proposal would forbid those entrusted with the materials to do what they were entrusted to do.  perhaps a famous artist would have wanted their children to publish works for profit if they were hit with hard times ?  #  or is there some reason why my enjoyment trumps their right to privacy.   # fans of their work who do not respect them as people ? or is there some reason why my enjoyment trumps their right to privacy.  there is no other practical way of doing this.  you are proposal would forbid those entrusted with the materials to do what they were entrusted to do.  i do not propose to forbid them from executing their trust.  i merely remind them that what they have is just that: a trust.  the artists made their intentions clear in both cases, since they refused to publish them and strongly implied they were unworthy of publication.  if an artist did want them published eventually they might say so: for instance, twain declared when his autobiography might be published.   #  you do not know the conversations between those chosen to execute their trust.   #  i do not think you actually have to respect the person behind the work to be a fan.  this does not mean you disrespect them either.  i am a fan of lots of music and art, but i really have no idea who made it other than their name.  fans enjoyment should not be underestimated.  thats the reason michael jackson is who he is, after all.  you do not know what the artists wishes are beyond what they said publicly.  you do not know the conversations between those chosen to execute their trust.  for that reason, i think we should respect the wishes of those entrusted to an artists work.   #  he also apparently does not like annie hall, which is also one of his best films and won him an oscar for best picture.   #  i do not agree.  speaking as an artist, creative people, particularly perfectionists like jackson, are biased against their own work.  they are not good judges of what is there best work and what is their worst.  woody allen is still alive, but he has tried to bar some of his movies from release because he dislikes them.  in particular, he tried to prevent ua from releasing his film manhattan simply because he considered it a failure.  however, critically and commercially, manhattan is one of his best films.  he also apparently does not like annie hall, which is also one of his best films and won him an oscar for best picture.  if woody allen had died in the  0s and left behind those films unreleased, we would have missed out on his best work if we did not disobey his wishes.   #  privacy protects living people from embarrassment and invasions can endanger their livelihoods if the reputation is harmed.   # why should dead people have a right to privacy ? privacy protects living people from embarrassment and invasions can endanger their livelihoods if the reputation is harmed.  dead people they do not feel embarrassed.  nor can their livelihood be jeopardized.  so,  invading the privacy  of a dead person is truly a victim less act.  a dead person cannot be harmed because she is beyond harm .  however the living can benefit.  ergo invasion of the dead artists  privacy should be allowed because it does no harm, but can have benefits.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.   #  hurt hərt/submit verb 0.  cause physical pain or injury to.   # hurt hərt/submit verb 0.  cause physical pain or injury to.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, most torture is used as a mind game to get people to talk.  that does not make it any worse.  tor·ture ˈtôrchər/submit noun 0.  the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.  source ? it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  i do not see how that makes it any less bad.  it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i do not think you quite get the definition of torture.  water boarding is torture.  just google it.  or the definition of torture.   #  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.   #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  not even the escape of death of permitted.   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.   #  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.   # hurt hərt/submit verb 0.  cause physical pain or injury to.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, most torture is used as a mind game to get people to talk.  that does not make it any worse.  tor·ture ˈtôrchər/submit noun 0.  the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.  source ? it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  i do not see how that makes it any less bad.  it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i do not think you quite get the definition of torture.  water boarding is torture.  just google it.  or the definition of torture.   #  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.   #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?    #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.   #  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.   # hurt hərt/submit verb 0.  cause physical pain or injury to.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, most torture is used as a mind game to get people to talk.  that does not make it any worse.  tor·ture ˈtôrchər/submit noun 0.  the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.  source ? it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  i do not see how that makes it any less bad.  it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i do not think you quite get the definition of torture.  water boarding is torture.  just google it.  or the definition of torture.   #  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.   #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.   #  people who are tortured are not difficult to locate.   # people who are tortured are not difficult to locate.  go and speak to some and see if you still believe that.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  i am limiting this answer to physical damage.  it is absolutely possible to kill someone with waterboarding.  people freak out, that includes all the physiological reactions you would expect.  people bust bones, rip muscles, ligaments, and tendons.  they can arrest.  when you consider that individuals in gitmo were waterboarded  hundreds  of times, it is not difficult to see how the risk of physical injuries is elevated.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  all torture is mental by definition.  if you are not conscious and present then it does not matter how badly they abuse your body you wo not be saying anything.  torture is all about threat.  often the threat is executed to demonstrate to the subject that the inquisitor is serious.  however, all questioning is centered around the threat give me an answer or you get the negative stimulus again.  no.  skilled interrogators understand psychology and use a range of techniques to extract information.  torture is the  least  effective technique available.  citation needed.  people being tortured love to give fabricated intelligence because they know that their torturers will typically cease torture whilst they are investigating the intelligence.  people do a lot of stupid things.  mainly because they underestimate the risks.  remember, these people can pull the plug at any point unlike people being tortured and they ca not make it longer than 0 seconds.  a smother reaction induces uncontrollable panic  0 .  how do we know that ? who is prepared to trust a nation that had no qualms about torture in the first place ? both the bush and obama administrations are totally opaque.  america is supposed to be a first world nation, not some shithole dictatorship.  if you do not like criticism, why do not you try acting like a country worthy of respect ? no shit.  how you treat people in your custody is a serious issue if you choose to mistreat them.  i do not care how horrible they might be, or what you suspect they might know, you have a duty of care.  0 read an interesting article about inhaling co  0 .  at lower concentrations that could ever cause suffocation it induces a panic reaction.  people freak out, even though they are totally safe from asphyxia sound familiar ? .  what was interesting about this article was that the scientists involved decided to test this reaction on a group of people with brain damage that prevented them from feeling panic/strong emotions/etc.  and they found that they reacted even worse than the normal group because for many of them it was the first time they had ever experienced panic in their lives.   #  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.   #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?    #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.   #  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.   # people who are tortured are not difficult to locate.  go and speak to some and see if you still believe that.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  i am limiting this answer to physical damage.  it is absolutely possible to kill someone with waterboarding.  people freak out, that includes all the physiological reactions you would expect.  people bust bones, rip muscles, ligaments, and tendons.  they can arrest.  when you consider that individuals in gitmo were waterboarded  hundreds  of times, it is not difficult to see how the risk of physical injuries is elevated.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  all torture is mental by definition.  if you are not conscious and present then it does not matter how badly they abuse your body you wo not be saying anything.  torture is all about threat.  often the threat is executed to demonstrate to the subject that the inquisitor is serious.  however, all questioning is centered around the threat give me an answer or you get the negative stimulus again.  no.  skilled interrogators understand psychology and use a range of techniques to extract information.  torture is the  least  effective technique available.  citation needed.  people being tortured love to give fabricated intelligence because they know that their torturers will typically cease torture whilst they are investigating the intelligence.  people do a lot of stupid things.  mainly because they underestimate the risks.  remember, these people can pull the plug at any point unlike people being tortured and they ca not make it longer than 0 seconds.  a smother reaction induces uncontrollable panic  0 .  how do we know that ? who is prepared to trust a nation that had no qualms about torture in the first place ? both the bush and obama administrations are totally opaque.  america is supposed to be a first world nation, not some shithole dictatorship.  if you do not like criticism, why do not you try acting like a country worthy of respect ? no shit.  how you treat people in your custody is a serious issue if you choose to mistreat them.  i do not care how horrible they might be, or what you suspect they might know, you have a duty of care.  0 read an interesting article about inhaling co  0 .  at lower concentrations that could ever cause suffocation it induces a panic reaction.  people freak out, even though they are totally safe from asphyxia sound familiar ? .  what was interesting about this article was that the scientists involved decided to test this reaction on a group of people with brain damage that prevented them from feeling panic/strong emotions/etc.  and they found that they reacted even worse than the normal group because for many of them it was the first time they had ever experienced panic in their lives.   #  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.   #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?    #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.   #  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.   # people who are tortured are not difficult to locate.  go and speak to some and see if you still believe that.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  i am limiting this answer to physical damage.  it is absolutely possible to kill someone with waterboarding.  people freak out, that includes all the physiological reactions you would expect.  people bust bones, rip muscles, ligaments, and tendons.  they can arrest.  when you consider that individuals in gitmo were waterboarded  hundreds  of times, it is not difficult to see how the risk of physical injuries is elevated.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  all torture is mental by definition.  if you are not conscious and present then it does not matter how badly they abuse your body you wo not be saying anything.  torture is all about threat.  often the threat is executed to demonstrate to the subject that the inquisitor is serious.  however, all questioning is centered around the threat give me an answer or you get the negative stimulus again.  no.  skilled interrogators understand psychology and use a range of techniques to extract information.  torture is the  least  effective technique available.  citation needed.  people being tortured love to give fabricated intelligence because they know that their torturers will typically cease torture whilst they are investigating the intelligence.  people do a lot of stupid things.  mainly because they underestimate the risks.  remember, these people can pull the plug at any point unlike people being tortured and they ca not make it longer than 0 seconds.  a smother reaction induces uncontrollable panic  0 .  how do we know that ? who is prepared to trust a nation that had no qualms about torture in the first place ? both the bush and obama administrations are totally opaque.  america is supposed to be a first world nation, not some shithole dictatorship.  if you do not like criticism, why do not you try acting like a country worthy of respect ? no shit.  how you treat people in your custody is a serious issue if you choose to mistreat them.  i do not care how horrible they might be, or what you suspect they might know, you have a duty of care.  0 read an interesting article about inhaling co  0 .  at lower concentrations that could ever cause suffocation it induces a panic reaction.  people freak out, even though they are totally safe from asphyxia sound familiar ? .  what was interesting about this article was that the scientists involved decided to test this reaction on a group of people with brain damage that prevented them from feeling panic/strong emotions/etc.  and they found that they reacted even worse than the normal group because for many of them it was the first time they had ever experienced panic in their lives.   #  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.   #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.   #  people do a lot of stupid things.   # people who are tortured are not difficult to locate.  go and speak to some and see if you still believe that.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  i am limiting this answer to physical damage.  it is absolutely possible to kill someone with waterboarding.  people freak out, that includes all the physiological reactions you would expect.  people bust bones, rip muscles, ligaments, and tendons.  they can arrest.  when you consider that individuals in gitmo were waterboarded  hundreds  of times, it is not difficult to see how the risk of physical injuries is elevated.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  all torture is mental by definition.  if you are not conscious and present then it does not matter how badly they abuse your body you wo not be saying anything.  torture is all about threat.  often the threat is executed to demonstrate to the subject that the inquisitor is serious.  however, all questioning is centered around the threat give me an answer or you get the negative stimulus again.  no.  skilled interrogators understand psychology and use a range of techniques to extract information.  torture is the  least  effective technique available.  citation needed.  people being tortured love to give fabricated intelligence because they know that their torturers will typically cease torture whilst they are investigating the intelligence.  people do a lot of stupid things.  mainly because they underestimate the risks.  remember, these people can pull the plug at any point unlike people being tortured and they ca not make it longer than 0 seconds.  a smother reaction induces uncontrollable panic  0 .  how do we know that ? who is prepared to trust a nation that had no qualms about torture in the first place ? both the bush and obama administrations are totally opaque.  america is supposed to be a first world nation, not some shithole dictatorship.  if you do not like criticism, why do not you try acting like a country worthy of respect ? no shit.  how you treat people in your custody is a serious issue if you choose to mistreat them.  i do not care how horrible they might be, or what you suspect they might know, you have a duty of care.  0 read an interesting article about inhaling co  0 .  at lower concentrations that could ever cause suffocation it induces a panic reaction.  people freak out, even though they are totally safe from asphyxia sound familiar ? .  what was interesting about this article was that the scientists involved decided to test this reaction on a group of people with brain damage that prevented them from feeling panic/strong emotions/etc.  and they found that they reacted even worse than the normal group because for many of them it was the first time they had ever experienced panic in their lives.   #  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.   #  how you treat people in your custody is a serious issue if you choose to mistreat them.   # people who are tortured are not difficult to locate.  go and speak to some and see if you still believe that.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  i am limiting this answer to physical damage.  it is absolutely possible to kill someone with waterboarding.  people freak out, that includes all the physiological reactions you would expect.  people bust bones, rip muscles, ligaments, and tendons.  they can arrest.  when you consider that individuals in gitmo were waterboarded  hundreds  of times, it is not difficult to see how the risk of physical injuries is elevated.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  all torture is mental by definition.  if you are not conscious and present then it does not matter how badly they abuse your body you wo not be saying anything.  torture is all about threat.  often the threat is executed to demonstrate to the subject that the inquisitor is serious.  however, all questioning is centered around the threat give me an answer or you get the negative stimulus again.  no.  skilled interrogators understand psychology and use a range of techniques to extract information.  torture is the  least  effective technique available.  citation needed.  people being tortured love to give fabricated intelligence because they know that their torturers will typically cease torture whilst they are investigating the intelligence.  people do a lot of stupid things.  mainly because they underestimate the risks.  remember, these people can pull the plug at any point unlike people being tortured and they ca not make it longer than 0 seconds.  a smother reaction induces uncontrollable panic  0 .  how do we know that ? who is prepared to trust a nation that had no qualms about torture in the first place ? both the bush and obama administrations are totally opaque.  america is supposed to be a first world nation, not some shithole dictatorship.  if you do not like criticism, why do not you try acting like a country worthy of respect ? no shit.  how you treat people in your custody is a serious issue if you choose to mistreat them.  i do not care how horrible they might be, or what you suspect they might know, you have a duty of care.  0 read an interesting article about inhaling co  0 .  at lower concentrations that could ever cause suffocation it induces a panic reaction.  people freak out, even though they are totally safe from asphyxia sound familiar ? .  what was interesting about this article was that the scientists involved decided to test this reaction on a group of people with brain damage that prevented them from feeling panic/strong emotions/etc.  and they found that they reacted even worse than the normal group because for many of them it was the first time they had ever experienced panic in their lives.   #  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ?  #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.   #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ?  #  it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.   # its actual torture.  if it was just  mental , then anything would work.  e. g.  if i subjected you to the to  nerf stick of truth and pain , it would not work on making you say your deep dark secrets.  you have to have something that says  whoa, that is compelling  and for it to work on that level of pain and suffering, and not some mental trick, it has to be real torture.  a life long extremist conviction of the meaning of your existence vs.  a mental trick ? that is hard to believe.  it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  if you apply torture to anyone, you can make them say anything to stop it, including false information which is easier to give since it allows you to preserve your secrets.   oh yes, my brother did do it.  now can you stop ?    #  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.   #  so suppose that somebody starts calling your phone at night and saying the most horrible things they can imagine: they know who you and family are, where you live, they intend to rape and slowly kill every member of your family, and so on.   #  if it is so silly and fake, why do not you go through it ? it is easy enough to set up, all you need is a bucket and a volunteer.  nope, it is torture anyway.  torture in no way requires permanent physical harm.  so suppose that somebody starts calling your phone at night and saying the most horrible things they can imagine: they know who you and family are, where you live, they intend to rape and slowly kill every member of your family, and so on.  then after a few months of that they suddenly go  n/m that, it was just a prank.  actually you were never in any danger at all  would you agree that this is silly and fake ? can you shrug it off and go on with your life ?  #  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.   #  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.   #  right wing pro waterboarding radio host mancow muller agreed to be waterboarded as a lark.  URL even though the validity of the experiment has been questioned it was designed as a stunt; mancow might have been acting/exaggerating his distress came across as genuine.  prominent journalist christopher hitchens also poo pooed waterboarding, and also underwent it to prove it was nothing bad.  URL he wrote an article for  vanity fair  afterwards describing the experience, titled,   believe me, it is torture URL it is been in use as a torture method since at least the spanish inquisition.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  every reporter who has tried it has reported that it is torture.  the only reason no one wants to  try out  thumb screws is that it is easy to conclude that crushing someone is limbs is torture.  it is easy, as you have done, to confound water torture and near asphyxiation with just jumping in a pool or something.  in fact, there is one reporter who has chickened out on undergoing waterboarding himself: sean hannity.  five years ago he offered to have it done to himself to  prove  it was not torture, and donate all proceeds to military charities.  not only has he not underwent the procedure, he still maintains that it is not torture and gets cranky when anyone asks him when he is going to get waterboarded.  URL  #  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.   #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.   #  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.   # this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  you can get hurt.  the whole process is designed to get your body to think that it is drowning; and it works very very well at that.  you are lungs are not able extract oxygen, because they experience muscular paralysis.  this lack of oxygen can lead to permanent damage to the lungs and brains.  the adrenal system goes into overdrive during water boarding, fighting desperately to escape the restraints, often to the point of significant self harm.  it is not a mind game.  it is just not very likely to be lethal.  but just because it is not lethal, does not mean that it is not dangerous.  everybody reacts differently.  the safest way to interrogate potential terrorists / whoever is to turn them.  it is extremely effective at getting a confession, whether those confessions are useful is another thing entirely.  because it is been extracted under dubious means.  i will say anything to make the pain stop, and so will they.  the efficacy of the us  water boarding program has been called into question numerous times, with conflicting reports.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  that is because it is not lethal.  it is very difficult to actually die, but that does not mean that it is safe.  permanent physical damage can happen during prolonged water boarding sessions, especially the kind you would use to extract information from a  hardened terrorist .  you do not care if their brain asphyxiates and they have a permanent damage to their memory or muscular systems.  if you damage their lungs so they are unable to do more than a light walk without becoming incapacitated.  water boarding is torture, that is the problem.  look for testimony is from senator john mccain, who was water boarded in vietnam when he was held in captivity.  nobody who has been water boarded think it is nonsense.  sure, a reporter might subject themselves to it, nominally, just to try it.  that is not being water boarded.  you do not pour a cup down their nose and call it a day.  you keep at that shit, again, and again.  pitcher after pitcher; invert, pour, release, ask.  wrong answer ? here it comes again.  and again.  not the information you are looking for ? better make it longer, and longer.  it may be simulated drowning, but the body does not react to it like it is a simulation.  it fights, because it triggers everything primal in your body that it is drowning.  lungs and muscles seize up, you ca not breath, you black out.  it is torture in every sense of the word.  the spanish inquisition used it to find witches, and it was very effective at finding them.  that alone should raise eyebrows to it is efficacy and legitimacy.   #  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
it seems really ridiculously not a big deal to me.  this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  everyone criticizes the us for not setting an example with torture, calling for its elimination, but is not that  exactly  what they are doing with waterboarding ? it seems so silly and fake, but it achieves a terrifying simulation of something more, all the while being just that; simulated.  i am no expert, and i have never been waterboarded.  i am not in the military, although i am very much informed and knowledgable about things relating to the military and combat, growing up with military in both sides of the family.  this opinion could be very short sighted, but this just seems like a non issue in a world full of serious issues.  i do not really ever see or hear anyone outside of the extreme right voicing this opinion so i would like to know what you guys think.   #  a testimonial to it is apparent safety is the fact that there are people willing to try it.   #  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.   # this is mostly because from what i have heard, it is impossible for someone to get hurt.  they ca not drown or die, if it is done properly.  based upon what i know, it seems like a mental,  fake  torture.  i have seen videos, i have read testimonials.  i know it is an absolutely horrific experience, but if it is all a mind game, is not this the absolute best, safest way to interrogate potentially terrorists ? it is extremely effective, and has supposedly yielded a good deal of intelligence.  you can get hurt.  the whole process is designed to get your body to think that it is drowning; and it works very very well at that.  you are lungs are not able extract oxygen, because they experience muscular paralysis.  this lack of oxygen can lead to permanent damage to the lungs and brains.  the adrenal system goes into overdrive during water boarding, fighting desperately to escape the restraints, often to the point of significant self harm.  it is not a mind game.  it is just not very likely to be lethal.  but just because it is not lethal, does not mean that it is not dangerous.  everybody reacts differently.  the safest way to interrogate potential terrorists / whoever is to turn them.  it is extremely effective at getting a confession, whether those confessions are useful is another thing entirely.  because it is been extracted under dubious means.  i will say anything to make the pain stop, and so will they.  the efficacy of the us  water boarding program has been called into question numerous times, with conflicting reports.  if we were dealing with thumb screws or the rack, no reporters would be willing to be subjected.  that is because the effects on the body can be physically scarring.  it seems to me that the effects of waterboarding are largely psychological.  that is because it is not lethal.  it is very difficult to actually die, but that does not mean that it is safe.  permanent physical damage can happen during prolonged water boarding sessions, especially the kind you would use to extract information from a  hardened terrorist .  you do not care if their brain asphyxiates and they have a permanent damage to their memory or muscular systems.  if you damage their lungs so they are unable to do more than a light walk without becoming incapacitated.  water boarding is torture, that is the problem.  look for testimony is from senator john mccain, who was water boarded in vietnam when he was held in captivity.  nobody who has been water boarded think it is nonsense.  sure, a reporter might subject themselves to it, nominally, just to try it.  that is not being water boarded.  you do not pour a cup down their nose and call it a day.  you keep at that shit, again, and again.  pitcher after pitcher; invert, pour, release, ask.  wrong answer ? here it comes again.  and again.  not the information you are looking for ? better make it longer, and longer.  it may be simulated drowning, but the body does not react to it like it is a simulation.  it fights, because it triggers everything primal in your body that it is drowning.  lungs and muscles seize up, you ca not breath, you black out.  it is torture in every sense of the word.  the spanish inquisition used it to find witches, and it was very effective at finding them.  that alone should raise eyebrows to it is efficacy and legitimacy.   #  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.   #  i will address your points in order.  0.  it  is  possible to be hurt by it even if done properly.  the body is natural instinct is to fight the restraints to escape the sensation if drowning.  people have literally broken their bones struggling against their restraints.  additionally, it can cause throat and lung problems due to the repeated stress placed on the respiratory system.  lastly, it causes mental trauma as well as physical trauma.  feeling like you are drowning, over and over again, will definitely take its toll on your mental state.  0.  torture is defined as inflicting severe pain on someone.  drowning is extremely painful.  waterboarding simulates drowning.  therefore waterboarding is torture.  0.  you are right, people have volunteered to be waterboarded because, like you, they believed it was not torture.  nearly  universally  those people have changed their minds after being waterboarded, and you really should have looked that up before you used that as an argument.  0.  i feel like you are confusing  simulated drowning  with  pretend drowning .  this is not simply a mental trick, waterboarding  physically feels like you are drowning .  your body instinctually tries to gasp for air but instead it gets no oxygen and the feeling of water filling your lungs.  it is like, let is say we had a machine that we could hook up to somebody is brain that activates their nervous system in such a way that it  simulates being on fire .  meaning that a person hooked up to this machine physically feels like they are being set on fire and burning alive.  it does not cause any physical damage unlike waterboarding , but do you really want to say that this is not torture ? 0.  lastly, any information given under the extreme duress of torture is worthless.  people will say  anything  to stop the pain.  they will admit to things they did not do or claim to know things they do not.  torture is an awful way to gather information.   #  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  ok you are right, let me be clear.  i do think it is torture.   fake  torture is not fair.  i guess what i mean is, it does not seem that bad in context with other tortures that i know of.  i have seen the videos, i can tell that it is absolutely a terrible experience.  however, when you say  it just looks like torture,  i think it looks like a mild form of torture.  if someone looks at waterboarding and says  this is an extreme form of torture,  then i know that person does not know much about torture, and about what has been done, is done, and will continue to be done in the name of intelligence gathering.  the fact that we even  know  about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  maybe what i am hearing from everyone is not that waterboarding specifically is so awful, but that torture is in general something they hate, and waterboarding has become the catalyst ?  #  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.   # the fact that we even know about waterboarding, that we know what it is and how to perform it, suggests it is not nearly as controversial as people would suggest.  now, i am not ignorant enough to think that the us has  never  tortured someone with techniques other than waterboarding, but we do not make a habit of it, and i would go as far as saying it probably  almost never  happens anymore.  torture is a major human rights violation, and the un recognizes that.  if, instead of waterboarding, we had been sticking bamboo under fingernails or whipping inmates, this issue would not have gotten so much coverage because everyone knows that those things are torture and torturing people is inhumane.  the problem is that there are some people that do not realize the sensation of drowning is extremely painful.  you admit that it is torture, and i will grant you that it is probably not as bad as having your fingers cut off or something.  but torture is torture, and torture is bad, unless you are okay with violating the basic human rights of a person.  and the kicker is that  it is not even an effective way of gathering reliable information because people will say anything to stop being tortured .   #  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.   #  many human rights groups identify solitary confinement as torture.  the us does not currently, i would agree that many people would prefer a bit of waterboarding over indefinite detention or solitary.  in fact people are attempting to starve themselves to death, but are tied down and force fed.  not even the escape of death of permitted.  is not there supposed to be some nobility and higher principles associated with calling yourself  the good guys ?   something objectively worse not being called torture does not suddenly make torture acceptable.  its more of an argument for identifying indefinite detention without trial and solitary confinement as forms of psychological torture.
. and would not be desirable.  to clarify i am talking about equality of outcome, in the sense of 0 0.  i do not want the same as others, i want a chance to fulfill my own dreams and objectives.  i like hierarchy, and find leadership and social status motivating.  in the countries which have the least income inequality the scandinavian countries and japan crime and poverty are reduced, but birth rates are unusually low and depression is high.  being more equal to others is not exactly sexy or motivating.  equality of process  might  be desirable, but is unrealistic to expect, and i think it is really a different topic than equality of outcome income or social status .  minimum standards which no one is allowed to go below would be desirable imo, such as access to sanitation, nutritional needs met, basic health care, education and so forth.  rather than equality as a goal, i think that ought to be our societal objective, as well as providing opportunities for advancement.   #  i do not want the same as others, i want a chance to fulfill my own dreams and objectives.   #  and you can be free to pursue that within reason.   #  i do not think society is chasing equality as an ideal, i think it is chasing equal opportunity as an ideal and those are entirely different goals .  and you can be free to pursue that within reason.  people having what they need and what they are willing to work for does not stop you from having the same opportunity to exceed the basics with hard work.  where the system breaks down is that if you are on top one of the most effective ways of getting more value from your money is to make other people poor.  their spending power goes down, and yours goes up.  currently, a fraction of the population is aspirations are resulting in widespread inequality and unequal opportunity.  i find that to be unreasonable.  your dreams and aspirations are not as important as the wellbeing of society at large.  there is nothing inherently wrong with order.  where the problem arises is when the powerful subjugate the weak and the temptation to do so is clearly part of human nature, given how universal the behaviour seems to be .  no, but it is far more humane.  i firmly believe that one should consider others as well as oneself.  if you care only about how far you can climb the ladder, then you are nothing more than a sociopath.  rather than equality as a goal, i think that ought to be our societal objective, as well as providing opportunities for advancement.  i concur with this ideal.  the big problem i see with this is that it is expensive, and the people and corporations that you would have to hit up to pay for this are going to be very resistant to the idea.  caring for everyone is not an ingrained human value.  we care about ourselves, our families, our  tribe , but the bigger and more faceless the group becomes the more we find it difficult to care.  caring for people you either do not naturally care about, or may even feel animosity toward is not an easy thing for most people.   #  according to the un happiness report 0 URL three of the happiest five contries in the world are scandinavian.   #  where did you get your statistics that the scandinavian countries are highly depressed ? according to the un happiness report 0 URL three of the happiest five contries in the world are scandinavian.  denmark, norway and sweden, with finland not far behind.  there has been a lot of studies that shows a correlation between several positive aspects of society and equality.  i suggest you check out  the spirit level: why equality is better for everyone .  while the facts are still disputed, it is an interesting read.   #  if you have 0x as much money as me because you stole mine or because you work 0x as fast, how can this tow even be compared as  similar levels of inequality  ?  #  that book was debunked more often than homeopathy.  personally what i kind of find extra shitty about that methodology is that equality or inequality as such is an outcome of many different possible causes and they cannot possibly have the same effect.  if you have 0x as much money as me because you stole mine or because you work 0x as fast, how can this tow even be compared as  similar levels of inequality  ? who in his right mind believes they can lead to anything remotely similar social outcomes ? so i think any sensible researcher would break down equality and inequality to its consituent causes and investigate those, example: causes of equality: widespread self employment and widespread property ownership, good education, or redistribution, causes of inequality: corruption, looting, political clout, efficiency, work ethic, intelligence.  inequality or equality is basically the sum of all those causes.  it is like a score in a game, without looking into how it was gained.  this is why i find it highly problematic when it is seen as a cause.   #  equal societies does not create a depressed societies.   #  0.  but that does not change that the premises of your opinion is wrong.  equal societies does not create a depressed societies.  0.  there might be conflicted opinions why scandinavia have among the happiest countries.  but you should not discard the equality effect because it challenges your belief.  0.  there a lot of other factors which have a correlation with equality.  like mental health, life expectancy, obesity etc.  this is true both internationally, and if you compare the states in the us.  like i said before, these data can be disputed and discussed, but i want you to understand that equality might be something to strive for, for its own sake.  that there are science to back it up, atleast partially.   #  do you have any evidence more than a few  case studies  ?  #  its very hard to cyv if you discard all evidence which contradict your position.  what would it take to make you change your view ? there is a lot of evidence suggesting that equality have a part in these factors.  can you show me any statistics proving otherwise more than quoting a professor ? do you have any evidence more than a few  case studies  ? can you show me statistics that show a correlation between ethnic homogeneity and alls those factors i mentioned above ?
. and would not be desirable.  to clarify i am talking about equality of outcome, in the sense of 0 0.  i do not want the same as others, i want a chance to fulfill my own dreams and objectives.  i like hierarchy, and find leadership and social status motivating.  in the countries which have the least income inequality the scandinavian countries and japan crime and poverty are reduced, but birth rates are unusually low and depression is high.  being more equal to others is not exactly sexy or motivating.  equality of process  might  be desirable, but is unrealistic to expect, and i think it is really a different topic than equality of outcome income or social status .  minimum standards which no one is allowed to go below would be desirable imo, such as access to sanitation, nutritional needs met, basic health care, education and so forth.  rather than equality as a goal, i think that ought to be our societal objective, as well as providing opportunities for advancement.   #  i like hierarchy, and find leadership and social status motivating.   #  there is nothing inherently wrong with order.   #  i do not think society is chasing equality as an ideal, i think it is chasing equal opportunity as an ideal and those are entirely different goals .  and you can be free to pursue that within reason.  people having what they need and what they are willing to work for does not stop you from having the same opportunity to exceed the basics with hard work.  where the system breaks down is that if you are on top one of the most effective ways of getting more value from your money is to make other people poor.  their spending power goes down, and yours goes up.  currently, a fraction of the population is aspirations are resulting in widespread inequality and unequal opportunity.  i find that to be unreasonable.  your dreams and aspirations are not as important as the wellbeing of society at large.  there is nothing inherently wrong with order.  where the problem arises is when the powerful subjugate the weak and the temptation to do so is clearly part of human nature, given how universal the behaviour seems to be .  no, but it is far more humane.  i firmly believe that one should consider others as well as oneself.  if you care only about how far you can climb the ladder, then you are nothing more than a sociopath.  rather than equality as a goal, i think that ought to be our societal objective, as well as providing opportunities for advancement.  i concur with this ideal.  the big problem i see with this is that it is expensive, and the people and corporations that you would have to hit up to pay for this are going to be very resistant to the idea.  caring for everyone is not an ingrained human value.  we care about ourselves, our families, our  tribe , but the bigger and more faceless the group becomes the more we find it difficult to care.  caring for people you either do not naturally care about, or may even feel animosity toward is not an easy thing for most people.   #  while the facts are still disputed, it is an interesting read.   #  where did you get your statistics that the scandinavian countries are highly depressed ? according to the un happiness report 0 URL three of the happiest five contries in the world are scandinavian.  denmark, norway and sweden, with finland not far behind.  there has been a lot of studies that shows a correlation between several positive aspects of society and equality.  i suggest you check out  the spirit level: why equality is better for everyone .  while the facts are still disputed, it is an interesting read.   #  it is like a score in a game, without looking into how it was gained.   #  that book was debunked more often than homeopathy.  personally what i kind of find extra shitty about that methodology is that equality or inequality as such is an outcome of many different possible causes and they cannot possibly have the same effect.  if you have 0x as much money as me because you stole mine or because you work 0x as fast, how can this tow even be compared as  similar levels of inequality  ? who in his right mind believes they can lead to anything remotely similar social outcomes ? so i think any sensible researcher would break down equality and inequality to its consituent causes and investigate those, example: causes of equality: widespread self employment and widespread property ownership, good education, or redistribution, causes of inequality: corruption, looting, political clout, efficiency, work ethic, intelligence.  inequality or equality is basically the sum of all those causes.  it is like a score in a game, without looking into how it was gained.  this is why i find it highly problematic when it is seen as a cause.   #  0.  there might be conflicted opinions why scandinavia have among the happiest countries.   #  0.  but that does not change that the premises of your opinion is wrong.  equal societies does not create a depressed societies.  0.  there might be conflicted opinions why scandinavia have among the happiest countries.  but you should not discard the equality effect because it challenges your belief.  0.  there a lot of other factors which have a correlation with equality.  like mental health, life expectancy, obesity etc.  this is true both internationally, and if you compare the states in the us.  like i said before, these data can be disputed and discussed, but i want you to understand that equality might be something to strive for, for its own sake.  that there are science to back it up, atleast partially.   #  what would it take to make you change your view ?  #  its very hard to cyv if you discard all evidence which contradict your position.  what would it take to make you change your view ? there is a lot of evidence suggesting that equality have a part in these factors.  can you show me any statistics proving otherwise more than quoting a professor ? do you have any evidence more than a few  case studies  ? can you show me statistics that show a correlation between ethnic homogeneity and alls those factors i mentioned above ?
. and would not be desirable.  to clarify i am talking about equality of outcome, in the sense of 0 0.  i do not want the same as others, i want a chance to fulfill my own dreams and objectives.  i like hierarchy, and find leadership and social status motivating.  in the countries which have the least income inequality the scandinavian countries and japan crime and poverty are reduced, but birth rates are unusually low and depression is high.  being more equal to others is not exactly sexy or motivating.  equality of process  might  be desirable, but is unrealistic to expect, and i think it is really a different topic than equality of outcome income or social status .  minimum standards which no one is allowed to go below would be desirable imo, such as access to sanitation, nutritional needs met, basic health care, education and so forth.  rather than equality as a goal, i think that ought to be our societal objective, as well as providing opportunities for advancement.   #  being more equal to others is not exactly sexy or motivating.   #  no, but it is far more humane.   #  i do not think society is chasing equality as an ideal, i think it is chasing equal opportunity as an ideal and those are entirely different goals .  and you can be free to pursue that within reason.  people having what they need and what they are willing to work for does not stop you from having the same opportunity to exceed the basics with hard work.  where the system breaks down is that if you are on top one of the most effective ways of getting more value from your money is to make other people poor.  their spending power goes down, and yours goes up.  currently, a fraction of the population is aspirations are resulting in widespread inequality and unequal opportunity.  i find that to be unreasonable.  your dreams and aspirations are not as important as the wellbeing of society at large.  there is nothing inherently wrong with order.  where the problem arises is when the powerful subjugate the weak and the temptation to do so is clearly part of human nature, given how universal the behaviour seems to be .  no, but it is far more humane.  i firmly believe that one should consider others as well as oneself.  if you care only about how far you can climb the ladder, then you are nothing more than a sociopath.  rather than equality as a goal, i think that ought to be our societal objective, as well as providing opportunities for advancement.  i concur with this ideal.  the big problem i see with this is that it is expensive, and the people and corporations that you would have to hit up to pay for this are going to be very resistant to the idea.  caring for everyone is not an ingrained human value.  we care about ourselves, our families, our  tribe , but the bigger and more faceless the group becomes the more we find it difficult to care.  caring for people you either do not naturally care about, or may even feel animosity toward is not an easy thing for most people.   #  there has been a lot of studies that shows a correlation between several positive aspects of society and equality.   #  where did you get your statistics that the scandinavian countries are highly depressed ? according to the un happiness report 0 URL three of the happiest five contries in the world are scandinavian.  denmark, norway and sweden, with finland not far behind.  there has been a lot of studies that shows a correlation between several positive aspects of society and equality.  i suggest you check out  the spirit level: why equality is better for everyone .  while the facts are still disputed, it is an interesting read.   #  personally what i kind of find extra shitty about that methodology is that equality or inequality as such is an outcome of many different possible causes and they cannot possibly have the same effect.   #  that book was debunked more often than homeopathy.  personally what i kind of find extra shitty about that methodology is that equality or inequality as such is an outcome of many different possible causes and they cannot possibly have the same effect.  if you have 0x as much money as me because you stole mine or because you work 0x as fast, how can this tow even be compared as  similar levels of inequality  ? who in his right mind believes they can lead to anything remotely similar social outcomes ? so i think any sensible researcher would break down equality and inequality to its consituent causes and investigate those, example: causes of equality: widespread self employment and widespread property ownership, good education, or redistribution, causes of inequality: corruption, looting, political clout, efficiency, work ethic, intelligence.  inequality or equality is basically the sum of all those causes.  it is like a score in a game, without looking into how it was gained.  this is why i find it highly problematic when it is seen as a cause.   #  0.  but that does not change that the premises of your opinion is wrong.   #  0.  but that does not change that the premises of your opinion is wrong.  equal societies does not create a depressed societies.  0.  there might be conflicted opinions why scandinavia have among the happiest countries.  but you should not discard the equality effect because it challenges your belief.  0.  there a lot of other factors which have a correlation with equality.  like mental health, life expectancy, obesity etc.  this is true both internationally, and if you compare the states in the us.  like i said before, these data can be disputed and discussed, but i want you to understand that equality might be something to strive for, for its own sake.  that there are science to back it up, atleast partially.   #  its very hard to cyv if you discard all evidence which contradict your position.   #  its very hard to cyv if you discard all evidence which contradict your position.  what would it take to make you change your view ? there is a lot of evidence suggesting that equality have a part in these factors.  can you show me any statistics proving otherwise more than quoting a professor ? do you have any evidence more than a few  case studies  ? can you show me statistics that show a correlation between ethnic homogeneity and alls those factors i mentioned above ?
. and would not be desirable.  to clarify i am talking about equality of outcome, in the sense of 0 0.  i do not want the same as others, i want a chance to fulfill my own dreams and objectives.  i like hierarchy, and find leadership and social status motivating.  in the countries which have the least income inequality the scandinavian countries and japan crime and poverty are reduced, but birth rates are unusually low and depression is high.  being more equal to others is not exactly sexy or motivating.  equality of process  might  be desirable, but is unrealistic to expect, and i think it is really a different topic than equality of outcome income or social status .  minimum standards which no one is allowed to go below would be desirable imo, such as access to sanitation, nutritional needs met, basic health care, education and so forth.  rather than equality as a goal, i think that ought to be our societal objective, as well as providing opportunities for advancement.   #  minimum standards which no one is allowed to go below would be desirable imo, such as access to sanitation, nutritional needs met, basic health care, education and so forth.   #  rather than equality as a goal, i think that ought to be our societal objective, as well as providing opportunities for advancement.   #  i do not think society is chasing equality as an ideal, i think it is chasing equal opportunity as an ideal and those are entirely different goals .  and you can be free to pursue that within reason.  people having what they need and what they are willing to work for does not stop you from having the same opportunity to exceed the basics with hard work.  where the system breaks down is that if you are on top one of the most effective ways of getting more value from your money is to make other people poor.  their spending power goes down, and yours goes up.  currently, a fraction of the population is aspirations are resulting in widespread inequality and unequal opportunity.  i find that to be unreasonable.  your dreams and aspirations are not as important as the wellbeing of society at large.  there is nothing inherently wrong with order.  where the problem arises is when the powerful subjugate the weak and the temptation to do so is clearly part of human nature, given how universal the behaviour seems to be .  no, but it is far more humane.  i firmly believe that one should consider others as well as oneself.  if you care only about how far you can climb the ladder, then you are nothing more than a sociopath.  rather than equality as a goal, i think that ought to be our societal objective, as well as providing opportunities for advancement.  i concur with this ideal.  the big problem i see with this is that it is expensive, and the people and corporations that you would have to hit up to pay for this are going to be very resistant to the idea.  caring for everyone is not an ingrained human value.  we care about ourselves, our families, our  tribe , but the bigger and more faceless the group becomes the more we find it difficult to care.  caring for people you either do not naturally care about, or may even feel animosity toward is not an easy thing for most people.   #  according to the un happiness report 0 URL three of the happiest five contries in the world are scandinavian.   #  where did you get your statistics that the scandinavian countries are highly depressed ? according to the un happiness report 0 URL three of the happiest five contries in the world are scandinavian.  denmark, norway and sweden, with finland not far behind.  there has been a lot of studies that shows a correlation between several positive aspects of society and equality.  i suggest you check out  the spirit level: why equality is better for everyone .  while the facts are still disputed, it is an interesting read.   #  who in his right mind believes they can lead to anything remotely similar social outcomes ?  #  that book was debunked more often than homeopathy.  personally what i kind of find extra shitty about that methodology is that equality or inequality as such is an outcome of many different possible causes and they cannot possibly have the same effect.  if you have 0x as much money as me because you stole mine or because you work 0x as fast, how can this tow even be compared as  similar levels of inequality  ? who in his right mind believes they can lead to anything remotely similar social outcomes ? so i think any sensible researcher would break down equality and inequality to its consituent causes and investigate those, example: causes of equality: widespread self employment and widespread property ownership, good education, or redistribution, causes of inequality: corruption, looting, political clout, efficiency, work ethic, intelligence.  inequality or equality is basically the sum of all those causes.  it is like a score in a game, without looking into how it was gained.  this is why i find it highly problematic when it is seen as a cause.   #  but you should not discard the equality effect because it challenges your belief.   #  0.  but that does not change that the premises of your opinion is wrong.  equal societies does not create a depressed societies.  0.  there might be conflicted opinions why scandinavia have among the happiest countries.  but you should not discard the equality effect because it challenges your belief.  0.  there a lot of other factors which have a correlation with equality.  like mental health, life expectancy, obesity etc.  this is true both internationally, and if you compare the states in the us.  like i said before, these data can be disputed and discussed, but i want you to understand that equality might be something to strive for, for its own sake.  that there are science to back it up, atleast partially.   #  what would it take to make you change your view ?  #  its very hard to cyv if you discard all evidence which contradict your position.  what would it take to make you change your view ? there is a lot of evidence suggesting that equality have a part in these factors.  can you show me any statistics proving otherwise more than quoting a professor ? do you have any evidence more than a few  case studies  ? can you show me statistics that show a correlation between ethnic homogeneity and alls those factors i mentioned above ?
. and would not be desirable.  to clarify i am talking about equality of outcome, in the sense of 0 0.  i do not want the same as others, i want a chance to fulfill my own dreams and objectives.  i like hierarchy, and find leadership and social status motivating.  in the countries which have the least income inequality the scandinavian countries and japan crime and poverty are reduced, but birth rates are unusually low and depression is high.  being more equal to others is not exactly sexy or motivating.  equality of process  might  be desirable, but is unrealistic to expect, and i think it is really a different topic than equality of outcome income or social status .  minimum standards which no one is allowed to go below would be desirable imo, such as access to sanitation, nutritional needs met, basic health care, education and so forth.  rather than equality as a goal, i think that ought to be our societal objective, as well as providing opportunities for advancement.   #  in the countries which have the least income inequality the scandinavian countries and japan crime and poverty are reduced, but birth rates are unusually low and depression is high.   #  being more equal to others is not exactly sexy or motivating.   # being more equal to others is not exactly sexy or motivating.  the birth rate statistic is a rather irrelevant one regarding desirability.  maybe in a more equal world, world population would end up stabilizing at one billion or less.  why is that an inherently bad thing ? birth rates have more to do with the technical ability of contraception, than with the happiness of a population.  and depression rates seem to be an easily explainable correlation.  sure, sweden has more depression than iran, but then again, sweden has more diagnosed adhd, ptsd, ocd, and autism than iran as well.  because sweden has mental health care than iran.  higher rates of  diagnosed  mental illness seem to be indicators of a developed sociaty, rather than being caused by equality.   #  where did you get your statistics that the scandinavian countries are highly depressed ?  #  where did you get your statistics that the scandinavian countries are highly depressed ? according to the un happiness report 0 URL three of the happiest five contries in the world are scandinavian.  denmark, norway and sweden, with finland not far behind.  there has been a lot of studies that shows a correlation between several positive aspects of society and equality.  i suggest you check out  the spirit level: why equality is better for everyone .  while the facts are still disputed, it is an interesting read.   #  that book was debunked more often than homeopathy.   #  that book was debunked more often than homeopathy.  personally what i kind of find extra shitty about that methodology is that equality or inequality as such is an outcome of many different possible causes and they cannot possibly have the same effect.  if you have 0x as much money as me because you stole mine or because you work 0x as fast, how can this tow even be compared as  similar levels of inequality  ? who in his right mind believes they can lead to anything remotely similar social outcomes ? so i think any sensible researcher would break down equality and inequality to its consituent causes and investigate those, example: causes of equality: widespread self employment and widespread property ownership, good education, or redistribution, causes of inequality: corruption, looting, political clout, efficiency, work ethic, intelligence.  inequality or equality is basically the sum of all those causes.  it is like a score in a game, without looking into how it was gained.  this is why i find it highly problematic when it is seen as a cause.   #  0.  but that does not change that the premises of your opinion is wrong.   #  0.  but that does not change that the premises of your opinion is wrong.  equal societies does not create a depressed societies.  0.  there might be conflicted opinions why scandinavia have among the happiest countries.  but you should not discard the equality effect because it challenges your belief.  0.  there a lot of other factors which have a correlation with equality.  like mental health, life expectancy, obesity etc.  this is true both internationally, and if you compare the states in the us.  like i said before, these data can be disputed and discussed, but i want you to understand that equality might be something to strive for, for its own sake.  that there are science to back it up, atleast partially.   #  what would it take to make you change your view ?  #  its very hard to cyv if you discard all evidence which contradict your position.  what would it take to make you change your view ? there is a lot of evidence suggesting that equality have a part in these factors.  can you show me any statistics proving otherwise more than quoting a professor ? do you have any evidence more than a few  case studies  ? can you show me statistics that show a correlation between ethnic homogeneity and alls those factors i mentioned above ?
i do not know how it is in other cultures, but i know that the  everybody is a winner  mentality is prevalent in american culture.  i believe that, for instance, while playing sports growing up, if the child is taught that everyone is a winner, then that could have an impact on their thought process and their motivation until they can come to the realization that not everyone is a winner.  growing up, instead of teaching me that everyone is a winner, that the most important thing is to give whatever you are doing 0, and that sometimes someone else will lose; but, if you try your hardest, then you can at least know what you need to improve and how you should do it.  i think, along with this, that participation trophies are bad for young minds, for the same reason.  it does not give kids something to strive for or work towards.  also, i am not gonna be some crazy dad one day who makes his kids be pro athletes and jump their ass about everything, and i know that in extra curriculars, the most important thing is having fun.  however, i think that kids could have fun and also be taught the lesson that, in any endeavor that you choose, you should give it your everything, not that you are a winner for just being there.  also, thanks for all the responses.  i posted this, went to sleep, and just woke up to a blown up inbox.  making breakfast now, and then i will go through it all.  thanks guys !  #  i think, along with this, that participation trophies are bad for young minds, for the same reason.   #  it does not give kids something to strive for or work towards.   # it does not give kids something to strive for or work towards.  this is the one sentence i want to address, and i am sure others have as well.  participation trophies are not there to make every kid feel like a winner.  would you feel like a winner taking home a tiny little trophy when the other team had the huge championship trophy ? participation trophies, if ceremonies are handled properly, teach children that their effort is appreciated and has not gone unnoticed.  it is just as important for young children to learn that their hard work is appreciated as it is to learn that not everyone can win everything.  take a look at professional sports, in addition to the fact that they all get paid, at the end of the season almost every professional team has a banquet or celebration of some kind so they can come together and recognize the efforts they all made that year, regardless of the end result.  no matter the age or their position in life, it is important to people to feel appreciated for what they do if they are to continue doing it.   #  i can tell you every single kid hated the participation ones.   #  i think you do not give kids enough credit when it comes to motivation.  i grew up in a time when the sports i played that gave out trophies did give out participation trophies.  i can tell you every single kid hated the participation ones.  we all wanted the big ones that the champions got.  it maybe even served as extra motivation.  that tiny thing was more of a slap in the face if anything.  also, the participation trophies stopped around 0/0 which i think is normal.  as for what we should be teaching kids in youth sports, i think technique and effort should be taught over winning.  the simple fact is at younger ages kids are developing at different times.  a lot of kids who hit puberty first are the biggest, strongest, fastest at age 0.  so because they can just use their superior athleticism they never develop proper technique.  they focus more on winning then proper form.  when the other kids who had to lean proper technique just to compete catch up in terms of size and strength they easily surpass the early bloomers.   #  i understand where you are coming from, but i see a place for rewarding results, too.   #  i understand where you are coming from, but i see a place for rewarding results, too.  even if something may come easier to a than b, actually accomplishing the goal is important.  moreover, depending on the task, it can be very hard to quantify  working hard  objectively.  i might be mentally pushing myself extremely hard to stave off that  omg you are exhausted !   feeling sprinting in the relay.  how do you compare that vs the guy who is  outwardly  showing hard work by coming to practice longer ? there are hundreds of approaches to hard work or smart work and it can be hard to compare and weigh them all.  the score at the end of the game ? cakewalk.   #  did he deserve recognition for just being fast ?  #  yeah, like most aspects of life, the gray area can be pretty big and difficult to quantify.  one example i was thinking of, was the guy that does not show up to half the practices, but would win most of his races anyway.  did he deserve recognition for just being fast ? probably.  but in my book, the guy that started the season off hardly able to make it across the pool, but finished the season fast enough for the varsity team, deserves more recognition, even though he still did not win.  unfortunately, most people do not fall into such clear cut  trys ,  does not try  categories.   #  they know if they one or not and they know what that trophy means.   #  it means the same exact thing as a ribbon or badge.  it does not say you won.  ive been on only one winning team, one year i played softball.  i was the only one who sucked on that team and we were the undefeated champions.  the big trophy we got for that didnt make me feel anything.  i sucked a softball and didnt really see that trophy as belonging to me.  but the participation trophies everyone got meant a lot more to me.  all they are are symbols to show you are a part of that team.  many id say most kids know this.  they know if they one or not and they know what that trophy means.
i do not know how it is in other cultures, but i know that the  everybody is a winner  mentality is prevalent in american culture.  i believe that, for instance, while playing sports growing up, if the child is taught that everyone is a winner, then that could have an impact on their thought process and their motivation until they can come to the realization that not everyone is a winner.  growing up, instead of teaching me that everyone is a winner, that the most important thing is to give whatever you are doing 0, and that sometimes someone else will lose; but, if you try your hardest, then you can at least know what you need to improve and how you should do it.  i think, along with this, that participation trophies are bad for young minds, for the same reason.  it does not give kids something to strive for or work towards.  also, i am not gonna be some crazy dad one day who makes his kids be pro athletes and jump their ass about everything, and i know that in extra curriculars, the most important thing is having fun.  however, i think that kids could have fun and also be taught the lesson that, in any endeavor that you choose, you should give it your everything, not that you are a winner for just being there.  also, thanks for all the responses.  i posted this, went to sleep, and just woke up to a blown up inbox.  making breakfast now, and then i will go through it all.  thanks guys !  #  i think, along with this, that participation trophies are bad for young minds, for the same reason.   #  it does not give kids something to strive for or work towards.   # it does not give kids something to strive for or work towards.  also, i am not gonna be some crazy dad one day who makes his kids be pro athletes and jump their ass about everything, and i know that in extra curriculars, the most important thing is having fun.  however, i think that kids could have fun and also be taught the lesson that, in any endeavor that you choose, you should give it your everything, not that you are a winner for just being there.  i think there is age where it stops.  some kids are never going to be athletes, or are not even athletically inclined, so they need acknowledgement for trying.  i agree with this to a degree.  i think at very young ages it is ok for everyone to be winner.  cause a lot of kids could just sit around and do nothing.  but it must stop at some age.   #  the simple fact is at younger ages kids are developing at different times.   #  i think you do not give kids enough credit when it comes to motivation.  i grew up in a time when the sports i played that gave out trophies did give out participation trophies.  i can tell you every single kid hated the participation ones.  we all wanted the big ones that the champions got.  it maybe even served as extra motivation.  that tiny thing was more of a slap in the face if anything.  also, the participation trophies stopped around 0/0 which i think is normal.  as for what we should be teaching kids in youth sports, i think technique and effort should be taught over winning.  the simple fact is at younger ages kids are developing at different times.  a lot of kids who hit puberty first are the biggest, strongest, fastest at age 0.  so because they can just use their superior athleticism they never develop proper technique.  they focus more on winning then proper form.  when the other kids who had to lean proper technique just to compete catch up in terms of size and strength they easily surpass the early bloomers.   #  even if something may come easier to a than b, actually accomplishing the goal is important.   #  i understand where you are coming from, but i see a place for rewarding results, too.  even if something may come easier to a than b, actually accomplishing the goal is important.  moreover, depending on the task, it can be very hard to quantify  working hard  objectively.  i might be mentally pushing myself extremely hard to stave off that  omg you are exhausted !   feeling sprinting in the relay.  how do you compare that vs the guy who is  outwardly  showing hard work by coming to practice longer ? there are hundreds of approaches to hard work or smart work and it can be hard to compare and weigh them all.  the score at the end of the game ? cakewalk.   #  yeah, like most aspects of life, the gray area can be pretty big and difficult to quantify.   #  yeah, like most aspects of life, the gray area can be pretty big and difficult to quantify.  one example i was thinking of, was the guy that does not show up to half the practices, but would win most of his races anyway.  did he deserve recognition for just being fast ? probably.  but in my book, the guy that started the season off hardly able to make it across the pool, but finished the season fast enough for the varsity team, deserves more recognition, even though he still did not win.  unfortunately, most people do not fall into such clear cut  trys ,  does not try  categories.   #  it means the same exact thing as a ribbon or badge.   #  it means the same exact thing as a ribbon or badge.  it does not say you won.  ive been on only one winning team, one year i played softball.  i was the only one who sucked on that team and we were the undefeated champions.  the big trophy we got for that didnt make me feel anything.  i sucked a softball and didnt really see that trophy as belonging to me.  but the participation trophies everyone got meant a lot more to me.  all they are are symbols to show you are a part of that team.  many id say most kids know this.  they know if they one or not and they know what that trophy means.
i do not know how it is in other cultures, but i know that the  everybody is a winner  mentality is prevalent in american culture.  i believe that, for instance, while playing sports growing up, if the child is taught that everyone is a winner, then that could have an impact on their thought process and their motivation until they can come to the realization that not everyone is a winner.  growing up, instead of teaching me that everyone is a winner, that the most important thing is to give whatever you are doing 0, and that sometimes someone else will lose; but, if you try your hardest, then you can at least know what you need to improve and how you should do it.  i think, along with this, that participation trophies are bad for young minds, for the same reason.  it does not give kids something to strive for or work towards.  also, i am not gonna be some crazy dad one day who makes his kids be pro athletes and jump their ass about everything, and i know that in extra curriculars, the most important thing is having fun.  however, i think that kids could have fun and also be taught the lesson that, in any endeavor that you choose, you should give it your everything, not that you are a winner for just being there.  also, thanks for all the responses.  i posted this, went to sleep, and just woke up to a blown up inbox.  making breakfast now, and then i will go through it all.  thanks guys !  #  i do not know how it is in other cultures, but i know that the  everybody is a winner  mentality is prevalent in american culture.   #  i agree with this to a degree.   # it does not give kids something to strive for or work towards.  also, i am not gonna be some crazy dad one day who makes his kids be pro athletes and jump their ass about everything, and i know that in extra curriculars, the most important thing is having fun.  however, i think that kids could have fun and also be taught the lesson that, in any endeavor that you choose, you should give it your everything, not that you are a winner for just being there.  i think there is age where it stops.  some kids are never going to be athletes, or are not even athletically inclined, so they need acknowledgement for trying.  i agree with this to a degree.  i think at very young ages it is ok for everyone to be winner.  cause a lot of kids could just sit around and do nothing.  but it must stop at some age.   #  i think you do not give kids enough credit when it comes to motivation.   #  i think you do not give kids enough credit when it comes to motivation.  i grew up in a time when the sports i played that gave out trophies did give out participation trophies.  i can tell you every single kid hated the participation ones.  we all wanted the big ones that the champions got.  it maybe even served as extra motivation.  that tiny thing was more of a slap in the face if anything.  also, the participation trophies stopped around 0/0 which i think is normal.  as for what we should be teaching kids in youth sports, i think technique and effort should be taught over winning.  the simple fact is at younger ages kids are developing at different times.  a lot of kids who hit puberty first are the biggest, strongest, fastest at age 0.  so because they can just use their superior athleticism they never develop proper technique.  they focus more on winning then proper form.  when the other kids who had to lean proper technique just to compete catch up in terms of size and strength they easily surpass the early bloomers.   #  i understand where you are coming from, but i see a place for rewarding results, too.   #  i understand where you are coming from, but i see a place for rewarding results, too.  even if something may come easier to a than b, actually accomplishing the goal is important.  moreover, depending on the task, it can be very hard to quantify  working hard  objectively.  i might be mentally pushing myself extremely hard to stave off that  omg you are exhausted !   feeling sprinting in the relay.  how do you compare that vs the guy who is  outwardly  showing hard work by coming to practice longer ? there are hundreds of approaches to hard work or smart work and it can be hard to compare and weigh them all.  the score at the end of the game ? cakewalk.   #  unfortunately, most people do not fall into such clear cut  trys ,  does not try  categories.   #  yeah, like most aspects of life, the gray area can be pretty big and difficult to quantify.  one example i was thinking of, was the guy that does not show up to half the practices, but would win most of his races anyway.  did he deserve recognition for just being fast ? probably.  but in my book, the guy that started the season off hardly able to make it across the pool, but finished the season fast enough for the varsity team, deserves more recognition, even though he still did not win.  unfortunately, most people do not fall into such clear cut  trys ,  does not try  categories.   #  ive been on only one winning team, one year i played softball.   #  it means the same exact thing as a ribbon or badge.  it does not say you won.  ive been on only one winning team, one year i played softball.  i was the only one who sucked on that team and we were the undefeated champions.  the big trophy we got for that didnt make me feel anything.  i sucked a softball and didnt really see that trophy as belonging to me.  but the participation trophies everyone got meant a lot more to me.  all they are are symbols to show you are a part of that team.  many id say most kids know this.  they know if they one or not and they know what that trophy means.
i am getting tired of these advertisements that are selling large pizza is for $0, but it is really only a 0  pizza which is a medium at best.  the size of a pizza is related to its area, which for regular pies is \pi r 0.  since the size grows as the square of the radius, a small increase in a pizza is radius can result in a large increase in the size of the pie.  an 0  pie is 0 larger then a 0  pie.  my point is that when places like dominos and pizza hut sell you s, m, l pies, you have no way to know what you are getting.  they should put their sizes in units that are convenient for determining the actual size of the pie.  what would be so hard about that ?  #  my point is that when places like dominos and pizza hut sell you s, m, l pies, you have no way to know what you are getting.   #  this actually is not the case as all.   # this actually is not the case as all.  when you order pizza through their website they tell you the size of their pizzas.  here is a screenshot of dominos order page URL and here is a screenshot of pizza hut is URL they tell you the diameter of the pizza, so the only unknown is the thickness, which is consistent within each pizza place and fairly similar across many of them.  also, since you are not really arguing about the thickness i will leave this as it is as there is much less ambiguity in how thick a style of pizza will be.  what would be so hard about that ? the reason for not having this information in the actual advertisement is you do not need to present the watcher with more information than they can digest in a short 0 or 0 second ad.  people do not want to do math when watching a tv, even if it is a simple measurement like 0  that they are all accustomed to.  they are not trying to hide it from you as the information is readily available when you go to order, and if you are behind the times and still use a phone to order pizza i am certain they would tell you if you ask.  if you are upset at ordering a  large  pizza for $0 and only got a 0 , the only one at fault is you for blindly assuming how big a large is when the information on how big a pizza hut or dominos large is already available.  there is not a reason to standardize if they tell you what the sizes actually measure out to be already.   #  plus that is incredibly subjective based on where you are ordering from anyway.   #  no way of knowing ? at least in the united states pizza hut sizes have not changed since the eighties at the earliest.  how is this some plot to make people over order ? plus that is incredibly subjective based on where you are ordering from anyway.  a twelve inch pie from ten different places with the same toppings can have one places slice be three to five times bigger.  think thin crust st louis style pepperoni vs unos chicago deep dish from their original place here in chicago.  do you want the same rules for burgers.  we know whitecastle customers are dying to be saved from having to ask how big their burgers are.  you can as also look at a menu, look at their site, ask the employee, call them.   #  are you telling me that this information is not available where you are ?  #  where i live, while they call it a s/m/l/xl, they always state what that means.  eg.  0  l .  so if you ignore the number for the inconsistent letter that is really your own fault.  if you ask for a 0  pizza, they will give you one.  translated to whatever size they consider it to be.  are you telling me that this information is not available where you are ?  #  even without standardized sizes, all the information is there and easy to figure out by just saying  how many inches is that ?    # the size of a pizza is related to its area, which for regular pies is \pi r 0.  since the size grows as the square of the radius, a small increase in a pizza is radius can result in a large increase in the size of the pie.  an 0  pie is 0 larger then a 0  pie.  my point is that when places like dominos and pizza hut sell you s, m, l pies, you have no way to know what you are getting.  they should put their sizes in units that are convenient for determining the actual size of the pie.  what would be so hard about that ? this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving ! was a pizza hut manager for a decade.  the inches have not changed since st least the eighties. at least in the usa.  if you do not know the big three it is the same as not knowing what is on a whopper.  it is because you do not eat there.  not because they are being devious.  you can also ask.  every pizza joint knows how many inches there are.  even without standardized sizes, all the information is there and easy to figure out by just saying  how many inches is that ?   is your not wanting to ask justification for telling other business owners how to do their job ? that does not seem to be a reason to dictate how to run a business. someone is convenience ? is not the info easy to get too though ? google, website, call and ask them, walk in and ask.   #  out of context, to the average person who orders pizza, a 0  could be a small or an extra large and they would not know the difference.   #  most people, when ordering pizza, want to do it the most convenient way possible.  it is hard to visualize a 0  pizza in their head, so they are not quite sure if that is the right amount for them or their family.  after years of experience of ordering pizza, most people know exactly what size pizza they want, whether it be small, medium, or large.  out of context, to the average person who orders pizza, a 0  could be a small or an extra large and they would not know the difference.  they would only know that their family can handle a large and can safely assume there will be a couple pieces left over for the next day.
i am getting tired of these advertisements that are selling large pizza is for $0, but it is really only a 0  pizza which is a medium at best.  the size of a pizza is related to its area, which for regular pies is \pi r 0.  since the size grows as the square of the radius, a small increase in a pizza is radius can result in a large increase in the size of the pie.  an 0  pie is 0 larger then a 0  pie.  my point is that when places like dominos and pizza hut sell you s, m, l pies, you have no way to know what you are getting.  they should put their sizes in units that are convenient for determining the actual size of the pie.  what would be so hard about that ?  #  they should put their sizes in units that are convenient for determining the actual size of the pie.   #  what would be so hard about that ?  # this actually is not the case as all.  when you order pizza through their website they tell you the size of their pizzas.  here is a screenshot of dominos order page URL and here is a screenshot of pizza hut is URL they tell you the diameter of the pizza, so the only unknown is the thickness, which is consistent within each pizza place and fairly similar across many of them.  also, since you are not really arguing about the thickness i will leave this as it is as there is much less ambiguity in how thick a style of pizza will be.  what would be so hard about that ? the reason for not having this information in the actual advertisement is you do not need to present the watcher with more information than they can digest in a short 0 or 0 second ad.  people do not want to do math when watching a tv, even if it is a simple measurement like 0  that they are all accustomed to.  they are not trying to hide it from you as the information is readily available when you go to order, and if you are behind the times and still use a phone to order pizza i am certain they would tell you if you ask.  if you are upset at ordering a  large  pizza for $0 and only got a 0 , the only one at fault is you for blindly assuming how big a large is when the information on how big a pizza hut or dominos large is already available.  there is not a reason to standardize if they tell you what the sizes actually measure out to be already.   #  we know whitecastle customers are dying to be saved from having to ask how big their burgers are.   #  no way of knowing ? at least in the united states pizza hut sizes have not changed since the eighties at the earliest.  how is this some plot to make people over order ? plus that is incredibly subjective based on where you are ordering from anyway.  a twelve inch pie from ten different places with the same toppings can have one places slice be three to five times bigger.  think thin crust st louis style pepperoni vs unos chicago deep dish from their original place here in chicago.  do you want the same rules for burgers.  we know whitecastle customers are dying to be saved from having to ask how big their burgers are.  you can as also look at a menu, look at their site, ask the employee, call them.   #  if you ask for a 0  pizza, they will give you one.   #  where i live, while they call it a s/m/l/xl, they always state what that means.  eg.  0  l .  so if you ignore the number for the inconsistent letter that is really your own fault.  if you ask for a 0  pizza, they will give you one.  translated to whatever size they consider it to be.  are you telling me that this information is not available where you are ?  #  an 0  pie is 0 larger then a 0  pie.   # the size of a pizza is related to its area, which for regular pies is \pi r 0.  since the size grows as the square of the radius, a small increase in a pizza is radius can result in a large increase in the size of the pie.  an 0  pie is 0 larger then a 0  pie.  my point is that when places like dominos and pizza hut sell you s, m, l pies, you have no way to know what you are getting.  they should put their sizes in units that are convenient for determining the actual size of the pie.  what would be so hard about that ? this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving ! was a pizza hut manager for a decade.  the inches have not changed since st least the eighties. at least in the usa.  if you do not know the big three it is the same as not knowing what is on a whopper.  it is because you do not eat there.  not because they are being devious.  you can also ask.  every pizza joint knows how many inches there are.  even without standardized sizes, all the information is there and easy to figure out by just saying  how many inches is that ?   is your not wanting to ask justification for telling other business owners how to do their job ? that does not seem to be a reason to dictate how to run a business. someone is convenience ? is not the info easy to get too though ? google, website, call and ask them, walk in and ask.   #  after years of experience of ordering pizza, most people know exactly what size pizza they want, whether it be small, medium, or large.   #  most people, when ordering pizza, want to do it the most convenient way possible.  it is hard to visualize a 0  pizza in their head, so they are not quite sure if that is the right amount for them or their family.  after years of experience of ordering pizza, most people know exactly what size pizza they want, whether it be small, medium, or large.  out of context, to the average person who orders pizza, a 0  could be a small or an extra large and they would not know the difference.  they would only know that their family can handle a large and can safely assume there will be a couple pieces left over for the next day.
i am getting tired of these advertisements that are selling large pizza is for $0, but it is really only a 0  pizza which is a medium at best.  the size of a pizza is related to its area, which for regular pies is \pi r 0.  since the size grows as the square of the radius, a small increase in a pizza is radius can result in a large increase in the size of the pie.  an 0  pie is 0 larger then a 0  pie.  my point is that when places like dominos and pizza hut sell you s, m, l pies, you have no way to know what you are getting.  they should put their sizes in units that are convenient for determining the actual size of the pie.  what would be so hard about that ?  #  i am getting tired of these advertisements that are selling large pizza is for $0, but it is really only a 0  pizza which is a medium at best.   #  the size of a pizza is related to its area, which for regular pies is \pi r 0.   # the size of a pizza is related to its area, which for regular pies is \pi r 0.  since the size grows as the square of the radius, a small increase in a pizza is radius can result in a large increase in the size of the pie.  an 0  pie is 0 larger then a 0  pie.  my point is that when places like dominos and pizza hut sell you s, m, l pies, you have no way to know what you are getting.  they should put their sizes in units that are convenient for determining the actual size of the pie.  what would be so hard about that ? this is a footnote from your moderators.  we would just like to remind you of a couple of things.  firstly, please remember to    read through our rules URL  if you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it.  speaking of which,    downvotes do not change views URL if you are thinking about submitting a cmv yourself, please have a look through our    popular topics wiki URL  first.  any questions or concerns ? feel free to    message us URL  happy cmving ! was a pizza hut manager for a decade.  the inches have not changed since st least the eighties. at least in the usa.  if you do not know the big three it is the same as not knowing what is on a whopper.  it is because you do not eat there.  not because they are being devious.  you can also ask.  every pizza joint knows how many inches there are.  even without standardized sizes, all the information is there and easy to figure out by just saying  how many inches is that ?   is your not wanting to ask justification for telling other business owners how to do their job ? that does not seem to be a reason to dictate how to run a business. someone is convenience ? is not the info easy to get too though ? google, website, call and ask them, walk in and ask.   #  we know whitecastle customers are dying to be saved from having to ask how big their burgers are.   #  no way of knowing ? at least in the united states pizza hut sizes have not changed since the eighties at the earliest.  how is this some plot to make people over order ? plus that is incredibly subjective based on where you are ordering from anyway.  a twelve inch pie from ten different places with the same toppings can have one places slice be three to five times bigger.  think thin crust st louis style pepperoni vs unos chicago deep dish from their original place here in chicago.  do you want the same rules for burgers.  we know whitecastle customers are dying to be saved from having to ask how big their burgers are.  you can as also look at a menu, look at their site, ask the employee, call them.   #  when you order pizza through their website they tell you the size of their pizzas.   # this actually is not the case as all.  when you order pizza through their website they tell you the size of their pizzas.  here is a screenshot of dominos order page URL and here is a screenshot of pizza hut is URL they tell you the diameter of the pizza, so the only unknown is the thickness, which is consistent within each pizza place and fairly similar across many of them.  also, since you are not really arguing about the thickness i will leave this as it is as there is much less ambiguity in how thick a style of pizza will be.  what would be so hard about that ? the reason for not having this information in the actual advertisement is you do not need to present the watcher with more information than they can digest in a short 0 or 0 second ad.  people do not want to do math when watching a tv, even if it is a simple measurement like 0  that they are all accustomed to.  they are not trying to hide it from you as the information is readily available when you go to order, and if you are behind the times and still use a phone to order pizza i am certain they would tell you if you ask.  if you are upset at ordering a  large  pizza for $0 and only got a 0 , the only one at fault is you for blindly assuming how big a large is when the information on how big a pizza hut or dominos large is already available.  there is not a reason to standardize if they tell you what the sizes actually measure out to be already.   #  translated to whatever size they consider it to be.   #  where i live, while they call it a s/m/l/xl, they always state what that means.  eg.  0  l .  so if you ignore the number for the inconsistent letter that is really your own fault.  if you ask for a 0  pizza, they will give you one.  translated to whatever size they consider it to be.  are you telling me that this information is not available where you are ?  #  they would only know that their family can handle a large and can safely assume there will be a couple pieces left over for the next day.   #  most people, when ordering pizza, want to do it the most convenient way possible.  it is hard to visualize a 0  pizza in their head, so they are not quite sure if that is the right amount for them or their family.  after years of experience of ordering pizza, most people know exactly what size pizza they want, whether it be small, medium, or large.  out of context, to the average person who orders pizza, a 0  could be a small or an extra large and they would not know the difference.  they would only know that their family can handle a large and can safely assume there will be a couple pieces left over for the next day.
first off, i am talking about the united states in this cmv.  i am not sure how the system works in other countries.  right now, any male in the us must register with selective service within 0 days of their 0th birthday.  obviously, this does not always happen, but current rates are estimated to be around 0 percent.  the purpose is so that, if the us gets in a large war, we can institute a draft and conscript an army.  this obviously makes some sense.  but i would like to take it a step further.  instead of registering with the sss, 0 year olds should be required to enlist in the army reserve for the eight year service period.  the reasons for this are pretty simple, as i see it: firstly, we would never need a draft again, because if a large war came, we could simply activate some of the 0 million odd reservists to fight.  this would be far easier and less costly than organizing an entire draft.  it would also cut down on the time needed to train the newly conscripted army, as the reservists would have been doing reserve training all this time, and so should at least have a rudimentary knowledge of things.  from a strictly non military perspective, it would increase physical fitness amongst young people, which in turn should, in theory, cut down on healthcare costs.  it would also, ideally, increase discipline in the youth of the nation at least in some .  obviously, people would not like it.  but objections would pass, just like they do with the regular draft.  alright, that is my perspective.  cmv  #  firstly, we would never need a draft again, because if a large war came, we could simply activate some of the 0 million odd reservists to fight.   #  how would this be any different than a draft ?  # how would this be any different than a draft ? i do not see how it would cut down this time at all, since everyone would have to train for the military even though they may not end up going to war, as opposed to the current system where only people who volunteer for the military are trained to do so.  how so ? what would stop someone from being out of shape and thus not being able to pass certain physical requirements ? would this person then not be able to vote since they ca not pass certain physical requirements to enlist in the army reserves ? or it would increase the amount of resentment that young people have for authority figures by forcing them to be submissive to authority figures in the military.   #  i will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to clarify, because i am fairly certain they are not.   #  well, i did say that they would enlist at 0, and be done by 0.  call it a tax, call it whatever, but the 0 0 year olds wo not get paid.  land wars are a thing of the past ? i will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to clarify, because i am fairly certain they are not.  and i suppose i should have stressed the social benefits.  we would train a group of young people to listen to authority and work as a group.  this is a good thing  #  we would train a group of young people to listen to authority and work as a group.   # and regardless, you still paid to train the ones who are now too old .  coincidentally, 0 million is about the same as the number of troops who served in wwii  land wars are a thing of the past ? i will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to clarify, because i am fairly certain they are not.  there will never be another land war of a scale of wwii.  if we went to war with russia or china, nuclear weapons would come in to play before we got into a situation with millions of soldiers fighting in trenches.  we would train a group of young people to listen to authority and work as a group.  this is a good thing are you just playing devil is advocate here ?  #  this is the population group that has the lowest amount of healthcare needs.   #  it also would not cut down on healthcare costs.  most of the countries healthcare costs are from seniors.  the other bigger chunks are infants, and young people with health conditions.  young people with health conditions do not go into the military.  the only people who would get in better health would be 0 0 year old males.  this is the population group that has the lowest amount of healthcare needs.   #  but lets assume that you are right and a decent number of people are changed for the better.   #  i think you are really overestimating how fit you have to be to be a reservist.  they are not seals.  the standards are pretty low, and unless you want to get promoted, you do not have to really try at all for lasting fitness.  and the kind of people who are forced to join instead of volunteering are going to be the kind of people who are not very dedicated.  which would only be made worse by the fact that it is only a reserve unit, since there would not normally be an important job to do keeping everyone focused.  this same point goes for self discipline as well.  i have to ask where you are getting your perception of the military, because it seems a bit romanticized.  but lets assume that you are right and a decent number of people are changed for the better.  take the money saved in health care and subtract the money spent on the reservists.  training them costs about $0,0.  continuing their training, supplying them, paying them, is only going to cost more.  then you have the post service benefits to give them.  you  could  cut down on the benefits but that would certainly not go over well with a great number of people.   i ca not go to college because some asshole draftee needs to be paid ?
first off, i am talking about the united states in this cmv.  i am not sure how the system works in other countries.  right now, any male in the us must register with selective service within 0 days of their 0th birthday.  obviously, this does not always happen, but current rates are estimated to be around 0 percent.  the purpose is so that, if the us gets in a large war, we can institute a draft and conscript an army.  this obviously makes some sense.  but i would like to take it a step further.  instead of registering with the sss, 0 year olds should be required to enlist in the army reserve for the eight year service period.  the reasons for this are pretty simple, as i see it: firstly, we would never need a draft again, because if a large war came, we could simply activate some of the 0 million odd reservists to fight.  this would be far easier and less costly than organizing an entire draft.  it would also cut down on the time needed to train the newly conscripted army, as the reservists would have been doing reserve training all this time, and so should at least have a rudimentary knowledge of things.  from a strictly non military perspective, it would increase physical fitness amongst young people, which in turn should, in theory, cut down on healthcare costs.  it would also, ideally, increase discipline in the youth of the nation at least in some .  obviously, people would not like it.  but objections would pass, just like they do with the regular draft.  alright, that is my perspective.  cmv  #  it would also, ideally, increase discipline in the youth of the nation at least in some .   #  or it would increase the amount of resentment that young people have for authority figures by forcing them to be submissive to authority figures in the military.   # how would this be any different than a draft ? i do not see how it would cut down this time at all, since everyone would have to train for the military even though they may not end up going to war, as opposed to the current system where only people who volunteer for the military are trained to do so.  how so ? what would stop someone from being out of shape and thus not being able to pass certain physical requirements ? would this person then not be able to vote since they ca not pass certain physical requirements to enlist in the army reserves ? or it would increase the amount of resentment that young people have for authority figures by forcing them to be submissive to authority figures in the military.   #  and i suppose i should have stressed the social benefits.   #  well, i did say that they would enlist at 0, and be done by 0.  call it a tax, call it whatever, but the 0 0 year olds wo not get paid.  land wars are a thing of the past ? i will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to clarify, because i am fairly certain they are not.  and i suppose i should have stressed the social benefits.  we would train a group of young people to listen to authority and work as a group.  this is a good thing  #  there will never be another land war of a scale of wwii.   # and regardless, you still paid to train the ones who are now too old .  coincidentally, 0 million is about the same as the number of troops who served in wwii  land wars are a thing of the past ? i will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to clarify, because i am fairly certain they are not.  there will never be another land war of a scale of wwii.  if we went to war with russia or china, nuclear weapons would come in to play before we got into a situation with millions of soldiers fighting in trenches.  we would train a group of young people to listen to authority and work as a group.  this is a good thing are you just playing devil is advocate here ?  #  this is the population group that has the lowest amount of healthcare needs.   #  it also would not cut down on healthcare costs.  most of the countries healthcare costs are from seniors.  the other bigger chunks are infants, and young people with health conditions.  young people with health conditions do not go into the military.  the only people who would get in better health would be 0 0 year old males.  this is the population group that has the lowest amount of healthcare needs.   #  which would only be made worse by the fact that it is only a reserve unit, since there would not normally be an important job to do keeping everyone focused.   #  i think you are really overestimating how fit you have to be to be a reservist.  they are not seals.  the standards are pretty low, and unless you want to get promoted, you do not have to really try at all for lasting fitness.  and the kind of people who are forced to join instead of volunteering are going to be the kind of people who are not very dedicated.  which would only be made worse by the fact that it is only a reserve unit, since there would not normally be an important job to do keeping everyone focused.  this same point goes for self discipline as well.  i have to ask where you are getting your perception of the military, because it seems a bit romanticized.  but lets assume that you are right and a decent number of people are changed for the better.  take the money saved in health care and subtract the money spent on the reservists.  training them costs about $0,0.  continuing their training, supplying them, paying them, is only going to cost more.  then you have the post service benefits to give them.  you  could  cut down on the benefits but that would certainly not go over well with a great number of people.   i ca not go to college because some asshole draftee needs to be paid ?
i believe stannis on the iron throne would be a disaster even worse than joffrey.  stannis is stubborn, obsessed with his biased sense of  justice , absolutely horrible at maintaining any kind of good relationship with anyone, fails at any kind of intrigue not involving shadow babies , and suffers from massive reality distortion field which gets him into fights he cannot win.  stannis could make the best of his situation backing renly, who would then together with robb crush lannisters from all sides.  he would then be renly is heir, and renly does not have terribly great chances of having children.  instead he chose the way of evil magic and became a kinslayer.  even his reputation as military commander is inflated.  he barely survived one siege, won one easy battle against ironborn, then lost pretty much everything else.  i expect the realm under stannis would most likely fall apart in a few years.  the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, but also due to his believe in a foreign god to whom he makes human sacrifices.  cmv.   #  and suffers from massive reality distortion field which gets him into fights he cannot win.   #  it is not a reality distortion, it is an acceptance of reality.   # he tries to be objectively just, and is stubborn in the pursuit of it.  so was robb, who beheaded a karstark.  so is dany, who kills potential political allies a shortsighted, passionate mistake .  robert may not have been obsessed with justice, but see what kind of a ruler he was ? you could argue his inbility to maintain relationships  is  a problem, and i would agree, but i do not think that is a disqualifier and it is inaccurate to say he cannot maintain a relationship with  anyone .  besides, once renly was out of the picture, he had several major houses line up with him.  you do not need to be someone is best friend, you just need their respect.  he had it.  he then suffered an unfortunate and improbable defeat, but he rallied plenty of people regardless.  i do not follow the logic.  robert was a likeable guy, and how did he do ? it is not a reality distortion, it is an acceptance of reality.  he is the rightful heir.  period.  there is no debate.  he would then be renly is heir renly could make the best of the situation by backing stannis, and then all of that good stuff happens.  how can you say he would not get it done ? he is young yet, give him time.  how can you say it was evil ? we do not know yet enough about the lord of light to say if he is good or evil.  he did what he had to do to defeat a rebel, a usurper, a treasonous degenerate.  renly was like robert, and robert was a bad king.  stannis was doing what was best for the realm by removing him.  he barely survived one siege, but he won.  like what ? the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, the people accepted joffrey, and he would have remained king if not for a massive conspiracy against him.  stannis would be just fine.  there was the religion of the old gods in westeros.  then the dragons came, as did the new gods, the seven.  the people accepted it, because they had no option.  the small folk do not care who the king is gods are.  they just want someone who will protect them.  stannis would do that.  if you rape or pillage, stannis will kill you, unlike joffrey who, through his grandfather, ordered the raping and pillaging.   #  he retook deepwood motte, won the battle at castle black.   #  0.  stannis is the least stubborn of all the kings.  he changes his religion for political expendancy.  he pardons corrupt lords.   these lords who flocked to my brother is banners knew him for a usurper.  they turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory, and i have marked them for what they are.  pardoned them, yes.  forgiven.  but not forgotten.   he listens to the advice of his peasant hand and changes his behavior based on them.   yes, i should have come sooner.  if not for my hand, i might not have come at all.  lord seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all i could think of was my rights.  i had the cart before the horse, davos said.  i was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when i should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.   all the other contendors do have very wise people around them who give them excellent advice.  cersei had jaime, pycelle, varys, kevan, never listened to any of them.  dany had barristan, jorah, rarely listened to them.  robb ignored all the excellent advice of his mother.  stannis is by far the least stubborn.  he listens to the good advice of his advisers.  that makes him a superior king.  0.  his sense of justice is actually a major reason why he makes an excellent king.  he sees no one as above the law and wants to do his duty.  he is willing to fight the corrupt.  he is the sort of king the kingdom needs, willing to compromise when necessary but also slay lawbreakers.  0.  given that he made a large army out of traitors, he is not that bad at maintaining a relationship.  he also allied with the men of the north, gaining thousands more soldiers.  he has an excellent record of forming good relationships with people to increase the size of his army.  0.  he is doing a lot better on this.  he retook deepwood motte, won the battle at castle black.  he did do poorly initially.  0.  renly was a corrupt and idiotic man who ruined the city watch with his abysmal ways.  he would be a horrible king and would run the country terribly, and also fight terribly.  0.  it is debatable if his magic is evil.  what is more likely is that the people will come to respect him, take his religion since it is useful and he will repeatedly save the realm, using the good advice of his advisors, building up a huge army to conquer the realm.   #  i have read all of the books and i have just recently reread got and acok but i do not know what you mean when you say he ruined the watch.   #  i disagree with some parts of 0.    renly was corrupt because he did not serve stannis so he himself could be king.  i will accept that.  renly was not idiotic.  he had 0k troops when stannis had less than 0k, tywin had less than 0k and robb stark had less than 0k.  renly also was marching very slowly because everyone was fighting each other which would have made for easy victories all around.  i have read all of the books and i have just recently reread got and acok but i do not know what you mean when you say he ruined the watch.  when renly speaks with catelyn stark you can see that he cares about the people of the realm, that shows me he would be a good king.  stannis is the one who says that renly gets knocked off of his horse by a better man in tourneys.  during the tourney for the new hand ned stark, renly made it pretty far into the lists, only getting knocked off by the hound after a close tilt.  being bested by the hound in a tournament does not make you fight terribly.   #  he does not put the realm first, he starts a war for no other reason than his hubris and desire to rule.   #  renly would be a really shitty king: now what is a good king ? a good king would be: 0.  putting the realm first 0.  honesty 0.  compassion 0.  law maker reasonable/fair laws 0.  knowledgeable lead by example 0.  effective communicator how was renly not this ? he does not put the realm first, he starts a war for no other reason than his hubris and desire to rule.  those who desire power are the worst to wield it.  if he truly cared for the realm, he would take actions to stop the war asap, he didnt, he waited and let it suffer, either because he was a shitty general, or because he wanted a better strategic position.  he is not honest or compassionate, even though he does appoint brianne to his rainbow guard, he laughs at her in private.  his tenure of the master of laws was ineffective, he didnt do a thing, he did nothing the combat the corruption in kings landing.  he is certainly not knowledgeable, he hates reading and learning.  renly truly is copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day  #  i do not think it is so much comparing the kings at this point, as it is looking at the state of the realm and deciding which king is better suited for the situation.   #  i do not think it is so much comparing the kings at this point, as it is looking at the state of the realm and deciding which king is better suited for the situation.  renly is a good king in his own respect.  he builds rapport easily with people, he is already well liked, open to new ideas, but he is also extremely flawed.  he is extravagant and vain, as well as naive.  stannis does not show it, but he is caring and just.  stannis is not likable in the conventional way, but his moral compass is always pointed in the same direction.  the reason neither of these kings would survive at court is because neither of them are devious.  one is eccentric, the other is just; it would take less than a year before one of their subordinates killed them.  regardless, stannis would definitely be a better choice for king.  the state of the kingdom right now requires order.  if renly had his way, everyone would be throwing dinner parties, which is definitely not what is needed.
i believe stannis on the iron throne would be a disaster even worse than joffrey.  stannis is stubborn, obsessed with his biased sense of  justice , absolutely horrible at maintaining any kind of good relationship with anyone, fails at any kind of intrigue not involving shadow babies , and suffers from massive reality distortion field which gets him into fights he cannot win.  stannis could make the best of his situation backing renly, who would then together with robb crush lannisters from all sides.  he would then be renly is heir, and renly does not have terribly great chances of having children.  instead he chose the way of evil magic and became a kinslayer.  even his reputation as military commander is inflated.  he barely survived one siege, won one easy battle against ironborn, then lost pretty much everything else.  i expect the realm under stannis would most likely fall apart in a few years.  the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, but also due to his believe in a foreign god to whom he makes human sacrifices.  cmv.   #  stannis could make the best of his situation backing renly, who would then together with robb crush lannisters from all sides.   #  he would then be renly is heir renly could make the best of the situation by backing stannis, and then all of that good stuff happens.   # he tries to be objectively just, and is stubborn in the pursuit of it.  so was robb, who beheaded a karstark.  so is dany, who kills potential political allies a shortsighted, passionate mistake .  robert may not have been obsessed with justice, but see what kind of a ruler he was ? you could argue his inbility to maintain relationships  is  a problem, and i would agree, but i do not think that is a disqualifier and it is inaccurate to say he cannot maintain a relationship with  anyone .  besides, once renly was out of the picture, he had several major houses line up with him.  you do not need to be someone is best friend, you just need their respect.  he had it.  he then suffered an unfortunate and improbable defeat, but he rallied plenty of people regardless.  i do not follow the logic.  robert was a likeable guy, and how did he do ? it is not a reality distortion, it is an acceptance of reality.  he is the rightful heir.  period.  there is no debate.  he would then be renly is heir renly could make the best of the situation by backing stannis, and then all of that good stuff happens.  how can you say he would not get it done ? he is young yet, give him time.  how can you say it was evil ? we do not know yet enough about the lord of light to say if he is good or evil.  he did what he had to do to defeat a rebel, a usurper, a treasonous degenerate.  renly was like robert, and robert was a bad king.  stannis was doing what was best for the realm by removing him.  he barely survived one siege, but he won.  like what ? the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, the people accepted joffrey, and he would have remained king if not for a massive conspiracy against him.  stannis would be just fine.  there was the religion of the old gods in westeros.  then the dragons came, as did the new gods, the seven.  the people accepted it, because they had no option.  the small folk do not care who the king is gods are.  they just want someone who will protect them.  stannis would do that.  if you rape or pillage, stannis will kill you, unlike joffrey who, through his grandfather, ordered the raping and pillaging.   #  he listens to the good advice of his advisers.   #  0.  stannis is the least stubborn of all the kings.  he changes his religion for political expendancy.  he pardons corrupt lords.   these lords who flocked to my brother is banners knew him for a usurper.  they turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory, and i have marked them for what they are.  pardoned them, yes.  forgiven.  but not forgotten.   he listens to the advice of his peasant hand and changes his behavior based on them.   yes, i should have come sooner.  if not for my hand, i might not have come at all.  lord seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all i could think of was my rights.  i had the cart before the horse, davos said.  i was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when i should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.   all the other contendors do have very wise people around them who give them excellent advice.  cersei had jaime, pycelle, varys, kevan, never listened to any of them.  dany had barristan, jorah, rarely listened to them.  robb ignored all the excellent advice of his mother.  stannis is by far the least stubborn.  he listens to the good advice of his advisers.  that makes him a superior king.  0.  his sense of justice is actually a major reason why he makes an excellent king.  he sees no one as above the law and wants to do his duty.  he is willing to fight the corrupt.  he is the sort of king the kingdom needs, willing to compromise when necessary but also slay lawbreakers.  0.  given that he made a large army out of traitors, he is not that bad at maintaining a relationship.  he also allied with the men of the north, gaining thousands more soldiers.  he has an excellent record of forming good relationships with people to increase the size of his army.  0.  he is doing a lot better on this.  he retook deepwood motte, won the battle at castle black.  he did do poorly initially.  0.  renly was a corrupt and idiotic man who ruined the city watch with his abysmal ways.  he would be a horrible king and would run the country terribly, and also fight terribly.  0.  it is debatable if his magic is evil.  what is more likely is that the people will come to respect him, take his religion since it is useful and he will repeatedly save the realm, using the good advice of his advisors, building up a huge army to conquer the realm.   #  during the tourney for the new hand ned stark, renly made it pretty far into the lists, only getting knocked off by the hound after a close tilt.   #  i disagree with some parts of 0.    renly was corrupt because he did not serve stannis so he himself could be king.  i will accept that.  renly was not idiotic.  he had 0k troops when stannis had less than 0k, tywin had less than 0k and robb stark had less than 0k.  renly also was marching very slowly because everyone was fighting each other which would have made for easy victories all around.  i have read all of the books and i have just recently reread got and acok but i do not know what you mean when you say he ruined the watch.  when renly speaks with catelyn stark you can see that he cares about the people of the realm, that shows me he would be a good king.  stannis is the one who says that renly gets knocked off of his horse by a better man in tourneys.  during the tourney for the new hand ned stark, renly made it pretty far into the lists, only getting knocked off by the hound after a close tilt.  being bested by the hound in a tournament does not make you fight terribly.   #  renly would be a really shitty king: now what is a good king ?  #  renly would be a really shitty king: now what is a good king ? a good king would be: 0.  putting the realm first 0.  honesty 0.  compassion 0.  law maker reasonable/fair laws 0.  knowledgeable lead by example 0.  effective communicator how was renly not this ? he does not put the realm first, he starts a war for no other reason than his hubris and desire to rule.  those who desire power are the worst to wield it.  if he truly cared for the realm, he would take actions to stop the war asap, he didnt, he waited and let it suffer, either because he was a shitty general, or because he wanted a better strategic position.  he is not honest or compassionate, even though he does appoint brianne to his rainbow guard, he laughs at her in private.  his tenure of the master of laws was ineffective, he didnt do a thing, he did nothing the combat the corruption in kings landing.  he is certainly not knowledgeable, he hates reading and learning.  renly truly is copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day  #  stannis is not likable in the conventional way, but his moral compass is always pointed in the same direction.   #  i do not think it is so much comparing the kings at this point, as it is looking at the state of the realm and deciding which king is better suited for the situation.  renly is a good king in his own respect.  he builds rapport easily with people, he is already well liked, open to new ideas, but he is also extremely flawed.  he is extravagant and vain, as well as naive.  stannis does not show it, but he is caring and just.  stannis is not likable in the conventional way, but his moral compass is always pointed in the same direction.  the reason neither of these kings would survive at court is because neither of them are devious.  one is eccentric, the other is just; it would take less than a year before one of their subordinates killed them.  regardless, stannis would definitely be a better choice for king.  the state of the kingdom right now requires order.  if renly had his way, everyone would be throwing dinner parties, which is definitely not what is needed.
i believe stannis on the iron throne would be a disaster even worse than joffrey.  stannis is stubborn, obsessed with his biased sense of  justice , absolutely horrible at maintaining any kind of good relationship with anyone, fails at any kind of intrigue not involving shadow babies , and suffers from massive reality distortion field which gets him into fights he cannot win.  stannis could make the best of his situation backing renly, who would then together with robb crush lannisters from all sides.  he would then be renly is heir, and renly does not have terribly great chances of having children.  instead he chose the way of evil magic and became a kinslayer.  even his reputation as military commander is inflated.  he barely survived one siege, won one easy battle against ironborn, then lost pretty much everything else.  i expect the realm under stannis would most likely fall apart in a few years.  the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, but also due to his believe in a foreign god to whom he makes human sacrifices.  cmv.   #  and renly does not have terribly great chances of having children.   #  how can you say he would not get it done ?  # he tries to be objectively just, and is stubborn in the pursuit of it.  so was robb, who beheaded a karstark.  so is dany, who kills potential political allies a shortsighted, passionate mistake .  robert may not have been obsessed with justice, but see what kind of a ruler he was ? you could argue his inbility to maintain relationships  is  a problem, and i would agree, but i do not think that is a disqualifier and it is inaccurate to say he cannot maintain a relationship with  anyone .  besides, once renly was out of the picture, he had several major houses line up with him.  you do not need to be someone is best friend, you just need their respect.  he had it.  he then suffered an unfortunate and improbable defeat, but he rallied plenty of people regardless.  i do not follow the logic.  robert was a likeable guy, and how did he do ? it is not a reality distortion, it is an acceptance of reality.  he is the rightful heir.  period.  there is no debate.  he would then be renly is heir renly could make the best of the situation by backing stannis, and then all of that good stuff happens.  how can you say he would not get it done ? he is young yet, give him time.  how can you say it was evil ? we do not know yet enough about the lord of light to say if he is good or evil.  he did what he had to do to defeat a rebel, a usurper, a treasonous degenerate.  renly was like robert, and robert was a bad king.  stannis was doing what was best for the realm by removing him.  he barely survived one siege, but he won.  like what ? the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, the people accepted joffrey, and he would have remained king if not for a massive conspiracy against him.  stannis would be just fine.  there was the religion of the old gods in westeros.  then the dragons came, as did the new gods, the seven.  the people accepted it, because they had no option.  the small folk do not care who the king is gods are.  they just want someone who will protect them.  stannis would do that.  if you rape or pillage, stannis will kill you, unlike joffrey who, through his grandfather, ordered the raping and pillaging.   #  cersei had jaime, pycelle, varys, kevan, never listened to any of them.   #  0.  stannis is the least stubborn of all the kings.  he changes his religion for political expendancy.  he pardons corrupt lords.   these lords who flocked to my brother is banners knew him for a usurper.  they turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory, and i have marked them for what they are.  pardoned them, yes.  forgiven.  but not forgotten.   he listens to the advice of his peasant hand and changes his behavior based on them.   yes, i should have come sooner.  if not for my hand, i might not have come at all.  lord seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all i could think of was my rights.  i had the cart before the horse, davos said.  i was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when i should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.   all the other contendors do have very wise people around them who give them excellent advice.  cersei had jaime, pycelle, varys, kevan, never listened to any of them.  dany had barristan, jorah, rarely listened to them.  robb ignored all the excellent advice of his mother.  stannis is by far the least stubborn.  he listens to the good advice of his advisers.  that makes him a superior king.  0.  his sense of justice is actually a major reason why he makes an excellent king.  he sees no one as above the law and wants to do his duty.  he is willing to fight the corrupt.  he is the sort of king the kingdom needs, willing to compromise when necessary but also slay lawbreakers.  0.  given that he made a large army out of traitors, he is not that bad at maintaining a relationship.  he also allied with the men of the north, gaining thousands more soldiers.  he has an excellent record of forming good relationships with people to increase the size of his army.  0.  he is doing a lot better on this.  he retook deepwood motte, won the battle at castle black.  he did do poorly initially.  0.  renly was a corrupt and idiotic man who ruined the city watch with his abysmal ways.  he would be a horrible king and would run the country terribly, and also fight terribly.  0.  it is debatable if his magic is evil.  what is more likely is that the people will come to respect him, take his religion since it is useful and he will repeatedly save the realm, using the good advice of his advisors, building up a huge army to conquer the realm.   #  during the tourney for the new hand ned stark, renly made it pretty far into the lists, only getting knocked off by the hound after a close tilt.   #  i disagree with some parts of 0.    renly was corrupt because he did not serve stannis so he himself could be king.  i will accept that.  renly was not idiotic.  he had 0k troops when stannis had less than 0k, tywin had less than 0k and robb stark had less than 0k.  renly also was marching very slowly because everyone was fighting each other which would have made for easy victories all around.  i have read all of the books and i have just recently reread got and acok but i do not know what you mean when you say he ruined the watch.  when renly speaks with catelyn stark you can see that he cares about the people of the realm, that shows me he would be a good king.  stannis is the one who says that renly gets knocked off of his horse by a better man in tourneys.  during the tourney for the new hand ned stark, renly made it pretty far into the lists, only getting knocked off by the hound after a close tilt.  being bested by the hound in a tournament does not make you fight terribly.   #  renly would be a really shitty king: now what is a good king ?  #  renly would be a really shitty king: now what is a good king ? a good king would be: 0.  putting the realm first 0.  honesty 0.  compassion 0.  law maker reasonable/fair laws 0.  knowledgeable lead by example 0.  effective communicator how was renly not this ? he does not put the realm first, he starts a war for no other reason than his hubris and desire to rule.  those who desire power are the worst to wield it.  if he truly cared for the realm, he would take actions to stop the war asap, he didnt, he waited and let it suffer, either because he was a shitty general, or because he wanted a better strategic position.  he is not honest or compassionate, even though he does appoint brianne to his rainbow guard, he laughs at her in private.  his tenure of the master of laws was ineffective, he didnt do a thing, he did nothing the combat the corruption in kings landing.  he is certainly not knowledgeable, he hates reading and learning.  renly truly is copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day  #  the reason neither of these kings would survive at court is because neither of them are devious.   #  i do not think it is so much comparing the kings at this point, as it is looking at the state of the realm and deciding which king is better suited for the situation.  renly is a good king in his own respect.  he builds rapport easily with people, he is already well liked, open to new ideas, but he is also extremely flawed.  he is extravagant and vain, as well as naive.  stannis does not show it, but he is caring and just.  stannis is not likable in the conventional way, but his moral compass is always pointed in the same direction.  the reason neither of these kings would survive at court is because neither of them are devious.  one is eccentric, the other is just; it would take less than a year before one of their subordinates killed them.  regardless, stannis would definitely be a better choice for king.  the state of the kingdom right now requires order.  if renly had his way, everyone would be throwing dinner parties, which is definitely not what is needed.
i believe stannis on the iron throne would be a disaster even worse than joffrey.  stannis is stubborn, obsessed with his biased sense of  justice , absolutely horrible at maintaining any kind of good relationship with anyone, fails at any kind of intrigue not involving shadow babies , and suffers from massive reality distortion field which gets him into fights he cannot win.  stannis could make the best of his situation backing renly, who would then together with robb crush lannisters from all sides.  he would then be renly is heir, and renly does not have terribly great chances of having children.  instead he chose the way of evil magic and became a kinslayer.  even his reputation as military commander is inflated.  he barely survived one siege, won one easy battle against ironborn, then lost pretty much everything else.  i expect the realm under stannis would most likely fall apart in a few years.  the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, but also due to his believe in a foreign god to whom he makes human sacrifices.  cmv.   #  instead he chose the way of evil magic and became a kinslayer.   #  how can you say it was evil ?  # he tries to be objectively just, and is stubborn in the pursuit of it.  so was robb, who beheaded a karstark.  so is dany, who kills potential political allies a shortsighted, passionate mistake .  robert may not have been obsessed with justice, but see what kind of a ruler he was ? you could argue his inbility to maintain relationships  is  a problem, and i would agree, but i do not think that is a disqualifier and it is inaccurate to say he cannot maintain a relationship with  anyone .  besides, once renly was out of the picture, he had several major houses line up with him.  you do not need to be someone is best friend, you just need their respect.  he had it.  he then suffered an unfortunate and improbable defeat, but he rallied plenty of people regardless.  i do not follow the logic.  robert was a likeable guy, and how did he do ? it is not a reality distortion, it is an acceptance of reality.  he is the rightful heir.  period.  there is no debate.  he would then be renly is heir renly could make the best of the situation by backing stannis, and then all of that good stuff happens.  how can you say he would not get it done ? he is young yet, give him time.  how can you say it was evil ? we do not know yet enough about the lord of light to say if he is good or evil.  he did what he had to do to defeat a rebel, a usurper, a treasonous degenerate.  renly was like robert, and robert was a bad king.  stannis was doing what was best for the realm by removing him.  he barely survived one siege, but he won.  like what ? the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, the people accepted joffrey, and he would have remained king if not for a massive conspiracy against him.  stannis would be just fine.  there was the religion of the old gods in westeros.  then the dragons came, as did the new gods, the seven.  the people accepted it, because they had no option.  the small folk do not care who the king is gods are.  they just want someone who will protect them.  stannis would do that.  if you rape or pillage, stannis will kill you, unlike joffrey who, through his grandfather, ordered the raping and pillaging.   #  robb ignored all the excellent advice of his mother.   #  0.  stannis is the least stubborn of all the kings.  he changes his religion for political expendancy.  he pardons corrupt lords.   these lords who flocked to my brother is banners knew him for a usurper.  they turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory, and i have marked them for what they are.  pardoned them, yes.  forgiven.  but not forgotten.   he listens to the advice of his peasant hand and changes his behavior based on them.   yes, i should have come sooner.  if not for my hand, i might not have come at all.  lord seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all i could think of was my rights.  i had the cart before the horse, davos said.  i was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when i should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.   all the other contendors do have very wise people around them who give them excellent advice.  cersei had jaime, pycelle, varys, kevan, never listened to any of them.  dany had barristan, jorah, rarely listened to them.  robb ignored all the excellent advice of his mother.  stannis is by far the least stubborn.  he listens to the good advice of his advisers.  that makes him a superior king.  0.  his sense of justice is actually a major reason why he makes an excellent king.  he sees no one as above the law and wants to do his duty.  he is willing to fight the corrupt.  he is the sort of king the kingdom needs, willing to compromise when necessary but also slay lawbreakers.  0.  given that he made a large army out of traitors, he is not that bad at maintaining a relationship.  he also allied with the men of the north, gaining thousands more soldiers.  he has an excellent record of forming good relationships with people to increase the size of his army.  0.  he is doing a lot better on this.  he retook deepwood motte, won the battle at castle black.  he did do poorly initially.  0.  renly was a corrupt and idiotic man who ruined the city watch with his abysmal ways.  he would be a horrible king and would run the country terribly, and also fight terribly.  0.  it is debatable if his magic is evil.  what is more likely is that the people will come to respect him, take his religion since it is useful and he will repeatedly save the realm, using the good advice of his advisors, building up a huge army to conquer the realm.   #  when renly speaks with catelyn stark you can see that he cares about the people of the realm, that shows me he would be a good king.   #  i disagree with some parts of 0.    renly was corrupt because he did not serve stannis so he himself could be king.  i will accept that.  renly was not idiotic.  he had 0k troops when stannis had less than 0k, tywin had less than 0k and robb stark had less than 0k.  renly also was marching very slowly because everyone was fighting each other which would have made for easy victories all around.  i have read all of the books and i have just recently reread got and acok but i do not know what you mean when you say he ruined the watch.  when renly speaks with catelyn stark you can see that he cares about the people of the realm, that shows me he would be a good king.  stannis is the one who says that renly gets knocked off of his horse by a better man in tourneys.  during the tourney for the new hand ned stark, renly made it pretty far into the lists, only getting knocked off by the hound after a close tilt.  being bested by the hound in a tournament does not make you fight terribly.   #  a good king would be: 0.  putting the realm first 0.  honesty 0.  compassion 0.  law maker reasonable/fair laws 0.  knowledgeable lead by example 0.  effective communicator how was renly not this ?  #  renly would be a really shitty king: now what is a good king ? a good king would be: 0.  putting the realm first 0.  honesty 0.  compassion 0.  law maker reasonable/fair laws 0.  knowledgeable lead by example 0.  effective communicator how was renly not this ? he does not put the realm first, he starts a war for no other reason than his hubris and desire to rule.  those who desire power are the worst to wield it.  if he truly cared for the realm, he would take actions to stop the war asap, he didnt, he waited and let it suffer, either because he was a shitty general, or because he wanted a better strategic position.  he is not honest or compassionate, even though he does appoint brianne to his rainbow guard, he laughs at her in private.  his tenure of the master of laws was ineffective, he didnt do a thing, he did nothing the combat the corruption in kings landing.  he is certainly not knowledgeable, he hates reading and learning.  renly truly is copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day  #  one is eccentric, the other is just; it would take less than a year before one of their subordinates killed them.   #  i do not think it is so much comparing the kings at this point, as it is looking at the state of the realm and deciding which king is better suited for the situation.  renly is a good king in his own respect.  he builds rapport easily with people, he is already well liked, open to new ideas, but he is also extremely flawed.  he is extravagant and vain, as well as naive.  stannis does not show it, but he is caring and just.  stannis is not likable in the conventional way, but his moral compass is always pointed in the same direction.  the reason neither of these kings would survive at court is because neither of them are devious.  one is eccentric, the other is just; it would take less than a year before one of their subordinates killed them.  regardless, stannis would definitely be a better choice for king.  the state of the kingdom right now requires order.  if renly had his way, everyone would be throwing dinner parties, which is definitely not what is needed.
i believe stannis on the iron throne would be a disaster even worse than joffrey.  stannis is stubborn, obsessed with his biased sense of  justice , absolutely horrible at maintaining any kind of good relationship with anyone, fails at any kind of intrigue not involving shadow babies , and suffers from massive reality distortion field which gets him into fights he cannot win.  stannis could make the best of his situation backing renly, who would then together with robb crush lannisters from all sides.  he would then be renly is heir, and renly does not have terribly great chances of having children.  instead he chose the way of evil magic and became a kinslayer.  even his reputation as military commander is inflated.  he barely survived one siege, won one easy battle against ironborn, then lost pretty much everything else.  i expect the realm under stannis would most likely fall apart in a few years.  the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, but also due to his believe in a foreign god to whom he makes human sacrifices.  cmv.   #  even his reputation as military commander is inflated.   #  he barely survived one siege, but he won.   # he tries to be objectively just, and is stubborn in the pursuit of it.  so was robb, who beheaded a karstark.  so is dany, who kills potential political allies a shortsighted, passionate mistake .  robert may not have been obsessed with justice, but see what kind of a ruler he was ? you could argue his inbility to maintain relationships  is  a problem, and i would agree, but i do not think that is a disqualifier and it is inaccurate to say he cannot maintain a relationship with  anyone .  besides, once renly was out of the picture, he had several major houses line up with him.  you do not need to be someone is best friend, you just need their respect.  he had it.  he then suffered an unfortunate and improbable defeat, but he rallied plenty of people regardless.  i do not follow the logic.  robert was a likeable guy, and how did he do ? it is not a reality distortion, it is an acceptance of reality.  he is the rightful heir.  period.  there is no debate.  he would then be renly is heir renly could make the best of the situation by backing stannis, and then all of that good stuff happens.  how can you say he would not get it done ? he is young yet, give him time.  how can you say it was evil ? we do not know yet enough about the lord of light to say if he is good or evil.  he did what he had to do to defeat a rebel, a usurper, a treasonous degenerate.  renly was like robert, and robert was a bad king.  stannis was doing what was best for the realm by removing him.  he barely survived one siege, but he won.  like what ? the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, the people accepted joffrey, and he would have remained king if not for a massive conspiracy against him.  stannis would be just fine.  there was the religion of the old gods in westeros.  then the dragons came, as did the new gods, the seven.  the people accepted it, because they had no option.  the small folk do not care who the king is gods are.  they just want someone who will protect them.  stannis would do that.  if you rape or pillage, stannis will kill you, unlike joffrey who, through his grandfather, ordered the raping and pillaging.   #  he sees no one as above the law and wants to do his duty.   #  0.  stannis is the least stubborn of all the kings.  he changes his religion for political expendancy.  he pardons corrupt lords.   these lords who flocked to my brother is banners knew him for a usurper.  they turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory, and i have marked them for what they are.  pardoned them, yes.  forgiven.  but not forgotten.   he listens to the advice of his peasant hand and changes his behavior based on them.   yes, i should have come sooner.  if not for my hand, i might not have come at all.  lord seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all i could think of was my rights.  i had the cart before the horse, davos said.  i was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when i should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.   all the other contendors do have very wise people around them who give them excellent advice.  cersei had jaime, pycelle, varys, kevan, never listened to any of them.  dany had barristan, jorah, rarely listened to them.  robb ignored all the excellent advice of his mother.  stannis is by far the least stubborn.  he listens to the good advice of his advisers.  that makes him a superior king.  0.  his sense of justice is actually a major reason why he makes an excellent king.  he sees no one as above the law and wants to do his duty.  he is willing to fight the corrupt.  he is the sort of king the kingdom needs, willing to compromise when necessary but also slay lawbreakers.  0.  given that he made a large army out of traitors, he is not that bad at maintaining a relationship.  he also allied with the men of the north, gaining thousands more soldiers.  he has an excellent record of forming good relationships with people to increase the size of his army.  0.  he is doing a lot better on this.  he retook deepwood motte, won the battle at castle black.  he did do poorly initially.  0.  renly was a corrupt and idiotic man who ruined the city watch with his abysmal ways.  he would be a horrible king and would run the country terribly, and also fight terribly.  0.  it is debatable if his magic is evil.  what is more likely is that the people will come to respect him, take his religion since it is useful and he will repeatedly save the realm, using the good advice of his advisors, building up a huge army to conquer the realm.   #  being bested by the hound in a tournament does not make you fight terribly.   #  i disagree with some parts of 0.    renly was corrupt because he did not serve stannis so he himself could be king.  i will accept that.  renly was not idiotic.  he had 0k troops when stannis had less than 0k, tywin had less than 0k and robb stark had less than 0k.  renly also was marching very slowly because everyone was fighting each other which would have made for easy victories all around.  i have read all of the books and i have just recently reread got and acok but i do not know what you mean when you say he ruined the watch.  when renly speaks with catelyn stark you can see that he cares about the people of the realm, that shows me he would be a good king.  stannis is the one who says that renly gets knocked off of his horse by a better man in tourneys.  during the tourney for the new hand ned stark, renly made it pretty far into the lists, only getting knocked off by the hound after a close tilt.  being bested by the hound in a tournament does not make you fight terribly.   #  if he truly cared for the realm, he would take actions to stop the war asap, he didnt, he waited and let it suffer, either because he was a shitty general, or because he wanted a better strategic position.   #  renly would be a really shitty king: now what is a good king ? a good king would be: 0.  putting the realm first 0.  honesty 0.  compassion 0.  law maker reasonable/fair laws 0.  knowledgeable lead by example 0.  effective communicator how was renly not this ? he does not put the realm first, he starts a war for no other reason than his hubris and desire to rule.  those who desire power are the worst to wield it.  if he truly cared for the realm, he would take actions to stop the war asap, he didnt, he waited and let it suffer, either because he was a shitty general, or because he wanted a better strategic position.  he is not honest or compassionate, even though he does appoint brianne to his rainbow guard, he laughs at her in private.  his tenure of the master of laws was ineffective, he didnt do a thing, he did nothing the combat the corruption in kings landing.  he is certainly not knowledgeable, he hates reading and learning.  renly truly is copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day  #  one is eccentric, the other is just; it would take less than a year before one of their subordinates killed them.   #  i do not think it is so much comparing the kings at this point, as it is looking at the state of the realm and deciding which king is better suited for the situation.  renly is a good king in his own respect.  he builds rapport easily with people, he is already well liked, open to new ideas, but he is also extremely flawed.  he is extravagant and vain, as well as naive.  stannis does not show it, but he is caring and just.  stannis is not likable in the conventional way, but his moral compass is always pointed in the same direction.  the reason neither of these kings would survive at court is because neither of them are devious.  one is eccentric, the other is just; it would take less than a year before one of their subordinates killed them.  regardless, stannis would definitely be a better choice for king.  the state of the kingdom right now requires order.  if renly had his way, everyone would be throwing dinner parties, which is definitely not what is needed.
i believe stannis on the iron throne would be a disaster even worse than joffrey.  stannis is stubborn, obsessed with his biased sense of  justice , absolutely horrible at maintaining any kind of good relationship with anyone, fails at any kind of intrigue not involving shadow babies , and suffers from massive reality distortion field which gets him into fights he cannot win.  stannis could make the best of his situation backing renly, who would then together with robb crush lannisters from all sides.  he would then be renly is heir, and renly does not have terribly great chances of having children.  instead he chose the way of evil magic and became a kinslayer.  even his reputation as military commander is inflated.  he barely survived one siege, won one easy battle against ironborn, then lost pretty much everything else.  i expect the realm under stannis would most likely fall apart in a few years.  the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, but also due to his believe in a foreign god to whom he makes human sacrifices.  cmv.   #  i expect the realm under stannis would most likely fall apart in a few years.   #  the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, the people accepted joffrey, and he would have remained king if not for a massive conspiracy against him.   # he tries to be objectively just, and is stubborn in the pursuit of it.  so was robb, who beheaded a karstark.  so is dany, who kills potential political allies a shortsighted, passionate mistake .  robert may not have been obsessed with justice, but see what kind of a ruler he was ? you could argue his inbility to maintain relationships  is  a problem, and i would agree, but i do not think that is a disqualifier and it is inaccurate to say he cannot maintain a relationship with  anyone .  besides, once renly was out of the picture, he had several major houses line up with him.  you do not need to be someone is best friend, you just need their respect.  he had it.  he then suffered an unfortunate and improbable defeat, but he rallied plenty of people regardless.  i do not follow the logic.  robert was a likeable guy, and how did he do ? it is not a reality distortion, it is an acceptance of reality.  he is the rightful heir.  period.  there is no debate.  he would then be renly is heir renly could make the best of the situation by backing stannis, and then all of that good stuff happens.  how can you say he would not get it done ? he is young yet, give him time.  how can you say it was evil ? we do not know yet enough about the lord of light to say if he is good or evil.  he did what he had to do to defeat a rebel, a usurper, a treasonous degenerate.  renly was like robert, and robert was a bad king.  stannis was doing what was best for the realm by removing him.  he barely survived one siege, but he won.  like what ? the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, the people accepted joffrey, and he would have remained king if not for a massive conspiracy against him.  stannis would be just fine.  there was the religion of the old gods in westeros.  then the dragons came, as did the new gods, the seven.  the people accepted it, because they had no option.  the small folk do not care who the king is gods are.  they just want someone who will protect them.  stannis would do that.  if you rape or pillage, stannis will kill you, unlike joffrey who, through his grandfather, ordered the raping and pillaging.   #  he also allied with the men of the north, gaining thousands more soldiers.   #  0.  stannis is the least stubborn of all the kings.  he changes his religion for political expendancy.  he pardons corrupt lords.   these lords who flocked to my brother is banners knew him for a usurper.  they turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory, and i have marked them for what they are.  pardoned them, yes.  forgiven.  but not forgotten.   he listens to the advice of his peasant hand and changes his behavior based on them.   yes, i should have come sooner.  if not for my hand, i might not have come at all.  lord seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all i could think of was my rights.  i had the cart before the horse, davos said.  i was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when i should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.   all the other contendors do have very wise people around them who give them excellent advice.  cersei had jaime, pycelle, varys, kevan, never listened to any of them.  dany had barristan, jorah, rarely listened to them.  robb ignored all the excellent advice of his mother.  stannis is by far the least stubborn.  he listens to the good advice of his advisers.  that makes him a superior king.  0.  his sense of justice is actually a major reason why he makes an excellent king.  he sees no one as above the law and wants to do his duty.  he is willing to fight the corrupt.  he is the sort of king the kingdom needs, willing to compromise when necessary but also slay lawbreakers.  0.  given that he made a large army out of traitors, he is not that bad at maintaining a relationship.  he also allied with the men of the north, gaining thousands more soldiers.  he has an excellent record of forming good relationships with people to increase the size of his army.  0.  he is doing a lot better on this.  he retook deepwood motte, won the battle at castle black.  he did do poorly initially.  0.  renly was a corrupt and idiotic man who ruined the city watch with his abysmal ways.  he would be a horrible king and would run the country terribly, and also fight terribly.  0.  it is debatable if his magic is evil.  what is more likely is that the people will come to respect him, take his religion since it is useful and he will repeatedly save the realm, using the good advice of his advisors, building up a huge army to conquer the realm.   #  he had 0k troops when stannis had less than 0k, tywin had less than 0k and robb stark had less than 0k.   #  i disagree with some parts of 0.    renly was corrupt because he did not serve stannis so he himself could be king.  i will accept that.  renly was not idiotic.  he had 0k troops when stannis had less than 0k, tywin had less than 0k and robb stark had less than 0k.  renly also was marching very slowly because everyone was fighting each other which would have made for easy victories all around.  i have read all of the books and i have just recently reread got and acok but i do not know what you mean when you say he ruined the watch.  when renly speaks with catelyn stark you can see that he cares about the people of the realm, that shows me he would be a good king.  stannis is the one who says that renly gets knocked off of his horse by a better man in tourneys.  during the tourney for the new hand ned stark, renly made it pretty far into the lists, only getting knocked off by the hound after a close tilt.  being bested by the hound in a tournament does not make you fight terribly.   #  those who desire power are the worst to wield it.   #  renly would be a really shitty king: now what is a good king ? a good king would be: 0.  putting the realm first 0.  honesty 0.  compassion 0.  law maker reasonable/fair laws 0.  knowledgeable lead by example 0.  effective communicator how was renly not this ? he does not put the realm first, he starts a war for no other reason than his hubris and desire to rule.  those who desire power are the worst to wield it.  if he truly cared for the realm, he would take actions to stop the war asap, he didnt, he waited and let it suffer, either because he was a shitty general, or because he wanted a better strategic position.  he is not honest or compassionate, even though he does appoint brianne to his rainbow guard, he laughs at her in private.  his tenure of the master of laws was ineffective, he didnt do a thing, he did nothing the combat the corruption in kings landing.  he is certainly not knowledgeable, he hates reading and learning.  renly truly is copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day  #  one is eccentric, the other is just; it would take less than a year before one of their subordinates killed them.   #  i do not think it is so much comparing the kings at this point, as it is looking at the state of the realm and deciding which king is better suited for the situation.  renly is a good king in his own respect.  he builds rapport easily with people, he is already well liked, open to new ideas, but he is also extremely flawed.  he is extravagant and vain, as well as naive.  stannis does not show it, but he is caring and just.  stannis is not likable in the conventional way, but his moral compass is always pointed in the same direction.  the reason neither of these kings would survive at court is because neither of them are devious.  one is eccentric, the other is just; it would take less than a year before one of their subordinates killed them.  regardless, stannis would definitely be a better choice for king.  the state of the kingdom right now requires order.  if renly had his way, everyone would be throwing dinner parties, which is definitely not what is needed.
i believe stannis on the iron throne would be a disaster even worse than joffrey.  stannis is stubborn, obsessed with his biased sense of  justice , absolutely horrible at maintaining any kind of good relationship with anyone, fails at any kind of intrigue not involving shadow babies , and suffers from massive reality distortion field which gets him into fights he cannot win.  stannis could make the best of his situation backing renly, who would then together with robb crush lannisters from all sides.  he would then be renly is heir, and renly does not have terribly great chances of having children.  instead he chose the way of evil magic and became a kinslayer.  even his reputation as military commander is inflated.  he barely survived one siege, won one easy battle against ironborn, then lost pretty much everything else.  i expect the realm under stannis would most likely fall apart in a few years.  the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, but also due to his believe in a foreign god to whom he makes human sacrifices.  cmv.   #  but also due to his believe in a foreign god to whom he makes human sacrifices.   #  there was the religion of the old gods in westeros.   # he tries to be objectively just, and is stubborn in the pursuit of it.  so was robb, who beheaded a karstark.  so is dany, who kills potential political allies a shortsighted, passionate mistake .  robert may not have been obsessed with justice, but see what kind of a ruler he was ? you could argue his inbility to maintain relationships  is  a problem, and i would agree, but i do not think that is a disqualifier and it is inaccurate to say he cannot maintain a relationship with  anyone .  besides, once renly was out of the picture, he had several major houses line up with him.  you do not need to be someone is best friend, you just need their respect.  he had it.  he then suffered an unfortunate and improbable defeat, but he rallied plenty of people regardless.  i do not follow the logic.  robert was a likeable guy, and how did he do ? it is not a reality distortion, it is an acceptance of reality.  he is the rightful heir.  period.  there is no debate.  he would then be renly is heir renly could make the best of the situation by backing stannis, and then all of that good stuff happens.  how can you say he would not get it done ? he is young yet, give him time.  how can you say it was evil ? we do not know yet enough about the lord of light to say if he is good or evil.  he did what he had to do to defeat a rebel, a usurper, a treasonous degenerate.  renly was like robert, and robert was a bad king.  stannis was doing what was best for the realm by removing him.  he barely survived one siege, but he won.  like what ? the people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, the people accepted joffrey, and he would have remained king if not for a massive conspiracy against him.  stannis would be just fine.  there was the religion of the old gods in westeros.  then the dragons came, as did the new gods, the seven.  the people accepted it, because they had no option.  the small folk do not care who the king is gods are.  they just want someone who will protect them.  stannis would do that.  if you rape or pillage, stannis will kill you, unlike joffrey who, through his grandfather, ordered the raping and pillaging.   #  he retook deepwood motte, won the battle at castle black.   #  0.  stannis is the least stubborn of all the kings.  he changes his religion for political expendancy.  he pardons corrupt lords.   these lords who flocked to my brother is banners knew him for a usurper.  they turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory, and i have marked them for what they are.  pardoned them, yes.  forgiven.  but not forgotten.   he listens to the advice of his peasant hand and changes his behavior based on them.   yes, i should have come sooner.  if not for my hand, i might not have come at all.  lord seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all i could think of was my rights.  i had the cart before the horse, davos said.  i was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when i should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.   all the other contendors do have very wise people around them who give them excellent advice.  cersei had jaime, pycelle, varys, kevan, never listened to any of them.  dany had barristan, jorah, rarely listened to them.  robb ignored all the excellent advice of his mother.  stannis is by far the least stubborn.  he listens to the good advice of his advisers.  that makes him a superior king.  0.  his sense of justice is actually a major reason why he makes an excellent king.  he sees no one as above the law and wants to do his duty.  he is willing to fight the corrupt.  he is the sort of king the kingdom needs, willing to compromise when necessary but also slay lawbreakers.  0.  given that he made a large army out of traitors, he is not that bad at maintaining a relationship.  he also allied with the men of the north, gaining thousands more soldiers.  he has an excellent record of forming good relationships with people to increase the size of his army.  0.  he is doing a lot better on this.  he retook deepwood motte, won the battle at castle black.  he did do poorly initially.  0.  renly was a corrupt and idiotic man who ruined the city watch with his abysmal ways.  he would be a horrible king and would run the country terribly, and also fight terribly.  0.  it is debatable if his magic is evil.  what is more likely is that the people will come to respect him, take his religion since it is useful and he will repeatedly save the realm, using the good advice of his advisors, building up a huge army to conquer the realm.   #  he had 0k troops when stannis had less than 0k, tywin had less than 0k and robb stark had less than 0k.   #  i disagree with some parts of 0.    renly was corrupt because he did not serve stannis so he himself could be king.  i will accept that.  renly was not idiotic.  he had 0k troops when stannis had less than 0k, tywin had less than 0k and robb stark had less than 0k.  renly also was marching very slowly because everyone was fighting each other which would have made for easy victories all around.  i have read all of the books and i have just recently reread got and acok but i do not know what you mean when you say he ruined the watch.  when renly speaks with catelyn stark you can see that he cares about the people of the realm, that shows me he would be a good king.  stannis is the one who says that renly gets knocked off of his horse by a better man in tourneys.  during the tourney for the new hand ned stark, renly made it pretty far into the lists, only getting knocked off by the hound after a close tilt.  being bested by the hound in a tournament does not make you fight terribly.   #  if he truly cared for the realm, he would take actions to stop the war asap, he didnt, he waited and let it suffer, either because he was a shitty general, or because he wanted a better strategic position.   #  renly would be a really shitty king: now what is a good king ? a good king would be: 0.  putting the realm first 0.  honesty 0.  compassion 0.  law maker reasonable/fair laws 0.  knowledgeable lead by example 0.  effective communicator how was renly not this ? he does not put the realm first, he starts a war for no other reason than his hubris and desire to rule.  those who desire power are the worst to wield it.  if he truly cared for the realm, he would take actions to stop the war asap, he didnt, he waited and let it suffer, either because he was a shitty general, or because he wanted a better strategic position.  he is not honest or compassionate, even though he does appoint brianne to his rainbow guard, he laughs at her in private.  his tenure of the master of laws was ineffective, he didnt do a thing, he did nothing the combat the corruption in kings landing.  he is certainly not knowledgeable, he hates reading and learning.  renly truly is copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day  #  the state of the kingdom right now requires order.   #  i do not think it is so much comparing the kings at this point, as it is looking at the state of the realm and deciding which king is better suited for the situation.  renly is a good king in his own respect.  he builds rapport easily with people, he is already well liked, open to new ideas, but he is also extremely flawed.  he is extravagant and vain, as well as naive.  stannis does not show it, but he is caring and just.  stannis is not likable in the conventional way, but his moral compass is always pointed in the same direction.  the reason neither of these kings would survive at court is because neither of them are devious.  one is eccentric, the other is just; it would take less than a year before one of their subordinates killed them.  regardless, stannis would definitely be a better choice for king.  the state of the kingdom right now requires order.  if renly had his way, everyone would be throwing dinner parties, which is definitely not what is needed.
some people seem to come at libertarianism with the idea that the implementation of libertarian economic philosophies would automatically result in corporations  basically taking over and merging and colluding with each other to raise prices and drop quality while consumers would be completely at the mercy of these corporations.  if this were actually true then gigantic corporations and mega banks would be putting all their efforts and money into getting a true libertarian candidate elected.  instead they put money millions and millions of dollars behind democratic and republican shills who will put in place regulations which benefit the corporations and banks.  many times these regulations are basically written by the corporations themselves through their lobbyists with the goal of stifling competition.  these regulations give entrepreneurs more hoops to jump through to start a company and make it much less feasible for new companies to make entry in an industry with tons of regulations.  instead of helping to stimulate competition and help consumers the majority of the time these regulations have the opposite effect and result in less consumer choice and lower quality products.  i know some people may say the koch brothers support libertarianism and want no regulations but i believe they only want regulations they benefit them and make it harder for people to come into the market and compete with them.  i have also seen stuff about gary johnson having a little corporate support but i do not know enough about it to have formed a good opinion and it was nowhere near the support obama and romney received.  thanks ahead of time for everybody is input.   #  if this were actually true then gigantic corporations and mega banks would be putting all their efforts and money into getting a true libertarian candidate elected.   #  instead they put money millions and millions of dollars behind democratic and republican shills who will put in place regulations which benefit the corporations and banks.   # instead they put money millions and millions of dollars behind democratic and republican shills who will put in place regulations which benefit the corporations and banks.  many times these regulations are basically written by the corporations themselves through their lobbyists with the goal of stifling competition.  these regulations give entrepreneurs more hoops to jump through to start a company and make it much less feasible for new companies to make entry in an industry with tons of regulations.  instead of helping to stimulate competition and help consumers the majority of the time these regulations have the opposite effect and result in less consumer choice and lower quality products.  this is called regulatory capture and it most certainly is helpful for the corporations.  it may even benefit the corporations more than no regulation would.  however, the regulations that you speak of are mostly for ccorporations right ? if that is true than small businesses could still be created easily enough.  these businesses would then become corporations over time.  if there is too much small business regulation then we should target that.  libertarian ideology at large would lead to environmental destruction and other undesirables.  we do not need to implement across the board libertarian policy to target the abuses of corporations.   #  given that fact, corporations and individuals who favor libertarian ideals will or at least should contribute to candidates with  some  libertarian beliefs who also have a chance of winning elections.   #  money can only  influence  votes: it ca not buy them outright.  the fact is the libertarian party platform is still so far removed from the mainstream that that majority of voters would  never  support a libertarian candidate: regardless how how much money was spent on his campaign.  it makes much more sense for individuals and corporations who support libertarian ideals to support mainstream candidates with libertarian leanings.  the kochs, for instance, personally hold libertarian beliefs but recognize that romney had a much better chance of getting elected than johnson.  it makes much more sense for them to throw their support toward a candidate with whom they agree 0 of the time and who has a 0 chance of winning the election rather than a candidate who they agree with 0 of the time but has only a 0 or realistically: lower chance of winning.  there is not enough money in the world to make libertarianism a mainstream ideology.  given that fact, corporations and individuals who favor libertarian ideals will or at least should contribute to candidates with  some  libertarian beliefs who also have a chance of winning elections.   #  it is far cheaper to stick to bribing politicians in the established political parties than to pay to change the system entirely.   #  from the bank is perspective, the ranking of political positions goes: 0.  politician who is in the bank is pocket.  the politician would implement regulations designed to stifle competition and promote the bank is interests.  0.  no regulations at all.  this grants the bank carte blanche to do anything they can get away with, including colluding with other banks, developing monopolies, and destroying competitors.  0.  even keeled politicians who regulate where necessary, but who also recognize the important role banks play in the economy.  0.  politicians who have it in for banks, and want to tax/regulate the hell out of them.  while this might work in the american context, it breaks down when you look at banks  preferences internationally.  a bank would rather do business in a relatively capitalistic/libertarian country like the us, uae, or singapore, than do business in a country like india or russia, where they have to bribe every politician and thug that wants a piece of the pie.  sure they could buy off every politician, but its a huge pain in the ass.  it is much cheaper and easier to operate in a straightforward and open economy.  banks would much rather secure a permanent deregulated economy than have to continually persuade and bribe politicians with expensive lobbyists and political contributions.  rank 0 is better than rank 0, but not if the bank has to continuously pay through the nose to get it.  the problem is that in the us, electing a single libertarian candidate to office is politically infeasible, let alone establishing an entire libertarian government.  it is far cheaper to stick to bribing politicians in the established political parties than to pay to change the system entirely.  so i agree with a lot of your points, but i disagree with the idea that if a bank supports libertarian economic policies, that they would also want to support libertarian politicians.  banks use cost benefit analysis, and while they might prefer more libertarian policies, they would not necessarily want to translate that desire into action.   #  corporations can influence the political process, but they ca not outright choose who to put in office.   #  i agree with your conclusion, but i disagree that this can be the only reason why corporations do not support  true libertarian  candidates.  corporations can influence the political process, but they ca not outright choose who to put in office.  they will have several candidates to choose to support or not in a primary, and then two realistic candidates to support during the general election.  even if a libertarian candidate was going to be the best for a corporation, the corporation would be unlikely to support them, because candidates from third parties rarely get elected.  it takes a lot less money to move a candidate from a close 0 nd to a close 0 st than it does to bring them from a distant 0 rd to 0 st .   #  this allows them to invest further in other properties.   #  vast deregulation would mean ease of accumulation of private property.  corporations are essentially methods to socialize loss as opposed to sole proprietorship where all loss in centralized in one person .  if a corporation fails, the owners get away more or less scot free.  this allows them to invest further in other properties.  the tendency toward monopoly wherein businesses buy each other and inheritances doubled up by marriage would mean wealth would, in the deregulated society, siphon upward at an advanced pace.  moreover, due to economies of scale and brand recognition, businesses like coca cola would have little to worry about unless you completely destroyed the concepts of trademark, patenting, copyright, trade secrets, etc.  of course that would infringe on their intellectual property rights.  and last i checked, libertarianism was all about the property rights.
so this has always been a flviee of mine since i was ten 0 now .  see learning about world war 0 and hitler killing six million people while a travisty, is not really so bad.  well it is, but if he did it to all the mentally handicapped at the time we would not look at him so badly.  also would if cleaned up the gene pool plus we would not waste such valuable resources helping those people because in reality we are clinging on to something that should not be.  it is like keeping g alive an animal as long as possible with a terminal disease.  but i believe hitler was in the wrong for the jews, but would of been in the right for killing off mentally handicapped people.   #  well it is, but if he did it to all the mentally handicapped at the time we would not look at him so badly.   #  only people like you with no sense of human rights.   # only people like you with no sense of human rights.  and thinking like yours and that of nazi have a very close similarity, a complete disregard for other people rights, in the pursuit of some obscure goal.  people who realize that nobody has any right to use force against an innocent person, will think of him the same as they do now.  in order to please utilitarians who believe a person is only worth there utility, and that utility is the only unit we measure each other in.  well the only difference is humans are not pets.  dogs do not have rights, humans do.  and even if you ignore this huge leap of logic in your analogy, what kind of sick person would put down a dog because the dog might be handicapped ? your logic right here.  i do not know where you get the idea that one person or a group of people, have any say in another persons life.   #  please note where i said,  . who abort their babies because they will be born with downs syndrome ?    #  please note where i said,  . who abort their babies because they will be born with downs syndrome ?   it was in my top level comment above.  fetal testing for downs syndrome usually takes place between the 0   0 week of pregnancy.  source URL it takes approximately two weeks to receive test results.  a baby can feel pain at or before 0 weeks.  source URL this means that a significant number of abortions due to suspected downs syndrome are abortions where the child will be subject to the pain and suffering of being killed.  thus, in the case of abortion for the reason of downs syndrome, we are almost certainly dealing with a situation where there is a lacking of empathy.   #  so eliminating the pain would show some sign of empathy.   #  i would like to see contrary evidence.  we know for a fact that pain receptors begin development by the 0th week and continue to develop through the 0th week at which time they are in place.  those who argue against  fetal pain  at this juncture do so on the grounds that they hypothesize that the brain lacks the experience to be able to process such stimuli as pain.  but the inverse is as or more likely, that experience to tolerate or endure pain is not established, making the even even more painful.  i think pain is one part of the picture.  so eliminating the pain would show some sign of empathy.  but if a person believed it was necessary to use anesthesia then it seems they would be recognizing the humanity of the person being aborted.  and at that moment it then seems that there is a lack of caring about that person is humanity and that ending their life would be just as unethical then as it would be post birth.   #  if eugenics were really being studied, i can assure you that they would not have targeted jews as much as they did.   # eugenics were being studied and if he would of tested on them and cured down syndrome.  eugenics were not being studied.  dr mengele and others were sadists using the name of eugenics to make them look better.  if eugenics were really being studied, i can assure you that they would not have targeted jews as much as they did.  this was pure anti semitism and racism.  so would it of really been bad.  a few die for the good of the many.  yes it would have been bad because you are completely ignoring one of the most basic human rights ever.  if you can ignore this right, then tons of people will go  well if this right does not matter, why should this ?   and then rights wo not mean anything and i do not see how that is good for anyone.  because i bet millions of people would be up for it.  what the fuck is a raspiest ? i am going to assume you mean rapist and say yes by this same logic rapists should not be tested on.  it is not the same situation because rapists are criminals and took away the rights of others.  not justifiable to do so, which is why it is illegal, but clearly not the same situation.  these rapists chose to do something harmful, while mentally handicapped clearly do not chose and do not necessarily cause harm.   #  but if they did it could of been great.   #  eugenics where studied at the time an i know the nazis did not study it much and what they did call eugenics was hardly so usually.  but if they did it could of been great.  i mean we took most of their scientists anyway.  and i did mean rapist.  but this is fine.  but ht about annals then should not every living thing have the right to live ? an if so, how do we test things ?
so this has always been a flviee of mine since i was ten 0 now .  see learning about world war 0 and hitler killing six million people while a travisty, is not really so bad.  well it is, but if he did it to all the mentally handicapped at the time we would not look at him so badly.  also would if cleaned up the gene pool plus we would not waste such valuable resources helping those people because in reality we are clinging on to something that should not be.  it is like keeping g alive an animal as long as possible with a terminal disease.  but i believe hitler was in the wrong for the jews, but would of been in the right for killing off mentally handicapped people.   #  it is like keeping g alive an animal as long as possible with a terminal disease.   #  well the only difference is humans are not pets.   # only people like you with no sense of human rights.  and thinking like yours and that of nazi have a very close similarity, a complete disregard for other people rights, in the pursuit of some obscure goal.  people who realize that nobody has any right to use force against an innocent person, will think of him the same as they do now.  in order to please utilitarians who believe a person is only worth there utility, and that utility is the only unit we measure each other in.  well the only difference is humans are not pets.  dogs do not have rights, humans do.  and even if you ignore this huge leap of logic in your analogy, what kind of sick person would put down a dog because the dog might be handicapped ? your logic right here.  i do not know where you get the idea that one person or a group of people, have any say in another persons life.   #  source URL it takes approximately two weeks to receive test results.   #  please note where i said,  . who abort their babies because they will be born with downs syndrome ?   it was in my top level comment above.  fetal testing for downs syndrome usually takes place between the 0   0 week of pregnancy.  source URL it takes approximately two weeks to receive test results.  a baby can feel pain at or before 0 weeks.  source URL this means that a significant number of abortions due to suspected downs syndrome are abortions where the child will be subject to the pain and suffering of being killed.  thus, in the case of abortion for the reason of downs syndrome, we are almost certainly dealing with a situation where there is a lacking of empathy.   #  so eliminating the pain would show some sign of empathy.   #  i would like to see contrary evidence.  we know for a fact that pain receptors begin development by the 0th week and continue to develop through the 0th week at which time they are in place.  those who argue against  fetal pain  at this juncture do so on the grounds that they hypothesize that the brain lacks the experience to be able to process such stimuli as pain.  but the inverse is as or more likely, that experience to tolerate or endure pain is not established, making the even even more painful.  i think pain is one part of the picture.  so eliminating the pain would show some sign of empathy.  but if a person believed it was necessary to use anesthesia then it seems they would be recognizing the humanity of the person being aborted.  and at that moment it then seems that there is a lack of caring about that person is humanity and that ending their life would be just as unethical then as it would be post birth.   #  if you can ignore this right, then tons of people will go  well if this right does not matter, why should this ?    # eugenics were being studied and if he would of tested on them and cured down syndrome.  eugenics were not being studied.  dr mengele and others were sadists using the name of eugenics to make them look better.  if eugenics were really being studied, i can assure you that they would not have targeted jews as much as they did.  this was pure anti semitism and racism.  so would it of really been bad.  a few die for the good of the many.  yes it would have been bad because you are completely ignoring one of the most basic human rights ever.  if you can ignore this right, then tons of people will go  well if this right does not matter, why should this ?   and then rights wo not mean anything and i do not see how that is good for anyone.  because i bet millions of people would be up for it.  what the fuck is a raspiest ? i am going to assume you mean rapist and say yes by this same logic rapists should not be tested on.  it is not the same situation because rapists are criminals and took away the rights of others.  not justifiable to do so, which is why it is illegal, but clearly not the same situation.  these rapists chose to do something harmful, while mentally handicapped clearly do not chose and do not necessarily cause harm.   #  an if so, how do we test things ?  #  eugenics where studied at the time an i know the nazis did not study it much and what they did call eugenics was hardly so usually.  but if they did it could of been great.  i mean we took most of their scientists anyway.  and i did mean rapist.  but this is fine.  but ht about annals then should not every living thing have the right to live ? an if so, how do we test things ?
now, i am speaking about a purely hypothetical universe here, one in which you could guarantee with 0 certainty that they would never find out.  i do not know if we inhabit such a universe.  i do not know if anyone can ever make that guarantee.  so maybe it is never ok to cheat.  but in this hypothetical universe, the one in which they never, ever find out, i ca not see why having mutually meaningless sex with someone could possibly hurt them.  the fact that you have betrayed their trust is irrelevant, because it has no practical ramifications.  it may make it morally wrong, but that is not what i am contending i am arguing that there is no pragmatic reason why you should not cheat.  you could argue that cheating might surreptitiously affect my feelings for my so, and so jeopardise our relationship down the line.  and heck, maybe 0 times out of 0 that is what would happen, who knows ? but it might not.  in fact, i would argue it is fairly unlikely given the significance of this hypothetical significant other and the meaninglessness of this hypothetical meaningless sex.  and in that case, there would be nothing wrong with cheating.  you will continue thinking of your so as significant, and your friend with benefits as just a friend.  please, give me what you have got.  i do not want to be an asshole all my life.   #  now, i am speaking about a purely hypothetical universe here, one in which you could guarantee with 0 certainty that they would never find out.   #  i do not know if we inhabit such a universe.   # i do not know if we inhabit such a universe.  we do not, and because we do not, you are gambling with your so is feelings.  even if they wind up not finding out and getting hurt it is still wrong because you were willing to risk them getting hurt just so you could your dick wet.  your hypothetical universe sounds like a justification for a real world situation where you think you can  guarantee  she wo not find out.  morality does not have to be pragmatic.  it is pretty terrible if you are willing to wake up next to her everyday knowing full well you have a relationship ending secret in your head.  that should be enough reason to not do it right there, and if it is not, i think it is a poor reflection on you.   #  0.  discuss it with her, and, with her knowledge either do it or not, but deal with the consequences.   #  being trustworthy is not not doing things where you are afraid you will get caught, it is not doing things that someone is trusting you to not do.  assuming you want to have meaningless sex and your so would not approve you have a few choices: 0.  respect her wishes and be deserving of her trust.  0.  discuss it with her, and, with her knowledge either do it or not, but deal with the consequences.  0.  violate her trust.  there is no option 0.  now, you might be into open relationships, but if you are not, how does the concept of your so sleeping around behind your back make you feel ? if you knew that you might be doing it, even though you never had proof, would you feel better about it ? here is another thought experiment.  let is say that you walk past a blind man on an otherwise deserted street, right when a $0 bill falls out of his pocket.  no one would know if you kept it, and he would not have gotten it back if you were not there.  how would you feel about keeping it ? and this is not someone you have made an promises to, just a random stranger.   #  think why your wife would not want you cheating.   #  exactly.  just because someone does not realize you are screwing them over does not mean they have not been screwed over.  no one would know if i rubbed my balls over all my housemates  toothbrushes in my house, that does not mean it is not wrong to do so.  think why your wife would not want you cheating.  risk of being caught aside, sex, even if meaningless, with other people can affect your attachment and feelings towards your wife.  this will happen regardless of if she knows.  the consequences are a little more abstract than of stealing money that someone does not know they have, but just as real.  if you disagree with the idea that this would happen at all for you, maybe you should reconsider monogamy.   #  maybe you trust the person you are having meaningless sex with to be clean, but that does not mean your so would trust them.   #  beyond the  it is disrespectful  argument everyone else is pushing, it could be seriously detrimental to his/her health.  stis happen.  maybe you trust the person you are having meaningless sex with to be clean, but that does not mean your so would trust them.  a monogamous agreement is not necessarily just about ownership of a person.  it can also be a safety precaution to significantly lower risk of stis.  even if your so does not find out, you are increasing his/her risk of acquiring said stis.   #  if you respect someone, you respect what they want.   #  if you respect someone, you respect what they want.  the definition of cheating in a relationship context is that you are not respecting what they want.  i have no idea how you could cheat and hide it and still respect your partner.  and yes, cheating itself causes harm.  you are cheating on her and cheating her from being able to be in a good relationship.  the way a relationship looks is not the same as what the relationship is.
now, i am speaking about a purely hypothetical universe here, one in which you could guarantee with 0 certainty that they would never find out.  i do not know if we inhabit such a universe.  i do not know if anyone can ever make that guarantee.  so maybe it is never ok to cheat.  but in this hypothetical universe, the one in which they never, ever find out, i ca not see why having mutually meaningless sex with someone could possibly hurt them.  the fact that you have betrayed their trust is irrelevant, because it has no practical ramifications.  it may make it morally wrong, but that is not what i am contending i am arguing that there is no pragmatic reason why you should not cheat.  you could argue that cheating might surreptitiously affect my feelings for my so, and so jeopardise our relationship down the line.  and heck, maybe 0 times out of 0 that is what would happen, who knows ? but it might not.  in fact, i would argue it is fairly unlikely given the significance of this hypothetical significant other and the meaninglessness of this hypothetical meaningless sex.  and in that case, there would be nothing wrong with cheating.  you will continue thinking of your so as significant, and your friend with benefits as just a friend.  please, give me what you have got.  i do not want to be an asshole all my life.   #  i am arguing that there is no pragmatic reason why you should not cheat.   #  morality does not have to be pragmatic.   # i do not know if we inhabit such a universe.  we do not, and because we do not, you are gambling with your so is feelings.  even if they wind up not finding out and getting hurt it is still wrong because you were willing to risk them getting hurt just so you could your dick wet.  your hypothetical universe sounds like a justification for a real world situation where you think you can  guarantee  she wo not find out.  morality does not have to be pragmatic.  it is pretty terrible if you are willing to wake up next to her everyday knowing full well you have a relationship ending secret in your head.  that should be enough reason to not do it right there, and if it is not, i think it is a poor reflection on you.   #  being trustworthy is not not doing things where you are afraid you will get caught, it is not doing things that someone is trusting you to not do.   #  being trustworthy is not not doing things where you are afraid you will get caught, it is not doing things that someone is trusting you to not do.  assuming you want to have meaningless sex and your so would not approve you have a few choices: 0.  respect her wishes and be deserving of her trust.  0.  discuss it with her, and, with her knowledge either do it or not, but deal with the consequences.  0.  violate her trust.  there is no option 0.  now, you might be into open relationships, but if you are not, how does the concept of your so sleeping around behind your back make you feel ? if you knew that you might be doing it, even though you never had proof, would you feel better about it ? here is another thought experiment.  let is say that you walk past a blind man on an otherwise deserted street, right when a $0 bill falls out of his pocket.  no one would know if you kept it, and he would not have gotten it back if you were not there.  how would you feel about keeping it ? and this is not someone you have made an promises to, just a random stranger.   #  if you disagree with the idea that this would happen at all for you, maybe you should reconsider monogamy.   #  exactly.  just because someone does not realize you are screwing them over does not mean they have not been screwed over.  no one would know if i rubbed my balls over all my housemates  toothbrushes in my house, that does not mean it is not wrong to do so.  think why your wife would not want you cheating.  risk of being caught aside, sex, even if meaningless, with other people can affect your attachment and feelings towards your wife.  this will happen regardless of if she knows.  the consequences are a little more abstract than of stealing money that someone does not know they have, but just as real.  if you disagree with the idea that this would happen at all for you, maybe you should reconsider monogamy.   #  beyond the  it is disrespectful  argument everyone else is pushing, it could be seriously detrimental to his/her health.   #  beyond the  it is disrespectful  argument everyone else is pushing, it could be seriously detrimental to his/her health.  stis happen.  maybe you trust the person you are having meaningless sex with to be clean, but that does not mean your so would trust them.  a monogamous agreement is not necessarily just about ownership of a person.  it can also be a safety precaution to significantly lower risk of stis.  even if your so does not find out, you are increasing his/her risk of acquiring said stis.   #  the definition of cheating in a relationship context is that you are not respecting what they want.   #  if you respect someone, you respect what they want.  the definition of cheating in a relationship context is that you are not respecting what they want.  i have no idea how you could cheat and hide it and still respect your partner.  and yes, cheating itself causes harm.  you are cheating on her and cheating her from being able to be in a good relationship.  the way a relationship looks is not the same as what the relationship is.
i think reddit is the best designed forum on the entire internet.  0 you do not have to register to view the vast majority of the material.  as long as a sub is not private and you know the name, you can access it.  0 if you want to register, registering is easy and does not even require an email address.  0 having replies pop up in your inbox is pretty convenient.  i have never had a super popular 0  reply post so i will concede that can be a pain in the ass.  but you can turn that off if you want.  0 the branched system of replies makes it easy to have different conversations in the same thread.  0 the ability to hide all child comments of a post is great if you find the chain of comments are nothing you care about.  i do not care for memes and jokes, but enough people do.  as long as i can hide all posts going down that way i am not going to complain about them.  0 thousands of different subs makes it easy to contain information in one location.  instead of having a big  off topic  forum, there is a sub for technology, books, games, gopro, surfing, almost whatever you want.  0 i can subscribe and unsubscribe to whatever public subs i want.  i tailor what i see to fit what i care about.  if i want more subs i can find them and add them when i feel like it.  0 the new multi sub feature is awesome.  sometimes i just want to read about video games, sometimes i just want to read about china.  i can do that with a single click after a little bit of set up.  0 downvoting, and to a lesser extent upvoting works.  look at the lowest rated comments of most threads.  lots of the comments are just really crappy.  i am glad they are not near the top as i am scroll through.  all the crummy things about reddit come from the users.  the bad subs, the bad jokes, stupid memes everyone whines about, downvoting because you do not agree with the politics etc.  i have never seen a forum with as many features that i would actually use on a daily basis.   #  0 thousands of different subs makes it easy to contain information in one location.   #  instead of having a big  off topic  forum, there is a sub for technology, books, games, gopro, surfing, almost whatever you want.   #  0, 0, 0, 0 and 0 are good points imo   0 the branched system of replies makes it easy to have different conversations in the same thread.  having many threads within one thread also means it can very easily become confusing.  how often have you seen one post referring to  the top reply  or  /u/genericusername is post  only to the find that the top reply is now something entirely irrelevant and /u/genericusername has already made 0 posts in this thread.  the branched system also distracts from the passage of time.  as you naturally scroll down, you see posts that jump from minutes and hours before and after eachother, which can mean posts quickly lose relevance or look stupid in the event of changing information.  instead of having a big  off topic  forum, there is a sub for technology, books, games, gopro, surfing, almost whatever you want.  these also segment the community into smaller groups which often have overlapping interests but never feel the benefit as they are confined to their own subreddits.  it can also be difficult to find the right community when searching subreddits, for example someone wishing to chat about smoking weed could very easily end up at /r/stoners, a community of only 0 users and have no idea about the 0,0 users posting about weed over at /r/trees.  there is also the fact that there can only be this many subreddits because of the users who create them and then moderate them, leading to the potential for powertripping mods.  sometimes i just want to read about video games, sometimes i just want to read about china.  i can do that with a single click after a little bit of set up.  i am being a bit flippant here but i have never heard of the multi sub feature, so i would say the forum has not done a good job telling me about it.  what does it do ? look at the lowest rated comments of most threads.  lots of the comments are just really crappy.  i am glad they are not near the top as i am scroll through.  downvoting is a function of the users and either it should not be part of your argument or you should include it as part of your argument and accept the hiveminding it encourages as a counterargument.   #  this however does not mean votes do not matter, its just a system of organization.   #  no.  your logic is not consistent for one.  if it were, there would be no reason to have subreddit rules because by virtue of things getting upvoted, it would be what the people want.  yet subreddits large and small have rules to filter content, which is in direct opposition to the voting system.  with this logic, people also would not be able to choose the subreddit for them.  you arent being logically consistent with that  rebuttal .  as for rules, they are necessary for guidance.  rules are used to keep subreddits on topic.  this however does not mean votes do not matter, its just a system of organization.  voting can still be seen through subscriber numbers.  people vote with their subscription, so when you see a sub with  cheap memes  and it has more subs and gets more upvotes subsequently, its because more people like it, not because people do not know hpw to choose.   #  people vote with their subscription, so when you see a sub with cheap memes and it has more subs and gets more upvotes subsequently, its because more people like it, not because people do not know hpw to choose.   #  people can subscribe to whatever they please and it has no effect on what i view.  that is the difference between subscriptions and voting.  if you make a topic that breaks the rules, voting does not matter.  the post will be removed no matter how many votes it got.  rules exist to override voting, not to supplement it.  if voting alone could show people what they want to see, having rules would be superfluous.  people vote with their subscription, so when you see a sub with cheap memes and it has more subs and gets more upvotes subsequently, its because more people like it, not because people do not know hpw to choose.  you are back to the  it has more votes, so people must like it  circular logic.  my position is that votes are  not  an accurate measure of what people like and what they want to see.  again, subscriptions are different from voting in that what a person subscribes to has no effect on other people.  votes do change what other people see.   #  also, as for what you view, peoples votes have no effect on what you view as well by this logic.   # the post will be removed no matter how many votes it got.  rules exist to override voting, not to supplement it.  if voting alone could show people what they want to see, having rules would be superfluous.  you seem to be missing the point i have made.  rules are for organization.  you cant enter a f0 car info a go cart race, but yet f0 still has far more views and therefor people who like to watch it.  also, as for what you view, peoples votes have no effect on what you view as well by this logic.  you could always choose not to view something just like you can choose not to subscribe or visit reddit.  my position is that votes are not an accurate measure of what people like and what they want to see.  again, subscriptions are different from voting in that what a person subscribes to has no effect on other people.  votes do change what people see.  you are essentially saying all voting is circular logic because people see the end results of said vote.  also, subscriptions are similar to votes.  the larger something gets, the more visible it is.  more people more upvotes easier to see.   #  a circular argument is when you create a premise upvoted posts are what people want to see and use it to defend itself because a post is upvoted, it is what people want to see .   # i am definitely missing your point.  i have no idea what f0 cars not being allowed in go kart races has to do with anything.  on reddit, things that get upvoted are closer to the top of the page compared to things that get downvoted.  i do not know what kind of logic you are applying, but it is not mine.  a circular argument is when you create a premise upvoted posts are what people want to see and use it to defend itself because a post is upvoted, it is what people want to see .  the larger something gets, the more visible it is.  untrue.  i do not subscribe to r/funny, so i do not see its posts.  even if it got 0 million subscribers, i would still not see any of its posts.  such is not true for upvoted topics and comments.  back to the topic of voting, there are many examples of people voting for things that end up doing them harm.  that is why the us is a republic instead of a democracy; the founding fathers feared that the common voter was too ignorant to vote for a position as powerful as president.  that system is still in place today though the representatives usually vote with the popular vote of their state, they still reserve the power to overrule the popular vote if need be .
i think reddit is the best designed forum on the entire internet.  0 you do not have to register to view the vast majority of the material.  as long as a sub is not private and you know the name, you can access it.  0 if you want to register, registering is easy and does not even require an email address.  0 having replies pop up in your inbox is pretty convenient.  i have never had a super popular 0  reply post so i will concede that can be a pain in the ass.  but you can turn that off if you want.  0 the branched system of replies makes it easy to have different conversations in the same thread.  0 the ability to hide all child comments of a post is great if you find the chain of comments are nothing you care about.  i do not care for memes and jokes, but enough people do.  as long as i can hide all posts going down that way i am not going to complain about them.  0 thousands of different subs makes it easy to contain information in one location.  instead of having a big  off topic  forum, there is a sub for technology, books, games, gopro, surfing, almost whatever you want.  0 i can subscribe and unsubscribe to whatever public subs i want.  i tailor what i see to fit what i care about.  if i want more subs i can find them and add them when i feel like it.  0 the new multi sub feature is awesome.  sometimes i just want to read about video games, sometimes i just want to read about china.  i can do that with a single click after a little bit of set up.  0 downvoting, and to a lesser extent upvoting works.  look at the lowest rated comments of most threads.  lots of the comments are just really crappy.  i am glad they are not near the top as i am scroll through.  all the crummy things about reddit come from the users.  the bad subs, the bad jokes, stupid memes everyone whines about, downvoting because you do not agree with the politics etc.  i have never seen a forum with as many features that i would actually use on a daily basis.   #  0 the new multi sub feature is awesome.   #  sometimes i just want to read about video games, sometimes i just want to read about china.   #  0, 0, 0, 0 and 0 are good points imo   0 the branched system of replies makes it easy to have different conversations in the same thread.  having many threads within one thread also means it can very easily become confusing.  how often have you seen one post referring to  the top reply  or  /u/genericusername is post  only to the find that the top reply is now something entirely irrelevant and /u/genericusername has already made 0 posts in this thread.  the branched system also distracts from the passage of time.  as you naturally scroll down, you see posts that jump from minutes and hours before and after eachother, which can mean posts quickly lose relevance or look stupid in the event of changing information.  instead of having a big  off topic  forum, there is a sub for technology, books, games, gopro, surfing, almost whatever you want.  these also segment the community into smaller groups which often have overlapping interests but never feel the benefit as they are confined to their own subreddits.  it can also be difficult to find the right community when searching subreddits, for example someone wishing to chat about smoking weed could very easily end up at /r/stoners, a community of only 0 users and have no idea about the 0,0 users posting about weed over at /r/trees.  there is also the fact that there can only be this many subreddits because of the users who create them and then moderate them, leading to the potential for powertripping mods.  sometimes i just want to read about video games, sometimes i just want to read about china.  i can do that with a single click after a little bit of set up.  i am being a bit flippant here but i have never heard of the multi sub feature, so i would say the forum has not done a good job telling me about it.  what does it do ? look at the lowest rated comments of most threads.  lots of the comments are just really crappy.  i am glad they are not near the top as i am scroll through.  downvoting is a function of the users and either it should not be part of your argument or you should include it as part of your argument and accept the hiveminding it encourages as a counterargument.   #  if it were, there would be no reason to have subreddit rules because by virtue of things getting upvoted, it would be what the people want.   #  no.  your logic is not consistent for one.  if it were, there would be no reason to have subreddit rules because by virtue of things getting upvoted, it would be what the people want.  yet subreddits large and small have rules to filter content, which is in direct opposition to the voting system.  with this logic, people also would not be able to choose the subreddit for them.  you arent being logically consistent with that  rebuttal .  as for rules, they are necessary for guidance.  rules are used to keep subreddits on topic.  this however does not mean votes do not matter, its just a system of organization.  voting can still be seen through subscriber numbers.  people vote with their subscription, so when you see a sub with  cheap memes  and it has more subs and gets more upvotes subsequently, its because more people like it, not because people do not know hpw to choose.   #  if you make a topic that breaks the rules, voting does not matter.   #  people can subscribe to whatever they please and it has no effect on what i view.  that is the difference between subscriptions and voting.  if you make a topic that breaks the rules, voting does not matter.  the post will be removed no matter how many votes it got.  rules exist to override voting, not to supplement it.  if voting alone could show people what they want to see, having rules would be superfluous.  people vote with their subscription, so when you see a sub with cheap memes and it has more subs and gets more upvotes subsequently, its because more people like it, not because people do not know hpw to choose.  you are back to the  it has more votes, so people must like it  circular logic.  my position is that votes are  not  an accurate measure of what people like and what they want to see.  again, subscriptions are different from voting in that what a person subscribes to has no effect on other people.  votes do change what other people see.   #  my position is that votes are not an accurate measure of what people like and what they want to see.   # the post will be removed no matter how many votes it got.  rules exist to override voting, not to supplement it.  if voting alone could show people what they want to see, having rules would be superfluous.  you seem to be missing the point i have made.  rules are for organization.  you cant enter a f0 car info a go cart race, but yet f0 still has far more views and therefor people who like to watch it.  also, as for what you view, peoples votes have no effect on what you view as well by this logic.  you could always choose not to view something just like you can choose not to subscribe or visit reddit.  my position is that votes are not an accurate measure of what people like and what they want to see.  again, subscriptions are different from voting in that what a person subscribes to has no effect on other people.  votes do change what people see.  you are essentially saying all voting is circular logic because people see the end results of said vote.  also, subscriptions are similar to votes.  the larger something gets, the more visible it is.  more people more upvotes easier to see.   #  i do not subscribe to r/funny, so i do not see its posts.   # i am definitely missing your point.  i have no idea what f0 cars not being allowed in go kart races has to do with anything.  on reddit, things that get upvoted are closer to the top of the page compared to things that get downvoted.  i do not know what kind of logic you are applying, but it is not mine.  a circular argument is when you create a premise upvoted posts are what people want to see and use it to defend itself because a post is upvoted, it is what people want to see .  the larger something gets, the more visible it is.  untrue.  i do not subscribe to r/funny, so i do not see its posts.  even if it got 0 million subscribers, i would still not see any of its posts.  such is not true for upvoted topics and comments.  back to the topic of voting, there are many examples of people voting for things that end up doing them harm.  that is why the us is a republic instead of a democracy; the founding fathers feared that the common voter was too ignorant to vote for a position as powerful as president.  that system is still in place today though the representatives usually vote with the popular vote of their state, they still reserve the power to overrule the popular vote if need be .
i think reddit is the best designed forum on the entire internet.  0 you do not have to register to view the vast majority of the material.  as long as a sub is not private and you know the name, you can access it.  0 if you want to register, registering is easy and does not even require an email address.  0 having replies pop up in your inbox is pretty convenient.  i have never had a super popular 0  reply post so i will concede that can be a pain in the ass.  but you can turn that off if you want.  0 the branched system of replies makes it easy to have different conversations in the same thread.  0 the ability to hide all child comments of a post is great if you find the chain of comments are nothing you care about.  i do not care for memes and jokes, but enough people do.  as long as i can hide all posts going down that way i am not going to complain about them.  0 thousands of different subs makes it easy to contain information in one location.  instead of having a big  off topic  forum, there is a sub for technology, books, games, gopro, surfing, almost whatever you want.  0 i can subscribe and unsubscribe to whatever public subs i want.  i tailor what i see to fit what i care about.  if i want more subs i can find them and add them when i feel like it.  0 the new multi sub feature is awesome.  sometimes i just want to read about video games, sometimes i just want to read about china.  i can do that with a single click after a little bit of set up.  0 downvoting, and to a lesser extent upvoting works.  look at the lowest rated comments of most threads.  lots of the comments are just really crappy.  i am glad they are not near the top as i am scroll through.  all the crummy things about reddit come from the users.  the bad subs, the bad jokes, stupid memes everyone whines about, downvoting because you do not agree with the politics etc.  i have never seen a forum with as many features that i would actually use on a daily basis.   #  0 downvoting, and to a lesser extent upvoting works.   #  look at the lowest rated comments of most threads.   #  0, 0, 0, 0 and 0 are good points imo   0 the branched system of replies makes it easy to have different conversations in the same thread.  having many threads within one thread also means it can very easily become confusing.  how often have you seen one post referring to  the top reply  or  /u/genericusername is post  only to the find that the top reply is now something entirely irrelevant and /u/genericusername has already made 0 posts in this thread.  the branched system also distracts from the passage of time.  as you naturally scroll down, you see posts that jump from minutes and hours before and after eachother, which can mean posts quickly lose relevance or look stupid in the event of changing information.  instead of having a big  off topic  forum, there is a sub for technology, books, games, gopro, surfing, almost whatever you want.  these also segment the community into smaller groups which often have overlapping interests but never feel the benefit as they are confined to their own subreddits.  it can also be difficult to find the right community when searching subreddits, for example someone wishing to chat about smoking weed could very easily end up at /r/stoners, a community of only 0 users and have no idea about the 0,0 users posting about weed over at /r/trees.  there is also the fact that there can only be this many subreddits because of the users who create them and then moderate them, leading to the potential for powertripping mods.  sometimes i just want to read about video games, sometimes i just want to read about china.  i can do that with a single click after a little bit of set up.  i am being a bit flippant here but i have never heard of the multi sub feature, so i would say the forum has not done a good job telling me about it.  what does it do ? look at the lowest rated comments of most threads.  lots of the comments are just really crappy.  i am glad they are not near the top as i am scroll through.  downvoting is a function of the users and either it should not be part of your argument or you should include it as part of your argument and accept the hiveminding it encourages as a counterargument.   #  people vote with their subscription, so when you see a sub with  cheap memes  and it has more subs and gets more upvotes subsequently, its because more people like it, not because people do not know hpw to choose.   #  no.  your logic is not consistent for one.  if it were, there would be no reason to have subreddit rules because by virtue of things getting upvoted, it would be what the people want.  yet subreddits large and small have rules to filter content, which is in direct opposition to the voting system.  with this logic, people also would not be able to choose the subreddit for them.  you arent being logically consistent with that  rebuttal .  as for rules, they are necessary for guidance.  rules are used to keep subreddits on topic.  this however does not mean votes do not matter, its just a system of organization.  voting can still be seen through subscriber numbers.  people vote with their subscription, so when you see a sub with  cheap memes  and it has more subs and gets more upvotes subsequently, its because more people like it, not because people do not know hpw to choose.   #  you are back to the  it has more votes, so people must like it  circular logic.   #  people can subscribe to whatever they please and it has no effect on what i view.  that is the difference between subscriptions and voting.  if you make a topic that breaks the rules, voting does not matter.  the post will be removed no matter how many votes it got.  rules exist to override voting, not to supplement it.  if voting alone could show people what they want to see, having rules would be superfluous.  people vote with their subscription, so when you see a sub with cheap memes and it has more subs and gets more upvotes subsequently, its because more people like it, not because people do not know hpw to choose.  you are back to the  it has more votes, so people must like it  circular logic.  my position is that votes are  not  an accurate measure of what people like and what they want to see.  again, subscriptions are different from voting in that what a person subscribes to has no effect on other people.  votes do change what other people see.   #  you could always choose not to view something just like you can choose not to subscribe or visit reddit.   # the post will be removed no matter how many votes it got.  rules exist to override voting, not to supplement it.  if voting alone could show people what they want to see, having rules would be superfluous.  you seem to be missing the point i have made.  rules are for organization.  you cant enter a f0 car info a go cart race, but yet f0 still has far more views and therefor people who like to watch it.  also, as for what you view, peoples votes have no effect on what you view as well by this logic.  you could always choose not to view something just like you can choose not to subscribe or visit reddit.  my position is that votes are not an accurate measure of what people like and what they want to see.  again, subscriptions are different from voting in that what a person subscribes to has no effect on other people.  votes do change what people see.  you are essentially saying all voting is circular logic because people see the end results of said vote.  also, subscriptions are similar to votes.  the larger something gets, the more visible it is.  more people more upvotes easier to see.   #  that is why the us is a republic instead of a democracy; the founding fathers feared that the common voter was too ignorant to vote for a position as powerful as president.   # i am definitely missing your point.  i have no idea what f0 cars not being allowed in go kart races has to do with anything.  on reddit, things that get upvoted are closer to the top of the page compared to things that get downvoted.  i do not know what kind of logic you are applying, but it is not mine.  a circular argument is when you create a premise upvoted posts are what people want to see and use it to defend itself because a post is upvoted, it is what people want to see .  the larger something gets, the more visible it is.  untrue.  i do not subscribe to r/funny, so i do not see its posts.  even if it got 0 million subscribers, i would still not see any of its posts.  such is not true for upvoted topics and comments.  back to the topic of voting, there are many examples of people voting for things that end up doing them harm.  that is why the us is a republic instead of a democracy; the founding fathers feared that the common voter was too ignorant to vote for a position as powerful as president.  that system is still in place today though the representatives usually vote with the popular vote of their state, they still reserve the power to overrule the popular vote if need be .
please help me understand how accurate my perception is.  i hear a lot about fiscal responsibility then we plunge into massive war debts.  i hear a lot about their tax ideologies and supporting job creators, but all of it seems like a thinly veiled stroke fest for mega corporations and the 0.  we hear that austerity is  tough love  but lots of studies show it usually cripples a nations spending power and further exacerbates a recession.  they never ever seem to have any proactive ideas bedsides  bomb them/show off our brute military power   cut taxes ,  guns guns, guns guns guns , and  let is keep everything the same .  they might be well meaning people, but so was the monkey as he said  here let me help you  to the fish as he safely put it up the tree.  what it amounts to is extremely unhelpful, misguided derailing of any positive change.   #  they never ever seem to have any proactive ideas bedsides  bomb them/show off our brute military power   cut taxes ,  guns guns, guns guns guns , and  let is keep everything the same .   #  this is exactly why you do not appreciate the things republicans do.   # this is exactly why you do not appreciate the things republicans do.  among others, there are a few key values that conservatives have.  0.  unless you have an amazing reason to change, keep things, especially values, the same.  0.  keep the government out of the lives of the citizens as much as reasonably possible.  both of those ideals would rather congress  not  do anything proactive.  they do not want the government to redistribute wealth, or pass any legislation that could harm family and religious values or anything of that nature.  to them the absence of anything proactive from the government is pretty good news.  it is pretty clear that you do not agree with those values, but a lot of people do, and for them the republican party does at least an ok job of helping the average american.   #  all but one republican in the house voted for it, more than half the democrats in the house voted against it.   #  war mongering, rich guys, and guns.  oh my ! the republicans and the democrats are concerned with much more than the few issues that get repeated on reddit and in the news.  a recent example where a republican led bill helped the average american is the gabriella miller act that was signed by president obama last month.  the act stops taxpayer money from going to party conventions and instead reroutes that money to pediatric cancer research.  all but one republican in the house voted for it, more than half the democrats in the house voted against it.  it passed the senate unanimously because apparently senators are aware that giving money to kids with cancer is more important than giving money to themselves .  the internet makes it easy to see what bills have become law and who voted for what at congress. gov among other sites .   #  and the bill does not help the average american because the average american is not a pediatric cancer patient and also because the money has not begun flowing just yet.   # and the bill does not help the average american because the average american is not a pediatric cancer patient and also because the money has not begun flowing just yet.  also, you imply that dems in the house voted against it because they want to   give money to themselves  which is also incorrect.  votes against the bill were to bring attention to severe cuts to the national institutes of health under  republican led  sequestration.  the initiatives and research of the nih are beneficial to the average american; funding was cut to it.  pediatric cancer research at the nih is important, but not a comprehensive benefit to american society; a small chunk of change has been allotted for it.   #  actually the prescription drug thing they did was nice.   #  what are other issues that help the average american that republicans support ? take, for instance, the second bush administration.  what are some great things they did when they controlled the white house and congress ? what can we all thank the republicans for ? repairing interstate highways and bridges ? reforming military procurement ? actually the prescription drug thing they did was nice.  but that hit one of their big demographics, senior citizens, not really average americans.   #  the only things that still run are things it does not need and it ca not afford to get anything new.   #  bush said he would sign an assault weapon ban if it came to his desk.  obama is rightly said that he is done more for the nra than bush did.  cutting capital gains taxes does not help the average american who wants lower taxes so they can afford to run the ac, or get a full tank of gas.  fighting two wars at once has left the us military in a materially broken and bankrupt state.  the only things that still run are things it does not need and it ca not afford to get anything new.
please help me understand how accurate my perception is.  i hear a lot about fiscal responsibility then we plunge into massive war debts.  i hear a lot about their tax ideologies and supporting job creators, but all of it seems like a thinly veiled stroke fest for mega corporations and the 0.  we hear that austerity is  tough love  but lots of studies show it usually cripples a nations spending power and further exacerbates a recession.  they never ever seem to have any proactive ideas bedsides  bomb them/show off our brute military power   cut taxes ,  guns guns, guns guns guns , and  let is keep everything the same .  they might be well meaning people, but so was the monkey as he said  here let me help you  to the fish as he safely put it up the tree.  what it amounts to is extremely unhelpful, misguided derailing of any positive change.   #  i hear a lot about their tax ideologies and supporting job creators, but all of it seems like a thinly veiled stroke fest for mega corporations and the 0.   #  all i have heard from democrats is them kissing the ass of minorities and illegals, by promising them things they are not entitled to or have not earned.   # all i have heard from democrats is them kissing the ass of minorities and illegals, by promising them things they are not entitled to or have not earned.  not that republicans are any better.  what studies ? many economists would disagree.  but it does not seem to me that obama is some angle that has never used drones or military force.  it is just republicans are stupid enough to admit that they do it.  again, purely political.  cutting taxes can have both positive and negative effects.  all democrats seem to do is blame every mass shooting on the  crazy gun owners .  because you know, the people that are planning to commit murder will follow a gun law.  although background and mental health checks seem reasonable.  i am not saying that we should keep everything the same, but that change is not always for the better.  the us has the worlds highest gdp, leads the world in science, leads the worlds culture, and is without a doubt the most powerful nation to have ever existed.  we sure as hell did not achieve these things but solely following democrats or republicans .   #  all but one republican in the house voted for it, more than half the democrats in the house voted against it.   #  war mongering, rich guys, and guns.  oh my ! the republicans and the democrats are concerned with much more than the few issues that get repeated on reddit and in the news.  a recent example where a republican led bill helped the average american is the gabriella miller act that was signed by president obama last month.  the act stops taxpayer money from going to party conventions and instead reroutes that money to pediatric cancer research.  all but one republican in the house voted for it, more than half the democrats in the house voted against it.  it passed the senate unanimously because apparently senators are aware that giving money to kids with cancer is more important than giving money to themselves .  the internet makes it easy to see what bills have become law and who voted for what at congress. gov among other sites .   #  pediatric cancer research at the nih is important, but not a comprehensive benefit to american society; a small chunk of change has been allotted for it.   # and the bill does not help the average american because the average american is not a pediatric cancer patient and also because the money has not begun flowing just yet.  also, you imply that dems in the house voted against it because they want to   give money to themselves  which is also incorrect.  votes against the bill were to bring attention to severe cuts to the national institutes of health under  republican led  sequestration.  the initiatives and research of the nih are beneficial to the average american; funding was cut to it.  pediatric cancer research at the nih is important, but not a comprehensive benefit to american society; a small chunk of change has been allotted for it.   #  what can we all thank the republicans for ?  #  what are other issues that help the average american that republicans support ? take, for instance, the second bush administration.  what are some great things they did when they controlled the white house and congress ? what can we all thank the republicans for ? repairing interstate highways and bridges ? reforming military procurement ? actually the prescription drug thing they did was nice.  but that hit one of their big demographics, senior citizens, not really average americans.   #  bush said he would sign an assault weapon ban if it came to his desk.   #  bush said he would sign an assault weapon ban if it came to his desk.  obama is rightly said that he is done more for the nra than bush did.  cutting capital gains taxes does not help the average american who wants lower taxes so they can afford to run the ac, or get a full tank of gas.  fighting two wars at once has left the us military in a materially broken and bankrupt state.  the only things that still run are things it does not need and it ca not afford to get anything new.
please help me understand how accurate my perception is.  i hear a lot about fiscal responsibility then we plunge into massive war debts.  i hear a lot about their tax ideologies and supporting job creators, but all of it seems like a thinly veiled stroke fest for mega corporations and the 0.  we hear that austerity is  tough love  but lots of studies show it usually cripples a nations spending power and further exacerbates a recession.  they never ever seem to have any proactive ideas bedsides  bomb them/show off our brute military power   cut taxes ,  guns guns, guns guns guns , and  let is keep everything the same .  they might be well meaning people, but so was the monkey as he said  here let me help you  to the fish as he safely put it up the tree.  what it amounts to is extremely unhelpful, misguided derailing of any positive change.   #  what it amounts to is extremely unhelpful, misguided derailing of any positive change.   #  the us has the worlds highest gdp, leads the world in science, leads the worlds culture, and is without a doubt the most powerful nation to have ever existed.   # all i have heard from democrats is them kissing the ass of minorities and illegals, by promising them things they are not entitled to or have not earned.  not that republicans are any better.  what studies ? many economists would disagree.  but it does not seem to me that obama is some angle that has never used drones or military force.  it is just republicans are stupid enough to admit that they do it.  again, purely political.  cutting taxes can have both positive and negative effects.  all democrats seem to do is blame every mass shooting on the  crazy gun owners .  because you know, the people that are planning to commit murder will follow a gun law.  although background and mental health checks seem reasonable.  i am not saying that we should keep everything the same, but that change is not always for the better.  the us has the worlds highest gdp, leads the world in science, leads the worlds culture, and is without a doubt the most powerful nation to have ever existed.  we sure as hell did not achieve these things but solely following democrats or republicans .   #  the act stops taxpayer money from going to party conventions and instead reroutes that money to pediatric cancer research.   #  war mongering, rich guys, and guns.  oh my ! the republicans and the democrats are concerned with much more than the few issues that get repeated on reddit and in the news.  a recent example where a republican led bill helped the average american is the gabriella miller act that was signed by president obama last month.  the act stops taxpayer money from going to party conventions and instead reroutes that money to pediatric cancer research.  all but one republican in the house voted for it, more than half the democrats in the house voted against it.  it passed the senate unanimously because apparently senators are aware that giving money to kids with cancer is more important than giving money to themselves .  the internet makes it easy to see what bills have become law and who voted for what at congress. gov among other sites .   #  also, you imply that dems in the house voted against it because they want to   give money to themselves  which is also incorrect.   # and the bill does not help the average american because the average american is not a pediatric cancer patient and also because the money has not begun flowing just yet.  also, you imply that dems in the house voted against it because they want to   give money to themselves  which is also incorrect.  votes against the bill were to bring attention to severe cuts to the national institutes of health under  republican led  sequestration.  the initiatives and research of the nih are beneficial to the average american; funding was cut to it.  pediatric cancer research at the nih is important, but not a comprehensive benefit to american society; a small chunk of change has been allotted for it.   #  what are other issues that help the average american that republicans support ?  #  what are other issues that help the average american that republicans support ? take, for instance, the second bush administration.  what are some great things they did when they controlled the white house and congress ? what can we all thank the republicans for ? repairing interstate highways and bridges ? reforming military procurement ? actually the prescription drug thing they did was nice.  but that hit one of their big demographics, senior citizens, not really average americans.   #  cutting capital gains taxes does not help the average american who wants lower taxes so they can afford to run the ac, or get a full tank of gas.   #  bush said he would sign an assault weapon ban if it came to his desk.  obama is rightly said that he is done more for the nra than bush did.  cutting capital gains taxes does not help the average american who wants lower taxes so they can afford to run the ac, or get a full tank of gas.  fighting two wars at once has left the us military in a materially broken and bankrupt state.  the only things that still run are things it does not need and it ca not afford to get anything new.
i will qualify that by saying that  reliability  is subject to the skeptical skill set of the reader.  that is, a reader must know how to interpret the likelyhood that a given claim is true.  wikipedia has tools built into every article that make it easy for an ordinary user to do this.  they have also recently as of 0, if i am not mistaken implemented features such as  pending changes  which suppress vandalism.  if a reader does not know how to skeptically examine an article, then the failure of reliability then falls to the reader, not wikipedia.  note that i am  not  arguing that wikipedia should ever by cited as a source at an academic level.  i see wikipedia as more of an aggregator of verifiable sources.  my post title reflects what i currently believe about wikipedia, but i understand i might need to qualify it more based on the replies here.  to change my view you would have to convince me that there are a considerable number of sources of information that are more reliable and are not peer reviewed publications and by that i mean publications that are widely accepted by experts in a given field .  i ask that before you share your rebuttal, please read and understand wikipedia is policy on verifiability URL and their essay on quality control URL  #  they have also recently as of 0, if i am not mistaken implemented features such as  pending changes  which suppress vandalism.   #  while is on the one hand certainly has a purpose it also has a huge problem: the edit of a casual editor is seen as less worthy as the one of a long term contibutor.   # while is on the one hand certainly has a purpose it also has a huge problem: the edit of a casual editor is seen as less worthy as the one of a long term contibutor.  so a student that regulary contibutes could simply not approve a change a professor made.  this means that in some areas of wikipedia a small amount of admins can pretty much dicate how the articles look.  it the main reason i prefer contributing to openstreetmap compared to wikipedia.  obviously maps have the advantage that the is much less to dispute and the location of a street is not controversial  #  this is kinda what op was hinting at.   #  i feel like  common topics  is a subjective term here.  there are accurate physics articles on wikipedia that go above and beyond most people is heads.  the wikipedia page on the lagrangian is pretty well put together, but lagrangian mechanics is probably over more than 0 of the population is heads.  this is kinda what op was hinting at.  if an article is so obscure that it has not been verified, you should look at peer reviewed articles in the subject.   #  i would not say the homer example hurts wikipedia is overall reliability, though.   #  so far, this is the best argument i have seen here, so here is a   ! i had not considered the how a field like history or philosophy might have more problems compared a field like natural science.  i would not say the homer example hurts wikipedia is overall reliability, though.  in fact, the article has since been flagged for a number of issues.  i would be interested to see more examples of misinformation on wikipedia if anyone has any.  the one plus i see is that as wikipedia grows and gains more favor among academics, its quality on such articles can only increase.  the system is there, it just needs more contribution from experts.   #  the biggest problem with wikipedia is that experts do not really know how to use it.   # edit their own user page and give proof as to who they are.  this will increase the trust others have in them exponentially.  0.  do not just make edits without very clear reasons.  big changes should probably be discussed in the talk pages before hand.  if nobody replies in the talk thread then make the edit.  that way anyone checking for vandalism will see that you have tried to discuss it and have good reasons for the change rather than the tiny  reason for edit  box .  the biggest problem with wikipedia is that experts do not really know how to use it.  you do not  have  to be anonymous.  create a username, edit your own user page with some autobiographical content not too much .  tell them what you are working on and why you have expertise in a particular field.  and make sure you cite everything.  people often think it is  free editing  but it is heavily restricted and everything must be cited first.  you build up a little history of edits and people will begin to trust you more.   #  he is the world is scholarly expert on the haymarket riot who repeatedly attempted to edit factual errors in the wikipedia article on the riot and trials and was not allowed to do so over a period of  years .   #  professor timothy messer kruse another history example is one egregious example that demonstrates some of the flaws in wikipedia is editing system.  he is the world is scholarly expert on the haymarket riot who repeatedly attempted to edit factual errors in the wikipedia article on the riot and trials and was not allowed to do so over a period of  years .  indeed, his edits to remove errors were flagged as vandalism.  from his article URL on his experiences:  another editor cheerfully tutored me in what this means:  wikipedia is not  truth,  wikipedia is  haverifiability  of reliable sources.  hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, wikipedia will echo that.    another editor:  if all historians save one say that the sky was green in 0, our policies require that we write  amost historians write that the sky was green, but one says the sky was blue.
my experience shows me that true perfectionists typically do not go around calling themselves that; they just go an do a good job.  those who apply the label to themselves are generally people who procrastinate by saying they need more time to deliver a perfect result.  my theory is that they are afraid to call something complete and put their name to it because it means they can be subject to criticism.  by saying something is just a draft, there is a built in defense to any flaws that are spotted.  this does not mean that i think that absolutely any person who ever describes themselves as a perfectionist is therefore not one.  it means that those who most often use the label are using it to prop up a false view of themselves.   #  they just go an do a good job.   #  that depends on what you mean by good and probably what you mean by perfectionist .   # that depends on what you mean by good and probably what you mean by perfectionist .  i would describe myself as having strong perfectionistic tendencies that i hope to mitigate  0 .  the first question i ask myself about any task is  does it matter  ? the second question is  how good is good enough  ? perfect is a  relative  term i am not going to stress over making the perfect melted cheese toast, i am not going to stress over routine simple tasks, etc.  imperfection and compromise are facts of life regardless of your intentions or how much effort you put into something.  if something is important, then i am going to bust my ass getting it right.  i am also a huge fan of automation and simplification.  get it right once and set and forget.  my time is precious and there are machines or people that can do it for me.  if a machine or human can do as good a job or better than me, then there is no reason for me to be doing it.  perfectionism is not about paralyzing yourself with unrealistic goals, it is about making the absolute smartest actions possible in a given situation to bring about the absolute best outcome possible.  i wo not lie.  i do do this occasionally.  it is a bad habit.  there are two other reasons i procrastinate: 0.  i am both intelligent and high functioning.  i can get an awful lot done in a small amount of time.  if the task is only dependent on results achieved rather than time spent, then it simply does not matter when i do it.  0.  i can assess a task as unimportant, and if i do so i will either put little effort into it, or none at all.  a good example of this behaviour was homework in school i literally never did my homework.  ever.  i could tell from a very early age that it was pointless busy work.  my teachers frequently  hated  me.  another example was exams.  if i did not care about a subject ie.  i would decided it was unimportant i did not care about my results.  i may have been legally compelled to attend schooling that  i  hated , but i was not compelled to do anything once i was there.  if i cared about a subject, then i put full effort into it.  you are always subject to criticism.  always.  valid or not.  i do not put my name to shoddy work because my name and reputation matter to me.  i want to be known as a no bullshit person who gets the job done.  the  only  way you develop and maintain a reputation like that is by delivering results, and delivering them repeatedly.  you are only as good as your last success, but failures follow you around like a stink.  0 i tend to follow the axiom of treating others as you treat yourself.  unfortunately for them, i treat myself brutally as a perfectionist.  so much is just not good enough for me.  when it comes to the treatment of others, that is both unreasonable and unfair.   #  as opposed to: a perfectionist is someone who completes all tasks to perfection.   #  i do not deny that you may have met someone who fits this description, but i ca not say it describes my experience with self diagnosed  perfectionists .  the people i have met who self apply the term do it to avoid seeming overly critical of another person is work.  for example, if you were a designer creating a document for me and i told you to fix the kerning between two letters in the body text, i might try to downplay the pickiness of this request by saying  sorry, i am just a perfectionist when it comes to these things.   it also occurs to me that i am not sure what exactly you think a  true perfectionist  is.  to me, it seems more like a motivation than a skill: a perfectionist is someone who  strives  to be perfect in everything they do.  as opposed to: a perfectionist is someone who completes all tasks to perfection.  with this understanding, the  fearful  people you are talking about are just as deserving of the  perfectionist  label, as long as they really are trying to be perfect.  they just are not very good at it.   #  i have heard the  perfectionist  label countless times in the work environment probably most often from candidates for a position .   #  that is an interesting thought about using the label to ease the sting of criticism.  i would not typically be critical of that self label because of the context.  i have heard the  perfectionist  label countless times in the work environment probably most often from candidates for a position .  one example that comes to mind is a man who calls himself a perfectionist when he points out flaws in work others have done, but is far easier on himself.  in that particular case, he is using the label to set a demanding standard and is quite frankly not as tolerant of imperfections in others as he is in himself.  that is the opposite of your example.   #  given a work project, for example, i will do my darnedest to make sure the work is flawless, but there is a point at which i just have to say  this is as good as i can get it.    #  i would say that a true perfectionist is generally someone who tries to the best of his ability and does not settle and shows some ability.  someone who is a perfectionist with his/her musical sphere may try very hard at home projects but simply suck at making them come out well.  we would not usually call that person a perfectionist in that sphere.  my frustration is with those who quickly apply the label to themselves, as i see that it usually comes with a sort of fear to put a stake in the ground and say  this is my best work.   some days, i feel like i am a perfectionist of sorts, and some days i do not.  given a work project, for example, i will do my darnedest to make sure the work is flawless, but there is a point at which i just have to say  this is as good as i can get it.   i may have missed a typo or even another angle on the project.  but at the end of the day, i have to stand up and say  this was my best work  and face mistakes without lot of qualifications about who i could have done better if i would had more time, because i am a perfectionist.   #  a perfectionist often faces large amounts of anxiety over everything they do they are fearful .   #  you are both right and wrong.  a perfectionist often faces large amounts of anxiety over everything they do they are fearful .  they need their work to be perfect and often putting it off is the only solution because they are not capable of meeting the irrational standards that they are setting.  being a perfectionist is not a good thing, or something you should strive for.  it is impossible to be perfect in everything you do.  if anything it is similar to ocd.  the area you are most wrong is that they are not lazy.  they may work very hard and then throw all of their work out.  this is stupid, but not lazy.  many real perfectionist have to take anti anxiety medication to deal with their irrational impossible need to be perfect.
now do not get me wrong, people who deny that the holocaust happened are complete morons and 0 wrong.  that said though, the laws criminalizing dissemination of these beliefs only fuel persecution complexes, which generally increases anti semitism.  further, this suppression tends to lend legitimacy to their ideas among people who have not studied the topic.  if a particular viewpoint is banned, it is reasonable to assume that there is some truth to it that the establishment does not want getting out.  now i do not think that this is true about the holocaust, but it is a reasonable assumption generally.   #  further, this suppression tends to lend legitimacy to their ideas among people who have not studied the topic.   #  this is not sufficient justification for anything, it is a negative reinforcement principle.   # this is not sufficient justification for anything, it is a negative reinforcement principle.  their inability to think logically should not determine the validity of criminalization.  i can agree, to some extent, that  expressing  such a view should not be criminalized, based solely on free speech rights; the point of banning the viewpoint has nothing to do with a reason to hide it, the point is that it is absurdly false propaganda and misinformation which can lead to reasonably serious consequences, especially in the context of  learn from the mistakes of the past , and ignoring claims of suffering.  most importantly, it spits on the suffering of not just the millions of jews who were massacred, but the people of all races who were both exterminated along side them, the people who fought against it, and the people who misguidedly fought for it out of fear or lack of choice.  the justification against criminalization only lies in the right to freedom of speech, but we criminalize even that in certain cases of false speech, such as court testimony perjury .  the circumstances of the holocaust are not  everyday  circumstances, and can reasonably merit special provisions.   #  the goal has  always  been to make sure that something like the holocaust never happens again.   #  you point out some good reasons why criminalizing holocaust denial may be counter productive.  but i think you are misunderstanding the goal of such laws.  the goal is not and has never been to persecute small, mean pockets of society.  the goal has  always  been to make sure that something like the holocaust never happens again.  and the thing about the holocaust that was striking is the way that so many people so easily went along with something so evil.  it is unfathomable that people would have gone along with naziism if they had known what it could lead to.  so to prevent something like this ever happening again, we make sure it is impossible to create wide spread ignorance or misinformation about the holocaust.  and i think we can agree that trying to make sure there is never another holocaust is, at least, a  good reason.    #  instead everybody gets to go home and tell that a new law protecting the spirit of the republic was passed, although nothing actually changed.   #  i do not think there is any rational good reason for making holocaust denial illegal.  nobody actually believes that the next holocaust will be committed against the jews by fascists.  the next holocaust if there will be one , much like the one that began 0, will incorporate new and novel ways of convincing the people.  the best way to make sure that it does not happen is to own a history book, not banning idiocy.  i think holocaust denial laws exist for emotional/political reasons.  for example, i am from a country where desecrating the flag is illegal.  the reason behind the law is not some epidemic of flag burning, it is literally because someone suggested it and nobody wanted to go against it.  nobody wants to be known as the politician who argued for flag burning or holocaust denial.  instead everybody gets to go home and tell that a new law protecting the spirit of the republic was passed, although nothing actually changed.  it is fluff and emotional, not rational.   #  these laws are in place in societies that actually otherwise believe in free speech, because they are trying to prevent literally the most evil thing ever done in human history from being forgotten.   #  you posted here.  tell me: why do you want your view changed ? ca not they exist for more than one reason ? i mean, it takes a whole society to create these things.  so long as history books tell the truth.  the truth is important, that is the whole idea here.  flag burning is really not comparable.  these laws are in place in societies that actually otherwise believe in free speech, because they are trying to prevent literally the most evil thing ever done in human history from being forgotten.  flag burning laws are just patriotic posturing.  holocaust denial laws are, in many cases, fully embracing national  shame .   #  the next war, which is inevitable in my opinion, is going to be a doozy.   #  it is thought control of speech.  this should not be tolerated but combated.  holocaust denial laws promotes the suffering of one ethnic group.  ww0.  started to maintain poland s independence.  it is not lost on historians that this goal was abrogated to soviet wishes at the end of the war.  ww0 is now about jewish suffering and is a good war now.  jews were not being gassed when the war started.  people say that they would have been.  maybe.  but one thing that is known is that once a war starts, atrocities and the killing of ethnic groups and civilians intensifies as the war progresses.  this is a well known consequence of war.  0 million people died in ww0.  we should focus on stopping wars.  the next war, which is inevitable in my opinion, is going to be a doozy.
the goals of the act/sat tests are to measure a students academic ability.  however, there is a very strong correlation between act/sat scores and the amount of time/money put into preparing for them.  this can be proved with any prep class with a  higher score or your money back  guarantee URL given this, this shows that the tests do not measure cognitive ability, but test taking ability, which is created mostly by preparation for the test specifically.  this creates two problems.  one, is that it does not properly measure ability, and two, is that it favors people that have put more money and time into the test, which creates a preference for the richer to get into the colleges they want.  based on this, there is no way that colleges should be allowed to use this test, for it discriminates against the poor, and creates a misleading idea of who is or is not a competent student.   #  however, there is a very strong correlation between act/sat scores and the amount of time/money put into preparing for them.   #  this can be proved with any prep class with a  higher score or your money back  guarantee i disagree.   # this can be proved with any prep class with a  higher score or your money back  guarantee i disagree.  the scores are biased, but not based on how much time/money is put into them.  books and courses meant to help raise your score usually only very slightly raise it.  what is more important is the quality of your education up to that point, which is affected by a lot of factors time you are able to spend on schoolwork, understanding of the english language, family/friends emphasis on school, willingness and ability to memorize, etc.  .  so while your amount of free time and money clearly affect your score, it has nothing to do with extra prep via classes and books catered towards the tests.  however, test taking ability is pretty important in college.  i think the biggest problem is that there are studies showing that the sat does not predict college success not sure about act .  however, i think that just means we need to do some research to figure out how to improve the questions.  there needs to be some way to measure ability so colleges know who they want to accept, and knowing whether a student is good at taking tests and learning information seems pretty useful.   #  if higher sat scores and more time studying correlate, then the amount of time studying in high school and potentially in university compared to a standardized test like the sat should correlate as well.   #  basically this is the main idea.  there would be required a lot of time, money and effort spent on creating a standardized test that would be in theory more accurate in determining a student is ability.  same with university and exams.  our tuition would go up if they tried to use better methods that determined ability and knowledge such as multiple individual interview examinations rather than a written exam.  the basic idea is that act/sat are not the best methods to determine your ability, it is just the best we have in our constraints.  there are some of us with a 0 in high school but screw up in university due to the different work style and life.  if higher sat scores and more time studying correlate, then the amount of time studying in high school and potentially in university compared to a standardized test like the sat should correlate as well.   #  this is probably one of the most researched topics in social science, and admissions committees are not staffed by idiots.   #  there are mountains of studies, so if you were genuinely interested in the truth i am not sure why you would need me to point them out.  this is probably one of the most researched topics in social science, and admissions committees are not staffed by idiots.  they can look at the data whenever they feel like it.  reliance on test scores has actually been increasing over the past decades, not decreasing, because of high school grade inflation.  URL but anyway, here is a good study, one that is written by neither a testing company nor the dean of admissions at a test optional college.  URL table 0 tells you everything you need to know.  r square for the act is . 0, which is quite good considering that college gpa is not a particularly reliable statistic.  it rises to . 0 when you add hs gpa, and then . 0 when you control for race, gender, and major.  these are totally boring, predictable results to anyone like me who actually works in educational research and has access to data files.  if i tried to publish a finding like this from one or two colleges no journal would accept it because it would be nothing new.   #  in fact, they argue against using the composite score, which is what is done in most colleges.   #  um, you need to point out the sources that support your beliefs to counter those the other person has offered because that is how debate works.  your first post is nearly 0 years old.  ironically, the hs in question no longer publishes class rank, which was the point of the article not testing .  do you think that making comments like  these are totally boring, predictable results to anyone like me who actually works in educational research and has access to data files  actually help in a discussion ? instead, it comes across as condescending especially since your expertise in unverifiable , which makes it far less likely anyone will listen to you with an open mind.  that said, even the authors of that study only found correlation with two sections of the act.  in fact, they argue against using the composite score, which is what is done in most colleges.  you dismiss hiss for having an agenda, without actually attacking his methods or data.  you make a comment about  one or two colleges  but his study examined 0 institutions.  the case is not nearly as clear as you attempt to portray it.   #  anyway, yes the correlation does vary a lot across colleges, across time, across demographic groups, and across majors.   #   even the authors of that study only found correlation with two sections of the act.   the other 0 sections do not change the correlation.  thanks for admitting that act scores do in fact correlate with college gpa.  that clears that up.  you are right that the case is not as clear as i was portraying it, but neither is it as clear as you were portraying it.  reddit posts are hardly where one goes to get unbiased, complex, nuanced information.  anyway, yes the correlation does vary a lot across colleges, across time, across demographic groups, and across majors.  so at some institutions they are more useful than others.  but saying  high sat scores do not predict success in college.   is just spreading misinformation for some anti testing agenda.
the goals of the act/sat tests are to measure a students academic ability.  however, there is a very strong correlation between act/sat scores and the amount of time/money put into preparing for them.  this can be proved with any prep class with a  higher score or your money back  guarantee URL given this, this shows that the tests do not measure cognitive ability, but test taking ability, which is created mostly by preparation for the test specifically.  this creates two problems.  one, is that it does not properly measure ability, and two, is that it favors people that have put more money and time into the test, which creates a preference for the richer to get into the colleges they want.  based on this, there is no way that colleges should be allowed to use this test, for it discriminates against the poor, and creates a misleading idea of who is or is not a competent student.   #  one, is that it does not properly measure ability, and two, is that it favors people that have put more money and time into the test, which creates a preference for the richer to get into the colleges they want.   #  based on this, there is no way that colleges should be allowed to use this test, for it discriminates against the poor, and creates a misleading idea of who is or is not a competent student.   #  i am a horrible test taker, and did so bad the 0st time i could not get into college.  i did take one of those classes and improved my score enough to get in.  i see what you are saying, but there is a flaw in your argument.  based on this, there is no way that colleges should be allowed to use this test, for it discriminates against the poor, and creates a misleading idea of who is or is not a competent student.  universities are a private for profit business.  it is a hard truth.  they are most definitely legally allowed to use whatever methods they desire to  fairly  admit and deny a prospective student.  by fairly i mean have a common requirement, rather than by race, or gender.   #  there are some of us with a 0 in high school but screw up in university due to the different work style and life.   #  basically this is the main idea.  there would be required a lot of time, money and effort spent on creating a standardized test that would be in theory more accurate in determining a student is ability.  same with university and exams.  our tuition would go up if they tried to use better methods that determined ability and knowledge such as multiple individual interview examinations rather than a written exam.  the basic idea is that act/sat are not the best methods to determine your ability, it is just the best we have in our constraints.  there are some of us with a 0 in high school but screw up in university due to the different work style and life.  if higher sat scores and more time studying correlate, then the amount of time studying in high school and potentially in university compared to a standardized test like the sat should correlate as well.   #  they can look at the data whenever they feel like it.   #  there are mountains of studies, so if you were genuinely interested in the truth i am not sure why you would need me to point them out.  this is probably one of the most researched topics in social science, and admissions committees are not staffed by idiots.  they can look at the data whenever they feel like it.  reliance on test scores has actually been increasing over the past decades, not decreasing, because of high school grade inflation.  URL but anyway, here is a good study, one that is written by neither a testing company nor the dean of admissions at a test optional college.  URL table 0 tells you everything you need to know.  r square for the act is . 0, which is quite good considering that college gpa is not a particularly reliable statistic.  it rises to . 0 when you add hs gpa, and then . 0 when you control for race, gender, and major.  these are totally boring, predictable results to anyone like me who actually works in educational research and has access to data files.  if i tried to publish a finding like this from one or two colleges no journal would accept it because it would be nothing new.   #  you dismiss hiss for having an agenda, without actually attacking his methods or data.   #  um, you need to point out the sources that support your beliefs to counter those the other person has offered because that is how debate works.  your first post is nearly 0 years old.  ironically, the hs in question no longer publishes class rank, which was the point of the article not testing .  do you think that making comments like  these are totally boring, predictable results to anyone like me who actually works in educational research and has access to data files  actually help in a discussion ? instead, it comes across as condescending especially since your expertise in unverifiable , which makes it far less likely anyone will listen to you with an open mind.  that said, even the authors of that study only found correlation with two sections of the act.  in fact, they argue against using the composite score, which is what is done in most colleges.  you dismiss hiss for having an agenda, without actually attacking his methods or data.  you make a comment about  one or two colleges  but his study examined 0 institutions.  the case is not nearly as clear as you attempt to portray it.   #  anyway, yes the correlation does vary a lot across colleges, across time, across demographic groups, and across majors.   #   even the authors of that study only found correlation with two sections of the act.   the other 0 sections do not change the correlation.  thanks for admitting that act scores do in fact correlate with college gpa.  that clears that up.  you are right that the case is not as clear as i was portraying it, but neither is it as clear as you were portraying it.  reddit posts are hardly where one goes to get unbiased, complex, nuanced information.  anyway, yes the correlation does vary a lot across colleges, across time, across demographic groups, and across majors.  so at some institutions they are more useful than others.  but saying  high sat scores do not predict success in college.   is just spreading misinformation for some anti testing agenda.
i am talking purely about straight men and women of an age and desire to start a family here.  women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment phobes more interested in sex.  i do not think this is accurate.  women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because consciously or unconsciously they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  men, however  do  have romantic love as their primary concern.  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  i put this down to evolutionary biology.  it is in men is interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction.  women have to remain more rational in order to select the best parter to increase their chances of raising healthy offspring.   #  women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment phobes more interested in sex.   #  i do not think this is accurate.   # i do not think this is accurate.  why not ? it is hard to argue against something if we have no idea why you hold it.  i have never had the idea that women were looking for safety and security over romantic love.  at best, if your evidence is as anecdotal as mine, we reach an impasse where we cannot prove each other wrong.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  what makes you think this ? do women  say  this ? if not, what makes you think that they do not live up to their portrayal in the media ? do you think it would be evidence  for  romantic love if women were  less  picky ? or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  again, can you tell us where you are coming from ? personal experience ? some set of statistics ? it obviously ca not be the portrayal of men or women in the media because you are arguing  against  those stereotypes being accurate.   #  since the 0 is, the divorce rate has gone down year over year, and i believe that is due primarily to the change in belief.   #  i think that this used to be true, but is no longer the case.  there is a freakonomics podcast on marriage that addresses this question a bit, and i really enjoyed it.  basically, what it says is that before the sexual revolution of the late 0 is, that is essentially what marriage was.  women and their families wanted them to match up with a man that could provide for them.  around the same time of the sexual revolution, women became a larger part of the workforce, and that specific motivation of finding a man that could provide was no longer completely necessary, since 0 worker households became much more common.  they believe that the reason the divorce rate was so high between the 0 is and 0 is was a change in the perception of what was important in a partner.  no longer was it necessary to find a man with a high paying job, because a woman could support herself without the help.  instead, they say, it became more important to find a  life partner  rather than a provider.  women who divorced in this period were raised under the idea of marrying a provider, but when society changed, they were left holding the bag, and began opting for divorce more and more.  since the 0 is, the divorce rate has gone down year over year, and i believe that is due primarily to the change in belief.   #  and the ultimately successful man is someone like genghis khan who just has a really large number of offspring relative to other men.   #  it is like you are saying women are pickier than men when it comes to love.  but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? it is also in men is interests to develop attachments only to women who develop an attachment to him, which is a directly competing concern.  it is also in a man is interests to attempt to reproduce with the most high quality female he can.  which again is in conflict with developing attachment quickly.  and the ultimately successful man is someone like genghis khan who just has a really large number of offspring relative to other men.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behavior.   #  attachment is anathema to that kind of behaviour.   # but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? yes.  men can reproduce with less investment.  it takes much more effort for women to reproduce.  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.  for women, it makes them more likely.  not in a purely biological sense.  the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  if the goal is to pass on your genes, then the quality of a mate is largely irrelevant for a male.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behaviour.  that is one strategy for maximizing reproductive success.  but not the only one.   #  but her attachment to him is also important, because if she is not attached to him she might have someone else is kids instead.   # the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  i should have said the female is belief that the male is attached to her, because without that she is not convinced he is a stable mate.  but her attachment to him is also important, because if she is not attached to him she might have someone else is kids instead.  if you only judge success based on your gene prominence in the next generation, sure, any mate will do.  but if you care about prominence two generations or three generations out, you need your children to be successful at reproducing, and that means that the quality of their genes matters.  and half the genes are not yours, so you should try to give them good genes.  but not the only one.  sticking to one woman puts a ceiling on the reproductive success a man can have.  obviously not every man is capable of being extremely successful the way genghis khan was, but for people who are, they would do tremendous damage to their success by committing to a single female.
i am talking purely about straight men and women of an age and desire to start a family here.  women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment phobes more interested in sex.  i do not think this is accurate.  women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because consciously or unconsciously they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  men, however  do  have romantic love as their primary concern.  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  i put this down to evolutionary biology.  it is in men is interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction.  women have to remain more rational in order to select the best parter to increase their chances of raising healthy offspring.   #  women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because consciously or unconsciously they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.   #  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.   # i do not think this is accurate.  why not ? it is hard to argue against something if we have no idea why you hold it.  i have never had the idea that women were looking for safety and security over romantic love.  at best, if your evidence is as anecdotal as mine, we reach an impasse where we cannot prove each other wrong.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  what makes you think this ? do women  say  this ? if not, what makes you think that they do not live up to their portrayal in the media ? do you think it would be evidence  for  romantic love if women were  less  picky ? or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  again, can you tell us where you are coming from ? personal experience ? some set of statistics ? it obviously ca not be the portrayal of men or women in the media because you are arguing  against  those stereotypes being accurate.   #  women who divorced in this period were raised under the idea of marrying a provider, but when society changed, they were left holding the bag, and began opting for divorce more and more.   #  i think that this used to be true, but is no longer the case.  there is a freakonomics podcast on marriage that addresses this question a bit, and i really enjoyed it.  basically, what it says is that before the sexual revolution of the late 0 is, that is essentially what marriage was.  women and their families wanted them to match up with a man that could provide for them.  around the same time of the sexual revolution, women became a larger part of the workforce, and that specific motivation of finding a man that could provide was no longer completely necessary, since 0 worker households became much more common.  they believe that the reason the divorce rate was so high between the 0 is and 0 is was a change in the perception of what was important in a partner.  no longer was it necessary to find a man with a high paying job, because a woman could support herself without the help.  instead, they say, it became more important to find a  life partner  rather than a provider.  women who divorced in this period were raised under the idea of marrying a provider, but when society changed, they were left holding the bag, and began opting for divorce more and more.  since the 0 is, the divorce rate has gone down year over year, and i believe that is due primarily to the change in belief.   #  it is also in men is interests to develop attachments only to women who develop an attachment to him, which is a directly competing concern.   #  it is like you are saying women are pickier than men when it comes to love.  but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? it is also in men is interests to develop attachments only to women who develop an attachment to him, which is a directly competing concern.  it is also in a man is interests to attempt to reproduce with the most high quality female he can.  which again is in conflict with developing attachment quickly.  and the ultimately successful man is someone like genghis khan who just has a really large number of offspring relative to other men.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behavior.   #  if the goal is to pass on your genes, then the quality of a mate is largely irrelevant for a male.   # but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? yes.  men can reproduce with less investment.  it takes much more effort for women to reproduce.  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.  for women, it makes them more likely.  not in a purely biological sense.  the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  if the goal is to pass on your genes, then the quality of a mate is largely irrelevant for a male.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behaviour.  that is one strategy for maximizing reproductive success.  but not the only one.   #  i should have said the female is belief that the male is attached to her, because without that she is not convinced he is a stable mate.   # the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  i should have said the female is belief that the male is attached to her, because without that she is not convinced he is a stable mate.  but her attachment to him is also important, because if she is not attached to him she might have someone else is kids instead.  if you only judge success based on your gene prominence in the next generation, sure, any mate will do.  but if you care about prominence two generations or three generations out, you need your children to be successful at reproducing, and that means that the quality of their genes matters.  and half the genes are not yours, so you should try to give them good genes.  but not the only one.  sticking to one woman puts a ceiling on the reproductive success a man can have.  obviously not every man is capable of being extremely successful the way genghis khan was, but for people who are, they would do tremendous damage to their success by committing to a single female.
i am talking purely about straight men and women of an age and desire to start a family here.  women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment phobes more interested in sex.  i do not think this is accurate.  women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because consciously or unconsciously they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  men, however  do  have romantic love as their primary concern.  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  i put this down to evolutionary biology.  it is in men is interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction.  women have to remain more rational in order to select the best parter to increase their chances of raising healthy offspring.   #  men, however  do  have romantic love as their primary concern.   #  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.   # i do not think this is accurate.  why not ? it is hard to argue against something if we have no idea why you hold it.  i have never had the idea that women were looking for safety and security over romantic love.  at best, if your evidence is as anecdotal as mine, we reach an impasse where we cannot prove each other wrong.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  what makes you think this ? do women  say  this ? if not, what makes you think that they do not live up to their portrayal in the media ? do you think it would be evidence  for  romantic love if women were  less  picky ? or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  again, can you tell us where you are coming from ? personal experience ? some set of statistics ? it obviously ca not be the portrayal of men or women in the media because you are arguing  against  those stereotypes being accurate.   #  i think that this used to be true, but is no longer the case.   #  i think that this used to be true, but is no longer the case.  there is a freakonomics podcast on marriage that addresses this question a bit, and i really enjoyed it.  basically, what it says is that before the sexual revolution of the late 0 is, that is essentially what marriage was.  women and their families wanted them to match up with a man that could provide for them.  around the same time of the sexual revolution, women became a larger part of the workforce, and that specific motivation of finding a man that could provide was no longer completely necessary, since 0 worker households became much more common.  they believe that the reason the divorce rate was so high between the 0 is and 0 is was a change in the perception of what was important in a partner.  no longer was it necessary to find a man with a high paying job, because a woman could support herself without the help.  instead, they say, it became more important to find a  life partner  rather than a provider.  women who divorced in this period were raised under the idea of marrying a provider, but when society changed, they were left holding the bag, and began opting for divorce more and more.  since the 0 is, the divorce rate has gone down year over year, and i believe that is due primarily to the change in belief.   #  attachment is anathema to that kind of behavior.   #  it is like you are saying women are pickier than men when it comes to love.  but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? it is also in men is interests to develop attachments only to women who develop an attachment to him, which is a directly competing concern.  it is also in a man is interests to attempt to reproduce with the most high quality female he can.  which again is in conflict with developing attachment quickly.  and the ultimately successful man is someone like genghis khan who just has a really large number of offspring relative to other men.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behavior.   #  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.   # but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? yes.  men can reproduce with less investment.  it takes much more effort for women to reproduce.  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.  for women, it makes them more likely.  not in a purely biological sense.  the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  if the goal is to pass on your genes, then the quality of a mate is largely irrelevant for a male.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behaviour.  that is one strategy for maximizing reproductive success.  but not the only one.   #  but if you care about prominence two generations or three generations out, you need your children to be successful at reproducing, and that means that the quality of their genes matters.   # the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  i should have said the female is belief that the male is attached to her, because without that she is not convinced he is a stable mate.  but her attachment to him is also important, because if she is not attached to him she might have someone else is kids instead.  if you only judge success based on your gene prominence in the next generation, sure, any mate will do.  but if you care about prominence two generations or three generations out, you need your children to be successful at reproducing, and that means that the quality of their genes matters.  and half the genes are not yours, so you should try to give them good genes.  but not the only one.  sticking to one woman puts a ceiling on the reproductive success a man can have.  obviously not every man is capable of being extremely successful the way genghis khan was, but for people who are, they would do tremendous damage to their success by committing to a single female.
i am talking purely about straight men and women of an age and desire to start a family here.  women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment phobes more interested in sex.  i do not think this is accurate.  women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because consciously or unconsciously they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  men, however  do  have romantic love as their primary concern.  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  i put this down to evolutionary biology.  it is in men is interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction.  women have to remain more rational in order to select the best parter to increase their chances of raising healthy offspring.   #  it is in men is interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction.   #  it is also in men is interests to develop attachments only to women who develop an attachment to him, which is a directly competing concern.   #  it is like you are saying women are pickier than men when it comes to love.  but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? it is also in men is interests to develop attachments only to women who develop an attachment to him, which is a directly competing concern.  it is also in a man is interests to attempt to reproduce with the most high quality female he can.  which again is in conflict with developing attachment quickly.  and the ultimately successful man is someone like genghis khan who just has a really large number of offspring relative to other men.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behavior.   #  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.   # i do not think this is accurate.  why not ? it is hard to argue against something if we have no idea why you hold it.  i have never had the idea that women were looking for safety and security over romantic love.  at best, if your evidence is as anecdotal as mine, we reach an impasse where we cannot prove each other wrong.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  what makes you think this ? do women  say  this ? if not, what makes you think that they do not live up to their portrayal in the media ? do you think it would be evidence  for  romantic love if women were  less  picky ? or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  again, can you tell us where you are coming from ? personal experience ? some set of statistics ? it obviously ca not be the portrayal of men or women in the media because you are arguing  against  those stereotypes being accurate.   #  there is a freakonomics podcast on marriage that addresses this question a bit, and i really enjoyed it.   #  i think that this used to be true, but is no longer the case.  there is a freakonomics podcast on marriage that addresses this question a bit, and i really enjoyed it.  basically, what it says is that before the sexual revolution of the late 0 is, that is essentially what marriage was.  women and their families wanted them to match up with a man that could provide for them.  around the same time of the sexual revolution, women became a larger part of the workforce, and that specific motivation of finding a man that could provide was no longer completely necessary, since 0 worker households became much more common.  they believe that the reason the divorce rate was so high between the 0 is and 0 is was a change in the perception of what was important in a partner.  no longer was it necessary to find a man with a high paying job, because a woman could support herself without the help.  instead, they say, it became more important to find a  life partner  rather than a provider.  women who divorced in this period were raised under the idea of marrying a provider, but when society changed, they were left holding the bag, and began opting for divorce more and more.  since the 0 is, the divorce rate has gone down year over year, and i believe that is due primarily to the change in belief.   #  if the goal is to pass on your genes, then the quality of a mate is largely irrelevant for a male.   # but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? yes.  men can reproduce with less investment.  it takes much more effort for women to reproduce.  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.  for women, it makes them more likely.  not in a purely biological sense.  the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  if the goal is to pass on your genes, then the quality of a mate is largely irrelevant for a male.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behaviour.  that is one strategy for maximizing reproductive success.  but not the only one.   #  sticking to one woman puts a ceiling on the reproductive success a man can have.   # the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  i should have said the female is belief that the male is attached to her, because without that she is not convinced he is a stable mate.  but her attachment to him is also important, because if she is not attached to him she might have someone else is kids instead.  if you only judge success based on your gene prominence in the next generation, sure, any mate will do.  but if you care about prominence two generations or three generations out, you need your children to be successful at reproducing, and that means that the quality of their genes matters.  and half the genes are not yours, so you should try to give them good genes.  but not the only one.  sticking to one woman puts a ceiling on the reproductive success a man can have.  obviously not every man is capable of being extremely successful the way genghis khan was, but for people who are, they would do tremendous damage to their success by committing to a single female.
i am talking purely about straight men and women of an age and desire to start a family here.  women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment phobes more interested in sex.  i do not think this is accurate.  women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because consciously or unconsciously they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  men, however  do  have romantic love as their primary concern.  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  i put this down to evolutionary biology.  it is in men is interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction.  women have to remain more rational in order to select the best parter to increase their chances of raising healthy offspring.   #  they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.   #  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.   # romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  does child rearing require attention and an emotional connection ? romance is one way a woman can gauge how involved a man will be with a child.  if a man does not offer  romantic love , then how do you think that affects the stability of the resource you are depending on ? you forgot to consider this in your reasoning.  no, it is in the man is best interest to  hit it and quit it .  we have millions of sperm that replenish daily so that we can have multiple partners in quick succession.  more partners increases the chances of offspring.  there is no biological drive for a man to form attachments.   #  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.   # i do not think this is accurate.  why not ? it is hard to argue against something if we have no idea why you hold it.  i have never had the idea that women were looking for safety and security over romantic love.  at best, if your evidence is as anecdotal as mine, we reach an impasse where we cannot prove each other wrong.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  what makes you think this ? do women  say  this ? if not, what makes you think that they do not live up to their portrayal in the media ? do you think it would be evidence  for  romantic love if women were  less  picky ? or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  again, can you tell us where you are coming from ? personal experience ? some set of statistics ? it obviously ca not be the portrayal of men or women in the media because you are arguing  against  those stereotypes being accurate.   #  around the same time of the sexual revolution, women became a larger part of the workforce, and that specific motivation of finding a man that could provide was no longer completely necessary, since 0 worker households became much more common.   #  i think that this used to be true, but is no longer the case.  there is a freakonomics podcast on marriage that addresses this question a bit, and i really enjoyed it.  basically, what it says is that before the sexual revolution of the late 0 is, that is essentially what marriage was.  women and their families wanted them to match up with a man that could provide for them.  around the same time of the sexual revolution, women became a larger part of the workforce, and that specific motivation of finding a man that could provide was no longer completely necessary, since 0 worker households became much more common.  they believe that the reason the divorce rate was so high between the 0 is and 0 is was a change in the perception of what was important in a partner.  no longer was it necessary to find a man with a high paying job, because a woman could support herself without the help.  instead, they say, it became more important to find a  life partner  rather than a provider.  women who divorced in this period were raised under the idea of marrying a provider, but when society changed, they were left holding the bag, and began opting for divorce more and more.  since the 0 is, the divorce rate has gone down year over year, and i believe that is due primarily to the change in belief.   #  attachment is anathema to that kind of behavior.   #  it is like you are saying women are pickier than men when it comes to love.  but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? it is also in men is interests to develop attachments only to women who develop an attachment to him, which is a directly competing concern.  it is also in a man is interests to attempt to reproduce with the most high quality female he can.  which again is in conflict with developing attachment quickly.  and the ultimately successful man is someone like genghis khan who just has a really large number of offspring relative to other men.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behavior.   #  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.   # but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? yes.  men can reproduce with less investment.  it takes much more effort for women to reproduce.  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.  for women, it makes them more likely.  not in a purely biological sense.  the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  if the goal is to pass on your genes, then the quality of a mate is largely irrelevant for a male.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behaviour.  that is one strategy for maximizing reproductive success.  but not the only one.
i am talking purely about straight men and women of an age and desire to start a family here.  women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment phobes more interested in sex.  i do not think this is accurate.  women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because consciously or unconsciously they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  men, however  do  have romantic love as their primary concern.  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  i put this down to evolutionary biology.  it is in men is interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction.  women have to remain more rational in order to select the best parter to increase their chances of raising healthy offspring.   #  it is in men is interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction.   #  no, it is in the man is best interest to  hit it and quit it .   # romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  does child rearing require attention and an emotional connection ? romance is one way a woman can gauge how involved a man will be with a child.  if a man does not offer  romantic love , then how do you think that affects the stability of the resource you are depending on ? you forgot to consider this in your reasoning.  no, it is in the man is best interest to  hit it and quit it .  we have millions of sperm that replenish daily so that we can have multiple partners in quick succession.  more partners increases the chances of offspring.  there is no biological drive for a man to form attachments.   #  it obviously ca not be the portrayal of men or women in the media because you are arguing  against  those stereotypes being accurate.   # i do not think this is accurate.  why not ? it is hard to argue against something if we have no idea why you hold it.  i have never had the idea that women were looking for safety and security over romantic love.  at best, if your evidence is as anecdotal as mine, we reach an impasse where we cannot prove each other wrong.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  what makes you think this ? do women  say  this ? if not, what makes you think that they do not live up to their portrayal in the media ? do you think it would be evidence  for  romantic love if women were  less  picky ? or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  again, can you tell us where you are coming from ? personal experience ? some set of statistics ? it obviously ca not be the portrayal of men or women in the media because you are arguing  against  those stereotypes being accurate.   #  there is a freakonomics podcast on marriage that addresses this question a bit, and i really enjoyed it.   #  i think that this used to be true, but is no longer the case.  there is a freakonomics podcast on marriage that addresses this question a bit, and i really enjoyed it.  basically, what it says is that before the sexual revolution of the late 0 is, that is essentially what marriage was.  women and their families wanted them to match up with a man that could provide for them.  around the same time of the sexual revolution, women became a larger part of the workforce, and that specific motivation of finding a man that could provide was no longer completely necessary, since 0 worker households became much more common.  they believe that the reason the divorce rate was so high between the 0 is and 0 is was a change in the perception of what was important in a partner.  no longer was it necessary to find a man with a high paying job, because a woman could support herself without the help.  instead, they say, it became more important to find a  life partner  rather than a provider.  women who divorced in this period were raised under the idea of marrying a provider, but when society changed, they were left holding the bag, and began opting for divorce more and more.  since the 0 is, the divorce rate has gone down year over year, and i believe that is due primarily to the change in belief.   #  and the ultimately successful man is someone like genghis khan who just has a really large number of offspring relative to other men.   #  it is like you are saying women are pickier than men when it comes to love.  but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? it is also in men is interests to develop attachments only to women who develop an attachment to him, which is a directly competing concern.  it is also in a man is interests to attempt to reproduce with the most high quality female he can.  which again is in conflict with developing attachment quickly.  and the ultimately successful man is someone like genghis khan who just has a really large number of offspring relative to other men.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behavior.   #  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.   # but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? yes.  men can reproduce with less investment.  it takes much more effort for women to reproduce.  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.  for women, it makes them more likely.  not in a purely biological sense.  the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  if the goal is to pass on your genes, then the quality of a mate is largely irrelevant for a male.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behaviour.  that is one strategy for maximizing reproductive success.  but not the only one.
i am talking purely about straight men and women of an age and desire to start a family here.  women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment phobes more interested in sex.  i do not think this is accurate.  women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because consciously or unconsciously they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  men, however  do  have romantic love as their primary concern.  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  i put this down to evolutionary biology.  it is in men is interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction.  women have to remain more rational in order to select the best parter to increase their chances of raising healthy offspring.   #  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.   #  i do not think that is true.   # i do not think that is true.  at all.  i think all people are capable of falling deeply in love.  and yes, that means women.  as a woman with a lot of female friends, i have witnessed this.  so i find your statement a bit baseless.  for a woman who does not have her own or has decided it is in her best interest to be stay at home mother, then yes it is in her best interest i suppose to find someone who can actually support that lifestyle.  following her heart first and falling deeply in love could result in her dating the ambition less busboy; and a relationship with two people who are not concerned about making money is a relationship doomed to poverty and stress.  whereas most men do not want to or do not have the societal privilege to be a stay at home father w/o someone raising an eyebrow.  at least presently, maybe not in the near future , so they usually have their own money and wealth and thus they can literally allow themselves to fall in love with anyone because they are not concerned with the other person is financial responsibility.   #  again, can you tell us where you are coming from ?  # i do not think this is accurate.  why not ? it is hard to argue against something if we have no idea why you hold it.  i have never had the idea that women were looking for safety and security over romantic love.  at best, if your evidence is as anecdotal as mine, we reach an impasse where we cannot prove each other wrong.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  what makes you think this ? do women  say  this ? if not, what makes you think that they do not live up to their portrayal in the media ? do you think it would be evidence  for  romantic love if women were  less  picky ? or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  again, can you tell us where you are coming from ? personal experience ? some set of statistics ? it obviously ca not be the portrayal of men or women in the media because you are arguing  against  those stereotypes being accurate.   #  around the same time of the sexual revolution, women became a larger part of the workforce, and that specific motivation of finding a man that could provide was no longer completely necessary, since 0 worker households became much more common.   #  i think that this used to be true, but is no longer the case.  there is a freakonomics podcast on marriage that addresses this question a bit, and i really enjoyed it.  basically, what it says is that before the sexual revolution of the late 0 is, that is essentially what marriage was.  women and their families wanted them to match up with a man that could provide for them.  around the same time of the sexual revolution, women became a larger part of the workforce, and that specific motivation of finding a man that could provide was no longer completely necessary, since 0 worker households became much more common.  they believe that the reason the divorce rate was so high between the 0 is and 0 is was a change in the perception of what was important in a partner.  no longer was it necessary to find a man with a high paying job, because a woman could support herself without the help.  instead, they say, it became more important to find a  life partner  rather than a provider.  women who divorced in this period were raised under the idea of marrying a provider, but when society changed, they were left holding the bag, and began opting for divorce more and more.  since the 0 is, the divorce rate has gone down year over year, and i believe that is due primarily to the change in belief.   #  it is like you are saying women are pickier than men when it comes to love.   #  it is like you are saying women are pickier than men when it comes to love.  but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? it is also in men is interests to develop attachments only to women who develop an attachment to him, which is a directly competing concern.  it is also in a man is interests to attempt to reproduce with the most high quality female he can.  which again is in conflict with developing attachment quickly.  and the ultimately successful man is someone like genghis khan who just has a really large number of offspring relative to other men.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behavior.   #  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.   # but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? yes.  men can reproduce with less investment.  it takes much more effort for women to reproduce.  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.  for women, it makes them more likely.  not in a purely biological sense.  the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  if the goal is to pass on your genes, then the quality of a mate is largely irrelevant for a male.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behaviour.  that is one strategy for maximizing reproductive success.  but not the only one.
i am talking purely about straight men and women of an age and desire to start a family here.  women are often portrayed in the media as being very concerned about romantic love and men as commitment phobes more interested in sex.  i do not think this is accurate.  women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because consciously or unconsciously they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  men, however  do  have romantic love as their primary concern.  or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  i put this down to evolutionary biology.  it is in men is interests to develop attachments quicker, to increase chances of reproduction.  women have to remain more rational in order to select the best parter to increase their chances of raising healthy offspring.   #  women are a lot more picky in the dating game, and it is because consciously or unconsciously they are looking for a father that is capable of supporting them and their children.   #  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.   # romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  to the extent that women are unconsciously seeking potential providers for their children, there is no reason this could not work through the mechanism of romantic love.  when you are talking about the evolution of behaviors, it is easy to imagine organisms consciously acting to spread their genes.  in reality, however, evolutionary mechanisms are more likely to work through our emotions.  we eat not because we know we must to survive and spread our genes, but because we genuinely enjoy it.  so, it may be that signs that a man may be a good provider are part of what makes him attractive to women, but that does not make the attraction any less genuine.  so women could, simultaneously, be driven by an evolved desire to find a strong provider and a conscious desire to find love without there being any conflict between these two.   #  it obviously ca not be the portrayal of men or women in the media because you are arguing  against  those stereotypes being accurate.   # i do not think this is accurate.  why not ? it is hard to argue against something if we have no idea why you hold it.  i have never had the idea that women were looking for safety and security over romantic love.  at best, if your evidence is as anecdotal as mine, we reach an impasse where we cannot prove each other wrong.  romantic love is a secondary concern to them.  what makes you think this ? do women  say  this ? if not, what makes you think that they do not live up to their portrayal in the media ? do you think it would be evidence  for  romantic love if women were  less  picky ? or at least, they fall in love quicker and more deeply than women.  again, can you tell us where you are coming from ? personal experience ? some set of statistics ? it obviously ca not be the portrayal of men or women in the media because you are arguing  against  those stereotypes being accurate.   #  they believe that the reason the divorce rate was so high between the 0 is and 0 is was a change in the perception of what was important in a partner.   #  i think that this used to be true, but is no longer the case.  there is a freakonomics podcast on marriage that addresses this question a bit, and i really enjoyed it.  basically, what it says is that before the sexual revolution of the late 0 is, that is essentially what marriage was.  women and their families wanted them to match up with a man that could provide for them.  around the same time of the sexual revolution, women became a larger part of the workforce, and that specific motivation of finding a man that could provide was no longer completely necessary, since 0 worker households became much more common.  they believe that the reason the divorce rate was so high between the 0 is and 0 is was a change in the perception of what was important in a partner.  no longer was it necessary to find a man with a high paying job, because a woman could support herself without the help.  instead, they say, it became more important to find a  life partner  rather than a provider.  women who divorced in this period were raised under the idea of marrying a provider, but when society changed, they were left holding the bag, and began opting for divorce more and more.  since the 0 is, the divorce rate has gone down year over year, and i believe that is due primarily to the change in belief.   #  it is also in a man is interests to attempt to reproduce with the most high quality female he can.  which again is in conflict with developing attachment quickly.   #  it is like you are saying women are pickier than men when it comes to love.  but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? it is also in men is interests to develop attachments only to women who develop an attachment to him, which is a directly competing concern.  it is also in a man is interests to attempt to reproduce with the most high quality female he can.  which again is in conflict with developing attachment quickly.  and the ultimately successful man is someone like genghis khan who just has a really large number of offspring relative to other men.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behavior.   #  the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.   # but you are also saying that it makes sense for women to be picky but it does not make sense for men ? yes.  men can reproduce with less investment.  it takes much more effort for women to reproduce.  for men, being picky about reproduction makes them less likely to pass on their genes.  for women, it makes them more likely.  not in a purely biological sense.  the female is attachment to the male is irrelevant if the male can pass on his genes.  if the goal is to pass on your genes, then the quality of a mate is largely irrelevant for a male.  attachment is anathema to that kind of behaviour.  that is one strategy for maximizing reproductive success.  but not the only one.
let me start by saying i loved true detective.  the acting and directing were awesome, and the writing had me totally obsessed until near the end.  however, the ending killed me.  what intrigued me so much about the first 0/0s of the season was that first of all the yellow king cult clearly had so many members and they were obviously powerful, and second rust cohl had this obsessive need to bring them down.  while the errol  man with scars  childress was an important part of this puzzle he was not anything close to being the biggest fish in this case.  in fact by all appearances he was just an insane drug addict who was working at the behest of much darker forces.  not only was the cult clearly active throughout the  0s and early 0st century, but many high ranking state officials were likely involved.  however, after cohl and hart kill childress cohl seems truly at peace, even though he has not gotten the full truth or come anywhere near getting justice for the victims.  i believe this is completely out of character and unsatisfying.  if the writer nick pizzolatto wanted to make the story about cops chasing around a bunch of devil worshiping meth heads, that would have been fine and i probably still would have enjoyed the show.  however implying a broader conspiracy and then not developing it was unfair.  the only way pizzolatto can redeem himself is if the next season takes place in the same story universe.  i really hope that the next season will still be following the yellow king cult but in a different time and place, and with different main characters.  obviously this will be challenging though and i doubt he will do it.   #  however, after cohl and hart kill childress cohl seems truly at peace, even though he has not gotten the full truth or come anywhere near getting justice for the victims.   #  i think cohl is resolution was, in my view, a mixed bag.   # he was the keeper of carcosa, and seemed to me to be a central figure in the religion, just not the conspiracy.  i think cohl is resolution was, in my view, a mixed bag.  he felt that wave of relief, but it seemed to me that he despaired at losing it when he came back to the world of the living.  however, it is proof of a reward of somekind for his hard work and sufffering, and that motivates him to keep searching for the cult, which is on edge, as indicated by the lies reported in the news broadcast at the very end.  i think the reason they left the hospital as they did was proof they will continue the hunt.   #  the two characters have had their story told.   #  you feel a bit betrayed because you did not get everything you wanted.  the story arc was more about the two main characters.  those characters had their small triumph, their fall and then their redemption.  the cult and and the rest is just window dressing to give flavor.  the two characters have had their story told.  edit cause you know words are important.   #  however, i will admit, i did want more answers.   #  i felt dissatisfied briefly because i was viewing the last episode like a single episode of law   order: svu.  where justice is usually delivered and we typically get answers to all of the criminally based questions.  for example, story arc between benson and stabler is a  long arc  where we get brief glimpses into their chemistry over the series  many seasons.  however this mini season is the inverse.  it was more about the partners and their revelations.  not about the tangential crimes.  so i figured early on we would never know everything regarding the crimes.  the show was not about the crimes.  however, i will admit, i did want more answers.  but i decided the two main characters were more important.  so in that sense we all very viscerally felt how russ may have felt at the end of the season, but ultimately russ decided experiencing life was more important.  the loss of his daughter and never dealing with that grief was the source fueling his unrelenting need to solve these crimes.  he resolved that grief at the end.  the show could have had a different ending.  where we got all of the answers to the crimes, but russ ended up a lost soul.  forever a slave to his grief.  either way we would not have all of the answers.   #  but your cmv is that your betrayal stems from the  incompleteness  or the lack of  tying up loose ends.    #  i thought the ending would have been fine.  i just found it cheesy.  i think catharsis can be achieved more subtly than how the show is writers and directors chose to handle it.  for me the show avoided being  cheesy  all season and then in the last 0 minutes, it fangirled on itself.  but your cmv is that your betrayal stems from the  incompleteness  or the lack of  tying up loose ends.   i would argue that i felt betrayed by the tone.   #  beyond that, hart and cohl did seem to be getting over their personal demons.   #  well, they did succeed, the cult is on some level exposed.  it is unlikely they will be abducting anyone very soon, and they are kind of on the run.  beyond that, hart and cohl did seem to be getting over their personal demons.  you have to bare in mind, this work was a take on the weird fiction genre, hence the allusions to the yellow king and carcosa.  weird fiction rarely gives any sort of genuine resolution, instead choosing to leave audiences with as many questions as possible.  it is a purposeful decision to leave the audience confused and wanting more.
i feel that when a rape accusation is brought up, many people have the tendency to, by default, side with the individual who is making the accusation.  i do not believe that there are many other instances in which the testimony of the person making the accusation is given as much weight and trusted by default.  in most other cases, when the situation becomes a he said she said argument, one side would need to provide some sort of proof in order to have the law side with them.  i understand that this is a complex issue, and that the incidence and frequency of rape is a cause for concern.  i understand that in many ways, the current system is incapable of dealing appropriately with rape, as a majority of rapes are not reported and many rapists get away scot free.  however, that does not at all mean that it is okay for an allegation alone to carry any more weight than usual.  ultimately, the story one tells is just a story, and without verification from other sources, there is no way to gauge its accuracy.  everybody lies, and just because an anecdote is convincingly given and you believe someone is account of a situation does not mean that their testimony is accurate.  anecdotal evidence in any other field is given little to no weight, and it should not in cases of rape as well.  yes, the system sucks.  but the solution is not to allow indiscriminate accusation to hold weight it is to figure out some way by which stronger evidence can be obtained to discern the actual course of events.  without more evidence, it is unreasonable to expect prosecution to occur differently.   #  in most other cases, when the situation becomes a he said she said argument, one side would need to provide some sort of proof in order to have the law side with them.   #  this is actually the case in most crimes.   # this is actually the case in most crimes.  with theft, if you have recorded the serial numbers of your stuff, and stuff with those serial numbers is in someone else is possession, you might have a clear cut case, though of course the other side can claim that the stuff was borrowed or bought.  but most crimes come down to witness testimony, if it exists, and  he said, she said  stuff.  assault and battery ? everybody in the bar was drunk and it happened in a corner that was dimly lit and you might have gotten that black eye slipping in the bathroom, anyway.  self defense ? i once served on a jury where the case came down to just how completely someone had to fill a doorway to count as  blocking  an escape.  do you have to just stand by the door and look like you are gonna punch the person if they go through ? or do you have to kind of wedge yourself in there ? no witnesses besides the two parties in question, and some neighbors who heard shouting, btw.  libel ? often very subjective.  etc.  in all the cases, we do question the accuser, and the accused often gets off scott free due to lack of evidence.  what is special about rape is that the defense often brings the accuser is sexual history into play in order to undermine their case.  so some college kid gets sexually assaulted by most of the members of the football team, and the defense attempts to use the number of sex partners the kid had in the past to cast doubts over whether the assault which might have been caught on camera was actually  consensual .  rape is not unique because it happens in  private .  often there are witnesses to the lead up or the actual event itself.  rape is unique because we claim to abhor it, but when it actually happens we usually try to find a reason why the victim was  asking for it  they were not careful enough; they were not clear enough about saying  no ; they are the sort of person who enjoys that sort of thing, etc.  the result is that fewer rapists actually get convicted than other violent criminals, and many victims hesitate to come forward, because they know that their character will be called into question in ways that may seriously damage their social status and career prospects.  the problem is not that we do not question the accuser, in other words, it is that we tend to drag the accuser through the muck in a way that we do not with other crimes.  justice would be better served if we learned to treat rape just like other crimes look at the available evidence, and make a sensible decision, without calling the character of the victim into question in ways that are not relevant to the case.   #  if nothing else, it is useful to formulate such opinions to inform our own actions.   # saying  wouldo not get involved at all  is a fantasy option.  wait, you are asking what the public  should  do, but then are limiting options to what the public actually  will  do ? those are two entirely different things.  if our options are limited to what the public  will  do, then there is no discussion to be had, because the public will do what it already does regardless of anything anyone says on this thread.  we can certainly still form a moral opinion about what the public  ought  to do, even if the public wo not do that thing.  if nothing else, it is useful to formulate such opinions to inform our own actions.  further, holding such an opinion may eventually result in that opinion becoming a reality if enough people adopt it.  the point of our criminal justice standard is to withhold judgement until we evaluate the evidence.  it is perfectly legitimate to suggest that we should refrain from forming judgments without first getting a chance to review the evidence presented.   #  just being accused of rape has massive negative effects on every aspect of a person is life.   #  but the whole situation is still based on assumption, right ? even in your statement you are assuming the the accused is guilty before even looking at the case at all.  if you have two long time friends, and one accuses the other of raping them, would you instantly and totally disown that other friend based solely on the first friend is word ? that does not seem like a solid way to conduct oneself in relationships.  it gives the accuser all the power with no legitimacy.  if all that is needed to destroy someone is social life/career/relationships/marriage life is for someone to point a finger, i think a little more information should be present.  rape allegations are huge.  just being accused of rape has massive negative effects on every aspect of a person is life.   #  in the unlikely event that you were falsely accused would you expect and accept the same behavior from your friends ?  #  in the unlikely event that you were falsely accused would you expect and accept the same behavior from your friends ? then you are not just disowning someone based on an accusation, you are disowning them based on automatically assuming their guilt.  which is what spydetarrix was trying to get at in the first place.  i have no reason to think that false rape accusations are currently common, but i think its clear they would become very common if everyone shared your attitude.  because people exist who want to hurt other people, and if making that accusation was all they needed to do to totally ruin someone else is social life then that would be basically giving those people unchecked power over others.   #  in the  unlikely event  that you were falsely accused would you expect and accept the same behavior from your friends ?  #  that is not really an answer to anything i said.  i did not say it was likely, i said the exact opposite.  in the  unlikely event  that you were falsely accused would you expect and accept the same behavior from your friends ? i have no reason to think that false rape accusations are currently common , but i think its clear they would become very common if everyone shared your attitude.  because people exist who want to hurt other people, and if making that accusation was all they needed to do to totally ruin someone else is social life then that would be basically giving those people unchecked power over others.
i feel that when a rape accusation is brought up, many people have the tendency to, by default, side with the individual who is making the accusation.  i do not believe that there are many other instances in which the testimony of the person making the accusation is given as much weight and trusted by default.  in most other cases, when the situation becomes a he said she said argument, one side would need to provide some sort of proof in order to have the law side with them.  i understand that this is a complex issue, and that the incidence and frequency of rape is a cause for concern.  i understand that in many ways, the current system is incapable of dealing appropriately with rape, as a majority of rapes are not reported and many rapists get away scot free.  however, that does not at all mean that it is okay for an allegation alone to carry any more weight than usual.  ultimately, the story one tells is just a story, and without verification from other sources, there is no way to gauge its accuracy.  everybody lies, and just because an anecdote is convincingly given and you believe someone is account of a situation does not mean that their testimony is accurate.  anecdotal evidence in any other field is given little to no weight, and it should not in cases of rape as well.  yes, the system sucks.  but the solution is not to allow indiscriminate accusation to hold weight it is to figure out some way by which stronger evidence can be obtained to discern the actual course of events.  without more evidence, it is unreasonable to expect prosecution to occur differently.   #  however, that does not at all mean that it is okay for an allegation alone to carry any more weight than usual.   #  ultimately, the story one tells is just a story, and without verification from other sources, there is no way to gauge its accuracy.   # ultimately, the story one tells is just a story, and without verification from other sources, there is no way to gauge its accuracy.  these are the two aspects that make rape trials an absolute hell for everyone involved.  rape kits can provide evidence, but there is a very short window of time in which to collect that evidence, and rape victims are not always up to marching down to the police station in body fluid stained clothes to pick one up and give a statement.  and unless somebody was in the bedroom with you and your rapist, there is really no way to get eyewitness testimony that does not devolve into hearsay.  but i have to point out that literally no one disagrees with the main point in your title.  i think what you were trying to say is  rape victim testimony is not questioned enough .  nobody would argue that someone claiming to be raped should have their words accepted as fact from the get go.  and every court is going to demand evidence beyond a given statement.  the push from the other side amounts to  we should make it  easier  for rape victims to tell their stories and level accusation, free of stigma and with the benefit of the doubt .  this runs in opposition to the current attitude still held by many juries, that  boys will be boys  and rape is justified if she was being all flirty and had visible bra straps.  i agree that collecting evidence is ideal but it is not always feasible.  what we rape victim advocates want is to have their testimony given full value befitting someone guaranteed equal representation under the law, not swept aside under the assumption that the woman is seeking revenge or lying for attention.  we want to give rape victims tools to make their case.  that is all.   #  saying  wouldo not get involved at all  is a fantasy option.   # saying  wouldo not get involved at all  is a fantasy option.  wait, you are asking what the public  should  do, but then are limiting options to what the public actually  will  do ? those are two entirely different things.  if our options are limited to what the public  will  do, then there is no discussion to be had, because the public will do what it already does regardless of anything anyone says on this thread.  we can certainly still form a moral opinion about what the public  ought  to do, even if the public wo not do that thing.  if nothing else, it is useful to formulate such opinions to inform our own actions.  further, holding such an opinion may eventually result in that opinion becoming a reality if enough people adopt it.  the point of our criminal justice standard is to withhold judgement until we evaluate the evidence.  it is perfectly legitimate to suggest that we should refrain from forming judgments without first getting a chance to review the evidence presented.   #  that does not seem like a solid way to conduct oneself in relationships.   #  but the whole situation is still based on assumption, right ? even in your statement you are assuming the the accused is guilty before even looking at the case at all.  if you have two long time friends, and one accuses the other of raping them, would you instantly and totally disown that other friend based solely on the first friend is word ? that does not seem like a solid way to conduct oneself in relationships.  it gives the accuser all the power with no legitimacy.  if all that is needed to destroy someone is social life/career/relationships/marriage life is for someone to point a finger, i think a little more information should be present.  rape allegations are huge.  just being accused of rape has massive negative effects on every aspect of a person is life.   #  because people exist who want to hurt other people, and if making that accusation was all they needed to do to totally ruin someone else is social life then that would be basically giving those people unchecked power over others.   #  in the unlikely event that you were falsely accused would you expect and accept the same behavior from your friends ? then you are not just disowning someone based on an accusation, you are disowning them based on automatically assuming their guilt.  which is what spydetarrix was trying to get at in the first place.  i have no reason to think that false rape accusations are currently common, but i think its clear they would become very common if everyone shared your attitude.  because people exist who want to hurt other people, and if making that accusation was all they needed to do to totally ruin someone else is social life then that would be basically giving those people unchecked power over others.   #  because people exist who want to hurt other people, and if making that accusation was all they needed to do to totally ruin someone else is social life then that would be basically giving those people unchecked power over others.   #  that is not really an answer to anything i said.  i did not say it was likely, i said the exact opposite.  in the  unlikely event  that you were falsely accused would you expect and accept the same behavior from your friends ? i have no reason to think that false rape accusations are currently common , but i think its clear they would become very common if everyone shared your attitude.  because people exist who want to hurt other people, and if making that accusation was all they needed to do to totally ruin someone else is social life then that would be basically giving those people unchecked power over others.
first of all, if somebody is gay and likes being gay, no problem with that.  his/her bedroom, his/her business.  with that out of the way, some gay and dysphoric people do not want to be gay.  my best friend is one of those people.  there are many reasons why they would not want to be gay.  a desire to fit in, a want for a traditional family my friend is reason in this case , a want to fix your dysphoria without going through a potentially disastrous and expensive series of surgeries etc.  i talked about it a bit and most people have been adverse to this idea, to say the least.  now, obviously i am not suggesting trying to pray the gay away 0 but actual, medical solutions which, i assume, are theoretically possible.   #  fix your dysphoria without going through a potentially disastrous and expensive series of surgeries etc.   #  yeah this is a good reason, but i think the government will start paying for those operations, since they are the results of factors out of the peoples control.   #  i am not sure how effective these cures would be.  it would be like trying to turn a straight person gay.  it might be possible, but that is not an issue which is worth spending a lot of money on.  fitting in is becoming less and less of a problem every day for gay people.  a otherwise unknown girl at my school came out as being a lesbian and she became one of the most popular girls, it is ironical.  the notion of a traditional family is fading.  i mean as long as there are more heterosexuals, a man and woman couple will seem  traditional , but it has no actual meaning to it.  yeah this is a good reason, but i think the government will start paying for those operations, since they are the results of factors out of the peoples control.   #  in the current political climate, the existence of such a machine would spell disaster for gay people worldwide.   #  i will just say you are essentially asking for a machine that will rewrite part of a person is brain.  i personally see nothing wrong with the existence of such a machine as long as it is used voluntarily by the person who wants to be rewritten and that it does not cause problems for others who do not.  the problem comes in with abuse of the system.  the most obvious problem is when parents and guardians start lining their gay kids up for this.  however that is not the most insidious problem.  people who live in oppressive environments would want this.  many such people do not want to be gay simply because the culture they live in oppresses them.  it is highly immoral for a subculture/person to oppresses you into volunteering to have yourself rewritten.  that makes the act not voluntary even though the person is asking for it.  in the current political climate, the existence of such a machine would spell disaster for gay people worldwide.  people would be pressured and convinced to use the machine.  and it would have a detrimental effect on the gay rights movement in many areas of the world.  after being gay is not stigmatized, then sure.  until then, you are creating a highly immoral device.  replace machine with successful treatment as you wish :  #  it is a god damned illness that i struggle with every single day.   #  i could not agree more.  i suffer from a desire to crossdress, i have for as long as i can remember.  i would give anything short of a life to have this go away.  my friends and family may think i am odd, but they accept and love me for what i am.  i do not really care what anyone else thinks.  what i do care about is knowing i will never and could not ever be satisfied or happy with myself and how i look.  it is a god damned illness that i struggle with every single day.   #  in stead of calling this a cure, i would call it a neurological alteration, or  plastic surgery for the brain .   #  my reaction to your title was  the hell, dude ?  , but your motivation is good, i think.  there is a very big problem with this, though.  if you are gay, this is just as  hard coded  as your preference for a color or what you do and do not like to eat.  you ca not  cure  the brain from a normal, programmed  preference .  in stead of calling this a cure, i would call it a neurological alteration, or  plastic surgery for the brain .  and that  plastic surgery  is exactly what it is: an medical procedure without medical benefits except to improve the mental state of the patient by improving self image and increase the possibility to cope with life.  i do not think there is anything wrong with that, but it is a totally different angle to look at it.  curing something implies it is a bad thing that has to be dealt with.  now, the problem is that if you try to do neurological alterations for being gay, then why not do neurological alterations for other improvements, like musical talent, iq, sports interest, not physique .  where do you draw the line ?  #  and this only works if gay is like an add on to heterosexuality.   #  the issue is we do not know what causes homosexuality.  like most things going on in the brain it is probably a big mix of genes and environment which means  curing  it probably is not possible any treatment would be more like that for schizophrenia for example.  this means the person would be on medication for life.  because of the complexities it is likely that a fairly large subset of people would not respond to medication and a couple of days without medication and boom: you are behaving gay again.  need surgery at any point: well you are gay that week.  these chemo meds interfere: so cancer or gay ? and this only works if gay is like an add on to heterosexuality.  that gay people have hidden heterosexual networks under their gay ones which we would inhibit.  otherwise you would be treating gay and being left with asexual.  which some people might be ok with, but does not help for those wanting to fit in or have a traditional family.  it is unlikely that homosexual   any medication typical of current types straight.
this may be a case of missing information, or not.  i accept that anthropogenic climate change has a significant effect on the environment, and that there will be serious consequences over the next 0 0 years if not sooner with regard to rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, and so on.  my stance is that the earth is not going anywhere.  in terms of biodiversity, i do not see the problem with losing some animal species, and from my limited understanding of biology eventually a different ecosystem would take the place of what we have now.  as far as humans lives are concerned, i do not think it is essential that seven billion people live on the earth.  i think that adapting to environmental conditions is something that humans have done for hundreds of thousands of years, and on a separate note i am not sure i care all that much if humans are around in another thousand years.  so why should i, as an individual, be invested in preventing climate change ?  #  my stance is that the earth is not going anywhere.   #  in terms of biodiversity, i do not see the problem with losing some animal species, and from my limited understanding of biology eventually a different ecosystem would take the place of what we have now.   # weather patterns are already noticeably changing.  in terms of biodiversity, i do not see the problem with losing some animal species, and from my limited understanding of biology eventually a different ecosystem would take the place of what we have now.  yes, only that we could be one of those species that did not make it, or we could be thrown back into the stone age.  there is only so much we can do, and while dying out is not very likely, life could be miserable.  it is simply not worth it.  it takes just around 0°c warming for the costs clearly outweigh the benefits.  weather paterns would change considerably and great many people would have to migrate.  that would cause great tensions and possibly wars.  0°c probably not archievable any more.  0°c, which is the best estimate for no serious efforts taken to stop the warming would be a dystopian world.  basically no life on earth is adapted to such hot climate.  life could adapt if it took a hundred thousand years, but not in a century.  the metabolism of c0 plants becomes much less efficient with higher temperatures, which would mean much lower yields of less nutritious food.  many seas would be devoid of life.  it would be a completely different world.  the last glacial period was only 0°c colder than the modern period and most of europe was covered by glaciers and tundra.  and the more pessimistic estimates like 0 °c would probably mean the end of humanity.  it would no longer be possible to live in most of the world without advanced technology, it would be simply too hot to live.  it would be so hot you would die, with no low tech means to cool you down.  the usual methods do not work any more when temperatures and humidity go high enough, drinking enough water would not help, fans would feel more like hair dryers, .  and people would have to live in enclosed buildings and not go outside most of the time, or live only in places like tibet or the arctic.   #  i also do not really care about the human species going extinct.   #  i also do not really care about the human species going extinct.  i am more concerned with the suffering of humans and non human animals.  the history of the human species and of most/all other species on earth is a history of struggle and suffering.  extinction of all life on earth would be a good thing in my eyes.  unfortunately, if climate change does lead to the extinction of the human species, it wo not be a quick or painless death.   #  the changing climate is estimated to cost a few percentage points of gdp in the rich world.   # ours is completely different.  surely you must see that.  this is not like ancient civilisations which hit malthusian limits.  we know have reached a level of unprecedentedly rapid technological development, high living standards, and declining death rates and birth rates.  when a certain resource becomes scarce, our systems adapt by pricing it higher to encourage efficiency, recycling of materials or promote alternatives.  scarcity is largely a solvable problem.  the west is in a collective state of optimism bias.  the changing climate is estimated to cost a few percentage points of gdp in the rich world.  that sucks, but its not that signifiant in grand scheme of things.  more needs to be done to help mitigate the effects in the poor world, but they too will continue to experience development.   #  also, to get back to your initial statement, any technology powerful enough to shatter the earth would probably be harder to develop than technology to eradicate suffering.   #  global warming is a challenge, but not something that has the capacity to eradicate the human race.  there is also very good progress on renewables and electric cars today.  do you really envision a future where we keep burning fossil fuels 0 years from now ? that if something is naive.  much of the damage has already been done and we are going to struggle with the effects of that in the future.  that does not mean we are heading towards an inevitable societal collapse.  as long as our civilisation has not collapsed, science, the most powerful force in the universe, will keep progressing as it has through war and depression.  also, to get back to your initial statement, any technology powerful enough to shatter the earth would probably be harder to develop than technology to eradicate suffering.   #  so that would place the cost of global warming at a monetary cost of 0k a year.   #  how much money do you think it would cost to save 0k lives in poorer countries ? according to URL you can save 0 lives for 0 dollars.  so that would place the cost of global warming at a monetary cost of 0k a year.  it would be far cheaper to save lives through direct donations.  it sounds like the people who advocate for fighting against climate change instead of infrastructure improvements in poorer countries are ok with millions dying in poorer countries in order to avoid changes to their own lives.
this may be a case of missing information, or not.  i accept that anthropogenic climate change has a significant effect on the environment, and that there will be serious consequences over the next 0 0 years if not sooner with regard to rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, and so on.  my stance is that the earth is not going anywhere.  in terms of biodiversity, i do not see the problem with losing some animal species, and from my limited understanding of biology eventually a different ecosystem would take the place of what we have now.  as far as humans lives are concerned, i do not think it is essential that seven billion people live on the earth.  i think that adapting to environmental conditions is something that humans have done for hundreds of thousands of years, and on a separate note i am not sure i care all that much if humans are around in another thousand years.  so why should i, as an individual, be invested in preventing climate change ?  #  i think that adapting to environmental conditions is something that humans have done for hundreds of thousands of years, and on a separate note i am not sure i care all that much if humans are around in another thousand years.   #  there is only so much we can do, and while dying out is not very likely, life could be miserable.   # weather patterns are already noticeably changing.  in terms of biodiversity, i do not see the problem with losing some animal species, and from my limited understanding of biology eventually a different ecosystem would take the place of what we have now.  yes, only that we could be one of those species that did not make it, or we could be thrown back into the stone age.  there is only so much we can do, and while dying out is not very likely, life could be miserable.  it is simply not worth it.  it takes just around 0°c warming for the costs clearly outweigh the benefits.  weather paterns would change considerably and great many people would have to migrate.  that would cause great tensions and possibly wars.  0°c probably not archievable any more.  0°c, which is the best estimate for no serious efforts taken to stop the warming would be a dystopian world.  basically no life on earth is adapted to such hot climate.  life could adapt if it took a hundred thousand years, but not in a century.  the metabolism of c0 plants becomes much less efficient with higher temperatures, which would mean much lower yields of less nutritious food.  many seas would be devoid of life.  it would be a completely different world.  the last glacial period was only 0°c colder than the modern period and most of europe was covered by glaciers and tundra.  and the more pessimistic estimates like 0 °c would probably mean the end of humanity.  it would no longer be possible to live in most of the world without advanced technology, it would be simply too hot to live.  it would be so hot you would die, with no low tech means to cool you down.  the usual methods do not work any more when temperatures and humidity go high enough, drinking enough water would not help, fans would feel more like hair dryers, .  and people would have to live in enclosed buildings and not go outside most of the time, or live only in places like tibet or the arctic.   #  the history of the human species and of most/all other species on earth is a history of struggle and suffering.   #  i also do not really care about the human species going extinct.  i am more concerned with the suffering of humans and non human animals.  the history of the human species and of most/all other species on earth is a history of struggle and suffering.  extinction of all life on earth would be a good thing in my eyes.  unfortunately, if climate change does lead to the extinction of the human species, it wo not be a quick or painless death.   #  the changing climate is estimated to cost a few percentage points of gdp in the rich world.   # ours is completely different.  surely you must see that.  this is not like ancient civilisations which hit malthusian limits.  we know have reached a level of unprecedentedly rapid technological development, high living standards, and declining death rates and birth rates.  when a certain resource becomes scarce, our systems adapt by pricing it higher to encourage efficiency, recycling of materials or promote alternatives.  scarcity is largely a solvable problem.  the west is in a collective state of optimism bias.  the changing climate is estimated to cost a few percentage points of gdp in the rich world.  that sucks, but its not that signifiant in grand scheme of things.  more needs to be done to help mitigate the effects in the poor world, but they too will continue to experience development.   #  do you really envision a future where we keep burning fossil fuels 0 years from now ?  #  global warming is a challenge, but not something that has the capacity to eradicate the human race.  there is also very good progress on renewables and electric cars today.  do you really envision a future where we keep burning fossil fuels 0 years from now ? that if something is naive.  much of the damage has already been done and we are going to struggle with the effects of that in the future.  that does not mean we are heading towards an inevitable societal collapse.  as long as our civilisation has not collapsed, science, the most powerful force in the universe, will keep progressing as it has through war and depression.  also, to get back to your initial statement, any technology powerful enough to shatter the earth would probably be harder to develop than technology to eradicate suffering.   #  according to URL you can save 0 lives for 0 dollars.   #  how much money do you think it would cost to save 0k lives in poorer countries ? according to URL you can save 0 lives for 0 dollars.  so that would place the cost of global warming at a monetary cost of 0k a year.  it would be far cheaper to save lives through direct donations.  it sounds like the people who advocate for fighting against climate change instead of infrastructure improvements in poorer countries are ok with millions dying in poorer countries in order to avoid changes to their own lives.
this may be a case of missing information, or not.  i accept that anthropogenic climate change has a significant effect on the environment, and that there will be serious consequences over the next 0 0 years if not sooner with regard to rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, and so on.  my stance is that the earth is not going anywhere.  in terms of biodiversity, i do not see the problem with losing some animal species, and from my limited understanding of biology eventually a different ecosystem would take the place of what we have now.  as far as humans lives are concerned, i do not think it is essential that seven billion people live on the earth.  i think that adapting to environmental conditions is something that humans have done for hundreds of thousands of years, and on a separate note i am not sure i care all that much if humans are around in another thousand years.  so why should i, as an individual, be invested in preventing climate change ?  #  i do not see the problem with losing some animal species, and from my limited understanding of biology eventually a different ecosystem would take the place of what we have now.   #  as far as humans lives are concerned, i do not think it is essential that seven billion people live on the earth.   #  i think you are missing the how of it.  as far as humans lives are concerned, i do not think it is essential that seven billion people live on the earth.  how do you think species will die out ? it is not some harmless process.  they are going to be actively harmed during the process, same with humans.   #  i am more concerned with the suffering of humans and non human animals.   #  i also do not really care about the human species going extinct.  i am more concerned with the suffering of humans and non human animals.  the history of the human species and of most/all other species on earth is a history of struggle and suffering.  extinction of all life on earth would be a good thing in my eyes.  unfortunately, if climate change does lead to the extinction of the human species, it wo not be a quick or painless death.   #  that sucks, but its not that signifiant in grand scheme of things.   # ours is completely different.  surely you must see that.  this is not like ancient civilisations which hit malthusian limits.  we know have reached a level of unprecedentedly rapid technological development, high living standards, and declining death rates and birth rates.  when a certain resource becomes scarce, our systems adapt by pricing it higher to encourage efficiency, recycling of materials or promote alternatives.  scarcity is largely a solvable problem.  the west is in a collective state of optimism bias.  the changing climate is estimated to cost a few percentage points of gdp in the rich world.  that sucks, but its not that signifiant in grand scheme of things.  more needs to be done to help mitigate the effects in the poor world, but they too will continue to experience development.   #  as long as our civilisation has not collapsed, science, the most powerful force in the universe, will keep progressing as it has through war and depression.   #  global warming is a challenge, but not something that has the capacity to eradicate the human race.  there is also very good progress on renewables and electric cars today.  do you really envision a future where we keep burning fossil fuels 0 years from now ? that if something is naive.  much of the damage has already been done and we are going to struggle with the effects of that in the future.  that does not mean we are heading towards an inevitable societal collapse.  as long as our civilisation has not collapsed, science, the most powerful force in the universe, will keep progressing as it has through war and depression.  also, to get back to your initial statement, any technology powerful enough to shatter the earth would probably be harder to develop than technology to eradicate suffering.   #  so that would place the cost of global warming at a monetary cost of 0k a year.   #  how much money do you think it would cost to save 0k lives in poorer countries ? according to URL you can save 0 lives for 0 dollars.  so that would place the cost of global warming at a monetary cost of 0k a year.  it would be far cheaper to save lives through direct donations.  it sounds like the people who advocate for fighting against climate change instead of infrastructure improvements in poorer countries are ok with millions dying in poorer countries in order to avoid changes to their own lives.
this may be a case of missing information, or not.  i accept that anthropogenic climate change has a significant effect on the environment, and that there will be serious consequences over the next 0 0 years if not sooner with regard to rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, and so on.  my stance is that the earth is not going anywhere.  in terms of biodiversity, i do not see the problem with losing some animal species, and from my limited understanding of biology eventually a different ecosystem would take the place of what we have now.  as far as humans lives are concerned, i do not think it is essential that seven billion people live on the earth.  i think that adapting to environmental conditions is something that humans have done for hundreds of thousands of years, and on a separate note i am not sure i care all that much if humans are around in another thousand years.  so why should i, as an individual, be invested in preventing climate change ?  #  in terms of biodiversity, i do not see the problem with losing some animal species, and from my limited understanding of biology eventually a different ecosystem would take the place of what we have now.   #  you wo not just lose animal species.   # you wo not just lose animal species.  but okay, sure, you will have a different ecosystem for awhile, at least in the short term.  in the long term ? expect something like venus, where you have got a surface temperature of over 0 c 0 f , an atmosphere that is extremely dense, and it rains concentrated sulfuric acid.  this is due to a runaway greenhouse effect, which if throughout the course of our time on this planet we completely ignore, will very likely occur in the future due to various feedback mechanisms with respect to climate.  we would also end up with a temperature of several hundred degrees celsius, and an atmosphere that is about 0 times denser than we have now, meaning every living thing on this planet would die.  it is more likely that instead, we would  eventually  try and correct our mistake, which might stave off a runaway greenhouse effect which, would require someone to care, maybe not you, but someone in the future .  of course, you are going to have ecosystems that have so radically changed in composition that they may not even remain sustainable.  so you are still looking at a very large proportion of all life on earth going extinct.  ethically speaking, you should probably care more about sentient life than non sentient life, and conscious life more than non conscious life.  both sentient life and conscious life would be very badly impacted by lack of action, causing a lot of suffering and then death.  do not you care about this at all ? and of course, it is comparatively very easy for us to act now and do something.  the longer we fail to do something, the harder it becomes until the point of impossibility to just eliminate any future change, much less reverse that change.   #  unfortunately, if climate change does lead to the extinction of the human species, it wo not be a quick or painless death.   #  i also do not really care about the human species going extinct.  i am more concerned with the suffering of humans and non human animals.  the history of the human species and of most/all other species on earth is a history of struggle and suffering.  extinction of all life on earth would be a good thing in my eyes.  unfortunately, if climate change does lead to the extinction of the human species, it wo not be a quick or painless death.   #  that sucks, but its not that signifiant in grand scheme of things.   # ours is completely different.  surely you must see that.  this is not like ancient civilisations which hit malthusian limits.  we know have reached a level of unprecedentedly rapid technological development, high living standards, and declining death rates and birth rates.  when a certain resource becomes scarce, our systems adapt by pricing it higher to encourage efficiency, recycling of materials or promote alternatives.  scarcity is largely a solvable problem.  the west is in a collective state of optimism bias.  the changing climate is estimated to cost a few percentage points of gdp in the rich world.  that sucks, but its not that signifiant in grand scheme of things.  more needs to be done to help mitigate the effects in the poor world, but they too will continue to experience development.   #  there is also very good progress on renewables and electric cars today.   #  global warming is a challenge, but not something that has the capacity to eradicate the human race.  there is also very good progress on renewables and electric cars today.  do you really envision a future where we keep burning fossil fuels 0 years from now ? that if something is naive.  much of the damage has already been done and we are going to struggle with the effects of that in the future.  that does not mean we are heading towards an inevitable societal collapse.  as long as our civilisation has not collapsed, science, the most powerful force in the universe, will keep progressing as it has through war and depression.  also, to get back to your initial statement, any technology powerful enough to shatter the earth would probably be harder to develop than technology to eradicate suffering.   #  how much money do you think it would cost to save 0k lives in poorer countries ?  #  how much money do you think it would cost to save 0k lives in poorer countries ? according to URL you can save 0 lives for 0 dollars.  so that would place the cost of global warming at a monetary cost of 0k a year.  it would be far cheaper to save lives through direct donations.  it sounds like the people who advocate for fighting against climate change instead of infrastructure improvements in poorer countries are ok with millions dying in poorer countries in order to avoid changes to their own lives.
nowadays it seems that economist are clueless.  they ca not agree on the important things; they put a lot of effort into convincing everybody that their econometric models are going to solve unemployment and other important problems while all they seem to actually do is benefit the powerful business men.  if you want to get your degree, you have to put a lot of effort on mathematics and programming, but if i wanted to learn that i would rather study it.  if i wanted to understand how the world works i could study sociology, anthropology or history.  it is an expensive career if you want to attend a prestigious university, and out there are a lot of economist already, so i doubt it is certain that you can earn lots of money to pay the student debt you will have once you finish.  i am pretty convinced that studying economics is a waste of money and time, it may not even be a science at all.  and you might end up behind a desk until you retire without doing much to fulfill yourself.  please, convince i am wrong.  i like economics but i am not sure if that is what i want to study, i would love to work in social development or something similar, but economics at an undergraduate level seems like the wrong choice.   #  they ca not agree on the important things; they put a lot of effort into convincing everybody that their econometric models are going to solve unemployment and other important problems while all they seem to actually do is benefit the powerful business men.   #  i think you might be confusing economists and politicians ?  # i think you might be confusing economists and politicians ? my impression is that economists generally agree on a lot of things, but that politicians ignore them for the most part, because they want contributions from the business men.  economics can be thought of as a kind of sociology.  it is the sociology of how people deal with scarcity.  this is a problem with a lot of different careers.  my suggestion: whatever you choose, do not go to an expensive private school.  go to a state school, get really good grades, get a really good internship, and your career prospects will be just as good as if you had gone to harvard.  it is a social science.  it is imprecise and imperfect because we are dealing with irrational actors, but it is investigations and experiments are based on the scientific method.  yup, that is true.  does that make it worthless ? absolutely not.  it may, however, mean that it is not right for you.  there is a lot of careers that end with desk jobs.  also avoid: accounting, finance, programming, library sciences, statistics, certain areas of research, marketing, systems development, etc.  check out: education, medical, eco agriculture, any fine or applied art, anthropology, certain areas of research, engineering, sales, etc.   #  in economics we make our models assuming that everyone is rational, and then when we apply the models we acknowledge that many people are irrational, and realize that because of that the models will not perfectly reflect reality.   # what ? no.  how ? politicians talk about economics, sure, but economics is not politics.  this statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.  economics, at its core, is about scarcity, pure and simple.  i think you listen to politicians talk about economics, and think that what they are saying is representative of economics.  not at all.  in economics we make our models assuming that everyone is rational, and then when we apply the models we acknowledge that many people are irrational, and realize that because of that the models will not perfectly reflect reality.  you ca not find a single economist that will argue all people are always rational.  if you can find a single economist that has ever said that, i will give you a delta.  but no one thinks such a ridiculous thing.   #  income disparity is growing, the country still imports many things, and detroit is failing.   #  i am not an expert.  i assume you are referring to macroeconomics studying flow of money through large scale systems like states and countries , rather than microeconomics small scale, like within a household or a small business .  they ca not agree on the important things.  0.  while i am hardly familiar with economics, i can only imagine it is a complicated system to comprehend.  if that is so, it is not unreasonable for there to be multiple interpretations when it comes to the vast amount of related and unrelated data.  0.  even if an understanding of large scale economics is not difficult to attain, that does not mean that every economist should have the same solution.  income disparity is growing, the country still imports many things, and detroit is failing.  what do we do ? just because we may understand a situation does not mean we will have the same solution.  0.  but really, the lack of agreement you are seeing between economists is largely a narrative presented by media, much like the supposed lack of agreement on climate change.  of course politicians and public figures will fight economic models and theories that challenge their platform, and news outlets will present multiple sides of a theory to appear unbiased and to generate viewership from the conflicting ideas, all regardless of whether or not the economic model in question is valid.  again, you could consider a focus on microeconomics.  it even has possible career paths and real world uses.  if that is not to your liking, though, you could take fewer econ classes and more of other interesting classes, like psychology or statistics.   #  let me try to change your view and say that it seems like it is not economics that this is about , but more the type of job you will get with your degree.   #  it is very rare for people of fields like economics or antro, soc or even history to agree on anything.  historians often have different ideas for why empires grow and decline and what is going to happen in the future.  in any field consensus is often the exception and not the rule.  but there is thing.  let me try to change your view and say that it seems like it is not economics that this is about , but more the type of job you will get with your degree.  to a certain extent, that is up to you.  there are lots of desk jobs in the field, but you could also be a writer or work for companies overseas if you want more excitement.  to be honest a diploma is just a piece of paper that opens doors.  it is not really a jail cell.   #  you are not going to learn about more than just a bit of how the world works by studying just one thing.   # not because you necessarily  want  to learn that.  would you suggest that no one peruse a hard science like physics because they are going to have to learn a lot of math, and should instead peruse mathematics and the same goes for programming and physics, too ? you would learn a bit about how the world works, sure.  but you would also learn a bit about how the world works by studying economics, or biology, or physics, or psychology.  you are not going to learn about more than just a bit of how the world works by studying just one thing.  there are more anthropologists, sociologists, and historians.  and they are paid much less.  and their debt levels really are not any different for the same university.  its methodology is scientific, therefore it is a science.  albeit a soft one.  still, it is much less  soft  than alchemy was, and it is now recognized that alchemy gave rise to chemistry, which is very solidly a hard science.  would you then say that the alchemists who figured out alchemy was nonsense, giving rise to chemistry in the process, were wasting their time ? if you would not, then you ca not really say economists are wasting their time.  this is a choice.  people pretend like they have no control in this kind of thing, but they really do.  they just passively resign themselves to it, and do not seek to change their circumstances.  it could be the right choice.  you need to examine your interests and your options.  as a general rule, pick the option that leads to the greatest number of generally favorable future options, unless you realize in the evaluation process you know precisely what you want to do.  i think this URL might be a good read for you, and it does touch on the subject of math versus economics a little bit.
nowadays it seems that economist are clueless.  they ca not agree on the important things; they put a lot of effort into convincing everybody that their econometric models are going to solve unemployment and other important problems while all they seem to actually do is benefit the powerful business men.  if you want to get your degree, you have to put a lot of effort on mathematics and programming, but if i wanted to learn that i would rather study it.  if i wanted to understand how the world works i could study sociology, anthropology or history.  it is an expensive career if you want to attend a prestigious university, and out there are a lot of economist already, so i doubt it is certain that you can earn lots of money to pay the student debt you will have once you finish.  i am pretty convinced that studying economics is a waste of money and time, it may not even be a science at all.  and you might end up behind a desk until you retire without doing much to fulfill yourself.  please, convince i am wrong.  i like economics but i am not sure if that is what i want to study, i would love to work in social development or something similar, but economics at an undergraduate level seems like the wrong choice.   #  nowadays it seems that economist are clueless.   #  they ca not agree on the important things.  0.  while i am hardly familiar with economics, i can only imagine it is a complicated system to comprehend.   #  i am not an expert.  i assume you are referring to macroeconomics studying flow of money through large scale systems like states and countries , rather than microeconomics small scale, like within a household or a small business .  they ca not agree on the important things.  0.  while i am hardly familiar with economics, i can only imagine it is a complicated system to comprehend.  if that is so, it is not unreasonable for there to be multiple interpretations when it comes to the vast amount of related and unrelated data.  0.  even if an understanding of large scale economics is not difficult to attain, that does not mean that every economist should have the same solution.  income disparity is growing, the country still imports many things, and detroit is failing.  what do we do ? just because we may understand a situation does not mean we will have the same solution.  0.  but really, the lack of agreement you are seeing between economists is largely a narrative presented by media, much like the supposed lack of agreement on climate change.  of course politicians and public figures will fight economic models and theories that challenge their platform, and news outlets will present multiple sides of a theory to appear unbiased and to generate viewership from the conflicting ideas, all regardless of whether or not the economic model in question is valid.  again, you could consider a focus on microeconomics.  it even has possible career paths and real world uses.  if that is not to your liking, though, you could take fewer econ classes and more of other interesting classes, like psychology or statistics.   #  also avoid: accounting, finance, programming, library sciences, statistics, certain areas of research, marketing, systems development, etc.   # i think you might be confusing economists and politicians ? my impression is that economists generally agree on a lot of things, but that politicians ignore them for the most part, because they want contributions from the business men.  economics can be thought of as a kind of sociology.  it is the sociology of how people deal with scarcity.  this is a problem with a lot of different careers.  my suggestion: whatever you choose, do not go to an expensive private school.  go to a state school, get really good grades, get a really good internship, and your career prospects will be just as good as if you had gone to harvard.  it is a social science.  it is imprecise and imperfect because we are dealing with irrational actors, but it is investigations and experiments are based on the scientific method.  yup, that is true.  does that make it worthless ? absolutely not.  it may, however, mean that it is not right for you.  there is a lot of careers that end with desk jobs.  also avoid: accounting, finance, programming, library sciences, statistics, certain areas of research, marketing, systems development, etc.  check out: education, medical, eco agriculture, any fine or applied art, anthropology, certain areas of research, engineering, sales, etc.   #  i think you listen to politicians talk about economics, and think that what they are saying is representative of economics.   # what ? no.  how ? politicians talk about economics, sure, but economics is not politics.  this statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.  economics, at its core, is about scarcity, pure and simple.  i think you listen to politicians talk about economics, and think that what they are saying is representative of economics.  not at all.  in economics we make our models assuming that everyone is rational, and then when we apply the models we acknowledge that many people are irrational, and realize that because of that the models will not perfectly reflect reality.  you ca not find a single economist that will argue all people are always rational.  if you can find a single economist that has ever said that, i will give you a delta.  but no one thinks such a ridiculous thing.   #  it is very rare for people of fields like economics or antro, soc or even history to agree on anything.   #  it is very rare for people of fields like economics or antro, soc or even history to agree on anything.  historians often have different ideas for why empires grow and decline and what is going to happen in the future.  in any field consensus is often the exception and not the rule.  but there is thing.  let me try to change your view and say that it seems like it is not economics that this is about , but more the type of job you will get with your degree.  to a certain extent, that is up to you.  there are lots of desk jobs in the field, but you could also be a writer or work for companies overseas if you want more excitement.  to be honest a diploma is just a piece of paper that opens doors.  it is not really a jail cell.   #  still, it is much less  soft  than alchemy was, and it is now recognized that alchemy gave rise to chemistry, which is very solidly a hard science.   # not because you necessarily  want  to learn that.  would you suggest that no one peruse a hard science like physics because they are going to have to learn a lot of math, and should instead peruse mathematics and the same goes for programming and physics, too ? you would learn a bit about how the world works, sure.  but you would also learn a bit about how the world works by studying economics, or biology, or physics, or psychology.  you are not going to learn about more than just a bit of how the world works by studying just one thing.  there are more anthropologists, sociologists, and historians.  and they are paid much less.  and their debt levels really are not any different for the same university.  its methodology is scientific, therefore it is a science.  albeit a soft one.  still, it is much less  soft  than alchemy was, and it is now recognized that alchemy gave rise to chemistry, which is very solidly a hard science.  would you then say that the alchemists who figured out alchemy was nonsense, giving rise to chemistry in the process, were wasting their time ? if you would not, then you ca not really say economists are wasting their time.  this is a choice.  people pretend like they have no control in this kind of thing, but they really do.  they just passively resign themselves to it, and do not seek to change their circumstances.  it could be the right choice.  you need to examine your interests and your options.  as a general rule, pick the option that leads to the greatest number of generally favorable future options, unless you realize in the evaluation process you know precisely what you want to do.  i think this URL might be a good read for you, and it does touch on the subject of math versus economics a little bit.
nowadays it seems that economist are clueless.  they ca not agree on the important things; they put a lot of effort into convincing everybody that their econometric models are going to solve unemployment and other important problems while all they seem to actually do is benefit the powerful business men.  if you want to get your degree, you have to put a lot of effort on mathematics and programming, but if i wanted to learn that i would rather study it.  if i wanted to understand how the world works i could study sociology, anthropology or history.  it is an expensive career if you want to attend a prestigious university, and out there are a lot of economist already, so i doubt it is certain that you can earn lots of money to pay the student debt you will have once you finish.  i am pretty convinced that studying economics is a waste of money and time, it may not even be a science at all.  and you might end up behind a desk until you retire without doing much to fulfill yourself.  please, convince i am wrong.  i like economics but i am not sure if that is what i want to study, i would love to work in social development or something similar, but economics at an undergraduate level seems like the wrong choice.   #  i like economics but i am not sure if that is what i want to study, i would love to work in social development or something similar, but economics at an undergraduate level seems like the wrong choice.   #  again, you could consider a focus on microeconomics.   #  i am not an expert.  i assume you are referring to macroeconomics studying flow of money through large scale systems like states and countries , rather than microeconomics small scale, like within a household or a small business .  they ca not agree on the important things.  0.  while i am hardly familiar with economics, i can only imagine it is a complicated system to comprehend.  if that is so, it is not unreasonable for there to be multiple interpretations when it comes to the vast amount of related and unrelated data.  0.  even if an understanding of large scale economics is not difficult to attain, that does not mean that every economist should have the same solution.  income disparity is growing, the country still imports many things, and detroit is failing.  what do we do ? just because we may understand a situation does not mean we will have the same solution.  0.  but really, the lack of agreement you are seeing between economists is largely a narrative presented by media, much like the supposed lack of agreement on climate change.  of course politicians and public figures will fight economic models and theories that challenge their platform, and news outlets will present multiple sides of a theory to appear unbiased and to generate viewership from the conflicting ideas, all regardless of whether or not the economic model in question is valid.  again, you could consider a focus on microeconomics.  it even has possible career paths and real world uses.  if that is not to your liking, though, you could take fewer econ classes and more of other interesting classes, like psychology or statistics.   #  my impression is that economists generally agree on a lot of things, but that politicians ignore them for the most part, because they want contributions from the business men.   # i think you might be confusing economists and politicians ? my impression is that economists generally agree on a lot of things, but that politicians ignore them for the most part, because they want contributions from the business men.  economics can be thought of as a kind of sociology.  it is the sociology of how people deal with scarcity.  this is a problem with a lot of different careers.  my suggestion: whatever you choose, do not go to an expensive private school.  go to a state school, get really good grades, get a really good internship, and your career prospects will be just as good as if you had gone to harvard.  it is a social science.  it is imprecise and imperfect because we are dealing with irrational actors, but it is investigations and experiments are based on the scientific method.  yup, that is true.  does that make it worthless ? absolutely not.  it may, however, mean that it is not right for you.  there is a lot of careers that end with desk jobs.  also avoid: accounting, finance, programming, library sciences, statistics, certain areas of research, marketing, systems development, etc.  check out: education, medical, eco agriculture, any fine or applied art, anthropology, certain areas of research, engineering, sales, etc.   #  i think you listen to politicians talk about economics, and think that what they are saying is representative of economics.   # what ? no.  how ? politicians talk about economics, sure, but economics is not politics.  this statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.  economics, at its core, is about scarcity, pure and simple.  i think you listen to politicians talk about economics, and think that what they are saying is representative of economics.  not at all.  in economics we make our models assuming that everyone is rational, and then when we apply the models we acknowledge that many people are irrational, and realize that because of that the models will not perfectly reflect reality.  you ca not find a single economist that will argue all people are always rational.  if you can find a single economist that has ever said that, i will give you a delta.  but no one thinks such a ridiculous thing.   #  it is very rare for people of fields like economics or antro, soc or even history to agree on anything.   #  it is very rare for people of fields like economics or antro, soc or even history to agree on anything.  historians often have different ideas for why empires grow and decline and what is going to happen in the future.  in any field consensus is often the exception and not the rule.  but there is thing.  let me try to change your view and say that it seems like it is not economics that this is about , but more the type of job you will get with your degree.  to a certain extent, that is up to you.  there are lots of desk jobs in the field, but you could also be a writer or work for companies overseas if you want more excitement.  to be honest a diploma is just a piece of paper that opens doors.  it is not really a jail cell.   #  still, it is much less  soft  than alchemy was, and it is now recognized that alchemy gave rise to chemistry, which is very solidly a hard science.   # not because you necessarily  want  to learn that.  would you suggest that no one peruse a hard science like physics because they are going to have to learn a lot of math, and should instead peruse mathematics and the same goes for programming and physics, too ? you would learn a bit about how the world works, sure.  but you would also learn a bit about how the world works by studying economics, or biology, or physics, or psychology.  you are not going to learn about more than just a bit of how the world works by studying just one thing.  there are more anthropologists, sociologists, and historians.  and they are paid much less.  and their debt levels really are not any different for the same university.  its methodology is scientific, therefore it is a science.  albeit a soft one.  still, it is much less  soft  than alchemy was, and it is now recognized that alchemy gave rise to chemistry, which is very solidly a hard science.  would you then say that the alchemists who figured out alchemy was nonsense, giving rise to chemistry in the process, were wasting their time ? if you would not, then you ca not really say economists are wasting their time.  this is a choice.  people pretend like they have no control in this kind of thing, but they really do.  they just passively resign themselves to it, and do not seek to change their circumstances.  it could be the right choice.  you need to examine your interests and your options.  as a general rule, pick the option that leads to the greatest number of generally favorable future options, unless you realize in the evaluation process you know precisely what you want to do.  i think this URL might be a good read for you, and it does touch on the subject of math versus economics a little bit.
nowadays it seems that economist are clueless.  they ca not agree on the important things; they put a lot of effort into convincing everybody that their econometric models are going to solve unemployment and other important problems while all they seem to actually do is benefit the powerful business men.  if you want to get your degree, you have to put a lot of effort on mathematics and programming, but if i wanted to learn that i would rather study it.  if i wanted to understand how the world works i could study sociology, anthropology or history.  it is an expensive career if you want to attend a prestigious university, and out there are a lot of economist already, so i doubt it is certain that you can earn lots of money to pay the student debt you will have once you finish.  i am pretty convinced that studying economics is a waste of money and time, it may not even be a science at all.  and you might end up behind a desk until you retire without doing much to fulfill yourself.  please, convince i am wrong.  i like economics but i am not sure if that is what i want to study, i would love to work in social development or something similar, but economics at an undergraduate level seems like the wrong choice.   #  i am pretty convinced that studying economics is a waste of money and time, it may not even be a science at all.   #  its methodology is scientific, therefore it is a science.   # not because you necessarily  want  to learn that.  would you suggest that no one peruse a hard science like physics because they are going to have to learn a lot of math, and should instead peruse mathematics and the same goes for programming and physics, too ? you would learn a bit about how the world works, sure.  but you would also learn a bit about how the world works by studying economics, or biology, or physics, or psychology.  you are not going to learn about more than just a bit of how the world works by studying just one thing.  there are more anthropologists, sociologists, and historians.  and they are paid much less.  and their debt levels really are not any different for the same university.  its methodology is scientific, therefore it is a science.  albeit a soft one.  still, it is much less  soft  than alchemy was, and it is now recognized that alchemy gave rise to chemistry, which is very solidly a hard science.  would you then say that the alchemists who figured out alchemy was nonsense, giving rise to chemistry in the process, were wasting their time ? if you would not, then you ca not really say economists are wasting their time.  this is a choice.  people pretend like they have no control in this kind of thing, but they really do.  they just passively resign themselves to it, and do not seek to change their circumstances.  it could be the right choice.  you need to examine your interests and your options.  as a general rule, pick the option that leads to the greatest number of generally favorable future options, unless you realize in the evaluation process you know precisely what you want to do.  i think this URL might be a good read for you, and it does touch on the subject of math versus economics a little bit.   #  go to a state school, get really good grades, get a really good internship, and your career prospects will be just as good as if you had gone to harvard.   # i think you might be confusing economists and politicians ? my impression is that economists generally agree on a lot of things, but that politicians ignore them for the most part, because they want contributions from the business men.  economics can be thought of as a kind of sociology.  it is the sociology of how people deal with scarcity.  this is a problem with a lot of different careers.  my suggestion: whatever you choose, do not go to an expensive private school.  go to a state school, get really good grades, get a really good internship, and your career prospects will be just as good as if you had gone to harvard.  it is a social science.  it is imprecise and imperfect because we are dealing with irrational actors, but it is investigations and experiments are based on the scientific method.  yup, that is true.  does that make it worthless ? absolutely not.  it may, however, mean that it is not right for you.  there is a lot of careers that end with desk jobs.  also avoid: accounting, finance, programming, library sciences, statistics, certain areas of research, marketing, systems development, etc.  check out: education, medical, eco agriculture, any fine or applied art, anthropology, certain areas of research, engineering, sales, etc.   #  in economics we make our models assuming that everyone is rational, and then when we apply the models we acknowledge that many people are irrational, and realize that because of that the models will not perfectly reflect reality.   # what ? no.  how ? politicians talk about economics, sure, but economics is not politics.  this statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.  economics, at its core, is about scarcity, pure and simple.  i think you listen to politicians talk about economics, and think that what they are saying is representative of economics.  not at all.  in economics we make our models assuming that everyone is rational, and then when we apply the models we acknowledge that many people are irrational, and realize that because of that the models will not perfectly reflect reality.  you ca not find a single economist that will argue all people are always rational.  if you can find a single economist that has ever said that, i will give you a delta.  but no one thinks such a ridiculous thing.   #  it even has possible career paths and real world uses.   #  i am not an expert.  i assume you are referring to macroeconomics studying flow of money through large scale systems like states and countries , rather than microeconomics small scale, like within a household or a small business .  they ca not agree on the important things.  0.  while i am hardly familiar with economics, i can only imagine it is a complicated system to comprehend.  if that is so, it is not unreasonable for there to be multiple interpretations when it comes to the vast amount of related and unrelated data.  0.  even if an understanding of large scale economics is not difficult to attain, that does not mean that every economist should have the same solution.  income disparity is growing, the country still imports many things, and detroit is failing.  what do we do ? just because we may understand a situation does not mean we will have the same solution.  0.  but really, the lack of agreement you are seeing between economists is largely a narrative presented by media, much like the supposed lack of agreement on climate change.  of course politicians and public figures will fight economic models and theories that challenge their platform, and news outlets will present multiple sides of a theory to appear unbiased and to generate viewership from the conflicting ideas, all regardless of whether or not the economic model in question is valid.  again, you could consider a focus on microeconomics.  it even has possible career paths and real world uses.  if that is not to your liking, though, you could take fewer econ classes and more of other interesting classes, like psychology or statistics.   #  let me try to change your view and say that it seems like it is not economics that this is about , but more the type of job you will get with your degree.   #  it is very rare for people of fields like economics or antro, soc or even history to agree on anything.  historians often have different ideas for why empires grow and decline and what is going to happen in the future.  in any field consensus is often the exception and not the rule.  but there is thing.  let me try to change your view and say that it seems like it is not economics that this is about , but more the type of job you will get with your degree.  to a certain extent, that is up to you.  there are lots of desk jobs in the field, but you could also be a writer or work for companies overseas if you want more excitement.  to be honest a diploma is just a piece of paper that opens doors.  it is not really a jail cell.
scientifically, humans are born with the instincts to reproduce with women.  so far there is no evidence that i know of that proves that there is a gene or several genes for that matter that determine your sexual orientation.  mainly, i believe that people convince themselves that they are gay and believe it so strongly that they believe that they have been gay since birth.  i do not discriminate against homosexuals but the fundamentals behind gay marriage and rights are based on the idea that being gay is not a choice.  cmv  #  i do not discriminate against homosexuals but the fundamentals behind gay marriage and rights are based on the idea that being gay is not a choice.   #  okay, this is not really related to the heart of your cmv, but i disagree that the  fundamentals behind gay marriage and rights  necessarily assume that being gay is not a choice.   #  okay, your argument seems to be something like this.  0 there is not a biological basis for being gay.  0 therefore it is a choice to be gay.  but this is clearly not a valid argument.  for instance, even if everyone is born straight, maybe environmental factors are responsible for making people gay at a young age.  so even if there is no  biological  basis for their being gay, they still have no choice in the matter.  0 is almost certainly false as well, but the point is that even granting 0 , this argument does not work.  okay, this is not really related to the heart of your cmv, but i disagree that the  fundamentals behind gay marriage and rights  necessarily assume that being gay is not a choice.  one argument for gay marriage might go like this: 0 unless gay marriage is harmful in some way, it should be allowed.  0 gay marriage is not harmful in any way.  0 so gay marriage should be allowed.  no discussion of choice is necessary for that to stand up as a pretty strong argument.   #  and i am walking, talking proof that that is not the case: i would love to be bisexual.   #  you are objectively, scientifically wrong.  i do not know how else to put that.  studies have shown URL that a gay brain responds to pheromones reminder: those subconscious smells that make us horny without any conscious choice differently than a straight brain.  namely: gay men get aroused by male pheromones and not female pheromones, while straight men get aroused by female pheromones and not male pheromones.  there is  absolutely no conscious control  over pheromones.  and i am walking, talking proof that that is not the case: i would love to be bisexual.  truthfully, it seems extremely illogical to me that i would cut out half of my potential soulmates just because they come with the wrong set of genitals.  but i am just not attracted to men.   #  perhaps if being gay was a neutral thing, or even a positive, one might be more open to the idea.   #  yeah, i am totally for gay marriage, it is not harmful and should be allowed regardless of how it comes about.  nurture, in nature vs.  nurture, i believe plays the biggest role in becoming gay.  i cannot directly explain how one becomes gay through nurture but i know that at a young age i was informed by my religious parents that any act of affection towards one of the same sex is a bad thing.  that instance was probably the largest factor in my sexual orientation.  perhaps if being gay was a neutral thing, or even a positive, one might be more open to the idea.  and nurture still comes down to choice in the end.  nature is set in stone, nurture is just a path paved for you that you could stray from.   #  well, this is clearly not always the case.   # nature is set in stone, nurture is just a path paved for you that you could stray from.  well, this is clearly not always the case.  for instance, if someone chops my leg off, i ca not choose to have two legs, even though that came about via nurture, not via nature.  so no, it is not necessarily the case that nurture factors allow you to make choices.  and you realize that this view is committing you to the idea that  you  could choose to become gay, right ? could you ?  #  natural nurture: hormones a fetus is exposed to in the womb.   # nurture, i believe plays the biggest role in becoming gay.  i have to disagree with you here because i believe it is a combination of both, but also neither depending on how you describe it.  it is my understanding that sexual orientation is influenced by the hormones a fetus is exposed to in the womb, and there are an increasing number of studies that show hormones in the womb also lead to other  characteristics  including anxiety disorder and depression.  if you have 0 minutes to spare, this second part of this 0 minutes segment from way back in 0 debunks concerns and provides evidence, but ultimately incites more questions that we have not yet answered.  i encourage you to view it with an open mind: URL  at a young age i was informed by my religious parents that any act of affection towards one of the same sex is a bad thing.  if you were gay, you would have an attraction to the same sex, but would grow up thinking it is bad and trying to force yourself to like the opposite sex.  religion merely nurtures your personal and political views on sexual orientation, it does not directly nurture your sexual orientation.  that instance was probably the largest factor in your view that being gay is a choice because you were told that homosexuality is wrong and not holy/natural, therefore it is your nurtured understanding that the only explanation for being gay is simple human decision to break from the  natural norm.   so we have established at this point in my argument that it is neither nurture nor nature.  what could possibly be the cause ? natural nurture: hormones a fetus is exposed to in the womb.  tldr; i believe that being gay is not always a choice and is heavily influenced by hormones in the womb.
scientifically, humans are born with the instincts to reproduce with women.  so far there is no evidence that i know of that proves that there is a gene or several genes for that matter that determine your sexual orientation.  mainly, i believe that people convince themselves that they are gay and believe it so strongly that they believe that they have been gay since birth.  i do not discriminate against homosexuals but the fundamentals behind gay marriage and rights are based on the idea that being gay is not a choice.  cmv  #  so far there is no evidence that i know of that proves that there is a gene or several genes for that matter that determine your sexual orientation.   #  so we have established at this point in my argument that it is neither nurture nor nature.   # nurture, i believe plays the biggest role in becoming gay.  i have to disagree with you here because i believe it is a combination of both, but also neither depending on how you describe it.  it is my understanding that sexual orientation is influenced by the hormones a fetus is exposed to in the womb, and there are an increasing number of studies that show hormones in the womb also lead to other  characteristics  including anxiety disorder and depression.  if you have 0 minutes to spare, this second part of this 0 minutes segment from way back in 0 debunks concerns and provides evidence, but ultimately incites more questions that we have not yet answered.  i encourage you to view it with an open mind: URL  at a young age i was informed by my religious parents that any act of affection towards one of the same sex is a bad thing.  if you were gay, you would have an attraction to the same sex, but would grow up thinking it is bad and trying to force yourself to like the opposite sex.  religion merely nurtures your personal and political views on sexual orientation, it does not directly nurture your sexual orientation.  that instance was probably the largest factor in your view that being gay is a choice because you were told that homosexuality is wrong and not holy/natural, therefore it is your nurtured understanding that the only explanation for being gay is simple human decision to break from the  natural norm.   so we have established at this point in my argument that it is neither nurture nor nature.  what could possibly be the cause ? natural nurture: hormones a fetus is exposed to in the womb.  tldr; i believe that being gay is not always a choice and is heavily influenced by hormones in the womb.   #  i do not know how else to put that.   #  you are objectively, scientifically wrong.  i do not know how else to put that.  studies have shown URL that a gay brain responds to pheromones reminder: those subconscious smells that make us horny without any conscious choice differently than a straight brain.  namely: gay men get aroused by male pheromones and not female pheromones, while straight men get aroused by female pheromones and not male pheromones.  there is  absolutely no conscious control  over pheromones.  and i am walking, talking proof that that is not the case: i would love to be bisexual.  truthfully, it seems extremely illogical to me that i would cut out half of my potential soulmates just because they come with the wrong set of genitals.  but i am just not attracted to men.   #  one argument for gay marriage might go like this: 0 unless gay marriage is harmful in some way, it should be allowed.   #  okay, your argument seems to be something like this.  0 there is not a biological basis for being gay.  0 therefore it is a choice to be gay.  but this is clearly not a valid argument.  for instance, even if everyone is born straight, maybe environmental factors are responsible for making people gay at a young age.  so even if there is no  biological  basis for their being gay, they still have no choice in the matter.  0 is almost certainly false as well, but the point is that even granting 0 , this argument does not work.  okay, this is not really related to the heart of your cmv, but i disagree that the  fundamentals behind gay marriage and rights  necessarily assume that being gay is not a choice.  one argument for gay marriage might go like this: 0 unless gay marriage is harmful in some way, it should be allowed.  0 gay marriage is not harmful in any way.  0 so gay marriage should be allowed.  no discussion of choice is necessary for that to stand up as a pretty strong argument.   #  nature is set in stone, nurture is just a path paved for you that you could stray from.   #  yeah, i am totally for gay marriage, it is not harmful and should be allowed regardless of how it comes about.  nurture, in nature vs.  nurture, i believe plays the biggest role in becoming gay.  i cannot directly explain how one becomes gay through nurture but i know that at a young age i was informed by my religious parents that any act of affection towards one of the same sex is a bad thing.  that instance was probably the largest factor in my sexual orientation.  perhaps if being gay was a neutral thing, or even a positive, one might be more open to the idea.  and nurture still comes down to choice in the end.  nature is set in stone, nurture is just a path paved for you that you could stray from.   #  for instance, if someone chops my leg off, i ca not choose to have two legs, even though that came about via nurture, not via nature.   # nature is set in stone, nurture is just a path paved for you that you could stray from.  well, this is clearly not always the case.  for instance, if someone chops my leg off, i ca not choose to have two legs, even though that came about via nurture, not via nature.  so no, it is not necessarily the case that nurture factors allow you to make choices.  and you realize that this view is committing you to the idea that  you  could choose to become gay, right ? could you ?
i have heard a lot of modern parents, men is movement supporters, and feminists argue that boys have been brainwashed from an early age to not cry and that this leads to emotional dysfunction for adult men who ca not show their emotions.  i believed this for a long time.  but i now believe that we should be raising boys who can be tough and endure all of the shittiness that is life.  life is not fair.  life is difficult and painful sometimes.  i think being less sensitive and more resilient is a good thing.  men who cry easily and are too connected to their emotions ca not survive in the world.  also, physical punishment is okay for boys, even as early as four years old, in order to toughen them up for the future.  please change my view.  my own father was pretty tough on me and my brothers and i resented it for a long time.  but now i am considering having children, and i am alarmed at how my own views are remarkably similar to his.  i am trying to figure out what i think is right on this issue.   #  boys have been brainwashed from an early age to not cry and that this leads to emotional dysfunction for adult men who ca not show their emotions.   #  i believed this for a long time.   # i believed this for a long time.  what changed your mind ? therefore we should make life more difficult and painful ? crying is just a small part of the overall problem, which could be summarily titled detachment.  frequently, men will not seek help for issues of any kind because people like you will look down on them.  this has serious consequences: men will put off going to the doctor so that they can  tough it out  URL men will die because they will not seek help, which has contributed to the life expectancy gap of several years between men and women.  you cannot  tough out  cancer URL and this mindset leads to thousands dying every year.  in the us, twice as many women are diagnosed with depression than men annually URL but the  successful  suicide rate for men in the us is four times higher than for women URL to quote the national institute of mental health:   men expressed concern about seeing a mental health professional or going to a mental health clinic, thinking that people would find out and that this might have a negative impact on their job security, promotion potential, or health insurance benefits.  they feared that being labeled with a diagnosis of mental illness would cost them the respect of their family and friends, or their standing in the community.  you think less of men who are sensitive or are connected to their emotions, that they ca not survive.  ironically,  men are dying because of ideals like yours .  please, do not risk your life or your future sons over a silly gender role.   #  crying is an adaptive response that our body has for a reason.   #  ding ding ding ! you just changed my view.    for you.  i knew my views were illogical and wrong.  that is why i wanted help changing them.  i have always made great efforts to be as enlightened as possible regarding children, emotions, mental health, etc.  but now that i am spending more time with children, and getting more of a feelign of what it is like to be a father, i am struggling with these strange thoughts and feelings.  there is no point in  toughening someone up  even if it works if it means they will lose intelligence and incur long term mental harm.  i cringe to think of how much intelligence i lost when i was getting beatings during my childhood, and then again during my late adolescence.  crying is an adaptive response that our body has for a reason.  if what you say is true, i wish i could have a good cry to de stress since my body is very tense right now.  thanks for pointing out solid scientific and biological reasons in defense of crying.  thanks for your help.   #  i am not 0 sure what you mean, but hopefully i am interpreting you correctly and my answer makes sense.   #  i am not 0 sure what you mean, but hopefully i am interpreting you correctly and my answer makes sense.  it would be done by average.  if the average iq of non spanked children is 0 and the average iq of spanked children is 0, you have a demonstrable decrease.  i would worry that the study did not correct for things like class status.  lower class parents are more likely to spank and less likely to play an active role in their child is education which obviously lowers iq .  he did not link the study, so i ca not be sure about their methods.   #  everyone has emotions, and bottling them up leads to lashing out at other people.   #  toughness ! not crying.  everyone has emotions, and bottling them up leads to lashing out at other people.  i am a man, and i cry.  i have to do it in private, when either nobody or only my girlfriend are around, but it is something that humans do.  and this social taboo we have about it is insane.  it is essentially telling us to survive in a world dominated by sociopaths by becoming more like them.  and i do not mean that figuratively, most sociopaths who do not become serial killers become politicians and ceos; we are quite literally ruled by psychos.  there is been actual research URL into that.  it is known, khalessi.  sorry, that was a tangent.  anyway: the great thing about the modern era is that we can look at the world from a million different perspectives, and decide for ourselves what is true as humans rather than being divided and ruled as we have been historically.  we are all in this together and as humans we have to admit on some level that most humans have times where they want or need to cry.   #  lord knows my mother is one tough lady, and so is my sister.   #  it is very illogical.  that is why i wanted help changing my view.  i think girls and women need to be resilient and tough as well in life.  lord knows my mother is one tough lady, and so is my sister.  but i think society tends to be easier on women.  as a man, i feel greater pressure to be ready to withstand a violent attack in the street, and to defend the women around me.  in this case, a woman accompanied by a man can afford to cringe and freeze, but the man must be ready to defend himself and the woman.  a man who ca not protect himself and his woman/children is worthless in my opinion.  anyone who can change that view, also, is welcome to do so.
i have heard a lot of modern parents, men is movement supporters, and feminists argue that boys have been brainwashed from an early age to not cry and that this leads to emotional dysfunction for adult men who ca not show their emotions.  i believed this for a long time.  but i now believe that we should be raising boys who can be tough and endure all of the shittiness that is life.  life is not fair.  life is difficult and painful sometimes.  i think being less sensitive and more resilient is a good thing.  men who cry easily and are too connected to their emotions ca not survive in the world.  also, physical punishment is okay for boys, even as early as four years old, in order to toughen them up for the future.  please change my view.  my own father was pretty tough on me and my brothers and i resented it for a long time.  but now i am considering having children, and i am alarmed at how my own views are remarkably similar to his.  i am trying to figure out what i think is right on this issue.   #  i think being less sensitive and more resilient is a good thing.   #  men who cry easily and are too connected to their emotions ca not survive in the world.   # i am not sure what this means, but i fail to see how beating them is going to solve this issue.  but i think many people in our society need more courage and resilience to achieve their potential, and to merely function in most cases.  i am not sure what this means, either.  has your mind changed from  it is okay to teach boys not to cry  to  it is not okay to discourage crying  ? although this is armchair psychology i am practicing, i do not see how crying leads to misogyny.  in fact, i think crying is a healthy emotional release while misogyny is  the byproduct of bottling emotions up.  crying is seen as a feminine action, and misogynists tend to dislike femininity; i am skeptical of your claim.  but we also need to listen to reason and take care of ourselves and each other.  you seem to advocate hiding emotions rather than deal with them in a healthy manner.  let is say you beat me until i do not cry anymore; do you really think i have stopped feeling pain ? or is it more likely that i am just not showing it to avoid your beatings ? men who cry easily and are too connected to their emotions ca not survive in the world.  you should reword that, if that was not the intended message.  big difference, thin line.  if you stay on your current op path, how likely do you think it is that you go too far and damage your kid in some of the ways above ? how likely is it that you nail it perfectly ? if you do not beat your kid and discourage crying, how likely do you think it is that he is going to be the nervous wreck you fear ?  #  thanks for pointing out solid scientific and biological reasons in defense of crying.   #  ding ding ding ! you just changed my view.    for you.  i knew my views were illogical and wrong.  that is why i wanted help changing them.  i have always made great efforts to be as enlightened as possible regarding children, emotions, mental health, etc.  but now that i am spending more time with children, and getting more of a feelign of what it is like to be a father, i am struggling with these strange thoughts and feelings.  there is no point in  toughening someone up  even if it works if it means they will lose intelligence and incur long term mental harm.  i cringe to think of how much intelligence i lost when i was getting beatings during my childhood, and then again during my late adolescence.  crying is an adaptive response that our body has for a reason.  if what you say is true, i wish i could have a good cry to de stress since my body is very tense right now.  thanks for pointing out solid scientific and biological reasons in defense of crying.  thanks for your help.   #  i am not 0 sure what you mean, but hopefully i am interpreting you correctly and my answer makes sense.   #  i am not 0 sure what you mean, but hopefully i am interpreting you correctly and my answer makes sense.  it would be done by average.  if the average iq of non spanked children is 0 and the average iq of spanked children is 0, you have a demonstrable decrease.  i would worry that the study did not correct for things like class status.  lower class parents are more likely to spank and less likely to play an active role in their child is education which obviously lowers iq .  he did not link the study, so i ca not be sure about their methods.   #  everyone has emotions, and bottling them up leads to lashing out at other people.   #  toughness ! not crying.  everyone has emotions, and bottling them up leads to lashing out at other people.  i am a man, and i cry.  i have to do it in private, when either nobody or only my girlfriend are around, but it is something that humans do.  and this social taboo we have about it is insane.  it is essentially telling us to survive in a world dominated by sociopaths by becoming more like them.  and i do not mean that figuratively, most sociopaths who do not become serial killers become politicians and ceos; we are quite literally ruled by psychos.  there is been actual research URL into that.  it is known, khalessi.  sorry, that was a tangent.  anyway: the great thing about the modern era is that we can look at the world from a million different perspectives, and decide for ourselves what is true as humans rather than being divided and ruled as we have been historically.  we are all in this together and as humans we have to admit on some level that most humans have times where they want or need to cry.   #  but i think society tends to be easier on women.   #  it is very illogical.  that is why i wanted help changing my view.  i think girls and women need to be resilient and tough as well in life.  lord knows my mother is one tough lady, and so is my sister.  but i think society tends to be easier on women.  as a man, i feel greater pressure to be ready to withstand a violent attack in the street, and to defend the women around me.  in this case, a woman accompanied by a man can afford to cringe and freeze, but the man must be ready to defend himself and the woman.  a man who ca not protect himself and his woman/children is worthless in my opinion.  anyone who can change that view, also, is welcome to do so.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   #   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.   # community is important.  it need not be religious, but it does provide common ground.  technically yes.  however religion is often the reason given as to why it should be done.  you ca not divorce religious ideas from the equation.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg sure, but not all religions encourage blind faith.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.  i agree that science has allowed humanity to great things be they good or bad .  i personally think religion is a poor choice, and that it can lead to harm, but i disagree with you on the reasons why for the most part.  religious belief is a form of magical thinking that dispenses with criticla analysis it is a popular form of woo.   #  i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.   #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.   # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.   #  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.   # community is important.  it need not be religious, but it does provide common ground.  technically yes.  however religion is often the reason given as to why it should be done.  you ca not divorce religious ideas from the equation.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg sure, but not all religions encourage blind faith.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.  i agree that science has allowed humanity to great things be they good or bad .  i personally think religion is a poor choice, and that it can lead to harm, but i disagree with you on the reasons why for the most part.  religious belief is a form of magical thinking that dispenses with criticla analysis it is a popular form of woo.   #  i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.   #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ?  # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   #  religion  can  provide a greater sense of community for certain people.   #  i think other people have addressed points three and four, so i will mostly talk about one and two.  religion  can  provide a greater sense of community for certain people.  i want to make this very clear: a church will be the greatest source of comfort possible  for some people .  are there other ways people could get together ? sure.  however, for many, the greatest sense of comfort and community can only come from a church setting.  i agree that charitable things  could  be done.  however, there are many that  would not  be done without religion.  religion gives people a reason to be moral, often to people who would otherwise act very selfishly.  there are plenty of stories of people who become religion and turn their life around to help others.  religion wo not necessarily make everyone better behaved or more comfortable than anything else, but it will for some people.   #  i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.   #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.   # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.   #  i agree that charitable things  could  be done.   #  i think other people have addressed points three and four, so i will mostly talk about one and two.  religion  can  provide a greater sense of community for certain people.  i want to make this very clear: a church will be the greatest source of comfort possible  for some people .  are there other ways people could get together ? sure.  however, for many, the greatest sense of comfort and community can only come from a church setting.  i agree that charitable things  could  be done.  however, there are many that  would not  be done without religion.  religion gives people a reason to be moral, often to people who would otherwise act very selfishly.  there are plenty of stories of people who become religion and turn their life around to help others.  religion wo not necessarily make everyone better behaved or more comfortable than anything else, but it will for some people.   #  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ?  #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.   # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ?  #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   #  religion has been one of the primary driving forces behind societies for most of human history.   # religion has been one of the primary driving forces behind societies for most of human history.  most european scholars until recently were driven by their faith to explore the mysteries of the universe in hope of learning more about god and his creation.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg nonsense.  normally good people will do bad things because other people tell them to.  plenty of german soldiers in wwii were good people, but committed atrocities under the nazi regime.  experiments like the milgram experiment URL and the standford prison experiment URL show that people will follow orders that go against their moral conscious if they come from a figure of authority.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  not for most of history, for most of history scientific progress was connected directly to the religious.  for example, european scholars for much of european history from the middle ages onward believed that understanding the natural world was a key step in understanding god, that a rational god made a rational world that could be rationally described.  while i agree that they may not become high contributing biological researchers, they certainly wo not necessarily become scientifically stunted.  yec views do not prevent people from becoming a physicist, or an engineer, or a doctor.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  i would suggest the answer is probably no.   #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   #   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.   # religion has been one of the primary driving forces behind societies for most of human history.  most european scholars until recently were driven by their faith to explore the mysteries of the universe in hope of learning more about god and his creation.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg nonsense.  normally good people will do bad things because other people tell them to.  plenty of german soldiers in wwii were good people, but committed atrocities under the nazi regime.  experiments like the milgram experiment URL and the standford prison experiment URL show that people will follow orders that go against their moral conscious if they come from a figure of authority.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  not for most of history, for most of history scientific progress was connected directly to the religious.  for example, european scholars for much of european history from the middle ages onward believed that understanding the natural world was a key step in understanding god, that a rational god made a rational world that could be rationally described.  while i agree that they may not become high contributing biological researchers, they certainly wo not necessarily become scientifically stunted.  yec views do not prevent people from becoming a physicist, or an engineer, or a doctor.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.   #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.   #  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.   # religion has been one of the primary driving forces behind societies for most of human history.  most european scholars until recently were driven by their faith to explore the mysteries of the universe in hope of learning more about god and his creation.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg nonsense.  normally good people will do bad things because other people tell them to.  plenty of german soldiers in wwii were good people, but committed atrocities under the nazi regime.  experiments like the milgram experiment URL and the standford prison experiment URL show that people will follow orders that go against their moral conscious if they come from a figure of authority.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  not for most of history, for most of history scientific progress was connected directly to the religious.  for example, european scholars for much of european history from the middle ages onward believed that understanding the natural world was a key step in understanding god, that a rational god made a rational world that could be rationally described.  while i agree that they may not become high contributing biological researchers, they certainly wo not necessarily become scientifically stunted.  yec views do not prevent people from becoming a physicist, or an engineer, or a doctor.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .   #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  while i agree that they may not become high contributing biological researchers, they certainly wo not necessarily become scientifically stunted.   # religion has been one of the primary driving forces behind societies for most of human history.  most european scholars until recently were driven by their faith to explore the mysteries of the universe in hope of learning more about god and his creation.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg nonsense.  normally good people will do bad things because other people tell them to.  plenty of german soldiers in wwii were good people, but committed atrocities under the nazi regime.  experiments like the milgram experiment URL and the standford prison experiment URL show that people will follow orders that go against their moral conscious if they come from a figure of authority.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  not for most of history, for most of history scientific progress was connected directly to the religious.  for example, european scholars for much of european history from the middle ages onward believed that understanding the natural world was a key step in understanding god, that a rational god made a rational world that could be rationally described.  while i agree that they may not become high contributing biological researchers, they certainly wo not necessarily become scientifically stunted.  yec views do not prevent people from becoming a physicist, or an engineer, or a doctor.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.   #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ?  # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.   #  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.    #  it is effective as an organizing force.  it was effective in the past as a force to establish knowledge, and disseminate it.  it is a function of civilization and needed for a civilization to thrive.  who is assuming this ? which religion encourages this ? i cannot think of one off the top of my head.  i am roman catholic, and i know we do not do this.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   good and evil are subjective and relative to the perspective of the person making the labels.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  odd considering the majority of knowledge preserved in western society was done so in christian monasteries and muslim libraries.  also odd that literacy is a direct cause of people wanting to read the bible, torah, and qu ran.  i think the jesuits are reason enough that this opinion is not true.  i grew up in a roman catholic home and i am pro choice, pro marriage equality, and pro contraception, and have a bachelor is of science, even though i never attended a non catholic school until i was 0.  if this statement is true, how is this a detriment to society ?  #  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.   #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.   # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.   #  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.   #  it is effective as an organizing force.  it was effective in the past as a force to establish knowledge, and disseminate it.  it is a function of civilization and needed for a civilization to thrive.  who is assuming this ? which religion encourages this ? i cannot think of one off the top of my head.  i am roman catholic, and i know we do not do this.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   good and evil are subjective and relative to the perspective of the person making the labels.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  odd considering the majority of knowledge preserved in western society was done so in christian monasteries and muslim libraries.  also odd that literacy is a direct cause of people wanting to read the bible, torah, and qu ran.  i think the jesuits are reason enough that this opinion is not true.  i grew up in a roman catholic home and i am pro choice, pro marriage equality, and pro contraception, and have a bachelor is of science, even though i never attended a non catholic school until i was 0.  if this statement is true, how is this a detriment to society ?  #  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ?  #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.   # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.   #  i think the jesuits are reason enough that this opinion is not true.   #  it is effective as an organizing force.  it was effective in the past as a force to establish knowledge, and disseminate it.  it is a function of civilization and needed for a civilization to thrive.  who is assuming this ? which religion encourages this ? i cannot think of one off the top of my head.  i am roman catholic, and i know we do not do this.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   good and evil are subjective and relative to the perspective of the person making the labels.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  odd considering the majority of knowledge preserved in western society was done so in christian monasteries and muslim libraries.  also odd that literacy is a direct cause of people wanting to read the bible, torah, and qu ran.  i think the jesuits are reason enough that this opinion is not true.  i grew up in a roman catholic home and i am pro choice, pro marriage equality, and pro contraception, and have a bachelor is of science, even though i never attended a non catholic school until i was 0.  if this statement is true, how is this a detriment to society ?  #  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .   #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ?  #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
there are people in my life, in fact quite a few, who insist that religion is a positive force acting on society.  in my opinion, this is simply untrue for the following reasons.    the only thing to be gained from organized religion is comfort it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.    anything that a church does charitably, such as fund an orphanage or collect donations for food aid, could be done by any other non profit organization and is done so regularly.    blind faith is a dangerous force that religion encourages.   with or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   steven weinberg   science is one of the fundamental building blocks of society, the thing that has allowed us to advance so much in the last two hundred years.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  children growing up in, say, creationist homes or muslim faith schools will be simply scientifically illiterate when they reach adulthood, preventing thousands of possible scientists and engineers from ever progressing.   #  if this statement is true, how is this a detriment to society ?  #  it is effective as an organizing force.  it was effective in the past as a force to establish knowledge, and disseminate it.  it is a function of civilization and needed for a civilization to thrive.  who is assuming this ? which religion encourages this ? i cannot think of one off the top of my head.  i am roman catholic, and i know we do not do this.  but for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.   good and evil are subjective and relative to the perspective of the person making the labels.  religion, however, either separates itself from science, or directly opposes it.  odd considering the majority of knowledge preserved in western society was done so in christian monasteries and muslim libraries.  also odd that literacy is a direct cause of people wanting to read the bible, torah, and qu ran.  i think the jesuits are reason enough that this opinion is not true.  i grew up in a roman catholic home and i am pro choice, pro marriage equality, and pro contraception, and have a bachelor is of science, even though i never attended a non catholic school until i was 0.  if this statement is true, how is this a detriment to society ?  #  i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.   #  on point 0, you say   it provides a meeting place for people to come and hang out and do something together, but to assume only a church could fill this role would be just wrong.   i am not saying that only a church could fill this role, but overwhelming this is one role that churches do fill, and other groups often  do not .  yes, other types of community could provide that sense of community, but the question is: do they ? to what extent ? how successfully ? i would suggest that demographic studies would suggest that other groups fulfil this role far less often and far less well than religious groups.  a similar set of questions i would apply to your second point.  charitable work by religious organisations is generally religiously motivated.  do non religious groups do similar charity work ? yes.  do they do so as extensively and widely as religious groups ? i would suggest the answer is probably no.  on point 0, this is a presumption that religion is  blind faith .  much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  as for point 0, this opposing of  iscience  and  areligion  as categorical opposites, almost reified dualism, is very western, and very recent, and most of all very american.  the history of science ought to tell you that science as a discipline arose primarily out of a set of christian beliefs about the world as an organised, reliable universe in which laws of nature could be observed and tested and discovered.  furthermore, you seem to assume that scientific/technical progress is the most important thing for the human race.  is mere improvement of our life by technical means the main goal of life ? is this what matters most ? this is already a view of the world that is at least a  philosophy of life .   #  we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.   # much religion is not blind faith, and i think you are either characterizing all religion as fitting into your notion of what religion is, or else familiar with only certain forms of religion.  one  might  be able to make a semi plausible case for deism or a platonic ground of being, but a specific religious view like christianity certainly has to be maintained by blind faith.  which of these beliefs actually depend on christianity ? we can certainly believe in observable, testable laws of nature without believing in the christian god.  that is what the ancient greeks did, after all.   #  my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .   #  you keep saying  blind faith , as if faith by definition is blind, but in fact the very structure of the phrase betrays you, because you need to add the adjective  blind .  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  ancient greeks did not develop anything approaching modern science though.  have you read natural philosophy texts by ancient greeks ? my point is not that only christian theology provides a possible philosophical grounding for science, but that historically speaking only christian theology provided the philosophical context in which scientific investigation  originated .  these two claims should not be confused.   #  there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .   # there is no reason to think that religious faith, by definition, is  irrational  or  without warrant or evidence .  it may be, but that does not mean that it must be.  i was just using the same phrase that the person i was responding to used in order to avoid confusion.  all faith is blind faith, in my view, because there is no evidence for any of the distinctive claims of christianity.  these two claims should not be confused.  right, and the two claims should not be confused because science and christian theology are  completely irrelevant  to each other.  christianity was dominant in europe for hundreds of years without giving rise to science.  what changed was that people realized that it was important to verify empirical claims by performing controlled experiments, and that could have happened in a society with or without religion.  if anything, religion makes people less willing to subject their beliefs to experimental testing.
a common element in politics is that the common citizen is completely unable to affect major policy decisions.  URL i believe that that if sufficient petitions 0 of population are signed in a local, state, national level the people should be allowed to vote directly on issues in a region wide vote.  this would allow the mundane details of government to be handled by people paid to do so, while improving the ability of the people to have their voice heard on larger issues.  i believe this would effectively address public concerns on key issues that i believe that are being managed completely incompetently by the us, or insert your own government.  nsa spying, net neutrality, vietnam war, pipelines, etc advantages: 0 you would not be forced to vote for a politician/party based on a single hot button issue gay marriage, nsa, immigration, etc if you could vote the way you wanted on just that issue, and pick someone competent for the rest of the issues 0 improves citizen involvement in the government cons 0 added cost to implement and make secure.  i believe this is or soon will be manageable with improvements to technology where online voting will be easy, quick, secure, and the citizenry will almost universally have access to it.  in the meantime i believe it is worth the fractional % of total tax payer money it would require to have a few of these each year.  0 just because people will vote, does not mean everyone will be happy or vote  right  gay marriage for example was voted on many times, and eventually swung to be passed.  i believe that this process both the yes and no votes combined with the supreme court ruling certain statues were unconstitutional worked in an ideal manner.  so cmv either by pointing out issues with the proposal or that the current system is  working  and that citizens input matters.   #  i believe this would effectively address public concerns on key issues that i believe that are being managed completely incompetently by the us, or insert your own government.   #  nsa spying, net neutrality, vietnam war, pipelines, etc how in the world does a citizen have the information to make an informed decision on wars and intelligence issues ?  # have you ever voted ? there are often referendums to be voted on for state and local issues.  nsa spying, net neutrality, vietnam war, pipelines, etc how in the world does a citizen have the information to make an informed decision on wars and intelligence issues ? congressmen have a staff that presents them with the information they need to make a decision.  we do not have access to classified information, nor do we have the resources to be properly informed on a variety of issues.   #  and yet it will easily pass in such conditions.   #  but the problem is voters do not work in that rational, group coherent way: you can either see it as a typical game theory problem, or just as a typical example of  tragedy of the commons , but what happens in real life and has happened in nearly all states/countries that have some form of direct voting such as you describe.  california being a great example is this: voters are not more motivated than elsewhere to go vote and i believe someone in this thread already pointed out the practical difficulty of implementing remote voting .  voters are generally even  less  informed about the specific issues they are supposed to vote on, than voters in more general elections, who at least tend to know the  colour  of the platform they are voting for.  which results in votes being overwhelmingly controlled by: people who feel  strongly  about/against certain issues.  when the majority  does not care , it takes only a small base of dedicated voters to pass or defeat propositions: and nothing motivates people more than the perspective of paying less money taxes or imposing their religious beliefs unto their neighbours morality laws .  people with a vested interest in passing/defeating a proposition, and the financial means to back it up.  this is obviously already the case for  any  type of elections in a country like the us, but the barrier to entry is much lower, when there are hundreds such propositions each year each one with its own business/religious groups attached to it .  the fact that the majority of people do not feel strongly about an issue let is say: a massive construction project , while a tiny minority supports it either because they directly benefit from it, or more often, because they may get indirect financial gains from its realisation , does not mean that it is a good idea to pass it.  and yet it will easily pass in such conditions.  individual voters just cannot be expected to conduct a thorough cost benefit analysis of every single issue  or  to care for the greater good of the group over themselves especially in a country with a strong individualistic tradition like the us , this is one of the reason democracy tends to work better with elected representatives to do that job.   #  on the other hand, voting demands  strong privacy : to deter coercion and vote buying, a proper voting system must not allow a voter to reliably reveal the contents of his ballot to a third party,  even if he wanted to .   #  banking is peanuts compared to voting from a security standpoint.  with banking, there is a perfect paper trail of who is doing what; auditing it for shenanigans is trivial.  on the other hand, voting demands  strong privacy : to deter coercion and vote buying, a proper voting system must not allow a voter to reliably reveal the contents of his ballot to a third party,  even if he wanted to .  additionally, any online system is susceptible to attacks originating from anywhere in the connected world.  imagine what a delightful thing it would be for foreign intelligence agencies and multinational corporations if the us conducted binding online elections.  it would be more of a contest of who has the best hackers than a measure of the people is desire.   #  you would end up getting into situations where the most populous states would simply decide everything and/or you would get vastly different laws from state to state.   #  in a true democracy, yes that would be how it would work.  we, as in the us, do not actually have a democracy.  we have constitutionally based federal republic, they are very different.  when you have a country that is as big, populous and diverse as the us true  majority rules  democracy is really not feasible.  you would end up getting into situations where the most populous states would simply decide everything and/or you would get vastly different laws from state to state.  i know these problems do exist currently but imagine them magnified 0 fold.   #  elected officials choose not to vote on it themselves and pass the decision on to the rest of us.   #  the government we have is a representative democracy, so that is how it works.  you elect people who you believe will vote in your best interests and then they go vote on your behalf.  if you think government mismanages important things, then i would recommend voting for something else or running yourself.  as to your solution, there is already a method for that called a referendum.  elected officials choose not to vote on it themselves and pass the decision on to the rest of us.  you can also already write a petition and get it signed.  it does not have a direct legal effect, but it can affect politics.  you can also write or call your representatives.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.   #  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.   #  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.   #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  i was thinking solely on the matter of  bite size  and the fact that they do not have knives and forgot about the chopstick thing entirely.   #  it is true that i like my food in small pieces.  but that is why i like the customizability of the utensils that let you set what you want for yourself.  actually you are totally right.  when i go to thai here, it is a fork and a spoon.  i was thinking solely on the matter of  bite size  and the fact that they do not have knives and forgot about the chopstick thing entirely.  so more of a separate issue, but also relevant to places that provide chopsticks without knives.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.   #  yet its acceptable to eat crunchy food items ?  # URL   and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  no more than holding a fork with food.  either the majority of food is on top of the chopsticks and a bite of food is pretty light.  its unfair to say  chopsticks are judged as being disposable and fork, spoon and knifes are non disposable .  there is nothing about chopsticks that force them to be disposable so if we switch from disposable chopsticks it will be towards disposable fork, spoon and knifes.  yet its acceptable to eat crunchy food items ?  #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.   #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.   #  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.   # you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  you can cut or at least split food with chopsticks about as effectively as you could with, say, the edge of a fork.  and you can do it one handed and without grinding against the plate.  think of how much oil is used making plastic cutlery every year usually two pieces, sometimes three, included with every fast food meal.  at least trees are renewable, even if the replantation efforts are not quite at the point of sustainability yet.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  you can drink soup quietly, too.  in some cultures, including ones where chopsticks are prevalent, not slurping is considered impolite you are blaming a cultural difference outright.  plus, if someone is slurping from a spoon, they are going to be slurping for much longer than if they were drinking straight out of the bowl.   #  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ?  #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.   #  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.   # you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  you can cut or at least split food with chopsticks about as effectively as you could with, say, the edge of a fork.  and you can do it one handed and without grinding against the plate.  think of how much oil is used making plastic cutlery every year usually two pieces, sometimes three, included with every fast food meal.  at least trees are renewable, even if the replantation efforts are not quite at the point of sustainability yet.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  you can drink soup quietly, too.  in some cultures, including ones where chopsticks are prevalent, not slurping is considered impolite you are blaming a cultural difference outright.  plus, if someone is slurping from a spoon, they are going to be slurping for much longer than if they were drinking straight out of the bowl.   #  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.   #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.   #  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.   # how so ? that is not their purpose.  while disposable utensils are usually made of plastic, which is probably much worse for the environment.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  that should not happen.  are you sure you do not hold them wrong ? and unlike other utensils, chopsticks allow you to pick up food without having to stab it or otherwise damage it, which may be an advantage with certain foods.   #  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.   #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.   #  the fork is a blunt instrument which is not useful in many situations that chopsticks are far better suited for.   # the fork is a blunt instrument which is not useful in many situations that chopsticks are far better suited for.  because a fork is designed to pierce the food, it is suboptimal in the following respects:   it compromises the structural integrity of delicate foods by mashing them against your plate.  it is poorly suited to picking up hard or brittle foods e. g. , peanuts, crackers, or crackers made out of peanuts .  it has great difficulty in securing things that are not resting on a hard surface e. g. , the solid ingredients of a soup or a fly suspended in mid air .  it cannot pick up extremely small things, such as fish bones.  you will note that chopsticks perform admirably in all these situations.  as others have mentioned, you have neglected to account for the vast quantity of disposable plastic utensils that are used.  also, bamboo is a sustainable resource and is perfectly suited for the construction of chopsticks.  again, as has already been discussed, chopstick users do not forgo the use of spoons.   #  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.   #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.   #  again, as has already been discussed, chopstick users do not forgo the use of spoons.   # the fork is a blunt instrument which is not useful in many situations that chopsticks are far better suited for.  because a fork is designed to pierce the food, it is suboptimal in the following respects:   it compromises the structural integrity of delicate foods by mashing them against your plate.  it is poorly suited to picking up hard or brittle foods e. g. , peanuts, crackers, or crackers made out of peanuts .  it has great difficulty in securing things that are not resting on a hard surface e. g. , the solid ingredients of a soup or a fly suspended in mid air .  it cannot pick up extremely small things, such as fish bones.  you will note that chopsticks perform admirably in all these situations.  as others have mentioned, you have neglected to account for the vast quantity of disposable plastic utensils that are used.  also, bamboo is a sustainable resource and is perfectly suited for the construction of chopsticks.  again, as has already been discussed, chopstick users do not forgo the use of spoons.   #  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.   #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.   #  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.   # yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  i do not disagree with this point.  why would you be judged ? who does that ? not true.  they make take some practice to use, but they are far from impractical.  the practically is that they are not weapons like knives and forks, and they were invented before the spoon:  t is commonly known that the chinese invented chopsticks or kuaizi in chinese as a set of instruments to be used when eating but the reason behind that is not commonly known.  actually, the chinese were taught to use chopsticks long before spoons and forks were invented in europe the knife is older, not as an instrument for dining but as weapon .  chopsticks were strongly advocated by the great chinese philosopher confucius 0 0bc .  chinese people, under the cultivation of confucianism, consider the knife and fork bearing sort of violence, like cold weapons.  however, chopsticks reflect gentleness and benevolence, the main moral teaching of confucianism.  therefore, instruments used for killing must be banned from the dining table, and that is why chinese food is always chopped into bite size before it reaches the table.  source URL but the majority of these are made of bamboo which is a very renewable resource.  they are not actually cutting down trees, but cutting bamboo which grows back really fast.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  when i get pho or japanese soup, they give you a spoon.  if i am in a very asian restaurant, perhaps in k town, i drink out of the bowl.  you mean like the cultures that use them ? i have a nice polymer diswasher safe pair at home that i use all the time.  they are not impractical if you cut the meal before serving it.   #  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ?  #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.   #  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.   # yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  i do not disagree with this point.  why would you be judged ? who does that ? not true.  they make take some practice to use, but they are far from impractical.  the practically is that they are not weapons like knives and forks, and they were invented before the spoon:  t is commonly known that the chinese invented chopsticks or kuaizi in chinese as a set of instruments to be used when eating but the reason behind that is not commonly known.  actually, the chinese were taught to use chopsticks long before spoons and forks were invented in europe the knife is older, not as an instrument for dining but as weapon .  chopsticks were strongly advocated by the great chinese philosopher confucius 0 0bc .  chinese people, under the cultivation of confucianism, consider the knife and fork bearing sort of violence, like cold weapons.  however, chopsticks reflect gentleness and benevolence, the main moral teaching of confucianism.  therefore, instruments used for killing must be banned from the dining table, and that is why chinese food is always chopped into bite size before it reaches the table.  source URL but the majority of these are made of bamboo which is a very renewable resource.  they are not actually cutting down trees, but cutting bamboo which grows back really fast.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  when i get pho or japanese soup, they give you a spoon.  if i am in a very asian restaurant, perhaps in k town, i drink out of the bowl.  you mean like the cultures that use them ? i have a nice polymer diswasher safe pair at home that i use all the time.  they are not impractical if you cut the meal before serving it.   #  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ?  #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.   #  you mean like the cultures that use them ?  # yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  i do not disagree with this point.  why would you be judged ? who does that ? not true.  they make take some practice to use, but they are far from impractical.  the practically is that they are not weapons like knives and forks, and they were invented before the spoon:  t is commonly known that the chinese invented chopsticks or kuaizi in chinese as a set of instruments to be used when eating but the reason behind that is not commonly known.  actually, the chinese were taught to use chopsticks long before spoons and forks were invented in europe the knife is older, not as an instrument for dining but as weapon .  chopsticks were strongly advocated by the great chinese philosopher confucius 0 0bc .  chinese people, under the cultivation of confucianism, consider the knife and fork bearing sort of violence, like cold weapons.  however, chopsticks reflect gentleness and benevolence, the main moral teaching of confucianism.  therefore, instruments used for killing must be banned from the dining table, and that is why chinese food is always chopped into bite size before it reaches the table.  source URL but the majority of these are made of bamboo which is a very renewable resource.  they are not actually cutting down trees, but cutting bamboo which grows back really fast.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  when i get pho or japanese soup, they give you a spoon.  if i am in a very asian restaurant, perhaps in k town, i drink out of the bowl.  you mean like the cultures that use them ? i have a nice polymer diswasher safe pair at home that i use all the time.  they are not impractical if you cut the meal before serving it.   #  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.   #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  i have a nice polymer diswasher safe pair at home that i use all the time.   # yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  i do not disagree with this point.  why would you be judged ? who does that ? not true.  they make take some practice to use, but they are far from impractical.  the practically is that they are not weapons like knives and forks, and they were invented before the spoon:  t is commonly known that the chinese invented chopsticks or kuaizi in chinese as a set of instruments to be used when eating but the reason behind that is not commonly known.  actually, the chinese were taught to use chopsticks long before spoons and forks were invented in europe the knife is older, not as an instrument for dining but as weapon .  chopsticks were strongly advocated by the great chinese philosopher confucius 0 0bc .  chinese people, under the cultivation of confucianism, consider the knife and fork bearing sort of violence, like cold weapons.  however, chopsticks reflect gentleness and benevolence, the main moral teaching of confucianism.  therefore, instruments used for killing must be banned from the dining table, and that is why chinese food is always chopped into bite size before it reaches the table.  source URL but the majority of these are made of bamboo which is a very renewable resource.  they are not actually cutting down trees, but cutting bamboo which grows back really fast.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  when i get pho or japanese soup, they give you a spoon.  if i am in a very asian restaurant, perhaps in k town, i drink out of the bowl.  you mean like the cultures that use them ? i have a nice polymer diswasher safe pair at home that i use all the time.  they are not impractical if you cut the meal before serving it.   #  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ?  #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
in sum: i believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and i should not be judged when i opt to use western silverware when i eat asian cuisine.  yes, i know how to use chop sticks properly.  chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical.  you ca not cut with them, you ca not use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.  whereas with a fork, i can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort.  third, because chopsticks ca not deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user is mouth, chopstick users particularly in asian countries will slurp the broth directly from the bowl.  while i do not want to be horribly ethnocentric, and i know etiquette is a cultural construct, i find that practice to be absolutely revolting.  as someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat.  i do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods.  i have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because i feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils.  but for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.   #  you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together.   #  this is a result of your inexperience with them.   #  if you are trying to consume something which has been delicately prepared, such as sashimi, the use of traditional western utensils would ravage the food, causing it to disintegrate before ever making it to your mouth.  when preparing foods, especially things like chicken and steak, chopsticks, again, are vastly superior to any form of skewering method as well as tongs because they are much more precise and do not damage the food.  using a fork/pronged grilling fork is a guaranteed way to ruin a perfectly good stake, or chicken by puncturing it.  this is a result of your inexperience with them.  a well practiced hand allows for the holding of food to come with no more effort than the holding of a fork.  just so you know, it is polite to slurp spaghetti, since it is more rude to not surp and let some fall back to the plate  #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.   #  i realize that you acknowledge that nicer chopsticks are reusable, but you then go on to compare disposable chopsticks to metal western utensils.  i think it would me more fair to compare them to disposable knives and forks.  i think that then, we might find a reversal; i imagine that disposable bamboo chopsticks are somewhat less bad for the environment than a plastic knife and fork.  also, i think you might want to reconsider your third point.  you say  there is no objective reason why people should not try to be more quiet when they eat .  the obverse is also true: in some cultures, someone who does not slurp is considered rude.  there is not an objective reason to not try to be more loud when you eat.   #  from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ?  #  all good points but you are not really addressing my question, which was where do you come from ? from what you are saying i would guess usa, but i suppose it could be canada ? i was interested because from your initial statement there seem to be a lot of cultural differences within  western  that make it hard to assume too much about who is using disposables and who is not.  and to clarify, if you ask a british person to think of a restaurant they would imagine somewhere where you sit down, someone takes your order and food is brought to the table.  there might be candles.  in every macdonalds i have been in you have to stand around awkwardly until your order is called and you fetch your own food.  maybe it is different where you are ?  #  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.   #  western utensils are best for eating western food, and asian utensils are best for eating asian food.  i eat chinese food almost every day, and i find them to be far more useful than spoons and forks.  you do not need to cut food with chopsticks, as most asian cuisine is already bite sized.  you wo not find steak in an authentic asian restaurant.  also, if you use chopsticks properly your hand should not be tense.  holding food with chopsticks takes as much effort as touching your fingers together.  to your final point, chopsticks are not meant to be used to eat soup.  that is why they have these URL  #  this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.   # this should not actually be a problem, and if it is the dish was not meant to be eaten with chopsticks.  i mean, i guess that is true but if you are applying so much pressure that it is causing noticeable fatigue then you probably do not need that much pressure.  either that or you have forgive me, i do not mean this disparagingly very weak grip strength.  this has literally never been a concern for me or anyone i know, and i am genuinely baffled at it being a concern for someone.  i understand this and sympathize, but people also slurp from spoons, so i do not see how this is any worse.
okay before i offend anybody allow me to get some things out of the way: first off i am not racist; i have a korean friend, i like some japanese authors and video game developers and i enjoy thai food as much as the next guy.  secondly i am from india and i do not like having to call people from the far east china, japan, thailand, vietnam, the koreas, the philippines, taiwan, and probably others because i think it is too vague a description because asia is a big place; includes the middle east, most of russia, the indian subcontinent, and countries where people who describe themselves as  asian  come from.  now i was just wondering why we ca not say the word oriental.  i could not find any sort of negative historical event associated with it to justify its taboo like with slavery and the n word.  if someone could change my view that would be great, because then the world, while still being that little bit more annoying would at least make sense.   #  now i was just wondering why we ca not say the word oriental.   #  because the word is associated with outdated racist views and they the people you are referring to do not want to be referred to in that way.   # first amendment of the us constitution allows for freedom of speech in the us.  not sure about india but in the us, whenever people complain about not being  allowed  to say something, they are 0 lying.  because the word is associated with outdated racist views and they the people you are referring to do not want to be referred to in that way.  should not that be enough ? it does not matter if you can or not; most of them do not want to be referred to in that way.  why are their wishes since it more directly impacts their feelings than yours more important than yours ?  oriental  is not associated with a specific thing like slavery that i know of; it is just an archaic term that we used to use in the shitty days where everyone was racist as hell.  same thing happened with  negro , which is why it is generally a poor idea to call blacks negros in the us at least .  it is really not about how logical  you  feel it is.  i wish i could make people understand that the fact that society frowns on some words is not an attack against  you , or somehow bounding you up in chains.  i could make arguments that we should refer to the mentally disabled as  tards  because that is only one syllable, and quick speech is important.  but we should not call people as tards, because that is kinda a slur.  same with cripple.  same with kike.  same with nigger.  getting away from slurs, i imagine you also generally try to avoid subjects like suicide jokes around people whose loved ones committed suicide.  my philosophy in life is just to be excellent to each other.  upsetting people is dumb, so why are people so insistent on it ?  #  you can ignore that, but if you do not want to do it, what kind of evidence can you give that you are not racist ?  # do not ever say this in an attempt to not sound racist.  i have never understood that argument.  it is true that  i have a race friend  is far from being an absolute proof that you are not racist, but how would that make someone actually racist ? let is say that you are not racist, but someone says that you are.  you can ignore that, but if you do not want to do it, what kind of evidence can you give that you are not racist ? having a friend of a different race is, in my opinion, a reasonable argument.  it shows that you consider a person of another race worthy of being your friend, and that they consider you worthy of being their friend, which shows that you most probably do not act racist towards them.  it is not a definite proof, but is there a better argument to use in that case ?  #  having a friend of a different ethnicity does not mean you do not hold fucked up views of that ethnicity, it might just mean your friend holds those same views, or just does not think it is worth arguing with you about them.   # way too little context here.  were you doing something racist ? do you exist within a racist context ? do you take racist  received wisdom  for granted ? having a friend of a different ethnicity does not mean you do not hold fucked up views of that ethnicity, it might just mean your friend holds those same views, or just does not think it is worth arguing with you about them.  almost always, what people should be talking about is actions; what did you say or do.   i ca not be misogynist, i am married to a woman !   does not work if it turns out you are a wife beater, does it ? just talk about actions and words.  keeps it simple.   that thing you said sounded pretty racist.    i have a black friend !    well, it still sounded pretty racist, can we get back to that thing you said ?   it is much easier to call out an action, belief or statement as being racist or racially insensitive rather than the person who did, believed or said that thing as being racist.   #  the word might have different connotations in different parts of the world oxford has an oriental studies degree, but it seems like its inappropriate where you live too.   #  you can call anyone anything you want, but you have to deal with the consequences.  ever since the 0s and 0s, oriental has been considered a racist word, at least in the united states.  the main reason why is that after wwii, the korean war, the vietnam war, many americans had associated the word with people they wanted to kill.  the word might have different connotations in different parts of the world oxford has an oriental studies degree, but it seems like its inappropriate where you live too.  just because you come from south asia does not mean you can use a racist term for east asians.  stick to east asian, south asian, southeast asian, middle eastern, etc.  if you are looking for words to replace oriental.  also: URL  #  how do you feel about the equally antique term of mongoloid ?  #  well you can say it, but you will just be wrong.  oriental is used to describe regions oriental morocco: eastern morocco , and objects oriental rug , and art orientalist painting .  the word means  east , its opposite occident means  west .  the many issue is that oriental things come from north africa and south west asia middle east .  historically speaking the orient was the holy land.  calling east asians orientals, is not just inaccurate, but you are labeling a person with an adjective reserved for things.  how do you feel about the equally antique term of mongoloid ? or caucasoid, negroid, australoid ? the vernacular changes, you can continue to use the older speech if you wish, but there will be repercussions from some.
okay before i offend anybody allow me to get some things out of the way: first off i am not racist; i have a korean friend, i like some japanese authors and video game developers and i enjoy thai food as much as the next guy.  secondly i am from india and i do not like having to call people from the far east china, japan, thailand, vietnam, the koreas, the philippines, taiwan, and probably others because i think it is too vague a description because asia is a big place; includes the middle east, most of russia, the indian subcontinent, and countries where people who describe themselves as  asian  come from.  now i was just wondering why we ca not say the word oriental.  i could not find any sort of negative historical event associated with it to justify its taboo like with slavery and the n word.  if someone could change my view that would be great, because then the world, while still being that little bit more annoying would at least make sense.   #  i could not find any sort of negative historical event associated with it to justify its taboo like with slavery and the n word.   #  it does not matter if you can or not; most of them do not want to be referred to in that way.   # first amendment of the us constitution allows for freedom of speech in the us.  not sure about india but in the us, whenever people complain about not being  allowed  to say something, they are 0 lying.  because the word is associated with outdated racist views and they the people you are referring to do not want to be referred to in that way.  should not that be enough ? it does not matter if you can or not; most of them do not want to be referred to in that way.  why are their wishes since it more directly impacts their feelings than yours more important than yours ?  oriental  is not associated with a specific thing like slavery that i know of; it is just an archaic term that we used to use in the shitty days where everyone was racist as hell.  same thing happened with  negro , which is why it is generally a poor idea to call blacks negros in the us at least .  it is really not about how logical  you  feel it is.  i wish i could make people understand that the fact that society frowns on some words is not an attack against  you , or somehow bounding you up in chains.  i could make arguments that we should refer to the mentally disabled as  tards  because that is only one syllable, and quick speech is important.  but we should not call people as tards, because that is kinda a slur.  same with cripple.  same with kike.  same with nigger.  getting away from slurs, i imagine you also generally try to avoid subjects like suicide jokes around people whose loved ones committed suicide.  my philosophy in life is just to be excellent to each other.  upsetting people is dumb, so why are people so insistent on it ?  #  it shows that you consider a person of another race worthy of being your friend, and that they consider you worthy of being their friend, which shows that you most probably do not act racist towards them.   # do not ever say this in an attempt to not sound racist.  i have never understood that argument.  it is true that  i have a race friend  is far from being an absolute proof that you are not racist, but how would that make someone actually racist ? let is say that you are not racist, but someone says that you are.  you can ignore that, but if you do not want to do it, what kind of evidence can you give that you are not racist ? having a friend of a different race is, in my opinion, a reasonable argument.  it shows that you consider a person of another race worthy of being your friend, and that they consider you worthy of being their friend, which shows that you most probably do not act racist towards them.  it is not a definite proof, but is there a better argument to use in that case ?  #  do you take racist  received wisdom  for granted ?  # way too little context here.  were you doing something racist ? do you exist within a racist context ? do you take racist  received wisdom  for granted ? having a friend of a different ethnicity does not mean you do not hold fucked up views of that ethnicity, it might just mean your friend holds those same views, or just does not think it is worth arguing with you about them.  almost always, what people should be talking about is actions; what did you say or do.   i ca not be misogynist, i am married to a woman !   does not work if it turns out you are a wife beater, does it ? just talk about actions and words.  keeps it simple.   that thing you said sounded pretty racist.    i have a black friend !    well, it still sounded pretty racist, can we get back to that thing you said ?   it is much easier to call out an action, belief or statement as being racist or racially insensitive rather than the person who did, believed or said that thing as being racist.   #  if you are looking for words to replace oriental.   #  you can call anyone anything you want, but you have to deal with the consequences.  ever since the 0s and 0s, oriental has been considered a racist word, at least in the united states.  the main reason why is that after wwii, the korean war, the vietnam war, many americans had associated the word with people they wanted to kill.  the word might have different connotations in different parts of the world oxford has an oriental studies degree, but it seems like its inappropriate where you live too.  just because you come from south asia does not mean you can use a racist term for east asians.  stick to east asian, south asian, southeast asian, middle eastern, etc.  if you are looking for words to replace oriental.  also: URL  #  the word means  east , its opposite occident means  west .   #  well you can say it, but you will just be wrong.  oriental is used to describe regions oriental morocco: eastern morocco , and objects oriental rug , and art orientalist painting .  the word means  east , its opposite occident means  west .  the many issue is that oriental things come from north africa and south west asia middle east .  historically speaking the orient was the holy land.  calling east asians orientals, is not just inaccurate, but you are labeling a person with an adjective reserved for things.  how do you feel about the equally antique term of mongoloid ? or caucasoid, negroid, australoid ? the vernacular changes, you can continue to use the older speech if you wish, but there will be repercussions from some.
okay before i offend anybody allow me to get some things out of the way: first off i am not racist; i have a korean friend, i like some japanese authors and video game developers and i enjoy thai food as much as the next guy.  secondly i am from india and i do not like having to call people from the far east china, japan, thailand, vietnam, the koreas, the philippines, taiwan, and probably others because i think it is too vague a description because asia is a big place; includes the middle east, most of russia, the indian subcontinent, and countries where people who describe themselves as  asian  come from.  now i was just wondering why we ca not say the word oriental.  i could not find any sort of negative historical event associated with it to justify its taboo like with slavery and the n word.  if someone could change my view that would be great, because then the world, while still being that little bit more annoying would at least make sense.   #  if someone could change my view that would be great, because then the world, while still being that little bit more annoying would at least make sense.   #  it is really not about how logical  you  feel it is.   # first amendment of the us constitution allows for freedom of speech in the us.  not sure about india but in the us, whenever people complain about not being  allowed  to say something, they are 0 lying.  because the word is associated with outdated racist views and they the people you are referring to do not want to be referred to in that way.  should not that be enough ? it does not matter if you can or not; most of them do not want to be referred to in that way.  why are their wishes since it more directly impacts their feelings than yours more important than yours ?  oriental  is not associated with a specific thing like slavery that i know of; it is just an archaic term that we used to use in the shitty days where everyone was racist as hell.  same thing happened with  negro , which is why it is generally a poor idea to call blacks negros in the us at least .  it is really not about how logical  you  feel it is.  i wish i could make people understand that the fact that society frowns on some words is not an attack against  you , or somehow bounding you up in chains.  i could make arguments that we should refer to the mentally disabled as  tards  because that is only one syllable, and quick speech is important.  but we should not call people as tards, because that is kinda a slur.  same with cripple.  same with kike.  same with nigger.  getting away from slurs, i imagine you also generally try to avoid subjects like suicide jokes around people whose loved ones committed suicide.  my philosophy in life is just to be excellent to each other.  upsetting people is dumb, so why are people so insistent on it ?  #  do not ever say this in an attempt to not sound racist.   # do not ever say this in an attempt to not sound racist.  i have never understood that argument.  it is true that  i have a race friend  is far from being an absolute proof that you are not racist, but how would that make someone actually racist ? let is say that you are not racist, but someone says that you are.  you can ignore that, but if you do not want to do it, what kind of evidence can you give that you are not racist ? having a friend of a different race is, in my opinion, a reasonable argument.  it shows that you consider a person of another race worthy of being your friend, and that they consider you worthy of being their friend, which shows that you most probably do not act racist towards them.  it is not a definite proof, but is there a better argument to use in that case ?  #  it is much easier to call out an action, belief or statement as being racist or racially insensitive rather than the person who did, believed or said that thing as being racist.   # way too little context here.  were you doing something racist ? do you exist within a racist context ? do you take racist  received wisdom  for granted ? having a friend of a different ethnicity does not mean you do not hold fucked up views of that ethnicity, it might just mean your friend holds those same views, or just does not think it is worth arguing with you about them.  almost always, what people should be talking about is actions; what did you say or do.   i ca not be misogynist, i am married to a woman !   does not work if it turns out you are a wife beater, does it ? just talk about actions and words.  keeps it simple.   that thing you said sounded pretty racist.    i have a black friend !    well, it still sounded pretty racist, can we get back to that thing you said ?   it is much easier to call out an action, belief or statement as being racist or racially insensitive rather than the person who did, believed or said that thing as being racist.   #  the word might have different connotations in different parts of the world oxford has an oriental studies degree, but it seems like its inappropriate where you live too.   #  you can call anyone anything you want, but you have to deal with the consequences.  ever since the 0s and 0s, oriental has been considered a racist word, at least in the united states.  the main reason why is that after wwii, the korean war, the vietnam war, many americans had associated the word with people they wanted to kill.  the word might have different connotations in different parts of the world oxford has an oriental studies degree, but it seems like its inappropriate where you live too.  just because you come from south asia does not mean you can use a racist term for east asians.  stick to east asian, south asian, southeast asian, middle eastern, etc.  if you are looking for words to replace oriental.  also: URL  #  oriental is used to describe regions oriental morocco: eastern morocco , and objects oriental rug , and art orientalist painting .   #  well you can say it, but you will just be wrong.  oriental is used to describe regions oriental morocco: eastern morocco , and objects oriental rug , and art orientalist painting .  the word means  east , its opposite occident means  west .  the many issue is that oriental things come from north africa and south west asia middle east .  historically speaking the orient was the holy land.  calling east asians orientals, is not just inaccurate, but you are labeling a person with an adjective reserved for things.  how do you feel about the equally antique term of mongoloid ? or caucasoid, negroid, australoid ? the vernacular changes, you can continue to use the older speech if you wish, but there will be repercussions from some.
let is assume that we have a ceo of a fortune 0 company, according to the afl cio, in the top 0 highest paid of 0 0, all of them made between 0m 0m from salary and bonuses.  the lowest paid employees in their company maybe made $0k.  ball park, that means that the ceo is 0 times more valuable than her lowest paid janitor.  this speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: the three of us work together, and all make 0k/yr.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? now, if the maximum salary in the company was 0k and i was offered a promotion to manager, would i somehow be less inclined to take it ? what about the next jump, to 0k ? and the next to 0 ? why is not it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and i have received a small merit increase ? why should i also make 0 to double what the people who report to me are making ? why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ? that is, liquid net worth should be   0m and our salary scale should be re adjusted such that a diligent worker hits this 0m mark after 0 years, while a very hard worker could do it in 0 0 .  also, consider the studies that have shown people who make more than $0k/yr report to being just as happy and satisfied as people who make $0k/yr now i would be willing to consider exemptions for pro athletes, or other  time dependent  jobs artist, architect etc could still make nearly a million dollars per year, since their  careers  when they are making a large amount of money could be relatively short.  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 that is, i think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we do not usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed.  for example, how much should it cost per night to board a dog ? URL in this case, regulation is needed.  lastly, i think once you start making a large amount of money, it becomes nearly impossible to see how you  are not worth this much  and so it is up to society to provide the framework we can all agree to before we know how lucky, or talented we might be.  ok but there is a huge problem; lots of people already have net worth more than 0m, or are paid way more than 0k/yr.  and how do we handle telling them ? with that, cmv.  obviously, since i just brought it up, i am not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be.  i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.   #  this speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: the three of us work together, and all make 0k/yr.   #  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.   #  there is nothing unethical about taking the money people are willing to pay you.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? i think this is where you get lost.  executive salaries do not come generally out of the pockets of the rank and file.  those astronomical sums are paid by the shareholders.  if the rank and file feel under compensated, the thinking goes, they can go elsewhere.  and they might ! and the same goes for the guys in the c suite.  the owners forgo dividends money in their pocket today, to hire and retain the managers c suite guys they think will pay off in the long term.  the hubris/greed thing that you are talking about might happen in command economies where some violent force is coercing the market.  but despite it is numerous flaws, the ceo of johnson johnson is free to take a better offer at ge, just like the mail room clerk at johnson johnson is free to take a better offer at ge.  because you are obviously  worth this much  to  someone .  put another way: if the best you can get is $0/hour, you might very well be worth more.  but you are  at least , to  someone , worth $0/hours .  so .  uh, you have got that going for you.  i mean,  what is value ?   is a fundamental philosophical question.   the money someone is willing to pay  does not completely cover it but it does provide a proxy/estimate.  because your company is competitors might have noticed you.  and they are willing to pay an extra $0k.  are you going to turn that money down out of some sense of societal obligation, or worse, loyalty to your probably disloyal current employer ? people do not generally  work their way up  to those insane salaries in one company.  they jump ship ! they get offered a better salary and/or a better title at a competitor.  considering the near zero loyalty that companies show their employees usually , how can you expect those employees to not behave in a similar, mercenary, fashion ? or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 and the lucky wolf who finds a tasty lost lamb did not work as hard as his brothers who are starving on the other side of the mountain.  he sleeps just fine, by the way.  all of that aside, you asked about  ethics .  i think you should change your view because your notion about how people earn these exorbitant salaries is skewed.  for the most part, they are not stealing from their peers  or subordinates  pockets.  they are being paid by their superiors.  a ceo could demand to work for a $0 salary, and the shareholders will not distribute that compensation across the rest of the wages they will allocate it to dividends.  so, i will contradict you entirely: there is nothing unethical about taking the money people are willing to pay you.  if you think a salary is unethical, you should focus your attention on the people signing the checks, not on the people cashing them.  chris rock had a joke about that.  something about  shaq is rich, the people who sign shaq is checks are wealthy .   #  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.   # use what test equipment ? abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? we are all standing on the shoulders of one another just as ceos do with their companies.  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  i think this speaks to ops point of the self evaluation of the ceos who ca not discern how they   are not worth this much  when they just  closed a billion dollar deal.    #  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.   # a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.  that is pretty hard to do at the highest levels of society, i imagine.  as an aside, i know you are not interested in the practicality, but til,  about one and a half million americans earned the minimum wage in 0, but nearly two million people earned an hourly wage that was even less than URL $0 an hour.  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.  i think a law will not help the exhorbent   exorbitant wages for ceo is, but more of a collective cultural shift in how we view monetary gain.  \ here is another til,  exhorbent  is not an acceptable word URL  #  in many cases, the price paid for the company is greater than the company is actual worth, in which case the ceo has cost the company money.   # abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.  why would the test groups share the profits if the guy succeeds without sharing the losses if he fails ? i do not think you understand how acquisitions work.  a company does not simply get another company for free, they pay millions/billions of dollars to buy them out.  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.  the value that is  added  by the acquisition, which is the disparity between the price paid and the actual value of the company, is something created solely by the ceo.  in many cases, the price paid for the company is greater than the company is actual worth, in which case the ceo has cost the company money.  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  for every decision the ceo has available that will add millions of dollars of value, he has a hundred others available that will subtract millions of dollars of value, and he is tasked with the incredibly difficult job of deciding which is which.  that is not the case in your job.   #  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.   # that is insanity ! how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ? the answer is he did not because: 0 he used company funds that paid for it did not take personal risk 0 he bought a company that had already been built and had been shown to be profitable how could he possibly created that base wealth ? piggy backed off the work of others this notion that  0 person  who is that helm of companies with multi billion dollar bank accounts and thousands of employees is the  isole creator  of wealth in these types of transactions is incorrect and imo leads to the oligarchy type rule we have today.  it makes sense to say that they played a large role in it compared to others, but the notion that they did it all by themselves is really just silly/inane.  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.  how/why do you dismiss the entire history of the company, the state of the economy in general, laws created by lobbyists, the safety to conduct business provided by the government, the work of the employees, the infrasturce roads/internet/etc.  required to conduct business, the money spent by consumers, etc ? it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.
let is assume that we have a ceo of a fortune 0 company, according to the afl cio, in the top 0 highest paid of 0 0, all of them made between 0m 0m from salary and bonuses.  the lowest paid employees in their company maybe made $0k.  ball park, that means that the ceo is 0 times more valuable than her lowest paid janitor.  this speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: the three of us work together, and all make 0k/yr.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? now, if the maximum salary in the company was 0k and i was offered a promotion to manager, would i somehow be less inclined to take it ? what about the next jump, to 0k ? and the next to 0 ? why is not it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and i have received a small merit increase ? why should i also make 0 to double what the people who report to me are making ? why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ? that is, liquid net worth should be   0m and our salary scale should be re adjusted such that a diligent worker hits this 0m mark after 0 years, while a very hard worker could do it in 0 0 .  also, consider the studies that have shown people who make more than $0k/yr report to being just as happy and satisfied as people who make $0k/yr now i would be willing to consider exemptions for pro athletes, or other  time dependent  jobs artist, architect etc could still make nearly a million dollars per year, since their  careers  when they are making a large amount of money could be relatively short.  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 that is, i think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we do not usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed.  for example, how much should it cost per night to board a dog ? URL in this case, regulation is needed.  lastly, i think once you start making a large amount of money, it becomes nearly impossible to see how you  are not worth this much  and so it is up to society to provide the framework we can all agree to before we know how lucky, or talented we might be.  ok but there is a huge problem; lots of people already have net worth more than 0m, or are paid way more than 0k/yr.  and how do we handle telling them ? with that, cmv.  obviously, since i just brought it up, i am not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be.  i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.   #  why is not it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and i have received a small merit increase ?  #  because your company is competitors might have noticed you.   #  there is nothing unethical about taking the money people are willing to pay you.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? i think this is where you get lost.  executive salaries do not come generally out of the pockets of the rank and file.  those astronomical sums are paid by the shareholders.  if the rank and file feel under compensated, the thinking goes, they can go elsewhere.  and they might ! and the same goes for the guys in the c suite.  the owners forgo dividends money in their pocket today, to hire and retain the managers c suite guys they think will pay off in the long term.  the hubris/greed thing that you are talking about might happen in command economies where some violent force is coercing the market.  but despite it is numerous flaws, the ceo of johnson johnson is free to take a better offer at ge, just like the mail room clerk at johnson johnson is free to take a better offer at ge.  because you are obviously  worth this much  to  someone .  put another way: if the best you can get is $0/hour, you might very well be worth more.  but you are  at least , to  someone , worth $0/hours .  so .  uh, you have got that going for you.  i mean,  what is value ?   is a fundamental philosophical question.   the money someone is willing to pay  does not completely cover it but it does provide a proxy/estimate.  because your company is competitors might have noticed you.  and they are willing to pay an extra $0k.  are you going to turn that money down out of some sense of societal obligation, or worse, loyalty to your probably disloyal current employer ? people do not generally  work their way up  to those insane salaries in one company.  they jump ship ! they get offered a better salary and/or a better title at a competitor.  considering the near zero loyalty that companies show their employees usually , how can you expect those employees to not behave in a similar, mercenary, fashion ? or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 and the lucky wolf who finds a tasty lost lamb did not work as hard as his brothers who are starving on the other side of the mountain.  he sleeps just fine, by the way.  all of that aside, you asked about  ethics .  i think you should change your view because your notion about how people earn these exorbitant salaries is skewed.  for the most part, they are not stealing from their peers  or subordinates  pockets.  they are being paid by their superiors.  a ceo could demand to work for a $0 salary, and the shareholders will not distribute that compensation across the rest of the wages they will allocate it to dividends.  so, i will contradict you entirely: there is nothing unethical about taking the money people are willing to pay you.  if you think a salary is unethical, you should focus your attention on the people signing the checks, not on the people cashing them.  chris rock had a joke about that.  something about  shaq is rich, the people who sign shaq is checks are wealthy .   #  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.   # use what test equipment ? abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? we are all standing on the shoulders of one another just as ceos do with their companies.  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  i think this speaks to ops point of the self evaluation of the ceos who ca not discern how they   are not worth this much  when they just  closed a billion dollar deal.    #  a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.   # a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.  that is pretty hard to do at the highest levels of society, i imagine.  as an aside, i know you are not interested in the practicality, but til,  about one and a half million americans earned the minimum wage in 0, but nearly two million people earned an hourly wage that was even less than URL $0 an hour.  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.  i think a law will not help the exhorbent   exorbitant wages for ceo is, but more of a collective cultural shift in how we view monetary gain.  \ here is another til,  exhorbent  is not an acceptable word URL  #  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.   # abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.  why would the test groups share the profits if the guy succeeds without sharing the losses if he fails ? i do not think you understand how acquisitions work.  a company does not simply get another company for free, they pay millions/billions of dollars to buy them out.  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.  the value that is  added  by the acquisition, which is the disparity between the price paid and the actual value of the company, is something created solely by the ceo.  in many cases, the price paid for the company is greater than the company is actual worth, in which case the ceo has cost the company money.  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  for every decision the ceo has available that will add millions of dollars of value, he has a hundred others available that will subtract millions of dollars of value, and he is tasked with the incredibly difficult job of deciding which is which.  that is not the case in your job.   #  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.   # that is insanity ! how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ? the answer is he did not because: 0 he used company funds that paid for it did not take personal risk 0 he bought a company that had already been built and had been shown to be profitable how could he possibly created that base wealth ? piggy backed off the work of others this notion that  0 person  who is that helm of companies with multi billion dollar bank accounts and thousands of employees is the  isole creator  of wealth in these types of transactions is incorrect and imo leads to the oligarchy type rule we have today.  it makes sense to say that they played a large role in it compared to others, but the notion that they did it all by themselves is really just silly/inane.  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.  how/why do you dismiss the entire history of the company, the state of the economy in general, laws created by lobbyists, the safety to conduct business provided by the government, the work of the employees, the infrasturce roads/internet/etc.  required to conduct business, the money spent by consumers, etc ? it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.
let is assume that we have a ceo of a fortune 0 company, according to the afl cio, in the top 0 highest paid of 0 0, all of them made between 0m 0m from salary and bonuses.  the lowest paid employees in their company maybe made $0k.  ball park, that means that the ceo is 0 times more valuable than her lowest paid janitor.  this speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: the three of us work together, and all make 0k/yr.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? now, if the maximum salary in the company was 0k and i was offered a promotion to manager, would i somehow be less inclined to take it ? what about the next jump, to 0k ? and the next to 0 ? why is not it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and i have received a small merit increase ? why should i also make 0 to double what the people who report to me are making ? why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ? that is, liquid net worth should be   0m and our salary scale should be re adjusted such that a diligent worker hits this 0m mark after 0 years, while a very hard worker could do it in 0 0 .  also, consider the studies that have shown people who make more than $0k/yr report to being just as happy and satisfied as people who make $0k/yr now i would be willing to consider exemptions for pro athletes, or other  time dependent  jobs artist, architect etc could still make nearly a million dollars per year, since their  careers  when they are making a large amount of money could be relatively short.  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 that is, i think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we do not usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed.  for example, how much should it cost per night to board a dog ? URL in this case, regulation is needed.  lastly, i think once you start making a large amount of money, it becomes nearly impossible to see how you  are not worth this much  and so it is up to society to provide the framework we can all agree to before we know how lucky, or talented we might be.  ok but there is a huge problem; lots of people already have net worth more than 0m, or are paid way more than 0k/yr.  and how do we handle telling them ? with that, cmv.  obviously, since i just brought it up, i am not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be.  i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.   #  rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ?  #  because it is up to the owner of the company what they should pay to there employees.   # the reason the ceo makes a 0 more is because he could have founded, invested, and put faith into the company.  the ceo probably hired the right people, and marketed his product/service successfully.  anybody can be a janitor, but only few people can run a whole company.  because it is up to the owner of the company what they should pay to there employees.  if the company fails, the owner pays the consequences, so it should be up him/her to decide what to pay each worker.  now remember, if a company is wrongly valuing it is employees, than it is likely that they will lose there employees to other competitors.  after all, a person would only show up to work for as long as they believe there pay is worth there work.  they have the right to pursue there goal, which could involve being filthy rich.  but that is not how the market works.  there are thousands of players who might work as hard as the guy making 0k a year.  so he is nothing special.  but there might be only a few players who have the slight edge over the rest of the population.  that slight edge in a population full of similar players, rockets the value of those slightly better players.  this is supply and demand.  there is a low supply of those exceptional players, so the demand is high.  especially in professional sports where inches and milliseconds pick winners and losers.  this also creates an incentive for the rest of the population to get better, since the benefits of standing out are so large.   #  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.   # use what test equipment ? abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? we are all standing on the shoulders of one another just as ceos do with their companies.  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  i think this speaks to ops point of the self evaluation of the ceos who ca not discern how they   are not worth this much  when they just  closed a billion dollar deal.    #  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.   # a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.  that is pretty hard to do at the highest levels of society, i imagine.  as an aside, i know you are not interested in the practicality, but til,  about one and a half million americans earned the minimum wage in 0, but nearly two million people earned an hourly wage that was even less than URL $0 an hour.  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.  i think a law will not help the exhorbent   exorbitant wages for ceo is, but more of a collective cultural shift in how we view monetary gain.  \ here is another til,  exhorbent  is not an acceptable word URL  #  a company does not simply get another company for free, they pay millions/billions of dollars to buy them out.   # abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.  why would the test groups share the profits if the guy succeeds without sharing the losses if he fails ? i do not think you understand how acquisitions work.  a company does not simply get another company for free, they pay millions/billions of dollars to buy them out.  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.  the value that is  added  by the acquisition, which is the disparity between the price paid and the actual value of the company, is something created solely by the ceo.  in many cases, the price paid for the company is greater than the company is actual worth, in which case the ceo has cost the company money.  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  for every decision the ceo has available that will add millions of dollars of value, he has a hundred others available that will subtract millions of dollars of value, and he is tasked with the incredibly difficult job of deciding which is which.  that is not the case in your job.   #  how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ?  # that is insanity ! how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ? the answer is he did not because: 0 he used company funds that paid for it did not take personal risk 0 he bought a company that had already been built and had been shown to be profitable how could he possibly created that base wealth ? piggy backed off the work of others this notion that  0 person  who is that helm of companies with multi billion dollar bank accounts and thousands of employees is the  isole creator  of wealth in these types of transactions is incorrect and imo leads to the oligarchy type rule we have today.  it makes sense to say that they played a large role in it compared to others, but the notion that they did it all by themselves is really just silly/inane.  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.  how/why do you dismiss the entire history of the company, the state of the economy in general, laws created by lobbyists, the safety to conduct business provided by the government, the work of the employees, the infrasturce roads/internet/etc.  required to conduct business, the money spent by consumers, etc ? it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.
let is assume that we have a ceo of a fortune 0 company, according to the afl cio, in the top 0 highest paid of 0 0, all of them made between 0m 0m from salary and bonuses.  the lowest paid employees in their company maybe made $0k.  ball park, that means that the ceo is 0 times more valuable than her lowest paid janitor.  this speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: the three of us work together, and all make 0k/yr.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? now, if the maximum salary in the company was 0k and i was offered a promotion to manager, would i somehow be less inclined to take it ? what about the next jump, to 0k ? and the next to 0 ? why is not it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and i have received a small merit increase ? why should i also make 0 to double what the people who report to me are making ? why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ? that is, liquid net worth should be   0m and our salary scale should be re adjusted such that a diligent worker hits this 0m mark after 0 years, while a very hard worker could do it in 0 0 .  also, consider the studies that have shown people who make more than $0k/yr report to being just as happy and satisfied as people who make $0k/yr now i would be willing to consider exemptions for pro athletes, or other  time dependent  jobs artist, architect etc could still make nearly a million dollars per year, since their  careers  when they are making a large amount of money could be relatively short.  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 that is, i think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we do not usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed.  for example, how much should it cost per night to board a dog ? URL in this case, regulation is needed.  lastly, i think once you start making a large amount of money, it becomes nearly impossible to see how you  are not worth this much  and so it is up to society to provide the framework we can all agree to before we know how lucky, or talented we might be.  ok but there is a huge problem; lots of people already have net worth more than 0m, or are paid way more than 0k/yr.  and how do we handle telling them ? with that, cmv.  obviously, since i just brought it up, i am not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be.  i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.   #  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.   #  but that is not how the market works.   # the reason the ceo makes a 0 more is because he could have founded, invested, and put faith into the company.  the ceo probably hired the right people, and marketed his product/service successfully.  anybody can be a janitor, but only few people can run a whole company.  because it is up to the owner of the company what they should pay to there employees.  if the company fails, the owner pays the consequences, so it should be up him/her to decide what to pay each worker.  now remember, if a company is wrongly valuing it is employees, than it is likely that they will lose there employees to other competitors.  after all, a person would only show up to work for as long as they believe there pay is worth there work.  they have the right to pursue there goal, which could involve being filthy rich.  but that is not how the market works.  there are thousands of players who might work as hard as the guy making 0k a year.  so he is nothing special.  but there might be only a few players who have the slight edge over the rest of the population.  that slight edge in a population full of similar players, rockets the value of those slightly better players.  this is supply and demand.  there is a low supply of those exceptional players, so the demand is high.  especially in professional sports where inches and milliseconds pick winners and losers.  this also creates an incentive for the rest of the population to get better, since the benefits of standing out are so large.   #  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.   # use what test equipment ? abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? we are all standing on the shoulders of one another just as ceos do with their companies.  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  i think this speaks to ops point of the self evaluation of the ceos who ca not discern how they   are not worth this much  when they just  closed a billion dollar deal.    #  i think a law will not help the exhorbent   exorbitant wages for ceo is, but more of a collective cultural shift in how we view monetary gain.   # a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.  that is pretty hard to do at the highest levels of society, i imagine.  as an aside, i know you are not interested in the practicality, but til,  about one and a half million americans earned the minimum wage in 0, but nearly two million people earned an hourly wage that was even less than URL $0 an hour.  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.  i think a law will not help the exhorbent   exorbitant wages for ceo is, but more of a collective cultural shift in how we view monetary gain.  \ here is another til,  exhorbent  is not an acceptable word URL  #  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.   # abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.  why would the test groups share the profits if the guy succeeds without sharing the losses if he fails ? i do not think you understand how acquisitions work.  a company does not simply get another company for free, they pay millions/billions of dollars to buy them out.  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.  the value that is  added  by the acquisition, which is the disparity between the price paid and the actual value of the company, is something created solely by the ceo.  in many cases, the price paid for the company is greater than the company is actual worth, in which case the ceo has cost the company money.  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  for every decision the ceo has available that will add millions of dollars of value, he has a hundred others available that will subtract millions of dollars of value, and he is tasked with the incredibly difficult job of deciding which is which.  that is not the case in your job.   #  how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ?  # that is insanity ! how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ? the answer is he did not because: 0 he used company funds that paid for it did not take personal risk 0 he bought a company that had already been built and had been shown to be profitable how could he possibly created that base wealth ? piggy backed off the work of others this notion that  0 person  who is that helm of companies with multi billion dollar bank accounts and thousands of employees is the  isole creator  of wealth in these types of transactions is incorrect and imo leads to the oligarchy type rule we have today.  it makes sense to say that they played a large role in it compared to others, but the notion that they did it all by themselves is really just silly/inane.  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.  how/why do you dismiss the entire history of the company, the state of the economy in general, laws created by lobbyists, the safety to conduct business provided by the government, the work of the employees, the infrasturce roads/internet/etc.  required to conduct business, the money spent by consumers, etc ? it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.
let is assume that we have a ceo of a fortune 0 company, according to the afl cio, in the top 0 highest paid of 0 0, all of them made between 0m 0m from salary and bonuses.  the lowest paid employees in their company maybe made $0k.  ball park, that means that the ceo is 0 times more valuable than her lowest paid janitor.  this speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: the three of us work together, and all make 0k/yr.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? now, if the maximum salary in the company was 0k and i was offered a promotion to manager, would i somehow be less inclined to take it ? what about the next jump, to 0k ? and the next to 0 ? why is not it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and i have received a small merit increase ? why should i also make 0 to double what the people who report to me are making ? why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ? that is, liquid net worth should be   0m and our salary scale should be re adjusted such that a diligent worker hits this 0m mark after 0 years, while a very hard worker could do it in 0 0 .  also, consider the studies that have shown people who make more than $0k/yr report to being just as happy and satisfied as people who make $0k/yr now i would be willing to consider exemptions for pro athletes, or other  time dependent  jobs artist, architect etc could still make nearly a million dollars per year, since their  careers  when they are making a large amount of money could be relatively short.  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 that is, i think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we do not usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed.  for example, how much should it cost per night to board a dog ? URL in this case, regulation is needed.  lastly, i think once you start making a large amount of money, it becomes nearly impossible to see how you  are not worth this much  and so it is up to society to provide the framework we can all agree to before we know how lucky, or talented we might be.  ok but there is a huge problem; lots of people already have net worth more than 0m, or are paid way more than 0k/yr.  and how do we handle telling them ? with that, cmv.  obviously, since i just brought it up, i am not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be.  i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.   #  that is, i think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we do not usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed.   #  you are correct, we do not fully understand how things are valued, that is why we do not try to control it.   # you are correct, we do not fully understand how things are valued, that is why we do not try to control it.  what you describe here would essentially force the economy to be a command economy, we would need a central authority deciding how much everyone should be paid which would inherently drive the costs of goods and services.  you would have us all do different work, but receive the same pay.  this is essentially communism.  the reason it would not and has not worked is that value is subjective.  if there is only one of something and you and i both want it how do we decide who gets it ? in a market economy whoever will pay more gets the item.  the same applies to people who is work is effectively a good that is traded between companies.   #  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.   # use what test equipment ? abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? we are all standing on the shoulders of one another just as ceos do with their companies.  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  i think this speaks to ops point of the self evaluation of the ceos who ca not discern how they   are not worth this much  when they just  closed a billion dollar deal.    #  a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.   # a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.  that is pretty hard to do at the highest levels of society, i imagine.  as an aside, i know you are not interested in the practicality, but til,  about one and a half million americans earned the minimum wage in 0, but nearly two million people earned an hourly wage that was even less than URL $0 an hour.  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.  i think a law will not help the exhorbent   exorbitant wages for ceo is, but more of a collective cultural shift in how we view monetary gain.  \ here is another til,  exhorbent  is not an acceptable word URL  #  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.   # abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.  why would the test groups share the profits if the guy succeeds without sharing the losses if he fails ? i do not think you understand how acquisitions work.  a company does not simply get another company for free, they pay millions/billions of dollars to buy them out.  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.  the value that is  added  by the acquisition, which is the disparity between the price paid and the actual value of the company, is something created solely by the ceo.  in many cases, the price paid for the company is greater than the company is actual worth, in which case the ceo has cost the company money.  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  for every decision the ceo has available that will add millions of dollars of value, he has a hundred others available that will subtract millions of dollars of value, and he is tasked with the incredibly difficult job of deciding which is which.  that is not the case in your job.   #  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.   # that is insanity ! how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ? the answer is he did not because: 0 he used company funds that paid for it did not take personal risk 0 he bought a company that had already been built and had been shown to be profitable how could he possibly created that base wealth ? piggy backed off the work of others this notion that  0 person  who is that helm of companies with multi billion dollar bank accounts and thousands of employees is the  isole creator  of wealth in these types of transactions is incorrect and imo leads to the oligarchy type rule we have today.  it makes sense to say that they played a large role in it compared to others, but the notion that they did it all by themselves is really just silly/inane.  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.  how/why do you dismiss the entire history of the company, the state of the economy in general, laws created by lobbyists, the safety to conduct business provided by the government, the work of the employees, the infrasturce roads/internet/etc.  required to conduct business, the money spent by consumers, etc ? it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.
let is assume that we have a ceo of a fortune 0 company, according to the afl cio, in the top 0 highest paid of 0 0, all of them made between 0m 0m from salary and bonuses.  the lowest paid employees in their company maybe made $0k.  ball park, that means that the ceo is 0 times more valuable than her lowest paid janitor.  this speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: the three of us work together, and all make 0k/yr.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? now, if the maximum salary in the company was 0k and i was offered a promotion to manager, would i somehow be less inclined to take it ? what about the next jump, to 0k ? and the next to 0 ? why is not it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and i have received a small merit increase ? why should i also make 0 to double what the people who report to me are making ? why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ? that is, liquid net worth should be   0m and our salary scale should be re adjusted such that a diligent worker hits this 0m mark after 0 years, while a very hard worker could do it in 0 0 .  also, consider the studies that have shown people who make more than $0k/yr report to being just as happy and satisfied as people who make $0k/yr now i would be willing to consider exemptions for pro athletes, or other  time dependent  jobs artist, architect etc could still make nearly a million dollars per year, since their  careers  when they are making a large amount of money could be relatively short.  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 that is, i think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we do not usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed.  for example, how much should it cost per night to board a dog ? URL in this case, regulation is needed.  lastly, i think once you start making a large amount of money, it becomes nearly impossible to see how you  are not worth this much  and so it is up to society to provide the framework we can all agree to before we know how lucky, or talented we might be.  ok but there is a huge problem; lots of people already have net worth more than 0m, or are paid way more than 0k/yr.  and how do we handle telling them ? with that, cmv.  obviously, since i just brought it up, i am not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be.  i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.   #  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.   #  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 lets assume you are right in this point.   #  your post is kind of all over the place in terms of what view you are holding.  you have cited several different views.  in the interest of a shorter post i will simply focus on your title.  i am going to try and reword your view just to simplify it and make it crystal clear.  if i do this incorrectly or oversimplify it to the point that i have warped your view, please let me know.  you mention a couple times that how hard someone works is not proportional to how the market value is that work.  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 lets assume you are right in this point.  what i take away from it is that certain people are more efficient with their work.  an athlete is able to train himself to a higher level than another during the same time period or an artist is able to master his technique to a higher level than other.  these people are being more efficient, and thus producing greater value for the same effort and the market is rewarding them as such.  a similar can be made in the corporate world.  an executive has better learned how the business and market operates to a higher level than another employee, and thus has more value to the market.  this really brings us to what i think your cmv really focuses on.  that is this.  i end my point here.  i end it with the hope that you will accept how i have reworded your original post, and that my final restatement of your view is enough to make you realize that your original view itself can be seen as unethical.  maybe that will be enough for you to change your view.  cheers.   #  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.   # use what test equipment ? abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? we are all standing on the shoulders of one another just as ceos do with their companies.  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  i think this speaks to ops point of the self evaluation of the ceos who ca not discern how they   are not worth this much  when they just  closed a billion dollar deal.    #  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.   # a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.  that is pretty hard to do at the highest levels of society, i imagine.  as an aside, i know you are not interested in the practicality, but til,  about one and a half million americans earned the minimum wage in 0, but nearly two million people earned an hourly wage that was even less than URL $0 an hour.  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.  i think a law will not help the exhorbent   exorbitant wages for ceo is, but more of a collective cultural shift in how we view monetary gain.  \ here is another til,  exhorbent  is not an acceptable word URL  #  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.   # abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.  why would the test groups share the profits if the guy succeeds without sharing the losses if he fails ? i do not think you understand how acquisitions work.  a company does not simply get another company for free, they pay millions/billions of dollars to buy them out.  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.  the value that is  added  by the acquisition, which is the disparity between the price paid and the actual value of the company, is something created solely by the ceo.  in many cases, the price paid for the company is greater than the company is actual worth, in which case the ceo has cost the company money.  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  for every decision the ceo has available that will add millions of dollars of value, he has a hundred others available that will subtract millions of dollars of value, and he is tasked with the incredibly difficult job of deciding which is which.  that is not the case in your job.   #  how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ?  # that is insanity ! how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ? the answer is he did not because: 0 he used company funds that paid for it did not take personal risk 0 he bought a company that had already been built and had been shown to be profitable how could he possibly created that base wealth ? piggy backed off the work of others this notion that  0 person  who is that helm of companies with multi billion dollar bank accounts and thousands of employees is the  isole creator  of wealth in these types of transactions is incorrect and imo leads to the oligarchy type rule we have today.  it makes sense to say that they played a large role in it compared to others, but the notion that they did it all by themselves is really just silly/inane.  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.  how/why do you dismiss the entire history of the company, the state of the economy in general, laws created by lobbyists, the safety to conduct business provided by the government, the work of the employees, the infrasturce roads/internet/etc.  required to conduct business, the money spent by consumers, etc ? it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.
let is assume that we have a ceo of a fortune 0 company, according to the afl cio, in the top 0 highest paid of 0 0, all of them made between 0m 0m from salary and bonuses.  the lowest paid employees in their company maybe made $0k.  ball park, that means that the ceo is 0 times more valuable than her lowest paid janitor.  this speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: the three of us work together, and all make 0k/yr.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? now, if the maximum salary in the company was 0k and i was offered a promotion to manager, would i somehow be less inclined to take it ? what about the next jump, to 0k ? and the next to 0 ? why is not it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and i have received a small merit increase ? why should i also make 0 to double what the people who report to me are making ? why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ? that is, liquid net worth should be   0m and our salary scale should be re adjusted such that a diligent worker hits this 0m mark after 0 years, while a very hard worker could do it in 0 0 .  also, consider the studies that have shown people who make more than $0k/yr report to being just as happy and satisfied as people who make $0k/yr now i would be willing to consider exemptions for pro athletes, or other  time dependent  jobs artist, architect etc could still make nearly a million dollars per year, since their  careers  when they are making a large amount of money could be relatively short.  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 that is, i think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we do not usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed.  for example, how much should it cost per night to board a dog ? URL in this case, regulation is needed.  lastly, i think once you start making a large amount of money, it becomes nearly impossible to see how you  are not worth this much  and so it is up to society to provide the framework we can all agree to before we know how lucky, or talented we might be.  ok but there is a huge problem; lots of people already have net worth more than 0m, or are paid way more than 0k/yr.  and how do we handle telling them ? with that, cmv.  obviously, since i just brought it up, i am not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be.  i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.   #  i am not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be.   #  i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.   # i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.  i am not an economist or a psychologist, but based on my experiences in the financial industry, the root of the incentive to make lots of cash stems from wanting financial security.  the ideal of, more or less, never having to worry about money again.  it is the same drive that makes so many of us fork over cash for a slim chance at winning the lottery, make often shoddy investment decisions in the stock market and chase get rich quick scams that almost always make us worse off than before.  it is also the same thing that allows us to dream of contributing tons of money and resources to those in need, start foundations to solve challenging problems, empower others who have dreams that might change the world, and, most importantly, gain confidence in knowing that our kids and grandkids hopefully wo not have to struggle as much when they become adults.  the want for security has been inherent to the human condition since we have bartered shoes for rice.  as long as  things  have an intrinsic value attached to them, we as humans are going to want to maximise the acquisition of that value so that we can, ideally, know that we will be able to get those  things  whenever we want.  the only way to accomplish that is to work jobs that provide a lot of that value, which means a providing a very valuable service that lots of people are willing to pay for, or b becoming a valuable and  non replaceable  asset to such a provider and getting a piece of the action.  be that as it may, if i am an executive that generated $0m /yr for a $0b/yr company, knows the company and its founders/head decision makers inside out and would take the company years and  millions of dollars  to replace me, why would the company want to only pay me peanuts $0k/yr 0 of revenue peanut shavings for this and redistribute the cash to people that are easily replaceable and not as essential ?  #  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.   # use what test equipment ? abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? we are all standing on the shoulders of one another just as ceos do with their companies.  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  i think this speaks to ops point of the self evaluation of the ceos who ca not discern how they   are not worth this much  when they just  closed a billion dollar deal.    #  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.   # a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.  that is pretty hard to do at the highest levels of society, i imagine.  as an aside, i know you are not interested in the practicality, but til,  about one and a half million americans earned the minimum wage in 0, but nearly two million people earned an hourly wage that was even less than URL $0 an hour.  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.  i think a law will not help the exhorbent   exorbitant wages for ceo is, but more of a collective cultural shift in how we view monetary gain.  \ here is another til,  exhorbent  is not an acceptable word URL  #  using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.   # abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.  why would the test groups share the profits if the guy succeeds without sharing the losses if he fails ? i do not think you understand how acquisitions work.  a company does not simply get another company for free, they pay millions/billions of dollars to buy them out.  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.  the value that is  added  by the acquisition, which is the disparity between the price paid and the actual value of the company, is something created solely by the ceo.  in many cases, the price paid for the company is greater than the company is actual worth, in which case the ceo has cost the company money.  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  for every decision the ceo has available that will add millions of dollars of value, he has a hundred others available that will subtract millions of dollars of value, and he is tasked with the incredibly difficult job of deciding which is which.  that is not the case in your job.   #  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.   # that is insanity ! how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ? the answer is he did not because: 0 he used company funds that paid for it did not take personal risk 0 he bought a company that had already been built and had been shown to be profitable how could he possibly created that base wealth ? piggy backed off the work of others this notion that  0 person  who is that helm of companies with multi billion dollar bank accounts and thousands of employees is the  isole creator  of wealth in these types of transactions is incorrect and imo leads to the oligarchy type rule we have today.  it makes sense to say that they played a large role in it compared to others, but the notion that they did it all by themselves is really just silly/inane.  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.  how/why do you dismiss the entire history of the company, the state of the economy in general, laws created by lobbyists, the safety to conduct business provided by the government, the work of the employees, the infrasturce roads/internet/etc.  required to conduct business, the money spent by consumers, etc ? it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.
let is assume that we have a ceo of a fortune 0 company, according to the afl cio, in the top 0 highest paid of 0 0, all of them made between 0m 0m from salary and bonuses.  the lowest paid employees in their company maybe made $0k.  ball park, that means that the ceo is 0 times more valuable than her lowest paid janitor.  this speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: the three of us work together, and all make 0k/yr.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? now, if the maximum salary in the company was 0k and i was offered a promotion to manager, would i somehow be less inclined to take it ? what about the next jump, to 0k ? and the next to 0 ? why is not it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and i have received a small merit increase ? why should i also make 0 to double what the people who report to me are making ? why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ? that is, liquid net worth should be   0m and our salary scale should be re adjusted such that a diligent worker hits this 0m mark after 0 years, while a very hard worker could do it in 0 0 .  also, consider the studies that have shown people who make more than $0k/yr report to being just as happy and satisfied as people who make $0k/yr now i would be willing to consider exemptions for pro athletes, or other  time dependent  jobs artist, architect etc could still make nearly a million dollars per year, since their  careers  when they are making a large amount of money could be relatively short.  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 that is, i think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we do not usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed.  for example, how much should it cost per night to board a dog ? URL in this case, regulation is needed.  lastly, i think once you start making a large amount of money, it becomes nearly impossible to see how you  are not worth this much  and so it is up to society to provide the framework we can all agree to before we know how lucky, or talented we might be.  ok but there is a huge problem; lots of people already have net worth more than 0m, or are paid way more than 0k/yr.  and how do we handle telling them ? with that, cmv.  obviously, since i just brought it up, i am not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be.  i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.   #  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.   #  it seems to me that the argument you are making through the whole post boils down to this statement above.   # it seems to me that the argument you are making through the whole post boils down to this statement above.  please correct me if i am wrong.  this is known as the labor theory of value.  it is basically  you should be compensated for your work based on how much effort you put in .  personally, i do not find this compelling.  some work is both difficult to do, and not terribly valuable, and as a result, i think that jobs that fit that description should not have a high salary.  as an extreme example, finding a needle in a haystack is both difficult, and not valuable.  i do not think we should pay someone as much as a receptionist just because the first job was harder.  allow me to present two ways to value something that i find more compelling.  value by usefulness  some things are more valuable because they are implicitly useful.  doctors are very valuable because we need what do.  fry cooks are not as valuable because we do not need them as much.  value in exchange  some things are valuable because we know that we can exchange them for other things that we like.  i know that robinson cano is a good athlete.  and i know that having him play for my team will make my fans happier and make more people come to my baseball games.  so i am willing to pay him a lot more for his labor than mike zunino, because mike zunino wo not bring as many fans in as robinson cano.  i do not care if mike zunino works harder than cano, cano is more valuable to me.  i think any ethical discussion about how much money people  deserve  to make needs to start with a discussion on how we value something.  to close i will ask a question: if something unethical is happening who is doing the unethical thing ? is robinson cano doing something unethical for taking the $0 million dollar contract ? or are the mariners doing something unethical for giving him the $0 million dollar contract ?  #  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.   # use what test equipment ? abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? we are all standing on the shoulders of one another just as ceos do with their companies.  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  i think this speaks to ops point of the self evaluation of the ceos who ca not discern how they   are not worth this much  when they just  closed a billion dollar deal.    #  \ here is another til,  exhorbent  is not an acceptable word URL  # a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.  that is pretty hard to do at the highest levels of society, i imagine.  as an aside, i know you are not interested in the practicality, but til,  about one and a half million americans earned the minimum wage in 0, but nearly two million people earned an hourly wage that was even less than URL $0 an hour.  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.  i think a law will not help the exhorbent   exorbitant wages for ceo is, but more of a collective cultural shift in how we view monetary gain.  \ here is another til,  exhorbent  is not an acceptable word URL  #  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.   # abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.  why would the test groups share the profits if the guy succeeds without sharing the losses if he fails ? i do not think you understand how acquisitions work.  a company does not simply get another company for free, they pay millions/billions of dollars to buy them out.  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.  the value that is  added  by the acquisition, which is the disparity between the price paid and the actual value of the company, is something created solely by the ceo.  in many cases, the price paid for the company is greater than the company is actual worth, in which case the ceo has cost the company money.  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  for every decision the ceo has available that will add millions of dollars of value, he has a hundred others available that will subtract millions of dollars of value, and he is tasked with the incredibly difficult job of deciding which is which.  that is not the case in your job.   #  it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.    # that is insanity ! how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ? the answer is he did not because: 0 he used company funds that paid for it did not take personal risk 0 he bought a company that had already been built and had been shown to be profitable how could he possibly created that base wealth ? piggy backed off the work of others this notion that  0 person  who is that helm of companies with multi billion dollar bank accounts and thousands of employees is the  isole creator  of wealth in these types of transactions is incorrect and imo leads to the oligarchy type rule we have today.  it makes sense to say that they played a large role in it compared to others, but the notion that they did it all by themselves is really just silly/inane.  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.  how/why do you dismiss the entire history of the company, the state of the economy in general, laws created by lobbyists, the safety to conduct business provided by the government, the work of the employees, the infrasturce roads/internet/etc.  required to conduct business, the money spent by consumers, etc ? it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.
let is assume that we have a ceo of a fortune 0 company, according to the afl cio, in the top 0 highest paid of 0 0, all of them made between 0m 0m from salary and bonuses.  the lowest paid employees in their company maybe made $0k.  ball park, that means that the ceo is 0 times more valuable than her lowest paid janitor.  this speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: the three of us work together, and all make 0k/yr.  at the end of the year, i am promoted to  amanager  of the two remaining workers.  now, it is not  fair  for us all to still be paid the same, after all i am in charge.  so take the same budget, $0k, and now i am the  boss  so i make 0k and so all that is left for the two people i manage is $0k each.  repeat this say 0 or 0 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today.  huge executive compensation, but why ? now, if the maximum salary in the company was 0k and i was offered a promotion to manager, would i somehow be less inclined to take it ? what about the next jump, to 0k ? and the next to 0 ? why is not it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and i have received a small merit increase ? why should i also make 0 to double what the people who report to me are making ? why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ? that is, liquid net worth should be   0m and our salary scale should be re adjusted such that a diligent worker hits this 0m mark after 0 years, while a very hard worker could do it in 0 0 .  also, consider the studies that have shown people who make more than $0k/yr report to being just as happy and satisfied as people who make $0k/yr now i would be willing to consider exemptions for pro athletes, or other  time dependent  jobs artist, architect etc could still make nearly a million dollars per year, since their  careers  when they are making a large amount of money could be relatively short.  i am not convinced that the athletes who make 0s of millions work or train 0 times harder than a teammate who makes 0k/yr.  or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 0m worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $0,0 that is, i think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we do not usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed.  for example, how much should it cost per night to board a dog ? URL in this case, regulation is needed.  lastly, i think once you start making a large amount of money, it becomes nearly impossible to see how you  are not worth this much  and so it is up to society to provide the framework we can all agree to before we know how lucky, or talented we might be.  ok but there is a huge problem; lots of people already have net worth more than 0m, or are paid way more than 0k/yr.  and how do we handle telling them ? with that, cmv.  obviously, since i just brought it up, i am not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be.  i am asking for cmv arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.   #  why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary  bonuses their employees at higher than a net total of 0k/yr during a 0 year career ?  #  first, there are not progressive taxes anymore.   # first, there are not progressive taxes anymore.  higher income rates are lower than for medium and low income rates.  secondly, how would you calculate this maximum income ? it is highly debatable, and politically it would be impossible to achieve.  the only good politically compromising solution right now, is to do what was already working in the 0s and 0s, it is not so far away, and it does not require a lot of political fight: gradually re increase income taxes.  maybe not to their full 0, but 0 or 0 would be a start.  although you gotta to stop wondering about new solutions and idea, and try to be politically realistic, you need to convince republicans, whining over inequality time is over i think.  that is why increasing income tax is a good thing to do.  several presidents lowered them, but there has to be some balance somewhere.   #  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.   # use what test equipment ? abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? we are all standing on the shoulders of one another just as ceos do with their companies.  while a ceo can make an important decision like to buy a smaller company that adds billions of dollars in value to the company, it is pretty silly to say it was the ceo, on his/her own, that added/created that value.  the reality is that the only reason a ceo could ever make a  valuable  decision like that is that he had lots of valuable things to chose from.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  i think this speaks to ops point of the self evaluation of the ceos who ca not discern how they   are not worth this much  when they just  closed a billion dollar deal.    #  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.   # a worthy   shrewd ceo would surround himself with high value employees.  that is pretty hard to do at the highest levels of society, i imagine.  as an aside, i know you are not interested in the practicality, but til,  about one and a half million americans earned the minimum wage in 0, but nearly two million people earned an hourly wage that was even less than URL $0 an hour.  a lot of those people are presumable service industry eployees who rely on tips.  there is no law that says you have to tip, but we do it as moral, ethical imperative.  i think a law will not help the exhorbent   exorbitant wages for ceo is, but more of a collective cultural shift in how we view monetary gain.  \ here is another til,  exhorbent  is not an acceptable word URL  #  using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.   # abiding by which health regulations ? using which test groups ? using the test equipment and groups that the scientist paid for that compensation is all he owes them.  why would the test groups share the profits if the guy succeeds without sharing the losses if he fails ? i do not think you understand how acquisitions work.  a company does not simply get another company for free, they pay millions/billions of dollars to buy them out.  the value added during an acquisition is not equal to the value of the acquired company, but rather the disparity between the value of the acquired company and the price paid for it.  the value that is  added  by the acquisition, which is the disparity between the price paid and the actual value of the company, is something created solely by the ceo.  in many cases, the price paid for the company is greater than the company is actual worth, in which case the ceo has cost the company money.  being able to accurately assess the value of a company is an incredibly difficult task in every acquisition, one of the ceos is wrong and has cost their shareholders money.  as a non ceo of a giant company, i am not presented with any choices that have such potential gain.  thus, a priori, i ca not add the same magnitude a values, which is strictly a function of the choice i have in front of me.  for every decision the ceo has available that will add millions of dollars of value, he has a hundred others available that will subtract millions of dollars of value, and he is tasked with the incredibly difficult job of deciding which is which.  that is not the case in your job.   #  it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.    # that is insanity ! how did the ceo  create  the value all by himself ? the answer is he did not because: 0 he used company funds that paid for it did not take personal risk 0 he bought a company that had already been built and had been shown to be profitable how could he possibly created that base wealth ? piggy backed off the work of others this notion that  0 person  who is that helm of companies with multi billion dollar bank accounts and thousands of employees is the  isole creator  of wealth in these types of transactions is incorrect and imo leads to the oligarchy type rule we have today.  it makes sense to say that they played a large role in it compared to others, but the notion that they did it all by themselves is really just silly/inane.  i agree that it is a difficult job and in many cases you can/should be paid handsomely for doing it well.  how/why do you dismiss the entire history of the company, the state of the economy in general, laws created by lobbyists, the safety to conduct business provided by the government, the work of the employees, the infrasturce roads/internet/etc.  required to conduct business, the money spent by consumers, etc ? it is impossible to attribute all of those essential factors to a successful business transaction and say it was  isolely the work of one person.
computers do math and manipulate symbols, fundamentally nothing different than what a human can do with a pencil and paper.  i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.  i am conscious therefor i am not the product of symbol manipulation, on paper, computer or other medium.  i understand that theoretically all of the particles that make up my brain and the world could be simulated, but those simulations could lead to the same conclusions even assuming there was no consciousness.  theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  this post is specifically a discussion about the relationship between data and consciousness.  this post URL is a more general discussion about simulations.   #  i understand that theoretically all of the particles that make up my brain and the world could be simulated, but those simulations could lead to the same conclusions even assuming there was no consciousness.   #  this implies that consciousness is something unobservable, and that a thing without consciousness will act indistinguishably from a thing that has consciousness.   # this does not follow.  the arising of consciousness is one of the larger scientific mysteries at the moment, but it could possibly be that given a powerful enough computer, and the appropriate code, it could attain consciousness.  we just do not know currently what the requirements are, and to claim otherwise is to assert something without evidence.  this implies that consciousness is something unobservable, and that a thing without consciousness will act indistinguishably from a thing that has consciousness.  again i am not sure why you are asserting this, i have no idea if this is true or not.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  this is data abstracted, it has no mechanism by which to act.  it is like writing down the equations necessary to cause a rocket ship to fly to the moon, then being baffled when it just sits motionless on the launchpad.  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.  if i take the written code for mario brothers and print it on paper, it will just sit there.  it will not do much of anything.  however, if i compile it and run it in the correct environment, suddenly i will see a small plumber killing turtles left and right.  if we are living in a simulation, it is the same situation.  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.  the concept that this could not also give rise to consciousness is simply an assertion without any particular reason to believe it.  if you believe in a completely material world, then any perfect simulation is indistinguishable from a  real  world, because all rules would be reconstructed exactly, and all interactions and emergence of complexity from those rules would be replicated perfectly as well.  what you seem to be saying is that it is impossible to create a perfect simulation, but i am not sure why you believe that.   #  i fear i have written too much an will come to endure another response from /u/gralthator.   #  not wanting to repeat myself or converse about trivialities i will limit my response to the following section:     theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  yes, the data does have a mechanism to act: methuselah and his stylus.  it is a perfect analog to anything that might happen inside of a computer.  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.  and yet this is the essence of the simulation theory.  take a data model of the universe and it is somehow supposed to be indistinguishable from a real universe.  it will not do much of anything.  however, if i compile it and run it in the correct environment, suddenly i will see a small plumber killing turtles left and right.  methuselah can look at the written code and flip lights making the same images as any computer.  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.  the simulation theory is purely data driven and does not even require lights or images, not that lights as a store of data are any more likely to give rise to consciousness than a clay tablet.  i fear i have written too much an will come to endure another response from /u/gralthator.  have no illusions.  there are no deltas down this road, but if otherwise motivated please continue without me.  in my experiences with cmv a response of any kind seems to give off the scent of a delta and i am not sure if there is a better way to say, nope, not down this road.   #  there is no evidence for the claim and it really does not mean anything in the first place, so there is no reason why it should even be on your radar.   #  i think trying to disprove the claim that we are all living in a simulation is quixotic.  you are right that we are not living in a simulation and that we know this with certainty, but it is a serious mistake to try to prove that, because the claim that we are living in a simulation has no relation to evidence.  the simulation advocate will just say that something you do not know about might account for whatever argument you put forward, just as some people in this thread are saying that there might be a special kind of simulation that can give rise to consciousness even if we do not know what it is.  my point is that you are being irrational, albeit in a noble kind of way, by so much as considering the claim that we are living in a simulation.  there is no evidence for the claim and it really does not mean anything in the first place, so there is no reason why it should even be on your radar.  not every grammatically correct string of words is a coherent proposition.  refuting a theory just because someone claims to be able to imagine it is no more productive than theology.  spend your time on something else.   #  do comments have to attempt to change my stated view ?  #  do comments have to attempt to change my stated view ? you seems to be challenging an implied statement that this is a worthy line of inquiry.  i have not read one comment yet that took that tack, of the  areal  universe being unknowable.  the closest would be a few saying the nature of conscious is unknown.  asking this question has challenged may understanding of math, consciousness and the physical world.  that hardly seems quixotic.   #  i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.   # i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.  sometimes those electrical signals are routed in such a way that they do math.  just like our brains route electrical signals, and sometimes use them to do math.  i appreciate this insight.     what is the difference between routing electrical signals with synthetic parts and routing electrical signals with organic parts ? this is not consistent with simulation theory that the thing being simulated gets literally created, ie to simulate a conscious being is to create consciousness.  yes, the computer, or some sub system, doing the simulation, or any other operation, may happen to become conscious, but that is more related to ai than simulation, right ?
computers do math and manipulate symbols, fundamentally nothing different than what a human can do with a pencil and paper.  i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.  i am conscious therefor i am not the product of symbol manipulation, on paper, computer or other medium.  i understand that theoretically all of the particles that make up my brain and the world could be simulated, but those simulations could lead to the same conclusions even assuming there was no consciousness.  theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  this post is specifically a discussion about the relationship between data and consciousness.  this post URL is a more general discussion about simulations.   #  theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.   #  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.   # this does not follow.  the arising of consciousness is one of the larger scientific mysteries at the moment, but it could possibly be that given a powerful enough computer, and the appropriate code, it could attain consciousness.  we just do not know currently what the requirements are, and to claim otherwise is to assert something without evidence.  this implies that consciousness is something unobservable, and that a thing without consciousness will act indistinguishably from a thing that has consciousness.  again i am not sure why you are asserting this, i have no idea if this is true or not.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  this is data abstracted, it has no mechanism by which to act.  it is like writing down the equations necessary to cause a rocket ship to fly to the moon, then being baffled when it just sits motionless on the launchpad.  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.  if i take the written code for mario brothers and print it on paper, it will just sit there.  it will not do much of anything.  however, if i compile it and run it in the correct environment, suddenly i will see a small plumber killing turtles left and right.  if we are living in a simulation, it is the same situation.  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.  the concept that this could not also give rise to consciousness is simply an assertion without any particular reason to believe it.  if you believe in a completely material world, then any perfect simulation is indistinguishable from a  real  world, because all rules would be reconstructed exactly, and all interactions and emergence of complexity from those rules would be replicated perfectly as well.  what you seem to be saying is that it is impossible to create a perfect simulation, but i am not sure why you believe that.   #  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.   #  not wanting to repeat myself or converse about trivialities i will limit my response to the following section:     theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  yes, the data does have a mechanism to act: methuselah and his stylus.  it is a perfect analog to anything that might happen inside of a computer.  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.  and yet this is the essence of the simulation theory.  take a data model of the universe and it is somehow supposed to be indistinguishable from a real universe.  it will not do much of anything.  however, if i compile it and run it in the correct environment, suddenly i will see a small plumber killing turtles left and right.  methuselah can look at the written code and flip lights making the same images as any computer.  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.  the simulation theory is purely data driven and does not even require lights or images, not that lights as a store of data are any more likely to give rise to consciousness than a clay tablet.  i fear i have written too much an will come to endure another response from /u/gralthator.  have no illusions.  there are no deltas down this road, but if otherwise motivated please continue without me.  in my experiences with cmv a response of any kind seems to give off the scent of a delta and i am not sure if there is a better way to say, nope, not down this road.   #  my point is that you are being irrational, albeit in a noble kind of way, by so much as considering the claim that we are living in a simulation.   #  i think trying to disprove the claim that we are all living in a simulation is quixotic.  you are right that we are not living in a simulation and that we know this with certainty, but it is a serious mistake to try to prove that, because the claim that we are living in a simulation has no relation to evidence.  the simulation advocate will just say that something you do not know about might account for whatever argument you put forward, just as some people in this thread are saying that there might be a special kind of simulation that can give rise to consciousness even if we do not know what it is.  my point is that you are being irrational, albeit in a noble kind of way, by so much as considering the claim that we are living in a simulation.  there is no evidence for the claim and it really does not mean anything in the first place, so there is no reason why it should even be on your radar.  not every grammatically correct string of words is a coherent proposition.  refuting a theory just because someone claims to be able to imagine it is no more productive than theology.  spend your time on something else.   #  i have not read one comment yet that took that tack, of the  areal  universe being unknowable.   #  do comments have to attempt to change my stated view ? you seems to be challenging an implied statement that this is a worthy line of inquiry.  i have not read one comment yet that took that tack, of the  areal  universe being unknowable.  the closest would be a few saying the nature of conscious is unknown.  asking this question has challenged may understanding of math, consciousness and the physical world.  that hardly seems quixotic.   #  sometimes those electrical signals are routed in such a way that they do math.   # i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.  sometimes those electrical signals are routed in such a way that they do math.  just like our brains route electrical signals, and sometimes use them to do math.  i appreciate this insight.     what is the difference between routing electrical signals with synthetic parts and routing electrical signals with organic parts ? this is not consistent with simulation theory that the thing being simulated gets literally created, ie to simulate a conscious being is to create consciousness.  yes, the computer, or some sub system, doing the simulation, or any other operation, may happen to become conscious, but that is more related to ai than simulation, right ?
computers do math and manipulate symbols, fundamentally nothing different than what a human can do with a pencil and paper.  i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.  i am conscious therefor i am not the product of symbol manipulation, on paper, computer or other medium.  i understand that theoretically all of the particles that make up my brain and the world could be simulated, but those simulations could lead to the same conclusions even assuming there was no consciousness.  theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  this post is specifically a discussion about the relationship between data and consciousness.  this post URL is a more general discussion about simulations.   #  computers do math and manipulate symbols, fundamentally nothing different than what a human can do with a pencil and paper.   #  i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.   # i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.  no, computers route electrical signals.  sometimes those electrical signals are routed in such a way that they do math.  just like our brains route electrical signals, and sometimes use them to do math.  what is the difference between routing electrical signals with synthetic parts and routing electrical signals with organic parts ?  #  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.   # this does not follow.  the arising of consciousness is one of the larger scientific mysteries at the moment, but it could possibly be that given a powerful enough computer, and the appropriate code, it could attain consciousness.  we just do not know currently what the requirements are, and to claim otherwise is to assert something without evidence.  this implies that consciousness is something unobservable, and that a thing without consciousness will act indistinguishably from a thing that has consciousness.  again i am not sure why you are asserting this, i have no idea if this is true or not.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  this is data abstracted, it has no mechanism by which to act.  it is like writing down the equations necessary to cause a rocket ship to fly to the moon, then being baffled when it just sits motionless on the launchpad.  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.  if i take the written code for mario brothers and print it on paper, it will just sit there.  it will not do much of anything.  however, if i compile it and run it in the correct environment, suddenly i will see a small plumber killing turtles left and right.  if we are living in a simulation, it is the same situation.  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.  the concept that this could not also give rise to consciousness is simply an assertion without any particular reason to believe it.  if you believe in a completely material world, then any perfect simulation is indistinguishable from a  real  world, because all rules would be reconstructed exactly, and all interactions and emergence of complexity from those rules would be replicated perfectly as well.  what you seem to be saying is that it is impossible to create a perfect simulation, but i am not sure why you believe that.   #  the simulation theory is purely data driven and does not even require lights or images, not that lights as a store of data are any more likely to give rise to consciousness than a clay tablet.   #  not wanting to repeat myself or converse about trivialities i will limit my response to the following section:     theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  yes, the data does have a mechanism to act: methuselah and his stylus.  it is a perfect analog to anything that might happen inside of a computer.  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.  and yet this is the essence of the simulation theory.  take a data model of the universe and it is somehow supposed to be indistinguishable from a real universe.  it will not do much of anything.  however, if i compile it and run it in the correct environment, suddenly i will see a small plumber killing turtles left and right.  methuselah can look at the written code and flip lights making the same images as any computer.  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.  the simulation theory is purely data driven and does not even require lights or images, not that lights as a store of data are any more likely to give rise to consciousness than a clay tablet.  i fear i have written too much an will come to endure another response from /u/gralthator.  have no illusions.  there are no deltas down this road, but if otherwise motivated please continue without me.  in my experiences with cmv a response of any kind seems to give off the scent of a delta and i am not sure if there is a better way to say, nope, not down this road.   #  my point is that you are being irrational, albeit in a noble kind of way, by so much as considering the claim that we are living in a simulation.   #  i think trying to disprove the claim that we are all living in a simulation is quixotic.  you are right that we are not living in a simulation and that we know this with certainty, but it is a serious mistake to try to prove that, because the claim that we are living in a simulation has no relation to evidence.  the simulation advocate will just say that something you do not know about might account for whatever argument you put forward, just as some people in this thread are saying that there might be a special kind of simulation that can give rise to consciousness even if we do not know what it is.  my point is that you are being irrational, albeit in a noble kind of way, by so much as considering the claim that we are living in a simulation.  there is no evidence for the claim and it really does not mean anything in the first place, so there is no reason why it should even be on your radar.  not every grammatically correct string of words is a coherent proposition.  refuting a theory just because someone claims to be able to imagine it is no more productive than theology.  spend your time on something else.   #  the closest would be a few saying the nature of conscious is unknown.   #  do comments have to attempt to change my stated view ? you seems to be challenging an implied statement that this is a worthy line of inquiry.  i have not read one comment yet that took that tack, of the  areal  universe being unknowable.  the closest would be a few saying the nature of conscious is unknown.  asking this question has challenged may understanding of math, consciousness and the physical world.  that hardly seems quixotic.
computers do math and manipulate symbols, fundamentally nothing different than what a human can do with a pencil and paper.  i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.  i am conscious therefor i am not the product of symbol manipulation, on paper, computer or other medium.  i understand that theoretically all of the particles that make up my brain and the world could be simulated, but those simulations could lead to the same conclusions even assuming there was no consciousness.  theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  this post is specifically a discussion about the relationship between data and consciousness.  this post URL is a more general discussion about simulations.   #  computers do math and manipulate symbols, fundamentally nothing different than what a human can do with a pencil and paper.   #  i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.   # i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.  sometimes those electrical signals are routed in such a way that they do math.  just like our brains route electrical signals, and sometimes use them to do math.  i appreciate this insight.     what is the difference between routing electrical signals with synthetic parts and routing electrical signals with organic parts ? this is not consistent with simulation theory that the thing being simulated gets literally created, ie to simulate a conscious being is to create consciousness.  yes, the computer, or some sub system, doing the simulation, or any other operation, may happen to become conscious, but that is more related to ai than simulation, right ?  #  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.   # this does not follow.  the arising of consciousness is one of the larger scientific mysteries at the moment, but it could possibly be that given a powerful enough computer, and the appropriate code, it could attain consciousness.  we just do not know currently what the requirements are, and to claim otherwise is to assert something without evidence.  this implies that consciousness is something unobservable, and that a thing without consciousness will act indistinguishably from a thing that has consciousness.  again i am not sure why you are asserting this, i have no idea if this is true or not.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  this is data abstracted, it has no mechanism by which to act.  it is like writing down the equations necessary to cause a rocket ship to fly to the moon, then being baffled when it just sits motionless on the launchpad.  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.  if i take the written code for mario brothers and print it on paper, it will just sit there.  it will not do much of anything.  however, if i compile it and run it in the correct environment, suddenly i will see a small plumber killing turtles left and right.  if we are living in a simulation, it is the same situation.  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.  the concept that this could not also give rise to consciousness is simply an assertion without any particular reason to believe it.  if you believe in a completely material world, then any perfect simulation is indistinguishable from a  real  world, because all rules would be reconstructed exactly, and all interactions and emergence of complexity from those rules would be replicated perfectly as well.  what you seem to be saying is that it is impossible to create a perfect simulation, but i am not sure why you believe that.   #  take a data model of the universe and it is somehow supposed to be indistinguishable from a real universe.   #  not wanting to repeat myself or converse about trivialities i will limit my response to the following section:     theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  yes, the data does have a mechanism to act: methuselah and his stylus.  it is a perfect analog to anything that might happen inside of a computer.  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.  and yet this is the essence of the simulation theory.  take a data model of the universe and it is somehow supposed to be indistinguishable from a real universe.  it will not do much of anything.  however, if i compile it and run it in the correct environment, suddenly i will see a small plumber killing turtles left and right.  methuselah can look at the written code and flip lights making the same images as any computer.  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.  the simulation theory is purely data driven and does not even require lights or images, not that lights as a store of data are any more likely to give rise to consciousness than a clay tablet.  i fear i have written too much an will come to endure another response from /u/gralthator.  have no illusions.  there are no deltas down this road, but if otherwise motivated please continue without me.  in my experiences with cmv a response of any kind seems to give off the scent of a delta and i am not sure if there is a better way to say, nope, not down this road.   #  not every grammatically correct string of words is a coherent proposition.   #  i think trying to disprove the claim that we are all living in a simulation is quixotic.  you are right that we are not living in a simulation and that we know this with certainty, but it is a serious mistake to try to prove that, because the claim that we are living in a simulation has no relation to evidence.  the simulation advocate will just say that something you do not know about might account for whatever argument you put forward, just as some people in this thread are saying that there might be a special kind of simulation that can give rise to consciousness even if we do not know what it is.  my point is that you are being irrational, albeit in a noble kind of way, by so much as considering the claim that we are living in a simulation.  there is no evidence for the claim and it really does not mean anything in the first place, so there is no reason why it should even be on your radar.  not every grammatically correct string of words is a coherent proposition.  refuting a theory just because someone claims to be able to imagine it is no more productive than theology.  spend your time on something else.   #  the closest would be a few saying the nature of conscious is unknown.   #  do comments have to attempt to change my stated view ? you seems to be challenging an implied statement that this is a worthy line of inquiry.  i have not read one comment yet that took that tack, of the  areal  universe being unknowable.  the closest would be a few saying the nature of conscious is unknown.  asking this question has challenged may understanding of math, consciousness and the physical world.  that hardly seems quixotic.
computers do math and manipulate symbols, fundamentally nothing different than what a human can do with a pencil and paper.  i think manipulating symbols on paper cannot create consciousness.  i am conscious therefor i am not the product of symbol manipulation, on paper, computer or other medium.  i understand that theoretically all of the particles that make up my brain and the world could be simulated, but those simulations could lead to the same conclusions even assuming there was no consciousness.  theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  this post is specifically a discussion about the relationship between data and consciousness.  this post URL is a more general discussion about simulations.   #  i am conscious therefor i am not the product of symbol manipulation, on paper, computer or other medium.   #  i do not want to be glib, but citation needed.   # i do not want to be glib, but citation needed.  i do not think at any point has any studies concluded that consciousness is limited to the physical world.  i think you are also showing a deep misunderstanding of mathematics.  mathematics is not just symbol manipulation, mathematics is a modeling to explain the nature of reality.  it is a set of theorems and definitions that we use to explain reality.   #  it is like writing down the equations necessary to cause a rocket ship to fly to the moon, then being baffled when it just sits motionless on the launchpad.   # this does not follow.  the arising of consciousness is one of the larger scientific mysteries at the moment, but it could possibly be that given a powerful enough computer, and the appropriate code, it could attain consciousness.  we just do not know currently what the requirements are, and to claim otherwise is to assert something without evidence.  this implies that consciousness is something unobservable, and that a thing without consciousness will act indistinguishably from a thing that has consciousness.  again i am not sure why you are asserting this, i have no idea if this is true or not.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  this is data abstracted, it has no mechanism by which to act.  it is like writing down the equations necessary to cause a rocket ship to fly to the moon, then being baffled when it just sits motionless on the launchpad.  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.  if i take the written code for mario brothers and print it on paper, it will just sit there.  it will not do much of anything.  however, if i compile it and run it in the correct environment, suddenly i will see a small plumber killing turtles left and right.  if we are living in a simulation, it is the same situation.  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.  the concept that this could not also give rise to consciousness is simply an assertion without any particular reason to believe it.  if you believe in a completely material world, then any perfect simulation is indistinguishable from a  real  world, because all rules would be reconstructed exactly, and all interactions and emergence of complexity from those rules would be replicated perfectly as well.  what you seem to be saying is that it is impossible to create a perfect simulation, but i am not sure why you believe that.   #  methuselah can look at the written code and flip lights making the same images as any computer.   #  not wanting to repeat myself or converse about trivialities i will limit my response to the following section:     theoretically speaking, if methuselah lived long enough and had enough clay tablets he could perform all of the calculations necessary to model all of the particles in the universe.  it is a leap of intuition that i am unable to make to consider that my consciousness exists because of a massive store of clay tablets.  yes, the data does have a mechanism to act: methuselah and his stylus.  it is a perfect analog to anything that might happen inside of a computer.  the fact that you can understand something is not sufficient to have it happen.  and yet this is the essence of the simulation theory.  take a data model of the universe and it is somehow supposed to be indistinguishable from a real universe.  it will not do much of anything.  however, if i compile it and run it in the correct environment, suddenly i will see a small plumber killing turtles left and right.  methuselah can look at the written code and flip lights making the same images as any computer.  it is possible to have data, taken and applied, create movement and rules and stimulus.  the simulation theory is purely data driven and does not even require lights or images, not that lights as a store of data are any more likely to give rise to consciousness than a clay tablet.  i fear i have written too much an will come to endure another response from /u/gralthator.  have no illusions.  there are no deltas down this road, but if otherwise motivated please continue without me.  in my experiences with cmv a response of any kind seems to give off the scent of a delta and i am not sure if there is a better way to say, nope, not down this road.   #  my point is that you are being irrational, albeit in a noble kind of way, by so much as considering the claim that we are living in a simulation.   #  i think trying to disprove the claim that we are all living in a simulation is quixotic.  you are right that we are not living in a simulation and that we know this with certainty, but it is a serious mistake to try to prove that, because the claim that we are living in a simulation has no relation to evidence.  the simulation advocate will just say that something you do not know about might account for whatever argument you put forward, just as some people in this thread are saying that there might be a special kind of simulation that can give rise to consciousness even if we do not know what it is.  my point is that you are being irrational, albeit in a noble kind of way, by so much as considering the claim that we are living in a simulation.  there is no evidence for the claim and it really does not mean anything in the first place, so there is no reason why it should even be on your radar.  not every grammatically correct string of words is a coherent proposition.  refuting a theory just because someone claims to be able to imagine it is no more productive than theology.  spend your time on something else.   #  i have not read one comment yet that took that tack, of the  areal  universe being unknowable.   #  do comments have to attempt to change my stated view ? you seems to be challenging an implied statement that this is a worthy line of inquiry.  i have not read one comment yet that took that tack, of the  areal  universe being unknowable.  the closest would be a few saying the nature of conscious is unknown.  asking this question has challenged may understanding of math, consciousness and the physical world.  that hardly seems quixotic.
i know this is a very sensitive subject and i do not want to come off as racist at all.  i know the term  nigger  is a derogatory term that the white man gave to african americans during slavery in order to degrade them.  however, today i feel as though the white man either discusses this word in whispers or does not say it at all.  society frowns upon racism and nobody wants to be labeled a racist just ask paula deen .  the  n  words most prosaic usage thrives in the african american community.  strangely, the one culture that fought to have the word expunged is now celebrating it.  in what appears to be a very peculiar defense mechanism, african american is use the  n  word to refer to their family, friends, or anyone else of the african american background.  oddly enough, the word can even be used amongst them as a term of endearment.  the  n  word keeps the idea of slavery alive and it is perplexing that those who suffered from slavery years ago are the ones using it most.  it is unfair to claim usage of a word and it is even more unfair to become agitated when someone else uses it.  african americans put a stamp on the word, and this dares other cultures to break that seal and say the  forbidden word.   when someone from a different background uses the word they are often labeled a racist or a wanna be.  for example, a 0 year old white boy who hears the  n  word in a rap song can be scorned for repeating it.  if african american is are so hypersensitive about the use of the  n  word by other cultures, it is bizarre that they refuse to let it die out in their own.  can someone justify the usage of the  n  word in african american culture or explain why it is used so frequently ? i would really like for someone to change my view on this.   #  it is unfair to claim usage of a word and it is even more unfair to become agitated when someone else uses it.   #  african americans put a stamp on the word, and this dares other cultures to break that seal and say the  forbidden word.    # african americans put a stamp on the word, and this dares other cultures to break that seal and say the  forbidden word.   when someone from a different background uses the word they are often labeled a racist or a wanna be.  for example, a 0 year old white boy who hears the  n  word in a rap song can be scorned for repeating it.  if african american is are so hypersensitive about the use of the  n  word by other cultures, it is bizarre that they refuse to let it die out in their own.  it seems like you are arguing whether or not other races should be able to use the word.  i hope i can help a bit.  but lets answer your question.  before i begin, i want to state that i am a black male who grew up in a poor neighborhood.  i heard the word a lot as a kid.  i have since moved from the ghetto.  now to your question: are black people to blame ? this question is something that i have asked myself before.  i think the answer is yes and no.  i am assuming you are not a black american so you ca not begin to understand the struggles that black people have had to endure to get where we are.  to me, black people who using the  n  word are trying to reclaim something that was taken from them: dignity.  or at least it started that way.  the word was used to subjugate the black race and make them seem less than human.  reclaiming/taking it back is a way to show history that we as black folk are strong and wo not let anything used to demean us get us down.  it is not something you can understand unless you have be subjected against discrimination based off of your skin color.  it is really hard to explain.  i read an analogy once that might help.  it is like everyone is running a race.  and one racer is running with chains on.  well now those chains are off, but he still carries around one of the rungs to remind himself of where he was.  as for justifying the word/why ca not other races say it: well i think tim wise said it best.  in case you do not know he is an activist.  to paraphrase, he said,  when it comes to the word, we should follow the rules of when we were kids: i can talk about my momma, but you sure as hell ca not talk about my momma.   for a better argument than i can give, check out this video: tim wise use of the n word.  URL  it is not seen as derogatory, but when used by outsiders it is generally not seen as acceptable because of how it was used historically by outsiders to insult and discriminate.   #  this is the demographic of african americans i was referring to.   #  i understand there are a lot of upper class and well to do african americans.  similarly, there are a lot of lower class, derelict white people.  i am not saying all black people follow this trend, but the sad truth is that an overwhelming amount of african americans in the us are still impoverished and are living in bad areas.  these are the places where the word  nigger  thrives.  again, i am not trying to put the community down it is just the sad truth in many cases.  this is the demographic of african americans i was referring to.  whether i say the word lives in the lower class african american community or the upper class community, it technically still exists  in  the african american community.  but now i have made the distinction since you raised a valid point.   #  i think you actually have a skewed view of the use of the n word.   #  i think you actually have a skewed view of the use of the n word.  its not just black people that use it; where i grew up, lots of people used the n word specifically,  nigga , not  nigger  casually blacks, chican s, filipinos, indians, even whites.  so why were not non black people getting scolded or ostracized for using the n word ? because the context of the community and our shared experiences made it like that .  everybody used it; nobody ever remembered when they  did not  use it.  black kids used it when talking to white kids; white kids used it when talking to asian kids; and so on.  nobody blinked an eye.  but guess what ? not all people have this similar context, and you can bet that none of us carried this local style of discourse outside, to where a similar context did not exist.  likewise, its absurd to think that a 0 year old white boy living in the suburbs should be able to use the n word openly, without fear of social reprisal its obvious that he did not have the same context of the word as does a community growing up in a poor urban community.   #  this seems both stupid and ridiculous for me.   # i am assume you are british and if so, our culture is not the same as yours.  and because we are having this conversation, i am going to assume you are not black. the usage of the word is not something you will be able to fully understand because you are not black.  the usage of the word is the black community is way of taking back some power from the years of slavery and segregation.  this seems both stupid and ridiculous for me.  well american history has been one double standard for the black community.  it seems ridiculous to you because you do not have to deal with the discrimination.  the history of the u. s.  has been ruled predominantly by white males that tried for years to keep blacks subjugated.  is it racist for one group to say it and not others ? it depends on the group.  again from the words of /u/televised revolution:  . when used by outsiders it is generally not seen as acceptable because of how it was used historically by outsiders to insult and discriminate.  check out this video.  maybe it can help.  tim wise use of the n word.  URL  #  if an old het dude called me a faggot i would not be very happy about it.   #  i identified as lesbian for a long time, and now as a trans man.  i love the word faggot.  i sling it around in regards to myself all the time.  i use it lovingly to describe people of any orientation.  i believe that everyone is at least a little bit of a faggot; in small doses i find it to be an admirable thing.  if an old het dude called me a faggot i would not be very happy about it.  i would not be too hurt because of the way i know the word as now, but i would know how he probably meant it, and that would irk me.  also the internet has ruined me.  thanks 0chan.  i still find  tranny  to be all out offensive.  at least faggot is just a mean word for a queer person.  tranny is making transexuality, a painful and uphill battle toward a true self, to be about some shallow fetish.  all about sex and dickgirls.  that is true debasement, and more than that, a stubborn adherence toward offensive ignorance.  they really do not want to understand what it really is.  that is what hurts me.  i do not even like it when other trans people call themselves or each other trannies.  that is not what we are.  do not let the cis people hear you call yourself that or they will believe that we all really are just fetishists parading around.  the momma example is the first time i have ever understood the mentality of the insular usage of the n word.  the words i described above are both derogatory and can be applied to me, but there is really no comparing them to the n word.  all of them have different histories of marginalization.  the closest i can come to a comparison to the n word is faggot, but op is not an n word, he is always a faggot.  it is so wide spread now by everyone that in internet culture, it is lost it is potency.  the n word will always be offensive, and everyone who is not black will never be able to say it.  everyone talks about the queer is momma, so she is become fair game ? i guess it is not the same ?
if you search for at least 0 seconds on reddit, you will find scores of people moaning and begroaning about how nobody wants them, and how no one will ever love them.  even if we ca not get rid of romantic desire, there are drugs given to pedophiles and sex offenders that can eliminate sexual desire.  to my knowledge, these drugs are not available to the public and they should be.  we need them because more and more people are unable to obtain sex, and these people should not have to suffer while they watch the rest of society benefit from being more attractive and confident.  why deal with something so pesky as sexual desire if nothing will ever come of it ? you are not getting married or having children, and with sexual desire comes depression.  getting rid of these desires for people like me is the best way to solve the problem.  speaking personally, feeling sexual desire is one of the absolutely worst parts of any given day for me, knowing deep down that there is no one out there who wants me as well.  imagine the millions of people like me going through this humiliation.  what is fresh and exciting for everyone else is just a personal hell for us, having these desires that we cannot satisfy.  so getting rid of them is best.  and hopefully, if these drugs are ever publicly available, i will stuff myself full of them to be rid of the demon that plagues the involuntarily celibate even today: sexual desire.   #  to my knowledge, these drugs are not available to the public and they should be.   #  hormone treatment requires supervision and has side effects.   # hormone treatment requires supervision and has side effects.  generally speaking chemical behavioural modification in the absence of actual harm is medically discouraged ie.  your sex drive annoys you, it does not stop you living your life .  therapy would be a far more appropriate medical option that drugs.  why should i feel  anything  if nothing practical comes of it ? i take medication for a chronic mental illness 0 .  one of the medications i tried took away all my emotions.  i loved it but i do not believe that is healthy.  today, many years down the track, i have learned how to experience and deal with  negative  emotions.  they are part of the experience of life, they are our brains trying to tell us something that pure cognition ca not.  you would not extinguish the ability to feel physical pain, that would result in harm.  emotional pain is  also  telling you something important.  if you are feeling sexual frustration, that is an important emotional sensation telling you that something is wrong.  ignoring that or quelling it assumes that the pain is not harmful, and i do not believe you can be so confident in that assumption.  well, you are just plain wrong about that.  whenever someone says that nobody will fuck them, i hear: my standards are unrealistic.  i have seen some of the most ghastly people alive have active sex lives.  if the bar is set so low that toothless and stinking homeless people can still pull, then you can still pull.  the other, and much harder for me to understand combination is the hot person with the normal or even unattractive person.  normally, people of equivalent attractiveness form pairs.  sometimes someone bucks that trend.  hitting above your weight does happen.  finally, if you are really just talking about sex instead of love, then prostitutes will always fuck you.  like most things in life, you can pay to get what you want.  0 buddy, you think you know pain ? try taking drugs that change your sex drive.  i have had drugs that made me think about nothing but sex.  i would walk around with tunnel vision and breathing heavily whilst thinking about pouncing on random strangers.  i would wank at every opportunity, until i was in pain.  i have had drugs that made me have erectile dysfunction.  i would want to wank, and it would not work.  i have had anhedonia, where i could get an erection, have an orgasm, but get no pleasure from it.  orgasms without pleasure  hurt  they cause physical pain.  i know.  my current drugs do not interfere with erectile function or satisfaction, but they have killed my interest.  i only wank every 0 0 days.  i do not screw around because it is against my values.  if i do not love someone then i do not see the point.   #  further, there are a whole pile of really awful side effects to what you are suggesting ex, mood swings, loss of muscle tone, weight gain .   #  it seems like an extremely rash solution that will not solve the problem people think.  loss of sexual desire wo not help with the feelings of loneliness, which, if unrequited lovers were honest with themselves, is what is really bothering them far more than not getting to do a specific activity sex .  further, there are a whole pile of really awful side effects to what you are suggesting ex, mood swings, loss of muscle tone, weight gain .  furthermore, on the off chance you do meet someone special and really hit it off, what then ? i really thought i would die alone at one point in my life and i was not looking for love at all when i met a pretty girl who changed my world for the better.   #  i will also add that rates of prostate cancer in sexually active men are drastically longer.   #  there is a lot of ways to lose fertility that are less permanent but in general you do not lose libido.  also in general even after castration libido is still nonzero.  castration in general, does not really solve anything it just intuitively seems to.  if you were miserable because you ca not get laid the solution would be to get laid, or just be more comfortable with masturbation, not to try to remove your libido.  i will also add that rates of prostate cancer in sexually active men are drastically longer.  i think the are a lot of other health benefits to regular ejaculation.   #  even the most beautiful people in the world envy others.   #  first of all, you are being way too down on yourself.  your envy of other people should not distract you from finding a mate that you like and that likes you.  there is bound to be someone out there, even if you must lower your standards and try to accept someone who is in a similar situation as you.  even the most beautiful people in the world envy others.  i would only say that your implications are appropriate if a person suffers from intense sexual desires that are a distraction from real life and duties of life.   #  there is plenty of average people that will love him.   #  i agree with you, but i was just going off of what he said.  if he truly feels as if he will never be  beautiful  or  perfect  and is not willing to do anything about it, i offered him somewhat of a last resort option.  of course bettering himself is always preferable, but he does not seem willing to do that.  therefor i offered him a solution for his  current  situation.  it sounds like he is jealous of the beautiful people because he is not one and knows one wo not be attracted to him.  i am saying he does not need a beautiful person to make him happy.  there is plenty of average people that will love him.
if you search for at least 0 seconds on reddit, you will find scores of people moaning and begroaning about how nobody wants them, and how no one will ever love them.  even if we ca not get rid of romantic desire, there are drugs given to pedophiles and sex offenders that can eliminate sexual desire.  to my knowledge, these drugs are not available to the public and they should be.  we need them because more and more people are unable to obtain sex, and these people should not have to suffer while they watch the rest of society benefit from being more attractive and confident.  why deal with something so pesky as sexual desire if nothing will ever come of it ? you are not getting married or having children, and with sexual desire comes depression.  getting rid of these desires for people like me is the best way to solve the problem.  speaking personally, feeling sexual desire is one of the absolutely worst parts of any given day for me, knowing deep down that there is no one out there who wants me as well.  imagine the millions of people like me going through this humiliation.  what is fresh and exciting for everyone else is just a personal hell for us, having these desires that we cannot satisfy.  so getting rid of them is best.  and hopefully, if these drugs are ever publicly available, i will stuff myself full of them to be rid of the demon that plagues the involuntarily celibate even today: sexual desire.   #  why deal with something so pesky as sexual desire if nothing will ever come of it ?  #  why should i feel  anything  if nothing practical comes of it ?  # hormone treatment requires supervision and has side effects.  generally speaking chemical behavioural modification in the absence of actual harm is medically discouraged ie.  your sex drive annoys you, it does not stop you living your life .  therapy would be a far more appropriate medical option that drugs.  why should i feel  anything  if nothing practical comes of it ? i take medication for a chronic mental illness 0 .  one of the medications i tried took away all my emotions.  i loved it but i do not believe that is healthy.  today, many years down the track, i have learned how to experience and deal with  negative  emotions.  they are part of the experience of life, they are our brains trying to tell us something that pure cognition ca not.  you would not extinguish the ability to feel physical pain, that would result in harm.  emotional pain is  also  telling you something important.  if you are feeling sexual frustration, that is an important emotional sensation telling you that something is wrong.  ignoring that or quelling it assumes that the pain is not harmful, and i do not believe you can be so confident in that assumption.  well, you are just plain wrong about that.  whenever someone says that nobody will fuck them, i hear: my standards are unrealistic.  i have seen some of the most ghastly people alive have active sex lives.  if the bar is set so low that toothless and stinking homeless people can still pull, then you can still pull.  the other, and much harder for me to understand combination is the hot person with the normal or even unattractive person.  normally, people of equivalent attractiveness form pairs.  sometimes someone bucks that trend.  hitting above your weight does happen.  finally, if you are really just talking about sex instead of love, then prostitutes will always fuck you.  like most things in life, you can pay to get what you want.  0 buddy, you think you know pain ? try taking drugs that change your sex drive.  i have had drugs that made me think about nothing but sex.  i would walk around with tunnel vision and breathing heavily whilst thinking about pouncing on random strangers.  i would wank at every opportunity, until i was in pain.  i have had drugs that made me have erectile dysfunction.  i would want to wank, and it would not work.  i have had anhedonia, where i could get an erection, have an orgasm, but get no pleasure from it.  orgasms without pleasure  hurt  they cause physical pain.  i know.  my current drugs do not interfere with erectile function or satisfaction, but they have killed my interest.  i only wank every 0 0 days.  i do not screw around because it is against my values.  if i do not love someone then i do not see the point.   #  further, there are a whole pile of really awful side effects to what you are suggesting ex, mood swings, loss of muscle tone, weight gain .   #  it seems like an extremely rash solution that will not solve the problem people think.  loss of sexual desire wo not help with the feelings of loneliness, which, if unrequited lovers were honest with themselves, is what is really bothering them far more than not getting to do a specific activity sex .  further, there are a whole pile of really awful side effects to what you are suggesting ex, mood swings, loss of muscle tone, weight gain .  furthermore, on the off chance you do meet someone special and really hit it off, what then ? i really thought i would die alone at one point in my life and i was not looking for love at all when i met a pretty girl who changed my world for the better.   #  if you were miserable because you ca not get laid the solution would be to get laid, or just be more comfortable with masturbation, not to try to remove your libido.   #  there is a lot of ways to lose fertility that are less permanent but in general you do not lose libido.  also in general even after castration libido is still nonzero.  castration in general, does not really solve anything it just intuitively seems to.  if you were miserable because you ca not get laid the solution would be to get laid, or just be more comfortable with masturbation, not to try to remove your libido.  i will also add that rates of prostate cancer in sexually active men are drastically longer.  i think the are a lot of other health benefits to regular ejaculation.   #  first of all, you are being way too down on yourself.   #  first of all, you are being way too down on yourself.  your envy of other people should not distract you from finding a mate that you like and that likes you.  there is bound to be someone out there, even if you must lower your standards and try to accept someone who is in a similar situation as you.  even the most beautiful people in the world envy others.  i would only say that your implications are appropriate if a person suffers from intense sexual desires that are a distraction from real life and duties of life.   #  there is plenty of average people that will love him.   #  i agree with you, but i was just going off of what he said.  if he truly feels as if he will never be  beautiful  or  perfect  and is not willing to do anything about it, i offered him somewhat of a last resort option.  of course bettering himself is always preferable, but he does not seem willing to do that.  therefor i offered him a solution for his  current  situation.  it sounds like he is jealous of the beautiful people because he is not one and knows one wo not be attracted to him.  i am saying he does not need a beautiful person to make him happy.  there is plenty of average people that will love him.
if you search for at least 0 seconds on reddit, you will find scores of people moaning and begroaning about how nobody wants them, and how no one will ever love them.  even if we ca not get rid of romantic desire, there are drugs given to pedophiles and sex offenders that can eliminate sexual desire.  to my knowledge, these drugs are not available to the public and they should be.  we need them because more and more people are unable to obtain sex, and these people should not have to suffer while they watch the rest of society benefit from being more attractive and confident.  why deal with something so pesky as sexual desire if nothing will ever come of it ? you are not getting married or having children, and with sexual desire comes depression.  getting rid of these desires for people like me is the best way to solve the problem.  speaking personally, feeling sexual desire is one of the absolutely worst parts of any given day for me, knowing deep down that there is no one out there who wants me as well.  imagine the millions of people like me going through this humiliation.  what is fresh and exciting for everyone else is just a personal hell for us, having these desires that we cannot satisfy.  so getting rid of them is best.  and hopefully, if these drugs are ever publicly available, i will stuff myself full of them to be rid of the demon that plagues the involuntarily celibate even today: sexual desire.   #  speaking personally, feeling sexual desire is one of the absolutely worst parts of any given day for me, knowing deep down that there is no one out there who wants me as well.   #  well, you are just plain wrong about that.   # hormone treatment requires supervision and has side effects.  generally speaking chemical behavioural modification in the absence of actual harm is medically discouraged ie.  your sex drive annoys you, it does not stop you living your life .  therapy would be a far more appropriate medical option that drugs.  why should i feel  anything  if nothing practical comes of it ? i take medication for a chronic mental illness 0 .  one of the medications i tried took away all my emotions.  i loved it but i do not believe that is healthy.  today, many years down the track, i have learned how to experience and deal with  negative  emotions.  they are part of the experience of life, they are our brains trying to tell us something that pure cognition ca not.  you would not extinguish the ability to feel physical pain, that would result in harm.  emotional pain is  also  telling you something important.  if you are feeling sexual frustration, that is an important emotional sensation telling you that something is wrong.  ignoring that or quelling it assumes that the pain is not harmful, and i do not believe you can be so confident in that assumption.  well, you are just plain wrong about that.  whenever someone says that nobody will fuck them, i hear: my standards are unrealistic.  i have seen some of the most ghastly people alive have active sex lives.  if the bar is set so low that toothless and stinking homeless people can still pull, then you can still pull.  the other, and much harder for me to understand combination is the hot person with the normal or even unattractive person.  normally, people of equivalent attractiveness form pairs.  sometimes someone bucks that trend.  hitting above your weight does happen.  finally, if you are really just talking about sex instead of love, then prostitutes will always fuck you.  like most things in life, you can pay to get what you want.  0 buddy, you think you know pain ? try taking drugs that change your sex drive.  i have had drugs that made me think about nothing but sex.  i would walk around with tunnel vision and breathing heavily whilst thinking about pouncing on random strangers.  i would wank at every opportunity, until i was in pain.  i have had drugs that made me have erectile dysfunction.  i would want to wank, and it would not work.  i have had anhedonia, where i could get an erection, have an orgasm, but get no pleasure from it.  orgasms without pleasure  hurt  they cause physical pain.  i know.  my current drugs do not interfere with erectile function or satisfaction, but they have killed my interest.  i only wank every 0 0 days.  i do not screw around because it is against my values.  if i do not love someone then i do not see the point.   #  further, there are a whole pile of really awful side effects to what you are suggesting ex, mood swings, loss of muscle tone, weight gain .   #  it seems like an extremely rash solution that will not solve the problem people think.  loss of sexual desire wo not help with the feelings of loneliness, which, if unrequited lovers were honest with themselves, is what is really bothering them far more than not getting to do a specific activity sex .  further, there are a whole pile of really awful side effects to what you are suggesting ex, mood swings, loss of muscle tone, weight gain .  furthermore, on the off chance you do meet someone special and really hit it off, what then ? i really thought i would die alone at one point in my life and i was not looking for love at all when i met a pretty girl who changed my world for the better.   #  there is a lot of ways to lose fertility that are less permanent but in general you do not lose libido.   #  there is a lot of ways to lose fertility that are less permanent but in general you do not lose libido.  also in general even after castration libido is still nonzero.  castration in general, does not really solve anything it just intuitively seems to.  if you were miserable because you ca not get laid the solution would be to get laid, or just be more comfortable with masturbation, not to try to remove your libido.  i will also add that rates of prostate cancer in sexually active men are drastically longer.  i think the are a lot of other health benefits to regular ejaculation.   #  your envy of other people should not distract you from finding a mate that you like and that likes you.   #  first of all, you are being way too down on yourself.  your envy of other people should not distract you from finding a mate that you like and that likes you.  there is bound to be someone out there, even if you must lower your standards and try to accept someone who is in a similar situation as you.  even the most beautiful people in the world envy others.  i would only say that your implications are appropriate if a person suffers from intense sexual desires that are a distraction from real life and duties of life.   #  there is plenty of average people that will love him.   #  i agree with you, but i was just going off of what he said.  if he truly feels as if he will never be  beautiful  or  perfect  and is not willing to do anything about it, i offered him somewhat of a last resort option.  of course bettering himself is always preferable, but he does not seem willing to do that.  therefor i offered him a solution for his  current  situation.  it sounds like he is jealous of the beautiful people because he is not one and knows one wo not be attracted to him.  i am saying he does not need a beautiful person to make him happy.  there is plenty of average people that will love him.
saying you belong to a political ideology makes you dogmatic.  society is dynamic and ca not go by the principles of one political ideology.  political ideologies are secular religions in this regard.  many self described liberals, libertarians, and conservatives rarely listen to each other on how to better society.  liberals see government as the only solution to all of society is ills.  conservatives and libertarians find government as the mere deterrent to social ills and adhere to free market fundamentalism as holy.  it is as if the free market makes everything a utopia.  these differences in dogma often resorts to divisive politics.  how is that any different to religious differences ?  #  many self described liberals, libertarians, and conservatives rarely listen to each other on how to better society.   #  no, you are being influenced by a congress that refuses to take anything the other side says.   # no, you are being influenced by a congress that refuses to take anything the other side says.  blatantly false statement.  how many liberals do you see complaining about private companies selling food ? how many liberals are complaining you can rent an apartment ? not many.  liberals believe in many cases that some things are best provided without a focus on profit.  e. g.  healthcare.  what ? name a gop member in congress who is not for a strong military.  name a republican who is against public driving laws and registration.   #  ideology is not the same thing as religion.   #  ideology is not the same thing as religion.  anyone thinking for themselves is going to have significant differences with the portions of the beliefs of any prevailing political ideology.  as larry wall once said about perl programmers, communities are defined by their centers, not by their peripheries.  when a person identifies with a center such as liberalism or conservatism, they are merely indicating which center they are closest to politically.  they are not, necessarily, saying they subscribe to a dogmatic set of beliefs in the same way as a catholic, jew, hindu, muslim, etc. , are when they identify as such.   #  this is only true if the members of each group all claim to hold similar views.   #  this is only true if the members of each group all claim to hold similar views.  sure, two liberals are going to be more similar than a liberal and a conservative, but anyone with more than two liberal friends can tell you that there is variety within each.  the other thing is, even if it is not terribly descriptive, this naming convention is helpful in politics.  if you consider yourself liberal, odds are you are going to agree more with a party that calls itself liberal than with one that calls itself conservative.  you may not agree with everything, but you will probably line up on enough major issues that it is acceptable.  it is a convenient shorthand, so unless people start requiring a baptism in antibiotic free raw milk to be considered a true democrat, it is not really the same as dogma.   #  if i were you i would not follow labels.   #  if i were you i would not follow labels.  calling yourself a libertarian sounds really edgy and all, but it really is a misunderstood movement.  i used to be a  libertarian  until i went to a rally, big mistake.  just because you think everyone deserves privacy, rights, etc.  does not make you a libertarian.  i was a marxist at heart, and i knew i could not stand for a non regulated economy.  when i saw all the  impeach obama !   loonies i knew this was not what i wanted.   #  but that is not everyone who categorizes themselves as liberal, conservative, or libertarian.   # that is your ideology; it is incorrect to call this the difference between being affiliated with an ideology or not.  rather, you believe that society does not go by the principles of one of the ideologies  you are opposing .  liberals see government as the only solution to all of society is ills.  conservatives and libertarians find government as the mere deterrent to social ills and adhere to free market fundamentalism as holy.  but that is not everyone who categorizes themselves as liberal, conservative, or libertarian.  the dogmatic ones are not  all  people in those categories, but rather the ones who behave the way you are describing.
saying you belong to a political ideology makes you dogmatic.  society is dynamic and ca not go by the principles of one political ideology.  political ideologies are secular religions in this regard.  many self described liberals, libertarians, and conservatives rarely listen to each other on how to better society.  liberals see government as the only solution to all of society is ills.  conservatives and libertarians find government as the mere deterrent to social ills and adhere to free market fundamentalism as holy.  it is as if the free market makes everything a utopia.  these differences in dogma often resorts to divisive politics.  how is that any different to religious differences ?  #  society is dynamic and ca not go by the principles of one political ideology.   #  that is your ideology; it is incorrect to call this the difference between being affiliated with an ideology or not.   # that is your ideology; it is incorrect to call this the difference between being affiliated with an ideology or not.  rather, you believe that society does not go by the principles of one of the ideologies  you are opposing .  liberals see government as the only solution to all of society is ills.  conservatives and libertarians find government as the mere deterrent to social ills and adhere to free market fundamentalism as holy.  but that is not everyone who categorizes themselves as liberal, conservative, or libertarian.  the dogmatic ones are not  all  people in those categories, but rather the ones who behave the way you are describing.   #  name a republican who is against public driving laws and registration.   # no, you are being influenced by a congress that refuses to take anything the other side says.  blatantly false statement.  how many liberals do you see complaining about private companies selling food ? how many liberals are complaining you can rent an apartment ? not many.  liberals believe in many cases that some things are best provided without a focus on profit.  e. g.  healthcare.  what ? name a gop member in congress who is not for a strong military.  name a republican who is against public driving laws and registration.   #  when a person identifies with a center such as liberalism or conservatism, they are merely indicating which center they are closest to politically.   #  ideology is not the same thing as religion.  anyone thinking for themselves is going to have significant differences with the portions of the beliefs of any prevailing political ideology.  as larry wall once said about perl programmers, communities are defined by their centers, not by their peripheries.  when a person identifies with a center such as liberalism or conservatism, they are merely indicating which center they are closest to politically.  they are not, necessarily, saying they subscribe to a dogmatic set of beliefs in the same way as a catholic, jew, hindu, muslim, etc. , are when they identify as such.   #  it is a convenient shorthand, so unless people start requiring a baptism in antibiotic free raw milk to be considered a true democrat, it is not really the same as dogma.   #  this is only true if the members of each group all claim to hold similar views.  sure, two liberals are going to be more similar than a liberal and a conservative, but anyone with more than two liberal friends can tell you that there is variety within each.  the other thing is, even if it is not terribly descriptive, this naming convention is helpful in politics.  if you consider yourself liberal, odds are you are going to agree more with a party that calls itself liberal than with one that calls itself conservative.  you may not agree with everything, but you will probably line up on enough major issues that it is acceptable.  it is a convenient shorthand, so unless people start requiring a baptism in antibiotic free raw milk to be considered a true democrat, it is not really the same as dogma.   #  i used to be a  libertarian  until i went to a rally, big mistake.   #  if i were you i would not follow labels.  calling yourself a libertarian sounds really edgy and all, but it really is a misunderstood movement.  i used to be a  libertarian  until i went to a rally, big mistake.  just because you think everyone deserves privacy, rights, etc.  does not make you a libertarian.  i was a marxist at heart, and i knew i could not stand for a non regulated economy.  when i saw all the  impeach obama !   loonies i knew this was not what i wanted.
saying you belong to a political ideology makes you dogmatic.  society is dynamic and ca not go by the principles of one political ideology.  political ideologies are secular religions in this regard.  many self described liberals, libertarians, and conservatives rarely listen to each other on how to better society.  liberals see government as the only solution to all of society is ills.  conservatives and libertarians find government as the mere deterrent to social ills and adhere to free market fundamentalism as holy.  it is as if the free market makes everything a utopia.  these differences in dogma often resorts to divisive politics.  how is that any different to religious differences ?  #  many self described liberals, libertarians, and conservatives rarely listen to each other on how to better society.   #  liberals see government as the only solution to all of society is ills.   # that is your ideology; it is incorrect to call this the difference between being affiliated with an ideology or not.  rather, you believe that society does not go by the principles of one of the ideologies  you are opposing .  liberals see government as the only solution to all of society is ills.  conservatives and libertarians find government as the mere deterrent to social ills and adhere to free market fundamentalism as holy.  but that is not everyone who categorizes themselves as liberal, conservative, or libertarian.  the dogmatic ones are not  all  people in those categories, but rather the ones who behave the way you are describing.   #  how many liberals do you see complaining about private companies selling food ?  # no, you are being influenced by a congress that refuses to take anything the other side says.  blatantly false statement.  how many liberals do you see complaining about private companies selling food ? how many liberals are complaining you can rent an apartment ? not many.  liberals believe in many cases that some things are best provided without a focus on profit.  e. g.  healthcare.  what ? name a gop member in congress who is not for a strong military.  name a republican who is against public driving laws and registration.   #  ideology is not the same thing as religion.   #  ideology is not the same thing as religion.  anyone thinking for themselves is going to have significant differences with the portions of the beliefs of any prevailing political ideology.  as larry wall once said about perl programmers, communities are defined by their centers, not by their peripheries.  when a person identifies with a center such as liberalism or conservatism, they are merely indicating which center they are closest to politically.  they are not, necessarily, saying they subscribe to a dogmatic set of beliefs in the same way as a catholic, jew, hindu, muslim, etc. , are when they identify as such.   #  this is only true if the members of each group all claim to hold similar views.   #  this is only true if the members of each group all claim to hold similar views.  sure, two liberals are going to be more similar than a liberal and a conservative, but anyone with more than two liberal friends can tell you that there is variety within each.  the other thing is, even if it is not terribly descriptive, this naming convention is helpful in politics.  if you consider yourself liberal, odds are you are going to agree more with a party that calls itself liberal than with one that calls itself conservative.  you may not agree with everything, but you will probably line up on enough major issues that it is acceptable.  it is a convenient shorthand, so unless people start requiring a baptism in antibiotic free raw milk to be considered a true democrat, it is not really the same as dogma.   #  i was a marxist at heart, and i knew i could not stand for a non regulated economy.   #  if i were you i would not follow labels.  calling yourself a libertarian sounds really edgy and all, but it really is a misunderstood movement.  i used to be a  libertarian  until i went to a rally, big mistake.  just because you think everyone deserves privacy, rights, etc.  does not make you a libertarian.  i was a marxist at heart, and i knew i could not stand for a non regulated economy.  when i saw all the  impeach obama !   loonies i knew this was not what i wanted.
drawing a foul in basketball as demonstrated on multiple occasions in this video URL is out of hand and downright unsportsmanlike.  i know the linked video was a compilation of only lebron james  drawn fouls, but it is not  just  lebron.  he is not even the worst offender.  it seems to be everyone or mostly everyone in the nba that does it, and players are actually praised for doing it consistently.  they even keep  fouls drawn  as an official stat.  basically, i think it is cheating.  they are pretending to be fouled to either use to score points, foul a good player out of the game, to stop play, or to take possession of the ball.  if not cheating, certainly unsportsmanlike.  in sports, part of  being the best  is to beat the best competition by using fair play, skill, and coaching.  the act of blatantly drawing a foul is utilizing none of these values, and is instead relying on a player is acting skills and has no relevance to the game of basketball.  you ca not defend against a drawn foul if a player anderson verejao comes to mind is convincing enough.  this seems to be a relatively new part of the game. i could be wrong, and correct me if i am, but i have absolutely no recollection of players taking dives during the jordan era, and i especially have no recollection of jordan doing it.  he would defeat his opponents with agility, footwork, dribbling, and shooting and did not rely on falling down when barely grazed as a means to score points.  even if jordan did this, i am not saying that makes it okay, because really, it takes away from the integrity of the game all together.  you see it a bit in college, but nothing compared to the nba.  it is comparable to pretending to be hit by a pitch in baseball, pretending to make a catch if nobody can see you, or pretending to be tripped in soccer.  i have been an athlete since about age 0, and i have been a competitive athlete since around age 0.  i wrestled, and played baseball, football, from age 0 through highschool, played football and wrestled in college, and played rugby for about 0 years after i stopped my other sports, and i tried soccer and basketball for a couple years each when i was a young kid.  aside from sliding or making a diving catch in baseball, you are typically taught to stay on your feet or, at the very least, to stay on top of the other person you are bringing down in every single sport, so it makes no sense to me at all that players are not only encouraged and praised for taking dives in basketball, but also  rewarded  with a foul for acting like a baby.  for this reason, i find the integrity of the nba to be flawed, and in turn, find it extremely frustrating to watch.  change my view.   #  it seems to be everyone or mostly everyone in the nba that does it, and players are actually praised for doing it consistently.   #  they even keep  fouls drawn  as an official stat.   # they even keep  fouls drawn  as an official stat.  i understand what you are saying, but drawing fouls also comes in the form of taking a charging foul.  when i played basketball i was good at drawing a charge, sometimes you get called for blocking and sometimes the ball handler gets a charging foul.  do you think charging should be removed from the game ? most of these fouls come from charging.  it is part of basketball and keeps the biggest dude there from bullying everyone else with his size.  they are pretending to be fouled to either use to score points, foul a good player out of the game, to stop play, or to take possession of the ball.  if not cheating, certainly unsportsmanlike.  drawing a charge is just good defense.  the rules are different in the nba though.  charge fouls are not team fouls like they are in other rules systems of basketball.  you ca not defend against a drawn foul if a player anderson verejao comes to mind is convincing enough.  if those were the only ideals in sports.  you forgot tactics, strategy, and playing smart.  the way you speak about basketball makes me wonder if you think setting a pick is cheating ? it is comparable to pretending to be hit by a pitch in baseball, pretending to make a catch if nobody can see you, or pretending to be tripped in soccer.  it is inside the rules, and you ca not get rid of it without getting rid of charging, which would definitely mess the game up.  btw he played on teams with jordan.  for this reason, i find the integrity of the nba to be flawed, and in turn, find it extremely frustrating to watch.  bottom line, yes it is annoying, but it is part of the game.  i feel the same way about fighting in ice hockey, wrecking someone in nascar, pass interference in football, but it is part of how the game is played.  in basketball especially it is integral mainly due to offensive fouls.   #  is the integrity of the nfl lol flawed  specifically  because there is holding on literally every down played ?  #  a very quick youtube search yields michael jordan flooping URL there is a bunch of single clips of him, john stockton, and tons of other smaller guards flopping all over the place in the 0s.  additionally, consider the rule changes in the nba since the 0s.  fighting, once commonplace, is now greeting with suspensions.   hard fouls  result in ejections, fines and suspensions.  playing  tough  defense is nearly impossible compared to twenty years ago, and since they made hard contact illegal, this was the natural result.  is the integrity of mlb flawed because some pitchers use pine tar or other substances ? is the integrity of the nfl lol flawed  specifically  because there is holding on literally every down played ?  #  a defender where physical contact would result a defensive foul.   #  drawing fouls is not the same thing as flopping.  drawing a foul means that you make a move vs.  a defender where physical contact would result a defensive foul.  it is down to the defender to actually foul the offense and because of how basketball is played, drawing fouls is very common.  as for the integrity of the nba, the former commissioner david stern has been very open about how flopping should be a more serious offense and commentators have freedom to directly criticize the referees and players.  comparing that to the sporting culture of european soccer, where referees have no accountability and associations and commentators brush these incidents under the rug, they have a lot of integrity.   #  i kept track of how many how many fouls i drew, and was very proud of what i high number it was, but i fucking hate diving cheating bitches and would never flop myself.   #  i agree the behavior in the video is cheating, just like diving in soccer.  it is bullshit for pussies who ca not win legitimately.  i am 0 in agreement that that video is cheating.  the part i disagree with is the use of the phrase  drawing fouls  to describe diving / flopping.  to me  drawing a foul  essentially means  to be actually fouled.   it depends on the sport, but often a player who is either very strong or very quick and therefore difficult to stop can often legitimately  draw fouls,  because they put the defense in difficult situations and it is difficult to stop them without actually fouling them.  i hate flopping / cheating, yet when i played lacrosse, i  drew  huge numbers of penalties.  i was very fast and strong, and would often get my defender off balance, and they would commit a foul in their desperate flailing attempts to stop me.  imo, unless you are a master flopper, you can almost draw more fouls just by fighting very hard through the initial contact.  their first  almost foul  will get the ref is attention, and if you manage to fight through it, there will often be secondary contact that the ref will call.  i kept track of how many how many fouls i drew, and was very proud of what i high number it was, but i fucking hate diving cheating bitches and would never flop myself.  there was a game where i drew 0 different penalties a huge number for one player in one game without flopping or acting, and i was very proud of that afterwords.  imo  drawing a foul  can also refer to intentionally putting yourself in a situation to be fouled.  the foul is legitimate, but you arranged for it to happen.  for example, drawing an actual charge in basketball.  or in soccer / lacrosse, if a defender is chasing you, and you unexpectedly stop so they plow you over and are called for a foul.  i would not call that cheating, because even though you intentionally set it up, they were not in control of their body and did actually foul you, you did not pretend.   #  that he gets there at the last moment does not change that.   #  how is taking a charge not a legitimate way to stop him ? the offensive player should not drive to the hoop if he ca not do it without plowing into a defender.  the defender gets to the position first and has every right to be there.  that he gets there at the last moment does not change that.  whether the defender falls down does not affect whther or not something is a charge.  if he embellishes by falling down on purpose to draw the ref is attention to it, i see your point but still do not think it is as bad as outright cheating.
drawing a foul in basketball as demonstrated on multiple occasions in this video URL is out of hand and downright unsportsmanlike.  i know the linked video was a compilation of only lebron james  drawn fouls, but it is not  just  lebron.  he is not even the worst offender.  it seems to be everyone or mostly everyone in the nba that does it, and players are actually praised for doing it consistently.  they even keep  fouls drawn  as an official stat.  basically, i think it is cheating.  they are pretending to be fouled to either use to score points, foul a good player out of the game, to stop play, or to take possession of the ball.  if not cheating, certainly unsportsmanlike.  in sports, part of  being the best  is to beat the best competition by using fair play, skill, and coaching.  the act of blatantly drawing a foul is utilizing none of these values, and is instead relying on a player is acting skills and has no relevance to the game of basketball.  you ca not defend against a drawn foul if a player anderson verejao comes to mind is convincing enough.  this seems to be a relatively new part of the game. i could be wrong, and correct me if i am, but i have absolutely no recollection of players taking dives during the jordan era, and i especially have no recollection of jordan doing it.  he would defeat his opponents with agility, footwork, dribbling, and shooting and did not rely on falling down when barely grazed as a means to score points.  even if jordan did this, i am not saying that makes it okay, because really, it takes away from the integrity of the game all together.  you see it a bit in college, but nothing compared to the nba.  it is comparable to pretending to be hit by a pitch in baseball, pretending to make a catch if nobody can see you, or pretending to be tripped in soccer.  i have been an athlete since about age 0, and i have been a competitive athlete since around age 0.  i wrestled, and played baseball, football, from age 0 through highschool, played football and wrestled in college, and played rugby for about 0 years after i stopped my other sports, and i tried soccer and basketball for a couple years each when i was a young kid.  aside from sliding or making a diving catch in baseball, you are typically taught to stay on your feet or, at the very least, to stay on top of the other person you are bringing down in every single sport, so it makes no sense to me at all that players are not only encouraged and praised for taking dives in basketball, but also  rewarded  with a foul for acting like a baby.  for this reason, i find the integrity of the nba to be flawed, and in turn, find it extremely frustrating to watch.  change my view.   #  the act of blatantly drawing a foul is utilizing none of these values, and is instead relying on a player is acting skills and has no relevance to the game of basketball.   #  you ca not defend against a drawn foul if a player anderson verejao comes to mind is convincing enough.   # they even keep  fouls drawn  as an official stat.  i understand what you are saying, but drawing fouls also comes in the form of taking a charging foul.  when i played basketball i was good at drawing a charge, sometimes you get called for blocking and sometimes the ball handler gets a charging foul.  do you think charging should be removed from the game ? most of these fouls come from charging.  it is part of basketball and keeps the biggest dude there from bullying everyone else with his size.  they are pretending to be fouled to either use to score points, foul a good player out of the game, to stop play, or to take possession of the ball.  if not cheating, certainly unsportsmanlike.  drawing a charge is just good defense.  the rules are different in the nba though.  charge fouls are not team fouls like they are in other rules systems of basketball.  you ca not defend against a drawn foul if a player anderson verejao comes to mind is convincing enough.  if those were the only ideals in sports.  you forgot tactics, strategy, and playing smart.  the way you speak about basketball makes me wonder if you think setting a pick is cheating ? it is comparable to pretending to be hit by a pitch in baseball, pretending to make a catch if nobody can see you, or pretending to be tripped in soccer.  it is inside the rules, and you ca not get rid of it without getting rid of charging, which would definitely mess the game up.  btw he played on teams with jordan.  for this reason, i find the integrity of the nba to be flawed, and in turn, find it extremely frustrating to watch.  bottom line, yes it is annoying, but it is part of the game.  i feel the same way about fighting in ice hockey, wrecking someone in nascar, pass interference in football, but it is part of how the game is played.  in basketball especially it is integral mainly due to offensive fouls.   #  playing  tough  defense is nearly impossible compared to twenty years ago, and since they made hard contact illegal, this was the natural result.   #  a very quick youtube search yields michael jordan flooping URL there is a bunch of single clips of him, john stockton, and tons of other smaller guards flopping all over the place in the 0s.  additionally, consider the rule changes in the nba since the 0s.  fighting, once commonplace, is now greeting with suspensions.   hard fouls  result in ejections, fines and suspensions.  playing  tough  defense is nearly impossible compared to twenty years ago, and since they made hard contact illegal, this was the natural result.  is the integrity of mlb flawed because some pitchers use pine tar or other substances ? is the integrity of the nfl lol flawed  specifically  because there is holding on literally every down played ?  #  drawing a foul means that you make a move vs.   #  drawing fouls is not the same thing as flopping.  drawing a foul means that you make a move vs.  a defender where physical contact would result a defensive foul.  it is down to the defender to actually foul the offense and because of how basketball is played, drawing fouls is very common.  as for the integrity of the nba, the former commissioner david stern has been very open about how flopping should be a more serious offense and commentators have freedom to directly criticize the referees and players.  comparing that to the sporting culture of european soccer, where referees have no accountability and associations and commentators brush these incidents under the rug, they have a lot of integrity.   #  i am 0 in agreement that that video is cheating.   #  i agree the behavior in the video is cheating, just like diving in soccer.  it is bullshit for pussies who ca not win legitimately.  i am 0 in agreement that that video is cheating.  the part i disagree with is the use of the phrase  drawing fouls  to describe diving / flopping.  to me  drawing a foul  essentially means  to be actually fouled.   it depends on the sport, but often a player who is either very strong or very quick and therefore difficult to stop can often legitimately  draw fouls,  because they put the defense in difficult situations and it is difficult to stop them without actually fouling them.  i hate flopping / cheating, yet when i played lacrosse, i  drew  huge numbers of penalties.  i was very fast and strong, and would often get my defender off balance, and they would commit a foul in their desperate flailing attempts to stop me.  imo, unless you are a master flopper, you can almost draw more fouls just by fighting very hard through the initial contact.  their first  almost foul  will get the ref is attention, and if you manage to fight through it, there will often be secondary contact that the ref will call.  i kept track of how many how many fouls i drew, and was very proud of what i high number it was, but i fucking hate diving cheating bitches and would never flop myself.  there was a game where i drew 0 different penalties a huge number for one player in one game without flopping or acting, and i was very proud of that afterwords.  imo  drawing a foul  can also refer to intentionally putting yourself in a situation to be fouled.  the foul is legitimate, but you arranged for it to happen.  for example, drawing an actual charge in basketball.  or in soccer / lacrosse, if a defender is chasing you, and you unexpectedly stop so they plow you over and are called for a foul.  i would not call that cheating, because even though you intentionally set it up, they were not in control of their body and did actually foul you, you did not pretend.   #  how is taking a charge not a legitimate way to stop him ?  #  how is taking a charge not a legitimate way to stop him ? the offensive player should not drive to the hoop if he ca not do it without plowing into a defender.  the defender gets to the position first and has every right to be there.  that he gets there at the last moment does not change that.  whether the defender falls down does not affect whther or not something is a charge.  if he embellishes by falling down on purpose to draw the ref is attention to it, i see your point but still do not think it is as bad as outright cheating.
drawing a foul in basketball as demonstrated on multiple occasions in this video URL is out of hand and downright unsportsmanlike.  i know the linked video was a compilation of only lebron james  drawn fouls, but it is not  just  lebron.  he is not even the worst offender.  it seems to be everyone or mostly everyone in the nba that does it, and players are actually praised for doing it consistently.  they even keep  fouls drawn  as an official stat.  basically, i think it is cheating.  they are pretending to be fouled to either use to score points, foul a good player out of the game, to stop play, or to take possession of the ball.  if not cheating, certainly unsportsmanlike.  in sports, part of  being the best  is to beat the best competition by using fair play, skill, and coaching.  the act of blatantly drawing a foul is utilizing none of these values, and is instead relying on a player is acting skills and has no relevance to the game of basketball.  you ca not defend against a drawn foul if a player anderson verejao comes to mind is convincing enough.  this seems to be a relatively new part of the game. i could be wrong, and correct me if i am, but i have absolutely no recollection of players taking dives during the jordan era, and i especially have no recollection of jordan doing it.  he would defeat his opponents with agility, footwork, dribbling, and shooting and did not rely on falling down when barely grazed as a means to score points.  even if jordan did this, i am not saying that makes it okay, because really, it takes away from the integrity of the game all together.  you see it a bit in college, but nothing compared to the nba.  it is comparable to pretending to be hit by a pitch in baseball, pretending to make a catch if nobody can see you, or pretending to be tripped in soccer.  i have been an athlete since about age 0, and i have been a competitive athlete since around age 0.  i wrestled, and played baseball, football, from age 0 through highschool, played football and wrestled in college, and played rugby for about 0 years after i stopped my other sports, and i tried soccer and basketball for a couple years each when i was a young kid.  aside from sliding or making a diving catch in baseball, you are typically taught to stay on your feet or, at the very least, to stay on top of the other person you are bringing down in every single sport, so it makes no sense to me at all that players are not only encouraged and praised for taking dives in basketball, but also  rewarded  with a foul for acting like a baby.  for this reason, i find the integrity of the nba to be flawed, and in turn, find it extremely frustrating to watch.  change my view.   #  you see it a bit in college, but nothing compared to the nba.   #  it is comparable to pretending to be hit by a pitch in baseball, pretending to make a catch if nobody can see you, or pretending to be tripped in soccer.   # they even keep  fouls drawn  as an official stat.  i understand what you are saying, but drawing fouls also comes in the form of taking a charging foul.  when i played basketball i was good at drawing a charge, sometimes you get called for blocking and sometimes the ball handler gets a charging foul.  do you think charging should be removed from the game ? most of these fouls come from charging.  it is part of basketball and keeps the biggest dude there from bullying everyone else with his size.  they are pretending to be fouled to either use to score points, foul a good player out of the game, to stop play, or to take possession of the ball.  if not cheating, certainly unsportsmanlike.  drawing a charge is just good defense.  the rules are different in the nba though.  charge fouls are not team fouls like they are in other rules systems of basketball.  you ca not defend against a drawn foul if a player anderson verejao comes to mind is convincing enough.  if those were the only ideals in sports.  you forgot tactics, strategy, and playing smart.  the way you speak about basketball makes me wonder if you think setting a pick is cheating ? it is comparable to pretending to be hit by a pitch in baseball, pretending to make a catch if nobody can see you, or pretending to be tripped in soccer.  it is inside the rules, and you ca not get rid of it without getting rid of charging, which would definitely mess the game up.  btw he played on teams with jordan.  for this reason, i find the integrity of the nba to be flawed, and in turn, find it extremely frustrating to watch.  bottom line, yes it is annoying, but it is part of the game.  i feel the same way about fighting in ice hockey, wrecking someone in nascar, pass interference in football, but it is part of how the game is played.  in basketball especially it is integral mainly due to offensive fouls.   #   hard fouls  result in ejections, fines and suspensions.   #  a very quick youtube search yields michael jordan flooping URL there is a bunch of single clips of him, john stockton, and tons of other smaller guards flopping all over the place in the 0s.  additionally, consider the rule changes in the nba since the 0s.  fighting, once commonplace, is now greeting with suspensions.   hard fouls  result in ejections, fines and suspensions.  playing  tough  defense is nearly impossible compared to twenty years ago, and since they made hard contact illegal, this was the natural result.  is the integrity of mlb flawed because some pitchers use pine tar or other substances ? is the integrity of the nfl lol flawed  specifically  because there is holding on literally every down played ?  #  as for the integrity of the nba, the former commissioner david stern has been very open about how flopping should be a more serious offense and commentators have freedom to directly criticize the referees and players.   #  drawing fouls is not the same thing as flopping.  drawing a foul means that you make a move vs.  a defender where physical contact would result a defensive foul.  it is down to the defender to actually foul the offense and because of how basketball is played, drawing fouls is very common.  as for the integrity of the nba, the former commissioner david stern has been very open about how flopping should be a more serious offense and commentators have freedom to directly criticize the referees and players.  comparing that to the sporting culture of european soccer, where referees have no accountability and associations and commentators brush these incidents under the rug, they have a lot of integrity.   #  or in soccer / lacrosse, if a defender is chasing you, and you unexpectedly stop so they plow you over and are called for a foul.   #  i agree the behavior in the video is cheating, just like diving in soccer.  it is bullshit for pussies who ca not win legitimately.  i am 0 in agreement that that video is cheating.  the part i disagree with is the use of the phrase  drawing fouls  to describe diving / flopping.  to me  drawing a foul  essentially means  to be actually fouled.   it depends on the sport, but often a player who is either very strong or very quick and therefore difficult to stop can often legitimately  draw fouls,  because they put the defense in difficult situations and it is difficult to stop them without actually fouling them.  i hate flopping / cheating, yet when i played lacrosse, i  drew  huge numbers of penalties.  i was very fast and strong, and would often get my defender off balance, and they would commit a foul in their desperate flailing attempts to stop me.  imo, unless you are a master flopper, you can almost draw more fouls just by fighting very hard through the initial contact.  their first  almost foul  will get the ref is attention, and if you manage to fight through it, there will often be secondary contact that the ref will call.  i kept track of how many how many fouls i drew, and was very proud of what i high number it was, but i fucking hate diving cheating bitches and would never flop myself.  there was a game where i drew 0 different penalties a huge number for one player in one game without flopping or acting, and i was very proud of that afterwords.  imo  drawing a foul  can also refer to intentionally putting yourself in a situation to be fouled.  the foul is legitimate, but you arranged for it to happen.  for example, drawing an actual charge in basketball.  or in soccer / lacrosse, if a defender is chasing you, and you unexpectedly stop so they plow you over and are called for a foul.  i would not call that cheating, because even though you intentionally set it up, they were not in control of their body and did actually foul you, you did not pretend.   #  that he gets there at the last moment does not change that.   #  how is taking a charge not a legitimate way to stop him ? the offensive player should not drive to the hoop if he ca not do it without plowing into a defender.  the defender gets to the position first and has every right to be there.  that he gets there at the last moment does not change that.  whether the defender falls down does not affect whther or not something is a charge.  if he embellishes by falling down on purpose to draw the ref is attention to it, i see your point but still do not think it is as bad as outright cheating.
video games are slowly being absolved by not the want or need to create something a person or a group of people are truly proud of, but instead are being thrown to developers as a way of generating income, and solely that and nothing else.  there is no joy in game development anymore, almost all big name aaa titles are being bred solely for cash income.  they are not made because someone thought they would be fun at least at the office , they are made because they know other people will buy them to entertain themselves for a small while, in the same way you would eat chips.  we eat chips not because they are delicious and well crafted, but because they are something that we just absentmindedly continue to consume, because they are simply  there  and we bought them.  video games are no longer made with the loving intention of being an interactive experience, back when a culture of video gamers were bent on escaping from reality and going to worlds we could only play pretend in our front yards.  now they are completely bent on being as realistic as possible, which can be done appropriately but there is no magic and captivating creativity in the aaa gaming industry.  tl;dr because publishers/developers/both want to make money, the effort and love and care put into video games is slowly going down.   #  video games are no longer made with the loving intention of being an interactive experience, back when a culture of video gamers were bent on escaping from reality and going to worlds we could only play pretend in our front yards.   #  now they are completely bent on being as realistic as possible, which can be done appropriately but there is no magic and captivating creativity in the aaa gaming industry.   # now they are completely bent on being as realistic as possible, which can be done appropriately but there is no magic and captivating creativity in the aaa gaming industry.  two things: first, the video game culture is rapidly changing from what you just said to a larger group of gamers who only play casually for entertainment.  there is still a core of gamers who fit the description of wanting an escape from reality, but the reality is that the gaming market has largely shifted away from this to more casual gamers.  secondly, does not making games more realistic make them seem more interactive and easier to escape in ? for example, when i play gtav i can escape the reality that i am a broke college student during my finals week and play a game where i am part of a small organized crime group and do absolutely ridiculous things.  if i want to play a sports game the more realistic it is the more absorbed i can get in the game itself.  the same goes for shooting games.  to me, the more realistic a game is the easier it is to simply get lost in it.   #  so yeah, independent developers and indie games are where the real creativity is happening right now, i think.   #  i agree that the video game industry is going down a bad path right now, but you need to take indie games and independent developers into consideration.  people will probably call me a fanboy but valve is a company run by gamers, for gamers.  they make good games first, and then they make the money.  they develop ways of making money without hurting the gamer, and try to provide a lot of content with their games.  dota and tf0 being good examples of that.  the indie scene is bigger than it is ever been, and there is no sign that it is slowing down.  there is tons of great indie titles to choose from, and they are all developed by real gamers who want to make great games.  one of my favorites, mount   blade, was developed by a turkish couple if i remember correctly.  so yeah, independent developers and indie games are where the real creativity is happening right now, i think.   #  gamers and game developers do not have the money/time/effort to show their own/their favorite games to everyone else.   #  i fully agree with the indie scene being our saving grace right now, but when will the indie game mindset and development process be placed into the same recognizably and media spotlight all these next gen aaa titles are going ? keep in mind, as a lot of video game characters have said themselves,  history is written by the victors.   what happens to the games that do not make it into the media coverage every call of duty installment garners just by being announced ? they eventually fall off the face of the internet and all the other popular gaming media we have left.  indie games lose their steam quicker due to not enough people pushing their quality and fun factor.  that is why they stay indie.  gamers and game developers do not have the money/time/effort to show their own/their favorite games to everyone else.   #  that was followed by the more professionally developed chivalry: medieval warfare, and chivalry: deadliest warrior.   #  well some indie titles do climb the ranks.  another one of my faves, chivalry, stated out as age of chivalry.  it was a really fun half life 0 mod that focused on melee combat.  that was followed by the more professionally developed chivalry: medieval warfare, and chivalry: deadliest warrior.  sure, most indie games will fade away, but it is on us the gamers to keep them going by supporting them and talking about them.  i will be making my grandkids play mount   blade, and if they do not i am writing them out of my will.   #  i am not sure what makes a studio considered aaa, but it was one of the bigger studios.   #  you talk about the big aaa publishers a lot, but right now we are going though something of a golden age for indie devs.  there are a huge number of indie developers who are making more games than ever before.  there are fewer hurdles between the game maker and the end user than ever, and this means that creative people who wo not compromise on their vision have an easier time spreading the games they make.  there are a wealth of new, interesting, and untested ideas that come out of the indie scene, and a ton of lovingly crafted and well executed games that it sounds like you are completely overlooking.  at my former job i worked at a company that made mmo is.  i am not sure what makes a studio considered aaa, but it was one of the bigger studios.  on the business end, of course there were decisions made about what would sell and what would not, and how to monetize, and all that  evil  stuff, but this is the way it has always been.  this has not changed recently.  the developers themselves the designers and artists and so on are trying to make the best game they can.  they  want  it to be a fun experience.  the people who work on games are not doing so to make the big bucks, they are there because they are passionate about making games.  making enough money to support the business is one of the constraints they have to balance, but its one of many.
the original lotr movies are masterpieces of fantasy filmmaking made with true heart and soul telling the epic story of the one true ring.  it had characters i cared about and liked with great character development and truly memorable scenes and sub plots that you rememered long after you had seen the films.  the hobbit is the exact opposite of that.  everything feels so cheap and dumbed down.  like in the commentary track for the original they mentioned that they did not put subtitles on place names like minas tirith because they thought the audience would be able to figure it out on their own but the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.  there are far too many characters to keep track of and because of that i end up not connecting to or getting to know any of them.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  despite the extremely long runtime no time is set aside to get to know these people with sub plots and charactirasation so i have no reason to care about any of them.  this also make the lengthy fight sequences redundant because i do not care about the characters so it all becomes the equalent of dangling key chain in front of my face.  it may be fun to a certain degree but it gets old quick.  and when it feels like they might just start letting us get to know them they waste time introducing characters that were not even in the original story to begin with.  and then the main character that i am supposed to care about and get to know is grossly under developed and nearly forgotten.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  then there is the completely useless sub plot of gandalf trying to figure out that sauron is coming back and i do not care about that because i already know everything from the first movies.  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  there is probably much more but i am not gonna say much more here.  it just sort of feels like peter jackson tried to squeeze as much stuff into the movies as possible in order to spread it out over 0 movies in order to make as much money as possible.  it is so dense, every single frame has so many things going on.   #  the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.   #  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.   #  first, the movies are entirely different genres just in the same skin.  the lord of the rings movies were epic fantasy.  the hobbit movies are pretty straightforward adventure movies.  judging them by the same standards would not be fair, though the confusion is fostered by the fact that jackson has included numerous references to the events of the lord of the rings such as the events with the necromancer which shifts the tone back towards epic fantasy.  i think this difference in genre is a large reason why you may feel the movie is  dumbed down .  the focus is on large set pieces, captures and escapes, rather than massive battles and the struggle of good versus evil.  notice, however, this difference was also in the books.  the hobbit was a children is book that was pretty straightforwardly an adventure tale.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  this seems like an extreme overreaction.  bree is rather nondescript, unlike the cities that are revisited in the previous trilogy.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  this seems to directly contradict your previous sentence  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.   even if you do not regard the complexity and characters as a  charming complexity  this really ca not be blamed on the movie.  the number of characters comes directly from the source material.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  this seems like a fair point, and bilbo did take a backseat in the second movie, but i did not have the same reaction as you, and it certainly does not go to support the idea that the hobbit was  overindulgent commercial diarrhea .  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  this is actually one of the most interesting parts of the movie for me, knowing the story from the appendices and silmarillion, but it will have to pay off in the final movie.  if they simply drop the whole plot line then it would be filler, but this is what makes the hobbit a prequel to the lord of the rings and not simply a separate movie entirely.  overall,  i agree that the hobbit is an inferior movie to the lord of the rings trilogy .  but these me that is all you have argued for.  i do not see how the movie being inferior makes it  overindulgent commercial diarrhea  like the star wars prequels.  first, people were clamoring for the hobbit to be made in the film.  second, many of your complaints stem from the source material, and third it is too early to know whether the split into three movies was commercially exploitative.  i found the second movie to be much better pace than the first, and if we get the payoff with the dol guldur storyline, then i do not see what would cause the criticism.   #  second, i think comparisons to the star wars prequels are suitable.   #  first, peter jackson is hardly using material from the appendices.  he does not even have the legal rights to use anything from  the silmarillion.  the subplots he is adding are more or less his own inventions, a few of which are loosely inspired by brief mentions in  the lord of the rings.  the way these subplots play out, versus tolkien is story, is very different.  second, i think comparisons to the star wars prequels are suitable.  they both overindulge in cgi.  both of their stories are significantly weaker, largely because they were consciously written to set up a known story in the future.  they both feature a great deal of poorly written dialogue.   #  for a fantasy story, this is narrative suicide.   #  cgi  can  be great.  it often is not.  it is often overdone and obvious, to the detriment of the film.  it reminds the viewer that they are, in fact, watching a movie.  for a fantasy story, this is narrative suicide.  any form of fantasy requires the one experiencing the story to be drawn into a secondary world where the unbelievable can exist and be real.  even the best of fantastic drama is in perilous danger of losing its power, for the viewer is more critical and more like to be drawn out of the subcreation than the reader.  when you start throwing in obviously fake imagery, the viewer is now someone stuck in a movie theater or simply left with nothing better to do at home trying to be impressed by the latest technology, rather than being immersed in a story and a world.  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  \ jrr tolkien, to his aunt jane neave, 0 november 0  #  it most certainly is not.  it can be read and enjoyed by children, but it was not written for children as  the hobbit  was.  i think it rather a pity, really.  it was not written for them.  but then i am a very  unvoracious  reader, and since i can seldom bring myself to read a work twice i think of the many things that i read too soon ! nothing, not even a possible deeper appreciation, for me replaces the bloom on a book, the freshness of the unread.  still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by  fate.   \ jrr tolkien, from a letter to mrs m.  wilson, 0 april 0  i had to think about it, however, before i gave an  andrew lang  lecture at st.  andrews on fairy stories; and i must say i think the result was entirely beneficial to  the lord of the rings , which was a practical demonstration of the views that i expressed.  it was  not  written  for children , or for any kind of person in particular, but for itself.  if any parts or elements in it appear  childish , it is because i am childish, and like that kind of thing myself  now .  i believe children do read it or listen to it eagerly, even quite young ones, and i am very pleased to hear it, though they must fail to understand most of it, and it is in any case stuffed with words that they are unlikely to understand if by that one means  arecognize as something already known .  i hope it increases their vocabularies.  \ jrr tolkien, to his aunt jane neave, 0 november 0  #  people seem to follow the logic that if something is for children, then adults wo not enjoy it.   #  it can be enjoyed by any audience.  i happen to enjoy things that were intended for children despite being an adult.  for example, i love mary poppins, i love water slides, and i love the lord of the rings.  i am also a  grown ass man.   i think this distinction frequently trips people up.  people seem to follow the logic that if something is for children, then adults wo not enjoy it.  and therefore, if they are an adult and enjoy it, then it is not for children.  this logic fails to incorporate that the domain of works for children is not mutually exclusive with that of works that adults can enjoy.  the book is marketed to children and it always has been, though.  in some regard, tolkien is not responsible for his work after its publishing.  it is almost always labelled for children or  young adults.   plenty of people enjoy books for children or young adults despite their age, see for instance the success of the harry potter series.  its target demographic is children and has been since its publication.
the original lotr movies are masterpieces of fantasy filmmaking made with true heart and soul telling the epic story of the one true ring.  it had characters i cared about and liked with great character development and truly memorable scenes and sub plots that you rememered long after you had seen the films.  the hobbit is the exact opposite of that.  everything feels so cheap and dumbed down.  like in the commentary track for the original they mentioned that they did not put subtitles on place names like minas tirith because they thought the audience would be able to figure it out on their own but the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.  there are far too many characters to keep track of and because of that i end up not connecting to or getting to know any of them.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  despite the extremely long runtime no time is set aside to get to know these people with sub plots and charactirasation so i have no reason to care about any of them.  this also make the lengthy fight sequences redundant because i do not care about the characters so it all becomes the equalent of dangling key chain in front of my face.  it may be fun to a certain degree but it gets old quick.  and when it feels like they might just start letting us get to know them they waste time introducing characters that were not even in the original story to begin with.  and then the main character that i am supposed to care about and get to know is grossly under developed and nearly forgotten.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  then there is the completely useless sub plot of gandalf trying to figure out that sauron is coming back and i do not care about that because i already know everything from the first movies.  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  there is probably much more but i am not gonna say much more here.  it just sort of feels like peter jackson tried to squeeze as much stuff into the movies as possible in order to spread it out over 0 movies in order to make as much money as possible.  it is so dense, every single frame has so many things going on.   #  there are far too many characters to keep track of and because of that i end up not connecting to or getting to know any of them.   #  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.   #  first, the movies are entirely different genres just in the same skin.  the lord of the rings movies were epic fantasy.  the hobbit movies are pretty straightforward adventure movies.  judging them by the same standards would not be fair, though the confusion is fostered by the fact that jackson has included numerous references to the events of the lord of the rings such as the events with the necromancer which shifts the tone back towards epic fantasy.  i think this difference in genre is a large reason why you may feel the movie is  dumbed down .  the focus is on large set pieces, captures and escapes, rather than massive battles and the struggle of good versus evil.  notice, however, this difference was also in the books.  the hobbit was a children is book that was pretty straightforwardly an adventure tale.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  this seems like an extreme overreaction.  bree is rather nondescript, unlike the cities that are revisited in the previous trilogy.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  this seems to directly contradict your previous sentence  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.   even if you do not regard the complexity and characters as a  charming complexity  this really ca not be blamed on the movie.  the number of characters comes directly from the source material.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  this seems like a fair point, and bilbo did take a backseat in the second movie, but i did not have the same reaction as you, and it certainly does not go to support the idea that the hobbit was  overindulgent commercial diarrhea .  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  this is actually one of the most interesting parts of the movie for me, knowing the story from the appendices and silmarillion, but it will have to pay off in the final movie.  if they simply drop the whole plot line then it would be filler, but this is what makes the hobbit a prequel to the lord of the rings and not simply a separate movie entirely.  overall,  i agree that the hobbit is an inferior movie to the lord of the rings trilogy .  but these me that is all you have argued for.  i do not see how the movie being inferior makes it  overindulgent commercial diarrhea  like the star wars prequels.  first, people were clamoring for the hobbit to be made in the film.  second, many of your complaints stem from the source material, and third it is too early to know whether the split into three movies was commercially exploitative.  i found the second movie to be much better pace than the first, and if we get the payoff with the dol guldur storyline, then i do not see what would cause the criticism.   #  the subplots he is adding are more or less his own inventions, a few of which are loosely inspired by brief mentions in  the lord of the rings.   #  first, peter jackson is hardly using material from the appendices.  he does not even have the legal rights to use anything from  the silmarillion.  the subplots he is adding are more or less his own inventions, a few of which are loosely inspired by brief mentions in  the lord of the rings.  the way these subplots play out, versus tolkien is story, is very different.  second, i think comparisons to the star wars prequels are suitable.  they both overindulge in cgi.  both of their stories are significantly weaker, largely because they were consciously written to set up a known story in the future.  they both feature a great deal of poorly written dialogue.   #  it reminds the viewer that they are, in fact, watching a movie.   #  cgi  can  be great.  it often is not.  it is often overdone and obvious, to the detriment of the film.  it reminds the viewer that they are, in fact, watching a movie.  for a fantasy story, this is narrative suicide.  any form of fantasy requires the one experiencing the story to be drawn into a secondary world where the unbelievable can exist and be real.  even the best of fantastic drama is in perilous danger of losing its power, for the viewer is more critical and more like to be drawn out of the subcreation than the reader.  when you start throwing in obviously fake imagery, the viewer is now someone stuck in a movie theater or simply left with nothing better to do at home trying to be impressed by the latest technology, rather than being immersed in a story and a world.  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by  fate.    #  it most certainly is not.  it can be read and enjoyed by children, but it was not written for children as  the hobbit  was.  i think it rather a pity, really.  it was not written for them.  but then i am a very  unvoracious  reader, and since i can seldom bring myself to read a work twice i think of the many things that i read too soon ! nothing, not even a possible deeper appreciation, for me replaces the bloom on a book, the freshness of the unread.  still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by  fate.   \ jrr tolkien, from a letter to mrs m.  wilson, 0 april 0  i had to think about it, however, before i gave an  andrew lang  lecture at st.  andrews on fairy stories; and i must say i think the result was entirely beneficial to  the lord of the rings , which was a practical demonstration of the views that i expressed.  it was  not  written  for children , or for any kind of person in particular, but for itself.  if any parts or elements in it appear  childish , it is because i am childish, and like that kind of thing myself  now .  i believe children do read it or listen to it eagerly, even quite young ones, and i am very pleased to hear it, though they must fail to understand most of it, and it is in any case stuffed with words that they are unlikely to understand if by that one means  arecognize as something already known .  i hope it increases their vocabularies.  \ jrr tolkien, to his aunt jane neave, 0 november 0  #  this logic fails to incorporate that the domain of works for children is not mutually exclusive with that of works that adults can enjoy.   #  it can be enjoyed by any audience.  i happen to enjoy things that were intended for children despite being an adult.  for example, i love mary poppins, i love water slides, and i love the lord of the rings.  i am also a  grown ass man.   i think this distinction frequently trips people up.  people seem to follow the logic that if something is for children, then adults wo not enjoy it.  and therefore, if they are an adult and enjoy it, then it is not for children.  this logic fails to incorporate that the domain of works for children is not mutually exclusive with that of works that adults can enjoy.  the book is marketed to children and it always has been, though.  in some regard, tolkien is not responsible for his work after its publishing.  it is almost always labelled for children or  young adults.   plenty of people enjoy books for children or young adults despite their age, see for instance the success of the harry potter series.  its target demographic is children and has been since its publication.
the original lotr movies are masterpieces of fantasy filmmaking made with true heart and soul telling the epic story of the one true ring.  it had characters i cared about and liked with great character development and truly memorable scenes and sub plots that you rememered long after you had seen the films.  the hobbit is the exact opposite of that.  everything feels so cheap and dumbed down.  like in the commentary track for the original they mentioned that they did not put subtitles on place names like minas tirith because they thought the audience would be able to figure it out on their own but the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.  there are far too many characters to keep track of and because of that i end up not connecting to or getting to know any of them.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  despite the extremely long runtime no time is set aside to get to know these people with sub plots and charactirasation so i have no reason to care about any of them.  this also make the lengthy fight sequences redundant because i do not care about the characters so it all becomes the equalent of dangling key chain in front of my face.  it may be fun to a certain degree but it gets old quick.  and when it feels like they might just start letting us get to know them they waste time introducing characters that were not even in the original story to begin with.  and then the main character that i am supposed to care about and get to know is grossly under developed and nearly forgotten.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  then there is the completely useless sub plot of gandalf trying to figure out that sauron is coming back and i do not care about that because i already know everything from the first movies.  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  there is probably much more but i am not gonna say much more here.  it just sort of feels like peter jackson tried to squeeze as much stuff into the movies as possible in order to spread it out over 0 movies in order to make as much money as possible.  it is so dense, every single frame has so many things going on.   #  and then the main character that i am supposed to care about and get to know is grossly under developed and nearly forgotten.   #  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.   #  first, the movies are entirely different genres just in the same skin.  the lord of the rings movies were epic fantasy.  the hobbit movies are pretty straightforward adventure movies.  judging them by the same standards would not be fair, though the confusion is fostered by the fact that jackson has included numerous references to the events of the lord of the rings such as the events with the necromancer which shifts the tone back towards epic fantasy.  i think this difference in genre is a large reason why you may feel the movie is  dumbed down .  the focus is on large set pieces, captures and escapes, rather than massive battles and the struggle of good versus evil.  notice, however, this difference was also in the books.  the hobbit was a children is book that was pretty straightforwardly an adventure tale.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  this seems like an extreme overreaction.  bree is rather nondescript, unlike the cities that are revisited in the previous trilogy.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  this seems to directly contradict your previous sentence  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.   even if you do not regard the complexity and characters as a  charming complexity  this really ca not be blamed on the movie.  the number of characters comes directly from the source material.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  this seems like a fair point, and bilbo did take a backseat in the second movie, but i did not have the same reaction as you, and it certainly does not go to support the idea that the hobbit was  overindulgent commercial diarrhea .  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  this is actually one of the most interesting parts of the movie for me, knowing the story from the appendices and silmarillion, but it will have to pay off in the final movie.  if they simply drop the whole plot line then it would be filler, but this is what makes the hobbit a prequel to the lord of the rings and not simply a separate movie entirely.  overall,  i agree that the hobbit is an inferior movie to the lord of the rings trilogy .  but these me that is all you have argued for.  i do not see how the movie being inferior makes it  overindulgent commercial diarrhea  like the star wars prequels.  first, people were clamoring for the hobbit to be made in the film.  second, many of your complaints stem from the source material, and third it is too early to know whether the split into three movies was commercially exploitative.  i found the second movie to be much better pace than the first, and if we get the payoff with the dol guldur storyline, then i do not see what would cause the criticism.   #  they both feature a great deal of poorly written dialogue.   #  first, peter jackson is hardly using material from the appendices.  he does not even have the legal rights to use anything from  the silmarillion.  the subplots he is adding are more or less his own inventions, a few of which are loosely inspired by brief mentions in  the lord of the rings.  the way these subplots play out, versus tolkien is story, is very different.  second, i think comparisons to the star wars prequels are suitable.  they both overindulge in cgi.  both of their stories are significantly weaker, largely because they were consciously written to set up a known story in the future.  they both feature a great deal of poorly written dialogue.   #  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  cgi  can  be great.  it often is not.  it is often overdone and obvious, to the detriment of the film.  it reminds the viewer that they are, in fact, watching a movie.  for a fantasy story, this is narrative suicide.  any form of fantasy requires the one experiencing the story to be drawn into a secondary world where the unbelievable can exist and be real.  even the best of fantastic drama is in perilous danger of losing its power, for the viewer is more critical and more like to be drawn out of the subcreation than the reader.  when you start throwing in obviously fake imagery, the viewer is now someone stuck in a movie theater or simply left with nothing better to do at home trying to be impressed by the latest technology, rather than being immersed in a story and a world.  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  but then i am a very  unvoracious  reader, and since i can seldom bring myself to read a work twice i think of the many things that i read too soon !  #  it most certainly is not.  it can be read and enjoyed by children, but it was not written for children as  the hobbit  was.  i think it rather a pity, really.  it was not written for them.  but then i am a very  unvoracious  reader, and since i can seldom bring myself to read a work twice i think of the many things that i read too soon ! nothing, not even a possible deeper appreciation, for me replaces the bloom on a book, the freshness of the unread.  still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by  fate.   \ jrr tolkien, from a letter to mrs m.  wilson, 0 april 0  i had to think about it, however, before i gave an  andrew lang  lecture at st.  andrews on fairy stories; and i must say i think the result was entirely beneficial to  the lord of the rings , which was a practical demonstration of the views that i expressed.  it was  not  written  for children , or for any kind of person in particular, but for itself.  if any parts or elements in it appear  childish , it is because i am childish, and like that kind of thing myself  now .  i believe children do read it or listen to it eagerly, even quite young ones, and i am very pleased to hear it, though they must fail to understand most of it, and it is in any case stuffed with words that they are unlikely to understand if by that one means  arecognize as something already known .  i hope it increases their vocabularies.  \ jrr tolkien, to his aunt jane neave, 0 november 0  #  its target demographic is children and has been since its publication.   #  it can be enjoyed by any audience.  i happen to enjoy things that were intended for children despite being an adult.  for example, i love mary poppins, i love water slides, and i love the lord of the rings.  i am also a  grown ass man.   i think this distinction frequently trips people up.  people seem to follow the logic that if something is for children, then adults wo not enjoy it.  and therefore, if they are an adult and enjoy it, then it is not for children.  this logic fails to incorporate that the domain of works for children is not mutually exclusive with that of works that adults can enjoy.  the book is marketed to children and it always has been, though.  in some regard, tolkien is not responsible for his work after its publishing.  it is almost always labelled for children or  young adults.   plenty of people enjoy books for children or young adults despite their age, see for instance the success of the harry potter series.  its target demographic is children and has been since its publication.
the original lotr movies are masterpieces of fantasy filmmaking made with true heart and soul telling the epic story of the one true ring.  it had characters i cared about and liked with great character development and truly memorable scenes and sub plots that you rememered long after you had seen the films.  the hobbit is the exact opposite of that.  everything feels so cheap and dumbed down.  like in the commentary track for the original they mentioned that they did not put subtitles on place names like minas tirith because they thought the audience would be able to figure it out on their own but the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.  there are far too many characters to keep track of and because of that i end up not connecting to or getting to know any of them.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  despite the extremely long runtime no time is set aside to get to know these people with sub plots and charactirasation so i have no reason to care about any of them.  this also make the lengthy fight sequences redundant because i do not care about the characters so it all becomes the equalent of dangling key chain in front of my face.  it may be fun to a certain degree but it gets old quick.  and when it feels like they might just start letting us get to know them they waste time introducing characters that were not even in the original story to begin with.  and then the main character that i am supposed to care about and get to know is grossly under developed and nearly forgotten.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  then there is the completely useless sub plot of gandalf trying to figure out that sauron is coming back and i do not care about that because i already know everything from the first movies.  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  there is probably much more but i am not gonna say much more here.  it just sort of feels like peter jackson tried to squeeze as much stuff into the movies as possible in order to spread it out over 0 movies in order to make as much money as possible.  it is so dense, every single frame has so many things going on.   #  then there is the completely useless sub plot of gandalf trying to figure out that sauron is coming back and i do not care about that because i already know everything from the first movies.   #  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.   #  first, the movies are entirely different genres just in the same skin.  the lord of the rings movies were epic fantasy.  the hobbit movies are pretty straightforward adventure movies.  judging them by the same standards would not be fair, though the confusion is fostered by the fact that jackson has included numerous references to the events of the lord of the rings such as the events with the necromancer which shifts the tone back towards epic fantasy.  i think this difference in genre is a large reason why you may feel the movie is  dumbed down .  the focus is on large set pieces, captures and escapes, rather than massive battles and the struggle of good versus evil.  notice, however, this difference was also in the books.  the hobbit was a children is book that was pretty straightforwardly an adventure tale.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  this seems like an extreme overreaction.  bree is rather nondescript, unlike the cities that are revisited in the previous trilogy.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  this seems to directly contradict your previous sentence  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.   even if you do not regard the complexity and characters as a  charming complexity  this really ca not be blamed on the movie.  the number of characters comes directly from the source material.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  this seems like a fair point, and bilbo did take a backseat in the second movie, but i did not have the same reaction as you, and it certainly does not go to support the idea that the hobbit was  overindulgent commercial diarrhea .  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  this is actually one of the most interesting parts of the movie for me, knowing the story from the appendices and silmarillion, but it will have to pay off in the final movie.  if they simply drop the whole plot line then it would be filler, but this is what makes the hobbit a prequel to the lord of the rings and not simply a separate movie entirely.  overall,  i agree that the hobbit is an inferior movie to the lord of the rings trilogy .  but these me that is all you have argued for.  i do not see how the movie being inferior makes it  overindulgent commercial diarrhea  like the star wars prequels.  first, people were clamoring for the hobbit to be made in the film.  second, many of your complaints stem from the source material, and third it is too early to know whether the split into three movies was commercially exploitative.  i found the second movie to be much better pace than the first, and if we get the payoff with the dol guldur storyline, then i do not see what would cause the criticism.   #  they both feature a great deal of poorly written dialogue.   #  first, peter jackson is hardly using material from the appendices.  he does not even have the legal rights to use anything from  the silmarillion.  the subplots he is adding are more or less his own inventions, a few of which are loosely inspired by brief mentions in  the lord of the rings.  the way these subplots play out, versus tolkien is story, is very different.  second, i think comparisons to the star wars prequels are suitable.  they both overindulge in cgi.  both of their stories are significantly weaker, largely because they were consciously written to set up a known story in the future.  they both feature a great deal of poorly written dialogue.   #  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  cgi  can  be great.  it often is not.  it is often overdone and obvious, to the detriment of the film.  it reminds the viewer that they are, in fact, watching a movie.  for a fantasy story, this is narrative suicide.  any form of fantasy requires the one experiencing the story to be drawn into a secondary world where the unbelievable can exist and be real.  even the best of fantastic drama is in perilous danger of losing its power, for the viewer is more critical and more like to be drawn out of the subcreation than the reader.  when you start throwing in obviously fake imagery, the viewer is now someone stuck in a movie theater or simply left with nothing better to do at home trying to be impressed by the latest technology, rather than being immersed in a story and a world.  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  \ jrr tolkien, to his aunt jane neave, 0 november 0  #  it most certainly is not.  it can be read and enjoyed by children, but it was not written for children as  the hobbit  was.  i think it rather a pity, really.  it was not written for them.  but then i am a very  unvoracious  reader, and since i can seldom bring myself to read a work twice i think of the many things that i read too soon ! nothing, not even a possible deeper appreciation, for me replaces the bloom on a book, the freshness of the unread.  still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by  fate.   \ jrr tolkien, from a letter to mrs m.  wilson, 0 april 0  i had to think about it, however, before i gave an  andrew lang  lecture at st.  andrews on fairy stories; and i must say i think the result was entirely beneficial to  the lord of the rings , which was a practical demonstration of the views that i expressed.  it was  not  written  for children , or for any kind of person in particular, but for itself.  if any parts or elements in it appear  childish , it is because i am childish, and like that kind of thing myself  now .  i believe children do read it or listen to it eagerly, even quite young ones, and i am very pleased to hear it, though they must fail to understand most of it, and it is in any case stuffed with words that they are unlikely to understand if by that one means  arecognize as something already known .  i hope it increases their vocabularies.  \ jrr tolkien, to his aunt jane neave, 0 november 0  #  it is almost always labelled for children or  young adults.    #  it can be enjoyed by any audience.  i happen to enjoy things that were intended for children despite being an adult.  for example, i love mary poppins, i love water slides, and i love the lord of the rings.  i am also a  grown ass man.   i think this distinction frequently trips people up.  people seem to follow the logic that if something is for children, then adults wo not enjoy it.  and therefore, if they are an adult and enjoy it, then it is not for children.  this logic fails to incorporate that the domain of works for children is not mutually exclusive with that of works that adults can enjoy.  the book is marketed to children and it always has been, though.  in some regard, tolkien is not responsible for his work after its publishing.  it is almost always labelled for children or  young adults.   plenty of people enjoy books for children or young adults despite their age, see for instance the success of the harry potter series.  its target demographic is children and has been since its publication.
the original lotr movies are masterpieces of fantasy filmmaking made with true heart and soul telling the epic story of the one true ring.  it had characters i cared about and liked with great character development and truly memorable scenes and sub plots that you rememered long after you had seen the films.  the hobbit is the exact opposite of that.  everything feels so cheap and dumbed down.  like in the commentary track for the original they mentioned that they did not put subtitles on place names like minas tirith because they thought the audience would be able to figure it out on their own but the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.  there are far too many characters to keep track of and because of that i end up not connecting to or getting to know any of them.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  despite the extremely long runtime no time is set aside to get to know these people with sub plots and charactirasation so i have no reason to care about any of them.  this also make the lengthy fight sequences redundant because i do not care about the characters so it all becomes the equalent of dangling key chain in front of my face.  it may be fun to a certain degree but it gets old quick.  and when it feels like they might just start letting us get to know them they waste time introducing characters that were not even in the original story to begin with.  and then the main character that i am supposed to care about and get to know is grossly under developed and nearly forgotten.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  then there is the completely useless sub plot of gandalf trying to figure out that sauron is coming back and i do not care about that because i already know everything from the first movies.  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  there is probably much more but i am not gonna say much more here.  it just sort of feels like peter jackson tried to squeeze as much stuff into the movies as possible in order to spread it out over 0 movies in order to make as much money as possible.  it is so dense, every single frame has so many things going on.   #  there are far too many characters to keep track of and because of that i end up not connecting to or getting to know any of them.   #  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.   # like in the commentary track for the original they mentioned that they did not put subtitles on place names like minas tirith because they thought the audience would be able to figure it out on their own but the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.  in the lotr films, there was always a fair bit of dialog to clue the viewer in on things like locations.  the opening scene of dos only has the dimly lit sign of the prancing pony to let the viewer know where they are.  and that is only helpful if they have seen the lotr movies or read the books.  then add the fact that auj left off with the party on an eagle is perch and dos starts with a flash back in a town that will not be mentioned again, it is pretty logical to sub the town is name and location.  as for the  complexity  or lack thereof ; it is kind of supposed to be.  comparatively speaking,  the hobbit  is an extremely linear story as compared to lotr.  as /u/sillybonobo mentioned,  the hobbit  is a simple adventure and  the lord of the rings  is a fantasy epic.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  despite the extremely long runtime no time is set aside to get to know these people with sub plots and charactirasation so i have no reason to care about any of them.  this also make the lengthy fight sequences redundant because i do not care about the characters so it all becomes the equalent of dangling key chain in front of my face.  it may be fun to a certain degree but it gets old quick.  and when it feels like they might just start letting us get to know them they waste time introducing characters that were not even in the original story to begin with.  it would be pointless to delve into each dwarf is background.  you just do not need to know.  really they barely even need names.  would you care about the back story of random riders of the mark in lotr ? it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  the hobbit sets the stage for lotr.  without the subplot, how do you explain gandalf up and abandoning thorin co.  ? this is all just part of the story.  so it lacks complexity but it is too dense ?  #  i think this difference in genre is a large reason why you may feel the movie is  dumbed down .   #  first, the movies are entirely different genres just in the same skin.  the lord of the rings movies were epic fantasy.  the hobbit movies are pretty straightforward adventure movies.  judging them by the same standards would not be fair, though the confusion is fostered by the fact that jackson has included numerous references to the events of the lord of the rings such as the events with the necromancer which shifts the tone back towards epic fantasy.  i think this difference in genre is a large reason why you may feel the movie is  dumbed down .  the focus is on large set pieces, captures and escapes, rather than massive battles and the struggle of good versus evil.  notice, however, this difference was also in the books.  the hobbit was a children is book that was pretty straightforwardly an adventure tale.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  this seems like an extreme overreaction.  bree is rather nondescript, unlike the cities that are revisited in the previous trilogy.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  this seems to directly contradict your previous sentence  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.   even if you do not regard the complexity and characters as a  charming complexity  this really ca not be blamed on the movie.  the number of characters comes directly from the source material.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  this seems like a fair point, and bilbo did take a backseat in the second movie, but i did not have the same reaction as you, and it certainly does not go to support the idea that the hobbit was  overindulgent commercial diarrhea .  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  this is actually one of the most interesting parts of the movie for me, knowing the story from the appendices and silmarillion, but it will have to pay off in the final movie.  if they simply drop the whole plot line then it would be filler, but this is what makes the hobbit a prequel to the lord of the rings and not simply a separate movie entirely.  overall,  i agree that the hobbit is an inferior movie to the lord of the rings trilogy .  but these me that is all you have argued for.  i do not see how the movie being inferior makes it  overindulgent commercial diarrhea  like the star wars prequels.  first, people were clamoring for the hobbit to be made in the film.  second, many of your complaints stem from the source material, and third it is too early to know whether the split into three movies was commercially exploitative.  i found the second movie to be much better pace than the first, and if we get the payoff with the dol guldur storyline, then i do not see what would cause the criticism.   #  the subplots he is adding are more or less his own inventions, a few of which are loosely inspired by brief mentions in  the lord of the rings.   #  first, peter jackson is hardly using material from the appendices.  he does not even have the legal rights to use anything from  the silmarillion.  the subplots he is adding are more or less his own inventions, a few of which are loosely inspired by brief mentions in  the lord of the rings.  the way these subplots play out, versus tolkien is story, is very different.  second, i think comparisons to the star wars prequels are suitable.  they both overindulge in cgi.  both of their stories are significantly weaker, largely because they were consciously written to set up a known story in the future.  they both feature a great deal of poorly written dialogue.   #  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  cgi  can  be great.  it often is not.  it is often overdone and obvious, to the detriment of the film.  it reminds the viewer that they are, in fact, watching a movie.  for a fantasy story, this is narrative suicide.  any form of fantasy requires the one experiencing the story to be drawn into a secondary world where the unbelievable can exist and be real.  even the best of fantastic drama is in perilous danger of losing its power, for the viewer is more critical and more like to be drawn out of the subcreation than the reader.  when you start throwing in obviously fake imagery, the viewer is now someone stuck in a movie theater or simply left with nothing better to do at home trying to be impressed by the latest technology, rather than being immersed in a story and a world.  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  but then i am a very  unvoracious  reader, and since i can seldom bring myself to read a work twice i think of the many things that i read too soon !  #  it most certainly is not.  it can be read and enjoyed by children, but it was not written for children as  the hobbit  was.  i think it rather a pity, really.  it was not written for them.  but then i am a very  unvoracious  reader, and since i can seldom bring myself to read a work twice i think of the many things that i read too soon ! nothing, not even a possible deeper appreciation, for me replaces the bloom on a book, the freshness of the unread.  still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by  fate.   \ jrr tolkien, from a letter to mrs m.  wilson, 0 april 0  i had to think about it, however, before i gave an  andrew lang  lecture at st.  andrews on fairy stories; and i must say i think the result was entirely beneficial to  the lord of the rings , which was a practical demonstration of the views that i expressed.  it was  not  written  for children , or for any kind of person in particular, but for itself.  if any parts or elements in it appear  childish , it is because i am childish, and like that kind of thing myself  now .  i believe children do read it or listen to it eagerly, even quite young ones, and i am very pleased to hear it, though they must fail to understand most of it, and it is in any case stuffed with words that they are unlikely to understand if by that one means  arecognize as something already known .  i hope it increases their vocabularies.  \ jrr tolkien, to his aunt jane neave, 0 november 0
the original lotr movies are masterpieces of fantasy filmmaking made with true heart and soul telling the epic story of the one true ring.  it had characters i cared about and liked with great character development and truly memorable scenes and sub plots that you rememered long after you had seen the films.  the hobbit is the exact opposite of that.  everything feels so cheap and dumbed down.  like in the commentary track for the original they mentioned that they did not put subtitles on place names like minas tirith because they thought the audience would be able to figure it out on their own but the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.  there are far too many characters to keep track of and because of that i end up not connecting to or getting to know any of them.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  despite the extremely long runtime no time is set aside to get to know these people with sub plots and charactirasation so i have no reason to care about any of them.  this also make the lengthy fight sequences redundant because i do not care about the characters so it all becomes the equalent of dangling key chain in front of my face.  it may be fun to a certain degree but it gets old quick.  and when it feels like they might just start letting us get to know them they waste time introducing characters that were not even in the original story to begin with.  and then the main character that i am supposed to care about and get to know is grossly under developed and nearly forgotten.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  then there is the completely useless sub plot of gandalf trying to figure out that sauron is coming back and i do not care about that because i already know everything from the first movies.  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  there is probably much more but i am not gonna say much more here.  it just sort of feels like peter jackson tried to squeeze as much stuff into the movies as possible in order to spread it out over 0 movies in order to make as much money as possible.  it is so dense, every single frame has so many things going on.   #  then there is the completely useless sub plot of gandalf trying to figure out that sauron is coming back and i do not care about that because i already know everything from the first movies.   #  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.   # like in the commentary track for the original they mentioned that they did not put subtitles on place names like minas tirith because they thought the audience would be able to figure it out on their own but the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.  in the lotr films, there was always a fair bit of dialog to clue the viewer in on things like locations.  the opening scene of dos only has the dimly lit sign of the prancing pony to let the viewer know where they are.  and that is only helpful if they have seen the lotr movies or read the books.  then add the fact that auj left off with the party on an eagle is perch and dos starts with a flash back in a town that will not be mentioned again, it is pretty logical to sub the town is name and location.  as for the  complexity  or lack thereof ; it is kind of supposed to be.  comparatively speaking,  the hobbit  is an extremely linear story as compared to lotr.  as /u/sillybonobo mentioned,  the hobbit  is a simple adventure and  the lord of the rings  is a fantasy epic.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  despite the extremely long runtime no time is set aside to get to know these people with sub plots and charactirasation so i have no reason to care about any of them.  this also make the lengthy fight sequences redundant because i do not care about the characters so it all becomes the equalent of dangling key chain in front of my face.  it may be fun to a certain degree but it gets old quick.  and when it feels like they might just start letting us get to know them they waste time introducing characters that were not even in the original story to begin with.  it would be pointless to delve into each dwarf is background.  you just do not need to know.  really they barely even need names.  would you care about the back story of random riders of the mark in lotr ? it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  the hobbit sets the stage for lotr.  without the subplot, how do you explain gandalf up and abandoning thorin co.  ? this is all just part of the story.  so it lacks complexity but it is too dense ?  #  this seems to directly contradict your previous sentence  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.    #  first, the movies are entirely different genres just in the same skin.  the lord of the rings movies were epic fantasy.  the hobbit movies are pretty straightforward adventure movies.  judging them by the same standards would not be fair, though the confusion is fostered by the fact that jackson has included numerous references to the events of the lord of the rings such as the events with the necromancer which shifts the tone back towards epic fantasy.  i think this difference in genre is a large reason why you may feel the movie is  dumbed down .  the focus is on large set pieces, captures and escapes, rather than massive battles and the struggle of good versus evil.  notice, however, this difference was also in the books.  the hobbit was a children is book that was pretty straightforwardly an adventure tale.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  this seems like an extreme overreaction.  bree is rather nondescript, unlike the cities that are revisited in the previous trilogy.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  this seems to directly contradict your previous sentence  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.   even if you do not regard the complexity and characters as a  charming complexity  this really ca not be blamed on the movie.  the number of characters comes directly from the source material.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  this seems like a fair point, and bilbo did take a backseat in the second movie, but i did not have the same reaction as you, and it certainly does not go to support the idea that the hobbit was  overindulgent commercial diarrhea .  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  this is actually one of the most interesting parts of the movie for me, knowing the story from the appendices and silmarillion, but it will have to pay off in the final movie.  if they simply drop the whole plot line then it would be filler, but this is what makes the hobbit a prequel to the lord of the rings and not simply a separate movie entirely.  overall,  i agree that the hobbit is an inferior movie to the lord of the rings trilogy .  but these me that is all you have argued for.  i do not see how the movie being inferior makes it  overindulgent commercial diarrhea  like the star wars prequels.  first, people were clamoring for the hobbit to be made in the film.  second, many of your complaints stem from the source material, and third it is too early to know whether the split into three movies was commercially exploitative.  i found the second movie to be much better pace than the first, and if we get the payoff with the dol guldur storyline, then i do not see what would cause the criticism.   #  the subplots he is adding are more or less his own inventions, a few of which are loosely inspired by brief mentions in  the lord of the rings.   #  first, peter jackson is hardly using material from the appendices.  he does not even have the legal rights to use anything from  the silmarillion.  the subplots he is adding are more or less his own inventions, a few of which are loosely inspired by brief mentions in  the lord of the rings.  the way these subplots play out, versus tolkien is story, is very different.  second, i think comparisons to the star wars prequels are suitable.  they both overindulge in cgi.  both of their stories are significantly weaker, largely because they were consciously written to set up a known story in the future.  they both feature a great deal of poorly written dialogue.   #  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  cgi  can  be great.  it often is not.  it is often overdone and obvious, to the detriment of the film.  it reminds the viewer that they are, in fact, watching a movie.  for a fantasy story, this is narrative suicide.  any form of fantasy requires the one experiencing the story to be drawn into a secondary world where the unbelievable can exist and be real.  even the best of fantastic drama is in perilous danger of losing its power, for the viewer is more critical and more like to be drawn out of the subcreation than the reader.  when you start throwing in obviously fake imagery, the viewer is now someone stuck in a movie theater or simply left with nothing better to do at home trying to be impressed by the latest technology, rather than being immersed in a story and a world.  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  it was  not  written  for children , or for any kind of person in particular, but for itself.   #  it most certainly is not.  it can be read and enjoyed by children, but it was not written for children as  the hobbit  was.  i think it rather a pity, really.  it was not written for them.  but then i am a very  unvoracious  reader, and since i can seldom bring myself to read a work twice i think of the many things that i read too soon ! nothing, not even a possible deeper appreciation, for me replaces the bloom on a book, the freshness of the unread.  still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by  fate.   \ jrr tolkien, from a letter to mrs m.  wilson, 0 april 0  i had to think about it, however, before i gave an  andrew lang  lecture at st.  andrews on fairy stories; and i must say i think the result was entirely beneficial to  the lord of the rings , which was a practical demonstration of the views that i expressed.  it was  not  written  for children , or for any kind of person in particular, but for itself.  if any parts or elements in it appear  childish , it is because i am childish, and like that kind of thing myself  now .  i believe children do read it or listen to it eagerly, even quite young ones, and i am very pleased to hear it, though they must fail to understand most of it, and it is in any case stuffed with words that they are unlikely to understand if by that one means  arecognize as something already known .  i hope it increases their vocabularies.  \ jrr tolkien, to his aunt jane neave, 0 november 0
the original lotr movies are masterpieces of fantasy filmmaking made with true heart and soul telling the epic story of the one true ring.  it had characters i cared about and liked with great character development and truly memorable scenes and sub plots that you rememered long after you had seen the films.  the hobbit is the exact opposite of that.  everything feels so cheap and dumbed down.  like in the commentary track for the original they mentioned that they did not put subtitles on place names like minas tirith because they thought the audience would be able to figure it out on their own but the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.  there are far too many characters to keep track of and because of that i end up not connecting to or getting to know any of them.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  despite the extremely long runtime no time is set aside to get to know these people with sub plots and charactirasation so i have no reason to care about any of them.  this also make the lengthy fight sequences redundant because i do not care about the characters so it all becomes the equalent of dangling key chain in front of my face.  it may be fun to a certain degree but it gets old quick.  and when it feels like they might just start letting us get to know them they waste time introducing characters that were not even in the original story to begin with.  and then the main character that i am supposed to care about and get to know is grossly under developed and nearly forgotten.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  then there is the completely useless sub plot of gandalf trying to figure out that sauron is coming back and i do not care about that because i already know everything from the first movies.  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  there is probably much more but i am not gonna say much more here.  it just sort of feels like peter jackson tried to squeeze as much stuff into the movies as possible in order to spread it out over 0 movies in order to make as much money as possible.  it is so dense, every single frame has so many things going on.   #  it is so dense, every single frame has so many things going on.   #  so it lacks complexity but it is too dense ?  # like in the commentary track for the original they mentioned that they did not put subtitles on place names like minas tirith because they thought the audience would be able to figure it out on their own but the very first thing that happens in the hobbit 0 is an establishing shot of bree and a subtitle telling us where we are despite the fact that we know the place very well from the previous film.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.  in the lotr films, there was always a fair bit of dialog to clue the viewer in on things like locations.  the opening scene of dos only has the dimly lit sign of the prancing pony to let the viewer know where they are.  and that is only helpful if they have seen the lotr movies or read the books.  then add the fact that auj left off with the party on an eagle is perch and dos starts with a flash back in a town that will not be mentioned again, it is pretty logical to sub the town is name and location.  as for the  complexity  or lack thereof ; it is kind of supposed to be.  comparatively speaking,  the hobbit  is an extremely linear story as compared to lotr.  as /u/sillybonobo mentioned,  the hobbit  is a simple adventure and  the lord of the rings  is a fantasy epic.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  despite the extremely long runtime no time is set aside to get to know these people with sub plots and charactirasation so i have no reason to care about any of them.  this also make the lengthy fight sequences redundant because i do not care about the characters so it all becomes the equalent of dangling key chain in front of my face.  it may be fun to a certain degree but it gets old quick.  and when it feels like they might just start letting us get to know them they waste time introducing characters that were not even in the original story to begin with.  it would be pointless to delve into each dwarf is background.  you just do not need to know.  really they barely even need names.  would you care about the back story of random riders of the mark in lotr ? it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  the hobbit sets the stage for lotr.  without the subplot, how do you explain gandalf up and abandoning thorin co.  ? this is all just part of the story.  so it lacks complexity but it is too dense ?  #  bree is rather nondescript, unlike the cities that are revisited in the previous trilogy.   #  first, the movies are entirely different genres just in the same skin.  the lord of the rings movies were epic fantasy.  the hobbit movies are pretty straightforward adventure movies.  judging them by the same standards would not be fair, though the confusion is fostered by the fact that jackson has included numerous references to the events of the lord of the rings such as the events with the necromancer which shifts the tone back towards epic fantasy.  i think this difference in genre is a large reason why you may feel the movie is  dumbed down .  the focus is on large set pieces, captures and escapes, rather than massive battles and the struggle of good versus evil.  notice, however, this difference was also in the books.  the hobbit was a children is book that was pretty straightforwardly an adventure tale.  it is like a double insult to our intelligence considering their attitude towards subtitles in the first film.  this seems like an extreme overreaction.  bree is rather nondescript, unlike the cities that are revisited in the previous trilogy.  i can name maybe 0 dwarfs and i have seen both movies twice.  this seems to directly contradict your previous sentence  there was a charming complexety to the first movies because the filmmakers were not trying to spell things out to the audience.   even if you do not regard the complexity and characters as a  charming complexity  this really ca not be blamed on the movie.  the number of characters comes directly from the source material.  bilbo is just sort of there, especially in the second movie, apart from the end.  he does save the dwarfs in some situations but that is sort of it, i do not care about them so there is nothing really at stake.  it all just becomes sort of boring.  this seems like a fair point, and bilbo did take a backseat in the second movie, but i did not have the same reaction as you, and it certainly does not go to support the idea that the hobbit was  overindulgent commercial diarrhea .  it is just useless boring filler with no payoff.  this is actually one of the most interesting parts of the movie for me, knowing the story from the appendices and silmarillion, but it will have to pay off in the final movie.  if they simply drop the whole plot line then it would be filler, but this is what makes the hobbit a prequel to the lord of the rings and not simply a separate movie entirely.  overall,  i agree that the hobbit is an inferior movie to the lord of the rings trilogy .  but these me that is all you have argued for.  i do not see how the movie being inferior makes it  overindulgent commercial diarrhea  like the star wars prequels.  first, people were clamoring for the hobbit to be made in the film.  second, many of your complaints stem from the source material, and third it is too early to know whether the split into three movies was commercially exploitative.  i found the second movie to be much better pace than the first, and if we get the payoff with the dol guldur storyline, then i do not see what would cause the criticism.   #  the way these subplots play out, versus tolkien is story, is very different.   #  first, peter jackson is hardly using material from the appendices.  he does not even have the legal rights to use anything from  the silmarillion.  the subplots he is adding are more or less his own inventions, a few of which are loosely inspired by brief mentions in  the lord of the rings.  the way these subplots play out, versus tolkien is story, is very different.  second, i think comparisons to the star wars prequels are suitable.  they both overindulge in cgi.  both of their stories are significantly weaker, largely because they were consciously written to set up a known story in the future.  they both feature a great deal of poorly written dialogue.   #  any form of fantasy requires the one experiencing the story to be drawn into a secondary world where the unbelievable can exist and be real.   #  cgi  can  be great.  it often is not.  it is often overdone and obvious, to the detriment of the film.  it reminds the viewer that they are, in fact, watching a movie.  for a fantasy story, this is narrative suicide.  any form of fantasy requires the one experiencing the story to be drawn into a secondary world where the unbelievable can exist and be real.  even the best of fantastic drama is in perilous danger of losing its power, for the viewer is more critical and more like to be drawn out of the subcreation than the reader.  when you start throwing in obviously fake imagery, the viewer is now someone stuck in a movie theater or simply left with nothing better to do at home trying to be impressed by the latest technology, rather than being immersed in a story and a world.  cgi, in my opinion, is still nowhere near the realism of what is real.   #  it can be read and enjoyed by children, but it was not written for children as  the hobbit  was.   #  it most certainly is not.  it can be read and enjoyed by children, but it was not written for children as  the hobbit  was.  i think it rather a pity, really.  it was not written for them.  but then i am a very  unvoracious  reader, and since i can seldom bring myself to read a work twice i think of the many things that i read too soon ! nothing, not even a possible deeper appreciation, for me replaces the bloom on a book, the freshness of the unread.  still what we read and when goes, like the people we meet, by  fate.   \ jrr tolkien, from a letter to mrs m.  wilson, 0 april 0  i had to think about it, however, before i gave an  andrew lang  lecture at st.  andrews on fairy stories; and i must say i think the result was entirely beneficial to  the lord of the rings , which was a practical demonstration of the views that i expressed.  it was  not  written  for children , or for any kind of person in particular, but for itself.  if any parts or elements in it appear  childish , it is because i am childish, and like that kind of thing myself  now .  i believe children do read it or listen to it eagerly, even quite young ones, and i am very pleased to hear it, though they must fail to understand most of it, and it is in any case stuffed with words that they are unlikely to understand if by that one means  arecognize as something already known .  i hope it increases their vocabularies.  \ jrr tolkien, to his aunt jane neave, 0 november 0
i have to do some studying for finals for the next few hours, so i will try to be quick here and will read and respond to comments this evening.  the goal of morality and ethical behavior is an interesting debate, but i feel it is ultimately subjective.  the judgements you make based on your moral framework are not necessarily subjective though.  to start this post, i want to say that i believe the goal of morality and ethical behavior should be to minimize suffering in the world while behaving in a way that, if followed universally, would not collapse societal institutions.  in addition to this, our efforts to achieve this should violate as few of the human rights of non consenting individuals as is possible in any situation.  with that in mind, i believe that the only value to prisons is to protect others in society from dangerous individuals while possibly rehabilitating some criminals.  prisons are currently the most effective way to achieve this goal, so their use is justifiable.  if a brain surgery were devised that could remove criminal impulses from dangerous individuals assuming no other negative side effects , those individuals should be released back into society with no additional punishment.  i believe that treating prisons as a place to lock bad people up to punish them because they did something wrong is unethical.  this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  while the offender would still suffer if prisons were only seen as a way to keep dangerous individuals away from society, the violation of the prisoner is rights is minimal compared to the possible violations he might enact on other, non consenting individuals.  many people who hold the view that prisons should be seen as a punishment also believe that things like prison rape and the death penalty are good things because they enhance the punishment.  i believe that these things are wrong again because they introduce unneeded suffering into the world.  when arguing for prison as a punishment, many people say that it will make the victim and/or the victim is family feel better about the crime and bring them closure.  while it might bring them pleasure to see the offender locked up in a miserable environment, i do not see how this is significantly different from the drive for pleasure at the pain of others that leads criminals to rape and kill.  this drive is only seen as different and more pure than similar criminal drives because we can easily imagine ourselves in the position of the victims or their families while it is harder for us to imagine ourselves in the place of the criminal.  this difference in empathy should not lead us to prefer one class over another.   #  i believe that treating prisons as a place to lock bad people up to punish them because they did something wrong is unethical.   #  this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.   # this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  is it unethical to ground a child or send them to their room ? the threat of prison also acts as a deterrent.  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ? they do not need to be dangerous; prison also prevents criminals from committing a crime.  if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.   #  if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.   # if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.  this is actually a part of my argument.  prisons are effective at preventing the incarcerated from slighting others.  this is usually done in the formative years to teach a child which behaviors are socially acceptable by associating negative stimuli to negative actions.  i think that most people would think that grounding a 0 year old would be ridiculous, and not just because the parent child relationship is different.  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ? i am not sure if i am the weird one, but if i am thinking about doing something illegal, i usually do not do it because i have empathy for the victim or fear the social repercussions of doing that action.  from what i have seen, the threat of jail time and fines usually do not deter people from actions that are currently socially acceptable they just try to hide the actions from law enforcement , such as smoking weed or pirating media.  if deterring crime were a purpose of prisons, we would work to make what goes on in prisons more horrible and public.  i think that public executions though obviously unethical deterred crime.  i do not think that the thought of going to prison has ever deterred me from any action.   #  one of the primary purposes of a prison is rehabilitation.   # what about robbing a bank or insurance fraud ? these are things that are abstracted enough that you do not feel you are harming individuals.  prison is for the people where empathy and social repercussions do not prevent their actions.  it seems like you are suggesting that non violent crime should have no repercussion other than possible hurt feelings.  if your feelings are not hurt by social response then there is no consequence to breaking the law.  they are pretty horrible as they are, and everybody knows what goes on in prison to some extent .  one of the primary purposes of a prison is rehabilitation.  we have somewhat lost that focus recently, but being in a cell at least gives you time to reflect on your actions and consequences.   #  one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 URL were sentenced to prison time for a  new  crime.   # this is really a false assumption.  one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 URL were sentenced to prison time for a  new  crime.  if a quarter of your sample, 0,0, ends up back in prison for a different crime clearly there was not much of a detterence.  also a pew trust study from april 0 showed that of the 0 states that submitted data URL only 0 states had a recidivism rate below 0 between 0   0.  in fact 0 states had a recidivism rate of  over 0 .  the average recidivism rate from the study totaled 0.  let is be clear.  very few prisons put a real emphasis on restorative/rehabilitative methodology.  the purpose of the modern american prison system is to remove people from society as a punishment, and then throw them back out into the same conditions they were previously in.   #  one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 were sentenced to prison time for a new crime.   # one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 were sentenced to prison time for a new crime.  so people who were not deterred by prison continued to not be deterred by prison.  what are you trying to prove ? so more than half of the people that were not deterred the first time, were deterred after going to prison ? sounds like it was effective.  very few prisons put a real emphasis on restorative/rehabilitative methodology.  that is true, but i was arguing deterrence and not rehabilitation.
i have to do some studying for finals for the next few hours, so i will try to be quick here and will read and respond to comments this evening.  the goal of morality and ethical behavior is an interesting debate, but i feel it is ultimately subjective.  the judgements you make based on your moral framework are not necessarily subjective though.  to start this post, i want to say that i believe the goal of morality and ethical behavior should be to minimize suffering in the world while behaving in a way that, if followed universally, would not collapse societal institutions.  in addition to this, our efforts to achieve this should violate as few of the human rights of non consenting individuals as is possible in any situation.  with that in mind, i believe that the only value to prisons is to protect others in society from dangerous individuals while possibly rehabilitating some criminals.  prisons are currently the most effective way to achieve this goal, so their use is justifiable.  if a brain surgery were devised that could remove criminal impulses from dangerous individuals assuming no other negative side effects , those individuals should be released back into society with no additional punishment.  i believe that treating prisons as a place to lock bad people up to punish them because they did something wrong is unethical.  this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  while the offender would still suffer if prisons were only seen as a way to keep dangerous individuals away from society, the violation of the prisoner is rights is minimal compared to the possible violations he might enact on other, non consenting individuals.  many people who hold the view that prisons should be seen as a punishment also believe that things like prison rape and the death penalty are good things because they enhance the punishment.  i believe that these things are wrong again because they introduce unneeded suffering into the world.  when arguing for prison as a punishment, many people say that it will make the victim and/or the victim is family feel better about the crime and bring them closure.  while it might bring them pleasure to see the offender locked up in a miserable environment, i do not see how this is significantly different from the drive for pleasure at the pain of others that leads criminals to rape and kill.  this drive is only seen as different and more pure than similar criminal drives because we can easily imagine ourselves in the position of the victims or their families while it is harder for us to imagine ourselves in the place of the criminal.  this difference in empathy should not lead us to prefer one class over another.   #  while the offender would still suffer if prisons were only seen as a way to keep dangerous individuals away from society, the violation of the prisoner is rights is minimal compared to the possible violations he might enact on other, non consenting individuals.   #  they do not need to be dangerous; prison also prevents criminals from committing a crime.   # this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  is it unethical to ground a child or send them to their room ? the threat of prison also acts as a deterrent.  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ? they do not need to be dangerous; prison also prevents criminals from committing a crime.  if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.   #  i think that public executions though obviously unethical deterred crime.   # if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.  this is actually a part of my argument.  prisons are effective at preventing the incarcerated from slighting others.  this is usually done in the formative years to teach a child which behaviors are socially acceptable by associating negative stimuli to negative actions.  i think that most people would think that grounding a 0 year old would be ridiculous, and not just because the parent child relationship is different.  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ? i am not sure if i am the weird one, but if i am thinking about doing something illegal, i usually do not do it because i have empathy for the victim or fear the social repercussions of doing that action.  from what i have seen, the threat of jail time and fines usually do not deter people from actions that are currently socially acceptable they just try to hide the actions from law enforcement , such as smoking weed or pirating media.  if deterring crime were a purpose of prisons, we would work to make what goes on in prisons more horrible and public.  i think that public executions though obviously unethical deterred crime.  i do not think that the thought of going to prison has ever deterred me from any action.   #  these are things that are abstracted enough that you do not feel you are harming individuals.   # what about robbing a bank or insurance fraud ? these are things that are abstracted enough that you do not feel you are harming individuals.  prison is for the people where empathy and social repercussions do not prevent their actions.  it seems like you are suggesting that non violent crime should have no repercussion other than possible hurt feelings.  if your feelings are not hurt by social response then there is no consequence to breaking the law.  they are pretty horrible as they are, and everybody knows what goes on in prison to some extent .  one of the primary purposes of a prison is rehabilitation.  we have somewhat lost that focus recently, but being in a cell at least gives you time to reflect on your actions and consequences.   #  if a quarter of your sample, 0,0, ends up back in prison for a different crime clearly there was not much of a detterence.   # this is really a false assumption.  one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 URL were sentenced to prison time for a  new  crime.  if a quarter of your sample, 0,0, ends up back in prison for a different crime clearly there was not much of a detterence.  also a pew trust study from april 0 showed that of the 0 states that submitted data URL only 0 states had a recidivism rate below 0 between 0   0.  in fact 0 states had a recidivism rate of  over 0 .  the average recidivism rate from the study totaled 0.  let is be clear.  very few prisons put a real emphasis on restorative/rehabilitative methodology.  the purpose of the modern american prison system is to remove people from society as a punishment, and then throw them back out into the same conditions they were previously in.   #  so more than half of the people that were not deterred the first time, were deterred after going to prison ?  # one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 were sentenced to prison time for a new crime.  so people who were not deterred by prison continued to not be deterred by prison.  what are you trying to prove ? so more than half of the people that were not deterred the first time, were deterred after going to prison ? sounds like it was effective.  very few prisons put a real emphasis on restorative/rehabilitative methodology.  that is true, but i was arguing deterrence and not rehabilitation.
i have to do some studying for finals for the next few hours, so i will try to be quick here and will read and respond to comments this evening.  the goal of morality and ethical behavior is an interesting debate, but i feel it is ultimately subjective.  the judgements you make based on your moral framework are not necessarily subjective though.  to start this post, i want to say that i believe the goal of morality and ethical behavior should be to minimize suffering in the world while behaving in a way that, if followed universally, would not collapse societal institutions.  in addition to this, our efforts to achieve this should violate as few of the human rights of non consenting individuals as is possible in any situation.  with that in mind, i believe that the only value to prisons is to protect others in society from dangerous individuals while possibly rehabilitating some criminals.  prisons are currently the most effective way to achieve this goal, so their use is justifiable.  if a brain surgery were devised that could remove criminal impulses from dangerous individuals assuming no other negative side effects , those individuals should be released back into society with no additional punishment.  i believe that treating prisons as a place to lock bad people up to punish them because they did something wrong is unethical.  this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  while the offender would still suffer if prisons were only seen as a way to keep dangerous individuals away from society, the violation of the prisoner is rights is minimal compared to the possible violations he might enact on other, non consenting individuals.  many people who hold the view that prisons should be seen as a punishment also believe that things like prison rape and the death penalty are good things because they enhance the punishment.  i believe that these things are wrong again because they introduce unneeded suffering into the world.  when arguing for prison as a punishment, many people say that it will make the victim and/or the victim is family feel better about the crime and bring them closure.  while it might bring them pleasure to see the offender locked up in a miserable environment, i do not see how this is significantly different from the drive for pleasure at the pain of others that leads criminals to rape and kill.  this drive is only seen as different and more pure than similar criminal drives because we can easily imagine ourselves in the position of the victims or their families while it is harder for us to imagine ourselves in the place of the criminal.  this difference in empathy should not lead us to prefer one class over another.   #  i believe the goal of morality and ethical behavior should be to minimize suffering in the world while behaving in a way that, if followed universally, would not collapse societal institutions.   #  in addition to this, our efforts to achieve this should violate as few of the human rights of non consenting individuals as is possible in any situation.   # in addition to this, our efforts to achieve this should violate as few of the human rights of non consenting individuals as is possible in any situation.  i do not think you can have it both ways.  if you can minimize the suffering of 0 people by maximizing the suffering of one, is not that the ethical thing to do by strictly utilitarian terms ? your second point seems to contradict that.  you may argue that there alternatives to imprisonment that would minimize the suffering of those 0 people just the same, but you did not mention any, so i am not sure if you are against all punishment, or prison as a specific form of punishment.  this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  why is suffering by not being free unethical ? regardless of whether or not it is an effective deterrent, from the criminal is perspective, prison  is  the consequence of their action and they chose it by committing crime.  if the criminal attempted to murder someone, would it be unethical for the victim to hurt or even kill the criminal in self defense ?  #  is it unethical to ground a child or send them to their room ?  # this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  is it unethical to ground a child or send them to their room ? the threat of prison also acts as a deterrent.  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ? they do not need to be dangerous; prison also prevents criminals from committing a crime.  if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.   #  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ?  # if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.  this is actually a part of my argument.  prisons are effective at preventing the incarcerated from slighting others.  this is usually done in the formative years to teach a child which behaviors are socially acceptable by associating negative stimuli to negative actions.  i think that most people would think that grounding a 0 year old would be ridiculous, and not just because the parent child relationship is different.  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ? i am not sure if i am the weird one, but if i am thinking about doing something illegal, i usually do not do it because i have empathy for the victim or fear the social repercussions of doing that action.  from what i have seen, the threat of jail time and fines usually do not deter people from actions that are currently socially acceptable they just try to hide the actions from law enforcement , such as smoking weed or pirating media.  if deterring crime were a purpose of prisons, we would work to make what goes on in prisons more horrible and public.  i think that public executions though obviously unethical deterred crime.  i do not think that the thought of going to prison has ever deterred me from any action.   #  these are things that are abstracted enough that you do not feel you are harming individuals.   # what about robbing a bank or insurance fraud ? these are things that are abstracted enough that you do not feel you are harming individuals.  prison is for the people where empathy and social repercussions do not prevent their actions.  it seems like you are suggesting that non violent crime should have no repercussion other than possible hurt feelings.  if your feelings are not hurt by social response then there is no consequence to breaking the law.  they are pretty horrible as they are, and everybody knows what goes on in prison to some extent .  one of the primary purposes of a prison is rehabilitation.  we have somewhat lost that focus recently, but being in a cell at least gives you time to reflect on your actions and consequences.   #  one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 URL were sentenced to prison time for a  new  crime.   # this is really a false assumption.  one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 URL were sentenced to prison time for a  new  crime.  if a quarter of your sample, 0,0, ends up back in prison for a different crime clearly there was not much of a detterence.  also a pew trust study from april 0 showed that of the 0 states that submitted data URL only 0 states had a recidivism rate below 0 between 0   0.  in fact 0 states had a recidivism rate of  over 0 .  the average recidivism rate from the study totaled 0.  let is be clear.  very few prisons put a real emphasis on restorative/rehabilitative methodology.  the purpose of the modern american prison system is to remove people from society as a punishment, and then throw them back out into the same conditions they were previously in.
i have to do some studying for finals for the next few hours, so i will try to be quick here and will read and respond to comments this evening.  the goal of morality and ethical behavior is an interesting debate, but i feel it is ultimately subjective.  the judgements you make based on your moral framework are not necessarily subjective though.  to start this post, i want to say that i believe the goal of morality and ethical behavior should be to minimize suffering in the world while behaving in a way that, if followed universally, would not collapse societal institutions.  in addition to this, our efforts to achieve this should violate as few of the human rights of non consenting individuals as is possible in any situation.  with that in mind, i believe that the only value to prisons is to protect others in society from dangerous individuals while possibly rehabilitating some criminals.  prisons are currently the most effective way to achieve this goal, so their use is justifiable.  if a brain surgery were devised that could remove criminal impulses from dangerous individuals assuming no other negative side effects , those individuals should be released back into society with no additional punishment.  i believe that treating prisons as a place to lock bad people up to punish them because they did something wrong is unethical.  this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  while the offender would still suffer if prisons were only seen as a way to keep dangerous individuals away from society, the violation of the prisoner is rights is minimal compared to the possible violations he might enact on other, non consenting individuals.  many people who hold the view that prisons should be seen as a punishment also believe that things like prison rape and the death penalty are good things because they enhance the punishment.  i believe that these things are wrong again because they introduce unneeded suffering into the world.  when arguing for prison as a punishment, many people say that it will make the victim and/or the victim is family feel better about the crime and bring them closure.  while it might bring them pleasure to see the offender locked up in a miserable environment, i do not see how this is significantly different from the drive for pleasure at the pain of others that leads criminals to rape and kill.  this drive is only seen as different and more pure than similar criminal drives because we can easily imagine ourselves in the position of the victims or their families while it is harder for us to imagine ourselves in the place of the criminal.  this difference in empathy should not lead us to prefer one class over another.   #  i believe that treating prisons as a place to lock bad people up to punish them because they did something wrong is unethical.   #  this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.   # in addition to this, our efforts to achieve this should violate as few of the human rights of non consenting individuals as is possible in any situation.  i do not think you can have it both ways.  if you can minimize the suffering of 0 people by maximizing the suffering of one, is not that the ethical thing to do by strictly utilitarian terms ? your second point seems to contradict that.  you may argue that there alternatives to imprisonment that would minimize the suffering of those 0 people just the same, but you did not mention any, so i am not sure if you are against all punishment, or prison as a specific form of punishment.  this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  why is suffering by not being free unethical ? regardless of whether or not it is an effective deterrent, from the criminal is perspective, prison  is  the consequence of their action and they chose it by committing crime.  if the criminal attempted to murder someone, would it be unethical for the victim to hurt or even kill the criminal in self defense ?  #  this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.   # this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  is it unethical to ground a child or send them to their room ? the threat of prison also acts as a deterrent.  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ? they do not need to be dangerous; prison also prevents criminals from committing a crime.  if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.   #  i think that public executions though obviously unethical deterred crime.   # if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.  this is actually a part of my argument.  prisons are effective at preventing the incarcerated from slighting others.  this is usually done in the formative years to teach a child which behaviors are socially acceptable by associating negative stimuli to negative actions.  i think that most people would think that grounding a 0 year old would be ridiculous, and not just because the parent child relationship is different.  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ? i am not sure if i am the weird one, but if i am thinking about doing something illegal, i usually do not do it because i have empathy for the victim or fear the social repercussions of doing that action.  from what i have seen, the threat of jail time and fines usually do not deter people from actions that are currently socially acceptable they just try to hide the actions from law enforcement , such as smoking weed or pirating media.  if deterring crime were a purpose of prisons, we would work to make what goes on in prisons more horrible and public.  i think that public executions though obviously unethical deterred crime.  i do not think that the thought of going to prison has ever deterred me from any action.   #  one of the primary purposes of a prison is rehabilitation.   # what about robbing a bank or insurance fraud ? these are things that are abstracted enough that you do not feel you are harming individuals.  prison is for the people where empathy and social repercussions do not prevent their actions.  it seems like you are suggesting that non violent crime should have no repercussion other than possible hurt feelings.  if your feelings are not hurt by social response then there is no consequence to breaking the law.  they are pretty horrible as they are, and everybody knows what goes on in prison to some extent .  one of the primary purposes of a prison is rehabilitation.  we have somewhat lost that focus recently, but being in a cell at least gives you time to reflect on your actions and consequences.   #  one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 URL were sentenced to prison time for a  new  crime.   # this is really a false assumption.  one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 URL were sentenced to prison time for a  new  crime.  if a quarter of your sample, 0,0, ends up back in prison for a different crime clearly there was not much of a detterence.  also a pew trust study from april 0 showed that of the 0 states that submitted data URL only 0 states had a recidivism rate below 0 between 0   0.  in fact 0 states had a recidivism rate of  over 0 .  the average recidivism rate from the study totaled 0.  let is be clear.  very few prisons put a real emphasis on restorative/rehabilitative methodology.  the purpose of the modern american prison system is to remove people from society as a punishment, and then throw them back out into the same conditions they were previously in.
i have to do some studying for finals for the next few hours, so i will try to be quick here and will read and respond to comments this evening.  the goal of morality and ethical behavior is an interesting debate, but i feel it is ultimately subjective.  the judgements you make based on your moral framework are not necessarily subjective though.  to start this post, i want to say that i believe the goal of morality and ethical behavior should be to minimize suffering in the world while behaving in a way that, if followed universally, would not collapse societal institutions.  in addition to this, our efforts to achieve this should violate as few of the human rights of non consenting individuals as is possible in any situation.  with that in mind, i believe that the only value to prisons is to protect others in society from dangerous individuals while possibly rehabilitating some criminals.  prisons are currently the most effective way to achieve this goal, so their use is justifiable.  if a brain surgery were devised that could remove criminal impulses from dangerous individuals assuming no other negative side effects , those individuals should be released back into society with no additional punishment.  i believe that treating prisons as a place to lock bad people up to punish them because they did something wrong is unethical.  this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  while the offender would still suffer if prisons were only seen as a way to keep dangerous individuals away from society, the violation of the prisoner is rights is minimal compared to the possible violations he might enact on other, non consenting individuals.  many people who hold the view that prisons should be seen as a punishment also believe that things like prison rape and the death penalty are good things because they enhance the punishment.  i believe that these things are wrong again because they introduce unneeded suffering into the world.  when arguing for prison as a punishment, many people say that it will make the victim and/or the victim is family feel better about the crime and bring them closure.  while it might bring them pleasure to see the offender locked up in a miserable environment, i do not see how this is significantly different from the drive for pleasure at the pain of others that leads criminals to rape and kill.  this drive is only seen as different and more pure than similar criminal drives because we can easily imagine ourselves in the position of the victims or their families while it is harder for us to imagine ourselves in the place of the criminal.  this difference in empathy should not lead us to prefer one class over another.   #  many people who hold the view that prisons should be seen as a punishment also believe that things like prison rape and the death penalty are good things because they enhance the punishment.   #  i have literally never met anyone who says  prison rape and the death penalty are good things.    # i have literally never met anyone who says  prison rape and the death penalty are good things.   i am pro death penalty and i do not think it is a good thing.  to address your entire post: the law is absolutely 0 irrelevant if not enforceable.  if you cannot enforce a law, it is nothign but words on a page with signatures.  being able to enforce the law both punishes and deters criminals.  while this is not a  good  thing, it is highly necessary.  but to respons to your post directly, it is very ethical, so long as due process and all the other constitutional rights are honored before incarceration.  it is ethical because that person knew the law, knew the expectation of them to follow the law, knew the potential consequences of breaking the law, and made the decision to break the law.  it is not a secret that you go to jail for murder.  it is not a trap to get people off the crowded streets.  it is deterrant that says  if you do this, we will do that.  if you do not want us to do that, then you should not do this.   it is a straight forward understanding.  if you truly believe it is unethical, you should do a little more research about ethics.   #  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ?  # this is because it makes the offender suffer because he is not free.  is it unethical to ground a child or send them to their room ? the threat of prison also acts as a deterrent.  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ? they do not need to be dangerous; prison also prevents criminals from committing a crime.  if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.   #  prisons are effective at preventing the incarcerated from slighting others.   # if there is a serial mugger or scam artist put in prison, that person will be unable to steal from others.  this is actually a part of my argument.  prisons are effective at preventing the incarcerated from slighting others.  this is usually done in the formative years to teach a child which behaviors are socially acceptable by associating negative stimuli to negative actions.  i think that most people would think that grounding a 0 year old would be ridiculous, and not just because the parent child relationship is different.  what alternative is better than prison, but will still deter some criminal behavior ? i am not sure if i am the weird one, but if i am thinking about doing something illegal, i usually do not do it because i have empathy for the victim or fear the social repercussions of doing that action.  from what i have seen, the threat of jail time and fines usually do not deter people from actions that are currently socially acceptable they just try to hide the actions from law enforcement , such as smoking weed or pirating media.  if deterring crime were a purpose of prisons, we would work to make what goes on in prisons more horrible and public.  i think that public executions though obviously unethical deterred crime.  i do not think that the thought of going to prison has ever deterred me from any action.   #  they are pretty horrible as they are, and everybody knows what goes on in prison to some extent .   # what about robbing a bank or insurance fraud ? these are things that are abstracted enough that you do not feel you are harming individuals.  prison is for the people where empathy and social repercussions do not prevent their actions.  it seems like you are suggesting that non violent crime should have no repercussion other than possible hurt feelings.  if your feelings are not hurt by social response then there is no consequence to breaking the law.  they are pretty horrible as they are, and everybody knows what goes on in prison to some extent .  one of the primary purposes of a prison is rehabilitation.  we have somewhat lost that focus recently, but being in a cell at least gives you time to reflect on your actions and consequences.   #  very few prisons put a real emphasis on restorative/rehabilitative methodology.   # this is really a false assumption.  one study tracked over a quarter million inmates and found that 0 were rearrested, 0 were re convicted, and 0 URL were sentenced to prison time for a  new  crime.  if a quarter of your sample, 0,0, ends up back in prison for a different crime clearly there was not much of a detterence.  also a pew trust study from april 0 showed that of the 0 states that submitted data URL only 0 states had a recidivism rate below 0 between 0   0.  in fact 0 states had a recidivism rate of  over 0 .  the average recidivism rate from the study totaled 0.  let is be clear.  very few prisons put a real emphasis on restorative/rehabilitative methodology.  the purpose of the modern american prison system is to remove people from society as a punishment, and then throw them back out into the same conditions they were previously in.
i have been reading through and participating in a bunch of pro pedophile posts on reddit these past few months.  a lot of the pro pedophile posters are moved by sympathy for the pedophile and the idea that  it is not the pedophile is fault  that they are attracted to kids.  well, i agree it is not their fault they are attracted to kids.  i agree they have a disease that is outside their control.  but the proper response to a disease is treatment, not sympathy.  especially when it is the sort of disease where you are just the asymptomatic carrier and you are deliberately putting everyone around you at risk by not seeking treatment, i think  sympathy must be conditional on whether or not you are getting treatment .  not getting treatment needs to be heavily stigmatized, and there need to be laws against it.  penalties too.  for instance, if someone gets caught with a ton of child porn and they  are not  in therapy, they get a heavier sentence than someone who did the same crime but is in therapy.  in the second case, we get to reevaluate the therapy and why it failed, thus making treatment of pedophiles better.  i think this is a rational response and workable solution to the scourge of pedophilia.  change my view ?  #  well, i agree it is not their fault they are attracted to kids.   #  i agree they have a disease that is outside their control.   # i agree they have a disease that is outside their control.  the origination of those thoughts may be excusable, but how they act on thoughts is 0 within their control.  i often have the impulse to hurt people when they anger me, but i do not act on that impulse.  we are just products of our environment and we ca not help what we do.  it is not good enough to get pedophiles into the therapists office now, why would that change ? how do you enforce this ? how do you identify pedophiles that have not been caught but are not seeking treatment ? if you figure this out, you will become very rich.  this is already possible.  judges and prosecutors have a lot of discretion, and i guarantee they will go easier on someone who legitimately sought treatment before the incident.   #  priests take a vow of celibacy although many of them did commit sex crimes .   #  the one you linked.  i ca not find any direct sources on percentage of pedophiles who do commit a crime seriously who would admit to being one, or of committing a crime .  but looking at the estimated percent of the population who is a pedophile it looks to be at most 0.  URL   URL   URL calculating 0 of the adult population i will even go to assume there are no female child molesters 0,0,0 0 estimated population x . 0 percent of people over 0 0 x . 0 percent male x . 0 0,0 URL the number of sex offenders in the us in 0 is 0,0.  they do not break this number down, as sex offender crimes also include those for solicitation, public urination, streaking, and consensual sex with teenagers as well as adult sexual crimes.  URL i ca not break it down any further but i think it is unlikely that 0 of all sex crimes have to do with children.  also is it that unlikely that people ca not control their sexual urges.  priests take a vow of celibacy although many of them did commit sex crimes .   #  it is one of nature is most basic drives.   #  i did not link to a study, though.  i linked to an article that referenced several studies.  i do not see where it says any of the studies found a 0 percent reduction reduction in what, i am not certain you are referring to .  therapy not being a cure is not a useful metric.  many disorders cannot be cured, only managed.  successfully refraining from the undesirable behavior while maintaining adequate mental well being is often the highest goal of treatment for both physical and mental illnesses.  in the case of physical illnesses, the goal is keeping symptoms at bay without side effects and slowing progression.  i like the effort you have put into with the number crunching.  it is interesting.  what does it demonstrate ? all it is showing is that not every pedophile has been convicted of sexually abusing a child.  it is  extremely  likely that people ca not control their sexual urges.  it is one of nature is most basic drives.  you even mentioned the priest problem.   #  one thing that always seems sour to me about these discussions it that it is never really considered that child sexual abuse is nothing more nor less than rape or sexual assault with a minor victim.   # it is one of nature is most basic drives.  you even mentioned the priest problem.  does  extremely  here refer to greater than 0 of people being unable to control their sexual urges, or greater than 0 of large populations such as  preachers  having at least one individual unable to control theirs ? for example, what percentage of hetero males too ugly and/or anti social to get laid become rapists ? because i know hundreds of men celibate not by choice, but only a handful who have even been accused of violating somebody else is boundaries.  one thing that always seems sour to me about these discussions it that it is never really considered that child sexual abuse is nothing more nor less than rape or sexual assault with a minor victim.  whatever circumstances normally accompany rape or sexual assault by and large apply equally here, first and foremost that desire or interest must be coupled with disrespect of another is boundaries personal ∪ legal before there can be a criminal act to discuss.   #  people who ca not control their urges should seek help.   # five years after they were discharged, 0 percent of men who completed therapy had been arrested for another sex crime.  men who did not complete therapy re offended at a rate of 0 percent, according to the article, published in the american journal of forensic psychiatry.  and yes.  i am sure there are some pedophiles who abuse children who are no charged.  but your point is far from proving that every pedophile will abuse children.  going back to my point about people who are unable to control sexual urges.  yes sex is one of nature is most basic drives.  yet there are several different cultures that have practice celibacy.  buddist monks and nuns are often celibate.  hindu sadus, the sufi islamic branch, quakers, etc.  why would so many cultures have celibacy if it was impossible to attain.  and not every priest is abusing children or breaking their celibacy vows.  in addition buddist monks and nuns also practice celibacy.  people who ca not control their urges should seek help.  but i do not think they all need it, and should not be forced into treatment if they do not.
i have been reading through and participating in a bunch of pro pedophile posts on reddit these past few months.  a lot of the pro pedophile posters are moved by sympathy for the pedophile and the idea that  it is not the pedophile is fault  that they are attracted to kids.  well, i agree it is not their fault they are attracted to kids.  i agree they have a disease that is outside their control.  but the proper response to a disease is treatment, not sympathy.  especially when it is the sort of disease where you are just the asymptomatic carrier and you are deliberately putting everyone around you at risk by not seeking treatment, i think  sympathy must be conditional on whether or not you are getting treatment .  not getting treatment needs to be heavily stigmatized, and there need to be laws against it.  penalties too.  for instance, if someone gets caught with a ton of child porn and they  are not  in therapy, they get a heavier sentence than someone who did the same crime but is in therapy.  in the second case, we get to reevaluate the therapy and why it failed, thus making treatment of pedophiles better.  i think this is a rational response and workable solution to the scourge of pedophilia.  change my view ?  #  but the proper response to a disease is treatment, not sympathy.   #  actually, the proper response to a disease is both treatment and sympathy.   # actually, the proper response to a disease is both treatment and sympathy.  i am not an expert so i am not entirely sure, but i think pedophilia does not imply an increased sex drive.  a lot of heterosexual people choose lifelong celibacy without any medication for religious or other reasons , so why should it be different for someone who suffers from pedophilia ? another thing is that many pedophiles probably do not seek therapy for fear of being stigmatized and treated worse by people who find out.  instead of penalties, society should work towards eliminating that stigma, and as a result more people would choose thearapy.   #  also is it that unlikely that people ca not control their sexual urges.   #  the one you linked.  i ca not find any direct sources on percentage of pedophiles who do commit a crime seriously who would admit to being one, or of committing a crime .  but looking at the estimated percent of the population who is a pedophile it looks to be at most 0.  URL   URL   URL calculating 0 of the adult population i will even go to assume there are no female child molesters 0,0,0 0 estimated population x . 0 percent of people over 0 0 x . 0 percent male x . 0 0,0 URL the number of sex offenders in the us in 0 is 0,0.  they do not break this number down, as sex offender crimes also include those for solicitation, public urination, streaking, and consensual sex with teenagers as well as adult sexual crimes.  URL i ca not break it down any further but i think it is unlikely that 0 of all sex crimes have to do with children.  also is it that unlikely that people ca not control their sexual urges.  priests take a vow of celibacy although many of them did commit sex crimes .   #  in the case of physical illnesses, the goal is keeping symptoms at bay without side effects and slowing progression.   #  i did not link to a study, though.  i linked to an article that referenced several studies.  i do not see where it says any of the studies found a 0 percent reduction reduction in what, i am not certain you are referring to .  therapy not being a cure is not a useful metric.  many disorders cannot be cured, only managed.  successfully refraining from the undesirable behavior while maintaining adequate mental well being is often the highest goal of treatment for both physical and mental illnesses.  in the case of physical illnesses, the goal is keeping symptoms at bay without side effects and slowing progression.  i like the effort you have put into with the number crunching.  it is interesting.  what does it demonstrate ? all it is showing is that not every pedophile has been convicted of sexually abusing a child.  it is  extremely  likely that people ca not control their sexual urges.  it is one of nature is most basic drives.  you even mentioned the priest problem.   #  whatever circumstances normally accompany rape or sexual assault by and large apply equally here, first and foremost that desire or interest must be coupled with disrespect of another is boundaries personal ∪ legal before there can be a criminal act to discuss.   # it is one of nature is most basic drives.  you even mentioned the priest problem.  does  extremely  here refer to greater than 0 of people being unable to control their sexual urges, or greater than 0 of large populations such as  preachers  having at least one individual unable to control theirs ? for example, what percentage of hetero males too ugly and/or anti social to get laid become rapists ? because i know hundreds of men celibate not by choice, but only a handful who have even been accused of violating somebody else is boundaries.  one thing that always seems sour to me about these discussions it that it is never really considered that child sexual abuse is nothing more nor less than rape or sexual assault with a minor victim.  whatever circumstances normally accompany rape or sexual assault by and large apply equally here, first and foremost that desire or interest must be coupled with disrespect of another is boundaries personal ∪ legal before there can be a criminal act to discuss.   #  why would so many cultures have celibacy if it was impossible to attain.   # five years after they were discharged, 0 percent of men who completed therapy had been arrested for another sex crime.  men who did not complete therapy re offended at a rate of 0 percent, according to the article, published in the american journal of forensic psychiatry.  and yes.  i am sure there are some pedophiles who abuse children who are no charged.  but your point is far from proving that every pedophile will abuse children.  going back to my point about people who are unable to control sexual urges.  yes sex is one of nature is most basic drives.  yet there are several different cultures that have practice celibacy.  buddist monks and nuns are often celibate.  hindu sadus, the sufi islamic branch, quakers, etc.  why would so many cultures have celibacy if it was impossible to attain.  and not every priest is abusing children or breaking their celibacy vows.  in addition buddist monks and nuns also practice celibacy.  people who ca not control their urges should seek help.  but i do not think they all need it, and should not be forced into treatment if they do not.
by opinion shows, i mean shows like o areilly, beck etc.  it is incredibly irresponsible to allow people to present often factually incorrect information to the public on a medium like tv which has a massive reach.  the people watching ca not always tell the difference between a news show and an opinion show and often take the opinion show hosts views as fact.  the number of times these shows get things wrong is monumental, and there are so many examples that are incredibly easy to find that i am not even going to post them here, but just ask you to go on youtube and look them up.  the hosts are usually right or left wing fundamentalists with an agenda and allowing them to disseminate false information as fact is irresponsible, and could have very dangerous consequences.  these shows should either be banned or held to a required standard level of research and factual backing for the views expressed by the host.  to clarify, the host may be entitled to his interpretation of the facts or the conclusion he or she draws from them, but they must begin with credible, provable facts and if their conclusions are wildly idiotic see glen beck , should be fired and a retraction published.   #  by opinion shows, i mean shows like o areilly, beck etc.   #  it is incredibly irresponsible to allow people to present often factually incorrect information to the public on a medium like tv which has a massive reach.   # it is incredibly irresponsible to allow people to present often factually incorrect information to the public on a medium like tv which has a massive reach.  why is it irresponsible ? who is responsibility is it ? the viewer or the producer ? and that is the producer is fault because ? you can easily claim entertainment, like john stewart, of bill maher does every time they get caught.  they will imply correct data, and say some equally negative things, and then when confronted, cop out with  . but i am just a comedian .  and then everything is okay.  why ca not o areilly, or beck say  . i am just an entertainer  ? sounds like a double standard to me.  because youtube is the repository of truth and knowledge ? really did you just type that, go to youtube and look it up ! ? ! how is it dangerous ? i am right wing, and i love the bill maher show, the daily show, and the howard stern show.  i find them all quite entertaining.  i disagree with 0 of what they say, but they have a great delivery.  maybe people should read books, and go to school for education rather than tv, radio.  and youtube ! ? ! glen beck is a radio personality, and political commentator.  a mormon with a high school education.  his job is really to entertain an audience and sell advertising time.  there is nothing that is holding him to providing factual information, he is not an academic, he holds no office, he does not legislate anything, he just talks.  banning talking is rather authoritarian and we do not do that here in the usa.   #  i will also clarify what kind of  expression  i am thinking of, too.   # my personal facebook might only reach a small amount of people, but what if i have a facebook group with a couple million members which i use to spread false information ? i think you have just described how we would draw the line.  in the libel/slander cases it is up to a judge or jury to decide each time.  i will also clarify what kind of  expression  i am thinking of, too.  jenny mccarthy saying  i think vaccines are bad  on facebook, and then never bringing it up again: free expression.  jenny mccarthy using her celebrity status to swing many news interviews over a decade, publish anti vax books, organize fundraisers for andrew wakefield, turn her own son into a poster child: organized agitation and propaganda.   #  what about a statement like  abortion is murder .   # take the whole global warming debate; there is a lot of debate over what the  facts  are.  or, take wmds in iraq.  if i were to form an opinion based upon the fact there wmds were discovered in iraq URL and, therefore, colin powell is presentation was correct and the war was justified , would that be a problem ? what about a statement like  abortion is murder .  is that a fact, or an opinion ? or, the other side,  abortion is not murder : fact or opinion ? you also see the same thing in election campaigns.  one candidate will propose some new policy and his opponent will commission a study and conclude that the  only way  to implement such a policy would be to raise taxes on the middle class.  then they run a campaign ad declaring the  fact  that  my opponent has proposed raising taxes on the middle class  ! is that fact, opinion, or neither ?  #  many years ago, the answer would have been no.   # yes they do.  if we start teaching evolution in school, we need to evaluate whether evolution has scientific merit.  many years ago, the answer would have been no.  today the answer is yes.  someone is going to make that call being the arbiter of truth is a huge amount of power.  there is no absolute certainty in our world.  there may be things that are absolutely true, but we ca not know for absolute certain the truth of anything.  we merely believe things with different levels of confidence.  we are all subject to biases and faulty thinking.   #  i will give you the first specific example that came to mind.   #  evolution is supported by an ever growing mountain of evidence.  since we have this evidence today, the right thing to do is to teach it as a science.  before such evidence was available, if someone simply proposed it as a hypothesis, it would have been wrong at that time to teach it as science.  however, that is not quite the sort of thing i am talking about.  i will give you the first specific example that came to mind.  a while ago, in a speech that had something to do with insurance companies, obama said  insurance executives are not bad people.  they are just trying to make a profit.   hannity that night spoke on his show about being mindblown when obama said that insurance executives are bad people.  surely you can see that what obama did and did not say was very easily verifiable.
by opinion shows, i mean shows like o areilly, beck etc.  it is incredibly irresponsible to allow people to present often factually incorrect information to the public on a medium like tv which has a massive reach.  the people watching ca not always tell the difference between a news show and an opinion show and often take the opinion show hosts views as fact.  the number of times these shows get things wrong is monumental, and there are so many examples that are incredibly easy to find that i am not even going to post them here, but just ask you to go on youtube and look them up.  the hosts are usually right or left wing fundamentalists with an agenda and allowing them to disseminate false information as fact is irresponsible, and could have very dangerous consequences.  these shows should either be banned or held to a required standard level of research and factual backing for the views expressed by the host.  to clarify, the host may be entitled to his interpretation of the facts or the conclusion he or she draws from them, but they must begin with credible, provable facts and if their conclusions are wildly idiotic see glen beck , should be fired and a retraction published.   #  the people watching ca not always tell the difference between a news show and an opinion show and often take the opinion show hosts views as fact.   #  and that is the producer is fault because ?  # it is incredibly irresponsible to allow people to present often factually incorrect information to the public on a medium like tv which has a massive reach.  why is it irresponsible ? who is responsibility is it ? the viewer or the producer ? and that is the producer is fault because ? you can easily claim entertainment, like john stewart, of bill maher does every time they get caught.  they will imply correct data, and say some equally negative things, and then when confronted, cop out with  . but i am just a comedian .  and then everything is okay.  why ca not o areilly, or beck say  . i am just an entertainer  ? sounds like a double standard to me.  because youtube is the repository of truth and knowledge ? really did you just type that, go to youtube and look it up ! ? ! how is it dangerous ? i am right wing, and i love the bill maher show, the daily show, and the howard stern show.  i find them all quite entertaining.  i disagree with 0 of what they say, but they have a great delivery.  maybe people should read books, and go to school for education rather than tv, radio.  and youtube ! ? ! glen beck is a radio personality, and political commentator.  a mormon with a high school education.  his job is really to entertain an audience and sell advertising time.  there is nothing that is holding him to providing factual information, he is not an academic, he holds no office, he does not legislate anything, he just talks.  banning talking is rather authoritarian and we do not do that here in the usa.   #  i will also clarify what kind of  expression  i am thinking of, too.   # my personal facebook might only reach a small amount of people, but what if i have a facebook group with a couple million members which i use to spread false information ? i think you have just described how we would draw the line.  in the libel/slander cases it is up to a judge or jury to decide each time.  i will also clarify what kind of  expression  i am thinking of, too.  jenny mccarthy saying  i think vaccines are bad  on facebook, and then never bringing it up again: free expression.  jenny mccarthy using her celebrity status to swing many news interviews over a decade, publish anti vax books, organize fundraisers for andrew wakefield, turn her own son into a poster child: organized agitation and propaganda.   #  what about a statement like  abortion is murder .   # take the whole global warming debate; there is a lot of debate over what the  facts  are.  or, take wmds in iraq.  if i were to form an opinion based upon the fact there wmds were discovered in iraq URL and, therefore, colin powell is presentation was correct and the war was justified , would that be a problem ? what about a statement like  abortion is murder .  is that a fact, or an opinion ? or, the other side,  abortion is not murder : fact or opinion ? you also see the same thing in election campaigns.  one candidate will propose some new policy and his opponent will commission a study and conclude that the  only way  to implement such a policy would be to raise taxes on the middle class.  then they run a campaign ad declaring the  fact  that  my opponent has proposed raising taxes on the middle class  ! is that fact, opinion, or neither ?  #  there is no absolute certainty in our world.   # yes they do.  if we start teaching evolution in school, we need to evaluate whether evolution has scientific merit.  many years ago, the answer would have been no.  today the answer is yes.  someone is going to make that call being the arbiter of truth is a huge amount of power.  there is no absolute certainty in our world.  there may be things that are absolutely true, but we ca not know for absolute certain the truth of anything.  we merely believe things with different levels of confidence.  we are all subject to biases and faulty thinking.   #  hannity that night spoke on his show about being mindblown when obama said that insurance executives are bad people.   #  evolution is supported by an ever growing mountain of evidence.  since we have this evidence today, the right thing to do is to teach it as a science.  before such evidence was available, if someone simply proposed it as a hypothesis, it would have been wrong at that time to teach it as science.  however, that is not quite the sort of thing i am talking about.  i will give you the first specific example that came to mind.  a while ago, in a speech that had something to do with insurance companies, obama said  insurance executives are not bad people.  they are just trying to make a profit.   hannity that night spoke on his show about being mindblown when obama said that insurance executives are bad people.  surely you can see that what obama did and did not say was very easily verifiable.
by opinion shows, i mean shows like o areilly, beck etc.  it is incredibly irresponsible to allow people to present often factually incorrect information to the public on a medium like tv which has a massive reach.  the people watching ca not always tell the difference between a news show and an opinion show and often take the opinion show hosts views as fact.  the number of times these shows get things wrong is monumental, and there are so many examples that are incredibly easy to find that i am not even going to post them here, but just ask you to go on youtube and look them up.  the hosts are usually right or left wing fundamentalists with an agenda and allowing them to disseminate false information as fact is irresponsible, and could have very dangerous consequences.  these shows should either be banned or held to a required standard level of research and factual backing for the views expressed by the host.  to clarify, the host may be entitled to his interpretation of the facts or the conclusion he or she draws from them, but they must begin with credible, provable facts and if their conclusions are wildly idiotic see glen beck , should be fired and a retraction published.   #  these shows should either be banned or held to a required standard level of research and factual backing for the views expressed by the host.   #  maybe people should read books, and go to school for education rather than tv, radio.   # it is incredibly irresponsible to allow people to present often factually incorrect information to the public on a medium like tv which has a massive reach.  why is it irresponsible ? who is responsibility is it ? the viewer or the producer ? and that is the producer is fault because ? you can easily claim entertainment, like john stewart, of bill maher does every time they get caught.  they will imply correct data, and say some equally negative things, and then when confronted, cop out with  . but i am just a comedian .  and then everything is okay.  why ca not o areilly, or beck say  . i am just an entertainer  ? sounds like a double standard to me.  because youtube is the repository of truth and knowledge ? really did you just type that, go to youtube and look it up ! ? ! how is it dangerous ? i am right wing, and i love the bill maher show, the daily show, and the howard stern show.  i find them all quite entertaining.  i disagree with 0 of what they say, but they have a great delivery.  maybe people should read books, and go to school for education rather than tv, radio.  and youtube ! ? ! glen beck is a radio personality, and political commentator.  a mormon with a high school education.  his job is really to entertain an audience and sell advertising time.  there is nothing that is holding him to providing factual information, he is not an academic, he holds no office, he does not legislate anything, he just talks.  banning talking is rather authoritarian and we do not do that here in the usa.   #  in the libel/slander cases it is up to a judge or jury to decide each time.   # my personal facebook might only reach a small amount of people, but what if i have a facebook group with a couple million members which i use to spread false information ? i think you have just described how we would draw the line.  in the libel/slander cases it is up to a judge or jury to decide each time.  i will also clarify what kind of  expression  i am thinking of, too.  jenny mccarthy saying  i think vaccines are bad  on facebook, and then never bringing it up again: free expression.  jenny mccarthy using her celebrity status to swing many news interviews over a decade, publish anti vax books, organize fundraisers for andrew wakefield, turn her own son into a poster child: organized agitation and propaganda.   #  take the whole global warming debate; there is a lot of debate over what the  facts  are.   # take the whole global warming debate; there is a lot of debate over what the  facts  are.  or, take wmds in iraq.  if i were to form an opinion based upon the fact there wmds were discovered in iraq URL and, therefore, colin powell is presentation was correct and the war was justified , would that be a problem ? what about a statement like  abortion is murder .  is that a fact, or an opinion ? or, the other side,  abortion is not murder : fact or opinion ? you also see the same thing in election campaigns.  one candidate will propose some new policy and his opponent will commission a study and conclude that the  only way  to implement such a policy would be to raise taxes on the middle class.  then they run a campaign ad declaring the  fact  that  my opponent has proposed raising taxes on the middle class  ! is that fact, opinion, or neither ?  #  there is no absolute certainty in our world.   # yes they do.  if we start teaching evolution in school, we need to evaluate whether evolution has scientific merit.  many years ago, the answer would have been no.  today the answer is yes.  someone is going to make that call being the arbiter of truth is a huge amount of power.  there is no absolute certainty in our world.  there may be things that are absolutely true, but we ca not know for absolute certain the truth of anything.  we merely believe things with different levels of confidence.  we are all subject to biases and faulty thinking.   #  since we have this evidence today, the right thing to do is to teach it as a science.   #  evolution is supported by an ever growing mountain of evidence.  since we have this evidence today, the right thing to do is to teach it as a science.  before such evidence was available, if someone simply proposed it as a hypothesis, it would have been wrong at that time to teach it as science.  however, that is not quite the sort of thing i am talking about.  i will give you the first specific example that came to mind.  a while ago, in a speech that had something to do with insurance companies, obama said  insurance executives are not bad people.  they are just trying to make a profit.   hannity that night spoke on his show about being mindblown when obama said that insurance executives are bad people.  surely you can see that what obama did and did not say was very easily verifiable.
my argument consists of two parts: mandatory gmo labeling is illegal because of present food labeling legislation by the fda, and it is unconstitutional because forcing companies to place labels with negative implications on their products with no rational basis violates their rights to commercial free speech under the first amendment.  first, regulation by the fda.  setting aside the issue of whether the fda mandates or recommends gmo labeling, let is examine the attitude of the fda toward states  legislation regarding food labelling.  on a federal level, the nutritional labeling and education act  nlea  prohibits states from regulating labels concerning  nutritional content, health claims .  and misleading containers  0 .  as noted in an article in forbes,  there are good reasons that such  tinkering at the dna level  need not be revealed on labels.  federal regulation requires that food labels be truthful and not misleading and prohibits label statements that could be misunderstood, even if they are strictly accurate.   0 .  given the fda is clear stance on the safety of gmo is, having held in the past that gmo is are not  amaterially different  from regular food products, i suspect the fda will agree with me that gmo labeling would make unnecessary implications regarding the quality of the products.  second, constitutionality.  the main precedent to look at for this issue can be found in the supreme court case central hudson gas   electric corp.  v.  public service commission URL decided in 0.  while the case is not a perfect fit, it says some very relevant things about commercial free speech that matter in this context.  in the 0 second circuit federal court of appeals case international dairy foods association v.  amestoy URL a group of dairy farmers challenged a previous vermont gmo labeling law.  the court used a four prong test based on  hudson  to determine whether the vermont statute was constitutional.  to paraphrase aka tl:dr : in order for a state statute to coerce commercial speech, the state must show a substantial interest, a requirement which gmo labeling fails to meet.  i think i have explained my position, but now i would like to hear your opinions on this.  can you change my view ? 0.  robertson, emily, finding a compromise in the debate over genetically modified food URL p0 0.  miller, henry, labeling of biotech foods is unnecessary and unconstitutional URL 0.  finding a compromise, p0  #  because forcing companies to place labels with negative implications on their products with no rational basis violates their rights to commercial free speech under the first amendment.   #  but we know from cigarette labelling federal and thinks like california is toxics labelling that such labelling requirements can be constitutional as long as there is a rational basis for them.   # it is been a while since i have taken constitutional law, but here goes: a one way that federal law pre empts state law is when the federal law explicitly says so.  the food labeling rules do not explicitly pre empt state labelling laws, so there is no explicit pre emption.  b the other way you can get federal pre emption is via something called  field pre emption    basically, the federal regulatory regime is so pervasive that it is clear from the regime that it is intended to completely occupy the field, leaving no room for state deviations.  it is an interesting question, and not altogether clear to me, whether or not that applies in this case.  it seems like it is a plausible argument, but it also seems like the opposite is plausible; i think we would need lawyers with more detailed knowledge of federal product labeling regulations to make the arguments for us.  but we know from cigarette labelling federal and thinks like california is toxics labelling that such labelling requirements can be constitutional as long as there is a rational basis for them.  so you have to argue that constitutionally there is no rational basis for the regulations.  this is an extremely difficult standard to meet, because it is not enough to show that the purported rational basis is irrational you have to show that there is  no conceivable rational basis .  i do not think you can meet that standard here.   #  third, the distinction at least in monsanto is eyes is that retailers   manufacturers can label their own products as much as they might choose to, but that the government should not force everyone to label all foods containing gm ingredients.   #  i am not sure why you find this to be a compelling argument.  first, it seems like you are implying that monsanto is trying to hide that this ad ever existed and was somehow triggered to do so by your posting it in /r/skeptic ? , when this ad was produced well over a decade ago and they could have taken it down because it might have seemed contradictory to people such as yourself .  second, it seems perfectly unsurprising to me that a company might try different public policy and outreach tactics in different countries in different decades, especially when it sees their first attempt did not work very well.  third, the distinction at least in monsanto is eyes is that retailers   manufacturers can label their own products as much as they might choose to, but that the government should not force everyone to label all foods containing gm ingredients.  to quote fred perlak, ph. d. , monsanto hawaii research   business ops vice president:    as a company we sell seed to farmers, all our bags of seed are labeled.  farmers know exactly what they are buying when they buy our seeds   what traits are in there and how they are labeled,  explained perlak.   the general consensus of the scientific community is increasingly becoming that there are no risks   no differences associated with gmo food versus non gmo food.  if people want to do that as a matter of preference, that should be voluntary.  people should be allowed to do that.  if general mills wants to label cheerios, great.  if whole foods wants to label, great.  the marketplace will dictate whether they are successful and whether that is important and we support that,  said perlak.   #  the timing was interesting, and of course, it may have meant nothing.   # first, it seems like you are implying that monsanto is trying to hide that this ad ever existed and was somehow triggered to do so by your posting it in /r/skeptic ? , when this ad was produced well over a decade ago and they could have taken it down because it might have seemed contradictory to people such as yourself .  i just have an inflated view of how social media and corporate and belief laden webpages interact.  reddit is a very popular site and me posting something to /r/skeptic likely gets more attention than the webpage i found the original link at.  the timing was interesting, and of course, it may have meant nothing.  of course it is reasonable, but it is also reasonable to point out when they attempt to hide historical fact.  as you say, the webpage was up for a decade.  why take it down now ? to quote fred perlak, ph. d. , monsanto hawaii research   business ops vice president: well, you seem to think that the uk labeling was voluntary, but in fact it was mandatory in the uk back then, as far as i know.  certainly, it is mandatory now: URL  the agency supports consumer choice.  we recognise that some people will want to choose not to buy or eat genetically modified gm foods, however carefully they have been assessed for safety.  will the label tell me if food is gm ? in the eu, if a food contains or consists of genetically modified organisms gmos , or contains ingredients produced from gmos, this must be indicated on the label.  for gm products sold  willoose , information must be displayed immediately next to the food to indicate that it is gm.  on 0 april 0, new rules for gm labelling came into force in all eu member states.  .  notice that in the uk, the governmental regulation agency recognizes that a citizen is  right to know  trumps the free speech rights of a corporation to not tell you.   #  it is unclear to me which came first, but either way they surely knew it was coming if it was not already the law.   # fair enough.  as you say, the webpage was up for a decade.  why take it down now ? i already suggested one possible explanation; that people might view these positions as contradictory.  certainly, it is mandatory now: it is indeed.  labeling in the uk was just becoming mandatory in the few year span when monsanto first ran these ads.  it is unclear to me which came first, but either way they surely knew it was coming if it was not already the law.  it seems most likely that they tried this more friendly and agreeable tactic in the uk, and have learned from the experience that this does not get you very far.  indeed.  the uk also has some of the worst libel laws in the developed world, so i am not sure i trust them to tell me what is best with respect to free speech.  either way, uk laws apply to the uk, and the rest of the world can act in a similar fashion or not.  obviously i feel that they are wrong in their conclusion, and deciding this comes down to rational discourse, not appealing to european law.   #  one of the reasons genetic modification does not have a demonstrable effect as a category, is because it is too broad.   #  because one has a demonstrable effect on the nutrional and safety aspects of the food, and the other does not.  hence to mandate one is to act in the consumers  interest, and to mandate the other is to give into baseless paranoia and to force companies to put a misleading and useless label on their products.  one of the reasons genetic modification does not have a demonstrable effect as a category, is because it is too broad.  gmo is can in theory and in practice be modified in many different ways, from resisting disease to improving taste.  where it affects nutrition this can be displayed using existing labels, where it affects safety it has to comply with the same standards as normal products, and where it affects the product in no material way other than the way it is produced, the label would be misleading.  either way, labeling gmo is is too vague to have real meaning.
i know they are powerful and fast, but i am quick and smart.  i believe that in a one on one confrontation, i could outmaneuver and possibly even subdue an attacking velociraptor during a sudden encounter in an everyday environment.  it seems to me that a reasonably agile and fit person could trip or dodge a charge, proceed to mount, then stranglehold a similar sized dinosaur, asphyxiating until unconsciousness or death.  additional damage could be inflicted with the breaking of upper limbs and the gouging of eyes.  i do not believe that a velociraptor is brain is equipped to deal with confrontations that involve more than simple pursuit or evasion.  i believe they are fundamentally incapable of dealing with a dynamic combat event, and thus could be relatively easily subdued by strategic fighting and basic wrestling.  i believe their threat is largely overplayed in the media, and that i personally would be able to best this particular dinosaur in unarmed single combat.  if i happened to have some sort of reasonably ranged melee weapon, such as a shovel or bat, there would be no contest.  change my view.   #  i do not believe that a velociraptor is brain is equipped to deal with confrontations that involve more than simple pursuit or evasion.   #  i believe they are fundamentally incapable of dealing with a dynamic combat event, and thus could be relatively easily subdued by strategic fighting and basic wrestling.   # i believe they are fundamentally incapable of dealing with a dynamic combat event, and thus could be relatively easily subdued by strategic fighting and basic wrestling.  as a predator, velocirapotors would fight in dynamic situations to kill their prey.  i challenge you to fight a grey wolf, a predator that would be fairly similar in size to the type potrayed in jurassic park.  i highly doubt you could beat a wolf or even a german shepard in a fight unarmed, as it is far stronger than you nad will bite you to death before you could choke it.  you have obviously never fought a wild animal before, as they will roll, twist, bite and kick to get away and kill you.  if you can defeat a common wolf or even a coyote, than you might consider.  you are woefully underestimating wild animals  #  mind, i still think the raptor wins, there is a reason we do not go around picking fights with emu is and ostriches, but there is a chance you could win.   #  i will say this as a 0lb guy who has to occasionally wrestle down 0 lb dogs, if you can get them off their feet, you win, no questions asked.  i do not think deinonychus  arms would have been strong enough to get it back upright once you have it on the ground and once its there you can keep it there and keep its head pinned, thus eliminating that bite.  better yet, once you have it down, you could likely just hold it is mouth closed.  i imagine they have somewhat similar jaws to a crocodile, in that they have incredible bite force, but minuscule opening force.  on top of that, if op was being smart, instead of choking it, he could blind it pretty easily since the eyes are on the side of the head.  i think any fight would come down to the first charge.  if the raptor charges in and misses you could get it off balance, bind its mouth shut and blind it.  if it knocks you over, or bites you, well that is pretty much it.  mind, i still think the raptor wins, there is a reason we do not go around picking fights with emu is and ostriches, but there is a chance you could win.  also, off tangent, but i like to think that the park raptors are just utahraptors that shrunk because of the frog etc.  dna that was used to clone them.   #  also, the structure of a raptor is very different from a crocodile.  you would never be able to get your arms around it is head to close it is jaw by trying to mount it like an ostrich.   #  you are not wrestling dogs that are trying to kill you.  the key here is that hunting animals have apparatus specifically for not missing  the charge .  say nothing of the agility for rapid changes in direction.  also, the structure of a raptor is very different from a crocodile.  you would never be able to get your arms around it is head to close it is jaw by trying to mount it like an ostrich.  i do not believe a human could get close enough to a sizable raptor without being bitten, much less mount it.   #  also, if you have a dog that thinks you are trying to kill it, they are going to buck and wriggle and try and turn a jaw to get at you.   #  i too had to wrestle dogs whilst being a vet tech.  you are correct that once you either get an arm under their neck or they are off balance you can win, but until then you are in trouble.  also, if you have a dog that thinks you are trying to kill it, they are going to buck and wriggle and try and turn a jaw to get at you.  it goes against instinct, but if you do get them in a head lock from behind you have to tuck your face into the base of their neck to keep them from squirming around to bite your face.  with a 0 foot tall raptor, you would have to mount that shit like a horse and start strangling.  the minute you got on its back its heads going to flop all kinds of crazy, and i do not think anyone would be quick enough to headlock  secure it without getting bitten.  then, even if you do strangle it to the point of losing consciousness, you have to worry about a 0 0 beast collapsing on top of you.   #  fighting a dog that weighs more than you would significantly change the ease of it.   #  fighting a dog that weighs more than you would significantly change the ease of it.  imagine, if you will, a 0 lb child.  they would be 0 years old, and smaller than the dog.  do you think that child would easily take down any dog you could ? my point is, weight difference is huge.  i learned this first hand as a smaller girl in martial arts.
i know they are powerful and fast, but i am quick and smart.  i believe that in a one on one confrontation, i could outmaneuver and possibly even subdue an attacking velociraptor during a sudden encounter in an everyday environment.  it seems to me that a reasonably agile and fit person could trip or dodge a charge, proceed to mount, then stranglehold a similar sized dinosaur, asphyxiating until unconsciousness or death.  additional damage could be inflicted with the breaking of upper limbs and the gouging of eyes.  i do not believe that a velociraptor is brain is equipped to deal with confrontations that involve more than simple pursuit or evasion.  i believe they are fundamentally incapable of dealing with a dynamic combat event, and thus could be relatively easily subdued by strategic fighting and basic wrestling.  i believe their threat is largely overplayed in the media, and that i personally would be able to best this particular dinosaur in unarmed single combat.  if i happened to have some sort of reasonably ranged melee weapon, such as a shovel or bat, there would be no contest.  change my view.   #  i do not believe that a velociraptor is brain is equipped to deal with confrontations that involve more than simple pursuit or evasion.   #  i believe they are fundamentally incapable of dealing with a dynamic combat event, and thus could be relatively easily subdued by strategic fighting and basic wrestling.   # i believe they are fundamentally incapable of dealing with a dynamic combat event, and thus could be relatively easily subdued by strategic fighting and basic wrestling.  not necessarily.  i ca not actually find a reliable figure for the volume of a velociraptor is brain to calculate brain/body ratio with , but they are usually referred to as having a relatively large brain compared to other dinosaurs.  another thing to remember is that certain birds like crows have shown advanced tool use, and given both crows and velociraptors evolved from theropod ancestors that shows this lineage has the potential for high intelligence.  given velociraptor is high speed and potential intelligence it seems plausible that it could at evade a counter attack by you in unarmed combat, and while it is small size means a single velociraptor almost certainly could not take you down straight away if it manages to wound you sufficiently or has a lucky strike on an artery you could conceivably bleed out while it kept a safe distance.  if there was a pack of them then i do not think you would fare well, you might be able to grab one or two but the rest could attack while your hands were full, again causing multiple serious injuries rather than killing you in a single strike.   #  on top of that, if op was being smart, instead of choking it, he could blind it pretty easily since the eyes are on the side of the head.   #  i will say this as a 0lb guy who has to occasionally wrestle down 0 lb dogs, if you can get them off their feet, you win, no questions asked.  i do not think deinonychus  arms would have been strong enough to get it back upright once you have it on the ground and once its there you can keep it there and keep its head pinned, thus eliminating that bite.  better yet, once you have it down, you could likely just hold it is mouth closed.  i imagine they have somewhat similar jaws to a crocodile, in that they have incredible bite force, but minuscule opening force.  on top of that, if op was being smart, instead of choking it, he could blind it pretty easily since the eyes are on the side of the head.  i think any fight would come down to the first charge.  if the raptor charges in and misses you could get it off balance, bind its mouth shut and blind it.  if it knocks you over, or bites you, well that is pretty much it.  mind, i still think the raptor wins, there is a reason we do not go around picking fights with emu is and ostriches, but there is a chance you could win.  also, off tangent, but i like to think that the park raptors are just utahraptors that shrunk because of the frog etc.  dna that was used to clone them.   #  also, the structure of a raptor is very different from a crocodile.  you would never be able to get your arms around it is head to close it is jaw by trying to mount it like an ostrich.   #  you are not wrestling dogs that are trying to kill you.  the key here is that hunting animals have apparatus specifically for not missing  the charge .  say nothing of the agility for rapid changes in direction.  also, the structure of a raptor is very different from a crocodile.  you would never be able to get your arms around it is head to close it is jaw by trying to mount it like an ostrich.  i do not believe a human could get close enough to a sizable raptor without being bitten, much less mount it.   #  i too had to wrestle dogs whilst being a vet tech.   #  i too had to wrestle dogs whilst being a vet tech.  you are correct that once you either get an arm under their neck or they are off balance you can win, but until then you are in trouble.  also, if you have a dog that thinks you are trying to kill it, they are going to buck and wriggle and try and turn a jaw to get at you.  it goes against instinct, but if you do get them in a head lock from behind you have to tuck your face into the base of their neck to keep them from squirming around to bite your face.  with a 0 foot tall raptor, you would have to mount that shit like a horse and start strangling.  the minute you got on its back its heads going to flop all kinds of crazy, and i do not think anyone would be quick enough to headlock  secure it without getting bitten.  then, even if you do strangle it to the point of losing consciousness, you have to worry about a 0 0 beast collapsing on top of you.   #  imagine, if you will, a 0 lb child.   #  fighting a dog that weighs more than you would significantly change the ease of it.  imagine, if you will, a 0 lb child.  they would be 0 years old, and smaller than the dog.  do you think that child would easily take down any dog you could ? my point is, weight difference is huge.  i learned this first hand as a smaller girl in martial arts.
trickle down theory is supposed to be the idea that, by allowing wealthy people tax breaks, their wealth will then pass down to poorer people through their increased economic activity afforded by their greater wealth.  at least, it would be, were it not for the whole idea of a trickle down theory even existing as a seriously considered idea among any economists or policy makers simply being a strawman rebuttal to any suggestion that taxes be lowered.  as far as i am aware, no major politician or academic has ever directly mentioned  trickle down  as an ideal to move towards, or advocated lower tax rates solely on the justification of  trickle down .  the only groups that seriously discuss the idea are left or center wing groups using it as a strawman argument in opposition to groups that intend to lower taxes for a variety of different reasons.  obama has famously said on trickle down  it does not work, it has never worked  while completely forgetting the reality that trickle down has never been policy or even seriously advocated for.  therefore, it is my view that  trickle down theory  is just a stock left wing phrase used in to denounce those who advocate lower taxes.   #  as far as i am aware, no major politician or academic has ever directly mentioned  trickle down  as an ideal to move towards, or advocated lower tax rates solely on the justification of  trickle down .   #   trickle down  is a disparaging term used by opponents of tax cuts, so people would not be advocating it using that terminology.   #  trickle down  is a disparaging term used by opponents of tax cuts, so people would not be advocating it using that terminology.  it is akin to calling a pro choice person  pro abortion,  even though they are in favor of having abortion, using that phrase is meant as an attack on the idea, not something any proponent of abortion rights would use themselves.  but is the concept of  trickle down  a strawman like you suggest ? if it were a strawman, that would imply that nobody actually believes that putting money into the economy and into production benefits the poor.  the whole idea is that spending money can actually help the economy, rather than hurt it, and that tax breaks allow big businesses to spend more money.  this was part of the philosophy behind reganomics.  so it is definitely something that people advocate.   trickle down  is a simplification, but i do not think it is a strawman.   #  URL sounds like they were trying specifically for a trickle down theory.   #  here is david stockman, reagan is budget director, on the  supply side  economics that they pushed for in congress:  it is kind of hard to sell  trickle down,   he explained,  so the supply side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really  trickle down.   supply side is  trickle down  theory.   URL sounds like they were trying specifically for a trickle down theory.  whatever you want to call it, they were trying to lower the tax rates at the top because they believed it would help the economy.  here is stockman, again:  the original argument was that the top bracket was too high, and that is having the most devastating effect on the economy.   all this economic policy became known as reaganomics and, from a liberal viewpoint, have not been pushed back enough.  when liberals talk about  trickle down  they are generally referring to policies enacted by reagan.   #  i tend to agree with op is side of things because i do not think that is the primary justification for lowering the top marginal tax rate.   #  imo, trickle down economics is a justification for a policy rather than a policy itself.  it is the economic theory that makes the case for why a given policy is a good one.  the tricky part about connecting a policy to the underlying economic theory is that there are many different possible economic theories, but usually only 0 basic policies when it comes to tax rates.  either the tax rate should go up or down.  but, there are potentially 0, 0 or more different reasons for why it should go up or down.  to me, trickle down economics is about the positive externality created through the wealth effect on the spending of the rich.  essentially, that lower tax rates on the wealthy are justified because when the wealthy have more money, they will spend more which in turn helps everyone else.  i tend to agree with op is side of things because i do not think that is the primary justification for lowering the top marginal tax rate.   #  if you lower them for the rich they will just pad their bank accounts and stock portfolios.   #  that is why trickle down economics does not work.  if you lower taxes for the poor, they are going to rush out and spend the extra money instantly.  if you lower them for the rich they will just pad their bank accounts and stock portfolios.  my personal belief is that trickle down economics were never truly intended to stimulate the economy, despite how they were sold to us.  i belive politicians who advocate tax cuts for the wealthy are really hoping to get rich people to back their campaigns out of self interest.   #  what do you think that  we think  trickle down economics is ?  #  as one of the left wingers you are presumably referring to, my understanding of  trickle down  was simply that if we lower taxes on the wealthy, it will help everyone.  is your position that lowering taxes on the rich will  only  help the rich, but that its still good policy ? that does not seem like a winning platform, and i do not think that is the platform that any conservative would describe well, not publicly anyway .  i thought it was pretty clear that republicans think that lowering the top brackets will help everyone in some fashion such as by creating jobs / stimulating the economy .  so what am i missing about your view ? what do you think that  we think  trickle down economics is ?
trickle down theory is supposed to be the idea that, by allowing wealthy people tax breaks, their wealth will then pass down to poorer people through their increased economic activity afforded by their greater wealth.  at least, it would be, were it not for the whole idea of a trickle down theory even existing as a seriously considered idea among any economists or policy makers simply being a strawman rebuttal to any suggestion that taxes be lowered.  as far as i am aware, no major politician or academic has ever directly mentioned  trickle down  as an ideal to move towards, or advocated lower tax rates solely on the justification of  trickle down .  the only groups that seriously discuss the idea are left or center wing groups using it as a strawman argument in opposition to groups that intend to lower taxes for a variety of different reasons.  obama has famously said on trickle down  it does not work, it has never worked  while completely forgetting the reality that trickle down has never been policy or even seriously advocated for.  therefore, it is my view that  trickle down theory  is just a stock left wing phrase used in to denounce those who advocate lower taxes.   #  the idea that, by allowing wealthy people tax breaks, their wealth will then pass down to poorer people through their increased economic activity afforded by their greater wealth.   #  how many times did you hear the phrase  job creator  in the last campaign from republican candidates ?  # how many times did you hear the phrase  job creator  in the last campaign from republican candidates ? i do not understand why you think this is a straw man.  do you think the way i phrased it in my post was also a strawman ? are you disputing the idea that republicans advocate for tax cuts for the wealthy ? i honestly am having trouble understanding exactly what your position is here.   #  here is stockman, again:  the original argument was that the top bracket was too high, and that is having the most devastating effect on the economy.    #  here is david stockman, reagan is budget director, on the  supply side  economics that they pushed for in congress:  it is kind of hard to sell  trickle down,   he explained,  so the supply side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really  trickle down.   supply side is  trickle down  theory.   URL sounds like they were trying specifically for a trickle down theory.  whatever you want to call it, they were trying to lower the tax rates at the top because they believed it would help the economy.  here is stockman, again:  the original argument was that the top bracket was too high, and that is having the most devastating effect on the economy.   all this economic policy became known as reaganomics and, from a liberal viewpoint, have not been pushed back enough.  when liberals talk about  trickle down  they are generally referring to policies enacted by reagan.   #  imo, trickle down economics is a justification for a policy rather than a policy itself.   #  imo, trickle down economics is a justification for a policy rather than a policy itself.  it is the economic theory that makes the case for why a given policy is a good one.  the tricky part about connecting a policy to the underlying economic theory is that there are many different possible economic theories, but usually only 0 basic policies when it comes to tax rates.  either the tax rate should go up or down.  but, there are potentially 0, 0 or more different reasons for why it should go up or down.  to me, trickle down economics is about the positive externality created through the wealth effect on the spending of the rich.  essentially, that lower tax rates on the wealthy are justified because when the wealthy have more money, they will spend more which in turn helps everyone else.  i tend to agree with op is side of things because i do not think that is the primary justification for lowering the top marginal tax rate.   #  the whole idea is that spending money can actually help the economy, rather than hurt it, and that tax breaks allow big businesses to spend more money.   #  trickle down  is a disparaging term used by opponents of tax cuts, so people would not be advocating it using that terminology.  it is akin to calling a pro choice person  pro abortion,  even though they are in favor of having abortion, using that phrase is meant as an attack on the idea, not something any proponent of abortion rights would use themselves.  but is the concept of  trickle down  a strawman like you suggest ? if it were a strawman, that would imply that nobody actually believes that putting money into the economy and into production benefits the poor.  the whole idea is that spending money can actually help the economy, rather than hurt it, and that tax breaks allow big businesses to spend more money.  this was part of the philosophy behind reganomics.  so it is definitely something that people advocate.   trickle down  is a simplification, but i do not think it is a strawman.   #  my personal belief is that trickle down economics were never truly intended to stimulate the economy, despite how they were sold to us.   #  that is why trickle down economics does not work.  if you lower taxes for the poor, they are going to rush out and spend the extra money instantly.  if you lower them for the rich they will just pad their bank accounts and stock portfolios.  my personal belief is that trickle down economics were never truly intended to stimulate the economy, despite how they were sold to us.  i belive politicians who advocate tax cuts for the wealthy are really hoping to get rich people to back their campaigns out of self interest.
trickle down theory is supposed to be the idea that, by allowing wealthy people tax breaks, their wealth will then pass down to poorer people through their increased economic activity afforded by their greater wealth.  at least, it would be, were it not for the whole idea of a trickle down theory even existing as a seriously considered idea among any economists or policy makers simply being a strawman rebuttal to any suggestion that taxes be lowered.  as far as i am aware, no major politician or academic has ever directly mentioned  trickle down  as an ideal to move towards, or advocated lower tax rates solely on the justification of  trickle down .  the only groups that seriously discuss the idea are left or center wing groups using it as a strawman argument in opposition to groups that intend to lower taxes for a variety of different reasons.  obama has famously said on trickle down  it does not work, it has never worked  while completely forgetting the reality that trickle down has never been policy or even seriously advocated for.  therefore, it is my view that  trickle down theory  is just a stock left wing phrase used in to denounce those who advocate lower taxes.   #  as far as i am aware, no major politician or academic has ever directly mentioned  trickle down  as an ideal to move towards, or advocated lower tax rates solely on the justification of  trickle down .   #  the only groups that seriously discuss the idea are left or center wing groups using it as a strawman argument in opposition to groups that intend to lower taxes for a variety of different reasons.   # the only groups that seriously discuss the idea are left or center wing groups using it as a strawman argument in opposition to groups that intend to lower taxes for a variety of different reasons.  as others have pointed out its mostly used as a pejorative term when people want to try and label a policy they do not like to try and avoid discussion of it.  in reality the policies people often label as  trickle down  or indeed supply side often have overwhelming support in the mainstream economics community just not for the reasons those opposed to them claim, they change the why in an effort to oppose the policy.  the overwhelming majority of economists would like to see corporation taxes disappear, opponents cite this as  trickle down  or  supply side  nonsense to benefit the wealthy when in reality we oppose corporation taxes because they are actually paid predominantly by labor actors 0 of the incidence falls on labor not capital actors and the distortionary cost URL is always in excess of the revenue collected.  we oppose them because they harm everyone now because they harm the wealthy.  how about capital taxation ? empirically the optimal rate of capital taxation is zero, its the only tax which has an exponential d cost curve yet suggestions of its elimination will be met with bile filled rants where  trickle down  will be referenced more then a few times.  in reality the fact this predominantly impacts the wealthy in terms of effective rate is an irrelevance to why most economists support eliminating it; economic efficiency and the importance of capital to growth are why we support eliminating it.  other policies do indeed target corporate actors but do so because empirically doing so benefits the wider economy.  quantitative easing is a good example of one such policy, via monetary policy we target banks and increase their liquidity seriously, who do people hate more then bankers ? .  what is occurring with this liquidity is a reduction in the cost of credit and increase in credit issuance of consumer   industrial credit.  as a small side note i have often thought it would be fantastic if keynes were still alive and could anonymously post to /r/politics as much classical keynesian theory would almost certainly be labeled as  trickle down .  keynesian stimulus involves the government giving or loaning large amounts of money to business which in turn results in self sustaining consumption ripples in the wider economy, i can think of nothing else that better fits what people discuss with this.   #  whatever you want to call it, they were trying to lower the tax rates at the top because they believed it would help the economy.   #  here is david stockman, reagan is budget director, on the  supply side  economics that they pushed for in congress:  it is kind of hard to sell  trickle down,   he explained,  so the supply side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really  trickle down.   supply side is  trickle down  theory.   URL sounds like they were trying specifically for a trickle down theory.  whatever you want to call it, they were trying to lower the tax rates at the top because they believed it would help the economy.  here is stockman, again:  the original argument was that the top bracket was too high, and that is having the most devastating effect on the economy.   all this economic policy became known as reaganomics and, from a liberal viewpoint, have not been pushed back enough.  when liberals talk about  trickle down  they are generally referring to policies enacted by reagan.   #  i tend to agree with op is side of things because i do not think that is the primary justification for lowering the top marginal tax rate.   #  imo, trickle down economics is a justification for a policy rather than a policy itself.  it is the economic theory that makes the case for why a given policy is a good one.  the tricky part about connecting a policy to the underlying economic theory is that there are many different possible economic theories, but usually only 0 basic policies when it comes to tax rates.  either the tax rate should go up or down.  but, there are potentially 0, 0 or more different reasons for why it should go up or down.  to me, trickle down economics is about the positive externality created through the wealth effect on the spending of the rich.  essentially, that lower tax rates on the wealthy are justified because when the wealthy have more money, they will spend more which in turn helps everyone else.  i tend to agree with op is side of things because i do not think that is the primary justification for lowering the top marginal tax rate.   #  this was part of the philosophy behind reganomics.   #  trickle down  is a disparaging term used by opponents of tax cuts, so people would not be advocating it using that terminology.  it is akin to calling a pro choice person  pro abortion,  even though they are in favor of having abortion, using that phrase is meant as an attack on the idea, not something any proponent of abortion rights would use themselves.  but is the concept of  trickle down  a strawman like you suggest ? if it were a strawman, that would imply that nobody actually believes that putting money into the economy and into production benefits the poor.  the whole idea is that spending money can actually help the economy, rather than hurt it, and that tax breaks allow big businesses to spend more money.  this was part of the philosophy behind reganomics.  so it is definitely something that people advocate.   trickle down  is a simplification, but i do not think it is a strawman.   #  i belive politicians who advocate tax cuts for the wealthy are really hoping to get rich people to back their campaigns out of self interest.   #  that is why trickle down economics does not work.  if you lower taxes for the poor, they are going to rush out and spend the extra money instantly.  if you lower them for the rich they will just pad their bank accounts and stock portfolios.  my personal belief is that trickle down economics were never truly intended to stimulate the economy, despite how they were sold to us.  i belive politicians who advocate tax cuts for the wealthy are really hoping to get rich people to back their campaigns out of self interest.
i quite smoking on december 0, 0.  i did this cold turkey.  i made a promise that i would put $0 a day into an account.  at the end of the year i would buy something for myself.  the agreement to myself is i would give the money to an organization i hated if i had any nicotine products.  this was to be an added incentive to not smoke.  my band had a show last saturday.  the short version is after our set i drank a little too much, i bummed a smoke and did not think about it.  now i feel obligated to give the money i saved to an organization i hate the most.  this may be the kkk, westboro church, or tea party organization.  i want to keep the money, i do not want to give this money away to these organizations, but also do not want to cheat on the agreement i made with myself.  maybe there is a loophole.   #  the agreement to myself is i would give the money to an organization i hated if i had any nicotine products.   #  this was to be an added incentive to not smoke.   # this was to be an added incentive to not smoke.  out of curiosity, why to an organization you hate rather than an organization that does something good or maybe focuses on combatting lung cancer ? it is still an incentive because you are not buying a  thing  for yourself and possibly bears a relationship to what you are trying to accomplish in your personal life.  just because you approve or like of it does not mean it is going to be some  tangible  benefit you gain.  frankly, i say fuck it.  donate the money as planned which is effectively still within the spirit of your promise that the money ultimately does not go towards a shiny new thing for you without going to shitty people who advocate shitty things.  there is a doctrine called  unconscionability  which is exactly how it sounds: if it is unconscionable, the contract is unenforceable.  it is basically never the right answer in real contracts but since we are working with a personal promise in your case, i would argue that the outcome of adhering to the contract is so fucked that it is better not to enforce it.  rather,  amend  the terms with yourself so that some better cause gets the money instead of your own personal goodies.   #  people fuck up, and one smoke in 0 months seems pretty good by any standard.   #  nope, seems pretty iron clad to me.  you had to give the money away if you had any nicotine products and you had one nicotine product.  if you want to remain true to the spirit of the deal, then you have to give all the money to the kkk.  or you can do what everyone else does when they go back on a deal with themselves and rationalize your slip up as  not counting.   personally, i would say five months is more than enough to consider yourself to be a non smoker.  you did not go out of your way to buy cigarettes and then smoke the whole pack in one night.  you got drunk and out of habit you did something that you have done a hundred times before.  people fuck up, and one smoke in 0 months seems pretty good by any standard.  now if you think you will use legitimizing this as an excuse to legitimize further breaches of contract, then hold strong and keep to the terms.  but if i had to guess, you will see your empty bank account, get mad about it, realize that you now have no savings for that thing you were going to buy for yourself, and go buy a new pack.   #  the real issue is living up to a promise that i made to myself.   #  i will not give it to the kkk.  i will cheat on that part of the deal, but it was part of the the initial agreement.  i will probably find a charity i like.  but i do feel obligated to live up to some part of this agreement.  the money part is not a big thing, it is also not money i would have if i smoked.  the real issue is living up to a promise that i made to myself.   #  i love the confederacy and wish we won the civil war.   #  i like to punch puppies when i see them.  i once threw rocks at a few housecats and nailed one really hard in the eye, making it bleed.  i wish the holocaust happened.  i tell people all the time how ugly and worthless they are.  i think people that smoke are disgusting and deserve cancer.  i think anyone that has cancer did something to deserve it.  everyone but me are entitled pricks.  whenever a natural disaster happens i get gleeful thinking of all the people being rightfully punished by god.  gays are going to burn in hell.  mouthy woman are going to burn in hell.  anyone that is not white and upper middle class and beyond is going to burn in hell.  i love the confederacy and wish we won the civil war.  i now have my very own charity to myself, for myself ! pm me for the wiring details.   #  just because you hate them, does not mean you have to give to evil.   #  just because you hate them, does not mean you have to give to evil.  or did you list them specifically ? if you did, then you can ask yourself exactly what part of their operations you are obligated to fund.  maybe you can give the money to the fund with the aclu is defense league for these organizations ? besides, your commitment was it in writing ? if not, i would say you need it in writing.  and here is my suggestion.  you make it a monthly commitment.  0 dollars is still a tidy sum enough that you would care, but not so much you would feel you did wrong.
propane is better than charcoal for a multitude of reasons.     it is easier to control the temperature.    propane can be easily stored in your grill.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.    it is better for the environment.  charcoal requires dead trees.  the good charcoal not the kingston bricks is made by slowly burning a tree for hours releasing huge amounts of smoke and debris into the atmosphere.    many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.    charcoal takes much longer to light.  if you are using inst light charcoal, grilling too early is actually very unhealthy.  you have to wait for all of the coals to be completely white, or else you will be eating the fumes from the lighter fluid in the coals.   some of the arguments against propane are easily dispelled.  for instance:     it is more dangerous .  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.     charcoal makes your steaks taste better  if you want a nice smoked flavor you can throw a could of wood chips on a propane grill.  and if you are getting all of your flavor from the charcoal you are not seasoning correctly.     propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.  cmv  #  it is easier to control the temperature.   #  as long as the temperature you want is somewhere between  low  and  extra low .   # as long as the temperature you want is somewhere between  low  and  extra low .  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.  most people own or rent houses that usually features a roof.  they can put things inside this house like their bodies and laptops and beds and charcoal and none of it will ever get wet.  in addition, i have never had to hump an empty bag of charcoal in the back of my car to go get it refilled, and if i have a bag of charcoal in my car and i get in an accident, the charcoal does not explode and kill everyone.  that is like saying that tricycles are better than bicycles.  or kites are better than f 0s.  in this post industrial world, if something complicated is still around, it is because it can do so much more than the easy thing.  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.  lighter fluid is  flammable .  pressurized gas is  explosive .  big difference.   #  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.   #  i am a gas griller, and it is for many of the reasons you listed.  however, charcoal produces a better steak.  it is not just the smoke, either, it is about temperature and the difference between convection and radiant heat.  gas grills only get up to between 0 and 0 degrees fahrenheit, some as low as 0, and most of the cooking is being done via convection that is, heating up the air.  that is not enough on its own for a good maillard reaction, which means you ca not achieve the same texture and flavor.  with charcoal, you are cooking hotter, and you are cooking with a lot more radiant heat.  boom, maillard reaction deliciousness.  you ca not get that crisp on gas without overcooking it.  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.  charcoal also gives you the flavor bonus of smoking, and it goes beyond the charcoal itself.  when you are cooking over charcoal, every drip of grease and fat or sauce that cooks out of your meat drips onto the charcoal and is vaporized, adding to the smoke.  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.  i would argue that a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill for most people, but a charcoal grill offers a superior end product if you know what you are doing and want to go through the hassle.   #  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.   #  i have never found that propane is as good as keeping the grill nice and toasty in the wind, or at recovering temperature after the grill has been opened and closed again.  you are willing to pay more money; others are willing to give up more storage space, or learn to control temperature, or wait a while for it to get up to temperature.  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.  propane comes from either natural gas refining or petrochemicals; it releases co0 when it burns that has been locked up in the ground for a very, very long time to say nothing of the energy needed to find, extract, refine, ship, and store it .  charcoal, on the other hand, is easily made at home from wood that has sequestered carbon from the last few decades at most; it releases no more co0 than it has absorbed in its life less, in fact, since a lot of the carbon stays locked up in the ash, which is great for your garden .  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.   #  you make a lot of good, rational, logical reasons for propane grilling, and i will not try to refute them.  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.  following our logic of ease and environmental impact, you might as well cook on an electric foreman grill, but you would never want to do that.  you want to gather all your belongings, go outside and throw some meat on a fire.  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.  you can watch the flames kissing your food and hear the tantalizing sizzles of the juices.  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.  there is no gasses or switches or nozzles or sparks that separate you from the grilling experience i also do not believe in starter fluid .  there is just you, a hungry man, combustible plant matter, a metal box, and delicious, delicious steaks.  or burgers.  or vegetables, what the hell.  cooking with charcoal is like skewering a hot dog with a stick and holding it over a campfire.  cooking with propane is like forgetting to use a pan on your gas stove.   #  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.   #  these are interesting arguments, and since i am the complete opposite of an outdoorsman, i need to ask a few questions to people who are actually  good  at doing steaks.  first, i have not eaten much steak growing up.  going to restaurants, my mother would insist i get my steaks well done.  very dry and tough.  i liked the baked potatoes more.  whenever my dad or others would grill at family events, i remember the chicken would taste charred and dry.  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.  so about 0 months ago i saw a video URL showing gordon ramsey cooking  the perfect steak  on a pan.  on a whim, i picked up some thin new york steaks for my girlfriend and me and tried it out.  it was one of the most incredible culinary experiences i ever had ! it was juicy, well seasoned, and easy to prepare.  only problem is one of us had to be on fire alarm duty, because it is easily set off in the tiny apartment, and we ca not disable it.  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.   they just ai not right.   plus she was always worried about the danger of under cooked foods.  so my question is: in the grand scheme of steak snobbery, clearly charcoal is superior to gas.  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ? is it just a different way of doing the same thing, is it inferior or superior in some minor or significant way, or is it the gustatory abomination my dad seemed to think it was ?
propane is better than charcoal for a multitude of reasons.     it is easier to control the temperature.    propane can be easily stored in your grill.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.    it is better for the environment.  charcoal requires dead trees.  the good charcoal not the kingston bricks is made by slowly burning a tree for hours releasing huge amounts of smoke and debris into the atmosphere.    many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.    charcoal takes much longer to light.  if you are using inst light charcoal, grilling too early is actually very unhealthy.  you have to wait for all of the coals to be completely white, or else you will be eating the fumes from the lighter fluid in the coals.   some of the arguments against propane are easily dispelled.  for instance:     it is more dangerous .  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.     charcoal makes your steaks taste better  if you want a nice smoked flavor you can throw a could of wood chips on a propane grill.  and if you are getting all of your flavor from the charcoal you are not seasoning correctly.     propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.  cmv  #  propane can be easily stored in your grill.   #  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.   # as long as the temperature you want is somewhere between  low  and  extra low .  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.  most people own or rent houses that usually features a roof.  they can put things inside this house like their bodies and laptops and beds and charcoal and none of it will ever get wet.  in addition, i have never had to hump an empty bag of charcoal in the back of my car to go get it refilled, and if i have a bag of charcoal in my car and i get in an accident, the charcoal does not explode and kill everyone.  that is like saying that tricycles are better than bicycles.  or kites are better than f 0s.  in this post industrial world, if something complicated is still around, it is because it can do so much more than the easy thing.  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.  lighter fluid is  flammable .  pressurized gas is  explosive .  big difference.   #  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.   #  i am a gas griller, and it is for many of the reasons you listed.  however, charcoal produces a better steak.  it is not just the smoke, either, it is about temperature and the difference between convection and radiant heat.  gas grills only get up to between 0 and 0 degrees fahrenheit, some as low as 0, and most of the cooking is being done via convection that is, heating up the air.  that is not enough on its own for a good maillard reaction, which means you ca not achieve the same texture and flavor.  with charcoal, you are cooking hotter, and you are cooking with a lot more radiant heat.  boom, maillard reaction deliciousness.  you ca not get that crisp on gas without overcooking it.  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.  charcoal also gives you the flavor bonus of smoking, and it goes beyond the charcoal itself.  when you are cooking over charcoal, every drip of grease and fat or sauce that cooks out of your meat drips onto the charcoal and is vaporized, adding to the smoke.  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.  i would argue that a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill for most people, but a charcoal grill offers a superior end product if you know what you are doing and want to go through the hassle.   #  you are willing to pay more money; others are willing to give up more storage space, or learn to control temperature, or wait a while for it to get up to temperature.   #  i have never found that propane is as good as keeping the grill nice and toasty in the wind, or at recovering temperature after the grill has been opened and closed again.  you are willing to pay more money; others are willing to give up more storage space, or learn to control temperature, or wait a while for it to get up to temperature.  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.  propane comes from either natural gas refining or petrochemicals; it releases co0 when it burns that has been locked up in the ground for a very, very long time to say nothing of the energy needed to find, extract, refine, ship, and store it .  charcoal, on the other hand, is easily made at home from wood that has sequestered carbon from the last few decades at most; it releases no more co0 than it has absorbed in its life less, in fact, since a lot of the carbon stays locked up in the ash, which is great for your garden .  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.   #  you make a lot of good, rational, logical reasons for propane grilling, and i will not try to refute them.  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.  following our logic of ease and environmental impact, you might as well cook on an electric foreman grill, but you would never want to do that.  you want to gather all your belongings, go outside and throw some meat on a fire.  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.  you can watch the flames kissing your food and hear the tantalizing sizzles of the juices.  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.  there is no gasses or switches or nozzles or sparks that separate you from the grilling experience i also do not believe in starter fluid .  there is just you, a hungry man, combustible plant matter, a metal box, and delicious, delicious steaks.  or burgers.  or vegetables, what the hell.  cooking with charcoal is like skewering a hot dog with a stick and holding it over a campfire.  cooking with propane is like forgetting to use a pan on your gas stove.   #  so my question is: in the grand scheme of steak snobbery, clearly charcoal is superior to gas.   #  these are interesting arguments, and since i am the complete opposite of an outdoorsman, i need to ask a few questions to people who are actually  good  at doing steaks.  first, i have not eaten much steak growing up.  going to restaurants, my mother would insist i get my steaks well done.  very dry and tough.  i liked the baked potatoes more.  whenever my dad or others would grill at family events, i remember the chicken would taste charred and dry.  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.  so about 0 months ago i saw a video URL showing gordon ramsey cooking  the perfect steak  on a pan.  on a whim, i picked up some thin new york steaks for my girlfriend and me and tried it out.  it was one of the most incredible culinary experiences i ever had ! it was juicy, well seasoned, and easy to prepare.  only problem is one of us had to be on fire alarm duty, because it is easily set off in the tiny apartment, and we ca not disable it.  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.   they just ai not right.   plus she was always worried about the danger of under cooked foods.  so my question is: in the grand scheme of steak snobbery, clearly charcoal is superior to gas.  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ? is it just a different way of doing the same thing, is it inferior or superior in some minor or significant way, or is it the gustatory abomination my dad seemed to think it was ?
propane is better than charcoal for a multitude of reasons.     it is easier to control the temperature.    propane can be easily stored in your grill.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.    it is better for the environment.  charcoal requires dead trees.  the good charcoal not the kingston bricks is made by slowly burning a tree for hours releasing huge amounts of smoke and debris into the atmosphere.    many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.    charcoal takes much longer to light.  if you are using inst light charcoal, grilling too early is actually very unhealthy.  you have to wait for all of the coals to be completely white, or else you will be eating the fumes from the lighter fluid in the coals.   some of the arguments against propane are easily dispelled.  for instance:     it is more dangerous .  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.     charcoal makes your steaks taste better  if you want a nice smoked flavor you can throw a could of wood chips on a propane grill.  and if you are getting all of your flavor from the charcoal you are not seasoning correctly.     propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.  cmv  #  many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.   #  that is like saying that tricycles are better than bicycles.   # as long as the temperature you want is somewhere between  low  and  extra low .  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.  most people own or rent houses that usually features a roof.  they can put things inside this house like their bodies and laptops and beds and charcoal and none of it will ever get wet.  in addition, i have never had to hump an empty bag of charcoal in the back of my car to go get it refilled, and if i have a bag of charcoal in my car and i get in an accident, the charcoal does not explode and kill everyone.  that is like saying that tricycles are better than bicycles.  or kites are better than f 0s.  in this post industrial world, if something complicated is still around, it is because it can do so much more than the easy thing.  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.  lighter fluid is  flammable .  pressurized gas is  explosive .  big difference.   #  charcoal also gives you the flavor bonus of smoking, and it goes beyond the charcoal itself.   #  i am a gas griller, and it is for many of the reasons you listed.  however, charcoal produces a better steak.  it is not just the smoke, either, it is about temperature and the difference between convection and radiant heat.  gas grills only get up to between 0 and 0 degrees fahrenheit, some as low as 0, and most of the cooking is being done via convection that is, heating up the air.  that is not enough on its own for a good maillard reaction, which means you ca not achieve the same texture and flavor.  with charcoal, you are cooking hotter, and you are cooking with a lot more radiant heat.  boom, maillard reaction deliciousness.  you ca not get that crisp on gas without overcooking it.  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.  charcoal also gives you the flavor bonus of smoking, and it goes beyond the charcoal itself.  when you are cooking over charcoal, every drip of grease and fat or sauce that cooks out of your meat drips onto the charcoal and is vaporized, adding to the smoke.  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.  i would argue that a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill for most people, but a charcoal grill offers a superior end product if you know what you are doing and want to go through the hassle.   #  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.   #  i have never found that propane is as good as keeping the grill nice and toasty in the wind, or at recovering temperature after the grill has been opened and closed again.  you are willing to pay more money; others are willing to give up more storage space, or learn to control temperature, or wait a while for it to get up to temperature.  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.  propane comes from either natural gas refining or petrochemicals; it releases co0 when it burns that has been locked up in the ground for a very, very long time to say nothing of the energy needed to find, extract, refine, ship, and store it .  charcoal, on the other hand, is easily made at home from wood that has sequestered carbon from the last few decades at most; it releases no more co0 than it has absorbed in its life less, in fact, since a lot of the carbon stays locked up in the ash, which is great for your garden .  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  there is no gasses or switches or nozzles or sparks that separate you from the grilling experience i also do not believe in starter fluid .   #  you make a lot of good, rational, logical reasons for propane grilling, and i will not try to refute them.  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.  following our logic of ease and environmental impact, you might as well cook on an electric foreman grill, but you would never want to do that.  you want to gather all your belongings, go outside and throw some meat on a fire.  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.  you can watch the flames kissing your food and hear the tantalizing sizzles of the juices.  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.  there is no gasses or switches or nozzles or sparks that separate you from the grilling experience i also do not believe in starter fluid .  there is just you, a hungry man, combustible plant matter, a metal box, and delicious, delicious steaks.  or burgers.  or vegetables, what the hell.  cooking with charcoal is like skewering a hot dog with a stick and holding it over a campfire.  cooking with propane is like forgetting to use a pan on your gas stove.   #  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ?  #  these are interesting arguments, and since i am the complete opposite of an outdoorsman, i need to ask a few questions to people who are actually  good  at doing steaks.  first, i have not eaten much steak growing up.  going to restaurants, my mother would insist i get my steaks well done.  very dry and tough.  i liked the baked potatoes more.  whenever my dad or others would grill at family events, i remember the chicken would taste charred and dry.  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.  so about 0 months ago i saw a video URL showing gordon ramsey cooking  the perfect steak  on a pan.  on a whim, i picked up some thin new york steaks for my girlfriend and me and tried it out.  it was one of the most incredible culinary experiences i ever had ! it was juicy, well seasoned, and easy to prepare.  only problem is one of us had to be on fire alarm duty, because it is easily set off in the tiny apartment, and we ca not disable it.  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.   they just ai not right.   plus she was always worried about the danger of under cooked foods.  so my question is: in the grand scheme of steak snobbery, clearly charcoal is superior to gas.  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ? is it just a different way of doing the same thing, is it inferior or superior in some minor or significant way, or is it the gustatory abomination my dad seemed to think it was ?
propane is better than charcoal for a multitude of reasons.     it is easier to control the temperature.    propane can be easily stored in your grill.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.    it is better for the environment.  charcoal requires dead trees.  the good charcoal not the kingston bricks is made by slowly burning a tree for hours releasing huge amounts of smoke and debris into the atmosphere.    many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.    charcoal takes much longer to light.  if you are using inst light charcoal, grilling too early is actually very unhealthy.  you have to wait for all of the coals to be completely white, or else you will be eating the fumes from the lighter fluid in the coals.   some of the arguments against propane are easily dispelled.  for instance:     it is more dangerous .  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.     charcoal makes your steaks taste better  if you want a nice smoked flavor you can throw a could of wood chips on a propane grill.  and if you are getting all of your flavor from the charcoal you are not seasoning correctly.     propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.  cmv  #  propane can be easily stored in your grill.   #  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.   #  as with most dilemmas, there are definitely benefits and drawbacks on both sides and depending on how you value them, but i do take issue with many of the arguments you present.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.  grills should be kept dry regardless of type.  water is bad for gas grills as well as charcoal.  the differences in water mitigation are fairly trivial in most cases.  each has serious environmental impact problems and as such it is difficult to produce anything like an honest comparison between them.  i find it highly unlikely that there is much difference in the environmental impact of any of these products compared to, say, the environmental impact of the meat which is likely being cooked on the grill.  and there are many good charcoal grills as well.  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.  lighter fluid is just stupid.  chimney starters are inexpensive, effective, and avoid fluid getting into food.  imo lighter fluid should be banned.  that said, i have always found charcoal to be more dangerous simply because coals can more easily escape the cooking container and because after cooking they usually remain hot or require handling to douse throwing water into a charcoal grill is a bad idea .  the flavor benefit of charcoal is the ability to produce a large area of high temperature.  the major failing of gas is burners which heat some spots more than others, leading to generally low cooking temperatures and preventing adequate searing across the food in an appropriate period of time.  my general rule is that gas grilling is extremely convenient and if you want to grill on a very regular basis, it is the way to go.  charcoal can easily produce a high temperature over a large area with very little up front investment.  if you are cooking for a crowd, or just occasionally want to eat the best tasting food, then charcoal is an excellent choice.   #  gas grills only get up to between 0 and 0 degrees fahrenheit, some as low as 0, and most of the cooking is being done via convection that is, heating up the air.   #  i am a gas griller, and it is for many of the reasons you listed.  however, charcoal produces a better steak.  it is not just the smoke, either, it is about temperature and the difference between convection and radiant heat.  gas grills only get up to between 0 and 0 degrees fahrenheit, some as low as 0, and most of the cooking is being done via convection that is, heating up the air.  that is not enough on its own for a good maillard reaction, which means you ca not achieve the same texture and flavor.  with charcoal, you are cooking hotter, and you are cooking with a lot more radiant heat.  boom, maillard reaction deliciousness.  you ca not get that crisp on gas without overcooking it.  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.  charcoal also gives you the flavor bonus of smoking, and it goes beyond the charcoal itself.  when you are cooking over charcoal, every drip of grease and fat or sauce that cooks out of your meat drips onto the charcoal and is vaporized, adding to the smoke.  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.  i would argue that a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill for most people, but a charcoal grill offers a superior end product if you know what you are doing and want to go through the hassle.   #  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  i have never found that propane is as good as keeping the grill nice and toasty in the wind, or at recovering temperature after the grill has been opened and closed again.  you are willing to pay more money; others are willing to give up more storage space, or learn to control temperature, or wait a while for it to get up to temperature.  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.  propane comes from either natural gas refining or petrochemicals; it releases co0 when it burns that has been locked up in the ground for a very, very long time to say nothing of the energy needed to find, extract, refine, ship, and store it .  charcoal, on the other hand, is easily made at home from wood that has sequestered carbon from the last few decades at most; it releases no more co0 than it has absorbed in its life less, in fact, since a lot of the carbon stays locked up in the ash, which is great for your garden .  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  following our logic of ease and environmental impact, you might as well cook on an electric foreman grill, but you would never want to do that.   #  you make a lot of good, rational, logical reasons for propane grilling, and i will not try to refute them.  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.  following our logic of ease and environmental impact, you might as well cook on an electric foreman grill, but you would never want to do that.  you want to gather all your belongings, go outside and throw some meat on a fire.  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.  you can watch the flames kissing your food and hear the tantalizing sizzles of the juices.  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.  there is no gasses or switches or nozzles or sparks that separate you from the grilling experience i also do not believe in starter fluid .  there is just you, a hungry man, combustible plant matter, a metal box, and delicious, delicious steaks.  or burgers.  or vegetables, what the hell.  cooking with charcoal is like skewering a hot dog with a stick and holding it over a campfire.  cooking with propane is like forgetting to use a pan on your gas stove.   #  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.    #  these are interesting arguments, and since i am the complete opposite of an outdoorsman, i need to ask a few questions to people who are actually  good  at doing steaks.  first, i have not eaten much steak growing up.  going to restaurants, my mother would insist i get my steaks well done.  very dry and tough.  i liked the baked potatoes more.  whenever my dad or others would grill at family events, i remember the chicken would taste charred and dry.  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.  so about 0 months ago i saw a video URL showing gordon ramsey cooking  the perfect steak  on a pan.  on a whim, i picked up some thin new york steaks for my girlfriend and me and tried it out.  it was one of the most incredible culinary experiences i ever had ! it was juicy, well seasoned, and easy to prepare.  only problem is one of us had to be on fire alarm duty, because it is easily set off in the tiny apartment, and we ca not disable it.  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.   they just ai not right.   plus she was always worried about the danger of under cooked foods.  so my question is: in the grand scheme of steak snobbery, clearly charcoal is superior to gas.  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ? is it just a different way of doing the same thing, is it inferior or superior in some minor or significant way, or is it the gustatory abomination my dad seemed to think it was ?
propane is better than charcoal for a multitude of reasons.     it is easier to control the temperature.    propane can be easily stored in your grill.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.    it is better for the environment.  charcoal requires dead trees.  the good charcoal not the kingston bricks is made by slowly burning a tree for hours releasing huge amounts of smoke and debris into the atmosphere.    many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.    charcoal takes much longer to light.  if you are using inst light charcoal, grilling too early is actually very unhealthy.  you have to wait for all of the coals to be completely white, or else you will be eating the fumes from the lighter fluid in the coals.   some of the arguments against propane are easily dispelled.  for instance:     it is more dangerous .  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.     charcoal makes your steaks taste better  if you want a nice smoked flavor you can throw a could of wood chips on a propane grill.  and if you are getting all of your flavor from the charcoal you are not seasoning correctly.     propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.  cmv  #  many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.   #  and there are many good charcoal grills as well.   #  as with most dilemmas, there are definitely benefits and drawbacks on both sides and depending on how you value them, but i do take issue with many of the arguments you present.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.  grills should be kept dry regardless of type.  water is bad for gas grills as well as charcoal.  the differences in water mitigation are fairly trivial in most cases.  each has serious environmental impact problems and as such it is difficult to produce anything like an honest comparison between them.  i find it highly unlikely that there is much difference in the environmental impact of any of these products compared to, say, the environmental impact of the meat which is likely being cooked on the grill.  and there are many good charcoal grills as well.  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.  lighter fluid is just stupid.  chimney starters are inexpensive, effective, and avoid fluid getting into food.  imo lighter fluid should be banned.  that said, i have always found charcoal to be more dangerous simply because coals can more easily escape the cooking container and because after cooking they usually remain hot or require handling to douse throwing water into a charcoal grill is a bad idea .  the flavor benefit of charcoal is the ability to produce a large area of high temperature.  the major failing of gas is burners which heat some spots more than others, leading to generally low cooking temperatures and preventing adequate searing across the food in an appropriate period of time.  my general rule is that gas grilling is extremely convenient and if you want to grill on a very regular basis, it is the way to go.  charcoal can easily produce a high temperature over a large area with very little up front investment.  if you are cooking for a crowd, or just occasionally want to eat the best tasting food, then charcoal is an excellent choice.   #  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.   #  i am a gas griller, and it is for many of the reasons you listed.  however, charcoal produces a better steak.  it is not just the smoke, either, it is about temperature and the difference between convection and radiant heat.  gas grills only get up to between 0 and 0 degrees fahrenheit, some as low as 0, and most of the cooking is being done via convection that is, heating up the air.  that is not enough on its own for a good maillard reaction, which means you ca not achieve the same texture and flavor.  with charcoal, you are cooking hotter, and you are cooking with a lot more radiant heat.  boom, maillard reaction deliciousness.  you ca not get that crisp on gas without overcooking it.  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.  charcoal also gives you the flavor bonus of smoking, and it goes beyond the charcoal itself.  when you are cooking over charcoal, every drip of grease and fat or sauce that cooks out of your meat drips onto the charcoal and is vaporized, adding to the smoke.  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.  i would argue that a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill for most people, but a charcoal grill offers a superior end product if you know what you are doing and want to go through the hassle.   #  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  i have never found that propane is as good as keeping the grill nice and toasty in the wind, or at recovering temperature after the grill has been opened and closed again.  you are willing to pay more money; others are willing to give up more storage space, or learn to control temperature, or wait a while for it to get up to temperature.  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.  propane comes from either natural gas refining or petrochemicals; it releases co0 when it burns that has been locked up in the ground for a very, very long time to say nothing of the energy needed to find, extract, refine, ship, and store it .  charcoal, on the other hand, is easily made at home from wood that has sequestered carbon from the last few decades at most; it releases no more co0 than it has absorbed in its life less, in fact, since a lot of the carbon stays locked up in the ash, which is great for your garden .  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  cooking with propane is like forgetting to use a pan on your gas stove.   #  you make a lot of good, rational, logical reasons for propane grilling, and i will not try to refute them.  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.  following our logic of ease and environmental impact, you might as well cook on an electric foreman grill, but you would never want to do that.  you want to gather all your belongings, go outside and throw some meat on a fire.  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.  you can watch the flames kissing your food and hear the tantalizing sizzles of the juices.  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.  there is no gasses or switches or nozzles or sparks that separate you from the grilling experience i also do not believe in starter fluid .  there is just you, a hungry man, combustible plant matter, a metal box, and delicious, delicious steaks.  or burgers.  or vegetables, what the hell.  cooking with charcoal is like skewering a hot dog with a stick and holding it over a campfire.  cooking with propane is like forgetting to use a pan on your gas stove.   #  is it just a different way of doing the same thing, is it inferior or superior in some minor or significant way, or is it the gustatory abomination my dad seemed to think it was ?  #  these are interesting arguments, and since i am the complete opposite of an outdoorsman, i need to ask a few questions to people who are actually  good  at doing steaks.  first, i have not eaten much steak growing up.  going to restaurants, my mother would insist i get my steaks well done.  very dry and tough.  i liked the baked potatoes more.  whenever my dad or others would grill at family events, i remember the chicken would taste charred and dry.  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.  so about 0 months ago i saw a video URL showing gordon ramsey cooking  the perfect steak  on a pan.  on a whim, i picked up some thin new york steaks for my girlfriend and me and tried it out.  it was one of the most incredible culinary experiences i ever had ! it was juicy, well seasoned, and easy to prepare.  only problem is one of us had to be on fire alarm duty, because it is easily set off in the tiny apartment, and we ca not disable it.  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.   they just ai not right.   plus she was always worried about the danger of under cooked foods.  so my question is: in the grand scheme of steak snobbery, clearly charcoal is superior to gas.  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ? is it just a different way of doing the same thing, is it inferior or superior in some minor or significant way, or is it the gustatory abomination my dad seemed to think it was ?
propane is better than charcoal for a multitude of reasons.     it is easier to control the temperature.    propane can be easily stored in your grill.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.    it is better for the environment.  charcoal requires dead trees.  the good charcoal not the kingston bricks is made by slowly burning a tree for hours releasing huge amounts of smoke and debris into the atmosphere.    many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.    charcoal takes much longer to light.  if you are using inst light charcoal, grilling too early is actually very unhealthy.  you have to wait for all of the coals to be completely white, or else you will be eating the fumes from the lighter fluid in the coals.   some of the arguments against propane are easily dispelled.  for instance:     it is more dangerous .  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.     charcoal makes your steaks taste better  if you want a nice smoked flavor you can throw a could of wood chips on a propane grill.  and if you are getting all of your flavor from the charcoal you are not seasoning correctly.     propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.  cmv  #   propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.   #  in my view, you can never dispel this argument.   # in my view, you can never dispel this argument.  for some people who either by virtue or fate must live frugally, the least expensive option wins out every time.  that being said, i agree with you, that generally, propane is probably the better option.  but that is like saying going to the movies is better than buying the dvd/blu ray or watching it on youtube.  that may be so, but it wo not stop people from taking the latter option due to convenience/cost, nor should they be criticized for it not saying you are, just in general .   #  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.   #  i am a gas griller, and it is for many of the reasons you listed.  however, charcoal produces a better steak.  it is not just the smoke, either, it is about temperature and the difference between convection and radiant heat.  gas grills only get up to between 0 and 0 degrees fahrenheit, some as low as 0, and most of the cooking is being done via convection that is, heating up the air.  that is not enough on its own for a good maillard reaction, which means you ca not achieve the same texture and flavor.  with charcoal, you are cooking hotter, and you are cooking with a lot more radiant heat.  boom, maillard reaction deliciousness.  you ca not get that crisp on gas without overcooking it.  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.  charcoal also gives you the flavor bonus of smoking, and it goes beyond the charcoal itself.  when you are cooking over charcoal, every drip of grease and fat or sauce that cooks out of your meat drips onto the charcoal and is vaporized, adding to the smoke.  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.  i would argue that a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill for most people, but a charcoal grill offers a superior end product if you know what you are doing and want to go through the hassle.   #  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.   #  i have never found that propane is as good as keeping the grill nice and toasty in the wind, or at recovering temperature after the grill has been opened and closed again.  you are willing to pay more money; others are willing to give up more storage space, or learn to control temperature, or wait a while for it to get up to temperature.  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.  propane comes from either natural gas refining or petrochemicals; it releases co0 when it burns that has been locked up in the ground for a very, very long time to say nothing of the energy needed to find, extract, refine, ship, and store it .  charcoal, on the other hand, is easily made at home from wood that has sequestered carbon from the last few decades at most; it releases no more co0 than it has absorbed in its life less, in fact, since a lot of the carbon stays locked up in the ash, which is great for your garden .  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.   #  you make a lot of good, rational, logical reasons for propane grilling, and i will not try to refute them.  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.  following our logic of ease and environmental impact, you might as well cook on an electric foreman grill, but you would never want to do that.  you want to gather all your belongings, go outside and throw some meat on a fire.  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.  you can watch the flames kissing your food and hear the tantalizing sizzles of the juices.  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.  there is no gasses or switches or nozzles or sparks that separate you from the grilling experience i also do not believe in starter fluid .  there is just you, a hungry man, combustible plant matter, a metal box, and delicious, delicious steaks.  or burgers.  or vegetables, what the hell.  cooking with charcoal is like skewering a hot dog with a stick and holding it over a campfire.  cooking with propane is like forgetting to use a pan on your gas stove.   #  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.    #  these are interesting arguments, and since i am the complete opposite of an outdoorsman, i need to ask a few questions to people who are actually  good  at doing steaks.  first, i have not eaten much steak growing up.  going to restaurants, my mother would insist i get my steaks well done.  very dry and tough.  i liked the baked potatoes more.  whenever my dad or others would grill at family events, i remember the chicken would taste charred and dry.  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.  so about 0 months ago i saw a video URL showing gordon ramsey cooking  the perfect steak  on a pan.  on a whim, i picked up some thin new york steaks for my girlfriend and me and tried it out.  it was one of the most incredible culinary experiences i ever had ! it was juicy, well seasoned, and easy to prepare.  only problem is one of us had to be on fire alarm duty, because it is easily set off in the tiny apartment, and we ca not disable it.  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.   they just ai not right.   plus she was always worried about the danger of under cooked foods.  so my question is: in the grand scheme of steak snobbery, clearly charcoal is superior to gas.  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ? is it just a different way of doing the same thing, is it inferior or superior in some minor or significant way, or is it the gustatory abomination my dad seemed to think it was ?
propane is better than charcoal for a multitude of reasons.     it is easier to control the temperature.    propane can be easily stored in your grill.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.    it is better for the environment.  charcoal requires dead trees.  the good charcoal not the kingston bricks is made by slowly burning a tree for hours releasing huge amounts of smoke and debris into the atmosphere.    many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.    charcoal takes much longer to light.  if you are using inst light charcoal, grilling too early is actually very unhealthy.  you have to wait for all of the coals to be completely white, or else you will be eating the fumes from the lighter fluid in the coals.   some of the arguments against propane are easily dispelled.  for instance:     it is more dangerous .  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.     charcoal makes your steaks taste better  if you want a nice smoked flavor you can throw a could of wood chips on a propane grill.  and if you are getting all of your flavor from the charcoal you are not seasoning correctly.     propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.  cmv  #  if you want a nice smoked flavor you can throw a could of wood chips on a propane grill.   #  i would say there goes any environmental benefit you were looking for by using gas.   #  just want to add to the two excellent comments you delta would.  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.  i have charcoal grilled for decades and never used any fuel but a bit of paper and charcoal.  i would say there goes any environmental benefit you were looking for by using gas.  i never use any seasoning but salt.  where i live you can get 0 0 barbecues off a $0 0 cylinder whereas a bag of charcoal is about $0, so the latter is much more expensive even considering a grill $0 more expensive.  when you are doing veggies, slow cooking chunks of meat, fast searing strips of skirt, corn cobs and cheese clay plates, you distribute the charcoals and items on the grill accordingly and each get what they need.  i have found this impossible in a gas grill where even with the know settings the temperature is rather even.  i agree gas is more practical for the non fundamentalist :  #  with charcoal, you are cooking hotter, and you are cooking with a lot more radiant heat.   #  i am a gas griller, and it is for many of the reasons you listed.  however, charcoal produces a better steak.  it is not just the smoke, either, it is about temperature and the difference between convection and radiant heat.  gas grills only get up to between 0 and 0 degrees fahrenheit, some as low as 0, and most of the cooking is being done via convection that is, heating up the air.  that is not enough on its own for a good maillard reaction, which means you ca not achieve the same texture and flavor.  with charcoal, you are cooking hotter, and you are cooking with a lot more radiant heat.  boom, maillard reaction deliciousness.  you ca not get that crisp on gas without overcooking it.  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.  charcoal also gives you the flavor bonus of smoking, and it goes beyond the charcoal itself.  when you are cooking over charcoal, every drip of grease and fat or sauce that cooks out of your meat drips onto the charcoal and is vaporized, adding to the smoke.  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.  i would argue that a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill for most people, but a charcoal grill offers a superior end product if you know what you are doing and want to go through the hassle.   #  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.   #  i have never found that propane is as good as keeping the grill nice and toasty in the wind, or at recovering temperature after the grill has been opened and closed again.  you are willing to pay more money; others are willing to give up more storage space, or learn to control temperature, or wait a while for it to get up to temperature.  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.  propane comes from either natural gas refining or petrochemicals; it releases co0 when it burns that has been locked up in the ground for a very, very long time to say nothing of the energy needed to find, extract, refine, ship, and store it .  charcoal, on the other hand, is easily made at home from wood that has sequestered carbon from the last few decades at most; it releases no more co0 than it has absorbed in its life less, in fact, since a lot of the carbon stays locked up in the ash, which is great for your garden .  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.   #  you make a lot of good, rational, logical reasons for propane grilling, and i will not try to refute them.  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.  following our logic of ease and environmental impact, you might as well cook on an electric foreman grill, but you would never want to do that.  you want to gather all your belongings, go outside and throw some meat on a fire.  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.  you can watch the flames kissing your food and hear the tantalizing sizzles of the juices.  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.  there is no gasses or switches or nozzles or sparks that separate you from the grilling experience i also do not believe in starter fluid .  there is just you, a hungry man, combustible plant matter, a metal box, and delicious, delicious steaks.  or burgers.  or vegetables, what the hell.  cooking with charcoal is like skewering a hot dog with a stick and holding it over a campfire.  cooking with propane is like forgetting to use a pan on your gas stove.   #  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.   #  these are interesting arguments, and since i am the complete opposite of an outdoorsman, i need to ask a few questions to people who are actually  good  at doing steaks.  first, i have not eaten much steak growing up.  going to restaurants, my mother would insist i get my steaks well done.  very dry and tough.  i liked the baked potatoes more.  whenever my dad or others would grill at family events, i remember the chicken would taste charred and dry.  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.  so about 0 months ago i saw a video URL showing gordon ramsey cooking  the perfect steak  on a pan.  on a whim, i picked up some thin new york steaks for my girlfriend and me and tried it out.  it was one of the most incredible culinary experiences i ever had ! it was juicy, well seasoned, and easy to prepare.  only problem is one of us had to be on fire alarm duty, because it is easily set off in the tiny apartment, and we ca not disable it.  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.   they just ai not right.   plus she was always worried about the danger of under cooked foods.  so my question is: in the grand scheme of steak snobbery, clearly charcoal is superior to gas.  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ? is it just a different way of doing the same thing, is it inferior or superior in some minor or significant way, or is it the gustatory abomination my dad seemed to think it was ?
propane is better than charcoal for a multitude of reasons.     it is easier to control the temperature.    propane can be easily stored in your grill.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.    it is better for the environment.  charcoal requires dead trees.  the good charcoal not the kingston bricks is made by slowly burning a tree for hours releasing huge amounts of smoke and debris into the atmosphere.    many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.    charcoal takes much longer to light.  if you are using inst light charcoal, grilling too early is actually very unhealthy.  you have to wait for all of the coals to be completely white, or else you will be eating the fumes from the lighter fluid in the coals.   some of the arguments against propane are easily dispelled.  for instance:     it is more dangerous .  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.     charcoal makes your steaks taste better  if you want a nice smoked flavor you can throw a could of wood chips on a propane grill.  and if you are getting all of your flavor from the charcoal you are not seasoning correctly.     propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.  cmv  #  and if you are getting all of your flavor from the charcoal you are not seasoning correctly.   #  i never use any seasoning but salt.   #  just want to add to the two excellent comments you delta would.  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.  i have charcoal grilled for decades and never used any fuel but a bit of paper and charcoal.  i would say there goes any environmental benefit you were looking for by using gas.  i never use any seasoning but salt.  where i live you can get 0 0 barbecues off a $0 0 cylinder whereas a bag of charcoal is about $0, so the latter is much more expensive even considering a grill $0 more expensive.  when you are doing veggies, slow cooking chunks of meat, fast searing strips of skirt, corn cobs and cheese clay plates, you distribute the charcoals and items on the grill accordingly and each get what they need.  i have found this impossible in a gas grill where even with the know settings the temperature is rather even.  i agree gas is more practical for the non fundamentalist :  #  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.   #  i am a gas griller, and it is for many of the reasons you listed.  however, charcoal produces a better steak.  it is not just the smoke, either, it is about temperature and the difference between convection and radiant heat.  gas grills only get up to between 0 and 0 degrees fahrenheit, some as low as 0, and most of the cooking is being done via convection that is, heating up the air.  that is not enough on its own for a good maillard reaction, which means you ca not achieve the same texture and flavor.  with charcoal, you are cooking hotter, and you are cooking with a lot more radiant heat.  boom, maillard reaction deliciousness.  you ca not get that crisp on gas without overcooking it.  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.  charcoal also gives you the flavor bonus of smoking, and it goes beyond the charcoal itself.  when you are cooking over charcoal, every drip of grease and fat or sauce that cooks out of your meat drips onto the charcoal and is vaporized, adding to the smoke.  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.  i would argue that a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill for most people, but a charcoal grill offers a superior end product if you know what you are doing and want to go through the hassle.   #  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.   #  i have never found that propane is as good as keeping the grill nice and toasty in the wind, or at recovering temperature after the grill has been opened and closed again.  you are willing to pay more money; others are willing to give up more storage space, or learn to control temperature, or wait a while for it to get up to temperature.  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.  propane comes from either natural gas refining or petrochemicals; it releases co0 when it burns that has been locked up in the ground for a very, very long time to say nothing of the energy needed to find, extract, refine, ship, and store it .  charcoal, on the other hand, is easily made at home from wood that has sequestered carbon from the last few decades at most; it releases no more co0 than it has absorbed in its life less, in fact, since a lot of the carbon stays locked up in the ash, which is great for your garden .  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.   #  you make a lot of good, rational, logical reasons for propane grilling, and i will not try to refute them.  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.  following our logic of ease and environmental impact, you might as well cook on an electric foreman grill, but you would never want to do that.  you want to gather all your belongings, go outside and throw some meat on a fire.  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.  you can watch the flames kissing your food and hear the tantalizing sizzles of the juices.  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.  there is no gasses or switches or nozzles or sparks that separate you from the grilling experience i also do not believe in starter fluid .  there is just you, a hungry man, combustible plant matter, a metal box, and delicious, delicious steaks.  or burgers.  or vegetables, what the hell.  cooking with charcoal is like skewering a hot dog with a stick and holding it over a campfire.  cooking with propane is like forgetting to use a pan on your gas stove.   #  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ?  #  these are interesting arguments, and since i am the complete opposite of an outdoorsman, i need to ask a few questions to people who are actually  good  at doing steaks.  first, i have not eaten much steak growing up.  going to restaurants, my mother would insist i get my steaks well done.  very dry and tough.  i liked the baked potatoes more.  whenever my dad or others would grill at family events, i remember the chicken would taste charred and dry.  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.  so about 0 months ago i saw a video URL showing gordon ramsey cooking  the perfect steak  on a pan.  on a whim, i picked up some thin new york steaks for my girlfriend and me and tried it out.  it was one of the most incredible culinary experiences i ever had ! it was juicy, well seasoned, and easy to prepare.  only problem is one of us had to be on fire alarm duty, because it is easily set off in the tiny apartment, and we ca not disable it.  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.   they just ai not right.   plus she was always worried about the danger of under cooked foods.  so my question is: in the grand scheme of steak snobbery, clearly charcoal is superior to gas.  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ? is it just a different way of doing the same thing, is it inferior or superior in some minor or significant way, or is it the gustatory abomination my dad seemed to think it was ?
propane is better than charcoal for a multitude of reasons.     it is easier to control the temperature.    propane can be easily stored in your grill.  you do not have to worry about it getting wet.  it does not take up an inordinate amount of space.    it is better for the environment.  charcoal requires dead trees.  the good charcoal not the kingston bricks is made by slowly burning a tree for hours releasing huge amounts of smoke and debris into the atmosphere.    many good grills are designed to be used with propane and it makes grilling easy for beginners.    charcoal takes much longer to light.  if you are using inst light charcoal, grilling too early is actually very unhealthy.  you have to wait for all of the coals to be completely white, or else you will be eating the fumes from the lighter fluid in the coals.   some of the arguments against propane are easily dispelled.  for instance:     it is more dangerous .  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.     charcoal makes your steaks taste better  if you want a nice smoked flavor you can throw a could of wood chips on a propane grill.  and if you are getting all of your flavor from the charcoal you are not seasoning correctly.     propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.  cmv  #   propane is more expensive  that may be so but it is worth it.   #  where i live you can get 0 0 barbecues off a $0 0 cylinder whereas a bag of charcoal is about $0, so the latter is much more expensive even considering a grill $0 more expensive.   #  just want to add to the two excellent comments you delta would.  it is just as dangerous as lighter fluid.  i have charcoal grilled for decades and never used any fuel but a bit of paper and charcoal.  i would say there goes any environmental benefit you were looking for by using gas.  i never use any seasoning but salt.  where i live you can get 0 0 barbecues off a $0 0 cylinder whereas a bag of charcoal is about $0, so the latter is much more expensive even considering a grill $0 more expensive.  when you are doing veggies, slow cooking chunks of meat, fast searing strips of skirt, corn cobs and cheese clay plates, you distribute the charcoals and items on the grill accordingly and each get what they need.  i have found this impossible in a gas grill where even with the know settings the temperature is rather even.  i agree gas is more practical for the non fundamentalist :  #  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.   #  i am a gas griller, and it is for many of the reasons you listed.  however, charcoal produces a better steak.  it is not just the smoke, either, it is about temperature and the difference between convection and radiant heat.  gas grills only get up to between 0 and 0 degrees fahrenheit, some as low as 0, and most of the cooking is being done via convection that is, heating up the air.  that is not enough on its own for a good maillard reaction, which means you ca not achieve the same texture and flavor.  with charcoal, you are cooking hotter, and you are cooking with a lot more radiant heat.  boom, maillard reaction deliciousness.  you ca not get that crisp on gas without overcooking it.  some gas grills have cast iron grates to absorb the heat and give you better searing, but it is not the same.  charcoal also gives you the flavor bonus of smoking, and it goes beyond the charcoal itself.  when you are cooking over charcoal, every drip of grease and fat or sauce that cooks out of your meat drips onto the charcoal and is vaporized, adding to the smoke.  that does not happen on gas, it just congeals in the bottom.  i would argue that a gas grill is better than a charcoal grill for most people, but a charcoal grill offers a superior end product if you know what you are doing and want to go through the hassle.   #  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.   #  i have never found that propane is as good as keeping the grill nice and toasty in the wind, or at recovering temperature after the grill has been opened and closed again.  you are willing to pay more money; others are willing to give up more storage space, or learn to control temperature, or wait a while for it to get up to temperature.  my biggest objection to your view, i guess, is the environmental thing.  propane comes from either natural gas refining or petrochemicals; it releases co0 when it burns that has been locked up in the ground for a very, very long time to say nothing of the energy needed to find, extract, refine, ship, and store it .  charcoal, on the other hand, is easily made at home from wood that has sequestered carbon from the last few decades at most; it releases no more co0 than it has absorbed in its life less, in fact, since a lot of the carbon stays locked up in the ash, which is great for your garden .  so i would say charcoal is actually better for the environment.  all told, i do not think you can really  prove  a personal preference as being better or worse.  that is why it is a preference, and not accepted fact.   #  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.   #  you make a lot of good, rational, logical reasons for propane grilling, and i will not try to refute them.  my argument is that grilling is not a rational, logical action.  following our logic of ease and environmental impact, you might as well cook on an electric foreman grill, but you would never want to do that.  you want to gather all your belongings, go outside and throw some meat on a fire.  grilling is an act of deep poetry and romance.  you can watch the flames kissing your food and hear the tantalizing sizzles of the juices.  and it is in this artistry that charcoal is superior.  there is no gasses or switches or nozzles or sparks that separate you from the grilling experience i also do not believe in starter fluid .  there is just you, a hungry man, combustible plant matter, a metal box, and delicious, delicious steaks.  or burgers.  or vegetables, what the hell.  cooking with charcoal is like skewering a hot dog with a stick and holding it over a campfire.  cooking with propane is like forgetting to use a pan on your gas stove.   #  going to restaurants, my mother would insist i get my steaks well done.   #  these are interesting arguments, and since i am the complete opposite of an outdoorsman, i need to ask a few questions to people who are actually  good  at doing steaks.  first, i have not eaten much steak growing up.  going to restaurants, my mother would insist i get my steaks well done.  very dry and tough.  i liked the baked potatoes more.  whenever my dad or others would grill at family events, i remember the chicken would taste charred and dry.  charcoal or gas or whatever, it all tasted very bland.  so about 0 months ago i saw a video URL showing gordon ramsey cooking  the perfect steak  on a pan.  on a whim, i picked up some thin new york steaks for my girlfriend and me and tried it out.  it was one of the most incredible culinary experiences i ever had ! it was juicy, well seasoned, and easy to prepare.  only problem is one of us had to be on fire alarm duty, because it is easily set off in the tiny apartment, and we ca not disable it.  anyway, i brought it up to my mom a few weeks later, and she said something like  your dad called those  butter steaks.   they just ai not right.   plus she was always worried about the danger of under cooked foods.  so my question is: in the grand scheme of steak snobbery, clearly charcoal is superior to gas.  but where does my humble frying pan fit in ? is it just a different way of doing the same thing, is it inferior or superior in some minor or significant way, or is it the gustatory abomination my dad seemed to think it was ?
i believe that drugs should be legal.  many people disagree with me, but i like to look at the prohibition era.  when alcohol was outlawed, much of the gang violence spiked.  not only did other types of crime rise, but people started drinking even more.  this is the main issue with outlawing drugs, and that is that it resorts in more violence as well as a black market.  also, people steal or find other illegal ways to obtain money to pay for said drugs.  if they were legal and regulated, however, people would not be stealing or breaking into cars to steal a stereo system to pay for their drugs, as they would cost less.  now, there is more gang violence to due illegal drugs, than there would be if drugs were legal.  furthermore, america incarcerates proportionally more citizens than any other country in the world.  we spend 0 billion per year on all expenditures regarding prisons.  drug related crimes accounted for more than half of all incarcerations in 0.  imagine if we had used that money for something productive, such as providing the poor with money to get back on their feet.  we can also build homes, because if we can provide shelter and food and water for people who commit crimes, then surely we can for those who are homeless that have not committed a crime.  i basically believe that as long as someone is inflicting no harm on another, including physical, emotional or financial harm, then whatever they are doing should be legal.  let me know what you think, i am very open to debate.  the danger of bacteria mutating more rapidly due to the overuse of antibiotics makes me take off the list of drugs that would be easily obtainable.  this is because it accelerates a life risk to humans outside of drug user.  prescriptions would no longer be what does not restrict you from getting drugs for medicinal purposes, but rather securing that you will get your drugs before someone can acquire them for recreational purposes.  ignore the fact that i said  people would no longer break into cars to steal radios,  as this comes from no factual base and provides very little for my argument.  thank you everyone for your replies so far; let the discussion continue !  #  if they were legal and regulated, however, people would not be stealing or breaking into cars to steal a stereo system to pay for their drugs, as they would cost less.   #  you know, drugs are already pretty cheap.   # alcohol has been a huge part of american culture since we became a country.  in fact it is been a big part of mankind for thousands of years.  it is just not comparable to heroin or meth.  people do not casually smoke meth with their buddies.  it is not important to society, it is only important to addicts.  you know, drugs are already pretty cheap.  i have read tons of stories about pill addicts getting into heroin because of how much more they could get for the same amount of money.  meth exploded  because  of how cheap it was to make and buy.  not to mention, that is just not how addictions work.  a heroin addict does not set aside x amount of money each week for heroin.  if heroin became cheaper, addicts would just buy more heroin.  not buy the same amount and use the leftover money to put their life back together.   #  if it is you buying/preparing your food, even better.   #  hey, i stopped eating meat day to day i still eat it once in a while/every couple of months for about 0 months now and it is hard at the beginning, but you start to miss it less and less.  if it is you buying/preparing your food, even better.  take notes of the meals you eat that do not have meat/could fare well without meat before you stop and rotate between them.  if you are preoccupied with health, too, soy meat does not taste bad.  it has a bland taste, so what really end up mattering is the seasoning/sauces.  there are also some different kinds of meat substitute both taste wise and nutrition wise , but i ca not really advise you on that as their names/brands change depending on location and i am not from the us .  so, if eating animals is really bothering you, do not cling to the habit.  it is really not necessary anymore, and by trying you not only take the weight off from your back hey, at least you tried ! but you end up knowing new foods, plates and ingredients and places to eat that you can incorporate in your menu if you end up going back.  another tip would be to stop by steps: first the meat you like the least, last the meat you like the most.  so.  that is it.  all support to your decision, whatever it may be !  #  also, homegrown pork shoulder makes the best effin pernil you will ever taste.   #  i buy local when i can, and i also fish and hunt.  i figure the $0 i would spend for a 0/0 of beef is best spent locally where a farmer puts it in their pocket, then turns around and takes the family out or buys feed from another local.  the beef is grass fed and delicious, had a good life, and never got old enough to ache or feel the weather.  i spend less than i would spend for the same cuts of meat at the grocer.  stackable wins.  my money ping pongs locally stimulating the economy, i eat well, a steer had a good albeit short life, and i am not contributing to the miserable conditions of a factory farm.  also, homegrown pork shoulder makes the best effin pernil you will ever taste.   #  they never get old and creaky, they are not afraid, they do not know they are mortal, and if i or someone was not going to eat them they would never have been born.   #  they are really neat animals, and i have kept a couple of different breeds of chicken at different times over my life.  having said that, i justify my love for meat roast chicken, done right, is one of the finest foods out there with the fact that they do not know they are mortal.  some of my hens were pets, they made eggs and died a natural death at great and wobbly age.  others were raised specifically for meat, and they also had a great if short life.  one summer of chasing bugs, basking in the sun, dust baths, zomfg crickets ! and all kinds of other birdy delights.  they never get old and creaky, they are not afraid, they do not know they are mortal, and if i or someone was not going to eat them they would never have been born.  they were also not easter chicks to be loved for a week then neglected and eventually abandoned.  they were not wounded by an animal and left to die of flystrike and rot.  they will never know frostbite and killing cold, or hunger or thirst.  at the end, it will be quick and calm and they will never see it coming.  not a bad way to go.  and we all die eventually.  tl;dr; death is not the worst thing out there.  nature is a cruel bitch.   #  while antibiotic use on farms is concerning, the impact on  human health  is minimal; drug resistant strains of bacteria seem to come almost exclusively from hospitals.   # my understanding is that this is completely false.  while antibiotic use on farms is concerning, the impact on  human health  is minimal; drug resistant strains of bacteria seem to come almost exclusively from hospitals.  when denmark restricted the use of antibiotics in livestock, they noticed no impact on human health cite URL this seems to echo what one journalist who has researched the subject wrote here URL   when i wrote a piece about antibiotic resistance for the atlantic, i expected to get easy quotes from experts on the scurrilous waste of feeding penicillin to pigs.  but none of the experts i talked to were willing to say that this was a huge part of the antibiotic resistance problem.  most resistance is not evolving on farms, where very few of us spend any time; to be sure, we eat meat from those farms, but cooking should kill off most of the resistant bacteria.  most cases of antibiotic resistant bacteria come from hospitals, people who have been in hospitals, or tuberculosis patients who stop taking their drugs as soon as they feel better.  your argument seems to be about animal welfare, and while i happen to think that is an important issue, the spectre of widespread drug resistant strains of common bacteria is hugely more severe.  to stop that, we need to greatly change how antibiotics are prescribed and used in humans.
i do not understand students who insist on attending $0,0/yr private schools or $0,0 /yr out of state public schools rather than going to an in state public school, community college, getting a scholarship, etc.  as with many problems, i also understand this is not such a black and white problem for many individual students, but, on the whole, it seems to me as though the call to forgive student debt is a middle class whining and entitlement thing.  i went to a $0,0/yr private school on a full ride scholarship and knew far too many students there who were paying the full tuition rate but messing around, getting d is and feeling entitled to  good  jobs after they graduate.  again, i know the economy is tough, but i also know far too many of these students never worked over the summer, never looked at internships, skipped class all the time and would get wrecked the night before midterms.  perhaps fifteen or maybe even ten years ago you could be forgiven for assuming that an undergraduate degree meant you would get a job no matter how you did on your degree, but i think it is been clear for a while now that that is not quite the case.  majoring in a humanities subject is not bad in itself, nor is doing poorly in your classes.  maybe, under some circumstance, even going to an expensive university could be forgivable if you really made the most of it.  but doing all three and then feeling as though you are owed debt forgiveness because you ca not find a job seems pretty dumb to me.   #  again, i know the economy is tough, but i also know far too many of these students never worked over the summer, never looked at internships, skipped class all the time and would get wrecked the night before midterms.   #  are these the exact same students, or a different group of students ?  # you have said that you do not sympathize with people who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.  you follow that by implying that your opinion is based off of the national call to forgive student debt.  you then follow that by presenting students that you personally know that are failing d in your field of major is considered failing at most places and  messing around  what does this mean ? .  is the feeling of entitlement something they have confided in you about or is it something that you are assuming to back up your opinion ? are these the exact same students, or a different group of students ? did all of these students do all these things that you mentioned, or are these actions spread across the different people ? for those who never worked over the summer and never looked at internships, do you know why they did not or are you just assuming the worst ? as far as skipping classes, and getting wrecked, if they failed their class, they ca not earn their degree.  why would we forgive debt to those who have not done anything with the money that the government has loaned to them ? i do not understand what you mean by this statement.  can i get an explanation and maybe some sources ? maybe, under some circumstance, even going to an expensive university could be forgivable if you really made the most of it.  but doing all three and then feeling as though you are owed debt forgiveness because you ca not find a job seems pretty dumb to me.  are you saying that you are sympathetic to people as long as they comply with all three criteria ? if so, you are saying that if students major in a seemingly worthless degree, do poorly in their classes, and pay to go to an expensive university, then they should not get debt forgiveness.  i am just trying to better understand your opinions, that is all.   #  adding to that is the ease with which a person considering a degree could find out what the unemployment rate is for that type of work, where they will be working, and what type of paycheck to expect.   #  well, in part, but the i think there comes a point where you ca not keep telling yourself you are not responsible if you have done absolutely nothing to research the subject.  if you open a separate tab and google things like  baristas with college degrees  or  worthless college degrees  or other such things, it takes less than  0 seconds  to find out that not everyone with a college degree has a good job.  in fact, the same google search or a similar one will show you exactly what kinds of degrees are likely to pay off and which ones are not.  adding to that is the ease with which a person considering a degree could find out what the unemployment rate is for that type of work, where they will be working, and what type of paycheck to expect.  there is also the occupational outlook handbook published by the government and found in literally every high school library in the country.  we are not talking about something that students cannot find out on their own, it is pretty much under your nose.  given that ease, it is not reasonable to expect an adult making a major life decision to do a bit of research into something that they will be paying for for the next 0 years.  it is not unreasonable to expect that someone who has access to that information be expected to choose accordingly, or at least spare the rest of us the complaints when it turns out that their lack of reasearch means that they will pay $0k over a lifetime for a major that has high unemployment and an average pay of $0k a year.  google would have told you that, if you would bothered to check.   #  same probably goes for majoring in these fields in the 0 is 0 is when only 0 0 of the population had bas/bs  .   #  i have known several english majors who were incredible writers, so i guess our anecdotes clash.  or perhaps you ca not extrapolate to an entire population based upon the people whom you have dated small sample size problem and possibly a self selecting sample maybe you are only attracted to stupid english majors instead of smart ones .  and majoring in history/creative writing made sense in the 0 is lower tuition, low unemployment and many entry level jobs for humanities grads .  same probably goes for majoring in these fields in the 0 is 0 is when only 0 0 of the population had bas/bs  .  i agree that taking out huge loads of debt for a humanities degree in the current economy is not very smart generally, as ivy humanities degrees have some cache , but you are mostly just spouting invective and generalizations.  and of course, the answer to this entire thread is that we need to reform our higher education financing system and grow our economy/number of middle class jobs.   #  and remember that the amount that someone is paid is not contingent on the value added by that person: it is determined by supply and demand forces.   #  you said this:   if you can point to a time when history and creative writing majors were rolling in cash and then a downturn hit and the market became saturated, i will pay off your student loans.  so i indicated a time when it made economic sense to major in these subjects before market conditions changed.  i answered your question.  and remember that the amount that someone is paid is not contingent on the value added by that person: it is determined by supply and demand forces.  if the number of engineers graduating from college doubled in 0 or if we altered h0b visa restrictions to allow more foreign engineers in to glut the labor market , engineering salaries would plummet even if each individual engineer added as much value as before.  lawyers ten years ago were not more productive than lawyers today; it is just that today there are fewer law jobs so lawyer salaries have fallen.  if we had a better labor market, there would be more entry positions for liberal arts majors which would pay livable salaries.  and if we could have this labor market if we paid people in general higher wages, which would goose domestic demand, increase gdp growth and tighten the labor market.  i mean, if someone has $0,0 in debt for a ba in jazz guitar and is unemployed then he/she probably made a bad choice.  but the relevant information here is that s/he had self finance a college degree which most people in the western world do not have to do and encountered a labor market that simply is not producing enough middle class jobs for everyone to create higher levels of sustainable consumer demand.  i generally agree that you need a good plan if you major in a humanities subject right now, but chortling at the indebted people with less salable degrees and their individual decisions instead of focusing on the overarching economic problems which are responsible for these situations and are hurting everyone is just myopic.  it is dumb.  it wo not solve any problems.  and ignoring fundamental economic problems is how we got into this recession in the first place.   #  now they are hardly in demand at all, so to take out $0,0 in student loans for a degree that wo not help you to earn that money back is an objectively poor decision.   #  there is a key difference there though.  at that point, history and creative writing majors were not valuable in and of themselves.  they were valuable because any college degree was valuable at that point.  the people that got these degrees and then got jobs did not get jobs that utilized those degrees.  you are right, the labor market is to blame for this change.  at the time, it was a seller is market and having any degree at all helped you be more marketable.  now it is a buyer is market and many degrees are less valuable because they do not apply to the position.  i agree that a lot of the problem is the economy, but i still ca not feel a lot of sympathy for people who chose degrees that did not make them more marketable as employees.  history and creative writing degrees as convenient examples have never been especially in demand, they were only in demand as much as any other degree was.  now they are hardly in demand at all, so to take out $0,0 in student loans for a degree that wo not help you to earn that money back is an objectively poor decision.
i do not understand students who insist on attending $0,0/yr private schools or $0,0 /yr out of state public schools rather than going to an in state public school, community college, getting a scholarship, etc.  as with many problems, i also understand this is not such a black and white problem for many individual students, but, on the whole, it seems to me as though the call to forgive student debt is a middle class whining and entitlement thing.  i went to a $0,0/yr private school on a full ride scholarship and knew far too many students there who were paying the full tuition rate but messing around, getting d is and feeling entitled to  good  jobs after they graduate.  again, i know the economy is tough, but i also know far too many of these students never worked over the summer, never looked at internships, skipped class all the time and would get wrecked the night before midterms.  perhaps fifteen or maybe even ten years ago you could be forgiven for assuming that an undergraduate degree meant you would get a job no matter how you did on your degree, but i think it is been clear for a while now that that is not quite the case.  majoring in a humanities subject is not bad in itself, nor is doing poorly in your classes.  maybe, under some circumstance, even going to an expensive university could be forgivable if you really made the most of it.  but doing all three and then feeling as though you are owed debt forgiveness because you ca not find a job seems pretty dumb to me.   #  majoring in a humanities subject is not bad in itself, nor is doing poorly in your classes.   #  maybe, under some circumstance, even going to an expensive university could be forgivable if you really made the most of it.   # you have said that you do not sympathize with people who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.  you follow that by implying that your opinion is based off of the national call to forgive student debt.  you then follow that by presenting students that you personally know that are failing d in your field of major is considered failing at most places and  messing around  what does this mean ? .  is the feeling of entitlement something they have confided in you about or is it something that you are assuming to back up your opinion ? are these the exact same students, or a different group of students ? did all of these students do all these things that you mentioned, or are these actions spread across the different people ? for those who never worked over the summer and never looked at internships, do you know why they did not or are you just assuming the worst ? as far as skipping classes, and getting wrecked, if they failed their class, they ca not earn their degree.  why would we forgive debt to those who have not done anything with the money that the government has loaned to them ? i do not understand what you mean by this statement.  can i get an explanation and maybe some sources ? maybe, under some circumstance, even going to an expensive university could be forgivable if you really made the most of it.  but doing all three and then feeling as though you are owed debt forgiveness because you ca not find a job seems pretty dumb to me.  are you saying that you are sympathetic to people as long as they comply with all three criteria ? if so, you are saying that if students major in a seemingly worthless degree, do poorly in their classes, and pay to go to an expensive university, then they should not get debt forgiveness.  i am just trying to better understand your opinions, that is all.   #  there is also the occupational outlook handbook published by the government and found in literally every high school library in the country.   #  well, in part, but the i think there comes a point where you ca not keep telling yourself you are not responsible if you have done absolutely nothing to research the subject.  if you open a separate tab and google things like  baristas with college degrees  or  worthless college degrees  or other such things, it takes less than  0 seconds  to find out that not everyone with a college degree has a good job.  in fact, the same google search or a similar one will show you exactly what kinds of degrees are likely to pay off and which ones are not.  adding to that is the ease with which a person considering a degree could find out what the unemployment rate is for that type of work, where they will be working, and what type of paycheck to expect.  there is also the occupational outlook handbook published by the government and found in literally every high school library in the country.  we are not talking about something that students cannot find out on their own, it is pretty much under your nose.  given that ease, it is not reasonable to expect an adult making a major life decision to do a bit of research into something that they will be paying for for the next 0 years.  it is not unreasonable to expect that someone who has access to that information be expected to choose accordingly, or at least spare the rest of us the complaints when it turns out that their lack of reasearch means that they will pay $0k over a lifetime for a major that has high unemployment and an average pay of $0k a year.  google would have told you that, if you would bothered to check.   #  and of course, the answer to this entire thread is that we need to reform our higher education financing system and grow our economy/number of middle class jobs.   #  i have known several english majors who were incredible writers, so i guess our anecdotes clash.  or perhaps you ca not extrapolate to an entire population based upon the people whom you have dated small sample size problem and possibly a self selecting sample maybe you are only attracted to stupid english majors instead of smart ones .  and majoring in history/creative writing made sense in the 0 is lower tuition, low unemployment and many entry level jobs for humanities grads .  same probably goes for majoring in these fields in the 0 is 0 is when only 0 0 of the population had bas/bs  .  i agree that taking out huge loads of debt for a humanities degree in the current economy is not very smart generally, as ivy humanities degrees have some cache , but you are mostly just spouting invective and generalizations.  and of course, the answer to this entire thread is that we need to reform our higher education financing system and grow our economy/number of middle class jobs.   #  and remember that the amount that someone is paid is not contingent on the value added by that person: it is determined by supply and demand forces.   #  you said this:   if you can point to a time when history and creative writing majors were rolling in cash and then a downturn hit and the market became saturated, i will pay off your student loans.  so i indicated a time when it made economic sense to major in these subjects before market conditions changed.  i answered your question.  and remember that the amount that someone is paid is not contingent on the value added by that person: it is determined by supply and demand forces.  if the number of engineers graduating from college doubled in 0 or if we altered h0b visa restrictions to allow more foreign engineers in to glut the labor market , engineering salaries would plummet even if each individual engineer added as much value as before.  lawyers ten years ago were not more productive than lawyers today; it is just that today there are fewer law jobs so lawyer salaries have fallen.  if we had a better labor market, there would be more entry positions for liberal arts majors which would pay livable salaries.  and if we could have this labor market if we paid people in general higher wages, which would goose domestic demand, increase gdp growth and tighten the labor market.  i mean, if someone has $0,0 in debt for a ba in jazz guitar and is unemployed then he/she probably made a bad choice.  but the relevant information here is that s/he had self finance a college degree which most people in the western world do not have to do and encountered a labor market that simply is not producing enough middle class jobs for everyone to create higher levels of sustainable consumer demand.  i generally agree that you need a good plan if you major in a humanities subject right now, but chortling at the indebted people with less salable degrees and their individual decisions instead of focusing on the overarching economic problems which are responsible for these situations and are hurting everyone is just myopic.  it is dumb.  it wo not solve any problems.  and ignoring fundamental economic problems is how we got into this recession in the first place.   #  they were valuable because any college degree was valuable at that point.   #  there is a key difference there though.  at that point, history and creative writing majors were not valuable in and of themselves.  they were valuable because any college degree was valuable at that point.  the people that got these degrees and then got jobs did not get jobs that utilized those degrees.  you are right, the labor market is to blame for this change.  at the time, it was a seller is market and having any degree at all helped you be more marketable.  now it is a buyer is market and many degrees are less valuable because they do not apply to the position.  i agree that a lot of the problem is the economy, but i still ca not feel a lot of sympathy for people who chose degrees that did not make them more marketable as employees.  history and creative writing degrees as convenient examples have never been especially in demand, they were only in demand as much as any other degree was.  now they are hardly in demand at all, so to take out $0,0 in student loans for a degree that wo not help you to earn that money back is an objectively poor decision.
basically we announce the tax now, and once sea level rises to a certain level, the tax will be collected from the estates of prominent climate change deniers and the individuals and climate change denial organizations that are funding them.   if these denial folks think strongly that climate change is not real, then they have nothing to fear.  but if they are advocating denial for short term gain or are otherwise not sincere about their beliefs in this regard, then perhaps this will change their mind.   there will be discernible sea level rise and global temperature increase by 0, so it is not like the estates are going to evaporate before we could not collect the tax.  it is not easy to close an estate esp.  stuff like irrevocable trusts etc , and most studies show that it is extremely unlikely that governments will collapse at that point, so again, that tax is collectible.  most rich people at a certain age care very strongly about their legacy and estate.  so i do think a scheme like this will at least make climate change denial activists think twice.   #  if these denial folks think strongly that climate change is not real, then they have nothing to fear.   #  but if they are advocating denial for short term gain or are otherwise not sincere about their beliefs in this regard, then perhaps this will change their mind.   # but if they are advocating denial for short term gain or are otherwise not sincere about their beliefs in this regard, then perhaps this will change their mind.  i would say that you have the situation backwards.  since the climate change people are the ones who are advocating for action, should not the burden be on them ? there have already been several cmv is about how it is ok for the people advocating for climate change to lie to convince people to take action.  should not they be the ones who suffer the penalties if they are wrong ? not just  wrong  about climate change, but also if they are inaccurate about the severity in any significant way.   #  what other tax is there for supporting something then being wrong about it ?  # like what ? what other tax is there for supporting something then being wrong about it ? asking for them to pay damages and taxing them are two completely different things.  if you want to ask for them to pay for damages then that is one thing, but taxing them for holding certain beliefs on a certain issue is completely different.  should we tax people who support racism and segregation ? should we have taxed slave owners ? should we tax people who are against equal rights for people of all sexual orientations ?  #  why do not you advocate a tax on people who think children should be spanked ?  #  things you do are not the same as things you say.  we do not tax people based on what they say or who they hang out with: hence, freedom of speech and freedom of association.  we tax people for actions, not words.  you are talking about fundamentally changing the entire structure of our society; we believe in the absolute freedom of speech and expression.  why do not you advocate a tax on people who think children should be spanked ? anti vaxxers ? holocaust deniers ? creationists ? soon, you will be able to use law and money to force people to think exactly like you do.  can you honestly not see the problem with this ?  #  it could be made legal, but that is something else entirely.   #  there is absolutely something illegal about this; there is nothing in the tax code to support it, therefore it is illegal.  it could be made legal, but that is something else entirely.  and while we do tax estates for many reasons, that does not give any validity to new reasons.  we send people to prison for all kinds of reasons, but that does not mean we can just imprison people for, say, liking twilight.  and you quite clearly state that you want to tax people who deny climate change, not people who cause it; you are not taxing the  criminals  in your view, you are taxing the people who claim they are not criminals.  you might as well execute the lawyers of people convicted of murder.   #  a famous example is how scientists traced sulfur dioxide emissions in a specific location in the arctic to a set of factories in canada.   #  we have empirical techniques showing where chemicals in the atmosphere are coming from.  a famous example is how scientists traced sulfur dioxide emissions in a specific location in the arctic to a set of factories in canada.  another example is that we also know that a large amount of the world is low lying ozone comes from a specific river delta in venezuela.  scientists are much smarter than you give them credit for.  so there are relatively conclusive ways to find whether temperature rise is linked to humans, and we have appleid these techniques to the recent co0 rise.
i have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 0 seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair call it a sort of moral  gut feeling.   .  i do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and i generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions/strategies.  however, i cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person is income should be able to be taken away and redistributed.  further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one is death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property.  i am interested in well thought out reasons why i should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a  damn the rich, they are what is wrong with this country  line of reasoning.   #  however, i cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person is income should be able to be taken away and redistributed.   #  rich people do not make money in a vacuum; they use the resources of the country.   # do you realize capital gains typically come from wage income that was already taxed ? at a certain point you can live off of gains, but it always starts with wage income.  rich people do not make money in a vacuum; they use the resources of the country.  these resources are people that have public education, use public services, and rely on public infrastructure.  the more money a person has, the more they have benefited from the infrastructure, services, laws, and people of the country.  should the government not be compensated for providing an educated workforce and the foundation on which businesses flourish ?  #  the person making $0,0,0 was taking home 0m before, they are now taking home 0m with an effective tax rate of 0, that is a lot but does it really affect that person ?  #  okay, but lets say we add a 0 tax rate above, i dunno, 0 million.  the person making $0,0,0 was taking home 0m before, they are now taking home 0m with an effective tax rate of 0, that is a lot but does it really affect that person ? given:   they can still redirect money to charity through deductions instead of paying the government.  they are an individual here, not a business or corporation.  do you think that the additional 0m is really going to make that much difference in the life of someone who is bringing home 0m in salary ?  #  are they major donors to their alma mater or other charities ?  # there are so many more factors that determine someone is lifestyle than how many  yachts and exotic cars  they have.  you have no idea what someone is money may be tied up in.  how much are they putting away for retirement ? what about the number of children they have ? how much are they putting away so their kids can have a nice inheritance ? where do they live ? what is the cost of living ? where are they sending them to college ? are they financially supporting their elderly parents ? are they major donors to their alma mater or other charities ? do they have landscapers ? a maid ? other service workers ? they may do all these things because they have the means at bringing home $0 million after taxes.  if you suddenly take away 0 of their after tax income, maybe those kids do not get to go to their dream school, or their mother and father have to move out of that nice retirement community their children worked hard to put them in, or someone loses a scholarship because a little bit less donations came in to the university this year.  maybe that landscaper or maid loses a customer ? i am sure you would not have any sympathy for someone better off than you having to downsize their spending, because in your opinion, they are still well off.  and that is fine.  i would not say i would have sympathy for them either.  but you ca not say it does not affect that person.  and even if you make the argument that the effect is justified because they are still relatively wealthy, and they are increased tax dollar would be better served providing more public services, it sure would affect the beneficiaries of their spending while they were still bringing home $0 million.  just one man is opinion though.   #  and all of a sudden their are more resources available for him to collect as a result of his hardwork.   #  inheritance does impact the results of hard work.  there are limited resources.  if untold billions are being passed down in the richest families, that is vast amounts of resources that less wealthy people have to compete for.  it does not matter how hard an intelligent person born poor works they likely are not going to make as much money as a slacker of moderate intelligence born into a fabulously wealthy family.  the resources of the rich child are never going to be available for the poor child to attain.  when the rich dude is parents die, he is going to keep control of their ridiculous amount of wealth.  now, what would happen if the estate was highly taxed ? all that wealth could be spent by the government to either build infrastructure to help everyone or to lower the tax of everyone.  all of a sudden, the guy born into a poor family benefits.  and all of a sudden their are more resources available for him to collect as a result of his hardwork.   #  but you are right, i do not believe in 0 inheritance tax and i completely agree that poor/middle income parents should be allowed to give their children every advantage they can.   #  for one thing your children are not necessarily any more deserving of the money than anyone else and money spent on others may do more than money spent on them.  but you are right, i do not believe in 0 inheritance tax and i completely agree that poor/middle income parents should be allowed to give their children every advantage they can.  i would say if you set a cap above which you are taxed that eliminates this problem though.  you are correct that gifting is a problem, and one that is hard to get around.  i think large gifts should be equally taxed, especially property etc, but practicality still remains an issue.  i do not think it is enough of an issue to completely disregard the tax as there will come a point where the effort required to circumvent the tax is not worth it is saving.
i have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 0 seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair call it a sort of moral  gut feeling.   .  i do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and i generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions/strategies.  however, i cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person is income should be able to be taken away and redistributed.  further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one is death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property.  i am interested in well thought out reasons why i should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a  damn the rich, they are what is wrong with this country  line of reasoning.   #  however, i cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person is income should be able to be taken away and redistributed.   #  i first would address how misleading the names of tax brackets can be, people often assume that if i am in the 0 tax bracket i will pay 0 of my income in taxes.   # i first would address how misleading the names of tax brackets can be, people often assume that if i am in the 0 tax bracket i will pay 0 of my income in taxes.  let is not forget that in a progressive tax system, when someone is in the  0 tax bracket  not all of their income is taxed at 0.  as their income  crosses  into the next tax bracket only the income in that bracket is taxed at that rate.  i will do a simple example because i do not want to look up current tax brackets: if a person makes 0k / year and the tax brackets are 0 0k 0 and 0 0k 0.  the first 0k of their income would result in $0k in taxes owed, and from 0k 0k would result in $0k taxes owed for a total of . 0   $0k   . 0   0k 0k.  or 0 this means that even though the individual is total income is  in  the 0 tax bracket, they end up paying 0 in taxes.  this also applies to the  death tax.   i believe it is currently at $0m per parent so $0m total so the first $0m is not taxed but everything above that is 0 in the usa to play devil is advocate, now to address the  moral compass  aspect of the question.  i am going to take a  social imperative stance.   the true problem here lies in the disparity between  fairness  on macro civilization vs micro individual levels.  an individual is life is currently , by definition, finite.  we are born, we live, we die.  no one individual can stick around for a few thousand years to ensure that we as a civilization make it.  in an effort to ensure that we do, as a civilization it is in our best interest to ensure the highest levels of  productive members of society  as we can note this could be interpreted as pure volume or % of total i will not address that here .  from this standpoint, the government which is the closest thing any civilization has to an  immortal  presence attempting to ensure the success of the civilization attempts to assist as many people as it can.  you do not know if the child on tanf welfare/medicaid will grow up to be the next bill gates or albert einstein.  and if you make the argument that  based on their current circumstances it is highly improbable,  i would counter that with  what about their children or grandchildren ?   so if you can accept that it is in the government is and thus civilization is best interest to have high levels of productive members of society, you can start to understand why on the macro level the government would feel okay with taking large taxes from the extremely wealthy.  on a micro individual level it seems very unjust because they earned the income, but as reasonably intelligent entities we must remember that we as a civilization are more than the sum of our parts.  we have a social imperative to ensure the sustained longevity of our society.  ultimately personally i feel it is the same as the difference between adams and nash.  we can either do what is in our own best interest, believing that will ultimately lead to the best outcome for everyone, or we can do what is in our own best interest in equilibrium with that of the larger group.   #  they are an individual here, not a business or corporation.   #  okay, but lets say we add a 0 tax rate above, i dunno, 0 million.  the person making $0,0,0 was taking home 0m before, they are now taking home 0m with an effective tax rate of 0, that is a lot but does it really affect that person ? given:   they can still redirect money to charity through deductions instead of paying the government.  they are an individual here, not a business or corporation.  do you think that the additional 0m is really going to make that much difference in the life of someone who is bringing home 0m in salary ?  #  maybe that landscaper or maid loses a customer ?  # there are so many more factors that determine someone is lifestyle than how many  yachts and exotic cars  they have.  you have no idea what someone is money may be tied up in.  how much are they putting away for retirement ? what about the number of children they have ? how much are they putting away so their kids can have a nice inheritance ? where do they live ? what is the cost of living ? where are they sending them to college ? are they financially supporting their elderly parents ? are they major donors to their alma mater or other charities ? do they have landscapers ? a maid ? other service workers ? they may do all these things because they have the means at bringing home $0 million after taxes.  if you suddenly take away 0 of their after tax income, maybe those kids do not get to go to their dream school, or their mother and father have to move out of that nice retirement community their children worked hard to put them in, or someone loses a scholarship because a little bit less donations came in to the university this year.  maybe that landscaper or maid loses a customer ? i am sure you would not have any sympathy for someone better off than you having to downsize their spending, because in your opinion, they are still well off.  and that is fine.  i would not say i would have sympathy for them either.  but you ca not say it does not affect that person.  and even if you make the argument that the effect is justified because they are still relatively wealthy, and they are increased tax dollar would be better served providing more public services, it sure would affect the beneficiaries of their spending while they were still bringing home $0 million.  just one man is opinion though.   #  it does not matter how hard an intelligent person born poor works they likely are not going to make as much money as a slacker of moderate intelligence born into a fabulously wealthy family.   #  inheritance does impact the results of hard work.  there are limited resources.  if untold billions are being passed down in the richest families, that is vast amounts of resources that less wealthy people have to compete for.  it does not matter how hard an intelligent person born poor works they likely are not going to make as much money as a slacker of moderate intelligence born into a fabulously wealthy family.  the resources of the rich child are never going to be available for the poor child to attain.  when the rich dude is parents die, he is going to keep control of their ridiculous amount of wealth.  now, what would happen if the estate was highly taxed ? all that wealth could be spent by the government to either build infrastructure to help everyone or to lower the tax of everyone.  all of a sudden, the guy born into a poor family benefits.  and all of a sudden their are more resources available for him to collect as a result of his hardwork.   #  i do not think it is enough of an issue to completely disregard the tax as there will come a point where the effort required to circumvent the tax is not worth it is saving.   #  for one thing your children are not necessarily any more deserving of the money than anyone else and money spent on others may do more than money spent on them.  but you are right, i do not believe in 0 inheritance tax and i completely agree that poor/middle income parents should be allowed to give their children every advantage they can.  i would say if you set a cap above which you are taxed that eliminates this problem though.  you are correct that gifting is a problem, and one that is hard to get around.  i think large gifts should be equally taxed, especially property etc, but practicality still remains an issue.  i do not think it is enough of an issue to completely disregard the tax as there will come a point where the effort required to circumvent the tax is not worth it is saving.
i have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 0 seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair call it a sort of moral  gut feeling.   .  i do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and i generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions/strategies.  however, i cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person is income should be able to be taken away and redistributed.  further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one is death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property.  i am interested in well thought out reasons why i should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a  damn the rich, they are what is wrong with this country  line of reasoning.   #  anything above 0 seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair call it a sort of moral  gut feeling.    #  read malcolm gladwell is book, blink, it has a good explanation of how/where gut instinct comes from usually derived from various things you have been exposed to .   # read malcolm gladwell is book, blink, it has a good explanation of how/where gut instinct comes from usually derived from various things you have been exposed to .  from my pov things that would affect my gut instinct would be 0 i do not feel i should have to pay more taxes than i already am and 0 the marginal rate of taxes at the upper end in the recent past was 0 0s .  part of changing your mind about whats reasonable, should be trying to figure out why you think that is reasonable in the first place.  i am not sure why taxing investment income would discourage investing.  if you have money, you can either spend it, invest it, or hide it under a mattress.  if you have extra money beyond what you would normally spend, you generally either invest it or hide it under a mattress.  if i could earn 0 returns vs 0 returns, even if i have to pay taxes on the 0 returns, i will, because any returns are greater than no returns  i generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions/strategies.  do not disagree with this either, but this is a product of the politicians trying to use the tax code to enforce moral changes in society tax breaks for giving to church/charities, extra taxes for smoking/alcohol etc .  but that is different cmv than your title.  further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one is death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property.  the estate tax affects a very small proportion of the population.  from wikipedia URL  in addition, up to a certain amount varying year by year, amounting to $0,0,0 for estates of persons dying in 0 0 and $0,0,0 for estates of persons dying in 0 0 can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes.  0 so the first $0m is free from federal taxes.  it always cracks me up when texas republicans have minimum wage earners espousing the evils of an estate tax that only affects multi millionaires.   #  they are an individual here, not a business or corporation.   #  okay, but lets say we add a 0 tax rate above, i dunno, 0 million.  the person making $0,0,0 was taking home 0m before, they are now taking home 0m with an effective tax rate of 0, that is a lot but does it really affect that person ? given:   they can still redirect money to charity through deductions instead of paying the government.  they are an individual here, not a business or corporation.  do you think that the additional 0m is really going to make that much difference in the life of someone who is bringing home 0m in salary ?  #  are they major donors to their alma mater or other charities ?  # there are so many more factors that determine someone is lifestyle than how many  yachts and exotic cars  they have.  you have no idea what someone is money may be tied up in.  how much are they putting away for retirement ? what about the number of children they have ? how much are they putting away so their kids can have a nice inheritance ? where do they live ? what is the cost of living ? where are they sending them to college ? are they financially supporting their elderly parents ? are they major donors to their alma mater or other charities ? do they have landscapers ? a maid ? other service workers ? they may do all these things because they have the means at bringing home $0 million after taxes.  if you suddenly take away 0 of their after tax income, maybe those kids do not get to go to their dream school, or their mother and father have to move out of that nice retirement community their children worked hard to put them in, or someone loses a scholarship because a little bit less donations came in to the university this year.  maybe that landscaper or maid loses a customer ? i am sure you would not have any sympathy for someone better off than you having to downsize their spending, because in your opinion, they are still well off.  and that is fine.  i would not say i would have sympathy for them either.  but you ca not say it does not affect that person.  and even if you make the argument that the effect is justified because they are still relatively wealthy, and they are increased tax dollar would be better served providing more public services, it sure would affect the beneficiaries of their spending while they were still bringing home $0 million.  just one man is opinion though.   #  inheritance does impact the results of hard work.   #  inheritance does impact the results of hard work.  there are limited resources.  if untold billions are being passed down in the richest families, that is vast amounts of resources that less wealthy people have to compete for.  it does not matter how hard an intelligent person born poor works they likely are not going to make as much money as a slacker of moderate intelligence born into a fabulously wealthy family.  the resources of the rich child are never going to be available for the poor child to attain.  when the rich dude is parents die, he is going to keep control of their ridiculous amount of wealth.  now, what would happen if the estate was highly taxed ? all that wealth could be spent by the government to either build infrastructure to help everyone or to lower the tax of everyone.  all of a sudden, the guy born into a poor family benefits.  and all of a sudden their are more resources available for him to collect as a result of his hardwork.   #  for one thing your children are not necessarily any more deserving of the money than anyone else and money spent on others may do more than money spent on them.   #  for one thing your children are not necessarily any more deserving of the money than anyone else and money spent on others may do more than money spent on them.  but you are right, i do not believe in 0 inheritance tax and i completely agree that poor/middle income parents should be allowed to give their children every advantage they can.  i would say if you set a cap above which you are taxed that eliminates this problem though.  you are correct that gifting is a problem, and one that is hard to get around.  i think large gifts should be equally taxed, especially property etc, but practicality still remains an issue.  i do not think it is enough of an issue to completely disregard the tax as there will come a point where the effort required to circumvent the tax is not worth it is saving.
i have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 0 seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair call it a sort of moral  gut feeling.   .  i do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and i generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions/strategies.  however, i cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person is income should be able to be taken away and redistributed.  further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one is death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property.  i am interested in well thought out reasons why i should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a  damn the rich, they are what is wrong with this country  line of reasoning.   #  however, i cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person is income should be able to be taken away and redistributed.   #  further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one is death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property.   # read malcolm gladwell is book, blink, it has a good explanation of how/where gut instinct comes from usually derived from various things you have been exposed to .  from my pov things that would affect my gut instinct would be 0 i do not feel i should have to pay more taxes than i already am and 0 the marginal rate of taxes at the upper end in the recent past was 0 0s .  part of changing your mind about whats reasonable, should be trying to figure out why you think that is reasonable in the first place.  i am not sure why taxing investment income would discourage investing.  if you have money, you can either spend it, invest it, or hide it under a mattress.  if you have extra money beyond what you would normally spend, you generally either invest it or hide it under a mattress.  if i could earn 0 returns vs 0 returns, even if i have to pay taxes on the 0 returns, i will, because any returns are greater than no returns  i generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions/strategies.  do not disagree with this either, but this is a product of the politicians trying to use the tax code to enforce moral changes in society tax breaks for giving to church/charities, extra taxes for smoking/alcohol etc .  but that is different cmv than your title.  further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one is death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property.  the estate tax affects a very small proportion of the population.  from wikipedia URL  in addition, up to a certain amount varying year by year, amounting to $0,0,0 for estates of persons dying in 0 0 and $0,0,0 for estates of persons dying in 0 0 can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes.  0 so the first $0m is free from federal taxes.  it always cracks me up when texas republicans have minimum wage earners espousing the evils of an estate tax that only affects multi millionaires.   #  do you think that the additional 0m is really going to make that much difference in the life of someone who is bringing home 0m in salary ?  #  okay, but lets say we add a 0 tax rate above, i dunno, 0 million.  the person making $0,0,0 was taking home 0m before, they are now taking home 0m with an effective tax rate of 0, that is a lot but does it really affect that person ? given:   they can still redirect money to charity through deductions instead of paying the government.  they are an individual here, not a business or corporation.  do you think that the additional 0m is really going to make that much difference in the life of someone who is bringing home 0m in salary ?  #  i am sure you would not have any sympathy for someone better off than you having to downsize their spending, because in your opinion, they are still well off.   # there are so many more factors that determine someone is lifestyle than how many  yachts and exotic cars  they have.  you have no idea what someone is money may be tied up in.  how much are they putting away for retirement ? what about the number of children they have ? how much are they putting away so their kids can have a nice inheritance ? where do they live ? what is the cost of living ? where are they sending them to college ? are they financially supporting their elderly parents ? are they major donors to their alma mater or other charities ? do they have landscapers ? a maid ? other service workers ? they may do all these things because they have the means at bringing home $0 million after taxes.  if you suddenly take away 0 of their after tax income, maybe those kids do not get to go to their dream school, or their mother and father have to move out of that nice retirement community their children worked hard to put them in, or someone loses a scholarship because a little bit less donations came in to the university this year.  maybe that landscaper or maid loses a customer ? i am sure you would not have any sympathy for someone better off than you having to downsize their spending, because in your opinion, they are still well off.  and that is fine.  i would not say i would have sympathy for them either.  but you ca not say it does not affect that person.  and even if you make the argument that the effect is justified because they are still relatively wealthy, and they are increased tax dollar would be better served providing more public services, it sure would affect the beneficiaries of their spending while they were still bringing home $0 million.  just one man is opinion though.   #  if untold billions are being passed down in the richest families, that is vast amounts of resources that less wealthy people have to compete for.   #  inheritance does impact the results of hard work.  there are limited resources.  if untold billions are being passed down in the richest families, that is vast amounts of resources that less wealthy people have to compete for.  it does not matter how hard an intelligent person born poor works they likely are not going to make as much money as a slacker of moderate intelligence born into a fabulously wealthy family.  the resources of the rich child are never going to be available for the poor child to attain.  when the rich dude is parents die, he is going to keep control of their ridiculous amount of wealth.  now, what would happen if the estate was highly taxed ? all that wealth could be spent by the government to either build infrastructure to help everyone or to lower the tax of everyone.  all of a sudden, the guy born into a poor family benefits.  and all of a sudden their are more resources available for him to collect as a result of his hardwork.   #  you are correct that gifting is a problem, and one that is hard to get around.   #  for one thing your children are not necessarily any more deserving of the money than anyone else and money spent on others may do more than money spent on them.  but you are right, i do not believe in 0 inheritance tax and i completely agree that poor/middle income parents should be allowed to give their children every advantage they can.  i would say if you set a cap above which you are taxed that eliminates this problem though.  you are correct that gifting is a problem, and one that is hard to get around.  i think large gifts should be equally taxed, especially property etc, but practicality still remains an issue.  i do not think it is enough of an issue to completely disregard the tax as there will come a point where the effort required to circumvent the tax is not worth it is saving.
i have heard the opinions that tax rates should be significantly increased for the wealthy, but anything above 0 seems intuitively to be too burdensome to be fair call it a sort of moral  gut feeling.   .  i do believe capital gains and wage income should be taxed equally, and i generally feel like the tax code is far too complex, resulting in unfair deductions/strategies.  however, i cannot seem to stomach the idea that half or more of a person is income should be able to be taken away and redistributed.  further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one is death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property.  i am interested in well thought out reasons why i should consider a higher tax acceptable, not just a  damn the rich, they are what is wrong with this country  line of reasoning.   #  further, the idea of taxing a private estate upon one is death feels wrong, like a failure to respect private property.   #  the problem with this is as follows.   #  i am only going to respond to one main point.  the problem with this is as follows.  tax law is built around one central concept: that the taxes be proportional to the amount of financial risk you take, because financial risk is the burden that the government also shoulders for you, etc. , etc.  among various other reasons .  in estate planning, essentially, the recipients of that money shoulder no risk.  there is no risk: they know they will receive the cash, however much of it there is, when whomever bequeaths it dies.  the problem is as follows: 0.  how much of a social problem is inequality ? if inequality is high, we should tax estates even more, because there is no financial risk involved in the transfer, and on top of that, estate planning perpetuates into the future any structural inequalities now.  0.   financial risk financial risk financial risk financial risk financial risk .  this is central to the idea of taxation: that the government should take a portion of your earnings, with due credit awarded to riskier enterprises.  that is the argument for why capital gains taxation should always be lower than income tax: capital gains is a tax on investment, which is necessarily riskier than income which, by and large, is somewhat contractually guaranteed, as opposed to income   hence why i disagree with your cgt should equal it point .  proportionally, therefore, the estate tax, which is a tax on something absolutely guaranteed via contract, should be as high as it is.   #  okay, but lets say we add a 0 tax rate above, i dunno, 0 million.   #  okay, but lets say we add a 0 tax rate above, i dunno, 0 million.  the person making $0,0,0 was taking home 0m before, they are now taking home 0m with an effective tax rate of 0, that is a lot but does it really affect that person ? given:   they can still redirect money to charity through deductions instead of paying the government.  they are an individual here, not a business or corporation.  do you think that the additional 0m is really going to make that much difference in the life of someone who is bringing home 0m in salary ?  #  how much are they putting away for retirement ?  # there are so many more factors that determine someone is lifestyle than how many  yachts and exotic cars  they have.  you have no idea what someone is money may be tied up in.  how much are they putting away for retirement ? what about the number of children they have ? how much are they putting away so their kids can have a nice inheritance ? where do they live ? what is the cost of living ? where are they sending them to college ? are they financially supporting their elderly parents ? are they major donors to their alma mater or other charities ? do they have landscapers ? a maid ? other service workers ? they may do all these things because they have the means at bringing home $0 million after taxes.  if you suddenly take away 0 of their after tax income, maybe those kids do not get to go to their dream school, or their mother and father have to move out of that nice retirement community their children worked hard to put them in, or someone loses a scholarship because a little bit less donations came in to the university this year.  maybe that landscaper or maid loses a customer ? i am sure you would not have any sympathy for someone better off than you having to downsize their spending, because in your opinion, they are still well off.  and that is fine.  i would not say i would have sympathy for them either.  but you ca not say it does not affect that person.  and even if you make the argument that the effect is justified because they are still relatively wealthy, and they are increased tax dollar would be better served providing more public services, it sure would affect the beneficiaries of their spending while they were still bringing home $0 million.  just one man is opinion though.   #  the resources of the rich child are never going to be available for the poor child to attain.   #  inheritance does impact the results of hard work.  there are limited resources.  if untold billions are being passed down in the richest families, that is vast amounts of resources that less wealthy people have to compete for.  it does not matter how hard an intelligent person born poor works they likely are not going to make as much money as a slacker of moderate intelligence born into a fabulously wealthy family.  the resources of the rich child are never going to be available for the poor child to attain.  when the rich dude is parents die, he is going to keep control of their ridiculous amount of wealth.  now, what would happen if the estate was highly taxed ? all that wealth could be spent by the government to either build infrastructure to help everyone or to lower the tax of everyone.  all of a sudden, the guy born into a poor family benefits.  and all of a sudden their are more resources available for him to collect as a result of his hardwork.   #  you are correct that gifting is a problem, and one that is hard to get around.   #  for one thing your children are not necessarily any more deserving of the money than anyone else and money spent on others may do more than money spent on them.  but you are right, i do not believe in 0 inheritance tax and i completely agree that poor/middle income parents should be allowed to give their children every advantage they can.  i would say if you set a cap above which you are taxed that eliminates this problem though.  you are correct that gifting is a problem, and one that is hard to get around.  i think large gifts should be equally taxed, especially property etc, but practicality still remains an issue.  i do not think it is enough of an issue to completely disregard the tax as there will come a point where the effort required to circumvent the tax is not worth it is saving.
i have a strong belief that the welfare system in america is no longer for the purpose of empowering those who have fallen on hard times but rather to create an endless loop of dependents for the taxpayers to uphold.  some of the major tenants of change that i think need change are the following:   low income / automatic welfare i feel like if you have a job then you should be making enough money to support yourself at least somewhat reasonably.  i have seen people exist in other countries off of alot less than what america is minimum wage and still are able to be reasonably happy.  if it can be shown that they are not able to support themselves off of minimum wage then the onus should fall on raising the minimum wage corporations pay the difference rather than raising welfare taxpayers pay the difference   welfare should be given to those regardless of whether they are working now this is one of my biggest problems with the system.  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.  why would the government not use the money as an incentive to work for them even if it is menial work or work that does not have a  higher calling .  example, if i took guys who were able bodied and said alright if you want welfare here are your choices of jobs example, repairing roads, gardening in public areas, ect .  given a set of choices they might just find the work experience that they wanted to get so that they can transfer to the private sector at some point.  yeah this job does not earn the government any more money but it does help to improve the overall country and gives them work experience and i feel actually empowers people.  caveat to this being that many people are not able to work normal jobs, lets say you have a heart condition that prevents you from being outside for extended times, well then maybe you can help babysit the children of those who are working through a structured daycare system.  maybe you have a problem with dealing directly with people, alright well we have a job in programming for the government for you or something else.  i could go on for a bit on this point but i will wait to see what the comments are first.    welfare should be provided regardless of drug offenses now here is where i draw the line.  although many people are required to be drug tested, there is an even larger amount that are not or are not drug tested enough.  to get just about any job to feed my family in the private workforce i need to get tested so why is this not mandatory when they are getting paid by the government ? three strike rule, fail three drug tests and you do not get any money for a year, try again next year.  put the onus on the citizen to remain drug free to continue getting money from the government and i think you will see a sharp decline in drug use in america and you will see an overall more productive workforce.  now i know this is a pretty extended post and a large hot topic item for everyone involved, so i would like to encourage everyone to remain civil while expressing their opinions so we can see all sides of the argument.   #  as an incentive to work for them even if it is menial work or work that does not have a  higher calling .   #  example, if i took guys who were able bodied and said alright if you want welfare here are your choices of jobs example, repairing roads, gardening in public areas, ect .   # this seems implausible to me.  the minimum wage in the state of new york is $0/hr.  assuming you work full time at one job, that is $0/week, or $0/mo before taxes.  after taxes it is probably about $0.  of that, unless you live right next to where you work, $0 has to go for a subway pass.  so $0/mo for food, health care, and rent, which is not a lot; you are probably paying half that in rent alone.  example, if i took guys who were able bodied and said alright if you want welfare here are your choices of jobs example, repairing roads, gardening in public areas, ect .  a it is more expensive for the taxpayer to do this than to hand out money directly.  b whatever services were being provided could likely be provided more cheaply by outsourcing to private companies now, maybe it is worth paying more for the psychological effect on the worker and for the improvement in the worker is long term employability, but taxes would have to go up.  furthermore, c unemployment insurance is a short term support system and the overwhelming majority of people who get money from it find new jobs, and d a large percentage of those getting state support have been determined to be disabled and therefore not able bodied.  i have never been tested for a job, and neither have most of my friends been.  granted, most of my friends are computer programmers, lawyers, or graduate students but my best friend is a  waiter , and he is not tested either.  nor could he be; the entire restaurant industry would fall apart if people workign in it were .   #  i am not trying to stir anymore debate on this subject, but you are the top comment, and have been very active in this thread.   #  i have a question i was wondering if you could help me out with.  i am not trying to stir anymore debate on this subject, but you are the top comment, and have been very active in this thread.  my question, is why were only 0 people tested ? i ca not find any specific number of the amount of people on welfare, but i am sure there are a lot more people on it.  i also heard that it was voluntary to go and be tested during the trial but i am unsure if that is true as well, and again i ca not find any information about this.  any help would be appreciated.   #  however the article focuses more about legality of the measure than anything else.   #  yes there is an additional cost, and yes it may be more efficient to just ignore those that are using drugs while on the system.  however the article focuses more about legality of the measure than anything else.  an extra 0 of the people decided not to show up for the drug tests rather than failing them and assuredly losing their support.  so maybe the answer is a random drawing.  this would reduce the amount of testing while still letting people know that drug use while on taxpayer dollars is unacceptable.   #  the welfare system is not near as corrupt as you think it is.   #  they would not need funds if they were not poor.  i recommend, if you are gung ho on testing people for drugs, that every single citizen be tested randomly regardless of government assistance status.  fair ? i do not understand why you are attacking welfare specifically.  especially when there are funds grossly misappropriated by the government themselves.  also, i would like for you to think of it this way: is it not better to have some people abuse the system than to have one person go without ? nobody should be starving in our country.  the welfare system is not near as corrupt as you think it is.  media goes a long way towards your perception of welfare.   #  that is a ridiculous as claiming the balance of your checking account is you are employer is money  #  however, social security is your right as an american citizen after you have paid in for the time period 0 quarters i think ? .  who is the government to take that away from you for something as trivial as personal use of narcotics ? furthermore, it would be rather complicated to calculate the exact interest rate every american received on all their individual payments for decades.  it would be an accounting nightmare.  beyond that it would be rather costly.  to tack on to that, you mentioned earlier that the government should randomly drug test employees to ensure that they do not spent their wages on drugs.  you called it the government is money, but its not.  its been earned, its their money.  that is a ridiculous as claiming the balance of your checking account is you are employer is money
i have a strong belief that the welfare system in america is no longer for the purpose of empowering those who have fallen on hard times but rather to create an endless loop of dependents for the taxpayers to uphold.  some of the major tenants of change that i think need change are the following:   low income / automatic welfare i feel like if you have a job then you should be making enough money to support yourself at least somewhat reasonably.  i have seen people exist in other countries off of alot less than what america is minimum wage and still are able to be reasonably happy.  if it can be shown that they are not able to support themselves off of minimum wage then the onus should fall on raising the minimum wage corporations pay the difference rather than raising welfare taxpayers pay the difference   welfare should be given to those regardless of whether they are working now this is one of my biggest problems with the system.  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.  why would the government not use the money as an incentive to work for them even if it is menial work or work that does not have a  higher calling .  example, if i took guys who were able bodied and said alright if you want welfare here are your choices of jobs example, repairing roads, gardening in public areas, ect .  given a set of choices they might just find the work experience that they wanted to get so that they can transfer to the private sector at some point.  yeah this job does not earn the government any more money but it does help to improve the overall country and gives them work experience and i feel actually empowers people.  caveat to this being that many people are not able to work normal jobs, lets say you have a heart condition that prevents you from being outside for extended times, well then maybe you can help babysit the children of those who are working through a structured daycare system.  maybe you have a problem with dealing directly with people, alright well we have a job in programming for the government for you or something else.  i could go on for a bit on this point but i will wait to see what the comments are first.    welfare should be provided regardless of drug offenses now here is where i draw the line.  although many people are required to be drug tested, there is an even larger amount that are not or are not drug tested enough.  to get just about any job to feed my family in the private workforce i need to get tested so why is this not mandatory when they are getting paid by the government ? three strike rule, fail three drug tests and you do not get any money for a year, try again next year.  put the onus on the citizen to remain drug free to continue getting money from the government and i think you will see a sharp decline in drug use in america and you will see an overall more productive workforce.  now i know this is a pretty extended post and a large hot topic item for everyone involved, so i would like to encourage everyone to remain civil while expressing their opinions so we can see all sides of the argument.   #  now this is one of my biggest problems with the system.   #  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.   # it depends on where you live.  you certainly ca not support a family on minimum wage, and you also ca not pay for education or child care with minimum wage.  often times it is either work or take care of children.  it is either work or school.  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.  we do it because we care about people.  what we get out of it is people not starving on the streets and robbing our homes and businesses to survive.  and then we take jobs away from able bodied people who happen to work at a day care.  how is this solving anything ? are you proposing we designate some jobs as welfare only ? although many people are required to be drug tested, there is an even larger amount that are not or are not drug tested enough.  they test positive for drugs, and then what ? they get put out on the street and become part of the crime problem, or get put in jail and cost us more than they did on welfare.   #  i am not trying to stir anymore debate on this subject, but you are the top comment, and have been very active in this thread.   #  i have a question i was wondering if you could help me out with.  i am not trying to stir anymore debate on this subject, but you are the top comment, and have been very active in this thread.  my question, is why were only 0 people tested ? i ca not find any specific number of the amount of people on welfare, but i am sure there are a lot more people on it.  i also heard that it was voluntary to go and be tested during the trial but i am unsure if that is true as well, and again i ca not find any information about this.  any help would be appreciated.   #  however the article focuses more about legality of the measure than anything else.   #  yes there is an additional cost, and yes it may be more efficient to just ignore those that are using drugs while on the system.  however the article focuses more about legality of the measure than anything else.  an extra 0 of the people decided not to show up for the drug tests rather than failing them and assuredly losing their support.  so maybe the answer is a random drawing.  this would reduce the amount of testing while still letting people know that drug use while on taxpayer dollars is unacceptable.   #  i recommend, if you are gung ho on testing people for drugs, that every single citizen be tested randomly regardless of government assistance status.   #  they would not need funds if they were not poor.  i recommend, if you are gung ho on testing people for drugs, that every single citizen be tested randomly regardless of government assistance status.  fair ? i do not understand why you are attacking welfare specifically.  especially when there are funds grossly misappropriated by the government themselves.  also, i would like for you to think of it this way: is it not better to have some people abuse the system than to have one person go without ? nobody should be starving in our country.  the welfare system is not near as corrupt as you think it is.  media goes a long way towards your perception of welfare.   #  that is a ridiculous as claiming the balance of your checking account is you are employer is money  #  however, social security is your right as an american citizen after you have paid in for the time period 0 quarters i think ? .  who is the government to take that away from you for something as trivial as personal use of narcotics ? furthermore, it would be rather complicated to calculate the exact interest rate every american received on all their individual payments for decades.  it would be an accounting nightmare.  beyond that it would be rather costly.  to tack on to that, you mentioned earlier that the government should randomly drug test employees to ensure that they do not spent their wages on drugs.  you called it the government is money, but its not.  its been earned, its their money.  that is a ridiculous as claiming the balance of your checking account is you are employer is money
i have a strong belief that the welfare system in america is no longer for the purpose of empowering those who have fallen on hard times but rather to create an endless loop of dependents for the taxpayers to uphold.  some of the major tenants of change that i think need change are the following:   low income / automatic welfare i feel like if you have a job then you should be making enough money to support yourself at least somewhat reasonably.  i have seen people exist in other countries off of alot less than what america is minimum wage and still are able to be reasonably happy.  if it can be shown that they are not able to support themselves off of minimum wage then the onus should fall on raising the minimum wage corporations pay the difference rather than raising welfare taxpayers pay the difference   welfare should be given to those regardless of whether they are working now this is one of my biggest problems with the system.  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.  why would the government not use the money as an incentive to work for them even if it is menial work or work that does not have a  higher calling .  example, if i took guys who were able bodied and said alright if you want welfare here are your choices of jobs example, repairing roads, gardening in public areas, ect .  given a set of choices they might just find the work experience that they wanted to get so that they can transfer to the private sector at some point.  yeah this job does not earn the government any more money but it does help to improve the overall country and gives them work experience and i feel actually empowers people.  caveat to this being that many people are not able to work normal jobs, lets say you have a heart condition that prevents you from being outside for extended times, well then maybe you can help babysit the children of those who are working through a structured daycare system.  maybe you have a problem with dealing directly with people, alright well we have a job in programming for the government for you or something else.  i could go on for a bit on this point but i will wait to see what the comments are first.    welfare should be provided regardless of drug offenses now here is where i draw the line.  although many people are required to be drug tested, there is an even larger amount that are not or are not drug tested enough.  to get just about any job to feed my family in the private workforce i need to get tested so why is this not mandatory when they are getting paid by the government ? three strike rule, fail three drug tests and you do not get any money for a year, try again next year.  put the onus on the citizen to remain drug free to continue getting money from the government and i think you will see a sharp decline in drug use in america and you will see an overall more productive workforce.  now i know this is a pretty extended post and a large hot topic item for everyone involved, so i would like to encourage everyone to remain civil while expressing their opinions so we can see all sides of the argument.   #  well then maybe you can help babysit the children of those who are working through a structured daycare system.   #  and then we take jobs away from able bodied people who happen to work at a day care.   # it depends on where you live.  you certainly ca not support a family on minimum wage, and you also ca not pay for education or child care with minimum wage.  often times it is either work or take care of children.  it is either work or school.  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.  we do it because we care about people.  what we get out of it is people not starving on the streets and robbing our homes and businesses to survive.  and then we take jobs away from able bodied people who happen to work at a day care.  how is this solving anything ? are you proposing we designate some jobs as welfare only ? although many people are required to be drug tested, there is an even larger amount that are not or are not drug tested enough.  they test positive for drugs, and then what ? they get put out on the street and become part of the crime problem, or get put in jail and cost us more than they did on welfare.   #  my question, is why were only 0 people tested ?  #  i have a question i was wondering if you could help me out with.  i am not trying to stir anymore debate on this subject, but you are the top comment, and have been very active in this thread.  my question, is why were only 0 people tested ? i ca not find any specific number of the amount of people on welfare, but i am sure there are a lot more people on it.  i also heard that it was voluntary to go and be tested during the trial but i am unsure if that is true as well, and again i ca not find any information about this.  any help would be appreciated.   #  so maybe the answer is a random drawing.   #  yes there is an additional cost, and yes it may be more efficient to just ignore those that are using drugs while on the system.  however the article focuses more about legality of the measure than anything else.  an extra 0 of the people decided not to show up for the drug tests rather than failing them and assuredly losing their support.  so maybe the answer is a random drawing.  this would reduce the amount of testing while still letting people know that drug use while on taxpayer dollars is unacceptable.   #  i do not understand why you are attacking welfare specifically.   #  they would not need funds if they were not poor.  i recommend, if you are gung ho on testing people for drugs, that every single citizen be tested randomly regardless of government assistance status.  fair ? i do not understand why you are attacking welfare specifically.  especially when there are funds grossly misappropriated by the government themselves.  also, i would like for you to think of it this way: is it not better to have some people abuse the system than to have one person go without ? nobody should be starving in our country.  the welfare system is not near as corrupt as you think it is.  media goes a long way towards your perception of welfare.   #  furthermore, it would be rather complicated to calculate the exact interest rate every american received on all their individual payments for decades.   #  however, social security is your right as an american citizen after you have paid in for the time period 0 quarters i think ? .  who is the government to take that away from you for something as trivial as personal use of narcotics ? furthermore, it would be rather complicated to calculate the exact interest rate every american received on all their individual payments for decades.  it would be an accounting nightmare.  beyond that it would be rather costly.  to tack on to that, you mentioned earlier that the government should randomly drug test employees to ensure that they do not spent their wages on drugs.  you called it the government is money, but its not.  its been earned, its their money.  that is a ridiculous as claiming the balance of your checking account is you are employer is money
i have a strong belief that the welfare system in america is no longer for the purpose of empowering those who have fallen on hard times but rather to create an endless loop of dependents for the taxpayers to uphold.  some of the major tenants of change that i think need change are the following:   low income / automatic welfare i feel like if you have a job then you should be making enough money to support yourself at least somewhat reasonably.  i have seen people exist in other countries off of alot less than what america is minimum wage and still are able to be reasonably happy.  if it can be shown that they are not able to support themselves off of minimum wage then the onus should fall on raising the minimum wage corporations pay the difference rather than raising welfare taxpayers pay the difference   welfare should be given to those regardless of whether they are working now this is one of my biggest problems with the system.  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.  why would the government not use the money as an incentive to work for them even if it is menial work or work that does not have a  higher calling .  example, if i took guys who were able bodied and said alright if you want welfare here are your choices of jobs example, repairing roads, gardening in public areas, ect .  given a set of choices they might just find the work experience that they wanted to get so that they can transfer to the private sector at some point.  yeah this job does not earn the government any more money but it does help to improve the overall country and gives them work experience and i feel actually empowers people.  caveat to this being that many people are not able to work normal jobs, lets say you have a heart condition that prevents you from being outside for extended times, well then maybe you can help babysit the children of those who are working through a structured daycare system.  maybe you have a problem with dealing directly with people, alright well we have a job in programming for the government for you or something else.  i could go on for a bit on this point but i will wait to see what the comments are first.    welfare should be provided regardless of drug offenses now here is where i draw the line.  although many people are required to be drug tested, there is an even larger amount that are not or are not drug tested enough.  to get just about any job to feed my family in the private workforce i need to get tested so why is this not mandatory when they are getting paid by the government ? three strike rule, fail three drug tests and you do not get any money for a year, try again next year.  put the onus on the citizen to remain drug free to continue getting money from the government and i think you will see a sharp decline in drug use in america and you will see an overall more productive workforce.  now i know this is a pretty extended post and a large hot topic item for everyone involved, so i would like to encourage everyone to remain civil while expressing their opinions so we can see all sides of the argument.   #  now here is where i draw the line.   #  although many people are required to be drug tested, there is an even larger amount that are not or are not drug tested enough.   # it depends on where you live.  you certainly ca not support a family on minimum wage, and you also ca not pay for education or child care with minimum wage.  often times it is either work or take care of children.  it is either work or school.  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.  we do it because we care about people.  what we get out of it is people not starving on the streets and robbing our homes and businesses to survive.  and then we take jobs away from able bodied people who happen to work at a day care.  how is this solving anything ? are you proposing we designate some jobs as welfare only ? although many people are required to be drug tested, there is an even larger amount that are not or are not drug tested enough.  they test positive for drugs, and then what ? they get put out on the street and become part of the crime problem, or get put in jail and cost us more than they did on welfare.   #  my question, is why were only 0 people tested ?  #  i have a question i was wondering if you could help me out with.  i am not trying to stir anymore debate on this subject, but you are the top comment, and have been very active in this thread.  my question, is why were only 0 people tested ? i ca not find any specific number of the amount of people on welfare, but i am sure there are a lot more people on it.  i also heard that it was voluntary to go and be tested during the trial but i am unsure if that is true as well, and again i ca not find any information about this.  any help would be appreciated.   #  an extra 0 of the people decided not to show up for the drug tests rather than failing them and assuredly losing their support.   #  yes there is an additional cost, and yes it may be more efficient to just ignore those that are using drugs while on the system.  however the article focuses more about legality of the measure than anything else.  an extra 0 of the people decided not to show up for the drug tests rather than failing them and assuredly losing their support.  so maybe the answer is a random drawing.  this would reduce the amount of testing while still letting people know that drug use while on taxpayer dollars is unacceptable.   #  they would not need funds if they were not poor.   #  they would not need funds if they were not poor.  i recommend, if you are gung ho on testing people for drugs, that every single citizen be tested randomly regardless of government assistance status.  fair ? i do not understand why you are attacking welfare specifically.  especially when there are funds grossly misappropriated by the government themselves.  also, i would like for you to think of it this way: is it not better to have some people abuse the system than to have one person go without ? nobody should be starving in our country.  the welfare system is not near as corrupt as you think it is.  media goes a long way towards your perception of welfare.   #  however, social security is your right as an american citizen after you have paid in for the time period 0 quarters i think ?  #  however, social security is your right as an american citizen after you have paid in for the time period 0 quarters i think ? .  who is the government to take that away from you for something as trivial as personal use of narcotics ? furthermore, it would be rather complicated to calculate the exact interest rate every american received on all their individual payments for decades.  it would be an accounting nightmare.  beyond that it would be rather costly.  to tack on to that, you mentioned earlier that the government should randomly drug test employees to ensure that they do not spent their wages on drugs.  you called it the government is money, but its not.  its been earned, its their money.  that is a ridiculous as claiming the balance of your checking account is you are employer is money
i have a strong belief that the welfare system in america is no longer for the purpose of empowering those who have fallen on hard times but rather to create an endless loop of dependents for the taxpayers to uphold.  some of the major tenants of change that i think need change are the following:   low income / automatic welfare i feel like if you have a job then you should be making enough money to support yourself at least somewhat reasonably.  i have seen people exist in other countries off of alot less than what america is minimum wage and still are able to be reasonably happy.  if it can be shown that they are not able to support themselves off of minimum wage then the onus should fall on raising the minimum wage corporations pay the difference rather than raising welfare taxpayers pay the difference   welfare should be given to those regardless of whether they are working now this is one of my biggest problems with the system.  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.  why would the government not use the money as an incentive to work for them even if it is menial work or work that does not have a  higher calling .  example, if i took guys who were able bodied and said alright if you want welfare here are your choices of jobs example, repairing roads, gardening in public areas, ect .  given a set of choices they might just find the work experience that they wanted to get so that they can transfer to the private sector at some point.  yeah this job does not earn the government any more money but it does help to improve the overall country and gives them work experience and i feel actually empowers people.  caveat to this being that many people are not able to work normal jobs, lets say you have a heart condition that prevents you from being outside for extended times, well then maybe you can help babysit the children of those who are working through a structured daycare system.  maybe you have a problem with dealing directly with people, alright well we have a job in programming for the government for you or something else.  i could go on for a bit on this point but i will wait to see what the comments are first.    welfare should be provided regardless of drug offenses now here is where i draw the line.  although many people are required to be drug tested, there is an even larger amount that are not or are not drug tested enough.  to get just about any job to feed my family in the private workforce i need to get tested so why is this not mandatory when they are getting paid by the government ? three strike rule, fail three drug tests and you do not get any money for a year, try again next year.  put the onus on the citizen to remain drug free to continue getting money from the government and i think you will see a sharp decline in drug use in america and you will see an overall more productive workforce.  now i know this is a pretty extended post and a large hot topic item for everyone involved, so i would like to encourage everyone to remain civil while expressing their opinions so we can see all sides of the argument.   #  i have seen people exist in other countries off of alot less than what america is minimum wage and still are able to be reasonably happy.   #  the problem is you have a lot of different areas of government intervention, and they are all intertwined.   # the problem is you have a lot of different areas of government intervention, and they are all intertwined.  you have already identified that welfare and minimum wage both regulated by the government are related.  but the us cost of living is much higher than 0rd world countries because of regulation.  want to build a house ? you have to follow the government is rules.  want to be a construction worker, and electrician or paint other is finger nails ? you need to be licensed by the government.  you want to buy a car ? you need to get the government is approval and pay them a title fee to show ownership.  so while the welfare system may be broken, it is just one small cog in the wheel.  you ca not go making radical changes to the welfare system without considering all the other government regulation and intervention that will be affected including prison populations.  any employer especially any large employer will tell you that there are some employees that do nothing but cost you money.  the company is better off telling these employees to sit in a room and stare at a wall for 0 hours a day, rather than having them try to do some useful work and fuck it up to the point where someone else has to come along and fix it.  that is what you would get by forcing a lot of these people to do work that they are not really interested or willing to do.  you tell some guy he has to mow the lawn at the city park to get his welfare check, and then you need to pay to get a bunch of trees replanted, fix the baseball diamond and deal with the lawsuit from the family who is kid got hit by a flying rock.  how to the people survive ? do we just let them die in the streets ? if we are willing to let people die in the streets, then let is just get rid of welfare all together.  and, of course, that assumes that the people will be willing to simply die in the streets before turning to a life of crime to survive.  odds are they are going to kill you and take what you have, before they die themselves.  while a  no drugs for welfare  policy sounds logical at first, the likely consequences of such a policy are far more expensive, and overall far worse for society.   #  i have a question i was wondering if you could help me out with.   #  i have a question i was wondering if you could help me out with.  i am not trying to stir anymore debate on this subject, but you are the top comment, and have been very active in this thread.  my question, is why were only 0 people tested ? i ca not find any specific number of the amount of people on welfare, but i am sure there are a lot more people on it.  i also heard that it was voluntary to go and be tested during the trial but i am unsure if that is true as well, and again i ca not find any information about this.  any help would be appreciated.   #  however the article focuses more about legality of the measure than anything else.   #  yes there is an additional cost, and yes it may be more efficient to just ignore those that are using drugs while on the system.  however the article focuses more about legality of the measure than anything else.  an extra 0 of the people decided not to show up for the drug tests rather than failing them and assuredly losing their support.  so maybe the answer is a random drawing.  this would reduce the amount of testing while still letting people know that drug use while on taxpayer dollars is unacceptable.   #  i do not understand why you are attacking welfare specifically.   #  they would not need funds if they were not poor.  i recommend, if you are gung ho on testing people for drugs, that every single citizen be tested randomly regardless of government assistance status.  fair ? i do not understand why you are attacking welfare specifically.  especially when there are funds grossly misappropriated by the government themselves.  also, i would like for you to think of it this way: is it not better to have some people abuse the system than to have one person go without ? nobody should be starving in our country.  the welfare system is not near as corrupt as you think it is.  media goes a long way towards your perception of welfare.   #  you called it the government is money, but its not.   #  however, social security is your right as an american citizen after you have paid in for the time period 0 quarters i think ? .  who is the government to take that away from you for something as trivial as personal use of narcotics ? furthermore, it would be rather complicated to calculate the exact interest rate every american received on all their individual payments for decades.  it would be an accounting nightmare.  beyond that it would be rather costly.  to tack on to that, you mentioned earlier that the government should randomly drug test employees to ensure that they do not spent their wages on drugs.  you called it the government is money, but its not.  its been earned, its their money.  that is a ridiculous as claiming the balance of your checking account is you are employer is money
i have a strong belief that the welfare system in america is no longer for the purpose of empowering those who have fallen on hard times but rather to create an endless loop of dependents for the taxpayers to uphold.  some of the major tenants of change that i think need change are the following:   low income / automatic welfare i feel like if you have a job then you should be making enough money to support yourself at least somewhat reasonably.  i have seen people exist in other countries off of alot less than what america is minimum wage and still are able to be reasonably happy.  if it can be shown that they are not able to support themselves off of minimum wage then the onus should fall on raising the minimum wage corporations pay the difference rather than raising welfare taxpayers pay the difference   welfare should be given to those regardless of whether they are working now this is one of my biggest problems with the system.  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.  why would the government not use the money as an incentive to work for them even if it is menial work or work that does not have a  higher calling .  example, if i took guys who were able bodied and said alright if you want welfare here are your choices of jobs example, repairing roads, gardening in public areas, ect .  given a set of choices they might just find the work experience that they wanted to get so that they can transfer to the private sector at some point.  yeah this job does not earn the government any more money but it does help to improve the overall country and gives them work experience and i feel actually empowers people.  caveat to this being that many people are not able to work normal jobs, lets say you have a heart condition that prevents you from being outside for extended times, well then maybe you can help babysit the children of those who are working through a structured daycare system.  maybe you have a problem with dealing directly with people, alright well we have a job in programming for the government for you or something else.  i could go on for a bit on this point but i will wait to see what the comments are first.    welfare should be provided regardless of drug offenses now here is where i draw the line.  although many people are required to be drug tested, there is an even larger amount that are not or are not drug tested enough.  to get just about any job to feed my family in the private workforce i need to get tested so why is this not mandatory when they are getting paid by the government ? three strike rule, fail three drug tests and you do not get any money for a year, try again next year.  put the onus on the citizen to remain drug free to continue getting money from the government and i think you will see a sharp decline in drug use in america and you will see an overall more productive workforce.  now i know this is a pretty extended post and a large hot topic item for everyone involved, so i would like to encourage everyone to remain civil while expressing their opinions so we can see all sides of the argument.   #  i do not see why we are paying people money from the taxpayers and getting nothing out of it.   #  any employer especially any large employer will tell you that there are some employees that do nothing but cost you money.   # the problem is you have a lot of different areas of government intervention, and they are all intertwined.  you have already identified that welfare and minimum wage both regulated by the government are related.  but the us cost of living is much higher than 0rd world countries because of regulation.  want to build a house ? you have to follow the government is rules.  want to be a construction worker, and electrician or paint other is finger nails ? you need to be licensed by the government.  you want to buy a car ? you need to get the government is approval and pay them a title fee to show ownership.  so while the welfare system may be broken, it is just one small cog in the wheel.  you ca not go making radical changes to the welfare system without considering all the other government regulation and intervention that will be affected including prison populations.  any employer especially any large employer will tell you that there are some employees that do nothing but cost you money.  the company is better off telling these employees to sit in a room and stare at a wall for 0 hours a day, rather than having them try to do some useful work and fuck it up to the point where someone else has to come along and fix it.  that is what you would get by forcing a lot of these people to do work that they are not really interested or willing to do.  you tell some guy he has to mow the lawn at the city park to get his welfare check, and then you need to pay to get a bunch of trees replanted, fix the baseball diamond and deal with the lawsuit from the family who is kid got hit by a flying rock.  how to the people survive ? do we just let them die in the streets ? if we are willing to let people die in the streets, then let is just get rid of welfare all together.  and, of course, that assumes that the people will be willing to simply die in the streets before turning to a life of crime to survive.  odds are they are going to kill you and take what you have, before they die themselves.  while a  no drugs for welfare  policy sounds logical at first, the likely consequences of such a policy are far more expensive, and overall far worse for society.   #  i am not trying to stir anymore debate on this subject, but you are the top comment, and have been very active in this thread.   #  i have a question i was wondering if you could help me out with.  i am not trying to stir anymore debate on this subject, but you are the top comment, and have been very active in this thread.  my question, is why were only 0 people tested ? i ca not find any specific number of the amount of people on welfare, but i am sure there are a lot more people on it.  i also heard that it was voluntary to go and be tested during the trial but i am unsure if that is true as well, and again i ca not find any information about this.  any help would be appreciated.   #  this would reduce the amount of testing while still letting people know that drug use while on taxpayer dollars is unacceptable.   #  yes there is an additional cost, and yes it may be more efficient to just ignore those that are using drugs while on the system.  however the article focuses more about legality of the measure than anything else.  an extra 0 of the people decided not to show up for the drug tests rather than failing them and assuredly losing their support.  so maybe the answer is a random drawing.  this would reduce the amount of testing while still letting people know that drug use while on taxpayer dollars is unacceptable.   #  the welfare system is not near as corrupt as you think it is.   #  they would not need funds if they were not poor.  i recommend, if you are gung ho on testing people for drugs, that every single citizen be tested randomly regardless of government assistance status.  fair ? i do not understand why you are attacking welfare specifically.  especially when there are funds grossly misappropriated by the government themselves.  also, i would like for you to think of it this way: is it not better to have some people abuse the system than to have one person go without ? nobody should be starving in our country.  the welfare system is not near as corrupt as you think it is.  media goes a long way towards your perception of welfare.   #  that is a ridiculous as claiming the balance of your checking account is you are employer is money  #  however, social security is your right as an american citizen after you have paid in for the time period 0 quarters i think ? .  who is the government to take that away from you for something as trivial as personal use of narcotics ? furthermore, it would be rather complicated to calculate the exact interest rate every american received on all their individual payments for decades.  it would be an accounting nightmare.  beyond that it would be rather costly.  to tack on to that, you mentioned earlier that the government should randomly drug test employees to ensure that they do not spent their wages on drugs.  you called it the government is money, but its not.  its been earned, its their money.  that is a ridiculous as claiming the balance of your checking account is you are employer is money
firstly, i am well aware that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and every person has various preferences.  however, when you compare the body of an average attractive female against that of an attractive male, it is blatantly obvious that for a male to achieve such attractiveness he must lift weights, jog most days, diet nutrients accordingly, take the correct supplements and structure his day around that progress   every day.  however, for that of a female, she must only be careful of not consuming too many carbohydrates or fats and possibly jog every couple of days   if at all.  females, as evidenced on /r/gonewild and numerous other subreddits, are only attractive by the means of their genetic inheritance, such as those features listed in the title.  however, on male porn subreddits you constantly see men who usually carefully exercise to achieve ripped or semi ripped bodies.  some males do inherit genetic traits which make it easier for them to put on muscle or already have desirable bodily structure or lose weight easily.  i do not understand, on a personal and a logical level, why females should be praised for doing nothing but behaving and/or dressing in a sexually desirable manner.  female attractiveness is not as valid as a male attractiveness.  please help me to cmv.   #  however, for that of a female, she must only be careful of not consuming too many carbohydrates or fats and possibly jog every couple of days   if at all.   #  i think you are radically underestimating the difficulty of achieving the body one sees in professional female models.   # i think you are radically underestimating the difficulty of achieving the body one sees in professional female models.  there is a reason the profession is associated with serious eating disorders.  contemporary american society fetishizes a body image that for many women is flat out impossible to achieve, and is almost certainly unhealthy even for most of the women who theoretically  could  achieve it.  also, not every attractive man is  ripped.   if we are talking about attractiveness in a normal social setting i. e. , not super models , then a man can easily be attractive if he has a handsome genes and is in decent shape you do not have to have hugh jackman is body to be conventionally handsome.  but that is besides the point.  i do not fully understand what your concern is.  you are use of the word  valid  confuses me.  the definition of the word is  sound, well founded, or producing the correct results.   i am unsure how male attractiveness can be more  sound  or how it could  produce the correct results  more than does female attractiveness.  i do not think anyone is praised in the sense that they would be praised for achieving something great for being attractive.  no one is comparing a beautiful young woman to, say, an accomplished musician.  i do not think a beautiful girl should be praised for her beauty.  i also do not think that men should be praised for being  ripped.   if you go to the gym every day in order to maintain good health, then good for you.  but i do not think many people are really clamoring to sing the praises of the guy who spends half his day at the gym because he thinks it will help him slay pussy.   #  he is not arguing men have to engage in more physical exercise; he is saying they have to be more proactive, period.   # this is not even op is thesis.  he is not arguing men have to engage in more physical exercise; he is saying they have to be more proactive, period.  his example of this is exercise, sure, but ultimately it is about who has to do more work and who gets to rely on genetics as though genetics plays no notable role in exercise.  besides, have you ever been into a gnc URL shopping by category is probably easier even if you have to sift through hundreds of products each and looked at the supplements available and marketed to women ? this burns belly fat, this magically tones your muscles, this makes your skin smooth, this makes your hair shine, this makes your nails awesome, this is fish oil and it does something too.  eat this carb free, gluten free, special women is protein bar.  hey, chew on this thing that is kind of like gum but burns belly fat again ! buy these multivitamins it makes your bones awesome and burns belly fat.  yo, here is metabo ignite amplyify protein stuff that .  also burns belly fat.  it is all in pills and shakes somehow more cosmetic than the supplements men take ? how often do you walk into a gym and only see men working out not just the free weights, but the entirety of the facilities ? google  fit is the new thin.   do you really believe in your heart of hearts that women just sit on their butts avoiding carbs and junk food without being more physically proactive about their figure ? there is literally an entire market that caters solely to women only gyms and it is not because there is no demand for them since that would be a weird product to peddle.  heeeey, let is make this thing nobody wants.  also, that is a pretty superficial definition of  cosmetic.   skin, hair, etc are all genetic and still need to be maintained to attain any standard of beauty whether we are talking about men or women.  women are not just born with hairless legs and armpits much like your facial hair will continue to grow without a razor and shaving cream and probably some kind of face moisturizer or wash and possibly even after shave.  the vast majority of what we do to look physically attractive is spurred or bolstered by  cosmetic  products even if we market them to men differently.   #  i keep seeing men say this as if they have a third eye that divines what women find attractive.   # there is not really a male equivalent of that.  i keep seeing men say this as if they have a third eye that divines what women find attractive.  what if i told you that the preferences of women similarly exist on a spectrum that you have acknowledged for guys ? you are measuring  objective   industry  beauty standards for men against the more diverse variety of feeeemale standards that are  realistically  demanded across the whole maaaale population.  in contrast, if we compare men is  industry  beauty standards to women is  industry  beauty standards,  nobody  is going to make it by majority genetics.   #  however, if you are a female, genetics determines where you can be on the  female attractiveness ladder  a lot more.   #  i suppose what op is saying is that if you are a guy, no matter what body type you are, you can always  climb the attractiveness ladder  to some extent by working out.  if you work out enough and you have a very athletic body, op is saying that that is going to put yourself in a pretty good position on the  male attractiveness ladder.   however, if you are a female, genetics determines where you can be on the  female attractiveness ladder  a lot more.  a woman working out more is not going to change her breast size, op says that women are judged for their facial features more than men are, and op says that hip to waist ratio is also more genetic than due to working out.  i think you have a point, but i guess he is saying that if you see what society considers to be a good looking guy, chances are his being in shape effort is a big part of that, and if you see what society considers to be an ugly guy, changes are his not being in shape, say fat or scrawny lack of effort is a big part of that.  if you see what society usually considers a good looking woman, chances are genetics was the largest factor, and if you see a woman who is not good looking even if she is not fat or whatever, even if she is in decent shape genetics will still determine a large part of where she is on the  female attractiveness ladder  via breasts, face, and hip to waist ratio.  this all assumes that all the example people mentioned above are well groomed/have decent make up, etc.  to the same level.  op is talking about biological physical attractiveness, not fashion/make up stuff like that, so we need to assume that all example people have the same level of fashion/make up, etc.   #  this whole assumption of an objective  male beauty strength and female beauty sexualization  standard stinks anyway.   #  i do not understand how this distinction of  pretend beauty  matters, if we are still operating under the assumption of  female beauty is socially determined by makeup .  also, ca not the same action of  pretending to improve  be applied to men trying to get ripped ? just like with makeup, their muscles only last for as long as they are putting in the effort.  this whole assumption of an objective  male beauty strength and female beauty sexualization  standard stinks anyway.  beauty has a wide range of subjective interpretation.
obviously it is too early to tell exactly what kind of player michael sam will be in the nfl, but based purely on his physical size and his performance at the senior bowl and nfl combine it would appear he has a very limited skill set.  at this point he basically has one move to get at qbs and is not all that skilled at blocking the run.  on top of this, he was drafted by a team that already has incredible depth at the defensive end position, with chris long and robert quinn being prominent starters.  they are not exactly a team that needs help at defensive end, and sam does not seem to have the speed to play outside linebacker.  as much as i hate to admit it since i am really rooting for michael sam to succeed, part of me thinks that if the rams keep him on the roster for the beginning of the regular season it will be because they wo not want to be the team that drafted the first openly gay player only to cut him before the season began.  this is not necessarily a negative since it would still mean the first gay player on an actual nfl roster, but on some level i feel it would cheapen the achievement.  folks, i challenge to you to change my view.   #  based purely on his physical size and his performance at the senior bowl and nfl combine it would appear he has a very limited skill set.   #  so it is clear that you view the combine pretty highly.   #  i would like to start with your second point first.  i agree with this completely.  in fact, i hope most people would.  a person should be judged and treated not by their sexual orientation, skin color or gender, but by their abilities and character.  now for your first point.    first, that michael sam being on the roster will be due his being the first gay player.  i would like to challenge your view based on how you arrived at this conclusion.  so it is clear that you view the combine pretty highly.  the combine is great, and important.  but it is not gospel .  the people who make the decisions on who to pick up use the combine for  guidance , but ultimately they have to make their own decisions.  as /u/stumblebreak said, tom brady is combine report was not stellar.  eddie lacy is was not either though it still was  good  but he still ended up getting offensive rookie of the year.  if you are basing your entire opinion on the combine, you are missing out from some extra information that would help you make an informed opinion.  or it  could  just be something like the owner meeting him and deciding he  had  to a starter which would  still  go against your point .  we just do not know all the details.  since i do not really follow football  too much , i will have to withhold judgment until the season starts and we see if he made it or not.   #  could make it in the right system but will not be for everyone.   #  so physical limitations but had good stats in college:  summary: is not what you are looking for in terms of physical stature, strength, arm strength and mobility, but he has the intangibles and production and showed great griese like improvement as a senior.  could make it in the right system but will not be for everyone.  tom brady is pre draft profile  jamarcus russell is going to immediately energize that fanbase, that football team on the practice field, in that locker room.  three years from now you could be looking at a guy that is certainly one of the elite top five quarterbacks in this league.  . you are talking about a 0 0 year period once he is under center.  look out because the skill level that he has is certainly john elway like.   espn is mel kiper i am not saying he will be an all time great but scouting reports have been wrong before.  he has shown he can be productive and could continue to do so in the nfl.   #  so i do not think it should be surprising that he is on a roster at this point.   #  from what i have read, yes, they already are strong at the position, but it would not be at all unusual or redundant if he were to make the team as their bottom rung defensive end.  there is a spot to be filled, and he will compete for it with a couple other guys.  that said, i think it has to be said that its crazy hard to try to make any judgment about how things would have played out if he had not cone out, or if its helped him or hurt him.  its just such a wacky and complex situation.  now, to his credit, he played good football in general.  the sec defensive player of the year maybe got hyped up too much, but its not nothing.  there are concerns about how he can adjust physically to nfl caliber competition, but i think he deserves some credit for his body of work despite lackluster combine / senior bowl.  and the rams were not the only team willing to take a shot.  giants, ravens, and someone else at least would have signed him if he went undrafted.  so i do not think it should be surprising that he is on a roster at this point.  but the question is, what now ? its hard to predict what will happen, and folks will second guess the rams either way.  so lets just let him compete.  give him the opportunity to earn a spot.  but do not pass judgment on the hypothetical decision now.   #  plenty of pundits and a huge amount of fans will all cry affirmative action if he gets rostered and may not have deserved it in their eyes .   #  i agree that a lackluster combine/senior bowl is not going to outshadow all his other achievements, and i think this needs to be taken into account.  one bad performance at this is not going to completely scuttle a sec defensive player of the year.  additionally, i personally think that the op is completely incorrect in saying that he is more likely to be rostered if he is gay.  the sad truth is that having a gay player on your roster is going to cause controversy, and teams try to avoid causing controversy if at possible.  if anything, the rams would want to avoid possibly alienating homophobic fans by listing a gay player on their roster if he did not deserve it.  on top of that, they will want to avoid rostering him unless he deserves it because of  this exact topic .  trust me, tc, you are not the first to have this thought, and if he gets rostered, you sure as hell wo not be the last.  plenty of pundits and a huge amount of fans will all cry affirmative action if he gets rostered and may not have deserved it in their eyes .  tl;dr i know on the internet it seems really cool to be the person/franchise/whatever that is  down with the gays,  but the truth is, in real life, it will come with a whole host of problems that any halfway sane team will see the benefits in avoiding.   #  it was brought up again and again pre draft as a potential reason not to pick him.   #  if anything,  first gay player  works against sam.  it was brought up again and again pre draft as a potential reason not to pick him.  much like tebow, he is going to invite a media circus, and it is up to him and the team to quell it.  now the rams starting d line is absurd, but i am not sure that the depth is so great that it ca not be overcome.  sam was the only de picked up by the rams in this offseason, so if they carry the same number of des this season, he only has to beat out one guy.
first reason, people who use drugs only harm themselves and not others.  this is not to be mistaken for drug dealers.  i only mean people who are caught just using drugs.  second reason, they would prove to be far more effective cleaning up the streets and public parks then sitting in jail for a number of years because of a little bag of weed cops found when they got pulled over.  third reason, prisons are starting to become overpopulated.  if we press drug users into community service instead of put them into jail, we would be able to close some prisons and other incarcerations which would put less tax money into funding them.  that way tax money would be put through educational purposes.  i also believe fining them would deter them from wanting to do drugs.  depending on how much more dangerous a drug is, they could be fined higher.  ex.  weed $0 meth $0.  this fined money can be put into the government for better use.   #  i also believe fining them would deter them from wanting to do drugs.   #  the you do not really understand addiction.   # the you do not really understand addiction.  if the threat of prison does not deter people from smoking, snorting, shooting up, or whatever, you really think the threat of a fine is gonna make addicts decide not to get their fix ? it wo not.  hell, drugs kill you.  they fuck up your head to varying degrees.  we all know this.  even addicts know this.  yet even  that  does not stop them from doing drugs.  i do not think prison works, but i think your idea is just as futile.  your heart is in the right place, though.  these people do not belong in prison.  the point is that these people need  help .  they do not get access to the treatment and the counseling they need in a prison.  we should be pointing our laws away from criminalization and imprisonment, and turning our focus towards public funding of treatment facilities and abstinence based recovery centers.  we should not come at this problem with accusatory anger, but rather we should approach it with compassion and empathy.  these folks need recovery, not punishment.  i do not always agree with russell brand, but he did a documentary regarding addiction and its treatment.  it is quite good.  take a look, if you would like.  it is here URL the ideas presented on effective recovery for addicts make a lot of sense to me.  i am really sorry to hear about your parents issues with drugs while you were growing up.  i know that must have made every day a lot harder for you than it needed to be.  that shit is not fair, and i know being raised in that environment can stick with you for way too long.  i hope they have gotten the treatment they need.  i hope you are getting the help you might need, too.   #  while wanting to be in treatment may make it more effective, mandatory treatment does offer some benefits.   #  that is not the best way to look at it.  while wanting to be in treatment may make it more effective, mandatory treatment does offer some benefits.  the greater the legal pressure to remain in treatment, the longer a person stays in treatment URL longer treatment programs typically have better outcomes as well.  additionally, there are treatment programs like motivational interviewing specifically designed to help addicts resolve ambivalence to their drug abuse and start wanting to be in treatment.  some research also shows that coercion is an instrumental part of addiction therapy.  URL  #  i feel as if i would not have had to live on the cusp of poverty my entire life and that i would not have had to move around so much.   #  well they may be only harming themselves when it comes to health, it also harms people like their own kids.  my mom and dad both used drugs when i was a kid, and i feel as if they did not, my life would be much different today.  i feel as if i would not have had to live on the cusp of poverty my entire life and that i would not have had to move around so much.  i think taking and using drugs is purely selfish in a sense that it makes people not even care anymore.  i mean sure, you have people who smoke weed and still care about life, but throughout high school, i have not met one single person who used drugs that gave a damn about life.  not one single person.  i still do not think we should throw those people into jail though.  some people actually use drugs to get away from reality and make them happy, and the people who do not have children to succeed them have the right to do as they choose.  i am not against using drugs because of the potential harm it can cause to yourself, but moreso because that it can hurt their children is development.  fining and having them provide community service is a much better alternative then crowding jail cells.   #  just because your parents and other rich people can use drugs and stay with life does not retract from the fact that hundreds and thousands of impoverished families are going through the same thing i went through growing up.   #  that is awesome.  your parents are pretty cool.  but i still think drugs are the problem.  my dad was the type of guy who would skip class all the time and get a is on his tests, but he ended up using drugs and now he is bankrupt and trying to get back up on his feet.  my mom has been abused her whole life growing up and ended up using drugs to escape her torture.  instead of shouldering the burdens and pulling her life through a dark cave into the light, she receded further back into that dark cave because she could not shoulder the burden and used drugs to escape.  as a result, she is now living with her mom, no job, no income, lost her kids, has major health issues, and all she cares about is smoking weed.  just because your parents and other rich people can use drugs and stay with life does not retract from the fact that hundreds and thousands of impoverished families are going through the same thing i went through growing up.   #  they have been some of the most rich and rewarding experiences of my life, and have helped make me a better person.   #  i meant what drugs you were talking about in your story.  what were they addicted to ? and i have done psychedelics like shrooms and lsd many times, often with friends.  they have been some of the most rich and rewarding experiences of my life, and have helped make me a better person.  if i were to be arrested, imprisoned however temporarily , and put into some kind of bullshit  treatment  program for my non addiction, it would not only be a titanic waste of time and money, but resources would be pulled from other police and addiction issues.  you ca not just paint every illegal drug with the same cloth.  i do not think personal drug use should be illegal regardless.  i believe we should criminalize dangerous actions while intoxicated like driving , but leave the legal judgment as to the act itself neutral.  portugal and other countries have seen huge success with decriminalization, there is no reason for that not to work here as a stopgap to full legality .
first reason, people who use drugs only harm themselves and not others.  this is not to be mistaken for drug dealers.  i only mean people who are caught just using drugs.  second reason, they would prove to be far more effective cleaning up the streets and public parks then sitting in jail for a number of years because of a little bag of weed cops found when they got pulled over.  third reason, prisons are starting to become overpopulated.  if we press drug users into community service instead of put them into jail, we would be able to close some prisons and other incarcerations which would put less tax money into funding them.  that way tax money would be put through educational purposes.  i also believe fining them would deter them from wanting to do drugs.  depending on how much more dangerous a drug is, they could be fined higher.  ex.  weed $0 meth $0.  this fined money can be put into the government for better use.   #  i also believe fining them would deter them from wanting to do drugs.   #  depending on how much more dangerous a drug is, they could be fined higher.   # depending on how much more dangerous a drug is, they could be fined higher.  ex.  weed $0 meth $0.  this fined money can be put into the government for better use.  this premise is false.  i currently live in a state where marijuana is decriminalized.  before it was decriminalized, i still smoked regularly because i was not concerned with the potential punishment since most drug users do not believe that they will be caught and most of them may be right .  once marijuana was decriminalized in my state, i eventually was caught for possession.  i was cited and given a ticket for being in possession of a small amount of marijuana after being caught rolling up at my local lake one night.  do you think that fine stopped me from smoking more pot ? nope.  i bought some more and smoked it that same night.  fining drug users does absolutely nothing to prevent the use of drugs.  if you really want to prevent drug use then we need to provide drug users with the resources that they need to stop using their drug s of choice.   #  the point is that these people need  help .   # the you do not really understand addiction.  if the threat of prison does not deter people from smoking, snorting, shooting up, or whatever, you really think the threat of a fine is gonna make addicts decide not to get their fix ? it wo not.  hell, drugs kill you.  they fuck up your head to varying degrees.  we all know this.  even addicts know this.  yet even  that  does not stop them from doing drugs.  i do not think prison works, but i think your idea is just as futile.  your heart is in the right place, though.  these people do not belong in prison.  the point is that these people need  help .  they do not get access to the treatment and the counseling they need in a prison.  we should be pointing our laws away from criminalization and imprisonment, and turning our focus towards public funding of treatment facilities and abstinence based recovery centers.  we should not come at this problem with accusatory anger, but rather we should approach it with compassion and empathy.  these folks need recovery, not punishment.  i do not always agree with russell brand, but he did a documentary regarding addiction and its treatment.  it is quite good.  take a look, if you would like.  it is here URL the ideas presented on effective recovery for addicts make a lot of sense to me.  i am really sorry to hear about your parents issues with drugs while you were growing up.  i know that must have made every day a lot harder for you than it needed to be.  that shit is not fair, and i know being raised in that environment can stick with you for way too long.  i hope they have gotten the treatment they need.  i hope you are getting the help you might need, too.   #  additionally, there are treatment programs like motivational interviewing specifically designed to help addicts resolve ambivalence to their drug abuse and start wanting to be in treatment.   #  that is not the best way to look at it.  while wanting to be in treatment may make it more effective, mandatory treatment does offer some benefits.  the greater the legal pressure to remain in treatment, the longer a person stays in treatment URL longer treatment programs typically have better outcomes as well.  additionally, there are treatment programs like motivational interviewing specifically designed to help addicts resolve ambivalence to their drug abuse and start wanting to be in treatment.  some research also shows that coercion is an instrumental part of addiction therapy.  URL  #  i think taking and using drugs is purely selfish in a sense that it makes people not even care anymore.   #  well they may be only harming themselves when it comes to health, it also harms people like their own kids.  my mom and dad both used drugs when i was a kid, and i feel as if they did not, my life would be much different today.  i feel as if i would not have had to live on the cusp of poverty my entire life and that i would not have had to move around so much.  i think taking and using drugs is purely selfish in a sense that it makes people not even care anymore.  i mean sure, you have people who smoke weed and still care about life, but throughout high school, i have not met one single person who used drugs that gave a damn about life.  not one single person.  i still do not think we should throw those people into jail though.  some people actually use drugs to get away from reality and make them happy, and the people who do not have children to succeed them have the right to do as they choose.  i am not against using drugs because of the potential harm it can cause to yourself, but moreso because that it can hurt their children is development.  fining and having them provide community service is a much better alternative then crowding jail cells.   #  but i still think drugs are the problem.   #  that is awesome.  your parents are pretty cool.  but i still think drugs are the problem.  my dad was the type of guy who would skip class all the time and get a is on his tests, but he ended up using drugs and now he is bankrupt and trying to get back up on his feet.  my mom has been abused her whole life growing up and ended up using drugs to escape her torture.  instead of shouldering the burdens and pulling her life through a dark cave into the light, she receded further back into that dark cave because she could not shoulder the burden and used drugs to escape.  as a result, she is now living with her mom, no job, no income, lost her kids, has major health issues, and all she cares about is smoking weed.  just because your parents and other rich people can use drugs and stay with life does not retract from the fact that hundreds and thousands of impoverished families are going through the same thing i went through growing up.
i come from a quaker background, and i believe that the light of god is within every person, and for that reason it is a crime to kill someone.  but, i do not want to give the impression that this is a religiously founded view partly cause i am not very religious .  i think that there is never a legitimate circumstance in which violence is morally right.  even without god, human beings are unique and sentient creatures, and it is inexcusable to extinguish another consciousness.  i often hear a responsive, or self defense argument for the use of violence in one form or another.  instead of resorting to the use of force, we should instead use empathy.  if we can figure out why someone else might be using violence, we can address that, the root cause, and so treat the disease and not the symptom.  in the case of someone using violence to get resources be it a wallet or oil/farmland/nation level resource x , it is far better and more morally defensible to share the resource instead of resorting to the use of force.  in the case of ideologically motivated violence, education, especially education in the use of empathy, is the way to treat the root cause of the violence.  furthermore, i think people would be less inclined to use violence if they felt their voices were being heard.  there would be much less fighting in and around israel if everyone the israelis, the palestinians, the arabs, the kurds, the coptic christians, etc, etc felt that their voice was heard and respected by everyone else.  in extreme cases, i believe that your own death represents nothing more or less than your full commitment to an absolute moral high ground.  to state it another way, if you kill someone who is trying to kill you,  you are no better than him: you killed him for some reason just as he was going to kill you for some reason .  in bertrand russel is words, you are the one remaining, not the one who was right.  while this may seem like an  endgame  or  utopian  view, i believe that the only way to achieve peace is by practicing peace in all things.   mankind must put a stop to war before war puts a stop to mankind.   jfk once again thank you, and i apologize for any frustration on behalf of little old me.  something about gandhi.  goodnight.  i hope none of yall has to kill anyone.   #  in the case of someone using violence to get resources be it a wallet or oil/farmland/nation level resource x , it is far better and more morally defensible to share the resource instead of resorting to the use of force.   #  what if they did not want to negotiate and they decided to just take all your land ?  # what if they did not want to negotiate and they decided to just take all your land ? then your family starved.  or what if the pacifist type behavior became relatively common and criminals started realizing they could take whatever they wanted, and then crime increased ? also, how do you feel about ending the life of someone who is brain dead ? is the  willight of god  still in them or is it okay, in your eyes, to end that life ? there are other arguments to be made but i tried not to use ones that already seemed to have been argued.   #  this policy resulted in the holocaust, in which 0 million jews marched obediently to their death like so many cattle.   #  it may be that if i kill someone who is trying to kill me, i am no better than him.  however, i do not have to prove that i am better than someone who is trying to kill me; it is sufficient that i do not consent to be killed.  i am a reasonably generous person, but i do not see that i should give up my own life to preserve that of someone who, for some reason, wants to kill me.  historically, the jews of europe were very pacifistic, and had collectively decided that the most effective response to anti semitism is just to be very inoffensive, and not to give anyone reason to hate jews.  this policy resulted in the holocaust, in which 0 million jews marched obediently to their death like so many cattle.  afterward, the relatively few survivors reconsidered their pacifistic philosophy.   #  so politeness was not a contributing factor then, because i gave an direct counter example.   #  so politeness was not a contributing factor then, because i gave an direct counter example.  additionally, it was illegal for jews to own firearms so they could not have defended themselves.  the german military force defeated entire countries, so honestly massacring a small % of untrained civilians would be very easy.  and even if they fought back that would have increased support for the nazis against the  evil jews killing the brave soldiers .  it does not matter how polite or not you are.   #  it is true that if people can resolve their differences without killing each other, that is the better approach.   #  yes, the time to reconsider such situations is well before you meet on the battlefield.  by then you are in a kill or be killed situation.  there are ways to avoid being on a battlefield.  but if i am on a battlefield, it would be my intention to win the battle.  as i said in my previous comment, i do not have to prove that i am right.  hopefully i would be right; i would certainly not want to fight for an unjust cause.  but in any event, i think that i can reasonably value my own life and refuse to surrender it just because someone else wants to kill me.  it is true that if people can resolve their differences without killing each other, that is the better approach.  but if someone is actually trying to kill me, it is probably too late for me to open up discussions.  two reasonable people can reach an agreement, however, my fellow human beings are often quite unreasonable.   #  and i would  not  have to first prove that i have more of a right to live than my attacker does.   #  i am not ignoring morality.  i would do everything possible to avoid being in the position of fighting for an unjust cause.  the situation which you hypothesize, in which i am on a battlefield and someone is trying to kill me, does not specify that i am fighting for an unjust cause.  i could be fighting for what i consider to be a just cause.  it is also true that one can get caught up in events.  if i lived in syria heaven forbid i would not approve of either the assad regime or the opposition, both of which are guilty of war crimes and are ruthless, vicious people whom i could not support.  however, i would probably be forced to choose one side or the other, unless i could ideally get out of the country.  also, i do not know where you get this idea of my popping a cap in somebody tied up in front of me.  i have said that i have a right to defend myself against someone who is trying to kill me, and now you interpret this to mean that i would also kill people who have been rendered helpless and present no threat to me, which i certainly never said or implied in any way.  i actually do not want to kill anyone, and i can honestly say that i have never killed anyone.  i am a very peaceful person.  but if someone was trying to kill me for some reason, i would be willing to defend myself even at the cost of the life of that person.  and i would  not  have to first prove that i have more of a right to live than my attacker does.  if my hypothetical attacker does not want me to kill him or her, then he or she did not have to attack me in the first place.  that is not too much to ask.
you have no control over what city or country you are from like you have no control over what colour your skin is.  it seems silly to me to cheer for somebody simply because of where they are from and not how they play.  example: im canadian so will obviously use hockey , montreal canadiens are the only canadian team left in the stanley cup race.  almost everybody i know has started cheering for them simply because they are the canadian team left in the race.  i feel the same for people passionately cheering for a team for their whole life.  i find it closes the individuals mind to how good another team could be performing and pass it off as luck when really it is just their blinding biased.   #  it seems silly to me to cheer for somebody simply because of where they are from and not how they play.   #  i feel like you are missing part of the joy of supporting a team in sports.   # i feel like you are missing part of the joy of supporting a team in sports.  part of supporting a team is having the good with the bad.  you follow them through the crushing disappointments and the unbelievable triumphs.  you go on a journey together.  yes, location may be arbitrary, but it unlocks such passion and excitement in games.  could you imagine the difference in atmosphere in barcelona vs real madrid if everyone just cheered for whoever was performing better ? all sports would become similar to golf in terms of spectators.  it would be stale and boring.  no more cheering on your team when they are facing certain defeat, just a golf clap for the opposing team.   #  i cheer for the the first country because it is the same race as mine.   #  big devil is advocate: so let is say there are two countries playing each other.  i am from neither of these countries.  i also do not know much about the individual players.  however, one country is players are the same race as me and the other country is players are a different race.  i cheer for the the first country because it is the same race as mine.  i may then extend this to other sports as well say the minnesota timberwolves mostly white vs.  another nba team mostly black .  i am from neither city, so i cheer for the one that is the same race as mine.  is this ok ?  #  the reason people are cheering for the canadian guy is not for racial reasons, rather because people usually support club and country.   #  i purposely left out the op is analogy because i understand the point he was trying to make but i think the comparison is so flawed it is not worthwhile going into it.  the reason people are cheering for the canadian guy is not for racial reasons, rather because people usually support club and country.  in the absence of the first people support any team that has links to their countries team.  in your scenario where we have no link to either of the countries, i do not think it is ok to cheer solely on race.  this is quite distinct from the op is scenario as national teams are involved, so i do not think this has any bearing on the debate as a whole.   #  to cheer for a team simply because they are from the same country as you is as arbitrary as cheering for somebody simply because of their skin colour or if they have the same hair colour as you or eye colour.   #  to cheer for a team simply because they are from the same country as you is as arbitrary as cheering for somebody simply because of their skin colour or if they have the same hair colour as you or eye colour.  you have as much control over any of those as the country you are born in.  to cheer for a team because they jave an uncontrollable variable in common with you is silly.  is the point i was trying to make.  maybe i shouldnt have used because people would associate it with racism.   #  spending your hard earned money to cheer for sports is silly.   #  i think you are missing the larger picture, which is that sports are silly.  cheering for sports is silly.  spending your hard earned money to cheer for sports is silly.  there is no logic in cheering for a team.  there are not really any  good  reasons to cheer for a sports team, beyond the camaraderie felt between those like minded fans.  the sense of community and bonding which occur because of sports is most easily reached when shared with those around you.  in this context, it makes the most sense to cheer for the local team, or the national team, because those around you are also cheering for that team.  it becomes a common interest.  obviously there are contrarians out there, and people who maintain their sports allegiance despite a move to another city/state/country.  these people are almost always using that fandom as a sense of identity and to keep a link with the past.
you have no control over what city or country you are from like you have no control over what colour your skin is.  it seems silly to me to cheer for somebody simply because of where they are from and not how they play.  example: im canadian so will obviously use hockey , montreal canadiens are the only canadian team left in the stanley cup race.  almost everybody i know has started cheering for them simply because they are the canadian team left in the race.  i feel the same for people passionately cheering for a team for their whole life.  i find it closes the individuals mind to how good another team could be performing and pass it off as luck when really it is just their blinding biased.   #  you have no control over what city or country you are from like you have no control over what colour your skin is.   #  it seems silly to me to cheer for somebody simply because of where they are from and not how they play.   # it seems silly to me to cheer for somebody simply because of where they are from and not how they play.  if you have lived in your hometown for a long time, that town is going to be a large part of your identity.  therefore, when choosing a team to root for, it is more likely that one would identify with the team from their town.  one could argue that it is silly to root for a team that you have no real connection to.  if i was born and raised in arizona and have a strong connection to my city, it would not make any sense for me to root for the team from toronto.  if i were to root for toronto, i would be going against my own city, and therefore, something i have a strong connection to.   #  part of supporting a team is having the good with the bad.   # i feel like you are missing part of the joy of supporting a team in sports.  part of supporting a team is having the good with the bad.  you follow them through the crushing disappointments and the unbelievable triumphs.  you go on a journey together.  yes, location may be arbitrary, but it unlocks such passion and excitement in games.  could you imagine the difference in atmosphere in barcelona vs real madrid if everyone just cheered for whoever was performing better ? all sports would become similar to golf in terms of spectators.  it would be stale and boring.  no more cheering on your team when they are facing certain defeat, just a golf clap for the opposing team.   #  big devil is advocate: so let is say there are two countries playing each other.   #  big devil is advocate: so let is say there are two countries playing each other.  i am from neither of these countries.  i also do not know much about the individual players.  however, one country is players are the same race as me and the other country is players are a different race.  i cheer for the the first country because it is the same race as mine.  i may then extend this to other sports as well say the minnesota timberwolves mostly white vs.  another nba team mostly black .  i am from neither city, so i cheer for the one that is the same race as mine.  is this ok ?  #  this is quite distinct from the op is scenario as national teams are involved, so i do not think this has any bearing on the debate as a whole.   #  i purposely left out the op is analogy because i understand the point he was trying to make but i think the comparison is so flawed it is not worthwhile going into it.  the reason people are cheering for the canadian guy is not for racial reasons, rather because people usually support club and country.  in the absence of the first people support any team that has links to their countries team.  in your scenario where we have no link to either of the countries, i do not think it is ok to cheer solely on race.  this is quite distinct from the op is scenario as national teams are involved, so i do not think this has any bearing on the debate as a whole.   #  to cheer for a team simply because they are from the same country as you is as arbitrary as cheering for somebody simply because of their skin colour or if they have the same hair colour as you or eye colour.   #  to cheer for a team simply because they are from the same country as you is as arbitrary as cheering for somebody simply because of their skin colour or if they have the same hair colour as you or eye colour.  you have as much control over any of those as the country you are born in.  to cheer for a team because they jave an uncontrollable variable in common with you is silly.  is the point i was trying to make.  maybe i shouldnt have used because people would associate it with racism.
many european countries are creating very restrictive rules for how parents can raise their children.  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.   i believe that this view is dangerous and anti family.  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.   #  lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .   # not all the time.  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ? lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .  people do not want to vaccinate their children ? that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.  do not want to school your child ? that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   #  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.   #  that is a very limited view of that infographic.  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.   # you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.  that is fine, give it a shot.  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.  you have not drawn a connection to the ep clause.  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   #  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.   #  the state ensures equal rights for all members of society.  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ? or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our government.  i said nothing about the fourteenth amendment is equal protection clause, you brought that up, although, that clause is an excellent example of how the state strives to provide equal rights to all citizens.  i am not citing any one clause.  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.  it is one of the explicitly stated philosophies of our founding fathers the  all men are created equal  philosophy, as noted in our declaration, and reiterated by important political figures such as abraham lincoln and our government takes extreme care to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.   #  the idea is not that the state owns the children.   # i think you are mischaracterizing this idea.  the idea is not that the state owns the children.  the idea is that if a child in your community is being neglected or abused, you need to speak out.  and the government should respond, intervene and protect that child.  the important thing to note is you agree with the liberal position that government should intervene in family life at some point.  the question is at what point ? at what point has a parent crossed the line into abuse and neglect ? i do not consider homeschooling to be neglectful.  i consider non vaccination to be neglectful, greatly increasing a child is chances of contracting a preventable disease.  and it may present a danger to other children by weakening herd immunity.  so there is a strong case to require vaccination for children.  a parent who raises a grossly obese child is engaging in neglect.  if a parent allowed and encouraged their child to smoke cigarettes, would you feel comfortable with the state becoming involved ? the long term effects of obesity are at least as bad as the long term effects of smoking, so these examples are equivalent.  in both cases the negative health effects on the innocent child are so great that the state has an overwhelming interest to fix the situation.
many european countries are creating very restrictive rules for how parents can raise their children.  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.   i believe that this view is dangerous and anti family.  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.    #  i think you are mischaracterizing this idea.   # i think you are mischaracterizing this idea.  the idea is not that the state owns the children.  the idea is that if a child in your community is being neglected or abused, you need to speak out.  and the government should respond, intervene and protect that child.  the important thing to note is you agree with the liberal position that government should intervene in family life at some point.  the question is at what point ? at what point has a parent crossed the line into abuse and neglect ? i do not consider homeschooling to be neglectful.  i consider non vaccination to be neglectful, greatly increasing a child is chances of contracting a preventable disease.  and it may present a danger to other children by weakening herd immunity.  so there is a strong case to require vaccination for children.  a parent who raises a grossly obese child is engaging in neglect.  if a parent allowed and encouraged their child to smoke cigarettes, would you feel comfortable with the state becoming involved ? the long term effects of obesity are at least as bad as the long term effects of smoking, so these examples are equivalent.  in both cases the negative health effects on the innocent child are so great that the state has an overwhelming interest to fix the situation.   #  lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .   # not all the time.  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ? lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .  people do not want to vaccinate their children ? that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.  do not want to school your child ? that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   #  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.   #  that is a very limited view of that infographic.  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.   # you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.  that is fine, give it a shot.  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.  you have not drawn a connection to the ep clause.  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   #  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.   #  the state ensures equal rights for all members of society.  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ? or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our government.  i said nothing about the fourteenth amendment is equal protection clause, you brought that up, although, that clause is an excellent example of how the state strives to provide equal rights to all citizens.  i am not citing any one clause.  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.  it is one of the explicitly stated philosophies of our founding fathers the  all men are created equal  philosophy, as noted in our declaration, and reiterated by important political figures such as abraham lincoln and our government takes extreme care to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.
many european countries are creating very restrictive rules for how parents can raise their children.  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.   i believe that this view is dangerous and anti family.  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.   #  without understanding the context of the ban, the justification given for it, and what  homeschooling  actually constitutes in germany, i could not possibly comment.   # without understanding the context of the ban, the justification given for it, and what  homeschooling  actually constitutes in germany, i could not possibly comment.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  good.  these are cases where moronic individuals make terrible decisions, potentially ruining their children is lives.  the fact that the anti vaccination lie is actually picking up steam is a great indicator that parents are not generally very smart people and do not often know what is best for their children.  i believe children to be a part in training of the community, parents by biological and emotional necessity being the primary trainers.  when they the parents fail in this responsibility such as when they name their child  hitler  or feed them nothing but raw lard , the biological and emotional connection has evidently failed in producing results, and must be considered insufficient to justify the parent is continued role.  and results really are all that matters at the end of the day.  wanting what is best ! knowing what is best.   #  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.   # not all the time.  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ? lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .  people do not want to vaccinate their children ? that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.  do not want to school your child ? that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   #  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.   #  that is a very limited view of that infographic.  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.   # you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.  that is fine, give it a shot.  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.  you have not drawn a connection to the ep clause.  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   #  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.   #  the state ensures equal rights for all members of society.  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ? or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our government.  i said nothing about the fourteenth amendment is equal protection clause, you brought that up, although, that clause is an excellent example of how the state strives to provide equal rights to all citizens.  i am not citing any one clause.  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.  it is one of the explicitly stated philosophies of our founding fathers the  all men are created equal  philosophy, as noted in our declaration, and reiterated by important political figures such as abraham lincoln and our government takes extreme care to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.
many european countries are creating very restrictive rules for how parents can raise their children.  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.   i believe that this view is dangerous and anti family.  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.   #  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.   # without understanding the context of the ban, the justification given for it, and what  homeschooling  actually constitutes in germany, i could not possibly comment.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  good.  these are cases where moronic individuals make terrible decisions, potentially ruining their children is lives.  the fact that the anti vaccination lie is actually picking up steam is a great indicator that parents are not generally very smart people and do not often know what is best for their children.  i believe children to be a part in training of the community, parents by biological and emotional necessity being the primary trainers.  when they the parents fail in this responsibility such as when they name their child  hitler  or feed them nothing but raw lard , the biological and emotional connection has evidently failed in producing results, and must be considered insufficient to justify the parent is continued role.  and results really are all that matters at the end of the day.  wanting what is best ! knowing what is best.   #  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ?  # not all the time.  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ? lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .  people do not want to vaccinate their children ? that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.  do not want to school your child ? that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   #  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  that is a very limited view of that infographic.  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.   # you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.  that is fine, give it a shot.  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.  you have not drawn a connection to the ep clause.  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   #  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.   #  the state ensures equal rights for all members of society.  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ? or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our government.  i said nothing about the fourteenth amendment is equal protection clause, you brought that up, although, that clause is an excellent example of how the state strives to provide equal rights to all citizens.  i am not citing any one clause.  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.  it is one of the explicitly stated philosophies of our founding fathers the  all men are created equal  philosophy, as noted in our declaration, and reiterated by important political figures such as abraham lincoln and our government takes extreme care to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.
many european countries are creating very restrictive rules for how parents can raise their children.  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.   i believe that this view is dangerous and anti family.  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.    #  i believe children to be a part in training of the community, parents by biological and emotional necessity being the primary trainers.   # without understanding the context of the ban, the justification given for it, and what  homeschooling  actually constitutes in germany, i could not possibly comment.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  good.  these are cases where moronic individuals make terrible decisions, potentially ruining their children is lives.  the fact that the anti vaccination lie is actually picking up steam is a great indicator that parents are not generally very smart people and do not often know what is best for their children.  i believe children to be a part in training of the community, parents by biological and emotional necessity being the primary trainers.  when they the parents fail in this responsibility such as when they name their child  hitler  or feed them nothing but raw lard , the biological and emotional connection has evidently failed in producing results, and must be considered insufficient to justify the parent is continued role.  and results really are all that matters at the end of the day.  wanting what is best ! knowing what is best.   #  that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.   # not all the time.  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ? lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .  people do not want to vaccinate their children ? that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.  do not want to school your child ? that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   #  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.   #  that is a very limited view of that infographic.  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.   # you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.  that is fine, give it a shot.  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.  you have not drawn a connection to the ep clause.  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   #  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.   #  the state ensures equal rights for all members of society.  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ? or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our government.  i said nothing about the fourteenth amendment is equal protection clause, you brought that up, although, that clause is an excellent example of how the state strives to provide equal rights to all citizens.  i am not citing any one clause.  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.  it is one of the explicitly stated philosophies of our founding fathers the  all men are created equal  philosophy, as noted in our declaration, and reiterated by important political figures such as abraham lincoln and our government takes extreme care to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.
many european countries are creating very restrictive rules for how parents can raise their children.  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.   i believe that this view is dangerous and anti family.  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.   #  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.   # governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  parents do not necessarily want what is best for their children, much less actually know it, and there is a reason why governments are composed of individuals with some flexibility and decision making, not robots with no cognition at all.  this extends far beyond the boundaries of child welfare though.  so you are making exception for minor abuse ? what if the child does not want to be with the parent ? what if they complain ? what if there is doubt, do you want no monitoring at all ? also, how much of a systematic analysis do you have to demonstrate the level of tyranny and abuse involved ? going with your belief is not likely to be persuasive, and while you can come up with individual examples of failings, somebody else can just come up with instances where inaction lead to tragedy.   #  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.   # not all the time.  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ? lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .  people do not want to vaccinate their children ? that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.  do not want to school your child ? that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   #  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.   #  that is a very limited view of that infographic.  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.   # you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.  that is fine, give it a shot.  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.  you have not drawn a connection to the ep clause.  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   #  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.   #  the state ensures equal rights for all members of society.  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ? or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our government.  i said nothing about the fourteenth amendment is equal protection clause, you brought that up, although, that clause is an excellent example of how the state strives to provide equal rights to all citizens.  i am not citing any one clause.  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.  it is one of the explicitly stated philosophies of our founding fathers the  all men are created equal  philosophy, as noted in our declaration, and reiterated by important political figures such as abraham lincoln and our government takes extreme care to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.
many european countries are creating very restrictive rules for how parents can raise their children.  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.   i believe that this view is dangerous and anti family.  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  so you are making exception for minor abuse ?  # governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  parents do not necessarily want what is best for their children, much less actually know it, and there is a reason why governments are composed of individuals with some flexibility and decision making, not robots with no cognition at all.  this extends far beyond the boundaries of child welfare though.  so you are making exception for minor abuse ? what if the child does not want to be with the parent ? what if they complain ? what if there is doubt, do you want no monitoring at all ? also, how much of a systematic analysis do you have to demonstrate the level of tyranny and abuse involved ? going with your belief is not likely to be persuasive, and while you can come up with individual examples of failings, somebody else can just come up with instances where inaction lead to tragedy.   #  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.   # not all the time.  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ? lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .  people do not want to vaccinate their children ? that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.  do not want to school your child ? that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   #  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.   #  that is a very limited view of that infographic.  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   # you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.  that is fine, give it a shot.  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.  you have not drawn a connection to the ep clause.  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   #  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.   #  the state ensures equal rights for all members of society.  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ? or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our government.  i said nothing about the fourteenth amendment is equal protection clause, you brought that up, although, that clause is an excellent example of how the state strives to provide equal rights to all citizens.  i am not citing any one clause.  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.  it is one of the explicitly stated philosophies of our founding fathers the  all men are created equal  philosophy, as noted in our declaration, and reiterated by important political figures such as abraham lincoln and our government takes extreme care to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.
many european countries are creating very restrictive rules for how parents can raise their children.  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.   i believe that this view is dangerous and anti family.  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.   #  but the child has the right to get state school education.   # but the child has the right to get state school education.  he needs it if he is going to be an independent member of society.  if he was home schooled, the state and other members of society ca not ensure for the safety of the child, parents and everyone else that the child has the education to be independent.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  again, the child has the right to be healthy kid.  state has access to kids medical records and because we are quite advanced in the knowledge of medicine, doctors can make very good decisions based on previous records and current health issues on what treatment should be best used.  a parent always does not know how to best cure his children.  the doctor is the expert, he will give you options, detail them out for you as best as possible for you to understand on which parents can make an informed decisions.  i am not entirely sure what meaning is meant to be conveyed on this, but for me, it sounds something like this: even as a child, we are part of the bigger society.  as a society, we have a set of rules everyone should follow.  as a parent, it is your job to prepare the kid to be independent in the future.  but all these regulations, laws and what not are not based around the individual level but on the bigger scale.  the government does not decide if this child needs a doll or a car as toys.  that is the parents job.  the government is there to ensure they get at least get a toy.   #  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   # not all the time.  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ? lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .  people do not want to vaccinate their children ? that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.  do not want to school your child ? that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   #  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  that is a very limited view of that infographic.  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.   # you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.  that is fine, give it a shot.  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.  you have not drawn a connection to the ep clause.  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   #  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.   #  the state ensures equal rights for all members of society.  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ? or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our government.  i said nothing about the fourteenth amendment is equal protection clause, you brought that up, although, that clause is an excellent example of how the state strives to provide equal rights to all citizens.  i am not citing any one clause.  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.  it is one of the explicitly stated philosophies of our founding fathers the  all men are created equal  philosophy, as noted in our declaration, and reiterated by important political figures such as abraham lincoln and our government takes extreme care to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.
many european countries are creating very restrictive rules for how parents can raise their children.  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.   i believe that this view is dangerous and anti family.  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  imilarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.   #  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.   # but the child has the right to get state school education.  he needs it if he is going to be an independent member of society.  if he was home schooled, the state and other members of society ca not ensure for the safety of the child, parents and everyone else that the child has the education to be independent.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  again, the child has the right to be healthy kid.  state has access to kids medical records and because we are quite advanced in the knowledge of medicine, doctors can make very good decisions based on previous records and current health issues on what treatment should be best used.  a parent always does not know how to best cure his children.  the doctor is the expert, he will give you options, detail them out for you as best as possible for you to understand on which parents can make an informed decisions.  i am not entirely sure what meaning is meant to be conveyed on this, but for me, it sounds something like this: even as a child, we are part of the bigger society.  as a society, we have a set of rules everyone should follow.  as a parent, it is your job to prepare the kid to be independent in the future.  but all these regulations, laws and what not are not based around the individual level but on the bigger scale.  the government does not decide if this child needs a doll or a car as toys.  that is the parents job.  the government is there to ensure they get at least get a toy.   #  lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .   # not all the time.  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ? lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .  people do not want to vaccinate their children ? that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.  do not want to school your child ? that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   #  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.   #  that is a very limited view of that infographic.  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.   # you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.  that is fine, give it a shot.  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.  you have not drawn a connection to the ep clause.  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   #  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.   #  the state ensures equal rights for all members of society.  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ? or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our government.  i said nothing about the fourteenth amendment is equal protection clause, you brought that up, although, that clause is an excellent example of how the state strives to provide equal rights to all citizens.  i am not citing any one clause.  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.  it is one of the explicitly stated philosophies of our founding fathers the  all men are created equal  philosophy, as noted in our declaration, and reiterated by important political figures such as abraham lincoln and our government takes extreme care to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.
many european countries are creating very restrictive rules for how parents can raise their children.  for example, in germany homeschooling is illegal and parents who home school their children have actually had their children taken from him.  similarly, parents have been persecuted for refusing to vaccinate their children, and for other medical issues ex.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  i believe that his reflects the idea, expressed by some liberals that  children belong to the community.   i believe that this view is dangerous and anti family.  parents are biologically hardwired to love their children and want what is best for them.  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.  i believe cas and other organizations have become tyrannical and their powers should be greatly reigned in and limited to cases of severe and proven physical or sexual abuse cmv.   #  governments, by contrast, are faceless entities that can not know what is best for any individual child.   #  but all these regulations, laws and what not are not based around the individual level but on the bigger scale.   # but the child has the right to get state school education.  he needs it if he is going to be an independent member of society.  if he was home schooled, the state and other members of society ca not ensure for the safety of the child, parents and everyone else that the child has the education to be independent.  childhood obesity where the state believes that it knows better than parents what their own children need.  again, the child has the right to be healthy kid.  state has access to kids medical records and because we are quite advanced in the knowledge of medicine, doctors can make very good decisions based on previous records and current health issues on what treatment should be best used.  a parent always does not know how to best cure his children.  the doctor is the expert, he will give you options, detail them out for you as best as possible for you to understand on which parents can make an informed decisions.  i am not entirely sure what meaning is meant to be conveyed on this, but for me, it sounds something like this: even as a child, we are part of the bigger society.  as a society, we have a set of rules everyone should follow.  as a parent, it is your job to prepare the kid to be independent in the future.  but all these regulations, laws and what not are not based around the individual level but on the bigger scale.  the government does not decide if this child needs a doll or a car as toys.  that is the parents job.  the government is there to ensure they get at least get a toy.   #  that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.   # not all the time.  why do you see people who kill their noisy children just so they can play xbox ? lots of times it is not about what is best for the individual child, but what is best for the community/city/state/country as a whole while not being detrimental to the child .  people do not want to vaccinate their children ? that is gonna cost the state a lot of money in medical bills.  do not want to school your child ? that will result in greater poverty and more federal assistance required.  it is a cost benefit analysis by the government.  putting money into these programs at the front of a child is life saves tons of money on the backend.   #  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.   #  that is a very limited view of that infographic.  the thing about home schooling is it is a self selected sample.  only people with the means to have one parent stay home and school the children are capable of selecting in to this group, so it is invalid to compare them to the rest of children as a whole.  also, that solid third of parents that homeschool for religious reasons is problematic.  especially in the states, there is a large problem with heavily religious parents indoctrinating their kids against science and decreasing the education of the population as a whole.   #  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.   # you are trying to ground this requirement to protect weaker members of society in the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.  that is fine, give it a shot.  but here you have just given an example of children being protected.  you have not drawn a connection to the ep clause.  i do not mean to be pedantic, only precise.  i am not aware of any such requirement for the state to protect weaker members of society.  if that is where you or op are grounding your arguments, then i suggest you look for a better place.   #  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ?  #  the state ensures equal rights for all members of society.  in order to do this, weaker members or people in weaker positions often require more protections.  you are not being pedantic, you just. are not saying anything ? or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our government.  i said nothing about the fourteenth amendment is equal protection clause, you brought that up, although, that clause is an excellent example of how the state strives to provide equal rights to all citizens.  i am not citing any one clause.  my point is that the entire constitution is purpose, and similar modern governments, is to provide equal rights and protections to all citizens.  it is one of the explicitly stated philosophies of our founding fathers the  all men are created equal  philosophy, as noted in our declaration, and reiterated by important political figures such as abraham lincoln and our government takes extreme care to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.  there is no specific section or law to point to, because  all  laws, in the usa and similarly based governments, are based in that single philosophy.  my note about the children is an example of how this most basic purpose of our government can be extrapolated to create greater laws and protections for the weaker members of our society.
i used to be totally neutral on the topic of transgender people.  let them do what they want, right ? but after seeing a lot of posts from  worst of tumblr  i have realized how a lot of transgender people use their beliefs as grounds for getting attention and annoying URL people with weird grammar.  the whole idea of differentiating gender from sex is goddamn stupid.  the words were always synonymous for a long time, and now someone is trying to mess with the way our language works.  men and women are equals.  this is not the motherfucking 0 is.  nobody in their right mind would expect a woman to be a stay at home mom just because she is a woman.  all around us in society and the media, gender roles are virtually nonexistent.  there are girly guys who like being fabulous and shopping, and there are tomboy girls who like video games or whatever the hell is supposed to be stereotypical.  nobody cares.  know what the word for that used to be ? personality.  i feel like forcing people to use different pronouns is just an attention stunt.  the words  he  and  she  are there so we can plan ahead for how/if we will sex you.  they are not there to explain your personality.   tl;dr  there is no difference between the genders, so gender should just be used as a synonym for sex.  anyone who thinks otherwise is annoying.   #  the whole idea of differentiating gender from sex is goddamn stupid.   #  the words were always synonymous for a long time, and now someone is trying to mess with the way our language works.   #  okay.  let is take this from the top.  tumblrites are, by and large, young, immature, and stupid.  they are not representative of all or even most trans people, and most of us hate them too.  the fact that there exist stupid trans people does not mean trans people in general are stupid.  the words were always synonymous for a long time, and now someone is trying to mess with the way our language works.  this is not even close to true.  setting aside that physical sex is far from clear cut to begin with, dozens of societies have recognized genders outside of or across the typical lines of sex.  you may be interested in this map URL of historical third, fourth, and even fifth genders recognized in various cultures.  of course, that does not mean there is a basis to it we will get to that later.  but it is not new.  equals in value and equality under the law does not mean identical.  obviously there  are  physical differences even aside from the obvious reproductive differences: women live considerably longer and men have much more upper body strength, for example.  all around us in society and the media, gender roles are virtually nonexistent.  there are girly guys who like being fabulous and shopping, and there are tomboy girls who like video games or whatever the hell is supposed to be stereotypical.  nobody cares.  know what the word for that used to be ? personality.  i think this stems from a misunderstanding of what trans people actually are.  it is not about gender roles.  it is about a very deep seated and fundamental discomfort with our identities and bodies as they relate to our birth sex.  numerous studies indicate a neurological basis for gender as  brain sex , and trans people display URL patterns more similar to their identified gender than to their birth sex.  many trans women are masculine, and many trans men are feminine hell, i would venture probably  more  than the general population.  masculine/feminine and male/female are separate spectra.  for a more common example that avoids trans people: many cis not trans men, due to hormonal oddities during puberty, develop breasts this is true breast development, not  aman boobs  .  those breasts pose no medical risk, and do not hurt them in any way.  but most men are very distressed to have them this is an example of gender identity becoming apparent in a cis person.  similarly, cis women who need a mastectomy for one reason or another are typically quite distressed.  frankly, your argument just rests on a whole lot of false assumptions.   #  plus, when you have gender dysphoria, you will never feel comfortable unless you are expressing your real gender trust me, i have it .   #  examples: have you ever heard someone tell someone else to  man up ?   or  you are a boy so you must like/feel/think x  or  man, girls are so confusing, how do i tell if she likes me ?   or gendered marketing ? have you ever shopped for yourself in forever 0 ? i doubt it.  ever hear of pickup artists, redpillers, feminists or mras ? as for starving, starving is physically detrimental to your health.  but i contend that we do tell and encourage people to lose weight and change their appearance in healthy ways.  plus, when you have gender dysphoria, you will never feel comfortable unless you are expressing your real gender trust me, i have it .  it is a gut feeling.   #  notice how thinking about moving your left hand causes you to move your left hand instead of your right foot; that is because your brain knows how to access that body part is motor systems.   #  your brain is effectively hard coded from birth with a mental map of where each part of your body should be.  notice how thinking about moving your left hand causes you to move your left hand instead of your right foot; that is because your brain knows how to access that body part is motor systems.  this also applies to sensory feedback.  temperature and pressure can be pinpointed quite accurately to a location on your body even when you cannot see.  kinaesthetic sense allows you to know the position of different parts of your body even when in a uniform medium and blindfolded.  easy example; you can touch your nose even with your eyes closed because you know where your hand and nose are.  if your mental map does not match your body, it can cause psychological discomfort.  a more direct and easier to understand version of this effect is phantom limb syndrome, where people report feeling that an amputated or missing part of the body not just limbs is still attached to the body.   #  often combined with the second, this can sometimes reach an appropriate conclusion without direct medical intervention.   #  there are effectively five levels of action possible in response to gender dysphoria.  firstly, there is inaction.  sometimes psychological conditions do go away on their own, but if it does not go away after a few months, it is unlikely to ever go away.  there is a reason that gender clinics require you to live as the target gender for a period of time before allowing gender reassignment surgery.  edit: in the uk at least .  secondly, there is transitioning via adopting the gender roles.  not particularly useful with dysphoria but not all trans  people experience dysphoria so it works for some of those.  thirdly, there is psychology and therapy.  often combined with the second, this can sometimes reach an appropriate conclusion without direct medical intervention.  fourthly is hormone treatment and lastly is gender reassignment surgery, which most medical systems only permit after the previous options have been exhausted.   #  i imagine being transsexual is sometimes a little but similar.   #  can people stop down voting and actually address this guys questions ? he would not have posted here if he was not looking to understand the issue better.  i honestly had pretty much the exact same views as he did until the people over on /r/asktransgender sorted me out by giving me scientific articles and explaining their experiences.  sexuality is very complicated and it is not really taught well in most schools.  can we try to educate instead of getting angry at people is ignorance ? to answer you question, yes, if you cross dressed and got called  she  for a couple months you would probably be fine.  you might get bored of it and you might not enjoy chick flicks and manicures or whatever.  but you are cis, so you would not experience gender dysphoria to a large degree.  trans people are different.  they often experience gender dysphoria which is caused by a disconnect between the way sex manifests itself neurologically and anatomically.  gender dysphoria can some times manifest itself psychologically.  a trans person might have a really strong desire to dress talk like the other gender.  they might feel extremely uncomfortable with their body or appearance.  this is because their brain is trying to react with sexual organs they just do not have.  sometimes people who have lost a limb can still  feel  it.  they might feel their ankle itch, they might try to wiggle their toes, but they ca not because they are missing their leg.  i imagine being transsexual is sometimes a little but similar.  someone may sense they have a penis, and their brain might act as if it were controlling a penis, even though they have a vagina instead.
i used to be totally neutral on the topic of transgender people.  let them do what they want, right ? but after seeing a lot of posts from  worst of tumblr  i have realized how a lot of transgender people use their beliefs as grounds for getting attention and annoying URL people with weird grammar.  the whole idea of differentiating gender from sex is goddamn stupid.  the words were always synonymous for a long time, and now someone is trying to mess with the way our language works.  men and women are equals.  this is not the motherfucking 0 is.  nobody in their right mind would expect a woman to be a stay at home mom just because she is a woman.  all around us in society and the media, gender roles are virtually nonexistent.  there are girly guys who like being fabulous and shopping, and there are tomboy girls who like video games or whatever the hell is supposed to be stereotypical.  nobody cares.  know what the word for that used to be ? personality.  i feel like forcing people to use different pronouns is just an attention stunt.  the words  he  and  she  are there so we can plan ahead for how/if we will sex you.  they are not there to explain your personality.   tl;dr  there is no difference between the genders, so gender should just be used as a synonym for sex.  anyone who thinks otherwise is annoying.   #  nobody in their right mind would expect a woman to be a stay at home mom just because she is a woman.   #  all around us in society and the media, gender roles are virtually nonexistent.   #  okay.  let is take this from the top.  tumblrites are, by and large, young, immature, and stupid.  they are not representative of all or even most trans people, and most of us hate them too.  the fact that there exist stupid trans people does not mean trans people in general are stupid.  the words were always synonymous for a long time, and now someone is trying to mess with the way our language works.  this is not even close to true.  setting aside that physical sex is far from clear cut to begin with, dozens of societies have recognized genders outside of or across the typical lines of sex.  you may be interested in this map URL of historical third, fourth, and even fifth genders recognized in various cultures.  of course, that does not mean there is a basis to it we will get to that later.  but it is not new.  equals in value and equality under the law does not mean identical.  obviously there  are  physical differences even aside from the obvious reproductive differences: women live considerably longer and men have much more upper body strength, for example.  all around us in society and the media, gender roles are virtually nonexistent.  there are girly guys who like being fabulous and shopping, and there are tomboy girls who like video games or whatever the hell is supposed to be stereotypical.  nobody cares.  know what the word for that used to be ? personality.  i think this stems from a misunderstanding of what trans people actually are.  it is not about gender roles.  it is about a very deep seated and fundamental discomfort with our identities and bodies as they relate to our birth sex.  numerous studies indicate a neurological basis for gender as  brain sex , and trans people display URL patterns more similar to their identified gender than to their birth sex.  many trans women are masculine, and many trans men are feminine hell, i would venture probably  more  than the general population.  masculine/feminine and male/female are separate spectra.  for a more common example that avoids trans people: many cis not trans men, due to hormonal oddities during puberty, develop breasts this is true breast development, not  aman boobs  .  those breasts pose no medical risk, and do not hurt them in any way.  but most men are very distressed to have them this is an example of gender identity becoming apparent in a cis person.  similarly, cis women who need a mastectomy for one reason or another are typically quite distressed.  frankly, your argument just rests on a whole lot of false assumptions.   #  but i contend that we do tell and encourage people to lose weight and change their appearance in healthy ways.   #  examples: have you ever heard someone tell someone else to  man up ?   or  you are a boy so you must like/feel/think x  or  man, girls are so confusing, how do i tell if she likes me ?   or gendered marketing ? have you ever shopped for yourself in forever 0 ? i doubt it.  ever hear of pickup artists, redpillers, feminists or mras ? as for starving, starving is physically detrimental to your health.  but i contend that we do tell and encourage people to lose weight and change their appearance in healthy ways.  plus, when you have gender dysphoria, you will never feel comfortable unless you are expressing your real gender trust me, i have it .  it is a gut feeling.   #  temperature and pressure can be pinpointed quite accurately to a location on your body even when you cannot see.   #  your brain is effectively hard coded from birth with a mental map of where each part of your body should be.  notice how thinking about moving your left hand causes you to move your left hand instead of your right foot; that is because your brain knows how to access that body part is motor systems.  this also applies to sensory feedback.  temperature and pressure can be pinpointed quite accurately to a location on your body even when you cannot see.  kinaesthetic sense allows you to know the position of different parts of your body even when in a uniform medium and blindfolded.  easy example; you can touch your nose even with your eyes closed because you know where your hand and nose are.  if your mental map does not match your body, it can cause psychological discomfort.  a more direct and easier to understand version of this effect is phantom limb syndrome, where people report feeling that an amputated or missing part of the body not just limbs is still attached to the body.   #  there are effectively five levels of action possible in response to gender dysphoria.   #  there are effectively five levels of action possible in response to gender dysphoria.  firstly, there is inaction.  sometimes psychological conditions do go away on their own, but if it does not go away after a few months, it is unlikely to ever go away.  there is a reason that gender clinics require you to live as the target gender for a period of time before allowing gender reassignment surgery.  edit: in the uk at least .  secondly, there is transitioning via adopting the gender roles.  not particularly useful with dysphoria but not all trans  people experience dysphoria so it works for some of those.  thirdly, there is psychology and therapy.  often combined with the second, this can sometimes reach an appropriate conclusion without direct medical intervention.  fourthly is hormone treatment and lastly is gender reassignment surgery, which most medical systems only permit after the previous options have been exhausted.   #  you might get bored of it and you might not enjoy chick flicks and manicures or whatever.   #  can people stop down voting and actually address this guys questions ? he would not have posted here if he was not looking to understand the issue better.  i honestly had pretty much the exact same views as he did until the people over on /r/asktransgender sorted me out by giving me scientific articles and explaining their experiences.  sexuality is very complicated and it is not really taught well in most schools.  can we try to educate instead of getting angry at people is ignorance ? to answer you question, yes, if you cross dressed and got called  she  for a couple months you would probably be fine.  you might get bored of it and you might not enjoy chick flicks and manicures or whatever.  but you are cis, so you would not experience gender dysphoria to a large degree.  trans people are different.  they often experience gender dysphoria which is caused by a disconnect between the way sex manifests itself neurologically and anatomically.  gender dysphoria can some times manifest itself psychologically.  a trans person might have a really strong desire to dress talk like the other gender.  they might feel extremely uncomfortable with their body or appearance.  this is because their brain is trying to react with sexual organs they just do not have.  sometimes people who have lost a limb can still  feel  it.  they might feel their ankle itch, they might try to wiggle their toes, but they ca not because they are missing their leg.  i imagine being transsexual is sometimes a little but similar.  someone may sense they have a penis, and their brain might act as if it were controlling a penis, even though they have a vagina instead.
i used to be totally neutral on the topic of transgender people.  let them do what they want, right ? but after seeing a lot of posts from  worst of tumblr  i have realized how a lot of transgender people use their beliefs as grounds for getting attention and annoying URL people with weird grammar.  the whole idea of differentiating gender from sex is goddamn stupid.  the words were always synonymous for a long time, and now someone is trying to mess with the way our language works.  men and women are equals.  this is not the motherfucking 0 is.  nobody in their right mind would expect a woman to be a stay at home mom just because she is a woman.  all around us in society and the media, gender roles are virtually nonexistent.  there are girly guys who like being fabulous and shopping, and there are tomboy girls who like video games or whatever the hell is supposed to be stereotypical.  nobody cares.  know what the word for that used to be ? personality.  i feel like forcing people to use different pronouns is just an attention stunt.  the words  he  and  she  are there so we can plan ahead for how/if we will sex you.  they are not there to explain your personality.   tl;dr  there is no difference between the genders, so gender should just be used as a synonym for sex.  anyone who thinks otherwise is annoying.   #  i feel like forcing people to use different pronouns is just an attention stunt.   #  the words  he  and  she  are there so we can plan ahead for how/if we will sex you.   # the words  he  and  she  are there so we can plan ahead for how/if we will sex you.  they are not there to explain your personality.  most people are not transgendered.  when talking to or referring to most people you can use the standard he/she pronouns.  but, if you know a transgendered person and they ask to be called by a different pronoun, you should use that pronoun, simply out of basic respect for another human being.  on the flip side, the transgendered people who assert that the traditional he/she pronouns be abolished are being disrespectful to non trans people.  consider the source:  worst of tumblr .  by definition this source will the select the most outrageous and ludicrous personalities of the online trans community.  it is completely unreasonable to use this source as a basis for forming any opinions on transgender people in general.  well, trans people, by definition, are the living embodiment of this very differentiation.  do you consider the existence of trans people to be stupid ? frankly, i am mystified by trans people, as i am quite happy with my sex/gender.  but that does not change the fact that trans people do exist and they do adopt a gender that differs from their birth sex.  we should acknowledge and respect their personal, individual choice which may include using a different pronoun from time to time.   #  have you ever shopped for yourself in forever 0 ?  #  examples: have you ever heard someone tell someone else to  man up ?   or  you are a boy so you must like/feel/think x  or  man, girls are so confusing, how do i tell if she likes me ?   or gendered marketing ? have you ever shopped for yourself in forever 0 ? i doubt it.  ever hear of pickup artists, redpillers, feminists or mras ? as for starving, starving is physically detrimental to your health.  but i contend that we do tell and encourage people to lose weight and change their appearance in healthy ways.  plus, when you have gender dysphoria, you will never feel comfortable unless you are expressing your real gender trust me, i have it .  it is a gut feeling.   #  if your mental map does not match your body, it can cause psychological discomfort.   #  your brain is effectively hard coded from birth with a mental map of where each part of your body should be.  notice how thinking about moving your left hand causes you to move your left hand instead of your right foot; that is because your brain knows how to access that body part is motor systems.  this also applies to sensory feedback.  temperature and pressure can be pinpointed quite accurately to a location on your body even when you cannot see.  kinaesthetic sense allows you to know the position of different parts of your body even when in a uniform medium and blindfolded.  easy example; you can touch your nose even with your eyes closed because you know where your hand and nose are.  if your mental map does not match your body, it can cause psychological discomfort.  a more direct and easier to understand version of this effect is phantom limb syndrome, where people report feeling that an amputated or missing part of the body not just limbs is still attached to the body.   #  not particularly useful with dysphoria but not all trans  people experience dysphoria so it works for some of those.   #  there are effectively five levels of action possible in response to gender dysphoria.  firstly, there is inaction.  sometimes psychological conditions do go away on their own, but if it does not go away after a few months, it is unlikely to ever go away.  there is a reason that gender clinics require you to live as the target gender for a period of time before allowing gender reassignment surgery.  edit: in the uk at least .  secondly, there is transitioning via adopting the gender roles.  not particularly useful with dysphoria but not all trans  people experience dysphoria so it works for some of those.  thirdly, there is psychology and therapy.  often combined with the second, this can sometimes reach an appropriate conclusion without direct medical intervention.  fourthly is hormone treatment and lastly is gender reassignment surgery, which most medical systems only permit after the previous options have been exhausted.   #  gender dysphoria can some times manifest itself psychologically.   #  can people stop down voting and actually address this guys questions ? he would not have posted here if he was not looking to understand the issue better.  i honestly had pretty much the exact same views as he did until the people over on /r/asktransgender sorted me out by giving me scientific articles and explaining their experiences.  sexuality is very complicated and it is not really taught well in most schools.  can we try to educate instead of getting angry at people is ignorance ? to answer you question, yes, if you cross dressed and got called  she  for a couple months you would probably be fine.  you might get bored of it and you might not enjoy chick flicks and manicures or whatever.  but you are cis, so you would not experience gender dysphoria to a large degree.  trans people are different.  they often experience gender dysphoria which is caused by a disconnect between the way sex manifests itself neurologically and anatomically.  gender dysphoria can some times manifest itself psychologically.  a trans person might have a really strong desire to dress talk like the other gender.  they might feel extremely uncomfortable with their body or appearance.  this is because their brain is trying to react with sexual organs they just do not have.  sometimes people who have lost a limb can still  feel  it.  they might feel their ankle itch, they might try to wiggle their toes, but they ca not because they are missing their leg.  i imagine being transsexual is sometimes a little but similar.  someone may sense they have a penis, and their brain might act as if it were controlling a penis, even though they have a vagina instead.
i used to be totally neutral on the topic of transgender people.  let them do what they want, right ? but after seeing a lot of posts from  worst of tumblr  i have realized how a lot of transgender people use their beliefs as grounds for getting attention and annoying URL people with weird grammar.  the whole idea of differentiating gender from sex is goddamn stupid.  the words were always synonymous for a long time, and now someone is trying to mess with the way our language works.  men and women are equals.  this is not the motherfucking 0 is.  nobody in their right mind would expect a woman to be a stay at home mom just because she is a woman.  all around us in society and the media, gender roles are virtually nonexistent.  there are girly guys who like being fabulous and shopping, and there are tomboy girls who like video games or whatever the hell is supposed to be stereotypical.  nobody cares.  know what the word for that used to be ? personality.  i feel like forcing people to use different pronouns is just an attention stunt.  the words  he  and  she  are there so we can plan ahead for how/if we will sex you.  they are not there to explain your personality.   tl;dr  there is no difference between the genders, so gender should just be used as a synonym for sex.  anyone who thinks otherwise is annoying.   #  the whole idea of differentiating gender from sex is goddamn stupid.   #  well, trans people, by definition, are the living embodiment of this very differentiation.   # the words  he  and  she  are there so we can plan ahead for how/if we will sex you.  they are not there to explain your personality.  most people are not transgendered.  when talking to or referring to most people you can use the standard he/she pronouns.  but, if you know a transgendered person and they ask to be called by a different pronoun, you should use that pronoun, simply out of basic respect for another human being.  on the flip side, the transgendered people who assert that the traditional he/she pronouns be abolished are being disrespectful to non trans people.  consider the source:  worst of tumblr .  by definition this source will the select the most outrageous and ludicrous personalities of the online trans community.  it is completely unreasonable to use this source as a basis for forming any opinions on transgender people in general.  well, trans people, by definition, are the living embodiment of this very differentiation.  do you consider the existence of trans people to be stupid ? frankly, i am mystified by trans people, as i am quite happy with my sex/gender.  but that does not change the fact that trans people do exist and they do adopt a gender that differs from their birth sex.  we should acknowledge and respect their personal, individual choice which may include using a different pronoun from time to time.   #  plus, when you have gender dysphoria, you will never feel comfortable unless you are expressing your real gender trust me, i have it .   #  examples: have you ever heard someone tell someone else to  man up ?   or  you are a boy so you must like/feel/think x  or  man, girls are so confusing, how do i tell if she likes me ?   or gendered marketing ? have you ever shopped for yourself in forever 0 ? i doubt it.  ever hear of pickup artists, redpillers, feminists or mras ? as for starving, starving is physically detrimental to your health.  but i contend that we do tell and encourage people to lose weight and change their appearance in healthy ways.  plus, when you have gender dysphoria, you will never feel comfortable unless you are expressing your real gender trust me, i have it .  it is a gut feeling.   #  easy example; you can touch your nose even with your eyes closed because you know where your hand and nose are.   #  your brain is effectively hard coded from birth with a mental map of where each part of your body should be.  notice how thinking about moving your left hand causes you to move your left hand instead of your right foot; that is because your brain knows how to access that body part is motor systems.  this also applies to sensory feedback.  temperature and pressure can be pinpointed quite accurately to a location on your body even when you cannot see.  kinaesthetic sense allows you to know the position of different parts of your body even when in a uniform medium and blindfolded.  easy example; you can touch your nose even with your eyes closed because you know where your hand and nose are.  if your mental map does not match your body, it can cause psychological discomfort.  a more direct and easier to understand version of this effect is phantom limb syndrome, where people report feeling that an amputated or missing part of the body not just limbs is still attached to the body.   #  there are effectively five levels of action possible in response to gender dysphoria.   #  there are effectively five levels of action possible in response to gender dysphoria.  firstly, there is inaction.  sometimes psychological conditions do go away on their own, but if it does not go away after a few months, it is unlikely to ever go away.  there is a reason that gender clinics require you to live as the target gender for a period of time before allowing gender reassignment surgery.  edit: in the uk at least .  secondly, there is transitioning via adopting the gender roles.  not particularly useful with dysphoria but not all trans  people experience dysphoria so it works for some of those.  thirdly, there is psychology and therapy.  often combined with the second, this can sometimes reach an appropriate conclusion without direct medical intervention.  fourthly is hormone treatment and lastly is gender reassignment surgery, which most medical systems only permit after the previous options have been exhausted.   #  they might feel extremely uncomfortable with their body or appearance.   #  can people stop down voting and actually address this guys questions ? he would not have posted here if he was not looking to understand the issue better.  i honestly had pretty much the exact same views as he did until the people over on /r/asktransgender sorted me out by giving me scientific articles and explaining their experiences.  sexuality is very complicated and it is not really taught well in most schools.  can we try to educate instead of getting angry at people is ignorance ? to answer you question, yes, if you cross dressed and got called  she  for a couple months you would probably be fine.  you might get bored of it and you might not enjoy chick flicks and manicures or whatever.  but you are cis, so you would not experience gender dysphoria to a large degree.  trans people are different.  they often experience gender dysphoria which is caused by a disconnect between the way sex manifests itself neurologically and anatomically.  gender dysphoria can some times manifest itself psychologically.  a trans person might have a really strong desire to dress talk like the other gender.  they might feel extremely uncomfortable with their body or appearance.  this is because their brain is trying to react with sexual organs they just do not have.  sometimes people who have lost a limb can still  feel  it.  they might feel their ankle itch, they might try to wiggle their toes, but they ca not because they are missing their leg.  i imagine being transsexual is sometimes a little but similar.  someone may sense they have a penis, and their brain might act as if it were controlling a penis, even though they have a vagina instead.
it has come to my attention that if you talk to any movie buff about greatest disney movies made, beauty and the beast always somehow weasels itself into their lists.  i am not going to say the movie is awful, because it is not.  i am not even going to say it is bad.  and while i did enjoy this movie, i never thought it was something great or revolutionary.  for the sake of argument, i will list my problems with it: 0.  belle.  i find her to be void of personality whatsoever.  she is very 0d like the old princesses such as snow white or aurora.  and she is also somewhat of a mary sue.  what is the likely hood that the prettiest girl in all of the town is also the most well read, articulate, modest, selfless and non judgemental ? she is too perfect of a character for me, with her only negative counterparts being that she is some of those descriptions to a fault.  the love story.  beast is an actual beast.  he is not just beastly/ very hard on the eyes, he is an actual monster/animal looking thing.  he is not human.  like, at all.  belle has no way of knowing that he was once a human and cursed into being a beast.  sure, she goes into that one wing of the castle and sees a picture of the human him on the wall, but if you are telling me that she pieced everything together after that, you are lying to yourself as well.  she willingly fell in love with an animal.  in a romantic way.  not to mention the fact that he kidnapped her and she fell in love with him, which i think is commonly referred to as stockholm syndrome, but idk.  gaston is death.  why ? why kill him ? because he tried to kill the beast ? in gaston is defence, the beast is almost the same character, but with a second chance at redemption.  to me killing gaston was the easy way of just burying that story.  we are supposed to hate gaston and love the beast but they are just too similar that i ca not have such opposing views on them.  at least gaston was humorous and got a song.  human beast appearance wise no.  timing/ pacing there actually seemed to be a very minimal time that went past in this movie.  there was hardly any interaction between the two, thus making me feel as though the love between them did not exist at all.  the initial conflict.  i do not have too big of a problem with this, but his consequences for being a dick do not seem to fit.  he gets turned into a beast, which sounds about right, but where my problem lies is where he ca not be turned back into a human unless he learns to love another and be loved by another.  this, on paper, seems fine, but at the end of the day, he falls in love with the prettiest girl in town.  how does that prove anything ? i know it is disney and the possibility of an ugly female love interest does not exist, but it seems a little counter productive to have the man who judges people off of how they look to fall in love with the prettiest girl.  /rant it should be noted again that i do not hate this movie, i rather enjoy it.  but there are far better disney movies out there.  it should also be noted that while i find most of the songs in this movie to be forgettable as hell how many are there ? 0 ? , i rather enjoy the scene of tale as old as time/ beauty and the beast.  so.  change my views.   #  she is also somewhat of a mary sue.   #  what is the likely hood that the prettiest girl in all of the town is also the most well read, articulate, modest, selfless and non judgemental ?  # what is the likely hood that the prettiest girl in all of the town is also the most well read, articulate, modest, selfless and non judgemental ? she is too perfect of a character for me the main reason why mary sue is a negative archetype, is not because people hate perfect characters.  there are plenty of idealistic paragorn heroes, wish fulfillment audience avatars, or abstract representations of perfection, that are fun to watch/read about.  mary sue refers to how bad artists tend to write characters that are  perfect  in a specific predictable, unappealing way, pandering to the writer is transparent desires.  like a fanfic character who bangs all the characters that the writer has the hots for, or an exotic character who reeks of a teenage girl is laughable expectations of what is  exotic  or  cool .  belle is character is basically a geek.  her not being understood by the common villagers, caring more about books than shallow socializing, yet dreaming of grand adventure, appeals to many audience members, redditors being one such demographic.  no, it is not.  stockholm syndrome refers specifically to the way prisoners can start to identify their oppresed status as  norrmal , and believe that every act of decency from their captor is a special kindness, and start getting attracted to that  human side .  this is something that very explicitly  did not  happen in beauty and the beast.  belle tried to escape from the beast, and even afterwards, never put up with him acting violent or hostile.  the whole story was about the beast learning to change and be a good person who is worthy of belle, and  then  belle fell in love with him, not about belle tolerating his hostile attitude yet falling in love with him in spite of it because  he has a good side hidden deep inside .  the first act was clearly take place during fall judging by the leaves, there was a snowball fight in the middle, and a spring cleanup, then the villagers  march in a rain.  at the same time, if you keep track of the plot point, it is also clear that the plot took 0 days.  it is clearly meant to be abstract, on one hand to provide the feeling that a long time has passed, yet keeping the traditional 0 plot that also appeared in many stories from theatre plays, to many other disney features.  aladdin, frozen, hunchback of notre dame, tangled, all take place through 0 days, not counting backstory expositions .  i know it is disney and the possibility of an ugly female love interest does not exist, but it seems a little counter productive to have the man who judges people off of how they look to fall in love with the prettiest girl.  the which was never supposed to be helpful, she turned all the servants into objects too, she was more of a malicious trickster than a force of good.  0 ?  belle  little town /the  i want  song.   gaston / the villain song  be our guest / the dinner song  something there /the love song  human again / the one from the dvd version  beauty and the beast / the central song  kill the beast / the mob song  #  belle has no way of knowing that he was once a human and cursed into being a beast.   # he is not just beastly/ very hard on the eyes, he is an actual monster/animal looking thing.  he is not human.  like, at all.  belle has no way of knowing that he was once a human and cursed into being a beast.  sure, she goes into that one wing of the castle and sees a picture of the human him on the wall, but if you are telling me that she pieced everything together after that, you are lying to yourself as well.  she willingly fell in love with an animal.  in a romantic way.  not to mention the fact that he kidnapped her and she fell in love with him, which i think is commonly referred to as stockholm syndrome, but idk.  what is great about this movie is that it kind of makes you the viewer fall in love with beast as well.  after a while, it becomes really easy to empathize with him.  and of course, he does save bell from wolves.  as for being an animal.  beast can talk, which basically makes him human.  as a child, i would always be sad when beast turned back into a human, because i have grown attached to the beast.  why kill gaston ? because he tried to kill the beast ? he also tried to confine bell is father into an asylum in order to blackmail bell into marrying him.  did you miss that ? what you need to remember is that disney restricts their movies to a running time of 0 minutes that is  really  short.  this is not just a problem for beauty and the beast, but also for every other disney film.   #  i honestly just do not think belle and beast had that much screen time together.   #  yes, beast can talk.  but that making him human is as silly as saying siri is a human because she can respond to your inquiries.  you can argue that he has feelings/ expresses emotion etc, but there are plenty of animals with the mental capacity to do so.  i will need a little bit more to convince me that her falling in love with him was not strange.  i am not denying that gaston was a great big asshole.  i just do not think his  crimes  were punishable by death.  he truly thinks he is the greatest human out there, and needed to be brought back down to size.  it does not help when everyone was also in his ear talking up how great he was.  it is not like he is an asshole to only his credit.  the world made him an asshole too.  should they be punished as well ? i honestly just do not think belle and beast had that much screen time together.  in movies like frozen, the lion king, mulan, aladdin, the princess and the frog, hercules, tarzan and even tangled, although hardly any time passes whatsoever, i see the connection between the two mains.  all of these movies are around the same time in length, it is just that i do not think that they fleshed it out as well as they could have in batb.   #  in movies like frozen, the lion king, mulan, aladdin, the princess and the frog, hercules, tarzan and even tangled, although hardly any time passes whatsoever, i see the connection between the two mains.   # but that making him human is as silly as saying siri is a human because she can respond to your inquiries.  you can argue that he has feelings/ expresses emotion etc, but there are plenty of animals with the mental capacity to do so.  i will need a little bit more to convince me that her falling in love with him was not strange.  siri is not intelligent.  i really think the only thing required for love is intelligent communication i find it very superficial to think you need a body to fall in love with.  you can fall in love with a mind.  siri does not have a mind; animals do not have a mind on the same level as humans although you can still form loving relationships with pets ; beast has a human mind.  once again, the movie successfully made  me   fall in love  with beast.  i just do not think his  crimes  were punishable by death.  i guess you are right, i concede this point.  in movies like frozen, the lion king, mulan, aladdin, the princess and the frog, hercules, tarzan and even tangled, although hardly any time passes whatsoever, i see the connection between the two mains.  i guess we can agree to disagree here.  in most of the movies you mentioned, i found the romance to be much less convincing than in beauty and the beast.   #  the urban fantasy version of this trope is the werewolf/vampire hero.   # it is a fairy tale.  princesses kiss frogs who turn into princes in fairy tales.  frogs.  obviously, the whole point of the story is the  beauty is in the eye of the beholder  trope.  in modern, non fairy tale/fantasy takes on this story, the  beast  is usually a horribly scarred human male, sometimes with a brusque personality.  in disney, scars evil, so they were not going to go there.  the urban fantasy version of this trope is the werewolf/vampire hero.  the beast in the original grimm tale had  red, blood shot eyes  and a  paw.   since then, many illustrations of the beast are of a two legged mod podge of various animals.  disney is no different.
it has come to my attention that if you talk to any movie buff about greatest disney movies made, beauty and the beast always somehow weasels itself into their lists.  i am not going to say the movie is awful, because it is not.  i am not even going to say it is bad.  and while i did enjoy this movie, i never thought it was something great or revolutionary.  for the sake of argument, i will list my problems with it: 0.  belle.  i find her to be void of personality whatsoever.  she is very 0d like the old princesses such as snow white or aurora.  and she is also somewhat of a mary sue.  what is the likely hood that the prettiest girl in all of the town is also the most well read, articulate, modest, selfless and non judgemental ? she is too perfect of a character for me, with her only negative counterparts being that she is some of those descriptions to a fault.  the love story.  beast is an actual beast.  he is not just beastly/ very hard on the eyes, he is an actual monster/animal looking thing.  he is not human.  like, at all.  belle has no way of knowing that he was once a human and cursed into being a beast.  sure, she goes into that one wing of the castle and sees a picture of the human him on the wall, but if you are telling me that she pieced everything together after that, you are lying to yourself as well.  she willingly fell in love with an animal.  in a romantic way.  not to mention the fact that he kidnapped her and she fell in love with him, which i think is commonly referred to as stockholm syndrome, but idk.  gaston is death.  why ? why kill him ? because he tried to kill the beast ? in gaston is defence, the beast is almost the same character, but with a second chance at redemption.  to me killing gaston was the easy way of just burying that story.  we are supposed to hate gaston and love the beast but they are just too similar that i ca not have such opposing views on them.  at least gaston was humorous and got a song.  human beast appearance wise no.  timing/ pacing there actually seemed to be a very minimal time that went past in this movie.  there was hardly any interaction between the two, thus making me feel as though the love between them did not exist at all.  the initial conflict.  i do not have too big of a problem with this, but his consequences for being a dick do not seem to fit.  he gets turned into a beast, which sounds about right, but where my problem lies is where he ca not be turned back into a human unless he learns to love another and be loved by another.  this, on paper, seems fine, but at the end of the day, he falls in love with the prettiest girl in town.  how does that prove anything ? i know it is disney and the possibility of an ugly female love interest does not exist, but it seems a little counter productive to have the man who judges people off of how they look to fall in love with the prettiest girl.  /rant it should be noted again that i do not hate this movie, i rather enjoy it.  but there are far better disney movies out there.  it should also be noted that while i find most of the songs in this movie to be forgettable as hell how many are there ? 0 ? , i rather enjoy the scene of tale as old as time/ beauty and the beast.  so.  change my views.   #  there actually seemed to be a very minimal time that went past in this movie.   #  the first act was clearly take place during fall judging by the leaves, there was a snowball fight in the middle, and a spring cleanup, then the villagers  march in a rain.   # what is the likely hood that the prettiest girl in all of the town is also the most well read, articulate, modest, selfless and non judgemental ? she is too perfect of a character for me the main reason why mary sue is a negative archetype, is not because people hate perfect characters.  there are plenty of idealistic paragorn heroes, wish fulfillment audience avatars, or abstract representations of perfection, that are fun to watch/read about.  mary sue refers to how bad artists tend to write characters that are  perfect  in a specific predictable, unappealing way, pandering to the writer is transparent desires.  like a fanfic character who bangs all the characters that the writer has the hots for, or an exotic character who reeks of a teenage girl is laughable expectations of what is  exotic  or  cool .  belle is character is basically a geek.  her not being understood by the common villagers, caring more about books than shallow socializing, yet dreaming of grand adventure, appeals to many audience members, redditors being one such demographic.  no, it is not.  stockholm syndrome refers specifically to the way prisoners can start to identify their oppresed status as  norrmal , and believe that every act of decency from their captor is a special kindness, and start getting attracted to that  human side .  this is something that very explicitly  did not  happen in beauty and the beast.  belle tried to escape from the beast, and even afterwards, never put up with him acting violent or hostile.  the whole story was about the beast learning to change and be a good person who is worthy of belle, and  then  belle fell in love with him, not about belle tolerating his hostile attitude yet falling in love with him in spite of it because  he has a good side hidden deep inside .  the first act was clearly take place during fall judging by the leaves, there was a snowball fight in the middle, and a spring cleanup, then the villagers  march in a rain.  at the same time, if you keep track of the plot point, it is also clear that the plot took 0 days.  it is clearly meant to be abstract, on one hand to provide the feeling that a long time has passed, yet keeping the traditional 0 plot that also appeared in many stories from theatre plays, to many other disney features.  aladdin, frozen, hunchback of notre dame, tangled, all take place through 0 days, not counting backstory expositions .  i know it is disney and the possibility of an ugly female love interest does not exist, but it seems a little counter productive to have the man who judges people off of how they look to fall in love with the prettiest girl.  the which was never supposed to be helpful, she turned all the servants into objects too, she was more of a malicious trickster than a force of good.  0 ?  belle  little town /the  i want  song.   gaston / the villain song  be our guest / the dinner song  something there /the love song  human again / the one from the dvd version  beauty and the beast / the central song  kill the beast / the mob song  #  this is not just a problem for beauty and the beast, but also for every other disney film.   # he is not just beastly/ very hard on the eyes, he is an actual monster/animal looking thing.  he is not human.  like, at all.  belle has no way of knowing that he was once a human and cursed into being a beast.  sure, she goes into that one wing of the castle and sees a picture of the human him on the wall, but if you are telling me that she pieced everything together after that, you are lying to yourself as well.  she willingly fell in love with an animal.  in a romantic way.  not to mention the fact that he kidnapped her and she fell in love with him, which i think is commonly referred to as stockholm syndrome, but idk.  what is great about this movie is that it kind of makes you the viewer fall in love with beast as well.  after a while, it becomes really easy to empathize with him.  and of course, he does save bell from wolves.  as for being an animal.  beast can talk, which basically makes him human.  as a child, i would always be sad when beast turned back into a human, because i have grown attached to the beast.  why kill gaston ? because he tried to kill the beast ? he also tried to confine bell is father into an asylum in order to blackmail bell into marrying him.  did you miss that ? what you need to remember is that disney restricts their movies to a running time of 0 minutes that is  really  short.  this is not just a problem for beauty and the beast, but also for every other disney film.   #  in movies like frozen, the lion king, mulan, aladdin, the princess and the frog, hercules, tarzan and even tangled, although hardly any time passes whatsoever, i see the connection between the two mains.   #  yes, beast can talk.  but that making him human is as silly as saying siri is a human because she can respond to your inquiries.  you can argue that he has feelings/ expresses emotion etc, but there are plenty of animals with the mental capacity to do so.  i will need a little bit more to convince me that her falling in love with him was not strange.  i am not denying that gaston was a great big asshole.  i just do not think his  crimes  were punishable by death.  he truly thinks he is the greatest human out there, and needed to be brought back down to size.  it does not help when everyone was also in his ear talking up how great he was.  it is not like he is an asshole to only his credit.  the world made him an asshole too.  should they be punished as well ? i honestly just do not think belle and beast had that much screen time together.  in movies like frozen, the lion king, mulan, aladdin, the princess and the frog, hercules, tarzan and even tangled, although hardly any time passes whatsoever, i see the connection between the two mains.  all of these movies are around the same time in length, it is just that i do not think that they fleshed it out as well as they could have in batb.   #  siri does not have a mind; animals do not have a mind on the same level as humans although you can still form loving relationships with pets ; beast has a human mind.   # but that making him human is as silly as saying siri is a human because she can respond to your inquiries.  you can argue that he has feelings/ expresses emotion etc, but there are plenty of animals with the mental capacity to do so.  i will need a little bit more to convince me that her falling in love with him was not strange.  siri is not intelligent.  i really think the only thing required for love is intelligent communication i find it very superficial to think you need a body to fall in love with.  you can fall in love with a mind.  siri does not have a mind; animals do not have a mind on the same level as humans although you can still form loving relationships with pets ; beast has a human mind.  once again, the movie successfully made  me   fall in love  with beast.  i just do not think his  crimes  were punishable by death.  i guess you are right, i concede this point.  in movies like frozen, the lion king, mulan, aladdin, the princess and the frog, hercules, tarzan and even tangled, although hardly any time passes whatsoever, i see the connection between the two mains.  i guess we can agree to disagree here.  in most of the movies you mentioned, i found the romance to be much less convincing than in beauty and the beast.   #  princesses kiss frogs who turn into princes in fairy tales.   # it is a fairy tale.  princesses kiss frogs who turn into princes in fairy tales.  frogs.  obviously, the whole point of the story is the  beauty is in the eye of the beholder  trope.  in modern, non fairy tale/fantasy takes on this story, the  beast  is usually a horribly scarred human male, sometimes with a brusque personality.  in disney, scars evil, so they were not going to go there.  the urban fantasy version of this trope is the werewolf/vampire hero.  the beast in the original grimm tale had  red, blood shot eyes  and a  paw.   since then, many illustrations of the beast are of a two legged mod podge of various animals.  disney is no different.
since it is illegal to offer equity in a company via a kickstarter, what is the point of funding one ? it is basically a charitable donation to a for profit company, or a gamble that you ca not win you will never receive anything more than you put in, but you are quite likely to receive nothing at all in return for your investment.  the only benefit i can see is that if there is some idea out there that was so revolutionary that it could change the world, if only it had the proper funding but if it was that good, why did not some big corporation buy it already ? so it is probably just snake oil.  i really ca not see any rational reason to fund a kickstarter; the only reason i can see to do so is because of an emotional attachment to whatever product is being developed, and a fear that if one does not fund it, the product will never see the light of day.   #  but if it was that good, why did not some big corporation buy it already ?  #  oftentimes, there is not a big overlap between investors and the target audience for something.   # oftentimes, there is not a big overlap between investors and the target audience for something.  it can be difficult for someone who is heavily into making and investing money to get what might be appealing to someone who is heavily into goofing off playing video games, for example.  for a business idea to be funded, it has to sound like a good idea to an investor or a bank.  for a business idea to be kickstarted, it has to sound like a good idea to a customer.  not in an abstract  i like blue things !   focus group sort of way, but in a concrete, putting actual money down sort of way.  there is also the issue of scale.  for a business to be funded, it has to sound like a business that can make a lot of money.  niche products can struggle to get funding, even if there is enough money in the idea to print the product and pay an individual or small team for the labor.  basically, kickstarter opens the door for projects that are either too strange or too small to get funding via other channels.  you should definitely not spend important money on kickstarter.  but i think that it is a perfectly acceptable way to spend mad money no worse than blowing some cash on arcade games or ice cream or whatever.  and i have actually found that most people will work very hard to fulfill their kickstarter promises, even if it things fall apart a bit and the venture actually ends up losing money.  of the 0 kickstarters i have backed, only one is seriously late and possibly awol.  three are as expected in beta or partway complete.  the other 0 have delivered exactly and completely what was promised.  and i did not back several of the high profile successes, like the veronica mars movie.  that is a pretty good track record.  i have easily had more disappointments out of finished products that i have bought than i have had out of kickstarter.  there are also psychological rewards that i think outweigh the relatively minor risk of losing a little bit of money.  the delay between funding and shipping often means that the package comes as a little pseudo surprise in the mail.  surprise packages are awesome.  plus, it feels good to be able to chip in some money to help a neat idea come to fruition.  and it can be fun to watch a project as it goes through all the messy stages of making something.  having worked on a lot of small businesses and projects, it is nice to be able to cheer other people on as they deal with all the minor disasters and surprises that you deal with.  it gives the objects that result more of a story.  stories actually add some value to objects, albeit mostly personal value, so this is a nice bonus.  that said, kickstarter may not be for you.  if you always need to get exactly what you expected for your money, kickstarter is not the greatest place to be.  that is fine, but i do not think that  not for me  necessarily equates to  scam !   :  #  reading your op you seem mostly annoyed that people fund kickstarter projects  irrationally  but who cares what people do with their money ?  # because you want that company to do well and make its product or service available ? i do not understand your issue here.  kickstarter is not a  scam  because it is not claiming to be anything other than it is.  they are open and honest about what they are, so i am fairly certain that does not count as a scam.  reading your op you seem mostly annoyed that people fund kickstarter projects  irrationally  but who cares what people do with their money ? i can go out to eat, i can play an mmo for a month, i can buy some soda, or i can fund this company i think should receive funding.   #  they are basically telling everyone that they wanna sell shit, and allowing people to buy some before the production run is finished.   #  you know most of the companies have donation rewards right ? they are basically telling everyone that they wanna sell shit, and allowing people to buy some before the production run is finished.  its not a  scam .  you get something out of it most of the time.  you know well in advance what you will and will not get, and the site is pretty honest about what the donations actually get you.  tldr, not a scam.  you may not buy into it, but its not a scam.   #  other big use of kickstarter is for artists to produce high quality works without having to sign on with a label.   #  you are thinking about kickstarter incorrectly.  it is not an investment.  it is a place for the little guys to try to make it on their own, or test new ideas, without having to sell out to a big corporation.  i have funded over a thousand dollars worth of kickstarters, possibly over a thousand.  other than getting things slowly, i have never been burned because i have always looked deeply at the things i am funding.  simply put, products need capital to make.  your options are to give control to some angel investors, sell your idea to a company who may just buy it in order to shut it down and not have a competitor , hope and pray and save on your own, or nothing.  now we have kickstarter to replace that last option.  another use of kickstarter is for already established usually small companies to gauge interest in a new product without the associated risk.  they do not have to risk capital spinning up a new product line only for it to fail with kickstarter, they basically sell the product through preorders.  other big use of kickstarter is for artists to produce high quality works without having to sign on with a label.  they use their fans money instead of singing on with someone who will control their artistic vision and rip them off in the end.   #  etc.  etc.  there are plenty of upsides for your risk.   #  i agree you are taking a risk.  to mitigate downsides kickstarter campaigns offer rewards to backers.  besides the fact that you universally get the product before anyone else, most products will offer special kickstarter editions, or kickstarter only swag in addition to the products, frequently there will be discounts on something else.  almost always the kickstarter price for the products are lower than the actual retail price of the product.  etc.  etc.  there are plenty of upsides for your risk.  and, they do not get the cash if they do not meet the funding goal.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.   #  modern capitalism opposes slavery by default; slavery is associated with pre industrial and hence pre capitalist economies.   # modern capitalism opposes slavery by default; slavery is associated with pre industrial and hence pre capitalist economies.  there is no freeing to be done.  an equal opportunity is not always a good opportunity.  zero opportunity for everyone is still an equal opportunity.  unless you can demonstrate that socialism would increase net opportunity this is not a valid argument in favour.  where did this idea that capitalism is a social ideology that treats people as consumers come from ? economic modelling treats people as producers and consumers because it needs precisely defined terms; it is mathematics after all.  both market socialism and centrally planned socialism would equally need to define people as consumers for economic management purposes; market socialism for the same reason that capitalism does, and centrally planned because it needs to try to determine production quotas to meet consumption.  depends on the exact form of socialism.  market socialism still supports profits, for instance.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  i take it you have not seen the horrors of pre capitalism or  isocialist  countries then ? again, where in the unholy fuck did the idea that capitalism involves treating people like consumers come from.  when you talk to a friend are you greeted with  hello consumer, what have you consumed today ?  .  no, you are not.  consumers is a purely economic term.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  market socialism also involves profiting off what people need.  nowhere in capitalist thought does it suggest that those without money are slaves; it is against modern capitalism for slaves to exist for modern capitalism allows people to choose what work they do if any.  free healthcare at point of delivery is not a socialist policy, and can even be done with private healthcare if the state pays them.  you do not even seem to understand what you are arguing against.  capitalism at it is most broad definition is the private ownership of labour saving machines, nothing more.   #  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.   #  an equal opportunity is not always a good opportunity.   # modern capitalism opposes slavery by default; slavery is associated with pre industrial and hence pre capitalist economies.  there is no freeing to be done.  an equal opportunity is not always a good opportunity.  zero opportunity for everyone is still an equal opportunity.  unless you can demonstrate that socialism would increase net opportunity this is not a valid argument in favour.  where did this idea that capitalism is a social ideology that treats people as consumers come from ? economic modelling treats people as producers and consumers because it needs precisely defined terms; it is mathematics after all.  both market socialism and centrally planned socialism would equally need to define people as consumers for economic management purposes; market socialism for the same reason that capitalism does, and centrally planned because it needs to try to determine production quotas to meet consumption.  depends on the exact form of socialism.  market socialism still supports profits, for instance.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  i take it you have not seen the horrors of pre capitalism or  isocialist  countries then ? again, where in the unholy fuck did the idea that capitalism involves treating people like consumers come from.  when you talk to a friend are you greeted with  hello consumer, what have you consumed today ?  .  no, you are not.  consumers is a purely economic term.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  market socialism also involves profiting off what people need.  nowhere in capitalist thought does it suggest that those without money are slaves; it is against modern capitalism for slaves to exist for modern capitalism allows people to choose what work they do if any.  free healthcare at point of delivery is not a socialist policy, and can even be done with private healthcare if the state pays them.  you do not even seem to understand what you are arguing against.  capitalism at it is most broad definition is the private ownership of labour saving machines, nothing more.   #  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.   #  where did this idea that capitalism is a social ideology that treats people as consumers come from ?  # modern capitalism opposes slavery by default; slavery is associated with pre industrial and hence pre capitalist economies.  there is no freeing to be done.  an equal opportunity is not always a good opportunity.  zero opportunity for everyone is still an equal opportunity.  unless you can demonstrate that socialism would increase net opportunity this is not a valid argument in favour.  where did this idea that capitalism is a social ideology that treats people as consumers come from ? economic modelling treats people as producers and consumers because it needs precisely defined terms; it is mathematics after all.  both market socialism and centrally planned socialism would equally need to define people as consumers for economic management purposes; market socialism for the same reason that capitalism does, and centrally planned because it needs to try to determine production quotas to meet consumption.  depends on the exact form of socialism.  market socialism still supports profits, for instance.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  i take it you have not seen the horrors of pre capitalism or  isocialist  countries then ? again, where in the unholy fuck did the idea that capitalism involves treating people like consumers come from.  when you talk to a friend are you greeted with  hello consumer, what have you consumed today ?  .  no, you are not.  consumers is a purely economic term.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  market socialism also involves profiting off what people need.  nowhere in capitalist thought does it suggest that those without money are slaves; it is against modern capitalism for slaves to exist for modern capitalism allows people to choose what work they do if any.  free healthcare at point of delivery is not a socialist policy, and can even be done with private healthcare if the state pays them.  you do not even seem to understand what you are arguing against.  capitalism at it is most broad definition is the private ownership of labour saving machines, nothing more.   #  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.   #  depends on the exact form of socialism.   # modern capitalism opposes slavery by default; slavery is associated with pre industrial and hence pre capitalist economies.  there is no freeing to be done.  an equal opportunity is not always a good opportunity.  zero opportunity for everyone is still an equal opportunity.  unless you can demonstrate that socialism would increase net opportunity this is not a valid argument in favour.  where did this idea that capitalism is a social ideology that treats people as consumers come from ? economic modelling treats people as producers and consumers because it needs precisely defined terms; it is mathematics after all.  both market socialism and centrally planned socialism would equally need to define people as consumers for economic management purposes; market socialism for the same reason that capitalism does, and centrally planned because it needs to try to determine production quotas to meet consumption.  depends on the exact form of socialism.  market socialism still supports profits, for instance.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  i take it you have not seen the horrors of pre capitalism or  isocialist  countries then ? again, where in the unholy fuck did the idea that capitalism involves treating people like consumers come from.  when you talk to a friend are you greeted with  hello consumer, what have you consumed today ?  .  no, you are not.  consumers is a purely economic term.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  market socialism also involves profiting off what people need.  nowhere in capitalist thought does it suggest that those without money are slaves; it is against modern capitalism for slaves to exist for modern capitalism allows people to choose what work they do if any.  free healthcare at point of delivery is not a socialist policy, and can even be done with private healthcare if the state pays them.  you do not even seem to understand what you are arguing against.  capitalism at it is most broad definition is the private ownership of labour saving machines, nothing more.   #  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  it gives the motive, but not the chance.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.   #  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.   # modern capitalism opposes slavery by default; slavery is associated with pre industrial and hence pre capitalist economies.  there is no freeing to be done.  an equal opportunity is not always a good opportunity.  zero opportunity for everyone is still an equal opportunity.  unless you can demonstrate that socialism would increase net opportunity this is not a valid argument in favour.  where did this idea that capitalism is a social ideology that treats people as consumers come from ? economic modelling treats people as producers and consumers because it needs precisely defined terms; it is mathematics after all.  both market socialism and centrally planned socialism would equally need to define people as consumers for economic management purposes; market socialism for the same reason that capitalism does, and centrally planned because it needs to try to determine production quotas to meet consumption.  depends on the exact form of socialism.  market socialism still supports profits, for instance.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  i take it you have not seen the horrors of pre capitalism or  isocialist  countries then ? again, where in the unholy fuck did the idea that capitalism involves treating people like consumers come from.  when you talk to a friend are you greeted with  hello consumer, what have you consumed today ?  .  no, you are not.  consumers is a purely economic term.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  market socialism also involves profiting off what people need.  nowhere in capitalist thought does it suggest that those without money are slaves; it is against modern capitalism for slaves to exist for modern capitalism allows people to choose what work they do if any.  free healthcare at point of delivery is not a socialist policy, and can even be done with private healthcare if the state pays them.  you do not even seem to understand what you are arguing against.  capitalism at it is most broad definition is the private ownership of labour saving machines, nothing more.   #  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  it is priority it treats people like consumers.   #  again, where in the unholy fuck did the idea that capitalism involves treating people like consumers come from.   # modern capitalism opposes slavery by default; slavery is associated with pre industrial and hence pre capitalist economies.  there is no freeing to be done.  an equal opportunity is not always a good opportunity.  zero opportunity for everyone is still an equal opportunity.  unless you can demonstrate that socialism would increase net opportunity this is not a valid argument in favour.  where did this idea that capitalism is a social ideology that treats people as consumers come from ? economic modelling treats people as producers and consumers because it needs precisely defined terms; it is mathematics after all.  both market socialism and centrally planned socialism would equally need to define people as consumers for economic management purposes; market socialism for the same reason that capitalism does, and centrally planned because it needs to try to determine production quotas to meet consumption.  depends on the exact form of socialism.  market socialism still supports profits, for instance.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  i take it you have not seen the horrors of pre capitalism or  isocialist  countries then ? again, where in the unholy fuck did the idea that capitalism involves treating people like consumers come from.  when you talk to a friend are you greeted with  hello consumer, what have you consumed today ?  .  no, you are not.  consumers is a purely economic term.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  market socialism also involves profiting off what people need.  nowhere in capitalist thought does it suggest that those without money are slaves; it is against modern capitalism for slaves to exist for modern capitalism allows people to choose what work they do if any.  free healthcare at point of delivery is not a socialist policy, and can even be done with private healthcare if the state pays them.  you do not even seem to understand what you are arguing against.  capitalism at it is most broad definition is the private ownership of labour saving machines, nothing more.   #  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.   #  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.   # modern capitalism opposes slavery by default; slavery is associated with pre industrial and hence pre capitalist economies.  there is no freeing to be done.  an equal opportunity is not always a good opportunity.  zero opportunity for everyone is still an equal opportunity.  unless you can demonstrate that socialism would increase net opportunity this is not a valid argument in favour.  where did this idea that capitalism is a social ideology that treats people as consumers come from ? economic modelling treats people as producers and consumers because it needs precisely defined terms; it is mathematics after all.  both market socialism and centrally planned socialism would equally need to define people as consumers for economic management purposes; market socialism for the same reason that capitalism does, and centrally planned because it needs to try to determine production quotas to meet consumption.  depends on the exact form of socialism.  market socialism still supports profits, for instance.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  i take it you have not seen the horrors of pre capitalism or  isocialist  countries then ? again, where in the unholy fuck did the idea that capitalism involves treating people like consumers come from.  when you talk to a friend are you greeted with  hello consumer, what have you consumed today ?  .  no, you are not.  consumers is a purely economic term.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  market socialism also involves profiting off what people need.  nowhere in capitalist thought does it suggest that those without money are slaves; it is against modern capitalism for slaves to exist for modern capitalism allows people to choose what work they do if any.  free healthcare at point of delivery is not a socialist policy, and can even be done with private healthcare if the state pays them.  you do not even seem to understand what you are arguing against.  capitalism at it is most broad definition is the private ownership of labour saving machines, nothing more.   #  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.   #  free healthcare at point of delivery is not a socialist policy, and can even be done with private healthcare if the state pays them.   # modern capitalism opposes slavery by default; slavery is associated with pre industrial and hence pre capitalist economies.  there is no freeing to be done.  an equal opportunity is not always a good opportunity.  zero opportunity for everyone is still an equal opportunity.  unless you can demonstrate that socialism would increase net opportunity this is not a valid argument in favour.  where did this idea that capitalism is a social ideology that treats people as consumers come from ? economic modelling treats people as producers and consumers because it needs precisely defined terms; it is mathematics after all.  both market socialism and centrally planned socialism would equally need to define people as consumers for economic management purposes; market socialism for the same reason that capitalism does, and centrally planned because it needs to try to determine production quotas to meet consumption.  depends on the exact form of socialism.  market socialism still supports profits, for instance.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  i take it you have not seen the horrors of pre capitalism or  isocialist  countries then ? again, where in the unholy fuck did the idea that capitalism involves treating people like consumers come from.  when you talk to a friend are you greeted with  hello consumer, what have you consumed today ?  .  no, you are not.  consumers is a purely economic term.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  market socialism also involves profiting off what people need.  nowhere in capitalist thought does it suggest that those without money are slaves; it is against modern capitalism for slaves to exist for modern capitalism allows people to choose what work they do if any.  free healthcare at point of delivery is not a socialist policy, and can even be done with private healthcare if the state pays them.  you do not even seem to understand what you are arguing against.  capitalism at it is most broad definition is the private ownership of labour saving machines, nothing more.   #  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.   #  capitalism is a term used to describe how an economy is organized; that is, it is the condition of an economy wherein each individual owns his property and organizes with other actors as he or she sees fit.   #  i strongly hope that you give this thread a chance.  i am not actually expecting that you will change your view but i would like a real challenge to mine, which is diametrically opposed to yours.  capitalism is a term used to describe how an economy is organized; that is, it is the condition of an economy wherein each individual owns his property and organizes with other actors as he or she sees fit.  ownership is defined as:   control over the chattel   the exclusive right to exclude control over the chattel it is not merely the means of production, but all property is privately owned; it is necessarily not limited to the productive means because if i cannot own my personal home, owning my factory is irrelevant.  slavery is defined as an economic condition of an individual wherein he does not own the produce of his labor.  capitalism cannot exist with slavery; that is, capitalism and slavery are antithetical to one another.  therefore your assertion is self contradictory.  furthermore, capitalists and entrepreneurs attempt to convince you to give them your money; microsoft did not put a gun to your head and force you to install ms windows, it convinced you to do so.  finally, employers do not enslave workers.  the workers have complete ownership over the produce of their labor their wage visavis their relationship with their employers.  now, what the government does to that wage is another story.  do you mean equal opportunity as a foundation or forced equal outcomes ? that is, if you will take an analogy of a forest, would you plant all trees in the same quality soil, or would you cut all tall trees so that the shorter trees can get to the sunlight ?  capitalism  does not treat anyone like anything neither does socialism .  capitalism does not exist as an actor.  capitalism is a term we use to describe the condition of an economy see my definition earlier .  individuals treat other individuals a certain way and socialist individuals will be just as heartless as capitalist individuals;  that is human nature and you cannot change it .  again, you are committing a category error.  you think socialism exists like a dog or a person; it does not.   socialism  is not an entity and cannot act, it is a term to describe the method of organizing an economy.  it does not treat anyone like anything; individuals treat other individuals a certain way.  human action in the aggregate is what you are trying to talk about and socialists are people.  people treat other people badly or well, not socialism and not capitalism.  i will stop pointing out your ongoing error of talking about socialism and capitalism as if  they  are entities and just move on.  you are incorrectly using the term  enslave  and you are not correctly understanding what  rough working conditions  means.  for example, capital investment not capitalism, but i am sure you see it as capitalism has created sweat shops in china and other places like burma myanmar and those are  rough  working conditions.  but those conditions are actually great and vast improvements over their previous conditions of sex slavery and working fields and dying from malnutrition.  you see a bad condition and you blame capitalism; but you ignore the previous conditions of those workers.  i think this is enough for now.  please, respond to each point i have made, please provide an alternative definition of slavery and ownership; if you cannot, admit your view is changed and you are now an anarcho capitalist like me.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  it gives the motive, but not the chance.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.   #  do you mean equal opportunity as a foundation or forced equal outcomes ?  #  i strongly hope that you give this thread a chance.  i am not actually expecting that you will change your view but i would like a real challenge to mine, which is diametrically opposed to yours.  capitalism is a term used to describe how an economy is organized; that is, it is the condition of an economy wherein each individual owns his property and organizes with other actors as he or she sees fit.  ownership is defined as:   control over the chattel   the exclusive right to exclude control over the chattel it is not merely the means of production, but all property is privately owned; it is necessarily not limited to the productive means because if i cannot own my personal home, owning my factory is irrelevant.  slavery is defined as an economic condition of an individual wherein he does not own the produce of his labor.  capitalism cannot exist with slavery; that is, capitalism and slavery are antithetical to one another.  therefore your assertion is self contradictory.  furthermore, capitalists and entrepreneurs attempt to convince you to give them your money; microsoft did not put a gun to your head and force you to install ms windows, it convinced you to do so.  finally, employers do not enslave workers.  the workers have complete ownership over the produce of their labor their wage visavis their relationship with their employers.  now, what the government does to that wage is another story.  do you mean equal opportunity as a foundation or forced equal outcomes ? that is, if you will take an analogy of a forest, would you plant all trees in the same quality soil, or would you cut all tall trees so that the shorter trees can get to the sunlight ?  capitalism  does not treat anyone like anything neither does socialism .  capitalism does not exist as an actor.  capitalism is a term we use to describe the condition of an economy see my definition earlier .  individuals treat other individuals a certain way and socialist individuals will be just as heartless as capitalist individuals;  that is human nature and you cannot change it .  again, you are committing a category error.  you think socialism exists like a dog or a person; it does not.   socialism  is not an entity and cannot act, it is a term to describe the method of organizing an economy.  it does not treat anyone like anything; individuals treat other individuals a certain way.  human action in the aggregate is what you are trying to talk about and socialists are people.  people treat other people badly or well, not socialism and not capitalism.  i will stop pointing out your ongoing error of talking about socialism and capitalism as if  they  are entities and just move on.  you are incorrectly using the term  enslave  and you are not correctly understanding what  rough working conditions  means.  for example, capital investment not capitalism, but i am sure you see it as capitalism has created sweat shops in china and other places like burma myanmar and those are  rough  working conditions.  but those conditions are actually great and vast improvements over their previous conditions of sex slavery and working fields and dying from malnutrition.  you see a bad condition and you blame capitalism; but you ignore the previous conditions of those workers.  i think this is enough for now.  please, respond to each point i have made, please provide an alternative definition of slavery and ownership; if you cannot, admit your view is changed and you are now an anarcho capitalist like me.   #  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.   #   capitalism  does not treat anyone like anything neither does socialism .   #  i strongly hope that you give this thread a chance.  i am not actually expecting that you will change your view but i would like a real challenge to mine, which is diametrically opposed to yours.  capitalism is a term used to describe how an economy is organized; that is, it is the condition of an economy wherein each individual owns his property and organizes with other actors as he or she sees fit.  ownership is defined as:   control over the chattel   the exclusive right to exclude control over the chattel it is not merely the means of production, but all property is privately owned; it is necessarily not limited to the productive means because if i cannot own my personal home, owning my factory is irrelevant.  slavery is defined as an economic condition of an individual wherein he does not own the produce of his labor.  capitalism cannot exist with slavery; that is, capitalism and slavery are antithetical to one another.  therefore your assertion is self contradictory.  furthermore, capitalists and entrepreneurs attempt to convince you to give them your money; microsoft did not put a gun to your head and force you to install ms windows, it convinced you to do so.  finally, employers do not enslave workers.  the workers have complete ownership over the produce of their labor their wage visavis their relationship with their employers.  now, what the government does to that wage is another story.  do you mean equal opportunity as a foundation or forced equal outcomes ? that is, if you will take an analogy of a forest, would you plant all trees in the same quality soil, or would you cut all tall trees so that the shorter trees can get to the sunlight ?  capitalism  does not treat anyone like anything neither does socialism .  capitalism does not exist as an actor.  capitalism is a term we use to describe the condition of an economy see my definition earlier .  individuals treat other individuals a certain way and socialist individuals will be just as heartless as capitalist individuals;  that is human nature and you cannot change it .  again, you are committing a category error.  you think socialism exists like a dog or a person; it does not.   socialism  is not an entity and cannot act, it is a term to describe the method of organizing an economy.  it does not treat anyone like anything; individuals treat other individuals a certain way.  human action in the aggregate is what you are trying to talk about and socialists are people.  people treat other people badly or well, not socialism and not capitalism.  i will stop pointing out your ongoing error of talking about socialism and capitalism as if  they  are entities and just move on.  you are incorrectly using the term  enslave  and you are not correctly understanding what  rough working conditions  means.  for example, capital investment not capitalism, but i am sure you see it as capitalism has created sweat shops in china and other places like burma myanmar and those are  rough  working conditions.  but those conditions are actually great and vast improvements over their previous conditions of sex slavery and working fields and dying from malnutrition.  you see a bad condition and you blame capitalism; but you ignore the previous conditions of those workers.  i think this is enough for now.  please, respond to each point i have made, please provide an alternative definition of slavery and ownership; if you cannot, admit your view is changed and you are now an anarcho capitalist like me.   #  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.   #  again, you are committing a category error.   #  i strongly hope that you give this thread a chance.  i am not actually expecting that you will change your view but i would like a real challenge to mine, which is diametrically opposed to yours.  capitalism is a term used to describe how an economy is organized; that is, it is the condition of an economy wherein each individual owns his property and organizes with other actors as he or she sees fit.  ownership is defined as:   control over the chattel   the exclusive right to exclude control over the chattel it is not merely the means of production, but all property is privately owned; it is necessarily not limited to the productive means because if i cannot own my personal home, owning my factory is irrelevant.  slavery is defined as an economic condition of an individual wherein he does not own the produce of his labor.  capitalism cannot exist with slavery; that is, capitalism and slavery are antithetical to one another.  therefore your assertion is self contradictory.  furthermore, capitalists and entrepreneurs attempt to convince you to give them your money; microsoft did not put a gun to your head and force you to install ms windows, it convinced you to do so.  finally, employers do not enslave workers.  the workers have complete ownership over the produce of their labor their wage visavis their relationship with their employers.  now, what the government does to that wage is another story.  do you mean equal opportunity as a foundation or forced equal outcomes ? that is, if you will take an analogy of a forest, would you plant all trees in the same quality soil, or would you cut all tall trees so that the shorter trees can get to the sunlight ?  capitalism  does not treat anyone like anything neither does socialism .  capitalism does not exist as an actor.  capitalism is a term we use to describe the condition of an economy see my definition earlier .  individuals treat other individuals a certain way and socialist individuals will be just as heartless as capitalist individuals;  that is human nature and you cannot change it .  again, you are committing a category error.  you think socialism exists like a dog or a person; it does not.   socialism  is not an entity and cannot act, it is a term to describe the method of organizing an economy.  it does not treat anyone like anything; individuals treat other individuals a certain way.  human action in the aggregate is what you are trying to talk about and socialists are people.  people treat other people badly or well, not socialism and not capitalism.  i will stop pointing out your ongoing error of talking about socialism and capitalism as if  they  are entities and just move on.  you are incorrectly using the term  enslave  and you are not correctly understanding what  rough working conditions  means.  for example, capital investment not capitalism, but i am sure you see it as capitalism has created sweat shops in china and other places like burma myanmar and those are  rough  working conditions.  but those conditions are actually great and vast improvements over their previous conditions of sex slavery and working fields and dying from malnutrition.  you see a bad condition and you blame capitalism; but you ignore the previous conditions of those workers.  i think this is enough for now.  please, respond to each point i have made, please provide an alternative definition of slavery and ownership; if you cannot, admit your view is changed and you are now an anarcho capitalist like me.   #  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.   #  i will stop pointing out your ongoing error of talking about socialism and capitalism as if  they  are entities and just move on.   #  i strongly hope that you give this thread a chance.  i am not actually expecting that you will change your view but i would like a real challenge to mine, which is diametrically opposed to yours.  capitalism is a term used to describe how an economy is organized; that is, it is the condition of an economy wherein each individual owns his property and organizes with other actors as he or she sees fit.  ownership is defined as:   control over the chattel   the exclusive right to exclude control over the chattel it is not merely the means of production, but all property is privately owned; it is necessarily not limited to the productive means because if i cannot own my personal home, owning my factory is irrelevant.  slavery is defined as an economic condition of an individual wherein he does not own the produce of his labor.  capitalism cannot exist with slavery; that is, capitalism and slavery are antithetical to one another.  therefore your assertion is self contradictory.  furthermore, capitalists and entrepreneurs attempt to convince you to give them your money; microsoft did not put a gun to your head and force you to install ms windows, it convinced you to do so.  finally, employers do not enslave workers.  the workers have complete ownership over the produce of their labor their wage visavis their relationship with their employers.  now, what the government does to that wage is another story.  do you mean equal opportunity as a foundation or forced equal outcomes ? that is, if you will take an analogy of a forest, would you plant all trees in the same quality soil, or would you cut all tall trees so that the shorter trees can get to the sunlight ?  capitalism  does not treat anyone like anything neither does socialism .  capitalism does not exist as an actor.  capitalism is a term we use to describe the condition of an economy see my definition earlier .  individuals treat other individuals a certain way and socialist individuals will be just as heartless as capitalist individuals;  that is human nature and you cannot change it .  again, you are committing a category error.  you think socialism exists like a dog or a person; it does not.   socialism  is not an entity and cannot act, it is a term to describe the method of organizing an economy.  it does not treat anyone like anything; individuals treat other individuals a certain way.  human action in the aggregate is what you are trying to talk about and socialists are people.  people treat other people badly or well, not socialism and not capitalism.  i will stop pointing out your ongoing error of talking about socialism and capitalism as if  they  are entities and just move on.  you are incorrectly using the term  enslave  and you are not correctly understanding what  rough working conditions  means.  for example, capital investment not capitalism, but i am sure you see it as capitalism has created sweat shops in china and other places like burma myanmar and those are  rough  working conditions.  but those conditions are actually great and vast improvements over their previous conditions of sex slavery and working fields and dying from malnutrition.  you see a bad condition and you blame capitalism; but you ignore the previous conditions of those workers.  i think this is enough for now.  please, respond to each point i have made, please provide an alternative definition of slavery and ownership; if you cannot, admit your view is changed and you are now an anarcho capitalist like me.   #  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.   #  i can agree that by definition socialism is not capitalism   socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.   # i can agree that by definition socialism is not capitalism   socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.  it does not, those born to wealth die in wealth, those born to power die in power.  every socialist country still has have and have nots.  political power still moves through well connected families.  the only difference is that the start point changes when a country first goes full socialist.  no socialist country has treated people any better than some of the worst capitalist countries.  they strive to be better but historically they have never been that way.  socialist countries suffer from worse standards of living, less economic mobility, and less political freedom.  capitalism is not a bag of sunshine and rainbows either, but it kind of works.  it is not the best, it is just the best we have tried.  i am using wikipedia is list of socialist states URL as to what socialism is because you did not really describe what socialist system you are talking about.   #  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.   #  no socialist country has treated people any better than some of the worst capitalist countries.   # i can agree that by definition socialism is not capitalism   socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.  it does not, those born to wealth die in wealth, those born to power die in power.  every socialist country still has have and have nots.  political power still moves through well connected families.  the only difference is that the start point changes when a country first goes full socialist.  no socialist country has treated people any better than some of the worst capitalist countries.  they strive to be better but historically they have never been that way.  socialist countries suffer from worse standards of living, less economic mobility, and less political freedom.  capitalism is not a bag of sunshine and rainbows either, but it kind of works.  it is not the best, it is just the best we have tried.  i am using wikipedia is list of socialist states URL as to what socialism is because you did not really describe what socialist system you are talking about.   #  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.   #  socialist countries suffer from worse standards of living, less economic mobility, and less political freedom.   # i can agree that by definition socialism is not capitalism   socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.  it does not, those born to wealth die in wealth, those born to power die in power.  every socialist country still has have and have nots.  political power still moves through well connected families.  the only difference is that the start point changes when a country first goes full socialist.  no socialist country has treated people any better than some of the worst capitalist countries.  they strive to be better but historically they have never been that way.  socialist countries suffer from worse standards of living, less economic mobility, and less political freedom.  capitalism is not a bag of sunshine and rainbows either, but it kind of works.  it is not the best, it is just the best we have tried.  i am using wikipedia is list of socialist states URL as to what socialism is because you did not really describe what socialist system you are talking about.   #  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.   #  stealing peoples money is treating them like human beings ?  # what is capitalist enslavement ? a worker who works for an employer at his own free will because he is being benefited by the pay check ? do not compare slavery to voluntary employment.  everyone benefits under capitalism, the workers and the employers.  how ? if person a works twice as hard as person b, because person a actually has goals in life, under socialism, person a is surplus will be redistributed to the population, which includes person b.  that is stealing a persons money.  and that takes away any incentive for anyone to work harder than average, so you get no more innovation in that society, because why innovate when you ca not make a profit ? and since everyone is  equal , person b could lay back and relax and let others support him.  stealing peoples money is treating them like human beings ? the fact of the matter is that our society is constructed on individuals pursuing there separate interests aka consumers .  when you use the government to redistribute wealth, you are using force.  that is not treating anybody as a human being.  if you want to help others create charities, which do not force anyone to go use there hard earned money on all the irresponsible people of society.  i do believe that everyone should have an access to a free educations, so there is no reason a person born into poverty still ca not be relatively successful.  a free education gives everybody a shot.  in the pursuit of that goal, you take away the incentive for individuals who want to be better off than the masses.  and those individuals are who make society prosperous, by providing valuable products/services.   #  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
i believe that democratic socialism is the best ideology for a country to possess.  it is politics and programs should be revolved around it.  capitalism does not work, and therefore i oppose it.    democratic socialism frees the people from the capitalist enslavement.    socialism gives everyone an equal opportunity in live, whatever you are poor or rich.    socialism treats everyone like human beings, instead of consumers like capitalism does.    socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.  i have seen the horrors of capitalism.  it enslaves people with low salaries and rough working conditions.  by having profits as it is priority it treats people like consumers.  it makes the ideology morally bankrupt.  for example: private health care will have profits as it is goal.  it will therefore charge people so that they can be healthy, and does not care if the consumer is dying or not.  capitalism makes it right for companies to get a profit off of what people need.  capitalism therefore believes that only those with money are those that matter to society, and everyone else are mere slaves.  socialism treats people as human beings.  it is main goal is the betterment of people, and not profits.  therefore health care does not care about how full your wallet is, it cares about treating you and making you healthy again.  therefore everyone gets a place in society.  everyone is treated as equal, and as human beings.   #  socialism is only goal and motive is the well being off the masses, instead of profits like capitalism.   #  in the pursuit of that goal, you take away the incentive for individuals who want to be better off than the masses.   # what is capitalist enslavement ? a worker who works for an employer at his own free will because he is being benefited by the pay check ? do not compare slavery to voluntary employment.  everyone benefits under capitalism, the workers and the employers.  how ? if person a works twice as hard as person b, because person a actually has goals in life, under socialism, person a is surplus will be redistributed to the population, which includes person b.  that is stealing a persons money.  and that takes away any incentive for anyone to work harder than average, so you get no more innovation in that society, because why innovate when you ca not make a profit ? and since everyone is  equal , person b could lay back and relax and let others support him.  stealing peoples money is treating them like human beings ? the fact of the matter is that our society is constructed on individuals pursuing there separate interests aka consumers .  when you use the government to redistribute wealth, you are using force.  that is not treating anybody as a human being.  if you want to help others create charities, which do not force anyone to go use there hard earned money on all the irresponsible people of society.  i do believe that everyone should have an access to a free educations, so there is no reason a person born into poverty still ca not be relatively successful.  a free education gives everybody a shot.  in the pursuit of that goal, you take away the incentive for individuals who want to be better off than the masses.  and those individuals are who make society prosperous, by providing valuable products/services.   #  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.   #  i think the dirty secret about governmental and economic systems is that most of them  can  work just fine .  chances are that if it has been thought out thoroughly enough to have a name and a listing in wikipedia, then it will probably work as equally effectively as capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, monopoly capitalism, anarcho whateverism, and so on.  \  the reason they do not work when they do not work is because the culture of the nation has to fit, too.  if the culture of the people is inherently individualistic and liberal lowercase l liberal, or classic liberalism, common to western cultures , then you are gonna have a hard time with communism and socialism.  alternatively, if the culture is inherently based around the subjugation of the self for the good of the community certain asian cultures, for example , then communism or mixed economies may work better.  as the culture shifts, so must the government model and the economic models.  if you get the wrong match, it is going to fail.  in order for democratic socialism to work somewhere like the united states, you would need to begin with transforming the american culture first, and you will have a lot of work to do that will take an awful lot of time.  it might be easier in some western european nations, however, but not right away.  if you impose what you describe on most nations today, it is going to fit as well as a pink tutu on a football player.  not to say that pink tutus would not look good on others, though.   #  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.   #  i gave this response to another guy with a similar response as you.  it gives the motive, but not the chance.  everyone wants to be rich.  i believe that the key to success is a healthy life and a good education.  in capitalism you need money to get a good education and to stay healthy.  if you are born in to poverty, then you are very likely to stay there.  every single person at mcdonalds for example wants to be rich, but they have propably gone to some public education and could not continue past that point, because they could not afford it.  if we were to give these people a chance at education based on their intellect, instead of their wallet then everyone would both get the motivation and the chance.  that is what socialism does with the right reforms .  capitalism just makes everyone go in circles.  you are born in to poverty, and you are likely to die in poverty.  a poor man ca not go to law school at harvard, heck he ca not even probably go to college.  a rich man can do that, and he can get a good education if society provided 0 free education no matter what, then we would get more educated people.  we would get more carl sagans and less burger flippers.  it would also decrease crime since people who are poor have the motivation to get rich, but do not have the legal chance.  their only chance is then illegal, like becoming a drug lord or something.  i have heard the motivation argument many many times, and i give the same response.  so far nobody has convinced me, yet alone with that argument.   #  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.   #  socialism does offer a chance to better oneself.  in a capitalist system you want to be rich, but you ca not because you are probably poor.  therefore you ca not better yourself.  you have the motivation, but lack the opportunity.  in a socialist system you are giving both motivation and chance.  you can go to high school and college even if you are poor.  you can go study law school, become an attorney and get rich.  sweden is a very good example of a succesful socialist country.  others are norway, finland, denmark and many other countries in the eu.  sweden has one of the worlds lowest gini coefficients and very good social security.   #  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.   #  i was going to bring this up anyway but it will segway nicely into this comment.  sweden is without a doubt a capitalist country.  the incentives and motivations inherent to capitalism absolutely exist.  the only way in which it strikes me as exemplary is in its belief in giving everyone a fair go, and through a series of political institutions, ensures that an education is either free, or comes at a moderate cost that most people can comfortably afford.  the tuition fees when they do occur are generally manageable, and the terms for securing a student loan and for paying it off are quite generous and generally well managed.  which is probably why its as prosperous, literate and well educated as it is.  not perfect by any means, but it would simply be stating a falsehood to claim for a second that its not capitalist.  i agree its the best system going, and i think the real trick is to find a balance between a socialist system and capitalist incentives.  i think the swedish or by extension scandinavian model shows that its entirely possible, and that the strengths of both systems may well be massaged into a peaceful coexistence that supports one another.  in fact, that that sort of coexistence is as of yet the best system we have come up with.  i am swedish, but have spent my whole adult life living abroad, in quite a few countries, and as i get older, i become increasingly convinced of this.  but the bottom line for me is still that capitalism offers the right kind of incentives to build a prosperous society, and that the real trick is to marry it with an inclusive political system, that distributes wealth and education in a fair and considered way.  people could still opt out of getting themselves a proper education or making something of their lives, but so long as the option is there for you, then thats really all you can do.  the tradeoff is higher taxes and, compared to america, more restrictions on businesses and, to a lesser extent on individuals.  fair bloody trade if you ask me.
hey all, so, there are two parts to this.  first is simply that i do not think real community is possible any more.  for this, i think it is in our interests to define  community.   i am using the old definition, still used with slight modifications in ecology, in which  community  means a group of people who all interact with and often rely upon each other.  the reliance is not necessary for the definition although i think important, as i will get to in a minute .  the real crux seems to be that substantially all members of the community interact with substantially all other members.  now, i do not think that is possible anymore.  since we no longer need each other, we no longer truly care who our neighbors are, except in so far as they are actually our friends.  and even groups of friends, not relying on one another even for the most basic necessities, will be splintered.  so, while i might be friends with x and y and z, none of them know or much care about the other two.  this process began of course decades ago, once public services started taking over most of our lives and big box stores most of our shopping.  yet, the internet has accelerated the process incalculably.  now, this diffusion of interconnected people drains community of all meaning until we have expressions such as  the intelligence community  or  the hispanic community.   to explain this point, i will show a counter example.  there is a true community of people on many college campuses or, at least, in freshman dorms .  and this is because they need each other for the trials and travails of the college experience, for classwork, for home sickness, for alcohol sickness, and the first baby steps of adult socialization.  but, even here, it is only a shadow of the community in days of yore.  second, although i generally mistrust nostalgia, i think the social understanding and mixing that came about with real, olden tyme community was valuable.  you might have had nothing in common with your neighbor not religion, not politics, not even interests and yet the two of you had to work together in order to survive, and that meant an expansion of everyone is mind and a greater understanding of what makes people people.  have i made myself clear ? i hope so.  one more thing, cause i do not want this devolving into a  well that is the price you pay  argument.  if i have to pick community or modern technology, i am picking modern technology.  after all, i am asking this question on reddit.  i still think that the loss itself was a shame, not that there are not greater compensations in modern society.  thanks redditors !  #  since we no longer need each other, we no longer truly care who our neighbors are, except in so far as they are actually our friends.   #  and even groups of friends, not relying on one another even for the most basic necessities, will be splintered.   # and even groups of friends, not relying on one another even for the most basic necessities, will be splintered.  so, while i might be friends with x and y and z, none of them know or much care about the other two.  people were not all buddy buddy friends back in the olden days.  nor was it their best interest to depend on people they disliked or distrusted for their survival.  we have been competing for resources and power as long as we have been depending on each other for survival.  groups have splintered off on the basis of ideology, class, race, profession, and so forth for most of recorded history.  as society has generally become more peaceful, i am not sure that these communities fostered a greater understanding of people in general or whether they tended to create us vs.  them mentalities.  could you better explain how interaction based on preference, rather than necessity, is specifically brought on by technology ?  #  it is so easy to romanticize a place that you have never been and in most cases never really existed, at least not how you pictured it.   #  worlds change, communities change, but the idea of groups of people interacting and relying on each other is still the same.  the methods of communication are really what has changed, in fact they have enabled me to stay close with people who have moved far away in a way that was never possible before.  this does not mean i love them any less and it does not mean that i am any less here for them.  at the same time though, i do have a community of friends who are in close proximity to me, we even have skype dinner date with friends on the other coast.  you talk about nostalgia and that is a really tempting path to fall into.  it is so easy to romanticize a place that you have never been and in most cases never really existed, at least not how you pictured it.  i guess what i am trying to say is, community is what you make of it, instead of fighting the new ways people communicate realize thir potential for creating larger and more i depth communities than has ever been possible before.   #  i thought i knew the definition of community until i lived in rural wv for a year.   #  go down to appalachia.  i thought i knew the definition of community until i lived in rural wv for a year.  life is hard, money is tight, and people work together.  they give eachother goods and services for free, because they care for one another, and because they know that the other would do the same in return.  you may say:  this is an isolated example  but this is false.  sure the vast majority of people can exist in a post modern/post internet/ 0st century isolation existance; but there are huge populations of people who still live in the old style.  anywhere rural you will find community.  anywhere in appalachia, or isolated south america, or the rural eurasian/asian stepp, bosnia, africa, you name it.  you live in a bubble my friend !  #  except for i do not see any community in the places where i live.   #  except for i do not see any community in the places where i live.  perhaps it is just me, although i have looked at friends too.  but  community is what you make of it,  while a cute slogan, does not seem to mean anything.  or, if it means anything at all, is a tautology.  my point is that it is neigh impossible to create community outside of a deep seeded need for another.  i will give you another example.  i have relatives in small town oklahoma.  they have a community based on disaster relief and bankruptcies and car accidents and i might as well confess it church.  they stick up for each other not in a  how are you doing today  sort of way but in a  isure i will help you build that barn, thanks for helping deliver my child  sort of way.  i live in the most densely populated part of the u. s.  i do not see that anywhere where i live, and not in anyone.   #  i do not think that is true, a community is a group of people who support each other, who will come together when needed and are there to share both the triumphs and pitfalls of its members.   #  so you are saying that communities can need to be based on disaster and hard times ? i do not think that is true, a community is a group of people who support each other, who will come together when needed and are there to share both the triumphs and pitfalls of its members.  who will do things for each other not because  you helped me build my barn  but because they care for the person who needs help.  this type of social construct does not need to be a town.  it just needs to be a group of people.  this can be found in even the densest parts of the country, online, or half way across the world.  so yes community is exactly what you make of it and if you are not finding what you need around you, look in different places and stop defining what a community needs to be so narrowly.  step out of your comfort zone and maybe you will find people to stand with you.  furthermore, having actually grown up in a rural, small town community i can tell you first hand that small towns are not what people think they are, especially in rural areas.  the poverty and desperation for a better life of the residents manifests it is self in hostility, gossip and resentment over the jobs and resources that continue to disappear with each day.
i feel like my argument against such exemptions is very simple perhaps too simple and i am sure that there are some holes in it.  this might be an easy cmv.  basically, i see two possible categories of laws that might contain religious exemptions.  let is leave out tax laws, because i think that is a separate issue.  0.  laws that prevent us from harming others.  0.  laws that do not prevent us from harming others.  laws in the first category should apply to everyone.  a deeply held ideology should not give a person a right to harm someone else without their consent.  religiously justified crimes against people are still crimes.  allowing a particular religion to be exempt from one of these laws makes the rest of us more vulnerable, and weakens the purpose of government to protect our natural rights .  laws in the second category are usually where religious exemptions are found.  these sort of laws are usually about what one is allowed to do to oneself.  if it is safe to allow for religious exemptions to these laws, then it should be safe to abandon these laws all together.  i guess i can see value to religious exemptions in a very narrow subset of these laws, such as allowing indigenous people exclusive access to certain sacred burial grounds or something like that.  a suitable summary of my argument would be  where religious exemptions to laws harm others, those religious exemptions should not exist.  where religious exemptions do not harm others, those laws should not exist.   change my view.   #  laws in the second category are usually where religious exemptions are found.   #  these sort of laws are usually about what one is allowed to do to oneself.   # even the unborn ? currently it is legal to kill the unborn which contradicts your simple rule.  these sort of laws are usually about what one is allowed to do to oneself.  if it is safe to allow for religious exemptions to these laws, then it should be safe to abandon these laws all together.  so we should force the amish into joining the military ? is that not harming the community because they do not put in their fair share ? what about religious exemptions to vaccinations, is that not a danger to the community because it allows for a place for a disease to incubate ? if we do away with laws because exemptions exist then we have to do away with some laws that are going to affect things in a big way.  we are also going to have to change the 0st amendment which will probably destroy the nation.   #  if it were to be made legal, it would not be restricted to controlled environments and users would not be supervised while they were under the influence.   #  in native american rituals that use peyote, it is used in a relatively small/controlled quantity.  the users are also supervised by religious leaders the whole time they are under the influence.  it is not legal for recreational/unsupervised use, even within native american communities.  if it were to be made legal, it would not be restricted to controlled environments and users would not be supervised while they were under the influence.  this creates much greater risks for the users and for the people who would encounter them while they are under the influence.  in the catholic church, it is legal for children under 0 to consume alcohol in the form of communion, not because the church is making a statement that children should be allowed alcohol, but because it is part of the church is rites.  it is the same for peyote. it is not allowed because it is  enlightening , but because it is part of a particular rite.   #  there is already a small allowance for this in a circumstance where there is a good reason for it alcohol is useful for the preservation of the active ingredient in solution, and is part of the delivery system .   # you are absolutely right.  there is already a small allowance for this in a circumstance where there is a good reason for it alcohol is useful for the preservation of the active ingredient in solution, and is part of the delivery system .  with peyote, the religious rite it is a very serious/important part of the religion.  the exception is therefore not an acceptance of the use of the drug, but rather a recognition of the importance of the drug to the religion it is a part of.  i think you would be hard pressed to make an argument that art appreciation is of the same importance as religion.  art is culture, art is entertainment. religion is a major building block of peoples  entire culture, and a major part of many peoples  lives not to mention a freedom guaranteed in the constitution .  can you make an argument as to what use peyote would have, other than recreational, that might qualify it as so important that it is worth making an exception to the law ?  #  it is only an erroneous assumption that religion is somehow more  valid  than appreciating art.   #  it is not government is place to decide the relative importance of religion or other things in people is lives.  whether one person is religion is more or less important than another person is appreciation of art is completely subjective.  there is no objective, logical basis for such a determination.  it is only an erroneous assumption that religion is somehow more  valid  than appreciating art.  i believe you are committing a logical fallacy called  argument from tradition  where something is seen is more valid simply because it is traditional.  as a musician it helps me appreciate and create better music.  this is at least as valid as stated reason of religion assistance with accessing supposed  ispirits  which there is no evidence that they even exist.  at least the music i create and listen to is verifiably real.   #  it is important to consider the degree of harm, the range of it, and the benefits.   #  i think that boiling laws down to those two basic types is somewhat misleading.  it is important to consider the degree of harm, the range of it, and the benefits.  for example, let is consider laws in a community that is largely amish.  there are a large number such of people whose religious convictions lead them to do things like use a horse drawn buggy.  in other communities, like say nyc, such things are allowed only for professional drivers, who i am sure pay a hefty license fee.  but in smaller communities, the  harm  of clogging up the roadways with slower vehicles is minute, and the benefit is that the law now serves the majority of people, with reasonable allowances made for each.  or consider religious exemptions to the affordable care act.  in theory, if everyone claimed such an exemption, the act would fail.  but we know that it is likely that many people will not, so we get the benefit of the system assuming it can be made to work properly without infringing on the rights of a certain minority to be free of it.  i suppose what it boils down to is whether you see  harm  as a black and white thing, or whether you are willing to accept certain degrees of it from minorities in order that their personal convictions are not violated.
i recently found out about a situation that happened in my class. girl a was dating boy b. a decided to break up with b, and b was devastated by this. c a is best friend , started spending time with b to try to confort him, and they have now started dating.  b is now mad at c, and has decided to break all contact and start hating her. a number of people support her decision and think it is justified and right.  i do not agree with that. i can understand that if it was b that had broken up with her, she might feel something like betrayal and might find hard to keep being friends. however, to start attacking somebody for dating your ex is very inmature and wrong. while i understand that a break up might be emotionally damaging, it still should nt give you the right to be an asshole.  i think that the underlaying reason for this is the tought that dating somebody somehow gives you special privileges.  people are not private property, and having dated somebody does not give you the right to restrict who can they date. furthermore, i believe that, as long as we do not directly harm others, we shoul be free to act as we please.  the arguments i have received are all variations of  bros before hoes  and  she is a bitch if she does that,she shoulnd t be allowed . i would like to hear some rational arguments instead of hormonal emotional babble.  sorry if something is not clear, i n not a native speaker. thanks.   #  people are not private property, and having dated somebody does not give you the right to restrict who can they date. furthermore, i believe that, as long as we do not directly harm others, we shoul be free to act as we please.   #  does that not also include the right to stop trusting and criticize someone is actions ?  # does that not also include the right to stop trusting and criticize someone is actions ? i do not think feeling betrayed by your friend implies people are private property nor removes someones is right to date.  what a relationship starts, unless exceptional conditions, there must have been some sexual or romantic tension before that, and this happened while the previous relationship was ongoing.  so it depends on if you think love  happens to you  or if you think you have a say in who you fall for.  if the latter then falling for a friend is ex makes you untrusteorthy as a friend and someone who puts penis value above friendship. not illegal but questionable.   #  relationships are not black and white so trying to get a black and white answer is going to be a fools errand.   #  words like  wrong  or  right  do not really apply in this situation.  i think you are attempting to find out if  a  should be allowed to be upset that her friend  c  is now dating  b .  the answer is that everyone in this scenario is allowed to have their feelings.  this includes  a .  her feelings of betrayal are not unjustified as her feelings for  b  do not just end with the relationship.  ending a relationship is not always because you are  wouldone , but sometimes because it is not working out no matter how much you love the other person.  on the other side of the count  b  and  c  are justified in wanting to date each other, but they have to accept that it is their choice to end the relationship with  a .  when they decided to foster this union they had to understand the social stigma involved with friends former partners.  this is not new ground.  i know it is hard to accept, but the answer is that there is not a clear answer.  relationships are not black and white so trying to get a black and white answer is going to be a fools errand.  hope that helps.   #  now, this is totally healthy; you just need to fill that hole by focusing more on yourself; do things you enjoy, see people that you are happy are part of your support system, etc.   #  because when you date someone intimately, you share a large part of your life with them.  you get used to having them in your life, and when they are gone even if you broke up with them, not vice versa , it leaves a hole in your life that you are not used to.  now, this is totally healthy; you just need to fill that hole by focusing more on yourself; do things you enjoy, see people that you are happy are part of your support system, etc.  however, being constantly exposed to your ex means that your healing process is going to be impeded.  if your friend starts dating your ex, that means that all of a sudden, they are a big part of your life again; you will think about them much more often, and you may even see them or talk about them a lot more because of it.  so no, it is not a  terrible friend forever  thing.  however, the truth is that it impedes your friend is natural healing process after a breakup, and that is quite thoughtless.   #  maybe b really hurt a with his actions and that is why she called things off.   # who said that was the case ? maybe a really liked b, but did not agree with his political views or something like that.  maybe a realized that she was not going to be able to maintain a ldr with b when school ended, but still cares for him.  maybe b really hurt a with his actions and that is why she called things off.  just because you break up with someone does not mean you do not care about them, it just means that you do not want to be in a relationship anymore.  you can be in love with a person and still break up with them for a good reason.  on the other hand, many people have strong, negative feelings about their exs.  in that case, do you really think they want to deal with their best friend dating said ex ? having to heard said friend talk about the ex ? seeing said friend hanging out with the ex ?  #  tldr; it is not wrong to date a friend is ex, but if you date a friend is ex then it is not wrong for that friend to cut you from their life, because obviously their feelings are not important to you.   #  there is no such thing as  wrong .  a good philosophy professor can argue to a whole classroom that there is nothing  wrong  with murdering infants.  literally, i have seen it.   wrong  is subjective and nobody will be able to convince you that dating a friend is ex is wrong.  however, dating a friend is ex can be really hurtful toward the friend, and though i have never been in a situation like this, if i ever dated a friend is ex then i would be  expecting  that friend to blacklist me.  it is not that it is wrong, it is that the ex is a tender spot in the heart of your friend, and seeing you with them is definitely painful for them.  so why would they want to be friends with someone so disinterested in how they feel.  in that sort of situation it is obvious that the friend cares more about some bullshit puppy dog love than their friend is own feelings.  which is bullshit.  tldr; it is not wrong to date a friend is ex, but if you date a friend is ex then it is not wrong for that friend to cut you from their life, because obviously their feelings are not important to you.
instruments have such wild limitations compared to a normal composition programs that i think they are obsolete in the modern musical world.  they have imperfection, and you cant control the frequencies of the sounds you are making as well.  people will spend years learning how to make a single sound, instead of all possible sounds.  when you play an instrument, you are just a drone, an atomaton playing someone else is piece.  it is like being a soldier vs being the president.  sure, it takes a lot of work, but it is a waste of talent.   #  when you play an instrument, you are just a drone, an atomaton playing someone else is piece.   #  do you care to elaborate on this one ?  # do you care to elaborate on this one ? i do not follow whatsoever.  there is nothing inherent in playing a  real  instrument or an electronic one that dictates whether you can play original music or someone else is music.  i can play an original song on a  real  guitar just as easily as i can play beethoven on a digital synthesizer.  music is about making sounds that are pleasing.  you can do this with any tool you have available.  there are doctors of music theory who can create beautiful music on an electronic instrument.  there are doctors of music theory who can play and create boring music on  real  instruments.  there are people who have no formal understanding of music that can make good or shitty music on  real  instruments and electronic ones.  to the musician who is interested in creating good music, every new instrument and technique is a new tool that can be utilized to expand music is horizons.  different instruments and techniques lend themselves to different genres.  dance music, which demands a rock solid, pumping, consistent rhythm benefits from quantized, digitally controlled bass and drums that can maintain an identical beat throughout a piece.  jazz, on the other hand, thrives on intricate and nuanced variations in rhythm and dynamics, which is achieved much easier with a talented drummer and a set of brushes, as opposed to a keyboard or pad.  a synthesizer is capable of creating sounds that no traditional instrument ever could, while at the same time a distorted tube amp will respond randomly to a guitar to create a sound that can never be replicated with a vst plugin.  in other words, if you are trying to make arguments about which instruments are better than others, it sounds like you are more worried about keeping up with appearances and stroking your own ego than you are with creating the best music possible.  it is possible that the sort of music you enjoy lends itself to strictly digital instruments.  but if you deny that other types of music can be achieved through other means, then there is no point in really arguing with you.  and the automaton argument just does not make sense, as far as i can see.  i play cover songs on digital instruments all the time, just as i play original music on traditional instruments.  i fail to see a connection there.   #  i have been in several jazz bands, i play the trombone.   #  i have been in several jazz bands, i play the trombone.  have you ever seen a jazz lead sheet ? looks something like this: URL you get a melody and chord changes and that is about it.  there might be a bass version with a walking bass line in there, but not always.  now, give four copies of the above sheet to some experienced jazz musicians and you get something like this: URL this sort of stuff comes out of people is brains as they play through experience, practice, knowing your group.  i have seen guys hit a  wrong  note as they are playing, and then really own that note, and just take it crazy places that sounds really good.  and it is not just jazz, you have the same sort of thing in all genres.  everything from the grateful dead having 0 minute long  space jams  where they just rock out making up things based loosely on their other songs, to a metal musician thrashing with an improvised solo, to a classical soloist performing a technically impressive cadenza.  and that is the thing: when you practice an instrument you are not attempting to learn how to  make a single sound .  you are trying to make the instrument an extension of yourself so that you can make all the sounds you want it to make.  when you get good, you can compose in real time.  in essence it is simply a different kind of voice.   #  however after many years of producing, remixing, mixing down computer based music usually on my own then you gain some perspective.   #  as a fellow producer or electronic music i understand where you are coming from, especially with the  areal musicians are automatons  argument i did my 0th form critical study on this stuff about 0 years back and i formerly held your view as a teenage techno nerd.  the major flaw in your view is in regard to improvisation, and timbre.  there is nothing quite like picking out a melody on a grand piano and improvising around it.  no ableton or kontakt preset comes close to the sound of actual wood on actual string, reverberating round a large chamber, and vsts just cant beat the nuances you can coax out of this odd contraption.  you are confusing production with performance.  when i was younger i could not comprehend why these  willesser   spit   amusicians  with their  puke   areal instruments  would want to limit themselves to one sound, do not they realise its all been done before ? do not they realize the mixdown is appalling ? however after many years of producing, remixing, mixing down computer based music usually on my own then you gain some perspective.  these people are most likely enjoying the pure joy of musical interaction with other musicians and while jamming, they are most likely generating new ideas or little moments of excitement that a computer based musician so rarely comes across.  all that said, tonight i will most likely sit down at my octatrack and write even more bleak techno :  #  a sculptor could make the same shapes, and more, with 0d printing; but there is more to art than simply creating the exact same result.   #  there are millions of dollars made by them because there are people willing to pay to hear it.  just because people will pay to watch motocross does not mean that watching horse racing is invalid.  as to sounding  tight , that is at best a personal choice.  music, like art, has meaning primarily some would say only in the eye or, in this case, ear of the beholder.  the reasons to appreciate art can go beyond the strictly rational; you call someone who plays an instrument an automaton.  someone might use the same term for someone unable to appreciate the different between an oboe and a synthesis of the sounds from an oboe.  some people like to limit their medium to more completely understand the scope.  an artist that uses only oil paints has limitations, but that does not mean that photoshop should replace them all.  a sculptor could make the same shapes, and more, with 0d printing; but there is more to art than simply creating the exact same result.  the process can have as much meaning as the result.   #  URL there are few things that can give you the feeling of a genuine talent behind a genuine instrument.   #  instruments are very far from being obsolete.  just because you prefer music without actual instruments does not mean that they are in fact worthless.  take a listen to this.  URL there are few things that can give you the feeling of a genuine talent behind a genuine instrument.  part of the joys of instruments are the imperfections, which is why it is so pleasing to hear a true master working his craft.  the tone of an instrument can also give away who is playing it, the same as someone is voice can.  if carlos santana hits one note, you know it is him.  plus, taking a classical instrument to a modern song can turn a rather meaningless song into something beautiful.  see taylor swift is  trouble when you walked in  turned amazing via violin.  URL i also take contention with your notion that you spend years to make a single sound.  if we a look at the guitar, we can see all sorts of different sounds that are possible.  jazz scales, bluegrass picking, dimebag is artificial harmonics, and even power chords all have vastly different sounds, but all come from the same instrument.  talk boxes ? come on, man.  my question to you: how does playing an instrument make you  just a drone, an atomaton sic playing someone else is piece  ?
the way i see it, the main controversy comes at whether abortion implies killing another human being or not.  to solve this, we need to define what being alive means legally.  i propose that being alive should be measured by brain activity since its our brain what makes us sentient.  so, if a fetus does not show any signs of brain activity then its not a living human being yet and could be legally aborted.  this definition bypasses both religious and ethical concerns, potentially makind the abort issue way easier to solve.   #  to solve this, we need to define what being alive means legally.   #  i propose that being alive should be measured by brain activity since its our brain what makes us sentient.   # i propose that being alive should be measured by brain activity since its our brain what makes us sentient.  what a great idea ! and alas, brain activity does not develop from  off  to suddenly  on  it develops and grows with the fetus and it is body and brain and even after birth and even arguably for many decades after ! and what is the brain ? we should probably include the  central nervous system , that network of neurons through the body which the brain is a part of.  did you know that echinoderms like starfish lack a brain entirely, yet are efficient predators that move around and can locate prey using a nerve net with no centralization such as a brain and they are certainly alive ! are trees and flowers alive ? they are, compared to a rock ! and they have no neural activity at all.  so it seems being  alive  is not enough reason to say whether something should or should not die ! another example why the definition of being alive does not help with judging whether a kill is murder: if we are attacked, we are justified in killing in self defence.  what we might be looking for is a definition of  what it means to be a  human  , and an answer to the question  when does being a human begin  ?  #  you did not tell this person they could spend the night.   #  i think that can be argued against.  i am going to continue with the trespassing metaphor.  let is say you throw a giant house party.  you have invited all your friends, and they have invited their friends.  you have an open door policy, and people are allowed to come and go as they please.  the next day, you discover someone passed out in your guest room.  you did not tell this person they could spend the night.  everyone was supposed to leave.  unfortunately, you ended up with this unwanted guest as a result of the fact that you left your door open to anyone and were serving alcohol.  are you allowed to shoot this person as a trespasser ? i think that by your logic, you should be able to kill your drunken guest.   #  secondly, if bodily autonomy  always  trumps the right to life, any and all restrictions on late term abortions or inducing labor so early it puts the life of the fetus at risk, would need to be overturned.   #  there are quite a few problems with bodily autonomy arguments.  assuming the unborn are persons, which your argument intrinsically does, the mother would have a legal obligation for the safety of the fetus, the same as any other of her born children.  this puts any comparison with strangers using your body versus your own children in dispute.  you have no obligation to maintain the safety of strangers.  you are legally responsible for the life of your children.  secondly, if bodily autonomy  always  trumps the right to life, any and all restrictions on late term abortions or inducing labor so early it puts the life of the fetus at risk, would need to be overturned.  this means roe vs wade would need to be overturned, as it explicitly grants states the permission to limit late term abortions.  another point is that the vast majority of unintentional pregnancies are the result of consensual sex.  even if you do not directly consent to being pregnant, you still consented to an act which has the possibility of resulting in pregnancy.  unintentional tort laws still hold people accountable for violations of other people rights, even if they did not directly consent to violating that persons rights.   #  however, i still do not think that obligation to protect your child is life extends to government mandated surrender of bodily autonomy.   #  i had not considered the legal responsibility to your children, but that is a good point to raise.  however, i still do not think that obligation to protect your child is life extends to government mandated surrender of bodily autonomy.  obviously i am no legal expert, i am just a guy with a computer, but at least in my judgement that is too far, especially if the woman is pregnancy was unintentional.  as far as the issues with roe v.  wade go, i guess following the logic of my argument would lead to a conclusion that it should be overturned.  i do not see any issue with that, although i did not realize it did explicitly grant that permission, so thanks for the info, honestly.  as to the last point, i have a rough time elucidating my issue with it, but hopefully this makes sense.  i do not see the precedent or clear legal justification for the idea that in engaging in consensual sex, you take on accountability for the rights of a person that does not exist yet.  while you can certainly be held accountable for violations of others  rights even if you did not directly consent, it implies that there was something you had the responsibility to another person to do or refrain from doing, but the idea of that kind of legal obligation to a potential future person seems like a difficult stretch of the system.  but your point is a good one, clearly i need to do some more thinking about this.  of course, being a guy, this is all theoretical for me, but it is still interesting.   #  none of those things stop us from killing people in any case.   # not entirely.  for instance, i do not care in the slightest about definitions.  to me, abortion is not a matter of whether the fetus is alive or not obviously is i think , human or not also is, in my view , or a person or not fuzzier, but i do not really care either way .  none of those things stop us from killing people in any case.  if i kill an attacker in self defense, they are alive, human, and a person, and yet if my action is justified, i will be seen as in the right.  same goes for the murder argument murder is a legal term, and if abortion is legal, it is automatically not murder.  for me morality is a question of minimizing suffering, and the question of abortion works out to: is there more suffering when it is allowed, or when it is not ?
the way i see it, the main controversy comes at whether abortion implies killing another human being or not.  to solve this, we need to define what being alive means legally.  i propose that being alive should be measured by brain activity since its our brain what makes us sentient.  so, if a fetus does not show any signs of brain activity then its not a living human being yet and could be legally aborted.  this definition bypasses both religious and ethical concerns, potentially makind the abort issue way easier to solve.   #  the way i see it, the main controversy comes at whether abortion implies killing another human being or not.   #  that is part of it but not all of it.   # that is part of it but not all of it.  nope, we need to solve this by agreeing on that definition.  we already have a legal definition for abortion.  it is viability.  that has not solved shit.  it does not bypass them at all.  it assumes its own definition of person hood which may or may not be different from various moral/religious theories.  that does not solve the problem anymore than our current definition fails to solve the problem.  a legal definition does not compel intellectual consent.   #  you have an open door policy, and people are allowed to come and go as they please.   #  i think that can be argued against.  i am going to continue with the trespassing metaphor.  let is say you throw a giant house party.  you have invited all your friends, and they have invited their friends.  you have an open door policy, and people are allowed to come and go as they please.  the next day, you discover someone passed out in your guest room.  you did not tell this person they could spend the night.  everyone was supposed to leave.  unfortunately, you ended up with this unwanted guest as a result of the fact that you left your door open to anyone and were serving alcohol.  are you allowed to shoot this person as a trespasser ? i think that by your logic, you should be able to kill your drunken guest.   #  unintentional tort laws still hold people accountable for violations of other people rights, even if they did not directly consent to violating that persons rights.   #  there are quite a few problems with bodily autonomy arguments.  assuming the unborn are persons, which your argument intrinsically does, the mother would have a legal obligation for the safety of the fetus, the same as any other of her born children.  this puts any comparison with strangers using your body versus your own children in dispute.  you have no obligation to maintain the safety of strangers.  you are legally responsible for the life of your children.  secondly, if bodily autonomy  always  trumps the right to life, any and all restrictions on late term abortions or inducing labor so early it puts the life of the fetus at risk, would need to be overturned.  this means roe vs wade would need to be overturned, as it explicitly grants states the permission to limit late term abortions.  another point is that the vast majority of unintentional pregnancies are the result of consensual sex.  even if you do not directly consent to being pregnant, you still consented to an act which has the possibility of resulting in pregnancy.  unintentional tort laws still hold people accountable for violations of other people rights, even if they did not directly consent to violating that persons rights.   #  but your point is a good one, clearly i need to do some more thinking about this.   #  i had not considered the legal responsibility to your children, but that is a good point to raise.  however, i still do not think that obligation to protect your child is life extends to government mandated surrender of bodily autonomy.  obviously i am no legal expert, i am just a guy with a computer, but at least in my judgement that is too far, especially if the woman is pregnancy was unintentional.  as far as the issues with roe v.  wade go, i guess following the logic of my argument would lead to a conclusion that it should be overturned.  i do not see any issue with that, although i did not realize it did explicitly grant that permission, so thanks for the info, honestly.  as to the last point, i have a rough time elucidating my issue with it, but hopefully this makes sense.  i do not see the precedent or clear legal justification for the idea that in engaging in consensual sex, you take on accountability for the rights of a person that does not exist yet.  while you can certainly be held accountable for violations of others  rights even if you did not directly consent, it implies that there was something you had the responsibility to another person to do or refrain from doing, but the idea of that kind of legal obligation to a potential future person seems like a difficult stretch of the system.  but your point is a good one, clearly i need to do some more thinking about this.  of course, being a guy, this is all theoretical for me, but it is still interesting.   #  if i kill an attacker in self defense, they are alive, human, and a person, and yet if my action is justified, i will be seen as in the right.   # not entirely.  for instance, i do not care in the slightest about definitions.  to me, abortion is not a matter of whether the fetus is alive or not obviously is i think , human or not also is, in my view , or a person or not fuzzier, but i do not really care either way .  none of those things stop us from killing people in any case.  if i kill an attacker in self defense, they are alive, human, and a person, and yet if my action is justified, i will be seen as in the right.  same goes for the murder argument murder is a legal term, and if abortion is legal, it is automatically not murder.  for me morality is a question of minimizing suffering, and the question of abortion works out to: is there more suffering when it is allowed, or when it is not ?
the way i see it, the main controversy comes at whether abortion implies killing another human being or not.  to solve this, we need to define what being alive means legally.  i propose that being alive should be measured by brain activity since its our brain what makes us sentient.  so, if a fetus does not show any signs of brain activity then its not a living human being yet and could be legally aborted.  this definition bypasses both religious and ethical concerns, potentially makind the abort issue way easier to solve.   #  to solve this, we need to define what being alive means legally.   #  nope, we need to solve this by agreeing on that definition.   # that is part of it but not all of it.  nope, we need to solve this by agreeing on that definition.  we already have a legal definition for abortion.  it is viability.  that has not solved shit.  it does not bypass them at all.  it assumes its own definition of person hood which may or may not be different from various moral/religious theories.  that does not solve the problem anymore than our current definition fails to solve the problem.  a legal definition does not compel intellectual consent.   #  let is say you throw a giant house party.   #  i think that can be argued against.  i am going to continue with the trespassing metaphor.  let is say you throw a giant house party.  you have invited all your friends, and they have invited their friends.  you have an open door policy, and people are allowed to come and go as they please.  the next day, you discover someone passed out in your guest room.  you did not tell this person they could spend the night.  everyone was supposed to leave.  unfortunately, you ended up with this unwanted guest as a result of the fact that you left your door open to anyone and were serving alcohol.  are you allowed to shoot this person as a trespasser ? i think that by your logic, you should be able to kill your drunken guest.   #  assuming the unborn are persons, which your argument intrinsically does, the mother would have a legal obligation for the safety of the fetus, the same as any other of her born children.   #  there are quite a few problems with bodily autonomy arguments.  assuming the unborn are persons, which your argument intrinsically does, the mother would have a legal obligation for the safety of the fetus, the same as any other of her born children.  this puts any comparison with strangers using your body versus your own children in dispute.  you have no obligation to maintain the safety of strangers.  you are legally responsible for the life of your children.  secondly, if bodily autonomy  always  trumps the right to life, any and all restrictions on late term abortions or inducing labor so early it puts the life of the fetus at risk, would need to be overturned.  this means roe vs wade would need to be overturned, as it explicitly grants states the permission to limit late term abortions.  another point is that the vast majority of unintentional pregnancies are the result of consensual sex.  even if you do not directly consent to being pregnant, you still consented to an act which has the possibility of resulting in pregnancy.  unintentional tort laws still hold people accountable for violations of other people rights, even if they did not directly consent to violating that persons rights.   #  i had not considered the legal responsibility to your children, but that is a good point to raise.   #  i had not considered the legal responsibility to your children, but that is a good point to raise.  however, i still do not think that obligation to protect your child is life extends to government mandated surrender of bodily autonomy.  obviously i am no legal expert, i am just a guy with a computer, but at least in my judgement that is too far, especially if the woman is pregnancy was unintentional.  as far as the issues with roe v.  wade go, i guess following the logic of my argument would lead to a conclusion that it should be overturned.  i do not see any issue with that, although i did not realize it did explicitly grant that permission, so thanks for the info, honestly.  as to the last point, i have a rough time elucidating my issue with it, but hopefully this makes sense.  i do not see the precedent or clear legal justification for the idea that in engaging in consensual sex, you take on accountability for the rights of a person that does not exist yet.  while you can certainly be held accountable for violations of others  rights even if you did not directly consent, it implies that there was something you had the responsibility to another person to do or refrain from doing, but the idea of that kind of legal obligation to a potential future person seems like a difficult stretch of the system.  but your point is a good one, clearly i need to do some more thinking about this.  of course, being a guy, this is all theoretical for me, but it is still interesting.   #  none of those things stop us from killing people in any case.   # not entirely.  for instance, i do not care in the slightest about definitions.  to me, abortion is not a matter of whether the fetus is alive or not obviously is i think , human or not also is, in my view , or a person or not fuzzier, but i do not really care either way .  none of those things stop us from killing people in any case.  if i kill an attacker in self defense, they are alive, human, and a person, and yet if my action is justified, i will be seen as in the right.  same goes for the murder argument murder is a legal term, and if abortion is legal, it is automatically not murder.  for me morality is a question of minimizing suffering, and the question of abortion works out to: is there more suffering when it is allowed, or when it is not ?
the way i see it, the main controversy comes at whether abortion implies killing another human being or not.  to solve this, we need to define what being alive means legally.  i propose that being alive should be measured by brain activity since its our brain what makes us sentient.  so, if a fetus does not show any signs of brain activity then its not a living human being yet and could be legally aborted.  this definition bypasses both religious and ethical concerns, potentially makind the abort issue way easier to solve.   #  this definition bypasses both religious and ethical concerns, potentially makind the abort issue way easier to solve.   #  it does not bypass them at all.   # that is part of it but not all of it.  nope, we need to solve this by agreeing on that definition.  we already have a legal definition for abortion.  it is viability.  that has not solved shit.  it does not bypass them at all.  it assumes its own definition of person hood which may or may not be different from various moral/religious theories.  that does not solve the problem anymore than our current definition fails to solve the problem.  a legal definition does not compel intellectual consent.   #  i think that by your logic, you should be able to kill your drunken guest.   #  i think that can be argued against.  i am going to continue with the trespassing metaphor.  let is say you throw a giant house party.  you have invited all your friends, and they have invited their friends.  you have an open door policy, and people are allowed to come and go as they please.  the next day, you discover someone passed out in your guest room.  you did not tell this person they could spend the night.  everyone was supposed to leave.  unfortunately, you ended up with this unwanted guest as a result of the fact that you left your door open to anyone and were serving alcohol.  are you allowed to shoot this person as a trespasser ? i think that by your logic, you should be able to kill your drunken guest.   #  this means roe vs wade would need to be overturned, as it explicitly grants states the permission to limit late term abortions.   #  there are quite a few problems with bodily autonomy arguments.  assuming the unborn are persons, which your argument intrinsically does, the mother would have a legal obligation for the safety of the fetus, the same as any other of her born children.  this puts any comparison with strangers using your body versus your own children in dispute.  you have no obligation to maintain the safety of strangers.  you are legally responsible for the life of your children.  secondly, if bodily autonomy  always  trumps the right to life, any and all restrictions on late term abortions or inducing labor so early it puts the life of the fetus at risk, would need to be overturned.  this means roe vs wade would need to be overturned, as it explicitly grants states the permission to limit late term abortions.  another point is that the vast majority of unintentional pregnancies are the result of consensual sex.  even if you do not directly consent to being pregnant, you still consented to an act which has the possibility of resulting in pregnancy.  unintentional tort laws still hold people accountable for violations of other people rights, even if they did not directly consent to violating that persons rights.   #  i do not see the precedent or clear legal justification for the idea that in engaging in consensual sex, you take on accountability for the rights of a person that does not exist yet.   #  i had not considered the legal responsibility to your children, but that is a good point to raise.  however, i still do not think that obligation to protect your child is life extends to government mandated surrender of bodily autonomy.  obviously i am no legal expert, i am just a guy with a computer, but at least in my judgement that is too far, especially if the woman is pregnancy was unintentional.  as far as the issues with roe v.  wade go, i guess following the logic of my argument would lead to a conclusion that it should be overturned.  i do not see any issue with that, although i did not realize it did explicitly grant that permission, so thanks for the info, honestly.  as to the last point, i have a rough time elucidating my issue with it, but hopefully this makes sense.  i do not see the precedent or clear legal justification for the idea that in engaging in consensual sex, you take on accountability for the rights of a person that does not exist yet.  while you can certainly be held accountable for violations of others  rights even if you did not directly consent, it implies that there was something you had the responsibility to another person to do or refrain from doing, but the idea of that kind of legal obligation to a potential future person seems like a difficult stretch of the system.  but your point is a good one, clearly i need to do some more thinking about this.  of course, being a guy, this is all theoretical for me, but it is still interesting.   #  for me morality is a question of minimizing suffering, and the question of abortion works out to: is there more suffering when it is allowed, or when it is not ?  # not entirely.  for instance, i do not care in the slightest about definitions.  to me, abortion is not a matter of whether the fetus is alive or not obviously is i think , human or not also is, in my view , or a person or not fuzzier, but i do not really care either way .  none of those things stop us from killing people in any case.  if i kill an attacker in self defense, they are alive, human, and a person, and yet if my action is justified, i will be seen as in the right.  same goes for the murder argument murder is a legal term, and if abortion is legal, it is automatically not murder.  for me morality is a question of minimizing suffering, and the question of abortion works out to: is there more suffering when it is allowed, or when it is not ?
the way i see it, the main controversy comes at whether abortion implies killing another human being or not.  to solve this, we need to define what being alive means legally.  i propose that being alive should be measured by brain activity since its our brain what makes us sentient.  so, if a fetus does not show any signs of brain activity then its not a living human being yet and could be legally aborted.  this definition bypasses both religious and ethical concerns, potentially makind the abort issue way easier to solve.   #  this definition bypasses both religious and ethical concerns, potentially makind the abort issue way easier to solve.   #  it does not bypass religious concerns, for sure.   # it does not bypass religious concerns, for sure.  various religions posit that immediately after fusion of the egg and sperm, that first cell is infused with a soul or you know, sometime around that timeframe, like 0 days after, or it varies or whatever .  they posit that this soul  is  a person, and that it is in some way totally responsible for our sentience as well as every other mental attribute that makes us who we are and what we are.  anything that completely ceases the function of the cell s in which this soul inhabits ends its life on earth, as per them, and if it comes at human hands, is murder.  you can define the legal definition all you want.  so long as it does not agree with what they assert without evidence, they will continue to have a problem with it, and continue to fight against it because as per their ideological framework you are playing god as well as ending the life of the most innocent and defenseless people/souls.   #  you have an open door policy, and people are allowed to come and go as they please.   #  i think that can be argued against.  i am going to continue with the trespassing metaphor.  let is say you throw a giant house party.  you have invited all your friends, and they have invited their friends.  you have an open door policy, and people are allowed to come and go as they please.  the next day, you discover someone passed out in your guest room.  you did not tell this person they could spend the night.  everyone was supposed to leave.  unfortunately, you ended up with this unwanted guest as a result of the fact that you left your door open to anyone and were serving alcohol.  are you allowed to shoot this person as a trespasser ? i think that by your logic, you should be able to kill your drunken guest.   #  there are quite a few problems with bodily autonomy arguments.   #  there are quite a few problems with bodily autonomy arguments.  assuming the unborn are persons, which your argument intrinsically does, the mother would have a legal obligation for the safety of the fetus, the same as any other of her born children.  this puts any comparison with strangers using your body versus your own children in dispute.  you have no obligation to maintain the safety of strangers.  you are legally responsible for the life of your children.  secondly, if bodily autonomy  always  trumps the right to life, any and all restrictions on late term abortions or inducing labor so early it puts the life of the fetus at risk, would need to be overturned.  this means roe vs wade would need to be overturned, as it explicitly grants states the permission to limit late term abortions.  another point is that the vast majority of unintentional pregnancies are the result of consensual sex.  even if you do not directly consent to being pregnant, you still consented to an act which has the possibility of resulting in pregnancy.  unintentional tort laws still hold people accountable for violations of other people rights, even if they did not directly consent to violating that persons rights.   #  i had not considered the legal responsibility to your children, but that is a good point to raise.   #  i had not considered the legal responsibility to your children, but that is a good point to raise.  however, i still do not think that obligation to protect your child is life extends to government mandated surrender of bodily autonomy.  obviously i am no legal expert, i am just a guy with a computer, but at least in my judgement that is too far, especially if the woman is pregnancy was unintentional.  as far as the issues with roe v.  wade go, i guess following the logic of my argument would lead to a conclusion that it should be overturned.  i do not see any issue with that, although i did not realize it did explicitly grant that permission, so thanks for the info, honestly.  as to the last point, i have a rough time elucidating my issue with it, but hopefully this makes sense.  i do not see the precedent or clear legal justification for the idea that in engaging in consensual sex, you take on accountability for the rights of a person that does not exist yet.  while you can certainly be held accountable for violations of others  rights even if you did not directly consent, it implies that there was something you had the responsibility to another person to do or refrain from doing, but the idea of that kind of legal obligation to a potential future person seems like a difficult stretch of the system.  but your point is a good one, clearly i need to do some more thinking about this.  of course, being a guy, this is all theoretical for me, but it is still interesting.   #  if i kill an attacker in self defense, they are alive, human, and a person, and yet if my action is justified, i will be seen as in the right.   # not entirely.  for instance, i do not care in the slightest about definitions.  to me, abortion is not a matter of whether the fetus is alive or not obviously is i think , human or not also is, in my view , or a person or not fuzzier, but i do not really care either way .  none of those things stop us from killing people in any case.  if i kill an attacker in self defense, they are alive, human, and a person, and yet if my action is justified, i will be seen as in the right.  same goes for the murder argument murder is a legal term, and if abortion is legal, it is automatically not murder.  for me morality is a question of minimizing suffering, and the question of abortion works out to: is there more suffering when it is allowed, or when it is not ?
before i begin i just want to make it clear i do not consider myself sexist or anything like that.  i am not trying to troll i feel quite legitimate in my reasoning for this, but i am open to the idea that i am wrong.  first and foremost the notion of going to war is absolutely horrifying.  fighting for a country whose ideas i do not necessarily agree with does not appeal to me at all.  i think war is stupid honestly because in my opinion with the current resources we us military possess there should be no need for an all out ground assault.  now barring a situation like wwi/ii where a madman is trying to take over i should not be forced to go out there and fight.  any person who does not want to fight should not be forced to by their government, but i understand the need for compulsory military service in some situations.  yet to only send one half of your population simply because they are male is nonsense.  countries like israel have compulsory military service for both genders so it is not something out of this world for women to be forced into the military URL i know women are fighting for gender equality, but nobody seems to touch on the issue of the draft.  to the women on this i say  you want equality and things like the right to vote ? then the stakes need to be the same for you as they are for me .  there is nothing stopping a woman from being able to hold a rifle and be effective at killing.  the soviet union was able to effectively utilize females in combat roles URL the right to vote is a powerful tool with it one can place somebody in power who can potentially put the draft back into power.  somebody who does not have to be placed in the draft should not be able to influence a vote that could bring it back.  the risk might be small in our current climate, but it is still there.  i do not want to have to go out putting out fires in some other country.  i especially do not want an entire gender to be excluded from the fun simply by virtue of being female.  it is every american is duty to ship off to war when things are really really really bad.  in conclusion i believe simply that women should not be allowed to vote because they can influence putting someone into power who could reinstate the draft.  because women do not have to serve in the draft or register with the selective service system they should not have influence on the political systems surrounding it.   #  i know women are fighting for gender equality, but nobody seems to touch on the issue of the draft.   #  they do if you do a search before posting.   # they do if you do a search before posting.  URL also, a fun fact: not just women  fight for equality.   ultimately, voting is not predicated on any kind of service to one is country.  people often like to frame it this way so as to disenfranchise their pet group e. g. ,  people who do not pay taxes should not vote,  etc.  it is only compelling because it is an amorphous target that can be easily reframed at one is convenience, and most people envision themselves as a contributing member of society and only those other people need worry.  i think the draft is bunk.  but, should women have to sign up for the draft so long as there is an ssa ? sure, i think so, but i refuse to lend credibility to the notion that participatory democracies are only as valid as the population is service to the government.  that inverts the entire philosophical predicate of our founding: that governments exist to serve people who have the intrinsic right to dictate, on various levels, the way in which it carries out that function.   #  seriously, in 0 jimmy carter proposed adding women to selective service, but congress rejected it.   # people often like to frame it this way so as to disenfranchise their pet group bingo.  op is pissed about the selective service, and his first impulse is not to question or end it, but to  disenfranchise women.  this notion that the right to vote in a democracy is a privilege or a bargaining chip that can be won or traded for other things rather than, you know, a  right,  is maddening.  seriously, in 0 jimmy carter proposed adding women to selective service, but congress rejected it.  you know who challenged it being struck down on the basis of gender discrimination ? the american civil liberties union women is rights project.  the national organization for women passed a resolution supporting women being added to the selective service.  so feminist groups support it except for those that support abolishing the draft altogether for everyone .  the military, congress, and the judicial branch are what opposes it.  so op is proposition is essentially that american women should be stripped of their right to vote because some conservative institutions  also  do not want to admit women.  surely  that  makes things more fair.   #  you asked for a female player character it is the end of the world !  #  warning: tangent ahead.  whenever a poster says,  here is my logical opinion on why rights need to be taken away from women/poc/lgbt/etc.   it is  always  a male and nearly always a white male.  fellows are so easy to spot.  equal rights equal lefts ? male.  you asked for a female player character it is the end of the world ! male.  health insurance should not include contraception for women.  male.  you were imagining being discriminated against in hiring.  discrimination is illegal.  male.  you imagine being catcalled on the street.  male.  a woman raised funding on kickstarter it is the end of the world ! male.  you imagine being groped by strangers on the subway.  male.   #  third, as i said below, the right to vote has never been connected to conscription, and through much of american history the majority of those conscripted were unable to vote.   #  well, first of all, he did not say anything about voting for president, he said voting  in america,  period.  second, commander in chief is just one of the many things a president is, and all citizens have a right to vote on all the things that affect them, not just those in the military.  tying the right to vote to the ability to be conscripted would justify taking away the right to vote from all the people who ca not be drafted college students, the disabled, the elderly, etc.  and women tend and have always tended to vote for less warmongering presidents anyway .  third, as i said below, the right to vote has never been connected to conscription, and through much of american history the majority of those conscripted were unable to vote.  op is perfectly justified in arguing for women being included in selective service requirements he would be aligning himself with feminist organizations to do so but linking that issue to their voting rights is disingenuous and unprecedented.  the argument has never been used  until  it could be used to restrict rather than expand enfranchisement.   #  the attempt to link them now as an argument for disenfranchising certain groups is disingenuous.   # the right to vote has never been directly linked with  giving one is life for the country.   from 0 until 0, only white, land owning men could vote about 0 of the population in 0 but every able bodied man was required to enroll in the militia.  black men also served in the military despite being unable to vote.  in fact, there were laws that often  exempted  the upper class those with voting rights from conscription.  those who could not vote were actually  more  likely to be the ones actually giving their lives.  the attempt to link them now as an argument for disenfranchising certain groups is disingenuous.
before i begin i just want to make it clear i do not consider myself sexist or anything like that.  i am not trying to troll i feel quite legitimate in my reasoning for this, but i am open to the idea that i am wrong.  first and foremost the notion of going to war is absolutely horrifying.  fighting for a country whose ideas i do not necessarily agree with does not appeal to me at all.  i think war is stupid honestly because in my opinion with the current resources we us military possess there should be no need for an all out ground assault.  now barring a situation like wwi/ii where a madman is trying to take over i should not be forced to go out there and fight.  any person who does not want to fight should not be forced to by their government, but i understand the need for compulsory military service in some situations.  yet to only send one half of your population simply because they are male is nonsense.  countries like israel have compulsory military service for both genders so it is not something out of this world for women to be forced into the military URL i know women are fighting for gender equality, but nobody seems to touch on the issue of the draft.  to the women on this i say  you want equality and things like the right to vote ? then the stakes need to be the same for you as they are for me .  there is nothing stopping a woman from being able to hold a rifle and be effective at killing.  the soviet union was able to effectively utilize females in combat roles URL the right to vote is a powerful tool with it one can place somebody in power who can potentially put the draft back into power.  somebody who does not have to be placed in the draft should not be able to influence a vote that could bring it back.  the risk might be small in our current climate, but it is still there.  i do not want to have to go out putting out fires in some other country.  i especially do not want an entire gender to be excluded from the fun simply by virtue of being female.  it is every american is duty to ship off to war when things are really really really bad.  in conclusion i believe simply that women should not be allowed to vote because they can influence putting someone into power who could reinstate the draft.  because women do not have to serve in the draft or register with the selective service system they should not have influence on the political systems surrounding it.   #  fighting for a country whose ideas i do not necessarily agree with does not appeal to me at all.   #  i think war is stupid honestly because in my opinion with the current resources we us military possess there should be no need for an all out ground assault.   # i think war is stupid honestly because in my opinion with the current resources we us military possess there should be no need for an all out ground assault.  now barring a situation like wwi/ii where a madman is trying to take over i should not be forced to go out there and fight.  any person who does not want to fight should not be forced to by their government, but i understand the need for compulsory military service in some situations.  the us govt.  does not give you that ability.  unless you can demonstrate that you are morally opposed to all wars, then you are forced to fight.  with that in mind, should not you just be in favor of getting rid of the ss.   #  URL also, a fun fact: not just women  fight for equality.    # they do if you do a search before posting.  URL also, a fun fact: not just women  fight for equality.   ultimately, voting is not predicated on any kind of service to one is country.  people often like to frame it this way so as to disenfranchise their pet group e. g. ,  people who do not pay taxes should not vote,  etc.  it is only compelling because it is an amorphous target that can be easily reframed at one is convenience, and most people envision themselves as a contributing member of society and only those other people need worry.  i think the draft is bunk.  but, should women have to sign up for the draft so long as there is an ssa ? sure, i think so, but i refuse to lend credibility to the notion that participatory democracies are only as valid as the population is service to the government.  that inverts the entire philosophical predicate of our founding: that governments exist to serve people who have the intrinsic right to dictate, on various levels, the way in which it carries out that function.   #  the american civil liberties union women is rights project.   # people often like to frame it this way so as to disenfranchise their pet group bingo.  op is pissed about the selective service, and his first impulse is not to question or end it, but to  disenfranchise women.  this notion that the right to vote in a democracy is a privilege or a bargaining chip that can be won or traded for other things rather than, you know, a  right,  is maddening.  seriously, in 0 jimmy carter proposed adding women to selective service, but congress rejected it.  you know who challenged it being struck down on the basis of gender discrimination ? the american civil liberties union women is rights project.  the national organization for women passed a resolution supporting women being added to the selective service.  so feminist groups support it except for those that support abolishing the draft altogether for everyone .  the military, congress, and the judicial branch are what opposes it.  so op is proposition is essentially that american women should be stripped of their right to vote because some conservative institutions  also  do not want to admit women.  surely  that  makes things more fair.   #  you were imagining being discriminated against in hiring.   #  warning: tangent ahead.  whenever a poster says,  here is my logical opinion on why rights need to be taken away from women/poc/lgbt/etc.   it is  always  a male and nearly always a white male.  fellows are so easy to spot.  equal rights equal lefts ? male.  you asked for a female player character it is the end of the world ! male.  health insurance should not include contraception for women.  male.  you were imagining being discriminated against in hiring.  discrimination is illegal.  male.  you imagine being catcalled on the street.  male.  a woman raised funding on kickstarter it is the end of the world ! male.  you imagine being groped by strangers on the subway.  male.   #  the argument has never been used  until  it could be used to restrict rather than expand enfranchisement.   #  well, first of all, he did not say anything about voting for president, he said voting  in america,  period.  second, commander in chief is just one of the many things a president is, and all citizens have a right to vote on all the things that affect them, not just those in the military.  tying the right to vote to the ability to be conscripted would justify taking away the right to vote from all the people who ca not be drafted college students, the disabled, the elderly, etc.  and women tend and have always tended to vote for less warmongering presidents anyway .  third, as i said below, the right to vote has never been connected to conscription, and through much of american history the majority of those conscripted were unable to vote.  op is perfectly justified in arguing for women being included in selective service requirements he would be aligning himself with feminist organizations to do so but linking that issue to their voting rights is disingenuous and unprecedented.  the argument has never been used  until  it could be used to restrict rather than expand enfranchisement.
before i begin i just want to make it clear i do not consider myself sexist or anything like that.  i am not trying to troll i feel quite legitimate in my reasoning for this, but i am open to the idea that i am wrong.  first and foremost the notion of going to war is absolutely horrifying.  fighting for a country whose ideas i do not necessarily agree with does not appeal to me at all.  i think war is stupid honestly because in my opinion with the current resources we us military possess there should be no need for an all out ground assault.  now barring a situation like wwi/ii where a madman is trying to take over i should not be forced to go out there and fight.  any person who does not want to fight should not be forced to by their government, but i understand the need for compulsory military service in some situations.  yet to only send one half of your population simply because they are male is nonsense.  countries like israel have compulsory military service for both genders so it is not something out of this world for women to be forced into the military URL i know women are fighting for gender equality, but nobody seems to touch on the issue of the draft.  to the women on this i say  you want equality and things like the right to vote ? then the stakes need to be the same for you as they are for me .  there is nothing stopping a woman from being able to hold a rifle and be effective at killing.  the soviet union was able to effectively utilize females in combat roles URL the right to vote is a powerful tool with it one can place somebody in power who can potentially put the draft back into power.  somebody who does not have to be placed in the draft should not be able to influence a vote that could bring it back.  the risk might be small in our current climate, but it is still there.  i do not want to have to go out putting out fires in some other country.  i especially do not want an entire gender to be excluded from the fun simply by virtue of being female.  it is every american is duty to ship off to war when things are really really really bad.  in conclusion i believe simply that women should not be allowed to vote because they can influence putting someone into power who could reinstate the draft.  because women do not have to serve in the draft or register with the selective service system they should not have influence on the political systems surrounding it.   #  somebody who does not have to be placed in the draft should not be able to influence a vote that could bring it back.   #  do you think the president would ever hesitate to reinstate the draft because he  himself  might have to serve ?  #  the us has a volunteer military.  yes, we do have the selective service, but drafts have not been actually used in a generation and a half, and after the way the last one went they are unlikely to ever be used again, at least not until a conflict where the us faces an  actual  existential threat.  when it does, when if the draft becomes relevant again, it will become important as in, more than symbolic that women register for the draft.  do you think the president would ever hesitate to reinstate the draft because he  himself  might have to serve ? no, that is preposterous.  practically every president and every member of congress is too old to be drafted anyway.  plus, even if they were not, the fact that they are serving in the government already, and in an elected office, would surely excuse them.  but they do have  skin in the game  because they have families.  they have sons or nephews or close friends with sons who can be personally affected.  and women do too: they are no different in that sense.  actually the traditional family role so many women fill makes them  more  likely to think twice about a draft than vice versa.   #  but, should women have to sign up for the draft so long as there is an ssa ?  # they do if you do a search before posting.  URL also, a fun fact: not just women  fight for equality.   ultimately, voting is not predicated on any kind of service to one is country.  people often like to frame it this way so as to disenfranchise their pet group e. g. ,  people who do not pay taxes should not vote,  etc.  it is only compelling because it is an amorphous target that can be easily reframed at one is convenience, and most people envision themselves as a contributing member of society and only those other people need worry.  i think the draft is bunk.  but, should women have to sign up for the draft so long as there is an ssa ? sure, i think so, but i refuse to lend credibility to the notion that participatory democracies are only as valid as the population is service to the government.  that inverts the entire philosophical predicate of our founding: that governments exist to serve people who have the intrinsic right to dictate, on various levels, the way in which it carries out that function.   #  you know who challenged it being struck down on the basis of gender discrimination ?  # people often like to frame it this way so as to disenfranchise their pet group bingo.  op is pissed about the selective service, and his first impulse is not to question or end it, but to  disenfranchise women.  this notion that the right to vote in a democracy is a privilege or a bargaining chip that can be won or traded for other things rather than, you know, a  right,  is maddening.  seriously, in 0 jimmy carter proposed adding women to selective service, but congress rejected it.  you know who challenged it being struck down on the basis of gender discrimination ? the american civil liberties union women is rights project.  the national organization for women passed a resolution supporting women being added to the selective service.  so feminist groups support it except for those that support abolishing the draft altogether for everyone .  the military, congress, and the judicial branch are what opposes it.  so op is proposition is essentially that american women should be stripped of their right to vote because some conservative institutions  also  do not want to admit women.  surely  that  makes things more fair.   #  a woman raised funding on kickstarter it is the end of the world !  #  warning: tangent ahead.  whenever a poster says,  here is my logical opinion on why rights need to be taken away from women/poc/lgbt/etc.   it is  always  a male and nearly always a white male.  fellows are so easy to spot.  equal rights equal lefts ? male.  you asked for a female player character it is the end of the world ! male.  health insurance should not include contraception for women.  male.  you were imagining being discriminated against in hiring.  discrimination is illegal.  male.  you imagine being catcalled on the street.  male.  a woman raised funding on kickstarter it is the end of the world ! male.  you imagine being groped by strangers on the subway.  male.   #  and women tend and have always tended to vote for less warmongering presidents anyway .   #  well, first of all, he did not say anything about voting for president, he said voting  in america,  period.  second, commander in chief is just one of the many things a president is, and all citizens have a right to vote on all the things that affect them, not just those in the military.  tying the right to vote to the ability to be conscripted would justify taking away the right to vote from all the people who ca not be drafted college students, the disabled, the elderly, etc.  and women tend and have always tended to vote for less warmongering presidents anyway .  third, as i said below, the right to vote has never been connected to conscription, and through much of american history the majority of those conscripted were unable to vote.  op is perfectly justified in arguing for women being included in selective service requirements he would be aligning himself with feminist organizations to do so but linking that issue to their voting rights is disingenuous and unprecedented.  the argument has never been used  until  it could be used to restrict rather than expand enfranchisement.
first off: those with legitimate diseases like cancer or things beyond their control do not count and are not on my radar for this logical breakdown.  in other words, they already get a pass, at least in my book.  my general hypothesis is thus:   refined axiom 0: life and by extension health is the foundation of all values.  afterall, one cannot value even death, unless one is also still alive.    refined axiom 0: knowingly acting to undermine the foundation of value or the basis of value, life, is fundamentally self destructive and therefor irrational.    refined axiom 0: irrationality is a form of mental unhealth.  conclusion: if within their power to choose, rational actors will attempt to keep their most valuable asset; themselves, as protected and healthy as possible.  to the extent they do not, is the extent to which they are not rational actors.  to the extent they are not rational actors, is the extent to which they are mentally unhealthy.  personal opinion: those caught in this situation should seek to first improve their mental health through therapy and self work.   original axioms:   axiom 0 a person who is  beautiful  on the inside would possess certain prerequisites.  among these include at the very least adequate mental health and being well adjusted to reality and life.   axiom 0: those with good mental health will seek to take care of their most valuable asset: themselves.  conclusion: those who for whatever reason appear to be in poor physical health are most likely to be so because of poor mental health.  this is based on axiom 0, specifically that those with good mental health look after their own physical well being and would experiment ad infinitum to improve themselves no matter what the obstacle.  those who are apparently in poor health through their own lifestyle choices, are therefor merely mirroring their inward deficits into external expression.  rendering  beautiful on the inside  completely null and void.  they are not beautiful on the inside, they have some undiagnosed mental disorder, and they have mental issues to clear up before they will be able to regain their outward appearance of health.  finally this means it is perfectly healthy and shows good judgement to not select such individuals for a potential mate, and we all know this intuitively.   other thoughts:  i do think some of the other issues and thoughts brought up by myself and others during this discussion have been fair minded and inquisitive for the most part.  i wish that less people would feel compelled to downvote every thing i write however, since it feels rather petty and spiteful just because i am expressing and unpopular opinion.  if what i say has substance or truth to it, it should not matter whether or not its politically correct.  alas, this is humanity i speak of, so who am i kidding.  ;  #  refined axiom 0: irrationality is a form of mental unhealth.   #  one who expends all energy on their own health while ignoring the needs of others is not seen as a rational actor, rather a selfish one.   #  in light of your new edits:  refined axiom 0: life and by extension health is the foundation of all values.  afterall, one cannot value even death, unless one is also still alive.  we value what someone is capable of doing with their life more than their simple existence.  we celebrate those who sacrifice their life for others, and devalue those who live as parasites.  our values are not based on simply living and breathing, but what we offer the world while we live.  the previous example of noble self sacrafice argues against this concept: if you can save a bus full of school children by sacrificing your own life, it is hardly irrational nor does it represent the devaluation of life itself: it weighs the lives of many over the life of one.  one who expends all energy on their own health while ignoring the needs of others is not seen as a rational actor, rather a selfish one.  additionally, we judge what one can contribute to the world over their inherent rationality or their mental health.  we see someone who spends their time volunteering in soup kitchens or works long, stressful hours solving major world problems as more beneficial to society than a health nut who only values themselves.  additionally, i am unsure why mental health determines our value to society, as so many celebrated and world changing individuals have suffered from various forms of mental illness.  could you explain further why mental health is the essential criteria in your argument ?  #  the real problem with all this is that you have given no convincing definition of beauty.   #  do not use the axiom structure if you do not know how it works.  you added a few more assumptions in your conclusion section which essentially allowed you to casually state that all fat people are mentally ill.  you also never really defined what that  excuse  is, you just assumed we all knew.  basically your entire  conclusion  does not follow.  i think what you are trying to say, and correct me if i am wrong, is that those who are physically damaged by their own choices read: fat are mentally deficient and therefore incapable of being  beautiful on the inside  by the definition of beautiful.  the real problem with all this is that you have given no convincing definition of beauty.  if someone does not put all their waking energy into self preservation, does that negate all beauty ? is nobody capable of being both fat and kind/caring ? of liking both scotch and kittens ? to be honest, this mostly comes off as fat hate masquerading as intellectualism.   #  specifically i created and fully believe in that caveat because i am not looking for a roll of the dice what genetics and happenstance gave them .   #  now we are getting somewhere.  interesting points.  how so and where ? do you refer to the casual aside about the fat guy with a diet book ? if so, it was merely an aside, and used to illustrate a point.  not so.  i specifically created the caveat  beyond their control .  i can imagine a scenario where say a tumor changed their ability to retain health, whether thats obesity or some other health problem.  specifically i created and fully believe in that caveat because i am not looking for a roll of the dice what genetics and happenstance gave them .  i am looking for virtue; have they squandered through their lifestyle choices their own good health.  interesting, but i am not sure that i need to.  i am using their own cliche  beautiful on the inside .  they are the ones making that claim, so they have to make the case for what is beautiful, not me.  but, in the interest of fair play, i do think any rational definition of beautiful must include a person who is also rational enough to value their own life and body.  would you disagree ? honestly does that matter ? its either true or false regardless of my own bias. you have yet to disprove the axioms.  which may or may not be possible without contradiction.  i am not 0 sure, which is why i put it in the cmv subreddit.   #  beauty is non of these things, and thus there can be no rational definition of beauty.   # would you disagree ? i absolutely disagree.  beauty does not need to be rational.  in fact, i would argue that beauty is, by definition, irrational.  that is, beauty is a word we give to something that is subjectively pleasing aesthetically.   beautiful on the inside  being a metaphor to relate one is personality to aesthetics .  beauty is subjective, that is to say that it can not be defined, that it is up to the interpretation of each individual who is contemplating the potential beauty of a thing.  there is no right or wrong definition of beauty.  for something to be rational it must be objective, clear cut, defined, and measurable.  beauty is non of these things, and thus there can be no rational definition of beauty.   #  would you agree that a valid definition of mental health would include those who value their own life ?  #  okay.  i can concede that point, and i actually agree.  beauty was not my main point here anyway only insofar as it is implied to mean  amental health  in that statement.  mental health is really what is in contention, not beauty.  i think this post may have been derailed by my poor choice to use the  beautiful on the inside  which by your own admission has no objective meaning. and is therefor meaningless except to those who want to cling to it.  so with that said.  would you agree that a valid definition of mental health would include those who value their own life ?
there is no condiment in america more broadly loved and widely detested than ketchup.  regardless of whether or not you enjoy ketchup, there are people who will criticize others just for putting it on literally any food.  there are restaurants which refuse to provide ketchup for their customers specifically because they do not feel it belongs on their food, or that it reflects poorly on the personal tastes of the person asking for it.  no other condiment invites that kind of behavior, and the justifications that i have heard for ketchup is denouncement seem arbitrary at best.  i think mustard is vile, but i do not feel the need to try to make people who do like mustard feel bad about it.   #  there are restaurants which refuse to provide ketchup for their customers specifically because they do not feel it belongs on their food, or that it reflects poorly on the personal tastes of the person asking for it.   #  i mean those right there are reasons, so the whole no ketchup deal is not arbitrary, you just might not like their reasons.   #  i definitely do not think it is arbitrary, and as for irrational, it is gonna be tough applying strict logic to nearly any eating habits/opinions.  as for why it is not arbitrary i do not even need to make this argument because you already listed out several reasons why people may be anti ketchup.  i mean those right there are reasons, so the whole no ketchup deal is not arbitrary, you just might not like their reasons.  i think the reasons mostly comes down to the fact that ketchup is a symbol of immature, unhealthy, mass produced taste.  this has to do with the fact that kids like it, that it is most closely associated with burgers fries and hot dogs, and that its associated with an era when food quality was going down in lieu of convenience.  whether you like the reasoning or not, or if you consider it rational, it is not arbitrary.   #  i am a pretty good cook if i do say so myself , but i also personally like way more black pepper than most people seem to.   #  i get this argument, and i have heard it before, but i feel like it falls short and does not acknowledge personal preference.  i am a pretty good cook if i do say so myself , but i also personally like way more black pepper than most people seem to.  so typically i put the amount of pepper onto whatever i am cooking that most people enjoy, and then when i sit down to eat my serving, i add more.  i  know  about what the standard amount of pepper is, and i  also know  that i like more.  of course it is possible that i might end up with more pepper than i like, but it has not happened yet ! if someone knows that they have a preference, what is wrong with them taking care of their preference ? i think my pepper anecdote applies fairly well to salt.  i personally detest ketchup, but i think it probably applies there as well.   #  i put on salt before trying it because it is not made to my tastes, and i am not bitter about that at all, it just makes sense.   #  i think this partly depends on the person though, what they prefer, and what they are eating.  i have never had anybody, ever, put as much salt and pepper on my steaks as i prefer.  they do this, of course, because the amount of salt i prefer turns off most people, so i agree with them that it is better to under salt and let the diner finish it to their liking.  i put on salt before trying it because it is not made to my tastes, and i am not bitter about that at all, it just makes sense.  same thing with ketchup.  unless you are ordering fast food, there are very few burger places that will put full condiments on your burger for you.  you are expected to do it yourself, according to your taste.  so yes, i put ketchup on a burger before i taste it, because i am supposed to.  and yes, i also often use ketchup with my steaks too, without tasting, because i like ketchup with my steak.  it has nothing to do with the taste or quality of the steak, i think it enhances all steaks.  when i was a child, i did the same thing with applesauce.  it had nothing to do with the taste of the steak, but rather simple personal preference.   #  the same goes for the level of spiciness in a spicy dish, and the level of sweetness in a desert.   #  i am not sure steaks or fast food are the issue here.  imagine instead that you have some foodie dish with a sauce.  now you put a bunch of ketchup in that sauce and mix it.  the chef worked hard to create the taste of that sauce.  i am not saying you should not do it, but you should at least try to understand the perspective of the chef.  it is like asking somebody to make a landscape painting, and then putting a giant superman sticker on it.  the artist who worked hard to make the landscape will surely feel at least a little disappointed, even if you simply  like my landscapes with superman on them .  he worked hard to make the part of the landscape that is now covered up by the superman sticker, and arguably the rest of the landscape is also ruined by it.  again it is not that you should not do it, it is your painting and in my opinion you can do with it as you wish.  salt is a little bit different than ketchup.  it does not really change the taste itself, and how salty it tastes to you also depends on how much salt you are used to eating.  the same goes for the level of spiciness in a spicy dish, and the level of sweetness in a desert.   #  how they feed and shelter and slaughter the cows; how they store and season the meat everything has been obsessively, lovingly calibrated to create that a signature flavor profile on which the chef and proprietors have staked their professional reputation.   # it is just the taste that the meat already had, the only thing the chef did was cook it to the right level of doneness.  so it is not insulting the chef, it is insulting the cow ; the chef did not literally craft the steak, but the whole point of paying $0 for a tiny filet is that a  whole  lot of effort and thought went into that piece of meat.  it is not like someone chose a cow at random, shot it and cut out a random chunk.  the best steakhouses have exclusive relationships with farmers and butchers who, for generations, have been raising steer just for them.  how they feed and shelter and slaughter the cows; how they store and season the meat everything has been obsessively, lovingly calibrated to create that a signature flavor profile on which the chef and proprietors have staked their professional reputation.  to a certain extent it is a culture/tradition thing.  when you douse the steak in ketchup, you are pretty much shitting all over that culture/tradition and those guys  professional reputations.  ours is a free country and no one should stop you, but to get all petulant when you attract a couple of sneers is short sighted and immature.  it would be no different than visiting a storied vineyard, nodding earnestly as they proudly bring out one of their best vintages for you to taste, then dumping several packets of splenda into the wine before chugging it down.  it is disrespectful behavior, and it will garner you disrespect from those who care about such things.
cells in the body are limited in their growth by a mathematical fact volume increases more quickly than surface area, leaving the cell unable to operate efficiently enough to support itself.  in a similar way, the united states of america is much too large to operate from a central command center.  it is much too diverse and geographically large to be controlled by washington.  in fact, if the federal government wants to keep its place at the top, it must resort to great force and propaganda to control all its citizens, and this leads to greater inefficiency and greater injustices committed against the people.  i think it would be in everyone is best interests if america were to break apart into multiple sovereign states or if the federal government were to greatly reduce its power over the individual states.   #  in a similar way, the united states of america is much too large to operate from a central command center.   #  it is much too diverse and geographically large to be controlled by washington.   # it is much too diverse and geographically large to be controlled by washington.  in fact, if the federal government wants to keep its place at the top, it must resort to great force and propaganda to control all its citizens, and this leads to greater inefficiency and greater injustices committed against the people.  i am not sure how you have drawn this conclusion.  while i do not necessarily disagree that force and propaganda are used inappropriately, or that injustices are committed, i do not see how it follows that those spring from the size of the country.  my state and local governments engage in the same behaviors.  actually, it is arguably worse at the lower levels.   #  you are overestimating the power that washington actually has.   #  we have been as large as we are for more than a century and we have lasted this long.  a lot of people neglect the fact that at 0 years old, the united states is one of the oldest and long lived governments currently in operation today.  we have been largely untouched by war and political/social unrest.  finally, your characterization of the us as a vast country with a single seat of power is just inaccurate, as obviously we are divided into fifty states, each with their own governing bodies.  you are overestimating the power that washington actually has.   #  i am not saying that there is only a single seat of power, i am saying that there is a main seat of power and that it is in the district of colombia.   #  i am not saying that there is only a single seat of power, i am saying that there is a main seat of power and that it is in the district of colombia.  what ? we had a whole civil war over states  rights vs.  national power, and you are saying that we have been largely untouched by war ? in comparison to who ? most things that are 0 years old are a little outdated, do not you think ? as the united states has become a more centralized and larger system through imperialism, it is also had more and more financial and political troubles.  every empire in the world has failed, and many of them took a few hundred years to finally get too big for their britches.   #  would not that lead to higher political participation and more accurate representation of the people ?    # that made me smile.  it also made me wonder why, out of all the things to eat rice with, including spoons, chopsticks won out in the east.  strange.  as for my view, my point is that the united states is a huge country, comparable in size to the whole continent of europe.  it is a diverse country racially, spiritually, politically, and economically, and these differences make for nasty disagreements and high polarization.  when one looks at the political attitudes of the nation, one notices that the coasts are very  liberal  compared to the middle area.  there are multitudes of other examples but this is perhaps the most familiar.  i ask,  would not it be better if the parts that disagreed went their separate ways ? would not that lead to higher political participation and more accurate representation of the people ?   as it is, almost every decision in congress is hated by one party or the other.  there is almost no middle ground.  furthermore, the feds stick their nose in places where it does not belong.  education, healthcare, gun laws, law enforcement.  these issues would be better handled at a more local level by representatives who are closer to the people and agree with them more.  federal regulation is at an all time high.   #  we had major governmental changes and exchanges of power throughout the 0th century.   #  we had major governmental changes and exchanges of power throughout the 0th century.  we fought in as many or more wars/conflicts as europe has.  let me list a few.  world war i   world war ii   korean war   vietnam war   bay of pigs invasion   cold war conflicts that we supported indirectly think southeast asia   gulf war   any of various wars in the middle east   any that i have missed.  hawaii and alaska did not add very much population to the country, and those are the only two states that have been added to the union since before the first world war.  however, both of those states were territories long before they were states, and hence still part of the us.  as for the 0th century, much of the conflict over slavery and states  rights was exacerbated by rapid expansion into new territory.  every time a new state was added it would change the balance of power.  then, instead of letting the confederacy go, the united states acted as all empires do and attacked them in order to regain their assets.  thus, imperialism caused the civil war and the spanish american war.
curving grades is a popular teaching technique because it makes both the students and the teachers look better, which is seemingly a win win.  but at the end of the day, curving a grade is giving a student credit for knowing things that they do not know.  establishing a curve simply lowers the standards of performance, which ultimately hurts a student rather than helping them.  there is no such thing as a curve in the real world, therefore implementing one in college is setting students up for failure.  even as a college student who has benefited many times from the use of curves, i cannot help but think that they hurt more than they help.  cmv.   #  establishing a curve simply lowers the standards of performance, which ultimately hurts a student rather than helping them.   #  i disagree, at least in some cases.   # i disagree, at least in some cases.  many times, professors deploy a grading curve because they honestly cannot determine what should be an a, i. e. , professors do not know if their final is too hard or too easy.  to ensure that the final is sufficiently challenging, many professors make a final that is too challenging by a smidge in their view and then curve so they whole class does not get an f.  thus, even though the raw score signals that the class is underprepared, the contextualized score helps show who knows the material on an advanced, proficient, and remedial basis.  this is not supposition.  i have spoken to professors teaching weeder math classes and humanities.  for those that use a strict curve, this is the logic they use to justify reliance on a curve rather than a free standing grading rubric.   #  you are a lower performer because you are a lower performer.   # how so ? so you should have failed with an f, but you passed with a d because of the curve.  another person passed with a d but without the curve.  now people see you and the other guy as equal.  how is this a disadvantage to you ? you are a lower performer because you are a lower performer.  the curve improves your standing, not make you lower.   #  the rest of the students might only be able to do 0 of the work, but them completing that 0 should have been predicted by the teacher/professor.   #  curves are helpful to separate the phenomenal students from the average of the pack.  a good class the is curved should have a broad range of difficulty throughout the class and expose students to very difficult problems.  the best students can solve these problems and get an a .  the rest of the students might only be able to do 0 of the work, but them completing that 0 should have been predicted by the teacher/professor.  they should be writing these tests in a way to produce a spread.  students doing the work expected of them does not mean that they are not earning these degrees.   #  he would be unprepared if there was a curve or not.   # its not the curve that is harmful, its him being unprepared.  he would be unprepared if there was a curve or not.  now he is stating his stance that has nothing to do with a curve.  he could have learned the material and had the curve applied and been prepared for the workforce.  so there is no problem but the curve had been applied.  so is it the curve that is the problem ?  #   curving  is unheard of where i live, and some courses are notorious for failure rates of over 0.   #  curving  is unheard of where i live, and some courses are notorious for failure rates of over 0.  but you have to know what you have to know to be an engineer.  related: grades are number 0 0 with 0 being the best and 0 being a fail.  tests are a 0 for any score under 0.   scholarships  money for grades are given to the top 0 of the faculty based on their grade average.  you know what the cutoff line was ? 0.
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.   #  not flavour, but fresh lettuce can add texture, which is also a part of taste.   # not flavour, but fresh lettuce can add texture, which is also a part of taste.  if it is really as bland as you say, it ca not really change the flavour, now can it ? this can be solved by properly stacking a burger, in particular the size of the sauce portion.  basically, if the sauce leaks it is too much.  in larger burgers, the fact that it is a large burger makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  the lettuce does not really change that.  lettuce, at least fresh lettuce, is not that cheap.  it spoils quite quickly when it gets oxygen.  a lot of lettuce gets thrown away.  and lettuce is also an option.  in fact, lettuce is found in a vast majority of burger recipes.  to the point that most people do not even consider it optional at all.  there is a cultural dimension to food as well, which mainly pertains to eating habits and recipes.  from that perspective, if many people consider lettuce should be on their burger, it damn well should be.  sogginess is most often the result of too much sauce or a too greasy burger.  the bit of water from the lettuce does not have a meaningful contribution.  not sure how this relates to your point.  if you want to cut calories, do not get a burger.  burgers except for the cheap $0 burgers are designed to be a full meal is worth of calories in a single sandwich.  if you are on any sort of diet, do not get a burger.  get something you can control serving size on, and get a small serving.  tl;dr:  you might not like lettuce on your burger, and that is fine, but to say that it has no place on a burger is a very ignorant statement.   #  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.   #  if it is really as bland as you say, it ca not really change the flavour, now can it ?  # not flavour, but fresh lettuce can add texture, which is also a part of taste.  if it is really as bland as you say, it ca not really change the flavour, now can it ? this can be solved by properly stacking a burger, in particular the size of the sauce portion.  basically, if the sauce leaks it is too much.  in larger burgers, the fact that it is a large burger makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  the lettuce does not really change that.  lettuce, at least fresh lettuce, is not that cheap.  it spoils quite quickly when it gets oxygen.  a lot of lettuce gets thrown away.  and lettuce is also an option.  in fact, lettuce is found in a vast majority of burger recipes.  to the point that most people do not even consider it optional at all.  there is a cultural dimension to food as well, which mainly pertains to eating habits and recipes.  from that perspective, if many people consider lettuce should be on their burger, it damn well should be.  sogginess is most often the result of too much sauce or a too greasy burger.  the bit of water from the lettuce does not have a meaningful contribution.  not sure how this relates to your point.  if you want to cut calories, do not get a burger.  burgers except for the cheap $0 burgers are designed to be a full meal is worth of calories in a single sandwich.  if you are on any sort of diet, do not get a burger.  get something you can control serving size on, and get a small serving.  tl;dr:  you might not like lettuce on your burger, and that is fine, but to say that it has no place on a burger is a very ignorant statement.   #  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.   #  this can be solved by properly stacking a burger, in particular the size of the sauce portion.   # not flavour, but fresh lettuce can add texture, which is also a part of taste.  if it is really as bland as you say, it ca not really change the flavour, now can it ? this can be solved by properly stacking a burger, in particular the size of the sauce portion.  basically, if the sauce leaks it is too much.  in larger burgers, the fact that it is a large burger makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  the lettuce does not really change that.  lettuce, at least fresh lettuce, is not that cheap.  it spoils quite quickly when it gets oxygen.  a lot of lettuce gets thrown away.  and lettuce is also an option.  in fact, lettuce is found in a vast majority of burger recipes.  to the point that most people do not even consider it optional at all.  there is a cultural dimension to food as well, which mainly pertains to eating habits and recipes.  from that perspective, if many people consider lettuce should be on their burger, it damn well should be.  sogginess is most often the result of too much sauce or a too greasy burger.  the bit of water from the lettuce does not have a meaningful contribution.  not sure how this relates to your point.  if you want to cut calories, do not get a burger.  burgers except for the cheap $0 burgers are designed to be a full meal is worth of calories in a single sandwich.  if you are on any sort of diet, do not get a burger.  get something you can control serving size on, and get a small serving.  tl;dr:  you might not like lettuce on your burger, and that is fine, but to say that it has no place on a burger is a very ignorant statement.   #  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.   #  in larger burgers, the fact that it is a large burger makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.   # not flavour, but fresh lettuce can add texture, which is also a part of taste.  if it is really as bland as you say, it ca not really change the flavour, now can it ? this can be solved by properly stacking a burger, in particular the size of the sauce portion.  basically, if the sauce leaks it is too much.  in larger burgers, the fact that it is a large burger makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  the lettuce does not really change that.  lettuce, at least fresh lettuce, is not that cheap.  it spoils quite quickly when it gets oxygen.  a lot of lettuce gets thrown away.  and lettuce is also an option.  in fact, lettuce is found in a vast majority of burger recipes.  to the point that most people do not even consider it optional at all.  there is a cultural dimension to food as well, which mainly pertains to eating habits and recipes.  from that perspective, if many people consider lettuce should be on their burger, it damn well should be.  sogginess is most often the result of too much sauce or a too greasy burger.  the bit of water from the lettuce does not have a meaningful contribution.  not sure how this relates to your point.  if you want to cut calories, do not get a burger.  burgers except for the cheap $0 burgers are designed to be a full meal is worth of calories in a single sandwich.  if you are on any sort of diet, do not get a burger.  get something you can control serving size on, and get a small serving.  tl;dr:  you might not like lettuce on your burger, and that is fine, but to say that it has no place on a burger is a very ignorant statement.   #  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.   #  lettuce, at least fresh lettuce, is not that cheap.   # not flavour, but fresh lettuce can add texture, which is also a part of taste.  if it is really as bland as you say, it ca not really change the flavour, now can it ? this can be solved by properly stacking a burger, in particular the size of the sauce portion.  basically, if the sauce leaks it is too much.  in larger burgers, the fact that it is a large burger makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  the lettuce does not really change that.  lettuce, at least fresh lettuce, is not that cheap.  it spoils quite quickly when it gets oxygen.  a lot of lettuce gets thrown away.  and lettuce is also an option.  in fact, lettuce is found in a vast majority of burger recipes.  to the point that most people do not even consider it optional at all.  there is a cultural dimension to food as well, which mainly pertains to eating habits and recipes.  from that perspective, if many people consider lettuce should be on their burger, it damn well should be.  sogginess is most often the result of too much sauce or a too greasy burger.  the bit of water from the lettuce does not have a meaningful contribution.  not sure how this relates to your point.  if you want to cut calories, do not get a burger.  burgers except for the cheap $0 burgers are designed to be a full meal is worth of calories in a single sandwich.  if you are on any sort of diet, do not get a burger.  get something you can control serving size on, and get a small serving.  tl;dr:  you might not like lettuce on your burger, and that is fine, but to say that it has no place on a burger is a very ignorant statement.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.   #  sogginess is most often the result of too much sauce or a too greasy burger.   # not flavour, but fresh lettuce can add texture, which is also a part of taste.  if it is really as bland as you say, it ca not really change the flavour, now can it ? this can be solved by properly stacking a burger, in particular the size of the sauce portion.  basically, if the sauce leaks it is too much.  in larger burgers, the fact that it is a large burger makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  the lettuce does not really change that.  lettuce, at least fresh lettuce, is not that cheap.  it spoils quite quickly when it gets oxygen.  a lot of lettuce gets thrown away.  and lettuce is also an option.  in fact, lettuce is found in a vast majority of burger recipes.  to the point that most people do not even consider it optional at all.  there is a cultural dimension to food as well, which mainly pertains to eating habits and recipes.  from that perspective, if many people consider lettuce should be on their burger, it damn well should be.  sogginess is most often the result of too much sauce or a too greasy burger.  the bit of water from the lettuce does not have a meaningful contribution.  not sure how this relates to your point.  if you want to cut calories, do not get a burger.  burgers except for the cheap $0 burgers are designed to be a full meal is worth of calories in a single sandwich.  if you are on any sort of diet, do not get a burger.  get something you can control serving size on, and get a small serving.  tl;dr:  you might not like lettuce on your burger, and that is fine, but to say that it has no place on a burger is a very ignorant statement.   #  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.   #  not sure how this relates to your point.   # not flavour, but fresh lettuce can add texture, which is also a part of taste.  if it is really as bland as you say, it ca not really change the flavour, now can it ? this can be solved by properly stacking a burger, in particular the size of the sauce portion.  basically, if the sauce leaks it is too much.  in larger burgers, the fact that it is a large burger makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  the lettuce does not really change that.  lettuce, at least fresh lettuce, is not that cheap.  it spoils quite quickly when it gets oxygen.  a lot of lettuce gets thrown away.  and lettuce is also an option.  in fact, lettuce is found in a vast majority of burger recipes.  to the point that most people do not even consider it optional at all.  there is a cultural dimension to food as well, which mainly pertains to eating habits and recipes.  from that perspective, if many people consider lettuce should be on their burger, it damn well should be.  sogginess is most often the result of too much sauce or a too greasy burger.  the bit of water from the lettuce does not have a meaningful contribution.  not sure how this relates to your point.  if you want to cut calories, do not get a burger.  burgers except for the cheap $0 burgers are designed to be a full meal is worth of calories in a single sandwich.  if you are on any sort of diet, do not get a burger.  get something you can control serving size on, and get a small serving.  tl;dr:  you might not like lettuce on your burger, and that is fine, but to say that it has no place on a burger is a very ignorant statement.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  the format is a method to generate discussion.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.   #  this seems to contradict your first point.   #  disclaimer: i mainly eat veggie burgers, so this might be irrelevant.  it is mainly there for texture.  some small amount of flavor can be derived from it, and i would rather eat a burger with lettuce than one without.  this seems to contradict your first point.  i thought you said it was bland and does not contribute to the flavor ? this depends on the lettuce.  i arrange my burgers in the following way: bottom bun, mayo, veggie burger patty, ketchup, onion, tomato, lettuce, mayo, top bun.  unless there is a huge spine in the lettuce, there is no real issue, and that is not very hard to avoid.  i think the bun and the burger do that far more effectively than the lettuce.  the buns do that more effectively.  so do things like adding onion rings to burgers.  i have never had this be an issue, and there is a very easy fix for this situation.  i do not think anyone puts lettuce on their burgers to cut calories.  that being said, if someone is allergic to wheat or is gluten intolerant and therefore cannot have burgers with buns, lettuce is a great substitute as a method of holding the burger together.   #  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.   #  i think the bun and the burger do that far more effectively than the lettuce.   #  disclaimer: i mainly eat veggie burgers, so this might be irrelevant.  it is mainly there for texture.  some small amount of flavor can be derived from it, and i would rather eat a burger with lettuce than one without.  this seems to contradict your first point.  i thought you said it was bland and does not contribute to the flavor ? this depends on the lettuce.  i arrange my burgers in the following way: bottom bun, mayo, veggie burger patty, ketchup, onion, tomato, lettuce, mayo, top bun.  unless there is a huge spine in the lettuce, there is no real issue, and that is not very hard to avoid.  i think the bun and the burger do that far more effectively than the lettuce.  the buns do that more effectively.  so do things like adding onion rings to burgers.  i have never had this be an issue, and there is a very easy fix for this situation.  i do not think anyone puts lettuce on their burgers to cut calories.  that being said, if someone is allergic to wheat or is gluten intolerant and therefore cannot have burgers with buns, lettuce is a great substitute as a method of holding the burger together.   #  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.   #  i have never had this be an issue, and there is a very easy fix for this situation.   #  disclaimer: i mainly eat veggie burgers, so this might be irrelevant.  it is mainly there for texture.  some small amount of flavor can be derived from it, and i would rather eat a burger with lettuce than one without.  this seems to contradict your first point.  i thought you said it was bland and does not contribute to the flavor ? this depends on the lettuce.  i arrange my burgers in the following way: bottom bun, mayo, veggie burger patty, ketchup, onion, tomato, lettuce, mayo, top bun.  unless there is a huge spine in the lettuce, there is no real issue, and that is not very hard to avoid.  i think the bun and the burger do that far more effectively than the lettuce.  the buns do that more effectively.  so do things like adding onion rings to burgers.  i have never had this be an issue, and there is a very easy fix for this situation.  i do not think anyone puts lettuce on their burgers to cut calories.  that being said, if someone is allergic to wheat or is gluten intolerant and therefore cannot have burgers with buns, lettuce is a great substitute as a method of holding the burger together.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
let us face facts: 0.  lettuce is bland and does not contribute any kind of worthwhile flavor to a burger.  0.  lettuce detracts from the delicate balance of flavors that makes a burger a burger.  0.  the shape of lettuce can often disrupt the even distribution of the sauces, causing it to pool in undesirable ways.  0.  in larger burgers, lettuce just makes it more difficult to fit the burger in your mouth.  0.  lettuce is a cheap way for restaurants to make their small burgers seem bigger.  0.  if you want veggies on your burger, there are plenty of delicious options onions, tomatoes, jalapenos, peppers, mushrooms, pickles if you are a fan of ronald reagan, add ketchup to the list.  0.  freshly washed lettuce that is not properly dried can add extra unwanted moisture that can make the bread soggy and destabilize the consistency of the sauces.  0.  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.  that was fun.  thanks for humoring my light hearted post.  i am awarding my delta to kasx0, as i found her/his comment to be the most concise, well written, good natured and most persuasive.   #  sure, lettuce might be the lowest calorie part of your burger, but if you are truly concerned with cutting calories, put down to double bacon chee and order a salad already.   #  i do not think anyone puts lettuce on their burgers to cut calories.   #  disclaimer: i mainly eat veggie burgers, so this might be irrelevant.  it is mainly there for texture.  some small amount of flavor can be derived from it, and i would rather eat a burger with lettuce than one without.  this seems to contradict your first point.  i thought you said it was bland and does not contribute to the flavor ? this depends on the lettuce.  i arrange my burgers in the following way: bottom bun, mayo, veggie burger patty, ketchup, onion, tomato, lettuce, mayo, top bun.  unless there is a huge spine in the lettuce, there is no real issue, and that is not very hard to avoid.  i think the bun and the burger do that far more effectively than the lettuce.  the buns do that more effectively.  so do things like adding onion rings to burgers.  i have never had this be an issue, and there is a very easy fix for this situation.  i do not think anyone puts lettuce on their burgers to cut calories.  that being said, if someone is allergic to wheat or is gluten intolerant and therefore cannot have burgers with buns, lettuce is a great substitute as a method of holding the burger together.   #  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.   #  the lettuce has a much more pleasant crunch than chips.  it is not a hard, sharp, crackly crunch, but more of a pleasent, soft crunch which bend with your teeth as opposed to exploding into a hundred different the moment you bite through it.  it also adds a contrast of flavor to the burger.  chips on a burger is a unsweet flavor mixed with a really salty and hard flavor.  that does not really go well together.  the lettuce adds a slight sweetness and vegtableiness to compliment the taste of the patty unlike something like tomatoes which do not provide a vegtableiness, and are, in fact, a fruit , as opposed to overpowering it with a really salty hard flavor.  finally, it adds to the texture.  i ca not really describe it is texture, but it feels much better with lettuce than it is without it.   #  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.   #  this subreddit is not designed to literally change your mind.  the format is a method to generate discussion.  many discussions never have any reply from the submitter.  changing submitters opinions is not the end goal here, although it does occasionally occur.  trying to negate people is reasoned points because they do not agree with your preferences does not really add to the discussion.   #  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.   #  0.  lettuce is for texture, not flavor.  that said, things like arugula or spinach do have some flavor.  0.  lettuce can also be part of the balance of flavors.  there is such a vast diversity in burgers that there is no way to determine what  makes a burger a burger .  0.  put the sauce under the lettuce.  0.  either cut it with a knife and fork or shove it in there.  eating a burger is no time to be dainty.  0.  so ? buns make burgers look bigger too, does not mean they do not belong.  0.  all those add strong flavors, possibly undesirable flavors.  0.  so dry it properly.  0.  no one gets lettuce to lower calories.   #  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.   #  lettuce is a necessary element to a burger in order to cut the heaviness of the burger itself and the buns.  it is part of what makes a burger seem fresh rather than the soggy, texture less mess you get at mcdonald is.  it adds a bit of crunch and a fresh flavor to the burger.  romaine lettuce is composed of mostly water which adds a refreshing element of moisture without being soggy.  of course, if dried improperly, the lettuce will make your burger damp but that is not the fault of the lettuce but rather, the chef who prepared it.  it is true that too much lettuce can overpower a small burger which is why the ratio of lettuce to meat should be about equal but if you are worried about not being able to fit it into your mouth, the experience of eating a burger is probably not for you.  in terms of sauce distribution, you should not put the sauce on the lettuce, it should be applied to either the patty or the bun in order to ensure even distribution.  other vegetables do not have the same texture as lettuce.  onions are the only vegetable that compares to the crispy texture of lettuce and they often add an unwanted flavor.  lettuce is not used for its flavor, it is used for its freshness and texture to help create a pleasant, well rounded burger.  ar
i have been looking for explanations of why the benghazi scandal is important.  suppose obama instantly knew that al qaeda was behind the attack and not the video and sent susan rice on television to intentionally lie to save face.  as i understand, that is the most serious realistic accusation.  if so this would be indefensible.  but it is small beans.  it does not change the fact americans died.  it does not imperil anyone is safety.  it is a scandal of reaction and politically convenient messaging: these four americans died because of x rather than y, where x and y have quite a bit in common regardless, both x and y are the result of lax security, and both x and y are forms of violence that everyone recognized was telegraphed well in advance.  if the worst allegations are true it would demonstrate defensiveness and pettiness on the part of the administration, and that is it.  every president of the modern era has done worse than this, obama is included.  the distinction between americans killed by al qaeda or by some other violent and angry muslims does not seem important.  does anyone think the benghazi attack means al qaeda is back to even a fraction of its prior strength ? does it mean the drone war failed ? is not it the case that spontaneous bursts violence over any little thing are as much of a danger to americans overseas as al qaeda in recent years ? the national review published an editorial appropriately titled  why benghazi matters  URL i can find two charges: how are we so certain there was a deliberate deception ? a huge part of the rationale of a benghazi investigation is some form of  let is get to the bottom of the administration is lies  but there is no effort to articulate how we know there are lies.  a bipartisan investigation said the theory about the video came from the cia.  from what i can tell the  lies  that are repeatedly reference are just  bad cia intelligence , in which case there was no malicious or deceptive intent.  why has not lax security been a political issue for any of the numerous attacks on us embassies and consulates URL under the previous administration ? why does benghazi merit more attention than any of these ? this is not to say  benghazi does not matter because bush , it is just to say, we already seem to know as a country there is no reason to spend much energy investigating violence in an unstable part of the world that took comparatively little energy to execute.  it is a waste of everyone is time and focus to drench the american media in hand wringing about who knew what and when for 0 months every time some pathetic overseas jackasses with guns manage to kill some americans.  except we do not do it every time.  just for benghazi.  i can understand doing this for the political opportunism, but not on the merits of the importance of the incident itself or the administration is messaging about it.  cmv.   #  it is a waste of everyone is time and focus to drench the american media in hand wringing about who knew what and when for 0 months every time some pathetic overseas jackasses with guns manage to kill some americans.   #  except we do not do it every time.   #  benghazi does not matter.  it is just become a platform for politicians to have pointless arguments over.  it is just one of those wonderful flash points in our history that fuels political campaigns.   forget talking about anything that matters, let is talk about benghazi.   you are right, benghazi does not matter in a political or government sense.  except we do not do it every time.  just for benghazi.  it matters because good people died for stupid reasons.  who gives a shit about what the white house says or pretends to say.  people died.  benghazi matters because it is just one more instance of interventionism backfiring.  rip vile rat.   #  remember  mission accomplished  and  hey, we are going on a crusade .   # generally speaking i agree with what you say, but if you want to introduce your own preconceived notions into an argument, you are just gonna lose my respect.  internet respect.  ok, fine, i guess that does not matter.  whatever.  on topic, it is one dead ambassador and three cool people who chose lives of service to others one of which reddit should dearly love.  URL  doherty was a member of the advisory board of the military religious freedom foundation, an organization that opposes proselytizing by religious groups in the united states military.  0 doherty was co author of the book the 0st century sniper.  that is the cost of doing business out in the real world.  people are going to die and give their lives to serve the us taxpayers in accordance with mandates from elected lawmakers.  as far as lying and political advantage and spin doctoring, all administrations do that.  remember the wmds.  remember URL remember to judge the prior administration by the same standards that the benghazi nutheads use to judge this one.  remember torture and waterboarding and starting up warrantless wiretaps etc.  remember  mission accomplished  and  hey, we are going on a crusade .   #  it is used because it is the best option some people have for complaining and making voters pay attention, plus it is something they genuinely believe in.   #  it is used because it is the best option some people have for complaining and making voters pay attention, plus it is something they genuinely believe in.  plus there was actually some minor fibs/mis statements done.  if you start screaming about the democrats lying and the president and hillary clinton hiding the truth from the american people, you will get a certain segment to pay attention and listen.  that you wo not get with more legitimate, boring political stuff that is kind of played out, like obamacare or guns or budget boring to death stuff.  this works.  it is useful.  you would use it, too, if you were struggling for votes and trying to prevent another 0 years of hillaritis.   #  that is sort of their job, and without this democracy could not really function.   #  it is right and responsibility of opposition party to highlight all cases of government incompetence to keep voters informed the same way it is part of responsibility of the government to tell its version.  benghazi on its own might not be a huge deal on its own, but all such fuckups add up, and much more petty accusations have been thrown against pretty much every administration.  it is not really opposition is job to give government benefit of doubt, they need to talk about everything that they perceive as wrong with the government you will be hard pressed to find anybody who sees benghazi as obama administration is good moment and it is up to the voters to decide how much they care.  often opposition is talking points are completely contradictory as a good example pretty much every opposition party in every country in the world simultaneously wants lower deficits, lower taxes, and is against pretty much all major specific spending cuts which could make that happen.  it does not add up, but different parts of such wishlist will work with different voters.  that is sort of their job, and without this democracy could not really function.  and apparently mods are asleep in this thread, and nobody polices rule 0 any more  #  in 0 it was irresponsible, patronizing, and outlandish for the romney/ryan ticket to campaign against obama for cutting medicare while their own plan featured massive cuts to the program.   #  you seem to basically concede the point.  and i am making the argument that voters should not care.  you are providing something like a meta commentary on my argument.  it does not add up, but different parts of such wishlist will work with different voters.  that is sort of their job, and without this democracy could not really function.  this is getting away from the topic but i could not disagree more.  it is the responsibility of the opposition to lay out an alternate vision, not all the possible alternate visions.  what you innocently paint as prosecuting every possible case against a government is actually used to obfuscate real agendas.  in 0 it was irresponsible, patronizing, and outlandish for the romney/ryan ticket to campaign against obama for cutting medicare while their own plan featured massive cuts to the program.  this does not help anyone but romney/ryan.  it does not help inform any voters as to the consequences of their vote.  they also tried to suggest afghanistan was a disaster without saying what they would do differently, said obamacare was a disaster without saying what they would do differently, said unemployment was too high while offering an agenda that would increase it more.  this is not respectable or responsible and i will reject the opposition every time they try to pull this bullshit.
i have been looking for explanations of why the benghazi scandal is important.  suppose obama instantly knew that al qaeda was behind the attack and not the video and sent susan rice on television to intentionally lie to save face.  as i understand, that is the most serious realistic accusation.  if so this would be indefensible.  but it is small beans.  it does not change the fact americans died.  it does not imperil anyone is safety.  it is a scandal of reaction and politically convenient messaging: these four americans died because of x rather than y, where x and y have quite a bit in common regardless, both x and y are the result of lax security, and both x and y are forms of violence that everyone recognized was telegraphed well in advance.  if the worst allegations are true it would demonstrate defensiveness and pettiness on the part of the administration, and that is it.  every president of the modern era has done worse than this, obama is included.  the distinction between americans killed by al qaeda or by some other violent and angry muslims does not seem important.  does anyone think the benghazi attack means al qaeda is back to even a fraction of its prior strength ? does it mean the drone war failed ? is not it the case that spontaneous bursts violence over any little thing are as much of a danger to americans overseas as al qaeda in recent years ? the national review published an editorial appropriately titled  why benghazi matters  URL i can find two charges: how are we so certain there was a deliberate deception ? a huge part of the rationale of a benghazi investigation is some form of  let is get to the bottom of the administration is lies  but there is no effort to articulate how we know there are lies.  a bipartisan investigation said the theory about the video came from the cia.  from what i can tell the  lies  that are repeatedly reference are just  bad cia intelligence , in which case there was no malicious or deceptive intent.  why has not lax security been a political issue for any of the numerous attacks on us embassies and consulates URL under the previous administration ? why does benghazi merit more attention than any of these ? this is not to say  benghazi does not matter because bush , it is just to say, we already seem to know as a country there is no reason to spend much energy investigating violence in an unstable part of the world that took comparatively little energy to execute.  it is a waste of everyone is time and focus to drench the american media in hand wringing about who knew what and when for 0 months every time some pathetic overseas jackasses with guns manage to kill some americans.  except we do not do it every time.  just for benghazi.  i can understand doing this for the political opportunism, but not on the merits of the importance of the incident itself or the administration is messaging about it.  cmv.   #  there is no effort to articulate how we know there are lies.   #  lies and deceptions are not the same thing.   #  it matters in that the attack was very long and requests for military assistance were denied and the government is being unclear as to why and who decided that.  any person responsible for choosing to not protect an ambassador is incompetent at best and if done for political reasons aka, we do not want to be called interventionist in the next election then they deserve criminal charges.  lies and deceptions are not the same thing.  the administration has obfuscated who made the call to not send assistance.  why does benghazi merit more attention than any of these ? this is a fallacy.   #  it matters because good people died for stupid reasons.   #  benghazi does not matter.  it is just become a platform for politicians to have pointless arguments over.  it is just one of those wonderful flash points in our history that fuels political campaigns.   forget talking about anything that matters, let is talk about benghazi.   you are right, benghazi does not matter in a political or government sense.  except we do not do it every time.  just for benghazi.  it matters because good people died for stupid reasons.  who gives a shit about what the white house says or pretends to say.  people died.  benghazi matters because it is just one more instance of interventionism backfiring.  rip vile rat.   #  remember URL remember to judge the prior administration by the same standards that the benghazi nutheads use to judge this one.   # generally speaking i agree with what you say, but if you want to introduce your own preconceived notions into an argument, you are just gonna lose my respect.  internet respect.  ok, fine, i guess that does not matter.  whatever.  on topic, it is one dead ambassador and three cool people who chose lives of service to others one of which reddit should dearly love.  URL  doherty was a member of the advisory board of the military religious freedom foundation, an organization that opposes proselytizing by religious groups in the united states military.  0 doherty was co author of the book the 0st century sniper.  that is the cost of doing business out in the real world.  people are going to die and give their lives to serve the us taxpayers in accordance with mandates from elected lawmakers.  as far as lying and political advantage and spin doctoring, all administrations do that.  remember the wmds.  remember URL remember to judge the prior administration by the same standards that the benghazi nutheads use to judge this one.  remember torture and waterboarding and starting up warrantless wiretaps etc.  remember  mission accomplished  and  hey, we are going on a crusade .   #  plus there was actually some minor fibs/mis statements done.   #  it is used because it is the best option some people have for complaining and making voters pay attention, plus it is something they genuinely believe in.  plus there was actually some minor fibs/mis statements done.  if you start screaming about the democrats lying and the president and hillary clinton hiding the truth from the american people, you will get a certain segment to pay attention and listen.  that you wo not get with more legitimate, boring political stuff that is kind of played out, like obamacare or guns or budget boring to death stuff.  this works.  it is useful.  you would use it, too, if you were struggling for votes and trying to prevent another 0 years of hillaritis.   #  benghazi on its own might not be a huge deal on its own, but all such fuckups add up, and much more petty accusations have been thrown against pretty much every administration.   #  it is right and responsibility of opposition party to highlight all cases of government incompetence to keep voters informed the same way it is part of responsibility of the government to tell its version.  benghazi on its own might not be a huge deal on its own, but all such fuckups add up, and much more petty accusations have been thrown against pretty much every administration.  it is not really opposition is job to give government benefit of doubt, they need to talk about everything that they perceive as wrong with the government you will be hard pressed to find anybody who sees benghazi as obama administration is good moment and it is up to the voters to decide how much they care.  often opposition is talking points are completely contradictory as a good example pretty much every opposition party in every country in the world simultaneously wants lower deficits, lower taxes, and is against pretty much all major specific spending cuts which could make that happen.  it does not add up, but different parts of such wishlist will work with different voters.  that is sort of their job, and without this democracy could not really function.  and apparently mods are asleep in this thread, and nobody polices rule 0 any more
i was just reading about americans for prosperity spending 0 million dollars on the upcoming midterm elections and got to thinking.  the us is on a downward trajectory in a lot of ways.  declining purchasing power, increasing unemployment, rising inequality, and erosion of privacy and civil liberties.  corporate influence reigns supreme.  now, theoretically, i believe all of these problems could be remedied by a mass political movement working within the confines of the current system even with only two parties.  it would be slow, yes.  we would need extremely charismatic leaders and an engaged and informed electorate that would maintain interest through multiple elections including midterms.  in practice, however, these problems cannot be solved by the current political system.  voters have been deceived into supporting the very policies that have lead to our current situation, or they have been convinced that political participation of any kind is pointless.  the few voters that are actually informed on the issues and willing to participate are simply not enough in numbers to accomplish anything.  the current system is unsustainable in the long term.  as wealth continues to accumulate at the top, those at the top will have more political influence.  this will result in even further erosion of the social safety net and fair labor practices, an increase in corporate subsidization, and lower taxes for the wealthy/corporations, thus further accumulating wealth at the top.  this positive feedback loop will continue until the impoverished masses overthrow the current system.  given the country is downward trajectory and its inability to course correct, collapse is inevitable.  it is only a question of how long.  for the sake of future generations and perhaps even the future of humanity global warming , it would be better for this collapse to happen as quickly as possible therefore allowing a new, sustainable system to be implemented.  this brings me back to the upcoming midterm elections and 0.  republicans solidly have the house for the foreseeable future thanks to gerrymandering.  as a result, even if democrats wanted to make substantive changes which, given the current political landscape they do not they are only good for championing status quo , they ca not.  on the other hand, if republicans took control of all three, it is hard to imagine how swiftly things would change.  i would imagine labor laws, the federal minimum wage, and medicaid/medicare/social security as we know would quickly go out the window.  i think things would get really bad really quickly.  the aforementioned mass civil unrest would occur.  several years of extreme hardship would most likely follow, but in this rock bottom period there would be hope and opportunity for rebuilding a better society.   tl;dr  cmv: a republican sweep in 0 would hasten the inevitable demise of our current political system by creating intolerable conditions for so many americans that mass civil unrest would undoubtedly follow.  out of that civil unrest a new, more equitable, and sustainable political system could be implemented.   #  i would imagine labor laws, the federal minimum wage, and medicaid/medicare/social security as we know would quickly go out the window.   #  none of these things would change much.   #  i think you severely underestimate how resilient our political system is.  i mean, look what it is been through in the past 0  years.  actual civil war did not even kill it.  half our country seceded, and we still bounced back, two party system and all.  we have been through periods with a worse economy btw, unemployment is decreasing URL not increasing , we have been through periods with more corrupt or abusive governments, we have been through periods with far more social turmoil.  to think that we are any close to collapse now than we have been since the signing of the constitution is to ignore the history of the us.  it is unfounded doomsday nonsense.  i think you also overestimate how extreme republican policies are at the moment.  none of these things would change much.  obamacare might be repealed, that is about it.  but it is really difficult to take something away from people once they have it.  people do not like that, and when those people vote on whether or not you stay in office, you tend to at least placate them.  while, in my opinion, the policies of the republican party would be harmful to our country if they were to win control of congress and the white house, i do not think you would see any kind of  mass civil unrest.    #  either way, i made a factually correct statement.   #  that still does not add up to your claims.  either way, i made a factually correct statement.  the unemployment rate is going down.  i made it as a side comment after op said there was increased unemployment.  it is not a crucial part of my argument.  we are off topic here, and i am uninterested in continuing the conversation.   #  louis, even many educated young professionals especially in it are dyed in the wool conservatives.   #  i do not think republicans sweeping in 0 would result in a progressive revolution.  if you look throughout the world, despotic and authoritarian governments often remain in power for decades, so letting the united states slide further down a despotic path would almost certainly make things worse.  if republicans did decide to legislate away all your rights, i frankly believe most people will acquiesce.  second, there is a massive divide in popular opinion on how to solve our problems.  the left thinks it is because we are not liberal enough; the right thinks it is because we are not conservative enough.  as awful as it sounds, there are plenty of people who believe the country would be on a better course if only we injected more jesus into everyone is lives, cut taxes and government even more, and crack down on labor unions.  if you hang out with mostly liberal friends in a pretty liberal neighborhood, try coming out to middle america.  i can tell you that here in suburban st.  louis, even many educated young professionals especially in it are dyed in the wool conservatives.  yes, there are also certainly young, educated liberals seemingly much less so in it , but if you lived around here at least, any idea of an untapped progressive revolution would seem folly.   #  i think if we wanted to hasten the downfall of the american political system, it would be best if only one party were to win, over and over again, and the opposition completely incapable of challenging them.   #  i take the opposite approach.  i think if we wanted to hasten the downfall of the american political system, it would be best if only one party were to win, over and over again, and the opposition completely incapable of challenging them.  so the democrats should win in 0, then in 0, and in 0, and so on, until eventually people realize that something is terribly wrong with winner takes all and first past the post.  and given the demographic shift of the united states, it is very likely that at some point in the near future, republicans will be a permanent minority party, unable to ever win the presidential election.  take for example texas.  if hispanics in texas voted at the same rate as they do in california, then texas would be solidly democratic.  no texas means the republicans can never win a presidential election again, even if they win all the other swing states which is incredibly unlikely .  URL  #  even if we do have a republican controlled government, the idea that there would be civil unrest resulting in nation wide protests is a bit extreme.   #  civil unrest in the usa will affect us globally.  we are the global powerhouse of the world.  think of what image that would portray to the rest of the world, especially our enemies.  even if we do have a republican controlled government, the idea that there would be civil unrest resulting in nation wide protests is a bit extreme.  the country is the party with half the power in this country so by my logic, 0 of the people would not protest.  how can there be civil unrest if half the people in this country are actually republicans ? another point is that it is really unlikely that the house, senate, and presidency are all controlled by the republicans.
i do not believe it is fair or just to blame the convincer for the actions of the convinced.  i think this denies agency and responsibility to the convinced.  for example i do not think the tempter has any responsibility for the actions of the tempted.  the tempted made their own decision and bare the sole responsibility for their actions.  if i offer heroin to a recovering addict and they fall off the wagon i do not feel i have any responsibility in the addicts is relapse.  they chose to relapse, i did not force them to do anything.  if i advise some one that it might be in there best interest to kill their spouse and they do it i feel that i would be in no way responsible for that murder.  similarly if i bet a drunk he cant jump from the second story into the pool and he grievously injures himself in the attempt i believe he should hold no ill will toward me because he made his own decision.  cmv  #  if i offer heroin to a recovering addict and they fall off the wagon i do not feel i have any responsibility in the addicts is relapse.   #  they chose to relapse, i did not force them to do anything.   #  this approach denies the reality of world and substitutes and ideological position.  they chose to relapse, i did not force them to do anything.  you created a situation.  you might think people can simply choose something, but reality is that sometimes they cannot.  an addict may not have the ability refuse because the addiction has altered their brain state to a point where they no longer have a choice in the matter.  his ability to make a decision in this case is impaired.  your intervention leads to him making a poor decision because his ability to rationally interpret is missing.  i disagree with your reasoning and part of your view.  if someone else ca not contribute responsibility, then nor can the decision maker.   #  i know how hard addiction is and how it overpowers you and makes it seem like i never had a choice.   #  i suffer from alcoholism as well as depression i have knowledge of addiction.  i still know its a choice i am making, i know this because i am yelling and screaming at myself in my mind to put the bottle down and that i do not need to get a refill of my glass of vodka, even as my had fills the cup and all of a sudden the glass is nearly empty.  i know how hard addiction is and how it overpowers you and makes it seem like i never had a choice.  but i know i did have one.  i was weak and made the choice to drink.  i bare responsibility for that choice, no one else.  i often hate myself for the choices i make, but i have to admit that i made them.  i think that responsibility has to always rest on the actor otherwise we are only puppets dancing to the strings the enablers or advisers or convincers.  just responding to external stimuli,  drugs ? im an addict i must use ,  jump to the pool ? i must accept his challenge without thinking about how dangerous this is   #  my point was that it is not a as free of a choice as if you are not an addict.   #  i am not trying to suggest there is no element of choice involved, having quit drugs i realize there is.  my point was that it is not a as free of a choice as if you are not an addict.  you clearly know those moments when every bit of will in your body has told you not to take a drink and you do not for a while, but eventually you ca not keep fighting it and you break down a relapse.  to me that is not the same freedom of choice that a casual drinker has when they decide they want a drink.  certainly an addict has a choice as it is possible to quit, but it is certainly a more difficult choice to make once you have become an addict.  i still think it would be rude if someone that knew i was an addict offered me a line even though they knew i was trying to stay sober.  they are not entirely at fault obviously not even mostly at fault, but they are also not entirely blameless.  hope you can quit, not being fucked up all the time definitely improved my depression though it did not cure it.   #  so you could think of the convincer is culpability on a continuum.   #  right.  so you could think of the convincer is culpability on a continuum.  ordering someone to kill or leveraging someone is family would place the convincer on the more culpable side of the spectrum.  if the convincer, say, fed drinks to someone with the intention of getting that person to do something that they would never do sober, that might make them less culpable.  if you convince someone who is already drunk to jump off a roof, that might make you less culpable still, but still somewhat culpable.  all of those scenarios involve conscious decisions by both the convincer and the convinced.  it is impossible to draw a bright line saying: things on this side of the line provide culpability, and things on the other side do not.  the only consistent way to conceptualize this is on a sliding scale.   #  drunk: again, you have not convinced him to jump.   #  your examples are not matching your title.  heroin: you have not  convinced  them to use it.  you have only made it easier if  they convince themselves to use it .  spousicide: you have only convinced them that it would be in their best interests.  you have not convinced them to actually  do  it.  drunk: again, you have not convinced him to jump.  now, let is assume you have convinced someone to actually  do  something.  when you say  convinced , there are two scenarios that come to mind.  0.  the person is on the fence about the action, and you tip them one way or the other.  0.  the person never planned to do the action, but you convinced them that you should.  in both scenarios, the concept of  proximate cause  comes to mind.  to explain this concept, i will use an example from auto insurance.  let is say you have two cars stopped at a red light, one behind the other.  all of a sudden, a third car slams into the last car, rear ending it.  the second car then gets pushed forward, rear ending the first car.  the insurance company of the first car will try to get money from the insurance company of the second car.  then, the insurance company of the second car will go after the company of the third car for damage to the first  and  second cars.  why ? because all of the damage resulted from the actions of the third car.  so, going back to the spousicide example, let is say you actually convinced a woman to kill her husband.  i would argue that you are responsible for the ensuing murder.  if you had to convince the woman, then that means the murder would never have happened had it not been for your actions.   convince  is defined as persuading someone to do something.  if you have to persuade them, it means you have to get them to do something they would not have otherwise done had you not intervened.
i do not believe it is fair or just to blame the convincer for the actions of the convinced.  i think this denies agency and responsibility to the convinced.  for example i do not think the tempter has any responsibility for the actions of the tempted.  the tempted made their own decision and bare the sole responsibility for their actions.  if i offer heroin to a recovering addict and they fall off the wagon i do not feel i have any responsibility in the addicts is relapse.  they chose to relapse, i did not force them to do anything.  if i advise some one that it might be in there best interest to kill their spouse and they do it i feel that i would be in no way responsible for that murder.  similarly if i bet a drunk he cant jump from the second story into the pool and he grievously injures himself in the attempt i believe he should hold no ill will toward me because he made his own decision.  cmv  #  similarly if i bet a drunk he cant jump from the second story into the pool and he grievously injures himself in the attempt i believe he should hold no ill will toward me because he made his own decision.   #  his ability to make a decision in this case is impaired.   #  this approach denies the reality of world and substitutes and ideological position.  they chose to relapse, i did not force them to do anything.  you created a situation.  you might think people can simply choose something, but reality is that sometimes they cannot.  an addict may not have the ability refuse because the addiction has altered their brain state to a point where they no longer have a choice in the matter.  his ability to make a decision in this case is impaired.  your intervention leads to him making a poor decision because his ability to rationally interpret is missing.  i disagree with your reasoning and part of your view.  if someone else ca not contribute responsibility, then nor can the decision maker.   #  i think that responsibility has to always rest on the actor otherwise we are only puppets dancing to the strings the enablers or advisers or convincers.   #  i suffer from alcoholism as well as depression i have knowledge of addiction.  i still know its a choice i am making, i know this because i am yelling and screaming at myself in my mind to put the bottle down and that i do not need to get a refill of my glass of vodka, even as my had fills the cup and all of a sudden the glass is nearly empty.  i know how hard addiction is and how it overpowers you and makes it seem like i never had a choice.  but i know i did have one.  i was weak and made the choice to drink.  i bare responsibility for that choice, no one else.  i often hate myself for the choices i make, but i have to admit that i made them.  i think that responsibility has to always rest on the actor otherwise we are only puppets dancing to the strings the enablers or advisers or convincers.  just responding to external stimuli,  drugs ? im an addict i must use ,  jump to the pool ? i must accept his challenge without thinking about how dangerous this is   #  i am not trying to suggest there is no element of choice involved, having quit drugs i realize there is.   #  i am not trying to suggest there is no element of choice involved, having quit drugs i realize there is.  my point was that it is not a as free of a choice as if you are not an addict.  you clearly know those moments when every bit of will in your body has told you not to take a drink and you do not for a while, but eventually you ca not keep fighting it and you break down a relapse.  to me that is not the same freedom of choice that a casual drinker has when they decide they want a drink.  certainly an addict has a choice as it is possible to quit, but it is certainly a more difficult choice to make once you have become an addict.  i still think it would be rude if someone that knew i was an addict offered me a line even though they knew i was trying to stay sober.  they are not entirely at fault obviously not even mostly at fault, but they are also not entirely blameless.  hope you can quit, not being fucked up all the time definitely improved my depression though it did not cure it.   #  ordering someone to kill or leveraging someone is family would place the convincer on the more culpable side of the spectrum.   #  right.  so you could think of the convincer is culpability on a continuum.  ordering someone to kill or leveraging someone is family would place the convincer on the more culpable side of the spectrum.  if the convincer, say, fed drinks to someone with the intention of getting that person to do something that they would never do sober, that might make them less culpable.  if you convince someone who is already drunk to jump off a roof, that might make you less culpable still, but still somewhat culpable.  all of those scenarios involve conscious decisions by both the convincer and the convinced.  it is impossible to draw a bright line saying: things on this side of the line provide culpability, and things on the other side do not.  the only consistent way to conceptualize this is on a sliding scale.   #  heroin: you have not  convinced  them to use it.   #  your examples are not matching your title.  heroin: you have not  convinced  them to use it.  you have only made it easier if  they convince themselves to use it .  spousicide: you have only convinced them that it would be in their best interests.  you have not convinced them to actually  do  it.  drunk: again, you have not convinced him to jump.  now, let is assume you have convinced someone to actually  do  something.  when you say  convinced , there are two scenarios that come to mind.  0.  the person is on the fence about the action, and you tip them one way or the other.  0.  the person never planned to do the action, but you convinced them that you should.  in both scenarios, the concept of  proximate cause  comes to mind.  to explain this concept, i will use an example from auto insurance.  let is say you have two cars stopped at a red light, one behind the other.  all of a sudden, a third car slams into the last car, rear ending it.  the second car then gets pushed forward, rear ending the first car.  the insurance company of the first car will try to get money from the insurance company of the second car.  then, the insurance company of the second car will go after the company of the third car for damage to the first  and  second cars.  why ? because all of the damage resulted from the actions of the third car.  so, going back to the spousicide example, let is say you actually convinced a woman to kill her husband.  i would argue that you are responsible for the ensuing murder.  if you had to convince the woman, then that means the murder would never have happened had it not been for your actions.   convince  is defined as persuading someone to do something.  if you have to persuade them, it means you have to get them to do something they would not have otherwise done had you not intervened.
i find it fundamentally strange that in large part the same people who are against abortion are for the death penalty, war, and are not in favor of expanding welfare system.  it leads me to believe that despite fighting to  save lives  they really have no concern for the quality of life of a fetus after it becomes a baby and is born.  the prolife movement is also against comprehensive sex ed and access to contraceptives.  now, if their goal was truly to end abortion, it seems to me the best way to do that would be to educate people and make sure they are having safe sex.  this leads me to believe that the ultimate goal of the prolife movement is to keep the class system in tact.  sure, it is wrapped in religious rhetoric, passed onto the masses as a moral issue, but in reality it seems to me that the real mission is to keep the poor and uneducated, poor and uneducated.  and, what is the best way to do that ? for them to have children at a young age, therefore making it that much harder to escape the cycle of poverty.   disclaimer: this is not about whether abortion is  right  or  wrong , this is about the ultimate goal of the prolife movement.   #  the same people who are against abortion are for the death penalty, war, and are not in favor of expanding welfare system.   #  it leads me to believe that despite fighting to  save lives  they really have no concern for the quality of life of a fetus after it becomes a baby and is born.   # it leads me to believe that despite fighting to  save lives  they really have no concern for the quality of life of a fetus after it becomes a baby and is born.  let me just use the catholic church as an example, because it is 0 billion people strong, and because i know it well enough.  it encourages the inherent dignity of life throughout the entire lifetime of a person.  they do not like the death penalty, unjust wars aka all modern wars no war today can realistically fit the  just war  category , and advocate charity as one of the main missions.  so if the religious rhetoric were louder, it would be a rhetoric of human dignity, not this hypocritical  kill some but not others  crap  #  as such, supporting welfare does not come at a huge cost to most people.   #  i am mostly going to talk about  they really have no concern for the quality of life of a fetus after it becomes a baby and is born.  as your post makes fairly clear, you believe that this is true because a lot of the pro life people are also against welfare.  here are a few reasons that is flawed.  0.  most of the people who are opposed to welfare actually do care about the good of society.  however, they see welfare as doing more harm than good.  obviously, i do not want this just to derail into a welfare debate, but for a number of reasons, people who are opposed to welfare, are opposed  not  because they are selfish and do not care about the lower class, but because they think that welfare ends up hurting society more in the long run.  0.  a lot of the prolifers are religious, and as such, a lot of them give to the poor.  there are quite a few people who are opposed to welfare, but still give quite generously to charities.  in my opinion, this actually shows  more  concern for the poor.  a lot of tax dollars, and as such, funding for welfare, comes from the very wealthy.  as such, supporting welfare does not come at a huge cost to most people.  however, giving to charities comes straight out of your pocket.  if the ultimate goal of the prolife movement was to keep the poor poor, giving to charities would be entirely counter productive.   #  the movement is more politically and religiously diverse than the mainstream media and pro choice movement itself will have you believe.   #  personally, i am an atheistic, pro life integralist/nationalist/corporatist note: not the same as the corporate control of government .  i may or may not be the best example of pro life diversity.  i am more right wing than left and view abortion as the murder of an innocent life, but at the same time i am an atheist who lacks the near religious faith in the  free market  the republicans have and realize that our current economic system is what compels so many women to get abortions.  i believe that the tripartite corporatist system would, among other things, render abortion largely unnecessary, and the republican establishment is fiscally conservative policies are more harmful to the pro life movement is goals than anything else.  but that is just me.  the movement is more politically and religiously diverse than the mainstream media and pro choice movement itself will have you believe.  it is in planned parenthood is and naral: pro choice america is best interests to make abortion a religious, conservative issue, but it is not.  sure, there is focus on the family, which comes at the issue from an christian conservative perspective, but there is also secular pro life and pro life humanists for the irreligious, pro life democrats for democrats, pro life feminists for feminists, and the pro life alliance of gays and lesbians for gays and lesbians.  then you have pro life groups like birthright international and the nurturing network that provide aid for women in need.  there is all our lives, which is against abortion and for contraceptives.  there is consistent life, which is pro life in a very general sense: against abortion, the death penalty, war, and euthanasia many, if i recall, are also vegan and vegetarian .  there are others out there, but hopefully you get the message: the pro life movement is not a hivemind of woman hating, poor hating christian conservatives but is in fact a tapestry of groups of very different kinds of people approaching one goal the abolition of abortion, the killing of innocent unborn life from different angles.  secular pro life: URL pro life humanists: URL pro life alliance of gays and lesbians: URL democrats for life: URL feminists for life: URL birthright international: URL nurturing network URL all our lives: URL consistent life: URL  #  but the individuals in the prolife movement do not have a secret agenda to protect the rich, even if practically speaking, that is what they are doing.   #  a pro life person could find it equally strange that a pro choicer is against the death penalty for convicted murderers and yet is in favor of giving the  death penalty  to unborn helpless fetuses.  do not be like  i do not understand this persons viewpoint, therefore they must be evil  even if that is exactly what they think about you.  the only way we can resolve our differences and live peaceably is if we stop demonizing each other.  however in one sense i agree with you: the abortion issue is a distraction that redirects people is attention away from the class system and has them hating on each other instead of hating their capitalist overlords.  it may very well be that the ruling class knows this and keeps fanning the flames with media propaganda.  maybe they even orchestrated the whole controversy, in order to create division in the working class.  but the individuals in the prolife movement do not have a secret agenda to protect the rich, even if practically speaking, that is what they are doing.  we need to come together in solidarity based on our mutual class interests instead of maligning each others motives because of capitalist propaganda.  start viewing your opposition as potential allies, not irredeemable enemies.   #  did you consider that there are actual valid philosophical reasons to be against abortion but for war, capital punishment and not a welfare state ?  #  having a large uneducated population would not be nessecary.  if there was some devious ulterior motive there is not, conservative, can confirm than it would be more useful to cull the population you dint like and have your manufacturing done overseas or with migrants who will stay seasonally.  do you have any evidence for your conspiracy theory other than conjecture ? did you consider that there are actual valid philosophical reasons to be against abortion but for war, capital punishment and not a welfare state ? did you know that opposition to birth control and abortion combined is the minority opinion and based on catholicism ? did you consider that many are for education but against abortion myself included ?
i find it fundamentally strange that in large part the same people who are against abortion are for the death penalty, war, and are not in favor of expanding welfare system.  it leads me to believe that despite fighting to  save lives  they really have no concern for the quality of life of a fetus after it becomes a baby and is born.  the prolife movement is also against comprehensive sex ed and access to contraceptives.  now, if their goal was truly to end abortion, it seems to me the best way to do that would be to educate people and make sure they are having safe sex.  this leads me to believe that the ultimate goal of the prolife movement is to keep the class system in tact.  sure, it is wrapped in religious rhetoric, passed onto the masses as a moral issue, but in reality it seems to me that the real mission is to keep the poor and uneducated, poor and uneducated.  and, what is the best way to do that ? for them to have children at a young age, therefore making it that much harder to escape the cycle of poverty.   disclaimer: this is not about whether abortion is  right  or  wrong , this is about the ultimate goal of the prolife movement.   #  the prolife movement is also against comprehensive sex ed and access to contraceptives.   #  now, if their goal was truly to end abortion, it seems to me the best way to do that would be to educate people and make sure they are having safe sex.   # now, if their goal was truly to end abortion, it seems to me the best way to do that would be to educate people and make sure they are having safe sex.  an even  better  way to stop abortion would be to chop off the penis of every male child the moment they are born.  no penis no sex no pregnancy no abortion ! hoorah ! in all seriousness, just because one method would be very effective in reaching one goal  does not mean  that method is acceptable, the consequences could be far worse.  cutting off every baby boy is penis would stop abortion ca not deny that , but you would also be dismembering babies and ultimately causing the extinction of the human race.  sure, access to contraceptives and sex ed would probably be very good at ending abortion, but that does not mean its a good thing to do.  as far as christians go, they believe contraceptives are an insult to god pretty bad consequence and that they stop potential life which is a part of god is plan .  you do not have to agree with these views, but i am just trying to point out that pro life does not necessitate being pro contraceptives, just like being pro life does not necessitate being pro cut off baby boy is penises.  tl;dr assuming that pro lifers should be for contraceptives just because it stops abortion is logically equivalent to assuming pro lifers should be for cutting off baby boy is penises because it stops abortion.  but in reality, pro lifers care about other issues too, and recognize that ideas such as contraception and cutting off baby boy is penises need to be considered on their own merit and consequences  beyond  their ability to stop abortion.   #  if the ultimate goal of the prolife movement was to keep the poor poor, giving to charities would be entirely counter productive.   #  i am mostly going to talk about  they really have no concern for the quality of life of a fetus after it becomes a baby and is born.  as your post makes fairly clear, you believe that this is true because a lot of the pro life people are also against welfare.  here are a few reasons that is flawed.  0.  most of the people who are opposed to welfare actually do care about the good of society.  however, they see welfare as doing more harm than good.  obviously, i do not want this just to derail into a welfare debate, but for a number of reasons, people who are opposed to welfare, are opposed  not  because they are selfish and do not care about the lower class, but because they think that welfare ends up hurting society more in the long run.  0.  a lot of the prolifers are religious, and as such, a lot of them give to the poor.  there are quite a few people who are opposed to welfare, but still give quite generously to charities.  in my opinion, this actually shows  more  concern for the poor.  a lot of tax dollars, and as such, funding for welfare, comes from the very wealthy.  as such, supporting welfare does not come at a huge cost to most people.  however, giving to charities comes straight out of your pocket.  if the ultimate goal of the prolife movement was to keep the poor poor, giving to charities would be entirely counter productive.   #  i believe that the tripartite corporatist system would, among other things, render abortion largely unnecessary, and the republican establishment is fiscally conservative policies are more harmful to the pro life movement is goals than anything else.   #  personally, i am an atheistic, pro life integralist/nationalist/corporatist note: not the same as the corporate control of government .  i may or may not be the best example of pro life diversity.  i am more right wing than left and view abortion as the murder of an innocent life, but at the same time i am an atheist who lacks the near religious faith in the  free market  the republicans have and realize that our current economic system is what compels so many women to get abortions.  i believe that the tripartite corporatist system would, among other things, render abortion largely unnecessary, and the republican establishment is fiscally conservative policies are more harmful to the pro life movement is goals than anything else.  but that is just me.  the movement is more politically and religiously diverse than the mainstream media and pro choice movement itself will have you believe.  it is in planned parenthood is and naral: pro choice america is best interests to make abortion a religious, conservative issue, but it is not.  sure, there is focus on the family, which comes at the issue from an christian conservative perspective, but there is also secular pro life and pro life humanists for the irreligious, pro life democrats for democrats, pro life feminists for feminists, and the pro life alliance of gays and lesbians for gays and lesbians.  then you have pro life groups like birthright international and the nurturing network that provide aid for women in need.  there is all our lives, which is against abortion and for contraceptives.  there is consistent life, which is pro life in a very general sense: against abortion, the death penalty, war, and euthanasia many, if i recall, are also vegan and vegetarian .  there are others out there, but hopefully you get the message: the pro life movement is not a hivemind of woman hating, poor hating christian conservatives but is in fact a tapestry of groups of very different kinds of people approaching one goal the abolition of abortion, the killing of innocent unborn life from different angles.  secular pro life: URL pro life humanists: URL pro life alliance of gays and lesbians: URL democrats for life: URL feminists for life: URL birthright international: URL nurturing network URL all our lives: URL consistent life: URL  #  it may very well be that the ruling class knows this and keeps fanning the flames with media propaganda.   #  a pro life person could find it equally strange that a pro choicer is against the death penalty for convicted murderers and yet is in favor of giving the  death penalty  to unborn helpless fetuses.  do not be like  i do not understand this persons viewpoint, therefore they must be evil  even if that is exactly what they think about you.  the only way we can resolve our differences and live peaceably is if we stop demonizing each other.  however in one sense i agree with you: the abortion issue is a distraction that redirects people is attention away from the class system and has them hating on each other instead of hating their capitalist overlords.  it may very well be that the ruling class knows this and keeps fanning the flames with media propaganda.  maybe they even orchestrated the whole controversy, in order to create division in the working class.  but the individuals in the prolife movement do not have a secret agenda to protect the rich, even if practically speaking, that is what they are doing.  we need to come together in solidarity based on our mutual class interests instead of maligning each others motives because of capitalist propaganda.  start viewing your opposition as potential allies, not irredeemable enemies.   #  let me just use the catholic church as an example, because it is 0 billion people strong, and because i know it well enough.   # it leads me to believe that despite fighting to  save lives  they really have no concern for the quality of life of a fetus after it becomes a baby and is born.  let me just use the catholic church as an example, because it is 0 billion people strong, and because i know it well enough.  it encourages the inherent dignity of life throughout the entire lifetime of a person.  they do not like the death penalty, unjust wars aka all modern wars no war today can realistically fit the  just war  category , and advocate charity as one of the main missions.  so if the religious rhetoric were louder, it would be a rhetoric of human dignity, not this hypocritical  kill some but not others  crap
first, i will just say i mean no disrespect to those who have lost someone to suicide.  i also have experienced the loss of someone close to me that committed suicide.  and secondly, i am not counting euthanasia or anything of that nature.  i do not mean that people who did decide to kill themselves are cowards or selfish, just the action itself is cowardly and selfish by it is definition.  a selfish action is something a person does out of their own self interest without taking into account or simply not caring about the effect it will have on other people, which is exactly what suicide is.  as for cowardly, suicide is an easy way out.  it may be that a person is stressed, depressed, physically or mentally in pain, or something else with no end in sight.  instead of dealing with these problems, be it seek help, get medicated, find another way to resolve the situation or just simply put up with the pain suicide is the cowardly solution.  nothing changes or is fixed, nothing is resolved and there is no closure.  it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.  again i will say that i do not believe people who commit suicide are bad people, or even cowards/selfish.  just today i heard the story of a middle aged father killing himself because he was abused as a child which later came back to him.  i feel no anger or disrespect to this person, i sympathise with his pain and torment.  but i think what he did to his children was not right, and there are other options he could have taken that were preferable.   #  instead of dealing with these problems, be it seek help, get medicated, find another way to resolve the situation or just simply put up with the pain suicide is the cowardly solution.   #  i get the feeling you think of stress and depression as things that can be just turned off with a little hard work.   # how much pain does someone have to be in for you to see suicide as acceptable ? this is simply false.  there is no other way i can say that.  as someone who regularly struggles with depression and suicidal ideation, i can tell you that suicide is not the easy option.  the easy option is to continue living in pain.  suicide is the difficult decision that takes away the pain.  it is like if we found a medicine that would take away all flu symptoms until the flu is out of the body, but it has to be a 0 liter bottle of fluid that literally tastes like shit.  drinking that bottle would me downright impossible for many people, because it would be  hard .  just because it would take the problems away does not mean it is easy.  i get the feeling you think of stress and depression as things that can be just turned off with a little hard work.  that is not the case.  i have tried therapy, anti depressants, you name it.  they do not work on me.  it is not as easy as  get help.   it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.  the individual also removes the need to deal with the situation, thereby removing the problem.  i could also turn this on you.  a person who is ready to commit suicide is in so much pain that it overrides their self preservation mechanism.  the pain overcomes one of the most powerful mechanisms of the human mind.  and you expect that person to just deal with it, because you would be sad if they died i would say that this expectation is  at least  as selfish as suicide, if not more so.  URL  #  death is not fixing the problem, it is leaving it.   # this is something i just cannot agree with.  yes it must take a moment of serious courage to overcome our natural instinct, but facing depression, living through it despite the temptation of ending it all, is more courageous.  not so much as a  isolution  just options, many options may not fix anything, but if they keep the person going then that is good enough.  and suicide is not an alternative, it is not a valid option in my opinion.  let is say you have a list to combat depression, number 0 talk to a loved one.  0 talk to a professional.  0 get medicated if it is that serious.  0 if all else fails, suicide.  it is my opinion that 0 should not be on the list, it is just not a solution, you have to try other things.  death is not fixing the problem, it is leaving it.  depends what the problem is, if it is internal, then that is like saying  isuicide cures cancer , yeah, the cancer did not win, but neither did you.  if the problem is external to the individual, then suicide is the person refusing to deal with that problem.  the last part of your argument i ca not make sense of, life is not a choice, and neither is death.  i do not understand the point you are making.  and your last analogy does not work because if the  party  is life, then depression/anxiety/other problems do not last forever.  it is like leaving a party when one bad thing happens, except when you leave the party, you are leaving everything else.   #  you and i are two sides of the same coin.   #  you keep using the word  pain  to describe mental illness.  as someone who is also suffering from depression, i believe it is incorrect to use that term, depression is a struggle.   pain  refers to a completely dominating status, i can go on reddit and ingore how shitty my life has become, but someone suffering from terminal stomach cancer is in constant undeniable agony.  i understand that some victims of depression have exhausted every resource, but that still does not make suicide a viable option in my opinion.  many cowardly acts take some sought of courage if that makes sense.  desertion in the army must take some courage, that does not make the decision any more noble or admirable, it just means they overcame some gut instinct and did it.  you and i are two sides of the same coin.  we have both suffered and we have both struggled however i do not know you or your history of mental health, so i have no idea how much you have struggled with depression .  i am not trying to change your mind on an obviously personal issue, but you wont change mine by simply stating that you think i am wrong.   #  someone who is never had depression ca not understand the absolute hopelessness and despair.   #  a few years ago i had my wisdom teeth taken out after the anesthesia was injected improperly.  it was the worst pain i have ever felt.  i have also suffered from depression for over 0 years.  the depression is far worse, even if the pain in my teeth had become permanent.  someone who is never had depression ca not understand the absolute hopelessness and despair.  it can even feel like physical pain sometimes.   #  socrates committed suicide out of principle, when he could have chosen exile, instead.   #  often suicide is a result of profound mental illness, it is neither selfish nor noble, just sad.  other times it is the result of chronic pain or illness that is  not  going to go away, arguably it is a rational choice.  in ancient times suicide used to be considered an honorable way of dying when the alternative would be slavery, torture, rape, or a whole host of horribles.  those customs have changed, but i do not know that i would consider those ancient suicides selfish.  socrates committed suicide out of principle, when he could have chosen exile, instead.  many of his contemporaries considered his choice a noble act.  i just do not think you can make a blanket statement about suicide without considering all the circumstances involved.
first, i will just say i mean no disrespect to those who have lost someone to suicide.  i also have experienced the loss of someone close to me that committed suicide.  and secondly, i am not counting euthanasia or anything of that nature.  i do not mean that people who did decide to kill themselves are cowards or selfish, just the action itself is cowardly and selfish by it is definition.  a selfish action is something a person does out of their own self interest without taking into account or simply not caring about the effect it will have on other people, which is exactly what suicide is.  as for cowardly, suicide is an easy way out.  it may be that a person is stressed, depressed, physically or mentally in pain, or something else with no end in sight.  instead of dealing with these problems, be it seek help, get medicated, find another way to resolve the situation or just simply put up with the pain suicide is the cowardly solution.  nothing changes or is fixed, nothing is resolved and there is no closure.  it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.  again i will say that i do not believe people who commit suicide are bad people, or even cowards/selfish.  just today i heard the story of a middle aged father killing himself because he was abused as a child which later came back to him.  i feel no anger or disrespect to this person, i sympathise with his pain and torment.  but i think what he did to his children was not right, and there are other options he could have taken that were preferable.   #  nothing changes or is fixed, nothing is resolved and there is no closure.   #  it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.   # how much pain does someone have to be in for you to see suicide as acceptable ? this is simply false.  there is no other way i can say that.  as someone who regularly struggles with depression and suicidal ideation, i can tell you that suicide is not the easy option.  the easy option is to continue living in pain.  suicide is the difficult decision that takes away the pain.  it is like if we found a medicine that would take away all flu symptoms until the flu is out of the body, but it has to be a 0 liter bottle of fluid that literally tastes like shit.  drinking that bottle would me downright impossible for many people, because it would be  hard .  just because it would take the problems away does not mean it is easy.  i get the feeling you think of stress and depression as things that can be just turned off with a little hard work.  that is not the case.  i have tried therapy, anti depressants, you name it.  they do not work on me.  it is not as easy as  get help.   it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.  the individual also removes the need to deal with the situation, thereby removing the problem.  i could also turn this on you.  a person who is ready to commit suicide is in so much pain that it overrides their self preservation mechanism.  the pain overcomes one of the most powerful mechanisms of the human mind.  and you expect that person to just deal with it, because you would be sad if they died i would say that this expectation is  at least  as selfish as suicide, if not more so.  URL  #  and your last analogy does not work because if the  party  is life, then depression/anxiety/other problems do not last forever.   # this is something i just cannot agree with.  yes it must take a moment of serious courage to overcome our natural instinct, but facing depression, living through it despite the temptation of ending it all, is more courageous.  not so much as a  isolution  just options, many options may not fix anything, but if they keep the person going then that is good enough.  and suicide is not an alternative, it is not a valid option in my opinion.  let is say you have a list to combat depression, number 0 talk to a loved one.  0 talk to a professional.  0 get medicated if it is that serious.  0 if all else fails, suicide.  it is my opinion that 0 should not be on the list, it is just not a solution, you have to try other things.  death is not fixing the problem, it is leaving it.  depends what the problem is, if it is internal, then that is like saying  isuicide cures cancer , yeah, the cancer did not win, but neither did you.  if the problem is external to the individual, then suicide is the person refusing to deal with that problem.  the last part of your argument i ca not make sense of, life is not a choice, and neither is death.  i do not understand the point you are making.  and your last analogy does not work because if the  party  is life, then depression/anxiety/other problems do not last forever.  it is like leaving a party when one bad thing happens, except when you leave the party, you are leaving everything else.   #  you and i are two sides of the same coin.   #  you keep using the word  pain  to describe mental illness.  as someone who is also suffering from depression, i believe it is incorrect to use that term, depression is a struggle.   pain  refers to a completely dominating status, i can go on reddit and ingore how shitty my life has become, but someone suffering from terminal stomach cancer is in constant undeniable agony.  i understand that some victims of depression have exhausted every resource, but that still does not make suicide a viable option in my opinion.  many cowardly acts take some sought of courage if that makes sense.  desertion in the army must take some courage, that does not make the decision any more noble or admirable, it just means they overcame some gut instinct and did it.  you and i are two sides of the same coin.  we have both suffered and we have both struggled however i do not know you or your history of mental health, so i have no idea how much you have struggled with depression .  i am not trying to change your mind on an obviously personal issue, but you wont change mine by simply stating that you think i am wrong.   #  it can even feel like physical pain sometimes.   #  a few years ago i had my wisdom teeth taken out after the anesthesia was injected improperly.  it was the worst pain i have ever felt.  i have also suffered from depression for over 0 years.  the depression is far worse, even if the pain in my teeth had become permanent.  someone who is never had depression ca not understand the absolute hopelessness and despair.  it can even feel like physical pain sometimes.   #  in ancient times suicide used to be considered an honorable way of dying when the alternative would be slavery, torture, rape, or a whole host of horribles.   #  often suicide is a result of profound mental illness, it is neither selfish nor noble, just sad.  other times it is the result of chronic pain or illness that is  not  going to go away, arguably it is a rational choice.  in ancient times suicide used to be considered an honorable way of dying when the alternative would be slavery, torture, rape, or a whole host of horribles.  those customs have changed, but i do not know that i would consider those ancient suicides selfish.  socrates committed suicide out of principle, when he could have chosen exile, instead.  many of his contemporaries considered his choice a noble act.  i just do not think you can make a blanket statement about suicide without considering all the circumstances involved.
first, i will just say i mean no disrespect to those who have lost someone to suicide.  i also have experienced the loss of someone close to me that committed suicide.  and secondly, i am not counting euthanasia or anything of that nature.  i do not mean that people who did decide to kill themselves are cowards or selfish, just the action itself is cowardly and selfish by it is definition.  a selfish action is something a person does out of their own self interest without taking into account or simply not caring about the effect it will have on other people, which is exactly what suicide is.  as for cowardly, suicide is an easy way out.  it may be that a person is stressed, depressed, physically or mentally in pain, or something else with no end in sight.  instead of dealing with these problems, be it seek help, get medicated, find another way to resolve the situation or just simply put up with the pain suicide is the cowardly solution.  nothing changes or is fixed, nothing is resolved and there is no closure.  it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.  again i will say that i do not believe people who commit suicide are bad people, or even cowards/selfish.  just today i heard the story of a middle aged father killing himself because he was abused as a child which later came back to him.  i feel no anger or disrespect to this person, i sympathise with his pain and torment.  but i think what he did to his children was not right, and there are other options he could have taken that were preferable.   #  it may be that a person is stressed, depressed, physically or mentally in pain, or something else with no end in sight.   #  instead of dealing with these problems, be it seek help, get medicated, find another way to resolve the situation or just simply put up with the pain suicide is the cowardly solution.   # instead of dealing with these problems, be it seek help, get medicated, find another way to resolve the situation or just simply put up with the pain suicide is the cowardly solution.  you said at the beginning that euthanasia is not counted in your argument, but it would be very easy to change a few words in the above to make an anti euthanaisa argument.  in fact, on second reading it seems you already made the anti euthanasia argument right there unending physical/mental pain is usually a prerequisite to euthanasia .  some problems are unresolvable, even with all the medication and medical intervention in the world.  so a question to ask yourself might be: are there any circumstances under which i can condone an individual choosing death ? if there are none, we have a different view to change.   #  death is not fixing the problem, it is leaving it.   # this is something i just cannot agree with.  yes it must take a moment of serious courage to overcome our natural instinct, but facing depression, living through it despite the temptation of ending it all, is more courageous.  not so much as a  isolution  just options, many options may not fix anything, but if they keep the person going then that is good enough.  and suicide is not an alternative, it is not a valid option in my opinion.  let is say you have a list to combat depression, number 0 talk to a loved one.  0 talk to a professional.  0 get medicated if it is that serious.  0 if all else fails, suicide.  it is my opinion that 0 should not be on the list, it is just not a solution, you have to try other things.  death is not fixing the problem, it is leaving it.  depends what the problem is, if it is internal, then that is like saying  isuicide cures cancer , yeah, the cancer did not win, but neither did you.  if the problem is external to the individual, then suicide is the person refusing to deal with that problem.  the last part of your argument i ca not make sense of, life is not a choice, and neither is death.  i do not understand the point you are making.  and your last analogy does not work because if the  party  is life, then depression/anxiety/other problems do not last forever.  it is like leaving a party when one bad thing happens, except when you leave the party, you are leaving everything else.   #  and you expect that person to just deal with it, because you would be sad if they died i would say that this expectation is  at least  as selfish as suicide, if not more so.   # how much pain does someone have to be in for you to see suicide as acceptable ? this is simply false.  there is no other way i can say that.  as someone who regularly struggles with depression and suicidal ideation, i can tell you that suicide is not the easy option.  the easy option is to continue living in pain.  suicide is the difficult decision that takes away the pain.  it is like if we found a medicine that would take away all flu symptoms until the flu is out of the body, but it has to be a 0 liter bottle of fluid that literally tastes like shit.  drinking that bottle would me downright impossible for many people, because it would be  hard .  just because it would take the problems away does not mean it is easy.  i get the feeling you think of stress and depression as things that can be just turned off with a little hard work.  that is not the case.  i have tried therapy, anti depressants, you name it.  they do not work on me.  it is not as easy as  get help.   it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.  the individual also removes the need to deal with the situation, thereby removing the problem.  i could also turn this on you.  a person who is ready to commit suicide is in so much pain that it overrides their self preservation mechanism.  the pain overcomes one of the most powerful mechanisms of the human mind.  and you expect that person to just deal with it, because you would be sad if they died i would say that this expectation is  at least  as selfish as suicide, if not more so.  URL  #  we have both suffered and we have both struggled however i do not know you or your history of mental health, so i have no idea how much you have struggled with depression .   #  you keep using the word  pain  to describe mental illness.  as someone who is also suffering from depression, i believe it is incorrect to use that term, depression is a struggle.   pain  refers to a completely dominating status, i can go on reddit and ingore how shitty my life has become, but someone suffering from terminal stomach cancer is in constant undeniable agony.  i understand that some victims of depression have exhausted every resource, but that still does not make suicide a viable option in my opinion.  many cowardly acts take some sought of courage if that makes sense.  desertion in the army must take some courage, that does not make the decision any more noble or admirable, it just means they overcame some gut instinct and did it.  you and i are two sides of the same coin.  we have both suffered and we have both struggled however i do not know you or your history of mental health, so i have no idea how much you have struggled with depression .  i am not trying to change your mind on an obviously personal issue, but you wont change mine by simply stating that you think i am wrong.   #  someone who is never had depression ca not understand the absolute hopelessness and despair.   #  a few years ago i had my wisdom teeth taken out after the anesthesia was injected improperly.  it was the worst pain i have ever felt.  i have also suffered from depression for over 0 years.  the depression is far worse, even if the pain in my teeth had become permanent.  someone who is never had depression ca not understand the absolute hopelessness and despair.  it can even feel like physical pain sometimes.
first, i will just say i mean no disrespect to those who have lost someone to suicide.  i also have experienced the loss of someone close to me that committed suicide.  and secondly, i am not counting euthanasia or anything of that nature.  i do not mean that people who did decide to kill themselves are cowards or selfish, just the action itself is cowardly and selfish by it is definition.  a selfish action is something a person does out of their own self interest without taking into account or simply not caring about the effect it will have on other people, which is exactly what suicide is.  as for cowardly, suicide is an easy way out.  it may be that a person is stressed, depressed, physically or mentally in pain, or something else with no end in sight.  instead of dealing with these problems, be it seek help, get medicated, find another way to resolve the situation or just simply put up with the pain suicide is the cowardly solution.  nothing changes or is fixed, nothing is resolved and there is no closure.  it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.  again i will say that i do not believe people who commit suicide are bad people, or even cowards/selfish.  just today i heard the story of a middle aged father killing himself because he was abused as a child which later came back to him.  i feel no anger or disrespect to this person, i sympathise with his pain and torment.  but i think what he did to his children was not right, and there are other options he could have taken that were preferable.   #  instead of dealing with these problems, be it seek help, get medicated, find another way to resolve the situation or just simply put up with the pain suicide is the cowardly solution.   #  it is very easy to say all this when you are the one that has the problems.   #  my post only refers to suicide by depressed people, for what it is worth   as for cowardly, suicide is an easy way out.  it is obvious you have never considered suicide.  it takes a lot of guts to willingly depart from a life you know even if it is one you do not like into either complete nothingness or whatever hell you believe in.  also it being easy does not make it cowardly.  similarly continuing to soldier on through depression is difficult, but that does not make it courageous.  it is very easy to say all this when you are the one that has the problems.  a healthy person literally cannot understand how depression effects the brain.  it does not make sense to them.  you are assuming that the depressed person is thinking the same way a healthy person is, which obviously does not make any sense.   #  and suicide is not an alternative, it is not a valid option in my opinion.   # this is something i just cannot agree with.  yes it must take a moment of serious courage to overcome our natural instinct, but facing depression, living through it despite the temptation of ending it all, is more courageous.  not so much as a  isolution  just options, many options may not fix anything, but if they keep the person going then that is good enough.  and suicide is not an alternative, it is not a valid option in my opinion.  let is say you have a list to combat depression, number 0 talk to a loved one.  0 talk to a professional.  0 get medicated if it is that serious.  0 if all else fails, suicide.  it is my opinion that 0 should not be on the list, it is just not a solution, you have to try other things.  death is not fixing the problem, it is leaving it.  depends what the problem is, if it is internal, then that is like saying  isuicide cures cancer , yeah, the cancer did not win, but neither did you.  if the problem is external to the individual, then suicide is the person refusing to deal with that problem.  the last part of your argument i ca not make sense of, life is not a choice, and neither is death.  i do not understand the point you are making.  and your last analogy does not work because if the  party  is life, then depression/anxiety/other problems do not last forever.  it is like leaving a party when one bad thing happens, except when you leave the party, you are leaving everything else.   #  as someone who regularly struggles with depression and suicidal ideation, i can tell you that suicide is not the easy option.   # how much pain does someone have to be in for you to see suicide as acceptable ? this is simply false.  there is no other way i can say that.  as someone who regularly struggles with depression and suicidal ideation, i can tell you that suicide is not the easy option.  the easy option is to continue living in pain.  suicide is the difficult decision that takes away the pain.  it is like if we found a medicine that would take away all flu symptoms until the flu is out of the body, but it has to be a 0 liter bottle of fluid that literally tastes like shit.  drinking that bottle would me downright impossible for many people, because it would be  hard .  just because it would take the problems away does not mean it is easy.  i get the feeling you think of stress and depression as things that can be just turned off with a little hard work.  that is not the case.  i have tried therapy, anti depressants, you name it.  they do not work on me.  it is not as easy as  get help.   it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.  the individual also removes the need to deal with the situation, thereby removing the problem.  i could also turn this on you.  a person who is ready to commit suicide is in so much pain that it overrides their self preservation mechanism.  the pain overcomes one of the most powerful mechanisms of the human mind.  and you expect that person to just deal with it, because you would be sad if they died i would say that this expectation is  at least  as selfish as suicide, if not more so.  URL  #  many cowardly acts take some sought of courage if that makes sense.   #  you keep using the word  pain  to describe mental illness.  as someone who is also suffering from depression, i believe it is incorrect to use that term, depression is a struggle.   pain  refers to a completely dominating status, i can go on reddit and ingore how shitty my life has become, but someone suffering from terminal stomach cancer is in constant undeniable agony.  i understand that some victims of depression have exhausted every resource, but that still does not make suicide a viable option in my opinion.  many cowardly acts take some sought of courage if that makes sense.  desertion in the army must take some courage, that does not make the decision any more noble or admirable, it just means they overcame some gut instinct and did it.  you and i are two sides of the same coin.  we have both suffered and we have both struggled however i do not know you or your history of mental health, so i have no idea how much you have struggled with depression .  i am not trying to change your mind on an obviously personal issue, but you wont change mine by simply stating that you think i am wrong.   #  the depression is far worse, even if the pain in my teeth had become permanent.   #  a few years ago i had my wisdom teeth taken out after the anesthesia was injected improperly.  it was the worst pain i have ever felt.  i have also suffered from depression for over 0 years.  the depression is far worse, even if the pain in my teeth had become permanent.  someone who is never had depression ca not understand the absolute hopelessness and despair.  it can even feel like physical pain sometimes.
first, i will just say i mean no disrespect to those who have lost someone to suicide.  i also have experienced the loss of someone close to me that committed suicide.  and secondly, i am not counting euthanasia or anything of that nature.  i do not mean that people who did decide to kill themselves are cowards or selfish, just the action itself is cowardly and selfish by it is definition.  a selfish action is something a person does out of their own self interest without taking into account or simply not caring about the effect it will have on other people, which is exactly what suicide is.  as for cowardly, suicide is an easy way out.  it may be that a person is stressed, depressed, physically or mentally in pain, or something else with no end in sight.  instead of dealing with these problems, be it seek help, get medicated, find another way to resolve the situation or just simply put up with the pain suicide is the cowardly solution.  nothing changes or is fixed, nothing is resolved and there is no closure.  it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.  again i will say that i do not believe people who commit suicide are bad people, or even cowards/selfish.  just today i heard the story of a middle aged father killing himself because he was abused as a child which later came back to him.  i feel no anger or disrespect to this person, i sympathise with his pain and torment.  but i think what he did to his children was not right, and there are other options he could have taken that were preferable.   #  i do not mean that people who did decide to kill themselves are cowards or selfish, just the action itself is cowardly and selfish by it is definition.   #  the logic behind this does not make any sense to me please elaborate.   # the logic behind this does not make any sense to me please elaborate.  if someone performs an action that is humorous, by definition they are funny.  if someone performs an action that is cowardly, by definition they are a coward.  you have no clue what kind of courage it takes to jump off a bridge, let yourself bleed out, or pull the trigger.  so unless you have personally dealt with depression, a severe mental illness, or a fatal and painful disease, realize that you can never relate to what people who deal with this go through.  so where are your grounds to say that this action is cowardly ?  #  this is something i just cannot agree with.   # this is something i just cannot agree with.  yes it must take a moment of serious courage to overcome our natural instinct, but facing depression, living through it despite the temptation of ending it all, is more courageous.  not so much as a  isolution  just options, many options may not fix anything, but if they keep the person going then that is good enough.  and suicide is not an alternative, it is not a valid option in my opinion.  let is say you have a list to combat depression, number 0 talk to a loved one.  0 talk to a professional.  0 get medicated if it is that serious.  0 if all else fails, suicide.  it is my opinion that 0 should not be on the list, it is just not a solution, you have to try other things.  death is not fixing the problem, it is leaving it.  depends what the problem is, if it is internal, then that is like saying  isuicide cures cancer , yeah, the cancer did not win, but neither did you.  if the problem is external to the individual, then suicide is the person refusing to deal with that problem.  the last part of your argument i ca not make sense of, life is not a choice, and neither is death.  i do not understand the point you are making.  and your last analogy does not work because if the  party  is life, then depression/anxiety/other problems do not last forever.  it is like leaving a party when one bad thing happens, except when you leave the party, you are leaving everything else.   #  a person who is ready to commit suicide is in so much pain that it overrides their self preservation mechanism.   # how much pain does someone have to be in for you to see suicide as acceptable ? this is simply false.  there is no other way i can say that.  as someone who regularly struggles with depression and suicidal ideation, i can tell you that suicide is not the easy option.  the easy option is to continue living in pain.  suicide is the difficult decision that takes away the pain.  it is like if we found a medicine that would take away all flu symptoms until the flu is out of the body, but it has to be a 0 liter bottle of fluid that literally tastes like shit.  drinking that bottle would me downright impossible for many people, because it would be  hard .  just because it would take the problems away does not mean it is easy.  i get the feeling you think of stress and depression as things that can be just turned off with a little hard work.  that is not the case.  i have tried therapy, anti depressants, you name it.  they do not work on me.  it is not as easy as  get help.   it is simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.  the individual also removes the need to deal with the situation, thereby removing the problem.  i could also turn this on you.  a person who is ready to commit suicide is in so much pain that it overrides their self preservation mechanism.  the pain overcomes one of the most powerful mechanisms of the human mind.  and you expect that person to just deal with it, because you would be sad if they died i would say that this expectation is  at least  as selfish as suicide, if not more so.  URL  #  you keep using the word  pain  to describe mental illness.   #  you keep using the word  pain  to describe mental illness.  as someone who is also suffering from depression, i believe it is incorrect to use that term, depression is a struggle.   pain  refers to a completely dominating status, i can go on reddit and ingore how shitty my life has become, but someone suffering from terminal stomach cancer is in constant undeniable agony.  i understand that some victims of depression have exhausted every resource, but that still does not make suicide a viable option in my opinion.  many cowardly acts take some sought of courage if that makes sense.  desertion in the army must take some courage, that does not make the decision any more noble or admirable, it just means they overcame some gut instinct and did it.  you and i are two sides of the same coin.  we have both suffered and we have both struggled however i do not know you or your history of mental health, so i have no idea how much you have struggled with depression .  i am not trying to change your mind on an obviously personal issue, but you wont change mine by simply stating that you think i am wrong.   #  a few years ago i had my wisdom teeth taken out after the anesthesia was injected improperly.   #  a few years ago i had my wisdom teeth taken out after the anesthesia was injected improperly.  it was the worst pain i have ever felt.  i have also suffered from depression for over 0 years.  the depression is far worse, even if the pain in my teeth had become permanent.  someone who is never had depression ca not understand the absolute hopelessness and despair.  it can even feel like physical pain sometimes.
0 a home no one should be homeless in this world.  everyone deserves to have a place to call home, no one should be living on the street.  0 food everyone needs food to be able to live.  no reason why people should be starving.  0 healthcare everyone should receive equal healthcare regardless of their insurance and money situation.  no one should be able to buy better healthcare.  0 education everyone should be entitled to getting some sort of education.  im not saying put everyone into college, im just saying that if someone wants to better themselves with education, be it getting a basic high school education, a college degree, or some sort of trade, it should be available.  this is where it gets unpopular.  the government should pay for it.  if we had a tax system that taxed the rich more and the poor less there would be money for programs that, feed, house, educate, and care for every single person.   #  if we had a tax system that taxed the rich more and the poor less there would be money for programs that, feed, house, educate, and care for every single person.   #  sadly the rich  love  the existence of a government, since they benefit so much from it.   #  all i see in this post is sentiments and things i honestly agree with regarding what people need, but no actual reasons for why the government should do it, and why you need to have a right to something in order to have it.  sorry this is long btw :p i would like to introduce a very touchy notion about  rights  that i would like you to consider at least:  rights  as we know them are just imaginary things created by governments and politicians to make us believe that they need to exist.  politicians claim we have a right to something we never had a formal  right  to before as a means of gaining your vote and nothing more.  they need to create this mindset where if a government does not explicitly provide a right to something, no one will ever have it.  why else would politicians say, for example, that we have a  right  to a higher education even though it is not expressly stated in the constitution if you live in america at least .  back when it was much more affordable before govt intervention , people who felt they needed a higher education got it anyway, despite the fact that it was never an official  right  to begin with.  also, we have this idea that if i say  you do not have a right to insert thing here   that i mean you must not have it at all.  that is  entirely  untrue, because while i feel people do not have a right to anything you mentioned above, i genuinely want to help others have these resources.  what i am getting at is that a  right  is almost impossible to properly define.  after all, do we have a right to toothbrushes, pencils, notebooks, cell phones, and tablets ? we  tend  to need these things nowadays.  where does it end ? because it can easily go beyond the 0 things you mention.  i would like to suggest considering the following mindset:  if government did not exist tomorrow, how would i address the problems i care about ?   clearly you care about people having these 0 things, otherwise you would not be posting this.  what is stopping you from volunteering your time or donating your money to a cause ? these have to be more practical and meaningful acts than simply complaining to a ballot box or voting for a certain person.  sadly the rich  love  the existence of a government, since they benefit so much from it.  we tend to blame the rich for concentrating power to themselves, to a small and concentrated form.  however, we idiotically claim that empowering a government to do more is the solution.  that is ultimately what you would have to do to even attempt what you described.  what has been shown to happen by doing this, though, is that power ends up concentrated in the hands of a few politicians rather than a few businessmen.  it is like saying  the solution to a huge concentration of power is  more  concentration of power .   #  or if i decide that, after three semesters, i really just want to be a mechanic, and should go to trade school ?  #  these are wonderfully ideas, but all either too vague or too flawed.  everyone deserves to have a place to call home, no one should be living on the street.  does everyone deserve a single family home, or a room in an apartment, or a bed in a hostel ? are utilities included in this ? what about property taxes and upkeep costs ? if i have children, do i get a new place ? do i have a right to a free move into that new place ? no reason why people should be starving.  are we talking beans and lentils, or chicken and rice, or steak and potatos ? will we calculate an exact 0 calorie diet for provided food ? will it be provided as ingredients to be prepared, or in a food kitchen, buffet style ? if provided as ingredients, will food storage for perishable and non perishable be provided ? how about kitchen supplies, dishes and utensils ? no one should be able to buy better healthcare.  does this apply to elective and cosmetic procedures ? what if i want a nose job or liposuction ? what if i feel like i need arthroscopic knee surgery, but my primary physician thinks i should wait due to costs, scheduling, or something else ? why should not i be able to pay for a second opinion, or pay for the surgery out of pocket ? additionally, why is this the only caveat that has the qualifier that you ca not buy better ? why should i be able to buy a bigger house, a better education, or a tastier meal if i ca not buy a better medicine or a smarter doctor ? im not saying put everyone into college, im just saying that if someone wants to better themselves with education, be it getting a basic high school education, a college degree, or some sort of trade, it should be available.  these things are all available.  what you are proposing is making it free.  of course, nothing is actually free, so you are proposing making it subsidized.  that is not necessarily a bad thing, but lets discuss it more.  what if i change majors three times ? or if i decide that, after three semesters, i really just want to be a mechanic, and should go to trade school ? if i switch jobs, do i get another free round of school ? what about medical or law school ? please understand, i am not trying to spin fallacies to mock your belief.  i am trying to make you understand the incredible complexity of the issues you raised as simple.  the only way a system like this can truly work is either tyrannical insufficiency or mandatory poverty.  either everyone in need receives the absolute bare minimum, leading to the have nots disdaining the affluence of the haves, or the haves are taxed into  equality , and then disdaining the needs of the have nots.   #  they would still have to pay for facilities if they want access to them though.   #  i think that offering a bare minimum of each is what is meant here.  so a home could mean one room entitled to a person where a bathroom and a kitchen is shared among a few people.  they would still have to pay for facilities if they want access to them though.  for food, just enough to keep them healthy, i do not know what that would be like, but i imagine something like big bag of rice and canned beans or something.  a base healthcare system should be in place with upgrades available for those who want more benefits.  as for education, public high school is already free so that already exists i think.  university is already free in some countries though.   #  soup kitchens exist, and yet some homeless refuse to eat at one and starvation still exists in america.   #  most peoples safety net is their community, family, church etc.  if i went homeless overnight, there would be any number of places where i could stay to get back on my feet.  conversely, many homeless people suffer from mental illnesses or drug dependance.  URL this may explain their lack of a community safety net.  the bottom line is that this plan will not provide a safety net for the current working population.  they already have one.  it will provide a benefit for drug users and such but kznlol is point remains.  why should he have to pay for a drug users saftey net ? furthermore, the idea that this plan would end homelessness is absurd.  homeless shelters exist, and yet plenty of homeless people refuse to stay in one.  soup kitchens exist, and yet some homeless refuse to eat at one and starvation still exists in america.  why would the plan outlined in the op be any different ? more science, more literature, more art, more music, more options.  huge citation needed here.  you cannot just claim this would create  more equality .  more so, any program like this would take money from state sponsored scientific research and  options .  so, i disagree with all your points.  this plan will not provide any real benefit to the average working joe, it will take more of their money, it will not help the homeless in any real way, and it will not increase scientific progress.  the main effect this plan would have would be to encourage people not to work towards any real goals.  why work for a living when you can just sit around and hang out with your friends ?  #  why would i work when i can just hang around at home with my friends for free ?  #  i think the  no one would be encouraged to work  argument is not well thought out.  of course people would be encouraged to work hard.  if we are giving everyone in the us a room if they need it and food, can you imagine how shitty those rooms and that food would be ? it would be the cheapest option available.  the argument that no one would be encouraged to work is just silly.  why would i work when i can just hang around at home with my friends for free ? i dunno, maybe because i am living in a one room shack surrounded by destitute and desperate people, and the only snacks we will be able to have are rice and beans.  man this place sucks.  ca not wait to find a job and escape this hellhole, but at least it beats sleeping on concrete.
0 a home no one should be homeless in this world.  everyone deserves to have a place to call home, no one should be living on the street.  0 food everyone needs food to be able to live.  no reason why people should be starving.  0 healthcare everyone should receive equal healthcare regardless of their insurance and money situation.  no one should be able to buy better healthcare.  0 education everyone should be entitled to getting some sort of education.  im not saying put everyone into college, im just saying that if someone wants to better themselves with education, be it getting a basic high school education, a college degree, or some sort of trade, it should be available.  this is where it gets unpopular.  the government should pay for it.  if we had a tax system that taxed the rich more and the poor less there would be money for programs that, feed, house, educate, and care for every single person.   #  if we had a tax system that taxed the rich more and the poor less there would be money for programs that, feed, house, educate, and care for every single person.   #  so you are a violent person, you are willing to put a gun to the head of someone to steal her money from her and give it to someone you deem more worthy ?  #  that is fine.  who pays for it ? are you going to start ? please buy me a home.  the government does not have any money.  let me clarify, the government does not exist, has no rights or duties, and has zero dollars.  every penny the government agents spend is someone else is money, a tax payer .  so you are a violent person, you are willing to put a gun to the head of someone to steal her money from her and give it to someone you deem more worthy ? would you ever do that on your own ? if you would not do it on your own, why do you think it is any different for you to ask the government to do it ? if you and a friend come together to agree to steal money from a complete stranger by putting a gun to her head, you would be involved in a conspiracy to commit armed robbery.  why do feel it is different when you have the government do it ?  #  the only way a system like this can truly work is either tyrannical insufficiency or mandatory poverty.   #  these are wonderfully ideas, but all either too vague or too flawed.  everyone deserves to have a place to call home, no one should be living on the street.  does everyone deserve a single family home, or a room in an apartment, or a bed in a hostel ? are utilities included in this ? what about property taxes and upkeep costs ? if i have children, do i get a new place ? do i have a right to a free move into that new place ? no reason why people should be starving.  are we talking beans and lentils, or chicken and rice, or steak and potatos ? will we calculate an exact 0 calorie diet for provided food ? will it be provided as ingredients to be prepared, or in a food kitchen, buffet style ? if provided as ingredients, will food storage for perishable and non perishable be provided ? how about kitchen supplies, dishes and utensils ? no one should be able to buy better healthcare.  does this apply to elective and cosmetic procedures ? what if i want a nose job or liposuction ? what if i feel like i need arthroscopic knee surgery, but my primary physician thinks i should wait due to costs, scheduling, or something else ? why should not i be able to pay for a second opinion, or pay for the surgery out of pocket ? additionally, why is this the only caveat that has the qualifier that you ca not buy better ? why should i be able to buy a bigger house, a better education, or a tastier meal if i ca not buy a better medicine or a smarter doctor ? im not saying put everyone into college, im just saying that if someone wants to better themselves with education, be it getting a basic high school education, a college degree, or some sort of trade, it should be available.  these things are all available.  what you are proposing is making it free.  of course, nothing is actually free, so you are proposing making it subsidized.  that is not necessarily a bad thing, but lets discuss it more.  what if i change majors three times ? or if i decide that, after three semesters, i really just want to be a mechanic, and should go to trade school ? if i switch jobs, do i get another free round of school ? what about medical or law school ? please understand, i am not trying to spin fallacies to mock your belief.  i am trying to make you understand the incredible complexity of the issues you raised as simple.  the only way a system like this can truly work is either tyrannical insufficiency or mandatory poverty.  either everyone in need receives the absolute bare minimum, leading to the have nots disdaining the affluence of the haves, or the haves are taxed into  equality , and then disdaining the needs of the have nots.   #  i think that offering a bare minimum of each is what is meant here.   #  i think that offering a bare minimum of each is what is meant here.  so a home could mean one room entitled to a person where a bathroom and a kitchen is shared among a few people.  they would still have to pay for facilities if they want access to them though.  for food, just enough to keep them healthy, i do not know what that would be like, but i imagine something like big bag of rice and canned beans or something.  a base healthcare system should be in place with upgrades available for those who want more benefits.  as for education, public high school is already free so that already exists i think.  university is already free in some countries though.   #  URL this may explain their lack of a community safety net.   #  most peoples safety net is their community, family, church etc.  if i went homeless overnight, there would be any number of places where i could stay to get back on my feet.  conversely, many homeless people suffer from mental illnesses or drug dependance.  URL this may explain their lack of a community safety net.  the bottom line is that this plan will not provide a safety net for the current working population.  they already have one.  it will provide a benefit for drug users and such but kznlol is point remains.  why should he have to pay for a drug users saftey net ? furthermore, the idea that this plan would end homelessness is absurd.  homeless shelters exist, and yet plenty of homeless people refuse to stay in one.  soup kitchens exist, and yet some homeless refuse to eat at one and starvation still exists in america.  why would the plan outlined in the op be any different ? more science, more literature, more art, more music, more options.  huge citation needed here.  you cannot just claim this would create  more equality .  more so, any program like this would take money from state sponsored scientific research and  options .  so, i disagree with all your points.  this plan will not provide any real benefit to the average working joe, it will take more of their money, it will not help the homeless in any real way, and it will not increase scientific progress.  the main effect this plan would have would be to encourage people not to work towards any real goals.  why work for a living when you can just sit around and hang out with your friends ?  #  of course people would be encouraged to work hard.   #  i think the  no one would be encouraged to work  argument is not well thought out.  of course people would be encouraged to work hard.  if we are giving everyone in the us a room if they need it and food, can you imagine how shitty those rooms and that food would be ? it would be the cheapest option available.  the argument that no one would be encouraged to work is just silly.  why would i work when i can just hang around at home with my friends for free ? i dunno, maybe because i am living in a one room shack surrounded by destitute and desperate people, and the only snacks we will be able to have are rice and beans.  man this place sucks.  ca not wait to find a job and escape this hellhole, but at least it beats sleeping on concrete.
i have been struggling with this for a while, and just ca not seem to find anything wrong with being extremely lazy.  as long as i am happy and am not  dragging  down the quality of life of those around me, is there anything wrong with being lazy ? why should i bother slaving away at a 0 0 job for 0 years of my life just to secure myself a somewhat mediocre retirement ? why not spend those 0 years learning how to become perfectly self sufficient, and pass those skills down for further generations to learn to become self sufficient ? if you need more background / need me to further explain what i mean by being lazy, please let me know.   #  why should i bother slaving away at a 0 0 job for 0 years of my life just to secure myself a somewhat mediocre retirement ?  #  with that attitude you would not get very far.   # there is nothing  wrong .  nobody should judge you for your lifestyle, but i will judge you if you went and got government benefits for being poor.  if you want to be lazy that is your life, but do not expect society to support you.  with that attitude you would not get very far.  instead of just doing the bare minimum, you could try to push yourself and start a business, invest in stuff, find connections, write a book.  you do not just have to be the average joe working a 0 0 job.  if that is what makes you happy and you can actually be self sufficient then that is awesome.  i am just inclined to ask how you are planning to do this ?  #  since we live in the 0st century there is very little that we  need to do  to survive.   #  you are right.  you do not need to.  since we live in the 0st century there is very little that we  need to do  to survive.  but another aspect of the 0st century is the opportunities that it gives us.  there is more things in this world than any one person could possibly experience.  so many places to visit, people to meet, hobbies to learn, and experiences to have.  we all only have one life so we should make the most of it and work is how you accomplish things.  idk, it could just differ from person to person.  i spent a few months being lazy doing hardly anything but smoking pot and playing videogames but i just found it so unrewarding.  a bit of discipline really made a difference to my life quality.  i have friends from my hometown that i visit sometimes.  they still live with their parents, smoke pot, play videogames, and every time i see them nothing has changed.  they are not hurting anyone but it just seems sad to me.  there is so much stuff out there and they are just focused on super smash bros.  i guess it all comes down to what you prioritize: the gratification of achievement vs the discomfort of work.   #  maybe that is when it is no longer okay to be lazy.   #  you make some good points perhaps the line is to be drawn at the point where welfare benefits come into play.  maybe that is when it is no longer okay to be lazy.  as for how i am planning to become self sufficient, i have not made any concrete plans yet.  it is something i definitely want to do, but it would require a lot of effort and planning.  i guess you could say it would require me not to be lazy.  in terms of plausibility though, i live in the middle of sydney and there are a few houses in my neighbourhood who have become completely self sufficient.  not only do they get all their water from rain tanks and get all energy from solar panels some of the energy they absorb even gets puts back into the grid and they get money back from the electricity company , but they even process their own sewerage.   #  most people pay for the opportunity to go after goals, and no matter the circumstances, everybody has goals.   #  being lazy is just plain inefficient.  life is not free, you are spending money just by being here since you need to pay for food, shelter and all basic needs.  sure, the government can help you out but that is not going to last a lifetime, it was never meant to.  so what do you get for all the money you are paying ? most people pay for the opportunity to go after goals, and no matter the circumstances, everybody has goals.  it could be having a family, an awesome career, money, etc.  tl:dr being lazy is like paying a car loan and still choosing to ride the bus everyday.   #  and raising kids is more work than i care to deal with.   # is it wrong in terms of morals ? probably not.  as long as you are not depending on welfare or the generosity of strangers/family/friends then i do not really care how you live your life.  but happiness takes work.  want a good body ? that is hours in the gym and a good diet.  want a nice computer ? fancy car ? big house ? you are going to need to work.  want a loving family ? guess what, relationships require work too.  and raising kids is more work than i care to deal with.  i get satisfaction from learning things, but studying is work.  i like being good at dota 0 which requires practice and research.  so you can go through life putting in the bare minimum effort to survive but i think that is a bad path.  i like to work hard and play hard.
i have been struggling with this for a while, and just ca not seem to find anything wrong with being extremely lazy.  as long as i am happy and am not  dragging  down the quality of life of those around me, is there anything wrong with being lazy ? why should i bother slaving away at a 0 0 job for 0 years of my life just to secure myself a somewhat mediocre retirement ? why not spend those 0 years learning how to become perfectly self sufficient, and pass those skills down for further generations to learn to become self sufficient ? if you need more background / need me to further explain what i mean by being lazy, please let me know.   #  why not spend those 0 years learning how to become perfectly self sufficient, and pass those skills down for further generations to learn to become self sufficient ?  #  if that is what makes you happy and you can actually be self sufficient then that is awesome.   # there is nothing  wrong .  nobody should judge you for your lifestyle, but i will judge you if you went and got government benefits for being poor.  if you want to be lazy that is your life, but do not expect society to support you.  with that attitude you would not get very far.  instead of just doing the bare minimum, you could try to push yourself and start a business, invest in stuff, find connections, write a book.  you do not just have to be the average joe working a 0 0 job.  if that is what makes you happy and you can actually be self sufficient then that is awesome.  i am just inclined to ask how you are planning to do this ?  #  they still live with their parents, smoke pot, play videogames, and every time i see them nothing has changed.   #  you are right.  you do not need to.  since we live in the 0st century there is very little that we  need to do  to survive.  but another aspect of the 0st century is the opportunities that it gives us.  there is more things in this world than any one person could possibly experience.  so many places to visit, people to meet, hobbies to learn, and experiences to have.  we all only have one life so we should make the most of it and work is how you accomplish things.  idk, it could just differ from person to person.  i spent a few months being lazy doing hardly anything but smoking pot and playing videogames but i just found it so unrewarding.  a bit of discipline really made a difference to my life quality.  i have friends from my hometown that i visit sometimes.  they still live with their parents, smoke pot, play videogames, and every time i see them nothing has changed.  they are not hurting anyone but it just seems sad to me.  there is so much stuff out there and they are just focused on super smash bros.  i guess it all comes down to what you prioritize: the gratification of achievement vs the discomfort of work.   #  maybe that is when it is no longer okay to be lazy.   #  you make some good points perhaps the line is to be drawn at the point where welfare benefits come into play.  maybe that is when it is no longer okay to be lazy.  as for how i am planning to become self sufficient, i have not made any concrete plans yet.  it is something i definitely want to do, but it would require a lot of effort and planning.  i guess you could say it would require me not to be lazy.  in terms of plausibility though, i live in the middle of sydney and there are a few houses in my neighbourhood who have become completely self sufficient.  not only do they get all their water from rain tanks and get all energy from solar panels some of the energy they absorb even gets puts back into the grid and they get money back from the electricity company , but they even process their own sewerage.   #  sure, the government can help you out but that is not going to last a lifetime, it was never meant to.   #  being lazy is just plain inefficient.  life is not free, you are spending money just by being here since you need to pay for food, shelter and all basic needs.  sure, the government can help you out but that is not going to last a lifetime, it was never meant to.  so what do you get for all the money you are paying ? most people pay for the opportunity to go after goals, and no matter the circumstances, everybody has goals.  it could be having a family, an awesome career, money, etc.  tl:dr being lazy is like paying a car loan and still choosing to ride the bus everyday.   #  as long as you are not depending on welfare or the generosity of strangers/family/friends then i do not really care how you live your life.   # is it wrong in terms of morals ? probably not.  as long as you are not depending on welfare or the generosity of strangers/family/friends then i do not really care how you live your life.  but happiness takes work.  want a good body ? that is hours in the gym and a good diet.  want a nice computer ? fancy car ? big house ? you are going to need to work.  want a loving family ? guess what, relationships require work too.  and raising kids is more work than i care to deal with.  i get satisfaction from learning things, but studying is work.  i like being good at dota 0 which requires practice and research.  so you can go through life putting in the bare minimum effort to survive but i think that is a bad path.  i like to work hard and play hard.
i have been struggling with this for a while, and just ca not seem to find anything wrong with being extremely lazy.  as long as i am happy and am not  dragging  down the quality of life of those around me, is there anything wrong with being lazy ? why should i bother slaving away at a 0 0 job for 0 years of my life just to secure myself a somewhat mediocre retirement ? why not spend those 0 years learning how to become perfectly self sufficient, and pass those skills down for further generations to learn to become self sufficient ? if you need more background / need me to further explain what i mean by being lazy, please let me know.   #  as long as i am happy and am not  dragging  down the quality of life of those around me, is there anything wrong with being lazy ?  #  is it wrong in terms of morals ?  # is it wrong in terms of morals ? probably not.  as long as you are not depending on welfare or the generosity of strangers/family/friends then i do not really care how you live your life.  but happiness takes work.  want a good body ? that is hours in the gym and a good diet.  want a nice computer ? fancy car ? big house ? you are going to need to work.  want a loving family ? guess what, relationships require work too.  and raising kids is more work than i care to deal with.  i get satisfaction from learning things, but studying is work.  i like being good at dota 0 which requires practice and research.  so you can go through life putting in the bare minimum effort to survive but i think that is a bad path.  i like to work hard and play hard.   #  i spent a few months being lazy doing hardly anything but smoking pot and playing videogames but i just found it so unrewarding.   #  you are right.  you do not need to.  since we live in the 0st century there is very little that we  need to do  to survive.  but another aspect of the 0st century is the opportunities that it gives us.  there is more things in this world than any one person could possibly experience.  so many places to visit, people to meet, hobbies to learn, and experiences to have.  we all only have one life so we should make the most of it and work is how you accomplish things.  idk, it could just differ from person to person.  i spent a few months being lazy doing hardly anything but smoking pot and playing videogames but i just found it so unrewarding.  a bit of discipline really made a difference to my life quality.  i have friends from my hometown that i visit sometimes.  they still live with their parents, smoke pot, play videogames, and every time i see them nothing has changed.  they are not hurting anyone but it just seems sad to me.  there is so much stuff out there and they are just focused on super smash bros.  i guess it all comes down to what you prioritize: the gratification of achievement vs the discomfort of work.   #  you do not just have to be the average joe working a 0 0 job.   # there is nothing  wrong .  nobody should judge you for your lifestyle, but i will judge you if you went and got government benefits for being poor.  if you want to be lazy that is your life, but do not expect society to support you.  with that attitude you would not get very far.  instead of just doing the bare minimum, you could try to push yourself and start a business, invest in stuff, find connections, write a book.  you do not just have to be the average joe working a 0 0 job.  if that is what makes you happy and you can actually be self sufficient then that is awesome.  i am just inclined to ask how you are planning to do this ?  #  maybe that is when it is no longer okay to be lazy.   #  you make some good points perhaps the line is to be drawn at the point where welfare benefits come into play.  maybe that is when it is no longer okay to be lazy.  as for how i am planning to become self sufficient, i have not made any concrete plans yet.  it is something i definitely want to do, but it would require a lot of effort and planning.  i guess you could say it would require me not to be lazy.  in terms of plausibility though, i live in the middle of sydney and there are a few houses in my neighbourhood who have become completely self sufficient.  not only do they get all their water from rain tanks and get all energy from solar panels some of the energy they absorb even gets puts back into the grid and they get money back from the electricity company , but they even process their own sewerage.   #  tl:dr being lazy is like paying a car loan and still choosing to ride the bus everyday.   #  being lazy is just plain inefficient.  life is not free, you are spending money just by being here since you need to pay for food, shelter and all basic needs.  sure, the government can help you out but that is not going to last a lifetime, it was never meant to.  so what do you get for all the money you are paying ? most people pay for the opportunity to go after goals, and no matter the circumstances, everybody has goals.  it could be having a family, an awesome career, money, etc.  tl:dr being lazy is like paying a car loan and still choosing to ride the bus everyday.
so to be clear, i will cross the street when there is no crosswalk nearby.  i am talking about intersections with traffic lights and the  do not walk  hand.  i live near a smallish city, so there are often times that no cars are coming but the  do not walk  sign is on.  people i am with usually look both ways and then cross anyways, but i wait until i am legally allowed to cross.  my reasoning is that the amount of time i would save is less than 0 seconds, and the maximum penalty either being hit by a car or getting a ticket , though rare, is too high to justify such a small amount of time saved.  furthermore, i feel it is wrong to break traffic laws just because you do not think they should apply to you.  lastly, i believe people who break these kinds of safety laws out of habit are more likely to forget to look both ways and put themselves in real danger.  i really do not understand why people think it is okay to jaywalk in these situations but in their car they would be much more hesitant to run a red light even if they could see it was clear.  it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.   #  i really do not understand why people think it is okay to jaywalk in these situations but in their car they would be much more hesitant to run a red light even if they could see it was clear.   #  it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.   #  i am not sure what i am supposed to be changing.  am i supposed to convince you that you  should  jaywalk, or am i supposed to convince you that it is acceptable for people to jaywalk ? it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.  simply put, jaywalking puts you at risk.  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.  here you are making a judgment call about whether the time or the risk means more to you.  the key thing here is that largely, this only affects you.  if you bear the consequences, only you bear the consequences.  exception being socialized medical costs if you get hit by a car and get medical care.  i would argue: it is just silly to wait because there is 0 chance of an accident.  a good example is there are times when you are in a city like san francisco, where you want to cross what is effectively an alley with excellent visibility, it is a one way street, and cross traffic is being blocked by a green crosswalk.  you are probably more likely to get mauled just walking on the sidewalk than crossing in a spot like that.  that, and i do not like supporting either culture or law in scenarios where it makes no sense.  that said, i will admit it is a personal choice and there is nothing ethically or morally  wrong  about preferring to always wait.  what would you do if the crosswalk light never changed ? background story: i have only received 0 tickets in my life, and one was for running a red light; i was waiting at a red light for 0 minutes, late at night, with no other cars visible anywhere.  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.  got pulled over immediately.  judge dismissed the ticket.   #  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.   # am i supposed to convince you that you should jaywalk, or am i supposed to convince you that it is acceptable for people to jaywalk ? i would like to be convinced that i should jaywalk so i am not standing there like an idiot while my wife is family walks ahead of us.  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.  hitting someone with your car is a traumatic experience, so i would say that you are putting other people at risk.  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.  got pulled over immediately.  judge dismissed the ticket.  do you still run red lights in those circumstances, or was the hassle of going to court enough to dissuade you ?  #  it is been 0 years, and i think more and rush around less.   # it is never come up since in a similar circumstance.  or perhaps if it did, i waited longer and did not notice.  it is been 0 years, and i think more and rush around less.  hitting someone when you are at fault might be traumatic, but if someone was jaywalking, i do not think i would lose sleep.  also by  not  jaywalking with the group, you are reducing their visibility and increasing the chances they will be hit.  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.  also, if you intend to jaywalk and try to do so only when safe, then if you see an unsafe circumstance say, someone down the road going to fast you are more likely to notice and be able to say  watch out !   or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.   #  i imagine a cop would be more likely to give a warning to 0 people than write them each tickets, so i guess that danger is reduced as well.   #  i might have messed up the delta, trying again.   hitting someone when you are at fault might be traumatic, but if someone was jaywalking, i do not think i would lose sleep my understanding is that train engineers can suffer from ptsd when people commit suicide on the tracks.  nothing the train engineer could have done, but a terrible experience nonetheless.  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.  also, if you intend to jaywalk and try to do so only when safe, then if you see an unsafe circumstance say, someone down the road going to fast you are more likely to notice and be able to say  watch out !   or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.    0; hmm, i will give you that one.  a larger group of people is going to be more visible, and i can be especially wary of cars even if my companions forget to look.  i imagine a cop would be more likely to give a warning to 0 people than write them each tickets, so i guess that danger is reduced as well.   #  also, pressing the button to request a change of lights will alter how intersections are synced up all over the area.   #  i still find it amusing that there is actually a law against crossing the street in america even when there is nothing coming.   tis a bit silly imo.  anyhow, to address your cmv.  if i am in a city, i may have to cross a great many roads in a relatively short distance wise journey.  waiting for the signal to change for each road quickly adds up.  if i can see there is nothing coming then the only possible and incredibly unlikely anyway way that i could be hit is if a car is massively speeding.  in which case, they are just as likely to run a red light so waiting for the green man would not help any way.  also, pressing the button to request a change of lights will alter how intersections are synced up all over the area.  why would i do that and cause inconvenience to motorists when there is no necessity ?
so to be clear, i will cross the street when there is no crosswalk nearby.  i am talking about intersections with traffic lights and the  do not walk  hand.  i live near a smallish city, so there are often times that no cars are coming but the  do not walk  sign is on.  people i am with usually look both ways and then cross anyways, but i wait until i am legally allowed to cross.  my reasoning is that the amount of time i would save is less than 0 seconds, and the maximum penalty either being hit by a car or getting a ticket , though rare, is too high to justify such a small amount of time saved.  furthermore, i feel it is wrong to break traffic laws just because you do not think they should apply to you.  lastly, i believe people who break these kinds of safety laws out of habit are more likely to forget to look both ways and put themselves in real danger.  i really do not understand why people think it is okay to jaywalk in these situations but in their car they would be much more hesitant to run a red light even if they could see it was clear.  it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.   #  my reasoning is that the amount of time i would save is less than 0 seconds, and the maximum penalty either being hit by a car or getting a ticket , though rare, is too high to justify such a small amount of time saved.   #  here you are making a judgment call about whether the time or the risk means more to you.   #  i am not sure what i am supposed to be changing.  am i supposed to convince you that you  should  jaywalk, or am i supposed to convince you that it is acceptable for people to jaywalk ? it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.  simply put, jaywalking puts you at risk.  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.  here you are making a judgment call about whether the time or the risk means more to you.  the key thing here is that largely, this only affects you.  if you bear the consequences, only you bear the consequences.  exception being socialized medical costs if you get hit by a car and get medical care.  i would argue: it is just silly to wait because there is 0 chance of an accident.  a good example is there are times when you are in a city like san francisco, where you want to cross what is effectively an alley with excellent visibility, it is a one way street, and cross traffic is being blocked by a green crosswalk.  you are probably more likely to get mauled just walking on the sidewalk than crossing in a spot like that.  that, and i do not like supporting either culture or law in scenarios where it makes no sense.  that said, i will admit it is a personal choice and there is nothing ethically or morally  wrong  about preferring to always wait.  what would you do if the crosswalk light never changed ? background story: i have only received 0 tickets in my life, and one was for running a red light; i was waiting at a red light for 0 minutes, late at night, with no other cars visible anywhere.  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.  got pulled over immediately.  judge dismissed the ticket.   #  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.   # am i supposed to convince you that you should jaywalk, or am i supposed to convince you that it is acceptable for people to jaywalk ? i would like to be convinced that i should jaywalk so i am not standing there like an idiot while my wife is family walks ahead of us.  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.  hitting someone with your car is a traumatic experience, so i would say that you are putting other people at risk.  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.  got pulled over immediately.  judge dismissed the ticket.  do you still run red lights in those circumstances, or was the hassle of going to court enough to dissuade you ?  #  it is been 0 years, and i think more and rush around less.   # it is never come up since in a similar circumstance.  or perhaps if it did, i waited longer and did not notice.  it is been 0 years, and i think more and rush around less.  hitting someone when you are at fault might be traumatic, but if someone was jaywalking, i do not think i would lose sleep.  also by  not  jaywalking with the group, you are reducing their visibility and increasing the chances they will be hit.  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.  also, if you intend to jaywalk and try to do so only when safe, then if you see an unsafe circumstance say, someone down the road going to fast you are more likely to notice and be able to say  watch out !   or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.   #  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.   #  i might have messed up the delta, trying again.   hitting someone when you are at fault might be traumatic, but if someone was jaywalking, i do not think i would lose sleep my understanding is that train engineers can suffer from ptsd when people commit suicide on the tracks.  nothing the train engineer could have done, but a terrible experience nonetheless.  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.  also, if you intend to jaywalk and try to do so only when safe, then if you see an unsafe circumstance say, someone down the road going to fast you are more likely to notice and be able to say  watch out !   or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.    0; hmm, i will give you that one.  a larger group of people is going to be more visible, and i can be especially wary of cars even if my companions forget to look.  i imagine a cop would be more likely to give a warning to 0 people than write them each tickets, so i guess that danger is reduced as well.   #  i still find it amusing that there is actually a law against crossing the street in america even when there is nothing coming.   #  i still find it amusing that there is actually a law against crossing the street in america even when there is nothing coming.   tis a bit silly imo.  anyhow, to address your cmv.  if i am in a city, i may have to cross a great many roads in a relatively short distance wise journey.  waiting for the signal to change for each road quickly adds up.  if i can see there is nothing coming then the only possible and incredibly unlikely anyway way that i could be hit is if a car is massively speeding.  in which case, they are just as likely to run a red light so waiting for the green man would not help any way.  also, pressing the button to request a change of lights will alter how intersections are synced up all over the area.  why would i do that and cause inconvenience to motorists when there is no necessity ?
so to be clear, i will cross the street when there is no crosswalk nearby.  i am talking about intersections with traffic lights and the  do not walk  hand.  i live near a smallish city, so there are often times that no cars are coming but the  do not walk  sign is on.  people i am with usually look both ways and then cross anyways, but i wait until i am legally allowed to cross.  my reasoning is that the amount of time i would save is less than 0 seconds, and the maximum penalty either being hit by a car or getting a ticket , though rare, is too high to justify such a small amount of time saved.  furthermore, i feel it is wrong to break traffic laws just because you do not think they should apply to you.  lastly, i believe people who break these kinds of safety laws out of habit are more likely to forget to look both ways and put themselves in real danger.  i really do not understand why people think it is okay to jaywalk in these situations but in their car they would be much more hesitant to run a red light even if they could see it was clear.  it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.   #  i feel it is wrong to break traffic laws just because you do not think they should apply to you.   #  people break them because they think they are frivolous and unnecessary that applies to many, not just myself.   #  first off, no one is going to convince you to break the law.  we can talk about why most everyone does it.  many are not doing it to save time on anything; it is just annoying to stand when you could be moving towards your destination.  of all car accidents, nearly two thirds involve pedestrians www. worldbank. org/transport/roads/safety. htm , and are steadily approaching the third leading cause of death worldwide.  that source is somewhat out of date too, so it is quite possibly even higher right now.  people break them because they think they are frivolous and unnecessary that applies to many, not just myself.  could definitely be the case.  i will refrain from speaking for everyone, but i only do so situationally.  if it is a long street both ways without a single vehicle in sight, i jaywalk.  if my view is even partially blocked by obstacle for any reason curve in road right before the crosswalk, large stationary vehicle or other object blocking my view of the street, etc.  or there is an officer nearby then i will not jaywalk.  fun fact: one time a friend of mine jaywalked in front of a moving police car.  we yelled at him to get back because we could see it coming down the road.  the car screeched to a halt, and the officer, with his window down yelled,  hey ! use the crosswalk !  , and quickly zoomed off.  maybe he was responding to something, but he did not have his siren on.  still though no ticket at all.  i know this probably wo not convince you in particular to jaywalk, but perhaps it gives a more insightful view as to why most everyone else does it.  it is indeed a high risk, low reward activity, but every time we come out unscathed 0 of the time for myself so far , it is marked up as a win.   #  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.   #  i am not sure what i am supposed to be changing.  am i supposed to convince you that you  should  jaywalk, or am i supposed to convince you that it is acceptable for people to jaywalk ? it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.  simply put, jaywalking puts you at risk.  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.  here you are making a judgment call about whether the time or the risk means more to you.  the key thing here is that largely, this only affects you.  if you bear the consequences, only you bear the consequences.  exception being socialized medical costs if you get hit by a car and get medical care.  i would argue: it is just silly to wait because there is 0 chance of an accident.  a good example is there are times when you are in a city like san francisco, where you want to cross what is effectively an alley with excellent visibility, it is a one way street, and cross traffic is being blocked by a green crosswalk.  you are probably more likely to get mauled just walking on the sidewalk than crossing in a spot like that.  that, and i do not like supporting either culture or law in scenarios where it makes no sense.  that said, i will admit it is a personal choice and there is nothing ethically or morally  wrong  about preferring to always wait.  what would you do if the crosswalk light never changed ? background story: i have only received 0 tickets in my life, and one was for running a red light; i was waiting at a red light for 0 minutes, late at night, with no other cars visible anywhere.  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.  got pulled over immediately.  judge dismissed the ticket.   #  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.   # am i supposed to convince you that you should jaywalk, or am i supposed to convince you that it is acceptable for people to jaywalk ? i would like to be convinced that i should jaywalk so i am not standing there like an idiot while my wife is family walks ahead of us.  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.  hitting someone with your car is a traumatic experience, so i would say that you are putting other people at risk.  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.  got pulled over immediately.  judge dismissed the ticket.  do you still run red lights in those circumstances, or was the hassle of going to court enough to dissuade you ?  #  or perhaps if it did, i waited longer and did not notice.   # it is never come up since in a similar circumstance.  or perhaps if it did, i waited longer and did not notice.  it is been 0 years, and i think more and rush around less.  hitting someone when you are at fault might be traumatic, but if someone was jaywalking, i do not think i would lose sleep.  also by  not  jaywalking with the group, you are reducing their visibility and increasing the chances they will be hit.  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.  also, if you intend to jaywalk and try to do so only when safe, then if you see an unsafe circumstance say, someone down the road going to fast you are more likely to notice and be able to say  watch out !   or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.   #  a larger group of people is going to be more visible, and i can be especially wary of cars even if my companions forget to look.   #  i might have messed up the delta, trying again.   hitting someone when you are at fault might be traumatic, but if someone was jaywalking, i do not think i would lose sleep my understanding is that train engineers can suffer from ptsd when people commit suicide on the tracks.  nothing the train engineer could have done, but a terrible experience nonetheless.  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.  also, if you intend to jaywalk and try to do so only when safe, then if you see an unsafe circumstance say, someone down the road going to fast you are more likely to notice and be able to say  watch out !   or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.    0; hmm, i will give you that one.  a larger group of people is going to be more visible, and i can be especially wary of cars even if my companions forget to look.  i imagine a cop would be more likely to give a warning to 0 people than write them each tickets, so i guess that danger is reduced as well.
so to be clear, i will cross the street when there is no crosswalk nearby.  i am talking about intersections with traffic lights and the  do not walk  hand.  i live near a smallish city, so there are often times that no cars are coming but the  do not walk  sign is on.  people i am with usually look both ways and then cross anyways, but i wait until i am legally allowed to cross.  my reasoning is that the amount of time i would save is less than 0 seconds, and the maximum penalty either being hit by a car or getting a ticket , though rare, is too high to justify such a small amount of time saved.  furthermore, i feel it is wrong to break traffic laws just because you do not think they should apply to you.  lastly, i believe people who break these kinds of safety laws out of habit are more likely to forget to look both ways and put themselves in real danger.  i really do not understand why people think it is okay to jaywalk in these situations but in their car they would be much more hesitant to run a red light even if they could see it was clear.  it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.   #  lastly, i believe people who break these kinds of safety laws out of habit are more likely to forget to look both ways and put themselves in real danger.   #  i do not know about this one.   # i do not know about this one.  i work in the city and people who jaywalk do tend to look both ways.  i think it would make sense for these people to be more vigilant since they are endangering themselves more. i mean how would they survive jaywalking if they did not look.  and honestly, there are unsafe jaywalkers, those that try to make really close calls, and unsafe crosswalk walkers, those who just start walking when the crossing light comes on.  i actually see those people more often, the legal cross walkers that do not look both ways because they assume that since their crosswalk light is on, they are 0 safe to go.  just last weekend, i was in the city and a man got the daylights scared out of him because he crossed when the crosswalk light came on, but a turning car they had green light forgot to look for pedestrians.  i could see these guys forgetting to look both ways more often than jaywalkers since they have something to fall back on, a sense of security.  i know that if a cop sees me running a red light, even if i am alone in the middle of nowhere, i am getting a ticket.  i have jaywalked in the presence of cops. i even jaywalked with a cop. and no tickets thus far.   #  if you bear the consequences, only you bear the consequences.   #  i am not sure what i am supposed to be changing.  am i supposed to convince you that you  should  jaywalk, or am i supposed to convince you that it is acceptable for people to jaywalk ? it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.  simply put, jaywalking puts you at risk.  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.  here you are making a judgment call about whether the time or the risk means more to you.  the key thing here is that largely, this only affects you.  if you bear the consequences, only you bear the consequences.  exception being socialized medical costs if you get hit by a car and get medical care.  i would argue: it is just silly to wait because there is 0 chance of an accident.  a good example is there are times when you are in a city like san francisco, where you want to cross what is effectively an alley with excellent visibility, it is a one way street, and cross traffic is being blocked by a green crosswalk.  you are probably more likely to get mauled just walking on the sidewalk than crossing in a spot like that.  that, and i do not like supporting either culture or law in scenarios where it makes no sense.  that said, i will admit it is a personal choice and there is nothing ethically or morally  wrong  about preferring to always wait.  what would you do if the crosswalk light never changed ? background story: i have only received 0 tickets in my life, and one was for running a red light; i was waiting at a red light for 0 minutes, late at night, with no other cars visible anywhere.  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.  got pulled over immediately.  judge dismissed the ticket.   #  i would like to be convinced that i should jaywalk so i am not standing there like an idiot while my wife is family walks ahead of us.   # am i supposed to convince you that you should jaywalk, or am i supposed to convince you that it is acceptable for people to jaywalk ? i would like to be convinced that i should jaywalk so i am not standing there like an idiot while my wife is family walks ahead of us.  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.  hitting someone with your car is a traumatic experience, so i would say that you are putting other people at risk.  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.  got pulled over immediately.  judge dismissed the ticket.  do you still run red lights in those circumstances, or was the hassle of going to court enough to dissuade you ?  #  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.   # it is never come up since in a similar circumstance.  or perhaps if it did, i waited longer and did not notice.  it is been 0 years, and i think more and rush around less.  hitting someone when you are at fault might be traumatic, but if someone was jaywalking, i do not think i would lose sleep.  also by  not  jaywalking with the group, you are reducing their visibility and increasing the chances they will be hit.  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.  also, if you intend to jaywalk and try to do so only when safe, then if you see an unsafe circumstance say, someone down the road going to fast you are more likely to notice and be able to say  watch out !   or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.   #  or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.   #  i might have messed up the delta, trying again.   hitting someone when you are at fault might be traumatic, but if someone was jaywalking, i do not think i would lose sleep my understanding is that train engineers can suffer from ptsd when people commit suicide on the tracks.  nothing the train engineer could have done, but a terrible experience nonetheless.  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.  also, if you intend to jaywalk and try to do so only when safe, then if you see an unsafe circumstance say, someone down the road going to fast you are more likely to notice and be able to say  watch out !   or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.    0; hmm, i will give you that one.  a larger group of people is going to be more visible, and i can be especially wary of cars even if my companions forget to look.  i imagine a cop would be more likely to give a warning to 0 people than write them each tickets, so i guess that danger is reduced as well.
so to be clear, i will cross the street when there is no crosswalk nearby.  i am talking about intersections with traffic lights and the  do not walk  hand.  i live near a smallish city, so there are often times that no cars are coming but the  do not walk  sign is on.  people i am with usually look both ways and then cross anyways, but i wait until i am legally allowed to cross.  my reasoning is that the amount of time i would save is less than 0 seconds, and the maximum penalty either being hit by a car or getting a ticket , though rare, is too high to justify such a small amount of time saved.  furthermore, i feel it is wrong to break traffic laws just because you do not think they should apply to you.  lastly, i believe people who break these kinds of safety laws out of habit are more likely to forget to look both ways and put themselves in real danger.  i really do not understand why people think it is okay to jaywalk in these situations but in their car they would be much more hesitant to run a red light even if they could see it was clear.  it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.   #  i really do not understand why people think it is okay to jaywalk in these situations but in their car they would be much more hesitant to run a red light even if they could see it was clear.   #  i know that if a cop sees me running a red light, even if i am alone in the middle of nowhere, i am getting a ticket.   # i do not know about this one.  i work in the city and people who jaywalk do tend to look both ways.  i think it would make sense for these people to be more vigilant since they are endangering themselves more. i mean how would they survive jaywalking if they did not look.  and honestly, there are unsafe jaywalkers, those that try to make really close calls, and unsafe crosswalk walkers, those who just start walking when the crossing light comes on.  i actually see those people more often, the legal cross walkers that do not look both ways because they assume that since their crosswalk light is on, they are 0 safe to go.  just last weekend, i was in the city and a man got the daylights scared out of him because he crossed when the crosswalk light came on, but a turning car they had green light forgot to look for pedestrians.  i could see these guys forgetting to look both ways more often than jaywalkers since they have something to fall back on, a sense of security.  i know that if a cop sees me running a red light, even if i am alone in the middle of nowhere, i am getting a ticket.  i have jaywalked in the presence of cops. i even jaywalked with a cop. and no tickets thus far.   #  i am not sure what i am supposed to be changing.   #  i am not sure what i am supposed to be changing.  am i supposed to convince you that you  should  jaywalk, or am i supposed to convince you that it is acceptable for people to jaywalk ? it is become an issue with my in laws, so please cmv.  simply put, jaywalking puts you at risk.  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.  here you are making a judgment call about whether the time or the risk means more to you.  the key thing here is that largely, this only affects you.  if you bear the consequences, only you bear the consequences.  exception being socialized medical costs if you get hit by a car and get medical care.  i would argue: it is just silly to wait because there is 0 chance of an accident.  a good example is there are times when you are in a city like san francisco, where you want to cross what is effectively an alley with excellent visibility, it is a one way street, and cross traffic is being blocked by a green crosswalk.  you are probably more likely to get mauled just walking on the sidewalk than crossing in a spot like that.  that, and i do not like supporting either culture or law in scenarios where it makes no sense.  that said, i will admit it is a personal choice and there is nothing ethically or morally  wrong  about preferring to always wait.  what would you do if the crosswalk light never changed ? background story: i have only received 0 tickets in my life, and one was for running a red light; i was waiting at a red light for 0 minutes, late at night, with no other cars visible anywhere.  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.  got pulled over immediately.  judge dismissed the ticket.   #  do you still run red lights in those circumstances, or was the hassle of going to court enough to dissuade you ?  # am i supposed to convince you that you should jaywalk, or am i supposed to convince you that it is acceptable for people to jaywalk ? i would like to be convinced that i should jaywalk so i am not standing there like an idiot while my wife is family walks ahead of us.  running a red light in a car puts other people at risk.  hitting someone with your car is a traumatic experience, so i would say that you are putting other people at risk.  finally i decided that was enough, proceeded carefully through the red.  got pulled over immediately.  judge dismissed the ticket.  do you still run red lights in those circumstances, or was the hassle of going to court enough to dissuade you ?  #  or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.   # it is never come up since in a similar circumstance.  or perhaps if it did, i waited longer and did not notice.  it is been 0 years, and i think more and rush around less.  hitting someone when you are at fault might be traumatic, but if someone was jaywalking, i do not think i would lose sleep.  also by  not  jaywalking with the group, you are reducing their visibility and increasing the chances they will be hit.  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.  also, if you intend to jaywalk and try to do so only when safe, then if you see an unsafe circumstance say, someone down the road going to fast you are more likely to notice and be able to say  watch out !   or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.   #  a larger group of people is going to be more visible, and i can be especially wary of cars even if my companions forget to look.   #  i might have messed up the delta, trying again.   hitting someone when you are at fault might be traumatic, but if someone was jaywalking, i do not think i would lose sleep my understanding is that train engineers can suffer from ptsd when people commit suicide on the tracks.  nothing the train engineer could have done, but a terrible experience nonetheless.  a driver is more likely to notice a larger group of people.  also, if you intend to jaywalk and try to do so only when safe, then if you see an unsafe circumstance say, someone down the road going to fast you are more likely to notice and be able to say  watch out !   or the like and warn your fellow jaywalkers and avoid damage.    0; hmm, i will give you that one.  a larger group of people is going to be more visible, and i can be especially wary of cars even if my companions forget to look.  i imagine a cop would be more likely to give a warning to 0 people than write them each tickets, so i guess that danger is reduced as well.
some people may be really bored in their classes because they are not being challenged.  not every school has advanced classes either and i know my hs only had 0 ap classes.  i think that schools should place students in classes based on their ability level.  instead of having someone fail a class, they can take a lower level class so they are actually learning and have a better change of comprehending what is going on.  the students that are exceeding may be put in higher classes so they do not become bored with the curriculum.  i do not mean that students should be put in different grades.  i just feel that if they are not particularly good in one subject, they may need to go to an easier class.   #  instead of having someone fail a class, they can take a lower level class so they are actually learning and have a better change of comprehending what is going on.   #  arguably they already passed the previous class to get there so putting them in a lower/easier class is pointless.   #  if a kid is earning all a is he can do hobbies and what have you that interest him.  what your suggesting is changing the system entirely.  no more grades all classes are judged on your ability to handle individual classes.  ie you may be a year behind in math but a year ahead in english.  its kinda like college where you earn points and academic hours to your degree.  i think what your suggesting would be super expensive.  good schools have advanced courses and remedial courses for every grade, advanced subjects and typical subjects as well.  what you suggest essentially would mean certain kids would simply repeat classes or there would be special classes that even lower than the normal ones, for each grade, even though that is already the standard they should be doing.  its up to the parents to help kids pursue interests and foster abilities. but most of the time standards are not met so kids need to get taught in classes they are doing poorly in.  so: 0.  lots of schools already offer advanced classes.  your hs only offers 0 ap classes but thats not typical.  there are classes which are not ap which are for more skilled students than others as well.  0.  you get enough a is you can skip grades.  schools do it but often times kids will lag behind in one subject.  it sucks but grade schools are developing a base rather than specialization.  colleges are about specialization and beyond.  arguably they already passed the previous class to get there so putting them in a lower/easier class is pointless.  they need to repeat the same class sadly enough because the class after that will be harder.  i think your idea has some merit but its basically what schools already do.  if you pass a class you are able enough to go to the next class.  if you do not you are not able enough and you need to repeat that class and potentially grade.   #  the smarter kids helped those below them in ability.   #  from age 0 until high school, i went to an extremely small school 0 kids that was k 0.  the school was split up into two classes k 0 and 0 0 .  what op is describing is exactly how this school worked.  everyone worked on their own level in math, science, languages, literature, etc.  the smarter kids helped those below them in ability.  while generally the oldest kids were usually the smartest, there were many exceptions in both directions.  overall, despite the small size of the school, the socializing between age cohorts actually turned out to be better for developing social skills, imo.  for example, socializing with older kids helped the younger kids develop out of the immature  baby talk  phase most kids go through.  socializing with and teaching the younger ones helped the older ones develop patience one of life is greatest assets .  all in all, it was extremely positive and helped me learn way beyond my level.  the first couple years of high school were sort of boring academically, but being able to hang out with the older kids without them being dismissive helped get over the stereotypical  high school hell  most people look back on and cringe at.   #  without it, i would definitely not be where i am today.   #  i am currently in my late 0s, so this was in the 0s.  it was certainly not a public school, but it was not really an elitist private one either.  the kids from richer families paid more than those from less fortunate ones: some did not pay at all.  the acceptance process was pretty vigorous, though.  they did not advertise and everyone learned about it through word of mouth.  if you drive by it does not even really look like a school, just a few houses linked together with a courtyard.  the people who ran it were a husband and wife, their kids, and a collection of former students that came and went tutors and such .  it really was a special experience and i intend on sending any children i have there.  without it, i would definitely not be where i am today.  so, yeah, my view is not changed whatsoever.   #  we are talking about mixed classes, so a class will probably have most kids of the same age, but also groups of younger and older kids.   #  i keep seeing this answer but it does not make sense at all.  we are not talking about a single super intelligent children in a class of older kids.  we are talking about mixed classes, so a class will probably have most kids of the same age, but also groups of younger and older kids.  also, you are not accounting that it is easier to bound with people you are more  intellectually  close to.  geniuses will meet other geniuses in the same class, and normal kids will keep staying with normal kids.  but in this case, geniuses will be able to talk with normal kids too, just that normal kids will be a couple years older.   #  when you value your education greatly, and when the way the teacher sees you is important to you, you avoid people that could negatively impact those things.   #  eh, i was in an advanced track system at school.  even when we had the opportunity to interact with the  normal  kids, it was just more fun to hang out with people that we meshed with intellectually.  additionally, when you are the  smart kid  in class, other smart kids flock to you, while the less high achieving children tend to group up, and opposition happens.  at a young age, your intelligence often shows in your actions and behavior.  my sister, for example, is not academically minded and so she is rather immature.  she gets along well with younger children and other somewhat immature kids.  she is not interested in age appropriate activities and would rather engage in activities meant for kids that are younger.  i was a student teacher, and there is definitely a divide.  the obnoxious kids that did not get good grades were generally together.  the smart kids who got good grades were together.  when you value your education greatly, and when the way the teacher sees you is important to you, you avoid people that could negatively impact those things.  in this case, it is the less academic, more childish classmates.  i know this is anecdotal, but it is what i saw and experienced.
some people may be really bored in their classes because they are not being challenged.  not every school has advanced classes either and i know my hs only had 0 ap classes.  i think that schools should place students in classes based on their ability level.  instead of having someone fail a class, they can take a lower level class so they are actually learning and have a better change of comprehending what is going on.  the students that are exceeding may be put in higher classes so they do not become bored with the curriculum.  i do not mean that students should be put in different grades.  i just feel that if they are not particularly good in one subject, they may need to go to an easier class.   #  some people may be really bored in their classes because they are not being challenged.   #  not every school has advanced classes either and i know my hs only had 0 ap classes.   # not every school has advanced classes either and i know my hs only had 0 ap classes.  i think that schools should place students in classes based on their ability level.  instead of having someone fail a class, they can take a lower level class so they are actually learning and have a better change of comprehending what is going on.  the students that are exceeding may be put in higher classes so they do not become bored with the curriculum.  school is job is not to cater to every individual.  they are to education as many people as possible.  if a student wants to learn more the student shoudl be encouraged by parents to learn more.  if parents wants in most high school is they can get independent study if requested by guidance counselor or principal.  being bored is up to the student.  there are things to learn in every class no matter how elementary the class may seem.  regarding age is to help make curriculum that make sense, that roughly goes with the accept ideas of brain growth, and learning capacity.  it is simply easier for education execs to measure students progress.   #  the smarter kids helped those below them in ability.   #  from age 0 until high school, i went to an extremely small school 0 kids that was k 0.  the school was split up into two classes k 0 and 0 0 .  what op is describing is exactly how this school worked.  everyone worked on their own level in math, science, languages, literature, etc.  the smarter kids helped those below them in ability.  while generally the oldest kids were usually the smartest, there were many exceptions in both directions.  overall, despite the small size of the school, the socializing between age cohorts actually turned out to be better for developing social skills, imo.  for example, socializing with older kids helped the younger kids develop out of the immature  baby talk  phase most kids go through.  socializing with and teaching the younger ones helped the older ones develop patience one of life is greatest assets .  all in all, it was extremely positive and helped me learn way beyond my level.  the first couple years of high school were sort of boring academically, but being able to hang out with the older kids without them being dismissive helped get over the stereotypical  high school hell  most people look back on and cringe at.   #  they did not advertise and everyone learned about it through word of mouth.   #  i am currently in my late 0s, so this was in the 0s.  it was certainly not a public school, but it was not really an elitist private one either.  the kids from richer families paid more than those from less fortunate ones: some did not pay at all.  the acceptance process was pretty vigorous, though.  they did not advertise and everyone learned about it through word of mouth.  if you drive by it does not even really look like a school, just a few houses linked together with a courtyard.  the people who ran it were a husband and wife, their kids, and a collection of former students that came and went tutors and such .  it really was a special experience and i intend on sending any children i have there.  without it, i would definitely not be where i am today.  so, yeah, my view is not changed whatsoever.   #  also, you are not accounting that it is easier to bound with people you are more  intellectually  close to.   #  i keep seeing this answer but it does not make sense at all.  we are not talking about a single super intelligent children in a class of older kids.  we are talking about mixed classes, so a class will probably have most kids of the same age, but also groups of younger and older kids.  also, you are not accounting that it is easier to bound with people you are more  intellectually  close to.  geniuses will meet other geniuses in the same class, and normal kids will keep staying with normal kids.  but in this case, geniuses will be able to talk with normal kids too, just that normal kids will be a couple years older.   #  in this case, it is the less academic, more childish classmates.   #  eh, i was in an advanced track system at school.  even when we had the opportunity to interact with the  normal  kids, it was just more fun to hang out with people that we meshed with intellectually.  additionally, when you are the  smart kid  in class, other smart kids flock to you, while the less high achieving children tend to group up, and opposition happens.  at a young age, your intelligence often shows in your actions and behavior.  my sister, for example, is not academically minded and so she is rather immature.  she gets along well with younger children and other somewhat immature kids.  she is not interested in age appropriate activities and would rather engage in activities meant for kids that are younger.  i was a student teacher, and there is definitely a divide.  the obnoxious kids that did not get good grades were generally together.  the smart kids who got good grades were together.  when you value your education greatly, and when the way the teacher sees you is important to you, you avoid people that could negatively impact those things.  in this case, it is the less academic, more childish classmates.  i know this is anecdotal, but it is what i saw and experienced.
as i am sure most of you have heard by now boko haram a muslim terrorist group from nigeria has kidnapped over 0 young girls and has threatened to sell them off as slaves.  this atrocity has garnered a lot of attention in the states and has motivated our leaders to send a convoy of  experts  to help bring the girls back.  people from all walks of life have joined in and are adamant about  bringing back our girls .  now before you tell me i am a sexist or insensitive let me be very clear here.  i think that boko haram is a horrible organization that should see the worst this world has to offer.  i also think that the kidnapping of these girls is a horrendous act that should not go unpunished.  now with that said i ask you, do you think america would care if these were 0 boys ? i say no they wo not.  first of all boko haram did not just decide to wake up one morning and kidnap these girls.  they have been committing atrocities throughout nigeria for some time now.  these atrocities were not limited to just these girls, they included boys, men, women and girls.  they included anyone who might want to be educated, who might want to be  westernized , basically anyone who does not share boko harams ideologies.  not just girls.  however no one here was saying anything about it.  no one was saying that boko haram needs to be stopped.  yet, once 0 girls are kidnapped america  must  do something.  so the question is why now ? well as most media outlets have painted the situation, the narrative is that these poor innocent girls who were trying to get an education were being punished because they were woman.  no, this is not true.  it was not because they were woman, it was because they were trying to be educated.  boko haram feels the same about boys who are trying to be educated.  they are against westernized living, not just against woman.  however the narrative does not motivate people as much when it is boys we are talking about.  why ? i argue that it is because we expect boys to be able to defend themselves, and girls are seen as people who need to be defended.  is this fair ? does it matter if a child is a boy or a girl, should he not be protected the same ? maybe it is because throughout history we have sent our young boys to the front lines to die, and there death should not be considered an atrocity but rather a consequence.  look at what is happening in the other parts of the world.  in egypt, in syria, in ukraine, wherever it might be there are people dying everyday because they share different beliefs from those who are killing them.  in a lot of these cases these people are just as innocent as those girls.  however there is no outcry, there is no envoy, there is barely a blurb of it in our media.  it is because in most of these cases it is the boys who are dying and history has shown, that it is ok.  however if it were innocent girls, then we  must  do something.  i believe if it is innocent anyone then we should do something.  boys are just as innocent as girls, and any atrocity committed to either, should be treated the same.  change my view.   #  t was not because they were woman, it was because they were trying to be educated.   #  boko haram feels the same about boys who are trying to be educated.   # boko haram feels the same about boys who are trying to be educated.  they are against westernized living, not just against woman.  it is hard to say to say they  feel the same  about boys when they choose to kidnap only girls.  if you were right, they would have grabbed a random sampling of children.  next, while they may be anti western, most fundamentalist islamic groups are strongly anti women is rights.  look at the taliban, or even the women in more moderate saudi arabia who try to drive.  to say they oppose all western influence might be true, but since western culture generally believes in much more equality for women, it affects them more.  it is like saying a group is not anti male they just oppose all people over 0 feet tall.  well, guess what men are going to be a lot more impacted.  you are right that because they are girls, it plays better to viewer is sympathy and thus makes a better story, but it is by no means proof that we would not give a damn about boys.   #  is this the first time girls have been kidnapped in africa ever ?  # in that case nobody cared about the kidnapped boys until they saw a fantastic video about it.  ca not care about things you are unaware of.  seems like in both cases the american public cared when it was brought to their attention.  is this the first time girls have been kidnapped in africa ever ? could not we just as easily say,  nobody cares about the other girls who were kidnapped in africa.   ? why has not it happened like this until now then ? i disagree, in both cases the american public cared when they found out about it.  in both cases we can point to similar yet ignored instances.  i am seeing no gender bias here at all.   #  what if i then told you that the group of boys who were accepted had wardrobe staff, makeup artists, pr agents, and a whole nonprofit agency dedicated to getting them accepted ?  # this style of communication is not working for some reason.  let is try an analogy.  there is an exclusive country club.  they hardly ever accept new members.  almost everyone who applies is turned away.  0,0 people have applied in the last six years.  two groups were accepted.  one was a group of boys, and one was a group of girls.  sounds pretty fair, right ? no discrimination there ! but what if i told you that 0 of applicants are boys ? suddenly girls are accepted at 0 times the rate of boys.  that does not sound very fair.  what if i then told you that the group of boys who were accepted had wardrobe staff, makeup artists, pr agents, and a whole nonprofit agency dedicated to getting them accepted ? and the girls just showed up in their casual clothes.  that does not sound very fair.  that is exactly the situation.  the country club is the american public, and they are damned sexist against boys.   #  before kony 0, were there any other large kidnappings like that ?  #  before kony 0, were there any other large kidnappings like that ? i am sure there probably were but i do not really keep up with info like that.  anyways, it is  possible  that before kony 0, these events happened but the media did not think americans would care enough to make it a major story.  after kony, the media saw how marketable it was.  it is  possible  that this making such large headlines is partially due to kony, so i do not think it could be used to prove op right.   #  nobody knew about it because the media did not bother to report it because they did not think people would care enough to make it worth it to them.   #  yes, the kidnappings happened.  nobody knew about it because the media did not bother to report it because they did not think people would care enough to make it worth it to them.  kony 0 changed that.  now people know that it happens.  it is possible that from now on, we will see these stories more frequently and it  just so happened  the first big case is with girls instead of boys.  now that people are more aware of the situation and the media knows it can sell the story, we will have to wait until 0 boys get captured to see if it has the same affect.  the kidnappings happen.  media does not think it is  news worthy  because it happens all the time and nobody had really publicized it before.  goes unreported in mainstream media.  kony 0 makes people aware.  people realize that it is happening and get outraged.  the media decides  ooh, we can cover this stuff now !  .  girls get kidnapped.  media makes it well known.  here we are.
once a company starts becoming abusive/unpopular, their customers do not want to voluntarily give them money anymore.  those customers start looking elsewhere.  they might even pay a few bucks more for the same product/service because they hate the monopoly company so much.  the more abusive the company is, the more hated they are.  they are basically creating more and more of an opportunity for their competitors as they get worse.  now, people will say  oh well, we do not have a choice in xyz  and you are right ! you do not have a choice in cable providers, because the govt owns the telephone poles and the public roads that the cables travel over.  govt supported monopoly.  some say its redundant to have 0 cable lines on the same telephone pole, but its redundant to have 0 burger shops in one town.  redundancy is just another word for competition.  so, i would prefer theoretical arguments, as i do not know the detail of every single monopoly that has ever existed.  but, i am here to learn, so if you must use an example, please provide as much detail as you can.  thanks ! i started to develop this view after looking into the cable companies  monopoly on residential users  internet access, but its expanded into a more general guideline since then.  thanks for reading my post !  #  some say its redundant to have 0 cable lines on the same telephone pole, but its redundant to have 0 burger shops in one town.   #  redundancy is just another word for competiton.   # microsoft did not have a government monopoly, but used their power to force their way into markets and shut down competitors.  customers did not mind because  microsoft windows  equaled a computer, and they did not know any better.  customers wo not vote with their money if the competition is the one getting screwed.  redundancy is just another word for competiton.  cable lines and burger shops are different.  cable and phone lines require placement over other public and private property.  it would be a mess allowing everybody to run lines everywhere, not to mention the start up cost would be huge.  that is why the monopoly provider is usually required to rent out these lines.   #  they are basically creating more and more of an opportunity for their competitors as they get worse.   # those customers start looking elsewhere.  they might even pay a few bucks more for the same product/service because they hate the monopoly company so much.  the more abusive the company is, the more hated they are.  they are basically creating more and more of an opportunity for their competitors as they get worse.  if there is competition you can use, then it is not a monopoly, right ? i do not understand how someone can just  look elsewhere  but still call the other company a monopoly.   #  at least 0 groups have that onus to spread that information: 0 potential competitors 0 people who trade in information journalists, bloggers, etc.   #  at least 0 groups have that onus to spread that information: 0 potential competitors 0 people who trade in information journalists, bloggers, etc.  coincidentally, these are some of the same people that give out that info already, in our current system.  additionally, govt is just as capable of lying as a company.  i imagine this could definitely happen.  but the moment they become abusive, they create a demand for competitors who are not.  the more abusive they become, the greater demand for an alternative.  their own actions create their demise.   #  let is say you control the cable lines to people is homes, your competition needs to build its own lines now.   # i am not saying it is not.  but there is always this promise that the free market will make everything wonderful because everyone always spends responsibly and has all of the information it needs.  and neither of those things ever seem to be true.  even when information is leaked remember when we found out a lot of our chocolate is produced by child slave labor ? , it rarely seems to have an effect.  but the moment they become abusive, they create a demand for competitors who are not.  the more abusive they become, the greater demand for an alternative.  their own actions create their demise.  unless they use the power the monopoly gives them to stop competition before it gets started.  let is say you control the cable lines to people is homes, your competition needs to build its own lines now.  a prohibitive barrier to competition.  also, what is preventing all of the competition from forming an organization that acts as a de facto monopoly ?  #  is it because child slave labor, in spite of your rhetoric, not seen as worth the extra money and effort needed to avoid it ?  # , it rarely seems to have an effect.  did you stop eating that chocolate ? if not, why ? is it because child slave labor, in spite of your rhetoric, not seen as worth the extra money and effort needed to avoid it ? because that is how the market works.  it does not optimize for our best selves, it optimizes for our real selves.  saying  oh they think the free market will bring a utopia  is a bit of a straw man.  and government is made up of people, so it is not really much better.  change happens through either system when the people involve care enough to change it.
making a worker continually change their sleep, will lead to fatigue/tiredness and lower productivity.  besides lowering productivity, it greatly strains the workers and creates a ton of health problems.  workers will develop sleep problems like insomnia, be at an increased risk for illness, poor metabolism from strange meal distributions , and are more likely to develop unhealthy habits such as smoking; lack of exercise; and unhealthy diet.  i do not see any benefits to using a rotating shift to cover undesirable shifts over the standard shifts.  sure the graveyard shift is not ideal, but i understand the need for workers 0/0.  forcing employees to constantly change when they sleep seems idiotic to me.  so, please change my mind.  for more clarification, what i am opposed to are: scheduled rotating shifts as part of the job description which makes it literally impossible to hold a constant sleep schedule.  a couple examples of commonly used  slow  shift rotations:  0 0 0 0 0 0  it consists of a 0 week cycle where each team works 0 consecutive day shifts, followed by 0 days off duty, works 0 consecutive day shifts, followed by 0 days off duty, works 0 consecutive day shifts, followed by 0 days off duty, 0 consecutive night shifts, followed by 0 days off duty, works 0 consecutive night shifts, followed by 0 days off duty, works 0 consecutive night shifts, followed by 0 days off duty.   rotating eight plan   #  besides lowering productivity, it greatly strains the workers and creates a ton of health problems.   #  workers will develop sleep problems like insomnia, be at an increased risk for illness, poor metabolism from strange meal distributions , and are more likely to develop unhealthy habits such as smoking; lack of exercise; and unhealthy diet.   # workers will develop sleep problems like insomnia, be at an increased risk for illness, poor metabolism from strange meal distributions , and are more likely to develop unhealthy habits such as smoking; lack of exercise; and unhealthy diet.  do you have sources for any of this ? it allows people to live normal life 0/0 of the time.  if you work from midnight to 0 am every day, you will miss out on normal social interaction with people that work normal hours.  at least a fraction of the time in rotating shiftwork, you can work normal hours, or run errands during the day, or see your kids off to school.   #  the number of people wanting to work a graveyard shift is not a direct comparison.   #  comparing people willing to work one week of a month on a graveyard shift vs.  the number of people wanting to work a graveyard shift is not a direct comparison.  if it is a graveyard shift vs 0 week of a graveyard shift, you would need to find four times as many people who prefer a rotating shift than a graveyard shift.  even if more people prefer rotating shifts over graveyard shifts which i have never heard , surely there are reasons or benefits.  saying that people like it is not compelling enough for me.  unless you can find a poll or something like that which shows it is actually preferable.   #  since all employees rotate through day shifts, there is no need to duplicate training efforts on all shifts.   #  here is URL a discussion of the benefits of rotating shifts:     skills are balanced on every shift.  since all crews take equal turns at covering the undesirable shifts weekends and nights , there is no incentive for all of the senior, more skilled workers to pool together on a single crew.  as crews rotate through their turn on day shift, they are exposed to managers, engineers, vendors and company support personnel.  since all employees rotate through day shifts, there is no need to duplicate training efforts on all shifts.  as result of equal training, equal exposure to support and management, and equal skills, all crews will perform in a much more uniform manner.  the same site further lists these disadvantages of fixed shifts:     recruiting new employees becomes more difficult.  after a brief training period, new hires are generally assigned to the least desirable shifts.  often it is many years before they can get to the shift they want.  as the disparities between the crews skills, seniority, morale etc.  grow, the crews themselves will become more independent of each other.  this can affect productivity, safety, quality, attrition and other performance measures.  there are certainly disadvantages to rotating shifts, and advantages to fixed shifts, but depending on an employer is situation, there could be good reason to use rotating shifts.   #  the point is that you can  enforce the quality at night.   #  the point is that you can  enforce the quality at night.  your best, most experienced people will end up on the day shift since it is more desirable.  therefore, the quality at night will be lower.  training is a lot easier and cheaper to arrange and run during the standard day.  to have training at all shifts, you would need to have a rotating training shift, assuming you did not have a large enough company to have training staff to cover all shifts.   #  all kidding aside most people do have a training period during normal hours, then move on to their assigned shift.   # all kidding aside most people do have a training period during normal hours, then move on to their assigned shift.  while it is not ideal, it is no where near the level of rotating shifts.  therefore, the quality at night will be lower.  why does the quality at night being lower matter ? making all your employees work all the different shifts will keep the quality uniform, but they are working the same number of hours/week they would otherwise and will likely lower the overall quality due to everyone being on crazy rotations.
making a worker continually change their sleep, will lead to fatigue/tiredness and lower productivity.  besides lowering productivity, it greatly strains the workers and creates a ton of health problems.  workers will develop sleep problems like insomnia, be at an increased risk for illness, poor metabolism from strange meal distributions , and are more likely to develop unhealthy habits such as smoking; lack of exercise; and unhealthy diet.  i do not see any benefits to using a rotating shift to cover undesirable shifts over the standard shifts.  sure the graveyard shift is not ideal, but i understand the need for workers 0/0.  forcing employees to constantly change when they sleep seems idiotic to me.  so, please change my mind.  for more clarification, what i am opposed to are: scheduled rotating shifts as part of the job description which makes it literally impossible to hold a constant sleep schedule.  a couple examples of commonly used  slow  shift rotations:  0 0 0 0 0 0  it consists of a 0 week cycle where each team works 0 consecutive day shifts, followed by 0 days off duty, works 0 consecutive day shifts, followed by 0 days off duty, works 0 consecutive day shifts, followed by 0 days off duty, 0 consecutive night shifts, followed by 0 days off duty, works 0 consecutive night shifts, followed by 0 days off duty, works 0 consecutive night shifts, followed by 0 days off duty.   rotating eight plan   #  i do not see any benefits to using a rotating shift to cover undesirable shifts over the standard shifts.   #  it allows people to live normal life 0/0 of the time.   # workers will develop sleep problems like insomnia, be at an increased risk for illness, poor metabolism from strange meal distributions , and are more likely to develop unhealthy habits such as smoking; lack of exercise; and unhealthy diet.  do you have sources for any of this ? it allows people to live normal life 0/0 of the time.  if you work from midnight to 0 am every day, you will miss out on normal social interaction with people that work normal hours.  at least a fraction of the time in rotating shiftwork, you can work normal hours, or run errands during the day, or see your kids off to school.   #  comparing people willing to work one week of a month on a graveyard shift vs.   #  comparing people willing to work one week of a month on a graveyard shift vs.  the number of people wanting to work a graveyard shift is not a direct comparison.  if it is a graveyard shift vs 0 week of a graveyard shift, you would need to find four times as many people who prefer a rotating shift than a graveyard shift.  even if more people prefer rotating shifts over graveyard shifts which i have never heard , surely there are reasons or benefits.  saying that people like it is not compelling enough for me.  unless you can find a poll or something like that which shows it is actually preferable.   #  often it is many years before they can get to the shift they want.   #  here is URL a discussion of the benefits of rotating shifts:     skills are balanced on every shift.  since all crews take equal turns at covering the undesirable shifts weekends and nights , there is no incentive for all of the senior, more skilled workers to pool together on a single crew.  as crews rotate through their turn on day shift, they are exposed to managers, engineers, vendors and company support personnel.  since all employees rotate through day shifts, there is no need to duplicate training efforts on all shifts.  as result of equal training, equal exposure to support and management, and equal skills, all crews will perform in a much more uniform manner.  the same site further lists these disadvantages of fixed shifts:     recruiting new employees becomes more difficult.  after a brief training period, new hires are generally assigned to the least desirable shifts.  often it is many years before they can get to the shift they want.  as the disparities between the crews skills, seniority, morale etc.  grow, the crews themselves will become more independent of each other.  this can affect productivity, safety, quality, attrition and other performance measures.  there are certainly disadvantages to rotating shifts, and advantages to fixed shifts, but depending on an employer is situation, there could be good reason to use rotating shifts.   #  training is a lot easier and cheaper to arrange and run during the standard day.   #  the point is that you can  enforce the quality at night.  your best, most experienced people will end up on the day shift since it is more desirable.  therefore, the quality at night will be lower.  training is a lot easier and cheaper to arrange and run during the standard day.  to have training at all shifts, you would need to have a rotating training shift, assuming you did not have a large enough company to have training staff to cover all shifts.   #  all kidding aside most people do have a training period during normal hours, then move on to their assigned shift.   # all kidding aside most people do have a training period during normal hours, then move on to their assigned shift.  while it is not ideal, it is no where near the level of rotating shifts.  therefore, the quality at night will be lower.  why does the quality at night being lower matter ? making all your employees work all the different shifts will keep the quality uniform, but they are working the same number of hours/week they would otherwise and will likely lower the overall quality due to everyone being on crazy rotations.
we have all heard the saying  do not believe everything you see on the internet , which assumes that information gathered from other sources not online have a natural higher level of credibility.  they assume that information found in books or news channels or newspaper are more truthful.  i disagree.  i am a true neutralist who believes that just because a propagandist had the money to spend to distribute their information through a book or a newspaper article, it does not give it any more credibility than typical things we see online.  we should obviously look at everything with an open mind and try to figure out what is truth and what is not, i just do not believe in that idea.   #  i am a true neutralist who believes that just because a propagandist had the money to spend to distribute their information through a book or a newspaper article, it does not give it any more credibility than typical things we see online.   #  first problem you do is to label yourself.   # first problem you do is to label yourself.  the problem with labeling yourself is that now you find it harder to change your stance on an issue.  just proclaim your stance on each issue, they are bound to differ, but when you brand yourself something you might actually hinder yourself from picking a nuanced view.  i know so many people who label them self  right wing  and therefor are right wing at every issue.  do not elude yourself by convincing yourself that you are a true naturalist.  and as a neutralist.  i do not believe everyone is neutral when it comes to everything.  and i believe most people have a standpoint on different issues.  what your problem is, is that you try to denounce professionals in a field due to them having an agenda, while forgetting that these  skeptics  also have an agenda, but who most fundamentally do not know much about the field they are talking about.  you subscribe to many views of post modernist philosophy.  that everyone who has an opinion on something is almost just as credible.  that is not true, some people have a deeper understanding of issues then others.  just as an example if we talk about conspiracy theorists.  do you trust some dudes on the internet who  discovered the real truth behind 0/0 ?  .  people post loads of stupid shit about how  it could not have fallen down that way , while ignoring experts that know that when a structures supports are down they fall like that.  organizations who are funded might have an agenda, but mostly they just have an idea of what they are talking about.  making them way more trustworthy then a forum blogger with too much time on his hands.   #  but i think that, generally speaking, you can count on printed media to be more reliable than some random thing you read on the internet, because it is more likely to be properly sourced.   #  i think the distinction applies more to sourced vs non sourced material.  any idiot can go on the internet and write whatever they like as if it were true.  publications such as newspapers, books, even most tv shows ca not do that.  they have to supply sources for their information and they have editors who check that their sources are credible.  of course there are always exceptions.  information from sources with a clear bias should always be taken with a grain of salt, regardless of the medium.  but i think that, generally speaking, you can count on printed media to be more reliable than some random thing you read on the internet, because it is more likely to be properly sourced.   #  when it comes to scientific publications, being published in a well known journal is generally a testament to objectivity.   #  i am not saying reliable information is not available on the internet.  there is plenty of reliable information on the internet; you usually just have to sift through a whole lot of rubbish to get there.  just because a book requires money to be made does not automatically mean it has an agenda; similarly independence from  big companies  for internet publications does not guarantee neutrality.  when it comes to scientific publications, being published in a well known journal is generally a testament to objectivity.  neither medium is a guarantee for objective information; you are just more likely to find it in printed media than on the internet.   #  when the news reports a story, they have to fact check what they are printing, and will often print updates or redactions when they make mistakes.   # where are you typically hearing people say these phrases to you, and how has your tv and internet usage changed in the last few years, especially around the people who are saying this ? my parents told me this all the time as a kid.  actually, my dad would go further and just flat out say   nothing  on tv is real , and when i said  even the news ?   he would say  even the news.   journalistic ethics and reputation for starters.  when the news reports a story, they have to fact check what they are printing, and will often print updates or redactions when they make mistakes.  on the other hand, the people on the internet just print stuff, not knowing or caring about the accuracy of what they are saying.  things spread without checking sources.  this is part of why when there is a breaking story the news lags behind the internet in getting the information out they do not want to be broadcasting incorrect information.   #  accusations were made very publicly toward people who had nothing to do with it.   # and thus you stopped hearing the phrase.  like i said, it is a function of the media you are using, not the truth of it.  i think you are talking about something different than i am.  look at the boston marathon bombing for example.  as soon as it happened, every internet detective wanting to prove themself would be posting pictures, making accusations, piecing together the story, etc.  almost all of the information put together was wrong.  accusations were made very publicly toward people who had nothing to do with it.  a missing person was accused of it, bringing lots of grief to his family.  later, the news broke the story of who the actual suspects were after confirming with police.  there was none of this witch hunting.  they did not spread information that they had not verified.  they presented the facts as long as they had a reputable source or could be confirmed.  the internet produced information at a much faster rate, but with a much lower accuracy.
the discussion of the new defaults has a number of people complaining that default status is going to ruin their favourite sub.  /r/twoxchromosomes is a notable example of this.  the explanation is that, supposedly, default status leads to lots of trolls and low content posters  invading  the sub and reducing its quality or at least shifting it away from how it used to be in a way the user does not like.  i am sceptical.  to be sure, i am no fan of the low content image based posting found in say, /r/funny .  but i do not think its default status has much to do with it.  i think that rules and moderation standards are much more influential.  if enforced properly, most of the  low content  posting should be able to be stopped.  i also wonder if confirmation bias explains the apparent declines in newly minted defaults.  from my observations before and after some subreddits were defaulted, i ca not see any obvious changes.  furthermore, i think having a wide array of defaults helps make reddit more selective towards the kind of user the types of people complaining about this would prefer.  low content posters migrate to reddit in part because the front page is filled with low content.  if the front page is more diverse and  high content , then it should attract a more diverse and  high content  crowd accordingly.   #  i think that rules and moderation standards are much more influential.   #  there is only so much rules and moderation can do.   # there is only so much rules and moderation can do.  for example, moderation cannot remove up or down votes.  moderation cannot force high quality posts.  bigger moderation team means that chances moderation will go horribly wrong.  /r/technology had this issue.  something happens at millions of users viewers, you get more people who are at the extremes.  for example they might hate women and now they are regularly are exposed to women focused posts.  the people at the extremes now have enough mass that they can down vote/up vote/comment on posts and comments fast enough and in large numbers that the majority will follow.  non extreme readers are not motivated enough to counter this and its easier to unsubscribe and leave.  its also hard to moderate this, is this post a racist comment or an honest academic question ? aside: /r/cmv should  never  be a default.  it will turn into /r/iamrightyouarewrong or /r/iwillchangeyourview or /r/twopeopleyellingpasteachother.  from what i saw within 0hrs; /r/twoxchromosomes one person said he/she already received one death threat.  /r/getmotivated is filled with before/after pictures.  it used to be maybe one / week.   #  it should also be easy to imagine how disheartening it must be to see great comments of others passed over for low quality comments.   #  people who do not make serious effort to seek a sub out are less likely to align with the current community of that sub, and less likely to integrate with the sub as it was because they did not make the effort to seek it out.  in fact, if you have a sub of say, 0k users, and you have an influx of 0k users, these new users are now the majority.  this creates an entirely different dynamic than someone joining a non default sub  normally , where the  newbies  are the minority, and those that stick with the sub are those that really like the content and mission/purpose of that sub because they have been exposed to its culture and like it.  let is call this the culture dilution effect.  these new users are not trustworthy with the upvote button, and they will often upvote content that is low quality because it is easy to digest or agrees with their viewpoint.  they will downvote content that is high quality because it is hard to digest or they disagree with it.  existing users who can be trusted with up and down votes have very little overall influence compared to these new users; they are easily drowned out.  this is the vote dilution effect of existing users , and it stems from the culture dilution effect.  even if well intentioned, these new people do not know what the culture of the sub is and was like, and because the culture has been diluted by so many other new people, they are unlikely to find out and become trustworthy and of course, some fraction of users will never be trustworthy with upvote/downvote .  this has the effect of lessening the reward for quality content.  it should not be hard to imagine how discouraging it might be to write a thoughtful, in depth comment, and to have a snarky 0 word low effort low quality comment get 0x the amount of upvotes you receive.  it should also be easy to imagine how disheartening it must be to see great comments of others passed over for low quality comments.  similarly, you have the same thing with downvotes.  great quality comment that gets downvoted a lot for a trivial reason ? that is pretty discouraging.  seeing it happen is pretty discouraging too.  you dishearten the existing user base and provide less of an incentive for them to continue posting as they would, at the same time you incentivize low quality low effort comments.  this is bad, at least as far as i see it.  obviously, moderation can have a very large impact.  this requires adding new moderators to keep up with the volume, and those new moderators need to be the  right  fit for the sub.  even then though, a sub that does virtually everything right that they can and goes default, like eli0, loses quality.  the quality loss is much less than it would have been, but it is still quite noticeable.   #  meanwhile  interlopers  will upvote, diluting the quality of the sub that the  original  adherents value.   #  default status makes it proportionally harder for mods to maintain quality.  furthermore, when it comes to comments, it can become almost impossible to maintain the same tone and quality.  in a place like 0x, comments are really the whole point.  downvotes only work to the extent that people who know about and believe in the  original  ethos of the sub are able to downvote.  meanwhile  interlopers  will upvote, diluting the quality of the sub that the  original  adherents value.  basically, you are taking an out of the way hiding spot and running an interstate right by it.  it is implausible that the new commenters, who did not voluntarily seek out the sub, are going to maintain the same quality and focus.   #  we are talking subs that already have over 0k subscribers.   # seems like adding more mods would be sufficient.  meanwhile  interlopers  will upvote, diluting the quality of the sub that the  original  adherents value.  it is implausible that the new commenters, who did not voluntarily seek out the sub, are going to maintain the same quality and focus.  i think would only apply to a subreddit that was truly  out of the way .  like if a small, tight knit sub with only a couple of thousand subscribers suddenly found itself defaulted, the existing users may be easily drowned out.  but that does not happen.  we are talking subs that already have over 0k subscribers.  even if the absolute number of  interlopers  is higher, a lot of them would only vote from the front page after the more dedicated users have already pretty much preordained what is seen and what is buried .   #  reddit has over 0,0,0 unique users per month.   #  first of all, i more or less agree on post quality, but the real problem for many subs is comment quality.  i also think you are underestimating the disparity in exposure.  reddit has over 0,0,0 unique users per month.  so putting a 0,0 person sub in front of 0x more people absolutely has a huge potential to dilute the sub beyond recognition even if only 0/0 of new viewers comment or submit content.  that means that the people who really cared and were involved even if that is as many as 0k are now equaled or outnumbered by commenters that are at minimum ignorant of, probably indifferent to, and maybe even hostile to the ethos of the sub.  i think that influx of crappy posts and especially comments could easily ruin the unique,  special  aspect of a sub that its subscribers value.  a place like 0x will find this especially problematic they are now being thrown in front of over 0,0,0 men a month, many of which well, to put it mildly, might  misunderstand  the sub.  since the entire sub is basically about comments, this could easily wreck the sub.  i personally do not give a shit about that one, but i get their point.  also, good mods do not grow on trees.  people have to put in many hours of work a day to keep a default sub going.  it is not necessarily fun and it does not pay.  just finding more mods is not trivial.
the discussion of the new defaults has a number of people complaining that default status is going to ruin their favourite sub.  /r/twoxchromosomes is a notable example of this.  the explanation is that, supposedly, default status leads to lots of trolls and low content posters  invading  the sub and reducing its quality or at least shifting it away from how it used to be in a way the user does not like.  i am sceptical.  to be sure, i am no fan of the low content image based posting found in say, /r/funny .  but i do not think its default status has much to do with it.  i think that rules and moderation standards are much more influential.  if enforced properly, most of the  low content  posting should be able to be stopped.  i also wonder if confirmation bias explains the apparent declines in newly minted defaults.  from my observations before and after some subreddits were defaulted, i ca not see any obvious changes.  furthermore, i think having a wide array of defaults helps make reddit more selective towards the kind of user the types of people complaining about this would prefer.  low content posters migrate to reddit in part because the front page is filled with low content.  if the front page is more diverse and  high content , then it should attract a more diverse and  high content  crowd accordingly.   #  from my observations before and after some subreddits were defaulted, i ca not see any obvious changes.   #  from what i saw within 0hrs; /r/twoxchromosomes one person said he/she already received one death threat.   # there is only so much rules and moderation can do.  for example, moderation cannot remove up or down votes.  moderation cannot force high quality posts.  bigger moderation team means that chances moderation will go horribly wrong.  /r/technology had this issue.  something happens at millions of users viewers, you get more people who are at the extremes.  for example they might hate women and now they are regularly are exposed to women focused posts.  the people at the extremes now have enough mass that they can down vote/up vote/comment on posts and comments fast enough and in large numbers that the majority will follow.  non extreme readers are not motivated enough to counter this and its easier to unsubscribe and leave.  its also hard to moderate this, is this post a racist comment or an honest academic question ? aside: /r/cmv should  never  be a default.  it will turn into /r/iamrightyouarewrong or /r/iwillchangeyourview or /r/twopeopleyellingpasteachother.  from what i saw within 0hrs; /r/twoxchromosomes one person said he/she already received one death threat.  /r/getmotivated is filled with before/after pictures.  it used to be maybe one / week.   #  similarly, you have the same thing with downvotes.   #  people who do not make serious effort to seek a sub out are less likely to align with the current community of that sub, and less likely to integrate with the sub as it was because they did not make the effort to seek it out.  in fact, if you have a sub of say, 0k users, and you have an influx of 0k users, these new users are now the majority.  this creates an entirely different dynamic than someone joining a non default sub  normally , where the  newbies  are the minority, and those that stick with the sub are those that really like the content and mission/purpose of that sub because they have been exposed to its culture and like it.  let is call this the culture dilution effect.  these new users are not trustworthy with the upvote button, and they will often upvote content that is low quality because it is easy to digest or agrees with their viewpoint.  they will downvote content that is high quality because it is hard to digest or they disagree with it.  existing users who can be trusted with up and down votes have very little overall influence compared to these new users; they are easily drowned out.  this is the vote dilution effect of existing users , and it stems from the culture dilution effect.  even if well intentioned, these new people do not know what the culture of the sub is and was like, and because the culture has been diluted by so many other new people, they are unlikely to find out and become trustworthy and of course, some fraction of users will never be trustworthy with upvote/downvote .  this has the effect of lessening the reward for quality content.  it should not be hard to imagine how discouraging it might be to write a thoughtful, in depth comment, and to have a snarky 0 word low effort low quality comment get 0x the amount of upvotes you receive.  it should also be easy to imagine how disheartening it must be to see great comments of others passed over for low quality comments.  similarly, you have the same thing with downvotes.  great quality comment that gets downvoted a lot for a trivial reason ? that is pretty discouraging.  seeing it happen is pretty discouraging too.  you dishearten the existing user base and provide less of an incentive for them to continue posting as they would, at the same time you incentivize low quality low effort comments.  this is bad, at least as far as i see it.  obviously, moderation can have a very large impact.  this requires adding new moderators to keep up with the volume, and those new moderators need to be the  right  fit for the sub.  even then though, a sub that does virtually everything right that they can and goes default, like eli0, loses quality.  the quality loss is much less than it would have been, but it is still quite noticeable.   #  downvotes only work to the extent that people who know about and believe in the  original  ethos of the sub are able to downvote.   #  default status makes it proportionally harder for mods to maintain quality.  furthermore, when it comes to comments, it can become almost impossible to maintain the same tone and quality.  in a place like 0x, comments are really the whole point.  downvotes only work to the extent that people who know about and believe in the  original  ethos of the sub are able to downvote.  meanwhile  interlopers  will upvote, diluting the quality of the sub that the  original  adherents value.  basically, you are taking an out of the way hiding spot and running an interstate right by it.  it is implausible that the new commenters, who did not voluntarily seek out the sub, are going to maintain the same quality and focus.   #  i think would only apply to a subreddit that was truly  out of the way .   # seems like adding more mods would be sufficient.  meanwhile  interlopers  will upvote, diluting the quality of the sub that the  original  adherents value.  it is implausible that the new commenters, who did not voluntarily seek out the sub, are going to maintain the same quality and focus.  i think would only apply to a subreddit that was truly  out of the way .  like if a small, tight knit sub with only a couple of thousand subscribers suddenly found itself defaulted, the existing users may be easily drowned out.  but that does not happen.  we are talking subs that already have over 0k subscribers.  even if the absolute number of  interlopers  is higher, a lot of them would only vote from the front page after the more dedicated users have already pretty much preordained what is seen and what is buried .   #  reddit has over 0,0,0 unique users per month.   #  first of all, i more or less agree on post quality, but the real problem for many subs is comment quality.  i also think you are underestimating the disparity in exposure.  reddit has over 0,0,0 unique users per month.  so putting a 0,0 person sub in front of 0x more people absolutely has a huge potential to dilute the sub beyond recognition even if only 0/0 of new viewers comment or submit content.  that means that the people who really cared and were involved even if that is as many as 0k are now equaled or outnumbered by commenters that are at minimum ignorant of, probably indifferent to, and maybe even hostile to the ethos of the sub.  i think that influx of crappy posts and especially comments could easily ruin the unique,  special  aspect of a sub that its subscribers value.  a place like 0x will find this especially problematic they are now being thrown in front of over 0,0,0 men a month, many of which well, to put it mildly, might  misunderstand  the sub.  since the entire sub is basically about comments, this could easily wreck the sub.  i personally do not give a shit about that one, but i get their point.  also, good mods do not grow on trees.  people have to put in many hours of work a day to keep a default sub going.  it is not necessarily fun and it does not pay.  just finding more mods is not trivial.
after a long discussion revolving around one of those straight pride pictures an interesting perspective showed up to me.  the entire concept of hating what is part of somebodies identity is effectively the same as hating the person.  i feel like this is nothing more than a mental cop out and illogical.  if somebody said something that they do not have somebody named bob but hate that he is black that is no different then if bob was gay.  i realize this stem is out of the concept of hate the sin not the sinner.  but that still rings of being morally wrong to me as it is part of who somebody is.  people are born lgbt as much as they are born into their ethnic background.  tl;dr: hating the act of being gay is bigotry even if you claim to not hate gay people you are still a bigot.   #  hating the act of being gay is bigotry even if you claim to not hate gay people you are still a bigot.   #  i am pro gay rights and all that, but the homosexual acts themselves admittedly male ones disgust me.   # i am pro gay rights and all that, but the homosexual acts themselves admittedly male ones disgust me.  i do not hate gay people, it is just an ick factor.  same goes for horrendously unattractive people, and the morbidly obese.  i do not hate these people, i just do not like thinking about it.  as long as i do not treat them differently than others, then there is no bigotry involved.   #  i am not in any way saying its okay.   #  sure.  ignorance is not  better , but it is different.  often, it can be fixed with simple education.  real bigotry is a harder problem in my mind.  i might have misunderstood your view though.  i am trying to convince you that what you are describing is not necessarily  bigotry .  i am not in any way saying its okay.  but understanding the problem is important if we want to find a solution.   #  most people would say:  of course it is possible !  #  that was a difficult analogy.  why not consider music instead.  some people hate hip hop music, or punk rock, for example.  but this music is also a part of some people is identity.  is it possible to hate hip hop or punk rock, but  not  hate a person who likes hip hop or punk rock ? most people would say:  of course it is possible ! .  i do not have to like 0 all the same things another person likes.  i can dislike or even hate some of their likes, music, hobbies, etc.  and still not hate the person themselves.   #  i would not voluntarily choose to partake in either activity, and if i had to, i would hate every second of it.   #  i feel the same way about homosexuality as i do about eating broccoli.  i would not voluntarily choose to partake in either activity, and if i had to, i would hate every second of it.  in other words, i would hate it  for me .  this in no way forces any kind of judgment on those who are so oriented towards homosexuality or broccoli.  i see neither as a moral or ethical issue.  if anything, eating broccoli is worse, because broccoli ca not give consent.   #  i am something of kleptomaniac, in a sense.   #  i am something of kleptomaniac, in a sense.  everyday i go out into the world and want to steal the things i see around me; from stores, friends, strangers, etc.  i do not know why i feel this desire; i have talked to lots of people about this and while i get some mixed answers, mostly people tell me they do not share this desire, or at least not as strongly as i do.  i do not know why i am like this; i do not enjoy this part of myself, but it is just who i am, and is how i have been for as long as i can remember.  but here is the thing: i  very, very seldom  actually give into the desire and take something.  i have not stolen for many years now.  while i am not perfect in this respect, i am proud of the restraint i am able to show.  now, am i as bad as the person who gives into the desire every time, and steals often ? i think not.  i think it applies to the hatred of homosexuality.  they are not really bigots if they do not act in hatred toward the people who participate in the concept that they disagree with.  here is the thing; they may not have chose to hold that belief that homosexuality is wrong, the same as i did not choose to be a kleptomaniac.  the acting, or lack thereof, is what sets them apart as non bigots, imo.
i cannot stand the bandwagon rap that is considered popular.  not to sound like a hipster though.  i just feel like rapping about the stacks of cash that they do not always have and about how great they are is so incredibly arrogant and ignorant.  also, glorifying gang crime and killing people is just as ignorant.  it is harmful to society because it is brainwashing the listeners to think killing and guns are okay.  i consider rappers talented when their lyrics are original and they are not rapping about whatever is popular.  some rappers i consider good and original: atmosphere, mf doom, the underachievers, p. o. s.  my roommate listens to only the bandwagon  rap  such as lil wayne, soulja boy, hurricane chris, etc.  and i get slightly agitated every time i hear it.   #  it is harmful to society because it is brainwashing the listeners to think killing and guns are okay.   #  do you feel this way about all mediums in which guns are glorified ?  # do you feel this way about all mediums in which guns are glorified ? video games ? movies ? tv shows ? that is cool, i consider violinists talented when they can play them like mandolins.  talent is subjective, and i am not going to try and change your subjective opinion about something.  nobody says you have to  like  rap or even mainstream culture but who cares if other people do ? i despise the real housewives, but my fiance love them so i just tolerate it.   #  basically, a legitimate form of black artistic expression was expropriated into a caricature of a black stereotype and marketed to whites.   # this applies to a small segment of gangster rap that went out of style in the mid 0 is.  nwa, mobb deep, and early nas and biggie rapped about crime to document it.  by  0 it had been dumbed down into commercial mafioso rap that was all about bragging about how much of a powerful evil bastard you were.  jay z is at least self aware about this but he is still  on the bandwagon .  basically, a legitimate form of black artistic expression was expropriated into a caricature of a black stereotype and marketed to whites.  exactly like the minstrel shows of old.   #  i know it sounds biased but honestly what message do you get from listening to 0 chainz ?  #  you have to see op is point even if you do not agree with it.  yes there would still be gun violence and what not but i am also quite annoyed with rap of this subject matter because stuff on the radio is not about true stories of growing up in the hood.  it is more about illustrating how fucked up they can get and how many girls the can fuck and i think there is just not that much substance.  i know it sounds biased but honestly what message do you get from listening to 0 chainz ? it is completely understandable to explain the troubles you experienced as a person but advocating the use of codeine and other hard drugs serves no artistic purpose except for spicing up the rhyme scheme.  i feel like op makes a valid point it is just too general.   #  i fail to see how this exclusive to rap music.   #  so there are varying degrees of quality across a huge genre of music.  the acquisition of wealth and protecttion from violence are tropes of this form of music; mainly because it is of concern for the people who make/listen to it.  some people are better at expressing this than others see pastor of muppets  point versus your own example of 0chainz .  i fail to see how this exclusive to rap music.  substitute violence for partying or love and this point encompasses many, many more types of music.  i essentially think op is arguing that there is a subset of rappers who are not good, compared to ones who are.  which is a moot point in my opinion.   #  there is good music and there is bad music.   #  yes, my point was that this is not exclusive to rap.  there is good music and there is bad music.  if we can agree on this, then we can agree on the fact that it is not a genre issue that bothers op and you i suppose , but rather a quality issue.  therefore, we can rephrase op is point to  i do not like music that i consider to be bad .  which as i said before, is a moot point.
i cannot stand the bandwagon rap that is considered popular.  not to sound like a hipster though.  i just feel like rapping about the stacks of cash that they do not always have and about how great they are is so incredibly arrogant and ignorant.  also, glorifying gang crime and killing people is just as ignorant.  it is harmful to society because it is brainwashing the listeners to think killing and guns are okay.  i consider rappers talented when their lyrics are original and they are not rapping about whatever is popular.  some rappers i consider good and original: atmosphere, mf doom, the underachievers, p. o. s.  my roommate listens to only the bandwagon  rap  such as lil wayne, soulja boy, hurricane chris, etc.  and i get slightly agitated every time i hear it.   #  i consider rappers talented when their lyrics are original and they are not rapping about whatever is popular.   #  that is cool, i consider violinists talented when they can play them like mandolins.   # do you feel this way about all mediums in which guns are glorified ? video games ? movies ? tv shows ? that is cool, i consider violinists talented when they can play them like mandolins.  talent is subjective, and i am not going to try and change your subjective opinion about something.  nobody says you have to  like  rap or even mainstream culture but who cares if other people do ? i despise the real housewives, but my fiance love them so i just tolerate it.   #  nwa, mobb deep, and early nas and biggie rapped about crime to document it.   # this applies to a small segment of gangster rap that went out of style in the mid 0 is.  nwa, mobb deep, and early nas and biggie rapped about crime to document it.  by  0 it had been dumbed down into commercial mafioso rap that was all about bragging about how much of a powerful evil bastard you were.  jay z is at least self aware about this but he is still  on the bandwagon .  basically, a legitimate form of black artistic expression was expropriated into a caricature of a black stereotype and marketed to whites.  exactly like the minstrel shows of old.   #  i know it sounds biased but honestly what message do you get from listening to 0 chainz ?  #  you have to see op is point even if you do not agree with it.  yes there would still be gun violence and what not but i am also quite annoyed with rap of this subject matter because stuff on the radio is not about true stories of growing up in the hood.  it is more about illustrating how fucked up they can get and how many girls the can fuck and i think there is just not that much substance.  i know it sounds biased but honestly what message do you get from listening to 0 chainz ? it is completely understandable to explain the troubles you experienced as a person but advocating the use of codeine and other hard drugs serves no artistic purpose except for spicing up the rhyme scheme.  i feel like op makes a valid point it is just too general.   #  which is a moot point in my opinion.   #  so there are varying degrees of quality across a huge genre of music.  the acquisition of wealth and protecttion from violence are tropes of this form of music; mainly because it is of concern for the people who make/listen to it.  some people are better at expressing this than others see pastor of muppets  point versus your own example of 0chainz .  i fail to see how this exclusive to rap music.  substitute violence for partying or love and this point encompasses many, many more types of music.  i essentially think op is arguing that there is a subset of rappers who are not good, compared to ones who are.  which is a moot point in my opinion.   #  therefore, we can rephrase op is point to  i do not like music that i consider to be bad .   #  yes, my point was that this is not exclusive to rap.  there is good music and there is bad music.  if we can agree on this, then we can agree on the fact that it is not a genre issue that bothers op and you i suppose , but rather a quality issue.  therefore, we can rephrase op is point to  i do not like music that i consider to be bad .  which as i said before, is a moot point.
this view comes from my personal experience.  i grew up in new jersey, a state with fantastic public schools.  i now live in tennessee, a state with terrible public schools.  i support vouchers because i believe they will mostly make differences in places like my current state, and i do not see it making a difference in states like new jersey.  to be honest, this may be a conservative/libertarian viewpoint, but i am much more willing to trust somebody that is saying  i am gonna give your kids a great education and make a shitload by doing so.   opposed to the state teachers unions that are saying  we are gonna give your kids a great education because we believe in public schools.   if you want to do something like say. open a sports bar, a bank is more likely to give you a loan if you say  i think i could make a shitload off of this.   opposed to  it is always been my dream to open a sports bar.   we should look at schools the same way.  i have heard many arguments against the voucher initiative, and i do think states should be individually doing this, not on a federal level.  just making that known.  i do not have the patience to type out every argument i have heard against it so i will just wait for you guys to present them and i will retort to them as fast as i am able.  let is get started.   #   we are gonna give your kids a great education because we believe in public schools.    #  i would like to first point out that nobody would say  this .   # i would like to first point out that nobody would say  this .  they would probably say something like the following.   we are gonna give your kids a great education because we believe  everyone deserves a good education .  the goal is not to make public schools better than private schools.  it is to give children the best education possible to prepare them for their future.  opposed to  it is always been my dream to open a sports bar.   we should look at schools the same way.  this is quite frankly the worst idea imaginable.  banks offer loans based on what is in  their  best interest.  schools are not  supposed  to be profitable in the immediate sense.  education is a fundamental part of our economy and without the best education possible, the united states will quickly fall further behind.  you have to stop looking at it for an immediate gain and instead look at the  long term investments .  a sports bar is there to make money.  you may have a life long dream to own one.  that is nice.  but the world does not care about your individual business because it really does not matter unless it makes money.  something that will  always  matter whether it makes an immediate profit or not is education, because it keeps our country competitive.   #  i should add that the charters in my state are particularly bad, but go to great lengths to hide that because they do not have a built in student base.   #  disclaimer: public school teacher the real issue with vouchers is that they drain money away from public education.  why should the government give money designed for use in one of their programs to another school via whatever student that is attending that does not have to follow any of the same standards ? charter schools in my state do not have to follow the same standards, do not have to hire certified teachers, do not have to accommodate special ed students even with minor disabilities, etc.  i should add that the charters in my state are particularly bad, but go to great lengths to hide that because they do not have a built in student base.  i have several students from a particular and very popular local charter that have really poor writing skills and none are aware of it.  i just do not see the purpose of draining more away from our current system rather than improving it.  it is one thing to bemoan the state of public education.  it is entirely different to try to fix the problem by giving money to a system with no universal standards or regulations that we have no long term evidence as to how well it even works.   #  it is not about broad collective programs financed by society on the whole: your tax, your kids education.   #  i think because it is the taxpayers own money.  part of the tax is paid for the sake of other people or for society on the whole, but whatever the government spends on your own kids, and you are a taxpayer, then it is your own money getting back.  i think you somehow do not see this link.  i guess you see the collection of taxes and the organization of programs entirely different.  but from the view of the taxpayer, i cough up the money, i get some stuff, other people get some stuff as well.  and then it is not too outlandish to think that you should have some choice in the stuff you get.  so that would be the basic philosophy: if the government is spending your own money on your kids, why not give you a choice ? it is not about broad collective programs financed by society on the whole: your tax, your kids education.  of course they should be held to the same standards.  this is why the whole voucher thing was implemented without much resistance in sweden, who tend to think rather collectivistically, but basically if the standards are the same then it is easily to accept it.  i do not know why is not it so in the us.  i suspect it is the usual problem: allowing them to be ran as for profit instead of foundation / ngo / church based.   #  it is perfectly valid for them to say  in exchange for your money we will    where the blank is pretty much anything at all.   #  funding.  the trouble is our public schools lose money if a we do not perform well or b a charter comes along that says they will perform better.  the difference is that the charters do not have to perform better or even really at all.  they are not evaluated in the same way, they do not have to meet the same criteria.  they get our money basically by putting forth a good image, whereas we are obligated to use the money to at least try.  the reason your sports bar analogy is flawed is because you are held accountable to your lender to pay them back in the same currency that you were funded with so your venture must have some expectation of success.  charter schools get to define their own metrics so there is no reason not to take the money and run.  it is perfectly valid for them to say  in exchange for your money we will    where the blank is pretty much anything at all.  i am a teacher as well, and i have worked in both charter schools and public schools and while i fully believe that my charter was doing a great job, i also recognize that it was basically because we wanted to do a great job i. e.  the same motive you ascribe to public teachers and not because we were getting paid.  in fact, teachers at charters are often underpaid and under qualified because their founders and administrators are not obligated to hire certified teachers or to disclose openly how much they are paying.  in other words, they are legally allowed to be the waltons of the education system.  if they choose to act like costco it is a choice, not a reliable outcome of a good capitalist system like the one you are talking about.   #  most modern criticisms of education have come after nclb, after common core, and after schools have had money drained away from them.   #  are schools doing a bad job though ? most modern criticisms of education have come after nclb, after common core, and after schools have had money drained away from them.  those are all things that can be fixed and there is a long history of public education and it is value in the united states.  additionally, schools in the us really are not that bad.  most measures of schools internationally do not take into account differences in the education system, primarily the fact that we give the same secondary education to all students rather than tracking them and only testing those on the  academic  track.  take a look at this article.  URL why should we give ownership of that system over to a set of private corporations that have no standards or mandates to make them accessible to all students ? why not improve the system we have instead of draining away even more money from it ?
this view comes from my personal experience.  i grew up in new jersey, a state with fantastic public schools.  i now live in tennessee, a state with terrible public schools.  i support vouchers because i believe they will mostly make differences in places like my current state, and i do not see it making a difference in states like new jersey.  to be honest, this may be a conservative/libertarian viewpoint, but i am much more willing to trust somebody that is saying  i am gonna give your kids a great education and make a shitload by doing so.   opposed to the state teachers unions that are saying  we are gonna give your kids a great education because we believe in public schools.   if you want to do something like say. open a sports bar, a bank is more likely to give you a loan if you say  i think i could make a shitload off of this.   opposed to  it is always been my dream to open a sports bar.   we should look at schools the same way.  i have heard many arguments against the voucher initiative, and i do think states should be individually doing this, not on a federal level.  just making that known.  i do not have the patience to type out every argument i have heard against it so i will just wait for you guys to present them and i will retort to them as fast as i am able.  let is get started.   #  if you want to do something like say. open a sports bar, a bank is more likely to give you a loan if you say  i think i could make a shitload off of this.    #  opposed to  it is always been my dream to open a sports bar.    # i would like to first point out that nobody would say  this .  they would probably say something like the following.   we are gonna give your kids a great education because we believe  everyone deserves a good education .  the goal is not to make public schools better than private schools.  it is to give children the best education possible to prepare them for their future.  opposed to  it is always been my dream to open a sports bar.   we should look at schools the same way.  this is quite frankly the worst idea imaginable.  banks offer loans based on what is in  their  best interest.  schools are not  supposed  to be profitable in the immediate sense.  education is a fundamental part of our economy and without the best education possible, the united states will quickly fall further behind.  you have to stop looking at it for an immediate gain and instead look at the  long term investments .  a sports bar is there to make money.  you may have a life long dream to own one.  that is nice.  but the world does not care about your individual business because it really does not matter unless it makes money.  something that will  always  matter whether it makes an immediate profit or not is education, because it keeps our country competitive.   #  i have several students from a particular and very popular local charter that have really poor writing skills and none are aware of it.   #  disclaimer: public school teacher the real issue with vouchers is that they drain money away from public education.  why should the government give money designed for use in one of their programs to another school via whatever student that is attending that does not have to follow any of the same standards ? charter schools in my state do not have to follow the same standards, do not have to hire certified teachers, do not have to accommodate special ed students even with minor disabilities, etc.  i should add that the charters in my state are particularly bad, but go to great lengths to hide that because they do not have a built in student base.  i have several students from a particular and very popular local charter that have really poor writing skills and none are aware of it.  i just do not see the purpose of draining more away from our current system rather than improving it.  it is one thing to bemoan the state of public education.  it is entirely different to try to fix the problem by giving money to a system with no universal standards or regulations that we have no long term evidence as to how well it even works.   #  i do not know why is not it so in the us.   #  i think because it is the taxpayers own money.  part of the tax is paid for the sake of other people or for society on the whole, but whatever the government spends on your own kids, and you are a taxpayer, then it is your own money getting back.  i think you somehow do not see this link.  i guess you see the collection of taxes and the organization of programs entirely different.  but from the view of the taxpayer, i cough up the money, i get some stuff, other people get some stuff as well.  and then it is not too outlandish to think that you should have some choice in the stuff you get.  so that would be the basic philosophy: if the government is spending your own money on your kids, why not give you a choice ? it is not about broad collective programs financed by society on the whole: your tax, your kids education.  of course they should be held to the same standards.  this is why the whole voucher thing was implemented without much resistance in sweden, who tend to think rather collectivistically, but basically if the standards are the same then it is easily to accept it.  i do not know why is not it so in the us.  i suspect it is the usual problem: allowing them to be ran as for profit instead of foundation / ngo / church based.   #  charter schools get to define their own metrics so there is no reason not to take the money and run.   #  funding.  the trouble is our public schools lose money if a we do not perform well or b a charter comes along that says they will perform better.  the difference is that the charters do not have to perform better or even really at all.  they are not evaluated in the same way, they do not have to meet the same criteria.  they get our money basically by putting forth a good image, whereas we are obligated to use the money to at least try.  the reason your sports bar analogy is flawed is because you are held accountable to your lender to pay them back in the same currency that you were funded with so your venture must have some expectation of success.  charter schools get to define their own metrics so there is no reason not to take the money and run.  it is perfectly valid for them to say  in exchange for your money we will    where the blank is pretty much anything at all.  i am a teacher as well, and i have worked in both charter schools and public schools and while i fully believe that my charter was doing a great job, i also recognize that it was basically because we wanted to do a great job i. e.  the same motive you ascribe to public teachers and not because we were getting paid.  in fact, teachers at charters are often underpaid and under qualified because their founders and administrators are not obligated to hire certified teachers or to disclose openly how much they are paying.  in other words, they are legally allowed to be the waltons of the education system.  if they choose to act like costco it is a choice, not a reliable outcome of a good capitalist system like the one you are talking about.   #  most modern criticisms of education have come after nclb, after common core, and after schools have had money drained away from them.   #  are schools doing a bad job though ? most modern criticisms of education have come after nclb, after common core, and after schools have had money drained away from them.  those are all things that can be fixed and there is a long history of public education and it is value in the united states.  additionally, schools in the us really are not that bad.  most measures of schools internationally do not take into account differences in the education system, primarily the fact that we give the same secondary education to all students rather than tracking them and only testing those on the  academic  track.  take a look at this article.  URL why should we give ownership of that system over to a set of private corporations that have no standards or mandates to make them accessible to all students ? why not improve the system we have instead of draining away even more money from it ?
this post is born out of seeing this news article posted today; URL a short/pointless article about the prom king/queen for some high school somewhere.  i am sure everyone would agree this would never be an article if neither of them had learning disabilities.  instead, there are comments about how this is  incredible behaviour  from their classmates, for treating them like everyone else, and how it is a feel good story.  i could not give a shit who the prom king/queen are in some random high school, and why would it bother me if they have learning disabilities or not ? celebrating  nothing  achievements simply because someone has a learning disability is ridiculous.  i believe you should treat someone the same no matter what.  there was a good advert which i ca not find in the uk a couple years ago where a head chef was yelling at another chef in the kitchen.  the chef being yelled at had down is syndrome iirc.  the advert simply highlighted that people with learning disabilities should be treated like anybody else.  if someone with learning disabilities does something fantastic, then fantastic, praise them in the same way you would praise any other person.  but do not add in things about how amazing it is considering they have a learning disability, and do not champion them for doing something you would not for someone without learning disabilities.   #  i could not give a shit who the prom king/queen are in some random high school, and why would it bother me if they have learning disabilities or not ?  #  it is ultimately a story about overcoming obstacles, and how easy it is to not be grateful that things like these are easy for you.   # it is ultimately a story about overcoming obstacles, and how easy it is to not be grateful that things like these are easy for you.  if you do not give a shit about the story, do not read it.  apparently in your world, we ought to never congratulate or encourage people with disabilities.  they will never be on par with  normal people , and they would never be celebrated.  what we do, and what we ought to continue doing, is celebrating the achievement because of it is difficulty or the amount of work behind it.  i can live by myself independently, but it is amazing when a guy with no legs does it.  it is also inspiring.  if a guy with no legs can be equal to me; just think of what a guy with both legs can do.   #  i am saying their zone of proximal development URL is in a different place, relative to their disability.   # i am saying their zone of proximal development URL is in a different place, relative to their disability.  being  disabled  means  having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities.   this will affect some things and not others, but it does not  simply  affect nothing  .  actually, skin color can create  societal limitations  external to the person.  jackie robinson, for example, is far, far more worthy of honor and respect for overcoming greater racial barriers than, say, most other current african american baseball players.  they still are, of course but he is even more so.  the barriers are external, but still real not directly because of skin color, but still a barrier.  it takes greater character, greater discipline, greater perseverance to overcome greater barriers.  actually, that is  your  take on my view.  it is not my view.  and by that view, children would be  definitionally inferior to adults , which i reject wholesale.  simply put, i do not equate high  ability  with  intrinsic superiority  or low ability with intrinsic inferiority .  if  you did  equate those hypothetically , perhaps you might feel the need to pretend all things are equally difficult/easy/impressive/unimpressive for all people.  rather than using race, i would use  age  as a comparison.  i would never insult or demean a child for being however developed/ able  they are or are not .  i would just treat  wherever they are at  as acceptable, and meet them where they are instead of acting like they are supposed to be somewhere else.  that  is true dignity.   #  i thought of  everyday achievements  as things like grocery shopping, getting gasoline, getting a good grade on a school test, making a meal, etc.   # does not it suggest a lack of discrimination on the part of everyone who chose them ? is not that evidence of a generous spirit on the part of the community ? more importantly , though, i was responding to your general claim concerning  everyday achievements.   if becoming prom king/queen is not  really an achievement  it is because it is not  in general anyway for anyone who does .  so it is probably not the best example to base the idea on.  i thought of  everyday achievements  as things like grocery shopping, getting gasoline, getting a good grade on a school test, making a meal, etc.  those are big deals when someone first does them, are not they ?  #  i do it because most on a downhill trajectory continue because  what is the point ?    #  the article: you ca not beat demand.  stuff like this sells papers.  being elected prom king/queen: if they have the votes, so what ? people could be celebrating them for their perseverance.  the issue of tabula rasa.  i think we have wrong idea of what fair means and i think it stems from the assumption we are all born with a blank slate.  i provide extra credit to students who have a d or lower.  just one assignment, nothing big.  i do it because most on a downhill trajectory continue because  what is the point ?   i have kids with as and bs who think it is unfair.  alright, i will put you at a d to make it fair.  if that is your definition of fair, let is do it.  the truth is many kids in my class have low grades because they work all night or have one parent or parents are working 0 hrs a day.  have their problems and try to succeed.  not everyone starts from the same position.  so these kids are cognitively disabled.  enough s that it warrants attention.  they have an extraordinarily tough life ahead of them.  we have kids it is takes them 0 yrs to learn how to write their name and learn 0 life skill, like laundry.  i sat in on one of the meetings to see how progress is going.  this 0 yr old has the mentality of a 0 yr old.  he is aware enough to know he is burdensome, but not skilled enough to do anything about it.  that is a special kinda hell if these students celebrate these guys, this will be a huge highlight for them.   #  think about how long a child is parents have been caring for their son and paying his expensive medical bills.   #  i think celebrating achievements is absolutely vital ! when a feral child learns their first word, or someone with down is syndrome puts the square peg in the square hole.  these successes are very uplifting for the patient as well as his or her family, because they show that the afflicted individual is growing and soon may even be integrated further into society.  think about how long a child is parents have been caring for their son and paying his expensive medical bills.  on the day he first walks they are going to be damn proud and for good reason.  and to address your point about integration: why does it matter ? each mentally handicapped person is not dutied with helping their group as a whole.  they can do whatever they damn well want.
let me start off by saying i am a huge abortion rights advocate.  it is an extremely important social issue to me.  i often hear from people on the pro choice side that pro choice / pro abortion.  apparently, being pro abortion means you support forced abortion or think abortion is always the best outcome for a pregnancy.  i think this is bs.  0.  we have a word for that: anti natalism, at least on the extreme end.  0.  nothing about the words pro and abortion used together suggest this.  0.  pro parenting you support a person carrying to term and raising the child.  pro adoption you support a person placing a child up for adoption.  pro abortion logically then means you support a person having an abortion.  0.  the definition of pro abortion by merriam webster and oxford include something along the lines of supporting abortion.  all other online dictionaries i found also include this definition.  the only  dictionary  that insists pro abortion anti natalism is urban dictionary.  0.  most pro choice advocates believe abortion is not a dirty word, that being pro choice is acceptable, and that abortion is nothing to be ashamed of.  if all this is true, why the distancing from supporting abortion ? being pro choice means being pro parenting, pro adoption, and  pro abortion .  if the discussion specifically is speaking about abortion, i do not think it is unfair or wrong to call yourself pro abortion.   #  pro parenting you support a person carrying to term and raising the child.   #  pro adoption you support a person placing a child up for adoption.   # pro adoption you support a person placing a child up for adoption.  pro abortion logically then means you support a person having an abortion.  based on this definition, some people may be pro parenting or pro abortion in certain cases, but still hold the view of being pro choice in thinking that the mother/parents should be able to make that decision.  for example, if a pregnant woman lives in poverty and does not know the father of her child, then i might be pro abortion, while if a married couple has the proper time and resources to raise a child i may be pro parenting.  regardless, i still believe that there should be a choice in whether the mother/parents wants to have an abortion or not in both cases.  in my own life, i am certainly pro choice, but if i were to get a girl pregnant then i am not sure if i would want her to have an abortion.  does this make me not pro abortion, and thus not pro choice according to your view ?  #  i am against laws making rape illegal, but i am not pro rape.   #  i am against laws making rape illegal, but i am not pro rape.  no, not really.  i do not think that works as well.  i am not quite sure what the dividing line is, but there seems to be some difference between being pro legalization of a victimless crime vs.  a crime with a victim.  i am pro pot legalization but would not suggest anyone use it without a doctor is order.  but, i ca not use the exact same logic for something like rape.  a person who wanted to legalize rape would be someone who is pro rape.  the difficulty is a large part of the abortion debate is based on if it is  victimless  or not, and as such this analogy may or may not work depending upon what side you are already on.   #  let is use something less controversial as an example.   #  who said anything about abortion being right or wrong moral/immoral ? pro choice just like being anti adultery laws just means that you do not believe that others should be able to restrict a persons choice.  whether or not one believes it is moral is separate.  let is use something less controversial as an example.  i believe it is wrong to drink in excess in your language, immoral .  i do not support the prohibition of alcohol.  your logic would state that since i do not support the prohibition of alcohol that i am pro drinking in excess.  i think it is easy to see that these views can be exclusive from each other.  hopefully that helps.   #  being pro  freedom of speech  does not mean i actively support other people telling lies or being stupid.   #  being pro  freedom of speech  does not mean i actively support other people telling lies or being stupid.  it just means i believe all people have the right to think/believe whatever they choose to, and that they should be treated as such.  so just as being pro freedom of speech does not mean being pro stupidity or pro lying but merely pro  empowering  to other people is beliefs , being pro choice does not mean being pro abortion.  it simply means  not actively using force to stop it from happening .  there are many things we  do not  try to stop from happening.  for example, i shudder to imagine laws that make  feeling hatred  illegal.  that is impossible to enforce justly, and would immediately be usurped and used to persecute many people without cause.  does that mean i am pro hate ? no, it just means i do not think governmental force should be used to crush it.   #  it was about this lady URL but this was not the article that was posted, i ca not find that exact one.   #  this is interesting.  i recently had a reddit argument with someone who called another commenter not pro choice, while they had said that they are.  it was on an article about a woman who had filmed her own abortion to show people that there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.  it was about this lady URL but this was not the article that was posted, i ca not find that exact one.  so the first commenter said something along the likes of: it is good that she made an educational video like this, but since she is working at an abortion clinic she should have been responsible enough to not engage in unprotected sex.  the second commenter reacted to say that commenter 0 was not pro choice because she was criticizing the fact that the lady had gotten an abortion.  i stepped in to say that she was not criticizing the abortion, only remarking that using some form of birth control in the first place would have been more responsible.  commenter 0 then proceeded to tell me that i am not pro choice either, and that abortion is a valid form of bc.
let me start off by saying i am a huge abortion rights advocate.  it is an extremely important social issue to me.  i often hear from people on the pro choice side that pro choice / pro abortion.  apparently, being pro abortion means you support forced abortion or think abortion is always the best outcome for a pregnancy.  i think this is bs.  0.  we have a word for that: anti natalism, at least on the extreme end.  0.  nothing about the words pro and abortion used together suggest this.  0.  pro parenting you support a person carrying to term and raising the child.  pro adoption you support a person placing a child up for adoption.  pro abortion logically then means you support a person having an abortion.  0.  the definition of pro abortion by merriam webster and oxford include something along the lines of supporting abortion.  all other online dictionaries i found also include this definition.  the only  dictionary  that insists pro abortion anti natalism is urban dictionary.  0.  most pro choice advocates believe abortion is not a dirty word, that being pro choice is acceptable, and that abortion is nothing to be ashamed of.  if all this is true, why the distancing from supporting abortion ? being pro choice means being pro parenting, pro adoption, and  pro abortion .  if the discussion specifically is speaking about abortion, i do not think it is unfair or wrong to call yourself pro abortion.   #  pro abortion logically then means you support a person having an abortion.   #   a person  in this sense should be taken to mean a specific person, and not people in general.   #  a person  in this sense should be taken to mean a specific person, and not people in general.  in the case of any woman who makes the choice to have an abortion i am pro abortion.  in the case of my own children, i was anti abortion.  if my teenage daughter became pregnant, i would be pro abortion in that case.  but the best way to describe this position in general terms really is pro choice.  you support a woman is right to choose if childbirth or abortion is right for her personally.  to be pro abortion generally is to favor abortion over birth, as you call it anti natalism.  i have never met anyone who holds this position.   #  but, i ca not use the exact same logic for something like rape.   #  i am against laws making rape illegal, but i am not pro rape.  no, not really.  i do not think that works as well.  i am not quite sure what the dividing line is, but there seems to be some difference between being pro legalization of a victimless crime vs.  a crime with a victim.  i am pro pot legalization but would not suggest anyone use it without a doctor is order.  but, i ca not use the exact same logic for something like rape.  a person who wanted to legalize rape would be someone who is pro rape.  the difficulty is a large part of the abortion debate is based on if it is  victimless  or not, and as such this analogy may or may not work depending upon what side you are already on.   #  i believe it is wrong to drink in excess in your language, immoral .   #  who said anything about abortion being right or wrong moral/immoral ? pro choice just like being anti adultery laws just means that you do not believe that others should be able to restrict a persons choice.  whether or not one believes it is moral is separate.  let is use something less controversial as an example.  i believe it is wrong to drink in excess in your language, immoral .  i do not support the prohibition of alcohol.  your logic would state that since i do not support the prohibition of alcohol that i am pro drinking in excess.  i think it is easy to see that these views can be exclusive from each other.  hopefully that helps.   #  no, it just means i do not think governmental force should be used to crush it.   #  being pro  freedom of speech  does not mean i actively support other people telling lies or being stupid.  it just means i believe all people have the right to think/believe whatever they choose to, and that they should be treated as such.  so just as being pro freedom of speech does not mean being pro stupidity or pro lying but merely pro  empowering  to other people is beliefs , being pro choice does not mean being pro abortion.  it simply means  not actively using force to stop it from happening .  there are many things we  do not  try to stop from happening.  for example, i shudder to imagine laws that make  feeling hatred  illegal.  that is impossible to enforce justly, and would immediately be usurped and used to persecute many people without cause.  does that mean i am pro hate ? no, it just means i do not think governmental force should be used to crush it.   #  i stepped in to say that she was not criticizing the abortion, only remarking that using some form of birth control in the first place would have been more responsible.   #  this is interesting.  i recently had a reddit argument with someone who called another commenter not pro choice, while they had said that they are.  it was on an article about a woman who had filmed her own abortion to show people that there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.  it was about this lady URL but this was not the article that was posted, i ca not find that exact one.  so the first commenter said something along the likes of: it is good that she made an educational video like this, but since she is working at an abortion clinic she should have been responsible enough to not engage in unprotected sex.  the second commenter reacted to say that commenter 0 was not pro choice because she was criticizing the fact that the lady had gotten an abortion.  i stepped in to say that she was not criticizing the abortion, only remarking that using some form of birth control in the first place would have been more responsible.  commenter 0 then proceeded to tell me that i am not pro choice either, and that abortion is a valid form of bc.
let me start off by saying i am a huge abortion rights advocate.  it is an extremely important social issue to me.  i often hear from people on the pro choice side that pro choice / pro abortion.  apparently, being pro abortion means you support forced abortion or think abortion is always the best outcome for a pregnancy.  i think this is bs.  0.  we have a word for that: anti natalism, at least on the extreme end.  0.  nothing about the words pro and abortion used together suggest this.  0.  pro parenting you support a person carrying to term and raising the child.  pro adoption you support a person placing a child up for adoption.  pro abortion logically then means you support a person having an abortion.  0.  the definition of pro abortion by merriam webster and oxford include something along the lines of supporting abortion.  all other online dictionaries i found also include this definition.  the only  dictionary  that insists pro abortion anti natalism is urban dictionary.  0.  most pro choice advocates believe abortion is not a dirty word, that being pro choice is acceptable, and that abortion is nothing to be ashamed of.  if all this is true, why the distancing from supporting abortion ? being pro choice means being pro parenting, pro adoption, and  pro abortion .  if the discussion specifically is speaking about abortion, i do not think it is unfair or wrong to call yourself pro abortion.   #  i often hear from people on the pro choice side that pro choice / pro abortion.   #  apparently, being pro abortion means you support forced abortion or think abortion is always the best outcome for a pregnancy.   # apparently, being pro abortion means you support forced abortion or think abortion is always the best outcome for a pregnancy.  you can be pro choice and not pro abortion.  for example, i think abortion is terrible and should not be done, but i do not support government regulation of it.  i also think saying hurtful things to people is terrible, but i do not think the government should intervene.  does that make me pro saying hurtful things ?  #  a person who wanted to legalize rape would be someone who is pro rape.   #  i am against laws making rape illegal, but i am not pro rape.  no, not really.  i do not think that works as well.  i am not quite sure what the dividing line is, but there seems to be some difference between being pro legalization of a victimless crime vs.  a crime with a victim.  i am pro pot legalization but would not suggest anyone use it without a doctor is order.  but, i ca not use the exact same logic for something like rape.  a person who wanted to legalize rape would be someone who is pro rape.  the difficulty is a large part of the abortion debate is based on if it is  victimless  or not, and as such this analogy may or may not work depending upon what side you are already on.   #  who said anything about abortion being right or wrong moral/immoral ?  #  who said anything about abortion being right or wrong moral/immoral ? pro choice just like being anti adultery laws just means that you do not believe that others should be able to restrict a persons choice.  whether or not one believes it is moral is separate.  let is use something less controversial as an example.  i believe it is wrong to drink in excess in your language, immoral .  i do not support the prohibition of alcohol.  your logic would state that since i do not support the prohibition of alcohol that i am pro drinking in excess.  i think it is easy to see that these views can be exclusive from each other.  hopefully that helps.   #  being pro  freedom of speech  does not mean i actively support other people telling lies or being stupid.   #  being pro  freedom of speech  does not mean i actively support other people telling lies or being stupid.  it just means i believe all people have the right to think/believe whatever they choose to, and that they should be treated as such.  so just as being pro freedom of speech does not mean being pro stupidity or pro lying but merely pro  empowering  to other people is beliefs , being pro choice does not mean being pro abortion.  it simply means  not actively using force to stop it from happening .  there are many things we  do not  try to stop from happening.  for example, i shudder to imagine laws that make  feeling hatred  illegal.  that is impossible to enforce justly, and would immediately be usurped and used to persecute many people without cause.  does that mean i am pro hate ? no, it just means i do not think governmental force should be used to crush it.   #  it was on an article about a woman who had filmed her own abortion to show people that there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.   #  this is interesting.  i recently had a reddit argument with someone who called another commenter not pro choice, while they had said that they are.  it was on an article about a woman who had filmed her own abortion to show people that there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.  it was about this lady URL but this was not the article that was posted, i ca not find that exact one.  so the first commenter said something along the likes of: it is good that she made an educational video like this, but since she is working at an abortion clinic she should have been responsible enough to not engage in unprotected sex.  the second commenter reacted to say that commenter 0 was not pro choice because she was criticizing the fact that the lady had gotten an abortion.  i stepped in to say that she was not criticizing the abortion, only remarking that using some form of birth control in the first place would have been more responsible.  commenter 0 then proceeded to tell me that i am not pro choice either, and that abortion is a valid form of bc.
drone strikes in pakistan and yemen without a declaration of war.    illegal wars in iraq and afghanistan.    mass dragnet surveillance of the world; effectively chilling effective journalism, due process.    no meaningful separation between the three branches of government.    militarised police forces.    domination and destruction of world is natural resources.    foreign policy which actively encourages terrorist reprisals   debt slavery i am sure there are points i have missed off.  after seeing all the american freedom memes to counter the soviet bear memes i just thought i would remind those waving the  freedom  flag that america is, in my opinion, one of the most repressive and oppressive states in the world through surveillance, attacks on other countries and a corrupt puppet government.  cmv  #  mass dragnet surveillance of the world; effectively chilling effective journalism, due process.   #  no meaningful separation between the three branches of government.   # they are not fighting state actors.  if they were than the pakistani govt.  would openly be fighting back against the drones, but they are not.  not illegal according to any law that i am aware of.  congress gave the president a blank check for both wars.  no meaningful separation between the three branches of government.  how are these terrorism ? ummm no.  how is this terrorism ? and please tell me what natural resource we did not have a legal right to ? and do you really think that the us is actively encouraging reprisals ? it is funny because i do not remember obama asking any terrorist group to attack the us.  not anymore than any other nation.   #  countries whee you can be thrown in jail for your political beliefs, or where absolute censorship dictates what kind of media is acceptable.   #  there are countries where you can be dragged from your house and shot for your religious beliefs.  countries where being sold into slavery or forced labor is a very real threat.  countries whee you can be thrown in jail for your political beliefs, or where absolute censorship dictates what kind of media is acceptable.  how the hell is america worse than these countries ? there are many countries that are more suppressive and brutal.   #  0.  congress declared war through the annual authorizations of the aumf, unless you can tell me what the functional difference between that and a document that says:  we declare war on   .   #  0.  congress declared war through the annual authorizations of the aumf, unless you can tell me what the functional difference between that and a document that says:  we declare war on   .  0.  wars in iraq and afghanistan were both approved with the support of the american people through their representatives in congress and with the blessing of the un 0.  hogwash, i do not see anything stopping greenwald from publishing the snowden information for instance.  0.  i seem to recently recall sctous slapping the hands of the executive and legislative branches for trying to force states into unwanted expansion of a certain program, also the legislature blocking executive cabinet nominations successfully, just off the top of my head.  0.  local issue that does give me some cause for concern but i would not take the step of classifying this as a national concern do  you  really want more federal control over local police ? even if it were to initially change their behavior for the good ? 0.  we are not the only ones and this country is moving towards more sustainable energy solutions.  china is a much bigger concern.  even la on its worst day does not even come close to beijing in terms of air quality 0.  chicken or the egg, either way, every country is entitled to protect its own interests, including those overseas.  if removing genocidal dictators causes someone is son to strap on an explosive vest and detonate himself next to a school, then i do not quite see the connection 0.  debt makes the world go around.  oh and we do not imprison people for most debts, so let is pump the brakes on the hostile terms.  debt is an issue but quite overblown.   #  you can run an awareness campaign for an issue you care about.   # but you do.  your voice is as loud as the effort you are willing to put into it.  the simplest thing is voting.  you also can also speak out in opinion columns, or on the internet.  you can run an awareness campaign for an issue you care about.  you could spend time drafting legislation if you wanted to.  i feel like often the people claiming they have no ability to affect change are people who have not really tried too hard.  the larger the change you want to effect the more work it is going to be, but that does not mean you have no voice.   #  america is at war, even though we do not say it.   #  america is at war, even though we do not say it.  we are at war with the taliban, which is not pakistan or yemen.  the wars in iraq and afghanistan are not illegal by any american law.  mass surveillance has always been used by every government that has had the means.  the police are not close to militarized and if they were they may be more effective.  i agree that we are using up a lot of the world is resources, but we are also creating a lot of the worlds resources.  we are trading.  you may disagree with the foreign policy but do you actually think that they are trying to insight terrorism ? you choose to enter debt.  you do not have to buy a house, go to college, or take out any loans.  if you want you can live entirely off welfare and the charity of others although it is far from a good/comfortable life .
drone strikes in pakistan and yemen without a declaration of war.    illegal wars in iraq and afghanistan.    mass dragnet surveillance of the world; effectively chilling effective journalism, due process.    no meaningful separation between the three branches of government.    militarised police forces.    domination and destruction of world is natural resources.    foreign policy which actively encourages terrorist reprisals   debt slavery i am sure there are points i have missed off.  after seeing all the american freedom memes to counter the soviet bear memes i just thought i would remind those waving the  freedom  flag that america is, in my opinion, one of the most repressive and oppressive states in the world through surveillance, attacks on other countries and a corrupt puppet government.  cmv  #  no meaningful separation between the three branches of government.   #  why does this make the us oppressive ?  # why does this make the us oppressive ? i would say it does just the opposite, checks and balance prevent any one from taking over the country.  and instead you suggest ? a police force is meant to protect people from violence among other things , why should we fight violence with something not forceful ? do you think we should without shooting someone killing a room full of people ? but what good would come from choosing your taxes ? none of us would pay it and we do not know shit about how the government/economy works.  also, it is just plain not slavery.  no definition of slavery would work.   #  countries whee you can be thrown in jail for your political beliefs, or where absolute censorship dictates what kind of media is acceptable.   #  there are countries where you can be dragged from your house and shot for your religious beliefs.  countries where being sold into slavery or forced labor is a very real threat.  countries whee you can be thrown in jail for your political beliefs, or where absolute censorship dictates what kind of media is acceptable.  how the hell is america worse than these countries ? there are many countries that are more suppressive and brutal.   #  even la on its worst day does not even come close to beijing in terms of air quality 0.  chicken or the egg, either way, every country is entitled to protect its own interests, including those overseas.   #  0.  congress declared war through the annual authorizations of the aumf, unless you can tell me what the functional difference between that and a document that says:  we declare war on   .  0.  wars in iraq and afghanistan were both approved with the support of the american people through their representatives in congress and with the blessing of the un 0.  hogwash, i do not see anything stopping greenwald from publishing the snowden information for instance.  0.  i seem to recently recall sctous slapping the hands of the executive and legislative branches for trying to force states into unwanted expansion of a certain program, also the legislature blocking executive cabinet nominations successfully, just off the top of my head.  0.  local issue that does give me some cause for concern but i would not take the step of classifying this as a national concern do  you  really want more federal control over local police ? even if it were to initially change their behavior for the good ? 0.  we are not the only ones and this country is moving towards more sustainable energy solutions.  china is a much bigger concern.  even la on its worst day does not even come close to beijing in terms of air quality 0.  chicken or the egg, either way, every country is entitled to protect its own interests, including those overseas.  if removing genocidal dictators causes someone is son to strap on an explosive vest and detonate himself next to a school, then i do not quite see the connection 0.  debt makes the world go around.  oh and we do not imprison people for most debts, so let is pump the brakes on the hostile terms.  debt is an issue but quite overblown.   #  i feel like often the people claiming they have no ability to affect change are people who have not really tried too hard.   # but you do.  your voice is as loud as the effort you are willing to put into it.  the simplest thing is voting.  you also can also speak out in opinion columns, or on the internet.  you can run an awareness campaign for an issue you care about.  you could spend time drafting legislation if you wanted to.  i feel like often the people claiming they have no ability to affect change are people who have not really tried too hard.  the larger the change you want to effect the more work it is going to be, but that does not mean you have no voice.   #  the wars in iraq and afghanistan are not illegal by any american law.   #  america is at war, even though we do not say it.  we are at war with the taliban, which is not pakistan or yemen.  the wars in iraq and afghanistan are not illegal by any american law.  mass surveillance has always been used by every government that has had the means.  the police are not close to militarized and if they were they may be more effective.  i agree that we are using up a lot of the world is resources, but we are also creating a lot of the worlds resources.  we are trading.  you may disagree with the foreign policy but do you actually think that they are trying to insight terrorism ? you choose to enter debt.  you do not have to buy a house, go to college, or take out any loans.  if you want you can live entirely off welfare and the charity of others although it is far from a good/comfortable life .
drone strikes in pakistan and yemen without a declaration of war.    illegal wars in iraq and afghanistan.    mass dragnet surveillance of the world; effectively chilling effective journalism, due process.    no meaningful separation between the three branches of government.    militarised police forces.    domination and destruction of world is natural resources.    foreign policy which actively encourages terrorist reprisals   debt slavery i am sure there are points i have missed off.  after seeing all the american freedom memes to counter the soviet bear memes i just thought i would remind those waving the  freedom  flag that america is, in my opinion, one of the most repressive and oppressive states in the world through surveillance, attacks on other countries and a corrupt puppet government.  cmv  #  drone strikes in pakistan and yemen without a declaration of war.   #  in the case of pakistan at least, that was with the permission of their government.   # in the case of pakistan at least, that was with the permission of their government.  i ca not say about yemen, i do not know.  i am not sure how this is an argument that says anything specifically about being a terrorist state.  how were they illegal ? are you using this as a replacement word for  bad  ? even if i leave that premise as given, how does it make the american state terroristic specifically as opposed to generally wrong ? and so on.  please elaborate on how you define a state to be a terrorist state.  as far as the citizens being modern day slaves a slave is not free to leave.  for this reason alone you should reconsider that section of your op is title.   #  countries where being sold into slavery or forced labor is a very real threat.   #  there are countries where you can be dragged from your house and shot for your religious beliefs.  countries where being sold into slavery or forced labor is a very real threat.  countries whee you can be thrown in jail for your political beliefs, or where absolute censorship dictates what kind of media is acceptable.  how the hell is america worse than these countries ? there are many countries that are more suppressive and brutal.   #  oh and we do not imprison people for most debts, so let is pump the brakes on the hostile terms.   #  0.  congress declared war through the annual authorizations of the aumf, unless you can tell me what the functional difference between that and a document that says:  we declare war on   .  0.  wars in iraq and afghanistan were both approved with the support of the american people through their representatives in congress and with the blessing of the un 0.  hogwash, i do not see anything stopping greenwald from publishing the snowden information for instance.  0.  i seem to recently recall sctous slapping the hands of the executive and legislative branches for trying to force states into unwanted expansion of a certain program, also the legislature blocking executive cabinet nominations successfully, just off the top of my head.  0.  local issue that does give me some cause for concern but i would not take the step of classifying this as a national concern do  you  really want more federal control over local police ? even if it were to initially change their behavior for the good ? 0.  we are not the only ones and this country is moving towards more sustainable energy solutions.  china is a much bigger concern.  even la on its worst day does not even come close to beijing in terms of air quality 0.  chicken or the egg, either way, every country is entitled to protect its own interests, including those overseas.  if removing genocidal dictators causes someone is son to strap on an explosive vest and detonate himself next to a school, then i do not quite see the connection 0.  debt makes the world go around.  oh and we do not imprison people for most debts, so let is pump the brakes on the hostile terms.  debt is an issue but quite overblown.   #  you can run an awareness campaign for an issue you care about.   # but you do.  your voice is as loud as the effort you are willing to put into it.  the simplest thing is voting.  you also can also speak out in opinion columns, or on the internet.  you can run an awareness campaign for an issue you care about.  you could spend time drafting legislation if you wanted to.  i feel like often the people claiming they have no ability to affect change are people who have not really tried too hard.  the larger the change you want to effect the more work it is going to be, but that does not mean you have no voice.   #  the police are not close to militarized and if they were they may be more effective.   #  america is at war, even though we do not say it.  we are at war with the taliban, which is not pakistan or yemen.  the wars in iraq and afghanistan are not illegal by any american law.  mass surveillance has always been used by every government that has had the means.  the police are not close to militarized and if they were they may be more effective.  i agree that we are using up a lot of the world is resources, but we are also creating a lot of the worlds resources.  we are trading.  you may disagree with the foreign policy but do you actually think that they are trying to insight terrorism ? you choose to enter debt.  you do not have to buy a house, go to college, or take out any loans.  if you want you can live entirely off welfare and the charity of others although it is far from a good/comfortable life .
throwaway because i do not want anyone who is angry/offput by my point of view going through my main account history.  i think less of people who abuse drugs.  this includes daily meth users to twice a year marijuana users and even cigarette smokers.  i do not include caffeine or alcohol in here because those can have literally no negative health effects when used in moderation.  everything else i can immediately think of that would be categorized as a drug does have a negative health effect, even after one use.  and i ca not understand why or justify why anyone would want to use a substance knowing beyond and reasonable doubt that it has been scientifically proven to have negative effects on the body.  i know it has been argued that it is for the relaxation effects, that sometimes people get stressed out or some shit like that and they use to help relax themselves.  i think that is a load of crap.  i am a firefighter and a a paramedic, i have seen dead children, adults, elderly, mutilated people screaming for help, i have held a guy is guts in his body with my own hands, and not a thing i have experienced has ever made me feel like i needed a substance to help me be able to deal with it.  i believe there are very few people in the world who have as much real stress on them as a first responder, a combatant soldier, and such.  so i ca not justify the stress excuse.  i know it has been argued that it  feels good , but again, i cannot understand or justify how anything that is known scientifically to be detrimental to your health would ever  feel good  enough to knowingly want to use it.  but i realize that i only know my own side of the story, and i want to give the other side a fair chance.  so please, change my view.  as for alcohol, the same principal applies.  in a small moderated quantity, the body is more than suited to handle alcohol between the liver is ability to filter it and the brain is cognizant abilities not having any noticeable necrosis or permanent degradation.  again, that is within moderation.   #  everything else i can immediately think of that would be categorized as a drug does have a negative health effect, even after one use.   #  please tell me how marijuana, lsd, mushrooms, ecstasy, or even things like heroin or amphetamines have significant negative health effects after one use ?  # please tell me how marijuana, lsd, mushrooms, ecstasy, or even things like heroin or amphetamines have significant negative health effects after one use ? eating mcdonalds is detrimental to your health, foregoing your daily exercise routine is detrimental to your health.  everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.  also saying drugs just make you  feel good  is a really weird way of putting it.  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.  these can all be valuable experiences in terms of creativity and personal growth.   #  hallucinogens even after one use have been linked to hppd and if lipid soluble can be re released into the body at any time without warning driving on the interstate ?  # most of the drugs you listed marijuana, heroine, amphetamines act in the same way as marijuana, so i will use that as my example.  marijuana works in the brain by binding to your brain is canaboid receptors.  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.  when the drug wears off and the receptors become free again, there are now more receptors than the body has a need for, causing the feeling of addiction, needing to fill the receptors to a balanced level so the body feels normal.  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.  this is even more true for opiate receptors.  hallucinogens even after one use have been linked to hppd and if lipid soluble can be re released into the body at any time without warning driving on the interstate ? everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.  if you get down far enough, yes, even breathing is detrimental to your health.  but i am not getting down that far.  some things, such as breathing and eating, are required for life.  drugs are not.  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.  these can all be valuable experiences in terms of creativity and personal growth.  i do not understand why the experiences are so valuable they are worth the health they cost you.   #  none of these are necessary but all can be very dangerous.   # this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.  and this does not at all happen to any significant degree for mild usage 0 per year .  nobody smokes pot once and starts having cravings for it.  this is patently false.  drugs are not.  you do not need mcdonalds to eat.  do you disrespect scuba divers, hikers, mountain climbers, sky divers, bungee jumpers, roller coaster riders, etc.  none of these are necessary but all can be very dangerous.  you have failed to demonstrate how there is any significant health effects after a single use.  your horrible health effects of using drugs once consisted of  you could get addicted , the myth of lsd flashbacks, and an extremely rare condition and even rarer that it lasts a long period of time .  you do not get addicted after one usage, first a habit needs to be formed before addiction is formed.   #  in moderation it hurts your liver less, but the impact is not 0.  there is a threshold limit value for what is and is not detrimental to your health regarding alcohol.   # my wife can telly you all about this.  can cause in some people.  but not everyone.  not most, anyways.  in moderation it hurts your liver less, but the impact is not 0.  there is a threshold limit value for what is and is not detrimental to your health regarding alcohol.  while an individual is threshold limit depends on their lifestyle and many more factors, it is almost always higher than none.  for the majority of people anyways.  copy/paste from an above reply: marijuana works in the brain by binding to your brain is canaboid receptors.  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.  when the drug wears off and the receptors become free again, there are now more receptors than the body has a need for, causing the feeling of addiction, needing to fill the receptors to a balanced level so the body feels normal.  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.   #  your stress is going to be emotional, whereas others  may be more intellectual.   #  i am sorry but your view comes from a place of ignorance.  citing alcohol as  ok  and  pot  as not is beyond absurd to anyone who has consumed both.  you sound like a person who has their shit together so to speak, your stressful job does not affect you, but that is  you .  and your stress is not the same as other people is stress.  your stress is going to be emotional, whereas others  may be more intellectual.  marijuana is not going to ease emotional stress, it might actually heighten it.  there are different kinds of stress that marijuana helps.
throwaway because i do not want anyone who is angry/offput by my point of view going through my main account history.  i think less of people who abuse drugs.  this includes daily meth users to twice a year marijuana users and even cigarette smokers.  i do not include caffeine or alcohol in here because those can have literally no negative health effects when used in moderation.  everything else i can immediately think of that would be categorized as a drug does have a negative health effect, even after one use.  and i ca not understand why or justify why anyone would want to use a substance knowing beyond and reasonable doubt that it has been scientifically proven to have negative effects on the body.  i know it has been argued that it is for the relaxation effects, that sometimes people get stressed out or some shit like that and they use to help relax themselves.  i think that is a load of crap.  i am a firefighter and a a paramedic, i have seen dead children, adults, elderly, mutilated people screaming for help, i have held a guy is guts in his body with my own hands, and not a thing i have experienced has ever made me feel like i needed a substance to help me be able to deal with it.  i believe there are very few people in the world who have as much real stress on them as a first responder, a combatant soldier, and such.  so i ca not justify the stress excuse.  i know it has been argued that it  feels good , but again, i cannot understand or justify how anything that is known scientifically to be detrimental to your health would ever  feel good  enough to knowingly want to use it.  but i realize that i only know my own side of the story, and i want to give the other side a fair chance.  so please, change my view.  as for alcohol, the same principal applies.  in a small moderated quantity, the body is more than suited to handle alcohol between the liver is ability to filter it and the brain is cognizant abilities not having any noticeable necrosis or permanent degradation.  again, that is within moderation.   #  i know it has been argued that it  feels good , but again, i cannot understand or justify how anything that is known scientifically to be detrimental to your health would ever  feel good  enough to knowingly want to use it.   #  eating mcdonalds is detrimental to your health, foregoing your daily exercise routine is detrimental to your health.   # please tell me how marijuana, lsd, mushrooms, ecstasy, or even things like heroin or amphetamines have significant negative health effects after one use ? eating mcdonalds is detrimental to your health, foregoing your daily exercise routine is detrimental to your health.  everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.  also saying drugs just make you  feel good  is a really weird way of putting it.  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.  these can all be valuable experiences in terms of creativity and personal growth.   #  if you get down far enough, yes, even breathing is detrimental to your health.   # most of the drugs you listed marijuana, heroine, amphetamines act in the same way as marijuana, so i will use that as my example.  marijuana works in the brain by binding to your brain is canaboid receptors.  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.  when the drug wears off and the receptors become free again, there are now more receptors than the body has a need for, causing the feeling of addiction, needing to fill the receptors to a balanced level so the body feels normal.  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.  this is even more true for opiate receptors.  hallucinogens even after one use have been linked to hppd and if lipid soluble can be re released into the body at any time without warning driving on the interstate ? everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.  if you get down far enough, yes, even breathing is detrimental to your health.  but i am not getting down that far.  some things, such as breathing and eating, are required for life.  drugs are not.  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.  these can all be valuable experiences in terms of creativity and personal growth.  i do not understand why the experiences are so valuable they are worth the health they cost you.   #  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.   # this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.  and this does not at all happen to any significant degree for mild usage 0 per year .  nobody smokes pot once and starts having cravings for it.  this is patently false.  drugs are not.  you do not need mcdonalds to eat.  do you disrespect scuba divers, hikers, mountain climbers, sky divers, bungee jumpers, roller coaster riders, etc.  none of these are necessary but all can be very dangerous.  you have failed to demonstrate how there is any significant health effects after a single use.  your horrible health effects of using drugs once consisted of  you could get addicted , the myth of lsd flashbacks, and an extremely rare condition and even rarer that it lasts a long period of time .  you do not get addicted after one usage, first a habit needs to be formed before addiction is formed.   #  in moderation it hurts your liver less, but the impact is not 0.  there is a threshold limit value for what is and is not detrimental to your health regarding alcohol.   # my wife can telly you all about this.  can cause in some people.  but not everyone.  not most, anyways.  in moderation it hurts your liver less, but the impact is not 0.  there is a threshold limit value for what is and is not detrimental to your health regarding alcohol.  while an individual is threshold limit depends on their lifestyle and many more factors, it is almost always higher than none.  for the majority of people anyways.  copy/paste from an above reply: marijuana works in the brain by binding to your brain is canaboid receptors.  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.  when the drug wears off and the receptors become free again, there are now more receptors than the body has a need for, causing the feeling of addiction, needing to fill the receptors to a balanced level so the body feels normal.  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.   #  i am sorry but your view comes from a place of ignorance.   #  i am sorry but your view comes from a place of ignorance.  citing alcohol as  ok  and  pot  as not is beyond absurd to anyone who has consumed both.  you sound like a person who has their shit together so to speak, your stressful job does not affect you, but that is  you .  and your stress is not the same as other people is stress.  your stress is going to be emotional, whereas others  may be more intellectual.  marijuana is not going to ease emotional stress, it might actually heighten it.  there are different kinds of stress that marijuana helps.
throwaway because i do not want anyone who is angry/offput by my point of view going through my main account history.  i think less of people who abuse drugs.  this includes daily meth users to twice a year marijuana users and even cigarette smokers.  i do not include caffeine or alcohol in here because those can have literally no negative health effects when used in moderation.  everything else i can immediately think of that would be categorized as a drug does have a negative health effect, even after one use.  and i ca not understand why or justify why anyone would want to use a substance knowing beyond and reasonable doubt that it has been scientifically proven to have negative effects on the body.  i know it has been argued that it is for the relaxation effects, that sometimes people get stressed out or some shit like that and they use to help relax themselves.  i think that is a load of crap.  i am a firefighter and a a paramedic, i have seen dead children, adults, elderly, mutilated people screaming for help, i have held a guy is guts in his body with my own hands, and not a thing i have experienced has ever made me feel like i needed a substance to help me be able to deal with it.  i believe there are very few people in the world who have as much real stress on them as a first responder, a combatant soldier, and such.  so i ca not justify the stress excuse.  i know it has been argued that it  feels good , but again, i cannot understand or justify how anything that is known scientifically to be detrimental to your health would ever  feel good  enough to knowingly want to use it.  but i realize that i only know my own side of the story, and i want to give the other side a fair chance.  so please, change my view.  as for alcohol, the same principal applies.  in a small moderated quantity, the body is more than suited to handle alcohol between the liver is ability to filter it and the brain is cognizant abilities not having any noticeable necrosis or permanent degradation.  again, that is within moderation.   #  i ca not understand why or justify why anyone would want to use a substance knowing beyond and reasonable doubt that it has been scientifically proven to have negative effects on the body.   #  we will come back to this one in relation to alcohol, but first i would like to mention that substances like acetaminophen tylenol and ibuprofen advil nsaids in general  have  been  scientifically proven to have negative effects on the body.    #  i am perplexed by this usage  non prescription drugs  coming from ostensibly medical personnel.  the rest of your post makes it clear that you are talking about illegal narcotics, but the term is  much  more commonly used to refer more to stuff like acetaminophen or omeprazole.  so  do  you think less of people who use tylenol ? because if do not, but if you  do  think less of marijuana users for health reasons, you are contradicting yourself.  we will come back to this one in relation to alcohol, but first i would like to mention that substances like acetaminophen tylenol and ibuprofen advil nsaids in general  have  been  scientifically proven to have negative effects on the body.   just google any of them and skip down to the  adverse effects  section URL increased risk of stroke and myocardial infarction, hypertension, renal kidney damage, etc.  pot looks like a peach by comparison, so again, provided you are not against people using tylenol and advil the claim that you are basing your opinion on adverse health effects is highly suspect.  and the claim that alcohol is objectively safer is equally absurd used in moderation it is safe, but  so is marijuana .  both of them cause cognitive impairment.  both of them are  recreational drugs.   only you  can  lethally od on alcohol, and people frequently do; but even the government drug abuse site admits that people do not die from marijuana URL tell me again how alcohol is safer ? in interests of full disclosure the extent of my drug use was a single experience with smoking pot, which i emphatically disliked and have no desire to replicate.  by contrast, i am not averse to having a drink once in a while; i like the  buzz  although i think getting shitfaced drunk is idiotic.   #  everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.   # please tell me how marijuana, lsd, mushrooms, ecstasy, or even things like heroin or amphetamines have significant negative health effects after one use ? eating mcdonalds is detrimental to your health, foregoing your daily exercise routine is detrimental to your health.  everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.  also saying drugs just make you  feel good  is a really weird way of putting it.  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.  these can all be valuable experiences in terms of creativity and personal growth.   #  some things, such as breathing and eating, are required for life.   # most of the drugs you listed marijuana, heroine, amphetamines act in the same way as marijuana, so i will use that as my example.  marijuana works in the brain by binding to your brain is canaboid receptors.  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.  when the drug wears off and the receptors become free again, there are now more receptors than the body has a need for, causing the feeling of addiction, needing to fill the receptors to a balanced level so the body feels normal.  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.  this is even more true for opiate receptors.  hallucinogens even after one use have been linked to hppd and if lipid soluble can be re released into the body at any time without warning driving on the interstate ? everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.  if you get down far enough, yes, even breathing is detrimental to your health.  but i am not getting down that far.  some things, such as breathing and eating, are required for life.  drugs are not.  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.  these can all be valuable experiences in terms of creativity and personal growth.  i do not understand why the experiences are so valuable they are worth the health they cost you.   #  you have failed to demonstrate how there is any significant health effects after a single use.   # this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.  and this does not at all happen to any significant degree for mild usage 0 per year .  nobody smokes pot once and starts having cravings for it.  this is patently false.  drugs are not.  you do not need mcdonalds to eat.  do you disrespect scuba divers, hikers, mountain climbers, sky divers, bungee jumpers, roller coaster riders, etc.  none of these are necessary but all can be very dangerous.  you have failed to demonstrate how there is any significant health effects after a single use.  your horrible health effects of using drugs once consisted of  you could get addicted , the myth of lsd flashbacks, and an extremely rare condition and even rarer that it lasts a long period of time .  you do not get addicted after one usage, first a habit needs to be formed before addiction is formed.   #  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.   # my wife can telly you all about this.  can cause in some people.  but not everyone.  not most, anyways.  in moderation it hurts your liver less, but the impact is not 0.  there is a threshold limit value for what is and is not detrimental to your health regarding alcohol.  while an individual is threshold limit depends on their lifestyle and many more factors, it is almost always higher than none.  for the majority of people anyways.  copy/paste from an above reply: marijuana works in the brain by binding to your brain is canaboid receptors.  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.  when the drug wears off and the receptors become free again, there are now more receptors than the body has a need for, causing the feeling of addiction, needing to fill the receptors to a balanced level so the body feels normal.  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.
throwaway because i do not want anyone who is angry/offput by my point of view going through my main account history.  i think less of people who abuse drugs.  this includes daily meth users to twice a year marijuana users and even cigarette smokers.  i do not include caffeine or alcohol in here because those can have literally no negative health effects when used in moderation.  everything else i can immediately think of that would be categorized as a drug does have a negative health effect, even after one use.  and i ca not understand why or justify why anyone would want to use a substance knowing beyond and reasonable doubt that it has been scientifically proven to have negative effects on the body.  i know it has been argued that it is for the relaxation effects, that sometimes people get stressed out or some shit like that and they use to help relax themselves.  i think that is a load of crap.  i am a firefighter and a a paramedic, i have seen dead children, adults, elderly, mutilated people screaming for help, i have held a guy is guts in his body with my own hands, and not a thing i have experienced has ever made me feel like i needed a substance to help me be able to deal with it.  i believe there are very few people in the world who have as much real stress on them as a first responder, a combatant soldier, and such.  so i ca not justify the stress excuse.  i know it has been argued that it  feels good , but again, i cannot understand or justify how anything that is known scientifically to be detrimental to your health would ever  feel good  enough to knowingly want to use it.  but i realize that i only know my own side of the story, and i want to give the other side a fair chance.  so please, change my view.  as for alcohol, the same principal applies.  in a small moderated quantity, the body is more than suited to handle alcohol between the liver is ability to filter it and the brain is cognizant abilities not having any noticeable necrosis or permanent degradation.  again, that is within moderation.   #  i know it has been argued that it  feels good , but again, i cannot understand or justify how anything that is known scientifically to be detrimental to your health would ever  feel good  enough to knowingly want to use it.   #  alcohol is scientifically proven to be very detrimental to your health.   #  many people use psychedelic drugs to expand their consciousness, and i think this is a legitimate reason to use non prescription drugs.  if someone wants to explore their own mind by using a natural substance, good for them.  i would not think less of them because of it.  also, studies have shown that psilocybin the active ingredient in shrooms can treat depression.  why is it that you think it is okay to drink alcohol, but you think less of someone who smokes weed for the same reason ? alcohol is scientifically proven to be very detrimental to your health.  but like you said, it is fine in moderation.  marijuana is okay in moderation as well though.   #  everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.   # please tell me how marijuana, lsd, mushrooms, ecstasy, or even things like heroin or amphetamines have significant negative health effects after one use ? eating mcdonalds is detrimental to your health, foregoing your daily exercise routine is detrimental to your health.  everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.  also saying drugs just make you  feel good  is a really weird way of putting it.  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.  these can all be valuable experiences in terms of creativity and personal growth.   #  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.   # most of the drugs you listed marijuana, heroine, amphetamines act in the same way as marijuana, so i will use that as my example.  marijuana works in the brain by binding to your brain is canaboid receptors.  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.  when the drug wears off and the receptors become free again, there are now more receptors than the body has a need for, causing the feeling of addiction, needing to fill the receptors to a balanced level so the body feels normal.  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.  this is even more true for opiate receptors.  hallucinogens even after one use have been linked to hppd and if lipid soluble can be re released into the body at any time without warning driving on the interstate ? everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.  if you get down far enough, yes, even breathing is detrimental to your health.  but i am not getting down that far.  some things, such as breathing and eating, are required for life.  drugs are not.  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.  these can all be valuable experiences in terms of creativity and personal growth.  i do not understand why the experiences are so valuable they are worth the health they cost you.   #  you do not get addicted after one usage, first a habit needs to be formed before addiction is formed.   # this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.  and this does not at all happen to any significant degree for mild usage 0 per year .  nobody smokes pot once and starts having cravings for it.  this is patently false.  drugs are not.  you do not need mcdonalds to eat.  do you disrespect scuba divers, hikers, mountain climbers, sky divers, bungee jumpers, roller coaster riders, etc.  none of these are necessary but all can be very dangerous.  you have failed to demonstrate how there is any significant health effects after a single use.  your horrible health effects of using drugs once consisted of  you could get addicted , the myth of lsd flashbacks, and an extremely rare condition and even rarer that it lasts a long period of time .  you do not get addicted after one usage, first a habit needs to be formed before addiction is formed.   #  in moderation it hurts your liver less, but the impact is not 0.  there is a threshold limit value for what is and is not detrimental to your health regarding alcohol.   # my wife can telly you all about this.  can cause in some people.  but not everyone.  not most, anyways.  in moderation it hurts your liver less, but the impact is not 0.  there is a threshold limit value for what is and is not detrimental to your health regarding alcohol.  while an individual is threshold limit depends on their lifestyle and many more factors, it is almost always higher than none.  for the majority of people anyways.  copy/paste from an above reply: marijuana works in the brain by binding to your brain is canaboid receptors.  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.  when the drug wears off and the receptors become free again, there are now more receptors than the body has a need for, causing the feeling of addiction, needing to fill the receptors to a balanced level so the body feels normal.  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.
throwaway because i do not want anyone who is angry/offput by my point of view going through my main account history.  i think less of people who abuse drugs.  this includes daily meth users to twice a year marijuana users and even cigarette smokers.  i do not include caffeine or alcohol in here because those can have literally no negative health effects when used in moderation.  everything else i can immediately think of that would be categorized as a drug does have a negative health effect, even after one use.  and i ca not understand why or justify why anyone would want to use a substance knowing beyond and reasonable doubt that it has been scientifically proven to have negative effects on the body.  i know it has been argued that it is for the relaxation effects, that sometimes people get stressed out or some shit like that and they use to help relax themselves.  i think that is a load of crap.  i am a firefighter and a a paramedic, i have seen dead children, adults, elderly, mutilated people screaming for help, i have held a guy is guts in his body with my own hands, and not a thing i have experienced has ever made me feel like i needed a substance to help me be able to deal with it.  i believe there are very few people in the world who have as much real stress on them as a first responder, a combatant soldier, and such.  so i ca not justify the stress excuse.  i know it has been argued that it  feels good , but again, i cannot understand or justify how anything that is known scientifically to be detrimental to your health would ever  feel good  enough to knowingly want to use it.  but i realize that i only know my own side of the story, and i want to give the other side a fair chance.  so please, change my view.  as for alcohol, the same principal applies.  in a small moderated quantity, the body is more than suited to handle alcohol between the liver is ability to filter it and the brain is cognizant abilities not having any noticeable necrosis or permanent degradation.  again, that is within moderation.   #  i know it has been argued that it  feels good , but again, i cannot understand or justify how anything that is known scientifically to be detrimental to your health would ever  feel good  enough to knowingly want to use it.   #  i am curious as to how many of these drugs you have tried yourself.   # i am curious as to how many of these drugs you have tried yourself.  if you have never experienced the pleasure and mind expanding properties of certain drugs, how could you even pretend to try to weigh them against the possibility for adverse health effects ? the cognitive and experiential value of psychedelics can be immense and is replicated in no way by anything else.  mescaline, lsd, psilocybin mushrooms, and marijuana can all be uniquely pleasurable and stimulate spiritual and philosophical insight.  you ignore this entire dimension of existence when you reduce your criteria to the explicitly biological.  you are entire opinion is based off a risk benefit analysis that you really only have meaningful data for on the risk side.  unless you can quantify the psychological/mental value of drugs in a way that they can be compared to the somatic and neurological risks, you should refrain from opining.   #  also saying drugs just make you  feel good  is a really weird way of putting it.   # please tell me how marijuana, lsd, mushrooms, ecstasy, or even things like heroin or amphetamines have significant negative health effects after one use ? eating mcdonalds is detrimental to your health, foregoing your daily exercise routine is detrimental to your health.  everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.  also saying drugs just make you  feel good  is a really weird way of putting it.  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.  these can all be valuable experiences in terms of creativity and personal growth.   #  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.   # most of the drugs you listed marijuana, heroine, amphetamines act in the same way as marijuana, so i will use that as my example.  marijuana works in the brain by binding to your brain is canaboid receptors.  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.  when the drug wears off and the receptors become free again, there are now more receptors than the body has a need for, causing the feeling of addiction, needing to fill the receptors to a balanced level so the body feels normal.  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.  this is even more true for opiate receptors.  hallucinogens even after one use have been linked to hppd and if lipid soluble can be re released into the body at any time without warning driving on the interstate ? everything is a matter of degrees, and it depends whether you think the good things about drugs outweigh the potential consequences.  if you get down far enough, yes, even breathing is detrimental to your health.  but i am not getting down that far.  some things, such as breathing and eating, are required for life.  drugs are not.  they can change your entire sensory experience, way you think, give you new perspectives, etc.  these can all be valuable experiences in terms of creativity and personal growth.  i do not understand why the experiences are so valuable they are worth the health they cost you.   #  you do not get addicted after one usage, first a habit needs to be formed before addiction is formed.   # this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.  and this does not at all happen to any significant degree for mild usage 0 per year .  nobody smokes pot once and starts having cravings for it.  this is patently false.  drugs are not.  you do not need mcdonalds to eat.  do you disrespect scuba divers, hikers, mountain climbers, sky divers, bungee jumpers, roller coaster riders, etc.  none of these are necessary but all can be very dangerous.  you have failed to demonstrate how there is any significant health effects after a single use.  your horrible health effects of using drugs once consisted of  you could get addicted , the myth of lsd flashbacks, and an extremely rare condition and even rarer that it lasts a long period of time .  you do not get addicted after one usage, first a habit needs to be formed before addiction is formed.   #  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.   # my wife can telly you all about this.  can cause in some people.  but not everyone.  not most, anyways.  in moderation it hurts your liver less, but the impact is not 0.  there is a threshold limit value for what is and is not detrimental to your health regarding alcohol.  while an individual is threshold limit depends on their lifestyle and many more factors, it is almost always higher than none.  for the majority of people anyways.  copy/paste from an above reply: marijuana works in the brain by binding to your brain is canaboid receptors.  overstimulation of these receptors causes your brain to overcompensate by producing more, new canaboid receptors.  when the drug wears off and the receptors become free again, there are now more receptors than the body has a need for, causing the feeling of addiction, needing to fill the receptors to a balanced level so the body feels normal.  this is also what causes the need for more/increased potency to satisfy the craving.
in order for the human population to grow, we need at least 0 children per family to replace both parents   0 kids to cover premature death/infertility/etc , our current world population grows fast, which means people have a lot of kids 0  on average .  by temporarily restricting people to 0 child per family at most, the population will decrease, this has the following benefits: 0.  less hunger this one is fairly obvious, we still have the same amount of land utilized for producing food, but less people that need the food.  0.  more space the more people are born, the denser we have to build cities, this drives the price up and decreases quality of life, especially in poor areas where this leads to poverty, crime, etc.  more space means better regional and urban land planning and better infrastructure.  0.  less pollution and global warming, and more time to reverse the existing pollution.  0.  better education parents focus on one child instead of several, classes are smaller, which leads to personalized education.  0.  less alienation in society big cities seem to negatively affect peoples mental health, the sense of community disappears, even though you live with more people, you interact with them less; less stress, less anxiety, less depression, less insanity.  0.  exponential population increases means an exponential use of limited resources, we are still very far from having unlimited sustainable renewable energy, factoring in this exponential increase we will reach the peak of natural resource production oil/gas/coal in the 0 is according to hubberts peak theory .  0.  more people dying than being born means they will leave their assets land, house, cars, etc.  , this will reduce prices.  0.  higher labor force   lower unemployment means better economy, means less working time, means better health, means less taxes to spend on sick people, less sick leaves.  this also means better upbringing of children, as parents will have more money and time, and less stress, which means less crime, which again means better economy and less taxes feedback loop .  0.  less wars probably .  0.  less pregnant women, and time being pregnant, means a greater labor force.  also less kids means less stress and time wasted for the parents, which yet again means a greater labor force.  i could go on and on, but i think the point is rather clear.  every one of those arguments also works as a feedback loop for the others, i. e.  0.  leads to less mental health problems, which tangentially means every other point is also affected.   #  better education parents focus on one child instead of several, classes are smaller, which leads to personalized education.   #  i was in a k 0 class with 0 kids.   # big assumption that the use of the land will be better.  less people  less taxes and less construction workers to build that infrastructure.  when it is 0 families by the river you notice if people are dumping their trash/sewage in it.  when it is just one or two nobody notices and people do less.  i was in a k 0 class with 0 kids.  there was no personalized education.  this is another assumption.  , this will reduce prices.  higher labor force   lower unemployment means better economy, you have to factor in that the aging population with a welfare state will mean fewer and fewer workers to support those older folks.  this does not result in a good economy just the opposite.  another assumption.  are we operating under the assumption that this reduced pregnancy rate occurs magically/voluntarily or that it happens by force governments ? if the latter it will result in wars across the globe.   #  the modern economy scales really well with the number of people.   # i disagree with this.  less people means less workers to produce food, and a smaller economy overall.  hence we would have worse transportation, worse power plants, etc.  the modern economy scales really well with the number of people.  less people means much worse economy.  in addition, hunger today is not caused by underproduction of food.  instead, it is all about distribution to poor regions.  it is a social/political problem, and not really a production issue.   #  there is not a shortage of space in the world, forcing people to live in dense cities.   #  that is not how hunger works.  there is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone, it is just a distribution issue.  from worldhunger. org  does the world produce enough food to feed everyone ? world agriculture produces 0 percent more calories per person today than it did 0 years ago, despite a 0 percent population increase.  this is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 0,0 kilocalories kcal per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find fao 0, p. 0 .  i fail to see how having fewer people would make it easier to set up a global network for food distibution, which is what is actually needed to end hunger.  having fewer people more spread out would actually make the distirbution issue more difficult, if anything.  it is the same issue with some of your other points.  there is not a shortage of space in the world, forcing people to live in dense cities.  the world is population density is actually pretty low, all things considered.  people live in cities because that is where all the other people are, and therefore that is where the jobs are.  note that one of the major problems china had was the 0 0 0 problem URL that four grandparents and two parents were all supported by one working child.  limiting people to one child drastically shrinks the amount of people who can actually work as a percantage of people, putting a huge strain on the small fraction of the population that is working, as well as on government prgrams that are needed to support the elderly.  in other words, the labor force would shrink faster than the population, increasing the non working population and putting a greater strain on the economy the opposite of point 0.  remember that the world had all the problems you list back when the population was one tenth what it is now.  why would shrinking the population solve anything, if it did not before ?  #  in fact, you can get comparative advantage even when you have people who are less efficient at everything.   # 0 people solve problem x many times less efficiently than 0 people, regardless whether or not they solve the problem faster.  in other words, the efficiency exponentially decreases.  that is actually not the case.  in fact, you can get comparative advantage even when you have people who are less efficient at everything.  see the britain portugal example discussed in the article i previously linked to.  the whole point of comparative advantage is that different people can do different things.  in fact, in many cultures historically one reason people had children was specifically to help out with the unskilled aspects of farm labor.  it takes more raw resources to feed a large country.  that is not the same as easier.  if you prefer as an example take your hypothetical to its logical extreme: if there were only say ten people on the plant would their standard of living go up or down compared to if there were 0, or 0 or ten million ? why ?  #  i doubt my estimations, which is why i have posted this to cmv.   # i doubt my estimations, which is why i have posted this to cmv.  why do i believe that it is better ? besides the reasons i have listed, there is a correlation not causation between decreasing the growth rate of population and the quality of life URL there is a strong correlation between education and amount of children, more educated people have less children, partially because they have better sex education and use proper contraception, but still this shows you that as people become more knowledgeable, the more they tend to small families 0 child or less .  there is a growing list of research URL about the causes of overpopulation.  i have seen several economists with a very good mathematical background analyzing the effects of exponential consumption of limited natural resources, their prognosis for the years 0  is not good, it is fairly obvious that more people are becoming middle class, and living in a consumer society, this rapidly drains resources.  a mere 0 increase per year means a 0x increase in 0 years.  there is a correlation between communities with low amount of children and quality of life, i have lived for some years with morrocan families i am an immigrant with 0 children in a small house, they neither get the attention, education or discipline they need, as their parents work 0 jobs to support them.  these children will contribute a fraction of what they potentially could to society, all because their parents ca not properly support them.  i have some other reasons but they are too elaborate to list.  in general, the smaller the economy, the easier it is to analyze and optimize it, i believe smaller economies tend to higher gdp per capita, with everything else equal, this means people are better off in the long run.
so, i like to browse reddit, and everyone on this site is a big fan of animals.  i am a dog person myself, and my favorite breeds are some of the bigger, more muscled dogs like dobermans and pit bulls.  i like the way that these breeds of dogs tend to look with their ears clipped into a standing position, and i think docked tails look nice too.  the issue here is that lots of people consider this a form of mutilation, and that animals should not have anything changed for the sake of appearance.  personally, i do not see the big deal with this, because i do not really think it causes the animal that much pain.  i always see pictures of puppies with clipped ears smiling away and having fun.  dogs are tough.  i own a particularly robust labrador who likes to jump out the window of moving vehicles.  a few minutes later she is happily playing fetch with me in the yard, even though she is walking with a limp.  so yeah, change my view.  why is a small amount of pain not acceptable for dogs ?  #  i own a particularly robust labrador who likes to jump out the window of moving vehicles.   #  a few minutes later she is happily playing fetch with me in the yard, even though she is walking with a limp.   # a few minutes later she is happily playing fetch with me in the yard, even though she is walking with a limp.  you can severely beat your dog and they will still be loyal to their owner.  you do not  think  it causes much pain ? what is the point in docked tails ? purely because you think looks good is barbaric and frankly incredibly selfish.  tails play a huge part in dogs life, at allows them to give their smell off when they are happy and cover when they are scared.  it allows them to express their happiness.  oh, and it is also a part of their body.   #  i am not aware of any studies done on ear cropping and aggressiveness, but i do know that most vets advise that freshly cropped puppies be kept from other dogs during this critical socialization period.   #  i dislike tail docking and ear cropping.  it is a completely unnecessary practice that began centuries ago to avoid a tax.  i am particularly against tail docking because dogs use their tails to communicate with other dogs.  dogs with no tails are at a social disadvantage.  recently, a canadian research team linked aggressiveness to tail docking URL backing up previous research into the practice.  i am not aware of any studies done on ear cropping and aggressiveness, but i do know that most vets advise that freshly cropped puppies be kept from other dogs during this critical socialization period.  sometimes the ears must be taped for months during a time when they should be attending puppy socialization classes, doing puppy obedience, going to dog parks, etc.  all for a purely cosmetic result that is not guaranteed to turn out properly.  both practices have been recommended against by the american veterinarian medical association since november of 0 URL since vets stand to make money on the practice, yet advise against it, i find their stance to be particularly compelling.   #  suppose a superior alien race came to earth one day and decided to take humans as pets.   #  suppose a superior alien race came to earth one day and decided to take humans as pets.  you cannot communicate with your new master, but your master decides you would look better without arms.  or maybe you look better to your master with a clipped nose.  hell, you do not even understand what is happening until it is already happened.  from your master is perspective, you will be in pain for a while, but you will get over it and eventually forget about it.  does that sound like a good time to you ?  #  sure, it is not permanently painful, but it does cause pain during the procedure and during the recovery time.   #  your argument seems to be that your subjective opinion of what looks nice should override the pain and unnecessariness of modifications.  realistically, what is the reasoning ? answer: historical breed standards.  traditional ear cropping and tail docking was typically done to reduce injury to working and hunting breeds, although on some breeds docking was performed solely for cosmetic reasons and later for financial reasons.  as those purposes are no longer really applicable to modern domesticated animals they have remained because they became ingrained into the standard look for a breed.  this is the main argument of a lot of breeders and breed enthusiasts: these dogs have always looked this way so we want them to continue looking this way.  i do not think arguing that a dog with a docked tail / cropped ears looks happy well after the procedure was completed is really relevant here.  docking and cropping is painful.  how could it not be ? puppies have a fully developed nervous system upon birth, so of course they feel pain.  sure, it is not permanently painful, but it does cause pain during the procedure and during the recovery time.  you are subjecting an animal to an unnecessary procedure which causes them pain because you like the way it looks.  docking and cropping is purely a cosmetic modification.  also, another point to consider is the role of a tail for dogs.  they use them to communicate with other dogs.  there are some studies to indicate that dogs with shorter tails might grow up to be more anti social / aggressive as they tend to be approached by other dogs with caution and are less able to transmit social cues to other dogs.  tail docking and ear cropping is actually banned in quite a few european countries and australia as well as restricted in england.   #  might it not be the case that experts in animal behavior are, well, the experts ?  #  so, you are qualified to discuss dog behavior on the grounds of having seen very few instances of one particular dog interacting with others.  also, is this dog is tail already clipped ? if so, that obviously renders your anecdotal evidence even more useless.  might it not be the case that experts in animal behavior are, well, the experts ? the fact that you allege that some experts have been wrong in the past does not mean all expertise is fraudulent.  also, i really do not see why your aesthetic preferences justify you maiming an innocent animal that trusts you, but hey, i hold myself to a standard that does not allow for that, but those are just my views.  could be wrong, do not think so, though.
so, i like to browse reddit, and everyone on this site is a big fan of animals.  i am a dog person myself, and my favorite breeds are some of the bigger, more muscled dogs like dobermans and pit bulls.  i like the way that these breeds of dogs tend to look with their ears clipped into a standing position, and i think docked tails look nice too.  the issue here is that lots of people consider this a form of mutilation, and that animals should not have anything changed for the sake of appearance.  personally, i do not see the big deal with this, because i do not really think it causes the animal that much pain.  i always see pictures of puppies with clipped ears smiling away and having fun.  dogs are tough.  i own a particularly robust labrador who likes to jump out the window of moving vehicles.  a few minutes later she is happily playing fetch with me in the yard, even though she is walking with a limp.  so yeah, change my view.  why is a small amount of pain not acceptable for dogs ?  #  personally, i do not see the big deal with this, because i do not really think it causes the animal that much pain.   #  you do not  think  it causes much pain ?  # a few minutes later she is happily playing fetch with me in the yard, even though she is walking with a limp.  you can severely beat your dog and they will still be loyal to their owner.  you do not  think  it causes much pain ? what is the point in docked tails ? purely because you think looks good is barbaric and frankly incredibly selfish.  tails play a huge part in dogs life, at allows them to give their smell off when they are happy and cover when they are scared.  it allows them to express their happiness.  oh, and it is also a part of their body.   #  it is a completely unnecessary practice that began centuries ago to avoid a tax.   #  i dislike tail docking and ear cropping.  it is a completely unnecessary practice that began centuries ago to avoid a tax.  i am particularly against tail docking because dogs use their tails to communicate with other dogs.  dogs with no tails are at a social disadvantage.  recently, a canadian research team linked aggressiveness to tail docking URL backing up previous research into the practice.  i am not aware of any studies done on ear cropping and aggressiveness, but i do know that most vets advise that freshly cropped puppies be kept from other dogs during this critical socialization period.  sometimes the ears must be taped for months during a time when they should be attending puppy socialization classes, doing puppy obedience, going to dog parks, etc.  all for a purely cosmetic result that is not guaranteed to turn out properly.  both practices have been recommended against by the american veterinarian medical association since november of 0 URL since vets stand to make money on the practice, yet advise against it, i find their stance to be particularly compelling.   #  suppose a superior alien race came to earth one day and decided to take humans as pets.   #  suppose a superior alien race came to earth one day and decided to take humans as pets.  you cannot communicate with your new master, but your master decides you would look better without arms.  or maybe you look better to your master with a clipped nose.  hell, you do not even understand what is happening until it is already happened.  from your master is perspective, you will be in pain for a while, but you will get over it and eventually forget about it.  does that sound like a good time to you ?  #  i do not think arguing that a dog with a docked tail / cropped ears looks happy well after the procedure was completed is really relevant here.   #  your argument seems to be that your subjective opinion of what looks nice should override the pain and unnecessariness of modifications.  realistically, what is the reasoning ? answer: historical breed standards.  traditional ear cropping and tail docking was typically done to reduce injury to working and hunting breeds, although on some breeds docking was performed solely for cosmetic reasons and later for financial reasons.  as those purposes are no longer really applicable to modern domesticated animals they have remained because they became ingrained into the standard look for a breed.  this is the main argument of a lot of breeders and breed enthusiasts: these dogs have always looked this way so we want them to continue looking this way.  i do not think arguing that a dog with a docked tail / cropped ears looks happy well after the procedure was completed is really relevant here.  docking and cropping is painful.  how could it not be ? puppies have a fully developed nervous system upon birth, so of course they feel pain.  sure, it is not permanently painful, but it does cause pain during the procedure and during the recovery time.  you are subjecting an animal to an unnecessary procedure which causes them pain because you like the way it looks.  docking and cropping is purely a cosmetic modification.  also, another point to consider is the role of a tail for dogs.  they use them to communicate with other dogs.  there are some studies to indicate that dogs with shorter tails might grow up to be more anti social / aggressive as they tend to be approached by other dogs with caution and are less able to transmit social cues to other dogs.  tail docking and ear cropping is actually banned in quite a few european countries and australia as well as restricted in england.   #  so, you are qualified to discuss dog behavior on the grounds of having seen very few instances of one particular dog interacting with others.   #  so, you are qualified to discuss dog behavior on the grounds of having seen very few instances of one particular dog interacting with others.  also, is this dog is tail already clipped ? if so, that obviously renders your anecdotal evidence even more useless.  might it not be the case that experts in animal behavior are, well, the experts ? the fact that you allege that some experts have been wrong in the past does not mean all expertise is fraudulent.  also, i really do not see why your aesthetic preferences justify you maiming an innocent animal that trusts you, but hey, i hold myself to a standard that does not allow for that, but those are just my views.  could be wrong, do not think so, though.
bit of a challenging topic to disagree with.  i am just curious to hear any opposing arguments.  i think that all internet data should be treated equally by isps and government entities, with no discrimination by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.  that is the wikipedia definition of the topic.  what prompted me to post this was this post URL sitting on the front page.  the title is a bit sensationalized, but obviously this idea of  fast lanes  for higher paying customers seems like a despicable cash grab.  it is no surprise to me that comcast was named the worst company in america for the year 0.   #  i think that all internet data should be treated equally by isps and government entities, with no discrimination by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.   #  that is the wikipedia definition of the topic.   # that is the wikipedia definition of the topic.  as an opposing view and nothing like what the anti net neutrality position the fcc is pushing : is it really so hard to see how a network is traffic can be made more efficient with priorities and throttling of different kinds of traffic ? net neutrality asserts that all packets are equal but all packets  are not  equal, are they ? i want my time dependent packets to have low latency, i want my streams to be consistent and with the least buffering possible, but i do not give a damn if i have to wait 0 minutes for my email to go to another server.  there are already good examples dns, rss, etc.  of protocols/services that voluntarily use deferred or otherwise restricted update policies.  not everything needs to get to where it is going immediately.  if we take the example of connections with limited shared bandwidth eg.  community cable loops, wireless communications, etc.  , then the fair allocation of resources requires limits be put in place on how much bandwidth a given node can use compared to other nodes.  the net seems infinite, but the reality is that it is nothing more than a very large network.  smart management of resources means we can get more out of it for less.   #  people may not realize it, but when they call for  net neutrality   they are calling for government regulation of the internet .   #  the real problem is new businesses ca not enter the market.  that is not a natural thing.  that is imposed by the government and existing companies.  they are called  incumbent carriers .  it means the government has granted them a territorial monopoly.  why go through the extra step of chasing bad regulation with more regulation ? strip away the territorial monopoly privileges granted by the government and problem solved.  of course, it is not that simple, due to  aregulatory capture .  basically, the people running the telecommunication regulators are retired people who used to work in the telecommunication companies that benefit from these monopolies, and net neutrality is actually one of their own little brain children.  a complex net neutrality scheme is expensive for telecommunication companies.  very expensive.  we are not just talking about telling companies they have to play fair.  there are lots of legitimate uses for discriminatory queuing of packets at points of congestion.  for example, games and voip are much more sensitive to latency and packet loss than torrenting a movie .  it is hard enough for a network administrator to keep track of their entire network, but subjecting their sophisticated routing configurations up to government scrutiny not only is something that is going to be a terrible hassle and probably wo not solve anything, but it will also waste a bunch of money.  small internet providers, if they are able to exist in spite of all the territorial monopolies, will be destroyed by that kind of invasive oversight, but a very large company like comcast can get away with it just fine, because they only have to deal with the regulatory burden once, and then they are done for the entire huge company, and besides, with all the extra money they are getting from being a monopoly, they have the extra money to spare.  they do not mind this sort of regulation.  it is in their best interest.  people may not realize it, but when they call for  net neutrality   they are calling for government regulation of the internet .  they want the state to control what goes out over the data lines.  they want a bureau of internet oversight to be created, staffed with a sea of becubicled employees who make sure that the internet behaves in a way that congress thinks it should behave.  it may seem benign at first, but look how it turned out for radio and tv and telephones.  is that how you want the internet to end up ?  this  has  been  copied  and  edited  down  from  a  comment  to  this  youtube  video URL  #  unless they are giving priority to their own video service while throttling netflix down.   # for example, games and voip are much more sensitive to latency and packet loss than torrenting a movie .  net neutrality does not prevent this.  it would only prevent it if they favored one or more games/voip services over others.  if they need to throttle video streaming packets for network congestion, that is fine.  unless they are giving priority to their own video service while throttling netflix down.  they want the state to control what goes out over the data lines.  they want a bureau of internet oversight to be created, staffed with a sea of becubicled employees who make sure that the internet behaves in a way that congress thinks it should behave they are calling for a government regulation which states  that no one can control what goes in and out over the data lines .  not exactly the same thing.  the  bureau of internet oversight  is simply the fcc and things move on as they are where organizations and people can bring up lawsuits against companies which violate the net neutrality rules.  this is all just conspiracy nonsense.   #  for that matter, cable internet is not the only internet, just the primary one by which comcast competes.   #  how is that an argument against net neutrality ? a monopoly is illegal their underhanded business practices and corporate buyouts are the only reason they have one.  for that matter, cable internet is not the only internet, just the primary one by which comcast competes.  the issue is not with comparative bandwidth from  hogging sites , the issue is with making people pay to  not be throttled  in the first place.  if it was  just  focused on a  above this theshold  concept, sure, i might even buy into it, but they want  everyone  to pay for  not shitty  service.  they are not offering vpn is, they are saying they are gonna throttle and they already do everyone, and you can pay to be unthrottled.  that is basically blackmail, and holding the internet hostage.  an internet that was designed and given freely to the public.  btw, my father  literally developed  the internet as we know it he was one of the 0 people who developed isdn technology from something ma bell wanted to toss in the trash into something that, with a little tweaking in the line/box, became ethernet.  he did major alpha and beta research on fiber optic networking and gigabit ethernet.  he never got  paid  for this design no one did, they offered it for free , and now their effort, given to the public freely to use equally, is being swept up into a money grab.  it is not what the internet was made for, and we are shitting on the good faith of those people who designed it to now charge for  using it , rather than for making it possible your basic cable charge as a consumer pays for wiring installation .   #  obviously we need to break up the regional monopolies, even without nn, the regional monopolies are why comcast refuses to upgrade their network.   #  and net neutrality has nothing to do with the government monopoly, it is a separate problem mostly dealing with the local governments.  and most people agree that it needs to stop.  something that will help with this is giving common carrier rules to isps.  the  monopoly  given to them is a monopoly for running cables and lines.  if they had the common carrier rules, then startup isps would be able to get access to those lines for a reasonable fee and become competitors to the existing isps.  obviously we need to break up the regional monopolies, even without nn, the regional monopolies are why comcast refuses to upgrade their network.
i am getting sick of thinking about death since i am a child.  i am now 0.  the millions of millions of years following and i am not existing.  also if i think about the time before i was living.  would not it be better never to be born ? just as simple as it is that no one can escape death and you ca not avoid it makes my insides spinning around like crazy.  otherwise i think it would be a pain and impossible to live forever.  i do not believe in any religion.  this thinking makes me so sick.  i am always saying to myself: do not think about it.  non existing, infinity and death are words when i think about them it is like i have to throw up.  i am forcing myself to get out of this and think about something else but especially when i have nothing else to do than thinking, i ca not.  i try to think: not now, you have years and years.  but then i am thinking about my older self and the pain it has to go through, especially when i am thinking like that now, when i have indeed years and years and it is not getting better the nearer i come to the end i think.  i am sounding like a child here i know, but try to cmv anyways.  i am not sure if this is a stupid post because we all fear death i think and yeah.  just want to hear some other views on that topic i guess.   #  would not it be better never to be born ?  #  the reason you havent killed yourself is because you already know the answer to that question.   # the reason you havent killed yourself is because you already know the answer to that question.  death is just a part of life.  instead of worrying about it, make sure you die for something you believe in.  you have just as much reason to believe in the afterlife as you do to not believe in it.  you shouldnt worry about things you do not understand and cant change.   #  i am by no means a religious man and think that death is the end all beat all.   #  i used to feel the exact same way, and stay up at night thinking about death, but i think after sometime i changed my perspective.  at some point everybody will die, everyone.  and i know that my time is limited and it is wasted on worrying about something i have absolutely no control over.  0 some odd years is a long time to be worrying about death and dying.  i think one day i flipped the coin and thought about how thankful i was to actually be born and alive, and with good health, and in a good home.  i am by no means a religious man and think that death is the end all beat all.  and everyday instead of worrying about it i think of something i am grateful for.  i think once i got over my worrying i started to appreciate the now more.  listen, in the scheme of billions of years 0 years is a short ass amount of time.  but i am only 0 and in the scheme of my lifetime death is 0 years away hopefully.  i do not know how or why i am here, but i am here, we are all given a life, and i am going to enjoy it while i have it because it feels great.  worrying about death during life, is like worrying about your icecream cone melting instead of eating it.  it is going to melt either way so i might as well enjoy it.  i am only speaking from a personal philosophy, hope this helps, sorry if it is a little long  #  so in a way i have tried it before.   #  dealt with this too for about half a year.  eventually i came up with the idea that death is like not being born.  sorta.  so in a way i have tried it before.  also, we are living in a quite technologically advanced time period.  who knows, maybe when we are old, we can upload our consciousness to the internet or something.  sounds crazy, but who knows  #  then i have moments where i just freak out a bit internally and i forget about it and it goes away.   #  i would like to add on as someone else with what should amount to thanatophobia.  going to see anyone costs money.  i generally am perfectly fine until something much like this thread reminds me of death.  then i have moments where i just freak out a bit internally and i forget about it and it goes away.  but during those moments the terror sucks.  i do not think it really makes my life any worse, and it is not nearly the worst phobia to have, if anything, i would find accepting death is worse then fearing it.  should i really go see a professional about every little fear i have ? or is that suggestion only for people that want it removed ?  #  in what way would you then be dying for something you believe in ?  #  you know, the advice that you should  make sure you die for something you believe in  sounds like you should join the military so you can die gloriously in battle.  what if you die peacefully in bed from a sudden heart attack ? in what way would you then be dying for something you believe in ? does this mean you believe in heart disease ? perhaps what you are implying is simply that if you can live your life well and accomplish something with your life, then you have not lived in vain and can die at peace with yourself.
i am getting sick of thinking about death since i am a child.  i am now 0.  the millions of millions of years following and i am not existing.  also if i think about the time before i was living.  would not it be better never to be born ? just as simple as it is that no one can escape death and you ca not avoid it makes my insides spinning around like crazy.  otherwise i think it would be a pain and impossible to live forever.  i do not believe in any religion.  this thinking makes me so sick.  i am always saying to myself: do not think about it.  non existing, infinity and death are words when i think about them it is like i have to throw up.  i am forcing myself to get out of this and think about something else but especially when i have nothing else to do than thinking, i ca not.  i try to think: not now, you have years and years.  but then i am thinking about my older self and the pain it has to go through, especially when i am thinking like that now, when i have indeed years and years and it is not getting better the nearer i come to the end i think.  i am sounding like a child here i know, but try to cmv anyways.  i am not sure if this is a stupid post because we all fear death i think and yeah.  just want to hear some other views on that topic i guess.   #  would not it be better never to be born ?  #  just as simple as it is that no one can escape death and you ca not avoid it makes my insides spinning around like crazy.   # just as simple as it is that no one can escape death and you ca not avoid it makes my insides spinning around like crazy.  otherwise i think it would be a pain and impossible to live forever.  better how ? i mean there are experiences to be had while alive, many of them quite enjoyable, the fact that you eventually will not is irrelevant.  nor do i.  i am always saying to myself: do not think about it.  non existing, infinity and death are words when i think about them it is like i have to throw up.  there is nothing wrong with examining the concepts, but there is nothing about them that can actually harm you.  dead people do not care.  it depends.  not all death includes pain, but you will go through both pain and pleasure during life, there is no way to tell.   #  listen, in the scheme of billions of years 0 years is a short ass amount of time.   #  i used to feel the exact same way, and stay up at night thinking about death, but i think after sometime i changed my perspective.  at some point everybody will die, everyone.  and i know that my time is limited and it is wasted on worrying about something i have absolutely no control over.  0 some odd years is a long time to be worrying about death and dying.  i think one day i flipped the coin and thought about how thankful i was to actually be born and alive, and with good health, and in a good home.  i am by no means a religious man and think that death is the end all beat all.  and everyday instead of worrying about it i think of something i am grateful for.  i think once i got over my worrying i started to appreciate the now more.  listen, in the scheme of billions of years 0 years is a short ass amount of time.  but i am only 0 and in the scheme of my lifetime death is 0 years away hopefully.  i do not know how or why i am here, but i am here, we are all given a life, and i am going to enjoy it while i have it because it feels great.  worrying about death during life, is like worrying about your icecream cone melting instead of eating it.  it is going to melt either way so i might as well enjoy it.  i am only speaking from a personal philosophy, hope this helps, sorry if it is a little long  #  dealt with this too for about half a year.   #  dealt with this too for about half a year.  eventually i came up with the idea that death is like not being born.  sorta.  so in a way i have tried it before.  also, we are living in a quite technologically advanced time period.  who knows, maybe when we are old, we can upload our consciousness to the internet or something.  sounds crazy, but who knows  #  i generally am perfectly fine until something much like this thread reminds me of death.   #  i would like to add on as someone else with what should amount to thanatophobia.  going to see anyone costs money.  i generally am perfectly fine until something much like this thread reminds me of death.  then i have moments where i just freak out a bit internally and i forget about it and it goes away.  but during those moments the terror sucks.  i do not think it really makes my life any worse, and it is not nearly the worst phobia to have, if anything, i would find accepting death is worse then fearing it.  should i really go see a professional about every little fear i have ? or is that suggestion only for people that want it removed ?  #  perhaps what you are implying is simply that if you can live your life well and accomplish something with your life, then you have not lived in vain and can die at peace with yourself.   #  you know, the advice that you should  make sure you die for something you believe in  sounds like you should join the military so you can die gloriously in battle.  what if you die peacefully in bed from a sudden heart attack ? in what way would you then be dying for something you believe in ? does this mean you believe in heart disease ? perhaps what you are implying is simply that if you can live your life well and accomplish something with your life, then you have not lived in vain and can die at peace with yourself.
all religions cannot be divine and be true at the same time.  if they were from the creator of the universe, their holy books would contain some amazing facts not known at the time.  instead, these holy books are anthropocentric and trivial exposes on the human condition specific to the time they were revealed.  these holy books contradict science.  also, the revelations seem to conveniently fit the political agenda of the leader of these faiths at the time.  i am particularly referring to the abrahamic religions but any religion that claims divine authority, i believe to be created by men for intentions i am not clear on.   #  if they were from the creator of the universe, their holy books would contain some amazing facts not known at the time.   #  what do you mean by  fact  here ?  #  just some questions.    all religions cannot be divine and be true at the same time.  why ? is it because they differ ? if 0 people go to see the same, complex play, and they are all asked to write down what they saw, would you expect them to all write the same thing down ? if they do not, does that mean they did not see the play ? what do you mean by  fact  here ? do you mean they would be science textbooks ? let is go back to our play example.  if i saw something in the play that reflected some important element of my life, and i focus on that in my write up, does that mean i did not see the play ? is a holy book supposed to be a science textbook ? can you give an example for every faith ?  #  what possible purpose would christianity play for the political agenda of the jews local or the romans continental at the time ?  # why ? the creator of the universe could put whatever he wanted in his holy books.  what if his purpose of creation was to find out how long people would believe in him without any concrete evidence ? to test the faith of his people ? while that is not the only thing taught in the abrahamic religions it is a core element.  what possible purpose would christianity play for the political agenda of the jews local or the romans continental at the time ? the jewish leaders opposed it, and the romans murdered christians by the thousands for the 0st 0 years or so after its rise.  jesus even claimed that he was not and would not be, a king in this world, the equivalent of political suicide.  would not really fit a political agenda.   #  the philosopher lakatos discusses the idea of a pathological research program a set of hypothesis that does not produce any useful predictions or increase understanding but just keeps getting more hypotheses tacked on to prevent the core hypotheses from being falsified.   #  this utterly fails to answer any of the points.  it does not answer why a deity would want people to believe in it despite a lack of evidence.  it also does not address the fact that the tests of faith in the older sections of the bible are about loyalty not belief in god is existence.  and if there were a concern about believing without evidence it is hard to see why one would do things like global floods, ten massive plagues, etc.  i would in fact go farther and say that this emphasis on  faith  without evidence is an innovation that occurred comparatively late, after it was clear that evidence was not forthcoming.  this is connected to how as recording and history gets better, the scale of miracles reported goes down.  the philosopher lakatos discusses the idea of a pathological research program a set of hypothesis that does not produce any useful predictions or increase understanding but just keeps getting more hypotheses tacked on to prevent the core hypotheses from being falsified.  religion in this context looks a lot like a failed research program.   #  sure it is, because we can play this game indefinitely.   # thomas did doubt the existence, or at least life of jesus, and he was then shown.  it was then said that those who had faith and did not need to be shown are blessed.  we do not have to understand why.  it might not prove anything if you do not believe, but the fact that a god might not act how humans would expect him too is not a legitimate argument for his nonexistence.  sure it is, because we can play this game indefinitely.  we could for example imagine a god who created the whole universe but then never intervened in any way and then rewards the atheists and agnostics in the afterlife for actually following the evidence.  we can imagine a god who would rather you have complete faith in that deity but only every other tuesday.  we can imagine a god who really likes people who watch basketball but damns people who watch professional wrestling.  etc.  for any of these hypotheses one has to ask  how likely is it, given the evidence  ? and one should be extra suspicious of hypotheses that look like they were precisely constructed to avoid testing.   #  so, since you are not clear about the intentions for which men or much more rarely, women create religions, allow me to explain.   #  so, since you are not clear about the intentions for which men or much more rarely, women create religions, allow me to explain.  religions come in two varieties, the sincere and the insincere.  sincere religions are intended to explain how the world works.  they generally pre date charles darwin and other scientists who have produced scientific explanations about how the world works.  insincere religions are invented just to defraud people; these are also generally known as cults.  two outstanding examples are mormonism and scientology.
all religions cannot be divine and be true at the same time.  if they were from the creator of the universe, their holy books would contain some amazing facts not known at the time.  instead, these holy books are anthropocentric and trivial exposes on the human condition specific to the time they were revealed.  these holy books contradict science.  also, the revelations seem to conveniently fit the political agenda of the leader of these faiths at the time.  i am particularly referring to the abrahamic religions but any religion that claims divine authority, i believe to be created by men for intentions i am not clear on.   #  instead, these holy books are anthropocentric and trivial exposes on the human condition specific to the time they were revealed.   #  let is go back to our play example.   #  just some questions.    all religions cannot be divine and be true at the same time.  why ? is it because they differ ? if 0 people go to see the same, complex play, and they are all asked to write down what they saw, would you expect them to all write the same thing down ? if they do not, does that mean they did not see the play ? what do you mean by  fact  here ? do you mean they would be science textbooks ? let is go back to our play example.  if i saw something in the play that reflected some important element of my life, and i focus on that in my write up, does that mean i did not see the play ? is a holy book supposed to be a science textbook ? can you give an example for every faith ?  #  while that is not the only thing taught in the abrahamic religions it is a core element.   # why ? the creator of the universe could put whatever he wanted in his holy books.  what if his purpose of creation was to find out how long people would believe in him without any concrete evidence ? to test the faith of his people ? while that is not the only thing taught in the abrahamic religions it is a core element.  what possible purpose would christianity play for the political agenda of the jews local or the romans continental at the time ? the jewish leaders opposed it, and the romans murdered christians by the thousands for the 0st 0 years or so after its rise.  jesus even claimed that he was not and would not be, a king in this world, the equivalent of political suicide.  would not really fit a political agenda.   #  this is connected to how as recording and history gets better, the scale of miracles reported goes down.   #  this utterly fails to answer any of the points.  it does not answer why a deity would want people to believe in it despite a lack of evidence.  it also does not address the fact that the tests of faith in the older sections of the bible are about loyalty not belief in god is existence.  and if there were a concern about believing without evidence it is hard to see why one would do things like global floods, ten massive plagues, etc.  i would in fact go farther and say that this emphasis on  faith  without evidence is an innovation that occurred comparatively late, after it was clear that evidence was not forthcoming.  this is connected to how as recording and history gets better, the scale of miracles reported goes down.  the philosopher lakatos discusses the idea of a pathological research program a set of hypothesis that does not produce any useful predictions or increase understanding but just keeps getting more hypotheses tacked on to prevent the core hypotheses from being falsified.  religion in this context looks a lot like a failed research program.   #  we can imagine a god who would rather you have complete faith in that deity but only every other tuesday.   # thomas did doubt the existence, or at least life of jesus, and he was then shown.  it was then said that those who had faith and did not need to be shown are blessed.  we do not have to understand why.  it might not prove anything if you do not believe, but the fact that a god might not act how humans would expect him too is not a legitimate argument for his nonexistence.  sure it is, because we can play this game indefinitely.  we could for example imagine a god who created the whole universe but then never intervened in any way and then rewards the atheists and agnostics in the afterlife for actually following the evidence.  we can imagine a god who would rather you have complete faith in that deity but only every other tuesday.  we can imagine a god who really likes people who watch basketball but damns people who watch professional wrestling.  etc.  for any of these hypotheses one has to ask  how likely is it, given the evidence  ? and one should be extra suspicious of hypotheses that look like they were precisely constructed to avoid testing.   #  religions come in two varieties, the sincere and the insincere.   #  so, since you are not clear about the intentions for which men or much more rarely, women create religions, allow me to explain.  religions come in two varieties, the sincere and the insincere.  sincere religions are intended to explain how the world works.  they generally pre date charles darwin and other scientists who have produced scientific explanations about how the world works.  insincere religions are invented just to defraud people; these are also generally known as cults.  two outstanding examples are mormonism and scientology.
all religions cannot be divine and be true at the same time.  if they were from the creator of the universe, their holy books would contain some amazing facts not known at the time.  instead, these holy books are anthropocentric and trivial exposes on the human condition specific to the time they were revealed.  these holy books contradict science.  also, the revelations seem to conveniently fit the political agenda of the leader of these faiths at the time.  i am particularly referring to the abrahamic religions but any religion that claims divine authority, i believe to be created by men for intentions i am not clear on.   #  also, the revelations seem to conveniently fit the political agenda of the leader of these faiths at the time.   #  can you give an example for every faith ?  #  just some questions.    all religions cannot be divine and be true at the same time.  why ? is it because they differ ? if 0 people go to see the same, complex play, and they are all asked to write down what they saw, would you expect them to all write the same thing down ? if they do not, does that mean they did not see the play ? what do you mean by  fact  here ? do you mean they would be science textbooks ? let is go back to our play example.  if i saw something in the play that reflected some important element of my life, and i focus on that in my write up, does that mean i did not see the play ? is a holy book supposed to be a science textbook ? can you give an example for every faith ?  #  the creator of the universe could put whatever he wanted in his holy books.   # why ? the creator of the universe could put whatever he wanted in his holy books.  what if his purpose of creation was to find out how long people would believe in him without any concrete evidence ? to test the faith of his people ? while that is not the only thing taught in the abrahamic religions it is a core element.  what possible purpose would christianity play for the political agenda of the jews local or the romans continental at the time ? the jewish leaders opposed it, and the romans murdered christians by the thousands for the 0st 0 years or so after its rise.  jesus even claimed that he was not and would not be, a king in this world, the equivalent of political suicide.  would not really fit a political agenda.   #  i would in fact go farther and say that this emphasis on  faith  without evidence is an innovation that occurred comparatively late, after it was clear that evidence was not forthcoming.   #  this utterly fails to answer any of the points.  it does not answer why a deity would want people to believe in it despite a lack of evidence.  it also does not address the fact that the tests of faith in the older sections of the bible are about loyalty not belief in god is existence.  and if there were a concern about believing without evidence it is hard to see why one would do things like global floods, ten massive plagues, etc.  i would in fact go farther and say that this emphasis on  faith  without evidence is an innovation that occurred comparatively late, after it was clear that evidence was not forthcoming.  this is connected to how as recording and history gets better, the scale of miracles reported goes down.  the philosopher lakatos discusses the idea of a pathological research program a set of hypothesis that does not produce any useful predictions or increase understanding but just keeps getting more hypotheses tacked on to prevent the core hypotheses from being falsified.  religion in this context looks a lot like a failed research program.   #  it might not prove anything if you do not believe, but the fact that a god might not act how humans would expect him too is not a legitimate argument for his nonexistence.   # thomas did doubt the existence, or at least life of jesus, and he was then shown.  it was then said that those who had faith and did not need to be shown are blessed.  we do not have to understand why.  it might not prove anything if you do not believe, but the fact that a god might not act how humans would expect him too is not a legitimate argument for his nonexistence.  sure it is, because we can play this game indefinitely.  we could for example imagine a god who created the whole universe but then never intervened in any way and then rewards the atheists and agnostics in the afterlife for actually following the evidence.  we can imagine a god who would rather you have complete faith in that deity but only every other tuesday.  we can imagine a god who really likes people who watch basketball but damns people who watch professional wrestling.  etc.  for any of these hypotheses one has to ask  how likely is it, given the evidence  ? and one should be extra suspicious of hypotheses that look like they were precisely constructed to avoid testing.   #  sincere religions are intended to explain how the world works.   #  so, since you are not clear about the intentions for which men or much more rarely, women create religions, allow me to explain.  religions come in two varieties, the sincere and the insincere.  sincere religions are intended to explain how the world works.  they generally pre date charles darwin and other scientists who have produced scientific explanations about how the world works.  insincere religions are invented just to defraud people; these are also generally known as cults.  two outstanding examples are mormonism and scientology.
the intended purpose of car horns is to alert other drivers to take action to avoid a collision.  but most uses of car horns are not for safety but for the driver to express annoyance.  car horns are too general a communication to be an effective safety feature.  they are not directed to a specific individual nor do they convey the nature of the danger or how to avoid it.  car horns are just a form of noise pollution and do not improve safety.  more effective safety mechanisms are collision warning systems within the car that notify the driver of the specific hazard.  see do cars need horns ? URL for more information.   #  car horns are too general a communication to be an effective safety feature.   #  they are not directed to a specific individual nor do they coney the nature of the danger or how to avoid it.   # they are not directed to a specific individual nor do they coney the nature of the danger or how to avoid it.  they do not convey that information, but they do convey information, especially in contexts where annoyance/frustration of another driver is unlikely.  they say  pay attention to your driving , and obviously, not everyone is always paying their full attention to the task of driving a car while driving said car.  they communicate this message to everyone, and that is a downside, but nevertheless it is communicated.  someone drifting into your lane ?  pay attention to your driving !   a. k. a.  honking the horn is appropriate, along with possibly other courses of action like accelerating or decelerating or moving to a different lane or the shoulder .  they do improve safety in some circumstances.  you even seem to acknowledge this when you say  but most uses of car horns are not for safety  in the second sentence of your op, but now seem to be indirectly asserting that no uses of car horns are for safety.  which is it ? i agree.  these systems are however, expensive, and cannot be feasibly retrofitted into the massive amount of existing cars.  this is a reason that in say, 0  years, horns  might  not be necessary due to the high probability of most every vehicle having these systems.   #  is it then reasonable to simply  wait until they notice  ?  #  what if you are traveling to an important event which you must be on time for ? is it then reasonable to simply  wait until they notice  ? also, on this note, there was one time when i was not in a hurry to get anywhere, and was behind a car i recognized at a light.  the light was green.  they were not proceeding, and there was not anyone else around.  knowing the person who drives that car is a drug addled moron with a history of traffic related issues including speeding past a school bus as it was unloading kids, while being followed by a police car.  bet you can figure how that turned out , i thought it would be funny to just see how long it took them to notice.  the light tuned red.  then green again.  then red again.  then, when it turned green yet again, they finally went.  would it have been unreasonable for someone in that situation to use the horn, after the person completely failed to move for the entire first and second green light ? i mean, i was getting to the point of honking my horn, mostly to see if they would move thus indicating that they were not passed out or something inside their vehicle , which means that even this situation can turn into  legitimate safety tool  in some circumstances.   #  if i just push along the edge softly it only makes an adorable  ameep  kind of noise.   #  my car makes two noises depending on where and how hard i push.  if i just push along the edge softly it only makes an adorable  ameep  kind of noise.  i imagine most cars have mechanisms like this.  so you can denote more than just one type of honking.  and if someone hears the quieter option they can understand it was not out of annoyance but simply an alert.   #  but car horns were introduced before these studies were required.   #  i am saying that the cost of noise pollution exceeds the safety benefit of car horns.  do you know of a study that has evaluated the effectiveness of car horns ? today when new safety features are proposed a cost benefit analysis is performed.  but car horns were introduced before these studies were required.  hopefully it wo not take 0 years before collision warning is a standard feature of new cars.   #  auto safety standards are set by federal motor vehicle safety standards fmvss .   #  when i said banned i only meant for new cars.  auto safety standards are set by federal motor vehicle safety standards fmvss .  there does not appear to be one for horns.  from URL   second, nhtsa did not propose that lsvs be equipped with horns.  no other fmvss requires the installation of horns because motor vehicles were equipped with horns long before the first fmvss was issued.  nhtsa believed that lsv manufacturers would similarly incorporate horns as a matter of course.
the intended purpose of car horns is to alert other drivers to take action to avoid a collision.  but most uses of car horns are not for safety but for the driver to express annoyance.  car horns are too general a communication to be an effective safety feature.  they are not directed to a specific individual nor do they convey the nature of the danger or how to avoid it.  car horns are just a form of noise pollution and do not improve safety.  more effective safety mechanisms are collision warning systems within the car that notify the driver of the specific hazard.  see do cars need horns ? URL for more information.   #  car horns are just a form of noise pollution and do not improve safety.   #  they do improve safety in some circumstances.   # they are not directed to a specific individual nor do they coney the nature of the danger or how to avoid it.  they do not convey that information, but they do convey information, especially in contexts where annoyance/frustration of another driver is unlikely.  they say  pay attention to your driving , and obviously, not everyone is always paying their full attention to the task of driving a car while driving said car.  they communicate this message to everyone, and that is a downside, but nevertheless it is communicated.  someone drifting into your lane ?  pay attention to your driving !   a. k. a.  honking the horn is appropriate, along with possibly other courses of action like accelerating or decelerating or moving to a different lane or the shoulder .  they do improve safety in some circumstances.  you even seem to acknowledge this when you say  but most uses of car horns are not for safety  in the second sentence of your op, but now seem to be indirectly asserting that no uses of car horns are for safety.  which is it ? i agree.  these systems are however, expensive, and cannot be feasibly retrofitted into the massive amount of existing cars.  this is a reason that in say, 0  years, horns  might  not be necessary due to the high probability of most every vehicle having these systems.   #  they were not proceeding, and there was not anyone else around.   #  what if you are traveling to an important event which you must be on time for ? is it then reasonable to simply  wait until they notice  ? also, on this note, there was one time when i was not in a hurry to get anywhere, and was behind a car i recognized at a light.  the light was green.  they were not proceeding, and there was not anyone else around.  knowing the person who drives that car is a drug addled moron with a history of traffic related issues including speeding past a school bus as it was unloading kids, while being followed by a police car.  bet you can figure how that turned out , i thought it would be funny to just see how long it took them to notice.  the light tuned red.  then green again.  then red again.  then, when it turned green yet again, they finally went.  would it have been unreasonable for someone in that situation to use the horn, after the person completely failed to move for the entire first and second green light ? i mean, i was getting to the point of honking my horn, mostly to see if they would move thus indicating that they were not passed out or something inside their vehicle , which means that even this situation can turn into  legitimate safety tool  in some circumstances.   #  and if someone hears the quieter option they can understand it was not out of annoyance but simply an alert.   #  my car makes two noises depending on where and how hard i push.  if i just push along the edge softly it only makes an adorable  ameep  kind of noise.  i imagine most cars have mechanisms like this.  so you can denote more than just one type of honking.  and if someone hears the quieter option they can understand it was not out of annoyance but simply an alert.   #  today when new safety features are proposed a cost benefit analysis is performed.   #  i am saying that the cost of noise pollution exceeds the safety benefit of car horns.  do you know of a study that has evaluated the effectiveness of car horns ? today when new safety features are proposed a cost benefit analysis is performed.  but car horns were introduced before these studies were required.  hopefully it wo not take 0 years before collision warning is a standard feature of new cars.   #  auto safety standards are set by federal motor vehicle safety standards fmvss .   #  when i said banned i only meant for new cars.  auto safety standards are set by federal motor vehicle safety standards fmvss .  there does not appear to be one for horns.  from URL   second, nhtsa did not propose that lsvs be equipped with horns.  no other fmvss requires the installation of horns because motor vehicles were equipped with horns long before the first fmvss was issued.  nhtsa believed that lsv manufacturers would similarly incorporate horns as a matter of course.
i am in my 0 is, healthy, and i get mail all the time telling me i should donate bone marrow which costs between a third of a million dollars to $0,0 just to transplant my marrow that i am giving away for free and, while i am on the list, i would jump at the chance to sell it.  i am positive i could sell my liver for at least 0k to a rich alcoholic who could not get on the transplant list, and if i am not allowed to, it should not be allowed to use that as a defense of abortion.  the medical industry is making money hand over fist and i want a piece of it.  if women have the  right  to abortion because of their  right  to bodily autonomy, i should have the  right  to sell my marrow and organs because of my  right  to bodily autonomy.  note: i am not pro or anti abortion.  i am just saying that the right to bodily autonomy should not have double standards.   #  the medical industry is making money hand over fist and i want a piece of it.   #  if women have the  right  to abortion because of their  right  to bodily autonomy, i should have the  right  to sell my marrow and organs because of my  right  to bodily autonomy.   # if women have the  right  to abortion because of their  right  to bodily autonomy, i should have the  right  to sell my marrow and organs because of my  right  to bodily autonomy.  the problem with your argument is the buried premise of  . and the right to bodily autonomy is the  only issue ever under consideration  when it comes to what is legal .  surely though, you know that is a ridiculous statement to make.  a big argument against organ sales is that poor people could be financially coerced into selling their organs, and this is deemed a sufficiently undesirable situation that it warrants banning it.  now whether you agree with that argument or not is irrelevant, because we are not discussing if that is a good argument, but merely the fact that bodily autonomy is not the only thing under consideration as you want to claim.  this same standard could be applied to abortion, but abortion does not have a comparable outcome, as obviously legalized abortion does not provide a financial incentive for poor people to be paid to have more abortions. that would make no sense.  appealing to bodily autonomy is contingent on the scenario not having other negative effects, and abortion is thought to pass that test, while organ donation is not.   #  the same logic can be applied to anything: you must choose between selling your kidney and buying a pair of boots for the subzero winter, or freezing your toes off.   #  the problem lies with consent.  if you are starving you need money for food.  you have no job.  when confronted with, essentially, the choice between eating and selling an organ or not eating and dying, everyone will make the first choice.  the question then presents itself: is the starved better off with organ sale than without ? he currently when organ sale is illegal has only option two; he must starve to death, lacking money.  with the introduction of organ sale he would live, though lacking half his colon.  the same logic can be applied to anything: you must choose between selling your kidney and buying a pair of boots for the subzero winter, or freezing your toes off.  you will always sell an organ, so are you really consenting ? if you have to choose between suffering or dying and not suffering or dying, is there a choice at all ?  #  lol anyways, it would be better to simply make it illegal than to try and find the fine line that everyone can walk upon.   #  have you met humans ? do you have any idea how corrupt they are ? do you know who would have a huge interest in not regulating organ donations ? rich people who need a kidney.  politicians whose loved ones need a kidney.  do you know how effective these people would be at setting an agenda in the usa ? it would be as effective as if they were running our country themselves.  lol anyways, it would be better to simply make it illegal than to try and find the fine line that everyone can walk upon.  we do not have enough incentive to make this work, we only have incentive to save ourselves and the lives of our loved ones.  the poor have incentive to sell whatever they can sell to get a bite to eat.  corruption is only around the corner.   #  however, i do not think that the majority of people would view the sale of their own organs as easy.   #  that is a good point to bring up: alleviating the necessary, and healthier pressure for change.  i agree with you about its necessity.  however, i do not think that the majority of people would view the sale of their own organs as easy.  my family   i have been on welfare before, and it was incredibly difficult and embarrassing, but at no point would we have seriously considered selling our organs.  i think the invasive and potentially degrading processing of selling one is organs would still put pressure on society for change, because of this.  for example, people sell their body currently prostitution, stripping, etc.  .  those acts are not viewed favourably by our society, and we have debated and tried to regulate it, as well as help people that feel pressured to go into that kind of lifestyle.  and you will often hear strippers for example that say they are better taken care of, and have easier jobs, than retail sales people.   #  also, you could be innovative and find other ways to warm yourself.   #  thats a load of bull.  there is a lot of food that is available for very cheap.  i just bought a 0 pack of ramen noodles for $0.  this isnt ideal, i know, but this can serve as food for two days if it has too.  there are plenty of ways around the boots thing too.  i live near a thrift shop and you can get a pair of boots for like $0.  yeah, their not the best quality and they are pretty ugly to be honest, but it will get the job done.  also, you could be innovative and find other ways to warm yourself.  you are using a false dichotomy and making poor people seem like a bunch of helpless victims.
i am in my 0 is, healthy, and i get mail all the time telling me i should donate bone marrow which costs between a third of a million dollars to $0,0 just to transplant my marrow that i am giving away for free and, while i am on the list, i would jump at the chance to sell it.  i am positive i could sell my liver for at least 0k to a rich alcoholic who could not get on the transplant list, and if i am not allowed to, it should not be allowed to use that as a defense of abortion.  the medical industry is making money hand over fist and i want a piece of it.  if women have the  right  to abortion because of their  right  to bodily autonomy, i should have the  right  to sell my marrow and organs because of my  right  to bodily autonomy.  note: i am not pro or anti abortion.  i am just saying that the right to bodily autonomy should not have double standards.   #  i am positive i could sell my liver for at least 0k to a rich alcoholic who could not get on the transplant list, and if i am not allowed to, it should not be allowed to use that as a defense of abortion.   #  the cost of your liver rather, part of it would plummet well below 0k the moment everyone was allowed to sell theirs.   # the cost of your liver rather, part of it would plummet well below 0k the moment everyone was allowed to sell theirs.  there are several reasons to ban the sale of body parts that do not really apply in the abortion argument: 0.  body parts that are not attached to people die easily and quickly, and decomposing bodily tissues present a serious health and safety hazard.  0.  there would be a new division between economic classes those with all their body parts, and those required to sell their body parts to survive.  not to mention the middle ground of those who sell their body parts for some spending money, then regret it later.  0.  the health and safety concerns with all the surgeries that would need to happen with the huge increase in demand for something ectomies.  simply put, the number of qualified surgeons necessary to perform these procedures safely would not exist.  there are more, but i will stop here for now.   #  surely though, you know that is a ridiculous statement to make.   # if women have the  right  to abortion because of their  right  to bodily autonomy, i should have the  right  to sell my marrow and organs because of my  right  to bodily autonomy.  the problem with your argument is the buried premise of  . and the right to bodily autonomy is the  only issue ever under consideration  when it comes to what is legal .  surely though, you know that is a ridiculous statement to make.  a big argument against organ sales is that poor people could be financially coerced into selling their organs, and this is deemed a sufficiently undesirable situation that it warrants banning it.  now whether you agree with that argument or not is irrelevant, because we are not discussing if that is a good argument, but merely the fact that bodily autonomy is not the only thing under consideration as you want to claim.  this same standard could be applied to abortion, but abortion does not have a comparable outcome, as obviously legalized abortion does not provide a financial incentive for poor people to be paid to have more abortions. that would make no sense.  appealing to bodily autonomy is contingent on the scenario not having other negative effects, and abortion is thought to pass that test, while organ donation is not.   #  the same logic can be applied to anything: you must choose between selling your kidney and buying a pair of boots for the subzero winter, or freezing your toes off.   #  the problem lies with consent.  if you are starving you need money for food.  you have no job.  when confronted with, essentially, the choice between eating and selling an organ or not eating and dying, everyone will make the first choice.  the question then presents itself: is the starved better off with organ sale than without ? he currently when organ sale is illegal has only option two; he must starve to death, lacking money.  with the introduction of organ sale he would live, though lacking half his colon.  the same logic can be applied to anything: you must choose between selling your kidney and buying a pair of boots for the subzero winter, or freezing your toes off.  you will always sell an organ, so are you really consenting ? if you have to choose between suffering or dying and not suffering or dying, is there a choice at all ?  #  do you have any idea how corrupt they are ?  #  have you met humans ? do you have any idea how corrupt they are ? do you know who would have a huge interest in not regulating organ donations ? rich people who need a kidney.  politicians whose loved ones need a kidney.  do you know how effective these people would be at setting an agenda in the usa ? it would be as effective as if they were running our country themselves.  lol anyways, it would be better to simply make it illegal than to try and find the fine line that everyone can walk upon.  we do not have enough incentive to make this work, we only have incentive to save ourselves and the lives of our loved ones.  the poor have incentive to sell whatever they can sell to get a bite to eat.  corruption is only around the corner.   #  however, i do not think that the majority of people would view the sale of their own organs as easy.   #  that is a good point to bring up: alleviating the necessary, and healthier pressure for change.  i agree with you about its necessity.  however, i do not think that the majority of people would view the sale of their own organs as easy.  my family   i have been on welfare before, and it was incredibly difficult and embarrassing, but at no point would we have seriously considered selling our organs.  i think the invasive and potentially degrading processing of selling one is organs would still put pressure on society for change, because of this.  for example, people sell their body currently prostitution, stripping, etc.  .  those acts are not viewed favourably by our society, and we have debated and tried to regulate it, as well as help people that feel pressured to go into that kind of lifestyle.  and you will often hear strippers for example that say they are better taken care of, and have easier jobs, than retail sales people.
i think the time for the spreadsheet has passed.  spreadsheets was carried over from the time before we we had computers.  then they were called worksheets and accountants used them to their financial based number crunching.  now a days we have something called sqlite.  it is an embedded public domain database engine originally developed to be used on united states destroyers.  the first reason people should migrate to sqlite or another embedded database engine is that you can define relationships between tables.  it can be done in spreadsheets but is is very clunky and hard to keep consistent.  databases unlike spreadsheets full take advantage of computer is power.  the second reason is that more people would have a reason to code.  for everyone who wants people to lean to code, here is a viable reason for people to bother doing it.  sql is code people can use to organize and count their items.  it would be code that is actually useful to them and not just some boring hobby the government forces them to do in school.  the third reason is that you can link it to other applications.  embedded databases like sqlite can be connected to graphical applications for easier management for some people or command line applications for easier management for other people.  the format is open and flexible so it would be more future proof than a common spreadsheet format.  reports can be generated to make more applicable output for another application.  i believe the use of spreadsheets should be deprecated and and that everyone should migrate to embedded databases because they are less clunky, allow a real reason to code, and can link to other applications to produce the reports you want.   fixed ambiguous capitalization  #  it can be done in spreadsheets but is is very clunky and hard to keep consistent.   #  databases unlike spreadsheets full take advantage of computer is power.   # databases unlike spreadsheets full take advantage of computer is power.  citation please.  spreadsheets do a lot of things that databases do not.  spreadsheets do it in a different way, however.  why is it a good idea for more people to code ? we will have accountants with no interest in coding that will learn the bare minimum to do what they need.  this will result in buggy and inefficient code that may not solve the problem better than a spreadsheet.  programs like excel are optimized to make common calculations easy and efficient.  a database makes you optimize it by yourself.  you can do this with spreadsheets.  most programs support excel files, and even more programs support csv and xml formats.  you use spreadsheets when you have a rough data structure and want to get it done fast.  you use databases when you have well defined data and will do significant amounts of processing on it.  a database is overkill for a spreadsheet, and a spreadsheet should not be used as a database.  you are thinking everybody gets coding easily like you, and your solution increases the setup time for common everyday tasks.  it is not a good idea.   #  for a database, to see what your query is totaling, you need another abstract query.   #  0.  databases require an engine, a potentially multiple gui front ends administration, direct sql access, application for end users, etc and a complex file system.  spreadsheets just need the single gui front end and simple file system.  0.  sql is hard for even developers to code.  there are application layers like hibernate, that separate developers from coding sql.  developers are more used the procedural coding and not declarative statements like sql.  0.  embedding to other applications requires drivers for the specific database vender to be there and working.  spreadsheets formats are very common and can easily be transformed to another common format without a lot of coding.  0.  spreadsheets are ultimate wysisyg.  for a spreadsheet and can see exactly where the numbers that make up the sum.  for a database, to see what your query is totaling, you need another abstract query.  considering the specialized technical knowledge required, spreadsheets will always be around.   #  developers are more used the procedural coding and not declarative statements like sql.   # spreadsheets just need the single gui front end and simple file system.  what software does not run an engine ? sqlite does not require a complex file system and stores a database in a single file.  that is true until you have more than one set of data, then you have the compound problem of organizing the data on the sheet and maintaining the relationship between the data.  there are application layers like hibernate, that separate developers from coding sql.  developers are more used the procedural coding and not declarative statements like sql.  coding is hard in general.  i do not see what your point is.  moving the code into the spreadsheet and mixing it in with the date usually does not make it any easier.  spreadsheets formats are very common and can easily be transformed to another common format without a lot of coding.  so are sqlite database dumps.  for a spreadsheet and can see exactly where the numbers that make up the sum.  for a database, to see what your query is totaling, you need another abstract query.  considering the specialized technical knowledge required, spreadsheets will always be around.  after you start writing formulas, wysisyg goes flying out of the window.   #  save as.  or clicking on export and followng menu options is a whole lot easier that looking up multiple commands you need to type in.   # sqlite does not require a complex file system and stores a database in a single file.  sqlite does not.  i was thinking more non embedded, enterprise level databases.  spreadsheets have functions for this, like lookup  coding is hard in general.  i do not see what your point is.  moving the code into the spreadsheet and mixing it in with the date usually does not make it any easier.  its a different type of coding that is needed, declartive vs procedural,and the difference is not just syntax.  every team i have on worked has this issue and i would not say they were dumb or had the same issues witg spreadsheeta.  sql is a 0 year old language.  save as.  or clicking on export and followng menu options is a whole lot easier that looking up multiple commands you need to type in.  in excel, just select the cell and it highlights in color where each part of the formula comes from.  also generating formulas you can select exactly which cell s you want in your formula.  you can even get a list of formulas and they guide you through the parameters.  very wysiwyg.   #  they are not competing platforms, they each have their strengths and weaknesses.   #  all good strong points about databases, but people do not always use spreadsheets as databases.  i work in science and many people use it for looking at their data, generating graphs, using formulas to solve curve fits to identify diffusion coefficients in cells, etc.  in some cases relational databases wins hands down over spreadsheets for storing data that inherently has relationships.  but spreadsheets are quicker, easier, and better suited to manipulating and presenting other kinds of data.  they are not competing platforms, they each have their strengths and weaknesses.
i think the time for the spreadsheet has passed.  spreadsheets was carried over from the time before we we had computers.  then they were called worksheets and accountants used them to their financial based number crunching.  now a days we have something called sqlite.  it is an embedded public domain database engine originally developed to be used on united states destroyers.  the first reason people should migrate to sqlite or another embedded database engine is that you can define relationships between tables.  it can be done in spreadsheets but is is very clunky and hard to keep consistent.  databases unlike spreadsheets full take advantage of computer is power.  the second reason is that more people would have a reason to code.  for everyone who wants people to lean to code, here is a viable reason for people to bother doing it.  sql is code people can use to organize and count their items.  it would be code that is actually useful to them and not just some boring hobby the government forces them to do in school.  the third reason is that you can link it to other applications.  embedded databases like sqlite can be connected to graphical applications for easier management for some people or command line applications for easier management for other people.  the format is open and flexible so it would be more future proof than a common spreadsheet format.  reports can be generated to make more applicable output for another application.  i believe the use of spreadsheets should be deprecated and and that everyone should migrate to embedded databases because they are less clunky, allow a real reason to code, and can link to other applications to produce the reports you want.   fixed ambiguous capitalization  #  the second reason is that more people would have a reason to code.   #  why is it a good idea for more people to code ?  # databases unlike spreadsheets full take advantage of computer is power.  citation please.  spreadsheets do a lot of things that databases do not.  spreadsheets do it in a different way, however.  why is it a good idea for more people to code ? we will have accountants with no interest in coding that will learn the bare minimum to do what they need.  this will result in buggy and inefficient code that may not solve the problem better than a spreadsheet.  programs like excel are optimized to make common calculations easy and efficient.  a database makes you optimize it by yourself.  you can do this with spreadsheets.  most programs support excel files, and even more programs support csv and xml formats.  you use spreadsheets when you have a rough data structure and want to get it done fast.  you use databases when you have well defined data and will do significant amounts of processing on it.  a database is overkill for a spreadsheet, and a spreadsheet should not be used as a database.  you are thinking everybody gets coding easily like you, and your solution increases the setup time for common everyday tasks.  it is not a good idea.   #  spreadsheets formats are very common and can easily be transformed to another common format without a lot of coding.   #  0.  databases require an engine, a potentially multiple gui front ends administration, direct sql access, application for end users, etc and a complex file system.  spreadsheets just need the single gui front end and simple file system.  0.  sql is hard for even developers to code.  there are application layers like hibernate, that separate developers from coding sql.  developers are more used the procedural coding and not declarative statements like sql.  0.  embedding to other applications requires drivers for the specific database vender to be there and working.  spreadsheets formats are very common and can easily be transformed to another common format without a lot of coding.  0.  spreadsheets are ultimate wysisyg.  for a spreadsheet and can see exactly where the numbers that make up the sum.  for a database, to see what your query is totaling, you need another abstract query.  considering the specialized technical knowledge required, spreadsheets will always be around.   #  moving the code into the spreadsheet and mixing it in with the date usually does not make it any easier.   # spreadsheets just need the single gui front end and simple file system.  what software does not run an engine ? sqlite does not require a complex file system and stores a database in a single file.  that is true until you have more than one set of data, then you have the compound problem of organizing the data on the sheet and maintaining the relationship between the data.  there are application layers like hibernate, that separate developers from coding sql.  developers are more used the procedural coding and not declarative statements like sql.  coding is hard in general.  i do not see what your point is.  moving the code into the spreadsheet and mixing it in with the date usually does not make it any easier.  spreadsheets formats are very common and can easily be transformed to another common format without a lot of coding.  so are sqlite database dumps.  for a spreadsheet and can see exactly where the numbers that make up the sum.  for a database, to see what your query is totaling, you need another abstract query.  considering the specialized technical knowledge required, spreadsheets will always be around.  after you start writing formulas, wysisyg goes flying out of the window.   #  you can even get a list of formulas and they guide you through the parameters.   # sqlite does not require a complex file system and stores a database in a single file.  sqlite does not.  i was thinking more non embedded, enterprise level databases.  spreadsheets have functions for this, like lookup  coding is hard in general.  i do not see what your point is.  moving the code into the spreadsheet and mixing it in with the date usually does not make it any easier.  its a different type of coding that is needed, declartive vs procedural,and the difference is not just syntax.  every team i have on worked has this issue and i would not say they were dumb or had the same issues witg spreadsheeta.  sql is a 0 year old language.  save as.  or clicking on export and followng menu options is a whole lot easier that looking up multiple commands you need to type in.  in excel, just select the cell and it highlights in color where each part of the formula comes from.  also generating formulas you can select exactly which cell s you want in your formula.  you can even get a list of formulas and they guide you through the parameters.  very wysiwyg.   #  all good strong points about databases, but people do not always use spreadsheets as databases.   #  all good strong points about databases, but people do not always use spreadsheets as databases.  i work in science and many people use it for looking at their data, generating graphs, using formulas to solve curve fits to identify diffusion coefficients in cells, etc.  in some cases relational databases wins hands down over spreadsheets for storing data that inherently has relationships.  but spreadsheets are quicker, easier, and better suited to manipulating and presenting other kinds of data.  they are not competing platforms, they each have their strengths and weaknesses.
i have seen more about this everyday, and before it gets to big i want to know why most people think it is just a  next step in evolution.   as one of my friends said.  i have never agreed with the idea of adding neural implants since, to me, it seems like tat would be cheating.  not just at, assuming one is in school, tests and exams, but at almost anything.  it just seems like it would make a person greater than they actually are.  for example, it could make someone remember things that they did not bother to truly study, or artificial ize an outcome of a major life moment, like when taking a driving test, it would improve the ability of the driver, if an implant that could improve driving skill were come to exist.  sorry if this is eloquently written, but thank you for helping.   #  if an implant that could improve driving skill were come to exist.   #  that would actually be amazing, fatalities will be massively reduced.   #  what makes you believe that is cheating ? granted, if someone gets implants and someone else does not, then it is unfair, but when everyone has access to these implants, it is completely fair.  how is that a bad thing ? all throughout history, people have been trying to improve their lives, inventing many ways and tools to make their quality of life better.  being great is a good thing, not a bad thing.  that would actually be amazing, fatalities will be massively reduced.   #  the rich will be able to augment first, and poor people not at all.   #  should have read further cause this comment is also interesting.  think of human augmentation and how you think of these pay to win games.  it is unfair but human augmentation is going to happen, and it will be costly.  the rich will be able to augment first, and poor people not at all.  how does income inequality look now ? to be successful you must be first be rich, the reward for being successful.  is to become more valuable/richer.  this is already at play today.  you are rich you live longer, live longer and you can acquire more wealth and power which, in turn, makes you live longer.  i do not have an answer, just stating how i see this dynamic playing out.   #  there will always be a group that, rightfully, need these advancements.   #  to add to this, take runners in the special olympics with carbon fiber blades for legs.  right now they are a disadvantage, but they will eventually reach parity with runners with actual legs and then surpass them.  this will also happen with many other thing currently in research, hearing, sight, mental capacity, etc.  the thing about this question is that, well, to bad.  human progress wo not stop when you think we have gone far enough.  there will always be a group that, rightfully, need these advancements.  the question is not if we should allow this, it is how do we handle it as a society.  technology will progress, the sun will rise.  debating whether it should happen is moot.  it will.  now let is talk.   #  if we could instantly memorize class material, then the class could be spent on expanding knowledge of the subject.   #  cheating implies that there are rules, and for life in general there are none besides basic scientific laws.  it would be up to individual organizations to form rules about implants eg, sporting events, jobs, etc , and individual people to decide how to change themselves.  as for making yourself better, we already do that with cars, phones, computers, and all manner of technology.  it does seem like it would make you greater than you are, and that is a good thing ! the function of school is to help you advance and make yourself better, so why should we limit ourselves to current methods of learning ? my college math courses let me use calculators and based the curriculum around them, so future classes could be formed around implants.  if we could instantly memorize class material, then the class could be spent on expanding knowledge of the subject.  the only concern i could see would be potential failure of the technology, but that is hard to discuss when the technology does not exist yet.  if it could be made with a failure rate similar to our own organs then it should not be a problem.   #  more doctors, more scientists, more educated people in every field.   #  why does the source of knowledge matter ? if the end result is the same, why is someone who spends time learning a skill inherently more deserving of that knowledge that someone who gets a brain implant ? there is only so much one can learn in a lifetime, imagine if our scientists and engineers could get half a dozen phd is in a month rather than one in 0 0 years.  rather than spending years working as a junior engineer, you could be designing fusion reactors in your mid teens.  think how much it could further humanity if every single engineer had a good understanding of business, the environment, economics, and every manager could understand the nitty gritty of what they manage.  dilbert would cease to be relevant.  think in the big picture.  more doctors, more scientists, more educated people in every field.  within a few years, these implants become affordable to the masses as neurosurgery can be done by cheap robots for pennies.  designing and manufacturing of neural implants accelerates, until a grain of rice sized chip behind your ear gives everyone access to the sum total of human knowledge.  every person is free to pursue anything they see fit, and a second renaissance brings way to arts and culture on a grand scale.  art is made for the sake of art and not profit.  by now humans span the solar system, with colony ships en route to every possibly habitable star in the galaxy.
english is not my native language when i say that is the same i obviously mean on a specific aspect.  a newborn baby is a living organism that does not thinks yet, we do not know its personality nor its feelings because it does not have them yet but we know it will eventually change into a person.  a fertilized egg im refering to a fertilized egg already attached to the womb is a cell that does not thinks, or has a personality yet but it will also eventually have them.  there is the issue in which a baby is a living organism and the fertilized egg is not, but the mind of a newborn baby is not that of a person but we care of it because we know that it will turn into a person.  im interested on hearing your opinions ! bye  #  a newborn baby is a living organism that does not thinks yet, we do not know its personality nor its feelings because it does not have them yet but we know it will eventually change into a person.   #  i have known babies with differing personalities.   # i have known babies with differing personalities.  just with newborns you have not had a chance to find out what they are like yet.  that does not mean they do not have one.  they almost certainly have feelings.  why do you say they do not ? same with thoughts what makes you think they ca not think ? what are you defining as thinking here ? do you need to know a language to think ? a fertilized egg does not even have the capacity for brain activity as it has no brain.  babies have a functioning and developing brain.   #  0 the life of a 0 year old and a 0 year old are in danger and you can only save one.   #  i really like this statement, because it seems very straightforward to me.  i think what maybe complicates it though is that if you present two similar situations, peoples answers will change.  0 the life of a newborn baby and a 0 year old child are in danger and you can only save one.  do you choose the newborn or the 0 year old ? 0 the life of a 0 year old and a 0 year old are in danger and you can only save one.  do you choose the 0 year old or the 0 year old ? in the first scenario, i think most people would have trouble choosing either the 0 year old or the newborn, because they are both very young and very innocent, and in the second scenario, almost everyone would choose the newborn, due to helplessness and innocence.  for the record, i agree with you, just presenting my observations.   #  note: i am not arguing that men are inherently less valuable than women or children, just that most people have an instinct to protect children.   #  sure, some people might pick the 0 year old, but i think that most people would pick the 0 year old.  there is a reason that  women and children  were the first ones on the lifeboats.  note: i am not arguing that men are inherently less valuable than women or children, just that most people have an instinct to protect children.  theories ? maybe the idea that the 0 year old could have already procreated ? or has more ability to save themselves than a 0 year old ? just brainstorming.   #  the feminist argument is generally presented as an analogy: you suddenly wake up in a hospital tethered to someone dying of kidney failure.   #  the feminist argument.  i get it, but it only holds weight if the woman did not consent to unprotected sex in my opinion.  if you have unprotected sex, there is a relatively good chance of getting pregnant.  you therefore implicitly consent to that risk.  therefore, it really is not enough to argue that a woman has a right to kill a human being simply because it lives inside and depends upon her own body.  the feminist argument is generally presented as an analogy: you suddenly wake up in a hospital tethered to someone dying of kidney failure.  it will be nine months before they can get a kidney for the guy.  is it morally permissible for you to disconnect from the man and kill him ? well, if you did not consent to be hooked up to the man, sure.  you have that right.  but, if you agreed to it beforehand, perhaps you do have a moral obligation to stick with him for nine months.  to argue that it is morally permissible to abort a fetus, you have to argue around the fact that many women who get an abortion made the choice to have unprotected sex.  you, therefore, have to argue that the fetus  life is not worthy of the protections we grant to persons.  the rights of the mother to her own body are secondary to the rights of the fetus  if the fetus has a right to life.   #  and further, legally speaking no one can be compelled to provide for a living person using their body, at least in the usa.   #  women can get pregnant in rare cases even if they have used multiple forms of birth control.  in this case the pregnancy was an unexpected and statistically unlikely result of sex.  additionally, i think that a lot of folks who are pro abortion feel that fetuses are not, strictly speaking, alive.  and further, legally speaking no one can be compelled to provide for a living person using their body, at least in the usa.  even if they agree to donate blood or bone marrow, they are free to back out at any time.  so the usa legal system has determined that this sort of removal of support is a morally defensible action.
english is not my native language when i say that is the same i obviously mean on a specific aspect.  a newborn baby is a living organism that does not thinks yet, we do not know its personality nor its feelings because it does not have them yet but we know it will eventually change into a person.  a fertilized egg im refering to a fertilized egg already attached to the womb is a cell that does not thinks, or has a personality yet but it will also eventually have them.  there is the issue in which a baby is a living organism and the fertilized egg is not, but the mind of a newborn baby is not that of a person but we care of it because we know that it will turn into a person.  im interested on hearing your opinions ! bye  #  a fertilized egg im refering to a fertilized egg already attached to the womb is a cell that does not thinks, or has a personality yet but it will also eventually have them.   #  a fertilized egg does not even have the capacity for brain activity as it has no brain.   # i have known babies with differing personalities.  just with newborns you have not had a chance to find out what they are like yet.  that does not mean they do not have one.  they almost certainly have feelings.  why do you say they do not ? same with thoughts what makes you think they ca not think ? what are you defining as thinking here ? do you need to know a language to think ? a fertilized egg does not even have the capacity for brain activity as it has no brain.  babies have a functioning and developing brain.   #  i think what maybe complicates it though is that if you present two similar situations, peoples answers will change.   #  i really like this statement, because it seems very straightforward to me.  i think what maybe complicates it though is that if you present two similar situations, peoples answers will change.  0 the life of a newborn baby and a 0 year old child are in danger and you can only save one.  do you choose the newborn or the 0 year old ? 0 the life of a 0 year old and a 0 year old are in danger and you can only save one.  do you choose the 0 year old or the 0 year old ? in the first scenario, i think most people would have trouble choosing either the 0 year old or the newborn, because they are both very young and very innocent, and in the second scenario, almost everyone would choose the newborn, due to helplessness and innocence.  for the record, i agree with you, just presenting my observations.   #  maybe the idea that the 0 year old could have already procreated ?  #  sure, some people might pick the 0 year old, but i think that most people would pick the 0 year old.  there is a reason that  women and children  were the first ones on the lifeboats.  note: i am not arguing that men are inherently less valuable than women or children, just that most people have an instinct to protect children.  theories ? maybe the idea that the 0 year old could have already procreated ? or has more ability to save themselves than a 0 year old ? just brainstorming.   #  you, therefore, have to argue that the fetus  life is not worthy of the protections we grant to persons.   #  the feminist argument.  i get it, but it only holds weight if the woman did not consent to unprotected sex in my opinion.  if you have unprotected sex, there is a relatively good chance of getting pregnant.  you therefore implicitly consent to that risk.  therefore, it really is not enough to argue that a woman has a right to kill a human being simply because it lives inside and depends upon her own body.  the feminist argument is generally presented as an analogy: you suddenly wake up in a hospital tethered to someone dying of kidney failure.  it will be nine months before they can get a kidney for the guy.  is it morally permissible for you to disconnect from the man and kill him ? well, if you did not consent to be hooked up to the man, sure.  you have that right.  but, if you agreed to it beforehand, perhaps you do have a moral obligation to stick with him for nine months.  to argue that it is morally permissible to abort a fetus, you have to argue around the fact that many women who get an abortion made the choice to have unprotected sex.  you, therefore, have to argue that the fetus  life is not worthy of the protections we grant to persons.  the rights of the mother to her own body are secondary to the rights of the fetus  if the fetus has a right to life.   #  women can get pregnant in rare cases even if they have used multiple forms of birth control.   #  women can get pregnant in rare cases even if they have used multiple forms of birth control.  in this case the pregnancy was an unexpected and statistically unlikely result of sex.  additionally, i think that a lot of folks who are pro abortion feel that fetuses are not, strictly speaking, alive.  and further, legally speaking no one can be compelled to provide for a living person using their body, at least in the usa.  even if they agree to donate blood or bone marrow, they are free to back out at any time.  so the usa legal system has determined that this sort of removal of support is a morally defensible action.
english is not my native language when i say that is the same i obviously mean on a specific aspect.  a newborn baby is a living organism that does not thinks yet, we do not know its personality nor its feelings because it does not have them yet but we know it will eventually change into a person.  a fertilized egg im refering to a fertilized egg already attached to the womb is a cell that does not thinks, or has a personality yet but it will also eventually have them.  there is the issue in which a baby is a living organism and the fertilized egg is not, but the mind of a newborn baby is not that of a person but we care of it because we know that it will turn into a person.  im interested on hearing your opinions ! bye  #  a newborn baby is a living organism that does not thinks yet, we do not know its personality nor its feelings because it does not have them yet but we know it will eventually change into a person.   #  an infant definitely has feelings and i do not think there is any reasonable way to doubt that fact.   # an infant definitely has feelings and i do not think there is any reasonable way to doubt that fact.  all that giggling, cooing, screaming, and crying are definite indicators that an infant has a complex emotional life.  although it is more debatable, cognitive scientists have over the past half century or so demonstrated that infants do think at a rudimentary level.  before the cognitive revolution, it was thought that the mind of an infant was a  blank slate,  but researchers have demonstrated that many cognitive structures are innate.  by the time we come out of the womb, we have already been programmed with some remarkable cognitive abilities.  i will list some examples.  infants have the ability to parse sensory information just like adults do.  infants can discriminate between colors very early on.  for instance, infants are  more likely to group together two different blues 0 and 0 nm than a blue and a green 0 and 0 nm , even though the differences in wave lengths 0 nm between the two members of each set are exactly equivalent in a mathematical sense.   infants also process auditory information like adults.  despite the fact that there is a continuous spectrum of sounds between a /p/ sound as in  pony  and a /b/ sound as in  bubble  , infants register the sounds as either a /p/ or a /b/ sound.  they are preprogrammed to understand specific linguistic signals.  they also are preprogrammed to parse musical patterns in the same way adults do.  infants are capable of complex social interaction.  infants, right out of the womb, are able to recognize faces and seem to be attracted to them.  they quickly learn to smile when interacting with others and mimic the behaviors of those around them.  it actually takes quite a bit of cognitive ability to play peek a boo.  we simply do not give enough credit to infants, perhaps because we all forget what it is like to be one.  but, just because we do not remember how we understood the world as an infant, does not mean that these understandings are trivial or non existent.  the infant is in fact a complex thinking, feeling being.  now, much of the same can be said of a fetus in the third trimester, but you specified that killing an infant is the same as killing a fertilized egg.  a fertilized egg cannot think nor can it feel.  it has no sense of pain, no awareness whatsoever.  it does not even have the most basic components of a nervous system.  it is a living organism, for sure, but it is not sentient like an infant.  so, killing an embryo is objectively not the same as killing an infant, even in the specific way you have mentioned.  source: the unschooled mind by howard gardner, chapter 0: initial learnings: constraints and possibilities  #  for the record, i agree with you, just presenting my observations.   #  i really like this statement, because it seems very straightforward to me.  i think what maybe complicates it though is that if you present two similar situations, peoples answers will change.  0 the life of a newborn baby and a 0 year old child are in danger and you can only save one.  do you choose the newborn or the 0 year old ? 0 the life of a 0 year old and a 0 year old are in danger and you can only save one.  do you choose the 0 year old or the 0 year old ? in the first scenario, i think most people would have trouble choosing either the 0 year old or the newborn, because they are both very young and very innocent, and in the second scenario, almost everyone would choose the newborn, due to helplessness and innocence.  for the record, i agree with you, just presenting my observations.   #  sure, some people might pick the 0 year old, but i think that most people would pick the 0 year old.   #  sure, some people might pick the 0 year old, but i think that most people would pick the 0 year old.  there is a reason that  women and children  were the first ones on the lifeboats.  note: i am not arguing that men are inherently less valuable than women or children, just that most people have an instinct to protect children.  theories ? maybe the idea that the 0 year old could have already procreated ? or has more ability to save themselves than a 0 year old ? just brainstorming.   #  well, if you did not consent to be hooked up to the man, sure.   #  the feminist argument.  i get it, but it only holds weight if the woman did not consent to unprotected sex in my opinion.  if you have unprotected sex, there is a relatively good chance of getting pregnant.  you therefore implicitly consent to that risk.  therefore, it really is not enough to argue that a woman has a right to kill a human being simply because it lives inside and depends upon her own body.  the feminist argument is generally presented as an analogy: you suddenly wake up in a hospital tethered to someone dying of kidney failure.  it will be nine months before they can get a kidney for the guy.  is it morally permissible for you to disconnect from the man and kill him ? well, if you did not consent to be hooked up to the man, sure.  you have that right.  but, if you agreed to it beforehand, perhaps you do have a moral obligation to stick with him for nine months.  to argue that it is morally permissible to abort a fetus, you have to argue around the fact that many women who get an abortion made the choice to have unprotected sex.  you, therefore, have to argue that the fetus  life is not worthy of the protections we grant to persons.  the rights of the mother to her own body are secondary to the rights of the fetus  if the fetus has a right to life.   #  in this case the pregnancy was an unexpected and statistically unlikely result of sex.   #  women can get pregnant in rare cases even if they have used multiple forms of birth control.  in this case the pregnancy was an unexpected and statistically unlikely result of sex.  additionally, i think that a lot of folks who are pro abortion feel that fetuses are not, strictly speaking, alive.  and further, legally speaking no one can be compelled to provide for a living person using their body, at least in the usa.  even if they agree to donate blood or bone marrow, they are free to back out at any time.  so the usa legal system has determined that this sort of removal of support is a morally defensible action.
first of all, let me get one thing clear.  i am fully in support of gay rights, i believe homosexual people deserve treatment equal to heterosexual people.  now my problem with gay pride parades is simple.  being overly  camp , lewd and all  in your face  in these parades does nothing more than confirm the prejudices of homophobes and hurt the legitimacy of gay rights campaigns as a whole.  being straight has no particular stereotype of any sort attached to it, it is not something you march about and base your entire lifestyle around, it is a sexuality and nothing more, so homosexuality should be treated the same way.   #  march about and base your entire lifestyle around, it is a sexuality and nothing more, so homosexuality should be treated the same way.   #  but is not that what straight people do ?  # the notion that there is a  default person;  that any deviations from a particular image of straight people represent deviations from humanity.  but is not that what straight people do ? faff about with their differently genitaled couplings ? absolutely freak out when you mistake them for not straight ? fill the airwaves with sappy stories about boy meets girl ?  #  well, guess what, we have had centuries of experience of all sorts of minority groups trying that strategy.   #  i do not think a gay pride parade is function is to turn anti gays into pro gays as they watch the parade to begin with.  it may be, as you imply, that the easiest way to get a homophobe to accept gay people is to have gay people act and be and look exactly like straight people in every way.  to not have a  gay culture  at all, to not have pride parades, and in fact to not mention their sexuality.  well, guess what, we have had centuries of experience of all sorts of minority groups trying that strategy.  at an individual level, where it is a matter of survival, it makes sense.  if a cameroonian wants to not go march in a pride parade because they are afraid of getting killed as a result, that is not wrong.  but places where gays  try to act straight  are not the ones where gay rights have advanced further.  it is the exact opposite.   #  the successful civil rights groups showed their people as respectable and  normal  malcom x and other black separatist type people confirmed stereotypes and lent themselves to propaganda.   #  the successful civil rights groups showed their people as respectable and  normal  malcom x and other black separatist type people confirmed stereotypes and lent themselves to propaganda.  the successful gay rights campaigns have always shown their people as normal people who happen to like people of the same sex.  they never attempted to show weird gays in faggy outfits in public displays of indecency.  you might not like the fact that not everyone has jumped to the gay rights side, but putting forth things that will disgust people does not seem like a good idea.  look at all the pro gay marriage commericals  #  for certain people, their sexuality is an important part of their lifestyle.   #  the point of gay pride is to demonstrate that people who are gay are not ashamed of their sexuality and who they are.  the purpose of the parade is not to conform to what people think is the proper lifestyle.  for certain people, their sexuality is an important part of their lifestyle.  they are no less entitled to march in the pride parade as they see fit, then people who are gay and are very private about it.  why should they let homophobes tell them the right and wrong way to run their parade ?  #  i do not see why the gay community should not be entitled to express their sexuality to the same degree.   #  i think gay pride parades should be as over the top and extravagant as possible.  why are people accepting of nudity and sexuality of women in things like brazilian carnival URL but when men do it during gay pride suddenly it is  vulgar and unacceptable  ? that is homophobia plain and simple.  gays around the world still face persecution, bullying, physical violence and derision because of their sexuality.  there is not a country in the world where gays do not experience oppression in some form or another.  gay pride parades are not just fun events to show off your gayness.  they are incredibly important because they are basically a big  fuck you  to homophobes and people who try to subdue gays back into hiding.  or the attitude  it is fine, as long as i do not have to see it  which is no less homophobic, just maybe less violent.  gay pride is an opportunity for the gay community as a whole to come together and express not only that they are not ashamed of who they are, but that they are in fact  proud  of it, and that they will not let homophobia get them down.  true acceptance will not come until homosexual sexuality is just as accepted in the public eye as heterosexual sexuality.  and since heterosexual sex is basically everywhere these days on tv, movies, advertising, etc.  i do not see why the gay community should not be entitled to express their sexuality to the same degree.
i really do not see why people keep up with current events.  i want to want to know what is happening, but it seems pointless.   we do not have any power to change anything    popular vote versus electoral college: there is no system to make sure that the people who voted people in congress actually vote for the presidency.  also, the popular vote does not actually matter, it is just a way to make sure the system is working correctly.  throw in gerrymandering and all the other problems with elections too.   congress approval rating  URL   there is barely been an approval rating above 0 in the past 0 years.  does not that mean that people have been disapproving of how the government and how the country is being run ? 0 do not approve of congress at any given moment and there is been no change.   clearances    there are things that we just ca not know about because the information is top secret.  how often are we getting the real news ? there is no way to even answer that questions because we just do not know what we do not know.  what do not we know about benghazi, 0/0, etc because the information is too secret ?  media bias and accuracy    i do not even think i have to explain this one.   empirical evidence    no one debates that 00 0.  there is a huge debate on taxes, what works best for the economy, and a number of other things.  that tells me that there is not a correct answer and the problem is too complicated to make a definitive statement on.  if economist with the highest degrees possible are on all sides, does not that say something about the problem ? i feel like climate change is something with a bunch of empirical evidence and still not taken seriously.   the people    no one wants to have a civil conversation about this.  i have not heard a two way dialogue ever on this subject.  everyone wants the other person to just listen to them and dominate the conversation.  it really does feel i am in an orwell novel.  tl;dr: i do not think we can possibly be informed enough to speak on any subject.   #  there are things that we just ca not know about because the information is top secret.   #  how often are we getting the real news ?  # how often are we getting the real news ? there is no way to even answer that questions because we just do not know what we do not know.  what do not we know about benghazi, 0/0, etc because the information is too secret ? we ca not be informed enough to speak on the subject ? i disagree.  look at the situation in ukraine right now, all the news sources and sources of information regarding that situation are in agreement about what is happening.  certainly some subjects are shrouded in mystery such as the malaysian airlines headline, but that does not mean we should not be aware things are happening.  this is quite different than what you are title states.  there is a significant difference between knowing enough about a situation to speak with knowledge on it, and just keeping up with the times.  i certainly do not know much about climatology, but i keep up to date on the news regarding climate change.  i know jackshit about the economy, but i keep up with the general picture.  being aware of events that are taking place and generally what is going on is quite different than trying to be an authority in knowledge on the affair.   #  while going by the definition of  what is happening now ?    #  i am not sure what your definition of  current events  is.  is it what you just see on non local news channels or websites ? is it something of local nature ? regional ? national ? international ? while going by the definition of  what is happening now ?   something like severe weather or a wildfire would count as a  current event .  i would like to be informed in case i need to evacuate.  going back to the national news as  current events  part.  some people just hate being left in the dark about something; even if the information is not 0 accurate or vague.   #  no, but it is a pretty good idea to keep up to date with what is going on the world just so you understand what was going on.   #  is it important like things such as food, or education, or rights ? no, but it is a pretty good idea to keep up to date with what is going on the world just so you understand what was going on.  if you decide not to follow what is going on the world, then do not expect to understand what is going on the world.  it is like someone who is not paying attention to a movie, but keeps demanding to be filled in on the context whenever something interesting happens.  so if you do not feel you have to keep up with the world, you do not have any right to demand people explain things to you when something important happens.   #  and i would say the following two things you said are almost contradictory.   #  there is a huge divide in political ideology and you pick one subject that all news sources agree on.  for that one subject, there are tens of stories that there is not agreement on.  the  too long, did not read  section is meant for the person who did not read my post, not the title.  i certainly do not know much about climatology, but i keep up to date on the news regarding climate change.  i know jackshit about the economy, but i keep up with the general picture.  so you are saying the reason to keep up with the news is to keep up with the times, and not be an informed citizen armed with the power to vote ? if you are not knowledgeable about something, how can you possible vote at all ? if you know  jackshit  about something, do you just guess when it comes down to voting ? and i would say the following two things you said are almost contradictory.  i disagree.   #  what does voting have to do with keeping up with the news ?  # for that one subject, there are tens of stories that there is not agreement on.  please, show me the abundance of news headlines that are rife with controversy and disagreement.  what major news covered events are impossible to get solid information on ? the reason to keep up with the news is to be aware of what is happening in the world.  that is the intent of a group like bbc or al jazeera, to inform the public of newsworthy events.  what does voting have to do with keeping up with the news ? if you are going to vote, it is best to educate yourself on the candidates various platforms.  just keeping up with the news does not demand that, because you are not making a choice based on the information you get.  you do not have to fully educate yourself on every news headline and become an authority of knowledge on it, but you should do that if you vote.  frankly, i do not understand why you seem to think  not becoming an expert on news events  equals  not learning about who you are voting for.   i disagree.  well, we can.  i could read up on the history of eastern european international relationships and become well versed about the crisis in ukraine, and talk in depth about the various factors and details about the event.  i could do that, it is perfectly plausible.  just because i can do that however, does not mean i must.  i do not  have  become an expert on all major news stories.  for most of them i just get a basic idea of what is going on.  i do not know all the history and details about relations between ukraine and russia, but i have a general picture of what is going on there right now.
i really do not see why people keep up with current events.  i want to want to know what is happening, but it seems pointless.   we do not have any power to change anything    popular vote versus electoral college: there is no system to make sure that the people who voted people in congress actually vote for the presidency.  also, the popular vote does not actually matter, it is just a way to make sure the system is working correctly.  throw in gerrymandering and all the other problems with elections too.   congress approval rating  URL   there is barely been an approval rating above 0 in the past 0 years.  does not that mean that people have been disapproving of how the government and how the country is being run ? 0 do not approve of congress at any given moment and there is been no change.   clearances    there are things that we just ca not know about because the information is top secret.  how often are we getting the real news ? there is no way to even answer that questions because we just do not know what we do not know.  what do not we know about benghazi, 0/0, etc because the information is too secret ?  media bias and accuracy    i do not even think i have to explain this one.   empirical evidence    no one debates that 00 0.  there is a huge debate on taxes, what works best for the economy, and a number of other things.  that tells me that there is not a correct answer and the problem is too complicated to make a definitive statement on.  if economist with the highest degrees possible are on all sides, does not that say something about the problem ? i feel like climate change is something with a bunch of empirical evidence and still not taken seriously.   the people    no one wants to have a civil conversation about this.  i have not heard a two way dialogue ever on this subject.  everyone wants the other person to just listen to them and dominate the conversation.  it really does feel i am in an orwell novel.  tl;dr: i do not think we can possibly be informed enough to speak on any subject.   #  tl;dr: i do not think we can possibly be informed enough to speak on any subject.   #  this is quite different than what you are title states.   # how often are we getting the real news ? there is no way to even answer that questions because we just do not know what we do not know.  what do not we know about benghazi, 0/0, etc because the information is too secret ? we ca not be informed enough to speak on the subject ? i disagree.  look at the situation in ukraine right now, all the news sources and sources of information regarding that situation are in agreement about what is happening.  certainly some subjects are shrouded in mystery such as the malaysian airlines headline, but that does not mean we should not be aware things are happening.  this is quite different than what you are title states.  there is a significant difference between knowing enough about a situation to speak with knowledge on it, and just keeping up with the times.  i certainly do not know much about climatology, but i keep up to date on the news regarding climate change.  i know jackshit about the economy, but i keep up with the general picture.  being aware of events that are taking place and generally what is going on is quite different than trying to be an authority in knowledge on the affair.   #  some people just hate being left in the dark about something; even if the information is not 0 accurate or vague.   #  i am not sure what your definition of  current events  is.  is it what you just see on non local news channels or websites ? is it something of local nature ? regional ? national ? international ? while going by the definition of  what is happening now ?   something like severe weather or a wildfire would count as a  current event .  i would like to be informed in case i need to evacuate.  going back to the national news as  current events  part.  some people just hate being left in the dark about something; even if the information is not 0 accurate or vague.   #  no, but it is a pretty good idea to keep up to date with what is going on the world just so you understand what was going on.   #  is it important like things such as food, or education, or rights ? no, but it is a pretty good idea to keep up to date with what is going on the world just so you understand what was going on.  if you decide not to follow what is going on the world, then do not expect to understand what is going on the world.  it is like someone who is not paying attention to a movie, but keeps demanding to be filled in on the context whenever something interesting happens.  so if you do not feel you have to keep up with the world, you do not have any right to demand people explain things to you when something important happens.   #  i certainly do not know much about climatology, but i keep up to date on the news regarding climate change.   #  there is a huge divide in political ideology and you pick one subject that all news sources agree on.  for that one subject, there are tens of stories that there is not agreement on.  the  too long, did not read  section is meant for the person who did not read my post, not the title.  i certainly do not know much about climatology, but i keep up to date on the news regarding climate change.  i know jackshit about the economy, but i keep up with the general picture.  so you are saying the reason to keep up with the news is to keep up with the times, and not be an informed citizen armed with the power to vote ? if you are not knowledgeable about something, how can you possible vote at all ? if you know  jackshit  about something, do you just guess when it comes down to voting ? and i would say the following two things you said are almost contradictory.  i disagree.   #  i do not know all the history and details about relations between ukraine and russia, but i have a general picture of what is going on there right now.   # for that one subject, there are tens of stories that there is not agreement on.  please, show me the abundance of news headlines that are rife with controversy and disagreement.  what major news covered events are impossible to get solid information on ? the reason to keep up with the news is to be aware of what is happening in the world.  that is the intent of a group like bbc or al jazeera, to inform the public of newsworthy events.  what does voting have to do with keeping up with the news ? if you are going to vote, it is best to educate yourself on the candidates various platforms.  just keeping up with the news does not demand that, because you are not making a choice based on the information you get.  you do not have to fully educate yourself on every news headline and become an authority of knowledge on it, but you should do that if you vote.  frankly, i do not understand why you seem to think  not becoming an expert on news events  equals  not learning about who you are voting for.   i disagree.  well, we can.  i could read up on the history of eastern european international relationships and become well versed about the crisis in ukraine, and talk in depth about the various factors and details about the event.  i could do that, it is perfectly plausible.  just because i can do that however, does not mean i must.  i do not  have  become an expert on all major news stories.  for most of them i just get a basic idea of what is going on.  i do not know all the history and details about relations between ukraine and russia, but i have a general picture of what is going on there right now.
i feel as though women who choose to have sex without the means of contraception, simply do not care if they get pregnant.  they put their pleasures over the risk of having a child and having it terminated.  i feel as though, when the sperm and egg mix, they create a completely new set of dna, dna that has never been the same in the entire history of our species and is a completely unique person i am not theist, i try to base my arguments on the uniqueness of each person i do not see any way for someone to justify abortion when it is the result of sex without contraception.  that woman simply did not care that new life was created within her, and chose to have sex in the first place.  we argue it is a woman is choice for abortion ? no, it is a woman is choice to have sex without the means of contraception.  clarification i believe contraception is ok because new life with unique dna and a unique person has not been formed and therefore will not be removed from the world.   #  and chose to have sex in the first place.   #  sex is not exactly a individual choice.   #  creating a new set dna does not mean a new life is formed, it simply means different strands of dna annealed together.  i have worked in a recombinant dna lab, where we commonly  graft  on pieces of foreign dna onto a host, essentially creating a vehicle to produce specific proteins i do not instantly get life after the reaction.  the current guidelines for abortion are not from your perspective, but on the basis on concept of life for the ability of the embryo to survive on its own.  the first trimester ? not likely to survive on its own.  the second trimester ? maybe not.  the third trimester ? maybe.  sex is not exactly a individual choice.  it is a mutual decision made by both partners with some degree of coercion and emotion.  i do not necessarily have the same condition where one choice i make can put my life on standstill for the next 0 months, or the next 0 years or etc.   #  what about individual cells in your body that have a random benign mutation, they are genetically unique.   # would it be permissible then to abort a single twin if such a thing were possible, or a clone perhaps ? does this mean in vitro fertilization is also wrong ? what about tumors, they are genetically unique.  what about individual cells in your body that have a random benign mutation, they are genetically unique.  i guess my whole question is why does genetics matter at all ? it seems like if that is really your criteria it is a really bad one that you should either refine or throw out completely in favor of some other criteria.  when someone dies, i am not sad that their genetic code is lost, i am sad that a living, thinking person is no longer with us.  it seems like whatever rubric we come up with to determine if it is okay to kill someone or not should use that sort of situation as a starting point, not genetics.  genetics just seems completely arbitrary.   #  or one can view that it is wrong.   #  this is essentially a straw man.  you are comparing something that is intended to create life with something where life is destroyed out of negligence.  anyone can see why the two situations are distinct.  it would be easy for someone to view that the creation of a life as such a good that it allows for the  wrongness  of the death of the other eggs.  another perspective is that the killings are not done out of negligence which is a tenant of the original argument.  or one can view that it is wrong.  that does not contradict the original post, either.   #  no, i am comparing an act which takes life intentionally to an act which takes life intentionally.   # no, i am comparing an act which takes life intentionally to an act which takes life intentionally.  i am pointing out that someone who thinks it is murder is not going to be moved by pointing out that the 0 murders they perceive as happening will result in 0 new life.  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.  killing intentionally is always considered worse than killing out of  negligence .  although it is not killing by negligence anyway. it is intentional in both cases.   #  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.   # if you do not see the differences you are being deliberately dense.  one of them takes life out of negligence and one of them takes and creates life on purpose.  usually it is done as a last resort because a couple cannot conceive.  a better comparison would be someone who does ivf even though they can conceive naturally.  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.  who is talking about murder ?
i feel as though women who choose to have sex without the means of contraception, simply do not care if they get pregnant.  they put their pleasures over the risk of having a child and having it terminated.  i feel as though, when the sperm and egg mix, they create a completely new set of dna, dna that has never been the same in the entire history of our species and is a completely unique person i am not theist, i try to base my arguments on the uniqueness of each person i do not see any way for someone to justify abortion when it is the result of sex without contraception.  that woman simply did not care that new life was created within her, and chose to have sex in the first place.  we argue it is a woman is choice for abortion ? no, it is a woman is choice to have sex without the means of contraception.  clarification i believe contraception is ok because new life with unique dna and a unique person has not been formed and therefore will not be removed from the world.   #  i do not see any way for someone to justify abortion when it is the result of sex without contraception.   #  that woman simply did not care that new life was created within her, and chose to have sex in the first place.   # that woman simply did not care that new life was created within her, and chose to have sex in the first place.  we argue it is a woman is choice for abortion ? no, it is a woman is choice to have sex without the means of contraception.  to me, you just made the case against yourself.  while i concede that losing any unique person and their potential insights is a loss to science and humanity, that must be weighed against the cost of human suffering.  your own argument here is suggesting that women who  simply did not care that new life was created within her  should be a mother.  that sounds like a terrible environment in which to bring a child.  i know that the logical next step is that the child will be adopted by parents who do want it and all will be fine.  except that for 0 months, when almost all of that child is development is going on, they are under the sole protection of a woman who does not care about them.  she may not make regular visits to her ob, she may not make healthy diet and lifestyle choices which could influence the baby is development in what you posted, it  sounds  like you want to punish the woman for having unprotected sex.  what is more important, punishing the woman or protecting of the child ?  #  would it be permissible then to abort a single twin if such a thing were possible, or a clone perhaps ?  # would it be permissible then to abort a single twin if such a thing were possible, or a clone perhaps ? does this mean in vitro fertilization is also wrong ? what about tumors, they are genetically unique.  what about individual cells in your body that have a random benign mutation, they are genetically unique.  i guess my whole question is why does genetics matter at all ? it seems like if that is really your criteria it is a really bad one that you should either refine or throw out completely in favor of some other criteria.  when someone dies, i am not sad that their genetic code is lost, i am sad that a living, thinking person is no longer with us.  it seems like whatever rubric we come up with to determine if it is okay to kill someone or not should use that sort of situation as a starting point, not genetics.  genetics just seems completely arbitrary.   #  it would be easy for someone to view that the creation of a life as such a good that it allows for the  wrongness  of the death of the other eggs.   #  this is essentially a straw man.  you are comparing something that is intended to create life with something where life is destroyed out of negligence.  anyone can see why the two situations are distinct.  it would be easy for someone to view that the creation of a life as such a good that it allows for the  wrongness  of the death of the other eggs.  another perspective is that the killings are not done out of negligence which is a tenant of the original argument.  or one can view that it is wrong.  that does not contradict the original post, either.   #  although it is not killing by negligence anyway. it is intentional in both cases.   # no, i am comparing an act which takes life intentionally to an act which takes life intentionally.  i am pointing out that someone who thinks it is murder is not going to be moved by pointing out that the 0 murders they perceive as happening will result in 0 new life.  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.  killing intentionally is always considered worse than killing out of  negligence .  although it is not killing by negligence anyway. it is intentional in both cases.   #  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.   # if you do not see the differences you are being deliberately dense.  one of them takes life out of negligence and one of them takes and creates life on purpose.  usually it is done as a last resort because a couple cannot conceive.  a better comparison would be someone who does ivf even though they can conceive naturally.  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.  who is talking about murder ?
i feel as though women who choose to have sex without the means of contraception, simply do not care if they get pregnant.  they put their pleasures over the risk of having a child and having it terminated.  i feel as though, when the sperm and egg mix, they create a completely new set of dna, dna that has never been the same in the entire history of our species and is a completely unique person i am not theist, i try to base my arguments on the uniqueness of each person i do not see any way for someone to justify abortion when it is the result of sex without contraception.  that woman simply did not care that new life was created within her, and chose to have sex in the first place.  we argue it is a woman is choice for abortion ? no, it is a woman is choice to have sex without the means of contraception.  clarification i believe contraception is ok because new life with unique dna and a unique person has not been formed and therefore will not be removed from the world.   #  that woman simply did not care that new life was created within her, and chose to have sex in the first place.   #  maybe she was uninformed, or worse, misinformed.   # maybe she was uninformed, or worse, misinformed.  my point is, even if we accepted some cases as  wrong , in practice one would do well to refrain from both judgment and legal measures, since it is in most cases impossible to know what the circumstances were.  is it okay to kill one embryo if it has a twin assume no epigenetic variation ? what happens with chimerism, the opposite case two embryos fuse, one baby is born ? and what about hela cells, which have their own genomes ? and anyway, it is not very hard to argue that a fetus is not a person.  i would rather have my mental processes transferred to a computer than being in a quasi vegetative state in constant need of external life support.   #  what about individual cells in your body that have a random benign mutation, they are genetically unique.   # would it be permissible then to abort a single twin if such a thing were possible, or a clone perhaps ? does this mean in vitro fertilization is also wrong ? what about tumors, they are genetically unique.  what about individual cells in your body that have a random benign mutation, they are genetically unique.  i guess my whole question is why does genetics matter at all ? it seems like if that is really your criteria it is a really bad one that you should either refine or throw out completely in favor of some other criteria.  when someone dies, i am not sad that their genetic code is lost, i am sad that a living, thinking person is no longer with us.  it seems like whatever rubric we come up with to determine if it is okay to kill someone or not should use that sort of situation as a starting point, not genetics.  genetics just seems completely arbitrary.   #  it would be easy for someone to view that the creation of a life as such a good that it allows for the  wrongness  of the death of the other eggs.   #  this is essentially a straw man.  you are comparing something that is intended to create life with something where life is destroyed out of negligence.  anyone can see why the two situations are distinct.  it would be easy for someone to view that the creation of a life as such a good that it allows for the  wrongness  of the death of the other eggs.  another perspective is that the killings are not done out of negligence which is a tenant of the original argument.  or one can view that it is wrong.  that does not contradict the original post, either.   #  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.   # no, i am comparing an act which takes life intentionally to an act which takes life intentionally.  i am pointing out that someone who thinks it is murder is not going to be moved by pointing out that the 0 murders they perceive as happening will result in 0 new life.  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.  killing intentionally is always considered worse than killing out of  negligence .  although it is not killing by negligence anyway. it is intentional in both cases.   #  usually it is done as a last resort because a couple cannot conceive.   # if you do not see the differences you are being deliberately dense.  one of them takes life out of negligence and one of them takes and creates life on purpose.  usually it is done as a last resort because a couple cannot conceive.  a better comparison would be someone who does ivf even though they can conceive naturally.  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.  who is talking about murder ?
i feel as though women who choose to have sex without the means of contraception, simply do not care if they get pregnant.  they put their pleasures over the risk of having a child and having it terminated.  i feel as though, when the sperm and egg mix, they create a completely new set of dna, dna that has never been the same in the entire history of our species and is a completely unique person i am not theist, i try to base my arguments on the uniqueness of each person i do not see any way for someone to justify abortion when it is the result of sex without contraception.  that woman simply did not care that new life was created within her, and chose to have sex in the first place.  we argue it is a woman is choice for abortion ? no, it is a woman is choice to have sex without the means of contraception.  clarification i believe contraception is ok because new life with unique dna and a unique person has not been formed and therefore will not be removed from the world.   #  i believe contraception is ok because new life with unique dna and a unique person has not been formed and therefore will not be removed from the world.   #  is it okay to kill one embryo if it has a twin assume no epigenetic variation ?  # maybe she was uninformed, or worse, misinformed.  my point is, even if we accepted some cases as  wrong , in practice one would do well to refrain from both judgment and legal measures, since it is in most cases impossible to know what the circumstances were.  is it okay to kill one embryo if it has a twin assume no epigenetic variation ? what happens with chimerism, the opposite case two embryos fuse, one baby is born ? and what about hela cells, which have their own genomes ? and anyway, it is not very hard to argue that a fetus is not a person.  i would rather have my mental processes transferred to a computer than being in a quasi vegetative state in constant need of external life support.   #  would it be permissible then to abort a single twin if such a thing were possible, or a clone perhaps ?  # would it be permissible then to abort a single twin if such a thing were possible, or a clone perhaps ? does this mean in vitro fertilization is also wrong ? what about tumors, they are genetically unique.  what about individual cells in your body that have a random benign mutation, they are genetically unique.  i guess my whole question is why does genetics matter at all ? it seems like if that is really your criteria it is a really bad one that you should either refine or throw out completely in favor of some other criteria.  when someone dies, i am not sad that their genetic code is lost, i am sad that a living, thinking person is no longer with us.  it seems like whatever rubric we come up with to determine if it is okay to kill someone or not should use that sort of situation as a starting point, not genetics.  genetics just seems completely arbitrary.   #  or one can view that it is wrong.   #  this is essentially a straw man.  you are comparing something that is intended to create life with something where life is destroyed out of negligence.  anyone can see why the two situations are distinct.  it would be easy for someone to view that the creation of a life as such a good that it allows for the  wrongness  of the death of the other eggs.  another perspective is that the killings are not done out of negligence which is a tenant of the original argument.  or one can view that it is wrong.  that does not contradict the original post, either.   #  although it is not killing by negligence anyway. it is intentional in both cases.   # no, i am comparing an act which takes life intentionally to an act which takes life intentionally.  i am pointing out that someone who thinks it is murder is not going to be moved by pointing out that the 0 murders they perceive as happening will result in 0 new life.  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.  killing intentionally is always considered worse than killing out of  negligence .  although it is not killing by negligence anyway. it is intentional in both cases.   #  if you do not see the differences you are being deliberately dense.   # if you do not see the differences you are being deliberately dense.  one of them takes life out of negligence and one of them takes and creates life on purpose.  usually it is done as a last resort because a couple cannot conceive.  a better comparison would be someone who does ivf even though they can conceive naturally.  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.  who is talking about murder ?
i feel as though women who choose to have sex without the means of contraception, simply do not care if they get pregnant.  they put their pleasures over the risk of having a child and having it terminated.  i feel as though, when the sperm and egg mix, they create a completely new set of dna, dna that has never been the same in the entire history of our species and is a completely unique person i am not theist, i try to base my arguments on the uniqueness of each person i do not see any way for someone to justify abortion when it is the result of sex without contraception.  that woman simply did not care that new life was created within her, and chose to have sex in the first place.  we argue it is a woman is choice for abortion ? no, it is a woman is choice to have sex without the means of contraception.  clarification i believe contraception is ok because new life with unique dna and a unique person has not been formed and therefore will not be removed from the world.   #  i feel as though women who choose to have sex without the means of contraception, simply do not care if they get pregnant.   #  they put their pleasures over the risk of having a child and having it terminated.   # they put their pleasures over the risk of having a child and having it terminated.  unfortunately, not everyone in the world has access to contraception.  according to the international planned parenthood foundation URL  in sub saharan africa 0 of women in relationships lack access to contraception.  in the caribbean it is 0.  in south eastern asia and northern africa, 0 of women have unmet family planning needs.   many women, even in the u. s.  and other relatively affluent countries, may have access only to condoms, a method which is solely reliant on men.  that makes it difficult to blame women for putting  their pleasures over the risk of having a child and having it terminated.   many women who would consider the sex they have to be consensual may still face significant pressure from their partners to not use condoms, which are more associated with reduction in male pleasure than reduction in female pleasure.  there is also a wide range of contraception methods, and couples must always weigh the costs and benefits of particular methods, considering risks and reduction in pleasure against efficacy.  at one end of the spectrum is using only the  rhythm  method of timing sex during non fertile periods, at the other would be combining a copper iud and oral hormones.  how far, in your view, must a woman go in her attempt to avoid pregnancy to make abortion okay ?  #  it seems like if that is really your criteria it is a really bad one that you should either refine or throw out completely in favor of some other criteria.   # would it be permissible then to abort a single twin if such a thing were possible, or a clone perhaps ? does this mean in vitro fertilization is also wrong ? what about tumors, they are genetically unique.  what about individual cells in your body that have a random benign mutation, they are genetically unique.  i guess my whole question is why does genetics matter at all ? it seems like if that is really your criteria it is a really bad one that you should either refine or throw out completely in favor of some other criteria.  when someone dies, i am not sad that their genetic code is lost, i am sad that a living, thinking person is no longer with us.  it seems like whatever rubric we come up with to determine if it is okay to kill someone or not should use that sort of situation as a starting point, not genetics.  genetics just seems completely arbitrary.   #  you are comparing something that is intended to create life with something where life is destroyed out of negligence.   #  this is essentially a straw man.  you are comparing something that is intended to create life with something where life is destroyed out of negligence.  anyone can see why the two situations are distinct.  it would be easy for someone to view that the creation of a life as such a good that it allows for the  wrongness  of the death of the other eggs.  another perspective is that the killings are not done out of negligence which is a tenant of the original argument.  or one can view that it is wrong.  that does not contradict the original post, either.   #  killing intentionally is always considered worse than killing out of  negligence .   # no, i am comparing an act which takes life intentionally to an act which takes life intentionally.  i am pointing out that someone who thinks it is murder is not going to be moved by pointing out that the 0 murders they perceive as happening will result in 0 new life.  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.  killing intentionally is always considered worse than killing out of  negligence .  although it is not killing by negligence anyway. it is intentional in both cases.   #  if you do not see the differences you are being deliberately dense.   # if you do not see the differences you are being deliberately dense.  one of them takes life out of negligence and one of them takes and creates life on purpose.  usually it is done as a last resort because a couple cannot conceive.  a better comparison would be someone who does ivf even though they can conceive naturally.  generally murder is not considered an acceptable price to pay for something.  who is talking about murder ?
there was a lot of uproar this week about an article written by a princeton student on the topic of  checking one is privilege.   the problem with this expression is that it means different things to everyone.  some people, including this princeton student, interpret the phrase as meaning something along the lines of  fuck you white boy, your opinion is made invalid by the advantages given to you by society.   as such, that shining bastion of white america, fox news, sprang to the defense of this kid, to proclaim that prejudice against the opinions of an individual based solely on skin color or gender is wrong, in any form.  i certainly agree with that assertion, but  checking one is privilege  does not mean that one is opinions are void simply because one is caucasian, or a man, or christian.  rather, my interpretation of  checking my privilege  is that it means to have an awareness of the political and historical reality that i was born into and have grown up in.  life experience is the means by which we evolve as people; our opinions, words, actions, and thoughts are all defined by our perception of ourselves and our place in the world.  that perception is undeniably linked to the historical and political context in which we exist.  when you are told to  check your privilege,  you are being told to open your eyes to the reality of your situation, to the way that society treats you, compared to how it treats others.  in other words, realize that your experience is unique, and that the opinions of others are no more or less valuable than yours, regardless of social status.  this concept makes white people uncomfortable, as we have rigged the societal system so effectively to our own benefit.  they would prefer to ignore the advantages they have over others.  as a result,  checking one is privilege  becomes an attack on the comfort of white america in the cozy little system of oppression it has created for itself.  tl;dr: checking your privilege does not mean that being white, or a guy, or straight, or whatever discredits your accomplishments and opinions, just that individuals should have an understanding of the reality in which they exist, and how that reality affects them and others.   #  when you are told to  check your privilege,  you are being told to open your eyes to the reality of your situation, to the way that society treats you, compared to how it treats others.   #  in other words, realize that your experience is unique, and that the opinions of others are no more or less valuable than yours, regardless of social status.   # in other words, realize that your experience is unique, and that the opinions of others are no more or less valuable than yours, regardless of social status.  to clarify: does this mean you admit that  checking one is privilege  should be done on a micro level as opposed to a macro level ? this is important, because societal inequalities  do  absolutely exist, but they can only be evaluated in any meaningful way on an individual micro level.  the  vast  majority of them have to do with economic class, not race/gender/sexuality/etc what i disagree with is this:   this concept makes white people uncomfortable, as we have rigged the societal system so effectively to our own benefit.  they would prefer to ignore the advantages they have over others.  as a result,  checking one is privilege  becomes an attack on the comfort of white america in the cozy little system of oppression it has created for itself.  this assertion only holds water on the assumption that such benefits  actually exist .  again, if we are talking about privilege on an individual, micro level which you seem to have specified , and if everyone is experience is unique and equally important, then you will inevitably have white people who never see the  advantages  of being white.  in some situations it is absolutely disadvantageous to be white, and telling white people in such situations to  check their privilege  is absolutely racist against those individuals due to the fact that you are assuming something about them because of the color of their skin.   #  a lot of diversity sessions i have attended discuss  microaggressions  and how they are  small  forms of discrimination.   #  the problem with the  check your privilege  phenomenon is how it is used.  many of my straight, white, male friends genuinely want to become more aware of these privileges.  however, i have personally seen several instances where these same friends share their experiences and thoughts, only to be immediately shut down with a harsh  check your privilege.   the way in which the phrase is used almost seems to sound like this:  check your privilege you racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic asshole .  a lot of diversity sessions i have attended discuss  microaggressions  and how they are  small  forms of discrimination.  an example of a microaggression is simply getting stopped at the airport if your getting stopped is linked to your race.  white, straight, men experience microaggressions when they are told to  check their privilege  without any attempt on the part of the speaker to better understand where these guys are coming from.   #  0.  the person saying  check your privilege  has decided they are an authority.   #  i think the phrase causes people to assume two things that could be quite bad: 0.  the person on the receiving end of the phrase has not checked their privilege before being told to.  they are not capable of thinking outside of their own point of view unless actively instructed.  0.  the person saying  check your privilege  has decided they are an authority.  they know enough to know the other person has not checked their privilege.  they are able to sufficiently speak for all members of that group by pointing out the other person is opinion in this case is wrong and due to life experience rather than just differing but equally valid opinion.   #  i agree that people will assume these things when they hear the phrase, but that is because their understanding of its meaning is warped.   #  i would not say these things, but that is a result of my understanding of the meaning of the phrase.  the antagonistic connotation it has acquired prevents its positive message from being imparted.  i agree that people will assume these things when they hear the phrase, but that is because their understanding of its meaning is warped.  i believe that one equal can tell another to check their privilege.  i believe the phrase can be used as a reminder, rather than a reprimand.  advice does not imply one party as an authority and one as ignorant.  can advice not be shared amongst partners in growth, or facilitate evolution through cooperation ?  #  at least as far as i have experienced it.   #  that may well be, but i have never heard  check your privilege  out of the context of disagreement.  it is always been a retort, never advice.  at least as far as i have experienced it.  and as a retort, it fulfills the assumptions that /u/sheep0 mentioned above.  maybe the antagonistic nature of  check your privilege  comes from it is assertive wording.  if it were more inquisitive have you checked your privilege ? , it would be less assuming and more supportive of its underlying cause which i view as a positive one.
there was a lot of uproar this week about an article written by a princeton student on the topic of  checking one is privilege.   the problem with this expression is that it means different things to everyone.  some people, including this princeton student, interpret the phrase as meaning something along the lines of  fuck you white boy, your opinion is made invalid by the advantages given to you by society.   as such, that shining bastion of white america, fox news, sprang to the defense of this kid, to proclaim that prejudice against the opinions of an individual based solely on skin color or gender is wrong, in any form.  i certainly agree with that assertion, but  checking one is privilege  does not mean that one is opinions are void simply because one is caucasian, or a man, or christian.  rather, my interpretation of  checking my privilege  is that it means to have an awareness of the political and historical reality that i was born into and have grown up in.  life experience is the means by which we evolve as people; our opinions, words, actions, and thoughts are all defined by our perception of ourselves and our place in the world.  that perception is undeniably linked to the historical and political context in which we exist.  when you are told to  check your privilege,  you are being told to open your eyes to the reality of your situation, to the way that society treats you, compared to how it treats others.  in other words, realize that your experience is unique, and that the opinions of others are no more or less valuable than yours, regardless of social status.  this concept makes white people uncomfortable, as we have rigged the societal system so effectively to our own benefit.  they would prefer to ignore the advantages they have over others.  as a result,  checking one is privilege  becomes an attack on the comfort of white america in the cozy little system of oppression it has created for itself.  tl;dr: checking your privilege does not mean that being white, or a guy, or straight, or whatever discredits your accomplishments and opinions, just that individuals should have an understanding of the reality in which they exist, and how that reality affects them and others.   #  the problem with this expression is that it means different things to everyone.   #  some people, including this princeton student, interpret the phrase as meaning something along the lines of  fuck you white boy, your opinion is made invalid by the advantages given to you by society.    # some people, including this princeton student, interpret the phrase as meaning something along the lines of  fuck you white boy, your opinion is made invalid by the advantages given to you by society.   that is exactly what that phrase means.  the princeton student was just honest about it.  that phrase may have begun as an honest reminder that some people have it easier than others, but that is not what it is now.  there are a lot of things i do not see people whining about privilege mentioning that could only be considered privilege by a rational mind.  but the people whining about privilege care for shutting down dissent, not the truth.  when a black lady says the cia did aids, it does not magically become less idiotic than it would be if a white guy says it.  it is idiotic because the cia did not create aids, because the idea that the us government created aids is soviet propaganda, and because that there is no evidence whatsoever that the us government did create aids.  if your opinion is insane and your knowledge of the facts is lacking, being part of a minority does not make your opinion any less insane or your knowledge any less lacking.  bleating about  privilege  does not make you any less of an idiot.  quite the opposite.   #  the problem with the  check your privilege  phenomenon is how it is used.   #  the problem with the  check your privilege  phenomenon is how it is used.  many of my straight, white, male friends genuinely want to become more aware of these privileges.  however, i have personally seen several instances where these same friends share their experiences and thoughts, only to be immediately shut down with a harsh  check your privilege.   the way in which the phrase is used almost seems to sound like this:  check your privilege you racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic asshole .  a lot of diversity sessions i have attended discuss  microaggressions  and how they are  small  forms of discrimination.  an example of a microaggression is simply getting stopped at the airport if your getting stopped is linked to your race.  white, straight, men experience microaggressions when they are told to  check their privilege  without any attempt on the part of the speaker to better understand where these guys are coming from.   #  0.  the person saying  check your privilege  has decided they are an authority.   #  i think the phrase causes people to assume two things that could be quite bad: 0.  the person on the receiving end of the phrase has not checked their privilege before being told to.  they are not capable of thinking outside of their own point of view unless actively instructed.  0.  the person saying  check your privilege  has decided they are an authority.  they know enough to know the other person has not checked their privilege.  they are able to sufficiently speak for all members of that group by pointing out the other person is opinion in this case is wrong and due to life experience rather than just differing but equally valid opinion.   #  the antagonistic connotation it has acquired prevents its positive message from being imparted.   #  i would not say these things, but that is a result of my understanding of the meaning of the phrase.  the antagonistic connotation it has acquired prevents its positive message from being imparted.  i agree that people will assume these things when they hear the phrase, but that is because their understanding of its meaning is warped.  i believe that one equal can tell another to check their privilege.  i believe the phrase can be used as a reminder, rather than a reprimand.  advice does not imply one party as an authority and one as ignorant.  can advice not be shared amongst partners in growth, or facilitate evolution through cooperation ?  #  and as a retort, it fulfills the assumptions that /u/sheep0 mentioned above.   #  that may well be, but i have never heard  check your privilege  out of the context of disagreement.  it is always been a retort, never advice.  at least as far as i have experienced it.  and as a retort, it fulfills the assumptions that /u/sheep0 mentioned above.  maybe the antagonistic nature of  check your privilege  comes from it is assertive wording.  if it were more inquisitive have you checked your privilege ? , it would be less assuming and more supportive of its underlying cause which i view as a positive one.
there was a lot of uproar this week about an article written by a princeton student on the topic of  checking one is privilege.   the problem with this expression is that it means different things to everyone.  some people, including this princeton student, interpret the phrase as meaning something along the lines of  fuck you white boy, your opinion is made invalid by the advantages given to you by society.   as such, that shining bastion of white america, fox news, sprang to the defense of this kid, to proclaim that prejudice against the opinions of an individual based solely on skin color or gender is wrong, in any form.  i certainly agree with that assertion, but  checking one is privilege  does not mean that one is opinions are void simply because one is caucasian, or a man, or christian.  rather, my interpretation of  checking my privilege  is that it means to have an awareness of the political and historical reality that i was born into and have grown up in.  life experience is the means by which we evolve as people; our opinions, words, actions, and thoughts are all defined by our perception of ourselves and our place in the world.  that perception is undeniably linked to the historical and political context in which we exist.  when you are told to  check your privilege,  you are being told to open your eyes to the reality of your situation, to the way that society treats you, compared to how it treats others.  in other words, realize that your experience is unique, and that the opinions of others are no more or less valuable than yours, regardless of social status.  this concept makes white people uncomfortable, as we have rigged the societal system so effectively to our own benefit.  they would prefer to ignore the advantages they have over others.  as a result,  checking one is privilege  becomes an attack on the comfort of white america in the cozy little system of oppression it has created for itself.  tl;dr: checking your privilege does not mean that being white, or a guy, or straight, or whatever discredits your accomplishments and opinions, just that individuals should have an understanding of the reality in which they exist, and how that reality affects them and others.   #  rather, my interpretation of  checking my privilege  is that it means to have an awareness of the political and historical reality that i was born into and have grown up in.   #  there are a lot of things i do not see people whining about privilege mentioning that could only be considered privilege by a rational mind.   # some people, including this princeton student, interpret the phrase as meaning something along the lines of  fuck you white boy, your opinion is made invalid by the advantages given to you by society.   that is exactly what that phrase means.  the princeton student was just honest about it.  that phrase may have begun as an honest reminder that some people have it easier than others, but that is not what it is now.  there are a lot of things i do not see people whining about privilege mentioning that could only be considered privilege by a rational mind.  but the people whining about privilege care for shutting down dissent, not the truth.  when a black lady says the cia did aids, it does not magically become less idiotic than it would be if a white guy says it.  it is idiotic because the cia did not create aids, because the idea that the us government created aids is soviet propaganda, and because that there is no evidence whatsoever that the us government did create aids.  if your opinion is insane and your knowledge of the facts is lacking, being part of a minority does not make your opinion any less insane or your knowledge any less lacking.  bleating about  privilege  does not make you any less of an idiot.  quite the opposite.   #  the problem with the  check your privilege  phenomenon is how it is used.   #  the problem with the  check your privilege  phenomenon is how it is used.  many of my straight, white, male friends genuinely want to become more aware of these privileges.  however, i have personally seen several instances where these same friends share their experiences and thoughts, only to be immediately shut down with a harsh  check your privilege.   the way in which the phrase is used almost seems to sound like this:  check your privilege you racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic asshole .  a lot of diversity sessions i have attended discuss  microaggressions  and how they are  small  forms of discrimination.  an example of a microaggression is simply getting stopped at the airport if your getting stopped is linked to your race.  white, straight, men experience microaggressions when they are told to  check their privilege  without any attempt on the part of the speaker to better understand where these guys are coming from.   #  they know enough to know the other person has not checked their privilege.   #  i think the phrase causes people to assume two things that could be quite bad: 0.  the person on the receiving end of the phrase has not checked their privilege before being told to.  they are not capable of thinking outside of their own point of view unless actively instructed.  0.  the person saying  check your privilege  has decided they are an authority.  they know enough to know the other person has not checked their privilege.  they are able to sufficiently speak for all members of that group by pointing out the other person is opinion in this case is wrong and due to life experience rather than just differing but equally valid opinion.   #  i believe that one equal can tell another to check their privilege.   #  i would not say these things, but that is a result of my understanding of the meaning of the phrase.  the antagonistic connotation it has acquired prevents its positive message from being imparted.  i agree that people will assume these things when they hear the phrase, but that is because their understanding of its meaning is warped.  i believe that one equal can tell another to check their privilege.  i believe the phrase can be used as a reminder, rather than a reprimand.  advice does not imply one party as an authority and one as ignorant.  can advice not be shared amongst partners in growth, or facilitate evolution through cooperation ?  #  if it were more inquisitive have you checked your privilege ?  #  that may well be, but i have never heard  check your privilege  out of the context of disagreement.  it is always been a retort, never advice.  at least as far as i have experienced it.  and as a retort, it fulfills the assumptions that /u/sheep0 mentioned above.  maybe the antagonistic nature of  check your privilege  comes from it is assertive wording.  if it were more inquisitive have you checked your privilege ? , it would be less assuming and more supportive of its underlying cause which i view as a positive one.
now i know that free speech is not unlimited like the thing about yelling fire in a theater .  but in all instances were we limit this freedom of speech it is in a stituation where there is a potential victim to the speech like with most crimes, and all that i agree with beeing illegal .  if you yell fire in a theater it may result in a panic that can potentionally hurt or kill people.  if you insite violence on somebody, there is a chance that people may act on that.  if you say the holocaust did nt happen, who will get hurt ? the feelings of those who survived ? well, only as long as they listen.  they have a right to not listen, and i should have a right to say incredibly offensive things.  another thing that quirks me about these kinds of laws is that they are so specific they have to be hypocritical.  for example germany and austria have laws against denying the holocaust, but not against denying holdomor.  or the armenian genocide.  in fact, there were probably far too many genocides in history to legislate against all of them, even if you tried.  i live in austria btw, so i do not know a lot about the laws in other countries.   #  if you say the holocaust did nt happen, who will get hurt ?  #  what is your stance on harassment, slander, and defamation ?  # what is your stance on harassment, slander, and defamation ? in america, you can say whatever you want about someone if it is an opinion, or if it is true.  the holocaust is not an opinion, and it is an established truth.  what is the problem with removing the freedom to lie if it causes severe emotional damage ? should we be free from consequences if our lies hurt others ?  #  interesting question though, now that i think about it.   #  it infringes massively and needlessly on one of my most important human rights: the right of free speech.  i think that is nothing short of tyrannical.  that does not mean i think the goverments of those respective gouverments are tyrannical as a whole, just these laws.  what does free speech mean ? that within reasonable limits, i am allowed to say whatever i want to.  what is free speech without free will ? well that is getting kind of philosophical, and philosophy is not my strongpoint.  so unless there is a good reason for that kind of question that i fail to see, we should maybe save it for when it is more relevant.  interesting question though, now that i think about it.   #  freedom always means freedom  from  something, so from what exactly do you want your free speech to be free ?  #  just as massively as making the act of crying  fire !   in a theatre a punishable offence, but whether one is as justified as the other is a different question.  and since tyranny is the exercion of absolute power, i believe enacting such a law is a far shot from despotism.  paternal, yes, as law is wont to be, but tyrannical, not necessarily.  even if the law were tyrannical, how come the legislative body would not be ? that within reasonable limits, i am allowed to say whatever i want to.  very important point you raised there.  but who determines the reasonable limits ? quite an arbitrary line, do not you think ? i think the question of free will is extremely pertinent to our argument here.  you say you want to be free to say what you want, and this is where will comes into play.  freedom always means freedom  from  something, so from what exactly do you want your free speech to be free ? inadequacies of articulation, laws telling you what you are permitted to say, your thoughts ? in the same way, these limitations apply to free will.  firstly, although we do not know where consciousness resides, it is almost certain that it is not independent and thus free from neuro chemical processes.  if your will, which to a high degree determines your voluntary utterances, is not free, how can your speech be ?  #  but i think we are digressing from our argument, because i never claimed the law to be, in fact, tyrannical.   # right.  but, as i said,  amassive  does not mean  needless.   quoting from a dictionary to set the meaning of a word in stone for a discussion is not advisable.  however, as you can see, the primary meaning is listed as being  characteristic of a tyrant.   the secondary meaning is  derived from that.  tyrants are not only oppressive rulers but also hold absolute power, which neither the law nor the german or austrian governments reflect.  a person who tells a lie is a liar, as a liar is somebody who has lied or tells lies repeatedly.  however, one could argue that  bad  as a qualifier refers to the overall character of a person, so one bad deed might not be enough to tip the scales.  but i think we are digressing from our argument, because i never claimed the law to be, in fact, tyrannical.  if we democratically agree that it is unreasonable to allow the denial of the holocaust, you can still within reasonable limits say what you like.   #  if you are saying this law is arbitrary, again, be that as it may, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.   #  i am not trying to be pernickety, but if you say this law is oppressive, then most laws are.  if you are saying this law is arbitrary, again, be that as it may, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.  i wanted to point out that your right of  free speech  is infringed anyhow, so what is it that makes this instance particularly unbearable ? man is not the creature of supreme reason he was once perceived to be.  nonetheless, do you see arguing that denying genocide can sevrely hurt people on an emotional level as a completely unreasonable i. e. , unarguable position ?
disclaimer: i will not accept evidence from any books, comics, video games, christmas specials, fan fics, etc.  as they are not cannon URL only evidence from the six films or clone wars tv series are fair game.  the star wars series is essentially about the prophecy of the chosen one which states that an exceptionally powerful jedi will  bring balance to the force.   the jedi interpret that as meaning that the chosen one will destroy the dark side, and they are pretty disappointed when anakin actually turns out to be a bit of a jerk and commits genocide against the jedi.  many people believe that the jedi misinterpreted the prophecy and that anakin actually did bring balance to the force by reducing the number of jedi to about the number of sith roughly 0 and 0 .  i do not buy that because, even though there were only a handful of dark side users, sidious was immensely powerful and his mastery of the dark side was clouding the clairvoyance, judgement, and powers of jedi throughout the galaxy.  even though the number of individual force users were different, the dark side and the light side of the force were on an equal playing field at the beginning of the clone wars.  destroying the jedi did not bring balance to the force, but rather made the dark side the predominant power in the galaxy.  i believe that either anakin brought balance to the force when he destroyed sidious on the second death star, or that the prophecy was a superstition or not about him.  because the force is  an energy field created by all living things  it is intrinsically bound with life.  emotions such hate, jealousy, and attachment, which fuel the dark side, are at odds with life as they lead to self destruction and destruction of others.  love, compassion, and empathy are beneficial towards life and therefore are part of the true nature of the force.   #  emotions such hate, jealousy, and attachment, which fuel the dark side, are at odds with life as they lead to self destruction and destruction of others.   #  love, compassion, and empathy are beneficial towards life and therefore are part of the true nature of the force.   # love, compassion, and empathy are beneficial towards life and therefore are part of the true nature of the force.  you have much to learn young padawan.  hate and jealousy drives one to excel, thus living one is life to the fullest.  attachment and love are neutral.  love and attachment to what ? to conflict or peace ? and conflict or peace towards whom ? as for compassion and empathy, they are often contradictory and would lead one to destruction if blindly adhered to.  the true way of the force differs for every individual and understanding this is the first step towards becoming one with it.   #  whereas the sith embraced emotion, but not other positive aspects such as loyalty, trust, etc.   #  my interpretation was that it was not anakin that the prophecy spoke of, but luke.  before the clone wars, the jedi held an immense amount of power.  they were central in politics and as keepers of the peace.  the sith held to the shadows.  the jedi were an ascetic order, austere and emotionless.  or at least they viewed emotion, such as fear, hatred, and even love as paths to the dark side.  whereas the sith embraced emotion, but not other positive aspects such as loyalty, trust, etc.  to them power was the end all.  luke, not anakin, brought balance to the force.  he learned the way of the jedi, but he refused to let go of his emotions.  he learned to control them, to let them fuel him, without overcoming him.  this anakin was unable to do.  he confronts the dark side of his nature and comes to terms with it.  this is how he brings balance to the force.  he changes the jedi paradigm from purely virtue to something more complex and real by accepting aspects of sith teaching.  he brings anakin around in time to defeat sidius.  this removes extreme aspects of both sides of the force, both yoda and sidius.  essentially you are correct, that emotion is an important part of the force.  this was not a jedi teaching, but incorporated from a sith perspective.   #  luke lead the life of a jedi of the light side, however due to his relationship and confrontation with anakin he had to struggle with darkness inside of himself.   # i think, in a way, they both did.  to me, it has always been a sort of yin and yang relationship.  luke lead the life of a jedi of the light side, however due to his relationship and confrontation with anakin he had to struggle with darkness inside of himself.  eventually, at the end of the movie he overcomes his hate and shows mercy to his father.  anakin lived the life of the dark side, but because luke was his child he still held love in his heart.  at the end of the movie anakin is dark emotions are overcome when he sacrifices himself to save luke.   #  the jedi of the prequels may seem emotionless, but that does not mean they actual teach avoidance of love and compassion.   #   essentially you are correct, that emotion is an important part of the force.  this was not a jedi teaching, but incorporated from a sith perspective.   actually, in attack of the clones, anakin clearly states that compassion is  essential to a jedi is life , indicating it is a jedi teaching to encourage positive emotions.  the jedi of the prequels may seem emotionless, but that does not mean they actual teach avoidance of love and compassion.  what the jedi do say is to be wary of letting love become possessive, since attachment can lead to other negative emotions such as jealousy, fear and anger.  when yoda advises anakin and luke to be mindful of their feelings, he is not saying their love is a fault.  he is simply worried and justifiably so, given their respect behavior , that their attachments would lead them to fall to the dark side.  are you aware that the clone wars clearly establish anakin as the chosen one, also ? i do agree with you that luke is awesome.  in my mind, he represents the fulfillment of the ideal jedi as a follower of the living force, achieving a more perfect balance between intuition and reason, between emotion and virtue, but he is not the chosen one according to canon sources.   #  anakin does not replace the father instead he gets the sister killed which allows the universe to be swayed to the dark side.   #  i would just like to point out that anakin is actually the chosen one it was not luke, i believe that you changed your mind because luke was said to be the real chosen one which is false because darth vader actually destroys sidious.  now if we are examining the prophecy it says that the chosen one will bring balance to the force and since the clone wars tv series is cannon i can reference the mortis episodes.  anakin was suppose to fulfill the prophecy by replacing the father.  the father was the balance between the light and the dark sides of the force represented by the brother and the sister.  also you make the mistake of thinking that the dark side of the force is evil while the light side is good.  they both have their faults.  the sister is the perfect being light side she is completely selfless which can be seen as a fault.  the brother is the perfect dark side being who is completely filled with emotional drive not necessarily a bad thing.  the point lucas tries to make is that both sides are flawed if there is just one there needs to be balance just like yin and yang.  anakin does not replace the father instead he gets the sister killed which allows the universe to be swayed to the dark side.  he also ends up killing the father and brother but not before the universe started down the path of the dark force.  anakin now needs to find a way to turn the universe away from the dark side and more to the middle, therefore he kills the emperor.  tl,dr anakin had a chance to full fill the prophecy instead he screws up the universe then had to fix it.
my vote is for promoting complex self organizing matter as our ultimate purpose.  csom is a rarity in this universe and it needs our help.  we could shoot rockets to mars loaded with millions of types of microbes in the hope that some would survive and spread.  then hit the oceanic moons.  as stupid as that plan may be, it is way better than shuffling along with no species level goal other than the core goal of survival .  if we just measure ourselves by how efficiently we turn food into people, as nature wills, we will miss our chance at grandeur.  humankind is not going to be around forever.  we need to do something really excellent before we go extinct.  religions offer goals but they get so many simple things wrong that they ca not be trusted.  their goofy ideas should be ignored.  please share your ideas for what humanity is ultimate goal should be.   #  we need to do something really excellent before we go extinct.   #  it sounds like you are writing off thousands of years of cultural, musical, literary, artistic, scientific and technological advances ?  # it sounds like you are writing off thousands of years of cultural, musical, literary, artistic, scientific and technological advances ? but, to get to your main point.  it seems like you are advocating a meta narrative URL mankind has rebelled against meta narratives since history began.  meta narratives exclude.  they say that  this is the way we have to live  and it excludes those who do not want to live  that  way.  i am sure what you are suggesting will happen, with the rate of our technological advances we should be at the stage you want within a  relatively  short period of time.  but you and people who share your worldview can go and do that, but enforcing that type of ideology on people who do not want to adhere to it is counter productive and people tend to push back against ideologies they do not agree with, especially if they are being enforced by the state officially or unofficially.  think of it this way: i think mankind need to focus on creating great artistic masterpieces, everyone needs to focus on this so that we can leave something truly excellent behind.  it is not feasible.  it is like the inverse of what you are advocating.  let people exist and find their own meaning from their own lives, do not enforce a meaning on them.   #  it is the unspoken goal of every modern society.   #  that is idiotic we would suffer because everyone would stop going to work and there would be no food.  i did not say we should all be high.  we should reduce the amount of suffering on the planet i. e.  ensure everyone has clean water, a safe place to live, and health care, yadda yadda.  it is what we are headed for anyway.  it is the unspoken goal of every modern society.   #  the scientific answer based on the hypothetical increase in cholera victims would be no.   # good question, you test the idea by putting it into practice and seeing if it makes life better or worse than other ideas.  society exists somewhere on the continuum from the worst possible suffering to the least possible suffering.  our values should bring us closer to the end of the continuum where suffering is completely minimized.  for example, would adding cholera to the water be a good idea ? should having cholera in the water be something we value as a society ? the scientific answer based on the hypothetical increase in cholera victims would be no.   #  and it does not preclude having other goals in life.   #  i think a relaxed attitude toward our purpose would be best.  it is there if you need it, but not enforced.  and it does not preclude having other goals in life.  it is just a thing that most people agree we should be getting done, like the moon landing in the 0 is, but bigger.  if we just focus on our immediate needs, that is shallow.  we should have an overarching plan, so the project of civilization is leading somewhere.   #  you are completely ignoring the complexities of life.   #  what project of civilization ? are we zerg or are we humans ? i do not hear you understanding what it is you are suggesting.  you are completely ignoring the complexities of life.  we could never agree on a single overarching goal.  that is an essential part of humanness.  imagine you get your way.  who decides ? why would the rest of us care ? what is our motivation to act on this goal ? what happens when someone else suggests a new goal, are we now 0 different species defined solely by the goal we have accepted ?
my vote is for promoting complex self organizing matter as our ultimate purpose.  csom is a rarity in this universe and it needs our help.  we could shoot rockets to mars loaded with millions of types of microbes in the hope that some would survive and spread.  then hit the oceanic moons.  as stupid as that plan may be, it is way better than shuffling along with no species level goal other than the core goal of survival .  if we just measure ourselves by how efficiently we turn food into people, as nature wills, we will miss our chance at grandeur.  humankind is not going to be around forever.  we need to do something really excellent before we go extinct.  religions offer goals but they get so many simple things wrong that they ca not be trusted.  their goofy ideas should be ignored.  please share your ideas for what humanity is ultimate goal should be.   #  humankind is not going to be around forever.   #  we need to do something really excellent before we go extinct.   #  we are individuals.  what you are asking for is lack of freedom, removal of human rights, and a return to some government/god fearing society.  if the species voted on it is  purpose  to do something, what happens to everyone who just does not want to do that ? is it illegal ? you will never have 0 support.  i would imagine this goal would take a long time to accomplish.  would that require having children in order to progress mankind ? does that make homosexuality illegal now ? would it require us to aim for the stars ? what about those who would prefer to live a comfortable life on earth ? would we have to outlaw religions who do not believe in certain things ? we need to do something really excellent before we go extinct.  the fact that we are able to do the opposite in truly free countries, is the excellence you should be proud of.  our ultimate goal should be to allow everyone to decide for themselves what they want to do with their life.  millions of humans do not even get a choice due to 0rd world living conditions.  that is the only problem with the world.   #  that is idiotic we would suffer because everyone would stop going to work and there would be no food.   #  that is idiotic we would suffer because everyone would stop going to work and there would be no food.  i did not say we should all be high.  we should reduce the amount of suffering on the planet i. e.  ensure everyone has clean water, a safe place to live, and health care, yadda yadda.  it is what we are headed for anyway.  it is the unspoken goal of every modern society.   #  the scientific answer based on the hypothetical increase in cholera victims would be no.   # good question, you test the idea by putting it into practice and seeing if it makes life better or worse than other ideas.  society exists somewhere on the continuum from the worst possible suffering to the least possible suffering.  our values should bring us closer to the end of the continuum where suffering is completely minimized.  for example, would adding cholera to the water be a good idea ? should having cholera in the water be something we value as a society ? the scientific answer based on the hypothetical increase in cholera victims would be no.   #  we should have an overarching plan, so the project of civilization is leading somewhere.   #  i think a relaxed attitude toward our purpose would be best.  it is there if you need it, but not enforced.  and it does not preclude having other goals in life.  it is just a thing that most people agree we should be getting done, like the moon landing in the 0 is, but bigger.  if we just focus on our immediate needs, that is shallow.  we should have an overarching plan, so the project of civilization is leading somewhere.   #  you are completely ignoring the complexities of life.   #  what project of civilization ? are we zerg or are we humans ? i do not hear you understanding what it is you are suggesting.  you are completely ignoring the complexities of life.  we could never agree on a single overarching goal.  that is an essential part of humanness.  imagine you get your way.  who decides ? why would the rest of us care ? what is our motivation to act on this goal ? what happens when someone else suggests a new goal, are we now 0 different species defined solely by the goal we have accepted ?
population trends for humanity being what they are, and our track record of habitat and resource depletion taken into account, it is more practical to save animals and plants that are going extinct by domesticating them rather than trying to save them in other ways.  to proceed differently is fighting a massive trend.  i also believe that saving as many species as possible is a moral good, as well as beneficial to humanity as a whole.  the domestic animals we already have prove their usefulness daily, whether by providing companionship, meat, clothing materials, transportation, research subjects, or some other use.  by the same token, invasive species like the beloved house cat, if gone feral, can be extremely damaging to native animal populations.  because of this, it is highly advantageous to kill them all if found outside a loving home .   #  i also believe that saving as many species as possible is a moral good, as well as beneficial to humanity as a whole.   #  morals are strictly a human trait, not to mention that they are completely subjective and stem from person to person, culture to culture, etc. , and they especially change over time.   # morals are strictly a human trait, not to mention that they are completely subjective and stem from person to person, culture to culture, etc. , and they especially change over time.  who is to say animal domestication could not commonly be considered a diabolic breach of moral code in the future or even right now as i am sure many would think of it as such ? also, assuming non human animals hold the sole purpose of serving human needs is inherently selfish and uncaring to the emotions of the animals that are not intelligent/developed enough to understand our motives.  if they did, what do you think they would say ? the idea of animal domestication seeps into animal rights discussions and the heart of all debates on that topic is this: if animals could communicate and think at the same level as humans, what would they say ? furthermore, mass domestication acts against the concept of darwinism and would completely ruin most major ecologies of the world.  i would even go so far as to say that we would destroy more species than we would save and that is still assuming it is our human duty to save them; we are omnivores after all, so what right do we have to determine what is best for all lesser creatures when it is in our nature to consume them ?  #  it is as much a part of it as the physical habitat and each species tends to operate in a niche integral to maintaining the state of the environment.   #  i do not really see how that is feasible, at any scale.  many animals are not suited for domestication, especially large predators.  not to mention the process of domestication takes hundreds if not thousands of generations of breeding to instill the proper behaviors into their genetic code.  by that point we would have created a whole different species of animal and would not be saving the original species.  additionally there a simply way more species of animals of which we would not have everyday use for, especially the billions of insect species alone.  lastly, you ca not separate the animal from the environment.  it is as much a part of it as the physical habitat and each species tends to operate in a niche integral to maintaining the state of the environment.  domestication of all animals would actually further environmental degradation.   #  i think what op means is that domestication and zoo living are better alternatives to allowing an endangered animal to roam free.   #  i think what op means is that domestication and zoo living are better alternatives to allowing an endangered animal to roam free.  everyone is getting hung up on the domestication thing.  op is thoughts on domestication are incorrect, but others have covered that, so i will attempt to discuss the rest of the argument.  unfortunately, the cost of raising animals is likely much greater than you think.  this is a problem from the practicality side.  also, there are many examples of depression developing in zoo animals.  no matter how well they are treated, many endangered animals simply need free range for their mental health.  while a zoo will allow the animal to procreate, what kind of life is that ? it only upsets the animals and makes them unhealthy.  to me, the best way to save a species is to protect its habitat.  this allows for the greatest health of the species in question, and also helps other organisms in the area that may be overlooked.  if we are talking practicality and efficiency, would not protecting a whole environment be better than protecting only a few endangered species ?  #  its seems more likely that what we save now through intervention is what we will be left with.   #   .  from an efficiency/practicality standpoint, preserving entire ecosystems allows for preservation of species better than any other method while preserving the natural behaviors of the animals.  holding in captivity/domesticating animals is not the most practical method.  point taken.  still, i genuinely wonder: looking back 0 years from now, will we have intact ecosystems, or an abundance of animals in zoos and newly domesticated species ? its seems more likely that what we save now through intervention is what we will be left with.  according to the premise of the post, though, your post is correct, it is not the most practical method.   #  we are try to save them to maintain the balance of our ecosystems.   #  we do not want to save endangered animals just because they are cute and they will no longer be around.  we are try to save them to maintain the balance of our ecosystems.  by domesticating these animals, we are similarly removing them from the natural food chain and causing much of the damage we sought to avoid.  look at the effect of re introducing wolves into yellowstone URL here is an image URL if you do not want to watch the video .  how will removing the animals we can domesticate affect the food chain ? without large herbivores, will invasive plant life take over ? will the scavenging animals starve, or will we domesticate them to ? do we feed them our new pets ? we need to maintain ecological balance more than we need to just preserve individual species.
i know this is gonna get a ton of downvotes because of the topic, but i just ca not get on the same level with most of reddit.  i do not think internet access is an inherent right in any way.  if the citizens want this  net neutrality  that everyone is whining about, we should push for municipal broadband to put pressure on the major players.  i see the point of net neutrality when taxpayer dollars have a role, but forcing regulations on private companies violates the most basic principles of commercialization that have allowed the internet to become a  thing  at all.  plus, it does not really accomplish anything because it creates a need for more and more regulations to counter the incentive for corporations to find loopholes or just ignore regulations entirely.  so, i do not think we are entitled at all to regulate for  net neutrality  to providers in the private sector.   obviously, no traffic should be deliberately throttled,  and that has already been established by the fcc.  but i believe isps should be able to charge for preferential treatment of internet traffic.  cmv.   #  i see the point of net neutrality when taxpayer dollars have a role, but forcing regulations on private companies violates the most basic principles of commercialization that have allowed the internet to become a  thing  at all.   #  we force regulations on private companies all the time.   # me neither.  i am not saying this simply to agree with you, i am saying it to provide some context for my point of view.  we force regulations on private companies all the time.  most of them, i will readily admit, are superfluous.  some of them, however, are  not .  you would not ask that gas plants be unregulated when it comes to sulphur capture, would you ? free flow of information is important, that much i hope we can agree on.  the only thing not enforcing net neutrality does is corrupt that flow.  i see no benefit at all to allowing it, and while i do not think it would lead to a dystopia net that so many people seem to be fretting about though it certainly is not  impossible  , i do not think one could argue that things will not get at least a little worse for the consumer.  you can say this about virtually all regulation.  sometimes it is a valid point, sometimes it is not, but we ca not really tell until after the fact.   #  we have not really ever known the internet without neutrality.   #  i do not think you fully understand this issue.  you claim net neutrality goes against the principles the internet was made successful on.  but. bet neutrality was in place for its entire inception.  we have not really ever known the internet without neutrality.  so it is hard to argue that the internet wo not be successful with nn reinstated.   #  and there is nothing inherently immoral about violating democratic arrangements.   #  i am entirely confused how internet access got defined or at least seriously proposed as a human right, given that it is such a late invention.  it suggests that human rights are not something immutable derived from human nature but more like whatever a given culture at a given time sees as important to have.  the trouble with that is then human rights do not carry any inherent sanctity or morality to them, they are just a democratic arrangement.  and there is nothing inherently immoral about violating democratic arrangements.  it is just unpopular, that is all.  this is problematic.  if anything popular and democratically agreed can be made a human right, then saying stuff like  murder is wrong because it violates human rights  does not carry any power at all.   #  restricting free political speech is a violation of human rights.   # yes, that is part of it.  we have plenty of other rights like this.  restricting free political speech is a violation of human rights.  another one is restricting the ability to freely travel outside of the country.  when the government  does nothing  to stifle these abilities, rights are not being violated.  because that was not the point of this cmv.   #  we should not make something illegal because they will just do it anyways.   # this is poor logic.  we should not make something illegal because they will just do it anyways.  this would be a valid argument if other options existed for joe nobody, and what you are arguing is that we just need to accept the dish handed to us and not accept it willingly ? really ? what is with the passive acceptance ? is your argument really that institutionalized internet could not exist with regulations ? what exactly do you think an inherent right  is  ? all rights are intangible and may very easily evaporate if the government finds it within their interest to no longer grant people the bill of rights.  and honestly, i understand your position, but passively looking the other way and simply putting faith into the system to work itself out is misguided.  if you believe the bill of rights are concrete, google japanese american citizens.
i know this is gonna get a ton of downvotes because of the topic, but i just ca not get on the same level with most of reddit.  i do not think internet access is an inherent right in any way.  if the citizens want this  net neutrality  that everyone is whining about, we should push for municipal broadband to put pressure on the major players.  i see the point of net neutrality when taxpayer dollars have a role, but forcing regulations on private companies violates the most basic principles of commercialization that have allowed the internet to become a  thing  at all.  plus, it does not really accomplish anything because it creates a need for more and more regulations to counter the incentive for corporations to find loopholes or just ignore regulations entirely.  so, i do not think we are entitled at all to regulate for  net neutrality  to providers in the private sector.   obviously, no traffic should be deliberately throttled,  and that has already been established by the fcc.  but i believe isps should be able to charge for preferential treatment of internet traffic.  cmv.   #  plus, it does not really accomplish anything because it creates a need for more and more regulations to counter the incentive for corporations to find loopholes or just ignore regulations entirely.   #  you can say this about virtually all regulation.   # me neither.  i am not saying this simply to agree with you, i am saying it to provide some context for my point of view.  we force regulations on private companies all the time.  most of them, i will readily admit, are superfluous.  some of them, however, are  not .  you would not ask that gas plants be unregulated when it comes to sulphur capture, would you ? free flow of information is important, that much i hope we can agree on.  the only thing not enforcing net neutrality does is corrupt that flow.  i see no benefit at all to allowing it, and while i do not think it would lead to a dystopia net that so many people seem to be fretting about though it certainly is not  impossible  , i do not think one could argue that things will not get at least a little worse for the consumer.  you can say this about virtually all regulation.  sometimes it is a valid point, sometimes it is not, but we ca not really tell until after the fact.   #  i do not think you fully understand this issue.   #  i do not think you fully understand this issue.  you claim net neutrality goes against the principles the internet was made successful on.  but. bet neutrality was in place for its entire inception.  we have not really ever known the internet without neutrality.  so it is hard to argue that the internet wo not be successful with nn reinstated.   #  the trouble with that is then human rights do not carry any inherent sanctity or morality to them, they are just a democratic arrangement.   #  i am entirely confused how internet access got defined or at least seriously proposed as a human right, given that it is such a late invention.  it suggests that human rights are not something immutable derived from human nature but more like whatever a given culture at a given time sees as important to have.  the trouble with that is then human rights do not carry any inherent sanctity or morality to them, they are just a democratic arrangement.  and there is nothing inherently immoral about violating democratic arrangements.  it is just unpopular, that is all.  this is problematic.  if anything popular and democratically agreed can be made a human right, then saying stuff like  murder is wrong because it violates human rights  does not carry any power at all.   #  because that was not the point of this cmv.   # yes, that is part of it.  we have plenty of other rights like this.  restricting free political speech is a violation of human rights.  another one is restricting the ability to freely travel outside of the country.  when the government  does nothing  to stifle these abilities, rights are not being violated.  because that was not the point of this cmv.   #  is your argument really that institutionalized internet could not exist with regulations ?  # this is poor logic.  we should not make something illegal because they will just do it anyways.  this would be a valid argument if other options existed for joe nobody, and what you are arguing is that we just need to accept the dish handed to us and not accept it willingly ? really ? what is with the passive acceptance ? is your argument really that institutionalized internet could not exist with regulations ? what exactly do you think an inherent right  is  ? all rights are intangible and may very easily evaporate if the government finds it within their interest to no longer grant people the bill of rights.  and honestly, i understand your position, but passively looking the other way and simply putting faith into the system to work itself out is misguided.  if you believe the bill of rights are concrete, google japanese american citizens.
i know this is gonna get a ton of downvotes because of the topic, but i just ca not get on the same level with most of reddit.  i do not think internet access is an inherent right in any way.  if the citizens want this  net neutrality  that everyone is whining about, we should push for municipal broadband to put pressure on the major players.  i see the point of net neutrality when taxpayer dollars have a role, but forcing regulations on private companies violates the most basic principles of commercialization that have allowed the internet to become a  thing  at all.  plus, it does not really accomplish anything because it creates a need for more and more regulations to counter the incentive for corporations to find loopholes or just ignore regulations entirely.  so, i do not think we are entitled at all to regulate for  net neutrality  to providers in the private sector.   obviously, no traffic should be deliberately throttled,  and that has already been established by the fcc.  but i believe isps should be able to charge for preferential treatment of internet traffic.  cmv.   #  , i do not think we are entitled at all to regulate for  net neutrality  to providers in the private sector.   #  this would be a valid argument if other options existed for joe nobody, and what you are arguing is that we just need to accept the dish handed to us and not accept it willingly ?  # this is poor logic.  we should not make something illegal because they will just do it anyways.  this would be a valid argument if other options existed for joe nobody, and what you are arguing is that we just need to accept the dish handed to us and not accept it willingly ? really ? what is with the passive acceptance ? is your argument really that institutionalized internet could not exist with regulations ? what exactly do you think an inherent right  is  ? all rights are intangible and may very easily evaporate if the government finds it within their interest to no longer grant people the bill of rights.  and honestly, i understand your position, but passively looking the other way and simply putting faith into the system to work itself out is misguided.  if you believe the bill of rights are concrete, google japanese american citizens.   #  but. bet neutrality was in place for its entire inception.   #  i do not think you fully understand this issue.  you claim net neutrality goes against the principles the internet was made successful on.  but. bet neutrality was in place for its entire inception.  we have not really ever known the internet without neutrality.  so it is hard to argue that the internet wo not be successful with nn reinstated.   #  most of them, i will readily admit, are superfluous.   # me neither.  i am not saying this simply to agree with you, i am saying it to provide some context for my point of view.  we force regulations on private companies all the time.  most of them, i will readily admit, are superfluous.  some of them, however, are  not .  you would not ask that gas plants be unregulated when it comes to sulphur capture, would you ? free flow of information is important, that much i hope we can agree on.  the only thing not enforcing net neutrality does is corrupt that flow.  i see no benefit at all to allowing it, and while i do not think it would lead to a dystopia net that so many people seem to be fretting about though it certainly is not  impossible  , i do not think one could argue that things will not get at least a little worse for the consumer.  you can say this about virtually all regulation.  sometimes it is a valid point, sometimes it is not, but we ca not really tell until after the fact.   #  if anything popular and democratically agreed can be made a human right, then saying stuff like  murder is wrong because it violates human rights  does not carry any power at all.   #  i am entirely confused how internet access got defined or at least seriously proposed as a human right, given that it is such a late invention.  it suggests that human rights are not something immutable derived from human nature but more like whatever a given culture at a given time sees as important to have.  the trouble with that is then human rights do not carry any inherent sanctity or morality to them, they are just a democratic arrangement.  and there is nothing inherently immoral about violating democratic arrangements.  it is just unpopular, that is all.  this is problematic.  if anything popular and democratically agreed can be made a human right, then saying stuff like  murder is wrong because it violates human rights  does not carry any power at all.   #  when the government  does nothing  to stifle these abilities, rights are not being violated.   # yes, that is part of it.  we have plenty of other rights like this.  restricting free political speech is a violation of human rights.  another one is restricting the ability to freely travel outside of the country.  when the government  does nothing  to stifle these abilities, rights are not being violated.  because that was not the point of this cmv.
i know this is gonna get a ton of downvotes because of the topic, but i just ca not get on the same level with most of reddit.  i do not think internet access is an inherent right in any way.  if the citizens want this  net neutrality  that everyone is whining about, we should push for municipal broadband to put pressure on the major players.  i see the point of net neutrality when taxpayer dollars have a role, but forcing regulations on private companies violates the most basic principles of commercialization that have allowed the internet to become a  thing  at all.  plus, it does not really accomplish anything because it creates a need for more and more regulations to counter the incentive for corporations to find loopholes or just ignore regulations entirely.  so, i do not think we are entitled at all to regulate for  net neutrality  to providers in the private sector.   obviously, no traffic should be deliberately throttled,  and that has already been established by the fcc.  but i believe isps should be able to charge for preferential treatment of internet traffic.  cmv.   #  forcing regulations on private companies violates the most basic principles of commercialization that have allowed the internet to become a  thing  at all.   #  is your argument really that institutionalized internet could not exist with regulations ?  # this is poor logic.  we should not make something illegal because they will just do it anyways.  this would be a valid argument if other options existed for joe nobody, and what you are arguing is that we just need to accept the dish handed to us and not accept it willingly ? really ? what is with the passive acceptance ? is your argument really that institutionalized internet could not exist with regulations ? what exactly do you think an inherent right  is  ? all rights are intangible and may very easily evaporate if the government finds it within their interest to no longer grant people the bill of rights.  and honestly, i understand your position, but passively looking the other way and simply putting faith into the system to work itself out is misguided.  if you believe the bill of rights are concrete, google japanese american citizens.   #  we have not really ever known the internet without neutrality.   #  i do not think you fully understand this issue.  you claim net neutrality goes against the principles the internet was made successful on.  but. bet neutrality was in place for its entire inception.  we have not really ever known the internet without neutrality.  so it is hard to argue that the internet wo not be successful with nn reinstated.   #  you can say this about virtually all regulation.   # me neither.  i am not saying this simply to agree with you, i am saying it to provide some context for my point of view.  we force regulations on private companies all the time.  most of them, i will readily admit, are superfluous.  some of them, however, are  not .  you would not ask that gas plants be unregulated when it comes to sulphur capture, would you ? free flow of information is important, that much i hope we can agree on.  the only thing not enforcing net neutrality does is corrupt that flow.  i see no benefit at all to allowing it, and while i do not think it would lead to a dystopia net that so many people seem to be fretting about though it certainly is not  impossible  , i do not think one could argue that things will not get at least a little worse for the consumer.  you can say this about virtually all regulation.  sometimes it is a valid point, sometimes it is not, but we ca not really tell until after the fact.   #  the trouble with that is then human rights do not carry any inherent sanctity or morality to them, they are just a democratic arrangement.   #  i am entirely confused how internet access got defined or at least seriously proposed as a human right, given that it is such a late invention.  it suggests that human rights are not something immutable derived from human nature but more like whatever a given culture at a given time sees as important to have.  the trouble with that is then human rights do not carry any inherent sanctity or morality to them, they are just a democratic arrangement.  and there is nothing inherently immoral about violating democratic arrangements.  it is just unpopular, that is all.  this is problematic.  if anything popular and democratically agreed can be made a human right, then saying stuff like  murder is wrong because it violates human rights  does not carry any power at all.   #  because that was not the point of this cmv.   # yes, that is part of it.  we have plenty of other rights like this.  restricting free political speech is a violation of human rights.  another one is restricting the ability to freely travel outside of the country.  when the government  does nothing  to stifle these abilities, rights are not being violated.  because that was not the point of this cmv.
for the record, i am an atheist and was never truly religious, and i have celebrated christmas ever year of my life.  i believe christmas is no longer a christian holiday because the themes and traditions associated with the christmas season are no longer exclusively christian in nature, and the holiday itself has been secularized.  my arguments include:  0.  most americans celebrate christmas but not all of those are christians.   a significant minority of people who celebrate who celebrate christmas are not christian, and therefore do not uphold many of the christian traditions associated with the holiday.  there is even an alternative reason for christmas, the spirit of giving and family, that replaces the christian meaning behind it so that christmas can be celebrated secularly.   0.  the widespread traditions and images associated with christmas have nothing to do with christianity.   while not every person who celebrates christmas goes to mass on christmas day, most of them do have a christmas tree and give presents to each other on these days.  santa claus is far more associated with christmas than baby jesus and the nativity.  many of these secular associations can be traced back to christmas  pagan origins, celebrating the winter solstice.  santa claus went from being a figure of christianity saint nicholas to a secular gift giver.   0.  christmas is more celebratory of capitalism and consumerism than christianity.   while there are some people who do hold a strong religious association with christmas, only christmas day and eve are the ones with any religious significance.  most of the hubbub around the holiday is after thanksgiving and during december, where the  christmas season  is going on.  this season has no religious significance but instead encourage the buying of gifts for family and friends, which is more representative of consumerism in the american conscious than christianity.  in conclusion, i make the argument that christmas is no longer religious because it is possible to celebrate it without being christian, the common conscious on the holiday is completely secular, and the christmas season is more representative of american capitalism and consumerism than any sort of christianity.  i feel there are some ramifications that can be drawn from this conclusion as well:   christmas is no longer a christian holiday, but an american one.  it is a part of our identity as a nation.    christians can still celebrate christmas with religious meaning but any association with christmas is separate from the national definition.  it is an optional part of the holiday.    christmas is now considered a secular holiday officially.  the government and other public institutions can endorse the secular side of christmas without repercussion in court.  in effect this makes christmas similar to thanksgiving.  while there are religious americans who put a significant religious meaning towards thanksgiving, thanksgiving is primarily american and not religious, as all americans can celebrate it.  most of these are based on my personal experience growing up in the united states, and my non religious perspective may be thoroughly biased at only seeing the non religious aspects of christianity.   #  christmas is more celebratory of capitalism and consumerism than christianity.   #  people are buying gifts for each other in symbolic gesture of the gifts at the birth of christ.   # people are buying gifts for each other in symbolic gesture of the gifts at the birth of christ.  if it was capitalism and consumerism, people would be buying for themselves, which they do not, and it would not be a holiday not working yet getting paid which is very anti capitalism .  the aclu disagrees with you.  from URL emphasis mine   the real question is not whether people can celebrate christmas they most certainly can , but  whether the government should be promoting religious beliefs and practices it most certainly should not .  what i find interesting is the question of why is this an issue ? as an atheist you have no problem with not going to church or a temple, yet you have to fight for christmas    religion.  why fight for this point ? what happens if christmas religion ?  #  santa claus is a false deity created by coca cola that christians are willing to accept into their homes for years .   # decided  to.  as in,  yeah we celebrate that day too.  that is the day we have chosen to celebrate our lords birthday even though most evidence points toward his birthday being almost half a year away   you do know what saturnalia was right ? it was a pagan holiday that lasted a week and just so happened to end on december 0th.  it was a week where  there were no laws, courts, or discipline .  the romans would choose an innocent person to force feed and force fuck rape for an entire week, then, on what we celebrate as christmas, they would brutally murder that person for no other reason than that they were force fed too much food and raped too much to keep living.  hell, everything about christmas is non christian.  christmas trees ? common pagan practice.  mistletoe ? pagan.  santa claus is a false deity created by coca cola that christians are willing to accept into their homes for years .  then there is the fact that jews are and have regularly been prosecuted, beaten, and murdered on christmas because the whole thing is a big fuck you to their entire religion.  now, i know that when it comes to religion, people are often too stubborn to accept any slight change from what they believe, but do yourself a favor and do some research on christmas before you celebrate it as a christian holiday.  i would also begin to wonder if the christians who celebrate christmas might be that  false religion  the bible is so concerned about.  many christians and christian organizations believe this, and refuse to celebrate christmas.  p. s.  it was a devoted christian that opened my eyes to this.  it took me a while, but as soon as i stopped believing everything the church tells me, and started doing my own research, i realized just how right he is.  christmas does not even cover a quarter of it.   #  it is like saying  drinking did not have anything to do with the battle that happened on may the fifth, therefore it is not a drinking holiday.    #  why would christians saying it is a christian holiday not make it a christian holiday ? that is the bar it has to pass, a day christians say have religious meaning.  i do not really care what pagans were celebrating in 0ad that is the day christians in 0 celebrate the birth of jesus.  why would you prioritize the beginnings of something over it is actual practice ? it is also just a poor language choice.  calling it anything but a christian holiday is inaccurate since most people who celebrate it are christians and most christians celebrate it.  it is like saying  drinking did not have anything to do with the battle that happened on may the fifth, therefore it is not a drinking holiday.   we can talk about origins, and we can talk about modern practices.  just because origins are different from modernity does not mean modernity gets dismissed  #  but hey, if you are willing to break your god is only rules because everyone else does said to, be my guest.   #  so origins do not matter eh ? well then i guess we can forget that jesus christ existed.  hell, humanity as a whole should just stop practicing religion if thats the case.  because  that is what religion is .  it is a way for humanity to explain our origins by means of a higher power.  if the origins of something does not matter, than why is evolution vs creation such a big deal ? of course the origins are more important.  it is the entire reason religious people believe what they believe.  it is the entire reason modernity is what it is.  if the leaders of the christian churches decided to celebrate a satanic holiday by doing everything a satanist would do on that day, would you celebrate it because they told you to ? i hope not.  i do not see what is different about christmas.  could not the same be said about the fourth of july ? valentine is day ? birthdays ? just because christians celebrate it does not make it a christian holiday.  plenty of non christians celebrate christmas, probably most non christians do.  and i know of many christians who do not celebrate it.  who celebrated it means nothing compared to where it came from.  but hey, if you are willing to break your god is only rules because everyone else does said to, be my guest.   #  christian holiday is an apt description of christmas.   #  you do not see the point.  christian holiday is an apt description of christmas.  saying what constantine did or what pagans did is part of christmas but it does nothing to negate the description or modern practice of the holiday, which involves a whole lot of christians.  to not discuss christianity and it is significant ties to december 0th is to be inaccurate.  my personal practices are not relevant to this discussion, it is telling that you ca not argue this without using personal attacks.  if large numbers of christians began celebrating a satanic holiday using satanic origin methods, yes it would become accurate to describe it as a christian holiday.  who celebrates a holiday is extremely important.  when looking at a us holiday calendar, st.  patricks day is on there.  nothing to do with america in it is origins.  but it is on the calendar because who celebrates a holiday matters very much.  should st patricks day only be on irish holiday calendars ? what commandment are you talking about ?
i believe that swear words have caused an anomaly in our society, they have  infiltrated  the regular vocabulary, replacing our language with words that have been used with a tone of hate or anger, or to vulgarize our way of speaking without any reason ex: holy shit ! .  i think that the ban of swear words in russia will help them to stop these words of hate or vulgarism.  i also believe that sometimes you have to swap a small piece of freedom for order and discipline.  this is in general, not just for the words i have been harassed by this before, they used to say to me that i was a  word purist , and that people should have the right to speak as they wish, but i think that young people including me have to change their way of looking at things.   #  i also believe that sometimes you have to swap a small piece of freedom for order and discipline.   #  from a cost benefit perspective, it really does not.   #  yes, adults do swear in cases of high energy and low effort public statements.  as kids, when we were socially prevented from swearing, we used substitutes darn, dang, heck, shoot to express ourselves.  some did so many times, some not so much.  my point is that even if swearing is banned, people will find new words to use to be able to express themselves.  that is how language works.  at that point, new words will become the new  swear words , meaning that the ban will have been pointless, unless it continues to ban more and more words.  but like i said, this is a futile effort, due to the human desire of expression through language.  from a cost benefit perspective, it really does not.  the costs include whatever penalty money or prison time is placed on the average person, any fear or anxiety of receiving such penalty, and a long term feeling of freedom of choice.  as for benefits, who exactly is benefiting from the  order and discipline  of russia, and how ?  #  we use swearing to express how we are feeling.   #  swearing reduces pain.  one popular test in which people exposed to pain from sticking their hand in ice water for a long time felt better when they got to say or shout swear words.  swearing is social.  i did not swear that often until many of my friends did.  when people swear with close friends, but not in front of strangers, respected family, or young ones, it strengthens the understanding of their social relations.  in a way, banning swearing would actually result in people talking the same way to authority figures as they would to drinking buddies.  swearing is funny.  i am not sure why, though comedy is weird.  but comedy is something that people generally like.  swearing is expressive.  just like when we shout when we are angry and cry when we are sad.  we use swearing to express how we are feeling.  sure, a person who swears often may not use the f word as strongly as a person who just stepped on a tack, but both are able to express themselves efficiently.  here is an interesting video about  bad words  URL  #  0 who is going to decide what a swear word is ?  #  0 words are just sounds made our vocal chords vibrating as we expel air from our mouths.  it is ridiculous to ban a noise.  0 regular words are just as capable as swear words of expressing  hate and vulgarity.   0 language is extraordinarily flexible if you ban certain words others will just take their place and serve the same function.  0 who is going to decide what a swear word is ? you ? language is very personal, what is offensive to you might be fine for me and what is vulgar for me might be fine for you.  0   i also believe that sometimes you have to swap a small piece of freedom for order and discipline.  sounds made by human mouths have nothing to do with the order and discipline of society.   #  it is the same as to use your robbery example if we wanted to stop robbery by banning the word  kill.    #  i would argue that there is nothing wrong with the words themselves in your example.  the wrong is in the intention to commit harm to others.  the words are just the way that intention is communicated.  op wants to create a decent society by banning words which is absurd.  it is the same as to use your robbery example if we wanted to stop robbery by banning the word  kill.   there is nothing inherent in the word  kill  which makes it bad.  like swear words it has many possible benign uses in the english language.   #  it does not mean the same thing as a: your girlfriend is cheating on you.   #  it is not the government is job to make you have better conversations.  if you do not like talking to them then just do not talk to them.  why should i be prevented from swearing because some people are mean to you ? swearing is appropriate in many conversations.  for example: a: your girlfriend is cheating on you.  b: oh wow.  it does not mean the same thing as a: your girlfriend is cheating on you.  b: what the fuck ?
i believe that swear words have caused an anomaly in our society, they have  infiltrated  the regular vocabulary, replacing our language with words that have been used with a tone of hate or anger, or to vulgarize our way of speaking without any reason ex: holy shit ! .  i think that the ban of swear words in russia will help them to stop these words of hate or vulgarism.  i also believe that sometimes you have to swap a small piece of freedom for order and discipline.  this is in general, not just for the words i have been harassed by this before, they used to say to me that i was a  word purist , and that people should have the right to speak as they wish, but i think that young people including me have to change their way of looking at things.   #  replacing our language with words that have been used with a tone of hate or anger, or to vulgarize our way of speaking without any reason ex: holy shit !  #  if i say nigga in an empty room without being hateful, some people might be offended but its not racist.   # if i say nigga in an empty room without being hateful, some people might be offended but its not racist.  nothing is racist without racist intent, a white person saying nigga is inherently ignorant but not inherently racist.  similarly, vulgarity is not vulgar without a vulgar intent.  if you come to me and say slangrocksnigga i got a raise ! and i say holy shit ! and you get offended because you think im being vulgar then thats a problem with your perception, not a problem with my choice of words.  shouldnt we focus on stopping people from committing offensive actions like violence and theft before we worry too much about people who are offended by words ?  #  as for benefits, who exactly is benefiting from the  order and discipline  of russia, and how ?  #  yes, adults do swear in cases of high energy and low effort public statements.  as kids, when we were socially prevented from swearing, we used substitutes darn, dang, heck, shoot to express ourselves.  some did so many times, some not so much.  my point is that even if swearing is banned, people will find new words to use to be able to express themselves.  that is how language works.  at that point, new words will become the new  swear words , meaning that the ban will have been pointless, unless it continues to ban more and more words.  but like i said, this is a futile effort, due to the human desire of expression through language.  from a cost benefit perspective, it really does not.  the costs include whatever penalty money or prison time is placed on the average person, any fear or anxiety of receiving such penalty, and a long term feeling of freedom of choice.  as for benefits, who exactly is benefiting from the  order and discipline  of russia, and how ?  #  i am not sure why, though comedy is weird.   #  swearing reduces pain.  one popular test in which people exposed to pain from sticking their hand in ice water for a long time felt better when they got to say or shout swear words.  swearing is social.  i did not swear that often until many of my friends did.  when people swear with close friends, but not in front of strangers, respected family, or young ones, it strengthens the understanding of their social relations.  in a way, banning swearing would actually result in people talking the same way to authority figures as they would to drinking buddies.  swearing is funny.  i am not sure why, though comedy is weird.  but comedy is something that people generally like.  swearing is expressive.  just like when we shout when we are angry and cry when we are sad.  we use swearing to express how we are feeling.  sure, a person who swears often may not use the f word as strongly as a person who just stepped on a tack, but both are able to express themselves efficiently.  here is an interesting video about  bad words  URL  #  0 regular words are just as capable as swear words of expressing  hate and vulgarity.    #  0 words are just sounds made our vocal chords vibrating as we expel air from our mouths.  it is ridiculous to ban a noise.  0 regular words are just as capable as swear words of expressing  hate and vulgarity.   0 language is extraordinarily flexible if you ban certain words others will just take their place and serve the same function.  0 who is going to decide what a swear word is ? you ? language is very personal, what is offensive to you might be fine for me and what is vulgar for me might be fine for you.  0   i also believe that sometimes you have to swap a small piece of freedom for order and discipline.  sounds made by human mouths have nothing to do with the order and discipline of society.   #  the words are just the way that intention is communicated.   #  i would argue that there is nothing wrong with the words themselves in your example.  the wrong is in the intention to commit harm to others.  the words are just the way that intention is communicated.  op wants to create a decent society by banning words which is absurd.  it is the same as to use your robbery example if we wanted to stop robbery by banning the word  kill.   there is nothing inherent in the word  kill  which makes it bad.  like swear words it has many possible benign uses in the english language.
i believe that individuals of the same sex should be allowed to get married because i do not see the harm in allowing them to do so.  i just frankly do not see an issue why it.  on the other hand, i was reading people replying about polygamous marriage and incestuous marriages and how they should be legal as well.  i can make an arguments as to why one would be not okay but i feel like i am just making excuses because incestuous marriages seems  wrong .  but i do not know why i see them as being wrong if that makes any sense.  :/  #  i feel like i am just making excuses because incestuous marriages seems  wrong .   #  incestuous marriages are illegal because it prevents parents from manipulating their children into sexual relationships.   # incestuous marriages are illegal because it prevents parents from manipulating their children into sexual relationships.  it is easy to abuse your child by raising them with the belief that they must enter into a relationship with you.  this is not fair to the child as they do not have the mental faculties to know they are being manipulated.  marriage between related people is not inherently wrong; we allow cousins to marry to some degree.  it is not a genetic thing, it is a child protection thing.  polygamy would cause a legal nightmare.  it is reasonable to limit the size of a taxable household, and we arbitrarily set that limit at 0.  if we did not do this, then the entire nation could be a single household.   #  the argument for polygamy, as far as i understand it, recognizes that there is no place to make this arrangement illegal, but also recognizes the significant administrative barriers to having the government recognize the marriages.   #  i guess it depends on what you mean by  legal .  polygamy is already legal, in the sense that there is nothing stopping a group of consenting adults from saying that they are married and living as if they are married.  they can go to a church and have a priest say that they are married, and raise children with the idea they are all married.  the only distinction is that the government wo not recognize the group marriage.  the argument for polygamy, as far as i understand it, recognizes that there is no place to make this arrangement illegal, but also recognizes the significant administrative barriers to having the government recognize the marriages.  can you imagine allowing 0 people to jointly file 0 tax return, or allowing 0 man to marry 0 women living abroad to give them all residency ? at least, that is how i understand the argument for polygamy.  i will leave someone else to try to defend incestuous relationships.   #  incest is often considered wrong because of reproduction reasons, but if we allow everyone to extend certain rights to one individual, why not family members.   #  while polyandry involves extended all rights and benefits to marriages to more than 0 people, incestuous marriages do not.  if a company is required to cover my married partner with benefits and/or insurance then extending this to 0 or legally could be 0 would be very problematic, so i wo not address that here.  incest is often considered wrong because of reproduction reasons, but if we allow everyone to extend certain rights to one individual, why not family members.  and do you arguments with incestuous children hold for couples using condoms or gay incestuous couples ? certainly not gay couples do not contribute to that issue, why would two brothers be denied sharing the benefits and rights to marriage ?  #  people can get married in mock but legally binding marriages for gains as well.   #  even if that is the case, that is still a awful reason to oppose it.  people can get married in mock but legally binding marriages for gains as well.  i actually know of a case, a woman i know once married a man to get him citizenship.  just because something can be abused is a poor reason to outright ban it.  if you are correct and that is his logic than all forms of marriage would have to be disallowed.  among countless other things.  you could pretend to get injured on the job tomorrow, should we then rid of workman is compensation greatly effecting those with legitimate claims ?  #  poly people are taking a risk, but they are basically not hurting anyone but each other, consenting adults.   #  so, whether polyamorous families should be codified by marriage law or contract law is up to debate, but poly relationship are legal, have long traditions in human societies.  it is easy to make a case that poly is  difficult  or  sub optimal , but are they  evil  ? nah.  incest, on the other hand, is objectively more problematic.  the incest taboo is near universal in a way that the same sex/poly relationships are not.  non human animals share the incest taboo.  biological offspring of an incestuous couple are at risk genetic disorders.  unlike same sex or poly, incest is often couple with molestation or sexual abuse.  poly people are taking a risk, but they are basically not hurting anyone but each other, consenting adults.  incest raises questions about consent and the offspring of incest are at risk for lifelong suffering.  poly, yes.  incest, no.
everything i read on it suggests that we have serious fundamental hurdles to overcome.  from what i understand, it is impossible to measure a quantum system without affecting it, which ruins any computations it is making.  i do not see how we can get passed that.  they also have to be at extremely low temperatures to work.  now, i am sure that someday we can figure out a few of these problems, but in the end, i predict that we will never get any useful computations out of them.  quantum computing seems like a fundamentally flawed concept and is way too good to be true.  URL  #  from what i understand, it is impossible to measure a quantum system without affecting it, which ruins any computations it is making.   #  i do not see how we can get passed that.   #  reading your post and some of your replies you seem to have some basic misunderstandings.  i do not see how we can get passed that.  quantum systems are measured when the computation is done.  all quantum algorithms include an exact understanding of this process.  i also saw somewhere you said that qubits can be in 0 states.  that is not correct.  it can be 0, 0 or anywhere in between.  there is a continuum between 0 and 0 so the number of states is in principle infinite.   #  this is understandable because reporting on qc is universally awful and makes it feel like total magic.   #  you only think this because you do not understand how qc works.  this is understandable because reporting on qc is universally awful and makes it feel like total magic.  but the truth is that qc has been theoretically understood for decades and there is no fundamental reason why it cannot work.  you mention introducing errors with measurement but this problem was overcome a long time ago.  yes, it is possible to get the wrong answer with a quantum algorithm but we are able to construct algorithms such that the probability of a wrong answer is bounded by some arbitrarily small constant.  the development of qc technology rather than algorithms is slow but the same is true for a ton of different technologies.  i personally suspect that qc will be useful for some applications within two decades.  note, i am not an expert in qc but i am a cs researcher and know a bit more about the subject than most laypeople.   #  quantum computing would be a  new  computing technology.   #  moore is law just describes a phase on the technology s curve for  silicon processors .  because of the nature of technology s curves, it does a good job of doing the same for many other technologies as well, which is why it is often also applied to other technologies.  quantum computing would be a  new  computing technology.  it would have its own new technology s curve that it would be plotted on, so there is no problem with a jump in performance surpassing silicon microprocessors once it starts working.  just like incandescent lightbulbs and led lightbulbs both do the same thing, but are different technologies, and thus have different technology s curves.  admittedly, a little different in the lightbulb case, leds on the very early part of their curve sucked compared to incandescent bulbs, but it is a good example to see how they are different technologies that do they same thing, and there  are  technologies that do the same thing which can  overnight  surpass older technologies that do that same thing  #  few of them become reality, and those that do are mostly just lucky.   #  it is pretty hard to make accurate predictions about the future.  few of them become reality, and those that do are mostly just lucky.  prior to the invention of the transistor, people felt the same way about small computers.  the large size and tremendous heat generated by early computers put a definite cap on their size and power.  but the transistor was invented, and then the integrated circuit and then some additional breakthroughs, and now you can wear your computer in your glasses.  i guess my point is that, given time and resources, there are no hurdles that are too high.  i think it is much more likely that something else will come along to give us the computational power we are aiming for with quantum computers.  if it does there will be no need to solve the issues.  if it does not, though, i think we will figure it out.  it is a matter of time.   #  the current technical challenge is to make qubits that do not collapse prematurely.   #  a qbit is not a three bit state.  it is has two states 0 and 0 and a continuum superposition of the two.  when measured, the superposition collapses into either 0 or 0.  this is not a design flaw, it is intended.  the current technical challenge is to make qubits that do not collapse prematurely.  the advantages to a quantum computer are very technical, but mainly they would be useful for quantum simulations, since they have very few practical advantages over normal computers.  basically a quantum computer can calculate certain things that a turing machine cannot.
i love movies.  if you look at my post history you will find that out very quickly.  i also love making movies.  i attended a conference a year ago at nyu where i met with some of the best and brightest of their graduate film studies program, as well as some well known figures of current film scholarship, and the moribund state of modern cinema was a theme that hung over the whole thing.  many prominent filmmakers such as martin scorsese and steven spielberg believe that the tradition of  going to the movies  will soon fall out of favor and become a luxury, rather than an every day thing.  tv is quickly becoming the medium for complex storytelling.  youtube, vine, and other such services make anyone with an iphone into a filmmaker.  blogs make anyone a critic.  i personally like the idea that visual entertainment is so varied and accessible, but it also makes us favor short, low quality productions over feature length cinematic productions.  it looks like if i want to do what i want, i no longer have the freedom to make films and expect to find some sort of market for them.  instead i have to find my way to a tv series, which in spite of their dramatic/storytelling potential, are still narratively and artistically commercial.  i think that in order to find any success in the industry, i have to be on the cutting edge of innovation, or else risk being buried along with a dying medium.  cmv.   #  but it also makes us favor short, low quality productions over feature length cinematic productions.   #  like most things on hbo, or mad men, or breaking bad ?  # like most things on hbo, or mad men, or breaking bad ? successful tv has many of the same features as great cinema, and to argue that tv is an inherently restrictive medium seems to go against many of the shows that define the  golden era of television .  you have more freedom to make films and find a market than any previous filmmakers.  you can make a film on relatively cheap cameras like a mark ii, edit it on your computer, and use the internet to promote your film and find distribution methods to show to a large audience without ever finding backing from a major studio.  my big fat greek wedding  and  primer  were both extremely low budget compared to major films, and both were quite profitable.  i doubt that  primer  would have ever been able to make it as major studio film due to it is complexity, but at a budget of $0,0, it still managed to find an audience and become quite profitable.  i doubt the film would have seen the light of day 0 years ago, unless it was significantly dumbed down.  if you made fundamentally uncommercial films in the past, you would have had a difficult time getting backing from studios.  now you can make films and then find an audience, rather than vice versa.  you have more artistic freedom than ever.   #  just to name the most enjoyable and fulfilling.   #  how long did it take you to know how to tell a story through film ? how many of those storytelling skills would translate to a shorter format, like tv or a web show ? how many new ones would you need to learn to do those competently ? i bet the answers to 0 and 0 are less than you would think.  as for the audience laughter, applause, reaction.  have you considered directing a play ? it is definitely not as glamorous as it used to be, but still fun imo.  i guess i am projecting a bit: i dabble in a bit of everything; i draw and animate, play musical instruments and sing, act in short film, improv, and theater though this has not happened in a long while , and juggle/clown.  just to name the most enjoyable and fulfilling.  and i guess it is hard for me to understand why you would want to limit yourself to just one type of performance.  it is all just so much fun.   #  that kind of technology and infrastructure is amazing and incredibly low cost today and going forward.   #  do you think it is easy to get a film made today, or ten, twenty, thirty years ago ? there have always been dramatically more people interested in making movies or being a part of that process than there was funding and audiences.  so to make a feature most filmmakers have to work crazy hard and most still fail to achieve any success.  now you are free to make your film and release it to audiences.  that kind of technology and infrastructure is amazing and incredibly low cost today and going forward.  this means that while you may not become the next speilberg, you will actually be able to make your film which was not an option for much of filmmaking history unless you somehow convinced a studio to fund you.  or you spent your life savings.  so the filmmaking past means you have a slim shot at making a living or being a smash success but i high chance of not even getting a film off the ground at all.  now you are basically guaranteed to make at least a low budget version of your movie so long as you have the drive to do it.  whether anyone will watch it is another story but even the marketing of film is far more accessibly these days.  you do not need a distributor in every market, just youtube.  you do not need a high priced advertising agency, just social media.  tl;dr: you have the talent and drive to be a great filmmaker ? go do it.  all the tools are at your disposal.  that same drive and talent was far less likely to fly when you had to go through a myriad of suits.  now you just have to convince the audience themselves.   #  realizing the scope of it is a dreadful moment for most folks interested in living an artistic lifestyle.   #  there has always been a gulch between commercial viability and artistic expression in the arts.  realizing the scope of it is a dreadful moment for most folks interested in living an artistic lifestyle.  what you are dealing with is the same realization that practically all artists deal with you are not guaranteed a livable income from an arts career, and certainly not wealth.  people do not generally get into the arts because they love money though.  if they did they would get into finance.  but the thing is  you don t really like money that much , right ? or else you would be going after it more directly.  what is important to note is that most artists who have somehow overcome this problem did so by ignoring for the most part the economic viability of their vision in favor of purity of creative spirit and expression.  for some the success came from pushing the boundaries of innovation as you say, but there have certainly been examples of revival of more traditional forms that have penetrated commercial markets e. g.  tv was a cesspool before the advent of the newer cable series someone had faith in the medium.  also, in popular music, forms continually re assert themselves .  as with any truly creative endeavor, you will only  succeed  by going hard at your vision.  this is by definition what successful  creative  artists do the rest cynically make a product for a fickle marketplace which from your perspective is a failure.   #  give people more credit than the studios do.   #  but there is always a choice between pushing the technological envelope, and re igniting interest in established forms.  it would seem that your love is for long form storytelling for the big screen.  any success you can hope to have will be in the area where you have the most passion.  i for one am not a filmmaker, but long for the expansiveness and depth of films made in the 0 is.  there  is  a market out there for this.  give people more credit than the studios do.  it might pay off.
i love movies.  if you look at my post history you will find that out very quickly.  i also love making movies.  i attended a conference a year ago at nyu where i met with some of the best and brightest of their graduate film studies program, as well as some well known figures of current film scholarship, and the moribund state of modern cinema was a theme that hung over the whole thing.  many prominent filmmakers such as martin scorsese and steven spielberg believe that the tradition of  going to the movies  will soon fall out of favor and become a luxury, rather than an every day thing.  tv is quickly becoming the medium for complex storytelling.  youtube, vine, and other such services make anyone with an iphone into a filmmaker.  blogs make anyone a critic.  i personally like the idea that visual entertainment is so varied and accessible, but it also makes us favor short, low quality productions over feature length cinematic productions.  it looks like if i want to do what i want, i no longer have the freedom to make films and expect to find some sort of market for them.  instead i have to find my way to a tv series, which in spite of their dramatic/storytelling potential, are still narratively and artistically commercial.  i think that in order to find any success in the industry, i have to be on the cutting edge of innovation, or else risk being buried along with a dying medium.  cmv.   #  it looks like if i want to do what i want, i no longer have the freedom to make films and expect to find some sort of market for them.   #  you have more freedom to make films and find a market than any previous filmmakers.   # like most things on hbo, or mad men, or breaking bad ? successful tv has many of the same features as great cinema, and to argue that tv is an inherently restrictive medium seems to go against many of the shows that define the  golden era of television .  you have more freedom to make films and find a market than any previous filmmakers.  you can make a film on relatively cheap cameras like a mark ii, edit it on your computer, and use the internet to promote your film and find distribution methods to show to a large audience without ever finding backing from a major studio.  my big fat greek wedding  and  primer  were both extremely low budget compared to major films, and both were quite profitable.  i doubt that  primer  would have ever been able to make it as major studio film due to it is complexity, but at a budget of $0,0, it still managed to find an audience and become quite profitable.  i doubt the film would have seen the light of day 0 years ago, unless it was significantly dumbed down.  if you made fundamentally uncommercial films in the past, you would have had a difficult time getting backing from studios.  now you can make films and then find an audience, rather than vice versa.  you have more artistic freedom than ever.   #  i guess i am projecting a bit: i dabble in a bit of everything; i draw and animate, play musical instruments and sing, act in short film, improv, and theater though this has not happened in a long while , and juggle/clown.   #  how long did it take you to know how to tell a story through film ? how many of those storytelling skills would translate to a shorter format, like tv or a web show ? how many new ones would you need to learn to do those competently ? i bet the answers to 0 and 0 are less than you would think.  as for the audience laughter, applause, reaction.  have you considered directing a play ? it is definitely not as glamorous as it used to be, but still fun imo.  i guess i am projecting a bit: i dabble in a bit of everything; i draw and animate, play musical instruments and sing, act in short film, improv, and theater though this has not happened in a long while , and juggle/clown.  just to name the most enjoyable and fulfilling.  and i guess it is hard for me to understand why you would want to limit yourself to just one type of performance.  it is all just so much fun.   #  that kind of technology and infrastructure is amazing and incredibly low cost today and going forward.   #  do you think it is easy to get a film made today, or ten, twenty, thirty years ago ? there have always been dramatically more people interested in making movies or being a part of that process than there was funding and audiences.  so to make a feature most filmmakers have to work crazy hard and most still fail to achieve any success.  now you are free to make your film and release it to audiences.  that kind of technology and infrastructure is amazing and incredibly low cost today and going forward.  this means that while you may not become the next speilberg, you will actually be able to make your film which was not an option for much of filmmaking history unless you somehow convinced a studio to fund you.  or you spent your life savings.  so the filmmaking past means you have a slim shot at making a living or being a smash success but i high chance of not even getting a film off the ground at all.  now you are basically guaranteed to make at least a low budget version of your movie so long as you have the drive to do it.  whether anyone will watch it is another story but even the marketing of film is far more accessibly these days.  you do not need a distributor in every market, just youtube.  you do not need a high priced advertising agency, just social media.  tl;dr: you have the talent and drive to be a great filmmaker ? go do it.  all the tools are at your disposal.  that same drive and talent was far less likely to fly when you had to go through a myriad of suits.  now you just have to convince the audience themselves.   #  this is by definition what successful  creative  artists do the rest cynically make a product for a fickle marketplace which from your perspective is a failure.   #  there has always been a gulch between commercial viability and artistic expression in the arts.  realizing the scope of it is a dreadful moment for most folks interested in living an artistic lifestyle.  what you are dealing with is the same realization that practically all artists deal with you are not guaranteed a livable income from an arts career, and certainly not wealth.  people do not generally get into the arts because they love money though.  if they did they would get into finance.  but the thing is  you don t really like money that much , right ? or else you would be going after it more directly.  what is important to note is that most artists who have somehow overcome this problem did so by ignoring for the most part the economic viability of their vision in favor of purity of creative spirit and expression.  for some the success came from pushing the boundaries of innovation as you say, but there have certainly been examples of revival of more traditional forms that have penetrated commercial markets e. g.  tv was a cesspool before the advent of the newer cable series someone had faith in the medium.  also, in popular music, forms continually re assert themselves .  as with any truly creative endeavor, you will only  succeed  by going hard at your vision.  this is by definition what successful  creative  artists do the rest cynically make a product for a fickle marketplace which from your perspective is a failure.   #  give people more credit than the studios do.   #  but there is always a choice between pushing the technological envelope, and re igniting interest in established forms.  it would seem that your love is for long form storytelling for the big screen.  any success you can hope to have will be in the area where you have the most passion.  i for one am not a filmmaker, but long for the expansiveness and depth of films made in the 0 is.  there  is  a market out there for this.  give people more credit than the studios do.  it might pay off.
i love movies.  if you look at my post history you will find that out very quickly.  i also love making movies.  i attended a conference a year ago at nyu where i met with some of the best and brightest of their graduate film studies program, as well as some well known figures of current film scholarship, and the moribund state of modern cinema was a theme that hung over the whole thing.  many prominent filmmakers such as martin scorsese and steven spielberg believe that the tradition of  going to the movies  will soon fall out of favor and become a luxury, rather than an every day thing.  tv is quickly becoming the medium for complex storytelling.  youtube, vine, and other such services make anyone with an iphone into a filmmaker.  blogs make anyone a critic.  i personally like the idea that visual entertainment is so varied and accessible, but it also makes us favor short, low quality productions over feature length cinematic productions.  it looks like if i want to do what i want, i no longer have the freedom to make films and expect to find some sort of market for them.  instead i have to find my way to a tv series, which in spite of their dramatic/storytelling potential, are still narratively and artistically commercial.  i think that in order to find any success in the industry, i have to be on the cutting edge of innovation, or else risk being buried along with a dying medium.  cmv.   #  tv is quickly becoming the medium for complex storytelling.   #  youtube, vine, and other such services make anyone with an iphone into a filmmaker.   # youtube, vine, and other such services make anyone with an iphone into a filmmaker.  blogs make anyone a critic.  i personally like the idea that visual entertainment is so varied and accessible, but it also makes us favor short, low quality productions over feature length cinematic productions.  so go for big budget tv series, the type of stuff that hbo does.  those are basically like 0 hour feature films with the same type of budget and production values.  i do not think of it as consumers gravitating away from film and to old types of television, i think of it as television broadening their scope or  catching up  with film in terms of budget, story telling, and production.  because of the internet, tv now encompasses both  short, low quality productions  and  feature length cinematic production.   the best tv series out there are not even that, they are  season length cinematic productions.   not even film could do that in the past.  instead i have to find my way to a tv series, which in spite of their dramatic/storytelling potential, are still narratively and artistically commercial.  feature length films are not commercial ? and if you are talking about indie films, surely, the internet medium allows more indie content creators to reach an audience than just brick and mortar artsie film houses.  all you need is a youtube channel.  what the internet and technology has done is put all video art into one giant category as a content creator, you can publicize your work in any media within imax, cinema, tv, youtube, streaming plays/theatres, whatever.   #  just to name the most enjoyable and fulfilling.   #  how long did it take you to know how to tell a story through film ? how many of those storytelling skills would translate to a shorter format, like tv or a web show ? how many new ones would you need to learn to do those competently ? i bet the answers to 0 and 0 are less than you would think.  as for the audience laughter, applause, reaction.  have you considered directing a play ? it is definitely not as glamorous as it used to be, but still fun imo.  i guess i am projecting a bit: i dabble in a bit of everything; i draw and animate, play musical instruments and sing, act in short film, improv, and theater though this has not happened in a long while , and juggle/clown.  just to name the most enjoyable and fulfilling.  and i guess it is hard for me to understand why you would want to limit yourself to just one type of performance.  it is all just so much fun.   #  you do not need a high priced advertising agency, just social media.   #  do you think it is easy to get a film made today, or ten, twenty, thirty years ago ? there have always been dramatically more people interested in making movies or being a part of that process than there was funding and audiences.  so to make a feature most filmmakers have to work crazy hard and most still fail to achieve any success.  now you are free to make your film and release it to audiences.  that kind of technology and infrastructure is amazing and incredibly low cost today and going forward.  this means that while you may not become the next speilberg, you will actually be able to make your film which was not an option for much of filmmaking history unless you somehow convinced a studio to fund you.  or you spent your life savings.  so the filmmaking past means you have a slim shot at making a living or being a smash success but i high chance of not even getting a film off the ground at all.  now you are basically guaranteed to make at least a low budget version of your movie so long as you have the drive to do it.  whether anyone will watch it is another story but even the marketing of film is far more accessibly these days.  you do not need a distributor in every market, just youtube.  you do not need a high priced advertising agency, just social media.  tl;dr: you have the talent and drive to be a great filmmaker ? go do it.  all the tools are at your disposal.  that same drive and talent was far less likely to fly when you had to go through a myriad of suits.  now you just have to convince the audience themselves.   #  realizing the scope of it is a dreadful moment for most folks interested in living an artistic lifestyle.   #  there has always been a gulch between commercial viability and artistic expression in the arts.  realizing the scope of it is a dreadful moment for most folks interested in living an artistic lifestyle.  what you are dealing with is the same realization that practically all artists deal with you are not guaranteed a livable income from an arts career, and certainly not wealth.  people do not generally get into the arts because they love money though.  if they did they would get into finance.  but the thing is  you don t really like money that much , right ? or else you would be going after it more directly.  what is important to note is that most artists who have somehow overcome this problem did so by ignoring for the most part the economic viability of their vision in favor of purity of creative spirit and expression.  for some the success came from pushing the boundaries of innovation as you say, but there have certainly been examples of revival of more traditional forms that have penetrated commercial markets e. g.  tv was a cesspool before the advent of the newer cable series someone had faith in the medium.  also, in popular music, forms continually re assert themselves .  as with any truly creative endeavor, you will only  succeed  by going hard at your vision.  this is by definition what successful  creative  artists do the rest cynically make a product for a fickle marketplace which from your perspective is a failure.   #  there  is  a market out there for this.   #  but there is always a choice between pushing the technological envelope, and re igniting interest in established forms.  it would seem that your love is for long form storytelling for the big screen.  any success you can hope to have will be in the area where you have the most passion.  i for one am not a filmmaker, but long for the expansiveness and depth of films made in the 0 is.  there  is  a market out there for this.  give people more credit than the studios do.  it might pay off.
i love movies.  if you look at my post history you will find that out very quickly.  i also love making movies.  i attended a conference a year ago at nyu where i met with some of the best and brightest of their graduate film studies program, as well as some well known figures of current film scholarship, and the moribund state of modern cinema was a theme that hung over the whole thing.  many prominent filmmakers such as martin scorsese and steven spielberg believe that the tradition of  going to the movies  will soon fall out of favor and become a luxury, rather than an every day thing.  tv is quickly becoming the medium for complex storytelling.  youtube, vine, and other such services make anyone with an iphone into a filmmaker.  blogs make anyone a critic.  i personally like the idea that visual entertainment is so varied and accessible, but it also makes us favor short, low quality productions over feature length cinematic productions.  it looks like if i want to do what i want, i no longer have the freedom to make films and expect to find some sort of market for them.  instead i have to find my way to a tv series, which in spite of their dramatic/storytelling potential, are still narratively and artistically commercial.  i think that in order to find any success in the industry, i have to be on the cutting edge of innovation, or else risk being buried along with a dying medium.  cmv.   #  it looks like if i want to do what i want, i no longer have the freedom to make films and expect to find some sort of market for them.   #  instead i have to find my way to a tv series, which in spite of their dramatic/storytelling potential, are still narratively and artistically commercial.   # youtube, vine, and other such services make anyone with an iphone into a filmmaker.  blogs make anyone a critic.  i personally like the idea that visual entertainment is so varied and accessible, but it also makes us favor short, low quality productions over feature length cinematic productions.  so go for big budget tv series, the type of stuff that hbo does.  those are basically like 0 hour feature films with the same type of budget and production values.  i do not think of it as consumers gravitating away from film and to old types of television, i think of it as television broadening their scope or  catching up  with film in terms of budget, story telling, and production.  because of the internet, tv now encompasses both  short, low quality productions  and  feature length cinematic production.   the best tv series out there are not even that, they are  season length cinematic productions.   not even film could do that in the past.  instead i have to find my way to a tv series, which in spite of their dramatic/storytelling potential, are still narratively and artistically commercial.  feature length films are not commercial ? and if you are talking about indie films, surely, the internet medium allows more indie content creators to reach an audience than just brick and mortar artsie film houses.  all you need is a youtube channel.  what the internet and technology has done is put all video art into one giant category as a content creator, you can publicize your work in any media within imax, cinema, tv, youtube, streaming plays/theatres, whatever.   #  just to name the most enjoyable and fulfilling.   #  how long did it take you to know how to tell a story through film ? how many of those storytelling skills would translate to a shorter format, like tv or a web show ? how many new ones would you need to learn to do those competently ? i bet the answers to 0 and 0 are less than you would think.  as for the audience laughter, applause, reaction.  have you considered directing a play ? it is definitely not as glamorous as it used to be, but still fun imo.  i guess i am projecting a bit: i dabble in a bit of everything; i draw and animate, play musical instruments and sing, act in short film, improv, and theater though this has not happened in a long while , and juggle/clown.  just to name the most enjoyable and fulfilling.  and i guess it is hard for me to understand why you would want to limit yourself to just one type of performance.  it is all just so much fun.   #  so to make a feature most filmmakers have to work crazy hard and most still fail to achieve any success.   #  do you think it is easy to get a film made today, or ten, twenty, thirty years ago ? there have always been dramatically more people interested in making movies or being a part of that process than there was funding and audiences.  so to make a feature most filmmakers have to work crazy hard and most still fail to achieve any success.  now you are free to make your film and release it to audiences.  that kind of technology and infrastructure is amazing and incredibly low cost today and going forward.  this means that while you may not become the next speilberg, you will actually be able to make your film which was not an option for much of filmmaking history unless you somehow convinced a studio to fund you.  or you spent your life savings.  so the filmmaking past means you have a slim shot at making a living or being a smash success but i high chance of not even getting a film off the ground at all.  now you are basically guaranteed to make at least a low budget version of your movie so long as you have the drive to do it.  whether anyone will watch it is another story but even the marketing of film is far more accessibly these days.  you do not need a distributor in every market, just youtube.  you do not need a high priced advertising agency, just social media.  tl;dr: you have the talent and drive to be a great filmmaker ? go do it.  all the tools are at your disposal.  that same drive and talent was far less likely to fly when you had to go through a myriad of suits.  now you just have to convince the audience themselves.   #  realizing the scope of it is a dreadful moment for most folks interested in living an artistic lifestyle.   #  there has always been a gulch between commercial viability and artistic expression in the arts.  realizing the scope of it is a dreadful moment for most folks interested in living an artistic lifestyle.  what you are dealing with is the same realization that practically all artists deal with you are not guaranteed a livable income from an arts career, and certainly not wealth.  people do not generally get into the arts because they love money though.  if they did they would get into finance.  but the thing is  you don t really like money that much , right ? or else you would be going after it more directly.  what is important to note is that most artists who have somehow overcome this problem did so by ignoring for the most part the economic viability of their vision in favor of purity of creative spirit and expression.  for some the success came from pushing the boundaries of innovation as you say, but there have certainly been examples of revival of more traditional forms that have penetrated commercial markets e. g.  tv was a cesspool before the advent of the newer cable series someone had faith in the medium.  also, in popular music, forms continually re assert themselves .  as with any truly creative endeavor, you will only  succeed  by going hard at your vision.  this is by definition what successful  creative  artists do the rest cynically make a product for a fickle marketplace which from your perspective is a failure.   #  give people more credit than the studios do.   #  but there is always a choice between pushing the technological envelope, and re igniting interest in established forms.  it would seem that your love is for long form storytelling for the big screen.  any success you can hope to have will be in the area where you have the most passion.  i for one am not a filmmaker, but long for the expansiveness and depth of films made in the 0 is.  there  is  a market out there for this.  give people more credit than the studios do.  it might pay off.
when i entered college, i was around 0 0 lbs overweight.  this weight was 0 my fault, i ate like a pig as a kid and barely did anything close to working out or exercising as a teen.  i was able to make friends and be happy in college, but i sometimes felt i was treated a little less than others based on my looks.  go to my junior year and i finally take responsibility for myself; i go to the gym 0 days a week, i abstain from soda or fast food as much as possible, and i make all my own meals.  i lose somewhere between 0 0 lbs of fat and gain back about 0lbs of muscle flat.  i also started wearing contacts everyday.  now, i notice people seem more interested in talking to me.  conversation wise, people actually remember what i say more often and listen to me.  i also notice my luck with women increase a shit ton.  now, im not saying humanity is evil and only skin deep.  im saying thats simply how were programmed and calling it evil is just some peoples way of taking the responsibility out of their control and assigning it to some arbitrary moral label to make themselves feel better.  notice i did have friends while i still was overweight, i just now have better relations with more people and the opposite sex sees me as more of a worthwhile person to be with.  what im also not saying is ugly or overweight people have less of a right to be heard.  in fact, quite the opposite, i think these people would be some of the most interesting people to get to know.  they have dealt with the worst side of humanity and still want to talk to people and be nice.  that is a genuinely nice person in my book.  i just think they need to stop blaming societies standards of beauty for them not being as well liked, respected, cared for and realize people are skin deep.  that is not a bad thing, that is just how we evolved to like people.  i think people believe were better than animals.  that because we have such a developed frontal lobe, we should be above our baser urges and see the intellectual behind everyone.  i say that is bullshit.  i say we should see the beautiful person and notice their intelligence.  if a fat person is this deep emotional soul, why cant they also just put in the time to lose the weight so the world will notice them instead of trying to make people fight our baser urges for attractive, muscular/slim people.  if i sound shallow, tell me, i do not really mind that much since now im enjoying both the benefits of a strong mind and a strong body.   #  calling it evil is just some peoples way of taking the responsibility out of their control and assigning it to some arbitrary moral label to make themselves feel better.   #  our appearance is not entirely within our control, however.   # our appearance is not entirely within our control, however.  nor is it just weight.  symmetrical faces, attractive features, height, general proportion, unblemished skin, genetic or chronic health conditions that cannot be cured: these are part and parcel of what make us attractive, and we have little to no control over them.  additional, our concepts of beauty have changed over the years and there are cultural standards of beauty that have nothing to do with our pre programmed attractions.  it is hard to define what represents our base urges and what represents our culturally accepted ideas of beauty.  people are not completely skin deep, however, or else there would be nothing to gain from a genuinely nice and intelligent but ugly person.  however, i think most of us would prefer to be around a wonderful person over a cruel and stupid person, no matter where they ranked in the world of beauty.  we would rather have capable and skilled people solving world problems, rather than merely beautiful ones.  telling people they deserve less basic human respect because they are less easy on the eyeballs is cruel and absurd.  yes, they might have more trouble dating, but it is not because they are less worthy.   #  there is a difference between  objective  and  conventional.    #  there is a difference between  objective  and  conventional.   while there is certainly a conventional trend toward preferring more muscular and slim people, it has not always been so, particularly with regard to women.  as recently as the 0 is both male and female models carried a lot less muscle, and if you look farther back women is body shapes are much curvier.  what is more in other parts of the world, different body shapes are considered ideal.  since there is no basis for arguing that any of these choices has any particular aesthetic advantage and what is that anyway ? , then these preferences are in fact  subjective .  that lots of people agree in one time and place does not make it objective it just means that a kind of consensus has formed, and for now thin and fit is it.  keep in mind also that opinions vary wildly.  i for one am turned off by lots of visible musculature and vascularity on women, but for some it is just great.  some guys like women quite heavy.  some women like short bald men.  i think its very encouraging.  another issue is that you seem to be projecting your interest in looking better by conventional standards onto people who do not conform.  true, some may wish that they could look better, but lack the initiative to make changes happen.  but many reject this element of culture, and prefer to accept being on the wrong end of some judgements for a greater sense of personal autonomy.  not everyone buys in, and just because someone has not bought in does not mean that they are responding defensively.   #  as close as any opinion can be seen as objective certain beauty issue are exactly that.   # as close as any opinion can be seen as objective certain beauty issue are exactly that.  our species due to sexual selection find symmetry attractive.  ergo symmetrical faces are objectively more beautiful than non symmetrical faces.  giving an example of an outlier opinion does not negate this basic objective fact about human sexual selection.  another one is complexion.  even babies are more willing to move towards faces that have clear skin than faces that do not.  an objective fact about human sexual selection is that humans find clear faces more beautiful than non clear ones.  opinions do not vary widely when it comes to the fundamentals of human beauty.   #  also, i would hate to think that your principles have changed just because you have found yourself on the other side of an unfair and superficial value judgement that used hurt you.   #  three brief things: one is that  is  ≠  ought to be.   you are perfectly justified in thinking that looks should not matter.  just because something is the case does not mean that it is as it should be or that it is ideal.  another, and more important point, is that when it comes to  male  attractiveness at least, looks are not as important sadly as money or power see donald sterling.  .  also, plenty of good looking and intelligent women choose men solely for their charm, intelligence, and emotional stability you have to have wondered  what is she doing with that ugly dude  plenty of times.  as for men is choice of women, idunno.  we kind of suck.  also, i would hate to think that your principles have changed just because you have found yourself on the other side of an unfair and superficial value judgement that used hurt you.  did you lose your sympathy now that  you  no longer need it ?  #  why do our choices for women have to make us suck ?  # why do our choices for women have to make us suck ? just because our choices are shallow ? their choices can be just as shallow as well.  i hope you do not think were the more shallow gender in this regard.  it is possible i suppose.  why does that cliche happen so much in tv ? i think its because some of our personality traits are simply there to help us cope with the reality we have handed to us.  if people is behavior toward us changed or other aspects of us change, perhaps other parts change as well.
when i entered college, i was around 0 0 lbs overweight.  this weight was 0 my fault, i ate like a pig as a kid and barely did anything close to working out or exercising as a teen.  i was able to make friends and be happy in college, but i sometimes felt i was treated a little less than others based on my looks.  go to my junior year and i finally take responsibility for myself; i go to the gym 0 days a week, i abstain from soda or fast food as much as possible, and i make all my own meals.  i lose somewhere between 0 0 lbs of fat and gain back about 0lbs of muscle flat.  i also started wearing contacts everyday.  now, i notice people seem more interested in talking to me.  conversation wise, people actually remember what i say more often and listen to me.  i also notice my luck with women increase a shit ton.  now, im not saying humanity is evil and only skin deep.  im saying thats simply how were programmed and calling it evil is just some peoples way of taking the responsibility out of their control and assigning it to some arbitrary moral label to make themselves feel better.  notice i did have friends while i still was overweight, i just now have better relations with more people and the opposite sex sees me as more of a worthwhile person to be with.  what im also not saying is ugly or overweight people have less of a right to be heard.  in fact, quite the opposite, i think these people would be some of the most interesting people to get to know.  they have dealt with the worst side of humanity and still want to talk to people and be nice.  that is a genuinely nice person in my book.  i just think they need to stop blaming societies standards of beauty for them not being as well liked, respected, cared for and realize people are skin deep.  that is not a bad thing, that is just how we evolved to like people.  i think people believe were better than animals.  that because we have such a developed frontal lobe, we should be above our baser urges and see the intellectual behind everyone.  i say that is bullshit.  i say we should see the beautiful person and notice their intelligence.  if a fat person is this deep emotional soul, why cant they also just put in the time to lose the weight so the world will notice them instead of trying to make people fight our baser urges for attractive, muscular/slim people.  if i sound shallow, tell me, i do not really mind that much since now im enjoying both the benefits of a strong mind and a strong body.   #  i just think they need to stop blaming societies standards of beauty for them not being as well liked, respected, cared for and realize people are skin deep.   #  people are not completely skin deep, however, or else there would be nothing to gain from a genuinely nice and intelligent but ugly person.   # our appearance is not entirely within our control, however.  nor is it just weight.  symmetrical faces, attractive features, height, general proportion, unblemished skin, genetic or chronic health conditions that cannot be cured: these are part and parcel of what make us attractive, and we have little to no control over them.  additional, our concepts of beauty have changed over the years and there are cultural standards of beauty that have nothing to do with our pre programmed attractions.  it is hard to define what represents our base urges and what represents our culturally accepted ideas of beauty.  people are not completely skin deep, however, or else there would be nothing to gain from a genuinely nice and intelligent but ugly person.  however, i think most of us would prefer to be around a wonderful person over a cruel and stupid person, no matter where they ranked in the world of beauty.  we would rather have capable and skilled people solving world problems, rather than merely beautiful ones.  telling people they deserve less basic human respect because they are less easy on the eyeballs is cruel and absurd.  yes, they might have more trouble dating, but it is not because they are less worthy.   #  true, some may wish that they could look better, but lack the initiative to make changes happen.   #  there is a difference between  objective  and  conventional.   while there is certainly a conventional trend toward preferring more muscular and slim people, it has not always been so, particularly with regard to women.  as recently as the 0 is both male and female models carried a lot less muscle, and if you look farther back women is body shapes are much curvier.  what is more in other parts of the world, different body shapes are considered ideal.  since there is no basis for arguing that any of these choices has any particular aesthetic advantage and what is that anyway ? , then these preferences are in fact  subjective .  that lots of people agree in one time and place does not make it objective it just means that a kind of consensus has formed, and for now thin and fit is it.  keep in mind also that opinions vary wildly.  i for one am turned off by lots of visible musculature and vascularity on women, but for some it is just great.  some guys like women quite heavy.  some women like short bald men.  i think its very encouraging.  another issue is that you seem to be projecting your interest in looking better by conventional standards onto people who do not conform.  true, some may wish that they could look better, but lack the initiative to make changes happen.  but many reject this element of culture, and prefer to accept being on the wrong end of some judgements for a greater sense of personal autonomy.  not everyone buys in, and just because someone has not bought in does not mean that they are responding defensively.   #  ergo symmetrical faces are objectively more beautiful than non symmetrical faces.   # as close as any opinion can be seen as objective certain beauty issue are exactly that.  our species due to sexual selection find symmetry attractive.  ergo symmetrical faces are objectively more beautiful than non symmetrical faces.  giving an example of an outlier opinion does not negate this basic objective fact about human sexual selection.  another one is complexion.  even babies are more willing to move towards faces that have clear skin than faces that do not.  an objective fact about human sexual selection is that humans find clear faces more beautiful than non clear ones.  opinions do not vary widely when it comes to the fundamentals of human beauty.   #  just because something is the case does not mean that it is as it should be or that it is ideal.   #  three brief things: one is that  is  ≠  ought to be.   you are perfectly justified in thinking that looks should not matter.  just because something is the case does not mean that it is as it should be or that it is ideal.  another, and more important point, is that when it comes to  male  attractiveness at least, looks are not as important sadly as money or power see donald sterling.  .  also, plenty of good looking and intelligent women choose men solely for their charm, intelligence, and emotional stability you have to have wondered  what is she doing with that ugly dude  plenty of times.  as for men is choice of women, idunno.  we kind of suck.  also, i would hate to think that your principles have changed just because you have found yourself on the other side of an unfair and superficial value judgement that used hurt you.  did you lose your sympathy now that  you  no longer need it ?  #  why does that cliche happen so much in tv ?  # why do our choices for women have to make us suck ? just because our choices are shallow ? their choices can be just as shallow as well.  i hope you do not think were the more shallow gender in this regard.  it is possible i suppose.  why does that cliche happen so much in tv ? i think its because some of our personality traits are simply there to help us cope with the reality we have handed to us.  if people is behavior toward us changed or other aspects of us change, perhaps other parts change as well.
so we start with the concept that sex and gender are two different categories.  we use male and female when talking about sex and use boy/man and girl/woman for gender.  most people are either female woman or male men.  a small subset are female men or male women.  perhaps a few outliers as well but they are not relevant to this cmv.  sexual characteristics both primary and secondary are traits that pertain to sex and not gender.  those that need worry about cervical cancer are females men or women and never males men or women .  so the following i believe is a problem: we have a plethora of people who demand that we come to the realization that peoples genders are self identified and  are not indicative of their respective sex.   now, i can agree with this statement, but i take it to its logical conclusion.  which is: what trait or characteristic can be associated with only one gender as a reason to differentiate and have two genders in the first place ? if the only difference is one of identity then there really is no difference and talking about gender is pretty meaningless having 0 genders would be just as valid if they only pertain to self identity .  better to assume the discussion using man/woman is talking about sex, then we have a reason to have different labels.  this in turn would stop all the semantic arguments and anger directed at those who are not up to speed on terminology.  tl;dr:   if gender distinction matters then give examples of traits that pertain to only one gender excluding traits that pertain to sex   if no such traits can be shown then, discussing gender is worthless and what matters is sex outside of identity .    if sex is what matters outside of identity then i have more cmv is regarding the surrounding ideas.   #  which is: what trait or characteristic can be associated with only one gender as a reason to differentiate and have two genders in the first place ?  #  the trait associated with male gender by the brand of sjw you describe is feeling like their sex should be male, and visa versa for female gender.   # first off, academic feminism, like tumblr sjws, is not a monolith, and many academics have differing viewpoints.  at any rate, gender abolition which is the branch of feminism you mistakenly believe that all academic feminists apply to is  not  terf.  terf is when trans women male sex female gender are seen as  not really women .  gender abolitionists are  not  called terfs.  i have never being myself a sjw on tumblr who believes in gender abolition seen gender abolition called trans exclusive.  gender abolition does not  disregard trans  issues of gender identity  because there is no such thing as gender identity in gender abolition, and being uncomfortable with birth assigned sex is recognized by most all gender abolitionists.  a great many sjws support gender abolition.  sjws do not all believe what you wrote, and they are very diverse.  your definition of sjw leaves out many sjws.  also, very few sjws actually believe that there are only male and female sexes and most medical professionals would agree .  intersex people aka hermaphrodites, but that term is outdated   somewhat offensive are born with male and female sexual characteristics for example, with both a penis and a vagina .  this is usually caused by chromosomal abnormalities.  also, very few sjws think that gender is only based on male/female.  there are many trans identities besides mtf and ftm.  the most common being genderfluid which is basically feeling like both male, female, and sometimes no sex at different times.  like today a genderfluid person may feel female, and tomorrow they may feel male and agender believing you have no sex, or that sex does not matter .  so no,  them tumblrina sjws  are not all wrong and contradictory, because they do not all believe the same things.  but i will go along with your particular brand of sjw that you defined.  an external trait.  which contradicts their whole point of gender being intrinsic.  cannot have it both ways and no ones has even tried to defend their view.  i will define here the difference between gender and sex.  sex is based off of what genitalia you have at birth and your chromosomes.  your physical characteristics.  there is disagreement among these particular sjws as to whether, for example, genital surgery changes your sex.  gender is what sex you feel that you are.  most often it is the same as your birth assigned sex, but, in the case of trans  people, their gender is the opposite of their birth assigned sex.  gender has nothing to do with how others perceive you.  nothing.  a female gendered person may look like the manliest man you ever saw.  how they seem to you does not change their gender.  but many will change their outward sexual appearances to better match their gender because it reduces gender dysphoria.  for example, ralph has male sexual characteristics a penis and feels like a female.  ralph experience gender dysphoria because the gender that they believe best fits them does not match their physical sex.  ralph may or may not undergo surgery or hormone treatments to change their outward sexual characteristics.  ralph probably will, because it reduces gender dysphoria.  they will most likely change their preferred pronoun to she/her and name, perhaps to danielle.  how she chooses to present herself does not matter at all to what gender she is, because wearing skirts or having genital surgery does not actually affect gender.  the only thing that determines gender is what sex she believes she should be as opposed to what sex they were assigned at birth .  many will choose to play into the female gender stereotypes like wearing skirts in order to  pass  as a female to the outside world, and to reduce gender dysphoria.  the trait associated with male gender by the brand of sjw you describe is feeling like their sex should be male, and visa versa for female gender.   #  not all women are the same, not all men are the same, but there are ways that gender is important to identifying people and navigating through human culture.   #  you are looking at this the wrong way.  we undeniably have a concept of male and female in society, it is embedded in our language, our pop culture, our advertising, our fashion, and the way we think about the world and people.  but it does not really have to do with sexual organs or biology.  what makes a woman and woman is not inextricably linked to her ability to reproduce, or her secondary sexual characteristics.  there are, of course, mental predispositions to certain emotions or behaviors but because we are human, we are capable of subverting our instinctual behaviors.  a person with male biology can act, think, look and be treated in every meaningful way as a woman.  therefore, biology is not a signifier, necessarily, of gender identity.  not all women are the same, not all men are the same, but there are ways that gender is important to identifying people and navigating through human culture.  the fact that we are having this discussion and that i am using the words  man  and  woman  prove that.   #  what i think is really going on is that for the sjw woman and female are still synonymous when it suits them and are different when that suits them.   #  for the longest time we have lived as a society where, male and man; and female and women were synonymous.  we disregarded the tiny minority that did not fit the stereotype.  now we are learning to appreciate that minority and so female and women and male and man are being separated and are slowly becoming non synonymous.  so since in this new language usage female and woman are different.  i am asking what is woman ? it is nothing that has to do with female as they are no longer synonymous.  so what defines woman that makes woman different from female and different from man ? you have not given any example and so you have not changed my view, that there is nothing really that separates them.  what i think is really going on is that for the sjw woman and female are still synonymous when it suits them and are different when that suits them.  making the concept contradictory when it does not suit them.   #  i thought that was an undesirable side effect of gender policing and ignorance.  not something that we desire, and not something that people want to voluntarily perpetuate.   # i have always had trouble with this, too.  even if you completely ignore biological sex.  women can be construction workers and soldiers.  women can wear pants and polo shirts.  men can be teachers and nurses.  men can wear high heels and dresses.  none of those things require that people change their gender identity.  so.  where do we draw the line for gender identity ? is it just the pronouns we use when we speak ? are we  supposed  to treat women and men differently ? i thought that was an undesirable side effect of gender policing and ignorance.  not something that we desire, and not something that people want to voluntarily perpetuate.   #  but you are not saying,  humans with a penis can be teachers now, huh.    # men  can be teachers and nurses.  exactly.  you are saying that as if there is a cultural reason why you make that distinction.  you have just defined a group as men and stated an unusual occupation choice for them that is now accepted.  but you are not saying,  humans with a penis can be teachers now, huh.   you are saying,  humans that present and identify the gender role and identity of men can be teachers.   that is, people that are not typically associated with the caring, nurturing role of nurse or teacher, due to the culture implications of being male, not anything necessarily intrinsic to having a penis or male biology.  our language and cultural understanding of men and women have nothing to do with biology, in the sense that a biological female can make herself completely indistinguishable from a man in every meaningful way by changing her voice, appearance, mode of dress, behavior, etc and everybody would treat her as a man and not as a woman.  they would not make a note, hey, she is being a construction worker now ! it would just be accepted.  there is also a way that we  feel  like one gender or another, hence the very idea of transsexuals.  i thought that was an undesirable side effect of gender policing and ignorance.  not something that we desire, and not something that people want to voluntarily perpetuate.  we are not supposed to, but we naturally do.  we ca not help it, our society is built around it.  the very fact that we are having this conversation proves that.
so we start with the concept that sex and gender are two different categories.  we use male and female when talking about sex and use boy/man and girl/woman for gender.  most people are either female woman or male men.  a small subset are female men or male women.  perhaps a few outliers as well but they are not relevant to this cmv.  sexual characteristics both primary and secondary are traits that pertain to sex and not gender.  those that need worry about cervical cancer are females men or women and never males men or women .  so the following i believe is a problem: we have a plethora of people who demand that we come to the realization that peoples genders are self identified and  are not indicative of their respective sex.   now, i can agree with this statement, but i take it to its logical conclusion.  which is: what trait or characteristic can be associated with only one gender as a reason to differentiate and have two genders in the first place ? if the only difference is one of identity then there really is no difference and talking about gender is pretty meaningless having 0 genders would be just as valid if they only pertain to self identity .  better to assume the discussion using man/woman is talking about sex, then we have a reason to have different labels.  this in turn would stop all the semantic arguments and anger directed at those who are not up to speed on terminology.  tl;dr:   if gender distinction matters then give examples of traits that pertain to only one gender excluding traits that pertain to sex   if no such traits can be shown then, discussing gender is worthless and what matters is sex outside of identity .    if sex is what matters outside of identity then i have more cmv is regarding the surrounding ideas.   #  now, i can agree with this statement, but i take it to its logical conclusion.   #  which is: what trait or characteristic can be associated with only one gender as a reason to differentiate and have two genders in the first place ?  # which is: what trait or characteristic can be associated with only one gender as a reason to differentiate and have two genders in the first place ? what single trait is the difference between a fox and a wolf ? probably nothing, right ? for any trait you find commonly in foxes there is some wolf that has it, and vice versa.  but that does not mean that foxes are wolves.  wait, why ? having 0 genders is valid.  that is an entirely intentional effect of this argument.  those that need worry about cervical cancer are females men or women and never males men or women .  actually, this is one of the reasons why i and many others would argue that sex is not actually a thing.  many males do need to worry about cervical cancer.  nature does not draw some magic line where penis biology is entirely separate from vagina biology.   #  a person with male biology can act, think, look and be treated in every meaningful way as a woman.   #  you are looking at this the wrong way.  we undeniably have a concept of male and female in society, it is embedded in our language, our pop culture, our advertising, our fashion, and the way we think about the world and people.  but it does not really have to do with sexual organs or biology.  what makes a woman and woman is not inextricably linked to her ability to reproduce, or her secondary sexual characteristics.  there are, of course, mental predispositions to certain emotions or behaviors but because we are human, we are capable of subverting our instinctual behaviors.  a person with male biology can act, think, look and be treated in every meaningful way as a woman.  therefore, biology is not a signifier, necessarily, of gender identity.  not all women are the same, not all men are the same, but there are ways that gender is important to identifying people and navigating through human culture.  the fact that we are having this discussion and that i am using the words  man  and  woman  prove that.   #  for the longest time we have lived as a society where, male and man; and female and women were synonymous.   #  for the longest time we have lived as a society where, male and man; and female and women were synonymous.  we disregarded the tiny minority that did not fit the stereotype.  now we are learning to appreciate that minority and so female and women and male and man are being separated and are slowly becoming non synonymous.  so since in this new language usage female and woman are different.  i am asking what is woman ? it is nothing that has to do with female as they are no longer synonymous.  so what defines woman that makes woman different from female and different from man ? you have not given any example and so you have not changed my view, that there is nothing really that separates them.  what i think is really going on is that for the sjw woman and female are still synonymous when it suits them and are different when that suits them.  making the concept contradictory when it does not suit them.   #  none of those things require that people change their gender identity.   # i have always had trouble with this, too.  even if you completely ignore biological sex.  women can be construction workers and soldiers.  women can wear pants and polo shirts.  men can be teachers and nurses.  men can wear high heels and dresses.  none of those things require that people change their gender identity.  so.  where do we draw the line for gender identity ? is it just the pronouns we use when we speak ? are we  supposed  to treat women and men differently ? i thought that was an undesirable side effect of gender policing and ignorance.  not something that we desire, and not something that people want to voluntarily perpetuate.   #  you are saying,  humans that present and identify the gender role and identity of men can be teachers.    # men  can be teachers and nurses.  exactly.  you are saying that as if there is a cultural reason why you make that distinction.  you have just defined a group as men and stated an unusual occupation choice for them that is now accepted.  but you are not saying,  humans with a penis can be teachers now, huh.   you are saying,  humans that present and identify the gender role and identity of men can be teachers.   that is, people that are not typically associated with the caring, nurturing role of nurse or teacher, due to the culture implications of being male, not anything necessarily intrinsic to having a penis or male biology.  our language and cultural understanding of men and women have nothing to do with biology, in the sense that a biological female can make herself completely indistinguishable from a man in every meaningful way by changing her voice, appearance, mode of dress, behavior, etc and everybody would treat her as a man and not as a woman.  they would not make a note, hey, she is being a construction worker now ! it would just be accepted.  there is also a way that we  feel  like one gender or another, hence the very idea of transsexuals.  i thought that was an undesirable side effect of gender policing and ignorance.  not something that we desire, and not something that people want to voluntarily perpetuate.  we are not supposed to, but we naturally do.  we ca not help it, our society is built around it.  the very fact that we are having this conversation proves that.
so we start with the concept that sex and gender are two different categories.  we use male and female when talking about sex and use boy/man and girl/woman for gender.  most people are either female woman or male men.  a small subset are female men or male women.  perhaps a few outliers as well but they are not relevant to this cmv.  sexual characteristics both primary and secondary are traits that pertain to sex and not gender.  those that need worry about cervical cancer are females men or women and never males men or women .  so the following i believe is a problem: we have a plethora of people who demand that we come to the realization that peoples genders are self identified and  are not indicative of their respective sex.   now, i can agree with this statement, but i take it to its logical conclusion.  which is: what trait or characteristic can be associated with only one gender as a reason to differentiate and have two genders in the first place ? if the only difference is one of identity then there really is no difference and talking about gender is pretty meaningless having 0 genders would be just as valid if they only pertain to self identity .  better to assume the discussion using man/woman is talking about sex, then we have a reason to have different labels.  this in turn would stop all the semantic arguments and anger directed at those who are not up to speed on terminology.  tl;dr:   if gender distinction matters then give examples of traits that pertain to only one gender excluding traits that pertain to sex   if no such traits can be shown then, discussing gender is worthless and what matters is sex outside of identity .    if sex is what matters outside of identity then i have more cmv is regarding the surrounding ideas.   #  sexual characteristics both primary and secondary are traits that pertain to sex and not gender.   #  those that need worry about cervical cancer are females men or women and never males men or women .   # which is: what trait or characteristic can be associated with only one gender as a reason to differentiate and have two genders in the first place ? what single trait is the difference between a fox and a wolf ? probably nothing, right ? for any trait you find commonly in foxes there is some wolf that has it, and vice versa.  but that does not mean that foxes are wolves.  wait, why ? having 0 genders is valid.  that is an entirely intentional effect of this argument.  those that need worry about cervical cancer are females men or women and never males men or women .  actually, this is one of the reasons why i and many others would argue that sex is not actually a thing.  many males do need to worry about cervical cancer.  nature does not draw some magic line where penis biology is entirely separate from vagina biology.   #  but it does not really have to do with sexual organs or biology.   #  you are looking at this the wrong way.  we undeniably have a concept of male and female in society, it is embedded in our language, our pop culture, our advertising, our fashion, and the way we think about the world and people.  but it does not really have to do with sexual organs or biology.  what makes a woman and woman is not inextricably linked to her ability to reproduce, or her secondary sexual characteristics.  there are, of course, mental predispositions to certain emotions or behaviors but because we are human, we are capable of subverting our instinctual behaviors.  a person with male biology can act, think, look and be treated in every meaningful way as a woman.  therefore, biology is not a signifier, necessarily, of gender identity.  not all women are the same, not all men are the same, but there are ways that gender is important to identifying people and navigating through human culture.  the fact that we are having this discussion and that i am using the words  man  and  woman  prove that.   #  we disregarded the tiny minority that did not fit the stereotype.   #  for the longest time we have lived as a society where, male and man; and female and women were synonymous.  we disregarded the tiny minority that did not fit the stereotype.  now we are learning to appreciate that minority and so female and women and male and man are being separated and are slowly becoming non synonymous.  so since in this new language usage female and woman are different.  i am asking what is woman ? it is nothing that has to do with female as they are no longer synonymous.  so what defines woman that makes woman different from female and different from man ? you have not given any example and so you have not changed my view, that there is nothing really that separates them.  what i think is really going on is that for the sjw woman and female are still synonymous when it suits them and are different when that suits them.  making the concept contradictory when it does not suit them.   #  i thought that was an undesirable side effect of gender policing and ignorance.  not something that we desire, and not something that people want to voluntarily perpetuate.   # i have always had trouble with this, too.  even if you completely ignore biological sex.  women can be construction workers and soldiers.  women can wear pants and polo shirts.  men can be teachers and nurses.  men can wear high heels and dresses.  none of those things require that people change their gender identity.  so.  where do we draw the line for gender identity ? is it just the pronouns we use when we speak ? are we  supposed  to treat women and men differently ? i thought that was an undesirable side effect of gender policing and ignorance.  not something that we desire, and not something that people want to voluntarily perpetuate.   #  there is also a way that we  feel  like one gender or another, hence the very idea of transsexuals.   # men  can be teachers and nurses.  exactly.  you are saying that as if there is a cultural reason why you make that distinction.  you have just defined a group as men and stated an unusual occupation choice for them that is now accepted.  but you are not saying,  humans with a penis can be teachers now, huh.   you are saying,  humans that present and identify the gender role and identity of men can be teachers.   that is, people that are not typically associated with the caring, nurturing role of nurse or teacher, due to the culture implications of being male, not anything necessarily intrinsic to having a penis or male biology.  our language and cultural understanding of men and women have nothing to do with biology, in the sense that a biological female can make herself completely indistinguishable from a man in every meaningful way by changing her voice, appearance, mode of dress, behavior, etc and everybody would treat her as a man and not as a woman.  they would not make a note, hey, she is being a construction worker now ! it would just be accepted.  there is also a way that we  feel  like one gender or another, hence the very idea of transsexuals.  i thought that was an undesirable side effect of gender policing and ignorance.  not something that we desire, and not something that people want to voluntarily perpetuate.  we are not supposed to, but we naturally do.  we ca not help it, our society is built around it.  the very fact that we are having this conversation proves that.
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.   #  yes, it absolutely is, especially if there is no afterlife.   # yes, it absolutely is, especially if there is no afterlife.  if you like a specific subject, then you should spend some of the short amount of time you have to study it.  if you find someone that you love and they love you back, then you should spend the little bit of time on this planet that each of you have together.  basically, because we only have a limited time to live according to an atheistic viewpoint , we should spend as much time as possible doing things that we love and make us happy.  if there is an afterlife, then why bother with some of these things if they can be done in the afterlife ?  #  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.   #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.   # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.   # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.   # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.   #  what reward is there in the christian afterlife for enjoying your life ?  # even when you believed in god life was only about believing in god.  you only ever gave your life meaning through what you believed, it never inherently meant anything.  because it feels good to do good and it feels bad to do bad  one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth thats all anyone ever does, even if someone acts selflessly they are only doing it because it feels good to be selfless or there is a long term gain.  what reward is there in the christian afterlife for enjoying your life ? where does it say in the bible that not enjoying your life is a sin ? isnt joy the reward for enjoying your life ? also keep in mind that athiest does not mean someone who does not believe in the christian god.  an athiest is someone like a buddhist who has a religion but does not believe in a god.  someone who believes in nothing is called aspiritual.   #  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.   #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ?  # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ?  # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.   # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ?  #  do you really need god to tell you that you should help others.   # do you really need god to tell you that you should help others.  that you should not hurt innocent people ? however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? of course it is worth it.  there is a lot to experience in life.  i mean if you do not wanna study do not.  it is your choice.  life is just like driving down a high way, if you do not like where your going.  you just have to turn the wheel.  the only reason to live life before was so god could give you a present at the end ? this is why you should live life.  who gives a shit if our lives are meaningless ? we should just enjoy the hell out of life, doing what we like with the people with love.  there does not need to be anymore to it then that.   #  am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ?  #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.   # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.   # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.   # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.   #  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ?  # do you really need god to tell you that you should help others.  that you should not hurt innocent people ? however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? of course it is worth it.  there is a lot to experience in life.  i mean if you do not wanna study do not.  it is your choice.  life is just like driving down a high way, if you do not like where your going.  you just have to turn the wheel.  the only reason to live life before was so god could give you a present at the end ? this is why you should live life.  who gives a shit if our lives are meaningless ? we should just enjoy the hell out of life, doing what we like with the people with love.  there does not need to be anymore to it then that.   #  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.   #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ?  # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.   # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  and if so, why put us on earth first ?  # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.   #  the only reason to live life before was so god could give you a present at the end ?  # do you really need god to tell you that you should help others.  that you should not hurt innocent people ? however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? of course it is worth it.  there is a lot to experience in life.  i mean if you do not wanna study do not.  it is your choice.  life is just like driving down a high way, if you do not like where your going.  you just have to turn the wheel.  the only reason to live life before was so god could give you a present at the end ? this is why you should live life.  who gives a shit if our lives are meaningless ? we should just enjoy the hell out of life, doing what we like with the people with love.  there does not need to be anymore to it then that.   #  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.   #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.   # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.   # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .   # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  for some reason, i am happy in my life.   #  this is why you should live life.   # do you really need god to tell you that you should help others.  that you should not hurt innocent people ? however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? of course it is worth it.  there is a lot to experience in life.  i mean if you do not wanna study do not.  it is your choice.  life is just like driving down a high way, if you do not like where your going.  you just have to turn the wheel.  the only reason to live life before was so god could give you a present at the end ? this is why you should live life.  who gives a shit if our lives are meaningless ? we should just enjoy the hell out of life, doing what we like with the people with love.  there does not need to be anymore to it then that.   #  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.   #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.   # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.   # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.   # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.   #  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ?  # if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? i think your first issue is that your beliefs are relying on what you  want  to be true, and not what you think is actually true.  your argument is based on what you think you would not like to be true, and thus you do not believe it.  the simple answer for me is this: life has not been about anything in particular, except for exactly what you made of it.  it matters if you try to live as a good and moral person because that is what results in the best kind of life at least for me i would rather not spend my life in prison, and i would rather spend my life with people around me who like me .  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  of course it was worth it.  if there is no afterlife and i see no reason to believe that there is then this life is the only experience you get to have, so it is worth everything to make the most of it.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.  most people are pretty good at being happy.  you probably do not dwell on this kind of philosophy all the time, and instead find ways to make yourself content with your daily activities.   #  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.   #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.   # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ?  # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ?  # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.   #  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ?  # if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? i think your first issue is that your beliefs are relying on what you  want  to be true, and not what you think is actually true.  your argument is based on what you think you would not like to be true, and thus you do not believe it.  the simple answer for me is this: life has not been about anything in particular, except for exactly what you made of it.  it matters if you try to live as a good and moral person because that is what results in the best kind of life at least for me i would rather not spend my life in prison, and i would rather spend my life with people around me who like me .  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  of course it was worth it.  if there is no afterlife and i see no reason to believe that there is then this life is the only experience you get to have, so it is worth everything to make the most of it.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.  most people are pretty good at being happy.  you probably do not dwell on this kind of philosophy all the time, and instead find ways to make yourself content with your daily activities.   #  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.   #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.   # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.   # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.   # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.   #  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   # if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? i think your first issue is that your beliefs are relying on what you  want  to be true, and not what you think is actually true.  your argument is based on what you think you would not like to be true, and thus you do not believe it.  the simple answer for me is this: life has not been about anything in particular, except for exactly what you made of it.  it matters if you try to live as a good and moral person because that is what results in the best kind of life at least for me i would rather not spend my life in prison, and i would rather spend my life with people around me who like me .  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  of course it was worth it.  if there is no afterlife and i see no reason to believe that there is then this life is the only experience you get to have, so it is worth everything to make the most of it.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.  most people are pretty good at being happy.  you probably do not dwell on this kind of philosophy all the time, and instead find ways to make yourself content with your daily activities.   #  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.   #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.   # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.   # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ?  # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ?  #  there is no point to life even if there is judgement.   # there is no point to life even if there is judgement.  so what ? you were put on this earth to be part of the god fanclub ? how is that more satisfying than creating your own goals and achieving them ? being a good person affects how people interact with you.  you get more out of life by being good.  why should you be good with a theistic viewpoint ? all you need to do is accept that jesus is your savior and even a guy like hitler goes to heaven.  in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  it is for the happiness we gain in this life.  if you have a perfect eternal afterlife ahead of you, why would you try to achieve anything in this life ? you ca not take anything with you, and this life is insignificant compared to your time in heaven.  your logic points to becoming a monk that does nothing but the lords work to guarantee a place into heaven.   #  an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ?  #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.   # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.   # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ?  # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ?  #  being a good person affects how people interact with you.   # there is no point to life even if there is judgement.  so what ? you were put on this earth to be part of the god fanclub ? how is that more satisfying than creating your own goals and achieving them ? being a good person affects how people interact with you.  you get more out of life by being good.  why should you be good with a theistic viewpoint ? all you need to do is accept that jesus is your savior and even a guy like hitler goes to heaven.  in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  it is for the happiness we gain in this life.  if you have a perfect eternal afterlife ahead of you, why would you try to achieve anything in this life ? you ca not take anything with you, and this life is insignificant compared to your time in heaven.  your logic points to becoming a monk that does nothing but the lords work to guarantee a place into heaven.   #  and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ?  #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .   # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ?  # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .   # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
okay so i have been struggling with this theory lately in my spiritual life i guess you could say.  i am not sure what i believe about god or the afterlife really but i have problems not believing because of what i am about to say in the following sentences.  if we die and there is no judgement, no life, what has life been about ? why should it matter if i live trying to be a good and moral person ? one way i could view this is that if one does not believe in the afterlife, one should try to maximize pleasure while on earth.  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ? in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  sorry if my view is unclear in any way i will try to clarify in comments if you ask questions.  not relevant but interesting thought: for some reason, i am happy in my life.  i am not really sure why, given this philosophy makes perfect sense to me.   #  however when i really think about this, is it really worth it ?  #  in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.   # there is no point to life even if there is judgement.  so what ? you were put on this earth to be part of the god fanclub ? how is that more satisfying than creating your own goals and achieving them ? being a good person affects how people interact with you.  you get more out of life by being good.  why should you be good with a theistic viewpoint ? all you need to do is accept that jesus is your savior and even a guy like hitler goes to heaven.  in the span of reality, our lives are but the blink of an eye.  is it really worth the effort put forth studying, loving, living if it is all for nothing.  i realize this view is depressing, but to me it makes logical sense.  it is for the happiness we gain in this life.  if you have a perfect eternal afterlife ahead of you, why would you try to achieve anything in this life ? you ca not take anything with you, and this life is insignificant compared to your time in heaven.  your logic points to becoming a monk that does nothing but the lords work to guarantee a place into heaven.   #  and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ?  #  if i accept what you are saying, i am not sure how our lives are supposed to matter from a theistic point of view either.  it seems that whatever we do and whatever happens to us is  part of god is plan,  which i never really got.  what  is  god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i have already passed god is test on earth, so.  now what ? an eternity of just chilling up here, engaging in all the debauchery that is supposed to be wrong on earth ? just sitting around basking in god is glory like a moth to a lamp ? the universe will exist and the earth will keep spinning regardless of what we do, and we are all going to die at some point, so if we have to counteract these things to somehow have meaning or inherent value, then i am at a loss.  but regardless of these things, i can be sure of one thing: that i exist.  it does not matter if i have a soul or if my consciousness is nothing more than material, i, as a conscious entity, can produce infinite, unique thoughts with finite matter.  i can be a god in my own mind, creating anything i want, things that you will never see for yourself and things that you will probably never understand.  but i do not just create things, i create meaning for those things.  i am influenced by many things, but i am unique in my actions and the meanings i give them.  so to sum it up, if you are still seeking meaning from an  outside  force with absolute rules that are fundamental to existence itself, but failing to find it, then that is not really an  atheistic  viewpoint.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.    #  i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.   # what is god is plan ? am i supposed to be satisfied with never really understanding ? and if i die and go to heaven, would my actions matter then ? i would hope heaven would be like in  it is the end .  i think people correct me if i am wrong that from a christian perspective it seems we are going the christian route here based on your response , in heaven, all of your questions would be answered.  the meaning of life would be fully understood at that point and the glory of god would be amazing.  your actions would not really affect much at that point except maybe through prayer and intercession but basking in the glory of god would be worth the struggle on earth.  i believe it is definitely possible for heaven to be worth it.  i mean if god created the world, he is certainly powerful enough to put us in an everlasting state of ecstasy.  while you may not see any reason to believe in a deity, i feel like you have not left the notion that our actions have to have some grand cosmological importance in order to  matter.   i think this is a good summation of the problems i have accepting life.  maybe i should consider myself more agnostic than atheistic.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  it is probably half fear for the future, fear of death if i am being honest with myself.  maybe i need to look within to find purpose, but even then i see no point in solely seeking my happiness.   #  maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.   # i am sure that would be a comforting thought to be raised on, thinking all your trials will pay off in the afterlife, but to me as a person who did not have much of a religious upbringing and never went to church it seems like a bit of a cop out.  i am sure he can, but what is the meaning behind that ? did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? but if that is not it, and i am not able to understand here on earth, then why should i worry about following his word ? maybe me sinning and going to hell was part of his plan.  heck, maybe it was his plan for me to reject him.  i was raised christian and have really struggled to let go of my christian faith despite the fact that i do not fully believe in god.  although i was not the most religious kid, i think i felt a similar way before i worried that if i rejected god and his word then he might be mad and cast me into the lake of fire.  i could not shake the idea that some supernatural being created the universe and life.  but i ultimately got over that fear when i looked within myself rather than the bible or other holy books to come up with what god is.  right now, pantheism is the  characterization  that makes most sense to me.  but i figure that, if i find myself at the pearly gates and the god of abraham is standing there, arms crossed, asking why i never returned his love, i would feel comfortable explaining that, out of respect for him, i rejected any characterization that was not in tune with his greatest gifts to me my conscious mind and emotions.   #  and if so, why put us on earth first ?  # did god make us just so we could bask in his glory and feel eternal ecstasy ? and if so, why put us on earth first ? well that right there is one of the issues i have with christianity.  why on earth would an all powerful and all loving apparently being put humans on earth to struggle for heaven when he could simply put us there.  it is kind of like the  can god build a rock so large he cannot move it  question in a way.  if god couldnt make us love him, he wouldnt be all powerful, but if he could, why wouldnt he ? i really have not studied the bible or any other religion in detail recently since asking these questions, but i probably should start to.  they are important things to think about assuming thinking about things is actually important, haha .
i am an agnostic turned jewish, but a lot of my friends are atheist.  i have never been able to wrap my head around the double standard of hating one religion while revering another as an atheist.  they will sit and talk about how wise words of the buddha or dalai lama are.  they will talk about how offensive it is that muslims or jews are portrayed or discriminated one way or another.  but the pope is a fucking child molester and christians are idiotic bible thumpers.  what ? ! it is such a huge disparage that i am coming to you for some help.  maybe i am wrong.  the way i see it, all of these groups were made fun of at one point and it always turned into a sign of ignorance to do so after so many years.  it seems obvious to me that the same thing is going on once again.  this came up recently because the satanic church wants to put a statue next to the donated christian statue on government property and my friends are hooting and hollering about it.  i do not get it.  my understanding is that if it was a jewish sculpture commiserating the holocaust, they would be find with it on government ground.  and if neo nazis wanted to put a statue of hitler next to it, they would call it a hate crime.  so what is the difference ? they talk about the law being on their side but i am reminded of the westboro baptist church having the law on their side, but attacking targets that were not popular to target while my friends called them the worst names.  the only difference i see is that the target is socially acceptable to attack.  am i wrong ?  #  my understanding is that if it was a jewish sculpture commiserating the holocaust, they would be find with it on government ground.   #  and if neo nazis wanted to put a statue of hitler next to it, they would call it a hate crime.   # and if neo nazis wanted to put a statue of hitler next to it, they would call it a hate crime.  so what is the difference ? that has nothing to do with religion.  that is about a real thing that happened less than a century ago, in the lifetime of some people who are alive today.  the constitution names religion specifically as something the government should be uninvolved with.  putting the ten commandments christian law in front of a courthouse us law is not merely a religious thing on government property, it is intentionally blurring the symbolic line between god is law and us law, which makes it particularly bad.  being uncomfortable about christian beliefs infecting the legal process which is supposed to be fair and areligious is not the same as hating on christians.  putting up a statue of satan is a little douchy and obnoxious, but it makes an important demonstration of how inappropriate religious symbols are in front of a courthouse.  hating on christians is not alright.  of course it is not.  but i think that your examples, and the examples that most people cite when they make arguments like yours, are imagined slights that pale in comparison to the actual discrimination that other groups face.   #  islam is also very vocal when it feels it is being persecuted, look at the protests in britain to try to enstate sharia law, but they and their views are not widely discussed since they are viewed as enemies in the us.   #  i ca not say i have ever experienced this sort of discrimination by atheists.  christianity may be viewed as a more acceptable target because it is considered the majority, and more importantly, the oppressor in this country.  there is a double standard amongst your friends but christians see the deep south are loud about being wrong in their views while believing that they are the majority.  islam is also very vocal when it feels it is being persecuted, look at the protests in britain to try to enstate sharia law, but they and their views are not widely discussed since they are viewed as enemies in the us.  it comes down to the fact that christians are the ones fighting change an all fronts, abortion, gay marriage, equal voice across beliefs, so they are more likely to be targeted than those who fall into the victim category with atheists.   #  because the people on the fronts are christian it is okay to hate on all christians ?  #  i understand why they are more likely to be targeted, sure.  one of my gay friends said that it was because christians are the cause of so many of his problems that he feels justified to hate them.  but i would like to know what you think of it being right/wrong to hate them more than other religions.  because the people on the fronts are christian it is okay to hate on all christians ? if a group of terrorists that are muslim attack us, it is not okay to hate on all muslims.   #  this gallup poll URL shows that only 0 of catholics and 0 of protestant are pro choice.   #  i really have the idea simply as a result of many experiences i have had while living in the us.  the large majority of the us is christian, so on major issues the majority of people on both sides are usually christian.  here are two charts URL showing that the majority of both parties are christian.  slide four of this graph URL shows the majority of white mainline protestants and majority of catholics support gay marriage.  this URL was the only place i could find the claim that the majority of christians support lgbt rights, but be warned, these poll questions are  extremely  leading and biased.  it does not matter if the majority  of christians  support gay marriage though, because there are so many christians that even if only, say, 0 of christians supported gay marriage, that would still be something like half of all gay marriage supporters.  this gallup poll URL shows that only 0 of catholics and 0 of protestant are pro choice.  deceptively, however, those 0 groups combined make up the majority of the national pro choice group.   #  another friend in another part of georgia says how when you meet people they ask  what church do you go to ?    #  there are many particularly on the religious right who consider the united states to be a christian nation.  they do not understand why anyone would object to saying prayers to jesus before a public high school football game.  a jewish friend of mine went in to a walmart in georgia and asked for chanukah cards, and the clerk chirped,  oh ! you are a heathen ! i have never met one of you before !   another friend in another part of georgia says how when you meet people they ask  what church do you go to ?   and they ai not thinking buddhist .  it is the arrogance and dismissiveness towards other religions that i think your friends are responding to.  there are not a lot of jews who are harassed by buddhists in america.  hindus do not get crap from american muslims.  but because they are the vast majority, and many are taught that they are the only true religion, all other groups do get grief from some christians.  that is why there is resentment because some american christians want to subject everyone to their religion, not leave others along to worship or not as they see fit.  it is not because they are worse people every religion except maybe buddhists do similar stuff when they are in the majority.
i honestly believe that suicide has been given a bad spin in our society that it does not deserve.  being alive is something to cherish, however we do not live in a perfect world, and many people suffer daily on this planet.  many people are in situations either physically mentally or economically that should allow them to decide when they no longer want to exist.  religious views aside, if someone has had enough of life, or is suffering, or life has left them in a place where they feel no joy in living, they should be allowed to die of their own accord.  many many people die every day, old, young, deserving or not.  death is a normal thing, and should not be viewed as something so bad in my opinion .  take for example, my mother.  she is 0, bipolar, has major health problems that cause her daily pain and she is financially in a terrible position.  she just wants peace, to go to sleep and never wake up, never have to deal with life again.  sure it saddens me to think of losing my mom, however everything is meant to die, she has lived a good life, and she is ready to move on so i am ok with that.  i am not saying that young kids or mentally ill people who cannot fully comprehend the gravity of the decision should be allowed to do so, however mentally capable adults who do not feel like they belong in this world anymore should not be looked down upon for wanting to leave this planet.  cmv !  #  she is 0, bipolar, has major health problems that cause her daily pain and she is financially in a terrible position.   #  she just wants peace, to go to sleep and never wake up, never have to deal with life again.   # she just wants peace, to go to sleep and never wake up, never have to deal with life again.  your mother is  mentally ill.  i share this mental illness and i have been at the bottom of the barrel myself due to it.  i have three suicide attempts under my belt; twice swallowing the medicine cabinet, once with a razor two hospitalizations .  once my bipolar depression subsided, i was very happy to be alive.  why ? because wanting to commit suicide is, in and of itself, a feature of that mental illness.  how would you determine who was going to kill themselves because they  feel no joy in living  or for economical, physical or mental reasons outside of mental illness, because of what you said above ? would there be a committee that judged suicides before or after ? how would you regulate this, and what impact would it have ? should the emt who saved my life not have  just in case  i had a good reason ? or should he have saved me and waited for the suicide review board to go ahead and ok it, so i could do it without interruption ? are you trying to say that people should just be like,  beloved family member is dead, but they had a good head on their shoulders and a mountain of debt, so lets not mourn their decision ?   that is unrealistic.  when i had a miscarriage of a baby who could not survive outside the womb , i grieved despite knowing that she could not have gone full term anyways.  i grieved, even though it was better she was not born suffering.  her death was a blessing of mercy in many ways dying before she was more able to suffer , but i grieved.  is your attitude healthy ? yes.  it is healthy for you because it works for you.  is it something the rest of us  should  aspire to ? is it healthier then someone who needs to grieve in a more traditional way ? no, absolutely not.  here is the view i am arguing against: there is no evidence that mentally well people are being stopped from  choosing  to end it all.  it goes against our natural self preservation instinct.  suicidal ideation is a mental illness that can be treated and recovered from in and of itself, therefore, a suicidal person who is not mentally ill does not exist or if they do, there is no suitable way to screen or sort those people so in the interest of not accidentally letting a treatable member of society make a mistake they ca not take back, we should continue to fight to prevent the incidence of suicide.   #  first of all, i am going to draw a very clear line here between what i consider  isuicide  versus what i consider  euthanasia .   #  first of all, i am going to draw a very clear line here between what i consider  isuicide  versus what i consider  euthanasia .  these wo not be exactly to their dictionary definitions.  typically the difference between euthanasia and suicide is that suicide is carried out by the person whereas euthanasia is carried out by someone else, but i am going to expand that definition such that euthanasia is defined as making the decision to die for nontreatable medical reasons.  the reason that i draw this line is that i absolutely support a person is right to die in that instance.  you might notice that this leaves suicide to be defined almost exclusively as the decision to die as a result of a temporary or treatable problem.  you may now see where this is going.  see, the thing about suicide in general is that it is almost always carried out as a response to pressure.  it is the human breaking point.  it is the antithesis of logical thought and level headedness.  the reason that we work so hard to prevent suicide, cliche though it sounds, is that it is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.  and because we as bystanders cannot get into the head of the person who is trying to end their life, we try to prevent 0 of suicide attempts because odds are  overwhelmingly  likely that the person attempting it has not thought it all the way through.  anyway, i do not want to start sounding like a suicide prevention advertisement or whatever so i wo not get into the emotional impacts and whatnot, but yeah, most of the time suicide is a response to outside pressure rather than a well thought out decision, so it is just safer to stop everyone rather than waste crucial time trying to get everyone is story before intervening.   #  not everyone with bipolar, schizophrenia, or chronic depression are mentally incapable or not of sound mind.   #  i realize what the law  is .  i just disagree with it.  i do not think that other people should be allowed to determine whether someone else is suffering enough, or in the right way.  not everyone with bipolar, schizophrenia, or chronic depression are mentally incapable or not of sound mind.  i have bipolar disorder but am allowed to enter into contractual employment obligations, sign up for various types of insurance, sign rental agreements, and so forth.  but i have treatment resistant bipolar disorder, am utterly miserable, and have been, unremittingly, since i was 0 years old.  i will be 0 in july.  if i could be legally allowed to end my life with a minimum of physical pain and suffering read: with assistance from medical professionals , i would do so.  but because my suffering is not the right  kind  of suffering, and because it wo not directly kill me, i do not have this right.  i think it is bullshit.   #  medical euthanasia is designed to be relief from someone who is suffering and faces little to no potential for improvement.   #  i think this is due to the principle that you are treatable.  patients who are terminally ill are incurable.  suicide is generally discouraged based on a means of depression.  medical euthanasia is designed to be relief from someone who is suffering and faces little to no potential for improvement.  their life must be nearing an end as well.  i am very sorry to hear of your condition though.  i just wrote a 0 page research paper on euthanasia for class and i support it.   #  all i tried to do was help her and get help for her so that these thoughts would go away.   #  i do agree that suicide has a very negative connotation.  many view it as a selfish act and claim it is all for attention.  i have a best friend who was suicidal at one point and she had many reasons to be.  it is a very painful emotional battle that i would never want to experience and i do not shame her for having those feelings or thoughts.  all i tried to do was help her and get help for her so that these thoughts would go away.  i knew she had a lot to live for and i personally did not want to lose her.  however, i think you took it too far.  i would not say suicide should be respected that almost encourages it.  it makes it sound as though people who commit suicide should be idolized.  i do not think we should respect or even accept suicide.  instead of informing people that many members of society wish to die and should be allowed to do so, we should inform people why many members of society wish to die and how we can help them.  this is a lot more proactive than your stance, which is almost giving up.
one of the major policy appeals behind affirmative action is the creation of a diverse environment.  a completely homogeneous environment is unlikely to be as intellectually fulfilling as a diverse one.  universities have done an excellent job in creating an environment that has tons of racial, sexual, ethnic and religious diversity.  however, it still lacks intellectual and political diversity.  people with conservative or right wing views are woefully unrepresented URL in academia, particularly in the social sciences.  not only does this make people with conservative political views feel unwelcome and unappreciated in the university environment, it threatens the perceived validity of the research done.  this is even recognized by some leftists themselves URL how are you supposed to have valid research, let alone critical thinking, when there is an absolute hegemony of leftist views, which no one dares challenge due to their overwhelmingly disproportionate power and influence on campus ? therefore, to make university a more diverse environment and encourage critical thinking, we should prioritize student and faculty applicants who are affiliated with right wing organizations, and ensure that peer review panels have at least one right wing professor on them cmv.   #  one of the major policy appeals behind affirmative action is the creation of a diverse environment.   #  a completely homogeneous environment is unlikely to be as intellectually fulfilling as a diverse one.   # a completely homogeneous environment is unlikely to be as intellectually fulfilling as a diverse one.  universities have done an excellent job in creating an environment that has tons of racial, sexual, ethnic and religious diversity.  however, it still lacks intellectual and political diversity.  true, diversity is good, but keep in mind that affirmative action is overwhelming primary purpose is to balance out systematic discrimination that minority groups face.  it does not consider things like religion.  i am not entirely sure why it should consider things like conservatism when it comes to letting in students.  in terms of bringing in faculty, yes, schools should consider bringing in conservatives as well to bring out new ideas.  in fields like economics, it is often very important.  have you considered, however, that conservatism is not represented because conservatives themselves choose not to go into academia ? look how modern conservatism has aligned itself in the united states.  it is anti science, with their adamant denials of climate change and evolution teach  both sides  .  with such views popular in modern conservatism, no wonder they are not going into academia.  but i agree, there should be more conservative voices in teaching faculty and academia.  but i think it really should not be a point of issue for recruiting students.  your beliefs, which are largely within your control, should not give you preference in any way.   #  right wingers are woefully underrepresented in all of academia, and it will always be that way because generally the left wing tends to favor academic pursuits over the right wing business ones.   #  while i sympathize with you, as i went to a college where conservatives lived in hiding and could not state their views without being attacked from all corners, using things like political associations and preferences for affirmative action is dangerous and ridiculous.  your suggestions could set some very unappealing precedents.  hiring/admitting people based off their group choice can be positive just as much as negative.  how would you feel if the roles were reversed and those all became negative traits in people ? i can easily see groups like the nra having negative implications on job and college applications do you really think someone who volunteered with the nra should get preferential treatment over someone who volunteered for the epa just because of their political views ? this would amount to an attack on people, taking away their opportunities, just because they support a particular cause.  right wingers are woefully underrepresented in all of academia, and it will always be that way because generally the left wing tends to favor academic pursuits over the right wing business ones.  social science research seems to be mostly directed towards why democrats are right and republicans are wrong, so it is not remotely attractive to conservatives.  this is a problem i agree.  i am a conservative myself and often found myself the only one willing to challenge views on our campus cause i relished irritating the ultrafeminists.  but the solution is being stricter on clear bias in class, and teaching students how to accept different viewpoints and debate them intelligently.  perhaps requiring that if colleges fund one group, they must give equal financing to an opposing group if one exists or is formed.   #  URL although this represents an increase in recent years, it is neither vastly skewed liberal, nor an all time high.   #  in 0, 0 of american college students identified themselves as liberal, while 0 identified themselves as conservative.  URL although this represents an increase in recent years, it is neither vastly skewed liberal, nor an all time high.  so while your citations are correct regarding the political leanings of the professoriate, you are way off base regarding the students.  so, at the very least, the idea that we need conservative leaning affirmative action for students does not really hold up.  also, do not forget that lower and middle classes are being increasingly priced out of a college education and that upper classes skew conservative.  so, in a sense, we may already have a form of affirmative action with the aim you describe.   #  i grew up blue collar and middle class.   # what basis do you have for making this claim ? i grew up blue collar and middle class.  i only ever really interacted with the wealthy when i went to university.  in my experience, students from upper class backgrounds were the ones constantly circlejerking about  social justice  and whatnot out of some weird self loathing guilt about their privilege and/or rebelling against daddy.  students from working class background tended to either lean more to the right or not give a fuck about politics.   #  one has parents who can afford 0k a year to send them to a very good private school.   #  if past discrimination prevented people from having opportunities that, all else equal, they would have no.  image two students who have the same drive to learn and succeed, and are, as far as we are concerned equally intelligent.  they live next door to each other.  one has parents who can afford 0k a year to send them to a very good private school.  the other does not and instead is forced to go to the public school.  these two equally intelligent neighbors are then placed in completely different environments due to situations entirely external to their control.  little jimmy gets into harvard while johnny can only go to the state university, and keep in mind these students are both equally intelligent, its just that one has a greater opportunity to learn due to his living situation.  that is a problem and it is not easy to solve.  some students are not given equal opportunities to learn or to show their mastery of knowledge to institutions of higher learning.  and short of doing a full audit of someone is family history, you are not going to be able to be completely fair, but that is not feasible.  so schools cheat.  they are aware that statistically speaking, minority students are more likely to be unable to demonstrate their intelligence and as a result a when comparing two otherwise equal students, a minority student gets a bump because statistically speaking they had to work a little harder to achieve the same.  in other words, if jimmy and johnny both scored 0s on the sat and have 0 0s on ap exams, you can assume that the one that went to the public school did a lot more work personally, to achieve the same level of success, whereas the private school student could simply have a lot of that work done for him.  the thing is, most of the time, when you have two otherwise equal students and one attends a better school, that is reflected because they had better teachers and a more useful environment so the private school student probably did better on the sat and got more ap credits, despite both students being equally intelligent.
this especially applies to posts and op comments.  cmv cannot function without people posting and discussing their honest opinions.  we ca not change views if there are no views to change, after all.  despite our efforts to maintain the subreddit as a forum of open mindedness and free discussion of all topics, there are already many concerns and difficulties associated with posting a controversial opinion to cmv.  it is tough posting an opinion knowing it is going to meet waves of opposing comments, even when those comments are expected and welcomed.   the threat of getting downvoted should not be one of those deterring factors.   the mods and the community at large are of the opinion that  downvoting comments neither changes views nor encourages delta awarding , regardless of the quality of a comment is argument.  it simply deters and discourages any further attempts to continue discussion.  if you find a comment that does not seem to be in good faith eg.  trolling, lying, soapboxing , report the comment and/or message the mods to bring them to our attention.  acceptable usage of downvoting is to downvote a comment that is not related to the conversation taking place.  if you are talking about religion and someone starts talking about their favorite basketball game, go ahead and downvote it.  downvoting based on opinion or misinformation just hurts the ability for people to change views.  we understand that cmv allows people to discuss opinions and beliefs that are mean, biased, misinformed, or just plain wrong, but we do so in the context of allowing them to improve their way of thinking.  we encourage you to allow them to speak their views in this constructive context by refraining from downvoting comments, both from op and other commenters.  thank you for your consideration for keeping /r/changemyview going.   #  downvoting based on opinion or misinformation just hurts the ability for people to change views.   #  could someone preferably a mod clarify why down voting for misinformation is not allowed ?  # could someone preferably a mod clarify why down voting for misinformation is not allowed ? i am not arguing against it, i just do not see why that is a rule.  maybe i am misunderstanding what you mean by  misinformation .  my current understanding of this rule is that we are not supposed to downvote someone for posting false or misleading information.  could someone clarify this ? thanks in advance.   #  by downvoting simply for disagreement you are misusing the downvote.   #  excessive downvoting can throttle a posters commenting rate.  that is, when you get too many downvotes, you ca not post as quickly.  it is something built into reddit to deter trolls.  by downvoting simply for disagreement you are misusing the downvote.  it is intent by the admins is to help promote good conversation by hiding comments that are not constructive.  well written dissenting views should be upvoted as they are part of a good conversation.  if the downvote was merely cosmetic i would not care so much, but voting actually affects how much a person can respond as well as how visible their comments are.  if users ca not speak their mind you ca not have a conversation.   #  i do not know how to say this without sounding like an ass, but in general my posts are well received.   #  i do not want to point to any particular user comments, but i can share this example.  there was a cmv asking for reasons to hate democrats since the op already hated republicans .  since shocker there were not a ton of conservatives on reddit to respond, i played devil is advocate, and gave a number of reasons why republicans hate dems.  i do not know how to say this without sounding like an ass, but in general my posts are well received.  yet my posts and responses started attracting serious downvotes.  now, either my ability to make an argument was impaired that day, or i got nailed because people did not like the argument i was making.  i have seen this a number of times when i have taken up an unpopular view.   #  well, this is not as much of a problem on cmv, as the primary objective of any given thread is to change op is view, and any arguments directed towards op are going to show up in their mailbox.   #  well, this is not as much of a problem on cmv, as the primary objective of any given thread is to change op is view, and any arguments directed towards op are going to show up in their mailbox.  that, and what is highly upvoted does not always equal quality.  peruse the default subreddits for even a few minutes to get an idea of what i mean.  even then, what is considered high quality to some is drivel to others.  i have seen plenty of people have their minds changed because of arguments from emotion.  those that have more of a mind for rational, formalized debate would have a bone to pick with these type of posts.  if we only used upvotes to sort comments, would that really be so bad ? that way you would not get situations where people is posts are hidden by downvotes, and posters with unpopular opinions are not being discouraged when they are getting comments with a net negative score.   #  a post with 0 upvotes and 0 downvotes has had impact on many people, even if controversial.   #  this is the problem with reddit in general.  a post with 0 upvotes and 0 downvotes has had impact on many people, even if controversial.  post with 0 upvote and 0 downvotes is ignored.  yet these are treated the same.  why should anyone even if group of people have the right to judge which postings are acceptable ? subreddits turn into echo chambers when groupthink URL silences literally any opposing views.  downvote should mean:  i do not want to see post like this, censor me this user.   downvote means now:  i do not want  others  to see post like this, censor this user.   and that is the crux of the problem.
you know these cars with  systems.   you hear the bass booming from hundreds of feet away.  the vibrations shake your floors.  if you can make out the music, it is usually terrible techno or hip hop.  these systems serve no purpose to the driver or the roads that they utilize.  from a safety standpoint, the sound is a clear distraction that could mask an emergency vehicle siren, or passing car horn.  from a quality of life standpoint, it is pure noise pollution, and a sign of pure inconsideration when a driver refuses to keep it down late at night.  i feel the dmv should be performing a decibel check on all car audio systems, and they should not exceed the maximum of the car is horn.  massive stereo hardware should not be considered street legal.  reject their inspection, and impound them if discovered on the road.   #  massive stereo hardware should not be considered street legal.   #  one can drive with stereo hardware but keep it turned low.   # not everyone takes their car to the dmv and one can easily install such a stereo system without going to the dmv.  one can drive with stereo hardware but keep it turned low.  just because something has the potential to be abused does not mean it should be restricted.  this punishment does not fit the crime.  only a fine should be used if the system is being used too loudly.   #  when you do so, include a copy of the vehicle is registration as well as a copy of a current utility bill or property owner is tax evaluation notice to verify your residence township, range, and section.   #  washington state has no inspection requirements for registration, iirc.  neither does arizona, except in tucson and phoenix URL oregon only requires it around portland or medford URL and, there tend to be numerous exceptions to even those in those areas for example, in tucson/phoenix:   vehicles exempt from testing please note that some exemptions apply: most model year 0 or newer, except reconstructed, vehicles.  most model year 0 or newer alternative fuel vehicles.  automobiles with a model year of 0 or older do not need to be tested.  vehicles licensed in more than one state do not need to be tested.  vehicles powered by electricity, golf carts, and those that do not displace more than 0 ccs do not need to be tested.  leased vehicles that commute into the designated areas do not need to be tested.  wholesale dealer vehicles do not need to be tested.  furthermore, if you live in one of the designated areas but do not use your vehicle to commute within it, or if you live in part of a zip code that you know is exempt from the vehicle emissions inspection program veip you can apply for a code 0 exemption.  when you do so, include a copy of the vehicle is registration as well as a copy of a current utility bill or property owner is tax evaluation notice to verify your residence township, range, and section.   #  for example, some aftermarket exhaust systems do not improve the performance of a car but simply make it louder and sound better to the driver.   #  i used to have a  system  like you describe and used to play it loudly, albeit i tried to be respectful about it not playing loud music at night or in quiet neighborhoods, turning it down while stopped next to other cars, etc.  .  neither do a lot of cosmetic car enhancements.  should all of these me made illegal as well ? for example, some aftermarket exhaust systems do not improve the performance of a car but simply make it louder and sound better to the driver.  should these be banned as well ? coming from someone who used to have a  system  like what you are talking about, this is false.  a siren from an emergency vehicle or a car horn are very unique sounds that can be heard over a loud stereo system.  which is why most states or towns have noise limits for cars, meaning that the problem is not the modifications themselves, but rather is the enforcement of laws/rules that are already in place.  the maximum decibel of a car horn is generally around the same as the decibel of the stereo systems that you are talking about.   #  i would think the biggest difference is that one is a safety issue and the other is not.   #  well is not it illegal to make a car that can go over a certain speed, even though it would not be breaking the law unless you actually went that fast ? i know that is a safety thing but it seems like similar logic might apply here.  having a stereo that can go over a certain volume serves no purpose except to allow you to break the law.  although as i was writing that, it occurred to me that if you go to a secluded enough place it might be legal to play music as loud as you want and still be on a public road.  not sure what the laws are about that.  i would think the biggest difference is that one is a safety issue and the other is not.   #  would not be fun if you could not go past 0.   #  when i say limiters, i mean i have never seen one that limits to anything other than 0mph.  so, still at least twice any speed limit i have ever seen.  it is just a safety thing although bmw will remove the limiter if you have a racing license that is all for show.  in practice, you could not limit speed effectively because many people enjoy taking their car to a track day and thrashing it around a racetrack.  would not be fun if you could not go past 0.
you know these cars with  systems.   you hear the bass booming from hundreds of feet away.  the vibrations shake your floors.  if you can make out the music, it is usually terrible techno or hip hop.  these systems serve no purpose to the driver or the roads that they utilize.  from a safety standpoint, the sound is a clear distraction that could mask an emergency vehicle siren, or passing car horn.  from a quality of life standpoint, it is pure noise pollution, and a sign of pure inconsideration when a driver refuses to keep it down late at night.  i feel the dmv should be performing a decibel check on all car audio systems, and they should not exceed the maximum of the car is horn.  massive stereo hardware should not be considered street legal.  reject their inspection, and impound them if discovered on the road.   #  reject their inspection, and impound them if discovered on the road.   #  this punishment does not fit the crime.   # not everyone takes their car to the dmv and one can easily install such a stereo system without going to the dmv.  one can drive with stereo hardware but keep it turned low.  just because something has the potential to be abused does not mean it should be restricted.  this punishment does not fit the crime.  only a fine should be used if the system is being used too loudly.   #  automobiles with a model year of 0 or older do not need to be tested.   #  washington state has no inspection requirements for registration, iirc.  neither does arizona, except in tucson and phoenix URL oregon only requires it around portland or medford URL and, there tend to be numerous exceptions to even those in those areas for example, in tucson/phoenix:   vehicles exempt from testing please note that some exemptions apply: most model year 0 or newer, except reconstructed, vehicles.  most model year 0 or newer alternative fuel vehicles.  automobiles with a model year of 0 or older do not need to be tested.  vehicles licensed in more than one state do not need to be tested.  vehicles powered by electricity, golf carts, and those that do not displace more than 0 ccs do not need to be tested.  leased vehicles that commute into the designated areas do not need to be tested.  wholesale dealer vehicles do not need to be tested.  furthermore, if you live in one of the designated areas but do not use your vehicle to commute within it, or if you live in part of a zip code that you know is exempt from the vehicle emissions inspection program veip you can apply for a code 0 exemption.  when you do so, include a copy of the vehicle is registration as well as a copy of a current utility bill or property owner is tax evaluation notice to verify your residence township, range, and section.   #  the maximum decibel of a car horn is generally around the same as the decibel of the stereo systems that you are talking about.   #  i used to have a  system  like you describe and used to play it loudly, albeit i tried to be respectful about it not playing loud music at night or in quiet neighborhoods, turning it down while stopped next to other cars, etc.  .  neither do a lot of cosmetic car enhancements.  should all of these me made illegal as well ? for example, some aftermarket exhaust systems do not improve the performance of a car but simply make it louder and sound better to the driver.  should these be banned as well ? coming from someone who used to have a  system  like what you are talking about, this is false.  a siren from an emergency vehicle or a car horn are very unique sounds that can be heard over a loud stereo system.  which is why most states or towns have noise limits for cars, meaning that the problem is not the modifications themselves, but rather is the enforcement of laws/rules that are already in place.  the maximum decibel of a car horn is generally around the same as the decibel of the stereo systems that you are talking about.   #  not sure what the laws are about that.   #  well is not it illegal to make a car that can go over a certain speed, even though it would not be breaking the law unless you actually went that fast ? i know that is a safety thing but it seems like similar logic might apply here.  having a stereo that can go over a certain volume serves no purpose except to allow you to break the law.  although as i was writing that, it occurred to me that if you go to a secluded enough place it might be legal to play music as loud as you want and still be on a public road.  not sure what the laws are about that.  i would think the biggest difference is that one is a safety issue and the other is not.   #  in practice, you could not limit speed effectively because many people enjoy taking their car to a track day and thrashing it around a racetrack.   #  when i say limiters, i mean i have never seen one that limits to anything other than 0mph.  so, still at least twice any speed limit i have ever seen.  it is just a safety thing although bmw will remove the limiter if you have a racing license that is all for show.  in practice, you could not limit speed effectively because many people enjoy taking their car to a track day and thrashing it around a racetrack.  would not be fun if you could not go past 0.
you know these cars with  systems.   you hear the bass booming from hundreds of feet away.  the vibrations shake your floors.  if you can make out the music, it is usually terrible techno or hip hop.  these systems serve no purpose to the driver or the roads that they utilize.  from a safety standpoint, the sound is a clear distraction that could mask an emergency vehicle siren, or passing car horn.  from a quality of life standpoint, it is pure noise pollution, and a sign of pure inconsideration when a driver refuses to keep it down late at night.  i feel the dmv should be performing a decibel check on all car audio systems, and they should not exceed the maximum of the car is horn.  massive stereo hardware should not be considered street legal.  reject their inspection, and impound them if discovered on the road.   #  these systems serve no purpose to the driver or the roads that they utilize.   #  neither do a lot of cosmetic car enhancements.   #  i used to have a  system  like you describe and used to play it loudly, albeit i tried to be respectful about it not playing loud music at night or in quiet neighborhoods, turning it down while stopped next to other cars, etc.  .  neither do a lot of cosmetic car enhancements.  should all of these me made illegal as well ? for example, some aftermarket exhaust systems do not improve the performance of a car but simply make it louder and sound better to the driver.  should these be banned as well ? coming from someone who used to have a  system  like what you are talking about, this is false.  a siren from an emergency vehicle or a car horn are very unique sounds that can be heard over a loud stereo system.  which is why most states or towns have noise limits for cars, meaning that the problem is not the modifications themselves, but rather is the enforcement of laws/rules that are already in place.  the maximum decibel of a car horn is generally around the same as the decibel of the stereo systems that you are talking about.   #  most model year 0 or newer alternative fuel vehicles.   #  washington state has no inspection requirements for registration, iirc.  neither does arizona, except in tucson and phoenix URL oregon only requires it around portland or medford URL and, there tend to be numerous exceptions to even those in those areas for example, in tucson/phoenix:   vehicles exempt from testing please note that some exemptions apply: most model year 0 or newer, except reconstructed, vehicles.  most model year 0 or newer alternative fuel vehicles.  automobiles with a model year of 0 or older do not need to be tested.  vehicles licensed in more than one state do not need to be tested.  vehicles powered by electricity, golf carts, and those that do not displace more than 0 ccs do not need to be tested.  leased vehicles that commute into the designated areas do not need to be tested.  wholesale dealer vehicles do not need to be tested.  furthermore, if you live in one of the designated areas but do not use your vehicle to commute within it, or if you live in part of a zip code that you know is exempt from the vehicle emissions inspection program veip you can apply for a code 0 exemption.  when you do so, include a copy of the vehicle is registration as well as a copy of a current utility bill or property owner is tax evaluation notice to verify your residence township, range, and section.   #  i know that is a safety thing but it seems like similar logic might apply here.   #  well is not it illegal to make a car that can go over a certain speed, even though it would not be breaking the law unless you actually went that fast ? i know that is a safety thing but it seems like similar logic might apply here.  having a stereo that can go over a certain volume serves no purpose except to allow you to break the law.  although as i was writing that, it occurred to me that if you go to a secluded enough place it might be legal to play music as loud as you want and still be on a public road.  not sure what the laws are about that.  i would think the biggest difference is that one is a safety issue and the other is not.   #  so, still at least twice any speed limit i have ever seen.   #  when i say limiters, i mean i have never seen one that limits to anything other than 0mph.  so, still at least twice any speed limit i have ever seen.  it is just a safety thing although bmw will remove the limiter if you have a racing license that is all for show.  in practice, you could not limit speed effectively because many people enjoy taking their car to a track day and thrashing it around a racetrack.  would not be fun if you could not go past 0.   #  if they want to waste their money and give them self hearing damage, let them.   #  there are already noise laws in place that address this issue.  if your local police are not enforcing the law, you might want to share your concerns with them.  it does not make any sense to create a motor vehicles inspection to check for sound systems.  my state only does safety inspections when a car is bought/sold, so there is no way to handle such a thing.  and knowing how easy it is to modify these systems, what is to stop some from unhooking an amplifier and plugging it back in the next day ? i think people driving around like that look just plain silly.  if they want to waste their money and give them self hearing damage, let them.  next time you see one do not get mad.  just think of the thousands of dollars they threw away on such a stupid car upgrade.
you know these cars with  systems.   you hear the bass booming from hundreds of feet away.  the vibrations shake your floors.  if you can make out the music, it is usually terrible techno or hip hop.  these systems serve no purpose to the driver or the roads that they utilize.  from a safety standpoint, the sound is a clear distraction that could mask an emergency vehicle siren, or passing car horn.  from a quality of life standpoint, it is pure noise pollution, and a sign of pure inconsideration when a driver refuses to keep it down late at night.  i feel the dmv should be performing a decibel check on all car audio systems, and they should not exceed the maximum of the car is horn.  massive stereo hardware should not be considered street legal.  reject their inspection, and impound them if discovered on the road.   #  from a safety standpoint, the sound is a clear distraction that could mask an emergency vehicle siren, or passing car horn.   #  coming from someone who used to have a  system  like what you are talking about, this is false.   #  i used to have a  system  like you describe and used to play it loudly, albeit i tried to be respectful about it not playing loud music at night or in quiet neighborhoods, turning it down while stopped next to other cars, etc.  .  neither do a lot of cosmetic car enhancements.  should all of these me made illegal as well ? for example, some aftermarket exhaust systems do not improve the performance of a car but simply make it louder and sound better to the driver.  should these be banned as well ? coming from someone who used to have a  system  like what you are talking about, this is false.  a siren from an emergency vehicle or a car horn are very unique sounds that can be heard over a loud stereo system.  which is why most states or towns have noise limits for cars, meaning that the problem is not the modifications themselves, but rather is the enforcement of laws/rules that are already in place.  the maximum decibel of a car horn is generally around the same as the decibel of the stereo systems that you are talking about.   #  most model year 0 or newer alternative fuel vehicles.   #  washington state has no inspection requirements for registration, iirc.  neither does arizona, except in tucson and phoenix URL oregon only requires it around portland or medford URL and, there tend to be numerous exceptions to even those in those areas for example, in tucson/phoenix:   vehicles exempt from testing please note that some exemptions apply: most model year 0 or newer, except reconstructed, vehicles.  most model year 0 or newer alternative fuel vehicles.  automobiles with a model year of 0 or older do not need to be tested.  vehicles licensed in more than one state do not need to be tested.  vehicles powered by electricity, golf carts, and those that do not displace more than 0 ccs do not need to be tested.  leased vehicles that commute into the designated areas do not need to be tested.  wholesale dealer vehicles do not need to be tested.  furthermore, if you live in one of the designated areas but do not use your vehicle to commute within it, or if you live in part of a zip code that you know is exempt from the vehicle emissions inspection program veip you can apply for a code 0 exemption.  when you do so, include a copy of the vehicle is registration as well as a copy of a current utility bill or property owner is tax evaluation notice to verify your residence township, range, and section.   #  having a stereo that can go over a certain volume serves no purpose except to allow you to break the law.   #  well is not it illegal to make a car that can go over a certain speed, even though it would not be breaking the law unless you actually went that fast ? i know that is a safety thing but it seems like similar logic might apply here.  having a stereo that can go over a certain volume serves no purpose except to allow you to break the law.  although as i was writing that, it occurred to me that if you go to a secluded enough place it might be legal to play music as loud as you want and still be on a public road.  not sure what the laws are about that.  i would think the biggest difference is that one is a safety issue and the other is not.   #  would not be fun if you could not go past 0.   #  when i say limiters, i mean i have never seen one that limits to anything other than 0mph.  so, still at least twice any speed limit i have ever seen.  it is just a safety thing although bmw will remove the limiter if you have a racing license that is all for show.  in practice, you could not limit speed effectively because many people enjoy taking their car to a track day and thrashing it around a racetrack.  would not be fun if you could not go past 0.   #  just think of the thousands of dollars they threw away on such a stupid car upgrade.   #  there are already noise laws in place that address this issue.  if your local police are not enforcing the law, you might want to share your concerns with them.  it does not make any sense to create a motor vehicles inspection to check for sound systems.  my state only does safety inspections when a car is bought/sold, so there is no way to handle such a thing.  and knowing how easy it is to modify these systems, what is to stop some from unhooking an amplifier and plugging it back in the next day ? i think people driving around like that look just plain silly.  if they want to waste their money and give them self hearing damage, let them.  next time you see one do not get mad.  just think of the thousands of dollars they threw away on such a stupid car upgrade.
you know these cars with  systems.   you hear the bass booming from hundreds of feet away.  the vibrations shake your floors.  if you can make out the music, it is usually terrible techno or hip hop.  these systems serve no purpose to the driver or the roads that they utilize.  from a safety standpoint, the sound is a clear distraction that could mask an emergency vehicle siren, or passing car horn.  from a quality of life standpoint, it is pure noise pollution, and a sign of pure inconsideration when a driver refuses to keep it down late at night.  i feel the dmv should be performing a decibel check on all car audio systems, and they should not exceed the maximum of the car is horn.  massive stereo hardware should not be considered street legal.  reject their inspection, and impound them if discovered on the road.   #  from a quality of life standpoint, it is pure noise pollution, and a sign of pure inconsideration when a driver refuses to keep it down late at night.   #  which is why most states or towns have noise limits for cars, meaning that the problem is not the modifications themselves, but rather is the enforcement of laws/rules that are already in place.   #  i used to have a  system  like you describe and used to play it loudly, albeit i tried to be respectful about it not playing loud music at night or in quiet neighborhoods, turning it down while stopped next to other cars, etc.  .  neither do a lot of cosmetic car enhancements.  should all of these me made illegal as well ? for example, some aftermarket exhaust systems do not improve the performance of a car but simply make it louder and sound better to the driver.  should these be banned as well ? coming from someone who used to have a  system  like what you are talking about, this is false.  a siren from an emergency vehicle or a car horn are very unique sounds that can be heard over a loud stereo system.  which is why most states or towns have noise limits for cars, meaning that the problem is not the modifications themselves, but rather is the enforcement of laws/rules that are already in place.  the maximum decibel of a car horn is generally around the same as the decibel of the stereo systems that you are talking about.   #  when you do so, include a copy of the vehicle is registration as well as a copy of a current utility bill or property owner is tax evaluation notice to verify your residence township, range, and section.   #  washington state has no inspection requirements for registration, iirc.  neither does arizona, except in tucson and phoenix URL oregon only requires it around portland or medford URL and, there tend to be numerous exceptions to even those in those areas for example, in tucson/phoenix:   vehicles exempt from testing please note that some exemptions apply: most model year 0 or newer, except reconstructed, vehicles.  most model year 0 or newer alternative fuel vehicles.  automobiles with a model year of 0 or older do not need to be tested.  vehicles licensed in more than one state do not need to be tested.  vehicles powered by electricity, golf carts, and those that do not displace more than 0 ccs do not need to be tested.  leased vehicles that commute into the designated areas do not need to be tested.  wholesale dealer vehicles do not need to be tested.  furthermore, if you live in one of the designated areas but do not use your vehicle to commute within it, or if you live in part of a zip code that you know is exempt from the vehicle emissions inspection program veip you can apply for a code 0 exemption.  when you do so, include a copy of the vehicle is registration as well as a copy of a current utility bill or property owner is tax evaluation notice to verify your residence township, range, and section.   #  not sure what the laws are about that.   #  well is not it illegal to make a car that can go over a certain speed, even though it would not be breaking the law unless you actually went that fast ? i know that is a safety thing but it seems like similar logic might apply here.  having a stereo that can go over a certain volume serves no purpose except to allow you to break the law.  although as i was writing that, it occurred to me that if you go to a secluded enough place it might be legal to play music as loud as you want and still be on a public road.  not sure what the laws are about that.  i would think the biggest difference is that one is a safety issue and the other is not.   #  when i say limiters, i mean i have never seen one that limits to anything other than 0mph.   #  when i say limiters, i mean i have never seen one that limits to anything other than 0mph.  so, still at least twice any speed limit i have ever seen.  it is just a safety thing although bmw will remove the limiter if you have a racing license that is all for show.  in practice, you could not limit speed effectively because many people enjoy taking their car to a track day and thrashing it around a racetrack.  would not be fun if you could not go past 0.   #  if your local police are not enforcing the law, you might want to share your concerns with them.   #  there are already noise laws in place that address this issue.  if your local police are not enforcing the law, you might want to share your concerns with them.  it does not make any sense to create a motor vehicles inspection to check for sound systems.  my state only does safety inspections when a car is bought/sold, so there is no way to handle such a thing.  and knowing how easy it is to modify these systems, what is to stop some from unhooking an amplifier and plugging it back in the next day ? i think people driving around like that look just plain silly.  if they want to waste their money and give them self hearing damage, let them.  next time you see one do not get mad.  just think of the thousands of dollars they threw away on such a stupid car upgrade.
you know these cars with  systems.   you hear the bass booming from hundreds of feet away.  the vibrations shake your floors.  if you can make out the music, it is usually terrible techno or hip hop.  these systems serve no purpose to the driver or the roads that they utilize.  from a safety standpoint, the sound is a clear distraction that could mask an emergency vehicle siren, or passing car horn.  from a quality of life standpoint, it is pure noise pollution, and a sign of pure inconsideration when a driver refuses to keep it down late at night.  i feel the dmv should be performing a decibel check on all car audio systems, and they should not exceed the maximum of the car is horn.  massive stereo hardware should not be considered street legal.  reject their inspection, and impound them if discovered on the road.   #  i feel the dmv should be performing a decibel check on all car audio systems, and they should not exceed the maximum of the car is horn.   #  the maximum decibel of a car horn is generally around the same as the decibel of the stereo systems that you are talking about.   #  i used to have a  system  like you describe and used to play it loudly, albeit i tried to be respectful about it not playing loud music at night or in quiet neighborhoods, turning it down while stopped next to other cars, etc.  .  neither do a lot of cosmetic car enhancements.  should all of these me made illegal as well ? for example, some aftermarket exhaust systems do not improve the performance of a car but simply make it louder and sound better to the driver.  should these be banned as well ? coming from someone who used to have a  system  like what you are talking about, this is false.  a siren from an emergency vehicle or a car horn are very unique sounds that can be heard over a loud stereo system.  which is why most states or towns have noise limits for cars, meaning that the problem is not the modifications themselves, but rather is the enforcement of laws/rules that are already in place.  the maximum decibel of a car horn is generally around the same as the decibel of the stereo systems that you are talking about.   #  most model year 0 or newer alternative fuel vehicles.   #  washington state has no inspection requirements for registration, iirc.  neither does arizona, except in tucson and phoenix URL oregon only requires it around portland or medford URL and, there tend to be numerous exceptions to even those in those areas for example, in tucson/phoenix:   vehicles exempt from testing please note that some exemptions apply: most model year 0 or newer, except reconstructed, vehicles.  most model year 0 or newer alternative fuel vehicles.  automobiles with a model year of 0 or older do not need to be tested.  vehicles licensed in more than one state do not need to be tested.  vehicles powered by electricity, golf carts, and those that do not displace more than 0 ccs do not need to be tested.  leased vehicles that commute into the designated areas do not need to be tested.  wholesale dealer vehicles do not need to be tested.  furthermore, if you live in one of the designated areas but do not use your vehicle to commute within it, or if you live in part of a zip code that you know is exempt from the vehicle emissions inspection program veip you can apply for a code 0 exemption.  when you do so, include a copy of the vehicle is registration as well as a copy of a current utility bill or property owner is tax evaluation notice to verify your residence township, range, and section.   #  i would think the biggest difference is that one is a safety issue and the other is not.   #  well is not it illegal to make a car that can go over a certain speed, even though it would not be breaking the law unless you actually went that fast ? i know that is a safety thing but it seems like similar logic might apply here.  having a stereo that can go over a certain volume serves no purpose except to allow you to break the law.  although as i was writing that, it occurred to me that if you go to a secluded enough place it might be legal to play music as loud as you want and still be on a public road.  not sure what the laws are about that.  i would think the biggest difference is that one is a safety issue and the other is not.   #  when i say limiters, i mean i have never seen one that limits to anything other than 0mph.   #  when i say limiters, i mean i have never seen one that limits to anything other than 0mph.  so, still at least twice any speed limit i have ever seen.  it is just a safety thing although bmw will remove the limiter if you have a racing license that is all for show.  in practice, you could not limit speed effectively because many people enjoy taking their car to a track day and thrashing it around a racetrack.  would not be fun if you could not go past 0.   #  i think people driving around like that look just plain silly.   #  there are already noise laws in place that address this issue.  if your local police are not enforcing the law, you might want to share your concerns with them.  it does not make any sense to create a motor vehicles inspection to check for sound systems.  my state only does safety inspections when a car is bought/sold, so there is no way to handle such a thing.  and knowing how easy it is to modify these systems, what is to stop some from unhooking an amplifier and plugging it back in the next day ? i think people driving around like that look just plain silly.  if they want to waste their money and give them self hearing damage, let them.  next time you see one do not get mad.  just think of the thousands of dollars they threw away on such a stupid car upgrade.
let me start by saying that i typically tend to think of myself as a pretty open minded individual.  i believe homosexuals should have equal marriage rights and have had a few friends that have been homosexual.  with transgender people i do not believe that they have an equivalent standing with homosexuals.  i beleive that they suffer from a mental illness similar to schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder and should be classified as such and we should attempt to find treatment for them.  body part dissociation under any other circumstance would be classified as a mental or neurological disorder.  if a person believes that their hand is not their hand but belongs to someone else we treat them accordingly.  we do not allow them to cut off their hand through elective surgery.  for some reason when someone believes they are of a different gender we allow them to use elective surgery to mutilate and alter their bodies.  simply put i beleive there is something wrong in the wiring of transgender individuals brains and we would do better trying to find a cure or medications rather than allowing them to mutilate their bodies and placing them into the same sphere as homosexuals and bisexuals please cmv.   #  i beleive that they suffer from a mental illness similar to schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder and should be classified as such and we should attempt to find treatment for them.   #  i doubt you are really in a position to classify  any  mental illnesses, that sort of thing is best left to professionals.   #  i think it is best classified as a dysphoria URL because their troubles are not caused by their condition, but rather how society views their condition.  once they transition they are generally just fine.  i doubt you are really in a position to classify  any  mental illnesses, that sort of thing is best left to professionals.  that said, most trans  individuals do, indeed, seek and receive treatment and said treatment is effective.  how do you think this happens ? do you think that you can just walk into a hospital and demand a sex change on a whim ?  #  what you are asking is that we discontinue a highly effective and relatively harmless treatment and return to an ineffective form of treatment.   #  it is a matter of quality of life.  schizophrenia and other mental disorders are treated with medication because they impair the patient is ability to function socially and cause significant distress to them.  we wo not cut off hands because it would be a rather significant impairment to the livelihood of the patient.  with transgender people, there is no way that their identity impairs their ability to function and contribute to society.  the primary negative effect of srs is infertility.  now sure, you can argue that sterilization is a significant negative effect, but it can be mitigated by freezing eggs or sperm in the event you decide to reproduce.  not only that, but we already perform voluntary sterilization in the form of vasectomies, so it is not exactly analogous to removing a hand.  finally, there were past efforts to treat the disorder with psychotherapy, and they were not terribly effective to put it lightly .  what you are asking is that we discontinue a highly effective and relatively harmless treatment and return to an ineffective form of treatment.   #  but it does not induce a decline in quality of life.   #  but it does not induce a decline in quality of life.  bidd sufferers actually report improved quality of life after removal of their  foreign  limb.  for example, in this URL interview, a biid sufferer who cut off his own hand asserts that having only one functional hand  makes me a lot more capable.   as far as why genital modification should be treated differently, i do not necessarily think it should.  the desire for plastic surgery often arises out of mental and emotional problems like bdd or even just chronically low self esteem; i do not think that it is ethically acceptable to perform non medically necessary surgery on people when they are in fragile, unstable mental states.  vasectomy is obviously different because that does not alter appearance, and therefore cannot be motivated by superficiality.  i just think that it is amazingly daft and inexcusable to have surgery to  correct  problems whose origins are not even physical in the first place.   #  actually, sure, not that that has anything to do with anything.   #  actually, sure, not that that has anything to do with anything.  people keep using biid as a comparison for transsexuality.  to be clear, most trans people do not actually want to alter their genitalia at all, and the ones that do are not just cutting it off, they are making the body part they were born with into an entirely different body part.  a trans woman who has srs does not just have her penis cut off; the doctors remake it into a vagina.  and even despite all that: sure, if biid sufferers really are happier after they get their limb cut off i see no reason to prevent them.   #   more importantly though, even if they are delusional, their delusions are harmless.   #   more importantly though, even if they are delusional, their delusions are harmless.  this is not a schizophrenic who might shoot the president thinking he is a lizard person.  this is just a guy who wants to go about his life as usual, but as a woman.  now yes,  mutilation  might seem unsavory, but what harm is actually done ? they retain sexual functioning and the ability to have pleasurable sexual experiences, all they really lose is fertility.   i said this elsewhere, and i think it applies here.
note i ca not change the title of my thread but someone pointed out there is issue with my wording.  my issue is that it seems venice  cannot  be saved, not that it should not be abandoned.  {eta: if you have information on the renovations taking place, cost, other solutions that they have come up with to combat these problems, that is pertinent to the subject and part of my issue.  stop telling me about how beautiful it is and the historical significance, it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue} the question is  can venice be saved  i was watching strip the city with my husband last night and the episode was about venice and the structural issues it is been having with the floods.  things such as salt damage, loosening of mortar in the foundations, leaning buildings, etc.  and they had very interesting and what i found to be logical solutions for the problems.  but what got me was when they were discussing the land that venice is built on.  the consistency of the earth, to be exact.  the type of mud that the land is built on compresses easily, so it is not just the floods that is causing the problem, but rather  the sinking of the city  that is exacerbating the floods.  there is no real solution to that.  you ca not dig under the city and replace it with stronger earth as far as i know.  they do have their good solutions to the problems, but is not that really more just delaying the inevitable at this point ?  #  but what got me was when they were discussing the land that venice is built on.   #  the consistency of the earth, to be exact.   # the consistency of the earth, to be exact.  the type of mud that the land is built on compresses easily, so it is not just the floods that is causing the problem, but rather the sinking of the city that is exacerbating the floods.  ca not they just build the buildings higher ? i think you are exaggerating the problem.  there are other cities that get flooded regularly, the houses are built to withstand flooding without serious damage, so a flood does not mean that the houses have to be rebuilt like in the average city.   #  and how would you handle the resettlement costs ?  #  there are efforts in place including a $0 billion euro floor prevention project that just became operational that may prevent the inevitable.  every day there are more than 0,0 tourists visiting venice.  there is also business and commerce.  all would be lost if venice were evacuated.  and how would you handle the resettlement costs ? if you own a multimillion dollar property in venice, and the government tells you you have to leave are you left with nothing ? where would you move ? what would you do with the historical architecture ?  #  and URL seems to recognise and give the background for what was seemingly an outburst, but rightly pointed out that it does not mean people ought to mock her.   #  i will be replying here as a user and not a mod.  you presumably refer to this comment URL which seems to me as providing perspective as to the fact that they are not ignorant to the realities of life.  and URL seems to recognise and give the background for what was seemingly an outburst, but rightly pointed out that it does not mean people ought to mock her.  none of this deserved the heavy downvoting that it received.  and certainly the downvoting did not help temper tempers.   #  the city of venice does not need to be run as a for profit private firm e. g.   #  the tourist industry seems to be doing well though.  if people are willing to pay to go to venice, then all these issues are just another, perhaps uncommon, form of capital depreciation.  venice can still be a profitable place despite high maintenance fees.  farm and factory equipment lose value over time and use and requires constant replacement, that does not mean stopping production is prudent.  similary, venice  produces  tourism.  if people are willing to pay a fee to see the city, the fee can be put back into keeping the city up.  it is how natural reserves and parks get payed for, though even then the fee is voluntary.  the city of venice does not need to be run as a for profit private firm e. g.  reinvesting into things that bring social benefit and not necessarily only into projects that guarantee a profit , but a lot of nice things in society are not run as such either.  would you change your mind if keeping venice from sinking was made into a completely financial self sustaining venture ? it seeks you are mostly skeptical of the social benefit of keeping venice afloat, but it does not even need to be about that.   #  venice is a city not a farm, but just because the scale is different does not mean that the principle of determining effectiveness as a ratio of cost and revenue is not the same.   # the idea of cost effectiveness is necessarily tied to ability to generate revenue.  as i said, tourism in venice is very profitable, if there were no venice, then all that revenue would not exist.  it brings the country of italy a lot of foreign tourists willing to spend money that would otherwise not be there.  it is completely justified that the italians spend money on something that will make them more money.  you ca not say something is not cost effective without looking at the revenue side as well.  almost all industry has aspects that require constant repair.  a tractor on a farm is capital that depreciates over time and use, and requires expensive maintenance.  however, a farm without a tractor is much less effective at generating revenue.  a larger farm with 0 tractors is not necessarily less effective than a smaller farm with one tractor, that is a matter of scale and not effectiveness.  the costs would be greater for the large farm, but so would the revenue.  venice is another of countless examples where money needs to be spent to make money.  size of the operation is completely irrelevant when looking at the concept of effectiveness.  venice is a city not a farm, but just because the scale is different does not mean that the principle of determining effectiveness as a ratio of cost and revenue is not the same.  if tourism brings in more money than is being spent, then maintaining venice is financially feasible.  you are forgetting what a huge cash cow tourism is.
it is rational to assume that the universe is uncaring, right ? this would imply that the amount of good and bad news would be equal, as the universe would not care either way which wins.  so why does it seem that the bad news is overwhelming ? also, if you think that a good argument is that happy news hidden from us, i like to give you an analogy: imagine that you ordered a cake that claims to have a decent amount of frosting.  however, when you get it, it is clear that it totally does not, as the frosting is so thin that you can see the cake under it.  you go to the person who made the cake to complain.  he or she says that it really is a good amount of frosting, as there is frosting on the cake.  would you think of that as a rational argument ? if you replace the frosted cake with reality, the frosting with good news, the cake with bad news, and the cake maker with a person who you are talking about this lack of good news with, you will basically get the situation.  do not believe me ? just check out some stories from a  good news  site and compare it to stories from a regular news site.  does the good news really stand equally with the bad ? however, if many upon many people at least claiming to be rational say this is a dumb idea, then there must be a good way to cmv.  i would like to see it.  i do not want to lose my rationality credibility.   #  imagine that you ordered a cake that claims to have a decent amount of frosting.   #  however, when you get it, it is clear that it totally does not, as the frosting is so thin that you can see the cake under it.   # to a simplification, perhaps.  it is more accurate to say the following, that it is rational to believe based on the sum total of all reliable evidence that the universe does not possess agency, and therefore, the universe cannot care about anything.  no, it would not.  you are attributing agency to the universe, as if it  wouldecides  something, and because it does not care one way or the other, the difference is thus split by the universe between good and bad.  the universe has no agency.  it has no way of determine whether or not anything is good or bad, either, in part because it has no agency.  we would not even expect an even distribution of net good and net bad, much less frequency of good instances of some magnitude being mirrored by bad instances of the same magnitude the distributions of both being the same, that is .  there is nothing that says they must balance out.  you are just making unjustified assumptions.  could you maybe try to justify these assumptions for us ? however, when you get it, it is clear that it totally does not, as the frosting is so thin that you can see the cake under it.  you go to the person who made the cake to complain.  he or she says that it really is a good amount of frosting, as there is frosting on the cake.  would you think of that as a rational argument ? hello, subjectivity ! there is no objective definition of what constitutes a  good  amount of frosting.  even a consensus among people does not make it objective.  you are not happy with the amount, at any rate.  you should then be displeased by the systems humans have set up as well as the interplay of our own nature biases, et cetera within those systems.  there are better ways to ensure you are satisfied with the amount of frosting.  also, just because humans have inherent flaws we do not design systems to account for, does not mean there is anything  messing  with the universe or anything of the sort.  and to highlight how subjective this is, you are still getting a cake, which is assuredly a luxury that you are not guaranteed by anything.  so arguably, the whole situation is  net good , even if you think your day is ruined because of less frosting than you wanted or something.    just check out some stories from a  good news  site and compare it to stories from a regular news site.  does the good news really stand equally with the bad ? because people pay attention to bad news.  it is our nature.  we will watch and read about mh0 for way too long, even if we complain about it.  we have giving the news organization, a corporation whose goal is to maximize shareholder value aka profit, basically , a lot of views and clicks which is good for their advertisers message being seen, and thus good for their bottom line.  i would like to see it.  i do not want to lose my rationality credibility.  you are just making a lot of unfounded assumptions.  i am not even entirely sure what you mean by  something  that is  messing with the world .  perhaps you could explain in greater detail ? you did not really explain at all in your cmv.   #  we also tend to favor human beings over other living things.   #  i am going to address your first point, about how you would expect the amount of good news and bad news to be equal.  why would you expect this ? outcomes of events are not all split into a 0/0 chance of good or bad happening.  we usually call something bad when it negatively affects the life of a living thing, or something precious to a living thing is harmed.  we also tend to favor human beings over other living things.  human beings are generally very vulnerable to changes in the environment.  a landslide cannot produce a  good  event generally .  a drought will be good for some, bad for most.  nature very rarely produces what we think of as  good  events.  usually we characterize good events as the moral or productive actions of human beings, or happy outcomes to random events usually in the form of  this bad event did not happen .  i am going to borrow a point made by richard dawkins made in one of his biology/evolution books for my next point.  of al the ways to arrange dna and or make changes to living organisms, the vast majority will not improve goodness the life of that animal.  the vast majority of random changes will produce negative bad effects.  think about a car.  the majority of random changes made to the engineering of a car will not improve its performance.  for the next point, your analogy about the cake was, no offense, incredibly unusual and unwitting.  we are not holding cakes and able to see the amount of  icing  or  cake  with our eyes.  the only way we know about news around the world is because agencies which are trying to gather attention, are reporting them.  bad news sells.  good news is either uninteresting, unreported and is for the most part, boring.   #  if more bad stuff happened we would not have been able to establish what the  good  status quo was in the first place.   #  i have to say i do not really understand anything you have written.  your title does not seem to match your description and whatever that cake analogy is it is as clear as a thing that is not at all clear.  i am assuming the gist is: if the universe were uncaring bad and good things would happen in equal amounts.  the fact that more bad things happen is a sign of some higher power.  my argument to that is: the good thing is the status quo.  physics works.  weather is mild.  people live long lives, fall in love and have children.  governments ensure infrastructure works.  everyone does their job and the world ticks over.  the status quo is good.  to improve on it something massive has to happen cures for diseases so there is rarely good news because the status quo ca not really be considered news.  we have developed, evolved and built our lives around a status quo.  most change is bad because of how we have designed our lives and evolved.  but it does not mean more  bad  stuff happens.  if more bad stuff happened we would not have been able to establish what the  good  status quo was in the first place.  so there is more bad news, but only because lack of change is not news.   #  if i found someone raping someone else i would kill the rapist.   #  first, there is absolutely zero objective good or bad.  there is only our subjective interpretation of actions and their effects on our desires.   but, wait.   you say,  . surely there must be objective good and bad.  murder is bad, and helping someone is good, right ? !   ah, but here is the rub.  perspective, therefore subjectivity, is the judge of these actions.  murder can be good.  if i found someone raping someone else i would kill the rapist.  to the rape victim what i did was good.  to the dead rapist what i did was bad.  helping someone can be bad.  if someone was helping the rapist hold the rape victim down they would be doing something bad, and i would have to kill them also.  but we have got a problem.  i have gone and made a subjective decision on whether or not rape is bad, and have decided that it is bad, thus causing a cascade of actions.  what if, in some culture, rape is okay ? i know that sounds horrible, but it could happen.  society decides what is good and bad, not the  universe,  or any other stand in for the universe.  that is why every society, every culture, has its own rules regarding good and bad.  all of our perspectives on good and bad stem from a single concept.  do to others as you would have them do to you.   the golden rule.   this concept alone though leaves quite a bit of wiggle room for what is good and bad.  some action you are willing to endure, i may not, and visa versa.  i think a good deal of star trek is in your future.  if you want to understand the flexibility of social norms you should watch it.   #  they create shocking reports because those draw people in.   #  0.  news agencies do not report good news.  they create shocking reports because those draw people in.  0.  the universe does not try to balance good and evil.  in fact, the universe does not classify things as good or evil.  just because you perceive more evil things to be happening than good things does not mean that the universe is  out of balance  or something.  the only balance in the universe is thermodynamics.
this is inspired by the question on the political compass that, no matter how many times, and after how many years between  tests , i always  istrongly agree  with.  in essence, i believe that patriotism is foolish in that it is arbitrary thing to be  proud of , and leads only to problems such as sectarianism, tribalism and conflict.    for example, i hold nothing against british people who happen to be born in the county that  oppressed  the country i happened to be born in.    the conflict in northern ireland as it stands, with riots over parades, and flag burning is pathetic moreover, i think that if one decides that they are not responsible for the terrible actions of their government, as they did not choose to be american/russian they cannot deem themselves patriotic without being hypocritical.  since this sort of blew up i wanted to clarify: i am really only trying to get at the notion of being  a proud nationality  , i. e.  it is foolish/it means nothing to be  proud  of one is  heritage .  i think you should only really be proud of something you have had a hand in making.  for example i can be proud of my nation in that i have decided to stay and live and work here; but it makes no sense to be  proud of the fact that i am from this country .  i had no hand in choosing my nationality.  i am going to go ahead and say that, unfortunately ? my view, that there is no real reason to be  proud  of one is heritage, in most senses of the word, has not been changed.  i did not see any compelling argument on the contrary.  thanks to everyone for contributing though, some very good debate !  #  moreover, i think that if one decides that they are not responsible for the terrible actions of their government, as they did not choose to be american/russian they cannot deem themselves patriotic without being hypocritical.   #  have you considered america is government not being  america  ?  # have you considered america is government not being  america  ? america is our citizens.  the government is really more of an enemy to americans the ones that changed the world over and over again.  a hotbed of inventions, music, film, technologies, and ingenuity.  that is america.  i am proud to have grown up in a constant influence of that culture, molding me into the person i am today one that is far different than a drunkinmidget who grew up on shanghai or stockholm.  i am very proud to come from that.  it is almost like a heritage pride.   #  while i believe in an absolute morality, many do not.   #  i do not think a simple answer exists to that.  while i believe in an absolute morality, many do not.  also, where in one is morality does loyalty stand ? it might be more important to stand for one belief than to stand for loyalty to a country or your family , which might in turn be more important than standing for a different belief.  for instance, i think that theft is wrong, and i would not broach theft by a family member.  but while i also think that it is wrong to use profanity in public, i wo not stop my family from doing so.   #  i think it is good that we are held accountable for our actions.   #  why ? i think it is good that we are held accountable for our actions.  it is true that we are subject to the orders of those appointed over us for the most part, but we are also individuals who have our own minds and to say   i was just following orders  is a horrible excuse.  we are not robots, and the military recognizes that.  it has little tolerance for war crimes committed blindly.  you and your platoon raped a village of vietnamese ? your ass is grass, regardless if  you  decided to do it or some asshole ordered you to.  the military is about honor, courage, commitment.  if you are ordered to do something unlawful, you need all three to step up and say  no.    #  basically no one got punished for my lai.   # you are right.  we should not be making excuses .  number one, this is bullshit.  basically no one got punished for my lai.  second, we should not be punishing our army for  fighting a war .   war crimes  are just bullshit we make up in order to execute foreign generals.  things that would be considered crimes happen, and should happen in war.  it is bullshit to put irons on our military and limit them to doing only a specific set of military procedures.  vae victis.  the military is about projecting force internally and externally.   #  i would still defend my country even though they were currently doing something wrong.   #  i am not that person.  i am from the us.  if the u. s.  were attacked i would join the military and fight for it.  however, i would not join to fight the preposterous wars being fought now.  i would still defend my country even though they were currently doing something wrong.  the country is not totally defined by the current people in power.  and it may not reflect it anymore, the u. s.  was founded on a refusal of tyranny and oppression.  those are things that i would fight for even if there may be other things happening that i disagree with.
i work it at a university.  the females in my workplace can wear whatever they want as long as it looks professional.  this could be a pantsuit or it could be a sun dress, a skirt, or any other form of dress.  as a male, i have to wear khaki dress pants.  does not matter if it is 0° outside and i have to haul equipment up three of four flights of stairs, all pants, all the time.  it seems discriminatory to me that i ca not wear shorts when it is hot, or that i ca not wear jeans when i spend half my time crawling under people is desks.  why is it okay for women to wear whatever they want within reason while i am restricted to khakis and a collared shirt ?   all 0 people in my building are not techs.  four of us are and we are all male.    the  official  dress code for everyone is business casual.  in practice though, for men it is khakis and a polo.  ask any of the bosses how a male should interpret it, and you will be told khakis and a polo.  ask one how a female should interpret it and you will find she has many, many more options.    on several other parts of campus, there really is no dress code.  many departments and divisions stopped having one in recent years and employees overall seem happier and more productive surveys have been done to this effect , yet my department in particular still believes you have to dress a certain way to be good at your job.    finally, some of you have pointed out that it is  society , not my place of work, that makes the dress code sexist and/or discriminatory.  it does not matter what  makes  it discriminatory, what matters is that my workplace is enforcing it.  i am going to try to keep up, but it is early morning and i am recovering from a marrow transplant yesterday and am going home today.  just wanted to thank everybody for a really great conversation, even if it has not changed my view.  it  has  impacted my perspective in that i do not think my workplace is intentionally being sexist, but i do still believe the policy being enforced is, by it is nature, sexist.  in light of that, i believe the dress code should either be tightened for both sexes equally or eliminated entirely.  thanks again, everybody.   #  the females in my workplace can wear whatever they want as long as it looks professional.   #  this could be a pantsuit or it could be a sun dress, a skirt, or any other form of dress.   # this could be a pantsuit or it could be a sun dress, a skirt, or any other form of dress.  this is the problem.  can you think of any other than what is mandated for you to wear that looks professional ? although i am not sure how we can argue if you are going with the literal/basic definition of sexism.  it is discrimination based on sex; no one can really argue that  #  here is where the flaw is in your argument: women are not allowed to wear any of the clothes that you are not allowed to wear.   #  i think the double standard here is more societal than it is specific to your workplace.  the dress code could read  dress business casual  for both men and women and the overall effect would be exactly the same, because there are a wider range of options available to women when it comes to clothing.  this is true across all styles of dress.  here is where the flaw is in your argument: women are not allowed to wear any of the clothes that you are not allowed to wear.  they ca not wear jeans, shorts, or t shirts either.  so unless you want to be allowed to wear blouses and skirts or dresses, your point about discrimination is moot.  if you want to argue that the dress code is unrealistic for the kind of work you do, that is a completely separate issue.   #  for women, a nice skirt or dress, blouse, long pants, or pantsuit are all professional, if done correctly.   #  most of the clothes you have listed for women, like sun dresses and tank tops, are not usually  professional.   i work in a professional environment, and if i wear a tank top, i have to cover it with a jacket.  capris for women are only professional if they are slacks.  there is no shorter than pants equivalent for men is dress pants.  basically, i think you are right that maybe your workplace is more lenient on the definition of  casual  for women than men, but your expectations are also a bit irrational.  collared shirts and close toed shoes are professional for men.  so are long pants.  maybe not khaki exclusively, but that is the only real complaint i could see you getting away with .  for women, a nice skirt or dress, blouse, long pants, or pantsuit are all professional, if done correctly.  of course, any clothing that is too short or revealing, or just too casual like a sundress that is not a work dress is not appropriate.   #  and of course there are places which interpret business casual as what i mentioned in my last post.   #  well, when you are asked to wear business attire you wear a suit.  a step down from that is slacks and an odd jacket.  the problem with the term business casual is in its broad application.  a friend of mine, for example, wore jeans, slip on leather shoes and a polo to his business casual office.  the rules were, essentially: you must have a raised collar, no sneakers though we all know when that is the rule everyone just wears black sneakers , and no holes/distressing in your pants.  on the other hand a place i worked had a business casual dress code but really they only wanted employees to wear dress shoes and a tie, and did not care beyond that.  and of course there are places which interpret business casual as what i mentioned in my last post.  if i am ever told a dress code is business casual and do not have an opportunity to clarify, i err on the side of dressing a little up with slacks, non matching jacket, dress shoes, and usually a tie but i own  0 ties and really love wearing them .   #  your other options are tshirts or tank tops, both extremely casual.   # they actually sell women is shorts that would fall under business casual.  they do not make formal men is shorts.  they make business casual appropriate women is open toed shoes not so for men.  i also do not know that i would push the shoe issue.  men is dress shoes may be uncomfortable, but at least you can wear socks with most of them, whereas women are restricted to ballet flats zero support , low heels, etc.  men is business casual shirt options are a polo, a sweater, or a button down short or long sleeved .  that is because they literally do not make other shirts for men.  your other options are tshirts or tank tops, both extremely casual.  whereas there are more styles of women is clothing.
i work it at a university.  the females in my workplace can wear whatever they want as long as it looks professional.  this could be a pantsuit or it could be a sun dress, a skirt, or any other form of dress.  as a male, i have to wear khaki dress pants.  does not matter if it is 0° outside and i have to haul equipment up three of four flights of stairs, all pants, all the time.  it seems discriminatory to me that i ca not wear shorts when it is hot, or that i ca not wear jeans when i spend half my time crawling under people is desks.  why is it okay for women to wear whatever they want within reason while i am restricted to khakis and a collared shirt ?   all 0 people in my building are not techs.  four of us are and we are all male.    the  official  dress code for everyone is business casual.  in practice though, for men it is khakis and a polo.  ask any of the bosses how a male should interpret it, and you will be told khakis and a polo.  ask one how a female should interpret it and you will find she has many, many more options.    on several other parts of campus, there really is no dress code.  many departments and divisions stopped having one in recent years and employees overall seem happier and more productive surveys have been done to this effect , yet my department in particular still believes you have to dress a certain way to be good at your job.    finally, some of you have pointed out that it is  society , not my place of work, that makes the dress code sexist and/or discriminatory.  it does not matter what  makes  it discriminatory, what matters is that my workplace is enforcing it.  i am going to try to keep up, but it is early morning and i am recovering from a marrow transplant yesterday and am going home today.  just wanted to thank everybody for a really great conversation, even if it has not changed my view.  it  has  impacted my perspective in that i do not think my workplace is intentionally being sexist, but i do still believe the policy being enforced is, by it is nature, sexist.  in light of that, i believe the dress code should either be tightened for both sexes equally or eliminated entirely.  thanks again, everybody.   #  it seems discriminatory to me that i ca not wear shorts when it is hot, or that i ca not wear jeans when i spend half my time crawling under people is desks.   #  why is it okay for women to wear whatever they want within reason while i am restricted to khakis and a collared shirt ?  # why is it okay for women to wear whatever they want within reason while i am restricted to khakis and a collared shirt ? when i worked as a unix sysadmin who had to crawl around in the ceiling, on the roof of the building, under people is desks, or in the floor, i was most certainly not wearing skirts and sundresses.  i was wearing pants.  the first isp i worked for had no real dress code for techies, so i was able to wear shorts and such.  the second isp i worked for did have a dress code that allowed women to wear skirts, and i  still  wore pants, because shorts were not allowed for either sex.  it would have been impossible for me maintain a  professional appearance  while trying to hide my underwear from anyone who happened to pass by while i was standing on a ladder.  women were also required to wear hose or tights with skirts, which greatly reduces the cooling effect of wearing skirts.   #  this is true across all styles of dress.   #  i think the double standard here is more societal than it is specific to your workplace.  the dress code could read  dress business casual  for both men and women and the overall effect would be exactly the same, because there are a wider range of options available to women when it comes to clothing.  this is true across all styles of dress.  here is where the flaw is in your argument: women are not allowed to wear any of the clothes that you are not allowed to wear.  they ca not wear jeans, shorts, or t shirts either.  so unless you want to be allowed to wear blouses and skirts or dresses, your point about discrimination is moot.  if you want to argue that the dress code is unrealistic for the kind of work you do, that is a completely separate issue.   #  of course, any clothing that is too short or revealing, or just too casual like a sundress that is not a work dress is not appropriate.   #  most of the clothes you have listed for women, like sun dresses and tank tops, are not usually  professional.   i work in a professional environment, and if i wear a tank top, i have to cover it with a jacket.  capris for women are only professional if they are slacks.  there is no shorter than pants equivalent for men is dress pants.  basically, i think you are right that maybe your workplace is more lenient on the definition of  casual  for women than men, but your expectations are also a bit irrational.  collared shirts and close toed shoes are professional for men.  so are long pants.  maybe not khaki exclusively, but that is the only real complaint i could see you getting away with .  for women, a nice skirt or dress, blouse, long pants, or pantsuit are all professional, if done correctly.  of course, any clothing that is too short or revealing, or just too casual like a sundress that is not a work dress is not appropriate.   #  on the other hand a place i worked had a business casual dress code but really they only wanted employees to wear dress shoes and a tie, and did not care beyond that.   #  well, when you are asked to wear business attire you wear a suit.  a step down from that is slacks and an odd jacket.  the problem with the term business casual is in its broad application.  a friend of mine, for example, wore jeans, slip on leather shoes and a polo to his business casual office.  the rules were, essentially: you must have a raised collar, no sneakers though we all know when that is the rule everyone just wears black sneakers , and no holes/distressing in your pants.  on the other hand a place i worked had a business casual dress code but really they only wanted employees to wear dress shoes and a tie, and did not care beyond that.  and of course there are places which interpret business casual as what i mentioned in my last post.  if i am ever told a dress code is business casual and do not have an opportunity to clarify, i err on the side of dressing a little up with slacks, non matching jacket, dress shoes, and usually a tie but i own  0 ties and really love wearing them .   #  i also do not know that i would push the shoe issue.   # they actually sell women is shorts that would fall under business casual.  they do not make formal men is shorts.  they make business casual appropriate women is open toed shoes not so for men.  i also do not know that i would push the shoe issue.  men is dress shoes may be uncomfortable, but at least you can wear socks with most of them, whereas women are restricted to ballet flats zero support , low heels, etc.  men is business casual shirt options are a polo, a sweater, or a button down short or long sleeved .  that is because they literally do not make other shirts for men.  your other options are tshirts or tank tops, both extremely casual.  whereas there are more styles of women is clothing.
preface: i do not know much about the pros and cons aside from feline population, and i want him to be happy and healthy.  there are not many feral cats in the neighborhood, but i fully understand population control as a reason to get an animal especially a stray neutered / spayed.  he does not spray his musk all over the house, either.  he just.   dates  and fights a lot.  i ca not help but feel the fighting is related to the  dating.   my moral qualm is that he is fully grown, not a virgin, and sort of half ass independent.  no one  owns  him, and he is not doing any harm except to whatever he fights and himself so i feel i would be overstepping by hindering his biological imperative.  i mean, surely he would notice, and miss it.  also, he trusts me, so taking him to have his male parts cut off would be betrayal of the worst kind.  i think he should be free to do his thing and hopefully sire more awesome alley cats.  change my view.   #  i feel i would be overstepping by hindering his biological imperative.   #  i mean, surely he would notice, and miss it.   # i mean, surely he would notice, and miss it.  here is the thing: cats do not think about that stuff.  they do not sit around pondering the significance of their  biological imperative.   right now, he wants to do certain things.  after he is fixed, he wo not want to do them anymore.  he may notice that his desires have changed, but there is no reason to believe that he will miss his old ones.  i hate to belabor the point, but cats are pretty dumb.  he wo not put two and two together.  source: i have taken a 0 year old male cat to be fixed.  he is a little bit fatter and calmer now, but he still loves me.   #  i do not know if you are male or female, but i sure as shit would not like to have my period every day of my whole life. that would suck.   #  some see the fixing/spaying of cats as cruel.  but, more so with female cats, it is extremely cruel not to fix them.  due to the domestic cat is evolution, a female cat is estrus cycle is continuous almost all the time.  it is extremely uncomfortable, and the only time they are not in heat is when they are pregnant.  i do not know if you are male or female, but i sure as shit would not like to have my period every day of my whole life. that would suck.  being a stray/feral cat, he is most likely carrying feline leukemia or feline aids, and unneutered tom cats spread it like wildfire.  so, obviously this can make whole colonies of cats sick and can kill them.  there are also many other terrible diseases stray cats spread.  there is one that they get from pigeon shit and it grows a crusty fungus in their nose until their faces practically rot off and then it kills them.  i ca not remember exactly what it is called but it sounds terrible ! also, why do we need more cats ? ! approximately 0,0 dogs and cats are euthanized in shelters every day.  these feral and stray cats do not live glamorous lives.  feral kittens can be born mentally and physically underdeveloped due to the queen being malnourished or cold during her pregnancy.  like i stated above, there are many terrible diseases, also predators and the elements can cause long painful deaths.  call your local  trap neuter release  program and let them know you have a tom cat that needs to be fixed.  they will have him picked up, nurtured, and back in your yard to play within 0 hours.  all with no cost to you.  source: animal care major and animal rescue volunteer.   #  and he wo not miss the ability to have sex.   #  he should definitely be neutered.  if there is an unspayed female in the area, he could get her pregnant.  the world does not need more stray kittens.  allowing him to impregnate another cat would do harm to the kittens and the environment and maybe even the mother.  cats are bad for bird populations.  alley cats are not awesome, they are menaces.  and he wo not miss the ability to have sex.  he is not capable of that kind of thought.   #  maybe not all cats need to be purebred / inbred.   #  i fully understand that his virility will result in stray kittens, and many of them will not survive due to parental neglect, predators, or lack of healthcare.  such is the way of the world.  as for bird populations.  i highly doubt that one cat and his progeny could have much effect.  alley cats are awesome because no other creature is so free and intelligent and manipulative.  he is not capable of that kind of thought.  i may have misrepresented my views on that point.  i do not want to preserve his genetic legacy because i think he thinks it is important, or would notice the absence of that compulsion.  i just think he deserves the chance because that is kind of the point of all species.  if he sires 0 kittens and only 0 survive, that is 0 more than would have lived had he not procreated at all.  maybe not all cats need to be purebred / inbred.  survival of the fittest and whatnot.   #  a male cat can sire as many as 0,0 kittens in one year.   #  a male cat can sire as many as 0,0 kittens in one year.  URL care to rethink that ? just because an individual can reproduce does not mean it always should.  why do you prioritize his  need  to make babies over the babies  wellbeing ? does not their ability to live comfortably, not be run over by a car, or be able to get food reliably trump his desire for sex ? his kittens will almost certainly not live good lives.
preface: i do not know much about the pros and cons aside from feline population, and i want him to be happy and healthy.  there are not many feral cats in the neighborhood, but i fully understand population control as a reason to get an animal especially a stray neutered / spayed.  he does not spray his musk all over the house, either.  he just.   dates  and fights a lot.  i ca not help but feel the fighting is related to the  dating.   my moral qualm is that he is fully grown, not a virgin, and sort of half ass independent.  no one  owns  him, and he is not doing any harm except to whatever he fights and himself so i feel i would be overstepping by hindering his biological imperative.  i mean, surely he would notice, and miss it.  also, he trusts me, so taking him to have his male parts cut off would be betrayal of the worst kind.  i think he should be free to do his thing and hopefully sire more awesome alley cats.  change my view.   #  also, he trusts me, so taking him to have his male parts cut off would be betrayal of the worst kind.   #  i hate to belabor the point, but cats are pretty dumb.   # i mean, surely he would notice, and miss it.  here is the thing: cats do not think about that stuff.  they do not sit around pondering the significance of their  biological imperative.   right now, he wants to do certain things.  after he is fixed, he wo not want to do them anymore.  he may notice that his desires have changed, but there is no reason to believe that he will miss his old ones.  i hate to belabor the point, but cats are pretty dumb.  he wo not put two and two together.  source: i have taken a 0 year old male cat to be fixed.  he is a little bit fatter and calmer now, but he still loves me.   #  i do not know if you are male or female, but i sure as shit would not like to have my period every day of my whole life. that would suck.   #  some see the fixing/spaying of cats as cruel.  but, more so with female cats, it is extremely cruel not to fix them.  due to the domestic cat is evolution, a female cat is estrus cycle is continuous almost all the time.  it is extremely uncomfortable, and the only time they are not in heat is when they are pregnant.  i do not know if you are male or female, but i sure as shit would not like to have my period every day of my whole life. that would suck.  being a stray/feral cat, he is most likely carrying feline leukemia or feline aids, and unneutered tom cats spread it like wildfire.  so, obviously this can make whole colonies of cats sick and can kill them.  there are also many other terrible diseases stray cats spread.  there is one that they get from pigeon shit and it grows a crusty fungus in their nose until their faces practically rot off and then it kills them.  i ca not remember exactly what it is called but it sounds terrible ! also, why do we need more cats ? ! approximately 0,0 dogs and cats are euthanized in shelters every day.  these feral and stray cats do not live glamorous lives.  feral kittens can be born mentally and physically underdeveloped due to the queen being malnourished or cold during her pregnancy.  like i stated above, there are many terrible diseases, also predators and the elements can cause long painful deaths.  call your local  trap neuter release  program and let them know you have a tom cat that needs to be fixed.  they will have him picked up, nurtured, and back in your yard to play within 0 hours.  all with no cost to you.  source: animal care major and animal rescue volunteer.   #  and he wo not miss the ability to have sex.   #  he should definitely be neutered.  if there is an unspayed female in the area, he could get her pregnant.  the world does not need more stray kittens.  allowing him to impregnate another cat would do harm to the kittens and the environment and maybe even the mother.  cats are bad for bird populations.  alley cats are not awesome, they are menaces.  and he wo not miss the ability to have sex.  he is not capable of that kind of thought.   #  if he sires 0 kittens and only 0 survive, that is 0 more than would have lived had he not procreated at all.   #  i fully understand that his virility will result in stray kittens, and many of them will not survive due to parental neglect, predators, or lack of healthcare.  such is the way of the world.  as for bird populations.  i highly doubt that one cat and his progeny could have much effect.  alley cats are awesome because no other creature is so free and intelligent and manipulative.  he is not capable of that kind of thought.  i may have misrepresented my views on that point.  i do not want to preserve his genetic legacy because i think he thinks it is important, or would notice the absence of that compulsion.  i just think he deserves the chance because that is kind of the point of all species.  if he sires 0 kittens and only 0 survive, that is 0 more than would have lived had he not procreated at all.  maybe not all cats need to be purebred / inbred.  survival of the fittest and whatnot.   #  just because an individual can reproduce does not mean it always should.   #  a male cat can sire as many as 0,0 kittens in one year.  URL care to rethink that ? just because an individual can reproduce does not mean it always should.  why do you prioritize his  need  to make babies over the babies  wellbeing ? does not their ability to live comfortably, not be run over by a car, or be able to get food reliably trump his desire for sex ? his kittens will almost certainly not live good lives.
i am not denying that the physical world exists, i am just concerned about the epistemic status of the physical world.  epistemically it seems that i start with experience.  my consciousness and qualia are foundational.  it seems that ideas about perceptions are the starting points of knowledge and it seems that the idea of an objective physical reality is a theory that we form later on in our experience as demonstrated here: URL so we seem to be interacting with qualia and we seem to be assuming there is a physical world there to explain the apparent objectivity of the world we are perceiving, but such an explanation seems unnecessary and it seems by postulating such physical entities we only have more to explain.  we explain one mystery by opening up even more mysteries.  i just see no reason to identify the world as  physical .   #  i just see no reason to identify the world as  physical .   #  i do not know about your focus on  physical  here.   # i do not know about your focus on  physical  here.  you have experiences, and there is overwhelming evidence that the relationships between your experiences indicates consistency and persistence that when you shut your eyes and then open them again the your experiences of the  same  world return and not a  different  world you do not find that every time you blink you change locations, bodies, time of day, or anything like that .  the general conclusion from this idea of consistency and persistence is that your experiences are caused  by  something, but that, as your experiences are your  language  of the world, and what you see is already  translated , you will only ever be able to infer about those things that cause your experiences by their relationship to your experiences and the relationships of your experiences to each other.  you will only ever be able to talk about the world in the  language of experiences  and not in the  language of the world .  but that is not to say that the grammar between the two languages does not have some regularity that is the exact nature of consistency and persistence of relationships, after all.  so we form models of how things interact form the basis of things persisting and being consistent.  that does not mean  physics , though.  that just means that there is something  out there .  even before people started talking about particles and strings and all that sort of stuff, we humans had some ideas about the world being out there even when we shut our eyes, and we called that stuff in the world by all sorts of different names.  now, you ca not put your hand through a rock.  it is solid.  and at some point the word  physical  got attached to these sorts of solid things that you ca not put your hand through.  and when we made better and better models of what a rock  out there  is like, we found that it was made up of tiny interacting bits, and because we would  already  denoted the rock as  physical , we called  these   physical  as well.  and as we find that light and energy and liquids and gases and all sorts of other stuff are  also  part of this interactive system, so have we called all of these  physical  as well.  in other words,  physical  is just the term we have adopted or adapted for things that we believe persist and interact in a consistent manner out in the world, and we make these models based upon the persistence and consistency of our experiences.   #  it makes sense, that the forces of the universe have forged the very senses by which we attempt to become aware of the universe.   #  take a person is brain from their head, and ask them how they feel.  there seems to be no mind, without the brain, that the functioning of a brain, produces a mind.  it makes sense, that the forces of the universe have forged the very senses by which we attempt to become aware of the universe.  our eyes seem to have evolved, not with the goal of seeing light, but because there is light which can be seen.  that we even have senses, provides clues about the character of the physical world, of which we are a product and immersed in, not separate from.   #  the senses make sense of the physical world, the mind makes sense of the senses.   #  the senses make sense of the physical world, the mind makes sense of the senses.  deduce, from the locations of the senses, what they are from, and where they come from.  skin, interfaces with the rest of the physical world around the entirety of the body.  eyes, ears, nose and mouth are all in distinct and close proximity to the brain, more importantly the same general pattern seems present in all organism with those sense organs, regardless of appearant evolutionary pathways.  eyes, noses, ears are always in close proximity to the brain.  i do not know of any exceptions.  the first function of a nervous systems is too coordinate movement among disparate cells and parts of the body, and the senses primarily touch and pain provide information about where to move toward or away.  the bulging and cross wiring of the nervous system affords the system more capacity to coordinate movement, a brain forms.  then the brain can seek out even more information, not provided by the nervous system itself, so sound sensitive, light sensitive, smell sensitive and then taste sensitive organs develop as an outgrowth of the brain.  in other words, it is the physical world that leads to the existence of your senses.   #  we never really experience something as  solid  but rather in a state in which we do not posses enough energy to overcome the energetic electromagnetically of the electron clouds at the boundaries of that material.   #  the statement is tautological, the senses make sense.  it is why they are called the senses.  a conscious world leads to the existence of senses ? i am not sure that works.  consciousness seems absent in any thing lacking senses.  i can get into an etymological semantic reason using our language.  the root of the word conscious, is science.  conscience.  the origin of the word science, is knowledge.  the prefix con also comes from latin, to join, as in contract or connect.  so conscience is joined knowledge, and consciousness is the state of having that joined knowledge.  knowledge, that can only come from senses, either sensory cells or sensory organs.  as without those sense, neither the internal nor the external could be sensed.  considering that, i also consider material somewhat differently.  coupled with ideas, like material and energy are the same thing, in different forms and arrangements.  we never really experience something as  solid  but rather in a state in which we do not posses enough energy to overcome the energetic electromagnetically of the electron clouds at the boundaries of that material.  so, the material world is not necessarily what it seems, but is necessarily existent in order to be  seemed.   what we can know or can not know about the psychical world, requires that it first exists, otherwise we can not know, sense, perceive or be conscious of any part of it.  even if we are only the dream of a sleeping divinity, that too is real enough to be perceived.   #  but i have a much harder time accepting pure materialism, especially in light of the hard problem of consciousness.   # it is why they are called the senses.  i am not so sure that is why they are called the senses but okay lol   a conscious world leads to the existence of senses ? i am not sure that works.  pure consciousness makes a lot more sense than pure materialism, i can tell you that much.  solipsism is much simpler too and has occam is razor on its side.  i can conceive of solipsism being true.  but i have a much harder time accepting pure materialism, especially in light of the hard problem of consciousness.  and as even eugine wigner once admitted: source: eugene wigner.  symmetries and reflections: scientific essays of eugene p.  wigner.  i. 0 remarks on the mind body question .  0.  p.  0.  that is nice but that does not really help us here.  i want to know what the justification is that the world i perceive is physical.  i have no problem with there being an external world, i just want to know how we identify it as being physical.
i just do not get her.  i think her music is kind of uninteresting.  i am normally very open minded about music and i even stayed for her entire set at coachella.  i must be doing  something  wrong because she had an enormous crowd and people really seem into her.  what am i missing ? the sense i got from coachella is that she is more than just a singer; she is an icon sort of a modern day marilyn monroe .  that is something i can fathom, but it does not explain why there are so many people who enjoy her music without idolizing her.  any ldr fans out there ?  #  i am normally very open minded about music and i even stayed for her entire set at coachella.   #  i must be doing  something  wrong because she had an enormous crowd and people really seem into her.   # i think her music is kind of uninteresting.  that is a really subjective opinion that ca not be proven right or wrong.  i must be doing  something  wrong because she had an enormous crowd and people really seem into her.  i mean, she has a pretty big fanbase.  her music is arguably way more sophisticated than other pop acts in the mainstream, but she is not scott walker or anything.  people are into her, because she represents a different side of pop music that is radio friendly, and at the same time, orchestration and organic composition are both still present.  i ca not really say much here, because being an icon has everything to do with other people taking an interest in your personal life outside of your profession.  in that case, yeah, lana is an icon.  and based on what i have read from wikipedia, she has lived a pretty interesting life, and has an interesting range of influences.  i do not think she can hold a candle to marilyn monroe, however.  sure, they have some things in common: both have been known to be unique, well read, attractive, and talented.  but monroe was  the  cultural zeitgeist of beauty.  not to be insulting to lana del rey, but i think it is a bit of a stretch to say that she lives up to monroe is legacy.  well, maybe she is a good musician then ? there have been plenty of great musicians, but very few of them have lived up to the status of icons.  whenever the velvet underground finally became appreciated, there were plenty of musicians who tried to emulate them.  same thing goes for the beatles and nirvana.  long story short, all of them were icons.  lana, i would say, is an icon.  i do not know of many musicians currently in the radar who cite her as an influence, but she is the posterchild of every modern female musician that dabbles into alternative influenced pop sky ferreira, charli xcx, iggy azalea, lorde, etc.  not really.  i think she is super talented, but to me, it is music that tries too hard to come across as edgy and mature.  just my opinion.   #  edit: it should also be said that her live performances are generally what her fans forgive her for because her studio stuff is so solid.   #  i like her voice and some of her songs have a cool feel to them.  i guess i just like indie, sweeping, romanticish sounding songs with a low pitched, sultry ? sounding female voice.  also even in the sweepingness, they seem simple and understated which is often a plus for me.  it is a cool contrast.  i do not see her as an icon at all and i actually am a little weirded out by her perhaps unfairly i do not know her let me ask you, what kind of thing do you usually like ? maybe that would explain some things or maybe not .  edit: it should also be said that her live performances are generally what her fans forgive her for because her studio stuff is so solid.  she lacks a bit of life in her live performances and is not very good  #  you can certainly enjoy x, y, and z in songs/artists, but to refuse to like something or  only  like something for certain reasons is not subjective, and art is subjective.   #  this is all subjective.  people should like music because they like the music and not for reasons x, y, and z on a checklist of criteria that must be met for you to like it.  you can certainly enjoy x, y, and z in songs/artists, but to refuse to like something or  only  like something for certain reasons is not subjective, and art is subjective.  establishing that, you already know that listening to her does not work for you.  if i said that she does x, y, and z, that should not change that you do not like listening to her.  and that is fine.  i do not listen to her either, i do not even think i know who she is.   #  i do not particularly care about, say, ballet.   #  very dedicated, but largely unsuccessful retired professional musician here semi really .  after years of struggling with not understanding why people like the music they do, and being unable to explain to non musicians why i like the music i do, i have come to this conclusion: most people are really just not all that into music, but are reluctant to admit it.  relative to normal people i am obsessive about music, and can be very discriminating.  also i have training and experience which gives me different access to what i hear.  somehow i expect others to be more sophisticated in their tastes but this is arrogant and out of touch.  tons of people just listen to whatever is on the radio in the car, or accompanies a movie or tv show they happen to like.  this is not how i listen to music, but there is nothing wrong with it.  i do not particularly care about, say, ballet.  when discussing ballet my opinions are ignorant, and i do not know what i am looking at.  the same goes for many other people regarding music; they do not pay attention the way i do, and they do not have to.  if they like what they hear then good for them, really.  the problem is that with some art forms, people get really defensive about their opinions.  music happens to be one of them.  people do not realize that with music like dance, literature, and other art forms a bit of education enhances the experience.  while they will say that that the only thing that matters is that they enjoy what they are hearing and they are right , they do not realize that given some learning they might appreciate more different kinds of music, and appreciate the music they do like even more or they might even begin to find cynically produced popular music undesirable.  fwiw, now that i have had a listen i hear nothing special about this music either.  pretty face, competent singer, strong marketing strategy, very accessible content not my cup of tea, but just fine for lots of folks i suppose.  i do not think you have missed much, if anything.  tldr: you have more discriminating taste in music than other people, and are missing nothing.   #  that said, i think she sounds very competent, but not particularly distinctive.   #  first off, i play drumset, so i am not necessarily the best person to ask about the nuances of singing technique.  that said, i think she sounds very competent, but not particularly distinctive.  the style is a bit syrupy for my taste, but that is just one guys opinionated opinion.  it seems like solidly performed, but not particularly interesting to me music.  i tend to appreciate musicians who is style is distinctive enough that they are irreplaceable.  i think you could successfully swap her out with another reasonably well trained singer in the appropriate range pretty easily.  but what do i know.  really the point is does her singing work well for the music, and is she pulling off what she is going for.  the answer definitely seems to be yes, and that is all that really counts.  comparisons are really difficult, and in my opinion generally useless.  for example, on technical merit could she stand up to studio ringers like the women in  0 feet from stardom ?   they are truly impressive.  is she versatile ? dunno.  could she improvise over complicated changes like a serious jazz singer, i doubt it.  is she distinctive like billy holiday ? does she have range and power like aretha ? can she sight read like an opera singer ? can she growl like a metal singer likely no.  point is, if her voice moves you she is a good singer, end of story.  forget about my, or anyone else is opinions they suck.  just enjoy her singing.
i just do not get her.  i think her music is kind of uninteresting.  i am normally very open minded about music and i even stayed for her entire set at coachella.  i must be doing  something  wrong because she had an enormous crowd and people really seem into her.  what am i missing ? the sense i got from coachella is that she is more than just a singer; she is an icon sort of a modern day marilyn monroe .  that is something i can fathom, but it does not explain why there are so many people who enjoy her music without idolizing her.  any ldr fans out there ?  #  the sense i got from coachella is that she is more than just a singer; she is an icon sort of a modern day marilyn monroe .   #  i ca not really say much here, because being an icon has everything to do with other people taking an interest in your personal life outside of your profession.   # i think her music is kind of uninteresting.  that is a really subjective opinion that ca not be proven right or wrong.  i must be doing  something  wrong because she had an enormous crowd and people really seem into her.  i mean, she has a pretty big fanbase.  her music is arguably way more sophisticated than other pop acts in the mainstream, but she is not scott walker or anything.  people are into her, because she represents a different side of pop music that is radio friendly, and at the same time, orchestration and organic composition are both still present.  i ca not really say much here, because being an icon has everything to do with other people taking an interest in your personal life outside of your profession.  in that case, yeah, lana is an icon.  and based on what i have read from wikipedia, she has lived a pretty interesting life, and has an interesting range of influences.  i do not think she can hold a candle to marilyn monroe, however.  sure, they have some things in common: both have been known to be unique, well read, attractive, and talented.  but monroe was  the  cultural zeitgeist of beauty.  not to be insulting to lana del rey, but i think it is a bit of a stretch to say that she lives up to monroe is legacy.  well, maybe she is a good musician then ? there have been plenty of great musicians, but very few of them have lived up to the status of icons.  whenever the velvet underground finally became appreciated, there were plenty of musicians who tried to emulate them.  same thing goes for the beatles and nirvana.  long story short, all of them were icons.  lana, i would say, is an icon.  i do not know of many musicians currently in the radar who cite her as an influence, but she is the posterchild of every modern female musician that dabbles into alternative influenced pop sky ferreira, charli xcx, iggy azalea, lorde, etc.  not really.  i think she is super talented, but to me, it is music that tries too hard to come across as edgy and mature.  just my opinion.   #  maybe that would explain some things or maybe not .   #  i like her voice and some of her songs have a cool feel to them.  i guess i just like indie, sweeping, romanticish sounding songs with a low pitched, sultry ? sounding female voice.  also even in the sweepingness, they seem simple and understated which is often a plus for me.  it is a cool contrast.  i do not see her as an icon at all and i actually am a little weirded out by her perhaps unfairly i do not know her let me ask you, what kind of thing do you usually like ? maybe that would explain some things or maybe not .  edit: it should also be said that her live performances are generally what her fans forgive her for because her studio stuff is so solid.  she lacks a bit of life in her live performances and is not very good  #  i do not listen to her either, i do not even think i know who she is.   #  this is all subjective.  people should like music because they like the music and not for reasons x, y, and z on a checklist of criteria that must be met for you to like it.  you can certainly enjoy x, y, and z in songs/artists, but to refuse to like something or  only  like something for certain reasons is not subjective, and art is subjective.  establishing that, you already know that listening to her does not work for you.  if i said that she does x, y, and z, that should not change that you do not like listening to her.  and that is fine.  i do not listen to her either, i do not even think i know who she is.   #  tons of people just listen to whatever is on the radio in the car, or accompanies a movie or tv show they happen to like.   #  very dedicated, but largely unsuccessful retired professional musician here semi really .  after years of struggling with not understanding why people like the music they do, and being unable to explain to non musicians why i like the music i do, i have come to this conclusion: most people are really just not all that into music, but are reluctant to admit it.  relative to normal people i am obsessive about music, and can be very discriminating.  also i have training and experience which gives me different access to what i hear.  somehow i expect others to be more sophisticated in their tastes but this is arrogant and out of touch.  tons of people just listen to whatever is on the radio in the car, or accompanies a movie or tv show they happen to like.  this is not how i listen to music, but there is nothing wrong with it.  i do not particularly care about, say, ballet.  when discussing ballet my opinions are ignorant, and i do not know what i am looking at.  the same goes for many other people regarding music; they do not pay attention the way i do, and they do not have to.  